Asphalt Roofing and Siding Manufacturing Industry: Background Information for Proposed Standards


v>EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office of Air Quality
           Planning and Standards
           Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                                   November 1979
EPA-450/3-78-
June 1978
           Air
Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing
Industry -
Background Information
for Proposed Standards
   Draft
   EIS

-------
ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING MANUFACTURING  INDUSTRY
             BACKGROUND INFORMATION
             FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS
   Emission Standards and Engineering Division
                       For
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                  October 1979
KTOWSST
         425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 ° 816753-7600
          4505 Creedmoor Road, Raleigh, N.C., 27612

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page
List of Figures	v
List of Tables	viii
CHAPTER 2   INTRODUCTION  	   2-1
      2.1   Authority for the Standards   	2-1
      2.2   Selection of the Categories of Stationary Sources  .  2-5
      2.3   Procedure for Development of Standards of
            Performance	2-7
      2.4   Consideration of Costs	2-9
      2.5   Consideration of Environmental Impacts   	  2-10
      2.6   Impact on Existing Sources   	2-11
      2.7   Revision of Standards of Performance   	  2-12
CHAPTER 3   THE ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY  ....   3-1
     3.1    General	3-1
     3.2    Processes and Their Emissions	3-8
     3.3    Baseline Emissions	3-39
     3.4    References for Chapter 3	3-47
CHAPTER 4.  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES	   4-1
     4.1    Introduction	4-1
     4.2    Process and Equipment Controls  	   4-1
     4.3    Control Systems	   4-5
     4.4    Performance of Emission Control  Systems	4-28
     4.5    References for Chapter 4	4-55
CHAPTER 5.  MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION  	   5-1
     5.1    40 CFR Part 60 Provisions for Modification
            and Reconstruction	5-2
                                   iii

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
                                                                 Page
     5.2    Applicability to Asphalt Roofing Plants  	   5-3
     5.3    Summary	5-4
CHAPTER 6.  MODEL PLANTS AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES  	   6-1
     6.1    Purpose   ,	6-1
     6.2    Model Plants	6-1
     6.3    Regulatory Alternatives . ..'	6-16
     6.4    References for Chapter 6	6-23
CHAPTER 7.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  . . .	7-1
     7.1    Air Pollution Impact	7-1
     7.2    Water Pollution Impact  	   7-11
     7.3    Solid Waste Disposal	7-11
     7.4    Energy Impact	7-12
     7.5    Other Environmental Impacts 	   7-15
     7.6    Other Environmental Concerns  . . 	   7-16
     7.7    References for Chapter 7	7-17
CHAPTER 8.  ECONOMIC IMPACT    . ,	    8-1
     8.1    Industry Characterization   	    8-1
     8.2    Cost Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives	    8-56
     8.3    Other Cost Considerations   	    8-123
     8.4    Economic Impact Assessment  	  	    8-123
     8.5    Socio-Economic Impact Assessment  	    8-141
     8.6    References for Chapter 8	    8-144
Appendix A	    A-l
Appendix B	    B-l

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS  (concluded)

                                                                   Page
Appendix C	    C-l
Appendix D	    D-l
Appendix E	    E-l

-------
                             LIST OF  FIGURES

                                                                 Page
Figure 3-1    Processing Chart for Asphalt  Roofing  Products  from
             Raw Materials to Finished Roofing  ........    3-2
Figure 3-2    Location  of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
             Facilities Within the United  States 	    3-7
Figure 3-3    Typical  Flow Diagram for Production of  Asphalt-
             Saturated Felt	    3-9
Figure 3-4    Typical  Flow Sheet for Manufacturing  Shingles
             and Rolls	    3-10
Figure 3-5    Block Diagram, Asphalt Roofing  Line	    3-11
Figure 3-6    Surfacing Section of Typical  Asphalt  Roofing
             Manufacturing Line	    3-14
Figure 3-7    Alternative Method for Applying Parting Agent  .  .    3-17
Figure 3-8    Asphalt Delivery Systems	    3-20
Figure 3-9    In-Plant Asphalt Transfers	    3-21
Figure 3-10  Mineral  Products Delivery 	    3-24
Figure 3-11  Pneumatic Conveying Systems	    3-25
Figure 3-12  Block Diagran of In-Plant Transfers and
             Temporary Storage	    3-27
Figure 3-13  In-PLant Transfer of Bagged Mineral Products   .  .    3-29
Figure 3-14  Air-Blowing of Asphalt	    3-31
Figure 3-15  Design Features of Vertical Still  Equipped  with
             a Cyclone Oil Recovery System 	    3-33
Figure 3-16  Design Features of Horizontal Still	    3-34
Figure 4-1    Total Enclosure of Saturator, Wet  Looper,
             and Coater	    4-7
Figure 4-2    Typical  Rotary Drum High Velocity  Air
             Filter Installation	•	    4-9

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 4-3



Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5


Figure 4-6


Figure 4-7


Figure 4-8


Figure 4-9



Figure 4-10


Figure 4-11

Figure 4-12


Figure 4-13


Figure 4-14


Figure 4-15


Figure 6-1

Figure 6-2
HVAF Filter Media Filtration Efficiency as a
Function of Filter Face Velocity for Different
Filter Media    	    4-11
Typical  Mini-HVAF	   4-13


                                                    4-15
Schematic of Retaining Screens and Fiber Packing
of a Mist Eliminator	
Typical Mist Eliminator Element to Control
Emissions from Asphalt Storage Tank	   4-16

Steps Required for Successful  Incineration of
Combustible Dilute Fumes in a Thermal  Afterburner   4-19
Coupled Effects of Time and Temperature on Rate
of Pollutant Oxidation  	
Typical Effect of Operating Temperature on
Effectiveness of Thermal Afterburner on
Destruction of Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide
                                                    4-20
                                                    4-21
Schematic of Two-Pass Modular Electrostatic
Precipitator	    4-24

Modular Electrostatic Precipitator  .......    4-25

Particulate Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Processes
When Various Control Devices are Used (EPA Tests)    4-42
Extrapolation of Efficiency Versus Temperature
Curve for the Afterburners at Plant B	
                                                    4-49
Particulate Emissions from an Afterburner
Controlling an Asphalt Blowing Still  	   4-51
Particulate Emissions from Crushed Stone
Facilities  	 ,
                                                    4-53
Configuration 1  for Small Plant 	    6-4

Configuration 2 for Small Plant 	    6-5
                                   vii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded

Figure 6-3
Figure 6-4
Figure 6-5
Figure 6-6
Figure 6-7
Figure 8-1

Figure 8-2
Figure 8-3

Figure 8-4
Figure 8-5
Figure 8-6

Configuration 1 for Medium Plant 	
Configuration 2 for Medium Plant 	
Configuration 1 for Large Plant 	 . .

Regulatory Alternatives and Controlled Facilities
Processing Chart for Asphalt Roofing Products:
from Raw Materials to Finished Roofing 	
106.6 kg (235 Ib), 3-Tab Self-seal Strip Shingle .
Location of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Facilities Within the United States 	
Shipping Trends in Roofing Manufacturing 	
Stability in Asphalt Roofing Production 	
Relationship Between Price and Production ....
Page
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-17

8-3
8-15

8-20
8-35
8-127
8-128

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                                                                 Page
Table 3-1    Emission Sources and Variables Affecting Emissions
            in an Asphalt Roofing Plant	3-36
Table 3-2   Uncontrolled Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Plants
            From Test Data	3-38
Table 3-3   Summary of Emission Regulations and Location of
            Asphalt Roofing Plants by State 	   3-40
Table 3-4   Baseline Particulate Emissions for Various Size
            Model Plants According to State Implementation
            Plans (SIP's)	3-46
Table 4-1   Asphalt Roofing Plant Emission Sources and Add-On
            Control Devices 	   4-2
Table 4-2   Asphalt Parameters	4-4
Table 4-3   Storage and Operating Temperatures  	   4-6
Table 4-4   EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant A (Metric) .   4-29
Table 4-4a  EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant A (English)   4-30
Table 4-5   EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant B (Metric) .   4-31
Table 4-5a  EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant B (English)   4-33
Table 4-6   EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing
            Plants C and D (Metric)	4-35
Table 4-6a  EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing
            Plants C and D (English)	4-37
Table 4-7   EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant E (Metric) .   4-39
Table 4-7a  EPA Test Data at Asphalt Roofing Plant E (English)   4-40
Table 4-8   Summary of Fugitive Emissions Data from
            Capture Systems	4-44
Table 4-9   Summary of Visible Emission Tests - Control Device
            Stack Outlet	4-46
Table 4-10  Visible Emissions from Minerals Handling and
            Storage Facilities  	   4-54
                                   IX

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 6-1    Model Plant Production Rates and Operating

Table 6-2
Table 6-3

Table 6-4

Table 6-5

Table 6-6

Table 6-7

Table 6-8

Table 6-9

Table 7-1


Table 7-2

Table 7-3

Table 7-4

Table 7-5

Table 7-6

Parameters 	
Blowing Still Parameters for Model Plants 	
Raw Materials and Utility Requirements
for Model Plants 	
Baseline Model Plant Control System -
Alternative 1 (Small) 	
Baseline Model Plant Control System -
Alternative 1 (Medium) 	
Baseline Model Plant Control -
Alternative 1 (Large) 	
Model Plant Control System for
Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 (Small) 	
Model Plant Control System for
Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 (Medium) 	
Model Plant Control System for
Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 (Large) 	
Annual Mass Particulate Emissions from Baseline
Model Plants With and Without Blowing Still
(Alternative 1) 	
Annual Mass Particulate Emissions from Small Plants
for Regulatory Alternatives 2 Through 5 	
Annual Mass Particulate Emissions from Medium Plants
for Regulatory Alternatives 2 Through 5 	
Annual Mass Particulate Emissions from Large Plants
for Regulatory Alternatives 2 Through 5 	
Summary of S02 and CO Emissions from Afterburners
Used to Control a Saturator and a Blowing Still . .
Plant Emissions and 24-Hour Maximum
Concentrations 	
6-2
6-3

6-12

6-13

6-14

6-15

6-20

6-21

6-22


7-2

7-4

7-5

7-6

7-7

7-9

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES (continued)

                                                                  Page

 Table 7- 7  Summary of Annual Total Particulate Emissions from
             Model Plant Configurations 1  and 2 (All  Sizes) Under
             the Various Regulatory Alternatives and  the Percent
             Reduction in Emissions from the Baseline Model Plant
             for the Various Alternatives	7-10

 Table 7-8   Electricity Increase Over Baseline Electrical
             Demand for Regulatory Alternatives 2,  3, 4, and 5 .   7-13

 Table 7-9   Annual Energy Requirement for Afterburners and
             Percent Fuel Increase from Baseline Model  Plant
             for the Various Regulatory Alternatives  	   7-14

 Table 8-1   ASTM Specifications for Roll  Roofing
             Saturants (Metric)	8-4

 Table 8-la  ASTM Specifications for Roll  Roofing
             Saturants (English)	8-5

 Table 8-2   ASTM Specifications for Shingle Saturants (Metric).   8-6

. Table 8-2a  ASTM Specifications for Shingle Saturants (English)   8-7

 Table 8-3   ASTM Specifications for Coating Asphalts (Metric) .   8-8

 Table 8-3a  ASTM Specifications for Coating Asphalts (English).   8-9

 Table 8-4   Typical Asphalt Roofing Products (Metric)	8-11

 Table 8-4a  Typical Asphalt Roofing Products (English)	   8-12

 Table 8-5   Typical Roofing Compositions (Metric)	8-13

 Table 8-5a  Typical Roofing Compositions (English)	8-14

 Table 8-6   Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers 	   8-17

 Table 8-7   Quantities of Asphalt Roofing Product  Shipments
             in 1977, by Region	8-22

 Table 8-8   Annual U.S. Production, Consumption, Imports,
             Exports, and Stock of Asphalt, 1969-1977
             (Thousands of m3 of Asphalt)	8-24

 Table 8-8a  Annual U.S. Production, Consumption, Imports,
             Exports, and Stock of Asphalt 1969-1977
             (Thousands of Barrels of Asphalt) 	   8-25

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                                 Page

Table 8-9   U.S.  Distribution of Asphalt Production
            Capacity, by State	   8-27

Table 8-10  U.S.  Asphalt Production Capacity,  by  Company.  .  .  .   8-29

Table 8-11  Annual  Production of Asphalt and Tar  Roofing
            and Siding Products (in Megagrams)	8-31

Table 8-lla Annual  Production of Asphalt and Tar  Roofing
            and Siding Products (in Tons)	8-32

Table 8-12  Quantities of Asphalt Roofing  Product
            Shipments by Region, 1970-1977	8-33

Table 8-13  Annual  Production of Asphalt and Tar  Roofing
            and Siding Products as a Percent of Total
            Annual  Production, 1970-1977  	   8-34

Table 8-14  Estimated Annual  Employment in the Asphalt
            Roofing and Siding Products Industry,  1969-1976  .  .   8-37

Table 8-15  Producer Price Index for Asphalt Roofing  and
            Price of Asphalt  Roofing Strip Shingles,  1969-1978   8-39

Table 8-16  A Manufacturers Prices of Standard Asphalt
            Shingles to Distributor	8-40

Table 8-17  Values and Quantities of Product Shipments  in  the
            Asphalt and Tar Roofing and Siding Products
            Industry, 1969-1976 	   8-41

Table 8-18  Value of Product  Shipments in  the Asphalt
            Roofing Industry, 1969-1976 	   8-42

Table 8-19  Purchase Prices of Various Roofing Asphalts
            from 1974 to 1979	8-44

Table 8-20  Producer Price Indices and Percent  Increases
            for Selected Products in the Pulp, Paper,  and
            Allied Products Industry, 1970-1978  	   8-45

Table 8-21  Annual  Production and Percent  Annual  Production
            Changes from Year to Year in Asphalt  Roofing  and
            Siding  Products,  1969-1977 (Metric)  	   8-47

Table 8-21 a Annual  Production and Percent  Annual  Production
            Changes from Year to Year in Asphalt  Roofing
            and Siding Products, 1969-1977 (English)   	   8-48
                                   xn

-------
                       LIST OF  TABLES (continued)
                                                                 Page

Table 8-22  Estimated Annual  Expenditures for  New  Plant
            and Equipment by the Asphalt  Roofing  and
            Siding Industry,  1969-1976	8-50

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	8-51

Table 8-24  Estimated End-of-Year Gross Book Value of
            Depreciable Assets  in the Asphalt  Roofing
            Industry, 1969-1976 	   8-52

Table 8-25  Estimated End-of-Year Gross Book Value of
            Depreciable Assets  in the Asphalt  Roofing Industry,
            Adjusted to 1957-1959 Dollars, 1969-1976	8-53

Table 8-26  Chemical Engineering Plant Cost  Indices and
            Subcomponents for October 1973 and November  1978.  .   8-58

Table 8-27  Estimated Capital  Investment  Costs of  New Asphalt
            Roofing Facilities  Without Pollution
            Control Equipment 	   8-60

Table 8-28  Estimated Total Annualized Costs for  New  Asphalt
            Roofing Plants Without Pollution Control  Equipment.   8-62

Table 8-29  Annual Raw Material Costs for Asphalt
            Roofing Plants (Metric)  	   8-64

Table 8-29a Annual Raw Material Costs for Asphalt
            Roofing Plants (English)	8-65

Table 8-30  Annual Utility Requirements and  Costs  for Model
            Asphalt Roofing Plants Without Pollution  Control
            Equipment (Metric)	8-68

Table 8-30a Annual Utility Requirements and  Costs for Model
            Asphalt Roofing Plants Without Pollution  Control
            Equipment (English)	8-69

Table 8-31  Annualized Costs and Unit Product  Costs of New
           .Model  Asphalt Roofing Plants Without  Pollution
            Control Systems	8-72

Table 8-32  Pollution Control  Systems and Operating
            Characteristics for Baseline  Asphalt  Roofing Model
            Plants (Metric) 	   8-74
                                  xm

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 8-32a Pollution Control  Systems and Operating
            Characteristics for Baseline Asphalt Roofing  Model
            Plants (English)	8-75

Table 8-33  Pollution Control  Systems and Operating
            Characteristics for Model Asphalt Roofing  Plants
            for Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 (Metric)  ....   8-76

Table 8-33a Pollution Control  Systems and Operating
            Characteristics for Model Asphalt Roofing  Plants
            for Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 (English).  .  .  .   8-77

Table 8-34  Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions from Each
            Operation at the  Model  Asphalt Roofing  Plants
            on an Annual Basis	8-83

Table 8-35  Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions,  Control
            Emissions, and Particulate Pollutants Collected  for
            Each Model Asphalt Roofing Plant Operation and
            Pollution Control  Device	8-85

Table 8-36  Control  Efficiencies of the Pollution Control
            Devices Used in the Model Asphalt Roofing  Plants  .   8-87

Table 8-37  Capital  Investment Costs of Pollution Control
            Systems for the Baseline Model Asphalt  Roofing
            Plants	'.....   8-88

Table 8-38  Capital  Investment Costs of Pollution Control
            Systems for Model  Asphalt Roofing Plants for
            Regulatory Alternatives 2 and 3	8-89

Table 8-39  Capital  Investment Costs of Pollution Control
            Systems for Model  Asphalt Roofing Plants for
            Regulatory Alternatives 4 and 5	8-90

Table 8-40  Capital  Cost Increase from Baseline for Pollution
            Control  Systems	8-96

Table 8-41  Total Annualized  Cost of Pollution Control Systems
            for Model Asphalt Roofing Plants for the Five
            Regulatory Alternatives Without Recovery Credits.  .   8-98

Table 8-42  Annual Labor and  Supervision Cost Increase from
            Baseline for Model Asphalt Roofing Plant
            Pollution Control  Devices 	   8-99
                                  xiv

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 8-43  Annual Utility Requirements and Cost Increase from
            Baseline for Individual  Pollution Control  Devices
            Used in Model Asphalt Roofing Plants (Metric) .  .  .   8-101

Table 8-43a Annual Utility Requirements and Cost Increase from
            Baseline for Individual  Pollution Control  Devices
            Used in Model Asphalt Roofing Plants (English).  .  .   8-102

Table 8-44  Increase in Annual Variable and Fixed Operating
            Costs^from Baseline of Individual Pollution Control
            Devices for the Model Asphalt Roofing Plants  .  .  .   8-104

Table 8-45  Increase in Net Annualized Costs of Pollution
            Control Systems for Alternatives 2 to 5 Compared
            to the Baseline Pollution Control Systems	8-106

Table 8-46  Cost Effectiveness of Pollution Control Devices
            Used in Model Asphalt Roofing Plants 	   8-108

Table 8-47  Cost Effectiveness of Pollution Control Systems
            for Model  Asphalt Roofing Plants	8-109

Table 8-48  Total Capital Investment Costs of a Small,  New
            Asphalt Roofing Plant With A Pollution Control
            System	8-112

Table 8-49  Total Capital Investment Costs of a Medium, New
            Asphalt Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control
            System	8-113

Table 8-50  Total Capital Investment Costs of a'Large,  New
            Asphalt Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control
            System	8-114

Table 8-51  Total Annual ized Costs for a Small, New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control  System ...   8-115

Table 8-52  Total Annual ized Costs for a Medium,  New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control  System .  .  .   8-116

Table 8-53  Total Annual ized Costs for a Large, New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control  System .  .  .   8-117

Table 8-54  Unit Product Costs of a Small, New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control  System .  .  .   8-118

Table 8-55  Unit Product Costs of a Medium, New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution Control  System .  .  .   8-119
                                   xv

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Table 8-56  Unit Product Costs of a Large,  New Asphalt
            Roofing Plant With a Pollution  Control  System  .  .  .   8-120
Table 8-57  DCF for Small Plant	8-135
Table 8-58  DCF for Medium Plant	8-136
Table 8-59  DCF for Large Plant	8-137
                                  xvi

-------
                           2.  INTRODUCTION

     Standards of performance are proposed following a detailed investi-
gation of air pollution control methods available to the affected industry
and the impact of their costs on the industry.  This document summarizes
the information obtained from such a study.   Its purpose is to explain in
detail the background and basis of the proposed standards and to facilitate
analysis of the proposed standards by interested persons, including those
who may not be familiar with the many technical aspects of the industry.
To obtain additional copies of this document  or the Federal Register
Notice of Proposed Standards, write to EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.  Specify "Asphalt Roofing Manu-
facturing Industry, Background Information:   Proposed Standards,"
document number EPA 450/	when ordering.

2.1  AUTHORITY FOR THE STANDARDS
     Standards of performance for new stationary sources are established
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411), as amended,
hereafter referred to as the Act.  Section 111 directs the Administrator
to establish standards of performance for any category of new stationary
source of air pollution which ". . . causes,  or contributes significantly
to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare."
     The Act requires that standards of performance for stationary sources
reflect ". . . the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best technological system  of continuous emission
reduction . . . the Administrator.determines  has been adequately demon-
strated."  In addition, for stationary sources whose emissions result
from fossil fuel  combustion, the standard must also include a percentage
reduction in emissions.  The Act also provides that the cost of achieving
                                   2-1

-------
the necessary emission reduction, the nonair quality health and environ-
mental impacts, and the energy requirements all be taken into account in
establishing standards of performance.  The standards apply only to
stationary sources, the construction or modification of which commences
after regulations are proposed by publication in the Federal Register.
     The 1977 amendments to the Act altered or added numerous provisions
which apply to the process of establishing standards of performance.
     1.   EPA is required to list the categories of major stationary
sources which have not already been listed and regulated under standards
of performance.  Regulations must be promulgated for these new categories
on the following schedule:
          25 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1980
          75 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1981
         100 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1982
A governor of a state may apply to the Administrator to add a category
which is not on the list or may apply to the Administrator to have a
standard of performance revised.
     2.   EPA is required to review the standards of performance every
four years and, if appropriate, revise them.
     3.   EPA is authorized to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice,
or operational  standard when an emission standard is not feasible.
     4.   The term "standards of performance" is redefined and a new term,
"technological  system of continuous emission reduction," is defined. The
new definitions clarify that the control system must be continuous and
may include a low-polluting or non-polluting process or operation.
     5.   The time between the proposal and promulgation of a standard
under Section 111 of the Act is extended to six months.
     Standards of performance, by themselves, do not guarantee protection
of health or welfare because they are not designed to achieve any specific
air quality levels.  Rather, they are designed to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through application of the best adequately
demonstrated technological system of continuous emission reduction,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction,
any nonair quality health and environmental impact, and energy require-
ments.
                                   2-2

-------
     Congress had several reasons for including these requirements.
First, standards with a degree of uniformity are needed to avoid situa-
tions where some states may attract industries by relaxing standards
relative to other states.  Second, stringent standards enhance the
potential for long-term growth.  Third, stringent standards may help
achieve long-term cost savings by avoiding the need for more expensive
retrofitting when pollution ceilings may be reduced in the future. Fourth,
certain types of standards for coal-burning sources can adversely affect
the coal market by driving up the price" of low-sulfur coal or effectively
excluding certain coals from the reserve base because their untreated
pollution potentials are high.  Congress does not intend that new source
performance standards contribute to these problems.  Fifth, the standard-
setting process should create incentives for improved technology.
     Promulgation of standards of performance does not prevent state or
local agencies from adopting more stringent emission limitations for the
same sources.  States are free under Section 116 of the Act to establish
even more stringent emission limits than those established under Section
111 or those necessary to attain or maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Section 110.  Thus, new sources may in
some cases be subject to limitations more stringent than standards of
performance under Section 111, and prospective owners and operators of
new sources should be aware of this possibility in planning for such
facilities.
     A similar situation may arise when a major emitting facility is to
be constructed in a geographic area which falls under the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality provisions of Part C of the Act.
These provisions require, among other things, that major emitting
facilities to be constructed in such areas are to be subject to best
available control technology.  The term Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), as defined in the Act, means ". . . an emission limitation based
on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation
under this Act emitted from, or which results from, any major emitting
facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs,
determines is achievable for such facility through application of
                                   2-3

-------
production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques,
including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion
techniques for control of each such pollutant.  In no event shall appli-
cation of 'best available control technology1 result in emissions of any
pollutants which will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable
standard established pursuant to Sections 111 or 112 of this Act."
     Although standards of performance are normally structured in terms
of numerical emission limits where feasible, alternative approaches are
sometimes necessary.  In some cases physical measurement of emissions
from a new source may be impractical or exorbitantly expensive.  Section
lll(h) provides that the Administrator may promulgate a design or equip-
ment standard in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce a standard of performance.  For example, emissions of hydro-
carbons from storage vessels for petroleum liquids are greatest during
tank filling.  The nature of the emissions, high concentrations for short
periods during filling, low concentrations for longer periods during
storage, and the configuration of storage tanks make direct emission
measurement impractical.  Therefore, a more practical approach to
standards of performance for storage vessels has been equipment
specification.
     In addition, Section lll(i) authorizes the Administrator to grant
waivers of compliance to permit a source to use innovative continuous
emission control technology.  In order to grant the waiver, the
Admisistrator must find:
     1.  a substantial likelihood that the technology will produce greater
emission reductions than the standards require or an equivalent reduction
at lower economic energy or environmental cost;
     2.  the proposed system has not been adequately demonstrated;
     3.  the technology will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable
risk to the public health, welfare or safety;
     4.  the governor of the State where the source is located consents;
and
     5.  the waiver will not prevent the attainment or maintenance of any
ambient standard.
                                   2-4

-------
     A waiver may have conditions attached to assure the source will not
prevent attainment of any NAAQS.  Any such condition will have the force  •
of a performance standard.  Finally, waivers have definite end dates and
may be terminated earlier if the conditions are not met or if the system
fails to perform as expected.   In such a case, the source may be given up
to three years to meet the standards with a mandatory progress schedule.
2.2  SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES
     Section 111 of the Act directs the Adminstrator to list categories
of stationary sources which have not been listed before.  The Adminstrator
". . . shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judge-
ment it causes, or contributes  significantly to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."  Proposal
and promulgation of standards of performance are to follow while adhering
to the schedule referred to earlier.
     Since passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, considerable
attention has been given to the development of a system for assigning
priorities to various source categories.  The approach specifies areas of
interest by considering the broad strategy of the Agency for implementing
the Clean Air Act.  Often, these "areas" are actually pollutants which
are emitted by stationary sources.  Source categories which emit these
pollutants were then evaluated  and ranked by a process involving such
factors as:
     1.  the level of emission  control (if any) already required by state
regulations;
     2.  estimated levels of control that might be required from standards
of performance for the source category;
     3.  projections of growth  and replacement of existing facilities for
the source category; and
     4.  the estimated incremental amount of air pollution that'could be
prevented, in a preselected future year, by standards of performance for
the source category.
Sources for which new source performance standards were promulgated or
under development during 1977,  or earlier, were selected on these criteria.
                                   2-5

-------
     The Act amendments of August 1977 establish specific criteria to be
used in determining priorities for all source categories not yet listed
by EPA.  These are:
     1.  the quantity of air pollutant emissions which each such category
will emit, or will be designed to emit;
     2.  the extent to which each such pollutant may reasonably be anti-
cipated to endanger public health or welfare; and                        *
     3.  the mobility and competitive nature of each such category of
sources and the consequent need for nationally applicable new source
standards of performance.
     In some cases it may not be feasible to immediately develop a
standard for a source category with a high priority.  This might happen
when a program of research is needed to develop control techniques or
because techniques for sampling and measuring emissions may require
refinement.  In the developing of standards, differences in the time
required to complete the necessary investigation for different source
categories must also be considered.  For example, substantially more time
may be necessary if numerous pollutants must be investigated from a
single source category.  Further, even late in the development process
the schedule for completion of a standard may change.  For example,
inablility to obtain emission data from well-controlled sources in time
to pursue the development process in a systematic fashion may force a
change in scheduling.  Nevertheless, priority ranking is, and will continue
to be, used to establish the order in which projects are initiated and
resources assigned.
     After the source category has been chosen, determining the types of
facilities within the source category to which the standard will apply
must be decided.  A source category may have several facilities that
cause air pollution, and emissions from some of these facilities may be
insignificant or very expensive to control.  Economic studies of the
source category and of applicable control technology may show that air
pollution control is better served by applying standards to the more
severe pollution sources.  For this reason, and because there is no
adequately demonstrated system for controlling emissions from certain
facilities, standards often do not apply to all facilities at a source.
                                   2-6

-------
For the same reasons, the standards may not apply to all air pollutants
emitted.  Thus, although a source category may be selected to be covered
by a standard of performance, not all pollutants or facilities within
that source category may be covered by the standards.
2.3  PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     Standards of performance must:
     1.  realistically reflect best demonstrated control practice;
     2.  adequately consider the cost, the nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, and the energy requirements of such control;
     3.  be applicable to existing sources that are modified or recon-
structed as well as new installations; and
     4.  meet these conditions for all variations of operating conditions
being considered anywhere in the country.
     The objective of a program for development of standards is to identify
the best technological system of continuous emission reduction which has
been adequately demonstrated.  The legislative history of Section 111 and
various court decisions make clear that the Administrator's judgement of
what is adequately demonstrated is not limited to systems that are in
actual  routine use.  The search may include a technical assessment of
control systems that have been adequately demonstrated but for which
there is limited operational experience.  In most cases, determination of
the ".  . . degree of emission reduction achievable ..." is based on
results of tests of emissions from well-controlled, existing sources.  At
times this has required the investigation and measurement of emissions
from control systems found in other industrialized countries that have
developed more effective systems of control  than those available in the
United States.
     Since the best demonstrated systems of emission reduction may not be
in widespread use, the data base upon which standards are developed may
be somewhat limited.  Test data on existing, well-control led sources are
obvious starting points in developing emission limits for new sources.
However, since the control of existing sources generally represents
retrofit technology or was originally designed to meet an existing state
or local regulation, new sources may be able to meet more stringent
                                   2-7

-------
emission standards.  Accordingly, other information must be considered
before a judgement can be made as to the level at which the emission
standard should be set.
     A process for the development of a standard has evolved which takes
into account the following considerations.
     1.  Emissions from existing, wel1-controlled sources as measured.
     2.  Data on emissions from such sources are assessed with considera-
tion of such factors as:  (a) how representative the tested source is in
regard to feedstock, operation, size, age, etc.; (b) age and maintenance
of control equipment tested; (c) design uncertainties of control equipment
being considered; and (d) the degree of uncertainty that new sources will
be able to achieve similar levels of control.
     3.  Information from pilot and prototype installations, guarantees
by vendors of control equipment, unconstructed but contracted projects,
foreign technology, and published literature are also considered during
the standard development process.  This is especially important for sour-
ces where "emerging" technology appears to be a significant alternative.
     4.  Where possible, standards are developed that permit the use of
more than one control technique or licensed process.
     5.  Where possible, standards are developed to encourage or permit
the use of process modifications or new processes as a method of control
rather than "add-on" systems of air pollution control.
     6.  In appropriate cases, standards are developed to permit the use
of systems capable of controlling more than one pollutant.  As an example,
a scrubber can remove both gaseous and particulate emissions, but an
electrostatic precipitator is specific to particulate matter.
     7.  Where appropriate, standards for visible emissions are developed
in conjunction with concentration/mass emission standards.  The opacity
standard is established at a'level that will require proper operation and
maintenance of the emission control system installed to meet the concen-
tration/mass standard on a day-to-day basis.  In some cases, however, it
is not possible to develop concentration/mass standards, such as with
fugitive sources of emissions.  In these cases, only opacity standards
may be developed to limit emissions.
                                   2-8

-------
2.4  CONSIDERATION OF COSTS
     Section 317 of the Act requires, among other things, an economic
impact assessment with respect to any standard of performance established
under Section 111 of the Act.  The assessment is required to contain an
analysis of:
     1.  the costs of compliance with the regulation and standard,
including the extent to which the cost of compliance varies depending on
the effective date of the standard or regulation and the development of
less expensive or more efficient methods of compliance;
     2.  the potential inflationary, recessionary effects of the standard
or regulation;
     3.  the effects on competition of the standard or regulation with
respect to small business;
     4.  the effects of the standard or regulation on consumer cost; and
     5.  the effects of the standard or regulation on energy use.
     Section 317 requires that the economic impact assessment be as
extensive as practicable, taking into account the time and resources
available to EPA.
     The economic impact of a proposed standard upon an industry is
usually addressed both in absolute terms and by comparison with the
control costs that would be incurred as a result of compliance with
typical, existing state control regulations.  An incremental approach is
taken since both new and existing plants would be required to comply with
state regulations in the absence of a Federal  standard of performance.
This approach requires a detailed analysis of the impact upon the industry
resulting from the cost differential that exists between a standard of
performance and the typical state standard.
     The costs for control of air pollutants are not the only costs
considered.  Total environmental costs for control of water pollutants as
well as air pollutants are analyzed wherever possible.
     A thorough study of the profitability and price-setting mechanisms
of the industry is essential to the analysis so that an accurate estimate
of potential adverse economic impacts can be made.  It is also essential
to know the capital requirements placed on plants in the absence of
Federal standards of performance so that the additional capital

                                   2-9

-------
requirements necessitated by these standards can be placed in the proper
perspective.  Finally, it is necessary to recognize any constraints on
capital availability within an industry, as this factor also influences
the ability of new plants to generate the capital required for installa-
tion of additional control equipment needed to meet the standards of
performance.
2.5  CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
     Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA) of
1969 requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental impact
statements on proposals for legislation and other major Federal  actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.  The objec-
tive of NEPA is to build into the decision-making process of Federal
agencies a careful consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions.
     In a number of legal challenges to standards of performances for
various industries, the Federal Courts of Appeals have held that environ-
mental  impact statements need not be prepared by the Agency for  proposed
actions under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.  Essentially, the Federal
Courts of Appeals have determined that ". . . the best system of emission
reduction .  . . require(s) the Administrator to take into account counter-
productive environmental effects of a proposed standard, as well as
economic costs to the industry . . . ."  On this basis, therefore, the
Courts ". .  . established a narrow exemption from NEPA for EPA determi-
nation under Section 111."
     In addition to these judicial determinations, the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) of 1974 (PL-93-319) specifically
exempted proposed actions under the Clean Air Act from NEPA requirements.
According to Section 7(c)(l), "No action taken under the Clean Air Act
shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969."
     The Agency has concluded, however, that the preparation of  environ-
mental  impact statements could have beneficial effects on certain regula-
tory actions.  Consequently, while not legally required to do so by
                                   2-10

-------
section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, environmental impact statements are prepared
for various regulatory actions, including standards of performance
developed under section 111 of the Act.  This voluntary preparation of
environmental impact statements, however, in no way legally subjects the
Agency to NEPA requirements.
     To implement this policy, a separate section is included in this
document which is devoted solely to an analysis of the potential environ-
mental impacts associated with the proposed standards.  Both adverse and
beneficial impacts in such areas as air and water pollution, increased
solid waste disposal, and increased energy consumption are identified and
discussed.
2.6  IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES
     Section 111 of the Act defines a new source as ". . . any stationary
source, the construction or modification of which is commenced ..."
after the proposed standards are published.  An existing source becomes a
new source if the source is modified or is reconstructed.  Both modifi-
cation and reconstruction are defined in amendments to the general
provisions of Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 60, which were promulgated in the
Federal Register on December 16, 1975 (40 FR 58416).  Any physical  or
operational change to an existing facility that results in an increase in
the emission rate of any pollutant for which a standard applies is
considered a modification.  Reconstruction, on the other hand, means the
replacement of components of an existing facility to the extent that the
fixed capital cost exceeds 50 percent of the cost of constructing a
comparable entirely new source and that it be technically and economically
feasible to meet the applicable standards.  In such cases, reconstruction
is equivalent to a new construction.
     Promulgation of a standard of performance requires states to
establish standards of performance for existing sources in the same
industry under Section lll(d) of the Act if the standard for new sources
limits emissions of a designated pollutant (i.e., a pollutant for which
air quality criteria have not been issued under Section 108 or which has
not been listed as a hazardous pollutant under Section 112).  If a state  -
does not act, EPA must establish such standards.  General provisions
                                   2-11

-------
outlining procedures for control of existing sources under section lll(d)
were promulgated on November 17, T975, as Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60
(40 FR 53340).
2.7  REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     Congress was aware that the level of air pollution control  achievable
by any industry may improve with technological  advances.  Accordingly,
Section 111  of the Act provides that the Administrator ". .  . shall, at
least every four years, review and, if appropriate, revise ..." the
standards.  Revisions are made to assure that the standards  continue to
reflect the best systems that become available in the future:  Such
revisions will not be retroactive but will apply to stationary sources
constructed or modified after the proposal of the revised standards.
                                   2-12

-------
            3.0  THE ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

3.1  GENERAL
     The asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing industry, henceforth
called the asphalt roofing industry for simplicity, encompasses ancillary
production activities as well as the production of asphalt roofing and
siding products.  The raw materials used and the processing steps necessary
to transform those raw materials into finished products are shown in
Figure 3-1.
     Cellulose fibers such as those from rags, paper, and wood are
processed into a dry felt.  The felt is then saturated and sold as
saturated felt, or saturated and coated with asphalt and surfaced with
selected mineral aggregates appropriate to the finished product (roll
roofing or shingles).  A fiber glass mat is sometimes used in place of
the dry felt, in which case the asphalt saturation step is bypassed.
     Coal tar was used extensively for roofing products at one time, but
it has now largely been supplanted by asphalt.  One of the few remaining
products is a tar-saturated felt used primarily for pipeline wrapping.
Tar-saturated felt production is included as a part of the industry
because it is processed like asphalt saturated felt.
     The saturant and coating asphalts used in the production of asphalt
roofing are a processed asphalt flux, which is usually a blend of crude
oil residuum from the refining process.  Coating asphalts are also used
in the installation of built-up roofs and for the repair of leaky roofs.
     Products produced on an asphalt roofing line are:  (1) saturated
felts; (2) roll roofing and sidings; and (3) roofing and siding shingles.
Roofing shingles accounted for about 80 percent of the total  tonnage
produced in 1978.1
     Saturated felts, used as underlayment for shingles, for sheathing
paper, for laminations in the construction of built-up roofs  and for pipe
                                 3-1

-------
PRIMARY
PROCESSING




RAW
MATERIALS
RAGS

PAPER
\

^

ASBESTOS

WOOD
FIBER

FIBER GLASS
MAT

ASPHALT
FLUX

MINERAL
STABILIZER

FINE
SURFACING



COLORED
GRANULES

/

\
\



t
\

\



SECONDARY
PROCESSING
INTER-
MEDIATE
PRODUCTS
*
^ DRY
< FELT \


^_ SATURANT '
ASPHALT

\ COATING
ASPHALT

\^
X
N
1
^
,
Z'

/
STABILIZED
COATING
ASPHALT

t
\
/

J
FINISHED
PRODUCTS
^ SATURATED
y FELT


SMOOTH
ROLL
y ROOFING
y
< SURFACED


,*- SURFACED
ROLLS

>- SIDINGS
_ PRODUCTS
/

STRIP
SHINGLES

»- INDIVIDUAL
SHINGLES

Figure 3-1.  Processing chart for asphalt roofing products from
             raw materials to "finished roofing.2
                             3-2

-------
wrapping, consist of a felt impregnated with an asphalt or coal tar
saturant.
     Roll roofing and shingles are prepared by adding a coating of filled
asphalt to a felt web which has first been impregnated with a saturant
asphalt.  Alternatively, a fiber glass mat web is used, in which case the
filled coating is used both to saturate and to coat the web.  To make
shingles, mineral granules are added, a strip of sealer asphalt may be
applied, and the web is cut into shingles.  The most popular shingle is a
nominal 106.6 kg (235 Ib), 3-tab, self-sealing strip shingle.  Self-seal
shingle-s accounted for about 97 percent of all shingle production in
1978.]
3.1.1  Processed Asphalt Products
     Most of the asphalt produced by, or for, the asphalt roofing industry
is used in the manufacture of roofing line products.  About 10 percent of
the asphalt is used to make insulated sidings.  Much of the usefulness
and durability of asphalt roofing products can be attributed to the
preservative and waterproofing characteristics of the asphalt.
     The asphalt used for saturants and coatings is prepared by blowing
air through a hot asphalt flux to raise the temperature at which it will
soften.  The filled or stabilized coating asphalt is then prepared by
mixing coating asphalt and a mineral stabilizer (or filler) in approxi-
mately equal proportions.
     Saturant and coating asphalts are normally classified as intermediate
products because they are used in the manufacture of roofing line
products. Saturant and coating asphalts are, however, end products for
some companies since they are not always produced at roofing plants.
Much of the saturant and coating asphalt used by asphalt roofing plants
is prepared at refineries or by asphalt processors.  Fifty-nine petroleum
                                                               3
firms with 106 refineries report a capacity to produce asphalt.
There  are several small companies which buy asphalt flux to produce
saturants and coatings for the asphalt roofing industry.
3.1.2  Market Size and Description
     The market for asphalt roofing products is focused on residential
construction, with new construction and replacement sharing the resources
attracted to the market.  An important feature of the domestic market is

                                   3-3

-------
its local nature.  It is estimated that virtually all of the sales of
asphalt roofing and siding products occur within 483 km (300 miles) of
the production facility.  There are no data available to demonstrate the
existence of a foreign market.
     Ten major producers dominate the industry in a market with virtually
inelastic demand, which would be expected since there is a lack of sub-
stitutes; and the entire industry can be viewed as a "subset" of a larger
industry, that is, housing.   The largest asphalt roofing firms appear to
have control of pricing, and product price differentiation is thus minor.
In fact, when regional distributors encounter shortages of their own
brand of shingle, they routinely substitute another brand, and the firms
frequently buy and sell roofing products among themselves.
     The constituents which traditionally determine market growth are
demand, product cost, availability, and competition from market sub-
stitutes.  Until recently, the asphalt roofing industry differed from the
norm in that its only growth determinant was the demand for roofing
products.  This may change as supply shortages drive prices up, and the
search for viable substitutes is intensified.
     "Housing starts" and the renovation of existing structures are the
two primary determinants of the demand for roofing products, and they
have a complementary relationship in that declines in one are associated
with increases in the other.  When housing starts dropped sharply in
1974, sales volume of roofing and siding material  did not decline a
corresponding amount because of the strength of the renovation market.
     During, the past 10 years, the compound annual growth rate of the
asphalt roofing products market has been 2.5 percent.    Projections of
the trend for the next 5-year period suggest continued  growth at a rate
                    4
of 1.5 to 2 percent.
     The price and availability of asphalt roofing products is closely
intertwined with the cost and availability of the materials used in their
manufacture.  As noted earlier, these materials are asphalt, felt, and
mineral products (granules,  parting agents, and stabilizers).
3.1.3  Raw Materials
     Asphalt is the most expensive component of asphalt roofing products.
About 90 percent of all asphalt used is obtained from petroleum;
                                   3-4

-------
therefore the roofing industry is heavily dependent on the petroleum
industry. Petroleum asphalt has only one substitute,  t*he so-called
"native" or "natural" asphalt which is mined from fissures or pools close
to the earth's surface.
     Asphalt is the residual  "heavy bottom" of crude petroleum.  Prices
and availabilities for asphalt are thus directly tied to the price and
availability of crude oil.  Disruption of asphalt supplies resulting from
the interruption of petroleum imports increases prices.   The industry
expects asphalt shortages to continue.
     Felts are produced from sawdust, rags, waste paper, wood fibers, and
asbestos.  In contrast with the volatile and even dramatic fluctuations
of asphalt supplies, the effects of felt supplies on the roofing industry
have been steadily unfavorable.  The shortage of wood pulp has increased
the demand for wastepaper and recycled paper, thus limiting the amount
available for lower-priced paper products such as organic felt for roofing
products.  A fiber glass based asphalt shingle is now being manufactured
by several roofing manufacturers.  At the present time,  it accounts for
about 5 percent of the sales in a typical market.
     Granules, parting agents, and stabilizers for the surfacing of
roofing products accounted for about 16 percent of the total cost of
materials in 1979.   The roofing and siding industry consumes only a
small fraction of domestic production, while the supply of basic granule
material (primarily sand and gravel) is virtually limitless.  Because of
other uses for sand and gravel, however, there are some "regional
shortages" in urban areas where asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing
is primarily located.
3.1.4  Product Substitutes
     The  substitutes in the market for asphalt roofing, i.e., cedar
shingles, slate, and tile, have found only limited application in the
roofing market in recent years.  Increased asphalt roofing prices during
the past  several years, however, have caused some acceleration in the
search for substitutes.   In the commercial and industrial built-up
roofing market there is some slight 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.

                                   3-5

-------
3.1.5  Industry Size and Growth Rate
     The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA)  lists
109 asphalt roofing manufacturing plants in the United States that are
members of the Association compared to 235 listed in the 1977 census of
manufacturers under Standard Industrial  Classification (SIC)  Code 2952
(Asphalt Felts and Coating).   The nane and location of one asphalt
roofing plant, not a member of ARMA, was obtained from a manufacturer of
electrostatic precipitators.  The information was verified by calling the
plant owner.  SIC Code 2952 includes firms engaged in the manufacture of
products such as roofing cements and coatings, tarpaper and pitch roofing,
as well as asphalt roofing and siding.  The ARMA list, on the other hand,
is restricted to those firms which produce shingles or roll goods as
their primary product.
     The 110 asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing plants shown in
Figure 3-2 are owned by 28 companies and are located in 30 states.
Geographical locations are plotted in Figure 3-2.  About 35 percent of
the plants are concentrated in four states (California, Texas,  Illinois, and
New Jersey), mostly in urban areas.
     The companies which comprise the asphalt roofing and siding industry
vary greatly in size and diversity.  The larger firms often produce their
own felts, about one-third of the companies process their own asphalt,
and one firm owns its own refinery for asphalt production.  Six firms are
publicly held and listed on either the New York, the American,  or a
regional stock exchange.
     Asphalt roofing production and capacity figures are not disclosed by
individual firms, but aggregate figures can be compared by region.  In
1977 the regional sales of asphalt roofing products totalled 93.9 million
squares, and sales were distributed as* follows:  Northeast region
17.9 percent; North Central region 32.5 percent; South region
                                           Q
34.1 percent; and West region 15.5 percent.   Estimates of production at
53 plants showed a range of 7,257 to 408,195 megagrams (8,000 to
450,000 tons) per year.
     The production of asphalt is  so thoroughly interlocked with the
production of roofing and siding that a description of one must include
the other.  This interlocked relationship has two major aspects.  First,

                                   3-6

-------
CO
I
                                                                                                     DC
                        Figure  3-2.   Location  of  asphalt  roofing manufacturing  facilities
                                          within  the United States.7

-------
the pronounced dependence of the roofing industry on asphalt as an
irreplaceable input links the two industries.   Secondly,  part of the
production process itself, namely oxidizing or "blowing"  the asphalt,  can
be done either at a roofing plant or at a refinery.   As a result,
regulations for control  of asphalt blowing would have economic effects on
both industries.   It is necessary, therefore,  to describe the production
of asphalt within the petroleum industry for a complete description of
the roofing and siding industry.
     The large-scale disruptions in petroleum production and prices make
projection of the growth in asphalt production since 1978 almost
           9
impossible.   Since January 1, 1979, the price of crude oil  has increased
drastically.  Between April 1976 and January 1979, the price of asphalt
has increased 27 percent to reflect the rise in crude prices.
3.2  PROCESSES AND THEIR EMISSIONS
3.2.1  Processes
     The processes which contribute to emissions from asphalt roofing
manufacturing can be placed in three broad categories.  These are:
     1.  the roofing manufacturing line;
     2.  the delivery, transfer, and storage of materials used in the
manufacture of roofing products; and
     3.  the processing (blowing) of asphalt to place it in a form suitable
for use in roofing products.
     3.2.1.1  Roofing and Siding Manufacturing Line.  The sequence of
events in the manufacture of asphalt roofing and siding products is
illustrated in the flow diagrams of Figures 3-3 and 3-4 and by the block
diagram of Figure 3-5.  Figure 3-4 also indicates some of the ancillary
activities necessary to the line operation.  Each of the line activities
is described below.
     3.2.1.1.1  Dry looper.  A roll of felt is installed on the felt reel
and unwound onto the dry floating looper.  The dry floating looper provides
a reservoir of felt material to match the intermittent operation of the
felt roller to the continuous operation of the line.  Felt is unwound
from the roll  at a faster  rate  than is required by the line, with the
excess being  stored in the dry  looper.  The flow of felt to the line
                                   3-8

-------
GO
10
                                 VENTTO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                    	I	
                        DRYLOOPER
                                                    SATURATORENCLOSURE
            PAPER FELT
            FEED ROLL
                                    SPRAY
                                   HEADERS
flflflflfl
SATURATORSPRAY
                                            SECTION
                                           dU
                                       RRRR
                                       SATURATOR DIP
                                       SECTION GATES
                              VENTTO
                              CONTROL
                              DEVICE

                               1
       BURNER[_/
                   ROLLSTO
                   STORAGE
                            ROLL WINDER
                            FOR ASPHALT
                               FELT
                                                                                            FINISH
                                                                                           FLOATING
                                                                                            LOOPER
                        PUMP
                 Figure 3-3.  Typical flow diagram for production of asphalt-saturated felt.
                                                                                    11

-------
TANK

TRUCK
                                «"IJ°   SCRE.Q3S3S5Z
                                CONTROL  CONVEYOR
                                EQUIPMENT

                                 t
                                                                SHINCU CUIUR
                                                  SMINCU SIACKIR


            *WATERSPRAY USED ALSO. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY "SEAL-DOWN"STRIP APPLICATION.
Figure  3-4.   Typical  How sheet for manufacturing shingles  and  rolls.12
                                         3-10

-------
           FELT
                           ORGANIC FELT WEB
                                                                         SATURATED FELT
u>
i
                                                                        ROLLSTO-*.
                                                                        STORAGE
ROLL WINDER/
  CUTTER/
 PACKAGER
SHINGLES
TO STORAGE
SHINGLE
PACKAGER


SHINGLE
STACKER


SHINGLE
CUTTER


                               Figure 3-5.   Block diagram asphalt  roofing line.

-------
is kept constant by raising the top set of rollers and increasing looper
capacity.  The opposite action occurs when a new roll  is being put on the
felt reel and spliced in, and the felt supply ceases temporarily.  There
are no significant emissions generated in this processing step.
     3.2.1.1.2  Saturator.  Following the dry looper,  the felt enters the
saturator where moisture is driven out and the felt fibers and intervening
spaces are filled with "saturant" asphalt.  The saturator also contains a
looper arrangement which is almost totally submerged in a tank of asphalt
maintained at a temperature of 232° to 260°C (450° to 500°F).  The asphalt
absorbed increases the sheet or web weight by about 150 percent.   At some
plants, the felt is sprayed on one side with asphalt to drive out the
moisture prior to dipping.  This approach reportedly results in higher
emissions than does use of the dip process alone.     The saturator is a
significant emission source of organic particulate.
     3.2.1.1.3  wet looper.  The saturated felt then passes through
drying-in drums and onto the wet looper,  sometimes called the hot looper.
The drying-in drums press surface saturant into the felt.  Sometimes
additional saturant is also added at this point.  The wet looper increases
absorption by providing time for the saturant asphalt  to cool and shrink.
This cooling and shrinking causes the excess (surface) saturant to be
sucked, or drawn, into the felt.
     Emissions from the wet looper consist of organic  particulate.  The
wet looper is a significant emission source of organic particulate.
     3.2.1.1.4  Coater.  If saturated felt is being produced, the sheet
bypasses the next two steps (coating and  surfacing) and passes directly
to the cool-down section.  For surfaced roofing products, however, the
saturated felt is carried to the coater where a stabilized asphalt coating
(filled coating) is applied to both top and bottom surfaces.
     Filled coating contains a harder, more viscous coating asphalt which
has a higher softening point than saturant asphalt and a mineral
stabilizer.  The coating asphalt and mineral  stabilizer are mixed in
approximately equal proportions.  The mineral stabilizer (filler) may
consist of finely divided lime, silica, slate dust, dolomite, or other
mineral materials.  The  softening point of saturant asphalts varies from
                                  3-12

-------
40° to 74°C (104° to 165°F) whereas the softening point of coating asphalt
varies from 99° to 116°C (210° to 240°F).
     The weight of the finished product is controlled by the amount of
coating used.  The coater rollers can be moved closer together to reduce
the amount of coating applied to the felt, or separated to increase it.
Many modern plants are equipped with automatic scales which weigh the  '
sheets in the process of manufacture and warn the .coater operator when
the product is running under or over specifications.
     The coater is a significant emissions source, releasing asphalt
fumes containing organic particulate.
     3.2.1.1.5  Coater-mixer.  The function of the coater-mixer, which is
usually positioned over the line at the coater, is to mix coating asphalt
and a mineral stabilizer (filler) in approximately equal proportions.
The filled asphalt is then piped down to the coating pan.  The asphalt is
piped in at about 232° to 260°C (450° to 500°F), and the mineral stabilizer
is delivered by screw conveyor.  There is often a preheater immediately
ahead, of the coater-mixer to dry and preheat the filler material before
it is fed into the coater-mixer.  This eliminates moisture problems and
also helps to maintain the temperature above 160°C (320-°F) in the coater-
mixer.  The emissions from the preheater are vented to a baghouse at some
plants.  The coater-mixer is usually covered or enclosed, with an exhaust
pipe for the air displaced by (or carried with) the incoming materials.
     Emissions from the coater-mixer include both organic and inorganic
particulate, but are expected to be primarily inorganic.  The emissions
from the coater-mixer are not as significant as the emissions from the
saturator and coater.
     3.2.1.1.6  Mineral surfacing.  The next step in the production of
coated roofing products is the application of mineral surfacing.  The
surfacing section of the roofing line usually consists of a multi-
compartmented granule hopper, two parting agent hoppers, and two large
press rollers (see Figure 3-6).  The hoppers are fed through flexible
hoses from one or more machine bins above the line.  These machine bins
provide temporary storage and are sometimes called surge bins.  The
granule hopper drops colored granules from its various compartments onto
the top surface of the moving sheet of coated felt in the sequence
                                  3-13

-------
                                                                '•;,  -SURPLUS
                                                                ';>.  PARTING'
                                                                :;.   AGENT :>
                                                               / PARTING.-
                                                            . .../AGENJ-  -'•
                                                            ^/HOPPEflj   ;:
                                                            "'j^J
COATED
                                                                     ^•^/I^V^CHV
         Figure  3-6.   Surfacing section of  typical  asphalt
                     roofing  manufacturing line.
                                     3-14

-------
necessary to produce the desired color pattern on the roofing.  This step
is bypassed for smooth surfaced products.  Potential emission sources
are the machine bin, the granule hopper, and the hopper/sheet interface.
At those plants visited, emissions from the granule surfacing operation
appeared to be minimal, even though no attempt was made at control.
Granules are usually dyed or oiled, which could account for the low level
pf observed emissions.
     Parting agents such as talc, sand, or mica (or some combination
thereof) are applied to the top and back surfaces of the coated sheet
from parting agent hoppers.  These hoppers are usually of an open-topped,
slot-type design, slightly longer than the sheet is wide, with a screw
arrangement for distributing the parting agent uniformly throughout its
length.  The first hopper is positioned between the granule hopper and
the first large press roller, and .2 to .3 m (8 to 12 in.) above the
sheet.  It drops a generous amount of parting agent onto the top surface
of the coated sheet and slightly over each edge.  Collectors are often
placed at the edges of the sheet to pick up this overspray, which is then
recycled to the parting agent machine bin by open screw conveyor and
bucket elevator.  Emission sources are the machine bin (which is usually
covered), the open hopper, the hopper/sheet interface, and the roofing
sheet.  The last two sources are the most significant.  If excess material
is recycled, the equipment involved (screw conveyor, bucket elevator,
etc.) is also a potential emission source.  The second parting agent
hopper is located between the rollers and dusts the back side of the
sheet and is usually identical to the top side hopper with similar
emission sources.  Because of the steep angle of the sheet at this point,
the average fall distance from the hopper to the sheet is usually somewhat
greater than on the top side and more of the material  falls off the
sheet.
     Talc, sand, or mica is usually applied to both sides when smooth
roll  roofing is being made.  When manufacturing mineral  surfaced products,
granules of the proper color combinations are added as described above
from hoppers and the back is coated with talc,  sand, or mica.
Consequently, in the manufacture of mineral  surfaced products, the coating
                                 3-15

-------
of the back side with the finely divided talc, sand, or mica would be a
greater source of dust than that from mineral surfacing.
     Another method sometimes used to apply backing agent to' the back
side of the sheet is shown in Figure 3-7.  In this technique, a hinged
trough holds the backing material  against the sheet, which picks up only
what will stick to it.  When the line is not operating, the trough is
tipped back so that no parting .agent will escape past its lower lip.
Emissions observed when th.is application technique is used appear to be
considerably lower in magnitude than with the gravity dusting technique.
     3.2.1.1.7  Product cooling and seal-down strip application.
Immediately after application of the surfacing material, the sheet passes
through a cool-down section.  Here the sheet is cooled rapidly by passing
it around water-cooled rollers in an abbreviated looper arrangement.
Usually, water is also sprayed on the surfaces of the sheet to speed this
cooling process.  Emissions from this section were not measured in this
program but, where water sprays are used, are expected to be mostly water
vapor with some mineral particulate.  These emissions are usually
expelled to the atmosphere with the aid of large wall or roof-mounted
fans.
     The asphalt seal-down strip is usually applied to the self-sealing
coated roofings in this section by a roller partially submerged in a pan
of hot sealant asphalt.  This pan is usually covered and fugitive
emissions appeared to be minimal at the plants surveyed.  Some products
are also texturized at this point by passing the sheet over an embossing
roll which forms a pattern in the surface of the sheet.
     3.2.1.1.8  Finish or cooling looper.  The cooling process is
completed in the next section, the finish (or cooling) looper.  The
purpose of this section is twofold; first, it allows the product to cool
and dry off gradually and secondly, the finish looper provides line
storage to match the continuous operation of the line to the intermittent
operation of the roll winder.  It also allows time for quick repairs or
adjustments to the shingle cutter and stacker during continuous line
operation or, conversely, allows cutting and packaging to continue when
the line is down for repair.  Usually this section is enclosed to keep
the final cooling process from progressing too rapidly.  Sometimes, in
                                  3-16

-------
                      LINE STOPPED
                                  LINE RUNNING
                         HOPPER
                         FILLING   I
                                                      HINGE'
Figure  3-7.   Alternative method for applying  parting  agent.
                             3-17

-------
cold weather, heated air is also used to retard cooling.  The sheet is
relatively cool at this point; therefore, emissions are not expected to
be significant.
     3.2.1.1.9  Cutting and packaging.  Sheet destined for roll goods is
wound on a mandrel, cut to the'proper length, and packaged.  When shingles
are being made, the material from the finish looper is fed into the
shingle cutting machine.  After the shingles have been cut, they are
moved by roller conveyor to automatic packaging equipment, or in some
plants, manually packaged.  They are then stacked on pallets and trans-
ferred by fork lift to storage areas or waiting trucks.  Emissions from
the cutting and packaging operations were not measured but are not expected
to be significant.
     3.2.1.1.10  Process variations.  There are exceptions to the above
process procedures.  For example:
     1.  When fiber glass is used for the web instead of felt, the
saturating and drying-in operations are bypassed.   (These steps are
superfluous because the porous construction of the  fiber glass mat permits
it to be completely permeated by the filled coating asphalt.)
     2.  The coating and surfacing step is bypassed for saturated felt.
     3.  No seal-down strip is applied for standard shingles or for roll
goods.
     4.  Additional steps, which may be conducted off-line, are required
for some specialty shingles.
     3.2.1.2  Materials Delivery, Transfer, and Storage
     3.2.1.2.1  Asphalt supply.  The asphaltic material used to make
roofing grades of asphalt known as "saturant" and "coating asphalt" is
obtained from the petroleum industry.  It is a product of the fractional
distillation of crude oil that occurs toward the end of the distilling
process and is commonly known as asphalt flux.  Asphalt flux is sometimes
blown by the oil refiner or asphalt processor to meet the roofing manu-
facturer's specifications.  Many roofing manufacturers, however, purchase
the flux and carry out their own blowing.
     Asphalt fumes, composed of gaseous HC and organic particulate, can
be released during asphalt  transfer and storage.
                                 3-18

-------
     Asphalt is normally delivered to the asphalt roofing plant in bulk
by pipeline, tanker truck, or rail car.  Bulk asphalts are delivered in
liquid form at temperatures of 93° to 204°C (200° to 400°F), depending on
the type of asphalt and local practice.  Coating asphalts, however, can
also be delivered in solid form.
     Several tanker unloading techniques are used.  The most common
method is to couple a flexible pipe to the tanker and pump the asphalt
directly into the appropriate storage tanks (see Figure 3-8).  The tanker
cover is partially open during the transfer.  Since this is a closed
system, the only potential sources of emissions are the tanker and the
storage tanks.   The magnitude of the emissions from the tanker is at
least partially dependent on how far the cover is opened.  Another unloading
procedure, of which there are numerous variations, is to pump the hot
asphalt into a large open funnel which is connected to a surge tank (see
Figure 3-8).  From there, asphalt is pumped into storage tanks.   Emission
sources are the tanker, the interface between the tanker and the surge
tank, the surge tank, and the storage tanks.  The emissions from these
sources are organic particulate.  The quantity of emissions depends on
the asphalt temperature and on the asphalt characteristics.
     Asphalt flux is usually stored at 51° to 79°C (124° to 174°F),
although storage temperatures of up to 232°C (450°F) have been noted.  The
temperature is usually maintained with steam coils in the tanks  at the
lower temperatures.  [Oil or gas fired preheaters are used to maintain
the asphalt flux at temperatures above 93°C (200°F).]
     Saturant and coating asphalt are normally stored at 204° to 260°C
(400° to 500°F).  Temperatures are maintained by heating the tanks directly
or by cycling the asphalt through external heat exchangers, usually of
the closed tube type.
     Asphalt is transferred within the plant by closed pipeline.  Barring
leaks, the only potential emission sources are the end-points.  These
end-points are the storage tanks, the asphalt heaters (if not the closed
tube type), the blowing stills, the coater-mixers, and the saturator and
coater pans (see Figure 3-9).
     Coating asphalt delivered in solid form is stored in open-ended
cardboard tubes or metal cans until needed for use.  The quantity of
                                 3-19

-------
                     TANKER-FLEXIBLE PIPE
                (SOLID-COUPLED) DELIVERY SYSTEM
                   ASPHALT
                    FUMES
                                     ^•FLEXIBLE
                                        PIPE
                 TANKER - OPEN FUNNEL DELIVERY SYSTEM
ASPHALT FUMES
 M' I'
 t)  (/  OPEN
      FUNNEL
                                                           ASPHALT STORAGE
                                                                TANK
                                                  PUMP
Figure 3-8.   Asphalt  delivery systems.
                         3-20

-------
                              COATER-MIXER
                          ASPHALT
                          HEATER
                 ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
             ALTERNATIVE COATER SUPPLY TECHNIQUES
Figure 3-9.   In-plant  asphalt transfers.
                       3-21

-------
emissions (out-gassing) depends on ambient temperature and on the asphalt
characteristics.  Coating asphalt received in solid form must be melted
and heated to operating temperature prior to transfer.  This is usually
accomplished in open kettles which discharge fumes into the building.
Remelted filled coating asphalt is piped directly from the kettle to the
coater pan while unfilled coating asphalt is transferred to the coater-
mixer and then to the coater pan.  For filled asphalt, the emission
sources are the kettle and the coater pan.  For unfilled asphalt, there
is one additional emission source, the coater-mixer.
     In the case of asphalt prepared for shipment elsewhere, emission
sources vary with the type of product and the manner of shipment.  As
with in-plant transfers, potential sources of emissions are from end-
points of pipeline transfers of flux, saturant, and unfilled coating
asphalt.  These are the sending and receiving storage tanks.  Tanker
trucks and rail cars are loaded by direct coupling to the transfer tanks
and loaded with the tanker manhole covers open.  Emission sources are the
transfer tanks and the tanker.  The methods used for preparing  solid
asphalt and asphalt emulsions for delivery are not included in this
program.
     3.2.1.2.2  Mineral products  supply.  The supply of mineral products
to the surfacing area of the roofing line and to the coater-mixer involves
the unloading,  storage, and transfer of the following products:
     1.  granules;
     2.  parting agent (talc,  sand, or mica); and
     3.  mineral stabilizer (limestone, traprock, dolomite, slate).
     Granules are generally procured in an oiled or coated (painted or
dyed) state and are essentially dust-free.  Granule sizes vary, depending
on the product being produced, but a typical .specification allows only
                                         14
2 percent to be  smaller than 420 microns.
     Sand is a  sharp silica or similar fine material which is normally
procured free of dirt, loam, and  other foreign material.  A typical
specification requires that 100 percent pass through a U.S. Standard
                                  3-22

-------
No. 8 screen (230 Mm),* 20 to 40 percent pass through a U.S. No. 100
screen (149 /^m), and 0 to 5 percent pass through a No. 200 screen (74
     Talc can be micaceous or foliated and is generally purchased free of
dirt and any foreign material.  The average particle size is quite small,
with a typical  specification requiring that 30 to 36 percent pass through
a 200 mesh (74 |um) screen.
     Mineral  stabilizer (commonly called filler) is a fine,  inorganic
material  such as dolomite, micaceous materials, slate,  limestone, or trap
rock.  It can also be a mixture of several of these materials since
material  captured in baghouses is recycled at many plants for use as
filler.  One specification requires that at least 60 percent of the
mineral stabilizer pass through a 200 mesh (74 ^m) screen.
     3.2.1.2.3  Unloading and storage.  Rock granules are normally
delivered in bulk by hopper rail  car or truck and dumped onto an under-
ground belt conveyor (see Figure 3-10).  They are then  transported by
bucket elevator, belt conveyor, or gravity feed pipe to the  appropriate
silo or storage bin.   Potential  sources of fugitive emissions are the
vehicle hopper/conveyor bin interface, any above-ground belt conveyors,
all  material  transfer points, and the silos or storage  bins  if not covered.
The underground conveyors, being fully enclosed, are not emission sources.
Most plants do  not enclose or ventilate these sources to control  emissions.
If granules are procured and maintained dust-free, emissions should be
minimal during  these operations.
     Granules are unloaded pneumatically at some plants (see Figure 3-11).
In this technique, material  is transported from the truck (or rail car)
to the silo while it is entrained in a column of air.  Both  negative and
positive  pressure systems are used,  although the positive pressure system
is more common.  Pneumatic transfer can generate more dust from the
granules.   However,  since it is a closed system, the only source of
fugitive emissions is the discharge into the silo. Some rarely-used
specialty granules are delivered  in bags rather than in bulk.   The bags
*
 The number in brackets indicates the size of the openings in  the screen;
in this case, 230 microns.

                                  3-23

-------
               SLEEVE
                  SCREW OR BELT
                    CONVEYER
                                           BUCKET
                                          ELEVATOR
HOPPER BOTTOM RAILROAD CAR UNLOADING
GRAIN INTO A SHALLOW HOPPER BY THE
CHOKED-FEED METHOD (KOPPEL BULK
TERMINAL, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA).
                   Figure  3-10.  Mineral  products delivery.

                                         3-24
                                                              16

-------
  a. NEGATIVE PRESSURE
     CONVEYING SYSTEM
       fr-sH!
                   NARROW BLADE   <"~p>
                  CENTRIFUGAL FAN-xJ—L,
CLOTH
FILTER
M


n
                                                 \
                                            V
                           CYCLONE)
                           PRODUCT
                          COLLECTOBW

                                   'l AIRLOCK
          CAR
 b. POSITIVE.DISCHARGE
    CONVEYING SYSTEMS
                                           CLOTH
                                           FILTER
  POSITIVE
DISPLACEMENT
  BLOWER
                  FIXED
                  HOPPER
ROTARY-VANE-*
  FEEDER
          POSITIVE
        DISPLACEMENT
          BLOWER
                          CYCLON6
                          PRODUCT    /
                         COLLECTOR\ /
                                          CYCLONE
                                          PRODUCT
                                         COLLECTOR
   Figure  3-11.   Pneumatic conveying systems.
                                                      17
                              3-25

-------
are stacked on pallets for delivery, transfer, and storage and pose no
emission problems unless a bag is improperly closed or is broken.
     Sand is usually shipped in bulk and handled in the same manner as
granules.  (See Figures 3-10 and 3-11.)  Because of the generally smaller
grain size, the transfer of sand can generate more emissions than the
transfer of granules.
     Talc and mica are delivered in bags or in bulk.  Bulk delivery is
more common and is usually by hopper rail cars or trucks.  At many plants,
they are transferred pneumatically to the storage silo, usually with a
positive pressure system (see Figure 3-11).  At locations where delivery
vehicles lack pneumatic pumping capability, a screw conveyor may be used
to transfer the talc or mica from the trucks to the pneumatic conveyor.
The silo is usually enclosed and vented to a fabric filter.  Another
common approach is to dump the talc or mica from the vehicle hopper onto
an underground belt or screw conveyor through a sleeve connecting the
vehicle hopper and the conveyor hopper (see Figure 3-10).  The material
is then transferred to a bucket elevator, raised to the top of the silo,
and piped by gravity feed or airslide into a covered silo.  Fugitive
emission sources are the sleeve interfaces with the hopper and conveyor
bin, any open portions of the conveyor system, and material transfer
points.  The only other emission source is the exhaust from the talc
silo.  Bagged material is delivered on pallets, usually by boxcar.  The
loaded pallets are transferred by fork lift to storage areas.  Fugitive
emission sources are torn, broken, or inadequately sealed bags.
     Mineral  stabilizer is delivered in bulk and transferred in the same
manner as talc and mica, often by the same conveying equipment.  Emission
sources are the same as those for talc and mica.
     3.2.1.2.4  In-plant transfers and temporary storage.  The movements
of asphalt and mineral products in a roofing plant are illustrated in the
simplified block diagram of Figure 3-12.  The techniques used to
accomplish these transfers are reviewed in the following paragraphs.
     Asphalts are transferred from one point to another .in the roofing
plant by pipeline; therefore, the only sources of emissions are the end
points (flux tanks, in-process tanks, asphalt heaters, saturator pan,
coater-mixer, coater, etc.) which are discussed elsewhere.
                                 3-26

-------
                                                           IN-PROCESS
CO
I
ro
                       ASPHALT
                      PARTING AGENT
                      (SAND. TALC, ETC.)
                                                                                                         ASPHALT ROOFING
                                                                                                          AND SIDING LINE
                           Figure  3-12.   Block  diagram of  in-plant transfers  and  temporary storage.

-------
     Granules are sometimes transferred from storage bins to bucket
elevator hoppers with shwels or a front-end loader.  When specialty
granules are received and stored in bags, the bags are emptied into the
bucket elevator hopper (see Figure 3-13).  A much more common technique,
however, is to use a belt conveyor to load the bucket elevator.  Granules
are dumped onto the conveyor belt by gravity, raised by bucket elevator,
and fed by gravity through flexible pipes into machine bins.  Machine
bins, located over the roofing line (or machine), provide temporary
storage for the particular granule colors needed for the roofing product
being manufactured.  Some compartments of the machine bin are also used
for the parting agent (usually talc).  The potential emission sources are
the silo/bin unloading point, the conveying system, the bucket elevator
hopper, the bucket elevator, and the machine bins.  Fugitive emissions
from these sources should be minor if the granules are procured oiled (or
dyed) and dust-free.
     In-plant transfers of sand, sometimes used as a parting agent, are
usually conducted in the same manner as granules.  The potential emission
sources are also the same, but the magnitude of the emissions will
probably be higher as a consequence of the generally smaller grain size
of the sand.
     Talc, the most commonly used parting agent, or mica may also be
transferred within the plant by open belt conveyor and bucket elevator.
A more usual approach, however, is the use of gravity, air slides, screw
conveyors, and sometimes bucket elevators.  Another approach, not yet
very common for in-plant transfers, is pneumatic conveying.  When talc or
mica is received and stored in bags, the bags are emptied into a bucket
elevator hopper (see Figure 3-13).  Potential emission sources and
emissions depend on the transfer system used.  When bagged talc or mica
is used, both the dumping process and the empty bags are potential emission
sources.  Other potential emission sources are the belt conveyor, the
bucket elevator, and the machine bin.  With pneumatic transfer, air
slides, and screw conveyors, the only potential  sources of emissions are
the silo, the machine bin, and (with positive-pressure systems) line
leaks.
                                 3-28

-------
      BAGHOUSE
  BAGGED GRANULES,.
  SAND, TALC OR MICA
        ra&rf    PALLET
BUCKET ELEVATOR
Figure 3-13.  In-plant transfer  of bagged mineral  products.
                              3-29

-------
     Mineral  stabilizer can be transported using the same techniques as
used with talc or mica.   However, like talc, mineral  stabilizer is more
commonly moved by gravity, air slides, screw conveyors,  and sometimes
bucket elevators.  With  a gravity feed system,  fugitive  emission sources
are line leaks and any open transfer points.  Bucket elevators and their
transfer points are sources of fugitive emissions,  as are the storage
silo and the coater-mixer.  These are discussed elsewhere in this chapter.
Air slides and screw conveyors are closed systems and are not, of
themselves, emission sources.
     3.2.1.2.5  Asphalt processing.  Asphalt flux is the bottoms from the
petroleum refining process.  It can consist of  the  residuums from a
single crude or from a blend of many crudes.  A number of products are
produced for the asphalt roofing industry, as detailed in Section 3.1.
The principal products,  however, are the "saturant" asphalt and "coating"
asphalt used in the production of asphalt roofing and siding.  The main
difference in these two asphalts is their softening point.  Saturants
usually have a softening point between 40° and 74°C (104° and 165°F),
while coating asphalts soften at'about 110°C (230°F).
     Asphalt is blown with air in asphalt blowing stills (see Figure 3-14).
A blowing  still is a tank fitted near its base with a sparger (air lines
in a spider arrangement).  The purpose of the sparger is to assure
                                             i
maximum contact between the air  and the asphalt.  Air is forced through
holes in the sparger into a tank of hot [204° to 243°C (400° to 470°F)]
asphalt flux.  This air rises through the asphalt,  participating in an
exothermic oxidation reaction.   Oxidizing the asphalt has the effect of
raising its  softening temperature, reducing penetration, and modifying
other characteristics.  Sometimes catalysts are added to assist in this
               18
transformation.    The time required for airblowing asphalt depends on a
number of factors. These factors include the characteristics of the
asphalt flux, the characteristics desired for the finished product, the
reaction temperature, the type of  still used, the air injection rate, and
the efficiency with which the air entering the  still is dispersed through-
out the  asphalt.  Blowing times  may vary in duration from 30 minutes to
12 hours.
                                  3-30

-------
CO

LO
ASPHALT FLUX.
 125-150° F
                                               400-470°F.
                                                     FUEL
                                                              BLOWING
                                                               STILL
                                                             CONTAINING
                                                              ASPHALT
                                     ASPHALT
                                     HEATER
                                                                                       KNOCKOUT BOX
                                                                                        OR CYCLONE
                                                                                 •WATER
                                                                             AIR
                                                                  AIR
                                                                 BLOWER
                                                                           BLOWN ASPHALT
                                          Figure 3-14.  Air-blowing of  asphalt.

-------
     Asphalt flux characteristics depend on the source of the crude and
the method used to refine it.   The type of flux used will  vary from plant
to plant but should stay fairly constant at any one plant.  The softening
point of the principal  products of the blowing process (saturant and
coating asphalts) varies from one location to another.
     Asphalt blowing is a highly temperature-dependent process, as the
                                                                  18
rate of oxidation increases rapidly with increases in temperature.
Asphalt is preheated to 204° to 243°C (400° to 470°F) before blowing is
initiated to assure that the oxidation process will start at an acceptable
rate.  Conversion does take place at lower temperatures but is much
       18
slower.    Due to the exothermic nature of the reaction, the asphalt
temperature rises as blowing proceeds.  This, in turn, further increases
the reaction rate.  Asphalt temperature is normally kept at about 260°C
(500°F) during blowing  by spraying water onto the  surface of the asphalt,
although external cooling may also be used to remove the heat of reaction.
The allowable upper limit to the reaction temperature is dictated by
safety considerations,  with the maximum temperature of the asphalt usually
kept at least 28°C  (50°F) below the flash point of the asphalt being
blown.  The design  and location of the  sparger in  the still governs how
much of the asphalt surface area is physically contacted by the injected
air, and the vertical height of the still determines the time span of
this contact.  Vertical stills, because of their greater head (asphalt
height) require  less air flow for the same amount  of asphalt-air contact
(see Figures 3-15 and 3-16).  Both vertical and horizontal stills are
still  in use, but where new design is involved, a  vertical type is
preferred by the industry because of the increased asphalt-air contact
                                          19
and consequent reduction in blowing times.    Asphalt losses from vertical
                                                                      19
stills are also  reported to be less than those from horizontal stills.
All recent blowing  still installations  have been of the vertical type.
Asphalt blowing  can be either a batch process or a continuous operation.
These  operations are described in more  detail in Reference 18.
All stills at roofing  plants are believed to use the batch process, as do
most of the  asphalt processing plants,  but the ratio among refineries is
unknown.
                                  3-32

-------
5
           KNOCK OUT BOX/	L

           OR          FUMES
           CYCLONE     \_
FUMES
   J
         WATER
       FLOWMETER
    WATER VALVE

       WATER
                                                 AIR
                        1
                                        /
                                   -     f
                                    WATER
                                  RECOVERED OIL


                             ,  » • »
                                    1 5
                                                   SPRAY
                                                     AIR-
                                                                BYPASS
                                                                VALVE
                                          .•>;STEAM BLANKET .vv-V.
                                             AIR BUBBLES'  {
                                SPARGER
                                        -^
                                              ASPHALT
                                                                      AIR
                      STILL
                          7
                                                                      AIR COMPRESSOR
       Figure  3-15.   Design features  of vertical still equipped
                with  a cyclone oil recovery system.
                               3-33

-------
  VALVE
WATER      'I
                                                        AIR COMPRESSOR
        Figure  3-16.   Design features of horizontal still.
                               3-34

-------
     The emissions from the blowing still are primarily organic parti-
culate with a fairly high concentration of gaseous hydrocarbon (6,000 to
7,000 ppm) and Polycyclic Organic Matter [112,308 yg/Nm3 (0.00007 lb/ft3)].
The blowing still has the highest total emissions of any of the emission
sources in an asphalt roofing plant.
3.2.2  Process Emissions
     As was discussed in Section 3.2.1, there are a considerable number
of emission sources in a typical asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing
plant.  Emissions result from asphalt handling and storage, asphalt
processing, various roofing line operations, and mineral products handling
and storage. The potentially significant sources are listed in Table 3-1,
which also catalogs some of the parameters which are believed to affect
both the magnitude and type of emissions from those activities which
involve the processing, storage, or use of asphalt.
     There are many variables which could potentially affect emissions
from asphalt roofing manufacturing operations.  For example, particulate
emissions from roofing lines (asphalt fumes from the saturator, wet
looper and coater) may increase on a kilogram per megagran shingle basis,
with increases in line speed.  No test data are available to confirm or
disprove this statement.  Also, a number of industry representatives are
of the opinion that spray or spray/dip saturators create more fumes than
do dip saturators, other factors being equal.  The test data suggest a
similar conclusion since the one spray/dip saturator tested generated 5
to 10 times as much particulate emission on a kilogram per hour basis as
the dip saturators tested.  It is also hypothesized that:
     1.  uncontrolled emissions are higher for asphalts derived from the
more volatile West Coast or Middle East crudes than from the midcontinent
or eastern U.S. crudes;
     2.  vertical stills emit fewer fumes than horizontal units;
     3.  uncontrolled emissions from roofing lines are lower when saturants
and coatings are used which have higher than normal softening points; and
     4.  uncontrolled emissions of asphalt particulate increase with
increases in the moisture content of the felt.
     No one to our knowledge has yet attempted to isolate and quantify
the effects of these variables on uncontrolled emission rates.  Plants

                                  3-35

-------
                 TABLE 3-1.   EMISSION  SOURCES AND VARIABLES AFFECTING  EMISSIONS  IN  AN  ASPHALT ROOFING  PLANT
         Emission  source
                          Pollutants
                           Raw material variations Influencing emissions    Process  parameters  Influencing emissions
         Asphalt  storage tank
                      Gaseous hydrocarbons and
                      parttculate
                              Type of crude (Middle East,  West
                              Coast, mldcontlnent, Venezuelan)
                              Characteristics of asphalt (softening
                              point, penetration, viscosity,  flash
                              point, etc.)
                                            *  Storage temperature
                                            *  Loading/storage cycle
         Asphalt  blowing still
                      Partlculate hydrocarbon,
                      gaseous  hydrocarbons
                              Type of crude
                              Characteristics of asphalt
                                               Blowing temperature
                                               Air rate
                                               Design/configuration of still
                                               Type of product (saturant and
                                               coating asphalt)
         Saturator
                      Partlculate hydrocarbon,
                      gaseous  hydrocarbons
                              Type of crude
                              Characteristics of asphalt
                              Characteristics of felt (type,  width
                              weight, moisture content)
                                               Type of saturator (spray/dip,
                                               spray, dip)
                                               Saturant temperature
                                               Line speed
CO
 i
OJ
en
         Wet looper
                      Gaseous  hydrocarbons
                              Characteristics of asphalt
                              Characteristics of felt
                                             *   Line speed
Coater-mlxer  tank
Partlculate  hydrocarbon,
gaseous  hydrocarbons, and
Inorganic  partlculates
Type of fll ler
Characteristics  of  filler  (particle
shape, density,  moisture content)
Characteristics  of  asphalt
*  Temperature  of  filler
*  Temperature  of  coating asphalt
*  Filler/asphalt  ratio
         Coater
                      Partlculate hydrocarbon,
                      gaseous  hydrocarbons, and
                      Inorganic  partlculates
                              Characteristics of asphalt
                              Type  of  crude
                              Characteristics of felt
                              Type  and proportion of filler used
                              (type -  limestone, rock dust)
                                                Line  speed
                                                Amount  of coater applied
Surface application
Sealant strip
application
Materials handling
Filler dryer
Inorganic partlculates
Gaseous hydrocarbons
Inorganic partlculates
Inorganic partlculate
combustion gases
* Type of backing agent (sand, talc,
mica)
* Characteristics of -backing agent
* Characteristics of asphalt
* Type of backing agent, filler, and
granules
* Particle size range
* Type of filler
* Moisture content
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Line speed
Type of product
Line speed
Type of product
Type of conveyor (belt,
screw, manual)
Type of dryer
Firing method


pneumatic

                                                          *  Particle size  range  of  filler

-------
were tested, however, in different parts of the country and with different
types of saturators, so the range of data collected should encompass the
effect of many of these variables.  A summary of the test data for uncon-
trolled emissions is presented in Table 3-2.
     The sampling and analysis techniques developed (and used) for this
series of tests on sources of asphalt fumes are somewhat different from
the methods used by other investigators (see Appendix D for test,method).
As a result, data from other sources could not be correlated to data
developed from this program.
     3.2.2.1  Emissions from Asphalt Handling and Storage.  The
uncontrolled emissions from one asphalt surge tank and five 114 m
(30,000 gal) asphalt storage tanks were measured at one roofing plant.
Hot asphalt was being unloaded from trucks, recirculated to the saturator,
and pumped to the coater-mixer while the tests were conducted.  The range
of uncontrolled emissions was from 0.64 kg/h (1.4 Ib/h) to 1.63 kg/h
(3.6 Ib/h).  The average emission rate for the three tests was 1.0 kg/h
(2.2 Ib/h).
     3.2.2.2  Emissions from Blowing Stills.  One blowing still
installation was tested during this program.  The uncontrolled emission
rate was measured during three saturant asphalt blows and three coating
asphalt blows.  The range of uncontrolled emissions during the saturant
blows was from 57.61 kg/h (127 Ib/h) to 102.97 kg/h (227 Ib/h).  The
average emission rate for the three saturant blow tests was 80 kg/h
(176 Ib/h).  The rate of uncontrolled emissions from the coating blows
varied from 95.71 kg/h (211 Ib/h) to 103.87 kg/h (229 Ib/h).  The
average for the three coating blows was 98.6 kg/h (217 Ib/h).  The
average uncontrolled emission rate for all six runs was 89.4 kg/h
(197 Ib/h).
     3.2.2.3  Emissions from Roofing Line Operations.  Emission tests
were conducted at four asphalt roofing plants where emissions from a
varied grouping of sources were measured.
     At plant A the emissions from the dip saturator, wet looper and
coater were measured.  The uncontrolled emissions varied from 4.99 kg/h
                                 3-37

-------
                   TABLE  3-2.   UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS FROM TEST DATA
                 Emission        Production rate3                    Uncontrolled emissions3
     Plant        source       Mg/yr     tons/yr     kg/hIb/hkg/Mg     Ib/ton    Mg/yrtons/yr


       A    Saturator,  dip     112,590    124,120    6.62     14.59     0.235     0.47      26.50     29.20
            coater

       B    Saturator,  dip     147,680    162,800   12.50     27.50     0.340     0.68      49.90     55.00
            coater

            Storage tanks5                         1.00      2.20     0.080     0.16       3.99      4.40

       C    Saturator,          76,300    84,120   29.93     66.00     1.570     3.14     119.70    132.00
            spray-dip coater,
w           and  storage tanks

w      D    Saturator,  dip     173,070    190,800    6.93     15.27     0.160     0.32    27.76     30.60

       E    Blowing still0
               Saturant        13,430    14,800   80.00    176.4      3.440     6.89    46.24      50.98
               Coating          11,700    12,900   98.60    217.4     12.690    25.38   148.50     163.70



     3Yearly production and  emissions are based on the roofing line operating and producing shingle 4,000
      hours per  year and  the blowing still operating 2,084 hours per year.  Saturant and coating asphalts
     .are blown  578 and 1,506  hours per year respectively.
      Five 114 m3 (30,000 gal)  storage  tanks were tested.  Emission rate in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) based on
      usage of 12.5 Mg/h  (13.75 tons/h)  of asphalt from storage tanks.
     cTested still has  a  working capacity of 36.34 m3  (9,600 gal) compared to 75.71 m3 (20,000 gal)
      and 94.64  m3 (25,000 gal) for model plants.

-------
(11 Ib/h) to 7.98 kg/h (17.6 lb/h), and the average of the four tests
was 6.62 kg/h (14.6 lb/h).
     At plant B the emissions from the dip type saturator, wet looper and
coater were measured.  The uncontrolled emissions ranged from 8.89 kg/h
(19.6 lb/h) to 15.15 kg/h (33.4 lb/h), with an average emission rate
of 12.5 kg/h (27.5 lb/h).
     There were, three tests conducted to determine the emissions from a
spray-dip saturator, wet looper, coater, and eight asphalt storage tanks
at plant C.  The data from one of the tests cannot be used because of an
accidental bumping of the stack wall with the sampling probe during the
test.  The uncontrolled emission rates for the two tests were 31.52 kg/h
(69.5 lb/h) and 28.39 kg/h (62.6 lb/h).
     The uncontrolled emissions from a dip saturator and wet looper were
measured at plant D.  There were three tests, and the emissions ranged
from 4.99 kg/h (11 lb/h) to 10.16 kg/h (22.4 lb/h).  The average for
the three tests was 6.93 kg/h (15.3 lb/h).
     3.2.2.4  Emissions from Mineral Handling and Storage.  Particulates
may be emitted from any of the mineral handling and transfer operations,
but most of the particulate emissions usually occur at transfer points
and use points.  No tests were conducted during this progran to determine
the emissions from mineral transfer and storage operations (screw
conveyors, belt conveyors, air slides, bucket elevators, pneumatic
conveyors and silos).  Uncontrolled emissions from the conveying,
screening, and handling of crushed stone have been estimated to be
                                            20
1 kg/Mg (2 Ib/ton) of inorganic particulate.
3.3  BASELINE EMISSIONS
3.3.1  Introduction
     The baseline emission level is the level of control that is achieved
by the industry in the absence of a new source performance standard.  The
opacity and particulate emission regulations for the states which have
roofing plants are summarized in Table 3-3.  A number of regional and
state agencies were contacted to ascertain if the regulations were applied
on a plant basis or on an emission source basis.  The typical  state
considers that a plant is one source, so the regulation applies to the
plant.  Based on the average particulate weight permitted, a small roofing

                                  3-39

-------
TABLE 3-3.  SUMMARY OF OMISSION REGULATIONS AND LXATION OF
               ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS BY STATE21

State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinoi s
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Plant
size3
L
M
S
L
M
S

L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
No. of
plants
5
4
14
2
1
3
5
9
3
2
3
Particulate
kg/h
15.68
15.12
13.53
15.66
15.10
13.43

13.43
13.43
13.43
15.66
15.10
13.43
15.66
15.10
13.43
21.97
21.00
18.14
11.35
8.60
7.08
21.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14 •
21.97
21.00
18.14
emi ssions
Ib/h
34.57
33.30
29.83
34.52
33.28
29.60
c
29.60
29.60
29.60
34.52
33.28
29.60
34.52
33.28
29.60
48.44
46.30
40.00
25.03
19.08
15.60
48.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
Vi sible emi ssions
Percent opacity
20
20 (new)
40 (existing)
d
20
20
20
20 (on dusts)
(nuisance control)
30
40
20 (new)
40 (existing)
20
                            3-40

-------
TABLE 3-3.  SUMMARY OF EMISSION REGULATIONS AND LOCATION OF
               ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS BY STATE21
                         (continued)

State
Mary! and
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mi ssouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Plant
sizea
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
L
M
S
No. of
plants
3
3
1
4
1
5
6
1
3
5
Particulate
kg/h
22.11
21.08
18.14
21.62
20.34
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
29.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
0.45
0.45
0.23
21.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
emissions
Ib/h
48.75
46.37
40.00
47.67
44.84
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
43.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
1.00
1.00
.50
48.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00
Visible emissions
Percent opacity
No visible
20
40
20 (new)
60 (exi sting)
40
20 (new)
40 (exi sting)
20
20
20 (new)
40 (exi sting)
20
                            3-41

-------
        TABLE 3-3.   SUMMARY OF  EMISSION  REGULATIONS AND LOCATION OF
                     ASPHALT ROOFING  PLANTS BY STATE21
                                (continued)

State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Plant No. of
size3 plants
L
M 3
S
L
M 4
S
3
L
M 1
S
L
M 2
S
L
M 10
S
1
Particulate
kg/h
21.97
21.00
18.14
21.97
21.00
18.14
e
21.97
21.00
18.14
15.66
15.10
13.43
39.13
33.72
30.57

emissions
Ib/h
48.44
46.30
~40.00
48.44
46.30
40.00

48.44
46.30
40.00
34.52
33.30
29.60
86.26
74.35
67.40
85%
Control
Vi sible emissions
Percent opacity
20
20 (new)
40 (exi sting)
f
20 (new)
40 (exi sting)
20
20
20 (new)
40 (exi sting)
Washington
                                        20  (new)

                                        40  (exi sting)
West Virginia
          1
                         20
Production rates for typical  plants operating  4,000  hours  per year  are:

          Large                    Medium                  Small
     Mg/yr
     281,201
tons/yr
210,000
Mg/yr     tons/yr
219,518   242,000
Mg/yr     tons/yr
109,759   121,000
                                   3-42

-------
        TABLE 3-3.   SUMMARY OF  EMISSION  REGULATIONS AND  LOCATION OF
                     ASPHALT ROOFING  PLANTS  BY STATE21
                                (concluded)

State
Plant
size3
No. of
plants
Parti cu late
kg/h .
emission
Ib/h
sb

Visible
Percent
emission
opacity
s

 Emissions allowed by typical  process weight tables:

               Small                Medium
  Hourly  kg/h
          18.14

  Annual  Mg/yr
          72.56
  Ib/h
  40.00

tons/yr
  80
kg/h
21.00
Mg/yr
84.00
Ib/h
46.30
tons/yr
92.60
kg/h
21.97

Mg/yr
87.88
 Ib/h
 48.44

tons/yr
 96.88
Regulation is by county or Air-Pol lution  District.   Bay Area =  18.14 kg/h
 .(40 Ib/h).  Los Angeles Pollution  Control  District  = .08 gr/DSCF.
 20 percent for Los Angeles Pollution  Control  District and Bay Area.
 In Pennsylvania the regulation  is  based on DSCFM  of gas emitted.   For
fthe Asphalt Roofing Industry,  emissions  should  not  exceed .04 gr/DSCF.
 20 percent for a period or periods aggregating  more than 3 minutes in
 any one hour.
^These two states did not include a general  process  curve in their  1972
 standard for particulate.
                                   3-43

-------
plant producing 27.2 Mg/h (30 tons/h) of product is allowed emissions
of 18.14 kg/h (40 Ib/h).   This is equivalent to 0.67 kg/Mg  (1.33 Ib/ton)
if expressed as an emissions to product ratio.   The typical  opacity
regulation is 20 percent.
     If the state regulations are compared with the actual  uncontrolled
emissions at plants tested (Table 3-2), it is noted that  the uncontrolled
emissions from three of the roofing%plants without stills would  meet the
mass emissions standards of most states.   Emissions from  the fourth plant
would not meet the mass emission standards of most states.   Uncontrolled
emissions from blowing stills exceed  the mass emissions standards of all
states.
     It appears that most states enforce the regulations  by relying on
opacity readings and nuisance complaints.   Although an  opacity regulation
is convenient from an enforcement point of view, opacity  measurements do
not appear to reflect the degree of control  being achieved.   The emissions
data collected from control  devices during the tests do not show a direct
correlation between particulate emissions and opacity readings.   According
to the "Afterburner Systems Study," hydrocarbon emissions are not visible
at temperatures above 427°C (800°F),  but there is virtually no destruction
of hydrocarbons below 538°C (1000°F).22  Therefore, it  is possible that  '
an afterburner operating between these temperatures could operate with  a
zero opacity and yet remove little or no particulates or  gaseous hydro-
carbons.
     Conversely, a high opacity reading is usually indicative of high
mass emissions.  Therefore, many states measure particulate emissions
only if opacity readings indicate that such a measurement is warranted.
When a state agency does decide to test for particulates, the test method
                                                                 23
normally used is the EPA Method 5 (which employs a heated probe).    The
heated probe lowers the particulate catch because some  of the fume is-in
a gaseous state at test temperature.   Therefore, the test method used by
most states is not adequate to determine if particulate emissions are at
an acceptable level.  As a result, the common practice  in the roofing
industry is to apply only the controls necessary to meet opacity require-
ments.  This limit is usually attained through the use  of afterburners  to
control blowing  stills.  High velocity air filters, electrostatic

                                  3-44

-------
precipitators, or afterburners are commonly used to control emissions from
the saturator coater and asphalt storage tanks.
3.3.2  Definition of Baseline
     Project personnel  surveyed 13 plants with blowing stills.  Many of
the afterburners controlling the stills appeared to be homemade or had
insufficient temperatures and residence times.  One still was found which
was controlled by an afterburner that had the potential for high removal
efficiency as determined by visible emission readings, design.
configuration, and operating temperature.  This still was tested, and the
uncontrolled emissions are included in Table 3-2.  Saturators, coaters,
and storage tanks were surveyed at 20 plants.  Four of these  plants were
tested because they were found to use better designed and operated control
devices.  The uncontrolled emissions are reported in Table 3-2.  Other
less efficient devices on stills, saturators, coaters, and storage tanks
were reportedly satisfactory for state and local agency requirements,
primarily enforced solely by opacity.  As noted earlier, a plant without
a still and without controls will meet SIP's.  Due to a lack  of data to
show otherwise, it is assumed that all plants are meeting the SIP's;
therefore, baseline conditions are defined for small, medium, and large
plants as shown in Table 3-4.  In some cases, actual plants are probably
exceeding the mass emissions while others are somewhat lower.
                                  3-45

-------
TABLE 3-4.  BASELINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR VARIOUS SIZE MODEL PLANTS
               ACCORDING TO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP's)
                        Production rate         Participate emissions
Plant size
Large
Medium
Small
Mg/yr
281,201
219,518
109,759
tons/yr
310,000
242,000
121,000
kg/h
21.97
21.00
18.14
Ib/h
48.44
46.30
40.00
                                 3-46

-------
3.4  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
 1.  Asphalt and Tar Roofing and Siding Products.  U.S. Department of
     Commerce.   Washington, D.C.  Series M-29A.   Yearly Summaries for
     1967-1976 and 1978.

 2.  Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association.   Manufacture, Selection,
     and Application of Asphalt Roofing and Siding Products.  Twelfth
     Edition.  New York, N.Y.  1974.  p. 3.

 3.  Cantrell,  A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal.
     p. 108-146.  March 20, 1978.

 4.  Tight Money Crimps House-Building Market.  The News and Observer.
     Raleigh, N.C.  p. IV-9.  February 25, 1979.

 5.  Telecon.  North Carolina Distributor of Roofing Products with
     Antel, D.C., MRI/NC.  March 7, 1979.  Prices of asphalt roofing
     shingles.

 6.  Telecon.  Merz, S., Celotex Corporation, with Cooper, R., MRI/NC.
     March 8, 1979.  Dry materials prices.

 7.  Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association.   List of Plants:  Asphalt
     and Tarred Roofing Manufacturers.  New York, N.Y.  May 12, 1978.
     4 p.

 8.  Asphalt and Tar Roofing and Siding Products:  1977.  U.S. Department
     of Commerce, Washington, D.C.  M-29A(77)-1.  June 1978.  3 p.

 9.  GAO Predicts Higher Oil Costs, More Inflation.  The News and
     Observer.   Raleigh, N.C.  p. 3.  March 8, 1979.

10.  Telecon.  Lambert, D., Exxon Corporation, with Antel, D. C., MRI/NC.
     March 8, 1979.  Prices of asphalt.

11.  Daniel son, J.A.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  2nd Ed.  Los
     Angeles Air Pollution Control District.  PB-225 132.  May 1973.
     p. 379.

12.  Reference 11, p. 380.

13.  Reference 1,1 p. 382.

14.  Letter and  attachments from Hambrick, M. M., Celotex Corporation, to
     Goodwin, D. R.,EPA/ESED.  May 30, 1975.  Information on plants at
     Goldsboro, Los Angeles, and Cincinnati.

15.  Letter from Angarano, J. A., The Flintkote Company, to Goodwin,
     D. R.,  EPA/ESED.   July 17, 1975.  p. 4.  Information concerning  air
     pollution control  for plants at  Ennis and Los Angeles.
                                  3-47

-------
16.  Reference 11, p. 336 and 354.

17.  Reference 11, p. 363.

18.  Corbett, L.  W.  Manufacture of Petroleum Asphalt.   In:  Bituminous
     Materials; Asphalts, Tars, and Pitches, Vol. 2, Part 1,  Hoiberg,
     A. J. (ed.).  New York, Interscience Publishers, 1965.  p.  99-103.

19.  Letter from Merz, S. A., Celotex Corporation,  to Ananth,  K.  P.,
     MRI/KC.   February 4, 1975.  Process operations at Goldsboro,  N.C.
     plant.

20.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Compilation of Air Pollutant
     Emission Factors.  AP-42.   Research Triangle Park, N.C.   April  1973.
     p. 8.20-1.

21.  Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and
     Regulations.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,   Research
     Triangle Park, N.C.  APTD-1334.   July 1972.  p. 29-31, 51-52.

22.  Afterburner Systems Study.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     Research Triangle Park, N.C.  EPA-R2-72-062.  August 1972.   p.  18a
     and 19.

23.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Part 60:  Standards  of
     Performance for New Stationary Sources.  Method 5:  Determination  of
     Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources.  40 CFR 60.
     Washington,  D.C.  Government Printing Office.   August 18, 1977.
                                  3-48

-------
                    4.  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
4.1  INTRODUCTION
     Techniques used to minimize emissions from asphalt blowing stills,
asphalt saturators, wet loopers, and coaters fit into two categories,
that is, process controls and add-on emission controls.  Both process and
add-on controls are discussed in the following sections, as are the
control strategies for each of these categories.  Emission sources and
add-on control devices are summarized in Table 4-1.
4.2  PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT CONTROLS
     Process selection and control  of process parameters reportedly can
be used to minimize uncontrolled emissions from asphalt blowing stills,
asphalt saturators, wet loopers,* and coaters.  Process controls include
the use of the following:
     1.  dip saturators, rather than spray or spray-dip saturators;
     2.  vertical stills, rather than horizontal stills;
     3.  asphalts that inherently produce low emissions;
     4.  higher flash point asphalts;
     5.  higher softening point asphalt fluxes;
     6.  higher softening point saturants and coating asphalts;
     7.  reduced temperatures in the asphalt saturant pan;
     8.  reduced asphalt storage temperatures; and
     9.  lower asphalt blowing temperatures.
     Literature searches were conducted, and the industry was surveyed;
but no data were supplied or located which would quantify the effects of
these process controls, either individually or collectively, during the
development phase of this program.   However, such controls (1) seem
reasonable from an engineering standpoint, (2) reflect opinions expressed
by people in the industry, and (3)  are supported by published
*
 The wet looper is also called a "hot looper" or the "striking-in" section.

                                   4-1

-------
        TABLE 4-1.  ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT EMISSION SOURCES
                         AND ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES
Emission sources                        Control devices

A. Saturator, wet looper (hot           Afterburner
   looper), and coater3                 High velocity air filter
                                        Electrostatic precipitator

B. Coater-mixer                         High velocity air filter

C. Asphalt blowing still                Afterburner

D. Asphalt storage tanks0               Mist eliminator

E. Mineral surfacing and                Baghouse
   granule application

F. Granule and mineral                  Baghouse(s)
   delivery, storage, and
   transfer
 These sources usually share a common enclosure, and emissions
.are ducted to a common control device.
 Emissions from the coater-mixer are controlled, at some plants,
 by routing fumes to the control device used for sources
 listed in A, above.
 Some plants control emissions from storage tanks with the same
 device used for processes listed in A and then use a mist
 eliminator during periods when the roofing line is not operating
 (e.g., weekends).  Asphalt delivery can be accomplished via a
 closed system which vents emissions to the same control device
 as that used for the tanks.
                              4-2

-------
            i 2
information. '   In consideration of these variables and their effects,
the emissions testing program included several  types of control  devices,
plants in different parts of the country using  different asphalts,  and
dip saturators as well  as spray-dip saturators.
4.2.1   Saturators
     Dip-type saturators have been selected for most new asphalt roofing
line installations in recent years, and  this trend is expected to continue.
The most common technique for increasing line speeds in existing installa-
tions, however, is to add saturant sprays.   This practice is expected  to
increase uncontrolled emissions considerably, since spray-dip saturators
appear to generate more particulate emissions than do dip type saturators.
Data collected during the test program appears  to support this conclusion
but are not sufficient to quantify the effect (see Chapter 3, Table 3-2).
4.2.2  Asphalt Blowing Stills
     Recent asphalt blowing still installations have been almost
exclusively of the vertical  type because of their higher efficiency and
                3
lower emissions.   Vertical  stills occupy less  space and require no
heating during oxidizing [if the temperature of the incoming flux  is
above 204°C (400°F)].  Vertical  stills will therefore probably be  used in
all new installations equipped with stills and  for most retrofit
situations.
4.2.3  Asphalt Softening and Flash Points
     It is reported that asphalt fluxes  with lower flash points and
                                               2
softening points tend to have higher emissions.   These asphalt fluxes
generally have been less severely cracked and contain more low-boiling
fractions.  Many of these light ends can be expected to boil off during
blowing.  The reported ranges of softening and  flash points for asphalt
fluxes, saturants, and coatings currently in use in the asphalt roofing
manufacturing industry are listed in Table 4-2.  Limiting the minimum
softening and flash points of asphalt flux should reduce the amount of
fumes generated during blowing since less blowing is required to produce
a saturant or coating asphalt.  Catalysts are often used in coating
asphalts to reduce blowing times.  Their effect on emissions is unknown.
                                   4-3

-------
                      TABLE 4-2.   ASPHALT  PARAMETERS
Parameter
 Asphalt  flux
*c         n
                                         Asphalt
                                         saturant
                                            Asphalt coating
Softening
  point

Flash
  point
 26-49     (79-110)     40-71   (104-158)    99-118    (210-244)
221-349    (430-660)    >246     (>475)
                                         >246
(>475)
                                 4-4

-------
     Saturants and coating asphalts with high softening points should
reduce emissions from felt saturation and coating operations.  However,
producing the higher softening asphalt flux requires more blowing, which
increases uncontrolled emissions from the blowing operation.  Whether
overall plant emissions are decreased depends on the relative effective-
ness of the emission control equipment on the blowing still  and the
saturator and coater, respectively.  Typically, the afterburner
controlling emissions from a blowing still  is more effective in reducing
gaseous hydrocarbons than the particulate control devices which may be
used on the saturator.
4.2.4  Storage and Use Temperatures
     As the temperature of an asphalt is raised above its softening
point, emissions from that asphalt can be expected to increase.
     Emissions can be minimized by keeping storage and use temperatures
as low as possible.  Table 4-3 lists the range of temperatures noted
during surveys and tests conducted for the study.
4.3  CONTROL SYSTEMS
     The control systems used in this industry include various types of
hoods, total enclosure capture systems, and add-on control devices.
4.3.1  Capture Systems
     Capture of emissions from asphalt blowing stills, asphalt storage
                                                                  *
tanks, asphalt truck unloading, the coater-mixer, and from mineral  and
granule unloading, storage and transfer systems is (or can be) accom-
plished by the use of closed systems.  Uncontrolled emissions from the
mineral surfacing and granule application areas may be captured by hoods
or by total enclosure of the application area.
     Emissions from the saturator, wet looper, and coater are usually
collected by a single enclosure as shown in Figure 4-1, by a canopy type
hood, or by an enclosure and hood combination (saturator and wet looper
enclosed and coater hooded).  The doors shown in Figure 4-1  allow the
operators access as required for maintenance and repair.  This particular
system is designed with two stage fans to provide additional exhaust
 This classification includes mineral  stabilizer (filler), talc, sand,
 and mica.
                                   4-5

-------
                           TABLE 4-3.   STORAGE  AND  OPERATING TEMPERATURES
                                         In-process  storage
                     Flux  storage       (saturant  and  coating)    Saturant pan        Asphalt blowing
                    ~5C       pFj           5C        PH        "5C        rF)        "5C      PH

Temperatures in     65-260 (149-500)       240-260  (464-500)     232-246 (450-475)   246-274 (475-525)
 current use

-------
Figure 4-1.   Total  enclosure  of saturator,  wet  looper,  and coater.

-------
ventilation during periods when the doors are open.  The ventilation
requirements to obtain complete pick up will  vary depending on the extent
to.which  openings in the enclosures are minimized and on safety
considerations.
     Safety considerations dictate that the concentration of combustible
pollutants at the fume source and in the capture system be kept below the
lower flammability limit.  The resulting fume streams, since they will
not support combustion unaided, are classified as "dilute."
     Fugitive emissions from both open and closed asphalt unloading
systems were monitored during the testing program.
4.3.2  Control Devices for Organic and Inorganic Particulates
     Several types of control devices are used in this industry for
control of pollutants.  The devices include high velocity air filters
(HVAF), mist eliminators, afterburners, electrostatic precipitators
(ESP), and fabric filters.  These devices are discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs.
     4.3.2.1  High Velocity Air Filter (HVAF).  HVAF's are used in asphalt
roofing plants to collect particulate hydrocarbons emitted from the
saturator, wet looper, and coater, and are sometimes used to collect
particulate hydrocarbons emitted from the coater-mixer and asphalt storage
tanks.  A typical rotary drum high velocity air filter installation is
shown in Figure 4-2.   Its basic components are a cooling section, a motor
driven fan, a rotating drum filter section, and a mist eliminator.
     HVAF units are filtration devices and do not remove gas phase organic
compounds contained in the exhausts from saturators, wet loopers, coaters,
and asphalt storage tanks.  Thus, for effective capture of hydrocarbon
emissions, the gases entering the HVAF unit must be cooled to about 32°
to 49°C (90° to 120°F).  The cooling may be accomplished by either
dilution air, water sprays, or a shell and tube heat exchanger.
     Dilution air cooling requires a larger fan, fan motor, and a larger
control device to handle the increased air volume.  Cooling by direct
contact water spray is simple and requires less energy and smaller equip-
ment.  It does produce an oil-water mixture which must be settled so that
the oil can be used for fuel or recycled to the oil refinery and the
water can be recycled to the spray cooler.  With a shell  and tube heat

                                   4-8

-------
Figure 4-2.   Typical rotary drum high velocity air filter installation.'
                                   4-9

-------
exchanger, the fan, fan motor, and particle capture device would be
smaller than that required for air cooling, and the oil-water separator
would not be required.  Condensed oil  could be drained from the cooler
and used directly for fuel or for recycle.   However, shell and tube
capital costs would be higher, and the shell side of the exchanger would
require solvent cleaning several  times a year.   The waste solvent would
create a waste disposal problem.   A, fan would be required to overcome the
additional pressure drop.
      Precooling and condensation minimizes the amount of organic vapors
which would otherwise pass through the filter and condense in the atmos-
phere to produce a visible plume.  The quantity of gaseous organic
emissions and the extent of preceding needed to prevent a visible plume
are somewhat dependent upon the particular crude and the degree of
refining of the crude from which  the asphalt is produced.   Data are not
available to define the relative  quantities of organic emissions produced
by different crudes or the relationship between the temperature of the
pollutant stream and the physical state of the various pollutants.
     As the exhaust gases pass through the HVAF filter media,
particulates impact on the glass  fibers and are separated from the gas
stream.  The filter media is supported by a screen and a perforated drum
retainer, as shown in Figure 4-2.  The filter media is a 2.54 cm (1")
                                                   2            2
thick fiber glass mat having a density of 0.20 kg/m  (0.66 oz/ft ). The
fibers are random and have a diameter of about four microns.   High
filter face velocities are necessary to attain high collection efficiency,
as shown in Figure 4-3.  Experience with systems operating at asphalt
roofing plants has shown that the system should be designed so that the
gases pass through the filter media at a face velocity of between 7.62
and 8.64 m/s (1,500 and 1,700 ft/min), which produces a pressure drop of
                                 Q
about 6,966 Pa (28 in.) of water.   The fan horsepower required for a
system capable of handling 18.9 m /s (40,000 acfm) is usually in the
range of 223,700 to 261,000 watts (300 to 350 horsepower).9
     The inorganic particulates and the more viscous organic compounds
collect on the filter mat and eventually begin to plug it.  The micron
and submicron size liquid particles attach themselves to the fibers of
the filter media and migrate to the discharge side of the mat where they

                                  4-10

-------
       u

       UJ

       o
       u.
       LL
       Ul
       I-

       UJ
       U
       CC
       UJ
       a
            100
            90
            eo
            70
            6O
so
40
            3O
            20
            10
                                           I
                                              I
                                      1    I   1
                     0.5     1.0     1.5     2.0     2.5     3.0



                              VELOCITY-METERS PER SECOND
                                                               3.5
Figure  4-3.   HVAF  filter media  filtration  efficiency  as a function of
        filter face  velocity for different  filter media.
                                    4-11

-------
again enter the high velocity air stream as larger liquid oil  droplets.
Periodically, the filter media-is advanced  to expose a small  surface  of
new material  to the exhaust flow.  Automatic advance of the filter media
may be accomplished at either a predetermined time interval  or at a
predetermined pressure drop across the filter media.  With the time-
operated advance, if new material is advanced while the process is shut
down, a large filter area may be "uncaked"  and the pressure drop will  be
low, resulting in decreased collection efficiency.  Some HVAF  systems
incorporate a pressure-actuated advance system which operates  by sensing
pressure at the mat and advancing the filter at a given rate until  a
preset lower pressure is reached at the mat.
     Large oil droplets entering the high  velocity air stream  from the
filter of the HVAF unit pass through a fan  and are collected on a mesh-
type mist eliminator (see Figure 4-2).  The filter media is a  15.2 cm (6
in.) thick mat (packing) of stainless steel  fibers retained between
stainless steel grids.  The face velocity  of the gas strean is 1.8 to
2.4 m/s (6 to 8 fps) and the pressure drop  is <1.27 cm (0.5 in.).  When
the pressure drop increases to 2.54 cm (1.0 in.), cleaning of  the rnist
eliminator is necessary.     Cleaning of the mist eliminator is usually
performed annually although at a few installations it may be done every
           12
six months.
     A smaller version of the high velocity air filter is shown in
Figure 4-4.  This type of unit is typically installed for application
where the emissions are intermittent, where the gas flows are  low
[0-2.36 m /s (0-5000 acfm)], and where capital costs might be  minimized.
Emissions from the coater-mixer contain both organic and inorganic parti-
culate and would interfere with afterburner operation.  As a result,
mini-HVAF'S are sometimes used to control  emissions from the coater-mixer
at asphalt roofing plants where an afterburner is used to control
emissions from the saturator and coater.  The basic operation  and character-
istics of the mini-HVAF are essentially the sane as those detailed above
for the HVAF unit, except that the filter  media is sandwiched  between  two
quick-release flanges, and periodically it is changed manually.  The  need
for regular manual filter changes is a disadvantage of the unit.
                                  4-12

-------
                                  OUTLET
  FILTER
CARTRIDGE
                                                         MIST ELIMINATOR
                                                       MIST ELIMINATOR
                                                            DRAIN
                                                          MOTOR
                                                                 INDUCED
                                                                DRAFT FAN
                                                                   MOUNTING
                                                                     SKID
          QUICK RELEASE CLAMPS
                    Figure 4-4.   Typical  MINI-HVAF.
                                                   13
                                    4-13

-------
     Among the advantages of HVAF units in the asphalt roofing industry
are: ease of operation, low maintenance,  and no fuel  costs.   The major
disadvantages are:  a lack of control  of  gaseous emissions;  the large
pressure drops required; and the disposal  and handling problems associated
with the used mats.  The saturated mats can become a secondary emission
source unless proper care is taken to  minimize outgassing.   Outgassing
can occur while the saturated mat is being accumulated on the HVAF take-
up reel (wind-up assembly), during temporary storage, during transport
for disposal, or during disposal.
     4.3.2.2  Mi st Eliminators.  Mist  eliminators are used in numerous
industrial applications to remove both liquid mists and soluble solids
from gas streams.   Mist eliminators cannot be subjected to high concen-
trations of inorganic particulate matter  because the  collection media
soon becomes plugged.  Thus, where high concentrations of inorganic
particulate are present in the exhaust stream, a cleanable or replaceable
                                                                14
type prefilter is needed to remove the bulk of the particulates.     In
asphalt roofing plants, mist eliminators  are used to  control  emissions
from asphalt storage tanks.
     A typical  mist eliminator consists of a packed fiber bed retained
between two screens as shown in Figure 4-5.  The screens can be con-
centric cylindrical screens or parallel flat screens*  Chemically
resistant glass fibers, synthetic fibers,  stainless steel  fibers, and
other fiber materials can be used as packing depending upon  the
composition of the effluent stream.  Gases containing mist particles flow
into the fiber bed where the mist particles are collected on the fibers
by inertia! impaction, direct interception, and Brownian movement.   The
collected liquid particles coalesce into  liquid films which  are moved
through the fiber bed by the drag of the  gases.   The  collected liquid
drains by gravity off the downstream face of the fiber bed to a separate
storage vessel  (as shown in Figure 4-6).
     The oil collected by a mist eliminator can be disposed  of in a
number of ways.  Some plants use it as fuel for their boilers while
others recycle the oil back to the saturator or the storage  tanks.
     The effectiveness of m'st eliminators depends on particle size,
particulate loading, liquid viscosity, fiber dimensions, bed density, and

                                  4-14

-------
     WIRES-
              FIBERS
               MIST
               LADEN
               GAS
                                          CLEAN
                                           GAS
                                           TO
                                          VENT  "
                                      SEPARATED
                                       MIST TO
                                      COLLECTION
                                        POINT
Figure 4-5.  Schematic of retaining  screens and fiber packing
              of a  mist eliminator.ll*
                           4-15

-------
                                                 CLEAN GAS  TO
                                                 ATMOSPHERE
    MIST-LADEN
    GAS IN
                    COLLECTED.
Figure 4-6.  Typical mist eliminator element to control emissions
               from asphalt storage tank.1**
                             4-16

-------
gas velocity through the bed.  Particle size is one of the most important
considerations involved in the design and construction of mist elimina-
tors.  A wide range of particle sizes may be handled.   Larger particles
may be collected by a cyclone or mesh pad.   The mist eliminator can  then
be designed to remove the smaller particles with high  efficiency.  A wide
range of pollutants, particulate loading, and gas volumes can be handled
with high efficiency by mist eliminators.  This device can handle  a  wide
range of viscosities (up to 5,000 cp) as long as the collected particles
                                  14
can be made to drain from the bed.
     Among the advantages of the mist eliminator are a moderate pressure
drop (less than half that of the HVAF), a relatively infrequent cleaning
cycle, and no fuel  costs.  The disadvantages include an inability  to
control gases and odors and the secondary pollution impact of the  pre-
filter cleaning or disposal  process.
     4.3.2.3  Afterburners.  Afterburners are typically used to control
combustible pollutants present in concentrations too dilute to support
combustion unaided.  Afterburners are used in asphalt  roofing manu-
facturing plants to control  emissions of gaseous hydrocarbons and  organic
particulates from the saturator, wet looper, coater, asphalt storage
tanks, and asphalt blowing stills.   For asphalt blowing stills, only
afterburners or some other type of combustion device are known to  be used
as the final control device.
     Afterburners are classified as either thermal  (i.e., direct flame)
or catalytic.  The primary advantage of catalytic afterburners is  that
they use much less supplemental fuel than an equivalent thermal after-
burner.  Catalytic afterburners are not used or recommended for control
of hydrocarbon emissions from asphalt roofing plants because the catalyst
is subject to rapid poisoning and plugging due to constituents of  the
                             15
fumes from asphalt processes.
     Thermal afterburners destroy combustible pollutants through
oxidation to C02 and water.  Temperatures of 650° to 760°C (1200°
to 1400°F), maintained for 0.1 to 0.3 seconds of fume  residence time, are
sufficient to obtain nearly complete oxidation of most combustible
pollutants.    Destruction of most hydrocarbons occurs rapidly at  593°
to 649°C (1100° to 1200°F), but destruction of some organic compounds,
                                   4-17

-------
such as methane, and the oxidation of CO to CCL requires longer residence
times and higher temperatures.  Temperatures of 760° to 816°C (1400°
to 1500°F) may be required if the methane content of the hydrocarbon is
over 1000 ppm.     Large droplets (50 to 100 micron) require longer
residence times at the above temperatures; however, these large droplets
are also easily removed in simple cyclones and knockout vessels.
     The steps involved in dilute fume incineratiog are shown
schematically in Figure 4-7.  As. shown in the figure, part of the fume
stream is sometimes bypassed around the fuel  combustion process to pre-
clude flame quenching and combustion instability.  In the case of exhaust
streams containing emissions from asphalt blowing, it is common to use
only outside air in the combustion of fuel, since burner fouling is a
problem.  For other asphalt roofing processes, burner fouling seems to be
less of a problem, and the fume strean is often used as a major source of
combustion air.  The fume not used for combustion must then be mixed with
the hot combustion products to give a uniform temperature to all fume
flowing through the afterburner.  This mixing should be done as rapidly
as possible without causing flame quenching so that sufficient residence
time can be provided at the required temperature.  Temperature and
residence time are somewhat interchangeable;  a higher temperature allows
use of a shorter residence time and vice versa.  This is illustrated in
Figure 4-8, which indicates that for a 0.1  second residence time the
efficiency of pollutant oxidation varies from 90 percent at 666°C (1231°F)
to 100 percent at 725°C (1337°F).  For a 1.0 second residence time, the
efficiency varies from 90 percent at 623°C (1153°F) to 100 percent at
666°C (1231°F).
     The typical effect of operating temperature on the effectiveness of
thermal afterburner destruction of hydrocarbons is shown in Figure 4-9.
The figure shows that the efficiency of hydrocarbon destruction varies
from about 90 percent to almost 100 percent over a temperature range of
about 677°C to 760°C (1250°F to 1400°F).  For a given level of pollutant
destruction for different afterburner designs, the major factor that
influences the residence time required at a given operating temperature
[above about 538°C (1000°F)] is the effectiveness with which the fume is
                                  4-18

-------
SUPPLEMENTAL
   FUEL
OUTSIDE AIR
DILUTE FUME
                     FUEL
                   COMBUSTION
               MIXING  OF  FUME
                  AND  HOT
               COMBUSTION  GASES
A
 I
 I  FUME MAY BE USED TO
 •  SUPPLY COMBUSTION
   AIR.  OUTSIDE AIR
 1  NEEDED IF  FUME  FOULS
 I     BURNER.
 RETENTION OF
 FUME AT HIGH
 TEMPERATURE
FOR SUFFICIENT
     TIME
                                                                        A
                                                                   CLEAN  EFFLUENT
                     Figure  4-7.   Steps  required  for  successful  incineration
                       of combustible  dilute  fumes  in a  thermal  afterburner.15

-------
                        100
I
ro
O
                            300         425
                           (570)       (800)
 540
(1000)
650
(1200)
 760
(1400)
 870
(1600)
 980
(1800)
 1090
(1990)
                                                      Increasing Temperature  °C (8F)
                               Figure  4-8.  Coupled effects of time  and temperature on  rate of
                                                     pollutant  oxidation.15

-------
           100
            90
            80
        c
        o
        73
        B   70
            60
            50
Hydrocarbons
   Only
                                      Hydrocarbon + CO
                    650
                    (1200)
                   705
                  (1300)
 760
(1400)
 815
(1500)
                                    Temperature °C (°F)
 Figure  4-9.  Typical effect of operating temperature  on effectiveness of
thermal  afterburner for  destruction  of hydrocarbons and  carbon monoxide.15
                                       4-21

-------
 mixed with  the  combustion  products.   If  hydrocarbons  are  present  in  the
 exhaust  gas of  any  afterburner operating  at  a nominal combustion  chamber
 temperature above 760°C  (1400°F)  [or  above 649°C  (1200°F) for  all  but  a
 few  hydrocarbons],  it  is due  to poor  mixing  and non-uniform treatment  of
 the  fume stream or  too short  residence time  of  the  fume  at temperature.
 Typically,  afterburners  are designed  with  average residence times which
 vary from 0.1  to 0.5  seconds, but the amount of time  required  to  raise
 the  cold fume  up to the  desired temperature  often exceeds this average
 residence time. Also, not all portions  of the  fume  are  in the combustion
 chamber  an  equal  amount  of time;  some portions  are  swept  out very quickly
 while  others are retained  for an  appreciable time.   The  variation in
 residence time, which  is a function of flow  patterns  in  the combustion
 chanber, can appreciably affect  afterburner  performance.   In practice,
 operating personnel compensate for deficiencies in  design by increasing
 the  operating  temperature  of  the  thermal  afterburners during the  start-up
 phase  until  a  temperature  is  reached  which produces  the  desired pollutant
 destruction.
      Little maintenance is required on most  thermal  afterburners. The
 main operating  problems involve  safety controls,  erosion  or cracking of
 refractory  linings, heat exchanger fouling,  or  mechanical  failure and
.bearing  failure in  the fans.
      The major distinguishing feature of thermal  afterburners, as compared
 to non-combustion control  techniques  for hydrocarbons, is the  use of
 fuel.   Because exhaust gases  from the afterburner are typically at 649°
 to 816°C (1200° to  1500°F), many  asphalt roofing  plants  use heat
 exchangers  to recover the  waste  heat. This  recovered waste heat  may be
 used for many of the  plant processes.
      Thermal afterburners, like  all combustion  sources,  have the  potential
 for generating secondary pollutants due  to oxidation  of  nitrogen, sulfur,
 and metals  in the fume or  fuel.   Thermal  afterburners,  in comparison with
 power plant boilers and industrial furnaces, have low NOX emissions
 because of  their lower operating  temperatures.   The low  operating tempera-
 tures and dilution  of combustion  products by excess air  and  fume  results
                                                16                 2
 in a NO  effluent concentration  of 5  to  15 ppm.     Emissions  of  SO
        /\
 depend on the  sulfur  content  of  the  fuel  burned and on  the  sulfur content

                                   4-22

-------
of the fume because almost TOO percent of this sulfur will be converted
to S02.
     4.3.2.4  Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP).   Low voltage
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) can be used to  control  inorganic and
hydrocarbon particulate mass emissions from asphalt saturators, wet
loopers, and coaters.  Initial applications of ESP for control  of emissions
from these  sources resulted in high maintenance costs due to the design
of the .ESP.  Common problems included the need for frequent shutdown to
clean the  sticky asphalt from the ESP components, failure of power packs
which cause shutdown of entire ESP units, and ionizer wire breakage.
To overcome these problems, one manufacturer introduced a modular
electrostatic precipitator.  The modular electrostatic precipitator
concept is  illustrated in Figures 4-10 and 4-11.   The basic building
block of the modular ESP incorporates a prefilter, ionizer, collecting
cell, after-filter, and a solid-state power pack  in a self-contained
unit.  The  collecting components slide out for easy cleaning.  The
contaminated air stream first passes through the  mechanical prefilter,
which consists of a fiber glass mat or a'continuous self-cleaning metallic
filter, to  remove the larger particulates.  A single large prefilter is
generally used in the roofing industry rather than the modular type shown
in Figures  4-10 and 4-11.  The contaminated stream next passes through an
ionizer section where it is subjected to an intense electrostatic field
(12,000 volts) resulting in an electrical charge  being imparted to the
particles.  The ionized particles are then collected on oppositely charged
plates in the collecting cell.  The function of the after-filter is to
aid  in air  distribution and to prevent re-entrainment of any particulate
draining off the collecting cells.  The liquids collected on the plates
and  after-filter are drained to a sump and recovered.  In this design
each module has its own power supply; therefore,  a power pack failure will
affect only one module.  Modules can be ranoved individually for cleaning
or servicing without shutting down the ESP.  Because the individual
module components can be submerged in a detergent or solvent bath for
washing, the potential exists for more effective  cleaning; thus, the
design efficiency can be maintained.
                                  4-23

-------
I
rv>
                                  Module 1
                   Module 2
                                   Pass 1
                     Pass  2
                        I
                     Stage  1
          I   T
Stage 2  Stage 1
Stage 2
                                                1. MECHANICAL PRE-FILTER
                                                2. HIGH EFFICIENCY IONIZER
                                                3. COLLECTING CELL
                                                4. AFTER FILTER
                                                5. BLOWER
                   Figure  4-10.   Schematic of a two-pass modular electrostatic predpHator.17

-------
        DETAIL OF TYPICAL MODULE
                                       AFTER-FILTER
BYPASS STACK
 FIRE DAMPER
                        COLLECTING:
                        COMPONENTS
CLEANED DHAUST

  .    I
                                                               EXHAUST'FAN
                                                               VOLUME CONTROL
                                                                  DAMPER
              MODULE (ONE.-STAGE ESP)


           TWO-PASS'MODULAR
             ELECTROSTATIC
             PRECIPITATOR
                                              PREFILTE*
                 FUME-LADEN AIR
      Figure  4-11.   Modular electrostatic precipitator.
                                                                   18.19
                                    4-25

-------
     The variables which affect the collection efficiency of the low
voltage ESP are particle size,  particle resistivity,  area of the
                                                         20
collecting electrodes, gas temperature, and gas velocity.
     The larger particles are easier to collect.  High resistivity
particles can form an insulating layer on the surface of the collecting
electrode.  If this happens, the particles will leave the electrode and
re-enter the gas stream.  The area of the collecting  electrodes is used
in the calculations to determine the size and to predict the efficiency
of the ESP.  In organic liquid  particulate, the fume  temperature deter-
mines the percentage of the fume present as a particulate to be collected.
The gas flow is critical; if the gas velocity exceeds the design gas
velocity, some particles could be reintroduced in the gas stream.  The
effects of these variables are  discussed in detail  in the
           20-22
references.       One advantage of the modular ESP is that, to some
extent, the above variables can be compensated for by adding more modules
in series or in parallel.  For example, the modular ESP shown in
Figure 4-11 is a two-pass system since the gas must pass through two
modules in series.  Each module, in turn, is a two stage precipitator
because the fumes are ionized and collected sequentially (these opera-
                                                                   18
tions are performed simultaneously in a single stage precipitator).
Three-pass systems are sometimes used to control emissions from sources
in the asphalt roofing industry.
     In order to increase the efficiency of the ESP,  pre-cooling of the
yas is recommended.  Pre-cooling can be accomplished  by the use of dilu-
tion air, a pre-chamber using water sprays, or a shell and tube heat
exchanger.  The advantages and disadvantages of these three methods are
discussed in detail in Section 4.3.2.1.
     Advantages of the ESP are its low power consumption and low system
pressure drop.  Power requirements of the ESP are about 100 watts maximum
per 0.472 m /s (1000 actual cubic ft/min) of exhaust flow at a pressure
                                                  •I Q
drop of 50 to 150 Pa (0.2 in to 0.6 in.) of water.    A typical modular
ESP installed at an asphalt roofing plant requires 22.4 kW (30 fan horse-
                        23
power) to provide draft.
     Disadvantages of the modular ESP include lack of control of gaseous
emissions and odors; the problems associated with the handling and cleaning

                                   4-26

-------
of the collecting components; disposal of the single-use prefilter; and
cleaning of the reuseable filter now in use at some installations.
According to an industry source, a major disadvantage in the use of an
ESP control system is the lack of expertise by plant engineering and
                                                                    24
maintenance personnel for installation and maintenance of the units.
     4.3.2.5  Fabric Filters.  The handling of sand, talc, mineral
stabilizer (filler), granules, and mica causes emissions of inorganic
particulates during  receiving, storage, transfer, and application
operations."" Emissions from those operations involving granules may be
minimized by purchase of granules which have been washed and oiled (or
dyed).  Emissions involving the other materials are controlled by transfer
within closed systems, capture of emissions at the area of application
(via hoods or enclosures), and the venting of these emissions to fabric
filter col lectors.
     Although tests  of baghouses collecting these anissions at asphalt
roofing plants were  not performed, it is well  documented that fabric
.filters used in other operations collecting dust from like materials have
                                                25
collection efficiencies in excess of 99 percent.    Outlet grain
loadings, recorded during emission tests at several crushed stone
facilities processing and handling a variety of types of rock, seldom
exceeded 2.28 x 10~5 kg/m3 (0.01 gr/DSCF) and visible emissions from the
                                      OC
baghouse stack were  consistently zero.
     There are three basic designs used in fabric filter baghouse
construction:  the open pressure, the closed pressure, and the closed
suction baghouse.  The fans for both the open and closed pressure bag-
houses are located on the dirty gas side of the system.  The fan for the
closed suction baghouse is located on the discharge or clean side of the
baghouse.  There are two major bag shapes, the envelope and the tube, and
they are constructed of woven cloth or felted cloth.  Several  materials
are used:  wool, cotton, synthetics, and fiber glass.
     There are several methods of cleaning filter cloths in a baghouse.
Fabric flexing and reverse air flow through the bag are the two general
methods of bag cleaning.  Manual  shaking, mechanical shaking,  and air
shaking are the three methods considered as fabric flexing.  Air shaking
can be accomplished  four ways:  air bubbling,  jet pulsing, reverse air

                                  4-27

-------
flexing, and sonic vibration.  Reverse air flow is divided into three
methods:  repressuring cleaning, atmospheric cleaning, and reverse jet
cleaning.  Typical air to cloth ratios in conventional baghouses vary
from 0.5 to 1.0 m3/s/m2 (1.0 to 2.0 cfm/ft2) for fumes.
4.4  PERFORMANCE OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
     Data from tests performed by local agencies or plant owners cannot,
in general, be correlated with the data from EPA test methods for asphalt
roofing plants.  Also, process data, test methods, and sample analysis
methods are not generally described in local agency or plant owner reports.
However, in this section, discussion concerning performance of control
systems is based on those tests performed as a part of this study and on
tests conducted by an industry source  using EPA Test Method 26.
     Tables 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 present a summary of emission data
obtained during this study by measurement of emissions at asphalt roofing
plants  using various control systems.  Analysis of the data in Tables 4-4,
4-5, and 4-6 shows that the  average particulate inlet  loadings for the
saturators at  plants A, B, C, and D were 0.238, 0.327, 1.57, and
0.16 kg/Mg of  shingle (0.475, 0.653, 3.143 and 0.32 Ib/ton) respectively,
while the average production rates were 27.8, 37.0, 19.1, and 43.3 Mg/h
(30.7,  40.8, 21.0, and 47.7  tons/h) respectively.  Plant A has a dip
saturator which is enclosed  along with the wet looper  and coater in a
boxlike structure with removable doors.  Emissions are ducted to two
electrostatic  precipitators  for control.  Plant B has  a dip saturator
which,  along with the wet looper and coater, is surrounded by a large
enclosure with sliding doors.  One surge tank and six  asphalt storage
tanks are vented  to one afterburner with part of  the  emissions from the
above enclosure; another afterburner controls the rest of the emissions
from the saturator, wet looper, and coater.  Plant C  has a spray-dip
saturator enclosed along with the wet  looper and coater; the enclosure
has vertical sliding doors.  The emissions from this  enclosure are ducted
to a HVAF for  control.  Plant D has a  dip saturator and wet looper
enclosed by a  hood with an opening extending to about  six feet above  the
floor.  The emissions from the coater  are ducted  to another HVAF for
control and were  not  sampled.   Plants  A, C, and D would be expected to
generate similar  quantities  of pollutants; plant  B might be expected  to

                                 4-28

-------
 TABLE 4-4. EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT A (METRIC)
SOURCE - SATURATOR; CONTROL - ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP)

Measurement parameter
Participate
g/Nm3
g/m3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
g/Nm3
kg/h
Control eff. % - particulate
HC
Combined aprticulate + HC
PCM
Volume flow rates Nm /s
m3/s
Fume temp. - °C
Control device temp. - °C
Line speed particulate runs - m/s
Felt width - cm
Shingle production rate - Mg/h
Felt usage rate - Mg/h
Inlet
0.1494
0.1300
6.7585
0.2380
2.0270
0.0279
1.2383
0.0450
0.3800

0.1785
7.8562
0.2800
2.40
13.0700
5.8513
—
12.33
14.14
52

Outlet 1
0.0117
0.0101
0.2585
0.0190
0.1580
0.0304
0.6713
0.0480
0.4100

0.0412
0.9299
0.0670
0.5700
—
92.20
Neg.
76.30
6.12
7.14
58
52
1.77
91.44
27.85
3.27
Outlet 2
0.0089
0.0076
O.T814
0.0130
0.1110
0.0332
0.6849
0.0490
0.4200

0.0421
0.8663
0.0620
0.5300
—
94.50
Neg.
77.90
5.72
6.64
57

Total outlet
0.0103
0.0089
0.4399
0.0160
0.1350
0.0318
1.3562
0.0485
0.4150

0.0416
1.7962
0.0645
0.5500
6.3600
2.6853
93.35
Neg.
77.10
54.10
11.84
13.78
58 (Avg.)

                             4-29

-------
TABLE 4-4a.   EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT A (ENGLISH)
                     SOURCE - SATURATOR
         CONTROL - ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP)

Measurement parameter Inlet
Participate
gr/DSCF 0.0653
gr/acf 0.0568
Ib/h 14.5900
Ib/ton shingle 0.4750
Ib/ton felt 4.0530
Gaseous hydrocarbon
gr/DSCF 0.0122
Ib/h 2.7300
Ib/ton shingle 0.0890
Ib/ton felt 0.7580
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
gr/DSCF 0.0780
Ib/h 17.3200
Ib/ton shingle 0.5640
Ib/ton felt 4.8110
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
gr/DSCF x 10"6 5.71
Ib/h x 10"3 12.90
Control eff. % - particulate —
HC
Combined particulate + HC
POM
Volume flow rates DSCFM 26,131
acfm 29,959
Fume temp. - °F 126
Control device temp. - °F v
Line speed particulate runs - fpm
Felt width - in.
Shingle production rate - tons/h
Felt usage rate - tons/h
Outlet 1

0.0051
0.0044
0.5700
0.0370
0.3160

0.0133
1.4800
0.0960
0.8220


0.0180
2.0500
' 0.1340
1.1380

..
--
92.20
Neg.
76.30
—
12,975
15,120
136
126
348
36

3.60
Outlet 2

0.0039
0.0033
0.4000
0.0260
0.2220

0.0145
1.5100
0.0980
0.8380


0.0184
1.9100
0.1240
1.0620

„
—
94.50
Neg.
77.90
--
12,114
14,074
135



30.70

Total outlet

0.0045
0.0039
0.9700
0.0320
0.2690

0.0139
2.9900
0.0970
0.8310


0.0182
3.9600
0.1290
1.1000

2.78
5.92
93.35
Neg.
77.10
54.10
25,089
29,194
136





                            4-30

-------
                              TABLE  4-5.   EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT B (METRIC)
                                              SOURCES - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                     CONTROL - AFTERBURNER
I
to

Measurement parameter
Participate
g/Nm3
g/m
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Polycyclic organic matter
(POM)
g/Nm3 x 10-3
kg/h x 10-3
Inlet 1
0.4119
0.3318
5.4880
0.048
0.617
0.032
0.272

0.460
5.942
0.310
2.620
0.924
12.20
Outlet 1
0.0549
0.0275
1.2250
0.030b
0.689
0.036
0.304

0.085
1.914
0.100
0.844
1.021
23.179
Inlet 2
0.6018a
0.4554
7.0760
0.089
0.993
0.052
0.438

0.691
8.074
0.420
3.560
w_
Outlet 2 .
0.0229
0.0114
0.4990
0.050
1.089
0.057
0.240

0.073
1.588
0.083
0.700
-» .
Total in
0.5080
0.3936
12.565
0.3270
2.7700
0.069
1.610
0.042
0.355

0.577
14.197
0.369
3.130
— _
Total out Storage tanks
0.0389 0.0776
0.0183
1.724 1.00
0.0450
0.3800
0.041
1.778 0.331
0.046
0.392 — '

0.080
3.502 1.329
0.091
0.770
— « __

-------
                                   TABLE 4-5.   EPA  TEST  DATA  AT  ASPHALT  ROOFING  PLANT B (METRIC)
                                               SOURCES - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                      CONTROL - AFTERBURNER
                                                            (concluded)
GO
ro

Measurement parameter Inlet 1
Aldehydes
kg/h
Control eff. % -
Particulate
HC
Combined particulate + HC
Volume flow rates
Nm3/s 3.72
m3/s 4.66
Fume temp. - °C 102
Combustion temp. - °C
Line speed particulate runs - m/s
Felt width - cm
Shingle production rate - Mg/h
Felt usage rate - Mg/h
Outlet 1


77.60
Neg.
67.20
6.38
12.49
281
538
1.69
124.50
37.00
4.30
Inlet 2 Outlet 2
0.153 0.43

92.90
1.60
80.70
3.19 6.13
4.25 13.88
95 364
649

Total in Total out Storage tanks


86.30
Neg.
74..80
6.91 12.52 0.38
8.92 26.37 0.43
98 322


        Results of one particulate run (of three) on  the  control  device  inlet were deleted because catch
       .was excessive.
        Results of one gaseous HC run (of three)  on the control  device outlets were deleted.

-------
                              TABLE 4-5a.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT B (ENGLISH)
                                               SOURCES - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                      CONTROL - AFTERBURNER
       Measurement  parameter
                            Inlet 1   Outlet 1  Inlet 2  Outlet 2  Total in  Total  out  Storage tanks
OJ
CO
Particulate

     gr/dscf                 0.180     0.024     0.2633    0.010     0.222     0.017
     gr/acf                  0.145     0.012     0.199     0.005     0.172     0.008
     Ib/h                   12.100     2.700    15.600     1.100    27.700     3.800
     Ib/ton shingle           0.571     0.127     0.736     0.052     0.653     0.090
     Ib/ton felt              4.850     1.080     6.240     0.440     5.540     0.760

Gaseous  hydrocarbon

     gr/dscf                 0.021     0.013b    0.039     0.022     0.030     0.018
     Ib/h                    1.360     1.520     2.190     2.400     3.550     3.920
     Ib/ton shingle           0.064     0.072     0.103     0.113     0.084     0.092
     Ib/ton felt              0.544     0.608     0.876     0.480     0.710     0.784

Combined particulate  and
  hydrocarbon  (HC)

     gr/dscf                 0.201     0.037     0.302     0.032     0.252     0.035
     Ib/h                   13.100     4.220    17.800     3.500    31.300     7.720
     Ib/ton shingle           0.620     0.199     0.840     0.165     0.738     0.182
     Ib/ton felt              5.240     1.688     7.120     1.400     6.260     1.540

Polycyclic organic matter
  (POM)

     gr/dscf x lO'6         404       446
     Ib/h x 10-3             26.90     51.10
                                                                                                   0.0339

                                                                                                   2.20
                                                                                                   0.73
                                                                                                   2.93

-------
                              TABLE 4-5a.   EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT B (ENGLISH)
                                           SOURCES - SATURATOR  AND  STORAGE  TANKS
                                                   CONTROL  - AFTERBURNER
                                                        (concluded)
I
CO

Measurement parameter Inlet 1 Outlet 1 Inlet 2
Aldehydes
Ib/h — — 0.337
Control eff. % -
particulate — 77.6
HC — Neg.
Combined particulate + HC — 67.20
Volume flow rates
DSCFM 7,883 13,538 6,768
acfm 9,884 26,466 9,010
Fume temp. - °F 215 537 203
Combustion temp. - °F 1,000
Line speed particulate runs - fpm 333
Felt width - in. 49
Shingle production rate - tons/h 40.80
Felt usage rate - tons/h 4.74 -
Outlet 2
0.950
92.9
1.60
80.70

12,995
29,412
687
1,200
Total in Total out Storage tanks

86. 30
Neg.
74.80

14,651 26,533 796
18,894 55,878 911
209 612

        Results of one particulate run (of three) on  the  control  device inlet were deleted because catch
        was excessive.
        Results of one gaseous HC run (of three)  on the control  device outlets were deleted.

-------
TABLE 4-6.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS C AND D (METRIC)
             SOURCE - PLANT C - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                         PLANT D - SATURATOR
                 CONTROL - HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTER

Plant C
Measurement parameter
Participate
g/Nm3
T
g/nr
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
g/Nm
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg shingle
kg/Mg felt
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
g/Nm3 x 10"3
kg/h x 10"J
Sulfur dioxide (SO 2)
g/Nm3 x 10"3
kg/h
Control Eff. % - particulate
HC
Combined particulate + HC
POM
Volume flow rates
Nm3/s
m /s
Inlet

0.9565
0.8146
29.94
1.5700
--

0.0778
2.42
0.1300
--


1.0343
32.36
1.7000
--

1.226
40.05

— ^
--
__
--
—
_-

8.71
10.21
Outlet

0.0160
0.0137
0.50
0.0270
--

0.0915
3.02
0.1600
--


0.1075
3.52
0.1800
--

0.103
3.58

14.370
0.485
98.30
Neg.
89.10
80.40

9.29
10.66
Plant D
Inlet Outlet

0.1442 0.0297
—
6.93 1.53
0.1600 0.0350
1.2500 0.2800

..
2.05
0.047
0.370


..— __
3.57
0.087
0.640

M — — —
-- "-

• •• M ••
--
77.90
a a
50.703
-_ __

13.27 13.89
—
                            4-35

-------
     TABLE 4-6.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS C AND D (METRIC)
                  SOURCE - PLANT C - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                              PLANT D - SATURATOR
                       CONTROL - HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTER
                               (concluded)

Measu
Fume
rement
temp. -
parameter
°C

Plant
Inlet
61

C
Outlet
52

Plant
Inlet
69

D

Outlet
74

Control device temp. - °C                  43                69
Line speed particulate runs - m/s           1.16              2.00
Felt width - cm                            91.44            121.90
Shingle production rate - Mg/h             19.05             43.27
Felt usage rate - Mg/h                       —               5.53

 Since gaseous HC was not measured at the control device inlet, its ability
 to control gaseous HC could not be estimated.   Overall control efficiency
 was estimated using the assumption that gaseous HC would neither increase
 nor decrease across the control device.
                                 4-36

-------
TABLE 4-6a.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS C AND D (ENGLISH)
              SOURCE - PLANT C - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                         PLANT D - SATURATOR
                 CONTROL - HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTER

Measurement parameter
Participate
gr/DSCF
gr/acf
Ib/h
Ib/ton shingle
Ib/ton felt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
gr/DSCF
Ib/h
Ib/ton shingle
Ib/ton felt
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
gr/DSCF
Ib/h
Ib/ton shingle
Ib/ton felt
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
gr/DSCF x 10"6
Ib/h x 10~3
Sulfur dioxide (SO )
gr/DSCF x 10"3
Ib/h
Control Eff. % - Particulate
HC
Combined particulate + HC
POM
Volume flow rates
DSCFM
acfm
Plant
Inlet
0.418
0.356
66.000
3.143
0.034
5.340
0.254

0.452
71.340
3.397
536.00
88.30
—
—
18,462
21,636
C
Outlet
0.007
0.005
1.110
0.053
0.040
6.650
0.317

0.047
7.760
0.370
44.90
7.89
6.28
1.07
98.30
Neg
89.10
80.40
19,681
22,595
Plant D
Inlet Outlet
0.063 0.013
15.270 3.370
0.320 0.071
2.503 0.552
4.510
0.095
0.739

7.880
0.165
1.292
._
—
77.90
60. 70a
28,118 29,437
                            4-37

-------
   TABLE 4-6a.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS C AND D (ENGLISH)
              SOURCE - PLANT C - SATURATOR AND STORAGE TANKS
                         PLANT D - SATURATOR
                  CONTROL - HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTER
                              (concluded)


Plant C
Measurement parameter Inlet Outlet
Fume temp. - °C
Control device temp. - °F
Line speed particulate runs - fpm
Felt width - in.
Shingle production rate - tons/h
Felt usage rate - tons/h
142 126
109
251
36
21.00
--
Plant D
Inlet Outlet
156 166
156
395
48
47.70
6.10
aSince gaseous HC was not measured at the control  device inlet, its ability
 to control gaseous HC could not be estimated.   Overall  control efficiency
 was estimated using the assumption that gaseous HC would neither increase
 nor decrease across the control device.
                                 4-38

-------
       TABLE 4-7.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT E (METRIC)
                          SOURCE - BLOWING STILLS
                           CONTROL - AFTERBURNER

Measurement parameter
Participate
g/Nm3
g/m3
kg/h
kg/Mg asphalt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg asphalt
Combined particulate and
hydrocarbon (HC)
g/Nm3
kg/h
kg/Mg asphalt
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
g/Nm3 x 10"3
kg/h
Aldehydes
g/Nm3
kg/h
Control eff. % - particulate
HC
Combined particulate + HC
POM
Aldehydes + HC
Volume flow rates
Nm3/s
m3/s
Fume temp. - °C
Saturant
Inlet

27.87
10.47
80.01
3.30

5.180
16.03
0.662


33.071
96.04
3.962

— —
--

__
--
— —
—
—
--
—

0.90
2.31
199
asphalt
Outlet

0.364
0.185
5.58
0.230

0.021
0.29
0.012


0.385
.5.87
0.242

•• v
—

— —
— —
93.40
98.30
94.20
--
—

4.21
8.15
199
Coating
Inlet

33.41
13.52
98.61
12.21

4.391
14.03
1.740


37.80
112.64
13.95

113.75
396.68

1.041
0.35
•• —
—
--
--
—

0.91
2.28
216
asphalt
Outlet

0.210
0.117
3.27
0.405

0.043
0.68
0.085


0.253
3.95
0.490

0.075
1.16

0.009
0.01
96.70
95.20
96.50
99.90
99.10

4.29
8.10
196
Combustion temp. - °C
816
816
                                  4-39

-------
TABLE 4-7a.  EPA TEST DATA AT ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT E (ENGLISH)
                   SOURCE - BLOWING STILLS
                    CONTROL - AFTERBURNER

Measurement parameter
Participate
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/h
Ib/ton asphalt
Gaseous hydrocarbon
gr/dscf
Ib/h
Ib/ton asphalt
Combined parti cu late and
hydrocarbon JHC]
gr/dscf
Ib/h
Ib/ton asphalt
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
gr/dscf x 10'6
Ib/h x 10"3
Aldehydes
gr/dscf
Ib/h
Control eff. % - particulate
HC
Combined particulate + HC
POM
Aldehydes + HC
Volume flow rates
DSCFM
ACFM
Fume temp. - °F
Combustion temp. - °F
Saturant
Inlet
12.180
4.577
176.400
6.607
2.264
35.330
1.323

14.454
211. "730
7.930
—

— ~
—

asphalt
Outlet
0.159
0.081
12.300
0.461
0.009
0.650
0.024

0.168
12.950
0.485
- 49

—
93.40
98.30
94.20

1,916 8,928 1
4,904 17,265 4
390
1500
390
Coating
Inlet
14.600
5.907
217.400
24.427
1.919
30.940
3.476

16.519
248.340
27.903
,708
815

0.455
0.780
—

,937
,826 1
420
asphalt
Outlet
0.096
0.051
7.200
0.809
0.019
1.510
0.170

0.115
8.710
0.979
32.76
2.55

0.004
0.024
96.70
95.20
96.50
99.50
99.10

9,089
7,169
385
1500
                           4-40

-------
have higher emissions since the surge tank and storage tank emissions are
ducted together with the asphalt line emissions.
     No nrini-HVAF units were tested.  However, comparable efficiencies
should be achievable with the mini-HVAF under similar operating
procedures.
     Four emission tests were conducted at plant A on the ESP controlling
emissions from the satyrator and coater.  The results are depicted
graphically in Figure 4-12.  During the first emission test, a visible
plume was observed from the outlet stacks of the ESP.  This plume varied
in opacity from 5 to 15 percent.  After the first emission test was
completed, the ESP was cleaned and minor maintenance performed.  A visible
plume was not observed during the last three emission tests.  The
collection efficiency for the first test was 88.3 percent.  The average
collection efficiency for the last three tests was 95.7 percent.
     At plant B the emissions from the two afterburners controlling
emissions from the saturator and coater were measured.  The results of
the tests are displayed for each afterburner and for .both afterburners
combined in Figure 4-12.  The afterburners were operated at different
temperatures.  The afterburner operating at 538°C (1000°F) had an average
collection efficiency of 77.7 percent, and the afterburner operating at
649°C (1200°F) had an average efficiency of 95.2 percent.  The emissions
from the afterburner operating at 538°C (1000°F) were:  1.04 kg/h
(2.3 Ib/h); 1.32 kg/h (2.9 Ib/h); and 1.36 kg/h (3.0 Ib/h) for an average
of 1.22 kg/h (2.7 Ib/h).  The emissions from the afterburner operating at
649°C (1200°F) were:  0.36 kg/h (0.8 Ib/h); 0.41 kg/h (0.9 Ib/h) and
0.68 kg/h (1.5 Ib/h) for an average of 0.5 kg/h (1.1 Ib/h).
     Discussion on the performance of capture and control options are
contained in the following paragraphs.
4.4.1  Performance of Capture Systems
     The performance of capture systems varies greatly depending on the
construction and operation of the system.  Canopy type enclosures used
for the saturator, wet looper, and coater generally achieve poor capture
whereas the total enclosure type hoods achieve very good emission capture
when properly operated.  Closed systems can provide very good capture of
                                  4-41

-------






I/)
c
0
10
OJ
-------
 emissions  from  mineral  products  handling  and storage and from asphalt
 truck  unloading.
     4.4.1.1  Capture Systems  for Collecting Fumes  from  the Saturator,
 Wet  Looper, and Coater.   Data  in  Table  4-8  show  that emissions  from  the
 hooded enclosures  were  generally  visible  almost  100 percent of  the  time
 and  ranged  up to 20 percent  opacity.  Fugitive emissions from the
 saturator,  wet  looper,  and coater enclosures at  plants tested arev
 summarized  in Table 4-8,  and detailed data  are reported  in  Appendix  C.
 Fugitive emissions  from the  canopy hood-type capture system were generally
 less than  20 percent opacity while those  from the enclosures  were
 generally  less  than 10  percent opacity.   At plants tested, the flow
 rates  used  for  ventilation varied from  about 7.08 Mm /s  [15,000 dry
 standard cubic  feet per minute (DSCFM)] for a full  enclosure  to about
 14.16  Nm3/s  (30,000 dscfm) for a  hood.  Since the 7.08 Nm3/s
 (15,000 DSCFM)  was  measured  with  one door of the enclosure  open (see
 Figure 4-1), it is  probable  that  all emissions from the  saturator, wet
 looper, and coater  can  be captured with exhaust  ventilation rates of
 4.7  Nm3/s  (10,000  DSCFM).
     Fugitive emissions from the  three  total  enclosure type hoods varied
 from 0 to  >10 percent opacity.  For the best hood observed,  there were no
 visible emissions when  all but one of the hood doors  were closed.
 Emissions were  light but constant when more  than one  door was open.
     4.4.1.2  Capture Systems  for Other Emission Sources.   As discussed
 in Section 4.3.1, the systems  used  for the  capture  of emissions from
 asphalt blowing  stills, asphalt storage and  transfer  systems, and the
 coater-mixer are primarily closed  systems.   Similarly, closed systems can
 be used to capture  emissions from  mineral  products  delivery,  storage and
 transfer, and asphalt truck  unloading.   If  properly  installed and
maintained, closed  systems provide  100 percent capture of all potential
emissions.   Visible  emissions were  tested  at one asphalt roofing plant
while  asphalt was being unloaded.   The results of the emission  testing
showed  that the  capture system for asphalt unloading was  performing
effectively and  visible emissions were not observed.
     Tests  were  not  performed on  systems designed to capture emissions
from mineral surfacing and granule  application areas.  The development by
                                 4-43
-------
                         TABLE  4-8.    SUMMARY  OF  FUGITIVE  EMISSIONS  DATA  FROM CAPTURE  SYSTEMS
Plant
A




B



C-l




C-2

D-1




0-2




Number of
Source observers
Asphalt 2
saturator

Wet looper 2
and coaler
Asphalt 2
saturator.
wet looper.
and coater
Asphalt 2
saturator

Wet looper 2
and coater
HVAF. 2
Inlet duct
Asphalt 2
saturator

Wet looper 2
and coater
Asphalt 2
unloading
tanker transfer
to storage tanks

Total
Emissions
observation Emission Type and
time (hours) location color frequency
12 Saturator
and wet looper

12 Coater

12 Top 1 ft
of door
openings

6 Saturator


6 Coater

12 HVAF/duct
Interface
10. 6 Coater end
of hood

1.0 Top of hood
(2 holes)
6 Pipe
connection

Hatch cover

None


White
fumes
Gray
fumes


White
puffs

White
fumes
White
puffs
Gray
fumes

Gray
funies
None


Gray
fumes
N/A


Constant

Intermittent0



Intermittent


Variable
but constant
Intermittent

Almost
constant

Constant

N/A

A
Intermittent

Opacity
range .
percent* Visible0
0
0

10
5
0-22
0-22


0-2
0-2.3

0.2-5.8
1.5-6.3
0 f
0-14r
0-15
0-10

20

0


0-1 Oe

0
0

100
100
34
31


7
38

100
100
0
20
98
93

100

0


10

51 .
Opacity0
0
0

100
100
17
5


0
0

10
20
0
0
52
39

100

0


10

I0» .
Opacity Comments
0
0

100
0
5
3


0
0

0
0
0
0
2
2

100

0


10

Enclosure houses saturator and Met
looper. Wet looper door open
during tests. Coater hooded. Data
recorded only during normal
operation.
Enclosure houses saturator, wet
looper, and coater. Coater door
open during tests. Data recording
halted only when line stopped.
Enclosure houses saturator and wet
looper. Coater hooded. Testing
Interrupted when more than one door
In enclosure was open.

Ducting not tightly sealed
at HVAF Inlet.
Saturator, wet looper, and coater
are hooded (no enclosure).
Data recorded only during
normal operation.

Tanker solid-coupled to piping
through a flexible hose. Tanker
hatch cover normally open 1-2 In.
for venting.

^Range of opacities after data collated Into 6-mlnute averages.
cPercent of total observation time opacities were visible, were 5 percent opacity or higher, or were 10 percent or higher.
 Emissions were  visible only when doors were open.  Unlike other tests, these were not halted when doors were open to correct process  problems
 .unless line was shut down.
 Emissions were  visible only when hatch cover was open more than 1-2 In.
 .Maximum opacity (30 percent) was experienced when hatch was  opened fully for 2 mln.
 Puffs lasted less than 15 s.  Maximum opacity was 10 percent.
-------
the  industry of capture  systems for  inorganic particulate has received
less attention than those for asphalt fume.  None of the systems currently
in use appear to perform adequately.  However, the mineral surfacing and
granule application areas are located inside the plant building and do
not  appear to discharge  any material to the atmosphere.
4.4.2  Performance of High Velocity Air Filter (HVAF) Systems
     Two HVAF units were tested. The HVAF at facility C controlled
emissions from a "spray and dip" type saturator,  coater, wet looper, and
storage tanks for an asphalt roofing plant operating at an average
production rate of 19.1 Mg/h (21 tons/h) of shingles.  The control
system incorporated water sprays to pre-cool the inlet gases to the HVAF
to about 49°C (120°F) and an automated system, based on pressure drop, to
advance the filter mat.  This system operated with an average particulate
removal efficiency of 98.3 percent based on an average inlet loading of
29.95 kg/h (66.0 Ib/h) and an outlet loading of 0.50 kg/h
(1.11 Ib/h).   Controlled emissions averaged 0.026 kg/Mg (0.053 Ib/ton)
of product, as shown for plant C in Figure 4-12.   Visible emissions from
the  stack of the control device varied from 0 to 5 percent opacity, as
shown in Table 4-9.
     The second HVAF unit controlled emissions from a "dip" type saturator
for  an asphalt roofing plant operating at an average production rate of
43.3 Mg/h (47.7 tons/h) of shingles (plant D).  No precooling was used,
and  the average temperature of the inlet gases to the HVAF was about 69°C
(156°F).  Tne filter mat was advanced by a timer.  This system operated
with an average particulate removal efficiency of 78 percent based on an
average inlet loading of 6.94 kg/h (15.3 Ib/h) and an outlet loading of
1.54 kg/h (3.4 Ib/h).  Controlled emissions averaged 0.035 kg/Mg
(0.07 Ib/ton) of product, as shown for plant D in Figure 4-12.  Visible
emissions from the stack of the control  device were about 15 percent
opacity as shown in Table 4-9.
     There are several  possible reasons  why the HVAF unit at plant D had
a  lower particulate removal  efficiency than the HVAF unit at plant C.
These reasons are discussed below.
     1.  The  timed advancement  of the filter mat  at plant D  could result
in reduced efficiency.   As  explained in  Section 4.3.2.1,  advancement of
                                 4-45
-------
                    TABLE 4-9-  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION TESTS - CONTROL DEVICE STACK OUTLET
                                                                                                27
-fi
I
en


Plant
ID
A
B

C
D
E
F



Process
source3
Saturator
Saturator

Saturator
Saturator
Still
Asphalt
storage
tanks

Control
device
ESP
A/B

HVAF
HVAF
A/B
Mist
el im.


No. of
stacks
2
2

1
1.
1
1




Stack No. of
No.
1 and 2
1
2
1
1 .
1
1


obs.
2-4
2
2
2
2
2
2


Total
msmt.
time
(hrs)
22.3
6.7
6.7
12.0
13.1
29.0
24.0


Percent time visi
exceeded listed

0
9
0
0
33
100
0
0



5
5
0
0
4
100
0
0



10
2
0
0
0
100
0
0



15
2
0
0
0
0
0
0


ble emissions
opacities'3

20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Opacity
range
0-18
0
0
0-5
10-15
0
0-0.4


       .Includes saturator, hot looper, stiking-in section, and coater.

        Detailed plots of opacity versus time are included in Appendix A.
-------
 too much filter material  or advancement of the filter too frequently will
 result  in  decreased  collection  efficiency due  to-excessive exposure of
 "uncaked"  filter media and the  resulting low pressure drop across the
 filter.   This  condition can also  occur if filter advance continues while
 the roofing  line is  shut off to repair a felt  break.   It should be noted
 that there were several  line stoppages during  the tests  cited  above.
      2.   The operating temperature of the control  device at plant C was
 about 55.5°C (132°F)  compared with an operating  temperature of about
 71.7°C  (161°F)  for plant D.   This could bias the measured particulate
 removal  efficiency of the HVAF  at plant D towards  the low side because
 some of  the  hydrocarbons  which  are particulates  at 55.5°C (132°F), and
 are  measured as  a  particulate by  the  EPA method,  would be gases  at 71.7°C
 (161°F)  and  would  thus pass  through the HVAF.  The greater visible
 emissions  from  plant  D,  as  compared with  plant C,  also support the argu-
 ment that  more  gaseous emissions  were present  in the  exhaust stream of
 plant D.   Gaseous  emissions  that  pass through  a  HVAF  could condense to
 form a visible  plume  upon coming  in contact  with the  cooler ambient air.
 In these tests,  the test  samples  were cooled to  38°C  (100°F) before the
 particulate  mass  fraction was collected.   Therefore,  part of the gaseous
 hydrocarbon  will  be condensed,  and  the measured  mass  of  particulate will
 be higher.   The  effect of this  is that the data  indicate the efficiency
 of removing  hydrocarbons  that are  condensible at  38°C (100°F)  and  not
 just the efficiency of removing the particulate  matter.
      Table 4-6 shows  only 0.04  kg/h (0.088 Ib/h) of POM  emissions  and
 2.42 kg/h  (5.34  Ib/h)  of  gaseous  HC emissions from the wet looper,
 saturator, and storage tank  compared  to 29.9 kg/h  (66 Ib/h) of total
 particulate  emissions.  The  HVAF  achieves  a 91.9 percent reduction  of  POM
emissions and no reduction of gaseous  hydrocarbons.
 4.4.3  Performance of  Afterburners
     Thermal  afterburners are used  in  this industry primarily  for  the
control  of pollutants  from asphalt  blowing stills, although in  a few
cases they have been used to  control  the pollutants from saturators and
other roofing line processes.  When properly designed, constructed, and
operated, thermal afterburners give good performance  in  the control of
                                  4-47
-------
organic participates, gaseous hydrocarbons, and POM's from sources within
the asphalt roofing industry.
     4.4.3.1  Afterburners Applied to the Saturator, Wet Looper, Coater,
and Storage Tanks.  Emission measurement tests were performed on one
asphalt plant where two identical afterburners were operated in parallel
to control the emissions from the saturator, wet looper, coater, and
storage tanks.  The emissions data for these parallel afterburners were
combined to reflect total  process emissions.  These data, plant B in
Figure 4-12, reflect an average controlled particulate emission level of
0.0465 kg/Mg (0.093 Ib/ton) of product.   Visible emissions from the
afterburners were less than one percent opacity as shown in Table 4-9.
The individual afterburners operated at particulate removal efficiencies
of 77.7 percent and 95.2 percent.  This difference is attributed to the
fact that the afterburner with the lower efficiency was operated at a
temperature of 538°C (1000°F), compared with an operating temperature of
649°C (1200°F) for the other.  As discussed in Section 4.3.2.3 and shown
in Figures 4-8 and 4-9, a temperature difference as small as 56°C (101°F)
easily accounts for a variation in efficiencies as large as that observed.
     If one assumes that both afterburners are operated at 649°C (1200°F)
and therefore achieve control efficiencies of 95,2 percent, the average
emission  level of 0.046 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) (total  from both afterburners)
shown in  Figure 4-12 would be reduced to 0.021 kg/Mg (0.042 Ib/ton) of
product.  Furthermore, if one combines the known data for operation of
these specific afterburners at temperatures of 538°C and 649°C (1000°F
and 1200°F) with  the information (see Section 4.3.2.3) that almost
100 percent of organic particulate and gaseous hydrocarbon can be
destroyed at temperatures of 704°C to 816°C (1300°F to 1500°F), then an
efficiency versus temperature curve can be constructed as shown in
Figure 4-13.  Based on this curve, if plant B were operated at 704°C
(1300°F), the removal efficiency would be 98 percent and controlled
emissions from plant B would be 0.0086 kg/Mg (0.017 Ib/ton) of product.
The data  in Table 4-5 show that the concentration  of HC and POM in the
fume from the saturator is small when compared to the concentration of
particulate.  The uncontrolled emissions from the  saturator and storage
tanks contain 0.012 kg/h (.027 Ib/h) of POM compared to 0.62 kg/h
                                 4-48
-------
as
 r
o
"o
c
CO
c
o
o
u
c
Q)
     100 f—
     90
     on
     80
•s    70
     60
                      Assumed 100%
                      destruction at
                     649°C to  760°C
                    (1300°F to  1500°F)
                       /
            Extrapolated
            98% efficiency at
            704°C
            (1300°F)
50
   538°C
(1000°F)
                    1
    1
   1
                   593°C
                 (1100°F)
 649°C
(1200°F)
  704°C
(1300°F)
 760°C
(1400°F)
       Figure 4-13.   Extrapolation of efficiency versus
      temperature curve  for the afterburners at Plant B.
                               4-49
-------
(1.36 Ib/h) of gaseous hydrocarbon and 5.49 kg/h (12.9 Ib/h)  of
participate.
     4.4.3.2  Afterburners Applied to Blowing Stills.   Emi s si on measure-
ments were performed on an afterburner used to control emissions from a
blowing still with the afterburner operating at about  816°C (1500°F).
Measured efficiencies of the afterburner were 95 percent and  96.7 percent
for the saturant and coating blows, respectively.  The fume from the
saturant blow had a higher concentration of particulate and HC than  the
fume from the coating blows.  The efficiency of HC destruction is directly
                                                             15
related to concentration, all other factors being equivalent.    Outlet
particulate emissions were .243 kg/m  (2.02 lb/1000 gal) of saturant
asphalt charged to the still and .405 kg/m3 (3.38 lb/1000 gal) of
coating asphalt.  These emission data are summarized in Table 4-7 and
Figure 4-14.  No visible emissions were observed from  the afterburner
(Table 4-9) for either the saturant or the coating blowing  cycles.
     This afterburner demonstrated a 98.2 and 95.0 percent  reduction of
the gaseous hydrocarbon emissions for the'saturant and coating blows,
respectively, and a 99.7 percent reduction of ROM's for the coating  blows.
The incomplete destruction of particulate and gaseous  hydrocarbons at the
afterburner temperature of 816°C (1500°F) was probably due  to inadequate
mixing of fume and combustion products or to bypassing some fume around
the hot reaction zone, as discussed in Section 4.3.2.3.  The residence
time at combustion temperature may also have been inadequate  for complete
combustion both of the gaseous hydrocarbons and the large droplets usually
formed during the rapid cooling of the gases by dilution air.
4.4.4  Performance of Electrostatic Precipitators
     Two modular ESP's at one asphalt roofing plant were tested.  The two
ESP's were installed in parallel to control the combined emissions from
the saturator, coater, and wet looper.  The ESP's operated  at inlet
temperatures of 51.TC (124°F), 57.2°C (135°F) and 48.3°C (119°F) and
achieved particulate removal efficiencies of 96.6 percent,  93.6 percent,
and 96.8 percent, respectively.  The controlled particulate emissions
from both ESP's, when combined, averaged 0.016 kg/Mg  (0.032 Ib/ton)  of
product as  shown for plant A in Figure 4-12.  Visible  emissions from the
ESP's were generally less than 10 percent opacity as  shown  in Table 4-9.

                                  4-50
-------
                                                 Key:
    0.60  |— (5.0)
Maximum
Average
Minimum
(/>
o
+j
-o
QJ
D>
J_
J= 0.48
o
in
c
o

c a
•5 o 0.36
ut o
'£ °
UJ C^
OJ «/)
« "2
— C
3 3
.0 0
^ ^ 0.24
n
"• I-
0)
i i
^"*
O)
E
O
ja
3 0.12
s_
O)
o- 0.06
I/)
j—
£ 0.03
o>
o





- (4.0)



^^™


- (3.0)




-(2.0)



— (1.0)

_ (0.5)
- (0.25)


_^:
Average Removal
Efficiency— %







R
i
i
I
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
w
i
• *
H
y



i
i
Saturant
Blow
95.0 98.3



R
Ii
i
1 1
i
i

i L! <
Tr
ii
ii
il
b










i
•
Coating
Blow
96.7 95.2
Figure 4-14.   Participate emissions from an afterburner
            controlling an asphalt blowing still.
                           4-51
-------
As stated in Section 4.3.2.4, this efficiency could be further increased
by the use of additional  series modules.   The potential  efficiency of
these units could have been increased by cooling the inlet fume below
50°C (122°F) so additional  hydrocarbons would have been  in particulate
form, removable by the ESP.  As with the high velocity air filter systems
discussed earlier, precooling of the inlet air strean to 30°C to 49°C
(90°F to 120°F) via air dilution or watqr sprays is necessary to condense
a substantial portion.of the gaseous hydrocarbons to particulates which
can be removed by the ESP.
4.4.5  Performance of Fabric Filters
     Fabric filters used to control  emissions from talc  and limestone
handling and storage equipment at asphalt roofing plants were not tested.
As discussed in Section 4.3.2.5, these devices are used  to control
clay (C) and limestone (L)  emissions in the  crushed stone industry as
summarized in Figure 4-15.   In the applications in the crushed stone
industry, collection efficiencies exceed  99  percent, and outlet loadings
are consistently less than  2.3 x 10"5 kg/m3  (0.01 gr/DSCF).   As shown  .
in Table 4-10, visible emissions are consistently zero.   The material
being controlled, the processes, conveying,  and storage  are  the same for
both industries; thus similar emission levels can be attained for the
applications in the asphalt roofing  industry.
4.4.6  Performance of Mist  Eliminators on Storage Tanks
     Mist eliminators were  discussed in Section 4.3.2.2.  Visible
emissions from a mist eliminator used to control  emissions from storage
tanks were 0 percent opacity as shown in Table 4-9.  Particulate mass
loadings from mist eliminators were not measured.
                                  4-52
-------

0.033
(0.015)



7 0.022
2 (o.oio)
o x
CO ° £j
O5 oj
W 3 E
22 -go
UJ TO °
its
CC (/) 1_
< S 01
Q- TO 0
™S o.on
(0.005)

L - Limestone
C - Clay
0
Facility
1
L KEY
H-[i AVERAGE .
b
C EPA TEST METHOD
O OTHER TEST METHOD

R
1 1
1
1
n ^
1 1
'! f\ fi
^ i, i
-i r !( !
i * I i
L R >
1 II "
w i i! n n !
ii y M U
i i i T i i i i $ i i
A1 A2 A3 A4 81 82 B3 C1 C2 Ml M2
    Rock Type
Figure 4-15.  Participate emissions from crushed stone facilities.
28
                                  4-53
-------
                   TABLE 4-10.  VISIBLE EMISSIONS FROM MINERALS
                          HANDLING AND STORAGE FACILITIES
Plant
Facility
Control
device
  No. of
observations
Opacity
   %
  G       Conveyor transfer
          point

  H       Finishing screens

  J       Finishing screens

  K       Finishing screens
          and bins

  L       Bagging operation
                      Baghouse


                      Baghouse

                      Baghouse

                      Baghouse


                      Fugitive
                 40


                 40

                 40

                 30


                 1  h
                   0

                   0

                   0
                                4-54
-------
4.5  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
 1.  United Air Specialists, Inc.  The Control  of Asphalt and Coal  Tar
     Fumes.  Form 9-374.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   1974.  p. 2.

 2.  Corbett, L. W.  Reaction Variables in the Air-Blowing of Asphalt.
     Industrial Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development.
     J_4(2): 181-187.  April 1975.

 3.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Second Edition).  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.
     AP-40.  May 1973.  p. 687.

 4.  Earth, E. J.  Asphalt-Science and Technology.  New York, Gordon and
     Breach, 1962.  p. 331-428.

 5.  Andersen 2000, Inc.  HEAF Air Pollution Control Equipment
     Engineering Manual with Operating and Maintenance Instructions.  TR
     No. 75-900011.  Atlanta, Ga.  April  1976.   p. 14.

 6.  Reference 5, Figure 7.

 7.  Reference 5, p. 21.

 8.  Reference 5, p. 10, 11.

 9.  Reference 5, Table IV.

10.  High-Energy Air Filter for Reducing Industrial Effluents. Filtration
     Engineering.  May 1970.

11.  Reference 5, p. 53.

12.  Letter from Brady, J. D., Andersen 2000, Inc., to Noble, E.  A.,
     EPA/ISB.  January 21, 1976.  Cleaning procedures for HEAF units.

13.  Reference 5, Figure 1.

14.  Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.  Brink Fact Guide for the
     Elimination of Mists and Soluble Solids.  Undated.

15.  Afterburner Systems Study.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     Research Triangle Park, N.C.  EPA-R2-72-062.  August 1972.   p. 6, 7,
     16a-23, 69-72.

16.  EPA Air Pollution Emission Test.  Final Report for Plant B.   p. 19.

17.  United Air Specialists, Inc.  Smog-Hog is a Glutton for Dirty Air!
     Cincinnati, Ohio.  1 p.
                                   4-55
-------
18.  United Air Specialists.  Smog-Hog:  Beat the High Cost of Process
     Smoke Control!   M-6A.  Cincinnait, OH.  1972.  4 p.

19.  United Air Specialists.  Smog-Hog Air Pollution Control System.
     Figure 8-174.   Cincinnati, OH.  1 p.

20.  A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology.  Parts I and II.
     National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Cincinnati, OH.
     APTD-0610.  August 1970.

21.  Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants.  U, S. Department
     of Health, Education, and Welfare.  Washington, D. C.   AP-51.
     Janary 1969.  215 p.

22.  Schmeider, G.  G. et. al.  Selecting and Specifying Electrostatic
     Precipitators.   Chemical Engineering.   82_(11): 94-108.  May 26, 1975.

23.  Particulate and Gaseous Emissions from the Asphalt Roofing Process
     Saturator at the Celotex Roofing Plant, Fairfield, Alabama.  U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.
     76 ARM 13.  p.  44.

24.  Memo from Shea, E. P., MRI/NC, to Noble, E. A., EPA/ISB.
     April 23, 1979.  Minutes of April 4, 1979 meeting with
     representatives of Owens-Corning Fiberglas.

25.  Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants - Background Information for
     Proposed Emission Standards.  Draft EIS.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.   March 1979.
     p. 4-21.

26.  Reference 25,  p. 4-40.

27.  EPA Visible Emission Tests.  Final Reports for Plants A, B, C, D, E,
     and F.

28.  Reference 25,  p. 4-35.
                                    4-56
-------
                       5.  MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

     In accordance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
standards of performance shall be established for new sources within a
stationary source category which ". .  . may contribute significantly to
air pollution . . . ."  Standards apply to operations or apparatus
(facilities) within a stationary source, selected as "affected facilities;"
that is, facilities for which applicable standards of performance have
been promulgated and the construction  or modification of which commenced
after the proposal of said standards.
     On December 16, 1975, the Agency  promulgated amendments to the
general provisions of 40 CFR Part 60,  including additions and revisions
to clarify modification and the addition of a reconstruction provision.
Under the provisions of 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15, an "existing facility"
may become subject to standards of performance if deemed modified or
reconstructed.  An "existing facility" defined in 40 CFR 60.2(aa) is an
apparatus of the type for which a standard of performance is promulgated
and the construction or modification of which was commenced before the
date of proposal of that standard.  The following discussion examines the
applicability of these provisions to asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities and details conditions under which existing facilities could
become subject to standards of performance.  It is important to stress
that since standards of performance apply to affected facilities, which,
combined with existing and other facilities comprise a stationary source,
the addition of an affected facility to a stationary source through any
mechanism, new construction, modification, or reconstruction, does not
make the entire stationary source subject to standards of performance,
only the added affected facility.
                                   5-1
-------
5.1  40 CFR PART 60 PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
5.1.1   Modification
     It is important that these provisions be fully understood prior to
investigating their applicability.                                ,
     Section 60.14 defines modification as follows:

          Except as provided under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this
     section, any physical or operational  change to an existing
     facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to
     the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies
     shall be considered a modification within the meaning of
     Section 111 of the Act.  Upon modification, an existing
     facility shall become an affected facility for each pollutant
     to which a standard applies and for which there is an increase
     in the emission rate to the atmosphere.
     Paragraph (e) lists certain physical  or operational changes which
will not be considered as modifications, irrespective of any change in
the emission rate.  These changes include:
     1.  routine maintenance, repair, and  replacement;
     2.  an increase in the production rate not requiring a capital
expenditure as defined in Section 60.2(bb);
     3.  an increase in the hours of operation;
     4.  use of an alternative fuel  or raw material if, prior to
the standard, the existing facility was designed to accommodate that
alternative fuel or raw material; and
     5.  the addition or use of any system or device whose primary
function is the reduction of air pollutants,  except when an emission
control system is removed or replaced by a system considered to be less
efficient.
     Paragraph (b) clarifies what constitutes an increase in emissions in
kilograms per hour and the methods for determining the increase, including
the use of emission factors, material balances, continuous monitoring
systems, and manual emission tests.   Paragraph (c) affirms that the
addition of an affected facility to a stationary source does not make any
other facility within that source subject  to  standards of performance.
Paragraph (f) simply provides for superseding any conflicting provisions.
                                   5-2
-------
5.1.2  Reconstruction
     Section 60.15 regarding reconstruction states:

          If an owner or operator of an existing facility proposes
     to replace components, and the fixed capital  cost of the new
     components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital  cost that
     would be required to construct a comparable entirely new
     facility, he shall notify the Administrator of the proposed
     replacements.  The notice must be postmarked 60 days (or as
     soon as practicable) before construction of the replacements is
     commenced.
     The purpose of this provision is to ensure that an owner or operator
does not perpetuate an existing facility by replacing all but vestigial
components,  such as support structures, frames and housing,  rather than
totally replacing it in order to avoid subjugation to applicable standards
of performance.
     The enforcement division of the appropriate EPA regional office
should be contacted whenever a source has questions regarding modifi-
cations and reconstruction.  Their judgment will supersede any general
examples that are given in this document.
5.2  APPLICABILITY TO ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
5.2.1  Modification
     Physical and operational changes to an asphalt roofing  plant which
might be considered modifications are:
     1.  extension of the saturator capacity through the use of additional
sprays or dips; and
     2.' replacement of a component such as a motor with one of a
different design or capacity than the original to increase the line speed
of the plant.
5.2.2  Reconstruction
     There are few possible changes that are likely to be made to an
asphalt roofing plant which would be defined as reconstruction.  Generally,
asphalt roofing plants have a long lifetime.  Many existing  plants have
been operating for over 50 years.  Due to the flammability and high
operating temperatures of the asphalt, the potential for fire is signifi-
cant.  It is possible that a fire could damage an asphalt roofing
                                   5-3
-------
plant to such an extent that the provisions for reconstruction would
apply to the repairs necessary to resume production.
5.3  SUMMARY
     According to 40 CFR Part 60 provisions for modifications and
reconstructions, as applied to asphalt roofing plants, few, if any,
facilities are expected to become affected facilities by virtue of modifi-
cation or reconstruction after proposal  of new standards.   Relatively
unchanging technologies for production and the extended lifetime of
asphalt roofing plants substantiate this position.
                                   5-4
-------
                 6.. MODEL PLANTS AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

6.1  PURPOSE
     The purpose of Chapter 6 is to define model plants and the regulatory
alternatives for the Asphalt Roofing and Siding Manufacturing Industry.
The environmental, economic, and energy impacts associated with the model
plants and the regulatory alternatives are presented in Chapters 7 and 8.
6.2  MODEL PLANTS
     The production of asphalt roofing and siding varies widely from
plant to plant.  Plant production is determined by plant capacity and by
operating time.  Plant capacity, in turn, depends on the number of lines
in a plant, the felt width, and the line speed.  In this report, as shown
in Table 6-1, the parameters of operating time, felt width, and line
speed are considered to be fixed with the number of lines in a plant as
the only production variable.  The data for plants with stills are presented
in Table 6-2.
     Several model plant configurations were developed.  Three plant
sizes (small, medium, and large) were chosen as representative of probable
future plants based on review of current installations and the mix of
products manufactured.  The small plant has one roofing line, the medium
sized plant has two roofing lines, and the large plant has two roofing
lines plus one saturated felt line.  For each size of plant, small,
medium and large, one configuration includes an asphalt blowing still
while the second configuration does not, resulting in a total of six
model plants.
     Figures 6-1 through 6-6 illustrate the model plant configurations,
one for each of the six model plants.  Figures 6-1 and 6-2 are for small
plants, 6-3 and 6-4 for medium sized plants, and 6-5 and 6-6 for large
plants.  Development of model plant configurations utilized data from
                                   6-1
-------
                           TABLE 6-1.   MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION  RATES AND  OPERATING PARAMETER$]
cr>
i
ro
Production
WgTyr tons/yr
109,759 121,000
219,518 242.000
281.201 310,000

No. of
production
lines
1
2
2
1
Operating
time8
h/yr
4,000
4.000
4.000
2,000
Felt width
m In.
1.22 48
1.22 48
1.22 48
0.864 36
Line
m/s
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
speed
ft/ml n
400
400
400
400
Product
106.5 kg. (235 Ib)
Shingle0
106.5 kg. (235 Ib)
Shingle0
106.5 kg (235 Ib)
Shingle
c
Land area Size
m2 acres designation
60,703 15 Small
80.937 20 Medium
89,031 22 Large

              .The operating time 1s based on two-shift operation:   16 h/d, 5 d/wk,  50/wk/yr.
               Saturated felt produced  on single line 20 percent of  time:  50:50 mix of 6.8 kg (15 Ib)  and
               13.6 kg (30  Ib) saturated felt.
              Saturated felt only produced on this line:  50:50 mix of 6.8 kg (15 Ib) and 13.6 kg (30  Ib)
               saturated felt, one-shift operation.  Production rates would be somewhat lower If a mix  of
               shingle and  saturated felt were manufactured on lines 1 and 2.
-------
                                    TABLE 6-2.   BLOWING  STILL PARAMETERS FOR MODEL  PLANTS2
                                                                    (METRIC)
CTi

CO


Plant
production
Mg/yr
109,759
219,518
281.201

Asphalt
production*
Mg/yr
46.200
93,128
116,219

Still
capacity
m
75.7
75.7
94.6

Blowing
hours
Saturant
1.5
1.5
1.5

time

Coating
4.5
4.5
4.5


No. of


blows/yr
Saturant Coating
382
754
782
306
604
607
Total
blowing
time
h/yr
2000
3850C
3906C

Operating
temperature.
"C
246-271
246-271
246-271

Air
flowb
Nm3/s
.75
.75
.94

Softening
°c
Saturant
40-74
40-74
40-74

point

Coating
99-110
99-110
99-110
                                                                     (ENGLISH)

Plant
production
tons/yr
121,000
242,000
310.000
Asphalt
production
tons/yr
50.931
102,666
128.122
Still
capacity
gal
20.000
20.000
25.000
Blowing time
hours
Saturant Coating
1.5 4.5
1.5 4.5
1.5 4.5
No. of
blows/yr
Saturant Coating
382
754
782
306
604
607
Total
blowing
time
h/yr
2000
3850C
3906C
Operating
temperature
°F
475-520
475-520
475-520
Air
flow
SCFM
1600
1600
2000
Softening point
°F
Saturant Coating
104-165 210-230
104-165 210-230
104-165 210-230
             .Asphalt production rate from Table 6-3.     ,
             "inlet air to still Is compressed at 3.4 x 103 Pa (50 psl).
              Still operating time shown  Is for one  blowing still  1n operation at a time.
              will operate more than one  still at a  time.
Medium and large plants
-------
                                             •Oil:
                                     IMS! IIMIMA10N
CJ*
                               I IIMU1IAIQA V4100NIV
                               iM imi u not u oruAiioi
                             UtMII.Mill MM. lit.) tMM.M )•«
                                                                                                                                                         •It AM IICAICQ ABTHAIT tlOHAUf IA
                                                                                                                                                         •A. •• AtPHAll MCAKMC
                                                                                                                                                         MOW ttni
                                                                                                                                                       ». 4« MOWNA*mAlf IIONAOi IAWl«
                                                                                                                                                             I* •ATUHANt, • COAtlNOI
      I if
   ArilMIUMBIII
    |II.4U «l.|
    4*)MMV. ^_l
(U *» ^ .mil. ior > CUM H
r
j

10
1
-
„
                                                                                                                                                             a M« KCCItOM
                                                                                                                                                         COAIIA
                                                                                                                                                         KVAItftCOOtlMa
                                                                                                                                                         AMI OHTMO
                                                                                                                                                         COAtlMOMUHH 1*N«
                                                                                                                                                         nut* tumat MM
                                                                                                                                                         fltKH DHVin
                                                                                                                                                         f ItllN IIOMAaC ftKO
                                                                                                                                                         QAANIMf MACHtMC MM
                                                                                                                                                         QHAMUIE IIOHAOt tMO
                                                                                                                                                         ^AnilMQ AOtHI UACHIMf «m
                                                                                                                                                         rAHIWO AOtNl lIOMAQi 
-------
en
i
in
                                                •Oil: Mill IIMIINAIOJIUIfOOIUV    Ultl UWIHAIOft

                                                    •rtilNlUf imOTlMDtfftATlOM JtUul*) , •>» MM'/!

                                                    INICHII WlUfMlU, I1C4
                                                 Figure 6-2.   Configuration  2 for  small  plant.
-------
01
 i
CT>
                                            • •II:  WltllWIKAIOIIUUOOIIIV
                                                 mfM IMC n noi IN
                                       UlliMIHAIM  miflMr^mlll IMOt IIC.I
                                       d.1 .OII4IW/,
                                       f ttclt I O • » Iff* »•/••
                                                                                                                                              II
                                                                                                                                             cm/
                                                                                                                                            FACHABI
                                                                                                                                                        • HAM MtAIEO AVPHAit BKMA4M 1*
                                                                                                                                                        •A. • ». Atl*MA|f IttAlflU
                                                                                                                                                        •tow 11*1
                                                                                                                                                      a. 4»  BtOWM AAPHAlt tlOMAOl IA*M>
                                                                                                                                                            |» flAtlMAMI. ••COAT***

                                                                                                                                                        DHVINQ IN IICTKM
                                                                                                                                                        COAIIH
                                                                                                                                                        • lUlf ACt APPllCAIIOM
                                                                                                                                                        wAim cooimo
                                                                                                                                                        AtH OMVMO
                                                                                                                                                        COAtINO MINf m IA«M
                                                                                                                                                        FHtIN tUMOf MM
OAANtHI MACHtNl MM
ORANIHI SIOKAOt IftO
PAN UNO AOENI MACHIMI MM
» AH I MO AOtNl lIOMAOt SKO
     VCHICli
MAIIftlAL (tOW
AIM IMIIIKtNt
                                                         Figure  6-3.    Configuration  1  for medium  plant.
-------
Mil: Mil IIHMMMOft UUO OttlV
    •maun
           K !••!.
                                                                                             *€ MOWN Aim At I IIORAQE IAMKI
                                                                                                u CAiuHANf. • cOAnrrai
                                                                                             •• ASPHAll HfAIIftt
                                                                                             IAIUMA1ON
                                                                                             OHVINQ-IM tlCIIOM
                                                                                             COAIIH
                                                                                             •UtIIACf AmiCAftOM
                                                                                             WAtlH COOIlNQ           /
                                                                                             AIR DM VINO
                                                                                             COAImO MIKIN IANH
                                                                                             fMICH fUKOt UN
                                                                                             tlUIR DMVCA
                                                                                             Ittf * IIOAAOE «HO
                                                                                             QMANUtl MACIUNI tut
                                                                                             OHAMlMt tlOAAOl tHO
                                                                                             r*N[INO AUINI MACWMI MM
                                                                                             r AMI ma AOINI ti
                                                                                             Mor^tn vtKicxc
                                                                                             UAIIR1A1 «IOW
                                                                                             AM IMt»»llM»»
      Figure  6-4.    Configuration  2  for medium  plant.
-------
oo
      i a » NM-/«
IX) » «fl004«»,--.'
  WN'fJ
     IAVB. IIXJ

           1
                                   UH.M 04.1«»
                                  .a, .ol 01. io
                                   UM«rl JK»4.4-C
                                                                                                                                      1. 3. HIAM MIAUO A8PMA
                                                                                                                                        •tow tint
                                                                                                                                        !•  MOWN At*HMf I1OMAOC lA
                                                                                                                                            |« CAIUHANI. • COAItMOl
                                                                                                                                        •A1UHAIOH
                                                                                                                                        OH VINO «M MCllON
                                                                                                                                        COA1IH
                                                                                                                                         ftPH* VIMKtl
                                                                                                                                      .  MAIfMIAL flOW
                                                                                                                                        AIH CMISCIONI
                                                                                                                                     •UIBCHIPfl l.t. **4 1
                                                    Figure  6-5.   Configuration  1  for  large  plant.
-------
CTi
 I
                                                                                                                                                MOINO
                                                                                                                                                 • *. »• •IOWN ABMIALI B1OAAOI lAM
                                                                                                                                                       |* <*1UHANI. ••COAIIMOI
                                                                                                                                                   »•  AirMAll HCAIfMI
                                                                                                                                                   SAIUHAtOM
                                                                                                                                                   OMVINO M tlCflOM
                                                                                                                                                   COAIIH
                                                                                                                                                   •unrACl ArniCAiiON
                                                                                                                                                   WAIIM comma
                                                                                                                                                   AIH onviNO
                                                                                                                                                   COAIM4O MlHtn I AM*
                                                                                                                                                   rutt* IUHOI UN
                                                                                                                                                   lltltN OA*CH
                                                                                                                                                   rHLIH IIOflAOI iUO
                                                                                                                                                   OHAMUII MACMINl »IM
                                                                                                                                                   OMANUlI KIOHAOi SKO
                                                                                                                                                   PAH I MO AIM Ml MACHINI IH*
                                                                                                                                                    IIOmR VIHICll
                                                                                                                                                    MA1IHIAI flOMf
                                                                                                                                                    AM (MtfBIONI
                                                                                                                                                 uccmrii i.t. — i miin to II
                                                         Figure  6-6.    Configuration  2  for  large  plant.
-------
source tests, from industry responses to EPA requests for information,
from plant visits, and from an in-depth study of process control options.
     The emissions from the saturator, wet looper, and coater are controlled
by any one of three control devices.  The control devices used are:
(1) high velocity air filters (HVAF); (2) electrostatic precipitators
(ESP); and (3) afterburners (A/B).  The term "afterburners" includes
thermal oxidizers, waste heat boilers, incinerators, and afterburners
with waste heat.recovery.   Emissions from asphalt storage tanks can be
controlled by a mist eliminator or routed through one of the saturator
and coater control devices.  It was assumed that it will be cheaper to
use a mist eliminator to control storage tank emissions when the roofing
line is not operating than to operate the saturator and coater control
device full time.  The only device utilized for controlling the emissions
from blowing stills is the afterburner.
     It was assumed for model plant configuration development that emissions
controlled by HVAF's and ESP's will be cooled to 38°C (100°F) prior to
control.
      The model plant layouts utilize individual baghouses for each talc
and filler emission source.  This represents a "worst-case" cost impact.
It may be more cost effective, however, to combine these as follows:
     Small plants:
           1.  Combine filler surge bin (13),  filler dryer (14), and
               f il ler silo (15); and
           2.  Combine parting agent machine bin (18) and parting agent
               silo (19).
     Medium and large plants:
           1.  Combine filler surge bins (131 and 132), filler dryer (14)
               and  filler silo (15); and
           2.  Comgine parting agent machine bins (18, and 182) and
               parting agent silo (19).
Control of emissions from the mineral surfacing application area is not
considered in the model plants for two reasons:  (1) the emissions appeared
 Numbers in parentheses refer to the codes used in the legends for
 Figures 6-1 through 6-6.
                                  6-10
-------
to be contained within the plant building; and (2) there was no system
observed that captured the emissions from this area in a satisfactory
manner.
     The raw material requirements and the utilities usage for each of
the model plant sizes (small, medium, and large) are shown in Table 6-3.
The data in the table were obtained by compiling information supplied by
asphalt roofing companies in response to EPA requests for information and
then converting the data to fit the model plants.  Utility requirenents
(water, gas, oil, electricity) for operation of the emission control
systems are also included in Table 6-3.
6.1.1  Baseline Model Plant Control Systems
     The Baseline Model  Plant Control Systems are shown in Table 6-4,
Small Plants; in Table 6-5, Medium Plants; and in Table 6-6, Large Plants.
The facilities being controlled are the saturator and coater, blowing
still, and mineral  handling and storage.  The control devices include a
high velocity air filter, an electrostatic precipitator, and an afterburner
                                            *
for the saturator and coater; an afterburner  for the blowing still; and
a cyclone for the mineral handling and storage.  Since the typical asphalt
roofing plant does not have a control device on the asphalt storage
tanks, the asphalt storage tanks are shown with no control device in
Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6.
     Asphalt roofing plants presently meet typical state standards of
20 percent opacity, but it is not known if the plants meet typical state
mass emissions requirements.  The Baseline Model Plant was developed
using data from plant emission tests, from industry-supplied data, from
plant site visits, and from the State Implementation Plans (SIP's).  The
emission data in Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 for the saturator and coater,
asphalt storage tanks, and blowing stills were based on SIP's and
calculated for the model plant size.
 The afterburner is preceded by a cyclone that is considered
 to be a piece of process control equipment.
                                   6-11
-------
ro
                         TABLE  6-3.   RAW  MATERIALS AND  UTILITY  REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL PLANTS

                                                          (METRIC)

Production
Mg/yr
109,759
215,518
281,201
Asphalt
Mg/yr
46,200
93,128
116,219
Felt
Mg/yr
15,175
30,811
39,088
Filler
Mg/yr
20,462
40,924
51,155
Granules
Mg/yr
40,685
81,372
101,716
Talc
Mg/yr
1,089
2,177
2,812
Water
m3/yr
271,842
540,852
693,763
Natural gas
10i3J/yr
7.8
15.7
20.1
Oil
mVyr
810
1,620
2,074
Electrici
1013J/hr
1.09
2.18
2.79
ty



(ENGLISH)

Production
tons /yr
121,000
242,000
310,000
Asphalt
tons/yr
50,931
102,666
128,122
Felt
tons/yr
16,730
33,967
43,091
Filler
tons/yr
22,558
45,115
56,394
Granules
tons/yr
44,852
89,706
112, -133
Talc
tons/yr
1,200
2,400
3,100
Water
ftVyr
x 106
9.6
19.1
24.5
Natural gas
106Therms/yr
0.743
1.486
1.903
Oil
gal/yr
214,000
428,000
548,000
kWh/yr
106kWh/yr
3.03
6.05
7.75



        Information  was  taken  from  industry-furnished  data  on  product specifications and
         production rates.   The loss  rate  for  all materials  was  assumed  to  be  9  percent.
-------
                                                  TABLE 6-4.  BASELINE MODEL  PLANT  CONTROL  SYSTEM  - ALTERNATIVE  1
                                                                               (SMALL)
SIP control
Emission source parameter
Sa Curator, wet 20X opacity
looper, and
coaler
Asphalt storage 20% opacity
tanks
Blowing still 201 opacity
Mineral loading 20-401 opacity
and storage
Control equipment
operating temperature
Control system type *C *F
Hood, fan, duct, and:
1. High velocity air filter 93 200
2. ESP . 93 200
3. Afterburner <538 < 1000
None None None
Afterburner. b <538 <1000
asphalt heater, or
waste heat boiler
Cyclone Ambient
Exhaust qas characteristics
Air
NmVs
4.93
4.93
4.93
0.21
2.8
1.7
flow
DSCFM
10,450
10,450
10,450
450
6,000
3,600
Temperature
~"C V
93
93
349
71
199

200
200
660
160
390
Ambient
Mass emissions*
kg/h
16.47
16.47
16.47
0.93
37.19
45.76
0.54
Ib/h
36.75
36.75
36.75
2.05
82.0=
100.8d
1.2e
crt  ^Information Is listed on a "per-line" basis from SIP.
^   Afterburner efficiency 77.7 percent from test data for a unit operating at 538°C (1000°F).
(jj  *JThe blowing still tested had a capacity of 9,600 gallons.  Data are from  the saturant blow.
     Data are from the coating blow.                                                        ,
     Not tested during asphalt roofing study.  Data were transferred from minerals Industry.
-------
                                              TABLE 6-5.  BASELINE MODEL PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM - ALTERNATIVE  1
                                                                         (MEDIUM)
Emission source
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater
Asphalt storage
tanks
Blowing still
Mineral loading
and storage
<-r\
1
SIP control
parameter
201 opacity
201 opacity
201 opacity
20-40S opacity

Control system type
Hood, fan, duct, and:
1. High velocity air filter
2. ESP
3. Afterburner
None
Afterburner,
asphalt heater, or
waste heat boiler
Cyclone

Control equipment
operating temperature
°C °F
93 200
93 200
<538 <1000
None None
<538 <1000
Ambient

Exhaust qas characteristics
Air flow
ttn3/s
5.07
5.0?
5.07
0.35
2.80
2.36

.. .DSCFH
10,750
10.750
10,750
750
6.000
5.000

Temperature
X ^
93 200
93 ' 200
349 660
71 160
199 390 •
Ambient

Mass emissions9
kg/h
18.04
18.04
18.04
1.86
37.19
45.76
1.08

Ib/h
39.80
39.80
39.80
4.10
82. Ojj
100.8
2.4e

.Information Is listed on a "per-ltne" basis from SIP.
 Afterburner efficiency 77.7 percent from test data for a unit operating at 538°C (1000°F).
 .The blowing still  tested had a capacity of 9,600 gallons.  Data are from the saturant blow.
 Data are from the coating blow.                                                        ,
 Not tested during asphalt roofing study.  Data were transferred from minerals Industry.
-------
                                              TABLE  6-6.  BASELINE MODEL  PLANT  CONTROL  SrSTEM  -  ALTERNATIVE  1
                                                                           (LARGE)
Emission source
Saturator. wet
looper, and
coater
Asphalt storage
tanks
Blowing still
Mineral loading
and storage
SIP control
parameter
201 opacity
201 opacity
201 opacity
20-401 opacity
Control system type
Hood, fan, duct, and:
1. High velocity air filter
2. ESP
3. Afterburner
None
Afterburner,
asphalt heater, or
waste heat boiler
Cyclone
Control equipment
operating temperature
C r
93
93
<538
None
< 538

200
200
<1000
None
4)000
Ambient
Exhaust qas characteristics
Air
NmJ/s
5.14
5.14
5.14
0.425
3.30
2.36
flow
DSCFM
10.900
10.900
10.900
900
7.000
5.000
Temperature
~~°
-------
6.3  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
     The purpose of this section is to list the regulatory alternatives
or possible courses of action that EPA could take to control  particulate
emissions from asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing plants.  Possible
regulatory alternatives are as follows:
     1.  No New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for this industry.
     2.  New Source Performance Standard to control  the emissions from
the saturator, wet looper, and coater and asphalt storage tanks.
     3.  New Source Performance Standard to control  the emissions from
the saturator, wet looper, and coater, asphalt storage tanks, and the
blowing still.
     4.  New Source Performance Standard to control  emissions from the
saturator, wet looper, and coater, asphalt storage tanks, and materials
handling.
     5.  New Source Performance Standard to control  emissions from the
saturator, wet looper, and coater, asphalt storage tanks, blowing still,
and materials handling.
     Figure 6-7 is a matrix displaying the five regulatory alternatives
with each facility to be controlled.
     There is only one viable control technique for blowing stills.   For
the saturator and coater three types  of control equipment are used and,
based on the data contained in Chapter 4 and Appendix C, all  are judged
to be similar in their control capability.  For that reason,  the regulatory
alternatives presented in Figure 6-7  are different from most recommen-
dations in that only one level of NSPS control is proposed for each
emission source, other than baseline.  All but one of the emission sources
considered for control will, in the absence of an NSPS, be controlled by
state and local agencies and essentially the same control devices will be
used.  The differences are:
     1.  The capture device for the saturator is a full enclosure rather
than the hood typically used.
     2.  The efficiencies of the HVAF and ESP are increased by reducing
the fume inlet temperature (the HVAF  and ESP are particulate  control
devices and reducing the fume temperature converts more of the gaseous HC
to a particulate).

                                   6-16
-------
%
Regulatory
alternatives
1
2
3
4
5
Saturator and
coater

X
X
X
X
Asphalt
storage

X
X
X
X
Blowing
stills


X

X
Material
handling
and storage



X
X
Figure 6-7.   Regulatory alternatives and controlled facilities.
                           6-17
-------
     3.  The efficiency of the afterburner is increased by increasing the
combustion temperature and the residence time at temperature.
     Total plant emissions will vary with each alternative because different
quantities of particulate are emitted by the various emission sources.
6.3.1  Regulatory Alternative Number 1
     This alternative assumes no NSPS would be set if emissions from
asphalt roofing plants are determined to be insignificant now and are
expected to remain so in the future, or if existing state standards are
adequate and consistent.  The asphalt roofing industry was ranked number
45 out of 59 source categories prioritized for NSPS development by EPA in
44 FR  163 on August 21, 1979.5  In the absence of an NSPS, typical
plants in the industry would utilize control systems as shown in Tables 6-4,
6-5, and 6-6.  The states control emissions from asphalt roofing plants
by monitoring opacity and odor complaints. The baseline plants would meet
opacity requirements, but it is not known if the plants would meet the
particulate  standards.  Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 list the emission sources,
control systems, control parameters, operating temperatures, exhaust gas
characteristics, and emissions for baseline asphalt roofing  plants.  The
mass emissions listed in Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 were obtained from State
Implementation Plans and calculated to conform to model plant sizes.
The energy and other utility requirements for operation of control equipment
listed in Tables 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 are included  in Table 6-3.
6.3.2  Regulatory Alternative Number 2
     This alternative assumes control of three emission  sources:  saturators,
coaters, and asphalt storage tanks.  Three types of control  equipment
(afterburner,  ESP, and HVAF) have been demonstrated to be capable of
achieving equivalent reduction in particulate emissions from saturators,
coaters,  and asphalt  storage tanks.  The baseline control  system must be
upgraded to meet the requirements of this regulatory alternative.  The
necessary changes  are:
      1.   a better capture  system;
      2.   precooling  of  the fume  before the HVAF  or  the ESP;  and
      3.  higher operating temperature and longer residence time in the
afterburner.
                                    6-18
-------
The control systems containing these equipment types are described in
Table 6-7, Small Plants; in Table 6-8, Medium Plants; and in Table 6-9,
Large Plants.  Mist eliminators are shown for control of emissions from
the asphalt storage tanks when the roofing line is not operating.   The
energy requirements and the costs of these control systems will vary.
6.3.3  Regulatory Alternative Number 3
     The facilities to be controlled under this alternative are the same
as for Alternative 2 except that blowing stills are included.  The after-
burner is the only device used to control particulate emissions from the
blowing still.  The control systems for the four facilities are shown in
Tables 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9.  The operating conditions for these control
systems are also shown in the tables.
6.3.4  Regulatory Alternative Number 4
     This regulatory alternative is the same as Alternative 2 except that
control is recommended for materials handling.  Tables 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9
show the facilities to be controlled, the recommended control system, and
the operating conditions under Regulatory Alternative 4.  Controls are
                              *
specified in Tables 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9 for the saturator, coater, asphalt
storage tanks, and materials handling.
6.3.5  Regulatory Alternative Number 5
     All facilities are recommended for control in this alternative.  The
controlled facilities (the saturator and coater, asphalt storage tanks,
blowing stills, and materials handling) are displayed in Tables' 6-7, 6-8,
and 6-9.  The control systems for these facilities are also displayed and
the operating conditions are specified.
                                  6-19
-------
                       TABLE 6-7.   MODEL PLANT  CONTROL SYSTEMS  FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES  2
                                                                 (SMALL)
TO  5
rv>
o
Control system
Model
plant
Nos.
1-6




1, 3
and 5

1-6



Emission source
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater; asphalt
storage *


Blowing still


Materials
handling and
storage*
Emission
type
Organic
participate




Organic
participate

Inorganic
participate

Exhause qas characteristics
Operating Pertinent
temperature Airflow Temperature Control regulatory
Type
Full enclosure hood
with ducts, fan, and:
1. Cooler and ESP
2. Cooler and HVAF
3. Afterburner with
heat recovery
Duct, fan, and
afterburner with
heat recovery
Duct, fan, and
baghouse

ec

38
38
(°F) Nn /s (DSCFM) °C

(100) 4.93 (10.450) 43.3
(100) . 4.93 (10,450 38
649-760 (1300-1500)" 4.93 (10,450) 199


°F) parameter alternatives

110) Partlculate 2. 3. 4. 5
100)
390)

649-760 (1300-1500)b 2.80 (6,000) 199 (390) Participate 3, 5


Ambient






1.70 (3,600)d Ambient Opacity 4, 5




         Storage tanks  are fitted  with mist eliminators to be put Into service for  opacity control when the roofing
        .line and control equipment are shut down for extended periods.
         Residence time at temperature of 0.3 to 0.5 seconds.
        .Granules are not Included In materials to be controlled.
         Total airflow  from four separate sources.-
-------
                        TABLE 6-8.   MODEL PLANT  CONTROL  SYSTEMS  FOR  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES  2
                                                                  (MEDIUM)
TO  5
en
 i
ro
Control system Exhause gas characteristics
Model
plant
Nos.
1-6

Emission source
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater; asphalt
storage3
Emission
type
Organic
participate

Type
Operating
temperature Airflow
Pertinent
Temperature Control regulatory
°C (°F) Nm /s (DSCFM) °C (°F) parameter alternatives
Full enclosure hood
with ducts, fan, and:
1. Cooler and ESP 38 (100) 5.07 (10.750
2. Cooler and HVAF 38 (100) . 5.07 (10,750
3. Afterburner with 649-760 (1300-1500)° 5.07 (10,750
43.3 (110) Partlculate 2. 3. 4, 5
38 (100)
199 (390)
heat recovery
1, 3
and 5
Blowing still

Organic
participate
Duct, fan.
afterburner
and 649-760 (1300-1500)° 2.80 (6.000) 199 (390) Partlculate 3. 5
with

heat recovery
1-6


Materials
handling and
storage^
Inorganic
participate

Duct, fan.
baghouse

and Ambient 2.36 (5.000)d Ambient Opacity 4. 5




         Storage tanks are fitted with mist eliminators to be put  Into service for opacity control when the roofing
        bllne and control equipment are shut down for extended periods.
         Residence time at temperature of 0.3 to 0.5 seconds.
        .Granules are not Included 1n materials to be controlled.
         Total airflow from four separate sources.
-------
                         TABLE 6-9.   MODEL PLANT  CONTROL  SYSTEMS  FOR  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2  TO
                                                                   (LARGE)
en
i
ro
ro

Control systan
Model
plant
Nos.
1-6




1. 3
and 5

1-6



Emission source
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater; asphalt
storage4


Blowing still


Materials
handling and
storage*
Emission
type
Organic
partlculate




Organic
partlculate

Inorganic
partlculate


Type
Full enclosure hood
with ducts, fan, and:
1. Cooler and ESP
2. Cooler and HVAF
3. Afterburner with
heat recovery
Duct, fan, and
afterburner with
heat recovery
Duct, fan, and
baghouse

Operating
temperature
°P 1 ** C1 1
*" \ ' I

38 (100)
38 (100) .
649-760 (1300-1500)°

649-760 (1300-1500)°


Ambient


Exhause gas characteristics
Airflow
Nm /s

5.14
5.14
5.14

3.30


2.36


(DSCFM)

(10,900)
(10,900)
(10.900)

(7.000)


(5.000)d


Temperature
°C f OC \
C \ ' 1

43.3 (110)
38 (100)
199 (390)

199 (390)


Ambient


Pertinent
Control regulatory
parameter alternatives

Partlculate 2, 3. 4, 5



Partlculate 3. 5


Opacity 4, 5


        Storage  tanks are  fitted with mist eliminators to be put Into service for opacity control  when the roofing
       .line and control equipment are shut down  for extended periods.
        Residence time at  temperature of 0.3 to 0.5 seconds.
        .Granules are not Included In materials to be controlled.
        Total  airflow from four separate sources.
-------
6.4  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
 1.  Memo from Shea,  E.  P., HRI/NC to 4654-L Project File.   May 30,  1979.
     Calculations for data in Table 6-1.

 2.  Memo from Shea,  E.  P., MRI/NC to 4654-L Project File.   May,  31,  1979.
     Calculations for data in Table 6-2.

 3.  Memo from Shea,  E.  P., MRI/NC to 4654-L Project File.   June  1,  1979.
     Calculations for data in Table 6-3.

 4.  Non-Metallic Mineral  Processing Plants - Background Information for
     Proposed Emission Standards.   Draft EIS.   U.  S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency.   Research  Triangle Park,  N.  C.   March 1979.

 5.  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency.   Priority List  and Additions
     to the List of Categories of  Stationary Sources.  40 CFR Part  60.
     Washington, D. C.  Office of  the Federal  Register.   August 21,  1979.
                                   6-23
-------
                       7.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

     An assessment of the environmental and energy impacts of regulatory
alternatives for the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry is presented
in this chapter.  Beneficial  and adverse impacts on air, water, solid
waste, energy, and noise are reviewed.
7.1  AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
     In order to determine the impact of regulatory alternatives on air
quality, the emissions from a baseline model plant equipped with emission
control systems that allow it to meet general state particulate and
opacity standards were compared with the emission reductions from the
six model plants representing the various regulatory alternatives.  An
examination of the emission sources (Chapter 3) from the asphalt roofing
industry shows that the major air pollutant is particulate emissions
from the saturator, coater, asphalt storage, blowing still, and materials
handling and storage.  The impact on air quality of controlling these
emission sources through one of the various regulatory alternatives
presented in Figure 6-7, Chapter 6, is assessed in the following subsection.
7.1.1  Particulate Emissions from the Model Plants
     As explained in Chapter 6, three model plant sizes  (small, medium,
and large) and two configurations for each plant size were used.
Configuration 1 represents a model plant equipped with a blowing still;
Configuration 2 depicts a plant without a blowing still.  Each regulatory
alternative was applied to each model plant configuration, the total
annual baseline particulate emissions were calculated from Tables 6-4,
6-5, 6-6, and the results were tabulated in Table 7-1.  Alternative 1
applies only to the baseline model plant (Table 7-1) whose emissions are
used for comparison with the reduced emissions from the  other model
plants under the various regulatory alternatives.
                                    7-1
-------
 TABLE 7-1.  ANNUAL MASS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM BASELINE MODEL PLANTS
              WITH AND WITHOUT BLOWING STILL (ALTERNATIVE 1)
                                                       Mg/yr         Tons/yr
Total annual participate emissions from:
   Small baseline plant with blowing still             158            174
   Small baseline plant without blowing still           74             82
Total annual particulate emissions from:
   Medium baseline plant with blowing still            257            283
   Medium baseline plant without blowing still          89             98
Total annual particulate emissions from:
   Large baseline plant with blowing still          •   303            334
   Large baseline plant without blowing still           94            104
                              7-2
-------
     Particulate emissions from the baseline model plants are summarized
in Table 7-1.  Table 7-2 presents the participate emissions from the
small size plant for the two configurations and various regulatory alter-
natives, while Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show the particulate emissions from the
medium and large plants, respectively.  An emission limit was assumed in
order to calculate the data shown in Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4.
7.1.2  Secondary Air Pollutants
     The only secondary air pollutants resulting from the regulatory
alternatives are those associated with the use of an afterburner to
control emissions from the saturator, coater, and the blowing stills.
Emissions of S0?, CO, and NO  occur with the use of afterburners.
               £>            A
Table 7-5 presents data on these secondary pollutants obtained by EPA
from source tests of afterburner performance on a saturator and a blowing
still.1'2
7.1.3  Effects of Regulatory Alternatives as Determined by Dispersion
       Modeling
     In 1977 H. E. Cramer Company, Inc., used EPA's CRSTER model to
estimate the impact of different degrees of control on the concentration
of particulate in the ambient air.  This study was completed before new
data were obtained which changed the definitions of model plants and the
baseline conditions.  A new dispersion analysis is now underway for the
revised conditions, and this chapter will be revised to include the new
results.  In the meantime, the results of the 1977 study are summarized
here to familiarize the reader with the range of impacts on ambient air
quality that might occur.
     For the 1977 study the CRSTER model was modified to include the
effects of individual sources and the effects of downwash on plume
dispersion.  The modelers used meteorological data from the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, area.  Four days representing the expected worst-case
meteorological conditions were selected for the model calculations.  A
description of the model and the methodology used is contained in the
Cramer report.
     The 1977 study estimated impacts for three plant sizes, small,
medium, and large.  Each plant size was considered in four different
plant configurations.  The configurations are:
                                    7-3
-------
 TABLE 7-2.  ANNUAL MASS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SMALL PLANTS
             FOR REGULATORY^ ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5
                                                     Mg/yr    tons/yr

Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 2                       90        99
               B.  Alternative 4                       89        98
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 3                       29        32
               B.  Alternative 5                       28        31
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 2:
               A.  Alternatives 2 and 3                 67
               B.  Alternatives 4 and 5                 5         6
                               7-4
-------
 TABLE .7-3.  ANNUAL MASS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM MEDIUM PLANTS
               FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5
                                                     Mg/yr    tons/yr

Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 2                       181       200
               B.  Alternative 4                       178       196
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 3                        60        66
               B.  Alternative 5                        56        62
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 2:
               A.  Alternatives 2 and 3                 14        15
               B.  Alternatives 4 and 5                 10        11
                              7-5
-------
 TABLE 7-4.  ANNUAL MASS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM LARGE PLANTS
               FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5
                                                     Mg/yr    tons/yr

Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 2                       225       248
               B.  Alternative 4                       223       246
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 1:
               A.  Alternative 3                        74        82
               B.  Alternative 5                        71        78
Total annual measured particulate emissions from
     model plant Configuration 2:
               A.  Alternatives 2 and 3                 16        18
               B.  Alternatives 4 and 5                 13        14
                               7-6
-------
       TABLE 7-5.  SUMMARY OF S02 AND CO EMISSIONS FROM AFTERBURNERS
              USED TO CONTROL A SATURATOR AND A BLOWING STILL
        Source                              SOi                 CO
                                        kg/h   (TBThj    Tcg/n    (Ib/h)
Afterburner outlet on                      NDa           16.49  (36.27)
  saturator (Plant B)

Afterburner outlet on      Saturant     5.5   (12.1)     13.0   (28.7)
  blowing still (Plant E)  Coating      6.5   (14.3)     32.3   (71.3)


aNot detected.
                               7-7
-------
     C-l which includes a blowing still and HVAF or ESP to control  the
saturator emissions;
     C-2 which includes a blowing still and afterburner to control  the
saturator;
     C-3 which includes a HVAF or ESP on the saturator but no blowing
still; and
     C-4 which includes an afterburner to control the saturator but no
blowing still.
An afterburner operates with the same efficiency as the HVAF or ESP but
produces a heated plume which affects the dispersion characteristics.
For each of the 12 resulting combinations, impacts were calculated for
three levels of control, minimum, moderate, and maximum.
     The emission levels and the resulting impact on particulate concen-
tration in the ambient air are summarized for the moderate and maximum
levels of control.  The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
are shown at the bottom of Table 7-6 for comparison purposes.  All  of the
24-hour maximum concentrations occur at the plant boundry.  The data show
that the impact of moderate emissions from all plant sizes and config-
urations range from 26 percent to 80 percent of  the primary NAAQS.   With
maximum control, the air quality impact at the plant fence line ranges
from 4 percent to 20 percent of the primary standard, and the secondary
standard is never violated.
7.1.4  Incremental Impact of Regulatory Alternatives
     Table 7-7 presents a summary of the annual  total particulate emissions
from the model plants under the various regulatory alternatives and also
shows the percent particulate emissions reduction achieved through the
regulatory alternatives.   It is readily apparent that blowing stills are
the largest source of particulate air pollution  in the asphalt roofing
industry.  Table 7-7 shows that by adding a mist eliminator to the asphalt
storage tanks and by improving saturator and coater control systems
(Alternative 2, Configuration 1), the particulate emission reduction from
the baseline values averages about 15 percent.  On the other hand,  by
controlling the blowing still emissions (Alternative 3, Configuration 1)
the average reduction in emissions from the baseline case is nearly
88 percent.

                                    7-8
-------
      TABLE 7-6.  PLANT EMISSIONS AND 24-HOUR MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS

Emissions control
option
Plant Plant Moderate Maximum
size configuration kg/h kg/h
C-l
C-2
Small C-3
C-4
C-l
C-2
Medium C-3
C-4
C-l
C-2
Large C-3
C-4
National Ambient Air Quality
Averaging time
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
(not to be exceeded
29.4
23.5
11.5
11.5
36.3
36.3
18.4
18.4
37.9
37.9
20.0
20.0
11.4
11.4
2.5
2.5
13.1
13.1
4.1
4.1
14.4
14.4
5.4
5.4
Concentration

24-hour maximum
Moderate Maximum
yg/m yg/m
108
103
68
64
204
204
136
136
209
203
142
138
28
26
13
11
48
43
24
20
53
47
31
25
Standards (NAAQS):


Standard
type
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Particulate
concentration (yq/m
75
60
260
150
3)


more than once per year)
                                  7-9
-------
                     TABLE 7-7.   SUMMARY OF ANNUAL TOTAL  PARTICULATE  EMISSIONS  FROM MODEL PLANT
                     CONFIGURATION  1 AND 2 (ALL  SIZES)  UNDER  THE VARIOUS  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
                           AND  THE PERCENT  REDUCTION IN  EMISSIONS FROM THE  BASELINE MODEL PLANT
                                                FOR  THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
I
I—•
o
Alternative
number
1

2
2,3
3
4
4.5
5
Plant
configuration
Configuration 1
ESP/HVAF or afterburner5
Afterburner0
Configuration 2
ESP/HVAF b or
afterburner
Configuration 1
(unregulated blow still)
Configuration 2
Configuration 1
(regulated blow still)
Configuration 1
(unregulated blow still)
Configuration 2
Configuration 1
(regulated blow still)
Small plant3
Mg/yr
158
74
90
6
29
89
5
28
tons/yr
174
82
99
7
32
98
6
31
Medium
Mg/yr
257
89
181
14
60
178
10
56
plant*
tons/yr
283
98
200
15
66
196
11
62
Larqe
Mg/yr
303
94
225
16
74
223
13
71
plant4
tons/yr
334 f
104
248
18
82
246
14
78
Percent reduction
from baseline
Small Medium Large
—
•
43 29 25
90 85 83
82 77 75
44 31 26
96 96 96
82 78 77
            ?A11 model plants under Alternatives 2 to 5 are equipped with mist  eliminators on  their asphalt  storage tanks.
             All devices have Identical efficiencies In baseline model  plant for control of saturator and coater.
             .Afterburner control efficiency 77.7 percent for blowing still control In  baseline model plant.
            "Afterburner. HVAF. and ESP efficiency 95 percent In Alternatives 2 to 5.
-------
     Improvement in emissions control from Alternatives 2 and 3 (Configu-
ration 2) to Alternatives 4 and 5 (Configuration 2) is due to equipping
the materials handling and storage facility with a baghouse.  For  •
Alternative 5, the most stringent of the regulatory alternatives, the
reduction in emissions from the baseline averaged over 90 percent.
7.2  WATER POLLUTION IMPACT
     The model plant designs under the regulatory alternatives are equipped
with a water spray injection system for cooling the gas streams prior to
the control  device.
     Cooling of the gas stream is accomplished by evaporation of the
water.  About 80 percent of the water is evaporated and the remainder is
recirculated.  The water-oil mixture is discharged into a sump and the
oil is skimmed off and reclaimed for use as fuel.  The water from the
sump is pumped to the recirculation tank where fresh water  is added to
replace the water lost by evaporation.  Approximately 1 percent of the
recirculated water will have to be disposed of in the plant's waste water
treatment system.  The increased quantity of waste water generated by the
adoption of the regulatory alternative will have a very small impact.
7.3  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
     The type of solid waste most commonly generated by the control
devices is the particulate emissions that are removed by the ESP or HVAF
and baghouse.  The ESP and HVAF remove solid asphalt particles and liquid
asphalt droplets; the baghouse removes dust particles from  the material
handling and storage area.  These materials are generally recycled into
the appropriate phase of the manufacturing process.  The filter elements
from the HVAF units must be replaced when they are saturated.  Current
practice is to dispose of spent filters in a landfill.  There will be a
small  increase in waste filter elements caused by the regulatory alter-
natives.  The increase in filter material to be disposed cannot be
quantified.  However, the impact on  solid waste disposal will be small.
     The afterburners, operating at a temperature of 760°C  (1400°F),
incinerate the particulate hydrocarbon (asphalt) emissions.  Assuming
that the heating value and ash production is similar to No. 6 high sulfur
fuel oil, the quantity of ash generated from a large roofing plant with
                                     7-11
-------
afterburners on its saturator, coaters, and blowing stills is approximately
0.2 Mg/yr (0.-24 tpy).   This ash is emitted as participate and is not
collected as a solid waste.  There should be no impact on solid waste
disposal.
7.4  ENERGY IMPACT
     The energy impact of alternative control  systems and standards can
be assessed by determining the additional energy consumption requirements
for the model  plants above the baseline plant.  The increases in energy.
requirements for Regulatory Alternatives 2 through 5 result from the
addition of a mist eliminator with a 5 to 10 hp fan to the asphalt storage
tanks, the addition of a cooling system with two water pumps (10 hp) to
the ESP and HVAF, the increase of afterburner operating temperatures from
482°C (900°F)  to 760°C (HOOT), and the substitution of a fabric filter
(baghouse) for the cyclone in the material  handling and storage area.
7.4.1  Incremental Impact for Regulatory Alternatives
     Table 7-8 shows the electricity requirements, over and above the
baseline electrical demand, that are created by implementing any of the
various regulatory alternatives.  The electricity increase from Alter-
native 2 to Alternative 4 and from Alternative. 3 to Alternative 5 is due
to the replacement of the cyclone with a baghouse in the material handling
and storage area.  The regulatory alternatives have no impact on the
electrical requirements for afterburners.  The electrical increases
created by the regulatory alternatives constitute only a small  energy
impact.  For example, the elctricity requirement of a large baseline
roofing plant with ESP is 2.97 x 1013 joules/yr (7.75 x 106 kWh/yr)
(Table 6-3).  The electrical  increase created  by implementing Regulatory
Alternatives 4 or 5 is 0.558 x 1010 joules/yr (0.16 x 106 kWh/yr), which
is a 2 percent increase over the baseline demand.
     For those plants that choose to use afterburners on their saturator
and coater and for those plants with blowing stills, the increase in fuel
requirements produced by the increase in afterburner operating temperature
is substantial.  Table 7-9 shows the annual fuel requirements for the
different regulatory alternatives and plant configurations.  For Alter-
natives 2 and 4, Configuration 1 (unregulated blowing stills), increasing
                                  7-12
-------
    TABLE 7-8.  ELECTRICITY  INCREASE  OVER  BASELINE  ELECTRICAL  DEMAND FOR  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES  2,  3,  4,  AND 5

Electricity increase over baseline demand
Emission source
Saturator-coater


Asphalt storage
Material handling
Control system
1. Precooled ESP
and HVAF
2. Afterburner w/HR
Mist eliminator
Baghouse
Requ i red
under what
alternative
2, 3, 4, 5


2, 3, 4, 5
4, 5
Small
joules/-,
yr x TO'
12,600

0
3,900
6,900
plant
kWh/yr
35,000

0
11,000
19,000
Medium
joules/7
yr x 10
25,200

0
5,000
12,000
plant -
kWh/yr
70,000

0
14,000
34,000
Large
joules/7
yr x 10
37,800

0
6,000
12,000
plant
kWh/yr
105,000

0
16,000
34,000
and storage
Blowing still
(replaces cyclone)
Afterburner w/HR
Total electricity increase  over the  baseline
demand for the regulatory alternatives:
  Alternatives 2 and 3
    With precooled ESP/HVAF
  Alternatives 4 and 5
    With precooled ESP/HVAF
                                   12,600    35,000   25,200    70,000     37,800     105,000
                                   23,400    65,000   42,200   118,000     55,800     755,000
-------
                      TABLE  7-9.   ANNUAL  ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR AFTERBURNERS AND PERCENT  FUEL  INCREASE
                                FROM BASELINE MODEL  PLANT FOR THE VARIOUS REGULATORY  ALTERNATIVES
•-J
I
Afterburner specifications
Saturator and coater » S-C
Blow still = BS
Alternative Plant
number configuration
2
a
b
\ Configuration 1
1 Configuration 2
2,4 Configuration 1
(unregulated blow still)
.3,4,5 Configuration 2
3,5 Configuration 1
(regulated blow still)
Fuel requirements are based on a fuel
Operating
Emission temperature
source
S-C
BS
S-C
S-C
BS
S-C
S-C
BS
heating
9 ot u.n 3
oC
482
482
482
760
482
760
760
760
value
I/, 1C.
(OF)
(900)
(900)
(900)
(1400)
(900)
(1400)
(1400)
(1400)
of 39.564
Fuel requirement:
Small plant
mVhr (gal/yr)
566 (149,600)
118 (31.200)
566 (149.600)5
889 (234.800)
118 (31.200)
889 (234.800)
889 (234.800)
213 (56.400)
sa
Medium plant
mVyr
1.123
236
1.123
1.766
236
1.766
1.766
427
(gal/yr)
(296.700)
(62,400)
(296,700)°
(466.400)
(62.400)
(466,400)
(466,400)
(112,800)
Percent
fuel Increase A
from baseline
Large plant
mVyr
1.664
276
1,664
2.616
276
2.616
2.616
499
(gal/yr)
(439.700)
(72.800)
(439,700)d
(691.200)
(72,800)
(691.200)
(691.200)
(131.600)
Small Medium
plant plant
47.1
57.0
57.0
80.5
47.3
57.2
57.2
80.9
Large
plant
49.1
57.2
57.2
80.7
J/mJ (142,000 Btu/gal).
          burner.  Afterburners are assumed to have a 78 percent operating efficiency and a 50 percent heat  recovery.
          Air flow of blow still afterburner Is  2.83 Nn'/s  (6,000 scfm).  Saturator and coaters have one 5.07 Nm3/s (10.750 scfm)
          afterburner and one 4.72 Nn3/s (10,000 scfm) afterburner.   Afterburners are assumed  to have a 78 percent operating efficiency
          .and a  50 percent heat recovery.
          Air flow of blow still afterburner Is  3.30 ton /s  (7,000 scfrn).  Saturator and coaters have one^ 5.14 Nm /s 10,900 scfm)
          afterburner and two 4.72 Nn3/s (10,000 scfm) afterburners.  Afterburners are assumed to have a 78  percent operating
          efficiency and a 50 percent heat recovery.
-------
the operating temperature of the afterburner controlling the saturator
and coater, increases the afterburner fuel  requirement over 49  percent
for a large plant.  When operating temperatures are increased on both
afterburners (Alternatives 3 and 5,  Configuration 1),  the afterburner
fuel requirement increases from the baseline operation by over 60 percent
for a large plant.
     The liquid hydrocarbon particulate emissions have a significant
heating value [39,564 loules/m3 (142,000 Btu/gal)].  When the blowing
still afterburner operating temperature is  increased,  the large volume of
particulates incinerated will supply enough heat to eliminate the need
for an increase in the afterburner's fuel oil requirement.
     Assuming there will be an addition of three medium size plants with
stills, and afterburners controlling the saturators, the increase in
energy from the baseline for Regulatory Alternative 5 in 1984 will be:
     1.  natural gas - 28.5 x 1012 joules/yr (2.7 x 105 therms/yr);
     2.  oil - 2,217 m3/yr  (14,000 barrels/yr).
                                                   o
This energy increase is  the equivalent of 11,000 m /yr  (69,000 barrels/yr)
of  oil for three medium  size plants.
     The 1984 increase  in  energy  for plants  using  the ESP or HVAF control
device on  the saturator  and coater will  be:
                                12                     5
      1.  natural  gas -  6.4 x 10   joules/yr  (4.9 x 10   thems/yr);
      2.  fuel oil  -  498  m3/yr  (3,100 barrels/yr);
      3.  electricity -  1.26 x  1012 joules/yr (3.7  x 105 kWh/yr).
This  is equivalent to 609  m /yr  (4,320 barrels/yr) of oil  for  three
medium size  plants.
 7.5  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
 7.5.1   Noise Impact
      The  only  noise-producing  additions  that would be made under any of
 the alternatives  are the addition of a small  water pump in the ESP or
 HVAF precooler and the  addition of a small  fan in  the mist eliminator
 system on  the  asphalt  storage  tanks.
      It is not expected that these changes  to the  baseline plant will
 provide any significant additional  noise to the  existing levels  in the
 plants.
                                     7-15
-------
7.6  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
7.6.1  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
     One option of the regulatory alternatives entails an increase in
operating temperature of afterburners which increases their fuel
consumption, and this option must be viewed as the irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of a resource.   It should be noted that no
alternative control system for blowing stills, other than afterburners,
was considered.
                                    7-16
-------
7.7  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7

*1.  Particulate  and Gaseous Emissions from the Asphalt Roofing Process
     Saturator at the CertainTeed Products Plant, Shakopee, Minnesota.
     U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.
     EPA 76-ARM-12.  May 1977.

 2.  Particulate  and Gaseous Emissions from the Asphalt Roofing Process
     Blowing Still at the  Elk Roofing Plant, Stephens, Arkansas.
     U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.
     EPA 76-ARM-ll.  May 1977.

 3.  Dispersion-Model Analysis of the Air Quality Impact of Particulate
     Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Plants and Blowing Stills.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.
     EPA 68-02-2507.  April 1977.

4.   Perry,  R. H.  and C. H. Chilton.  Chemical Engineers' Handbook.  4th ed.
     New York, McGraw-Hill, 1963.
                                   7-17
-------
                             8.  ECONOMIC IMPACT

     This chapter contains three sections:  (1) industry characterization;
(2) cost analysis of regulatory alternatives; and (3) other cost consider-
ations.  The first section describes the asphalt roofing industry's
products, production plants, production output, industry employment,
product markets and sales, product prices, and historical and future
trends of various aspects of the industry.  The second section analyzes
the capital  and annual  operating costs and cost-effectiveness of parti-
culate pollution control devices installed in new facilities and modified/
reconstructed facilities for six configurations of three model plant
sizes for each of the five regulatory options.  The third section
summarizes the costs of other environmental  regulatory requirements on
facilities in the industry and discusses the impacts of standards on the
budgets and resources of various regulatory and enforcement agencies.
8.1  INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
     The asphalt roofing industry began in this country in 1893 and has
grown until  it now supplies over 80 percent of the roofing applied in
this country.  The industry is comprised of a group of 110 manufacturing
plants, scattered throughout the United States.  These plants produce
asphalt roofing and siding shingles, asphalt roofing and siding rolls,
and saturated felts.  There are also 42 plants that blow asphalt and sell
saturant and coating asphalt to asphalt roofing plants; 17 of these
blowing still installations are at oil refineries.
8.1.1  General Profile
     The description of the industry presented in this section discusses
the following characteristics of the industry:  (1) products, (2) produc-
tion plants, (3) asphalt and product production, (4) industry employment,
(5) product markets, (6) product prices,.and (7) historical  and future
trends.  Each of these topics is discussed below.

                                    8-1
-------
     8.1.1.1  Raw Materials and Products.  The basic raw materials and
intermediate products used in the asphalt roofing industry to produce
roofing and siding products are:  (1) dry felts and fiber glass mats,
(2) asphalt, (3) mineral stabilizers, and (4) fine and coarse mineral
surfacings.  Figure 8-1 shows these raw materials and intermediate
products and their relationship to the finished products.
     Dry felt is made from various combinations of rags, paper fibers,
wood fibers, and other cellulose fibers which are blended to form an
acceptable felt for roofing products.  The felt is made from fibers
prepared by various pulping methods similar to papermaking processes.
Fiber glass mats are produced from thin glass fibers bonded with plastic
binders.  Some roofing plants produce their own dry felt, while others
purchase the dry felt or fiber glass mats from other manufacturers.
     Asphalt is used to preserve, waterproof, and increase the durability
and usefulness of roofing and siding products.  The asphalt used in the
industry is divided into saturant and coating asphalt and is produced
from asphalt flux, a product of the fractional distillation of crude oil.
Some roofing manufacturers produce their own saturant and coating asphalts
from the flux while others purchase the prepared asphalt from refineries
or asphalt processors.  The asphalt is prepared by blowing air through
the hot flux to raise the temperature at which it will soften.  The
softening point of saturant asphalt is between 40.55°C (105°F) and 74°C
(165°F) and runs as high as 127°C (260°F) for coating asphalt.1  Tables 8-1
through 8-3a list the ASTM specifications for roll roofing saturants,
shingle saturants, and coating asphalt, respectively.
     Coating asphalt is usually stabilized by adding finely divided
minerals to make the asphalt more shatter and shockproof in cold weather
and more resistant to weathering.  Typical  mineral stabilizers include
talc, silica, dolomite, slate dust, trap rock, and micaceous materials.
     Fine mineral  surfacing materials, primarily talc and sand, are
dusted:  (1) on the back of shingles to prevent them from sticking to
each other; (2) on the back of mineral-surfaced roll roofing to prevent
the convolutions of the roll  from sticking together; and (3) on surfaces
of smooth roll roofing to prevent sticking.  These materials adhere to
the product during storage and handling.
                                   8-2
-------
           PRIMARY
           PROCESSING
SECONDARY
PROCESSING
   RAW
MATERIALS
   RAGS
  PAPER
 ASBESTOS
  WOOD
  FIBER
FIBER GLASS
    MAT
 ASPHALT
  FLUX
 MINERAL
STABILIZER
   FINE
 SURFACING
  COLORED
 GRANULES
     Figure 8-1.  Processing chart for asphalt roofing products,
           from raw materials to finished  roofing.2
                                   8-3
-------
TABLE 8-1.  ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROLL ROOFING SATURANTS  (METRIC)'
             Characteristics
    ASTM
 Specifications
Specific gravity at 15.55°C
Softening point (R and B)  °C
Penetration at
  0°C, 200 g, 60 s
  25°C, 100 g, 5 s
Flash point (C.O.C.) °C
Loss in 5 h at 162.8°C (50g)
Loss in penetration after heating
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride
Viscosity, Saybolt Furol,  at
  121°C
  149°C
  177°C
  204°C
Foam test, seconds for first clear spot
Compatibility with coating at 54°C for 72 h
Oliensis heterogeneity, test for 24 h
 0.99 -  1.035
40.55 - 46.1

    30 up
   90 - 150
   232 up
  Below U
  Below 20%
  Over 99%

  Under 350
  Under 100
  Under  40

  Under 300
  Under 1.5 mm
  Negative
                                 8-4
-------
TABLE 8-la.  ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROLL ROOFING SATURANTS  (ENGLISH)'
             Characteristics
    ASTM
Specifications
Specific gravity at 60°F
Softening point (R and B) °F
Penetration at
  32°F, 0.44 lb, 60 s
  77°F, 0.22 lb, 5 s
Flash point (C.O.C.) °F
Loss in 5 h at 325°F (0.11  lb)
Loss in penetration after heating
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride
Viscosity, Saybolt Furol, at
  250°F
  300 °F
  350°F
  400 °F
Foam test, seconds for first clear spot
Compatibility with coating at 130°F for 72 h
Oliensis heterogeneity, test for 24 h
0.99 - 1.035
 105 - 115

   30 up
  90-150
  450 up
 Below 1%
 Below 20%
 Over 99%

 Under 350
 Under 100
 Under  40

 Under 300
 Under 0.55 in.
 Negative
                                8-5
-------
 TABLE 8-2.  ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHINGLE SATURANTS (METRIC)3
           Characteristics
    ASTM
Specifications
Specific gravity at 15.55°C
Softening point (R and B)  °C      %
Penetration at
  0°C, 200 g, 60 s
  25°C, 100 g, 5 s
  46°C, 50 g, 5 s
Ductility at 25°C
Flash point (C.O.C.) °C
Loss in 5 h at 163°C (50g)
Loss in penetration after heating
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride
Vi scosity at
 177°C
 204 °C
 232°C
Foam test, seconds for first clear spot
Compatibility with coating at 54°C for 72 h
Oliensis heterogeneity, test for 24 h
 1.0 - 1.04
  63 - 74

   10 up
  25 - 40
 Under 115
 10 en up
  246 up
 Under 0.5%
 Under 20%
 Over 99%

 Under 140 Furol
 Under  60 Furol
 Under  30 Furol
 Under 300
 Under 0.3 mm
   Negative
                                  8-6
-------
 TABLE 8-2a.   ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHINGLE SATURANTS  (ENGLISH)3
           Characteristics
    ASTM
Specifications
Specific gravity at 60°F
Softening point (R and B)  °F
Penetration at
  32°F, 0.44 Ib, 60 s
  77°F, 0.22 Ib, 5 s
  115°F, 0.11 Ib, 5 s
Ductility at 77°F
Flash point (C.O.C.) °F
Loss in 5 h at 325°F (0.11  Ib)
Loss in penetration after heating
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride
Vi scosity at
 350°F
 400 °F
 450°F
Foam test, seconds for first clear spot
Compatibility with coating at 130°F for 72 h
01 i en sis heterogeneity, test for 24 h
 1.0 - 1.04
 145 - 165

   10 up
  25 - 40
 Under 115
  3.94 in.
  475 up
 Under 0.5%
 Under 20%
 Over 99%

 Under 140 Furol
 Under  60 Furol
 Under  30 Furol
 Under 300
 Under 0.012 in.
   Negative
                                 8-7
-------
   TABLE 8-3.  ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR COATING ASPHALTS (METRIC)3
           Characteristics
    ASTM
Specifications
Specific gravity at 15.55°C
Softening point (R and B) °C
Penetration at
  0°C, 200 g, 60 s
  25°C, 100 g, 5 s
  46°C, 50 g, 5 s
Ductility at 25°C
Flash point (C.O.C.) °C
Loss in 5 h at 163°C (50g)
Loss in penetration after heating
Impact at 4.4°C (cm)
Pliability at 4.4°C
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride, %
Stain test, 54°C, 5 days
Viscosity, Stormer 100 g, 100 rev/s at
 191°C
 204 °C
 218°C
 232°C
Compatibility with coating  at 54°C for 72 h
  Roll saturant
  Shingle  saturant
 1.005 - 1.045
   102 - 116

     10 up
    18 - 22
   Under 45
   Over 2.5 cm
   Over 246
   Under 0.5%
   Under 20%
   Over 5.08 cm
   Under 3-1/2
   Under 1.5 mm
   Under 3 mm
                                 8-8
-------
       TABLE 8-3a.   ASTM SPECIFICATIONS FOR  COATING  ASPHALTS  (ENGLISH)3
         Characteristics
    ASTM
specifications
Specific gravity at 60°F
Softening point (R and B)  °F
Penetration at:
  32°F, 0.44 Ib, 60 s
  77°F, 0.22 Ib, 5 s
  115°F, 0.11 Ib, 5 s
Ductility at 77°F
Flash point (C.O.C.) °F
Loss in 5 h at 325°F (0.11  Ib)
Loss in penetration after heating
Impact at 40°F (in.)
Pliability at 40°F
Soluble in carbon tetrachloride, %
Stain test, 130°F, 5 days
Viscosity, stormer 0.22 Ib., 100 rev/s at:
  375°F
  400 °F
  425°F
  450°F
Compatibility with  saturants at 130°F for 72 h
  Roll saturant
  Shingle  saturant
1.005 - 1.045
  215 - 240

   10 up
   18 - 22
 Under 45
 Over 1.0 in.
 Over 475°F
 Under 0.05%
 Under 20%
 Over 2 in.
 Under 3-1/2
 Under 0.059 in.
 Under 0.118 in.
                                 8-9
-------
     Coarse minerals or granules are applied to surfaced products to
protect the asphalt«coating, increase fire resistance, and impart color
to the product.  The granules typically used for mineral surfacing are
natural rock granules, rock granules colored by a ceramic process, or
naturally colored slate.
     The asphalt roofing industry produces three basic groups of roofing
and siding products:  (1) saturated felts, (2) roll roofing and roll
siding, and (3) roofing and siding shingles.  Products which are typical
of these three groups are shown and described in Tables 8-4 and 8-4a, and
typical compositions of these products are given in Tables 8-5 and 8-5a.
     Saturated felts may be impregnated with either saturant asphalt or
coal  tar.  Currently about 95 percent of saturated felts are produced
with  asphalt and about 5 percent are produced with coal tar.  Asphalt
saturated felts are used as underlayment for shingles, for sheathing
paper, and for laminations in the construction of built-up roofs.  These
products are made in different weights, the most common being No. 15,
which weighs approximately 6.8 kg (15 Ib) per square, and No. 30, which
weighs about 13.6 kg (30 Ib) per square.*  Coal  tar saturated felts are
used  for pipe wrapping.
     Roll roofing is prepared by adding a stabilized coating of asphalt
to a  dry felt which has first been impregnated with a saturant asphalt or
by adding a stabilized coating asphalt to a fiber glass mat, in which
case  the stabilized coating is used to both saturate and coat the mat.
Roll  roofings can be surfaced with mineral granules to produce a wide
range of colors.  Some styles are furnished in split rolls designed to
give an edge pattern when applied to the roof.  Mineral surfaced rolls
are also embossed to simulate brick or stone for use as sidings.
     Shingles are made by adding a coating of stabilized asphalt to a dry
felt  web which has first been impregnated with a saturant asphalt, or to
a fiber glass mat.  Mineral granules are then added, a strip of sealer
asphalt may be applied, and the web is cut into shingles.  The most popular
shingle is a nominal 106.6 kg (235 Ib), 3-tab, self-sealing strip shingle.
This  shingle is shown in Figure 8-2.
*A square (sq) is the amount of material which, when applied, will cover
9.29 m2 (100 sq ft) of surface.

                                      8-10
-------
           TABLE  8-4.    TYPICAL ASPHALT ROOFING  PRODUCTS  (METRIC)
 PRODUCT  1
                                    6   7
                                               PRODUCT 1
                                                                                   6   7
             6.8
             13.6
  Uf «•»!!• (lit
29.5
22.7
            40.8
WMU4 UMMII *Ml
            47.6
 SO
 TO
54.4
           a 3
           a?
            11
       10
                  10
                   10
      11.7
      11.9
                  20.1
1/4
1/2
43.9
21.9
                                   11
            1.000
            1.075
            1.1 SO
                                   4.6
                                   11
                          .91
                             .05
                                               106.6
                                               136.1
22.3
29.7
                                                                      30R 4
30
80
                                      .91
                                         .05
                                                           88.S
                                                                 22.7
                                                                             86
                                                                                  .91
                                      .91
                                                           65.8
                                                                 23.2
                                                                             80
                                                                                 .41
                                                           65.8
                                                                23.2
                                                                             80
                                                                                 .41
                                         .05
                                                           150
                                                                18.9
                                                                            226
                                                                                 41
                                     .91
                                         .48
                                                            75
                                                                 13.1
                                                                             it:
                                                                                 .41
Package
squar
                                              01«
                                              .£ a
                                              a 3
                                              f!
                                              11
Packages p
square
                                                                                    129
                                                                                        .OS
                                                                                     .41
                                                                                    .41
                                                                                    .30
                                                                                    30
                                                                                       .28
                                                                                       .05
            TABLE 8-4 IS SET UP IN 8 COLUMNS ARRANGED TO SHOW IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF
        THE PRODUCT, AS FOLLOWS: **
            COLUMN 1    - NAME OF PRODUCT
            COLUMN 2    - APPROXIMATE SHIPPING WEIGHT OF ONE SQUARE OF PRODUCT, A SQUARE
                        BEING THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WHICH. WHEN INSTALLED. WILL COVER
                        9.29 SQUARE METERS OF SURFACE
            COLUMN 3    - APPROXIMATE AREA OF ONE SQUARE
           'COLUMN 4    - NUMBER OF PACKAGES REQUIRED TO COVER ONE SQUARE
            COLUMN 5    - NUMBER OF SHINGLES REQUIRED TO COVER ONE SQUARE
            COLUMNS 6&7- LENGTH AND WIDTH OF ONE PACKAGE OR ONE SHINGLE
            COLUMN 8    - AMOUNT OF OVERLAP FROM ONE COURSE TO THE NEXT (SEE FIGURE BELOW)

W./.L
'//////£
77/r//77/

LL/MIL


7/////Z/
tiit

/ ' ' ^


U/.L
                                                     8-n
-------
            TABLE 8-4a.   TYPICAL  ASPHALT  ROOFING PRODUCTS  (ENGLISH)'
PRODUCT 1
           15
           30
108
1/4
1/2
           65
           50
           90
           105
          110
           TO
          120
         \l
108
                108
126
128
216
     1.000
     1.075
     1.150
                36
                               36
               36
                   36
                   36
                                  36
                  36
                     19
                                          PRODUCT 1
                                      235
                                      300
240
320
                                                      195
                                                      145
                                                      145
                                                      330'
                                      165
                                      "
                                                           244
                                                           250
                                                           250
                                                           203
                                           141
                                          .1 s-=
                                          Ft
                                                               3 OR 4
30
80
                                                                      86
                                                                      80
                                                                      80
                                                                     226
                                                      113
                                                                           6  7
                                                                          36
                                                                          16
                                                                          16
                                                                          IS
                                                          16
                                                                             16
                                                                             16
                                                             12
          TABLE 8-4a IS SET UP IN 8 COLUMNS ARRANGED TO SHOW IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OP
       THE PRODUCT. AS FOLLOWS:1*
          COLUMN 1   - NAME OF PRODUCT
          COLUMN 2   • APPROXIMATE SHIPPING WEIGHT OF ONE SQUARE OF PRODUCT. A SQUARE
                      BEING THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WHICH. WHEN INSTALLED. WILL COVER
                      100 SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE
          COLUMN 3   - APPROXIMATE AREA OF ONE SQUARE
          COLUMN 4   - NUMBER OF PACKAGES REQUIRED TO COVER ONE SQUARE
          COLUMN 5   - NUMBER OF SHINGLES REQUIRED TO COVER ONE SQUARE
          COLUMNS 647- LENGTH AND WIDTH OF ONE PACKAGE OR ONE SHINGLE
          COLUMN 8   - AMOUNT OF OVERLAP FROM ONE COURSE TO THE NEXT (SEE FIGURE BELOW)
                                 / / , TOP LAP' / /
                                 t  . i  • f_j t i
                                                 8-12
-------
                                 TABLE 8-5.  TYPICAL ROOFING COMPOSITIONS5'6 (METRIC)
00
I

Parameters
Weight kg/100 m2
Felt base, % by wt.
Saturant for felt, % by wt.
Coating (filled, % by wt.
Surfacing, % by wt.
Character of felt ?
Weight, kg/100 m
Thickness, mm
Composition:
Rag fiber, %
Chemical wood pulp, %
Mechnical wood pulp, %
Character of saturant
Softening point (R and B),°C
Penetration at 25°C
Character of coating

Filler (limestone), % by wt.
Softening point (R and B),
unfilled °C
Softening point (R and B),
filled °C
Penetration, unfilled at 25°C
Character of surfacing
Cumulative retained
10-mesh sieve, %
14-mesh sieve, %
35-mesh sieve, %
100-inesh sieve, %
200-mesh sieve, %
Saturated felts
6.8 kg 13.6 kg
65.9 131.8
40 38
60 62
—
__
Organic
26.5 50.9
0.864 1.397

0 0
45 45
55 55
Blown asphalt
43.3
150
__














Smooth roll Granule- surfaced Standard
roofing roll roofing shingle
236.3
14.0
19.6
59.8
6.6
Organic
30.5
0.864

0
45
55
Blown asphalt
43.3
150
Fil led blown
asphalt
50

104

110
18
Ground talc

--
—
--
40
60
439.4 488.5
12.5 11.6
19.9 19.8
23.9 34.4
43.7 34.2
Organic
50.9 55.9
1.397 1.524

0 0
45 45
55 55
.Blown asphalt
43.3 54.4
150 70
Fil led blown
asphalt
50 53

104 104

no no
18 18
Crushed rock

1 1
35 35
98 98
—
—
-------
                                  TABLE 8-5a.  TYPICAL ROOFING COMPOSITIONS5'6  (ENGLISH)
CO
I

Parameters
Weight lb/100 ft2
Felt base, % by wt.
Saturant for felt, % by wt.
Coating (filled, % by wt.
Surfacing, % by wt.
Character of felt 9
Weight, lb/480 ft
Thickness, in.
Composition:
Rag fiber, %
Chemical wood pulp, %
technical wood pulp, %
Character of saturant
Softening point (R and B),°F
Penetration at 77°F
Character of coating

Filler (limestone), % by wt.
Softening point (R and B),
unfilled °F
Softening point (R and B),
filled °F
Penetration, unfilled at 77°F
Character of surfacing
Cumulative retained
10-mesh sieve, %
14-mesh sieve, %
35-mesh sieve, %
100-mesh sieve, %
200-mesh sieve, %
Saturated felts Smooth roll Granule-surfaced Standard
15 Ib 30 Ib roofing roll roofing shingle
13.5 27.0 48.4
40 38 14.0
60 62 19.6
59.8
6.6
Organic Organic
26 50 30
0.034 .055 .034

00 0
45 45 45
55 55 55
Blov/n asphalt Blown asphalt
110 110
150 150
Filled blown
asphalt
50

220

230
18
Ground talc

--
--
--
40
60
90 98
12.5 11.6
19.9 19.8
23.9 34.4
43.7 34.2
Organic
50 55
.055 .060

0 0
45 45
55 55
Blown asphalt
110 130
150 70
Filled blown
asphalt
50 53

220 220

230 230
18 18
Crushed rock

1 1
35 35
98 98
__ __
—
-------
                                            91.44 cm
                                             (36 in.)
                                          'SEALING STRIP
                      TAB
                    30.43 cm
                   " (12 in.) ~
                                             TAB
                                                                   TAB
                                                                                   30.48 cm
                                                                                    (12 in.)
 30.48 cm
- (12 in.) '
                     , GRANULE SURFACING^
                  ^PARTING AGENT SURFACING'
                     SHINGLE CROSS-SECTION
Figure  8-2.   106.6  kg  (235  Ib),  3-tab  self-seal  strip  shingle.7
                                           8-15
-------
     In addition to the basic products given above, a variety of specialty
asphalt coatings and cements are made from asphalt by adding special
ingredients, by mixing with suitable solvents, or by emulsifying with
water.
                                                        o
     Asphalt coatings and cements can be categorized as:
     1.  plastic asphalt cements;
     2.  lap cements;
     3.  quick-setting asphalt adhesives;
     4.  roof coatings;
     5.  asphalt water emulsions; and
     6.  asphalt primers.
Few roofing plants make these specialty products and details of their
preparation were not investigated in this study.
     8.1.1.2   Production Plants.  The individual asphalt roofing manu-
facturing plants are described with the information available with respect
to the following characteristics:  (1) location  and ownership, (2) plant
age, and (3) plant production capacity.
     8.1.1.2.1  Plant location and ownership.  The Asphalt Roofing Manu-
facturers Association (ARMA) reported that 109 of the 110 asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants in the United States were members of the association
in 1978. The name and location of the asphalt roofing plant not a member
of ARMA was obtained from a manufacturer of electrostatic precipitators.
The information was verified by calling the plant owner.  These plants
were owned  by 25 companies and were  scattered throughout the country.
Table 8-6 lists the locations and company ownership of the 110 asphalt
roofing plants  in the United States.  Figure 8-3 shows the plant locations.
     About  30 percent of the plants are located  in three states (Calif-
ornia, Texas, and Illinois), and most of the plants are located in  urban
areas.  The companies which own the plants vary  greatly in size and
diversity of products.  Some of the companies produce their own felts,
about one-third of the companies process their own asphalt, and one
company owns  its own asphalt refinery.  Ten of the firms are publicly
owned  and listed on the New  York, American, or regional stock exchanges.
     8.1.1.2.2  Plant  age.   No data  are  available  on the age of individual
plants in the asphalt roofing and  siding products  industry.  Data published

                                   8-16
-------
                 TABLE 8-6.   ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURERS9
Company and Headquarters
         Location
Number of
 Plants
           Plant Locations
Allied Materials Corporation       1
  Stroud, Oklahoma

Asphalt Products Industries3       1
  Auburn, Washington

Bear Brand Roofing, Inc.           1
  Bearden, Arkansas

Big Chief Roofing Company          1
  Ardmore, Oklahoma

Bird and Sons, Inc.                9
  East Walpole, Massachusetts
The Celotex Corporation           13
  Tampa, Florida
CertainTeed Corporation           10
  Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Congoleum-Nair, Inc.               1
  Cedarhusrt, Maryland

Consolidated Fiberglass            1
  Bakersfield, California

Daingerfield Manufacturing Company 1
  Daingerfield, Texas
Delta Roofing Mills
  Slidell, Louisiana
1
Stroud, OK


Auburn, WA


Bearden, AR


Ardmore, OK


Charleston, SC; Chicago,  IL;
Franklin, OH; Martinez,  CA;
Norwood, MA; Perth Amboy, NJ;
Portland, OR; Shreveport, LA;
Wilmington, CA

San Antonio, TX; Camden,  AR;
Houston, TX; Cincinnati,  OH;
Memphis, TN; Perth Amboy, NJ;
Goldsboro, NC; Chester,  WV;
Chicago, IL; Wilmington,  IL;
Philadelphia, PA; Birmingham,
AL; Los Angeles, CA

Avery, OH; Chicago Hgts., IL;
Kansas City, MO; Dallas,  TX;
Oxford, NC; Richmond, CA;
Shakopee, NM; Savannah,  GA;
Tacoma, WA; York, PA

Cedarhurst, MD


Bakersfield, CA


Daingerfield, TX


Slidell, LA
                                  8-17
-------
                 TABLE 8-6.   ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURERS9
                              (continued)
Company and Headquarters
         Location    	
 Number of
  Plants
Plant Locations
Elk Corporation
  Stephens, Arkansas

The Flintkote Company
  Stamford, Connecticut
G A F Corporation
  New York, New York
Globe Industries, Inc.
  Chicago, Illinois

Johns-Manville Corporation
  Denver, Colorado
Koppers Company
  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Lunday-Thagard Oil Company
  South Gate, California

Herbert Malarkey Roofing Company
  Portland, Oregon

Masonite Corporation
  Meridian, Mississippi

Nical,  Inc.
  Hollister, California

Owens-Corning Fiberglas
  Corporation, Toledo, Ohio
         Stephens,  AR;  Tuscaloosa,  AL
 7       Peachtree City,  GA;  Jersey
         City,  NJ; Enni s,  TX; Chicago
         Hgts., IL; Los Angeles,  CA;
         St.  Paul, NM;  Portland,  OR

13       Baltimore, MD; Dallas, TX;
         Denver,  CO; Erie, PA;
         Joliet,  IL; Kansas City,  MO;
         Mil 11s,  MA; Minneapolis,  MN;
         Mobile,  AL; Mount Vernon, IL;
         Savannah, GA;  Tampa, FL;
         South  Bound Brook, NJ

 1       Whiting,  IN
 7       Fort Worth,  TX; Marrero,  LA;
         Manville,  NJ;  Savannah,  GA;
         Pittsburg, CA; Waukegan,  IL;
         Los Angeles, CA

 3       Chicago,  IL; Woodward,  AL;
         Youngstown,  OH

 1       South Gate,  CA
 1       Portland, OR
 2       Meridian, MS; Little Rock,  AR
 2       Albuquerque, NM; Hollister,
         CA

26       Atlanta, GA; Brookville,  IN;
         Compton, CA; Denver,  CO;
         Detroit, MI; Hazelwood,  MO;
         Houston, TX; Irving,  TX;
                                  8-18
-------
                 TABLE 8-6.   ASPHALT ROOFING  MANUFACTURERS9
                                 (concluded)
Company and Headquarters
         Location
Number of
 Plants
Plant Locations
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.  (cont.)
  Toledo, Ohio
Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc.
  Joplin, Missouri

Tilo Company,  Inc.
  Stratford, Connecticut

United States Gypsum Company
  Chicago,  Illinois
        Kearney,  NJ; Lubbock,  TX;
        Memphis,  TN; Ft.  Lauderdale,
        FL; Jacksonville,  FL;
        Minneapolis, MN;
        Morehead  City,  NC; North
        Kansas City, MO;  Oklahoma
        City,  OK; Portland,  OR;
        San Leandro, CA;  Santa Clara,
        CA; Summit,  IL; Waltham, MA;
        Woods Cross, UT;  Jessup, MD

        Joplin, MO;  Phil lipsburg,  KS;
        Tuscaloosa,  AL

        Stratford, CT
        South Gate, CA
aCompany not a member of the Association;  company name  and  location
 obtained from a manufacturer of electrostatic precipitators.   Verified
 by calling plant owner.
                                  8-19
-------
00
I
ro
o
                                                                                                   DC
         Figure  8-3.   Location  of  asphalt  roofing manufacturing  facilities  within  the United States.
-------
by the Department of Commerce,  Bureau of the Census,  provide  some  insight
into the approximate ages of plants in  the  industry.
The Census of Manufacturers reports in  1954, 1958,  1963,  1967,  and 1972
showed that the asphalt and tar roofing and siding  products industry  was
composed of the following number of plants:
                         Year           No. of plants
                         1954                116
                         1958                109
                         1963                113
                         1967                110
                         1972                102
     These data show that the number of plants in the industry  declined
between 1954 and 1967.   The number of plants increased  from 100 in 1967
to 110 in 1977.  During the 24-year period  (1954  through  1977)  the least
number of plants in operation in the census years was 100.
     Since there are no data for years  between the  censuses and no infor-
mation on the number of new plants built or plant closures, the age of
the 110 plants in operation in 1977 can only be estimated.  If  we  assume
that during periods of decline (1954 through 1958 and 1963 through 1967)
no new plants were built, and assume that during  periods  of increase
(1958 through 1963, and 1967 through 1977)  about  2  percent of the  existing
plants were closed and were replaced by new plants, and attribute  the
actual increase in the number of plants to  new plant  construction, then
the 110 plants existing in 1977 would have  the following  estimated ages:
                         Age            No. of plants
                    Over 20 years            90
                    10 to 20 years            5
                    Under 10 years           15
     8.1.1.2.3  Plant production capacities.  Asphalt roofing production
capacity figures are not disclosed for  the  industry or  for individual
plants.  Table 8-7 shows the shipments, by  region,  for  individual  products
in 1977 and the number of plants in each region.  The table can also  be
used to show the relative capacities of plants in each  region for  produc-
tion of specific products.  It is important to note that  the data  in
Table 8-7 are aggregate data, and no information  can  be deduced from
these data for individual plants.  For  example, a region  may have  two
large plants which tend to distort the data to indicate that  plants in
                                  8-21
-------
                  TABLE 8-7.   QUANTITIES OF ASPHALT ROOFING'PRODUCT SHIPMENTS IN 1977,  BY REGION9*11
oo
ro
ro



Quantity of
shipments (thousands of sales squares)
Roll roofing and
cap sheet

Region
Northeast
North Central
East North Central
West North Central
South
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West
Total United States
No. of
plants
13
29
18
11
44
16
9
19
24
110
Smooth-
surfaced
3,426
5,256
4,412
844
4,943
1,705
1,115
2,123
3,764
17,389
Mineral-
surfaced
2,430
3,786
2,616
1,170
3,911
1,506
559
1,846
3,062
13,189
Strip
shingles
10,905
20,379
14,040
6,339
23,108
6,354
4,354
12,400
7,048
61,440
Individual
shingles
92
1,102
513
589
292
133
30
129
737
2,223

Total
16,853
30,523
21,581
8,942
32,254
9,698
6,058
16,498
14,611
94,241
        Northeast:  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New Jersey,  and Pennsylvania.
        North Central:   Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, Minnesota,  Missouri,  and  Kansas.
        South:  Maryland, West Virginia,  North Carolina,  South Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida
                Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Arkansas, Oklahoma,  Louisiana,  and  Texas.
        West:  Colorado, Utah, Washington,  California,  Oregon, and New Mexico.
-------
that region are larger than plants in another.region, while the opposite
may be the actual  case.
     The data in Table 8-7 indicate that 12 percent of the plants are in
the Northeast; 26 percent in the North Central region; 40 percent in the
South; and 22 percent in the West.  The Northeast produced 18 percent of
the asphalt roofing products in 1977; the North Central region produced
32 percent; the South produced 34 percent; and the West produced 16 percent.
The South and North Central  regions have larger production capacities
than do the other two regions, and the ratio of production quantities to
the number of plants is highest for the Northeast region and lowest for
the West.
     Half of the production of individual  shingles occurs in the North
Central region and another 33 percent occurs in the West.  Strip shingles
are produced primarily (70.7 percent) in the North Central and Southern
regions. Smooth-surfaced and mineral-surfaced roll roofing and cap sheet
comprise from 18 to 30 percent of the U.S. total  production in each
region.
     8.1.1.3  Asphalt and Asphalt Product Production.  The production of
asphalt roofing products depends upon the manufacture of asphalt flux at
petroleum refineries and the processing of the flux into saturant and
coating asphalt by the petroleum refineries, asphalt processors, or
asphalt roofing manufacturing plants.  Since the asphalt roofing industry
is dependent on the petroleum refining industry for this primary raw
material, a brief discussion of the asphalt production industry is included
in this section.  Following the discussion on asphalt production, the
production of products in the asphalt roofing industry is presented.
     8.1.1.3.1  Asphalt production.  The production of asphalt in the
United States increased from 21,573,000 m3 (135,691,000 barrels) in 1969,
to 26,691,000 m3 (167,884,000 barrels) in 1973; then declined to
22,211,000 m3 (139,706,000 barrels) by 1976; and  rose to 24,493,000 m3
(154,058,000 barrels) in 1977 as shown in Tables  8-8 and 8-8a.  These
increases and decreases in asphalt production were in direct response to
the U.S. consumption of asphalt each  year, since  exports were negligible
and imports varied to meet short-term demand which domestic production
failed to provide.
                                      8-23
-------
TABLE 8-8.   ANNUAL U.S.  PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, IMPORTS, EXPORTS,
            AND STOCK OF ASPHALT,  1969-197716,17
                (Thousands  of m3 of asphalt)

Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
U.S.
production
24,493
22,211
22,887
26,112
26,691
24,690
24,967
23,317
21,573
Imports
238
621
788
1,789
1,342
1,473
1,147
986
757
U.S.
consumption
24,808
23,333
23,432
26,826
29,031
26,040
25,204
24,401
22,781
Exports
35
42
51
65
54
53
49
57
74
End-of-year
stock
2,968
3,080
3,624
3,398
2,389
3,440
3,371
2,509
2,664
                                8-24
-------
TABLE 8-8a.   ANNUAL U.S.  PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, IMPORTS, EXPORTS,
            AND STOCK OF  ASPHALT,  1969-197716»17
              (Thousands  of  barrels of asphalt)

Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
U.S.
production
154,058
139,706
143,957
164,237
167,884
155,294
157,039
146,658
135,691
Imports
1,498
3,905
4,956
11,252
8,444
9,263
7,216
6,201
4,761
U.S.
consumption
156,039
146,763
147,384
168,733
182,602
163,788
158,526
153,477
143,290
Exports
223
267
320
410
340
333
306
356
464
End-of-year
stock
18,669
19,375
22,794
21,370
15,024
21,638
21,202
15,779
16,753
                                8-25
-------
     Most asphalt is produced at petroleum refineries as a residual
product of the refining processes.   The refineries can adjust the process
to obtain larger or smaller quantities of asphalt as needed.   The residual
product is used in coking operations,  in the production of residual  fuel
oils and as refinery fuel, as well  as for the manufacture of  asphalt.
     The demand for asphalt depends predominantly on the paving market
and on the asphalt roofing industry to a lesser extent.  In recent years,
80 percent of asphalt was used to pave roads, 15 percent was  used in
asphalt roofing, and 5 percent was used for miscellaneous purposes.
Asphalt consumption increased by about 780,000 flg/yr (860,000 tons/yr) in
the 1960's; 698,000 Mg/yr (770,000 tons/yr) for paving; and 62,000 Mg/yr
(68,000 tons/yr) for asphalt roofing.14
     During the early 1970's, asphalt consumption continued to increase,
reaching the highest level in 1973.  The price of crude oil and asphalt
rose dramatically in 1974 due to the oil embargo of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the demand for asphalt fell for
that year, for 1975, and for 1976.   The fall in consumption can be explained
by the facts that consumer funds for home construction and government
funds for road construction remained almost constant while the price of
asphalt rose dramatically.
     The capacity to produce asphalt was available at 104 of  the nation's
285 refineries as of January 1, 1978,  and the reported capacity for the
industry was 122,890 m3 per stream day (772,957 barrel s/stream day), as
shown in Table 8-9.  These 104 refineries are owned by 58 companies; the
20 largest firms in terms of asphalt production capacity are  shown in
Table 8-10.  The largest, the Exxon Corporation, controls 13.2 percent of
the asphalt production capacity in the U.S., the five largest companies
control 48.6 percent of the asphalt capacity, and the 20 largest control
80.5 percent of the production capacity.
     8.1.1.3.2  Asphalt Product Production.  Shipments of all asphalt  and
tar roofing and siding products totaled 8.6 million Mg (9.5 million tons)
in 1977, the most recent year for which data are available.   The total
shipment was 90.3 percent asphalt roofing products, 9.6 percent saturated
felts, and 0.1 percent asphalt and insulated siding products.  Total
                                  8-26
-------
TABLE 8-9.   U.S.  DISTRIBUTION OF  ASPHALT
     PRODUCTION CAPACITY,  BY  STATE3'15

No. of
State refineries
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawa i i
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
6
4
1
4
40
3
1
1
2
2
12
7
11
4
23
2
6
3
5
1
7
1
1
1
4
8
2
1
3

Asphal
Refineries 3
producing m per
asphalt stream day
3
1
1
3
13
1
0
0
2
1
5
4
5
2
5
2
1
2
3
1
4
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
2,067
48
238
1,351
12,218
525
0
0
2,067
207
8,236
9,285
2,830
3,736
9,523
3,450
1,375
7,790
1,517
1,033
3,863
0
0
0
12,401
111
2,862
0
0
t production capacity
Barrels per
stream day
13,000
300
1,500
8,500
76,850
3,300
0
0
13,000
1,300
51,800
58,400
17,800
23,500
59,900
21,700
8,650
49,000
9,540
6,500
24,300
0
0
0
78,000
700
18,000
0
0
Percent
of crude
capacity
11.2
0.3
23.7
13.2
3.1
4.8
0.0
0.0
59.1
1.2
4.2
9.5
3.8
13.6
2.8
69.5
5.7
21.8
2.8
6.1
14.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
0.6
16.4
0.0
0.0
                  8-27
-------
                TABLE 8-9.  U.S. DISTRIBUTION OF ASPHALT
                     PRODUCTION CAPACITY, BY STATE9'15
                               (concluded)

Asphalt production
Refineries -
No. of producing m per
State refineries asphalt stream day
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
Total
7
12
1
10
1
53
9
1
8
3
1
13
285
6
8
1
3
1
11
1
0
2
0
1
6
104
5,406
5,247
1,367
6,677
1,272
10,223
350
0
1,113
0
2,146
2,356
122,890
capacity
Percent
Barrels per of crude
^stream day capacity
34,000
33,000
8,600
42,000
8,000
64,300
2,200
0
7,000
0
13,500
14,817
772,957
5.5
5.8
58.4
5.0
17.9
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.8
0.0
28.8
7.5
avg. 4.4
Data for January  1,  1978.
                                   8-28
-------
     TABLE 8-10.  U.S.  ASPHALT PRODUCTION CAPACITY, BY COMPANY a'15


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Company
Exxon Company
Amoco Oil Company
Chevron USA, Inc.
Ashland Petroleum Company
Shell Oil Company
Koch Refining Company
Marathon Oil Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Douglas Oil Company
Sun Oil Company
Mobil Oil Corporation
Vickers Petroleum Corporation
Murphy Oil Corporation
Texaco, Inc.
Continental Oil Company
Union Oil Company (CA)
Energy Cooperative, Inc.
Hunt Oil Company
Southland Oil Company
Gulf Oil Company
Total
m per
stream day
16,200
12,460
11,270
10,800
8,970
5,560
4,560
3,970
3,470
3,240
2,460
2,380
2,150
2,100
1,720
1,690
1,650
1,590
1,510
1,410
99,180
Barrels per
stream day
101,900
78,400
70,900
67,900
56,400
35,000
28,700
25,000
21,800
20,400
15,500
15,000
13,500
13,200
10,800
10,600
10,400
10,000
9,500
8,900
623,800
% of total
U.S. capacity
13.2
10.1
9.2
8.8
7.3
4.5
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.6
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
80.5
aUata for  January 1, 1978.
                                 8-29
-------
production in 1977 represented an increase of 1.8 percent of the total
production in 1976.
     Tables 8-11 through 8-13 and Figure 8-4 show the production data for
the asphalt and tar roofing and siding industry for the years 1963 through
1977.  Tables 8-11 through 8-1 la give the annual production of asphalt
and tar roofing and siding products for 1969 to 1977 in megagrams and
tons, respectively.  Table 8-12 shows the quantities of asphalt roofifig
shipments in sales squares, by region, for 1970 through 1977.  Table 8-13
shows the annual production of asphalt and tar roofing and siding products
as a percent of total  annual  production of asphalt products for 1970 to
1977.  Figure 8-4 shows the total  shipments in teragrams for the asphalt
roofing industry for 1963 through 1977.
     Production of asphalt and tar roofing and siding products increased
27 percent from 1970 to 1973, then declined in 1974 and 1975, and recovered
in 1976 and 1977 to the 1972 level of production and to within 4 percent
of the peak 1973 production level.  In 1970 the Northeast region accounted
for 19 percent of total U.S.  production; the North Central region,
31 percent; the South region, 36 percent; and the West region, 14 percent.
In 1977 the percentage of U.S. production in the Northeast region had
decreased to 18 percent; the North Central region had increased to
32 percent; the South region had decreased to 34 percent; and the West
region had increased to 16 percent.
     The period 1971 to 1977 showed some marked changes in the product
mix of the industry as shown in Table 8-13.  The most significant change
was the shift from standard (or regular) shingles to self-sealing shingles.
The share of the total industry market for self-sealing shingles increased
from 51.7 to 74.9 percent while the market share for regular shingles
decreased from 20.2 to only 2.5 percent.  Individual shingles, smooth-
surfaced and mineral-surfaced roll roofing and cap  sheet, asphalt and
insulated sidings, and saturated felts all declined in their shares of
the market.
     8.1.1.4  Industry Employment.  Table 8-14 shows the data on employment
in. the asphalt felts and coating industry, which includes the asphalt and
tar roofing and siding products industry.  The asphalt felts and coating
industry is engaged in manufacturing roofing coatings and cements, in
addition to asphalt roofing and siding products.
                                  8-30
-------
    TABLE 8-11.   ANNUAL PRODUCTION  OF ASPHALT AND TAR ROOFING AND SIDING PRODUCTS  (IN MEGAGRAMS)11















oo
1
CO


Product
Asphalt roofing
Smooth-surface rol 1
roofing and cap sheet
Mineral -surfaced roll ^
roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles, self-
sealing and standard
Individual shingles
Subtotal
Asphalt and Insulated
siding, all types and
finishes
Saturated felts
Asphalt
Tar
Subtotal
Asphalt roofing and
siding products total
1969


547,905

542,513

4.962.532
329,039
6,381.989

50,837


789,143
45.105
834,?4j

7,267,074
1970


584,738

533,370

4.841.278
279,254
6.238,640

41,502


728,716
40.742
769,458

7,049.600
1971


552,883

539.107

5.811.507
309.557
7.213,054

40,957


789.311
41.189
830.500

8.084,512
1972


492,045

526,787

6.413,644
283,385
7,715.861

27.860


793.612
32.794
826.406

8.570,127
1973


480,509

539,030

6,736,404
298,997
8,054.940

40,683


823.464
40.045

8,959,131
1974


465,278

529,380

6,184.024
253.136
7.431,818

27.819


828,337
27,391
855.728

8,315.365
1975


389.914

538,486

6.109.036
225.013
7.262.449

18.978


645,607
26.827
672.434

7.953.860
1976


389,515

528,554

6.498,962
221,085
7,638.116

15.276


746,923
31.575
778.498

8,431,890
1977


384.840

525.482

6.641.961
197,493
7,749,776

9,733


789,946
36.679

8,586,134
?Includes  sand,  talc, mica, and other fine material  surfacing.
 Includes  17-Inch and 19-Inch selvage-edged roofing.
-------
      TABLE 8-lla.  ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF ASPHALT  AND TAR ROOFING AND  SIDING PRODUCTS  (IN TONS)11

Product
Asphalt roofing
Smooth-surface roll
roofing and cap sheet
Mineral -surfaced roll .
roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles, self-
sealing and standard
Individual shingles
Subtotal
Asphalt and insulated
siding, all types and
finishes
Saturated felts
°° Asphalt
oo Tar
^ Subtotal
Asphalt roofing and
siding products total
1969


604.018

598,074

5,470.766
362.737
7,035.595

56,043


869.963
49.724
919.687

8.011.325
1970


644.624

587.995

5.337.094
307,854
6.877,567

45.753


803.347
44.915
846.262

7,711.582
1971


609.506

594.319

6,406.689
341,260
7,951,774

45,151


870.148
45.408
915 j 556

8,912,481
1972


542,437

580,738

7,070,493
312,408
8.506,076

30,713


874,889
36.153
91042

9.447,831
1973


529.720

594.234

7.426,308
329,619
8.879.881

44,850


907.798
44.146
95JJ.944

9,876.675
1974


512.929

583.596

6.817.356
279.061
8,192,942

30.668


913.170
30.196
943.366"

9.166.976
1975


429.847

593,635

6,734,689
248.057
8.006,228

20.922


711.726
29.574
741.30ff

8.768.450
1976


429.407

582,686

7,164.548
243.727
8,420,368

16.841


823.419
34.809
858.228"

9,295,437
1977


424,253

579,299

7,322,193
217,719
8,543,464

10,730


870,848
40.435
JlrjM

9.465,477
Includes sand,  talc, mica,  and other fine material surfacing.
Includes 17-inch and 19-inch selvage-edged roofing.
-------
            TABLE 8-12.   QUANTITIES  OF ASPHALT  ROOFING  PRODUCT SHIPMENTS  BY  REGION,  1970-197711
Quantities of shipments (thousands of



oo
CO
oo


Region* Products
Northeast Roll roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles
Individual shingles
Subtotal
North Central Roll roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles
Individual shingles
Subtotal
South Roll roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles
Individual shingles
Subtotal
West Roll roofing and cap sheet
Strip shingles
Individual shingles
Subtotal
United States total
United States total (revised)
1970
7,415
8.351
396
16.162
10.414
14.364
1.155
25.933
1 1 . 384
17,642
734
29.760
5,544
5.132
649
11,325
83.180
83.180
1971
7.728
10.049
391
18.168
10.004
17.197
1.362
28,563
11,644
21,849
935
34,438
5,931
5,484
662
12,077
93,246
93,246
1972
7,423
10.792
209
18,424
9.918
18.197
1.423
29.538
11.835
24.497
706
37,038
6,291
5,810
597
12.698
97,698
97,163
1973
7,012
11.277
274
18.563
10,773
20,435
1,592
"32,550
11,694
25,531
692
37.917
7.232
6.226
683
14.141
103.421
102.861
1974
7,136
10.899
166
18.201
10.065
19,958
1.456
31.479
11.318
22.226
544
34.088
7,356
5.844
623
13,823
97,591
94,852
sales squares)
1975
6,202
10.768
176
17,146
9.260
18,950
1.272
29.482
9.355
21.740
411
31.506
6.512
5.659
557
12.728
90.862
90,828
1976
5,405
10.710
143
16,258
9.731
20.556
1.336
31,624
9,024
22,630
386
32.040
7.327
6.804
443
14.574
94.496
93.759
1977
5,855
10,905
92
16.852
9.042
20.378
1,102
30.522
8.854
23,108
292
32.254
6,827
7.048
737
14.612
94.240
94,240
Northeast:  Massachusetts. Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
North  Central:  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois. Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Kansas.
South:  Delaware.  Maryland, West Virginia.  North Carolina,  South Carolina.  Georgia. Florida.  Tennessee. Alabama, Mississippi.  Arkansas,
       Oklahoma,  Louisiana, and Texas.
West:  Colorado, Utah, Washington. California, and Oregon.
-------
       TABLE 8-13.  ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF ASPHALT AND TAR ROOFING         .,
   AND SIDING PRODUCTS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL ANNUAL  PRODUCTION,  1970-1977

Percent of total production, by weight
Product
Smooth-surfaced roll roofing
and cap sheet
Mineral -surfaced roll roofing
and cap sheet
Self-sealing strip shingles
Standard or regular
strip shingles
oo Individual shingles
U)
•*" Asphalt roofing total
Asphalt and insulated
sidings total
Saturated felts
Asphalt
Tar
1971
6.8
6.7
51.7
20.2
3.8
89.2
0.5

9.8
0.5
1972
5.7
6.2
65.7
9.1
3.3
90.0
0.3

9.3
0.4
1973
5.4
6.0
69.7
5.5
3.3
89.9
0.5

9.1
0.5
1974
5.6
6.4
71.9
2.5
3.0
89.4
0.3

10.0
0.3
1975
4.9
6.8
74.6
2.2
2.8
91.3
0.2

8.1
0.4
1976
4.6
6.3
74.1
3.0
2.6
90.6
0.2

8.9
0.3
1977
4.5
6.1
74.9
2.5
2.3
90.3
0.1

9.2
0.4
Total                100.0    100.0    100.0    100.0    100.0    100.0    100.0
-------
        (11)..
         9..
        (10)..
         8 ..
  o—   or*
  *J trt   » '
    c
  — o
  
-------
     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
-------