EPA 904/9-78-003
HYDROCARBON CONTROL
COST - EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS FOR
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
FEBRUARY, 1978
FINAL REPORT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
AIR AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308
-------
DCN# 78-200-187-05-15
EPA 904/9-78-003
HYDROCARBON CONTROL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS FOR NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
By
Radian Corporation
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task 5
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Frank A. Collins
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
February 1978
-------
This air pollution report is issued by Region IV En-
vironmental Protection Agency, to assist state and local air
pollution control agencies in carrying out their program activi-
ties. Copies of this report may be obtained, for a nominal cost,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas in fulfill-
ment of EPA contract 68-02-2608, Task 5. This report has been
reviewed by the Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV,
EPA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
Region IV Publication No. 904/9-78-003
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
1.1 Background and Approach 1
1.2 Summary of Results 2
1.2.1 Emission Inventory 2
1.2.2 Control Methods and Potential Re-
duction in Hydrocarbon Emissions.... 2
1.2.3 Control Costs and Cost Effective-
ness 5
1.3 Report Organization 8
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 10
3.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSION INVENTORY 11
3.1 Inventory Basis 11
3.2 Information Sources 12
3.3 Results 13
3.4 Current and Future Emissions 16
3.5 References 17
4.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM THE GRAPHIC ARTS
INDUSTRY 19
4.1 Description of Operations 19
4.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 21
4.3 Control Technology 25
4.4 Control Cost and Cost Effectiveness 30
4.4.1 Costs for Carbon Adsorption in
Rotogravure Printing 30
4.4.2 Costs for Catalytic Incineration in
Web Offset (Lithographic) Printing.. 33
4.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs 35
4.6 References 35
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
Page
5.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE MARKETING... 39
5.1 Description of Operations 39
5.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 41
5.3 Control Technology 42
5.3.1 Stage I Controls for Bulk Drop
Operations 42
5.3.2 Stage II Controls for Vehicle Re-
fueling 44
5.3.3 Reductions in Hydrocarbon Emissions
Using Stage I and II Controls 44
5.4 Capital and Operating Cost 47
5.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs 48
5.6 References 50
6.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE STORAGE
(TANK TRUCK LOADING) AT BULK TERMINALS 53
6.1 Description of Operations 53
6.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 54
6.3 Control Technology 56
6.4 Capital and Operating Cost 59
6.5 References 59
7.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING
OPERATIONS 62
7.1 Description of Operations 62
7.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 67
7.3 Control Technology 73
7.4 Capital and Operating Cost 81
7.5 Economic Impact of Control Cost 83
7.6 References 83
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
Page
8.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC CHEMICAL
PRODUCTION 87
8.1 Description of Operations, Emission Sources
and Emission Rates 87
8.2 Control Methods, Costs, and Cost-Effective-
ness 91
8.3 Economic Impact of Control Methods 91
8.4 References 95
9.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM RUBBER PROCESSING
(TIRE MANUFACTURING) 96
9.1 Description of Operations 96
9.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions in the
Study Area 98
9.3 Control Methods, Costs, and Cost Effective-
ness 101
9.4 References 106
10.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DRY CLEANING 109
10.1 Description of Operations 109
10.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 116
10.3 Control Technology 116
10.4 Capital and Operating Costs 122
10.5 Economic Impact 126
10.5.1 Commercial Plants Using Perchloro-
ethylene Solvents 126
10.5.2 Industrial Plants Using Perchloro-
ethylene and Petroleum Solvents... 130
10.5.3 Coin-Operated Plants Using Per-
chloroethylene Solvents 132
10.6 References 133
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
Page
11.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING 134
11.1 Description of Operations 134
11.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions 137
11.3 Control Technology 138
11.4 Capital and Operating Costs 143
11.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs 143
11.6 References 146
APPENDIX 147
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Methods of Controlling Hydrocarbon Emissions
From Industrial Sources in the Nashville Area 3
1-2 Summary of Potential Reductions in Hydrocarbon
Emissions From Eight Industrial Sources in the
Nashville Area 6
1-3 Summary of Cost Effectiveness Data for Hydro-
carbon Control Methods 9
3-1 Baseline Inventory of 1975 Hydrocarbon Emissions
From Stationary Sources in the Five-County
Tennessee Study Area 14
3-2 Hydrocarbon Emissions in the Study Area by Source
Category 15
4-1 Types of Printing Operations and Emission
Characteristics 20
4-2 1975 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Operations in
the Study Area 22
4-3 Percentage of Hydrocarbon Emissions Produced by
Type of Printing Method in the Nashville Area
in 1975 23
4-4 Summary of Control Methods Available for Hydro-
carbon Emissions from Printing Operations in the
Study Area 26
4-5 Comparison of Substitute Inks for Web-Offset
Printing with Conventional Heatset Inks 29
4-6 Identification of Applicable Control Methods and
Resulting Reductions in Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Printing Operations in the Study Area 31
4-7 Comparison of Operating Conditions for Model
Plant and Existing Rotogravure Plant 32
4-8 Capital Cost, Net Annualized Cost, and Cost
Effectiveness for Carbon Adsorption Controls at
Two Model Rotogravure Printing Facilities 34
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Page
4-9 Model Plant Operating Conditions and Design
Basis for Catalytic Incinerator Controls at
Web-Offset (Lithographic) Printing Facilities 36
4-10 Capital Cost, Net Annualized Cost, and Cost
Effectiveness for Catalytic Incineration Con-
trols at Two Model Lithographic (Web-Offset)
Printing Facilities 37
5-1 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Marketing
Operations 39
5-2 Distribution of Gasoline Stations in the Five-
County Study Area 41
5-3 Control Methods and Reduction of Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Gasoline Marketing Operations in
the Study Area 46
5-4 Stage I and II Control Costs for a Typical Ser-
vice Station Dispensing 384,000 Gallons/Yr 48
5-5 Economic Impact on Oil Jobbers of Implementing
Stage II Controls 50
6-1 1975 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Bulk Storage of
Petroleum Products in the Study Area 56
6-2 1977 Hydrocarbon Emissions from 13 Bulk Gasoline
Terminals in Davidson County 57
6-3 Control Costs for Typical Gasoline Bulk Terminals. 60
7-1 Coating Processes Used by Various Industrial
Surface Coating Operations 63
7-2 Percent of Total Emissions from Various Processes. 65
7-3 Sources of Organic Emissions from Industrial Sur-
face Coating Operations 65
7-4 Percentage of Overspray as a Function of Spraying
Method and Sprayed Surface 66
7-5 Summary of 1975 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Sur-
face Coating Operations in the Study Area 68
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Page
7-6 Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Surface
Coating of Wood Products in the Study Area 69
7-7 Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Surface
Coating of Plastic Products in the Study Area 71
7-8 Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Surface
Coating of Metal Products in the Study Area 72
7-9 Sources of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Surface Coat-
ing Operations in the Study Area 74
7-10 Efficiencies of Process and Material Changes as
Control Methods for Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Surface Coating .Applications 75
7-11 Typical Efficiencies for Add-on Control Equip-
ment 76
7-12 Low-Solvent Coating Methods Applicable to Sur-
face Coating Operations in the Study Area 78
7-13 Water-Based Coating Materials for Wood Products
Described in Trade Journals 80
7-14 Reduction in Hydrocarbon Emissions from Surface
Coating Operations in the Study Area from Appli-
cation of Add-on Control Devices and Process
Change 82
7-15 Assumptions Used in Developing Cost Estimates
for Noncatalytic Incinerators 84
7-16 Capital Cost, Annual Cost, and Cost Effectiveness
of Direct Flame Incineration with Primary Heat
Recovery for Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Surface Coating Operations 85
8-1 Process Emissions from DMT and TPA Manufacture
Reported by DuPont 90
8-2 Methods Selected by DuPont for Control of Process
Emissions from DMT Plant 92
8-3 Capital and Annual Cost of Control Methods for
Process Emissions from DMT Manufacture 94
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Page
9-1 Sources and Levels of Hydrocarbon and Solvent
Emissions from Tire Manufacturing 97
9-2 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Rubber Processing
(Tire Manufacturing) in the Study Area 98
9-3 Data on Hydrocarbon Emissions from Firestone
Rubber Company in Rutherford County 99
9-4 Data from Nashville Metropolitan Health Depart-
ment Files Describing Emission Points and 1977
Emission Rates for Armstrong Rubber Company 100
9-5 Solvent Consumption by End Use at Armstrong Rub-
ber Company's Nashville Facility, 1977 101
9-6 Hydrocarbon Emissions by Type of Solvent from
Tire Manufacturing at Armstrong Rubber Company.... 101
9-7 Published Cost of Incineration for a Typical Fabric
Cementing (Tire Cord Dip) Operation 103
9-8 Published Cost of Carbon Adsorption for a Typical
Fabric Cementing (Tire Cord Dip) Operation 103
9-9 Published Cost of Carbon Adsorption for a Typical
Undertread Cementing Operation 104
9-10 Hydrocarbon Emission Rates from Tread Cementing
Operation Described in Table 9-9 104
9-11 Capital and Annual Costs Estimated by Armstrong
Rubber Company for Control of Tread Line Cement-
ing Emissions at Their Nashville Facility 105
9-12 Control Methods Available for Hydrocarbon Emis-
sions from Rubber Tire Manufacturing 107
9-13 Potential Reduction in 1975 Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Rubber Processing in the Study Area Using
Selected Control Methods 108
10-1 Percentage of Solvent Losses from Six Points in
Dry Cleaning Operations 115
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Page
10-2 Emission Factors Used to Estimate Solvent Emis-
sions from Dry Cleaning Operations in the Study-
Area 117
10-3 Summary of 1974 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Dry
Cleaning Operations in the Study Area.. 118
10-4 Potential and Applied Control Techniques for
Dry Cleaning Plants 119
10-5 Measured Emission Rates and Solvent Consumption
at Dry Cleaning Plants with Various Levels of
Control 121
10-6 Control Techniques and Solvent Emission Levels
for Model Dry Cleaning Plants 123
10-7 Control Efficiencies of Improved Operating and
Housekeeping Practices and Carbon Adsorption at
Model Dry Cleaning Operations 124
10-8 Reduction in Solvent Emissions from Dry Cleaning
Operations in the Study Area with Improved
Housekeeping Practices and Carbon Adsorption 125
10-9 Model Plant Parameters Used in Estimating Cost
of Control Measures for Dry Cleaning Facilities... 127
10-10 Capital and Operating Costs and Cost Effective-
ness for Retrofit Carbon Adsorption Systems for
Control of Solvent Emissions from Dry Cleaning
Operations 128
10-11 Capital Investment and Annualized Cost for Carbon
Adsorption on New and Existing Commercial Dry
Cleaning Facilities Using Perchloroethylene
Solvent 129
10-12 Capital Investment and Annualized Costs for
Carbon Adsorption on New and Existing Industrial
Laundry/Dry Cleaning Facilities Using Perchloro-
ethylene and Petroleum Solvents 131
10-13 Capital Investment and Annualized Costs for Car-
bon Adsorption on Coin-Operated Dry Cleaning
Plants Using Perchloroethylene Solvents 132
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Page
11-1 Percentage of Total HC Emissions from Five
Sources in Degreasing Operations 135
11-2 Summary of Degreasing Emissions in the Study
Area 139
11-3 Collectable Emissions and Control Methods for
Hydrocarbons from Degreasing Operations 142
11-4 Model Plant Parameters Used in Estimating Cost
of Carbon Adsorption Controls for Degreasing
Operations 144
11-5 Capital and Annual Costs for Control of Hydro-
carbon Emissions from Typical Degreasing Opera-
tions Using Carbon Adsorption 145
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
5-1 Tank Truck Employing "Vapor Balance" Form of
Hydrocarbon Control During Filling Underground
Storage Tank 43
5-2 Vapor Return System for Stage II Controls on
Vehicle Refueling Emissions 45
6-1 Three Methods of Loading Cargo Carriers 55
10-1 Petroleum-Solvent Based Dry Cleaning Plant 110
10-2 Flow Diagram for a Dry Cleaning Plant Using
Perchloroethylene Solvent Ill
10-3 Flow Diagram for Dry Cleaning Plant Using Fluoro-
carbon Solvent ' 112
xiii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report describes the results of a program to pro-
vide cost-effectiveness data for methods of controlling hydro-
carbon emissions from stationary sources in the five-county
Nashville metropolitan area. The work was conducted for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Engineering Branch> Region
IV, under Radian Contract 68-02.-2608, Task 5.
1.1 Background and Approach
This study was done to assist Tennessee state and
local agencies in revisiag the state implementation plan. The
purpose was to provide a basis for evaluating the economic im-
pact of hydrocarbon control strategies. There were four steps
involved in determining the cost effectiveness of hydrocarbon
control methods.
First, a baseline hydrocarbon emission inventory was
compiled for the five-county study area using inventory data
from state and municipal agency files. The sources and quan-
tities of emissions were defined. Then, methods for controlling
the hydrocarbon emissions were defined and potential reductions
in hydrocarbon emissions were estimated. Next, capital costs
and net annualized costs for the control methods were derived
from published cost information for model plants. Finally, the
cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of hydrocarbon controlled
was determined. Published information on the economic impacts
of control methods for some of the industries was also reported.
1
-------
1.2
Summary of Results
1.2.1 Emission Inventory
Baseline hydrocarbon emissions in the study area in
1975 were about 17,700 tons/year.* About 55 percent of the
emissions were produced in Davidson County, 29 percent in
Sumner County, 9 percent in Rutherford County, 4 percent in
Willimason County and 3 percent in Wilson County. Some in-
creases in current (1977) emissions have been noted; an in-
complete estimate of 1977 emissions is about 21,000 tons/year.
Eighty percent of the hydrocarbon emissions in the
study area are produced by six industrial operations; graphic
arts (printing), gasoline marketing, gasoline bulk storage,
surface coating, and organic chemical processing. The majority
of emissions from printing and organic chemical manufacture are
produced by single large emission sources (over 1,000 tons/year).
Emissions from gasoline marketing are produced by hundreds of
small sources (less than 10 tons/year). The majority of emis-
sions from gasoline storage and surface coating are produced
by sources with emissions from 10 to 200 tons/year. Less signi-
ficant sources of emissions in the study area include rubber
processing, dry cleaning, and degreasing.
1.2.2 Control Methods and Potential Reduction in Hydrocarbon
Emissions
Table 1-1 shows how hydrocarbon emissions from each
of the eight industrial emission sources can be reduced using
various selected control methods. The sources of emissions in
,vHydrocarbon emissions are reported in short tons/year. Con-
version factors for metric units are given in the Appendix.
2
-------
TABLE 1-1.
METHODS OF CONTROLLING HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL
SOURCES IN THE NASHVILLE AREA
Emission Source
Craphic Arts
Gravure Printing
Web Offset and Letterpress
Flexography
Controlled and Other Sources
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
3,886
52
60
517
4,415
Control Method
Carbon adsorption
Catalytic incineration
UV curing ink
Incineration
None specified
Control
Efficiency
(Z)
90
85 j
100/
85
Emissions
After Controls
(tons/year)
390
0-8
9
517
915-923
Percent Reduction
In
Emissions
80
Gasoline Marketing
Storage Tank Filling
Vehicle Refueling
1,670 Stage I controls: submerged
fill + vapor balance recovery
1,880 Stage II controls:
3,550 vapor balance
vacuum assist
95
85
90 I
1964
(Stage £ alone)
272-306
(Stage I + Stage II)
45
92
Bulk Casoline Terminals
Tank Truck Loading
2,840 Submerged fill 58
Submerged fill plus vapor 87
recovery by straight refrigeration
1,190
155
58
95
Surface Coating
Spray Booth Emissions
Drying Oven Emissions
Other Emissions
Wood Coating
Metal Coating
Plastic Coating
Other Emissions
731
145
924
1,800
291
820
299
390
1,800
Add-On Devices:
Carbon adsorption
Incineration
None specified
Process Change, Coating
Substitutions:
Water-borne coatings
Electrostatic spraying, powder
coatings
Low solvent, high solids coatings
None specified
85
90
75
99
50
110
15
924
1,049
73
8
150
390
42
621
65
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
Emission Source
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Control Method
Organic Chemical Production
Terephthalic Acid Absorber Off-Gas
DMT Storage and Sludge Bottom
Tank Vents
Product and Methanol Storage Tanks
Gluing Process Labels
Other Emissions
2,870
33
90
5
402
3,400
Incineration
Fuel oil scrubber
Water scrubber
Process change
None specified
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Dipping Bead, Cord, and Belt
Green Tire Spray
Tread Cementing
Other Emissions
66
417
182
83
750
Carbon adsorption
Substitute water-based release
agent
Collection system plus carbon
adsorption
None specified
Dry CJeaning
Petroleum Solvents
Synthetic Solvents
Degreasing**
Open Top Vapor Degreasing
Conveyorized Degreasing
460 ^
188 f
648
100 '
190
290
Improved housekeeping and
operating practices
Improved practices and car-
bon adsorption
Improved housekeeping and
operating practices
Improved practices and
carbon adsorption
3See Table 4-6.
^See Table 5-3.
°See Section 6.0.
dSee Table 7-14.
eSee Table 8-2.
fSee Table 9-13.
®See Table 10-8.
^See Section 11. 3,
Control Emissions Percent Reduction
Efficiency After Controls In
(%) (tons/year) Emissions
90 287
90 3
90 9
100 0
402
701 80
90 7
100 0
85 27
83
117 84
17-25 500 33
67-79 159 75
30 200 30
50 100 65
-------
each industry are defined and control methods and efficiencies
are identified for each source of emissions. Control methods
were generally identified based on guidelines published by EPA,
but in some cases the control methods were specified by industry
representatives for the specific plant in the study area. More
than one control method is available for some of the emission
sources, but for others a single control method has the best
applicability. Table 1-1 also shows the estimated rate of hydro-
carbon emissions after implementation of the control methods.
Table 1-2 summarizes the information on potential
reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from Table 1-1. It shows
that industrial hydrocarbon emissions in the study area could
be reduced from baseline emissions of about 17,700 tons/year
to about 3,100 - 6,600 tons/year using the control methods
identified in Table 1-1. The. selected control methods could
provide a 62 to 83 percent reduction in baseline emissions.
1.2.3 Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Information on capital investments and net annualized
costs for the control methods was taken primarily from EPA guide-
lines for model plants. An attempt was made to indicate how
well the model plants represented the actual plants in the study
area. But for some industries there was very limited informa-
tion about the capacity and operating conditions of plants in
the study area. In such cases, cost data were provided for
large and small plants typical of the industry in general and
for a range of operating conditions if possible. Information
on cost of control methods for two industries was supplied by
the operating companies.
5
-------
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
EIGHT INDUSTRIAL SOURCES IN THE NASHVILLE AREA
Industry
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Emissions After Controls
(tons/yr)
Percent
Redaction
Graphic Arts
4,415
923
915
80
Gasoline Marketing
3,550
1,964
(Stage I)
306
(Stage I & Stage II)
45 - 92
Tank Truck Loading at Bulk
Gasoline Terminals
2,840
1,190
(Submerged Fill)
155
(Submerged Fill
+ Vapor Recovery
By Refrigeration)
58 - 95
Surface Coating
1,800
1,049
(Carbon Adsorption
+ Incineration)
621
(Process Change)
42 - 65
Organic Chemical Production
3,400
701
80
Rubber Tire Manufacture
750
117
84
Dry Cleaning
648
500
(Improved Housekeeping
and Operating
Practices)
159
(Improved Housekeeping
+ Carbon Adsorption)
33 - 75
Degreasing
290
200
(Improved Housekeeping
and Operating
Practices)
100
(Improvide Housekeeping
+ Carbon Adsorption)
30 - 65
TOTAL
17,693
6,644
3,074
62 - 83
-------
The capital costs reflect the cost of designing,
purchasing, and installing the control device. These estimates
include the cost of both major and auxiliary equipment, removal
of any existing equipment, site preparation, equipment instal-
lation, and design engineering. The estimates do not include
costs for lost production during equipment installation or start-
up.
The net annual cost (or credit) is composed of direct
operating costs, capital charges, and solvent or gasoline recovery
credit (where applicable). The direct operating costs include
operating labor, maintenance, utilities, and supplemental fuel.
Capital charges include depreciation and interest costs at 10
percent and a depreciable equipment life of 15 years and an ad-
ditional charge of 4 percent of total capital for administrative
overhead, property taxes, and insurance. Published cost data
were converted to first quarter 1977 dollars using plant and
equipment cost indexes (Chemical Engineering, July 4, 1977).
Cost data were not available for some of the control
methods. While costs were generally available for add-on control
devices such as incinerators or carbon-bed adsorbers, costs for
process change and improvements in housekeeping and operating
practices are not well defined. In some cases both capital and
annual costs for improved operating and housekeeping practices
are negligible, and a net savings in annualized costs is pro-
vided due to credit for recovered hydrocarbons. Costs for pro-
cess change are hard to estimate because it is difficult to de-
fine what portion of the development costs will be borne by the
supplier and what portion will be borne by the user.
7
-------
Net annualized costs ($/year) and estimates of the
volume of hydrocarbons controlled (tons/year) for model plants
were used to calculate the cost effectiveness of hydrocarbon
control methods. Table 1-3 summarizes the results. In general,
the cost effectiveness data are given for control methods im-
plemented at model plants, but for organic chemical production
and tire manufacturing the cost effectiveness was estimated by
the operating companies. The cost effectiveness of the control
methods shown in Table 1-3 varies from a cost of $4,800/ton
controlled to a credit of $530/ton controlled. The hydrocarbon
emissions in the study area to which the control methods can
be applied are also indicated in the table. These data can be
used in developing control strategies because they indicate the
most effective way of spending control dollars. The most effec-
tive control strategy would involve controlling the highest
volume of hydrocarbon emissions with the most cost-effective
control methods (the methods with lowest cost per ton controlled).
1.3 Report Organization
Section 2.0 presents the conclusions from this study.
The emission inventory is described in Section 3.0. Sections
4.0 through 1.1.0 describe eight industrial sources of hydro-
carbon emissions in the study area. The source categories
include graphic arts (Section 4.0), gasoline marketing (Section
5.0), tank truck loading at gasoline bulk terminals (Section
6.0), surface coating (Section 7.0), organic chemical process-
ing (Section 8.0), rubber processing (tire manufacture) (Section
9.0), dry cleaning (Section 10.0), and degreasing (Section 11.0).
Details are given in each section on how emissions are produced
in the operations, the facilities that produce the emissions
and their emission rates, control methods, potential reductions
in emissions, cost of controls, cost effectiveness, and economic
impact. Appendix A contains conversion factors for metric units.
8
-------
TABLE 1-3.
SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS DATA FOR
HYDROCARBON CONTROL METHODS
Industry and Emission Source
Control Method
Model Plane
Cost Effectiveness
($l,000/Toa Controlled)
Scudy Area
Emission#
Treated
(eons/yr)
Graphic Arts
Rotogravure Printing
Web Offaec Lithography
Gaaollne Marketing
Storage Tank Filling
Tank Filling and Vehicle Refueling
Gasoline Bulk Terminals
Tank Truck Loading
Surface Coating
Drying Oven Exhaust
Carbon adsorption
Catalytic Incineration
Stage I controls: Submerged fill
and vapor recovery
1. Stage I controls plus balance system
2. Stage I controls plus vacuum assist
1. Submerged fill
2. Submerged fill plus refrigeration
Incineration with primary heat recovery
(0.1)
1.8
(0.02)
0.81
2.32
(0.11)
0.8 - 0.1a
3,886
52
1,670
3,550
3,550
2,840
2,840
Table 4-8
Table 4-10
Table 5-4
Table 5-4
Table 6*3
Table 6-3
Organic Chemical Production
Absorber off gas
DKT Storage
Product and Methanol Storage
Gluing Labels
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Dipping
Cementing
Green Tire Spraying
Dry Cleaning
Petroleum Solvent
Perehloroethylene Solvent
Degreasing
Open Top Vapor Degreaser
Conveyorlzed Degreaser
Incineration
Fuel oil scrubber
Water Scrubber
Process Change
Carbon adsorption
Carbon adsorption
Substitute waterborne release agents
Improved housekeeping plus carbon adsorption
Improved housekeeping plus carbon adsorption
0.16 - (0.02)
0.08 - (0.02)d,e
0. 7°
(0.37)®
(0.16)
(0.53)
Improved housekeeping plus carbon adsorption 0.22
Improved housekeeping plus carbon adsorption (0.11) - 0.26^
2,870
33
90
5
66
182
417
460
188
100
190
Table 9-12
Table 9-12
Table 9-12
Table 10-8
Table 10-8
Table 11-5
Table 11-5
0.8 for model small plant, 0.1 for model large plant.
^Range of values due to variations in hydrocarbon concentration in oven exhaust.
3.3-0.03 for large plant, 4.8-0.07 for small plant.
cCost effectiveness for actual plant ratheT than model plant based on estimate
provided by plAnt representative.
^Lover value for case with no credit for recovered solvent, higher value for
case with solvent credited at market value.
'industry estimate 0.2.
*0.03 for Industrial plant. 0.67 for commercial plant.
'(0.37) for industrial facility. (0.16) for commercial facility. (0.53) for
coin-operated facility.
^(0.11) - monorail
0.26 - crossrod
9
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
A significant (60-80 percent) reduction in industrial
hydrocarbon emissions in the Nashville area could be provided by
application of the control methods identified in this study.
There are wide variations in the cost effectiveness of the con-
trol methods depending on the specific application. Some pro-
vide an annual credit, while others cost thousands of dollars
for each ton of hydrocarbons controlled.
This variation in cost effectiveness will be useful
in developing a control strategy because it shows how to achieve
the largest reduction in hydrocarbon emissions at the smallest
cost. However, the cost effectiveness data are calculated on
the basis of controls applied at model plants which may not be
entirely representative of facilities in the study area.
10
-------
3.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSION INVENTORY
A 1975 baseline inventory of the stationary sources
of hydrocarbon emissions was established for Nashville and the
surrounding area. The study area for this emissions inventory
includes the Tennessee counties of Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson, and Wilson.
3.1 Inventory Basis
Hydrocarbon emission rates are given in short tons
(2000 lb) per year for each county in the study area. The
emissions are further categorized according to the type of
operation (source category; that produces them. Examples of
the twelve types of operation (source categories) which produce
hydrocarbon emissions in the study area are degreasing, gasoline
marketing, and dry cleaning.
Emissions in each source category arise from major and
minor point sources and area sources. A major point source has
been defined in this inventory as a stationary source emitting
in excess of 25 tons per year of hydrocarbons. A minor point
source is a stationary source emitting less than 25 tons per year
of hydrocarbons. Area sources include minor sources which are
not individually identified. The area source emission values are
based on the estimated throughput of an emission-generating sub-
stance and the appropriate emission factor for that substance.
Even though the inventory represents emissions for
1975, it incorporates some unadjusted 1974 and 1976 data. It
was assumed that differences in annual emission rates during
these three years were small.
11
-------
3.2
Information Sources
The information used for this inventory was supplied
by state and local agencies and supported with information from
several of the emitting firms. The data for point sources in
Davidson County were provided by the Metropolitan Health Depart-
ment in Nashville. These figures were compared with.current
data by reviewing local permit files. The area source emission
data for Davidson County were provided by this review. For the
four surrounding counties, the information had been previously
gathered and tabulated in the "HC Report."1 This report, supplied
by the Tennessee Health Department, was the source of most of the
data for the four counties. Emission data for dry cleaning, gas-
oline stations, and fuel and .refuse burning were not included in
information from local files. Information for these three source
categories was available from an EPA-funded study of hydrocarbon
emissions in the study area.2
Other sources of information were provided by the
Tennessee Health Department and were cross-checked with the pre-
viously mentioned sources of data. An Emission Inventory Sub-
system (EIS)3 printout for the four counties supported the
inventory figures. A "No-Source" list from local files was
also checked against the "HC Report," showing a few minor dis-
crepancies. Some "no-source" firms were listed in the "HC
Report," but they had negligible emissions so no alterations
were made to the inventory.
A National Business List (NBL) of firms that are po-
tential hydrocarbon emitters in the five counties was reviewed.4
Using the criteria of financial strength and/or employment level,
possibly significant hydrocarbon emitters were identified. The
names of these firms were sent to the local agencies for review.
12
-------
It was determined that one of the firms was a significant emitter,
General Electric Company in Rutherford County. Thus, the base-
line inventory was changed to include emissions from the degreas-
ing operations at the G. E. plant.
3.3 Results
The 1975 baseline emissions inventory is presented in
Table 3-1. The inventory gives the hydrocarbon emission rate
for each source category in the five counties and emission totals
for each category and each county. A breakdown of the emission
totals by percent is also presented for each county. Table 3-1
shows that over half of the hydrocarbon emissions in the study
area occur in Davidson County.
Table 3-2 lists the significant source categories and
the percent of total hydrocarbon emissions from each in 1975.
Some current (1977) data are also included. The table shows that
the majority of 1975 emissions occurred from printing (graphic
arts), gasoline marketing, gasoline bulk storage and surface
coating operations. Based on more current (1977) estimates for
some of the categories, the significant contributors are print-
ing, gasoline marketing, gasoline storage and chemical processing.
Table 3-2 also gives information about the number of
large (major point) sources that emit hydrocarbons in each cate-
gory. A significant percentage of the emissions in most categories
are contributed by major point sources (those with emissions
greater than 25 tons/year). Gasoline marketing and dry cleaning
are exceptions. Hydrocarbons from these operations are emitted
from numerous small sources rather than a few major sources.
Sections 4 through 11 discuss hydrocarbon emissions
from eight of the twelve source categories. Emission rates and
13
-------
TABLE 3-1. BASELINE INVENTORY OF 1975 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES IN THE FIVE-COUNTY TENNESSEE STUDY AREA
Hydrocarbon Emissions (tons/year)
County
Emission Source Davidson Rutherford Sumner Wllliaason Wilson Total
Surface
Coating
Dry
Cleaning
Gasoline
Marketing
De greasing
Rubber
Process ing
Petroleum
Storage
Graphic
Arts
Chinical
Processing
Fuel it Refuse
Burning
Cutback
Asphalt
Hot Mix
Asphalt
Miscellaneous
Solvent Uses
TOTAL
Percent of Total
by County
974.5 525.7
433.9
475.1
282.7
64.5
2,387.6 355.1
140.5
567.6 181.5
2,799.9 37.1
88.2
46.7
1.0
6.1.
53.3 162.5 110.9
66.0
2.8
41.8 41.5
363.9 220.3 22S.0
39.6 110.7
3.8
523.8 60.5 3,886.1 44.5
1,230.7
729.2 167.2
46.7 46.7
0.1
80.1
16.7
9.675.8 1,506.9 5,148.0 726.5 617.9
1,826.9
647.7
3,554.9
290.8
749.1
2.840.8
4.514.9
1.230.7
1.539.8
136.8
1.1
291.6
17,675.1
55.0
8.5
29.0
4.0
3.5
14
-------
TABLE 3-2.
HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS
IN THE STUDY
AREA BY
SOURCE CATEGORY
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Percent of
Total
Number of
Point Sources
with Emissions
> 25 tons/yr
Percent of
Total Emissions
from Major Point
Sources
Emission Source
Baseline
1977
Baseline
1977
1.
Graphic Arts
4,515
*
25
22
3
88
2.
Gasoline Marketing
3,555
*
20
17
None
0
3.
Tank truck loading
at Gasoline Bulk
Terminals
2,841
2,959
16
14
14
100
4.
Surface Coating
1,827
*
10
9
21
78
5.
Fuel and Refuse
Burning
1,540
*
9
7
4
47
6.
Chemical Processing
1,231
4,380
7
21
1
100
7.
Rubber Processing
749
806
4
4
2
100
8.
Industrial & Commer-
cial Dry Cleaning
648
*
4
3
None
0
9.
Degreasing
291
*
2
1
3
75
LO.
Other (Miscellaneous
480
*
3
2
None
0
solvent uses; hot mix
asphalt plants, cut-
back asphalt)
TOTAL
17,677
21,000
100
100
Information on 1977 emissions unavailable, assumed equal to baseline emissions
-------
other data about major and minor point sources are described in
more detail in these sections.
The baseline inventory is based directly on data supplied
by the local agencies with several additions. A change was made
in the gasoline marketing emissions as reported in the litera-
ture. 5 A more current emission factor for gasoline stations was
used to adjust the emission rates. This change is discussed in
Section 5.
Emissions from the use of cutback asphalt were added to
the baseline inventory. Statewide total emissions from cutback
asphalt were 4670 tons in 1975. 6 It was assumed that 4% (187
tons/year) of the total emissions occur in four counties in the
study area and none occur in Davidson County. The latter assump-
tion is based on the fact that cutback asphalts are used mainly
for winter patching in rural areas where there is limited access
to hot mix asphalt plants.
3.4 Current and Future Emissions
The inventory in Table 3-1 represents 1975 data, so it
does not provide current emission estimates. More recent infor-
mation indicates increased emission rates for several categories.
In Davidson County, current data show:
• increase in rubber processing emissions at
Armstrong Rubber Company from 568 to 625 TPY
• increase in petroleum storage tank emissions
from 2800 to 2959 TPY
• increase in chemical processing emissions at
DuPont from 1230 to 3411 TPY.
16
-------
Fugitive emissions from operations at the DuPont di-
methyl terephthalate plant were estimated and included in the
1977 data reported in Table 3-2. Only process emissions were
reported in the information sources available for this study.
Fugitive emissions were estimated at 0.2 percent of plant
throughput, assuming process emissions of 3411 tons/year were
0.770.of plant throughput.7
In Sumner County, Donnelly Printing Company currently
has 2 presses in operation with 2 more under construction.
The estimated emission rate will increase from 3886 to 8066 TPY
after completion of construction.
Data for 1977 emissions are included in Table 3-2.
3.5 References
1. "HC Report." Data supplied by Eddie Bamett, Tennessee
Health Department.
2. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon
Area Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson,
Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson' and Wilson Counties,
Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order
No. 9. Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 1976.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Programs.
Emissions Inventory Subsystem (EIS), National Emissions
Data System (NEDS). Data for Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson and Wilson Counties, 1977.
4. National Business Lists, Inc. Potential Hydrocarbon
Sources (Davidson, Rutherford, Williamson, and Wilson
Counties). April 1977.
17
-------
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon
Area Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson,
Rutherford, Sumne£, Williamson and Wilson Counties,
Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order
No. 9. Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1976.
Kirwan, Francis M., and Clarence Maday. Air Quality
and Energy Conservation Benefits from Using Emulsions to
Replace Asphalt' Cutbacks in Certain Paving Operations.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environ-
mental Protection Agency. May 1977.
Radian Corporation, Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources, draft report,
DCN 200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task 12.
Austin, Texas, September 1977.
18
-------
4.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM THE GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRY
4.I Description of Operations
The graphic arts industry includes operations involved
in printing an image onto a surface. The industry can be classi-
fied in three general categories: 1) publishing-newspapers,
books, magazines; 2) package printing—paper containers, labels;
and 3) metal decorating--metal containers, bottle caps, metal
signs. These categories differ mainly by the type of surface
printed.1
Printing operations vary in method. Direct printing
is the transfer of an image directly from an image surface to
the print surface; offset printing involves the use of an inter-
mediate surface. Material to be printed may be web-fed to the
press from a roll and remain continuous throughout the printing
operation, or it may be fed in individual items or sheets.
The five types of printing processes, which vary ac-
cording to the nature of image surface, are letterpress, flexo-
graphy, lithography (web-offset), gravure, and screen process
printing. The processes are described in Table 4-1, which de-
fines ink characteristics, tells how solvent emissions are pro-
duced, and lists industrial applications.
The main source of emissions from printing is the re-
lease of ink solvent during drying. Some printing processes
use inks which dry without solvent emissions, but web-letterpress
and web-offset (lithography) using heat-set inks, flexography,
and gravure printing all produce solvent emissions from ink dry-
ing. Solvent may also be emitted during ink application in the
flexographic and gravure processes. Generally, there is a direct
relationship between ink consumption and emission rates.
19
-------
TABLE 4-1.
TYPES OF PRINTING OPERATIONS AND EMISSION
CHARACTERISTICS 1'2
Method of
Transferring Image
(Direct or Offset)
Feeding Method
(Roll or Sheet Fed)
Ink Type and Drying
Characteristics
Industrial Applications
Letterpress
Screen
Printing
Flexography
The image is transferred
directly from a raised
•urf8c* on a cylindrical
place. Ink Is applied
to the raised image area.
It oust be viscous enough
not to run into the re-
cessed, non-image area.
The image area is a fine
screen through which Ink
or paint can be forced.
The screen is masked on
non-image areas.
The laage is transferred
directly from a raised
Image area on a rubber
plate. Used for multi-
color printing on a va-
riety of surfaces.
Roll-fed (web letter-
press) porous paper
(newsprint).
Boll-fed (w«b
letterpress) non-
porous paper.
Most are roll-
fed (rotary web)
presses.
Oxidative drying Ink con-
tains little solvent and
dries by air oxidation
at room temperature In
racks.
Ink is made of carbon
black and petroleum
oils and "dries" by
absorption into the
porous paper.
Heat set ink contains
30—452 solvents. Sol-
vent tvMporat** in dry-
ing tunnel. High speed
operations use a petrole-
um solvent (kerosene or
fuel oil boiling range).
Low speed operations use
an alkyd or vegetable
oil solvent which dries
slowly by oxidation or
polymerization.
Oxidative drying inks
do not produce solvent
eaisaions.
Periodical publication.
Inert ink mist and paper newspaper publishing,
dust collected in room
air conditioning system.
Up to 602 of the solvent
evaporates in the dry-
ing tunnel at around
4Q0*F.
Water colors are used for Water-based inks pro-
printing posters and water- duce no significant
baae emulsions are used
for fabric. Fast-drying
lacquer Inks are dried
in dryers and drying
racks.
Very fluid (low viscosity)
inks containing about 60%
solvent. Inks dry by sol-
vent evaporation below
250*F (120"C). Water
based inks are used.
Steam-set inks are used
for printing paper bags.
emissions. Solvent
emissions from lacquer
inks occur in printing,
in the dryer, and at
drying racks.
902 of the solvent is
emitted during printing
and in dryer exhaust
with solvent-based
inks. Water-based and
steam-set inks produce
no significant solvent
emissions.
Periodical publication.
Printing of greeting cards,
signs, wallpapers, and tex-
tiles.
Printing on flexible packaging,
milk cartons, bags, folding
cartons, corrugated paper, paper
cupe and plates, labels, enve-
lopes and gift wrap.
Lithography The image and non-image
(web-offset) areas are on the same
plane. The iaage area
is iak-vettable and the
non-Image area Is water-
wettable. In offset
lithography, the image
is transferred to a rubber
blanket cylinder which
prints the image on the
substrate. Direct litho-
graphy is also used.
Cravure The recessed image area
engraved on a plate or
cylinder is filled with
very fluid ink by submerg-
ing in an ink bath. After
excess ink is wiped from
the non-image area using
a blade (doctor knife),
the image is transferred
directly to the substrate.
Most are web-fed
(few are sheet-fed).
Sheet-fed gravure
Is slow and little
used. Roll-fed
gravure (rotogravure)
is more widely used
(press speeds up to
2,000 feet per
minute).
Both oxidative drying
and heet-set inks are
employed. Heat-set
inks contain 30-452
hydrocarbon solvents
and dry by solvent
evaporation at around
400-500*F (200-260*C).
Inks are very fluid and
contain 40-602 solvent,
volatile aromaties which
evaporate rapidly even
at room temperature.
Drying occurs in a steam
drum or hoc air dryer at
38-120*0 (100-Z50*C).
Solvent emissions in
dryer exhaust when
heat-set inks are
used.
Solvent emissions in
dryer exhaust.
Books, pamphlets, natal
decorating, newspapers with
circulation of over 100,000.
Package printing (cellophane,
foil, gift wrap, labels)
perlodlcala, catalogues,
Sunday navapaper supplement.
20
-------
4.2
Levels and Sources of Emissions
The study area has an estimated 4500 tons per year of
hydrocarbon emissions from the graphic arts industry, about 25
percent of the total 1975 emissions. Table 4-2 lists the sources
of hydrocarbon emissions by county and summarizes information
about specific printing operations obtained from local files and
from contacts with plant personnel. The majority of the emis-
sions (86 percent) are produced by a single rotogravure printing
facility, R. H. Donnelley Printing Co. in Sumner County. Three
other facilities (two publishing operations and a bag manufacturer)
produce another two percent of the emissions, and eleven percent
of the emissions are produced by numerous small unidentified
printing facilities. These small facilities are classified as
area sources and the emissions were estimated based on ink con-
sumption (sales) data for Davidson County.3 Emissions from one
additional printing operation, which employs rotogravure printing
to manufacture giftwrap, are controlled using carbon adsorption
for solvent recovery. Controlled emissions from this source are
about one percent of the total.
Table 4-3 lists the types of printing processes used
in the study area and shows the percent of total emissions pro-
duced by each. About one percent of the emissions (52 tons/yr)
are produced by 2 publishers using web-letterpress or web-offset
(lithography). In the absence of specific information, it can
be assumed that these emissions occur from drying heatset inks.
Oxidative drying inks can also be used in such operations, but
no significant hydrocarbon emissions are produced with these
inks. These emissions from heatset ink drying are produced at
three locations with similar emission rates (17-19 tons/year or
about 6 lbs/hr).
21
-------
TABLE 4-2.
1975 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM OPERATIONS
IN THE STUDY AREA
Description of Operation
Emission Source
Name and Location
Type of Printing Press
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/year)
Description of Emissions
Davidson County
Baird Word
(two locations)
Prints periodicals,
telephone directories,
and pamphlets
7 offset presses
4 letterpresses
16.6
16.6
It is assumed chat these hydro-
carbon emissions are solvents
from drying heat-set inks.
United Publications
Prints periodicals
2 web-offsmt (lithographic)
It is assumed chat these hydro-
carbon emissions are solvents
from drying heat-sat inks.
Numerous Small Printing Varied, undefined
Operations (Area Sources)
Varied, undefined
Based on estimated solvent
emissions from Che use of print-
ing ink in Davidson County.1
Emission fsceor: 21b organic
per gallon of Ink usad.
Rutherford County
Paranoiac Packaging
Manufactures polyethylene
bread bags
7 flexographic presses
Emissions are based on solvent and
ink consumption in the flexo-
graphic printing operation. In-
puts ara 30 lb/hr solvent and 30
lb/hr ink. Outputs are 20 lb/hr
hydrocarbons (about 2/3 of the
solvent is emitted). Solvents
are mixtures of lsopropanol,
n-propyl acetate, heptane, and
echanol.
Sword of the Lord
Unidentified publications
Summer County
R.H. Donnelley Printing
Company (Lakeside Press)
Prints coooercial catalogues
(coated and uncoated paper)
2 rocogrevure printing llnea
(one single color, one multi-
color) 10 printing units each
Emission estimate is baaed on
solvene consumption assuming that
20? of the solvent is volatile
aromatic* which evaporate during
the printing operations. Sol*
vent is cooposed of toluene,
ethyl-benzene, C • and greater
naphthenes, and olefins.
Wllks Publication
Unidentified publications
Williamson County
CPS Industries
Manufactures ribbon and
giftvrspping paper
4 rotogravure printing
lines
(44.3)
With carbon adsorption
controls
Controlled Emissions 46.5
Uncontrolled Emissions 4470.4
TOTAL EMISSIONS 4514.9
Emissions of toluol and ethvl
acetate after solvent recovery
using carbon adsorption. The
solvent recovery efficiency is
around 90X, and the solvent is
reused in the process.
22
-------
TABLE 4-3. PERCENTAGE OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS PRODUCED BY
TYPE OF PRINTING METHOD IN THE NASHVILLE AREA
IN 1975
Printing Process
Uncontrolled Emissions
(tons/year)
Percent of Total
Emissions
N>
Web Offset (lithography)
and Web Letterpress
Processes (probably em-
ploying heat-set inks)
Flexography
52. 3
1.2
Rotogravure
Varied, Undefined Small
Sources
60.0
3886.0
472.1
4470.4
1.3
86.0
10.5
99.0'
-------
Another one percent of the emissions (60 tons/yr) are
produced in a flexographic process used to print polyethylene
bread bags manufactured by Paramount Packaging. The facility
has seven presses each with a dryer exhaust rate of 4418 acfm
(125°F). Total solvent consumption (probably including some
manufacturing steps in addition to printing) is on the order of
2500 gallons per week. Solvent input to the presses is 30 Ib/hr,
ink input is 30 lb/hr, and volatile organic emissions are 20 lb/
hr. The estimated emission rate of 60 tons/year is based on 6240
operating hours per year.
Eighty-six percent of the emissions from the graphic
arts industry are produced by R. H. Donnelley Printing Co. (Lake-
side Press) in Sumner County. In 1975, 2 press lines were in
operation at the 272,000 square foot plant. The single color
press line prints 96 pages per revolution, the multicolor press,
48 pages per revolution. Both lines contain 10 printing units
each consisting of an ink fed print roller, forced air heated
drying oven and induced draft fan. The oven exhaust from all
ten printing units (4000 acfm at 150°F) is sent to one stack
(40,000 acfm). Printed paper is stacked in a pile and emissions
from the paper stack are collected with an induced draft fan and
sent to a chilled condenser. Plant personnel reported that a
negligible amount of solvent is collected in the condenser.
Donnelley prints single- and multi-color commercial
catalogues on both coated and uncoated paper. Hydrocarbon emis-
sions are estimated based on ink consumption rates and solvent
content of the ink. The solvent is composed of C8 and greater
naphthenes, toluene, ethyl benzene, and olefins. The emission
rate of 3886 tons/year is based on the ink consumption rate and
the estimate that 20% of the ink solvent (the volatile aromatic
components) evaporates in the drying ovens.
24
-------
4.3 Control Technology
Control methods applicable to the three kinds of print-
ing operations in the study area are summarized in Table 4-4.
Emissions from gravure printing can be controlled by
carbon adsorption, incineration, or substitution of water-based
inks. As described in Table 4-4, the applicability of these
methods depends on the kind of printing operation. All of the
uncontrolled emissions from rotogravure printing are produced
by R. H. Donnelley Printing Co. CPS industries also uses roto-
gravure printing for giftwrap. Emissions from this printing
operation are currently controlled by carbon adsorption.
Carbon adsorption is the method of choice for the
Donnelley plant, where solvent can be recovered and reused.
The company has tested and installed carbon adsorption units at
another location and has evaluated the use of carbon adsorption
units at the Sumner County plant. Test results for a 907o effi-
cient adsorber treating 120,000 cfm of oven exhaust showed that
operating costs would be offset by the value of recovered sol-
vent if solvent cost was $0.65/gallon. Solvent costs at that
time were around $0.50/gallon. The company has also tested water-
based inks, but the results showed that the quality of the printed
product was unacceptable.
Emissions from flexographic printing are produced at
one location in the study area, Paramount Packaging. As shown
in Table 4-4, either incineration or substitution of water-
based ink can be used to reduce solvent emissions from flexo-
graphy. While water-based inks are now used in some operations,
it is not clear whether they would be applicable for printing
polyethylene bread bags. Incineration could reduce solvent
25
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY OF CONTROL METHODS AVAILABLE FOR HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM PRINTING OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA2'"'5
Printing Method
Control Process
Applications and
Extent of Use
Rate of Hydrocarbon Emissions Overall
(kg volatile organics/l ink used) Control Efficiency
Uncontrolled Controlled (%)
Rotogravure
(ink contains 60X
solvent)
Carbon adsorption
Incineration
Ink substitution
(water-borne ink)
Most useful at large publi-
cation plants where solvent
recovery and reuse is
possible
Packaging and specialty
printers where solvent re-
covery is not feasible
Special uses, not available
for all applications
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.07
90
85
Flexography
(ink contains 602
solvent)
Web letterpress and
Web-offset Lithography
using heatset ink
(45% solvent)
Incineration
(catalytic or direct
flame)
Ink substitution
(water-borne ink)
Direct flame incineration
(afterburners)
Catalytic incineration
Ink substitution
[heat reactive, ther-
mally catalyzed inks
(15-20% solvent)]
Ink substitution
(UV curing inks)
Has been used at a few
installations
Application depends on
ability of substrate to
absorb aqueous solvent and
on drying speed
In use at a number of in-
stallations
Has been tested
Commercially available, some
problems in application
Comnerclally available, will
be widely used by 1980
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.07
0.1
0.04
0.06
0.06
85
80
90
85
85
100
-------
emissions by about 80 percent (overall efficiency) in this appli-
cation .11
As shown in Table 4-4, there are a number of control
methods available for emissions from web-offset (lithography)
and web-letterpress printing.4'5 Both processes employ heatset
inks containing about 45% solvent. There are three emission
sources in the study area using web-offset or letterpress print-
ing: Baird Word (2 locations) and United Publications.
The control methods listed for heatset inks in Table
4-4 include both add-on devices (thermal incineration, catalytic
incineration) and process change (substitution of thermally
catalyzed, low solvent, or UV cured inks).
Thermal incineration is most widely applied in the
industry.k'5 Drying oven exhaust is burned in a direct flame
(gas or oil) afterburner at 1100-1500°F (600-800°C). The effi-
ciency of the method is about 95 percent, and overall control
efficiency is about 90%.4 Fuel costs are significant, the major
operating expense. Some printers have stopped using existing
afterburners during fuel shortages or due to increased fuel costs.5
Heat exchangers can be employed to reoover some of the energy for
preheating gas to the drying ovens. With this feature fuel costs
can be reduced as much as 70 percent, but equipment costs are
higher.
Catalytic incineration employs a flameless oxidation
reaction accelerated by a catalyst, usually a platinum or palla-
dium coated ceramic pellet. This method has been tested but does
not appear to be as widely applied as thermal incineration. Fuel
costs are significantly reduced, and heat exchangers can be em-
ployed. Poisoning and thermal deactivation of the catalyst
can be a problem.
27
-------
Carbon adsorption has been used successfully at a large
lithographic (web-offset) facility.5
Ink substitution appears to be attractive to the web-
offset and letterpress industry as a control method. Table 4-5
lists some commercially available inks used in the web-offset
industry. Ink cost and fuel requirements of substitute inks
are compared to those for conventional heatset inks.5 Low-
smoke, low-solvent, or low-temperature drying inks can be sub-
stituted with some increase in ink cost and a decrease in fuel
cost. Conventional drying equipment can be used, and reductions
in plume opacity and odor have been demonstrated. No informa-
tion is available about the reduction in hydrocarbon emissions.
Thermally catalyzed (heat-reactive) inks containing
about 15 percent solvent can also be used with conventional dry-
ing equipment. The ink sets by catalytic heat activated polymeri-
zation of nonomers and prepolymers. Heat reactive inks cost 40
to 100 percent more than conventional inks and use fifteen per-
cent more fuel, but added equipment cost is negligible.
UV curing photoreactive inks are set by polymerization
or exposure to ultraviolet radiation. They cost 85 to 100 per-
cent more than conventional inks and their use requires the pur-
chase of UV drying equipment. Energy costs are reduced, drying
is simplified, the ink does not dry in equipment during shutdowns,
and hydrocarbon emissions are eliminated because the ink contains
no solvent. Disadvantages are the difficulty of ink removal dur-
ing paper reclamation, and potential health hazards to workers
from UV radiation and skin and eye irritation from the inks. This
control method, although considered unconventional and costly,
has been characterized by industry representatives as the ideal
control method.5 It is predicted that UV curing inks will be
28
-------
TABLE 4-5. COMPARISON OF SUBSTITUTE INKS FOR WEB-OFFSET
PRINTING WITH CONVENTIONAL HEATSET INKS5
Ink Type
Percent
solvent
Relative
cost
Web
temp.
(°F)
Relative
gas usage
Plume
opacity
(percent)
Relative
odor
Heatset
40-45
100
300
100
15-20
100
Low-smoke
40-45
105
300
100
10-15
60
Low-solvent
25-30
120
270
85
5-10
40
Unspecified low-
temp . drying ink
45-50
150
210
60
10-25
35
Low-temp, drying
ink (xerox)
25-30
125
230-250
60
15-20
slight
Low-temp. drying
ink (Richardson
Ink Co.)
25-30
105-110'
220-250
87
none
slight
Heat-reactive
0-15
140-200
340
115
0-5
20
UV cure
0
200-300
120
0
0
trace
29
-------
employed in 70% of letterpress operations and 80% of web-offset
operations by 1980.1
Table 4-6 summarizes the control methods which appear
to have the best applicability for emission sources in the study
area. Overall control efficiencies published in the literature1"
are used to estimate potential reductions in hydrocarbon emis-
sions .
4.4 Control Cost and Cost Effectiveness
Cost data are available for carbon adsorption and ther-
mal incineration at rotogravure facilities and catalytic and
thermal incineration at web-offset operations.1 The data are
for model installations in the approximate size range of the fa-
cilities in the study area, Cost data for incineration in flexo-
graphy operations and UV curing in web-offset or letterpress
operations are not available. Control costs and cost effective-
ness for model rotogravure and web-offset operations are given
in the following sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.
4.4.1 Costs for Carbon Adsorption in Rotogravure Printing
Published cost data were used to compare the cost effec
tiveness of carbon adsorption and thermal incineration with heat
exchange. The carbon adsorption system with recovered solvent
valued at 4
-------
TABLE 4-6. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE CONTROL METHODS AND RESULTING REDUCTIONS IN HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS FROM PRINTING OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission Source
Uncontrolled
Emission
Rate
(tons/yr)
Control
Method
Overall
Efficiency
(%)
Hydrocarbon
Emissions After
Application
(tons/yr)
Rotogravure (Donnelley)
3886
carbon adsorption
90
390
CPS Industries
(44.5)
controlled
carbon adsorption
(in use)
-
44
Flexography (Paramount
Packaging)
60
incineration
85
9
Web-Offset and Letter-
press (Baird Word and
United Publications)
52
1. catalytic
incineration
2. UV curing ink
85
100
0-8
Area sources
(undefined)
472
none specified
-
472
4415
tons/year
915-923
tons/year
a
Reference 4
-------
TABLE 4-7. COMPARISON OF OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR MODEL PLANT AND
EXISTING ROTOGRAVURE PLANT
Plant Specifications
and Operating Conditions
R. H. Donnelley*
Printing Co.,
Sumner County
Model Small
Plant
Number of Press Lines
Exhaust rate (acfm) for each
press line
Conditions at Adsorber Inlet:
Gas Rate (acfm)
Temperature (°F)
Gas Rate (scfm)
Solvent Concentration (% LEL)
Solvent Concentration (ppm by vol)
Solvent Emissions (lb/hr)
2 (10 units each)
40,000
80,000
150
68,200
20
unknown
l,245a
4 (No. of units
not specified)
12,450
49,800
90
48,000
35
3,560
2,484
Data obtained during plant visit on 26 September 1977 and from communica-
tions with plant engineering manager. The solvent emission rate in lb/hr
was calculated based on 6240 operating hours/year from an annual estimate
of 3886 tons/year. The annual estimate is 20% of total solvent consumption.
^Data obtained from Reference 1.
32
-------
similar. The Donnelley emission rate was estimated from ink
solvent aromatic content (20%) and annual solvent or ink consump-
tion. Since details are unavailable, it is not clear whether
this total annual emission rate provides an accurate description
of the actual hourly oven exhaust rate. Rotogravure inks usually
contain about 607, solvent, and about 60 percent of the solvent
is typically emitted in the oven exhaust.1 However, large varia-
tions in emission rates occur depending on press speed, number
of colors and sides printed, ink coverage, web width, and type
of paper (coated or non-coated). The model plant emission rates
are probably based on actual concentrations in the oven exhaust.
In summary, the model plant may not be entirely repre-
sentative of conditions at the Donnelley plant. Cost effective-
ness calculated on the basis of annual cost (credit) and tons of
hydrocarbons controlled will be higher for the model plant than
for Donnelley. Capital cost estimated from gas flow rate to the
absorber would be similar for the two plants.
Capital and operating costs and calculated cost effec-
tiveness for the model small plant and a larger plant are summa-
rized in Table 4-8. Published data1 were converted to 1977 dol-
lars and capital charges were increased to 17.2% of capital as
described in footnote b.
4.4.2 Costs for Catalytic Incineration in Web Offset
(Lithographic) Printing
Published cost data for both thermal and catalytic in-
cineration for model web-offset printing operations showed that
catalytic incineration had the higher cost effectiveness. The
exhaust rates for the model plants were too low to justify the
use of heat exchange equipment.
33
-------
TABLE 4-8. CAPITAL COST, NET ANNUALIZED COST, AND COST
EFFECTIVENESS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION CONTROLS
AT TWO MODEL ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING FACILITIES1
Cost Items and Specifications
Model Small
plant
(4 presses)
Model Large
plant
(12 presses)
Effluent Gas Rate, SCFM
48,000
144,000
Capital Cost ($1,000)
676.2
1,461.2
Direct Operating Cost ($1,000/yr)a
183.4
507.9
Capital Charges ($l,000/yr)b
116.3
251.3
Solvent Credit ($l,000/yr)c
(1,216.0)
(3,680.0)
ANNUAL COST (Credit) ($l,000/yr-)
(916.3)
(2,920.8)
Uncontrolled emissions (tons/yr)^
9936
28,808
Control Efficiency (percent)
95
95
COST EFFECTIVENESS ($1,000/ton)
(0.10)
(0.11)
g
Includes operating labor, maintenance and repair, and utilities.
^Includes depreciation, interest, administrative overhead, property taxes,
and insurance calculated @ 10% for 15 years plus 4% for taxes, insurance
and administration
CSolvent credited at 4c/lb (1970 figure); total credit inflated to 1977.
^Based on 8000 operating hours/year. Hourly rates are 2484 and 7452 lb/hr.
34
-------
Model plant operating conditions and specifications
are listed in Table 4-9. Very little information is available
describing the three emission sources in the study area that use
heatset inks. Annual emission rates are 17-19 tons/year, equiva-
lent to about 5-6 lb/hr on the basis of 6240 operating hours/year.
These emission rates are comparable to those of the small model
plant. In the absence of data on exhaust gas rate, the hydro-
carbon emission rates provide the only basis for concluding that
the small plant cost data are applicable to emission sources in
the study area.
Capital costs, net annualized costs, and cost effec-
tiveness data are given in Table 4-10.
4.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs
No published information was found concerning the eco-
nomic impact of control costs for the graphic arts industry.
4.6 References
1. Industrial Gas Cleaning Inst. Air Pollution Control
Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas, EPA-
450/3-73-010. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289. Stamford,
Connecticut, December 1973.
2. Radian Corporation, Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources, draft report,
DCN 200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task
12. Austin, TX., September 1977.
35
-------
TABLE 4-9. MODEL PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN BASIS
FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATOR CONTROLS AT WEB-OFFSET
(LITHOGRAPHIC) PRINTING FACILITIES1
Operating Conditions
and Specifications
Model
Small Plant
Model
Large Plant
Process Conditions
Effluent Gas Temperature, °F
Effluent Gas Rate, SCFM
Effluent Gas Rate, ACFM
* g
Hydrocarbon Concentration, ppm
Hydrocarbon Emission Rate, lb/hr
Maximum
Average
Heat of Combustion of Hydrocar-
bons, Btu/lbb
Heating Value of Gas, Btu/SCF
Maximum
Average
Incinerator Specifications
Inlet Temperature, °F
Outlet Temperature, °F
Burner Duty, MMBtu/hr
350
2,000
3,060
500-2,000
10.1
6.3
19,500
1.5
0.9
350
1,100
1.89
350
7,000
10,700
500-2,000
35.4
22.1
19,500
1.5
0.9
350
1,100
6.60
Measured as methane equivalents
^Assumed as n-hexane
36
-------
TABLE 4-10. CAPITAL COST, NET ANNUALIZED COST, AND COST
EFFECTIVENESS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATION
CONTROLS AT TWO MODEL LITHOGRAPHIC (WEB-
OFFSET) PRINTING FACILITIES1
Cost Items and Model Model
Specifications Small Plant Large Plant
Effluent Gas Rate, SCFM
2,000
7,000
Capital Cost ($1,000)
46.8
79.9
Direct Operating Cost ($l,000/yr)
13.9
42.1
Capital Charges ($l,000/yr)b
8.0
13.7
Solvent Credit ($l,00Q/yr)C
0
0
ANNUAL COST (CREDIT) ($1,000/YR)
21.9
55.8
Uncontrolled Emissions (tons/yr)d
12.6
44.2
Control Efficiency (percent)
95.0
95.0
COST EFFECTIVENESS ($1,000/TON)
1.8
1.3
alncludes operating labor, maintenance and repair, and utilities.
^Includes depreciation, interest, administrative overhead, property taxes,
and insurance calculated @ 10% for 15 years plus 4% for taxes, insurance,
and administration.
CSolvent credited at 4
-------
PEDCo - Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon
Area Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson,
Robertson, Ruthersford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson
Counties, Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task
9, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1976.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards. Air Pollution Control Technology
Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1977.
Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use in Printing Op-
erations, King of Prussia, PA, September 1975, Con-
ference Proceedings. EPA Contract No. 68-01-29-28,
Washington, D.C., January, 1976.
38
-------
5.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE MARKETING
5 • 1 Description of Operations
Gasoline marketing is defined for this study as the
movement of gasoline to and through service stations. It in-
volves supplying the station with gasoline and dispensing the
fuel to vehicles. To provide an adequate supply of gasoline,
service stations have underground storage tanks from which the
gasoline is pumped into the vehicles. These tanks are refilled
as needed. Hydrocarbon emissions are produced in two ways; one
while bulk gasoline is dropped into the storage tanks, the other
during vehicle refueling. Table 5-1 lists some typical emission
factors for service stations.
TABLE 5-1. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
MARKETING OPERATIONS2
Emission Source
Hydrocarbon Emission Factors
(lb/1000 gallon throughput)
Filling Underground Tank
Submerged filling
7.3
Splash filling
11.5
Underground Tank Breathing
1
Vehicle Refueling Operations
Displacement losses
9
Spillage
0.7
A major source of organic vapor emissions is the fill-
ing of underground gasoline storage tanks at service stations.
Gasoline is delivered to service stations in tank trucks.
Emissions are generated when hydrocarbon vapors in the under-
ground storage tank are displaced by gasoline loaded into the
tank. The quantity of emissions depends on the method of fill-
ing, the tank configuration, and gasoline properties such as
39
-------
temperature, vapor pressure, and composition. An average emis-
sion rate for submerged filling (gasoline enters at the bottom
of the tank) is 7.3 lb/1000 gallons of gasoline transferred.
The average emission rate for splash filling (top entry) is 11.5
lb/1000 gallons transferred. If 50 percent of the underground
tanks in the Nashville area were filled by submerged filling,
the emissions factor for underground tank filling would be 9.4
lb/1000 gallons of gasoline transferred.
Another source of hydrocarbon emissions is under-
ground tank breathing. Breathing losses occur daily due to
gasoline evaporation, primarily from changes in temperature.
An average loss through breathing is 1 lb/1000 gallons through-
put .
Vehicle refueling emissions occur from spills and when
vapors are displaced from the automobile tank by dispensed gaso-
line. The quantity of displaced vapors is dependent on gasoline
temperature, auto tank temperature, relative vapor pressure of
the gasoline, and dispensing rates. Although several correla-
tions have been developed to estimate losses due to displaced
vapors, significant controversy exists concerning these correla-
tions. It is estimated that the emissions due to vapors dis-
placed during vehicle refueling average 9 lbs/1000 gallons of
dispensed gasoline. The quantity of spillage loss is difficult
to define, but on the average has been estimated to be about
0.7 lb/1000 gallons of dispensed gasoline.1
With the assumption of some 50 percent submerged
filling, the emission factor for Nashville area gasoline
stations would be 20.1 lb/1000 gallons throughput.
40
-------
5.2
Levels and Sources of Emissions
The Nashville area has an estimated 3,550 tons/yr of
hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline marketing, accounting for
approximately 20% of the total emissions. These emissions were
estimated using an emission factor and gasoline consumption data.
Previously published emission rates were based on an emission
factor of 19.0 lb/1000 gallons throughput.3 In this work, emis-
sion rates were adjusted uo reflect the emission factor of 20.1
lb/1000 gallons throughput. Based on the emission factors,
about 47 percent of the emissions (1670 tons) can be attributed
to bulk gasoline drops and 53 percent (1880 tons) to vehicle re-
fueling .
There are 601 service stations in the study area. The
number of stations was estimated from a 1977 National Business
List. Table 5-2 shows how the total of 601 stations is distri-
buted in the 5-county study area. The average hydrocarbon emis-
sion rate per station is 5.9 tons per year, but there are all
sizes of stations in the study area. There are ten service
stations in Davidson County producing an estimated 10 tons/yr
or greater hydrocarbon emissions.
TABLE 5-2. DISTRIBUTION OF GASOLINE STATIONS
IN THE FIVE-COUNTY STUDY AREA
County
Number of
Gasoline Stations
Davidson
375
Rutherford
73
Sumner
55
Williamson
50
Wilson
58
41
-------
5.3 Control Technology
Controls for gasoline station emissions have been
designated as Stage I for bulk drop operations and Stage II for
vehicle refueling operations. Both types of control involve
the recovery of displaced vapors.
5.3.1 Stage I Controls for Bulk Drop Operations
Stage I controls involve using submerged filling and
the vapor balance system during the filling of underground
storage tanks. A submerged fill pipe is used to discharge a
load of gasoline below the surface of liquid in the underground
tank. Submerged loading eliminates vaporization caused by the
free fall of gasoline droplets from discharging the gasoline at
the top of the tank. A fill pipe should extend to within 6
inches of the bottom of the tank.1*
The vapor balance system involves the collection by
the tank truck of displaced vapors from the underground tanks
during unloading operations. Figure 5-1 shows a tank truck
using a vapor balance system during unloading of gasoline at a
service station. The captured vapors are ultimately displaced
to a vapor recovery system at the bulk terminal when the tank
trucks are filled.
Assuming that some stations in Nashville have sub-
merged fill tanks, Stage I controls can treat about 47 percent
of the hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline service stations.
The control efficiency of a balance system has been estimated
at 93 to 100 percent. Hydrocarbon emissions from underground
tank filling operations at a service station using submerged
42
-------
VAPOR VENT LINE
MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
ill
Figure 5-1. Tank truck employing "vapor balance" form of
hydrocarbon control during filling underground
storage tank.
43
-------
filling and the vapor balance system are expected not to exceed
0.3 lb/1000 gallons of gasoline transferred.1
5.3.2 Stage II Controls for Vehicle Refueling
Stage II controls for vehicle refueling emissions con-
vey displaced vapors from the vehicle fuel tank to the underground
storage tank. This transfer of vapors is accomplished with the
hose and nozzle shown in'Figure 5-2. Two types of systems are
in use. In the "balance" vapor control system the vapors are
conveyed by natural pressure differentials established during
refueling. "Vacuum assist", vapor control systems use a vacuum
pump to transfer vapors and a secondary recovery unit for con-
densing recovered vapors.
Balance system recovery efficiency depends on the col-
lection efficiency at the interface between the gasoline dis-
pensing nozzle and the vehicle fill pipe. 1975 tests showed the
control efficiency of the vapor balance system using advanced
nozzle designs was near or above 907OJ and control efficiency
achievable with commercially available nozzles was 857o. 6 Vacuum
assist system recovery efficiency depends on two factors, the
collection efficiency at the nozzle-fill pipe interface and
maintenance-dependent operating reliability of the secondary
recovery unit. Field observations of operating units made in
1975 indicated about 75% average availability of secondary re-
covery units. The overall reduction efficiency of vacuum assist
systems is estimated at about 907o.5
5.3.3 Reductions in Hydrocarbon Emissions Using Stage I
and II Controls
Table 5-3 shows the reductions in hydrocarbon emissions
from gasoline stations in the study area that can be achieved with
44
-------
Figure 5-2. Vapor return system for Stage II controls on
vehicle refueling emissions.
SERVICE
STATION
PUMP
RETURNED VAPORS
ISPENSED GASOLINE
45
-------
TABLE 5-3. CONTROL METHODS AND REDUCTION OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
MARKETING OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emissions
Treated by
Control
Emission Rate
Control Method
Control Method
Efficiency
After Controls
(tons/yr)
(%)
(tons/yr)
Stage I Controls
(submerged fill plus
vapor balance for storage
tank loading)
1670
(47% of 3550 tons/yr
total emissions)
95
84 (emissions after Stage I
controls)
+1880 (untreated refueling
emissions)
1964
-£>
-------
various combinations of Stage I and II controls. Stage I con-
trols can be applied to emissions from storage tank loading
(1670 tons/year). Vehicle refueling emissions (1880 tons/yr)
will remain uncontrolled. Total emissions after application of
Stage I controls would be 1964 tons/year. While Stage I con-
trols are 95% efficient, they provide a 457» reduction in total
emissions since they treat only 477, of the total emissions.
Using a combination of Stage I controls and vapor bal-
ance for vehicle refueling (Stage II controls), remaining emis-
sions would be about 300 tons/year, a 907> reduction in total
emissions. With vacuum assist for Stage II instead of vapor
balance, remaining emissions would be 270 tons/year for a 947>
reduction in total emissions.
5.4 Capital and Operating Cost
The capital and operating costs have been estimated
for retrofit Stage I and II controls at a model 7-pump service
station dispensing about 384,000 gallons per year. Stage I
control efficiency is assumed to be 95 percent. For a Stage
II balance system, a conservative control efficiency of 85 per-
cent was assumed. For a vacuum assist system, 90 percent effi-
ciency is applied. Table 5-4 shows capital costs for Stage I
and II controls in 1977 dollars. Costs for Stage I and II con-
trols are shown separately. In practice, Stage II controls
would not be applied without Stage I controls. The capital cost
for applying both Stage I and II controls is less than the sum
of the separate capital costs. Capital costs for Stage I in-
clude about $500 for installed hardware (pipes and vents) and
about $1400 for trenching, paving, and backfill for vapor return
line installation. Some savings on trenching costs would occur
if Stage I and Stage II controls were installed simultaneously.
47
-------
TABLE 5-4. STAGE I AND II CONTROL COSTS FOR A TYPICAL SERVICE
STATION DISPENSING 384,000 GALLONS/YR5'6
Stage I
Stage
Balance System
II
Vacuum Assist
System
Capital Cost
$1,900
$6,600
$14,850
Direct Operating Cost ($/yr)
Neg.
330
1,320
Capital Charges ($/yr)
326
1,132
2,545
Gasoline Credit ($/yr)
( 372)
(261)
(268)
Annual Cost ($/yr)
(46)
1,201
3,597
Uncontrolled emissions
(tons/yr)
2.2
1.7
1.7
Control efficiency (%)
95
85
90
Cost Effectiveness ($1000/ton
controlled)
(0.02)
0.83
2.35
£
^Includes labor and materials for maintenance and repair and electricity.
Includes depreciation, interest, administrative overhead, property taxes,
and insurance. Calculated @ 10% for 15 years + 4% for taxes, insurance,
and administration.
^Gasoline credited at 550/gallon.
Calculated using emission factor for splash loading.
5.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs
The economic impact of implementing Stage I and II con-
trols depends to some degree on who incurs the cost of the control
equipment. As of 1975, about 507o of the gasoline stations in the
U.S. were owned by major oil firms, 20% were owned by large in-
tegrated marketers and regional refiners, and 307<, by small busi-
nessmen -- jobbers and dealer/owners. These small businessmen
would be most affected by the implementation of controls.7
Stage I controls require a relatively small eapital in-
vestment and for larger stations the annual capital charges may
48
-------
be offset by the recovered gasoline credit. These controls may
provide a positive yearly cash flow for larger stations.
The economic impact of implementation of Stage II con-
trols would be much greater. Oil companies, integrated marketers
and regional refiners could use their holdings as collateral for
loans, use internal funds, or sell off marginal outlets. Jobbers
and dealer/owners, however, would have to rely on more expensive
sources of funds such as banks or private investors. The Small
Business Administration could be of some help but could not loan
the entire amount. Large jobbers would be above the SBA size
limits and would need more money than many banks would be willing
to lend.
In addition to those retailers forced out of business
because of lack of capital, others will either be unable to com-
pete if costs are passed through to customers or unable to ab-
sorb costs which are not passed through.
The economic impact of Stage II control implementation
on oil jobbers has been evaluated in a study for the National
Oil Jobbers Council. For jobbers owning their own marketing
facilities which require vapor controls, the installation of
vapor balance and vacuum assist controls will cost an amount
equivalent to 28.4 percent of their net worth. Furthermore,
it would be those jobbers with the least economic flexibility
(lowest net worth) who would be hardest hit by the cost of
implementing these controls as shown in Table 5-5. It is esti-
mated that a significant portion of the jobbers fall into the
least flexible group.8
49
-------
TABLE 5-5. ECONOMIC IMPACT ON OIL JOBBERS OF
IMPLEMENTING STAGE II CONTROLS7
Jobber Classification
by Net Worth, $
Number of
Jobbers in
Group
% of
Study
Group
Average Cost of Vapor
Control as Percentage
of Net Worth
2MM
15
12
12.6%
700M-2MM
31
24
18.8%
350M-700M
25
19
26.1%
0-350M
59
45
31.7%
Any estimate of the number of stations forced to close
as a direct result of Stage II control regulations is complicated
by the fact that most of them would be forced to close sooner or
later anyway because of their low volume throughput. However,
dealer owned and jobber owned stations would suffer more because
of their unfavorable financial sources. Phasing in the controls
could ease this plight to a certain extent.
According to a national survey, 2% of stations will
close as a direct result of control costs if Stage II controls
are required and competitive pass-through is allowed. Two per-
cent will close if hybrid systems are required and 47o if vacuum
assist systems are required. About two thirds of these closures
would be dealer owned or jobber owned outlets. Larger company
stations would face potential closure only if cost pass-through
were not allowed.7
5.6 References
1. Radian Corporation. Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources. Draft
Report, DCN 200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608,
Task 12. Austin, TX. September 1977.
50
-------
2.
Burklin, Clinton E. , et al. Revision of Evaporation
Hydrocarbon Emission Factors. Radian Corporation.
Austin, TX. August 1976.
3. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon
Area Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson
Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson
Counties, Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order No. 9. Cincinnati, Ohio. July, 1976.
4. Burklin, Clinton E., et al. Study of Vapor Control
Methods for Gasoline' Marketing Operations, 2 vols.
Austin, TX. Radian .Corporation. May, 1975.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Air Pollution Control Tech-
nology Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic
Compounds. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1977.
6. Burklin, C.E., et al. Cost Effectiveness of Hydro-
carbon Vapor Emissiort Reduction Methods for Vehicle
Refueling Operations at Service Stations. Radian
Corporation. Austin, TX. October 1975.
7. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Economic Impact of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Regulations: Working Memoranda. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1349, Task 11. Cambridge, Massachu-
setts. November, 1976.
51
-------
8. Cavanaugh, E.C., P.S. Dzierlenga, and C.T. Shelton.
Potential Economic Impact of Stage II Vapor Control
Regulations on Oil Jobbers. Final Report. Radian
Project No. 200-124. Radian Corporation. Austin, TX.
December 1975.
52
-------
6.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE STORAGE (TANK
TRUCK LOADING) AT BULK TERMINALS
6.1 Description of Operations
Gasoline is distributed from refineries to intermediate
storage and loading facilities by pipeline and tank truck. If
the intermediate station is supplied by pipeline, it is called a
bulk terminal. A bulk plant is supplied by tank truck. All of
the storage facilities in Davidson County are pipeline terminals.
The major sources of hydrocarbon emissions at bulk terminals are
storage tank losses, fugitive emissions (leaks) and tank truck
loading operations. Emissions from storage tanks are relatively
minor in the Nashville area. Eighty-four percent of the storage
tanks in Davidson County have floating roofs which have minimal
emissions. Fugitive emissions are considered minor. Therefore,
these two sources of emissions will not be addressed. Loading
operations are the largest source of emissions and the most
adaptable to control measures. This discussion is limited to
the sources and control of emissions from loading operations.
Tank truck loading emissions occur as hydrocarbon vapors
in empty trucks are displaced by the gasoline loaded into the
truck. The vapors displaced from the truck are composed of 1)
vapors formed in the empty truck by evaporation of residual pro-
duct from the previous haul, and 2) vapors generated as gasoline
is loaded into the truck. The quantity and composition of the
vapor losses are affected by:1
1) method of loading gasoline,
2) ambient temperature,
3) loading rate, and
4) vapor pressure of gasoline.
53
-------
Methods of loading cargo carriers are shown in Figure
6-1. In the splash loading method, the fill pipe dispensing the
cargo is only partially lowered into the cargo tank. Turbulence
and vapor-liquid contacting during the splash loading cause high
levels of vapor generation and loss. If the turbulence is high
enough, liquid droplets will be entrained in the vented vapors.2
A second method of loading is submerged loading. The
two types of submerged loading are the submerged fill pipe method
and the bottom loading method. In the submerged fill pipe method,
the fill pipe descends almost to the bottom of the cargo tank.
In the bottom loading method, the fill pipe enters the cargo tank
from the bottom. During submerged loading the fill pipe opening
is below the liquid level, and liquid turbulence and vapor-liquid
contact are reduced. Submerged loading produces lower vapor
losses than splash loading.2
6.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions
The Nashville area has an estimated 2840 tons/yr of
hydrocarbon emissions from bulk gasoline and petroleum storage
facilities, approximately 16 percent of the total emissions.
The emission figures include emissions from tank truck loading
and storage tank working and breathing losses. Storage tank
losses were assumed negligible since 84 percent of the storage
tanks in Davidson County have floating roofs. The type and num-
ber of loading racks and arms are not known for these facilities.
None of the facilities have vapor recovery systems. Table 6-1
lists the emission sources by county. The 13 storage facilities
in Davidson County produce 99 percent of the emissions. All of
these facilities are pipeline terminals and 43 of the 53 storage
tanks are equipped with floating roofs. Table 6-2 lists 1977
hydrocarbon emissions from the 13 Davidson County terminals. As
54
-------
/—FILL PIPE
SPLASH LOAOJNG
COVER
SUBMERGED FILL PIPS
VAPOR VENT
TO RECOVERY
OR ATMOSPHERE
HATCH CLOSED
\
\
V >• >•
VAPORS
CARGO TANK
FILL PIPE
Figure 6-1. Three methods of loading cargo carriers.
CARGO TANK
55
-------
shown in the table, 6 of the 10 fixed roof tanks are located at
one small terminal.
TABLE 6-1. 1975 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM BULK STORAGE OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission Source
Number of
Storage Tanks
Total
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/yr)
Davidson County
13 Gasoline Bulk Terminals
(See Table 6-2)
53 (10 fixed roof)
2,800
Rutherford County
Jennings Oil Co.*
Unknown
37
Williamson County
Williams Oil Co.*
Unknown
4
TOTAL
2,841
*Gasoline and some fuel oil storage
6.3 Control Technology
The control technologies applicable to bulk gasoline
terminals include changes in the method of loading trucks and
add-on vapor collection and recovery systems.
By converting from splash loading to submerged fill
or bottom loading, emissions can be reduced by about 58 percent. 3
By allowing the gasoline to enter the tank below the liquid sur-
face , the excess vapors generated by splash loading are elimi-
nated. Cost analysis has proven that submerged fill is more
cost effective than bottom loading for the retrofit situation.
Vapor collection and recovery systems can provide addi-
tional controls for bulk terminals. In a typical tank truck
56
-------
TABLE 6-2. 1977 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM 13 BULK GASOLINE
TERMINALS IN DAVIDSON COUNTY
Terminal Number
Number of
Fixed Roof
Storage Tanks
Floating Roof
1977 Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
1
0
5
281
2
0
3
118
3
1
2
148
4
0
7
345
5
0
3
242
6
0
3
129
7
0
4
140
8
0
4
430
9
3
1
243
10
0
2
254
11
0
5
554
12
0
4
49
13
6
0
26
TOTAL
10
43
2959
57
-------
loading facility, the collected vapors are manifolded to a common
header which vents to the vapor recovery system. The vapor
recovery system converts the vapors to liquid. Two types of re-
covery units have been* used, the compression-refrigeration-absorp —
tion (CRA) unit and the straight refrigeration (RF) system. Cost
analysis has shown that the RF system is more cost effective.
The RF system is based on condensation of gasoline
vapors by refrigeration at atmospheric pressure. As the dis-
placed vapors are generated, they enter a horizontal fintubed
condenser where they are cooled to a temperature of -100°F. The
RF system can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 80 to 93 percent.1
Incineration (thermal oxidation) can also be used to
control tank truck loading emissions but this method is not as
widely applied as vapor recovery systems. Although thermal
incinerators have about the same energy requirements as vapor
recovery systems, there is no offsetting credit for product re-
covery, and terminals can rarely utilize waste heat from incin-
erators. Vapor recovery systems are currently used at some 300
terminals in the U.S., and it is estimated that 10 facilities
are equipped with incinerators.3
If submerged filling controls (58 percent control
efficiency) were used to treat hydrocarbon emissions from tank
truck loading at gasoline terminals in the study area, emissions
would be reduced from 2840 to 1190 tons/year. With both sub-
merged filling (58 percent reduction) and vapor recovery using
the RF system (87% reduction of remaining emissions), emissions
would be reduced to about 155 tons per year.
58
-------
6.4
Capital and Operating Cost
The capital and operating costs and cost effectiveness
of the control methods have been estimated for two typical termi-
nal sizes. The terminals are designated as small (25,000 gallons
per day throughput) and large (250,000 gallons per day through-
put). The recovered gasoline is credited at 35
-------
TABLE 6-3. CONTROL COSTS FOR TYPICAL GASOLINE BULK TERMINALS1
Submerged
Fill
Submerged Fill Plus
Vapor Recovery
Small
Large
Small
Large
Capital Cost
$ 735
$ 1,575
$72,000
$174,000
Direct Operating Cost*3
($/yr)
Neg.
Neg.
2,310
6,685
c
Capital Charges
($/yr)
126
270
12,350
28,890
d
Gasoline Credit
C$/yr)
(3,255)
(32,340)
(1,890)
(19,000)
Annual Cost
($/yr)
(3,129)
(32,070)
12,770
16,575
Uncontrolled Emission
(tons/yr)
47 6
472e
19.6f
196f
Control Efficiency
(%)
58
58
82
82
Cost Effectiveness
($1000/ton controlled)
(0.114)
(0.117)
0.795S
0.1038
Assuming submerged fill and vapor recovery by straight refrigeration.
Includes operating labor, maintenance and repair, and electricity.
Includes depreciation, interest, administrative overhead, property taxes,
and insurance. Calculated @ 10% for 15 years + 4% for taxes, insurance, and
administration.
^Based on proper emission factors, control efficiency, and credit of 35c per
gallon.
eBased on splash loading.
^Emissions remaining after application of submerged filling.
SCost effectiveness of submerged fill plus vapor recovery.
60
-------
3.0 Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards. Air Pollution Control Technology
Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1977.
61
-------
7.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS
7.1 Description of Operations
Surface coatings include paints, varnishes, lacquers,
stains, shellacs, polymer films, adhesives, waxes, and oils.
They can be applied to metal, paper, fabric, wood, glass, stone,
concrete, plastic, and other types of surfaces. Basic coating
methods include spraying, dipping, flowcoating, and roller coat-
ing.1 Different coating operations require variations and com-
binations of these methods. Table 7-1 shows the uses of these
methods by various industrial surface coating operations.
In the spraying method, the coating is sprayed on the
object with the use of a spray gun which is usually operated by
compressed air. The spraying area is usually enclosed by a three-
sided booth to contain overspray and prohibit dust and particu-
lates from contacting the sprayed surface. A water or oil wash
curtain or dry filter may be employed to control sprayed droplets
or particulates. The booth is ventilated by a fan to ensure that
the concentration of solvent vapors does not reach an explosive
level and that the operator is not exposed to dangerous levels
of vapors.
Dipping operations involve immersing an object in a dip
tank containing the coating. The excess coating on the dipped
object is allowed to drain back into the tank. This is accom-
plished by suspending the object directly over the tank or by
using drainboards. To keep the coating mixture uniform, agita-
tion is provided in the tank, usually by circulation of the mix-
ture .
62
-------
TABLE 7-1. COATING PROCESSES USED BY VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL
SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS2
Coating Method
Industrial Application
Spray Coat
Auto and light truck
Cans (interior, seams)
Large appliances (exterior)
Wood Furniture
Metal Furniture
Dip Coat
Auto and light truck
Large appliances (interior)
Wire
Wood Furniture
Flow Coat
Large Appliances
Roller Coat
Cans (interior, exterior)
Coiled metal
Paper, film, foil
Fabric
Flat wood products
Adhesives
63
-------
Flowcoating involves the flowing of the coating in a
steady stream over an object suspended from a conveyor line.
The excess paint is allowed to drain to a basin and then pumped
back to the coating nozzles.
Roller coating operations use machines similar to
printing presses. These machines have three or more power-
driven rolls. One roll is partially immersed in the coating
mixture and transfers coating to a second roll which is parallel
to it. The sheets of material are run between the second and a
third roll. The material is coated by the transfer of coating
from the second roll. The distance between the second and
third rolls determines the quantity of coating applied.
Coated workpieces are either air dryed or baked in
ovens. Many processes employ a flashoff step at ambient tempera-
tures in which solvent rises slowly to the surface of coated
workpieces. This step prevents the formation of bubbles or blis-
ters (orange peel effect) which can occur if solvent evaporates
too quickly in baking ovens. Flashoff steps are sometimes done
in tunnels, but the flashoff area is not always enclosed.
The quantity of emissions from surface coating opera-
tions depends on factors such as the type of material to be
coated, coating thickness, desired finish, the application method,
and coating formulation (percent water, solids, and solvent).2
In most coating operations, 10 to 90 percent of the solvent is
evaporated during the application and subsequent air drying
(flash off) steps. The remaining 10 to 90 percent is evaporated
in the drying oven. Table 7-2 shows how the emissions vary in
application and drying steps depending on the application method.
Table 7-3 describes emissions from wood and metal furniture coat-
ing operations.
64
-------
TABLE 7-2. PERCENT OF TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS PROCESSES2
Coating Method
Coating Process
Application
Pre/Air Dry
Bake
Spray Coat
30-60
10-40
10-40
Dip Coat
5-10
10-30
50-70
Flow Coat
30-50
20-40
10-30
Roller Coat
0-10
10-20
60-90
TABLE 7-3. SOURCES OF ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL
SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS2'5
Percent of
Total
Industry/Process Emissions
WOOD FURNITURE COATING
1) Spray booth 85
2) Oven 15
METAL FURNITURE COATING
1) Electrostatic spray and flashoff 65
oven emissions 35
2) Conventional or airless spray 80
oven emissions 20
3) Dip applications 50
oven emissions 50
4) Flow application 60
oven emissions 40
Emissions from spray coating are produced when the
sprayed material misses the surface to be coated (overspray).
65
-------
The percentage of overspray as a function of spraying method
and typical sprayed surfaces is given in Table 7-4. Solvent
emissions from spray booth stacks can vary from less than 1.0
lb/day to more than 3,000 lb/day, depending on the extent of
operation.1
TABLE 7-4. PERCENTAGE OF OVERSPRAY AS A FUNCTION OF
SPRAYING METHOD AND SPRAYED SURFACE2
Flat Table Leg Bird Cage
Method of Spraying Surface Surface Surface
Air Atomization 50 50 90
Airless 20 to 50 90 90
Electrostatic
Disc 5 5 to 10 5 to 10
Airless 20 30 30
Air Atomized 25 35 35
The quantity of solvent emissions also depends on the
paint formulation. For example, emissions from application of
a high solids coating (807o solids) are less than 2.0 lb of or-
ganic solvent per gallon of solids applied. Application of
lacquer produces more than 4.5 lb of organic solvent per gallon
of solids applied.
An equation for estimating the potential solvent emis-
sions from surface coating operations is given below. It can be
used to calculate emissions on the basis of coated area, thick-
ness of coating, efficiency of application and solvent content.2
w = 0.0623 An(l- O.Olp) p
66
-------
where W = weight of solvent vapors in lb
A = area coated (sq ft)
n ¦ thickness of dry coating (mils)
P = percent solids by volume
f = efficiency factor (dimensionless)
empirically determined (f £ 1), and
p = solvent density (lb/gal)
7.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions
The study area has an estimated 1,800 tons/year of
hydrocarbon emissions from 40 surface coating operations. These
emissions account for approximately 10 percent of the total emis-
sions. The individual sources of surface coating emissions are
listed by county in Table 7-5. Most of the surface coating op-
erations in the study area are small operations, but five of the
40 sources have emission rates greater than 100 tons/year [Davis
Cabinet, AVCO (aircraft equipment), Samsonite (metal furniture),
Paramount Packaging (bread bags), and Lasko Metal Products (small
appliances)].
Hydrocarbon emissions in the study area are produced
from coating wood products (16%, 292 tons/year), plastic and
fiberglass products (2170, 389 tons/year) and metal products (467o,
825 tons/year). The remaining emissions of 300 tons/year (17%
of total) are produced by area sources. Coating methods and pro-
ducts from industries classified as area sources are not defined,
so control methods cannot be specified.
Table 7-6 describes emissions from wood coating in the
study area. Some 292 tons/year of hydrocarbons are emitted from
nine sources with a wide range of emission rates. Wood cabinets
67
-------
TABLE 7-5. SUMMARY OF 1975 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE
COATING OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
finisslon Sources
Description of Product
or Operation
Mathod of Surface
Costing
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/year)
Davidson County
Davis Cabinet
Kabinet-Corporation
E. L. Bruce
AVCO
Jake's Manufacturing
Peterbullt
Matlock Truck
McMurray Steel
XKG Plant #1
Volunteer Structure
Kusan, Incorporated
Nashville Wire
Rogers Manufacturing
Sanders Manufacturing
Area Sources
Rutherford County
Fibarking
Samsonite
Paraoount Packaging
Polymer Technology
Cunnings, Incorporated
Hytec Corporation
K&M Cabinet
Chroaalox
Mingle & Elrod, Incorporated
Park Sherman Company
Williams Brae Cabinet
United Services
Ciftwood, Incorporated
Emerson Electric
Hsynes Brothers
Sumner County
Globe Furniture
Hydro-Systems, Incorporated
Lavnllce Company
House Boat Corporation of
America
Williamson County
Lasko Metal Products
Essex Group
Wilson County
TRW Ross Gear
Robertson Controls
K&M Cabinet Company
Staggs Cabinet Company
Bland Casket Company
Universal Rack
Wood Cabinets
Wood csbinets
Wood Furniture
Aircraft Equipment
Industrial Handcarts
Large Truck Assembly
Large Truck Trailers
Structural Steel Fabricating,
Priming
Structural Steel Fabricating,
Priming
Structural Steel Fabricating,
Priming
Plastics, Toy
Coated Wire Display Racks
Large Truck Trailers
Wood Novelties
Unknown (Various Types)
Boat Building
Metal Furniture
Bag Manufacturer
Adhesive Application to Tape
Plastic Sign Manufacturer
Fiberglass Shower Stalls
Wood Cablnsts
Electric Housewares, Fans
Unknown
Decorations on Golf Balls,
Ashtrays, and Cigarette
Lighters
Wood Cabinets
Pumps
Wood Products
Unknown
Wood Cabinets
Metal Office Furniture
Unknown
Aluminum Extrusion, Outdoor
Furniture
Boat Manufacturer
Fans, Heaters and Can Openers
Electrical Components for
Water Heaters
Motor Vehicle Farts
Clocks and Time Controls
Wood Cabinets
Wood Cabinets
Casket Manufacturer
Appliance Racks
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Spray Booth, Air Drying
Spray Booth, Oven Drying
Open Spraying, Air Drying
Open Spraying, Air Drying
Open Spraying, Air Drying
Open Spraying, Air Drying
Spray Booth, Oven Drying
Spray Booth, Oven Drying
Spray Booth, Air Drying
Varnish Dip Tank
Unknown (Various Methods)
2 Spray Booths
22 Spray Booths
Flow Coater
Spray Booth
Lamination (Roll)
Strip Coater (Roll)
1 Roll Coater
12 Spray Booths, Ova
Drying
Spray Booths, Air Drying
Spray Booehs
Spray Booths
Spray Bootha
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
1 Spray Booth
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Spray Booths
Sprsy Booths, Oven Drying
Spray Booths
2 Spray Booths
Spray Booths
UO.O
59.9
62.0
139.8
39.2
48.5
25.9
36.5
27.4
25.5
35.1
15.2
6.2
15.6
297.7
142.0
29.0
0.6
90.0
43.0
27.3
53.7
81.3
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.7
2.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.5
9.2
32.7
2.9
17.6
0.1
4 Spray Booths, Air Drying 153.6
Spray Booths, Air Drying 8.9
3 Spray Booths 57
6 Spray Booths 35
Spray Booths l
Spray Booths 1
2 Spray Booths 14
Open Spraying, Oven Drying 0
68
-------
TABLE 7-6. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING
OF WOOD PRODUCTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission Source
Description of Facility and Products
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/yr)
CTv
VD
Davis Cabinet
Kabinet Corporation
E. L. Bruce
Sanders Manufacturing
Haynes Brothers Supply
K & M Cabinet
Williams Brae Cabinet
Giftwood, Inc.
Staggs Cabinet Company
Manufactures wood cabinets. Surface coating
materials are applied in a spray booth.
Emissions are estimated from coating material
losses (48,000 gal/yr, 7.71 lb coating/gal,
0.793 lb solvent/lb coating). No control
methods are in use.
Manufactures wood cabinets. Coatings applied
in spray booths.
Manufactures wood furniture. Five emission
points are identified:
3 prefinishing steps 23 tons/yr
Spray booth 4 tons/yr
Drying oven 35 tons/yr
Produces yardsticks and other wood novelties.
Varnish applied in a dip tank.
Manufactures wood cabinets. Enamel and
lacquer applied in spray booth operating 500
hrs/yr. No controls in use.
Manufactures wood cabinets. Coatings applied
in spray booth.
Manufactures wood cabinets. Coatings applied
in a spray booth.
Manufactures wood products. Polyurethane
coatings are applied in a spray booth.
Manufactures wood cabinets. Coatings, applied
in a spray booth
Solvent emissions
from spraying
Solvent emissions
from spraying
140
60
Solvents from prefinishing 23
Spraying emissions 4
Drying oven emissions 35
Dip' tank and drying
emissions 15.6
Spraying emissions 9.2
Spraying emissions 1.5
Spraying emissions 0.1
Spraying emissions 0.4
Spraying emissions 1.4
-------
are manufactured in six of the operations, and one location
makes furniture. Coatings are applied in spray booths at all
but one facility. It is not known whether air drying or oven
drying is used in most of these operations. In order to define
sources of hydrocarbon emissions for purposes of specifying con-
trol methods, it was assumed that 80 percent of the emissions
are produced in the application step (spraying and flash off)
and 20 percent in the drying step (see Table 7-3).
Table 7-7 gives available information about the plas-
tic and fiberglass coating operations in the study area. These
sources produce 389 tons/year of hydrocarbon emissions at seven
locations. Both spraying and roll coating are used. Not all of
the emissions are produced by surface coating; 90 tons/year are
solvent emissions from polyetheylene laminating. Control methods
were not considered for laminating process emissions. In esti-
mating the volume of emissions from spraying and drying, it was
assumed that 60 percent are produced in the application step and
407o in the drying step (see Table 7-2) .
There are nineteen metal coating operations in the
study area. The facilities and emission sources are described
in Table 7-8, which shows the diversity of operations. Three
facilities produce metal furniture; three fabricate structural
steel; two make truck trailers; two coat wire racks; two make
metal parts for airplanes or cars; six manufacture small ap-
pliances, equipment, or components; and one assembles large
trucks. All of the operations use spraying as the application
method, and some open spraying is employed. Both air drying
and oven drying are used.
The information in Tables 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8 was used
to estimate the volume of hydrocarbon emissions from application
70
-------
TABLE 7-7. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING OF
PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Sources and
Emission Source Product Facility Description Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/year)
Paramount Packaging
Polyethylene bread bags
Polyethylene pellets are processed in a
roll laminator and coating is applied in a
roller operation. Shellac is applied in a
spray booth.
Spray booth emissions 0.8
Laminator solvent emissions 90
Roller coating emissions A3
Kusan, Inc.
Plastic toys
Epoxy paint is applied in 10 spray booths.
Painted articles are oven dried. Total
paint consumption (1977) 8175 gal/yr. Sol-
vent consumption (1977) 2500 gal/yr MEK,
10,000 gal/yr acetone, 1960 gal/yr thinner.
Solvent losses not Included in emissions.
Spray booth emissions
Drying oven emissions
21
14
Cunnings, Inc.
Polymer Technology
Bland Casket Co.
Plastic signs
Tape
Caskets
Paint of various colors is applied In 12
spray booths with oven drying.
Adhesive Is applied to tape in a roll
coater.
Spray booth emissions 32
Drying oven emissions 22
Roller coating emissions 27
Spray booth emissions 9
Drying emissions 6
Hytec Corporation
Fiberglass shower
stalls
Coatings applied in spray booths with air
drying.
Spray booth emissions
Air drying emissions
49
32
Flberking
Fiberglass boats
Spray booth emissions
Drying emissions
26
17
-------
TABLE 7-8. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE
COATING OF METAL PRODUCTS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission Source
Facility Description
HyJi
Sources and
diliott Luiii^iou-a
(tons/yr)
Metal airplane parts
There are nine emission points:
1. 6 spray booths
2. 4 spray booths
3. several spray booths
Jake's Manufacturing
Peterbllt
Rogers Manufacturing
Matlock Truck
McMurray Steel
IKG Plant No. 1
Volunteer Structure
Nashville Wire
Universal Rack
Globe Furniture
Lawnllte Company
Samsonlte
Lasko Metal Products
TRW Ross C«ar
Robertson Controls
Essex Group
United Services
tlhroualox
Industrial hand carts
Large truck assembly
Truck bfeds and trailers
(dump ttucks, cattle
trailers) for existing
truck chasis
(sane as Rogers Manu-
facturing)
Structural steel fabri-
cation
Coated wire display
racks
Appliance racks
Metal office furniture
Extruded aluminum out-
door furniture
Metal furniture
Fans, heaters,
can openers
Motor vehicle parts
Clocks, tine controls
Electrical components
for water heaters
Pumps
Electric fans, housewares
14 tons/yr
18 tons/yr
16 tons/yr
4 tons/yr
7 tons/yr
23 tons/yr
53 tons/yr
0.5 tons/yr
5 tons/yr
booths.
in avail-
Spray booth emissions
Drying emissions
Decreasing emissions
81
54
5
4. 1 spray booth
5. 1 spray booth
6. 6 spray booths
7. 9 spray booths
8. 6 spray booths
9. Degreasing alaatinum parts
No controls are In use at spray
Drying method was not described
able Information.
Cart frames are spray painted in booths and
air dried.
Coatings applied in spray booths and dried
In ovens.
Consumes 1800 gal/yr enamel and 3000 gal/yr
primer.
Coatings applied in & spray booth with air
drying.
Coatings applied by open spraying with air
drying.
Emissions consist of: primer 2 ton/yr
varnish 10 ton/yr
paint 14 ton/yr
Prime coating is applied by open spraying.
Coated steel is air dried.
TotaL emissions 89.4 tons/yr
A conveyor system Is employed. Wire racks
are coated In two spray booths and a dip
tank. A drying oven is used. 1977 emis-
sions were 21 tons/yr (15 tons/yr In 1975)
Open spraying and air drying
Coatings are applied in spray booths and
dried in ovens
Acrylic coatings are applied in 2 spray
booths, air drying is employed.
Appliances are coated in 4 spray booths
and air dried.
Metal parts are coated in 3 spray booths.
Products are coated in 6 spray booths.
Components are coated in spray booths
and air dried.
Spray booth emissions
Air drying emissions
Spray booth emissions
Drying oven emissions
Spray booth emissions
Air drying emissions
23
16
29
19
4
2
Open spraying, air drying 26
Open spraying emissions 53
Air drying emissions 36
Spray booth emissions 5
Dipping, air drying 4
Oven emissions 6
Spraying and drying 0. 3
Spray booth emissions 26
Drying oven emissions 7
Spray booth emissions 11
Air drying emissions 7
Spray booth emissions 85
Drying emissions 57
Flow coating emissions 17
Drying emissions 12
Spray booth emissions 92
Air drying emissions 61
Spray booth emissions 34
Drying emissions 23
Spray booth emissions 21
Drying emissions a 15
Spray booth emissions 5
Drying emissions 4
Spray booth emissions 0.6
0.4
Spray booth emis.^iiuib
rrbajud from eaieslons factors In Tables 7-2 and 7-3 depending on coating and drying aethods
-------
and drying steps in the surface coating operations in the study
area. Table 7-9 summarizes the results. It shows that emissions
from spray booths are 731 tons/year and drying oven emissions are
145 tons/year. Open spraying produces 79 tons/year and 342 tons/
year are produced by air drying or undefined drying methods.
7.3 Control Technology
Hydrocarbon emissions from surface coating operations
can be reduced by process and .material changes and by add-on
control devices. Each surface coating industry is presented
with unique emission problems since the industries differ in
raw materials, coatings and products. Solutions to these prob-
lems will vary by industry and for each facility.
Process and material changes include electrostatic
spray coating, electron beam curing, ultraviolet curing, and
coating modifications such as waterborne coatings, high solids
coatings, powder coatings, and hot melt formulations.2 Table
7-10 gives available information about control efficiencies of
process and material changes for some industries.
Add-on control devices include carbon adsorption units
and incinerators.3 Table 7-11 summarizes the utility and effi-
ciency of add-on controls for some surface coating operations.
Incineration is generally applied to drying oven exhaust, and
carbon adsorption is generally used to control emissions from
the application and flashoff steps.
EPA has published guidelines about emission limitations
and control methods for the surface coating operations listed in
Tables 7-10 and 7-11 . But there are many other industrial sur-
face coating operations for which EPA guidelines are unavailable.1*
73
-------
TABLE 7-9. SOURCES OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS IN SURFACE COATING
OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission
Coated Substrate
Emission Source
Rate
(tons/year)
Wood Cabinets and
Prefinishing
23
Furniture3
Spray booth
175
(see Table 7-6)
Drying oven
77
Dipping and Drying
16
TOTAL (Wood)
291
Plastic Products
Spray booth
138
(see Table 7-7)
Roller coating and drying
70
Drying oven
36
Air drying or undefined
55
drying method
Laminating
90
TOTAL (Plastic)
389
Metal Products
Spray booth
418
(see Table 7-8)
Open spraying
79
Drying oven
32
Air drying or undefined
287
drying method
Dipping and Drying
4
Degreasing
5
TOTAL (Metal)
825
Undefined (area
Undefined
300
sources)
TOTAL EMISSIONS
1805
aemissions estimated assuming that drying ovens are used and 20% of
the emissions are produced in the drying step
-------
TABLE 7-10. EFFICIENCIES OF PROCESS & MATERIAL CHANGES AS CONTROL METHODS FOR
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING APPLICATIONS2'5
Control Efficiency
High- Hot Melt
Waterborne Solids Powder Formu- Ultraviolet Extrusion
Coatings Coatings Coatings lations Curing Plastisols Coatings
Metal Coating
Auto & Light Truck
Assembly
Can Coating
Coil Coating
Large Appliance
Coating
Fabric Coating
Paper, Film, & Foil
Coating
Adhesives Coating
Flat Wood Products
Coating
Metal Furniture
80-93"
40-92
70-95
70-95
80
99 3
80-100
80-99
80-99
80
90-95
60-90c
a
70-90
70-95
70-90
57
80-100
100
99
100
100
100
80-99
95-99
99+
80-99
100
50-80 95-99
Electrodeposition of primer
'Topcoat
-------
TABLE 7-11. TYPICAL EFFICIENCIES FOR ADD-ON CONTROL EQUIPMENT2'5
Industry
Control Efficiency (Percent)
Carbon Incineration
Adsorption Thermal/Catalytic
Metal Coating
Auto &c Light Truck Assembly 85+
Can Coating 85-90
Coil Coating a
Large Appliance Coating a
Magnet Wire Coating a
Metal Furniture 90^
Fabric Coating 90-95
Paper, Film, & Foil Coating 90+
Flat Wood Products Coating a
95/95
90-98/90
90-98/90
81
90-95/90-95
90b
90-95/90-95
95/95
90
Not used in this industry
^Doesn't include capture efficiency
Most of the operations in the study area are in the group of in-
dustries for which control methods and specific guidelines have
not been suggested by EPA.
EPA has stated as a general guideline for such indus-
trial surface coating operations that "low solvent coatings, i.e.
powder, water-borne, and high solids coatings . . . are adaptable
to many metal and plastic products. Low solvent coating may
represent the most cost-effective means of control when the coat-
ing is hand sprayed or air dried."4 Industries included in this
76
-------
category are transportation equipment, marine equipment, factory-
finished building products, and fabricated metal and plastic
products in general. Low-solvent coating methods and their appli-
cability for coating metal and plastic products are summarized in
Table 7-12.
A limited amount of information is available concerning
control of solvent emissions during fiberglass product manufac-
turing.6 A program for reducing emissions was employed at a boat
hull manufacturing company wheire styrene emissions were 14 percent
of total consumption. Styrene losses occur during resin spray
application in the gel coat step and from spray gun cleanup.
Several control methods were considered. Carbon adsorption and
incineration were not considered feasible because of the low
volume of hydrocarbon emissions. Airless spraying was considered.
The properties of the finish were not suitable for boat hulls but
were said to be acceptable for other products such as shower stalls.
The control method employed was a new "suppressed" resin which
prevents styrene emissions during the gel coat step. The resin
dries by catalytic polymerization (resin crosslinking). Solvent
emissions (acetone, MEK) were also minimized by improved house-
keeping practices in the spray gun cleanup operation and by re-
cycling spent solvent instead of dumping it.
Control methods for wood product surface coating have
not been formally addressed by EPA in specific guideline docu-
ments. But some information is available about the applicability
of water-borne coatings. Conventional wood coatings contain
12 to 207o solids. They consist of nitrocellulose resins in about
807o organic solvent. Water-based coatings contain 25-307. solids,
10-207. solvent, and about 507o water. They employ polyvinyl ace-
tate or acrylic resin emulsions. Some contain amino resins
which act as crosslinking agents at drying temperatures of 140°F.
77
-------
TABLE 7-12. LOW-SOLVENT COATING METHODS APPLICABLE TO SURFACE COATING
OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA1*
Coated Product
Control Method
Applicability
Control
Eff iciency
(%)
Metal and plastic products
Small metal products
coated in only a few
colors (metal furniture,
small metal parts, fabri-
cated metal products)
Substitution of high
solids (33%) coatings
(conventional coatings
average 20% solids)
Prime coat: electro-
static spraying
Top coat: powder coating
Commercially available and
in use in many products.
Employs conventional
application methods and
equipment.
Used by numerous sources in
both new and retrofit
installations. Superior
finish is obtained. Not
applicable for heat sensi-
tive products or for
operations with frequent
color change.
50
Approaches
100
Small metal products
coated by dipping or
spraying
Water-borne coatings
80-90
-------
Water-based coatings are being developed by coating
suppliers for use in the wood furniture industry, but commercial
use is still limited to flat wood products such as wood paneling.
Table 7-13 summarizes information from trade journals describing
new water-based coating materials.
Furniture manufacturers are working with suppliers to
demonstrate new water-based coating technology and reduce it to
practice. Coating suppliers have predicted a transition from con-
ventional solvent-borne coatings to water-based coatings by 1980.
There are problems to be solved before acceptance by manufacturers
will occur. Water-borne coatings are more difficult to apply
than solvent-borne coatings, and drying times are longer. This
results in reduced coating line speeds and lower production rates.
Application is difficult in humid weather, and some coatings are
not resistant to water and alcohol stains.
There are no published data on the efficiency of reduc-
tion of hydrocarbon emissions associated with the use of water-
borne coatings for wood products. Water-borne coatings contain
about 75 percent less solvent than conventional coatings. In
calculating possible reductions in hydrocarbon emissions from
substitution of water-based coatings, a 75 percent reduction effi-
ciency was assumed.
It is not feasible to suggest specific control methods
for each surface coating operation in the study area because of
the diversity of products and coatings. Information about the
specific emission sources is too limited to allow very accurate
general predictions about the applicability of control methods.
Potential control methods include add-on devices (carbon adsorp-
tion for spray booth emissions and incineration for drying oven
emissions) and process changes (substitution of low solvent or
water-based coatings).
79
-------
TABLE 7-13. WATER-BASED COATING MATERIALS FOR WOOD PRODUCTS DESCRIBED IN TRADE JOURNALS
Coating Material and Application Method
Coated Product
Water-borne varnish applied in single dip coat
to work pieces suspended on conveyor hooks.
Materials can be handled after 20 minutes
of aJr drying
Oak, birch, maple and
hickory hard woods
Advantages
Keduction in plant heating costs because
ventilation with outside air is not re-
quired. 30% increase in coverage gives
decreased coating consumption. Reduced
Insurance rates
Reference
IndustrjjO KjjiJshlug,
March 1976, pp." 16-1 7
Stains and lacquers (Acrylate emulsion
containing small amount of solvent)
Water-based stain, scaler, glaze, and
clear top coat
Water-based coating for flow applica-
tion
Clear top-coat applied by spraying
which dries by polymerization
Light and dark wood
surfaces
ilardboard, particle
board, paneling
Reduced requirements for plant ventila-
tion, shorter drying times than conven-
tional lacquers. Reduced blistering
during rapid drying
Pigment ami Res in Tech-
nology , March 1976, p. 20
Furniture^ Design and Manu-
facturing, April 1976, p.14
Furniture Design and Manu-
facturing, April 1976, p.14
Furniture Design and Manu-
facturing, April 1976, p.14
Water-based stain applied in dip
tank
Chairs
Furnltnre Pes ign jind_Mauu-
facturing, April 1976, p.14
00
O
Electrostat1c spray coating used on
wooden parts in conveyor (monorail
transport) coating line. Conductive
surface coating applied first by dip
or spray
Eliminates coating losses due to over-
spray
Furnl_ture_ Design and__M'"»nu-
f actur i itg, April 1976, p. 14
-------
Table 7-14 shows the reduction in hydrocarbon emissions
that would be obtained with the application of add-on control
technology and process change. The application of these control
methods is hypothetical and there is limited factual basis for
assuming the control methods would be useful in these applications.
The feasibility of application of add-on devices depends in part
on the hydrocarbon concentration, exhaust gas rate, quantity of
emissions, and existing equipment configurations. Such informa-
tion is unknown for the emission sources in the study area. The
key factor governing applicability of substitute coatings is
whether the product meets normal use specifications when coated
with the substitute coating.
Table 7-14 shows that 49% of the hydrocarbon emissions
from surface coating (spray booth and drying oven emissions)
might be treated with add-on control devices for an overall re-
duction of 427o of the total emissions. About 757o of the emis-
sions might be controlled by process change or substitute coat-
ings for an overall reduction of 657o of the total emissions.
Again, there is limited basis for judging whether the control
methods are really applicable to specific emission sources, so
the potential reductions shown in Table 7-14 are hypothetical.
7.4 Capital and Operating Cost
The costs of process or material changes are difficult
to quantify. The costs will vary from plant to plant, depending
on the types of processes and equipment in use. Also, secondary
costs may result from the necessity to test the application and
performance of new coatings and from equipment alterations.3'4
Generalized cost data have been determined for add-on
control devices for surface coating.3 The cost figures for di-
rect flame and catalytic incinerators with no heat recovery,
81
-------
TABLE 7-14. REDUCTION IN HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS IN
THE STUDY AREA FROM APPLICATION OF ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES AND PROCESS
CHANGE
Description of Emissions
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/year)
Spray booth emissions from coating wood, metal,
and plastic products
Drying oven emissions from coating wood,
metal, and plastic products
Remaining emissions for which add-on con-
trol devices are not applicable
731
145
924
1800
Control Method
Hydrocarbon h«i I ?.s (tins
Reduction Efficiency Remaining After Controls
(X) (tons/year)
Carbon adsorption
Incinerat ion
None specified
90
L10
15
924
104 9
OO
N>
Total emissions from wood product
coat ing
Emissions from metal product coating
Emissions from plastic product
coatIng
Emissions from unidentified area
services, degreasing, and roll
lami nator
291
820
299
390
Substitution of water-
borne coatings
Suhstitution of elec-
trostat ic spraying,
powder coatings
Substitution of low
solvent, high solids
coat ings
None specified
75
99
50
150
TOTAL
1800
621
-------
primary heat recovery, and primary and secondary heat recovery
at minimum retrofit were calculated. Direct flame incinerators
with primary heat recovery were found to be most cost effective
The assumptions used in calculating costs are provided in Table
7-15.
Cost figures were estimated at three concentration
levels (^100 ppm, 15 percent LEL, and 25 percent LEL), at three
inlet exhaust gas flow rates <5,000, 15,000, and 30,000 scfm)
and at two inlet stream temperatures (70 and 300°F). Capital
costs, net annualized costs, and cost effectiveness for each
case are given in Table 7-16.
7.5 Economic Impact of Control Cost
The economic impact of control costs for surface
coating operations has not been defined. The cost of process
and material changes could range from negligible to a large ex-
penditure of money and time. Another difficulty in defining
economic impact is the variation in financial stability of the
different industries which employ surface coating operations.
Some industries have better access to capital than others.
7. 6 References
1. Danielson, John A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40. National Center for
Air Pollution Control, 1967.
2. Radian Corporation, Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources, Draft
Report, DCN 200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
2608, Task 12, Austin, Texas, September, 1977.
83
-------
TABLE 7-15. ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DEVELOPING COST ESTIMATES
FOR NONCATALYTIC INCINERATORS 3
Noncatalytic incinerators designed for both oil and natural gas
operation.
• Exhaust gases contain benzene and hexane (50/50 molar percent)
mixture in air.
Costs based on outdoor location.
Rooftop installation requiring structural steel.
Fuel cost of $1.50 million Btu (gross).
• Electricity at $0.03 kwhr.
Depreciation and interest was taken as 16 percent of capital in-
vestment. Annual maintenance was assumed to be 5 percent of
capital cost, taxes and insurance, 2 percent, and building over-
head, 2 percent.
Direct labor assessed at 0.5 hr/shift x 730 shifts/yr x $8.00/hr =
$2920/yr direct labor expense.
Operating time: 2 shifts/day x 8 hr/shift x 365 days/yr = 5840
hr/yr.
• The noncatalytic incinerator utilized was based on:
• 1500°F capability.
• 0.5-second residence time.
Nozzle mix burner capable of No. 2 thru No. 6 oil firing.
• Forced mixing of the burner products of combustion using a
slotted cylinder mixing arrangement. This cylinder allows
the burner flame to establish itself before radial entry of
the effluent thru slots in the far end of the cylinder.
A portion of the effluent to be incinerated is ducted to
the burner to serve as combustion air. This allows the
burner to act as a raw gas burner, thus saving fuel over
conventional nozzle mix burners. This design can only be
used, however, when the O2 content of the oven exhaust is
17 percent by volume or above.
84
-------
TABLE 7-16. CAPITAL COST, ANNUAL COST, AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF DIRECT FLAME
INCINERATION WITH PRIMARY HEAT RECOVERY FOR CONTROL OF HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS3
Inlet Stream Temperature (°F) 70 300
Stream Concentration 100 ppm 15% LEL 25% LEL 100 ppm 15% LEL 25% LEL
Inlet Flow Rate - 5,000 scfm
Capital Cost ($000) 126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0
Annual Cost ($000)a 84.0 52.5 36.8 78.8 52.5 36.8
Uncontrolled Emissions (tons/yr) 20.0 390.0 650.0 20.0 390.0 650.0
control efficiency (%) 88 77 77 88 77 77
Cost Effectiveness ($000/ton) 4.8 0.18 0.07 4.4 0.18 0.07
Inlet Flow Rate - 15,000 scfm
Capital Cost ($000) 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5 157.5
Annual Cost ($000)a 194.3 115.5 57.8 173.3 94.5 42.0
Uncontrolled Emissions (tons/yr) 66.0 1170.0 1950.0 60.0 1170.0 1950.0
control efficiency (%) 92 81 82 92 81 82
Cost Effectiveness ($000/ton) 3.5 0.12 0.04 3.2 0.10 0.03
Inlet Flow Rate - 30,000 scfm
Capital Cost ($000) 204.8 204.8 204.8 204.8 204.8 204.8
Annual Cost ($000)a 367.5 210.0 105.0 320.3 157.5 73.5
Uncontrolled Emissions (tons/yr) 120.0 2340.0 3900.0 120.0 2340.0 3900.0
control efficiency (%) 96 86 85 96 86 85
Cost Effectiveness ($000/ton) 3.3 0.11 0.03 2.8 0.08 0.02
3
Includes capital charges, operating costs, overhead, and maintenance costs in accordance with
assumptions given in Table 7-15.
-------
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Chemical and Petroleum
Branch, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources, Vol. 1, Control Methods
for Surface-Coating Operations. EPA 450/2-76-028,
OAQPS No. 1.2-067, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, November, 1976.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Pollution Control Tech-
nology Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic
Compounds. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May, 1977.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
and Standards, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume III Surface
Coating of Metal Futniture. EPA 450/2-77-032, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, December, 1977. (OAQPS
No. 1.2-086)
6. Personal Communication, S. Growther, Texas State Air
Control Board, March 17, 1978.
86
-------
8.0 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC CHEMICAL PRODUCTION
The Nashville area has only one known source of chemi-
cal plant emissions, the DuPont dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) plant
in Davidson County. This facility currently emits an estimated
total of 4400 tons/year of hydrocarbons (process emissions plus
fugitive emissions). The values for the DuPont plant emissions
were obtained from files of the Davidson County Health Department.
The data reported by DuPont include only process emissions. No
data were reported for fugitive emissions.
A DuPont report on possible control schemes and their
costs was supplied by the Davidson County Health Department.
8.1 Description of Operations, Emission Sources and
Emission Rates
All of the dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) and terephthalic
acid (TPA) produced in the United States is based on p-xylene
feedstock1. Para-xylene is oxidized at moderate temperature and
pressure in acetic acid solvent using heavy metal catalyst. The
crude TPA product is esterified with methanol to give DMT. The
chemistry of the process is shown below.
CH
Air
V
CHi
Catalyst,
Acetic Acid
COOH
CH30H
COOH
COOCH3
rS
coocHa
p-xylene
TPA
DMT
87
-------
Commercial TPA is produced by a process based upon a
bromine promoted heavy metal catalyst, such as cobalt-manganese.
The process operates at 177-233°C (350-450°F) and 137.9 x 101*
pascals (200-400 psig). The preheated acetic acid, activated
catalyst, and p-xylene are charged to a reactor with high-pressure
air. The products are continuously discharged from the bottom
of the reactor. In the crystallizer, part of the acetic acid,
unreacted xylene and water of reaction are flashed off. The
TPA is sent to a centrifuge for removal of the remaining acetic
acid and xylene. The filter cake is then washed. The spent
liquor and condensate from the crystallizer are distilled to remove
water, recover unreacted xylene and acetic acid, and remove any
other by-products. The acetic acid is recycled. Esterification
of the TPA with methanol produces DMT.2
The liquid phase oxidation reactor is normally a packed
or plate tower in which air flows upward through the liquid re-
action mixture. Emissions from this system consist of hydrocar-
bons carried by the nitrogen (from air) which must be vented.
In the DuPont plant, the HP absorber which operates at 315 psia
and 120°C probably produces this vent stream.
The TPA is crystallized and pneumatically conveyed by
absorber vent gas. This stream contains some hydrocarbons and
is at low pressure.
The esterification of methanol and TPA to form DMT is
a relatively simple liquid-solid reaction carried out in a mixing
tank and generates few inerts. A significant vent stream would
not be required. Some methyl acetate will be formed from acetic
acid carried in by the TPA crystals and this material is either
hydrolyzed or vented. Some methyl acetalate is eventually vented.
88
-------
Other operations necessarily involved are removal of
the water formed in the oxidation of the p-xylene to TPA, distil-
lation of the unreacted paraxylene to remove ortho-xylene, and
removal of high boiling compounds from the acetic acid recycle
stream. Vents would be required for these operations but they
are not identified in data supplied by DuPont.
Table 8-1 presents the DuPont emission data by emis-
sion source. The major sources are described as follows.3
Emission Source G-2 Silo Bag Filter Vent
This stream is primarily gas used to pneumatically con-
vey TPA from the drier to the storage silos. The conveying gas is
part of the high pressure absorber offgas and therefore has the
same impurities as that stream. Particulates picked up in the
conveyor are removed by a bag filter prior to venting.
Emission Source G-4 H.P. Absorber Offgas
The absorber operates at a high efficiency in removing
water soluble components (primarily acetic acid). However, only
a small part of the other major hydrocarbon, methyl acetate, is
removed by this device because of its high vapor pressure and
relative insolubility in water. The absorber is about 70%. effi-
cient in hydrocarbon removal.
The emissions in Table 8-1 total 3400 tons/yr and
consist entirely of process emissions. In the chemical industry
in general, it has been estimated that process emissions are
about 60% of total emissions and fugitive emissions account for
407o of the total.11 Total emissions are about 1.23%, of plant
throughput (0.7% process emissions, 0.5%, fugitive). Stringent
89
-------
TABLE 3-1.
PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM DMT AND TPA MANUFACTURE
REPORTED BY DuPONT
Operation
Emission
Point
Designation
Description
Organic Vapor or
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/year)
Composition
Terephthalic Acid
Manufacture
Terephthalic Acid
Manufacture
Terephthalic Acid
Manufacture
Terephthalic Acid
Manufacture
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Manufacture
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Manufacture
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Manufacture
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Manufacture
Purification of Crude
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Purification of Crude
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Purification of Crude
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Purification of Crude
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Purification of Crude
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Product Storage
Acetic Acid Storage
Methanol Storage
Methanol Storage
Reemay Manufacture
Reemay Manufacture
Reemay Manufacture
Shipping
G-l
G—2
G-4
G-21
G-22
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G—10
G-ll
G-19
G-20
G-12
G-14
F-4
F-5
F-8
R-30
R-31
R-32
T-27
T-28
T-29
T-30
Absorber (90Z efficient)
Silo Bag Filter Vent
Hater Scrubber Pneumatic
System Star Values
Condenser (90Z efficient)
Sludge Bottom Scrubber Vent
Condenser (90Z efficient)
Condenser (90X efficient)
Condenser (88Z efficient)
MPT Column Condenser (81Z
efficient)
Crude DMT Tank Scrubber
Condenser (88J efficient)
Condenser (88Z efficient)
Final Product Tank Scrubber
Acetic Acid Tank Scrubber
(90Z efficient)
Weak and Working Methanol
Storage Tank Vents
Dacron Recovery Methanol Tank
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Clue Package Labels
11.8
189.5
Absorber (70Z effluent, removes 2,400.0
acetic acid and some methyl
acetate)
280.0
11.2
57.0
16.5
52.5
20.5
114.0
10.0
16.5
57.0
57.0
69.9
3.5
12.0*
8.0*
4.1
8.1
7.1
4.8
Acetic Acid
Acetic Acid
80Z Methanol
20Z Xylene
Acetic Acid
Methylacetate
Benzoic Acid
Methanol
0-Xylene
Methanol
Methanol
0-Xylene
O-Xylene
0-Xylene
Xylene
Xylene
Methanol
Acetic Acid
Methanol
Methanol
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown Solvent
*Estimated from emission rate (8,000 hrs) shown in "Summary of Cost and
Energy Consumption for VOC Abatement". Emission rate for F-4 + F-5 is
3 lb/hr, for. F-8 emission rate is 2 lb/hr.
90
-------
control practices, however, can maintain fugitive emissions at
0.27o of throughput. Based on 0.7% of throughput as process
losses, 0.27o as fugitive loss, and 3,400 tons/yr for process
losses, fugitive emissions were calculated to be about 1,000
tons/yr. This means total fugitive and process emissions would
be about 4,400 tons/yr.
8.2 Control Methods, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness
DuPont evaluated control methods for achieving 90%
removal efficiency at the Nashville Plant.3 The control method
selected by DuPont for each emission source is listed in Table
8-2. Control costs estimated by DuPont are listed in Table 8-3.
DuPont has specified control methods for process
streams emitting a total of about 3,000 tons/yr.3 Total process
emissions were reported at about 3,400 tons/yr. Thus, about 88
percent of process emissions can be treated using the specified
control technology. Assuming 90% control efficiency, these emis-
sions could be reduced by 2,700 tons/yr to 300 tons/yr. The sum
of the annual operating costs listed in Table 8-3 in 1980 dollars
is $2.2 million/year ($1.8 million/year in 1977 dollars). There-
fore, the cost effectiveness of the control methods specified by
DuPont for DMT manufacture is $800/ton controlled ($670/ton in
1977 dollars). The estimated capital cost of controls in 1980
dollars obtained by adding the capital costs in Table 8-3 is
$3.9 million ($3.2 million in 1977 dollars). The accuracy of
these estimates is around ±40%.
8.3 Economic Impact of Control Methods
The energy requirement for 90%, control was estimated
to be about 5 x 1011 Btu/yr, which represents a 10% increase in
the amount of energy required for DMT production. The operating
91
-------
TABLE 8-2. METHODS SELECTED BY DuPONT FOR CONTROL OF PROCESS
EMISSIONS FROM DMT PLANT
Emission Control Method
Point Specified By
Description DuPont Comments
G-2 Silo bag
filter vent
G-4 High pressure
absorber off-gas
G-6 Sludge bottom
tank scrubber vent
G-10 MPT jet
condenser vent
G-11 Crude DMT
tank scrubber
Thermal incineration
(1800°F) with heat
recovery (63% effi-
cient heat exchanger)
Thermal incineration
(1800 F) with heat
recovery (637o effi-
cient heat exchanger)
Fuel oil scrubber
Eliminate by process
change
Fuel oil scrubber
This stream could be combined with
stream G-4 (high pressure absorber
off-gas). Energy required for sup-
plemental fuel is 14 x 109 Btu/yr.
Energy required for supplemental fuel
is 496 x 109 Btu/yr. Equipment must
be at a remote location and constructed
of.stainless steel. Waste heat cannot
be used for steam generation because
steam needs are already supplied by
waste heat boilers.
Fuel value could be recovered by com-
bustion of fuel in existing units.
Bypass to xylene jet condensers.
G-12 Final product
tank scrubber
G-21, G-22 Pneumatic
system star valves
Water scrubber
Process change could
eliminate these sources
Water-methanol mixture can be recycled
for methanol recovery. An increased
load to plant water treatment facility
would result.
-------
TABLE 8-2 Continued. METHODS SELECTED BY DuPONT FOR CONTROL
OF PROCESS EMISSIONS FROM DMT PLANT
Emission
Control Method
Point
Specified By
Description
DuPont
Comments
F-4,5,8 Methanol Water scrubbers Water-methanol mixture can be recycled
storage tanks An increased load to plant water treat
ment facility would result.
T-27,28,29,30 Process change
Gluing product
labels
-------
TABLE 8-3. CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST OF CONTROL METHODS FOR PROCESS EMISSIONS
FROM DMT MANUFACTURE
Emission Source
Hydrocarbon
Emission Rate
Tons/Yr
Control
Method
Capital
Cost1
($1000)
Net Annual
Operating
Cost2($1000/Yr)
Value of
Material
Recovered
($1000/Yr)
Energy
Consumption
Credit
(109 Btu/Yr)
G-2 Silo bag filter vent 189.5
G-A Absorber vent 2,680.
C-6 Sludge bottom tank 16.5
scrubber vent
G-ll Crude DMT tank scrubber 16.5
v£> G-12 Final product tank 69.9
-P" scrubber
F-A, 5 Methanol storage Not
tank Reported
F-8 Dacron recovery Not
methanol storage tank Reported
T-27,28,29,30 A.8
Gluing product labels
Incineration 750
Incineration 3000
Fuel oil scrubber 25
Fuel oil scrubber 25
Water scrubber 35
Water scrubber
Water scrubber
Process change
15
15
AO
170
2018
1.8
2.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
No change
0
0
1. A
1.4
7.A
l.A
0.9
0.
13.6
A96
(5.)
(5.)
0.3
0.06
0.06
0.
'Capital costs in 1980 dollars based on cost of construction index (CCI) of 261. Additional capital cost (not shown) 10% of capital invest-
ment for engineering liaison and startup.
2Net operating cost Includes depreciation, maintenance, wages and salaries, power and fuel cost. Value of energy and material recovered
is taken as credit No. 2 fuel oil credited at $3/10 6Btu. Operating costs in 1980 dollars.
-------
costs of about $2 million/yr were reported by DuPont to be a
"large fraction" of the profit margin for DMT production.3
8.4 References
1. Chemical Economics Handbook. Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA., various dates.
2. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use,
Ch. No. 6(f), Industrial Organical Chemicals, EPA
600/2-77-023f, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task
34. Austin, TX., Radian Corporation, various dates.
3. Letter from Thomas C. Fisher (DuPont) to Paul
Bontrager (Metropolitan Health Department) dated
15 June 1977.
4. Radian Corporation, Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources, Draft
Report, DCN 77-200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
2608, Task 12, Austin, TX., September 1977.
95
-------
9.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM RUBBER PROCESSING
(TIRE MANUFACTURING)
9.1 Description of Operations
Four steps in tire manufacture are the production of
rubber stock by compounding; tread and sidewall formation; tire
cord, belt, and bead formation; and tire building, molding, and
curing. These operations are described in detail in Table 9-1,
which also indicates sources and levels of hydrocarbon or sol-
vent emissions.
Compounding produces, rubber stock from raw crumb
rubber, extenders and curing agents. Mixing is accomplished
in a Banbury Mixer and in roll mills. Rubber stocks in sheet
form are extruded into tread and sidewall ribbons which are
spray coated with solvent-borne cement. The cement-coated
tread is conveyed to the tire-building area.
Tire cord, belt, and bead are formed by dipping wire
and synthetic fabrics in solvent-borne rubber cement or latex.
Solvent is vaporized in a drying oven. The tire materials are
then coated or calendered with rubber. The tread, cord, belt,
and bead are assembled to form a green (uncured) tire in the
tire building operation. The green tire is coated inside and
out with a solvent-borne release agent by spraying in a spray
booth. The tire is cured or vulcanized in a mold using steam.
As indicated in Table 9-1, cementing, dipping, and
green tire spraying are the significant sources of hydrocarbon
emissions. About 97% of these emissions are solvents from three
sources: green tire spraying (58% of emissions), dipping (30%),
and tread cementing (9%). The remaining 3% of emissions are
hydrocarbons vaporized during high temperature mixing, hot mill
96
-------
TABLE 9-1. SOURCES AND LEVELS OF HYDROCARBON AND SOLVENT EMISSIONS
FROM TIRE MANUFACTURING1'2
Operation
Description
Source and Description of Emissions
Emission Factor
Compounding, Mixing
and Milling
Tread and Sidewall
Formation
Tire Cord and Belt
Formation
Tire Bead Manufacture
Tire Building, Molding
and Curing
Raw crumb rubber is mixed with fillers
and extenders (carbon black and oil)
antioxidants and accelerators at a
high temperature in a Banbury mixer.
The unreactive product is mixed with
curing agents in roll mills to form
a tacky sheet which is cooled and
coated with a soapstone slurry
Rubber stock from the compounding
operation is fed to a warm-up roller
mill, then a strip feed mill. The
thin strips of rubber stock are joined
to form tread and sidewalls in an
extruder. The tread/sidewall ribbon
is cut and cooled and the ends are
spray-coated with solvent-borne
cement. The cement coated tread is
conveyed to the tire building area
Synthetic fabrics, steel wire, or
fiberglass are dipped in rubber cement
or latex. Excess dip is removed by
vacuum suction or beater boxes. The
coated material is treated in drying
ovens where the remainder of the solvent
evaporates. After dipping, the tire
materials are friction coated with
rubber in the calendering operation.
The rubber stock is worked up in a
series of warm up and strip feed mill
rollers
Tire bead is a rubber covered copper
ring made by extruding rubber onto a
series of copper-plated steel wires.
The bead is wrapped in calendered
fabric
The green tire components including
cord, belt, bead, tread and sidewall
are assenbled as a cylinder on a
round drum. The green tire is removed
and sprayed inside and out with a
solvent-borne release agent such as
silicone oil. Spraying is done in a
spray booth or under a hood. The
green tires are cured or vulcanized
in a mold using steam.
Mixing - vaporization of hydrocarbons due
to high temperature of mixing
Milling - heat from mechanical working
produces volatile hydrocarbon emissions
Extrusion - heat generated during extru-
sion causes vaporization of hydrocarbons
Cementing - solvent evaporates during
application of cement and as tread is
conveyed to tire building area
Dipping •> solvent from the cement or latex
evaporates after application and in
drying ovens
Calendering - heated rollers are used to
maintain rubber plasticity. Hydrocarbons
are volatilized
3g/tire
2g/tire
2g/tire
28g/tire
lOOg/tire
2g/tire
Spraying - Solvent evaporates during the
spraying
Curing - Solvent and other hydrocarbons
may be vaporized during the high tempera-
ture curing operation
140g/tire
50g/tire
-------
rolling, extruding and calendering. Other potential emissions
not described in Table 9-1 include fugitive emissions and leaks
from storage tanks. Although it was not stated in the litera-
ture, it seems likely that the emission factors in Table 9-1 are
for uncontrolled sources.
9.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions in the Study Area
There are two tire manufacturing operations in the
study area which produce hydrocarbon emissions from rubber pro-
cessing. Emission rates from these facilities are summarized
in Table 9-2. Total emissions, from rubber processing in the
study area were about 750 tons/year in 1975.
TABLE 9-2. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM RUBBER PROCESSING
(TIRE MANUFACTURING) IN THE STUDY AREA
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(tons/year)
Emission Source T973 WTT
Firestone 181.5
(Rutherford County)
Armstrong Rubber Co. 567.6 703
(Davidson County)
Data from permit files for Rutherford County indicate
the emissions shown in Table 9-3 for the Firestone facility.
Table 9-4 summarizes data about Armstrong Rubber Com-
pany emissions from Nashville Metropolitan Health Department
files. The table describes the source of emissions for some of
the emission points, but it is not clear how all the emissions
are produced. Points EF-67 and 68 have the largest emission
rates, so they are probably from green tire spraying.
98
-------
TABLE 9-3. DATA ON HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM FIRESTONE RUBBER
COMPANY IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY (Source: County Permit Files)
Percent
of Total
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
Operation
Emissions
lb/Hr
Tons/Yr
Comments
Extrusion
2
1.0
4.4
Stream contains 5 ppm hydro-
carbons, control methods are
not used
Tire doper
83
34.5
151.1
Stream contains 3.5 ppm hydro
carbons, control methods not
in use
Cement mix
13
10.7
23.4
Uncontrolled
Storage tanks
1
0.6
2.6
Uncontrolled
TOTAL
46.8
181.5
Data reported by Armstrong Rubber3 describing 1977
solvent consumption at the Nashville facility are summarized in
Table 9-5. The 1977 solvent consumption rate was reported to
be 1100 gal/day. Solvent emissions from the Armstrong facility
as tabulated in Nashville Metropolitan Health Department files
are shown in Table 9-6.
In estimating the sources of hydrocarbon emissions
from the Armstrong facility it was assumed that the solvent
consumption rates given for the operations listed in Table 9-5
are also indicative of hydrocarbon emission rates for those op-
erations. The emissions from green tire spraying at the Armstrong
facility have been partially controlled by substituting water-
based release agents for inside green tire spray. Outside spray-
ing is still done with solvent-based release agents. Substitu-
tion of water-based, tire spray is the only control method reported
in use by Armstrong.
99
-------
TABLE 9-4. DATA FROM NASHVILLE METROPOLITAN HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FILES DESCRIBING EMISSION POINTS AND 19 77 EMISSION
RATES FOR ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY
Emission
Emission Point Rate
Designation Description (tons/year)
1977
EF 30
2500 cfm, 29 ppm hydrocarbons
3
EF 31
2500 cfm, 15 ppm hydrocarbons
1.5
EF 49
2455 cfm, 69 ppm hydrocarbons
6.9
EF 62
1150 cfm, 2400 ppm hydrocarbons
114. 3
Stack 1
Emissions from tread cementing
19. 8
Stack 2
Emissions from whitewall tread
cementing
43.2
EF 67
Tire building emissions (3187
cfm, 1400 ppm hydrocarbons)
179.1
EF 68
Tire building emissions (3199
cfm, 1400 ppm hydrocarbons)
179.1
EF 69
Tire building emissions3 (7020
cfm, 1400 ppm hydrocarbons)
136
Stack 10
Tire finishing emissions
20
TOTAL
703.0
a15.6 lb/hr hexane, 18.3 lb/hr unidentified solvent
100
-------
TABLE 9-5. SOLVENT CONSUMPTION BY END USE AT ARMSTRONG
RUBBER COMPANY'S NASHVILLE FACILITY, 1977
Solvent End Use Percent of Solvent Consumed
Outside green tire spray 47
Cementers 28
Tire room 12
Bead dip 11
Touch-up spray 2
TABLE 9-6. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY TYPE OF SOLVENT FROM
TIRE MANUFACTURING AT ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY
Solvent Type
Emissions
1975
(Ton/Yr)
1977
Texol
188.7
246.2
Unidentified solvent
203.3
203.3
Hexane
175.1
175.1
TOTAL
567.1
624.6
9.3 Control Methods, Costs, and Cost Effectiveness
The three sources of solvent emissions in tire manu-
facturing are dipping cord, belt, or bead; sidewall and tread
cementing; and green tire spraying with solvent-borne release
agent.
Emissions from dipping wire and fabric in solvent-
borne cement or latex occur when solvent is vaporized in drying
ovens. Solvent also evaporates when excess latex or cement is
removed in beater boxes or by vacuum lines. Applicable control
techniques include carbon adsorption (90% efficient), thermal
incineration (95% efficient) or catalytic incineration (907o
efficient).
101
-------
Control costs for incineration and carbon adsorption
units on drying oven vents are given in Tables 9-7 and 9-8,
respectively.1 These data were generated in an EPA-funded study
in which the control techniques were observed in operation at
two plants. The incineration system was described as an off-the-
shelf system available from a number of vendors. The carbon
adsorption system was also described as state of the art tech-
nology. The cost data in Tables 9-7 and 9-8 are for facilities
with slightly higher emission rates (400-500 tons/yr) from dip-
ping operations than the facilities in the study area. The pub-
lication in which the cost data are given did not indicate the
basis for calculation of annual operating costs or solvent
recovery credit. The only indication of plant size was the
hydrocarbon emission rate and the oven exhaust rate of 5000 scfm.
Emissions from tread cementing occur due to solvent
evaporation during cement spraying or dipping and while the
cemented tread is conveyed to the tire building area. The con-
trol system has an overall efficiency of 8570. It consists of
collection equipment (90% efficient) and a carbon adsorption
unit (95% efficient). Published costs for a collection system
plus a dual bed carbon adsorption unit for an ubdertread cement-
ing operation in which the cement is applied in a dip tank are
shown in Table 9-9. 1 The solvent evaporation rate from this
operation was 1340 kg/day while some 1200 kg/day was collected.
Equivalent figures in tons/yr are shown in Table 9-10 to facili-
tate comparison with cost data for the Armstrong plant. Pub-
lished information concerning the basis for calculating operat-
ing costs and solvent recovery credit was unavailable.
Cost information for carbon adsorption controls on
two treadline cementing units was also supplied by Armstrong
Rubber Company for their Nashville facility. 3 Installed capital
102
-------
TABLE 9-7. PUBLISHED COST OF INCINERATION FOR A TYPICAL
FABRIC CEMENTING (TIRE CORD DIP) OPERATION
Annualized Control Cost,
Operating ($/ton of
Capital Costs " Hydrocarbons
Incineration Device1 Cost ($) ($/year) Removed)
No heat recovery
Thermal
Catalytic
Primary heat recovery
Thermal
Catalytic
Primary and secondary heat recovery
Thermal
Catalytic
100,000 50,000 90
105,000 50,000 90
20,000 35,000 63
120,000 35,000 63
145,000 28,0002 502
140,000 30,0002 552
1Exhaust rate of 5000 scfm (2.3 Nm3/s), temperature of 300°F (160°C), operation
at 25 percent of the LEL. 555 tons HC/year controlled.
2Assumes that heat is recovered and used.
TABLE 9-8. PUBLISHED COST OF CARBON ADSORPTION FOR
A TYPICAL FABRIC CEMENTING (TIRE CORD DIP) OPERATION
Annualized
Control Cost
Operating
(Credit)
Cost
($/ton of
Capital
(Credit)
Hydrocarbons
Control Cost1
Cost ($)
($/year)
Removed)
No credit for recovered solvent
180,000
65,000
160
Recovered solvent credited at
180,000
38,000
90
fuel value
Solvent credited at market value
180,000
(9,000)
(23)
Exhaust rate of 5000 scfm (2.3 Nm3/s), temperature of 175°F (80°C), opera-
tion at 25 percent of the LEL. 400 tons HC/year controlled.
103
-------
TABLE 9-9. PUBLISHED COST OF CARBON ADSORPTION FOR
A TYPICAL UNDERTREAD CEMENTING OPERATION
Control Cost
Annualized
(Credit)
Operating
$/Ton of
Capital
Cost, (credit)
Hydrocarbons
Control Case
Cost, $
$/Year
Removed
No credit for recovered solvent
180,000
65,000
160
Recovered solvent credited at
180,000
35,000
85
fuel value
Solvent credited at market value
180,000
(10,000)
(24)
xExhaust rate of 5000 scfm (2.3 Nm3/s), temperature of 70°F, (21°C),
operation at 25 percent LEL. About 400 tons/yr of hydrocarbons are
controlled.
TABLE 9-10. HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES FROM TREAD
CEMENTING OPERATION DESCRIBED IN TABLE 9-9
Emission Rate (tons/yr)
Description of Emission Rate 365 Operating Days 250 Operating Days
Emissions (kg/day) Year Year
Uncontrolled 1340 528 368
Collected emissions 1206 485 331
After carbon 60 24 17
adsorption (+134 uncollected) (+53 uncollected) (+37 uncollected)
104
-------
and annual operating costs are summarized in Table 9-11. Infor-
mation supplied by Armstrong indicated that hydrocarbon emissions
from the two cementer units are about 200 tons/yr (19 77 emission
rate). Assuming 95% control efficiency and 90% collection effi-
ciency for the carbon adsorption unit these emissions could be
reduced by 170 tons/yr for a cost effectiveness of $200/ton con-
trolled. This factor was calculated from the net annual opera-
ting cost of $37,000/yr which includes credit for solvent
recovered.
TABLE 9-11. CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS ESTIMATED BY ARMSTRONG
RUBBER COMPANY FOR CONTROL OF TREAD LINE CEMENT-
ING EMISSIONS AT THEIR NASHVILLE FACILITY
Cost Item
Basis
Amount
Installed Capital Cost
Retrofit cost for carbon adsorption
systems on two tread line cementers
$350,000
Depreciation
12% of capital
$ 29,000/yr
Utilities
$ 20,000/yr
Maintenance
5% of capital
$ 17,500/yr
Annual Cost
$ 66,500/yr
Solvent Recovery
Credit
375 gal/day emitted (200 tons/yr)a
250 operating days
$.45/gal
70% recovery
($ 29,500/yr)
Net Annual Cost
$ 37,000/yr
aBased on 250 operating days/year and a solvent density of 4.5 lb/gallon.
105
-------
Solvent emissions from green tire spraying can be
controlled by substituting water-based release agents for sol-
vent-borne materials. Water based spray has been used to re-
place solvent base inside tire spray at Armstrong's Nashville
facility. This substitution resulted in a 20?o reduction in
total solvent consumption. Armstrong estimates the capital cost
of implementing water-based outside green tire spray at less
than $10,000. The estimated annual operating cost is $160,000 -
$200,000/yr.3 These high operating costs are attributed mainly
to increased cost of spray materials. This information does
not agree with literature sources, which indicate that the cost
of water-borne release agents for this application is lower than
the cost of solvent-borne release agents (Ref. 1, p. 61).
Table 9-12 summarizes control methods, efficiencies,
and cost effectiveness for emissions from dipping, tread cementing,
and green tire spraying. Table 9-13 shows estimated emissions
from these three emission sources in the study area and the re-
ductions that could be achieved by applying the controls listed
in Table 9-12.
9.4 References
1. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Pollution Control Techno-
logy Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic
Compounds. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1977.
2. Snell, Foster D., Inc., "Assessment of Industrial
Hazardous Waste Practices, Rubber and Plastics Indus-
try," Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3194,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, February 1976.
106
-------
3.
Letter from Frank Luysterborghs (Armstrong) to Paul
Bontrager (Metropolitan Health Department) dated
13 June 1977.
TABLE 9-12. CONTROL METHODS AVAILABLE FOR HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS FROM RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING
Emission Source
Control Method
Control
Efficiency
(2)
Cost
Effectiveness
($1000/ton)
Dipping cord, belt
or bead
Carbon adsorption
Thermal incineration
Catalytic incineration
90
95
90
. 16-(. 02)'
.05-.09b
.05-.09b
Tread cementing
Collection equipment
Carbon adsorption unit
90
95
.08-C.02)
Green Tire Spraying
Substitution of water-
borne release agents
100
0.7
a
lower values for case with no credit for recovered solvent, higher value
for case with solvent credited at market value (see Table 9-7)
blower value for case with no heat exchange, higher value for case with
primary and secondary heat exchange and heat reuse (see Table 9-8)
clower value for case with no credit for recovered solvent, higher value
for case with solvent credited at market value (see Table 9-9). Armstrong
estimate is $200/ton controlled.
^calculated from Armstrong cost data assuming 266 tons/yr controlled
107
-------
TABLE 9-13. POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN 19 75 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM RUBBER
PROCESSING IN THE STUDY AREA USING SELECTED CONTROL METHODS
Emission
Estimated Emission Rate Remaining
(tons/yr) After
SL D
Emission Source Firestone Armstrong Total Control Method Efficiency Controls
(%) (tons/yr)
Dipping bead, cord, 4.4 62 66 carbon adsorption 90 7
and belt (extruder)
Green tire spray
Tread cementing
151.0
(tire doping)
23.4
266 417
(outside spray)
159
182
substitute water 100
based release
agent
collection plus 85
carbon adsorp-
tion
27
Other
2.6
79
83 none specified
(storage tank) (tire finishing,
touch up spray)
83
748
117
Reported by Firestone
^estimated from (1) reported total solvent consumption in gallons/day, 4.5 lb/gallon solvent density
and (2) reported percent solvent consumed given in Table 9-4.
-------
10.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DRY CLEANING
10.1 Description of Operations
Dry cleaning uses organic solvents to clean soiled
fabrics. The process involves three steps: 1) one or more
washes (baths) in solvent by agitation and rinsing, 2) extraction
of excess solvent by spinning; and 3) tumble drying in an air
stream. Either the transfer process or the dry-to-dry process
is used. Transfer machines use separate equipment for washing
and drying. After washing ana extraction, the fabrics must be
transferred to the dryer. In dry-to-dry operations, washing,
extraction, and drying are performed in the same machine.
The dry cleaning industry uses two types of solvents.
Petroleum solvents are combustible, kerosene-like mixtures with
approximate chemical compositions of 46% paraffins, 42% naphthenes,
and 12% aromatics. The second type, synthetic solvents, includes
non-flammable halogenated hydrocarbons such as perchloroethylene
(perc) and 1, 1, 2-trichlorotrifluoroethane (fluoro). Petro-sol-
vents are used only in transfer type machines, while synthetic
solvents can be used in either transfer or dry-to-dry machines.
Perchloroethylene is used mainly in transfer units, and all
fluorocarbon operations are in dry-to-dry machines.
Dry cleaning is done in industrial, commercial, and
coin-operated facilities. Most industrial facilities use petro-
leum solvents while the typical commercial or coin-operated
facility employs synthetic solvents. Currently, fluorocarbon
solvent is used only in commercial and coin-op facilities.
Figures 10-1 through 10-3 illustrate the processing
steps and equipment used in dry cleaning plants employing petro-
leum, perc, and fluoro solvents, respectively.
109
-------
SOLVENT
O2*1«06»2
Figure 10-1. Petroleum-Solvent based
dry-
cleaning plant.
-------
STILL BOTTOMS
TO DISPOSAL
02-1094-2
Figure 10-2. Flow diagram for a dry cleaning plant using
perchloroethylene solvent.
-------
H1
M
bo
SOLVENT TO
-ft— RECYCLE AND
STORAGE
Figure 10-3. Flow diagram for dry cleaning plant using fluorocarbon solvent.
-------
Solvent emissions from dry cleaning plants occur during
washing, extracting, and drying steps and during solvent recovery
operations. Equipment leaks, valves, seals, and covers and vapor
loss during storage and storage tank loading are other sources
of emissions.
Solvent emissions associated with the wash-rinse-extrac-
tion steps are of three kinds. Vapor or liquid can be released
when the door is not properly sealed or is opened unnecessarily.
These emissions are usually very small and are more significant
in transfer machines than in dry-to-dry machines. Emissions can
also occur in transfer operations due to dripping from fabrics
during transfer to the dryer. The major source of emissions during
the washing-extraction cycle occurs when extraction is incomplete.
Incomplete extraction is caused by too short a cycle or poorly
maintained equipment. Slipping drive belts reduce the speed of
spinning and result in less effective extraction. Solvent left
in fabric is vaporized at the drying step.
In the drying operation, essentially all unextracted
solvent is driven out of the fabrics by a warm gas stream.
Dryers are the major source of emissions in petroleum operations
and are also significant in perc operations. The major variable
in both operations is the efficiency of extraction. Because
fluorocarbon solvents are expensive, fluorocarbon machines must
show low solvent consumption to be cost competitive with perc
or petroleum machines. Consequently, all fluorocarbon machines
are of the dry-to-dry type and all have built-in control devices,
either a refrigeration/condensation system or a dual canister
carbon adsorber.
Solvent recovery operations are a source of emissions
in all dry cleaning facilities. The dissolved and suspended
materials from fabrics must be removed to regenerate solvents
113
-------
for reuse. The solvent is filtered in cartridges of various
types. Most large facilities also have solvent distillation
systems to purify and recover dirty solvent. Distillation residues
containing solvent are usually discarded. Filter muck and ex-
panded filter cartridges can be discarded or processed to recover
solvent. Filter muck can be processed in a muck cooker which
vaporizes residual solvent. Spent cartridges can be treated in
the dryer.
Examples of causes for solvent losses given by an
equipment manufacturer, were the following.2
Sources of liquid loss and leaks include:
a) Hose connections, unions, coupling and valves.
b) Machine door gasket and seating.
c) Filter head gasket and seating.
d) Pumps.
e) Base tanks and storage containers.
f) Water separators (solvent lost in water due to
poor separation).
g) Filter sludge recovery (solvent lost in sludge by
improper recovery).
h) Distillation unit.
i) Divertor valves.
j) Saturated lint from lint basket.
k) Cartridge filters.
Sources of vapor loss and leaks include:
a) Deodorizing and aeration valves on dryers (the seals
on these valves need periodic replacement).
b) Air and exhaust ductwork (solvent lost through
tears in duct).
114
-------
c) Lint screens and bags, fan blades and condensers
can adversely affect capture systems if they are
clogged or caked with lint.
d) Overloading and underloading can increase losses.
Overloading makes drying difficult. Underloading
is self-defeating since most losses are fixed in
the system.
e) Doors left open are problems. Leaks in the system
should be confined to the closed washer and/or
dryer if possible.
f) Inefficient extraction due to overloading or
loose belts can overload the dryer.
g) Button traps and lint baskets should be opened
only as long as necessary.
Table 10-1 shows the percentage of losses from six
points in dry cleaning operations using the three solvent types.
TABLE 10-1. PERCENTAGE OF SOLVENT LOSSES FROM
SIX POINTS IN DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS2
Petroleum Perc Fluoro
Type of Loss Solvent Solvent Solvent
Washer
4% -
5%
0
Dryer
59% - 63%
14% -
23%
0
Filter Muck
267o - 29%
54% -
65%
N/A
Filter Cartridge
2% - 4%
5% -
8%
20% - 40%
Still Residue
5% - 6%
6% -
7%
<20%
Miscellaneous Losses
5% - 6%
5% -
8%
20% - 60%
Included in Dryer Emissions
115
-------
10.2
Levels and Sources of Emissions
The Nashville area has an estimated 648 tons/yr solvent
emissions from dry cleaning. These baseline emissions account
for almost 4% of the total stationary source hydrocarbon emissions
in the area. The baseline emission rate was estimated in a pre-
vious study using the weighted emission factors shown in Table
10-2. 3,5 The emission factors are in units of lb solvent/ton of
clothes cleaned based on type of solvent and extent of controls
in use. Weighting factors are based on estimates of the percen-
tage of clothes cleaned with each type of solvent. The study
assumed that in moderate climates each person cleans 18 lbs of
clothes per year. County emission rates were estimated using
the following formula:
weighted emission factor x quantity of clothes cleaned x county population
person-year
The estimated emission rates for each type of solvent
and the number of dry cleaning facilities in each county are sum-
marized in Table 10-3. Data on the number of dry cleaning facili-
ties were obtained from local agencies.
10.3 Control Technology
Presently, few controls are used in petroleum solvent
plants to prevent solvent loss. The level of emissions from
perc plants varies greatly due to equipment differences and vari-
tions in solvent recovery methods. Carbon adsorption is currently
used in some perc plants. Fluorocarbon solvent emissions are low
because all machines are of the dry-to-dry type with a closed
drying system which has no vent. Table 10-4 shows potential con-
trol methods for dry cleaning operations.2
116
-------
TABLE 10-2. EMISSION FACTORS USED TO ESTIMATE SOLVENT EMISSIONS FROM DRY
CLEANING OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA3'5
Emission Rate Weighting Factor Weighted Solvent
/ lb solvent \ (% of clothes cleaned with solvent) Emission Rate
Solvent, Controls I ton of clothes cleaned J (lb/ton of clothes)
Petroleum,
uncontrolled
250
Synthetic,
uncontrolled
210
50
152.5
12.5
35.6
Synthetic,
average controls
95
37,5
OVERALL EMISSION FACTOR
26.3
214.4
-------
TABLE 10-3. SUMMARY OF 1974 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DRY CLEANING
OPERATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
No. of Dry Hydrocarbon Emissions (tons/year)
Cleaning Petroleum Synthetic Synthetic Total
County Establishments Solvents Solvents, Solvents,
Average Uncontrolled
Controls
Davidson
152
308
72
54
434
Rutherford
18
45
11
8
64
Sumner
25
47
11
8
66
Williamson
10
30
7
5
42
Wilson
9
30
7
5
42
Total
214
460
108
80
648
-------
TABLE 10-4. POTENTIAL AND APPLIED CONTROL TECHNIOUES
FOR DRY CLEANING PLANTS2
Plant type
Petroleum
Perc
Fluorocarbon
Carbon adsorption
X
Xa
X
Housekeeping
Xa
Xa
xa
Incineration
X
NA
NA
Non-vented systems
X
X
xa
Refrigeration/condensation
X
X
xa
Waste solvent treatment
X
xa
xa
gr- — —
Commonly used technique
NA = Not available
Improvement of the housekeeping and operating practices
can be used to control solvent emissions by preventing some of
the miscellaneous and dryer emissions and most of the solvent
recovery emissions. These techniques are already in use to some
extent. One report concluded that "the mileage (lbs of fabric
cleaned/drum of solvent) obtained in a perc plant appears to be
more strongly affected by the competence of the operator than by
any other factorl+." It also stated the International Fabric
Institute (IFI) gives most of the credit for either poor mileage
performance or exceptional mileage performance to the plant
operator" for perc plants. The primary factor governing solvent
consumption in petroleum plants was reported to be extraction
efficiency.
Improvement in housekeeping and operating practices
includes rules for equipment maintenance and operation based on
manufacturers' recommendations plus better training in the hand-
ling of organic solvents and a system of record keeping to indi-
cate solvent mileage. Improved operating practice includes
operator care in controlling door openings and extraction cycle
time; detection of liquid leaks through observation of colored
residues on floors and equipment; detection of vapor leaks by
119
-------
instrument, smell, or soap-and-water tests at connections; and
record keeping and reporting systems for equipment maintenance.
Improvements in solvent recovery operations can also
be made. Filter-muck should be cooked to vaporize excess hydro-
carbons . Treating cartridges in the dryer (without tumbling)
when dryer emissions are controlled is good practice. Residues
from the filter and the stills should be checked to make sure
they are not highly diluted and then they should be disposed of
using a method that does not allow evaporation of residual sol-
vent. Equipment for collection of the muck cooking and cartridge
drying emissions is available.
Carbon adsorption was recommended as the add-on con-
trol method of choice for petroleum and perc plants in a study
to develop new source performance standards for the dry cleaning
industry.1* Table 10-5 shows emission rates measured at dry clean-
ing plants with various levels of control. The differences in
emission rates for "poor, typical, or good" uncontrolled plants
are a result of housekeeping practices. This table shows the
overall control efficiency that is achieved in practice with
carbon adsorption units at dry cleaning facilities. Although
the hydrocarbon removal efficiency of a carbon adsorption unit
is very high, the overall control efficiency achieved with car-
bon adsorption at dry cleaning plants is lower for two reasons.
First, the carbon adsorption unit treats only the emissions from
the dryer exhaust. Second, some of the emissions are prevented
by improved housekeeping practices. Depending on housekeeping
practices, carbon adsorption reduced overall emissions at perc
plants from 45% (good housekeeping) to 857o (poor housekeeping) .
Measured reductions at petroleum solvent plants were from 447o
(good housekeeping) to' 63% (average housekeeping).
120
-------
TABLE 10-5. MEASURED EMISSION RATES AND SOLVENT CONSUMPTION AT DRY
CLEANING PLANTS WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF CONTROL
Solvent Type
Control Technique
Emission
Rate3
Mileageb
Perchloroethylene
Uncontrolled
- Poor
486
2,900
Uncontrolled
- Typical
203
6,940
Uncontrolled
- Good
128
11,000
Carbon Adsorber
- Typical
168
8,369
Carbon Adsorber
- Good
94
15,000
Carbon Adsorber
- Best
70
20,000+
Petroleum
Uncontrolled
- Average
468
1,456
Uncontrolled
- Good
310
2,200
Carbon Adsorber
- Good
173
3,935
Fluorocarbon
Refrigeration
- Typical
60
22,800
Refrigeration
- Good
37
37,000
aUnits are pounds of solvent per ton of fabrics cleaned.
bUnits are pounds of clothes cleaned per 52-gallon drum of solvent.
-------
Table 10-6 shows the sources and typical levels of
emissions from model plants, the control methods selected for
each emission source, and the estimated emission rates after
controls are applied.2 The information in Table 10-6 was used
to calculate the control efficiencies summarized in Table 10-7.
Table 10-7 shows that for petroleum plants, improved housekeep-
ing can be used to treat 36 percent of the total emissions with
70 percent control efficiency to give a 25 percent reduction in
total emissions. The remaining 64 percent of the total emis-
sions can be treated by carbon adsorption with 84 percent con-
trol efficiency. A 79 percent reduction in total petroleum sol-
vent emissions can be achieved using both improved housekeeping
and carbon adsorption. For perc plants, improved housekeeping
can be used to treat 42 percent of the emissions with 40 percent
control efficiency to give a 17 percent reduction in total emis-
sions. Carbon adsorption plus improved housekeeping will reduce
total emissions by 67 percent.
Table 10-8 shows how hydrocarbon emissions in the
study area could be reduced by improved housekeeping and operating
practices and installation of carbon bed adsorbers. Improved
housekeeping and operating practices would reduce total solvent
emissions to about 500 tons/year, a 33 percent reduction of dry
cleaning solvent emissions in the study area. The use of both
improved housekeeping and carbon adsorption would reduce total
emissions to about 160 tons/year, a 75 percent reduction in total
dry cleaning solvent emissions.
10.4 Capital and Operating Costs
Capital and operating costs for improved housekeeping
procedures are negligible2' and are readily paid for by the
increased efficiency in solvent usage. The costs involved are
122
-------
TABLE 10-6. CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND SOLVENT EMISSION LEVELS FOR
MODEL DRY CLEANING PLANTS2
Type of Plant
Source
Emission
Level
/ kg Solvent \
Control Technique /
Controlled
Level
' kg Solvent \
1
100 kg
\fabric cleaned^
1 (
100 kg
^fabric cleaned/
Petroleum
Dryer evaporation
18
Carbon adsorption, incinera-
tion
2-3
Filter muck
retention
6
Cartridge filters, centrifugal
separation, vacuum distilla-
tion, incineration
0.5-1.0
Still residue
1
Longer distillation periods
0.5-1.0
Miscellaneous3
3
Good housekeeping
1
Perchloroethylene
Washer
1
Carbon adsorber
0.5-1.0
Dryer
6
Carbon adsorber
Filter muck
retention
1.5
Cartridge filters, longer
cooking times
0.5-1.0
Still residue
1.5
Longer distillation
0.5-1.0
Miscellaneous
2
Good housekeeping
1
Fluorocarbon
Cartridge filters
0.5-1
None needed
0.5-1.0
Still residue
0.5
0.5
q
Miscellaneous
1-2
1-2
0
Leaks from pumps, valves, gaskets, etc.
-------
TABLE 10-7. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES OF IMPROVED OPERATING AND HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
AND CARBON ADSORPTION AT MODEL DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS2
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Type of Plant
Emissions
Emissions
Control
and
kg solvent
Control
kg solvent
Efficiency
Source of Emissions
100 kg fabric
Method
100 kg fabric
(%)
Petroleum
washer, dryer
18
Carbon Adsorption
3
84b
filter, still,
10
Improved housekeeping
3
70
misc.
and operating practices
Perchloroethylene
washer, dryer
7
Carbon adsorption
1
a
\o
00
filter, still,
5
Improved housekeeping
3
40
misc.
and operating practices
aSee Table 10-6.
^controlled emissions
total emissions
= 79% reduction
Zo
in total emissions
Q
controlled emissions
total emissions
g
Y2 = 67% reduction
in total emissions
-------
TABLE 10-8. REDUCTION IN SOLVENT EMISSIONS FROM DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS IN THE
STUDY AREA WITH IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES AND CARBON ADSORPTION
Uncontrolled Percent Emission Rate
Emission Source Emission Rate Control Method Reduction After Controls
(tons/year) in Total Emissions (tons/year)
Petroleum solvent
460
Improved housekeeping
and operating prac-
tices
25
345
Improved housekeeping
plus carbon adsorp-
tion
79
97
Synthetic Solvents
188
Improved housekeeping
and operating prac-
tices
17
156
Improved housekeeping
plus carbon adsorp-
tion
67
62
-------
for better flanges and hose connections, operator training and
increased supervision.
Capital and operating costs for carbon adsorption
controls for model industrial and commercial dry cleaning facil-
ities employing petroleum and synthetic (perc) solvents have been
estimated2. Model plant parameters used in the cost estimates
are shown in Table 10-9, and the costs are summarized in Table
10-10. Since data on typical plant sizes in the study area
are unavailable, it is not known whether the model plants are
representative of those in the study area. However, the litera-
ture indicates they are typical of the industry in general.2
10.5 Economic Impact
The economic impact of reducing dry cleaning solvent
emissions through improved housekeeping practices and installation
of carbon adsorbers has been investigated.4 The impact for both
new facilities and for addition of a new dry cleaning machine
equipped with a carbon adsorber at existing facilities was esti-
mated. The results are described for commercial, industrial,
and coin-op facilities in the following sections.
10.5.1 Commercial Plants Using Perchloroethylene Solvents
The incremental costs of carbon adsorption controls for
a new facility and an existing facility were estimated. Table
10-11 shows that the cost of the adsorber was 4.670 (average) of
total plant capital cost for a new facility and 17% (average) of
plant expansion capital cost for an existing facility to which a
new 40-lb cleaning machine with carbon adsorber was added. The
net annualized costs in Table 10-11 show that the controls result
in a net savings for commercial facilities. The economic impact
126
-------
TABLE 10-9. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS USED IN ESTIMATING COST OF CONTROL
MEASURES FOR DRY CLEANING FACILITIES2
Petroleum Solvent Perchloroethylene Solvent
Commercial Industrial Coin-Op Commercial Industrial
Plant Parameter Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant
Washer load capacity (kg)
No. of loads/yr
Dryer exhaust flow (scfm)
Dryer exhaust temp (°C)
Uncontrolled solvent emissions
(tons/yr):
27
900
1000
77
136
3000
5100
77
2 @ 3.6
525
91
24
23
2113
242
24
136
5007
3548
24
washer/dryer
filter muck
still residue and misc.
Total
4.8
1.6
1.1
7.5
81
27
18
126
0.29
0.06
0.15
0.5
3.7
0.8
1.9
6:4
52
11
26
89
Solvent cost ($/lb)
.095
.095
0.21
0.21
0.21
-------
TABLE 10-10. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RETROFIT
CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS FOR CONTROL OF SOLVENT EMISSIONS FROM
DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS (Reference 2)
Type of Dry
Rate of
Solvent
Capital
Cost of
Annual Operating Cost ($1000/yr)
Cost
Cleaning
Facility and
Solvent
Emissions
(Uncontrolled)
(tons/year)
Solvent
Recovered
(tons/year)
Installed
Adsorber
($1,000)
Capital
Charges
Direct
Operating
1 Costs2
Solvent
Recovery
(Credit)®
Net
Operating
Cost
Effectiveness
$1000/ton
controlled
Indus trial"1
(Petroleum)
126
78.5
74.9
12.9
4.3
(14.9)
2.3
.03
Commercial"*
(Petroleum)
7.5
4.7
17.65
3.05
1.0
( 0.9)
3.15
0.67
Industrial5
(Perc)
89
41
9.45
1.63
0.5
(17.2)
(15.1)
(0.37)
Commercial5
(Perc)
6.4
3.7
4.3
0.744
0.2
( 1.55)
( 0.6)
(0.16)
Coin-Op5
(Perc)
0.5
0.3
7.7
1.32
0.4
( 0.13)
1.59
5.3
'10% interest, 15-year depreciation plus 4% of capital for taxes, insurance, and administration. (Costs in 1977 dollars)
22% of capital for maintenance plus cost of labor, utilities, and materials.
'Solvent credited at $0.095/lb for petroleum solvent and $0.21/lb for perchloroethylene.
""Controls include improved housekeeping for control of still residue and miscellaneous emissions and carbon adsorption for
control of vented washer/dryer emissions (83% recovery). Solvent recovery based on emission factors in Tables 10-6 and 10-7.
5Controls include carbon adsorption for control of vented washer/dryer emissions. Solvent recovery based on emission factors
in Tables 10-6 and 10-7.
-------
TABLE 10-11. CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUALIZED COST FOR CARBON ADSORPTION ON NEW
AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL DRY CLEANING FACILITIES USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE
SOLVENT14
Expansion of Existing
New Plant Plant
Dry to Dry Transfer Dry-to-Dry Transfer
Cost Item Machine Machine Machine Machine
Total cost, $ (Uncontrolled)
75.
,375a
69.
,375*
27,600b
21,500b
Cost of Adsorber, $
3,
,300
3.
,300
3,300
3,300
Installation Cost, $
825
825
Total Cost, $ (Controlled)
78
,675
72,
,675
31,725
25,625
Incremental Control Cost (%)
4
.4
4,
.8
14.9
19.1
Capital Charges, $
526
526
658
658
Maintenance and Operating $
165
165
165
165
Solvent (Credit) $
(1
,456)
(1
,456)
(1,456)
(1,456)
Net Annualized Cost (Credit), $
(
765)
(
765)
( 633)
( 633)
aTotal Plant Cost
^Total Expansion Cost
-------
analysis revealed a weak economic condition in the commercial dry-
cleaning sector. It was concluded that the 4.6% incremental cost
of control for new plants would not prevent the construction of
a new plant, and that the net savings to the dry cleaner from sol-
vent credit would provide an increase in profits with no effect
on prices. For existing commercial perchloroethylene plants, it
was concluded that the 15 to 19% incremental investment cost of
control could prevent operators from adding capacity. If capacity
were added, annual operating expenses would be reduced and there
would be no expected effect on prices.
10.5.2 Industrial Plants Using Perchloroethylene
and Petroleum Solvents
Economic impact analysis for housekeeping and carbon
adsorption eontrols on new and existing industrial laundry/dry
cleaning facilities were also done. Table 10-12 summarizes esti-
mated capital and net annualized costs. From these results and
from the finding that the industrial sector is an economically
healthy industry, it was concluded that investment costs for new
or existing perchloroethylene plants would not discourage new
plant construction or existing plant expansion. Carbon adsorp-
tion controls reduce annualized costs for perchloroethylene plants,
but the reduction is small in comparison with investment costs and
average annual receipts. As a result, no effects on pricing pol-
icies are expected.
Installation of new facilities or expansion of existing
facilities with petroleum solvent dry cleaning equipment will be
less likely because the investment cost for control is a signifi-
cant percentage of plant cost or expansion cost. For existing
plants, the cost of petroleum plant modifications is more than
50 percent greater than the equivalent perchloroethylene plant
130
-------
TABLE 10-12. CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION ON NEW
AND EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING FACILITIES USING
PERCHLOROETHYLENE AND PETROLEUM SOLVENTS4
New Plant
Expansion of
Existing Plant
Cost Item
Perchloroethylene
Petroleum
Perchloroethylene Petroleum
Total Cost, $ (Uncontrolled)
833,000a
818,500b
139,500C
128,500C
Installed Cost of Adsorber, $
7,000
90,000
7,500
94,000
Total Cost, $ (Controlled)
840,000
908,500
147,000
222,500
Incremental Control Cost
(% of dry cleaning equipment
cost)
5.1
72..9
5.1
73.2
(% of total equipment cost)
0.84
11.0
NA
NA
Capital Charges, $
1,116
14,344
1,196
14,982
Maintenance and Utilities, $
425
5,508
425
5,508
Solvent (Credit), $
(7,280)
(19,505)
(7,280)
(19,505)
Net Annualized Cost (Credit), $
(5,739)
347
(5,659)
985
£
Complete investment cost for new industrial plant including two 600-lb. laundry machines and a 250-lb
dry cleaning machine with still and reclaiming dryer
Complete investment cost for new industrial plant including two 600-lb. laundry machines and a 500-lb
dual phase cleaning machine with vacuum still and dryer
c
Total expansion cost for the addition of one new cleaning machine, dryer, and boiler
-------
modification. As a result, most operators would choose perchloro-
ethylene machines rather than petroleum machines for plant modifi-
cations .
10.5.3 Coin-Operated Plants Using Perchloroethylene
Solvents
Table 10-13 shows capital investment and annualized costs
for carbon adsorbers on a model coin-operated dry cleaning plant.
While investment costs for control are 12.8 percent of total plant
cost, net annualized costs are reduced by a moderate amount. No
change in pricing structure would be anticipated due to installa-
tion of control equipment in a new or existing plant. Since
TABLE 10-13. CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR
CARBON ADSORPTION ON COIN-OPERATED DRY CLEANING
PLANTS USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE SOLVENTS4
Item Cost
Total Installed Cost of Uncontrolled $47,250
Plant (four 25-lb. dry-to-dry
machines with cartridge filters
and stills)
Installed Cost of Carbon Adsorber
Total Cost of Controlled Plant
Incremental Cost of Control
Capital Charges
Maintenance and Operating Cost
Solvent Credit
Net Operating Cost (Credit)
$ 6,050
$53,330
12.8%
$ 964/yr
$ 303/yr
($1,677/yr)
( 410 $/yr)
132
-------
fluorocarbon solvent plants require a substantially lower invest-
ment cost than equivalent perchloroethylene plants, fluorocarbon
equipment might be selected over perchloroethylene equipment for
new or expanded facilities.
10.6 References
1. National Air Pollution Control Administration, Control
Techniques for' Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions
from Stationary Sources. Washington, D.C., 1970.
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Chemical and Petroleum
Branch, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Dry Cleaning Operations, draft report. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, April, 1977.
Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd ed. with Supplements,
AP-42, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973.
McCoy, Billy C., Study to Support New Source Perfor-
mance Standards for the Dry Cleaning Industry, final
report. EPA 450/3-76-029, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1412,
Task Order No. 4. Vienna, Virginia, TRW, Inc., Energy
Systems Group, Environmental Engineering Division,
May, 1976.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon
Area Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson
Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson
Counties, Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order No. 9. Cincinnati, Ohio. July, 1976.
133
-------
11.0
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DEGREASING
11.1 Description of Operations
Degreasing removes soils from metal articles before
further processing or assembly. Types of equipment used are
cold cleaners, open top vapor cleaners, and conveyorized clean-
ers. A broad spectrum of organic solvents is available, such
as petroleum distillates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, ketones, and
alcohols. Metal workpieces are cleaned with organic solvents
because water or detergent solutions dry slowly, cause rusting,
and have a relatively low solubility for greases. The solvents
most commonly used are the chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Cold cleaners are the simplest and least expensive
type of degreaser; consequently they are also the most common.
They are used for the removal of oil base impurities from metal
parts in a batch loaded procedure that includes spraying, brush-
ing, flushing, and immersion. The cleaning solvent is often at
room temperature, although it may be slightly heated. The sol-
vent never reaches its boiling point. There are several methods
for materials handling in cold cleaning operations. Manual
loading is used for simple, small-scale cleaning operations.
Batch loaded, conveyorized systems are more efficient for complex,
large-scale operations.
The open top vapor degreaser operates by condensation
of vaporized solvent on the surface of the metal parts. The
soiled parts are batch loaded in the solvent-rich vapor zone of
the unit. Solvent vapors condense on the cooler surface of the
metal parts. Conveyorized degreasers operate on the same prin-
ciples as open top degreasers; the only difference is in material
handling. In conveyorized cleaners, some parts may be dipped
but manual handling of parts is mostly eliminated.
134
-------
Solvent losses occur in the following ways
1) Diffusion and evaporation occurs at the
opening where articles enter or leave the
cleaner;
2) Solvent is carried out as parts are re-
moved ;
3) Splashing of solvent occurs during agita-
tion;
4) Vapors from the solvent bath are emitted
in exhaust air;- and
5) Solvent losses occur during waste solvent
handling.
The fraction of emissions from each of these places
depends on the type of degreaser. Table 11-1 summarizes emis-
sions from each source for the three types of cleaners.
TABLE 11-1. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HC EMISSIONS FROM
FIVE SOURCES IN DEGREASING OPERATIONS1
Source of Cold Open-Top Vapor Conveyor Vapor
Emission Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner
Diffusion-Evap.
20%
40%
10%
Carryout
5%
10%
65%
Agitation
10%
Nil
Nil
Exhaust
5%
30%
10%
Waste Solvent
60%
20%
15%
Handling
135
-------
Solvent emissions resulting from diffusion and evapora-
tion are caused by failure to close the cover when parts are
not being handled. There is a vapor/air interface at the top of
the vapor zone. The evaporated solvent mixes with the air due
to drafts and the action of parts being inserted and removed.
Warm solvent-laden air is carried upward by convection, and the
solvent vapors diffuse into the room. For cold cleaners and
open top vapor degreasers, these emissions depend on the care
taken by operators to keep the covers closed, to handle parts
efficiently and to control the heating-cooling rates. The
automated conveyorized degreasers often have hoods to collect
vapors and operators do not open and close the doors.
Carry-out emissions result from entrainment of liquid
and solvent vapors as clean parts are removed from the degreaser.
This problem can be complicated by the shape of the part. Crev-
ices and cupped portions may retain solvent even after the part
appears to be dry. Drainage facilities are used to control
emissions from cold cleaners. There are no special controls for
open top vapor degreasers. Drying tunnels and rotating baskets
are used for conveyorized cleaners. Carry-out emissions are
usually the major emission source for conveyorized degreasers
because of the inherently large work load. Carry-out emissions
can be appreciable if proper materials handling procedures are
not followed. Proper drainage of the parts is completely under
the operator's control for both cold and open top vapor de-
greasers and is partly under their control for conveyorized de-
greasers. Crevice's must be drained (ASTM recommends 15 seconds)
and the liquid should be returned to the degreaser. These emis-
sions are collectable only when a "drying tunnel" is provided
as is sometimes done with conveyorized degreasers.
Agitation is a source of emissions only for cold
cleaners. Emission rates from agitation depend on the use of a
136
-------
cover, the type of agitation, and adjustments•to the agitation
system. Emissions are normally insignificant if the cover is
closed during agitation. By careful operation at a low spray
pressure and sensible design the emissions from spray evapora-
tion can almost be eliminated. None of these emissions are
collectable unless the entire unit is hooded.
Exhaust emissions result when exhaust rates for open
top vapor degreasers and conveyorized degreasers are set too
high. An excessive exhaust rate disrupts the vapor/air inter-
face and causes more solvent vapors to mix with the air which
is carried out by the exhaust system. The exhaust rates can be
controlled by the operator on .both types of degreasers. When
an induced draft fan is employed for the exhaust, these vapors
are almost entirely collectable.
Waste solvent evaporation is a source of emissions
for all three types of degreasers, although to varying degrees.
The amount of waste solvent evaporation is a function of the
quantity of waste solvent handled and the method of disposal.
Unacceptable disposal routes include flushing down sewers,
spreading on dirt roads for dust control, and landfilling where
evaporation or soil leaching can occur.
11.2 Levels and Sources of Emissions
The Nashville area has an estimated 290 tons/year of
solvent emissions from degreasing. These emissions account for
about 2 percent of the total stationary source hydrocarbon emis-
sions. These emissions are from major and minor sources in three
counties, with none from Davidson County. Area source degreasing
emissions probably exist in Davidson County but the magnitude is
unknown.
137
-------
Table 11-2 shows the degreasing emissions in the Nash-
ville area by counties and describes the types of sources contri-
buting the emissions. Conveyorized cleaners produce 66 percent
of the solvent emissions and open top vapor degreasers produce
about 33 percent.
11.3 Control Technology
Control methods for degreasing emissions include the
improvement of operating procedures and housekeeping practices,
upgrading of equipment or instrumentation, and add-on devices
such as condensers and adsorbers.
Solvent reclamation is considered the best method for
reducing emissions from evaporation of waste solvent since
almost 90 percent of the solvent is recovered as usable product.
Reclamation can be done through a private contractor or in-house
distillation. Good operating practice is needed to keep water
separators performing well, to collect all waste and to prevent
spills. These emissions are collectable if a well designed
solvent reclamation system is used.
Improved housekeeping and operating procedures can be
used to achieve 25 to 30 percent reduction in total emissions2 by
preventing some of the diffusion-evaporation and carryout emis-
sions and most of the waste solvent emissions.
Such control methods for cold cleaners include the fol-
lowing improvements to equipment and operating practices.2
1) Install a cover.
2) Install a facility for draining cleaned parts.
3) Post a permanent, conspicuous label summarizing
the operating requirements.
138
-------
TABLE 11-2
SUMMARY OF DEGREASING EMISSIONS
IN THE STUDY AREA
Emission Source
Type of Degreasing
Operation
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Rutherford County
Emerson Electric (Motor Assembly)
Park Sherman (Unknown)
Heil Quater (Unknown)
General Electric (Electric Motors)
Williamson County
Tubular Htr. Corp. (Heat Exchangers)
Span-Deck (Unknown)
ApCom Inc. (Unknown)
Conveyor
Open Top
Cold
Conveyor
Other
Open Top
Open Top
Open Top
13.3
15.0
0.6
109.6
2.0
17.9
2.3
19.4
Wilson County
TRW Ross Gear (Manufacturer)
Precision Rubber (Unknown)
Open Top
Conveyor
40.4
70.3
139
-------
4) Employ a waste solvent disposal method that
prevents evaporation of more than 20 percent
of the solvent. Store waste solvent only in
covered containers.
5) Close cover when parts are not being treated
in the cleaner.
6) Drain cleaned parts for 15 seconds or until
dripping ceases.
Controls for open top vapor degreasers include the fol-
lowing improvements to equipment and operating practices.
1) Install a cover that can be opened and closed
easily without disturbing the vapor zone.
2) Keep cover closed at all times except when
processing work loads through the degreaser.
3) Minimize solvent carry-out by the following
four measures:
a) Rack parts to allow full drainage.
b) Move parts in and out of the degreaser at
less than 3.3 m/sec (11 ft/min).
c) Cook the work load in the vapor zone at
least 30 sec or until condensate ceases.
d) Tip out any pools of solvent on the cleaned
parts.
e) Allow parts to dry for 15 seconds or until
fully dry.
4) Do not degrease porous, absorbent materials,
such as cloth, leather or rope.
5) Work loads should not occupy > 50 percent of
the open top area.
6) The vapor level should not drop > 10 cm (4 in)
during operation.
140
-------
7) Never spray above the vapor level.
8) Repair solvent leaks immediately, or shut down
the degreaser.
9) Employ a waste solvent disposal method that
prevents evaporative losses of more than 20
percent of the solvent. Store waste solvent
only in covered containers.
10) Exhaust ventilation should not exceed 20 m3/min
per m2 (6b cfm per ft2) of degreaser open area,
unless necessary to safely achieve the TLV re-
quirements set by OSHA. Ventilation fans should
not be used near the degreaser opening, so that
drafts are created in the degreaser.
11) Water should not be visually detectable in sol-
vent exiting the water separator.
Controls for conveyorized degreasers include the follow-
ing operating practices.
1) Exhaust ventilation should not exceed 20 m3/tain
per m2 (65 cfm per ft2) of degreaser opening,
unless necessary to safely achieve TLV require-
ments set by OSHA. Do not direct fans toward
the openings.
2) Carry-out emissions should be minimized by:
a) Racking parts for best drainage.
b) Maintain conveyor speed at < 3.3 m/min
(11 ft/min).
3) Employ a waste solvent disposal method that
prevents evaporative losses of more than 20
percent of the solvent. Store waste solvent
only in covered containers.
4) Repair solvent leaks immediately, or shut down
the degreaser.
141
-------
5) Water should not be visibly detectable in the
solvent exiting the water separator.
Add-on control devices applicable to degreasing opera-
tions include carbon bed adsorbers and condensers. Application
of these add-on devices requires that the waste stream be "col-
lected". Table 11-3 describes which emissions are collectable
and specifies selected control methods for each emission source.
Carbon bed adsorption was selected instead of condensers
because of its potentially higher efficiency for control of the
collectable emissions and because refrigeration utility is not
usually available. About half of the total emissions are collect-
able and a 90 percent recovery of these in a carbon bed is assumed
possible.
TABLE 11-3. COLLECTABLE EMISSIONS AND CONTROL METHODS FOR HYDRO-
CARBONS FROM DEGREASING OPERATIONS
Source of Emissions % Collectable* Control Method
Diffusion-Evaporation
0
-
50
Carbon Adsorption
Carryout
0
-
95
Carbon Adsorption
Agitation
0
Operator Care
Exhaus t
0
-
95
Carbon Adsorption
Waste Solvent
0
Reclamation
*Depends on type of degreaser, low values in cold cleaners and high values in
either open top vapor or conveyorized.
142
-------
Degreasing solvent emissions in the study area could
be reduced to about 200 tons/year with improved housekeeping
and operating practices (307o overall control efficiency). Ap-
plication of carbon adsorption (507o overall control efficiency)
to the remaining emissions would further reduce emissions to
about 100 tons/year.
11.4 Capital and Operating Costs
Capital and operating costs for improved housekeeping
and operating practices and equipment upgrading are negligible
and they are readily paid for by credit for solvent recovered.
Capital costs for instruments and sliding covers and operating
costs for operator training and, possibly, some increase in super-
vision are minor. The credit for recovery of solvent by these
expenditures will be greater than the costs.
Costs for retrofit carbon adsorption controls on model
open top vapor degreasers and monorail and cross-rod conveyorized
degreasers have been estimated.2 Table 11-4 summarizes the char-
acteristics of the model plants. The working area and the solvent
emissions rate are the two parameters used to characterize the
size of the degreasers. Capital costs, net annualized costs, and
cost effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the model plants are
shown in Table 11-5.
11.5 Economic Impact of Control Costs
Little information is available about the economic
impact of control measures for the degreasing industry. Costs
for improved housekeeping and operating procedures will have
negligible economic impact. Carbon adsorption units cost as
much as twice the cost of the actual degreasing equipment.3
However, the open top and conveyor degreasers are only very
small parts of the facilities which use them.
143
-------
TABLE 11-4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS USED IN ESTIMATING
COST OF CARBON ADSORPTION CONTROLS FOR
DEGREASING OPERATIONS2
Open Top Monorail Cross-Rod
Plant Vapor Conveyorized Conveyorized
Parameter Degreaser Degreaser Degreaser
Working Area (m2) 1.67 3.9 3.9
Uncontrolled Emission Rate 10.5 38.5 15.4
(tons/yr)
Emission Rate After 7.4 28.6 11.6
Housekeeping
Improvements
(tons/yr)
Solvent Recovered by 3.6 14.4 5.8
Carbon Adsorption
(tons/yr)
Solvent Cost ($/lb) 0.195 0.195 0.195
144
-------
TABLE 11-5. CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR CONTROL OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM TYPICAL DEGREASING OPERATIONS USING CARBON ADSORPTION2
Type of
Degreaser
Uncontrolled
Hydrocarbon
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Solvent
Recovered
(tons/yr)
Installed
Cost of
Carbon Bed
Absorber3
($1000)
Capital'3
Charges
Operating Costs ($/yr)
Directc
Operating
Cost
Solvent**
Recovery
Credit
Nete
Operating
Cost
Cost
Ef Foctiveness
($1000/ton
Controlled)
Open top vapor 10.5
Conveyorized 38.6
(Monorail)
Conveyorized 15.4
(Cross-rod)
3.63
14.4
5.8
10.3
17.6
17.6
1765
3017
3017
451
§70
754
(1416) 800
(5616) (1629)
(2258)
1513
0.22
(0.113)
0.26
Retrofitted
Capital charges at 10 percent interest, 15 year depreciation; plus 4% of capital for taxes,
insurance, and administration
"Labor, utilities, and materials plus 2% of capital for maintenance
^Solvent credited at $0.195/lb recovered
"Capital charges + direct operating cost - solvent recovery credit
-------
References
Radian Corporation, Control Techniques for Volatile
Organic Finis sions from Stationary Sources, draft
report, DCN 200-187-12-07, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608,
Task 12, Austin, Texas, September 1977.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Chemical and Petroleum
Branch, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Organic Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations, draft re-
port. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April,
1977.
Burr, Richard K. and Paul A. Boys. Systems and Costs
to Control Hydrocarbon Emissions from Stationary
Sources. Research Triangle Park, N.C., EPA. 1973.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Air Pollution Control Technology
Applicable to 26 Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May, 1977.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Hydrocarbon Area
Source Emission Inventory for Cheatham, Davidson,
Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson
Counties, Tennessee. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order No. 9. Cincinnati, Ohio. July, 19 76.
146
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS TO SI MEASUREMENTS
A complete description of conversion factors to the International
System of Units (SI) is found in the "Metric Practice Guide," American Society
for Testing and Materials, pub. JE 380-72, approved by the American National
Standards Institute, Std. JZ210.1-1973. The following are selected conversion
factors that will accommodate all units found in this report as well as other
pertinent units. They are arranged alphabetically.
To Convert From
atmosphere (normal=760 torr)
British thermal unit +(Btu)
Btu/ft2
Btu/hour
Btu/pound-mass
To
pascal (Pa)
joule (J)
joule/metre2 (J/m2)
watt (W)
joule/kilogram-(J/kg)
Btu/lbm'deg F (heat capacity) joule/kilogram-kelvin
(J/kg*K)
Btu/s»ft2«deg F
watt/metre2-kelvin
(W/m2 *K)
calorie (International Table) joule (J)
day
degree Celsius (C)
degree Fahrenheit (F)
degree Fahrenheit (F)
foot (ft)
foot2 (ft2)
foot3 (ft3)
foot/hour (fph)
+
second (s)
kelvin (k)
degree Celsius
kelvin (k)
metre (m)
metre2 (m2)
metre3 (m3)
metre/second (m/s)
Multiply By
1.01325 * 10s
1.05506 * 103
1.13565 * lO"
0.29307
2.326 * 103
4.18680 * 103
2.04418 * 10*
4.18680
8.64000 * 101*
t,=t + 273.15
K C
tc=(tf-32)/1.8
tk=(tf+459.67)/1.8
0.30480
9.29030 * 10"2
2.83168 * 10"2
8.46667 * 10~5
The Btu quantity used herein is that based on the International Table.
147
-------
To Convert From
foot/minute (fpm)
foot/second (fps)
foot3/minute (cfm)
foot3/second (cfs)
gallon (U.S. liquid)(gal)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/day
(gpd)
gallon (U.S. liquid)/minute
(gpm)
grain (gr)
horsepower (hp)
hour (hr)
inch (in)
inch2 (in2)
inch of water (60 F)
kilowatt-hour (kwh)
minute (min)
parts per million (ppm)
pound-force (lbf avoirdupois)
pound-force/inch (psi)
pound-mass (lbm avoirdupois)
pound-mass/foot3 (lbm/ft3)
pound-mass/minute (lbm/min)
pound-mass/second (lbm/sec)
ton (cooling capacity)
ton (short, 2000 lbm)
To
metre/second (m/s)
metre/second (m/s)
metre3/second (m3/s)
metre3/second (m3/s)
metre3 (m3)
metre3/second (m3/s)
metre3/second (m3/s)
kilogram (kg)
watt' (w)
second (s)
metre (m)
metre2 (m2)
pascal (Pa)
joule (J)
second (s)
milligram/metre3
(mg/m3)
newton (N)
pascal (Pa)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram/metre3 (kg/m3)
kilogram/second (kg/s)
kilogram/second (kg/s)
Btu/hr
kilogram (kg)
Multiply By
5.08000 * 10"3
0.30480
4.71947 * 10""
2.83168 * 10"2
3.78541 * 10~3
4.38126 * 10"8
6.30902 * 10~5
6.47989 * 10"5
7.46000 * 102
3.60000 * 103
2.54000 * 10~2
6.45160 * 10~4
2.4884 * 102
3.60000 * 106
60.000
(molecular weight)/
24.5
4.44822
6.89476 * 103
0.453592
1.60185 * 101
7.55987 * 10"3
4.53592 * 10-1
1.2000 * 104
9.07185 * 102
148
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 904/9-78-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hydrocarbon Control Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis for Nashville, Tennessee
5. REPORT DATE
February 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Terry B. Parsons, Thomas E. Shirley, and
Mirhflpl J? Pi ana
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
DCN# 78-200-187-05-15
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
P. 0. Box 9948
Austin. Texas 78.766
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2608, Task 5
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta. Georsia 30308
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRAC.T . .
This report provides cost-effectiveness data for methods of con-
trolling hydrocarbon emissions from industrial sources in the
five-county Nashville metropolitan area. A baseline inventory
of hydrocarbon emissions from the graphic arts, gasoline market-
ing, gasoline bulk storage, surface coating, organic chemical
production, rubber processing, dry cleaning, and degreasing in-
dustries is presented. Control methods are defined which could
reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the study area by 60 to 80 percent.
Capital costs and net annualized costs for the control methods
at model plants are given. Net annualized costs ($/yr) and esti-
mates of the quantity of hydrocarbons controlled (tons/yr) for
model plants are used to calculate the cost effectiveness of the
hydrocarbon control methods. There are wide variations in the
cost effectiveness of the control methods depending on the appli-
cation. This variation in cost effectiveness will be useful in
developing a hydrocarbon control strategy, because it shows how
to achieve the largest reduction in hydrocarbon emissions at the
smallest cost.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTI FI ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Hydrocarbons Dry Cleanin
Inventories Degreasing
Cost Effectiveness Gravure
Air Pollution Control Printing
Tennessee Tires
Gasoline
Phthalic Acids
I Nashville, Tennessee
Gasoline Marketing
Gasoline Bulk Storag
Surface Coating In-
dustry
14A
07A
e
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
162
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) previous edition is obsolete
149
------- |