use of organic solvents, the emission of VOCs, and the generation of solvent wastes.
(Bob Blaszezak, 919-541-5432)

(16) "Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing”
(EPA-450/3-88-009, PB89-148282)

The CTC prepared a document on autobody refinishing shops and related coating processes,
and coating and solvent usage. The report discusses VOC emissions and control techniques, control
costs, and potential VOC emission reductions. Agencies may use the information provided in this
report to develop strategies for reducing VOC emissions from automobile refinishing operations.
(Robert Blaszczak, 919-541-5432)

(18) “Reduction of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Application of Traffic Markings”
(EPA-450/3-88-007, PB89-148274)

The CTC published a document for use by State and local agencies in developing strategies
for reducing VOC emissions from the application of traffic paints and marking materials. The
publication covers application processes, VOC emissions and emission reduction, and cost benefits
associated with using more durable, low-VOC markings. The document may be of particular interest
to agencies in ozone non-attainment areas, which have high population densities, and therefore, a
high frequency of traffic marking applications. (Karen Catlett, 919-541-0835)

(19) "Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Waste Incinerators" (EPA 450/3-89-002,
PB89-190615); (20) "Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course: Volume |, Student Handbook”
(EPA 450/3-89-003, PB89-189872); "Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course:

Volume I, Presentation Slides” (EPA 450/3-89-004, PB89-189880); "Hospital Incinerator Operator
Training Course: Volume Ill, Instructors Manual" (EPA 450/3-89-010)

The CTC, in collaboration with EPA's Region 3, the Maryland Department of the
Environment, Air Management Administration, and EPA’s Air Pollution Training Institute, developed
training materials for hospital waste incinerator operators. The CTC also provides an operation and
maintenance manual for State agency engineers. (James Eddinger, 919-541-5426)

(26) "ASPEN Expert System for Steam Stripping Calculations: Users’ Manual”
(EPA-450/3-90-003)

The CTC developed a user-friendly PC program for evaluating control technology and
determining potential air toxic emissions. The program uses the computerized process simulation
program, Advanced System for Process Engineering (ASPEN). State and local pollution control
agencies may use the ASPEN steam stripper model for evaluating control technologies and
determining potential air toxic emissions. The model offers three options for controlling VOC air
emissions from the steam stripper: condensation using a refrigerant in a secondary condenser, fixed-
bed carbon adsorption, and catalytic oxidation. (Penny Lassiter, 919-541-5396).

(30) "Powder Coatings Technology Update" (EPA-450/3-89-033, PB90-127341)

In pursuit of its goal to explore developing technology, the CTC documented the newest uses
and technologies for powder coatings, which contain no VOC. Powder coating suppliers, and
equipment suppliers and users of the newest uses and technologies for powder coatings were
surveyed. The report summarizes the results of the questionnaires and includes a cost comparison
of powder coating with other surface-coating technologies. (Karen Catlett, (919-541-0835)

9.5


4.2 REPORT PROCESSING

1.

Any reviewer with a serious concern about a report notifies the CTC Co-chairs. The Co-
chairs work with the team members, the CTC SC, and the appropriate management
chain to resolve the issue.

The SC may require additional review for a report by an outside organization, such as
the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee. The project leader or
any SC meeting attendee may propose such additional review. The following
procedures for review and approval apply to each CTC report.

Review procedures listed in this section do not apply to HOTLINE responses. However,
the expert providing a written response to a HOTLINE request should send a copy of the
response to the CTC Co-chairs. The Co-chairs must concur on any substantive written
response. Any contractor responding to a HOTLINE call must send a copy of the
response to the referring EPA staff member. The staff member reviews the information,
and, upon finding it acceptable, forwards it to the requestor. A contractor may send the
results of a literature search directly to the requestor with confirmation to the CTC Co-
chair or HOTLINE assignee. Section 5 lists procedures for processing HOTLINE calls.

47


CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL

Sponsored By:

Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


Alaska Oil Spill Support

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requested an EPA evaluation
of technical questions pertaining to the incineration of wastes resulting from the Exxon oil spill at
Valdez. In response, the CTC formed a team to provide quick expert advice to Alaska. Project
leaders visited the site, attended public hearings, and participated in public workshops. The CTC
provided recommendations to the State of Alaska.

Exxon had suggested incineration of the estimated 8,000 tons of solid waste resulting from
the Valdez oil spill. However, the oil company raised concerns over the environmental acceptability
of the disposal process. The CTC concluded that use of appropriate technology and operating
procedures would cause no adverse environmental impact.

The CTC presented a brief review and assessment of the thermal treatment technologies that
Exxon might use to dispose of certain waste resulting from the oil spill. Generally, EPA and the
ADEC concurred with Exxon's basic waste management plan, but questioned the appropriateness of
the proposed incineration technologies. EPA and Alaska considered four major issues in approving
the thermal treatment:

+ Compliance with applicable environmental regulations

+ Compatibility with specific waste characteristics

* Public perception of the plan, and

+ Cost

The State's consideration of public concern, which establishes acceptable performance

levels, prompted them to recommend that incinerators meet certain criteria. The criteria were similar
to requirements for hazardous waste incineration operation to meet environmental regulations and
permit conditions. The CTC provided a brief review of regulatory requirements, a discussion of

various generic classes of incineration technologies, and an assessment of their applicability to the
Valdez waste.

9.14


“Evaluations of Emission Control Devices at Waferboard Plants" (EPA-450/3-90-002, PB90-131442)

In 1987 the CTC published a report in response to a request from the State of Colorado
following complaints of eye and lung irritation from residents near a waferboard manufacturing plant.
More recently, the State of Colorado requested additional CTC assistance in determining the
effectiveness of control devices for emissions from wood chip dryers in waferboard plants. This
report describes the general process of waferboard production, an analysis of the extractable
organics in wood, and a characterization of wood chip dryer effluents. The report discusses aerosol
formation, an evaluation of emission control options, and a review of available information on press
vent emissions.

The study concluded that insufficient data are available to adequately characterize wood chip
dryer effluents, because of the variety of factors affecting the composition of the effluents. The study
further concluded that electrified filter beds (EFBs) are more suited than wet electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) for controlling effluents generated from the drying of hardwoods and other low-resin-content
woods. Wet ESPs are better than EFBs for the control of sticky, hydrocarbon-laden wood chip dryer
effluent streams. However, wet ESPs have higher capital and operating costs than do EFBs. The
study also identified three factors that affect formaldehyde emission from press vents: (1) the excess
formaldehyde content of the resin, (b) the amount of resin used, and (c) the press temperature.

Characterization of emissions from wood chip dryers is difficult because of the limited data
available. Wood species, dryer temperature, dryer loading rate, and previous drying history of the
wood affect the composition of dryer effluents. An understanding of relationships between these
factors and composition of wood chip dryer exhaust emissions would require comprehensive
parametric test data that are currently unavailable.

9.25


CTC PROJECT TRACKING FORM

TITLE CTC NUMBER
WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER. CONTRACT NUMBER
PROJECT LEADER. REPORT DATE.
PROJECT START DATE. CONTRACTOR,

SUPERVISOR'S INITIALS

Firm/Project Leader

CTC CO-CHAIR INITIALS (DARVIN/BLASZCZAK),

ACTIVITY

ORIGINAL CURRENT
PROJECTED PROJECTED
DATE DATE

I

ACTUAL
DATE

(MM/DD/YY) (MM/DD/YY) (MM/DD/YY) (MM/DD/YY) (MM/DD/YY)
| | | |

1. Steering Committee approval

2.

oo

10.

11.

12,

13.

14.

15.

Figure 3-2 Sample Project Tracking Form

3.7

(Continued)


"Control of VOC Emissions trom Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing" (EPA-450/3-90-020,
PB91-102111)

The CTC conducted a survey of the polystyrene foam (PSF) manufacturing industry to
characterize the industry and define the nature and scope of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the source category. The study also identified potential controls for reducing VOC
emissions, and developed cost estimates for VOC capture and control technologies. The study
includes an estimate of total VOC emissions from the industry and the geographic distribution of
industry facilities. The report presents a process overview and descriptions of three manufacturing
processes for polystyrene foam products, and identifies process emission points.

Many previous studies of the polystyrene foam manufacturing industry focused on
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions rather than VOC emissions. However, the Montreal Protocol of
August 1988 restricted the production and consumption of many fully halogenated CFCs. Therefore,
the PSF manufacturing industry increased its use of hydrocarbons and soft CFCs as blowing agents.
That increased use is likely to cause increased VOC emissions nationwide from this source category.
The country's ozone non-attainment problems have prompted EPA to evaluated the potential for
reduced emissions from all VOC sources.

The CTC study concluded that the decline in CFC use will cause an increase in emissions
from the manufacture of polystyrene foam products unless emission control equipment is installed or
alternative blowing agents are incorporated. Some facilities have demonstrated add-on controls such
as carbon adsorption and incineration. Some facilities have successfully employed the more
environmentally acceptable hydrochlorofluorocarbon blowing agents in place of hydrocarbon and
CFC blowing agents. However, the PSF industry is uncertain of the regulatory status of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and are investigating other alternatives.

9.20


5.0 GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

This section describes the different types of requests for CTC assistance and procedures for
responding to them. The CTC receives three types of requests for technical assistance as described
below:

1. HOTLINE Calls. The CTC receives most of its requests for technical assistance through
the CTC HOTLINE. The Center uses the "CTC HOTLINE ASSISTANCE RECORD "
(HOTLINE form) to refer these requests to AEERL and OAQPS' Emission Standards
Division (ESD) staff.

2.  Direct-to-Staff Telephone Calls. As CTC clients become familiar with AEERL and ESD
staff and their expertise, they may contact staff members directly. Direct-to-staff
requests deserve the same degree of attention as do HOTLINE requests and should be
documented with the CTC. The best way to document a request for assistance is to
complete a HOTLINE form.

3. Written Requests. CTC clients typically submit written requests for technical projects.
The CTC Steering Committee (SC) considers each written request separately.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the EPA to provide services to clients other
than State and local agencies and EPA Regional Offices. The Amendments have resulted in the
expansion of the CTC program to include the small business assistance program. However, the CTC
has not yet established protocol on the extent of its support to private industry and small business.
The CTC accepts calls from all businesses, as it does from traditional HOTLINE requestors, and
provides them with limited services. The Center tracks private industry calls with a special data base.
However, the Center will initiate no activity requiring the expenditure of CTC resources until a
decision is made on the extent and scope of the support that it will provide these clients.

5.1


APPENDIX A

BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM

In August 1991, the CTC Bulletin Board System (BBS) officially came on-line. It is part of the EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN) joining SCRAM, EMTIC,
CHIEF and other electronic BBS. Users already registered on the TTN may access the CTC BBS using the same
method they are currently using to access the other boards, but selecting the CTC option from the main menu.
New users may dial in and register any time the BBS is in operation. The only cost involved is the cost of the
telephone call to Durham, North Carolina. Figure A-1 depicts the CTC BBS welcome screen.

The CTC BBS will offer several options within four major areas. The four major areas are: Utilities, Help
Center, Documents/Software, and CTC Projects. Figure A-2 depicts the CTC BBS main menu screen. Other
options within each of the major areas will be considered and, if there is widespread support, added in the future.
Please don't hesitate to comment on the CTC BBS and its functions.

UTILITIES

Three options are offered within this area: “Register for CTC Mail," “Welcome to the CTC," and "Read
CTC Alerts." The "Register" option allows you to put your name on the mailing list for the CTC NEWS, a quarterly
newsletter put out by the CTC. The "Welcome" option displays information on the CTC, its purpose, background,
and services provided. The final option under this area is the “Read” option. Selecting this option allows you to
reread the alerts that are displayed when you first sign-on. Two other options under this area are the “Return to
Top Menu" and "Goodbye." These appear in every BBS in the TTN and are self-explanatory.

HELP CENTER

Three options are offered within this area: “Public Messages," "Electronic Mail," and "Leave CTC
HOTLINE Request." The “Public Messages” option leaves a message that may be viewed by anyone. These
messages may be directed to any group of users. The “Electronic Mail" option is just that, a message directed to
a specific person and may only be read by that person. The “Leave CTC HOTLINE Request" option directs a
message to the CTC and will generate a call-back from the CTC staff. The user, under this option, leaves a
message describing his/her request, problem, or question along with his/her telephone number and other
information. The CTC staff reviews the request and will call the requestor back with information or a referral,
usually within 24 hours.

DOCUMENTS/SOFTWARE

Three options are offered within this area: “Ordering Documents,” "Downloading CTC Software,” and
“Review Document Summary,"." The “Review” option brings up a short summary of each of the documents
available from the CTC. Each summary will include an EPA report number and a National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) document number when available. These numbers should be noted, because the CTC can only
honor orders of documents from State, local, or regional government agencies. All others must order the
documents from NTIS [telephone number (703)487-4650]. The “Ordering” option presents a list of CTC
documents. You simply put an “x" in front of the document(s) you need and fill out the name and address. The
“Downloading” option allows you to download to your computer a copy of some of the software offered by the
CTC. Anyone may download software.

CTC PROJECTS
Three options are offered within this area: “List CTC Ongoing Projects,” "Review List of Suggested

Projects,” and "Add to List of Suggested Projects.” The “List Ongoing Projects" option displays a list of ongoing
CTC projects and a short summary of each. The “Review” option displays a list of projects that others have

A-1


Table 5-1 HOTLINE Process C. des (Continued)

INCINERATION, HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATION, MEDICAL WASTE
INCINERATION, MISCELLANEOUS
INCINERATION, MUNICIPAL WASTE
INCINERATION, WOOD

INDOOR AIR

IRON AND STEEL

KILNS

LANDFILLS

LEAD-ACID STORAGE BATTERIES
METAL FABRICATION
MINING/QUARRYING

N/A

OTHER

PAINTING AND COATING

PAINT STRIPPING

PAPER/PULP MILLS

PESTICIDES

PETROLEUM PROCESSING
PHARMACEUTICALS
PHOTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS
PLASTICS

POWER PLANTS

PRINTING, GRAPHICS

RECYCLING, METALS

RECYCLING, MISCELLANEOUS
RECYCLING, OIL
REFRIGERATION/AIR CONDITIONING
RUBBER CURING AND RECLAIMING
SCRUBBERS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

SMELTERS

SOLDERING

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SOLVENTS

STACK TESTING

STORAGE TANKS, ABOVE GROUND
STORAGE TANKS, UNDERGROUND
TEXTILES

TIRE BURNING

TOXIC METALS DISPOSAL
TRANSPORTATION

TURBINES

WAFERBOARD

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WELDING

WOOD PRODUCTS

WOODSTOVES

5.8


Foundry Casting Operations

The CTC is responding to a request by the Illinois EPA for a literature study. The State is
concerned about odors and organic compound emissions from a foundry casting operation, and
wishes to determine possible controls. The project is scheduled for completion in August 1991.
(Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733)

Automobile Spray Booth Clean-up

The State of Michigan requested a CTC study on emissions from the clean-up of paint booths
in automobile assembly plants. A CTC project in response to the request is scheduled for completion
in August 1991. (Mohamed Serageldin, 919-541-2379)

Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated Asphalt Roofing

The CTC conducted an evaluation of alternatives to asphalt roofing, which produces volatile
organics and condensibles. The evaluation resulted in this project to determine air toxics emissions
from hot asphalt roofing. The project is scheduled for completion in September 1991. (Bobby Daniel,
919-541-2336)

Tire Burning—Additional Analysis

The CTC is conducting further analyses as a follow-up to its earlier study to estimate
emissions from the open burning of scrap tires. The follow-up will be an evaluation of the biological
activity in the results of the original tire burning study. The study is scheduled for completion in
October 1991. (Paul Lemieux, 919-541-0962)

Maryland/Yeast Manufacturing

The Maryland Department of the Environment requested a CTC study of VOC emissions
from the manufacture of baker's yeast and available control technologies. The initial phase of the
project evaluated the source category, its potential emissions, and identified its impact on ozone non-
attainment. Phase II will consider alternative controls and their costs and impacts. The project is
scheduled for completion in November 1991. (Martha Smith, 919-541-2421)

Burning Tires as Fuel

The CTC is responding to many requests for information on burning tires as fuel and tire
pyrolysis. The study will include descriptions, emissions data, and control techniques. The project is
scheduled for completion in November 1991. (Deborah Michelitsch, 919-541-0083)

Waste Wood Combustion, Joint Effort

The CTC is co-funding a project with the Department of Energy, the States of Virginia and
New York, and Canada. The project will identify combustion system operating parameters and air

pollution contro! technologies for the combustion of waste wood. Phase 1 of the effort is scheduled
for completion in February 1992. (Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733)

9.10


5.2 GUIDELINES FOR HOTLINE COVERAGE
The following guidelines apply to the CTC program staff in providing HOTLINE coverage.

1. The CTC Co-chairs or their assigned staff (HOTLINE designees) answer the HOTLINE
during normal duty hours (7:30 am - 5:00 pm).

2. HOTLINE coverage rotates weekly between ESD and OAQPS. Each organization's
CTC Co-chair answers the HOTLINE during his/her rotational period or assigns a staff
member to answer the HOTLINE.

3. Section 10 of this Manual provides a list of CTC experts and associated technology
assistance programs for referral of HOTLINE calls.

4. The HOTLINE designee completes a HOTLINE form for each call. Clients include
representatives of State, local, and federal agencies, and private industry. The
HOTLINE designee marks the form for each private industry call "private" for tracking by
a special data base.

5.4


“Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources—Air Emissions and Controls" (EPA-450/3-87-017,
PB88-106166)

The State of Florida requested assistance regarding the emissions generated by the air
stripping of groundwater. Since the problems associated with these emissions were of national
concern, the CTC Steering Committee decided to respond to the request by producing a guidance
document on the sources and control of these emissions. Members of the CTC organizations familiar
with air stripping of contaminated water were assigned to produce a document pooling the expertise
‘on the subject from each organization.

Air stripping is used to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from contaminated water
and, if not designed and operated with air pollution controls, simply transfers the VOCs from the water
into the atmosphere. Some of these VOCs contribute to ambient ozone formation and other VOCs
are potential human carcinogens or toxics. The CTC project team collected information and data on
the air emissions and controls for air stripping of contaminated water as a source of VOCs. This
information was collected through a literature search, telephone contacts and plant site visits. A
major purpose of this effort was to investigate the air emission controls presently used for air
stripping, their performance, and the capital and operating costs of these controls.

The CTC developed a document which includes a list of more than 150 air strippers, their
locations, and the particular chemicals of concern in some of their VOC emissions. Design and
operating data for several air strippers include water flow rates, VOC concentrations, column height
and diameter, air flow, the reported removal efficiency, and other design factors. A list of air stripping
facilities using air emission controls is provided and the applicable control systems are discussed in
the context of these facilities. The capital and operating costs are estimated using actual facility data
and standard EPA costing procedures. Appended to the document is a list of telephone contacts with
EPA, State and local, operating facility, and equipment vendor personnel.

During development of this technical guidance document, the CTC, along with State and local
representatives and EPA contractor support, performed three site visits. For each site, general
information, process descriptions, and performance data for the air stripper and the air pollution
control device are provided.

9.13


or more of the suggested projects sparks your interest. The “Add” option is there in case you have a suggesticg
for a future project. As project suggestions are received, they will be added to the list of suggested projects ant
others may indicate interest.

suggested that the CTC investigate. You are encouraged to call the CTC (or leave a message on the BBS) eo

The CTC BBS plans to grow as requests for services from our users grow. Already there are discussions
of adding various items to the list of options offered by the board. Such things as explanatory screens dealing
with the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and Information System and including editions of the CTC NEWS and
the RACT/BACT/LAER Informational Flyer as downloadable items are being discussed. You, the user, can play
an important part in this growth. If you have any suggestions for areas that the CTC BBS should include or
specific ideas for new options on the board, please let us know. You can contact Joe Steigerwald at
(919) 541-2736 or FTS 629-2736, or leave a note on the public message part of the CTC BBS detailing any ideas
or suggestions you may have.

A2


REF NO.

13
24
36
47
52

53

14
19
20

56
43
50

15
16
18
25
30
38
40

12

23
26
28
31
33

22
27
51

AIR TOXICS

“Evaluation of Potential Emissions of TDI from Two Facilities," EPA-450/3-87-022, PB88-120845

“HAP-PRO*" (software for use with HAP Manual)

“Handbook: Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (HAP Manual), EPA-625/6-86-014

“Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Sources—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants,” EPA-600/2-90-024, PB90-242314
“Source Characterization and Control Technology Assessment of MeCI Emissions,” EPA-600/2-89-043, PB89-224471
“Emission Factors for lron Foundries—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants,” EPA-600/2-90-044, PB90-266743

“Benzene Enabling Document,” EPA-450/3-90-009, PB91-167737

“Determination of Perchloroethylene Content of Waste Materials from Filters and Still Bottoms—Conditional Test Method,”
EPA-450/3-9 1-009, PB91-161737

“Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated Roofing Asphalt”

COMBUSTION

"Guidelines for Stack Testing at Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities," EPA-600/8-88-085, PB88-234893
"Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Burning of Scrap Tires,” EPA-600/2-89-054, PB90-116955
“Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Waste Incinerators,” EPA-450/3-89-002, PB89-190615.

“Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course: Volume |: Student Handbook,” EPA-450/3-89-003, PB89-189872 and
“Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course: Volume II: Presentation Slides,” EPA-450/3-89-004, PB89-189880
“Hospital Incinerator Operator Training Course: Volume Ill: Instructors Manual,” EPA-450/3-89-010

“Source Book NOx Control Technology Data,” EPA-600/2-91-029, PB91-217364

“Radioactive and Mixed Waste Incineratlon Background Information Document, Volume |: Technology,” EPA-520/1-91-010-1;
“Radioactive and Mixed Waste Incineration Background Information Document, Volume II: Risk of Radiation Exposure,”
EPA-520/1-91-010-2

SURFACE COATING/GRAPHIC ARTS

“Ultrasonic Cleaning of Rotogravure Cylinders,” EPA-450/3-89-024, PB89-216360

"Reduction of Volatile Organic Emissions from Automobile Refinishing,” EPA-450/3-88-009, PB89-148282

“Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Traffic Markings,” EPA-450/3-88-007, PB89-148274

“Evaluation of Emission Controls at Leeds Architectural Products” (Spray Booth Controls), EPA-450/3-89-001, PB90-120106
“Powder Coating Technology Update,” EPA-450/3-89-033, PB90-127341

“Radiation Curable Coatings,” EPA-600/2-91-035, PB91-219550

“Best Demonstrated Control Technology for Graphic Arts,” EPA-450/3-91-008, PB91-168427

WASTEWATER/GROUNDWATER TREATMENT

“Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources—Air Emissions and Controls,” EPA-450/3-87-017, PB88-106166

“Surface Impoundment Modeling Systems (SIMS) Version 2.0 Users’ Manual,” EPA-450/4-90-019a, and

“Background Document for Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) Version 2.0," EPA-450/4-90-019b, PB 91-506998
“Comparisons of Alr Stripper Simulations and Field Performance Data,” EPA/450/1-90-002, PB90-207317

“ASPEN Expert System for Steam Stripping Calculations: Users’ Manual,” EPA-450/3-90-003

“Control Technology Assessment for Air Emissions from Wastewater Treatment,” EPA-450/3-89-008, PB89-207922
“Industrial Wastewater VOC Emissions—Background for BACT/LAER,” EPA-450/3-90-004, PB90-194754

“Air Stripper Design Manual, Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance,” EPA-450/1-90-003, PB91-125997

WOOD PRODUCTS
"Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Waferboard Manufacturing Plant,” EPA-450/3-87-021, PB88-107735
“Evaluation of Emission Factors for Formaldehyde from Certain Wood Processing Operations,” EPA-600/8-90-052,

PB88-118492
“Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment Operations,” EPA-450/3-89-028, PB89-224799

“Evaluation of Emission Control Devices at Waferboard Plants,” EPA-450/3-90-002, PB90-131442
"Evaluation of Air Toxic Emissions at Minnesota's Reconstituted Panelboard Plants,” EPA-450/3-91-009
(Continued)

Figure 6.1-2 Complete List of CTC Publications

63


“Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Medical Waste Incinerators" (EPA-450/3-89-002,
PB89-190615); "Hospital Incinerator Training Course: Volume |, Student Handbook”
(EPA-450/3-89-003, PB89-189872); "Hospital Incinerator Training Course: Volume Ii Presentation

Slides,” (EPA-450/3-89-004, PB89-189880), "Hospital Incinerator Training Course: Volume III
Instructors Manual" (EPA-450/3-89-010)

In response to a request by the State of Maryland, the CTC developed an operation and
maintenance (O&M) manual and training course for hospital waste incinerator operators. The O&M
manual was designed as a technical guidance document on proper O&M procedures for hospital
waste incinerators and related pollution control equipment. The manual may be used by federal,
State, and local agency personnel, hospital waste management personnel, and hospital incinerator
operators. The training course covers the basic principles of combustion; proper design, operation,
and maintenance of hospital waste incineration systems; and the operator's role in reducing air
pollution and complying with regulations.

Data gathered in the first phase of this study, on the proper O&M of hospital waste
incinerators and associated air pollution control devices, are presented in the O&M Manual. The
document provides an overview of proper O&M procedures and serves as a basis for the
development of the training materials. It was also designed to serve as a technical guide for federal,
State, and local agencies, and hospital waste management personnel and incinerator operators. The
O&M manual covers operation, maintenance, control and monitoring instrumentation, as well as
record keeping and safety guidelines. Volume | of the training course, the Student Handbook, is
provided not only as a text during the course but as a reference for operators after the course.
Volume Il includes classroom materials as well as copies of the presentation slides and student
worksheets. Volume III, the Instructors Manual, includes the course description, an agenda, the
course goals, lesson plans, and pre-test and post-test materials.

Use of the O & M Manual and Training Course by hospitals, and federal, State and local
agencies should lead to a better understanding of hospital waste incinerators and related emission
controls by incinerator operators and supervisory staff. This increased awareness should result in
more efficient use of the incinerators and emission control equipment, and therefore, help reduce air
emissions from the incineration of hospital waste.

9.33


2.0 THE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER ORGANIZATION

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and The Air and Energy
Environmental Research Laboratory (AEERL) jointly operate and fund the Control Technology Center
(CTC). The Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in Cincinnati, Ohio, also Provides
material support to the CTC and is represented by a voting member on the CTC Steering Committee

(SC).

The CTC is a matrix managed program drawing from the combined expertise of the program
offices and contractor personnel. Co-chairs from the supporting organizations manage the CTC with
program direction trom the SC. The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have established an
external Advisory Work Group. The Work Group coordinates the CTC with State and local agencies
on the agencies’ technical support requirements.

The following describe the CTC’s basic organizational components and their functions.

1. The CTC Steering Committee. The Steering Committee (SC) consists of 12
representatives of the EPA organizations that sponsor the CTC. The SC provides the
CTC with general guidance and direction. It meets monthly to address the CTC budget,
the status of current projects, and potential projects. The meetings provide an
opportunity for members to discuss and determine the merits of potential projects
according to established guidelines. The SC provides technical, budgeting, and
scheduling guidance for each project that it funds. The line managers of each
organization, the CTC Co-chairs, ensure that CTC activities comply with the SC’s
guidelines. The Co-chairs also ensure the quality of work performed for the CTC.

2. The Advisory Work Group. The STAPPA/ALAPCO select and comprise the membership
of the CTC Advisory Work Group. The Group meets with SC members and the Co-
chairs once or twice a year. The meetings inform the Work Group of current CTC
activities and permit discussion of issues requiring this special group's guidance. The
Work Group provides valuable input to help the CTC most efficiently meet the needs of
State and local agencies.

3. The CTC Co-chairs. The Co-chairs, representing OAQPS and ORD, manage the CTC’s
day-to-day operation. They, or their designees, are the Client's first contact with the CTC.
via the HOTLINE. The Co-chairs’ basic functions are to:

a. Work with the managers in their respective organizations to select technical
personnel best qualified to respond to each request.

b. Track the status of each project in their respective organizations and inform the SC of
each project's progress.

c. Work with technical personnel to ensure that each project is within the CTC’s
technical, budgeting, and scheduling guidelines.

4. CTC Program Staff. The CTC program staff supports the goals of the CTC and provides
administrative and technical assistance to the Co-chairs. This support includes (but is
Not limited to) HOTLINE coverage, data base management, and technical analysis within
the staff's respective areas of expertise.

2.1


Section Page
6.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER DOCUMENTS............00 00004 6.1
64 CTC DOCUMENT REQUESTS... 0... eee ee ee ee 6.1

6.2 DOCUMENT MAILING GUIDELINES... 1... ee ee ee ee ee 6.5

7.0 EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS... 1. es 7.4
8.0 ABBREVIATIONS .. 0... ee ee eed 8.1
9.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT SUMMARIES. ...........-- 9.1
9.1 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS. ..... § 9.2

9.1.1 Completed Projects. 2... ke ee ee 9.2

9.1.2 Current Projects... 2... . ee ee eee 9.9

9.2 SUMMARIES OF COMPLETED PROJECTS. ...........00 0005 9.12

10.0 ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS... ..... 2.0.0.0. 0 0 eee 10.1
10.1. EXPERT LIST SORTED ALPHABETICALLY BY LASTNAME........ 10.2

10.2 EXPERT LIST SORTED ALPHABETICALLY BY EXPERTISE........ 10.29

10.3 ASSOCIATE HOTLINES AND CLEARINGHOUSES............. 10.52

‘ 10.4 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS. .............-0--0005 10.53

10.5 ADVISORY WORK GROUP MEMBERS...........-00000 008 10.54

10.6 STAPPA/ALAPCO AIR TOXICS SUB-COMMITTEE. ...........- 10.55
APPENDIXA BULLETINBOARD SYSTEM. .........0.. 0.0.0 e eee renee A-1
APPENDIX B RACT/BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE. ............2.0000008 B-1


Upon completion of the HOTLINE form, the HOTLINE designee:

a. Forwards the top (white) copy to the respective OAQPS or AEERL Co-chair for CTC
records and tracking

b. Forwards the “goldenrod" copy to the assignee’s supervisor, if requested

c. Forwards or hand-carries the yellow and pink copies to the assignee for immediate
response

If the assignee is not in the immediate area, the HOTLINE designee contacts him/her
with the client's name and telephone number and a summary of the request. The
assignee uses that information to respond to the request immediately. The designee
then forwards the HOTLINE form to the assignee for completion.

The HOTLINE designee refers calls concerning the Reasonably Available Control
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse or RACT/BACT/LAER Information System (BLIS) to
Joe Steigerwald, (919) 541-2736. The HOTLINE designee sends the CTC HOTLINE
form to Joe Steigerwald or his designee for resolution.

5.11


Colorado Weighted Carbon Monoxide Emission Correlation for Woodstoves

The CTC assisted the State of Colorado in expanding EPA's certified stove data base to
calculate Colorado weighted particulate and carbon monoxide (CO) averages. The project's objective
was to investigate and clarify possible relationships between the emissions of particulate matter (PM)
and CO for residential wood burning appliances. The more specific goal of the study was to
determine if applicants certified under the EPA 1990 Phase II PM standard could also meet the
Colorado Phase II CO standard. The CTC accomplished these objectives by compiling a data base
of woodstoves meeting the EPA 1990 standard, listing the EPA weighted PM, and calculating
Colorado weighted CO emission averages.

The CTC used 19 woodstove reports containing measured emissions passing EPA’s 1990
standard. The reports also contained sufficient CO emission data to achieve the study's objectives.
The woodstoves included in the reports consisted of 6 stoves equipped with catalysts and 13 for non-
catalytic units.

The CTC produced a table listing the catalytic woodstoves with the corresponding weighted
average PM and CO emissions. The study also produced a graph plotting the Colorado weighted CO
emissions against the EPA- weighted PM emissions. No relationship appeared between emissions of
CO and PM. However, all of the catalytic units which passed EPA's 1990 PM standard would also
meet the Colorado CO limit. Another table depicts non-catalytic woodstoves, which produce
significantly higher CO emissions than the catalytic units. Only three of the non-catalytic stoves,
those with EPA PM emissions below about 3.6 g/hr, would meet the Colorado CO standard.

The study also generated a graph plotting Colorado weighted CO emissions against the EPA
weighted PM emissions. A correlation was evident between emissions of CO and PM for the non-
catalytic stoves. Carbon monoxide emissions generally increased with rising PM emissions up to a
maximum of about 300 g/hr for CO at a PM level of about 6 g/hr. The CO emissions then appear to
decline with further increases in PM emissions, possibly because of a relationship between burn rate
and PM emissions. Increased PM emissions may correspond to increased bum rates for the non-
catalytic appliances. The higher firebox temperatures associated with higher burn rates generally
lead to more efficient incineration of CO.

The CTC woodstove study resulted in a listing of residential woodstoves certified by the EPA

as of November 8, 1989. The effort also produced Lotus worksheets to serve as working tables for
catalytic and non-catalytic stoves.

9.19


“Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment Operations” (EPA-450/3-89-028,
PB89-224799)

The Virginia Air Pollution Control Board requested information from the CTC about odor and
potential air toxics control at creosote wood treatment facilities. The EPA's Emission Standards
Division conducted an engineering evaluation of the wood preserving process for the CTC. Two
wood treatment plants were visited and their methods of creosote wood treatment compared. The
CTC then presented a report that discusses the history of the wood preserving industry, various wood
Preserving techniques and the air emissions associated with them.

Wood preservation involves pressure or thermal impregnation of chemicals into wood,
enabling the wood to resist attack by fungi, insects, and marine borers. Preservation extends the
service life of timber, conserving forestry resources, reducing operating costs for industries that use
timber such as utilities and railroads, and ensuring stronger and safer support structures. Wood
preservatives used in the U.S. primarily include pentachlorophenol; creosote; and aqueous
formulations of arsenic, copper, chromium, or ammonia. These chemicals prevent the attack of living
organisms on the wood. Their use, however, must be carefully controlled because these chemicals
are also toxic to humans and aquatic organisms.

The CTC document discusses each preservative and the different processes used to treat
various wood products concentrating on the use of creosote for the treatment of railroad crossties.
The report also focuses on the emission sources associated with the release of odor and air toxics
and the technologies currently used to control them.

9.28


United States
Environmental Protection

Agency Control Technology Center

& EPA

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL

control technology center

ae ae


The quarterly Control Technology Center News includes timely information on BLIS and
New Source Review issues. The CTC News also addresses a wide range of emission and
control technology issues.

EPA CONTACT:

Joe Steigerwald (919) 541-2736
(FTS) 629-2736

B-2


Section

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION. 2... ee et eee 11
141 BACKGROUND. 1.0... ee ees 11
1.2 FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION... 0.1 ee 1.3
1.3 ASSISTANCE PROVIDED. 2.1... ce ce ee ee 1.5
THE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER ORGANIZATION, .........-004 21
CTC ORGANIZATIONAL PROTOCOL AND OPERATING PROCEDURES...... 3.1
3.1 GENERAL OPERATING PROTOCOL... 1.1... 0.0.0. ee eee eee 3.1
3.2 CTC PROJECT APPROVAL AND SELECTION GUIDELINES......... 3.2
3.3 PROJECT FUNDING. 2... ee ee 3.4
3.4 PROJECT LEADERS AND TEAMS............--...00000- 3.5
3.4.1 CTC Co-chairs... ee eee 3.5
3.4.2 AP-42 Interface... ee ee 3.5
3.5 PROJECT TRACKING. 2... ee ee ee ee 36
3.5.1 Project Tracking Form. 2... ee ee 3.6
3.6 INFORMATION TRANSFER POLICY... 0.0.0.0... 00002 eee 39
REPORT PREPARATION. 2.0... 21. ee ee ene 41
41 REPORT FORMAT. 1... 1... ee ee ee 41
42 REPORT PROCESSING... 0... ee eee 47
4.2.1 Report Processing With AEERL Lead... ...........220. 48
4.2.2 Report Processing with OAQPS Lead. ............-005 4.41
GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS
FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE... 1 ee ee eee 5.1
5.1 THE CTC HOTLINE. 2... ee eee 5.2
5.2 GUIDELINES FOR HOTLINE COVERAGE................004 5.4
5.3 GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING CTC HOTLINE FORMS. ......... 55


Contractor OAQPS AEERL
1 2(a) 2(b)
Draft Report Project Leader —_ Team Member
4 ay
f | Evaluate
Revise - Comments
5 ! 6(a) 6(b)
Prepare Technical & a— we Peer, Policy, &
Second Draft >| Policy Review Editorial Review
8 7 t
Revise | Evaluate
* Comments
7A ' 7.2
Major Comments Lg»! Team Member
Not Incorporated Review
| 7.3
CTC Steering
Committee
9 10 11 (a)
Prepare Final Technical Co-chair
Final Report [— | Pelion Rowen’ r—"_— Concurrence *
& Approval

2 Y

14 (b) |

Division Director's
Signature

Lab Director's |
Concurrence

13 {

Issue Report

*Completion_ of CTC project assignment

**Applies to Technical

‘eports only

Figure 4-7 Sequence of Events in Completing CTC Projects for OAQPS

412


“Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing”
(EPA-450/3-88-009, PB89-148282)

This document provides technical information that State and local agencies may use to
develop strategies for reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from automobile
refinishing operations.

Automobile refinishing operations may be categorized into four process steps. These steps
are vehicle preparation, primer application, topcoat application, and spray equipment cleanup.
Emissions of VOCs are the result of organic solvent evaporation during vehicle preparation and
equipment cleanup, and during and shortly after the application of primers and topcoats.

Emission reduction techniques that were selected for evaluation include the use of alternative
coatings, spray equipment with improved transfer efficiency, and the installation of solvent recovery
spray equipment cleaning systems. In estimating VOC emissions, VOC emission reductions, and
costs of emission reductions, assumptions were made on the types of coatings used and equipment
available for small, medium, and high volume facilities.

The results of the study indicate that several control options result in no additional cost to
implement and, in fact, result in a cost savings. For small, medium, and high volume facilities,
significant VOC reductions (30 to 50 percent) can be achieved by replacing conventional air-
atomizing spray guns with high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray equipment. A cost savings is
expected from this control technique because of the higher transfer efficiency (about 65 percent for
HVLP vs. about 35 percent for conventional air-atomizing spray equipment). Some problems with
color matching topcoats have been reported. However, some users are reporting acceptable color
matching results and have indicated that experience using the equipment is necessary to achieve
good results.

For all facilities, significant VOC emission reductions can be achieved by using a solvent
recovery system to clean up paint spray equipment. This control technique also results in a savings
because solvent usage is reduced.

The remaining alternative controls involve switching from conventional coatings to lower-VOC
Coatings (e.g., urethanes) and, with a few exceptions, result in some additional cost. One exception
is for facilities that use lacquers, where switching from lacquers to acrylic enamels is expected to
result in a 45 percent emission reduction, as well as cost savings. The cost savings are a result of
the lower cost of materials which offsets the capital cost (annualized over 10 yr) for installing a spray
booth. Also, for all types of facilities, switching from conventional primers to waterborne primers is
expected to result ina VOC emission reduction at no additional cost.

{f multiple alternatives are implemented, the emission reduction achieved will not necessarily
be the sum of the individual emission reductions indicated above. Since all the emission reductions
are calculated from the baseline condition, once an alternative is implemented, subsequent
implementation of other alternatives may have a different effect. Nonetheless, implementation of
multiple controls will have a positive impact on VOC emission reduction.

9.35


“Guidelines for Stack Testing at Municipal Waste Facilities" (EPA-600/8-88-085, PB88-234893)

This CTC report presents the results of a project conducted by Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the CTC to develop nationally acceptable
guidelines for stack testing at municipal waste combustion (MWC) facilities. A major objective of the
project was to specify a set of "core" measurement procedures that could be applied consistently to
MWC facility testing by the various federal, State, and local jurisdictions.

The document focuses on compliance testing, although recommendations on performance
testing and research and development testing are also presented.

Compliance Testing—The objective of compliance testing is to determine if an MWC facility is
operating within the limits imposed by regulations and those specified in its operating permit. On the
basis of its understanding of current federal and State permit requirements, the NESCAUM work
group determined the parameters that are likely to be measured during compliance tests. Numerical
limits on emissions of the pollutants vary on a case-by-case basis.

The recommended measurement method for each parameter is described and referenced to
an existing EPA method already in widespread use. The recommended method is supplemented by
additional information on critical test features, quality assurance/quality control procedures, and data
quality objectives. Other concerns that the Guidelines address include data quality criteria, facility
operating conditions during testing, and testing muttiple unit facilities.

Performance Testing—The objective of performance testing is to determine if a facility is
operating in accordance with its design specifications. Thus, while compliance testing usually
involves sampling of the final stack effluent, performance testing may also require sampling both
upstream and downstream of air pollution control devices. The testing may include any of the
parameters listed under compliance testing as well as comparisons of control device efficiency and
specific organic or inorganic chemicals. There are no test methods specific for performance testing.

Research and Development Testing—The NESCAUM work group recommends that
additional research and development stack testing be performed to develop, improve, and expand
data bases. It also recommends that stack tests be performed to assess the effects of controllable
combustion parameters on emissions of specific pollutions. In addition, the work group suggests
more research to test hypotheses concerning the formation of polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and
polychlorinated dibenzofuran and evaluate new combustor technologies and new or improved
sampling and analysis methodologies. The work group's recommendations on reporting formats
concern facility operating status, combustion process data, pollutant emission data, conversion
factors, reporting other data, and reporting “not detected” values. The NESCAUM work group based
its recommendations on testing conditions common in 1987 and 1988.

9.30


3.3 PROJECT FUNDING

The following are the SC's and Co-chair's guidelines for approving CTC projects and
additional funding:

1. The CTC Co-chairs may approve projects costing $10,000 or less without consulting the
SC. Either a team or an individual may conduct Co-chair approved projects at the Co-
Chairs’ discretion.

2. The Co-chairs may approve up to $2,000 in additional funding for projects originally
funded at $10,000 or less. The SC may approve funding overruns causing a project
originally funded at $10,000 or less to exceed a total cost of $12,000.

3. The SC approves projects initially requiring more than $10,000 of CTC funding.

4. The Co-chairs may approve additional project costs of up to 20 percent of a project's

original funding. The SC concurs on all cost overruns exceeding 20 percent of the
original project funding.

3.4


Table 8-2 State and U.S. Territorial Abbreviations

AL ALABAMA

AK ALASKA

AZ ARIZONA

AR ARKANSAS

CA CALIFORNIA

CZ CANAL ZONE

co COLORADO

CT CONNECTICUT
DE DELAWARE

DC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FL FLORIDA

GA GEORGIA

GU GUAM

HI HAWAII

ID IDAHO

IL ILLINOIS

IN INDIANA

IA IOWA

KS KANSAS

KY KENTUCKY

LA LOUISIANA

ME MAINE

MD MARYLAND

MA MASSACHUSETTS
MI MICHIGAN

MN MINNESOTA

MS MISSISSIPPI

MO MISSOURI

MT MONTANA

NE NEBRASKA

NV NEVADA

NH NEW HAMPSHIRE
NJ NEW JERSEY

NM NEW MEXICO

NY NEW YORK

NC NORTH CAROLINA
ND NORTH DAKOTA
OH OHIO

OK OKLAHOMA

OR OREGON

PA PENNSYLVANIA
PR PUERTO RICO

RI RHODE ISLAND
sc SOUTH CAROLINA
SD SOUTH DAKOTA
TN TENNESSEE

TTM TEXAS

UT UTAH

VT VERMONT
(Continued)

8.3


10.0 ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS
This section contains the names and pertinent information on CTC participants and contributing agencies.

Several tables are provided for reference by HOTLINE designees, Steering Committee (SC) members and others
requiring information on CTC contacts.

10.1


“Control Technology Assessment for Air Emissions from a Wastewater Treatment Operation"
(EPA-450/3-89-008, PB89-207922)

The West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission requested an evaluation of a wastewater
treatment system at a chemical company which manufactures C1-chlorinated solvents such as
methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform. The wastewater generated at the plant is
treated in organics/solids decanters, and a steam stripper is used to recover volatile organics before
discharge. The operations cause significant air emissions with high concentrations of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs).

The CTC project team visited the plant to evaluate its controls and identify and evaluate other
options available to control the plant's emissions of VOCs. Other field data gathered previously were
used to estimate the total annual emissions of VOCs and the maximum rate of emissions caused by
the operation. Control options evaluated were condensation of organics in a refrigeration system,
carbon adsorption, and a combination of the two control techniques.

The wastewater at the chemical plant consisted of equipment wash water and rainfall from
diked areas around the plant. The wastewater was kept in storage until the storage tanks were
sufficiently full to operate the steam stripper, which ran about 75 percent of the time. When the steam
stripper was started it operated continuously until all of the wastewater in storage was steam stripped.
Secondary vent condenser outlets and conservation vents on decanter and feedwater storage tanks
opened whenever liquid was pumped into the tanks. The vents were found to be the primary VOC air
emission points at the facility.

Analysis of the operation’s duct system revealed that connecting the feedwater tank
headspace to the decanter tank headspace by a duct would allow displaced vapors to enter the
decanter tank during the liquid pumping process. The duct would be large enough to handle the flow
rate with a minimal pressure drop preventing the need to open the conservation vent. This
inexpensive rearrangement of the duct system would reduce VOC emissions from the feedwater
storage tank and therefore the total VOC load on a control system.

A forced drive could also be implemented downsteam of the control system with a fan that
turned on automatically when the steam stripper started up. The system would prevent pressure
buildup in the decanter and feedwater tanks during filling operations and subsequent opening of the
conservation vents. Installation of traps on the decanter tank overflow plumbing was also identified
as an effective measure to stop discharge of vent gases for a proper vent control system.

Evaluation of control alternatives for the wastewater treatment facility revealed that use of a
secondary vent condenser with refrigerated glyco! cooling followed by carbon adsorption offered the
lowest cost for high organics removal efficiency. An impact analysis was provided to the State of
Virginia.

9.21


5.3 GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING CTC HOTLINE FORMS

The CTC HOTLINE form is crucial to the program's administration. The form is typically a
record of the CTC’s first contact with a client. It provides computer tracking data so the CTC may
ensure that each request receives a satisfactory response. The HOTLINE form records requestor
contact and mailing information for any necessary follow-up and mailing list maintenance. The CTC.
also uses data from the form for geographical and other analysis of the sources of HOTLINE calls. In
addition, the HOTLINE form abstracts the request and provides data for tracking the subjects of calls.
Those data enable the Steering Committee to identify areas of widespread concern when choosing
projects to sponsor. The forms also provide data for management staff to identify personnel
responding to CTC calls and how much time they are consuming with HOTLINE requests. Therefore,
accurate completion of the HOTLINE form is essential. Figure 5-1 is a sample HOTLINE form. The
following steps provide guidelines for the HOTLINE designee and assignee for completing and
distributing the HOTLINE form.

1. The HOTLINE designee completes a HOTLINE form for each call requesting CTC.
assistance, except for document requests. He/she uses a "CTC Report Ordering Form"
for each CTC document request. Section 6 provides guidelines for completing Report
Ordering Forms and distributing documents.

2. CTC clients include the staffs of State, local, and federal agencies, and private industry
to the extent outlined in Section 1.

3. The HOTLINE designee completes the top portion of HOTLINE form ("Date” through
Assignee/Completed By"). The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the call
and summarize the request.

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are process and pollutant codes for HOTLINE request data entry.
HOTLINE designees may refer to the tables for standard language in completing the
HOTLINE form.

4. The designee selects the expert (assignee) who appears best qualified to respond to the
request. Section 10 provides a list of ESD, AEERL, and identified State and Regional
experts.

a. When possible, the designee contacts the assignee before directing a request to
him/her.

b. When an expert is unavailable or the request is outside the scope of the CTC, the
HOTLINE designee may refer the requestor to one of the associate hotlines and
clearinghouses identified in Table 10-3. “Accessing EPA Clearinghouses and
Hotlines," EPA/IMSD-90-009, August 1990, may also be consulted. The designee
completes the HOTLINE form indicating to whom the call was redirected, the date,
and the time consumed. The HOTLINE designee indicates himself/herself as the
assignee.

c. The HOTLINE designee directs calls from non-CTC clients to the appropriate
organization.

5. Whena HOTLINE designee directs a call to an associate organization, he/she identifies
that organization in the form's response section. The designee enters his/her own name
as the assignee and completes the "Date of Response” and "Time Consumed” portions
of the HOTLINE form.

5.5


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2 %

= z OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(SZ 2 AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
oe RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711

Dear CTC Subscriber:
The Control Technology Center (CTC) is happy to provide the document(s) you requested.

The CTC was established by the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to State and
Local Air Pollution Control Agencies and the EPA Regional Offices. The CTC's assistance is
available ONLY to State and Local Agency and Regional Office personnel and provides control
technology assistance for all air pollutants and contro! activities. If you have a need for control
technology assistance or questions about the CTC, please call the HOTLINE at (919) 541-0800
or FTS 629-0800. The attachments further describe the CTC and its projects.

If additional copies of the document are needed for State and Local Agency or Regional
Office personnel, you may contact me at (919) 541-7633 or FTS 629-7633 or Mail-Drop 61
at the above address.
Sincerely,

Charts N. eunty

Charles H. Darvin, Co-Chair
Control Technology Center

Attachments

CHD:ssm

Figure 6-3 Cover Letter for CTC Documents

6.6-


AEERL
Air RISC
APTI

ALAPCO

AP-42

BACT
CERI
cTc
CTG
LAER
NATICH

NESHAP

NSPS
NSR
OAQPS
ORD
PSD

RACT
SARA Ill

STAPPA

WA

Table 8-1 Program Abbreviations
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Air Risk Information Support Center
Air Pollution Training Institute

Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials

EPA Publication AP-42,
"Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors”

Best Available Control Technology

Center for Environmental Research Information
Control Technology Center

Control Techniques Guidelines

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants

New Source Performance Standards

New Source Review

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Research and Development

Prevention of Significant Air Quality
Deterioration

Reasonably Available Control Technology
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators

Work Assignment

8.2°


7.0 EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

Figures 7-1 and 7-2 are charts of the CTC’s two lead organizations, the Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS). These charts provide information on the organizations’ structures and division, branch,
and section (where applicable) functions.

71


Estimate of Excess Benzene Emissions from Equipment Leaks

The CTC provided technical assistance to EPA Region 3 in estimating excess emissions from
equipment leaks at a Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Philadelphia refinery. Region 3 was providing the estimate
for a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. had filed
the action against Chevron U.S.A., Inc. claiming that the refinery had failed to implement an
equipment leak detection program resulting in emissions of benzene into the environment.

Excess benzene emissions are not explicitly defined in the “National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants,” nor are they discussed in the notices of proposal or promulgation
published in the “Federal Register." For the purposes of this evaluation, excess emissions were
viewed as those emissions associated with components that continue to leak beyond the allowable
15-day period for repair of the equipment, and for which sufficient documentation for delay of repair
has not been provided. Emission estimates were developed for those pieces of equipment for which
repair was delayed, but for which documentation was unavailable or inadequate to justify delay of
repair.

9.24


"Powder Coatings Technolog. Update" (EPA-450/3-89-033, PB90-127341)

The CTC provided a report summarizing the status of powder coating technology. Industries
are using powder coating at an increasing frequency because of environmental concerns associated
with solvent-based coatings, which cause volatile organic compound emissions. Recent
improvements in powder coating technology have also contributed to the growing trend toward this
coating method. The application of powder coatings, which are dry, finely divided particles, causes
no release of volatile organic compounds. And the curing process associated with powder coating
produces only minute amounts of volatile organic compounds. Air pollution control agencies are
encouraging industrial finishing operations to use powder coatings as a means of reducing volatile
organic compound emissions.

The CTC report on powder coating technology provides information on the performance,
applicability, costs, and availability of powder coatings to assist State and local agencies in evaluating
powder coating as an air pollution control technology. The CTC based its report on literature
searches, contacts with several State and local air pollution control agencies, and written survey
questionnaires to powder coating manufactures, users, and equipment suppliers. The report provides
a brief history of powder coatings, the different classes of available powder coatings, and recently
developed powder resins. The document also discusses the types of equipment required for a
powder coating line and the types of products that are typically powder coated. And finally, the report
presents the economic advantages of this technology and a cost comparison between powder and
liquid coatings.

9.34


6.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER DOCUMENTS

In addition to immediate technical assistance the Control Technology Center (CTC) provides
CTC-generated reports to its clients. Document distribution is another type of technology transfer and
one of the Center's chief functions. CTC reports give clients definitive summaries and permanent
references in many areas of control technology. Therefore, the CTC ensures quick and efficient
responses to document requests just as it does for HOTLINE calls. The following section outlines
procedures for recording document requests and preparing reports for mailing.

6.1 CTC DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Figure 6-1 is a sample of the CTC Report Request Form. The form includes CTC reports
completed within the past year as well as frequently requested older reports. Figure 6-2 is a
complete List of CTC Publications. Key words in report titles on both forms appear in bold letters to
help identify reports when requestors do not know their complete titles. CTC staff members follow the
guidelines below when responding to the request for CTC documents and completing the request
form.

1. Complete the form entirely including the date and the requestor’s name, mailing
address, affiliation, and telephone number.

2. Check the space beside the requested document. Write the reference number for
documents not included on the form (as shown on the Complete List of CTC
Publications, Figure 6-2) at the bottom of the form in the space marked "other."

3. CTC Co-chairs may authorize compliance with requests for more than three different
documents or for more than one copy of the same document.

4. Refer requests for documents from private industry to the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS). The telephone number for NTIS is (703) 487-4650. In extreme
circumstances such requests are brought to the attention of the CTC Co-chairs for
resolution.

6.1


CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL

by
Beth Crabtree
Acurex Corporation
4915 Prospectus Drive
Durham, NC 27713

EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0141

Prepared for:
Control Technology Center

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

August 1991


L

c TC BBS = MAIN MENU

SYSOP - Joe Steigerwald (919)

e* c T C UTILITIES RK

<W>elcome to the CTC
<R>ead CTC Alerts
<R>egister for CTC Mail

<-> Return to Top Menu
<G>oodbye

** DOCUMENTS / SOFTWARE **

<O>rdering Documents
<D>ownloading CTC Software
<S> Review Document Summary

Rk Cc T C PROJECTS ek

<L>ist CTC Ongoing Projects

<F> Review List of
Suggested Projects

<A>dd to List of Suggested
Projects

ek HELP CENTER wen **

<P>ublic Messages Bt

<E>lectronic Mail

<B> Leave CTC HOTLINE~.,
Request ara)

541-2736

Command:

Figure A-2 The Main CTC BBS Menu Screen

A-4


9.2 SUMMARIES OF COMPLETED PROJECTS

“Affordability Analysis of Lead Emission Controls for a Smelter-Refinery" (EPA/450/3-90-001,
PB90-120122)

The CTC responded to a request by the EPA’s Region 7 to evaluate the affordability and
economic impact of additional control measures for a smelter-refinery to meet the lead emissions
standard. The analysis emphasized the impact of control costs on the smelter-refinery's profitability.
The study incorporated cost data from two lead smelter studies and existing firm and industry data.

The CTC published a report that examines the economic impacts of EPA’s ambient air lead
standard on a primary lead smelter-refinery in Herculaneum, Missouri. The facility is the largest
primary lead producer in the U.S. However, it has been impacted by the decrease in lead
consumption, worldwide overcapacity, low prices and environmental regulations. The decline in lead
consumption is considered to be completed and demand has stabilized. The facility currently
complies with EPA's sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions standard, but faces other environmental, safety,
and health regulations that contribute significantly to control costs. For example, EPA may establish
stricter lead and SO2 standards, and surface impoundment solids at lead smelters may be regulated
as hazardous waste under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act.

The CTC report presents two alternative estimates of the cost of controls for Herculaneum to
comply with the current lead emissions standard. The two compliance cost estimates examined
varied greatly. Although, the facility could afford either option, the higher cost would impact the
plant's earnings significantly. Additional research may be necessary for a more definitive estimate of
compliance costs.

9.12


8.0 ABBREVIATIONS
Table 8-1 provides abbreviations commonly used by Control Technology Center (CTC) staff

and others conducting CTC business. CTC staff may refer to Table 8-2 for two-letter State and U.S.
Territorial codes when completing CTC HOTLINE and Report Ordering forms.

8.1


10.5 ADVISORY WORK GROUP MEMBERS

Table 10-5 shows the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of CTC Advisory Work Group
members.

Table 10-5 Advisory Work Group Members

Jeff Cooper, Air Pollution Control Analyst, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422, (513) 225-3486

John Glunn, Department of Environment Regulation, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32301,
(904) 488-1344

Loyd Gravitt, Chattanooga-Hamilton County, Air Pollution Control Bureau, 3511 Rossville Boulevard,
Chattanooga, TN 37407, (615) 867-4321

JoAnn Held, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Environmental Quality, CN027,
Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 633-1108

Gregg Lande, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW 6th Ave., Portland, OR
97204-1390, (503) 229-6411

Robert Sears, Air Quality, B-23, 26 Castilian Drive, Goleta, CA 93117, (805) 961-8800

10.57


4.2.1 REPORT PROCESSING WITH AEERL LEAD

Because of the specific nature of engineering assistance projects, the SC may determine that
a formal report is not required. Project leaders from AEERL may refer to the sequence of events,
depicted in Figure 4-6, in completing CTC projects. That sequence is described as follows:

1.

2.

The contractor prepares a draft report and sends it to the project leader.

(a) When the project leader receives the draft report from the contractor, he/she
immediately sends copies to the team members. The project leader ensures that team
members have sufficient time to review the report. The project leader may stipulate in
the work assignment that the contractor send a report directly to the team members.

After the project leader has reviewed the report, the contractor makes any needed
changes. When the changes are complete, the project leader submits the report to
AEERL for peer, policy, and editorial review. Team members from AEERL or OAQPS
may serve as peer reviewers.

The CTC monthly project status report notifies the CTC SC when a draft report is
available for review. The project leader cooperates fully with SC members who ask to
review a report or portion of a report. He/she provides a deadline for comments to team
members and others who review a document.

The project leader drafts a trip report for any project involving assessment of a facility
(e.g., a plant visit to collect engineering data). He/she sends the plant copies of the trip
report for review. The project leader follows established EPA Confidential Business
Information (CBI) procedures for any information that a source designates as CBI. The
project may leader contact a CTC Co-chairs for EPA’s CBI procedures.

(b) AEERL’s peer, policy, and editorial reviewers send all comments to the project
leader.

The project leader evaluates the comments and notifies the contractor of changes.
The contractor revises the report.
The contractor sends the second draft report to the project leader.

(a) The project leader reviews the second draft report to ensure that all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed.

(b) The project leader sends the second draft report to the team members providing
them with a deadline for submitting any additional comments. The team members
ensur: that all major technical and policy concerns have been addressed. Team
members notify the project leader in writing of any additional changes. ‘Project leaders
and team members send copies of all correspondence involving report processing to the
CTC Co-chairs. The CTC Co-chairs work with team members and their management
chains to resolve any outstanding issues before report publication.

After the deadline for comments, the project leader ensures that all issues have been
addressed. He/she, then, submits the report for administrative and editorial review.

Following administrative and editorial approval, the contractor revises the report for
printing.

4.8


EPA-600/8-90-085a
December 1990

LANDFILL AIR EMISSIONS ESTIMATION MODEL
USER'S MANUAL

by:

W. Richard Pett Il
Robert L Bass
Irene R. Kuo
A. L Blackard
Radian Corporation
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

EPA Contract 68-02-4286
Work Assignment 48
Project Officer:
Susan A. Thomeloe
Alr and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460

Figure 4-3. Sample Standard ORD Title Page

44


CONTROL B

TECHNOLOGY I

CENTER

C TC HOTLINE - (919) 541-0800

-Press Any Key-

Figure A-1 The CTC BBS Welcome Screen

A-3


4. Ordering a literature search from the EPA library (the responder may call the librarian at
extension 2777)

5 Consulting the CTC Co-chair for help in determining what constitutes a reasonable and
appropriate response (the Co-chair may also provide referrals to other groups or
individuals for assistance)

An AEERL or ESD staff member should contact his/her supervisor or the CTC Co-chair if
he/she is unsure as to how much effort is appropriate in responding to a HOTLINE request. Ai/
requests for CTC assistance should be documented. A HOTLINE form should be completed
immediately when assistance is provided. Section 5.3 provides detailed instructions on completing
the CTC HOTLINE form.

5.3


concern as to their VO emissions. The document included design and operating data, as well as
discussion on removal efficiency and applicable control systems. The report estimated capital and
operating costs using actual facility data and standard EPA costing procedures. (James Durham,
919-541-5672)

(4) "Guidelines for Stack Testing at Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities"
(EPA-600/8-88-085, PB88-234893)

In a joint effort with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),
the CTC developed an interim protocol for sampling of municipal waste combustors. A work group
was formed from EPA, State and local agencies, industry, and contractors to develop the protocol.
The report documents their consensus on which sampling methods should be used. (Larry Johnson,
919-541-7943)

(11) "Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
(EPA-600/2-90-019, PB90-216532)

The CTC conducted a project to define the nature and scope of VOC emissions, particularly
styrene, from the manufacture of fiberglass marine structures. This report includes a characterization
of the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry, an estimation of VOC emissions on a “per plant" and
national basis, speciation of emissions, and identification of potential control options. (Chuck Darvin,
919-541-7633)

(12) “Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) Version 2.0 Users’ Manual"
(EPA-450/4-90-019a), “Background Document for Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS)
Version 2.0" (EPA-450/4-90-019b, PB91-506998)

A number of State and local agencies have requested improvements to the SIMS software.
The original model was produced for State and local agencies to use in preparing volatile organic
compound and toxic emissions inventories. (David Misenheimer, 919-541-5473)

(13) “Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Sources—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants”
(EPA-600/2-90-024, PB90-242314)

At the request of Region 8 the CTC prepared a comprehensive set of criteria and toxic
pollutant emission factors for integrated iron and steel plants and specialty electric arc shops. The
document identifies emission factors for process sources, and process fugitive and open source
fugitive emissions. The report also presents the range of values for each emission factor and the
recommended best value with its rating. (Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733)

(14) "Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires”
(EPA-600/2-89-054, PB90-116955)

In response to a number of HOTLINE requests, the CTC conducted experiments simulating
open-air burning of scrap tires. Tire combustion produces various hydrocarbons, including significant
amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are known carcinogens. The report
provides estimates of emissions comparing burn rates of two sizes of tire samples. (Paul Lemieux,
919-541-0962)

(15) “Ultrasonic Cleaning of Rotogravure Cylinders” (EPA-450/3-89-024,
PB89-216360)

The CTC prepared a report documenting VOC reductions, waste minimization, and other
potential benefits of ultrasonic cleaning of printing equipment. Ultrasonic cleaning may reduce the

9.4


“Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Sources—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants” (EPA-600/2-90-024,
PB90-242314)

In response to a request by EPA's Region 8, the CTC conducted a study to acquire a
comprehensive set of emission factors for sources of both criteria and toxic air pollutants in integrated
iron and steel plants and specialty electric arc shops. The study identified emission factors for
Process sources, process fugitive, and open source fugitive emissions. The CTC identified the
literature source for each emission factor, the range of values found, and the recommended best
value with its rating.

The study resulted in a recommendation to use published emission factors whenever
possible. When published emission factors are not available, the study recommended using the
emission factors developed for the 1985 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program emissions
inventory. The literature search conducted in the study also discovered older studies conducted
primarily on uncontrolled sources.

The CTC study found only limited information on toxic air pollutant emission factors. The
report suggested the toxic air pollutant emission factors reported in the "Toxic Air Pollutant Emission
Factors—A Compilation for Selected Air Toxic Compounds and Sources” (EPA-450/2-90-011,
PB90-126003) despite the limitations of that study. The CTC report concluded that additional work on
quantifying the emissions of toxic air pollutants from the iron and steel industry would be helpful.

9.22


10.

11.

12.

13.

When the contractor has prepared the final report, the project leader consults the
AEERL Co-chair to determine the number of copies to be printed. The project leader
sends the AEERL Co-chair a photo-reproducible master of the report, and authorizes
printing only with Co-chair approval.

The Co-chairs distribute copies of the report to the SC members for final technical and
policy review.

(a) The AEERL Co-chair sends copies of each technical guidance project report to
the OAQPS Co-chair for concurrence and distribution to the ESD director.

(b) The ESD director concurs on the report.
The AEERL Co-chair submits the report to the laboratory director for signature.

The CTC issues the report. The AEERL director has authorized printing of up to 150
copies of AEERL-generated CTC reports.

4.10


“Ultrasonic Cleaning of Rotogravure Cylinders” (EPA-450/3-89-024, PB89-216360)

The CTC conducted a technical guidance project to produce a document on the general
applicability of aqueous ultrasonic cleaning in the rotogravure printing process and other graphic arts
processes, and to identify the benefits and costs of ultrasonic cleaning. Ultrasonic cleaning of
equipment used in these industries may reduce organic solvent use, volatile organic compound
{VOC) emissions and solvent waste generation.

Ultrasonic cleaning employs the scrubbing action created by the passage of ultrasonic waves
through a liquid cleaning medium. The method may be used by other industries to clean a wide
variety of parts, assemblies, and finished goods. The benefits of this process include high speed
cleaning and a high level of cleanliness. Also, aqueous-based cleaning liquids eliminate the emission
of VOCs from cylinder cleaning and reduce the problems associated with the handling of hazardous
wastes.

Aqueous ultrasonic cleaning may be applicable to all rotogravure printing operations which
reuse cylinders such as the flexible packaging industry, vinyl printing, wallpaper printing, and other
printing operations. The CTC report provides a list of potential applications for several selected
cleaning solutions. The list identifies the solvent/solution and cleaning methods for equipment
consisting of various types of metals. The methods include different combinations of presoaking,
ultrasonic immersion, rinsing, solvent spraying, vapor rinsing, and drying. A combination of aqueous
solution and solvent cleaning is used in some cases. But, the use of solvent-based solutions is less
desirable because of the potential for emissions of VOC and the environmental impact of waste
disposal.

The CTC report on ultrasonic cleaning describes the benefits as well as the disadvantages of
the methods. Besides the reduction in environmental hazards afforded by this process, the method
also reduces worker exposure to solvent, fire hazards in the cleanup area, and the inconvenience of
hazardous waste handling. Also, cylinder cleanup is faster and less labor intensive, and downtime of
the printing run is reduced. The process also improves cleaning effectiveness as well as product
quality. The disadvantage of ultrasonic cleaning is the high initial cost of installing the system.
However, this cost may be somewhat offset by reductions in operating costs caused by the
elimination of the need to purchase solvent. Ultrasonic cleaning methods also eliminate the expense
of handling hazardous waste in facilities using biodegradable detergents and nonhazardous inks.

9.40


3.0 CTC ORGANIZATIONAL PROTOCOL AND OPERATING PROCEDURES

This section defines the guidelines for the Control Technology Center's (CTC’s) operation
and structure. Subsection 3.1 outlines the program's general operating protocol and philosophies.
Succeeding subsections provide operating procedures for adherence to specific guidelines.

3.1 GENERAL OPERATING PROTOCOL

1.

The CTC is a cooperative effort between the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Center
for Environmental Research Institute (CERI) provides technology transfer support in
some cases.

The Steering Committee (SC), comprised of personnel from OAQPS, AEERL, and CERI,
directs the CTC. The SC includes:

a. Six permanent members from ESD including the Co-chair
b. Five permanent members from AEERL including the Co-chair, and
c. One permanent member from CERI.

The SC designates a Co-chair from each organization. The Committee Chair rotates on
a fiscal year basis between OAQPS’ Emissions Standards Division (ESD) and AEERL’s
Global Emissions Control Division (GECD). The lead Co-chair takes on the Chair
position at the beginning of each new fiscal year and serves for one year. The Co-chairs
conduct SC meetings and help implement the SC’s decisions. The Co-chairs also
coordinate CTC work within their respective organizations to ensure the accomplishment
of the CTC’s goals.

The Co-chairs track the status of projects in their respective organizations and ensure
that the projects are within the technical, budgeting, and scheduling guidelines
established by the SC.

The Co-chairs track the funds which OAQPS and AEERL allocate for the CTC budget.
The SC has full responsibility for determining the use of these pooled resources. The
CTC budget does not fund supplies, equipment, or Full-time Equivalent (FTE) salaries.

Any SC member may propose modification of CTC operating procedures at a regularly

scheduled SC meeting. At the next scheduled SC meeting it takes at least a two-thirds
majority of attending members to approve the modification.

3.1


"Emission Factors for Iron Foundries—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants" (EPA-600/2-90-044,
PB90-266743)

lron foundries are potentially significant sources of air pollution in certain areas of the country.
The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau in Tennessee requested CTC
assistance in determining air toxic emission factors for iron foundries. The CTC responded to the
request with a follow-on to a previous report on emission factors for iron and steel manufacturing
facilities. This report is a compilation of current emission factor data that State and local agencies
may use in estimating emissions from iron foundries.

The CTC study sought to provide a comprehensive set of emission factors for sources of
criteria and toxic air pollutants in gray and ductile iron foundries. The Center produced a report
identifying emission factors for process sources, process fugitive, and open source fugitive emissions.
The emission factors are not specific to any one facility.

Studies over the past several years have focused chiefly on emissions of criteria pollutants.
These pollutants include particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic
compounds, and lead. More recent work has focused on air toxic pollutants, which include many
different compounds. The CTC report on iron foundries summarizes the data available for both types
of pollutants, and serves as a guide for estimating the emissions when emission measurements are
not available.

The CTC accomplished its study of emission factors for iron foundries by conducting a
literature search of the library of the U.S. EPA and the American Foundrymen’s Society. The CTC
reviewed publications for information which could be used for developing emission factors for any of
the processes associated with iron foundries. The resulting report presents emission factors in terms
of an average value or range of values as well as a rating of quality or reliability.

9.23


“Evaluation of Potential Emissions of TDI from Two Facilities" (EPA-450/3-87-022, PB88-120845)

Allegheny County Health Department, a local agency in Pennsylvania, was concerned with
plants in its district that stored and used toluene diisocyanate (TDI) in above-ground containers. The
principal concern was the ability of these plants to deal with TDI emissions, which might threaten the
local population. The CTC was asked to assist in verifying the effectiveness of the existing control
systems and techniques. A team of experienced EPA and contractor personnel was assembled to
evaluate the available information, perform site inspections, and provide a report to the local agency.

The CTC report provides a hazard evaluation for the local agency and the findings from the
plant inspections, including recommendations. The section on hazard evaluation provided relevant
information on the physical and chemical properties of TDI, a discussion on the potential for sudden
and accidental releases associated with the use of TDI at these facilities, and specific process
evaluation for these facilities. The section on the facility visits documents the process step operations
and procedures, including observations of how the process operators performed and potential actions
that could contribute to accidental releases or spills.

The document described and discussed the emission control systems (including a concurrent
packed-tower scrubber) in use at these facilities. The recommendations made in the report include:
improve fire protection and contingency plans, provide additional process monitoring and control, and
improve spill procedures. The Allegheny County Health Department found this report helpful both for
the specific facilities evaluated and in its review of similar sources.

9.29


1.2 FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION

Representatives of OAQPS, AEERL, and CERI met in early 1987, to discuss the CTC
concept. They agreed to form a SC to provide direction for the program. The lead organizations
chose SC members from the three groups’ management staffs. The SC-appointed Chair and
Chair-designate positions (referred to as the CTC Co-chairs) rotate annually between AEERL and
OAQPS. The Co-chairs represent OAQPS’ Emission Standards Division (ESD) and the Organics
Control Branch of AEERL'’s Global Emissions and Control Division (GECD). The Co-chairs work with
the staffs of ORD and OAQPS and access contractor support to accomplish the CTC’s goals.

The SC recognized the need for close interaction among the CTC and State and local air
toxics program staffs. So, the CTC established the Advisory Work Group to work with the SC and the
Co-chairs. The Group ensures that the CTC effectively addresses the needs of State and local air
toxics programs. Members of this group include State and local agency personnel and an air
program representative from an EPA Regional Office. Figure 1-1 is a block diagram of the CTC’s
functional structure.

The CTC SC made an early key decision to broaden CTC assistance beyond air toxics
control issues alone. The Center addresses the control of other air pollutants including criteria
pollutants. The SC also realized that air pollution control programs at State and local agencies are
interrelated. These programs wc.ild not limit their requests of the CTC to just topics concerning the
control of air toxics. Thus, the SC opted to be responsive rather than restrictive. The CTC now
addresses all emission and control technology concerns identified by State and local air pollution
agencies. The program includes emission source and control technology assessments associated
with air toxics, particulate matter, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, lead, and
carbon monoxide.

Title III of the CAAA of 1990 requires the CTC to continue its support for State, local, and
Federal air pollution control agencies. Title lil also requires the CTC to provide similar services to
non-governmental agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. Title V of the Act gave special
consideration to small businesses. Thus, the CTC will play a major role in their support. However,
the cost-reimbursable requirements for private industry will not apply to small businesses. In
response to this requirement, the CTC began logging calls from private industry and providing limited
technical services in late 1990. The CTC expects to further expand these activities once it
establishes protocol for private and small business assistance and cost-reimbursement.

Another early key decision regarded funding. Although OAQPS and AEERL provide separate

funding for CTC activities, they decided to pool resources for allocation by the SC. CERI may also
opt to fund CTC projects on a case-by-case basis consistent with its program objectives.

1.3


“Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Waferboard Manufacturing Plant” (EPA-450/3-87-021,
PB88-107735)

The State of Colorado Department of Health had received complaints of eye and lung
irritation from residents near a waferboard manufacturing plant in Olathe, Colorado. The State
requested assistance from the CTC in determining possible emission sources within the plant and
assessing potential controls for those emissions. The results of a plant visit and a review of the plant
operations and test reports are summarized in this report. The State of Colorado has also requested
an investigation by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Several activities were conducted during the course of the investigation. Data gathering
involved collection of test reports, point source discharge (PSD) applications, and other information
on waferboard manufacturing operations. States where waferboard is manufactured were contacted
to establish controls used for various operations. A plant inspection was made to examine operations
first-hand and to verify controls in-place. In addition, the State of Colorado offices were visited to
discuss the extent of complaints, the stack tests conducted, and the results of modeling.

The facility uses methylene diphenylene isocyanate (MDI) as the polymer binder for wood

wafers. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, MDI is a known irritant.
These systems are now enclosed.

9.27


APPENDIX B
RACT/BACT/LAER CLEARINGHOUSE

BACKGROUND

The RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse was established to assist State and local air
pollution control agencies in selecting reasonably available control technology (RACT), best
available control technology (BACT), and the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) controls for
new or modified sources in a nationally consistent manner.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The basic goals of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse are to: (1) provide State and
local air pollution control agencies with current information on case-by-case technology
determinations that are made nationwide, and (2) promote communication, cooperation, and
sharing of control technology information among permitting agencies.

CURRENT STATUS

The RACT/BACT/LAER Information System (BLIS) is user-friendly and available to all
Clearinghouse users who have access to a PC equipped with communication software and a
modem. Menus and help screens allow the user to search, view and print customized BLIS
reports by entering the following command at the"ready” prompt on the National Computer
Center's (NCC) IBM Computer:

EXEC 'CONS.BLIS’

Direct‘commands using the system 2000 language can still be made by selecting the
appropriate menu option.

The 1991 edition of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse publication is a supplement to
the 1990 edition which was a 5 year compilation of data. This edition, "RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations, First Supplement to 1990
Edition" (EPA 450/3-91-015), will be distributed to State and local air pollution control agencies in
August 1991. It includes all determinations entered into the system since June 1990. Earlier
determinations will continue to be available through BLIS and in the 1985 and 1990 compilation
documents. State and local agencies may acquire additional copies free of charge by calling the
Clearinghouse.

A new form for submitting new determinations to the Clearinghouse was introduced in the
July 1990 publication. Information on the number of control options considered and the rank and
cost effectiveness of the option selected has been added along with other minor changes. This
new form should be used to submit new or revised determinations. If you need a copy of the
form, call the Clearinghouse.

Because of changes at the NCC, BLIS must be moved to a new data base management
system by FY93. As a result, the Clearinghouse is implementing a 2-year program to accomplish
this change. Alternative hardware and software options are currently being evaluated and a new
data base management system will be selected by the end of fiscal year 1991. The new system
will be made operational by mid-summer, 1992. These changes provide the opportunity to
imnprove and expand BLIS to better serve our clients. Suggestions and comments for improving
BLIS are welcome. Just call the Clearinghouse.

B-1


“Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) 2.0 Users’ Manual" (EPA-450/4-90-019a)

The CTC updated its software for use by State and local air pollution control agencies in
preparing volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxics emission inventories. Together with the
Technical Support Division of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), the
CTC developed SIMS, a menu-driven personal computer system. State and local agencies may
employ SIMS to estimate emissions of organic compounds from impoundments at hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
industrial wastewater treatment facilities, and other similar operations.

The OAQPS developed a set of emission models for sources including surface
impoundments to estimate VOC emissions based on input parameters such as impoundment type
and dimensions, influent flow rate, and inlet pollutant concentrations. The CTC incorporated these
models into the SIMS software, which includes default values for use by State and local agency
Personnel who may not have information on all of the input parameters required by the models.

The SIMS program applies to flow-through and disposal impoundments and turbulent or
quiescent flow. The program can also account for biodegradation when appropriate. The user must
provide the type of impoundment, whether it is used for biological treatment, and the total flow into the
impoundment. The user must also supply the total surface area of the impoundment and the type of
industries discharging wastewater into the impoundment. The agency using SIMS may supply as
much additional information as is available and use the program's default values as necessary.

impoundments at facilities such as TSDFs, POTWs, and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities may account for a significant amount of the total VOC or air toxic emissions in some areas of
the U.S. SIMS provides State and local air pollution control agencies with a valuable tool in
estimating these emissions. The CTC has expanded the compound data base in SIMS 2.0 and
added models for diffused air systems and systems with an oil film layer for junction boxes, lift
stations, sumps, and weirs. SIMS was also upgraded for application to multiple impoundment
systems.

9.38


(31) "Industrial Wastewater VOC Emissions—Background for BACT/LAER"
(EPA-450/3-90-004, PB90-194754)

The CTC prepared a technical guidance document, as requested by several States and EPA
Regions, for controlling air emissions from the collection and treatment of industrial wastewater.
Visits were made to a pharmaceutical facility and two pulp and paper facilities to gather data for
characterizing the industry and choosing a plant for testing. The report documents the CTC’s
findings. (Penny Lassiter, 919-541-5396)

(36) “Air Toxic Emission Factors for Iron Foundries—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants"
(EPA-600/2-90-044, PB90-0266743)

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau in Tennessee requested CTC
assistance in determining air toxic emission factors for iron foundries. The CTC compared data
received from the American Foundrymen's Society (an industry trade association) with the existing
AP-42. The effort resulted in a report identifying emission factors for process sources and process
tugitive emissions for use in estimating emissions when site-specific information is not available.

(Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733)

(37) “Test Report: Method Development and Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of
Condensibles” (EPA-450/4-90-012, PB90-240805)

The CTC responded to requests by several States and the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators for a test method for condensible particulate matter (CPM). The subject of
the study was the impinger catch method of measuring CPM. This method allowed the determination
of both filtterable PM and CPM simultaneously, uses existing methodology and equipment. The CTC
published a report which details the laboratory and field evaluations of the study. (Candace Sorrell,
919-544-1064)

(38) “Radiation-Curable Coatings” (EPA-600/2-91-035, PB91-219550)

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District in California requested engineering assistance
in researching ultraviolet curable coatings to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. The study
evaluated the engineering and economic concems associated with radiation-curable systems and
identified technical problems requiring future resolution. (Chuck Darvin, 919-541-7633)

(39) "Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing”
(EPA 450/3-90-020, PB91-102111)

The CTC received requests from several State and local agencies for technical guidance on
VOC-blowing agents from polystyrene foam manufacturing. The CTC responded by producing a
document summarizing VOC emission problems associated with the industry. The report also
provided information on control alternatives and cost estimates for those controls. (Dave Beck,
919-544-5421)

(40) "Best Demonstrated Control Technology for Graphic Arts" (EPA-450/3-91-008,
PB91-168427)

The CTC documented VOC control applications in graphic arts facilities using rotogravure or

flexographic printing. The CTC gathered data during several plant visits, and is identifying sources
using unique air flow management and capture techniques. (Karen Catlett, 919-541-0835)

9.6


9.1 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
9.1.1 Completed Projects

Engineering Assistance

(2) "Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Waferboard Manufacturing Plant"
(EPA-450/3-87-021, PB88-107735)

The Colorado Department of Health requested CTC assistance in determining the cause of
eye and lung irritation from residents near a waferboard manufacturing plant. The CTC formed a
team of State, contractor, and EPA engineers with experience in emission source evaluations and
waferboard manufacturing to conduct a plant inspection. The CTC submitted the team’s findings and
the results of dispersion modeling performed earlier by the State in a technical report to the State
agency. (Leslie Evans, 919-541-5410)

(3) "Evaluation of Potential Emissions of TDI from Two Facilities" (EPA-450/3-87-022,
PB88-120845)

The Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control in Pennsylvania requested CTC
assistance in evaluating five industrial facilities which store and use large quantities of toluene
di-isocyanate (TDI). The bureau wished to determine the potential ambient air impact from the
sources, state-of-the-art technology for controlling TDI emissions, and the potential for accidental
release. EPA engineers, contractor personnel, and county representatives inspected two sites. The
CTC, then, provided the bureau on control alternatives with a report documenting its
recommendations. (Robert Rosensteel, 919-541-5608)

(8) "Evaluation of Emission Factors for Formaldehyde from Certain Wood Processing
Operations" (EPA-600/8-90-052, PB88-118492)

The CTC conducted a project to supplement an earlier CTC report, "Evaluation of Emission
Factors for Formaldehyde from Certain Wood Processing Operations” (EPA-450/3-87-023, PB88-
118492). The original project provided assistance to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board in
evaluating a regulation on the control of formaldehyde emission for certain wood processing and
manufacturing operations. The new report addresses new and emerging sources of formaldehyde
emissions. (Kelly Janes, 919-541-2852)

(22) "Evaluation of Emission Sources from Creosote Wood Treatment Operations”
(EPA-450/3-89-028, PB89-224799)

The Virginia Air Pollution Control Board requested CTC assistance in evaluating controls of
emissions from a creosote wood treatment operation. The CTC provided the State with a report,
which discusses the various techniques used to preserve a variety of wood products and their
associated emissions and control technologies. (Bruce Moore, 919-541-5460)

(24) "Source Characterization and Control Technology Assessment of Methylene Chloride
Emissions from Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY" (EPA-600/2-89-043,
PB89-224471)

The New York Department of Environmental Control requested assistance in the evaluation
of potential control technologies for emissions of methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane
or DCM) at the Eastman Kodak facility in Rochester, New York. DCM is a solvent that Kodak uses in
the manufacture of cellulose triacetate support for photographic film. The CTC provided the State

9.2-


9. The CTC does not fund training courses for State and local agencies that are available
through APTI or other training institutions. The CTC does not fund travel or other
expenses associated with attendance at CTC-sponsored workshops or seminars.

The recipients of any CTC information may include staff associated with State and local
agencies or regulated industries. Information transfer activities targeted for regulated industries may
be essential for States or local agencies to achieve their regulatory goals. The CTC will consider
requests by State or local agencies or EPA Regional Offices for any such activities under established
CTC procedures. The CTC will consider requests from non-governmental requestors on a cost-
reimbursable basis only.

3.10


6.2 DOCUMENT MAILING GUIDELINES

The CTC administrative staff enters requests for documents into a data base and generates
mailing labels. The document mailing staff prepares the documents for mailing as follows:

1. | Assemble multiple reports for one client—several to one large kraft envelope (with the
address labels attached to franked labels) accompanied by:

a. Ageneral cover letter, as shown in Figure 6-3
b. ACTC brochure
c. ACTC project summary

2. Mail single documents without envelopes and the address label attached to a franked
label. Seal the open edge of the report.

3. Mail CTC Newsletters with address labels applied and open edges sealed.

65


el

ueyo euoneziuesig SdOWO 2-2 eiNBi4

—-
OD Staff:

R. Campbell D. Devoe

J. Padgett J. Bachmann

Office of Air Quality PI

J. Seitz, Director
L. Wegman, Deputy Director

1g and Standards

Planning and
Management Staff

1. Spons, Acting

T

=|

Emission Standards Division

B. Jordan, Acting Director

J. Welgold, Deputy Director

‘Standards Preparation S., Chaput
Regulations Preparation S,, Dimmick
Regulations Development S., Porter
Cost & Economic Impact S., Wehe

rogram Integration & Health S.,
Blanchard

Program Analysis & Technology S.,
Byme

Pr

Program Implementation & Review S.,
Mohin

Alr Quality Management Division

J. Calcagni, Director
D. Berry, Deputy Director

Technical Support Division

'W. Laxton, Director
D. Tyler, Deputy Director

Regulatory Strategies S., Jo
‘Standards Davelopmant S., Halnes
Economic Analysis S., Basale

‘Monitoring and Reports
Branch

W. Hunt

Data Analysis S., Curran
Monitoring S., Gerald

‘Ozone/CO Programs
Branch
G. Helms

Polley Development S., Nicholson
Policy implementation S., Silvas!

‘SO2/Particulate Matter Programe
Branch

S02 Programs S., Ginsburg
Paniculate Matter P.S., Stonefiold

‘Standards Support S., Vervaert
‘Standards Documentation S., Durkee

‘Chemical Manufacturing S.,
Rosenstee!

‘Chemical Application S., Berry
Petroleum S., Husivedt

Industrial Studies “Permit Programe
Branch Branch
J. Crowder E. Lills

Operating Permits S., Trutna
Now Source Review S., McCutchen

Reglonal Activities S., Pearson
Regional Management S., Stubbertield

Alt Pollution Training
Branch

‘Stationary Source Compliance Division

J. Rasnic, Acting Directory.
J. Rasnic, Deputy Director

Faderal Program S., Lebans, Acting
Policy & Guidance S., Mitott, Acting
Compliance Analysis S., Shafer

‘Source Receptor Analysis
Branch

‘Model Application S., Meyer
Techniques Evaluation S., Dicke
Modeling Support S., Mersch

National Air Data
Branch

AIRS S., Colon-Velez
Operations & Maintenance S., Wight

Emlesion Measurement
Branch
G. Wood

Fleld Testing S., McCarley
Test Support S., Westlin

Emlesion Inventory
Branch

Emission Factor & Methodologies S., Southerland
Inventory Guidance & Evaluation S., Martinez

Regional Programs S., Vacant

Organic Chemicals S., Kraus
Inorganic Chemicals S., Lay

SEPA

=" “united States
Environmentai Protection Agency

gon Offlee of Air Guallty
* Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, :
North Carolina 27711

05/07/94

# Washington, DC *


“Evaluation of Emission Control Options at Leeds Architectural Products" (EPA-450/3-89-001,
PB90-120106)

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) requested assistance
from the CTC in evaluating alternatives for controlling volatile organic compound emissions from a
specialty aluminum coating facility. The facility had presented a best available control technology
(BACT) evaluation to the CTDEP stating that added emission control was not economically feasible.
The CTDEP questioned the conclusion and requested an independent evaluation.

The CTC identified several broad options for reducing emission that it planned to investigate.
The options were:

+ Conventional volatile organic compound control devices to control the existing exhaust
streams

+ Conventional methods to reduce exhaust flow and treatment with conventional volatile
organic compound control devices, and

. Novel or developmental methods of achieving more cost-effective emission control

The CTC, an EPA contractor, and CTDEP visited the facility to observe the operations and
gather data for a technical and economic evaluation of control options. They concluded that
controlling emissions would permit the facility to increase production, and that the revenues from the
production increase could help offset the added cost of the emission controls. The cost data provided
in the report can also be used to estimate emission rates and costs of alternatives involving partial
emission control.

9.26


3.4 PROJECT LEADERS AND TEAMS

3.4.1 The CTC Co-chairs

The CTC Co-chairs identify and assign a project leader and team members to conduct each
project. The project leader is responsible for the management and technical progress of the project.

The roles of the Co-chairs, project leaders, and team members in conducting projects are as
follows:

1. Aproject team, including personnel from ESD and AEERL, conducts each project.

2. The Co-chairs designate the lead organization for each project. The line manager of the
lead organization recommends a staff member to lead the project. The Co-chairs assist
the lead organization in selecting the project leader and must concur with the selection.

3. The Co-chairs provide technical, budgeting, and scheduling guidance for each project.
The line managers ensure that projects follow established guidelines and ensure the
quality of work performed.

4. The Co-chairs provide frequent status reports on the projects that their respective
organizations lead.

3.4.2 AP-42 Interface

The CTC often conducts projects which result in improved estimation methods or emission
factors for a particular source category or process. EPA publication AP-42, "Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors" and its associated documents and data systems are EPA's official source
of emission factors for criteria and toxic pollutants. Therefore, the CTC tries to coordinate the
collection of any advances in the state-of-the-art emission estimates with these documents and
systems. Thus, the CTC requests that project leaders include in a contract's scope of work (1) that
AP-42 and associated air toxics documents be reviewed to determine that data developed for future
updates are current and appropriate; (2) specific recommendations on what testing would be required
for proper delineation of the emissions; and (3) specific recommendations on areas that should be
updated in these reports.

If possible, in the same task, the project leader should contact OAQPS/Technical Support
Division’s Emission Factor and Methodologies Section (EFMS). The project leader should explore
the feasibility of having the contractor prepare these updates for the source category under the same
contract. He should also determine if EFMS will be required and able to provide supplemental
funding.

3.5


9.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT SUMMARIES

This section provides brief descriptions of the Control Technology Center's (CTC’s)
"Completed Projects," “Completed CTC Projects not Documented by Formal Reports,” and “Current
Projects." Each category contains sections on "Engineering Assistance" and “Technical Guidance”
projects. A reference number in parentheses precedes each project title. The numbers correspond
to the reference numbers on the CTC Report Ordering Form (Figure 6-1) and the Complete List of
CTC Publications (Figure 6-2). The descriptions include the project leader's name and telephone
number, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Technical Information Service

(NTIS) numbers for completed reports.

9.1

Material belon
gS to:
Office of Toxic Substances Library ~~~

-S. Environm, i

OL M Stree, Sh To pou ON ABEnCy
Washington, D.C. 20460

(202) 382-3044



Table
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 10-1
Table 10-2
Table 10-3
Table 10-4
Table 10-5
Table 10-6

Figure

Figure 1-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6

Figure 4-7

Figure 5-1
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure A-1
Figure A-2

LIST OF TABLES

Title Page
HOTLINE Process Codes... 1... eee ee ee ee 57
HOTLINE Pollutant Codes, 2... 1. ee ee eee 5.9
Program Abbreviations... 2.0... 0... eee eee ee eee 8.2
State and U.S. Territorial Abbreviations. 2... 2... ee ee eee 8.3
Expert List Sorted Alphabetically by Last Name. ........... 10.3
Expert List Sorted Alphabetically by Expertise. ........... 10.30
Associate Hotlines and Clearinghouses...............- 10.52
Steering Committee Members... 2.1... ee eee 10.53
Advisory Work Group Members... 1.0... 00.02 eee eee 10.54
STAPPA/ALAPCO Air Toxics Sub-Committee... .....-.4- 10.55

LIST OF FIGURES

Title Page
CTC Functional Structure. 6. ee 1.4
Sequence of Events in Completing a CTC Project........... 3.3
Sample Project Tracking Form. . 1... ee ee ee 3.7
Sample Standard CTC Report Cover... . 2... eee ee ee 42
Sample CTC Report Title Page... . 2... . eee ee AD
Sample Standard ORD Title Page... 2.2... ee ee eee ee 44
Sample CTC Report Acknowledgement..............--- 45
Sample CTC Report Preface... 1... ee ee ee 4.6
Sequence of Events in Completing CTC

ProjectsforAEERL. 6... ee et 49
Sequence of Events in Completing CTC

ProjectsforOAQPS... 0.0... cee eee eee 4.12
Sample HOTLINE Form. 2 ee ee ee 5.6
CTC Report Request Form... 2... ee ee el 6.2
List of CTC Publications. 2.6... ee eee 63
Cover Letter for CTC Documents. ............000000% 6.6
AEERL Organizational Chart... 1... ee 72
OAQPS Organizational Chart... VS
The CTC BBS Welcome Screen... . 1... 0... ee ee eee A-3
The Main CTC BBS Menu Screen... 1.0... 0.20000 00e A-4


“Characterization of Emissions trom the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires“
(EPA-600/2-89-054, PB90-116955)

In response to several HOTLINE requests, the CTC funded Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory (AEERL) experiments simulating open-air burning of scrap tires. The research
focused on providing qualitative and quantitative estimates of emissions resulting from open-air tire
burning. AEERL scientists conducted the experiments in a specially designed burn hut containing a
high-volume air-handling system that effectively simulated open-air combustion. The scientists
burned large (1/6 tire cut in the shape of a pie wedge) and small (2-inch square ) chunks to compare
the effect of sample size on bum rate and emissions. The AEERL team analyzed gas and particulate
samples for metals, volatile and semivolatile organics, and fixed gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide).

The experiments showed that tire combustion produces numerous hydrocarbons, including a
significant amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are known carcinogens. The
research also revealed that tire burning emits metals such as lead and zinc. The team also identified
two distinct types of burning that occurs during tire combustion, which cause different emissions.
These burning patterns correspond to the material in the tread layers and the belt layers of the tires.

The CTC published a report documenting its findings on tire combustion. In addition, the
EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL) will examine the health effects of the emissions.
HERL will study the relative potency of emissions from tire combustion compared with those from
conventional ore combustion sources.

9.18


Contractor AEERL OAQPS
1 2(a) 2(b)
Project Leader Team Member
Draft Report |}——» Review Review
4 3 |
j Evaluate
Revise ‘ Comments
5 { 6(a) 6(b)
Prepare Peer, Policy, & Technical &
Second Draft Editorial Review Policy Review
8 7 t
j Evaluate
Revise Comments
7A ' 7.2
Major Comments Team Member
Not Incorporated Review
7.3
CTC Steering
Committee
9 10 11 (a)
Prepare inl j Co-chair
Final Report [——- Ae Aoatcale Concurrence**
12 | 11(b) |
Lab Director's Div. Director's
Signature Concurrence***
13 |
Issue Report

“Completion of CTC project assignment

lies to Technical

uidance

eports only

“K
+ [boroval for policy and technical acceptance. Does not include format
or editorial acceptance.

Figure 4-6 Sequence of Events in Completing CTC Projects for AEERL

49


“Assessment of the Controllapuity of Condensible Emissions” (EPA-600/8-90-075,
PB91-125807)

The CTC provided support to the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials Air Toxics Subcommittee in
acquiring a better understanding of condensible emissions from an air toxics perspective. The major
objectives of the study were to: (a) develop a data base on condensible emissions, (b) determine
chemical makeup of condensible emissions, (c) evaluate the effectiveness of various control devices
in reducing condensible emissions , and (d) identify modifications to improve performance.

Two data bases were developed from a review of emissions source test reports from EPA’s
Emission Measurement Branch (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards/Technical Support
Division) files and from the State of California. The Condensibles Data Base contains information on
condensible emissions covering 43 emission source categories. The Speciated Condensibles Data
Base focuses on the chemical composition of condensible emissions. For the purposes of this study,
the back-half catch of the EPA Reference Method 5 or its equivalent was considered to represent the
condensible fraction.

Based on the data contained in the Condensibles Data Base, source categories with a
relatively high percentage of condensibles in the total particulate catch (i.e., greater than 50%)
included the following: plywood manufacturing, asphaltic concrete, electric utilities, fertilizer
manufacturing, and secondary lead smelting. From the limited data on chemical composition of
condensed particulate matter, the toxic fraction of condensed particulate matter (composed of
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and vanadium) was less than 1% in most
cases.

For many sources in the Condensibles Data Base, wet scrubbers including venturi scrubbers,
fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and wet ESPs were the commonly employed
particulate matter control devices. There was a wide variation in performance of these devices in
controlling condensible emissions. This variation was attributed to differences in emission source
characteristics such as temperature, composition, and concentration. Although limited performance
data were available for specific control devices, venturi scrubbers and other wet scrubbers appeared
to be more effective in reducing condensible emissions than other control devices.

No general conclusions were drawn regarding controllability of specific components because
of limited data. Modifications in control device operation or design that would affect potential
reductions in condensible emissions include: (a) operating at lower temperatures and higher humidity
levels to enhance condensed particulate formation prior to the control device, (b) adding an ionizing
section before wet and venturi scrubbers to improve collection efficiency of the fine particulate, and
(c) using gas conditioning agents to induce condensed particle agglomeration.

9.16


9.1.2 Current Projects

Engineering Assistance

Vermont/Wood Waste Incineration

The State of Vermont requested CTC assistance after receiving complaints from citizens
about odors coming from two plants that bum wood waste. The CTC conducted a preliminary study
of wood waste combustion to determine if one of the Vermont plants is typical of the industry. The
CTC will conduct a field test or simulated combustion to collect additional data. The results of the
study may affect the State’s regulations on incineration, which presently apply to combustion of wood
waste. The project is scheduled for completion in August 1991. (Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733)

Virginia/Flutf Combustion

The Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control requested CTC assistance in identifying
emissions from the open burning of non-metallic automobile components known as "fluff." The CTC.
will obtain fluff samples and analyze samples from simulated burns. The project is scheduled for
completion in October 1991. (Paul Lemieux, 919-541-0962)

Alaska/Fiberglass Burning

The CTC is responding to a request by the State of Alaska for assistance in identifying the
organic and particulate products of the open burning of fiberglass structures. (Paul Lemieux,
919-541-0962)

Technical Guidance
HAP-PRO

The CTC is updating "Controlling Air Toxics," (CAT) an Advisory System (EPA-600/8-88-092,
PB89-158745 for Tutorial Manual and PB89-158737 for computer diskettes), PC-based software for
evaluation of permit applications. HAP-PRO, the updated program, is based on the “Handbook:
Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (HAP Manual) (EPA-625/6-86-014). It calculates
design and costs for eight control devices based on stream characteristics and control device
Parameters. The new program, available in August 1991, will include a screening option and a 20-30
Percent reduction in the memory requirement of the previous version. (Carlos Nufiez, 919-541-1156)

HAP Manual Update

The CTC is updating the HAP Manual. The Manual was developed to provide assistance to
State and local agencies and EPA Regional Offices in selecting, evaluating, and determining the cost
Of controls for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from commercial sources. The HAP Manual contains
information for authorities reviewing permit applications and for individuals requesting information on
HAP control systems. The Manual will be available in August 1991 for use with HAP-PRO.
(Carlos Nufiez, 919-541-1156)

9.9


United States
Environmental Protection Control Technology Center

Agency
EPA-600/8-90-085a December 1990

LANDFILL AIR EMISSIONS ESTIMATION MODEL
USER’S MANUAL

control technology center

Figure 4-1. Sample Standard CTC Report Cover
4.2



CTC

HOTLINE ASSISTANCE RECORD

DATE: / / Pollutant(s)

Received by: Industry/Process/Subject Area

Requestor’s Name:
Agency Affiliation:
Address:

City/State/Zip
Telephone No. (__)

Abstract of Request:

UOcontinued on a separate page(s)?

Assignee/Completed by:

RETURN CALL WITHIN 1 DAY OF REQUEST
Abstract of Response:

O continued on a separate page(s)?
Date of Response: / / Time Consumed: Hrs.

RETAINED BY "CTC"

Figure 5-1 Sample HOTLINE Form
5.6

Copy 1



with a report detailing results of a site visit and potential control options. (Chuck Darvin,
919-541-7633)

(25) “Evaluation of Emission Control Options at Leeds Architectural Products”
(EPA-450/3-89-001, PB90-120106)

The CTC conducted an evaluation of possible controls of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
emissions from a specialty aluminum coating facility for the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Quality. The CTC project team visited the facility to evaluate the operation and gather data for a
technical and economic evaluation of control options. (Dave Salman, 919-541-5417)

(27) "Evaluation of Emission Control Devices at Waferboard Plants," EPA-450/3-90-002,
PB90-131442)

Following complaints of eye and lung irritation from residents near a waferboard
manufacturing plant, the State of Colorado requested CTC assistance in evaluating the plant's
emissions and possible control options. The CTC study focused on the evaluation of an electrified
filter bed and a wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The CTC published a report documenting its
findings and recommendations. (Les Evans, 919-541-5410)

(28) "Control Technology Assessment for Air Emissions from a Wastewater Treatment
Operation" (EPA-450/3-89-008, PB89-207922)

The West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission requested an evaluation of a wastewater
treatment system at a chemical company which manufactures chlorinated hydrocarbons. The CTC
project team visited the plant to evaluate the company’s emission controls. The Center, then
provided the State of West Virginia with a report on controls impact. (Bob Lucas, 919-541-5672)

(29) "Affordability Analysis of Lead Emission Controls for a Smelter-Refinery”
(EPA/450-3-90-001, PB90-120122)

The CTC evaluated control technology to reduce ambient air emissions at a primary lead
smelter to levels necessary to attain the ambient air quality standard. The CTC produced a report
documenting its findings including an economic analysis of various control options. (Don Gillette,
919-541-5308)

(51) "Evaluation of Air Toxic Emissions at Minnesota's Reconstituted Panelboard Plants"
(EPA-450/3-91-009)"

The CTC assisted the State of Minnesota in a comprehensive study of air emissions and
control options for waferboard plants. The study's objectives were to characterize the plants’
operations, identity air emission sources, and assess the probable species and quantities of air toxics
emitted. (Tom Donaldson, 919-541-0830)

Technical Guidance

(1) "Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources—Air Emissions and Controls”
(EPA-450/3-87-017, PB88-106166)

Numerous State and local agencies expressed interest in air stripping of contaminated water
on a national basis. In response, the CTC collected information on the air emissions and controls for
this source of volatile organics (VOs). The CTC investigated air emission controls used for air
stripping, their performance, and the capital and operating costs of these controls. The CTC
published a document listing over 150 air strippers, their locations, and particular chemicals of

9.3


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author of the program was Robert Bass of Radian Corporation. Also
serving on the EPA project team were W. Fred Dimmick and Mark Najarian of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Figure 4-4. Sample CTC Report Acknowledgment

45


“Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Application of Traffic Markings”
(EPA-450/3-88-007, PB89-148274)

The EPA has researched methods of controlling the emission of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from the application of highway traffic markings as part of its ongoing effort to assist States in
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.

The study was conducted to evaluate alternative traffic marking techniques that can be used
to reduce VOC emissions from this source. The information was generated through a literature
search and surveys of State Departments of Transportation, traffic paint formulators, and application
equipment manufacturers. This document provides State and local regulatory agencies with
information on traffic marking application processes, VOC emissions and emission reductions, and
costs associated with the alternative marking techniques. This information will allow planners to
identify available alternative low- and zero-VOC traffic marking techniques, estimate the baseline
VOC emission level for the planner’s geographic area, and evaluate the VOC reduction and cost of
implementing alternative traffic marking techniques.

The primary conclusions from this study are:

+ The use of available low- and zero-VOC alternatives such as waterborne coatings,
thermoplastics, field-reacted materials, preformed tapes, and permanent markers can
result in VOC emission reductions ranging from 15 to 100 percent.

+ The annualized costs for the alternative marking techniques are less than or
equivalent to those for traditional solvent-borne paints.

+ The performance of the alternative markings is equivalent to or better than that of
traditional solvent-borne paints.

The report provides the necessary descriptive and modeling information to allow State and
local agencies to determine which category or categories of alternative marking technologies would
Provide the most cost effective VOC reductions given the unique circumstances of the region
involved.

9.36


CTC REPORT REQUEST FORM

NAME, DATE.

AFFILIATION. PHONE. I.

ADDRESS.

CITY, STATE, ZIP

CODE.

REF NO. AIR TOXICS

5 () “HAP-PRO* (software for use with HAP Manual)
9 () “Handbook: Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants” (HAP Manual), EPA-625/6-86-014

13° () “Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Sources—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants,” EPA-600/2-90-024, PB90-242314

36 () “Emission Factors for lron Foundries—Criteria and Toxic Pollutants,” EPA-600/2-90-044, PB90-266743

47 () “Benzene Enabling Document,” EPA-450/3-90-009, PB91-167737

52 () "Determination of Perchloroethylene Content of Waste Materials from Filters and Still Bottoms—Conditional Test Method,”
EPA-450/3-91-009, PB91-161737

53° () “Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated Roofing Asphalt”
COMBUSTION

14° () “Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Burning of Scrap Tires,” EPA-600/2-89-054, PB90-116955,

43 () "Source Book NOx Control Technology Data,” EPA-600/2-91-029, PB91-217364, PB91-217364

50 () “Radioactive and Mixed Waste Incineration Background Information Document, Volume |: Technology,” EPA-520/1-91-010-1;
“Radioactive and Mixed Waste Incineration Background Information Document, Volume II: Risk of Radiation Exposure,”
EPA-520/1-91-010-2
SURFACE COATING/GRAPHIC ARTS

25 () “Evaluation of Emission Controls at Leeds Architectural Products” (Spray Booth Controls), EPA-450/3-89-001, PB90-120106

30 «(() “Powder Coating Technology Update,” EPA-450/3-89-033, PB90-127341

38 () “Radiation Curable Coatings,” EPA-600/2-91-035, PB91-219550

40 () “Best Demonstrated Control Technology for Graphic Arts,” EPA-450/3-91-008, PB91-168427
WASTEWATERVGROUNDWATER TREATMENT

12 () “Surface Impoundment Modeling Systems (SIMS) Version 2.0 Users’ Manual,” EPA-450/4-90-019a, and
“Background Document for Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) Version 2.0," EPA-450/4-90-019b, PB 91-506998

26 (() “ASPEN Expert System for Steam Stripping Calculations: Users' Manual,” EPA-450/3-90-003,

31 () “Industrial Wastewater VOC Emissions—Background for BACT/LAER,” EPA-450/3-90-004, PB90-194754

32. () “Comparisons of Air Stripper Simulations and Field Performance Data,” EPA/450/1-90-002, PB90-207317

33° () “Air Stripper Design Manual, Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance,” EPA-450/1-90-003, PB91-125997
WOOD PRODUCTS

27 «() “Evaluation of Emission Control! Devices at Waferboard Plants," EPA-450/3-90-002, PB90-131442

51 () "Evaluation of Air Toxic Emissions at Minnesota’s Reconstituted Panelboard Plants,” EPA-450/3-91-009
MISCELLANEOUS

1 () “Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing,” EPA-600/2-90-019, PB90-216532

29° «() “Affordability Analysis of Lead Emission Controls for a Smelter-Refinery,” EPA/450-3-90-001, PB90-120122

35 () “Soll Vapor Extraction—VOC Control Technology Assessment,” EPA-450/4-89-017, PB90-216995,

37° () “Test Report: Method Development & Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of Condensibies,”
EPA-450/4-90-012, PB90-240805,

39 () “Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing,” EPA-450/3-90-020, PB91-102111

41 () “Landfill Air Emissions Estimate Model,” EPA-600/8-90-085a, PB91-167718, manual; EPA-600/8-90-085b,
PB91-507541, software .

42 () "Assessment of the Controllability of Condensible Emissions,” EPA-600/8-90-075, PB91-125807

45 () “Enabling Document for NSPS for Oxidation Process and Distillation Operations in SOCMI,” EPA-450/3-90-018

46 () “Polymer Manufacturing Industry Enabling Document,” EPA-450/3-90-019, PB91-161745

55° (() CTC Manual

0) Other

ao) Mailing List

Figure 6-1 CTC Report Request Form
6.4


Investigation of Emissions From Burning of Agricultural Plastics

The State of Florida's Department of Environmental Regulation contacted the CTC in May of
1987, to request information on the emissions from the burning of black plastic used in agriculture.
The plastic is applied to the ground between crop rows to control weed growth and to contain
moisture in the soil. It is potentially contaminated with pesticide that is sprayed on the plants. The
State was concerned about emissions from the burning of plastic but had no information on the
emissions. Therefore, Florida requested CTC engineering assistance.

An ORD scientist was selected to head this engineering assistance effort. He witnessed a
demonstration of plastic burning in the field and was supplied with samples of unused and
contaminated plastics. He designed a sampling and simulation plan to determine the emissions from
burning the plastic by simulating two modes of burning, pile burning and forced air curtain
incineration, an alternative method considered by the State. The burn simulations were conducted in
a small utility shed equipped with an air delivery system and small fans to simulate the two burning
methods. Emissions were analyzed for combustion gases, volatile and semivolatile organics,
particulate material, and toxic and mutagenic activity. Emission samples and samples of the used
plastic were analyzed for the presence of several pesticides to which the plastic may have been
exposed.

No pesticide compounds were identified in either combustion emission samples or
dichloromethane washes of the used plastic. Biological samples, examined using the Ames test in
which bacteria were exposed to whole vapor and vapor/particulate emissions, showed no toxic or
Mutagenic effects under the conditions of the test. Compared to pile burning, forced air curtain
incineration was found to decrease the time necessary to burn a given quantity of plastic and caused
some reduction in the particulate concentrations emitted. There was no significant difference,
however, in the organic compounds identified in samples taken under these two burn conditions.

In addition to providing the State of Florida with a technical paper discussing the results, the
EPA scientist also attended a meeting at the State’s request to present the paper and answer
questions. While the State’s original request was fulfilled, it has requested additional analyses to
provide further identification of the higher molecular weight compounds detected and more health
effects information. Because of the success of this work, the CTC is now considering requests from
other agencies on open burning of other materials such as automobile tires and herbicide-
contaminated brush.

9.31


Alaska Oil Spill Support

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requested CTC evaluation of
technical questions pertaining to the incineration of wastes resulting from the Alaska Oil Spill. The
CTC formed a team to provide quick expert advice to Alaska. Project leaders visited the site,
attended public hearings, and took part in public workshops. The CTC provided the State of Alaska
with a report documenting their recommendations. (Al Vervaert, 919-541-5602; Blair Martin,
919-541-7504)

Evaluation of Excess Benzene Emissions

The CTC provided assistance to EPA Region 3 in estimating excess emissions at a
petroleum products facility in Philadelphia.. The project involved evaluation of the leak detection and
repair program information at Chevron’s Philadelphia refinery and calculating excess emissions
resulting from extended delays in repairing leaks. (David Markwordt, 919-541-0837)

Arsine Scrubber Design

The CTC conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of a scrubber for emissions of arsine
at a semiconductor manufacturing plant for the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The
CTC provided San Diego with a report documenting the results of the study.

(Leslie Evans, 919-541-5410)

Pharmaceutical Plant Evaluation

The CTC assisted Region 8 in estimating and quantifying VOC emissions from a
pharmaceutical manufacturer in Boulder, Colorado. However, the data collected were insufficient for
acompliance determination. Additional assistance may be requested when the Regional Office has
received more information from the source. (Dave Beck, 919-541-5421)

Workshop on Hazardous and Toxic Air Pollutant Control Technologies and Permitting Issues

The CTC and STAPPA/ALAPCO cosponsored this follow-up to the 1987 National Air Toxics
Workshop. The follow-up, held in Spring 1988, provided information on the application of control
technology for air toxics. Actual case studies were presented and discussed from industry and
regulatory perspectives. The third day of the workshop, open only to regulatory personnel, furnished
an opportunity to discuss policy and permitting concerns. (Chuck Darvin, 919-541-7633)

Colorado Weighted Carbon Monoxide Emission Correlation

The CTC assisted the State of Colorado in expanding EPA's certified stove data base to
calculate Colorado weighted particulate and carbon monoxide averages. The project helped the
State in deciding whether or not to adopt EPA's standard to replace its own regulatory effort. The
Project resulted in a spreadsheet on which the user may enter data on different stoves for comparison
with EPA and Colorado standards. (Bob McCrillis, 919-541-2733).

Colorado Waferboard Press Vent Emissions
The CTC assisted the State of Colorado and EPA Region 8 in an in-depth engineering
analysis of alternative methods for the control of condensible VOC emissions from waferboard press

vents. Upon completion of the analysis, the CTC sent the State of Colorado a letter summarizing its
findings. (Mike Kosusko, 919-541-2734)

9.8


“Landfill Air Emissions Estimation Model" (EPA-600/8-90-085a, PB91-167718, manual;
EPA-600/8-90-085b, PB91-507541, software)

In response to many HOTLINE calls, the CTC developed personal computer software for
estimating emissions from municipal landfills. The anaerobic decomposition of municipal solid waste
generates landfill gas. The gas is composed of about half carbon dioxide and half methane with trace
constituents of nonmethane organics containing volatile organic compounds and air toxics. Scientists
estimate the trace constituent of landfill gas to be 200,000 tons per year nationwide. That amount is
about 2 percent of the total non-methane organics emitted by all stationary sources in this country.
Landfill air emissions contribute to tropospheric ozone, air toxics, global warming, odor and explosion
hazards.

The CTC based is user-friendly software for estimating landfill emissions on a first-order
decomposition rate equation that uses site-specific characteristics. Those characteristics include the
year the landfill began accepting waste, the amount of waste accepted, and the year or expected year
of closing the landfill. The software also provides guidance on EPA methods for obtaining gas
composition data. The program suggests defaults for input when site-specific data are not available.
“Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills—Background Information for Proposed
Standards and Guidelines," (MIS/0849) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 12, 1990,
provides details on the development of the modeling approach and default values.

9.32


10.

41,

12.

13.

After the deadline for comments on all formal reports, the project leader ensures that all
issues have been addressed. He/she then prepares the printing request and submits it
to the office director for signature following normal ESD procedures.

After evaluating any additional comments, the project leader submits the report to the
contractor for revision.

The contractor finalizes the report. The project leader, then, confers with the OAQPS
Co-chair to determine the number of copies to be printed.

The Co-chairs distribute copies of the report to the SC members for final technical and
policy approval.

(a) The OAQPS Co-chair sends copies of each technical guidance project report to
the AEERL Co-chair for concurrence and distribution to the laboratory director.

(b) The AEERL director concurs on the report.
The OAQPS Co-chair submits the report to the division director for signature.

The CTC issues the report.

4.13


1... ASSISTANCE PROVIDED

The CTC provides five types of assistance described as follows:

1.

CTC HOTLINE. The CTC HOTLINE is a telephone number for easy access to EPA
personnel, who provide prompt assistance in a variety of ways. EPA staff furnish CTC
clients with consultations, references to pertinent literature, and access to EPA technical
data and analyses. A tracking system ensures that each request receives a prompt
response. The CTC strives to provide satisfactory assistance in every case. When no
EPA staff or consultant expertise is available in a certain area, the CTC may conduct a
literature search or seek assistance from outside sources.

Engineering Assistance. Engineering assistance projects are short-term (usually
completed within 3 months). Each project provides technical assistance to one State or
local agency. Engineering assistance projects are specific in nature and may not be
applicable to problems in other locations. These projects result from HOTLINE calls
which require in-depth engineering analysis. Engineering assistance projects have
included review of control technology applications, plant inspections, and consultation on
specific problems.

Technical Guidance. Technical guidance projects are generally long-term (usually
completed within a year), broad in scope, and of national interest. They may result from
a number of HOTLINE calls received on the same source or industry, a joint request
from a group of air pollution agencies, or comments and suggestions by the Advisory
Work Group. These projects may result in control technology documents,
microcomputer software, seminars, or workshops.

CTC Bulletin Board. The CTC has established an electronic bulletin board on the
OAQPS Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The bulletin board offers direct access to
certain CTC documents, software, and HOTLINE-type assistance during non-business
hours (before 7:30 am and after 5:00 pm Eastern time). Users may order CTC
documents, view "help" and information messages for unique problems, and access
CTC project schedules and general communication functions. Anyone with a personal
computer equipped with communications software and a modem may access the bulletin
board. A user may sign-on to the OAQPS TTN by calling (919) 541-5472 or

(FTS) 629-5472 for a modem with a 1200-2400 baud rate, or (919) 541-1447 or

(FTS) 629-1447 for modem with a 9600 baud rate. Once signed-on or registered, the
user selects a CTC option. (See Appendix A for more information on the CTC bulletin
board.)

Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse. The OAQPS
component of the CTC operates and maintains the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse.
The Clearinghouse provides summary information on RACT, BACT, and LAER
determinations resulting from non-attainment State Implementation Plan, prevention of
significant air quality deterioration, and new source review permitting actions.
Appendix B provides details on direct access to the Clearinghouse data base.

15


REF NO. MISCELLANEOUS

W “Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing,” EPA-600/2-90-019, PB90-216532

29 “Affordability Analysis of Lead Emission Controls for a Smelter-Refinery,” EPA/450-3-90-001, PB90-120122

35 "Soll Vapor Extractlon—VOC Control Technology Assessment,” EPA-450/4-89-017, PB90-216995

37 "Test Report: Method Development & Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of Condensibies,”
EPA-450/4-90-012, PB90-240805

39 “Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing,” EPA-450/3-90-020, PB91-102111

4 “Landfill Air Emissions Estimate Model,” EPA-600/8-90-085a, PB91-167718, manual; EPA-600/8-90-085b,
PB91-507541, software

42 “Assessment of the Controllability of Condensible Emissions,” EPA-600/8-90-075, PB91-125807

45 “Enabling Document for NSPS for Oxidation Process and Distillation Operations in SOCMI,” EPA-450/3-90-018

46 "Polymer Manufacturing Industry Enabling Document,” EPA-450/3-90-019, PB91-161745,

49 “BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations,”

“Volume |Report Summary and Appendices, A-G,” EPA-450/3-90-015a, PB90-259722

“BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations, Volume Ii—Appendix H, Source
Codes 1 to 3, “EPA-450/3-90-015b, PB90-259730

“BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations, Volume IlI—Appendix H, Source
Codes 4-6," EPA-450/3-90-015c, PB90-259748

“BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations, Volume IV—Appendix H, Source
Codes 7-12," EPA-450/3-90-015d, PB90-259755

54 “RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology Determinations, First Supplement to 1990
Edition,” EPA-450/3-91-015,
55 CTC Manual

Figure 6.1-2 Complete List of CTC Publications (Continued)

6.4


State and Local
Air Pollution Control and

cTc

EPA Regional Personnel

HOTLINE

CTC Co-Chairs

OAQPS ORD CERI

Contractor Support

Figure 1-1 CTC Functional Structure

14

Steering
Committee

Advisory
Work Group



Table 5-2 HOTLINE Pollutant Codes

ACETONE
ACRYLONITRILE
AIR TOXICS
AMMONIA

ARSENIC

ARSINE

ASBESTOS

BARIUM

BENZENE
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM

CARBON DIOXIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON MONOXIDE
CARCINOGENS

CFCs/FREON/FLUOROCARBONS

CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM

COPPER

DIOXINS

DUST

ETHYLENE OXIDE
FLUORIDES

FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
FURANS

H2S

H2S04

HALON

HCI
HERBICIDES/PESTICIDES
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
ISOCYANATES
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD

MAGNESIUM

MEK

MERCURY

METALS

METHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N/A

NITRIC ACID
NITROARENES
NITROGEN OXIDES
ODOR

5.9

(Continued)


4.0 REPORT PREPARATION

The Control Technology Center (CTC) publishes formal reports resulting from the Center's
two types of projects—CTC engineering assistance and technical guidance. The organization
conducting a study, the Air and Energy Environmental Research Laboratory (AEERL) or the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), establishes the protocol for producing the final project
report. The following subsections present each organization's procedures for processing CTC project
reports.

4.1 REPORT FORMAT

The CTC is a joint program of OAQPS and the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Center ensures that both organizations cooperate in publishing all reports resulting from CTC
projects. Therefore, the directors of AEERL and OAQPS's Emission Standards Division (ESD)
concur on all technical guidance reports. The CTC Co-chairs and project team coordinate all
engineering assistance projects. The CTC is the sponsoring body of the Center's publications, and
provides the following procedures for all CTC reports and papers:

1. Each CTC report bears the standard CTC cover as shown in Figure 4-1. Project leaders
may obtain the CTC cover on standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) graphics
software from the CTC Co-chairs. The CTC Steering Committee (SC) may approve
exceptions to cover requirements for projects that the CTC conducts in cooperation with
other organizations.

2. The lead organization assigns the EPA project report number.

3. The first page inside the report cover is the title page as shown in Figure 4-2. The
standard ORD title page (Figure 4-3) follows the first title page showing the CTC as the
Publishing organization rather than ORD. When another organization jointly sponsors a
project with the CTC, the report does not include the first title page. The report lists the
joint sponsor on the standard ORD title page.

4. Each CTC report includes an acknowledgement listing the names and organizations of
the report's authors, project leader, and team members. See Figure 4-4.

5. Each CTC report includes a preface which briefly explains the CTC concept. The

preface also describes the different types of CTC assistance and the Center's rationale
for conducting that project. See Figure 4-5.

41


3.5 PROJECT TRACKING

The CTC Co-chairs track current CTC projects to monitor their progress and ensure that the
projects are meeting scheduling and budgeting guidelines. A report is provided to the Steering
Committee and the Advisory Work Group each month on the status of CTC projects.

3.5.1 Project Tracking Form

Every month the CTC sends the previous month's Project Tracking Form (Figure 3-2) for
each project to the project leader. The project leader updates the form and submits it to the CTC Co-
chair in his organization by the 25th of each month.

The Project Tracking form is similar to OAQPS/ESD's Project Milestone Report (PMR).
However, the CTC form requires different information at the top, which it uses to identify projects for
CTC tracking. ESD staff members who routinely submit PMRs for ESD tracking, may submit those
forms with the CTC information block attached instead of CTC forms.

The CTC provides project leaders with the following guidelines for completing project tracking
forms:

1. Print the requested information on the form. The information will be entered onto a
computer form for distribution to Steering Committee and Advisory Work Group
members. .

2. Complete the schedule on the first page as follows:

a. Under ACTIVITY, list major project milestones or deliverables. The first three
activities should be (1) "Approval by CTC Steering Committee” (2) "Work
Assignment completion,” and (3) "Work Assignment issuance by the Contracts
Office"

b. Indicate in the next column each activity’s original completion date.

c. If the project schedule changes, enter the revised schedule in the next available
column under "CURRENT PROJECTED DATE.” On the top line of each column
enter the date of the schedule change.

d. Enter the actual completion date of each in the last column

3. Briefly summarize the purpose and goals of the project in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION
block on the back of the form.

4. Inthe PROJECT STATUS section, enter a brief narrative (two or three sentences) on
the project’s progress during the month. Include expected budget increases and
problems or issues that caused a change in the project's schedule. Indicate the date of
the narrative in the left hand column.

5. Submit the form to your immediate supervisor, who initials both sides of the form in the
spaces provided to indicate concurrence.

6. Deliver the completed form to the appropriate CTC Co-chair by the 25th of the month.

3.6


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Control Technology Center (CTC) Program Operating Manual provides information about
and standard operating procedures of the Center. It outlines the Center's organizational structure,
project funding and completion procedures, and administrative requirements. The CTC Manual is a
reference for CTC Steering Committee (SC) members, individuals requiring information about the
CTC, the CTC staff, and others conducting CTC business. Portions of this Manual are a guide for
EPA staff in answering the CTC HOTLINE or coordinating CTC projects. The manual also provides
information on CTC projects and other program functions.

The CTC updates the Manual periodically as it defines and modifies policies, and as it
initiates, develops, and completes projects. The Center revises some material in the Manual as that
material becomes outdated, or as new information becomes available. The page-numbering system
allows for deletion and insertion of pages as these changes occur. The first digit of each page
number denotes the page’s section. The last digit reflects its sequence in the section. The CTC
program staff sends revisions to Manual users with instructions for replacement of outdated pages.
The CTC may distribute a single section as "stand-alone" text to any individual requiring information
on a certain aspect of the CTC.

1.1, BACKGROUND

In June 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an Air Toxics
Strategy to reduce public exposure to toxic pollutants in the ambient air. The Strategy addressed
concerns about both routine and accidental releases. It coupled the responsibilities of traditional
Federal regulatory programs, such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), with State and local regulatory
responsibilities. The Strategy called for State and local authorities to take on an additional regulatory
role with EPA's technical and financial assistance. As a result, EPA's 5-year Air Toxics
Implementation Plan identified the enhancement of State and local air toxics programs as a key
component of the Agency’s Strategy.

The shift of the regulatory role toward State and local air toxics programs required these
Programs to assume new responsibilities. The change in roles required the transfer of expertise from
the Federal to the State and local level. In response to that requirement, EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) implemented an
innovative technical assistance program. That program, the Control Technology Center (CTC), is
part of EPA’s Air Toxics Implementation Plan. The plan called for assistance to State and local air
Pollution agencies and EPA Regional Offices.

The Center became a collaborative effort between OAQPS' Emission Standards Division
(ESD), and ORD's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL). The Center for
Environmental Research Information (CER!) also played a key role in the CTC’s development and
continues its involvement through representation on the CTC SC. The CTC soon realized the need
for technical support in areas other than air toxics. It, therefore, expanded its scope to include criteria
Pollutants (oxides of nitrogen and suffur, lead, particulates, carbon monoxide, and ozone) and non-
criteria pollutants. The expansion was relatively simple, because the necessary expertise was
already available within the participating organizations.

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 have further expanded the CTC’s clientele
and the Center's requirement to provide technical assistance. Title Ill of the Amendments requires
EPA to provide technical support not only to State and local governmental agencies, but also to all
non-governmental requestors on a cost-reimbursable basis. In addition, Title V of the Amendments.
calls for the establishment of a small business stationary source technical and environmental

14


"ASPEN Expert System for Steam Stripping Calculations: Users’ Manual" (EPA-450/3-90-003)

The CTC and the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards developed the Expert
System, a personal computer (PC) software program that uses the "Advanced System for Process
Engineering" (ASPEN) user model. The model describes the process of steam stripping of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from wastewater feed streams. It allows the user to run an ASPEN
steam stripping simulation without any knowledge of ASPEN programming.

ASPEN is a commercial software package for chemical process design and simulation, which
allows modular building of flowsheet blocks to represent a steam stripper with or without air emission
controls. It also contains an extensive physical property library and costing routines.

The “front-end” Expert System will read a general ASPEN input file, modify it according to
data supplied by the user, and create a new input file tailored to the problem at hand. The program
can be run on an IBM-compatible PC equipped with 640K of RAM. The software has interactive
menus and on-screen help and instructions making most operations self-explanatory.

The user loads an existing data set or chooses default values using the Expert System's first
screen. The user then selects the items of interest from the main menu and enters the appropriate
data. When data entry is complete the program returns to the main menu. After creating a custom
ASPEN input file on the Expert System, the input file is uploaded from the PC to an EPA-VAX for
execution by telephone with a modem-equipped PC and appropriate communications software.

The Expert System user can run the model in either the rating or design mode. The user can
evaluate an existing stripper design in the rating mode, by entering basic design parameters such as
flow rates, concentrations, and tower dimensions. In the design mode, the model will calculate the
necessary optimum tower design to achieve the specified effluent limits and provide sizing
information for the selected control equipment. The user need enter only the wastewater flow rate,
influent concentrations, desired removal rates or effluent concentrations, and the air emission control
selected. In both modes the steam stripper ASPEN model determines the capital and operating costs
associated with the stripper as well as the control equipment.

State and local pollution control agencies may use the ASPEN steam stripper model for
evaluating control technologies and determining potential air toxics emissions. The model offers
three options for controlling VOC air emissions from the steam stripper: condensation using a
refrigerant in a secondary condenser, fixed-bed carbon adsorption, and catalytic oxidation.

9.15


PREFACE

The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide
technical assistance to state and local air pollution control agencies. Three
levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE
has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating to
air pollution control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering
assistance can be provided when appropriate. Third, the CTC can provide
technical guidance through publication of technical guidance documents,
development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on
control technology matters.

The personal computer software projects, such as this one, focus on
topics of national or regional interest that are identified through contact
with state and local agencies. In this case, the CTC became interested in
assisting state and local agencies in estimating landfill air emission rates.
This interest was prompted by numerous requests for technical assistance from
state and local agencies on how to estimate landfill air emissions and
guidance on how the gas can be collected and controlled. This interest was
also prompted by the upcoming New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) and
111(d) Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Air Emissions, which are
expected to be proposed later this year.

This document is a user's guide for the program, "Landfill Air Emissions
Estimation Model." This estimation model is based on the Scholl Canyon Gas
Generation Model, which was used in the development of the soon-to-be proposed
Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations for landfills. The Scholl Canyon model is
described in Reference 26. The recommended default values provided in the
program as input variables for the Scholl Canyon Model were developed for the
draft NSPS and guidelines. These values are based on test data collected for
landfill regulation development. Development of these default values is
outlined in Reference 20. The test data are summarized in Chapter 3 of
Reference 1.

It should be noted that the default input values provided by the program
and the user’s guide may be revised depending on any future information
collected by the Agency.

Figure 4-5. Sample CTC Report Preface

46


3.2 CTC PROJECT APPROVAL AND SELECTION GUIDELINES
The CTC ranks projects for funding approval according to the following criteria:

1. The needs identified by State and local agencies (as opposed to the CTC’s perception of
their needs)

2. The problem's urgency as perceived by the State or local agency
3. The expertise available to provide a useful product

4. The product's applicability to other State and local jurisdictions

5. The resource investment compared with the product's value

6. The project's cost compared with the available funds

7. The work's relationship to other ongoing projects within EPA (e.g., the potential to
combine with or extend the work of other projects)

Upon approval of a project, the Center follows a series of events coordinated among
individual offices for the successful completion of a project. These events ensure that each project
follows development and review protocol. Each CTC management level is involved in the production
of a CTC project. When the Co-chairs receive a project request, they evaluate its background before
submitting it to the SC for approval and funding. The Co-chairs select the appropriate personnel to
lead the project and serve as team members. The team leader and the Co-chairs are responsible for
producing a document that satisfies the objectives of the technical request. Figure 3-1 depicts the
sequence of events in completing a CTC project.

The Co-chairs establish a project team for each technical guidance and engineering
assistance project. The Co-chairs designate a project leader from the lead organization and team
members from other organizations. The project leader consults with team members in planning the
Project and making key decisions to ensure that the project is cooperative effort. The project leader is
responsible for informine team members of pertinent meetings and the project's status, and allows
them to review all draft and final reports.

Occasionally, State, local, or Federal agency personnel requesting CTC assistance
cooperate with CTC project teams. Cooperating personnel may review the work plan to ensure that
the project will meet their needs. Requesting agency personnel also review the resulting report. The
CTC encourages participation by requesting agency personnel as appropriate and as time allows.

The CTC issues reports upon the concurrence of all team members involved in conducting
the work and the respective organization directors; i.e., ESD and AEERL directors.

3.2


4.2.2 REPORT PROCESSING WITH OAQPS LEAD

Because of the specific nature of engineering assistance projects, the SC may determine that
a formal report is not required for that type of project. Project leaders from OAQPS may refer to the
sequence of events depicted in Figure 4-7 in completing CTC projects. That sequence is described
as follows:

1. The contractor prepares a draft report and sends it to the project leader.

2. (a) When the project leader receives the draft report from the contractor, he/she
immediately sends copies to the team members. The project leader ensures that the
team members have sufficient time to review the report. The project leader may
stipulate in the work assignment that the contractor send the report directly to the team
members.

When the CTC has assigned no AEERL team member, the AEERL Co-chair acts as the
AEERL team member for report review. When more than one AEERL team member
has been assigned, one team member is responsible for peer, policy, and editorial
review.

The CTC monthly project status report notifies the CTC SC when a draft report is
available for review. The project leader cooperates fully with SC members who ask to
review a report or portion of a report. The project leader gives team members and all
others who review the document a deadline for comments.

The project leader drafts a trip report for any project involving assessment of a facility
(e.g., a plant visit to collect engineering data). He/she sends the plant copies of the trip
report for review. The project leader follows established EPA Confidential Business
Information (CBI) procedures for any information that a source designates as CBI. The
Project leader may contact a CTC Co-chair for EPA's CBI procedures.

(b) AEERL team members review the report for technical accuracy and adherence to
agency programs and policies. They send all comments directly to the project leader.

3. The project leader evaluates all comments and informs the contractor of final changes.
4, The contractor revises the report.
5. The contractor sends the second draft report to the project leader.

6. (a) The project leader reviews the final report to ensure that all comments have been
satisfactorily addressed. He/she distributes the report to the team members, notifying
them of the deadline for final comments.

(b) The team members check the report to ensure that it adheres to all major technical
and policy procedures. They notify the project leader in writing of any additional
changes. The project leader and team members send copies of all correspondence
involved in report processing to the CTC Co-chair. The Co-chair resolves any
outstanding issues with team members and their management chains before publishing

the report.

4.11


The CTC Expert List, pages 10.2 through 10.54, are restricted information available only
to staff members of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Air and Engergy
Environmental Research Laboratory.


“Source Characterization and Control Technology Assessment of Methylene Chloride Emissions from
Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY" (EPA-600/2-89-043, PB89-224471)

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation initiated an assessment of
emission control technologies for dichloromethane (DCM) sources at the Eastman Kodak Company
at the Kodak Park Facility in Rochester, New York, to bring the facility into compliance with the
State’s air pollution regulations. DCM is used in the manufacture of cellulose triacetate photographic
film support. The assessment was a result of the State's reduction of the acceptable ambient level for
methylene chloride (MeCl) and Kodak's plans to increase cellulose triacetate film production. New
York State requested assistance from the CTC in the identification and evaluation of viable control
technologies for this source.

In response to the request, the CTC sent a team of engineers to identify DCM emissions
sources at the facility. The team then evaluated the potential control technologies that might be
applied to the identified emissions sources and provided a cost analysis of different control options for
four of the uncontrolled emission sources.

The largest source of DCM emissions at Kodak Park was determined to be from the
production of cellulose triacetate film. This process involves the dissolving of triacetate pellets in
MeCl and other solvents to produce a viscous material which is then pressed onto a polished surface
forming a thin sheet. The sheet is dried at high temperatures giving off MeCI and other solvents.
This process was responsible for over 80 percent of the total DCM emissions from the facility. Other
sources of DCM emissions included emissions from pumps, valves, seals, flanges and other
equipment used at the plant, as well as from secondary losses from wastewater.

The CTC documented its findings and recommendations in a report that is available to State
and local agencies and others wishing information on the control of MeCl emissions.

9.37


REQUEST
State, Local,
Regional

!

APPROVAL
Steering Committee
(<$10,000 - Co-chairs)

'

SELECTION OF
PROJECT LEAD
Co-chairs

!

SELECTION OF

TEAM MEMBERS
Co-chairs

— —

INITIATION
OF PROJECT
Project Lead

Project {Team

PROJECT
REPORT REVIEW
Team Members
or Peer Reviewers

i spent — :

PROJECT
COMPLETION

Figure 3-1 Sequence of Events in Completing a CTC Project

3.3


10.1. EXPERT LIST SORTED ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

Table 10-1 lists the Control Technology Center (CTC) experts identified for referral of HOTLINE requests.
The list is sorted alphabetically by the expert’s last name.

10.2


10.6 STAPPA/ALAPCO AIR TOXICS SUB-COMMITTEE
Table 10.6 provides the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the State and Territorial Air

Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) Air
Toxics Subcommittee.

Table 10-6 STAPPA/ALAPCO Air Toxics Sub-Committee

Don Arkell, Lane Regional Air Pollution Control Authority, Suite 501, 225 North 5th,
Springfield, OR 97477, (503) 726-2514

Bill Dennison, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte, CA 91731, (818) 572-
6200

Terri Thomas, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009, (805)
654-2844

Don Tyler (STAPPA) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management, 101 S. Webster
St., Madison, WI 53703, (608) 266-7718)

1.N. Vaughn, City of Huntsville, Air Pollution Control, 2033 C Airport Road, Huntsville, AL 35802, (205) 883-3645

10.58


Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Utility Boilers

The CTC is helping the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management develop a
technical support document for use by the States in developing nitrous oxides RACT regulations.
The document will be complete in November 1991. (Bill Neuffer, 919-541-5435)

Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) Models

The CTC, in conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute, is developing two ESP
models. One is a full-feature ESP model with in-depth analysis capability for use by scientists and
engineers. The other model will be "user-friendly," primarily for use by State and local agencies.
(Norman Plaks, 919-541-3084).

Pennsylvania/Iron Oxide Process Analysis

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources requested CTC assistance in
analyzing a substance that is deposited on cars, buildings, and other surfaces in the vicinity of a
plant. The plant produces iron oxide for use in the recording tape industry. The CTC is receiving
monthly samples for x-ray diffraction elemental analysis. (Frank Briden, 919-541-7808)

Carbon Disulfide Study

The CTC is conducting a study on emission controls for carbon disulfide. The project is being
conducted in response to several HOTLINE calls, for which CTC expertise has not been available.
(Deborah Michelitsch, 919-541-5437)

Small Business Guidance Document

The CTC is developing guidelines for the Federal Small Business Assistance Program to use
in writing small business “enabling” documents. (Deborah Michelitsch, 919-541-5437)

Controlled Combustion of Scrap Tires

In response to many HOTLINE requests, the CTC is funding a study to examine emission
characteristics from burning tires under different controlled conditions in a rotary kiln. (Paul Lemieux,
919-541-0962)

Ink and Paint Manufacturing Emissions

In response to HOTLINE requests for information on the control of emissions from ink and
paint manufacturing, the CTC is gathering data and conducting a literature search. Both processes
emit high levels of VOCs and tend to operate in population centers and ozone non-attainment areas.
(Joe Steigerwald, 919-541-2736)

Non-Ferrous Metal Rolling

The CTC is funding a study of the non-ferrous metal rolling industry, which uses oil as a

lubricant and coolant in rolling operations. The study will identify emission points, characterize
emissions, and identify and evaluate control options and costs. (Joe Steigerwald, 919-541-2736)

9.11


“Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing" (EPA-600/2-90-019,
PB90-216532)

The CTC conducted a survey to define the nature and scope of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from the production of fiberglass marine craft. Earlier studies indicated that over
22,000 tons of VOC per year are emitted from fiberglass boat manufacturing in the U.S., mainly from
styrene and cleanup solvents. Studies have also shown that the fiberglass industry may impact local
air quality in coastal areas and locations near recreation waters, where boat manufacturing is
concentrated.

The CTC study identified total industry VOC emissions and emissions from different industry
segments, specific processes used by the industry, industry structure, and economic data. The CTC
published a report summarizing its findings, including the evaluation of VOC control options. The
report also described the geographic distribution of fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. Although
directed mostly toward boat manufacturing, the findings of the study are also applicable to other
molded fiberglass operations.

The study’s findings include industry characterization, process emissions, emission
reductions through process or material changes, and emission reductions through add-on controls.
The report includes the recommendation of additional study of the potential control options that it
described. The report cited the substitution of lower VOC-containing materials as having the greatest
potential for VOC emission reductions with low costs. The study also concluded that three control
devices are reputed to potentially control VOC and styrene emissions from fiberglass boat
manufacturing facilities. However, U.S. fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities are not applying the
add-on controls cited yet, pending further evaluation of their technical and economic viability.

9.17


MONTHLY PROJECT NARRATIVE

TITLE, CTC No. DATE.
SUPERVISOR'S INITIALS, CTC CO-CHAIR INITIALS (DARVIN/BLASZCZAK),
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

DATE OF

REPORT PROJECT STATUS

Figure 3-2 Sample Project Tracking Form (Continued)

3.8


10.3. ASSOCIATE HOTLINES AND CLEARINGHOUSES

Table 10-3 lists hotlines and clearinghouses associated with the CTC. It also provides the names of
people to contact at these programs and their telephone numbers.

Table 10-3. Associate Hotlines and Clearinghouses

Group Contact Phone*

AirRISC Information Holly Reid (919) 541-0888
Support Center (AirRISC) Dan Guth FTS 629-0888
Best Available Control Joe Steigerwald (919) 541-2736
Technology (BACT)/ FTS 629-2736

Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse

Control Technology Bob Blaszczak (919) 541-0800
Center HOTLINE Chuck Darvin FTS 629-0800
Emission Factor Dennis Shipman (919) 541-5477
Clearinghouse FTS 629-5477
Emission Measurement Technical Roy Huntley (919) 541-1059
Information Center (EMTIC) FTS 629-5375
National Air Toxics Nancy Riley (919) 541-5348
Information Clearinghouse FTS 629-5348
(NATICH)
New Source Review Emission David Soloman (919) 541-5375
FTS 629-5375

Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)/

Superfund HOTLINE 1-800-424-9346
Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA

Title Il) HOTLINE 1-800-535-0202
Support Center for Regulatory Jerry Mersch (919) 541-5343

Air Quality Models (SCRAM) FTS 629-5343

10.55


CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

Sponsored by:

Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S.Environmenta! Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Figure 4-2. Sample CTC Report Title Page

43


AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY

aL

June 1991
Frank T. Princiotta, Director
G. Blair Martin, Deputy Director
A. B. Craig, Senior Physical Scientist (Radon)
PROGRAM OPERATIONS OFFICE
Martha Daniel, Director
mn
2
3
7
* GLOBAL EMISSIONS AND CONTROL POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
> DIVISION
m
Zz James H. Abbott, Director Everett L. Plyler, Director
° Robert P. Hangebrauck, Dep. Dir. Dennis C. Drehmel, Deputy Director
g
2
§
Ss GAS CLEANING
a GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS AND COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
fey CONTROL BRANCH MODELING BRANCH RESEARCH BRANCH
ms
2
a
Richard D. Stern, Janice K. Wagner, Robert E. Hall, Michael A. Maxwell,
Chief Chief Chief Chief
ORGANICS STRATOSPHERIC INDOOR AIR RADON MITIGATION
CONTROL BRANCH OZONE PROTECTION BRANCH BRANCH
Wade H. Ponder, William J. Rhodes, Bruce A. Tichenor, Michael C. Osborne,
Chiet Chiet Acting Chief Chief

Date Qagganization: December 22, 1989


Workshops on Hazardous and Toxic Air Pollutant Control Technologies and Permitting Issues

In 1987, EPA sponsored the National Workshops on "Developing and Implementing Air
Toxics Control Programs." The attendees requested that the workshops be followed by a more
specific workshop dealing with control technology and associated permitting considerations for air
toxics. The CTC Steering Committee agreed to provide this assistance. The CTC asked the State
and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(STAPPA/ALAPCO) to work with the CTC project team to determine the topics which should be
discussed. STAPPA/ALAPCO agreed this was an important area and worked with the CTC as a co-
sponsor of the workshops. The specific objectives of the workshops were to:

* Communicate practical information on control technologies,

+ Present actual experiences and case histories,

* Transfer state-of-the-art knowledge, and

* Promote uniformity in permitting of hazardous and toxic pollutants.

Two three-day workshops were held, one in Raleigh, North Carolina and one in
San Francisco, California. The first two days were open sessions with over 300 attendees at each
workshop representing EPA, State and local agencies, industry, and consulting firms. The general
format included a technical speaker presenting information on a specific control device with case
Studies to illustrate application of the control device followed by a speaker from a State or local
agency to address the permitting concems, specific problems, or issues associated with that device.
Topics included traditional controls: incinerators, flares, carbon adsorption, absorption, and fabric
filters as well as process modifications and fugitive equipment leaks. The attendees also met in small
groups for discussion of specific permitting problems.

The third day of the workshop was open only to State, local, and EPA personnel to discuss
policy and additional permitting issues. Factors and approaches relevant to determination of best
available control technologies were discussed. EPA presented information on technical assistance
available to the State and local agencies. The workshop also provided a forum for State and local
personnel to discuss common problems and share solutions.

9.44


5.1 THE CTC HOTLINE
AEERL and ESD staff answering requests for assistance should always
BE PROMPT ... BE RESPONSIVE ... BE RESPONSIBLE

The CTC established the following guidelines for responding to HOTLINE calls in a consistent
manner. These procedures outline the minimum standards of conduct for responding to HOTLINE
requests.

Be prompt.

An AEERL or ESD staff member receiving a HOTLINE form or other request for technical
assistance contacts the requestor as soon as possible (always within 24 hours). A State or local air
Pollution control permit engineer may have an important question and a deadline. The worst outcome
for the requestor is to be unsure if anyone will return the call in time.

A responder who does not have time to return a call, informs his/her supervisor. The
supervisor may either (1) have someone else respond to the call, or (2) contact the CTC Co-chair to
consider another solution. If the CTC cannot respond within a reasonable time or before an
established deadline, the Co-chair may contact the requestor with an alternate deadline. This contact
will allow the caller to seek other resources or delay action until he/she receives a response. At least,
an initial contact assures the caller that the CTC is attempting to respond to the request.

Be responsive.

A response may provide the caller with an immediate answer or require research. The
responder should:

1. Determine how quick a response and the degree of detail the requestor needs

2. Give the requestor an estimate of how soon and what type of assistance he/she may
expect

3. Comply with his/her commitment. If a responder foresees that he/she cannot keep
his/her commitment, he/she should inform the caller as soon as possible

The AEERL or ESD staff member responding to a request for assistance should take the time
to ensure that he/she has fully satisfied the request. He/she should determine if the requestor needs
any further assistance.

Be responsible.

The AEERL or ESD staff member is responsible for providing the best assistance that he/she
can. If he/she lacks the experience or knowledge to fully satisfy a request, he/she should pursue
other resources. He/she may consider one or more of the following steps to complete his/her
response.

1. Asking his/her supervisor for advice

2. Referring the caller to other ORD or OAQPS staff members

3. Referring the caller to another support group (the CTC Co-chairs have a list of other
support groups)

52


3.6 INFORMATION TRANSFER POLICY

Information transfer, as it relates to air emissions and air pollution control technology, is a
CTC function. The purposes of information transfer are:

1

To provide State and local agencies and other CTC clients with state-of-the-art
information on emissions, emission contro! technologies, and other related technical
issues; and

To assist State and local agencies in implementing air pollution control programs in other
ways consistent with the CTC’s mission and available expertise.

The method of delivering information developed by the CTC depends on several factors.
Those factors include the nature of the information, the urgency of the need, the number of
individuals requiring the information, and its long-term value to State and local agencies. Methods of
delivery may include published documents, workshops, seminars, computer software, training
courses, and other media.

The Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI) is responsible for establishing and delivering
training programs. The CTC does not overlap or duplicate that responsibility. However, the CTC
may assist APTI in developing new training courses under the following conditions:

1.

The request for training course development is initiated by a State or local agency or
EPA Regional Office

The requested training and relevant training materials are not readily available from any
other source

The needed training substantially involves air emissions or the application of air pollution
control technology

The CTC (through OAQPS, AEERL, and supporting contractor staff) has the expertise to
develop the needed training course.

The CTC will directly participate in developing the requested training course
The CTC's role is limited to any one or a combination of the following:

a. Developing technical information needed to compile the course

b. Assisting APTI in preparing the course and course material

c. Conducting pilot training exercises in the subject field to evaluate and refine the
training material

Once developed, the training course material is tumed over to APTI, EPA Regional
Offices, or State and local agencies for presentation, promotion, and delivery

The CTC does not consider the transfer of its funds to any program or that program's

designated contractor, to support an activity that would not involve any other direct CTC.
participation, to be an appropriate use of CTC resources.

3.9


(41) "Landfill Air Emissions Estimation Model from Municipal Landfills" (EPA-600/8-90-085a,
PB91-167718, manual; EPA-600/8-90-085b; PB91-507541 software)

The CTC has received several HOTLINE requests for information on landfill emissions. In
response, the CTC produced a user-friendly computer model and user's guide for estimating landfill
emissions. The software suggests defaults for input when site-specific data are not available.
(Susan Thorneloe, 919-541-2709)

(42) "Assessment of the Controllability of Condensible Emissions" (EPA-600/8-90-075,
PB91-125807)

The CTC provided support to the STAPPA/ALAPCO Air Toxics Subcommittee in acquiring a
better understanding of condensibles from an air toxics perspective. The CTC developed two data
bases on condensible emissions, determined their chemical makeup, and evaluated the effectiveness
of various control devices in reducing them. (Carlos Nufiez, 919-541-1586)

(43) “Source Book: NOx Control Technology Data" (EPA-600/2-91-029, PB91-217364)

The CTC has prepared a document to guide State and local agencies and EPA Regional
Offices in reviewing the permits for non-utility combustion sources. The CTC visited several key
vendors in Europe to gather data. (Charlie Sedman, 919-541-7700)

(50) “Radioactive and Mixed Waste Incineration Background Information Document,”
“Volume |, Technology" (EPA-520/1-91-010-1), "Volume II, Risk of Radiation Exposure”
(EPA-520/1-91-010-2)

The State of New Mexico requested CTC support in developing rules for the combustion of
mixed waste (contaminated by radioactive material). The CTC assisted the State by evaluating
alternative emission controls and monitoring devices at mixed waste combustors. (Bob Blaszczak,
919-541-5432)

(52) "Determination of Perchloroethylene Content of Waste Materials from Filters and Still
Bottoms—Conaitional Test Method” (EPA-450/3-91-009, PB91-161737)

The CTC responded to a request from EPA Region 1 by defining a test method for
determining the perchloroethylene (PERC) content of wastes from dry cleaning facilities.
(Tony Wayne, 919-541-3576)

Completed CTC Projects not Documented by Formal Reports

Chemical and Biological Characterization of Products of Incomplete Combustion from the
Simulated Burning of Agricultural Plastic

The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Air Quality Management,
tequested an evaluation of emissions from the burning of pesticide contaminated plastics used in
agriculture. The CTC evaluated two methods of burning the plastics using clean and contaminated
Plastics. The Center, then provided the State with data on the types and levels of emissions and their
health effects. (William Linak, 919-541-5792)

9.7


compliance assistance program. The CTC will play a major role in implementing the technical
assistance portion of this program.

The CTC is not EPA's only technical assistance effort for State and local agencies in the area
of air toxics. However, the Center is designed to be flexible. Thus, it can respond quickly to the

needs of State and local air pollution agencies for emissions assessment, control technology, and
source test methods.

1.2


“Test Report: Method Development and Evaluation of Draft Protocol for Measurement of
Condensible Particulate Emissions” (EPA-450/4-90-012, PB90-240805)

The CTC responded to requests by several States and the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators (STAPPA) for a test method for condensible particulate matter (CPM).
Because current methods measure only in-stack PM, EPA considered a CPM method to be vital.
EPA made the impinger catch method of measuring CPM the subject of this study. This method
allowed the determination of both filterable PM and CPM simultaneously, uses existing methodology
and equipment, and is being used by several State agencies. The CTC published a report which
details the laboratory and field evaluations of the study.

The evaluation sought to determine the adequacy of the test method and produce supporting

documentation. A further objective was to revise the candidate method based on the results of the
laboratory experiments, to validate the method in field tests, and to revise the method, if necessary.

9.39


Table 5-1 HOTLINE Process Codes

ABRASIVE BLASTING
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
ADHESIVES

AEROSPACE

AGRICULTURE

AIRPORTS

AIR STRIPPING

ASBESTOS

ASPHALT

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING
AUTOMOBILE REFINISHING
BOILERS

BRICK, CERAMIC, CEMENT
CARBON ADSORPTION
CHEMICAL HANDLING
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
COAL HANDLING
CO-GENERATION

COKE OVENS

CONCRETE CRUSHING
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT
COOLING TOWERS
CREMATORIUMS
DEGREASERS
DRY-CLEANING

DUST CONTROL
ELECTRONICS
ELECTROPLATING
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
ENGINES, DIESEL

ENGINES, GAS

ENGINES, INTERNAL COMBUSTION
EQUIPMENT LEAKS
EXPLOSIVES

FERTILIZER

FIBERGLASS

FIRE PROTECTION

FLARES

FOAM BLOWING

FOOD AND BEVERAGES
FOUNDRIES

FURNITURE MANUFACTURING
GASOLINE HANDLING

GLASS MANUFACTURING
GRAIN PROCESSING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
HOSPITAL STERILIZERS

(Continued)

5.7


10.4 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Table 10.4 is a list of Steering Committee members, and their addresses and telephone numbers.

Table 10-4 Steering Committee Members

Bob Blaszczak,* U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5432,
(FTS) 629-5432

Karen Blanchard, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5503,
(FTS) 629-5503

Chuck Darvin,* U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-61, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-7633,
(FTS) 629-7633

Dennis Drehmel, U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-7505,
(FTS) 629-7505

Ken Durkee, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5503,
(FTS) 629-5425

Bill Hamnett, U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5253,
(FTS) 629-5253

Paul Lemieux, U.S. EPA (AEERL), MD-65, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-0962,
(FTS) 629-0962

Justice Manning (CERI) U.S. EPA, MS-G75, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268,
(513) 569-7349, (FTS) 684-7349

Doug McKinney, U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-60, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-3006

Wade Ponder, U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-61, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-2818,
(FTS) 629-2818

Bill Rhodes, U.S. EPA (AEERL) MD-62b, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-2853,
(FTS) 629-2853

Jim Berry, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5605,
(FTS) 629-5605

Tim Smith, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5352,
(FTS) 629-5352 (alternate)

Jim Southerland, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5523,
(FTS) 629-5523

Al Vervaert, U.S. EPA (OAQPS) MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-5602,
(FTS) 629-5602 (alternate)

*AEERL and OAQPS Co-chairs

10.56


Table 5-2 HOTLINE Pollutant Codes (Continued)

OTHER

OZONE

PAH
PARTICULATES
PATHOGENS

PCBs

PENTANE

PERC

PHOSPHINE
POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER
RADIOACTIVE
RADON

STYRENE

SULFUR

SULFUR OXIDES
TCE

TOLUENE
VARIOUS

VISIBLE EMISSIONS
VOCs

5.10