P. 1 

# OAR Box 1392 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 132 ) ll-A- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/7/2008 9:45:59 AM

Sheet 132 of 136P. 2 

# iWHm Unite d Slate s Environmenta l Protectio n iAgenc y 

# Resea r Devel o /R-9G-KU i



# 94-£ Z U>rV" l ADDENDU M T O ! ASSESSMEN T O F STYREN E EMISSIO N CONTROL S FO RFRP/ C AN D BOA T BUILDIN G I 

# Prepare d fo r

Dffic e o f

Ai r Qualit 1 an d Stan d

QIC * v l U

V 

### Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t Researc h Laborator y 'Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1¥ EJL,

r I K . U , ;-- . KHvire^jri-p-nia l ;-•-.: . ,.•-., i<?.-::-li;i#: :.:;• ? .\'i ! 3 i;'Vi' * 1 ;•:»•.>•; , s.:p- «„. . 1 =

r €.".v:v.-.-;- r J '.:e/'is. : . !««€ , C!; f ApfLP'P ' ?'; ; i.;"i. ^ t o aro:i':;;«tibif ? b-aua.'i-p-p

- ,••.? ; v <••§

- system. . L

o suppor t

^nd nur^n : P '.ii- . program : i d providin g Cat- K SJ-..; ; iv »"?

• blzzv.s todsy &j'd

bu&ldi'.ig as ;:..•?•. : p e ; « logica l resource s wi^ig'y , a.'-:.P.?•• • „ - Lap-• • veii t o r reduce . enviror;p;:e;;:l«p . r!&.t « • ;=" P ' • • « •'-.la. : p s ; ' " V ; •' . ' y ° • »; P ;' . I P s . : .3. P ^ I'' !

a P. - • • • : " \ . v ! " * . . ; • 8..; ; : ; - \.%. •' ; < .•' . i. •,-> . '„ P " = . »...: , I ' . i .., ; : P'^f- vl.PV^» i '..-;& ' . P ! 8 . • ' - : S ; € • P;]3)J,(0 » t ,. C

r SPP(;Pr v y

• "'"':.$4g" ? IO &®P: . P. °. ' f s ss. '

' ' °iV 'oft^j- J 1..-S3? ! s P " ! 'pi p , lit'!'. . » :!« . a - i i: . I'h c Nationa l Ris k

Msn-^e w\t^.l

p;«s?sr.': . .'.«W)-ai.\

- investigatio n c f

te:oiir;3lc*ri.ea l ^n.- I fro mthreat s t o hum * ahsuAi s- p i *J-? . e-,.Pir<APocfOr<s,ip: . 7 h •? < ^ •••;:: § p.; . •..,:•• . „

. . « 8 ;.- ; ?' . r«fSe&rC:' i prOfp'g.^ a I S CV. :tift',P;P.J s pj. rip : P ;X'-SAn&l o i.M0« 5 sffu.-' i pni"'; p .Ji i . : • ' ...v'.O , '.i - ;.. , a

• ; iand , water , &rt< l subs^uri*-. : S r& t PP ^ •• - s ^ • ; j r.3)k & \V<,LKrc

s r t «• . « : s ;*-.' , > ; p ..;." ; •-•/i\- &y&'l-§::i\i3;

reprr; . g:!; . 9 . Lio n Cc - ' s;J" P ...S.PJ

O <;PP, « P& O e : .J,& « J8jp(<? 5 .>g ; .n»;6vo.u3>»' « p

s , ajpo

^ o ' s" ° S^PJ.JO P .3 1 y CCTPPPP'.,14 . .p f ip^pup.i rS;;J : apxtPdP4„p22 , « P' £ jgiP/ss J o) f .'(d^dii

® Pr'C&scs^j - a' p .s-)'y:oo'- i i v s '2. ' "= 3 .-8iy% e :5'8'? ' $A»V»r

&:o:.t

«iIJi d I'OTul'f : jay"j:,..8>)rP!^.P3PO» a o« ° ?*JoO'Oo'p^0 'ftiS.^C ^ (g(3)g' ^

vaiS°C&PMgp°'( & ,&)0 LX o 1jr'(O)]00C0,(Si0',fcs J '('SP.,:0 i ffioPP.irj,}|-ip8<i § ; d.^?'S'J,;CD) B ®-.^\(KO<WJ9\V P em$ ©Qig'Wsifai^p^ilJ ^

^o#os~)ot).S'.yjca) o -OKa^j^a^d 'a' y &P & ^0 sry.ia-jpiO')-' P ' '§ ^

JJ.«'331P\ S ^.oood

^ rpxobj.p y d(fe'.%''jS 1 f.«S)Bj& . =sa51t4 - '#p(oX<vjaSi(8

= •)«apajbcOO'^P«

j ««iii)p))o"c;r " «L0«d -jodV^r * '•oti.si a ,OIP . r^'sjtijgfte ? Pt a ,&)ol »M.a--', & <si(? 5 «r'A:o* w? e fsjQQOpoi.ta^o'Di^o.fi^ldiCOJK i 'o f laSP^^p^ftiBouoo^otfe ^ )"«^ieJ.3iw'\0/.a s ^6yr f ®t''SPfeSl«S .

^fts'r'Pil ^

*PCP^ . 0«. ? al . ^fOsoojS)ac P ", o q&m.f 'S&sc

s !0:s^&9 r wg.iQ ? 'ih s p

- ". "• J •&'.• : f'.= § . . ,tp s itjato'Wjff'.to ry « a 1 ^^® ^ ; • \cpuoi g | . '^-^Z^ZuB-

'sy i&;' u > « C(^rf,<t« g of

f 1R-.. & te^f ®0i d f

w jftod S ,, -'g;aesjf"p'JbpB)" s

!g!^/ e i^l^p'tf " ^©1101 1

mitew i "''Sfgiftirfiwcjgi i 'iiriiifa'f'MHtiiwi o 

# cP. 4 

# r EPA-600/R-96-13 6 Novembe r

199 6 

# Addendu mt o Assessment o f Styren e Emissio n Control s fo r

FRP/ C an d Boat Buildin g Industrie s Fina l Repor t

by : Emer y J . Kong , Mar

k A . Bahner , an

dSonj i L . Turne

r Research Triangl e Institut

e RO . Box 1219

4 Research Triangl e Park , N

C 2770 9 EP A Contrac t

68-D1-0118 , W.A . 19

2

EP A Project Officer : Norma

n Kapla n Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n an

dControl Divisio n Nationa l Ris k Managemen

t Researc h Laborator

y U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency Research Triangl e Park , N

C 2771 1 Prepare dfo

r U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agenc

y Office o f Research an

dDevelopmen

t Washington , DC 2046 0P. 5



### Abstrac t Thi s repor t i s a n addendu mto a199 6 EP

A repor t entitle dAssessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. Thi s addendu mpresent s additiona

l evaluatio n o f the biologica

l treatmen t o f styrene emissions , Dow Chemica l Company' s SORBATHENE ® solven t vapor recover y system , Occupationa

l Safet y an dHealt h Administratio n regulation s an d other policie s tha

t affec t th e fibe r reinforcedplastics/composite s (FRP/C ) andboa t buildin g industries , and secondar

y pollutio n an

dnatura l ga s usag e resultin g fro

mvariou s emissio n contro l options . Thi s stud y conclude s that :

• Based o

n availabl e result s fro

mbench

- an

dpilot-scal e studie s an

dfull-siz e operation , biofiltratio n or

abioscrubbe

r coul db e aviabl e contro l optio n fo r treatmen t o f styrene emissions .

• Do w Chemical' s SORBATHENE ® vapo r recover y syste mwas develope dfo

r high-concentration , low-flow exhaus t fro mstorag e vent s an

dwoul dno t

b e economically feasibl e fo

r low-concentration , high-volum e flo w typically foun

d i n th e mos t prominen t processin g technique s i

n th e FRP/

C an dboa t buildin g industries .

• Employer s shoul d compl y wit h curren t or futur e permissibl e exposure limit s (PELs ) fo r styrene usin g feasibl e engineerin g control s an dshoul dprovid e respirator y protectio n to employee s whe n worke r exposur e canno t mee t PEL s afte r feasibl e engineerin g control s hav e bee n implemented . I

t i s als o a n industria

l practic e fo r employer s to provide additiona l respirator

y protectio n to th e employee s eve

n though th e PEL s ar

e met .

• Direc t

therma l oxidatio n or

catalyti c oxidatio n wouldb e les s economica l tha n preconcentration/oxidatio n technologie s fo r low-concentration , high-volume emission s typically foun

di n th e industries . Secondar

y pollutio n andnatura

l ga s usag e coul d b e reduce dsignificantly whe n usin g preconcentratio n technologie s followed by catalyti c oxidation .p.e



### Content s Abstrac t ii Figure s v Table s v Acronym s an dAbbreviation s vi Conversio n Tabl e vii i Chapte r 1 Introductio n 1 Reference s 1 Chapte r 2 Biologica l Treatmen t 2 2. 1 Syste mInformatio n Requeste d 2 2. 2 Description s o f

Biologica l Treatmen t

System s 2 Reference s 8 Chapte r 3 Nove l Styren e Emissio n Contro l Technolog y 9 3. 1 Do w Chemica l SORBATHENE ® Solven t Vapo r Recover y Uni t

9 Reference s 1 1 Chapte r 4 OSH A Regulation s an d Policie s Affectin g Worke r Exposure s in th e FRP/ C an d Boa t Buildin g Industrie s 1 2 4. 1 Summar y an dImplicatio n o f OSH A Regulation s 1 2 4. 2 D e Minimi s Violation s 1 3 4. 3 Loca l Ai r

Flo w Managemen t

an d Spray Booth Modification s 1 4 Reference s 1 5 Chapte r 5 Assumption s i n th e Society o f Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institute' s (SPI/CI ) Stud y o n Noneconomi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s 1 7 5. 1 Us e o f

Therma l Oxidize r

1 7 5. 2 Contro l Devic e Inle t Concentratio n o f

2 0 pp m1 7 5.2. 1 Economi c Incentive s fo r Maximizin g Inle t

Concentration s 1 9 5.2. 2 Exhaus t

Concentrations at

Existin g Plant s 1 9 5.2. 3 Recen t

an dPotentia l Futur e Change s in Allowabl e Exposure s t o Styrene2 1 5.2. 4 Existin g Relationship s Betwee n Worke r Exposur e an d Exhaus t Concentratio n 2 1 5.2. 5 Potentia l Method s t o Increas e Concentratio n t o Downstrea mControl s . 2 1 5.2. 6 Conclusion s on Assumptio n o f Contro l Devic e Inle t

Concentratio n o f

2 0 pp m2 3 Reference s 2 4 Chapte r 6 RT I Analysi s o f

Noneconomi c Impact s o f Control s 2 5 6. 1 Normalize dCurve s fo r Natura l Ga s Usag e an d Secondar y Pollutan t Emission s 2 5 6.1. 1 Natural Gas Usag e 2 5 

### ii iP. 7

Content s (continued ) 6.1. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emission s 2 7 6.1. 3 Nitrogen Oxide Emission s 2 7 6. 2 Calculation s fo

r Specifi c Plan

t 2 9 6.2. 1 Natura

l Ga s Usag e 3 1 6.2. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emission s 3 1 6.2. 3 Nitrogen Oxide Emission s 3 4 6.2. 4 Radon Emission s 3 4 6. 3 Conclusion s 3 7 Reference s 3 7 APPENDIXE S A Comment s o

n Individua

l Statement s i

n th e SPI/C I Stud

y 3 9 B Revisio n o

f th e Styrene Contro l Cos t

Spreadshee

t Model andCos t

Figure s 4 3

i v^ 8



### Figure s No . Pag e 2- 1 W K

Weeg e GmbH bioscrubbe r syste m7 3- 1 Proces s diagra

mo f aSORBATHEN

E solven t vapo r recover y unit 1 0 5- 1 Cos t

curve s fo r alarg e plan

t (40 0 ton s pe

r yea r inlet ) 1 8 5- 2 Typica

l ope n moldin g operatio n i

n aspra y boot h 2 2 6- 1 Normalize d natura

l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l option s an

dfo r sensibl e heatin g o f exhaus t strea m2 6 6- 2 Normalize d additiona l carbon dioxide generate db y natura l ga s combustio n fo

r variou s contro l option s 2 8 6- 3 Normalize d NOx emission s fo r variou s contro l option s 3 0 6- 4 Natura

l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l option s an

dfo r sensibl e heatin g at

atypica l plant 3 2 6- 5 Carbo n dioxide emission s fo r variou s contro l option s a

t atypica l plan t 3 3 6- 6 No x emission s fo

r variou s contro l option s a

t atypica l plan t 3 5 6- 7 Radon emission s du e to natura l ga s combustio n fo

r variou s contro l option s a

t atypica l plant 3 6



### Table s No . Pag e 2- 1 Propertie s fo

r Styrene Abatemen

t Biosystem s 4 5- 1 Styrene Exhaus t

Concentration s a

t Existin g Ope

n Molding Plant s wit

h Resin/Gel Coa

t Usag e Greate

r tha n 1,00 0 ton/y r 2 0 5- 2 Compariso n o

f averag e styrene exhaus t

concentratio n (29 0 ppm

) wit h worke r exposur e level s a t Lasc o Bathware , Sout

h Boston , V

A 2 3 6- 1 Characteristic s fo

r Specifi c Plan

t (Universa l Rundle , i n Ottumwa , Iowa

) 3 1P. 9



### Acronym s an dAbbreviation s ACGI H BAC T Bt u CAA A C E CEFI C CFC s C O C0 2 E C EC& C EP A FI D FRP/ C f t ft/mi n GPRM C HA P H.R . k W kW h l b lb/ h LE L MAC T MIA B NFP A NO x OAQP S OSH A PADR E P C PE C PE L pp m PS A psi g REEC O RP C RT I SI C SM C America n Counci l o f Governmen t

Industria l Hygienist s bes t availabl e contro l technolog y Britis h thermal uni t Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f

199 0 capita l equipmen t

(cost ) Unsaturate dPolyester s Secto r Grou p o f Europea n Chemica l Industr y Counci l chlorofluorocarbon s carbo n monoxid e carbo n dioxid e equipmen t

cos t Environmenta l C&C , Inc . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y flam e ionizatio n detecto r fiber-reinforced plastics/composite s fee t fee t pe r minut e Europea n Organizatio n o f Reinforce d Plastics/Composit e Material s hazardou s ai r

pollutant s hea t recovery kilowat t kilowatt-hou r poun d pound s pe r

hou r lowe r explosiv e limi t maximu machievabl e contro l technolog y Molnback aIndustri , A B Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n nitroge n oxide s Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s Occupationa l Safety an d Health Administratio n Polyme r Adsorptio n an d Remova l persona l compute r purchase dequipmen t

cos t permissibl e exposur e limit s part s pe r millio n (b y volume ) pressur e swin g adsorptio n pound s pe r

squar e inch , gag e Regenerativ e Environmenta l Equipmen t Co. , Inc . reinforce dplasti c composite s Researc h Triangl e Institut e Standar dIndustria l Classificatio n shee t moldin g compoun d V lP.1 0

SPI/C I STC STE L TC I TD C TL V ton/y r TRI TV A TW A VO C y r 

### ° c ° F Societ

y o f th e Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institut e Southeaster

n Technology Cente

r short-ter mexposur e limit tota l capita l investmen

t tota l direc t cos t threshol d limit

valu e ton s per yea r Toxic s Releas e Inventor

y Tennesse e Valle

y Authorit y time-weighte d averag e volatil e organi c compound yea r degree s Celsiu s degree s Fahrenheit

Vl lP.1 1



### Conversio n Tabl e Th e U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency polic y i s t o expres s al

l measurement s i

n Agenc y document s i

n metri c units . I

n thi s report , however , to confor mto industria

l convention , Englis h unit s ar e used . Conversio n factor s fro mEnglis h to metri c unit s ar e give n below . Englis h Unit

; Multiply b y T o Obtain

joul e

° C m m 2 m 3 mVmi n l/mi n c m m mH g k g kilopasca l M g Bt u o p f t ft 2 ft 3 ft 3 /mi n (cfm ) gal/mi n inc h in . H 2 0 l b psi a to n 1.055xl0 3 (°F-32)/1. 8 0.304 8 0.092 9 0.028 3 0.02831 4 3.7 9 2.54 1.8 7 0.45 4 6.89 5 0.90 7

Vil lP.1 2



### Chapte r 1 Introductio n Th e 199 Q Clea n Ai r

Ac t Amendment s (CAAA ) mandat e th e developmen t an d promulgatio n o f

standard s fo r

hazardou s ai r

pollutant s (HAP ) emitte d fro mamultitud e o f sourc e categorie s b y th e year

2000 . Styren e i s liste d a s aHA P in th e CAAA , an d i t i s know n t o b e emitte dfro mth e fiberglass-reinforced plastics/composite s (FRP/C ) an d boa t buildin g industries . A n earlie r

stud y (Kon g e t

al. , 1996 ) assesse d th e availabl e contro l technologies , thei r efficiencies , performance , an dcost . Tha t stud y als o reviewe d an d summarize d Occupationa l Safety an d Health Administratio n (OSHA ) regulation s governin g th e worke r exposur e issues , an d presente d th e ai r flo w managemen t

practice s tha t

coul d achiev e cost-effectiv e contro l o f styren e emissions . Thi s repor t

present s additiona l evaluatio n o f th e biologica l treatmen t

o f styren e emissions , Do w Chemica l Company' s SORBATHENE ® solven t vapo r recover y system , OSH A regulation s an dothe r

policie s that

affec t th e FRP/ C an d boat

buildin g industries , an d secondar y pollutio n an dnatura l ga s usag e resultin g fro mvariou s emissio n contro l options . Thi s stud y conclude s that : 1 . Base do n availabl e result s fro mbench

- an d pilot-scal e studie s an d full-siz e operation , biofiltratio n o r

abioscrubbe r

coul db e aviabl e contro l optio n fo r treatmen t

o f styren e emissions . 2 . Do w Chemical' s SORBATHENE ® vapo r recovery syste mwa s develope d fo r high

concentration , low-flo w exhaus t fro mstorag e vent s an d woul d no t b e economicall y feasibl e fo r lo w concentration , high-volum e flo w typicall y foun d i n th e mos t prominen t

processin g technique s i n th e FRP/ C an dboat buildin g industries . 3 . Th e employer s shoul dcompl y with curren t o r future PEL s fo r

styren e usin g feasibl e engineerin g control s an dshoul dprovid e respirator y protectio n t o th e employee s whe n worke r exposur e ca n no t

mee t PEL s afte

r feasibl e engineerin g control s hav e bee n implemented . I t i s als o a n industrial practic e fo r

employer s t o provid e additiona l respirator y protectio n t o th e employee s eve n thoug h th e PEL s ar e met . 4 . Direc t therma l oxidatio n o r

catalyti c oxidatio n woul d b e les s economica l than preconcentration/oxidatio n technologies fo r low-concentration , high-volum e emission s typicall y foun din th e industries . Secondary pollutio n an d natura l ga s usag e coul d b e reduce d significantl y whe n usin g preconcentratio n technologie s followe d b y catalyti c oxidation . Reference s Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , an dS.L . Turner . Septembe r 1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC .P.1 3



### Chapte r 2 Biologica l Treatmen t Biologica l treatmen t use s microorganism s i

n amedium , usually abiofilte r o r bioscrubber , to destro y organi c compound emission s i n a n air stream . Air

emission s containin g biodegradabl e constituent s pas s through abiologically activ e medium . Th e microorganism s degrad e th e organi c constituent s i

n th e air strea mto essentiall y carbon dioxide an dwater . Biofiltratio n ha s bee n used fo r man y year s i n Europe , Japan , an

dth e Unite dState s fo

r odor control , but

th e us e o f biofiltratio n t

o degrade mor

e complex ai

r emission s fro

mchemica

l plant s ha s occurre donly withi n th e las t

fe w years . Description s o

f biofiltratio n andbiotricklin g filter system s are presente d in a

n EPA repor

t (Kong e t al. , 1996) . Biofiltratio n an dbiotricklin g filte

r ar e simila r i n . principle , but

differen t vendor s us e differen

t design s an

dmedia . Thi s addendu

minclude s anothe r ne w biologica

l treatmen t syste mwhich comprise s abioscrubbe r andabioreactor . Thi s sectio n present s th e proces s description s an dinformation fo

r severa l biologica l treatment

unit s tha t hav e bee n teste d o r applie d fo r styrene emissions . 2. 1 System Informatio n Requested Th e Research Triangl e Institut e (RTI ) contacte dseve

n researcher s andsupplier s to obtai n availabl e informatio n o

n their variou s existin g an

dpropose dbiologica

l treatmen t systems . Th e reques t include d but

wa s not limite dto information o

n th e following :

• flow rate s - • compositio n o f the bio-medium • emissio n sourc e • incubatio n perio do f th e bio-medium • concentratio n • siz e o f th e biofilte

r • captur e efficiency . • pressur e dro p • contro l efficiency • acclimatio n perio d • time of operatio n (hours/day , days/week ) • performanc e durin g startup • numbe r of person s require d fo

r operation • performanc e afte r period s o f shutdow n • frequency o

f regeneratio n • capita l an doperatin g cost s Fiv e facilitie s responde d b

y th e requeste ddeadlin e to provide information fo r thi s report : Envirogen , Tennesse e Valle y Authorit y (TVA) , W K

Weeg e GmbH , Southeaster n Technolog y Center (STC) , an d EnvirOzone , Inc . 2. 2 Description s o f

Biological Treatmen

tSystem s Envirogen . Envirogen provide d information fo r tw o units , apilot-scal e biofilte r an dapropose d full-scal e biotricklin g filter . Th e pilot-scal e biofilte r wa s teste do

n air discharge dfro

ma fiberglas s spra

y boot h operation . The full-scal e biotricklin g filte r wa s designe dto contro l styren e emission s generate d by asequenc e batch reactor i n achemica

l company' s wastewate

r treatment facility ; however , th e syste mwa s neve

r put into service . Currently , CVT Biowa y i s conductin g a field pilo t stud y wit h TN O i n Europe . Thi s wor

k i s confidentia

l an dremain s unavailabl e toP.1 4

Envirogen . (Enviroge n an daDutc h company hav e ajoin t ventur e compan y calle d CV T America . CV T Americ aha s potential acces s t o licens e TNO' s technolog y throug h asiste r compan y calle dCV T Bioway . CV T Biowa y i s aseparat e compan y fro mCV T America. ) A s dat aan dinformatio n fro mthi s fieldstud y becom e availabl e t o them , Enviroge n wil l updat e RTI . Informatio n o n th e Enviroge n biotreatmen t syste mi s presente d i n a

n EP A repor t

(Kon g e t al. , 1996) . Propertie s fo r

thei r pilot-scal e syste man d desig n specification s fo r thei r full-scal e syste m ar e liste di n Tabl e 2-1 . TVA . In 1989 , 1.0

4 x IO 6 k g (1,14 4 tons ) o f styren e wa s emitte d b y manufacturin g industrie s i n th e Tennesse e Valley makin g styren e th e secon d larges t Toxi c Releas e Inventor y (TRI ) classifie d toxi c chemica l release di n th e regio n (Lacke y e t al. , 1994) . Laur aLacke y with TV A conducte d bench-scal e an dpilot-scal e studie s t o eliminat e styren e emission s fro mth e ai r stream s o f

a n industria l partne r

an dothe r

varie dindustria l applications . Fo r bench-scal e biofilte r

experiments , aparalle l serie s o f

thre e bench-scal e 2.8- L biofilter s wa s constructed . Al l thre e biofilter s wer e packe dwith a1: 1 (v/v ) mixtur e o f pin e bar k an d composte d chicke n litter . A stainles s stee l scree n supporte dth e packin g materia l creatin g afre e spac e at th e botto mo f

eac h biofilter . A controlle dfee do f

styrene-contaminate d ga s entere d th e fre e space , an d purifie d ai r exite d th e top . Fo r th e bench-scal e experiments , biofilter s wer e operate d continuousl y fo r a7-month period . Biofilte r 1 , th e Control , was autoclave d an d serve d a s asteril e control . Biofilte r 2 was inoculate dwith astyrene-degradin g consortiu mo f organisms , an d Biofilte r

3 use d onl y naturall y occurrin g microorganisms . Inle t styren e concentration s range d fro m5 0 t o 4,00 0 ppm v an dth e empt y be dcontac t

tim e varie dbetwee n 1 an d 8 minutes . Durin g day s 2 9 t o 36 , th e humidit y o f th e incomin g ai r

streamwas inadvertentl y droppe d belo w th e norma l 9 9 percen t t o belo w 5 0 percen t relativ e humidity . Thi s dro p cause d th e remova l efficienc y o f Biofilte r 2 t o decreas e t o 6 0 percent . Afte r

th e humidit y was returne d t o normal , th e performanc e o f Biofilte r 2 quickl y improve dan dremova l efficienc y increase d t o greate r than 9 9 percent . Thi s proble mdi d no t occu r with Biofilte r

3 . Afte r th e initia l acclimatio n period , th e performance s o f Biofilte r 2 an d Biofilte r 3 wer e similar , greate r

than 9 9 percen t

(L.W . Lackey , TVA , persona l communication , Sept . 4 , 1996) . Th e pilot-scal e biofilte r

tha t wa s installe d a

t aboat buildin g manufacturin g site wa s 0. 8 meter s i n diamete r

with atota l packin g volum e o f 1.2 6 m 3 (Hol t

an d Lackey , 1995) . It

wa s als o fille d with a1: 1 (v/v ) mixtur e o f pin e bar k an d composte d chicke n litter . Th e pilot-scal e biofilte r was monitore dfo r

3 months . Durin g norma l manufacturing , th e spra y booth was operate dfo r thre e shift s eac h da y (2 0 h/d) . Followin g th e first wee k o f operatio n an d microbia l acclimation , th e manufacturin g facility shu t dow n for 1 week . Durin g th e shutdown , th e biofilte r continue d t o operate , an dth e syste mwa s maintaine d unde r aerobi c condition s b y blowin g a n uncontaminate d ai r strea mthroug h th e biofilter . Som e styren e breakthroug h wa s note d durin g th e firs t shif t after th e wee k o f downtime . However , n o styren e wa s detecte d in th e biofilte r effluen t fo r th e nex t 2 month s whe n th e empt y be dcontac t tim e wa s maintaine d a

t aconstan t

rate . Additiona l informatio n abou t

th e propertie s fo r

both system s i s liste d i n Tabl e 2-1 . Lacke y plan s t o desig n a demonstration-scal e 340-m 3 /mi n (12,000-ft 3 /min ) biofiltratio n syste mbase d o n th e result s o f th e tw o studies . However , adecisio n t o construc t th e demonstration-scal e syste mi s currentl y o n hol d unti l ther e ar e regulator y requirement s t o buil d it .Tabl e 2-1 . Propertie s fo r Styren e Abatemen t

Biosystem s Bioreacto r Parameter s Uni t typ e Reacto r typ e Reacto r siz e Emission s sourc e Othe r pollutant(s ) Flo w rat e Styren e concentration s

Contro l efficienc y Tim e o f operatio n Person s neede dfo r operatio n Medi areplacemen t Companie s ENVIROGE N Pilo t Biofilte r 0.8 5 m 3 (3 0 ft' ) mediu m Fiberglas s spray boot h operatio n Full-scale' * Biofilte r 0.2 8 m'(1 0 ft' ) Wastewate r treatmen t facility N A 7.0 8 x 10 ' t o 5.6 6 x lO'm'/ s (1 5 t o 120ft'/min ) N A >95 % @ 30 + se c 85 % t o 9 5 % @ 1 5 se c 16h/d,5d/wk , 4 month s 0.660 8 m'/ s

(1,40 0 ft'/min ) N A

90 % remova l

2 4 h/da y 1 5 t o 7 year s Lif

e o f syste m TV A

Bench b Pilo t Biofilte r 2.8xl0'm ' (0.09 9 ft' ) Controlle d contaminate d fee d Aceton e N A 5 0 t o 4,00 0 ppm v (inlet ) >99 % remova l (Biofilte r 2 ) >99 % remova l (Biofilte r 3 ) 7 month s 1.2 6 m '

(44. 5 ft' ) mediu m Boa t manufacture r ME K Aceton e 2.83x10-'t o 2.1 2 x 10 ' ( 6 t o 4 5 ft'/min ) 0 t o 40 0 ppm v (inlet )

>98 % remova l

1 3 month s Non e N A W K Weeg e Full-scal e Bioscrubbe r Designe d fo r treatmen t required ' Automotiv e part s productio n NA d 20,00 0 m'/ h (11,77 4 ft'/min ) 5 0 t o 6 0 pp m (inlet ) 5 pp m(outlet )

- 90 % remova l 8 h/d , 5 d/wk , 10. 5 mo/y r Non e Lif e o f syste m ST C

Pilo t Biofilte r 21.6 2 m ' (763. 4 ft' ) FR P facilit y ME K 0.47 2 t o 0.94 4 m'/ s (1,00 0 t o 2,00 0 ft'/min ) 3 0 pp m(inlet ) 0. 3 pp m(outlet )

99 %

2 4 h/da y Non e 4 t o 7 year s (continued )Tabl e 2-1 . Continue d

Bioreacto r Parameter s Uni t typ e Medi acompositio n Acclimatio n perio d

Pressur e dro p Startu p performanc e Shutdow n recover y Capita l cos t Operatin g cos t Companie s ENVIROGE N Pilo t Proprietar y engineere dorgani c base dmateria l

- 1 wee k 1 in . t o 2 in . H 2 0 @ start-u p 8 in . H 2 0 desig n 7 5 % @ 6 0 se c 5to8 h (weeken d shutdown ) N A N A Full-scale 3

Syntheti c packin g 1 t o 2 week s (expected )

< 1 in . H 2 0 (expected ) N A N A Availabl e upo n reques t Availabl e upo n reques t TV A Bench " Pilo t 1: 1 (v/v ) pin e bar

k an d composte d chicke n litte r

- 5 day s (Biofilte r

2)

- 5 5 day s (Biofilte r 3) 0.00 3 in . H 2 0 (max ) N A • 0.7 5 in . H 2 0 (max ) N A N A

N A N A VVKWeeg e Full-scal e Proprietar y N A

N A N A Vi t o 1 h (afte r shut-down ) $450,00 0 t o $700,00 0 $25/da y t o $30/day ST C Pilo t 80 % chicke n compos t 20 % GAC . 2 t o 3 week s 2 0 t o 3 0 in . H 2 0 3 0 t o 7 0 % variabl e $140,00 0 (w/engineering ) $400/mont h N A = no t available . a . Desig n parameter s o f

thi s system s ar e listed . Th e syste mcurrentl y i s no t in use . b . A paralle l serie s o f

thre e bench-scal e biofilter s wer e use dfo r thi s bench-scal e test . Biofilte r I wa s autoclave d an d serve d a s asteril e control . Biofilte r 2 wa s inoculate dwit

h astyrene-degradin g consortiu mo f organisms . Biofilte r

3 utilize d onl y naturall y occurrin g microorganisms . c . Eac h syste mi s designe d t o handl e specifi c wast e streams . Norma l heigh t o f filter materia l i s amaximu mo f 1 t o 1.25 m . Fo r

10 0 t o 15 0 m ' o f

emissions , estimat e approximatel y 1 m'o f filter material . d . Syste mca n b e engineere dfo r specifi c wast e stream s o f volatil e organi c compoun d (VOCs) . A serie s o f bioscrubber s ca n b e designe d fo r eac h individua l uni t t o trea t aspecifi c VOC .P.1 7

W K Weeg e GmbH . W K Weeg e GmbH , a

n engineerin g compan y i n Wiesbaden , Germany , develope dabioscrubbe r

syste mtha t

remove s styren e an d othe r volatil e organi c compound s (VOCs ) fro mindustria l wast e gases . Th e bioscrubbe r syste memploy s afour-ste p proces s t o trea t styren e an dVO C emission s fro mindustria l wast e gas . A s show n i n Figur e 2-1 , industria l wast e gase s ente r

apacke dabsorptio n towe r wher e styren e i s absorbe d int o th e countercurren t flo w o f th e absorben t

solutio n (i.e. , wate r

an d clea n effluent

fro mth e bioreactor) . Th e absorptio n towe r consist s o f

packing , adrople t

separator , an d aliqui d distributor . Afte r thi s step , clea n ai r

leave s th e tower , an dth e styrene-lade n absorbent solutio n i s pumpe d int o astirre d bioreactor . I n th e bioreactor , styren e i s biologicall y degraded . Afte r th e degradatio n i s complete , proprietar y additive s ar e applie dt o maintai n th e bacteri apopulation , an d th e clea n effluen t fro mth e bioreacto r

i s pumpe dt o th e absorptio n towe r fo r reuse . N o sludg e o r

soli d wast e i s generate d fro mth e bioscrubbe r

process . Th e bioscrubbe r

syste mi s equippe d wit

h sensor s an dmeasurin g device s an d acompute r t o contro l th e operation s o f th e system . W K

Weeg e sell s aservic e contrac t t o maintai n an d operat e th e system . Th e persona l compute r (PC ) statio n i s th e hear t

o f dat aacquisitio n fo r

th e bioscrubbe r

system . Th e P C statio n collect s al l dat aan d control s variou s function s o f th e system , suc h a s refillin g wate r

t o mak e u p fo r

evaporatio n loss , replenishin g th e additives , an d controllin g th e system . Throug h mode mcommunicatio n methods , thes e dat aar e communicate d bac k t o W K Weege . Thi s informatio n transfe r allow s W K

Weeg e t o continuall y monito r th e functio n o f

th e syste man dt o remotel y adjus t th e syste mwhe n necessar y usin g afa x modem . Tw o bioscrubbe r

system s exis t

i n Germany : on e i s alaboratory-scal e facility , th e othe r i s acommercia l uni t

use db y aGerma n compan y usin g shee t moldin g compoun d (SMC ) t o manufactur e automotiv e parts . Th e commercia l uni t operate d fo r

on e yea r but i s n o longe r

i n operatio n now . Rud i Weege , compan y president , provide d RT I with a n overvie w o f

th e commercia l unit . Informatio n fo r th e commercia l syste mi s provide d i n Tabl e 2-1 . Th e cos t dat ai n Tabl e 2- 1 fo r

th e W K Weeg e syste mar e take n fro mpublishe d literatur e (Moder n Plastics , 1996) . Th e capita l cost s fo r asyste mhandlin g 11,76 6 ft 3 /mi n ar e estimate d t o b e betwee n $450,00 0 an d$700,000 . Thi s ca n b e compare d t o estimate d equipmen t cost s an d tota l capita l investment s o f $301,00 0 an d $619,000 , respectively , fro mth e biofiltratio n cos t spreadshee t

develope di n th e origina l styren e control s assessment . Operatin g cost s ar e give n a s approximatel y $2 5 t o $3 0 pe r day . Thi s can b e compare d with a n electrica l cos t

estimat e o f approximatel y $1 5 pe r

day fro mth e biofiltratio n cos t spreadshee t

(assumin g electricit y cos t o f $0.0 6 pe r kWhr , operatin g 8 hour s pe r day) . W K Weeg e i s i n th e proces s o f establishin g aNorth America n subsidiar y t o introduc e an d commercializ e thei r

technolog y t o th e FR P composit e industr y an d othe r industrie s emittin g VOC s i n Nort h America . Accordin g t o Weege , th e syste mca n b e designe d t o treat

variou s VOCs , wit h eac h uni t

dedicate dt o treatin g aspecifi c pollutant . Southeaster n Technolog y Cente r (STC) . ST C i s anon-profi t corporatio n whos e missio n i s t o facilitat e th e transfe r

o f commerciall y viabl e technologies fro mth e governmen t secto r t o th e busines s secto r

fo r th e purpos e o f

promotin g economi c developmen t an d creatin g jobs . 6P.1 8

Clea n Ai r

Wate r•

Stirre r

Aerato r

Reactiv e Additiv e

Dat a Acquisitio n !

Bioreacto r Absorptio n Towe r 4 Wast e Ga s

Figure 2-1 . W KWeeg e Gmb H bioscrubbe r system .P.1 9

Regin aPorte r

at ST C i s conductin g apilo t stud y for styren e remova l fro ma

n FR P facility . He r researc h i s bein g conducte dunde r aDepartmen t

o f Energ y (DOE ) contract . Delphinu s Engineering , Inc . an dEnvirOzone , Inc. , both i n South Carolina , ar e subcontractor s t o ST C an d ar e responsibl e fo r

th e desig n an doperatio n o f th e pilot-scal e unit . Delphinu s an d EnvirOzon e provide dpreliminar y informatio n fo r thi s repor t

fo r a21.62-m 3 (764-ft 3 ) pilot-scal e uni t tha t ha s bee n designe dt o trea t

gaseou s exhaust s fro ma n FR P facility . Th e flo w rate s o f th e exhaus t stream s rang e fro m0.47 2 t o 0.94 4 m 3 /s (1,00 0 t o 2,00 0 ftVmin) . Th e biofilte r medi acontain s 1 0 ton s (9,07 0 kg ) o f

chicke n compos t

(8 0 percen t

chicke n manur e an d 2 0 percen t granula r activate dcarbon ) tha t

require s a2

- t o 3-wee k

incubatio n period . Additiona l informatio n fo r thi s pilo t uni t ca n b e foun di n Tabl e 2- 1 (A . Saha , Delphinu s Engineering , persona l communication , Sept . 11 , 1996) . Reference s Germa n Fir mDevelop s Styrene-Abatemen t System . Modern Plastics, p . 17 , Marc h 1996 . Holt , T. , an dL . Lackey . 1995 . Contro l o f ga s contaminant s in ai r

stream s throug h biofiltration . Proceedings of

50th Purdue Industrial

Waste Conference. Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , an dS.L . Turner . Septembe r 1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Lackey , L . W. , M.T . Holt , J.R . Gamble , an d CE . Breed . 1994 . Biofdter Systems for the Control of Gas Contamination in Air Streams. Pape r

presente d at

th e Souther n State s Annua l Environmenta l Conference , Octobe r 20 .



# J

### Chapte r 3 Novel Styren e Emissio n Contro l Technolog y 3. 1 Do w Chemica

l SORBATHENE

® SolventVapo r Recover y Unit The Dow Chemica

l Compan y developedth e SORBATHENE ® pressur e swing adsorptio n (PSA ) proces s i

n the lat e 1980 s t o recove r VOC s an dothe r valuabl e chemica

l product s fro

m storage , loading , an

d proces s vents . Sinc e 1988 , the Dow Chemica l Compan y ha s installe d 1 9 SORBATHENE

® unit s t o recove r hydrocarbon , chlorofluorocarbon s (CFCs) , chlorinate d solvents , aromatics , an

d monomers . Dow Chemica l ha s tw o SORBATHENE

® unit s fo r recover y o f styrene vapor s fro

mstorag e vents . A SORBATHENE ® uni t ca n b e designe dt

o achiev e 99.9 % VO C remova

l fro mven t stream s ranging i

n flo w rat e fro m2 0 t o 3,00 0 ftVmi

n wit h fee d concentration s betwee

n 1,00 0 an d 500,00 0 pp

m(Collick et al. , 1996) . Th e chemica

l component s ar e recovere d a s acondensed liquid . Basedo n th e evaluatio n o

f thi s technolog y an

dafollow-u

p conversatio n wit

h Larr y Larrinag a(Radia

n International , persona

l communication , Septembe r 9 , 1996) , th e SORBATHENE

® technology wouldb e expensiv e to trea t th e low-styrene concentratio n (les s tha

n 20 0 ppm

) a t hig h flo w rate s (greate

r tha n 5,00 0 ftVmin

) typically foun

d i n th e mos t prominen t processin g technologie s (e.g. , sprayu p an dhan dlayu p i n ope n moldin g processes ) i

n th e FRP/

C facilities . Proces s Description . The SORBATHENE ® proces s i s typically appliedto recove r organi c vapor s fro

mproces s vents , storag e tanks , an dloading/unloadin g operations . Th e proces s use s PS A an

d th e hea t generate d during adsorption t o desor b th e VOC s collecte do

n th e adsorbent . Adsorptio n i s carrie d ou t a t atmospheri c pressur

e an dthe hea t o f adsorption i s retaine d i n th e adsorptio n bed , the

n the adsorbat

e i s desorbe da

t alowe r pressur e (i.e. , unde

r vacuum ) usin g th e retaine d heat . Optima l desorption pressure s ar

e selecte dbetwee

n 5 0 an d 30 0 m mH g ( 1 an

d 5. 8 psig) . A s show

n i n Figur e 3-1 , th e adsorptio n an

ddesorptio n step s ar

e batch processe s tha

t occu r simultaneously i

n alternatin g twi

n bed s t o maintain stead

y stat e operatio n o

f th e unit . Durin g th e desorptio n step , afractio n o f the clea n ga s leavin g th e adsorbing bedi s used a s th e backpurg e ga s fo

r desorption . Th e concentrate dstrea mo f desorbe dVO C i s drawn through avacuu msyste mthe n passe s throug

h acondense

r wher e th e VO C condense s an

di s removed a s a liquid . Th e coolin g mediu

mi s selecte dbasedo

n th e temperatur

e require dt

o condens e th e vapor . Contro l valve s switch th e bed s ove r shor t cycl e time s to avoi da

n excessiv e temperatur

e ris e cause d b y th e hea

t o f adsorption . The SORBATHENE ® uni t i s designe dfo

r the maximu

m instantaneou s fee

d concentratio n an

dflo w rat e tha t wouldb e expecte ddurin g operation o f th e unit . Th e unit

would no t requir e adjustmen

t as the inlet

flo w rat e an dconcentratio n var

y du e t o tan k fillin g operation . Standard Operatin g Conditions . The proces s ha s bee n applie dfo

r ven t stream s rangin g fro m2 0 t o 3,00 0 ftVmi

n concentration s betwee

n 1,00 0 an d500,00 0 ppm . Th e adsorbent , operatin g pressure s an

d temperatures , an

dcycl e tim

e o f th e unit ar e determine di

n apilo t stud y base d on th e characteristic s o f th e VO C to b e recovered . Eac h unit i s tailore dt

o th e specifi c VO C an d the characteristic s o

f the exhaus t

stream .P.2 1

Adsorbin g Uni t > Clea n Ven t Strea m

Desorbin g Uni t



# v J 

# S3—"—5 5 

# a Fee d Strea m T-T> - 

# C

^ : ope n valv e p ^ : close d valv e : adsorbin g flo w : desorbin g flo w Vacuu m Pum p

Condense r

Separato r Recovere d Liqui d

Figur e 3-1 . Proces s diagra m o f a SORBATHEN E solven t vapo r recover y unit .

1 0P.2 2

Contro l Efficiency . A SORBATHENE ® uni t ha s bee n teste d for

styren e vapo r

recover y fro mstorag e vent s an dit s recovery efficienc y wa s 99.7 8 percen t fo r a n inle t concentratio n o f 5,74 2 pp man da

n outle t concentratio n o f

13. 3 pp m(Hall , 1993) . Th e flo w rat e wa s no t reporte d for thi s teste dunit ; however , exhaus t flow rate s fro mstorag e vent s ar e probabl y in th e several

hundred-ftVmi n rang e whe n bein g filled. Polymerizatio n wa s no t encountere d fo r

th e adsorben t use di n thes e applications . Applicabilit y t o FRP/C/ C Processes . Th e SORBATHENE ® technolog y woul d not b e economicall y feasibl e fo r th e typical low-concentratio n an d high-flo w rat e exhaus t encountere d i n th e FRP/ C facilities . A SORBATHENE ® uni t migh t b e use d after

th e exhaus t

streamha s bee n concentrate dan dit s flo w rat e reduce d b y apreconcentratio n unit ; however , it s feasibilit y wil l b e determine db y th e economi c value , quantity , an d reusabilit y o f th e recovere d styrene . Cost . Larry Larrinag a(Radia n International , persona l communication , Septembe r 9 , 1996 ) estimate dtha t

th e equipmen t

cost s for aSORBATHEN E uni t

treatin g a

n optima l flow rat e o f 30 0 t o 50 0 ftVmin woul drang e fro m$600,00 0 t o $800,000 . Th e SORBATHENE ® uni t i s ver y sensitiv e t o flo w rat e an dth e equipmen t cos t increase s dramaticall y a s th e flo w rat e increases . Operatin g cost s includ e electricit y cos t t o operat e th e adsorbers , vacuumpump , condenser , an dseparator . Reference s Collic k S.J. , D.J . Pezolt , an dL . Larrinaga . 1996 . Capture and Recovery of

Tetrafluoromethane and Hexafluoroethane from Industrial Vents. Presente d a

t th e Ai r & Wast e Managemen t Associatio n 89t

h Annua l Meeting , Nashville , TN , Jun e 23-28 . Hall , T.L . 1993 . Dow Chemical SORBATHENE® Solvent Vapor Recovery Unit. Presente d at America n Chemica l Society , Emergin g Technologie s i n Hazardou s Wast e Management , Atlanta , GA , Septembe r

29 , 1993 .

l lP.2 3 

### Chapte r 4 OSH A Regulation s an d Policie s Affectin g Worke r Exposure s i n FRP/ C an d Boa t Buildin g Industrie s OSH A regulation s governin g th e permissibl e exposur e limi t (PEL ) fo r

styren e an d th e ventilatio n syste mdesig n i n th e FR P industr y wer e summarize d an d presente d i n a n RT I repor t (Kon g e t al. , 1996) . Tha t

report als o conclude d tha t

concentratin g th e exhaus t ai r strea man d reducin g th e exhaus t

flo w woul dreduc e th e cos t o f control . However , th e worke r exposur e i s bounde db y OSHA' s PE L fo r styrene . Th e curren t

8-hou r time-weighed-averag e (TWA ) PE L fo r styren e i s 10 0 ppm . Th e TW A short-ter mexposur e limi t (STEL ) i s 20 0 pp mfo r

1 5 minute s durin g awor k

da y an d60 0 pp mfo r

5 minute s i n an y 3 hours . Joh n B . Jenks , th e Chairma n o f th e Societ y o f

th e Plastic s Industry , Inc.' s Styren e Informatio n & Researc h Center , an d severa l industr y official s sen t alette r t o Josep h A . Dear , th e Assistan t Secretar y o f

Labo r fo r OSHA , o n Januar y 29 , 1996 , an d declare d awillingnes s t o voluntaril y compl y with lowe r exposur e limit s than thos e se t b y OSH A i n it s Januar y 198 9 rul e o n PE L fo r

styren e an dothe r

ai r contaminant s (OSHA , 1996) . Th e lowe r limit s ar e 5 0 pp mfo r a n 8-hou r TW A an d10 0 pp mfo r

short-termexposure . Th e industr y group s volunteerin g t o lowe r exposur e limit s ar e th e Societ y o f th e Plastic s Industry , Inc.' s Composite s Institute , Composite s Fabricator s Association , Nationa l Marin e Manufacturer s Association , an d Internationa l Cast

Polyme r Association . Thes e industr y group s us e polyeste r resin s tha t

emi t styren e i n th e productio n processes . Th e goa l i s fo r thes e industr y group s t o compl y with th e lowe r exposur e limit s b y Jul y 1997 . A s th e worke r

exposur e limit s ar e lowered , mor e efficien t exhaus t system s wil l b e neede d t o remov e th e sam e amoun t o f emission s o r

employee s wh o may not presently b e wearin g respirator s wil l nee dt o wea r them . Genera l ventilation , als o calle d dilutio n ventilatio n becaus e i t use s fres h ai r

t o achiev e lowe r

worke r exposur e levels , i s no t

practica l an d woul d b e expensiv e in th e winte r

whe n makeu p ai r

i s heate d t o maintai n aconstan t temperatur e for

produc t quality . Therefore , ne w ai r

flo w managemen t

practice s t o remov e styren e emission s effectivel y o r a respirator y protectio n progra mwil l b e necessary t o compl y wit h lowe r exposur e limits . Thi s sectio n present s (1 ) th e summar y an d implicatio n o f OSH A regulation s relate d t o styren e emission s an dventilatio n i n th e FR P industry , (2 ) th e explanatio n fo r "d e minimi s violations " unde r

th e OSH A policy , an d (3 ) loca l ai r flow managemen t

practice s an d modification s t o spray booth s tha t coul d b e considere d fo r

th e ventilatio n an d worke r exposur e issues . 4. 1 Summar y an d Implicatio n o f OSH A Regulation s I f afacilit y doe s no t

hav e adesignate d boot h o r are afo r ge l coatin g an d resi n applicatio n in a n ope n moldin g process , th e emission s fro mthes e operation s wil l b e disperse d i n th e work 1 2are aan dth e surroundin g ope n space . Unde r thes e conditions , th e worke r exposure s ar e limite d t o th e styren e PEL s liste di n Tabl e Z- 2 i n 2 9 CF R§ 1910.100 0 (OSHA , 1993 ) o r a s show n above . Titl e 2 9 CF R§ 1910.100 0 (e ) state s tha t administrativ e o r

engineerin g control s (e.g. , enclosur e o r

confinemen t

o f th e operation , genera l an d local ventilation , an d substitutio n o f les s toxi c materials ) mus t

first b e determine d an d implemente d wheneve r feasible . Whe n suc h engineerin g control s ar e no t feasibl e t o achiev e full complianc e o r whil e the y ar e bein g instituted , protectiv e equipmen t

o r an y othe r protectiv e measure s shoul d b e use d t o kee p th e exposur e o f employee s t o ai r

contaminant s withi n th e limit s prescribe d in th e section . Wheneve r respirator s ar e used , thei r

us e shoul dcompl y wit

h requirement s in 2 9 CF R§ 1910.13 4 "Respirator y Protection. " Whe n afacility use s aspra y booth , it s desig n mus t compl y wit

h regulation s i

n 2 9 CFR§ 1910.94(c ) an d§ 1910.107 . Sectio n § 1910.9 4 (c ) list s th e desig n an d constructio n o f th e spray booth an dth e minimu mai r flo w velocitie s that

mus t b e designe d an d maintaine d a t th e entranc e t o th e spra y booth unde r

variou s operatin g condition s i n orde r t o mee t health an d safet

y requirements . Sectio n § 1910.10 7 i s adopte d b y OSH A fro mNationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n (NFPA ) 33-196 9 (NFPA , 1969 ) "Standar d for Spra y Finishin g Usin g Flammabl e an d Combustibl e Materials. " Th e NFPA-3 3 standar d i s explicitl y afire an d explosio n safety standard . Therefore , th e OSH A standar d a t 2 9 CF R§ 1910.10 7 pertain s t o th e preventio n o f workplac e fir e an dexplosio n hazard s an d doe s no t pertai n t o healt

h considerations . Becaus e th e industr y ha s volunteere d t o compl y wit h lowe r PELs , facilitie s havin g difficulty meetin g th e lowe r limit s wil l hav e t o buil d spray booth s fo r thei r styrene-emittin g operation , appl y ai r

flo w managemen t

t o exhaus t

styren e emissions , o r

provid e respirator s for employee s wh o coul db e exposedt o styren e concentration s abov e th e PELs . Thes e facilitie s wil l choos e on e o f

thes e option s base do n th e feasibility o f usin g engineerin g controls , buildin g spra y booths , applyin g ai r

flow managemen t

practices , changin g material/equipment/process , o r providin g persona l respirators . Whe n th e employe e exposure s ar e abov e th e PELs , a s determine d b y persona l sampling , th e employe r ca n wor k with th e OSH A complianc e officer t o determin e a schedul e fo r

a n interi mabatemen t

syste m(e.g. , providin g respirator s t o employees ) an d alon g ter mabatemen t

syste m(e.g. , buildin g aventilatio n system) . Feasibilit y o f th e abatemen t

system s wil l b e considere db y th e facility operato r an d th e complianc e officer in meetin g th e PELs . If worke r exposure s stil l can no t

mee t PEL s after

engineerin g control s hav e bee n employed , the n th e respirator y progra mwil l becom e apermanen t progra m(Smith , OSHA , persona l communication , Octobe r 15 , 1996) . 4. 2 D e Minimi s Violation s Accordin g t o th e OSH A polic y (Shepich , 1990) , d e minimi s violation s ar e violation s o f standard s tha t

hav e n o direc t

o r immediat e relationshi p t o employe e safet y o r health . Wheneve r d e minimi s condition s ar e foun ddurin g a n inspection , the y ar e documente d th e sam e way a s an y othe r violatio n but

ar e no t include do n th e citation . D e minimi s violation s resul t in n o penalt y an dn o require dabatement . Th e criteri afo r findin g ad e minimi s violatio n ar e a s follows :

1 3P.2 6

A n employe r complie s wit

h th e clea r inten t o f the standar

dbu t deviate s fro

mit s particula

r requirement s i

n amanne r tha t ha s no direc t

o r immediat e relationship t

o employe e safet

y an d health . Thes e deviation s ma y involv e distanc e specifications , constructio n material s requirements , us e o

f incorrec t color , minor

variation s fro

mrecordkeeping , testing , or inspectio n regulations , o

r th e like . A n employe r complie s wit

h apropose dstandar

do r amendmen

t or aconsensu s standar

d rather tha n wit h th e standar

d i n effec t a t th e tim e o f th e inspectio n whe

n th e employer' s actio n provide s equa

l or greate r employe e protection . A n employer' s workplac e i s a t th e "state o

f th e art " tha

t i s technically beyon

dth e requirement o f th e applicabl e standar

d an d provide s equivalen

t or mor e effectiv e employe e safet

y o r healt h protection . Unde r a n OSH A polic y fo

r de minimi s violations , employer s ar e encourage dto abide by th e standar

d applicabl e to their

operation s tha

t provide s equa

l or greate r employe e protectio n rathe r tha n wit h the OSH A standar di n effec t a t th e tim e o f the inspection . 4. 3 Loca

l Ai r Flow Managemen

tand Spra

y Boot h Modification s The mos t effective wa

y t o reduc e worke

r exposur e i s t o directly remov e styrene emission s fro mth e sourc e befor

e the pollutant s hav e achanc e to disperse . Loca l air flo w management , such a s loca

l extractio n ventilatio n or

aspra y booth , remove s emission s a t the sourc e and therefor e reduce s th e amoun

t o f air to b e exhauste dan

dth e amoun

t o f makeu p air t o b e heated . Severa l loca l extractio n ventilatio n system s ar e presente di

n th e earlier

repor t (Kong et al. , 1996) . Thes e loca

l extractio n ventilatio n system s appl y the push-pull ventilatio n principl e i n tha t fresh makeu p air i s admitte d a

t on e end o f th e wor k are aan dth e air curren t pickin g up th e emission s i s exhauste d a

t th e othe r en d o f th e wor k area . A n operator ca n reduc e unnecessar

y exposure b

y stayin g i n th e upwind side o

f th e ventilate dwor

k area . A s th e EP A Offic e o f Air Qualit y Plannin g andStandard s (OAQPS ) develop s maximum achievabl e contro l technology (MACT ) standard s fo r the FR P industry , ne

w facilitie s usin g greate r tha n acertai n quantit

y of resin andge

l coa t i n a n ope n moldin g proces s ma

y b e require d t o reduc e thei r

emissions . Emission s fro

mconcentrate dsource s i

n certai n operations , suc

h a s continuou s lamination , pultrusion , an dSM C production , ca

n b e capture dan

dexhauste dusin g a ven t hood . Emission s fro

mothe r ope n moldin g processes , suc

h as ge l coatin g an

dresin sprayup , need to b e confined i

n aspra y boot h tha t mee t OSHA' s requirements . A spra y boot h ca n b e designe d t o mee

t th e requirement s o

f atota l enclosur e s o tha t th e emission s ca

n b e completel y captured . I

n thi s case , fres

h makeu p ai r shoul db e supplie dto th e operator' s breathin g zon e i n th e spra y booth . I f th e worke r exposure s ar

e stil l higher

tha n th e PEL s afte

r proper engineerin g control s (i.e. , confinement , loca

l extraction , o

r genera l ventilation ) hav e bee

n implemented , the

n th e operato r shoul d wea

r arespirato r

o r apositive-pressur

e respirato r

wit h fres h uncontaminate d air supply . Th e fres

h air supplie d t o apositive-pressur e respirator

shoul dmee

t certai n ai r qualit y 1 4requirement s an di f th e ai r i s supplie db y a

n oil-base d compresso r

ther e mus t

b e aC O alar mt o detec t C O i n th e ai r

(Smith , OSHA , persona l communication , Octobe r 15 , 1996) . I t i s commo n fo r

th e employer s o f

som e larg e FR P an d boa t buildin g facilitie s t o provid e respirator s t o thei r

employee s for

additiona l protectio n eve n thoug h the y may in complianc e with th e PELs . Positive-pressur e respirato r wit h full bod y protectio n an d fres h ai r suppl y i s not commo n i n th e FR P an dboat buildin g industries ; however , suc h asyste mi s use d i n a n enclose d pain t boot h i n Hattera s Yacht s i n New Bern , North Carolina . Modification s t o spray booths , suc h a s aspli t flow recirculation , hav e bee n examine d i n a larg e paintin g boot h at

amilitar y installatio n (Hughe s e t al. , 1994) . A portio n o f

th e exhaus t fro mth e spray booth tha t contai n les s pollutant s i s recirculate d t o th e front o f th e spray booth after mixin g with fres h makeu p air . Th e concentratio n i n th e retur n ai r i s les s than th e PELs . Th e balanc e o f

th e exhaust , whic h i s at

ahighe r concentration , i s vente d t o a n add-o n emissio n contro l device . Th e purpos e o f recirculatio n i s t o increas e th e outle t concentratio n an d reduc e th e exhaus t flow s o tha t

th e capita l an doperatin g cost s o f th e add-o n contro l ca n b e minimized . Th e recirculatin g ai r

ca n b e returne dt o th e spray booth at an y point , eithe r

mixe d with fres h makeu p ai r o r no t mixe dwith fres h makeu p air . I n th e latte r case , th e fres h makeu p ai r ca n b e supplie d t o th e breathin g zon e o f

th e operato r

t o provid e th e mos t

protection . Althoug h recirculatio n i n th e spra y boot h i s no t

recommende db y OSHA , th e botto mlin e i s that worke r exposure s shoul d no t excee dth e PEL s (R . Fairfax , Health Complianc e Program , Occupationa l Safety an d Health Administration , persona l communication , Septembe r 9 , 1996) . I f al l form s o f

ai r flow managemen t

ar e no t feasible , afacility shoul d conside r preconcentratin g th e exhaus t streamt o reduc e th e flow rat e an d t o increas e th e concentratio n o f th e exhaus t

streamfor

a n add-o n control . Preconcentratio n reduce s no t onl y th e capita l cos t

but als o th e operatin g cos t

o f th e add-o n control ; i t

als o reduce s natura l ga s usag e an d generate s fewe r secondar y pollutant s than straigh t therma l oxidatio n o f

th e entir e exhaus t

stream . A n analysi s o f

secondar y pollutio n an dnatura l ga s usag e fo r variou s contro l option s i s presente d in Chapte r 5 . Reference s Hughes , S. , J . Ayer , an dR . Sutay . 1994 . Demonstration of Split-Flow Ventilation and Recirculation as Flow-Reduction Methods in an Air Force Paint

Spray Booth, AL/EQ-TR-1993

- 0002 , Armstron g Laboratory , Environic s Directorate , Tyndal l AFB , FL . Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , an dS.L . Turner . Septembe r 1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n (NFPA) . 1969 . Standar d fo r Spra y Finishin g Usin g Flammabl e an dCombustibl e Materials , NFP A 33 . Quincy , MA . 1 5P.2 7

OSH A (Occupationa

l Safet y an d Healt h Administration) . 1993 . Occupationa l Safet y and Healt

h Standards . 2 9 CF

R1910 . Code of

Federal Regulations. Washington , DC : Offic e o f th e Federa

l Register , Jul y 1 . OSH A (Occupationa

l Safet y an d Healt h Administration) . 1996 . OSH A Announce s tha

t Styren e Industr y ha s Adopte d Voluntar

y Complianc e Progra

mto Improv e Worke

r Protection . New s Releas e USDL:96-77 , March 1 . Shepich , T.J . 1990 . Directorat e o f Complianc e Programs , Occupationa l Safet y an dHealt h Administration . Lette

r to S.R . Wyatt , Emissio n Standard s Division , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Office o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

dStandards , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , Januar y 16 .

1 6

### Chapte r 5 Assumption s i n th e Societ y of Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institute' s (SPI/CI ) Stud y o n Noneconomi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s Energ y us e an dgeneratio n o f secondar y pollutio n for

contro l device s ar e dependen t o n th e typ e o f

contro l devic e selecte dan d th e flow rat e int o th e contro l device . Th e SPI/C I Stud y o n Non-Economi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s (Haberlein , 1996 ) wa s basedo n therma l oxidatio n o f

a30,00 0 ftVmi

n exhaus t strea mcontainin g 2 0 pp mo f styrene . Th e followin g section s discus s th e assumption s o f atherma l oxidize r

operatin g o n astreamcontainin g 2 0 pp m o f styrene . Appendi x A contain s adiscussio n o f othe r assumption s i n th e SPI/C I study . 5. 1 Us e o f

Therma l Oxidize r Th e SPI/C I stud y assume s atherma l oxidize r operatin g o n astrea mcontainin g 2 0 pp mo f styrene . However , previou s RT I analyse s o f th e cost s o f

control s ha s indicate d tha t pre concentration/oxidatio n system s hav e lowe r annualize d cost s than straigh t therma l oxidatio n for contro l devic e inle t

concentration s belo w approximatel y 30 0 ppm . Fo r example , Figur e 5- 1 show s RTI-calculate d contro l cost s fo r therma l oxidation , catalyti c oxidation , an d thre e pre concentration/oxidatio n systems , fo r aplan t wit h uncontrolle d emission s o f 40 0 ton/y r

(operatin g 4,00 0 h/yr). 1 Figur e 5- 1 show s tha t th e thre e preconcentration/oxidatio n technologie s (MIAB , Polyad , an dDur r

rotary concentrato r

systems ) hav e lowe r

tota l cost s pe r

uni t o f styren e remove d than straigh t

therma l oxidatio n o r

catalyti c oxidation . Therefore , i t i s likel y tha t

a n FR P compan y woul dchoos e apreconcentration/oxidatio n syste move r straigh t therma l oxidatio n for a n exhaus t strea mcontainin g 2 0 pp mstyren e base d o n lowe r tota l annualize d cost . I t

i s als o likel y tha t

a n FR P compan y woul dattemp t t o increas e th e styren e concentratio n (i.e. , lowe r th e flow rate) , compare dt o th e 20-pp massumptio n in th e SPI/C I study . Thi s poin t i s discusse d i n th e followin g section . 5. 2 Contro l Devic e Inle tConcentratio n o f 2 0 pp m Noneconomi c impac t

analyse s i n th e SPI/C I stud y ar e base d o n a n assume d styren e concentratio n o f

2 0 pp mt o atherma l oxidizer . T o evaluat e thi s assumption , RT I reviewe d th e following : (1 ) economi c incentive s for maximizin g inle t

concentration s (minimizin g flow rates) t o end-of-pip e controls , (2 ) plant-wid e averag e exhaus t concentration s currentl y foun d a t FR P plants , (3 ) recen t

an dpossibl e futur e change s t o allowable exposur e level s for employee s o f

FR P plants , (4 ) existin g relationship s betwee n employe e exposure s t o styren e an d exhaus t concentration s at

FR P plants , an d(5 ) possibl e method s fo r ne w plant s t o increas e concentration s (decreas e flo w rates) t o control s whil e maintainin g o r lowerin g employe e exposures .

1 Figur e 5- 1 i s basedo n acos t curv e presente d in apreviou s EP A report (Kon g e t al. , 1996) , wit

h correction s a s discusse din Appendi x B t o thi s report . 1 7c o * ; <A T J 0 ) > f >rem 0 ) c 0 ) 1 _ > . o c y k . a a. • ^ ( 0 o O _^m^ 5

' • T— l l c o * ; iA Y — R nn n J

-\ nn n . o,uu u

A nnr\ -

o nn n -

0 C\C\C\

- , <: r UU u i

1 nn n - i ,\j\j\j

0 - 246,00 0 123,00 0

%



# A A \ V 1 \

^ Flo w rate,cf m ( 1 cf m = 0.028 3 m3 /

61,50 0 41,00 0 30,75 0



# ^S s ^ > min ) 24,60 0 20,50 0 1 IIIIII I MIA B

- - - Pol y a d (w/oxidation )

lyti c oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) Therma l oxidize r(95 % H.R. )

——Dur rrotar y concentrato r

•••^^^f i ^ g"*^ . 7, 6

10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 Concentratio n (ppm ) 50 0 60 0 70 0 Figur e 5-1 . Cos t curve s fo ra larg e plan t (40 0 ton s pe ryea rinlet) .P.3 0

5.2. 1 Economic Incentives for Maximizing Inlet

Concentrations Previou s RT I researc h demonstrate d th e economi c desirabilit y fo r aplan t considerin g installatio n o f

end-of-pip e control s t o evaluat e method s t o minimiz e flow rat e prio r t o choosin g an y for mo f end-of-pip e controls . Thi s i s demonstrate d b y Figur e 5-1 , wher e th e tota l annualize d cos t pe r uni t o f styren e remove ddecrease s for al l contro l choice s a s flow rat e i s reduce d (i.e. , a s concentratio n increases) . Thi s tren di s tru e eve n fo r preconcentration/oxidatio n system s (i.e. , eve n fo r preconcentration/oxidatio n systems , th e tota l annualize d cos t i s reduce d whe n desig n flow rat e i s reduced) . Therefore , companie s tha t contemplat e end-of-pip e control s woul d fin d significan t

economi c benefit s i n increasin g contro l devic e inle t concentratio n abov e 2 0 ppm , wit h th e associate dreductio n i n tota l flo w t o th e contro l device . 5.2. 2 Exhaust

Concentrations at

Existing Plants Th e SPI/C I stud y wa s base do n ahypothetica l exhaus t streamaveragin g 2 0 ppm . On e way t o evaluat e th e appropriatenes s o f thi s concentratio n i s t o loo k a t averag e facility-wid e exhaus t concentration s at

existin g facilities . Researc h Triangl e Institut e an d Pacifi c Environmenta l Service s conducte da n evaluatio n o f

facility-wid e styren e exhaus t concentration s currentl y foun da t

fiber-reinforce dplastic s facilitie s wit h open-mol d sprayin g operations . Th e result s o f thi s evaluatio n ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-1 . Tabl e 5T 1 contain s onl y facilitie s wit h annua l (neat , o r

unfilled ) resin-plus-gel-coat usag e o f greate r than approximatel y 1,000 ton s pe r year . Averag e facility-wid e exhaus t concentration s i n Tabl e 5- 1 ar e calculate d base d o n facility-wid e emission s (i n mas s pe r year) , tota l facility exhaus t flow rate , an d facility operatin g schedul e (hour s pe r

year) . Wher e possible , value s i n Tabl e 5- 1 fo r emission s an d flo w rate s ar e basedo n testin g data . Otherwise , resin/ge l coa t usag e an d emissio n factor s ar e use d t o calculat e emission s fo r

subsequen t

exhaus t concentratio n calculations . Tabl e 5- 1 show s tha t

al l eigh t facilitie s evaluate d currentl y hav e averag e exhaus t concentration s above 2 0 ppm . Th e mean valu e fo r th e eigh t facilitie s i s 12 0 ppm , an d th e media n valu e i s 8 2 ppm . Tw o o f th e eigh t facilitie s liste d i n Tabl e 5- 1 hav e controls . Th e A.R.E . facility in Massillon , Ohio , whic h ha s atherma l oxidizer , ha s acalculate d average styren e concentratio n o f 23 1 pp mi n th e flo w streamt o th e contro l device . Th e America n Standar d facility in Salem , Ohio , whic h ha s aPolya dpreconcentration/catalyti c oxidatio n system , ha s a n averag e styren e concentratio n o f

7 5 pp mflow streamt o preconcentrator . I n summary , existin g facilitie s wit h open-mol d sprayin g an d combine d resin/ge l coat usag e abov e 1,00 0 ton/y r typicall y hav e average exhaus t concentration s tha t

ar e above th e 2 0 pp massume di n th e SPI/C I study .

1 9Tabl e 5-1 . Styren e Exhaus t Concentration s a t

Existin g Ope n Moldin g Plant s wit h Resin/Ge l Coa t

Usag e Greate r

tha n 1,000 tons/y r

PLAN T NAM E AQU A GLAS S A.R.E. , INC . LASC O BATHWAR E UNIVERSA L RUNDL E AMERICA N STANDAR D A.R.E. , INC . MILLENIU M PRODUCT S AQU A GLAS S Arithmeti c mean Media n CIT Y KLAMAT H FALL S MASILLO N MOAP A OTTUMW A SALE M MOUN T EATO N ELKHAR T ADAMSVILL E S T

O R O H N V I A O H O H I N T N UNCONTROLLE D EMISSION S (ton/yr )

1,17 5 77 0 73 9 32 8 5 3 10 8 12 3 1,15 1 OPERATIN G HOUR S (h/yr )

6,00 0 7,48 8 4,29 0 4,16 0 2,50 0 3,12 0 2,00 0 6,00 0 PLANT-WID E FLO W RAT E (ft3/min) 97,00 0 55,00 0 155,40 0 110,70 0 35,00 0 70,00 0 125,00 0 390,00 0 AVERAG E STYREN E CONCENTRATIO N (ppm ) 24 9

23 1 13 7 8 8 7 5 6 1 6 1 6 1 12 0 8 2 r o o

X IP-3 2 ,

5.2. 3 Recent

and Potential

Future Changes in Allowable Exposures to Styrene Currently , OSH A PEL s for styren e ar e 10 0 pp ma s a n 8-hou r time-weighted-averag e (TWA ) an d20 0 pp ma s a15-minut e short-term-exposure-limi t (STEL) . Th e SPI/C I stud y note s tha t th e reinforce dplastic s industry ha s voluntaril y agree d t o mee t a50-pp mTW A an d a100

- pp mSTEL . Complianc e wit h th e agreemen t

wil l g o int o effec t

in Jul y 1997 . Th e SPI/C I stud y furthe r note s tha t

th e America n Counci l o f Governmen t

Industria l Hygienist s (ACGIH ) ha s place dstyren e o n th e Notic e o f Intende d Chang e lis t

t o lowe r th e styren e threshol d limi t valu e (TLV ) t o 2 0 ppm , wit

h aSTE L o f

4 0 ppm . Th e SPI/C I stud y use s acontro l devic e inle t concentratio n o f

2 0 ppm . Thi s i s equa l t o th e TL V bein g propose db y th e ACGIH . RT I ha s n o informatio n t o indicat e that OSH A currentl y plan s t o lowe r

th e TW A t o 2 0 ppm . 5.2. 4 Existing Relationships Between Worker Exposure and

Exhaust Concentration Eve n i f th e OSH A TW A wer e lowere d t o 2 0 ppm , i t woul d b e reasonabl e t o assum e tha t a compan y buildin g ane w facility woul d hav e a n averag e exhaus t

concentratio n t o a

n end-of

r pip e contro l tha t

woul db e above 2 0 ppm . On e reaso n for thi s i s th e stron g economi c incentiv e t o maximiz e concentratio n (minimiz e flow rate) , a s discusse d i n Sectio n 6.1 . Anothe r reaso n for thi s i s tha t

mos t captur e system s woul d logicall y b e orientedt o dra w styren e away fro mth e worker , rathe r

tha n drawin g styren e int o th e worker' s breathin g zone . Thi s concep t i s illustrate d i n Figur e 5-2 . Currently , ther e i s littl e availabl e dat arelatin g averag e exhaus t concentration s t o worke r exposures . Som e dat aar e availabl e fro mth e Lasco-South Bosto n (Virginia ) tub-and-showe r facility , an dar e presente di n Tabl e 5-2 . Tabl e 5- 2 indicate s tha t ge l coa t gu n operator s an d laminatio n roller s ha dth e highes t average worke r

exposure s durin g th e measuremen t perio d an d tha t th e averag e rati o o f

exhaust-duct-concentration-to-worker-exposur e wa s 2.3 6 an d 2.42 , respectively . RT I i s analyzin g dat acollecte d a t atub-and-showe r

facilit y in whic h employe e exposur e an d exhaus t

duc t concentratio n wer e measure d simultaneously . Th e result s o f thi s testin g ar e expecte dt o b e publishe db y February 199 7 (se e Sectio n 5.2.5) . 5.2. 5 Potential

Methods to Increase Concentration to Downstream Controls Previou s researc h b y RT I identifie d severa l potentia l method s t o decreas e require d flo w rate s fo r end-of-pip e control s whil e preventin g exces s employe e exposur e levels . Thes e method s included : (1 ) loca l ai r

flow management , (2 ) spray boot h modification s (suc h a s split-flo w spra y booth s an dspray booth recirculation) , an d (3 ) enclosure s an d total enclosures . RT I i s currentl y analyzin g dat afro mproof-of-concep t testin g a t atub-and-showe r

facility . Thi s testin g i s evaluatin g th e abilit y o f spra y enclosure s an d ai r

flo w managemen t

technique s t o increas e exhaus t

duc t concentratio n whil e 2 1N J

( O Mai n Filte rBan k Mai n Exhaus t t o Atmosphere (hig h volume , low concentration) .

Fres h Ai rSuppl y

Figure 5-2 . Typica l ope n moldin g operatio n i n a spray booth .Tabl e 5-2 . Compariso n o f Averag e Styren e Exhaus tConcentratio n (29 0 ppm ) (Strum , 1995 ) Wit h Worke r Exposur e Level s (Boyd , 1995 ) a tLasc o Bathware , Sout h Boston , VA Jo b Category 1 . Ge l Coa t

Gu n Operato r 2 . Laminatio n Gu n Operato r 3 . Laminatio n Rolle r 4 . Barrie r

Coa t Gu n Operato r 5 . Par t Pulle r 6 . Q C Technicia n 7 . Mixe r 8 . Trimme r 9 . Waxe r Number of Measurements * 5 17 6 5 2 4 5 1 1 Exposur

e Range * (ppm ) 88-19 9 37-26 7 92-14 2 61-10 5 32-3 9 23-7 5 15-4 4 Average Exposure * (ppm ) 123. 0 90. 4 120. 0 79. 4 35. 3 37. 0 31. 6 46. 0 25. 0 Averag e Ratio , Exhaust/Exposur

e 2.3 6 3.2 1 2.4 2 3.6 5 8.2 2 7.8 4 9.1 8 6.3 0 11.6 0 Dat aprovide dt o Madelein e Stru mb y Danie l Boy d (Boyd , 1995) . maintainin g o r

lowerin g worke r

exposures . Th e enclosur e concep t involve s placin g apart

insid e a n enclosur e whil e th e spra y gu n operato r stand s outside th e enclosure . Th e ai r flo w managemen t

technique s involv e th e us e o f aclose-captur e exhaus t

panel . In thi s testing , on e flame ionizatio n detecto r (FID ) devic e continuousl y measure d exhaus t duc t concentratio n whil e anothe r (portable ) FI D was use dt o continuousl y monito r worke r exposure . In thi s manner , th e rati o o f exhaus t duc t concentratio n t o worke r

exposur e concentratio n coul d b e continuousl y monitore dan dcompare dwith "baseline " result s fro ma n unmodifie d spray booth . Th e result s o f th e RT I enclosures/ai r

flow managemen t

testin g ar e expecte d t o b e availabl e b y Februar y 1997 . 5.2. 6 Conclusions on Assumption of Control Device Inlet

Concentration of

20 ppm Ther e ar e stron g economi c incentives for acompan y t o maximiz e th e concentratio n (minimiz e th e flo w rate ) t o acontro l device . Mos t existin g facilitie s wit

h open-mol d sprayin g (eve n thos e withou t

controls ) currentl y hav e exhaus t concentration s wel l abov e 2 0 ppm . Lowerin g allowabl e worke r exposur e level s can forc e lowe r concentration s t o acontro l device . However , i t

appear s likel y that , eve n fo r worke r exposur e level s o f

2 0 ppm , minimu mexhaus t concentration s o n th e orde r o f 50-10 0 pp mcoul d b e achieve d wit h current , o r

slightl y improved , ai r flo w managemen t

practices . Therefore , th e assumptio n o f acontro l devic e inle t

concentratio n o f 2 0 pp mappear s t o b e to o low . 23P.3 5

Reference s Boyd , D. , Daniel P . Boyd & Company , 1995 . Presentatio n fo r the U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency' s sit

e visit a t Lasc o Bathwar

e - Sout h Bosto n (VA) , Jun e 22 . Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . The Non-Economic Impacts of Incineration Controls

for the Reinforced Plastics Industry. Prepare d fo r SPI/Composite s Institute , An n Arbor , MI . Strum , M. , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 1995 . Sit e Visit Repor t ~ LASC O Bathware , Sout h Boston , VA .

24P.3 6 

### Chapte r 6 RT I Analysi s o

f Noneconomi c Impact s o

f Control s RTF s analysi s o f

noneconomi c impact s o f control s include s th e developmen t o f normalize dcurve s t o predic t noneconomi c impacts . Noneconomi c impact s ar e als o calculate d for aspecific , typica l existin g facility tha t ha s ge l coa t

an d sprayu p processes . 6. 1 Normalize d Curve s fo r Natura l Ga s Usag e an d Secondar y Pollutan tEmission s T o compar e energ y usag e an dsecondary pollutan t emission s for

variou s flo w rate s an d styren e mas s emissio n rates , w e mus t "normalize " th e data . Dat apresente d in Sectio n 6. 1 hav e bee n "normalized " t o reflec t fuel usag e an d secondary pollutan t emission s pe r

to n o f styren e remove d(base do n 9 5 percen t remova l efficiency) . Mos t o f th e figure s i n thi s sectio n includ e th e followin g contro l options : (1 ) atherma l oxidizer , with 9 5 percen t hea t recovery , operatin g at

1,800 ° F (a s assume d in th e SPI/C I study) ; (2 ) atherma l oxidizer , with 9 5 percen t hea t recovery , operatin g a t

1,500 ° F (whic h coul d produc e astyren e destructio n efficienc y o f 9 5 percent) ; (3 ) acatalyti c oxidizer , wit h 9 5 percen t

heat recovery , operatin g a

t 65 0 ° F (whic h coul d produc e astyren e destructio n efficienc y o f 9 5 percent) ; an d(4 ) apreconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer , base d o n th e Polya d system , tha t ha s a natura l ga s requiremen t

o f 96,00 0 Btu/

h a t 30,00 0 ftVmin . (Th e Polya d syste mrequire s 96,00 0 Btu/h t o desorb styrene , for asyste mwit

h a n inle t flow o f 30,00 0 ftVmin. ) Th e figure s in thi s sectio n ca n b e use d i

n th e followin g manner : I n Figur e 6-1 , th e natura l ga s usag e fo r

atherma l oxidize r

operatin g at

1,800°F , with a

n inle t concentratio n o f

2 0 ppm , i s approximatel y 650,00 0 ft3 pe r to n o f styren e removed . Therefore , i f atherma l oxidize r

remove d 10 0 ton s o f

styren e unde r

thes e conditions , th e natura l ga s usag e woul d b e 6 5 millio n cubi c feet . Similarly , fro mFigur e 6-1 , th e natura l ga s usag e for apreconcentrator/oxidize r operatin g with a styren e inlet

concentratio n o f

10 0 pp mi s approximatel y 4,20 0 ftVton o f styren e removed . Therefore , i f

apreconcentrator/oxidize r remove d 10 0 ton s o f

styren e unde r

thes e conditions , th e natura l ga s usag e woul db e 420,00 0 ft 3

. 6.1. 1 Natural

Gas Usage Figur e 6- 1 present s normalize d curve s for natura l ga s usag e for

variou s contro l options . Figur e 6- 1 als o contain s normalize dcurve s for th e sensibl e hea t

require d t o rais e a

n exhaus t strea mfro maverag e outdoo r temperature s t o a

n indoo r temperatur e o f

7 5 ° F for tw o location s (i.e. , For t Wayne , Indiana , an dLo s Angeles, California) . Th e curve s fo r sensibl e heatin g requirement s ar e include dt o compar e th e additiona l natura l ga s usag e fo r control s wit

h existin g natura l ga s fo r

heating . I n Figur e 6-1 , th e to p lef

t poin t o f th e four control-optio n curve s represent s th e assumption s i n th e SPI/C I stud y (i.e. , atherma l oxidizer , wit h 9 5 percen t

heat recovery , operatin g 2 5100 0

10 0 T J 0 ) > o E a m. o c o mm tn " 5 c o

- < C o 

### s o O ) ra 3 1 0 in a <* m

%m 3 t o Z * ( \

. »

s s V l * . '••-• - " *

• 1 » * * • . ,



# * - J The n na l oxidize r(RTI : 1500oF ) yti c oxidize r(RTI : Hea

t recover y = 95% , 65 0 oF ) "••"Preconcentrator/oxidize r(Polyad : Desorptio n = 96,00 0 Btu/ h @ 30,00 0 cfm )

* fc " <.



### ••s . ~

- _ * _ " * • - bl e hea t fo rLo s Angeles , Californi a

~- - — • -. .

— _ — = —••— i • —.. .

• «

" - • m. ~"

~ -.- . » „ *

« - , """ —. .

*"••• - " " • . . - . . *"'*" . "

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 Styren e inle

t concentratio n (ppm ) 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0

Figur e 6-1 . Normalize d natura l ga s usag e fo rvariou s contro l option s an d fo rsensibl e heatin g o f exhaus t stream .

E n Char t2P.3 8

at 1,800 °F , wit

h a n inle t concentratio n o f

2 0 ppm) . Th e natura l ga s requiremen t for thi s poin t

i s approximatel y 650,00 0 ftVto n o f styren e removed . In contrast , for apreconcentrator-catalyti c oxidize r operatin g at

8 8 ppm , th e natura l ga s requiremen t i s approximatel y 5,00 0 ftVton o f styren e removed . Figur e 6- 1 illustrate s that th e natura l ga s usag e for apreconcentrator/catalyti c oxidize r i s actuall y les s tha n th e sensibl e hea t require d t o hea t

a n equa l flow rat e t o 7 5 °F , i n Fort Wayne , Indiana , o r

Lo s Angeles , California . 6.1. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Figur e 6- 2 present s normalize d carbo n dioxid e emission s for four control-optio n curves . In Figur e 6-2 , th e to p lef

t poin t o f th e fou r curve s represent s th e assumption s i n th e SPI/C I stud y (i.e. , atherma l oxidizer , wit h 9 5 percen t

heat recovery , operatin g a

t 1,800 °F , wit

h a n inle t concentratio n o f

2 0 ppm) . Th e carbo n dioxid e generate d b y natura l ga s combustio n fo r thi s poin t i s approximatel y 4 1 ton/to n o f styren e removed . In contrast , for apreconcentrator-catalyti c oxidize r operatin g at

8 8 ppm , th e carbo n dioxid e generate d b y natura l ga s combustio n i s approximatel y 0.3 3 ton/to n o f styren e removed . Al l o f th e curve s i n Figur e 6- 2 depic t onl y th e carbo n dioxid e emission s generate d b y burnin g natura l ga s t o destro y styrene . Thes e curve s d o not includ e th e carbo n dioxid e create d naturall y b y th e degradatio n o f styrene . Chemica l stoichiometr y dictate s tha t every to n o f

styren e convert s t o 3.3 8 ton s o f

carbo n dioxide . 6.1. 3 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Th e SPI/C I stud y assume d1 5 pp mo f nitroge n oxide s (NO x ) ar e emitte d fro mth e therma l oxidizer . Thi s was base do n th e followin g numerica l values , a s reporte d b y Haberlei n (Haberlein , 1996) :

• 50-10 0 ppm , a s reporte d b y CV M • 10-1 5 ppm , a s reporte d b y Wheelabrato r • 1 3 ppm , a s reporte db y Tellkam p • <1 0 ppm , a s reporte db y Huntington . RTF s researc h appear s t o indicat e tha t values o f les s than 1 0 pp mar e probabl y mor e typica l fo r

therma l oxidizers , particularl y if th e oxidize r

operate s at

approximatel y 1,500 °F , an d especiall y i f

th e oxidize r

use s technolog y t o reduc e NO x emissions , suc h a s low-NO x burners . Specifically , RTF s researc h indicate s th e following :

• Smith Engineerin g state d that non e o f th e 2 5 installation s fo r

whic h the y hav e NO x measurement s ha s a n average concentratio n ove r 1 0 ppm .

• Dur r

Industrie s provide d NO x emission s tes t dat afo r tw o installations . Both installation s ha daverage NO x emission s les s than 1 0 ppm . Th e time-weighte d 2 7100.0 0 o > c 0 )

« J " 5 C o 0 a T J 0 ) a> . c o D l a > . x o T J c o Si 10.0 0

1.0 0

t o o o o v > c o c T J T J to t o 0.1 0

0.0 1 Z7ZZZZZ

b. * « ' * •:* •* * * • —-• - . . »• » •». , w« 

### ^ F = | — ^ — 1 J . 1

—- —- i nerma i oxiaize r(naDenein : IOU U or ;

- - - Therma l oxidize r(RTI : 150 0 oF )

yti c oxidize r(RTI : HR=95% , 65 0 oF ) A Haberlei n (2 0 pp m inle t styrene , therma l oxidizer , 180 0 oF ) • Existin g plant s

^

_* •— * -. , . •-• • _ *•« . ~ - — * • - " —

- * fc m

m r--~-« . 5—r - -•-• ^

^ j\ -*-. .

" * • , . I

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 12 0 14 0 160 Styren e inle t concentratio n (ppm ) 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0 Figur e 6-2 . Normalize d additional * carbo n dioxid e generate d b y natura l ga s combustio n fo r variou s contro l options .

* "Additional " mean s that th e value s d o no t includ e th e 3.3 8 ton s o

f C0 2 generate d b y th e conversio n of styren e (CjH J t o C0 2 (i.e. , ever y mol e o f styren e [MW=104 ] generate s 8 mole s o f carbo n dioxid e [MW=44]) . 

# Javerag e N0 X generatio n for atherma l oxidize r

installe d in a

n automotiv e applicatio n wa s 2. 7 pp m(Gupta , 1996) .

• Proces s Combustio n Corporatio n publishe d apape r tha t concluded , "Variou s NO x combustio n contro l technique s ar e available . Wit h wast e gase s fre e o f

nitrogen

boun dcompounds , NO x emission s fro mtherma l oxidatio n can b e reduce d t o les s than 1 0 ppm. " (Nutcher

an d Lewandowski , 1994 )

• Th e Institut e o f

Clean Ai r

Companie s note d tha t

operatio n o f

atherma l oxidize r shoul dresul t

i n les s than 1 0 pp mo f

NO x (Wax , 1995) . Fewe r dat aar e availabl e fo r

NO x emission s fro mcatalyti c oxidizers . RT I investigatio n o f thi s subjec t

yielde dth e following :

• Englehar d Process Emissio n System s (South Lyon , Michigan ) publishe d apape r tha t conclude dtha t

acatalyti c oxidize r

produce s 0 t o 2 pp mo f

NO x contributio n (Gribbon , 1996) .

• Th e Institut e o f

Clean Ai r

Companie s note d tha t

catalyti c oxidizer s ru n at muc h lowe r temperature s than therma l oxidizer s (an d shoul d therefor e produc e les s NO x ) . Figur e 6- 3 show s normalize d NO x emissio n curve s for variou s contro l technologies . Ther e ar e actuall y thre e NO x curve s for therma l oxidation , base d o n thre e differen t assumption s fo r NO x outle t

concentration . Th e to p curv e represent s a n assumptio n o f

15-pp moutle t

NO x , a s assume di n th e SPI/C I study . Th e middl e thermal-oxidatio n curv e represent s a n assumptio n o f 8.8-pp moutle t

NO x , a s quote dfro mSmit h Engineering . Th e botto mthermal-oxidatio n curv e represent s a

n assumptio n o f

2.7-pp moutlet

NO x , a s measure d in th e Ma y 199 5 testin g b y Dur r (Gupta , 1996) . 6. 2 Calculation s fo r Specifi c Plan t Ba r graph s depictin g energ y us e an d secondary pollutan t emission s ar e presente d fo r a specifi c plant : th e Universa l Rundl e plan t i n Ottumwa , Iowa . Thi s plan t ha s calculate d characteristic s a s show n i n Tabl e 6-1 . Th e Universa l Rundl e plan t i n Ottumwa , Iowa , ha s acalculate d uncontrolle d styren e exhaus t concentratio n o f

8 8 ppm , an d aflo w rat e o f 110,70 0 ftVmin . Fo r

eac h ba r graph , ther e i s on e ba r representin g aconcentratio n o f 2 0 pp man d aflo w rat e o f 487,08 0 ftVmin . Thi s 487,08 0 ftVmin flo w rat e represent s th e flow rat e tha t woul d occu r

if emission s wer e dilute d fro mth e actua l valu e o f

8 8 pp mt o th e hypothetica l valu e o f 2 0 pp massume d i n th e SPI/C I study .

191.000 0 • i

U J o •a v > o E V m. a c a

c o 0> a T J 0 ) 0 ) c 0 ) o > o " z <f l C o < o C C 0.100 0

0.010 0

0.001 0

0.000 1

0.000 0 4 J

s

* • ' **

* =^«^ = = -

•* "

w »* • 1 H , L L 1 f 1 Therma l oxidize r(Haberlein : 1 5 pp m NOx )

__-j- nerma | ox j(jj z e r(Smit h Engineerin g verbal : 8. 8 pp m NOx)

- - T h erma l oxidize r(Dur rEnvironmenta l testing : 2. 7 pp m NOx ) talyti c oxidize r(Sale m Englehar d verbal : 1 pp m NOx) A Haberlei n (Therma l oxidizer , 2 0 pp m inle t styrene , 1 5 pp m outle t NOx ) • Existin g plant s "t-^ ; * " •-« .

" • - . " ~ * -•• . -

— *"* —* « " ~ "* - —^ _ xs ——

. # , ** " n\im

- - « . i . r - —. ~~ —

— •**- • # —. ~-m— —

—# _

- • —

—•

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 Inle t styren e concentratio n (ppm ) 180 200 22 0 24 0 26 0 Figur e 6-3 . Normalize d NO „ emission s fo rvariou s contro l options .

f > ' Char t 1 

# JP.4 2

Tabl e 6-1 . Characteristics fo r Specifi c Plant(Universa l Rundle , in Ottumwa , Iowa ) Characteristi c Uncontrolle d styrene emission s Assume d contro l efficiency Contro l devic e inlet

concentratio n Air flow rat e into contro l devic e Operationa

l schedul e Value 32 8 ton/y r 9 5 percen t (i.e. , 31 2 ton/y

r o f styrene removed , andresultin g controlle demission s o f 1 6 ton/yr) . 8 8 pp m 110,700 ftVmi

n 4,160h/y r 6.2. 1 Natural

Gas Usage Figur e 6- 4 compare s natura

l ga s usag e fo

r severa l contro l option s an

dfo r sensibl e heatin g fo r th e specifi c plant . Th e ba

r o n th e lef t sid e o f th e pag e represent s th e natura l ga s tha t would b e use d i f th e flow rat

e wer e raise d t o 487,08 0 ftVmin, producin g th e 20-ppmvalu e assume di n th e SPI/C I study . All other

bar s represen

t the actua l plant flow rat e o f 110,70 0 ftVmin . Figur e 6- 4 indicate s tha

t th e natura l ga s usedi

n annua l heatin g fo

r a n exhaus t flo w o f 110,700 ftVmi

n i s approximately 3. 6 million ftVy r (basedo n heatin g requirement s i

n For t Wayne , Indiana) . I

n contrast , the natura

l gas requiremen

t fo r the preconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer optio n (which i s based o

n th e Polya

dsystem) , i s approximatel

y 1. 5 millio n ftVyr

. It shoul d b e note d tha

t th e calculate d valu e o

f 3. 6 millio n ftVy

r fo r sensibl e heatin g o

f th e exhaus t strea mdoe s not

reflect al l the heatin g requirement s fo r a n FR P facility . Additiona

l heatin g woul d b e require d to replac e hea t losse s throug

h th e wall s an

dceilin g o f the facility . Natura

l ga s migh t als o b e use d fo

r laten t heating , i f humidification i s require ddurin g th e winter . Th e calculation s fo

r natura l ga s usag e i

n Figur e 6- 4 ca n b e comparedwit

h tota l natura l ga s usag e i

n th e Unite d State s i

n 1995 . Th

e tota l natura l ga s usag e i

n the UnitedState s i

n 199 5 was approximately 2. 2 x 10 1 3 ft 3 , whic h i s approximately afacto

r o f 100,00 0 time s greate

r tha n th e natura l ga s usag e o

f the highes t

optio n show

n i n Figur e 6-4 . 6.2. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Figur e 6- 5 present s carbon dioxide emission s fo r severa l contro l option s fo

r the specifi c plant . Th e ba

r o n the lef t sid e o f the pag e represent s the carbon dioxide tha t wouldb e produce d i f th e flow rate wer

e raise d t o 487,08 0 ftVmin, producin g th e 20-ppmvalue assume di n th e SPI/C I study . All other

bar s represen

t the actua l plant flow rat e o f 110,70 0 ftVmin . 3 1250,000,00 0

200,000,00 0

c § > 150,000,00 0 ro i n 3 WI t o O ) "r o m. 3 ra 100,000,00 0 to 3 C t o 50,000,00 0 ONatura l ga s use d i n oxidation , cubi c feet/yea r

• Natura l ga s use d i n sensibl e heating , cubi c feet/yea r

Therma l (180 0 oF) , 2 0 pp m st y 487,08 0 cf m Therma l (180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1,50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m ^^^^^ J Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m esss a Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Figur e 6-4 . Natura l ga s usag e fo rvariou s contro l option s an d fo rsensibl e heatin g a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y runcontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr )

st y = inle t styren e concentratio n NGbar , Char t 1 * » u16,00 0

14,00 0

12.00 0 10,00 0

• 5 o o f %8,00 0 t o E e o " O L O 6,00 0

4,00 0 2,00 0

0 4 DC0 2 fro m natura l ga s use d i n oxidation , tp y S C0 2 fro m natura l ga s use d i n heating , tp y 0CO 2 fro m styren e decomposition , tp y

Therma l (180 0 oF) , 2 0 pp m st y 487,08 0 cf m Therma l (180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1.50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m st y 110.70 0 cf m Figur e 6-5 . Carbo n dioxid e emission s fo rvariou s contro l option s a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y runcontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr) .

st y = inle t styren e concentratio n C02ba rChar t 1P.4 5

Eac h bar i n Figur e 6- 5 ha s thre e components : 1 ) th e C0 2 produce d b y natura l ga s use d i n oxidation , 2 ) th e C0 2 tha t woul db e produce d b y burnin g natura l ga s t o hea t th e flo w strea mfro m th e averag e outdoo r

temperatur e t o 7 5 °F , an d 3 ) th e C0 2 produce d fro mth e stoichiometri c degredatio n o f

styren e t o C0 2 (an dwater) . Th e ba r o n th e lef

t sid e o f th e figure represent s th e C0 2 tha t woul d b e produce d assumin g straigh t therma l oxidatio n o f

a2 0 pp mflo w stream . I n orde r t o reduc e th e concentratio n fro m th e actua l valu e o f

8 8 ppm , i t

woul d b e necessar y t o increas e th e exhaus t flow fro mth e actua l valu e o f 110,70 0 ftVmi

n t o ahypothetica l valu e o f 487,08 0 ftVmin . Th e tota l C0 2 produce d in thi s hypothetica l situatio n woul db e ove r 14,00 0 tons/yr , o f

whic h approximatel y 12,00 0 tons/y r woul d b e du e t o natura l ga s use dfor oxidation . Othe r bar s i n Figur e 6- 5 reflec t th e actua l exhaus t

condition s fo r

th e plan t (110,70 0 ftVmin at

8 8 ppm) . Th e bar

o n th e fa r righ t present s th e C0 2 emission s fro ma preconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer . A preconcentrator/oxidize r i s th e contro l tha t

woul d b e mos t likel y t o b e selecte dfo r

aflow strea mo f

110,70 0 ftVmi

n at 8 8 ppm , du e t o th e fac t

tha t th e preconcentrator/oxidize r

ha s alowe r

tota l annualize d cos t

than th e othe r

options . Fo r

a preconcentrator/oxidizer , th e tota l C0 2 emission s ar e approximatel y 1,40 0 tons/yr . Th e vas t majority o f

thes e emission s (ove r

1,100 tons/yr ) ar e du e t o th e stoichiometri c degredatio n o f styren e t o C0 2 . Onl y 9 0 tons/y r o f C0 2 emission s ar e du e t o combustio n o f natura l ga s use d i n heatin g th e ai r

fo r desorption . 6.2. 3 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Figur e 6- 6 present s NO x emission s (a s N0 2 ) fo r severa l contro l option s fo r th e specifi c plant . Th e ba r

o n th e lef

t sid e o f th e pag e represent s th e NO x emission s tha t woul d b e produce d i f th e flow rat e wer e raise dt o 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g th e 20-pp mvalu e assume d in SPI/C I study . Al l othe r

bar s represen t

th e actua l plan t

flow rat e o f

110,70 0 ftVmin . Th e ba r o n th e right , whic h i s barel y visible , indicate s NO x emission s fo r a preconcentration/catalyti c oxidatio n system . A preconcentration/oxidatio n syste mwoul db e th e mos t likel y contro l choic e fo r aflo w rat e o f

110,70 0 ftVmin , containin g 8 8 pp mstyrene , du e t o lowe r tota l annualize dcost . Th e NO x emission s fo r thi s contro l optio n at

thi s facility woul d b e 0.0 9 tons/yr . Thi s ca n b e contraste d with th e estimate d styren e remova l o f 31 2 tons/yr . 6.2. 4 Radon Emissions Figur e 6- 7 present s rado n emission s fro mnatura l ga s combustio n fo r severa l contro l option s fo r

th e specifi c plant . Th e ba r o n th e lef

t sid e o f th e pag e represent s th e rado n emission' s tha t woul db e produce di f

th e flow rat e wer e raise d t o 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g th e 2 0 pp m valu e assume di n th e SPI/C I study . Al l othe r bar s represen t

th e actua l plan t

flow rat e o f

110,70 0 ftVmin .

3 4U l

1^ 1 12 0

100

o . * * tn c o in tn E o i X O z

Therma l

(180 0 oF) , 2 0 pp m st y 487,08 0 cf

m Therma l (180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,07 0 cf m 

## m\ Therma l (1,50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Figur e 6-6 . NOx emission s fo rvariou s contro l option s a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y r uncontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr )

T l O )o

a « c o

c t o T J ' 5 o

_ c T J 0 1 in 3 in t o o > 2 3 120,00 0

100,00 0

80,00 0

60,00 0

u i 0\ | 40,00 0 T J 0 ) c E c 20,00 0 o T J 1 0 O C

Therma l (180 0 oF) , 2 0 pp m st y 487,08 0 cf m Therma l (180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1,50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Figur e 6-7 . Rado n emission s du e t o natura l ga s combustio n fo rvariou s contro l option s a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y runcontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr) .

st y = inle t styren e concentratio n Rado rChar t 1 1 3P.4 8

Th e rado n emissio n calculation s i n Figur e 6- 7 ar e base d o n a n average rado n conten t

o f 2 0 pCi/ L i n natura l ga s a s assume di n th e SPI/C I study . Thi s valu e was als o use d i n astud y o f radionuclid e emission s fro mnatural-ga s firedsteam-electri c generatin g plant s (Nelson , 1995) . Accordin g t o th e Institut e fo r Clean Ai r

Companies , th e Institut e fo r Ga s Technolog y report s rado n level s typicall y les s than 1 pCi/L (Wax , 1996) . 6. 3 Conclusion s Calculation s o f

noneconomi c impact s in th e SPI/C I stud y wer e base d o n a n exhaus t streamcontainin g 2 0 pp mo f styrene , directe d t o atherma l oxidizer . However , for economi c reasons , i t

woul db e unlikel y tha t

ane w plan t

woul d b e designe d with a20-pp mexhaus t strea m directe dt o a

n end-of-pip e contro l device . And , i f ane w plan t

wer e designe d wit

h a20-pp m exhaus t strea mdirecte dt o acontro l device , apreconcentration/oxidatio n syste mwoul d probabl y b e chose n ove r

straigh t therma l oxidation , agai n for economi c reasons . Natura l ga s usag e an dsecondary pollutan t emission s wer e foun d t o b e considerabl y les s fo r preconcentration/oxidatio n system s than for therma l oxidation , i n th e rang e fro m0 t o approximatel y 30 0 pp mo f styrene . Sinc e preconcentration/oxidatio n system s appea r t o hav e lowe r annualize dcost s than straigh t therma l oxidatio n in thi s range , th e choic e o f preconcentration/oxidatio n system s in thi s rang e lower s both economi c an d noneconomi c impacts . Reference s Gribbon , S . T . 1996 . Englehar dProces s Emissio n Systems ; "Regenerativ e Catalyti c Oxidation, " Presente dat

th e 199 6 Ai r

& Wast e Managemen t

Associatio n Specialt y Conferenc e "Emerging Solutions to VOC and Air Toxics Control"

Clearwater , FL . Gupta , A. , Dur r

Industries , Inc. , A facsimil e o n RT O Performanc e an d NO x t o Madelein e Strum , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Augus t 6 , 1996 . Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . Th e Non-Economi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s for th e Reinforce d Plastic s Industry . Prepare dfo r SPI/Composite s Institute , An n Arbor , MI . Nelson , C , Estimate s o f Health Risk s Associate d with Radionuclid e Emission s fro mFossil

Fuele dSteam-Electri c Generatin g Plants , EPA-402/R-95-1 6 (NTI S PB96-139753) , Augus t 1995 . Nutcher , P . B . an dD . A . Lewandowsi . 1994 . Proces s Combustio n Corporation ; "Maximu m Achievabl e Contro l Technolog y (MACT ) for NO x Emission s fromVO C Therma l Oxidation, " AWM A pape r

numbe r 94-WA74A.03 , i n Proceedings for the Air and Waste Management Association 87th Annual Meeting and

Exhibition, Cincinnati , OH . Wax , M. , Institut e o f

Clean Ai r

Companies , memorandu mt o Madelein e Strum , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Augus t 11 , 1995 , Subject : Reinforce d Plasti c Composites . 3 7P.4 9

Wax , M. , Institute o

f Clea n Air Companies , memorandu

mto Mar k Bahner , Research Triangl e Institute , Octobe

r 15 , 1996 , Subject : Radon Concentratio n i n Natura l Gas .

38P.5 0



### Appendi x A Comment s o n Individua l Statement s i n th e SPI/C I Stud y

39P.5 1 

### Appendi x A Comment s o n Individua l Statement s i n th e SPI/C I Stud y (Haberlein , 1996 ) 1 ) The (catalytic oxidizer) bed temperature is maintained at about 600°C (1,100°F) during normal operation. (Pag e IU-2) . A mor e typica l temperatur e rang e fo r catalyti c oxidatio n o f

styren e i s 600-700° F (Patka f etal. , 1994) . 2 ) The problem (of

catalyst poisoning in a catalytic oxidizer) is severe and unpredictable... (Pag e m-2) . A Jul y 19 , 199 6 memorandu mfro mMichae l Wa x (Institut e o f Clea n Ai r

Companies ) t o Madelein e Stru m(EPA-OAQPS ) state s tha t catalys t plugging , poisoning , an d deactivatio n ar e wel l understood , an d ma y b e ameliorate d throug h appropriat e syste m desig n an doperatin g practices . H e refer s t o a n articl e i n th e Septembe r 199 4 issu e o f Chemical Engineering, "Exten d th e Lif e o f Pollutio n Contro l Catalysts, " tha t discusse s in-sit u catalys t

rejuvenatio n a s a

n alternativ e t o catalys t

replacement . 3 ) A thermal

regenerative incinerator was selected

for the hypothetical

plant (30,000 ft 3 /min, 20ppm styrene, 8,760h/yr, 43 tons uncontrolled styrene emissions) because this type of

incinerator

has been shown to be the most cost-effective type of control compared

to the recuperative or

catalytic (recuperative) types. (Pag e IJJ-3) . Thi s analysi s ignore s th e optio n o f preconcentration/oxidation , whic h appear s t o hav e a lowe r tota l annualize dcos t

than an y o f

thes e option s (includin g regenerativ e therma l oxidation) , fo r

th e hypothetica l inle t

conditions . 4 ) For

the hypothetical

incinerator

discussed

above...at

an oxidation temperature of 1800°F... (Pag e D3-5) . A therma l oxidatio n temperatur e o f 1,80 0 ° F i s compatibl e with Haberlein' s assume d styren e destructio n efficienc y o f 9 9 percent . A lowe r

therma l oxidatio n temperature , suc h a s 1,50 0 °F , woul db e compatibl e with alowe r destructio n efficiency , suc h a s 9 5 percent . 5 ) The supplemental fuel requirement

for an incinerator

(with 95percent

heat recovery) operating at

an exhaust

flow rate of

30,000cfm at

20ppm VOC

(and 1,800°F) is 3,310,000Btu/h. (Pag e D3-5) . Th e RT I cos t

spreadshee t

fo r atherma l oxidize r

unde r thes e condition s produce s a calculate dsupplementa l fue l requiremen t o f 2,984,00 0 Btu/h , o r

approximatel y 1 0 percen t less . Thi s represent s fairl y clos e agreement . 4 06 ) Annual electrical

consumption (for

the hypothetical

thermal oxidizer) is 1,230,000kWh (over 8,760hours). (Pag e ffl-6). Thi s represent s powe r

usag e o f 14 0 kW/h . Th e RT I cos t spreadshee t

fo r atherma l oxidize r (wit h 9 5 percen t

heat recovery ) unde r

thes e condition s i s 12 5 kW/h , o r approximatel y 1 0 percen t less . Thi s represent s fairl y clos e agreement . RTF s calculatio n was basedo n quotation s fromSale mEnglehar d (Mack , 1996) . 7 ) Unfortunately, these compounds (catalyzed resin aerosols and

polystyrene-forming agents) are indeed

present in the exhaust

streams at

most plants, as evidenced

by the solid plastic residue that

coats the inner

surface of

the ductwork

in many locations. Further, no effective means of removing all

of these airborne compounds is presently known. (Pag e UJ-13) . Catalyze dresi n aerosol s ar e presen t i n man y plants , du e t o sprayin g operations . Thes e resi n aerosol s ar e actuall y quit e large , an d ar e therefor e easil y remove d b y eve n coars e filtration . Fo r

example , RT I mass-balanc e testin g conducte d in Jun e 199 5 indicate d approximatel y 9 9 percen t particl e collectio n b y athi n fiberglas s veil . It coul d b e expecte d tha t th e fiberglas s filter

pad s use d at

mos t plant s woul d hav e a

n eve n highe r

collectio n efficiency . RT I ha s observe dtha t casua l fiberglas s filte r

pa d installatio n a t

man y plant s allow s gaps o r

hole s i n th e filte r

banks . Thi s practic e ca

n dramaticall y lowe r

collectio n efficiency , an dwoul dnee dt o b e avoided . Styren e ga s (whic h ca n for mpolystyrene ) i s indee dpresent , an dcanno t b e remove d b y physica l filtration . However , Dur r Industrie s report s havin g rotary concentrato r system s i n Japa n tha t

hav e bee n runnin g for

ove r 1 0 year s withou t

styren e polymerization . 8) The report

(on Polyad) shows an annual 10% Bonopore (adsorbent) loss out of the system's cyclone separator. (Pag e IU-14 ) Weatherly , Inc . (manufacturer s o f Polyad) , i n aJul y 18 , 1996 , memorandu mt o Madelein e Stru m(EPA-OAQPS) , indicate d tha t the y no w guarante e annua l Bonopor e los s o f 5 percen t o r less . 9 ) The calculated

energy requirements

for a 30,000scfm Polyad

concentrator

system are 130kW, and

96,000Btu/hr. (Pag e UI-15) . Weatherly , Inc . (manufacturer s o f Polyad) , i n a199 6 memorandu mt o Madelein e Stru m (EPA-OAQPS) , indicate dthat th e electrica l requiremen t woul d actuall y b e 6 2 kW , but th e natura l ga s usag e valu e wa s correct . Reference s Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . Th e Non-Economi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s for th e Reinforce d Plastic s Industry . Prepare dfor SPI/Composite s Institute , An n Arbor , MI .

4 1L5 3

Mack , S. , Englehar

d Corporation , A facsimil e o n RC O Cost s to Mar

k Bahner , Researc h Triangl e Institute , Februar

y 8 , 1996 . Patkar , A.N. , J.M . Reinhold , and G . Henderson . 1994 . "Demonstratio n of Captur e andContro l Efficiency fo

r aStyrene Emissio n Source, " Pape r numbe r 94-RA l 11.03 , i

n Proceedings

for the Air and Waste Management

Association 87th Annual

Meeting and

Exhibition, Cincinnati , OH .

4 2P.5 4



### Appendi x B Revisio n o

f th e Styren e Contro l Cos t Spreadshee t

Mode l an dCos t

Figure s

43P.5 5



### RESEARC H TRIANGL E INSTITUT E 

# /RT

Cente rfo rEnvironmenta l Analysi s MEMORANDU

M DATE : Octobe

r 9 , 199 6 TO : Norma

n Kaplan , EPA/APPCD/MD-04 cc : Emer y Kon g (541-5964 ) Madeleine Strum , EPA/OAQPS/MD-1 3 FROM : Mar

k Bahne r (541-6016 ) iAf\b SUBJECT : Error s i

n Styren e Contro l Cos t

Spreadsheet s andCos t

Figures . Contract 68-D1-011 8 (Optio n IV) , wor k assignmen

t 156 . (RT I projec t

6173-156) . Contract 68- D 1-011 8 (Optio n V) , wor k assignmen

t 192 . (RT I projec t

6684-192) . A s aresul t o f activitie s conducte dto prepar e a n Addendumto th e report , "Assessment o f Styrene Control s fo

r FRP/ C andBoa t Buildin g Industries " (EPA-600/R-96-109) , I hav e discovere d error s i n th e styrene contro l cos t

spreadsheet s an

di n cos t curve s presente di

n th e report . I d o no

t believ e tha

t thes e error s significantly affec t the accuracy o

f th e spreadsheet

tota l annualize d cos t calculations , or

alte r conclusion s of

th e report . Therefore , pe

r atelephon e conversatio n wit h Norma n Kapla n today , RT I will no t

attemp t to revis e th e affecte

dportion s of

EPA-600/R-96-109 . Th e error s i

n th e cos t spreadsheet s ar

e a s follows : 1 ) Polya d Syste m- Th e cos t

spreadshee

t fo r the Polya dsystemwa s base don electrica l usag e o f 2 2 k W a t 5,00 0 cfm , and5 9 k

W a t 15,000 cfm . Weatherly , Incorporate d(manufacture r of Polyad) informe

d m e i n Decembe

r 199 5 tha t actua l value s wouldb e 1 2 k

W a t 5,00 0 cf man d 3 2 k W a t 15,000 cfm . However , I neglecte dto chang e the spreadsheet accordingly . Additionally , th e Polya d cos t spreadshee

t ha s afue l usag e of "zero " fo r all conditions . Thi s wa s asimplifyin g assumption : amor

e accurat e representatio n wouldb e 48,00 0 Btu/h r a t 15,00 0 cfm . Thes e tw o error s actuall y ten dto bia s th e tota l cos t calculation s i

n differen t directions , and therefor e nearl y cancel eac h other

out , in term s o

f final cost . Th e incorrec t

andcorrecte d value s fo

r arang e o f concentrations , and input

mas s rate s (i

n ton s pe r year ) ar e shown i n Tabl e 1 .

4 4 304 0 Cornwall, s Roa d • Pos t Offic e Bo x AA± - Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27709-219 ^ US A Teiepnor. e 9' 9 5^1-5382 • Fa x 91 9 541-715

5. P5 6

Tabl e 1 . Correcte d Cost/Ton Value s fo r th e Polya dSystem . Inpu t mas s 40 0 TP Y 40 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y Correc t

Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Inle t concentration , pp m 5 0 3,473 * 3,70 2 4,62 2 4,85 3 8,94 5 9,19 1 10 0

1,99 8 2,11 3 2,77 1 2,88 9 6,94 6 7,07 9 15 0

1,43 2 1,51 2 2,24 6 2,32 2 6,19 6 6,29 0 20 0

1,15 6 1,21 3 1,967 2,02 7 5,80 2 5,87 8 30 0

84 4 88 3 1,66 3 1,70 5 5,39 5 5,45 1 50 0

61 3 63 7 1,38 9 1,41 6 5,05 9 5,10 1 70 0

52 2 53 9 1,26 1 1,21 8 4,91 2 4,94 7 * Cos t ($ ) pe r ton o f styren e removed . 2 ) Dur r rotar y concentrator

syste m- Cos t an dfue l usag e datafo

r the Dur r rotar y concentrato r

wer e received ver

y nea r the en do f the . origina

l styrene control s assessment project . I ha d time t o accurately mode

l accurat e equipmen

t cost s fo r the Dur r rotar y concentrator , bu

t I di d no t hav e tim e to accuratel

y mode l fue l usage . (The most

accurat e mode l o f fue l usag e fo r the systemwould b e based o

n basi c principle s o

f combustio n an

dheating. ) Th e fue

l usag e calculation s generall y over-estimate d fue l usage . Knowing tha

t th e fue l usag e number s wer

e probabl y inaccurate , I lef

t ou t the fue l cos t fro mthe final Tota

l AnnualizedCos t

calculation . Sinc e fue l cos t was actually removedfro

mth e Tota

l Annualize dCos t

calculation , th e cos t spreadsheet

fo r th e Dur r rotar y concentrator

actually underestimate s cos t slightly . Th e incorrec t

an d correcte d value s ar

e show n i n Tabl e 2 . Tabl e 2 . Correcte d Cost/Ton Value s fo r th e Dur r Rotar y Concentrator

System . Inpu t mas s 40 0 TP Y 40 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y Correc t

Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Inle t concentration , pp m 5 0 3,494 * 3,48 2 4,49 3 3,94 5 6,56 9 6,02 2 10 0

1,87 0 1,87 0 2,40 4 2,21 3 4,56 3 4,37 3 15 0

1,35 2 1,28 0 1,72 1 1,64 9 3,89 8 3,82 7 20 0

99 8 98 6 1,38 2 1,37 1 3,56 7 3,55 5 30 0

69 6 69 6 1,09 4 1,09 4 3,28 3 3,28 3 50 0

46 9 46 9 87 5 87 5 3,06 7 3.06 7 70 0

37 2 37 2 78 1 78 1 2,97 4 2,97 4 Cos t ($ ) pe r to n o f styrene removed . 4 5P.5 7

3 ) Figur

e 5-5 , "Cos t

curve s fo r alarg e plant

(40 0 ton s pe

r yea r inlet) " i n EPA-600/R-96-10 9 ha s cos t curve s fo r thre e contro l technologie s plotte do n aright-hand axis . Thi s right-han d axi s i s incorrectly scaledwit h aminimu

mof negativ e $1,000/ton . Th e affecte d technologie s ar

e th e EC& C fluidized-be d preconcentrator , th e Dur r rotar y concentrator , and th e VO C condenser : I

f thes e technologie s ar

e plotte dwit

h aminimumcos t

o f $0/ton , simila

r t o othe r technologie s i

n Figur e 5-5 , th e resultin g curve s ar

e somewha

t altered . I hav e attache d arevisedversion o f Figur e 5-5 . Th e ne

w figur e contain s revise d curve s a s the y woul d appear , assuming th e EC& C preconcentrato r

i s desorbe dint

o atherma l oxidizer . Th e version o f Figur e 5- 5 tha t appear s i n EPA-600/R-96-10 9 i s als o attached , wit h th e notatio n "ORIGINA

L (INCORRECT)" . I hav e include d adiskett

e wit h (revised ) cos t

spreadsheets . I

f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e call m e a t 541-6016 .

4 6^ 1 c o TJ" 

# I f

cu c * : C U f £ I I S c <4- O o « r * : * * 3 k . O J O L c o o O n nn n -

* Q nn n - A nn n - 7,00 0 - fi nnn o,uu u - 5,00 0 -

A nnn •t.uu u - i nnn J,UU U - o nn n <c,uu u - 1.00 0 - 0 - 246.00 0 123,00 0



### I \ \ 

# K

V V i 

# w V

• • \ \

^ ^ A 

# *< £ > < Flo w rate.cf m ( 1 cf m = 0.028 3 m3/min ) 61.50 0 41.00 0 30.75 0 24,60 0

i • t • » «

i

> > . 

# ^ b ^ ' \ %

^ * ^ %^p V • 1

«-».. ^ 20,50 0 17. 6

1 1 1 I I 1 1 MIA B " - - Polya d (w/oxidation ) Catalyti c oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) Therma l oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) Biofiltratio n Thermatri x PADR E

—-

"•- . -tr- — •Dur rrotar y concentrato r •VO C condense r EC& C fluidized-be d preconcentrato r(w/oxidation )

"'••. . ""•• . • . .

*£^^ M "*-- . " * - • _ " " * * . « , , , 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 Concentratio n (ppm ) 50 0 60 0 70 0 Figur e 5-5 . Cos t curve s fo ra larg e plan t (40 0 ton s pe ryea rinlet) . 

# Joo O « ; •a * 9) 

# I f at $ *• _ c * T C O T - > . I I t ) c * - o o « t 3 0 ) 

### a . * r f ( A o u m nn n ^

Q nn n - 8,00 0 - 7.00 0 - 6,00 0 - 5.00 0 - 4.00 0 - 3,00 0 - 2,00 0 - 1,00 0 • 0 - 246,00 0 12 3

i \ \

« \ 

# i\\ TO 

# v v V J ^ V 00 0

• 1

\ A Flo w rate.cf m ( 1 cf m = 0.028 3 m3/min )

61,50 0 41.00 0 30,75 0 24,60 0

* * i • t * * *

^ ^ ^ ^ * %

* * > S **t . %

. ^ 20,50 0

1 1 1 l l l l MIA B

- - - Polya d (w/oxidation ) Catalvti c oxidize rf95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 DDm i

—- - - Therma l oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm )

—- Biofiltratio n

- - Thermatri x PADR E •"Ro t di y uunueiiuaiu i C condense r

—- EC& C fluidized-bed preconcentrato r

'••'. .

3~- — "*•.. _

- !•-.• - -

• • , * * • •

- — *•-.. .

—— —- *"•-. .

M 3 17. 6

-

•

. •

* -. . J»_j— — 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 Concentratio n (ppm) 50 0 60 0 70 0 

### Figure 5-5 . Cos tcurve s fo r a larg e plan t(40 0 ton s pe r yea r inlet) . ORIGINA L (INCORRECT

) J oP.6 0 EPA-6007K-96-13 6 Novembe r

199 6 

# Addendu mt o Assessmen t o f Styren e Emissio n Control s fo r

FRP/ C an d Boa t Buildin g Industrie s Final Repor

t

by : Emer y J . Kong , Mar

k A . Bahner , andSonj i L . Turne r Researc h Triangl e Institut e P.O.Bo x 1219 4 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2770 9 EP A Contrac t

68-D1-0118 , W.A . 192

EP A Projec t Officer : Norma

n Kapla n Ai r Pollutio n Preventio n an dContro l Divisio n Nationa l Ris k Management

Researc h Laborator

y U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Research Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Prepare d fo

r U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency Office o f Researc h andDevelopment Washington , D C 2046 0P.6 1 

### Abstrac t Thi s repor t i s a n addendu mto a199 6 EP A repor

t entitle dAssessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. Thi s addendumpresent s additiona l evaluatio n o f th e biologica

l treatment

o f styrene emissions , Do w Chemica l Company' s SORBATHENE ® solven t vapo r recover y system , Occupationa

l Safet y an d Healt

h Administratio n regulation s and other policie s tha

t affec t th e fibe r reinforce dplastics/composite s (FRP/C ) andboa t buildin g industries , an

d secondar

y pollutio n andnatural ga s usag e resultin g fro mvariou s emissio n contro l options . Thi s stud y conclude s that :

• Base d o

n availabl e result s frombench

- andpilotrscal e studie s an dfull-siz e operation , biofiltratio n o r

abioscrubbe r

coul db e aviabl e contro l optio n fo r treatment o f styrene emissions . Dow Chemical' s SORBATHENE ® vapor recover y systemwa s develope d fo r high-concentration , low-flo w exhaus t fro mstorag e vent s an

dwouldnot

b e economically feasibl e fo

r low-concentration , high-volum e flo w typically foun

d i n th e mos t prominen t processin g technique s i

n th e FRP/C andboa

t buildin g industries .

• Employer s shoul d comply wit h current or futur e permissibl e exposur

e limit s (PELs ) fo r styrene usin g feasibl e engineerin g control s andshoul dprovide respirator y protectio n t o employee s when worke r exposure canno t

meet PEL s afte r feasibl e engineerin g control s hav e been implemented . It i s als o a n industria l practic e fo r employer s t

o provid e additiona

l respirator

y protectio n t

o the employee s eve

n though th e PEL s ar

e met .

• Direc t

therma l oxidatio n o r

catalyti c oxidatio n woul db e les s economica l tha n preconcentration/oxidatio n technologie s fo r low-concentration , high-volum e emission s typically foun

di n th e industries . Secondar y pollutio n an

dnatura l gas usag e coul d b e reduce dsignificantl y whe n usin g preconcentratio n technologie s followe d b y catalyti c oxidation .

uP.6 2 

### Content s Abstrac t i i Figure s v Table s v Acronym s and Abbreviation s v i Conversio n Tabl e viii Chapter 1 Introductio n 1 Reference s 1 Chapter 2 ' Biologica

l Treatmen

t 2 2. 1 Syste

mInfonnatio n Requeste d.. . * 2 2. 2 Description s o

f Biologica l Treatmen t

System s 2 Reference s 8 Chapter 3 Novel Styrene Emissio n Contro l Technolog y 9 3. 1 Dow Chemica

l SORBATHENE

® Solvent Vapor Recover y Unit 9 Reference s 1 1 Chapter 4 OSH

A Regulation s andPolicie s Affectin g Worke r Exposure s in th e FRP/

C and Boa t Buildin g Industrie s 1 2 4. 1 Summar

y an d Implicatio n o f

OSHA Regulation s 1 2 4. 2 D e Minimi s Violation s 1 3 4. 3 Loca

l Air Flo w Managemen

t an dSpra y Boot h Modification s 1 4 Reference s 1 5 Chapter 5 Assumption s i

n th e Societ y o f Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institute' s (SPI/CI ) Stud y o n Noneconomi c Impact s of Incineratio n Control s 1 7 5. 1 Us e o

f Therma l Oxidize r 1 7 5. 2 Contro l Devic e Inle t Concentratio n of

2 0 pp m1 7 5.2. 1 Economi c Incentive s fo r Maximizin g Inlet

Concentration s 1 9 5.2. 2 Exhaus t

Concentration s a

t Existin g Plant s 1 9 5.2. 3 Recen

t an d Potentia l Futur e Change s i

n Allowabl e Exposure s to Styrene2 1 5.2. 4 Existin g Relationship s Betwee n Worke r Exposur e an dExhaus t Concentratio n 2 1 5.2. 5 Potentia

l Method s to Increas e Concentratio n t o Downstrea

mControl s . 2 1 5.2. 6 Conclusion s on Assumptio n o f Contro l Devic e Inle

t Concentratio n o

f 2 0 ppm2 3 Reference s 24 Chapter 6 RTI Analysi s o

f Noneconomi c Impact s o

f Control s 2 5 6. 1 Normalize d Curve s fo r Natura l Ga s Usag e an

dSecondar

y Pollutan t Emission s 2 5 6.1. 1 Natura

l Ga s Usag e 2 5



### ii iP.6 3 

### Content s (continued) 6.1. 2 Carbon Dioxid e Emission s 2 7 6.1. 3 Nitrogen Oxid e Emission s 2 7 6. 2 Calculation s fo

r Specifi c Plan t

2 9 6.2. 1 Natura

l Ga s Usag e 3 1 6.2. 2 Carbo n Dioxid e Emission s 3 1 6.2. 3 Nitrogen Oxid e Emission s 3 4 6.2. 4 Radon Emission s 3 4 6. 3 Conclusion s 3 7 Reference s 3 7 APPENDIXE S A Comment s o

n Individua

l Statement s i

n th e SPI/C I Stud

y 3 9 B Revisio n of

th e Styren e Contro l Cos t

Spreadshee t

Model andCos t

Figure s 4 3

i vP.6 4 

### Figure s No . Pag e 2- 1 W K

Weeg e GmbH bioscrubbe r syste m7 3- 1 Proces s diagra

mo f aSORBATHEN

E solven t vapor recover y unit 1 0 5- 1 Cos t

curve s fo r alarg e plant

(40 0 ton s pe r

yea r inlet ) 1 8 5- 2 Typica

l ope n moldin g operation i

n aspray boot

h 2 2 6- 1 Normalize d natura

l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l option s an dfo r sensibl e heatin g o f exhaus t strea m* . 2 6 6- 2 Normalize d additiona l carbon dioxid e generate db y natura l ga s combustio n fo

r variou s contro l option s ., 2 8 6- 3 Normalize d NO x emission s fo r variou s contro l option s 3 0 6- 4 Natura

l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l option s an dfo r sensibl e heatin g a t

atypica l plant 3 2 6-5 Carbon dioxid e emission s fo r variou s contro l option s a

t atypica l plan t 3 3 6-6 No x emission s fo

r variou s contro l option s at

atypica l plant 3 5 6- 7 Radon emission s du e to natura l ga s combustio n fo

r variou s contro l option s a

t atypica l plant 3 6



### Table s No . ' Pag e 2- 1 Propertie s fo

r Styren e Abatemen

t Biosystem s 4 5- 1 Styrene Exhaus t

Concentrauon s a

t Existin g Ope

n Moldin g Plant s wit

h Resin/Gel Coa

t Usag e Greate

r tha n 1,00 0 ton/yr .2 0 5- 2 Compariso n o

f averag e styrene exhaus t

concentratio n (29 0 ppm

) wit h worke r exposur e level s a t Lasc o Bathware , Sout

h Boston , VA 2 3 6- 1 Characteristic s fo

r Specifi c Plant

(Universal Rundle , i

n Ottumwa , Iowa

) 3 1P.6 5 

### Acronym s an d Abbreviations ACGI H America

n Counci l o

f Government

Industria l Hygienist s BAC T bes t

availabl e contro l technolog y Bt u Britis h therma l uni t CAA A Clea

n Air Ac t Amendment s o f

199 0 C E capita

l equipment

(cost) CEFI C Unsaturate d Polyester s Secto r Group o f Europea n Chemica

l Industr y Counci l CFC s chlorofluorocarbon s C O carbo n monoxide C0 2 carbo n dioxid e E C equipmen

t cos t EC& C Environmenta l C&C , Inc . EP A Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y FI D flam

e ionizatio n detecto r FRP/ C fiber-reinforce d plastics/composite s f t fee

t ft/min fee

t pe r minut e GPRM C Europea

n Organizatio n of

Reinforce dPlastics/Composite Material s HA P hazardou s air pollutant s H.R . hea

t recover y k W kilowat

t kW h kilowatt-hour lb poun d Ib/ h pound s per

hour LEL lowe

r explosiv e limi t MAC T maximumachievabl e contro l technolog y MIA B MolnbackaIndustri , A B NFPA Nationa

l Fire Protectio n Associatio n NO x nitrogen oxide s OAQP S Office of

Air Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s OSH A Occupationa

l Safet y andHealt

h Administratio n PADR E Polyme

r Adsorptio n andRemoval P C persona

l computer PE C purchase d equipment cos t PEL permissibl e exposure limit s pp mpart s pe r

millio n (b y volume ) PS A pressure swin g adsorptio n psi g pound s per

squar e inch , gag e REEC O Regenerativ e Environmenta l Equipmen t

Co. , Inc . RP C reinforce d plasti c composite s RT I Research Triangl e Institute SI C Standar

d Industria

l Classificatio n SM C shee

t moldin g compoun d

v iP.6 6

SPI/C I ST C STE L TC I TD C TL V ton/yr TRI TV A TW A VO C v r ° C ° F Societ

y of th e Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institut e Southeaster

n Technolog y Cente r short-ter mexposur e limi t tota l capita l investmen

t tota l direc t cos t threshol d limi t

value ton s pe r yea r Toxic s Releas e Inventor

y Tennesse e Valle

y Authorit y time-weighte d averag e volatil e organi c compoun d yea r degree s Celsiu s , degree s Fahrenheit

v nP.6 7 

### Conversion Tabl

e 2 r l . EnVlr0nmenta l Protectlo n A g^c y polic y i s t o expres s all measurement s i n Agenc v document s i

n metri c units . I

n thi s report , however , to confor mto industria

l Tonveiti^ n EnL ^ unit s ar e used . Convers e factor s fro mEnglis h t o metri c unit s are give n b e 0 w Englis h Unit Bt u



### ° F f t s ft 2 

### ft 3 ftVmi n (cfm ) gal/mi n inc h in . H ; 0 lb psi a to n iTtuiu(ji y o y 1.055xl0 3 (°F-32)/1. 8 0.304 8 0.092 9 0.028 3 0.02831 4 3.7 9 - 2.5 4 1.87 0.45 4 6.89 5 0.90 7 T o Obtai n joul e

m n r m J mVmi n l/min cm mmH g k g kilopasca l M g

v m

### Chapte r 1 Introductio n The 199 Q Clea n Air Act Amendment s (CAAA ) mandat e th e developmen

t an d promulgatio n o

f standard s fo

r hazardou s ai r

pollutant s (HAP) emittedfro mamultitude o

f sourc e categorie s by the yea

r 2000 . Styrene i s liste da s aHA P i n the CAAA , an

dit i s know n t o b e emitte d fro

mthe fiberglass-reinforced plastics/composite s (FRP/C ) an dboa t buildin g industries . A n earlier stud y (Kong e t al. , 1996) assesse dth e availabl e contro l technologies , their efficiencies , performance , an

d cost . Tha

t stud y als o reviewe dan dsummarize dOccupationa l Safet y and Healt h Administratio n (OSHA) regulation s governin g th e worke r exposur e issues , an

dpresente d th e air flow managemen

t practice s tha

t coul dachiev e cost-effectiv e contro l o f styrene emissions . Thi s repor t present s additiona

l evaluatio n o f

th e biologica

l treatmen t o f styrene emissions , Do

w Chemica

l Company' s SORBATHENE® solven t vapo r recover y system , OSH

A regulation s an

d othe r policie s tha

t affec t th e FRP/ C an dboa

t buildin g industries , an

dsecondar y pollutio n and natura

l ga s usag e resultin g fromvariou s emissio n contro l options . Thi s stud y conclude s that : 1 . Base d o n availabl e result s fro

mbench

- an dpilot-scal e studie s andfull-siz e operation , biofiltratio n or

abioscrubbe

r coul d b e aviabl e contro l optio n fo r treatmen t o f styrene emissions . 2 . Dow Chemical' s SORBATHENE ® vapo r recover y syste mwa s develope dfo

r high

concentration , low-flow exhaus t fro mstorag e vent s an dwoul dno t b e economically feasible fo

r lo w concentration , high-volume flo w typicall y foundi

n th e mos t prominen t processin g technique s i

n the FRP/

C and boa t buildin g industries . 3 . Th e employer s shoul d comply wit h curren t o r futur e PEL s fo r styren e using feasible engineerin g control s and shoul d provide respirator y protectio n t

o the employee s whe

n worke r exposure ca

n no t meet PEL s afte r feasibl e engineerin g control s have bee n implemented . I

t i s als o a n industria

l practic e fo

r employer s to provid e additiona l respirator

y protectio n to the employee s eve

n though the PEL s ar

e met . 4 . Direc t therma l oxidatio n or

catalyti c oxidatio n wouldbe les s economica l tha n preconcentration/oxidatio n technologie s fo r low-concentration , high-volum e emission s typically found i n th e industries . Secondar

y pollutio n an dnatural ga s usag e coul db e reduce dsignificantly whe n usin g preconcentratio n technologie s followe db y catalyti c oxidation . Reference s Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , an d S.L . Turner . Septembe r

1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . lP.6 9 

### Chapter 2 Biologica l Treatmen

t Biologica l treatmen t use s microorganism s in amedium , usually abiofilte r o r bioscrubber , t o destro y organi c compound emission s i n a n ai r stream . Ai r

emission s containin g biodegradabl e constituent s pas s through abiologicall y activ e medium . Th e microorganism s degrade the organi c constituent s in th

e ai r strea mt o essentiall y carbo n dioxide an dwater . Biofiltratio n ha s been use d fo

r man y year s i n Europe , Japan , an dth e Unite dState s fo r odor control , but

the us e of biofiltratio n t o degrade mor e complex ai r

emission s fromchemica

l plant s ha s occurre d onl

y withi n th e las t

fe w years . Description s of

biofiltratio n an dbiotricklin g filte r system s ar

e presente d i

n a n EP A repor t (Kon g et al. , 1996) . Biofiltratio n andbiotricklin g filte r ar e simila r in principle , bu t

differen t vendor s us e differen

t design s an drrfedia . Thi s addenduminclude s anothe r ne w biologica

l treatmen t systemwhic h comprise s abioscrubbe r an dabioreactor . Thi s sectio n present s th e proces s description s an dinformatio n for severa l biologica l treatment

unit s tha t hav e been teste d o r

applie dfo r styren e emissions . 2. 1 Syste m Informatio n Requeste d Th e Researc h Triangl e Institute (RTI ) contacte dseve n researcher s andsupplier s t o obtai n availabl e informatio n on thei r variou s existin g an dpropose dbiologica l treatmen t systems . Th e reques t include d bu t

wa s no t limite dto informatio n o n th e following :

• flo w rate s * • compositio n o f th e bio-medium • emissio n sourc e • incubatio n perio do f th e bio-medium • concentratio n • siz e o f th e biofilte

r • capture efficienc y • pressur e dro p • contro l efficienc y • acclimatio n perio d • tim e of operatio n (hours/day , days/week ) • performanc e durin g startup • number o f person s require d fo

r operatio n • performanc e afte r period s o f shutdow n • frequenc y o f

regeneratio n • capital an doperatin g cost s Fiv e facilitie s responde d by th e requeste ddeadlin e t o provid e information fo r thi s report : Envirogen , Tennesse e Valle y Authorit y (TVA) , W K

Weeg e GmbH , Southeaster n Technolog y Cente r (STC) , an d EnvirOzone , Inc . 2. 2 Description s o f

Biological Treatmen tSystem s Envirogen . Enviroge n provide dinformatio n fo r tw o units , apilot-scal e biofilte r an d apropose d full-scal e biotricklin g filter . Th e pilot-scal e biofilte r wa s teste do

n air discharge dfro

ma fiberglass spra

y boot h operation . Th e full-scal e biotricklin g filter wa s designe dto contro l styren e emission s generate d by asequenc e batch reacto r i n achemical company' s wastewate r treatment facility ; however , th e systemwa s neve r pu t int o service . Currently , CV T Biowa y i s conductin g a field pilo t study wit h TN O i n Europe . Thi s wor

k i s confidentia

l an dremain s unavailabl e toEnvirogen . (Enviroge n an d aDutc h compan y hav e ajoin t ventur e compan y calle dCV

T America . CV

T Americ aha s potentia

l acces s t o licens e TNO' s technology throug h asister company calle d CV

T Bioway . CV T Bioway i s aseparate compan y fro mCV T America. ) A s dat aand information fro

mthi s field study becom e availabl e t o them , Envirogen wil

l updat e RTI . Informatio n o

n th e Enviroge

n biotreatment

syste mi s presente di

n a n EP A repor t (Kon g e t al. , 1996) . Propertie s fo

r their pilot-scal e syste man ddesig n specification s fo r thei r full-scale syste

m ar e liste d i n Tabl e 2-1 . TVA . I n 1989 , 1.0

4 x IO 6 k g (1,14 4 tons ) o f

styren e wa s emitte db

y manufacturing industrie s i n th e Tennesse e Valle

y making styren e th e secon dlarges t Toxi c Releas e Inventor

y (TRI ) classifie d toxi c chemica

l release d i

n the regio n (Lacke y e t

al. , 1994) . Laur

aLacke y wit h TV A conducte d bench-scal e an

d pilot-scal e studie s t

o eliminat e styren e emission s fro mthe ai r stream s o f a n industrial partne

r an d othe r varied industrial applications . For bench-scal e biofilte

r experiments , aparalle l serie s o

f thre e bench-scal e 2.8- L biofilter s wa s constructed . All thre e biofilter s wer e packe d wit

h a1: 1 (v/v ) mixtur

e o f pin e bar k an dcomposte dchicke

n litter . A stainles s steel screen supporte d th e packin g materia l creatin g afree spac e a

t the bottomo

f eac h biofilter . A controlle d fee

d o f styrene-contaminate d ga s entere dth e free space , an dpurifie dai

r exited the top , Fo r th e bench-scal e experiments , biofilter s wer e operate dcontinuously fo r a7-mont h period . Biofilter 1 , th e Control , wa s autoclave dan dserve da s asteril e control . Biofilte r 2 wa s inoculate d wit

h astyrene-degradin g consortiu mof organisms , an

dBiofilte r 3 use donl

y naturally . occurrin g microorganisms . Inlet styren e concentration s rangedfro m5 0 t o 4,00 0 ppm

v and th e empt y bed contac t

time varied between 1 an d8 minutes . Durin g day s 2 9 to 36 , th e humidit y o f th e incomin g air

strea mwa s inadvertently droppe dbelo w th e norma l 9 9 percent

to below 5 0 percen t relativ e humidity . Thi s dro p cause dth e removal efficienc y o f Biofilte r 2 t o decreas e to 6 0 percent . Afte

r th e humidit

y wa s returne dt o normal , the performanc e o f Biofilte r 2 quickly improve d and remova

l efficienc y increase dt o greate r

tha n 9 9 percent . Thi s problemdid not occur wit h Biofilte r 3 . Afte r the initia l acclimatio n period , the performance s of Biofilte r 2 an d Biofilter 3 wer e similar , greate

r tha n 9 9 percen t

(L.W . Lackey , TVA , persona l communication , Sept . 4 , 1996) . Th e pilot-scal e biofilte

r tha t wa s installe da

t aboa t buildin g manufacturing sit e was 0. 8 meter s in diamete

r wit h atota l packin g volum e o f

1.2 6 m 3 (Holt an dLackey , 1995) . I

t was als o filled wit h a1: 1 (v/v ) mixtur

e o f pin e bar k andcomposte dchicke

n litter . The pilot-scale , biofilte r wa s monitore d fo

r 3 months . Durin g norma

l manufacturing , the spra

y boot h wa s operated fo

r thre e shift s eac

h da y (2 0 h/d) . Followin g th e firs t week o f operatio n an

dmicrobia

l acclimation , th e manufacturin g facilit

y shu t dow n fo r 1 week . Durin g th e shutdown , th e biofilte r continue dt

o operate , an

d th e syste mwas maintaine dunde r

aerobi c condition s b

y blowin g a

n uncontaminate d air strea mthrough th e biofilter . Som e styren e breakthroug h wa s noteddurin g th e first shif t afte r th e wee k o f downtime . However , n o styren e wa s detecte di n the biofilte

r effluen t fo r th e nex t 2 month s whe

n the empt y be d contac t time wa s maintaine da

t aconstan t rate . Additiona

l informatio n abou

t the propertie s fo

r bot h system s i s liste di

n Tabl e 2-1 . Lackey plan s t o design a demonstration-scal e 340-m 3 /min (12,000-ft3 /min ) biofiltratio n syste mbasedo n th e result s o

f th e tw o studies . However , adecision to construc t th e demonstration-scal e syste mi s currently o

n hol d unti l ther

e ar e regulator y requirement s t o buil dit .



# 3Tabl e 2-1 . Propertie s fo r Styren e Abatemen t Biosystem s



# t Bioreacto r

Parameter s Uni t typ e Reacto r typ e Reacto r size Emission s source . Othe r polltitant(s ) Plo w rat e Styren e concentration s

Contro l efficienc y

Tim e o f operatio n Person s neede d fo r operatio n Medi a replacemen t Companie s ENVIROGE N Pilo t Biofilte r 0.8 5 in ' (3 0 ft' ) medium V Fiberglas s spra

y boot h operatio n Full-scale ' Biofilte r 0.2 8 m'(1 0 ft' ) Wastewate r treatmen t facilit y N A 7.0 8 x 10 ' l o 5.6 6 x 10 ' m'/

s (1 5 t o 12 0 ft'/min ) N A >95 % @ 30 + se

c 85 % t o 9 5 % @ 1 5 se c 1 6 h/d , 5 d/wk , 4 month s 0.660 8 m'/ s (1,40 0 ft'/min ) N A

90 % remova l

2 4 h/day 1 5 l o 7 year

s TV A Bench b Pilo t

Biofilte r 2.8xlO'm J (0.09 9 ft' ) Controlle d contaminate d fee d Aceton e N A 5 0 t o 4,00 0 ppm v (inlet ) >99 % remova l (Biofilte r 2 ) >99 % remova l (Biofilte r 3 ) 7 month s 1.26m ' (44. 5 ft' ) mediu m Boat manufacture r ME K Aceton e 2.8 3 x 10'l o 2.1 2 x 10 ' ( 6 t o 4 5 ft'/min ) Ol o 40 0 ppm v % (inlet )

>98 % remova l

1 3 month s Non e Lif e o f syste m | N A | W KWeeg e Full-scal e Bioscrubbe r Designe d fo r treatmen t required ' Automotiv e part s productio n NA J 20,00 0 m'/l i (11.77 4 ft'/min ) 5 0 l o 6 0 pp m (inlet ) 5 pp m (outlet )

- 90 % remova l 8 h/d . 5 d/wk , 10. 5 mo/y r Non e ST C Pilo t Biofilte r 21.6 2 m ' (763. 4 ft' ) FR P facilit y ME K 0.47 2 t o 0.94 4 m'/

s (1.00 0 l o 2,00 0 fl'/min ) 3 0 pp m (inlet) . 0. 3 pp m (outlet )

99 %

2 4 li/da y Non e Lif e o f syste m | 4 t o 7 year s (continued )Tabl e 2-1 . Continue d



# . ° \ Bioreacto r

Parameter s Uni t typ e Medi a compositio n

Acclimatio n perio d

Pressur e dro p Startu p performanc e Shutdow n recover y Capita l cos t Operatin g cos t Companie s ENVIROGE N Pilo t Proprietar y engineere d organi c base d materia l

- 1 wee k 1 in . t o 2 in . H, 0 . . @ startu p 8 in . H 2 0 desig n 7 5 % @ 6 0 se c 5 t o 8 h (weeken d shutdown ) N A N A Full-scale "

Syntheti c packin g 1 t o 2 week s (expected )

< 1 in . ll 2 0 (expected ) N A N A Availabl e upo n reques t Availabl e upo n reques t TV A Bench 1 " Pilo t 1: 1 (v/v ) pin e bar k

an d composte d chicke n litte r

- 5 day s (Biofilte r2 )

- 5 5 day s (Biofilte r 3 ) 0.00 3 in . H, 0 (max ) N A 0.7 5 in . ll 2 0 (max ) N A N A

N A N A W KWeeg e Full-scal e Proprietar y

N A

N A N A Vi l o 1 h (afte rshul-down ) $450,00 0 l o $700,00 0 $25/da y l o $30/da y ST C Pilo t 80 % chicke n compos t 20 % GA C 2 l o 3 week s

2 0 l o 3 0 in . H 2 0 3 0 l o 7 0 % variabl e $140,00 0 (w/enginecring ) $400/mont h N A - no t available . a . Desig n parameter s o f thi s system s ar e listed . Th e syste m currentl y i s no t i n use . I) . A paralle l scrie s o f thre e bench-scal e biofilter s wer e use d fo rthi s bench-scal e lest . Biofilte rI wa s autoclave d an d serve d as a steril e control . Biofilte r2 wa s inoculate d wit h a styrene-degradin g consortiu m o f organisms . Biofille r3 utilize d onl y naturall y occurrin g microorganisms . c . Eac h syste m i s designe d t o handl e specifi c wast e streams . Norma l heigh t o f fillermateria l i s a maximu m o f I l o 1.2 5 m . Fo r10 0 t o 15 0 m ' o f emissions , estimat e approximatel y I in ' o f fillermaterial . d . Syste m ca n b e engineere d fo rspecifi c wast e stream s o f volatil e organi c compoun d (VOCs) . A serie s o f bioscrubber s ca n b e designe d fo reac h individua l uni t l o trea t a specifi c VOC .P.7 3

W K Weeg e GmbH . W K

Weeg e GmbH , a

n engineerin g company i

n Wiesbaden , Germany , develope d abioscrubbe

r systemtha

t remove s styren e andother volatil e organi c compound s (VOCs ) fro

mindustria

l wast e gases . Th e bioscrubber

syste memploy s afour-ste

p proces s to trea

t styren e an d VO C emission s fro

mindustria l waste gas . A s shown i n Figur e 2-1 , industria

l wast e gase s enter

apacke d absorptio n towe r wher e styren e i s absorbe dint o the countercurrent flo w of th e absorbent

solutio n (i.e. , water

an dclea n effluen t fro mth e bioreactor) . Th e absorptio n tower consist s o f packing , adrople

t separator , an daliqui ddistributor . Afte r thi s step , clea

n air leave s th e tower , an d th e styrene-laden absorben t solutio n i s pumpe dint o astirre dbioreactor . I n th e bioreactor , styren e i s biologically degraded . Afte r the degradatio n i s complete , proprietar y additive s ar

e applie d t o maintain th e bacteri apopulation , andth e clea n effluen t fro mth e bioreacto r i s pumpe d t

o the absorptio n towe r

fo r reuse . N o sludg e o r

soli dwast

e i s generate d fromth e bioscrubber

process . Th e bioscrubber

syste mi s equippe dwit

h sensor s an d measurin g device s and acompute r t o contro l th e operation s o

f th e system . W K

Weeg e sell s aservic e contrac t t o maintai n and operat e th e system . The persona l compute r

(PC ) statio n i s th e hear

t o f dat aacquisitio n fo

r th e bioscrubbe r

system . The'P C statio n collect s al l dat aandcontrol s variou s function s of th e system , suc h a s refillin g wate

r t o mak e u p fo r evaporatio n loss , replenishin g th e additives , and controllin g th e system . Through mode mcommunicatio n methods , thes e dat aar e communicate d bac k t o W K Weege . Thi s informatio n transfer allow s W K

Weeg e to continually , monito r th e functio n of

th e systeman

d to remotel y adjus t

th e systemwhe

n necessar y usin g afa

x modem . Tw o bioscrubber

system s exis t

i n Germany : on e i s alaboratory-scal e facility , th e other i s acommercia

l uni t use d b y aGerma n compan y usin g sheet

moldin g compoun d(SMC ) to manufactur

e automotiv e parts . Th e commercial uni t operate dfo

r on e yea r but i s no longer

in operatio n now . Rudi Weege , compan y president , provide dRT I wit h a n overview o

f th e commercia

l unit . Information for

th e commercial systemi s provide di n Tabl e 2-1 . Th e cos t dat ai n Tabl e 2- 1 for

th e W K Weeg e systemar

e taken fro mpublishe d literature (Moder n Plastics , 1996) . Th e capita l cost s fo r asyste mhandlin g 11,76 6 ftVmi n ar e estimate d t o b e betwee n S450,00 0 an

d S700,000 . Thi s ca

n b e compare dt o estimate dequipmen t cost s and total capital investment s o

f 5301,00 0 an d$619,000 , respectively , fro mth e biofiltratio n cos t spreadshee t

develope d i

n the origina

l styren e control s assessment . Operatin g cost s ar e given a s approximatel y $2 5 to $3 0 pe r day . Thi s ca

n b e compare dwit

h a n electrica l cos t estimat e o f approximatel y $1 5 per

da y fro mth e biofiltratio n cos t

spreadsheet

(assumin g electricity , cos t

of $0.0 6 pe r kWhr , operatin g 8 hour s pe r day) . W K Weeg e i s i

n th e proces s of

establishin g aNort

h America n subsidiar

y to introduc e and commercializ e thei r

technolog y t o th e FR P composite industr y andothe r industrie s emittin g VOC s in Nort

h America . Accordin g t o Weege , th e systemca n b e designe dto trea

t variou s VOCs , wit

h eac h uni t

dedicate dto treatin g aspecifi c pollutant . Southeaster n Technolog y Cente r (STC) . ST C i s anon-profit corporatio n whos e missio n i s t o facilitate the transfe

r of commercially viabl e technologie s fro mth e government

sector to the busines s secto r

fo r th e purpos e o

f promotin g economi c development andcreatin g jobs . 6 '



### C oP.7 4

Clea n Ai r

Wate r

Stirre r

Aerato r

Reactiv e Additiv e

Dat a Acquisitio n 

# t

Bioreacto r Absorptio n Towe r 

# i

Wast e Ga s

Figure 2-1 . W K

Weeg e Gmb H bioscrubbe r system .



# • ?P.7 5

Regin aPorter

a t ST C i s conductin g apilo t

stud y fo r styren e remova

l fro ma n FR P facility . Her researc h i s bein g conducte d unde r aDepartment

of Energ y (DOE ) contract . Delphinu s Engineering , Inc . an

d EnvirOzone , Inc. , bot

h i n Sout h Carolina , are subcontractor s to ST C an d ar e responsibl e fo

r th e desig n an doperatio n o f th e pilot-scal e unit . Delphinu s an d EnvirOzon e provide d preliminar

y informatio n fo r

thi s repor t fo r a21.62-m 3 (764-ft 3 ) pilot-scal e uni t

tha t ha s bee n designe d t o trea

t gaseou s exhaust s fro

ma n FRP facility . Th e flo

w rate s o f the exhaus t stream s rang e fro

m0.47 2 t o 0.94 4 m 3 / s (1,00 0 to 2,00 0 ftVmin) . Th e biofilte r medi acontain s 1 0 ton s (9,07 0 kg ) o

f chicke n compos t (8 0 percen t

chicken manur

e an d2 0 percen

t granula r activate d carbon ) tha

t require s a2

- t o 3-week

incubatio n period . Additiona l informatio n fo r

thi s pilo t uni t ca n b e foun d in Tabl e 2- 1 (A . Sana , Delphinu s Engineering , persona l communication , Sept . 11,1996) . Reference s Germa n FirmDevelop s Styrene-Abatemen t System . Modern Plastics, p . 17 , March 1996 . Holt , T. , an d L . Lackey. ' 1995 . Contro l o f ga s contaminant s in ai r

stream s through biofiltration . Proceedings of

50th Purdue Industrial

Waste Conference. Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , andS.L . Turner . Septembe r 1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Lackey , L . W. , M.T . Holt , J.R . Gamble , an dCE . Breed . 1994 . Biofilter Systems for the Control of Gas Contamination in Air Streams. Pape r

presente da

t th e Souther

n State s Annua

l Environmenta

l Conference , October

20 .



## BP.7 6 

### Chapte r 3 Novel Styren e Emissio n Contro l Technology 3. 1 Do w Chemica

l SORBATHENE

® Solven tVapo r Recover y Unit *Th e Do w Chemica

l Company develope dth e SORBATHENE ® pressur e swing adsorptio n (PSA ) proces s in th e lat

e 1980 s t o recover

VOC s andother

valuabl e chemica

l product s fro

m storage , loading , and proces s vents . Sinc e 1988 , th e Do w Chemica l Compan y has installe d 1 9 SORBATHENE

® unit s t o recove r hydrocarbon , chlorofluorocarbon s (CFCs) , chlorinate d solvents , aromatics , an

d monomers . Do w Chemica l ha s tw o SORBATHENE

® units for

recover y o f styrene vapor s fro

mstorag e vents . A SORBATHENE ® uni t ca n be designe dt

o achiev e 99.9 % VO C remova

l fro mven t stream s rangin g i n flow rate fro m20*t o 3,000 ftVmi

n wit h fee d concentration s between 1,00 0 and500,00 0 pp m(Collic k e t al. , 1996) . The chemica

l component s are recovere d a s acondensed . liquid . Base don th e evaluatio n of thi s technolog y an

d afollow-up conversatio n wit

h Larr y Larrinag a(Radia

n International , persona

l communication , September 9 , 1996) , th e SORBATHENE

® technolog y woul db e expensiv e t o trea t th e low-styrene concentratio n (les s tha

n 20 0 ppm) a

t high flow rate s (greater

tha n 5,000 ftVmin

) typicall y found in th e mos t

prominent

processin g technologie s (e.g. , sprayup andhan dlayu p i n ope n moldin g processes ) in th e FRP/C facilities . Proces s Description . Th e SORBATHENE ® proces s i s typicall

y applie dt o recove r organi c vapor s fro

mproces s vents , storag e tanks , an dloading/unloadin g operations . Th e proces s use s PS A an

d th e hea t generate ddurin g adsorptio n t o desor b th e VOC s collecte do

n th e adsorbent . Adsorptio n i s carrie dout a t atmospheri c pressure andthe hea t o f adsorptio n i s retaine d i n the adsorptio n bed , the

n th e adsorbate i s desorbe da t alowe r pressur e (i.e. , under vacuum) using th e retaine d heat . Optima l desorptio n pressure s ar

e selectedbetwee

n 5 0 and 30 0 m mH g ( 1 an

d 5. 8 psig) . A s shown i n Figure 3-1 , th e adsorptio n an ddesorptio n step s ar

e batc h processe s tha

t occur simultaneously i n alternatin g twi n bed s t o maintain stead y stat e operatio n of th e unit . Durin g th e desorptio n step , afractio n of th e clea n ga s leavin g the adsorbin g bed i s use d a s th e backpurg e ga s fo

r desorption . Th e concentrate dstrea mo f desorbedVO C i s draw

n throug h avacuu msyste mthe n passe s through acondenser wher e th e VO C condense s andi s removed a s a liquid . Th e coolin g mediu

mi s selecte dbase do

n th e temperature requiredt o condens e th e vapor . Contro l valve s switc h th e bed s ove r shor t cycl e time s to avoi da

n excessiv e temperatur

e ris e cause d by the hea

t of adsorption . Th e SORBATHENE ® uni t i s designe dfo

r the maximu

m instantaneou s fee

d concentratio n andflo w rate tha t woul db e expecte dduring operation o f th e unit . Th e unit

would no t

requir e adjustmen

t a s th e inle t

flo w rate andconcentratio n var y du e t o tan k filling operation . Standar d Operatin g Conditions . Th e proces s ha s bee n applie dfo

r ven t stream s rangin g fro m2 0 t o 3,00 0 ftVmi

n concentration s betwee n 1,00 0 and500,00 0 ppm . Th

e adsorbent , operatin g pressure s and temperatures , andcycl e time o f th e uni t ar e determinedi

n apilot stud y base d o n th e characteristic s o

f th e VO C to b e recovered . Each unit i s tailore dto th e specifi c VO C an d th e characteristic s o f th e exhaus t

stream .P.7 7

Clea n Ven t Strea m

Desorbin g Uni t Adsorbin g Uni t

Fee d Strea m Condens e

Separato r

o*< ] • ' ope n valv

e • ^ : close d valv

e 

### T Recovere d Uqui d : adsorbin g flo

w desorbin g flow Figur e 3-1 . Processdiagra m of a SORBATHEN E solven t vapo r recover y unit .

1 0 

## i£ _P.7 8 Contro l Efficiency . A SORBATHENE® uni t ha s bee n teste dfo r styrene vapo

r recover y fro mstorag e vent s and it s recover y efficienc y wa s 99.7 8 percent fo r a n inle t concentratio n of 5,74 2 pp man d a n outle t concentratio n o f

13. 3 pp m(Hall , 1993) . The flow rat e was no t reporte d fo r thi s teste d unit ; however , exhaus t flow rate s fro

mstorag e vent s ar

e probably i

n th e several

hundred-ftVmi

n rang e whe

n bein g filled . Polymerizatio n was no t encountere dfo

r th e adsorbent used i n thes e applications . Applicabilit y t o FRP/C/ C Processes . Th e SORBATHENE ® technolog y would no t

b e economically feasibl e fo

r th e typica l low-concentratio n andhigh-flo w rate exhaus t encountere d i n th e FRP/

C facilities . A SORBATHENE ® uni t might b e usedafte

r the exhaus t

strea mha s bee n concentrate d an

d it s flow rat

e reduce db y apreconcentratio n unit ; however , it s feasibilit y will b e determine d by th e economi c value , quantity , andreusabilit y o f th e recovere dstyrene . Cost . Larr

y Larrinag a(Radia

n International , personal*communication , Septembe r 9 , 1996 ) estimate d tha

t th e equipmen

t cost s for aSORBATHEN

E uni t treatin g a n optima l flo w rat e of 30 0 to 50 0 ftVmi

n woul d rang e fro

m$600,00 0 t o $800,000 . Th e SORBATHENE ® uni t i s ver y sensitiv e to flow rate an

d th e equipmen t

cos t increase s dramatically a s th e flow rat e increases . Operatin g cost s include electricit y cos t t o operate the adsorbers , vacuu mpump , condenser , and separator . Reference s Collic k S.J. , DJ . Pezolt , an

d L . Larrinaga . 1996 . Capture and Recovery ofTetrafluoromethane and Hexafluoroethane

from Industrial

Vents. Presente da

t the Air & Wast e Managemen

t Associatio n 89t

h Annua l Meeting , Nashville , TN , Jun e 23-28 . Hall , T.L . 1993 . Dow Chemical SORBATHENE? Solvent Vapor Recovery Unit. Presente d a t America n Chemica

l Society , Emergin g Technologie s in Hazardou s Wast e Management , Atlanta , GA , Septembe

r 29 , 1993 .

l l 1 1P.7 9 

### Chapter 4 OSH A Regulation

s an d Policie s Affecting Worke r Exposure

s i n FRP/ C an d Boa tBuildin g Industrie

s OSH A regulation s governin g th e permissibl e exposur e limi t (PEL ) fo r styrene and th e ventilatio n systemdesign i n th e FRP industry wer e summarize dandpresente di n a n RT I repor

t (Kon g e t al. , 1996) v Tha

t repor t als o conclude dthat

concentratin g th e exhaus t

air strea man d reducin g th e exhaus t

flo w wouldreduc e th e cos t

of control . However , th e worke r exposur e i s bounde d b y OSHA' s PE

L fo r styrene . Th e curren t

8-hou r time-weighed-averag e (TWA) PEL fo r styren e i s 10

0 ppm . Th e TW

A short-termexposur e limi t (STEL ) i s 20 0 pp mfo

r 1 5 minute s • durin g awor

k da y and 60 0 ppmfo

r 5 minute s i n an

y 3 hours . John B . Jenks , the-Chairma n o f th e Societ

y of th e Plastic s Industry , Inc.' s Styrene Informatio n & Research Center , an dsevera l industr y official s sen

t aletter t o Josep h A . Dear , the Assistan t Secretar y o f Labo r fo r OSHA , o n Januar

y 29 , 1996 , anddeclare dawillingnes s t o voluntaril y comply wit

h lowe r exposure limit s tha

n thos e se t b y OSH A i n it s Januar

y 198 9 rul e o n PEL fo r styren e an

d othe r air contaminant s (OSHA , 1996) . Th e lowe r limit s ar e 5 0 pp mfo

r a n 8-hou r TW A and 10 0 ppmfo r short-termexposure . The industr y group s volunteerin g t o lower exposure limit s ar

e th e Societ

y o f th e Plastic s Industry , Inc.' s Composite s Institute , Composite s Fabricator s Association , Nationa l Marin e Manufacturer s Association , an d International Cas t

Polyme r Association . Thes e industr y group s us e polyester

resin s tha t emi t styren e in th e productio n processes . Th e goal i s fo r thes e industr

y group s to comply wit

h th e lower exposure limit s b

y July 1997 . A s th e worke

r exposur e limit s are lowered , more efficien t exhaus t system s wil

l b e neede d to remov e th e sam

e amoun t o f emission s o r

employee s who ma

y no t presentl y b e wearin g respirator s will nee d t

o wea r them . General ventilation , als o calle ddilutio n ventilatio n becaus e it use s fresh air

to achiev e lowe

r worke r exposur e levels , i s no

t practica l an dwouldbe expensiv e i

n th e winter whe n makeu p ai r i s heate dt o maintai n aconstant temperatur

e fo r produc t quality . Therefore , ne

w air flo w managemen

t practice s t o remov e styrene emission s effectivel y o r a respirator y protectio n progra

mwill b e necessar

y to comply wit

h lowe r exposur e limits . Thi s sectio n present s (1 ) th e summar y an dimplicatio n o

f OSH A regulation s relate d to styren e emission s and ventilatio n i n th e FR P industry , (2 ) th

e explanatio n fo

r "de minimi s violations " under

th e OSH A policy , an d(3 ) loca

l air flo w managemen

t practice s an

d modification s t o spra

y booth s tha

t coul db e considere dfo

r th e ventilatio n an

dworke r exposure issues . 4. 1 Summar

y an d Implicatio n o f

OSHA Regulation s I f afacilit y doe s no t hav e adesignate dboot

h o r are afo r ge l coatin g an

dresin applicatio n i n a h open moldin g process , the emission s fromthes e operation s will b e disperse d i n th e wor k 1 2 

### 1- 2P.8 0

are aan d the surroundin g ope

n space . Under

thes e conditions , th

e worke r exposure s ar

e limite d to th e styrene PEL s liste d i n Tabl e Z- 2 i

n 2 9 CF R§ 1910.1000 (OSHA , 1993 ) or a s show n above . Titl e 2 9 CF

R§ 1910.1000 (e ) state s tha t administrativ e or

engineerin g control s (e.g. , enclosure o

r confinemen

t o f the operation , genera

l andloca l ventilation , an

dsubstitutio n o

f les s toxi c materials ) mus t

first be determine dan dimplemente dwheneve r feasible . Whe

n suc h engineerin g control s ar

e not feasibl e t o achiev e ful

l complianc e o

r whil e the y ar e being instituted , protectiv e equipmen

t o r an y other protectiv e measure s shoul db e usedt o kee p th e exposur

e o f employee s t

o air contaminant s withi n th e limit s prescribe di n the section . Wheneve

r respirator s are used , their

us e should compl

y wit h requirement s i

n 2 9 CF R§ 1910.13 4 "Respirator

y Protection. " Whe n afacilit y use s aspra

y booth , it s desig n mus t

compl y wit h regulation s i

n 2 9 CF R§ 1910.9 4 (c ) an

d § 1910.107 . Sectio n § 1910.9 4 (c ) list s the design an dconstructio n o

f th e spra y boot h an d the minimu

mai r flo w velocitie s that

mus t b e designe dan

dmaintaine da

t th e entranc e t o th e spra y boot h unde r variou s operatin g condition s in orde r t o mee t healt h an dsafet

y requirements . Sectio n § 1910.10 7 i s adopte db y OSH

A fro mNationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n (NFPA) 33-196 9 (NFPA , 1969 ) "Standardfo r Spra y Finishing Usin g Flammabl e an d Combustibl e Materials. " The NFPA-3 3 standardi s explicitl y afire an dexplosio n safet

y standard . Therefore , th e OSH A standarda

t 2 9 CF R§ 1910.107 pertain s t

o th e preventio n o

f workplac e fire and explosio n hazard s anddoe s no t pertai n t o healt h considerations . Becaus e th e industr

y ha s volunteere dt o comply wit h lowe r PELs , facilitie s havin g difficult y meetin g th

e lowe r limit s wil l hav e to buil d spra y booth s fo

r their styrene-emittin g operation , appl

y air flow managemen

t t o exhaus t

styren e emissions , o

r provide respirator s fo

r employee s wh

o coul d b e exposed t

o styren e concentration s above th e PELs . Thes e facilitie s will choos e on e o f thes e option s base d on th e feasibilit y o f usin g engineerin g controls , buildin g spra y booths , applyin g ai

r flo w managemen

t practices , changin g material/equipment/process , or providin g persona

l respirators . Whe

n th e employe e exposure s ar e above the PELs , a

s determine d b y persona

l sampling , the employe

r ca n wor k wit h th e OSH

A complianc e office

r to determin e a schedul e fo

r a n interi mabatemen

t syste m(e.g. , providin g respirator s to employees ) an dalon g ter mabatemen

t system(e.g. , buildin g aventilatio n system) . Feasibilit y o f the abatemen

t system s wil l b e considere d b

y the facilit

y operato r an dth e complianc e office

r i n meetin g th e PELs . I

f worker exposure s stil l ca

n no t mee t PEL s afte r engineerin g control s hav e bee n employed , the

n th e respirator

y progra mwill becom

e apermanen t

progra m(Smith , OSHA , persona

l communication , Octobe

r 15 , 1996) . 4. 2 D e Minimi s Violation s According t

o the OSH A polic y (Shepich , 1990) , de minimi s violation s ar e violation s o

f standard s tha

t hav e no direc t

o r immediat e relationshi p t

o employee safet

y o r health . Wheneve

r d e minimi s condition s ar

e foun d durin g a n inspection , they ar

e documente dth e sam

e wa y a s an y othe r violatio n bu

t ar e no t include d o

n th e citation . D e minimi s violation s result i n no penalt

y and no require d abatement . Th e criteri afo

r findin g ade minimi s violatio n ar e a s follows : 1 3 12 >P.8 1 A n employe r complie s wit

h th e clea r intent o f th e standar

dbu t deviate s fro

mit s particula

r requirement s i

n amanne r tha t ha s n o direc t

o r immediat e relationshi p t

o employe e safet

y an c health . Thes e deviation s ma y involv e distanc e specifications , constructio n material s requirements , us e o

f incorrec t color , mino r

variation s fro

mrecordkeeping , testing , o r inspectio n regulations , o r

th e like . A n employe r complie s wit

h apropose dstandardor

amendmen

t o r aconsensu s standard rather tha n wit h the standardin effec t

a t th e time o

f th e inspectio n whe

n the employer' s actio n provide s equa

l or greater employe e protection . A n employer' s workplac e i s a t th e "stat e o

f th e art " tha

t i s technicall y beyon

d the requireme n o f th e applicabl e standar

dandprovide s equivalent

o r mor e effectiv e employee safet

y o r healt h protection . Under a n OSH A polic y fo

r d e minimi s violatiops , employer s ar e encourage d to abid e by th e standard applicabl e to thei r operation s tha

t provide s equa

l o r greater employe e protectio n rathe r tha n wit h the OSH A standardin effect

a t th e time o

f the inspection . 4. 3 Local Ai r Flow Managemen tan d Spray Boot h Modification s Th e mos t effective wa

y t o reduc e worker

exposur e i s to directl y remov e styrene emission ' fro mth e sourc e befor

e th e pollutant s hav e achanc e to disperse . Loca l air flow management , such a s loca

l extractio n ventilatio n o r

aspra y booth , remove s emission s a t the sourc e and therefor e reduce s th

e amoun t o f air t o b e exhauste dandth e amoun t o f makeu p air t o b e heated . Severa l loca l extractio n ventilatio n system s are presente di n the earlie r

repor t (Kong e t al. , 1996) . Thes e loca

l extractio n ventilatio n system s apply th e push-pul l ventilatio n principl e i n tha t fresh makeu p air i s admitte d a

t on e en dof

th e wor k are aandth e air

current pickin g u p the emission s i s exhauste d a

t th e othe r end of the wor k area . A n operato r ca n reduc e unnecessar

y exposure b y stayin g i n th e upwind side of th e ventilate dwor

k area . A s th e EP A Office o

f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g andStandard s (OAQPS ) develop s maximu m achievabl e contro l technolog y (MACT ) standard s for th e FRP industry , ne

w facilitie s usin g greater tha n acertai n quantit

y o f resi n an dgel coa

t in a n open moldin g proces s ma y b e require d t o reduc e thei r

emissions . Emission s fromconcentrate dsource s i n certai n operations , suc h a s continuou s lamination , pultrusion , an dSM C production , ca n b e capture dan

dexhauste d usin g a ven t hood . Emission s fro

mother ope n moldin g processes , such a s gel coatin g an d resin sprayup , nee d t o b e confine d i

n aspra y boot h that mee t OSHA' s requirements . A spra y boot h ca n b e designe d to mee

t th e requirement s o

f atota l enclosure s o tha

t the emission s ca

n be completel y captured . I

n thi s case , fres

h makeu p ai r shoul db e supplie dt o th e operator' s breathing zon e i n th e spra y booth . I f th e worke

r exposure s ar

e stil l highe r

tha n th e PEL s afte

r proper engineerin g control s (i.e. , confinement , loca

l extraction , o r

general ventilation ) hav e bee n implemented , the

n th e operato r shoul d wea

r arespirato r

o r apositive-pressure respirato r wit h fres h uncontaminate d air supply . Th e fres

h air supplie dt o apositive-pressure respirato r shoul dmee

t certain ai r qualit y 1 4 

### lA rP.8 2

requirement s an

d if th e air i s supplie db y a

n oil-base dcompressor

ther e mus t b e aC O alar

mt o detec t C O i n th e air (Smith , OSHA , personal communication , Octobe r 15 , 1996) . I t i s common fo

r th e employer s o f

som e larg e FR

P andboa t buildin g facilitie s t

o provide respirator s t

o thei r employee s fo

r additional protectio n eve

n thoug h the y ma y i n complianc e wit

h th e PELs . Positive-pressur e respirato r

wit h ful l bod y protectio n an

dfres h air suppl y i s no t common i n th e FRP an

d boa t buildin g industries ; however , suc h asyste mi s usedi

n a n enclose d paint boot h i n Hattera s Yacht s in Ne w Bern , Nort h Carolina . Modification s to spra

y booths , suc h a s aspli t

flow recirculation , hav e bee n examine d i

n a larg e paintin g boot

h a t amilitar y installatio n (Hughe s e

t al. , 1994) . A portio n of

th e exhaus t fro mth e spra y boot h tha t contai n les s pollutant s i s recirculate dto th e fron t o f th e spra y boot h afte r mixin g wit

h fres h makeu p air . Th e concentratio n i

n the jetur n air i s les s tha n the PELs . Th e balanc e o

f th e exhaust , which i s a

t ahighe r concentration , i s ventedto a n add-o n emissio n contro l device . The purpos e o f recirculatio n i s t o increas e the outle t concentratio n an

dreduc e th e exhaus t flow s o tha

t the capita l andoperatin g cost s o

f th e add-on contro l ca

n b e minimized . Th e recirculatin g ai

r ca n b e returne d to the-spra

y boot h a t an y point , eithe

r mixedwit h fres h makeu p ai r o r not mixed wit h fresh makeu

p air . I n th e lane r

case , the fres

h makeu p air ca n be supplie d to th e breathin g zon e of

the operato r

t o provid e th e mos t

protection . Although recirculatio n i n th e spra y boot h i s not recommende db y OSHA , th e botto mlin e i s tha t worke r exposure s shoul d no t excee d th e PEL s (R . Fairfax , Healt h Complianc e Program , Occupationa l Safet y an dHealt h Administration , persona

l communication , September 9 , 1996) . I f al l forms o f air flow management

ar e no t feasible , afacilit

y shoul dconside

r preconcentratin g th e exhaus t strea mto reduc e th e flo w rat

e an dt o increas e th e concentratio n o f th e exhaus t

strea mfo r a n add-o n control . Preconcentratio n reduce s not onl y th e capita

l cos t but als o th e operatin g cos t

o f th e add-o n control ; i t

als o reduce s natura

l ga s usag e andgenerate s fewe r secondar y pollutant s tha

n straight thermal oxidatio n o

f the entir e exhaus t stream . A

n analysi s o f secondar y pollutio n andnatura

l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l option s i s presente d i n Chapte r 5 . Reference s Hughes , S. , J . Aver , an

d R . Sutay . 1994 . Demonstration of Split-Flow Ventilation and Recirculation as Flow-Reduction Methods in an Air Force Paint

Spray Booth, AL/EQ-TR-1993

- 0002 , Armstron g Laboratory , Environic s Directorate , Tyndall AFB , FL . Kong , E.J. , M.A . Bahner , and S.L . Turner . September 1996 . Assessment

of Styrene Emission Controls for FRP/C and Boat Building Industries. EPA-600/R-96-10 9 (NTI S PB97-104640) , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Associatio n (NFPA) . 1969 . Standar dfo r Spra y Finishin g Using Eammabl e an

d Combustibl e Materials , NFPA 33 . Quincy , MA . 1 5

i£ >P.8 3 OSH A (Occupationa

l Safet y an dHealt

h Administration) . 1993 . Occupationa l Safet y andHea l Standards . 2 9 CF

R1910 . Code of

Federal Regulations. Washington , DC : Office o f th e Feder Register , Jul y 1 . OSH A (Occupationa

l Safet y an dHealt

h Administration) . 1996 . OSH A Announce s tha

t Styre n Industr y ha s Adopted Voluntar

y Complianc e Progra

mt o Improv e Worke

r Protection . New s Releas e USDL:96-77 , March 1 . Shepich , TJ . 1990 . Directorate of Complianc e Programs , Occupationa l Safet y an d Healt h Administration . Lette

r t o S.R . Wyatt , Emissio n Standard s Division , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic

e of Ai r Qualit y Plannin g andStandards , Research Triangl e Park , NC , Januar y 16 .

1 6



## \UP.8 4 

### Chapte r 5 Assumption s i n th e Societ y o f Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institute' s (SPI/CI ) Stud y o n Noneconomi c Impact s of Incineratio n Control s Energ y us e and generatio n o f secondar y pollutio n fo

r contro l device s ar

e dependen

t o n th e typ e of contro l devic e selecte dan dth e flow rate int o th e contro l device . Th e SPI/C I Stud y o n Non-Economi c Impact s o

f Incineratio n Control s (Haberlein , 1996) was base do n therma l oxidatio n o

f a30,00 0 ft'/mi n exhaus t

strea mcontainin g 2 0 ppmo

f styrene . Th e following section s discus s th e assumption s o f atherma l oxidize r operatin g o

n astrea mcontainin g 2 0 pp m o f styrene . Appendix A contain s adiscussio n o f other assumption s i

n th e SPI/C I study . 5. 1 Us e of

Therma l Oxidize r Th e SPI/C I study assume s atherma l oxidize r operatin g o

n astrea mcontainin g 2 0 pp mo

f styrene . However , previou s RT I analyse s o f th e cost s of

control s ha s indicate dtha

t pre concentration/oxidatio n system s hav e lower annualize dcost s tha

n straigh t therma l oxidatio n fo

r contro l devic e inle

t concentration s belo w approximatel y 30 0 ppm . For example , Figur

e 5- 1 show s RTI-calculate d contro l cost s fo r dierma l oxidation , catalyti c oxidation , andthree pre concentration/oxidatio n systems , for aplan t wit h uncontrolle demission s o f 40 0 ton/y r (operatin g 4,00 0 h/yr). 1 Figur

e 5- 1 show s tha

t th e thre e preconcentration/oxidatio n technologie s (MIAB , Polyad , an d Dur r rotar y concentrato r

systems ) hav e lower

tota l cost s pe r uni t o f styrene remove d tha n straight therma l oxidatio n o r

catalyti c oxidation . Therefore , i t i s likely tha

t a n FR P company would choos e apreconcentration/oxidatio n systemove r straigh t therma l oxidation fo

r a n exhaus t strea mcontainin g 2 0 pp mstyren e base do n lowe r tota l annualize dcost . I

t i s als o likel y tha t a n FRP compan

y woul dattemp t

t o increas e th e styren e concentratio n (i.e. , lowe r th e flow rate) , compared to th e 20-pp massumptio n in th e SPI/C I study . Thi s point i s discusse d i

n th e followin g section .

* o 5. 2 Contro

l Devic e Inle tConcentratio n o f 2 0 pp m Noneconomi c impac t

analyse s in th e SPI/C I stud y are basedo

n a n assume d styren

e concentratio n o

f 2 0 pp mto atherma

l oxidizer . T o evaluate thi s assumption , RT I reviewed the following : (1 ) economi c incentive s for maximizin g inle t

concentration s (minimizin g flo w rates ) to end-of-pip e controls , (2 ) plant-wid e averag e exhaus t concentration s currentl y foun d a t FR P plants , (3 ) recen

t an d possibl e futur

e change s to allowabl e exposure level s fo r employee s o

f FRP plants , (4 ) existin g relationship s betwee n employe e exposure s t o styrene andexhaus t concentration s a

t FR P plants , and(5 ) possibl e method s fo r ne w plant s t

o increas e concentration s (decreas e flo

w rates ) t o control s whil e maintainin g o r lowerin g employee exposures .

1 Figure 5- 1 i s based o

n acos t curv e presente din apreviou s EPA repor t (Kong et al. , 1996) , wit

h correction s a s discusse d i

n Appendi x B t o thi s report . 1 7 

# ATabl e 5-1 . Styren e Exhaus tConcentration s atExistin g Open Moldin g Plant s wit h Resin/Ge l CoatUsag e Greate r (ban 1,00 0 tons/y r

0 3 PLAN T NAM E AQU A GLAS S ARE. , INC . LASC O BATHWAR E UNIVERSA L RUNDL E AMERICA N STANDAR D ARE. , INC . MILLENIU M PRODUCT S AQU A GLAS S Arithmeti c mea n Media n CIT Y KLAMAT H FALL S MASILLO N MO A P A OTTUMW A SALE M MOUN T EATO N ELKHAR T ADAMSVILL E S T O R O H N V IA O H O H I N T N UNCONTROLLE D EMISSION S (lon/yr )

1. 17 5 77 0 73 9 32 8 5 3 10 8 12 3 1,15 1 OPERATIN G HOUR S (h/yr )

6,00 0 ,7,48 8 4,29 0 4.16 0 2,50 0 3,12 0 2,00 0 6,00 0 PLANT-WID E FLO W RAT E (fl3/iniii ) 97,00 0 55,00 0 155,40 0 110,70 0 35,00 0 70,00 0 125,00 0 390,00 0 AVERAG E STYREN E CONCENTRATIO N (ppm ) 24 9

23 1 13 7 8 8 7 5 6 1 6 1 6 1 12 0 8 2 O

o oP.8 6

5.2. 3 Recent

and Potential Future Changes in Allowable Exposures to Styrene Currentiy , OSH

A PEL s fo r styren e ar

e 100 ppma s a

n 8-hou r time-weighted-averag e (TWA) and 20 0 pp ma s a15-minut e short-term-exposure-limi t (STEL) . Th e SPI/C I stud

y note s tha t the reinforced plastic s industr y ha s voluntaril y agreedt

o mee t a50-pp mTW

A an d a100

- pp mSTEL . Complianc e wit h th e agreement

wil l g o int o effec

t i n Jul y 1997 . The SPI/C I study furthe r note s tha t th e America

n Counci l o

f Government

Industria l Hygienist s (ACGIH) ha s place d styrene o

n th e Notic e of

Intende dChang e lis t

to lowe r th e styren e threshol dlimi t

valu e (TLV ) to 2 0 ppm , wit

h aSTE L o f 4 0 ppm . The SPI/C I stud

y use s acontro l devic e inle t concentratio n of

2 0 ppm . Thi s i s equa

l to th e TL V bein g propose d b y th e ACGIH . RT I ha s n o informatio n t o indicat e tha t OSH A currentl y plan s t o lower the TW A to 2 0 ppm . 5.2. 4 Existing Relationships Between Worker Exposure and

Exhaust Concentration Eve n if the OSH A TW A wer e lowere dt o 2 0 ppm , i t

woul db e reasonabl e to assum

e tha t a compan y buildin g ane

w facilit y woul dhav e a

n averag e exhaus t

concentratio n to a

n end-of-pip e contro l tha t woul d b e abov e 2 0 ppm . On e reaso n for thi s i s the stron g economi c incentiv e to maximiz e concentratio n (minimiz e flow rate) , a s discusse di n Section 6.1 . Anothe

r reason fo r thi s i s tha t mos t captur e system s woul dlogicall y b e oriente dto dra w styren e awa

y fro mth e worker , rather

tha n drawin g styren e int o th e worker' s breathin g zone . Thi s concep t i s illustrate d i n Figur e 5-2 . 'o 1

- Currently , ther

e i s littl e availabl e dat arelatin g averag e exhaus t concentration s to worke

r exposures . Som

e dat aar e availabl e fro

mth e Lasco-Sout

h Bosto n (Virginia) tub-and-showe r facility , an d ar e presente d i

n Tabl e 5-2 . Tabl e 5- 2 indicate s tha t ge l coa t gu n operator s an

d laminatio n roller s ha

d th e highes t

averag e worker

exposure s durin g th e measuremen t perio d and tha t the averag e rati o o

f exhaust-duct-concentration-to-worker-exposure wa s 2.3 6 an d 2.42 , respectively . RT I i s analyzin g dat acollecte da t atub-and-shower

facilit y i n which employe e exposur e and exhaus t

duc t concentratio n wer

e measure dsimultaneously . The result s o f thi s testin g ar

e expecte d to b e publishe d by Februar y 199 7 (se e Sectio n 5.2.5) . 5.2. 5 Potential

Methods to Increase Concentration to Downstream Controls Previou s researc h by RT I identifie dsevera l potential method s t o decreas e require d flo w rate s fo r end-of-pip e control s whil e preventin g exces s employe e exposur e levels . Thes e method s included : (1 ) loca

l ai r flow management , (2 ) spra y boot h modification s (such a s split-flo w spra y booth s an d spra y boot h recirculation) , and(3 ) enclosure s andtota l enclosures . RT I i s currently analyzin g datafro mproof-of-concep t

testin g a t atub-and-showe

r facility . Thi s testin g i s evaluatin g th e abilit y o f spra y enclosure s andair

flow managemen

t technique s t

o increas e exhaus t

duc t concentratio n whil e 2 1

!< ?Mai n Filte r Ban k Mai n Exhaus t t o Atmospher e (hig h volume , lo w concentration )

Fres h Ai r Suppl y N 

# 0 tf

Figur e 5-2 . Typica l ope n moldin g operatio n i n a spra y booth .P.8 8

Tabl e 5-2 . Comparison o f Averag e Styren e Exhaus tConcentratio n (29 0 ppm ) (Strum , 1995 ) Wit h Worke r Exposure Level s (Boyd , 1995 ) a tLasc o Bathware , Sout h Boston , V

A Jo b Categor y 1 . Ge l Coa t

Gu n Operato r 2 . Laminatio n Gu n Operato r 3 . Laminatio n Rolle r 4 . Barrie r

Coa t Gu n Operato r 5 . Part Pulle r 6 . Q C Technicia n 7 . Mixe r 8 . Trimme r 9 . Waxe r Numbe r o f Measurements * 5 1 7 6 5 2

' 4 5

" l 1 Exposur e

Range * (ppm ) 88-19 9 37-26 7 92-14 2 61-10 5 32-3 9 23-7 5 15-4 4 Averag e Exposure * (ppm ) 123. 0 90. 4 120. 0 t 19A 35. 3 37. 0 31. 6 ,46. 0 25. 0 Averag e Ratio , Exhaust/Exposur e

2.3 6 3.2 1 2.4 2 3.6 5 8.2 2 7.8 4 9.1 8 6.3 0 11.6 0 Dat aprovide d to Madelein e Strumby Danie l Boy d(Boyd , 1995) . maintainin g o r

lowerin g worke

r exposures . Th e enclosure concep t involve s placin g apar

t insid e a n enclosur e whil e the spra

y gu n operato r stand s outsid e th e enclosure . Th e air flow managemen

t technique s involv e th e us e o f aclose-capture exhaus t

panel . I n thi s testing , on e flame ionizatio n detecto r

(FID ) devic e continuousl y measure dexhaus t duc t concentratio n whil e anothe r (portable ) FID was use d to continuousl y monito r worke r exposure . I

n thi s manner , the rati o o f exhaus t duc t concentratio n t o worke

r exposure concentratio n coul db e continuously monitore d and compare d wit h "baseline " result s fro

ma n unmodifiedspra

y booth . Th

e result s o f th e RTI enclosures/air

flo w managemen

t testin g ar e expecte dt

o be availabl e b y Februar

y 1997 . 5.2. 6 Conclusions on Assumption of Control Device Inlet

Concentration of

20ppm Ther e ar e stron g economi c incentive s fo r acompany to maximiz e th e concentratio n (minimiz e th e flow rate ) t

o acontro l device . Mos t

existin g facilitie s wit

h open-mol dspraying (eve n thos e without

controls ) currently hav e exhaus t concentration s wel

l abov e 2 0 ppm . Lowerin g allowabl e worke r exposur e level s ca n forc e lower

concentration s to acontro l device . However , i

t appear s likel

y that , eve n fo r worker exposure level s o

f 2 0 ppm , minimumexhaus t concentration s o

n the orde r o f 50-10 0 pp mcoul db e achieve dwit h current , or

slightl y improved , air flow managemen

t practices . Therefore , th e assumptio n o f acontro l devic e inle t

concentratio n o f 2 0 ppmappear s t

o b e to o low . 2 3 Z lP.8 9 

### r i Reference s

Boyd , D. , Danie l P . Boyd & Company , 1995 . Presentatio n for th e U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency' s site visi t

a t Lasc o Bathwar e - Sout

h Bosto n (VA) , Jun e 22 . Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . The Non-Economic Impacts of Incineration Controls

for the Reinforced Plastics Industry. Prepare d for SPI/Composite s Institute , Ann Arbor , MI . Strum , M. , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 1995 . Sit e Visi t Repor t - LASC O Bathware , Sout h Boston , VA .

2 4 

### Z2 -

### Chapter 6 RTI Analysi

s o f Noneconomi

c Impact s o f Control s RTF s analysi s o

f noneconomi c impact s o

f control s include s the development o f normalize d curve s to predic t noneconomi c impacts . Noneconomi c impact s are als o calculate d fo r aspecific , typica

l existin g facilit

y tha t ha s ge l coa t andsprayu

p processes . 6. 1 Normalize d Curve s fo r Natural Ga s Usag e an d Secondar y Pollutan tEmission s T o compar

e energ y usag e andsecondar y pollutan t

emission s fo

r variou s flow rate s an d styrene mas s emissio n rates , we mus t "normalize " th e data . Data

- presente din Sectio n 6. 1 hav e bee n "normalized " t

o reflec t fue l usag e andsecondar

y pollutant

emission s per

to n of styrene remove d (base d o

n 9 5 percent

remova l efficiency) . 4f Mos t o f th e figures i

n thi s sectio n includ e th e followin g contro l options : (1 ) atherma l oxidizer , wit

h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery , operatin g a

t 1,80 0 ° F (as assume di

n th e SPI/C I study) ; (2 ) atherma

l oxidizer , wit

h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery , operatin g a

t 1,50 0 ° F (whic h coul d produc e astyren e destructio n efficiency o f 9 5 percent) ; (3 ) acatalyti c oxidizer , wit h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery , operatin g a

t 65 0 ° F (whic

h coul dproduc e astyren e destructio n efficienc y of 9 5 percent) ; and (4 ) apreconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer , base do n th e Polya

dsystem , tha

t ha s a natura l ga s requirement

of 96,00 0 Btu/

h a t 30,00 0 ftVmin . (The Polya dsystemrequire s 96,00 0 Btu/

h to desor b styrene , fo

r asyste mwit

h a n inle t flow o f 30,00 0 ftVmin. ) The figure s i

n thi s sectio n ca

n b e use di

n th e followin g manner : I

n Figure 6-1 , the natura

l ga s usag e fo

r atherma l oxidizer operatin g a

t 1,800°F , wit

h a n inle t concentratio n of

2 0 ppm , i s approximately 650,00 0 ft 3 pe r to n o f styren e removed . Therefore , i f atherma l oxidize r remove d 10 0 ton s o f styren e under

thes e conditions , th e natura l ga s usag e woul db e 6 5 millio n cubi c feet . Similarly , fro

mFigur e 6-1 , th e natura

l ga s usag e fo

r apreconcentrator/oxidizer operatin g wit

h a styrene inlet

concentratio n o

f 10 0 ppmi s approximatel y 4,20 0 ftVto n of styrene removed . Therefore , if

apreconcentrator/oxidizer remove d100 ton s o

f styrene under

thes e conditions , th e natura l ga s usag e woul d b e 420,000,ft 3

. 6.1. 1 Natural

Gas Usage Figur e 6- 1 present s normalize dcurve s fo r natura l ga s usag e fo

r variou s contro l options . Figur e 6- 1 als o contain s normalize dcurve s fo r th e sensibl e hea

t require dt o rais e a n exhaus t strea mfro maverag e outdoo r

temperature s t

o a n indoo r temperatur

e o f 7 5 °F fo r tw o location s (i.e. , For t Wayne , Indiana , and Lo s Angeles , California) . Th e curve s fo r sensibl e heatin g requirement s ar

e include d t o compar

e th e additiona

l natura l ga s usag e fo

r control s wit

h existin g natura l ga s fo r heating . •» • I n Figur e 6-1 , th e to p lef

t poin t o f th e fou r control-optio n curve s represent s th e assumption s i

n th e SPI/C I stud

y (i.e. , atherma

l oxidizer , wit

h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery , operating ' 2 5 

### Z$100 0

T J O > o E a i . a > c a tn " 5 c o 

### € o o o « w v > 3 M a t o o > <» m

m. 3 a 10 0

1 0 *

1 V I * x

* .

. . > y

« • ZI'".:.;~T :

"*•'. .

" • . 

# " - J — The r rnal oxidize r(RTI : 150 0 oF ) yli c oxidize r(RTI : Heat recover y = 95% , 65 0 oF ) ""•"^"Preconcentrator/oxidize r(Polyad : Desorptio n = 96,00 0 Blu/ h & 30.00 0 cfm )

" * :

• • V **

* - - _ m " * • .

JL^ * a

t ^^*«*^ ^ ibl e hea l fo rLo s Angeles , Californi a

-*- - _ -*- . * * • * »

* « " • —

• ^

• • .m

^^^^~ i '" -

• •

_•!— m ~ ^ == ~-~ ""*

" *-- . *•.. . - -

* .

* • .

• . "*' • -. .

* *

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 H O 16 0 Styren e Inte l concentratio n (ppm ) 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0

Figure 6-1 . Normalize d natura l ga s usag e fo r variou s contro l option s an d fo r sensibl e heatin g o f exhaus t stream . 

# tP.9 2

a t 1,80 0 °F , wit h a n inlet concentratio n of

2 0 ppm) . Th e natura

l ga s requirement

fo r thi s point i s approximately 650,00 0 ftVto n o f styren e removed . I

n contrast , fo

r apreconcentrator-catalyti c oxidizer operatin g a

t 8 8 ppm , th e natura

l ga s requirement

i s approximately 5,00 0 ftVto n o f styren e removed . Figur e 6- 1 illustrate s tha

t th e natural ga s usag e fo

r apreconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer i s actually les s tha

n the sensibl e hea

t require dt o hea

t a n equa l flow rat e t o 7 5 °F , i n For

t Wayne , Indiana , o r Lo s Angeles , California . 6.1. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Figur e 6- 2 present s normalize dcarbo n dioxid e emission s fo r fou r control-optio n curves . I n Figur e 6-2 , th e top lef

t point of th e fou r curve s represent s th e Assumption s i n th e SPI/C I stud y (i.e. , atherma

l oxidizer , wit

h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery , operatin g a

t 1,80 0 °F , wit h a n inlet concentratio n of

2 0 ppm) . Th e carbon dioxid e generate dby natura l ga s combustio n fo

r thi s point i s approximatel y 4 1 ton/to n o f styrene removed . I

n contrast , fo

r apreconcentrator-catalyti c oxidizer operatin g a

t 8 8 ppm , th e carbo n dioxid e generate dby natura l ga s combustio n i s approximatel y 0.3 3 ton/to n o f styren e removed . All o f th e curve s in Figur

e 6- 2 depic t

only di e carbon dioxide emission s generate d b y burnin g natura

l ga s t o destro y styrene . Thes e curve s d o not include the carbon dioxid e create d naturall y b y th e degradatio n o f styrene . Chemica

l stoichiometr

y dictate s tha

t ever y ton o f styrene convert s to 3.3 8 ton s o

f carbon dioxide . 6.1. 3 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Th e SPI/C I stud

y assume d 1 5 pp mo f

nitroge n oxide s (NO J ar

e emitte dfro

mthe therma

l oxidizer . Thi s wa s base d o n the followin g numerica

l values , a s reporte db

y Haberlei n (Haberlein , 1996) :

• 50-10 0 ppm , a s reporte db y CV M • 10-1 5 ppm , a s reporte dby Wheelabrato r • 1 3 ppm , a s reporte d by Tellkam p • <1 0 ppm , as reporte dby Huntington . RTF s researc h appear s t

o indicat e tha t value s o f les s tha n 1 0 ppmar

e probably mor

e typica l fo r therma l oxidizers , particularly i f

th e oxidizer

operate s a

t approximately 1,50

0 °F , an d especiall y i

f th e oxidizer

use s technolog y t o reduc e NO x emissions , such a s low-NO x burners . Specifically , RTI' s research indicate s th e followin g ig : Smit h Engineerin g state dtha

t non e o f th e 2 5 installation s fo

r which the y hav e NO x measurement s ha s a

n averag e concentratio n ove r 1 0 ppm . Dur r Industrie s provide dNO x emission s tes t dat afo r tw o installations . Bot

h installation s ha

d averag e NO x emission s les s tha n 1 0 ppm . The time-weighte d 2 7 2GT100.0 0 o c e in o c o 0 a • a a n u O 10.0 0

0 0 c o J ] I

a o o V ) c o c o n T l a T J O | 1.0 0 a

0.1 0

0.0 1 '".' .77.'' A

« - ; ~

s 

### A". 

# -i ~--~-'~-

=,*z ? 

# H

"~-~Z.~~. "7':ZTAL:

—•-,=r V > w* • > ^ i ^ 7 " i

—• —- ine r

- - - The r —r~. i •

ma l oxidize r (nauenein : louuor j ma l oxidize r (RTI : 150 0 oF ) yll c oxidize r (RTI : HR=95% , 65 0 oF ) A Haberlei n (2 0 pp m inle t styrene , therma l oxidizer , 180 0 oF ) • Existin g plant s *"" • - "•'••. - »

- ^^ _

h * « 5 - , * *" " - * _ " " - - *—r a



## p^sr H -. .

—

-•-. . —•T - <

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 Styren e Inle t concentratio n (ppm ) 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0 Figure 6-2 . Normalize d additiona r carbo n dioxid e generate d b y natura l ga s combustio n fo r variou s contro l options .

* "Additional " mean s that th e value s d o no t includ e th e 3.3 8 Ion s o

f CO , generate d b y Ih e conversio n o f styren e (C 8 H 8) t o CO , (i.e. , ever y mol e o f styren e [MW=104 J generate s 8 mole s o

f carbo n dioxid e [MW=44j) . e oP.9 4

averag e N0 X generatio n fo r atherma l oxidizer installe di n a n automotiv e applicatio n wa s 2. 7 pp m(Gupta , 1996) .

• Proces s Combustio n Corporatio n publishe dapaper tha t concluded , "Variou s NO x combustio n contro l technique s ar e available . Wit

h wast e gase s fre e o f nitrogen

boun d compounds , NO x emission s fro mtherma l oxidatio n ca

n b e reduced to les s tha n 1 0 ppm. " (Nutcher

an dLewandowski , 1994 )

• Th e Institute of

Clea n Ai r Companie s note dtha

t operatio n o

f atherma l oxidizer shoul d result

i n les s tha n 1 0 pp mo

f NO x (Wax , 1995) . Fewe r dataare availabl e fo

r NO x emission s fro

mcatalyti c oxidizers . RT I investigatio n o f thi s subject

yielde d th e following : • *

• Englehar

d Proces s Emissio n System s (Sout h Lyon , Michigan ) publishe dapape r tha t conclude d tha

t acatalyti c oxidizer

produce s 0 t o 2 pp mo

f NO x contributio n (Gribbon , 1996) .

• The Institute of

Clea n Ai r Companie s note dtha

t catalyti c oxidizer s ru

n a t much lowe r temperature s tha

n therma l oxidizer s (andshoul dtherefor e produc e les s NO x ) . Figur e 6- 3 show s normalize dNO x emissio n curve s fo r variou s contro l technologies . There ar e actually thre e NO x curve s for therma l oxidation , base don thre e differen t assumption s for NO x outlet

concentration . Th e to p curv e represent s a n assumptio n o

f 15-pp moutlet NO x , a s assume d i n th e SPI/C I study . Th e middl e thermal-oxidatio n curv e represent s a n assumptio n of 8.8-ppmoutlet

NO x , a s quote d fro

mSmit h Engineering . Th e botto mthermal-oxidatio n curv e represent s a

n assumptio n o f

2.7-pp moutle t

NO x , a s measure di

n th e Ma y 199 5 testin g by Dur

r (Gupta , 1996) . 6. 2 Calculation s fo r Specifi c Plan t Ba r graph s depictin g energyiis e an dsecondar y pollutant

emission s ar

e presente dfo

r a specifi c plant : the Universa l Rundl e plan t

i n Ottumwa , Iowa . Thi s plant ha s calculate d characteristic s as shown i

n Tabl e 6-1 . Th e Universa

l Rundl e plant

i n Ottumwa , Iowa , ha s acalculate duncontrolle dstyrene exhaus t concentratio n of

8 8 ppm , andaflow rate o f 110,700 ftVmin . For

each ba r graph , ther

e i s on e ba r representin g aconcentratio n of 2 0 pp mandaflo

w rat e o f 487,08 0 ftVmin . Thi s 487,08 0 ftVmi n flo w rat e represent s th e flow rate tha t woul doccu

r i f emission s wer

e dilute dfro

mth e actua l valu e o f 8 8 ppmto the hypothetica l valu e o f 2 0 pp massume di

n the SPI/C I study .

2 9 

# 2 ^1.000 0

0.100 0 T J C B > o E c u C O c

- 0.010 0

o c o

• . 0 1 a T J c a *4 a m. a c o t O l o " z c n c o a 0.001 0

0.000 1

0.000 0 A

••— —-—•- —-- • zrrrrr z

*

—1^^ . "

** * ==±Lm

. • * •

• ^i . •

. ^ — — • -

!« . »• " * # . 

# w ..'..."'..•_

. — ^ ( j ) 1 j 1 —— | - T h T h • - - T h

C o erma l oxidize r (Haberlein : 1 5 pp m NOx ) erma l oxidize r (Smit h Engineerin g verbal . 8. 8 pp m NOx ) erma l oxidize r (Dur r Environmenta l testing : 2. 7 pp m NOx ) talyti c oxidize r (Sale m Englehar d verbal : 1 pp m NOx ) A Haberlei n (Therma l oxidizer , 2 0 pp m inle t styrene , 1 5 pp m outle t NOx ) • Existin g plant s

* • - • -„___ _

" II" . TM* " ——^ . " —• • • —-

* " -r-mm

—*"—

• . *" ~ — • — .

—— . .

V —— —_

— -"" - • — - »« —

"' - • • - :::::

------ -

2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 Inlet styren e concentratio n (ppm ) 18 0 20 0 22 0 24 0 26 0 Figur e 6-3 . Normalize d NO , emission s fo r variou s contro l options .

T l t o :u iP.9 6

Tabl e 6-1 . Characteristic s fo r Specifi c Plant(Universa l Rundle , i n Ottumwa , Iowa ) Characteristi c Uncontrolle d styren e emission s Assumed contro l efficienc y Contro l devic e inlet

concentratio n Air flow rat e int o contro l devic e Operationa

l schedul e Valu e 32 8 ton/y r 9 5 percent (i.e. , 31 2 ton/yr

o f styren e removed , andresultin g controlle demission s of 1 6 ton/yr) . 8 8 ppm 110,70 0 ftVmi

n 4,16 0 h/y r ' 6.2. 1 Natural

Gas Usage Figur e 6- 4 compare s natura

l ga s usag e fo

r severa l contro l option s an

dfo r sensibl e heatin g fo r th e specifi c plant . Th e ba

r on th e lef t side o f th e pag e represent s th e natura l gas tha t woul d b e use d i f th e flo w rat e wer e raise d to 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g the 20-pp mvalu e assumedi n th e SPI/C I study . All other

bar s represent

th e actua l plant flow rat e of 110,70 0 ftVmin . Figur e 6- 4 indicate s tha

t th e natura l ga s use di

n annua l heatin g fo

r a n exhaus t flo w of 110,700 ftVmi

n i s approximatel y 3. 6 millio n ftVy r (base do n heatin g requirement s i

n For t Wayne , Indiana) . I

n contrast , th e natura

l ga s requirement

fo r th e preconcentrator/catalyti c oxidize r option (which i s base d o

n th e Polya

dsystem) , i s approximatel y 1.5 millio n ftVyr . I t shoul d be noted tha

t th e calculate dvalu e o

f 3. 6 millio n ftVy

r fo r sensibl e heatin g o

f th e exhaus t strea mdoe s no t reflect all th e heatin g requirement s for a n FR P facility . Additiona

l heatin g woul d b e require d t

o replac e hea

t losse s throug h th e wall s an dceilin g of

th e facility . Natura

l ga s migh t als o b e used fo

r latent heating , if

humidificatio n i s require ddurin g the winter . The calculation s fo

r natura l ga s usag e i

n Figure 6- 4 ca

n b e compare dwit

h tota l natura l ga s usag e i

n th e Unite d State s i

n 1995 . Th e tota

l natura l ga s usag e i

n th e Unite dState s i

n 199 5 wa s approximatel

y 2. 2 x 10 1 3 ft

3 , which i s approximately afactor o f 100,00 0 time s greate

r tha n th e natura l gas usag e o

f th e highes t

optio n show

n i n Figure 6-4 . 6.2. 2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Figur e 6- 5 present s carbo n dioxid e emission s fo r severa l contro l option s fo

r th e specifi c plant . Th e ba r o n the lef t side o f th e pag e represent s th e carbon dioxid e tha t wouldb e produce d i f th e flo w rat e wer e raise d t o 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g th e 20-pp mvalu e assumedi n the SPI/C I study . Al

l othe r bar s represent

th e actua l plant flow rat e o f 110,70 0 ftVmin .



### Z^

## ( a o 250.000,00 0

200,000,00 0

» . 

# £ S > 150,000,00 0 C B (0 W O lura ra f 100.000.00 0 a c c < 50,000,00 0

0 Therma l

(180 0 oF) . 2 0 pp m st y 487.08 0 cf m —• -

- - — - -• • -

-; -

— — D Natura l gas use d i n oxidation , cubi c feet/yea r

• Natura l gas use d i n sensibl e healing , cubi c feel/yea r -

\

* * ,

Therma l

(180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m sty 110.07 0 cf m Therma l (1.50 0 oF) . 8 8 pp m sl y 110.70 0 cf m *



### ^^^^^ J - • 1 ^

1 i ^ 1 Catalyti c Concentrato r (65 0 oF) , 8 8 + Catalytic . pp m st y 8 8 pp m st y 110.70 0 cf m 110.70 0 cf m Figure 6-4 . Natura l ga s usag e fo r variou s contro l option s an d fo r sensibl e heatin g a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y r uncontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr)

sl y = inle t styren e concentralio n T l C O ^ l

# u U l U l 16,00 0 14,00 0

12.00 0

m. 10,00 0 o * « u § 8,00 0 w E o o " ° 6,00 0 4,00 0

2.00 0 DC0 2 fro m natura l ga s use d i n oxidation , tp y E3C0 2 fro m natura l ga s use d i n healing , Ip y 0CO 2 fro m styren e decomposition , tp y

Therma l (180 0 oF) . 2 0 pp m st

y 487,08 0 cf m Therma l (180 0 oF) . 8 8 pp m st y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1.50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110.70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m sty 110.70 0 el m Concentrato r

- f Catalytic . 8 8 pp m sty 110,70 0 cf m Figure 6-5 . Carbo n dioxid e emission s fo r variou s contro l option s a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y r uncontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr) .

st y = inle t styren e concentratio n C02ba r Char t 1 T l C O O DP.9 9

Each ba r i n Figur e 6- 5 ha s thre e components : 1 ) th e C0 2 produce db y natura l ga s use d i

n oxidation , 2 ) th e C0 2 tha

t woul d b e produce db y burnin g natura l ga s t o hea

t the flo w strea mfro m th e averag e outdoo r

temperatur

e t o 7 5 °F , an d3 ) th e CO , produce dfro mth e stoichiometri c degredatio n of

styren e t o C0 2 (an dwater) . Th e ba r on th e lef t side of th e figure represent s th e CO , tha t woul db e produce dassumin g straight therma l oxidatio n o

f a2 0 pp mflo w stream . I

n order to reduc e th e concentratio n fro m th e actua l valu e o f 8 8 ppm , it

woul db e necessar

y t o increas e th e exhaus t

flow fro mth e actua

l valu e o f 110,70 0 ftVmi

n t o ahypothetica

l valu e of 487,08 0 ftVmin . Th e tota l CO , produce d i n thi s hypothetica

l situatio n would b e ove

r 14,00 0 tons/yr , o

f which approximatel y 12,000 tons/y r woul d b e du e t o natura

l ga s used for

oxidation . Other bar s in Figur

e 6- 5 reflec t

th e actual exhaus t

condition s fo

r th e plant (110,70 0 ftVmi

n a t 8 8 ppm) . Th e ba

r on th e fa r right present s th e C0 2 emission s fro ma preconcentrator/catalyti c oxidizer . A preconcentrator/oxidizer i s th e contro l tha

t woul d b e mos t likel y t o b e selecte d fo

r aflow strea

mo f 110,70 0 ftVmi

n a t 8 8 ppm , du e to th e fac

t tha t th e preconcentrator/oxidizer

ha s alower

tota l annualize dcos t

tha n th e other

options . For

a preconcentrator/oxidizer , th e tota l C0 2 emission s are approximatel y 1,40 0 tons/yr . Th e vas t majorit y o f thes e emission s (ove

r 1,10 0 tons/yr ) are du e to th e stoichiometri c degredatio n of styren e t o C0 2 . Only 9 0 tons/y r of CO , emission s are du e t o combustio n of natura l ga s use d i

n heatin g th e air

fo r desorption . 6.23 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Figure 6- 6 present s NO x emission s (a s NO ^ fo r severa l contro l option s fo

r the specifi c plant . Th e ba

r o n th e lef t side o f th e pag e represent s th e NO x emission s tha t wouldb e produce d i f th e flow rate wer

e raise d t o 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g th e 20-pp mvalu e assumedi n SPI/C I study . All other

bar s represent

th e actua l plan t flow rat e o

f 110,70 0 ftVmin . Th e ba r on th e right, which i s barel y visible , indicate s NO x emission s fo r a preconcentration/catalyti c oxidatio n system . A preconcentration/oxidatio n syste mwoul d b e th e mos t likel y contro l choic e fo

r aflow rat e of 110,70 0 ftVmin , containin g 8 8 pp mstyrene , du e t o lower tota l annualize d cost . The-NO , emission s for thi s contro l optio n a

t thi s facilit y woul d b e 0.0 9 tons/yr . Thi s ca

n b e contraste dwit

h th e estimate dstyren e remova l of 31 2 tons/yr . 6.2. 4 Radon Emissions Figure 6- 7 present s radon emission s fromnatura l ga s combustio n fo

r severa l contro l option s fo r the specifi c plant . The ba r o n th e lef t sid e of th e pag e represent s th e radon emission s tha t woul d b e produce d i

f di e flo w rate wer

e raise dto 487,08 0 ftVmin , producin g th e 2 0 pp m valu e assume d i

n th e SPI/C I study . Al l other bar s represent

th e actua l plan t flow rat e o f 110,70 0 ftVmin .

3 4 

## 32 -12 0

10 0

>. Btn e o '2 5 i n E » x O z O J Ui

Therma l (180 0 oF) , 2 0 pp m sl y 487.08 0 el m Therma l (180 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st

y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1.50 0 oF) . 8 8 pp m st

y 110,70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m st y 110,70 0 cf m Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m sty 110,70 0 cf m Figur e 6-6 . NO

x emission s fo r variou s contro l option s at a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y r uncontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr) 

# }120.00 0

J J 100,00 0 a M C o g 80,00 0 

### 1 o w 60,00 0 3 i a a c n

a c

• o atE B ) C o T J a D C 40,00 0

20.00 0

Therma l

(180 0 oF) . 2 0 pp m st

y 487.08 0 cf m Therma l (180 0 oF) . 8 8 pp m st

y 110,07 0 cf m Therma l (1,50 0 oF) , 8 8 pp m sty 110,70 0 cf m Catalyti c (65 0 oF) . 8 8 pp m sty 110,70 0 cf m Concentrato r + Catalytic , 8 8 pp m sty 110,70 0 cf m Figure 6-7 . Rado n emission s du e t o natura l ga s combustio n fo r variou s contro l option s a t a typica l plan t (basis : 32 8 ton/y r uncontrolle d styren e emission s an d 4,16 0 operatin g h/yr) .

st y = inle t styren e concentratio n RarWili.-j r (*.*•-.. I T JP. 3

The rado n emissio n calculation s i n Figure 6- 7 ar

e base do n a n averag e radon content

o f 2 0 pCi/ L i n natura l ga s a s assumed i

n th e SPI/C I study . Thi s valu e wa s als o use di n astud y o f radionuclide emission s fro

mnatural-ga s firedsteam-electri c generatin g plant s (Nelson , 1995) . Accordin g t

o th e Institute fo

r Clea n Air Companies , th e Institute fo r Ga s Technolog y report s radon level s typicall y les s tha n 1 pCi/ L (Wax , 1996) . 6. 3 Conclusion s Calculation s o

f noneconomi c impact s i

n th e SPI/C I stud

y wer e base do n a n exhaus t strea mcontainin g 2 0 pp

mo f styrene , directe dt

o atherma l oxidizer . However , fo

r economi c reasons , it woul d b e unlikely tha

t ane w plan t woul db e designe dwit

h a20-pp mexhaus t

strea m directe d to a

n end-of-pip e contro l device . And , if anew plant

wer e designe dwit

h a20-pp m exhaus t strea mdirecte d t

o acontro l device , apreconcentration/oxidatio n systemwoul dprobably b e chose n ove r straight therma l oxidation , again fo

r economi c reasons . • Natura l ga s usag e an

d secondar y pollutan t

emission s wer

e foundt o b e considerably les s fo r preconcentration/oxidatio n system s than ' fo r therma l oxidation , i

n me rang e fro

m0 to approximately 30 0 pp mo

f styrene . Sinc e preconcentration/oxidatio n system s appea r t o hav e lowe r annualize d cost s tha

n straigh t therma l oxidatio n i

n thi s range , th e choic e o

f preconcentration/oxidatio n system s i n thi s rang e lower s bot

h economi c andnoneconomi c impacts . Reference s Gribbon , S . T . 1996 . Englehar d Proces s Emissio n Systems ; "Regenerativ e Catalyti c Oxidation, " Presente d a

t th e 199 6 Air

& Wast e Management

Associatio n Specialt

y Conferenc e "Emerging Solutions to VOC and Air Toxics Control,"

Clearwater , FL . Gupta , A. , Dur

r Industries , Inc. , A facsimil e o n RT O JPerformanc

e an dNO x t o Madelein e Strum , U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Augus t 6 , 1996 . Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . Th e Non-Economi c Impact s o f Incineratio n Control s fo

r th e Reinforce d Plastic s Industry . Prepare d fo r SPI/Composite s Institute , An n Arbor , MI . i Nelson , C , Estimate s o

f Healt h Risk s Associate dwit

h Radionuclide Emission s fro mFossil

Fuele d Steam-Electri c Generatin g Plants , EPA-402/R-95-1 6 (NTI S PB96-139753) , Augus t 1995 . Nutcher , P . B . an

d D . A . Lewandowsi . 1994 . Proces s Combustio n Corporation ; "Maximum Achievabl e Contro l Technolog y (MACT) fo r NO x Emission s fro

mVO C Therma

l Oxidation, " AWM A pape r numbe r 94-WA74A.03 , i

n Proceedings

for the Air and Waste Management Association 87th Annual

Meeting and

Exhibition, Cincinnati , OH . Wax , M. , Institute o

f Clea n Air Companies , memorandumt o Madelein e Strum , U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Augus t 11 , 1995 , Subject : Reinforce dPlasti c Composites . 3 7 

## 2&P. 4

Wax , M. , Institute o

f Clea n Air Companies , memorandumto Mar k Bahner , Research Trianr i Institute , Octobe

r 15 , 1996 , Subject : Rado n Concentratio n i n v.n.« i «.. . " ang J Subject : Rado n Concentratio n i n Natural Gas .

38

•*kP. 5



### Appendi x A Comment s o n Individua l Statement s i n th e SPI/C I Stud y

3 9 

# £3-Ei- i 

### Appendi x A Comment s on Individua

l Statement

s i n the SPI/C I Stud

y (Haberlein, 1996) 1 ) The (catalytic oxidizer) bed temperature is maintained at about 600°C (1,100°F) during normal operation. (Pag e IH-2) . A mor e typica l temperatur

e rang e fo r catalyti c oxidatio n o f

styren e i s 600-70 0 ° F (Patka r etal. , 1994) . 2 ) The problem (of

catalyst poisoning in a catalytic oxidizer) is severe and unpredictable... (Pag e m-2) . A July 19 , 199 6 memorandu mfro mMichae l Wa

x (Institut e o

f Clea n Air Companies ) to Madelein e Stru m(EPA-OAQPS ) state s tha t catalys t plugging , poisoning , an

d deactivatio n are well understood , andma y b e ameliorate dthroug h appropriat e system desig n an d operatin g practices . H e refer s t o a n articl e i n th e September

1994 issu e o

f Chemical Engineering, "Exten dth e Lif e o f Pollutio n Contro l Catalysts, " tha t discusse s in-sit u catalys t rejuvenatio n a s a

n alternativ e t o catalys t

replacement . 3 ) A thermal

regenerative incinerator was selected

for the hypothetical

plant (30,000 ft 3 /min, 20ppm styrene, 8,760h/yr, 43 tons uncontrolled styrene emissions) because this type of

incinerator

has been shown to be the most cost-effective type of control compared

to the recuperative or

catalytic (recuperative) types. (Pag e m-3) . Thi s analysi s ignore s th e optio n of preconcentration/oxidation , whic h appear s to hav e a lowe r tota l annualize d cos t

tha n an y o f thes e option s (includin g regenerativ e therma l oxidation) , for

th e hypothetica

l inle t conditions . 4 ) For

the hypothetical

incinerator

discussed

above...at

an oxidation temperature of 1800°F... (Pag e JR-5). A therma l oxidatio n temperature of

1,80 0 T i s compatibl e wit

h Haberlein' s assume d styren e destructio n efficienc y of 9 9 percent . A lowe

r therma l oxidatio n temperature , such a s 1,50 0 °F , woul d b e compatibl e wit h alower destructio n efficiency , suc h a s 9 5 percent . 5 ) The supplemental

fuel requirement

for an incinerator

(with 95percent

heat recovery) operating at

an exhaust

flow rate of

30,000cfm at

20ppm VOC

(and 1,800°F) is 3,310,000Btu/h. (Pag e EU-5) . Th e RT I cos t

spreadshee t

fo r atherma l oxidize r unde r thes e condition s produce s a calculate d supplementa

l fue l requirement

o f 2,984,00 0 Btu/h , or

approximatel y 1 0 percen t less . Thi s represent s fairly clos e agreement . •4 0 

# 3 8P. 7

6 ) Annual

electrical consumption (for the hypothetical

thermal oxidizer) is 1,230,000kWh (over 8,760hours). (Pag e ffi-6). Thi s represent s power

usag e o f 140 kW/h . Th e RT I cos t

spreadshee t

fo r atherma l oxidize r (wit h 9 5 percent

hea t recovery ) under

thes e condition s i s 12

5 kW/h , or approximately 1 0 percen

t less . Thi s represent s fairl

y clos e agreement . RTI' s calculatio n was based o

n quotation s fro

mSale mEnglehard(Mack , 1996) . 7 ) Unfortunately, these compounds (catalyzed resin aerosols and polystyrene-forming agents) are indeed

present in the exhaust

streams at

most plants, as evidenced

by the solid plastic residue that

coats the inner

surface ofthe ductwork

in many locations. Further, no effective means of removing all

of these airborne compounds is presently known. (Pag e ffi-13). ' Catalyze d resi n aerosol s ar e present in man y plants , du e to sprayin g operations . Thes e resin aerosol s ar

e actually quit

e large , andar

e therefor e easily remove dby eve

n coars e filtration . Fo r

example , RT

I mass-balanc e testin g conducte din Jun e 199 5 indicate d approximately 9 9 percen

t panicl e collectio n b y athin fiberglas s veil . I t coul db e expecte d tha t the fiberglas s filte

r pad s use da

t mos t plant s wouldhav e a

n eve n higher collectio n efficiency . RT I ha s observed tha t casua l fiberglass filte

r pa dinstallatio n a

t man y plant s allow s gap s o r

hole s i n the filter banks . Thi s practic e ca

n dramaticall y lower

collectio n efficiency , and woul d need to b e avoided . Styren e ga s (which ca n for mpolystyrene ) i s indeed present , and cannot

B e remove db y physica

l filtration. However , Dur

r Industrie s report s havin g rotar

y concentrator

system s i n Japa n tha t hav e been runnin g fo

r ove r 1 0 year s without

styren e polymerization . 8) The report

(on Polyad) shows an annual 10% Bonopore (adsorbent) loss out ofthe system's cyclone separator. (Pag e EI-14 ) Weatherly , Inc . (manufacturer s o f Polyad) , in aJul y 18 , 1996 , memorandumt o Madelein e Stru m(EPA-OAQPS) , indicate dtha t they now guarante e annua l Bonopor e los s o f 5 percen t o r less . 9 ) The calculated

energy requirements

for a 30,000scfm Polyad

concentrator

system are • 130kW, and

96,000Btu/hr. (Pag e ffi-15). Weatherly , Inc . (manufacturer s o f Polyad) , i n a199 6 memorandumto Madelein e Strum (EPA-OAQPS) , indicate d tha t the electrica

l requiremen

t woul dactuall y b e 6 2 kW , but th e natura l ga s usag e valu e wa s correct . Reference s Haberlein , R.A . 1996 . Th e Non-Economi c Impact s of Incineratio n Control s fo

r th e Reinforce d Plastic s Industry . Prepare d fo r SPI/Composite s Institute , An n Arbor , M

L 4 1 

# &°.P. 8

Mack , S. , Englehar

d Corporation , A facsimil e on RC O Cost s t o Mar k Bahner , Researc h Triangl e Institute , Febmar

y 8 , 1996 . Patkar , A.N. , J.M . Reinhold , and G . Henderson . 1994 . "Demonstratio n of Captur e andContro l Efficiency fo

r aStyren e Emissio n Source, " Paper number 94-RA l 11.03 , i

n Proceedings

for the Air and Waste Management

Association 87th Annual

Meeting and

Exhibition, Cincinnati , OH .

4 2 

## 4 CP. 9



### Appendi x B Revisio n ofth e Styren e Control Cos tSpreadshee tModel and Cos tFigure s

4 3 

## 4- \

### RESEARC H TRIANGL E INSTITUT E 

# _R j

Cente rfo rEnvironmenta l Analysi s MFMORAiVDII

M DATE : Octobe

r 9 , 199 6 TO : Norma

n Kaplan , EPA/APPCD/MD-0 4 Madelein e Strum , EPA/OAQPS/MD-1 3 cc : Emer y Kon g (541-5964 ) FROM : Mar

k Bahner (541-6016 ) /Af.5 SUBJECT : Error s i

n Styren e Contro l Cos t

Spreadsheet s andCos t

Figures . Contrac t 68-D1-011 8 (Optio n IV) , wor k assignment

156 . (RT I projec t

6173-156) . Contrac t 68-D1-011 8 (Optio n V) , wor k assignment

192 . (RT I projec t

6684-192) . A s aresul t

of activitie s conducte dto prepar e a n Addendu mt o th e report , "Assessment of Styrene Control s fo

r FRP/ C andBoat

Buildin g Industries " (EPA-600/R-96-109) , I hav e discovere d error s i n th e styren e contro l cos t

spreadsheet s an di n cos t

curve s presente di

n th e report . I d o no t believ e tha

t thes e error s significantl y affect th e accurac y o f

th e spreadshee t

tota l annualize d cos t calculations , o r

alter conclusion s o f

th e report . Therefore , pe r atelephon e conversatio n wit h Norma n Kapla n today , RT I will no t

attemp t t o revise th e affectedportion s o f EPA-600/R-96-109 . Th e error s in fh

e cos t spreadsheet s ar e a s follows : 1 ) Polyad System- Th e cos t spreadshee t

for th e Polyadsystemwa s base d o n electrica l usag e o f 2 2 k W a t 5,00 0 cfm , an d5 9 k

W a t 15,00 0 cfm . Weatherly , Incorporate d(manufacture r o f Polyad) informe d m

e in December

199 5 tha t actual value s woul db e 1 2 k W a t 5,00 0 cf mand 3 2 k W a t 15,000 cfm . However , I neglecte dto chang e th e spreadshee t accordingly . Additionally , th e Polya d cos t spreadshee t

ha s afue l usag e o f "zero " for

al l conditions . Thi s wa s asimplifyin g assumption : amore accurate representatio n woul db e 48,00 0 Btu/h r a t 15,00 0 cfm . Thes e tw o error s actuall y ten dt o bia s th e total cos t calculation s i

n differen t directions , and therefor e nearly cance l eac h other

out , i n term s o f

final cost . Th e incorrec t

an dcorrecte d value s fo

r arang e o f concentrations , and inpu t

mas s rate s (i n ton s pe r

year) are show n in Tabl e 1 .

304 0 Cornvva: ! S .=i o = c • PCS - C":C £ =c x 4 4 I'? - • Pessarc i Trianoi e PS^K . M 9' 9 5-1-538 2 • Fa

x 91 9 5J1-7-5 5 zr.r Cs.'Ci'.r. a 2~7C9-2 1 9 ^ US A

• r .' \ 

### 4~2 ~P.1 1

Tabl e 1 . Correcte d Cost/Ton Value s fo r the Polvad Svstem . Inpu t mas s 40 0 TP Y 40 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y Correc t

Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Inle t concentration , pp m 5 0 3,473 * 3,70 2 4,62 2 4,85 3 8,94 5 9,19 1 10 0

1.99 8 2.11 3 2,77 1 2.88 9 6.94 6 7.07 9 15 0

1.43 2 1.51 2 2,24 6 2.32 2 6.19 6 • 6.29 0 20 0

1.15 6 1.21 3 1.96 7 2.02 7 5,80 2 5.87 8 30 0

84 4 88 3 1.66 3 1.70 5 5,39 5 5.45 1 50 0

61 3 63 7 1.38 9 1.41 6 5.05 9 5.10 1 70 0

52 2 53 9 1.26 1 1.21 8 4,91 2 4.94 7 * Cos t (5 ) per ton o f styrene removed . 2 ) Dur r rotar y concentrator

syste m- Cos t

andfue l usag e datafo

r th e Dur r rotar y concentrato r

wer e receive d ver

y nea r th e en do f the . origina

l styren e control s assessmen t project . I had tim e t o accurately mode

l accurat e equipmen t

cost s fo r th e Dur r rotar y concentrator , bu

t I di d no t hav e time to accurately mode l fue l usage . (Th e mos t

accurat e mode l o f fue l usag e fo r th e syste mwould b e based o

n basi c principle s o f

combustio n an dheating. ) Th e fue l usag e calculation s generall y over-estimate d fue l usage . Knowin g tha

t th e fue l usag e number s wer

e probabl y inaccurate , I lef

t out the fue l cos t fro mth e final Total Annualize dCos t calculation . Sinc e fue l cos t was actually remove dfro

mth e Total Annualize dCos t calculation , the cos t spreadsheet

for the Dur r rotar y concentrato r

actuall y underestimate s cos t slightly . Th e incorrec t

an d correcte d value s ar

e show n i n Tabl e 2 . Tabl e 2 . Correcte d Cost/Ton Value s fo r th e Dur r Rotar v Concentrato r

Svstem . Inpu t mas s 40 0 TP Y 40 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 10 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y 2 0 TP Y Correc t

Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Correc t Incorrec t Inle t concentration , pp m 5 0 3,494 * 3,48 2 4,49 3 3.94 5 6.56 9 6.02 2 10 0

1,87 0 1.87 0 2.40 4 2,21 3 4.56 3 4.37 3 15 0

1.35 2 1,28 0 1.72 1 1.64 9 3.89 8 3.82 7 20 0

99 8 98 6 1.38 2 1.37 1

• 3.56 7 3.55 5 30 0

69 6 69 6 1.09 4 1.09 4 3.28 3 3.28 3 50 0

46 9 46 9 87 5 87 5 3.06 7 3.06 7 .70 0

37 2 37 2 78 1 78 1 2,97 4 2.97 4 Cos t (S ) pe r to n o f styrene removed . 4 5



### 4^ 3P.1 2

3 ) Figure 5-5 , "Cos t

curve s for

alarg e plan t

(40 0 ton s pe r

yea r inlet) " i n EPA-600/R-96-10 9 ha s cos t curve s fo r thre e contro l technologie s plotte do n aright-handaxis . Thi s right-han d axi s i s incorrectly scale dwit h aminimu mof

negativ e Sl,000/ton . Th e affecte d technologie s are th e EC& C fluidized-be dpreconcentrator , th e Dur r rotar y concentrator , andth e VOC condenser : I

f thes e technologie s ar e plotte dwit h aminimumcos t

of $0/ton , similar

to othe r technologie s in Figure 5-5 , th e resultin g curve s are somewha t altered . I hav e attache d arevised versio n o f Figur e 5-5 . Th e ne

w figure contain s revised curve s a s the y woul d appear , assumin g th e EC& C preconcentrato r i s desorbe dinto athermal oxidizer . Th e versio n o f Figure 5- 5 tha

t appear s i n EPA-600/R-96-10 9 i s als o attached , wit h th e notatio n "ORIGINA

L (INCORRECT)" . I hav e include d adiskett

e wit h (revised ) cos t

spreadsheets . If

yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e call me at 541-6016 .

4 6



# 44 -

### C A c o </ >

-- x> a > o E c a t c 0 ) L . £ V. o «- • c y L . a i a *- w o U *— ^ S «/ »

* • T - I I c o *- •v » T - 10.00 0 9,00 0 8,00 0 7,00 0 6.00 0 5,00 0 4,00 0 3.00 0 2.00 0 1,00 0 0 246.00 0 123 .

i \ \ J \ \

- U

H I . 5 ' 1 

## V \ 1 00 0

;

i

w

« Flo w rale.cf m ( 1 cf m = 0.028 3 m3/min )

61,50 0 41.00 0 30.75 0 24.60 0

, t • • •

t * •



# ^ 5 

# p ^ » «

—

—% 1

U **-*^ . 20.50 0 17. 6

1 1 1 I I 1 1 MIA B m M mt Polya d (w/oxidalion ) •Calalyli c oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) Therma l oxidize r(95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm )

—- —Diuiiiiiauui i Tliermalri x PADR E

—-



### F r ^ •Dur rrolar y concentrato r •VO C condense r EC& C fluidized-be d preconcenlralo r(w/oxidalion )

*»« . gjaa= s * • . ,

* • m ^

" * •.. . • •« % :

i . -*sr* . mi —

-•=v ^ 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 Concentratio n (ppm ) 50 0 60 0 70 0 Figur e S-5 . Cos t curve s fo r a larg e plan t (40 0 ton s pe r yea r inlet) . T Jo o C o * ; «/ » •a a i 

# i f

* • -5» c * : tf l c "* - O O * ! *. *» c zz, 3 L * 0 ) a *- M O o 10.00 0 9,00 0 8,00 0 7.00 0 6,00 0 5,00 0 4,00 0 3.00 0 2.00 0 1.00 0 0 246,00 0

12 3

\ \

• I Vr* 1 

### -VM V 00 0

1 Flo w rate.cf m ( 1 cf m = 0.028 3 m3/min )

61.50 0 41.00 0 30,75 0 24,60 0 20.50 0

* % \ * t t %

• » — % 

# fes o»^» % "•fcw * m ^ m

"*"--». ...... ( MIA B

- - - P o Ti n I I I I I ya d (w/oxidalion ) alyti c oxidize r (95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) srma l oxidize r (95 % H.R . belo w 10 0 ppm ) Thermatri x PADR E

——R o \/ n ar y concentrato r C condense r

—- EC& C fluidized-be d preconcentrato r

*••"- . "~~ .

^ *'••- . ,

- —

'*•• ' V

* • • .

—— .-._ _ • • „

.^jg ; 17. 6

• *. .

m — — 100 . 20 0 30 0 40 0 Concenlratio n (ppm ) 50 0 60 0 70 0 Figur e 5-5 . Cos t curve s fo r a larg e plan t (40 0 ton s pe r yea r inlet) . ORIGINA L (INCORRECT )P.1 5



## Jr±P.1 6



## 4- B