### 1 M EMORANDUM

DATE: July 19, 2010

SUBJECT: Regulatory Alternative Impacts for Group 1 Polymers and Resins Source

Categories

FROM: Karen Marsh , EC/R Incorporated

Phil Norwood, EC/R Incorporated

TO: Randy McDonald, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

Paula Hirtz, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the estimated impacts of regulatory

alternatives iden tified to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from five source

categories that are subject to the Group 1 Polymers and Resins National Emission Standards for

HAP (NESHAP)

– 40 CFR 63, subpart U. These source categories are Butyl Rubber Producti on,

Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, Neoprene

Production, and Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production. The Butyl Rubber source category is

separated into two subcategories, Butyl Rubber Production and Halobutyl Rubb er Production,

and regulatory alternatives were evaluated independently for these two subcategories. These

regulatory alternatives are being evaluated under EPA’s Risk and Technology Review program,

which is addressing statutory requirements under section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(3) of

the Clean Air Act. Section 1 provides background information, followed by an identification of

the regulatory alternatives in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the estimated costs and HAP

emission reductions of the al ternatives, and Section 4 summarizes the secondary impacts.

1.0 BACKGROUND

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a comprehensive regulatory process

to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In accorda nce

with CAA section 112(c), EPA identifies categories and subcategories of major sources that emit

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). CAA section 112(d)(2) then calls for

EPA to promulgate national technology

- based emission standards fo r each listed category or

subcategory of sources. For “major sources” that emit or have the potential to emit any single

HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more

per year, these technology

- based stan dards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP

achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non

- air health and environmental

impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT)

standards. Section 112(d)( 6) then requires EPA to review the CAA section 112(d) technology

based standards and to revise them “as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,

processes, and control technologies,” no less frequently than every 8 years. The residual ris k

review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA. CAA section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to

promulgate standards for each category or subcategory of CAA section 112(d) sources “if

promulgation of such standards is required in order to provide an ample margi n of safety to

protect public health . . . or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other

### 2 relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The Group 1 Polymers and Resins NESHAP

(40 CFR 63, subpart U) regulates HAP emissions fr om nine source categories. In the current

action, EPA is addressing five of the nine source categories

– Butyl Rubber Production,

Epichlorohydrin Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, Neoprene Production, and

Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Productio n . Sources of HAP emissions from these processes include

raw material storage vessels, front

- end process vents, back

- end process operations, wastewater

operations, and equipment leaks. The process “front

- end” includes pre

- polymerization, reaction,

stripp ing, and material recovery operations; and the process “back

- end” includes all operations

after stripping (predominately drying and finishing). The emission sources regulated by the

NESHAP for these source categories are storage tanks, front

- end process v ents, equipment leaks,

and wastewater operations.

2.0 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Regulatory alternatives were evaluated for the process “front

- end” for Butyl Rubber

Production, Halobutyl Rubber Production, and Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production to red uce

hydrochloric acide (HCl) emissions. Two “front

- end” process regulatory alternatives were

identified. The first alternative was to establish an emissions limit based on the current level of

HCl emissions. This option did not require the installation of any additional controls, only that

HCl emissions be maintained at the current level. The second alternative was to require a 99

percent reduction of the HCl created from the combustion of chlorinated organic compounds. In

each case, the HCl is generat ed by the combustion of chlorinated organic compounds in a flare.

Since it is not possible to install an add

- on device to reduce these HCl emissions following the

flare, the impacts are based on the replacement of the flares currently in use with incinera tors

followed by scrubbers that will achieve 99 percent reduction in the HCl emissions.

Regulatory alternatives were also identified for the process “back

- end” for: Butyl Rubber

Production, Epichlorohydrin Production, Halobutyl Rubber Production, Neopre ne Production,

and Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production. Two alternatives were considered for each source

category/subcategory. The alternative was to establish an emission limit based on the current

HAP emissions levels considering existing levels of HAP stripping and recovery plus any

existing controls. This option did not require the installation of any additional controls, only that

emissions be maintained at the current level. The second regulatory alternative identified was to

reduce the organic HA P emissions by requiring a 98 percent reduction in organic HAP

emissions.

3.0 RELEVANT EMISSION POINTS AND BASELINE EMISSIONS

Information about emission points and emissions were provided by the industry in

response to a questionnaire distributed by th e EPA using their authority under section 114 of the

CAA.

3.1 Front

- End Emissions

There are two facilities that reported emissions of HCl from the flaring of chlorinated

organic compounds present in front

- end process vent emissions, one producing Buty l Rubber

and one producing Halobutyl Rubber and Ethylene Propylene Rubber. There are two other

### 3 operating facilities in the Ethylene Propylene Rubber source category, but neither reported any

HCl emissions due to the combustion of chlorinated organic comp ounds.

The two facilities are in compliance with the current MACT standards, which requires

that organic HAP emissions from continuous group 1 front

- end process vents be reduced by

98 percent, or by using a flare. The relevant “front

- end” emission point s and emissions are

provided in Table 1, along with the flow rates at the flare exits.

Table 1: “Front

- End” Process Vents and Baseline Emissions

Source Category Emission

Point ID Pollutant Emissions (tpy) Flow Rate (ft3/sec)

Butyl Rubber FS12 Hydrochlor ic Acid 30.09 205.98

Methyl Chloride 0.779

Hexane 6.53

1,3 Butadiene 0.001

Xylenes 0.0002

Total Organic HAP 7.31

Ethylene

Propylene Rubber M

- 07B Hydrochloric Acid 19.77 459.4

Hexane 0.188

Total Organic HAP 0.188

Halobutyl Rubber M

- 07 Hydrochloric Acid 76.8 459.43

Methyl Chloride 0.53

M

- 07A Hexane 0.06 459.43

Total Organic HAP 0.59



### 3.2 Back

- End Process Emissions

Following are summaries of the back

- end process emissions from each of the source

categorie s/subcategories. There is only one facility in each source category/subcategory.

The emissions from the back

- end process operations at the butyl rubber facility are

approximately 54 TPY. There are two separate dryer vent streams at the butyl rubber faci lity,

with one stream controlled. The controlled stream emits around 28 TPY of hexane, while the

uncontrolled stream emits around 26 TPY of hexane. The regenerative thermal oxidizer used to

control emissions achieves approximately 98 percent control.

The emissions from the back

- end process operations at the halobutyl rubber facility are

approximately 60 TPY. There are five separate dryer vents at the halobutyl facility and only one

vent is controlled. The controlled vent emits around 18 TPY of hexane and 0.04 TPY of

hydrochloric acid. The regenerative thermal oxidizer used to control emissions achieves

approximately 97 percent control of the hexane emissions. The 4 uncontrolled vents collectively

emit around 42 TPY of hexane.

The annual emissions f rom the back

- end process operations at the Epichlorohydrin

Elastomers facility are approximately 36 TPY. There are two separate dryer vents, one emitting

### 4 around 25 TPY of toluene and the other emitting around 11 TPY. Neither of these vents is

controlled.

The annual emissions from the back

- end process operations at the Nitrile

- Butadiene

Rubber facility are approximately 2 TPY. There are 11 separate dryer vents; one is controlled,

while the others are uncontrolled. The controlled vent emits around 0.003 TPY of 1,3

- butadiene

and 0.002 TPY of acrylonitrile. The regenerative thermal oxidizer used on this vent achieves

approximately 96 percent control of the acrylonitrile emissions, but no control of 1,3

- butadiene.

The collection of 10 uncontrolled vents em it around 0.8 TPY of 1,3

- butadiene and 0.9 TPY of

acrylonitrile.

The annual emissions from the back

- end process operations at the Neoprene Rubber

facility are approximately 23 TPY. There are 11 separate dryer vents collectively emitting

around 6.5 TPY of chloroprene and 16.5 TPY of toluene. None of the vents are controlled.

The baseline uncontrolled “back

- end” emission points and emissions are listed in

Table 2. The shaded emissions points are small contributors to the total HAP emissions and

were no t included in the impacts analyses discussed in the following sections.

Table 2: Uncontrolled “Back

- End” Process Vents and Baseline Emissions

Source Category Emission

Point ID Pollutant Emissions (tpy) Flow Rate (ft 3 

### /sec)

Butyl Rubber BPBFINISH Hexan e 26.19 213

Total 26.2 213

Halobutyl Rubber M

- 58 Hexane 0.24 441

V

- 127 Hexane 23.76 253

V

- 131 Hexane 10.91 201

Total 34.7 454

Epichlorohydrin

Elastomers ABKEND Toluene 24.77 154.5

BBKEND Toluene 11.2 154.5

Total 36.0 309

Neoprene

EWBDRY Chlo roprene 2.325 256.5 Toluene 0.382

WWBDRY Toluene 2.325 256.5 Chloroprene 0.382

EHDRY Toluene 11.894 476 Chloroprene 1.955

WHDRY Chloroprene 1.894 476

Toluene 1.955

EDRYC1 Toluene 0.001 343 Chloroprene 0.001

WDRYC1 To luene 0.001 343 Chloroprene 0.001

EDRYC2 Toluene 0.001 343 Chloroprene 0.001

WDRYC2 Toluene 0.001 343

### 5 Table 2: Uncontrolled “Back

- End” Process Vents and Baseline Emissions

Source Category Emission

Point ID Pollutant Emissions (tpy) Flow Rate (ft 3 

### /sec)

Chloroprene 0.001

EMTNK1 Toluene 0.001 199 Chloroprene 0.001

EMTNK2 Toluene 0.001 199 Chloroprene 0.001

EMTNK3 Tol uene 0.001 199 Chloroprene 0.001

Total 23.1 1466

Nitrile Butadiene

Rubber DRYNCW 1,3

- Butadiene 0.00587 184

Acrylonitrile 0.0435

PBL1 1,3

- Butadiene 0.0587 193

PBL2 Acrylonitrile 0.176 193

PBL3 1,3

- Butadiene 0 275

PBL4 Acrylonitrile 0 275

PBL5 1,3

- Butadiene 0.119 550

PBL6 Acrylonitrile 0.357 550

SD1BLT Acrylonitrile 0.000215 9

SDN1 1,3

- Butadiene 0 275

SDN2 Acrylonitrile 0 275

SDNDR2 1,3

- Butadiene 0.0119 550 Acrylonitrile 0.0885

SDR1SD 1,3

- Butadiene 0.615 646 Acrylonitrile 0.247

SDR2SD Acrylonitrile 0.0165 610

T45678 1,3

- Butadiene 0.000177 75 Acrylonitrile 0.0000887

Total 1.74 3561



### 4.0 COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Front

- End Process Vents

As noted in Section 2, there were two regulatory alternatives identified to address HCl

emissions from front

- end process vents from the Butyl Rubber, Ethylene Propylene Rubber, and

Halobutyl Rubber source categories/subcategories. The first alternative would ensure that the

current level of HCl emissions are maintained. The only impact of this alternative would be

costs due to the labor costs associated with the calculations, records, and reports to demonstrate

compliance. These costs are summarized in Table 3.

### 6 Table 3. Estimated Impacts for Front

- End Regulatory Alternative 1

Source Category Baseline

Emissions

(tpy) Emission

Reduction

(tpy) Capital Costs

($) Annual Costs

($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Butyl Rubber 7.31 0 $0 $1,000 N/A

Ethylene Propylene Rubber 0.1 88 0 $0 $1,000 N/A

Halobutyl Rubber 0.59 0 $0 $1,000 N/A



### As noted in section 2, the organic HAP emissions from these front

- end vents are already

controlled by the flare. The costs estimated are to replace the flare with an incinerator followed

by a sc rubber. The costs were estimated using the standard OAQPS algorithms for thermal

incinerators and acid

- gas absorbers (scrubbers). In order to estimate the input organic HAP

loading to the incinerator, the organic HAP emissions shown in Table 1 were divid ed by 0.02 to

obtain the uncontrolled emissions. This assumes the flare is achieving a 98 percent reduction in

organic HAP emissions. For example, there would be 365.5 TPY of organic HAP from the

Butyl Rubber front

- end process that would routed to the in cinerator (7.31 ÷ 0.02 = 365.5).

Because the flow rates shown in Table 1 are the flow rates for the flare, it would not be

appropriate to assume those represent the flows that would be entering the incinerator. Based on

information submitted by these fac ilities during the development of the original MACT standard,

a flow rate of 3,500 scfm was used for all three processes.

Table 4 presents the costs based on the second regulatory alternative requiring 99 percent

reduction in HCl emissions. Since both th e Ethylene Propylene Rubber and Halobutyl Rubber

source facilities are located at the same plant site, costs were estimated assuming a shared

incinerator/scrubber. This is shown in the last column of Table 4. Details of these costs

estimates are provided in Attachment 1.

Table 4. Estimated Impacts for Front

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Butyl Rubber Halobutyl Rubber Ethylene

Propylene Rubber Halobuty and

Ethylene

Propylene

Combined

HCl Emissions at Baseline

(tpy) 30.1 76.8 19.8 96.6

Incinerator

Capital $172,921 $404,703 $404,690 $481,264

Annual $109,533 $291,598 $289,700 $471,049

Scrubber

Capital $496,400 $580,177 $580,194 $639,136

Annual $125,779 $153,882 $133,912 $170,451

Total Capital $669,321 $984,881 $984,8 83 $1,120,400

Total Annual $235,312 $445,480 $423,612 $641,500

HCl Emission Reduction

(tpy) 29.8 76.0 19.6 95.6

Cost Effectivenesss $7,899 $5,859 $21,643 $6,710

HCl after control (tpy) 0.3 0.8 0.2 1.0

### 7 4.2 Back

- End Process Operations

As noted in Section 2, there were two regulatory alternatives identified to address back

end emissions from the Butyl Rubber, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, Halobutyl Rubber,

Neoprene, and Nitrile Butadiene Rubber source categories/subcategories. The first alternati ve

would ensure that the current level of emissions are maintained. The only impact of this

alternative would be costs due to the labor costs associated with the calculations, records, and

reports to demonstrate compliance. These costs are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Estimated Impacts for Back

- End Regulatory Alternative 1

Source Category Baseline

Emissions

(tpy) Emission

Reduction

(tpy) Capital Costs

($) Annual Costs

($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Butyl Rubber 54 0 $0 $981.84 N/A

Epichlorohyd rin 36 0 $0 $981.84 N/A

Halobutyl Rubber 60 0 $0 $981.84 N/A

Neoprene 23 0 $0 $981.84 N/A

Nitrile Butadiene Rubber 2 0 $0 $981.84 N/A



### Table 6 presents the costs based on the second option of requiring a 98 percent reduction

in organic HAP emissions. The costs were estimated using the standard OAQPS algorithm for

thermal incinerators. Some of the back

- end streams are already controlled. Further emission

reductions for the controlled streams were not considered. Instead, the cost impacts were

calcul ated based on the control of the uncontrolled streams that were not shaded in Table 2.

Since the flow rates shown in Table 2 represent the flow rates of the uncontrolled streams, they

were used as the inlet flow rates for the incinerators. Details of the se costs estimates are

provided in Attachment 2.

Table 6. Estimated Cost and Emission Reductions for Back

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Source Category Baseline

Uncontrolled

Emissions

(tpy) Emission

Reduction

(tpy) Capital Costs

($) Annual Costs

($/yr) C ost

Effectiveness

($/ton)

Butyl Rubber 26.2 25.7 $234,589 $180,628 $7,038

Epichlorohydrin 36.0 35.3 $614,071 $1,104,543 $31,334

Halobutyl Rubber 34.7 34.0 $951,419 $1,606,579 $47,285

Neoprene 23.1 22.6 $1,275,414 $4,816,013 $212,630

Nitrile Butadien e Rubber 1.7 1.7 $1,592,255 $11,403,862 $6,687,697



### 5.0 SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

While the primary impact of the regulatory alternatives is to address HCl emissions on

the front

- end and organic HAP emissions on the back

- end, the application of t he control

technologies that would be required under the second regulatory alternatives can also have other

environmental effects. These impacts can be positive, such as a reduction in non

- HAP volatile

organic compound air emissions; or negative, such as the generation of additional wastewater or

energy consumption. In this section the secondary impacts on air pollution, water pollution, and

### 8 energy are discussed. The methodologies used to calculate secondary impacts can be found in

documentation for the MACT standard. 1



### Air Pollution

For the sources included in this project, the secondary air pollution impacts are the

increased criteria pollutant emissions caused by the on

- site combustion of organic HAPs and

fuels. This combustion results in the emiss ion of nitrogenous oxides (NO

x 

### ), carbon monoxide

(CO), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ). In addition to these five criteria

pollutants, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) are also expected. Table 7 presents the estimated

secondary air imp acts for regulatory alternative 2 for the front

- end process vents, and Table 8

presents those for back

- end process vents. The total criteria pollutant emissions for the front

- end

are estimated to be around 7 tpy, with NO

x 

### emissions from incinerators accou nting for 6 tpy.

The total criteria pollutant emissions for the back

- end are estimated to be around 267 tpy, with

NO

x 

### emissions from incinerators accounting for 225 tpy. The CO 2 

### emissions are estimated to be

around 2,607 tpy and 131,086 tpy for front

- end and back

- end, respectively.

Table 7. Secondary Air Impacts for Front

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Source Category Emissions (tpy)

PM SO 2 NOx CO CO 2

Butyl Rubber 0.004 0.001 2 0.05 162

Halobutyl Rubber 0.03 0.006 2 0.40 1,233

Ethylene Propylene

Ru bber 0.03 0.006 2 0.40 1,219

Combined HBR

AND EPR 0.06 0.012 4 0.70 2,445

Table 8. Secondary Air Impacts for Back

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Source Category Emissions (tpy)

PM SO 2 NOx CO CO 2

Butyl 0.01 0.003 8 0.2 593

Halobutyl 0.25 0.05 17 3 10 ,160

Epichlorohydrin 0.17 0.03 12 2 6,891

Neoprene 0.83 0.20 55 10 33,045

Nitrile Butadiene

Rubber 2.01 0.40 133 23 80,397

1 Memorandum. Estimated Regulatory Alternative Impacts fo r Elastomer Production Facilities (Polymers and

Resins I). Norwood, P., EC/R, to Evans, L., EPA/OAQPS/ESD/OCG. May 10, 1995. Contained in Hazardous Air

Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Elastomer Manufacturing Industry

-- Supplementary Informa tion

Document for Proposed Standards. EPA

- 453/R

- 95

- 005a. May 1995.

### 9 Water Pollution

The only impact on water pollution for the second regulatory alternatives identified in

Section 2.0 is associ ated with the incinerator/scrubber system for control of HCl from the front

end process vents. Control of organic HAP emissions using combustion only does not result in

any significant increase in wastewater discharge, since no water effluents are generat ed by the

thermal incinerator.

In the scrubber control system, water is used to remove the acid gas contained in the

thermal oxidizer outlet stream. The amount of wastewater generated is equal to the amount of

water needed by the scrubber to absorb th e acid gas leaving the incinerator. It is estimated that

about 90 million gallons of wastewater will be generated annually from acid scrubbers at Butyl

Rubber, Halobutyl Rubber, and Ethylene Propylene Rubber facilities. Almost 60 million of this

total is from the Halobutyl and Ethylene Propylene Rubber facility. The same assumptions were

used for this analysis as those used in the MACT. 2 

### Table 9 presents the water pollution impacts

from front

- end regulatory alternative 2.

Table 9. Water Pollution Impac ts from Front

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Source Category Flow Rate to

Scrubber (scfm) Operating

Hours (hr/yr) Water Flow Rate

(1000 gal/yr)

Butyl Rubber 3,750 8,000 30,600

Halobutyl Rubber 3,608 8,000 29,441

Ethylene Propylene Rubber 3,607 8,000 29,433

Combined HBR AND EPR 7,214 8,000 58,866



### Energy Impacts

The energy demands associated with the control technologies for the second regulatory

alternatives include the need for additional electricity and natural gas. The total nationwide

energ y demands that would result from implementing regulatory alternative 2 for front

- end and

back

- end process vents are presented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. Overall, the controls

would require approximately 1.0 x 10 9 

### Btu electricity and 4.4 x 10 10 

### Btu natural gas annually for

front

- end process vent control. Back

- end process vents would require approximately 3.7 x 10 10



### Btu electricity and 2.2 x 10 12 

### Btu natural gas annually. More details about the methodologies

used can be found in the MACT documentat ion. 3

2 See footnote 1

3 See footnote 1

### 10 Table 10. Energy Requirements for Front

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Incinerator Scrubber

Source

Category Annual

Electricity

Cost Electricity

(10 6

BTU/yr) Natural Gas

Use (1000

ft 3 /yr) Natural

Gas (10 6

BTU/yr) Annual

Electricity

Cost Electricit y

(10 6

BTU/yr) Natural

Gas Use

(1000

ft 3 /yr) Natural

Gas (10 6

BTU/yr)

Butyl Rubber $1,665 96 2,708 2,708 $1,283 74 0 0

Halobutyl

Rubber $6,309 365 20,546 20,546 $477 28 0 0

Ethylene

Propylene

Rubber $6,308 365 20,309 20,309 $478 28 0 0

Combin ed

HBR AND

EPR $12,617 730 40,755 40,755 $1,290 75 0 0

Table 11. Energy Requirements for Back

- End Regulatory Alternative 2

Source Category Annual

Electricity

Cost Electricity

(10 6

BTU/yr) Natural Gas

Use (1000

ft 3 /yr) Natural

Gas (10 6

BTU/yr)

But yl $6,080 352 9,889 9,889

Halobutyl $49,137 2,844 169,328 169,328

Epichlorohydrin $33,442 1,936 114,852 114,852

Neoprene $158,683 9,185 550,748 550,748

NBR $385,458 22,311 1,339,949 1,339,949ATTACHMENT 1

COST DETAILS FOR FRONT

- END PROCESS VENT CONTROLSTOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--THERMAL INCINERATORSCOST BASE DATE: April 1988 [1]VAPCCI (Third Quarter 2003--FINAL): [2]109.8 109.8 109.8 109.8CE Plant Index Nov 2003403.8 403.8 403.8 403.8CE Plant Index Jan 2010532.9 532.9 532.9 532.9BR HBR EPRCombined HBRAND EPRINPUT PARAMETERScontrolled organic emission, tpy 7.31 0.59 0.188 0.778Process gas flow, scf/s 58.3 58.3 58.3 116.7-- Operating hours, hr/yr 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000-- Air molecular weight 29 29 29 29-- HAP in emission stream hexane Methyl Cl hexanemethylchloride andhexane-- HAP molecular weight 86.2 50.5 86.2 59.8-- HAP emission rate, lb/yr 731,000 236,000 75,200 311,200lb/hr 91.38 29.50 9.40 38.90-- Other VOC emission rate, lb/yr 0 0 0 0lb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-- VOC molecular weight 100 100 100 100-- HAP heating value, Btu/lb 19,391 5,290 19,391 8,982-- VOC heating value, Btu/lb 0 0 0 0-- HAP concentration, ppmv 1,943 1,071 200 596-- VOC concentration, ppmv 0 0 0 0-- Air flow rate, lb/hr 15,78715,80115,81531,617-- Oxygen content of gas stream, %20.86 20.88 20.90 20.89-- Reference temperature (oF):77 77 77 77-- Inlet gas temperature (oF):95 95 95 95-- Vent gas flowrate (scfm):3,5653,5653,5657,129acfm 3,6843,6843,6847,368-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf):0.0715 0.0715 0.0715 0.0715-- HAP LEL, ppmv 11,000 125,000 11,000 11,000-- Other VOC LEL, ppmv (assumed) 0 0 0 0-- Mixture LEL, ppmv 11,000 125,000 11,000 11,000-- Dilution air for combustion, scfm 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000BRHBREPRCombined HBRAND EPR-- Dilution air for safety, scfm0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000-- Total gas flow to incinerator, scfm3,5653,5653,5657,129-- Primary heat recovery (fraction):0.000.700.700.70-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf):7.980.700.820.79-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb):111.599.86 11.52 11.04-- Gas heat capacity (BTU/lb-oF):0.2550.255 0.255 0.255-- Combustion temperature (oF):1600160016001600-- Preheat temperature (oF):95114911491149Temperature of flue gas, F1600547547547-- Fuel heat of combustion (BTU/lb):2150221502 21502 21502-- Fuel density (lb/ft3):0.0408 0.0408 0.0408 0.0408DESIGN PARAMETERS-- Auxiliary Fuel Reqrmnt (lb/min):0.2302 1.7464 1.7263 3.4642(scfm):5.642 42.804 42.310 84.907(scf/yr)2,708,123 20,545,762 20,308,970 40,755,193-- Total Gas Flowrate (scfm):3,5703,6083,6077,214CAPITAL COSTSEquipment Costs ($): (For 500 scfm to 50,000 scfm)-- Incinerator:@ 0 % heat recovery:70,672000@ 35 % heat recovery:0000@ 50 % heat recovery:0000@ 70 % heat recovery:0 165,401 165,395 196,691-- Other (auxiliary equipment, etc.):0000Total Equipment Cost--base:70,672 165,401 165,395 196,691' ' ' --escalated:128,090 299,780 299,770 356,492Purchased Equipment Cost ($):138,337 323,763 323,752 385,012Total Capital Investment ($):172,921 404,703 404,690 481,264=========== ============= ================ ============= =======================================ANNUAL COST INPUTSOperating factor (hr/yr):8000800080008000BRHBREPRCombined HBRAND EPROperating labor rate ($/hr):22.5022.50 22.50 22.50Maintenance labor rate ($/hr):24.7524.75 24.75 24.75Operating labor factor (hr/sh):0.50.50.50.5Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh):0.50.50.50.5Electricity price ($/kwh):0.0590.059 0.059 0.059Natural gas price ($/mscf):8.008.008.008.00Annual interest rate (fraction):0.070.070.070.07Control system life (years):15151515Capital recovery factor:0.1098 0.1098 0.1098 0.1098Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:0.040.040.040.04Pressure drop (in. w.c.):5.119.019.019.0ANNUAL COSTSItemCost ($/yr) Cost ($/yr)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Operating labor11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250Supervisory labor1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688Maintenance labor12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Maintenance materials12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Natural gas21,665 164,366 162,472 326,042Electricity1,665 6,309 6,308 12,617Overhead22,613 22,613 22,613 22,613Taxes, insurance, administrative6,917 16,188 16,188 19,251Capital recovery18,986 44,434 44,433 52,840------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Annual Cost109,533 291,598 289,700 471,049[1] Original equipment costs reflect this date.[2] VAPCCI = Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Index (for thermalincinerators) corresponding to year and quarter shown. Originalequipment cost, purchased equipment cost, and total capital investmenthave been escalated to this data via the VAPCCI and control equipment vendor data.TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--GAS ABSORBERS [1]COST BASE DATE: Third Quarter 1991 [2]VAPCCI (Third Quarter 2003): [3]116.9 116.9 116.9 116.9CE Plant Index Nov 2003403.8 403.8 403.8 403.8CE Plant Index Jan 2010532.9 532.9 532.9 532.9ModelsBR HBR EPR HBR & EPRINPUT PARAMETERS:Stream parameters:Process gas flow, scf/s 59.51 60.13 60.12 120.24-- Process operating hours, hr/yr 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000-- Inlet waste gas temperature (oF): 1600 547 547 547-- Inlet waste gas pressure (atm.):1111-- Pollutant in waste gas: Hydrogen chloride (HCl)HCl emissions, tpy 30.09 76.8 19.77 96.57-- HCl emissions, lb/yr 60,180 153,600 39,540 193,140-- HCl concentration, ppmv 370 936 241 588-- HCl molecular weight 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5-- Waste gas molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 28.85 28.85 28.85 28.85-- Solvent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 18 18 18 18-- Inlet waste gas flowrate (acfm): 13,930 6,877 6,876 13,752-- Inlet gas poll. conc., yi (mole fraction): 0.000370398 0.000935644 0.000240888 0.000588307-- Pollutant removal efficiency (fraction): 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99-- Solvent: Aqueous caustic soda-- Inlet pollutant conc. in solvent:0000-- Inlet waste gas density (lb/ft3): 0.0192 0.0393 0.0393 0.0393-- Solvent density (lb/ft3): 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4-- Solvent specific gravity:1111-- Waste gas viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044-- Solvent viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16-- Minimum wetting rate (ft2/hr): 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3-- Pollutant diffusivity in air (ft2/hr): 0.725 0.725 0.725 0.725-- Pollutant diffusivity in solvent (ft2/hr): 0.000102 0.000102 0.000102 0.000102Packing parameters:-- Packing type: ceramic Raschig rings2" dia 2" dia 2" dia 2" dia-- Packing factor, Fp:65656565-- Packing constant, alpha:3.823.823.823.82-- Packing constant, beta:0.410.410.410.41-- Packing constant, gamma:0.450.450.450.45-- Packing constant, phi:0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125-- Packing constant, b:0.220.220.220.22-- Packing constant, c:0.240.240.240.24-- Packing constant, j:0.170.170.170.17-- Surface area-to-volume ratio, a (ft2/ft3):28282828-- Packing cost ($/ft3):20202020DESIGN PARAMETERS:-- Material of construction (see list below):[4]1111-- Inlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yi):3.705352E-04 9.365202E-04 2.409462E-04 5.886530E-04-- Outlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yo):0.0000037 0.0000094 0.0000024 0.0000059-- Out. eq. poll. conc. in solv., Xo* (op. line):0.1060.1060.0900.090-- Theoretical operating line slope (Ls/Gs,min.):0.0035 0.0087 0.0027 0.0065-- Ls/Gs adjustment factor:1.51.51.51.5-- Actual operating line slope (Ls/Gs, act.):0.0052 0.0131 0.0040 0.0097-- Gas flowrate, Gs (free basis, lb-moles/hr):5565615611122-- Solvent flowrate, Ls (free basis, lb-mol/hr):2.887.362.2310.90-- Gas flowrate, Gmol,i (lb-moles/hr):5565625611123-- Solvent flowrate, Lmol,i (lb-moles/hr):2.887.362.2310.90-- Outlet actual pollutant conc. in solv., Xo:0.0707 0.0707 0.0600 0.0600-- Gas poll. conc. in eq. with Xo (Yo*):0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100-- Outlet solv. poll. conc. (mol frac basis,xo):0.0660 0.0660 0.0566 0.0566-- Gas poll. conc., yo* (mole fract. basis):0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100-- Outlet gas poll. conc., yo (mole fract.):0.0000037 0.0000094 0.0000024 0.0000059-- Slope of equilibrium line (m):0.00151 0.00151 0.00177 0.00177-- Absorption factor (AF)--first calculation:3.438.662.255.50-- ABSCISSA (column diameter calculation):0.00006 0.00021 0.00006 0.00015-- ORDINATE (column diameter calculation):0.2061 0.2061 0.2061 0.2061-- Superficial gas flowrate, Gsfr,i (lb/sec-ft2)0.3534 0.5056 0.5056 0.5056-- Flooding factor, f:0.70.70.70.7-- Column cross-sectional area, A (ft2):17.9965 12.703212.7125.41-- Superficial liq flowrate (lb/hr-ft2) (Lsfr,i):2.8810.433.167.72-- Minimum liquid flowrate (lb/hr-ft2):2,2712,2712,2712,271-- If Superficial liquid flowrate is < minimumneeded, the minimum must be used to calculatetower area and diameter (iteratively):-- guess A iteratively until the two69 108 108 108ORDINATE values below agree, ft2-- recalculate Lmol,i 8,707 13,628 13,628 13,628-- calculate ABSCISSA for Fig. 9.5 0.17138 0.37982 0.37987 0.18993-- calculate Gsfr,i from Eq. 9-21 0.0922 0.0595 0.0595 0.1190-- calculate ORDINATE for Fig. 9.5 using 0.0140 0.0029 0.0029 0.0114eq. 9.54-- calculate ORDINATE from eq. 9-19 0.0975 0.0544 0.0544 0.0912-- Absorption factor--based on min liq flowrate-- Xo 7.58E-11 1.21E-10 3.12E-11 3.81E-11-- xo 7.58E-11 1.21E-10 3.12E-11 3.81E-11-- AF infinity infinity infinity infinity-- Values to use in subsequent calculations-- Lsfr,i 2,271 2,271 2,271 2,271-- A 69 108 108 108-- Gsfr,i 0.0922 0.0595 0.0595 0.1190-- AF infinity infinity infinity infinity-- Column diameter, D (ft): 9.4 11.7 11.7 11.7-- Number of transfer units, Ntu: 4.605 4.604 4.605 4.605-- Gas film transfer coefficient, Hg (ft): 1.959 1.144 1.144 1.520-- Liquid film transfer coefficient, Hl (ft): 1.064 1.064 1.064 1.064-- Height of a transfer unit (ft): 1.959 1.144 1.144 1.520-- Packing depth (ft): 9.019 5.268 5.269 7.000-- Column total height (ft): 25.00 22.15 22.15 24.57-- Column surface area (ft2): 874.1 1031.9 1031.9 1121.2-- Column gas pressure drop (in. w.c./ft packing): 0.067 0.014 0.014 0.054-- Column liquid pressure drop (ft of H2O): 60 60 60 60-- Packing volume (ft3): 622.32 568.96 569.0 756.0CAPITAL COSTS:Equipment costs ($):-- Gas absorber 100,519 118,665 118,668 128,936-- Pump (assumes $16/gpm) 5,011 7,844 7,844 7,844-- Packing 12,446 11,379 11,380 15,120-- Total (base) 117,977 137,887 137,891 151,900' (escalated)191,217 223,489 223,495 246,200Purchased Equipment Cost ($): 225,636 263,717 263,725 290,516Total Capital Investment ($): 496,400 580,177 580,194 639,136======================================================= ============ ============ ============ANNUAL COST INPUTS:Operating factor (hr/yr): 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Operating labor rate ($/hr): 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 24.75 24.75 24.75 24.75Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Electricity price ($/kWhr): 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059Caustic price ($/ton): 300 300 300 300Solvent (water) price ($/1000 gal): 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Wastewater trtmt cost ($/1000 gal): 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80Overhead rate (fraction): 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07Control system life (years): 15 15 15 15Capital recovery factor (system): 0.1098 0.1098 0.1098 0.1098Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04ANNUAL COSTS:Item Cost ($/yr) Cost ($/yr) Cost ($/yr) Cost ($/yr)------------------------------------------------------------Operating labor0000Supervisory labor0000Maintenance labor 12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Maintenance materials 12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Electricity 1,283 477 478 1,290Caustic 10,076 25,718 6,620 32,339Solvent (water) 23 59 15 74Wastewater treatment 439 1,120 288 1,409Overhead 14,850 14,850 14,850 14,850Taxes, insurance, administrative 19,856 23,207 23,208 25,565Capital recovery 54,502 63,700 63,702 70,174-------------------------------------------------Total Annual Cost 125,779 153,882 133,912 170,451ATTACHMENT 2

COST DETAILS FOR BACK

- END PROCESS VENT CONTROLSTOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--THERMAL INCINERATORSCOST BASE DATE: April 1988 [1]VAPCCI (Third Quarter 2003--FINAL): [2]109.8 109.8 109.8 109.8 109.8CE Plant Index Nov 2003403.8 403.8 403.8 403.8 403.8CE Plant Index Jan 2010532.9 532.9 532.9 532.9 532.9Butyl HalobutylEpichlorohydrinNeoprene NBRINPUT PARAMETERSOrganic emission, tpy 26.19 34.67 35.97 23.112 1.74Process gas flow, scf/s 213.0 454.0 309.0 1466.0 3561.0-- Operating hours, hr/yr 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000-- Air molecular weight 29 29 29 29 29-- HAP in emission stream hexane hexane toluenechloroprene/toluene1,3-Butadiene/Acrylonitrile-- HAP molecular weight 86.2 86.2 92.13 91.1 53.5-- HAP emission rate, lb/yr 52,380 69,340 71,940 46,224 3,480lb/hr 6.55 8.67 8.99 5.78 0.44-- Other VOC emission rate, lb/yr0000 0lb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-- VOC molecular weight 100 100 100 100 100-- HAP heating value, Btu/lb 19,391 19,391 17,601 17,601 19,236-- VOC heating value, Btu/lb0000 0-- HAP concentration, ppmv 38 24 34 5 0-- VOC concentration, ppmv0000 0-- Air flow rate, lb/hr 57,757123,10883,788397,532965,632-- Oxygen content of gas stream, %20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90 20.90-- Reference temperature (oF):77 77 77 77 77-- Inlet gas temperature (oF):95 95 95 95 95-- Vent gas flowrate (scfm):13,01627,74418,88389,586217,610acfm 13,45328,67419,51692,589224,904-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf):0.0715 0.0715 0.0715 0.0715 0.0715-- HAP LEL, ppmv 11,000 125,000 11,000 11,000 11,000-- Other VOC LEL, ppmv (assumed)0000 0-- Mixture LEL, ppmv 11,000 125,000 11,000 11,000 11,000-- Dilution air for combustion, scfm 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000-- Dilution air for safety, scfm 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000-- Total gas flow to incinerator, scfm 13,01627,74418,88389,586217,610Butyl HalobutylEpichlorohydrinNeoprene NBR-- Primary heat recovery (fraction):0.000.700.700.700.70-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf):0.160.100.140.020.00-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb):2.201.371.890.260.01-- Gas heat capacity (BTU/lb-oF):0.255 0.255 0.255 0.2550.255-- Combustion temperature (oF):16001600160016001600-- Preheat temperature (oF):951149114911491149Temperature of flue gas, F1600547547547547-- Fuel heat of combustion (BTU/lb):21502 21502 21502 2150221502-- Fuel density (lb/ft3):0.0408 0.0408 0.0408 0.04080.0408DESIGN PARAMETERS-- Auxiliary Fuel Reqrmnt (lb/min):0.8405 14.3929 9.7624 46.8135 113.8957(scfm):20.601 352.767 239.275 1147.391 2791.561(scf/yr)9,888,518 169,328,023 114,852,012 550,747,516 1,339,949,075-- Total Gas Flowrate (scfm):13,03728,09619,12290,733220,401CAPITAL COSTSEquipment Costs ($): (For 500 scfm to 50,000 scfm)-- Incinerator:@ 0 % heat recovery:95,8750000@ 35 % heat recovery:0000 0@ 50 % heat recovery:0000 0@ 70 % heat recovery:0 276,311 250,968 370,405 462,422-- Other (auxiliary equipment, etc.):0000 0Total Equipment Cost--base:95,875 276,311 250,968 370,405 462,422' ' ' --escalated:173,770 500,799 454,867 671,341 838,117Purchased Equipment Cost ($):187,671 590,943 491,257 792,182 988,979Total Capital Investment ($):234,589 951,419 614,071 1,275,414 1,592,255=========== ============ ================ ============= =====================================================ANNUAL COST INPUTSOperating factor (hr/yr):80008000800080008000Operating labor rate ($/hr):22.50 22.50 22.50 22.5022.50Maintenance labor rate ($/hr):24.75 24.75 24.75 24.7524.75Operating labor factor (hr/sh):0.50.50.50.50.5Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh):0.50.50.50.50.5Butyl HalobutylEpichlorohydrinNeoprene NBRElectricity price ($/kwh):0.059 0.059 0.059 0.0590.059Natural gas price ($/mscf):8.008.008.008.008.00Annual interest rate (fraction):0.070.070.070.070.07Control system life (years):1515151515Capital recovery factor:0.1098 0.1098 0.1098 0.10980.1098Taxes, insurance, admin. factor:0.040.040.040.040.04Pressure drop (in. w.c.):5.119.019.019.019.0ANNUAL COSTSItemCost ($/yr) Cost ($/yr)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Operating labor11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250Supervisory labor1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688 1,688Maintenance labor12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Maintenance materials12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375 12,375Natural gas79,108 1,354,624 918,816 4,405,980 10,719,593Electricity6,080 49,137 33,442 158,683 385,458Overhead22,613 22,613 22,613 22,613 22,613Taxes, insurance, administrative9,384 38,057 24,563 51,017 63,690Capital recovery25,757 104,461 67,422 140,034 174,821--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Annual Cost180,628 1,606,579 1,104,543 4,816,013 11,403,862Emission Reduction (tpy) 25.7 34.0 35.3 22.6 1.7Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) $7,038 $47,285 $31,334 $212,630 $6,687,697[1] Original equipment costs reflect this date.[2] VAPCCI = Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Index (for thermalincinerators) corresponding to year and quarter shown. Originalequipment cost, purchased equipment cost, and total capital investmenthave been escalated to this data via the VAPCCI and control equipment vendor data.