(I

APPENDIX
F. ERRATA
FOR
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
FOR PROPOSED
NEWSOURCEPERFORMANCE
STANDARDS:

VOLUME
1, MAIN
TEXT(APTD-1352a)
Page

Paragraph

Line

no.

no~

no.

Correction
INTRODUCTION

Last word of line

should be "no" instead

Of "not"

Table 1

Thefirst numberin the secondcolumn

(Attowableemission rate) should be
"0.30"

Instead

of "0.03"

Change"all" to "these"

Change"a\l" to "these"

PETROLEUM
REFINERIES,
FLUID
CATALYTIC
CRACKING
UNITS

19

Change
"three"
to "four"

19

19

21

Change
"average"to "averaged"

Change
"three"
to "two"
Change"three" to "four"

PETROLEUM
REFINERIESI
BURNING
OF GASEOUS
FUELS

25

Insert a period after "releases"

and delete "or to the burningof

liquid or solid fuels in the same

heaters

26

27

27

7-8

and bolters.

Thenunber
"13"
should
be"10"
Thenumber"13" shouldbe "10"

Insert a periodafter "disposat"

and delete "by incineration or

landfill.

28

28

1
1

thange
"dlrcernlble')
r0Udfsce*n(bla"
The nMber "13" shouldbe H'10"

143

AQt0-1S~26

'BACKGROUND
INfORMATION
I, FORPROPOSED
NEWSOURCE
1 PERFORMANC~ STANDARDSr

IspboltCoecrete
Plaits

StoragiVIIIII~

Brorr
or Bronzo
110o~
Produclioi
Plool
Iron and Stool Plants

PntrolnnIIl

Rnfinnrini

Sncondarl Load SIIInltnrl and RntinnrCnI

IIIIIS~WOg'
~r~ltl~ltPloil~

Vololo1, MAIN
TEXI

i~;s;vi~3r~ar,c~srt~al

)
1

U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONAGENCV

Officeof Air ond Water Progrom~

Officl
ofAirQuality
Planning
andStandards
Relearch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Juno
1973

ProtE:-:i;n
Agen
FEBls19-19
LIBRAKY

~ ul(t9 apA

.I
The APTD(Air Pollution TechnicalData) seriesof reports is issuedby the Officeof Air Quality
Planningand Standards,Office of Air and WaterPrograms,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,to

report technicaldata of interestto a limitednumberof readers.Copiesof APTDreportsare

availablefree of charge to Federal employees,current contractors and grantees,and nonprofit

organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be

obtained,for a nominalcost, from the NationalTechnicalInformationService,5285Port Royal

Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.

Publication

No.

APTD-1352

(I

'

BIBLIOGRAPHIC
DATA i. ReponNo.

SHEET

3. Recipient'sAccessionNo.

APTD-1352a

4. Ti~le

5- Report Dale

Subtitle BACKGROUND
INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED NEW SOURCE

PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS:
AsphaltConcrete
Plants,Petroleum
Ref
eries,

Storage Vessels

june'1973

Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries,

Brass or Bronze Ingot

Production

7. Author(s)

SewageTreatment Plants: Volumei, Main

P1

Iron and Steel

Plants

8. ~~fo'mi"s
Organiration
Rept.

9. Performing
Organization
NameandAddress
U.S.

Environmental
Air

Protection

Office

of

Office

of Air Quality

Research

and

Tri_an

Water
e

110.Project/TasL/~orL
UnitNo:

Agency

11. Contract/Giant

No.

Programs

Planning

and Standards

Park

12Sponsoring
Organization
Name
andAddress

13.~Yo~ecr~:
Report
a Period
14.

IS. Supplementary

Notes

16. AbsrractsThiS document provides background information

on the derivation
of.the propos
second group of new source performance standards
and their economic impact on the construction
and operation
of asphalt concrete plants,
petroleum refineries,
storage vesse
secondary lead smelters and refineries,
brass or bronze ingot production
plants,
iron

and steel

plants,

Yironmental

typical

of well controlled

determine
tors,

these

levels,

maintenance

considered.
cause

extensive

practices,

reductions

and

Document

Analysis.

plants

170.

investigations

test

of the effects
margins

Information

is also provided on the en-

The standards

and' attainable

on-site

available

of profit

plants.

the standards.

existing

Economic analyses

undue

17. Key ~ords

Air

and sewage treatment

impact of imposing

data,

and the

require

at a level

technology.

were conducted,

and design

character

of the standards

or reductions

control

with existing

of emissions

indicate

in growth

they will

To
fac

were

not

rates.

Ilcscriprors

Pollution

Pollution

control

* Performance
standards
~ Asphalt
concrete
plants
"

Petroleum

"

Lead

k Steel
production
* Sewage
treatment

refineries
smelters

and

refineries

* Brass
ingot
production
~ Bronze
ingot
production
k Iron
production
17b. Idenriliers/Opcn-Ended

* Air

pollution

Terms

control

175. COSATI Flrld/Croup

18.Availability Statement
Unlimited

19. Security Class (This

Report)
Security

Class

(This

21. No. of Pages

61
22.

Price

PagUe~C:
I.A-SSIFIED
FORM NTIS-35

IREY. 3-7P)

USCOHU-Dc

14911-P72

NATIONAL
AIRPOLIXTTION
CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

Chairman

Mr.

Donald

F.

Waiters

Office of Air and Water Programs

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research

Triangle

Mr. John W. Blantdn, General

Manager

Park,

N. C.

27711

Mr. Charles M. Heinen

Executive Engineer

AdvancedTechnologyPrograms

Materials Engineering

General

Box 1118, Dept.

Dept.

Mail

Electric

Drop

Evendale,

E206

- Jimson

Ohio

45213

Mr. Charles

Division

Pollution
of St.

Road

M. Copley, Jr.

Commissioner,
City

Company

of Air

Chrysler Corporation

Highland Park,
Mr.
William
Chief,
Bureau

Control

New Jersey

Trujillo

Cruz-Perez

#750,

Alto,

Mr. Arthur
Air Pollution

~P. O.

Round

Hill

Puerto

Rico

00926

R. Dammkoehler
Control
Officer

PudgetSoundAir PollutionControl
Agency

410 W. Harrison Street

Seattle,
Mr.

Washington

George

Acting

48231

Pollution

State

Bureau

of Air

Department of Environmental
Protec

Amapola

Munroe
of Air

Pollution Control

St. Louis, Missouri 63103

Rafael

Michigan

Control

Louis

Room 419 City Hall

Mr.

5000

98119

Box

Trenton,

Dr.

tion

1390

New Jersey

Robert

Coordinator

W.

08625

Scott

for Conservation

Technology

Esso Research & Engineering

Co,
P. O. Box 215

Linden, New Jersey

07036

P. Ferreri

Director

Bureau of Air Quality Con~ol

Maryland State Dept. of Health~

andMentalHygiene

610N. HowardStreet,

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Dr.

R.

S.

Sholtes

Envi r onmen tal .Engine e r

Environmental
Engineering
Inc.

2324Southwest34thStreet

Gainesville, Florida 32601

Mr. W. M. Smith
Director,

Mr. Benjamin F. Wake

Environmental

Con~rol

NationalSteel Corpbration

Dr.

Aaron

West Virginia
J,

Teller,

Environmental

Sciences Division

Box 431, Room 159, General

'Weirton,

Administrator,

Office

26062

Montana State Dept, of Health

and Environmental

Sciences

Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana
59601

President

Teller Environmental Systems, Inc.

Dr. Ruth F. Weiner

2955th Avenue

Chairman, Dept. of Physical

New York, N, Y.

10016

Sciences

Florida

Mr. A. J, von Frank

Director,
Air and Water
Control

international

Tamiami

Trail

Miami,

Florida

University

33144

Pollution
Mr.

Raymond

L. Wiggins

Allied Chemical Corporation

Manager, Systems Development

P.O. Box 1057R

Morristown,
New Jersey

Auto-Trol Corporation
Arvada, Colorado 80002

07960

FEDERAL AGENCY LIAISON COMMIT~E~E

Mr.

Donald

F.

Waiters

Office of Air and Water Programs

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research

Triangle

Park,

N. C.

27711

DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Theodore C. Byerly

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Assistant Director of Science and

Education
Office of the Secretary

Mr, Ralph E. Cushman

Special Assistant
Office of Administration

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Aeronautics and Space

Washington,

D.C.

DEPARTMENT

Dr.

James

20250

OF

Admini s tr ation

COMMERCE

R. McNesby

Room A361, Materials Building

National Bureau of Standards

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Washington,

Dr.

D.C.

20234

O. W.

Program

DEPAR TMENT OF TREASURY

Mr.

Gerard

Brannon

Director, Office of Tax Analysis

Department of the Treasury

FEDERAL

POWER

for

Structural

of Mathematical

and

Physical Sciences
National

15th and Pennsylvania

Ave.,
Washington,
D.C.
20220 .

Director

Che mi s try
Division

Room 4217 MT

Adams

Science

Foundation

1800G Street, N.W.

N.W.

Washington,

D,C.

20550

COMMISSION

Mr. T.A. Philips

TENNESSEE
VALLEYAUTHORITY

Chief,
Federal

Dr.
F. E. Gartrell
Director
of Environmental

Room

Bureau
Power

of Power
Commission

3011

and Development

411 G Strekt, N. w.
Washington,

D.C.

Tennessee Valley Authority

20426

715 Edney Building

Chattanooga,

GENERAL

Research

Tennessee

37401

SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION
Mr.

Harold

Director,

J.

Pavel

Repair & Improvement

Division

Dr.

Public Building Service

General

Services

Administration

9th and D Street, S. W.

Washington,

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

D.C.

Martin

B. Biles

Director, Division of Operational

Safety

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

..Washington,

D,C.

20545

VETERANS

Mr.

ADMINISTRATION

Gerald

Director

M. Hollander,

of Architecture

P.E.
and

Harvey

OF

A. Falk,

Commander,

Engineering
Office

DEPARTMENT

DEFENSE

Jr.

USN

Office of the Assistant

of Construction

Secretary

of Defense

Veterans
Administration
Room 619 Lafayette
Building
811 Vermont
Avenue,
N. W.
Washington,
D. C. 20-220

Washington,

D. C.

20301

AIR FORCE ENVIRONMENTAL

OUALITY OFFICE
Colonel

Herbert

E.

Bell

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Hq. USAF (PREV)

Mr. Waiter Kiechel, Jr.

Land and Natural Resources

Room 5E425, Pentagon

Washington, D. C. 20330

Department
Room

Div.

of Justice

2139

10th and Constitution

Washington,

Avenue,

D. C.

N. W.

20530

DEPARTMENT

Mr.

OF

Robert

Deputy

D.

mental

Bureau

of Labor

Standards

Department
Room
400

of Labor

401,
Ist

Railway

Street,

Washington,
POSTAL

Mr.

Labor

Building

N.W.

D.

C.

20210

SERVICE

Robert

Assistant

Richard

H.

Powell

Community
Planning
and Management
Department
of Housing
and Urban
Development
451 7th Street,
S. W.
Washington,
D. C.
20410

U. S. Postal
Room 4419
1100 LStreet

Service

Washington,

D. .C.

Mr.

Manager

OF

Deputy Assistant

INTERIOR

Secretary

Minerals
and Energy
Policy
Department
of Interior
Washington,
D. C. 202PO

20260
EDUCATION,

OF

Dr.

TRANSPORTATION

Development

Technology
Department
of Transportation
400 7th Street,
S. W.
Washington,
D. C. 20591

Ian

Special

Dr. Richard
L. Strombotne
Office of the Assistant
Secretary

for Systems

THE

Har ry Moffet

DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT

and Environ-

Standards

DEPARTMENT

Program

Brown

Deputy Director
Office of Community

LABOR

Gidel

Director,

AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr.

DEPARTMENT

OF HOUSING

and

A.

OF

HEALTH,

AND

WE LFARE

Mitchell

Assistant

to the Assistant

Secretary
for Health and
Scientific
Affairs

Department

of Health,

Education,

and Welfare
Room 5620N, North HEW Building
330 Independence
Avenue,
S. W.
Washington,
D. C. 20201

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Section

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

"""""'~~...........

LIST
OFTABLES......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ xi

ABSTRACT

"""""""":....

xii

CONVERSIONFACTORS,BRITISHTO
METRIC

UNITS

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .........

xii

INTRODUCT~ON

SpecialNote ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '''''''...........'

General
Considk;a;ior;s'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '..............''''
: '''''''''''''

ur;vc~lv~llltrlL

rroceaures

' ' ' ' . ' ' '.....

' ' ' ' ' '..

Useof AlternativeMethods

2
2

' ' ' ' '' ' ' ',. 3

Waiver
of Compliance
Test ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ...........

'' 3

"""""""'....

Comparisons with State and Local Regulations

Environmental
Impact
Economic
Impact
' ' ' ' ' ''''''''~'''''

' ' ' ' ......

.........''''''.

4
S

Provisions
forStartup,
Shu;down:anh'
~' ' ' ' ' ' ...................
''*'''''''''''''

....

Abbreviatidn~
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''''''..........'''
Definitions

5
.......

' ' ' ' ' ' ''....

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '''''''.....'''''''

"""""""""""..........
""""""'~~~~.........
Equipment
"""';""""'......

Code Methods

Control

"""""...

ComplianceTestingand Instrumentation

Nomenclature

......

""""""""....

Limits in Terms of Concentration

Malfunction

' ' ' '....7

5
7
7
8

TECHNICALREPORTNO, 6 - ASPHALT
CONCRETE PLANTS

Summary
ofProposed
StHnda;ds
' '"""""'..........
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..,...........,..
Emissionsfrom AsphaitConcretePlants

Rationale for Proposed Standards

"'.......

""""'......10
vii

' 9g
9

Section

Page

Environmental Impact of Proposed Standards ~~~~.~...................13

Economic
Impactof ProposedStandards

13

""""'""""

Referencesfor TechnicalReportNo.6
ReferencesCited

15

~""""""""""'

15

~~~"""""""""'

Supplemental
References

15

"'"""""""

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 7 - PETROLEUM

REFINERIES, FLUID CATALYTIC

CRACKING
UNITS ~~~"""""""
Summary of Proposed Standards

17
17

"""'""""""

Standardsfor Particulates
Standardfor CarbonMonoxide

17
17

"""""'"""""""
"""""""""""

Emissions
fromPetroleumRefineries
Rationale for Proposed Standards

ParticulatkMatter
Carbon

Monoxide

17

""""""'"""""

19

""""""""""""

19

"""""""""""""

............

Environmental Impact of Proposed Standards ~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,~~~,,.....22

Economic Impact of Proposed Standards

ReferencesforTechnicalReportNo. 7

21
22

"""""""""""

23

"""""""""'

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 8 - PE'TROLEUM

REFINERIES,
BURNING
OF GASEOUS
FUELS
Summary of Proposed Standard

25

~""""""'~"'

25

""""""""""""

Emissionsfrom PetroleumRefineries

25

"""""""""'"""""

Rationalefor ProposedStandards
Environmental
Impactof ProposedStandard
EconomicImpactof ProposedStandards.........
-""""""""""

""""""""""'

26
27
. 28

Refe;encesforTechnical Report No. 8 ..............

TECHNICAL

REPORT

28

NO. 9 - STORAGE

VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS .........

.` .. 31

Summaryof ProposedStandards .............

31
HydrocarbonEmissionsfromStorageTanks ................
.. 31
Rationalefor ProposedStandards ..........
, 34
EnvironmentalImpact of ProposedStandards ..........
35

EconomicImpactof ProposedStandards

35

""""""""'""""

Referencesfor TechnicalReport No. 9 .............

TECHNICAL

REPORT

NO.

36

10 - SECONDARY

LEAD SMELTERS hND REFINERIES

...................

....

Summaryof ProposedStandards ...................

Standards

for Particulate

Matter

from

Blast and ReverberatoryFurnaces ...................

Standards

for Particulate

Matter

37

.. 37
.. 37

from

Pot Furnac~s ...................

Emissions from Lead Furnaces ...................
viii

..........
........

37
37

Section

Page
Rationale for Proposed Standards
"""""""""40
Particulate Matter from.Blast and
Reverberatory Furnaces

Particulate Matter from Pot

Furnaces"""""""""40
"""""'.41

EnvironmentalImpact of ProposedStandards
Economic Impact of Proposed Standards

Referencesfor TechnicalReport No. 10

"""...41

"""'r......41
"""".....42

TECHNICALREPORTNO. 11 - SECONDARY

BRASSOR BRONZEINGOTPRODU~IONPL.4NTS"~.....45
Summary of Proposed Standards
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Standards for Particulates from
Reverberatory Furnaces
Standard for Particulates from""""""'......45
Electric and Blast Furnaces

Emissionsfrom SecondaryBrassand

.........

45

"""'..:......45

Bronze Furnaces
''''''''''''''''''

Rationale for Proposed Standards

Particulate Matter from

.....

45

""""""......46

ReverberatoryFurnaces
......~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Particulate Matter from Blast and

. 46

Electric Furnaces
"""""""""..47
Environmental
Impactof Proposed
Standards

Economic
Impactof Proposed
Standards

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........

References
forTechnical
ReportNo.
11 '....' ' ' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '':'' '....' ' ' .........

47

' 48
48

TECHNICAL
REPORTNO, 12- IRONAND
STEEL PLANTS

SummaryofPropdskc;
Standards
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ...................

"'49

"""""'~I...49

EmissionsfromBasicOxygenProcessFurnaces
Rationalefor ProposedStandards
' ' ' ' ' ' - 49
""""""""'..51
Environmental
Impactof ProposedStandards

Economic
ImpactofProposed
Standards ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .............
References
forTechnical
ReportNo.12 """"""......55
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ............

54
54

TECHNICAL
REPORTNO,13- SEWAGE
TRn~TMENT PLANTS

""""""~~~........57
Summaryof ProposedStandards
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Emissionsfrom SludgeIncinerators'
Rationalefor ProposedStandards """"'........57

. '.

........

Environmental
Impact
ofProposed'S;a~dr;ds'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ...............

Economic
ImpactofProposed
Standards ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .............
References
forTechnical
ReportNo.
13 '""""'~.....61
' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .............
References

57

58

60
60

Cited

"""""""""......61
Supplemented References

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

....

61

LIST

OF

FIGURES

Figure

Page

1
2

Uncontrolled Hot-mix Asphalt Concrete Plant ,,,.,,,,,,......,,.

Controlled flot-mixAsphalt
Concrete Plant ,,,,,.,,,,,...,.,,,

Particulate Emissions from Asphalt Concrete Plants,

Combined Dryer and Scavenger Exhausts ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit

with Control System
,.,.,.,.,.,,,,,,.,.

6
7
8

9
10
11

14
15

9
10

.,..,,

11

,..,,,......

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Regenerator

with Carbon

Monoxide

Electrostatic

Precipitator

Boiler

and

..,.

,: ,,,,,,.,,...,...,..

..

Particulate Emissions from Petroleum Refineries,

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units ,,,,,.,,.,,...,....
Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Petroleum Refineries,
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units ,,.,,,,,.,,,..,.,
Petroleum Refinery Process Gas System ,.,,,,,,,.,.,,.,,,.

~ ....

20

,.,.........
.........

21
26

,,,,,.
,.,.,.,...
,,,.,....

,,,,....

Covered Floating-roof Storage Vessel

with Internal FloatingCover
.,..,,,,,,...,,,,,.
Seals for Floating-roof Storage Vessels ,,,,,,.,,.,,,.,.,,.
Storage Vessel Vapor Recovery System ...................

~ ~ ~ 18

,,,.........

Petroleum Refinery Process Gas Treating Unit ,,,,.,,.,,.,,.,.,,.

Fixed-roof (Cone-roof) Storage Vessel ...................
Single-deck Floating-roof Storage Vessel ,,,,,,.,,,.,..,,...

12 Double-deck Floating-roof Storage Vessel .,,....,,,.,,..,,..

13

.,,,.,
..,,,,,

27
32
32

32

...~~~~~~~~~~33
,,........
33
,,....
~ ~ ~ ~ 34

16 Secondary Lead Smelter Process ,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,..

....

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 38

Afterburner and Baghouse ...................

....
18 Controlled Lead Reverberatory Furnade, Baghouse .,..,..,.....,,,...
19 Controlled LeadPot andVentilation System, Baghouse ,,,,,,,,,,.........
20 Particulate Emissions from Secondary Lead

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ 38
,,. 39
39

17

Controlled Lead Blast Furnace,

Smelters and Refineries, Blast and

21
22

Reverberatory Furnaces ,,.,.,,,,,....,....

.....
Controlled Secondary Brass and Bronze Furnaces ,,,,.,,..,,,,,,,..,
Particulate Emissions from Secondary Brass and Bronze

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 40
.,..
46

Ingot ProductionIndustry, Reverberatoryand

Blast Furnaces

23
24

47

""""""~"""'"~""""""""'

Iron and Steel Process System ,.,.,,,,,,.........

Controlled Basic Oxygen Furnace, Open Hood with
Scrubber or Electrostatic Precipitator ,,..,.,,..,........

...

~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 49
.......

~ 51

Figure

25

Page
Controlled Basic Oxygen Furnace, Closed Hood
with Scrubber

'......51

26 ParticulateEmissionsfrom Iron and Steel Industry,

BasicOxygenProcessFurnaces
27 ControlledMultiple-hearth
Furnace,Scrubber
28 ControlledFluidized
BedReactor,Scrubber,..,......

52
58
~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ . 58

"""""""""""""""

""""""""""""'

29

Particulate Emissions from Sewage Treatment Plant,

SludgeIncinerator............~~~~~~~

LIST

. ~ ~. . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ ~. . 59

OF TABLES

Tabl~

Page

1 Representative
DatafromProcessWeightCurve
.....
2

Summary of Cost Estimates

Control Costs for Typical

AsphaltConcretePlants

5
6

. . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . 4

""""".....

ControlCosts
forCatalyticCracking
Units,..,..,.

"""""""""""

14

. . ~~. . ~~~~. . ~. . . . . ~23

Control Costs for PetroleumStorageTanks ......36

Control Costs of MeetingPerformanceStandard for
Typical Secondary Lead Plants

""'~~~......42

Control Costsof MeetingPerformanceStandardfor

Control Costs of MeetingPerformanceStandard for

Typical New Two-vessel Basic OxygenProcessFurnaces .,,,,,..
, , ~ ~ ~ , , ~ 55
Control Cost for TypicalSewageSludgeIncinerator ......~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ 61

Reverberatory Furnaces

"""'...48

xi '

ABSTRACT

This document provides background

information

on the derivation of the proposed second

group of new source performance standards and their economic impact on the construction and
operation of asphalt concrete plants, petroleum refineries,.storage vessels, secondary lead smelters
and refineries, brass or bronze ingot production plants, iron and steel plants, and sewage
treatment plants.- Information is also provided on the environmental impact of imposing the
standards

on new

installations.

The standards developed require control at a level typical of well controlled existing plants and
attainable with existing technology. To determine these levels, extensive on-site investigations were

conducted,
anddesignfa~tors,maintenance

practices,

available

test data,

and the character

of

stack emissions were considered. Economic analyses of the effects of the proposed standards
indicate that they will not cause undue reductions of profit margins or reductions in growth rates
in the

affected

industries.

CONVERSION
BRITISH

Multiply

UNITS

By

barrels

1.59

cubic feet

2.83

degrees Fahrenheit
gallons

FACTORS

TO METRIC

To obtain

x 10~'
x 10

-2

5/9

cubic

meters

cubic

meters

degrees Celsius (centigrade)

3.79 x 10~3

10 -5

cubic meters

grains

6.48 x

inchesof watert

2.49x 102

pounds

4.54 x 10~1

kilograms

poundspersquareinch.
squarefeet
tons(short,2,000pounds)
longtons(2,240pounds)

6.89x 103
9.29x 10'2
9.07x 102
1.02x 103

newtonspersquaremeter
squaremeters
kilograms
kilograms

kilograms

newtonspersquaremeter

cTo obtain Celsius(centigrade)temperaturesIt,) from Fahrenheit

temperatures(tf),usethe formula:te = (tf 32)1.8.

tnnultiplymillimeters
of mercuryby 1.33 x 102to obtainnewtonsper
square

meter.

xii

BACKGROUND INFORl~rIATION
FOR
NEW

SOURCE

PROPOSED

PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

INTRODUCTION

This documentprovidesbackgroundinformationon the derivationof the proposedsecond

group of new source performance standards and their economic impact on the construction and
operation of asphalt concrete plants, petroleum refineries, storage vessels, secondary lead smelters,
and bronze ingot production plants, iron and steel plants, and sewage treatment plants. The
regulation for the proposed standards, published in the Federal Register under Title 40 CFR Part
60, is being distributed

concurrently

with this document.

The information

presented

herein was

prepared for the purpose of facilitating review and comment by owners and operators of affected
facilities, environmentalists, and other concerned parties prior to promulgation of the standards.
Information concerning the source categories is provided in Technical Reports 6through 13. In
the case of petroleum refineries, there are reports covering two affected facilities--catalyst
regenerators and gaseous fuel burning. Technical Reports 1 through 5 were published in 1971 with
the first group of new source performance

standards.

The performance standards were developed after consultation with plant owners and operators,
appropriate advisory committees, trade associations, equipment designers, independent experts,
'and Federal departments and agencies. Review meetings were held with the Federal Agency
Liaison Committee and the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee. The
proposed standards reflect consideration of comments provided by these committees and by other

individuals having knowledge regarding the control of pollution from the subject source categories.
The National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee consists of 16 persons who
are knowledgeable concerning air quality, air pollution sources, and technology for the control of
air pollutants. The membership includes State and local control officials, industrial
representatives, and engineering consultants. Members are appointed by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). pursuant to Section 117(d), (e), and (f) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1970, Public Law 91-604. In addition, persons with expertise in the respective
source categories participated in the meeting of the Advisory Committee.

The Federal Agency Liaison Committee includes persons with knowledge of air pollution control
practices as they affect Federal facilities and the nation's commerce. The committee is composed
of representatives of 19 Federal agencies.
The promulgation of standards of performance for new stationary sources under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act does not prevent State or local jurisdictions from adopting more stringent
emission limitations for these same sources. In heavily polluted areas, more restrictive standards,
including a complete ban on construction, may be necessary in order to achieve National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Section 116 of the Act provides specific authorization to States and other
political
SPECIAL

subdivisions

to enact

such standards

and limitations.

NOTE

Subsequent to the development of this document, the Environmental Protection Agency

adopted apolicy of expressing standards in the metric rather than the English system. Consistent
with the proposed standards, emission limits are listed herein in metric units, but English

equivalentsare also provided.Due to the complexitiesinvolvedin recalculatingtest results, data in

this document have not been converted from the English to the metric system. A table of conversion

factors is presented in the preliminary pages, however.,To allow comparison with test data, the
standards are frequently referenced it! terms of English units.
GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed second group of new source standards includes emission limits for particulates
(including visible emissions), as well as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. In
addition, revisions have been incorporated into the General Provisions that were published with
the first group of standards under Title 40 CFR 60. Methods for determining compliance with
particulate and sulfur dioxide limits are published in the Appendix of 40 CFR 60. Methods for

measuring carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide are.published with the proposed standards.
Development Procedures
The procedures used to develop the standards were similar for all source categories. In every case,
a screening process was followed to appraise existing technology and to determine the locations of

well controlled sources. Extensive on-site investigations were conducted to identify sources that
appeared to be the best controlled and amenable to stack testing. Design features, maintenance
practices, available test data, and the character

of stack emissions were considered.

Where

particulate emissions were contemplated, appreciable weight was given to the opacity of stack
gases. In most instances, the facilities chosen for testing were those that exhibited little or not
visible emissions and had a sufficient length of straight ductwork downstream of the collector to
obtain representative source samples.
Observations of stack gases during the screening process and during stack tests furnished the
basis for the proposed visible emission limits. For most of the six particulate standards, several

sitesthat met the proposedvisibleemissionlimitswereidentified.Massemissionsfrommanyof

them could not be measured because the stack configurations precluded accurate testing. Those
sources that met the proposed mass particulate limits also met the visible emission limits. Thus,
visible emissions in excess of the proposed limits indicate that the mass particulate standards are
also being exceeded.
Condensed water vapor is not considered a visible emission for purposes for this regulation.
Where the presence ofuncombined water is the only reason for failure to meet the standards, such
emissions

shall

not

be considered

a violation.

This volume contains sufficient data from the tests conducted to support the discussions.
Detailed test data are given in Volume 2 of this documerit, which was prepared in a limited edition
but is available to those who need the data. The second volume can be obtained

from the Emission

Standards and EngineeringDivision,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,ResearchTriangle Park,

North

Carolina

27711, Attention:

Limits

in Terms

of Concentration

Mr. Don R. Goodwin.

Most of the emission limits included in this group of standards are being proposed in terms of
pollutant concentration. Particulate limits, for example, are being proposed in terms of milligrams

per normal cubic meter of undiluted exhaust gases. This is a deviation Fromthe first group of
performancestandards, whereinmost of the limits were promulgatedin terms of mass per unit of
production, feedstock, or fuel input. The change to concentration units is a result of discussions
with control officials, representatives of affected industries, and others knowledgeable in the field.
Its purpose is to facilitate compliance testing and enforcement of new source performance
standards. Establishing standards in this form obviates the need to determine such things as
production rates and burning rates, which often cannot be ascertained with the same degree of
accuracy as can the pollutant concentration. In some future standards, a pollutant concentration
limit may not be feasible, and other types of standards may be used.
In proposing concentration limits, it is implicit that compliance cannot be achieved by merely
diluting exhaust gases with ambient air. Emission limits are to be achieved through the application

of process changes or remedial equipment that will limit the discharge of pollutants to the

atmosphere. The concentrationlimits proposed in these regulations will apply to exhaust gas
streams as they are discharged from control equipment. If there is any dilution prior to
measurement, suitable corrections will be made in determining compliance. Provisions have been

incorporated in each standard that preclude dilution as a means of achieving the standard.
The provisions regarding circumvention by dilution, for example, 60.94(c),apply equally to mass
limits and visible emission limits. Where dilution gases are added downstream of air pollution
control devices, owners or operators will be required to demonstrate that the visible emissions
would not constitute a violation of the standard if they were not diluted.

Compliance Testing and Instrumentation

Aswiththefirstgroupofnewsourceperformance
standards,
particulate
limitsintheproposed
regulation
are
based
on
material
collected
in
the
probe
and
filter
of
the
EPA
sampling
train(see
"Test Methods" section). Impingers,as describedin the originalproposalfor Group 1 source
categories
(40CFR60),maybeutilized;
however,
thematerialcollected
in the impingers
is not
consideredparticulatefor purposesof the proposedregulations.

Emissions
of hydrocarbons
fromstoragevesselsfor petroleumliquidswillnot be measured
established
in termsof emissionlimitations
that can be accomplished
with readily available and standardized
directly. This standard is

controlequipment,i.e.,floating-roof
tanks,vaporrecovery

systems, and conservation vents. The standard specifiesthat these devicesor any other device

equally effective for hydrocarbon control shall be utilized.The actualemissionsfromany specific

storage vessel can be determined

industry.

by utilizingsuitableempiricalrelationships
developed
by the

While the limits for refinery fue1

gasesare designedto preventthe releaseof sulfurdioxide,it is

~pected that, in essentiallyall cases, compliance

willbe determined
by analyzing
the hydrogen

sulfidecontentofthe fuelgasesbeforetheyare burned.

The carbon monoxide measurement technique
is basedon an instrumentalmethodof analyses
of exhaust gases. Instruments specifiedin theproposed
regulations
or instruments
of essentially
the sametype maybe utilizedto satisfythis requirement. Owners and operators of petroleum

catalyst regenerators may monitor eithercarbonmonoxide

or twoothersignificant
parameters,

oxygen content and temperature.

If theycanshowbymonitoring
thatthereis sufficient
oxygenin
monoxide
monitoring will not be required.

thegasstreamto provide
thenecessary
degreeofcarbonmonoxide
combustion
at the firebox
temperature,

carbon

In addition to instruments for the measurement of carbon monoxide and the sulfur content of

fuel, instruments

will be

required,wherefeasible,to measureemissions
directlyor indirectly.

Instruments for recordingvisibleemissionswill be required for two source categoriesfor which

particulate limits are proposed.
Use of Alternative

Test Methods

Aprovisioi~
hasbeenaddedwhereby
theAdministrator
mayacceptperformance
testsconducted

with alternativemethodsthat are not entirelyequivalentto the referencemethodbut are suf-

ficiently
reliable
thattheymaybeusedforcertainapplications.
Forexample,
an alternative
test
method
thatdoesnbtrequire
traversing
duringsampling
forparticulate
mattermaybeapproved
if
suchmethod
includes
a suitable
correction
factordesigned
toaccount
fortheerrorthatmayresult
from failing to traverse,or if it can be demonstratedin a specificcase that failure to traversedoes
notaffecttheaccuracy
ofthetest.Similarly,
useofanin-stack
filterforparticulate
sampling
may
beapprovable
as an alternative
methodif themethodotherwise
employs
provisions
designed
to

resultin precisionsimilarto the compliancemethod,and a suitablecorrectionfactoris includedto

accountforvariationbetweenresultsexpecteddue to filterlocation.In caseswheredetermination
of complianceusing an alternativemethod is disputed, use of the referencemethod or its
equivalent shall be required by the Administrator.

Waiver of Compliance Test

A provision has been added whereby the Administrator

may waive the requirement

for

compliance testing if the owner or operator provides other evidence that the facility is being
operated in compliance with the standard. Evidence of compliance may be in the form of: tests of

similar installations and measurement of significant design and operating parameters; observations of visible emissions; evaluation of fuels, raw materials, and products; and other equally
pertinent information. The Administrator will reserve the authority to require testing of facilities
at such intervals as he deems appropriate under Section 114 of the Act.

Comparisonswith State and Local Regulations

In this backgrounddocument,the proposednewsourceperformancestandardsfrequentlyare

comparedto existingState and local regulations.Processweightregulationsare commonly
employedby many State and local jurisdictions to limit particulate emissionsfrom a variety of
industrial sources. In this type of regulation, allowable particulate release is based on the size of

the source.Thelimit,however,variesfromstateto state.Consequently,

a referenceprocessweight
curveis used for comparisonpurposes.The referencecurvewas publishedas part of an EPA
regulationon the preparationof Stateimplementation
plans(40CFT51);its limitationsare given
in Table

1.

Table 1. REPRESENTATIVE

DATA FROM PROCESS WEIGHT CURVE

Allowable

Process weight rate,

Ib/hr

emission rate,
Ib/hr

50
100
500
1.000
5.000
10.000
20,000
60,000
&0.000
120.000
160.000
200.000

.1

400,000

0.03
0.55
1.53
2.25
6.34
9.73
14.99
29.60
31.19
33.28
34.85
36.11

40.35

1.000.000

46.72

Emissions,
E, forprocessweights
upto 60,000
Ib/hrnotcorresponding
to thepointsgivenin

Table 1 can be interpolatedby the equation:

E= 3.59 p0.62
where

(1)

E= emissions,

Ib/hr

P 7 process weight, Ib/hr

Forprocessweights
above60,000Ib/hr,interpolation
andextrapolation
arebasedontheequation:
E= 17.31 p0.'6

(2)

Environmental Impact

All of the proposed stan~ards have the effect of reducing emissionsof air pollutants to the
atmosphere. They may also cause an increase in the generation of solid wastes and in some
instances produce liquid wastes.
Six of the standards require control of particulate matter that thereby becomes a potential solid
waste. Nonetheless, it is significant that all six source categories are required by existing State and

local regulations to control particulates to some degree. The effect of the proposed standards is to
require the installation of higher efficiency dust collectors and thus to increase the quantity of
collected solids. In no case is a new type of solid waste created. Some of these collected particulates, e.g., those from secondary lead furnaces and many asphalt concrete plants, can be recycled
back to the system. In others, such as steel furnaces and sludge incinerators, the material m~!st be
disposed of, usually in landfills. None of the materials collected from these facilities are of such
nature that they cannot be successfully handled by landfill.
It is expected that most of the devices installed to meet the proposed standards will collect the
material in the dry state. Dry collection is advantageous because (1) it greatly reduces the possibility of water pollution and (2) the collected material is more likely to be acceptable for recycle to
the process. Dry dust collectors are feasible with all six source categories, but scrubbers are more
likely to be utilized for basic oxygen process steel furnaces (BOPF) and sewage sludge incinerators.

In addition, some owners and operators of asphalt concrete plants and seconda'ry lead smelters
may choose to utilize wet scrubbing systems rather than dry dust collectors. Since wet scrubbers
have been used extensively in the steel industry and for asphalt concrete plants and sewage sludge
incinerators, techniques ate available for recycle of water and for acceptable disposal of solid
wastes. The proposed standards will not require the use of any solid waste or water treatment
; practices that are not already utilized to a wide degree. It may increase the complexity and cost of
liquid and solids handling because of the greater quantities of particulate collected.

The proposed standards also require the collection of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds.
There are no potential adverse effects of the hydrocarbon storage regulation since all hydrocarbons
are retained as product or recycled to petroleum refineries.
Sulfur compounds are recovered assalable by-products, usually elemental sulfur or sulfuric

acid. The most common process generates a liquid waste for which acceptable disposal methods
are available. The process has been in use for many years in the petroleum and natural gas
industry.

Economic Impact
For each of the designated source categories, information is provided on the expected economic

impact of the standard on the industry. Capital and annualizedcosts (includingoperating costs)
have been estimated. In addition, the incrementalcosts of air pollution control on the typical
product have been determined. A summary of pertinent cost items for typical affected source
categories is provided in Table 2.

Provisions for Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Independent of this proposal, the Administrator published on May 2, 1973, a proposed amendment to 40 CFR 60, Subpart A--General Provisions, whereby consideration will be given to conditions that may cause emissions to exceed new source standards during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Tt~e new provisions are tentative pending a review of the comments and
promulgation

of the resulting provision.

NOMENCLATURE

The following lists of abbreviations, definitions, test methods, and control equipment should
help clarify the terms used in the background document text and graphs.

Table 2. SUMMARY
Propsed

standard

OF COST ESTIMATES

Basis for cost analysis

Estimated cost

Typical

Affected

industry

facility

Performance

standard

Asphalt

Entire

70mg/hlm3

concrete

facility

(particulater)

plants

facility

Control

Investment

Annuli

lire

equipment

cert. S

cert. S/yr

150tons/hr

Fabricfilter

impact"

63.000 1

18.000 1 S0.18lton
of

5~.000 1

21.000 1 X).1S/ton of

92.000

26.000

95.000

36.000 1 SO.lelton of

or venturi

product

I scrubber

product

300 tonr/hr

Fabric filter

SO. 12lton of

or venturi

product

scrubber

Petroleum FCC

50mg~m3

refineries

(particulates)

catalyst
regenerator

20.000
bbl/day( Precipitator
I

I
65.000 bbl/dav

product

700.000 150.0001 SO.OZZmbl

of

I
Precipitator

1.150.000

I
)

225.000

I fresh feed
1 SO.O10mbl of
fresh

feed

0.050 volume %b
(carbon
monoxide)

Hydrocarbon
storage

vessels

Units

230mg/Nm3

burning
process

of fuel gas
(hydrogen

gas

sulfide)

Storage
tanks

Require a
floating
roof tank d

80.000 bbl

Floating-roof
tank

27.000
(incremental)
over a fixed

3.800

Gasoline(S11.1001yrle
Jet naptha-

roof)

s1.O00/yr
Crude

Secondary Furnace

50mg/r?m3

5~ton/day

Fabric
filter

lead

(particulates)

reverberatory

or venturi

emissions

furnace

I scrubber

oil-

(S5.200/yr)

188.100

50.6001 S1.65/ton
of

125.200

35.600

1 82.85/ton of

156.600

50.600

1 S4.05/ton of
I product
1 8.38/ion of
product

product
product

~Oton/day
blast
furnace

Brassand

Furnace

50mg/Nm3

bronze

emissions

(particulates)

Ironand

Basic

50mgCNm3

steel

oxygen
furnace

(particulater)

50ton/day

Fabric filter
Or venturl
I
scrubber plus
afterburner

Fabricfilter

140tonslmelt Open-hood

I
123.200

79.700

110.000

20.070

1 S4.Otlton

5.720.000 1.946.000

of

product

scrubbing
Precipitator

5.880.000

1.492.000 1 S1.17 to S1.67/

Closed-hood

6.760.000

2.139.000

7.400.000

2.139.000

8.000.000
8.400.000

2.025.000
2.791.000

ton of steel

scrubbing

250 tonr/melt

Open-hood
scrubbing

Precipitator
Closed-hood

1 %0.89 to 11.22/
1 ton of steel

scrubbing

Sewage

Sludg

70mg/Nm3

treatment

incinerator

(particulates)

10ton./day~

Venturi

60.000

11.700

1 SO.12/person/yr

scrubber flow
energy)

aErtimated
product
pricer:(IIarphalt
concrete-se/ton.
(2)brarrandbron2e-tl100toStla)lton.131ironandrteel-t?P/tonIprice
of
finished steel products for a typical mill product mix). (4) secondary lead-SjlO/ton.
bCarbon monoxide boilers have an attractive economic payout. and. as a result. most new units would be built with such boilers even
without

the proposed

standards.

Clrir commonly
accepted
andnecerrary
practice
to treatthe variourRfinerygarandliquidrtreamrforproduct
qualiDI
control.
Consequently.
thereis a 2 to 5 percentincreasein investment
costbut no discernable
difference
in operating
costsbetweencurrent
industry practice and the requirements for new source standards.

dFloatinoroof
tanksare requiredfor storageof liquidswith vapor pressuresbetween1.52 and 11.1 psia.Storageof liquidswith vapor
pressures above 11.1 psia requirer use of recovery or equivalent.

eFigurer
rhown
arenetcmtrandinclude
a creditforrecovered
materialr.
Figurer
inparentherir
indicate
a ravingr.

Abbreviations

acf - actual cubic feet; volume of gas at stack conditions

acfm
bbl

dscf
dscfm
"F

- actual cubic feet per minute

- barrels

- dry standard cubic feet

- dry standard cubic feet per minute
- degrees Fahrenheit

ft2 - square feet

gal

- gallons

glNm3 - grams per normal cubic meter

gr

- grains

hr

hours

Ib

- pounds

min

minutes

ou

odor

units

ppm

- parts per million by volume

psia

- pounds per square inch absolute

scf

_ standard

cubic feet

scfm _ standard cubic feet per minute

..

.Definitions

Front half

- Material captured in probe and filter of EPA train (see test method 2).

Back half

Also called "dry filterable particulate."

- Material captured in the impinger portion

of the EPA train. Also called

"condensables."

Total EPA train

Average
Code

- Front half plus back half catch (see test method

- Arithmetic average of the individual runs.

i).

Methods

The following code methods are referred to by number in the technical reports:

i. EPA train with impingers-isokinetic sampling and traversing of the stack, with analysis of
the probe washings, f~lter catch, impinger washings, organic extraction, and impinger water.
2. EPA method 5 las described in the December 23, 1971, Federal RegisterrIsokinetic sampling
and traversing of the stack; analysis includes only probe washings and filter catch (also called

"front-half catch," "solids," or "dry filterable particulates").

3. Same as code method 1 except that sampling is conducted at a point of average velocity.

r1

4. Sameas code method2 exceptthat samplingis conductedat a point of averagevelocity.

5. Isokinetic sampling at point of average velocity with impingers (two containing distilled water,

one ary) followedby Whatman* paper thimble.Gas-meterupstream of pump. Result includes

material collected on the filter and in the impingers (soluble and insoluble) except sulfuric acid
bihydrate.

6. Alundumthimble packedwith glasswoolfollowedby a Gelmantype A filter. Both thimble and

filter inside stack during test.
7. San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District Regulation 2 method--Particulate

collectedby glass tubes filled with wool located in stack. Gas velocitypredetermined by
separate pitot tube and assumed constant throughout test. Samples collected at two to three of
the points of measured velocity during each test.
*Mention of commercial products or company names does not constitute endorsement
Environmental Protection Agency.

by the

8. EPAequipment,includingimpingers,
is used,but probeandimpingeracetonewashings
are
combined. Results include washi~gs and filter catch and are therefore higher than those of
code method 2 (filter catch and probe washings only).
9. Adjusted EPA train with impinger results-Data obtained using code method 1 was adjusted

by multiplyingit by the averagevalue of the ratio of code method 2 to code method 1 for two
secondary lead blast furnaces.

10. Alundum thimble in stack, packed with glass wool and followed by impingers. Impinger liquid
is filtered and filtrate is included as particulate. Probe is washed and material in washings is
included as particulate.
11. Nondirect

infrared

1(F-Determination

test for carbon

monoxide--Will

appearintheFedeml
Register
asMetho~

of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources.

12. Cadmium salt test for hydrogen sulfide--Will appear in the ~ederal Register as Method 11Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Stationary Sources.

13. Samplesevacuatedby air ejector through an in-stack alundum thimble and four impingers
(two containing distilled water). Result consists of material from filter and soluble and
insoluble

material

collected

in impingers.

14. Samples using impingers followed by a Gelman type A glass fiber filter. Result includes filter
and impinger catches.
Control Equipment
Listed below are symbols used in the background document for various types of control devices.
If more than one are used, the order of the letters indicates the arrangement of the control devices,
starting with the one farthest upstream.
s-

scrubber

v-

venturi

be-

baghouse
electrostatic precipitator

a-

afterburner

scrubber

h-

open hood

gc-

closed hood
cyclone

m-

p-

carbon

monoxide

plate scrubber

boiler

TECHNICAL

PETROLEUM
SUMMARY

REFINERIES,

OF PROPOSED

REPORT

NO.

7-

FLUID CATALYTIC

CRACKING UNITS

STANDARDS

Proposed standards of performance for petroleum refineries will limit emissions of particulates

(including visible emissions) and carbon monoxide from new or modified catalyst regenerators on
fluid catalytic cracking units.
Standards

for

Particulates

The proposed standards will limit particulate emissions to the atmosphere as follows:

1. No morethan 50 mglNm3(undiluted),or 0.022gr/dscf.

2. No more than 20 percent opacity except for 3 minutes in any I hour.
The proposed visible emission standard

is compatible

with the mass emission limit; if

particulateemissionsare at or below50 mg~m3, visibleemissionswillbe below20 percent

opacity.
Standard

for Carbon

Monoxide

The proposed standard will limit carbon monoxide emissions to no more than 0.050 percent by
volume, dry basis.

The proposed carbon monoxide standard can be met by incineration. The most common device

is an incineratorlwaste heat boiler, which is normally fired with refinery fuel gas. In the units
tested, only gas was used to supplement

the combustion

of carbon monoxide.

Fuel oil can be used

as the auxiliary fuel, but greater concentrations of particulate would be expected. No emissions
data are available for well controlled units using fuel oil.
The availability of refinery fuel gas and boiler maintenance considerations minimize the use of
fuel oil. For these reasons provisions added to the regulations allow the particulate matter
generated by firing fuel oil to be subtracted from the total particulate matter measured by the
compliance test method. Owners and operators will be required to meet the visible emission
standard regardless of the type of auxiliary fuels burned.
EMISSIONS

FROM PETROLEUM

REFINERIES

An uncontr~lled fluid catalytic cracking unit can release over 300 Ib/hr of catalyst dust.3 Such
installations are equipped only with internal centrifugal dust collectors, which primarily serve to
recycle the catalyst. The proposed standards will require owners and operators of new facilities to
reduce the level of particulate emissions about 93 percent below the level of an uncontrolled unit.

In addition, an uncontrolledunit can release over 15 pounds of carbon monoxideper barrel of

petroleumfeedstockprocessed.4
For a unit processing40,000barrelsper day (bbl/day),about 20
tons/hr of carbon monoxidewould be released.The proposed standard will require owners and
operators of new facilities to reduce carbon monoxide emissions 99.5 percent below those of an
uncontrolled

unit.

At many modern petroleumrefineries,an electrostaticprecipitatoris used to control dust from

the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator. A waste heat boiler fired with auxiliary fuel is

used to controlcarbon monoxidefrom the units (seeFigures4 and 5).

The reference process weight regulation (Table 1) is less stringent than the proposed standard
for units of a practical size (less than 150,000 bbl/day). The most stringent State or local
regulations restrict emissions to 30 Ib/hr.

WET GAS

ELECTROSTATIC

STACK

CARBON PRECIPITATOR

RAW
GASOLINE
-

IFRACTIONATOR
MONOXIDE
BOILER
REGENERATOR
REACTOR

STEAM~I
LIGHT CYCLE OIL ~-~

( (I II

Lcl

F3~a~ W
I

~tFUE;

I I

DUST

HEAVY CYCLE OIL

AIR

BOTTOMS

FEED

,I

ct-AIR

Figure 4. Petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking unit with control system.
POWERRECOVERY
(OPTIONAL)i ---~~

i ~= = -----

--i i

EMISSIONS

II
,I
I I-=

It
REGENERATOR

"~

I\I

II

II

I'

r-I-- - ---I

UC---I1

II

----

,.

\\
,

\?

ELECTROSTATIC

PRECIPI~P~TOR
STACK

CARBON MONOXIDE
BOILER

Figure 5. Fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerator with carbon monoxide boiler and electrostatic

precipitator.

Newunits will range in size from 10,000to 100,000bbl/day of fresh feed, with gas flow rates
varying from 20,000to 350,000dscfm, respectively.The proposed standard will allow 3 to 60
pounds of particulates per hour. For a typical unit rated at 50,000bbl/day of fresh feed at a gas
flow rate of 150,000 dscfm, the proposed standard will allow an emissions of 25.7 Ib/hr of
r8

particulatematter.Thereferenceprocessweightregulationwilllimitemissionsto 64 Ib/hr based

on a catalyst recirculation rate of 50 tons/min.

State or local regulations are comparable with the EPA-proposed standard for carbon
monoxide,but are generallyframed in differentlanguage.Nonfederalstandards usually require

the combustion of carbon monoxide for 0.3 second at a temperature above 1300"F. The same type

of controlequipmenf
(carbonmonoxide
boilers)is requiredin mostcasesto meetthe proposed
standards. For certain types of catalyst regenerators,the boiler may not be required because the
carbon monoxide is combusted in the regenerator itself. In either case, the proposed standard

requiresa 99.5percentreductionin carbonmonoxideemissionsoveran uncontrolledunit.

unconrrolleu

unlr.

RATIONALE

FOR

PROPOSED

STANDARDS

Preliminary investigations revealed the locations of 17 well controlled cracking units in the
United States. These plants were visited and information was obtained on the type of refinery
process and the control equipment used. Visible emissions at 13 plants were observed to be 20

percent opacity or less. Judgment regarding the feasibility of stack testing was made for each plant.
In this regard, 12 locations were unsatisfactory because the control equipment was judged to be
less than optimum or the physical layout of the equipment made testing unfeasible. One unit'could
not be tested because it was undergoing a turnaround. Stack tests were conducted at four
locations.

Particulate

Matter

The proposed particulate emission limit is based on tests by EPA, local agencies, and plant
operators and data on control efficiencies and emission levels achieved at similar stationary
sources. The control level required by the standard has been demonstrated on only a few catalyst
regenerators. In proposing new standards, much weight has been given to the fact that higher
efficiency particulate collectors could be installed at refineries and the fact that such collectors
have been installed at both smaller and larger particulate sources, for example, basic oxygen steel
furnaces and secondary

lead furnaces.

Of the three catalyst regenerators tested by EPA, all of which were controlled by electrostatic
precipitators, one showed particulate emissions below the proposed standard (Figure 6). Emissions
average 0.014 gr/dscf for three individual runs ranging between 0.011 and 0.016 gr/dscf This unit

was retested by EPA and showed average particulate emissions of 0.022 gr/dscf with three
individual runs ranging between 0.020 and 0.023 gr/dscf. Emission data gathered by the refinery
over a 7-month period of operation (Figure 6) showed average particulate emission of 0.014 gr/dscf

from 14 individuar tests ranging between 0.010 and 0.021 gr/dscf. In addition, emission data
gathered by a second refinery over a 17-month period of operation (Figure 6) showed average
particulate emission of 0.017 gr/dscf from eight individual tests ranging between 0.015 and 0.022
gr/dscf. The refinery test methods were the same in each case. Both refiners employed different
filter media than the EPA method, but neither included impingers.

EPA tests of two units controlled by electrostatic precipitators (Figure 6) average 0.037 gr/dscf
for each'test. Results of a fourth unit were invalid because of a process malfunction during testing.
Results of six tests on four fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerators conducted by a local control

agency3are shownin Figure 6. Emissionsfrom all units were'controlledby electrostaticprecipitators and carbon monoxide waste-heat boilers. Particulate emissions averaged 0.013, 0.017, 0.018,

0.018, and 0.020 gr/dscf, respectively. The test method used is comparable with, although not
identical

to, the EPA method.

Two control equipment designers have stated that they will guarantee particulate emission levels
of about 0.010 gr/dscf. Both of these firms have installed several units on catalyst regenerators.

To determine the level of the proposed standard, further evaluation was made of particulate
collector design. Electrostatic precipitators are the only high--efficiency dust collectors that have
been used with catalyst regenerators. Many of these precipitators are rated at 90 to 95 percent

0.04 ~--

2
CODE METHOD NUMBER
2 - EPA METHOD 5

5 - IMPINGERSPLUS PAPER THIMBLE

6 - ALUNDUM
THIMBtE; GELMAN
"A" FILTER
13 - ALUNDUM
THIMBLEPLUSIMPINGERS
MAXIMUM

0.03

't3

AVERAGE

MINIMUM

EPA

"r

OTHER

e - ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR

a m - CARBONMONOXIDE

BOILER5

lic~sll~i~J~te
S
~i~
o~uf~13
L5~5~

F
o

':

5
CWY

0.01

Al(em)
A2(em)
A3(em) B(me)

C(me) E(em)

Flme)
G(em)H(em)
Item)
Jlme)
K(em)

PLANT(CONTROL
EQUIPMENT)

Figure6. Particulateemissionsfrompetroleumrefineries,fluidcatalyticcrackingunits.
efficiency
foroilrefineryemissions,as comparedwiththe 98to 99+ percentrangeencounteredin
other industries; however, the exit concentrations at refineries are not as low as with some other
sources. For instance,

an electrostatic

precipitator cited in Report No. 12 for iron and steel plants

wasfound to achievea levelof 0.007gr/scf whenappliedto a basic oxygensteel furnace.The

efficiency
of this.precipitator
wasconsiderably
greaterbecausetherewasa muchgreaterinlet

loadingto the precipitatorthan is encounteredwithcatalystregeneratorsat oilrefineries.

Severalparametersaffectthe performanceof an electrostaticprecipitator,and it is not within
the scopeof this documentto discussthem all. Other parametersbeingequal,however,collector
efficiency
tendsto increasewithplatearea.It is significantthat:
I. The electrostatic
precipitatorthat exhibitedthe lowestexitconcentrationduringthe EPAtests
has considerablygreaterplate area (250ft211000acfmof gases)than the other electrostatic
precipitators(175and 190ft211000acfm)tested by EPA.

2.Thepreviously
mentioned
precipitator
serving
a basicoxygen
steelfurnacehasa plateareaof
375 ft2 11000 acfm.
3. Precipitators with collection plate areas from 250 to more than 400 ft2/1000 acfm have been

installedat steelfurnaces,cementkilns,municipalincinerators,and othersources.

Basedontheseconsiderations,
it is concluded
thatexitconcentrations
of0.020gr/dscfcanbe

r achievedwith electrostaticprecipitatorsof the same general design as, but with greater plate area
than, those that have already been installed
by refiners. In addition, it will probably be necessary
that the precipitators be constructed in modulesso that maintenanceand repair operations can be
20

conductedwhilethe unit remainsin service.Catalystregeneratorsfrequentlyare kept on-stream

for 2 yearsor longerwithfLwshutdowns

that wouldallowtimeto Eondtlrtrepairsand
maintenance.

Visible emissions ol less than 20 percent oDacity were observed at ah three of the units tested by

EPA.Ten additionalunits ~creobsened by EPAengineersto havevisibleemissionlevelsthat meet

can be exceeded
theproposed
standard.
Theproposed
standard

for 3 minutes in any I hour to

allowtheblowing
ofsootfromthetubesofthecarbonmonoxide
waste-heat
boiler.
Cubon

Monuxide

In addition to particulate matter, carbon monoxideconcentrations were deternlinerl during the

EPA tests of well controlled cracliing units. The fnur units, each controlled by a carbon rr,onoxide
incineratot:waste heat boiler, siluued carbon molloxide emissions well below the proFosed standard
enli~sions
fromthreetestson twounitsaveraged5, 10.and 25 ooal
~Figute7), r'atbon monoxide
(25 ppm is 0.0025 percent b~ ~~lume).NoIneasurable=ntbonmonoxideemissionsoccurredat the
two remaining units tested.

"

TEST
METHOI;
HU#IBER
11-NDIR

B
J

~f~t~
MhXIIU!.!M

II)

AVERAGE

a - ELECTROSTATIC
P~~CIPITA
m - CARBONMONOXIDF.
BOILER

Il

Al(cm)

A?(eml

B(mcl

C(mc)

D(em)

PLAiiT tCONTROLEQULPMEII)

Figure7. Carbonmonoxida
en;issions
11om
petroleum
relineries,fluidcatalyli~crackingunits.
the use of either an incinerator/waste heat
The proposed carbon mo~loxidestJndard willrequire

boiler or a regenerator that is ~apa~te of the almost completeburning of cat~on and carbon

monoxide
to carbondioxide,i3urningcarbonmanoxide
in the regenerator
tin situ)~is a relatively
recent innovationthat wasdevelopedalongwith improvementsin catalyticcrackingtechtlology,
which significantlyincrease the yield of'gasoline.In recognitionof the more effective use of natural

resources,the standardis heingproposedat a levelthat can be achievedwithin silu combustion

even though incineratoriwaste heat boilers would provide gt.eaterrrductionsin carbon monoxide
em issions.

ENVIRONME NT.4L I~ PACT' OF PROPOSED S'rAh'D.~RDS

The disposal of collected catalyst dust prcst.nts a potential ;Id\erse el?vironnlentaletl'ect, as

wouldthe disposalof scrubberliquor if scrubberswere~lriliteduithtluid catalyticcrackingu~~;t9.

Nevertheless.it is expected 111;1
tlcctrc~jtntic
precipitatorsHillcontinue to be the principal
collection

device

used

in the

n~:lr

t'uturt.

Crq's~alline~cJlite llllolecular sieve)ca!alvsts are Ilowin prcdo~ninantuse in the industry. The

bul* of collected paroculales is carol~st d;st cnused by attrition. It has little catalytic cracking

valueand is stldonirtiurntrdto the crackingsystem.Collectedpaiticulalesincludezeolites,

unburned carbon. tT3ce nlcla1S, \UI1'IIF~olllpOUnd'j,ailiCILtCS,
and alumina, none of H-hich have
appreciable solubility. The usual nict!icH1ofdisposal i, by landfill.
ECOFJ OMIC IM PACT OF PR<)POSEI)

,E'l'l\ N U:1H DS

The grnH~:~in catalytic cracking capacity is e(itinliltttd to be about 685,000 bbl/day of fresh feed

over the next 5-l;carperitd. Currently, ~lb~lu~

80 percent of existingsa~aiitp is operated by
"major" petrolcunt refiners and ~Opercent is operated by "inCcpcndent"

petroleum

ref~ntrs. The

trend in new relinery constr~iction is to install pmressi~lgunits of increased capacity. For th'e
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that about gO pcrrent of new capacity will be tiom

constructionof larl:e165.U00
bbl/da~ of freshfeed)Ilnitsb~ iRemajor re!inersand the remaining
20 percent from constructionot' sm~llunits (20.000hbl~'dayc,t'fresh feed) by the independent
refiners. Over the next 5 years, then, it is estimated that nine iaige units and six small units will be
constructed,or about ~wolarge units and c,nr small unit nnnually.

The costsrequiredto meet the proposedemissionstandardsate propc,ttionntcly

lesson larger
sired units. The investmentcosts for a carbon monoxideboiler and an electrost:tticprecipitator
installedon a bS.000-bbl/d3ylies;h-fecrl
utlit and on a ZO.CKW1bbl~dav
lieshfecdunit range from
about 25to 36 percentof the basicprocessequipmetllinve~tment
cost,resptrcti\elp.
Thi! cost is not
all unproductive investnlent, however.The cost savings generated from steam plodu~iionin the
carbon monoxije boiler more than offset t'lc nnllual cost of the electrostatic prc~ipi~atbrand
carbon monoxide boiler. The \3lucof the streartl to th~ rsfiner depends on his: ;ilt rcate C'uelcost:
and, because the price of natural gas and other l'llclsis:likelyto keep rising, the \alui: of th : stream
produced will increase in the future. l'he carbon Inonuside boiler in~estilent
savings are:
Unit size

Investment

20.000bbl~dav

Si .~00.000

costs and onnual

.4tlrtual sn~ings

S23j.000

65,0(X1
bbl/dav
S3.000,000
S I.~1C
0,000
Becausethe carbon monoYiiieboilerhas an attractiveeconomicpayout,mos. new units could
be built with carbonmonoxideboilersevenwithi.lut.he requirementsof the proposedstandards,

Theincreasein processunitjnvestn;ent
that is nrctss3r~
to installancl~ctrostat:e
prccipitator
on a

65.0CK1-hb!,'day
unit and a 20,000-bbl:day unit, \\ith the carbon monoxide boiler ir;\estmetltcost

includedas basicprocessequipmentcost,ratlgesfromabout6 to S percent.Th~:increasein annual

operating cost ranges from about 6.2 to 9 percent.

The inves,lnentand annualizcdcosts requiredto mett the neu.sourcepc;t~rmu~iie

standard

and the referctlceprocessweight regulation are shownin Tnble 4. These costs ,Ire based on the use
of eiectrostatis precipitators as the particulate control device. The basic units were assumed to
have tw~stage internal cyclones.

22

Table 4. CONTROL COSTS FOR CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS

EQUIPPED WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Annual

Control

Annual

cost

per unit of

Plantsize,

Emission

investment,

cost,

throughput,

bbl/day

standard

$/vr

~/bbl

700.000

150.000

2.2

470,000

110.000

1.6

1.150,000

225.000

1.0

1,050,000

205,000

0.9

20,000

Proposed
performance
standard

0.022 gr/dscf

Reference
process weight
standard

equivalent to
0.09 gr/dscf

65.000

Proposed
performance
standard

0.022 gr/dscf

Reference
process weight
standard

equivalent

to

0.035 gr/dscf

REFERENCES

FOR TECHNICAL

REPORT

NO. 2

i. National Emission Standards Study; A Report to the Congress of the United States by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (Appendix--Vol. I). National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Washington, D.C. March 1970. p. E-54.

2. Control Techniquesfor Carbon MonoxideEmissionsfrom Stationary Sources. National Air

Pollution Control Administration,

Public Health

Service, U.S. Department

of Health,

Education, and Welfare. Washington, D.C. NAPCA Publication No. AP-65. 1970.

3. Murray,R.C., H.E. Chatfield,E.E. Larsson,and M.C. Lawrence.A Report of SourceTests on

Emissions from Catalytic Cracking Unit Regenerators, County of Los Angeles Air Pollution
Control District. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Order
No. 2PO-68-02-332. 1972. 88p.

4. Air Pollution EngineeringManual. Danielson,J.A. led.). National Center for Air Pollution
Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication No. 99-AP-40. 1967. p. 647-649.

23

PETROI,EUM

TECHNICAL

REPORT

REFINERIES,

BUKNING

NO.

81

OF GASEOUS

FUELS

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STAh'DAltn

The proposedstandardof performancefor petroelumrefinerieswilllimitemissionsof sulfur

dioxidefromprocess
heaters,boilers,andwastegasdisposal
systems
that burnprocess
gas

generatedin the rennerg.Theproposedstun:ird doesnotapplyto extraordinary

situations,such
as emergencygas releases,or to the burning of liquid or solid fuels in the same heaters and boilers,

The proposedstandardwilllimitsulfurdioxideemissionsto the atmosphere'fromheaters.

boilers, and flares by specifying

thatthefuelgasburnedshallcontainnomomthan230mgj~lm)
of

hydrogensulfide,or 0.10gr/dscf,unlessresultantcombustiongasesare treatedin a manner

equallyeffective
in preventing
thereleaseofsulfurdioxidetotheatmosphere.
Compliance with the standard is based upon measurementof the hydrogensulfide concentration in the fuel gas or the sulfur dioxideconcentrationin the exit gases,The proposedstandard

iseguivalenttoa sulfurdioxide
con!ent
ofapproximately
20gr/i00scfoffuelgasburned.
Burning
such fuel willresultin a concentration
of 15to 20 ppmof sulturdioxideIn the combustion

prod ucts.

Theregulation
wouldhavetheeffectof requiring
hydrogen
eu!fideremoval
fromall refinery-

generated

fuel gases used to tire new

t~oilersand heaters.The extractedsulfurcompoundscannot

be bu;nedin flares,heaters,or any other sourcesunlessthe controldevicesused(for example,

fl~it:gas scrub4ers) are equally effective as fuel desulfurization.

IF.MISSTO~YS
FROM PETR.OLEUIW
REFINERIES
RefHlery processes, slic'n as distillation and tluid catalytic cracking, produce substantial

quantitiesof "processga~"(Figureb) that m;lycontainmorethar~5 percenthydrogensulfideby

volume.If this untreatedgas is burnedin heaters,boilers,or flares.substantialquantitiesof s;lfur

dioxide will be emitted to the a~nospherc3.

Monoethanolamlne(MEG) and diethanolamine (DEA)

scrubbingunits (Fig~lre9) BT~~idely used to removethe hydrr,gcnsulfidefrom both refinery

process gases and natural gas.' In addition, new processesthat emploS;c~:herscrubbing media are

being appliedto retineryprocessgases.The proposedstandardwillreyuireownersand operators

of new facilities to reduce tile hydrogen sulfide content of refinery-derivedfuel gases to levels that
ate consistent with these te;hn~logies. For most such gases, the proposed limit represents a
reduction of more than 99 per~ent in sulfide levels. For a fuel gas equivalent to methane, the
resultant emission of 16 ppm sulfur dioxide is roughly equivalent to the burning of fuel oil
containing O.M percent sulfur by weight.

Approximately I million tons of sutfur charged to U,S. refineries could not be accounted fc~rin

1970,The majorityof Ihis sulfur was probablyburned and emitted to the atmosphereas sulfur

dioxide. IT all SoUFC'eS

were controlled to the level of the standard, these emissions wuuld be
reduced by 95 percent. (Mo~t ot' the dlf'ference between the 99+ percent mention~ in the
preceriii;gF:'';'O'"ph and 95 percent is the result of losses in conversionof the recovere~gases into
sulfur

or sulfuric

acid.i

At the presenttime,onlyone localregulationrestrictssulfurdioxidtemissionslirom;he I>(lrning

of rctincryprocessgas. Sonle State and local a~encleshave proposedregulationsHithlinlits
rangingfrom 10to ,V]graitlsof hvdroeensulfideper 100set'oCfuel e;lsburned119tu 94 KI;lins
ut'
sulfur dioxide I,er 100 scfl.

C~S

~------~

PRCCL i tAS

I*liP~1~L~;;--E==---=~
IAPTII~

rc-------~

PRC:ESS CISIO.1~INC

SL'LR PROi~SS:II',
Th'LITII11~

nvOkc'rpiAT~R

C1\S
OILS

~Glr)Rp~lOk
81

Cnln~vllC
CRAClluC

i:1S
SI)~PRLSZI"L
t'~:~II-'H.UH'I
I

iauor

li'M)SFC~RIC

ro~E~

jil3;'''HD;fSS CPT
:I P~l~t

I~t D,T,ryC,

YACUUV TOcEA

RESIOUIIV

iRI;DLDISTILL~TtOH

Figure

RATIONALE

8.

oELnvEo !.nnER

Petroleun!

C13

refinery

pi'ocess

gHs system.

FOR PROPOSED STAND!\RD

'ThL proposed sulfur dioxide ital~bard is consislcn~ ~ith :Ilt c;~jl~~hil~r!~~1';1~~11 tlc~i~rll~d ~~11~1
proPerl~ operated amine Lfc~ctitlp unit that i ~icrti re: scrull 1~pical rctillcr~ I,lnc~ls~~a~cl ;il tile

nrodctatepressuresn~1;1:l;,le
,n the tcfi~lery.2'4.i\n:lnrIrc.;lti~l#
rcchll~;log~
i u~ll dtll~l~l~s~l;~tt(1
;lnn has hccn RidclJ u~etl :o rcdure h~ll~lgcn sultid~ r~,nccn~lali~~II~\
itl ~;(s ~rlc;cll~~t(~ li\cl~ Icss
than that rcq~rircd to meet th I,roI"nld st;:i;d;iid.

'fhrce refineries were visited by E~'~ rcprc~scrl~:!ti~cs.

;Inct infi~llll~~ti~l~~
\\a~ c,h~aill~d I,~, the
operation of,lltlihe systems. ~II s\steins ncre .t;~t~d !o be ot,LlotinR \\ it)l cl;:1 c~~l~
cl,llc~r~
1~1
l.;~ri~,ilS~~f'

lessth~~nI ~ grainsol'h~drogcnsllllideper 1~X)

scf. ')iclhatlc~lul~litle
(UFi:liat~dIt~c,~loct~,;lllol;~llline

(MEA) scrubbers are fbund in alniost every U.S. rciinery. ar,rlllulldlctls are cll,n'arcd in Ii~!tul'nl :.is
~~eldsthtougtlout the Cnutltry. Ani!ie Irc3ting i~ Iised to reduce the ~l~dPopc11
siillide C'OrllL'II.It'

n;~ruralp~~s
1(~the I,ipclint.spcci'iLa;;o!Ic\cl(,1'1).25Kr 10()scl. It ~~,tlid
t~e~lit'fic~~ll,
)~~~~~\cr.
:.:

~c~usislcntlv nchiC\C t)ii~ level in;~ rttill:r

2(>

nhci'L` rrcUlitl~c!I,rCssurCs;lr~ I~l\~r1

lh;~n ill Il;l:Llf';lt ~;IS

TED PROCtSS GAP

ACID YIAfE5
ItECEItERATED

ANIIWE

FOU AM1NE
HYDROCE#

SULFIDE,
TO SULFUR
/

RECOVERY

SOUReROCESSCAS

S~RIPP~R

AB30RBER

RATER

AMIRE

Figur~ 9. Fetrol4um refinery process gas treating unit.

fields, sincc;ligher

treating pressures favor hydrogensultide remo\31.'Theretinrr~ gases also

containunsat~~rated
h~drrrlrbonsnot I~sually
~hun;in naturalpas.'lheseunsaturates
tendto
;Ich~erat~ fouling ot' the cln?ine solutions and to reduce scrubbing rt'ticitncy. There ir: no

designoperatingparametersfor an aminetreatingunit
harc~~areor
to
10.
SO,or 100grainsot.hgdrogen
s~~ltidr
per 100scT.2~'
ptocesr gas

discrrr;ible difterel~ce in plant

designed to treat refintrv

Exit gas levelsare appar~ntlvassociptedwith operatingpractices;a standard ey~livalentto 13

grains of hydrogen zulftde per 1(10sct`requires~oc~operatingpracticeand has, therefore,been
chose~~ a; the basis for the standard.

'Theproposed standard is prli'essed in tr*Irisolhydrogensulfide,but can be measuredas either

hvdrugen
sulfideinthefi!-lpasor to!a!sl~lhlt
cl~l~~l~ounds
inslackgases.PCIILIL.S~
gasstreamsalso

c~ntainsnlallamountsof other sulfut compounds.c~hichare n~,tremovedby the aminescrubbi~g

~ystem..l.h~sr:
n~atctials
wc:lld
hein~ladcd
illthr.10131
riultilr
compounds
measured.
ENVIR~NMENT~11.
IWPc\(:rrO)' I~1~(IPOPt~I,
S'I'~Nn ~RD
Due ~othermal and chemical

anlir.t solutions
ciegrndn~ion,

require periodic replacement or

practiceto sellda continuousslipstreamot'

treat~nent.In M~h treating syjtems. It i~rc~mnlcln

caurtics~:dais added and MEAis disassociatedfrom

reclaimer..l.here.
rcgcner;;lor
~owcr.
Asthesaltsonte~tin thereclaimer
complexsails,distitled.and returnedto the
3tl(j
r=ch;trge
the
reclaimer.For a t~pica1200,000
5;~!ts
incre;cses. it is ncCcssarv to pUfB'1t~,C

amine solution to a heated

301110"dsci(,Ipr.n~rus
Kas.ab~,ut
I00(jIb:nlonrh
(It'was~e
saltsmaybe
hbl/.davreftnet?;~,rcKlucjnK
formeu. Water is added to renucr~
Inndtill.

Diethanolnrnine

has a

~he ~i~cc~~itv
I,!.'ialt s)urr~ betbte disposal by incineration or

pc~in;
thanMEAandcannotbe similarly
treated.Usual
highertloiling

t~e solutionis spentand the hydrogensulfidecontentof

practiceis to continueoperatingutlCil
.Ttle
treated gJs reachesundesirablelevels. entiresolutionis then replacedwith fresh solution.In

,Y).(HX)
gallonsof solutioncontaining20 percent
the typic~lrefineryciterlabove.approxin~:,leiv
cc~lr~
plex
salts
wotlld
h~ve
ttl
l,e
rtmoved
rlll~~
Ilally.
C]E~ and It) pcrcrnt
?7

ECC~:rO~llCI~HPACTOF P~OPOS~D STANDGRD

.fl-e;\rmel\tof the \oricsus refnery gas and liquid streamr~~(, control product quality is a

coamonlyacceptedand tlrL~tssarq:
practice.Consultationwithseveralengineeringcompaniesthat
dc,ign ami!:eab\orption~!.~rems.
\hhchare the most commonl~
used controldevices,indicatcs
chat there could t;e n 2 tr, ~ I erL'c~nt
increase in investmmt cost, hut no discernable difference in

operatingcosts,betweena neMplantdesignedto meetthe equivalentof 13grainsof hydrogen

sl!ltideper 100bc'fi\n~ja \le~ 011edesignedto meet100grainsof hydrogensulfideper 100scf
(tppicaicurrentpr;lctice).
'Thrrftl~rc.
thereisa smallincreasein aminetreatingcostre,refinersas a
result of Ihe proyosedstunctard.In addition, increasedoperator effort and atten~ic,nmay be

requiredto r.raintr!iu
theclesipntt?icittncy
of'theprocessduringactualoperation.Beca~~se
thiscost
factor is quite variabledependingon the individualcompany'spresent operating practice and
should be of Ininor con~rqucnct.it has not been quantified. If the retiner chooses to run an

increasedvolumeof gas through an existingamine absorptionsystem,he nlaJ;itlcurcosts in

upgradingthe existingsystem to meet the proposedstandard. Becauseeach system must be
examined individually to deternline the cost of upgrading. no attempt has been made ro give costs
for this type of moditicaticln.

It in the intent of the proposed standard that hydrogen-sulfide-richgases exiting the ~mine

regenerator
bedirectcdr~an appropriatererover?
facility.suchasa Claussulfurplant..lnlediumsize refinery that processescrude oil containing 0.92 weight percent sulfur, the national average In
1968, would have an emission potential of over 100 tons/day of sulfur dioxide (50 tons/day of
sulfur) from the amine reyenerator.'Th~ annualized cost was calculated for a range of Claus plant

sizes. A discontinuity occurs in the cost-capacitycurve at about 10 long tons/day. The reason for
the discontinuity is;that fur plants up to about 10 long tons,'day, less costly prefabricated package
units can be used. L;l~itsyrcxlucing more than 10 long tonsiday are generally freld-erecteci and
considerably

more espenci~-e.

For each size unit. the required sul~'ursales price to break even was calculated, At a sales price of
%20/long ton, the break-even size tilr package Clau~ units is about 5 long runs/day, The plant
investment for a 5ton~-ton'day

package Claus unit is about 690.000 exclusive of possible future

investment for ~antrol of the sult'ur dioxide in the tail gas, The break-even size cat a sult'ur price of
SZ0/long
investment

ton) fclr ficltl-crected Claus units is about

of about

15 long tons/da~,

which represents

an

$3~.000.

No data are prcsrnted

to shou the COStthat refineries would incur if their hydrogen

sulfide

removal systems Here required to nlL'ct the 0.25 gri 100 scf achieved by plants processing natural

gas, There are se\eralreasons Hhvone should not comparenatural gas processingplants with
refineryfuel gas systen~s.~Thenatural gas plant processesgas at a high pressure.witha stable gas
composition, and with ~ow ~e\tlsof impuritiel. ~l~heseconditions allow better hydrogen Eu1Ade

absorption.;~efinervyus is at 1~IMcr
I,ressore~has a variablecomposition,and l;as a varietyof

impurities that red;~r the ahililv of an absorption system to reach the lo~ levels of' hydrogen
sulfde achieved in a nator,~l ~as plant. The rsnnerv gas pressure could be incrc~sed at a high cost,
but other limitation~ wo,l~~l~till I,rrvcnt the nhsorption system fom achieving t~~elow le\cls found
in natural gal; plants,
Cost data ha~e Ilol been de~tll~lped tilr higher pressure absorptio~~ systems, but the small

incremental reduction in hvtlrogen ~~~ltidewould make such a system highly questionable from a
cost-effective point clt'\ic\\.
REFERE~YCE~I FOR TECI1NICAI, Kt~r'OKT NO, 8

i. Kohl, A.L. and F.C. Riesenfeld. Ethanolamines t'or Hydrogen Sulfide and C:lrbotl Dioxide
Removal, In: Cas Purificaricln. Neu~York. McC;rrl~ Hill Company, Inc., !900.

2. Tholn~son,H.I.. privatecotiinlunic~alj0n
to R.K. Uurr,U.S.E~nviranments!
Prtl~ccrion
i~yrnc~.
ResearchTrianglePark, N.C. l'OP, ProczssDivision,DesPlaines.I11.K~!vcnlhet
]~, 1971.

j. Punell, D.t. Private communication to R.K. Purr, U,S, Enviroanental Protection Agency,

ResearchTrianglePark.N.C.Ford.Bacoaa.~dDavisTexas,Garland,Texas.Januay 4. 1912.
4. Mayes,J.R. Private communicationto R.K. Purr, U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
ResearchTrianglePark, N.C.Graff EngineeringCorporation,Dallas,Texas.January6, 1972.

APPENDIX G.

ERRATA FOR

BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
FORPROPOSED
NEWSOURCEPERFORMANCE
STANDARDS:

VOLUME
2, APPENDIX:SUMMARIES
OF'TESTDATA(APTD-1352b)

Page No.

Correction
PETROLEUMREFINERIES
FLUID CATALYTICCRACKINGUNITS

23

Facility C: Delete last sentence (nDuring ...unlt.*) and replace

it with the following: "The electrostatfc precipitator consisted
of two identical parallel precipitators vented to separate stacks.
During the test, a malfunction occurred in one precipitator,
invalidating the particulate test results obtained on stack 8.

Data analyses are thus based on particulate test results obtained

on stack

A."

23

Facility D: On line 5 after "occurred" and before the comna,

insert the phrase "ln the carbon monoxide boiler"

28

Table A-19: Delete reference to footnote b oh nPartlculate

emissions" and add reference to footnote b to the particulate
emission nunbers listed under stack 8. That section of the
table

then

reads

Particulate
Probe and

as

follows:

emissions
filter
catch

grldzcf0.0380
0.1066~
0.0369
0.0589~
0.0552
O.W50~
0.a3670.~02~
gr/acf
Ib/hr

0.0182 0.0499*" 0.0167 0.0282~ 0.0169 0.0213~ 0.0173 0.0331

29.7
Total

85.5'

27.8

49.0'

36.5'

27.4

28.3

57.06

catch

gr/dscf 0.23660.2092~0.21590.1!!6~
0.20BB
0.1115~
0.22W
0.1881b
gr/acf
Ib/hr

28

0.1136 O 0979~ 0.0978 0.0851

162.5

148.

0.1006
162.7

o.oswt153.2
0.1040170.0
Oi43.8'0840U,

Footnote b: Add the phrase "for stack 8."

foo tnote

29

167.8~

184.8

to the end of the

Table A-2O: Add footnote reference to title

as follows:

YCAtALYTIC

CRACKING
FACILITYD, SU)~MARY
Of RESULTSa"

29

Addfootnote belowtable as follows: ""Malfunctionof test

equipment invalidated

particulate

test results.n

PB-229
BA~KC;ROUND
INFORMATION
NEW
SOURCE
PERF
ORMANC
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
PLANTS.

REF~INERIES,
LEAD

STORAGE

SMELTERS

BRONZE
STEEL
VOLUME

AN D

INGOT

FOR
PROPOSED
STANDARDS:
PETROLEUM

VESS~LS,

SECONDARY

REFINERIE~S,

PRODUCTION

PLANTS,
SEWAGE
2, APPENDIX:

660 J

BRASS

PLANTS,

TREATMENT
SUMMARIES

IRON

OR

AND

PLANTS,
OF TEST

DATA

Environmental

Research
June

Protecticn

Triangle

Park,

Agency

North

Carolina

1973

DISTRIBUTEDBY:

G;E~OS
tl~tlo~

TRcARIRRI
IRfRRRRtkRS~nio

~: S. DL~ARTMLWT
OF COMMERCE
5285 Port RoyalRoad, SpringfieldVI. 22~5r

III.LIOGU~~IC

I. Repon

D*l~i

~naLT

APTD-l357b
BACKCROUHD IHFOR~ATI~ti
FOII PROPOSED NEV

SfAHDARDS: Asphalt
Concrete
Plants,
Storage vessels,
Secondary
Lead'Smeltere

erial.

PB

So.

Production

AY~()
~'crlornla*

Plants.

Iran

229

Petroleum
Refirt
and Refineries,
end

Steel

690

June

1973

Plants,

SLvageTrc~ewnr P1nto:
V ~e Z, Appen-IC&~r~~;~l
(kl~i~~n RlpI
Test
Data
(~*ol~rlion

?;~me nJ

U.S. Environmental
nffice
of Air and

AJdrL~)~

Ctfice of Air Quality planning

Research Triangle
Parlr, North
13 Spauinl

I)O. I'rDlcct/TIILlro~CL~!ni~No.

Protection
Agency
Uater
Programs

O~Lnii*ll~n

Slmr

III. Coll~cl,'CIm

No.

and Standards
Carolina
27711

JnJ A~Jlcl*

13. Typr ol Hcpo~~ a Prriod

Coclr~

I~. Bupplcwnluy

Nlca

II. nbli~4su~his

document

provides

background

inf~at7i~on~i~l~-ae~?v~To~i~ffi~-p~~

second group of nev source performance

standards
and their
economic impact on the
atruction
and operation
of asphalt
concrete
plants,
petroleum
refineries,
storage
secondary
and steel

lead
smelters
plants,
and

and
sevsge

refineries,
treatment

vironmental
impact of Fmpoaing the
typical
of vel~ controlled
existing
determine

tors.

these

levels,

maintenance

conidercd.

:ficanomic

on-site

bronse
ingot
production
plants,
'In~arraatian
is also
provided
on

',nvestigations

available

test

of

effects

analyses

or

the

data,
of

vere

and the
the

conducted,

character

standards

and

summaries

cipally

vith

facilities,

of

tests

a Performance

cited

A;ulrlr.

in

matter

indicate

volume

i.

The

end carbon

su~m~arics

monaxide,

are

bur also

they

mill

vere
not

This appendix
concerned

describe

prin

the

of ex.~ust gas streams, and conditions of operation.

17. Ilrr~llFI

standards

* Asphalt concrete
* Petroleum

tests

particulate

characteristics

~~g Irrjr
~nJ Ilorurrnt
Air
pollution
Pollution
control

~ Lead

source

for

design

of emissions

came undue reductions of profit margins or reductions in grovth rates.

praaenta

iron
the en-

standards.
The standards
require
central
at a level
plants
and attainable
vith existing
technology.
To

extensive

practices,

brass
plants.

con-

a Steel

plants

production

a Sevage treatment

refincr~.cs

smelters

end

refineries

a grass
ingot
production
* Bronse
ingot
production
* Iron production
In

Mcmlllrr..Upm-Endcd

a Air

pollution

Trrm

control
I i~~I

!7

NLITIONAI. TECHNICAI
INF(jRMkTII~N SCRVICE
';

Itc.

tOSAfl

'

?.-1..,.

c(

Prld.lCloup

II. Ailbilir~ LlcncnlOL1 regUest from:

Emission StulQardl
and Engineering
Environmental
Protection
Agency
leseachhTrinngle

rolu w~lr ~lr. I1~I

Prls.

n~~:

North

t~.

Division

Carolina

IkmR.

21711

n. sc~urltg c ~,,, iThl.

Rcpon)
1Is. Occurlci~rl~TLI
IF~D

II. So. ot Pq
rfl;-~rice
U~COU-~C

11I~I~1

APID13~1 b

IACKGRO1IND INFORMATIOI1
FOR PROPOSEB NEW SQUtCE

PERFORMANCE
STAWDARDS:

AipLII~ Colc;lltA RIll1I

RAtrA)APRr ~~~il~ri~~

ft~~~~~ VII1AJR

S,roolIIl looJ Ii,lt,r~

111 RoFfooriol

(101 11~ SllAl Pl~~t~

Iorrol, frc~)rii~

)Jail~

Volollo 2, APrtllDIX: fUMMARlfS;OF TIST DAtA

U. S. INVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONAGENCI
Offic~ of Air ond Wof~r Progromr

Ofticoof Air OuolayPlann;ngond Stondord,

Rii~archTriongloPor~,NorthCorolina21111
~une 1973

I cc/

The APTD iAir Pollution

Technical

Deta~ series

of reports

is

issued

by the

Office of Air guality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and later Programs, Environmental Protection
to

a limited

number

of

readers.

Agency, to report technical

Copies

of APT3 reports

are

data of interest
availah~e

free

of charge to Federal employees,current contractors and grantees, and ncn-

profit organizatioas - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical

Information
Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Par~

North Carolina 27711or maybe obtaings, for a nominalcost, from the

National

Technical

Virginia

22151.

Information

Service,

Publication

5255 Port "oyal Road, Springfiel~,

No. APTD-.1352b

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTROt~CfION ..............

.........

HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETEPLANTS ..................

PETROLEUMREFINERIES - F'LUID CATALYTIC CRAC~ING UNITS

SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES

.......

...............

22

31

SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTS .........

42

IRON AHD STEEL MILLS - BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES ........

52

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS

60

ill

........

I KTROWCTION

This appendix
document.

presents

The sumnar!es

particulate

matter

facilities,

characteristics

summaries of source

are concerned

and carbon

monoxide,

of exhaust

tests

principally
but

also

cited

in the

with tests
describe

gas streams,

for

the

and conditions

of operation.

For each source

category,

coding used in the technical

summarizes results

facilities

reports.

are identified

by the same

For example, Table A-16

of the December 1971 test of petroleum refinery

catalytfecradingFdc~;ity
A. The~e
resu:tsare alseplottedas
Bar Al in Figure .3 of the Technical Report IJurnber
7.. In this case,
the bar represents

the range of the two valid

results.

Table A-17

su~na~izesa secondtest, A2,conductedin FebruHry1972at the same

facility.

Most of the tests

reference

test

were conducted,

surnmarixed herein wera conducted using the

methods of 40 C~R 60.

additional

measurements

Wherever partit

te tests

were made to evaluate

materials that condense and collect in impingers as the gases are

cooled to 700F. In the surmaries, the "probe and filter
the particulate

that relates

catch" is

to the standard and the EPAreference

method (Method~ of 40 CFR60 as published December23, 1971).

The "total catch" includes the probe and filter catch, plus :Mterial
collected in the impingers using the particulate method as deszribed
in 36 FR 15704, published on August 17, i971.

Yhere
particulale
testingwasperfonrduslnO
ne5hods
otherthan
thosecited above,the method
is notedunder"Fscl!lty"In the
discussion
andalsPin the appropriate
table. ~odetest methods
are
listed in the 'Intraductian* of the main ter.c.

PEfROLEUII REFINERIES
FL~~I! CATALrTfC tRACKIWG UNITS

PARfICUU\TE

TEST

RESULTS

Stack tests were carried out at four fluid catalytic cracking

(FCC) units located in diffe~ent
installation,

At each

carbon manoxide emissions were controlled

of an incinerator
particulate

petroleum refineries.

waste heat boiler

by the use

(ca~on monoxide ballet)

matter by ~3~euse of an electrostatic

and

precipltdtor.

EtCluer,t gases were salplcd after they had parsed through both
contror devices.

At one of the sites

tested by EPA, particulate

emissions also were measured by refinery

Personnel.

Siw other

units were tested by a local agency and one by a refinery.

Facilities:

A.

FCCunit of about SS,000-bbllday capacity,

electrostatic
bailer.

precipitator

fables

conducted

followed by a carbon m~naxfde

A-16 and A-17 s~mnarite

In December 1971 and February

results

of tests

1972.

Unit had

been onstream about six months and eight ~nths,

respectively,

following

source

the last

data were supplied

These

B.

equipped with an

were

determined

major turnaround.
by the retlneiy
usina

Additional
and are

Code Method

Ilted

test

in Table A-21.

6.

FCCuni t of about 70,000-bb1lday capacity,

equipped with a

carbon monoxlde boiler followed by an electrostatic

precipitator.

Unit had been cnstrean about 10 months following the list

major turnaroundat the time of the test.

Annan(awas

injected into the gas strewnaheadof the precipitator as a

conditioning

agent.

C. FCCunit of about65,000-bbl/day
capacity,equippedwith a
cartonmonoxlde
boiler followedby an electrostatfc precipitator.
unit hadbeen6nrtreamabout13 monthsfollowingthe last
majorturnaround. Amsonia
wasInjected Into the effluen=

aheadof the precipitatoras a conditioning

agent. During
the test, a malfunction occurred In the FCt unit.

D. FCC
unit of about551000-bbl/day
capacity,equipped
withan
electrostatic Precipitator followed by a carbonrnonax~de

boiler. Unithadbeenonst~-eam
about8 months
following
the
last majorturnaround. Duringthe test, an equipment
malt~nctlonoccurred,invalidatingthe partlculate results.

E. FCI:
unit of about45,000-bbl/dr.y
capacity,equipped
withan
electrostatir Precipitator followedby a carbonmonoxide
boiler, fested by refinery personnelusingCodeMethod
6

(alundun
thimble
Packed
withglarswoolfollowed
qva Gelman
tyPe A glass fiber filter).

Emissiondata sathe~edover

is-month period of operation.

F. :;t unl;of shout65,0DO-bbl/day

capacity,equipped
witha
carbonmsnoxlde
boiler fnllawedbyan electrPrtaticpreclpftatar.
fested by local cont~plagencyusingCodeNethod5.

6.

FCC unit of about 311.000-bbl/dW capacity,

electrastatic
boiler.
HI

precipitator followed by a carbon rrr3r.oxlde

Tested by local central agency using CodeHethod 5.

FCC unit of 45,030-bbl/dqy capacity,

static

equipped with an

precipitator

equipped with an etcctra-

followed by a carbon monoxlde boiler.

Tested by local control agency using Code ~ethod 5.

I.

FCCunit of about 55,000-bblld3y capacity, equipped with an

electrostatic

precipitator followed by a carbon monoxideboiler.

Tested by local control agency using Code Hethod 5.

J.

FCCunit of about 45,00D-bbl/day capacity, equipped with a.

carbon mbnoxfdeboiler followed by an electrastatic

precipitator,

Tested by local control agency using Code Hrt~ad 5.

a.

FECunit of about SS,000-bblldsy capacity, equipped with an

electrostatic
baller.

precipitator followed by a carbon mononlde

Tested by local central Igtnqr u5ln9 Code Ikthod 5.

TableA-16. tATAI.YTlC
CRACKING
FACILITY
Al,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Ln number

Oate

12/16/71

Test time,
Stack

minutes

Average

12/17/71

120

120

120

120

185.200

175.600

171.100

177.300

645

655

661

653

17.9

19.4

19.7

affluent

Flow rate,

dscfm

Temperature,

OF

Water

vol.

vapor,

X,

C02' vol. Xdry

13

02' vol. Xdry

Carbon mana~lde emissions,

ppm (volumeJ
visible
emissions,
X opacity
Particulate
Probe

Total

19

14

14

14

14

Nil

Nil

10

10

10

10

emissions
and filter

catch

gr/dscf

0.10215

0.0156

0.0114

0.0135

gr/acf

0.0410

0.0061

0.0044

'1.0053

Ib/hr

161.9a

23.5

16.7

20.1

catch

gr/dscf

0.2866a

0.0245

0.0174

0.0210

gr/acf

O.llSO"

0.0095

0.0067

0.0034

Ib/hr

455.6

37.0

25.5

31.2

dExcesslveemissions. Test run not consideredrepresentativeof nonnal

operation,

and not included In averages.

25

Table A-17. CATALYTIC

CR9CKING
FACILI~TY
A2,
SUMHC\RV OF RESULTS

I~Jn nunber

Date

Average

2/8/72

2/9/72

2/10/72

120

120

120

120

183,800

183,930

184,700

184,30(3

652

666

686

668

Water vapor, vol. X

21.5

20.9

22.9

21.5

t62' vol. XCry

02' VOl'X dry

11.2
6.4

12.8
4.4

13.2
4.0

12.4
4.9

Carbon monoxide emissions,

ppm (volume)

10

11

10

Y15~ble emtssi ons,

10

10

10

10

gr/dscf

0.0233

0.0202

0 0225

0.0220

gr/acf

0.0088

0.0976

0.0082

0.~082

Ib/hr

35.7

31.8

35.6

34.7

gr/dscf

C.0331

0.0272

0.0308

0.0304

gr/acf

0.9125

0.3102

0.0112

0.0113

Ib/hr

52.1

42.8

48.7

47.9

fast time, minutes

Stac~

effluent

Flow tate.

dscfm

Temperature, Of

X opacity
Partieulate
Probe

Total

emissions
and

fitter

catch

catch

26

Table

A-18.

tATALYT~S CRACKIHG FAClLITY B,

~~I~MARY OF RESULTS

Run number
Rate

Itrt

12/9/71

12/9/71

time, minutes

Stack

efn

120

60

Average

60

80

uent

FlaJ rate,

dsE4m

180,600

183.500

!87,000

183.700

Temperature,

OF

543

5i9

54?

535

Water vapor,

vol.

14 5

15.5

16.9

15.6

002, vol. Xdry

13.0

)2.0

14.0

13.0

02' vol. X dry

3.0

3.8

3.0

3.3

Nil

Hi 1

N11

Nil

30

30

25

30

gr/dsct

0.0355

0.0364

t.~40~

0.0374

griacf

0.0161

0.0166

0.0177

0.0168

Ib/hr

54.2

56.6

64.1

!,8.3

gr/dscf

0.1055

0.1320

0.1219

0.3198

gr/acf

0.0480

0.0602

0.0534

0.0539

195.5

188.5

Carbon

monorlde

emissions,

ppm (volume)
Vlst ble emi ss(ons ,
X: opaci ty
Particulate
Probe

Total

emissions
and

filter

catch

catch

Ib/hr

162.5

207. d

27

Table A-l9. CATALYTIC

Ckn~K~NG
FACILlfY
CI
SUMMARYOF RESULTS

Run
nu~cr

Date

1/12/72

Test time, ~lnt~tes

Stack

efftuent'

140

130

01

224

226

B~

~var~p

1/13/72
222

224

196

~lo~rate,dscfn 91.200 93.600 87.909 97,300 9D,900 0~~,500

Iknprature.
"F X16.9
459 16.4
489 20.1
455 17.3
468 16.8
453
Water
vapor.
vol.
902.
vol.
94
94
94
g4
g4
02VDt.
XIdry
dry

195
90,000

169 179
456
16.9
94
91

~5~100
475

16.9
9
4

Carbon monoxlde emissions,

16

se

17

16

16

47

16

34

Vlsfbleecnlsslonse

15

20

15

20

10

15

15

20

0.0~67

0.0702

ppn(9030010)
X ~pad ty

Fartlculatecmlss(onrb
Probe and filter

g~dscf

gr/acf
Ib/hr
Total

catch

0.0380 01066 0.0363 0.0589 0.0352 0.0050

00182
0.0499 0.0162 0.0252 0.0169 0.0213 0.01
73
29.7 85.5 27.8 49.0 27.9 36.5 28.3

0.0331
51.0

catch

gr/Qcf
grlacf
Iblhr

O 22M

ag stark predpitator wasnot funct~oning

properlythroughout
test.
Malfunction of test

0.188t

0. bS90
02366 0.2992 0.2159 0.1776 0.2088 0.1775
1S3.2
0.1136
0.0979
.0.0978
0.0851
0.1006
0.0840
0.1040
184.8 167.8 162.5 148.0 '62.7 143.8 170.0

equipment invalidated psrtlculate

resutts.

79619 9-20,

UTALYTlt

eRACKlnG FAtlLST'

D,

SU~I~~Rr OF RESUMS

kn

n~abcr

tata

;Y1V71

Toat tlnr,
Stark

minuteo

2
12/15/71

Avaraga

12/16/71

760

290

120

120

:60

196.400

186,900

205, MO

195,600

195,900

12)

734

aCCtuant

Flon nta,

dacfm

ta~nparatu~ac F
Yaf~

vapor,

vol.

139
X

24.7

7.12
23.2

20.ii

25.9

732
23.6

C02,'vol. 5Cdry

7.0

;1.0

02' vol. t dry

12.4

12.4

7.4

3.8

0.0

Nil

Nli

811

Nil

15

10

IS

IS

)5

Carbon

wnorlde

csl~ss~ons,

9.3

PPI (voluna)
W~)ble
sm~~,ions,
Z op~dty

29

Table A-PI.

ADDITIONAL
PARTICUU\TL
M1.SStO~ DA'TA

FORCATALnIC CRACKING
FACILITtES
Emf sst M

Facllify
~

Staclr EPfluent

Concentration

rate,

flewrate.djcfin slldscf pr/~c~ Ib/hr

Low

166.000

0.010

tt.~031

16

High

202,000

0.021

0.0067

34

Average
Facility Eb

181,000

0.014

0.0044

22

Low

106,000

0.015

0.0066

13.6

High

194,000

0.022

0.0694

28.2

Average

161.000

0.017

0.0076

23.3

Unit F

169,500

0.01t

0.0077

24.7

Unit 6

233,300

0.018

0.0059

36.0

Unit H

171,660

0.017

0.0062

25.0

Unit I

224,400

0.013

0.0045

25.0

Unit J

198.300

0.020

0.0085

34.0

Unit K

226,900

0.0LY

0.0061

35.0

CL~t~o_Lag~d~C

'Ddtacovers7 months
operation
withtwoemission
testspermonth.
alundum
thimbleplus glass fiber filter (Code13ethod
6).
bDatacovers 17 months operation with an emission test about every
2 months,slundumthimbleplus glass fiber filter (Code~ethod6):

tDatasuppliedby controlagencycovering

18 emission tests,

Los

AngelesCountyAPCD
method(CodeCiethod
5). Impingersprecedefilter.

30