Document 15R00B6Dno8Ew2972a79ZDZZ5

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN ' AL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air Quality Pla ; my and Standards Research Triangle Park, N<-ith Carolina 27711 SEP % 0 $77 Mr. Gary H. Baise, Associate Counsel The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Beveridge, Fairbanks, and Diamond One Farragut Square South Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Baise: In my August 30, 1977, response to your July 14, 1977, Freedom of Information request concerning EPA's proposed amendments to the vinyl chloride standard, I stated that I would send you additional records whiclj, were included in your request when they were made available to me by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. These documents are enclosed and include the following: 1. Memorandum, "Control Technology to Reduce Vinyl Chloride Monomer Emissions," from Fred Ellerbusch to Eugene Berkau, January 14, 1975. 2. Memorandum, "Implementation of Project CPS 009 (Control Technology Development for Vinyl Chloride)," from D.K. Qestreich to J.K. Burchard, undated. 3. Procurement Request/Requisition for PPG study, with attachments (not implemented), August 21, 1975. 4. Memorandum, "Project Transfer," from Dale Denny to Gene Berkau, October 14, 1975. 5. Memorandum, "Sole Source Contract to PPG Industries for Control Technology Development to Reduce Vinyl Chloride Monomer Emissions," from Fred Ellerbusch to Gene Berkau, December 8, 1975. 6, Memorandum, "New Projects," from Fred Ellerbusch to Dave Becker, March 8, 1976. \ 7. Memorandum, "New Project Starts,1! .from.Fred, Ellerbusch to David L. Becker, December 23, 1976. ^'' , ` J... . , -V - --`i n itV** J* COLOR!TE 008903 2- - 8. Memorandum, "PPG Industries Preproposal - Catalysis," from Fred Ellerbusch to David L. Becker, January 17, 1977. 9. Letter from John W. Moore to Frederick Ellerbusch, August 12,'' 1976- The documents listed below relate to a proposal by Houston Research for EPA funding of a study of UV-ozonation control of vinyl chloride. Although these documents are covered by your request, we are unable to release them to you at this time because Houston Research has requested that they be treated as confidential. 1. Letter of proposal to EPA on UV-ozonation of vinyl chloride with enclosed report to Shintech, May 19, 1976. 2. Letter to Houston Research from Mark J. Stutsman commenting on the Houston Research proposal of May 19, 1976. The charge for reproduction of the enclosed materials is $8.80. Please make your check or money order payable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and include the number (A-101) RIN 922-77. The check or money order should be sent to the Freedom of Information Officer (A-101), Environmental'Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. Sincerely yours, 9 Enclosures cAA Don R.'Goddwin Director Emission Standards and Engineering Division . - >" e COLORITE 008904 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY January 14, 1975 Sanitary Engineer, Industrial Treatment 6 Control, XERL-Cinc., Edison, iJJ Control Technology to Reduce Vinyl Chloride Monomer Emissions Eugene Berkau, Industrial Pollution Control Division, lEEL-Cinc. My December 8, 1975 memo to you indicated that an l economic and efficient VCH reduction technique is needed by the industry. In addition, I recommended funding a catalytic oxidation technique that promises to remove VCM down to nodetectible limit; this study would be performed by PPG indus tries. Since my initial memo, I have been in contact with Dr.' William Bissinger of PPG to determine the status of their research and the possibility of future work on a larger scale. He indicated that industry and PPG interest is strong but that the funding mechanism desired by the company lias not been decided; i.e., grant to nonprofit organisation such as the Institute of Industrial Research or a sole source contract. Both mechanisms have obvious advantages, and I will be in close touch with Dr. Bissinger to get the project under way as soon as possible. I have attached a work plan (to fill in completely after all details are secured) and description of this project for your review, concurrence, and eventual forwarding to the appropriate people for inclusion into the laboratory's plans for FY '76. I am confident that we will have sufficient money to fund it. If you have any questions, please call me. 1!*V' f Attachments Fred Ellerbusch -r .t*. JO? COLORITE 008905 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY i SUBJECT: Implementation of Project CPS 009 (Control Technology Development for Vinyl Chloride) DATE: FROM: D. K. Oestreich Chemical Processes Branch J. K. Burchard, Director, IERL, RTP THROUGH: J. 0. Smith, Chief, Office of Program Operations A. B. Craig, Chief, Industrial Processes Division D. A. Denny, Chief, Chemical Processes Branch The FY-76 program plan shows $125K available for development of control technology for vinyl chloride emissions. The Chemical Processes Branch has long considered that a suitable catalytic oxidation system might offer a very effective approach to VCM emissions. Communications with PPG Industries have indicated that PPG has done considerable preliminary work toward development of a catalytic incineration system for vinyl chloride monomer. This system utilizes a hopcalite catalyst which makes it possible to carry out oxidation at very low temperatures 100C). PPG has indicated that this system would very probably offer an efficient, energy conscious approach to removal of VCM from vent gas streams present at polyvinyl chloride polymerization plants. Sufficient bench scale data was included in the letter to show that the approach advocated is extremely promising. VCM concentrations were reduced from 44 ppm in the inlet to no VCM detected in the outlet. In addition to the high control efficiencies which can be achieved, considerable energy savings should be possible. It is requested that a COFA be issued for $100K to permit solesource procurement of the first year program of an overall two year program. The first year's program (Phase I) would be directed at a laboratory scale study to further evaluate design parameters necessary for an optimized system. Phase I would culminate in the engineering design of a pilot plant scale incinerater. Phase II, the optional second-year program would involve construction of the pilot plant unit and installation at a polyvinyl chloride polymerization plant. Long term testing of this unit would be done to establish reliability and operating cost data. ERA Fotrn UJO.t (R.V, 6.72) COLOR!TE 008906 . PROCUREMENT REQUEST REQUISITION O AT F PAGE or ORIGIN AT OH (N.imi ) 2 TELEPHONE N<?, 2547 3, appropriation *. DOCU MENT CONTROL no. D. K. Oestreich 5. obligation no. 6. ACCOUNT NO. 7. OBJ A sue CL CODES <3. DELIVER TO 9. 0 AT E REO'D 10. PROJECT NO. It. AMOUNT (Dollar* und cent*) D. K. Oestreich IS. STOCK OR ITEM NO. 12. PROJECT OFFICE MANAGER 16. DESCRIPTION (Include PfQptuni Element Idvnf11icqIten) 13. PHONE NO. 14. 5ERV FIN OFF IT, QUAN TITY te. UNIT OF ISSUE 19. UNIT COST 20. AMOUNT Title of Project: Catalytic Incineration of Vinyl Chloride Monomer Estimated Period of Performance: 24 month: (funding for 1st 12 months) (Phase I) Background: Attached - Appendix I Purpose: Attached - Appendix II Procurement Abstract: Attached - Appendix III Scope of Work: Attached _ Exhibit A Type of Report: Attached - Appendix IV Clearance Required: See Federal Reports Adt Justification for Non-Competitive Procurement: Attached - Appendix V Proposed Budget: FY-76 - $100,000 FY-77 - $100,000 EJ`14;. ! r-?\V: i. suggested sources PPG Industries, Inc. P.0. Box 31 Barberton, Ohio 44203 22. RECOMMENDED PROCUREMENT METHOD { 11 1 I ICOMPETITIVC I T NONCOMPETITIVE I Yvl (J^etilicatlon attached) 23, KIGNATURE OF ORIGINATOR S. k-. DATE 4. ACCOUNTABLE PROPER.' .' INITIALS not AVAILABLE FROM EXCESS r>--' i__i 25. SIG OF PROP MGT OFFICER/DESIGNEE 26. APPROVALS DATE A. BRANCH/OFFICE DATE O. OTHER DATE * 'i. OIVISION/OFF1CE DATE E. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR DATE !. FUNDS LISTED IN BLOCK 11 ARE AVAILABLE DATE AND RESERVED , F. OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DATE 'NVITATION NO. FOR PROCUREMENT OFFICE ONLY CONTRACT NO, TIME FOR DELIVERY DISCOUNT TERMS F.O.B. POINT SHIP VIA PA Form 1900*8 (R*. 12*73) tl ViUUS LDITION IS OM3QLETF REFER INQUIRES CONCERNING THIS REOUEST TO (l`mt i.r< ttu-tit ruiiLii i) PHONE NO. DISTRl BU T ION; ONtciNAt. . niRCi'Asc riLi CORY | - COMMITMENT FILL copy * rnoiTRTr manauImcnt otficcp COPY 3 - riCTl'MN TO ON I <5 IN ATOM COPY A . ML 1 A IN PY OHIC.INATON w & wf r < '.V Vr f^v'. I1? COLORITE 008907 APPENDIX I Background A completely satisfactory control technology for vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) emissions does not exist. Present best available control technology consists of high temperature incineration of vent gas streams. This approach results in consumption of large quantities of fuel to provide heat for incineration. A system which would permit incineration to take place at lower temperatures would be of considerable economic interest and be attractive from an energy conservation standpoint. / *i COLORITE 008908 APPENDIX II Purpose: The purpose of the work called for by this RFP is to further assess the potential for a low temperature catalytic oxidation process to be applied to vent streams at vinyl chloride polymerization plants. This is to be accomplished by: 1. A laboratory study to establish optimum conditions for catalytic oxidation. Sufficient data and experience would be developed to design a pilot plant for the process. ' 2. If justified on the basis of the laboratory study a pilot plant will be built at a PVC plant and tested for long term reliability. ,vsT> COLORITE 008909 APPENDIX III Procurement Abstract The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (RTP) of the Environmental Protection Agency is interested in developing control technology for abatement of vinyl chloride monomer emissions from vent gas streams associated with PVC manufacture. It is desired that the technical and economic feasibility of low temperature catalytic incineration be established for this application. This will require: 1. A laboratory study to establish optimum conditions for catalytic oxidation, 2. Design of a pilot scale control device for testing at PVC manufacturing plant. 3. Operation of the pilot plant unit for one year to establish long term reliability. Cost Proposal y The cost proposal shall be submitted separately from the technical proposal. The cost proposal should give cost break-down for each task described in Scope of Work (Exhibit A). COLORITE 008910 EXHIBIT A Scope-of-Work Phase I Task I - Selection of Catalyst Various copper based catalysts including Hopcalite will be examined in a laboratory testing program to establish oxidation efficiency over a temperature range of 25 to 300C. Preliminary understanding of frequency and extent of catalyst regeneration requirements will be established as well as catalyst sensitivity to posioning by H2O and other compounds which would exist in'the gas stream. From all of the above, a catalyst will be selected for further development. Task 2 - Temperature Optimization Through laboratory tests, the optimum operating temperature will be defined for the catalyst selected. The feasibility of maintaining this temperature from waste heat utilization from PVC plant will be considered. / Task 3 - Flow Rate Optimization Catalyst capacity will be established in terms of efficiency versus space velocity to provide reactor sizing information. Task 4 - Catalyst Life and Regeneration Catalyst performance should be determined as a function of time to establish need for and techniques for regeneration. Trends in performance need to be determined in the light of repeated thermal cycling and possible irreversible chemisorbtion and chemical or physical degradation. Task 5 - Development of Decision Criteria The contractor shall develop criteria to serve as basis for making a go/no go decision on whether bench scale data supports further development of process. These criteria shall quantify such specifications as capital and operating costs allowable, control efficiency necessary, system reliability necessary, size considerations which affect ease of retrofit, energy requirements, and other factors bearing on the viability of the control system. These criteria shall be submitted for review and concurrence by the EPA project officer. Task 6 - Design of Pilot Plant Taking all of the data gathered in tasks one through four into consideration, the contractor shall design a pilot plant to be installed at a PVC manufacturing plant. This design shall include the writing of a process design manual. l.vv ff.-* V 1 COLOR!TE 008911 Process Design Manual Design information gained from the laboratory/bench scale work for the pilot plant process shall be.assembled in the form of a manual. This manual shall contain sufficient detail to convey the concept of the proposed pilot plant and to provide a complete basis for the cost estimate. As a minimum, it shall include the following: 1) General process description 2) List of the major process and equipment design parameters 3) Flowsheet showing quantity, composition, temperature, and pressure of all streams in the pilot process 4) Design production rates 5) Material and energy balances 6) Utility requirements 7) Preliminary layout of equipment 8) Preliminary specification for all major items of equipment including size, flow, heat transfer, and mechanical requirements. 9) Instrumentation list to completely monitor process 10) Preliminary laboratory and shop requirements for operating, testing, and evaluating pilot plant process. 11) Project schedule 12) Preliminary cost estimate Project Manual Recognizing that the contractor may include information of proprietary nature in the Process Design Manual, and that the Government might wish to disclose information from such manual, the contractor shall identify such confidential material and furnish an abridged form of the Process Design Manual or "Project Manual," to which the Government shall have unlimited rights. The Project Manual shall include information on project organization and schedule. Task 7 - Final Report for Phase I A final report shall be written for Phase I. This report should in addition to describing the results of Phase I, also make a case for whether or not Phase II should be executed. COLOR!TE 008912 I APPENDIX IV Report of Work Monthly Technical Progress Narratives 1, The Contractor shall submit a monthly technical progress narrative covering work accomplished during each calendar month of contract performance. Monthly Technical Progress Narratives shall be brief, factual, and informal and shall be prepared in accordance with the following format: a. A cover page containing: (1) Contract number and title (2) Type of report, sequence number of report (when applicable), and period of performance being reported. (3) Contractor's name, address, and organizational segment generating the report. (4) Author(s) (5) Date of Publication (6) "Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711." b. Section I - An introduction covering the purpose and scope of the contract effort. c. Section II - A description of overall progress plus a separate description for each task or other logical segment of work'on which effort was expended during the report period. Description shall include pertinent data and graphs in sufficient detail to explain any significant results achieved. d. Section III - A description of current problems that may impede performance along with proposed corrective action. e. Section IV - A description of work to be performed during the next reporting period. f. Section V - The report shall include a compilation and analysis of all data gathered and conclusions derived from data. 2. When the date of the contract is prior to the middle of the calendar month, the initial monthly reports shall cover that partial month. When the date of the contract is on or after the middle of the calendar month, initial monthly reports shall cover that partial month and the subsequent full month. Thereafter, each monthly report shall cover one calendar month. Within ten (10)*calendar days after the end of each reporting period, the contractor shall distribute F.O.B. destination a miximum of twelve (12) copies of the Monthly Technical Progress Narrative in accordance with the instructions specified elsewhere in the contract. COLORITE 008913 . - Phase II (Optional) Task I - Construction of Pilot Plant The contractor shall make arrangements with a PVC plant to build, install, and operate a pilot scale catalytic incineration unit on various vent gas streams. Task II - Long Term Reliability Testing The contractor shall operate the pilot scale device for an eight to twelve month period to establish reliability of system and provide data necessary for design of a full scale unit. Detailed construction and operating cost data shall be gathered for the pilot unit and projected to a full scale unit. Task III - Final Report for Phase II A final report shall be written which describes the experience and findings of Phase II. / lhi 1 t"1, COLOR!TE 008914 Er  ' or as directed in writing by the Contracting Officer. 3. In addition to requirements for monthly reports dicussed above, the contractor shall also include a synopsis of significant telephone conversations and/or meetings with the EPA project officer. COLORITE 008915 REPORTS OF WORK FINAL REPORT 1. The Contractor shall submit for review, five (5) copies of his proposed final report to the Project Officer with a copy of the letter of transmittal to the Contracting Officer within thirty (30) days following completion of the technical effort specified in this contract. The content of the proposed report must be of a quality suitable for publication and it shall be prepared in accordance with the EPA "Interim Specifications for OR&M Grant, Contract and In-House Reports"*`dated March 1973, incorporated herein by reference. Approval or disapproval (in part or in total) of the final report will be accomplished by Project Officer within sixty (60) days after receipt. Disapproved . reports shall be resubmitted for review following correction of the cited deficiency unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer or Project Officer, 2. The proposed report shall document in detail all of the work performed under the contract including data, analyses, and inter pretations, as well as, recommendations and conclusions based upon results obtained. The report shall include tables, graphs, diagrams, curves, sketches, photographs and drawings in sufficient detail to comprehensively explain the results achieved under the contract. The report shall be complete in itself and contain no reference, directly or indirectly, to the periodical report(s). I 3. After receipt of the Contractor's proposed final report, the Contracting Officer or the Project Officer may require the Contractor to present, at a site chosen by the requester, an informal briefing and review of all work performed under the contract. 4. Within thirty (30) calendar days after notification of approval of the Contractor's proposed final report, the Contractor shall distribute a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) copies including a reproducible master copy of the approved final report as specified elsewhere in the contract or as directed in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall deliver F.O.B. destination all reports covered above in accordance with the following: *Note: Page size requirements for final reports have been changed to 81/2 X 11 inches. Other changes in requirements are presently under consideration. Thus the Contractor should inquire as to status of these changes at the time the report is written. COLORITE 008916 REPORTS OF WORK CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT (EPA Form 1900-11 (10-71) 1. The Contractor shall submit a monthly financial management report utilizing EPA Form 1900-11 (10-71) in accordance with the instructions on the reverse of the form. Three (3) copies of the report shall be submitted F.O.B. Destination to the addressees indicated elsewhere in the contract or as directed in writing by the Contracting Officer. The line entries for the reporting categories unless otherwise set forth in the Schedule of the contract, shall be determined by the Contracting Officer after giving due consideration to the recommendations of the Contractor. Subsequent changes and/or additions to the reporting categories shall be similarly determined. The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor of each change or addition and the reporting period to which each shall apply. 2. When the date of the contract is prior to the middle of the calendar month, the/initial financial management report shall cover that partial month. When the date of the contract is on or after the middle of the calendar month, the initial financial management report shall cover that partial month and the subsequent full month. COLORITE 008917 I REPORT DISTRIBUTION Work Plan & Revisions Addressee Contracting Officer Project Officer Periodical Reports (Monthly, Quarterly, etc.) Addressee Contracting Officer Project Officer Financial Management Reports Addressee Contracting Officer Project Officer Experimental Testing Proqram Addressee Contracting Officer Project Officer Final Report - Phase I & II Addressee Contracting Officer Environmental Protection Agency Informational Services Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Project Officer No. of Copies 0) (6) No. of Copies (1) 00) No. of Copies 0) (2) No. of Copies 0) (6) No. of Copies (1) (22) Including an error-free manuscript* 027) COLORITE 008918 V.1 3 Note: Additional addressees may be added to receive copies of the reports. The number of copies to be furnished the Project Officer will then be reduced accordingly. Changes, if any, to the distribution list will be furnished by the Contracting Officer at a later date, * Error-free manuscript is described as a typed, error-free original on standard size white bond paper and accompanied by glossy prints of and photographs or illustrations. hfi COLORITE 008919 APPENDIX V JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT I. Related Information: (1) Date of Justification - August 21, 1975 (2) Program Office and Project Officer: D. K, Oestreich Chemical Processes Branch Industrial Processes Division Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 Phone: 919-549-8411, Ext. 2547 (3) Program Element Number - 1AB015 (4) Task Number^- CPS 009 (5) Descriptive title of project: Catalytic Incineration of Vinyl Chloride Monomer (6) Amount: $100,000 (FY-76) $ 100,000 (FY-77) (Optional 2nd phase) (7) Proposed Contractor: PPG Industries, Inc. P.0. Box 31 Barberton, Ohio 44203 t<V . f55. * K: :< COLOR!TE 008920 Justification for Non-Competitive Procurement It is recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency negotiate only with PPG Industries, Inc. for this program because: 1. The need for a satisfactory control technology for VCM from PVC plant vent streams is pressing. Control of VC emissions is under active consideration by EPA and will be done under Section 112 (Hazardous Pollutants) and be based on Best Available Control Technology. Short supply of natural gas fuel will very likely make it very impractical to control VCM in vent streams with conventional high temperature incineration. Consequently, low temperature, catalytic incineration may will be essential to implementation of control. 2. Requirement for control technology for VCM is immediate. PPG has at their own expense generated considerable data which indicates that catalytic incineration has ..a._hiqh probability of success as a control technology. Their existing knowledge and capability in this area will save the government considerable time and money. No other firm could carry out the desired research and development in the time available if competitive procurement procedures were used. 3. Development of a catalytic incineration process would requir.e access to PVC plant vent streams and cooperation of the PVC manufacturer over a period of time. PPG has indicated that because it is a supplier of feedstocks to the PVC industry, it enjoys excellent relationships with the industry which are unique. The General Tire Company has indicated interest in providing access to their"PVC plant in Ashtabula, Ohio to PPG for any control technology development work. A. B. Craig, Chief Industrial Processes Division John K. Burchard Director Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, RTP COLORITE 008921 -,7 *, T, -;v ,7.-kv>' v f:c ^.^socvjst UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I I { u SUBJECT: Project Transfer DATE: 10/14/75 FROM: TO: Dale A. Denny, Chief Chemical Processes Branch, IERL, RTP Gene Berkau, Director ' Industrial Pollution Control, IERL, Cincinnati Enclosed is a procurement package for control of vinyl chloride emissions. As we discussed earlier, there is no obligation on your part to continue this work. You may wish to use the paperwork if you decide to implement the project. Also,.enclosed is some material which should go into the asphalt roofing source assessment file. I very much appreciate your talking to Dave Stephan regarding the Monsanto assessment contract. My understanding is that Dick Harrington will be calling either Norb or John to indicate a financial commitment to complete all assessments currently underway through the preliminary document stage. As we agreed, I have asked Monsanto to maintain separate accounting for those projects in lERL-Cincinnati area beginning October 15, If we can be of further assistance, please let me know, / cc: A. B. Craig J. K. Burchard Norb Jaworski t 1/ EPA Fo.m 1330.4 (R.V, 4-72) gr to^ t'i (ft COLORXTE 008922 COLORITE 008923 ^t f ;wv .V : Attachment to: Title: VCM Control Technology Project # 01-07-04A-02 Project Summary: A. Presently best available control consists of high temperature incineration of vent gas streams. The method is a large consumer.of fuel and not completely effective for continuous removal of VCM, Preliminary bench scale studies have indicated that catalytic incineration (oxidation at 100:' C) is an environmentally acceptable and energy conscious approach. VCM concentrations were reduced from 44 ppm to not detectable using this method. B. Formal declaration of VCM as a hazardous air pollutant was recently announced. The agency is essentially requesting a decrease in VCM emissions that would result in an effective reduction of VCM by 90%. A large portion of the VCM-PVC is affected and an effective removal mechanism is necessary. An investigation at this time of an.economical VCM reduction technique is warranted. / COLOR!TE 008924 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY December 8, 1975 Sanitary Engineer, Industrial Treatment Control, IERL-Cinc. Sole Source Contract to PPG Industries for Control Technology Development to Reduce Vinyl Chloride Monomer Emissions Gene Berkau, Director, Industrial Pollution Control Division, IERL-Cinc. I have reviewed the procurement package that was sent to you and forwarded to me from RTP for the control of vinyl chloride emissions. In addition, I have also reviewed recent literature on the reduction of VCM. The literature states that economic and efficient emission control technology is needed". ~` ~ " PPG Industries proposes to use a low temperature catalytic oxidation technique to remove VCM from vent gas streams from FVC polymerization. Bench scale studies have indicated that VCii concentrations were reduced from 44 ppm to no detectable VCM. By funding this project, a useful control technique for present production facilities would be available as an interim measure while in-process raonomer recovery techniques are being developed. Please advise how the original RTP paperwork should be revised so that the contract may be procured. (Copy of liTP procurement package attached). If you have any questions regarding this positive recom- 4 mendation, feel free to call me. Attachment Fred Ellerbusch COLOR!TE 008925 i ''- r '*3 - *2 '1 V,-* ENVIRONMENTS.! PROTECTION AOPNCY ^ <o ,s\\0 `71Ffcl*li Vr ,\S`- \ March 8, 1976 Fred Ellerbusch, Organic Chemicals Products Branch, Edison, Mew Jersey 00017 liew Projects Dave Becker, Chief, Organic Chemicals 6 Products Branch, IERL-Ci As you know the VC control project that was to have begun this fiscal year has been postponed. PPG Industries feels the extra time is necessary for planning, legal review and other technical arrangements, as well as completing the laboratory phase at PPG's expense. funding--will therefore involve^ the pilot plant phase only^ -at^arL_actual J3j.ant.-_.si.fe7 PPG" has indicated that the final scope of work preparations should be completed shortly. I will keep, you informed of all progress. Approximately $10OK of air money has become avail able due to PPG's decision to postpone. I would offer the following suggestions to cover the money. a. Continue.Monsanto's Source Assessment work by authorizing source sampling for rubber and plastics processing. By co-ordinating actual source testing with inclusion of water and residues into the Source Assess ment the entire exercise will be compre hensive and possibly avoid source sampling for water and residues separately. b. Authorize source sampling for cloroprene/ neoprene. The KTF, I!C health effects con ference noted neoprene as a potential candidate for the VC-F75"treatment. "Atpre- "aent we have not done much work in this area - a need exists. If you have any questions please call. COLORITE 008926 - sINDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Docember 23, 197G Fred Ellerbusch, Organic Chemicals ' Products Branch, IERL-Edison Mew Project Starts Mr. David L. Becker, Chief Organic Chemicals 6 Products Branch lERL-Ci Over the past few weeks, I have reviewed pertinent literature on Spray Liners and VC-PVC Emissions Control. After speaking to Leo and Bob Landreth, SITURD-MERL, I am recommending that Exxon not be awarded or allowed to continue preparation of a spray liner package Cl have informed Exxon of my recommendations). I have found that spray liner work being done for SIIWRD is similar enough to our plans to warrent a cross laboratory effort, instead;- at possibly half the funding level. ^ Additionally, the PPG preproposal is also I feel non responsive and does not-warrent funding in its present form. It is too lengthy (2 yr3. +) and costly (0320K). The literature points to a lack of destructive technology, but also indicates that removal of VC from a gaseous stream is not a major technical achievement. What is, however, is the collection of fugitive emissions. Also, it appears that our full funding of this project may not necessarily add impetus to the advancement of this technology - since the catalyst is proprietary - not the technology. I'm afraid that the 1st year (est.) of micropilot plant study will yield little useable results (using a synthetic waste stream from VG-Ufg.). Incidently it is clear that PVC mfg. suffers from lack of control technology not VC mfg. There fore unless an effort using pilot (not mioropilot) size equipment on an actual waste at a PVC facility with funding at the $150K level our time spent will be for nought. Meanwhile,- I suggest the following: a) Issue an Amendment to NJIT for expanded halogenated organics removal efforts. ( 30K) i 1.. ..he*1 COLORXTE 008927 -2- b) Amend SV'MRD effort to include our designate sludges for spray liner testing, (total 40K) ^ c) Continue negociations with PPG. cc: G. Thompson r**r}-- Stft sr & f4'\ rr*' COLORXTE 008928 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Dite; January 17, 1977 Reply to Fred Ellerbusch, Organic Chemict Attn, of; Products Branch, IERL-Edis Subject: ppg Industries Preproposal - Catalysis To! Mr. David L. Becker, Chief Organic Chemicals Products Branch IERL-Ci On January 3, 1977 Ed Sare of PPG and I spoke about PPG's preproposal; submitted to us a few months ago. I pointed out the factors outlined in my memo to you dated 12/23/76 (attached) to which he agreed in part. Our conversation, stemming from those items did resolve the following; / a. Most PVC plants are meeting the 10 ppm standard through instituting good housekeeping measures. However for those not meeting 10 they are below 50 ppm. A lit search should be conducted to verify. b. For the most part the emphasis of the PPG study should be on dilute streams say 250 ppm or less. c. A combination of actual and synthetic waste streams should be used; actual for onsite micropilot work and synthetic for catalyst life and sizing studies. d. Basic goals of the study would be three fold: 1. Short Term - provide a method to achieve the 10 ppm standard using a dilute stream 250 ppm or less. 2. Long Term - provide a method to achieve a 1 ppm or lower standard. 3. Develop economic, energy, technology transfer ence data. I'd like to recommend that a letter from you to Ed be sent agreeing on the above points - if you agree. t J /` V ORGANIC CHEMICALS & r, PRODUCTS BRANCH $ COLOR!TE 008929 INDUSTRIES PPG INDUSTRIES, INC./P, 0. BOX 31 /BARBERTON. OHIO 44203/AftEA 216/753-4561 JOHN w. MOORE, Minagcr Barberton Technical Center, Chemical Division August 12, 1976 Mr. Fredrick Ellerbusch United States Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Ci Edison, New Jersey 08817 Dear Mr. Ellerbusch: ; Enclosed is our proposal for development and pilot plant testing of a catalytic incineration process for control of vinyl chloride monomer emissions. It basically consists of a two-phase program which would require approximately two years to complete. The first phase would be primarily directed at construction of a micro pilot pi ant unit. This would be used to evaluate potentials and limitations of proprie tary catalyst systems which have been developed by PPG Industries. Cost of this phase of the proposal is estimated to be approximately $J_36j_000. The second phase would be directed at construction and operation of a JfuJJ_s i ze_p_LLo_t plant. Estimated cost of the second phase is $187,000. If you have any questions concerning the proposal, please feel free to contact either Dr. Sare or myself. Very truly yours. John W. Moore sd COLORITE 008930  TABLE OF CONTENTS T. Objective.............................................................................................................. . i IX. Significance........................................................................................................ III. Status of Laboratory Studies.................................................... ................. . IV. Proposed Study................................................................... ............ ................... * A. Micropilot Plant Unit.............................................................................. . B. Pilot Plant Unit.............................................................. ......................... . 1 2 2. 2 6 V. Economics of Use in Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Production Facilities.............................................................................. . 6 A. Potential Applications for Catalytic Vinyl Chloride Inciperation Emission Control............................................................. . 6' B. Relative Economics.................................................................................... . 10 VI. PPG Industries Qualifications................................................................... . n VII. Personnel.............................................................................................................. . 12 VIII. Budget...................................................................................... .............................. . 12 A. Micropilot Plant......................................................................................... . 12 B. Pilot Plant Demonstration......................................... ............................ . 13 C. Summary............................................................................................................ . 16 IX. Proposed Schedule............................................................................................. . 16 * COLOR!TE 008931 May 1976 Vinyl Chloride Emins ion Control by Catalytic Incineration I. OBJECTIVE The development and pilot plant testing of a practical catalytic incinerat ion process for the control of vinyl chloride monomer emissions from poly vinyl chloride and vinyl chloride monomer production facilities. II. SIGNIFICANCE In the December 2b, 197? Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a national emission standard for vinyl chloride under the authority of section 112 (b) (l) (B) of the Clear Air Act. The proposal of this standard was made after the EPA Administrator's determin ation that vinyl chloride is a hazardous air pollutant as defined in sect- ion 13 2 (a) (l) of the Clean Air Act. The proposed standard limits vinyl chloride emissions to a concentration of 10 ppm from all equipment used in the ethylene dichloride purification process, and the vinyl chloride formation and'purification processes in ethylene dichloride - vinyl chlor ide plants. It limits vinyl chloride emissions to a concentration of 10 ppm from all reactors; strippers; containers for mixing, weighing and hold ing which precede the stripper; and monomer recovery systems in polyvinyl chloride plants. The proposed standard also requires venting of captured fugitive emissions through a control system from which,the concentration of vinyl chloride does not exceed 10 ppm in both types of production facil ities. In the EPA's judgment, the emission limit of 10 ppm represents the best available control technology for these sources, and feels that the limit can be achieved by use of incineration, carbon adsorption, or sol vent adsorption. Of the three control methods suggested for these sources, incinceration appears to be the best domonstrated and tha most practical. In the case of both carbon adsorption and solvent absorption, the control method is not an end in itself since the vinyl chloride must still be subsequently handled in an environmentally acceptable manner. >Jhile thermal inciner ation at 1000"C or higher is an effective method of control, it is an energy intensive method which makes it relatively expensive to operate. The overall economic impact of the proposed standard would therefore be signifi cantly reduced if the energy intensity of this control method could be significantly lowered. In the case of non-chlorinated hydrocarbons, this goal has been reached by means of catalytic incineration systems, and commercial units employ ing this technology are available for this class of compounds. The catalysts in these commercial systems are general noble metal - based, and hence, not applicable to chlorinated hydrocarbons because of the poisoning of catalytic activity by chlorine. Therefore, in order to employ catalytic COLORITE 008932 2- - incineration as an emission control for vinyl chloride, a novel catalyst system is required. Research studies by the Industrial Chemical Division of PPG Industries has identified a proprietary catalyst system with which the catalytic incineration of vinyl chloride has been conducted at tempera tures in the range of only 100C to 200*C. A reduction in the inciner ation temperature required for the control of vinyl chloride emissions of approximately 800C would greatly reduce the energy, and hence economic, impact of the proposed EPA standard. III. Status of Laboratory Studies The Industrial Chemical Division of PFG Industries has conducted intensive . Research level studies on the catalytic incineration of vinyl chloride since the fall of 197?. These studies have identified a pronrietary catalyst system which has exhibited a high level of activity towards catalysis of the oxidation of vinyl chloride in air at all levels tested to date, i.e., concentrations in the range from10 ppm to 1000 ppm. Since the vinyl chloride - containing air streams in polyvinyl chloride production facilities are often relatively wet, the effect of water vapor on the activity of the catalyst system has been studied extensively. A high level of activity fyas been demonstrated at all levels of relative humidity tested to date, i.e., <1^ to 605?. Thus this catalyst system appears to have po tential applicability to both vinyl chloride monomer, which have relatively dry streams, and polyvinyl chloride production facilities. All studies have been conducted at a maximum catalytic reactor temperature of ld8*C, and a residence time of 1 6 seconds. Although the catalyst-system is proprie tary to PPG Industries, Inc. and is not commercially available, it is be lieved that the commercial scale manufacture of the catalyst would be feasible. IV. Proposed Study A, Mi crop!lot Plant Unit The study proposed to the EPA for financial support is the demonstration on a Development level scale of the control of vinyl chloride emissions by a catalytic incineration system using PPG Industries' proprietary catalyst. The initial stage of this Development level demonstration would consist of the design,^'construction, operation, and evaluation of a micropilot plant unit. This unit would be operated in the Barberton, Ohio Technical Center of the Industrial Chemical Division of PPG Industries for a period of seven months. The operation of this unit would be directed at defin ing the limitations of the system and the primary economic factors in order to accurately compare the potential of the system with alternate control systems. The primary general information to be obtained is summarized as follows. COLORITE 008933 -3 - 1 Operational limitations a. Vinyl Chloride Concentration b. Oxygen Concentration c. Water Vapor Concentration d. Gaseous Impurities e. Temperature 2. Economic Factors a. Catalyst Life b. Catalyst Regeneration c. Catalyst Capacity d. Ikterials of Construction The micropilot plant unit 'would integrate all potential required phases of the process, e.g., drying, incineration, and regeneration. Modifica tions of drying processes, materials of construction, regeneration con ditions, etc. could easily be made on this size unit. The reactor for this micropilot plant should be large enough to establish catalyst bed temperature profiles, and-pressure drop. Therefore, the reactor would be' designed to handle flow rates in the range of J to 10 liters per minute of vinyl chloride - containing air, and to contain a maximum of 1 liter of catalyst. Equipment of this size could be located in the Barberton Research laboratory, where it would be close to complete Analytical facil ities. The micropilot plant would utilize a synthetic-feed instead of actual plant emissions in order to precisely control operating conditions. Provisions for the introduction of desired impurities, known to be pres ent in both vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plant emissions, would be incorporated in the synthetic feed supply system. Because of the anticipated low operating temperature of this incineration system, the materials of construction testing phase would emphasize the potential use of lower cost, corrosion resistant plastic - based equipment. The engineer ing potential of utilizing these materials in place of the traditional materials of construction used in handling hydrochloric acid - containing streams would significantly lower the capital cost of the system. A proposed general flowsheet for a catalytic vinyl chloride incineration unit is shown in Figure 1. This flowsheet includes a provision for feed gas dryers since the maximum allowable amount of water vapor is not presently known. If required, an alternating regenerative desiccant bed dryer could be considered. However, possible adsorption of VCM on the bed and subsequent release during regeneration would have to be checked. The possibility of VCM polymerizing on the surface, reducing drying capacity would also be checked. Alternates would be water absorption in sulphuric acid or refrigerated calcium chloride brine. Ideally, the catalyst would tolerate water up to saturated atmosphere air conditions or about Uj water. This would eliminate the need for dryers. COLORITE 008934 FIGURE 1 Proposed Flowsheet for Catalytic VCM Incineration Air VCM + COLOR!TE 008935 The proposed flowsheet also includes a provision for cooling of the incin eration reactor since the maximum concentration of vinyl chloride which can be handled is not presently known. The oxidation of VCM is a highly exothermic reaction, with the heat of reaction estimated at about 2^0 K-cal/g-mole. As the concentration of VCM increases, the heat of react ion will, therefore, increase the catalyst bed temperature unless the re actor design provides for heat removal. For example, 260 K-cal x 3-^7 BTU x g-mole = 16 BTU ' g-mole K-cal 62gram VCM gram VCM-incinerated At 1000 ppm VCM each cubic foot of air contains 0.078 grams VCM. The heat capacity of air is approximately 0.018 BTU/ft.3 *F. Therefore, the temperature rise for 1000 ppm VCM in air would be, 16 ETC x 0.78 grams VCM gram VCM ft.3 o.oim bru ft.3 F or approximately 70 *F From these calculations, it would appear that for low vinyl chloride con centration emission sources,e .g., <, 3000 ppm, no provision for cooling would be required. However, for high concentration sources, some cooling of the reactor would be needed. The extent of the cooling requirements would be determined during operation of the micropilot plant. As an alter nate to reactor cooling, the comparative economics of simple air dilution of the high concentration emission source would also be determined. In the proposed flowsheet, a catalyst regeneration system has been included although the relative catalyst life is not presently known. Research studies conducted to date have indicated that partial losses of activity observed during the extreme of low temperature testing could be restored by simple heating of the catalyst at elevated temperatures under a dry air atmosphere. Although the proposed vinyl chloride standard does not include provisions for the control of the hydrochloric acid emissions resulting from inciner ation, a vent gas scrubber has also been included in Figure 1. The .monitoring of the vinyl chloride concentration at the control points shown in Figure" 1 would be performed manually by glc analysis during oper ation of the micropilot plant unit. Larger scale units would utilize commercially available, automated glc analysis instrumentation. In Figure 1 if the vinyl chloride concentration of the emission source never exceeded the lower explosive limit, concentrations of ^ 3 the instrumentation could be simplified. COLORITE 008936 1* Process changes which reduce or eliminate emission sources. 2. Recovery systems for high concentration or large con tent emission sources, 3. Destruction systems for low concentration sources. We must establish the capabilities and reliability of the catalytic in cineration system, then each plant's environmental control group can con sider it for destruction as an alternate to thermal incineration, carbon bed adsorption and solvent absorption on dilute streams. The EPA has compiled data1 on VCM emissions (as these existed in late 197k) from vinyl chloride producers and for each polyvinyl chloride pro cess. For suspension polymerization, approximately kOf of all emissions' were in random locations and are termed "fugitive emissions." Over 600 different sources were identified. Ventilation may be used to control worker exposure at these locations to meet OSHA standards, but dilution alone will not meet the EPA requirements which also limit emissions on a ratio to production. Catalytic incineration may be applicable to some of these losses which will be collected by ventilating systems, The^. flow diagram (EPA Figure 3-?) and VCM emission table (EPA 3-6) for sus pension polymerization are included here for reference. The reactor opening loss is another which may be handled by catalytic incineration. This stream should be mainly low concentration in atmospheric air. The emissions from stripper vent and monomer recovery vent Streams may also be preferentially controllable by catalytic incineration. The stripper vent stream is saturated with water and would probably require some drying before feeding to a catalytic incineration unit. This stream would probably be low in oxygen and some "combustion air" would need to be mixed with it. The probable competing processes for handling this stream are carbon bed adsorption plus steam or vacuum recovery, or thermal incineration. Carbon beds would likely be very large. For example, a nominally 500 cfm stream before drying would correspond to approximately 200 cfm on a dry basis. The EPA publication cites an example of two ii ft diameter x 10 ft high carbon beds handling only 60 cfm. The monomer recovery vent stream has a high VCM concentration which prob ably justifies some VCM recovery before destruction. If the plant is willing to operate dual condensers on an alternating schedule (allowing water to freeze out on one while the other defrosts) a tremendous re duction in VCM loss can be made by higher pressure, lower temperature condensation. The EPA publication suggests a five-fold reduction from 50^ to 10T VCM concentration by operating at -15"F. By operating a cryogenically cooled condenser at -60F the VCM concentration would be only If of the stream. Vents from these systems would be relatively dry and could go directly to a catalytic incineration system. Combustion air would have to be added to this stream as it contains practically no oxygen. 3-EPA-Ij50/2-75-009, October, 75, Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride COLORITE 008937 -6 B. Pilot Plant. Unit Tf the results of the operation of the micropilot plant unit justifies fur ther Developmental work, the second stage would consist of the design, construction, operation, and evaluation of a significantly larger scale pilot plant unit. This unit would be deisgned to handle ^ to 20 cfm of air. This unit could be operated in a number of locations. Comprehensive discussions have been held with The General Tire Company at their Ashta bula, Ohio-polyvinyl chloride plant. They have offered for use for this stage of a project a large pilot plant building located adjacent to their production facility. However, aside from a preference to fund a project tested in a polyvinyl chloride plant, there seems little difference whether the process is tested using synthetic feed gas, gases from a vinyl chlor ide production plant, or gases from a polyvinyl chloride plant. Each po tential user of this system (fill have different streams for application and process upsets will result in widely varying conditions. Once the basic process capabilities and limitations are known, a system can then be designed to handle the specific demands of each user. In all cases instrumentation will be necessary to protect the system and signal the operator if plant upsets exceed conditions considered in the design. Effects of potential catalyst poisons can be checked by addition to synthetic feed streams. Thus, the pilot plant could also be operated in the Barberton, Ohio Technical Center using synthetic feed streams. If this most economic ally attractive option is', not considered adequate for pilot plant demon stration, a third alternative would be the operation of the unit at one of PPG Industries' commercial vinyl chloride facilities. The specific equipment required for the pilot plant operation will be de termined by the results obtained in the initial stage of this Development level study. The period of operation of the unit would be approximately five months. V. ECOHOrnCS of use tm vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride PRODUCTION FACILITIES A. Potential Applications for Catalytic Vinyl Chloride Incineration Emission Control The selection of vinyl chloride emission control systems to meet the pro posed EPA standards will be mainly an economic choice from the demon strated alternatives. Each plant will have differing emission sources and conditions to consider. Even if the conditions were identical, in dividual preferences or prejudices would likely result in selection of different control systems by different companies. Host producers or users of vinyl chloride will probably install a combin ation of several control systems. These will likely cover the following areas. COLOR!TE 008938 EPA-450/2-75-009 Figure 3-5 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PLANT SUSPENSION PROCESS COLORITE 008939 -n EPA-450/2-75-009 . Table 3-6 VINYL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS FOR SUSPENSION POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PROCESS __________ Source____________ Fugitive Emissions Reactor Opening Loss Stripper Loss s Monomer Recovery Vent Slurry Blend Tank Centrifuge Vent Dryer Exhaust Silo Storage Bagger Area Bulk Loading Operations Reactor Safety Valve Vents Process Water TOTAL Stream I.D. on Simp!ified Flow Diagram 4-1 B C D E F G G G G B VCM Emissions kg/100 kg (lb VCM/10Q lb) PVC 1.50 0.14 0.32 0.48 '' 0.42 0.13 0.70 0.20 .025 3.92 COLORITE 008940 - 10 If low temperature condensation is not used to improve VCM recovery, the quantity of VCM in this stream favors direct thermal combustion since it is a fuel, or recovery by either carbon bed adsorption or solvent adsorp tion . The remaining emission points listed in EPA Table 3-6 (except safety valves and water vents) will probably not require control. An alternative in the EPA standard allows the FVC producers to reduce VCM in the PVC resin to IjOO ppm by stripping. This reduces emissions from the finishing section of the plant to less than O.Oti lb VCM/lOO lb PVC. Improved stripping attains low VCM levels in most FVC grades. The grades which are difficult to strip probably cannot justify the cost of emission controls for large volumes of air from the dryers and conveying systems. Catalytic incineration would not be applicable to large sudden vents from rupture discs or safety valves. Similar vent streams containing VCM from other PVC processes could be con sidered for catalytic incineration. Vents from oxychlorination reactors and distillation equipment for VCM production should also be considered. Carbon beds are not applicable if the stream contains very much oxygen. Catalytic incineration should be considered in such cases. A potentially important application of catalytic incineration to the con trol of vinyl chloride emissions would be its use in conjunction with a vacuum or thermal stripping unit to control vinyl chloride in water emissions, which are also detailed in the proposed standard. The streams from these stripping units would contain relatively low concentrations of vinyl chloride and high water concentrations. B. Relative Economics Because of the many unknowns an accurate estimate of the capital and annual operating costs for the proposed catalytic incineration vinyl chlor ide emission control cannot be made at present. However, some approxim ations show that the process does have a potential economic advantage over direct thermal incineration, principally in that it might be a less energy intensive process. The basic assumptions made in this economic assumption are summarized below: Unit Capacity Base = 1000 SCFM Operation = 7000 hrs/yr Fuel Cost = 12.00/MM BTU Operating Temperature Thermal Incinerator = 1000oC Catalytic Incinerator = 200C Heat Capacity of Air = 0.032 BTU/ft3 C COLOR!TE 008941 - 11 - Using these assumptions, the net difference in the cost of fuel between these two incineration methods would be approximately $21,f>00/year for each 1000 SCFM of vinyl chloride - containing air streart treated. Con servatively assuming that the cost of PPG Industries' proprietary, non noble metal based catalyst would be .00/pound, and that a 3h ft3 catalyst bed would be required (an approximate 2 second residence time), the approximate cost of the catalyst bed would be $10,000. Thus, even in the extreme of only a one-year life for the catalyst, an overall potential savings of approximately $10,000/year might be achieved for each 1000 SCFM of air treated. The potential savings to the vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride industry could therefore be considerable, if-this type of system were widely employed. It should be noted that if the results of the micropilot plant studies in dicated that extensive drying of the air streams or significantly longer residence times were required, the potential savings would be reduced significantly. VI. PPO INDUSTRIES QUALIFICATIONS The Industrial Chemical Division of PPG Industries is one of the largest United States producers of vinyl chloride monomer. Through the sales of this monomer and percarbonate polymerization initiators to the polyvinyl chloride producers, excellent relationships with these manufacturers exist. Since we are not their competitor in the polyvinyl chloride business, dis cussions are frank and the exchange of information is not inhibited. This has been illustrated by our discussions nf this project with The General Tire Company. The Barberton Technical Center deals principally with research and develop ment level projects on the manufacture of chemicals, including the design, construction, and operation of pilot plant scale production units. The chemists and chemical engineers at the Technical Center have had consid erable experience in conducting studies of the general type submitted in this proposal. The Technical Center has recently completed the develop ment of a catalytic destructor for phosgene and a commercial unit has been constructed and operated successfully. Thus, the engineering requirements of catalytic processes, and the handling of hydrochloric acid from a corrosion viewpoint, are familiar. In the Technical Center there is a large staff of capable analytical and instrumentation chemists who have available all of the specialized equip ment needed to conduct the analyses required by the project. The BarberLon Technical Center is located at a manufacturing plant so many shop facilities are available for use by the project. In addition, much of the standard chemical equipment which would be required is available in the Technical Center. COLOR!TE 008942 vil. PERSONNEL It would be necessary for PPG Industries to reassign a qualified senior level research chemist and chemical engineer to this project, if funded. Because of the tentative nature of this project, the selection of manpower would be made on the basis of availability and training, Details con cerning the selection would be made available to the EFA at the earliest possible time after approval of this project. VIII, BUDGET A. Micropilot Plant The proposed budget estimate for the initial* one-year micropilot plant stage of this project is given below: Manpower Senior Research Chemist: Senior Development Engineer: * Supervision: 2C$ of Manpower 9 Months 6 Months . $37,500 25,000 12,500.- Technician: 1000 hours at $20/hr 20,000 Department Overhead: Included in Manpower Rates Analytical: 300 hours at $25/hr 7,500 Equipment and Supplies: Materials of Construction Miscellaneous (Shop Charges, Reagents, Vinyl Chloride, Catalyst, etc.) h,000 2,500 Accounting Services 5,000 Secretarial Services 5,000 Travel Expenses 2,500 Vinyl Chloride Monitoring and MedicalServices Sub-Total Contingency: 10$ 2,500 $12h,000 12,1:00 Total $136,U00 COLORXTE 008943 - 1? The base, man-year cost figures included provision for fringe benefits and general laboratory purchases and overhead, in addition to salary. The estimated budget for analytical services is based primarily on the an ticipated need to utilize 1) mass spectroscopy to study possible chlorin ated hydrocarbon by-product formation, 2 ) X-ray crystallographic and electron microscopy studies of the effects of operation on the catalyst, and 3 ) chemical analyses of catalyst composition. B, Pilot Plant Demonstration The proposed budget estimate for the second, one-year pilot plant demon stration stage of this project is given on page lh. The estimates are based on the assumption that the demonstration unit would be constructed and tested on simulated gas mixtures at the Barberton Technical Center and then transported to a PVC plant within approximately 100 miles of the Bar berton Technical Center for a demonstration run. The operation would, therefore, be directed at a two-month local test, and a three-month field demonstration. / A* COLORITE 008944 - II. . budget Reriirn: 1 man-part timot 200 hrs at tP'iAu* Supervision; building, JiOO hrs at $2$Air Equipment; 2 Blowers 2 Driers 2 Reactors 8 Heat Exchangers 1 Air Drier 1 Scrubber Piping and Valves - Relief Instruments JVamo, etc. $ 800 500 2,000 1,000 200 200 2,000 5,000 8,000 Sub-Total Construction Labor w/Sup. - 700 hrs at 12 Balding Preparation Plant Overhead Contingency Operation (Local Test): $15,700 8,300 5.000 2.000 6,000 1 Engineer: 320 hm at $25 Air /\ Technician: 320 hrs at $20/hr Ihintenanco: , 150 hrs at $12 Aw Materials: ; Supervision: 20% Department Overhead (in rates) Plant overhead Laboratory analysis Operation (Field Test): 8,000 6,8 oo l,8oo 3,000 3,000 2,000 8,000 Transport, set up, and return Pack and load: 80 hrs at $12 Air Truck: 200 nd at i2.50/ml 1 Encineer'-25't time 80 hrs at $25 Air 2 Trips - 5 days each Set up equipment: 160 hrs at $15Air Clean-up and piping Demonstration: $ 1,000 500 2,000 600 2,800 1,000 $00 3 J*ten, $ Weeks, $ DaysA/eek Expenses: $8o/day plus $100/trip Salary: . 2 ten x 6 x 60 hrs/veek x t25Avr 1 Min x 6 x 60 hrs/week x $20Air Han, 6 Weeks, 5 DaysAleok Expenses: $80/day plus $10o/trip Salary: 6 x ):0 hrsAeek x $25/hr Maintenance: 16 hr/wk x $l5Aar x 12 weeks Instruments, Analysis, etc Materials, Utilities Overhead Miscellaneous Sub-Total Accounting Services Secretarial Services Vinyl Chloride Monitoring ft Medical Services Non-Demonstration Travel. Expenses Contingency; 20% Sub-Total Total 5,000 16,000 7,200 1,600 6,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,oon 2,500 $ 5,000 10,000 37,000 28,200 8,000 <0,000 138,200 155,700 n.ino Ji RC Rrvi COLOR!TE 008945 COLORITE 008946 * 'r - 16 C. Sumrviry 1. Micropilot Plant Stage 10$ Contingency 2. Pilot Plant Stage 20% Contingency 3. Project Total Sub-Total Sub-Total $12 li, 000 12 ,b00 $136,bOO 1^,700 31,100 $186,800 $323,200 IX. PROPOSED SCHEDULE The proposed, general schedule for the development of a catalytic vinyl chloride emission control is summarized in Figure 2. The schedule shown assumes the following: a. Successful completion of the various stages in the allotted time. / b. Sufficient manpower and funds will be available on a continuous basis. Submitted by: Barberton Technical Center PPG Industries. Inc, Industrial Chemical Division Barberton, Ohio bb203 EJS/chw mfs. ok . l"f * my T*. t.'w It, t|'m uip.C- Date: < COLOR!TE 008947