Document BReMBZrnvQpxg0yJ2me0X17z8

* r' -y; d '-S^- "-, 7." , ) " t-'; _* -- EMISSIONS CONTROL OPTIONS FOR THE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY Ethylene Dichloride Product Report November 1978 SL 101063 EMISSIONS CONTROL OPTIONS FOR THE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY EPA Contract No. 68-02-2577 Ethylene Dichloride Product Report F. D. Hobbs and J. A. Key Prepared for Emission Standards and Engineering Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Research Triangle Park, North Carolina November 1978 This report contains certain information which has been extracted from the Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute. Wherever used, it has been so noted. The proprietary data rights which reside with Stanford Research Institute must be recognized with any use of this material. f CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY AND PREFATORY MATERIAL II. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION A. Introduction B. Usage and Growth C. Domestic Producers D. References III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION A. Introduction B. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Air) Processes C. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Processes D. Process Variations E. References IV. EMISSIONS A. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Air) Processes B. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Processes C. Current Emissions D. References V. APPLICABLE CONTROL SYSTEMS A. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Air) Processes B. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Processes C. References VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS A. Environmental and Energy Impacts B. Control Cost Impact C. References VII. PRODUCT ASSESSMENT A. Summary B. Supplemental Information C. References Page I'l H'l II-l II-l II-l II-7 III-l III-l III-l III-5 III-7 III-9 IV-1 IV-1 IV-7 IV-7 IV-10 V-l V-l V-7 v-a VI-l VI-l VI-3 VI-11 VII-1 VII-1 VII-3 VII-4 IV r v APPENDICES appendix a. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EDC APPENDIX B. AIR-DISPERSION PARAMETERS APPENDIX C- FUGITIVE-EMISSION FACTORS APPENDIX D. COST ESTIMATE DETAILS FOR MODEL-PLANT EMISSION CONTROLS APPENDIX E. LIST OF EPA INFORMATION SOURCES Page A-l B-l C-l D-l E-l 101066 St. TABLES Number II-l Ethylene Dichloride Usageand Growth 11-2 Ethylene Dichloride Capacity IV-1 Uncontrolled Emissions of EDC and Total VOC IV-2 Composition of Oxychlorination (Air) Vent Gas IV-3 Storage Tank Data IV-4 Compositon of Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Vent Gas V-l Controlled Emissions vr-l Environmental Impact of Emission Controls VI-2 Cost Factors VI-3 Cost Estimates and Cost Effectiveness for Control of Emissions VII-1 Emission Summary A-l Physical Properties B-l Atmospheric-Dispersion Parameters (Air) B-2 Atmospheric-Dispersion Parameters (Oxygen) page II-2 II-3 IV-2 IV-3 IV-5 IV-8 V-2 VI-2 VI-5 VI-6 VII-2 A-3 B-3 B-4 FIGURES Number II-l Locations of Plants III-l Ethylene Dichloride from a Balanced Process III-2 Ethylene Dichloride by Oxygen Process VI-1 Installed Capital Cost vs Plant Capacity VI-2 Net Annual Cost vs Plant Capacity D-l Precision of Capital Cost Estimates page II-4 III-3 III-6 VI-8 VI-9 D-4 IX ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS EPA policy is to express all measurements in agency documents in metric units. Listed below are the International System of Units (SI) abbreviations and con version factors for this report. To Convert From Pascal (Pa) Joule (J) Degree Celsius (C) Meter (m) Cubic meter (m ) Cubic meter (m3) Cubic meter (m3) Cubic meter/second (m3/s) Watt (W) Meter (m) Pascal (Pa) Kilogram (kg) Joule (J) To Atmosphere (760 mm Hg) British thermal unit (Btu) Degree Fahrenheit (F) Feet (ft) Cubic feet (ft3) Barrel (oil) (bbl) Gallon (U.S. liquid) (gal) Gallon (U.S, liquid/min) (gpm) Horsepower (electric) (hp) Inch (in.) 2 Pound-force/inch (psi) Pound-mass (lb) Watt-hour (W-h) Multiply By 9.870 X io'6 9.480 X io'4 (C X 9/5) + 32 3.28 3.531 X 1Q1 6.290 2.643 X 102 1.585 X io4 1.340 X io"3 3.937 X io1 1.450 X io-4 2.205 2.778 X io'4 Standard Conditions 68F = 2QC 1 atmosphere (Torr) = 101,325 Pascals PREFIXES Prefix T G M k m M Symbol tera giga mega kilo milli micro Multiplication Factor 1012 109 106 103 1Q~3 io'6 Example 1 Tg = 1 X 1012 grains 1 Gg = 1 X g 10 grams 1 MW * 1 X 10 grams 1 km = 1 X 3 10 meters 1 mV = 1 X 10~3 volt i Mg = 1 X 10 gram Si* 1 f 1-1 I. PREFATORY AND INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL (This section to be supplied by EPA.) SL 101069 nr II-l II. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION Ethylene dichloride (EDC) was selected for consideration because the large amounts produced and its moderate volatility (see Appendix A for pertinent physical properties) result in high emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC).1 Ethylene dichloride constitutes a major portion of emissions from both direct chlorination and oxychlorination of ethylene,1 the two commercial processes for its manufacture. Recently it was recommended that ethylene dichloride be treated as a carcinogen because it has been found to cause statistically significant increases of cancer in laboratory animals.2 B. USAGE AND GROWTH The end uses and expected growth rates for ethylene dichloride are given in Table II-l. The predominant use is as an intermediate in the production of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM); approximately 93% of the VCM produced in 1974 was made from ethylene dichloride. A large portion of the remaining ethylene dichloride is used in production of chlorinated solvents.^ The domestic ethylene dichloride capacity for 1977 is reported to be about 6,726,000 Mg/yr. 4 Production was reported to be about 4,679,000 Mg in 1977, 5 or about 70% of capacity. Based on a projected growth rate of 4 to 5%,^ production will utilize 35 to 39% of the 1977 capacity by 1982. There are indications that the growth may exceed the projected rate. Several companies are either completing construction and startup of new VCM plants or are planning new VCM capacity,** which usually must include additional ethylene dichloride capacity. Ethylene dichloride for sale must come from direct chlorination of ethylene unless a supply of hydrogen chloride (HC1) is available as feed for the oxychlorination process. Conversely, unless the HC1 produced as a by-product during the cracking of ethylene dichloride to VCM has another use, it is used as feed for the oxychlori nation process.^ C. DOMESTIC PRODUCERS There were 12 producers operating 18 ethylene dichloride plants in the United 3 4 7_a States in 1977. Table II-2 lists the producers, locations, and capacities,- ' ' Fig. II-l shows plant locations. SL l0l070 11--2 * Table II-l. Ethylene Dichloride Usage and Growth End Use Vinyl chloride 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Perchloroethylene Ethylaneamines Vinylidene chloride Lead scavanger Exports * See ref. 3. Production for 1974 (%) 81 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 Average Growth for 1974--1979 (%/yr) 4 5.5 -1 5.5 5 7 0. Mot available loionOA 11 - 3 Table II-2. Ethylene Dichloride Capacitya Plant Allied, Baton Rouge, LA Borden, Geismar, LA Conoco, Lake Charles, LA Diamond Shamrock, Deer Park, TX Dow, Freeport, TX Dow, Oyster Creek, TX Dow, Plaquemine, LA .Ethyl, Baton Rouge, LA Ethyl, Houston, TX Goodrich, Calvert City, KY PPG, Lake Charles, La PPG, Guayanilla, PR Shell, Deer Park, TX Shell, Norco, LA Stauffer, Long Beach, CA Union Carbide, Taft, LA Union Carbide, Texas City, TX Vulcan, Geismar, LA Total Capacity as of 1977 (Mq/yr) 315,000 225,000b 524,000 145,000d 726,000 499,000 952,000* 317,000 118,000 454,000f 544,000 379,000 544,000 544,000 154,000 68,000g 68,00Qg 150,000h 6,726,000 aSee ref. 4. bPlant started up in 1977 (see ref. 7). c Conoco plans to double production by 1980 (see ref. 8). Diamond Shamrock reported plans to expand capacity with a 794.000- Mg/yr plant at San Jacinto, TX, by mid-1978 (see ref. 8). e Includes a recently completed expansion (see ref. 8). Goodrich and Bechtel have announced a joint venture including a 363.000- Mg/yr ethylene dichloride facility near Houston, TX (see ref. 9) . gUnion Carbide is the only producer making ethylene dichloride exclusively by the direct chlorination of ethylene process; all other producers use both the direct-chlorination and the oxychlorination processes (see ref. 3). ^Vulcan recently added a purification unit at the Geismar, LA, facilities (see ref. 8). sv II-4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (13) Allied Chemical Co., Baton Bongs, LA Borden Chemical Co., Geismar, LA Conoco Chemicals, Lake Charles, LA Diamond Shamrock Corp., Deer Park, TX Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, TX Dow Chemical Co., Oyster Creek, TX Dow Chemical Co., Plaquemine, LA Ethyl Corp., Baton Rouge, LA Ethyl Corp., Houston, TX B.F. Goodrich Co., Calvert City, KY PPG Industries, Inc., Lake Charles, LA PPG Industries, Inc., Guayanilla, P.R. Shell Chemical Co., Deer Park, TX Shell Chemical Co., Norco, LA Stauffer Chemical Co., Long Beach, CA Union Carbide Corp., Taft, LA Union Carbide Corp., Texas City, TX Vulcan Materials Co., Geismar, LA Fig. II-l. Locations of Plants Manufacturing Ethylene Dichloride SC 101 on a- II-s Producing Companies 1. Allied About 70% of the ethylene dichloride capacity is required to operate the VQi facilities at capacity. The remainder is sold.3 ICI America has reported plans to purchase this facility.8 2. Borden All ethylene dichloride is captively consumed in the manufacture of VQI. The facilities were started up in 1977.7 3. Conoco All ethylene dichloride is captively consumed in the manufacture of VQI.3 The plans are to double their capacity by 1980.8 4. Diamond Shamrock About 38% of the ethylene dichloride capacity is required for the trichloro ethylene and perchloroethylene facilities at their full capacity; the remainder 3 is sold. Plans have been reported to expand the capacity with a 794,000-Mg/yr plant at San Jacinto, TX, by mid-1978.8 5. Dow Approximately 75% of the ethylene dichloride capacity is used as an inter mediate for capacity production of numerous end products; the remaining ethylene dichloride is sold. The capacity at the Plaquemine, LA, location O was recently expanded by about 453,000 Hg/yr. 6. Ethyl Nearly all the ethylene dichloride capacity is required as an intermediate for the manufacture of various end products.3 7. Goodrich 2 All ethylene dichloride is captively consumed in VQI production. Goodrich and Bechtel have agreed on a joint venture to manufacture ethylene dichloride at a facility near Houston, TX.8 Sh lOlO^2 II-6 8. PPG Nearly all ethylene dichloride is captively consumed in the manufacture of VQI and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. Plans have been announced to increase the vinyl chloride capacity by 227,000 Mg/yr at the Lake Charles, LA, facility by late 1980.6 9. Shell Ethylene dichloride is captively consumed in VCM manufacture. 10. Stauffer About 85% of the ethylene dichloride is consumed in VCH production; the 3 remainder is sold. 11. Union Carbide Union Carbide is the only producer making all ethylene dichloride exclus ively by the direct-chlorination process. About 85% of the ethylene dichlor-^ ide capacity is required for operation of ethylenediamine plants at capacity. 12. Vulcan A small amount of the ethylene dichloride is consumed in the manufacture '_ perchloroethylene; most of it is sold. It was announced that a purifica^^ unit would be installed by late 1977. to on 2-a 11--7 D. REFERENCES* 1. Hydroscience, Inc., Survey and Ranking (unpublished report; on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (December 1977). 2. "Cancer Warning on Chloroethanes," Chemical Week 123(10), 21 (1978). 3. J. L. Blackford, "Ethylene Dichloride," pp. 651.5031A--651.50331 in Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (November 1975). 4- 1978 Directory of Chemical Producers, United States of America, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 599--600 (197a). 5. "Manual of Current Indicators--Supplemental Data," p. 219 in Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (June 1978). 6. "Chementator," Chemical Engineering 85(18), 72 (1973). 7. J. A.-Key, Hydroscience, Inc., Trip Report for Visit to Borden Chemicals, Geismar, Louisiana, March 2, 1978 (data on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC). 8. "Chemical Profile on Ethylene Dichloride," p. 9 in Chemical Marketinq Reporter (May 16, 1977). 9. "Business Newsletter," Chemical Week 123(5), 7 (1978). *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire para graph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the . reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. SL 101073 III-l III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION Host of the ethylene dichloride (EDC) produced domestically is used in the produc tion of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). Three principal steps are involved in pro ducing VCM: (1) the direct chlorination of ethylene to yield EDC, (2) which is then cracked to yield VCM plus hydrogen chloride (HCl), and (3) the use of HC1 with oxygen, which may be in the form of air, to oxychlorinate ethylene to pro duce additional EDC plus water. These steps constitute the "balance" process, so-called because all the HCl is recycled. This report is concerned with only the direct-chlorination process and the two variations of the oxychlorination process for producing ethylene dichloride. Also, in the model plants discussed the ratio of EDC produced by these processes is fixed because no net HCl is produced. In other plants, however, such as one in which HCl is available as a by-product from other processes, the ratio will be different. One ethylene dichloride producer uses only the direct-chlorination process. Previously, ethylene dichloride was produced as a by-product of ethyl ene oxide manufacture by the chlorohydrin process; however, the last domestic pro ducer using that process converted to propylene oxide manufacture in 1970.* B. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OXYCHLORINATION (AIR) PROCESSES Ethylene dichloride is produced by direct chlorination of ethylene by the catalytic reaction ch2=ch2 (ethylene) + ci2 (chlorine) ------ ^ cich2ch2ci (ethylene dichloride) Almost all commercial plants now use a ferric chloride catalyst in a liquid-phase process. Ethylene dichloride is also produced by oxychlorination of ethylene with hydrogen chloride and air or oxygen by the following catalytic reaction: 2CH2=CH2 (ethylene) + 2 + 4HC1 . ---> (oxygen) (hydrogen chloride) 2C1CH2CH2C1 (ethylene dichloride) + 2H2 (water) SL 101074 F III-2 The catalyst is a mixture of copper chloride and other chlorides and the react is carried out in the vapor phase in either a fixed- or fluid-bed reactor. The typical ethylene dichloride process shown in Fig. III-l begins with ethylene (Stream 1) being fed by pipeline to both the oxychlorination reactor and the directchlorination reactor. In the oxychlorination reactor the ethylene is mixed with approximately stoichiometric proportions of anhydrous hydrogen chloride (Stream 2) and air (Stream 3) at pressures of 140--520 kPa and temperatures of 20Q--315C. The conversion of ethylene to ethylene dichloride is virtually completed in the reactor. The reaction is exothermic, generating more than 230 kJ of heat per mole of ethylene dichloride produced, and requires efficient heat removal for adequate temperature control. 2 The products of reaction from the oxychlorination reaction are quenched and cooled (Stream 4) and then go to a knockout drum. The condensed crude ethylene dichloride and water (Stream 5) separated by the knockout drum enter a decanter, where the crude ethylene dichloride is separated from the aqueous phase. The crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 6) goes to in-process storage, and the aqueous phase (Stream 7} is recycled to the quench step. Noncondensed material (Stream 8) from the knockout drum is fed to an absorber, where ethylene dichloride is recovered from the nitrogen and other inert gases, which are released to the atmosphere (Vent A). Absorbe^^ ethylene dichloride and the absorbent (Stream 9) enter a stripper that removes ethylene dichloride overhead (Stream 10), which then goes to crude ethylene dichloride storage. The stripped absorbent (Stream 11) from the stripper is recycled to the absorber. In the direct-chlorination step of the balanced process ethylene (Stream 1) and a stoichiometric amount of chlorine (Stream 12) are reacted at a temperature of 38--49C and at pressures of 69--138 kPa. This process produces 218 kJ/mole (of 2 EDC) of heat that must be removed for proper temperature control. Products (Stream 13) of reaction from the direct-chlorination reactor are cooled, and the crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 14) is washed with water to remove dis solved hydrogen chloride before being transferred (Stream 15) to the in-process storage. Any iner is fed with the ethylene or chlorine is released to the atmos phere from the cot. (Vent B). The waste wash water (Stream 16) is sent t.. the wastewater stripper along with the wastewater (Stream 17) from the oxychlorination Si ll07S .1 1 EOC STRIPPER lM-PROCeA ABSORBER STGRWsjE AIR COMPRESSOR <3: HCI (BT PlPEUU&l OtfYCHLCRlMAT. REACTOR AMO Queues AREA KNOCKOUT CRUM <3 <3> <& tTHYLEMG (by pkpfcut^e) AO^j O CVT| -HLORlNE .Bf Pi.PtLAJE)^ ttRBCT CHLGPiWKTt* REACTOR <^> SECONDARY. /T\ EM1SS1CM tW POTENTIAL I DECANTER 1 WATER COOLER WATER SWASH & ~F<$> <5> <8 ORYlVJC* COCUMhl XJ <s i t&COMDARY EMiSSlOU PGTEWTIAU WATER in HCi REMOVAL i(h) WASTE WATER Treatment Pu&nive EMISSIONS OVERALL plant WASTev/ater stripper X LIQUID CMLORI mated HYDROCARBONS INCINERATOR Fig. III-l. Ethylene Dichloride from a Balanced Process HEADS COLUHkl W LIQUID waste STORAGE i n Usproduct storage TO VCM BY PIPELINE EOC finishing COUJMM <8 TAR storage _JO SALES TO _ SALES -III III-4 quench area and the wastewater (Stream 13) from the drying column. The overhe (Stream 19) from the wastewater stripper, which consist of recovered ethylene dichloride, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and water, are returned to the process by adding them to the crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 14) going to the water wash. Crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 20) from in-process storage goes to the drying column, where water (Stream IS) is distilled overhead and sent to the wastewater stripper. The dry crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 21) goes to the heads column, which removes light ends (Stream 22) for storage and disposal or sale. Bottoms (Stream 23) from the heads column enter the ethylene dichloride finishing column, where ethylene dichloride (Stream 24) ,;s overhead to product storage. The tars from the ethylene dichloride finishing column (Stream 25) are taken to tar storage for disposal or sales. The largest amount of emission is the oxychlorinatiorf gas from vent A, because all the nitrogen from the air (Stream 3) fed to the reactor exits the process there. This vent also contains all the ethane from the ethylene feed to the oxychlorination reactor, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide formed by side reactions, some ethylene dichloride and other chlorinated hydrocarbons not recovered by the absorber, and a small amount of the absorbent. Other process emissions are the vent gases f the direct-chlorination cooler (Vent B) and from the various distillation colum: (Vents C). Storage emission sources (Vents D through G) include in-process storage, product storage, liquid waste storage, and tar storage. Because ethylene dichloride is fed by pipeline to the cracking section of a VCH plant and the light ends and tars are piped to the incinerator, there are no handling emissions from this process as shown. They will occur, however, when ethylene dichloride or the light ends or the tars are loaded into tank trucks, tank cars, or barges for shipping to other sites. Fugitive emissions (H) occur when leaks develop in valves or in pump or compressor seals. When the process pressures are higher chan the cooling-water pressure, ethylene dichloride and other VOC can leak into the cooling water and escape as a fugitive emissions from the cooling tower. SL 101077 Ill -- 5 Secondary emissions can occur when wastewater containing VOC is sent to a wastewater treatment system or lagoon and the VOC are desorbed (X). Another source of secondary emissions is from the incineration of liquid-waste streams, where VOC are emitted with the flue gases (Vent J). C. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OXYCHLORINATION (OXYGEN) PROCESSES Only two domestic EDC producers use oxygen as the oxidant in the oxychlorination reactor. The process details are considered to be confidential by both producers. Although conceptual descriptions of such processes are given in the literature, it is not known how the processes actually used compare with those described. One producer has released data showing that the plant is not truly balanced; i.e., the ratio of ethylene dichloride from oxychlorination and direct chlorination dif fers from that of a balanced plant. However, both producers have direct chlorina tion, ethylene dichloride purification and cracking, and VCM purification steps at the same site, which probably constitute an integrated process. Figure III-2 shows a typical oxygen-based oxychlorination process as given in the literature. For a balanced process plant the direct chlorination and purification steps are the same as those shown in Fig. III-l and therefore are not shown again in Fig. III-2. Ethylene (Stream 1) is fed in large excess of stoichiometric requirements, e.g,, 2 to 3 times the amount needed to fully consume the hydrogen chloride (HC1) feed (Stream 2). Oyxgen (Stream 3) is also fed to the reactor, which may be either a fixed bed or a fluid bed. After passing through the oxy chlorination reactor and quench area, the reaction products (Stream 4) go to a knockout drum, where the condensed crude ethylene dichloride and water (Stream 5) produced by the oxychlorination reaction are separated from the unreacted ethylene and the inert gases (Stream 6), e.g., carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, argon, and nonreactive hydrocarbons, which enter the reactor as impurities with the feed streams or are formed during the oxychlorination reaction itself. From the knockout drums the crude ethylene dichloride and water (Stream S) go to a decanter, where wastewater (Stream 7) is separated from the crude ethylene dichloride (Stream 8), which goes to in-process storage as in the air-based process. The wastewater (Stream 7) is sent to the steam stripper in the direct-chlorination step for recovery of dissolved organics. 3 ' 4 SL 101078 III-6 6/>0X0t Fiy. II1-2. Ethylene Dichloride by Oxygen Process, Oxychlorination Step <: III-7 The vent gases (Stream 6) from the knockout drum go to a caustic scrubber for removal of hydrogen chloride and carbon dioxide. The purified vent gases (Stream S) are then compressed and recycled (Stream 10) to the oxychlorination reactor as part of the ethylene feed.3,4 A small amount of the vent gas (Vent A) from the knockout drum is purged to prevent buildup of the inert gases entering with the feed streams or formed during the , 34 reaction. ' D. PROCESS VARIATIONS Although all ethylene dichloride is produced either by direct chlorination of ethylene or by oxychlorination of ethylene, there are many variations in the reactors, recovery methods, and purification trains. However, while the general differences are well known and documented, ' ' the details are considered to be trade secrets and confidential by the various manufacturers of ethylene dichloride. The oxychlorination reactor may be either a tubular fixed-bed type with the. cat alyst inside the tubes and the coolant in the shell or a fluid-bed type with internal cooling coils. The reactor effluent may be cooled by indirect heat exchange to condense the ethylene dichloride. In one process chlorine is added to the vent gases, which are then passed through one or more catalytic reactors for removal of unreacted ethylene by conversion to ethylene dichloride. When absorption/stripping is used for recovery of ethylene dichloride from the vent gases, the absorbent may be either water or an aromatic solvent. Refrigerated vent condensers may be used to cool the oxychlorination vent gases to as low as 2__ 5 7 a -23C for recovery of chlorinated hydrocarbons. ' ' The direct chlorination of ethylene with chlorine may be carried out either in the vapor phase or in the liquid phase. The reaction usually takes place in the liquid phase with a considerable excess of reaction product. The catalyst may be a metallic chloride such as ferric, aluminum, copper, or antimony chloride; ferric chloride in a liquid-phase reactor is used by almost all commercial plants. The vapors may be condensed by water-cooled and/or refrigerated condensers or they may be absorbed in water or dilute caustic. 1'2' 8 101080 SL III-8 The crude ethylene dichloride from the oxychlorination step may be combined vi that from the direct chlorination and washed with water or caustic or both. The crude ethylene dichloride may be used wthout purification in many applications; in other applications it may be purified and may include recycled EDC from the VCh purification step. 5 ' 7 ' 3 Production of other chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as 1,1,1-triehloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloroethane, may be integrated with ethylene dichloride---vinyl chlon.ce g plants. Vent gas streams from the direct-chlorination step or other processing units may be recycled to the oxychlorination reactor as part of the feed to utilize the raw materials contained in the streams. ' These recycle streams or the ethylene, hydrogen chloride, and chlorine feeds may contain impurities, such as methane, 7 that will exit the process in the vent gases. The light chlorinated hydrocarbons recovered in the purification step may be used as feed to perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride plants or may be further purified for recovery of specific chlorinated hydrocarbons. The heavy chlorinated hydrocarbons may also be processed for recovery of some of the chlorinated hydrocarbons. 5 ' 7 e.v III-9 e'. references* 1. J. L. Blackford, "Ethylene Dichloride," p. 651.5932A in Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (November 1975), 2. R. G. Bellamy and W. A, Schwartz, Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 8: Vinvl chloride Manufacture by the Balanced Process, EPA-4SQ/3-73-006-h, Research Triangle Park, NC (July 1975). ' 3. W. E. Wimer and R. E. Feathers, "Oxygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon Processing 55(3), 81--84 (1976). 4. P. Reich, "Air or Oxygen for VCH?" Hydrocarbon Processing 55(3), 85-~89 (1976). ^-- 5. Responses to EPA requests for information on emissions from ethylene dichloride and vinyl choride production facilities; see Appendix E. 6. J. A. Key, Hydroscience, Inc., Trip Reoort for Visit to Dow Chemical, USA, Freeport, TX, Sept. 20, 1977 (data on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC). 7. W. A. Schwartz et al., Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 3: Ethylene Dichlonde Manufacture by Oxvchlorination, EPA-450/3-73-006-C, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1974). 8. J. W. Pervier et al., Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry, Volume II, EPA-450/3-73~005-b Research Triangle Park, NC (April 1974). " 9. D. R. Goodwin, Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement: Emission Standard for vinyl Chloride, EPA-450/2-75-009, Research Triangle Park, NC (October 1975). 10. W. M. Reiter, Allied Chemical Corporation, letter dated May 16, 1978, in response to EPA's request for information on emission data on ethylene dichloride production facilities. *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire paragraph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. l0l082 IV- i IV. EMISSIONS A. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OHyCHLORINATION (AIR) PROCESSES 1. Model Plant The model plant for the balanced process (Fig. III-I) has an ethylene dichloride (ECD) capacity of 400,000 Mg/yr, based on 8760 hr of operation annually,215,000 Mg/yr is produced by direct chlorination and 185,000 Mg/yr by oxychlorination with air. A small quantity (8000 Mg/yr) of liquid-waste chlorinated hydro carbons is produced and then burned in a liquid-waste incinerator. These liquid wastes could be used or sold. If there is no demand, they would be burned. The model plant is typical of several existing ethylene dichloride plants.1 Typical in-process, product, and waste by-product storage-tank capacities are estimated for the 400,000-Hg/yr plant. The storage-tank parameters are given in Sect. IV.A.2.d, and estimates of potential fugitive emission sources are given in Sect. IV.A.2.e. Characteristics of the model plant that are important in air-dispersion modeling are given in Table B-l in Appendix B. 2. Sources and Emissions Emission rates and sources for the balanced process based on air are summarized in Table IV-1. a. Qxychlorination Vent -- The oxychlorination vent gas (Vent A, Fig. III-l) contains nitrogen and unreacted oxygen from the air fed to the reactor; ethane and unreacted ethylene from the ethylene feed; and the ethylene dichloride product, other chlori nated hydrocarbons, and carbon oxides produced in the reactor and not removed from the vent gases in the absorber. Table IV-2 gives the composition of this stream based on an average of data from several sources1 but is not representative of actual data from any specific plant or process. The data points show such wide scatter that no composition can be found that is typical for either fluid-bed or fixed-bed reactors. It appears that operating conditions may influence the vent gas composition more than reactor configuration. Although there are more inert gases (nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon oxides) in the fluid-bed vent gas and more total vent gas per kg of ethylene dichloride produced than for the fixed-bed case, for both reactors the values of the ratios of total VOC and EDC emitted SL 101083 IV-2 Table IV-1. Uncontrolled Emissions of EDC and Total vcc from Model Plants'* Emission Source Oxychlorination vent Vent or Source Designation (ria-s .111-1.2) Air process Oxygen process A AC . Direct-chlorination vent B Column vents C Storage vents In-process D Product E Licuid waste F Tar G Fugitive H Secondary Wastewater treatment I Incinerator J Total for air process Total for oxygen process Em:Lssions ,,Ratiob (a/kg) Rate ka/hr) EDC Total vcc EDC Total VOC 3.24 0.462 1.08 3.00 7.17 9.39 2.84 13.0 143 21.1 49.1 137 327 429 130 594 0.0340 0.124 0.0830 0.0340 0.124 0.0654 0.00229 0.166 1.55 5.65 3.79 1.55 5.65 2.98 0.105 7.58 0.0181 7.6 4.8 0.0272 0.190 24 26 0.829 350 220 1.24 3.68 1100 1200 aAll emissions are based on 8760 hr of operation per year. bg of emission per kg of EDC produced by balanced process. CSee Fig. III-2 for this vent source; see Fig. III-l for all others. 0&4 IV-3 Table IV-2. Composition of Model-Plant Oxychlorination (Air) Vent Gas Comoonent Ethylene dichloride Ethylene Ethane Other VOCb Nitrogen Oxygen Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Total Composition (wt %) 0.81 0.61 0.03 0.34 89.24 5.33 2.79 0.35 100.00 Emission Ratio* (g/kg) 7.0 5.3 0.3 2.9 770.1 46.0 24.1 7.3 863.0 g of emission per kg of ethylene dichloride produced by oxychlorination. Ethyl chloride, VCM, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. VCM concen tration meets current EPA emission standards. XOlO5 IV-4 per kg of EDC produced have the same ranges and averages. The ethane content of the vent gas from the model plant is calculated based on ethylene containing 0.1% ethane and on ethane being neither consumed nor produced in the oxychlorination reactor. Only inert gases are contained in the hydrogen chloride feed used in the model plant; therefore methane does not appea. m the oxychlorination vent gas. b. Direct-Chlorination Vent -- The vent gases from the direct-chlorination step (Vent B, Fig. III-l) are primarily the inert gases from the ethylene and hydro gen chloride feeds, unreacted ethylene, and ethylene dichloride not condensed in the cooler. The ethylene dichloride in the vent gases is estimated to be 2 g/kg of the ethylene dichloride produced from the direct-chlorination step. The ethylene feed to the model plant contains 0.1% ethane, which exits with the vent gases along with the unreacted ethylene, estimated to be 3 g/kg of the ethylene dichloride produced by direct chlorination. The chlorine to the modelplant reactor consists 0.5% inert gases, or 3.65 g/kg of direct-chlorination product, which is a significant portion of the vent emissions. c. Column Vents -- The vent gases from the EDC stripper, the wastewater stripper, the drying column, the heads column, and the EDC finishing column (Vents C, Fig. III-l) are the noncondensables that are dissolved in the feed to the columns, the VOC that are not condensed, and, for the columns operated under vacuum, the air that leaks into the column and is removed by the vacuum jet systems. An estimate was made of the quantity of these emissions, since the available data are scarce and vary widely. 1 ' 2 d. Storage and Handling Emissions -- Emissions result from the storage of ethylene dichloride, in-process, and liquid-waste streams. Sources for the model plant are shown in Fig. III-l (Sources D through G). Storage tank parameters for the model plant are given in Table IV-3. The calculated emissions in Table IV-1 are based on fixed-roof tanks, half full, an 11C diurnal temperature variation, and the use of the emission equations from AP-42.^ No handling emissions occur in the model plant, as all raw materials, product, and waste by-products are transported by pipeline. This may not be the case in existing plants, where loading and unloading operations could result in additional emissions. 101086 SL IV-5 Table IV-3. Modal-Plant Storage Tank Data Storage Tank In-process storage Liquid waste storage Tar storage Product Contents Crude EDC Light ends Heavy ends EDC No. Of Tanks Reauired 1 1 1 1 Tank Size (m3) 1140 380 380 3800 Turnovers (Per Year) 6* 8 8 12* Bulk Temperature (C) 27 27 27 27 `These tanks operate at approximately constant level,and the number of turnovers indicated is an attempt to account for slight level variations. SL 101087 iv-a Fugitive Emissions -- Process pumps, process valves, and pressure relief devic^B are potential sources of fugitive emissions (Source H). The model plant is es^F mated to have 42 pumps handling VOC, 21 of which handle ethylene dichloride. There are an estimated 1100 valves and 40 pressure relief devices in VOC service, with 550 valves and 20 pressure relief devices in ethylene dichloride service. The fugitive-emission factors from Appendix C were applied to these estimates, and the totals are shown in Table IV-1 as fugitive emissions. f. Secondary Emissions -- Secondary emissions can result from the handling and dis posal of process waste-liquid streams. Two potential sources (I and J) are indi cated in Fig. III-l for the model plant. The secondary emissions from wastewater treatment (Source I) were estimated by procedures that will be discussed in a future EPA report on secondary emissions. An estimate of wastewater composition and flow rate was made, based on data received from ethylene dichloride producers.1 A Henry*s-law constant was then calculated for the vapor-liquid system under consideration, and the emission rate was estimated by comparison with information given in existing literature, such as an article by Thibodeaux.^ This emission rate is shown in Table IV-1. The secondary emissions of total VOC in the flue gases from the liquid chlorin^Bid hydrocarbon incinerator (Source J) were estimated as 1% of feed. Information on these emissions is not presently available, and so the estimate was based on 99% destruction of the liquid feed. Higher than normal temperatures and residence times are required to destroy 99% or more of a liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon feed that contains no salts or solids except for a small amount of finely divided carbon. Before the flue gases are vented to the atmosphere, they are normally sent first to absorbers for recovery of HC1 and then to a dilute caustic scrubber to remove unrecovered HCl and any chlorine formed in the incineration. The dilute recovered HCl may be concentrated to anhydrous HCl, which can be used as feed to the oxychlorination reactor.^ St* IV-7 B. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OXYCHLORINATION (OXYGEN) PROCESSES 1. Model Plant In the model-plant oxychlorination (oxygen) process (Fig. III-2) for producing ethylene dichloride, oxygen is fed to the reactor instead of air. All the capac ities for both model plants are identical, i.e., 400,000 Mg/yr of ethylene dichloride from the plant, with 185,000 Mg/yr being produced by the oxychlori nation step, etc. Figure III-2 shows only the oxychlorination step. Storage tank requirements and estimates of potential fugitive emission sources and secondary emission sources are also the same as for the air process. Character istics of the model plant that are important in air dispersion modeling are given in Table B-2 in Appendix B. v 2. Sources and Emissions Emission rates and sources for the balanced ethylene dichloride process based on oxygen are summarized in Table IV-1. a. Oxychlorination Vent -- The oxychlorination vent gas (Vent A, Fig. Ill--2) acts as a purge stream to prevent buildup of impurities in the recycle stream (Stream 6, Fig. III-2). These impurities are the carbon oxides, nitrogen, argon, or nonreactive hydrocarbons that enter the reactor with the feed streams or that are formed during the oxychorination reaction itself. Table IV-4 gives the composition of this stream based on an average of data from oxygen based processes3, but is not representative of actual data from any specific process. The ethane content of the vent gas from the oxygen-based model plant is calculated based on ethylene containing 0.1% ethane and on no ethane being consumed or produced in the oxy chlorination reactor. Since the ethylene and hydrogen chloride feed to the model plant contains no methane, no methane is present in these vent gases. b. Other Emissions -- All other emissions from the the oxygen process are identical to those from the process based on air and are discussed in Sect. IV.A.2. C. CURRENT EMISSIONS An estimate of the 1978 emissions from the industry is 11,000 Mg/yr of ethylene dichloride and 35,000 Mg/yr of total V0C, based on an estimated 1978 level of ethylene dichloride production of 4,900,000 Mg/yr obtained by applying a 5% growth SL 101089 IV-a Table rv-4. Composition c odel-Plant Oxvchlorination (Oxygen Vent Gas Comcor.ent Ethylene dichloride Ethylene Ethane Other VQCb Nitrogen Oxygen Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Total Composition (wt %) 1.5 27.6 0.3 1.5 15.3 3.1 45.9 4.6 100.0 Emission Ratio (q/kg) 1 18 0.3 1 10 2 30 _3___ 65.3 ag of emission per kg of ethylene dichloride produced by oxychlorination. Ethyl chloride, VCM, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. SL 101090 IV-9 rate to the reported 1977 production of 4,679,000 Mg/yr.5 These emission esti mates are based on engineering judgement and data from individual ethylene dichloride producers, state and local emission control agencies, and the open literature. The following individual estimated projections were made: Source Process Storage and handling Fugitive Secondary Total (rounded) 1978 Emissions (Mg/yr) EDC Total VOC 10,600 500 60 90 11,000 33,200 700 110 600 35,000 SL 101091 IV-10 D. REFERENCES* 1. Responses to EPA requests for information on ethvlene dichloride emissions; see Appendix E. 2. W. A. Schwartz et al., Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Studv of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry! Volume~3: Ethylene Dichloride Manufacture bv Oxvchlorination, EPA-45Q/3-73-0Q6-C, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1974). 3. C. C. Masser, "Storage of Petroleum Liquids," Sect. 4.3 in Supplement No. 7 for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 2d ed.,~ EPA," Research Triangle Park, NC (April 1977). 4. L. J. Thibodeaux, "Air Stripping of Organics from Wastewater. A Compendium," pp. 3S3--378 in The Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Complete Watereuse. Water`s Interface with Energy, Air and Solids, Chicago, IL, Hav 4--3, 1975, sponsored by AIChE and EPA Technology Transfer. 5. "Manual of Current Indicators--Supplemental Data," p. 219 in Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (June 1978)" *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire para graph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. SL 101092 V-l V. APPLICABLE CONTROL SYSTEMS A. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OXYCHLORINATION (AIR) PROCESSES I. Oxychlorination Vent The gases from the oxychlorination vent can be thermally oxidized to effectively control the ethylene dichloride (EDC) and VOC in them. Because of the large percentage of nitrogen and carbon dioxide in the vent gases, they must be sup plemented by additional fuel for the necessary temperature to be reached. The flue gases from the thermal oxidation of chlorine containing compounds will con tain hydrogen chloride (HC1) and a small amount of chlorine, depending on operating temperature,* that must be removed before the flue gases are discharged to the atmosphere. The model-plant thermal oxidizer operates at 1100C and a residence time of 1 sec and has a quench chamber with water sprays to remove the HC1 and a tail-gas scrubber to remove any remaining HCl and any chlorine before the flue gases are discharged from the stack. The acid water from the quench chamber and tail-gas scrubber is neutralized with 20% caustic soda and then recycled. A purge stream to waste treatment is required to prevent a buildup of dissolved solids. With a properly designed and operated thermal oxidizer having a residence time of 1 sec at 1100C, a reduction of 99% or greater can be achieved in ethylene dichloride and total VOC emissions. This reduction was used for calculation of the controlled emissions from the thermal oxidizer that originated in the oxy chlorination vent (see Table V-l). Data and documentation to support these operating conditions will be presented in a future EPA report on emission con trol systems. Heat recovery from the thermal oxidizer flue gases can be used to produce steam to provide a credit. Experience with thermal oxidation and heat recovery of vent gases containing chlorinated hydrocarbons is limited but has revealed several problems. The flue gases are corrosive at some temperature conditions. The thermal oxidizer and heat recovery equipment must be operated carefully to prevent the occurrence of the corrosive conditions, especially on startup and shutdown of the unit.1 One indication of the severity of these problems is the instal lation by Diamond Shamrock of two parallel, full-capacity, thermal oxidizer systems CP c* vo* po\*D >S> a Table V-l. EDC and Total VOC Controlled Emissions for Model Plants Vent or Source uesigndtion Emission Source (Figs. III-l,2) Control Device or Technique Emission Reduction (%) Oxychlorination vent Air process Oxytjei ..-ess A Thermal oxidizer A Thermal oxidizer 99 (or greater) 99 (or greater) Direct-chlorina tion vent Column vents B Thermal oxidizer 99 (or greater) C Thermal oxidizer 99 (or greater) Storage vents In-process Product Liquid waste D Internal floating roof 93 E Internal floating roof 96 F Internal floating roof 91 Tar Fugitive Secondary G None - 11 Detection and repair 92 of major leaks Wastewater treatment I None Incinerator J Total for air process Change operating conditions 100 Total for oxygen process aAll emissions are based on 6760 hr of operation per year. **kg of emission per kg of EDC produced by balanced process. CSee Pig. III-2 for this source) see Fig. Iii 1 fo other sources. Emissions Ratio*1 (q/kg) Rate (kg/hr) EDC Total VOC EDC Total VOC 0.0324 0.00462 0.0108 0.0717 0.0939 0.0294 0.0300 0.130 1.48 0.211 0.491 1.37 3.27 4.29 1.30 5.94 0.00252 0.00530 ' 0.00790 0.00252 0.00530 0.00562 0.00229 0.0158 0.115 0.242 0.361 0.1X5 0.242 0.256 0.105 0.721 o.oiai 0.0272 0.829 1.24 0.11 o.oa Not detectable 0.29 4.9 0. 31 3.6 13 14 V-2 V-3 with heat recovery in their new VCH plant to ensure an on-stream factor of greater than 98%. No thermal oxidizers have been retrofitted to air process oxychlorination vents; 3 however, Borden's recently constructed plant at Geismar has a thermal oxidizer with heat recovery that is fed the vent gases from their oxychlorination (air) step and several other vent gas streams. When visited, their unit had been out of service for modifications to correct design problems and so no actual operating data are yet available.^ Two alternatives for the thermal oxidizer for the direct-chlorination and oxychlorination (air) model plant were studied; one with heat recovery to produce steam and one without heat recovery. Both cases have the same emission reduction efficiency, but differ in the size of the quench chamber, caustic scrubber, fan, and pumps because of the different temperatures of the flue gas to the quench chamber that result in different flue gas volumes to be quenched and scrubbed and in different amounts of water that are evaporated. Several other alternative thermal oxidizer configurations are possible, both with and without heat recovery. An acid scrubber may be used instead of a water quench to recover dilute hydrochloric acid, which may be used in other processes for its acidity or may be neutralized with a cheaper base than caustic soda. Other systems may be used to recover hydrochloric acid at higher concentrations, as well as anhydrous hydrogen chloride.1'^'6 The thermal oxidizer may be designed 4 to burn both vent gases and liquid chlorinated by-products. Diamond Shamrock has retrofitted a commercial-sized catalytic oxidizer to their older oxychlorination facility. The unit reportedly does remove carbon monoxide and ethylene with better than 99.7% reduction; however, it removes less than 75% of the ethylene dichloride and less than 60% of the VCH, with 100 ppm of 7 ethylene dichloride and 8 ppm of VCH remaining in the stack gases. For this reason a catalytic oxidizer at its present state of development is not judged to be an adequate control device for the oxychlorination (air) process. Another device that reduces the ethylene in the oxychlorination vent gases is a "post" reactor, where chlorine is added to chlorinate the residual ethylene to ethylene dichloride. Conoco, Shell, and Stuaffer have installed this type of control.^ Reportedly complete ethylene conversion is obtained, with the residual 101095 Sh V-4 g concentration in the vent gas being as low as 10 ppm of ethylene. Data from plant using this technology show only 0.02 wt % of ethylene but 0.75 wt % of ethylene dichloride and 2 wt % of total VOC in the vent gas after it has been refrigerated to subzero temperature and then scrubbed with water.3 Other devices, such as refrigerated vent condensers and hydrocarbon or chilled water absorbers, do remove some ethylene dichloride and total VOC from the vent gas; however, they leave significant quantities to go to the atmosphere.^'3 These types of controls are used by Allied, Conoco, Goodrich, Ethyl, Shell, and 3 Vulcan. Conoco and Shell also have a post reactor, as previously mentioned. 2. Direct-Chlorination Vent The emissions from the direct-chlorination vent can be controlled by piping them to the thermal oxidizer used for controlling the oxychlorination vent gas as discussed in Sect. A-l or to a vapor and liquid thermal oxidizer serving other processing units.3 A reduction of 99% was used in the calculations of the con trolled emissions from the thermal oxidizer that originate in the direct-chlori nation vent (see Table V-l). Borden, Dow, PPG, and Shell burn the vent gases from their direct-chlorination reactors in thermal oxidizers. Union Carbide 2 sends them to a flare after scrubbing. Other devices that may be used to control the emissions from the direct-chlori nation vent are refrigerated vent condensers, scrubbers, and flares, or a combi nation of these, depending on the composition of the vent gases. If properly designed, a refrigerated vent condenser is effective for removal of ethylene dichloride (approximately 96% if the vent gases are cooled from 35C to -26C at 240 kPa), although the unreacted ethylene and ethane will remain. Scrubbers may absorb some ethylene dichloride depending on the operating conditions, but are primarily installed for removal of hydrogen chloride and unreacted chlorine. Conoco plans to install a vent gas incinerator to burn all the vent gases from their ethylene dichloride facility except for those from the oxychlorination vent. At present all gases are sent to a water scrubber and then vented to the atmosphere. The direct-chlorination vent gas also passes through a refrigerated vent condenser. At Diamond Shamrock's older plant the direct-chlorination vent gas is sent through a refrigerated vent condenser and then a water scrubber. SL 101096 V-5 but at their newer facility the vent gas is burned in a thermal oxidizer. Goodrich uses a refrigerated vent condenser to minimize their direct-chlorination vent emissions. Allied Chemical has piped the gas from the direct-chlorination vent into the oxychlorination reactor. The removal efficiency for ethylene dichloride or total voc was not reported."* 3. Column Vents The emissions from the column vents can also be effectively controlled by piping them to the thermal oxidizer used for controlling the emissions from the oxy chlorination and direct-chlorination vents or to a vapor and liquid thermal oxidi2er serving other processing units.1'3 A reduction of 99% was used in the calculations of the controlled emissions from the thermal oxidizer that originated in the column vents (see Table V-l). The same devices discussed above for the direct-chlorination vent are used to control the gases from the column vents and the same conditions apply to their use and effectiveness. Borden, Conoco (future plans). Diamond Shamrock's new facility, Dow, PPG, and Shell send their column vent gases to their thermal oxidizer. Allied, Goodrich, and Vulcan have vent condensers on their column vents, and Allied plans to recycle their column vent gases to various parts of the process. The inert gases are dissolved in the column feeds and leak into the vacuum columns, with the quantity varying widely.3 The amount of these inert gases can have a considerable impact on the reduction efficiency of a refrigerated vent condenser, as discussed above. 4. Storage Vents The emissions from the model-plant storage tanks are controlled by use of internalfloating-roof tanks.* Because the stored materials are chlorinated and may contain dissolved hydrogen chloride, the construction materials for the floating roof and seals must be carefully selected. Options for control of storage emissions g are covered in a recent EPA report. Guidelines for storage-emission control techniques will be given in a future EPA document. *Consist of internal floating covers or covered floating roofs as defined in API 25-19, 2d ed., 1976 (fixed-roof tanks with internal floating device to reduce vapor loss. SL 101097 V-6 According to information received from companies producing ethylene dichloride, the crude ethylene dichloride, the product ethylene dichloride, the lights, and the heavies are stored in fixed-roof tanks- Often the crude ethylene dichloride is stored under a water layer, which will reduce the emissions somewhat. A nitrogen blanket is sometimes employed to keep the product ethylene dichloride dry. Emission can also be controlled by using refrigerated vent condensers and by piping the storage tank vents to a thermal oxidizer.'* The controlled storage emissions given in Table V-l were calculated with equa tions from AP-4210 modified to reduce the calculated floating-roof-tank with- g drawal loss as indicated in the recent EPA report on storage and handling. Refrigerated vent condensers are used by Diamond Shamrock and Dow to control * tank emissions, while the gases from the tank vent condensers in Diamond Shamrock's new plant and from some of Shell's ethylene dichloride storage tanks go to their thermal oxidizers. Allied, Diamond Shamrock, Conoco, and Goodrich maintain a water layer on their crude ethylene dichloride. Conoco, PPG, and Shell use scrubbers on some of their storage tank vents.^ Fugitive Emissions Controls for fugitive emissions from the synthetic organic chemicals manufactu ing industry will be discussed in a future EPA document. Emissions from pumps, process valves, and pressure relief devices can be controlled by an appropriate leak-detection system and with repair and maintenance as needed. Controlled fugitive emissions were calculated with the appropriate factors given in Appendix C and are included in Table V-l. Secondary Emissions Wastewater Treatment -- Calculations based on estimated wastewater flow rates and compositions for the model plant indicate that the emissions from the wastewater treatment are relatively small. No control system has been identified for the model plant. Liquid Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Incinerator -- Control of the secondary emissions from the liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon incinerator consists of changing the incinerator operating conditions. Data on the relationship of emissions to SL 101098 V-7 operating conditions are not available at this time. Some information indicates that higher temperatures and longer residence times are probably helpful in reducing these secondary emissions,^'1'*'"''1'^ Levels of organic chlorides in the flue gases from the liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon incinerators have been reported to be none and 30 ppm by weight.1**'15 The controlled secondary emissions from the model-plant liquid chlorinated hydrocarbon incinerator are estimated to be nondetectable, as indicated in Table V-l. B. DIRECT-CHLORINATION AND OXYCHLORINATION (OXYGEN) PROCESSES 1. Oxychlorination Vent The vent gases from the oxychlorination vent when oxygen is used as the feed contain much less nitrogen than when air is used and can support combustion with little or no supplemental fuel required. A thermal oxidizer is used by Dow and PPG to control emissions from their oxygen-based oxychlorination process. An emission reduction of 99% was used to calculate the controlled emissions from the thermal oxidizer that originated in the model-plant oxychlorination vent (see Table V-l). With a properly designed and operated thermal oxidizer having a residence time of 1 sec at 1100C a reduction of 99% or greater can be achieved in ethylene dichloride and total VOC emissions. Data and documentation to support these operating conditions will be presented in a future EPA report on emission control systems. Heat recovery from the thermal oxidizer flue gases can be used to produce steam. The same problems discussed in Sect. A.l will apply to this case. Both PPG and Dow have indicated plans to incorporate heat recovery in their thermal oxidizers.'5 2. Other Vents The control systems and controlled emissions for the model-plant direct-chlorination vent, column vents, storage vents, fugitive sources, and secondary sources are the same as for the air process model plant (see Table V-l). SL 11099 v-a C. REFERENCES* 1. W. A. Schwartz et al., Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 3: Ethvlene Dichlonde Manufacture bv Oxvchlorination, EPA-45Q/3-73~Q06-c, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1974). 2. Texas Air Control Board, A Construction Permit..-to Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company Authorizing Construction ofVinvl Chloride Plant "Tat La Porte, Harris County, Texas, Permit No. C-3S5S (Nov. 2, 1976). 3. Responses to EPA requests for information on ethylene dichloride emissions,- see Appendix E. 4. J. A. Key, Hydroscience, Inc., Trip Report for Visit to Borden Chemical, Geismar, Louisiana, March 2, 1978 (data ojT file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC). 5. Y. H. Kiang, "Controlling Vinyl Chloride Emissions," Chemical Engineering Progress 72(12), 37--41 (1976). 6. C. G. Bertram, "Minimizing Emissions from Vinyl Chloride Plants," Environmental Science and Technology 11(9), 364--868 (1977). 7. W. R. Taylor, letter to EPA from Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Deer Park, TX, Oct. 3, 1977, in response to EPA request for information on the catalytic oxidation unit. 8. P. Reich, "Air or Oxygen for VCM?" Hydrocarbon Processing S5(3), 85-89 (1976). 9. D. G. Erikson, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry -- Storage and Handling Report (draft report on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (October 1978). 10. C. C. Masser, "Storage of Petroleum Liquids," Sect. 4.3 in Supplement No. 7 for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 2d ed., EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC (April 1977). 11. S. B. Farbstein and J. Elder, Energy Conservation in the Chemical Industry Through New Process Development -- The B. F. Goodrich Catoxid Process, paper presented before the Federal Energy Administration Project Independence Hearing, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 7, 1974, 12. R. E. Van Ingen, letter to EPA from Shell Oil Company, Norco, LA, Dec. 6, 1974, in response to EPA request for information on vinyl chloride monomer operations. 13. T. T. Shen et al^, "Incineration of Toxic Chemical wastes," Pollution Engineering 10(10), 45--50 (1978). 14. J. A. Mullins, letter to EPA from Shell Oil Company, Deer Park, TX, June 22, 1978, in response to EPA request for information on ethylene dichloride manufacture. SL 101100 V-9 IS. J. A. Key, Hydroscience, Inc., Trip Report for Visit to Dow Chemical, U.5.A. Oyster Creek Division, Freeport7~TX, September 20, 1 'in (data on file at EPA. ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC). *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire paragraph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. ion01 SL VI-X VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS A. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS 1. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Air) Processes Table VI-1 shows the environmental impact of reducing the ethylene dichloride (EDC) and VOC emissions by application of the indicated control systems to the air process model plant. Use of these control devices or techniques results in the reduction of EDC emissions by 3000 Mg/yr and total VOC emissions by 9400 Mg/yr for the model plant. a* Process Vents -- The thermal oxidizer used for control of emissions from vents A [oxychlorination (air)], B (direct chlorination), and C (column vents) (Fig. III-l) reduces the air process model plant EDC emissions by 2900 Mg/yr and total VOC emissions by 9100 Mg/yr. The thermal oxidizer uses natural gas as supplemental fuel and electric power for the blowers, pumps, lighting, and instruments. The total energy required to operate the thermal oxidizer for the air process model plant is approximately 26 GJ/hr, If heat recovery equipment is installed and approximately 70% of the available energy from the combustion gases is recovered as steam, the amount of steam produced will be about 37 GJ/hr. Since a balanced VCM plant consumes a substantial quantity of steam above that produced in the oxychlorination reactor system, this steam can usually be utilized on-site. 1 ' 2 The combustion of chlorinated compounds in the thermal oxidizer produces hydrogen chloride (HCl) and free chlorine, which leave in the flue gases. In the removal and neutralization of these acid gases by the model plant's quench chamber, tail gas scrubber, and neutralization sump, 7600 Mg of salt in dilute solution is pro duced annually. Plants located near the ocean can dispose of this salt solution without major problems. Others may find it more economical to use alternative systems for removal of HCl and chlorine that produce a dilute hydrochloric acid solution as discussed in Sect. V. b. Other Emissions (Storage, Fugitive, and Secondary -- Control methods described for these sources for the model plants are internal-floating-roof storage tanks. SL 10H02 Table VI-1. Environmental Impact of Controlled Ethylene Dichloride for Model Plants VI-2 SL 101103 Emission Source Oxychlorination vent Air process Oxygen process Direct chlorination vent Column vents Storage vents In-process Product l.iguid waste Tar Fugitive Vent or Source Designation (Figs.111-1,2) A Ab B C D E F G II Secondary Wastewater treatment Incinerator Total for air process Total for oxygen process I J Control Device or Technique Thermal oxidizer Thermal oxidizer Thermal oxidizer Thermal oxidizer Internal floating roof Internal floating roof Internal floating roof None Detection and repair of major leaks None Emission Reduction (%) 99 99 99 99 93 96 91 92 100 flAnnual reduction is based on 8760 hr of operation. bSee Fig. III-2 for this vent source) see Fig. III-l for all other sources. 3 Emission Reduction (Mg/yr) EDC Total V0C 1280 183 425 1190 2840 3720 1130 5150 12.6 47.4 12.6 47.4 23.9 35.0 70.0 3000 1900 76.0 9400 10,200 VI-3 leak repair for fugitive emissions, and change of operating conditions for the liquid waste incinerator. Application of these systems results in an EDC emission reduction of 95 Mg/yr and a VOC emission reduction of 230 Mg/yr for the model plants. Internal-floatingroof tanks for emission control neither consume energy nor have adverse environ mental or energy impacts. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Processes Table VI-1 shows the environmental impact of reducing the EDC and VOC emissions by application of the indicated control systems to the oxygen-process model plant. Application of these control devices or techniques results in the reduction of EDC emissions by 1900 Mg/yr and total VOC emissions by 10,200 Mg/yr for the model plant. Process Vents -- The thermal oxidizer used for control of emissions from vent A (Fig. III-2) and vents B and C (Fig. III-l) reduces the model-plant EDC emission by 1800 Mg/yr and total VOC emissions by 10,000 Mg/yr. The thermal oxidizer for the model plant does not require supplemental fuel, because the vent gases from the process vents are self-combustible. The energy required as electric power for the blowers, pumps, lighting, and instruments is approximately 0.25 GJ/hr. If heat recovery equipment is installed and approxi mately 70% of the available energy from the combustion gases is recovered as steam, about 27 GJ of steam will be produced per hour. The removal and neutralization of the acid gases from the thermal oxidizer flue gases will produce about 5900 Mg/yr of salt from the model plant. Other Emissions (Storage, Fugitive, and Secondary) -- The control methods and environmental and energy impacts for these sources in the oxygen-process model plant are identical to those of the air-process model plant; see Sect. Vl.&.l.b. CONTROL COST IMPACT This section gives estimated costs and cost-effectiveness data for control of ethylene dichloride and total VOC emissions resulting from the production of VI-4 ethylene dichloride. Details of the model plant (Figs. Ill-i and III-2) are given in Sects. Ill and IV. Cost estimate calculations are included in Appendix D. Capital cost estimates represent the total investment required for purchase and installation of all equipment and material needed for a complete emission control system performing as defined for a new plant at a typical location. These esti mates do not include the cost of ethylene dichloride production lost during installation or startup, research and development, or land acquisition. Costs for retrofitting these systems in existing plants may be greater than for a new installation. The primary difficulty in retrofitting may be in finding space to fit the system into the existing plant layout. Bases for the annual cost estimates for the control alternatives include utilities, waste disposal, chemicals, operating labor, maintenance supplies and labor, recovery credits, capital charges, and miscellaneous recurring costs such as taxes, insurance and administrative overhead. The cost factors used are itemized in Table VI-2. The capital recovery factor of 0.1623 is based on an assumed 10-year life and a 10% annual interest rate. Recovery credits are based on the market value for the material being recovered. Annual costs are for a 1-year period beginning in mid-1978. 1. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Air) Processes a. Process Vents -- The estimated installed capital cost of a thermal oxidizer designed to reduce by 99% or greater the ethylene dichloride and total VOC from the process vents in the model plant is $1,305 million (see Table VI-3). If waste heat recovery is included to reduce the operating cost, the estimated installed capital cost is $1,234 million. These costs are based on a thermal oxidizer designed for a residence time of 1 sec at 1100C, completely installed, and includes a quench chamber, tail gas scrubber, sump, pumps, blower, and stack. The use of heat recovery reduces the temperature, and therefore the volume, of the flue gases to the quench and scrubber, which consequently will be smaller. Because of the large mass flow of flue gases the reduction in cost of the quench and scrubber more than compensates for the cost of the heat recovery equipment, and the total cost of a thermal oxidizer with heat recovery is less than one without heat recovery. VI-5 Table VI-2* Cost Factors Used in Computing Annual Costs Utilities Natural gas Electricity Cooling water Liquid waste disposal Maintenance material and labor Capital charges Capital recovery Miscellaneous (taxes, insurance, administration) Recovery credit* (energy) Chemical cost* (50% caustic soda solution) *See Appendix D. $1.90/GJ S8.33/GJ ($0.03/kWh) SO.026/m3 $3.00/m3 0.05 X capital cost 0.1628 X capital cost 0.04 X capital cost SI.90/GJ $0.11/kg SL 101106 Control Table VI-3. Cost Estimates for Control of Emissions from Process Vents for Ethylene Dichloride Model Plants Total In*t*llad Capital Coil Utilities Ctiaa lea la Manpower Annual Opacatlng Coat* Hitnu* Capital pane* Recovery Klc. Ciplti. --1 Waeto Dltpoul -- -------------------------- Racovary (M Cicilltt Wat Annual (9) Enlulon Reduction EDC Total VOC (Bq/yr) |t| (CM Cot Effactl vnaaa Total CPC______________ voc pi rcct-Ch loci nation and Onychlorinati: a iAltl Pcocasaea 7h< r*i1 oildlict With haat racovary Hltiiout haat racovary 11,314,000 1,104,000 1459,000 461,000 fl,139,000 1,119,000 15,000 16,000 fill.000 110,000 12,050,000 1,050,000 1421,000 Mona 11,122,000 4,on,000 2,900 2,900 9,100 9,100 99 11,16) 99 1, 395 pf rect-Chlorlnation and Orvchlarlnatlca (OMYian) Rrocaaaaa Tt) tui Oildltet with haat racovary without beat racovary 11,111,000 1.0*1,000 f 14,000 14,000 MCI - (A) |B1. f 004,000 094,000 115,000 35,000 1101,000 214.000 11,429,000 1,419,000 1451,000 Kona tl,411,000 2,666,000 1,400 1,000 10,000 10,000 99 11,346 99 1,692 HU 441 1242 141 VI-6 SL 10X107 1 VI-7 The process-vent-gas rate varies directly with the production rate; therefore the capacity of the thermal oxidizer will depend on the capacity of the plant. Figure VI-1 was plotted to show the variation of installed capital cost of a thermal oxidizer, with and without heat recovery, versus plant capacity. To determine the cost effectiveness of a thermal oxidizer, estimates were made of the direct operating cost, the capital recovery cost, and miscellaneous capi tal costs, both with and without heat recovery. The recovery credit was calcu lated for the heat recovery case based on recovery of approximately 70% of the energy in the flue gases valued as equivalent to natural gas at $1.90/GJ and not for the steam that may be generated. The net annual cost for each case was then calculated (see Table VI-3) and plotted in Fig. VI-2 to show the variation with plant capacity for both cases. The cost effectiveness for each case for controlling both ethylene dichloride and total VOC was calculated from the net annual cost and the emission reduction (see Table VI-3). b. Storage Sources -- The control system for storage sources is use of floatingroof tanks. Another EFA report covers storage and handling emissions and their applicable controls for all the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing 4 industry. c. Fugitive Sources -- A control system for fugitive sources is defined in Appendix C. A future document will cover fugitive emissions and their applicable controls for all the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry. d. Secondary Sources -- No control system has been identified for controlling the secondary emissions from wastewater treatment. The secondary emissions from the incinerator can be controlled by changing operating conditions. A future EPA document will cover secondary emissions and their applicable controls for all the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry. 2. Direct-Chlorination and Oxychlorination (Oxygen) Processes a. Process Vents -- The estimated installed capital cost of a thermal oxidizer designed to reduce by 99% or greater the ethylene dichloride and total VOC from the process vents in the oxygen-process model plant is $1,117 million with heat SL 101108 M ld-1978 In s ta lle d C a p ita l (1000) Plant Capacity (Gg/yr) (1) Thermal oxidation without heat recovery, air process (2) Thermal oxidation with heat recovery, air process (3) Thermal oxidation without hear recovery, oxygen process (4) Thermal oxidation with heat recovery, oxygen process Fig. VI-1. Installed Capital Cost vs Plant Capacity tor Emission Control by Thermal Oxidation SL 10H09 Net Annual C ost ($1000) Plant Capacity (Gg/yr) (1) Thermal oxidation without heat recovery, air process (2) Thermal oxidation with heat recovery, air process (3) Thermal oxidation without heat recovery, oxygen process (4) Thermal oxidation with heat recovery, oxygen process Fig. VI-2. Net Annual Cost vs Plant Capacity for Emission Control by Thermal Oxidation SL 101110 VI-10 recovery and $1,083 without heat recovery (see Table VI-3). These costs are based on a thermal oxidizer designed for a residence time of 1 sec at 1100aC, completely installed, and includes a quench chamber, tail gas scrubber, sump, pumps, blower, and stack. Figure VI-1 shows the variation of installed capital cost of a thermal oxidizer, with and without heat recovery, versus plant capacity. The cost effectiveness was calculated as described above for the air-process thermal oxidizer (see Table VI-3). The net annual costs for oxygen-process ther raal oxidizers with and without heat recovery are given in Table VI-3 and the variations with plant capacity are shown in Fig. VI-2. V VI-11 C. REFERENCES* 1. W. A. Schwartz et al^, Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 3: Ethylene Dichloride Manufacture by Oxychlorination, EPA-450/3-73-006-C, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1974). 2. P. Reich, "Air or Oxygen for VCM?" Hydrocarbon Processing 55(3), 85--89 (1976). 3. C. G. Bertram, "Minimizing Emissions from Vinyl Chloride Plants," Environmental 5cience and Technology 11(9). 864--868 (1977). 4. D. G. Erikson, Hydroscience, Inc., Emission Control Options for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry--Storage and Handling Report (draft report on file at EPA, ESED, Research Triangle Park, NC) (October 1978). *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire paragraph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. SL IO1112 VII-1 VII. PRODUCT ASSESSMENT A. SUMMARY Ethylene dichloride (EDC) is produced by the direct chlorination of ethylene and by the oxychlorination of ethylene with hydrogen chloride (HCl) and oxygen or air, often in a balanced plant, where the EDC is used to make vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) and with hydrogen chloride (HCl) produced as by-product. The HCl is recycled and the ethylene dichloride product is about evenly split between the direct-chlorination step and the oxychlorination step.^- ^ The annual growth rate of ethylene dichloride production is estimated to be 4 to 5%,1 and production is projected to utilize 85 to 89% of 1977 capacity by 1982.^ Emission sources and uncontrolled and controlled emission rates for the directchlorination and the oxychlorination (air and oxygen) processes are given in Table VII-1. The current emissions projected for the domestic ethylene dichloride industry based on the estimated degree of control existing in 1978 are 11,000 Mg of ethylene dichloride per year and 35,000 Mg of total VOC per year. Control devices for operating plants include thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, vent condensers, scrubbers, and vent-gas post reactors. Emission reduction of 99% or greater may be realized in a thermal oxidizer. The installed capital cost of a thermal oxidizer for the air-based-process model plant is $1,234 million with heat recovery and $1,305 without heat recovery; for the oxygen-based-process model plant it is $1,117 million with heat recovery and $1,083 million without heat recovery. Supplemental fuel is required for the combustion of the gases from the directchlorination, oxychlorination (air), and column vents but not for the oxygenprocess vents because those gases contain much less nitrogen and are selfcombustible. For the thermal oxidizer on the direct-chlorination and oxychlorination (air) model-plant vents the cost effectiveness for ethylene dichloride is $1163/Mg if heat is recovered and $1385/Mg if it is not. The cost effectiveness for total VOC is $371/Mg with heat recovery and $441/Mg without heat recovery. The cost effectiveness of the thermal oxidizer on the direct-chlorination and oxychlorina tion (oxygen) model-plant vents is $1346/Hg of ethylene dichloride and $242/Mg SL 101113 VII-2 Table VII-1. Emission Summary for Model Plants4 Emission Source Vent or Source Designation (Fias.111-1,2) Emission Rata (ka/hr) Uncontrolled Controlled EDC Total VOC EDC Total Oxychlorination vent For air process For oxygen process Direct-chlorination vent Column vents A Ab B C 148 21.1 49.1 137 327 429 130 594 1.48 0.211 0.491 1.37 3.27 4.29 1.30 5.94 Storage vents In-process Product Liquid waste Tar Fugitive D 1* 55 1.55 0.115 0.115 E 5.65 5.65 0.242 0.242 F 2.98 0.256 G 0.105 0.105 H 4.36 8.72 0.361 0.721 Secondary Wastewater treatment Incinerator Total for air process Total for oxygen process I J 0.829 350 220 1.24 8.68 1100 1200 0.829 1.24 4.9 13 i3.6 14 aAll emissions are based on 8760 hr of operation per year. b5ee Fig. III-2 for this source; sea Fig. III-l for all other sources. SL 101114 VH-3 of total VOC if heat is recovered or $1592/Mg of ethylene dichloride and $237/Mg of total VOC without heat recovery. Approximately 37 GJ of steam per hour is produced from the air-process thermal oxidizer flue gases at approximately 70% recovery and about 27 GJ/hr from the oxygen-process gases at the same recovery. B. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Process emissions from the model plants are based on emission data included in trip reports, responses to EPA letters requesting information from sites not visited, and the Houdry reports. Nonconfidential information from emission inventory questionnaires submitted to the Texas Air Control Board and the Louisiana Air Control Commission was also used as an emission data source. Literature sources, such as the SRI Chemical Economics Handbook and the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, were utilized to gain a better understanding of process unit operations and process chemistry. The data on emissions from individual distillation columns were generally not available and the small amount of data on distillation emissions that was given showed wide variations.4 The operating costs for the thermal oxidizers include the cost of neutralizing the HC1 produced. If HC1 recovery is included as part of the thermal oxidizer system, the costs may be more favorable. SL 101115 VII-4 C. REFERENCES* 1. J. L. Blackford, "Ethylene Dichloride," pp. 651.5031A--651.50331 in Chemical Economics Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (November 1975). 2. P- Reich, "Air or Oxygen for VQI?" Hydrocarbon Processing 55(3), 85--B9 (1976). 3. W. E. Wimer and R. E. Feathers, "Oxygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon Processing 55(3). 81--84 (1976). 4. R. G. Bellamy and W. A. Schwartz, Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 8: Vinvl Chloride Manufacture bv the Balanced Process, EPA-450/3-73-006-h, Research Triangle Park, NC (July 1975). 5. w. A. Schwartz, et al, Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Volume 3: Ethvlene Dichloride Manufacture bv Oxychlorination, EPA-450/3-73-Q06-C, Research Triangle Park, NC (November 1974). 6. J. W. Pervier et al^, Houdry Div., Air Products and Chemicals, Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry, Volume II, EPA-45G/3-73-005 Research Triangle Park, NC (April 1974). * *A reference located at the end of a paragraph usually refers to the entire para graph. If another reference relates to certain portions of the paragraph, the reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. sv APPENDIX A PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EDC SL 101117 APPENDIX B AIR-DISPERSION PARAMETERS SL 101118 CD E* vo1 V-1 v-1 v> Table B-l. Atmospheric-Dispersion Parameters for Ethylene Dichloride Model Plants (Air) (Capacity, <300,000 Mg/yr), Controlled and Uncontrolled Source Emission Rate (<j/sec) EDC Total VOC Oxychiorination vent Direct-chlorination vent Column vents Storage vents In process Product Liquid waste Tar Fugitive Secondary Waste.-water treatment Incinerator 41*1 13. 6 38.1 90.9 36.1 165 0.43 1.57 i.ai" 0.23b 0.43 1.57 0.83 0.029b 2.42 I.Mb 2.41 Tlicrnal oxidizer with Neat recovery Thermal oxidizer without heat recovery Storage vents In-process Product Liquid waste 0.929 0.929 0.032 0.067 2.92 2.92 0.032 0.067 0.071 Fug Itive Secondary Incinerator o.iob o.iob H.0.C t>Distributed over an area of 100 m by 200 a. No control rq*eci f icd. c None detectable. Tank Height In) Tank Diameter (ml Stack llriglit (m) Uncontrol led Emir.; ions 50 30 20 9.8 12.2 9.8 9.8 12.2 19.9 7.0 7.0 30 Controlled Emissions 30 30 9.8 12.2 9.8 12.2 19.9 7.0 30 Stack Diameter (ml 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.6 Discharge Temperature (K> 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 340 330 350 300 300 300 340 Flow Rate {mVsec) Discharge Velocity (m/sec) 4.34 0.0419 0. 218 IS.4 5.34 6.94 1.45 10.4 15.6 5.12 13.2 11.8 1.45 5.12 I B-4 Table B-2. Atmospheric-Dispersion Parameters for Ethylene Dichloride Model Plant (Oxygen) (Capacity, 400,000 Mg/yr), Controlled and Uncontrolled Source Emission Rate (q/sec| EDC Total VOC OuychlorinatIon vent Direct-chlorination vent Column vents Storage vents In-process Product Liqutd waste Tar Fugitive Secondary Wastewater treatment Incinerator S.B7 D. 38.1 119 36* 1 165 0,43 1.57 l.ll" o.iib 0.43 1.57 0.B3 0.0S9b 2.41 1.24b 2.41 Thermal orUtirc with heat recovery Thermal oxidiier without tieat recovery Storage vents In. process Product Liquid waste 0.176 0.576 0.032 0.007 3.70 3.20 0.032 0.0G7 0.071 Fugitive Secondary Incinerator 0.10b o.iob H.D.C ^jlstribulcd over an area ot 100 at by 200 m. control specified. Tank Height (ml Tank (ml Stack Height t.l Uncontrolled Emissions 50 30 20 9. a n.i 9. B 9.a n.i 19.9 7.0 7.0 30 Controlled Ernies lone 30 3a 9.8 n.i 9.B 12.2 19.9 7.0 30 Stack (ml 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.6 Discharge Temperature (K1 Flow Rate (stVsec) Discharge Volocity (m/sec) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 0.272 0.0419 0.21B 8.7 5.34 6.94 340 330 350 300 300 300 1.45 7,36 M ,0 ' *7 11.6 14.0 340 1.45 5.12 o z ^ oX C-3 FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS Fugitive emission factors established for petroleum refinery operation and published in AP-42 are based on emission quantities per unit throughput and therefore are unsatisfactory for use here.1 The emission factors for each equipment component used in this report are based on the orginal emission 2--4 studies used to establish the AP-42 factors with assumptions as follows: 1. Pump Seals (including standby pumps) a. "Uncontrolled" is the average loss measured for mechanical seals. b. "Controlled" is the average loss for mechanical seals, with major leaks assumed to be fixed. Pump seals (kg/day/seal) Uncontrolled 1.5 Controlled 0.16 2. Compressor Seals a. "Uncontrolled" is the average loss measured for all seals venting to atmosphere. b. "Controlled" is the average loss based on the large leaks being fixed. Uncontrolled Compressor seals (kg/day/seal) 3.9 Controlled 1.0 3. Valves a. "Uncontrolled" is the average loss measured for all valves. b. "Controlled" is the average loss, with the large leaks assumed to be fixed. Uncontrolled Pipeline valves (kg/day/valve) 0.068 Controlled 0.006 SL 101121 04 4. Pressure Relief Devices a. "Uncontrolled" is the average loss meas 4 for all valves. b. "Controlled" is the average loss based on the assumption that the large leaks are fixed. Pressure relief devices (kg/day/valve) Uncontrolled 1.1 Controlled 0.1 <k * sfe it REFERENCES* Hf. M. Vatavak, "Petroleum Industry," pp. 9.1-1 to 9.1-8 in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2d ed., AP-42, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC (March 1975). 2 k. K. Palmer, Hydrocarbon Losses from Valves and Flanges. Report No. 2, PB-216-6S2, Joint District, Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, CA (March 1957). ^B. J. Steigerwald, Emissions of Hydrocarbons to the Atmosphere from Seals on Pumps and Compressors. Report No. 6, PR-216-582, Joint District, Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, CA (April 1958). 4B. J. Steigervald, Hydrocarbon Leakage from Pressure Relief Valves. Report No. 3, PB-216-715, Joint District, Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, CA (May 1957). *Usually, when a reference is located at the end of a paragraph, it refers to the entire paragraph. If another reference relates to certain portions of that paragraph, that reference number is indicated on the material involved. When the reference appears on a heading, it refers to all the text covered by that heading. \0^22 APPENDIX C FUGITIVE-EMISSION FACTORS SL 101123 34. B. G. Perry, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Union Carbide Corporation Taft Plant, Mar. 6, 1975. 35. R. E. O'Bryan, Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for Union Carbide Corporation Texas City Plant, Mar. 19, 1976. 36. D. E. Gilbert, Vulcan Materials Company, letter to EPA with information on oxychlorination process at Geismar, Louisiana, Apr. 23, 1974. 37. G. A. Vlacos, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Vulcan Materials Company Geismar, Louisiana Plant, Aug. 16, 1976. 38. W. W. Duke, EPA Questionnaire for Vulcan Materials Company Geismar, Louisiana Plant, Oct. 12, 1972. i LIST OF EPA INFORMATION SOURCES 1. W. K. Reiter, Allied Chemical Corporation, letter to EPA with information on Baton Rouge North Works, May 16, 1978. 2. J. A. DeBernardi, Conoco Chemicals, letter to EPA with information on VCM plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana, May 16, 1978. 3. K. D. Konter, B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, letter to EPA with information on EDC manufacturing at Calvert City, Kentucky, June 15, 1978. 4. J. A. Mullins, Shell Oil Company, letter to EPA with information on Deer Park, TX, EDC plant, June 22, 1978. 5. R. E. Van Ingen, Shell Oil Company, letter to EPA with information on Deer Park, TX, EDC oxychlorination process, Apr. 10, 1975. 6. R. J. Samelson, PPG Industries, Inc., letter to EPA with information on EDC emissions at Lake Charles, Louisiana, June 2, 1978. 7. F. C. Dhen, PPG Industries, Inc., letter to EPA with information on EDC oxychlorination process, at Lake Charles, Louisiana and at Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, Apr. 15, 1975. 8. W. R. Taylor, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, letter to EPA with information on catalytic oxidation of the oxychlorination vent, at Deer Park, Texas, October 3, 1977 (nonconfidential portion only). 9. W. m. Reiter, Allied Chemical Corporation, letters to EPA with information on EDC oxychlorination process, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Apr. 18, 1975, and June 18, 1975. 10. P. B. Cornell, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Allied Chemical Corporaiton North Works, Baton Rouge, LA (nd). 11. R. M. Teets, Sr., EPA Questionnaire for Allied Chemical Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 18, 1972. 12. J. S. Bellecci, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Borden Chemical. April 16, 1975. 13. J. A. DeBernardi, Conoco Chemicals, letters to EPA with information on oxychlori nation process, in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Apr. 14, 1975, and Nov. 21, 1974. 14. J. A. DeBernardi, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Conoco Chemicals, May 31, 1961. 15. D. 0. Popovac, EPA Questionnaire for Conoco Chemicals Lake Charles, Louisiana, VCM Plant, Sept. 1, 1972. 16. Texas Air Control Board, A Construction Permit*`*to Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company Authorizing Construction of Vinvl Chloride Plant...at La Porte, Harris County, Texas, Permit No. C-3855 (Nov. 2, 1976). SL 101126 E-4 17. W. C. Hutton, Texas Air Control Board Emis. .-ns Inventory Questionnaire for Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Sept. 15, is" ind Dec. 29, 1972. 18. R. D. Hall, EPA Questionnaires for Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Sept. 15, 1972, and Dec. 29,_1972". 19. H. W. Johnson, Jr., Texas Air Control Board Emissions Inventory Questionnaires for Dow Chemical Co., Texas Division. Feb. 6, 1976. 20. M. H. Siemens, Dow Chemical USA, letters to EPA with information on oxychlorination vent, at Oyster Creek Division, Nov. 14, 1974, and Feb. 25, 1975 (nonconfidential portions only). 21. M. H. Siemens, Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for Dow Chemical USA, Ovster Creek Div., Mar. 19, 1976. 22. C. A. Christian, EPA Questionnaire for Dow Chemical USA, Ovster Creek Division, Aug. 4, 1972. 23. G. W. Daigre, EPA Questionnaire for Dow Chemical USA Louisiana Division, Sept. 8, 1972. *24. R. H. Marshall, Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire * for Ethyl Com., Pasadena, Texas, March 21, 1976. "25. J. H. Huguet, EPA Questionnaires for Ethvl Corporation, Baton Rouoe, Louisiana, Sept. 8, 1972, and Oct. 19, 1972. 26. W. C. Holbrook, B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, letter to EPA with information on oxychlorination process at Calvert City, Kentucky, Apr. 7, 1975. -.27. C. L. Woods, EPA Questionnaire for B. F, Goodrich Chemical Company Calvert City - ' Kentucky, June 26, 1972. 28. A. T. Raetzsch, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for PPG Industries, Inc., Mar. 3, 1976. 29. W. B. Graybill and C. A. Bums, EPA Questionnaires for PPG Industries, Inc. Lake Charles, Louisiana, January 1973 and August 1972. 30. R. E. Van Ingen, Shell Oil Company, letters to EPA with information on oxychlori nation and direct chlorination vents at Deer Park, Texas, June 14, 1974, July 5, 1974, ahd Dec. 6, 1974. 31. R. J. Trautner, Louisiana Air Control Commission Emission Inventory Questionnaire for Shell Chemical Companv-Norco Plant, Jan. 31, 1977. 32. R. Gliuard, Texas Air Control Board 1975 Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for Shell Chemical Co. Deer Park Manufacturing Complex, Mar. 19, 1976. 33. A. L. de Vries, EPA Questionnaire for Stuaffer Chemical Company Long Beach, California, Jan. 10, 1973. -vV v- APPENDIX E LIST OF EPA INFORMATION SOURCES XO^28 preliminary capital rVoTVcr -- l-HAVt T OAll ' ;GI *.(,-4* " Pp~ c*it VtCTlON NuuftCR if C T Qfl gj T***1S.HYC c ________ ___ IQ-' 8-7g______ s:a& 1 N*U{ name of - facility q e ________ eon .. nscr i p t i o guant j coo A/I m^mr >'/yp; feoc) Glc` ,- --- - -- - --- --- --*1 -------- CCG (Ao-I7A 'Y A ^ M S+n,-hiO* > 1 < n k. > A P " 1 icrr nGdi! 1 St*>! L??*nW __ IQ 1 .<=> H` t- , ; f V- = Vl t 1 - <'*') = ----t ^ y ?,,nn > ~=<ur.r Line ..." k" $ x Zm' 1 Ja f\ ! -?r iirCPnfe l X-lr^nT* 1 --. j. A i *o | i^ i^ /" , f**V/'*., / / *' / Su^TAl = ~T"O "A 1 /) -- F-J -- Li-;yA/fi ^ ~ 2 S> 'i - 1 TJ t __ 1 6.15. SL 101129 j 1i i .... preliminary capital D-35 g-nr- Ca^fAt - Tmesmal OxiDinep_ rs?. O- poo^=sg ^-A/itu ITr Huititr *" Oi --^ ?- ~ &tCTio NumcK itCToa MUktd l .*J(r-flPDYCE o-'5--?g og.onC)M^/vp fepC.) Ca^ Mam of f'acility'd E SC_R 1 P TJ 0 N OUANf. j *' - -- 0 "*.* SiCi:___ * i oca 'A i c-i ~c rf' % Nj ,= ( ']-l ^-rnr-qa p 1 ~.n b. A P 1 'W 1 *fW" 'T5 CP^I StSJ 1.?? = rs 1 n i .9 * f V- ! ---------- - 1 . f.") -1! 1 1 ^f ' - 1 1 1 *" * / l `!s - * !- L : r r a <1 - =y. i-o-- i i -r ^ ~ -------- t "PO 1' " tl H A v W'/ lA<= * ! ^T' Din^ri* i x-! j-p'n= i-, ) -- -- .,lfY....... """V 1 1 1 '""" Si i.P-^TA 1 = To-al WA --u lA '_L'V//A>''~p = -- Q-~.5 ^ - 1 <A 4 4.r 3Z\ ll lOi^0 ! ... PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-36 FGC-,,CAg 7T mitt (f IPSHMALO^CITga' - O- T ~ Cc- -! CAfct ItCtiON HUHtM >4CTOt J . t-rar * MtHi -- r'n s M r, name of facilitt'o escr ip ti o h ooant. 'nr.`*'Dft**n ^ --LQd5rJ Tkr---! i^iTr ''Alzc-r**. A ir -- | , a. M '5+*f i / 1 r 7 /) `. ' Ua ** <s ^ L., -r ^ ii ** ^ ~ .** / i 'ii `roi^ nJj; A-4-ip--i i er,,,u-**--C r-+ i n* r r'>m*n-*'<= nM'iirr^ rtf <.or3 \/\f, j-L -- r^n !% kr: ch ik 'PRV_'F I ;--<r 0 J "f s ss't-s / > J r iM i .Az.L, 1 | 1 2.1 2- I Cir- 'lU f inn !A/-TOr ^Mrrtf5 . tAPCOnJ. O J 'kJ ! n - OMr n*u**nH 4r.ijrp-" ; R P '?' C :r'.Js+inn J l'"A-o (PPM P>rms 1 ' P?P HP - NrtOh1 ( Jnln-sd P'im". N.c ;s!...^pm 4r>/=</ =hP. T*c aJ | Cc 1--101 II V0^ PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-33 r-o^icf rh*ic EDC- CaC *sNeUobil"IT-~Th 5gY /V\AL Qxi ppgg r-ag_ Qi Psrfitg DaTC I W'-^M U jCI P.75-1 CA&C NU-*t* If C T iOm huhiIR sJ.FordyCE VECTOR *vIL4 1 HiH{ AmnnoMn/vR name OF -- FACILITY .0 E SCR IP T 1 ON CUANf. j jJ __10 * 18 * Y S______ ______ TeDC) Gib. * f COO 0 'rw~s % N.- OP 3-07=30*--1 > ~Ts.n b. A A P' 1 icq'* "O G< !. ;, Srsel. L*??..= a^. in i .9 P-i - <_- (\ y~ c i-^ l/ ^ - L ir-f z-----r -Ay 11 * ' 3/p ^<>r L.IO!^5, 11 Zl^-^y ^ i 4.q S rr=t: iimenl (V-1`-"'1-'= i-'A ). -4 i .q r!- ^ ^cr- i- r- y pv 7S wjt. ) ', >-- ol. S i ) 'TTSTA L =3 Tg"A 1. W-T U A L AL3V/ T!'-^=- o -- V - 8R?.' 'l 111 i & 0^ PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-31 T U E D re (s, l*ha C __ ni?.goEDC- as fr aai.uat* --ITmepmal Qxi aAT* 1-sa.Oi aPpct=pa rt.ra CA)| MUPwiCIsfi-i ACTION NUMt(R itCTOA _NU_k*_AAdiNi4F(cRnycs . ic-is-ys 5Q3.cy-soMrt./jYR NAME OF FaCILITT'DE SCR IPT_| ON GUAN|\ 1 W 1 (zDC) C*e. MR '>C* >*l-SE 3.106 MOCO '-A :I>JQ7 = <&. >L N-^Q-M Stared-J? 1 <=.n b. t APT i 'CO" roGal. Stal. | im.S M -1 1' o ( Y-- ! - ** n 1 - 4 ^ \, V-t-f- n fT =e~--r 1' f'H fT7 11 /-! 1 J.a f( "T' nrvicnt* f>T-if"rn j. A i * r- /.cs?/- t/ji- ) Su^^Al = To"Ai. '//) --m AuknV/AMC-1?: i- 7 ^ " - a 3 i. i 1 i|"7 ) ^/ SL 101134 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-32 >-i rw*tf FCC- CAt5t.MwTrtn-TH.2FMATALOxiaiT?S PiaO. Pw f\N i ru MS) OAft jOA hi^mAL* C*Vl *g*PA4a - -1 _>A_C_T0_8_H_U_AJt*.AF"*^P( CYC?____ __ ifl-iq-79_______ 4 CO oro Min fp nd /Y - C=3 ...------ - NAME OF FACILITY 0_E S C R 1 P T 1 0 N GUANf. j i |CCC 1C- 1 1 (ir: its! O/irliT'^r Ws+s Pi? A^ir ! "7. 1 =C 3*3 SCTM < 'Trt'jf 5". M pv, /Ll,. i> +. t-piV^r-Mrr! ' I--!- ** <s '' !-- i 1 \Af-^ --- 7 I" ff,- inn^r* " r*T .'"'v--oIW f-r^rm i *~`m! hi-vi r** ^li 'C+fcar. ft M 5;?+- Pr*v^r t | | I I n-h Oi3 freer - - - A x ?n ?brrcfc i -J`nB Tir^ Inr4 L2: i nUftnn W=Tr^rrc J 1 I n - nnunH -hif,? o J' ' ClOAnal. -A r !i--> '!.=?+1 no Wa-Her J F5F 41 GPM 30 po - MjOf-l IJnlnxd P'lmi;,,,, _,, 'N-c ;p| srr^cpM &P<I 'Kf5 T`C 1 x- 4 1j . _I3~ ! -- - preliminary capital D-L9 -Thermal Qxicneo r-na. Oi Ppoc^=s (ies:hp) C f NU-Bt* >C Ckt I _____ Pr C*i NAME ItCTIOM 0"A* _i_tC_T_O_S_w__yt_a_lta<=* <hahlC-csnvc 1C3..: 7JS. 3106 zon.croM^/va fepc) Cac.. ... t'jj.u -vj/vir?/ i_&--; sa& wj----------------------- OF FACILITT D E SCR I PT 1 0 N 0UANJ\ 1 ~ loco 1 ^ ir.jO^S &. T \I^OP S+ansQS ~T?s.n t AP" ircr ^G*!. S+el L??=q __ LQJ.^.. P -!i r. ( Y~ ' r**." *S 1 1 / V; - " r L 1 r !" e r' 1 b='j.j?.r Lip^ Z ---------- 1< ,, y "Ofl h 11 , t U. j,x T'Y' :^ 0 Oi t: nrnipri0 (x~lJr?rTTr <-<A ). .. 4l,<? "C CT '^C's/icT L= W1 --u \ .J .A. L37/A IN'* ^ <= ._ 'A,.: 0 " ____ - ) Zi.4 <A JT-rt ' ' 1X_ 101136 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-30 FHC - Ca= T- Th-^MAlOxicit?* P'g O- P= C t 'o>pta IT " (La^ o*rt s ' jOA Pc- - ! Ci>( ItCT'O* _______ J. FgPC^re __ IQ-19-7g________ 2Qfi ^ or oon n-VI /V nr-) /y - CW-o MAME OF FAClLITT'O E SCRIPT! 0 H QUaMT. TkgrLsi (*!/', Al-'^r WacY* A ir M < r -1 = 'Cin SCr.M > M PtM /'--)/J ^ ^ 'i*"OLjf ^tppI f rpi'MrYlH! P-i, Ao<" Cr-t it i' r" *? r"- i ij"-r;".^(" c*fiF.T lp^ \fr , f -rrr^rrn < * SYSCi, 1 - r-jmpnJ-a M'Vijr.f* d' -rYf-or Wi-Mn-f* Ussy P^y^r-./ " 0- i n-n wllfltn^i Sr. .... ... 1, M xU kr>c!? "Jr '> * / i"i-(' -FTMii! J/^ /"'>/*.*,*. ;/A. ) . =S's A W iLs f t n O lA/?tj? r ^ im n A.;"y> na) -hJ I 'J ! n - bi^rrvjrtfH--- J'l --- P' R' P'------------------- f rp' ,)^ + i nn \Nx+fir Pirrm.<. P?P 15^1 (PPM l^l HP -* 90^. NUOl-4 Unlasd Ptji-n^ N'C ia!, .^p.m 4r>i=<i mp T*r "^ p -^ _llaf . PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-27 i tCT ItEDC- Caa rnt)( C f hu*ir P?*-i C*il t*u^A(A ACTION muhCH P=C^r?`Z ( aTh S9-PAAL Ox ) DIT-g-g- r-S-g. fFs. IT D* Ift ____ L?=t Mp) <iCs Nettie SlQhd,FcpnyC_..______________ ____'`O-'S-^g______ ____ __________ ifeCTOfiHC-At9 (NiH( .........................Ann.nroM^/vs f-nc) Gsc. name of facility _q e sc r i pj i o n guanil j T|C CO 'A in-i97S 6. s/~ >N 2 O +4 F'-rfl !>=!<r><=> 1 on t. APl t' O^ a?^'~- `nCP^I J P+^l *J __ ini.S A!^t i f * (v- 1 i- i/;itFr Li.".e --'-r. .'_A,y POCS / 1l / L.in<* A -ix i^q >--f i|^T=nf e Tx-!-r-,Tn<r 1 --). X-V J ^ * h *? r 9 , - ' o * =L`=',.A'i L i n ?=Z: O --A '. A Si )5>T-^-rA L = tJ = 26 ,3^ - ?03,3 a^.s ' ica- ^_0"V preliminary capital D-20 D-28 IT--F^!~ - Ca = tTARti vLI ~ _ ^MALO<i^l7r3 T Q~ -. I L=SS MP) 3*U ' C4i| Cc--!. ________________ JHo^ovC- lO-'^-TF UCTOfl w4.* Mam( hAr* .."CO.^.n '-nr)/vr- Css N Am OF F ACiLITY'Q 8 SCR I P T I 0 N CUANf. r jC M.I.-H4 9.ICS_____ Vjjn-ic I h^r* -r^i TM Air JLm2___ M gi-'./u-, !) . c 1--^---'*---/--*--^----------/-----i-"--- --"'T"p...'..i.i.p.i.....r.--.r* *s ^y-4 | of-? P*~>rn iTaOA, /!7*J W1 aU^( ,4- PH U =* P'="V<!r' : - -C. r' . On. i O; ,, i i--n "` ` i 1 k r? c> X ~ P 5? Jr^ iripi' _ **0 >-jai i* J/ J '/*,' .S'*?*"/* *?/*/ *, Ui - 1 3 7. Cir- iU frno WsTfr ^.L-mn 2.IOO nJ. fn- *J | -J -----Uftjijr-~------------!----R-------P------------------------------ 4. /* 1 r-'ils+t"^ Wa-H9p Pimrs, C?P 4=0 6PM 2= HP * PH* NLOl-l Unload P-imn 1 Nt, sal. ^ry^PM 4qp<i phP t*c ' / r * Ia. ___IU* 3 i 1 f o A tP 4* preliminary capital D-25 OJfCT E-nr- Case T. - Thesmcl Qxioixeo. ^ns> c f T PprF ~ ) CAit MCTICH HU^iCfl <d. I'OP.DYCE UC1CR -U-fltH i na name of facility de sc r i ptj o n ouant. j " G. cC1 ^N-=OfJ 3+a^ffqft "Tsn b.. A P" >rcr Fteel 1.??=^ r-'. 1r o _ ^ y- !--"*> V i - c^ V L:r^e =-nr .n e y / Pp'jinr Line. 1i " A"ax 'vW Psocecs__(Witu MP ) 0*fft v jJC ni IO-I8--78 * 1 CCO (.A __ iQi.q uLq 6 ! r=f' unsnl? 1 !-,) A 1,9 ^ * r* ` 1* f* f" . Sts*' n'J / ?n*-mTAl = "T"o -- al ALLn7/rMi'7? 2~,S *o -- - - Aoz.i 1 "'2. ' fX-3-7 i i i : 1 i 0^' V PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-26 P'OitCT P pC - Ca* = iL--TMgPMAL-OxirtTg? P^.r^cc M gsS.MR^'___________ PM4i( ( * T -----------------------------------Ti- V Ccs - 1 cm kwiii itciiow u.* J. Pnpi'vc-:___________________ ____ ____ |g-|^-7g .5 ice__ a-carr.n lt~nc)/Yr Csp------------------------------------------------- 0 M j------------------------i---------------- --- ------------- - HAMS of FACIUTY^O ESC_R tPTJ CUANf. 1 ICCC M i r -1 <r 1 n.*rrrsl (~)*\A\-r:?r (^.s* ^ Air* ! -/* U-l, * o ^ 5R. M pi", /'Jr ' /i . . J--- r' <* s-r^rAOrfi ---- ^ p** , <---^p^rp <r+rr r*+ '-- -r-s f I = pffl Jnrrx 1 SrSCii, , l r r,'i morc^- M m, ]r~ j-s He ?"f'/'OrS '^3 W1 +-r*'M i + i^l U S3f P'&'rVFTr r a,. nt*, ^i Ctarrmr a'.a ^ v ** bricfe A P'-'S/P' ! !<-<r f! v Cic-k i > gg-S Cm- ii-5 ftr*n l/\/.s *"? r w'jitIi? ^'OO ml 1n- -J 4i>r- J< 1 pT R P 'J . r r-ii! + i DO Wa+^r W C?P i' (PPM SO HP ~ . ?n` NUT)|-4 1. jnf^sd PUJTlfZ------- -N,c ;sl gn;sM^--4---q----P--S---I- ;---s---u----p--- | C. i 2 3. ^* 1 -- o> X> X* 1 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-23 EDC- Ca.-sei T - Thermal Qxiniigo T'o^Ais THiU { f Mumtl T 3* re ("Witm )- p \ ' ;C1 HLkiC4 r"*' CAlt NW-t* -1 StCtlON HuttC d.FcRDVC'5 itCttRNUta*R tNiu( IO-IS-7S SO 6 pm.nnc'M^/YR jDC) Css. NAME of FACILITY 0 E SCR 1 PJ 1 0 N OUANT. j " 4 IO00 i/llE-1^7? <0. ?C' t APIS+omos Tap -YlGUl F-H=>l I.?? on !<7qr ``T" -------- A* J ----------------- _lqj Ht - ! T " ( y-- 1 1- Lirrf* I?'u5rL;nc. Sa-rt ="-4, y li " A "a* vy?' ( 4.q -- ! -f' ,trn<rri<r. ( -4,_ ....... - r ^r - '--t.''- 4,lM 1 57.4 ^/j^TTiTAL 5= ~Tn --A i 'A / ' -- u A 4 LLnv/AMC^ *= o/ " C ~1 . . ._ - 71 7.7 facts''. SL 101142 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL EDC- C_as- Ty_ERMftL OyiClieo. 'r-cn. Aj_P Ppor^SS (VJiTmW PmaH T OiTC *MV4L Pp" - ! CAlt hjwfttll stCTiOM HUtaiiR ctos wuvem 4 h***i el.foPDYCSfa-t8-~7g JOi!______ ' -^moaiMc/'fR feoc) Ca=l_ NAME OF FACILITY 0 E SCR 1 P TIP N QUANT. 1 * t ooo A A ir.|P7f: t. iM pOM S+^n <p Tfln b API 'one "nC^I 5r+^f i k??=^ j ___Im.S P. 1 i- f Y-- !-* -- ** 1 - A ^ --- ---------------------------------------- ------------ -----------C-f ------------------------------------- 1,. * liAsr 1 '.it** -- ,, i>, t -Ay t r --.-'jiFr1lin^ 1i ,, -h it , j)A f."A / ..Ll, h-f- nipple f >f-1 A-m- i -'A ). A / ., L--ar- 9 ~ cb r =- W A>na `r:i ipto-ta i " --i ~cy --a : 'Ay1 -- u ''LLT/ye.MCs* + p - = 37q.: f -=-a ----------- 8t preliminary capital D-22 _ eh-*- T --C =aC *f humii Tm;saAmY* alOxi;i?cr P^b_ A Pq- -1 C*H -w-I ItCTtO"! hmmcA _). HgpcyC' Pgrr.=?I0n*i*l(4l 'A/irHn H R.) 75i n i c. -- -----=5---------------------------------------- 1------------------ name of facility g_e sc_r i p n o n cuanr. ! T --- Th*r*--! (^*1/1 <-l i ? TM r 'Alztfr** fZ-cj. Air aC7*A * -'= M P-M / Ur ; /i t *m !,--!< o **. of? m* *" L..... ~i-<s it . < p< 1 rcl"? o/^-Unm** 1 ^i**n* i.-c -J- r>>^r->-= IHirw,)'-!-'* rlr/--"-' i -- /!^l U ss-f- o.. Hrr-r1i>11 /'_"Vn 3,,* ;1r*1--'a-1r- i -' . _j-- ' M I-. riC?J & &&& 1 r i r r\ _ *=rJ r^ai i ' J>J -J3 trf****.t* * it 111 u |Ttxt nJOB jajag. u ICOC V i ^ - i? j i I .A in 4 Cir lUfim WsTlr^imc C-GOO na! -< 1 In- r. rrvinrl J-i. p? P - J' . r 'r'Jfl+irfl Pjfr?r>^ P? P (r P M SjO HP .. * . MjOI--I 1 )n.lnzd p!<mr>. N ic ;1 cr'~.- =>M Un P< f R u P T* r. IP. 27*3 < ' ^ SV * l*7. I | !j .i * PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-19 r*ojct *. EnC- Case., X___TmEPpaal QxiPiiElLTga. Air Ppcy-ggs____< l~~S MPil '-not f ho*ltl it OAie jCA*L4t* Pz- 1 C Ail NVII WCTlOH HUtalU oJ.PaRDVCS 'O-ia-Tg 9IQ6 VtCTOH MUtoBl* 4 MAWC ' eonnrpMn/vR f-DC) Csc. NAME OF facility'd e scr 1 p ti 0n cuant. 1 ......................-1 * loco 7 QMin-19 A PNl A I 11--( StsmO >. Tapi b. ! 21'^C1?*1r". nf^l i St l.??=n -rf ____IQ 1 -9 P, t 0 r Y- --*! 1 - 1'*') 1, - "t 1 i r. c= -^S'liprL1 ms t .'Ay =^n 1< 11 Ah11 -A1) k r_oo 1 ( J.q / ! rref: LiinTT \ i-a). A1 "'--or* /" / ~ * f - -. > ^ -------------- *" ---------------------; Sm^-iDTAL = To "A. '. VN /1 -- U ^ '_LrVA/A>'r. = 2-6,5 ^ 47 ?.. a 1 SlS* ''"TecrT SLi IOH46 1 A' PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-20 gPC --" -H*U Pc= - 1 C*U 11= - T^-SMAlOxICIT?? P*3_ A !-B f *T ^Al ITM Mg c*rt kfcCT'O* _______ J .Frgnvrg ItCTOl HOM4&I h*( m-to-ii? <icn rrn M a ^ nd /y r C= = HAMg OF FACILITT DESCRIPTIOM CUAN i\ jCtk 4 "IOA S iCCC ThFr* -si dl/irlrr^r Wh*+ Ps*-+4tr ! s= < OC SC?M,s cO ' M pt-./Ur 1i * * #*S 5i*0] j. ) pi. ^r l--f. -'ac '0^; 1! f* r" f? n* ,p^\p-p ciri p* --K , * i-r "Hi ^^^4rp.te o1fsr ? n J-pV"ri ** ,, ' ~^Ch, s < i-ii i-i-,<sp-J-<a hi r-= /dort+r.'.,'or = \f\l,4-L ^ P =t- pKMVjSJia. 3 2; rw -?'hGh^rr,*'*r. 1 v 2.0 Iv^ah. 1 t M ^ l- . brcfe $/*?&& ' in r r, J -sycmmJ - l5l A 1 -wir1 nl^ irn U !A/pt<?r ^cor? nsl |o ! n - Jnn-1-mH +ji;;p* - PR ? r. ^ i--m!^+i Wa.+fir Pimn.s PS? P oo GPM HP - . 50? M-sOhl Unlnsd-.-.P'imp. N-c ;^1. `POPPM 40 5*1; a HP TC La _ --in* 1 ^. < eV PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-17 rNAii ^EDC-Ca( fsH^U(Ift - THEBMftL QiDLI- roa^lRp=^?c<;___(Ljr^ AftTt n Da f**U ' '-* P- CAli hUwitft -1 ItCTlON HUHlfl -d.'Fbp.DYCE sm.nnoM^/YB - -A- 1 --' ' NAME OF FACILITY 0 E SCR 1 PTJ 0 N OUANC. j in-ia-YS fcnc) Cso. ., 0m , 1 SJC6 * ICOO A/1 , r. -|Q TC ?C' ^.N,= 0-M ^-rnrs<se;F. ~Ti^n t. AP I *-U ' ' roGaf. S+el ! rcr. 1.7*2. pg. ___ 1-Q J .9 P. 11 * f yi 1-4^ l,, !_irre - -3m Ijr L 1 n *? * '------- - P A y 1/ " A;,Ay 1 ^.a ! ^4-, n^(?rf = \ X-Irffrr?* l-'A ). 4 ,<? : ''lp'Pr ^ '/'!>', r/j, \" ' Su2.T3TAL = Tn-AL V\''T M ALL3V/AMC1?: SLY ^ ~ - 17S.3 -2S.C a?? SL 10H48 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-18 PFC - Cas? L T ~Th;?malPxicit^r TPh b,*_ ( i u o') n hw-44* itCT'O* muu4(ft UCTOV MU*4t 4 *-i --------- =--- name of -----------FACILITY :------------------------------_D6 SCR 1 PTJCJ N OUAHT. J-----------------j <--------- 1--------- -r- Tk*r: Ts! (^XlAlTPr Wsc-i-o P;e 4- A IT SC"M " !Cn M / /'-J>i) '!'!= *- rWi-arHlrt* , ! -ifl**. 'S t"--, i! i~-r*" 'Y n--i Sf n '("mpi* <r+rr r".+ lFl f 1 /-re 1^" i--* r*i)c oJa +-Hirn * !!-!(. >-') m^r-T*5 kln'iinr* H' .^T&Dro. mm "-- |4 St- Cr^V?r' t * 1 cco Min -1? 1 1 ; d. C~^t 1|C -- h, OlnumLber , .i knek , `/'STS/* /// ' J .^Vrjsii! If' v': 4 r' ir^ -jUfinn SA/fl+r?r w.-jmn i ifAoO njl. o 1 'J ! n - Or^-mH -fun" PRP ^-- Ujr - - 4, f?) c r-fJpAi-t/1 WaWr Pinn! FP P Piv.o <FPM l?C HP - * F.nt MysOM Unload Ptimrv sal w; pm Ac>p<i = h P T* C - 1t vv^ 1 L.1 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-15 rroitCT EDC" Case_________ Tm EgMflL QyiDllEP- ~Fca. A iR rn)( t T Date fL=GS-HR') ' Pp?= - 1 C*it NU-4M action NgMi| cI.Fqrovce *ecTc nu*6i* i name jimm&hAn hfp. 10-18-73________ SiOfi___ fenc) Gsc. ._ C name of fa'ciuty oescription ouant. 1 -- ... loco Wm-iRYf ^ N <S-Q-M__S.tar=JGs "Tsn t APT ! -O' roGal. S+*el icry ''il 1 171.5 P -ir n r y-- P .-- ** I 1 V t/ V- - t Li n r* ~--rrr5f. / = S'A-'sr Lin.rz !i .." ', _= fn y _> ~rr.' ' 1 4 .a ! r + : 'iinopt* fx- 1 A-em* ). 4 1,5 r ~ 7 <> r A 7 ? 7 1 L'PG.Q ~ u ^TGXA-L ~To"A'._ V7' --w ^ LLTA/f^T.cC 2.fci ^ - 2R 1.0. !C35.! ' i-o =N SL 101150 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL D-lfi `_ yi Pnc - Ca's= T - Tm-pmaiOxicits^ P->g A.p P?or?,=0q* ft (~ lsss MR)1 jftl = -1 C*U hgwfttt JICTION ItCTQft HUto(N 4nM ;vc! c.'--^ name OF 'fTcIUTYD eSCRIPTJQH CUANT. j m-iq-73. ' -- 1- ^..-^--i--!--> hi < SICS _ 8 1CCC M i n -13 Tk=r- PVplT"=r WsTT-a (l;ei Air -------- *--1---5-'----0-.3-------h-A ->^jr-i-,---I--L-!-r- J-- 1t lTV M**- ' m* t* ii V p*-i r-o / rl^^-nrn*? LI -=wA, in*-*- r'jnr-K M'"'t >rr r-w ( ^2- Wirh'su-f* PI Usa-f-Psrav^r-j o... *-**in - < 1 -Knrofc M PP-P * i<~i m j -rs7rjrJAi-<i! ,/ C,r 'J-firo lA/sW^nr^ ,cOO njl -J 1 n - nm'inrl -LrirF - J' H . in\ C T-nls+iiow W^Wr Pra^4 *; FP GP M ?o MP - LTr an.. 4-2.* . PO? N^Ol-^ Unload Ptirrv-v. . N'c ;d. *nG PM 4 A F* 1 ] .? P P T* C - 1 SL 101151 _I0- 1 il ... ______ D-13 _I_' ' PPC -Th.RA^A,L-Qa.idi.2:^Ps.. ^..SyST.ZrAi JC5 SC- iHcET^., r w 'iV ,2iCc^3__ ............................................: J.R. Fqrcyc-. .......... Oct. i9. i975 \*2. R A-yj )V`,ATSRi Qi,. p ATA: (4cO.OCO Mg/Yr EC'CPlt ), (Ty^ - - - - ..... - (W'+T'aut arntd') J _ _ _ 2.1 Cais I - Air Pfiocssc ( W^r^Hja^Pecover\j) -- PeA 1 0permca|. M-srac-tinn Reports i~ j1 , >973. . Caust/c Soda.. .*.140 *115 /ran loo**bszi3j ___ Pc>jp_50e* NoOrl Solution ose . o5/lb... - ... in _____ ,200'hr(j00*) X 2^X 3760 hr/yr * ..OS/* --i___ |}l3S;Sogfur U fntiJ* >' ______2.tL.ClAS I- Os. Prccscs ( Wit h , or Wi-t noo t Meat Pscovgri; J 10SG /rur (iOOv.)x "a./Bl&Onrjijr TL-faQsj* ------ 46P 3; SOC^/lj r._ Oi^QQ-3i Data : ^4oo.ooo AAg/^'r EDC p)t\) ........ i9 . A. I Co-se I- Ai^ Process (fili+h, or W)-tngut Heat- Recover vp 220cpni surest 5;5aD3in:n|y X *01/^31* "SP^.SOo/ljr~ 4.2. Coe _LL~ Ut Proceed CWitIt,or Wit`nout Hea?f Recoveru ) 3 IO opr?' puros x 525G00 miryO r ,x .Gl/Dsl5 / ?&2.9,4 Go/ij <" (TA-- 3o Cred 11- * f 4oo.ooo Mg/Vr EDC PI+") 3.1 Air procce-a ( i-kst Recovery) V 3=.5,vi 3tu/i*:r7.S7SO Hr/^r % s//Y. Etu = 6 2'OOo/ur ,, 3.2 C5?gTT- 0?, p,-rocsas (Peat Recovery/' f *I it* / S5"2 MEtu/nrx 3toOHr/Yr "X * 2/ /Vi IETjl - 450,300/ur (X)Directly propartion P>r 3.oo,coo Soo.oooMg/Yr pjal-i4.v ....................... ^ ^^ S l0llS2 D-U___' -iCD.C-TJTHERMAoQ/ )DiZ 1H3___<.. O YSTCMS ..____ ________ ,J3 >\3. sserr <3lOft- ~7 1 ~ o= * Utilities Data. __ ______ ' . J.R. Fopoycs ... . Oct. / 2 ,1273. 3 . _ c.- 1 C ase_I_- A j r Pmoccso. J-------------- "l.,I.* L.,,4cajQ3S Mq/Yr EDC p!+ CapaCiT*^ f Wjth Heat Rerovgrq/. s 4 ------ Fans - aa-pcocFM x s 'waO x.oco.is/te/, e * 37 hp. 10 Pd m p t * ajujwOT. . 4a " :i .._. Yard )-IOht--Jp+T-(jmsn+S3 . .... - .. S *__ Consider a/'-aays running - SB *. _ ._ S3 4P% ,,-?4<a JO/mp X. 6760Hf/yr 7"t <.O"sj-riu'j'n* *.*'Ift,7Co/\M| r .Coolinq 'Ao+er __- * - */ /^ l 3 SC <S PAA x 3=S3CGM.if /Vr 7> . \o!j 1(A0n7n0 -v( * 20. 500/^jt Na+I. Gss V 34 M Btu/hr 7. 8760 h'r/V.- X 2./ M Bfu.. . - 420.SOo/j, 2.1,2. ^oo.coo Mq/'l'r EDC Pit. Gsoso + y . TLosS Hsar Focoveruj Poojer 2 coco 3 ' X .oool 5- // - rJ;C. . et_ ns (35 33 HP, rbmsc 5)63wj, Vy-ard irQ n IS r inrr i = 101 tf a i HF>x .74ro X 8760 / ^.OByi-iojK, = Sl9(aoo/y Coo! Wircr CL I3n0-0l p~ m X 22.5a - HcSCo/u \U Nst/.GaS .-Cj-.-rj. as .XAT.'i. ' 4 2.050o/y r 'Qo,recti rectlu prooortion. 4or SOO.OOO 300,003 Mq/\'r Plants. I -1 ` .j ;i .i -> :: ;* ;; :s SL 101154 _______ __________ D-12 EDC-=-T-y.c.R?AA L O*-13I22HS-4- Oyhto.'XS - -- SlCSj_7 :hsst ** .'p J.P Fq=cic _______ Oct. ie. 197 a : ,.c Case HT -- Oa. PpocaesW** < - V-- ^ W -i- - _ c.sj .400.000 Ma/V ESC Pit. Cap. ( Wjj^h_Jas5"_^$^vsrC J :: &Q r-- Pq 'jj s r -- /I / . >an^;, ISSOOCPMX X.0CO15/7S ------------------------------ 13 .Pump s :______ _ __ -fard-LjQntsr .jnSTrymen-: 5.___ ,L?X -x 5 1 S 0 vX. \*o0ii/y/j^UW -------- _T 8,402/u -------------------------------------------------------- Caol P' YD____ 4 3s0c05Q...o.-o,Jp,)prrLrL<.. ..x__ S2.5 6____ l------------ .. I 5.,-SOQ Nat) ;JaS . .. .. -- . . ! V w 2.2.s. 4oo.ooo /Vtc/'froDC P't, C?p . \ Less Meat RpCCVSTV, psni:. 2;2oo x "7. -COOISt 75?'-______ _ Z3 Hf r, Pu n p s ... rYd-Lt-s - Jnsts . ... _. ... _____ 03 _____ __ .. ___ s, ". cbr' sjjzy-*? C^rl'Y ' Si P/ ,7^X A Coo! H cO . 33c. 3"m X + /. - * 31; 3760 7.. .G^J Euu____________ I3.9.QO/\j 57.56______ fc 7,600 Aif ( Natl. Co a O \ --- W44W4C. 37 ^ J} 'O-YDiracr/n proportion tor Eso.ooos aooooo ,Y,a/\r Pits. SL 101X55 :s ____DC^..XmEFMAL..QxiDIZ'R. 3-..C YSTE.NAS .33 so! SHEET ITlE .3 LP^-zl--------Luf . . (EY . _' . J . R. pDFtD YCS "ate ..Ocr. I a , .73. : I a Capita l Co t- or Qxi ciier^ d. M . R. Units * ' ..{./ R-af *. .Bear, A)! n t hlsmihan Inc. " Pinal Report Cost 5 _________ hydrocarbon Emission Con+ral 4o the U.5. .... 4_______________ Chemical ..Industry ppc. l\h 7, IV-S, iv-9, F13 1 v-1 _____Factors used are^trm pp. IV-3 .(5) 2.Si - .22 for .. . con-hngenc^)-f .cH for 2goo*f burning * 1.15 escalsric ... rom .. 1st +0 mid- isra, -- 33SiG> -factor i: ...1.2.Case J-.Air Process : 15 . . ... .. ____ _ ... .... ...... ._ . . l-E.f 4oo.ooo Mohr ECC Pit Cscaci + N.. . A 9.9M Btujiir- her <=j.K, calc, SCrM prior to comboS-tiOrv, = ...I80OO . <0 <S0*F. . . F.c. IV-I ... j With H earn Recovery ioom x 3.C.SG With our " " * 57 " X " = 30.7 V\ * ISG .... " . I.e.-S 00,000 MolVr Gpacifu, 1 J' -- 9,000 -CFAA. j, With Hea-f- Recovery J 73AA x S.ioG - 23 S hour " " J 4o '' x ^ - 13i ^ 4 l.c.c 6CCs;roO .V;r/Vr, Capacity =S,n:jO ECFM * With near hecovcr-i * l4o v\ x 2.2o<> - -4-7 Without < " " ; 60 - x " - 0.61 i '4 5 I A 15 10 M 13 :i :s :9 D--10 -JXh ERMA L_Q* i p l ZZP.Z__9 SySTEMS ... _ ;os jiiiST _S!C"3_z X_ _ ' : \J . R f-oSCVC; 1.3 Csss lH-- Oc-Procsss Oct. ioRS . _____ LSJ ,.Pr J.kA Cafe. -scrM prior to ccmbuction = i=oooscRM ______ ... . _._rc^. ..hoc.oco Ma/Yr DC Pit Capacit-s. S5.sKa Btu/H, ________ _____ Fic../V-1._ ................ .. . .... _________Witn Meat K^-CaVOry ^ ......................... l/Virhoot " "; ^ 85 M x 2. o ~ 4S u x * 2"?S I <oO M " ____ _ _ 1*3.2. _2CO.OCO Mq/'tr Ca?3dT'\ _______~. &3CO SCrM ... .With i-last Recovery i Without " ": ^ .... . 6 I M . x a, 166 5 37 " * " * . .^ 1*3^ -M I 2.1 " 1.2.3 Q00.000 A/q/Vr cjcact-.' . S 2&rOCC OCFAA.. .... ^ '/Vjtn Meat Recovery " iso M a 2,260 * 4^4 Withou-r " : 65 " A `'=212 \ SL 101157 ( 17) > cn r1 ov-1 \trf*l 00 AUA Fllf U -- -- -- THEfi UA L OAIDIZ ER OUCNCH -p> SC RUBBER SCH NA OH . g> RUM P 20% NA OH STORAQ e case i AIR PROCESS CASE IT OMGtN PROCESS OAlOllfR RATING A bTUfHft 36 .B J5 BTU/Hff AUK- FUtL 24.0 A BTU/HR <$>\j i --- AIR PROCESS S 3 3 OOO AC PM PURGE TO WASTE TREAT ME NT tO &PM a I300LB/HR OP OOl. NA OH i10 I a O GPU OXYGEN PROCESS 23300 A C F M & GAM 1020 LB/HR OF tool* NA OH GO OPNO 330 GPM 310 fiPu n 490 GPM 333 GPM QUENCH UNIT lO'-L'I.Oi Efi M. t'-O'l&N 34'M SCRUBBER UNIT 10-0* l-OiEG'H. S -C* l .Q . Cfm H- fOR. CHLORINATED___VENT_ OASES WITHOUT HEM RE COVE RY... HOO OOO _ WH^/jrr.jCARAC ITT i EDC PROCESS ii FUME CONTROL II 9IOG- 7 FOR07 CE OCT 31.1910 AUK Flt.L thermal fumC --> 0*1011 E H HOC*rF 601 JA OK - PUM P 20/.NA0H STORAGE. Alft PROCESS qa i Oil t R RATING AC.9 JltTO/MS OMOfN FHOCI Sfe.lM CtU^ R aua . fuel ?** o fli fcTu/HR rtorvc eNLNbV RCCOwrCO j5. f?lblU/HR 25.1 STU/Ht D-8 SL 101159 Thermal oaiO.iIER fqr CHLORi^rco VENT GAiC^ ... *th HCA7 RECOVER*,-, aqo cxxi.wg/Tf.PLT. capacity. - SL 101160 INCINERATION LIMITS 'tOOC^i /'it PLT.CAP ffl b/iiE r>v_L 400 Gq/ Vr, p LTCAt- --HT w BOQGq/Yr PLT.CAR m03 EMkl.SlbNB REDUCTIC1 l(vOC) Mq/Ti CEOC) rMID "I91B IN STALLED CAP ITftL IOOO 4000 tspn 9CS 4&OQ I 500 905 3100 1 305 CBOO I 34 rii:aooo I GO"? laaoo EMOO 141 UTILITIES" POWER COOLING WAVER NATL. GAS RAW MATEK'IRnr EOftNiCH SAfeNPOWETT w 3 -g.a; 003 ICCCi/jf egg 4G3 -ass. 32 qi& -LL3.2- J I 2? as 7 3 H21B _2. 35 35 36 IMAINTENKRCE Q CftR eEtl&fefey l6>ga y- cnip |rLylnlis4cKcAEiraL., y.rAP/ IQGO/- 23 4 229 330 31 4 as 44 2 WASTE" IHcWW ipyVjr QS S ! QS 2050 2050 4 10 0 4 I OO LA NN UAL I LETT Uj-------------------------------------------- !Sg/jl o !*.y^i 309 & ET=r^TTVEHE5S_____ iyQCX IS-____ PCI -/Mo- .ass Laai WITHOUT HEAT REC iVERN WITH 3I I n~ic> 4017 380 JL2_ 44 I I3S^ 022 3372 3*7 I 1163 O 18 43 S 134 3 1 244 G SC 7 36 3 I SS '\ CD n x t> :0 Cl cS* .1 3 L X) T1 m 5 G J OB S SL 101161 INCINERATION UNITS e(X)& /Vr. FIT. OMra m 1-- 400G /Vrf-l.T CAP dOCJG /Vr. PI :T. CAP. >0 M~~ . Gi m vv'A'STE liMi'SllT-KJS RCLlllOlOHivOCl Mo/V r . ' (ED!') i IQQO 5 COO aixi 7S7 OTIOTTF5 Fjv.-eM T" 1 Cnnur-is Water_________ L locn/tir /J FfflW MATERIAL _FOtiNaOH icm/tir 17 a 4-0 1 rin7Vitr iJ MAINTENANCE r 5.0 /. CAR Wc&fkRV 'b.gar,CAP > DOoAir lffiJffinF1TflLibfi. 7.r-Api tJ 19 3 B Of.Y.l SCO SB 1 f7 a4 o .2 5 2.07 10 aio 1 tiuo IOA9 3 AS3 A *r"* sr> 21a 1(10 VI 1000 itn 20 O > > 3(300 151 V 20 ono 3SUO 3A a 9 -7 w- &a nea 5 r* St* l 1.33 2S2 38 3 A 00 'WASTE mapbSftL RECOVER* CREDIT^ i 1000/., r J \ooo/,ir S 1^ o WEgr_&UtJUALlltD IOOO^l 1J COST ^TFECTWTNESS " NoO ( EDC) V*, N1 15 12 302 IfnBO D] WITHOUT HEAT REC hvER''r [U WITH " 11 a 1 'i- i c-> 2 9 1 (n ? 9 3258 3 2 58 2 2.5 0 ^5 1 O on | 12 95 28C>(> t'la j 5532 '16.5 7 2 59 1*1 3 3 287 <5 32 2 2 1 3 4 G> Z77 153 7 23 3 (2 EH 0 0 n > i>i n ti\ n X < til mz (I .11 1.7 n no in x. t c n 5} \ ' ' " 1 1!S . li D-3 COST ESTIMATE DETAILS This appendix contains the details of the estimated costs presented in this report. The accuracy of an estimate is a function of the degree of data available when the estimate was made. Figure D-l illustrates this relationship. A contin gency allowance as indicated on this chart has been included in the estimated costs to cover the undefined scope of the project. Capital costs given in this report are based on a screening study, as indicated by Fig. D-l, based on general design criteria, block flowsheets, approximate material balances, and data on general equipment requirements. These costs have an accuracy range of +30% to -23%, depending on the reliability of the data, and provide an acceptable basis to determine the most cost-effective alternate within the limits of accuracy indicated. Figure D-2 shows the installed capital costs for tanks and was prepared primar ily from data presented in the EPA, OAQPS report Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage, which was prepared by Pacific Environmental Services under Contract 68-02-2606. The curves plotted are judgmental averages of the data presented. Additional retrofit cost informa tion was obtained by telephone from Chicago Bridge and Iron, Ultraflote, and Grover Tank Co. The highest retrofit cost quoted by these companies was used as a base. The retrofit curve was then increased to compensate for freight, taxes, engineering, and estimated allowances. In all capital calculations, allowances of 13 to 20% were added for magnitude, hazard, and definition contingencies. Cost-effectiveness data for open-top floating roof tanks were not developed because the available data indicate the cost to be approximately the same as that for internal floating roofs for most tank sizes. Open-top floating roofs are not as efficient for emission reduction as internal floating roofs. SL 101163 APPENDIX D COST ESTIMATE DETAILS FOR MODEL-PLANT EMISSION CONTROLS SL ioi^64 "7*0/ r-1 1 C t~J~3 sulfhydryl groups of cysteine in vitro, but that in vivo, total sulfhvdrvl concentration in rat liver and kidney was decreased at the LD90 doses. Brain and heart sulfhydryl values were not affected. Signs of toxicity included clonic and tonic convulsions, respiratory depression, and thirst. No information on metabolism of ethylene dichloride by humans was found in the literature. The similarity of the human responses to exposure to ethylene dichloride and 2-chloroethanol and the pathologic findings after such exposures are not proof that ethylene dichloride is metabolized to 2-chloroethanol. With both compounds, the delay in onset of symptoms (Table XII-2) is indicative of metabolism to more toxic compounds. f128-- 130] Ethylene dichloride and 2-chloroethanol could share a common metabolic pathway to monochloroacetic acid with chloroacetaldehyde as an intermediate metabolite. (RA Van Dyke, written communication, February 1975) McCann et al [135] tested the mutagenicity of ethylene dichloride, its metabolite chloroeacetic acid, and its possible metabolic intermediates, chloroethanol and chloroacetaldehyde, by their ability to revert a bacterial tester strain. Ethylene dichloride and 2-chloroethanol were described as weakly mutagenic compared to chloroacetaldehyde, which was hundreds of times more effective in causing reversions. Monochloroacetic acid showed no activity in the testing. Correlation of Exposure and Effect Ethylene dichloride has anesthetic m-nnerHeg but it was found to be too toxic to be used for this purpose. [32-35] Guinea pigs developed a state of unconciousness in 0.5 hour with exposures of 4,000 and 4,500 ppm. [42] A monkey exposed at 4,500 ppm for 10 minutes became unable to 72 ion65 SIj maintain itself on the perch of the cage. [42] During a 7-hour exposure at 3,000 ppm, guinea pigs, rats, mice, and rabbits showed varying degrees of narcosis according to Heppel et al. [106] Spencer et al [108] considered that the inactivity or stupor and slowness of response to handling of rats exposed for up to 8 hours to a series of concentrations in the range of 300 to 3,000 ppm may have been due to toxic injury other than central nervous system depression. Workers acutely poisoned by occupational exposure to ethylene di chloride developed s^mptomsindicativeofcentra^_>jierv^s>BMis^sten^iiiigffects including headache, dizziness, feelings, of ..drunkenness. and sometimes unconciousness. [74-77,80-82,86] In some cases workers who were not overcome during exposure became unconscious later. [81,86] Because of the profound effects of other chlorinated hydrocarbons on the liver and kidneys, many of the clinical and epidemiologic studies with ethylene dichloride have been directed toward the detection of dysfunction and degeneration of these organs. Evidence of liver and kidney injuries have been noted following both ingestion and occupational exposure, as evidenced by increased serum bilirubin. [9,86] decreased blood lucose. [82] positive Takata-Ara tests, [9,86] tender and palpable liver, [9] and the presence in the urine of albumin, blood cells, and, hyaline and granular casts. [86,102] However, even repeated exposures at high concentrations in animals and accidental poisonings in humans produced only slight to moderate fatty degeneration in the liver and kidneys. [75,107,108] What was much more evident in these and other organs at autopsy was the hyperemia and 73 SL 101166 hemorrhaging into the tissues. [44,46,47,50,52,54,56,57,60,61,62,65, 66,68,75,76,77,81] ingestion, vapor inhalation, and absor^tiot^hrough^h^skin^^er^^similar. Early signs of circulatory damage included bleeding into the visceral organs, [46,50,51,54,56,62,70], cyanosis, [46,50,52,54,55,57,59 60,65,75,81,84,86] and rapid, and weak pulse. [46,50,52,56,59,74,81,84] Acute exposures, both by ingestion and inhalation, were often fatal. Death resulted from .respiratory and circulatory failure, following a period of nausea, vomiting, and unconsciousness. Autopsies revealed hyperemia and hemorrhagic lesions in the stomach, intestines, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys. [46,47,4952,54,56,57,59,61-62,64-66,70,72,73,75,76,81] Disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) and hyperfibrinolysis were reported in 1969 by Martin et al [64] in a patient who had ingested ethylene dichloride. They first noticed prolonged bleeding from veni punctures 24 hours after the ingestion and then studied the clotting factors, finding a reduction in factors II, V, VII, and VIII and complete defibrination. Platelet count was low (14,300/cu mm), fibrinolysis was markedly increased, and proactivator levels were below 10% of normal. Autopsy examination revealed thrombi In the pulmonary arterioles and capillaries, and hemorrhages into the mucosa of the esophagus, stump of the stomach, rectum, subepicardial, subendocardial, and myocardial tissues. A decrease in clotting factors II and V was also found by Schonborn et al [65] 5.5 hours after a person ingested ethylene dichloride. Yodaiken and Babcock [66] noted that 2 hours after a patient ingested ethylene dichloride the prothrombin time was increased and the clotting 74 SL 101167 ability of the blood continued to decrease. On the 4th day, all clotting factors except VIII were markedly decreased. An absence of clots and intensely red, thick blood were among the autopsy findings in 2 workers following an acute occupational exposure. [75] Extensive subepicardial, subendocardial, and a few subpleural hemorrhages were also found. Chronic occupational exposures have also resulted in ethylene dichloride intoxication. Ree^^e3^g^_h^e_resu^ed^^^^ieuroloical changes, anorexia, nausea, vomitingJ__epigastric_gain_1_irElaiaii__af__.he mucous membranes, possible livgi_and kidney dysfunction^and death. [88,9098,105] Cetnarowicz [9] investigated the possibility of ethylene dichloride poisoning in an oil refinery in Poland where the concentrations were In the range of 10-200 ppm. Ten workers employed in the centrifuge room, where 3 concentration measurements were 62, 64, and 200 ppm, complained of a burning sensation of the eyes and lacrimation. Six of the workers had dryness of the mouth, an unpleasant sweet aftertaste, dizziness, lassitude, sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and loss of appetite. Three workers also complained of pain in the epigastrium. Of 6 workers employed in other sections of the plant, where concentrations ranged from 10 to 37 ppm, one worker complained of the above-mentioned symptoms. Further clinical investigations showed liver tenderness upon palpation in 4 workers, epigastric pain in 7 persons, elevated urobilinogen levels in the majority of individuals, abnormal percentile distribution of white blood cells in 8 persons. Other abnormal findings included high serum bilirubin levels, elevated nonprotein nitrogen levels, diminished 75 VV>*> amounts of albumin in the serum, elevated globulin levels, positive Takata- Ara tests, and delayed return to normal values in the glucose tolerance test. Two reports [88,91] of years of experience with ethylene dichloride in Russia indicated that acute effects were found after exposure at 75-125 ppm. The symptoms of these acute effects included general weakness, headache, dizziness, vomiting (usually producing a trace of bile), and irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. When some workers experienced these signs and symptoms 2 or more times in a period of 2 to 3 weeks, fatalities resulted. However, there was no mention of the method of air sampling, of the number of people exposed, or the duration of exposure. Byers [93] reported that delayed effects of ethylene dichloride, such as lassitude^^nause^jjomitin^^and^^j^gjjijiaijgiji^were experienced in the evening by workers exposed at 100 ppm or slightly higher for 7.5 hours daily. These effects were not completely alleviated when ventilation procedures reduced the ethylene dichloride concentration to 70 ppm. Exposure conditions were more extensively described for the 2 cases of neurological involvement reported by Guerdjikoff. [97] These workers used a gas mask for the operation where higher ethylene dichloride concentrations were expected for 2-3 minutes about 10 times/day. In this operation, there was opportunity for occasional exposure if the mask was not worn properly. In another operation, the workers were exposed 3-4 times/day for 10 minutes each time at a concentration of about 120 ppm, and in another operation, they were exposed at a higher concentration for 10-15 minutes once/day. made. An estimate of the daily TWA for these workers was not 76 %0^ The workers developed sensory and motor problems during 6-9 months of exposure. [97] Anorexia, epigastric pains, fatigue, irritability, and nervousness appeared first after 3 weeks of exposure. Eventually each worker developed a difficulty in walking, trembling hands, and hyperhidrosls. Heightened lability of the autonomic nervous system, diffuse red dermographism, increased hidrosis, fatigability, irritability, and insomnia were among the responses reported by Rosenbaum [88] in a group of 100 workers exposed to ethylene dichloride at less than 25 ppm for 6 months to 5 years. Impairment of the central nervous system and increased morbidity, especially diseases of the liver and bile ducts, were found in workers chronically exposed to ethylene dichloride at concentrations below 40 ppm and averaging 10-15 ppm. [105] An analysis of the data presented by the author indicated a TWA concentration of about 15 ppm (see Table XII-3 and Figures XI-1 and XI-2). There are reasons to suspect that this may be an overestimate of most of the workers' exposures. The author pointed out that an insignificant number of the workers were employed in disassembling the metal molds, washing the tanks, etc. During disassembly of the metal forms, the workers were inside the tanks where ethylene dichloride concentrations of about 4552 ppm were found. These concentrations were included by the author in the array associated with gluing. The measurements were apparently not breathing zone measurements and the ventilation system was designed with the exhaust ducts on the floor. As a consequence, the author [105] found an average concentration of about 27 ppm near the gluing table, about 40 77 SL 101170 ppm at 1 meter from the floor, and about 6 ppm at 2 meters from the floor. From these considerations it would appear that a more realistic appraisal of the TWA exposures of the majority of workers is 10-15 ppm. Ethylene dichloride was found in the milk of nursing women occupa tionally exposed at approximately 15.5 ppm for an unspecified time. [99] The concentrations of ethylene dichloride in the milk ranged from 0.54 to 0.64 mg X. Concentrations of about 14.5 ppm ethylene dichloride were found in the women's breath. Eighteen hours after exposure, the concentrations of ethylene dichloride in milk samples and breath were found to be 0.1950.63 mg X and 2-4 ppm, respectively. This one report of ethylene dichloride concentrations in the milk of female workers is supported by one study of ethylene dichloride concentrations in the milk of cows fed 1.75 to 17.5 mg/kg (based on body weights of about 400 kg). Additional research on this subject is needed. Brzozowski et al [104] considered that absorption of ethylene dichloride through the skin was primarily responsible for producing such symptoms as nausea, weakness, abdominal pain, irritation of the mucous membranes, and weakness in the agricultural workers they studied. The workers were exposed in the field at atmospheric concentrations of about 15 ppm. Exposures to about 60 ppm occurred during transfer of ethylene dichloride into buckets. The workers were exposed to direct contact with the liquid that was spilled in large quantities on their skin and clothes while carrying it to the field in open buckets and they used it to wash their skin. Medical examinations were performed on 118 workers. Ninety of them had some positive findings, including conjunctival congestion, weakness. 78 reddening of the pharynx, bronchial symptoms, metallic taste in the mouth, headache, dermatographism, nausea, cough, liver pain, burning sensation of the conjunctiva, hastened pulse, and dyspnea after effort. The "hippuric acid Quick test" was used to measure liver dysfunction and was reported to be positive in 40 of 56 workers investigated. [104] A mixture of 25% ethylene dichloride and 75% carbon tetrachloride is used for grain fumigation in the United States. There are no reports in the literature of poisoning from the use of this fumigant mixture. However, in Italy, where the proportions of ethylene dichloride and carbon tetrachloride are approximately reversed, there are many reports of fumi gant intoxication. [78-80,85,102] Experimental studies performed by Borisova [4,101] resulted in effects on the vascular and respiratory systems with short-term exposure at > very low concentrations of ethylene dichloride. A 30-second exposure of 4 subjects at 1.5 ppm resulted in a temporary stenosis of the blood vessels in all 4 subjects. This reaction was generally more pronounced especially in the vessels of the fingers when the exposure was at 3 ppm. Borisova [4,101] found that a 1-minute exposure at 1.5 ppm produced a change in the depth of breathing as indicated by an Increase in the height of the wave of the spirogram. Experimental exposures to animals have resulted In circulatory effects similar to those found in humans, including pulmonary congestion and edema with focal extravasation of blood, generalized congestion throughout the visceral organs, hyperemia, and hemorrhage into the lungs, stomach, intestines, liver, and adrenals. [42,106-109] 79 SL 101172 Guinea pigs were exposed at concentrations from 600 to 60,000 ppm ethylene dichloride for periods up to 8 hours by Sayers et al, [42] Congestion and edema of the lungs and generalized passive congestion of the visceral organs were found in animals that died during exposure at 30,000 or 60,000 ppm for 30-40 minutes. Pulmonary congestion and edema and renal hyperemia were found in animals exposed at concentrations greater than 1,200 ppm. No deaths or apparent symptoms resulted from 8-hour exposures at 1,200 ppm. Pulmonary congestion and hemorrhage, generalized visceral congestion, hepatic necrosis, and slight fatty degeneration of the renal tubular epithelium were found by Heppel et al [106] in rabbits, rats, and mice that died from exposure at 3,000 ppm ethylene dichloride. Guinea pigs exposed at the same concentrations developed focal necrosis of the adrenal cortex, sometimes with hemorrhage, and fatty degeneration of the myocardium was found in 7 of 8 guinea pigs. Repeated 7-hour exposures at 1,500 ppm resulted in hemorrhage in the lungs, stomach, intestines, and adrenals, fatty degeneration of the myocardium, and congestion in the liver and intestines of rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and dogs. [106] Degenerative changes in the renal tubular epithelium, pulmonary congestion with focal extravasation of blood, congestion, hemorrhage and fatty changes in the liver, and focal myocarditis were among the effects noted by Heppel et al [107] after exposing various animals at 1,000 ppm for 7 hours/day, 5 days/week for up to 177 days. When the exposure concentration was lowered to 200 ppm, mortality remained high but only occasional pathological findings, varying from animal to animal, were observed. These included pulmonary congestion, fatty degeneration of the 80 v renal convoluted tubules, necrosis and hemorrhage in the liver, necrosis of the adrenal cortex, and fine fat droplets in the liver and myocardium, [107] Spencer et al {108] exposed a variety of animals at 400 ppm ethylene dichloride for 7 hours/day. One of 2 exposed monkeys died after 8 exposures and the other died after 12 exposures. Prothrombin time was increased and microscopic findings included fatty degeneration of the liver and kidneys. No abnormal findings were observed grossly or microscopically in 2 male monkeys subjected to 148 7-hour exposures at 100 ppm ethylene dlchloride in 212 days. [108] Both male and female guinea pigs exposed at 100 ppm ethylene dichlo ride for as many as 162 7-hour exposures in 226 days had reduced growth rates and increased liver to body weight ratios compared to controls. Lung, heart, kidney, spleen, and testes organ weight to body weight ratios were normal. [108] Cats similarly exposed also had reduced growth rates. [109] A summary of findings from animal exposures is presented in Table XII-4. Ethylene dichloride was shown to be metabolized to monochloroacetlc acid through 2-chloroethanol in mice. [126] Both thzse compounds are more toxic than ethylene dichloride. [131,134] The signs of poisoning by 2chloroethanol from both accidental and occupational exposures of humans and experimental exposures of animals is very similar to those resulting from ethylene dichloride poisoning. [127-131] This similarity of signs, symptoms, and microscopic findings provides evidence that the mechanism of 81 SL 101174 human poisoning from ethylene dichloride resides at least in part in its metabolic products. [124,131,133] There were no reports found in the literature dealing directly with carcinogenic or teratogenic effects of ethylene dichloride. A feeding study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (EK Weisburger, written communication, January 1976) showed that some female rats developed mammary tissue masses after receiving 50 and 100 mg/kg ethylene dichloride in their diet for 78 weeks. No statistical or histopathologic data were given concerning the tumors. Ethylene dichloride and its known metabolic product, chloroacetic acid, showed low mutagenicity when tested by McCann et al [135] on a tester strain of bacteria. However, by comparison, the possible intermediate metabolites, chloroethanol and chloroacetaldehyde, were extremely potent mutagens. 82 lOH'75 SI* LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED: 06/23/88 CHEM DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP HUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE EDC tO V & EC-VCM-HCL UNIT PROCESS OPERATOR VC AUX.OPERATOR HELDER EDC LIQ PHASE EDC OPERATOR EDC-MC UNIT AREA EDC OPERATOR GENERAL WORKER INSTRUMENTATION MAN TRI-ETHANE LEAD OPER TRI ETHANE OPERATOR T.E.2 STABILIZER OPR TRI-ETHANE AUX.OPER. VDC OPERATOR HELDER EDC-VDC AREA AREA SUPERVISOR EDC OPERATOR EDC LEAD OPERATOR EDC-VDC AUX.OPERATOR EDC-VDC OPERATOR FOREMAN INSTRUMENTATION MAN LEAD OPERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC LOADER LABORER MACHINIST PIPEFITTERS STEL THA STEL TWA TWA N/A N/A 4 4 N/A THA N/A THA AREA SAMPLES STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A THA # THA X THA N/A STEL X TWA X TWA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A STEL 4 TWA 4 STEL N/A THA N/A STEL 4 THA 4 STEL 4 THA 4 THA N/A TWA N/A STEL 4 TWA 4 THA 1 THA 1 THA N/A THA N/A THA N/A 2 14 9 13 2 19 10 4 14 2 5 15 11 1 3 16 6 1 4 4 1 18 33 3 5 2 12 60 68 25 9 7 31 11 11 1 7 2 0.830 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.070 TO 1.240 2.100 8.500 1.750 35.900 0.010 TO 20.300 0.050 TO 0.500 TO 0.010 TO 0.500 TO 0.760 TO 0.190 TO 0.370 TO 0.590 TO 0.010 TO 0.740 TO 0.200 TO 0.100 TO 0.640 TO 1.490 27.400 12.100 0.560 1.500 11.000 8.900 0.590 37.200 19.600 4.040 0.100 3.870 1.870 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.370 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.370 TO 0.100 TO 0.250 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.500 TO 0.100 TO 0.340 TO 0.220 TO 1.860 TO 0.450 TO 0.240 TO 9.890 0.100 74.300 33.600 1 .630 0.590 9.260 10.400 36.700 35.600 8.030 1.710 1.480 3.620 4.720 49.200 1.860 8.100 0.560 1.014 0.317 0.361 0.269 1.585 3.235 0.232 2.369 0.968 0.529 0.895 1.002 1.033 0.590 1.426 3.130 0.992 0.100 1.584 3.551 0.100 5.935 2.706 0.434 0.295 0.962 4.206 2.248 1.592 0.388 0.511 0.584 0.361 1.233 0.689 1.86 0 2.271 0.367 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 0.03 1.79 0.05 38.21 0.26 15.87 15.87 0.03 6 .68 5.48 30.85 30.85 9.68 6.68 30.85 30.85 24.20 0.62 0.03 42.07 9.68 8.08 1.39 0.47 0.03 0.35 4.46 11.51 21.19 PPG IPEL 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED; 06/23/88 CHEM EDC % C O y* DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE EDC-VDC SUPERVISOR VDC OPERATOR ETHYL CHLORIDE EC HCL OPERATOR LABORATORY AREA CHEMIST LABORATORY ANALYST LAB SENIOR ANALYST LAB ASSOCIATE LAB. ASSISTANT LAB JUNIOR ANALYST LAB SENIOR ASSOCIATE RESEARCH SCIENTIST SUPERVISOR LIQUEFACTION AREA MAINTENANCE AREA ELECTRICIAN GENERAL WORKER INSTRUMENTATION MAN INSULATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST PAINTER PIPEFITTERS SERVICE HELPER UTILITY CREW UTILITY MECHANIC WELDER YARDCREH STEL STEL TWA N/A X X TWA N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES STEL AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TNA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A 1 3 A 15 7 2 AO 78 1 A2 11 1 I 19 1A 2 A 3 1 1 A 7 12 7 5 2 26 2 2 50 1 2 1 1 29 2 25 A.000 TO A. 000 0.170 TO 7.350 1.080 TO 13.A80 0.010 TO 2.500 0.320 TO 0.500 TO 0.100 TO 0.010 TO 7.880 TO O.IAO TO 0.100 TO 5.900 TO 0.100 TO 0.160 TO 0.100 TO 0.130 TO 0.190 TO 7.960 0.600 6.830 6.390 7.880 2.900 0.880 5.900 0.100 5.700 2.260 0.A00 0.690 0.110 TO 0.180 0.590 TO 0.A70 TO 0.010 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0,220 TO 0.150 TO 3.1A0 TO 0.100 TO O.AIO TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.A20 TO 0.A20 TO 0.860 TO 0.300 TO 0.100 TO 0.500 TO 0.100 TO 0.590 0. A70 0.950 0.920 1A .200 1.3A0 2.030 5.810 60.900 0.600 0.630 A7.000 0.A2O 0.A30 0.860 0.300 8.200 0.500 13.800 A.000 1.1 A8 2.691 0.112 1.082 0.5AS 0.155 0.536 7.880 0.A19 0.166 5.900 0.100 0.803 0.331 0.228 0.AA6 0.130 0.590 0.A70 0.083 0.299 0.507 0. A23 0.3A8 A.271 0.57A 0.A96 0.251 0.A96 0. A20 0.A25 0.860 0.300 0.A36 0.500 0.63A PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 8.08 30.85 A.A6 9.68 0.03 1..79 0.05 0.03 3.59 0.26 0.03 0.03 A.A6 0.07 5. AS 0.10 0.82 6 .68 A.A6 2.28 5. A8 PPG 1PEL 15PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5 PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS OH FILE REPORTED: 06/23/88 ,xxox CHEM EDC CG t* DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE MAJOR MAINTEN. LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN OHC-EDC AREA MACHINIST OHC AUXILIARY OPERAT OHC OPERATOR TETRA OPERATOR OHC-TETRA AUXILIARY OPERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN OHC OPERATOR OHC-TETRA LEAD OPER. TETRA OPERATOR W.T.U. OPERATOR OHC-TETRA-HTU AREA BFI CONTRACTOR HYDROTECH CONT. INCINERATOR OPERATOR INSTRUMENTATION MAN LEAD OPERATOR OHC AUXILIARY OPERAT OHC OPERATOR TCE OPERATOR VACUUM TRUCK OPER. W.T.U. LEAD OPER. W.T.U. OPERATOR PER/TRI UNIT AREA AREA SUPERVISOR AUXILIARY OPERATOR FOREMAN TWA N/A TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA AREA SAMPLES N/A N/A N/A N/A STEL TWA TWA STEL TWA TWA TWA TWA 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 N/A STEL AREA SAMPLES TWA AREA SAMPLES STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL X TWA X TWA N/A TWA X STEL X TWA X TWA X STEL X TWA X TWA N/A TWA X TWA X TWA AREA SAMPLES THA M/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A 1 1 1 8 8 9 4 12 15 1 7 1 15 1 2 89 2 6 11 23 5 7 10 18 8 20 21 6 22 2 7 24 27 8 3 11 22 0.370 TO 0.370 2.300 TO 0.010 TO 1.000 TO 0.710 TO 0.010 TO 2.300 0.010 5.890 49.200 2.200 1.400 TO 1.400 TO 0.290 TO 2.600 TO 0.190 TO 34.500 TO 0.480 TO 0.250 TO 17.100 22.000 2.360 2.600 2.000 34.500 11.900 0.250 0.230 TO 1.380 0.010 TO 673.000 6.400 TO 13.700 0.370 TO 4.460 0.010 TO 13.700 0.320 TO 15.000 0.100 TO 7 .700 0.150 TO 1.540 0.160 TO 7.550 0.010 TO 2.450 0.100 TO 30.300 0.150 TO 53.000 0.140 TO 13.700 0.050 TO 61.200 0.010 TO 13.300 10.700 TO 10.800 0.090 TO 2.520 0.010 TO 3.500 0.010 TO 120.000 0.100 TO 0.250 0.100 TO 0.530 0.060 TO 0.830 0.100 TO 0.350 0.370 2.300 0.010 3.657 2.321 0.469 5.318 4.515 0.719 2.600 0.816 34.500 1.874 0.250 0.563 0.910 9.364 1.381 0.414 2.257 1.557 0.464 0.545 0.408 3.710 5.188 1.065 3.323 1.37 9 10.750 0.396 0.624 0.497 0.152 0.298 0.237 0.164 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 30.85 27.43 8.08 21.19 46.02 0.03 2.87 15.87 18 ! 41 6 ! 68 8.08 24.20 9.68 0.13 4.46 6.68 21.19 50.00 11.51 27.43 21.19 O'. 82 5.48 18.41 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM II LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS OH FILE REPORTED: 06/23/88 CHEM EDO tfl C4 -a VO DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE PER/TRI UNIT INSTRUMENTATION MAN LEAD OPERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST PIPEFITTERS PER/TRI AUX OPERATOR P/T C OPERATOR P/T LEAD OPERATOR P/T REACT OPERATOR P/T STILL OPERATOR WELDER YARDCREM PER/TRI-TETRA AREA GENERAL WORKER PIPEFITTERS PER/TRI AUX OPERATOR P/T LEAD OPERATOR P/T REACT OPERATOR P/T STILL OPERATOR SHIFT REPAIRMAN WELDER PLNT B N. MAINT CARPENTER ELECTRICIAN FOREMAN INSPECTOR REPAIRER INSTRUMENTATION MAN INSULATOR JANITOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST MAINTENANCE FOREMAN PAINTER TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA STEL TWA STEL TWA STEL TWA TWA STEL TWA STEL TWA N/A N/A 1 L N/A N/A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N/A N/A STEL AREA SAMPLES TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 6 15 15 12 3 10 64 5 33 1 21 61 1 50 1 8 1 14 3 2 17 5 12 13 1 1 9 11 8 4 10 3 11 12 12 25 2 2 0 .010 TO 0 .100 TO 0..100 TO 0 .210 TO 0 .060 TQ 0 .090 TO 0..100 TO 0..010 TO 0..100 TO 0..090 TO 0. 100 TO 0..010 TO 0. 010 TO 0. 010 TO 0..010 TO 8..280 TO 0..050 TO 0 .010 TO 0 .010 TO 0 .540 TO 1 .200 TO 0..010 TO 0 .010 TO 0 .010 TO 0..010 TO 0 .010 TO 0..010 TO 0..100 TO 0..100 TO 0..100 TO 0 .100 TO 0 .100 TO 0..290 TO 0..100 TO 0..090 TO 0..060 TO 0..100 TO 0..100 TO 0..100 TQ 1 .480 0 .210 1 .450 1 .680 0 .900 0..600 2..280 2 .270 1..680 1 ..580 0..100 6 . 050 1 . 730 0. 010 3..390 8. 280 0..200 0 .010 2 .400 13 .700 1 .700 2 .000 0..580 1. 700 2..800 0..010 0. 010 D. 420 0. 170 0 .170 0..100 5,.710 0..950 0 .440 6 .910 0 .720 3 .720 0 .100 0 .100 0 .186 0 .113 0 .481 0 .516 0 .236 0 .181 0 .228 0 .266 0 .298 0..344 0..100 0 .204 0. 168 0..010 0.,203 8..280 0..102 0 .010 0 .100 2 .093 1 .428 0 .096 0 .083 0..121 0..233 0 .010 0..010 0.,124 0..114 0..116 0..100 0..207 0..471 0..159 0. 259 0. 126 0. 238 0..100 0. 100 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 0.62 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.62 0.47 0.07 2.28 0.26 0.62 0.03 5.48 30.85 2.87 1 .79 2.87 8.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.62 0.03 0.03 0.82 0.03 0.26 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5 PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED; 06/23/88 CHEM EDC & o % o DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE PLNT B N. MAINT PIPEFITTERS RIGGERS SHIFT REPAIRMAN UTILITY CREN UTILITY MECHANIC WELDER YARDCREW ZONE PLANNER PLNT B S. MAINT ELECTRICIAN FOREMAN INSTRUMENTATION MAN JANITOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST PAINTER PIPEFITTERS SHIFT REPAIRMAN UTILITY CREW UTILITY MECHANIC WELDER YARDCREW ZONE PLANNER PLT C ELEC SHOP AREA WELDER SHIPPING AREA FOREMAN LEAD TANKER MAN LEADLOADER LOADER LOADER HELPER TANKER HAN HELPER TANKER HAN TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA TWA STEL TWA TWA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A STEL AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A TWA 6 TWA X STEL X TWA X STEL X TWA X STEL 22 TWA 22 STEL 28 TWA 28 35 1 2 3 21 65 10 57 6 1 7 14 10 8 6 19 7 95 1 2 11 98 29 9 1 1 1 4 1 2 5 38 6 34 4 34 7 37 0.100 TO 0.140 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.740 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 42.800 0.140 0.100 0.390 0.700 39.000 75.700 78.900 0.180 0.250 TO 0.100 TO 0.110 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.120 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.250 0.500 0.910 0.340 0.440 1.740 1.650 0.310 1 .600 0.100 0.540 1.990 1.530 1.420 0.350 0.940 TO 0.760 TO 0.940 0.760 2.520 TO 0.110 TO 0.220 TO 0.250 TO 0.300 TO 0.010 TO 0.140 TO 0.010 TO 0.500 TO 0.070 TO 0.520 TO 0.100 TO 2.520 0.460 0.220 1.840 19.000 11.200 17.000 20.100 19.400 7.980 15.200 14.200 0.252 0.140 0.100 0.157 0.140 0.210 6.217 0.273 0.110 0.250 0.279 0.225 0.148 0.164 0.305 0.229 0.163 0.222 0.100 0.255 0.370 0.192 0.232 0.191 0.940 0.760 2.520 0.187 0.220 0.678 2.915 0.185 1.374 0.247 1.665 0.480 1 .893 0.489 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 2.87 0.03 0.03 0.82 30.85 3.59 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 2.28 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.87 5.48 9.68 8.08 9.68 3.59 2.28 4.46 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPH 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED; 06/23/88 CHEM EDC cP DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP 1NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE TECHNICAL AREA LABORATORY ANALYST LAB SENIOR ANALYST LAB ASSOCIATE TRI-ETHANE II UNIT AREA AREA SUPERVISOR AUXILIARY OPERATOR FOREMAN FURNACE OPERATOR GENERAL HORKER INSTRUMENTATION MAN INSULATOR LEAD OPERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST MC-DCE OPERATOR OHC OPERATOR STORAGE OPERATOR SUPERVISOR T.E.2 AUX. OPERATOR T.E.2 FURNACE OPER. T.E.2 LEAD OPERATOR T.E.2 MC OPERATOR T.E.2 STABILIZER OPR TRI-ETHANE AUX.OPER. MELDER YARDCREH TRIETH-VDCM-HC AREA EDC OPERATOR TRI-ETHANE LEAD OPER TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL AREA SAMPLES TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA 1 TWA 1 TWA N/A STEL 4 TWA 4 TWA 4 TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL 4 TWA 4 TWA 4 TWA 4 TWA X TWA 4 STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES STEL N/A TWA N/A STEL N/A TWA M/A 1 7 2 1 1 3 41 15 9 3 15 8 8 13 1 9 20 20 5 21 30 41 1 2 44 57 43 22 15 39 3 2 6 1 13 2 3 3 8 0.370 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.010 TO 0.160 TO 0.370 3.000 0.100 0.010 0.160 0.370 0.460 0.100 0.010 0.160 1.700 TO 38.500 0.050 TO 197.000 0.160 TO 1.010 0.500 TO 27.300 0.390 TO 8.220 0.220 TO 0.870 0.180 TO 4.720 0.100 TO 23.000 0.010 TO 4.800 0.260 TO 0.260 0.440 TO 2.180 0.130 TO 8.990 0.100 TO 5.560 0.110 TO 0.350 0.100 TO 0.500 0.100 TO 2.910 0.150 TO 6.200 0.350 TO 0.350 0.210 TO 0.310 0.050 TO 75.500 0.100 TO 8.810 0.100 TO 9.060 0.060 TO 3.240 0.010 TO 1.030 0.010 TO 1.940 0.500 TO 0.500 0.730 TO 0.870 0.010 TO 1.510 0.280 TO 0.280 4.991 1.152 0.413 2.204 1.915 0.446 1.082 1.361 0.241 0.260 0.815 0.528 0.592 0.202 0.393 0.329 1.005 0.350 0.255 1.639 1.971 1.331 0.37 3 0.244 0.373 0.500 0.797 0.175 0.280 0.010 TO 23.400 TO 0.860 TO 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 5.000 59.400 4.600 0.010 2.000 0.106 37.282 , 2.255 0.010 0.309 PERCENT QVERSTANDARDS 1.39 27.43 27 .43 0.03 6.68 27.43 0.03 9.68 9.68 2.28 0.10 0.82 2.87 0.03 0.03 0.05 2.87 11.51 21.19 9.68 0.10 0.62 0.47 0.03 2.87 5.48 18.41 0.03 9.68 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPI-1 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED- 06/23/88 CHEM EDC bA % DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP 1NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE TRIETH-VDCM-MC TRI ETHANE OPERATOR TRI-ETHANE AUX.OPER. VCM II AREA AREA SUPERVISOR AUXILIARY OPERATOR EDC OPERATOR EDC LEAD OPERATOR FOREMAN FURNACE OPERATOR LEAD OPERATOR OHC OPERATOR OPERA T OR-VCM-FURN OPERATOR-VCM-PROC PROCESS OPERATOR STORAGE OPERATOR SUPERVISOR VC AUX.OPERATOR VCM LEAD OPERATOR VINYL CHLORIDE EC HCL OPERATOR LEAD OPERATOR OPERATOR-VCM-FURN OPERATOR-VCM-PROC HTU-INCIHERATOR AREA AREA SUPERVISOR AUXILIARY OPERATOR FOREMAN INCINERATOR OPERATOR ST EL TWA STEL TWA N/A N/A N/A N/A TWA AREA SAMPLES TWA N/A STEL A THA A STEL A TNA A TWA A TWA N/A STEL A TWA A THA N/A STEL A TWA A TWA N/A TWA N/A STEL A TWA A STEL A THA A THA N/A STEL N/A TWA N/A TWA A THA THA THA THA N/A N/A N/A N/A STEL AREA SAMPLES THA AREA SAMPLES THA N/A STEL A THA A THA H/A THA A A 25 9 28 1 12 A 20 36 38 9 25 10 29 12 11 AO 1 I 15 61 6 36 A 3A 26 19 3 1 22 2A 5 15 1 17 56 20 29 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 7.100 15.500 27.500 26.100 0.820 TO 0.820 0.100 TO 0.800 0.100 TO 13.900 O.A30 TO 98.600 0.100 TO 775.000 0.100 TO A.770 0.050 TO 1.610 0.100 TO 1.130 0.100 TO 1 .620 0.100 TO 7.330 0.080 TO 1.200 0.100 TO 8.830 0.100 TO 3.A20 0.100 TO 0.100 0.A10 TO 0.A10 0.100 TO 5.030 0.100 TO 6.030 0.100 TO 0.500 0.050 TO 0.500 0.100 TO 0.130 0.500 TO 35.900 0.100 TO 7.880 0.100 TO 2.260 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 0.010 TO 1. A00 0.010 3.300 3.900 0.290 TO 100.300 0.160 TO A.970 0.100 TO 0.100 0.100 TO 11.600 0.100 TO 7.090 0.100 TO 5.310 0.100 TO 8.570 0.052 0.270 0.118 2.502 0.820 0.166 1 .871 3.772 1.A30 0.619 0.163 0.12A 0.385 0.3A0 0.181 0.A70 0.229 0.100 0.A10 0.375 0.221 0.283 0.13A 0.107 5.836 1.878 0.1A8 0.115 0.010 0.201 0.178 3.53A 0.77A 0.100 1.557 0.7A5 0.282 0.398 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS A.A6 11.51 9.68 38.21 0.03 15.87 A2.07 9.68 2.28 0.07 0.03 0.03 1.39 0.03 0.35 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 13.57 15.87 0.03 6 .68 6.68 5.A8 30.85 A.A6 2.87 A.A6 2.28 0.82 PPG IPEL 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS ON FILE REPORTED: 06/23/88 CHEM EDC DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE WTU-INCINERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.MAN PIPEFITTERS SUPERVISOR TCE OPERATOR TETRA OPERATOR WTU-INCINER.LEAD OP. H.T.U. OPERATOR THA TWA TWA THA STEL TWA TWA TWA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 4 3 0.210 TO 1.340 I 0.230 TO 0.230 4 0.100 TO 0.100 15 0.100 TO 8.710 I 0.500 TO 0.500 14 0.320 TO 2.840 8 0.100 TO 0.530 49 0.100 TO 6.420 GEOM AVERAGE 0.546 0.230 0.100 1.005 0.500 1.157 0.243 0.560 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 0.82 0.03 5.48 3.59 0.03 3.59 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM % LAKE CHARLES LEIDEL-BUSCH STATISTICS ALL RECORDS OR FILE REPORTED; 06/23/88 CHEH DEPARTMENT JOB TITLE SAMP NUM EMP NUMBER OF TYPE JOB TITLE SAMPLES RANGE GEOM AVERAGE EDO A V CP O' COMP MACHN SHOP ELECTRICIAN INSTRUMENTATION HAN SHIFT REPAIRMAN CONTRACTOR AREA BFI CONTRACTOR CONTRACT LABORER FOREMAN HEAVY EQUIP.OPERATOR HYDROTECH CONT. TRUCK DRIVER VACUUM TRUCK OPER. DERIV.-GENERAL ENVIRON. FOREMAN SAFETY SUPERVISOR SHIFT SUPERVISOR EC-VCM-HCL UNIT AREA AREA SUPERVISOR EC HCL OPERATOR FOREMAN FURNACE OPERATOR GENERAL HORKER INSTRUMENTATION MAN LEAD OPERATOR LOGBOOK INSTRUM.HAN LOGBOOK MECHANIC MACHINIST OPERATOR-VCM-FURN OPERATOR-VCH-PROC PIPEFITTERS THA N/A THA N/A THA N/A THA AREA SAMPLES THA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A THA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A THA N/A THA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A THA N/A THA N/A THA N/A THA AREA SAMPLES THA N/A STEL A THA 4 THA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A STEL N/A THA N/A THA N/A STEL 4 THA 4 THA 1 THA 1 THA N/A STEL 4 THA 4 STEL 4 THA 4 THA N/A 1 I 1 6 4 3 12 1 1 5 2 2 2 78 4 4 8 16 4 1 46 6 1 9 5 7 11 1 31 10 9 4 11 30 6 37 7 0.250 TO 0.100 TO 0.100 TO 0.250 0.100 0.100 0.250 0.100 0.100 0.100 TO 39.900 0.390 TO 23.400 0.100 TO 28.100 0.070 TO 89.800 0.050 TO 0.050 204.200 TO 204.200 0.410 TO 9.200 1.200 TO 2.200 13.000 TO 14.000 3.600 TO 6.400 0.100 TO 201.000 0.680 4.295 *.3Jg 0.050 204.200 3.529 1.625 13.491 4.800 6.406 0.110 TO 0.100 TO 0.140 TO 0.300 0.100 0.580 0.167 0.100 0.235 0.050 TO 3.870 0.100 TO 0.130 0.010 TO 0.010 0.010 TO 3.920 0.100 TO 0.610 64.500 TO 64.500 0.100 TO 7.240 0.100 TO 32.200 0.010 TO 1.120 0.110 TO 1.040 0.100 TO 0.100 0.010 TO 1.960 0.080 TO 0.850 0.090 TO 0.490 0.060 TO 0.260 0.360 TO 64.700 0.010 TO 6.470 0.100 TO 4.290 0.010 TO 19.900 0.070 TO 132.000 0.369 0.112 0.010 0.200 0.153 64.500 0.650 1.771 0.263 0.253 0.100 0.183 0.386 0.214 0.122 3.421 0.458 0.764 0.420 0.673 PERCENT OVERSTANDARDS 21.19 46.02 21.19 30.85 38.21 57.93 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.07 0.03 0.35 0.03 6.68 21.19 3.59 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 21.19 9.68 1.39 4.46 21.19 PPG IPEL 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPN 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 15PPM 5PPM 5PPM