State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Pacific Room
Holiday Inn
Fisherman's Wharf
1300 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA
August 23, 1978
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
78-15-1 Approval of Minutes of July 26, 1978 Board Meeting
78-15-2 Consideration of a Proposed Model Rule for the Control 001
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Paper and
Fabric Coating Operations
78-15-3 Consideration of a Proposed Model Rule for the Control of 076
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Organic
Solvent Degreasing Operations
78-15-4 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel and Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 78-15-2
Consideration of a Proposed Model Rule for the Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Paper and Fabric Coating
Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the model rule and direct the staff to transmit it to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District, and air pollution control districts in the Southeast
Desert Air Basin.
SUMMARY
The staff of the Air Resources Board has identified the need to
reduce organic compound emissions from sources, including paper
and fabric coating operations, in a number of air basins where
the ambient air quality standard for oxidant has been exceeded on
numerous occasions.
Among paper and fabric products that are coated with compounds
containing organic solvents are magnetic tape, packaging paper,
adhesive tape, book covers, post cards, office copier paper,
drafting paper, carbon paper, pressure sensitive tape, typewriter
ribbon, photographic film fabric reinforced plastics, and woven
fabric or vinyl coated fabric sheets.
Statewide emissions of volatile organic compounds from 29 paper
coaters and 13 fabric coaters are more than 33 tons per day. The
majority of these sources are located in the South Coast Air
Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Most of the emissions (at least 90 percent) from paper and fabric
coating operations emanate from the curing ovens. Control
devices, such as afterburners and carbon adsorbers, are very
effective in controlling these emissions.
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Conclusions and Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
A. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
B. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Proposed Model Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
III. Discussion of Model Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
IV. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Rule Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Effects of Existing Organic Solvent Rules. . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Paper and Fabric Coating Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
D. Overview of Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
V. Emissions Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VI. Potential Emission Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Model Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Existing Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B. Carbon Adsorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Model Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. Existing Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
C. Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
D. Low Solvent Coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Hot Melt coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Waterborne Coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3. Ultraviolet Cured Coatings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
VII. Economic and Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B. Energy Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
C. Other Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Emissions of Other Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3. Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
List of Tables
Table V-1: Estimate of Organic Solvent Emissions from Use of . . . . 18
Paper and Fabric Coatings in air Basins of California, 1976
Table V-2: Estimate of VOC Emissions from Paper and Fabric
Coaters in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table VI-1: Incineration Costs for a Small Model Plant. . . . . . . . 23
Table VI-2: Incineration Costs for a Large Model Plant. . . . . . . . 24
Table VI-3: Carbon Adsorption Costs for a Small Model Plant . . . . . 30
Table VI-4: Carbon Adsorption Costs for a Large Model Plant . . . . . 31
ITEM NO.: 78-15-3
Consideration of a Proposed Model Rule for the Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Organic Solvent
Degreasing Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the model rule and direct the staff to transmit it to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area air
Pollution Control District, the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District, and air pollution control districts in the
North Central Coast, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, South
Central Coast, and Southeast Desert air Basins.
SUMMARY
The staff of the Air Resources board has identified the need to
reduce organic compound emissions from sources including
degreasing operations in which organic solvents are used, in a
number of air basins where the ambient air quality standard for
oxidant has been exceeded on numerous occasions.
Organic solvent degreasing is the process of cleaning materials,
such as oil, dirt, and grease from surfaces by dissolving or
dispersing them with organic compounds which do not adhere to the
surfaces being cleaned. Organic solvent degreasing is performed
primarily in the aircraft parts manufacturing industry and in the
automotive, oil well, railroad, and aircraft maintenance
industries. Organic solvent degreasing processes are estimated
to generate 117 tons per day (43 tons per day are photochemically
reactive) of organic compound emissions.
Existing organic solvent regulations stipulate that emissions
from the use of photochemically reactive solvents be reduced by
85 percent by weight. However, the definition of photochemically
reactive solvents in the existing regulations includes only
unsaturated compounds (except perchloroethylene), aromatic
compounds, and branched-chained ketones. This definition of
photochemically reactive solvents was based upon now outdated
smog chamber experiments which failed to consider the reactivity
of organic compounds under solar irradiation periods which were
long enough to reflect typical atmospheric conditions in
California.
The proposed model rule parallels the existing district rules in
that, for vapor degreasing, and 85 percent reduction in emissions
of photochemically reactive compounds is required. However, in
the proposed model rule, all organic solvents are considered to
be photochemically reactive, except 1,1,1,trichloroethane,
methylene chloride, and trichlorotrifluoroethane. The use of
these three compounds presently accounts for 44 percent of the
total emissions from degreasing operations. The proposed model
rule also specifies certain operating and equipment requirements,
the most significant of which being the disposal of waste solvent
in a manner which will not allow its evaporation into the
atmosphere. For cold solvent degreasing, the proposed model rule
requires operating practices and the use of equipment which would
effectively control organic emissions.
The staff estimates that an emission reduction of 13 tons per day
in reactive volatile organic compounds could be achieved through
adoption of the proposed model rule.
The cost-effectiveness of the controls prescribed in the model
rule is estimated to range from $0.01 per pound to $0.13 per
pound of VOC emissions reduced.
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Conclusions and Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
A. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
B. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
III. Discussion of Model Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Discussion of Rule Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Effects of Existing Organic Solvent Rules. . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Organic Solvent Decreasing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. Industry Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
V. Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A. Manufacturing Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B. Maintenance Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C. Potential Emission Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
VI. Emission Control Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A. Organic Solvent Degreasing Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. Improved Covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2. Refrigerated Chillers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3. Carbon Adsorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4. Incineration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5. Safety Switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6. Drainage Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7. Increased Freeboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8. Drying Tunnels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
9. Rotating Baskets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10. Minimal Openings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
11. Waste Solvent Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B. Alkaline Washing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Saponification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2. Wetting Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3. Emulsification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. Dispersion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
C. Emulsion Cleaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
VII. Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2. Cold Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3. Open-top Vapor Degreasing and Conveyorized Degreasing . . 64
B. Environmental Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1. Air Pollution Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2. Water Pollution Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3. Solid Waste Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4. Energy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5. Industrial Hygiene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6. Other Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix A - Organic Solvent Degreasing Emissions
Determination Questionnaire
Appendix B - Consultation Meeting for Tentative
Degreasing Operations Workshop Notice