27.04.2013 Views

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Manufacturing

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Manufacturing

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Manufacturing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

If not, we think they should not lw included in the<br />

summary.<br />

This &G (p. 5-17,18) lists four flare studies;<br />

Du Pont, National Ai2 Oil Burner, Union Carbide,<br />

and Seigel. Reference 4 also lisl=s four flare<br />

studies; Du Pont, Union Carbide, Seigel, and Zink/<br />

Battelle. Why were the Zink/Battr%Lle studies which<br />

showed high destruction afficienc:ies and which were<br />

rua for thC EPA left out <strong>of</strong> this study? And why was<br />

the National Air Oil Burner repor.1: left out <strong>of</strong><br />

Reference 4?<br />

The CTG1sdiscussion <strong>of</strong> flares states that "The uncertainity<br />

associated with flare combustion contrasts<br />

starkly with our knowledge <strong>of</strong> inciinerators and boilers.<br />

Evidence to show the thoroughness <strong>of</strong> cornbustian effi-. -<br />

ciency in these devices is ponderous." One can be<br />

ignorant <strong>of</strong> anything if they refuse to study it and the<br />

data presented in Appendix A is hardly ponderous. Six<br />

plant scale test results are presemted and these show<br />

destruction efficiencies ranging <strong>from</strong> -70.3 to 99.9%.<br />

If the EPA applied the same critiaal criteria to incinerators<br />

as they do to flaxes they would have to conchdh<br />

incheratot efficiencies arc sig2ificantly lass .<br />

thsa 98%. Based on information fmm in-house experts<br />

.%.<br />

we tfrink all combrrs.tion devices w iLl give high destrue- .<br />

efELcienc3.e~if the polxutant dues not by-pass and<br />

rtctuaIly: expetrhnces the fIame, Thus even new incinerators<br />

can: &vet. poor ~esultsuch as the Ptztra-tex<br />

data lif by-passing occus,<br />

. I<br />

The TCC? does not we<br />

- -thinkit .is time the EPA judged data for flares by<br />

tfig same criteria as they use fez boilers and incherators..<br />

- We realfze flare efficiency is not readily<br />

measure&'but the test <strong>of</strong> a control technique should<br />

be its cost effectiveness and effj.ciency, not its<br />

ease <strong>of</strong> gnforcement,<br />

Fhz;slfy, as the: EPR is probably atraze, flare tests<br />

by tfia Chemical Manufacturers Association should be<br />

underway now at the John Zink pIartt, Results <strong>from</strong><br />

this study will.be available short:ly and should be<br />

inchdad -b anz.fiaal appraisal <strong>of</strong> flare destruction<br />

efficiency,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!