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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

are improving and expanding the data base. The remark on p. 5-18<br />

stated that extinguishing the flame <strong>of</strong> a flare is "conceivableu - not<br />

likely. Although it is true that flares with cont.inuous pilots will<br />

relight momentarily, all existing flares do not necessarily have<br />

continuous pilots or automatic re1 ighting system's 'such as have come<br />

into genera1 use in recent years.<br />

ABSORBERS,<br />

"'- 1<br />

---~EssHEATERS AS RACT<br />

1<br />

Summary <strong>of</strong> Comments<br />

Various commenters were <strong>of</strong> the opinion that control devices other<br />

than thermal incinerators should be included as RACT. Monsanto, CMA,<br />

Gu1f. and Pol vsar commented thit cond&nsers were mord adproiri ate RACY<br />

I<br />

for polystyrene manufacture than thermal incinerators because no<br />

hiahl v volatile materilal is ~rksent in ~ol yst.yr&nfi mdnufacturing so<br />

that condensation is less expensive and already in use by the industry.<br />

DuPont wanted to ensure that cktalytic incin not preempted<br />

because DuPont feels the cost is competitive 1 incineration.<br />

Gulf and TCC were concerned that the repeated mention <strong>of</strong> thermal<br />

I<br />

incineration implied that only thermal incineration was accepted as<br />

RACT and that the States would, therefore, not allow alternative<br />

control methods such as conderkers, process heaters br combinations<br />

(Gulf) , or absorption or other! recovery techniqu& ((~cc). (The incl u<br />

<strong>of</strong> flares as an alternate control technique was also'suggested; this<br />

issue was discussed separately in that last section.)<br />

I<br />

Response:<br />

7 I<br />

While the May 1982 draft focused on thermal incinerators it was<br />

not intended to give the impression that other control techniques<br />

except flares, which were then disallowed, would not be capable <strong>of</strong>,<br />

and thus acceptable for, achieving 98 percent reduction. For exampl e<br />

the May 1982 draft CTG (on p. 4-1) set an emission reduction <strong>of</strong> 98 weight<br />

percent VOC for polypropylene and high-densi ty pol yethyl ene pl ants add<br />

an emission limit <strong>of</strong> 0.3 kg VOC/Mg polystyrene produced and stated<br />

that "other control techniques such as refrigerated condensation thai<br />

I<br />

can achieve the same degree <strong>of</strong> control should be considered equivalent<br />

and acceptable." The May 1982 draft a1 so stated specifically that "Combustion<br />

i<br />

I

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!