||Control technology for asphalt roofing industry /
Gorman, Paul G.
||Midwest Research Inst., Kansas City, Mo.;Industrial Environmental Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, N.C.
|| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development ; For sale by the National Technical Information Service,
||EPA/600/2-76/120; EPA-68-02-1324; EPA-ROAP-21AFA-106
Air--Pollution--United States. ;
Air pollution control equipment ;
Asphalt plants ;
Pilot plants ;
After burners ;
Air filters ;
Electrostatic precipitators ;
Cost estimates ;
Design criteria ;
Performance evaluation ;
Industrial wastes ;
Equipment specifications ;
Process charting ;
Numerical analysis ;
Operating costs ;
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||x, 115 pages : illustrations, graphs ; 28 cm.
||The report gives results of evaluations of the technical and economic feasibility of candidate control methods which may be capable of 99% removal of total hydrocarbons (HC) emitted from asphalt-saturating and air-blowing operations in asphalt roofing plants, sources of HC emissions for which control technology has not been well characterized. The evaluations were based on information from the literature, theoretical analyses of control systems, and contacts with equipment manufacturers and plant operators. An industry survey showed that thermal incinerators or afterburners are currently the only technique used to control air-blowing emissions. Control techniques for saturator emissions include afterburners, wet scrubbers, high efficiency air filters (HEAF's), and electrostatic precipitators (ESP's). Theoretical analysis of candidate control systems indicated that thermal afterburners, HEAF's and ESP's could remove 99% of the particulates, but it is doubtful that wet scrubbers could achieve 99% removal. Further device evaluation, to identify candidate devices to be recommended for more research and development, showed that afterburners are already well developed and should be capable of 99% removal; but they cost much more than HEAF's and ESP's and fuel availability could constrain widespread use. The report recommends that pilot scale HEAF's and wet ESP's be tested on an air-blowing source.
||Prepared by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, under contract no. 68-02-1324, task 35, ROAP no. 21AFA-106, program element 1AB015. Tables. Includes appendices. Includes bibliographical references. Microfiche.
|Corporate Au Added Ent
||United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. ; Midwest Research Institute (Kansas City, Mo.)
|Corp Au Ser Add Ent
||Environmental protection technology series ; EPA-600/2-76-120. United States. ; Environmental protection technology series ; EPA-600/2-76-120. United States. ; Environmental protection technology series ; EPA-600/2-76-120. United States.
|PUB Date Free Form
|Series Title Untraced
||Environmental protection technology series ; EPA-600/2-76-120
||PC A07/MF A01
|OCLC Time Stamp
|OCLC Rec Leader
||01529nam 2200337Ka 45020