• Weight: 10%      of course grade
• Grading Rubric
• Due: Tuesday, 04/07/2020 11:59      PM (CST)

Instructions

Over the course of the next six units, you will be developing a course project. You will complete a single section of the course project in every unit by completing one section of the course project, and then you will add to it with the subsequent work in the following unit. This unit work will be in the form of unit mini projects.

Our course project will be to develop a document titled “A Permit by Rule (PBR) Evaluation for a Painting Operation” and will serve as a simulation of our work as a contract environmental engineer to an industrial organization planning a painting operation within the United States.

The Scenario:

You have contracted with an industrial organization to engineer and write a state air Permit by Rule (PBR) evaluation for a painting operation facility. According to the local state laws and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laws, the facility must have an air permit before construction begins. Once the facility is completed, the construction air permit will then become the operational air permit for the facility.

As a result, your client wants the air permit to automatically align the painting operation facility into operational compliance with state and federal air quality laws. Consequently, it is extremely important for you to evaluate the planned painting operation against the PBR requirements in order to meet the air permit criteria, using the state guidance document and considering the equipment and chemicals already planned for the facility operations.

You have tabulated the following information from what you have gleaned from the material SDS documents and equipment technical data sheets plan (depending on your scenario selection, each “unit” represents a single aircraft, rail tank car, or vehicle):

Interior Liner Coating Material

10   gallons coating/unit

2   gallons of solvent/unit

Unit   Lining Application

Apply   interior liners to two (2) units/day

Work   five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week

Unit   Lining Curing

Cure   interior liners of two (2) units/day

Work   five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week
 

Interior   Liner Cure

Heater   fuel source is natural gas-fired drying oven

Heater   generates 2.1 million (MM) Btu/hr at maximum 2,500 hrs/year

Unit   Lining Design

Cross-draft   air plenum

Unit   interior is the spray area

Exhaust   Fan

10,000   ft3/min (CFM)

1   exhaust fan

Air   Makeup Unit

5760 ft3/min   (CFM)

1 air   makeup system

Filter   Openings

20.0 ft2 each

Two (2)   filter openings

Coating   WV

VOC   content

2.8   lb/gal coating

Coating   VM

Coating   volume

1.0 gal

Water   Content

Per   gal/coating

1.0   lb/gal

Water   Density

Per   gal/water

8.34   lb/gal

Coating   VW

Water   volume

Calculation

Exempt-solvent   Content

Per   gal/coating

0.5   lb/gal

Exempt-solvent   Density

Per   gal/exempt solvent

6.64   lb/gal

Coating   Ves

Exempt   solvent volume

Calculation

Additionally, your state’s department of environmental quality (DEQ) has provided you the following PBR limits:

Potential to Emit (PTE)

100   tons VOC/year

Face   Velocity

100   ft/min

Filter   Velocity

250   ft/min

VOC/5-hour   period

6.0   lbs/hr

Short-term   Emissions

1.0   lbs/hr

Long-term   Emissions

1.0   tons/yr

From your first visit with your client, these are your notes and process flow sketch reflecting the intended operational design:

• The      client has designed an interior coating spray painting system that allows      the interior of each unit to be coated.
• The      operations will involve a stripped-down unit being brought into the      facility’s shop.
• The      shop is a steel building with a finished concrete floor and a paint booth      for each unit.
• The      unit will be placed in the spray booth.
• The      booth will be opened at one end of the booth for makeup air.
• The      exhaust air will flow through an exhaust chamber at the other end of the      unit.
• For      each unit, once the liner application operations are completed, the forced      curing (drying) operations will immediately commence.

Instructions:

1. Closely      read the required reading assignment from the textbook and the unit lesson      within the study guide, and consider reading the suggested reading.
2. Select      the PBR evaluation document to be for only one of the      following: (a) an aircraft manufacturing exterior coating paint booth, (b)      a rail tank car interior lining process, or (c) a vehicle exterior coating      paint booth. You will continue with this scenario selection for the      remaining six units, to complete the entire document.
3. Using      APA style (title page, abstract page, body with level 1 headings, and a      reference page) for a research paper, begin drafting a PBR evaluation      document. You will add to this document in every subsequent unit with      another prescribed level 1 heading, building out the entire document one      section at a time.
4. Make      your Unit II work the first level 1 heading (center, bold) titled “General      Considerations for Operation,” and describe the scenario that is presented      above, while specifically describing the scenario that you selected      (aircraft, tank car, or vehicle). While describing your scenario, you must      include the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of the      work system while pulling from the textbook as well as any other relevant      sources that are presented in the unit lesson in the study guide. In your      description of the EHS implications of the system, be sure to discuss the      natural and anthropomorphic variables causally related to outdoor air      pollution. You are required to describe the scenario in at least 200 words      (minimum). You may find it convenient to summarize the tabulated information      in your General Considerations section of the permit for future reference      throughout the rest of the course, but do not attempt to tabulate the      information in the exact order as what is presented here (to avoid a high      match in SafeAssign).
5. Also under      the first level 1 heading, present a box and line process flow diagram      (PFD) drawing of the selected scenario. See the drawing on page 375 of the      textbook as an additional example of a PFD if you need assistance      understanding how to draw one; do not draw the same system that is      provided on that page. Do not hand-draw this, but use the “insert” and      “shapes” features within Microsoft Word to construct the PFD. Simple      labeled boxes and lines are adequate for this preliminary work, so it is      not necessary to present specific shapes in your PFD for your selected      scenario.
6. In      your abstract section (page 2 of the document), write one or two sentences      that reflect your work for this unit. We will be adding one sentence per      unit to reflect our work as we go, with the final abstract length being      about 8 to 10 sentences long.

In following units (Units III through VII), the unit lessons will contain information related to the interior surface coating operation by means of practical mathematical calculation examples. Consequently, it is imperative that you read the unit lessons within the study guide in every unit, use the math calculation examples provided in each unit lesson, and consider the current (as well as previous) material from the textbook and the additional information cited and referenced in the study guide for every unit. This project will serve as a comprehensive demonstration of your applied learning of engineering air quality.

Your completed mini project should be a minimum of one page, not counting the title page, abstract page, and reference page. You are required to use at least one outside source, which may be your textbook. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA citations.

Open

Quick Links

Quick Links

Page Landmarks

Content Outline

Keyboard Shortcuts

Logout
Global Menu
Michael AdamsActivity Updates

Home

Help

Top Frame Tabs

Home
Tab 1 of 3 (active tab)

Notifications
Tab 2 of 3

My Community
Tab 3 of 3

Current Location

MEE 6501-18H-5B20-S1, Advanced Air Quality Control

Unit II

Menu Management Options

Course Menu:
MEE 6501-18H-5B20-S1, Advanced Air Quality Control

COURSE INFORMATION

Start Here

Announcements

Syllabus/Schedule

Unit I

Unit II

Communication Forums

Grades

RESOURCES

My Library

Math and Writing Center

Student Resources

Tools

Unit II

Content

Unit II Intro – Atmospheric Effects

Unit 2 goes into a deeper discussion on the topic of atmospheric effects.  The conditions that impact visibility comparing factors that produce hazy conditions and pristine air.  The topic of stratospheric ozone depletion is presented along with the topic of global warming.  Today this might be better described as a component of climate change. The unit has a discussion board and a mini project for the assessment.

Unit II Study Guide

Click the link above to open the unit study guide, which contains this unit’s lesson and reading assignment(s). This information is necessary in order to complete this course.

Unit II Discussion Board

Unit II Discussion Board Open

Weight: 2% of course grade

Grading Rubric
Response Due: Saturday, 04/04/2020 11:59 PM (CST)
Comment Due: Tuesday, 04/07/2020 11:59 PM (CST)

Go to Unit II Discussion Board »

Unit II Mini Project

Unit II Mini Project Open

Weight: 10% of course grade

Grading Rubric
Due: Tuesday, 04/07/2020 11:59 PM (CST)

Instructions
Over the course of the next six units, you will be developing a course
project. You will complete a single section of the course project in every
unit by completing one section of the course project, and then you will add
to it with the subsequent work in the following unit. This unit work will
be in the form of unit mini projects.
Our course project will be to develop a document titled “A Permit by Rule
(PBR) Evaluation for a Painting Operation” and will serve as a simulation of
our work as a contract environmental engineer to an industrial organization
planning a painting operation within the United States.
The Scenario:
You have contracted with an industrial organization to engineer and write
a state air Permit by Rule (PBR) evaluation for a painting operation facility.
According to the local state laws and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) laws, the facility must have an air permit before construction begins.
Once the facility is completed, the construction air permit will then become
the operational air permit for the facility.
As a result, your client wants the air permit to automatically align the
painting operation facility into operational compliance with state and federal
air quality laws. Consequently, it is extremely important for you to evaluate
the planned painting operation against the PBR requirements in order to meet
the air permit criteria, using the state guidance document and considering the
equipment and chemicals already planned for the facility operations.
You have tabulated the following information from what you have gleaned
from the material SDS documents and equipment technical data sheets plan
(depending on your scenario selection, each “unit” represents a single
aircraft, rail tank car, or vehicle):

Interior Liner Coating Material

10 gallons coating/unit

2 gallons of solvent/unit

Unit Lining Application

Apply interior liners to two (2) units/day

Work five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week

Unit Lining Curing

Cure interior liners of two (2) units/day

Work five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week

Interior Liner Cure

Heater fuel source is natural gas-fired drying oven

Heater generates 2.1 million (MM) Btu/hr at maximum 2,500
hrs/year

Unit Lining Design

Cross-draft air plenum

Unit interior is the spray area

Exhaust Fan

10,000 ft3/min (CFM)

1 exhaust fan

Air Makeup Unit

5760 ft3/min (CFM)

1 air makeup system

Filter Openings

20.0 ft2 each

Two (2) filter openings

Coating WV

VOC content

2.8 lb/gal coating

Coating VM

Coating volume

1.0 gal

Water Content

Per gal/coating

1.0 lb/gal

Water Density

Per gal/water

8.34 lb/gal

Coating VW

Water volume

Calculation

Exempt-solvent Content

Per gal/coating

0.5 lb/gal

Exempt-solvent Density

Per gal/exempt solvent

6.64 lb/gal

Coating Ves

Exempt solvent volume

Calculation

Additionally, your state’s department of environmental quality (DEQ) has
provided you the following PBR limits:

Potential to Emit (PTE) 100 tons VOC/year
Face Velocity 100 ft/min
Filter Velocity 250 ft/min
VOC/5-hour period 6.0 lbs/hr
Short-term Emissions 1.0 lbs/hr
Long-term Emissions 1.0 tons/yr

From your first visit with your client, these are your notes and process
flow sketch reflecting the intended operational design:
The client has designed an interior coating spray painting system that
allows the interior of each unit to be coated.

The operations will involve a stripped-down unit being brought into the
facility’s shop.
The shop is a steel building with a finished concrete floor and a paint
booth for each unit.
The unit will be placed in the spray booth.
The booth will be opened at one end of the booth for makeup air.
The exhaust air will flow through an exhaust chamber at the other end of
the unit.
For each unit, once the liner application operations are completed, the
forced curing (drying) operations will
immediately commence.

Instructions:
Closely read the required reading assignment from the textbook and the
unit lesson within the study guide, and
consider reading the suggested
reading.
Select the PBR evaluation document to be for only one of the
following: (a) an aircraft manufacturing
exterior coating paint booth, (b) a rail tank
car interior lining process, or (c) a vehicle exterior
coating paint booth. You will continue with
this scenario selection for the remaining six units,
to complete the entire document.
Using APA style (title page, abstract page, body with level 1 headings,
and a reference page) for a research paper,
begin drafting a PBR evaluation document.
You will add to this document in every subsequent
unit with another prescribed level 1 heading,
building out the entire document one section at a
time.
Make your Unit II work the first level 1 heading (center, bold) titled
“General Considerations for Operation,” and describe the
scenario that is presented above, while specifically
describing the scenario that you selected
(aircraft, tank car, or vehicle). While describing your
scenario, you must include the environmental,
health, and safety (EHS) implications of the work
system while pulling from the textbook as well
as any other relevant sources that are presented in
the unit lesson in the study guide. In your
description of the EHS implications of the system,
be sure to discuss the natural and anthropomorphic
variables causally related to outdoor air
pollution. You are required to describe the scenario
in at least 200 words (minimum). You may find it
convenient to summarize the tabulated
information in your General Considerations section
of the permit for future reference throughout the
rest of the course, but do not attempt to tabulate
the information in the exact order as what is
presented here (to avoid a high match in
SafeAssign).
Also under the first level 1 heading, present a box and line process flow
diagram (PFD) drawing of the selected
scenario. See the drawing on page 375 of the
textbook as an additional example of a PFD if you
need assistance understanding how to draw one; do
not draw the same system that is provided on
that page. Do not hand-draw this, but use the
“insert” and “shapes” features within Microsoft
Word to construct the PFD. Simple labeled boxes
and lines are adequate for this preliminary work,
so it is not necessary to present specific
shapes in your PFD for your selected scenario.
In your abstract section (page 2 of the document), write one or two
sentences that reflect your work for this unit.
We will be adding one sentence per unit to
reflect our work as we go, with the final abstract
length being about 8 to 10 sentences long.

In following units (Units III through VII), the unit lessons will
contain information related to the interior surface coating operation by
means of practical mathematical calculation examples. Consequently, it is
imperative that you read the unit lessons within the study guide in every
unit, use the math calculation examples provided in each unit lesson, and
consider the current (as well as previous) material from the textbook
and the additional information cited and referenced in the study guide
for every unit. This project will serve as a comprehensive demonstration
of your applied learning of engineering air quality.
Your completed mini project should be a minimum of one page, not counting the
title page, abstract page, and reference page. You are required to use at least
one outside source, which may be your textbook. All sources used, including the
textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have
accompanying APA citations.

Resources

The following resource(s) may help you with this assignment.

Citation Guide

CSU Online Library Research Guide

Submit Writing Center Request

Submit Unit II Mini Project »

Bootstrap

Loading…

×
###

Close

Over the course of the next six units, you will be developing a course project. You will complete a single section of the course project in every unit by completing one section of the course project, and then you will add to it with the subsequent work in the following unit. This unit work will be in the form of unit mini projects.

Our course project will be to develop a document titled “A Permit by Rule (PBR) Evaluation for a Painting Operation” and will serve as a simulation of our work as a contract environmental engineer to an industrial organization planning a painting operation within the United States.

The Scenario:

You have contracted with an industrial organization to engineer and write a state air Permit by Rule (PBR) evaluation for a painting operation facility. According to the local state laws and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laws, the facility must have an air permit before construction begins. Once the facility is completed, the construction air permit will then become the operational air permit for the facility.

As a result, your client wants the air permit to automatically align the painting operation facility into operational compliance with state and federal air quality laws. Consequently, it is extremely important for you to evaluate the planned painting operation against the PBR requirements in order to meet the air permit criteria, using the state guidance document and considering the equipment and chemicals already planned for the facility operations.

You have tabulated the following information from what you have gleaned from the material SDS documents and equipment technical data sheets plan (depending on your scenario selection, each “unit” represents a single aircraft, rail tank car, or vehicle):

Work five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week

Per gal/coating

Calculation

Additionally, your state’s department of environmental quality (DEQ) has provided you the following PBR limits:

From your first visit with your client, these are your notes and process flow sketch reflecting the intended operational design:

· The client has designed an interior coating spray painting system that allows the interior of each unit to be coated.

· The operations will involve a stripped-down unit being brought into the facility’s shop.

· The shop is a steel building with a finished concrete floor and a paint booth for each unit.

· The unit will be placed in the spray booth.

· The booth will be opened at one end of the booth for makeup air.

· The exhaust air will flow through an exhaust chamber at the other end of the unit.

· For each unit, once the liner application operations are completed, the forced curing (drying) operations will immediately commence.

Instructions:

1. Closely read the required reading assignment from the textbook and the unit lesson within the study guide, and consider reading the suggested reading.

2. Select the PBR evaluation document to be for only one of the following: (a) an aircraft manufacturing exterior coating paint booth, (b) a rail tank car interior lining process, or (c) a vehicle exterior coating paint booth. You will continue with this scenario selection for the remaining six units, to complete the entire document.

3. Using APA style (title page, abstract page, body with level 1 headings, and a reference page) for a research paper, begin drafting a PBR evaluation document. You will add to this document in every subsequent unit with another prescribed level 1 heading, building out the entire document one section at a time.

4. Make your Unit II work the first level 1 heading (center, bold) titled “General Considerations for Operation,” and describe the scenario that is presented above, while specifically describing the scenario that you selected (aircraft, tank car, or vehicle). While describing your scenario, you must include the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of the work system while pulling from the textbook as well as any other relevant sources that are presented in the unit lesson in the study guide. In your description of the EHS implications of the system, be sure to discuss the natural and anthropomorphic variables causally related to outdoor air pollution. You are required to describe the scenario in at least 200 words (minimum). You may find it convenient to summarize the tabulated information in your General Considerations section of the permit for future reference throughout the rest of the course, but do not attempt to tabulate the information in the exact order as what is presented here (to avoid a high match in SafeAssign).

5. Also under the first level 1 heading, present a box and line process flow diagram (PFD) drawing of the selected scenario. See the drawing on page 375 of the textbook as an additional example of a PFD if you need assistance understanding how to draw one; do not draw the same system that is provided on that page. Do not hand-draw this, but use the “insert” and “shapes” features within Microsoft Word to construct the PFD. Simple labeled boxes and lines are adequate for this preliminary work, so it is not necessary to present specific shapes in your PFD for your selected scenario.

6. In your abstract section (page 2 of the document), write one or two sentences that reflect your work for this unit. We will be adding one sentence per unit to reflect our work as we go, with the final abstract length being about 8 to 10 sentences long.

In following units (Units III through VII), the unit lessons will contain information related to the interior surface coating operation by means of practical mathematical calculation examples. Consequently, it is imperative that you read the unit lessons within the study guide in every unit, use the math calculation examples provided in each unit lesson, and consider the current (as well as previous) material from the textbook and the additional information cited and referenced in the study guide for every unit. This project will serve as a comprehensive demonstration of your applied learning of engineering air quality.

Your completed mini project should be a minimum of one page, not counting the title page, abstract page, and reference page. You are required to use at least one outside source, which may be your textbook. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA citations.

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II

Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

4. Examine causes of indoor and outdoor air pollution.
4.1 Describe the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of a spray booth work

system.
4.2 Develop a box and line process flow diagram (PFD) drawing of a selected scenario.
4.3 Discuss the natural and anthropogenic variables causally related to outdoor air pollution.

Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

4.1
Unit Lesson
Chapter 4, pp. 101-150
Unit II Mini Project

4.2
Unit Lesson
Chapter 4, pp. 101-150
Unit II Mini Project

4.3
Unit Lesson
Chapter 4, pp. 101-150
Unit II Mini Project

Reading Assignment

Chapter 4: Atmospheric Effects, pp. 101–150

Unit Lesson

Many times, the public has a propensity to focus on air pollution derived from anthropogenic activities such as
manufacturing, construction, mining, transportation, industrial processes (e.g., oil and gas production and
refining) or even agricultural practices. However, as environmental engineers, we must pause and closely
consider both anthropogenic and natural variables that seem to be correlated to air quality.

Phalen and Phalen (2013) list several major global natural resources that are also considered to be significant
emitters of air pollutants (e.g., particles, sulfur, oxides of nitrogen as NOx, and carbon monoxide as CO), to
include the following: dust and soil, fires and natural oxidation, lightning, volcanic eruptions, sea spray, and
even biological actions.

What Godish, Davis, and Fu (2014) aptly demonstrate throughout this unit is that most of what must be
closely monitored and considered during air quality engineering activities are actually natural precursors of
formed pollutants (such as SO2 being a natural precursor to H2SO4 as sulfuric acid) and aerosol particles
(both natural or anthropogenic). As such, much of the information in this unit will be within the context of
particle science.

Aerosols

The study of particle science, as it relates to total air quality (visibility, breathability, agronomic impacts, and
global temperatures), is quite literally a combination of applied chemistry and physics (Phalen & Phalen,
2013). Consequently, our understanding of aerosols as airborne particles is imperative in order to adequately
understand the independent variables causally related to outdoor air quality. This importance is only
enhanced when we further consider anthropogenic processes (such as our course project related to an

UNIT II STUDY GUIDE

Engineering for Outdoor Air Quality

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

industrial painting operation) that necessarily have the potential to discharge additional aerosol particles into
our air environment.

An aerosol could be defined as a particulate material that is
suspended in a gas, and thereby dispersed in air (Godish et al.,
2014; Phalen & Phalen, 2013). This particulate material (liquids,
solids, or a combination of these two matrices) is condensed and
is consequently able to stay suspended in the gas matrix. This
provides for a mobile particulate that is able to migrate into any
areas that an unfiltered ambient gas may travel and inhabit. As
such, we may readily recognize these aerosols by different names
in the study of air quality engineering, to include aerocolloids, ash,
fumes, fogs, hazes, lapilli, mists, smogs, smokes, ultrafines, and
many other depictions of suspended particulate matter outcomes.
They all refer to what we consider to be aerodisperse systems
(Phalen & Phalen, 2013).

From a simple physics perspective, we can speciate the
differences in aerosol particles by size, shape, density, and even
specific conductance. This ability to speciate is interestingly the
name (SPECIATE) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(U.S. EPA) repository of volatile organic gas and particulate
matter (PM) speciation profiles of air pollution sources (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2017). By
understanding the physical characteristics among particle types
within aerosols, we can then study the behavioral potential of aerosol types that include particle aerodynamic
equivalent diameters, surface area, particle diffusion, electrical charge distributions, and particle motion in the
air (Godish et al., 2014; Phalen & Phalen, 2013).

These additional evaluations of aerosol particles afford us the opportunity to statistically predict (model) air
pollution and pollution plume movement within our environment, even while informing our engineering
strategies for coagulating, precipitating, and filtering particles from the air (Godish et al., 2014; Phalen &
Phalen, 2013). Consequently, Godish et al. (2014) are careful to demonstrate this with their discussion of
mercury (Hg) deposition as they discuss the element’s unique chemistry that affects its movement between
the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.

Control Systems

As such, a combination of physical and chemical strategies may be employed as we engineer control systems
to mitigate outdoor air pollution, regardless of the source (anthropogenic or natural). For example, given that
elemental Hg is environmentally mobile and readily floats or suspends in water, we might reasonably
anticipate being able to simply filter out elemental Hg from a drinking water source (Godish et al., 2014; Hill &
Feigl, 1987). However, given that methylmercury (CH3Hg) tends to remain dissolved in water (Godish et al.,
2014), we could reasonably expect CH3Hg to be unable to successfully filter out CH3Hg, and consequently we
would need to consider alternative chemical approaches. As a direct application of this idea, it has been
demonstrated that one effective means of removing CH3Hg from water is to chemically coagulate the CH3Hg
particle, then physically filter the total dissolved organic material (DOM) for effective pollutant removal
(Henneberry et al., 2011).

This approach of employing both physical and chemical processes in tandem as engineering controls for air
quality is the strategic approach that is stressed throughout the textbook. As a reminder, the more we can
engineer the hazard out of the work system, the higher our success rate will be for controlling the work
system and subsequently lowering the risks to humans and the environment (Manuele, 2014). Let’s look at
another practical application of this combined approach as we consider our course project work for this unit.

In our course project, we are provided with a scenario where you are an air quality engineering consultant
tasked with conducting a preliminary permitting (“Permit by Rule” or PBR) evaluation of a painting operation’s
facility for a given state’s air permit limits. You may choose from one of three scenario options of an aircraft
manufacturing exterior coating paint booth, a rail tank car interior lining process, or a vehicle exterior coating

Aerocolloids

Smogs, Smokes

Fumes, Fogs

Ash

Hazes, Mists

Lapilli

Ultrafines

Figure 1. Common aerodisperse system terms

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title

paint booth. This becomes important when we consider states with high-concentration air quality cities. For
example, we understand that air quality in Houston, Texas, has apparently become worse over time, even
with stringent air quality control standards having been in place for over 30 years (Godish et al., 2014). As an
air quality engineer, you would first obtain a copy of the affected state’s air emissions permitting guidance
document in order to understand the permitting requirements and the steps necessary to calculate forecasted
air emissions of gases, aerosols, and particulate matter.

Within the affected state’s guidance document, we would quickly review the standards to find the typical
emission limits of 25 tons per year of the following: (a) volatile organic compounds (VOC), (b) sulfur dioxide
(SO2), (c) inhalable particulate matter (by size) or PM10, and (d) any other air contaminants. Further, we would
typically find that there is a 250 ton per year limit for CO and NOx. Finally, we would find that the affected
state will typically pose specific limits for VOC emissions per year, per (paint) facility, as well as solvents and
exempt solvents used in the operation.

Understandably, this may cause us some initial alarm at how to address and measure all of these quantitative
emission limits. Consequently, we now must first gather information from our business records, paint vendor,
and Material Safety Data Sheet (now the more current Globally Harmonized System/Safety Data Sheet or
SDS) as a starting point. Considering the chemical compounds present in every single product to be used in
the operations is precisely where we must begin. Further, we will need information related to the paint
facility’s ventilation system, coating cure heaters, and even the facility’s operational schedule anticipated for
the work system.

For our scenario, the client has provided us with all of the SDS documents, heater technical data sheets,
ventilation system technical data sheets, paint facility drawings, and a clear idea of the anticipated hours of
operation for the facility. This information is tabulated for you in the scenario. However, here is how we would
have researched, documented, and tabulated that same information from the documents provided by the
client. Let’s go through these critical steps together.

First, you would do what every safety and environmental
engineer must do. In order to fully understand a given work
system, develop a process flow diagram (PFD) of the work
system. This affords us the opportunity to clearly identify
all required materials, equipment, and direction of flow of
those materials through the equipment. When we can
effectively draw an accurate PFD of the work system, we
can then more easily anticipate transitional points of
materials exchanges (e.g., solids to liquids, or liquids to
gases and aerosols), contact and emission points, and
ultimate disposition outcomes of emissions (such as
through filters and baghouses, liquid scrubbers, flares,
straight to atmosphere through emission stacks, and so
on).

Second, you would look at the SDS information found in
section 3.0 (Composition/Information on Ingredients) of every Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) compliant SDS document. You would notice that tabulated within this section are the ingredients,
each ingredient’s Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, and each ingredient’s percent by weight within
the product. You would need to note every ingredient that qualifies as a VOC and its percent by weight.
Additionally, you would need to make a note of the pounds of VOC reported on the SDS for the entire
product. This would include both the coating (paint) and any thinner or solvent.

Third, you would notice the vapor pressure, vapor density, molecular weight, British thermal unit (Btu) values,
and other physical characteristics relevant to the air permit calculations in section 9.0 (Physical and Chemical
Properties). You would make a note of these values for every product. Understanding the physical
characteristics is arguably as important as understanding the chemical characteristics when conducting air
emissions permitting.

Fourth, you would make note of any Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) identified in section 15.0 (Regulatory
Information) in the document. This information will be imperative in being able to properly calculate our total

Sample process flow diagram from oil and gas industry
(Ragsac19, 2017)

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title

VOC emissions in our Unit III work. A clear quantification of VOC emissions is often the most fundamental
step for most air emissions permitting processes.

Finally, after you reviewed the SDS for every paint and thinner, you would then look to the technical data
sheets for the heaters and ventilation system, as well as the paint operation facility drawings. You would note
the relevant variables necessary to complete the VOC calculations, ventilation calculations, and forecasted
emissions calculations. The subsequent calculated values (that we will learn to work through in Units III-VII)
will ultimately be compared directly against the affected state’s emission limit values. This direct comparison
will inform us as to whether or not the painting operation will be within the PBR emission limit requirements, or
if a full-blown U.S. EPA Title V Air Permit will be required prior to the company even breaking ground on the
construction of the new facility.

Reflect on the information we have discussed related to aerosols, particle science, and atmospheric
conditions within this unit lesson, and mentally tie together the concepts of engineering air quality through
environmental controls for optimal outdoor air quality. Your clear understanding of these concepts, coupled
with the Unit I concepts, will inform your learning throughout the rest of this course. Let’s get ready to identify
our empirical data so that we can begin to quantify our risks. This is what environmental and safety
engineering is all about!

References

Godish, T., Davis, W. T., & Fu, J. S. (2014). Air quality (5th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Henneberry, Y., Kraus, T., Fleck, J. Krabbenhoft, D. Bachand, P., & Horwath, W. (2011). Removal of

inorganic mercury and methylmercury from surface waters following coagulation of dissolved organic
matter with metal-based salts. The Science of the Total Environment, 409(3), 631–637.

Hill, J., & Feigl, D. (1987). Chemistry and life: An introduction to general, organic, and biological life (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: Macmillian.

Manuele, F. A. (2014). Advanced safety management: Focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Phalen, R. F., & Phalen, R. N. (2013). Introduction to air pollution science: A public health perspective.

Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Ragsac19. (2017). Process flow diagram, (ID 92756440) [Photograph]. Retrieved from

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-process-flow-diagram-concept-many-uses-oil-gas-industry-
image92756440

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Air emissions modeling: SPECIATE Version 4.5 through 4.0.

Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/speciate-version-45-through-40

Suggested Reading

In order to access the following resource, click the link below.

The following article provides an interesting consideration of the potential impact of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide (CO2) on total atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This becomes an extremely important discussion
point in greenhouse gas emission studies related to affected industries and municipalities, even as air quality
engineers continue to gain a better understanding of anthropogenic versus natural greenhouse gas source
implications for our planet Earth.

MacDougall, A. H., Eby, M., & Weaver, A .J. (2013). If anthropogenic CO2 emissions cease, will atmospheric

CO2 concentration continue to increase? Journal of Climate, 26(23), 9563–9576. Retrieved from
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=a9h&AN=92016220&site=eds-live&scope=site

https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=92016220&site=eds-live&scope=site

https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=92016220&site=eds-live&scope=site