-------
costs range from $1.73 per ton to $2.17 per ton for systems 3, 4, and 5.
The incremental annualized costs for systems 1, 2, ani 6 range from $13.17
to $19.97 per ton. The replacement of the recovery furnace is responsible
for $12.18 per ton of these costs.
In a state with typical regulations, incremental annualized costs
range from $0.33 to $0.77 per ton for systems 3,4, and 5. For systems
1, 2, and 6, incremental annualized costs range from $12.51 per ton to
$19.31 per ton, the most expensive being system 1. Again, recovery furnace
replacement is responsible for $12.18 per ton.
Tables 8-12 and 8-13 present control costs for the old model mill with
the incidental high retrofit penalty. Capital and annualized costs are
presented for the six alternative control systems similar to the previous
models. Costs of control for the washer gases and the oxidation vents is
based on separate incineration. The construction of new furnace sized to
support the entire 1000 ton per day mill is assumed in the cost estimates
for: (1) all control systems in states with no regulations, and (2)
control systems 1, 2, and 6 in states with typical regulations. The aspects
of the high retrofit costs for this model mill involve the controlling of
the digesters/evaporators and the lime kiln. The two factors associated
with the lime kiln, namely additional requirements for lime mud washing
and additional lime burning capacity, have been taken into account for this
model mill. In summary, Table 8-12 would represent the worst situation - -
an old mill with incidental high retrofit penalties in a state with no
regulations.
Where no regulations exist (Table 8-12), incremental annualized costs
range from $15.46 per ton for system 6 to $22.68 per ton for system 1. New
furnace costs are responsible for $12.18 per ton of these costs. In
8-28
-------
ro
S: ^
^f
UJ
f
LI-
CC:
UJ
cu
40 -r- 40 (
r l in *^v
C (O O -w*
Z3 3 O
C
C
CO CO O O «* CNJ
^- ro r- o
CNJ r CSJ O
~O *"^
CU S-
NJ in >)
i U) O
(O O O
3(J 0
^C ^
O CNJ O O i CO
O UO O
O ^ CTi-
fO V) O
r- I/) O
D. O r-
fO O t/V
O O O O O CO
O O LO CM
CO O LO
ro CNJ ^j-
CNJ
C3
1C
1 '
in
LO
a>
VI
LU C
Ci O
O *f
U_ 4->
CJ r
.3
_J CO
t i O£
CO O
«-~ IT CNJ
d5 o
K « 't dJLT
E3
a a>
1 40
o 10
40
Q CO
o_
1
o c
o o
° 40
M V) >
JJ-J .. 4J h~
i- i V) ***.
C <13 O V*
=D 3 O ^
C
<:
CO CO O O «3- CNJ
^- co r»- o
«NJ r- CNJ o
f~
<^-j
(U S-
f t/J >^
r- 4J 0
ro tn o
13 O O
C O r
O CNJ O O CO
o in o
O ^- Cft
^
ro v» o
-M J-> O
- W 0
Q- O i
CJ -
O O O O O CO
O O <*O CNJ
CO O Lf)
CO CNJ «3-
Cvj
"~ re
=£ O
o
0
Lu
CO
r-
CO
O
O
t
o
c£
t
zr
o
U
1
0 """
a:
1- 0
UJ Z
_J
£5
LJ
LU
cc
5
o
CU
M (rt ^-^
JJJ T- 4-> J
i~ r (/> -»^
C (0 O*»- CNJ O
CO ^f VjO ^f CJ>
^' r
.- *~*
ro wi o
4-> +-> O
r- ifl O
Q. O i
ro o */=>
§O O O O CO
O O ID ^O CM
co o m m in
ro CM CM ^~
CM
CM
CO S.
o
i= I- c
ID CM O
»-» LU *""I/i S S-
i -O 1. IO CU
C 40 c 40
>> T- Q. 40 -r- 10
S- C *r- co __i E -r- in
CU 40 5 *£ C
> j: i c .* 40 o>
o u 3 3 uin 01 -a
U 4-' S O IO >> E C
CU n- S- i CO -i- o
ce a mm _j o
. * »
cc ca i_> a LU LU
\j
o
to
o
PO
ro
CO
CO
«
ai
CM
PO
LjO
LO
PO
n
PO
CO
CO
j^
"Nl
§
IN
M
n
^~
««,
3
o
CO
CO
o
CJ
1
r-
P.
LO
o
z:
XI CO O O CO CM
CO CO o
M r- r CD
D CM O O r* CO
D LO i
3 o o o o co
DO O CM
Fo o i
ro CM co
CM
LO
^
J^
CO 00 O O CO CM
i CO CO O
CM i r O
-
O CM O O P^ OO
O LO I
D <* 10
DO O O O CO
DO O CM
0 0 r
ro CM co
CM
^f
^
g
O CO O O CO CM
CO p^ ^3
Mr- CM O
O CM O O VO 00
D LO CD
a-
DO O O O CO
DO VO CM
O O LO
ro CM «a-
CM
S-
o
40
0 -^ c '
0. CM O
> in 40 i.
T3 CU 4. 10 CU
C CU *O Co-
al 10 40 £ S^ S
U O in XC\J -
IO S- CU c 40
fc. a'o.co IJE "^ "
(J 40*3 O 1O>> E C
CU IT3Z S- i CO - O
a: m co m _i o
. .
<£ m o a ui LU
O
LO
^
D
O
D
CO
CM
LO
a-
LO
^
D
r>
^
D
J-
co
CM
=
Q
in
n
n
n
o
o
o
5
CO
(_
CO
o
o
1
0
Ol
40 i.
a o
i. M-
40
m L.
cu
i Q.
S .2-
40 4.
C 40
O in
o
cu
J= 40
U IO
10 in
01 C
Ol
s- -o
O c
>*- 3
u
O> 14-
U 0
10
Q. 0
£! 5
Ol T3
-Q X>
10
0
40 -o
01 10
1 3
01
-a 4->
9 2
§40
in
in i
s- o
10 C
S, S
o
>> d
40
C JC
01 (J
3 a
40 01
o &.
c o
ai c
Ol i
U 1-
X o^
01
01
01 g
IO i
TD X
Ol 01
S c
in 10
in
10 I*-
0
- <*- «*
U 0
c in JC
40 >r- ai cn
0 t- 3
cu ai 3 p
S- 40 40 C
r- IO -1- JC
13 J- T> 40
10 C
1 O. 01 r
ai a.
01 m x *n
10 C CJ
C -r- 40 JD
3 C C 3
t- O O C
>> 40 40 >,
i- u ai cn
Ol 3 t. Ol
> J- 40
840 jc 10
l/> Ol S-
Ol Ol *r> 40
c£ a 3: in
r- CM CO
8-29
-------
o
u_
_jj
a
~1 V>
ZD C
:a o
i ZJ
^: en
i
L/1
O
_J *r-
O 4J
ry* rd
i U
rr o
o i
ro
o
z:
]§-
4-* -r- 4-J 1
c n3 O *s>
ID 33 O -
C
"*
O O O O «tf- O
CM
"D * 4
al I-
ro to o
Z3 0 O
C 0 r
C t/V
c£ * '
O O O O r O
o
en
fO to CD
4J 4-> O
i IO CD
CX O r
*O CJ OO-
- o --
o o o o o o
in
o
OJ
o
z
QJ
N 10 ^--
c re o t*v
c:
<
"S T
N >,
r -M C?
03 tO O
3 O O
C <_> .
C -t/V
CO O O O -3- O
CM CM
o o o o o
o o
o en
^
fO to O
-M -t-> CD
r- tn CD
fO LJ V>
0 -
0 O O O O O
o <^
CO LO
CO ^3"
CM
o
o
ts1 to -
C tO O 1)0
ID ZJ <_) -
C
C
CO O CO CO *cf O
r CD CM 1^-.
CM LO r- CM
-Q -
QJ S-
r- +-> CD
ra to O
C -tfl
CD O O O i O
o r- CM o
O t£3 ^J" CTi
-M CD
t to c;
CL O
O O CD CD O CD
O O '-O tO
CO LO LO LO
CO CM <=)-
CM
to
o
+J
S-
o
ex c
*a CM o
UJ V/> »-* S-
*o i- re o
c »-> QJ -o CL
QJ fO U -C .r-- ^ CX
CJ QJ to XCM !
re i- *+- fo tO" *-
i_ 4_) UJ i- 4-> - - CO
13 to -^ o c: co
u. QJ QJ cj ^ d' - a>
en i o O" :> c; -i-*
>i -r- D 4-> -r- i rtJ
QJ £ OJ i*i C
> .I", r C -^ HJ OJ
O O -5 ~: 0 "1 C) X3
r~^
CM
o
en
o
LO
CM
en
^f
,
o
en
**
o
CO
r--
CM
CO
CM
,
CM
S
UD
o
CM
en
o
ro
CO
h
CO
CD
«^>
.
-9
QJ
fsj tO *~-
M ( 4-1 h~
C <^3 O V>
C
c
"*
QJ S-
M C/) >i
i I/) CD
tJ O O
rs o o
c
c -to
**
CO O CD O CO CD
r OO
CM r
oo o o r*. o
O r-
CD tO
^f
fO (/I O
4-> 4-> O
r- (/I O
O- O -~
itJ C_) i-O
C_j '
o o o o o o
0 0
ro
ro ro
CM
LO
o
«z
"O
QJ
M to *-*
C ,
. 4-> O
13 to O
n o o
c o
Ǥ ^
00 O 0 CO O
CO
r
O O O 0
r o
1
v£>
1$ tool O O O CD O O
4-> 4-> O O
r- tO O
D. O r
aj o -to- ro
O " 1
-J-J
o
QJ
N tO . ~-
r- t tO ^-^
C (O O *>O
c
c
o o o o ro o
CM
QJ S-
M >
i tO \
r- ^-> O
fO LO O
ZJ O CD
C 0 r-
C <&
O O CD O
t£3 O
a~>
CO
^0 10^
4-> 4-> C
i" to O
CX 0
fO (_) t/^
o
O O CD CD O O
LO
QJ
CX
i ' ^ CT
ZS CNJ O
s- to -*-J i.
"D O L- ro Ql
C H-J QJ T>~ * CX
QJ ft3 <"O -C~ T-OvJ CL
fO S- O -t-1
Z3 tO > ^£ O QJ CO
U_ QJ LU O "3 >. QJ
en o cr c +->
i_ Q (_) t/"; | J_) (/)
Q.I QJ .|-> XX C
> -C M- C -^ to QJ
to
c>
.
vo
o
CD
CM
00
CO
1
r*^
r
O
O
CD
CO
CO
CM
CTi
CO
CD
CO
f
0
-*-*
u
,0*
M-
OJ
0)
a.
»
rs
*
t-
OJ
+J
CO
a)
en
e
o
S-
M-
to
O
to
to
g
tr)
t
O
1
ex
LO
.
c
o
-f-'
fC
QJ
C
c:
c
QJ
O
C
Z3
4-
S-
QJ
0
O
QJ
S-
QJ
t.
ex
o
CM
QJ
QJ
S-
0
-*-1
-o
e
zi
to
to
n)
t/i
QJ
4-i
U
>-,
O O M- ~*. i > "i ~-> '. ->
O S- CJ C
8-30
-------
states with typical regulations, the incremental annualized costs range
from $14.06 per ton to $21.28 per ton for control systems 1, 2, and 6,
with system 1 being most expensive. For control systems 3,4, and 5, the
incremental annualized costs range from $1.38 per ton to $2.74 per ton.
From the previous discussion on old mills, the most significant
factor that frequently re-appears in the total mill costs has been require-
ments for new recovery furnace investment. Up to this point all capital
related charges associated with purchasing, installing, and ownershio of
the recovery furnace have been presented as control costs. However, the
recovery furnace is a productive capital asset in the sense that it
contributes to the economics of oulp production with recovery of energy
and chemicals. Consequently, some credit for a productive asset should be
deducted from the control costs. However, it is very difficult to estimate
this credit on a source by source basis in terms of dollars per ton.
Therefore, no credit was deducted.
The extent of credit to be deductible is very source specific. The
amount of credit would depend on the remaining economic life of existing
furnace equipment. In a specific mill the recovery furnace could be very
old, like thirty years of age, and very inefficient. Such a mill would
probably be scheduling for the replacement of the old furnace in the near
future. Here, the replacement cost should be treated as a normal produc-
tive asset with no credit given for control costs. In another mill, a
recovery furnace may have a significant, amount of residual economic life,
say 15 years. Suppose a state should require a 5 ppm level which would
force the scrapping and replacement of this recovery furnace. In this
situation, the capital value foregone in scrapping the furnace should be
8-31
-------
the approximate control cost.
In a similar vein, mills that tend to overload recovery furnaces may
be required to provide additional black liquor burning capacity to reduce
TRS emissions. The incremental capacity sufficient to reduce the emissions
to a satisfactory level should be the approximate control cost although a
mill would install a complete new recovery unit which would exceed the
necessary incremental capacity.
8.5 Aggregate Costs For Industry
In this section the estimated incremental control costs are reported
for the existing kraft pulp industry for the six alternative emission
control systems outlined in Table 8-1. The approach used was to estimate
these costs for each individual mill on the basis of the best technical
information available for each mill regarding production rates, furnace
capacity and age, type of controls used, status of state regulations, and
other technical parameters. Section 8.3, Costs For Affected Facilities,
which relates control costs as a function of mill size was used to make
the estimates. The model mill approach as outlined in Section 8.4 was not
considered suitable to estimate total industry costs because of the wide
variability in mill characteristics and state regulatory requirements. How-
ever, the two approaches should give consistent results. Verification of
the model mill approach with the results obtained by the individual mill
approach does support this claim.
Actual cost information received from 42 mills during the EPA industry
survey was used to derive the Section 8.3 costs. From these costs, estimates
of capital and annualized were made individually for 77 mills which were not
contacted in the industry survey. The costs for these mills were then
8-32
-------
combined with the actual costs received for the 42 surveyed mills to
derive industry totals.
The summary of industry incremental costs are reported in Table 8-14
for each system. Capital and annualized costs are presented for industry
totals and on a unit basis. In addition, incremental capital costs are
related to mill investment as a measured percentage. The investment for a
battery limits mill is $150 million ifl 1976 dollars, which was derived
from a study for EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management.\ ' Similarly,
incremental annualized costs are related to the market pulp price as a
measured percentage. The price used was $330, which is the currently
(19)
quoted contract price for domestic bleached kraft pulp.^ ' This price
represents the average of pulps derived from hard and softwoods.
The industry-wide incremental annualized control costs range from
$1.99 per ton for system 5 to $12.72 per ton for system 1. The $1.99 per
ton figure is predicated on the basis of replacement of 18 recovery
furnaces and 3 lime kilns. The $12.72 per ton figure is predicated on the
basis of replacement of 63 recovery furnaces and 33 lime kilns. It should
be noted that systems 3 and 4 would require replacement of 18 recovery
furnaces and 33 lime kilns. The corresponding percentages in relation to
market pulp price are 0.6 percent for system 5 ($1.99 per ton) and 3.9 percent
for system 1 ($12.72 per ton).
Capital requirements for incremental controls range from $10.32 per
ton capacity for system 5 to $46.20 per ton for system 1. In relation to
requirements for new mill investment, these estimates amount to 1.8 percent
for system 5 and 8.1 per cent for system 1.
The approach used to develop industry-wide costs represents a composite
8-33
-------
to
CO
4)
->
ia
4J
co
o
tj
to
CO
0)
X
r-
CO
t.
£
to
O
O
o
o
CO
I
o
4J
to
o
c
f
O
1
r~"
CO
CO
CM
co
CD
r
^s
CM
*
r
CM
^"
^
CO
r-s
tc
CO
CD
CM
vO
^J-
E
O
4O x *s
1
i- --S,
co-to-
Q.
«* s>^
p-~ -I-5
IO -i-
4-> O
r n3
O. Q-
ns ns
O O
cc
in
00
,_!
in
CM
in
CM
in
CO
CM
O CM
o r^s
o
" CM
r^ ^
*
§
to +->
O tO
(_3 O
CJ)
"^
CO T3
tsl O)
r- N
i -i
03 i
3 ^ - ns
C i- 3
5 ^ E
0 <£.
i O
rt3 O -)->
4-* r !
O CO E
1 ID
r<»
,_!
1C
o
oc
o
oc
,
cr
CM
cr-
CO
to CL
to ^
to O-
"-P
4J ^<;
to i-
O n3
0 E
T3 M-
CO O
^«,
N CM
r- -4-*^
r E
tO CD
=s o
E i-
E CU
^
M-
ns
S-
o
r
-M
1
O
T3
S-
o
*"
cu
0
Q-
O
in
o.
O-
o
CD
CC
00
i- "~"
CO CO
4J O
I > f
n3 Q)
CQ S~
a'
cu cu
s- tx.
s- *
o cu
to ,
o
o
rt5 3
'S.^
o *
s_
cu
cr
i.
o
cu
to
re
o
i~ .
0! r-
C- (O
CO 3
CO o
tO OJ
to
a> s-
O I
il S_
D. ai
D.
Q- to
r O.
CL
ai
u
j_
CM
8-34
-------
of many different types of state regulations and the individual character
of 119 mills. Although the model mill approach in Section 8,4 was
considered inappropriate to estimate industry costs, there should be some
linkage between the industry-wide costs and the model mill costs on a unit
basis. A comparison of the two approaches revealed that the industry-wide
costs in Table 8-14 fall about midway between cost requirements for a
modern mill in a state with typical regulations (Table 8-9) and for an old
mill with low retrofit penalty in a state with no regulations (Table 8-10)
for systems 1,2, and 6. Industry-wide costs in Table 8-14 are somewhat
higher than the costs reported for an old mill (Table 8-10) for systems
3, 4, and 5. A conclusion would be that there is some reasonable agreement
in the magnitude of the costs developed from the two separate approaches.
8.6 Cost-Effectiveness
An analysis was made to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the six
alternative emission control systems in terms of their contribution to
reducing national TRS emissions. The cost-effectiveness technique is a
useful tool in selecting an appropriate control system as a recommended
guideline. In this selection, those control systems that have significantly
high control costs in terms of their pollutant removal are rejected as
viable control recommendations. It should be strongly emphasized that the
cost-effectiveness approach for recommending controls is only applicable
for welfare-related 111-d pollutants, such as TRS. For health-related 111-d
pollutants, an economic impact analysis is a requirement for determining
affordability of best controls.
The industry aggregate annualized control costs presented in Table
8-14 and the national emission reduction data reported in Table 9-2 were
8-35
-------
used to make tKe cost-effectiveness calculations. The results are
presented in Table 8-15. The control systems are ranked in ascending
order in terms of emission reduction and costs, starting with system 5 as
the least expensive. Two calculations of cost-effectiveness are presented
for each control system in columns (E) and (F). The calculation in
column (E) simply represents the costs per ton removed by a particular
control system. The calculation in column (F) represents the marginal costs
per ton removed by a particular control system relative to a system of
lower ranking. The marginal cost calculation is a more sensitive indicator
in revealing the more expensive control system. For example, in Table
8-15, system 6 costs $75,500 per ton marginally. This is much more
significant than the $1750 for system 3 or $11,180 for system 4. With
respect to actual cost per ton, system 6 costs $3000 per ton, which is
significantly higher, to a lesser degree, than the approximate $1400 per
ton for systems 4 and 3.
Based on the data in Table 8-15, it would seem reasonable to reject
control systems 6, 2, and 1 as not being cost-effective. System 5 might be
considered a minimal strategy, costing $1060 per ton. Control systems 4
and 3 cost somewhat more, about $1400 per ton, which would not seem to be of such
a magnitude to preclude consideration of these control systems as a viable
control technology.
8-36
-------
LU
fc
o
a:
o
o
--v.
i CU *«-
ra N S- "O "
E M- CU CU ^-~
r- r- CL > CQ
U} f0 Q V *
S- 3 +-> E >
tO E to CU --~
s: E o c£ Q
«=C 0 ^
o
-a cu
cu s- > -^
N O> O " E
r- Q_ E *" O
i CU «3^ +-1
.
E to E- - '
E O O O
eC o 4-> »
-a
r CU i J-
03 N O to >i
E <- 5- .(-> -^
r-i +j to o
CT) 5 CU r S-
S- M O IO >
4-> !- S- (-> .
to i (-> to O
3 n3 E 0 0
-O 3 O 0 O
E E O i
- E
E
c o s-
fO o > >
E T- 4->-<
i tO O tO
CD 10 3 E
S- -r- -0 O
(O E CU -M
2: LU o:
i C O
^
o to o -^
i tO 3 tO
+-> -r- -O E
CO £ CU O
^ LU DC: -t->
to
to
S
M
E
O
CJ)
0
0
rt
r .
o
o
,_
o
o
o
ft
Oi
0
O
O
f.
Ol
LO
o
O
O
*
LO
to
CO
0
o
ri
LO
to
LO
O
00
t*.
,__
r
o
01
CO
r
O
o
^o
r,
^j-
CSJ
o
0
to
«\
co
Ol
o
o
CM
*»
CM
O
O
CM
n
p^.
to
*3"
O
LO
PN«
n
r
LO
Ol
co
,
0
o
r-
o
o
CO
rt
^-
01
o
o
^~
o
o
{&
ft
r**>
**o
CO
o
o
LT3
»>
LO
r**-
0
o
0
CO
o
o
^^
r.
LO
o
l~~
o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
^~
f
^
0
o
0
*
CTl
to
10
0
o
CO
ft
^~
p
LO
1
CO
CO
o
o
0
^^
CO
o
o
o
ft
px^
CO
CM
o
o
LO
f.
CM
o
o
LO
f.
,__
1
CM
0
o
Ol
ft
CM
CO
LO
to
LO
o
o
o
n
*^d~
o
CM
o
o
o
r
*^"
^
o
o
CM
to
o
o
ft
r*-.
1*^
r
8-37
-------
References for Chapter 8
1. Post's 1973 Pulp and Paper Directory,Miller Freeman Publications,
Inc., San Francisco.
2. Lockwood's Directory of the Paper and Allied Trades, Lockwood Publishing
Co., New York, 1974.
3. Correspondence from Mr. Russell Blosser, National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc., to Mr. Frank L. Bunyard, EPA, OAQPS,
April 22, 1975.
4. See Reference 3.
5. Correspondence from Mr. C. T. Tolar, Rust Engineering Co., Birmingham,
Ala., to Mr. Paul A. Boys, October 20, 1972.
6. Correspondence from Mr. Russell Blosser, National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc., to Mr. Paul A. Boys, November 17, 1972.
7. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs: Seven Selected Emission
Sources. Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA-450/3-74-060,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., December, 1974.
8. Report of Fuel Requirements, Capital Cost and Operating Expense for
Catalytic and Thermal Afterburners, CE Air Preheater for Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA-450/3-76-031, National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Va., September 1976.
9. See Reference 3.
10. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement - Volume I:
Proposed Standards of Performance for Kraft Pu1p~Mil1s, EPA-450/2-76-014a
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., September 1976.
11. See reference 10.
12. Correspondence from Mr. Joe Kolberg, Boise Cascade, to Mr. Frank L.
Bunyard, OAQPS, EPA, May 1975.
13. See reference 8.
14. See reference 5.
15. Telephone conversation from F. L. Bunyard, OAQPS, EPA, to George
Horvat, Airco, Inc., December 30, 1974.
8-38
-------
16. Investment and Operating Cost Data for Low Pressure Oxygen Plant
Applicability to Non-Ferrous Metallurgy, Volcan - Cincinnati, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-2099, Task No. 2, September 29, 1972.
17. See reference 10.
18. Analysis of Demand and Supply for Secondary Fiber in the U.S. Paper
and Paperboard Industry, Volume 2: Section IX - Process Economics,
Arthur D. Little Report for Contract #68-01-02220, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, March, 1975.
19. Paper Trade Journal. January 1, 1977.
8-39
-------
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRS CONTROLS
The environmental impacts discussed are for each of the control tech-
niques and control systems mentioned in Chapter 6. This includes discussions
on the impacts on air, water, and solid waste pollution and energy consumption
for a relatively large kraft pulp mill (907 megagrams of pulp per day) and on
a national basis.
9.1 AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
9.1.1 Annual Air Emission Reductions
Installation of the various control techniques described in Section 6.1
are estimated to reduce TRS emissions from the existing kraft industry by
the amounts indicated in Table 9-1. Emission reductions range from 20.6
percent for digester systems to 96 to 97 percent for digester systems and lime
kiln systems. All values presented in Table 9-1 are based on information
presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and Appendix A of this study.
The following procedure was used to arrive at the numbers listed in
Table 9-1. The values listed in Column 2 (Current National Average Emission
Rate) were previously mentioned in Chapter 5 and are based on the information
listed in Appendix A. Information in Appendix A is based upon discussions with
various kraft pulp mills and state control agencies. Column 5 presents the
percentage of existing facilities presently using the control techniques
described in Column 2 as based on the information listed in Appendix A. The
values in Column 6 were developed by applying the emission level achievable by
9-1
-------
.Tl
.1 O
**
c o> -2
O OC
o o o o o o o
in in o m in o o
a- CM r-» in o \o OO
O CM O VO f*» l^» O»
8 S g
,_ f- CO
0000
-
CM m
i . CM
o o
o co
CO f
II
VI U
Ol
O)
^
c
o
0
o
CO
0
cn
to
0
CM
cn i
Sen
00
m
in
cn
O
£
o
CO
o o in
3
o -i-
t. 3
!t -SiE
) < <-> C i
jp (O QJ CT> (1)
' ^ c. *n cr >
« 0) i~ O
» -i
UJ CJ O
^ Si
< z o
z
UJ CO
z o
jr no
^_ *j cr<:
(u M- -7^
i- > i C
yi QJ O «
Wl -f- fc-
-.- JT »->
E U C
UJ
tro
ash
rub
t .2
-Q O> ^1 0) O O M
" *' f* C -£) C i- t- C
3 -r- 3 -i- Q, D_
O O t- (J 1- O
~-i i o c: (j c: --
£QCQCO«~«CO'^CM
O «*- *D f
£ £ f i
O O O O O O
m in
c\j CM
CD O O O O
QJ '
9-2
-------
a participate control device (Column 4) to those existing mills which are not
presently achieving that level, as listed in Appendix A, and calculating the
national average emission level that would result. Column 7 (Percent Emission
Reduction Achieved Nationally) is the percent difference between Columns 2 and 6.
The national emission reduction achieved by a specific control device (Column 8)
was calculated by multiplying the difference between Columns 2 and 6 by the annual
kraft pulp production rate (31,196,000 megagrams/year).
Table 9-1 shows that the greatest reduction of TRS emissions is achieved
by controlling the recovery furnace system with the digester system, lime kiln,
multiple-effect evaporator system, brown stock washer system, smelt dissolving
tank, black liquor oxidation system and condensate stripping system following
in decreasing impact.
Table 9-2 shows the impact of the various control systems mentioned in
Section 6.2. For example, if System No. 1 (best available technology as
defined for NSPS) was applied to each source, the TRS emissions from the kraft
industry would be reduced by about 70,500 megagrams per year (77,700 tons
per year) or 94.2 percent. System No. 5, if applied, would result in the least
impact but would still reduce TRS emissions by about 59,000 megagrams per
year (65,000 tons per year) or 78.8 percent. Control of four sources in a
kraft mill account for a major portion of the impact achieved by each of the
control systems. These four sources are the recovery furnace, digester system,
multiple-effect evaporator system, and the lime kiln.
9.1.2 Annual Air Emission Increase
The only control techniques mentioned in Chapter 6 that would apparently
result in increasing the emission rates of other pollutants is the incineration
of the vent gases from the brown stock washer systems and the black liquor
9-3
-------
TABLE 9-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF VARIOUS CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR EXISTING KRAFT PULP MILLS
Estimate Average National
TRS Emission With % Emission
Control
System
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control System
g/Kg ADP (#T ADP)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
14
32
44
45
51
40
(0
(0
(0
(0
(1
(0
.28)
.64)
.87)
.89)
.02)
.79)
Emission
Reduction*
94
86
81
81
78
83
.2
.7
.9
.5
.8
.5
Reduction
megagrams/year (tons/year)
70
64
61
61
59
62
,500
,900
,300
,000
,000
,600
(77
(71
(67
(67
(65
(69
,700)
,500)
,600)
,200)
,000)
,000)
* Based on a current control level of 2.4 g/Kg ADP (4.8 Ib/T ADP).
9-4
-------
oxidation systems if these gases are burned in a separate incinerator. The
emission rates of nitrogen oxides (NO ) and sulfur dioxide (SCL) from a mill
/\ *
would increase by the amounts emitted from this separate incinerator. If
natural gas was fired in the incinerator at a 907 metric tons per day (1000
tons per day) mill, the NO and S0? emissions resulting are estimated to be
/\ £
160 and 220 kilograms per day (350 and 480 pounds per day), respectively.
These are in comparison with a TRS reduction of 180 kilograms per day (400
pounds per day). Furthermore, if fuel oil (1% sulfur content) was used instead
of natural gas, the NO and SCL emissions resulting are estimated to be about
s\ £.
380 and 1040 kilograms per day (840 and 2280 pounds per day), respectively.
Using a gas-fired or oil-fired incinerator to burn these gases is a realistic
alternative since the industry feels that burning these gases safely in a
recovery furnace has not yet been demonstrated. However, if these gases were
burned in a recovery furnace or power boiler, no increase in the S0? or NO
^ X
emissions from these sources are expected.
No increase in other pollutants is expected from burning the noncondensable
gases from the digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator system or condensate
stripper system since these gases will normally be burned in a lime kiln as
part of the normal combustion air. S02 generated should be absorbed by the
lime dust (calcium oxide) present in the kiln. The scrubbers used on most
lime kiln systems also are effective gas removal system. Very little SO^ is
emitted from the kiln system for this reason.
9.1.3 Atmospheric Dispersion of TRS Emissions
4 dispersion analysis was made on model kraft pulp mills to evaluate the
impact of the various control techniques and retrofit systems on ground-level
TRS concentration downwind of a kraft pulp mill. The models chosen were of
average design and layout as shown in Figure 9-1, and included the eight
9-5
-------
O) C7>
o a
re !-
c >
i- r
u o
to S-
S- OJ
O) Q.
re -i-> s-
3 co -p
>>oo
co ^ to
s- o CD
c co O O C -P
t~~ !*- -p -4-* o re
r- Q} re oo -I co
E
ex
3
O-
o>
O-
Ct
o
O
c
I
a.
u
o.
CT>
cc
C:-H -'So c^00 -1
LiSiAJ . .
j- | r-CNJ 0-
^C^flTY^ta =
^^y^yv^M s
O ca -. »^
** ! /"^ ^\
©<»)f© ©*rv^
j, ^
s '[ s.i
© ? G)^( " )
«-f)t'-> Vr z ^"^ v__^/
?r_s]«-^svo s
Ki ^u ^ jt
")<5\2)
1 - * io
1 *~
" in ^ 1 nr
X O
o o o o o > x"x
si. r-, ; . (V)
I* , _.. ,.^ , ,. 1 '»-tl(7 -P-^ -^
>,_..,. ,.A 1. ui, -r _
orz«» f o 1
If ! » ~
(| ...-.- - X | |
e» # 1
S " < 08 ^J
i f ©
>
,4 $11 ^ £12 j.
^ssO I1
CM j
o
0
I
«>- ' MS "'" '
' 1
8 g
»
X
Q UJ OQ O O
«* un ID r-^ co
@',@ ©
ut
'?o-
Sf*f=i^
0CZ
-
r^ o-o/.
*l\- Si
n 2 ' *
P"r\ /N x
( = ) ( «* i /^
V J \ ) t
X N S \
O
Te © -
n
+
t* "5tl *i
! ,
1
1
C9
O
O
V)
1
X
'
' (
Sth C3 CM C3
«T" »- » CnJ
u- o a: . -<
e> ir« o In ir*
«r cv u. f> ua
, < m u o ui
A
o-
dcf
ii
*t
K
^7 1
pZ-*j
^
1
-_y
3
4 QOSl »
>-
K c;
£^ =
K *^ t*
S^S
a fe
9-6
-------
affected facilities being considered. Modeling was performed for mills of
500, 1000, and 1500 tons per day of air-dried pulp (ADP) produced, a range
within which the majority of kraft pulp mill capacities fall.
Maximum ground-level concentrations of TRS were determined for the emission
rates corresponding to each control technique and system. The concentrations
decreased predictably with decreases in the emission rates. It was possible
to adjust the meteorological conditions of the study to achieve the worst cases
that would be expected to occur at and near a kraft pulp mill.
Ambient concentrations of TRS due to the alternative control techniques
and systems were calculated using state-of-the-art modeling techniques. These
calculations are assumed to be reliable within about a factor of two. The
following assumptions were applied for the analytical approach:
1. There are no significant seasonal or hourly variations in emission
rates for these mills.
2. The mills are located in flat or gently rolling terrain.
3. The meteorological regime is unfavorable to the dispersion of effluents.
This assumption introduces an element of conservatism into the analysis.
Calculations were performed assuming the presence of aerodynamic downwash
effects on the emissions. Unfavorable design characteristics of the model
mill such as: (1) a 220-foot structure adjacent to a 250-foot recovery furnace
stack; (2) a 175-foot smelt dissolving tank stack next to a 175-foot building;
and (3) a two-foot stack for the black liquor oxidation tank atop a 50-foot
building will result in downwash in most situations. Maximum ground-level
concentrations were estimated by assuming worst meteorological conditions.
The correlation of those estimates with observed concentrations at any particular
kraft pulp mill would depend upon many factors, including the accuracy of the
emission data, the mill configuration, the distance from the mill at which
9-7
-------
samples are obtained, the sampling period and the climatology of the mill
location.
The estimated maximum ambient TRS concentration (10 second average)
in a vicinity of a 907 megagrams (1000 tons) per day pulp mill resulting from
the individual affected facilities with and without controls are listed in
Table 9-3. The maximum concentrations occur at 300 meters from the source.
Table 9-3 shows that the sources (excluding the condensate strippers) resulting
in the greatest impact on ambient concentrations of TRS are, in decreasing
order, the digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator systems, recovery
furnace, and the lime kiln. An uncontrolled digester system can result in a
3
maximum ambient TRS concentration of 20,000 yg/m whereas an uncontrolled
brown stock washer system results in a maximum ambient concentration of 370
yg/m . Table 9-3 also shows the percent reductions of applying each control
technique on uncontrolled levels and the ambient levels at various distances
under the controlled case.
Tables similar to Table 9-3 showing the impact of applying controls to
the various TRS sources on ambient TRS concentrations in terms of one-hour and
24-hour averages and for 454 and 1350 megagrams (500 and 1500 tons) per day
kraft pulp mills are included in Appendix C. For the stacks of each mill,
all averaging period maximum concentrations are noted at extremely close-in
distances (300 meters). This is due to considerable aerodynamic effect
influencing the plume rise in each case. The distances given in the tables are
distances from the stack in question. Concentrations closer to the stack than
the 300 meters given may be even higher. These tables also give an estimate of
the frequency of occurrence for the maximum ambient concentration due to each
source. The TRS concentrations with low frequencies of occurrence are the
9-8
-------
51
CO "*-.
UJ ^
C£. ^
o £g
cu
££
U) 0
2 «td
«=c o
^ £§
git
m s g
0 =
rv UJ
\ ^~
§8
i- .
0 £
«t £
D_ ^
£ S
§
c
o
QJ U
U 13
s- -a
QJ QJ
0, Q£
C
o
r-CM
4->*-^
J-> C
, c fO E;
QJ-C 3
>} U 4-> £
CJ C T-
c o s- x
QJ O OJ »D
3 -f-* 5Z
CT4- ra
QJ O QJ OJ
S- S- -CZ
Li_ cjSC3 4->
O
CM
CO *
E E
en -
3- LO
QJ
(J ,
S-
C 3
o o
4J*p^~*< O
£^§^
M 5£ s-
C TO -t-
CJ ^_
U /i. QJ
c if oio
0 > C .
o fO ro o
4-> 1/1
01 ^ QCO
!Q O d
E O
< OJ
i^o j
X' CO
s: o o
O i
U QJ
C >.
O OJ
1
l/l
QJ
3
O
C
.c
o
QJ
1
O
£j
c
0
QJ
U
i-
o
uo
0 0
UO en
en en
CO CO
CM CM
O CO
O O
CM CO
O O
i in
CM
0 0
CVJ CO
CO
0 0
CO CO
o o
CO CO
i. I
a. a.
o
OJ Lf)
o o
i i
CO CO
OJ
ro
i.
3
U.
s-
QJ
O
O
QJ
a:
in
CO
CM
n
O
in
CO
o
CO
in
o
en
CM
in
0
o
o
o
CM
j_
OJ
.a
3
S_
U
QJ
QJ
CO
O
O
d
o
^~
i
JD
O
§
O
CM
C
O
fO
s-
QJ
C
u
c
r^ o
o
en o
^~
«* t
o
CM
O
O
CM
_a
0 0
CO
0 0
LO LO
CO CO
c
0
4-)
QJ S-
JD C
ZJ -r-
S- U
(J C
=9 UJ
z:
O CO CT> CM
LO CO (£> CO
I*-. CTt O^ CD
^
*~ *~" "~~ CO
O O LO
LO i VO V£>
LO LO f^ CJ\
LO i
O O O
P-. CM i
O O LO LO
O LO CM CM
CM
000 0
o o o r%
CO CO CO CO
en
CT. -r-
c :c
+ x: + +
uo en
Ul I/O 03 l/l D'. C
o o o -r- ^3
S- i- *D &. jr .Q
+j 4_> 3 4-> oo n
c c 21 c ra s-
0 O O 3 U
O <_J « CJ LO C
t- "0 O
to bo uj t/i sr T- -M
U U ,C O W S-
O O CT O 4- 3 QJ
S- S- -i- t- '4- ro c
o_ o_ :n a_ uj LJ -^
o
r CM CO > t
E
-M
U >,
C O LO
i 4-J
f- LO S-
^ QJ
d JZ
QJ 5 oo
E O ro
r- s- ;s
J . CO
LO ^D
O O
CO 0
i
LO 1
CM
CO
LO
CT>
O
CM
(J
O O
10
o o
CO CO
c
QJ
>^
C X
0 0
-4-> S-
S- «
QJ 13
C U
r- QJ
U r
C 0
§
f-J
1- CO
o
r3 c:
cr o
] 4^
ro
-^ -a
U T-
m x
o
en
LO
r--*
00
CO
LO
VD
CM
O
0
LO
QJ
QJ
Lu
en
c
^_
0
00
00
o
c:
QJ
QJ
QJ
cr.
re
s_
QJ
>
ro
*O
QJ
O
S-
-M
C
O
o
c:
13
E
O
i-
4-
C
O
4-J
(J
13
-o
QJ
Ct
(T3
j3
i
^^
QJ
E
QJ
JZ
E:
o
s_
4-
OO
'QJ
>
QJ
QJ
JZ
(
00
QJ
c oo
~~ ro
-r- 0
J*
QJ
i _c
r ^
QJ M-
-C O
4->
C
C O
4->
TD S-
QJ O
c a.
i_
n co
.a a:
t
"O
QJ TD
E 0)
ZJ C
LO 1_
CO Zl
c
OJ 3
s^
-------
10-second and 1-hour concentrations from the smelt dissolving tank, the
digesters, and the multiple-effect evaporators, along with all three averaging
period concentrations from the lime kiln. In each case, less than 5 percent
of the averages during the year were above half the maximum value for the
respective averaging periods. These maxima, then, appear to be caused by
conditions of usually high wind speed which bring about aerodynamic downwash.
Table 9-4 shows the estimated maximum ambient TRS concentrations resulting
from the various control systems. If System No. 1 (best available control
technology) was applied to each source, the estimated maximum ambient TRS
concentration would be 97 micrograms per cubic meter (10-second average).
Control Systems No. 2 and No. 6 would reduce the average ambient TRS concentration
around a kraft mill to about 308 yg/m (10-second average). Application of
Control Systems No. 3 and No. 5 would result in a maximum TRS ambient concentration
o
of about 487 yg/nr (10-second average). These concentrations are mainly caused
by emissions from three facilities: the recovery furnace, the smelt dissolving
tank, and the brown stock washer system. Contribution to the maximum TRS ambient
concentration due to emissions from the lime kiln and black liquor oxidation
system are negligible in all cases. No values are reported for the digesters,
multiple-effect evaporators and condensate strippers since it is assumed that
the gases from these systems would be burned in the lime kiln.
Averaging times of 10 seconds, one hour, and twenty-four hours were
selected for the TRS calculations, representing short and long-term exposures.
The 10-second average would be considered a "whiff", and applicable to the
study of odorous emissions. The one-hour average gives an indication of the
level of exposure experienced through casual contact, while the 24-hour average
shows the level of exposure of a person living near the mill.
9-10
-------
00
1
LU
LU
_l
__!
OO _1
C£ l <
i ^~
r^^ ^_
I- 0-
^y j
LU ZD
i i D-
CQ
sS
|;_
X >-
< - CD
^s
_l LU
o s:
o:
I r--
z. o
O CT>
O »
LU CD
^P
1
O >-<
X
r LU
- -> E
1 Q p* "^^^
X E CU CT
re o O 3.
SI CJ E
O
O
i i i ,_Lnr^.1_Lnr^,_Lo
1 1 1 ^_«£>i , l£5> i VO
CM CM CM
1 1 1 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
1 1 ICUCUCUCUCUCUCUCL)
z.-z.-z.-z.-z.-z.^z.-z.
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CUQJCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU
-^ -^ -^ ~r -^ -^ -^ --^ ^^ -^ ^l
f-* ^- ^Z- ^-- ^Z ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1C Lf> r (.DLnr (£>LOi tOLO
T~~ * ' r~"
r-LO^O 0^)^0 00000
00 CM ^O CM ID CO CM ^£> OO
CM CM CM
r^> C3 r^. co LO ^~ p**. c? co r^ CD
CT> CO O CT1 CM OO *-^ CO CO '^O
CO -5f- i si- >
r-^ , LT> i , LO r~-
i , VD i , IO i
CM CM
CD CT. CD CD CD CD CD
i y;) LD i
r~~ r^
O o CD O ^ LO VO
CM 00 CM CO CM
CM
CO r^ O OO CO ""> **
CO OO *-^ CO o CTi CM
"xl- ' CO
00
I
CTi
CD
c
CD CD
o
O) S-
LO JZ
O i
o
CU
O i
o
01
CM
o
a>
«d- O
CM i
o
cu
co
CM
CM
O
CJ S-
00 -C
O
CM
O E
t- cu
O
O 001
CO
9-11
-------
9.1.4 Changes in Solid and Liquid Was tes
Increased control of gaseous TRS compounds will not change the amount of
solid waste generated by the kraft pulp industry since none of the control
techniques result in collecting solids that can not be recycled to the process.
Water effluent from a mill may increase, however, due to the various TRS
controls. Controls requiring use of fresh water instead of contaminated
condensate will result in an increase in the mill effluent of the amount of
the condensate. This increase could be eliminated by using a condensate
stripper and reusing the stripped water. A condensate stripper would also
prevent the TRS dissolved in the condensate from being emitted from the treat-
ment pond during aeration. Increasing the mud washing efficiency to control
TRS emissions from the lime kiln can also increase the mill's water effluent.
However, this additional effluent from the mud washer can probably be recycled
back to the process.
9.1.5 Energy Consumption
The energy (fuel or electricity) required for each of the control techniques
mentioned in Chapter 6 are listed in Table 9-5. The additional emissions
resulting from a coal-fired power plant supplying the necessary power (electricity)
for these control techniques are also listed in Table 9-5.
As indicated in Table 9-5, the additional particulate, S07 and NO emissions
C, A.
that will occur at a coal-fired power plant due to producing the electricity
that will be required to control emissions is small compared to the TRS
reduction that will be achieved at the kraft mill.
As indicated by Table 9-5, the only control techniques requiring additional
fuel consumption at a kraft mill are incineration (in a separate incinerator) of
the vent gases from the brown stock washer system and the black liquor oxidation
system, and process controls used on the lime kiln. Incineration of the
9-12
-------
cu
E 3
0 cr
!- -i-
M- C
OO O CU
tt ..- 1-
1 4-*
O i
3 O
-o t-
CU 4J
O
^_
re c
o en o
o c oo
E >^
O r «
s- o.
14- O. >>
3 en
in co i-
c cu
o »-> c
r- C UJ S
I/) CU S-
.- J- CU «
Of- J= 0.
< 1
o
s
o
in
UD
o
in
^_
CO
00
CO
f )
1"
10
- -
r^
in
O
a-
o
in
10
s*-*.
o
*»-^
o
- »
o
C3
O
0
^^
|
O
oo
^^
o
CO
«* '
^^
00
»>«*
CO
in
CM
*^r
^
o .--.
o o
LO CM
O O
00 CM
j^^
O
CO
*« "
^-
CO
>fc
oo
in
CM
~
r^
O
0 O
o o
o o
in r--
3- CM
^^^
CM
"
in
^.^
^
**
ro
o
^_^
in
0
, »
O
o
ro
^_^
CM
*»->
LO
x s.
f^_
-fc_--
CO
0
N '
LO
0
S+-> CO
s. c
uj cuc
r 3 >,
re cr re
40 CU T3
re cu >
o E re
r- CU T3
s- i-
4J -r- .
O 3
cu cr:
r CU
uj o:
+-> CO
C
, cu i
3-t
U- 3
cr re
o
o
o
CM
O --~
CM CM
ro
in
in
o
o _____
o o o
o
»i
CJ
'
O
o
Q
I
I
O
re f-
10
0
o
UJ
o
O CM
CM
S-
OJ
o
£
o
o
S-
o
i.
s.
CL
cu
J3
CU
O
c
o
o
cu
"o c
4-> C
C JZ
O O
oo;
cu
o
1_
o
o
i
CO
cu
o
re
3
U.
:>,
1/1 S-
cu
>
o
o
cu
ce
§
u o *-
re 4-> en +J
4-> re c re
C S- -r- S-
O O -O CU
o a. jo c
1 re 3 -r-
c > s- o
o cu o c
Z 00 I-H
E
cu
4-*
£
i-
cu
4-*
in
cu
en
o
en
c
r
J3
ja
E
0
oo
O
4->
re
&_
cu
c
o
c
1 t
E
cu
OO
in t/)
"o O T3
S- t- 3
4-j 4-> z:
C C
O O
001*-
it- en
in in uj c
in in >-
o o en i/i
o O'i- re
s- s-:n:s
Q_ Q.
4-> in
0 >,
CU 00
lt-
OJ
1
cu
"cl
4J
S
S-
o
4->
re
s_
0
a.
re
>
UJ
c:
.,_
cu
1
u
1 l/>
O T3 3
s- 3 re
c o
O =3 en -r-
O 14- C 4->
14- OVr- re
in uj c jo s-
in -r- jo cu
CU J= J= 3 C
u cn in i. -i-
Q. i-t
i.
CU
jr
t/i
re
2
O
O
00 E
cu
C 4->
3 in
m
c:
o
re
^
cu c
c cu
t- CD
0 >,
C X
i O
1
X
0 E
cu
S- 4->
O in
3 >,
croo
) c
o
O 4J
re re
. T3
CQ
s-
01
re
3C
J=
in
CU
S-
u.
o
CT
C
>
o
I/I
I/)
Q
4J -i^
gS
LO
c
o
rO
s_
ai
c
u
I-H
J^_
Q.
a.
^
O CO
o
QJ
CL
(U
13
O
I/)
£
c
.n ^
t5 +J
CO
§10.
-D ^-
CU ~1^
(/I -Q
CM
CU
I- r
1
4-* CM
n? O
O CO
ro
-o
X
o
en
rO
in
i
o
3
_,_
O
**-
CU
rO
CU
r-
O"
cu
ct:
..Q
For operating
(/)
4->
0>
E
cu
i
cr
O)
S-
>
in
cn
c:
jQ
_Q
^
U
in
fO
s-
0
M-
S!
re
i/i
S
QJ
L.
_3
CT
OJ
o;
XJ
9-13
-------
noncondensable gases (digester, multiple-effect evaporator, and condensate
stripper)would not require additional fuel if they are burned in the lime kiln
as part of the primary air feed.
Incineration of the vent gases from the brown stock washers and black
liquor oxidation system would require an additional fuel consumption of 2340
X 109 joules/day (2,220 million Btu/day).
It is estimated that an additional 150 X 109 joules/day (142 million Btu/day)
of fuel (without consideration of extra heat losses) will be required when process
controls (higher cold end temperatures and higher oxygen levels) are used to
control TRS compounds from a lime kiln. This is approximately five percent of
the normal fuel consumption of a lime kiln.
The additional electrical energy needed for each of these control tech-
niques is estimated to be between zero and 15,000 kilowatt-hours per day.
Control System 1 would require about 23,500 kilowatt-hours per day of additional
electrical energy. Control Systems 2 through 6 would require about 18,125
kilowatt-hours per day of additional electrical energy. An additional 350
kilowatt-hour per day would be required for each system if a condensate stripper
and a scrubber for the smelt dissolving tank are needed.
Each control system would result in an additional fuel requirement of 150
X 10 joules/day (for lime kiln controls) except for Control System No. 1,
g
which would result in an additional fuel requirement of 2482 X 10 joules/day
(incineration of BLO and washer gases). A pulp and paper mill requires an
electrical requirement in the order of 700 to 1400 kilowatt-hours per ton of
p
product. Therefore, these control systems will result in an increase of
between one to three percent of the total mill electrical usage.
9-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
1. I nc ineration of Maio d pro u s Gas es in Kraf_t_ Pu 1 p Mi 11 s, Burgess, T. L.,
Cater, D. N., and McEachern, D. E. Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada.
Volume 75, Number 5. May 1974.
2. Energy and Air Emissions in the Pulp and Paper Industry. James E. Roberson,
J. E. Sirrine Company. Greenville, South Carolina.
9-15
-------
10. EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Various alternative control systems can be applied to existing kraft pulp
mills as described in Chapter 6. This chapter will select a system which is
judged to be the best for existing plants when costs are taken into account,
and will specify emission limitations that reflect the application of such a
system. Time requirements to incorporate control techniques for each affected
facility are discussed in Section 6.3. Section 10.3 will briefly discuss why
the other control systems were not selected as best retrofit technology.
10.1 GENERAL RATIONALE
The best retrofit control technologies for the reduction of TRS emissions,
taking into account the cost of this control, correspond to alternative control
system No. 4, as indicated in Table 6-2. The recommended control technologies
for brown stock washers, lime kilns, and black liquor oxidation systems are
less restrictive than those that have been proposed by EPA for new kraft pulp
mills. The recommended control technologies for the recovery furnace, digesters,
multiple effect evaporators, smelt dissolving tank, and condensate stripper
are the same for both new and existing sources. The following factors were
considered in determining best retrofit control technology:
1. The degree of emission reduction achievable through the application
of various demonstrated control technologies.
2. The technical feasibility of applying the various demonstrated tech-
nologies to existing sources. In particular, more than one basic design of
existing recovery furnace was evaluated.
10-1
-------
3. The impact of the various control technologies on national energy
consumption, water pollution, solid waste disposal, and ambient air concentrations
of TRS.
4. The cost of adopting the emission guidelines. Control costs were
estimated for each alternative control system for each retrofit model, taking
into account the level of existing controls.
Identification of the best demonstrated control technology for new mills
was accomplished during the development of NSPS for the kraft pulp industry.
A question that must be answered by this study is whether or not it is technically
and economically feasible to apply this technology to existing sources. Where
this is not feasible, best retrofit technology considering cost is identified.
Evaluation of the technical problems and costs associated with a retrofit
project is complicated by the lack of actual data for some sources. For example,
only recently has an existing brown stock washer system and black liquor oxidation
system been retrofitted for control of TRS. Also, no new black liquor oxidation
units have been installed with control systems. Retrofit information on
control systems was available for the other process facilities in existing mills.
Retrofit models were developed (see Section 6.2) to evaluate the environmental and
cost impacts of installing TRS controls on existing recovery furnaces, digesters,
multiple-effect evaporators, lime kilns, brown stock washers, black liquor
oxidation systems, smelt dissolving tanks, and condensate strippers. The
retrofit model approach presents the impacts on an entire kraft pulp mill of
applying control technologies to individual sources of TRS. The major tech-
nical problem, aside from space limitations, foreseen for the average mill is
the ability of existing furnaces to maintain good combustion for TRS control
10-2
-------
while burning the vent gases from the pulp washer and the black liquor oxi-
dation system.
Table 10-1 indicates the impact on annual TRS emissions from the kraft
industry if best retrofit control technology, (i.e. alternative control system
No. 4) was used. Adoption of best retrofit control technology would result in
emission reductions ranging from 40 percent at typically controlled mills
to 95 percent at uncontrolled mills. Total emissions from the industry would
be reduced by about 81 percent, resulting in a national TRS reduction of about
60,900 megagrams per year (67,150 tons per year).
Adoption of best retrofit control technology will result in a maximum
reduction of 95 percent in ambient air concentrations at uncontrolled mills.
Emission reductions, and likewise control costs, will be less for mills which
have already installed some control systems.
10.2 SELECTION OF BEST RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY AND EMISSION GUIDELINE
10.2.1 Recovery Furnace System
Emission Guideline - "Old Design" furnaces (i.e., furnaces without membrane
wall or welded wall construction, or emission-control designed air systems):
20 oprn of TRS as hLS (0.3 g/Kg ADP) on a dry gas basis and as a 12-hour average,
corrected to 8 volume percent oxygen.
- "New Design" furnaces (i.e., furnaces with both membrane wall or welded
wall construction and emission-control designed air systems): 5 ppm of TRS as
H2$ (0.075 g/Kg ADP) on a dry gas basis and as a 12-hour average, corrected to 8
volume percent oxygen. (A "New Design" furnace will have stated in its contract a
TRS performance guarantee or that it was desianed with air pollution control as an
objective.)
- Cross recovery furnaces (i.e., furnaces with green liquor sulfidities in
excess of 28 percent and liquor mixtures of more than 7 percent NSSC on an air dry
ton basis): 25 ppm of TRS as KLS (0.6 g/Kg ADP) on a dry gas basis and as a 12-hour
average, corrected to 8 volume percent oxygen.
10-3
-------
c c
o o.
r- T- i.
4-> 4-> OJ
fO O CU
C-g.^
fJ CU CO
c s-
fd o
CO
cu
o;
c
o
a
>-
oe: o;
o i
LU to
ZD
\ Q
o 2:
- >a:
CD CrC
O Vi
_l
CD CD
O I
LU tO
J »-i
X
_i LU
O
C£ LU
O
o z:
M to
u. LU
o c_>
ID; c*:
» rs
LU o
ct: to
to
LU
CQ
o
ii
cu
CJ
3 C r
o.v: o
to id
a; s- t|_ to
I cu o to
c
reJ c
ai
to
cu
i -M -r-
0)
CU XI
> fd
cu >
« cu
I
to jc
a: o
CU
CO
(/)
cu
o
X
CM
O
*
CO
10
CO
r^ cn
tu
co c:
00
CU i
Q 0
i i-
4-> +J
to c
CU O
ca o
CO
I
o
i-
«J
H *
c:
o
o
CO
CO
cu o
0 _1
O CQ
s_
cx
C
O
S-
cu
c:
i
o
c
>
S-
a>
>
o
CO
>>
to
CU
00
to
M >>
O CO
cu
<4- S.
M- O
CU 4->
I fd
cu i_
r O
CX CX
r- (d
4-J >
i CU
-o
3
E
-M CU
C
O JC
o cn
to
CO
cu
o
en
0 JC
o c v>
$- -r- rd
o
O
o
o
o
o
i-
cu
4J
to
CU
S-
c
o
rd
CU"
C
cu
i-
ai
to
o
o
-»-> E
CO CU
-!->
c to
3: >>
O CO
J-
CQ
tu
-!->
CO
>>
to
s_
o c
3 O
cr-r-
r- HJ
0 X
rd o
m
cn
c
o
CO
CO
cu
cn
c
o.
cx
r
i-
4->
CO
a)
CO CU
C -M
O) CO
o >>
C to
0
o
cu
(O "CJ
r to
tu =
>* o
ai u
' 4->
o o
cu c
O. E
OT Q.
cu cu
c7§
XI XI
to co
>
II
cu cu
cu a>
2 5
a fd
t t|~
O O
+J. 40
aj £
ao
cu cu
Q- a.
a> o
c§^
* *
10-4
-------
Discussion - The emission guidelines represent the levels that can be
achieved by using a two-stage black liquor oxidation system together with
good furnace operation. The two specified levels of TRS emissions for straight
kraft recovery furnaces reflect the dependence of TRS emissions on the design
of the furnace, which in turn depends on the age of the recovery furnace. While
the design of the furnace affects the TRS level that can be achieved, the
reduction of TRS emissions from the direct contact evaporator necessary to
reduce emissions to the level of the guidelines requires the use of high efficiency
black liquor oxidation systems regardless of the design of the furnace. Most
recovery furnaces constructed since 1965 are generally considered capable of
achieving 5 ppm TRS because the furnace design is basically similar to furnaces
presently being installed which can achieve 5 ppm TRS. Approximately 40 percent
of the existing recovery furnaces were constructed after 1965. Recovery furnaces
which were constructed before 1965 generally do not have the appropriate design (i.e.,
membrane or welded wall construction and flexibility of air distribution) or
instrumentation necessary for achieving 5 ppm. As confirmed by the two furnace
2 3
manufacturers, ' however, these older furnaces are generally capable of limiting
TRS emissions to 20 ppm if the furnace is properly operated, uses high efficiency
black liquor oxidation, and is not operated at an excessive production rate.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, cross recovery liquors are somewhat different
than straight kraft liquors. Consequently, TRS emissions from a cross recovery
furnace are not controllable to the same degree as are those from straight
kraft recovery furnaces. The reasons for this include higher sulfur-to-
soda ratios and lower BTU value of the liquor fired. Furthermore, the tech-
nique of using excess combustion air (high oxygen levels) to reduce TRS
emissions is of limited utility because it reportedly results in a sticky
10-5
-------
dust which will foul the precipitator and render furnace operation difficult
or impossible. Tests performed on a non-contact type cross-recovery furnace
indicate that TRS emission levels of 25 ppm (12-hour average) can be achieved
from well controlled cross recovery furnaces.4
Appendix B presents TRS emission data for straight kraft recovery furnaces
and a cross recovery furnace.
Retrofit annualized costs for installing a second stage of black liquor
oxidation are about $240,000 for a 907 megagrams/day (1,000 tons ADP/day) mill.
Retrofit costs would be double if a mill does not presently have a single
stage of oxidation. Annualized costs, including capital charges, are estimated
to be about $0.75 per ton ADP, or about 0.25 percent of the pulp price to install
a second stage of black liquor oxidation. These costs are not considered
excessive.
It appears that approximately 18 recovery furnaces may not be able to
achieve 20 ppm TRS because the furnace either does not have sufficient control
for proper combustion or is operated at an excessive production rate and cannot
supply sufficient oxygen to achieve good combustion. Studies have demonstrated
that minimum TRS emissions are not achieved unless residual oxygen content of
the flue gas is in the range of 2.5 to 4.5 percent. (Low oxygen levels due to
overloading of the furnace can exist regardless of the age of the furnace.) If
these furnaces are required to achieve the emission guideline, a new furnace
would have to be installed (at an annualized cost of about $2.3 million for a
500 tons per day furnace) to compensate for the cutback on production of an
existing furnace. Many of the recovery furnaces that would have to be replaced
are at least 20 years old [this age is near the normal life (25 years) of a
furnace, considering the compliance schedule under Section lll(d)] and may be
near replacement.
10-6
-------
An alternative to replacing an old furnace would be to install a scrubber
system, as mentioned in Section 6.11, which is capable of achieving less than
20 ppm TRS. A scrubber system has been installed at one mill.5 Installation
and operation of such a system is expected to be a much less expensive alternative
than replacement of the furnace.
The emission guidelines for recovery furnaces are comparable to the emission
levels which existing furnaces in Oregon and Washington are required to meet
as of July, 1975 (17.5 ppm).^ The 17.5 ppm level represents the level that can
be achieved by most existing recovery furnaces, and the 1983 Oregon and Washington
level of 5 ppm represents the level achievable with the newer design furnaces
and allows time for the replacement of older furnaces (non-membrane wall construction),
The estimated impact of adoption of the emission guideline on annual TRS
emissions from recovery furnaces is 33,470 megagrams per year, an 85 percent
reduction. The predicted maximum ambient air TRS concentration due to emissions
from an uncontrolled recovery furnace would decrease by 96 to 99 percent with
the recommended control technology.
10.2.2 Digester System
Emission Guideline - 5 parts per million of TRS as H2S on a dry gas basis
and as a 12-hour average.
Discussion - This TRS level is the same as that included in the new source
performance standards for new digester systems. The 5 ppm level is achievable
by incineration of the noncondensable gases. Existing mills in Oregon, Washington,
and several other states are required to incinerate the noncondensable gases
from digester systems as of July, 1975.7 It is estimated that adoption of this
control technology will result in a reduction of 99 percent in the uncontrolled
TRS emitted from a digester system.
10-7
-------
The TRS level achievable by incineration of noncondensable oases from
digester systems has been well-demonstrated as reported in Section 6.1.2. The
gases from the digester system can be handled in the lime kiln as part of the
combustion air without requiring extensive modification to the digester system
or lime kiln. Incineration of the gases in lime kilns or in power boilers
is presently being accomplished by at least 60 mills. Nearly all of these
incineration systems were retrofitted to the existing mills.
Incineration is so far the only control option capable of providing high efficiency
TRS reduction. A thousand-fold increase in emissions to approximately 7000 pom
would result from control by white liquor scrubbers (see Chapter 6). These
scrubbers are effective in controlling hLS and methyl mercaptan which comnrise
only approximately 20 percent of the TRS emissions from digester systems.
If the emission guidelines were increased moderately, incineration costs
would not vary greatly. The cost of collecting and burning the gases in the
lime kiln is essentially fixed regardless of the selected emission level. Most
existing kraft pulp mills incinerate these gases in the lime kiln and normal
kiln operation will oxidize the TRS compounds to less than 5 opm.
Retrofit annualized costs are estimated to range from about $65,000 to
about $210,000 for a 454 megagram mill, or about $0.40 to $1.25/T ADP. The
low value represents costs for piping only, while the high value represents
costs for piping, blow heat recovery system, and a separate incinerator. These
costs are not considered excessive.
The estimated impact of adoption of best retrofit control technology on
annual TRS emissions from diaester systems is significant, 11,800 meaaarams per
year or a 97 percent reduction from uncontrolled levels.
10-8
-------
.2.3 Multiple-Effect Evaporator System
Emission Guideline - 5 parts per million of TRS as h^S on a dry gas basis
d as a 12-hour average.
Discussion - This TRS level is also the same as that in the new source
rformance standards for new multiple-effect evaporator systems. It is estimated
at achievement of this level will require a reduction of 98 percent of the TRS
itted from an uncontrolled multiple-effect evaporator system. Incineration
capable of achieving this level. Existing mills in Oregon, Washington,
d several other States are required to incinerate these gases as of July, 1975.^
The TRS level achievable by incineration has been well-demonstrated as reported
the Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement document for new
aft pulp mills. The non-condensable gases from the multiple-effect evaporators
n easily be handled in the lime kiln as part of the combustion air without
quiring extensive modifications to be made to the multiple-effect evaporator
stem or the lime kiln. Incineration of these gases in lime kilns or in power
ilers is presently being accomplished by at least 59 mills. The majority of
ese incineration systems were retrofitted to existing multiple-effect evaporator systems
Incineration is so far the only control option capable of providing high efficiency
;S reduction. A sixty-fold increase in TRS emissions to approximately 300 ppm
ee Section 6.1.3) would be required to allow the use of white liquor scrubbers. These
rubbers have only about a 90 percent TRS collection efficiency when used on the
ncondensable gases from a multiple-effect evaporator system.
If the emission guidelines were increased moderately, incineration costs
uld not vary greatly. The control costs are mainly for collecting and transferring
e gases to the control device whether incineration or scrubbing is practiced.
10-9
-------
Most existing kraft pulp mills incinerate the gases in the lime kiln along with
the digester gases, and normal lime kiln operations oxidize the gases to less
than 5 ppm TRS.
Retrofit costs for incineration of the noncondensable gases from the
multiple-effect evaporators are included in the retrofit costs reported for
the digester system (Section 10.2.2).
Estimated impact of adoption of best retrofit technology on annual TRS
emissions from multiple-effect evaporator systems is significant, 6,120
megagrams (6,750 tons) per year or a 96 percent reduction.
10.2.4 Lime Kiln
Emission Guideline - 20 ppm of TRS as ^S on a dry gas basis and as a
12-hour average, corrected to 10 volume percent oxygen.
Discussion - The specified level reflects the dependence of TRS emissions
on the operation of the kiln. This requires maintaining the proper oxygen
level and cold-end temperature, and using water that does not contain dissolved
sulfides in the particulate control scrubber. Existing mills will probably
need to improve their lime mud washing efficiency (additional filtration and
clarifier capacity) to reduce the sulfide level of mud fed to the kiln. Additional
fan capacity may be necessary to obtain the required oxygen levels in existing
kilns and thereby provide appropriate control over the combustion. There are
no apparent reasons why these changes cannot be made to existing kilns. Furthermore,
installation of a condensate stripper may be required to remove sulfides from
the condensate if it is used in the particulate control scrubber. Appendix B
presents TRS emission data, which were obtained during the NSPS program, for
several lime kilns that achieve this level.
10-10
-------
Retrofit annualized costs for additional fan capacity (to achieve higher
oxygen levels) and instrumentation are about $55,000 for a 458 megagrams/day
(500 ton ADP/day) mill. Retrofit annualized costs for additional mud washing
capacity are about $90,000. An additional $90,000 in retrofit annualized costs would be
incurred if a condensate stripper is needed to remove the sulfides from the
scrubbing water. These annualized costs, including capital charges, are estimated
to be about $0.90 per ton ADP if a condensate stripper is not needed and about
$1.50 per ton ADP if one is needed. These costs are not considered excessive.
The impact of adoption of best demonstrated retrofit control technology
on TRS emissions from kraft lime kilns is significant, an 84 percent reduction
(9,800 tons/year) from existing levels. Maximum ambient TRS concentration due
to an uncontrolled lime kiln would be reduced by 83 percent.
Lower TRS levels than the emission guideline are achievable as stated
in Section 6.1.4 and as reflected in the proposed standard for new lime kilns
(8 ppm TRS). The lower TRS level is achievable with the addition of caustic
scrubbing.
Many existing lime kilns are operating in excess of design capacity,
and some of these kilns, even with improved mud washing efficiency, may not
be able to achieve TRS levels significantly lower than 40 ppm because of the
inability to supply sufficient oxygen for good combustion. It appears that
between 20 and 33 lime kilns (corresponding to about 20 percent of the existing
kilns) would have to be replaced or added in order to achieve 20 ppm TRS by applying
the best retrofit control technology discussed above (see Chapter 8). Capital
costs for a new lime kiln are $3 million, and annualized costs are $510,000.
The lower TRS emission level of 8 ppm is not recommended as an emission guideline
so that the number of kiln replacements is minimized. The higher level also allows som<
of those mills which cannot achieve 20 ppm from the lime kiln by applying process
10-11
-------
controls and improved mud washing to apply caustic scrubbing to achieve the guideline
rather than replacing or adding a new lime kiln. The results of trials conducted at one
pulp mill showed that levels of 40 to 50 ppm TRS could be reduced to a level
less than 20 ppm by using caustic addition.^ Nevertheless, the lower TRS level
is technically achievable at existing mills and can be imposed if the location of
the mill or lime kiln warrants additional controls.
10.2.5 Brown Stock Washer System
Emission Guideline - No emission guideline is recommended for existing
brown stock washer systems.
Discussion - No TRS control is recommended due to the high costs associated
with hooding and collecting the gases and the possible effect the gases may have
on existing recovery furnace operation.
Incineration of the vent gases is the emission control technique that could
be used to reduce TRS emissions from brown stock washer systems. Burning
these gases in an existing recovery furnace is considered by furnace manufacturers
to be technologically feasible. This control technique, however, has not yet
been demonstrated on an existing furnace, and the TRS level that can be achieved
from an existing furnace under these conditions has not been demonstrated. The
control costs for incineration, therefore, have been based on the use of a separate
incinerator. Incineration of the gases would require that the washer be hooded,
possibly with enclosed hoods, and ductwork would be necessary to transfer the
gases to the incinerator. (These gases would have to be ducted over 1500 feet
at some mills if the recovery furnace was used.) Incineration of gases in a
separate incinerator would require retrofit annualized costs of about $900,000
for a 454 meqaqram mill or about $5.50/T ADP. These costs are much more
10-12
-------
severe than retrofit costs for the other TRS sources and are considered to be
excessive in comparison with control of the other sources of TRS and with the
amount of TRS reduction achieved (about 1 percent of total mill TRS emissions).
10.2.6 Black Liquor Oxidation System
Emission Guideline - No emission guideline is recommended for existing
black liquor oxidation systems.
Discussion - No TRS control is recommended due to the expected cost impact
on the industry if existing sources were required to meet TRS levels achievable
for new systems. There is no less stringent control method possible (.except for the
uncontrolled level) than that considered demonstrated for new sources.
Achievable control technology involves incineration of the vent gases or
the use of molecular oxygen instead of air to eliminate the vent gases. The cost
of controlling the low concentration/high volume gases from black liquor oxidation
systems is considered more severe and excessive in comparison with controlling
the largest sources of TRS at kraft mills (see Section 10.3). The control costs
for incineration have been based on the use of a separate incinerator, since the
effect of these oxygen-deficient gases on furnace combustion and thus TRS
emissions from existing furnaces has not been determined. Retrofit annualized
costs are estimated to be $230,000 for a 500 TPD kraft mill, or $1.50/T ADP.
These costs are considered excessive in view of the amount of TRS reduction that
would be achieved by incineration (about 0.4 percent of total mill TRS emissions).
10.2.7 Condensate Stripping System
Emissijon Guideline - 5 parts per million of TRS as H2S on a dry gas basis
and as a 12-hour average.
10-13
-------
Discussion - This emission guideline is the same as that included in the
new source performance standards for new condensate stripping systems. Only
five existing mills have condensate strippers, and only one is not presently
incinerating the off-gases. Incineration of the off-gases is necessary to
achieve this TRS level.
Retrofit annualized costs based on combining the stripper off-gases with
the noncondensable gas from the digesters and evaporators are estimated to be
about $6,500 for a 500-ton-per-day mill or about $0.05/T ADP. The cost impact
on the industry due to control of this facility is expected to be negligible.
Use of a white liquor scrubber, the only other control technique used,
would oermit TRS emissions which are 100-fold higher than with incineration.
These TRS levels from scrubbers could be highly odorous.
10.2.8 Smelt Dissolving Tank
Emission Guideline - 0.0084 g/kg BLS of TRS as hLS (approximately 8 ppm),
on a 12-hour average.
Discussion - This emission guideline is also the same as that included in
the new source performance standards for new smelt dissolving tanks. Achievement
of this level would require the use of fresh water, or possibly weak wash liquor,
in the particulate control device (scrubber) to ensure compliance.
The control costs for achieving this level are not considered excessive.
Adoption of this level is expected to result in an emission reduction of about
2720 megagrams (3000 tons) per year of TRS.
10.2.9 Excess Emissions
Excess emissions are defined as emissions exceeding the numerical
emission limit included in an emission guideline. Continuous emission
monitoring, however, will identify all periods of excess emissions, including
those which are not the result of improper operation and maintenance and
10-14
-------
therefore are not to be considered as violations. Excess emissions due to
start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, for example, are unavoidable or
beyond the control of an owner or operator and cannot be attributed
to improper operation and maintenance. Similarly, excess emissions as a
result of some inherent variability or fluctuation within a process
which influences emissions cannot be attributed to improper operation
and maintenance, unless these fluctuations could be controlled by more
carefully attending to those process operating parameters during
routine operation which have little effect on operation of the process,
but which may have a significant effect on emissions.
To quantify the potential for excess emissions due to inherent
variability in a process, continuous emission monitoring data are used
whenever possible to calculate an excess emission allowance. For
kraft pulp mills, this allowance is defined as follows. If a
calendar quarter is divided into discrete contiguous twelve-hour time
periods, the excess emission allowance is expressed as the percentage of
these time periods excess emissions may occur as the result of unavoidable
variability within the kraft pulping process. Thus, the excess emissions
allowance represents the potential for excess emissions under conditions
of proper operation and maintenance, in the absence of start-ups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions, and is used as a guideline or screening mechanism for
interpreting the data generated by the excess emission reporting requirements.
The definitions of excess emissions for recovery furnaces and lime
kilns are discussed below.
Recovery Furnace Systems - A pulp manufacturer submitted six months
of TRS emission data from one of their new design recovery furnaces
and requested that EPA consider the data in defining excess TRS emissions
from recovery furnace facilities. The furnace was tested by EPA in
developing the data upon which the new source performance standard is
10-15
-------
based. The submitted data, recorded by a continuous monitor, show that
over the 6-month period, the percent of time that the TRS concentration
exceeded 5 ppm during each month ranged from 0 to 4.9 percent and
averaged about 1 percent in normal operation (including load changes).
EPA has investigated the furnace operation and the monitoring system at
this mill and believes that the data are a true indication of normal,
well controlled operation for this furnace.
For cross recovery furnaces similar excess emissions can be predicted.
For old design recovery furnaces, no such continuous monitoring data are
available. However, considering that the excess emissions allowance
must represent the potential for excess emissions due to inherent
reliability in the process itself and that the stringency of the standard
for new design furnaces is at least comparable to that for old design
furnaces, it appears reasonable to use the same excess emissions
allowance. Therefore, based on that information, an allowance of 1
percent of the 12-hour averages has been given for excess TRS emissions
above the guideline.
Lime Kiln - Test data on a 4-hour basis (see Appendix B) were
supplied by a mill (Lime Kiln P) that had retrofitted the lime kiln
system with additional fan capacity and mud washing capacity. These
data give an indication of the variations in the emission concentrations
over a large number of four-hour periods. The data show that for the period
when the mill was maintaining good process controls (high cold end
temperatures, high oxygen levels, and high mud solids contents) on the
kiln, the four-hour average TRS concentrations exceeded 20 ppm for approxi-1
mately 11 percent of the time.^ However, during this same period the mud
filter (belt filter) was inoperative for 10 percent of the time. However,
process and emission monitoring data obtained on Lime Kiln E (see Appendix
B) show excess TRS emissions of 2 percent on a 4-hour average basis over
10-16
-------
the 8 ppm level with down time on the mud filter (vacuum drum) of only 1
percent.
From the comparison of those two sets of data, it was felt that had
the mud filter on Lime Kiln P been operating properly, as had that of
Lime Kiln E, there would have been excess emissions only 2 percent of the
time, instead of 11 percent, on a 4-hour average basis. With a 12-hour
averaging period, Lime Kiln £ should have no excess emissions during normal
operation.12 However, the data do not support this conclusion for Lime
Kiln P.
Therefore, it is felt that with a reliable mud filtering system
and maintaining good process controls on the kiln, the 12-hour average
TRS concentrations will exceed 20 ppm for no more than 2 percent of the
time. Hence, an allowance of a maximum 2 percent of the 12-hour averages
is advised for excess TRS emissions above the guideline.
10.3 SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE BEST RETROFIT CONTROL SYSTEM
The proposed TRS emission limits for new kraft pulp mills are technolo-
gically achievable at existing kraft pulp mills when the best control
techniques discussed above are applied to each of the eight component
process operations. However, the costs of applying the best control techniques
are considered excessive for some existing mills, in part because some
techniques involve replacement of recovery furnaces or lime kilns. Further,
alternative control techniques which are effective but less costly are
available for some process operations. Therefore, the cost of applying the
various control techniques had a considerable influence on the selection of
the recommended best retrofit control technology (alternative control
system No. 4 for an entire kraft mill).
Control of the brown stock washer system and black liquor oxidation
system (alternative control system No. 1) are not recommended because
incineration of these vent gases in a separate incinerator would result
10-17
-------
in excessive operating costs and fuel requirements in comparison to the
TRS reduction achieved by the control technique. Incineration of these
gases in an existing recovery furnace is not presently considered to be
demonstrated retrofit technology. No existing recovery furnace not designed
to handle these gases has demonstrated the ability to burn these gases
and still maintain proper combustion for controlling TRS emissions from
the furnace itself.
The emission guideline recommended for existing recovery furnaces is
20 ppm for "old design" furnaces, 5 ppm for "new design" furnaces, and 25
ppm for cross recovery furnaces. The older furnaces are not capable of
achieving 5 ppm and a large number of existing furnaces would most likely
have to be replaced if such a level was required. The control technique
required for each type of furnace to meet the recommended levels is
two-stage black liquor oxidation and process controls.
Incineration of the noncondensable gases from the digesters, multiple-
effect evaporators, or condensate strippers in the lime kiln has been
demonstrated at many existing mills. Therefore, since the control costs
are not excessive, the emission guideline recommended is the same as the
new source performance standard (5 ppm TRS) for new kraft pulp mills.
An emission guideline of 20 ppm TRS is recommended for existing
lime kilns. Emission data obtained during the NSPS program show that
20 ppm can be achieved with proper kiln operation and sufficient mud
washing efficiency. Larger fans and additional mud washing capacity will
be necessary for most existing kilns. Lower TRS levels are achievable,
but several additional lime kilns would have to be replaced or added in
order to achieve a level of 8 ppm TRS.
The emission guideline recommended for smelt dissolving tanks will
probably prevent the use of contaminated condensate in the tank and the
10-18
-------
participate control device, if one is used. If a scrubber is not used
already for controlling particulates, one may have to be installed to
reduce TRS emissions from an existing smelt dissolving tank to the
recommended guideline.
The best retrofit technologies (alternative control system No. 4)
will produce a large reduction in national TRS emissions (67,150 tons/year)
and in ambient TRS concentrations around existing mills.
10.4 SELECTION OF THE FORMAT OF THE EMISSION GUIDELINES
Standards for kraft pulp mills could be expressed in terms of either
mass emissions per unit of production or a concentration of pollutant in
the effluent gases. The most common format now used by the industry and
state control agencies is pounds of pollutant per ton of air-dried
unbleached pulp produced (Ib/T ADP). This format offers the advantage of
preventing circumvention of the standards by the addition of dilution air
or the use of excessive quantities of air in process operations. The
principal disadvantage is that a control agency cannot readily or
accurately measure the pulp production over the short term. Due to
storage capacity of the mill, the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank,
lime kiln, condensate strippers, black liquor oxidation tanks, and
multiple-effect evaporators can be operating on accumulated inventories
when the digesters are off-stream (no pulp production). Similarly, the
above facilities can be operating below capacity even though the pulp
production may be at design rates.
Concentration units are used as the format for the emission guidelines
for the digesters, the multiple-effect evaporators, the recovery furnace,
the lime kiln, and the condensate stripping system. The reasons for the
selection of this format are outlined below:
a. Concentration units can be corrected for excess oxygen in the lime
10-19
-------
kiln and recovery furnace exhaust streams, precluding circumvention of the
standards by dilution.
b. The reference test method for TRS produces data in concentration
units. No conversion factors are therefore required in determining
compliance for the affected facilities.
c. Average concentrations rather than instantaneous concentrations
are proposed to allow for fluctuations in emissions which occur even during
periods of normal operation.
d. Commercially available continuous monitors that may be used to
measure emissions from these facilities indicate concentration directly,
A direct indication of performance of the control systems would be available,
and therefore the operator would be aware of excess emissions that require
corrective action.
The emission guideline for smelt dissolving tanks is expressed in
grams per kilogram BLS (g/kg BLS). Dilution cannot be prevented by
correcting for excess oxygen because the exhaust stream discharged from
the smelt dissolving tank is mostly ambient air.
10.5 RECOMMENDED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of the affected facility and its associated control system.
The volume concentration of TRS emissions can be monitored by use of
measurement systems (see Chapter 7). Since there are no process or con-
trol device parameters that are appropriate indicators of concentration of
TRS emissions from recovery furnace systems and lime kilns, it is
recommended that TRS continuous monitors be required for recovery furnaces
and lime kilns; however, it is also recommended that those requirements
not become effective until promulgation of performance specifications
for TRS monitors.
10-20
-------
TRS concentrations in the effluent gases from an incinerator that
controls TRS emissions (from the digesters, multiple-effect evaporators,
and/or condensate strippers) can be measured by a continuous monitoring
system. An effective alternative method of monitoring TRS emissions from
an incinerator is continuous measuring and recording of the fire box
temperature of 540°C (1000°F) and operation at a residence time of at least
one-half second in the fire box. Incinerators are designed for a particular
residence time that will not be reduced if the incinerator is not operated
above its design capacity. The fire box temperature can be readily measured
and recorded. If noncondensable gases from facilities that are covered by
the guidelines are incinerated in the recovery furnace or the lime kiln, the
TRS monitoring system on the furnace or the lime kiln will serve to monitor
the sources that are being incinerated.
Since the guideline for smelt dissolving tanks is expressed in a format
of pollutant mass per unit of feed to the furnace, the gas flow rate and
the feed rate to the furnace would have to be measured simultaneously
to reduce the TRS concentrations measured by the monitor to units of the
recommended guideline. The inaccuracies involved in continuously measuring
emissions from the smelt dissolving tank are felt to be sufficiently large
that no direct monitoring of TRS emissions from the smelt dissolving tank
is recommended.
10-21
-------
References for Chapter 10
1. Letter from J. W. Kesner of Babcock and Wilcox Company to James Eddinger
of EPA, dated May 27, 1975.
2. Presentation given by Julius Gommi of Combustion Engineering at the
NAPCTAC meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, on March 3, 1977.
3. Op. cit., Reference 1.
4. A Report oil the Study of TRS Emissions from a NSSC - Kraft Recovery
Boiler, Container Corporation of America, March 9, 1977.
5. Considerations in the Design for TRS and Particulate Recovery from
Effluents of Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Teller, A. J., and Amberg, h. r.,
Preprint, TAPPI Environmental Conference, May, 1975.
6. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans Rules and Regulations,
prepared by the MITRE Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972.
7. Op. cit., Reference 6.
8. Op. cit., Reference 6.
9. Telephone conversation between Larry Weeks of Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation
and James Eddinger of EPA on September 6, 1977.
10. Op. cit., Reference 1.
11. Letter from Richard C. Wigger of Champion International Corporation to
Don R. Goodwin of EPA, dated June 13,'1977.
12. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II: Promulgated
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014b, December,
1977.
10-22
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF KRAFT MILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES
A-l
-------
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Company
Allied Paper
American Can
Champion
Container Corp.
Gerogia Kraft
Gulf States
Gulf States
Hammermill
I. P.
Kimberly-Clark
MacMillan
Bloedel
Scott
Union Camp
Southwest Forest
Georgia-Pacific
Great Northern
Green Bay
I. P.
I. P.
Weyerhaeuser
Location
Jackson
Suiter
Courtland
Brewton
Mahrt
Demopo 1 i s
Tuscaloosa
Selma
Mobile
Coosa Pines
P1ne Hill
Mobile
Montgomery
Snowflake
Crossett
Ashdown
Morril ton
Camden
Pir.e Bluff
Pine Bluff
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod.
(Kraftl
(Cap.)
tpd
500
(408)
930
(900)
500
(500)
900
(850)
1000
(975)
360
(400)
500
(475)
500
(500)
1300
(1200)
585
(600)
1000
(975)
1400
(1400)
870
(930)
600
(600)
1350
400
(400)
360
750
(750)
1220
(1300)
200
No. of
Units
«
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
(200)
Recovery
Manuf .
4 CE
B&W
B&W
B&W
B&W
B&W
B&W
B&U
B&W
CE
CE
B&W
CE
J
B&W
CE
CE
CE
BiW
B&W
B&W
CE
Furnace
Rat ing
tpd
566
350
390(each)
600
390
600
900
330
175
250
450
700
900
932
450; 300
300
700
250
500
200&500
850
540
665
250
500
2-275
1100
390
165
Year
Instal
post-1965
post-1965
1965
1959,1956
1968
1962
1969
1965
1955
1947
1941
1970
post-1965
post-1965
pre 1965
pre 1965
1960
1969
pre 1965
pre 1965
post-1965
post-1965
1965
1966
1946
1966
1959
pre 1965
3
Cont rol
Tech-
nique
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
Low Odor
BLO
BLO
(oxygen)
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
TRS ,
Level
#/T ADP
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
15.
0.
15.
15.
15
15.
15
5
5
15
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
C
5
5
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
inc - incineration
'B - Batch
,C - Continuous
BLO - Black Liquor Oxidation
A-2
-------
Lime Kiln
Size TRS 4
i. of Tons (CaO) Level
lits Per Day #/T ADP
1 121 0.8
2 150 0.8
each
1 181 0.05
2 120 0.8
1 0.8
1 120 0.8
2 130 0.3
75
1 125 0.2
0.8
2 '
1 225
4 1400
(total)
1 174
2
2 400
1 117
1
1 150
Digesttsr Control1
Type"1 Tech- Level4
_o. (Size) ni
-------
I
Company
tan- crown Simpson
fornia
Fibreboard
Louis1ana-Pac.
Simpson Lee
Florida Alton Box
Container Corp.
Hudson P ?. P
I. P.
Proctor & Gamble
St. Joe
St. Regis
St. Regis
Georgia Continental Can
Continental Can
Brunswick
Georgia Kraft
Georgia Kraft
Oilman
Great Northern
Interstate
Itt Rayon ier
Location
Falrhaven
Antioch
Samoa
Anderson
Jacksonville
Fernandine Beach
Palatda
Panama City
Foley
Part St. Joe
Jacksonville
Pensacola
Augusta
Port Hentworth
Brunswick
Krannert
Macon
St. Mary
Cedar Springs
Riceboro
Jesup
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod.
(Kraft)
(Cap.)
tpd
550
(550)
890?
600
(700)
150
(160)
675
(650)
1500
(1700)
950'
(950)
1400
(1400)
900
(900)
1300
(1300)
1350
(1400)
(920)
800
(800)
625
(600)
1550
(1550)
1550
(1550)
900
(900)
1100
(1000)
1780
(1700)
525
(550)
1200
(1250)
No. of
Units
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
Recovery
Manuf .
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
CF
,
Furnace Control
Rating Year Tech-
tpd Instal. nique
800 1964 BLO
400 1959 BLO
350(each)pre 1965 BLO
150 1962 BLO
300 1973 Low Odor
750 nost-1965 BLO
TRS
Level
ir/T ADI'
0.5
0.6
0.5
6.5
0.5
R*u 1000 1967 Low Odor 0.15
300 1<»55 PLO(Oxvaen)
' B&I.' 250(each)1950*1954 0.5 >
CF
CE
BSW
CF
CE
CF
P&W
B&W
CE
B&W
CF
CF
CE
B&W
f £
rt
RAW
B*u
CE
1200 DOSt-1965
900(each)post-1965 BLD
413&550 1952*1956
500 ore 1965
233&300 ore 1965
1060 DOSt-1965
300*383 ore-1965
SOO(each) 1973 Low Odor
400(each)1959&1964 BLO
350(each)
1100 1970 Low Odor
450 ore 1965 BLO
300&550 pre 1965
500 oost-1965
300 pre 1965
500 1968 BLO
2-275 ore 1965
665 ore 1965 Low Odor
1000 1972 Low Odor
450 1965
1100 1970 Low Odor
465&35T pre 1965 PLO
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.15
0.6
15.0
0.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
0.5
15.0
0.6
A-4
-------
Lime Kiln
Size TRS
No. of Tons (CaO) Level
Units P^r Day #/T ADP
1 0.15
2 0.05
1 700 0.12
1 50 0.05
(Fluo- :
solid)
2 80 i 0.8
(each)
2 0.8
3
3
3 240
3 280 V
3 0.
'
2
1 110 tlpd 0.8
1 70 tlpd, I
(Fluo-
solid)
1 100
3 440
3 113
113
113
2 80
80
1 275
2 110
210
1 111
3 144
144
i
Digester 2 Control
Type Tech- Level
Mo. (Size) nique ^/TADP
2 C inc. 0.02
L K
4 B Inc. 0.02
L K
1 C inc. 0.02
(700)
1 C scrub 0.6
(170)
6 B 1.5
(700)
7 B 1.5
1 C
13 B
(1000)
19 B
10 B (1300)
1 ,C (500)
12 B
18 B inc. 0.02
2 C 1.5
9 B
17 B
(1550)
14 B
8 B
13 B
10 8 (1900)
1 C (340)
4 B
6 B 1
26 B
212
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TSS 4
Tech- Level
No. nique <-'/TADP
1 inc. 0.02
L.K.
Inc. 0-02
L.K.
Inc. 0.02
L.K.
scrub 0.08
2 1.0
4 1.0
3
3
3
3
/
4 inc. 0.02
2 1.0
2
4
4
2
t
2 0.08
\ 1.0
1 0
Brown Stock Washer TRS
[^
Capacity Washer Level
No. ADTPD Stage* V/TADP
,-/ °'27
i 4 0-11
1 2 0.19
0.12
1 3 °-3
3 0-3
4
1
3
4 '
4 4
2 4
1
t
A-5
-------
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
*
Company
Owens-Illinois
Union Camp
Potlatch
Western Kraft
Westvaco
Boise Cascade
Boise Cascade
Continental Can
Crown Zellerbach
Crown Zellerbach
Georgia-Pacific
I. P.
I. P.
Olin
Pinevllle
Western Kraft
"
. Bi amend Int.
Georgia-Pacific
I. P.
Lincoln
Location
Valdosta
Savannah
Lewis ton.
Hawesville
Wickliffe
DeRidder
Elizabeth
Hodge
Bogalvsa
St. Francisville
Port Hudson
Bustrop
Springhill
West Monroe
Plneville
Campti
Old Town
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod .
(Kraft)
(Cap. )
tpd
-
950
2600
(2550)
850
(900)
300
(320)
600
(600)
1030
(1050)
300
(325)
1400
(1400)
1340
(1350)
500
(500)
530
(640)
1100
1000
1650
1125
(1150)
800
(750)
450
350
(550)
800
(800)
600
(600)
340
(400)
Recovery
No. of 4
Units Manuf.
3 CE
6 CE
4 CE
BS'W
2 B&W
1 CE
1 B&W
1 B&W
2 B&W
CE
2 B&W
CE
1 B&W
2 B&W
CE
2 CE
B&W
4 B&W
CE
2 B&W
B&W
1 CE
1 BIW
1 B&W
2 B&W
2 B&W
CE
1 B&W
Furnacf'
Rat tng
tpd
350&250
1350
150&300
300
400
225
300
833
1000
300
1233
800
350
600
690
1000
300
1100
i
Control-1
Year
Insta.
pre-196:,
post-1965
pre-1965
pre-1965
1954
1970
1968
1974
post-1965
1968
1955
post-1965
1963
pre-1965
1963
1965
post-1965
pre-1965
1966
2-700;500 1973;66;
350
450
800
833
420
590
pre-1965
1963
1974
pre-1965
1972
1969
350(each) 1963
800
600
386
1974
Tech-
nique ,'
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
Low Odor
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
BLO
62 BLO
BLO
Low Odor
BLO
Low Odor
Low Odor
BLO
Low Odor
TRS ^
Level
11
2
Z
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
ADP
.1
.1
6
.5
.15
.5
.6
.1
.1
.1
.1
.6
.1
.6
.1
.1
C.15
0.15
0.5
0.15
pre-1965 BLO
1970
Low Odor
0.15
A-6
-------
Lime Kilns
Size TRS 4
No. of Tons (CaO) Level
Units Per Day #/T ADP
I , 0.8
3 525 0.8
3 400 0.2
0.2
1 80
0
1 60 0.05
1 ! 0 8
1 75 j
2 471 !
1
1 150
1 300
1 200
O.I
0 1
1 150 0-8
0.05
1 100 01
*
Digester . Control 4 1
Type Tech- Level 1
No. (Size) nique r/'[ ADP 1
9 B ' 1.5 .
(950)
34 8 (1775) 1-5
1 C (600)
11 B (720) Inc. '0-02
l' C
3 B Inc. 0.02
1 T inc. 0.02
(600)
7 B 1-5
6 B 1-5
3 T inc. 0.02
(1650)
34 B (1250) 1-5
f C₯0) inc. 0.02
1 C inc. 0.02
(660)
2 C Inc. 0.02
1 .5
4 C inc. 0.02
(1290)
2 , C Inc. 0.02
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TRS 4
Tech- Level
No. nique #/T ADP
3 1-0
6 1-0
4 inc. O-O2
1 inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
1 1-0
1 1-0
2 inc. 0.02
4 1.0
inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
1.0
1.0
2 inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
(MO) Ij
1IC 1iK. 0.02
1 ; C Inc. 0.02
(600)
1 C inc. 0.02
1 (600)
1 C Inc. 0.02
(400)
A
0.02
1 inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
1
-7
Brown Stock Washer TRS ^
Capacity Washer Level
No. ADTPD Stages #/T ADP
3 4 0.3
0.3
0.3
1 3 0.3
1 2 0.3
1
1
1
4' !
i
i
!
i
2 i
i
i
4 !
2 2 ;
I i
1
1
9.02
1 4 0.3
-------
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
New
Hampshire
N. York
N.Carolina
i
i
Company
Oxford
S. 0. Warren
Westvaco
Mead
Scott
Boise Cascade
Potlatch
I. P.
I. P.
I. P.
St. Regis
Hoerner-Waldorf
Brown
I. P.
Champion
,
Federal
Hoerner-Waldorf
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser
'
Location
Rumford
Nestbrook
Luke
Escanaba
Muskegon
Int'l Falls
Cloquet
Moss Point
Natchez
Vicksburg
Monticello
Missoula
Berlin-Gorham
Ticonderoga
Canton
Riegelwood
Roanoke Rapids
New Bern
Plymouth
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod.
(Kraft)
(Cap.)
tpd
550
(560)
270
(300)
719
(647)
600
(600)
240
(225)
320
(350)
400
(330)
715
1000
(1000)
1200
(1200)
1620
(1650)
1150
(1200)
750
(750)
590
(460)
1360
(1360)
1100
(1050)
950
(950)
640
(625)
1350
(1500)
No. of
Units
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
Recovery
I
Manuf .
CE
B&W
CE
,
B&W
CE
CE
B&U
B&W
CE
CE
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
CE
CE
^
Furnace
Rating
tpd
300&200
250
1150
800
240
150
550
400
330
523
900
600&250
1000
1
Control
Vear Tech-
Instal. nique
pre-1965 BLO
1962 BLO
post-1965 BLO
1969 Low Odor
pre-1965 BLO
pre-1965
1973
1971 Low Odor
pre-1965 BLO
post-1965
post- 1965
1963&1954
1965 BLO
800(each)post-1965 BLO
1000
500
467
225
500
1970 Low Odor
1965 Low Odor
1965 BLO
pre-1965
1968 Low Odor
900(each)1770&1963
700
2-350
709
500
800
1500
400
post-1965
pre-1965
1972 Low Odor
pre-1965
post-1965Low Odor
post-1965Low Odor
pre-1965
^
Level
if/T ADP
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.15
2.1
0.15
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.6
0.5
-
2.1
0.15
2.1
15.0
15.0
0.15
0.15
A-8
-------
Liroe Kiln
Size TRS 4
No. of Tons (CaO) Level
Units Per Day #/T ADP
1 120 0.8
1 90 0.8
0.8
1 220 0.05
1 70(Fluo- 0.05
solids)
0.05
1 100 Q.8
0.1)5
0.05
0.05
1 410 0.2
3 300 0.8
2 0.8
/ 0.05
2 300 0.8
2 _>80
1 .00
1 225 [
3 315
*
i
Digester - Control ,
Typo Tech- Level
No. (Size) nique #/T ADP
6 B inc; 0.02
(365)
7 B inc. 0-02
(315)
10 B inc. ' O.C2
6 ' B Inc. 0.02
(700)
1 , C Inc. 0.02
(240)
5 B 1.5
SB 15
(400)
inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
2 C inc. 0.02
2 C inc. 0.02
(1650)
3 C (900) inc. 0.02
8 B (700)
9 B inc. o.02
L.K
1 c inc. 0.02
18 B 1.5
(1250)
11 B 1.5
(10 each)
11 B 1.5
(1000)
7 B inc. 0.02
(800)
231 B inc. 1.5
(1500)
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TRS 4
Teca- Level
No. niqaes tf/T ADP
1 inc. 0.02
1 Inc. } 0.02
1
inc. " o.02
1 inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
1 1.0
1 1.0
inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
2 inc. 0.02
4 inc. 0.02
2 1.0
inc. 0.02
3 scrub. 0.08
3 1.0
2 1.0
1 inc. 0.02
5 inc. .1.)
Brown Stock Washer TRS ,
Capacity Washer Level
Ho. ADTPD Stages ?-VT ADP
2 4 0.3
1 3
1 3
1 3
2 3
3
j
3 3 1
1 2 0.02
3 3 0.3
3 3
1 3
A-9
-------
Company
Ohio
Grief
Mead
Oklahoma
Ueyerhaeuser
Oregon
American Can
Boise Cascade
Crown Z
Georgie-Pacific
I. P.
Western Kraft
Ueyerhaauser
Penna.
Appleton
P.M. Glatfelter
Penntech
S. Caro-
lina
Bowater
I. P.
S. Carolina
\lestvaco
i '
Location
Massilon
Chillicothe
' Valliant
Halsey
St, Helens
Clatskmie
Toledo
Gardiner
Albany
Springfield
Roarino Springs
Spring Grove
Johnsonburg
Catawba
Georgetown
Florence
Charleston
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod.
(Kraft)
(Cap.)
tpd
(200)
600
(540)
1300
(1300)
300
(300)
850
llKfn
\, I I ^U j
690
(916)
1075
(1075)
600
(545)
500
(550)
1150
(1050)
180
(180)
500
(500)
190
(100)
940
(940)
1830
(1750)
660
(675)
2000
(1989)
No. of
Units
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
Recovery
Manuf .
i
CE
CE
<
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
B&W
CE
B&W
B&W
B&W
CE
B&W
Furnace- Control
Rat in x'ear Tech-
tpd Ti.-tal. nique -".-
366 pre-1965 BLO
175 pre-1965
1500 post-1965 Law Odor
400 1967 Low Odor
450 1966 BLO
700 1975 Low OJor
800 1964 BLO
350(each)l-postl965 BLO
2-prel965
420 1972 Low Odor
420 pre-1965 BLO
600 1969 Low Odor
165 1965
800(each)pre-1965 BLO
post-1965
122 1960
83 1950
400&150 pre-1965 BLO
748 1969 Low Odor
160 pre-1965 BLO
600 1964 BLO
450 1957
900 (each) 1966 BLO
1963
1000 1972 Low Odor
410 1962
1000 pre-1965 BLO
360 1955
250 1948
250 1945
TRS .
4
Level
/T ADP
15.0
2.1
0.1£
a. 03
0.3
Q-C.:
C.i
0.15
<0.5
O.H
0.15
15.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.5
0.15
2.1
A-10
-------
Lime Kilns
Size IS.S ,
No. of Tons (CaO) Level
Units Per Day #/T ADP
0.8
1 250 0.8
1 0.8
1 0.15
3 0.2
1 250 ; 0.05
1
3 260 0.05
i
0.05
1 0.2
0;1
1 0.8
1 0.05
fluo- :
solid)
2 50 0.8
1 ': J
Digester . Control
Type Tech- Level
No. (Size) nique #/T ADP
1.5
8 B inc. 0.02
(600)
3 C inc. 0.02
(1000)
(500)
(100)
2 C inc. 0.02
(300)
3 B inc. 0.02
2 C
2 C Inc. 0.02
(916)
11 B (650) inc. 0.02
1 C (115)
inc. 0.02
6 B inc. 0.02
7 B (380) Inc. 0.02
1 C (770)
5 B 1.5
8 B (285) 1.5
C (250)
16 B 1.5
(170)
1 0.8 6 B 1.5
(940)
0.8
1 150 0.8
4 665 0.8
i 1-5
SB 1.5
(625)
15 B (1800) inc. 0.02
1 C (700)
i
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TRS ,
Tech- Level
No. nique v/T AOP
i
1.0
2 scrub 0.08
1 inc. 0.02
.
1 inc. 0.02
L.K.
2 inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
3 inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
1 inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
I
1.0 I
2 1.0 i
1 1.0
2 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
4 inc. 0.02
Brown Stock Washer TRS ,
Capacity Washer Level
No. ADTPD Stages »/T ADP
0.3
n i
U . J
n i
y . j
inc.
' R.F. 3 0.02
0.3
1 scrubber 0
3 (2-3) 0
n.4\
11 4) Q
2 0
inc. (
Power boiler
1 4
2 3
i i
1 0
1 /i
1 H
2 (3,4)
.002
.02
.13
.1
.C?
A-11
-------
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Company
Bowater
Packaging
Champion
I. P.
Owens-Illinois
Southland
Southland
Temple-Fostex
Chesapeake
Continental
Union Camp
Westvaco
Boise Cascade
Crown Zellerbach
Crown Zellerbach
Longview
St. Regis
Weyerhaeuser
Location
Calhoun
Counce
Pasadena
Texarkana
Orange
Houston
Lufkin
Evadale
West Point
Hopewel 1
Franklin
Covington
Uallola
Camas
Port Townsend
Longview
Tacoma
Everett
Mill
Size
Avg.
Kraft
Prod.
(Kraft)
(Cap.)
tpd
500
(500)
(775)
850
(820)
610
1000
(900)
650
(500)
400
(400)
1250
(1200)
1150
(1150)
896
(900)
1430
(1500)
1048
(1000)
460
(460)
780
(760)
420
(420)
1600
(1900)
1090
(1040)
360
(375)
No. of
Units
2
i
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
Recovery
Hanuf .
CE
t
CE
B&W
, B&W
' B&V
CF
CE
B&W
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
B&W
B&W
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
Furnace Control
Rating Year Tech-
TRS
Level
tfu Instal. nique -v/T ADP
600&320 pre-1965 BLO
420 oost-1965
550 1971 BLO
550 1955
750 1969
550(each) 1965 BLO
(oxvaen)
500 oost-1965 BLO
175(each)Dre-1965
534 1966 BLO
1100 oost-1965
530 ore-1965
900 oost-1965 BLO
400&200 ore-1965
375(each)ore-1965 BLO
580 oost-1965 BLO
580&350 pre-1965
1320 post-1965 BLO
250 1960 BLO
165 1957
350 1955 BLO
660 pcst-1965
725 post-1965 Low Odor
1100 oost-1965 BLO
2-700 ore-1965
863 oost-1965 Low Odor
467 ore-1965 BLO
365 oost-1965 BLO
2.1
2.1
0.5
0.5
2.1
2.1
15.0
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
A-12
-------
Lime Kilns
Size TRS ,
No. of Tons (CaO) Level
Units Per Day */T ADP
fl 0.8
0.8
3 350 0.05
)
j -0.2
1 26) 0.8
1 13) 0.8
1 83 0.8
3 365 ' 0.8
2 300 0.8
3 445 0.8
(total)
3 400 0.8
(total J
0.8
2 0.2
3 200 ! 0.2
1
; 0.2
4 500 ; 0.2
2 196 & 80 i 0.2
1
1 140 0.2
» '
i
Digester Control
Type' tech- Level
No. (Ci;c) ri".uc V.'/T ADP
6 B Inc. 0.02
(500)
5 8 1.5
9 B inc. 0.02
100 each
5 B inc. JD.Q2
2 C 1.5
(1000)
1 C 1.5
(500)
6 B 1.5
(400)
9 B(1200) 1-5
1 C (200)
8 B (600) 0.02
1 C (600)
13 B (900) 0.02
2 C (230)
12 B (950) 0.02
2 C (800)
10 B 0.02
5 B inc. 0.02
1 C (150)
9 B inc. 0.02
1 C
9 B Power 0.02
1 C inc. ;
18 B (1600) inc. 0.02
4 C (600
4 B (240) inc. 0.02
2 C (690)
6 B (550) inc. 0.02
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TRS ^
Tech- Level
No, p iquo */T ADP
1 inc. 0.02
1.0
2 ' inc. 0.02
inc. 0.0?
1 1.0
1 1.0
2 1.0
3 1.0
3 0.02
2 0.02
4 0.02
0.02
2 inc. 0.02
3 inc. 0.02
inc. 0.02
6 inc. 0.02
2 inc. 0.02
1 . inc. 0.02
Brown Stock Washer TRS
Capacity U'ashpr Leve]
No. ADTPD Srszps "/T AD
1 4 0.
1
1
4
3
3 3
.
A-13
-------
Kill
Size
Avg.
, , Kraft
' Prod.
(Kraft)
(Cap.)
Comoanv Location tpd
Uashlm - Ueyerhaeuser Longvi«w 650
ton " (3°6)
NSSC
ch. rec.
plant
'-.Wisconsin Consolidated Wise. Rapids 400
(400)
ch. rec.
plant
Great northern Nekoosa 310
(330)
ch. rec.
plant
Haiwiermill Kaukauna 400
(400)
Mosinee Mosinee 174
(175)
P *
' ' 3
Recovery Furnace Control TRS
No. of Rat in ; v~'car Tech- Level
Units Manuf. , tpd Irstal. nique *'/T ADF
2 BiW 1200 1972 Low Odor 0.5
CE 350 pre-1965 BLO
Z CE 400(each)post-1965 BLO 0.5
2 CE . 350 pre-1965 0.5
165 pre-1965
*
1 BftW 390 1960 BLO 0.5
1 B&U 250 1973 Low Odor 0.5
Mew Mills (Planned or under construction)
Scott Paper - Skowhegan, Ma ire - 750 TPD
Potlatch Corp. - McQehee, Arkansas - 500 TPQ.
A-14
-------
LLne Kilns i
Size TRS , Digester 2 Control ^
No. of Tons (CaO) Level Type Tech- Level
Units Per Day fr/T ADP Vo. .(Size) nique -VT ADP
0.2
i
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
1
i
, :
12 B Inc. 0.02
1 C
2 C 1-1
scrubber
9 B 1-5
6 E 1-5
6 B 1-5
Multiple-effect
Evaporator
Control TRS ,
Tech- Level"*
No. nique 1f/T ADP
i '
inc. 0.02
1
1.0 .
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
Brown Stock Washer TRS
Capacity Washer Level
Ho. ADTPD Stcges "/T AT
3 0.
.
3
C
Sourer
Recovery Furnac?
Lime Kiln
Digester
Mul tiple-effect
Evaporator
Brown Stock Washer
tt'vfRsiQN TAEL
£';
lb/T AOP
0.15
0.5
0.6
2.1
15.0
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.01
1.1
1.5
0.01
0.08
1.0
0.01
0.3
f
ssion Rate
g/Kn_ATP
T.075
0.25
0.3
1.05
7.5
0.025
0.05
0.1
0.4
0.05
0.55
0.75
0.05.
0.0«
0.5
0.05.
0.15
DDm
rr.
5
17. E
20
70
550
10
20
40
170
<5
7000
9500
C5
350
6700
<5
30
VI5
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SUMMARY
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Recovery Furnaces, Smelt Dissolving Tanks, Lime Kilns, and Incinerators
Results are summarized for tests conducted by EPA at 6 kraft pulp mills.
At these mills a total of 9 TRS tests; 3 recovery furnaces, 2 smelt dissolving
tanks, 3 lime kilns, and one incinerator,were conducted by EPA. Emission
data obtained from operators or state agencies are also reported for some
of the facilities.
TRS EMISSION DATA
Incinerator:
The incinerator handles the noncondensable gases from a continuous
digester system and a multiple-effect evaporator system. The
continuous digester was producing 670 tons of pulp per day.
The incinerator was operating at 1000°F with a retention time
for the gases of at least 0.5 seconds. Natural gas is fired in
the incinerator.
Recovery Furnaces:
A. Conventional type recovery furnace designed for an equivalent
pulp production rate of 657 tons per day. TRS emissions are
controlled by using black liquor oxidation and maintaining proper
%
furnace operation. The furnace was operating near its design
capacity during the EPA test period. Continuous monitoring data
were also obtained from the operator.
B-l
-------
B. Low-odor type recovery furnace designed for an equivalent pulp
production of 300 tons per day. During the EPA testing, the
furnace was operating at a rate of about 345 tons of pulp per
day. TRS emissions are controlled by eliminating the direct contact
evaporator and maintaining proper furnace operation. Noncondensable
gases from the brown stock washer system are burned in this furnace.
Continuous monitoring data were also obtained from the state agency.
D. Conventional type recovery furnace designed for an equivalent pulp
production rate of 602 tons per day. TRS emissions are controlled
by black liquor oxidation and maintaining proper furnace operation.
H. Low-odor type recovery furnace operating at an equivalent pulp
production rate of about 200 tons per day. TRS emissions are
controlled by maintaining proper furnace operation. Data were
obtained from the state agency.
K. Low-odor type recovery furnace designed for an equivalent pulp
production rate of about 863 tons per day. TRS emissions are
controlled by maintaining proper furnace operation. Data were
obtained from state agency.
Smelt Dissolving Tanks
D. A wet fan type scrubber is employed to control the particulate
emissions. Weak wash liquor is used as the scrubbing medium.
The associated recovery furnace operates at an equivalent pulp
production rate of 570 tons per day.
E. A wet fan type scrubber is employed to control the particulate
emissions. Fresh water is used as the scrubbing medium. The
associated recovery furnace operates at an equivalent pulp production
rate of 770 tons per day.
B-2
-------
Lime Kilns
D. Rotary lime kiln operating at an equivalent pulp production rate
of 570 tons per day. TRS emissions are controlled by maintaining
proper kiln combustion and proper lime mud washing. Noncondensable
gases from the multiple-effect evaporators are burned in the kiln.
E. Rotary lime kiln operating at an equivalent pulp production rate
of about 770 tons per day. TRS emissions are controlled by
maintaining proper combustion in the kiln, maintaining proper
lime mud washing, and using a caustic solution in the particulate
scrubber. Noncondensable gases from the digesters, multiple-effect
evaporators, condensate stripper, and miscellaneous storage tanks
are burned in the kiln. Continuous monitoring data were also obtained
from the operator.
K. Rotary lime kiln operating at an equivalent pulp production rate
of about 320 tons per day. TRS emissions are controlled by main-
taining proper combustion in the kiln and proper lime mud washing.
Noncondensable gases from the digesters, multiple-effect evaporators,
and turpentine system are burned in the kiln.
0. Rotary lime kiln not tested by EPA. Continuous monitoring data
was obtained from the local agency. TRS emissions are controlled
by maintaining process combustion in the kiln.
B-3
-------
Table B-"! - TRS and S02 Emissions from Incineration
FACILITY - Incinerator
Summarv of Results
Run Number
Date - 1972
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (XI000) 2610
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temoerature - °F
Water vanor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
Og - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
pom
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of Rulp
SO? Emissions
nnm
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of nulo
1
10/5
240
2610
805
6.3
2.6
11.8
0
2.8
1.5
0.06
25
9.4
0.4
2
10/6
240
2223
805
4.3
2.4
12.0
0
0.4
0.2
0.007
306
96.9
3.8
3 4
10/7 12/13
240 240
2302
805
5.4
2.1 9.0
12.7 15.7
0 0
1.6 0.9
0.6 0.4
0.02 0.02
1050 -
358
13.9
B-4
-------
Table B-2- TRS and S02 Emissions from Recovery Furnace A
FACILITY - Recovery Furnace A
Summarv of Results
Run Number
Date - 1972
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (Xinoo) 142
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - °F
Water vanor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dr.y
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
pom
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of nulo
$02 Emissions
nom
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of nulo
1
6/3
240
142
314
25.5
10.4
1Q.7
153
2.0
K5
45
85.0
2 3
6/4 6/5
240 240
145
**
304
25.3
8.2 10.7
11.4 11.4
93 84
1.4 1.4
1.1 1.1
116 79
*. *
456
6/6 6/7 6/8
240 240 240
148
303
21.9 -
11.8 12.9 11.1
10.1 10.1 9.9
95 102 51
1.5 0.7 1.6
1.2 0.6 1.2
118 50 119
.. _ _
B-5
-------
1
7/13
240
2
7/14
240
3
7/15
240
4
7/18
240
5
7/19
240
6
7/20
240
Table B-3 - TRS and S02 Emissions from Recovery Furnace B
FACILITY - Recovery Furnace B
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date - 1972
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (XI000) 85 84 86
Flow rate - DSCF/ton - - -
Temnerature - °F 395 400 415
Water vaoor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - opm 0
TRS Emissions
pom 1.6
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of nulD* -05
S02 Emissions
pom 0-9
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of nulo
12.3
8.T
0
0.2
0.7
.01
12.4
7,6
0
0.5
0:1
.02
12.7
7.7
0
0.3
0.2
.01
12.0
8.0
0
0.4
0.2
.01
12.4
8.0
0
0.3
0.2
.01
* Based on 334.5 ATDP/day
B-6
-------
Table B-4- TRS and SOo Emissions from Recovery Furnace D
FACILITY - Recovery Furnace D
Summarv of Results
Run Number 1 2345
Date - 1972 11/11 IT/12 11/13 11/14 11/15
Test Time - minutes 240 240 240 240 240
Production Rate - TPH - -
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (X1000) 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. % 35 35 35 35 35
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
DDtn 3.1 2.8 3.9 7.0 2.8
Ib/hr 55.1 48.9 53.7 12.5 46.0
Ib/ton of nulo - - -
SO? Emissions
pom 15.5 ' 1.0 22.9 5.0 14.2
Ib/hr 162- 10 239 52 149
Ib/ton of nulo - -
B-7
-------
Table B-5
ADDITIONAL TRS EMISSION DATA
FOR RECOVERY FURNACES*
Month
July 1971
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1972
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
*Tested by
Recovery
Furnace A
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
Maximum Average
6.0
20.0
5.0
10.9
.4.4
9.8
5.5
3.3
2.5
5.3
5.5
8.2
9.8
9.0
4.9
6.1
3.1
2.4
1.5
2.8
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.0
2.0
2.1
3.8
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.2
Recovery Furnace B
Month
April 1972
May
June
July
Aug.-
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1973
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
Maximum Average
1.4
2.3
2.8
4.6
5.0
1.9
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.6
2.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.6
. 3.1
1.8
2.0
1.6
3.4
0.7
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.6
operators using barton titrators.
B-8
-------
Table B-5 (cent.-)
ADDITIONAL TRS EMISSION DATA
FOR RECOVERY FURNACES
Recovery Furnace A
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
? Month Maximum Average
Recovery Furnace H
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
Month Maximum Average
April 1972 3 2.1
May 4 2.1
June 7 3.5
June 1972 8 3.1
July 4 2.4
Aug. .4 1.9
Sept. 2 1.3
Oct. 6 1.8
Month
Jan. 1974
Feb.
March
April
May.
June
Month
Aug. 1973
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1974
Feb.
March
April
May
Recovery Furnace B
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
Maximum Average
1.4 0.8
1.9 1.3
5.0 1.6
2.4 1.2
1.8 1.0
1.5 1.0
Recovery Furnace K
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average
basis)
Maximum Average
6.2 1.0
32.0 5.2
7.3 2.4
17.0 4.1
1.2 0.7
1.8 0.6
2.4 1.0
9.7 2.3
3.0 1.4
3.4 1.4
B-9
-------
Table B-6
TRS EMISSION DATA FOR A CROSS RECOVERY FURNACE*
Days TRS (4-hour)
Sulfidity Average TRS Maximum 4-Hour Emissions Greater
Month Range (%) Eni ss ions (ppm) TRS Emissions (ppm) than 25_j3pm_
Oct 76
Nov 76
Dec 76
Jan 77
Feb 77
22 -
28 -
28 -
27 -
27 -
36 12.5
33 24.3
34 9.5
36 7.7
35 8.0
54.5
51.2
43.2
36.5
48.0
2
4
1
0
1
* Tested by operator using barton tatrator.
B-10
-------
TableB-7 - TRS Emissions frorr Smelt Dissolving Tank D
FACILITY - Smelt Dissolving Tank D
Summarv of Results
Run Number 1 2 3
Date - 1973 10/31 11/1 11/2
Test Time - minutes 240 240 240
Production Rate - TPH 25.1 25.9 25,6
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM 9000 8880 9400
Flow rate - DSCF/ton 21514 20571 22031
Temnerature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. % 37 41 40
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
pom 8.1 8.8 6.9
Ib/hr 0.43 0.44 0.38
Ib/ton of nulD 0.017 0.017 .015
B-ll
-------
Table B-8- TRS Emissions from Smelt Dissolving Tank E
Run Number
Date - 1973
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
pom
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of pulp
FACILITY - Smelt Dissolving Tank E
Summarv of Results
1 2 3
9/18 9/19 9/20
240. 240 240
30.1 34,1 31.3
19542
38954
26
2.4
0.27
0.009
18740
32974
26
1.9
0.20
.006
19100
36613
23.3
2.7
0.28
.009
B-12
-------
1
11/5
240
2
11/7
240
3
11/7
240
4
11/7.
240
5
11/8
240
6
11/8
240
Table B-9 -TRS Emissions from Lime Kiln D
FACILITY - Lime Kiln D
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date - 1973
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (XI000)
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. % 43 35 40 38 41 31
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - opm
TRS Emissions
pom 3.5 24.1 2.8 5.7 4.6 17.8
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of pulp
B-13
-------
1
9/24
240
2
9/25
240
3
9/26
240
4
9/26
240
5
9/27
240
6
9/27
240
Table B-10-TRS Emissions from Lime Kiln E
FACILITY- Lime Kiln E
Summarv of Results
Run Number
Date - 1973
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM (XI000)
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. %
CQ2 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - ppm
TRS Emissions
ppm 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of pulp
9.4
13.2
10.2
11.0
10.0
12.2
9.8
12.0
8.2
13.1
9.8
11.8
B-14
-------
Table B-ll-TRS arH S02 Emissions from Lime Kiln K
FACILITY - Lime Kiln K
Summarv of Results
Run Number
Date - 1974
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
How rate - DSCFM (XI000) 13.8
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temoerature - °F
Water vaoor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
Og - Vol. % dry
CO - opm
TRS Emissions
ppm
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of pulp
SO? Emissions
nom
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of pulp
1
4/5
240
13.8
142
21.8
13.0
7.6
0
4.6
0.34
52
7.2
2
4/5
240
13.8
142
21.8
13.0
7.6
0
12.0
0.88
42
5.8
3
4/9
240
14.0
«h
146
22.9
14.2
7.1
0
4.5
0.33
25
3,5
4
4/9
240
13.4
152
26.0
14.2
7.1
0
4.8
0.34
18
2.4
5
4/10
240
13.6
«
155
25.8
14.6
6.4
0
4.0
0.29
16
2.2
6
4/10
240
14.2
*»
154
26.8
14.2
7.2
0
5.2
0.39
37 :
5.2
B-15
-------
TableB-12
ADDITIONAL TRS EMISSION DATA
FOR LIME KILNS*
Month
May 1973
June
July
,Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1974
.Feb.
March
April
May
Lime Kiln E
TRS Concent»
(ppm, daily
Maximum
1.4
3.4
2.1
1.4
10.1
7.1
5.9
8.9
3.4
2.6
0.7
3.1
2.9
"ation
average) ]
Average \
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
1.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.7
! Month
Jan. 1973
Feb.
March
April
May.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 1974
Feb.
March
April
May
Lime Kiln 0
TRS Concentration
(ppm, daily average)
Maximum Average
14
20
14
32
16
10
H9
12
17
34
12
22
30
33
30
40
*
25
Average
6.8
9.3
7.6
9.6
4.7
3.4
4.5
3.8
5.0
8.2
5.7
9;8
17.9
21.1
19.3
16.2
12.3
= 9.7
*Tested by operators using barton titrators.
B-16
-------
Table B-12 (CONTINUED)
Lime Kiln P
TRS Summary: 4-Hour Averages
4-Hour Averages Monitored
Month
February '75
March '75
April '75
May '75
V
h
<5 ppm
45
65
63
53
>5/ <10 ppm
26
25
16
25
>10/ <20 ppm
9
7
12
13
>20 ppm
20
7
9
8
>40 ppm
12
2
5
2
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
DISPERSION STUDIES
C 4->
QJ U
U 3
S- -O
QJ QJ
C O S- X
CU O GJ KJ
= 4-> s:
0-14- ro
OJ O 01 QJ
i- S- -C
n
*5
oo
=30
0 o;: Q-
U ^D
c:
CTOOOCOOOCO
m a* c\j o i o ir> co
o>
OJ
en
o o r~
co o oo
o o
UT> O
oo oo t»>
OJ CM
OO O O
CO r O%
o
O tr> OJ3
O OJ OO^D
CTl CO C\J
to
O
CO
o
o
CM
CM
o
o
C\J C\l to VO
O LO LO tO tO
o r^- r^. m ir»
O i i CM OJ
S- i 12
-1- 3 'r- Q. O.
UJ <_>
(U
O; V7
E; QJ
-
CU r- r-
r -O $-
tO -r-
. L- 'I-
a. o *£
r- CL
-M TO E
3 UJ -r-
QJ TO
C -C -^ "O
2 vi U -
O fO fO X
U 3 O
CO CQ
r tO
^ h O t/1
C-l
-------
<0
c:
o
C 4J
Ol U
O 3
Ol 01
O.OC
O O
CO O>
Ol Ol
*! O CO
CM O i
CM O Ol
O O Ol
§in CM
r*^ 01
o
i-CM
«*
s-
4-> C
C <0
u c. -
c o i- x
OJO O> «
O-"*- IO
QI o 01 ai
in
01 .
o.
J_
3
O
O)
3.
CM
E
o.
(J O>
C X
o o rv
oo o co
o o
m o
in
in
o
CM
O> CM 00
IO «! O
. in
r-. CM i
r to
to
to to o o o o
CM in r
in o CM
0%
CM
CO CO O O
S«3- CO CO
to in in
10 >o
in in
o
CO
in in to o o
CM CM i «» ^
co oo
§.
ex
o
CM
O
m
o.
o.
£.
o
_J
03
i_
01
s_
u
CO
o
4->
rO
s~
01
c:
u
> *
^
01
-Q
J2
2
O
C
0
£>
a
s~
c
c
o
VJ
c
o
CJ
VI
V)
01
o
CL.
i
O
4J
c
o
o
V)
I/I
01
O
e
a.
CM
T3
3
z:
^
O.
£
O
s-
4->
C
o
C-)
(^
01
u
o
i-
Q-
ro
JZ
VI
(O
3
o
IK
-i- O»
01 -X
01
01 VI
01 E a.
O -i- -C
10 r- 4->
01 a> **-
> .co
IO 4->
c
o co
01 -r- -r-
o
u
i.
3 CO
4- S-
LU O
Ol
4->
^£ VI
l-l >,
O CO
CO >-
ai
c ^:
§S
i. 3
03
ai
4J
V)
>,
t. CO
o
3 C
tr-£
Jj 4->
IO
v T3
10 X
i O
03
Ol
C
o
to
VI
a
r- C
01 (Ct
E 1
CO
CL
r-
CO
ai
4J
ro
to E
C Ol
Ol 4->
-a v)
c >>
O CO
<_>
H-
c
o
I-
u
3
T3
01
a:
10
3 C
to i.
to 3
IO -O
c
Ol 3
i.
to 01
T3
V) 3
01
V) u
ro c
O -r-
JD
C-2
-------
UJ
_J
EC
Ol
c
o
+-* (
QJ U
o rs
OJ QJ
O- CC
I/I
c
o
S-
+-> c
1 C ro E
CJ C -r-
c o s- x;
QJ CJ QJ fO
cr<+- ,
s~
QJ
>
0
u
QJ
ex
0
OJ
CO
IT)
r^.
r-.
0
en
r*.
OJ
LO
^
o
o
CO
en
QJ
1-
u
I/)
i_
QJ
-t-J
t/>
QJ
cn
0
OOOCO*I3 CO OJ OO^t OO
oojotnro ^D ro oor-^ OO
ocnor*.cn cn cr> cooco LOO
r i -
1 KJ- t r r r Cn> O
i CO
f in ro ro ,
- . * > CM J
LD 1O CO ^O CO
OJ
CO O CO *t r^.
to ro
co o o in ^±
^ -Q O
r
CO lO 1
t 1
CO O
CO
ro ir>
r CO
in
JD
O^DOOCO ** IO CvJO^" OO
in i oj i ou ^± ro m
LO
*r
§0000 o o ooo oo
LOi-nrj- fa to D; c
O o "* o <- -Q
+^. ^_^ ^5 +J t/j 3 Q_
cr c s: c m s- c
00 O 3 U >
C CCJCJ-CJ COC CX
o o v- -o o o c:
S-QJi-CJU-CCJ -IOS_ i-i
ajj^ojoocrow-noj cur
CjDCl.t.'r-1-U-rDC CC.
< 13 < £X CU 1C O- UJ CJ -r- -i- , oo > * F og ro t> i s
£
QJ
-M -M
CJ £ LO
QJ QJ >,
lt- 4-J i- t/n
4- S- _i£ 1/1 O
LiJ O U >-, 13 C
i 4-J E o oo cr o
S- >- 00 S- _J 4-J
CL O ^ QJ fo
r- Q- C -C -*- T)
-M fT3 QJ 5 l/) U -i
f > E O rtJ 03 X
n UJ -r- L IS r O
^ _i CD ca
n
)
C- O
QJ -r-
^S QJ i-
-0 OJ
-C -DC
OJ i- O
s- o c:
cr
c
O-
cn o.
c: -r-
-r- i-
> -i->
o
(/) QJ
1/1 4-J
r- ro
0 CO E
C QJ
t-J J*. QJ +J
r- C -D tO
QJ 13 C >-,
*= -1 o wo
un vJ
QJ
>
OJ
aj yi
E QJ
a
aj
c
-------
2!
o
l/l
(_J
C£
=3
O
V)
in
Q£
t
C/l
z>
o
o:
5
U_l
3;
1
C3
s:
i
_j
o
o;
t
^
O
O
Lu
O
r-
LJ
«t
CL_
s:
>-
S
*-^
s
i
g
*
in
a-
«e=J
t i
gz:
oio.
LL. i
g-
1 « 1
t-t
22
£*
UJ
y
«£
O
o
Ln
C£
\
=E
LiJ
CO
10
c
o
C 4J
QJ U
0 3
i- -a
CU Ol
a.ce
in
c
o
r-CM
(Or
l_
M C
1 C ra E
aj.c §
>> 04-J E
0 C -r-
C O V- X
OJ O CU tO
cr<»- (O
O) O QJ 0)
I- !_ .C
CO
.e
rj>
3
c
o ^^
r- Ol
+-> CT
(0 «J
!_ S-
4-> 01
C >
CU ro
Cl
C S-
O 3
0 0
x:
4-> 1
C CU
E
E
x
(O
s:
o
C\J
I
in
cu
O i
3
O
/}
O
i-
CU
U VO
Q .
ro O
oro
CD
E
D -*
CO
O O
O r
O Ol
^ ^
0 CU
I
CO
CJ
3
a
c
-C
U
QJ
V
r
O
L_
+J
C
O
UJ
0 0
10 crt
en en
CO CO
CO CO
O CO
*"""
3- VO
CM
i 0
a- r-
S J2
2 2
r r
e E
D. CL
O
c\j in
0 0
1 1
CO CO
CU
U
o
CM
CM
CO
in
o
<£>
CO
CO
CM
§
CO
s_
CU
_D
.a
3
L.
U
l/l
0 O
S Si
r
1 *!*
' I
CO
o
CO
*3
0 0
CO
c
0
4->
ro s-
s- a>
{U .0
»- 3
0 S-
c o
^-i CO
4->
0 0
§ID
r-
1 1
t ^
00
o>
CM
r
JD
CO
O CO
w
n3 cu
I- U
CU O
C 1-
*- a.
U
H 4 l-~
*r ro cncoocnoo
CO l£> CMOOIOOO
cn 01 cncoocoiDO
r r- CT> O 1 CO
i CO
CM r A
CM r- CM r- CO
i
CO r- CO CM «3-
1
1
CO CM f !
01 m CO co co r
10 10 co ic 10 ^*
CO CO i IO «3 00
.c
CJ1
a. -r-
c 3:
+ -c + +
U) CT-
v\ (O in cr. c
i 3S r- C >-
O O - J3
1- T3 !- S: J3 C
4-J 3 4-> CO 3 CU
c S c ro s- en
O O 3 0 >,
O O CO C CX
*- -a o o o s_
CO M- U) 3 U <- - CU
WUJlflE:''--*-' 4->U4->
CU QJ 4-J (O (a ro ro
0-CU .1^1- 1. r S
oc^o^-3Cu a>3
i. -r- i. v- ia c cu^
IXZO-UJO''- -t-CUcn
O O ' CU
- - - C C O t-
CM CO * t t « SI U_
E
CU 0)
4-> C
to i
: k
in
o
r
in
Ol
c
g"° ^
I 1
'
QJ
c
-M
C"
o
t-
4-
00 w
§ § *
CSJ CVJ >
OJ
.c
i
trt
QJ
« c: m
-r- Ol
OJ -^
. (U
QU t/)
CJ E
c s~
O QJ QJ 4-
r- > -C O
-t-> ro *->
i- TO C
o> i- -a co
-0 OJ QJ -r- -,-
-Q C ' 4-J
S- U *O OJ O
U C S_ C CL
C/l i_»t 4_j t-
C 3 CO
O J3CK
en u i
C C -D
r- 3 CUT3
c E Ol
0- E 3 c
r- O CO L.
cu
U
o
U
CO
ct:
UJ O
I <-> C
O) fO i
r V- -r-
Q. O i^
i- a.
>-> ,
O l/>
V
t/i i-
C -C
V- 3:
CO
o
3 C
cr o
1 J-J
fO
_i^ T3
(J -r-
>
O 00
f^
o
-4->
U
QJ
CO
r- (O Q>
C-4
-------
, o
en o
01
vo
O o
in o
1- -o
QJ CU
Q.O:
c
o
i- CM
i-
4-J C
C 13
C O S- X
(U (_> 01 fO
~
o
CM
cr* i vo
If)
01
U i
c
O'
i- 01
4-> CD
to as
i- S-
4-> CU
c >
OJ
O O O O O O
co co en 01 10 *O
*r «j- oj oj
o o
OJ CM
CU
>
Ol
[I
ex
c
o
J5 £ z
C i
o
u
c
I/I
CU
C ul
-i- CD
CU
CU U7
E CU
r- -C
.C O
-M
C O
CJ -f- r-
TJ S-
CU O
£a
(U *O
r S-
O- O
r- Q.
o
Z5
C3-
TD
>-
3 X
O
O S-
r- (O QJ
to £
C O»
QJ 4->
"O t/1
-p
o c
w 3 Cu
CU , >
l/l o
ro c o
C3-,- Z
C-5
-------
to
I
«J
o
+* 'r~
C 4-»
(U U
U 3
* -rt
> ^3
S-
C: IO t+-
01
0 T=>
0 0)
1
CO
Ol
a
c
_c
Ol
t
0
S-
4-1
c:
o
O
01
u
S-
o
oo
0 O
vo en
en en
oo oo
CM CM
in o
l-» CM
o in
00 «*
in in
O t~~
CO
0 0
r-. CM
in in
00 00
^ JI
E E
a. a.
a. CL
o
CM LO
0 0
i i
m ca
a;
o
ra
C
3
U.
£_
ttl
>
O
u
Ol
a:
en c
S g
r*
ro i
,
in
CM
ro
in
0
CO
oo
j:
0 C
CO
on
CM
CM
0 C
8 g
en o
CM O
C
c
4-
S- re
(y S.
J3 C
i- <_
U C
OO i
i-
01
4-1
in
01
a>
a
> 00 C
I 51 c
r
^
in
f*^
in
CM
CM
£.
5 O C
5
3 O C
3 in u
3 r~ r-
t% in u
j
c
c
r-
4-
S- 1C
41 S.
j2 a
.0 c
3 -r-
l- <_
u c
4 OO *
4->
U
Ol
4-
11- »-
LU O
1 t->
01 *o
r i.
n. o
"- O-
>
3 OU
s:
3 O CO
5 in co
i i-* en
« r
CM IO
I IO r
ro 00
00 CM
CO CM
in en
CM
300
CM CO
CO
3 O O
i oo oo
*. CM CM
> w r
£-'
+ -E
in
(/) 01 rc(
r r 3
£ £ T,
C C E
0 0
<_) O
H-
(/l VI 4-
l/l w i i
oi ai
0 0 -C
£ £ .°'
Q- Q- 3^
^~ C\t
C
(^
*^x
ai
E
_J
en
vo
en
r
co
en
^
r~
r
O
o
CO
CM
-
en
-p
+ +
in D"'
» c:
O !-
i. j:
O 3
o
-o
t^ s;
01
0
O "4-
S- H-
a_ uj
(vj
ro
CO
en
*»
ro
en
rf
r**
ro
in
in
01
c.
_Q
J3
i.
U
00 C
o
u -*-
I 4_>
4-1 -i-
u
c:
E
ai
4-J
s^ y)
U >>
O oo
4-)
00 S-
C -C
O ro
oa "^
O C
0 C
CO C
r"
LT> 1
CM
in ,
r+>
^
n-
ro
CO
c
g c
O C
CT\ a
^- ^
c
1
c >
o c
-M i
S- T-
c: ^
- c
U r-
c c
1 r ^
§
4->
I/)
I- 00
O
3 C
o- o
1 4-1
ft)
U -r-
i O
m
> in
00
ro
t
*>
CM
en
ro
3 in
o
3 0
? S
Tl
»,
<
5 !-
a.
4J
C ro
- 3
J -C
U in
Ol
D !-
~ LU
01
C
o
in
t/)
O
01 TO
e t-
00
o c
o c
in c
i^
in
CM
I
o
r~
0
IO
s»-
JS
8 c
in
O
O C
8 g
CM C>
c
c
4
S- n
Ol :
-a !
3 -r
&- I
O «
OO i-
C"
c
a
a.
i-
00
Ol
<0
w E
C 01
Ol 4->
"X3 V)
C ^
O t-0
o
)
>
>
3
>
J
(U
>
O)
o
(O
: s_
3 OJ
>
-> (O
a
o
u cu
J O
r t.
H -*->
c
o
u
c
3
E
s-
M~
C
o
«l
+J
(J
Z3
-o
O)
ct:
ro
c
»
^^
E
i
^~
OJ
c:
^
o
t.
t-
in
QJ
>
QJ
CJ
f
t/1
OJ
C IA
- cn
^^
CD
QJ (/l
" -f
r 4^
O> M-
C O
4-J
C
C O
4-J
TD i-
Q> O
c a.
3 CO
.0 (X
h-
TJ
aj -o
e a>
3 C
Irt V- l^
w 3
rt5 jQ i/t
C TO
CU 3 O)
i-
ro aj 4j~»
"O cr
'is QJ
Or- >
t/1 (J
TO C O
CD £
J=) o
C-6
-------
2S
5: LU
<-o
c
o
C -M
QJ U
(-> 3
s- -o
OJ QJ
Q_ OC
! o-f-j e
U CT i-
c: o 5^ x
OJ CJ GJ ^
CT<*~ rr]
OJ O OJ C.)
«- s^ _c
i i- S-x' LD -*-°
! o
j
CXJ
ro -
£ E
en ^ -
I CJ -
Or-
= fc
o -"So
-u o~>i o
£ £ o^
4-J QJ i-
C > 4-
U G<
C S- 0 0
o 13 cr .
v..; C ti o
-c: 4-j
QJ C Q ro
r- O
_c ' o
£.
E -U -^
, rt ,
r- li>
X } i~O
rn (
s ^°
H-J G'
jc
u 'oJ
c >
CD OJ
I 1
1/1
QJ
Z3
CT
C
JT
QJ
J
O
4-1
C
O
CJ>
QJ
U
S~
ZJ
O
uH
OOOOCOOOCO CT. CO OO
VOCnCMO' OLOCO U3 'd' OO
CT»cnc\iOO">or-»cr* c^ cr» coo
CO CO m 1 *3- i r r~ *& LOJ
C\J CM OO Csl
«&- ^O * *O^LO CM ^A
CM '< *> r T
OJ UD CO O"> OJ
CM
r^«d"O ro r^~. \£> ro *d-tn
LO i «3- LO C\J
VO
i
r
r-^ «^- LO O ^J- CTi ^1- O
rr> c\J r** cr> ro
LO
CM
^1 JD U
Oi-^.oo':3~oilo*d' CM CM oo
LOCOCM LO CTlCM i r CO
< O i
^
OOOOuOLOLOLO LO LO OO
Lntnoor^rxcoco co rs LOLO
r^r-.oor^r^.nro ro i i r
c, co Cn en _ r-
J=
CTi
a^ -r-
c 3r
+ -d + +
^ en
i/l l/l «3 t/l C; C
O O O T- J3
s- i- -o s- -c: X3 c
c: c s: c ro s- en
o o o -5 (j >!
- *"- C C CJ> (_l CJ tylC CX
FE O O 4-TD OOO
O. Q. -r- T- i/l o q- tfl 3 U -i- -i-
S^rdS~n3QJCiJ CD -t-»n3 r0Ojr:u -LnS- S^r
c\jLn_aajjDcuQoaott-;3aj curi
- - -Od_aCi-$-"'-s-4-roc: cu
IS r 3 -i Q, D- in D- LiJ 0 r < QJ
OO^-US-O UOr
' i u c: u c - - ^ - - ceo
CQCQ'-O' (oOi ii CNJ OO i ( '^
E
QJ CD
U -M 4_J
to u E in
c: QJ cu >,
S~ 4- 4-> S- CO
-3 <*- S- ^^ tn o
Lu LU O U >, 3 d
i -t-1 c: o to CT o
>> S- QJ H3 i +Jr-r-
S- QJ r i- -r- LOS^_J4-J
LO T- Q- ' SZ -C -^ ~O
O CD -MraQJ ^L/IU'i
(-J Chi >E OfD'DX
CJ -i- r3UJ-r- S-^i O
rf" (T71 ^~ j xv* f^t
LO
r-
CO
CO
en
CM
CM
LO
LO
s-
OJ
JT3
_c-
on
cu
t-
u_
C.)
CI
>
0
t/)
LO
o
, ^
OJ ro
E t
o c
o c
LO C
r
to
CM
/
0
LO
CNJ
o
^f
J3
o c
ro
CO
o c
o c
~
en
c:
a.
CL
S-
-M
CO
a>
t;
ui E:
C QJ
QJ +J
"O l/l
c >,
O CO
g
C-7
-------
o oo o
CT* I" C3
C*> CM O
0
0
CO
CM
CO
VO
O O
oo o
o o
IT) O
!- -O
OJ O)
0.0:
o
i-CVJ
1 £51
&g*^
C O i- X
Q)VJ O) "O
3 +j r~
CT1- IO
01 o 01 o>
i_ i.
O^ C*l 00
CM CM «3-
OO
1
u
IU
a:
»
>-
z: «S
0 Q
OO OO
UJ 5
C£ OC
= S5
o
00 CO
=3 _J
° <:~"
is*
> Oa.
CC _J
UJ LL-=3
31 Q.
( Z
Oh-
13 f'u.
z t"1
<3l
en
3.
C
O *
i- 01
IO IB
i- s-
4-> Ol
C >
Ol IO
o
c s-
O 3
<-> O
-C
O) CM
f>
E
X
10
0
CM
I
_^
m
o>
Or-
I,
3
O
OO
o
f
OJ
c
IO O
H
on
o
ol
Ol
ro
00
i-
c
Or-
U O>
c >
3 0)
U, » O
1X3 C\J r
ooootnoo in
OOOLO
00 i
ir>ooir>ir>o
vovoi-Nr-r^i~.eo
O* O* OO OO f f
§
o
CO
8 8
n <*>
;sS
j txx:
o z:
^s
§1
*!
Sfe
S UJ
S5
1
E E
O. Q-
0. CL
O
CM ID
CD O
I _J
CQ O3
01
O
IO
C
S-
13
U-
t_
>
o
o
(U
ce
c
o
4->
t- IO
0) t-
J3 Ot
s- u
o c
00 -!
S-
O)
4->
Ul
(U
cr.
o
&.
0)
_Q
_Q
C3
V.
U
00
M
U
01
M-
<4-
U-l
1
Ol
Q.
r^
z:
o
+j
«
s~
UJ
tfl
o
t.
+J
c
o
o
(/)
OJ
u
o
i-
£X
f
c
.,
E
J
+
wi
£
4->
C=
O
<_3
V}
tst
Ol
0
o
i_
Q_
CM
CJ.
C
J=
w
10
3
T3
3
S
V-
t-
UJ
JZ
CJ
-C
cn
^1
+
VI
£
*-»
C
O
C_J
(/)
OJ
u
o
S-
Q_
ro
+
0>
c
"^
v>
fD
3
-o
3
^
M-
**-
LU
CJ-
C
^
3
s-
u
(/>
u
+>
t/1
3
rtJ
O
C
o
4J
rtl
i.
O>
C
o
c
t
QJ
+J
U >,
o on
-»->
cu
c .c
o «
t. s
CD
c
CD
C X
o o
-M S-
rt3 IT3
C U
U r
c o
*-. E:
E
>.
S- LO
O
15 C
o~ o
1 -j-J
fO
U T-
(0 X
r- O
CO
1_
OJ
4J
*O
-c:
w
CU
i.
LU
cn
c
>
o
(/I
Q
4-J "-^
r C
CU *O
E »
LO
i_
o>
^3
S_
U
CO
CT'
d
a
a.
t-
4->
00
CU
4-*
(O
(/>
C
CJ
"O
^
p
c
o
-M
(Q
L.
CU
u
c
c
cu
M
(A
>,
uo
CU
>
ro
-o
CU
O
+->
C
o
u
c
3
E
S-
4-
c
o
I
4->
U
n
o
OJ
rtJ
-C
1
t/1
. ai
^ V|
r- D»
^>:
CU
a.' to
& cu
i +J
cu ^-
-C O
4_)
c
c c
"O S-
cu o
^.
^ tn
JD a:
1
o
CJ-D
E cu
§ c
IA i-
lO 3
rtJ J3
c
i-
ro cu
i/i 3
cu
(/I U
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. BbPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Kraft Pulping - Control of TRS Emissions from Existing
Mills
5. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
*:. SPONSORING AGENCY N'AWc AND ADOR533
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COD6
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This document discusses the guidelines for existing mills and the resulting
environmental and economic effects.
16. ABSTRACT
Guidelines to aid the States in their preparation of plans for the control of
emissions of total reduced sulfur (TRS) from existing kraft pulp mills are being
published under the authority of section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. TRS
emissions from kraft pulp mills are extremely odorous, and there are numerous
instances of poorly controlled mills creating public odor problems. Adoption of
these emission guidelines by the States would result in an overall reduction of
about 80 percent in nationwide TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution
Pollution control
Kraft pulp mills
Total reduced sulfur
Particulate matter
Emission guidelines
Air pollution control
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
210
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------