3EPA
                         450AP425ED
      United States
      Environmental Protection
      Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
AP-42
Fifth Edition
January 1995
      Air
           COMPILATION
                  OF
          AIR POLLUTANT
        EMISSION FACTORS
               VOLUME I:
           STATIONARY POINT
           AND AREA SOURCES
             FIFTH EDITION

-------

-------
                                         NOTICE
    The Emission Factor And Inventory Group (EFIG) has been working for several months on this
Fifth Edition of AP-42. It is the result of a major technical undertaking by EFIG's AP-42 Team and
the several contractors who assisted. This document represents a substantial step toward complying
with Section 130 of the Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1990, which direct the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency to review and revise its air pollutant emission factors every three years. Although
such updating is required only for ozone-related pollutants  (total organic compounds, oxides of
nitrogen, and carbon monoxide), the AP-42 Team has also addressed the other criteria pollutants,
hazardous pollutants, global warming gases and speciation information, where data are available.
Sections of AP-42 are continuously being developed, reviewed and/or updated.


    Even though there are significant additions and improvements in this book, many data gaps and
uncertainties still exist All readers and users of AP-42 are asked to provide comments, test data, and
any other information for our evaluation and possible use to improve future updates.


    Users familiar with this document may notice changes in factor quality ratings, specifically that
some  factors, although unchanged or supported by even newer and more extensive data, are rated
lower in quality than previously in the AP-42 series.  This is attributable to the adoption of more
consistent and stringently applied rating criteria.  There are some factors in this edition with lower
ratings than previously, but they are believed to represent appropriate estimates.  AP-42 emission
factors are truly for estimation purposes and are no substitute for exact measurements taken at a
source.


    Users should especially note this edition's  expanded "Introduction", for its information on
pollutant definition, factor limitations, the factor rating system, and cautionary notes on the use of
factors for anything other than emission estimation and inventory and approximation purposes.


    In addition to print, the AP^2 series is available in several other media.  The Air CHIEF compact
disc (CD-ROM), with AP-42 and other hazardous air pollutant emission estimation reports and data
bases, can be purchased from the Government  Printing Office.  Also, The CHIEF electronic bulletin
board (by modem, 919-541-5742) posts the latest AP-42  and other reports and tools before they are
available on paper.  Final sections of AP-42 can be obtained quickly from our automatic Fax CHIEF
service (919-541-5626 or -0548).  These last two media operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
If you have questions or need further information on these tools or other aspects of emission
estimation, call our help line, Info CHIEF, at 919-541-5285, during regular office hours, eastern time.


    If you have factor needs, new data, questions, or suggestions, please send them to the address
below.  You may also ask for a free subscription to The CHIEF, our  quarterly newsletter (also on the
electronic bulletin board and Fax CHIEF).  Our abilities to respond  to individual questions often get
impinged by time and resource constraints and the  sheer volume of requests, so please use the above
capabilities and tools whenever possible.  Though we are a client-oriented organization, we have
neither staff nor structure to provide engineering support.
                                    AP-42 Team (MD 14)
                             Emission Factor And Inventory Group
                         Emissions, Monitoring, And Analysis Division
                         Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
                            U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              Research Triangle Park,  NC  27711

-------

-------
                           AP-42
                       FIFTH EDITION
                       JANUARY 1995
   COMPILATION
         OF
  AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS
     VOLUME I:
 STATIONARY POINT
 AND AREA SOURCES
    Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
       Office Of Air And Radiation
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

         January 1995

-------
This report has been reviewed by  the  Office Of Air  Quality Planning And Standards,  U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication.  Any mention of trade
names or commercial products is not  intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                         AP-42
                                       Fifth Edition
                                        Volume I
                                            11

-------
                                      CONTENTS

                                                                                         Page
INTRODUCTION   	1

1.  EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES  	  1.0-1
    1.1       Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion  	  1.1-1
    1.2       Anthracite Coal Combustion	  1.2-1
    1.3       Fuel Oil Combustion   	  1.3-1
    1.4       Natural Gas Combustion  	  1.4-1
    1.5       Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion  	  1.5-1
    1.6       Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers  	  1.6-1
    1.7       Lignite Combustion  	  1.7-1
    1.8       Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills  	  1.8-1
    1.9       Residential Fireplaces   	  1.9-1
    1.10      Residential Wood Stoves  	   1.10-1
    1.11      Waste Oil Combustion   	   1.11-1

2.  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL   	  2.0-1
    2.1       Refuse Combustion  	  2.1-1
    2.2       Sewage Sludge Incineration   	  2.2-1
    2.3       Medical Waste Incineration	  2.3-1
    2.4       Landfills  	  2.4-1
    2.5       Open Burning  	  2.5-1
    2.6       Automobile Body Incineration   	  2.6-1
    2.7       Conical Burners	  2.7-1

3.  STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES  	  3.0-1
    3.1       Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity Generation  	  3.1-1
    3.2       Heavy-duty Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines   	  3.2-1
    3.3       Gasoline And Diesel Industrial  Engines	  3.3-1
    3.4       Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines  	  3.4-1

4.  EVAPORATION Loss SOURCES 	  4.0-1
    4.1       Dry Cleaning  	  4.1-1
    4.2       Surface Coating    	  4.2-1
    4.2.1     Nonindustrial Surface Coating   	4.2.1-1
    4.2.2     Industrial Surface Coating   	4.2.2-1
    4.2.2.1   General Industrial Surface Coating  	4.2.2.1-1
    4.2.2.2   Can Coating   	4.2.2.2-1
    4.2.2.3   Magnet Wire Coating   	4.2.2.3-1
    4.2.2.4   Other Metal Coating	4.2.2.4-1
    4.2.2.5   Flat Wood Interior Panel Coating   	4.2.2.5-1
    4.2.2.6   Paper Coating	4.2.2.6-1
    4.2.2.7   Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates   	4.2.2.7-1
    4.2.2.8   Automobile And Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations	4.2.2.8-1
    4.2.2.9   Pressure Sensitive Tapes And Labels  	4.2.2.9-1
    4.2.2.10  Metal Coil Surface Coating   	4.2.2.10-1


1/95                                      Contents                                          iii

-------
    4.2.2.11   Large Appliance Surface Coating	4.2.2.11-1
    4.2.2.12   Metal Furniture Surface Coating  	4.2.2.12-1
    4.2.2.13   Magnetic Tape Manufacturing	4.2.2.13-1
    4.2.2.14   Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts For Business Machines   	4.2.2.14-1
    4.3        Waste Water Collection, Treatment And Storage  	  4.3-1
    4.4        Polyester Resin Plastic Products Fabrication	  4.4-1
    4.5        Asphalt Paving Operations  	  4.5-1
    4.6        Solvent Degreasing   	  4.6-1
    4.7        Waste Solvent Reclamation   	  4.7-1
    4.8        Tank And Drum Cleaning   	  4.8-1
    4.9        Graphic Arts   	  4.9-1
    4.9.1      General Graphic Printing 	4.9.1-1
    4.9.2      Publication  Gravure Printing	4.9.2-1
    4.10      Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use  	   4.10-1
    4.11      Textile Fabric Printing   	   4.11-1

5.  PETROLEUM INDUSTRY  	  5.0-1
    5.1        Petroleum Refining   	  5.1-1
    5.2        Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids   	  5.2-1
    5.3        Natural Gas Processing  	  5.3-1

6.  ORGANIC CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY  	  6.0-1
    6.1        Carbon Black	  6.1-1
    6.2        Adipic Acid	  6.2-1
    6.3        Explosives   	  6.3-1
    6.4        Paint And Varnish   	  6.4-1
    6.5        Phthalic  Anhydride  	  6.5-1
    6.6        Plastics   	  6.6-1
    6.6.1      Polyvinyl Chloride	6.6.1-1
    6.6.2      Polyethylene terephthalate)  	6.6.2-1
    6.6.3      Polystyrene  	6.6.3-1
    6.6.4      Polypropylene   	6.6.4-1
    6.7        Printing  Ink	  6.7-1
    6.8        Soap And Detergents   	  6.8-1
    6.9        Synthetic Fibers  	  6.9-1
    6.10      Synthetic Rubber  	, .   6.10-1
    6.11      Terephthalic  Acid  	   6.11-1
    6.12      Lead Alkyl  	   6.12-1
    6.13      Pharmaceuticals Production  	   6.13-1
    6.14      Maleic Anhydride  	   6.14-1
    6.15      Methanol	   6.15-1
    6.16      Acetone And Phenol   	   6.16-1
    6.17      Propylene  	   6.17-1
    6.18      Benzene, Toluene And Xylenes   	   6.18-1
    6.19      Butadiene  	   6.19-1
    6.20      Cumene   	   6.20-1
    6.21      Ethanol    	   6.21-1
    6.22      Ethyl Benzene  	   6.22-1
    6.23      Ethylene  	   6.23-1
    6.24      Ethylene Dichloride And Vinyl Chloride	   6.24-1
    6.25      Ethylene Glycol  	   6.25-1
IV
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
    6.26      Ethylene Oxide   	  6.26-1
    6.27      Formaldehyde   	  6.27-1
    6.28      Glycerine  	  6.28-1
    6.29      Isopropyl Alcohol  	  6.29-1

7.  LIQUID STORAGE TANKS	  7.0-1
    7.1        Organic Liquid Storage Tanks   	  7.1-1

8.  INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY	  8.0-1
    8.1        Synthetic Ammonia	  8.1-1
    8.2        Urea  	  8.2-1
    8.3        Ammonium Nitrate	  8.3-1
    8.4        Ammonium Sulfate	  8.4-1
    8.5        Phosphate Fertilizers  	  8.5-1
    8.5.1      Normal Superphosphates  	8.5.1-1
    8.5.2      Triple Superphosphates   	8.5.2-1
    8.5.3      Ammonium Phosphate	,  .  8.5.3-1
    8.6        Hydrochloric Acid	  8.6-1
    8.7        Hydrofluoric Acid  	  8.7-1
    8.8        Nitric Acid   	  8.8-1
    8.9        Phosphoric Acid   	  8.9-1
    8.10      Sulfuric Acid    	  8.10-1
    8.11      Chlor-Alkali  	  8.11-1
    8.12      Sodium Carbonate  	  8.12-1
    8.13      Sulfur Recovery	  8.13-1
    8.14      Hydrogen Cyanide  	  8.14-1

9.  FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES   	  9.0-1
    9.1        Tilling Operations	  9.1-1
    9.2        Growing Operations   	  9.2-1
    9.2.1      Fertilizer Application	9.2.1-1
    9.2.2      Pesticide Application  	9.2.2-1
    9.2.3      Orchard Heaters  	9.2.3-1
    9.3        Harvesting Operations   	  9.3-1
    9.3.1      Cotton Harvesting	9.3.1-1
    9.3.2      Grain Harvesting  	9.3.2-1
    9.3.3      Rice Harvesting  	9.3.3-1
    9.3.4      Cane Sugar Harvesting	9.3.4-1
    9.4        Livestock And Poultry Feed Operations  	  9.4-1
    9.4.1      Cattle Feedlots  	9.4.1-1
    9.4.2      Swine Feedlots	9.4.2-1
    9.4.3      Poultry Houses   	9.4.3-1
    9.4.4      Dairy Farms   	9.4.4-1
    9.5        Animal And Meat Products Preparation  	  9.5-1
    9.5.1      Meat Packing Plants   	9.5.1-1
    9.5.2      Meat Smokehouses  	9.5.2-1
    9.5.3      Meat Rendering Plants   	9.5.3-1
    9.5.4      Manure Processing  	9.5.4-1
    9.5.5      Poultry Slaughtering   	9.5.5-1
    9.6        Dairy Products	  9.6-1
    9.6.1      Natural And Processed Cheese   	9.6.1-1

1/95                                      Contents                                          v

-------
    9.7        Cotton Ginning   	  9.7-1
    9.8        Preserved Fruits And Vegetables   	  9.8-1
    9.8.1      Canned Fruits And Vegetables  	9.8.1-1
    9.8.2      Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables   	9.8.2-1
    9.8.3      Pickles, Sauces And Salad Dressings  	9.8.3-1
    9.9        Grain Processing  	  9.9-1
    9.9.1      Grain Elevators And Processes	9.9.1-1
    9.9.2      Cereal Breakfast Food  	9.9.2-1
    9.9.3      Pet Food   	9.9.3-1
    9.9.4      Alfalfa Dehydration	9.9.4-1
    9.9.5      Pasta Manufacturing   	9.9.5-1
    9.9.6      Bread Baking	9.9.6-1
    9.9.7      Corn Wet Milling  	9.9.7-1
    9.10       Confectionery Products   	   9.10-1
    9.10.1     Sugar Processing  	  9.10.1-1
    9.10.1.1   Cane Sugar Processing 	9.10.1.1-1
    9.10.1.2   Beet Sugar Processing  	9.10.1.2-1
    9.10.2     Salted And Roasted Nuts And Seeds  	9.10.2-1
    9.10.2.1   Almond Processing 	9.10.2.1-1
    9.10.2.2   Peanut Processing	9.10.2.2-1
    9.11       Fats And Oils   	   9.11-1
    9.11.1     Vegetable Oil Processing   	  9.11.1-1
    9.12       Beverages  	   9.12-1
    9.12.1     Malt Beverages   	  9.12.1-1
    9.12.2     Wines And Brandy  	  9.12.2-1
    9.12.3     Distilled And Blended Liquors 	  9.12.3-1
    9.13       Miscellaneous Food And Kindred Products  	   9.13-1
    9.13.1     Fish Processing   	  9.13.1-1
    9.13.2     Coffee Roasting	  9.13.2-1
    9.13.3     Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying  	  9.13.3-1
    9.13.4     Yeast Production  	9.13.4-1
    9.14       Tobacco Products  	   9.14-1
    9.15       Leather Tanning  	   9.15-1
    9.16       Agricultural  Wind Erosion   	   9.16-1

10. WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY	   10.0-1
    10.1       Lumber  	   10.1-1
    10.2       Chemical Wood Pulping  	   10.2-1
    10.3       Pulp Bleaching	   10.3-1
    10.4       Papermaking  	   10.4-1
    10.5       Plywood	   10.5-1
    10.6       Reconstituted Wood Products	   10.6-1
    10.6.1     Waferboard  And Oriented Strand Board  	  10.6.1-1
    10.6.2     Particleboard  	  10.6.2-1
    10.6.3     Medium Density Fiberboard  	  10.6.3-1
    10.7       Charcoal	   10.7-1
    10.8       Wood Preserving	   10.8-1

11. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	   11.0-1
    11.1     .  Hot Mix Asphalt Plants   	   11.1-1
    11.2       Asphalt Roofing  	   11.2-1
VI
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
    11.3       Bricks And Related Clay Products   	   11.3-1
    11.4       Calcium Carbide Manufacturing	   11.4-1
    11.5       Refractory Manufacturing  	   11.5-1
    11.6       Portland Cement Manufacturing  	   11.6-1
    11.7       Ceramic Clay Manufacturing  	   11.7-1
    11.8       Clay And Fly Ash Sintering   	   11.8-1
    11.9       Western Surface Coal Mining  	   11.9-1
    11.10      Coal Cleaning  	11.10-1
    11.11      Coal Conversion	11.11-1
    11.12      Concrete Batching	11.12-1
    11.13      Glass Fiber Manufacturing   	11.13-1
    11.14      Frit Manufacturing	  11.14-1
    11.15      Glass Manufacturing   	11.15-1
    11.16      Gypsum Manufacturing   	11.16-1
    11.17      Lime Manufacturing   	11.17-1
    11.18      Mineral Wool Manufacturing	11.18-1
    11.19      Construction Aggregate Processing   	11.19-1
    11.19.1    Sand And Gravel Processing  	   11.19.1-1
    11.19.2    Crushed Stone Processing  	   11.19.2-1
    11.20      Lightweight Aggregate Manufacturing  	11.20-1
    11.21      Phosphate Rock Processing   	11.21-1
    11.22      Diatomite Processing  	11.22-1
    11.23      Taconite Ore Processing	11.23-1
    11.24      Metallic Minerals Processing  	11.24-1
    11.25      Clay Processing  	11.25-1
    11.26      Talc Processing  	11.26-1
    11.27      Feldspar Processing	11.27-1
    11.28      Vermiculite Processing	11.28-1
    11.29      Alumina Manufacturing   	11.29-1
    11.30      Perlite Manufacturing   	11.30-1
    11.31      Abrasives Manufacturing	11.31-1

12. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY  	   12.0-1
    12.1       Primary Aluminum Production	   12.1-1
    12.2       Coke Production	   12.2-1
    12.3       Primary Copper Smelting  	   12.3-1
    12.4       Ferroalloy Production   	   12.4-1
    12.5       Iron And Steel Production	   12.5-1
    12.6       Primary Lead Smelting    	   12.6-1
    12.7       Zinc Smelting  	   12.7-1
    12.8       Secondary Aluminum Operations   	   12.8-1
    12.9       Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying   	   12.9-1
    12.10      Gray Iron Foundries  	12.10-1
    12.11      Secondary Lead Processing   	12.11-1
    12.12      Secondary Magnesium Smelting  	12.12-1
    12.13      Steel Foundries	12.13-1
    12.14      Secondary Zinc Processing   	12.14-1
    12.15      Storage Battery Production   	12.15-1
    12.16      Lead Oxide And Pigment Production  	12.16-1
    12.17      Miscellaneous Lead Products  	12.17-1
1/95                                      Contents                                         vii

-------
     12.18      Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding   	12.18-1
     12.19      Electric Arc Welding	12.19-1

13.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES  	   13.0-1
     13.1       Wildfires And Prescribed Burning	   13.1-
     13.2       Fugitive Dust Sources	   13.2-
     13.2.1     Paved Roads 	  13.2.1-
     13.2.2     Unpaved Roads   	  13.2.2-
     13.2.3     Heavy Construction Operations  	  13.2.3-
     13.2.4     Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles	  13.2.4-
     13.2.5     Industrial Wind  Erosion  	  13.2.5-
     13.3       Explosives Detonation   	   13.3-
     13.4       Wet Cooling Towers   	   13.4-1
     13.5       Industrial Flares 	   13.5-1

APPENDIX A
    Miscellaneous Data And  Conversion Factors  	A-l

APPENDIX B.I
    Particle Size Distribution Data And Sized Emission Factors For Selected Sources	B.l-1

APPENDIX B.2
    Generalized Particle Size Distributions	B.2-1

APPENDK C.I
    Procedures For Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading   	C.l-1

APPENDIX C.2
    Procedures For Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples  	C.2-1
via
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
                                KEY WORD INDEX

                                                                                Chapter/Section

Abrasives Manufacturing  	11.31
Acetone And Phenol	6.16
Acid
  Adipic  	  6.2
  Hydrochloric   	  8.6
  Hydrofluoric   	  8.7
  Nitric	  8.8
  Phosphoric   	  8.9
  Sulfuric  	8.10
  Terephthalic   	6.11
Adipic Acid	  6.2
Aggregate Handling  	  13.2.4
Aggregate Manufacturing, Lightweight  	11.20
Aggregate Processing, Construction  	11.19
Aggregate Storage Piles   	  13.2.4
Agricultural Industries  	  9.0
Agricultural Wind Erosion	9.16
Alcohol, Isopropyl 	6.29
Alfalfa Dehydration  	  9.9.4
Alkali, Chlor-	8.11
Almond Processing   	  9.10.2.1
Alumina Manufacturing	11.29
Aluminum
  Operations,  Secondary  	12.8
  Production,  Primary  	12.1
Ammonia, Synthetic	  8.1
Ammonium Nitrate   	  8.3
Ammonium Phosphate  	  8.5.3
Ammonium Sulfate   	  8.4
Analysis, Surface/Bulk Dust Loading  	App. C.2
Anhydride,  Phthalic  	  6.5
Animal And Meat Products Preparation	  9.5
Anthracite Coal Combustion	  1.2
Appliance Surface Coating 	  4.2.2.11
Ash
  Fly Ash Sintering   	11.8
Asphalt
  Hot Mix Plants	11.1
  Paving  	  4.5
  Roofing  	11.2
Automobile Body Incineration  	  2.6
Automobile Surface Coating	4.2.2.8
1/95                                  Key Word Index                                     ix

-------
Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills   	  1.8
Baking, Bread	  9.9.6
Bark
  Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers  	  1.6
Batching, Concrete   	11.12
Battery Production, Storage  	12.15
Beet Sugar Processing   	  9.10.1.2
Benzene, Toluene And Xylenes  	6.18
Beverages   	9.12
  Brandy  	  9.12.2
  Liquors, Distilled And Blended   	  9.12.3
  Malt   	  9.12.1
  Wines   	  9.12.2
Bituminous Coal Combustion   	  1.1
Bleaching, Wood Pulp	10.3
Brandy	  9.12.2
Bread Baking  	  9.9.6
Bricks And Related Clay Products  	11.3
Bulk Material Analysis  Procedures	App. C.2
Bulk Material Sampling Procedures   	App. C.I
Burners, Conical (Teepee)   	  2.7
Burning, Open   	  2.5
Burning, Prescribed, And Wildfires   	13.1
Business Machines, Plastic Parts Coating	  4.2.2.14
Butadiene	6.19

Calcium Carbide Manufacturing  	11.4
Can Coating	4.2.2.2
Cane Sugar Processing   	  9.10.1.1
Canned Fruits And Vegetables   	  9.8.1
Carbon Black  	  6.1
Carbonate
  Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing   	8.12
Cattle Feedlots   	  9.4.1
Cement
  Portland Cement Manufacturing  	11.6
Ceramic Clay Manufacturing   	11.7
Cereal Breakfast Food	  9.9.2
Charcoal  	10.7
Cheese, Natural And Processed  .	  9.6.1
Chemical Wood Pulping   	10.2
Chemicals, Inorganic   	  8.0
Chemicals, Organic   	  6.0
Chlor-Alkali	8.11
Clay
  Bricks And Related Clay Products   	   11.3
  Ceramic Clay Manufacturing  	11.7
  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering   	11.8
  Clay Processing  	11.25
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
Cleaning
  Coal   	11.10
  Drum	   4.8
  Dry Cleaning  	   4.1
  Tank   	   4.8
Coal
  Anthracite Combustion  	   1.2
  Bituminous Combustion  	   1.1
  Cleaning	11.10
  Conversion   	11.11
  Subbituminous Combustion  	   1.1
  Surface Mining, Western   	11.9
Coating, Surface  	   4.2
  Appliance, Large   	  4.2.2.11
  Automobile And Light Duty Truck  	4.2.2.8
  Can  	4.2.2.2
  Fabric	4.2.2.7
  Flat Wood Interior Panel   	4.2.2.5
  Labels, Pressure Sensitive  	4.2.2.9
  Magnet Wire  	4.2.2.3
  Magnetic Tape  	  4.2.2.13
  Metal Coil	4.2.2.10
  Metal Furniture   	  4.2.2.12
  Metal, General	4.2.2.4
  Paper  	4.2.2.6
  Plastic Parts For Business Machines   	  4.2.2.14
  Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates	4.2.2.7
  Tapes, Pressure Sensitive   	4.2.2.9
Coffee Roasting  	   9.13.2
Coke Manufacturing	12.2
Collection, Waste Water   	   4.3
Combustion
  Anthracite Coal   	   1.2
  Bagasse, In Sugar Mills   	   1.8
  Bituminous Coal  	   1.1
  Fuel Oil   	   1.3
  Internal, Mobile   	  Vol. II
  Internal, Stationary   	   3.0
  Lignite  	   1.7
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas	   1.5
  Natural Gas   	   1.4
  Orchard Heaters   	  9.2.3
  Refuse  	   2.1
  Residential Fireplaces	   1.9
  Residential Wood  Stoves	1.10
  Subbituminous Coal	   1.1
  Waste Oil  	1.11
  Wood Waste In Boilers	   1.6
Compressors, Pipeline, Natural Gas Fired	   3.2
Concrete Batching   	11.12
Confectionery Products  	9.10

1/95                                   Key Word Index                                     xi

-------
Conical Burners   	  2.7
Construction Aggregate Processing	11.19
Construction Operations, Heavy   	  13.2.3
Conversion factors, units, etc. - Miscellaneous  	App. A
Cooling Towers, Wet  	13.4
Copper
  Alloying  	12.9
  Smelting, Primary	12.3
  Smelting, Secondary   	12.9
Corn Wet Milling   	  9.9.7
Cotton
  Ginning   	  9.7
  Harvesting	  9.3.1
Crushed Stone Processing   	11.19.2
Cumene    	6.20
Cyanide, Hydrogen  	8.14

Dairy Farms	  9.4.4
Dairy Products  	  9.6
Deep Fat Frying, Snack Chip  	  9.13.3
Degreasing, Solvent  	  4.6
Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables  	  9.8.2
Dehydration, Alfalfa	  9.9.4
Detergents
  Soap And Detergents  	  6.8
Detonation, Explosives  	13.3
Diatomite Processing   	11.22
Diesel Engines, Industrial   	  3.3
Diesel Engines, Stationary  	  3.4
Distilled And Blended Liquors   	  9.12.3
Drum Cleaning	  4.8
Dry Cleaning   	  4.1
Dual Fuel Engines, Stationary   	  3.4
Dust Loading Analysis, Surface/Bulk  	App. C.2
Dust Loading Sampling Procedures, Surface/Bulk   	App. C.I
Dust Sources, Fugitive  	13.2

Electric Arc Welding   	12.19
Electric Utility Power Plants, Gas  	  3.1
Electricity Generators,  Stationary Gas Turbine	  3.1
Erosion, Wind, Industrial	  13.2.5
Ethanol  	6.21
Ethyl Benzene   	6.22
Ethylene   	6.23
Ethylene Dichloride And Vinyl Chloride  	6.24
Ethylene Glycol   	6.25
Ethylene Oxide  	6.26
Evaporation Loss Sources   	  4.0
Explosives  	  6.3
Explosives Detonation   	13.3
External Combustion Sources  	  1.0
xu
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
Fabric Coating   	4.2.2.7
Fabric Printing, Textile	4.11
Fats, Cooking	9.11
Feedlots
  Cattle	  9.4.1
  Dairy Farms   	  9.4.4
  Poultry Houses	  9.4.3
  Swine	  9.4.2
Feldspar Processing  	11.27
Ferroalloy Production	12.4
Fertilizer Application	  9.2.1
Fertilizers
  Ammonium Phosphate  	  8.5.3
  Phosphate   	   8.5
Fiberboard, Medium Density   	   10.6.3
Fiber Manufacturing, Glass	11.13
Fibers, Synthetic  	   6.9
Fireplaces, Residential   	   1.9
Fires
  Forest Wildfires And Prescribed Burning   	13.1
Fish Processing	   9.13.1
Flares, Industrial  	13.5
Flat Wood Interior Panel Coating   	4.2.2.5
Fly Ash
  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering   	11.8
Food And Agricultural Industries   	   9.0
Food And Kindred Products, Miscellaneous	9.13
  Coffee Roasting  	   9.13.2
  Fish Processing	   9.13.1
  Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying	   9.13.3
  Yeast Production   	   9.13.4
Formaldehyde	6.27
Foundries
  Gray Iron   	12.10
  Steel  	12.13
Frit Manufacturing	11.14
Fruits, Preserved  	   9.8
  Canned	  9.8.1
  Dehydrated  	  9.8.2
Fuel Oil Combustion   	   1.3
Fugitive Dust Sources	13.2
Furniture Surface Coating, Metal	4.2.2.12

Gas  Combustion, Liquefied Petroleum   	   1.5
Gas, Natural
  Combustion  	   1.4
  Pipeline Compressors	   3.2
  Processing	   5.3
  Turbines, Electricity-generating   	   3.1
Gasoline/Diesel Industrial Engines  	   3.3
Ginning, Cotton   	   9.7


1/95                                    Key Word Index                                     xiii

-------
Glass Fiber Manufacturing	11.13
Glass Manufacturing   	11.15
Graphic Arts   	  4.9
  General Graphic Printing	  4.9.1
  Publication Gravure Printing	  4.9.2
Glycerine   	6.28
Grain
  Alfalfa Dehydration	  9.9.4
  Bread Baking	  9.9.6
  Cereal Breakfast Food	  9.9.2
  Corn Wet Milling  	  9.9.7
  Elevators And Processes  	  9.9.1
  Harvesting   	  9.3.2
  Pasta Manufacturing   	  9.9.5
  Pet Food	  9.9.3
  Processing	  9.9
Gravel Processing	11.19.1
Gray Iron Foundries	12.10
Growing Operations 	  9.2
Gypsum Manufacturing	11.16

Harvesting Operations   	  9.3
  Cotton Harvesting 	  9.3.1
  Grain Harvesting   	  9.3.2
  Rice Harvesting   	  9.3.3
  Sugar Cane Harvesting  	  9.3.4
Heaters, Orchard 	  9.2.3
Highway Vehicles	  Vol. II
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants	11.1
Hydrochloric Acid  	  8.6
Hydrofluoric Acid  	  8.7
Hydrogen Cyanide  	8.14

Incineration
  Automobile Body  	  2.6
  Medical Waste 	  2.3
  Open  Burning	  2.5
  Sewage Sludge 	  2.2
Industrial Engines, Gasoline And Diesel  	  3.3
Industrial Flares  	13.5
Industrial Surface Coating  	  4.2.2
Industrial Surface Coating, General   	4.2.2.1
Industrial Wind Erosion   	   13.2.5
Ink,  Printing   	  6.7
Inorganic Chemical  Industry	  8.0
Interior  Panel Coating, Flat Wood  	4.2.2.5
Internal Combustion Engines
  Highway Vehicle   	  Vol. II
  Off-highway Mobile	  Vol. II
  Off-highway Stationary	  3.0
xiv                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
Iron
  Gray Iron Foundries  	12.10
  Iron Production   	12.5
Isopropyl Alcohol   	6.29

Labels, Pressure Sensitive  	4.2.2.9
Landfills   	  2.4
Large Bore Engines   	  3.4
Lead
  Ore Crushing And Grinding   	12.18
  Processing, Secondary	12.11
  Products, Miscellaneous  	12.17
  Smelting, Primary  	12.6
Lead Alkyl  	6.12
Lead Oxide Production  	12.16
Lead Pigment Production	12.16
Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding	12.18
Leather Tanning   	9.15
Light Duty Truck Surface Coating  	4.2.2.8
Lightweight Aggregate Manufacturing  	11.20
Lignite Combustion   	  1.7
Lime Manufacturing	11.17
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion  	  1.5
Liquid Storage Tanks   	  7.0
Livestock Feed Operations  	  9.4
Lumber	10.1

Magnesium, Secondary Smelting  	12.12
Magnet Wire Coating   	4.2.2.3
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing	  4.2.2.13
Maleic Anhydride   	6.14
Malt Beverages  	  9.12.1
Manure Processing	 9.5.4
Marketing, Petroleum  Liquids   	  5.2
Meat Packing Plants   	 9.5.1
Meat Products Preparation  	  9.5
Meat Rendering Plants  	 9.5.3
Meat Smokehouses    	 9.5.2
Medical Waste Incineration  	  2.3
Metal Coating, General  	4.2.2.4
Metal Coil Surface Coating  	  4.2.2.10
Metal Furniture Surface Coating  	  4.2.2.12
Metallic Minerals Processing   	11.24
Metallurgical Industry	12.0
Methanol	6.15
Mineral Products Industry   	11.0
Mineral Wool Manufacturing   	11.18
Minerals Processing, Metallic  	11.24
Mining, Western Surface Coal   	11.9
Miscellaneous Sources   	13.0
1/95                                   Key Word Index                                     xv

-------
Mobile Sources
  Highway	  Vol. n
  Off-highway	  Vol. H

Natural And Processed Cheese  	  9.6.1
Natural Gas Combustion   	   1.4
Natural Gas Fired Pipeline Compressors	   3.2
Natural Gas Processing  	   5.3
Nitric Acid Manufacturing  	   8.8
Nonindustrial Surface Coating   	  4.2.1
Normal Superphosphates   	  8.5.1
Nuts And Seeds, Salted And Roasted  	  9.10.2
  Almond Processing  	 9.10.2.1
  Peanut Processing   	 9.10.2.2

Off-highway Mobile Sources   	  Vol. n
Off-highway Stationary Sources   	   3.0
Oil
  Fuel Oil Combustion  	   1.3
  Waste Oil Combustion   	1.11
Oils, Cooking	9.11
  Vegetable Oil Processing  	  9.11.1
Open Burning	   2.5
Orchard Heaters	  9.2.3
Ore Processing
  Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding   	12.18
  Taconite  	11.23
Organic Chemical Process Industry   	   6.0
Organic Liquid Storage Tanks   	   7.1
Oriented  Strand Board  	  10.6.1

Paint And Varnish  	   6.4
Panel Coating, Flat Wood Interior  	4.2.2.5
Paper Coating	4.2.2.6
Papermaking	10.4
Particleboard   	  10.6.2
Particle size distribution data, factors, generalized   	App. B.2
Particle size distribution data, factors, selected   	App. B. 1
Pasta Manufacturing	  9.9.5
Paved Roads	  13.2.1
Paving, Asphalt  	   4.5
Peanut Processing   	 9.10.2.2
Perlite Manufacturing	11.30
Pesticide Application   	  9.2.2
Pet Food  	  9.9.3
Petroleum
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion	   1.5
  Liquids, Transportation And Marketing  	   5.2
  Refining  	•	   5.1
  Storage Of Organic Liquids  	   7.1
Petroleum Industry    	   5.0
xvi
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
 Pharmaceuticals Production  	6.13
 Phenol   	6.16
 Phosphate, Ammonium  	  8.5.3
 Phosphate Fertilizers	  8.5
 Phosphate Rock Processing  	11.21
 Phosphoric Acid  	  8.9
 Phthalic Anhydride   	  6.5
 Pickles   	  9.8.3
 Pigment
  Lead Oxide And Pigment Production  	12.16
 Pipeline Compressors, Natural Gas Fired   	  3.2
 Plastic Part Surface Coating,  Business Machine	4.2.2.14
 Plastics   	  6.6
 Plywood  	10.5
 Polyester Resin Plastic Products Fabrication	  4.4
 Poly(ethylene terephthalate)  	  6.6.2
 Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates   	4.2.2.7
 Polypropylene	  6.6.4
 Polystyrene   	6.6.3
 Polyvinyl Chloride	6.6.1
 Portland Cement Manufacturing   	11.6
 Poultry Feed Operations   	  9.4
 Poultry Houses  	  9.4.3
 Poultry Slaughtering	,	  9.5.5
 Prescribed Burning, Wildfires And  	13.1
 Preserved Fruits And Vegetables  	  9.8
 Preserving, Wood   	10.8
 Printing, General Graphic	  4.9.1
 Printing, Publication Gravure  	  4.9.2
 Printing, Textile Fabric	4.11
 Printing Ink   	  6.7
 Processed Cheese  	  9.6.1
 Propylene  	6.17
 Pulp Bleaching, Wood   	10.3
 Pulping, Chemical Wood	10.2

 Reclamation, Waste Solvent   	  4.7
 Reconstituted Wood Products  	10.6
 Recovery, Sulfur	8.13
 Refining, Petroleum   	  5.1
 Refractory Manufacturing  	11.5
 Refuse Combustion   	  2.1
 Rendering Plants, Meat	  9.5.3
 Residential Fireplaces  	  1.9
 Resin, Polyester,  Plastic Product Fabrication   	  4.4
 Rice Harvesting   	  9.3.3
 Roads
  Paved	  13.2.1
  Unpaved  	  13.2.2
Roasted Nuts And Seeds  	  9.10.2
Roasting, Coffee  	  9.13.2

 1/95                                   Key Word Index                                    xvii

-------
Rock Processing, Phosphate  	. .  11.21
Roofing, Asphalt  	..11.2
Rubber, Synthetic   	6.10

Salad Dressings	  9.8.3
Salted And Roasted Nuts And Seeds	  9.10.2
  Almond Processing  	  9.10.2.1
  Peanut Processing  	  9.10.2.2
Sampling, Surface/Bulk Loading  	App. C.I
Sand And Gravel Processing   	11.19.1
Sauces   	  9.8.3
Seeds, Salted And Roasted	  9.10.2
Sewage Sludge Incineration  	  2.2
Sized emission factors, generalized   	App. B.2
Sized emission factors, selected	App. B.I
Smelting
  Primary Copper   	12.3
  Primary Lead	12.6
  Secondary Copper Smelting And Alloying	12.9
  Secondary Magnesium	12.12
  Zinc	12.7
Smokehouses, Meat   	  9.5.2
Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying   	  9.13.3
Soap And Detergent Manufacturing  	,	  6.8
Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing  	8.12
Solid Waste Disposal  	  2.0
Solvent
  Commercial/Consumer Use 	4.10
  Degreasing  	  4.6
  Waste, Reclamation  	  4.7
Stationary Gas Turbines   	  3.1
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Off-highway	  3.0
Steel
  Foundries	  12.13
  Production  	12.5
Stone Processing, Crushed 	11.19.2
Storage, Waste Water  	  4.3
Storage Battery Production	12.15
Storage Piles, Aggregate	  13.2.4
Storage Tanks, Liquid   	  7.0
  Organic Liquid Storage Tanks   	  7.1
Subbituminous Coal Combustion  	  1.1
Substrates, Supporting, Polymeric Coating Of	4.2.2.7
Sugar Harvesting, Cane   	  9.3.4
Sugar Mills, Bagasse Combustion In    	  1.8
Sugar Processing  	  9.10.1
Sugar Processing, Beet  	  9.10.1.2
Sugar Processing, Cane	  9.10.1.1
Sulfur Recovery   	8.13
Sulfuric Acid  	8.10
Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Analysis    	App. C.2
xvni
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Sampling Procedures	App. C. 1
Surface Coal Mining, Western   	11.9
Surface Coating   	  4.2
Surface Coating, Industrial	 4.2.2
Surface Coating, Nonindustrial   	 4.2.1
Surface Material Analysis Procedures  	App. C.2
Surface Material Sampling Procedures   	App. C.I
Swine Feedlots  	 9.4.2
Synthetic Ammonia   	  8.1
Synthetic Fibers   	  6.9
Synthetic Rubber  	6.10

Taconite Ore Processing  	11.23
Talc Processing	11.26
Tank And Drum Cleaning  	  4.8
Tape, Magnetic, Manufacturing	 4.2.2.13
Tapes And Labels, Pressure Sensitive  	4.2.2.9
Teepee  (Conical) Burners  	  2.7
Terephthalic Acid   	6.11
Textile Fabric Printing   	4.11
Tilling Operations  	  9.1
Tobacco Products   	9.14
Toluene   	6.18
Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids   	  5.2
Treatment, Waste Water  	  4.3
Triple Superphosphates   	 8.5.2
Truck, Light Duty, Surface Coating,	4.2.2.8
Turbines, Natural Gas Fired	  3.1

Unpaved Roads  	   13.2.2
Urea	  8.2

Varnish
  Paint And Varnish Manufacturing	  6.4
Vegetable Oil Processing	  9.11.1
Vegetables, Canned   	 9.8.1
Vegetables, Dehydrated	 9.8.2
Vegetables, Preserved	  9.8
Vehicles, Highway And  Off-highway  	  Vol. II
Vermiculite Processing	11.28
Vinyl Chloride	6.24

Waferboard  	   10.6.1
Waste Disposal, Solid	  2.0
Waste Oil Combustion   	1.11
Waste Solvent Reclamation   	  4.7
Waste Water Collection, Treatment and Storage   	  4.3
Welding, Electric Arc	12.19
Wet Cooling Towers  	13.4
Wet Milling, Corn  	,	 9.9.7
Wildfires  	13.1

1/95                                   Key Word Index                                     xix

-------
Wind Erosion
  Agricultural  	9.16
  Industrial   	  13.2.5
Wines	  9.12.2
Wire Coating, Magnet   	4.2.2.3
Wood
  Charcoal  	10.7
  Flat Interior Panel Coating  	4.2.2.5
  Lumber  	10.1
  Medium Density Fiberboard   	  10.6.3
  Oriented Strand Board  	  10.6.1
  Papermaking   	10.4
  Particleboard   	  10.6.2
  Plywood  	10.5
  Pulp Bleaching  	10.3
  Pulping, Chemical	10.2
  Reconstituted Wood Products  	10.6
  Stoves   	1.10
  Waferboard    	  10.6.1
  Waste Combustion In Boilers  	  1.6
  Wood Preserving   	10.8
Wood Products Industry  	10.0

Xylenes	6.18

Yeast Production  	  9.13.4

Zinc
  Processing, Secondary	12.14
  Smelting  	12.7
xx
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
                                    INTRODUCTION
       Emission factors and emission inventories have long been fundamental tools for air quality
management.  Emission estimates are important for developing emission control strategies,
determining applicability of permitting  and control programs, ascertaining the effects of sources and
appropriate mitigation strategies, and a number of other related applications by an array of users,
including federal, state, and local agencies, consultants,  and industry. Data from source-specific
emission tests or continuous emission monitors are usually preferred for estimating a source's
emissions because those data provide the best representation of the tested source's emissions.
However, test data from individual sources are not always available and,  even then, they may not
reflect the variability of actual emissions over time.  Thus, emission factors are frequently the best or
only method available for  estimating emissions, in spite of their limitations.

       The passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1990 (CAAA) and the Emergency Planning
And Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 has increased the need for both criteria and
Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission factors and inventories.  The Emission Factor And Inventory
Group (EFIG), in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office Of Air Quality
Planning And Standards (OAQPS), develops and maintains emission estimating tools to support the
many activities mentioned above. The AP-42 series is the principal means by which EFIG can
document its emission factors. These factors are cited in numerous other EPA publications and
electronic data bases, but without the process details and supporting reference material provided in
AP-42.

What Is An  AP-42 Emission Factor?

       An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant
released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors
are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance, or
duration of the activity emitting the pollutant (e. g., kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of
coal burned).  Such factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution. In
most cases,  these factors are simply averages of all  available data of acceptable quality, and are
generally assumed to be representative  of long-term averages for all facilities in the source category
(i. e., a population average).

       The general equation for emission estimation is:

                                   E =  A x EF x (l-ER/100)
       where:

               E  = emissions,
               A  = activity rate,
               EF = emission factor,  and
               ER = overall emission reduction efficiency, %.

ER is further defined as the product of the control device destruction or removal efficiency and the
capture efficiency of the control system.  When estimating emissions for a long time period

1/95                                      Introduction                                         1

-------
(e. g., one year), both the device and the capture efficiency terms should account for upset periods as
well as routine operations.

       Emission factor ratings in AP-42 (discussed below) provide indications of the robustness, or
appropriateness, of emission factors for estimating average emissions for a source activity.  Usually,
data are insufficient to indicate the influence of various process parameters such as temperature and
reactant concentrations.  For a few cases, however, such as in estimating emissions from petroleum
storage tanks, this  document contains empirical formulae (or emission models) that relate emissions to
variables such as tank diameter, liquid temperature, and wind velocity. Emission factor formulae that
account for the influence of such variables tend to yield more realistic estimates than would factors
that do not consider those parameters.

       The  extent of completeness and detail of the emissions information in AP-42  is determined by
the information available from published references. Emissions from some processes are better
documented  than others. For example, several emission factors may be listed for the production of
one substance:  one factor for each of a number of steps in the production process such as
neutralization, drying, distillation, and other operations.  However, because of less extensive
information, only one emission factor may be given for production facility releases for another
substance, though emissions are probably produced during several intermediate steps. There may be
more than one emission factor for the production of a certain substance because differing production
processes may exist, or because different control devices may be used.  Therefore, it is necessary to
look at more than just the emission factor for a particular  application and to observe details in the text
and in table  footnotes.

       The  fact that an emission factor for a pollutant or process is not available from EPA does  not
imply that the Agency believes the source does not emit that pollutant or that the source should not be
inventoried,  but it  is only that EPA does not have enough data to provide any advice.

Uses Of Emission  Factors

       Emission factors may be appropriate to use in a number of situations such as making
source-specific emission estimates for areawide inventories.  These inventories have many purposes
including ambient dispersion modeling  and analysis, control strategy development, and in screening
sources for compliance investigations.  Emission factor use may  also be appropriate in some
permitting applications, such as in applicability determinations and in establishing operating permit
fees.

       Emission factors in AP-42 are neither  EPA-recornmended emission limits (e. g., best available
control technology or BACT, or lowest achievable emission rate or LAER) nor standards (e. g.,
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants  or NESHAP, or New Source Performance
Standards or NSPS).  Use of these factors as source-specific permit limits and/or as emission
regulation compliance determinations is not recommended by EPA. Because emission factors
essentially represent an average of a  range of emission rates, approximately half of the subject sources
will have emission rates greater than the emission factor and the other half will have emission rates
less than the factor.  As such, a permit limit using an AP-42 emission factor would result in half of
the sources being in noncompliance.

        Also, for some  sources, emission factors may be presented for facilities having air pollution
control equipment  in place. Factors  noted as being influenced by control technology do not
necessarily reflect  the best available or state-of-the-art controls, but rather reflect the level  of (typical)
control for which data were available at the time the information was published. Sources often are

2                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
tested more frequently when they are new and when they are believed to be operating properly, and
either situation may bias the results.

       As stated, source-specific tests or continuous emission monitors can determine the actual
pollutant contribution from an existing source better than can emission factors.  Even then, the results
will be applicable only to the conditions existing at the time of the testing or monitoring.  To provide
the best estimate of longer-term (e. g., yearly or typical day) emissions, these conditions should be
representative of the source's routine operations.

       A material balance approach also may provide reliable average emission estimates for specific
sources.  For some sources, a material balance may provide a better estimate of emissions than
emission tests would.  In general,  material  balances are appropriate for use hi situations where a high
percentage of material is lost to the atmosphere  (e.  g., sulfur in fuel,  or solvent loss in an
uncontrolled coating process.)  In contrast, material balances may be  inappropriate where material is
consumed or chemically combined in the process, or where losses to  the atmosphere  are a small
portion of the total process throughput. As the term implies, one needs to account for all the
materials going into and coming out of the process  for such an emission estimation to be credible.

       If representative source-specific data cannot be obtained, emissions information from
equipment vendors, particularly emission performance guarantees or actual test data from similar
equipment, is a better source of information for permitting decisions than an AP-42 emission factor.
When such information is not available, use of emission  factors may be necessary as  a last resort.
Whenever factors are used, one should be aware of their limitations in accurately representing a
particular facility, and the risks of using emission factors in such situations should be evaluated
against the costs of further testing  or analyses.

       Figure 1 depicts various approaches to emission estimation, in a hierarchy of requirements
and levels of sophistication, that one should consider when analyzing the tradeoffs between cost of the
estimates and the quality of the resulting estimates.   Where risks of either adverse environmental
effects or adverse regulatory outcomes are  high, more sophisticated and more costly emission
determination methods may be necessary.  Where the risks of using a poor estimate are low, and the
costs of more extensive methods are unattractive, then less expensive estimation methods such as
emission factors and emission models may  be both  satisfactory and appropriate. In cases where no
emission factors are available but adverse risk is low, it may even be acceptable to apply factors from
similar source categories using engineering judgment.  Selecting the method to be used to estimate
source-specific emissions may warrant a case-by-case analysis considering the costs and risks in the
specific situation.  All sources and regulatory agencies should be aware of these risks and costs and
should assess them accordingly.

Variability Of Emissions

       Average emissions differ significantly from source to source and, therefore, emission factors
frequently may not provide adequate estimates of the average emissions for a specific source. The
extent of between-source variability that exists, even among similar individual sources, can be large
depending on process, control system,  and  pollutant. Although  the causes of this variability are
considered in emission factor development, this  type of information is seldom included in emission
test reports used to develop AP-42 factors.  As a result, some emission factors are derived from tests
that may vary by an order of magnitude or more.  Even when the major process variables are
accounted for, the emission factors developed may be the result of averaging source tests that differ
by factors of five or more.
1/95                                      Introduction

-------
                           t

                        t
                           RISK SENSITIVITY EMISSION ESTIMATION APPROACHES
                    CEM
               Increasing
                 Cost
     Parametric Source Tests

Single Source Tests
                                                    Material Balance
                                 Source Category Emissions Model
                                 State! n dustry Fa ctors
                                  Emission Factors (AP-42)
E
D
C
B
A
                          Engineering Judgment
                                        Increasing Reliability of Estimate

                            Figure 1.  Approach to emission estimation.


        Air pollution control devices also may cause differing emission characteristics.  The design
criteria of air pollution control equipment affect the resulting emissions. Design criteria include such
items as the type of wet scrubber used,  the pressure drop across a scrubber, the plate area of an
electrostatic precipitator, and the alkali feed rate to an acid gas scrubber.  Often, design criteria are
not included in emission test reports (at least not in a form conducive to detailed analysis of how
varying process parameters can affect emissions) and  therefore may not be accounted for in the
resulting factors.

        Before simply applying AP-42 emission factors to predict emissions from new or proposed
sources, or to make other source-specific emission assessments, the user should review the latest
literature and technology to be aware of circumstances that might cause such sources to exhibit
emission characteristics different from those of other, typical existing sources.  Care should  be taken
to assure that the subject source type and design, controls, and raw material input are those of the
source(s) analyzed to produce the emission factor. This  fact should be considered, as well as the age
of the information and the user's knowledge of technology advances.

        Estimates of short-term or peak (e. g., daily or hourly) emissions for specific sources are
often needed for regulatory purposes. Using emission factors to estimate short-term emissions will
add further uncertainty to the emission estimate. Short-term emissions from a  single specific source
often vary significantly with time (i. e., within-source variability) because of fluctuations in  process
operating conditions, control device operating conditions, raw materials, ambient conditions, and
other such factors.  Emission factors generally are developed to represent long-term average
emissions, so testing is usually conducted at normal operating conditions.  Parameters that can cause
short-term fluctuations in emissions are generally avoided in testing and are not taken into account in
test evaluation.  Thus, using emission factors to estimate short-term emissions  will cause even greater
                                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                     1/95

-------
uncertainty. The AP-42 user should be aware of this limitation and should evaluate the possible
effects on the particular application.

       To  assess within-source variability and the range of short-term emissions from a source, one
needs either a number of tests performed over an extended period of time or continuous monitoring
data from an individual source.  Generally, material balance data are not likely to be sufficient for
assessing short-term emission variability because the accuracy of a material balance is greatly reduced
for shorter  tune intervals.  In fact, one of the advantages of a material balance approach is that it
averages out all of the short-term fluctuations to provide a good long-term average.

Pollutant Terminology And Conventions

       The need for clearly and precisely defined terms in AP-42 should be evident to all. The
factors in this document represent units of pollutants (or for ozone, precursors) for which there are
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  These are often referred to as "criteria"
pollutants.  Factors may be presented also for HAPs ("hazardous" air pollutants designated in the
Clean Air Act) and for other "regulated" and unregulated air pollutants. If the pollutants are organic
compounds or paniculate matter, additional species or analytical information may be needed for
specific applications. It is often the case that the ideal measure of a pollutant for a specific
application  may not be available, or even possible, because of test method or data limitations, costs,
or other problems. When such qualifications exist in AP-42, they will be noted in the document.  If a
pollutant is not mentioned in AP-42, that does not necessarily  mean that the pollutant is not emitted.

       Many pollutants are defined by their chemical names, which often may have synonyms and
trade names. Trade names are often given to mixtures to obscure proprietary information,  and the
same components may have several trade names. For assurance of the use of the proper chemical
identification, the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number for the chemical  should be consulted
along with  the list of synonyms.  Some pollutants, however, follow particular conventions when used
in air quality management practices.  The pollutant  terminology and conventions currently used in
AP-42 are discussed below.

Paniculate  Matter -
       Terms commonly associated with the general pollutant, "paniculate matter" (PM), include
PM-10, PM-X, total paniculate, total suspended paniculate (TSP), primary paniculate, secondary
paniculate,  filterable paniculate, and condensable paniculate.  TSP consists of matter emitted from
sources as solid, liquid, and vapor forms, but existing in the ambient  air as paniculate solids or
liquids. Primary paniculate matter includes that solid, liquid, or gaseous material at the pressure and
temperature in the process or stack that would be expected to become a paniculate at ambient
temperature and pressure.  AP-42 contains emission factors for pollutants that are expected to be
primary paniculate matter.  Primary paniculate matter includes matter that may eventually revert to a
gaseous condition in the ambient air, but it does not include secondary paniculate matter.  Secondary
paniculate matter is gaseous matter that may eventually convert to paniculate matter through
atmospheric chemical reactions. The term "total paniculate" is used  in AP-42 only to describe the
emissions that are primary paniculate matter.  The term "Total PM-X" is used in AP-42 to describe
those emissions expected to become primary paniculate matter smaller than "X" micrometers (fim) in
aerodynamic diameter.  For example, "PM-10" is emitted paniculate matter less than  10 /tm in
diameter. In AP-42, "Total Paniculate" and "Total PM-X" may be divided into "Filterable
Paniculate", "Filterable PM-X", "Condensable Organic Paniculate",  and "Condensable Inorganic
Paniculate". The filterable portions include that material that  is smaller than the stated size and is
collected on the filter of the paniculate sampling train.
1/95                                     Introduction

-------
       Unless noted, it is reasonable to assume that the emission factors in AP-42 for processes that
operate above ambient temperatures are for filterable paniculate, as defined by EPA Method 5 or its
equivalent (a filter temperature of 121 °C (250°F).  The condensable portions of the paniculate matter
consist of vaporous matter at the filter temperature that is collected in the sampling train impingers
and is analyzed by EPA Method 202 or its equivalent.  AP-42 follows conventions in attempts to
define Total Paniculate and its subcomponents, filterable paniculate, condensable paniculate, and

PM-10 and their interrelationships.  Because of test method and data limitations, this attempt may not
always be successful, and some sources may not generate such components.

       Because emission factors in AP-42 are usually based upon the results of emission test reports,
and because Method 202 was only recently developed, AP-42  emission factors often may adequately
characterize only in-stack filterable PM-10. Recent parts of the AP-42 series have used a clearer
nomenclature for the various paniculate fractions.  It is reasonable to assume that, where AP-42 does
not define the components of paniculate clearly and specifically, the PM-10 factor includes only the
filterable portion of the total PM-10. Therefore, an evaluation of potential condensable paniculate
emissions should be based upon additional data or engineering judgment.

       As  an additional  convention, users should note that many hazardous or toxic compounds may
be emitted in paniculate  form. In such cases,  AP-42 factors for paniculate matter represent the total,
and factors for such compounds or elements are reported as mass of that material.

Organic Compounds -
       Precursors of the criteria pollutant "ozone" include organic compounds.  "Volatile organic
compounds" (VOC) are required in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission inventory. VOCs
have been defined by EPA (40 CFR 51.100, February 3, 1992) as "any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric chemical  reactions". There are a number of
compounds deemed to have "negligible photochemical reactivity", and these are therefore exempt
from the definition of VOC.  These exempt compounds include methane, ethane,  methylene  chloride,
methyl chloroform, many chlorofluorocarbons, and certain classes of perfluorocarbons.  Additional
compounds may be added to the exempt list in the future.

       Though the regulatory definition of VOC is followed in ozone control programs,  the exempt
organic compounds are of concern when developing the complete emission inventory that is  needed
for broader applications. Therefore, this document strives to report the total organic emissions  and
component species, so that the user may choose those that are necessary for a particular application.
In many  cases, data are not available to identify and quantify either all the components (such as some
oxygenated compounds that are not completely measured by many common test methods), the total
organics, or other variations of the quantities desired. In such cases, the available information is
annotated in an effort to  provide the data to the user in a clear and unambiguous manner.  It is not
always possible to present a complete picture with the data that are available.

       The term "total organic compounds" (TOC) is used in AP-42 to indicate all VOCs and all
exempted organic compounds including methane, ethane, chlorofluorocarbons, toxics and HAPs,
aldehydes,  and semivolatile compounds.  Component species are separately identified and quantified,
if data are available, and these component species are included in TOCs.  Often, a test method will
produce  a data set that excludes methane.  In such cases, the term total  nonmethane organic
compound (TNMOC) may be used.  Here, methane will be separately quantified if the data are
available. Factors are nominally given in terms  of actual weight of the emitted substance.  However,
in some  cases where data do not allow calculation of the result in  this form, factors may be given "as

6                                  EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
methane", "as propane", etc.  Once the species distribution is determined, actual mass can be
calculated based on molecular weight of each compound represented.  In an AP-42 table giving
organic emission factors, the ideal table headings would be:


         TOC         Methane         Ethane          VOC           Other
                                                                         Species

        Many organic compounds are also HAPs.  Where such species can be quantified, an emission
factor representing their individual  mass will be presented.  This quantity will also be included in the
total VOC and/or TOC factors, as appropriate. To avoid double counting regarding permit fees, etc.,
this fact should be taken into consideration.

Sulfur Dioxide -
        The primary product from combustion of sulfur is sulfur dioxide, SO2.  However, other
oxidation states are usually formed. When reported in this document, these compounds are jointly
referred to as SOX, or oxides of sulfur. SO2 means sulfur dioxide, and SOX means the combination
of all such emissions reported on the basis of the molecular weight of SO2.

Oxides Of Nitrogen -
        The primary combustion product of nitrogen is nitrogen dioxide, NO2.  However, several
other nitrogen compounds  are usually emitted  at the same time (nitric oxide or NO, nitrous oxide or
N2O, etc.), and these may or may not be distinguishable in available test data.  They are usually in a
rapid state of flux, with NO2 being, in the short term, the ultimate product emitted or formed shortly
downstream of the stack.  The convention followed in AP-42 is to report the distinctions wherever
possible, but to report total NOX on the basis of the molecular weight of NO2.

Lead -
        Lead is emitted and measured as paniculate and often will be reported for a process both
separately and as a component of the paniculate matter emission factor.  The lead may exist as pure
metal or as compounds. The convention followed  in AP-42 is that all emissions of lead are expressed
as the weight of the elemental lead.  Lead compounds will also be reported on the basis of the weight
of those compounds if the  information is available.

Toxic, Hazardous, And Other Noncriteria Pollutants  -
        Hazardous Air Pollutants are defined for EPA regulatory purposes in Title III of the CAAA.
However, many states and other authorities designate additional toxic or hazardous compounds,
organic or inorganic, that can exist in gaseous or paniculate form.  Also, as mentioned, compounds
emitted as VOCs may be of interest for their participation  in photochemical reactivity. Few EPA
Reference Test Methods exist for these compounds, which may come from the myriad sources
covered in this document.  However, test methods  are available to allow reasonably reliable
quantification of many compounds, and adequate test results are available to yield estimates of
sufficient quality to be included in this document.  Where such compounds are quantified herein with
emission factors, they represent the actual mass of that compound emitted.  Totals for PM or VOC,
as appropriate, are inclusive of the  component species unless otherwise noted.  There are a limited
number of gaseous hazardous or toxic compounds that may not be VOCs, and whenever they occur
they will be identified separately.

        The  Emission Factor And Inventory Group produces a separate series of reports that focus on
a number of the more significant HAPs and related sources.  Titles of these documents generally
follow the format  of Locating And Estimating Emissions From Sources Of. . . (Substance).


1/95                                     Introduction                                        7

-------
Examples Of Emission Factor Application -

       Calculating carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from distillate oil combustion serves as an
example of the simplest use of emission factors.  Consider an industrial boiler that burns 90,000 liters
of distillate oil per day. In Section 1.3 of AP-42, "Fuel Oil Combustion", the CO emission factor for
industrial boilers burning distillate oil is 0.6 kilograms (kg) CO per 103 liters of oil burned.

       Then CO emissions

                       = CO emission factor x distillate oil burned/day
                       = 0.6 x 90
                       = 54 k/da
       In a more complex case, suppose a sulfuric acid (H^O^ plant produces 200 Mg of 100
percent H2SO4 per day by converting sulfur dioxide (SO^ into sulfur trioxide (SO3) at 97.5 percent
efficiency.  In Section 8.10, "Sulfuric Acid", the SO2 emission factors are listed according to
SO2-to-SO3 conversion efficiencies in whole numbers.  The reader is directed by footnote to an
interpolation formula that may be used to obtain the emission factor  for 97.5 percent SO2-to-SO3
conversion.

       The emission factor for kg SO2/Mg 100% H2SO4

                      = 682 - [(6.82)(% SO2-to-SO3  conversion)]
                      = 682 - [6.82)(97.5)]
                      = 682 - 665
                      = 17kg

In the production of 200 Mg of 100 percent H2SO4 per day, S02 emissions  are calculated thus:

       SO2 emissions
                      = 17 kg SO2 emissions/Mg 100 percent H2SO4 x 200 Mg 100 percent
                         H2SO4/day
                      = 3400 kg/dav
Emission Factor Ratings

       Each AP-42 emission factor is given a rating from A through E, with A being the best. A
factor's rating is a general indication of the reliability, or robustness, of that factor.  This rating is
assigned based on the estimated reliability of the tests used to develop the factor and on both the
amount and the representative characteristics of those data.  In general, factors based on many
observations, or on more widely accepted test procedures, are  assigned higher rankings.  Conversely,
a factor based on a single observation of questionable quality, or one extrapolated from another factor
for a similar process, would probably be rated much lower.  Because ratings are subjective and only
indirectly consider the inherent scatter among the data used to  calculate factors,  the ratings should be
seen only as approximations.  AP-42 factor ratings do not imply statistical error bounds or confidence
intervals about each emission factor.  At most, a rating should be considered an indicator of the
accuracy and precision of a given factor being used to estimate emissions from a large number of
sources.  This indicator is largely a reflection of the professional judgment of AP-42 authors and
reviewers concerning the reliability of any estimates derived with these factors.
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
        Because emission factors can be based on source tests, modeling, mass balance, or other
information, factor ratings can vary greatly. Some factors have been through more rigorous quality
assurance than others.

        Two steps are involved in factor rating determination.  The first step is an appraisal of data
quality, the reliability of the basic emission data that will be used to develop the factor. The second
step is an appraisal of the ability of the factor to stand as a national annual average emission factor for
that source activity.

        Test data quality is rated A through D, and ratings are thus assigned:

       A =  Tests  are performed by a sound methodology and are reported in enough detail for
             adequate validation.
       B =  Tests  are performed by a generally sound methodology, but lacking enough  detail for
             adequate validation.
       C =  Tests  are based on an unproven or new methodology, or are lacking a significant amount
             of background information.
       D =  Tests  are based on a generally unacceptable method, but the method may provide an
             order-of-magnitude value for the source.

       The quality rating of AP-42 data helps identify good data, even when it is not possible to
extract a factor representative of a typical source in the category from those data.  For  example, the
data from a given test may be good enough for a data  quality rating of "A", but the test may be for a
unique feed material, or the production specifications may be either more or less stringent man at the
typical facility.

       The AP-42 emission factor rating is an overall  assessment of how good a factor is, based on
both the quality of the test(s) or information that is the source of the factor and on how well the factor
represents the emission source. Higher  ratings are for factors based on many unbiased observations,
or on widely accepted test procedures.  For example, ten or more source tests on different randomly
selected plants would likely be assigned  an "A" rating if all tests are conducted using a single valid
reference measurement method.  Likewise, a single observation based on questionable methods of
testing would be assigned an "E", and a factor extrapolated from higher-rated factors for  similar
processes would be assigned a "D" or an "E".

       AP-42 emission factor quality ratings are thus assigned:

       A — Excellent. Factor is developed from A-  and B-rated source test data taken from many
             randomly chosen facilities  in the industry population.  The source category  population is
             sufficiently specific to minimize variability.

       B —  Above average.  Factor is developed from A- or B-rated test data from a "reasonable
              number" of facilities.  Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the
              facilities tested represent a random  sample of the industry. As with an A rating, the
              source category  population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.

       C —  Average. Factor is developed from A-, B-, and/or C-rated test data from a reasonable
              number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities
              tested represent  a random sample of the industry.  As with the A rating,  the source
              category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.
1/95                                       Introduction

-------
       D  — Below average.  Factor is developed from A-, B- and/or C-rated test data from a small
             number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect that these facilities do not
             represent a random sample of the industry.  There also may be evidence of variability
             within the source population.

       E  — Poor.  Factor is developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there may be reason to
             suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry.
             There also may be evidence of variability within the source category population.

Public Review Of Emission Factors

       Since AP-42 emission factors may have effects on most aspects of air pollution control and air
quality management including operating permit fees, compliance assessments, and SIP attainment
emission inventories, these factors are always made available for public review and comment before
publication.  The Emission Factor And Inventory Group panel of public and peer reviewers includes
representatives of affected industries, state and local air pollution agencies, and environmental groups.
More information on AP-42 review procedures  is available in the document, Public Participation
Procedures For EPA's Emission Estimation Guidance Materials, EPA-454/R-94-022, July 1994. This
publication is available on EFIG's CHIEF (Clearinghouse For Inventories And Emission Factors)
electronic  bulletin board (BB) and its Fax CHIEF, an automated facsimile machine.  It is also
available in conventional paper copy from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).  The
Agency encourages all interested parties to take every opportunity to review factors and to provide
information for factor quality improvement.  Toward this objective, EFIG invites comments and
questions about AP-42, and users are invited to submit any data or other information in accordance
with this procedures document.

Other Ways  To Obtain AP-42 Information And Updates

       All or part of AP-42 can be downloaded either from the CHIEF BB or Fax CHIEF, and it is
available on the Air CHIEF CD-ROM (Compact Disc - Read Only Memory). AP-42 is available in
conventional paper copy from the Government Printing Office and NTIS, as well as through the Fax
CHIEF.

       The emission factors contained in AP-42 are available in the Factor Information Retrieval
System (FIRE).  Also, software has been developed for emission models such as  TANKS, WATER?,
the Surface Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS), and fugitive dust models. This software and the
FIRE data base are available through the CHIEF BB.  FIRE is also on the Air CHIEF compact disc.
The Fax CHIEF and the CHIEF BB will always contain the latest factor information, as they are
updated frequently, whereas Air CHIEF, the FIRE program, and printed AP-42 portions are routinely
updated only once per year.

       For information or assistance regarding the availability or use of any of these tools and
services, an  AP-42 telephone help desk, Info CHIEF, is available at (919) 541-5285.
 10                                  EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
                 1.  EXTERNAL COMBUSTION  SOURCES
       External combustion sources include steam/electric generating plants, industrial boilers, and
commercial and domestic combustion units.  Coal, fuel oil, and natural gas are the major fossil fuels
used by these sources. Liquefied petroleum fuels are also used in relatively small quantities.  Coal,
oil, and natural gas currently supply about 95 percent of the total thermal energy consumed in the
United States.  Nationwide consumption in 1980 was over 530 x 106 megagrams (585 million tons) of
bituminous coal, nearly 3.6 x 106 megagrams (4 million tons) of anthracite coal, 91 x 10 liters
(24 billion gallons) of distillate oil,  114 x 109 liters (37 billion gallons) of residual oil, and
57 x 1012 cubic meters (20 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas.

       Power generation, process heating, and space heating are some of the largest fuel combustion
sources of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions.  The following sections present
emission factor data on the major fossil fuels and others.
1/95                             External Combustion Sources                             1.0-1

-------
1.0-2                          EMISSION FACTORS                          1/95

-------
1.1 Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion

1.1.1 General

       Coal is a complex combination of organic matter and inorganic ash formed over eons from
successive layers of fallen vegetation. Coal types are broadly classified as anthracite, bituminous,
subbituminous, or lignite. These classifications are based on coal heating value together with relative
amounts of fixed carbon, volatile matter, ash, sulfur, and moisture. Formulae and tables for
classifying coals are given in Reference 1.  See AP-42 Section 1.2 and Section 1.7 for discussions of
anthracite and lignite combustion, respectively.

       There are three major coal combustion techniques:  suspension firing, grate firing, and
fluidized bed combustion. Suspension firing is the primary combustion mechanism in pulverized coal
and cyclone systems.  Grate firing is the primary mechanism in underfeed and overfeed stokers. Both
mechanisms are employed in spreader stokers.  Fluidized bed combustion, while not constituting a
significant percentage of the total boiler population, has nonetheless gained popularity in the last
decade and today generates steam for industries, cogenerators, independent power producers, and
utilities.

       Pulverized coal furnaces are used primarily  in utility  and large industrial boilers. In these
systems,  the coal is pulverized in a mill to the consistency of talcum powder (i. e., at least 70 percent
of the particles will pass through a 200-mesh sieve). The pulverized coal is generally entrained in
primary air before being fed through burners to the furnace, where it is fired in suspension.
Pulverized coal furnaces are classified as either dry  or wet bottom, depending on the ash removal
technique. Dry bottom furnaces fire coals with high ash fusion temperatures and use dry ash removal
techniques.  In wet bottom (or slag tap) furnaces, coals with low ash fusion temperatures are
combusted and molten ash is drained from the bottom of the furnace.  Pulverized coal furnaces  are
further classified by the firing position of the burners, i. e., single (front or rear) wall, horizontally
opposed, vertical, tangential (or  corner-fired).  Wall-fired boilers can be either single wall-fired (with
burners on only 1 wall of the furnace firing horizontally) or opposed wall-fired (with burners mounted
on two opposing walls).  Tangentially fired boilers have burners mounted in the corners of the
furnace.  The fuel and air are injected toward the center of the furnace to create a vortex that
enhances air and fuel mixing.

       Cyclone furnaces burn low ash fusion temperature coal which has been crushed to below
4-mesh particle size.  The coal is fed tangentially in a stream of primary air to a horizontal cylindrical
furnace.  Within the furnace, small coal particles are burned in suspension while larger particles are
forced against the outer wall. Because of the high temperatures developed in the relatively small
furnace volume, and because of the low fusion temperature of the coal ash, much of the ash  forms a
liquid slag on the furnace walls.  The slag drains from the walls to the bottom of the furnace where it
is removed through a slag tap opening.  Cyclone furnaces are used mostly in utility and large
industrial  applications.

       In spreader stokers, a flipping mechanism throws the coal into the furnace and onto a moving
fuel bed.  Combustion occurs partly in suspension and partly on the grate.  Because of significant
carbon content in the particulate, fly  ash reinjection from mechanical collectors is commonly
employed to improve boiler efficiency.  Ash residue from the fuel bed is deposited in a receiving pit
at the end of the grate.


1/95                              External Combustion Sources                              1.1-1

-------
       In overfeed stokers, coal is fed onto a traveling or vibrating grate and burns on the fuel bed
as it progresses through the furnace.  Ash particles fall into an ash pit at the rear of the stoker.  The
term "overfeed" applies because the coal is fed onto the moving grate under an adjustable gate.
Conversely, in  "underfeed" stokers, coal is fed into the firing zone from below by mechanical rams
or screw conveyors.  The coal moves in a channel, known  as a retort, from which it is forced
upward, spilling over the top of each side to form and to feed the fuel bed.  Combustion is completed
by the time the bed reaches the side dump grates, from which the ash is discharged into shallow pits.
Underfeed stokers include single retort units and multiple retort units, the latter having several retorts
side by side.

       Small hand-fired boilers and furnaces are sometimes found in small industrial, commercial,
institutional, or residential applications.  In most hand-fired units, the fuel is primarily burned in
layers on the bottom  of the furnace or on a grate.  From an emissions standpoint, hand-fired units
generally have higher carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions than
larger boilers because of their lower combustion efficiencies.

       In a fluidized bed combustor (FBC), the coal is introduced to a bed of either sorbent
(limestone or dolomite) or inert material (usually  sand) which is fluidized by an upward flow of ah-.
Most of the combustion occurs within the bed, but some smaller particles burn above the bed hi the
"freeboard" space.  The two principal types of atmospheric FBC boilers are bubbling bed and
circulating bed.12 The fundamental distinguishing feature between these types is the fluidization
velocity. In the bubbling bed design, the fluidization velocity is relatively low,  ranging between
1.5 and 4 m/sec (5 and 12 ft/sec), in order to minimize solids carryover or elutriation from the
combustor.  Circulating FBCs, however, employ  fluidization velocities as high as 9  m/sec  (30 ft/sec)
to promote the carryover or circulation of solids.  High-temperature cyclones are used in circulating
FBCs and in some bubbling FBCs to capture the solid fuel  and  bed material for return to the primary
combustion chamber.  The circulating FBC maintains a continuous, high-volume recycle rate which
increases the fuel residence time compared to the bubbling  bed design.  Because of this feature,
circulating FBCs often achieve higher combustion efficiency and better sorbent utilization than
bubbling bed units.2

1.1.2 Emissions And Controls

       The major pollutants of concern from bituminous and subbituminous coal combustion are
paniculate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOX), and nitrogen oxides  (NOX). Emissions from  coal
combustion depend on the rank and composition of the fuel, the type and size of the boiler, firing
conditions, load, type of control technologies,  and the level of equipment maintenance. Some unburnt
combustibles, including numerous organic compounds and  CO, are generally emitted even under
proper boiler operating conditions. Emission factors for major and minor pollutants are given hi
Tables 1.1-1, 1.1-2, 1.1-3, 1.1-4, 1.1-5, 1.1-6, 1.1-7, 1.1-8, 1.1-9, 1.1-10,  1.1-11,  1.1-12, 1.1-13,
and 1.1-14.

Particulate Matter -
       Paniculate matter composition and emission levels  are a complex function of firing
configuration, boiler  operation, and coal properties.2'4"5  In pulverized coal systems, combustion is
almost complete, and thus emitted paniculate is largely comprised of inorganic ash residues. In wet
bottom pulverized coal units and cyclones, the quantity of ash leaving the boiler is lower than in dry
bottom units, because some of the ash liquifies, collects on the furnace walls, and drains from the
furnace bottom as molten slag. Particulate emission limits  specified  in applicable New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) are summarized in Table 1.1-15.
1.1-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
   CO
£3 O H
i "
o
c
£
ggo
co E-i f-
co o H
rT
Z
c
2

isi
g§|
"° X
O
CO
2

-*


0
o
CO


o
ts
1
o
U
e

< < <


ooo

< < o


r- it o

«S *-< CO

< < Q



CO 5? CO K* CO C?
oo ID oo ID oo ID
CO CO CO CO CO CO
•w *-s N— '
C*4 C"*J f*! ^O ^O ^D ^—^ ^*^ ^*^
CSMJS JS£S£S JSJSJS
O O O ^H ^^ ^H O O O
Til III III
pj pj £^ ooo ooo
ooo ooo ooo
999 999 999

."§
^ ^^ ^ q>
1C 13 ia g C
•a ^ •« ^« -3
8 g" S g".^ 8 g
T3 P -a p "53 -a P
0> J3 V C '2 95 13
NO N O C y P
"C3 XI w X)  O GO 4) .*_>
> C* > ^ e > a>
"s-o 3 •« -2 "3 ^
^


o

o


oo
CO
CO

Q



CO CO*
oo ID
CO CO,
C^ CO CO
CSJSJS
999
pj PJ PJ
ooo
999


furnace
0>
_o
o
< <


*n ID

< <


t^_ t-;

»-H ^-H

« oa



CO CO* CO C?
oo ID oo ID
CO CO CO CO
•+~s -^s

8NC!— i CN CO
999

•3 %
'% 1
o> MM
•^ y
ill
If!
a>3.—
*- s *
Q, e v.
CO
«


VO

<


ID
•


CQ



CO CO*
oo ID
coco.
|^K 1^1 |*S
•*) W| Wj
fNCNCJ
^g^
ooo
999
999


Jri
2
eva
•rt
5
•g
1

  co EL
  w b
  eg
  S™
  O co

  SI
  S<
  ig

  81
  fc g


  li
  Z b

  2o
  CO X
  coO

  Sw
  W Q
 •-Z
  epO

 IS
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-3

-------
                                                                Table 1.1-1 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Feed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
Underfeed stoker
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclones
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
soxb
Ib/ton
38S
(35S)
31S
31S
31S
_g
_ g
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
D
E
E
NOXC
Ib/ton
7.5
9.5
9.5
9.1
3.9
15.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
E
E
D
cod>e
Ib/ton
6
11
11
275
18
18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
E
E
D
m
2
HH
CO
O3
t—K
O
i
oo
         a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.  SCC = Source
           Classification Code.
         b Expressed as SO2, including S02, SO3, and gaseous sulfates.  Factors in parentheses should be used to estimate gaseous SOX emissions
           for subbituminous coal.  In all cases, S is weight percent sulfur content of coal as fired.  Emission factor would be calculated by
           multiplying the weight percent sulfur in the coal by the numerical value preceding S.  On average for bituminous coal, 95% of fuel
           sulfur is emitted as SO2, and only about 0.7%  of fuel sulfur is emitted as SO3 and gaseous sulfate.  An equally small percent of fuel
           sulfur is emitted as paniculate sulfate (References 9, 13).  Small quantities of sulfur are also retained in bottom ash.  With
           subbituminous coal, about 10% more fuel sulfur is retained in the bottom ash and paniculate because of the more alkaline nature of the
           coal ash.  Conversion to gaseous sulfate appears about the same as for bituminous coal.
         c Expressed as NO2. Generally, 95+ volume % of nitrogen oxides present in combustion exhaust will be in the form of NO,  the rest
           NO2 (Reference 11).  To express factors as NO, multiply factors by 0.66. All factors represent emission at baseline operation (i. e.,
           60 to 110%  load and no NOX control measures).

-------
«S                                                              Table 1.1-1 (cont.).

         d Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions. Values  1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur when combustion
           is not complete.
         e Emission factors for CO2 emissions from coal combustion should be calculated using CO2/ton coal = 73.3C, where C is the weight
           percent carbon content of the coal.
         f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
         g Sulfur dioxide emission factors for fluidized bed combustion are a function of fuel sulfur content and calcium-to-sulfur ratio. For both
           bubbling bed and circulating bed design, use: Ib SO2/ton coal = 39.6(S)(Ca/S)~1-9. In this equation, S is the weight percent sulfur in
           the fuel and Ca/S is the molar calcium-to-sulfur ratio in the bed. This equation may be used when the Ca/S is between 1.5 and 7.
           When no calcium-based sorbents are used and the bed material is inert with respect to sulfur capture, the emission factor for underfeed
           stokers should be used to estimate the FBC SO2 emissions. In this case, the emission factor ratings are E for both bubbling and
trt         circulating units.

I
B.
n
o

!
§
C/3
g
H
O
8

-------
              Table 1.1-2 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOX), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX),
                AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION3
Firing Configuration
Pulverized coal fired,
dry bottom, wall fired
Pulverized coal fired,
dry bottom,
tangentially fired
Pulverized coal fired,
wet bottom
Cyclone furnace
Spreader stoker
Spreader stoker, with
multiple cyclones, and
reinjection
Spreader stoker, with
multiple cyclones, no
reinjection
Overfeed stokerf
sec
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
S0xb
kg/Mg
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
19S
(17.5S)
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
D
D
B
B
A
B
NOX<
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg RATING
10.85 A
7.2 A
17 C
16.9 C
6.85 A
6.85 A
6.85 A
3.75 A
cod-e
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg RATING
0.25 A
0.25 A
0.25 A
0.25 A
2.5 A
2.5 A
2.5 A
3 B
00
V)

o
Z
T1
>
O

3
*3
oo

-------
Oi
Table 1.1-2 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
Underfeed stoker
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
SO
kg/Mg
19S
(17.5S)
15.5S
15.5S
15.5S
_g
_g
b
X
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
D
E
E
NOXC
kg/Mg
3.75
4.75
4.75
4.55
1.95
7.6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
E
E
D
cod>e
kg/Mg
3
5.5
5.5
137.5
9
9
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
E
E
D
m
X
1—t-
§
e.
o
o
o"
I
o'
GO
§
         a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC  = Source
           Classification Code.
         b Expressed as SO2, including SO2, SO3, and gaseous sulfates.  Factors in parentheses should be used to estimate gaseous SOX emissions
           for subbituminous coal. In all cases, S is weight percent sulfur content of coal as fired. Emission factor would be calculated by
           multiplying the weight percent sulfur in the coal by the numerical value preceding S.  On average for bituminous coal, 95% of fuel
           sulfur is emitted as SO2, and only about 0.7% of fuel sulfur is emitted as SO3 and gaseous sulfate. An equally small percent of fuel
           sulfur is emitted as paniculate sulfate (References 9, 13).  Small quantities of sulfur are also retained in bottom ash. With
           subbituminous coal, about 10%  more fuel sulfur is retained in the bottom ash and paniculate because of the more alkaline nature of the
           coal ash.  Conversion to gaseous sulfate appears about the same as for bituminous coal.
         0 Expressed as NO2.  Generally, 95+ volume  % of nitrogen oxides  present in combustion exhaust will be in the form of NO, the rest
           NO2 (Reference 11).  To express factors as NO, multiply factors by 0.66.  All factors represent emission at baseline operation
           (i. e., 60 to  110% load and no NOX control measures).

-------
   o

  &

  CN
   
              -a
             u

              CD
      bo

      S


      5"
      u
      bo

      '3


      "8
cs    ^


 o
      13
      u

      
                      «^  6  «  2

                      2 to e  &  S
                      VH -J5 0  «  «

                      O rj '±J     «
               c
evab
             O  o  «•
w  .  «»
S S  o
5 ^  tj

5 |"2

•a 8  I
.S «  3

s i  -i
o c  E
Z .2  W
                 r:  o c
                 •tt  *i O
         o  bo e
         e->  C  «


        Jf.8


        "§  -'i

         §  «-|
         •H   S !> to o
1.1-8
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         1/95

-------
              Table 1.1-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) AND PM LESS THAN
                  10 MICROMETERS (PM-10) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION8
Firing Configuration
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom, wall fired
Pulverized coal fired, dry
bottom, tangentially fired
Pulverized coal fired, wet bottom
Cyclone furnace
Spreader stoker
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
Overfeed stokerf
sec
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
Filterable PMb
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton RATING
10A A
10A B
7Ad D
2Ad E
66e B
17 B
12 A
168 C
PM-10
EMISSION
* FACTOR
Ib/ton RATING
2.3A E
2.3AC E
2.6A E
0.26A E
13.2 E
12.4 E
7.8 E
6.0 E
n
o

I
o
C/3
g

-------
                                                                 Table 1.1-3 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
Underfeed stoker
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
Filterable PMb
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton RATING
9h C
15) D
llh D
15 E
12 E
17 E
PM-10
Ib/ton
5.0
6.2
6.2J
6.2k
13.2m
13.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
tfl
§
00
00
h*H
O
Z
g
oo
         a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.
           SCC  = Source Classification Code.
         b Based on EPA Method 5 (front half catch) as described in Reference 28.  Where paniculate is expressed in terms of coal ash content,
           A, factor is determined by multiplying weight % ash content of coal (as fired) by the numerical value preceding  the A.  For example,
           if coal with 8% ash is fired in a pulverized coal fired, dry bottom unit, the PM emission factor would be 10 x 8, or 80 Ib/ton.  The
           "condensable" matter collected in back half catch of EPA Method 5 averages <5%  of front half, or "filterable", catch for pulverized
           coal and cyclone furnaces; 10% for spreader stokers; 15% for other stokers; and 50% for handfired units (References 6, 29, 30).
         c No data found; emission factor for  pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers used.
         d Uncontrolled paniculate emissions, when no fly ash reinjection is employed.  When control device is installed, and collected fly ash is
           reinjected to boiler, paniculate from boiler reaching control  equipment can increase up to a factor of two.
         e Accounts for fly ash settling in an economizer, air heater, or breaching upstream of control device or stack. (Paniculate directly at
           boiler outlet typically will be twice this level.) Factor should be applied even when fly ash is reinjected to  boiler from air heater or
           economizer dust hoppers.

-------
w
«-t-
1
B.
9
on
o
1-1
C5
                                                                  Table 1.1-3 (cont.).

         { Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
         g Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching or stack base.  Paniculate loadings directly at boiler outlet typically can be 50% higher.
         h See Reference 34 for discussion of apparently low multiple cyclone control efficiencies, regarding uncontrolled emissions.
         J Accounts for fly ash settling in breaching downstream of boiler outlet.
         k No data found;  emission factor for underfeed stoker used.
         m No data found;  emission factor for spreader stoker used.

-------
              Table 1.1-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) AND PM LESS THAN
                  10 MICROMETERS (PM-10) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION*
Firing Configuration
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
wall fired
Pulverized coal fired, dry bottom,
tangentially fired
Pulverized coal fired, wet bottom
Cyclone furnace
Spreader stoker
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, and reinjection
Spreader stoker, with multiple
cyclones, no reinjection
Overfeed stokerf
sec
1-01-002-02/22
1-02-002-02/22
1-03-002-06/22
1-01-002-12/26
1-02-002-12/26
1-03-002-16/26
1-01-002-01/21
1-02-002-01/21
1-03-002-05/21
1-01-002-03/23
1-02-002-03/23
1-03-002-03/23
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-04/24
1-02-002-04/24
1-03-002-09/24
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
Fitlerable PMb
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg RATING
5A A
5A B
3.5Ad D
lAd E
33e B
8.5 B
6 A
88 C
PM-10
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg RATING
1.15A E
1.15AC E
1.3A E
0.13A E
6.6 E
6.6 E
3.9 E
3.0 E
w
C/3
GO
I

-------
t/i
Table 1.1-4 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Overfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclonesf
Underfeed stoker
Underfeed stoker, with
multiple cyclone
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor,
bubbling bed
Fluidized bed combustor,
circulating bed
sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
Fitlerable PMb
kg/Mg
4.5h
7.5J
5.5h
7.5
6
8.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
D
D
E
E
E
PM-10
kg/Mg
2.5
3.1
3.1J
3.1k
6.6m
6.6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
m
X
I
c/3
8
         a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.
           SCC = Source Classification Code.
         b Based on EPA Method 5 (front half catch) as described in Reference 28.  Where paniculate is expressed in terms of coal ash content,
           A, factor is determined by multiplying weight % ash content of coal (as fired) by the numerical value preceding the A.  For example,
           if coal with 8% ash is fired in a pulverized coal fired, dry bottom unit, the PM emission factor would be 5 x 8, or 40 kg/Mg.  The
           "condensable" matter collected in back half catch of EPA Method 5 averages  <5% of front half, or "filterable", catch for pulverized
           coal and cyclone furnaces; 10% for spreader stokers; 15%  for other stokers; and 50% for handfired units (References 6,29,30).
         c No data found; use assumed emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers.
         d Uncontrolled particulate emissions, when no fly ash reinjection is employed.  When control device is installed, and collected fly ash is
           reinjected to boiler, particulate from boiler reaching control equipment can increase up to a factor of two.
         e Accounts for fly ash settling in an economizer, air heater, or breaching upstream of control device or stack.  (Particulate directly at
           boiler outlet typically will be twice this  level.)  Factor should be applied even when fly ash is reinjected to boiler from air heater or
           economizer dust hoppers.

-------
       •a
       O  g
       m  o
       .2.S
       s  I
       1
        -
        
•o |g
s>^
•||
1 8
 ^•^    ^s  ^  ^
       CO  C  5T
 3   slfS
 H   i (2 .« ^
     •a  -" T3 -O
      > i_  o <-i c e
      |«S  g«S||

      •o g  £/ g ^ ^
      g 8  8 8 o o
     «« 60 JS .... ^i £
1.1-14
                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
           Table 1.1-5 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
                         FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED BITUMINOUS COALa
Particle
Sizeb
(/tm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass % £ Stated Size
Uncontrolled
32
23
17
6
2
2
1
100
Controlled
Multiple
Cyclones
54
29
14
3
1
1
1
100
Scrubber EJ
!P Baghouse
81 79 97
71 67 92
62 50 77
51 29 53
35 17 31
31 14 25
20 12 14
100 100 100
Cumulative Emission Factor0 (kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled*1
1.6A
(3.2A)
1.15A
(2.3A)
0.85A
(1.7A)
0.3A
(0.6A)
0.10A
(0.2A)
0.10A
(0.2A)
0.05A
(0.10A)
5A
(10A)
Controlled6
Multiple
Cyclones'
0.54A
(1.08A)
0.29A
(0.58A)
0.14A
(0.28A)
0.03A
(0.06A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
1A
(2A)
Scrubber8
0.24A
(0.48A)
0.21A
(0.42A)
0.19A
(0.3 8A)
0.15A
(0.3A)
0.1 1A
(0.22A)
0.09A
(0.18A)
0.06A
(0.12A)
0.3A
(0.6A)
ESP*
0.032A
(0.064A)
0.027A
(0.054A)
0.020A
(0.024A)
0.012A
(0.024A)
0.007A
(0.01A)
0.006A
(0.01A)
0.005A
(0.01A)
0.04A
(0.08A)
Baghousef
0.010A
(0.02A)
0.009A
(0.02A)
0.008A
(0.02A)
0.005A
(0.01A)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.001A
(0.002A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
w
x
n
o
I
en
r^
o'
C/Q
O
        a Reference 32.  Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-02, 1-02-002-02, 1-03-002-06, 1-01-002-12, 1-02-002-12, and
          1-03-002-16. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
        b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
        0 A = coal ash weight percent, as fired.
        d EMISSION FACTOR RATING = C.
        e Estimated control  efficiency for multiple cyclones is 80%; for scrubber, 94%; for ESP, 99.2%; and for baghouse, 99.8%.
        f EMISSION FACTOR RATING = E.
        6 EMISSION FACTOR RATING = D.

-------
 Table 1.1-6 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR WET BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
                                BITUMINOUS COALa

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Particle Sizeb
(fim)
15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625

TOTAL




Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size
Uncontrolled
40

37

33

21

6

4

2

100

Controlled
Multiple
Cyclones
99

93

84

61

31

19

	 e

100

ESP
83

75

63

40

17

8

	 e

100

Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
1.4A
(2.8A)
1.30A
(2.6A)
1.16A
(2.32A)
0.74A
(1.48A)
0.21A
(0.42A)
0.14A
(0.28A)
0.07A
(0.14A)
3.5A
(7.0A)
Controlled*1
Multiple
Cyclones
0.69A
(1.38A)
0.65A
(1.3A)
0.59A
(1.18A)
0.43A
(0.86A)
0.22A
(0.44A)
0.13A
(0.26A)
	 e

0.7A
(1.4A)
ESP
0.023A
(0.046A)
0.021 A
(0.042A)
0.018A
(0.036A)
0.011A
(0.022A)
0.005A
(0.01 A)
0.002A
(0.004A)
	 e

0.028A
(0.056A)
a Reference 32.  Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-01, 1-02-002-01, and
  1-03-002-05. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c A = coal ash weight %, as fired.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 94%; and for ESP, 99.2%.
e Insufficient data.
 1.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
      Table 1.1-7 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
        SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR CYCLONE FURNACES BURNING
                                 BITUMINOUS COALa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Particle
Sizeb
(ti-m)
15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625
TOTAL

Cumulative
Uncontrolled
33

13

8

0

0

0

0
100


Mass % < Stated Size
Controlled
Multiple
Cyclones
95

94

93

92

85

82

_d
100
ESP
90

68

56

36

22

17

_d
100
Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
0.33A
(0.66A)
0.13A
(0.26A)
0.08A
(0.16A)
0

0

0

0
1A (2A)
Controlled6
Multiple
Cyclones
0.057A
(0.1 14A)
0.056A
(0.1 12A)
0.056A
(0.1 12A)
0.055A
(0.11 A)
0.051A
(0.10A)
0.049A
(0.10A)
_d
0.06A
(0.12A)
ESP
0.0064A
(0.013A)
0.0054A
(0.011 A)
0.0045A
(0.009A)
0.0029A
(0.006A)
0.0018A
(0.004A)
0.0014A
(0.003A)
_d
0.008A
(0.016A)
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-03, 1-02-002-03, and
  1-03-002-03. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c A = coal ash weight percent, as fired.
d Insufficient data.
e Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 94%; and for ESP, 99.2%.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-17

-------

 a-,
 us
 NZ
 55g

 «g

 gS
 b u
 04 *4

 2|
 U W5
 > ftJ

 gs

 =S
 s£
 D to
  22 CJ
 "SO
 oo
 H


^
"S
il
4g

0
|
W>
*W)
•*.
H-
2
(2
e
o
to
(U
13
|
O






N
CO
1
CO
V!
^
tn
M
0
1
o
.S
s
3
I
U

















I
i



















^
i
s
g
u

















(
«0

M
.C
ffl


15,
S
il
« 0
3 -is
o"

^.
o <£,
g, g
'3 o
*!•
o
=3
2
|
==
g
I
GU
£
8s
EH

jals
•J3* |
*3 *O
5 >>
* O



O w>
."&• =
3 o
3 73
IS >>
•* o

"8
s
•g
8
c
D

0
111

 ^^ ^^ ^_^ ^_^ ^^
C4 ^ CS^ CS^ *-> f) »-*tS •— i CS | C^^"
dd_dd,do_dg,dg,dd, d o_




^•oo o\ o? — ?T *o c-* oo" ooC" IDS' oS'
't oo mt— p%vo — tn — o o» o — < \ocs
N>*'


•* c4 cn<5~r~5>ts5:'n^— rr^o"
ooc~- vocs •too o~ oo oo oo oot^


P- S •* CS -« 2 o

r-- o  *^ o





Sm -* oo n ts " o
r- >n o





IS {S « O



_J
>o S
>n o CN r"
vi o* o vo O

u.'
1
ji».
.S*
"o
u,
rS.
^•4
u
«
ts
8
u
/^
oo
U

§
cs

C5
en
9
S
§
i
9
^-<
9
ts
8
o
i
S3

o
Is
1 1
Hs «a
S -3
ji -
C— ) §
« 13

o §•
C/3 «
1 's
ra cd
•*« C
l^
^ 2

S a

-------
 Table 1.1-9 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
        SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR OVERFEED STOKERS BURNING
                                BITUMINOUS COALa
Particle
Sizeb
(fan)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
Uncontrolled
49
37
24
14
13
12
	 c
100
Multiple
Cyclones
Controlled
60
55
49
43
39
39
16
100
Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
Factor
3.9 (7.8)
3.0 (6.0)
1.9(3.8)
1.1 (2.2)
1.0(2.0)
1.0 (2.0)
	 c
8.0 (16.0)
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Multiple Cyclones
Controlled*1
Factor
2.7 (5.4)
2.5 (5.0)
2.2 (4.4)
1.9 (3.8)
1.8 (3.6)
1.8 (3.6)
0.7(1.4)
4.5 (9.0)
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a Reference 32. Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-01-002-05, 1-02-002-05, and
  1-03-002-07.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Insufficient data.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclones is 80%.
Table 1.1-10 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
       SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNDERFEED STOKERS BURNING
                                BITUMINOUS COALa


(/im)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL


< Stated Size
50
41
32
25
22
21
18
100
Uncontrolled Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Coal, As Fired)
Factor
3.8 (7.6)
3.1 (6.2)
2.4 (4.8)
1.9 (3.8)
1.7 (3.4)
1.6 (3.2)
1.4(2.7)
7.5 (15.0)
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a Reference 32.  Applicable Source Classification Codes are 1-02-002-06 and 1-03-002-08.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
0 May also be used for uncontrolled hand-fired units.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-19

-------
 en
 Q

   oa
 s
  §§
  !i
  ]?<
  §1
  c§
 u
   CQ
 z 9
 18



•b
z


o_
JZ
U
O
S





























2 o §
CO t-< ft
co o H
§£«

0

III
^* J( ^£
S S o2
u
g
£
§ ot rt
2o§
co H c
eo QJ H
W

I



U
CO






c
.S
03
60
O
U
60
;s
(-U





Q


S
d
«



o
d

pa


S
d

III
HI
999

e"
o
S
0
.0
>>
•o
1
c
"c3
8
ll

"C ^""*
oj m2
> ca
1

Q


S
d
oa



S
d

pa


S
o"

\O ^O VO
cs cs >
Urt
•o
•§
u
•« c

"S 1
N CH
"C ^
Q) w)
>• c
S^

u

u
S
d
P3



S
d

pa


0
d

999

999

E
o

o
•o
•g
^
1
G
~a

"8
N
"C
o
•>
1

nun

u u u
g g S
odd
n oa oa



— >D m
»— t o O
odd

pa pa pa


^H vo vo
o o o
odd

ro ro fi ^^ ^^ ON ^i" ^" ON
999 999 999
cscscs tscscs CS«NCS
999 999 999



^
-^ Q, O, «
U 10 oo

w

o
S
d
n



g
d

pa


S
d

sss
tN «S CS
^^ ^^> ^^
^^ ^5 ^5
9§S



a>
"Si

3 c
6 .3
4->
j; o
S .2,
^ .5
^ "S
a> ^
"o §
1_ •»
Q. «
CO
1.1-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                                                Table 1.1-11 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Overfeed stoker^


Overfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclonesf

Underfeed stoker

Underfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclone
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor, bubbling
bed

Fluidized bed combustor, circulating
bed

sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
CH4b
Ib/ton
0.06


0.06


0.8

0.8

5
0.06


0.06


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B


B


B

B

E
E


E


NMTOCb'c
Ib/ton
0.05


0.05


1.3

1.3

10
0.05


0.05


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B


B


B

B

E
E


E


N2Od
Ib/ton
0.09e


0.09e


0.09e

0.09e

0.09e
5.98


5.5


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E


E


E

E

E
E


E


tn
X
r-t-
3
BL

o
cr
13
O
         a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired. SCC = Source
           Classification Code.
         b Reference 35.  Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions; values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur when
           combustion is not complete.
         c Nonmethane total organic compounds are expressed as C2 to C16 alkane equivalents (Reference 31).  Because of limited data, the
           effects of firing configuration on NMTOC emission factors could not be distinguished.  As a result, all data were averaged collectively
           to develop a single average emission factor for pulverized coal units, cyclones, spreaders, and overfeed stokers.
         d References 36-38.
         e No data found; emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers used.
         f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
         g No data found; emission factor for circulating fluidized bed used.

-------
  on
  Q
    s
    pa
  s oa
  S^
  O to
  *Q
  _r >7

  s<
  rj oo
  ^D
  W O
  zz
  < s
  ac s
•o



JS
U
O
Z


J3




















ill
bo
bo

co H «
co cj H
S ^ >D
f§ fc 06

bo
.£?
<^r
MJ ^^
l^n
S
~5b


U
O
CO





0
*4_*
2
j?
c
o
U
.S
E
h**


Q
1
o
pa



S
o
pa

o
o
r-O ^*O ^O
Of Of Of
^
t-4
*2
tj
o
o
"O o5
53 b
.a «
VH |
I1
Q
p
d
oa



S
c>
pa

fS
o
d

}&£>£»
i t i
~H rs co
999

E*
o

.0
>»l
•o
•s"
^"8
^^ t-l
"S 3
N S

l§
u
i
0
pa



o
o
pa

§
o

cj ci
99
CS fS
si

e
o
tJ
o
.0
"S
^
13
Lj
•w
o
"8
N
*i t
(U














cs
-002-05
9














PJ
u
i
o
pa



S
0
pa

i
o

«s r^ cj
999
»-< «s m
999









i
a
o
c
"o
O*
-
I
o
pa



§
o
pa

S
o

«M C4 «S
|||
O O O
999
999









1

di
73
i
Ch
w w
o o
wo »r>
S S
o o
pa pa



§ §
0 O
pa pa

S 0
C5 0

«s C4 rj rj «N js
^^ ^^ ^N ^f ^* ^N
<^ (^ ^5 ^5 OS ^P
^-H CN CO ^-« CN CO
999 999



fl> 4>
•& •§*
3 O "3 B
2« 2-B
*J3 "»*-^ ^3  c a> cs
73 O 73 O
C^ "T^ TO "T1?
a> o 4> y
CO CO
    pa
  O
  Pu
  og

  co
  CO CO



  W c^



  9z


  P°
  o -rf
  • •<•« ^^
  3
1.1-22
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
Ul
                                                       Table 1.1-12 (cont.).
Firing Configuration
Overfeed stokerf
Overfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclones
Underfeed stoker
Underfeed stoker, with multiple
cyclone
Hand-fed units
Fluidized bed combustor, bubbling
bed
Fluidized bed combustor, circulating
bed
sec
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-01-002-05/25
1-02-002-05/25
1-03-002-07/25
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-02-002-06
1-03-002-08
1-03-002-14
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
1-01-002-17
1-02-002-17
1-03-002-17
CH4b
kg/Mg
0.03
0.03
0.4
0.4
2.5
0.03
0.03
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
E
E
E
NMTOCb'c
kg/Mg
0.025
0.025
0.65
0.65
5
0.025
0.025
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
E
E
E
N20d
kg/Mg
0.045e
0.045e
0.0456
0.045e
0.045e
2.758
2.75
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
n
o
I
en
r+
o'
a
on
o
e
N>
U>
8 Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified and should be applied to coal feed, as fired.  SCC =  Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 35.  Nominal values achievable under normal operating conditions; values 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher can occur when
  combustion is not complete.
c Nonmethane total organic compounds are expressed as C2 to C16 alkane equivalents (Reference 31).  Because of limited data, the
  effects of firing configuration on NMTOC emission factors could not be distinguished.  As a result, all data were averaged collectively
  to develop a single average emission factor for pulverized coal units, cyclones, spreaders, and overfeed stokers.
d References 36-38.
e No  data found; use emission factor for pulverized coal-fired dry bottom boilers.
f Includes traveling grate, vibrating grate, and chain grate stokers.
g No  data found; use emission factor for circulating fluidized bed.

-------
 Q
 Z
 s ^

 U 03


  5
 m<
 <
 .Sq
 C J
O
Z

i

I
u
u-
      on
      tvo
  O
b ^
o •*

•«<• rf Z
"*
^, - Q
oo oo Z


OO rf Q
Jo S Z

""" <^ ^~
JS JN ^
^H VQ "*^"
90 ^
1 •. *"*
S S E S E S S
i| £? 2?j8
.29 ^9 ^^S
11-^ 1"^-- I* 9s"!
fM ^^ rsi c^i ^r ^
^-T ^C C*4 FT,J* i^; f^ , * O fs^
§^^ ~^"« CQ C^l "^"^ C8 ' "*^*
o •£} o o * o ^^
°r\l9 OiO °_^"7<
•QocN -00^ t3"«cN
g s g g s § a '^ 8
Is? Is? 11^
|C- |C,- |
Q
Z

Q
Z
i
Tt
r-
VO

8
2
oo
tN
(N
o^
O
>o
«N
O
o
o
cs C"**
c5 ^i
ON tN
a
en
Q •?
Z ^
cs

? Z

tN
•^•
Q "*>
Z 4
VO

^jT
i ^
o o
J3 CS
1 2
£• w<
M S
f 5
o G" w
0>) W
g% 3
CO ^ t&






























tN
S
i
"•
cs
-02-002-04/

1

Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z

Q
z


^
o
>o

Q


cs
oo
m
Tt

z

o
m
O
^H

lo
>rf

1 0
00^
|>9
-3f
C CJ
19
to g
oc

































^^^
CS
1

                                                      o
                                                      Q,


                                                      5

                                                      •O
                                                      4)
                                                             §§
1.1-24
                  EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
         Table 1.1-14 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENTS, POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM), AND
                     FORMALDEHYDE (HCOH) FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION8

                                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized coal, configuration
unknown (no SCC)
Pulverized coal, wet bottom
(1-01-002-01/21, 1-02-002-01/21,
1-03-002-05/21)
Pulverized coal, dry bottom
(1-01-002-02/22, 1-02-002-02/22,
1-03-002-06/22)
Pulverized coal, dry bottom,
tangential (1-01-002-12/26,
1-02-002-12/26, 1-03-002-16/26)
Cyclone furnace (1-01-002-03/23,
1-02-002-03/23, 1-03-002-03/23)
Stoker, configuration unknown
(no SCC)
Spreader stoker (1-01-002-04/24,
1-02-002-04/24, 1-03-002-09/24)
Overfeed stoker, traveling grate
(1-01-002-05/25, 1-02-002-05/25,
1-03-002-07/25)
Emission Factor, pg/J
As
ND

231


294


ND


49.5-133

ND

114-233

233-443


Be
ND

35


35


ND


<34.9

31.4

ND

ND


Cd
ND

18-30


19


ND


12

ND

9.0-18.5

19-35


Cr
825

439-676


538-676


ND


91.2-676

8.1-675

404-674

ND


Pb
ND

218°


21 8C


ND


218C

ND

218°

21 8C


Mn
ND

348-1282


98-1282


ND


98-5590

934

ND

ND


Hg
ND

7


7


ND


6.9

6.9

ND

ND


Ni
ND

361-555


443-555


ND


74.9-555

334-555

ND

ND


POM
ND

ND


0.894


1.03


ND

ND

ND

ND


HCOH
48b

ND


ND


ND


ND

ND

95d

60e


O
o
o

GO
O
N)
a References 39-44. The emission factors in this table represent the ranges of factors reported in the literature. If only 1 data point was
  found, it is still reported in this table.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Based on 2 units; 456 MWe and 39 MW.
c Lead emission factors were taken directly from an EPA background document for support of the NAAQS.
d Based on 1 unit; 17 MW.
e Based on 1 unit; 15 MW.

-------
  Table 1.1-15 (Metric And English Units). NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
                          FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED BOILERS
Standard/
Boiler Types/
Applicability
Criteria
Subpart D

Industrial-Utility

Commence construction
after 8/17/71
Subpart Da


Utility
Commence construction
after 9/18/78




Subpart Db

Industrial-Commercial
Institution

Commence construction
after 6/19/84m









Boiler Size
MW
(Million
Btu/hr)
>73
(>250)




>73
(>250)








>29
(>100)














Fuel
Or
Boiler
Type
Gas

Oil

Bit./Subbit.
Coal
Gas



Oil


Bit./Subbit.
Coal

Gas

Distillate Oil


Residual Oil

Pulverized
Bit./Subbit.
Coal
Spreader
Stoker &
FBC
Mass-Feed
Stoker

PM
ng/J
(Ib/MMBru)
[% reduction]
43
(0.10)
43
(0.10)
43
(0.10)
13
(0.03)
[NA]

13
(0.03)
[70]
13
(0.03)
[99]
NAd

43
(0.10)

(Same as for
distillate oil)
22e
(0.05)

22e
(0.05)

22e
(0.05)

S02
ng/J
(Ib/MMBru)
[% reduction]
NAd

340
(0.80)
520
(1-20)
340
(0.80)
[90]"

340
(0.80)
[90]a
520
(1.20)
[90]a
NAd

340"
(0.80)
[90]
(Same as for
distillate oil)
520e
(1.20)
[90]
520e
(1-20)
[90]
520e
(1.20)
[90]
NOX
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
86
(0.20)
129
(0.30)
300
(0.70)
86
(0.20)
[25]

130
(0.30)
[30]
260/210C
(0.60/0.50)
[65/65]
43f
(0.10)
43f
(0.10)

1308
(0.30)
300
(0.70)

260
(0.60)

210
(0.50)

1.1-26
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                      Table 1.1-15 (cont.).
Standard/
Boiler Types/
Applicability
Criteria
Subpart DC
Small Industrial
Commercial-
Institutional
Commence construction
after 6/9/89
Boiler Size
MW
(Million
Btu/hr)
2.9 - 29
(10 -100)


Fuel
Or
Boiler
Type
Gas
Oil
Bit./Subbit.
Coal
PM
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
-h
_h,J
(0.05)
S02
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
—
215
(0.50)
520*
(1.20)
[90]
NOX
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
—
	
—
a Zero percent reduction when emissions are less than 86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/MMBtu). FBC = fluidized
  bed combustion.  NA = not applicable.
b 70% reduction when emissions are less than 260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/MMBtu).
c The first number applies to bituminous coal and the second to subbituminous coal.
d Standard applies when gas is fired in combination with coal, see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db.
e Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits, see 40 CFR  60, Subpart Db.
f For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3 (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
  86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/MMBtu).
g For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3 (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
  170 ng/J (0.40 Ib/MMBtu).
h Standard applies when gas or oil is fired in combination  with coal, see 40 CFR 60, Subpart DC.
J  20 percent capacity limit applies for heat input capacities of 8.7 Mwt (30 MMBtu/hr) or greater.
k Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits, see 40 CFR  60, Subpart DC.
m Additional requirements apply to facilities which commenced construction, modification,  or
  reconstruction after 6/19/84 but on or before 6/19/86 (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60,
  Subpart Db).
n 215 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million Btu) limit (but no percent reduction requirement) applies if facilities
  combust only very low sulfur oil (< 0.5 wt. % sulfur).
        Because a mixture of fine and coarse coal particles is fired in spreader stokers, significant
unburnt carbon can be present in the paniculate.  To improve boiler efficiency, fly ash from
collection devices (typically multiple cyclones) is sometimes reinjected into spreader stoker furnaces.
This practice can dramatically increase the participate loading at the boiler outlet and, to a lesser
extent,  at the mechanical collector outlet. Fly ash can also be reinjected from the boiler, air heater,
and economizer dust hoppers. Fly ash reinjection from these hoppers increases paniculate loadings
less than from multiple cyclones.

        Uncontrolled overfeed and underfeed stokers emit considerably less paniculate than do
pulverized coal units and spreader stokers, since combustion takes place in a relatively quiescent fuel
bed.  Fly ash reinjection is not practiced in these kinds of stokers.

        Variables other than firing configuration and fly ash  reinjection can affect PM emissions from
stokers. Paniculate loadings will often increase as load increases (especially as full load is
approached) and with sudden load changes. Similarly, paniculate can increase as the coal ash and
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.1-27

-------
"fines" contents increase. Fines, in this context, are coal particles smaller than about 1.6 millimeters
(1/16 inch) in diameter.  Conversely, paniculate can be reduced significantly when overfire air
pressures are increased.

       FBCs may tax conventional paniculate control systems.  The paniculate mass concentration
exiting FBCs is typically 2 to 4 times higher than that from pulverized coal boilers.13  Fluidized bed
combustor particles are also, on average, smaller in size,  irregularly shaped,  and have higher surface
area and porosity relative to pulverized coal ashes.  Fluidized bed combustion ash is more difficult to
collect in electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) than pulverized coal ash because FBC ash has a higher
electrical resistivity. In addition, the use of multiclones for fly ash recycling, inherent with FBC
processes, tends to reduce flue  gas stream paniculate size.13

       The primary kinds of PM control devices used for coal combustion include multiple cyclones,
ESPs, fabric filters (or baghouses), and scrubbers.  Some measure of control will even result from fly
ash settling in boiler/air heater/economizer dust hoppers, large breeching, and chimney bases.  The
effects of such settling are reflected in current emission factors.

       ESPs are the most common high-efficiency PM control device used on pulverized coal and
cyclone units; they are also being used increasingly on stokers.  Generally, ESP collection efficiencies
are a function of collection plate area per unit volumetric  flow rate of flue gas through the device.
Paniculate control efficiencies of 99.9 percent or above are obtainable with ESPs.  ESPs located
downstream of air preheaters (i. e., cold side precipitators) operate at significantly reduced
efficiencies when low sulfur coal is fired.  Fabric filters have recently seen increased use in both
utility and industrial applications, generally achieving at least 99.8 percent efficiency.  An advantage
of fabric filters is that they are  unaffected by the high fly  ash resistivities  associated with low sulfur
coals. Scrubbers are also used to control paniculate, although their primary use  is to control sulfur
oxides.   One drawback of scrubbers is the high energy usage required to achieve control efficiencies
comparable to those for ESPs and baghouses.3

       Mechanical collectors, generally multiple cyclones, are the primary means of PM control on
many stokers.  They are sometimes installed upstream of high-efficiency control devices in order to
reduce the ash collection burden on these devices.  Cyclones are also an integral part of most FBC
designs.  Depending on application and design, multiple cyclone efficiencies can vary widely. Where
cyclone design flow rates are not attained (which is common with underfeed and  overfeed stokers),
these devices may be only marginally effective and may prove little better in  reducing paniculate than
a large breeching. Conversely, well-designed multiple cyclones,  operating at the required flow  rates,
can achieve collection efficiencies on  spreader stokers and overfeed stokers of 90 to 95 percent. Even
higher collection efficiencies are obtainable on spreader stokers with reinjected fly ash because of the
larger particle sizes and increased paniculate loading reaching the controls.5"6

Sulfur Oxides -
       Gaseous SOX from  coal combustion are primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2), with a much lower
quantity  of sulfur trioxide (SO3) and gaseous sulfates.7"9  These compounds form as the organic and
pyritic sulfur in the coal is  oxidized during the combustion process.  On average, about 95 percent of
the sulfur present in bituminous coal will be emitted as gaseous SOX, whereas somewhat less will be
emitted when  subbituminous coal is fired.  The more alkaline nature of the ash in some subbituminous
coals causes some of the sulfur to react in the furnace to form various sulfate salts that are retained in
the boiler or in the flyash.  In general, boiler size, firing configuration and boiler operations have
little effect on the percent conversion of fuel sulfur to SOX.14 Sulfur dioxide emission limits specified
in applicable NSPS are summarized in Table 1.1-15.
1.1-28                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

-------
        Several techniques are used to reduce SOX emissions from coal combustion.15 One way is to
switch to lower sulfur coals, since SOX emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the coal.
This alternative may not be possible where lower sulfur coal is not readily available or where a
different grade of coal cannot be satisfactorily fired. In some cases, various coal cleaning processes
may be employed to reduce the fuel sulfur content.  Physical coal  cleaning removes mineral sulfur
such as pyrite but is not effective hi removing organic sulfur. Chemical  cleaning and solvent refining
processes are being developed to remove organic sulfur.

        Many flue gas desulfurization (FGD) techniques can remove SO2 formed during
combustion.  6  Flue gases can be treated using wet, dry, or semi-dry desulfurization processes of
either the throwaway type (in which all waste streams  are discarded) or the recovery/regenerable type
(in which the SO2 absorbent is regenerated and reused).  To date,  wet systems are the most
commonly applied.  Wet systems generally use alkali slurries as the SO2 absorbent medium and can
be designed to remove greater than 90 percent of the incoming SO2. Paniculate reduction of up to
99 percent is also possible with wet scrubbers, but fly ash is often collected by upstream ESPs or
baghouses, to avoid  erosion of the desulfurization equipment and possible interference with FGD
process reactions.7  Also, the volume of scrubber sludge is reduced with separate fly ash removal and
contamination of the reagents and byproducts is prevented.  Lime/limestone scrubbers, sodium
scrubbers, and dual alkali scrubbing are among the commercially proven wet FGD systems.  The
effectiveness of these devices depends not only on control device design but also operating variables.
A summary table of commercial post-combustion SO2 controls is provided in Table 1.1-16.

        A number of dry and wet sorbent injection technologies are under development to capture
SO2 in the furnace, the  heat transfer sections, or ductwork downstream of the boiler. These
technologies  are generally designed for retrofit applications and are well-suited for coal combustion
sources requiring moderate SO2 reduction and which have a short  remaining life.

Nitrogen Oxides -
        Nitrogen  oxides (NOX) emissions from coal combustion are primarily nitrogen oxide (NO),
with only a few volume percent as nitrogen dioxide (NO2).10~n Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also emitted
at ppm levels. Nitrogen oxides formation results from thermal fixation of atmospheric nitrogen
(thermal NOX) in the combustion flame and from oxidation of nitrogen bound in the coal.
Experimental measurements of thermal NOX formation have shown that the NOX concentration is
exponentially dependent on temperature and is proportional to N2 concentration in the flame, the
square root of oxygen (O2) concentration in the flame, and the gas residence time.22  Typically, only
20 to 60 percent of the fuel  nitrogen is converted to NOX. Bituminous and subbituminous coals
usually  contain from 0.5 to 2 weight percent nitrogen, mainly present in aromatic ring structures.
Fuel nitrogen can account for up to 80 percent of total NOX  from coal combustion.   Nitrogen oxide
emission limits in applicable NSPS are summarized in Table 1.1-15.

        A number of combustion modifications have been used to reduce NOX emissions from boilers.
A summary of currently utilized NOX control technology for stokers is given in Table 1.1-17.  Low
excess air (LEA)  firing  is the most widespread combustion modification,  because it can be practiced
in both old and new  units and  in all sizes of boilers. Low excess air firing is easy to implement and
has the added advantage of increasing fuel use efficiency.  Low excess air firing is generally  effective
only above 20 percent excess air for pulverized coal units and above 30 percent excess air for stokers.
Below these levels, the NOX reduction from decreased  O2 availability is offset by increased NOX
production due to higher flame temperatures. Another NOX reduction technique is simply to switch to
a coal having a lower nitrogen content, although many boilers may not properly fire coals with
different properties.
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                           1.1-29

-------
  Table 1.1-16.  POST-COMBUSTION SO2 CONTROLS FOR COAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
Control Technology
Wet scrubber




Spray drying
Furnace injection
Duct injection
Process
Lime/limestone
Sodium carbonate

Magnesium oxide/
hydroxide
Dual alkali
Calcium hydroxide
slurry, vaporizes hi
spray vessel
Dry calcium
carbonate/hydrate
injection hi upper
furnace cavity
Dry sorbent injection
into duct, sometimes
combined with water
spray
Typical
Control
Efficiencies
80-95+%
80 - 98%

80-95+%
90 - 96%
70 - 90%
25 - 50%
25-50+%
Remarks
Applicable to high sulfur
fuels,
Wet sludge product
1-125 MW (5-430 million
Btu/hr) typical application
range,
High reagent costs
Can be regenerated
Uses lime to regenerate
sodium-based scrubbing
liquor
Applicable to low and
medium sulfur fuels,
Produces dry product
Commercialized in
Europe,
Several U. S.
demonstration projects
underway
Several R&D and
demonstration projects
underway,
Not yet commercially
available hi the U. S.
       Off-stoichiometric (or staged) combustion is also an effective means of controlling NOX
emissions from coal-fired equipment.  This can be achieved by using overfire air or low-NOx burners
designed to stage combustion hi the flame zone. Other NOX reduction techniques include flue gas
recirculation, load reduction, and steam or water injection. However, these techniques are not very
effective for use on coal-fired equipment because of the fuel nitrogen effect. Ammonia injection is a
post-combustion technique which can also be used, but it is costly relative to other  methods.  For
cyclone boilers, the use of natural gas reburning for NOX emission control  is under investigation on a
1.1-30
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
Ul
Table 1.1-17.  COMBUSTION MODIFICATION NOX CONTROLS FOR STOKER COAL-FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Control
Technique
Low Excess Air
(LEA)

Staged
combustion
(LEA + over-
fire air [OF A])

Load Reduction
(LR)
Reduced air
preheat (RAP)
Ammonia
injection

Description Of
Technique
Reduction of air flow
under stoker bed

Reduction of
undergrate air flow
and increase of
overfire air flow

Reduction of coal
and air feed to the
stoker
Reduction of
combustion air
temperature
Injection of NH3 in
convective section of
boiler

Effectiveness Of
Control
(% NOX Reduction)
5-25

5-25

Varies from 49%
decrease to 25 %
increase in NOX
(average 15%
decrease)
8
40-40 (from gas-
and oil-fired boiler
experience)

Range Of
Application
Excess oxygen
limited to 5-6%
minimum

Excess oxygen
limited to 5%
minimum

Has been used
down to 25% load
Combustion air
temperature
reduced from 473K
to 453K
Limited by furnace
geometry. Feasible
NH3 injection rate
limited to
1.5 NH3/NO
Commercial
Availability/R&D Status
Available now but need
R&D on lower limit of
excess air

Most stokers have OFA
ports as smoke control
devices but may need
better sir flow control
devices

Available
Available now if boiler
has combustion air
heater
Commercially offered
but not yet demonstrated

Comments
Danger of overheating
grate, clinker formation,
corrosion, and high CO
emissions
Need research to determine
optimum location and
orientation of OFA ports for
NOX emission control.
Overheating grate,
corrosion, and high CO
emission can occur if
undergrate airflow is
reduced below acceptable
level as in LEA
Only stokers that can reduce
load without increasing
excess air. Not a desirable
technique because of loss in
boiler efficiency
Not a desirable technique
because of loss in boiler
efficiency
Elaborate NH3 injection,
monitoring, and control
system required. Possible
load restrictions on boiler
and air preheater fouling by
ammonium bisulfate
m
X
r-*


3
EL

O
o

3
cr
o


in
o

•-»
o
CP

-------
foil-scale utility boiler.33  The net reduction of NOX from any of these techniques or combinations
thereof varies considerably with boiler type, coal properties, and boiler operating practices.  Typical
reductions will range from 10 to 60 percent.  References 10 and 27 may be consulted for detailed
discussion of each of these NOX reduction techniques.  To date, flue gas treatment has not been used
commercially to reduce NOX emissions from coal-fired boilers because of its higher relative cost.

Carbon Monoxide -
       The rate of CO emissions from combustion sources depends on the fuel oxidation efficiency
of the source.  By controlling die combustion process carefully, CO emissions can be minimized.
Thus, if a unit is operated improperly or not well maintained, the resulting concentrations of CO (as
well as organic compounds) may increase by several orders of magnitude. Smaller boilers, heaters,
and furnaces tend to emit more CO and organics than larger combustors.  This is because smaller
units usually have less high-temperature residence time and, therefore, less tune to achieve complete
combustion than larger combustors.  Various  combustion modification techniques used to reduce NOX
can produce increased CO emissions.

Organic Compounds -
       Small amounts of organic compounds are emitted from coal combustion. As with CO
emissions, the rate at which organic compounds are emitted depends on the combustion efficiency of
the boiler.  Therefore, any combustion modification which reduces the combustion efficiency will
most likely increase the concentrations of organic compounds in the flue gases.

       Total organic compounds (TOC) include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds, and condensable organic compounds. Emissions  of VOCs are primarily
characterized by the criteria pollutant class of unburned vapor-phase hydrocarbons. Unburned
hydrocarbon emissions can include essentially all vapor phase organic compounds emitted from a
combustion source.  These are primarily emissions of aliphatic, oxygenated, and low molecular
weight aromatic compounds which exist in the vapor phase at flue gas temperatures. These emissions
include alkanes, alkenes, aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and substituted benzenes (e. g., benzene,
toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene).17'18

       The remaining organic emissions are composed largely of compounds emitted from
combustion sources in a condensed phase.  These compounds can almost  exclusively be classed into a
group known as polycyclic organic matter (POM), and a subset of compounds called polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA or PAH).  There are also PAH-nitrogen analogs.  Polycyclic organic
matter can be especially prevalent in the emissions from coal combustion, because a large fraction of
the volatile matter in coal exits as POM.19

       Formaldehyde is formed and emitted during combustion of hydrocarbon-based fuels such as
coal.  Formaldehyde  is present in the vapor phase of the flue gas.  Formaldehyde is subject to
oxidation and decomposition at the high temperatures encountered during combustion. Thus, larger
units with efficient combustion (resulting from closely regulated air-fuel ratios, uniformly high
combustion chamber  temperatures, and relatively long gas residence times) have lower formaldehyde
emission rates than do smaller, less efficient combustion units.20'21

Trace Elements -
       Trace elements are also emitted from the combustion of coal.  For this update of AP-42, trace
metals included in the list of 189 hazardous air pollutants under Title  III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments23 were  considered.  The quantity of trace metals depends on combustion temperature,
fuel feed mechanism, and the composition of the fuel.  The temperature determines the degree of
volatilization of specific trace elements contained in the fuel. The fuel feed mechanism affects the

1.1-32                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
partitioning of elements between bottom ash and fly ash.  The quantity of any given metal emitted, in
general, depends on:

        -  the physical and chemical properties of the element itself;

        -  its concentration in the fuel;

        -  the combustion conditions; and

        -  the type of paniculate control device used, and its collection efficiency as a
           function of particle size.

        It has become widely recognized that some trace metals become concentrated in certain waste
particle streams from a combustor (e. g., bottom ash, collector ash, and flue gas particulate) while
others do not.19  Various classification schemes have been developed to describe this partitioning
behavior.24"26  The classification scheme used by Baig et  al.26 is as follows:

        -  Class 1:  Elements which are approximately equally distributed between fly ash
           and  bottom ash, or show little or no small particle enrichment.

        -  Class 2:  Elements which are enriched in fly ash relative to bottom ash, or show
           increasing enrichment with decreasing particle size.

        -  Class 3:  Elements which are intermediate between Class 1 and 2.

        -  Class 4:  Elements which are emitted in the gas phase.

Fugitive Emissions -
        Fugitive emissions are defined as pollutants which escape from an industrial process due to
leakage, materials handling, inadequate operational control, transfer, or storage. The fly ash handling
operations in most modern utility  and industrial  combustion sources consist of pneumatic systems or
enclosed and hooded systems which are vented through small fabric filters or other dust control
devices. The fugitive PM emissions from these systems are therefore minimal. Fugitive particulate
emissions can sometimes occur during fly ash transfer operations from silos to trucks or rail cars.

        Emission factors for SOX, NOX, and CO are presented in Tables 1.1-1 and 1.1-2, along with
emission factor ratings. Particulate matter and PM-10  emission factors and ratings are given in
Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-4.  Cumulative particle size distribution and particulate size-specific emission
factors are given in Figure 1.1-1, Figure 1.1-2, Figure 1.1-3, Figure 1.1-4, Figure 1.1-5, and
Figure 1.1-6 and Tables 1.1-5, 1.1-6, 1.1-7, 1.1-8,  1.1-9, and 1.1-10, respectively. Emission factors
and ratings for speciated organics  and N2O are given in Tables  1.1-11 and 1.1-12. Emission factors
and ratings for other noncriteria pollutants and lead are listed in Tables 1.1-13 and 1.1-14.

        In general, the baseline emissions of criteria and noncriteria pollutants are those from
uncontrolled combustion sources.  Uncontrolled  sources are those without add-on pollution control
(APC) equipment, low-NOx burners, or other modifications designed for emission control.  Baseline
emission for SO2 and PM can also be obtained from measurements taken upstream of APC
equipment.

       Because of the inherently low NOX emission characteristics of FBCs and the potential for in-
bed SO2 capture by calcium-based sorbents,  uncontrolled emission factors for this source category

1/95                              External Combustion  Sources                             1.1-33

-------
were not developed in the same sense as with the other source categories.  For NOX emissions, the

data collected from test reports were considered to be baseline if no additional add-on NOX control

system (such as ammonia injection) was operated. For SO2 emissions, a correlation was developed

from reported data on FBCs to relate SO2 emissions to the coal sulfur content and the calcium-to-

sulfur  ratio in the bed.
      8
2.0A


1.8A



1.6A


1.4A



l.ZA


I.OX



0.8A


0.6A



O.U


0.2A


0
                                  Scrubber
                                                                          l.OA


                                                                          0.6A


                                                                          0.4A
                                                                               e «•
                                                                               "3 ••
         O.ZA  *•;  —
              G. o
              *. v
              **


         O.M  "I,
              .c M
              •*^--

         0.06A I"?


         O.MAp



              si
         0.02A«9
                .4  .6   1     2     4   6


                        Particle diweter (
                                                      10
40 60  100
                                                                          0.01A      —'
                       0.1A  _
                             o
                             *

                       0.06A   I
                                                                                        O.OZA    i
                                                                                              T» ^
                                                                                              C
                                                                                              * 

           •"1
            o  i
                       .2
                             .4  .6  1
                                          246

                                       Particle diweter
                                                       10
                                                            20   4C  60  100
                                                                            0.1A





                                                                            0.06A
                                                                                 i_
                                                                                 o


                                                                            0.04A ,«_



                                                                            0.02A Ji

                                                                                 VI *•-
                                                                                 wt
                                                                                 V w»
                                                                                 E *

                                                                            0.01A *  -
                                                                                 ^ ••"
                                                                                 0) 41
                                                                                 _ o

                                                                            0.006A o ^



                                                                            0.004A § a*


                                                                                 a. *""*
                                                                                 4/t


                                                                            0.002A






                                                                            O.U01A
  Figure 1.1-2.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for wet bottom boilers burning pulverized

                                          bituminous coal.
 1.1-34
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                              1/95

-------
                     1.0ft

                     0.9A


                     C.8A
 S—   °-7A
 *»• V

 gi   o-w
              f

       0.3A

       0.2A

       0.1A

       0
                        .1
                                                        ESP-
                                      i i  i 11
                                   -4  .6   1     2     4   6    10

                                               Particle diameter (un)
                                                                      Uncontrolled
                                                                       C.IOA
                                                                             o

                                                                       U.ObA  '
                                                                                    0.04A   S_

                                                                                    0.02A   «i
         0.01A   £_-
                c *••
                o o
         0-006A  :;
                *> x
         0.004A  ^f1
                                                                                    0.002* 1
                                                       20
40 60  100
 Figure 1.1-3.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for cyclone furnaces burning bituminous
                                                   coal.
10

 9




 7

 6


 5

 4


 3

 2

 1
                               Multiple cyclone with
                               flyasn  reinjection
                       Multiple cyclone without
                       flyash reinjection
                                                             Baghouse
                                                            Uncontrolled
                                                                     i  i  i i i i
   10.0

   6'C   ^
        ':
   4.0  ~-
        o *
        v.
        c •»
   2.0  S_-
        Ss

   1-°  If  •
        ** i-
   0.6  o w
        S.2
   0.4  «S

        5-1
   ...il
          o
   0.1       —I
Q.10


 0.06

 U.04



 0.02



 0.0!


 0.006


 0.004



 0.002


 0.001
                       .2      .4  .6   1     2     4   6    10

                                        Particle diameter (pro)
                                                               20
                                                                     40  60 100
Figure 1.1-4.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for spreader stokers burning bituminous coal.
1/95
                        External Combustion Sources
                       1.1-35

-------
     8




     7.2




5-  6.4
<• -e






r •  4.8



^S  «.0
0) u



e€  3.2

ts

8~  2.4
c
3


     1.6



     0.8



       0
                     .1
                                               Multiple

                                               cyclone
                                I 	I  II I I
10




 .0



 .0






2.0






1.0

                                                                               0.4
                                                                               «i i
                                                                                     i
                                                                               0.1
                   .«  .6   1     2    4   6   10


                           Particle diueter (MB)
                                                                20    40 60  100
Figure 1.1-5.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for overfeed stokers burning bituminous coal.
                   10



                   9




                   8



               o   7
               ••   '
                                                           Uncontrolled
                           i   i  i  i  i i 11
                     .1    .2     .4  .6    1
                                 2     4   6   10    20    40 60  100



                             Par-tic :e diaaeter (pm)
Figure 1.1-6.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for underfeed stokers burning bituminous

                                               coal.
 1.1-36
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                1/95

-------
References For Section 1.1

1.     Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, 1975.

2.     Control Techniques For Paniculate Emissions From Stationary Sources, Volume II,
       EPA^50/3-81-005b U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 1981.

3.     Ibidem, Volume I, EPA-450/3-81-005a.

4.     Electric Utility Steam Generating Units:  Background Information For Proposed Particulate
       Matter Emission Standard, EPA-450/2-78-006a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1978.

5.     W. Axtman, and H. A. Eleniewski, "Field Test Results Of Eighteen Industrial Coal Stoker
       Fired Boilers For Emission Control And Improved Efficiency", Presented at the 74th Annual
       Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Philadelphia, PA, June 1981.

6.     Field Tests Of Industrial Stoker Coal Fired Boilers For Emission Control And
       Efficiency Improvement - Sites LI-17, EPA-600/7-81-020a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.

7.     Control Techniques For Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources, 2nd
       Edition, EPA-450/3-81-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, April 1981.

8.     Electric Utility Steam Generating Units:  Background Information For Proposed SO2
       Emission Standards, EPA-450/2-78-007a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1978.

9.     Castaldini, Carlo and Meredith Angwin, Boiler Design And Operating Variables
       Affecting Uncontrolled Sulfur Emissions From Pulverized Coal Fired Steam
       Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

10.    Control Techniques For Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Stationary Sources, 2nd
       Edition, EPA-450/1-78-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.

11.    Review OfNOx Emission Factors For Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion  Sources,
       EPA-450/4-79-021, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC,  September 1979.

12.    B. N. Gaglia, and A. Hall, "Comparison Of Bubbling And Circulating Fluidized Bed
       Industrial  Steam  Generation",  Proceedings of 1987 International Fluidized Bed
       Industrial  Steam  Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
       1987.

13.    K. Gushing, et al., "Fabric Filtration Experience Downstream From Atmospheric
       Fluidized  Bed Combustion Boilers", Presented at the Ninth Particulate Control
       Symposium, October 1991.

1/95                             External Combustion Sources                           1.1-37

-------
14.    Overview Of The Regulatory Baseline, Technical Basis, And Alternative Control Levels
       For Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emission Standards For Small Steam Generating Units,
       EPA-450/3-89-12, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, May 1989.

15.    Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information - Volume I,
       EPA-450/3-82-006a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March 1982.

16.    EPA Industrial Boiler FGD Survey: First Quarter 1979, EPA-€00/7-79-067b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.

17.    Paniculate Polycyclic Organic Matter, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
       DC, 1972

18.    Vapor Phase Organic Pollutants - Volatile Hydrocarbons And Oxidation Products,
       National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1976.

19.    K. J. Lim, et.al., Industrial Boiler Combustion Modification NOX Controls - Volume I
       Environmental Assessment, EPA-600/7-81-126a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, July 1981.

20.    R. P. Hagebruack, et al., "Emissions and Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and Other
       Pollutants from Heat-Generation and Incineration Process", Journal Of The Air
       Pollution Control Association, 14: 267-278,  1964.

21.    M. B. Rogozen, et al., Formaldehyde: A Survey Of Airborne Concentration And
       Sources, California Air Resources Board, ARE Report No. ARB/R-84-231, 1984.

22.    K. J. Lim, et al., Technology Assessment Report For Industrial Boiler Applications:
       NOX Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.

23.    Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1990, Conference Report to Accompany S.  1603,
       Report 101-952, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,  October 26,
       1990.

24.    D. H. Klein, et al., "Pathways of Thirty-Seven Trace Elements Through Coal-Fired
       Power Plants", Environmental Science And Technology, 9: 973-979,  1975.

25.    D. G. Coles, et al., "Chemical Studies of Stack Fly Ash from a Coal-Fired Power
       Plant", Environmental Science and Technology,  13: 455-459,  1979.

26.    S. Baig, et al., Conventional Combustion Environmental Assessment, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3138, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, 1981.

27.    Technology Assessment Report For Industrial Boiler Applications: NOX Combustion
       Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, December 1979.
1.1-38                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
28.    Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources, 36 FR 24876, December 23,
       1971.

29.    Application Of Combustion Modifications To Control Pollutant Emissions From
       Industrial Boilers - Phase I, EPA-650/2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC,  October 1974.

30.    Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces For Emission Factor Development,
       EPA-50/3-6-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, November 1875.

31.    Emissions Of Reactive  Volatile Organic Compounds From Utility Boilers,
       EPA-600/7-80-111, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May
       1980.

32.    Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For External Combustion Sources,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January
       1985.

33.    S. W. Brown, et al., "Gas Reburn System Operating Experience on a Cyclone Boiler",
       Presented at the NOX Controls For Utility Boilers Conference, Cambridge, MA, July 1992.

34.    Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 1.1 - Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal
       Combustion - Draft,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1993.

35.    Atmospheric Emissions From Coal Combustion: An Inventory Guide, 999-AP-24,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April  1966.

36.    EPA/IFP European Workshop On The Emission Of Nitrous Oxide  For Fuel Combustion,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-4701, Ruiel-Malmaison, France, June 1-2, 1988.

37.    R. Clayton, et al., NOX Field Study, EPA-600/2-89-006, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1989.

38.    L. E. Amand, and S. Anderson, "Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Fluidized Bed Boilers",
       Presented at the Tenth International Conference on Fluidized Bed  Combustor, San Francisco,
       CA, 1989.

39.    Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Chromium, EPA-450/4-84-007g,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1984.

40.    Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Formaldehyde,  (Revised),
       EPA-450/4-91-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1991.

41.    Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From Coal And Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
       Radian Corporation,  Project Officer: Dallas W. Safriet, Research Triangle Park, NC, April
       1989.
1/95                            External Combustion Sources                          1.1-39

-------
42.    Canadian Coal-Fired Plants, Phase I: Final Report And Appendices, Report for the Canadian
       Electrical Association, R&D, Montreal, Quebec, Contract Number 001G194, Report by
       Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.

43.    R. Meij, Auteru dr., The Fate Of Trace Elements At Coal-Fired Plants, Report
       No. 2561-MOC 92-3641, Rapport te bestellen bij; bibliotheek N.V. KEMA, February 13,
       1992.

44.    Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From  Sources Of Manganese, EPA-450/4-84-007h,
       September 1985.
 1.1-40                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
1.2  Anthracite Coal Combustion

1.2.1 General1"*

        Anthracite coal is a high-rank coal with more fixed carbon and less volatile matter than either
bituminous coal or lignite; anthracite also has higher ignition and ash fusion temperatures.  In the
United States, nearly all anthracite is mined in northeastern Pennsylvania and consumed in
Pennsylvania and its surrounding states.  The largest use of anthracite is for space heating. Lesser
amounts are employed for steam/electric production; coke manufacturing, sintering, and pelletizing;
and other industrial uses. Anthracite currently is only a small fraction of the total quantity of coal
combusted in the United States.

        Another form of anthracite coal burned in boilers is anthracite refuse, commonly known as
culm.  Culm was produced  as breaker reject material from the mining/sizing of anthracite coal and
was typically dumped by miners on the ground near operating mines.  It is estimated that there are
over IS million Mg (16 million tons) of culm scattered in piles throughout northeastern Pennsylvania.
The heating value of culm is typically in the 1,400 to 2,800 kcal/kg (2,500 to 5,000 Btu/lb) range,
compared to 6,700 to 7,800 kcal/kg (12,000 to 14,000 Btu/lb) for anthracite coal.

1.2.2 Firing Practices5"7

        Due to its low volatile matter content, and non-clinkering characteristics, anthracite coal is
largely used in medium-sized industrial and institutional stoker boilers equipped with stationary or
traveling grates.  Anthracite coal is not used in spreader stokers because of its low volatile matter
content and relatively high ignition temperature.  This fuel may also be burned in pulverized coal-
fired (PC-fired) units, but, due to ignition difficulties, this practice is limited to only a few plants hi
eastern Pennsylvania.  Anthracite coal has  also been widely used in hand-fired furnaces.  Culm has
been combusted primarily hi fluidized bed  combustion (FBC) boilers because of its high ash content
and low heating value.

        Combustion of anthracite coal on a traveling grate is characterized by a coal bed of 8 to
13 cm (3 to 5  inches) in depth and a high blast of underfire air at the rear or dumping  end of the
grate.  This high blast of air lifts incandescent fuel particles and combustion gases from the grate and
reflects the particles against a long rear arch over the grate towards the front of the fuel bed where
fresh or "green" fuel enters. This special furnace arch design is required to assist in the ignition of
the green fuel.

        A second type of stoker boiler used to burn anthracite coal is the underfeed stoker. Various
types of underfeed stokers are used in industrial boiler applications but the most common for
anthracite coal firing is the single-retort side-dump stoker with stationary grates. In this unit, coal is
fed intermittently to the fuel bed by a ram.  In very small units the coal is fed continuously by a
screw.  Feed coal is pushed through the retort and upward towards the tuyere blocks.  Air is supplied
through the tuyere blocks on each side of the retort and through openings in the side grates. Overture
air is commonly used with underfeed stokers to provide combustion air and turbulence in the flame
zone directly above the active fuel bed.

        In PC-fired boilers, the fuel is pulverized to the consistency of powder and pneumatically
injected through burners into the furnace.  Injected coal particles burn in suspension within the


1/95                              External Combustion Sources                              1.2-1

-------
furnace region of the boiler.  Hot flue gases rise from the furnace and provide heat exchange with
boiler tubes in the walls and upper regions of the boiler. In general, PC-fired boilers operate either
in a wet-bottom or dry-bottom mode; because of its high ash fusion temperature, anthracite coal is
burned in dry-bottom furnaces.

        For anthracite culm, combustion in conventional boiler systems is difficult due to the fuel's
high ash content, high moisture content, and low heating value.  However, the burning of culm in a
fluidized bed system was demonstrated at a steam generation plant in Pennsylvania.  A fluidized bed
consists of inert particles (e. g., rock and ash) through which air  is blown so that the bed behaves as
a fluid. Anthracite coal enters in the space above the bed and burns in the bed.  Fluidized beds can
handle fuels with moisture contents up to near 70 percent (total basis) because of the large thermal
mass represented by the hot inert bed particles.  Fluidized beds can also handle fuels with ash
contents as high as 75 percent. Heat released by combustion is transferred to in-bed steam-generating
tubes.  Limestone may be added to the bed to capture sulfur dioxide formed by combustion of fuel
sulfur.

1.2.3 Emissions And Controls4"6

        Paniculate matter (PM) emissions from anthracite coal combustion are a function of furnace
firing configuration, firing practices  (boiler load, quantity and location of underfire air, soot blowing,
flyash reinjection, etc.), and the ash  content of the coal.  Pulverized coal-fired boilers emit the highest
quantity of PM per unit of fuel because they fire the anthracite in suspension, which results in a high
percentage of ash carryover into exhaust gases.  Traveling grate stokers and hand-fired units produce
less PM per unit of fuel fired, and coarser particulates, because combustion takes place in a quiescent
fuel bed without significant ash carryover into the exhaust gases.  In general, PM emissions from
traveling grate stokers will increase during soot blowing and flyash reinjection and  with higher fuel
bed underfeed air flowrates.  Smoke production during combustion is rarely a problem, because of
anthracite's low volatile matter content.

        Limited data are available on the emission of gaseous pollutants from anthracite combustion.
It is assumed, based on bituminous coal  combustion data, that a large fraction of the fuel sulfur is
emitted as sulfur oxides.  Also, because combustion equipment, excess air rates, combustion
temperatures, etc., are similar between anthracite and bituminous coal combustion,  nitrogen oxide
emissions are also assumed to be similar.  Nitrogen oxide emissions from FBC units burning culm are
typically lower than from other anthracite coal-burning boilers due to  the lower operating
temperatures which characterize FBC beds.

        Carbon monoxide and total organic compound emissions  are dependent on combustion
efficiency.  Generally their emission rates, defined as mass of emissions per unit of heat input,
decrease with increasing boiler size.  Organic compound emissions are expected to  be lower for
pulverized coal units and higher for underfeed and overfeed stokers due to relative  combustion
efficiency levels.

        Controls on anthracite emissions mainly have been applied to  PM.  The most efficient
paniculate controls, fabric filters, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators have been installed on
large pulverized anthracite-fired boilers.  Fabric filters can achieve collection efficiencies exceeding
99 percent.  Electrostatic precipitators typically are only 90 to 97 percent efficient, because of the
characteristic high resistivity of low sulfur anthracite fly ash.  It is reported that higher efficiencies
can be achieved using larger precipitators and flue gas conditioning.  Mechanical collectors are
frequently employed upstream from these devices for large particle removal.
1.2-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
       Older traveling grate stokers are often uncontrolled.  Indeed, participate control has often
been considered unnecessary because of anthracite's low smoking tendencies and the fact that a
significant fraction of large size flyash from stokers is readily collected in flyash hoppers as well as in
the breeching and base of the stack.  Cyclone collectors have been employed on traveling grate
stokers, and limited information suggests these devices may be up to 75 percent efficient on
paniculate.  Flyash reinjection, frequently used in traveling grate stokers to enhance fuel use
efficiency, tends to increase PM emissions per unit of fuel combusted.  High-energy venturi scrubbers
can generally achieve PM collection efficiencies of 90 percent or greater.

       Emission factors and ratings for pollutants from anthracite coal combustion  and anthracite
culm combustion are given in Tables 1.2-1,  1.2-2,  1.2-3, 1.2-4, 1.2-5, 1.2-6, and 1.2-7.  Cumulative
size distribution data and size-specific emission factors and ratings for paniculate emissions are
summarized in Table 1.2-8.  Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission factors are presented
in Figure 1.2-1.  Particle size distribution data for bituminous coal combustion may be used for
uncontrolled emissions from pulverized anthracite-fired furnaces, and data for anthracite-fired
traveling grate stokers may be used for hand-fired units (Figure 1.2-2).10"13
   Table 1.2-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED METALS
          FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION IN STOKER FIRED BOILERS8

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Mercury
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Emission Factor Range
kg/Mg
4.4 E-05 - 6.5 E-05
BDL - 1.2 E-04
BDL
1.5 E-05 - 2.7 E-04
2.3 E-05 - 5.5 E-03
3.0 E-03 - 2.5 E-02
4.9 E-04 - 2.7 E-03
3.9 E-03 - 1.8 E-02
2.4 E-04- 1.1 E-03
Ib/ton
8.7 E-05 - 1.3 E-04
BDL - 2.4 E-04
BDL
3.0 E-05 - 5.4 E-04
4.5 E-05- 1.1 E-04
5.9 E-03 - 4.9 E-02
9.8 E-04 - 5.3 E-03
7.8 E-03 - 3.5 E-02
4.7 E-04 -2.1 E-03
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
6.5 E-05
9.3 E-05
BDL
1.5 E-04
3.6 E-05
1.4 E-02
1.8 E-03
1.3 E-02
6.3 E-04
Ib/ton
1.3 E-04
1.9 E-04
BDL
3.1 E-04
7.1 E-05
2.8 E-02
3.6 E-03
2.6 E-02
1.3 E-03
a Reference 9.  Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of
  Source Classification Codes are 1-01-001-02,  1-02-001-04, and 1-03-001-02.  BDL
  detection limit.
                                             coal burned.
                                             = below
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3

-------
     Table 1.2-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC
  COMPOUNDS (TOC) AND METHANE (CH4) FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORS*
Source Category
Stoker fired boilersb
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04, 1-03-001-02)
Residential space heaters0
TOC Emission Factor
kg/Mg
0.10
ND
Ib/ton
0.20
ND
RATING
E
NA
CH4
kg/Mg
ND
4
Emission Factor
Ib/ton
ND
8
RATING
NA
E
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of coal burned. SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
 Table 1.2-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
                     FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORSa

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(123-cd) perylenc
Benzo(g,h,i,) perylene
Anthanthrene
Coronene
Stoker Fired Boilersb
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04,
1-03-001-02)
Emission Factor
1.25 E-02
3.4 E-03
0.65 E-01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Residential Space Heatersc
(No SCC)
Emission Factor Range
ND
4.6 E-02 -2.1 E-02
4.5 E-03 - 2.4 E-02
7.0 E-03 - 3.4 E-01
7.0 E-03 - 2.0 E-02
4.5 E-03 - 2.9 E-02
4.5 E-03 - 2.3 E-02
4.8 E-02- 1.7 E-01
2.7 E-02- 1.2 E-01
7.0 E-03 - 1.0 E-01
1.2 E-02- 1.1 E-01
7.0 E-03 -3.1 E-02
2.3 E-03 - 7.3 E-03
1.9 E-03 - 4.5 E-03
3.8E-04- 1.2 E-03
2.3 E-03 - 7.0 E-03
/ 2.2 E-03 - 6.0 E-03
9.5 E-05 - 5.5 E-04
5.5 E-04 - 4.0 E-03
Emission Factor
ND
1.6 E-01
1.5 E-01
3.5 E-01
2.5 E-01
1.7 E-02
1.6 E-02
1.1 E-01
7.9 E-02
2.8 E-01
5.3 E-02
2.5 E-01
4.2 E-03
3.5 E-03
8.5 E-04
2.4 E-01
2.1 E-01
3.5 E-03
1.2 E-02
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of anthracite coal burned.
  ND = no data.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
              SCC = Source Classification Code.
1.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
 Table 1.2-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
                      FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORSa

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Biphenyl
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(123-cd) perylene
Benzo(g,h,i,) perylene
Anthanthrene
Coronene
Stoker Fired Boilers'*
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04,
1-03-001-02)
Emission Factor
2.5 E-02
6.8 E-03
1.3 E-01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Residential Space Heaters6
(No SCC)
Emission Factor Range
ND
9.1 E-02 - 4.3 E-02
9.0 E-03 - 4.8 E-02
1.4 E-02 - 6.7 E-01
1.4 E-02 -3.0 E-01
9.0 E-03 - 5.8 E-02
9.0 E-03 - 4.5 E-02
9.6 E-02 - 3.3 E-01
5.4 E-02 - 2.4 E-01
1.4 E-02 -2.0 E-01
2.3 E-02 - 2.2 E-01
1.4 E-02 - 6.3 E-02
4.5 E-03 - 1.5 E-02
3.8 E-03 - 9.0 E-03
7.6 E-04 - 2.3 E-03
4.5 E-03 - 1.4 E-02
4.3 E-03 - 1.2 E-02
1.9 E-04- 1.1 E-03
1.1 E-03 - 8.0 E-03
Emission Factor
ND
3.2 E-01
3.0 E-01
7.0 E-01
4.9 E-01
3.4 E-02
3.3 E-02
2.2 E-01
1.6 E-01
5.5 E-01
1.1 E-01
5.0 E-01
8.4 E-03
7.0 E-03
1.7 E-03
4.7 E-01
4.2 E-01
7.0 E-03
2.4 E-02
a Units are Ibs. of pollutant/ton of anthracite coal burned.
  ND = no data.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 14.
                  SCC = Source Classification Code.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.2-5

-------




^^ N
S
Q
<
U
J
Q
Z
<
/^N
5
•ft
Sx
Oi
H
P
<
•5
^
U
L^ rt
5 Sa
j OS
5 o
0 H
« to
H D
^S
< S
OH 0
OJ U
2^
55 °
DS r i
0 ,
H a
CJ f"1
< 0
u- <
°H

co T-
g<
s ^-
wi
. p£
3" f-1
'S
D
.c
v?
"5b
c
UJ
•o
c
<
o
*w*
OJ
S

in
i
01
_eo
^,
•2
CQ
H




C.
5
f-
L.
~
<
D
r
H tQ
C
w *
S
'c
cs
b
-o c
a, §
*M
V3
c
*
2
en
1 O
! w
j ON
oo
uq
a
2




VH t-
i 2
SJ
J4

a
z
I

a, *3 	

CJ W




tM
0
^


OO
S
"Sb
.x
U
Z
H
eJ
S 2
^ g
(U U, e
3 c
2 .2
S %
Sl

0
i
9
u
in
** )
Tf

U




00
O
O

<
•*
O
0


u

<
oo
O
tso <;
2 ^
•& "=>
•^





&•
o
00
a>
cc
u
CO
a
o
CO











S
o
9
CN
0
1
12§
^u ^

'o 9 ^
JD 9 fN
151
. rj i
|uS
-* C/} I
2 -— - *•"
c/5


<
Z



Q
Z

Q
Z



<
Z




Q
Z

Q
Z


CQ



0
"O




^
r-
co
I
""^
U
U
^
•n
^2

"H fo~
S 0
I§
'*-< t
l! •
K " '



2
08
•o
o
II
Q
Z
fl\
V
•o
o
U

c
.2
o
S
'3
t/3
cS
U
CD
CJ
u*
3
O
CO
II
O
CJ
co
1
u.
.O
13
o
<+->
0
^\
2
•4—*
CC
4_»

"o
a.
•-*-
o
.0
•o
a
•o
CD
C
u*
3
.£>

*08
O
f\

<4-i
O
60
C
w
3 .2
= S
O as
Q, 0 .
+_ — 
C<

•fcJ
.2?
'S
q\
3
«c
<4-c
O
S
CD
*i x
S ^
O — <
0 cu
js y
c« C
re D
II Ǥ
0)
< C*
o -o
1.2-6
                              EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         1/95

-------
              Table 1.2-6 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROGEN OXIDE COMPOUNDS (NOX) AND
                                 SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORSa
Source Category
Stoker fired boilersd
(SCC 1-01-001-02, 1-02-001-04, 1-03-001-02)
FBC boilersf
(no SCC)
Pulverized coal boilers
(SCC 1-01-001-01, 1-02-001-01, 1-03-001-01)
Residential space heaters
(no SCC)
NOX Emission Factorb
kg/Mg
4.6
0.9
9
1.5
Ib/ton
9.0
1.8
18
3
RATING
C
E
B
B
SO2 Emission Factor0
kg/Mg
19.5S6
1.5
19.5S
19.5S
Ib/ton
39S
2.9
39S
39S
RATING
B
E
B
B
tn
X
n
O
o
cr
VI
r-t
o'
a
CO
o
l-i
o
O>
VI
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of coal burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  FBC = fluidized
  bed combustion.
b References  17-18.
c Reference 19.
d References  10-11.
e S = weight percent sulfur.
f Reference 15. FBC boilers burning culm fuel; all other sources burning anthracite coal.
to

-------
 fable 1.2-7 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
        AND CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) FROM ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTORS*
Source Category
Stoker fired boilersb
(SCC 1-01-001-02,
1-02-001-04, 1-03-001-02)
FBC boilers0
(no SCC)
CO Emission
kg/Mg
0.3
0.15
Ib/ton
0.6
0.3
Factor
RATING
B
E
CO2 Emission Factor
kg/Mg
2840
ND
Ib/ton
5680
ND
RATING
C
NA
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of coal burned. SCC = Source
  Classification Code. FBC = fluidized bed combustion.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b References 10,13.
c Reference 15.  FBC boilers burning culm fuel; all other sources burning anthracite coal.
 Table 1.2-8 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE-DISTRIBUTION AND
 SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
                              ANTHRACITE COALa

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Particle
Sizeb
(jim)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL



Cumulative Mass % :< Stated Size
Uncontrolled
32
23
17
6
2
2
1
100
Controlled0
Multiple
Cyclone
63
55
46
24
13
10
7
100
Baghouse
79
67
51
32
21
18
ND
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) Coal, As
Uncontrolled
1.6 A (3.2A)e
1.2A(2.3A)
0.9A(1.7A)
0.3A (0.6A)
0.1 A (0.2A)
0.1A(0.2A)
0.05A (0.1 A)
5 A (10A)
Fired
Controlled0
Multiple
Cyclone
0.63 A
(1.26A)
0.55A
(1.10A)
0.46A
(0.92A)
0.24A
(0.48A)
0.1 3A
(0.26A)
0.10A
(0.20A)
0.07A
(0.14A)
1A (2 A)
Baghouse
0.0079A
(0.01 6A)
0.0067A
(0.01 3A)
0.0051A
(0.010A)
0.0032A
(0.006A)
0.0021A
(0.004A)
0.0018A
(0.004A)
_f
0.01A
(0.02A)
1.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                         Table 1.2-8 (cont.).

 a Reference 8.  Source Classification Codes are 1-01-001-01, 1-02-001-01, and 1-03-001-01.
 b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
 c Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%; for baghouse, 99.8%.
 d Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of coal burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of coal burned.
 e A = coal ash weight %, as fired.
 f Insufficient data.
         2.0A

         1.8A


         *•*

         1.4A
     I-'  l.OA
     -c o
     V U

     if0-"
     ** Ot
     gi  0.6A
     l»
     c
     =   0.4A

         0.2A

           0
 Baghouse
                   Multiple
                   cyclone
            Uncontrolled
                                                              1  s  1 • (
            .1
                        .4  .6   1     2     4   6   10
                                  Particle diameter (urn)
                          4C 6C  103
OA


9A^
*" ID
   H-

8A g
   «A
   tAf
7A 11
                                     4A
2A ^.
   CL
1A -
  i
0.010A

0.009A
      o
0.008A tj
      **.

0.007A 1^
      M k

0.006A p*"
      V tfl

0.005A ?_'
      ? o
0.004A i: u

0.003A ^S1
      W» «—•
0.002A £
      Ol
0.001A "

0
   Figure 1.2-1.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for dry bottom boilers burning pulverized
                                           anthracite coal.
              §= 3
              l-
              ll
              If
                                                         ...I
                                                                     I  i !  I I I
                     .1    .2     .4  .«   1     2     4  i    10    20    40  60  100
                                           tarticlt dlMvttr (pa)
         Figure 1.2-2.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for traveling grate stokers
                                      burning anthracite coal.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
                      1.2-9

-------
References For Section 1.2

1.     Minerals Yearbook, 1978-79, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the Interior,
       Washington, DC, 1981.

2.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

3.     P. Bender, D.  Samela, W. Smith, G. Tsoumpas, and J. Laukaitis,  "Operating Experience at
       the Shamokin Culm Burning Steam Generation Plant", Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting
       of the Air Pollution Control Association, Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

4.     Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Fourth Edition, J. Perry, Editor, McGraw-Hill Book
       Company, New York, NY,  1963.

5.     Background Information Document For Industrial Boilers, EPA 450/3-82-006a, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.

6.     Steam: Its Generation and Use, Thirty-Seventh Edition, The Babcock & Wilcox  Company,
       New York, NY, 1963.

7.     Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.2 - Anthracite Coal Combustion (Draft),
       Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

8.     Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1985.

9.     Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corp., Bedford, MA, October 1980.

10.    Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, RCA-Electronic Components,  Lancaster,
       PA, Final Report, Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, April  1975.

11.    Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Shippensburg State College, Shippensburg,
       PA, Final Report, Scott Environmental Technology, Inc, Plumsteadville, PA, May 1975.

12.    Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Pennhurst Center, Spring City, PA, Final
       Report, TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., Wethersfield, CT, January 23, 1980.

13.    Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, West Chester State College, West Chester,
       PA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA 1980.

14.    Characterization of Emissions ofPAHs From Residential Coal Fired Space Heaters, Vermont
       Agency of Environmental Conservation, 1983.

15.    Design,  Construction, Operation,  and Evaluation of a Prototype Culm Combustion
       Boiler/Heater Unit, Contract No.  AC21-78ET12307, U.  S. Dept. of Energy, Morgantown
       Energy Technology Center,  Morgantown, WV, October  1983.
1.2-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
 16.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

 17.    Source Test Data on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate Stokers, Office of Air Quality Planning
       and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.

 18.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume IV:  Commercial/Institutional Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford,  MA, October 1980.

 19.    R. W. Cass and R. W. Bradway, Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler Baghouse: Sunbury
       Steam Electric Station, EPA-600/2-76-077a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, March 1976.
1/95                            External Combustion Sources                            1.2-11

-------

-------
1.3  Fuel Oil Combustion

1.3.1  General1'2' 26

       Two major categories of fuel oil are burned by combustion sources: distillate oils and
residual oils. These oils are further distinguished by grade numbers, with Nos.  1 and 2 being
distillate oils; Nos. 5 and 6 being residual oils; and No. 4 either distillate oil or  a mixture of distillate
and residual oils.  No. 6 fuel oil is sometimes referred to as Bunker C.  Distillate oils are more
volatile and less viscous than residual oils. They have negligible nitrogen and ash contents and
usually contain less than 0.3 percent sulfur (by weight). Distillate oils are used mainly in domestic
and small commercial applications. Being more viscous and less volatile than distillate oils, the
heavier residual oils (Nos. 5 and 6) must be heated for ease of handling and to facilitate proper
atomization.  Because residual oils are produced from the residue remaining after the lighter fractions
(gasoline, kerosene, and distillate oils) have been removed from the crude oil, they contain significant
quantities of ash, nitrogen, and sulfur.  Residual oils are used mainly in utility, industrial, and large
commercial applications.

1.3.2  Emissions27

       Emissions from fuel oil  combustion depend on the grade and composition of the fuel, the type
and size of the  boiler, the firing and loading practices used, and the level of equipment maintenance.
Because the combustion characteristics of distillate and residual oils are different, their combustion
can produce significantly different emissions.  In general, the baseline emissions of criteria and
noncriteria pollutants are those from uncontrolled combustion sources.  Uncontrolled sources are
those without add-on air pollution control (APC) equipment or other combustion modifications
designed for emission control.  Baseline emissions for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and paniculate matter
(PM) can also be obtained from  measurements taken upstream of APC  equipment.

       In this section, point source emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX),  SO2, PM, and carbon
monoxide (CO) are being evaluated as criteria pollutants (those emissions for which National Primary
and Secondary  Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established.  Particulate matter emissions are
sometimes reported as total suspended paniculate (TSP).  More recent data generally quantify the
portion of inhalable PM that is considered to be less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
(PM-10).  In addition to the criteria pollutants, this section includes point source emissions of some
noncriteria pollutants, nitrous oxide (N2O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), as well as data on  particle size distribution to support PM-10 emission inventory
efforts. Emissions of carbon dioxide  (CO2) are also being considered because of its  possible
participation in global climatic change and the corresponding interest in including this gas in emission
inventories.  Most of the carbon in fossil fuels is emitted as CO2 during combustion.  Minor  amounts
of carbon are emitted as CO, much of which ultimately oxidizes to CO2 or as  carbon in the ash.
Finally, fugitive emissions associated  with the use of oil at the combustion source are being included
in this section.

       Tables  1.3-1, 1.3-2, 1.3-3, and 1.3-4 present emission factors for uncontrolled  emissions of
criteria pollutants  from fuel oil combustion.  A general discussion of emissions of criteria and
noncriteria pollutants from coal  combustion is given in the following paragraphs. Tables 1.3-5,
1.3-6, 1.3-7, and 1.3-8 present cumulative size distribution data and size-specific emission factors for
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                               1.3-1

-------
  z
  o
  ^H

  I
  CQ

  8
  O
  i
  o
  CJ

  D
  oi
  O
  tu
  on

  g
  UH

  2
  O
  ^H
  CO
  CO
  Z
  i
  a.
  oi
  U
  &
  'S

w
ft<
Jjj
JO
2
v>
2




 o
" o'O o'O do
S Z Z Z
S

CQCQ0 < CO < CO < CQ < CQ




*! *l *l *l *! ""l •*! *! *l *! *!
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


<, <; •<, <•<,-<.<. <,<,<,<,

^5 \p \@ \Q \Q ^5 ^p ^p \p ^5 ^5
o o o d o d o o o' o" o'



^ ^ ^ ^ ^
< < < <<<< <<<<




vq vo •* •* vq vo •* ^f


ouu <<<< <<<;<



CO CO CO COCOCOCO COCOCOCO
vo vo vo fNicsr^cN eNr^rJfS
d d o d d o' d d d d d


j ^ ^ ^ j ^ ^ ^ ^ * *,



CO CO CO COCOCOCO COCOCOCO
ON OO OO O\ONt— OO ONONf-OO

O O "c3 O O
g> g1 ?5 « "^ ?3 «
*c w) *n ^- -^*- i -^** ^ '*^ -^"^ i ^**~
*** *C **^ oooo'SS cpooo
"TO **= ^M <<£ -4 ? »o jJ TTTT^W-I
"g *g g §§o§^ SSoS
4> C 
d


^«

VO
d



,
**•




5
1

-------
                                                                Table 1.3-1 (cont.).

         a SCC =  Source Classification Code.
         b References 1-6,23,42-46.  S indicates that the weight % of sulfur in the oil should be multiplied by the value given.
         c References 1-5,45-46,22.
         d References 3-4,10,15,24,42-46,48-49.  Expressed as NO2. Test results indicate that at least 95% by weight of NOX is NO for all
           boiler types except residential furnaces, where about 75% is NO.  For utility vertical fired boilers use 12.6 kg/103 L at full load
           andnormal (> 15%) excess air.  Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil combustion in industrial and commercial boilers are
           related to  fuel nitrogen content, estimated by the following empirical relationship:  kg NO2 /103 L = 2.465 + 12.526(N), where N is
           the weight percent of nitrogen in the oil.
         e References 3-5,8-10,23,42-46,48.  CO emissions may increase by factors of 10 to 100  if the unit is improperly operated or not well
           maintained.
£        f Emission  factors for CO2 from  oil combustion should be calculated using kg CO2/103 L oil  =  31.0 C (distillate) or 34.6 C (residual).
|        8 References 3-5,7,21,23-24,42-46,47,49. Filterable PM is that particulate collected on or prior to the filter  of an EPA Method 5 (or
EL         equivalent) sampling train. PM-10 values  include the sum of that particulate collected on the PM-10 filter of an EPA Method 201 or
£>         201A sampling train and condensable emissions as measured by EPA Method 202.
3.       h Particulate emission factors for  residual oil combustion are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
           No. 6 oil: 1.12(S) + 0.37 kg/103 L, where S is the weight % of sulfur in oil.
           No. 5 oil: 1.2 kg/103  L
           No. 4 oil: 0.84 kg/103 L
.
§
          No. 2 oil:  0.24 kg/103 L

-------
        Table 1.3-2 (English Units).  CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
Firing Configuration
(SCC)a
Utility boilers
No. 6 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-004-01)
No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-04)
No. 5 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-004-05)
No. 5 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-004-06)
No. 4 oil fired, normal firing
(1-01-005-04)
No. 4 oil fired, tangential firing
(1-01-005-05)
Industrial boilers
No. 6 oil fired (1-02-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired (1-02-004-04)
Distillate oil fired (1-02-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired (1-02-005-04)
Commercial/institutional/residential
combustors
No. 6 oil fired (1-03-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired (1-03-004-04)
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired (1-03-005-04)
Residential furnace (No SCC)
SO2b
lb/103 gal

157S
157S
157S
157S
150S
150S

157S
157S
142S
150S

157S
157S
142S
150S
142S
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
SO3C
lb/103 gal

5.7S
5.7S
5.7S
5.7S
5.7S
5.7S

2S
2S
2S
2S

2S
2S
2S
2S
2S
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
C
C
C
C
C

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
N0xd
lb/103 gal

67
42
67
42
67
42

55
55
20
20

55
55
20
20
18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
coe>f
lb/103 gal

5
5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
Filterable PM«
lb/103 gal

_h
_h
_h
_h
_h
_h

-h
_h
_h
_h

_h
_h
_h
_h
3
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
B
B
B
B

A
B
A
B

A
B
A
B
A
m
GO
GO
H^
o
z
O
GO
Ul

-------
S                                                              Table 1.3-2 (cont.).

         8 SCC = Source Classification Code.
         b References 1-6,23,42-46.  S indicates that the weight % of sulfur in the oil should be multiplied by the value given.
         c References 1-5,45-46,22.
         d References 3-4,10,15,24,42-46,48-49.  Expressed as NO2.  Test results indicate that at least 95% by weight of NOX is NO for all
           boiler types except residential furnaces, where about 75%  is NO.  For utility vertical fired boilers use 105 lb/103 gal at full load and
           normal  (> 15%) excess air. Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil  combustion in industrial and commercial boilers are related to
           fuel nitrogen content, estimated by the following empirical relationship:  Ib N02 /103 gal = 20.54 +  104.39(N), where N is the
           weight percent of nitrogen in the oil.
         e References 3-5,8-10,23,42-46,48.  CO emissions may increase by factors of 10 to 100 if the unit is improperly operated or not well
           maintained.
>?       f Emission factors for C02 from oil combustion should be calculated  using Ib CO2/103 gal oil = 259 C (distillate) or 288 C (residual).
|       g References 3-5,7,21,23-24,42-46,47,49.  Filterable PM is  that particulate collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or
EL         equivalent) sampling train.  PM-10 values include the sum of that particulate collected on the PM-10 filter of an EPA Method 201 or
Q         201A sampling train and condensable emissions as measured by EPA Method 202.
3,       h Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion are,  on average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur  content:
           No. 6 oil: 9.19(S) +  3.22 lb/103 gal, where S is the weight % of sulfur in oil.
           No. 5 oil: 10 lb/103 gal
           No. 4 oil: 7 lb/103 gal
g         No. 2 oil: 2 lb/103 gal
 ,
1-1

-------
    Table 1.3-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
     (TOC), METHANE, AND NONMETHANE TOC (NMTOC) FROM UNCONTROLLED
                              FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
Firing Configuration
(SCC)a
Utility boilers
No. 6 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-01)
No. 6 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-04)
No. 5 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-05)
No. 5 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-06)
No. 4 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-005-04)
No. 4 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-005-05)
Industrial boilers
No. 6 oil fired
(1-02-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired
(1-02-004-04)
Distillate oil fired
(1-02-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired
(1-02-005-04)
Commercial/institutional/
residential combustors
No. 6 oil fired
(1-03-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired
(1-03-004-04)
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired
(1-03-005-04)
Residential furnace
(No SCC)
TOCb
kg/103 L

0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125

0.154
0.154
0.030
0.030

0.193
0.193
0.067
0.067
0.299
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
Methaneb
kg/103 L

0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.034

0.12
0.12
0.006
0.006

0.057
0.057
0.026
0.026
0.214
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
NMTOCb
kg/103 L

0.091
0.091
0.091
0.091
0.091
0.091

0.034
0.034
0.024
0.024

0.136
0.136
0.041
0.041
0.085
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 16-19.  Volatile organic compound emissions can increase by several orders of
  magnitude if the boiler is improperly operated or is not well maintained.
1.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
    Table 1.3-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
     (TOC), METHANE, AND NONMETHANE TOC (NMTOC) FROM UNCONTROLLED
                               FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
Firing Configuration
(SCC)a
Utility boilers
No. 6 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-01)
No. 6 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-04)
No. 5 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-004-05)
No. 5 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-004-06)
No. 4 oil fired, normal
firing (1-01-005-04)
No. 4 oil fired, tangential
firing (1-01-005-05)
Industrial boilers
No. 6 oil fired
(1-02-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired
(1-02-004-04)
Distillate oil fired
(1-02-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired
(1-02-005-04)
Commercial/institutional/
residential combustors
No. 6 oil fired
(1-03-004-01/02/03)
No. 5 oil fired
(1-03-004-04)
Distillate oil fired
(1-03-005-01/02/03)
No. 4 oil fired
(1-03-005-04)
Residential furnace
(No SCC)
TOCb
lb/103 gal

1.04

1.04

1.04

1.04

1.04

1.04


1.28

1.28

0.252

0.252



1.605

1.605

0.556

0.556

2.493

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A

A

A

A

A

A


A

A

A

A



A

A

A

A

A

Methaneb
EMISSION
FACTOR
lb/103 gal RATING

0.28 A

0.28 A

0.28 A

0.28 A

0.28 A

0.28 A


1 A

1 A

0.052 A

0.052 A



0.475 A

0.475 A

0.216 A

0.216 A

1.78 A

NMTOCb
lb/103 gal

0.76

0.76

0.76

0.76

0.76

0.76


0.28

0.28

0.2

0.2



1.13

1.13

0.34

0.34

0.713

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

A

A

A

A

A

A


A

A

A

A



A

A

A

A

A

a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 16-19. Volatile organic compound emissions can increase by several orders of
  magnitude if the boiler is improperly operated or is not well maintained.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-7

-------
00
                        Table 1.3-5 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
                            SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UTILITY BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OILa
Particle
Sizeb
(jtm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass %
<, Stated Size
Uncontrolled
80
71
58
52
43
39
20
100
Controlled
ESP
75
63
52
41
31
28
20
100
Scrubber
100
100
100
97
91
84
64
100
Cumulative Emission Factor [kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)]
Uncontrolled0
Factor
0.80A(6.7A)
0.71A (5.9A)
0.58 A (4. 8 A)
0.52A (4.3A)
0.43A (3.6A)
0.39 A (3. 3 A)
0.20A(1.74)
1A (8.3A)
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
ESP Controlled11
Factor
0.0060A (0.05A)
0.005A (0.042A)
0.0042A (0.035A)
0.0033A (0.028A)
0.0025A (0.021A)
0.0022A (0.018A)
0.0008A (0.007 A)
0.008A (0.067 A)
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Scrubber Controlled6
Factor
0.06A (0.50A)
0.06A (0.050A)
0.06A (0.50A)
0.058A (0.48A)
0.055A (0.46A)
0.050A (0.42A)
0.03 8A (0.32A)
0.06A (0.50A)
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
m

on
I—(
O

Tl

9
O
C/3
         a Reference 29.  Source Classification Codes 1-01-004-01/04/05/06 and 1-01-005-04/05. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
         b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
         c Paniculate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and
           sulfur content:
           No. 6 oil:  A = 1.12(S) + 0.37 kg/103 L, where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil.
           No. Soil:  A = 1.2 kg/103 L
           No. 4 oil:  A = 0.84 kg/103 L
         d Estimated control efficiency for ESP is 99.2%.
         e Estimated control efficiency for scrubber is 94%.

-------
            Table 1.3-6 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
                                      FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OIL8
Particle
Sizeb
(Mm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass % ^ Stated Size
Uncontrolled
91
86
77
56
39
36
30
100
Multiple Cyclone
Controlled
100
95
72
22
21
21
_d
100
Cumulative Emission Factor6 [Kg/103 1 (lb/103
Uncontrolled
Factor
0.91 A (7.59A)
0.86A (7.17A)
0.77A (6.42A)
0.56A (4.67A)
0.39A (3.25A)
0.36A (3.00A)
0.30A (2.50A)
1A (8.34A)
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
gal)]
Multiple Cyclone Controlled6
Factor
0.20A(1.67A)
0.19A(1.58A)
0.14A(1.17A)
0.04A (0.33A)
0.04A (0.33A)
0.04A (0.33A)
_d
0.2A(1.67A)
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
NA
E
<6
"1


O
o

cr
C/l
*-*•
5'
3
00
o
         a Reference 29.  Source Classification Codes 1-02-004-01/02/03/04 and  1-02-005-04.  NA = not applicable.
         b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
         c Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a function of fuel oil grade and
          sulfur content:
          No. 6 oil: A = 1.12(S) + 0.38 kg/103 L, where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil.
          No. Soil: A = 1.2 kg/103 L
          No. 4 oil: A = 0.84 kg/103 L
         d Insufficient data.
         e Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%.
OJ

-------
 Table 1.3-7 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
 SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING
                                DISTILLATE OILa

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass % < Stated
Size
Uncontrolled
68
50
30
12
9
8
2
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
[kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)]
Uncontrolled
0.16(1.33)
0.12(1.00)
0.07 (0.58)
0.03 (0.25)
0.02 (0.17)
0.02 (0.17)
0.005 (0.04)
0.24 (2.00)
a Reference 29. Source Classification Codes 1-02-005-01/02/03.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
1.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
  Table 1.3-8 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
    SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED COMMERCIAL BOILERS
                         BURNING RESIDUAL AND DISTILLATE OILa

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle
Sizeb
Gun)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass
Uncontrolled,
Residual
Oil
78
62
44
23
16
14
13
100
% ^ Stated Size
Uncontrolled,
Distillate
Oil
60
55
49
42
38
37
35
100
Cumulative Emission Factor0
[kg/103 L (lb/103 gal)]
Uncontrolled,
Residual
Oil
0.78A (6.50A)
0.62A(5.17A)
0.44A (3. 67 A)
0.23A (1.92A)
0.16A(1.33A)
0.14A (1.17A)
0.13A(1.08A)
1A (8. 34 A)
Uncontrolled,
Distillate
Oil
0.14(1.17)
0.13 (1.08)
0.12(1.00)
0.10(0.83)
0.09 (0.75)
0.09 (0.75)
0.08 (0.67)
0.24 (2.00)
 a Reference 29.  Source Classification Codes:  1-03-004-01/02/03/04 and 1-03-005-01/02/03/04.
 b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
 c Particulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average, a
  function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
  No. 6 oil: A = 1.12(S) + 0.37 kg/103 L, where S is the weight % of sulfur in the oil.
  No. Soil: A = 1.2 kg/103 L
  No. 4 oil: A = 0.84 kg/103 L
  No. 2 oil: A = 0.24 kg/103 L
paniculate emissions from fuel oil combustion.  Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission
factors are presented in Figure 1.3-1, Figure 1.3-2, Figure 1.3-3, and Figure 1.3-4.  Distillate and
residual oil categories aregiven separately, because their combustion produces significantly different
particulate, SO2, and NOX emissions.

1.3.2.1  Particulate Matter Emissions3'7'12-13'21'23'24 -
       Particulate matter emissions depend predominantly on the grade of fuel fired. Combustion of
lighter distillate oils results in significantly lower PM formation than does combustion of heavier
residual oils.  Among residual oils, firing of Nos. 4 or 5 oils usually produces less PM than does the
firing of heavier No. 6 oil.

       In general, PM emissions depend on the completeness of combustion as well as on the oil ash
content. The PM emitted by distillate oil-fired boilers is primarily carbonaceous particles resulting
from incomplete combustion of oil and is not correlated to the ash or sulfur content of the oil.
However, PM emissions from residual oil burning is related to the oil sulfur content. This is because
low sulfur No. 6 oil, either refined from naturally low sulfur crude oil or desulfurized by one of
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-11

-------

            i.o*
            0.9*
            o.a*
            0.7A
            O.tt
            0.5*
            0.4A
            0.3*
            0.2*
            0.1A
            0
                  .1
              I   	I  I  III
.4  .6   1     2      4   6   10
          Particle diameter (tin)
                                                                20
                                        40  60  100
                                                 0.1QA
                                                 0.09A
                                                 0.08A
                                                 0.07A
                                                 0.06A
                                                 O.OSA
                                                 0.04A
                                                 0.03*
                                                 0.02*
                                                 0.01*
                                                 0
1
0.01*
0.006*
0.004*

0.002*

0.001*
- £
5 "
        0.0004* §
        0.0002A £
        0.0001*
      Figure 1.3-1.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for utility boilers firing residual oil.
          12
                                  .4  .6
           I     2      4   6    10     20
              Pit-tide diameter (y«)
                                                                          40  CO  100
   Figure 1.3-2.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for industrial boilers firing residual oil.
1.3-12
           EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                      1/95

-------
                     O.M
                     0.20
                     0.15

                     0.05
                                                                        __£_	1 _,___; _j i ^ j_ j_
       .1    .2     .4  .6
                                              1     2     4   «  10
                                                Parttclt dlMettr (»•)
                                                     20     40  CO   100
    Figure 1.3-3.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for uncontrolled industrial boilers firing
                                              distillate oil.
1.00*


0.90*


0.80*


0.70*

0.60*


0.50*

0.40*


O.JOA

0.20*

0.10*

0
                                 Oisti1l
                                                                                            —
                                                                                            o
                                                                                      0.15
                                                                                     0.10
                                                                                     0.05
                        .1     .2     .4  .6  1      2      46   10

                                              P«rticl« ditmeter lua)
                                                    20     40 60  100
     Figure  1.3-4.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for uncontrolled commercial boilers
                                   burning residual and distillate oil.
1/95
                  External Combustion Sources
                                                                                                  1.3-13

-------
several processes, exhibits substantially lower viscosity and reduced asphaltene, ash, and sulfur
contents, which results in better atomization and more complete combustion.

       Boiler load can also affect particulate emissions in units firing No. 6 oil.  At low load
conditions, particulate emissions from utility boilers may be lowered by 30 to 40 percent and by as
much as 60 percent from small industrial and commercial units. However, no significant particulate
emissions reductions have been noted at low loads from boilers firing any of the lighter grades. At
very low load conditions, proper combustion conditions may be difficult to maintain and particulate
emissions may increase significantly.

1.3.2.2  Sulfur Oxides Emissions1"6'22 -
       Sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions are generated during oil combustion from the oxidation of
sulfur contained in the fuel.  The emissions of SOX from conventional combustion systems are
predominantly in the form of SO2- Uncontrolled SOX emissions are almost entirely dependent  on the
sulfur content of the fuel and are not affected by boiler size, burner design, or grade of fuel being
fired. On average, more than 95 percent of the fuel sulfur is converted to SO2:  about 1 to 5 percent
is further oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO3); and about 1 to  3 percent is emitted as sulfate particulate.
SO3 readily reacts with water vapor (both in the atmosphere and in flue gases) to form a sulfuric acid
mist.

1.3.2.3  Nitrogen Oxides Emissions1-11'14'15-20'24-25'28-29'41 -
       Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) formed in combustion processes are due either to  thermal fixation
of atmospheric nitrogen in the combustion air ("thermal NOX"), or to the conversion of chemically
bound nitrogen hi the  fuel  ("fuel NOX").  The term NOX refers to the composite of nitric oxide (NO)
and nitrogen dioxide (NO^. Nitrous oxide is not included hi NOX but has taken on recent interest
because of atmospheric effects.  Test data have shown that for most external fossil fuel combustion
systems, over 95 percent of the emitted NOX is in the form of NO.

       Experimental measurements of thermal NOX formation have shown that NOX concentration is
exponentially dependent on temperature, and proportional to N2 concentration in the flame, the square
root of O2 concentration in the flame,  and the residence time. Thus, the formation  of thermal  NOX is
affected by four factors: (1) peak temperature, (2) fuel nitrogen concentration,  (3) oxygen
concentration, and (4) time of exposure at peak temperature.  The emission trends due to changes hi
these factors are generally consistent for all types of boilers:  an increase hi flame temperature,
oxygen availability, and/or residence time at high temperatures leads to an increase  hi NOX
production.

       Fuel nitrogen  conversion is the more important NOx-forming mechanism hi residual oil
boilers.  It can account for 50 percent of the total NOX emissions from residual oil firing.  The
percent conversion of fuel  nitrogen to  NOX varies greatly, however; typically from 20 to 90 percent
of nitrogen in oil  is converted to NOX. Except hi certain large units having unusually high peak
flame temperatures, or hi units firing a low nitrogen content residual oil, fuel NOX generally accounts
for over 50 percent of the total NOX generated.  Thermal fixation, on the other hand, is the dominant
NOX forming mechanism hi units firing distillate oils, primarily because of the negligible nitrogen
content in these lighter oils. Because distillate oil-fired boilers usually have lower heat release rates,
the quantity of thermal NOX formed in them is less than that of larger units.50

       A number of variables influence how much NOX is formed by these two mechanisms.  One
important variable is firing configuration.  NOX emissions  from tangentially (corner) fired boilers are,
on the average, less than those of horizontally opposed units.  Also important are the firing practices
employed during boiler operation.  Low excess air  (LEA) firing,  flue gas recirculation (FOR), staged

1.3-14                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
combustion (SC), reduced air preheat (RAP), low NOX burners (LNBs), or some combination thereof
may result in NOX reductions of 5 to 60 percent.  Load reduction (LR) can likewise decrease NOX
production.  Nitrogen oxides emissions may be reduced from 0.5 to 1 percent for each percentage
reduction in load from full load operation. It should be noted that most of these variables, with the
exception of excess air, influence the NOX emissions only of large oil fired boilers.  Low excess air-
firing is possible in many small boilers, but the resulting NOX reductions are less  significant.

       Recent N2O emissions data indicate that direct N2O emissions from oil combustion units are
considerably below the measurements made prior to 1988.  Nevertheless, the N2O formation and
reaction mechanisms are still not well understood or well characterized. Additional sampling and
research is needed to fully characterize  N2O emissions and to understand the N2O formation
mechanism.  Emissions can vary widely from unit to unit, or even from the same unit at different
operating conditions.  It has been shown in some cases that N2O increases with decreasing boiler
temperature.  For this update,  average emission factors based on reported test data have been
developed for conventional oil combustion systems.  These factors are presented in Table 1.3-9.
  Table 1.3-9 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROUS OXIDE (N2O),
         POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM), AND FORMALDEHYDE (HCOH)
                              FROM FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
             Firing Configuration
                   (SCC)a
                                                  Emission Factor, kg/103 L (lb/1012 Btu)
               N2Ob
POMC
HCOH0
  Utility/industrial/commercial boilers

   No. 6 oil fired
    (1-01-004-01, 1-02-004-01, 1-03-004-01)

   Distillate oil fired
    (1-01-005-01, 1-02-005-01, 1-03-005-01)

  Residential furnaces (No SCC)
            0.013(0.11)  3.2-3.6 (7.4-8.4)d   69-174(161-405)
            0.013(0.11)      9.7(22)e
            0.006 (0.05)
 ND
             100-174 (233-405)
  ND
a SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b References 28-29.
c References 16-19.
d Paniculate and gaseous POM.
c Paniculate POM only.
       The new source performance standards (NSPS) for PM, SO2, and NOX emissions from
residual oil combustion in fossil fuel-fired boilers are shown in Table 1.3-10.

1.3.2.4  Carbon Monoxide Emissions16"19 -
       The rate of CO emissions from combustion sources depends on the oxidation efficiency of the
fuel. By controlling the combustion process carefully, CO emissions can be minimized.  Thus if a
unit is operated improperly or not well maintained, the resulting concentrations of CO (as well as
organic compounds) may increase by several orders of magnitude. Smaller boilers, heaters, and
furnaces tend to emit more of these pollutants than larger combustors.  This  is because smaller units
1/95
External Combustion Sources
                        1.3-15

-------
 Table 1.3-10 (Metric And English Units). NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
                         FOSSIL FUEL FIRED BOILERS
Standard/
Boiler Types/
Applicability
Criteria
SubpartD
Industrial-Utility
Commence construction
after 8/17/71
Subpart Da
Utility
Commence construction
after 9/18/78

Subpart Db
Industrial-Commercial
Institution
Commence construction
after 6/19/84m



Boiler Size
MW
(Million
Btu/hr)
>73
(>250)


>73
(>250)



>29
(>100)





Fuel
Or
Boiler
Type
Gas
Oil
Bit./Subbit.
Coal
Gas

Oil
Bit./Subbit.
Coal
Gas
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Pulverized
Bit./Subbit.
Coal
Spreader
Stoker &
FBC
Mass-Feed
Stoker
PM
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
43
(0.10)
43
(0.10)
43
(0.10)
13
(0.03)
[NA]

13
(0.03)
[70]
13
(0.03)
[99]
NAd
43
(0.10)
(Same as for
distillate oil)
22e
(0.05)
22e
(0.05)
22e
(0.05)
SO2
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
NAd
340
(0.80)
520
(1.20)
340
(0.80)
[90]«

340
(0.80)
[90]"
520
(1.20)
[90]"
NAd
340"
(0.80)
[90]
(Same as for
distillate oil)
520e
(1.20)
[90]
520e
(1.20)
[90]
520e
(1.20)
[90]
NOX
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
86
(0.20)
129
(0.30)
300
(0.70)
86
(0.20)
[25]

130
(0.30)
[30]
260/210°
(0.60/0.50)
[65/65]
43f
(0.10)
43f
(0.10)
130S
(0.30)
300
(0.70)
260
(0.60)
210
(0.50)
1.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                     Table 1.1-10 (cont.).
Standard/
Boiler Types/
Applicability
Criteria
Subpart DC

Small Industrial
Commercial-
Institutional
Commence construction
after 6/9/89

Boiler Size
MW
(Million
Btu/hr)
2.9-29
(10 - 100)






Fuel
Or
Boiler
Type
Gas

Oil


Bit./Subbit.
Coal

PM
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
_h

_hj


22J>k
(0.05)

SO2
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
—

215
(0.50)

520k
(1.20)
[90]
NOX
ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
[% reduction]
—

	


	


a Zero percent reduction when emissions are less than 86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/MMBtu).  FBC = fluidized
  bed combustion.  NA  = not applicable.
b 70 percent reduction when emissions are less than 260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/MMBtu).
c The first number applies to bituminous coal and the second to subbituminous coal.
d Standard applies when gas is fired in combination with coal; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db.
e Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db.
f For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3  (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
  86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/MMBtu).
« For furnace heat release rates greater than 730,000 J/s-m3  (70,000 Btu/hr-ft3), the standard is
  170 ng/J (0.40 Ib/MMBtu).
h Standard applies when gas or oil is fired in combination with coal; see 40 CFR 60,  Subpart DC.
J 20 percent capacity limit applies for heat input capacities of 8.7 Mwt (30 MMBtu/hr) or greater.
k Standard is adjusted for fuel combinations and capacity factor limits; see 40 CFR 60, Subpart DC.
m Additional requirements apply to facilities which commenced construction, modification, or
  reconstruction after 6/19/84 but on or before 6/19/86 (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60,
  Subpart Db).
n 215 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million  Btu) limit (but no percent reduction requirement) applies if facilities
  combust only very low sulfur oil (<0.5 wt. % sulfur).
usually have a higher ratio of heat transfer surface area to flame volume leading to reduced flame
temperature and combustion intensity and, therefore, lower combustion efficiency than larger
combustors.

       The presence of CO in the exhaust gases of combustion systems results principally from
incomplete fuel combustion.  Several conditions can lead to incomplete combustion,  including:

       -  insufficient oxygen (O2) availability;

       -  poor fuel/air mixing;

       -  cold wall flame quenching;

       -  reduced combustion temperature;
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.3-17

-------
       -  decreased combustion gas residence time; and

       -  load reduction (i. e., reduced combustion intensity).

Since various combustion modifications for NOX reduction can produce one or more of the above
conditions, the possibility of increased CO emissions is a concern for environmental, energy
efficiency, and operational reasons.

1.3.2.5 Organic Compound Emissions16"19'30"35'64 -
       Small amounts of organic compounds are emitted from combustion.  As with CO emissions,
the rate at which organic compounds are emitted depends, to some extent, on the combustion
efficiency of the boiler.  Therefore, any combustion modification which reduces the combustion
efficiency will most likely increase the concentrations of organic compounds in the flue gases.

       Total organic compounds (TOCs) include VOCs,  semi-volatile organic compounds, and
condensible organic compounds. Emissions of VOCs are primarily characterized by the  criteria
pollutant class of unburned vapor phase hydrocarbons.  Unburned hydrocarbon emissions can include
essentially all vapor phase organic compounds emitted from a combustion source.  These are
primarily  emissions of aliphatic, oxygenated, and low molecular weight aromatic compounds which
exist in the vapor phase at flue gas temperatures.  These emissions include all alkanes, alkenes,
aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and substituted benzenes (e. g., benzene, toluene, xylene,  and  ethyl
benzene).

       The remaining organic emissions are composed largely of compounds emitted from
combustion  sources hi a condensed phase. These compounds  can almost  exclusively be classed into a
group known as polycyclic organic matter (POM), and a subset of compounds called polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA or PAH). There are also PAH-nitrogen analogs. Information available
in the literature on POM compounds generally pertains to these PAH groups.

       Formaldehyde is formed and emitted during combustion  of hydrocarbon-based  fuels including
coal and oil. Formaldehyde is present in the vapor phase of the flue gas.  Formaldehyde is subject to
oxidation  and decomposition at the high temperatures encountered during combustion.  Thus, larger
units with efficient combustion (resulting from closely regulated air-fuel ratios, uniformly high
combustion  chamber temperatures, and relatively long gas retention times) have lower  formaldehyde
emission rates than do smaller, less efficient combustion units. Average  emission factors for POM
and formaldehyde from fuel oil combustors are presented in Table 1.3-9,  together with N2O
emissions data.

1.3.2.6 Trace Element Emissions16-19'36^0 -
       Trace elements are also emitted from the combustion of oil.  For  this update of AP-42, trace
metals included in the list of 189 hazardous air pollutants under Title in of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments are considered.  The quantity of trace metals emitted depends on combustion
temperature, fuel feed mechanism, and the composition of the fuel.   The  temperature determines the
degree of volatilization of specific compounds contained in the fuel.  The fuel feed mechanism affects
the separation of emissions into bottom ash and fly ash.

       The quantity of any given  metal emitted,  in general, depends on:

       -  the physical and chemical properties of the element itself;

       -  its concentration in the fuel;

1.3-18                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
        -  the combustion conditions; and

        -  the type of participate control device used, and its collection efficiency as a function of
          particle size.

        It has become widely recognized that some trace metals concentrate in certain waste particle
streams from a combustor (bottom ash, collector ash, flue gas paniculate), while others do not.
Various classification schemes have been developed to describe this partitioning. The classification
scheme used by Baig, et al. is as follows:

        -  Class 1:  Elements which are approximately equally  distributed between fly ash and bottom
          ash, or show  little or no small particle enrichment.

        -  Class 2:  Elements which are enriched in fly ash relative to bottom ash, or show increasing
          enrichment with decreasing particle size.

        -  Class 3:  Elements which are intermediate between Classes 1 and 2.

        -  Class 4:  Elements which are emitted in the gas phase.

        By understanding trace metal partitioning and concentration in fine paniculate, it is possible to
postulate the effects of combustion controls on incremental trace metal emissions.  For example,
several NOX controls for boilers reduce peak flame temperatures (e. g., SC, FOR, RAP, and LR).  If
combustion temperatures are reduced, fewer Class 2 metals  will initially volatilize, and fewer will be
available for subsequent condensation and enrichment on fine PM.  Therefore, for combustors with
paniculate controls, lowered volatile metal emissions should result due to improved paniculate
removal.  Flue gas emissions of Class 1 metals (the non-segregating trace metals) should remain
relatively unchanged.

        Lower local O2  concentrations are also expected to affect segregating metal emissions from
boilers with particle controls.  Lower 02 availability decreases the possibility of volatile metal
oxidation to less volatile oxides. Under these conditions, Class 2 metals should remain in the vapor
phase as they enter the cooler sections of the boiler. More redistribution to small particles should
occur and emissions should increase. Again, Class  1 metal  emissions should remain unchanged.

        Other combustion NOX controls which decrease local O2 concentrations (e. g., SC and FOR)
also reduce peak flame temperatures. Under these conditions, the effect of reduced combustion
temperature is expected  to be stronger than that of lower O2 concentrations.  Available trace metals
emissions data for fuel oil combustion in boilers are summarized in Table 1.3-11.

1.3.3  Controls

       The various control techniques and/or devices employed on oil combustion sources depend  on
the source category and  the pollutant being controlled. Only controls for criteria pollutants are
discussed here because controls for noncriteria emissions have not been demonstrated or
commercialized for oil combustion sources.

       Control techniques may be classified into three broad categories: fuel substitution,
combustion modification, and postcombustion control. Fuel substitution involves using "cleaner"
fuels to reduce emissions. Combustion modification and postcombustion control are both applicable
and widely commercialized for oil combustion sources. Combustion  modification is applied primarily

1/95                              External Combustion Sources                             1.3-19

-------





J
o
1
si
D
UH
S
i
UH
CO
H
Z
>^
^5

,
d
U
o
*s
K
t"*
^ CO
O w
BH rj
SIGN FACTORS
BUSTION SOUR
00 Jg
18
l£
.«
D
•s
C/J
1
•g
<
_0
•jj?
V
^

c»»
a>
3




















W

6
z
N FACTOR RAT
O
**
CO
CO
U


























J3
>^^
CS
"o
^^
f}
^J

1
Emission Factor










u
CO



Z



£

a
S


£



a

u

•o
U
V
OQ
M



^
CO

a
o
Configurati
(SCC)a

?
•c
E

vo o? Q
- C Z


S"
^5 f^ ^^^
IS R|
«8
•*~s

2S
7 •? « o
« t « ^
_; ^^^
® ^
o ^ ^
co r- o ^~
6 CO VO -
- c.

S 2 oo S\
CS oo CO 00,
rt G-

x-s
^3 Q
cAri Z
^5^
!?| R&
o^ -ioo
cK Q, <^ S
/^s
t— < '-H
2 « ^ ~
2s ^^
%_•
/— S X— N
OO «S ^H »o
-i ^d
<** ^
f S oo «s
22 ~^
^^

a? Q
2S z
^^ \^

1 1
•rt *-H •* ^"^ »"- »-H " >'™N
5\/-5'-^'— < ^Q^Hl-H
s"99 w"99
^tsi 1 ? i i
°,-
a
0
>»
•a
o
<4-i
I»H
0>
U4
I
.tt

5
1
s
1
o
1
4-»
. -S3
rrt *fM
3«
-o e
iC!§
*^« « rf^
cd «A
ij!
' ta '**
«> «> -O
•o -a S
o e c
U "" o
A1 f^
§^§"
«H=3
1?'!
crt i 52
wa NO ^
J2 <*"> .ti
^ **
U ON f.
9> *7 ^
|a|
"ll
US'*
o£ S
o « -3
CO 0j P,
C8 JD
1.3-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
for NOX control purposes, although for small units, some reduction hi PM emissions may be available
through unproved combustion practice.  Postcombustion control is applied to emissions of paniculate
matter, SO2, and, to some extent, NOX, from oil combustion.

1.3.3.1  Fuel Substitution3'5'12-56 -
       Fuel substitution, or the firing of "cleaner" fuel oils, can substantially reduce emissions of a
number of pollutants. Lower sulfur oils, for instance, will reduce SOX emissions in all boilers,
regardless of the size or type of boiler or grade of oil fired. Particulates generally will be reduced
when a lighter grade of oil is fired. Nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by switching to either
a distillate oil or a residual oil with less nitrogen. The practice of fuel substitution, however, may be
limited by the ability of a given operation to fire a better grade of oil and by the cost and availability
of that fuel.

1.3.3.2  Combustion Modification1-4'8-9'13'14'20 -
       Combustion modification includes any physical change hi  the boiler apparatus itself or  in its
operation.  Regular maintenance of the burner system, for example, is important to ensure proper
atomization and subsequent minimization of any unburned combustibles.  Periodic tuning is important
in small units for maximum  operating efficiency and emissions  control, particularly for PM and CO
emissions.   Combustion modifications, such as LEA, FOR, SC, and reduced load operation result in
lowered NOX emissions in large facilities.

Paniculate Matter Control56 -
       Control of PM emissions from residential and commercial units is accomplished by unproved
burner servicing and by incorporating appropriate equipment design changes to improve oil
atomization  and combustion  aerodynamics.  Optimization of combustion aerodynamics using a flame
retention device, swirl, and/or recirculation is considered to be the best approach toward achieving
the triple goals of low PM emissions, low NOX emissions,  and high thermal efficiency.

       Large industrial and utility boilers are generally well-designed and well-maintained so that
soot and condensible organic compound  emissions are minimized.  Paniculate matter emissions are
more a result of entrained fly ash in. such units.  Therefore, postcombustion controls are necessary to
reduce PM emissions from these sources.

NOX Control37'57-60 -
       In boilers fired on crude oil or residual oil, the control of fuel NOX is very important in
achieving the desired degree of NOX reduction since, typically,  fuel NOX accounts for 60 to
80 percent of the total NOX formed. Fuel nitrogen conversion to NOX is highly dependent on the
fuel-to-air ratio hi the combustion zone and, in contrast to thermal NOX formation, is relatively
insensitive to small changes in combustion zone  temperature.  In general, increased mixing of fuel
and air increases nitrogen conversion which, in turn, increases fuel NOX. Thus,  to reduce fuel NOX
formation, the most common combustion modification technique is to suppress combustion air  levels
below the theoretical amount required for complete combustion. The lack of oxygen creates  reducing
conditions that, given sufficient time at high temperatures, cause volatile fuel nitrogen to convert to
N2 rather than NO.

       In the formation of both thermal and fuel NOX, all of the above reactions and conversions do
not take place at the same time, temperature, or  rate.  The actual mechanisms for NOX formation in a
specific  situation are dependent on the quantity of fuel-bound nitrogen,  if any, and the temperature
and stoichiometry of the flame zone.  Although the NOX formation mechanisms are different, both
thermal  and fuel NOX are promoted by rapid mixing  of fuel and combustion air.  This rate of mixing
may itself depend on fuel characteristics such as  the atomization quality of liquid fuels.  Additionally,

1/95                             External Combustion Sources                            1.3-21

-------
thermal NOX is greatly increased by increased residence time at high temperatures, as mentioned
above.  Thus, primary combustion modification controls for both thermal and fuel NOX typically rely
on the following control approaches:

        -  Decrease primary flame zone O2 level by:

          -  decreasing overall O2 level;
          -  controlling (delaying) mixing of fuel and air; and
          -  use of fuel-rich primary flame zone.

        -  Decrease residence time at high temperatures by:

          -  decreasing adiabatic flame temperature through dilution;
          -  decreasing combustion  intensity;
          -  increasing flame cooling; and
          -  decreased primary flame zone residence time.

        Table 1.3-12 shows the relationship between these control strategies and the combustion
modification NOX control techniques currently in use on boilers firing fuel oil.

1.3.3.3 Postcombustion Control54"56 -
        Postcombustion control refers to removal of pollutants from combustion flue gases
downstream of the combustion zone of the boiler. Flue gas cleaning is usually employed on large oil-
fired boilers.

Paniculate Matter Control56 -
        Large industrial and utility boilers are generally, well-designed and well-maintained. Hence,
paniculate collectors are usually the only method of controlling  PM emissions from these sources.
Use of such collectors is described below.

        Mechanical collectors, a prevalent type of control device, are primarily useful in controlling
participates generated during soot blowing, during upset conditions, or when a very dirty heavy oil is
fired.  For these situations, high efficiency cyclonic  collectors can achieve up to 85 percent control of
paniculate.  Under normal firing conditions, or when a clean oil is combusted, cyclonic collectors are
not nearly so effective because of the high percentage of small particles (less than 3 micrometers in
diameter) emitted.

        Electrostatic precipitators  (ESPs) are commonly used in oil-fired power plants. Older
precipitators, usually small, typically remove 40 to 60 percent of the emitted PM.  Because of the low
ash content of the oil, greater collection efficiency may not be required.  Currently, new or rebuilt
ESPs can achieve collection efficiencies of up to 90  percent.

        Scrubbing systems have also  been installed on oil-fired boilers to control both sulfur oxides
and paniculate.  These systems can achieve SO2 removal  efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent and
paniculate control efficiencies of 50 to 60 percent.

NOX Control61 -
        The variety of flue gas treatment NOX control technologies is nearly as great as combustion
modification techniques.  Although these technologies differ greatly in cost, complexity, and
effectiveness, they all involve the same basic chemical reaction: the combination of NOX with
ammonia (NH3)  to form nitrogen  (N^ and water (H2O).

1.3-22                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
I/I
Table 1.3-12. COMBUSTION MODIFICATION NOX CONTROLS FOR OIL-FIRED BOILERS8


Control
Technique
Low Excess
Air (LEA)

Staged
Combustion
(SC)

Burners Out
of Service
(BOOS)





Description Of
Technique
Reduction of
combustion air

Fuel-rich firing
burners with
secondary
combustion air
ports

One or more
burners on air
only.
Remainder
firing fuel rich


Effectiveness Of
Control
(Percent NOX
Reduction)
Residual Distillate
Oil Oil
0 to 28 0 to 24

20 to 50 17 to 44

10 to 30 NA





Range Of
Application
Generally excess O2
can be reduced to
2.5% representing a
3 % drop from
baseline

70-90% burner
stoichiometries can
be used with proper
installation of
secondary air ports

Applicable only for
boilers with
minimum of 4
burners. Best suited
for square burner
pattern with top
burner or burners
out of service. Only
for retrofit
application.


Commercial Availability/
R&D Status
Available

Technique is applicable
on package and field-
erected units. However,
not commercially
available for all design
types.
Available. Retrofit
requires careful selection
of BOOS pattern and
control of air flow.





Comments
Added benefits included
increase in boiler
efficiency.
Limited by increase in
CO, HC, and smoke
emissions.
Best implemented on new
units. Retrofit is
probably not feasible for
most units, especially
packaged ones.

Retrofit often requires
boiler de-rating unless
fuel delivery system is
modified.



£L

O
o


cr

on
r-f

o'
a
§
 K)
 UJ

-------
OJ

to
Table 1.3-12 (cont.).
Control
Technique
Flue Gas
Recirculation
(FOR)

Flue Gas
Recirculation
Plus Staged
Combustion

Load Reduction
(LR)







Low NOX
Burners
(LNB)



Description Of
Technique
Recirculation of
portion of flue
gas to burners

Combined
techniques of
FOR and
staged
combustion
Reduction of
air and fuel
flow to all
burners in
service




New burner
designs with
controlled
air/fuel mixing
and increased
heat dissipation
Effectiveness Of
Control
(Percent NOX
Reduction)
Residual
Oil
15 to 30



25 to 53




33%
decrease
to 25%
increase
inNOx




20 to 50





Distillate
Oil
58 to 73



73 to 77




31%
decrease to
17%
increase in
NOX
A




20 to 50





Range Of
Application
Up to 25-30% of
flue gas recycled.
Can be implemented
on all design types.
Max. FOR rates set
at 25% for distillate
oil and 20% for
residual oil.

Applicable to all
boiler types and
sizes. Load can be
reduced to 25% of
maximum.




New burners
described generally
applicable to all
boilers. More
specific information
needed.
Commercial Availability/
R&D Status
Available.
Requires extensive
modifications to the
burner and windbox.
Combined techniques are
still at experimental
stage.


Available now as a
retrofit application.
Better implemented with
improved firebox design.





Commercially offered but
not demonstrated.




Comments
Best suited for new units.
Costly to retrofit.
Possible flame instability
at high FOR rates.
Retrofit may not be
feasible. Best
implemented on new
units.

Technique not effective
when it necessitates an
increase in excess O2
levels. LR possibly
implemented in new
designs as reduced
combustion intensity
(enlarged furnace plan
area).
Specific emissions data
from industrial boilers
equipped with LNB are
lacking.


C/3
C/3
•n
>
o
H
O
»
co

-------
                                                                   Table 1.3-12 (cont.).


Control
Technique
Ammonia
Injection

Reduced Air
Preheat
(RAP)


Description Of
Technique
Injection of
NH3 as a
reducing agent
in the flue gas

Bypass of
combustion air
preheater
Effectiveness Of
Control
(Percent NOX
Reduction)
Residual Distillate
Oil Oil
40 to 70 40 to 70

5 to 16 NA


Range Of
Application
Applicable for large
package and field-
erected watertube
boilers. May not be
feasible for fire-tube
boilers.
Combustion air
temperature can be
reduced to ambient
conditions (340K)


Commercial Availability/
R&D Status
Commercially offered but
not demonstrated.

Available. Not
implemented because of
significant loss in thermal
efficiency.


Comments
Elaborate NH3 injection,
monitoring and control
system required.
Possible load restrictions
on boiler and air
preheater fouling when
burning high sulfur oil.
Application of this
technique on new boilers
requires installation of
alternate heat recovery
system (e. g., an
economizer).
m
o
o

cr

C/l
f-*

5'


on
o


3
            NA = not applicable.

-------
       In selective catalytic reduction (SCR), the reaction takes place in the presence of a catalyst,
improving performance.  Noncatalytic systems rely on a direct reaction, usually at higher
temperatures, to remove NOX. Although removal efficiencies are lower, noncatalytic systems are
typically less complex and often significantly less costly.  Table 1.3-13 presents various catalytic and
noncatalytic NOx-reduction technologies.

SO2 Control62"63 -
       Commercialized postcombustion flue gas desulfurization (FGD) processes use an alkaline
reagent to absorb SO2 in the flue gas and produce a sodium or a calcium sulfate compound.  These
solid sulfate compounds are then removed in downstream equipment. Flue gas desulfurization
technologies are categorized as wet, semi-dry, or dry depending on the state of the reagent as it leaves
the absorber vessel.  These processes are either regenerable (such that the reagent material  can be
treated and reused) or are nonregenerable (in which case all waste streams are de-watered and
discarded).

       Wet regenerable FGD processes are attractive because they have the potential for better than
95 percent sulfur removal efficiency, have minimal waste water discharges, and produce a saleable
sulfur product.  Some of the current nonregenerable  calcium-based processes can, however, produce a
saleable gypsum product.

       To date, wet systems are the most commonly applied.  Wet systems generally use alkali
slurries as the SOX absorbent medium and can be designed to remove greater than 90 percent of the
incoming SOX.  Lime/limestone scrubbers, sodium scrubbers, and dual alkali scrubbing are among the
commercially proven wet FGD systems. Effectiveness of these devices depends not only on  control
device design but also operating variables.  Table 1.3-14 summarizes commercially available
postcombustion SO2 control technologies.
 1.3-26                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
VO
                                    Table 1.3-13.  POSTCOMBUSTION NOX REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
                    Technique
        Description
         Advantages
         Disadvantages
          1. Urea injection
£
oo
o
l-t
o
          2. Ammonia injection
             (Thermal-DeNOx)
          3. Air Heater (AH) SCR
          4. Duct SCR
Injection of urea into furnace
to react with NOX to form N2
and H2O
Injection of ammonia into
furnace to react wi
form N2 and H2O
furnace to react with NOX to
Air heater baskets replaced
with catalyst coated baskets.
Catalyst promotes reaction of
ammonia with NO.
                'X'
A smaller version of
conventional SCR is placed in
existing ductwork
- Low capital cost
- Relatively simple system
- Moderate NOX removal
 (30-60%)
- Nontoxic chemical
- Typically, low energy
 injection sufficient

- Low operating cost
- Moderate NOX removal
 (30-60%)
 Moderate NOX removal
 (40-65%)
 Moderate capital cost
 No additional ductwork or
 reactor required
 Low pressure drop
 Can use urea as ammonia
 feedstock
 Rotating air heater assists
 mixing, contact with catalyst

 Moderate capital cost
 Moderate NOX removal (30%)
 No additional ductwork
 required
Temperature dependent
Design must consider boiler
operating conditions and design
Reduction may be decreased at
lower loads
Moderately high capital cost
Ammonia handling, storage,
vaporization, and injection systems
required (Ammonia is a toxic
chemical)

Design must address pressure drop,
maintain  heat transfer
Due to rotation of air heater, only
50% of catalyst is active at any
time
Duct location unit specific
temperature, access dependent
Some pressure drop must be
accommodated

-------
  I
  
1
o








|
cl
%
1


2
!
o.
js
3
£
ts

"•6

c*
CJ
00
A
1
CO
CJ
"8
CO
ts

«•
&
jD
"o
C
Not a fully commercial tech
1


CA
0
1
tH
t_
2
X
1

.h
CO
(4-1
stalled downstream o
.S


















CO
1
3 M
O3 fl)
§"S^
•a ^ s ^
" § V «
S 8 s 3
>
s 1,^1
ii; _) o «S:
1 '
<*
"o ^
SS |
o .2
;ater, promotes reacti
nmonia with NOX at 1
mperature.
.3 a a}
J3 ca <_)



















3
2 <8
"^" ^.
Activated carbon
nonhazardous ma1
1






















X
0
z
CO
1
SOX removal as v
removal
1




















3
§
1
1


S^
•a
1
OK
2
S
1

OK
oo

o>
•8
3
o
0
I
1
U



D£
00
e
_o
0>
1
U
VO



to
8
1?
1
§•
•a
£
1







Q
^
C
1
ex,
'a
on
e
£











I*
3
1
w
Extensive ductwork to/from
1






c
.2
4-*
CO
r heater) promotes re
•3











H
"S3
ri ^
Large volume reactor must 1
Increased pressure drop maj
1 '










• ammonia with NOX.
o












1
C«-l
require ID fan or larger FD
Reduced efficiency
Ammonia sulfate removal
1 '























•S
CO
u.
equipment for air heater
Water treatment of air heate
I























1.3-28
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
             Table 1.3-14. POSTCOMBUSTION SO2 CONTROLS FOR FUEL OIL
                                COMBUSTION SOURCES
Control Technology
Wet scrubber






Spray drying
Furnace injection
Duct injection
Process
Lime/limestone
Sodium carbonate


Magnesium
oxide/hydroxide
Dual alkali

Calcium hydroxide
slurry, vaporizes in
spray vessel
Dry calcium
carbonate/hydrate
injection in upper
furnace cavity
Dry sorbent injection
into duct, sometimes
combined with water
spray
Typical Control
Efficiencies
80-95+%
80-98%


80-95+%
90-96%

70-90%
25-50%
25-50+%
Remarks
Applicable to high
sulfur fuels,
Wet sludge product
1-125 MW
(5-430 million Btu/hr)
typical application
range,
High reagent costs
Can be regenerated
Uses lime to
regenerate sodium-
based scrubbing liquor
Applicable to low and
medium sulfur fuels,
Produces dry product
Commercialized in
Europe,
Several U.S.
demonstration projects
underway
Several R&D and
demonstration projects
underway,
Not yet commercially
available in the U.S.
References For Section 1.3

1.
2.
W. S. Smith, Atmospheric Emissions From Fuel Oil Combustion: An Inventory Guide,
999-AP-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, November 1962.

J. A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1973. Out of Print.
1/95
                        External Combustion Sources
1.3-29

-------
3.     A. Levy, et al., A Field Investigation Of Emissions From Fuel Oil Combustion For Space
       Heating, API Bulletin 4099, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbia, OH, November
       1971.

4.     R. E. Barrett, et al., Field Investigation Of Emissions From Combustion Equipment For Space
       Heating, EPA-R2-73-084a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1973.

5.     G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application Of Combustion Modifications To Control
       Pollutant Emissions From Industrial Boilers - Phase I, EPA-650/2-74-078a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1974.

6.     G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing: Application Of Combustion Modifications To Control
       Pollutant Emissions From Industrial Boilers - Phase II, EPA-600/ 2-76-086a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1976.

7.     Paniculate Emission Control Systems For Oil Fired Boilers, EPA-450/3-74-063,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1974.

8.     W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study OfNOx Emission Control Methods For Utility
       Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1971.

9.     A. R. Crawford,  et al., Field Testing:  Application Of Combustion Modifications To Control
       NOX Emissions From Utility Boilers,  EPA-650/2-74-066, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, June  1974.

10.    J. F. Deffher, et al., Evaluation Of GulfEconojet Equipment With Respect To Air
       Conservation, Report No. 731RC044, Gulf Research and Development Company, Pittsburgh,
       PA, December 18, 1972.

11.    C. E. Blakeslee and H.E. Burbach,  "Controlling NOX Emissions From Steam Generators,"
       Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 23:37-42, January  1973.

12.    C. W. Siegmund, "Will Desulfurized Fuel Oils Help?", American Society Of Heating,
       Refrigerating And Air Conditioning Engineers Journal, 11:29-33, April 1969.

13.    F. A. Govan, et al., "Relationships of Paniculate Emissions Versus Partial to Full Load
       Operations for Utility-sized Boilers", Proceedings Of Third Annual Industrial Air Pollution
       Control Conference, Knoxville, TN,  March 29-30, 1973.

14.    R. E. Hall, et al., A Study Of Air Pollutant Emissions From Residential Heating Systems,
       EPA-650/2-74-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, January  1974.

15.    R. J. Milligan, et al., Review OfNOx Emission Factors For Stationary Fossil Fuel
       Combustion Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

16.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume I: Gas And Oil Fired Residential Heating Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington, DC, May 1979.

1.3-30                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
17.    C. C. Shih, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems,
       Volume III: External Combustion Sources For Electricity Generation, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, November 1980.

18.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion System,
       Volume IV: Commercial Institutional Combustion Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197,
       GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

19.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume V:  Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA
       Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

20.    K. J. Lira, et al., Technology Assessment Report For Industrial Boiler Applications:  NOX
       Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, December 1979.

21.    Emission Test Reports, Docket No. OAQPS-78-1, Category H-I-257 through 265, Office Of
       Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, 1972 through 1974.

22.    Primary Sulfate Emissions From Coal And Oil Combustion, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3138,
       TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, February 1980.

23.    C. Leavitt, et al., Environmental Assessment Of An Oil Fired Controlled Utility Boiler,
       EPA-600/7-80-087, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1980.

24.    W. A. Carter and R. J. Tidona, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers: Site 2 -
       Residual-oil-fired Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-085b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, April 1980.

25.    D. W. Pershing, et al., Influence Of Design Variables On The Production Of Thermal And
       Fuel NO From Residual Oil And Coal Combustion, Air: Control of NOX and SOX Emissions,
       New York, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,  1975.

26.    Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information:  Volume 1,
       EPA-450/3-82-006a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1982.

27.    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
       Quality Standards", Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50, U. S. Government
       Printing Office, Washington DC, 1991.

28.    R. Clayton, et al., N20 Field Study, EPA-600/2-89-006, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1989.

29.    Evaluation Of Fuel-Based Additives  For N2O And Air Toxic Control In Fluidized Bed
       Combustion Boilers, EPRI Contract  No. RP3197-02, Acurex Report No. FR-91-101-/ESD,
       (Draft Report) Acurex Environmental, Mountain View, CA, June 17, 1991.

30.    Paniculate Polycydic Organic Matter, Nation Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1972.


1/95                            External Combustion Sources                           1.3-31

-------
31.    Vapor Phase Organic Pollutants—Hydrocarbons And Oxidation Products, National Academy
       of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1976.

32.    H. Knierien, A Theoretical Study OfPCB Emissions From Stationary Sources,
       EPA-600/7-76-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1976.

33.    Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From Coal And Oil Combustion Sources, EPA-450/2-89-001,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1989.

34.    R. P. Hagebrauck, D. J. Von Lehmden, and J. E.  Meeker,  "Emissions of Polynuclear
       Hydrocarbons and Other Pollutants from Heat-Generation and Incineration Process",
       J. Air Pollution  Control Assoc., 14:267-278,  1964.

35.    M. B. Rogozen, et al., Formaldehyde: A Survey Of Airborne Concentration And Sources,
       California Air Resources Board, ARB Report No. ARB/R-84-231, 1984.

36.    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Conference Report To Accompany S. 1603,
       Report 101-952, U. S.  Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, October 26, 1990.

37.    K. J.  Lim, et al., Industrial Boiler Combustion Modification NOX Controls - Volume I
       Environmental Assessment, EPA-600/7-81-126a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, July
       1981.

38.    D. H. Klein, et al., "Pathways of Thirty-Seven Trace Elements Through Coal-Fired Power
       Plants," Environ. Sci. Technol., 9:973-979, 1975.

39.    D. G. Coles, et al., "Chemical Studies of Stack Fly Ash From a Coal-Fired Power Plant,"
       Environ. Sci. Technol., 13:455-459, 1979.

40.    S. Baig, et al., Conventional Combustion Environmental Assessment, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3138, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981.

41.    Code of Federal Regulations, 40, Pans 53 to 60, July 1, 1991.

42.    Environmental Assessment Of Coal And Oil Firing In A Controlled Industrial Boiler,
       Volume I, PB 289942, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.

43.    Environmental Assessment Of Coal And Oil Firing In A Controlled Industrial Boiler,
       Volume II, EPA-600/7-78-164b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August  1978.

44.    Environmental Assessment Of Coal And Oil Firing In A Controlled Industrial Boiler,
       Volume III, EPA-600/7-78-164c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.

45     Emission Reduction On Two Industrial Boilers With Major Combustion Modifications,
       EPA-600/7-78-099a, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, August 1978.

46.    Emission Reduction On Two Industrial Boilers With Major Combustion Modifications, Data
       Supplement, EPA-600/7-78-099b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.
1.3-32                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
47.    Industrial Boilers Emission Test Report, Boston Edison Company, Everett, Massachusetts,
       EMB Report 81-IBR-15, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards, October 1981.

48.    Residential Oil Furnace System Optimization, Phase II, EPA-600/2-77-028,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977.

49.    Characterization Of Paniculate Emissions From Refinery Process Heaters And Boilers, API
       Publication No. 4365, June 1983. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977.

50.    James Ekmann, et al.,  Comparison Of Shale Oil And Residual Fuel Combustion In Symposium
       Papers New Fuels And Advances  In Combustion Technologies Sponsored By Institute Of Gas
       Technology, March 1979.

51.    Overview Of The Regulatory Baseline, Technical Basis, And Alternative Control Levels For
       SO2 Emission Standards For Small Steam Generating Units, EPA-450/3-89-012,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1989.

52.    Overview Of The Regulatory Baseline, Technical Basis, And Alternative Control Levels For
       NOX Emission Standards For Small Steam Generating Units, EPA-450/3-89-013,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1989.

53.    Overview Of The Regulatory Baseline, Technical Basis, And Alternative Control Levels For
       PM Emission Standards For Small Steam Generating Units, EPA-450/3-89-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1989.

54.    Flue Gas Desulfiirization:  Installations and Operations, PB 257721, National Technical
       Information Service, Springfield, VA, September 1974.

55.    Proceedings:  Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium -1973, EPA-650/2-73-038,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1973.

56.    G. R. Offen, et al., Control Of Paniculate Matter From Oil Burners And Boilers,
       EPA-450/3-76-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 1976.

57.     J. H. Pohl and A.F. Sarofim, Devolatilization And Oxidation Of Coal Nitrogen  (Presented At
       The 16th International Symposium On Combustion), August 1976.

58.     D. W. Pershing and J.  Wendt, Relative Contribution Of Volatile And Char Nitrogen To NOX
       Emissions From Pulverized Coal Flames, Industrial Engineering Chemical Proceedings,
       Design and Development,  1979.

59.     D. W. Pershing, Nitrogen  Oxide Formation In Pulverized Coal Flames, Ph.D. Dissertation,
       University of Arizona,  1976.

60.     P. B. Nutcher, High Technology Low NOX Burner Systems For Fired Heaters And Steam
       Generators, Process Combustion  Corp., Pittsburgh, PA, Presented at the Pacific Coast Oil
       Show and Conference, Los Angeles, CA, November 1982.
1/95                            External Combustion Sources                            1.3-33

-------
61.    M. N. Mansour, et al., Integrated NOX Reduction Plan To Meet Staged SCAQMD
       Requirements For Steam Electric Power Plants, Proceedings of the 53rd American Power
       Conference, 1991.

62.    D. W. South,  et al.,  Technologies And Other Measures For Controlling Emissions:
       Performance,  Costs, And Applicability, Acidic Deposition:  State of Science and Technology,
       Volume IV, Report 25, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, U. S. Government
       Printing Office, Washington, DC, December 1990.

63.    EPA Industrial Boiler FGD Survey:  First Quarter 1979, EPA-600/7-79-067b, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, April 1979.
 1.3-34                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

-------
1.4 Natural Gas Combustion

1.4.1  General1'2

       Natural gas is one of the major fuels used throughout the country.  It is used mainly for
industrial process steam and heat production; for residential and commercial space heating;  and for
electric power generation. Natural gas consists of a high percentage of methane (generally above
80 percent) and varying amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and inerts (typically nitrogen,  carbon
dioxide, and helium).  Gas processing plants are required for the recovery of liquefiable constituents
and removal of hydrogen sulfide before the gas is used (see Section 5.3, Natural Gas Processing).
The average gross heating value of natural gas is approximately 8900" kilocalories per standard cubic
meter (1000 British thermal units per standard cubic foot),  usually varying from 8000 to
9800 kcal/scm (900 to 1100 Btu/scf).

1.4.2  Emissions And Controls3"5

       Even though natural gas is considered to be a relatively clean-burning fuel, some emissions
can result from combustion. For example, improper operating conditions,  including poor air/fuel
mixing, insufficient air, etc., may  cause large amounts of smoke, carbon monoxide (CO), and organic
compound emissions.  Moreover, because a sulfur-containing mercaptan is added to natural gas to
permit leak detection, small amounts of sulfur oxides will be produced in the combustion process.

       Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are the major pollutants of concern when burning natural gas.
Nitrogen oxides emissions depend primarily on the peak temperature within the combustion chamber
as well as the furnace-zone oxygen concentration, nitrogen  concentration, and time of exposure at
peak temperatures. Emission levels vary considerably with the type and size of combustor and with
operating conditions (particularly combustion air temperature,  load, and excess  air level in boilers).

       Currently, the two most prevalent NOX control techniques being applied to natural gas-fired
boilers (which result in characteristic changes in emission rates) are low NOX burners and flue gas
recirculation.  Low NOX burners reduce NOX by  accomplishing the combustion process in stages.
Staging partially  delays the  combustion process, resulting in a cooler flame which suppresses NOX
formation.  The three most  common types  of low NOX burners being applied to natural gas-fired
boilers are staged air burners, staged fuel burners, and radiant fiber burners.  Nitrogen oxide
emission reductions of 40 to 85 percent (relative to uncontrolled emission levels) have been observed
with low NOX burners.  Other combustion staging techniques which have been applied to natural gas-
fired boilers include low excess air, reduced air preheat, and staged combustion (e. g., burners-out-
of-service and overfire air).  The degree of staging is a key operating parameter influencing NOX
emission rates for these systems.

       In a flue  gas recirculation (FGR) system, a portion  of the flue gas is recycled from the stack
to the burner windbox.  Upon entering the windbox, the gas is mixed with combustion air prior to
being  fed to the burner.  The  FGR system  reduces NOX emissions by two mechanisms.  The recycled
flue gas is made up of combustion products which act as inerts during combustion of the fuel/air
mixture.  This additional  mass is heated in the combustion  zone, thereby lowering the peak flame
temperature and reducing the  amount of NOX formed.  To a lesser extent, FGR also reduces NOX
formation by lowering the oxygen concentration in the primary flame zone.  The amount of flue gas
recirculated is  a key operating parameter influencing NOX emission rates for these systems.   Flue gas


1/95                             External Combustion Sources                              1.4-1

-------
recirculation is normally used in combination with low NOX burners.  When used in combination,
these techniques are capable of reducing uncontrolled NOX emissions by 60 to 90 percent.

       Two post-combustion technologies that may be applied to natural gas-fired boilers to reduce
NOX emissions by further amounts are selective noncatalytic reduction and selective catalytic
reduction. These systems inject ammonia (or urea) into combustion flue gases to reduce inlet NOX
emission rates by 40 to 70 percent.

       Although  not measured, all particulate matter (PM) from natural gas combustion has been
estimated to be less than 1 micrometer in size.  Particulate matter is composed of filterable  and
condensable fractions, based on the EPA sampling method.  Filterable and condensable emission rates
are of the same order of magnitude for boilers; for residential furnaces,  most of the PM is in the form
of condensable material.

       The rates  of CO and trace organic emissions from boilers and furnaces depend on the
efficiency of natural gas combustion. These emissions are minimized by combustion practices that
promote high combustion temperatures, long residence times at those temperatures, and turbulent
mixing of fuel and combustion air.  In some cases, the addition of NOX  control systems such as FOR
and low NOX burners reduces combustion efficiency (due to lower combustion temperatures),
resulting in higher CO and organic emissions relative to uncontrolled boilers.

       Emission  factors for natural gas  combustion in boilers and furnaces are presented in
Tables 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3.6 For the purposes of developing emission factors, natural gas
combustors have been organized into four general categories: utility/large industrial boilers, small
industrial boilers, commercial boilers, and residential furnaces. Boilers  and furnaces within these
categories share the same general design and operating characteristics and hence have similar emission
characteristics when combusting natural gas. The primary factor used to demarcate the individual
combustor categories is heat input.
 1.4-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
  a
  D
  U

  E
  g
  (i< CO

  60 ^
  zo

  2 j
  to <
  CO
  •a
  _o


  §
  •s




"g
CL,
3
c
1
a












o
s
^—4
a.
CD
IS
Uc
Jj
f T




O
Z
1


^
2
^



"s
^
^5
^•M
*J*»
s*

o
z
«""
3
2
c
*^
s
^
^-

W)
CD
Ui
CO

'c
*~~1

issions.
10
•8
"o
c
§
c
'c
O>
§
CD
2
« -i
_fi C^
p*^ UN
C"
Sa ^
3 S
n
S? <4-(
2.1
^"^ CA
-1
*—4 U
S C
m aj
O •—
t^^ be
C^ qj
®® .*""]
f, t -*-1
O oo
« -S
"? "S-
> •«
II
CO .^
Q^ ?^*
Ut C«
1> 
cA *G
CQ _C

"eo 
U ^Z3
M 2
CO 3
is 3
><=
C fl>
CO ^
o°0
•q S
S ^3
03 4^1
CQ B
>
18
g*
-co i
3 u
References 9-14. All facto
pollutant/ 106 cubic feet nat
emission factors in this tab
cj













.
CD
^
CO
CJ
"&
s
6!
||

5:

co'
to
•o
0
^
11
Q

W)
CO
4^
s>
CQ
t-i

E
S X,
Cu ^^
w 3
•s •*
TO ^^
ts ^^
CD
ii i-
^ «
flj f*
•S
o'|
£ CD
«, "3
ft
"^ H
^5 £•
cu S
c
CQ ^>

^ §
"*jv C

"* S
.— -2*
§• E
CD O
<- o
O >^^

rxT o
O — H
C
O.S
J3 •"
tli CA
— «
^^ ^M
rjj o
"^ ^j
1 i
~ s
_ en
1 8

3J 2^
"o c
O CO
^ ^J
S Z
CQ O
en
2 '3
1 -0
'S cl
Condensable PM is that pa
and condensable PM. All
x> o -o
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.4-3

-------
            Table 1.4-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2), NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX),
                                  AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION4
Combustor Type
(Size, 106 Btu/hr Heat Input)
(SCC)b
Utility/large Industrial Boilers
(> 100) (1-01-006-01,
1-01-006-04)
Uncontrolled
Controlled - Low NOX
burners
Controlled - Flue gas
recirculation
Small Industrial Boilers
(10 - 100) (1-02-006-02)
Uncontrolled
Controlled - Low NOX
burners
Controlled - Flue gas
recirculation
Commercial Boilers
(0.3 - < 10) (1-03-006-03)
Uncontrolled
Controlled - Low NOX
burners
Controlled - Flue gas
recirculation
Residential Furnaces (<0.3)
(No SCC)
Uncontrolled
SO2C
kg/106 m3



9.6
9.6

9.6



9.6
9.6

9.6



9.6
9.6

9.6



9.6
lb/106 ft3



0.6
0.6

0.6



0.6
0.6

0.6



0.6
0.6

0.6



0.6
RATING



A
A

A



A
A

A



A
A

A



A
N0xd
kg/106 m3



8800
1300

850



2240
1300

480



1600
270

580



1500
lb/106 ft3



550f
81f

53f



140
81f

30



100
17

36



94
RATING



A
D

D



A
D

C



B
C

D



B
CO6
kg/106 m3 | lb/106 ft3



640 40
ND ND

ND ND



560 35
980 61

590 37



330 21
425 27

ND ND



640 40
RATING



A
NA

NA



A
D

C



C
C

NA



B
w
§
GO
V)
t-H
o
TJ
SO
3 Units are kg of pollutant/106 cubic meters natural gas fired and Ib of pollutant/106 cubic feet natural gas fired.  Based on an average
  natural gas fired higher heating value of 8270 kcal/m3 (1000 Btu/scf).  The emission factors in this table may be converted to other
  natural gas heating values by multiplying the given emission factor by the ratio of the specified heating value to this average heating
  value. ND =  no data.  NA = not applicable.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 7.  Based on average sulfur content of natural gas, 4600 g/106 Nm3 (2000 gr/106 scf).

-------
m
X
<-+

I
e.

o
o

I
o


GO

g
l-l
o
n>
                                                                 Table 1.4-2 (cont.).




         d References 10,15-19. Expressed as NO2. For tangentially fired units, use 4400 kg/106 m3 (275 lb/106 ft3).  At reduced loads, multiply

           factor  by load reduction  coefficient in Figure 1.4-1.   Note that  NOX emissions from controlled boilers will be reduced at low load

           conditions.

         e References 9-10,16-18,20-21.

         f Emission factors apply to packaged boilers only.

-------
              Table 1.4-3 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) AND TOTAL ORGANIC
                                       COMPOUNDS (TOC) FROM NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION"
Combustor Type
(Size, 106 Btu/hr Heat Input)
(SCC)b
Utility/large industrial boilers (> 100)
(1-01-006-01, 1-01-006-04)
Small industrial boilers (10 - 100)
(1-02-006-02)
Commercial boilers (0.3 - < 10)
(1-03-006-03)
Residential furnaces
(No SCC)
CO2C
kg/106 m3
NDe
1.9E+06
1.9E+06
2.0E+06
lb/106 ft3
ND
1.2 E+05
1.2 E+05
1.3 E+05
RATING
NA
D
C
D
TOCd
kg/106 m3
28f
92«
128h
180h
lb/106 ft3
1.7'
5.8«
8.0h
llh
RATING
C
C
C
D
m
00
00
o
50
oo
  All factors represent uncontrolled emissions.  Units are kg of pollutant/106 cubic meters and Ib of pollutant/106 cubic feet.  Based on
  an average natural gas higher heating value of 8270 kcal/m3 (1000 Btu/scf).  The emission factors in this table may be converted to
  other natural gas heating values by multiplying the given factor by the ratio of the specified heating value to this average heating value.
  NA  = not applicable.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 10,22-23.
d References 9-10,18.
e ND  = no data.
f Reference 8:  methane comprises 17% of organic compounds.
g Reference 8:  methane comprises 52% of organic compounds.
h Reference 8:  methane comprises 34% of organic compounds.
VO

-------
                 §  0.8
                 u
                 §  3.6

                      40
                                            80
iOC
                                           LOAD, percent
                Figure 1.4-1.  Load reduction coefficient as a function of boiler load.
                (Used to determine NOX reductions at reduced loads in large boilers.)
 References For Section 1.4

 1.
 2.
 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
 Exhaust Gases From Combustion and Industrial Processes, EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-36,
 Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC, October 1971.

 Chemical Engineers'Handbook, Fourth Edition, J. H. Perry, Editor, McGraw-Hill Book
 Company, New York, NY, 1963.

 Background Information Document For Industrial Boilers, EPA-450/3-82-006a,
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March \982.

 Background Information Document For Small Steam Generating Units, EPA-450/3-87-000,
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1987.

 Fine Paniculate Emissions From Stationary and Miscellaneous Sources in the South Coast Air
 Basin, California Air Resources Board Contract No. A6-191-30 KVB Inc   Tustin  CA
 February 1979.                                                  '    ''      '

 Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.4- Natural Gas Combustion (Draft)
 Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

 Systematic Field Study ofNOx Emission Control Methods For Utility Boilers, APTD-1163,
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.

 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fourth Edition, AP^2, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.
1/95
                         External Combustion Sources
                                                                                       1.4-7

-------
9.      J. L. Muhlbaier, "Paniculate and Gaseous Emissions From Natural Gas Furnaces and Water
       Heaters", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, December 1981.

10.    Field Investigation of Emissions From Combustion Equipment for Space Heating,
       EPA-R2-73-084a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June
       1973.

11.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume I: Gas and Oil Fired Residential Heating Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1979.

12.    C. C. Shin, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems,
       Volume III: External Combustion Sources for Electricity Generation, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, November  1980.

13.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume IV: Commercial/Institutional Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

14.    N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion
       Systems, Volume V: Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA  Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA
       Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

15.    Emissions Test on 200 HP Boiler at Kaiser Hospital in Woodland Hills, Energy Systems
       Associates, Tustin, CA, June 1986.

16.    Results From Performance Tests:  California  Milk Producers Boiler No. 5, Energy Systems
       Associates, Tustin, CA, November 1984.

17.    Source Test For Measurement of Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide Emissions From
       Boiler Exhaust at GAF Building Materials, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Baldwin
       Park, CA, May  1991.

18.    J. P. Kesselring and W. V. Krill, "A Low-NOx Burner For Gas-Fired Firetube Boilers",
       Proceedings:  1985 Symposium on Stationary Combustion  NOX Control, Volume 2,
       EPRI CS-4360,  Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, January  1986.

19.    NOX Emission Control Technology Update, EPA Contract No.  68-01-6558, Radian
       Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1984.

20.    Background Information Document For Small Steam Generating Units, EPA-450/3-87-000,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1987.

21.    Evaluation of the Pollutant Emissions From Gas-Fired Forced Air Furnaces:  Research
       Report No. 1503, American Gas Association Laboratories, Cleveland,  OH, May 1975.

22.    Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers:  Site 5 - Gas-fired Low-NOx Burner,
       EPA-600/7-81-095a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       May 1981.

23.    Private communication from Kim Black (Industrial Combustion) to Ralph Harris (MRI),
       Independent Third Party Source Tests, February 7, 1992.

1.4-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
1.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion

1.5.1  General1

       Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG or LP-gas) consists of propane, propylene, butane, and
butylenes; the product used for domestic heating is substantially propane.  This gas, obtained mostly
from gas wells (but also to a lesser extent as a refinery by-product) is stored as a liquid under
moderate pressures.  There are three grades of LPG available as heating fuels:  commercial-grade
propane, engine fuel-grade propane (also  known as HD-5 propane), and commercial-grade butane.  In
addition, there are high purity grades of LPG available for laboratory work and for use as aerosol
propellants. Specifications for the various LPG grades are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials and the Gas Processors Association.  A typical  heating value for commercial-
grade propane and HD-5 propane is 6,090 kcal/liter (91,500 Btu/gallon), after vaporization; for
commercial-grade butane, the value is 6,790 kcal/liter (102,000 Btu/gallon).

       The largest market for LPG is the domestic/commercial market, followed by the chemical
industry (where it is used as a petrochemical feedstock) and agriculture.  Propane is also used as an
engine fuel as an alternative to gasoline and as a stand-by fuel for facilities that have interruptible
natural gas service contracts.

1.5.2  Emissions And Controls1"4

       Liquefied petroleum gas is considered a "clean" fuel because it does not produce visible
emissions.  However, gaseous pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), organic compounds, and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) do occur.   The most significant factors affecting these emissions are burner
design, burner adjustment, and flue gas venting. Improper design, blocking and clogging of the flue
vent, and insufficient combustion  air result in improper combustion and the emissions  of aldehydes,
CO, hydrocarbons, and other organics. Nitrogen oxide emissions are a function of a number of
variables, including temperature, excess air,  fuel/air mixing,  and residence time in the combustion
zone.  The amount of sulfur dioxide (S02) emitted is directly proportional to the amount of sulfur in
the fuel.  Emission factors for LPG combustion are presented in Tables 1.5-1 and 1.5-2.

       Nitrogen oxides are the only  pollutant for which  emission controls have been developed.
Propane and butane are being used in Southern California as  backup fuel to natural gas, replacing
distillate oil in this role pursuant to the phaseout of fuel oil in that region. Emission controls for NOX
have been developed for firetube and watertube  boilers firing propane or butane.  Vendors are now
warranting retrofit systems to levels as low as 30 to 40 ppm (based on 3 percent oxygen).  These low-
NOX systems use a combination of low NOX burners and flue gas recirculation. Some burner vendors
use water or steam injection into the flame zone for NOX reduction.  This is a  trimming technique
which may be necessary during backup fuel periods because LPG typically has a higher NOx-forming
potential than natural gas; conventional natural gas emission control systems may not be sufficient to
reduce LPG emissions to mandated levels. Also, LPG burners  are more prone to sooting under the
modified combustion conditions required  for low NOX emissions. The extent of allowable combustion
modifications for LPG may be more limited than for natural gas.

       One NOX control system that has  been demonstrated on small  commercial boilers  is  flue gas
recirculation (FGR).  Nitrogen oxide emissions from propane combustion can be reduced by as much
as 50 percent by recirculating 16 percent  of the  flue gas. Nitrogen oxide emission reductions of over
60 percent have been achieved with FGR  and low NOX burners used in combination.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                External Combustion Sources                              1.5-1

-------
         Table 1.5-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LPG COMBUSTION*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Pollutant
Filterable paniculate matterd
Sulfur oxides6
Nitrogen oxidesf
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Total organic compounds
Butane Emission Factor
(kg/1000 liters)
Industrial
Boilers'5
(1-02-010-01)
0.07
0.01 IS
2.5
1,760
0.4
0.07
Commercial
Boilers0
(1-03-010-01)
0.06
0.01 IS
1.8
1,760
0.3
0.07
Propane Emission Factor
(kg/1000 liters)
Industrial
Boilersb
(1-02-010-02)
0.07
0.012S
2.3
1,500
0.4
0.06
Commercial
Boilers0
(1-03-010-02)
0.05
0.012S
1.7
1,500
0.2
0.06
a Assumes emissions (except SOX and NOX) are the same, on a heat input basis, as for natural gas
  combustion.  The NOX emission factors have been multiplied by a correction factor of 1.5, which is
  the approximate ratio of propane/butane NOX emissions to natural gas NOX emissions.  Source
  Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Heat input capacities generally between 3 and 29 MW.
c Heat input capacities generally between 0.1 and 3 MW.
d Filterable paniculate matter (PM) is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5
  (or equivalent) sampling train.
e Expressed as SO2. S equals the sulfur content  expressed in gr/100 ft3 gas vapor.  For example, if
  the butane sulfur content is 0.18 gr/100 ft3, the emission factor would be (0.011 x  0.18) =
  0.0020 kg of SO2/1000 liters butane burned.
f Expressed as NO2.
1.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
          Table 1.5-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LPG COMBUSTION*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Pollutant
Filterable paniculate matterd
Sulfur oxides0
Nitrogen oxidesf
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Total organic compounds
Butane Emission Factor
Ob/1000 gal)
Industrial
Boilersb
(1-02-010-01)
0.6
0.09S
21
14,700
3.6
0.6
Commercial
Boilers6
(1-03-010-01)
0.5
0.09S
15
14,700
2.1
0.6
Propane Emission Factor
Ob/1000 gal)
Industrial
Boilersb
(1-02-010-02)
0.6
0.10S
19
12,500
3.2
0.5
Commercial
Boilers0
(1-03-010-02)
0.4
0.10S
14
12,500
1.9
0.5
a Assumes emissions (except SOX and NOX) are the same, on a heat input basis, as for natural gas
  combustion.  The NOX emission factors have been multiplied by a correction factor of 1.5, which is
  the approximate ratio of propane/butane NOX emissions to natural gas NOX emissions. Source
  Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Heat input capacities generally between 10 and 100 million Btu/hour.
0 Heat input capacities generally between 0.3 and 10 million Btu/hour.
d Filterable paniculate matter (PM) is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5
  (or equivalent)  sampling train.
e Expressed as SO2.  S equals the sulfur content expressed in gr/100 ft3 gas vapor.  For example, if
  the butane sulfur content is 0.18 gr/100 ft3, the emission factor would be (0.09 x 0.18) = 0.016 Ib
  of SO2/1000 gal butane burned.
f Expressed as NO2.
References For Section 1.5

1.     Letter dated August 19, 1992.  From W. Butterbaugh of the National Propane Gas
       Association, Lisle, Illinois, to J. McSorley of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC.

2.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources
       Research, Inc., Reston, VA, Durham, NC, April 1970.

3.     Nitrous Oxide Reduction With The Weishaupt Flue Gas Recirculation System, Weishaupt
       Research and Development Institute, January 1987.

4.     Phone communication memorandum dated May 14, 1992.  Conversation between B. Lusher
       of Acurex Environmental  and D.  Childress of Suburban/Petrolane, Durham, NC.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
External Combustion Sources
1.5-3

-------

-------
1.6  Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers

1.6.1 General1'5

       The burning of wood waste in boilers is mostly confined to those industries where it is
available as a byproduct.  It is burned both to obtain heat energy and to alleviate possible solid waste
disposal problems.  In boilers,  wood waste is normally burned in the form of hogged wood, sawdust,
shavings, chips, sanderdust, or wood  trim. Heating values for this waste range from about 2,200 to
2,700 kcal/kg (4,000 to 5,000 Btu/lb) of fuel on a wet, as-fired basis. The moisture content of as-
fired wood is typically near 50 weight percent,  but may vary from 5 to 75  weight percent depending
on the waste type and storage operations.

       Generally, bark is the major type of waste burned  in pulp mills;  either  a mixture of wood and
bark waste or wood waste alone is burned most frequently in the lumber, furniture, and plywood
industries. As of 1980, there were approximately 1,600 wood-fired boilers operating in the U. S.,
with a total capacity of over 30 GW (1.0 x 1011 Btu/hr).

1.6.2 Firing Practices5'7

       Various boiler firing configurations are used  for burning wood waste.  One common type of
boiler used hi smaller operations is the Dutch oven.  This  unit is widely  used because it can burn
fuels with very high moisture content. Fuel is fed into the oven through an opening in the top of a
refractory-lined furnace.  The fuel accumulates  in a cone-shaped pile on a flat or sloping grate.
Combustion is accomplished in two stages:  (1) drying and gasification, and (2) combustion of
gaseous products.  The first stage takes place in the primary furnace, which is separated from the
secondary furnace chamber by a bridge wall. Combustion is completed in  the secondary chamber
before gases enter the boiler section.  The large mass of refractory helps to stabilize combustion rates
but also causes a slow response to fluctuating steam demand.

       In another boiler type, the fuel cell oven,  fuel is dropped onto suspended fixed grates and is
fired in a pile. Unlike the Dutch oven, the refractory-lined fuel cell also uses combustion air
preheating and positioning of secondary and tertiary air injection ports to improve boiler efficiency.
Because of their overall design and operating similarities, however, fuel  cell  and Dutch oven boilers
have comparable emission characteristics.

       The most common firing method employed for wood-fired boilers larger than 45,000 kg/hr
(100,000 Ib/hr) steam generation rate  is the spreader stoker.  With this boiler, wood enters the
furnace through a fuel chute and is spread either pneumatically or mechanically across the furnace,
where small pieces of the fuel burn while in suspension. Simultaneously, larger pieces of fuel are
spread in a thin, even bed on a stationary or moving  grate. The burning is accomplished  in three
stages in a single chamber:  (1) moisture evaporation; (2) distillation and burning of volatile matter;
and  (3) burning of fixed carbon. This type of operation has a fast response to load  changes, has
improved combustion control, and can be operated with multiple fuels.  Natural gas or oil is often
fired in spreader stoker boilers as auxiliary fuel.  This is done to maintain  constant  steam when the
wood waste supply fluctuates and/or to provide more steam than can be generated from the waste
supply alone. Although spreader stokers are the most common stokers among  larger wood-fired
boilers, overfeed and underfeed stokers are also utilized for smaller units.
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                              1.6-1

-------
       Another boiler type sometimes used for wood combustion is the suspension-firing boiler.
This boiler differs from a spreader stoker in that small-sized fuel (normally less than 2 mm) is blown
into the boiler and combusted by supporting it in air rather than on fixed grates. Rapid changes in
combustion rate and, therefore, steam generation rate are possible because the finely divided fuel
particles burn very quickly.

       A recent development in wood firing is the fluidized bed combustion (FBC) boiler. A
fluidized bed consists of inert particles through which air is blown so that the bed behaves as a fluid.
Wood waste enters in the space above the bed  and burns both in suspension and in the bed.  Because
of the large thermal mass represented by the hot inert bed particles, fluidized beds  can handle fuels
with moisture contents up to near 70 percent (total basis).  Fluidized beds can also handle dirty fuels
(up to 30 percent inert  material).  Wood fuel is pyrolyzed faster in a fluidized bed  than on a grate due
to its immediate contact with hot bed material.  As a result, combustion is rapid and results in nearly
complete combustion of the organic matter, thereby minimizing emissions of unburned organic
compounds.

1.6.3 Emissions  And Controls6"11

       The major emission of concern from wood  boilers is particulate matter (PM), although other
pollutants, particularly  carbon monoxide (CO)  and organic compounds, may be emitted  in significant
quantities under poor operating conditions.  These emissions depend on a number of variables,
including  (1)  the composition of the waste fuel burned,  (2) the degree of flyash reinjection employed,
and (3) furnace design  and operating conditions.

       The composition of wood waste depends largely on the industry from which it originates.
Pulping operations, for example, produce great quantities of bark that may contain more than
70 weight percent moisture,  sand, and other non-combustibles.   As a result,  bark boilers in pulp mills
may emit considerable  amounts of particulate matter to  the atmosphere unless they are well
controlled. On the other hand,  some operations, such as furniture  manufacturing, generate a clean,
dry wood waste (e. g., 2 to 20 weight percent  moisture) which produces relatively low particulate
emission levels when properly burned. Still other operations,  such as sawmills, burn a  varying
mixture of bark and wood waste that results in PM emissions somewhere between these two extremes.

       Furnace design and operating conditions are particularly important when firing wood waste.
For example, because of the high  moisture content that  may be present in wood waste, a larger than
usual area of refractory surface is often necessary to dry the fuel before combustion.  In addition,
sufficient  secondary air must be supplied over  the fuel bed to burn the volatiles that account for most
of the combustible material in the waste.  When proper drying  conditions do not exist, or when
secondary combustion  is incomplete, the combustion temperature is lowered, and increased PM, CO,
and organic compound emissions may result.   Short-term emissions can fluctuate with significant
variations in fuel  moisture content.

       Flyash reinjection, which  is commonly used with larger boilers to improve fuel  efficiency, has
a considerable effect on PM emissions. Because a fraction of the collected flyash is reinjected into
the boiler, the dust loading from the furnace and, consequently, from the collection device increase
significantly per unit of wood waste burned. More recent boiler installations typically separate the
collected particulate into large and small fractions in sand classifiers.  The larger particles, which are
mostly carbon, are reinjected into the furnace.   The smaller particles, mostly inorganic ash and sand,
are sent to ash disposal.
1.6-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
        Currently, the four most common control devices used to reduce PM emissions from wood-
fired boilers are mechanical collectors, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and fabric
filters.  The use of multitube cyclone (or multiclone) mechanical collectors provides paniculate
control for many hogged boilers.  Often, two multiclones are used in series, allowing the first
collector to remove the bulk of the dust and the second to remove smaller particles.  The efficiency of
this  arrangement is from 65 to 95 percent. The most widely used wet scrubbers for wood-fired
boilers are yenturi scrubbers.  With gas-side pressure drops exceeding 4 kPa (15 inches of water),
paniculate collection efficiencies of 90 percent or greater have been reported for venturi scrubbers
operating on wood-fired boilers.

        Fabric filters (i. e., baghouses) and ESPs are employed when collection efficiencies above
95 percent are required.  When applied to wood-fired boilers,  ESPs are often used downstream of
mechanical collector precleaners which remove larger-sized particles. Collection efficiencies of 93 to
99.8 percent for PM have been observed for ESPs operating on wood-fired boilers.

        A variation of the ESP is the electrostatic gravel bed filter.  In this device, PM in  flue gases
is removed by impaction with gravel media  inside a packed bed; collection is augmented by  an
electrically charged grid within the bed.  Paniculate collection efficiencies are typically near
95 percent.

        Fabric filters have had limited applications to wood-fired boilers.  The principal drawback to
fabric filtration, as perceived by potential users, is a fire  danger arising from the collection of
combustible carbonaceous fly ash.  Steps can be taken to  reduce this hazard, including the installation
of a  mechanical  collector upstream of the fabric filter to remove large burning panicles of fly ash
(i. e., "sparklers"). Despite complications, fabric filters are generally preferred for boilers firing salt-
laden wood.  This fuel produces fine particulates with a high salt  content. Fabric filters are  capable
of high fine particle collection efficiencies; in addition, the salt content of the particles has a
quenching effect, thereby reducing fire hazards.  In two tests of fabric filters operating on  salt-laden
wood-fired boilers, paniculate collection efficiencies were above 98 percent.

        Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX)  from wood-fired boilers are lower than those from coal-
fired boilers due to the lower nitrogen content of wood and the lower combustion temperatures which
characterize wood-fired boilers. For stoker  and FBC boilers, overfire air ports may be used to lower
NOX emissions by staging the combustion process. In those areas of the  U. S. where NOX emissions
must be reduced to their lowest levels,  the application of  selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to waste wood-fired boilers has either  been accomplished  (SNCR)
or is being contemplated  (SCR). Both  systems  are post-combustion NOX reduction techniques in
which ammonia  (or urea) is injected into the flue gas to selectively reduce NOX to nitrogen and water.
In one  application of SNCR to an industrial  wood-fired boiler, NOX reduction efficiencies varied
between 35 and 75 percent as the ammonia-to-NOx ratio increased from 0.4 to 3.2.

       Emission factors and emission factor ratings for wood  waste boilers are summarized  in
Tables  1.6-1, 1.6-2, 1.6-3, 1.6-4, 1.6-5,  1.6-6,  and 1.6-7.21'22 Emission factors are for uncontrolled
combustors unless otherwise indicated.  Cumulative particle size distribution data and  associated
emission factors are presented in Tables 1.6-8 and 1.6-9.  Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific
emission factors are plotted in Figure 1.6-1 and Figure 1.6-2.  All emission factors presented are
based on the feed rate of wet, as-fired wood  with  average properties of 50 weight percent moisture
and 2,500 kcal/kg (4,500 Btu/lb) higher heating values.
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                              1.6-3

-------
     Table 1.6-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICIPATE MATTER (PM), PARTICULATE MATTER LESS

                      THAN 10 MICROMETERS (PM-10), AND LEAD FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION3
Source Category
(SCC)b
Bark-fired boilers
(1-01-009-01, 1-02-009-01,
1-02-009-04, 1-03-009-01)
Uncontrolled
Mechanical collector
with flyash reinjection
without flyash reinjection
Wet scrubber
Wood/bark-fired boilers
(1-01-009-02, 1-02-009-02,
1-02-009-05, 1-03-009-02)
Uncontrolled
Mechanical collector
with flyash reinjection
without flyash reinjection
Wet scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Wood-fired boilers
(1-01-009-03, 1-02-009-03,
1-02-009-06, 1-03-009-03)
Uncontrolled
Mechanical collector
without flyash reinjection
Electrostatic precipitator
PMC
kg/Mg



23.5

7
4.5
1.5



3.6

3.0
2.7
0.24
0.02



4.4

2.1
0.08
Ib/ton



47

14
9.0
2.9



7.2

6.0
5.3
0.48
0.04



8.8

4.2
0.17
RATING



B

B
B
D



C

C
C
D
D



C

C
D
PM-10d
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton



8.4 17

5.5 11
1.6 3.2
1.3 2.5



3.2 6.5

2.7 5.5
0.08 1.7
0.23 0.47
ND ND



ND ND

1.3h 2.6h
ND ND
RATING



D

D
D
D



E

E
E
E






D

Leade
kg/Mg



1.4E-03

NDf

ND



ND

1.6E-048
1.6E-048
1.8E-04
8.0 E-05



ND

1.5E-04
5.5 E-03
Ib/ton



2.9 E-03

ND

ND



ND

3.2 E-04S
3.2 E-04S
3.5 E-04
1.6 E-05



ND

3.1 E-04
1.1 E-03
RATING



D









D

D
D





D
D
oo
on
9
o

-------
I
g
                                                               Table 1.6-1 (cont.).

    a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned.  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
      wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 2500  kcal/kg (4500 Btu/lb) higher heating value.
    b SCC = Source Classification Code.
    c References 11-15.
    d References 13,16.
    e References 11,13-15,17.
    f ND = no data.
    g Due to lead's relative volatility, it is assumed that flyash reinjection does not have a significant effect on lead emissions following mechanical
      collectors.
    h Based on one test in which 61 percent of emitted PM was less than 10 micrometer in size.
Ul

-------
Q

Z
<
O
co,

co
U
Q


§

05
D
b

D
co ?»

^O
rf-J **
O H

^D

si

So
X CJ
O pQ


§3
  ^

H§

Z O

**

2^
cog
05 ^
8
U
<
fc
  a

  u
Z Q
2x
£g
I—I /-.
|0


^ z
.•a ^



P
"So
tS

•§
<
CD

S



o
00
— -9-^
rt r\
8 52-
3
O
00


O




VD
VO





en
en





«


._
O
d

8
d





O



00
en
d
d




Si
o
a
8
"o
U.


U Q




? <«?? -
10 ^ o\ -"
d ^


~ S1

i oo i r^
en \o gj o
8- Q.




03 m

CN" oT
d  d tn
J. °. ^ °.
o d o d
Q, Q,
s^ S-*
1 en ' en
in 0^0
o d ° d
0 ° 0 °
0. 0,




CJ Q

_^ v
^ £T
. tn
»n , O
p^ i— » \o C*^
O vfi
I ^
^ «•
o ._;
|2 i <=>
^* . *
S ° <*>
^5 O
O



tn W
O O M
••§u -1o S
.0 0 ^ O "5
ll ll i
^ JO ^ B.







CN
O,


fT

,
cs
g.






f?
Q
S
0,
, 	 ,
0
0,
















U
60

1
"1
c§
^
w
jj
o
CO
^
cS

on
(^
2
^j
=2
c
•§


w

1
3

to
CB
S
T3
O
1
^+H
O
C
utant/to
*^"]
o
o

T3
CO
1
1_l
5
2J
CO
T3
O
i
"o
bo
CO
_3
"o
C.
O

bo
0)
•4-J
'2
D
nj

"8
.a
2

c
II
U
m
UH

2
"3
o
j=
tA
Is
I
a
bo
C
u,

•5
c
S
3
lo
>
u,
j=
bo
a
.
CD
-ir!
85
!-
c
be «
8 H-T
•« §
||
o 'S

Is
S o
CO *S
s>-> °
•"c -i
2 >
£ —
.a co
^^ S
ii
So
v- -S
O
«- =2
d*|
O c!
tN o>
." *""*
« '2
rvl t3
i_J o
O
§ «g
ll
O













^
c3
Ui
gO

s>
•i
Is
0>
ta.fi
ou
^^
i
T3
O
0
g
i
3
tt>

2
o
-C
CA

1


(S
o
§
lH
T3
r-
1
r.
CO
to
1
i
CA
8

2
CO
CA
_0

1
o
0

o

i
O
ej
t[ |

*t3
u
42
2
1
1?
S3
*£*
£
03
C.
.S,
1
0>

c
'«
3
S
•a
"sc
^
•*
CN
r,
00
(

«
o
1
u
































•
C/3
Q
to
"w
o
i
u>
'«
.s?
u.
O
1
a>
&

^
CA
3
C

1.6-6
                          EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
     Table 1.6-3 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL ORGANIC
 COMPOUNDS (TOC) AND CARBON DIOXIDE (CO^ FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION4
Source Category
(SCC)b
Fuel cell/Dutch oven
boilers (no SCC)
Stoker boilers
(no SCC)
FBC boilers
(no SCC)
TOCC
kg/Mg
0.09
0.11
ND
Ib/ton RATING
0.18 C
0.22 C
ND
C02d
kg/Mg
1100
1100
1100
Ib/ton
2100
2100
2100
RATING
B
B
B
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned.
  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired wood waste with average properties of 50 weight
  percent moisture and 2500 kcal/kg (4500 Btu/lb) higher heating value.  FBC = fluidized bed
  combustion. ND = no data.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 11,14-15,18.  Emissions measured as total hydrocarbons, converted from kg carbon/Mg
  fuel (Ib carbon/ton fuel).
d References 11,14-15,17,27.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.6-7

-------
 Table 1.6-4 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
                           FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTIONa
Organic Compound15
Phenols
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracenc
Benzo(b +k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g ,h ,i)perylene
Chrysene
Indeno(l ,2,3,c,d)pyrene
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans
Acenaphthylene
Pyrene
Methyl anthracene
Acrolein
Solicyladehyde
Benzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emission Factor Range0
(kg/Mg)
3.2 E-05 - 6.0 E-05
4.3 E-08 - 2.1 E-06
8.5 E-08 - 1.4 E-05
1.0 E-06 - 9.0 E-05
4.3 E-08 - 1.7 E-04
4.3 E-08 - 4.3 E-04
2.1 E-07 - 2.9 E-05
4.3 E-08 - 3.2 E-06
1.7 E-07 -9.5 E-05
4.3 E-08 - 1.5 E-07
4.3 E-08 - 1.7 E-06
4.3 E-08 - 1.5 E-04
4.3 E-08 - 3.0 E-07
1.5E-09- 1.7 E-08
2.3 E-09 - 3.6 E-08
3.0 E-07 - 3.4 E-05





1.2 E-04- 1.6E-02
3.0 E-05 - 1.2 E-02
4.3 E-05 - 7.0 E-03
2.5 E-05 - 2.9 E-03
1.1 E-011 -2.6E-011
Average Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg)
1.9 E-04
1.7 E-06
4.8 E-06
2.8 E-05
1.9 E-05
4.5 E-05
8.5 E-06
9.0 E-07
1.9 E-05
9.5 E-08
6.0 E-07
2.1 E-05
1.7 E-07
6.0 E-09d'e
1.5E-08d'f
2.2 E-05
4.5 E-06S
7.0 E-05S
2.0 E-066
1.1 E-05S
6.0E-068
3.3 E-03
1.5 E-03
1.8 E-03
1.1 E-03
1.8 E-ll
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned.  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
  wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 2500 kcal/kg higher heating
  value. Source Classification Codes are 1-01-009-01/02/03, 1-02-009-01/02/03/04/05/06/07, and
  1-03-009-01/02/03.
b Pollutants in this table represent organic species measured for wood waste combustors. Other
  organic species may also have been emitted but were either not measured or were present at
  concentrations below analytical limits.
c References 11-15,18,26-28.
d Emission factors are for total dioxins and furans, not toxic equivalents.
e Excludes data from combustion of salt-laden wood.  For salt-laden wood, emission factor is
  6.5 E-07 kg/Mg with  a D rating.
f Excludes data from combustion of salt-laden wood.  For salt-laden wood, emission factor is
  2.8 E-07 kg/Mg with  a D rating.
g Based on data from one source test.
1.6-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
  Table 1.6-5 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
                            FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION3
Organic Compound1"
Phenols
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b +k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Indeno(l ,2,3>c,d)pyrene
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans
Acenaphthylene
Pyrene
Methyl anthracene
Acrolein
Solicyladehyde
Benzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
2,3 ,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emission Factor Range0
(Ib/ton)
6.4 E-05 - 1.2 E-04
8.6 E-08 - 4.3 E-06
1.7 E-07 - 2.8 E-05
2.0 E-06 -1.8 E-04
8.6 E-08 - 3.5 E-04
8.6 E-08 - 8.6 E-O4
4.3 E-07 - 5.9 E-05
8.6 E-08 - 6.4 E-06
3.4 E-07 -1.9 E-04
8.6 E-08 - 3.0 E-07
8.6 E-08 - 3.5 E-06
8.6 E-08 - 3.0 E-04
8.6 E-08 - 6.0 E-07
3.0 E-09 - 3.3 E-08
4.6 E-09 - 7.2 E-08
6.0 E-07 - 6.8 E-05





2.3 E-O4 - 3.3 E-02
6.1 E-05 - 2.4 E-02
8.6 E-05- 1.4 E-02
5.0 E-05 - 5.8 E-03
2.12E-011 -5.11 E-011
Average Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton)
3.9 E-04
3.4 E-06
9.6 E-06
5.7 E-05
3.8 E-05
9.0 E-05
1.7 E-05
1.8 E-06
2.9 E-05
1.9 E-07
1.2 E-06
4.3 E-05
3.4 E-07
1.2 E-08d-e
2.9 E-08d'f
4.4 E-05
9.0 E-06S
1.4E-04S
4.0 E-06S
2.3 E-05S
1.2 E-05S
6.6 E-03
3.0 E-03
3.6 E-03
2.3 E-03
3.6E-11
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
a Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned. Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
  wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 4500 Btu/lb higher heating
  value.  Source Classification Codes are 1-01-009-01/02/03, 1-02-009-01/02/03/04/05/06/07, and
  1-03-009-01/02/03.
b Pollutants in this table represent organic species measured for wood waste combustors.  Other
  organic species may also have been emitted but were either not measured or were present at
  concentrations below analytical limits.
c References 11-15,18,26-28.
d Emission factors are for total dioxins and furans, not toxic equivalents.
e Excludes data from combustion of salt-laden wood. For salt-laden wood, emission factor is
  1.3 E-06 Ib/ton with a D rating.
f Excludes data from combustion of salt-laden wood. For salt-laden wood, emission factor is
  5.5 E-07 Ib/ton with a D rating.
g Based on data from one source test.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.6-9

-------
        Table 1.6-6 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED METALS
                          FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION8
Trace Element*5
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Zinc
Barium
Potassium
Sodium
Iron
Lithium
Boron
Chlorine
Vanadium
Cobaltb
Thorium
Tungsten
Dysprosium
Samarium
Needy mium
Praeseodymium
Iodine
Tin
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Rubidium
Bromine
Germanium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Emission Factor Range0
(kg/Mg)
1.5 E-05 - 2.9 E-05
7.0 E-06 - 6.0 E-04
4.9 E-05 - 1.1 E-02



4.3 E-04 - 3.3 E-02




















7.0 E-07 - 1.2 E-04
1.3 E-06 - 2.7 E-04
3. OE-06 - 2.3 E-04
1.5 E-04 - 2.6 E-02
1.3 E-O6 - 1.0 E-05
1.7 E-05 - 2.9 E-03
8.5 E-06 - 9.0 E-06
Average Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg)
2.3 E-05
9.5 E-05
2.2 E-03
2.2 E-03d
3.9 E-01d
9.0 E-03d
2.2 E-02
3.5 E-05d
4.0 E-04d
3.9 E-03d
6.0 E-05d
6.5 E-05d
8.5 E-06d
5.5 E-06d
6.5 E-06d
1.0 E-05d
1.3 E-05d
1.5 E-05d
8.0 E-06d
1.5 E-05d
9.5 E-05d
1.7 E-05d
1.7 E-04d
2.8 E-05d
6.0 E-04d
1.8 E-04d
1.7 E-06d
4.4 E-05
8.5 E-06
6.5 E-05
4.4 E-03
3.7 E-06
2.8 E-04
8.8 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned.  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
  wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 2500 kcal/kg higher heating
  value. Source Classification Codes are 1-01-009-01/02/03, 1-02-009-01/02/03/04/05/06/07, and
  1-03-009-01/02/03.
b Pollutants in this table represent metal species measured for wood waste combustors. Other metal
  species may also have been emitted but were either not measured or were present at concentrations
  below analytical limits.
c References 11-15.
d Based on data from one source test.
1.6-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
         Table 1.6-7 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED METALS
                           FROM WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION3
Trace Element19
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Zinc
Barium
Potassium
Sodium
Iron
Lithium
Boron
Chlorine
Vanadium
Cobalt
Thorium
Tungsten
Dysprosium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praeseodymium
Iodine
Tin
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Rubidium
Bromine
Germanium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Emission Factor Range0
(Ib/ton)
3.1 E-05 ^ 5.9 E-05
1.4 E-05 - 1.2 E-03
9.9 E-05 - 2.3 E-02



8.6 E-04 - 8.7 E-02




















1.4 E-06 - 2.4 E-04
2.7 E-06 - 5.4 E-04
6.0 E-O6 - 4.6 E-04
3.0 E-04 - 5.2 E-02
2.6 E-06 - 2.1 E-05
3.4 E-05 - 5.8 E-03
1.7 E-05 - 1.8 E-05
Average Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton)
4.6 E-05
1.9 E-04
4.4 E-03
4.4 E-03d
7.8 E-01d
1.8 E-02d
4.4 E-02
7.0 E-05d
8.0 E-04d
7.8 E-03d
1.2 E-04d
1.3 E-04d
1.7 E-05d
1.1 E-05d
1.3 E-05d
2.0 E-05d
2.6 E-05d
3.0 E-05d
1.8 E-05d
3.1 E-05d
1.9 E-04d
3.5 E-05d
3.5 E-04d
5.6 E-05d
1.2 E-03d
3.9 E-04d
2.5 E-06d
8.8 E-05
1.7 E-05
1.3 E-04
8.9 E-03
6.5 E-06
5. 6 E-04
1.8 E-05
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
a Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned. Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired
  wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and 4500 Btu/lb higher heating
  value.  Source Classification Codes are 1-010-09-01/02/03,  1-02-009-01/02/03/04/05/06/07, and
  1-03-009-01/02/03.
b Pollutants in this table represent metal species measured for wood waste combustors. Other metal
  species may also have been emitted but were either not measured or were present at concentrations
  below analytical limits.
c References 11-15.
d Based  on data from one source test.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.6-11

-------
to
           Table 1.6-8 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
                                      EMISSION FACTORS FOR BARK-FIRED BOILERS3

                                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Particle Sizeb
(urn)
15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625

Total



Cumulative Mass % *
Uncontrolled
42

35

28

21

15

13

9

100


a Stated Size


Controlled
Multiple
Cycloned
90

79

64

40

26

21

15

100

Multiple
Cyclone6
40

36

30

19

14

11

8

100

Scrubbed
92

87

78

56

29

23

14

100

Cumulative Emission Factor*
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Bark, As Fired)
Uncontrolled
10.1
(20.2)
8.4
(16.8)
6.7
(13.4)
5.0
(10.0)
3.6
(7.2)
3.1
(6.2)
2.2
(4.4)
24
(47)
Controlled
Multiple
Cycloned
6.3
(12.6)
5.5
(11.0)
4.5
(9.0)
2.8
(5.6)
1.8
(3.6)
1.5
(3.0)
1.1
(2.2)
7
(14)
Multiple
Cyclone6
1.8
(3.6)
1.62
(3.24)
1.35
(2.7)
0.86
(1.72)
0.63
(1.26)
0.5
(1.0)
0.36
(0.72)
4.5
(9.0)
Scrubbed
1.32
(2.64)
1.25
(2.50)
1.12
(2.24)
0.81
(1.62)
0.42
(0.84)
0.33
(0.66)
0.20
(0.40)
1.44
(2.88)
m
C/3
00
O
Z
O
H
O
»
c/o
                                                                                           50 weight percent moisture and
                                                                                           1-02-009-01, 1-02-009-04, and 1-03-009-01.
a Reference 16.  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired wood waste with average properties of
  2,500 kcal/kg (4,500 Btu/lb) higher heating value. Source Classification Codes are 1-01-009-01,
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood waste burned and lb of pollutant/ton of wood waste burned. Data limited to spreader stoker boilers.
d With flyash reinjection.
e Without flyash reinjection.
f Assumed control efficiency for scrubber is 94%.
 Ul

-------
                Table 1.6-9 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
                                        EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD/BARK-FIRED BOILERSa

                                                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E


Particle
Sizeb
(jim)
15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625

Total






Cumulative Mass % < Stated Size


Uncontrolled*1
94

90

86

76

69

67

ND

100

Controlled
Multiple
Cycloned
96

91

80

54

30

24

16

100

Multiple
Cyclone6
35

32

27

16

84

6

3

100


Scrubbed
98

98

98

98

96

95

ND

100


DEGF
77

74

69

65

61

58

51

100

Cumulative Emission Factor0
(kg/Mg [Ib/ton] Bark, As Fired)


Uncontrolled0
3.38
(6.77)
3.24
(6.48)
3.10
(6.20)
2.74
(5.47)
2.48
(4.97)
2.41
(4.82)

ND
3.6
(7.2)
Controlled
Multiple
Cyclone8
2.88
(5.76)
2.73
(5.46)
2.40
(4.80)
1.62
(3.24)
0.90
(1.80)
0.72
(1.44)
0.48
(0.96)
3.0
(6.0)
Multiple
Cyclone6
0.95
(1.90)
0.86
(1.72)
0.73
(1.46)
0.43
(0.86)
0.22
(0.44)
0.16
(0.32)
0.081
(0.162)
2.7
(5.4)

Scrubber
0.216
(0.431)
0.216
(0.432)
0.216
(0.432)
0.216
(0.432)
0.211
(0.422)
0.209
(0.418)
ND

0.24
(0.48)

DEGF8
0.123
(0.246)
0.118
(0.236)
0.110
(0.220)
0.104
(0.208)
0.098
(0.196)
0.093
(0.186)
0.082
(0.164)
0.16
(0.32)
w
x
rf
s
n
o
I
00
ct
o'
00
o
B
ON

OJ
    a Reference 16.  Emission factors are based on wet, as-fired wood waste with average properties of 50 weight percent moisture and
      2500 kcal/kg (4500 Btu/lb) higher heating value.  Source Classification Codes are 1-01-009-02, 1-02-009-02, 1-02-009-05, and  1-03-009-02.
      ND = no data.
    b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
    c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wood/bark burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of wood/bark burned.
    d From data on underfeed stokers. May also be used as size distribution for wood-fired boilers.
    e From data on spreader stokers without flyash reinjection.
    f From data on Dutch ovens. Assumed control efficiency is 94%.
    g From data on spreader stokers with flyash reinjection.

-------
                 25
                 20
                 10
                                Multiple cycloM
                                •itn flyash relnjectlon

                                              Scrubber•

                                       Uncontrolled.
                             i   i  i i  i
                                                  I  I  I  I I
                                                                  Multiple cyclone
                                                                  •itftout flyash  -
                                                                  reinjectlon
                                                                                  5  i
                                                                                  4
                    .1
                               .4   ..6   1      2     46    10
                                         Particle diameter !uo)
                                                                  20
                                40  60  100
                                                      2.0

                                                      1.8

                                                          o
                                                      i.e t;
                                                          «
                                                          *»

                                                      1.4 J —
                                                          «• *


                                                      i.o 5 •

                                                      0.8 2 t
                                                          •* A
                                                          So.
                                                      0-fi Y^
                                                          k. ei

                                                      0.4 f
                                                          U
                                                      0.2 *"

                                                      0.0
                          Figure 1.6-1.  Cumulative size-specific participate
                            matter emission factors for bark-fired boilers.
1.6-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                     1/95

-------
                                   -I0136J UO(.SS|.Ua
                      (SI

                      o
                                         se '
                                     uoissiura
o
CSI
•
o
00
CM
•
0
«o
CM
d
•w
d
CM O
CM CM
0* 0
s
CM
d
<0
~
d
-r
CM
d
CM
CM
d

CM
d
                                                               o

                                                               1
                                                               *?
                                                               J*
                                                                                                  T3
                                                                                                  O

                                                                                                  i

                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                  a>
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  4)
                                                                                                  5
                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                 '§
                                                                                                  e.
                                                                                                  V)
                                                                                                  >


                                                                                                 1


                                                                                                  |


                                                                                                 d



                                                                                                 cs
                                                                                                  S)
                                                                                                 E
                                co

                                eg
                                          se

                                         uoissiua
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.6-15

-------
References For Section 1.6

1.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 1.6—Wood Waste Combustion in Boilers,
       Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

2.     Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, New York, NY,  1972.

3.     Atmospheric Emissions From The Pulp And Paper Manufacturing Industry,
       EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1973.

4.     C-E Bark Burning Boilers, C-E Industrial Boiler Operations, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
       Windsor, CT, 1973.

5.     Nonfossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information, EPA-450/3-82-007, U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.

6.     Control Of Paniculate Emissions From Wood-Fired Boilers,  EPA 340/1-77-026, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1977.

7.     Background Information Document For Industrial Boilers, EPA 450/3-82-006a, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.

8.     E. F. Aul, Jr. and K. W. Barnett, "Emission Control Technologies For Wood-Fired Boilers",
       Presented at the Wood Energy Conference, Raleigh, NC, October 1984.

9.     G. Moilanen, K. Price, C. Smith, and A. Turchina, "Noncatalytic Ammonia Injection For
       NOX Reduction on a Waste Wood Fired Boiler", Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the
       Air Pollution Control Association, New York, NY, June 1987.

10.    "Information On The Sulfur Content Of Bark And Its Contribution To SO2 Emissions When
       Burned As A Fuel", H. Oglesby  and R. Blosser, Journal Of The Air Pollution Control
       Agency, 30(7):769-772, July 1980.

11.    Written communication from G.  Murray, California Forestry Association, Sacramento, CA to
       E. Aul, Edward Aul & Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC, Transmittal of Wood Fired Boiler
       Emission Test, April, 24, 1992.

12.    Hazardous Air Emissions Potential From A Wood-Fired Furnace (and Attachments),
       A. J. Hubbard, Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources, Madison, WI, July 1991.

13.    Environmental Assessment Of A Wood-Waste-Fired Industrial Watertube Boiler, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3188, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, March  1984.

14.    Evaluation Test On A Wood Waste Fired Incinerator At Pacific Oroville Power Inc., Test
       Report No. C-88-050, California Air Resources Broad, Sacramento, CA, May  1990.

15.    Evaluation Test On Twin Fluidized Bed Wood Waste Fueled Combustors Located In Central
       California, Test Report No. C-87-042, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA,
       February, 1990.

1.6-16                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
16.    Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For External Combustion Sources, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1985.

17.    Emission Test Report, Owens-Illinois Forest Products Division, Big Island, Virginia, EMB
       Report 80-WFB-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1980.

18.    National Dioxin Study Tier 4,  Combustion Sources: Final Test Report, Site 7, Wood Fired
       Boiler WFB-A, EPA-450/4-84-014p, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, April 1987.

19.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

20.    A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Wood Residue Boilers, Technical Bulletin
       No. 102, National Council of the Paper Industry for  Air and Stream Improvement,  New
       York, NY, November 1979.

21.    R. A. Kester, Nitrogen  Oxide Emissions From A Pilot Plant Spreader Stoker Bark Fired
       Boiler, Department of Civil Engineering,  University  of Washington, Seattle, WA, December
       1979.

22.    A. Nunn, NOX Emission Factors For Wood Fired Boilers, EPA-600/7-79-219, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, September 1979.

23.    H. S. Oglesby and R. O. Blosser, "Information On The Sulfur Content Of Bark And Its
       Contribution To SO2 Emissions When Burned As A Fuel", Journal Of The Air Pollution
       Control Agency, 30(7):769-772, July 1980.

24.    Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Selected Combustion Sources Based On Short-Term
       Monitoring Records, Technical Bulletin No.  416, National Council of the Paper Industry For
       Air and Stream Improvement,  New York, NY,  January 1984.

25.    Volatile Organic Carbon Emissions From Wood Residue Fired Power Boilers In The
       Southeast, Technical Bulletin No. 455, National Council of the Paper Industry For Air and
       Stream Improvement, New York, NY, April 1985.

26.    A Study Of Formaldehyde Emissions From Wood Residue-Fired Boilers, Technical Bulletin
       No. 622, National Council of the Paper Industry For Air and Stream Improvement, New
       York, NY, January 1992.

27.    Emission Test Report, St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida, EMB Report
       80-WFB-5, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, May 1980.

28.    A Poly cyclic Organic Materials Study For Industrial Wood-Fired Boilers, Technical  Bulletin
       No. 400, National Council of the Paper Industry For Air and Stream Improvement, New
       York, NY, May 1983.
1/95                             External Combustion Sources                           1.6-J7

-------

-------
1.7  Lignite Combustion

1.7.1 General1"*

       Lignite is a coal in the early stages of coalification, with properties intermediate to those of
bituminous coal and peat.  The 2 geographical areas of the U. S. with extensive lignite deposits are
centered  in the States of North Dakota and Texas. The lignite in both areas has a high moisture
content (30 to 40 weight percent) and a low heating value (1,400 to 1,900 kcal/kg [2,500 to
3,400 Btu/lb], on a wet basis). Consequently, lignite is burned near where it is mined.  A small
amount is used in industrial and domestic situations, but lignite is mainly used for steam/electric
production in power plants. Lignite combustion has advanced from small stokers and the first
pulverized coal (PC) and cyclone-fired units to large (greater than 800 MW) PC power plants.

       The major advantages of firing lignite are that it is relatively abundant (in the North Dakota
and Texas regions), relatively low in cost, and low in sulfur content. The disadvantages are that
more fuel and larger facilities are necessary to generate a unit of power than is the case with
bituminous coal. The reasons for this are:  (1) lignite's higher moisture content means that more
energy is lost in evaporating water, which reduces boiler efficiency; (2) more energy is required to
grind lignite to combustion-specified size, especially in PC-fired units; (3) greater tube spacing and
additional soot blowing are required because of lignite's higher ash fouling tendencies;  and
(4) because of its lower heating value, more lignite must be handled to produce a given amount of
power.  Lignite usually is not cleaned or dried before combustion (except for incidental drying in the
crusher or pulverizer and during transport to the burner).  No major problems exist with the handling
or combustion of lignite when its unique characteristics are taken into account.

1.7.2 Emissions2-11'17

       The major pollutants generated from firing lignite, as with any coal, are paniculate matter
(PM), sulfur oxides (SOX), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Emissions rates of organic compounds and
carbon monoxide (CO) are much lower than those for the  major pollutants under normal operating
conditions.

       Emission levels for PM appear most dependent on the firing configuration of the boiler.
Pulverized coal-fired units and spreader stokers fire much  or all of the lignite in suspension; they emit
a greater quantity of flyash per unit of fuel burned than do cyclones and other stokers.  Cyclone
furnaces  collect much of the ash as molten slag in the furnace itself.  Stokers (other than spreader)
retain a large fraction of the ash in the fuel bed and bottom ash.

       The NOX emissions from lignite combustion are mainly a function of the boiler design, firing
configuration, and excess air level.  Stokers produce lower NOX levels than PC units and cyclones,
mainly because most stokers are relatively small and have lower peak flame temperatures.  The
boilers constructed since implementation of the 1971 and 1979 New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) (40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subparts D and Da, respectively) have NOX
controls integrated into the boiler design and have comparable NOX emission levels to the small
stokers.  In most boilers, regardless of firing configuration, lower excess combustion air results in
lower NOX emissions. However, lowering the amount of  excess air in a lignite-fired boiler can also
affect the potential for ash fouling.
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                              1.7-1

-------
       The rate of SOX emissions from lignite combustion are a function of the alkali (especially
sodium) content of the ash.  For combustion of most fossil fuels, over 90 percent of the fuel sulfur is
emitted as sulfur dioxide (SO^ because of the low alkali content of the fuels.  By contrast, a
significant fraction of the sulfur in lignite reacts with alkaline ash components during  combustion and
is retained in the boiler bottom ash and flyash. Tests have shown that less than 50 percent of the
available sulfur may be emitted as SO2 when a high-sodium lignite is burned, whereas more than
90 percent may be emitted from a low-sodium lignite.  As an approximate average, about 75 percent
of the lignite sulfur will be emitted as S02; the remainder will be retained in the ash as various
sulfate salts.

1.7.3 Controls2'11'17

       Most lignite-fired utility boilers are equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) with
collection efficiencies as high as 99.5 percent for total  PM.  Older and smaller ESPs have lower
collection efficiencies of approximately 95 percent for  total PM.  Older industrial and commercial
units also may be equipped with cyclone collectors that normally achieve 60 to 80 percent collection
efficiency for total PM.

       Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (comparable to those used on bituminous coal-fired
boilers) are in current operation on several lignite-fired utility boilers. Flue gases are treated through
wet or dry desulfurization processes of either the throwaway type (in which all waste  streams are
discarded) or the recovery/regenerable type (in which the SOX absorbent is regenerated and reused).
Wet systems generally use alkali slurries as the SOX absorption medium and can reduce SOX
emissions by 90 percent or more. Spray dryers (or dry scrubbers) spray a solution or slurry of
alkaline material into a reaction vessel as a fine mist that mixes with the flue gas.  The SO2 reacts
with the alkaline mist to form salts. The solids from the spray dryer and  the salts formed are
collected in a particulate control device.

       Over 50 percent reduction of NOX emissions can be achieved by changing the burner
geometry, controlling air flow in  the furnace, or making other changes in operating procedures.
Overfire  air and low NOX burners are two demonstrated  NOX control techniques for lignite
combustion.

       Baseline emission factors  for NOX, SOX, and CO are presented in Tables 1.7-1 and 1.7-2.
Baseline  emission factors for total PM and nitrous oxide (N2O) are given  in Table 1.7-3.  Specific
emission factors for the cumulative particle size distributions are provided in Tables 1.7-4 and 1.7-5.
Uncontrolled and controlled size-specific emission factors are presented in Figure 1.7-1 and
Figure 1.7-2.  Lignite combustion and bituminous coal combustion  are quite similar with respect to
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and organic compounds.  As a result, the bituminous coal
emission factors for these pollutants presented in Section 1.1 of this  document may also be used to
estimate emissions from lignite combustion.

       Emission factors for trace elements from uncontrolled lignite combustion are summarized in
Tables 1.7-6 and 1.7-7, based on currently available data.

       Controlled emission factors for NOX, CO, and PM are presented in Tables 1.7-8 and 1.7-9.
Controlled SO2 emissions will depend primarily on applicable regulations and FGD equipment
performance, if applicable.  Section 1.1 contains a discussion of FGD performance capabilities which
is also applicable to lignite-fired boilers.  Controlled emission factors for  selected hazardous air
pollutants are provided in Tables  1.7-10 and 1.7-11.
1.7-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

-------
       Table 1.7-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOX),
              NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX), AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
                   FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION*
Firing Configuration
(SCCf
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Other stoker
(SCC l-01-003-04)f
Atmospheric fluidized
bed (no SCC)
SOX<
Emission
Factor
15Sf
15S
15S
15S
15S
5S
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
D
N0xd
Emission
Factor RATING
3.7 C
5.6 C
6.3 C
2.9 C
ND
1.8 C
coe
Emission
Factor RATING

0.13 C



0.08 C
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned. ND = no data.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 2.
d References 2-3,7-8,15-16.
e References 7,16.
f S = Weight % sulfur content of lignite, wet basis. For high sodium ash (Na2O > 8%), use US.
  For low sodium ash (Na2O < 2%), use 17S. If ash sodium content is unknown, use 15S.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-3

-------
      Table 1.7-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR OXIDES (SOX),
              NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX), AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
                   FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION*
Firing Configuration
(SCC?
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Other stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
Atmospheric fluidized
bed (no SCC)
SOXC
Emission
Factor
30Sf
30S
30S
30S
30S
10S
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
D
N0xd
Emission
Factor RATING
7.3 C
11.1 C
12.5 C
5.8 C
ND
3.6 C
C0e
Emission
Factor RATING

0.25 C



0.15 C
8 Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 2.
d References 2-3,7-8,15-16.
e References 7,16.
f S = Weight % sulfur content of lignite, wet basis.  For high sodium ash (Na2O > 8%), use 22S.
  For low sodium ash (Na2O  < 2%), use 34S. If ash sodium content is unknown, use 30S.
1.7-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
 Table 1.7-3 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
            (PM) AND NITROUS OXIDE (N2O) FROM LIGNITE COMBUSTION*
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
(SCC 1-01-003-02)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, wall fired
(SCC 1-01-003-01)
Cyclone
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Other stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
Atmospheric fluidized bed
PMb
Emission Factor RATING
3.3A (6.5A) E
2.6A(5.1A) E
3.4A (6.7A) C
4.0A (8.0A) E
1.7A(3.4A) E

N2OC
Emission Factor RATING





1.2 (2.5) E
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 5-6,12,14. A = weight % ash content of lignite, wet basis.
c Reference 18.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-5

-------
r    Table 1.7-4 (Metric And English Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS

£                                     FOR BOILERS FIRING PULVERIZED LIGNITE*



                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
Oxm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass % £ Stated Size
Uncontrolled
51
35
26
10
7
6
3

Multiple Cyclone
Controlled
77
67
57
27
16
14
8

Cumulative Emission Factor0
Uncontrolled
1.7A (3.4A)
1.2A (2.3A)
0.86A (1.7A)
0.33 A (0.66A)
0.23A (0.47A)
0.20A (0.40A)
0.10A(0.19A)
3.3A (6.6A)
Multiple Cyclone
Controlled"1
0.51A (l.OA)
0.44A (0.88A)
0.38A (0.75A)
0.18A(0.36A)
0.11A(0.21A)
0.093A(0.19A)
0.053 A (0.11 A)
0.66A(1.3A)
a Reference 13. Based on tangential-fired units. For wall-fired units, multiply emission factors in the table by 0.79.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned. A = weight % ash content of coal, wet basis.
d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%.
rfl
GO
GO
9
O

GO

-------
~    Table 1.7-5 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
^                                          FOR LIGNITE-FIRED SPREADER STOKERS*

                                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Sizeb
(jim)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative Mass % ^ Stated Size
Uncontrolled
28
20
14
7
5
5
4

Multiple Cyclone
Controlled
55
41
31
26
23
22
	 e

Cumulative Emission Factor0
Uncontrolled
1.1A(2.2A)
0.80A(1.6A)
0.56A(1.1A)
0.28A (0.56A)
0.20A (0.40A)
0.20A (0.40A)
0.16A(0.33A)
4.0A (8.0A)
Multiple Cyclone
Controlled*1
0.44A (0.88A)
0.33A (0.66A)
0.25A (0.50A)
0.21A (0.42A)
0.18A(0.37A)
0.18A(0.35A)
	 e
0.80A(1.6A)
m
*
3
EL
O"
o
on
o
     a Reference 13.
     b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
     c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned. A = weight % ash content of lignite, wet basis.
     d Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone is 80%.            '
     e Insufficient data.

-------
            w
3A
2.7A
2.4A
Z.1A
1.8A
l.SA
1.2A
0.9A
0.6A
0.3A
   0
                                               Multiple
                                               cyclone
                                                                  Uncontrolled
   l.OA
   0.9A
   O.M
   0.7A
   O.M
   0.5A
   0.4A
   0.3*
   0.2A
   O.IA
                                                                                         M _
                                                                                         il
                                   .4  .6  1      24    6     10
                                             Particle dfaneter (w»)
                                                         40 60
JLUO.O
 IOC
                 Figure 1.7-1.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for boilers
                                        firing pulverized lignite.
                    l.OA
                    O.M

                  ~ ••"
                  -o
                  Z 0.7A
                  C
                  .. 0.6A
                  ".
                    O.SA
              |IIo.3A
              is
              g    0.2A
                    O.IA
                    0
                           Uncontrolled
                                                 Itlole cyclone
                                 1   II 1
                              .2    .4  .6    1     2    4   6    10    20   40  M  100
                                                Particle d1a*ete
                     Figure 1.7-2.  Cumulative size-specific emission factors for
                                     lignite-fired spreader stokers.
1.7-8
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                   1/95

-------
       Table 1.7-6 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENTS FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION*


                                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized, wet bottom
(no SCC)
Pulverized, dry bottom
(no SCC)
Cyclone furnace
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Stoker, configuration
unknown (no SCC)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Traveling grate (overfed)
stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
Pg/J
As Be Cd Cr Mn Hg Ni
1175 56 21-33 525-809 1917-7065 9 70-504
598 56 21 645 - 809 7043 9 404 - 504
101-272 56 13 109-809 1635 9 68-504
51 5130 9 303-504
231 -473 10-20 486- 809
473 - 904 20 - 39
w
x
a
CO

O
o
o
3

GO
O
c
      References 19-20. Units are picograms (10"12) of pollutant/joule of fuel burned. SCC = Source Classification Code.
v

-------
r   Table 1.7-7 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENTS FROM UNCONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION8
-j
i

°                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized, wet bottom
(no SCC)
Pulverized, dry bottom
(no SCC)
Cyclone furnace
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Stoker configuration unknown
(no SCC)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Traveling grate (overfed)
stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-04)
lb/1012 Btu
As Be Cd Cr Mn Hg Ni
2730 131 49-77 1220-1880 4410-16,250 21 154-1160
1390 131 49 1500-1880 16,200 21 928-1160
235-632 131 31 253-1880 3,760 21 157-1160
118 11,800 21
538 - 1 100 23-47 1 130 - 1880 696 - 1 160
1100-2100 47-90
m

§

Eo
GO
t—i
o
9
o

GO
    a References 19-20.  Units are Ib of pollutant/1012 Btu of fuel burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.

-------
 Table 1.7-8 (Metric And English Units). CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROGEN
           OXIDES (NOX) AND CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) FROM CONTROLLED
                               LIGNITE COMBUSTION3
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
overfire air
(no SCC)
Pulverized coal, dry
bottom, tangential
overfire air/low NOX
burners
(no SCC)
N0xb
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) RATING
3.3 (6.6) C
2.3 (4.6) C
COC
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) RATING
0.05(0.10) D
0.24 (0.48) D
a Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of fuel burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b References 15-16.
c Reference 15.
  Table 1.7-9 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
             (PM) EMISSIONS FROM CONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION3
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Subpart D Boilers,
Pulverized coal,
Tangential and wall-fired
(no SCC)
Subpart Da Boilers,
Pulverized coal,
Tangential fired
(no SCC)
Atmospheric fluidized bed
Control Device
Baghouse
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Limestone addition
PM
Emission Factor
0.04A (0.08A)
0.03A (0.05A)
0.005A (0.01A)
0.03A (0.07A)

RATING
C
C
C
D
a References 15-16. A = weight % ash content of lignite, wet basis. Units are kg of pollutant/Mg
  of fuel burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of fuel burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-11

-------
 Table 1.7-10 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRACE METALS AND POLYCYCLIC
        ORGANIC MATTER (POM) FROM CONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION4

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized coal
(SCC 1-01-003-01)

Pulverized wet bottom
(no SCC)
Pulverized dry bottom
(no SCC)
Cyclone furnace
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Stoker, configuration
unknown
(no SCC)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Control Device
Multi-cyclones
ESP
High efficiency cold-side
ESP
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
Emission Factor, pg/J
Cr Mn POM
29-32
8.6
0.99
15
0.78 - 7.9b
18 l.lb
711
<3.3 57 0.05c-0.68b
13 47
<2.3
6.3C
a References 19-20.  Units are picograms (10~12) of pollutant/joule of fuel burned. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Primarily trimethyl propenyl naphthalene.
c Primarily biphenyl.
1.7-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
 Table 1.7-11 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TRACE METALS AND POLYCYCLIC
         ORGANIC MATTER (POM) FROM CONTROLLED LIGNITE COMBUSTION8

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Firing Configuration
(SCC)
Pulverized coal
(SCC 1-01-003-01)

Pulverized wet bottom
(no SCC)
Pulverized dry bottom
(no SCC)
Cyclone furnace
(SCC 1-01-003-03)
Stoker, configuration
unknown
(no SCC)
Spreader stoker
(SCC 1-01-003-06)
Control Device
Multi-cyclones
ESP
High efficiency cold-side ESP
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
ESP
Multi-cyclones
Emission Factor, lb/1012 Btu
Cr Mn POM
67-74
20
2.3
34
1.8- 18b
42 2.6b
1656
<28 133 O.llc-1.6b
30 110
<5.4
15C
a References 19-20. Units are Ib of pollutant/1012 Btu of fuel burned. SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Primarily trimethyl propenyl naphthalene.
c Primarily biphenyl.
References For Section 1.7

1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Second Edition, Volume 12, John Wiley
       and Sons, New York, NY, 1967.

2.     G. H. Gronhovd, et al., "Some Studies on Stack Emissions from Lignite Fired Powerplants",
       Presented at the 1973 Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 1973.

3.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement:  Promulgated Standards Of
       Performance For Lignite Fired Steam Generators: Volumes I and 11, EPA-450/2-76-030a and
       030b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, December 1976.

4.     1965 Keystone Coal Buyers Manual, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1965.
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.7-13

-------
5.     Source Test Data On Lignite-Fired Power Plants, North Dakota State Department of Health,
       Bismarck, ND, December 1973.

6.     G. H. Gronhovd, et al., "Comparison Of Ash Fouling Tendencies Of High And Low Sodium
       Lignite From A North Dakota Mine", Proceedings of the American Power Conference,
       Volume XXVIII, 1966.

7.     A. R. Crawford, et al., Field Testing: Application Of Combustion Modification To Control
       NOX Emissions From Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, June 1974.

8.     Nitrogen Oxides Emission Measurements For Three Lignite Fired Power Plants,
       Contract No. 68-02-1401 And 68-02-1404, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.

9.     Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, A Three Station Comparison, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO, September 1975.

10.    C. Castaldini, and M. Angwin, Boiler Design And Operating  Variables Affecting Uncontrolled
       Sulfur Emissions From Pulverized Coal Fired Steam Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

11.    C. C.  Shih, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems,
       Volume III: External Combustion Sources For Electricity Generation, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2197, TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, November  1980.

12.    Source Test Data On Lignite-Fired Cyclone Boilers, North Dakota State Department of
       Health, Bismarck,  ND, March 1982.

13.    Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For External Combustion Sources, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA,  January 1985.

14.    Personal communication dated September 18,  1981, Letter from North Dakota Department  of
       Health to Mr. Bill Lamson of the U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, conveying stoker data package.

15.    Source Test Data On Lignite-Fired Power Plants, North Dakota State  Department of Health,
       Bismarck,  ND, April 1992.

16.    Source Test Data On Lignite-Fired Power Plants, Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX,
       April 1992.

17.    Honea, et al., "The Effects Of Overfire Air And Low Excess  Air On  NOX Emissions And
       Ash Fouling Potential For A Lignite-Fired Boiler", Proceedings of the American Power
       Conference, Volume 40, 1978.

18.    M. D. Mann,  et al., "Effect Of Operating Parameters On N2O Emissions In A 1-MWCFBC,"
       Presented at the 8th Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, October, 1991.

19.    G. W. Brooks, et al., Radian Corporation, Locating And Estimating Air Emission From
       Source Of Poly cyclic Organic Matter (POM), EPA-450/4-84-007p, U. S. Environmental
       Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1988.
1.7-14                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
 20.     J. C. Evans, et al., Characterization Of Trace Constituents At Canadian Coal-Fired Plants,
        Phase I:  Final Repon And Appendices, Report for the Canadian Electrical Association, R&D,
        Montreal, Quebec, Contract Number 001G194.
1/95                              External Combustion Sources                           1.7-15

-------

-------
1.8  Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills

1.8.1 Process Description1"5
                                                                         /
        Bagasse is the matted cellulose fiber residue from sugar cane that has been processed in a
sugar mill.  Previously, bagasse was burned as means of solid waste disposal. However, as the cost
of fuel oil, natural gas, and electricity have increased, the designation of bagasse has changed from
refuse to a fuel.

        The U.S. sugar cane industry is located in the tropical and subtropical regions of Florida,
Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.  Except for Hawaii, where sugar cane production takes
place year round, sugar mills operate seasonally from 2 to 5 months per year.

        Sugar cane is a large grass with a bamboo-like stalk that grows 8 to 15 feet tall.  Only the
stalk contains sufficient sucrose for processing into sugar. All other parts of the sugar cane
(i. e., leaves, top growth, and roots) are termed "trash."  The objective of harvesting  is to deliver the
sugar cane to the mill with a minimum of trash or other extraneous material. The cane is normally
burned in the field to remove a major portion of the trash and to control insects and rodents. See
Section 13.1 for methods to estimate these emissions.  The three most common methods of harvesting
are hand cutting, machine cutting, and mechanical raking. The cane that is delivered  to a particular
sugar mill will  vary in trash and dirt content depending on the harvesting method and weather
conditions.  Inside the mill, cane preparation for extraction usually involves washing the cane to
remove trash and dirt, chopping, and then crushing. Juice is extracted in the milling portion of the
plant by passing the chopped and crushed cane through a series of grooved rolls.  The cane remaining
after milling is  bagasse.

        Bagasse is a fuel of varying composition, consistency, and heating value.  These
characteristics depend on the climate, type of soil upon which the cane is grown, variety of cane,
harvesting method, amount of cane washing, and the efficiency of the milling plant.  In general,
bagasse has a heating value between 1,700 and 2,200 kcal/kg (3,000 and 4,000 Btu/lb) on a wet,  as-
fired basis.  Most bagasse has a moisture content between 45 and 55 percent by weight.

        Fuel cells, horseshoe boilers, and spreader stoker  boilers are used  to burn bagasse.
Horseshoe boilers and fuel cells differ in the shapes of their furnace area but in other  respects are
similar in design and operation. In these boilers (most common  among older plants), bagasse is
gravity-fed through chutes  and piles onto a refractory hearth. Primary and overfire combustion air
flows through ports in the furnace walls; burning begins on the surface pile.  Many of these units
have dumping hearths that permit ash removal while the unit is operating.

        In more-recently built sugar mills, bagasse is burned  in spreader stoker boilers.  Bagasse  fed
to these boilers enters the furnace through a fuel chute and is spread pneumatically or mechanically
across the furnace, where part of the fuel burns while in suspension.  Simultaneously, large pieces of
fuel are spread  in a thin,  even bed on a stationary or moving grate.  The flame over the grate radiates
heat back to the fuel to aid combustion.   The combustion area of the furnace is lined with heat
exchange  tubes (waterwalls).
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               External Combustion Sources                             1.8-1

-------
1.8.2 Emissions And Controls1"3

       The most significant pollutant emitted by bagasse-fired boilers is paniculate matter, caused by
the turbulent movement of combustion gases with respect to the burning bagasse and resultant ash.
Emissions of SO2 and NOX are lower than conventional fossil fuels due to the characteristically low
levels of sulfur and nitrogen associated with bagasse.

       Auxiliary fuels (typically fuel oil or natural gas) may be used during startup of the boiler or
when the moisture  content of the bagasse is too high to support combustion.  If fuel oil  is used during
these periods, SO2 and NOX emissions will increase.  Soil characteristics such as particle size can
affect the magnitude of PM emissions from the boiler.  Mill operations can also influence the bagasse
ash content by not  properly washing and preparing the cane.  Upsets in combustion conditions can
cause increased emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned organics,  typically measured as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total organic compounds (TOCs).

       Mechanical collectors and wet scrubbers are commonly used to control paniculate emissions
from bagasse-fired boilers.  Mechanical collectors may be installed in single  cyclone,  double cyclone,
or multiple cyclone (i.  e., multiclone) arrangements.  The reported PM collection efficiency for
mechanical collectors is 20 to 60 percent.  Due to the abrasive nature of bagasse fly ash, mechanical
collector performance may deteriorate over time due to erosion if the system is not well maintained.

       The most widely  used wet scrubbers for bagasse-fired boilers are impingement and venturi
scrubbers.  Impingement  scrubbers normally operate at gas-side pressure drops of 5 to 15 inches  of
water; typical pressure drops for venturi scrubbers are over 15 inches of water.  Impingement
scrubbers are in greater use due to lower energy requirements and fewer operating and maintenance
problems.  Reported PM  collection efficiencies for both scrubber types are 90 percent or greater.

       Gaseous emissions (e. g., SO2, NOX, CO, and organics) may also be absorbed to  a significant
extent in a wet scrubber.  Alkali compounds are sometimes utilized in the scrubber to prevent low pH
conditions. If CO2-generating compounds (such as sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate) are used,
CO2 emissions will increase.

       Fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators have not been used to a significant extent for
controlling PM from bagasse-fired boilers  due  to potential fire hazards (fabric filters)  and  relatively
higher costs (both devices).

       Emission factors  and emission factor ratings for bagasse-fired boilers are shown in
Tables 1.8-1 and 1.8-2.

       Fugitive dust may be generated by truck traffic and cane handling operations  at the sugar
mill. Paniculate matter emissions from these sources may be estimated by consulting Section 13.2.
 1.8-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
      Table 1.8-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR BAGASSE-FIRED BOILERS8
Pollutant
Paniculate matterd
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Mechanical collector
Wet scrubber
PM-IO*1
Controlled
Wet scrubber
Carbon dioxide
Uncontrolled6
Nitrogen oxides
Uncontrolledf
Polycyclic organic matter
Uncontrolled8
g/kg Steamb

3.9

2.1
0.4


0.34

390

0.3

2.5 E-4
kg/Mg Bagasse0

7.8

4.2
0.8


0.68

780

0.6

5.0 E-4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C

D
B


D

A

C

D
a Source Classification Code is 1-02-011-01.
b Units are gram of pollutant/kg of steam produced, where 1 kg of wet bagasse fired produces 2 kg
  of steam.
c Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of wet, as-fired bagasse containing approximately 50 percent moisture,
  by weight.
d References 2,6-14.  Includes only filterable PM (i. e., that participate collected on or prior to the
  filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
e References 6-14.  CO2 emissions will increase following a wet scrubber in which CO2-generating
  reagents (such as sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate) are used.
f References 13-14.
g Reference 13. Based on measurements collected downstream of PM control devices which may
  have provided some removal of polycyclic organic matter (POM) condensed on PM.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
External Combustion Sources
1.8-3

-------
      Table 1.8-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR BAGASSE-FIRED BOILERSa
Pollutant
Paniculate matter*1
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Mechanical collector
Wet scrubber
PM-10d
Controlled
Wet scrubber
Carbon dioxide
Uncontrolled6
Nitrogen oxides
Uncontrolledf
Polycyclic organic matter
Uncontrolled8
lb/1,000 Ib Steamb

3.9

2.1
0.4


0.34

390

0.3

2.5 E-4
Ib/ton Bagasse0

15.6

8.4
1.6


1.36

1,560

1.2

1.0 E-3
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C

D
B


D

A

C

D
a Source Classification Code is 1-02-011-01.
b Units are Ib of pollutant/i,000 Ib of steam produced, where 1 Ib of wet bagasse fired produces 2 Ib
  of steam.
c Units are Ib of pollutant/ton  of wet, as-fired bagasse containing approximately 50% moisture, by
  weight.
d References 2,6-14.  Includes only filterable PM (i.  e., that paniculate collected on or prior to the
  filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
e References 6-14.  CO2 emissions will increase following a wet scrubber in which CO2-generating
  reagents (such as sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate) are used.
f References 13-14.
g Reference 13. Based on measurements collected downstream of PM  control devices which may
  have provided some removal of polycyclic organic  matter (POM) condensed on PM.
References For Section 1.8

1.
2.
Potential Control Strategies for Bagasse Fired Boilers, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0627,
Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, CA, May 1978.

Background Document: Bagasse Combustion in Sugar Mills, EPA-450/3-77-077, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.
1.8-4
                            EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
3.      Nonfossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information, EPA-450/3-82-007,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.

4.      A Technology Assessment of Solar Energy Systems:  Direct Combustion of Wood and Other
        Biomass in Industrial Boilers, ANL/EES-TM—189,  Angonne National Laboratory, Argonne,
        IL, December 1981.

5.      Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.8- Bagasse Combustion in Sugar Mills,
        Technical Support Division, Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

6.      Particulate Emissions Test Report:  Atlantic Sugar Association, Air Quality Consultants, Inc.,
        December 20, 1978.

7.      Compliance Stack Test:  Gulf and Western Food Products: Report No. 238-S, South Florida
        Environmental Services, Inc., February  1980.

8.      Compliance Stack Test:  Gulf and Western Food Products: Report No. 221-S, South Florida
        Environmental Services, Inc., January 1980.

9.      Compliance Stack Test:  United States Sugar Corporation: Report No. 250-S, South Florida
        Environmental Services, Inc., February  1980.

10.     Compliance Stack Test:  Osceola Farms  Company:  Report No. 215-S, South Florida
        Environmental Services, Inc., December 1979.

11.     Source Emissions Survey ofDavies Hamakua Sugar Company:  Report No.  79-34, Mullins
        Environmental Testing Company, May 1979.

12.     Source Emissions Survey: Honokaa Sugar Company, Kennedy Engineers, Inc.,
        January 19, 1979.

13.     Stationary Source Testing of Bagasse Fired Boilers at the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
        Company:  Puunene, Maui, Hawaii, EPA Contract  No. 68-02-1403, Midwest Research
        Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1976.

14.     Emission Test Report:  U. S. Sugar Company, Bryant Florida, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2818,
        Monsanto Research  Corporation, Dayton, OH, May 1980.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)           %   External Combustion Sources                            1.8-5

-------

-------
1.9 Residential Fireplaces

1.9.1  General1'2

       Fireplaces are used primarily for aesthetic effects and secondarily as a supplemental heating
source in houses and other dwellings. Wood is the most common fuel for fireplaces, but coal and
densified wood "logs" may also be burned.  The user intermittently adds fuel to the fire by hand.

       Fireplaces can be divided into 2 broad categories: (1) masonry (generally brick and/or stone,
assembled on site, and integral to a structure) and (2) prefabricated (usually metal, installed on site as
a package with appropriate duct work).

       Masonry fireplaces typically have large fixed openings to the fire bed and have dampers
above the combustion area in the chimney to limit room air and heat losses when the fireplace is not
being used.  Some masonry fireplaces are designed  or retrofitted with doors and louvers  to reduce the
intake of combustion air during use.

       Prefabricated fireplaces are  commonly equipped with louvers and glass doors to reduce the
intake of combustion air, and some are surrounded  by ducts through which floor level air is drawn by
natural convection, heated, and returned to the room. Many varieties of prefabricated fireplaces are
now available on the market.  One general  class is the freestanding fireplace, the most common of
which consists of an inverted sheet metal funnel and stovepipe directly above the fire bed.  Another
class is the "zero clearance" fireplace, an iron or  heavy gauge steel firebox lined inside with firebrick
and surrounded by multiple steel walls with spaces  for air circulation.  Some zero clearance fireplaces
can be inserted into existing masonry fireplace openings, and thus are sometimes called "inserts."
Some of these units are equipped with close fitting doors and have operating and combustion
characteristics similar to wood stoves.  (See Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves.)

       Masonry fireplaces usually heat  a room by radiation,  with a significant fraction of the
combustion heat lost in the exhaust gases and through fireplace walls.  Moreover, some of the radiant
heat entering the room goes toward wanning the  air mat is pulled into the residence to make up for
that drawn up the chimney.  The net effect is that masonry fireplaces are usually inefficient heating
devices.  Indeed, in cases  where combustion is poor, where the outside air  is cold, or where the fire
is allowed to smolder (thus drawing air  into a residence without producing  appreciable radiant heat
energy), a net heat loss may  occur in a residence  using a fireplace.  Fireplace heating efficiency may
be improved by a number of measures that either reduce the excess air rate or transfer back into the
residence some of the heat that would normally be lost in the exhaust gases or through fireplace
walls.  As noted above, such  measures are  commonly incorporated into prefabricated units. As a
result, the energy efficiencies of prefabricated fireplaces are slightly higher than those of masonry
fireplaces.

1.9.2 Emissions1"13

       The major pollutants of concern from fireplaces are unburnt combustibles, including carbon
monoxide, gaseous organics and paniculate matter (i. e., smoke).  Significant quantities of unburnt
combustibles are produced because fireplaces are  inefficient combustion devices, with high
uncontrolled excess  air rates and without any sort of secondary combustion.  The latter is especially
important in wood burning because of its high volatile matter content, typically 80 percent by dry


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               External Combustion Sources                             1.9-1

-------
weight. In addition to unburnt combustibles, lesser amounts of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are
emitted.

       Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) are a minor, but potentially important component of wood
smoke.  A group of HAPs known as polycyclic organic matter  (POM) includes potential carcinogens
such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). POM results from the combination of free radical species formed in
the flame zone, primarily as a consequence of incomplete combustion. Under reducing conditions,
radical chain propagation is enhanced, allowing the buildup  of complex organic material such as
POM.  The POM is generally found in or on smoke particles, although some sublimation into the
vapor phase is probable.

       Another important constituent of wood smoke is creosote.  This tar-like substance will burn if
the fire is hot enough, but at insufficient temperatures, it may deposit on surfaces in the exhaust
system. Creosote deposits are a fire hazard in the flue, but  they can be reduced if the chimney is
insulated to prevent creosote condensation or if the chimney is  cleaned regularly to remove any
buildup.

       Fireplace emissions are highly variable and are a function of many wood characteristics and
operating practices. In general,  conditions  which promote a fast burn rate and a higher flame
intensity enhance secondary combustion and thereby lower emissions.  Conversely, higher emissions
will result from a slow burn rate and a lower flame intensity.  Such generalizations apply particularly
to the earlier stages of the burning cycle, when significant quantities of combustible volatile matter
are being driven out of the wood.  Later in the burning cycle, when all volatile matter  has been
driven out of the wood, the charcoal that remains burns with relatively few emissions.

       Emission factors and their ratings for wood combustion in residential fireplaces are given in
Tables 1.9-1 and 1.9-2.
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
        Table 1.9-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD COMBUSTION IN
                                RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES*
Device
Fireplace



Pollutant
PM-10b
Carbon Monoxide0
Sulfur Oxidesd
Nitrogen Oxides6
Carbon Dioxidef
Total VOCsS
POMh
Aldehydesk
Emission Factor
(g/kg)
17.3
126.3
0.2
1.3
1700
114.5
0.8 E-3
1.2
RATING
8
B
A
C
C
D
EJ
EJ
a Units are in grams of pollutant/kg of dry wood burned. Source Classification Code
  21-04-008-001.
b References 2,5,7,13; contains filterable and condensable paniculate matter (PM); PM emissions are
  considered to be 100% PM-10 (i. e., PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 /tin or less).
c References 2,4,5,9,13.
d References 1,8.
e References 4,9;  expressed as NO2.
f References 5,13.
g References 4-5,8.  Data used to calculate the average emission factor were collected by various
  methods. While the emission factor may be representative of the source population in general,
  factors may not  be accurate for individual sources.
h Reference 2.
J  Data used to calculate the average emission factor were collected from a single fireplace and are not
  representative of the general source population.
k References 4,11.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
External Combustion Sources
1.9-3

-------
       Table 1.9-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD COMBUSTION IN
                                RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACESa
Device
Fireplace







Pollutant
PM-10b
Carbon Monoxide*5
Sulfur Oxidesd
Nitrogen Oxides6
Carbon Dioxidef
Total VOCsS
POMh
Aldehydesk
Emission Factor
(Ib/ton)
34.6
252.6
0.4
2.6
3400
229.0
1.6E-3
2.4
RATING
B
B
A
C
C
D
EJ
E>
a Units are in Ib of pollutant/ton of dry wood burned.  Source Classification Code 21-04-008-001.
b References 2,5,7,13; contains filterable and condensable paniculate matter (PM); PM emissions are
  considered to be  100% PM-10 (i. e., PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 /xm or less).
c References 2,4,5,9,13.
d References 1,8.
e References 4,9; expressed as NO2.
f References 5,13.
g References 4-5,8. Data used to calculate the average emission factor were collected by various
  methods. While  the emission factor may be representative of the source population in general,
  factors may not be accurate for individual sources.
h Reference 2.
J Data used to calculate the average emission factor were collected from a single fireplace and are not
  representative of the general source population.
k References 4,11.
References For Section 1.9

1.     DeAngelis, D. G., et al., Source Assessment: Residential Combustion Of Wood,
       EPA-600/2-80-042b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1980.

2.     Snowden, W. D., et al., Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces For Emission Factor
       Development, EPA-450/3-76-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
       Park, NC, November  1975.

3.     Shelton, J. W., and L. Gay, Colorado Fireplace Report, Colorado Air Pollution Control
       Division,  Denver, CO, March  1987.

4.     Dasch, J.  M., "Paniculate And Gaseous Emissions From Wood-burning Fireplaces,"
       Environmental Science And Technology, 16(10):643-67, October 1982.

5.     Source Testing For Fireplaces, Stoves, And Restaurant Grills In Vail, Colorado, EPA
       Contract No. 68-01-1999, Pedco Environmental, Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH, December 1977.
 1.9-4
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
6.     Written communication from Robert C. McCrillis, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, to Neil Jacquay, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, San
       Francisco, CA, November 19, 1985.

7.     Development OfAP-42 Emission Factors For Residential Fireplaces, EPA Contract
       No. 68-D9-0155, Advanced  Systems Technology, Inc., Atlanta, GA, January 11, 1990.

8.     DeAngelis, D. G., et al., Preliminary Characterization Of Emissions From Wood Fired
       Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1980.

9.     Kosel, P., et al., Emissions From Residential Fireplaces, CARS Report C-80-027, California
       Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, April 1980.

10.    Clayton, L., et al., Emissions From Residential Type Fireplaces, Source Tests 24C67, 26C,
       29C67, 40C67, 41C67, 65C67 and 66C67, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San
       Francisco, CA, January 31,  1968.

11.    Lipari, F., et  al., Aldehyde Emissions From Wood-Burning Fireplaces, Publication
       GMR-4377R,  General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, MI, March 1984.

12.    Hayden, A., C. S., and R. W. Braaten, "Performance Of Domestic Wood Fired Appliances,"
       Presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Montreal,
       Quebec, Canada, June  1980.

13.    Barnett, S. G., In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From Masonry Fireplaces And Heaters,
       OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR, September 1991.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)              External Combustion Sources                            1.9-5

-------

-------
1.10 Residential Wood Stoves

1.10.1  General1'2

       Wood stoves are commonly used in residences as space heaters.  They are used both as the
primary source of residential heat and to supplement conventional heating systems.

       Five different categories should be considered when estimating emissions from wood burning
devices due to differences in both the magnitude and the composition of the emissions:

       -  the conventional wood stove,

       -  the noncatalytic wood stove,

       -  the catalytic wood stove,

       -  the pellet stove, and

       -  the masonry heater.

Among these categories, there  are many variations in device design and operation characteristics.

       The conventional stove category comprises all stoves without catalytic combustors not
included in the other noncatalytic categories (i. e., noncatalytic and pellet).  Conventional stoves do
not have any  emission reduction technology or design features and, in most cases, were manufactured
before  July 1, 1986. Stoves of many different airflow designs may be in this category, such as
updraft, downdraft, crossdraft, and S-flow.

       Noncatalytic wood stoves are those units that do not employ catalysts but do have emission
reducing technology or features.  Typical noncatalytic design includes baffles and secondary
combustion chambers.

       Catalytic stoves are equipped with a ceramic or metal honeycomb device, called a combustor
or converter,  that is coated with a noble metal  such as platinum or palladium.  The catalyst material
reduces the ignition temperature of the unburned volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) in the exhaust  gases,  thus augmenting their  ignition and combustion at normal stove
operating temperatures.  As these components of the gases burn, the temperature inside the catalyst
increases to a point at which the  ignition of the gases is essentially self-sustaining.

       Pellet stoves are those  fueled  with pellets of sawdust, wood products, and other biomass
materials pressed  into manageable shapes and sizes.  These stoves have active air flow systems and
unique grate design to accommodate this type of fuel.  Some pellet stove models are subject to the
1988 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), while others are exempt due to a high air-to-fuel
ratio (i. e., greater than 35-to-l).

       Masonry heaters are large, enclosed chambers made of masonry products or a combination of
masonry products and ceramic  materials.  These devices are exempt from the 1988 NSPS due to their
weight (i.  e.,  greater than 800  kg). Masonry heaters are gaining popularity as a cleaner burning and


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)              External Combustion Sources                             1.10-1

-------
heat efficient form of primary and supplemental heat, relative to some other types of wood heaters.
In a masonry heater, a complete charge of wood is burned in a relatively short period of time.  The
use of masonry materials promotes heat transfer.  Thus, radiant heat from the heater warms the
surrounding area for many hours after the fire has burned out.

1.10.2  Emissions

       The combustion and pyrolysis of wood in wood stoves produce atmospheric emissions of
paniculate matter,  carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds,  mineral residues, and to a
lesser extent, sulfur oxides.  The quantities and types of emissions are highly variable, depending on a
number of factors, including stage of the combustion cycle.  During initial  burning stages, after a new
wood charge is introduced, emissions (primarily VOCs) increase dramatically.  After the initial period
of high burn rate, there is a charcoal stage of the burn cycle characterized by a slower burn rate and
decreased emissions.  Emission rates during this stage are cyclical, characterized by relatively long
periods of low emissions and shorter episodes of emission spikes.

       Particulate emissions are defined in this discussion as the total catch measured by the EPA
Method 5H (Oregon Method 7) sampling train.1 A small portion of wood  stove paniculate emissions
includes "solid" particles of elemental carbon and wood. The vast majority of paniculate emissions is
condensed organic products of incomplete combustion equal to or less than 10 micrometers in
aerodynamic diameter (PM-10). Although reported particle size data are scarce, one reference states
that 95 percent of the particles emitted from a wood stove were less than 0.4 micrometers in size.3

       Sulfur oxides (SOX) are formed by oxidation of sulfur in the wood.  Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
are formed by oxidation of fuel and atmospheric nitrogen.  Mineral constituents, such as potassium
and sodium  compounds, are released from the wood matrix during combustion.

       The high levels of organic compound and CO emissions are results of incomplete combustion
of the wood. Organic constituents of wood smoke vary considerably in both type and volatility.
These constituents include simple hydrocarbons of carbon numbers 1  through 7 (Cl - C7) (which
exist as gases or which volatilize at ambient conditions) and complex low volatility substances that
condense at ambient conditions. These low volatility condensable materials generally are considered
to have boiling points below 300°C (572°F).

       Polycyclic organic matter (POM) is an important component of the condensable fraction of
wood smoke.  POM contains a wide range of compounds, including organic compounds formed
through incomplete combustion by the combination of free radical species in the flame zone.  This
group which is classified as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments contains the sub-group of hydrocarbons called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

       Emission factors and their ratings for wood combustion in residential wood stoves, pellet
stoves, and masonry heaters are presented in Tables 1.10-1, 1.10-2, 1.10-3, 1.10-4,  1.10-5, 1.10-6,
and 1.10-7.  The analysis leading to the revision of these emission factors is contained in the emission
factor documentation. 9  These tables include emission factors for criteria pollutants (PM-10, CO,
NOX, SOX), CO2, total organic compounds (TOC),  speciated organic compounds, PAH, and some
elements. The emission  factors are presented by wood heater type.  PM-10 and CO emission factors
are further classified by stove certification category. Phase II stoves  are those certified to meet the
July 1, 1990, EPA standards; Phase I stoves  meet only the July 1,  1988, EPA standards; and Pre-
Phase I stoves do not meet any of the EPA standards but in most cases do  necessarily meet the
Oregon 1986 certification standards.1  The emission factors for PM and CO in Tables 1.10-1 and
 1.10-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
                        Table 1.10-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION8




Pollutant/EPA
Certificationb
PM-10e
Pre-Phase I
Phase I
Phase II
All
Carbon Monoxide6
Pre-Phase I
Phase I
Phase II
All
Nitrogen Oxides6
Sulfur Oxides6
Carbon Dioxide11
TOCJ
Methane
TNMOC



EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B
B
B
B

B
B
B
B

B
C
E
E
E
Wood Stove Type
Conventional
(SCC
21-04-008-051)

15.3


15.3

115.4


115.4
1.4f
0.2

24.3
2.4
21.9
Noncatalytic
(SCC
21-04-008-050)

12.9
10.0
7.3
9.8



70.4
70.4

0.2




Catalytic
(SCC
21-04-008-030)

12.1
9.8
8.1
10.2


52.2

52.2
1.08
0.2

12.1
4.3
7.8
Pellet Stove Type6
(SCC
21-04-008-053)


Certified Exempt



2.1
2.1 4.4



19.7
19.7 26.1
6.9«
0.2
1476 1836



Masonry Heater
(SCC
21-04-008-055)


Exemptd




2.8




74.5


1925



o
o
00
g
         a Units are in grams of pollutant/kg of dry wood burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
         b Pre-Phase I = Not certified to 1988 EPA emission standards; Phase I = Certified to 1988 EPA emission standards;
          Phase II = Certified to 1990 EPA emission standards; All = Average of emission factors for all devices.
         c Certified = Certified pursuant to 1988 NSPS; Exempt = Exempt from  1988 NSPS (i. e., airftiel  > 35:1).
         d Exempt = Exempt from 1988 NSPS (i. e., device weight >800 kg).
         e References 6-14,23-27,29.  PM-10 is defined as equivalent to total catch by EPA method 5H train.
         f EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
         8 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
         h References 13,24-27,29.
         J References 13,17-18. TOC = total organic compounds; TNMOC  = total nonmethane organic compounds. Data show a high degree
          of variability within the source population.  Factors may not be accurate for individual sources.

-------
  D
  m

  I
  o

  i
  z
  O
  tL,





  1
  U
  z
  o
  So
  09
  4—»
  'S
  D

  .22
  "So

  d


l_i
1
S
X
i
<5
^


u
o«
H*
»
>

co
«
T3
PH

























O
8!
9
S
O4




****.
3
u S
w »
v?
es








9)
H
»
1
CO
5
?































o
f
O


o

>\
1
u
§
2




1
|
1
§
U




•o
I
W




0.
S
8
U


1
•s
S
u



g>
9
If
es
^^
&
>/•>
o
&£
~5

es



VO
9
U g
U S
£>,,+
!


^? C^ t*D
A, 0
§1
s S




vo q
»X Cv ON
en



oo es
oo es *— '

VO
en


bo
^ "^ ON os en o es
enen -H \r,
o\




fSVOfSTl- TTOTf ^ Tf es VO VO
es--ts ooo cs °° -




oo o vo vo oooo Tf
v^ o ^~ ON o o o
eses~— -n--q-







vo vo oo oooo^f vooooo
d d d des'd ooTfen
r^ co co co ^* ^^"
es es



Canaan mm mm CQ u ua w w
0>
| °£ 0 ^
20-P-.P- ^0-0,0. g ^ u H H























•o
|
1
D
0

II
U
U
C/3
.
1
3
-°
1
^
•a
'o
1
«
•4—*
"o
c-
(4-1
o
.0
_c
£
03
«
'5
p









• *.
•o
cd
1
to
C en
2 **
•= rS
§ ^
<'c3

S ,2
oo M
S 2
||
II
1! %
% g

¥ ii
a —
•0 <
2 M
c« -a
I1*
:i 1
C M

A
.2 .e
W ^Q
• ^ ^^
'S 5C
» "^
° 1
E 1
Z <
i >•
*e "^
<£ /So>^

Jfl
ii •" ^
II •§) —
S."« >
g & '3

._ § e3
C/3 "O *O
1 "'I
00 O'O
2 2 '"
ess
ISE
3 ON
«5 •— ' '
Ui ON
S g  S
O 3
S^
«S ca
f -3
E !j>
O c^
CC Q
H S
11 |


II
c
•S^ •**
§ 1
3 *-•
s I
O ^
o ^
1|
o ii
13 "3
H o,
„ §
References 13,17-18. TOC
of variability within the sou
_,
1.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
    Table 1.10-3 (Metric And English Units). ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION FACTORS
                        FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION*'*5

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E



Compounds
Ethane
Ethylene
Acetylene
Propane
Propene
i-Butane
n-Butane
Butenes0
Pentenesd
Benzene
Toluene
Furan
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
2-Methyl Furan
2,5-Dimethyl Furan
Furfural
o-Xylene
Wood Stove Type
Conventional
(SCC 21-04-008-051)
g/kg
0.735
2.245
0.562
0.179
0.622
0.014
0.028
0.596
0.308
0.969
0.365
0.171
0.145
0.328
0.081
0.243
0.101
Ib/ton
1.470
4.490
1.124
0.358
1.244
0.028
0.056
1.192
0.616
1.938
0.730
0.342
0.290
0.656
0.162
0.486
0.202
Catalytic
(SCC 21-04-008-030)
g/kg Ib/ton
0.688 1.376
1.741 3.482
0.282 0.564
0.079 0.158
0.367 0.734
0.005 0.010
0.007 0.014
0.357 0.714
0.075 0.150
0.732 1.464
0.260 0.520
0.062 0.124
0.031 0.062
0.042 0.084
0.011 0.002
0.073 0.146
0.093 0.186
a Reference 17.  Units are in grams of pollutant/kg of dry wood burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of dry
  wood burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Data show a high degree of variability within the source population. Factors may not be accurate
  for individual sources.
c 1-butene, i-butene, t-2-butene, c-2-butene, 2-me-l-butene, 2-me-butene are reported as butenes.
d 1-pentene, t-2-pentene, and c-2-pentene are reported as pentenes.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
External Combustion Sources
1.10-5

-------
  Table 1.10-4 (Metric Units). POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON (PAH) EMISSION
                 FACTORS FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTIONa>b

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g ,h ,i)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(e)Pyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a) Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3 ,cd)Pyrene
9-MethyIanthracene
12-Methylbenz(a)Anthracene
3-Methylchlolanthrene
1-Methylphenanthrene
Naphthalene
Nitronaphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrol
Phenol
Pyrene
PAH Total

Conventional0
(SCC
21-04-008-051)

0.005
0.106
0.007
0.010
0.003

0.001
0.002
0.002
0.006

0.006
0.000

0.010
0.012
0.000




0.144


0.039


0.012
0.365
Stove
Noncatalyticd
(SCC
21-04-008-050)

0.005
0.016
0.004
<0.001
0.002
0.014
<0.001
0.010
0.003
0.001
0.011
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.007
0.010
0.002
0.001
<0.001
0.015
0.072
0.000
0.001
0.059
0.000
< 0.001
0.004
0.250
Type
Catalytic6
(SCC
21-04-008-030)

0.003
0.034
0.004
0.012
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002

0.005
0.001

0.006
0.007
0.002




0.093


0.024


0.005
0.207

Exempt PeUetf
(SCC
21-04-008-053)





1.30 E-05






3.76 E-05


2.74 E-05









1.66 E-05


2.42 E-05

a Units are in grams of pollutant/kg of dry wood burned. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Data show a high degree of variability within the source population and/or came from a small
  number of sources.  Factors may not be accurate for individual sources.
c Reference 17.
d References 15,18-20.
e References 14-18.
f Reference 27. Exempt = Exempt from 1988 NSPS (i. e., air:fuel > 35:1).
1.10-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
  Table 1.10-5 (English Units). POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON (PAH) EMISSION
                  FACTORS FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTIONa-b

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Pollutant
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(e)Pyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3 ,cd)Pyrene
9-Methylanthracene
1 2-Methylbenz(a) Anthracene
3-Methylchlolanthrene
1 -Methy Iphenanthrene
Naphthalene
Nitronaphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrol
Phenol
Pyrene
PAH Total
Stove Type
Conventional0 Noncatalyticd Catalytic6 Exempt Pelletf
(SCC (SCC (SCC (SCC
21-04-008-051) 21-04-008-050) 21-04-008-050) 21-04-004-053)


0.010 0.010 0.006
0.212 0.032 0.068
0.014 0.009 0.008
0.020 < 0.001 0.024
0.006 0.004 0.004 2.60 E-05
0.028 0.006
0.002 < 0.001 0.002
0.004 0.
0.004 0.
0.012 0.
0.
020 0.002
006 0.004
002 0.004
022
0.012 0.010 0.010 7.52 E-05
0.000 0.
0.
004 0.002
004
0.020 0.008 0.012 5.48 E-05
0.024 0.014 0.014
0.000 0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.288 0.
0.
0.
020 0.004
004
002
001
030
144 0.186
000
002
0.078 0.118 0.489 3.32 E-05
0.
<0.
0.024 0.
0.730 0.
000
001
008 0.010 4.84 E-05
500 0.414
a Units are in Ib of pollutant/ton of dry wood burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Data show a high degree of variability within the source population and/or came from a small
  number of sources. Factors may not be accurate for individual sources.
c Reference 17.
d References  15,18-20.
e References  14-18.
f Reference 27.  Exempt = Exempt from 1988 NSPS (i. e., ainfuel > 35:1).
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
External Combustion Sources
1.10-7

-------
1.10-2 are averages, derived entirely from field test data obtained under actual operating conditions.
Still, there is a potential for higher emissions from some wood stove, pellet stove, and masonry heater
models.
    Table 1.10-6 (Metric And English Units).  TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                          RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION*-6

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Element
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Manganese (Mn)
Nickel (Ni)
Wood Stove Type
Conventional
(SCC 21-04-008-051)
g/kg
1.1 E-05
<1.0E-06
8.7 E-05
7.0E-06
Ib/ton
Noncatalytic
(SCC 21-04-008-050)
g/kg
2.2 E-05 1.0 E-05
<1.0E-06 < 1.0 E-05
1.7 E-04 7.0 E-05
1.4 E-05 1.0 E-05
Ib/ton
Catalytic
(SCC 21-04-008-030)
g/kg
2.0 E-05 2.3 E-05
<1.0E-06 <1.0E-06
1.4 E-04 1.1 E-04
2.0 E-05 1.0 E-06
Ib/ton
4.6 E-05
< 1.0 E-06
2.2 E-04
2.2 E-06
a References 14,17. Units are in grams of pollutant/kg of dry wood burned and Ib of pollutant/ton of
  dry wood burned.
b The data used to develop these emission factors showed a high degree of variability within the
  source population.  Factors may not be accurate for individual sources.
             Table 1.10-7.  SUMMARY OF WOOD HEATER NET EFFICIENCIES21

Wood Heater Type
Wood Stoves
Conventional
Noncatalytic
Catalytic
Pellet Stovesb
Certified
Exempt
Masonry Heaters
All
Source
Classification
Code

21-04-008-051
21-04-008-050
21-04-008-030

21-04-008-053

21-04-008-055

Net Efficiency
(%)

54
68
68

68
56
58

Reference

26
9, 12, 26
6,26

11
27
28
a Net efficiency is a function of both combustion efficiency and heat transfer efficiency.  The
  percentages shown here are based on data collected from in-home testing.
b Certified = Certified pursuant to 1988 NSPS. Exempt = Exempt from  1988 NSPS (i. e.,
  ainfuel >35:1).
 1.10-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
       As mentioned, paniculate emissions are defined as the total emissions equivalent to that
collected by EPA Method 5H. This method employs a heated filter followed by three impingers, an
unheated filter, and a final impinger.  Particulate emissions factors  are presented as values equivalent
to that collected with Method 5H. Conversions are employed, as appropriate, for data collected with
other methods.

       Table 1.10-7 shows net efficiency by device type, determined entirely from field test data.
Net or overall efficiency is the product of combustion efficiency multiplied by heat transfer efficiency.
Wood heater efficiency is an important parameter used, along with  emission factors and percent
degradation, when calculating PM-10 emission reduction credits. Percent degradation is related to the
loss in effectiveness of a wood stove control device or catalyst over a period of operation.  Control
degradation for any stove, including noncatalytic wood stoves, may also occur as a result of
deteriorated seals and gaskets, misaligned baffles and bypass mechanisms, broken refractories, or
other damaged functional components. The increase in emissions which can result from control
degradation has not been quantified.  However, recent wood  stove testing in Colorado and Oregon
should produce results which allow estimation of emissions as a function of stove age.

References For Section 1.10

1.     Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources:  New Residential Wood Heaters,
       53 FR 5573, February 26, 1988.

2.     R. Gay and J. Shah, Technical Support Document For Residential Wood Combustion,
       EPA-450/4-85-012,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February  1986.

3.     J. A. Rau and J. J. Huntzicker,  Composition And Size Distribution Of Residential Wood
       Smoke Aerosols, Presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste  Management
       Association, Pacific Northwest International Section, Portland, OR, November 1984.

4.     C. A.  Simons et al., Whitehorse Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, The City Of Whitehorse,
       Whitehorse, Yukon,  Canada, September 1987.

5.     C. A.  Simons et al., Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis And
       In-situ Evaluation Of New Technology Woodstoves, EPA-600/7-89-002,  U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, January 1989.

6.     S. G. Barnett, Field Performance Of Advanced Technology  Woodstoves In Glens Falls, N.Y.
       1988-1989., Vol. 1, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany,
       NY, October 1989.

7.     P. G. Burnet, The Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study,  Volume 1, EPA-600/7-87-026a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1987.

8.     D. R. Jaasma and M. R.  Champion, Field Performance Of Woodburning Stoves In Crested
       Butte During The 1989-90 Heating Season, Town of Crested Butte, Crested Butte,  CO,
       September 1990.

9.     S. Dernbach, Woodstove Field Performance In Kiamath Falls, OR, Wood Heating Alliance,
       Washington, DC, April 1990.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               External Combustion Sources                           1.10-9

-------
10.     C. A. Simons and S. K. Jones, Performance Evaluation Of The Best Existing Stove
       Technology (BEST) Hybrid Woodstove And Catalytic Retrofit Device, Oregon Department Of
       Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, July 1989.

11.     S. G. Barnett and R. B. Roholt, In-home Performance Of Certified Pellet Stoves In Medford
       And Klamath Falls,  OR, U. S. Department of Energy Report No. PS407-02, July  1990.

12.     S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emission Characteristics Of EPA-Certified High-Tech
       Non-Catalytic Woodstoves In Klamath Falls, OR, 1990, prepared for the Canada Center for
       Mineral and Energy Technology, Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada, DSS File
       No. 145Q, 23440-9-9230, June 1, 1990.

13.     R. C. McCrillis and R. G. Merrill, "Emission Control Effectiveness Of A Woodstove
       Catalyst And Emission Measurement Methods Comparison," Presented at the 78th Annual
       Meeting of the Air And Waste Management Association, Detroit, MI, 1985.

14.     K. E. Leese and S. M. Harkins, Effects Of Burn Rate, Wood Species, Moisture Content And
       Weight Of Wood Loaded On Woodstove Emissions, EPA-600/2-89-025, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, May 1989.

15.     J. M. Allen and W.  M. Cooke, Control Of Emissions From Residential Wood Burning By
       Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-81-091, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH,  May 1981.

16.     D. G. DeAngelis, et al., Preliminary Characterization Of Emissions From Wood-fired
       Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040,  U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1980.

17.     P. G. Burnet, et al., Effects Of Appliance Type And Operating Variables On Woodstove
       Emissions, Vol. I., Report and Appendices 6-C, EPA-600/2-90-001a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, January 1990.

18.     L. E. Cottone and E. Mesner, Test Method Evaluations And Emissions Testing For Rating
       Wood Stoves, EPA-600/2-86-100, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1986.

19.     Residential Wood Heater Test Report, Phase II Testing, Vol. 1, TVA, Division Of Energy,
       Construction And Rates, Chattanooga, TN, August  1983.

20.     R. S. Truesdale and J. G. Cleland, Residential Stove Emissions From Coal And  Other
       Alternative Fuels Combustion, in papers at the Specialty Conference on Residential Wood and
       Coal Combustion, Louisville, KY, March 1982.

21.     S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From Masonry Fireplaces And  Heaters,
       OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR, September 1991.

22.     S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From A Grundofen Masonry Heater, OMNI
       Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR, January 1992.

23.     S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From A TuliTdvi KTU 2100 Masonry Heater,
       OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR, March 1992.

1.10-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95)  7/93

-------
24.    S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From A Royal Crown 2000 Masonry Heater,
       OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR,  March 1992.

25.    S. G. Barnett, In-Home Evaluation Of Emissions From A Biqfire 4x3 Masonry Heater, OMNI
       Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR, March  1992.

26.    S. G. Barnett and R. D. Bighouse, In-Home Demonstrations Of The Reduction OfWoodstove
       Emissions From The Use OfDensifiedLogs, Oregon Department of Energy and U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, July 1992.

27.    S. G. Barnett and P. G. Fields, In-Home Performance of Exempt Pellet Stoves in Medford,
       Oregon, U. S. Department Of Energy, Oregon Department Of Energy, Tennessee Valley
       Authority, And Oregon Department Of Environmental Quality, July 1991.

28.    S. G. Barnett, Summary Report Of The In-Home Emissions And Efficiency Performance Of
       Five Commercially Available Masonry Heaters, the Masonry Heater Association, Reston, VA,
       May 1992.

29.    Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves, Office of
       Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               External Combustion Sources                          1.10-11

-------

-------
1.11  Waste Oil Combustion

1.11.1  General1

        Waste, or used oil can be burned in a variety of combustion systems including industrial
boilers; commercial/institutional boilers; space heaters; asphalt plants; cement and lime kilns; other
types of dryers and calciners; and steel production blast furnaces. Boilers and space heaters consume
the bulk of the waste oil burned. Space heaters are small combustion units (generally less than
0.1 MW [250,000 Btu/hr input]) that are common in automobile service stations and automotive
repair shops where supplies of waste crankcase oil are available.

        Boilers designed to burn No. 6 (residual) fuel oils or one of the distillate fuel oils can be used
to burn waste oil, with or without modifications for  optimizing combustion.  As an alternative to
boiler modification, the properties of waste oil can be modified by blending it with fuel oil, to the
extent required to achieve a clean-burning fuel mixture.

1.11.2  Emissions And Controls1"3

        Waste oil includes used crankcase oils from  automobiles  and trucks, used industrial
lubricating oils (such as metal working oils), and other used industrial oils (such as heat transfer
fluids).  When discarded, these oils become waste oils due to  a breakdown of physical properties and
to contamination by the materials they come in contact with.  The different types of waste oils may be
burned as mixtures or as single fuels where supplies allow; for example, some space heaters in
automotive service stations burn waste crankcase oils.

        Contamination of the virgin oils with a variety of materials leads to an air pollution potential
when these oils are burned. Potential pollutants include paniculate matter (PM), small particles below
10 micrometers in size (PM-10), toxic metals, organic compounds, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrogen chloride, and  global warming gases  (carbon dioxide
[CO2], methane [CHJ).

        Ash levels in waste oils are normally much higher than ash levels in either distillate oils or
residual oils.  Waste oils have substantially higher concentrations of most of the trace elements
reported relative to those concentrations found in virgin fuel oils. However, because of the shift to
unleaded gasoline, the concentration of lead in waste crankcase oils has continued to decrease in
recent years.  Without air pollution controls, higher  concentrations of ash and trace metals in the
waste fuel translate to higher emission levels of PM  and trace metals than is the case for virgin fuel
oils.

        Low efficiency pretreatment steps, such as large particle  removal with screens or coarse
filters, are common prefeed procedures at oil-fired boilers.  Reductions in total PM emissions can be
expected from these techniques but little or no effects have been  noticed on the levels of PM-10
emissions.

        Constituent chlorine in waste oils typically exceeds the concentration of chlorine in virgin
distillate and residual oils.  High levels of halogenated solvents are often found  in waste oil as a result
of inadvertent or deliberate additions of the contaminant solvents to the waste oils.  Many efficient
combustors can destroy more than 99.99 percent of the chlorinated solvents present in the fuel.


1/95                               External Combustion Sources                             1.11-1

-------
However, given the wide array of combustor types which burn waste oils, the presence of these
compounds in the emission stream cannot be ruled out.

       The flue gases from waste oil combustion often contain organic compounds other than
chlorinated solvents. At ppmw levels, several hazardous organic compounds have been found in
waste oils. Benzene, toluene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-d-
dioxins are a  few  of the hazardous compounds that have been detected in waste oil samples.
Additionally,  these hazardous compounds may be formed  in the combustion process as products of
incomplete combustion.

       Emission factors and emission factor ratings for waste oil combustion are shown in
Tables 1.11-1, 1.11-2, 1.11-3, 1.11-4, and 1.11-5. Emission factors have been determined for
emissions from uncontrolled small boilers and space heaters combusting waste oil.  The use of both
blended and unblended fuels is included in the mix of combustion operations.

       Emissions from waste oil used in batch asphalt plants may be estimated using the procedures
outlined in Section 4.5.
 1.11-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
            Table 1.11-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM), PARTICULATE MATTER
                            LESS THAN 10 MICROMETERS (PM-10), AND LEAD FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTORS*
Source Category
(SCC)b
Small boilers0
(1-03-013-02)
Space heatersf
Vaporizing burner
(1-05-001-14,
1-05-002-14)
Atomizing burner
(1-05-001-13,
1-05-002-13)

kg/m3
7.3Ad
0.3A
7.7A
PM
lb/1000
gal
61A
2.8A
64A

RATING
C
D
D
PM-10
lb/1000
kg/m3 gal
6.1A 51A
ND ND
6.8A 57A

RATING
C

E
Lead
lb/1000
kg/m3 gal
6.6Le 55L
0.049L 0.41L
6.0L SOL

RATING
D
D
D
£7
I
EL
o
GO
o
§
a Units are kg of pollutant/cubic meter of waste oil burned and Ib of pollutant/ 1000 gallons of waste oil burned. ND = no data.
b SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 2,4-6.
d   =
A = weight percent ash in fuel. Multiply numeric value by A to obtain emission factor.
L = weight percent lead in fuel.  Multiply numeric value by L to obtain emission factor.
References 6-7.

-------
w
a
g
(£
(JU
J
on


IS


W
O
o
p
Is
U


e


_0
*U|
4^

s

cs





eu

CQ



o
u











x














X
0
z





o
z
1
60
0
JD
"s
s?

0
z
p
^
ei

BO

J3

"i
"So
•*

0
j£
p
•<
oi

_-
50
g
I-H
JS
m
2
]?



1*
00
Ig
« C/5
O "^^
1
00




Q Q Q
,
>f> -- CS

SO >n
CS C-)
odd



U Q Q




C/3 C/3 CO
t— O P»
^f *^ C3


Cfl 00 CO
vo O oo
P» CJ CS




U Q Q




O\ — < VO
^-c — —



c^> co ON
cs — '• —




1. !.
.j fS fl) JD ^" ^T^ 2 co ^T*
(/3 O M ^H ^^ '"'
'So S 'H o § "N o §
|2 |^29 |2§






.
u,
JO

'S
2
i

*o
c
o

8
o
^g
s
_3
"o
c.
<4M
o
f-^
•o
c
M
"8
c
2
J3
'3
S
s

o
o •
11
•— g.
3 .2
I  C/D
?= ,|
iy
a JD













O
•Q
C
_O
'en
en
1
_C
J
O
o
•*-»
on


3
"c3
>
o
CO
B
3
C
,>>
.S*
"3

1
C

"3
E/3
. 4—*
« §
vo u
< ^.T'
«N ^TVO
C/3 ^ CA
a> DO 
-------
OH
   CO
  gg
11
o>
2







cT
u












•— «
u












u
p








o
z
H
*C
PC

•3
00
n
i
^
J?


o
z
1


	 l
CO
60

ja


<•>
lj

O
Z
p



^3
60



-^
£

«
c
~60




^
L
oj Q*
u o
ID CO
o ^""'
1
en




U




8
o"
ts
I
of




U





U
vo
VO



•o
u
°i


Q





"«
d





o
d





ill boilers0
-03-013-02)
g C-
CO



Q




8
r^T
cs
8
N"










Q
Z




Q
Z


Q





— «
d





o
d





S
o ^ ^ ^>
% %~~
 ^-i
co



Q




|
rf
IN
g
ri










Q
Z




Q
Z


Q





-*
d





o
d





i .
^ 2 cZ
1 9 2
< C- —




CQ
W
•o
8
u
Q
Z
1
^
"o
CU
«S
c3
o
C

^.^
^~3
£S\
|
^^

c
•4—*
"o
CH
0
•o
CO
•s
c
X)
^.^
"o
£

a

<±*
0
fe -
O «rt
s 5
i.i

"*2 W
C ,M
•2 -^
•S ™
ao
° §
j^
D to
cS jO
















1
<*-.
c
o

CA
,
J
>
_0

3
c

."&


3
S

"53
f 3
.S
.1
*c
_o
Ic
o
r**1 4J c^
vo *- r-"
-^ o
o i— H d>
Oi U C*
0 T3 O
1/95
External Combustion Sources
1.11-5

-------
00
Q
is
I
oo
^•^
UH rt

S^
§2
H K
^D
<, QQ
£S
z o
2^
IS
 (30 tL,
•§
 4>

1
H
6
z
1
c*

SB
 • ^   z
3"^   o
       00
       00
S?
3 CM
f 9
si
2 ***
^ i
yi
1!
|o
5/3 """

If
cf io
•••* ^^
•jjj iZ
o «
&"*
Heaters: V
1-05-001-:
»o
« oo
00 >~'



-.?
f-4 CO
^^ ^^
'o 9
OQ g
1 0
80 si




•a
£



1



&
^
^^


en
~M





"c3
&Q
£



~5b






•g
J3
"o
a

s
w
10
"*



w
^


s
w
en



§
TJ-'




Q
Z




Q
Z







Antimony

u
o
vd



en
S
CM
r-'


9
w
CM'



S
w
0
en




O
W
'"-<


CM
0
^






Arsenic

en ts
9 9
w w
00 CM
*" * — <



^ m
9 9
u w
CM" «


Q w
Z ^
-J



S
Q W
Z oo
-H'




O
Q w
* en
o\


m
o
Q w
Z _
^






Beryllium
Cadmium

9 9
w w
00 CM
-H !0



W U
CM CM
CM" vd


•— < en
9 9
u w
ON r~
« >/S



S S
I 1
w w
en oo
CM' \d




S S
1 1
w w
o ^
CM" CM"


en >n
0 0
1 1
u u
CM CM'






Chromium
Cobalt

p
«n



W
p
vo


9
w
CM_
CM'



S
w
vq
CM'




9
w
oo



en
9
W
CM
OO






Manganese

9
vq
^^



!



CM
9
w
p
i/S



o
U]
o
vd




CM
9
*~4


m
S
en
^^






"33
^
o
iz

g




Q
Z



Q
Z




Q
Z





Q
Z




Q
Z







Selenium

Q
Z




Q
Z



vq
en



p
U
Tj-'




Q
Z




Q
Z






to
Phosphorou

•g «
.S o "**
11 §
U II
C ">i I'
ll|
o> 5
* O a>
A O< >o
go^a
ill
& W5 VN
d> ^ »^<
c« O
P— «9 Q>
111
ll II
O  «° ^
* .1 "S
<2 « g
"S c 5
Hi
.§Ss
8.21

•^* UH ^^
! ft "5
2 g «

^ CO
ill
•s « -°
*^ 2 ~
.23 c o
.C i- a>
*-• 4> iJ
r- J3 to
*** *^ CO
Pollutants i
but were ei
meter of w
ee































rj-'
• v£>
Reference <
References
J2 O
 1.11-6
                        EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                      Table 1.11-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
                                                      FROM WASTE OIL COMBUSTORSa

                                                       EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
§
EL
n
o
I
o
a
o
1-1
Pollutant
Phenol
Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene/anthracene
Dibutylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene/chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trichloroethylene
Space Heaters: Vaporizing Burner
(SCC 1-05-001-14, 1-05-002-14)
kg/m3
2.9 E-04
8.0 E-07
1.6E-03
1.3 E-03
ND
6.1 E-05
2.6 E-04
8.4 E-04
4.8 E-04
4.8 E-04
ND
lb/1000 gal
2.4 E-03
6.7 E-06
1.3 E-02
1.1 E-02
ND
5.1 E-04
2.2 E-03
7.0 E-03
4.0 E-03
4.0 E-03
ND
Space Heaters: Atomizing Burner
(SCC 1-05-001-13, 1-05-002-13)
kg/m3
3.3 E-06
ND
1.1 E-04
1.5 E-05
4.0 E-06
ND
ND
6.1 E-06
ND
ND
ND
lb/1000 gal
2.8 E-05
ND
9.4 E-04
9.9 E-05
3.4 E-05
ND
ND
5.1 E-05
ND
ND
ND
             a Reference 6. Pollutants in this table represent organic species measured for waste oil combustors.  Other organic species may also
               have been emitted but were either not measured or were present at concentrations below analytical detection limits.   Units are kg of
               pollutant/cubic meter of waste oil burned and Ib of pollutant/1000 gallon* of waste oil burned.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
               ND = no data.

-------
References For Section 1.11

1.     Emission Factor Documentation ForAP-42 Section 1.11, Waste Oil Combustion (Draft),
       Technical Support Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1993.

2.     Environmental Characterization Of Disposal Of Waste Oils In Small Combustors,
       EPA-600/2-84-150, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September
       1984.

3.     "Waste Oil Combustion at a Batch Asphalt Plant: Trial Burn Sampling and Analysis", Arthur
       D. Little, Inc, Cambridge, MA, Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
       Control Association, June 1983.

4.     Used Oil Burned As A Fuel, EPA-SW-892, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, August 1980.

5.     "Waste Oil Combustion: An Environmental Case Study", Presented at the 75th Annual
       Meeting of the Air Pollution Control  Association,  June 1982.

6.     The Fate Of Hazardous And Nonhazardous Wastes In Used Oil Disposal And Recycling,
       DOE/BC/10375-6, U. S. Department of Energy, Bartlesville, OK, October 1983.

7.     "Comparisons of Air Pollutant Emissions from Vaporizing and Air Atomizing Waste Oil
       Heaters", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 33(7), July 1983.

8.     Chemical Analysis Of Waste Crankcase  Oil Combustion Samples, EPA600/7-83-026,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, April  1983.

9.     R. L. Barbour and W. M. Cooke, Chemical Analysis Of Waste Crankcase Oil Combustion
       Samples, EPA-600/7-83-026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       April 1983.
 1.11-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

-------
                          2.  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
       As defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the term "solid waste" means garbage,
refuse, and other discarded solid materials, including solid-waste materials resulting from industrial,
commercial, and agricultural operations, and from community activities.  It includes both
combustibles and noncombustibles.

       Solid waste may be classified into four general categories:  urban, industrial, mineral, and
agricultural. Urban waste is only a relatively small part of the total solid wastes produced, but this
category has a large potential for air pollution. The majority of urban refuse is buried in landfills to
decompose anaerobically, mostly into global warming gases but  also into a number of reduced sulfur
compounds. In heavily populated areas, solid waste is often burned to reduce the bulk of material
requiring final disposal.  Medical waste, depending on its source, may be considered either urban or
industrial waste. Because of the infection potential and special characteristics of medical waste, it
requires special disposal methods.  Sludges can be either urban or  industrial and, because of their
unique characteristics, they also require special disposal methods.  Agricultural wastes are unique in
the volume of organic material that may need to be disposed of in  a short time.  Therefore, unique
disposal methods may be used for this solid waste category.
1/95                                 Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.0-1

-------
2.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

-------
 2.1 Refuse Combustion

        Refuse combustion involves the burning of garbage and other nonhazardous solids, commonly
 called municipal solid waste (MSW).  Types of combustion devices used to burn refuse include single
 chamber units, multiple chamber units,  and trench incinerators.

 2.1.1  General1'3

        As of January 1992, there were over 160 municipal waste combustor (MWC) plants operating
 in the United States with capacities greater than 36 megagrams per day (Mg/day) (40 tons per day
 [tpd]), with a total capacity of approximately 100,000 Mg/day (110,000 tpd of MSW).1 It is
 projected that by 1997, the total MWC capacity will approach 150,000 Mg/day (165,000 tpd), which
 represents approximately 28 percent of the estimated total amount of MSW generated in the United
 States by the year 2000.

        Federal regulations for MWCs are currently under 3 subparts of 40 CFR Part 60.  Subpart E
 covers MWC units that began construction after 1971 and have capacities to combust over 45 Mg/day
 (50 tpd) of MSW. Subpart Ea establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for MWC units
 which began construction or modification  after December 20, 1989 and have capacities over
 225 Mg/day (250 tpd). An emission guideline (EG) was established under Subpart Ca covering
 MWC units which began construction or modification prior to December 20, 1989 and have capacities
 of greater than 225 Mg/day (250 tpd).  The Subpart Ea and Ca regulations were promulgated on
 February 11, 1991.

        Subpart E includes a standard for paniculate matter (PM).  Subparts Ca and Ea currently
 establish standards for PM, tetra- through  octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated
 dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF), hydrogen chloride (HC1), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX)
 (Subpart Ea only), and carbon monoxide (CO).  Additionally, standards for mercury (Hg), lead (Pb),
 cadmium (Cd),  and NOX  (for Subpart Ca)  are currently being considered for new and existing
 facilities, as required by Section 129  of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.

        In addition to  requiring revisions of the Subpart Ca and Ea regulations to include these
 additional pollutants, Section  129 also requires the EPA to review the standards and guidelines for the
 pollutants currently covered under these subparts. It is likely that the revised regulations will be more
 stringent.  The regulations are also being expanded to cover new and existing MWC facilities with
 capacities of 225 Mg/day (250 tpd) or less.  The revised regulations will likely cover facilities with
 capacities as low as  18 to 45 Mg/day (20 to 50 tpd). These facilities are currently subject only to
 State regulations.

2.1.1.1  Combustor Technology -
       There are 3 main  classes of technologies used to combust MSW: mass burn, refuse-derived
fuel (RDF), and modular  combustors.  This section provides  a general description of these 3 classes
of combustors.  Section 2.1.2 provides more details regarding design and operation of each combustor
class.

       With mass burn units, the MSW is combusted without any preprocessing other than removal
of items too large to go through the feed system.  In a typical mass burn combustor, refuse is placed
on a grate that moves through the combustor. Combustion air in excess of stoichiometric amounts is


7/93 (Reformatted  1/95)                    Solid Waste Disposal                                2.1-1

-------
 supplied both below (underfire air) and above (overfire air) the grate.  Mass burn combustors are
 usually erected at the site (as opposed to being prefabricated at another location), and range in size
 from 46 to 900 Mg/day (50 to 1,000 tpd) of MSW throughput per unit.  The mass burn combustor
 category can be divided into mass burn waterwall (MB/WW),  mass  burn rotary waterwall combustor
 (MB/RC), and mass burn refractory wall (MB/REF) designs.  Mass burn waterwall designs have
 water-filled tubes in the furnace walls that are used to recover heat for production of steam and/or
 electricity. Mass burn rotary waterwall combustors use a rotary combustion chamber constructed of
 water-filled tubes followed by a waterwall furnace. Mass burn refractory designs are older and
 typically do not include any heat recovery.  Process diagrams for a typical MB/WW combustor, a
 MB/RC combustor, and one type of MB/REF combustor are presented in Figure 2.1-1, Figure 2.1-2,
 and Figure 2.1-3, respectively.

       Refuse-derived fuel combustors burn processed  waste that varies from shredded waste to
 finely divided fuel suitable for co-firing with pulverized coal.  Combustor sizes range from 290 to
 1,300 Mg/day (320 to 1,400 tpd). A process diagram for a typical RDF combustor is shown in
 Figure 2.1-4.  Waste processing usually consists of removing noncombustibles  and shredding, which
 generally raises the heating value and provides a more uniform fuel.  The type of RDF used depends
 on the boiler design. Most boilers designed to burn RDF use spreader stokers  and fire fluff RDF in a
 semi-suspension mode.  A subset of the RDF technology is fluidized bed combustors (FBC).

       Modular combustors  are similar to mass burn combustors in that they burn waste that has not
 been pre-processed, but they are typically shop fabricated  and generally range in size from 4 to
 130 Mg/day (5 to 140 tpd) of MSW throughput.  One of the most common types of modular
 combustors is the starved air or controlled air type, which incorporates two combustion chambers.  A
 process diagram of a typical modular starved-air (MOD/SA) combustor is presented in Figure 2.1-5.
 Air is supplied to the primary chamber at sub-stoichiometric levels.  The incomplete combustion
 products (CO and organic compounds)  pass into the secondary combustion chamber where additional
 air  is added and combustion is completed.  Another type of modular combustor design is the modular
 excess air (MOD/EA) combustor which consists of 2 chambers as with MOD/SA units, but is
 functionally similar to mass burn units  in that it uses excess air in the primary chamber.

 2.1.2 Process Description4

       Types of combustors described in this section include:

       - Mass burn waterwall,

       - Mass burn rotary waterwall,

       - Mass burn refractory wall,

       - Refuse-derived fuel-fired,

       - Fluidized bed,

       - Modular starved air, and

       - Modular excess air.
2.1-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------

I
2
•o
o
v
                                 Steam
                                Economizer
                         Superheater
                          Generator
Secondary
  Fan
                                                             Air
                                                            Pollution
                                                            Conttol
                                                            Device
                       Y5S4J
                                                              ~7\
                                           Induced Draft Fan
                                      -^
                       Quench Tank
                                                   Vibrating
                                                   Conveyor
                                             Belt Conveyor
                                                         Stack
                                                        Total Ash
                                                        Discharge
           Figure 2.1-1. Typical mass burn waterfall combustor.

-------
                                                                                        2
                                                                                        C/3
                                                                                        es
                                                                                        2
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        en
                                                                                        O)
                                                                                        o,
                                                                                        1

2.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
\0
u>
I
3
GO
O,

O.'
VI
«-f
CI>

D
K'
•a
o
           Waste Tipping Floor
                                                                                                         Air
                                                                                                       Pollution
                                                                                                       Control
                                                                                                       Device
                                                                                                       DDD
                                                                                                       DDD
                                                                  rr
                                                                    X   ^
                                      c   ,   Overfire   ,..,  ..
                                      Forced     A-     Vibrating
                                                                    m
                                                                    ~
                                        ^      Fan    Conveyor
                                       Fan      Fan       o
_  ..                    Ash
Cooling     cooling     Conveyors
^18      Chamber
                                                                Quench     Conveyor
                                                                  P«»
                                                                  Pit
 to
                                    Figure 2.1-3.  Mass burn refractory wall combustor with grate/rotary kiln.

-------
 2.1.4.2  Fabric Filters -
        Fabric filters are also used for PM and metals control, particularly in combination with acid
 gas control and flue gas cooling.  Fabric filters (also known as "baghouses") remove PM by passing
 flue gas through a porous fabric that has been sewn into a cylindrical bag.  Multiple individual filter
 bags are mounted in an arranged compartment.  A complete FF, in turn, consists of 4 to
 16 individual compartments that can be  independently operated.

        As the flue gas flows through the filter bags, paniculate is collected on the filter surface,
 mainly through inertial impaction.  The collected paniculate builds up on the bag, forming a filter
 cake.  As the thickness of the filter cake increases, the pressure drop across the bag also increases.
 Once pressure drop across the bags in a given compartment becomes excessive, that compartment is
 generally taken off-line, mechanically cleaned, and then placed back on-line.

        Fabric filters are generally differentiated by cleaning mechanisms.  Two main filter cleaning
 mechanisms are used: reverse-air and pulse-jet.  In a reverse-air FF, flue gas flows through
 unsupported filter bags, leaving the paniculate on the inside of the bags. The paniculate builds up to
 form a paniculate filter cake.  Once excessive pressure drop across the filter cake is reached, air is
 blown through the filter in the opposite direction, the filter bag collapses, and the filter cake falls off
 and is collected. In a pulse-jet FF, flue gas flows through supported filter bags leaving paniculate on
 the outside of the bags. To remove the paniculate filter cake, compressed air is pulsed through the
 inside of the filter bag, the filter bag expands and collapses to its pre-pulsed shape, and the filter cake
 falls off and is collected.

 2.1.4.3  Spray Drying-
        Spray dryers (SD) are the most frequently used acid gas  control technology for MWCs in the
 United States.  When used in combination with an ESP or FF, the system can control CDD/CDF,
 PM (and metals), SO2,  and HC1 emissions from MWCs. Spray  dryer/fabric filter systems are more
 common than SD/ESP systems and are used mostly on new, large MWCs.  In the spray drying
 process, lime  slurry is injected into the SD through either a rotary atomizer or dual-fluid nozzles.
 The water in the slurry evaporates to cool the flue gas, and the lime reacts with acid gases to form
 calcium salts that can be removed by a PM control device.  The SD is designed to provide sufficient
 contact and residence time to produce a dry product before leaving the SD adsorber vessel. The
 residence time in the adsorber vessel is typically 10 to 15 seconds.  The paniculate leaving the SD
 contains fly ash plus calcium salts, water, and unreacted  hydrated lime.

       The key design and operating parameters that significantly  affect SD performance are SD
 outlet temperature and lime-to-acid gas stoichiometric ratio.  The SD outlet approach to  saturation
 temperature is controlled by the amount  of water in the slurry.  More effective  acid  gas removal
 occurs at lower approach to  saturation temperatures, but the temperature must be high enough  to
 ensure the slurry and reaction products are adequately dried prior to collection in the PM control
 device. For MWC flue gas  containing significant chlorine, a minimum SD outlet temperature  of
 around 115°C (240°F) is required to control agglomeration of PM and sorbent  by calcium chloride.
 Outlet gas temperature from the SD is usually around 140°C  (285°F).

       The stoichiometric ratio is the molar ratio of calcium  in the lime slurry  fed to the SD divided
 by the theoretical amount of calcium  required to completely react with the inlet  HC1 and SO2 in the
 flue gas.  At a ratio of 1.0, the moles of calcium are equal to the moles  of incoming HC1 and SO2.
However, because of mass transfer limitations, incomplete mixing, and differing rates of reaction
 (SO2 reacts more slowly than HC1), more than the theoretical amount of lime is generally fed to the
SD.  The stoichiometric ratio used in SD systems varies  depending on the level  of acid gas  reduction
required, the temperature of the flue gas at the SD exit, and the type of PM control device used.

-------
 Lime is fed in quantities sufficient to react with the peak acid gas concentrations expected without
 severely decreasing performance.  The lime content in the slurry is generally about 10 percent by
 weight, but cannot exceed approximately 30 percent by weight without clogging of the lime slurry
 feed system and spray nozzles.

 2.1.4.4  Dry Sorbent Injection -
        This type of technology has been developed primarily to control  acid gas emissions.
 However, when combined with flue gas cooling and either an ESP or FF, sorbent  injection processes
 may also control CDD/CDF and PM emissions from MWCs. Two primary subsets of dry sorbent
 injection technologies exist. The more widely used of these approaches, referred to as duct sorbent
 injection (DSI),  involves injecting dry alkali sorbents into flue gas downstream of the combustor
 outlet and upstream of the PM control device. The second approach, referred to as furnace sorbent
 injection (FSI), injects sorbent directly into the combustor.

        In DSI, powdered sorbent is  pneumatically injected into either a separate reaction vessel or a
 section of flue gas duct located downstream of the combustor economizer or quench tower.  Alkali in
 the sorbent (generally calcium or sodium) reacts with HC1,  HF, and S02 to form alkali salts
 (e. g., calcium chloride [CaCl2], calcium fluoride [CaF2], and calcium sulfite [CaSO3]). By lowering
 the acid content  of the flue gas, downstream equipment can be operated at reduced temperatures while
 minimizing the potential for acid corrosion of equipment.  Solid reaction products, fly ash, and
 unreacted sorbent are collected with either an ESP or FF.

        Acid gas removal efficiency with DSI depends on the method of sorbent injection,  flue gas
 temperature, sorbent type and  feed rate, and the extent of sorbent mixing with the flue gas.  Not all
 DSI systems are of the same design,  and performance of the systems will vary.  Flue  gas temperature
 at the point of sorbent injection can range from about 150 to 320°C (300 to 600°F) depending on the
 sorbent being used and the design of the process.  Sorbents that have been successfully tested include
 hydrated lime  (Ca[OH]2), soda ash (N^CC^), and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). Based  on
 published data for hydrated lime,  some DSI systems can achieve removal efficiencies comparable to
 SD systems; however, performance is generally lower.

        By combining flue gas cooling with DSI, it may be possible to increase CDD/CDF removal
 through a combination of vapor condensation and  adsorption onto the sorbent surface. Cooling may
 also benefit PM control by decreasing the effective flue gas flow rate (i. e., cubic meters per minute)
 and reducing the resistivity of  individual particles.

        Furnace sorbent injection involves the injection of powdered alkali sorbent  (either lime or
 limestone) into the furnace section of a combustor. This can be accomplished by addition of sorbent
 to the overfire air,  injection through separate ports, or mixing with the waste prior to  feeding to the
 combustor.  As with  DSI, reaction products, fly ash, and unreacted sorbent are collected using an
 ESP or FF.

       The basic chemistry of FSI is similar to DSI. Both use a reaction of sorbent with acid gases
to form alkali salts. However, several key differences exist in these 2 approaches.  First, by injecting
sorbent directly into the furnace (at temperatures of 870 to  1,200°C [1,600 to 2,200°F]) limestone
can be calcined in the combustor to form more reactive lime, thereby allowing use  of less expensive
limestone as a  sorbent. Second, at these temperatures, S02 and  lime react in the combustor, thus
providing a mechanism for effective removal of S02 at relatively low sorbent feed rates. Third, by
injecting sorbent  into the furnace rather than into a downstream duct, additional time is available for
mixing and reaction between the sorbent and acid gases.  Fourth, if a significant portion of the HC1 is
removed before the flue gas exits the  combustor, it may be possible to reduce the formation of

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-17

-------
 CDD/CDF in latter sections of the flue gas ducting. However, HC1 and lime do not react with each
 other at temperatures above 760°C (1,400°F). This is the flue gas temperature that exists in the
 convective sections of the combustor. Therefore, HC1 removal may be lower than with DSL
 Potential disadvantages of FSI include fouling and erosion of convective heat transfer surfaces by the
 injected sorbent.

 2.1.4.5 Wet Scrubbers -
        Many types of wet scrubbers have been used for controlling acid gas emissions from MWCs.
 These include spray towers, centrifugal scrubbers, and venturi scrubbers.  Wet scrubbing technology
 has primarily been used in Japan and Europe.  Currently, it is not anticipated that many new MWCs
 being built in the United States will use this type of acid gas control system.  Wet scrubbing normally
 involves passing the flue gas through an ESP  to reduce PM, followed by a 1- or 2-stage absorber
 system. With single-stage  scrubbers, the flue gas reacts with an alkaline scrubber liquid  to
 simultaneously remove HC1 and SO2. With two-stage scrubbers, a low-pH water scrubber for HC1
 removal is installed upstream of the alkaline S02 scrubber.  The alkaline solution, typically  containing
 calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]2), reacts with the acid gas to form salts, which are generally insoluble
 and may be removed by sequential clarifying, thickening, and vacuum filtering. The dewatered salts
 or sludges are then disposed.

 2.1.4.6 Nitrogen Oxides Control Techniques  -
        The control of NOX emissions can be  accomplished through  either combustion controls or
 add-on controls. Combustion controls include staged combustion, low excess air (LEA), and flue gas
 recirculation (FOR).  Add-on controls which have been tested on MWCs include selective
 noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and natural gas reburning.

        Combustion controls involve the control of temperature or O2 to reduce NOX formation.
 With LEA, less air is supplied, which lowers  the supply of O2 that is available to react with N2 in the
 combustion air.  In staged combustion, the amount of underfire air is reduced, which generates a
 starved-air region.  In FOR, cooled flue gas and ambient air are mixed to become the combustion air.
 This mixing reduces the O2 content of the combustion air supply and lowers combustion
 temperatures.  Due to the lower combustion temperatures present in MWCs, most NOX is produced
 from the oxidation of nitrogen present in the fuel.  As a result, combustion modifications at  MWCs
 have generally shown small to moderate reductions in NOX emissions as compared to higher
 temperature combustion devices (i. e., fossil fuel-fired boilers).

       With SNCR, ammonia (NH3) or urea  is injected into the furnace along with chemical
 additives to reduce NOX to  N2 without the use of catalysts.  Based on analyses of data from
 U. S. MWCs equipped with SNCR, NOX reductions of 45 percent are achievable.

       With SCR, NH3 is  injected into the flue gas downstream of the boiler where it mixes with
 NOX in the flue gas and passes through a catalyst  bed, where NOX is reduced to N2 by a reaction with
 NH3.  This technique has not been applied to  U. S. MWCs, but has been used on MWCs in Japan
 and Germany.   Reductions of up to 80 percent have been observed, but problems with catalyst
poisoning and deactivation may reduce performance over time.

       Natural gas reburning involves limiting combustion air to produce an LEA zone.
Recirculated flue gas and natural gas are then  added to this LEA zone to produce a fuel-rich  zone that
 inhibits NOX formation and promotes reduction of NOX to N2.  Natural gas reburning has been
evaluated on both pilot- and full-scale applications and achieved NOX reductions of 50 to 60  percent.
2.1-18                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
 2.1.5 Mercury Controls11'14

        Unlike other metals, Hg exists in vapor form at typical APCD operating temperatures.  As a
 result, collection of Hg in the APCD is highly variable.  Factors that affect Hg control are good PM
 control, low temperatures in the APCD system, and a sufficient level of carbon in the fly ash.
 Higher levels of carbon in the fly ash enhance Hg adsorption onto the PM, which is removed by the
 PM control device.  To keep the Hg from volatilizing, it is important to operate the control systems at
 low temperatures, generally less than about 300 to 400°F.

        Several mercury control technologies have been used on waste combustors in the
 United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. These control technologies include the injection of
 activated carbon or sodium sulfide (Na2S) into the flue gas prior to the DSI- or SD-based acid gas
 control system, or the use of activated carbon filters.

        With activated carbon injection, Hg is adsorbed onto the carbon particle, which is then
 captured in the PM control device.  Test programs using activated carbon injection on MWCs in the
 United States have shown Hg removal efficiencies of 50 to over 95 percent, depending on the carbon
 feed rate.
        Sodium sulfide injection involves spraying N^S solution into cooled flue gas prior to the acid
 gas control device.  Solid mercuric sulfide is precipitated from the reaction of Na2S and Hg and can
 be collected in the PM control device.  Results from tests on European and Canadian MWCs have
 shown removal efficiencies of 50 to over 90 percent. Testings on a U. S. MWC, however, raised
 questions on the effectiveness of this technology due to possible oversights in the analytical procedure
 used in Europe and Canada.

        Fixed bed activated carbon filters are another Hg control technology being used in Europe.
 With this technology, the flue gas is passed through a fixed bed of granular activated carbon where
 the Hg is adsorbed.  Segments of the bed are periodically replaced as system pressure drop increases.

 2.1.6 Emissions15'121

        Tables 2.1-1, 2.1-2, 2.1-3, 2.1-4, 2.1-5, 2.1-6, 2.1-7, 2.1-8, and 2.1-9 present emission
 factors for MWCs. The tables are for distinct combustor types (i. e., MBAVW, RDF), and include
 emission factors for uncontrolled  (prior to any pollution control device) levels and for controlled
 levels based on various APCD types (i. e., ESP, SD/FF).  There is a large amount of data available
 for this source category and,  as a result of this, many of the emission factors have high quality
 ratings.  However, for some  categories there were only limited data, and the  ratings are low.  In
 these cases, one should refer  to the  EPA Background Information Documents (BIDs) developed for
 the NSPS and EG, which more thoroughly analyze the data than does AP-42, as well as discuss
 performance capabilities of the control technologies and expected emission levels.  Also, when using
 the MWC emission factors, it should be kept in mind that these are average values, and emissions
 from MWCs are greatly affected by the composition of the waste and may vary for different facilities
 due to seasonal and regional differences.  The AP-42 background report for this section includes data
 for individual facilities that represent the range for a combustor/control technology category.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                2.1-19

-------
   QQ

   C/3
   03
   CO
   U
    o
   Q 3

   §1
   <0
   Q U
   < w
   H U

   < Z
   J <
   5
   O

   g
   «
   'S
   tN
23
£3 &
                    s
3MISSIO
FACTOR

RATING
                     •So
                             <<<<<<<<
                   8
8

           UUUUUUUU
                             <<<<<<<<
                                    -   «   «  •*  r
                         U
                         01 '(

                         <5i  '
                         CM
                             <««<«<
                                                   <
                             <<<<:<<<<
        +  999
       Ul  U   W  tU
                                        „
                                        o  0
                                                   +
                                                   u
                            '"<  S
                          2  '£

              i-T^s
              N""' "eo
              J2  >
               3  bo
      _r    |
O « f>

*0 * r>
 •  ^*
 fe -a ^~
                                                    s
                                                    .§
                                                    "S,
                                        IIS
                                         «2   co E c
                                         S W «n tt <-" 55

                                              c e
                                              •f »
                                              £s
                                              a> ^i
                                              o o
                                                                                  •o

                                                                                  I
                                                        09

                                                        2
                                                        a>

                                                        •O
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                           a>
                                   o

                                  'S.

                                                                                  93
                                                                                  1—
                                                                                  CO


                                                                                 U
                                                                                          •^ <  s .&
                          —  =0    o  O        fj  -s  pi
                             C    ."^  >J^  ^ t     -4~t  J^  Q


                          •"^  W     r*i  ^*i. r^^           IT
                                                                                                 O  i
                                                                         o
                                      O. -S
                                  rr?   v *^
                                                            ^  o
                                                          «g o" ^ 2
                                                            "--
                                                                     -°
                                     .£J  «
                                   c to ^i

                                s-S I  §
                                S  « is «
                               .3  c> B .2,
                               .&~ s «s
                                4>  g "g -g
                               o_ J^* >!.  
                                                                           0
                                                                               8-8
                                                                              —
                                                                            s  §J  s
                                                                   «  ^'t3  S
                                                                W>(N
                                                                   cj
                                                                O. S
                                                               V3 Q
                                                                                          a, .b    .22
                                                                           «  "  II
                                       CQ  <*>

                                      ~  2
                                          t/3

                                          E
                                                                                     II   .,  x
                                                                        • c«
                                                                                 oo
                                                                  tu
                                                                  UH
                        ) U

                         .0
               « on oo o to
               E W Q co Q
 I' 2

UH  ||
tt,  l(


CO O-

eo J= .
                                                  O

                                                 •5
                                                  eo
                                                                                             S o '3
2.1-20
                        EMISSION FACTORS
                                          (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
                   Table 2.1-2 (English Units).  PARTICULATE MATTER, METALS, AND ACID GAS EMISSION FACTORS
                                     FOR MASS BURN AND MODULAR EXCESS AIR COMBUSTORSa'b
Pollutant
PMh
As1
Cd'
Cr1
Hg*
Ni1
Pb'
SO2
HC1'
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
2.51 E+01
4.37 E-03
1.09 E-02
8.97 E-03
5.6 E-03
7.85 E-03
2.13 E-01
3.46 E-i-00
6.40 E+00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
ESP0
Ib/ton
2. 10 E-01
2.17E-05
6.46 E-04
1.13 E-04
5.6 E-03
1.12 E-04
3.00 E-03
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
NA
NA
OBI/ESP*1
Ib/ton
5.90 E-02
ND)
8.87 E-05
3.09 E-05
3.96 E-03
3.22 E-05
2.90 E-03
9.51 E-01
2.78 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
SD/ESP6
Ib/ton
7.03 E-02
1.37 E-05
7.51 E-05
2.59 E-04
3.26 E-03
2.70 E-04
9.15 E-04
6.53 E-01k
4.58 E-01k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DSI/FFf
Ib/ton
1.79 E-01
1.03 E-05
2.34 E-05
2.00 E-04
2.20 E-03
1.43 E-04
2.97 E-04
1.43 E-00
6.36 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SD/FF8
Ib/ton
6.20 E-02
4.23 E-06
2.71 E-05
3.00 E-05
2.20 E-03
5.16 E-05
2.61 E-04
5.54 E-01k
2.11 E-01k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
on
o_
CL.

3
£
rf
a
O
K°
T3
O
t/>
BL
a All factors in Ib/ton refuse combusted.  Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 9,570 dscf/MBtu and a
  heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
  dividing by 4,500 Btu/ib. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-04, 5-01-001-05, 5-01-001-06, 5-01-001-07, 5-03-001-11, 5-03-001-12,
  5-03-001-13,  5-03-001-15. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating  long-term, not short-term, emission levels.  This particularly applies to pollutants
  measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., SO ).
c ESP  = Electrostatic Precipitator
d DSI/ESP = Duct Sorbent Injection/Electrostatic Precipitator
e SD/ESP =  Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
f DSI/FF = Duct  Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
« SD/FF = Spray  Dryer/Fabric Filter
h PM = total paniculate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
1 Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
•> No data available at levels greater than  detection limits.
k Acid gas emissions from SD/ESP- and  SD/FF-equipped MWCs are essentially the same.  Any differences are due to scatter in the data.
 to

-------
to
to
      Table 2.1-3 (Metric Units). ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                        MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUSTORSa'b
Pollutant
CDD/CDFS
N0xh
coh
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
8.35 E-07 A
1.83E+00 A
2.32 E-01 A
ESP0
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
5.85 E-07 A
*
*
SD/ESP*
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.11 E-07 A
*
*
DSI/FF*1
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
8.0 E-08 C
*
*
SD/FF6
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.31 E-08 A
*
*
w
00
oo
T1
>
n
H
§
oo
a All factors in kg/Mg refuse combusted.  Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J and a
  heating value of 10,466 J/g.  Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
  dividing by 10,466 J/g. Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-05, 5-03-001-12.  * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels.  This particularly applies to pollutants
  measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOX).
c ESP  = Electrostatic Precipitator
d SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
e DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
f SD/FF = Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
g CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
  dibenzoftirans are hazardous air pollutants listed in 1990 Clean Air Act.
        h Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
 -J

 OJ

-------
I
8.
       Table 2.1-4 (English Units). ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                        MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUSTORSa'b



Pollutant
CDD/CDF6
N0xh
coh
Uncontrolled


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.67 E-06 A
3.56 E+00 A
4.63 E-01 A
ESP°


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.17 E-06 A
*
*
SO/ESP"1


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
6.21 E-07 A
*
*
DSI/FF*


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.60 E-07 C
*
*
SD/FFf


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
6.61 E-08 A
*
*
 GO


 O
 VI
a All factors in Ib/ton refuse combusted.  Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 9,570 dscf/MBtu and a
  heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb. Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
  dividing by 4,500 Btu/lb.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-05, 5-03-001-12. * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels.  This particularly applies to pollutants
  measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOX).
c ESP  = Electrostatic Precipitator
d SD/ESP =  Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
e DSI/FF = Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
f SD/FF = Spray  Dryer/Fabric Filter
8 CDD/CDF  = total tetra- through  octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans,  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
  dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act,
h Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control  devices.
 to

-------
on

e
u
tu
  O
  So
  g
  §
  O °

  §3
  < PQ
Z ^
Sd
w >

ll
§
  <

s ^
S?
^^
z§
y 55
Z C^
CO W
    o
  b
  "S
  S

  wp



  D

  1
  H

t
S




1
CO
Q


CO
U



1
1
c
g
D





EMISSION




1
1
FACTOR




(A
I
H
c
•*;
60
60
0
S
e
J3
60
^
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
c
o


EMISSION
















FACTOR














60
"So
.x
RATING
c
o
^^
.0

60
5!
M



»j
CS
3
£
«
9
u
«-H
?
U
s.

Q
00
o
U
VO
GO
S
00
z
Q
Z
Q
Z

Z

t^J
^


Q
Z


U
0
o
Q
Q
O


*
*



*
*

*
»

.
8
fT^
CM
04
§
+
f»

^



60 x
o


*
*



*
*

*
#

u
o
Ilj
8
r~
^
i
n
00
r>




0
O
                         u
                       __. 3
                       ^3 c^
                       £ cj

                     •*- w ^
                       o
                      > bo C
                       .s T3
                       « 4>

                     £ ^
                     1 o "
                     55 § Q
                     ^ § 5
                         g*'0 a
                             3 *-» •*—•   •**
                                      s al
                                      
-------
VO
UJ
«
n
o-
VO
Wl
                Table 2.1-6 (Metric And English Units).  ORGANIC, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION
                                    FACTORS FOR MASS BURN REFRACTORY WALL COMBUSTORSa-b



Pollutant
CDD/CDF6
N0xf
C0f
Uncontrolled


kg/Mg


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
7.50 E-06 1.50 E-05 D
1.23E+00 2.46 E +00 A
6.85 E-01 1.37 E+00 C
ESP0


kg/Mg


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.63 E-05 7.25 E-05 D
* *
*
DSI/ESP"1


kg/Mg


Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
2.31 E-07 4.61 E-07 E
* *
*
8
«-»
tt>
q
•8
o
       a Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
         10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb).  Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
         dividing by 10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb). Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-04, 5-03-001-11.  * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these
         pollutants.
       b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
         measured with a continuous emission monitoring system (e. g., CO, NOX).
       c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
       d DSI/ESP = Duct Sorbent Injection/Electrostatic Precipitator
       e CDD/CDF  = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,  and
         dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
       f Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
 to

 to

-------
  B
  u

  tu
  oo
  &o
  g
z

o*
  Sta

  %
 bo C

                    bu S u
                    C «

                    ~ ss<
                      C
                    S 2 *S
                    TO ^^ ^
                    y—s  O


                    S "S ii

                    §li
                    ««s ^

                    o .2 id


                    s^li
                     -S

                     U.
                            J3




                            1
                             Q.

                             8-
                           03

                           1
                                  .2

                                  a,




                                  1
                            i



                                  I
                                  .-2
                                  '•3


                                  !
                                     e

                      2 -

                     .1 8
                                    «« -

                                  i!i
                                  .2 -~ o
                                 "-S -S "«
                                 1 S '§
                         3 3 3 .5
                         «

                                .2 •> w «

                     •s^is
                     g "3 ^?fi 3
                     ifis §-§
                     J 8 § « «
                     i "i 5 =3 I
                              o.

                              1
                              &
                              o

                              i
                              o
                                  5


                                  e
                                  «
                                  ^—>

                                  13 .,,
                                  4_* 1>
                O

                •s
                («

            O

            U

            •o

             CO
                                — II tt- *-
co S T3   on «

'§5>  " S 2
w 2^ * i§ g
    - OH

  C J> CO

* W S W
                                 ^ S
                                 QCJ
                                     s

                                   * 1
                                   ^U
2.1-26
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                 (Refonnatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
             Table 2.1-8 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL-FIRED COMBUSTORSa'b
Pollutant
PMf
As8
CdS
CrS
HgS
NiS
PbS
S02
HC1S
NOXJ
CO*
CDD/CDFk
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
3.48 E+01
2.97 E-03
4.37 E-03
6.99 E-03
2.8 E-03
2.18 E-03
1.00 E-01
1.95 E+00
3.49 E+00
2.51 E+00
9.60 E-01
4.73 E-06
Ib/ton
6.96 E+01
5.94 E-03
8.75 E-03
1.40 E-02
5.5 E-03
4.36 E-03
2.01 E-01
3.90 E+00
6.97 E+00
5.02 E+00
1.92 E+00
9.47 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
B
C
B
D
C
C
C
E
A
A
D
ESP°
kg/Mg
5.17 E-01
6.70 E-05
1.10 E-04
2.34 E-04
2.8 E-03
9.05 E-03
1.84 E-03h
ND
*
*
*
8.46 E-06
Ib/ton
1.04 E+00
1.34 E-04
2.20 E-04
4.68 E-04
5.5 E-03
-1.81 E-02
3.66 E-03h
ND
*
*
*
1.69 E-05
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
D
C
D
D
D
A
NA



B
SO/ESP*1
kg/Mg
4.82 E-02
5.41 E-06
4.18 E-05
5.44 E-05
2.10 E-04
9.64 E-05
5.77 E-04
7.99 E-01
ND
*
*
5.31 E-08
Ib/ton
9.65 E-02
1.08 E-05
8.37 E-05
1.09 E-04
4.20 E-04
1.93 E-04
1.16 E-03
1.60E+00
ND
*
*
1 .06 E-07
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
D
D
D
B
D
B
D
NA


D
SD/FF*
kg/Mg
6.64 E-02
2.59 E-06h
1.66E-05h
2.04 E-05
1.46 E-04
3.15 E-05'
5.19 E-04
2.21 E-01
2.64 E-02
*
*
1.22 E-08
Ib/ton
1.33 E-Oi
5.17E-06h
3.32 E-05h
4.07 E-05
2.92 E-04
6.30 E-05'
1.04 E-03
4.41 E-01
5.28 E-02
*
*
2.44 E-08
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
A
A
D
D
A
D
D
C


E
GO
o.
ol
D
VI
to
to
-J
a Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of
  12,792 J/g (5,500 Btu/lb). Other heating values can be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and
  dividing by 12,792 J/g (5,500 Btu/lb).  Source Classification Code 5-01-001-03.  ND = no data. NA = not applicable.  *  =  Same as
  uncontrolled for these pollutants.
b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels. This particularly applies to pollutants
  measured  with a continuous emission monitoring system (SO2, NOX, CO).
c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
d SD/ESP = Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator
e SD/FF =  Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
f PM = total particulate matter,  as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
g Hazardous air pollutants listed  in the Clean Air Act.
h Levels were measured at non-detect levels, where the detection limit was higher than levels measured at other similarly equipped  MWCs.
  Emission factors shown are based on emission levels from similarly equipped mass burn and MOD/EA combustors.
) No data available.  Values shown are based on emission levels from SD/FF-equipped mass burn combustors.
J Control of NOX and CO is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
k CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and
  dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.

-------
        Table 2.1-9 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODULAR
                              STARVED-AIR COMBUSTORSa'b
Pollutant
PMd
Ase
Cde
Cre
Hge'f
Nie
Pbe
SO 2
HCle
NOxg
cog
CDD/CDFh

kg/Mg
1.72 E+00
3.34 E-04
1.20 E-03
1.65 E-03
2.8 E-03
2.76 E-03
ND
1.61 E+00
1.08 E+00
1.58 E+00
1.50 E-01
1.47 E-06
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
3.43 E+00
6.69 E-04
2.41 E-03
3.31 E-03
5.6 E-03
5.52 E-03
ND
3.23 E+00
2.15 E+00
3.16 E+00
2.99 E-01
2.94 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
C
D
C
A
D
NA
E
D
B
B
D

kg/Mg
1.74 E-01
5.25 E-05
2.30 E-04
3.08 E-04
2.8 E-03
5.04 E-04
1.41 E-03
*
*
*
*
1.88 E-06
ESPC
Ib/ton
3.48 E-01
1.05 E-04
4.59 E-04
6.16 E-04
5.6 E-03
1.01 E-03
2.82 E-03
*
*
*
*
3.76 E-06

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
D
D
D
A
E
C




C
  a Emission factors were calculated from concentrations using an F-factor of 0.26 dscm/J
    (9,570 dscf/MBtu) and a heating value of 10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb).  Other heating values can
    be substituted by multiplying the emission factor by the new heating value and dividing by
    10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu/lb).  Source Classification Codes 5-01-001-01, 5-03-001-14. ND = no
    data.  NA = not applicable.  * = Same as "uncontrolled" for these pollutants.
  b Emission factors should be used for estimating long-term, not short-term, emission levels.
    This particularly applies  to pollutants measured with a  continuous emission monitoring system
    (e. g., CO, NOX).
  c ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
  d PM = total paniculate matter, as measured with EPA Reference Method 5.
  e Hazardous air pollutants  listed in the Clean Air Act.
  f Mercury levels based on emission levels measured at mass burn, MOD/EA, and MOD/SA
    combustors.
  g Control of NOX and CO  is not tied to traditional acid gas/PM control devices.
  h CDD/CDF = total tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/chlorinated dibenzofurans,
    2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and dibenzofurans are hazardous air pollutants listed in
    the Clean  Air Act.
2.1-28
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
        Another point to keep in mind when using emission factors is that certain control
 technologies, specifically ESPs and DSI systems, are not all designed with equal performance
 capabilities. The ESP and DSI-based emission factors are based on data from a variety of facilities
 and represent average emission levels for MWCs equipped with these control technologies.  To
 estimate emissions for a specific ESP or DSI system, refer to either the AP-42 background report for
 this section or the NSPS and EG BIDs to obtain actual emissions data for these facilities. These
 documents should also be used when conducting risk assessments,  as well as for determining removal
 efficiencies. Since the AP-42 emission factors represent averages from numerous facilities,  the
 uncontrolled and controlled levels frequently do not correspond to  simultaneous testing and should not
 be used to calculate removal efficiencies.

        Emission factors for MWCs were calculated  from flue gas  concentrations using an F-factor of
 0.26 dry standard cubic meters per joule (dscm/J) (9,570 dry standard cubic feet per million British
 thermal units [Btu]) and an assumed heating value of the waste of 10,466 J/g (4,500 Btu per pound
 [Btu/lb]) for all  combustors except RDF, for which a 12,792 J/g (5,500 Btu/lb) heating value was
 assumed. These are average values for MWCs; however,  a particular facility may have a different
 heating value for the waste.  In such a case, the emission factors shown in the tables can be  adjusted
 by multiplying the emission factor by the  actual facility heating value and dividing by the assumed
 heating value (4,500 or 5,500 Btu/lb, depending on the combustor  type).  Also, conversion factors to
 obtain concentrations,  which can be used for developing more specific emission factors or making
 comparisons to regulatory limits, are provided in Tables 2.1-10 and 2.1-11 for all combustor types
 (except RDF) and RDF combustors, respectively.

        Also note that  the values shown in the tables  for PM are for total PM, and the CDD/CDF
 data represent total tetra- through octa-CDD/CDF. For SO2, NOX, and CO, the data presented in the
 tables represent  long-term averages, and should not be  used to estimate short-term emissions.  Refer
 to the EPA BIDs which discuss achievable emission levels of SO2, NOX, and CO for different
 averaging times  based  on analysis of continuous emission monitoring data.   Lastly, for PM and
 metals, levels for MB/WW, MB/RC, MB/REF, and MOD/EA were combined to determine the
 emission factors, since these emissions should  be  the same for these types of combustors. For
 controlled levels, data  were  combined within each control technology type (e. g., SD/FF data, ESP
 data).  For Hg, MOD/SA data were also combined with the mass burn and MOD/EA data.

 2.1.7  Other Types Of Combustors122'134

 2.1.7.1 Industrial/Commercial Combustors -
        The capacities of these units cover a wide range, generally between 23 and 1,800 kilograms
 (50 and 4,000 pounds) per hour.  Of either single- or multiple-chamber design, these units are often
 manually charged and intermittently operated.  Some  industrial combustors are similar  to municipal
 combustors in size and design.  Emission control  systems include gas-fired afterburners, scrubbers, or
 both. Under Section 129 of the CAAA, these types of combustors  will be required to meet emission
 limits for the same list of pollutants as for MWCs. The EPA has not yet established these limits.

 2.1.7.2 Trench  Combustors -
       Trench combustors,  also called air curtain incinerators, forcefully project a curtain of air
 across a pit in which open burning occurs.  The air curtain is intended to increase combustion
 efficiency and reduce smoke and PM emissions.  Underfire air is also used  to increase combustion
 efficiency.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-29

-------
    Table 2.1-10.  CONVERSION FACTORS FOR ALL COMBUSTOR TYPES EXCEPT RDF
Divide
For As, Cd,
For PM:
For HC1:
For SO2:
For NOX:
For CO:
Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and CDD/CDF:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
By
4.03 x 1Q-6
8.06 x 10-6
4.03 x 10'3
8.06 x 10'3
6.15x 10'3
1.23 x 1C-2
1.07 x 10'2
2.15x 10'2
7.70 x 10'3
1.54x 10'2
4.69 x 10'3
9.4 x 10'3
To Obtain8
/zg/dscm
mg/dscm
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
   At 7% O2.
2.1-30
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
    Table 2.1-11.  CONVERSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL COMBUSTORS
Divide
For As, Cd,
For PM:
For HC1:
For SO2:
For NOX:
For CO:
Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and CDD/CDF:
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
kg/Mg refuse
Ib/ton refuse
By
4.92 x 10'6
9.85 x ID"6
4.92 x 10'3
9.85 x 10'3
7.5 x lO'3
1.5 x lO'2
1.31 x 10'2
2.62 x 1CT2
9.45 x 10'3
1.89 x 10'2
5.75 x lO'3
1.15 x 10'2
To Obtain*
/ig/dscm
mg/dscm
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
    At 7% O2.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Solid Waste Disposal
2.1-31

-------
        Trench combustors can be built either above- or below-ground.  They have refractory walls
and floors and are normally 8-feet wide and 10-feet deep. Length varies from 8 to 16 feet. Some
units have mesh screens to contain larger particles of fly ash, but other add-on pollution controls are
normally not used.

        Trench combustors burning wood wastes, yard wastes, and clean lumber are exempt from
Section 129, provided they comply with opacity limitations established by the Administrator.  The
primary use of air curtain incinerators is the disposal of these types of wastes; however, some of
these combustors are used to bum MSW or construction and demolition debris.

        In some states, trench combustors are often viewed as a version of open burning and the use
of these types of units has been discontinued  in some States.

2.1.7.3 Domestic Combustors -
        This category includes combustors marketed for residential use.  These types of units are
typically located at apartment complexes,  residential buildings, or other multiple family dwellings,
and are generally found in urban areas. Fairly simple in design, they  may have single or multiple
refractory-lined chambers and usually are equipped with an auxiliary burner to aid combustion.  Due
to their small size, these types of units are not currently covered by the MWC regulations.

2.1.7.4 Flue-fed Combustors-
        These units, commonly found in large apartment houses or other multiple family dwellings,
are characterized by the charging method of dropping refuse down the combustor flue and into the
combustion chamber.  Modified flue-fed incinerators utilize afterburners and draft controls to improve
combustion efficiency and reduce emissions.  Due to their small size, these types of units are not
currently covered by the MWC regulations.

        Emission factors for industrial/commercial, trench, domestic, and flue-fed combustors are
presented in Table 2.1-12.
2.1-32                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
       Table 2.1-12 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE COMBUSTORS OTHER THAN
                                                  MUNICIPAL WASTE8

                                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Combustor Type
Industrial/commercial
Multiple chamber
Single chamber
Trench
Wood
(SCC 5-01-005-10,
5-03-001-06)
Rubber tires
(SCC 5-0 1-005-11,
5-03-001-07)
Municipal refuse
(SCC 5-01-005-12,
5-03-001-09)
Flue-fed single chamber
Flue-fed (modified)
Domestic single chamber
(no SCC)
Without primary burner
With primary burner
PM
kg/Mg

3.50 E+00
7.50 E+00

6.50 E+00

6.90 E+01

1.85 E+01
1.50 E+01
3.00 E+00

1.75 E+01
3.50 E+00
Ib/ton

7.00 E+00
1.50 E+01

1.30 E+01

1.38E+02

3.70 E+01
3.00 E+01
6.00 E+00

3.50 E+01
7.00 E+00
S02
kg/Mg

1.25 E+00
1.25 E+00

5.00 E-02

ND

1.25 E+00
2.50 E-01
2.50 E-01

2.50 E-01
2.50 E-01
Ib/ton

2.50 E+00
2.50 E+00

1.00 E-01

ND

2.50 E+00
5.00 E-01
5.00 E-01

5.00 E-01
5.00 E-01
CO
kg/Mg

5.00 E+00
1.00 E+01

ND

ND

ND
1.00 E+01
5.00 E+00

1.50E+02
Neg
Ib/ton

1.00 E+01
2.00 E+01

ND

ND

ND
2.00 E+01
1.00 E+01

3.00 E+02
Neg
Total Organic
Compounds'1
kg/Mg

1.50 E+00
7.50 E+01

ND

ND

ND
7.50 E+00.
1.50 E+00

5.00 E+01
1.00 E+00
Ib/ton

3.00 E+00
1.50 E+01

ND

ND

ND
1.50 E+01
3.00 E+00

1.00 E+02
2.00 E+00
NOX
kg/Mg | Ib/ton

1.50 E+00 3.00 E+00
1.00 E+00 2.00 E+00

2.00 E+00 4.00 E+00

ND ND

ND ND
1.50 E+00 3.00 E+00
5.00 E+00 1.00 E+01

5.00 E-01 1.00 E+00
1.00 E+00 2.00 E+00
00

51
3

re
O
5?'
o
B.
      a References 116-123. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  Neg = negligible.
      b Expressed as methane.
N)


U)

-------
 References For Section 2.1

 1.      Written communication from D. A. Fenn and K. L. Nebel, Radian Corporation, Research
        Triangle Park, NC, to W. H. Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
        Triangle Park, NC.  March 1992.

 2.      J. Kiser, "The Future Role Of Municipal Waste Combustion", Waste Age, November 1991.

 3.      September 6, 1991.  Meeting Summary: Appendix 1 (Docket No. A-90-45, Item
        Number II-E-12).

 4.      Municipal Waste Combustion Study:  Combustion Control Of Organic Emissions,
        EPA/530-SW-87-021c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1987.

 5.      M. Clark,  "Minimizing Emissions From Resource Recovery", Presented at the International
        Workshop on Municipal  Waste Incineration, Quebec, Canada, October 1-2, 1987.

 6.      Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment:  Combustion Control At Existing Facilities,
        EPA 600/8-89-058, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        August 1989.

 7.      Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information For Proposed Standards:  Control Of
        NOX Emissions, EPA-450/3-89-27d, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
        Triangle Park, NC, August  1989.

 8.      Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information For Proposed Standards: Post
        Combustion Technology Performance, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1989.

 9.      Municipal Waste Combustion Study - Flue Gas Cleaning Technology,  EPA/530-SW-87-021c,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1987.

 10.     R. Bijetina, et al., "Field Evaluation of Methane de-NOx at Olmstead Waste-to-Energy
        Facility", Presented at the 7th Annual Waste-to-Energy Symposium, Minneapolis, MN,
        January 28-30, 1992.

 11.     K. L. Nebel and D. M. White, A Summary Of Mercury Emissions And Applicable Control
        Technologies For Municipal Waste Combustors, Research Triangle Park, NC, September,
        1991.

 12.    Emission Test Report:  OMSS Field Test On Carbon Injection For Mercury Control,
        EPA-600/R-92-192, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1992.

 13.    J. D. Kilgroe, et al., "Camden Country MWC Carbon Injection Test Results",  Presented at
       the International Conference on Waste Combustion, Williamsburg, VA, March 1993.

 14.     Meeting Summary: Preliminary Mercury Testing Results For The Stanislaus County
       Municipal Waste Combustor, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, November 22, 1991.
2.1-34                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
 15.    R. A. Zurlinden, et al., Environmental Test Report, Alexandria/Arlington Resources Recovery
        Facility, Units 1, 2, And 3, Report No. 144B, Ogden Martin Systems of
        Alexandria/Arlington, Inc., Alexandria, VA, March 9, 1988.

 16.    R. A. Zurlinden, et al., Environmental Test Report, Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery
        Facility, Units 1, 2, And 3, Report No. 144A (Revised), Ogden Martin Systems of
        Alexandria/Arlington, Inc., Alexandria, VA, January 8, 1988.

 17.    Environmental Test Report, Babylon Resource Recovery Test Facility, Units 1 And 2,  Ogden
        Martin Systems of Babylon, Inc., Ogden Projects, Inc., March 1989.

 18.    Ogden Projects,  Inc. Environmental Test Report, Units 1 And 2, Babylon Resource Recovery
        Facility, Ogden Martin Systems for Babylon, Inc., Babylon, NY, February 1990.

 19.    PEI Associates, Inc.  Method Development And Testing For Chromium, No. Refuse-to-Energy
        Incinerator, Baltimore RESCO, EMB Report 85-CHM8, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3849,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1986.

 20.    Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Paniculate, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Chlorides,
        Fluorides, And Carbon Monoxide Compliance Testing, Units 1, 2, And 3, Baltimore RESCO
        Company, L. P., Southwest Resource Recovery Facility, RUST International, Inc., January
        1985.

 21.     Memorandum. J. Perez, AM/3, State of Wisconsin, to Files.   "Review Of Stack Test
        Performed At Barron County Incinerator," February 24, 1987.

 22.     D. S. Beachler, et al., "Bay County, Florida, Waste-To-Energy Facility Air Emission  Tests.
        Westinghouse Electric Corporation", Presented at Municipal Waste Incineration Workshop,
        Montreal, Canada, October 1987.

 23.     Municipal Waste Combustion, Multi-Pollutant Study.  Emission Test Report.  Volume I,
        Summary Of Results, EPA-600/8-89-064a, Maine Energy Recovery Company, Refuse-Derived
        Fuel Facility, Biddeford, ME, July 1989.

 24.     S. Klamm,  et al., Emission Testing At An RDF Municipal Waste Combustor, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-4453,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC,  May 6, 1988.  (Biddeford)

 25.    Emission Source  Test Report — Preliminary Test Report On Cattaraugus County, New York
       State Department of Environmental Conservation, August 5, 1986.

 26.    Permit No.  0560-0196 For Foster Wheeler Charleston Resource Recovery, Inc.  Municipal
       Solid Waste Incinerators A  & B, Bureau of Air Quality Control, South Carolina Department
       of Health and Environmental Control, Charleston, SC, October  1989.

 27.    Almega Corporation. Unit 1 And Unit 2, EPA Stack Emission Compliance Tests, May 26, 27,
       And 29, 1987, At The Signal Environmental Systems, Claremont, NH, NH/VT Solid Waste
       Facility, Prepared for Clark-Kenith, Inc. Atlanta, GA, July 1987.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-35

-------
 28.     Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report, Signal Environmental
        Systems, Inc., At The Claremont Facility, Claremont, New Hampshire, Dioxins/Furans
        Emissions Compliance Testing, Units 1 And 2, Reference No. 5553-A, Signal Environmental
        Systems, Inc., Claremont,  NH, October 2, 1987.

 29.     M. D. McDannel, et al., Air Emissions Tests At Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility
        May 26 - June 5, 1987, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA,
        July 1987.

 30.     M. D. McDannel and B. L. McDonald,  Combustion Optimization Study At The Commerce
        Refuse-To-Energy Facility.  Volume I, ESA  20528-557, County Sanitation Districts of
        Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA,  June 1988.

 31.     M. D. McDannel et al., Results Of Air Emission Test During The Waste-to-Energy Facility,
        County Sanitation Districts Of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA, December 1988.
        (Commerce)

 32.     Radian  Corporation. Preliminary Data From October - November 1988 Testing At The
        Montgomery County South  Plant, Dayton, Ohio.

 33.     Written communication from M. Hartman, Combustion Engineering, to D. White,
        Radian Corporation, Detroit Compliance Tests, September 1990.

 34.     Interpoll Laboratories. Results Of The November 3-6, 1987 Performance Test On The No. 2
        RDF And Sludge Incinerator At The WLSSD Plant In Duluth, Minnesota, Interpoll Report
        No. 7-2443, April 25, 1988.

 35.     D.  S. Beachler, (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and ETS, Inc, Dutchess County
        Resource Recovery Facility  Emission Compliance Test Report, Volumes 1-5, New York
        Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1989.

 36.     ETS, Inc. Compliance Test Report For Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility, May
        1989.

 37.     Written communication and enclosures from W. Harold Snead, City of Galax, VA, to
        Jack R.  Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        July 14, 1988.

 38.     Cooper  Engineers, Inc., Air Emissions Tests Of Solid Waste Combustion A Rotary
        Combustion/Boiler System At Gallatin, Tennessee, West County Agency of Contra Costa
        County, CA, July 1984.

 39.     B. L. McDonald, et al., Air Emissions Tests At The Hampton Refuse-Fired Stream Generating
       Facility, April 18-24, 1988, Clark-Kenith, Incorporated, Bethesda, MD, June  1988.

40.     Radian Corporation for American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, Compliance Test Report
       For The Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility, Westbury, NY, Volume I, December  1989.

41.    J. Campbell, Chief, Air Engineering Section, Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
        Commission, to E. L. Martinez, Source Analysis Section/AMTB, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency,  May 1,  1986.

2.1-36                             EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted  1/95) 7/93

-------
 42.    Mitsubishi SCR System for Municipal Refuse Incinerator, Measuring Results At Tokyo-
        Hikarigaoka And IwatsuM, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd, July 1987.

 43.    Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. for Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture, Stationary Source
        Sampling Final Report,  Volume I,  Oahu, HI, February 1990.

 44.    Ogden Projects, Inc., Environmental Test Report, Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility,
        Appendix A And Appendix B,  Volume I, (Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems of Indianapolis,
        Inc.), August 1989.

 45.    D. R. Knisley,  et al. (Radian  Corporation), Emissions Test Report, Dioxin/Furan Emission
        Testing, Refuse Fuels Associates, Lawrence MA,  (Prepared for Refuse Fuels Association),
        Haverhill, MA, June 1987.

 46.    Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report, Ogden Martin Systems of
        Haverhill, Inc., Lawrence, MA Thermal Conversion Facility.  Paniculate, Dioxins/Furans and
        Nitrogen Oxides Emission Compliance Testing, September 1987.

 47.    D. D. Ethier, et al. (TRC Environmental Consultants), Air Emission Test Results At The
        Southeast Resource Recovery Facility Unit 1, October - December, 1988, Prepared for Dravo
        Corporation, Long Beach, CA, February 28,  1989.

 48.    Written communication from from H. G. Rigo, Rigo  & Rigo Associates, Inc., to
        M. Johnston, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  March 13, 1989.  2 pp.  Compliance
        Test Report Unit No. 1 — South East Resource Recovery Facility, Long Beach, CA.

 49.     M. A. Vancil and C. L.  Anderson (Radian Corporation), Summary Report CDD/CDF,
        Metals, HQ, SO2, NOX, CO And Paniculate Testing, Marion County Solid Waste-To-Energy
        Facility, Inc., Ogden Martin Systems Of Marion,  Brooks, Oregon, U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A, September
        1988.

 50.     C. L. Anderson, et al. (Radian Corporation),  Characterization Test Report, Marion County
        Solid Waste-To-Energy Facility, Inc., Ogden Martin Systems Of Marion, Brooks, Oregon,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report
        No. 86-MIN-04, September 1988.

 51.     Letter Report from M. A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to C. E. Riley, EMB Task Manager,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Emission Test Results for the PCDD/PCDF Internal
        Standards Recovery Study Field Test: Runs 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14. July 24, 1987.  (Marion)

 52.     C. L. Anderson, et al., (Radian Corporation). Shutdown/Startup Test Program Emission Test
       Report, Marion  County Solid Waste-To-Energy Facility, Inc., Ogden Martin Systems Of
       Marion, Brooks,  Oregon, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
        NC, EMB Report No. 87-MIN-4A,  September 1988.

53.    Clean Air Engineering, Inc., Report On Compliance Testing For Waste Management,  Inc. At
        The McKay Bay Refitse-to-Energy Project Located In Tampa, Florida, October 1985.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-37

-------
 54.     Alliance Technologies Corporation, Field Test Report - NITEP HI.  Mid-Connecticut Facility,
        Hartford, Connecticut.  Volume II Appendices, Prepared for Environment Canada.
        June 1989.

 55.     C. L. Anderson, (Radian Corporation), CDD/CDF, Metals, And Paniculate Emissions
        Summary Report, Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility, Hartford, Connecticut,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report
        No. 88-MIN-09A, January 1989.

 56.     Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Municipal Waste Combustion Multi-Pollutant Study,
        Summary Report, WheelabratorMillbury, Inc., Millbury, MA, U. S. Environmental Protection
        Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report No. 88-MIN-07A, February 1989.

 57.     Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Emissions Testing Report, Wheelabrator Millbury, Inc.
        Resource Recovery Facility, Millbury, Massachusetts, Unit Nos. 1 And 2, February 8
        through 12, 1988, Prepared for Rust International Corporation.  Reference No. 5605-B.
        Augusts, 1988.

 58.     Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Stationary Source Sampling Report, WheelabratorMillbury,
        Inc., Resource Recovery Facility, Millbury, Massachusetts, Mercury Emissions Compliance
        Testing, Unit No. 1, May 10 And 11,  1988, Prepared for Rust International Corporation.
        Reference No. 5892-A, May 18,  1988.

 59.     Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Emission Test Report, Municipal Waste Combustion
        Continuous Emission Monitoring Program, Wheelabrator Resource Recovery Facility,
        Millbury, Massachusetts, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
        NC, Emission Test Report 88-MIN-07C, January 1989.

 60.     Entropy Environmentalists, Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study: Emission Test
        Report - WheelabratorMillbury, Inc. Millbury, Massachusetts, EMB Report No. 88-MIN-07,
        July 1988.

 61.     Entropy Environmentalists, Emission Test Report, Municipal Waste  Combustion, Continuous
       Emission Monitoring Program, Wheelabrator Resource Recovery Facility, Millbury,
       Massachusetts, Prepared for the U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-4336, October 1988.

 62.    Entropy Environmentalists, Emissions Testing At WheelabratorMillbury, Inc.  Resource
       Recovery Facility, Millbury, Massachusetts, Prepared for Rust International Corporation.
       February 8-12,  1988.

 63.    Radian Corporation, Site-Specific Test Plan And Quality Assurance Project Plan For The
       Screening And Parametric Programs At The Montgomery County Solid Waste Management
       Division South Incinerator- Unit #3, Prepared for U. S. EPA, OAQPS and ORD, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, November  1988.

 64.    Written communication and enclosures from John W. Norton, County of Montgomery, OH,
       to Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
       May 31, 1988.
2.1-38                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
 65.    J. L. Hahn, et al., (Cooper Engineers) and J. A. Finney, Jr., et al., (Belco Pollution Control
        Corp.), "Air Emissions Tests Of A Deutsche Babcock Anlagen Dry Scrubber System At The
        Munich North Refuse-Fired Power Plant", Presented at: 78th Annual Meeting of the Pollution
        Control Association, Detroit, MI, June 1985.

 66.    Clean Air Engineering, Results Of Diagnostic And Compliance  Testing At NSP French Island
        Generating Facility Conducted May 17-19,  1989, July 1989.

 67.    Preliminary Report On Occidental Chemical  Corporation EFW.  New York State Department
        Of Environmental Conservation, (Niagara Falls), Albany, NY, January 1986.

 68.    H. J. Hall, Associates, Summary Analysis On Precipitator Tests And Performance Factors,
        May 13-15, 1986 At Incinerator Units 1,2-  Occidental Chemical Company, Prepared for
        Occidental Chemical Company EFW, Niagara Falls, NY, June 25, 1986.

 69.    C. L.  Anderson, et al. (Radian Corporation), Summary Report,  CDD/CDF,  Metals and
        Paniculate, Uncontrolled And Controlled Emissions, Signal Environmental Systems, Inc.,
        North Andover RESCO, North Andover, MA, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Research Triangle Park,  NC, EMB Report No. 86-M1NO2A, March 1988.

 70.    York Services Corporation, Final Report For A Test Program On  The Municipal Incinerator
        Located At Northern Aroostook Regional Airport, Frenchville, Maine, Prepared for Northern
        Aroostook Regional Incinerator Frenchville, ME, January 26, 1987.

 71.    Radian Corporation, Results From The Analysis OfMSW Incinerator Testing At Oswego
        County, New York, Prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development
        Authority, March 1988.

 72.     Radian Corporation, Data Analysis Results For Testing At A  Two-Stage Modular MSW
        Combustor: Oswego County ERF, Fulton,  New York, Prepared for New  York State's Energy
        Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY, November 1988.

 73.     A. J. Fossa, et al., Phase I Resource Recovery Facility Emission Characterization Study,
        Overview Report, (Oneida, Peekskill), New York State Department of Environmental
        Conservation, Albany, NY, May 1987.

 74.     Radian Corporation, Results From The Analysis OfMSW Incinerator Testing At Peekskill,
        New York, Prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority,
        DCN:88-233-012-21, August 1988.

 75.     Radian Corporation, Results from the Analysis of MSW Incinerator Testing at Peekskill, New
        York (DRAFT), (Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development
        Authority), Albany, NY, March 1988.

 76.     Ogden Martin Systems of Pennsauken, Inc., Pennsauken Resource Recovery  Project, BACT
       Assessment For Control OfNOx Emissions, Top-Down Technology Consideration, Fairfield,
        NJ, pp. 11, 13, December 15,  1988.

77.    Roy  F.  Weston, Incorporated, Penobscot Energy Recovery Company Facility, Orrington,
       Maine,  Source Emissions Compliance Test Report Incinerator Units A And B (Penobscot,
       Maine), Prepared for GE Company, September 1988.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-39

-------
 78.    S. Zaitlin, Air Emission License Finding Of Fact And Order, Penobscot Energy Recovery
       Company, Orrington, ME, State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection, Board of
       Environmental Protection, February 26,  1986.

 79.    R. Neulicht, (Midwest Research Institute), Emissions Test Report: City Of Philadelphia
       Northwest And East Central Municipal Incinerators, Prepared for the U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA, October 31,  1985.                          *

 80.    Written communication with attachments from Philip Gehring, Plant Manager (Pigeon Point
       Energy Generating Facility), to Jack R. Farmer, Director, ESD, OAQPS, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1988.

 81.    Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Stationary Source Sampling Report, Signal RESCO, Pinellas
       County Resource Recovery Facility, St. Petersburg, Florida, CARB/DER Emission Testing,
       Unit 3 Precipitator Inlets and Stack, February and  March 1987.

 82.    Midwest Research Institute, Results Of The Combustion And Emissions Research Project At
       The Vicon Incinerator Facility In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Prepared for New York State
       Energy Research and Development Authority, June 1987.

 83.    Response to Clean Air Act Section 114 Information Questionnaire, Results of Non-Criteria
       Pollutant Testing Performed at Pope-Douglas  Waste to Energy Facility, July 1987,  Provided
       to EPA on May 9, 1988.

 84.    Engineering Science, Inc., A Report On Air Emission Compliance Testing At The Regional
       Waste Systems, Inc.  Greater Portland Resource Recovery Project, Prepared for Dravo Energy
       Resources, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, March 1989.

 85.    D. E. Woodman,  Test Report Emission Tests,  Regional Waste Systems, Portland, ME,
       February 1990.

 86.    Environment Canada, The National Incinerator Testing And Evaluation Program:  Two State
       Combustion, Report EPS 3/up/l, (Prince Edward Island), September 1985.

 87.    Statistical Analysis Of Emission Test Data From Fluidized Bed Combustion Boilers At Prince
       Edward Island, Canada, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Publication No.
       EPA-450/3-86-015, December 1986.

 88.    The National Incinerator Testing And Evaluation Program:  Air Pollution Control Technology,
       EPS 3/UP/2, (Quebec City), Environment Canada,  Ottawa,  September  1986.

 89.    Lavalin, Inc., National Incinerator Testing And Evaluation Program:  The Combustion
       Characterization Of Mass Burning Incinerator Technology; Quebec City (DRAFT), (Prepared
       for Environmental Protection Service, Environmental Canada), Ottawa, Canada,
       September 1987.

90.    Environment Canada, NITEP, Environmental  Characterization Of Mass Burning Incinerator
       Technology at Quebec City. Summary Report, EPS 3/UP/5, June 1988.
2.1-40                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Refomatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
 91.     Interpoll Laboratories, Results Of The March 21 - 26, 1988, Air Emission Compliance Test On
        The No. 2 Boiler At The Red Wing Station, Test IV (High Load), Prepared for Northern States
        Power Company, Minneapolis, MN, Report No. 8-2526,  May 10, 1988.

 92.     Interpoll Laboratories, Results Of The May 24-27, 1988 High Load Compliance Test On
        Unit 1 And Low Load Compliance Test On Unit 2 At The NSP Red Wing Station, Prepared for
        Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN, Report No. 8-2559, July 21, 1988.

 93.     Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., Final Report, Evaluation Of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration.
        (Red Wing, Minnesota facility) Submitted To Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Report
        No. 1130-87-1, January 1987.

 94.     Eastmount Engineering, Inc., Final Report, Waste-To-Energy Resource Recovery Facility,
        Compliance Test Program, Volumes 1I-V, (Prepared for SEMASS Partnership.), March 1990.

 95.     D. McClanahan, (Fluor Daniel), A. Licata (Dravo),  and J. Buschmann (Flakt, Inc.).,
        "Operating Experience With Three APC Designs On Municipal Incinerators".  Proceedings of
        the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, pp.  7C-19 to 7C-41,
        (Springfield),  April 11-14, 1988.

 96.     Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Results Of The June 1988 Air Emission Performance Test On The
        MSW Incinerators At The St. Croix Waste To Energy Facility In New Richmond, Wisconsin,
        Prepared for American Resource Recovery, Waukesha, WI, Report No. 8-2560,
        September 12, 1988.

 97.     Interpoll Laboratories, Inc, Results Of The June 6, 1988, Scrubber Performance Test At The
        St. Croix Waste To Energy Incineration Facility In New Richmond, Wisconsin, Prepared for
        Interel Corporation, Englewood, CO, Report No. 8-25601, September  20, 1988.

 98.     Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Results Of The August 23,  1988, Scrubber Performance Test At
        The St.  Croix  Waste To Energy Incineration Facility In New Richmond, Wisconsin, Prepared
        for Interel Corporation, Englewood, CO, Report No. 8-2609, September 20, 1988.

 99.     Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Results Of The October 1988 Paniculate Emission Compliance
        Test On The MSW Incinerator At The St. Croix Waste To Energy Facility In New Richmond,
        Wisconsin, Prepared for American Resource Recovery, Waukesha,  WI, Report No. 8-2547,
        November 3, 1988.

 100.    Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Results Of The October 21, 1988, Scrubber Performance Test At
        The St. Croix Waste To Energy Facility In New Richmond,  Wisconsin,  Prepared for Interel
        Corporation, Englewood, CO, Report No.  8-2648, December 2,  1988.

 101.   J.  L. Hahn, (Ogden Projects, Inc.), Environmental Test Report, Prepared for Stanislaus Waste
       Energy Company Crows Landing, CA, OPI Report No.  177R, April 7, 1989.

 102.   J.  L. Hahn, and D. S. Sofaer, "Air Emissions Test Results From The Stanislaus County,
       California Resource Recovery Facility", Presented at the International  Conference on
       Municipal Waste Combustion, Hollywood,  FL, pp. 4A-1 to 4A-14, April 11-14, 1989.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                2.1-41

-------
 103.   R. Seelinger, etal.  (Ogden Products, Inc.), Environmental Test Report, Walter B. Hall
        Resource Recovery Facility, Units 1 And 2,  (Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems of Tulsa,
        Inc.), Tulsa, OK, September 1986.

 104.   PEI Associates, Inc, Method Development And Testing for Chromium, Municipal Refuse
        Incinerator, Tuscaloosa Energy Recovery, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EMB Report 85-CHM-9, January 1986.

 105.   T. Guest and  O. Knizek, "Mercury Control At Burnaby 's Municipal Waste Incinerator",
        Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management
        Association, Vancouver, British Columbia,  Canada, June 16-21, 1991.

 106.   Trip  Report, Burnaby MWC, British Columbia,  Canada.  White, D., Radian Corporation,
        May  1990.

 107.   Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. for Babcock & Wilcox Co. North County Regional Resource
        Recovery Facility, West Palm Beach, FL, October 1989.

 108.   P. M. Maly, et al., Results Of The July 1988 Wilmarth Boiler Characterization Tests, Gas
        Research Institute Topical  Report No. GRI-89/0109, June 1988-March  1989.

 109.   J. L.  Hahn, (Cooper Engineers, Inc.), Air Emissions Testing At The Martin GmbH Waste-To-
        Energy Facility In  Wurzburg, West Germany, Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.,
        Paramus, NJ, January 1986.

 110.   Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. for Westinghouse RESD, Metals Emission Testing Results,
        Conducted At The York  County Resource Recovery Facility, February 1991.

 111.   Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. for Westinghouse RESD, Emissions Testing For:  Hexavalent
        Chromium, Metals, Paniculate. Conducted At The York County Resource Recovery Facility,
        July 31 -August 4, 1990.

 112.   Interpoll Laboratories, Results of the July 1987 Emission Performance Tests Of The
        Pope/Douglas Waste-To-Energy Facility MSW Incinerators In Alexandria, Minnesota,
        (Prepared for HDR Techserv, Inc.), Minneapolis, MN,  October 1987.

 113.    D. B. Sussman,  Ogden Martin System, Inc., Submitta! to Air Docket (LE-131), Docket
        No. A-89-08,  Category IV-M, Washington,  DC, October 1990.

 114.    F. Ferraro, Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., Data package to D.  M. White,  Radian
        Corporation, February 1991.

 115.    D. R. Knisley, et al. (Radian Corporation), Emissions Test Report, Dioxin/Furan Emission
        Testing, Refuse Fuels Associates, Lawrence,  Massachusetts, (Prepared for Refuse Fuels
        Association), Haverhill,  MA, June 1987.

 116.    Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Stationary Source Sampling Report, Ogden Martin Systems
        Of Haverhill, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts Thermal Conversion Facility. Paniculate,
       Dioxins/Furans And Nitrogen Oxides Emission Compliance Testing, September 1987.
2.1-42                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
 117.   A. J. Fossa, et al., Phase I Resource Recovery Facility Emission Characterization Study,
        Overview Report, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY,
        May 1987.

 118.   Telephone communciation between D. DeVan, Oneida ERF, and M. A. Vancil, Radian
        Corporation.  April 4, 1988. Specific collecting area of ESPs.

 119.   G. M. Higgins, An Evaluation Of Trace Organic Emissions From Refuse Thermal Processing
        Facilities (North Little Rock, Arkansas; Mayport Naval Station, Florida; And Wright Patterson
        Air Force Base, Ohio), Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid
        Waste by Systech Corporation, July 1982.

 120.   R. Kerr, et al., Emission Source Test Report—Sheridan Avenue RDF Plant, Answers (Albany,
        New York), Division of Air Resources,  New York State Department of Environmental
        Conservation, August 1985.

 121.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
        Section 2.1, Refuse Combustion, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1993.

 122.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
        Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

 123.   Control Techniques For Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Stationary Sources, AP-65,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March  1970.

 124.   Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
        Triangle Park, NC, 1967.

 125.    J. DeMarco, et al., Incinerator Guidelines 1969,  SW. 13TS, U. S.  Environmental Protection
        Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1969.

 126.    Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information For Proposed Guidelines For Existing
        Facilities, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        EPA-450/3-89-27e, August 1989.

 127.    Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information for Proposed Standards:  Control Of
        NOX Emissions U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
        EPA-450/3-89-27d, August 1989.

 127.    J. O. Brukle, et al., "The Effects Of Operating Variables And Refuse Types On Emissions
        From A Pilot-scale Trench Incinerator," Proceedings of the 1968 Incinerator Conference,
        American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, May 1968.

 128.    W. R. Nessen, Systems Study Of Air Pollution From Municipal Incineration, Arthur D.  Little,
        Inc., Cambridge, MA, March 1970.

 130.    C. R. Brunner, Handbook Of Incineration Systems, McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp. 10.3-10.4, 1991.

 131.   Telephone communication between K. Quincey, Radian Corporation, and E. Raulerson,
       Florida Department of Environmental Regulations, February 16, 1993.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Solid Waste Disposal                               2.1-43

-------
 132.   Telephone communication between K. Nebel and K. Quincey, Radian Corporation, and
       M. McDonnold, Simonds Manufacturing, February 16, 1993.

 133.   Telephone communication between K. Quincey, Radian Corporation, and R. Crochet, Crochet
       Equipment Company, February 16 and 26,  1993.

 134.   Telephone communication between K. Quincey, Radian Corporation, and T. Allen, NC
       Division of Environmental Management, February 16, 1993.
2.1-44                             EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

-------
2.2  Sewage Sludge Incineration

        There are approximately 170 sewage sludge incineration (SSI) plants in operation in the
United States.  Three main types of incinerators are used:  multiple hearth, fluidized bed, and electric
infrared.  Some sludge is co-fired with municipal solid waste in combustors based on refuse
combustion technology (see Section 2.1).  Refuse co-fired with sludge in combustors based on sludge
incinerating technology is limited to multiple hearth incinerators only.

        Over 80 percent of the identified operating sludge incinerators are of the multiple hearth
design.  About IS percent are fluidized bed combustors and 3 percent are electric. The remaining
combustors co-fire refuse with sludge.  Most sludge incinerators are located in the Eastern
United States, though there are a significant number on the West Coast.  New York has the largest
number of facilities with 33.  Pennsylvania and Michigan have the next-largest numbers of  facilities
with 21 and 19 sites, respectively.

        Sewage sludge incinerator emissions are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart O
and 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts C and E. Subpart O in Part 60 establishes a New Source Performance
Standard for paniculate matter.  Subparts C and E  of Part 61—National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)—establish emission limits for beryllium and mercury,
respectively.

        In 1989, technical standards for the use and disposal  of sewage sludge were proposed as
40 CFR Part 503, under authority of Section 405 of the Clean Water Act.  Subpart G of this
proposed  Part 503 proposes to establish national emission limits for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and total hydrocarbons from sewage sludge incinerators.  The
proposed  limits for mercury and beryllium are based on the assumptions used in developing the
NESHAPs for these  pollutants, and no additional controls were proposed to be required.  Carbon
monoxide emissions  were examined, but no limit was  proposed.

2.2.1 Process Description1'2

        Types of incineration described in this  section  include:

        -  Multiple hearth,

        -  Fluidized bed, and

        -  Electric.

        Single hearth cyclone, rotary kiln,  and  wet air oxidation are also briefly discussed.

2.2.1.1  Multiple Hearth Furnaces -
        The multiple hearth furnace was originally  developed for mineral ore roasting nearly a
century  ago.  The air-cooled variation has been used to incinerate  sewage sludge since the 1930s.
A cross-sectional diagram  of a typical multiple hearth furnace is shown in Figure 2.2-1. The basic
multiple hearth furnace (MHF) is a vertically oriented  cylinder.  The outer shell is constructed of
steel, lined with refractory, and surrounds a series of horizontal refractory hearths. A hollow cast
iron rotating shaft runs through the center of the hearths.  Cooling air is introduced into the shaft


1/95                                  Solid Waste Disposal                                  2.2-1

-------
                                             COOLING AIR DISCHARGE

                                            FLOATING DAMPER
                                                        SLUDGE INLET
   FLUE GASES OUT
     DRYING ZONE
  COMBUSTION ZONE
    COOLING ZONE
    ASH DISCHARGE
                                                             RABBLE ARM
                                                             AT EACH HEARTH
                                                              COMBUSTION
                                                              AIR RETURN
                                                           RABBLE ARM
                                                           DRIVE
             COOLING AIR FAN
                 Figure 2.2-1. Cross Section of a Multiple Hearth Furnace
2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
 which extend above the hearths. Each rabble arm is equipped with a number of teeth, approximately
 6 inches hi length, and spaced about 10 inches apart.  The teeth are shaped to rake the sludge in a
 spiral motion, alternating in direction from the outside in, to the inside out, between hearths.
 Typically, the upper and lower hearths are fitted with four rabble arms, and the middle hearths are
 fitted with two.  Burners, providing auxiliary heat, are located in the sidewalls of the hearths.

         In most multiple hearth furnaces, partially dewatered sludge is fed onto the perimeter of the
 top hearth.  The rabble arms move the sludge through the incinerator by raking the sludge toward the
 center shaft where it drops through holes located at the center of the hearth.  In the next hearth the
 sludge is raked La the opposite direction. This process is repeated in  all of the subsequent hearths.
 The effect of the rabble motion is to break up solid material to allow  better surface contact with heat
 and oxygen.  A sludge depth of about 1 inch is maintained in each hearth at the design sludge flow
 rate.

         Scum may also be fed to one or more hearths of the incinerator. Scum is the material that
 floats on wastewater.  It is  generally composed of vegetable and mineral oils, grease, hair, waxes,
 fats,  and other materials that will float.  Scum may be removed from many treatment units including
 preaeration tanks, skimming tanks, and sedimentation tanks.  Quantities of scum are generally small
 compared to those of other wastewater solids.

        Ambient air is first ducted through the central shaft and its associated rabble arms. A
 portion, or all, of this air is then taken from the top of the shaft and recirculated into the lowermost
 hearth as preheated combustion air.  Shaft cooling air which is not circulated back into the furnace is
 ducted into the stack downstream of the air pollution control devices.  The combustion air flows
 upward  through the drop holes in the hearths, countercurrent to the flow of the sludge, before being
 exhausted from the top hearth.  Air  enters the bottom to cool the ash.  Provisions are usually made to
 inject ambient air directly into the middle hearths  as well.

        From the standpoint of the overall incineration process, multiple hearth furnaces can be
 divided into three zones.  The upper hearths  comprise the drying zone where most of the moisture in
 the sludge is evaporated.  The temperature in the drying zone is typically between 425 and 760°C
 (800 and 1400°F). Sludge  combustion occurs in the middle hearths (second zone) as the temperature
 is increased to  about 925°C (1700°F).  The combustion zone can be further subdivided into the
 upper-middle hearths where the volatile gases and  solids are burned, and the lower-middle hearths
 where most of the fixed carbon  is combusted. The third zone, made up of the lowermost hearth(s), is
 the cooling  zone.  In this zone the ash is cooled as its heat is transferred to the incoming combustion
 air.

        Multiple hearth furnaces are  sometimes operated with afterburners to further reduce odors and
 concentrations of unburned  hydrocarbons.  In afterburning, furnace exhaust gases  are ducted to a
 chamber where they are mixed with supplemental fuel and air and completely combusted.  Some
 incinerators have the flexibility to allow sludge to  be fed to a lower hearth, thus allowing the upper
 hearth(s) to function essentially as an afterburner.

       Under normal  operating condition, 50 to 100 percent excess air must be added to an MHF in
 order to  ensure complete combustion of the sludge. Besides enhancing contact between fuel and
 oxygen in the furnace, these relatively  high rates of excess air are necessary to compensate for normal
variations in both the organic characteristics of the sludge feed and the rate at which it enters the
incinerator.  When an inadequate amount of excess air is available, only partial oxidation of the
carbon will occur, with a resultant increase in emissions of carbon monoxide, soot, and hydrocarbons.
1/95                                  Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.2-3

-------
Too much excess air, on the other hand, can cause increased entrainment of particulate and
unnecessarily high auxiliary fuel consumption.

       Multiple hearth furnace emissions are usually controlled by a venturi scrubber, an
impingement tray scrubber, or a combination of both.  Wet cyclones and dry cyclones are also used.
Wet electrostatic precipitators (Wet ESPs) are being  installed as retrofits where tighter limits on
particulate matter and metals are required by State regulations.

2.2.1.2 Fluidized Bed Incinerators -
       Fluidized bed technology was first developed by the petroleum industry to be used for catalyst
regeneration.  Figure 2.2-2 shows the cross section diagram of a fluidized bed furnace.  Fluidized bed
combustors (FBCs) consist of a vertically oriented outer shell constructed of steel and lined with
refractory.  Tuyeres (nozzles designed to deliver blasts of air) are located at the base of the furnace
within a refractory-lined  grid. A bed of sand, approximately 0.75 meters  (2.5 feet) thick, rests upon
the grid.  Two general configurations can be distinguished on the basis of how the fluidizing air  is
injected into the furnace.  In the "hot windbox" design the combustion air is first preheated by
passing through a heat exchanger where heat is recovered from the hot flue gases. Alternatively,
ambient air can be injected directly into the furnace from a cold windbox.

       Partially dewatered sludge is fed into the lower portion of the furnace.  Air injected  through
the tuyeres, at pressures  of from 20 to 35 kilopascals (3 to 5 pounds per square inch gauge),
simultaneously fluidizes the bed of hot sand and the  incoming sludge.  Temperatures of 750 to 925 °C
(1400 to  1700°F) are maintained  in the bed. Residence times are typically 2 to 5 seconds.   As the
sludge burns, fine ash particles are carried out the top of the furnace.  Some sand is also removed in
the air stream; sand make-up requirements are on the order of 5 percent for every 300 hours of
operation.

       Combustion of the sludge occurs in  two zones.  Within the bed itself (Zone 1), evaporation of
the water and pyrolysis of the organic materials occur nearly simultaneously as the temperature of the
sludge is rapidly raised.  In the second zone (freeboard  area), the remaining free carbon and
combustible gases are burned.  The second zone functions  essentially as an afterburner.

       Fluidization achieves nearly ideal  mixing between the sludge and the combustion air and the
turbulence facilitates the  transfer of heat from the hot sand to the sludge.  The most noticeable impact
of the better burning atmosphere provided by a fluidized bed incinerator is seen in the limited  amount
of excess air required for complete combustion of the sludge. Typically, FBCs can achieve complete
combustion with 20 to 50 percent excess air, about half the excess air required  by multiple hearth
furnaces.  As a consequence, FBC incinerators have generally lower fuel requirements compared to
MHF incinerators.

       Fluidized bed incinerators most often have venturi scrubbers or venturi/impingement tray
scrubber  combinations for emissions control.

2.2.1.3 Electric Infrared Incinerators -
       The first electric infrared furnace was installed in 1975, and their  use is not common.
Electric infrared incinerators consist of a horizontally oriented, insulated furnace.  A woven wire belt
conveyor extends the length of the furnace and infrared heating elements are located in the roof above
the conveyor belt.  Combustion air is preheated by the flue gases and is injected into the discharge
end of the furnace. Electric infrared incinerators consist of a number of prefabricated modules,
which can be linked together to provide the necessary furnace length.  A cross section of an electric
furnace is shown in Figure 2.2-3.

2.2-4                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

-------
          SAND
          FEED
   THERMOCOUPLE
     SLUDGE
     INLET
FLUIDIZING
AIR
INLET
                                                  EXHAUST AND ASH
                                                      PRESSURE TAP
                                                      SIGHT
                                                      GLASS
                                                          BURNER
                         REFRACTORY
                             ARCH
WINDBOX
                                                  TUYERES

                                                 FUEL
                                                 GUN
                                                 PRESSURE TAP
*
                                                     STARTUP
                                                     PREHEAT
                                                     BURNER
                                                     FOR HOT
                                                     WINDBOX
1/95
            Figure 2.2-2.  Cross Section of a Fluidized Bed Furnace

                        Solid Waste Disposal
                                     2.2-5

-------
                                      o
                                      o
                        .a 5
                        5 i

                        S J
                          ^   §
                        f
                     2  1
                  K £ X ui
                                     m
                                                       0>


                                                       J
                                      *  1
      • I
      ! I
 1
 05

 
                                                                                  2
                                                                                  o




                                                                                  ts



                                                                                  Ui
                                                                                  3


                                                                                  tu
                                      M 3
                                      « a
2.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
         The dewatered sludge cake is conveyed into one end of the incinerator.  An internal roller
 mechanism levels the sludge into a continuous layer approximately one inch thick across the width of
 the belt. The sludge is sequentially dried and then burned as it moves beneath the infrared heating
 elements. Ash is discharged into a hopper at the opposite end of the furnace. The preheated
 combustion air enters the furnace above the ash hopper and is further heated by the outgoing ash.
 The direction of air flow is countercurrent to the movement of the sludge along the conveyor.
 Exhaust gases leave the furnace at the feed end.  Excess air rates vary from 20 to 70 percent.

         Compared to MHF and FBC technologies, the electric infrared furnace offers the advantage of
 lower capital cost, especially for smaller systems. However,  electricity costs in some areas may make
 an electric furnace infeasible.  One other concern is replacement of various components such as the
 woven wire belt and infrared heaters, which have 3- to 5-year lifetimes.

         Electric infrared incinerator emissions are usually controlled with a venturi scrubber or some
 other wet scrubber.

 2.2.1.4 Other Technologies -
         A number of other technologies have been used for incineration of sewage sludge,  including
 cyclonic reactors, rotary kilns, and wet oxidation reactors. These processes are not in widespread use
 in the United States and will be discussed only briefly.

         The cyclonic reactor is designed for small capacity applications.  It is constructed of a vertical
 cylindrical chamber that is lined with refractory. Preheated combustion air is introduced into the
 chamber tangentially at high velocities.  The sludge is sprayed radially toward the hot refractory
 walls.  Combustion is rapid:  The residence time of the sludge in the chamber is on the order of
 10 seconds.  The ash is removed with the flue gases.

        Rotary kilns are also generally used for small capacity applications. The kiln is inclined
 slightly from  the horizontal plane,  with the upper end receiving both the sludge feed and the
 combustion air.  A burner is located  at the lower end of the kiln.  The circumference of the kiln
 rotates  at a speed of about 15 centimeters (cm) per second (6 inches per second). Ash is deposited
 into a hopper located below the burner.

        The wet oxidation process is  not strictly one of incineration; it instead utilizes oxidation at
 elevated temperature and pressure in the presence of water (flameless combustion).  Thickened
 sludge, at about 6 percent solids, is first ground and mixed with a stoichiometric amount of
 compressed air.  The slurry is then pressurized.   The mixture is then circulated through a series of
 heat exchangers before entering a pressurized reactor.  The temperature of the reactor is held between
 175 and 315°C (350 and 600°F).  The pressure is normally 7,000 to  12,500 kilopascals (1,000 to
 1,800 pounds per square inch grade).  Steam is usually used for auxiliary heat. The water  and
 remaining ash are circulated out the reactor and are finally separated in a tank or lagoon. The liquid
 phase is recycled to the treatment plant.  Offgases must be treated to eliminate odors:  wet  scrubbing,
 afterburning, or carbon absorption may be used.

 2.2.1.5  Co-incineration and  Co-firing -
        Wastewater treatment plant sludge generally has a high water content and in some cases,
 fairly high levels of inert materials.  As a result,  its net fuel value is often low.  If sludge is combined
 with other combustible materials in a co-incineration scheme, a furnace feed can  be created that has
both a low water concentration and a  heat value high enough to sustain combustion with little or no
supplemental fuel.
1/95                                  Solid Waste Disposal                                  2.2-7

-------
        Virtually any material that can be burned can be combined with sludge in a co-incineration
 process.  Common materials for co-combustion are coal, municipal solid waste (MSW), wood waste
 and agriculture waste. Thus, a municipal or industrial waste can be disposed of while providing an
 autogenous (self-sustaining) sludge feed, thereby solving two disposal problems.

        There are two basic approaches to combusting sludge with MSW:  (1) use of MSW
 combustion technology by adding dewatered or dried sludge to the MSW combustion unit, and (2) use
 of sludge combustion technology by adding processed MSW as a supplemental fuel to the sludge
 furnace.  With the latter, MSW is processed by removing noncombustibles, shredding, air classifying,
 and screening. Waste that is more finely processed is less likely to cause problems such as severe
 erosion of the hearths, poor temperature control, and refractory failures.

 2.2.2 Emissions And Controls1"3

        Sewage sludge incinerators potentially emit significant quantities of pollutants.  The major
 pollutants emitted are: (1) paniculate matter, (2) metals, (3) carbon monoxide (CO), (4) nitrogen
 oxides (NOX), (5) sulfur dioxide (SO2), and (6) unburned hydrocarbons.  Partial combustion of sludge
 can result in emissions of intermediate products of incomplete combustion (PIC), including toxic
 organic compounds.

        Uncontrolled paniculate emission rates vary widely depending on the type of incinerator, the
 volatiles and moisture content of the sludge,  and the operating practices employed.  Generally,
 uncontrolled particulate emissions are highest from fluidized bed incinerators because suspension
 burning results in much of the ash being carried out of the incinerator with the flue gas.
 Uncontrolled emissions from multiple hearth and fluidized bed incinerators are extremely variable,
 however. Electric incinerators appear to have the  lowest rates of uncontrolled particulate release of
 the three major furnace types, possibly because the sludge is not disturbed during firing.  In general,
 higher airflow rates increase the opportunity  for paniculate matter to be entrained in the exhaust
 gases.  Sludge with low volatile content or high moisture content may compound this situation by
 requiring more supplemental  fuel to burn.  As more fuel is consumed, the amount of air flowing
 through the incinerator is also increased.  However, no direct correlation has been established
 between airflow  and paniculate emissions.

        Metal  emissions are affected by metal content of the sludge, fuel bed temperature, and the
 level of paniculate matter  control.  Since metals which are volatilized in the combustion zone
 condense in the exhaust gas stream, most metals (except mercury) are associated with fine paniculate
 and are  removed as the fine particulates are removed.

        Carbon monoxide  is formed when available oxygen is insufficient for complete combustion or
when excess air levels are too high, resulting in lower combustion temperatures.

       Emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides are primarily the result of oxidation of nitrogen and
 sulfur in the sludge. Therefore, these emissions can vary greatly based on  local  and seasonal sewage
 characteristics.

       Emissions of volatile organic  compounds (VOC) also vary greatly with incinerator type and
operation.  Incinerators with countercurrent airflow such as multiple hearth designs  provide the
greatest opportunity for unburned hydrocarbons to be emitted.   In the MHF, hot air and wet sludge
feed are contacted at the top of the  furnace. Any compounds distilled from the solids are immediately
vented from the furnace at temperatures too low to completely destruct them.
2.2-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

-------
        Paniculate emissions from sewage sludge incinerators have historically been controlled by wet
 scrubbers, since the associated sewage treatment plant provides both a convenient source and a good
 disposal option for the scrubber water.  The types of existing sewage sludge incinerator controls range
 from low pressure drop spray towers and wet cyclones to higher pressure drop venturi scrubbers and
 venturi/impingement tray scrubber combinations.  Electrostatic precipitators and baghouses are
 employed primarily where sludge is co-fired with municipal solid waste. The most widely used
 control device applied to a multiple hearth incinerator is the impingement tray scrubber.  Older units
 use the tray scrubber  alone while combination venturi/impingement tray scrubbers are widely applied
 to newer multiple hearth incinerators and to fluidized bed incinerators.  Most electric incinerators and
 many fluidized bed  incinerators use venturi scrubbers only.

        In a typical  combination venturi/impingement tray scrubber, hot gas exits the incinerator and
 enters the precooling or quench section of the scrubber.  Spray nozzles in the quench section cool the
 incoming gas and the  quenched gas then  enters the venturi section of the control  device.  Venturi
 water is usually pumped  into an inlet weir above the quencher.  The venturi water enters the scrubber
 above the throat and floods the throat completely.  This eliminates build-up of solids and reduces
 abrasion. Turbulence created by high gas velocity in the converging throat section deflects some of
 the water traveling down the throat into the gas stream.  Paniculate matter carried along with the gas
 stream impacts on these water panicles and on the water  wall.  As the scrubber water and flue gas
 leave the venturi section, they pass into a flooded elbow where  the stream velocity decreases,
 allowing the water and gas to separate.  Most venturi sections come equipped with variable throats.
 By restricting the throat area within the venturi, the linear gas velocity is increased and the pressure
 drop is subsequently increased.  Up to a  certain point, increasing the venturi pressure drop increases
 the removal  efficiency.  Venturi  scrubbers typically maintain 60 to 99 percent removal efficiency for
 paniculate matter, depending on pressure drop and panicle size distribution.

        At the base of the flooded elbow, the gas stream passes through  a connecting duct to the base
 of the impingement tray tower.  Gas velocity is further reduced upon entry to the tower as the gas
 stream passes upward  through the perforated impingement trays. Water usually enters the trays from
 inlet ports on opposite sides  and  flows across the tray.  As gas passes  through each perforation  in the
 tray, it creates a jet which bubbles up the water and further entrains solid particles.  At the top of the
 tower  is a mist eliminator to reduce the carryover of water droplets in the stack effluent gas. The
 impingement section can  contain from one to four trays, but most systems for which data are
 available have two or three trays.

       Emission factors and emission factor ratings for multiple hearth sewage sludge incinerators
 are shown in Tables 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3,  2.2-4, and 2.2-5. Tables 2.2-6, 2.2-7, and 2.2-8 present
 emission factors for  fluidized bed sewage sludge incinerators.  Table 2.2-9 presents the available
 emission factors for  electric infrared incinerators.  Tables 2.2-10 and 2.2-11 present the cumulative
particle size distribution and  size-specific emission factors for sewage sludge incinerators.
Figure 2.2-4, Figure 2.2-5, and Figure 2.2-6 present cumulative particle size distribution and size-
specific emission factors for multiple-hearth, fluidized-bed, and  electric infrared incinerators,
respectively.
1/95                                  Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.2-9

-------
to
to
        Table 2.2-1 (Metric And English Units). CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH SEWAGE
                                             SLUDGE INCINERATORS8
Source Category*5
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Filterable Paniculate Matter (PM)
kg/Mg
5.2E+01

2.0 E+00
4.0 E-01
2.5 E-01
3.1 E-01

2.0 E-03
7.0 E-01
1.6 E+00

1.1 E+00
2.0 E-01

Ib/ton
1.0 E+02

4.0 E+00
8.0 E-01
5.0 E-01
6.2 E-01

4.0 E-03
1.4 E+00
3.2 E+00

2.2 E+00
4.0 E-01

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E
E
D
E

E
B
B

A
E

Sulfur Dioxide (SOj)
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg Ib/ton RATING
1.4E+01 2.8E+01 B

2.8 E+00 5.6 E+00 E





3.2 E-01 6.4 E-01 D
2.3 E+00 4.6 E+00 E

1.0 E-01 2.0 E-01 E


Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)C
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg Ib/ton RATING
2.5 E+00 5.0 E+00 C













V)
1— 4
o
z
T)
8
c/2
 Ul

-------
                                                                       Table 2.2-1 (cont.).

Source Category
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/
impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/
afterburner
Vent u ri/impingement
Venturi/impingement/
Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Carbon Monoxide (CO)C
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg Ib/ton RATING
1.55 E+01 3.1 E+01 C














Leadd

kg/Mg Ib/ton
5.0E-02 l.OE-01

3.0E-02 6.0E-02

3.0 E-03 6.0 E-03
1.1 E-02 2.2E-02

1.0 E-03 2.0 E-03

2.0 E-02 4.0 E-02
9.0E-04 1.8 E-03
5.0 E-02 l.OE-01
3.0 E-02 6.0 E-02

9.0E-05 1.8E-04
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E

E
E

E

E
E
E
B

E
Methane
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg Ib/ton RATING









3.9 E-01 7.8 E-01 E
3.2E+00 6.4E+00 E




Total Nonmethane Organic
Compounds
EMISSION
FACTOR
kg/Mg Ib/ton RATING
8.4 E-01 1.7E+00 D

1.5E+00 3.0E+00 E

2.2 E-01 4.4 E-01 E




7.8 E-01 1.6E+00 E





a Units are pollutants emitted of dry sludge burned. Source Classification Code 5-01-005-15. Blanks indicate no data.
b Wet ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
c Uncontrolled emission factors for NOX and CO apply to all air pollution control device types.
d Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
00
o,


ol
 2
 5?'
*a
 o
 VJ
 e.
 to

 to

-------
 S

 2
 §
 i
 g
 U.
 CO
 g.
 2
 EoZ
 ii
 w -1
 <«S
 2S
 «g
 sS
  c W
 D co
 j=

  u

  I
  -
a






^•x
o'
CO
£
t2-
1
1
5
















2og
*§g
s£3
S fc
1
£


1
~3)
.M

Z QX „
2o§
8£g
c <• •<
322



£


&0
s
~M









x
s>»
u
g>
w
(3
u
a
§
CO



U W U U


$ $ $ S
u u u u
q q q o

| o | |
1 I 1 111
1 •§ 1 1 i 1 1 1
•8 1 1 I 1 1 | fill
"§3 slls o"r a-c^'c^^
•S"3jJJj£-n S22332
oisoooo S%>%>%>>J2't5c<«iuiuuu
e suuuuwi2.S>>>>>
D U





cd
to
•o
o
a>
3
^o
*r^
v^
U9
2.
g
S
wS
1
!
o
in

rti
Sn «-"
fl
•a -a
?^'o
•S 2
i*-c D.
0 0
"8 'S
4_* *j
4.^ 5/5
S 2
S ts
« «
1 M
Cv +*»
3 %
111
£ cu
Sw
5/3 *^
.t5 *->
5*
a s>




















tl
•~
X
e
<3
%>
Q
4)
"^

.S
••^
1
£2

C/3
S
CQ
4_»
1
L^
'S
CA
O
1
K
o
2.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
   UL,
   O
   N
   Z
   w
   PQ

   S &3




   ^1


   11
   U nj

   Q O
   Z Q
   < 3

   Q CO

   Q W
   CJ O
   V LlJ
   gco
     U
   c Z_
  D Z


  $ 55
  •3if3
  •SB
  «S



  co

  CN




  2

  H
O
Z
ii
w ui
oa j
5Ss
gl
£s
^ oi
S ^
<£
e
u
<
tu
ISSION
S
w


Q
Q
CL,
•*-•
£




Q
Q
O
1




O
Q
Q
O
H
**!
 C "*^
1 11
|> -c £ 2
•S 3 2 °<
& C S 0 u,
£  4> q> 3> c^ !^
C C C C O ..
o o o o is •-
"3 "3 "3 "3 g ^
u o o o S £

9
w
•*
r-'

S
t~;
co'
00
9
w
VO
10

o
oo
cs
0V
^5
W
0
^


9
u
p
w>






c
60 i-
c s
II


















^5 ^5
W W
OO O
— I -
«
S S
O) OJ
s s
O> D
60 60
"S. "S.
.S J
W UM
3 3
4—* •*— >
C C
1> <1>
> >





























D-
CO
OJ
aS
4-*
§
(1)
60
'S,
J^
s
"c
>

































CO
W
|
u-
3
4~*
>

1/95
                          Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-13

-------
  CO
  cs



Q
Q
8
"3
£





Q
Q
O
3
H





Q
Q
U
2
0
H

















e
2
£



bo
S
^


§
•4-*
£



1

a!

.
S
^
"~"


bO

^
a.



>>
S
bo
S'
s
CJ
ource (
C/3




^
u
Tf
r~


S
+
tt]
r-
CO

9
w
oo
vo

CS
0
W
Tt
co
§
W
^j.
_•


o
+
w
oo
VO










1 "8 <
C s '
c 2 j
§ i j
P O

9
BJ
oo
*o


s
+
w
Tfr
CO

W
VO
^4


9
w
o
oo

















4»*
c
§
1 1
& s
1 1
2 I J
J 0 0
5" o" u4

oo
9
w
r-
VO


o
+
w
—
CO
00
9
w
oo
(S


0
W
Tt
'H
?
u
oo
oo

O
O
+
W
•*
"*

^
§
1

bo O
0 -*->
'S. .ts
C <^H
+•»
§ .- *-
o> to 5*3
"o o ^
o S £


^
u
-<
«-H


o
+
w
co
•0
r~-
S
>n
^j


o
U
CO
r-'
oo
9
U4
oo
•*'


O
+
u
"*
cs









g3
I.
1 1

oo
9
W
TJ-
cs


O
+
CN
*"M
OO
9
w
VO
^J.'


o
w
CO
ri
i

CN
^


0
+
UJ
0
VO
c
Ur
!3
<5
f^t
c3
^_»

1
O)
bo
'5,
.E
3
1

oo
9
w
oo
CO


5
id
Ov
^"*
OO
S
0
CO


o
W
in
'-
oo
9

VO
r-'


0
+
UJ
oo
CO






^^

CD
bo
"5.
,S
3
0)

































OH
C/3
u
s
•^1
^^
^^
c










































OH
(X!
U
^!>
^
•4— t

2.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
   O
  cs
  cs*
    "5
c e

"o *o
^•» ^»
U O

oo
S
cs
cs
o
U
•— «
^^
I
p
•— '

o
U
p
10
oo
9
u
i— <
•-H


8
u
X£5





'u^
3
c
e

13

5j

r--
S
—

o
U
r-
m
1
00
c«i

S
U
oo
^H












c
i
§»
1
*Ui
^_>

^J
U






























0
•I— »
!£•
Ui
O u.
2 u

O ^
(^ *7rt
UJ U-

1
cs
r-'
S
U
vq
ro
U
Tf
^

8
u
p
r-'
t-~
9
u
\q



8
u
oo






1
1
60 i-i
.£ 3

c ^
£ ^

1
vo
cs'
S
W
m
'""'
§
p
r-'

§
W
u^
pn
r-
<=?
U
_
_ -'


3
a
5
S3
c
3
"S

ingement
f
w.
S
c
0)
>

S
VO
cs'
S
U
PO
*~*
U
cs
— <

8
PJ
p
VO
OO
9
U
cs



0
W
5





ingement
t
(^
2
S




























Q.
en
to
•4-»
^
ingement
ex
J^
•4—*
c

>































D.
U
i
^
3
€
4>
>

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-15

-------
  1
  CO
  4>




0
Q
8
1
p*




B<
Q
o.
X
I





o
tt.
Q
U
X
2
^*















e
•§
£



1
'bb
5S.


^
£>



bo
S

3.


|
^



bo
$
a!





J3^
W^
bO
2
U
z
Z
CO





^
U
oo
o\


8
W
ON
>


8
w
oo
Tt'

W
q
(N


O
W
o\
0\







s

1
o
c
^





































^
/impingemen
_^ a) a)
111
o "o 73
S u" u"
o
u

1
u
Tt
—• '


9
u
q
r-'
?
U
oo
—


9
u
q
»

W
oo
vd


8
u
Tt
CO







/venturi
4>
e
73



9
U
NO
CO


8
u
00
•^
?
U
oo
•n


8
W
o\
ri

W
vq
CO


8
tu
oo
*~*


•*— »
c
 t-i
M 2
.5 CO
/venturi/impi
tatic precipit
liter
a> ia <4-i
c o 0
ill
u tu u.



9
w
q
CO


s
W
10
—
§
u
o
•*


8
w
q
(N

S
(S)
(S


S
[^
~M
^•H







+-»
CD

1


oo
9
VI
IT)
-H


8
u
r-
r-'
?
U
vo
<^


o
W
oo
•*'

W

^


O
BJ
00
^
S

l-
3
J3
S
1
impingemeni

U. V-i
1 1
Q> 4>
> >


oo
9
w
CO
— '


8
u
CO
vd
oo
9
W
ts
oo


0
W
—
.*'
r-
9
w
_
__'


O
W
r-
>n







Smpingemeni
-^fc
Ui
3
S
>


































OM
CO

Uw
«J
•>:
impingemeni

Ui
3

-------
                                                                  Table 2.2-3 (cont.).
Source Category1*
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Total Tetra- through Octa- CDD
jig/Mg
8.5 E+02



5.6 E+00
1.1 E+02


1.8 E+02

3.1 E+02
2.7 E+02


Ib/ton
1.7E-06



1.1 E-08
2.2 E-07


3.6 E-07

6.2 E-07
5.4 E-07


Total Tetra- through Octa- CDF
/xg/Mg
3.8 E+03



6.6 E+01
2.5 E+02


1.5 E+03

4.6 E+02
9.3 E+02


Ib/ton
7.6E-06



1.3 E-07
5.0 E-07


3.0E-06

9.2 E-07
1.9E-06


00
 D
 VI
T3
 O
 C/J
 SL
        a Units are pollutant emitted of dry sludge burned.  Source Classification Code 5-01-005-15.  Blanks indicate no data.
        b Wet ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
        0 Hazardous  air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
 JO
 to

-------
  S
  OH
  C/5
  Z

  O
  h^
  &o
  CO
  y c/j
  z «
  30
  Pb:
  Q. 

BO
00




-
Source Category



























Q
9

CN
—
9
tu
0
\d




"o
1
P
w



^
1
tu
q
oo
9

q
Ui



^
S
V£5
^1


9
w
cs

U W
m -^
9 9
w w
00 •*
«*» -
o
+ 9
Ul W
9^ ^^
-: t-;

^
c
g
60 O
•a -S «
1 If
w> -c -c £
•R 2 2 &
fr C g o u,
"S g 1 1 1 § E
=3 1 I 1 o § -8
*-" O O O O X _D
^2 ?>^ *»* !^» !is. ** ^1*
§ u" o" u" u* S t£
u




10
q
W
q
\d
s
u
q














u
9

oo
(N
O
O
w
•*
—"
t-l
u
E
3
S
;ement
i
•i/impingement/afl
'111
£ > >





io
9
u
o
r-i
9
PJ
q














Q
9
UJ
fS)
-^
9
—
VO




•i/impingement
3
1



































CM
00

^3
•i/impingement/W
3
1






































cu
oo
u
•^
1

2.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------

   cs
   u
   I
§p§
E2 U f-
| §2S
1 §
1 l
Q
Tfr^
61

"eS»
ogg
co H r3
co rj H
« 3 <; •<
•2 <
"S £
s

*" 60
25
"So
2 o i
co U P
« a < <
g wfe*

S ^
o 2
^3 _5
o £-
5
eo
2
"5b

.c
^>
o
s°
CJ
CD
1
CO


W W

I 9
W pq
oo' _;


9 9
u u
5 5

w
9
q
I-H
>>>>>!>%j cs
6 oUUUUWtt.
D U

tu

1
00


»-H
O
tu
^

U]
1
q
•*

9
w
o\
a,
pj
4»»
^
•^^ ^^
§ § §
e s s
Q> 
OO 00 60
^ e c c
i tit t
a -B ^l -c ^
.S 2 II 2 2



































0.
CO
U
Venturi/Wet

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-19

-------
  cs
  cs
   H
§22
|
S

60
S
"5b
ogg
*y?
§22
s

60
"So
|gi
*Sg
822
0
£

60
S
"So



.O
&
O
60
1
O
1
o
CO
















w
9
u
o)
*-H
8
w
o
VO



•S
— "P
S J
*i ^5
§ 5
c §
^> U
ttt
9
w
Tf
vo*
8
U
«s
t*i
W
?
U
r>l
t»5
9
w
VO
U U
^ f>
9 9
w u
vo •*
l> C^
8
9 +
u w
oo ra
en --
S
c I
 S ^3
111 II
1 i 1 1 ii
t S S 1 1 | ft
'^«. ^** "*"*. ii I .M K i"* ^^
O flJ >>





















a.
CO
U
IS
/impingement/^
•c
3
1
>























a,
CO
W
'S
'C
S
u
>

2.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
  I
  t
  ts




o
§
CO






0
1
Q
"jJS
q








S
•a
1




^
g~* z
5
w fe
1
.c

60
«
60

ogg
l&l
s£5
W * *
d
2
£

60
^^
6C


||g
M C P
W ^

2
*
60
S
~60




,-v.
0
60
a
4)
a
§
CO



Q

1
(S
~
8
U]
oo
vi
U


9
U]
q
«n
o
U

v>
ts

W

M
w
q
o
m
VI
N





ncontrolled
ontrolled
D U


m to u4

S S S
U3 (JQ tl]
q oo •*
f" r4 tn
9 ? 9
pj W W
 o\
-- •*

W

O

—
o
w
•*
^

1
1
« -S* 1 75
g & -g. §
M -c -c S S>
•S 3 2 & „ e
| g g -2 S g '|g
•< -S -5 S ~ E •= E
Oi  (^ « t*3 fl> ._- ^i •-*
JJ1J1-H.S22-S
^^^^^•gg-gS'S
UUUUWl2«>>



Q

9
ri
•-"
8
u
ro
VO
U


9
u
•*
*>
0
U

P-;
-•

U

o
UJ
q
8
U]
r~
ON




ngemeni
Venturi/impi


































OH
CO
U
0»
^
ngemeni
Venturi/impi






































0.
CO
W
Venturi/Wet

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-21

-------
  "3-
  cs
  CN
  CD

0
0)
•O
•c
O
^
1
t—1
a

u




0)

O
g
|
J3
0
1
g
a
CD



°3
.2
cd

A
*>>
g
J3
1
5
«j
3


§
HH
co
CO
HH
2
u

tA O
8^
S?
^2
M-4 MH

n
2
25



Z
O
CO
CO
iii
s
u
60
s
"So
% o
2 S
U H
y 5


a
2
2j
eo
S
"5b
§
CO
£2
§
U
% O
O 17
r '-'
^5
^^
MH '"*H
1
25















CJ3
S
"So




.0
£•
0
60
(U
a
0
tj
!
t/3


w




*/%
9
u
o

r-i
?
U
q
i-H

W




9
w
q
od

9
u
o
Tf

u


n
q
W
o\
^

q
a
m
o\







ncontrolled
ontrolled
D U












































•a
c
D
1
00
Cyclone
Cyclone/imp


u




9
u
't

^H
s
u
q
p~














u


9
PJ
q
od
fS
9
w
q
•«3-

•«^
g
1 .
00 0
•S «
0. -5
.6 .&
•c ^ ^
2 3 &
Mil
1111
U U j! 1
U U W tu


U]




NO
9
u
q

r-5
w
9
u
q

ia




C^l
9
w
q
fi

8
UJ
10
V-H


















' 	 .
D
!
60
s 'II
6 II
a -c -c|
e 3 3 S3
c, c c c:
g . £ „


Q




9
u
q

vd
9
u
q
f>














w


s
UJ
Tf
vd

9
w
cs
en






ngemeni
Venturi/impi








































a,
CO
W
u
fe
^
ngemeni
Venturi/impi














































a,
&o
UJ
Venturi/Wet

2.2-22
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
                                                                         Table 2.2-4 (cont.).
Source Category15
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Chlorobenzene0
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
7.5 E-01 1.5 E-03 E



6.0E-03 1.2E-05 E




4.2 E+00 8.4 E-03 E
2.6 E-01 5.2 E-04 E
6.0 E-01 1.2 E-03 E


Chloroform0
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
3.0 E-02 6.0 E-05 E



2.0 E-02 4.0 E-05 E




3.3 E+00 6.6 E-03 E
4.9 E-01 9.8 E-04 E
1.3 E+00 2.6 E-03 D


00
o_

ex


3

»-f

-------
  c
  o
  Tt


  ts
  CD
°»
>2
—
ji»
2
1






0
•o
s>".
•s

"3
g
o






°s
N
O
£
^




| EMISSION |
1 FACTOR 1
| RATING |
1




i
1

U




a:
^
^

00
2
00

O
P
OS

1


o
in

o
00

C8
"
o
00

U]
CJ
cp
w
2
8
U
— <
vd














n


en
9
w
\o
-•
9
w
q
CO









ncontrolled
ontrolled
P U










U



m
9
U
vq
c4

8
U]
2

OQ



9
w
0
vd
9
w
q
w

'S
§
 -c "c S
•S 2 2 °<
e< c c o t.
g u U -J »
^5 -C -C 5 "S
U O U 1) CA tfe*
§ § § § 2 .g
U "E "E "R ^ -s
u o u u w i2

*
fS
9

cs
8
w
— <
NO

U




Cp
U
q
oo*

9
w
q

W



-------

   cs
ill
1
I i
at
z
00
"eb

£2 U P
'§ W
c
m o

-------
   ,

1
1
f


o
1
i£




o
<0
S
>*
•S
1
IS
a
PL,



53 H 6
£3 U &-1
|
£
60
"So
co u P
1
«o

60
"So
J2 U H
•g ^> 5
^1 (JH ^*^


g
|



60
)2
"So



1?
1
2
CO





w
9
U]
Tf
"*
0
s
w




9
q
od


9
U]
q





Uncontrolled
Controlled


I
Tt
+
rs
«
9
VO
rn
8
CO
U W




? ?
q q
VA ^-


9 9

q q
IX
•JS CO
g W
1 u 3!
60 O ^
ill 1 I 1 ,,
.1 -g i I 1 1 1 1
II ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0«3a3a3«lS u — "5 •* "5 "5 ;s
SCBBO.^eoCC'PuCc
2.2.2.2.— -C-S22S222
^.^^.^^•S §*§ §*« § § §
JuouSi2£>> >>>
2.2-26
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

-------
   o
   o


o


5 «J o
2 o g
oo H &
1<<
S"-02
o
JQ

00
2
00

j3
£^
O
f
«
1




w


1
o
00

9
w
q
PJ

s
w
oo
--
«S
cp
w
o
OX

Q oj

8 S
m w
>D \o
- *•
8 S
W UJ
oo tn
**
4) I*
60 0
I !|
til I
3 I 1 1 1 1
7? n\ Q) O 4) O tA ^^
w ^y ti CS C C O
*^ ^s O O O O ^* -r^
1 ! U 111 1
D U











Q

9
U)
q
00
r4
q
U)
O
TT

w w

ts M
9 9
uu a
O fn

1 S

vq vq



1
00
1 II
c 3 3 S
g- § §^
£ > >


w


w
o
o\

9
w
"^
to

S
w
q
—
ts
q
ta
q
^

Q

fS
9
w
t*)
—
8
to
5



ngement
"S.
3
C
































00
u
^
ngement/1
'5.
3
§



































A.
V3
a
«5
3
C
>

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-27

-------
  O
  o


.
I
1
X










1?
-
a
X*







_>
•c
2
U
*SL
c
>






0 £ °
« P z
50 K
|
—

60
*>?

60


ipi
WHS
£ u b
U fc *
c
•3
-



60
"So


Sis
co H g
co (j H
issss

d
.2
JS



60
2
00







o
60
1
U
9)
O
CO



W
9
w
s
^
9
w

*0
ON

















9 9
w w
**1 9
•••^ c4


8 8
w w
\O O

vo — <





4^
I
 
  •  > > > >






4
"O
o
c

•2
ns
I
M

5
i
in
o
9
9
"w
"8
CJ
c
.2
o
Jg
0
«
O
o
GO

•
S
"-1 •c
J§
M «-' -^
— 2 c

^ r^ i ^

•si^
<4M OH 
    -------
&       Table 2.2-5  (Metric And English Units). SUMMARY OF METAL EMISSIONS FROM MULTIPLE HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE

                                                  INCINERATORS3
Source Category1*
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingeraent
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/
afterburner
Venturi /impingement
Venturi/impingement/
Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Aluminum
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
2.4 E+02 4.8E-01 D

3.0 E-01 6.0E-04 E



3.8 E+02 7.6 E-02 E
6.8 E-01 E



9.2 E+01 1.8E-01 E


Antimony6
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
1.5 E+00 3.0 E-03 E

3.2 E-01 6.4 E-04 E



4.0 E-02 8.0 E-05 E
4.0 E-03 8.0 E-06 E



2.4 E-01 4.8 E-04 E


Arsenic6
g/Mg
4.7 E+00



1.0 E-01
8.5 E-01
1.2 E+00
3.0 E-03

5.0 E-02
4.0 E-02
6.1 E-01

6.0 E-01
Ib/ton
9.4 E-03



2.0 E-04
1.7 E-03
2.4 E-03
6.0 E-06

1.0 E-04
8.0 E-05
1.2 E-03

1.2 E-03
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B



E
E
E
E

E
E
B

E
CO
o^


cL°





I
r-*
CP


D
o
VI

EL
 to

 to
 to

    -------
  I

  IT)
  r]
  cs
   o>

  1
  H





o
•o
U






|
S*
CQ





a
•c
ea




O OH o
55 2 z
£2 Z £J p
S < <
U Bu Bfl
|
£

60
^5
00
5p
2 o ^
§ii
1
£

00
2
"So
log
eo H r5
£2 O fr"
|
£

00
^




_£
o
oo
o
oo






CQ


Ul
t~
m
O
w
J— 4


W
?
q
m
9
ID
!3

o
9
q
m
0
w
"1





3
"o 2
^ ^
5 i:
y c
5 6


Q UUtUWUtQU


§ III 1 1 I I
t vovo^-o^teso
m «s - « ci N ri so
? ?+99?9 +
W UJ W H W p:) W UU
£ S5^SS^°


Q
w
oo
""'
9
w
q

pg tQ tU
S S 8
i i i
w u u
q ^9
N •-" oo'
o _
^"^ ^3 C^i
9 +9
w u u
q -S 5 5 4i
§C (*M
	 ^ . ._ oi w
^J y ^J Qj yj [^ J2 ^ ^


w tu


tu u
so q
vo ri
1 9
W ti]
^ S


w
1
q
*•*
9

q

Q
f>
9
•*
SO
8
w
S




!l
00 00
c c
'S. "S.
1 !&
.;; .;; r.T.1
w u*
5 5 o
c c ^
•vT »^?



tu


ta
o
00
9

5





















Ou
S
1
•w
Cl
*sii

2.2-30
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------


*J
8
6







°s
'3
a
d





1
|3
«















log
8&P
12*
g
2
ja

60
2
~Bo

2§i
C/5 H •— •
c
•S
.0

60
"So

2 o z
t/5 H ~
w o H
g
•4J
S3

60
2
~5b





•^
o
3
g
§
oo


O

9
u
00
~*
9
u
0
o\

CO
8
V3
O\
^
O
^s-
~*

U
8
W
Tf
-*
g
UJ
q
^







3
*O w
•a ^
8 1
C 0
^ u


^
u
q
"*
9

o
^

Q W
9 ^
u u
oo o
tn oo
o
U HI
O\ O
— Tt

(I]
|

^
c4
8
tu
cs
^^





•t-*
 "aS
s s
u u
£ u



? 9
w w
vq c<
r^ «M
9 9
w tu
oo o
m vd

W U U3 10 U3
9 9 9 9 9
r ~\ FTI rTi fTi r i
O t~ OO O Ox
-- cs c4 oo <-!
:r o 8 pj 8
9 + + 9 +
u u] uu u u]
q -H •* q oo
«n" - - •* ox

W [i]
9 9
U} U
q \o
^ -
i 1

\n q
t*^ oo

*j
C
c
60 O
•5, 3
g '£,
32^ „
C C O hi C
"«5 ~i> •§ S §
O O Q r> pl
u* u* E [2 J5












u tu
8 8
w w
O oo
-^ Os
9 S
W UJ
o o\
^ Tt















1
i
^
- 11
3 3 «
II-

Q

^
U]
o
0\
9

>o
"*

U)
9
u
°J
"*
8
a
«
o
cs





1
1
1
'C
1












W
s
u

^
1
i
1
js
1












U]
9
[it
q
d
1
q
•**
















cu
00
U
1
1

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-31

    -------
  UJ


fj
s
1—1









•o
"o
O











I
c.
5j





| EMISSION |
1 FACTOR I
| RATING |
£



z
o
%
s
U




O
0
<,
B.
60
"So


2
P
O£

I





z
o
S3
go
U
g







U.

60
2
"So


z

2
1






















00
^5
60





1?
O
60
J
§
§
OO

O
8

Ul
»••*
--
g
vq
^


U


S
q
ve>
fv»
9
u
q
rn


OQ

9
tu
q
00
0
U
q
•*





ncontrolled
^
W U
W «S
9 9
W U
TT q
ci v»
8 S
W U
f- If)
- N


U


s
00
V— I
en
9

q
o\


U] U4 U]

f^ f*} ^^
999
WWW
•* 0 O
^ «S Tf
8 8 ~
+ + 9

r-; q q
ts -^ c4


I

oo o
I 1 I
1 1 1 1
III!
dR U Q) 4) to wa
"o o o o o i
i: o t3 o o y
§ u4 u" o4 u" 53
U
U]

cp
U
VO
•*
9
w
r4


U


tu
q
•*
m
9
u
q
«s


UJ

8
ti
0
•*
9
UQ
q
ts





S
s
o
1
U,

























u

s
U
q
00
9
U]
q
•*





Impingement
Venturi

























U3

9
rrt
ts
— "
8
Ui
OO
in
S
g
h*
1
I
as
Venturi/impingement/i

Q

q
w
^O
ON
o
H4
00
*


U


59
W
O
ri
cs
9

q
-"


Q

?
U
— i
—
8
w
VI
vi





Venturi/impingement

























U

8
U
o
cs
CM
9

q
—

a.
00
U
U
Venturi/impingement/1
Venturi/Wet ESP

2.2-32
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------

   ts
   ri
   o>
in
°l i
o ^
s
a
2
60

ill
s
'i 1
lo iS
CS ""
2
01

2
60

lit
60 <
§ £
S

1
"eb



X
C*
ff
3
o
CO

ta
9
Cl}
VO

8
[I]
to
ri
U U
9 ?
to u
00 00
r4 N
S 8
+ +
(U U
•*• •*
•^ •*
u w
1 1
o\ vq
^4 VO
8
+ 9
w w
•* m
o\ tn




*J
!
•8 1
| 1 § 1
1 ^ u u
J 1 u u
D U
U
9
fs|
r>
8
u
\o_
-*


















g
i
c
'a,
g
1 1
Cyclone/veni
Cyclone/veni

w
1
Ov

9
«
(^
e>
U U3
r* vr>
^5 ^?
oo o
-* vo
o
+ 9
(D U
oo o
OO to
U3 tQ
9 §
Tt O
vd —
«0
9 9
U] W
c4 o
to «X


i*
2
3
.'§•
B,
« « i .-
I •§ 1 1
.3 1 | |
u u, £ >•

pa
9
q

1

q
V)
Q
1
•*
00
8
+
PQ
C4
"*
Q
S
w
l>
rt

I
>/•>
oo
i Cu
g CO
« «
-5 ?
^ c c
1 1 i &!
c* c* s? W
II I i
3 3 ss a
** ** «rf «^
§ § S §

1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-33

    -------
•55





CU
Z ai

i£p
50 o
        60

       S

       "So
                   U]
                   9
                   w
                   U3
                 w
                         00
              9
              w

              q

              o\
    +

    W
                O
O w O

i£g
2 u b
         e


        1
                00
                 o

                   cs
                   o
                   oo

                   rn
                                         [I]
                 P4

                 9
                 W
                          cs

                          9
                          U]
                             8  j-
                              +9
                                       U]
                                O


                                U

                                o\
   e-i

   9
   U]
                                                      +
                                               o\
   2§i
   to H ?•
   S2 q b
            cu
         8
                   00
                   UJ
                BO
                 o
                                                            \o
                                                            9
                                                            tu

                                                            o
§>

'S
u

a

I
                             1*
•c

I
                                   §
                                   C  *^


                                   'I  1
                          8  -S
                                                   3
                                          §  S
                                             g
                                S
                   "3  jg

                   •   "
                                         —  6
'I '1 '1

                                                •n  'c


                                                c  e
                      o
2.2-34
                         EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                      1/95

    -------

   cs
   (1)




1
C/3







g
.y
CO






"i
1
^3
C/S



2 aj r,
Qoz
to H p3
32 0 H
S < 3
S fc "
|
x

o
"5

2 oi „
2 o i
co o P
I*2*
a
•S
.c

00
"So
r-p
2 P z
co H P
52 O h
i^*
|
*o

00
s
"So




.0
o
a
i


U


9
en
--
3
>n
vo

tu

9
w
oo
vo'
S
s

Q

9
^^
rn
o
U
!S






•§ ^
1 1
D U

W W U] W


99??
CS O O oo
-H H OO -^
99 9 9
Uj U fr] \i~\
o q q q
vo — -f' o"

W U

<») «S
9 9
w w
ra oo
ON OO
8 5
i 2

w w

Tt •*
9 9
u u
"t °i

S §
ia ds
>>





























(X
ri
W
•Jj
^
turi/impingement
§


































tun/Wet ESP
§
1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-35

    -------
  01
  ri
  0>


iS









IM
!S
CO









S
s
'"I
CO




Z
1
OH o
11
|
00
§
CO
2
U
OH (9
o P
< ^

I





1
CO
CO
S
u

eo
S
~5b

|S
o h

5
s*
is
u
o
CO


U
I
VO
O
W
rn
--

Q


^
u)

0
W
••t







ncontrolled
ontrolled
D U

U
I
tN
8
U]
Ov
<«

U


?
u
ON
en
_
O
U]
Ov
rt
w


en
9

vo
en'
8
U
oo




^
C
-I I
II
1> U «
III
"o "o "o
u* u' u


W
I
p
«P

*j
I
 2
'5. •§
£ '&.
p* p*<
Cyclone/ven
Electrostatic


U)
u
P
$
U4
p
cs

m


9

tN
-i
_
o
w
o
VO
-


>0
cp
ia
o
cs
3
W
p







Fabric filter
Impingemenl
Venturi

































S
c
.g
£
eg
'g
1
Venturi/impi


Q
9
vq
8
w
o\
r-'

tQ


9
u
tN
tN
tS
O
u
—
— <
o


cs
o
w
oo
rJ
O
u
2





'g
1
Venturi/impi

































cu
CO
U
ts
$
g
1
00
Venturi/impi







































0.
eo
U
Venturi/Wet

2.2-36
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                                                 Table 2.2-5 (cont.).
Source Category1*
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/
afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/Wet ESP
VenturiAVet ESP
Titanium
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
5.1E+01 l.OE-01 C

1.0 E-01 2.0 E-04 E



9.0 E-01 1.8 E-03 E
6.0E-03 1.2E-05 E



3.1 E+00 6.2 E-03 D


Vanadium
EMISSION
FACTOR
g/Mg Ib/ton RATING
3.3 E+00 6.6 E-03 C

3.0 E-01 6.0 E-04 E



9.9 E-01 2.0 E-03 E
2.0 E-03 4.0 E-06 E



8.0 E-01 1.6 E-03 E


Zinc
g/Mg
6.6 E+01
1.1 E+01


3.8 E+01

3.9 E-01
4.0 E-02

4.4 E+00
3.3 E+01
2.4 E+01

2.0 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton RATING
1.3 E-01 C
2.2 E-02 E


7.6 E-02 E

7.8 E-04 E
8.0 E-05 E

8.8 E-03 E
6.6 E-02 E
4.8 E-02 C

4.0 E-04 E
C/5
o
•o
o
en
CO
       a Units are pollutants emitted of dry sludge burned.  Source Classification Code 5-01-005-15.  Blanks indicate no data.

       b Wet ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.

       c Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
 to

 K>
 UO

    -------
   u
   o
   u
   CO


   S
   ffl

   Q
   U
   UH




   I


   S


   e
   o

   UH



   §-
   2«"

   co O
  UJ
     W
  I
  U
   S4
  UJ

  •o
   0>
  cs
  g
u


6




1




o

tu

z
o
co
J2

§

o
I
§
If
z



Q>
•o
"JJ
o
Q
u,
CO




1
C8
1
I













e
^

60
1?

Q

£



bo
J»
o
8?
13
CJ
»
U
Ul
§
CO


8
W
t-
9
u
oo
00
9
W

p
co


9
w
"1

S
u
S

+
u
3









I
"o "S
11
e o
D U















8
u
p

S
p



c
1
 4> -g q>
^^. "*^ "-^ *-» rz?
O 4) 4) 4) s^ ^4""
C C C C O u
__o ^o o _o to -J*
"3 "3 "3 "3 « ^
u" u" o* o" E2 tS







9 ? 9
UJ UJ M

p oo p
\o — • oo


9? 9
W UJ UJ
P  U
E E
u  C S
S '£, '5.
I .i •§
«> ._ ."S rs
I 1 1 1
g O) 4) 0>
S > > >
















9
UJ
p
oi

p
p


(X
UJ
4—1
1
4»>
(U
E

    -------
                                                               Table 2.2-6 (cont.).
Source Category1*
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Carbon Monoxide0 (CO)
kg/Mg Ib/ton
1.1E+00 2.1E+00













Leadd
kg/Mg Ib/ton
2.0 E-02 4.0 E-02






5.0E-06 l.OE-05
3.0 E-03 6.0 E-03


8.0 E-02 1.6E-01
l.OE-06 2.0E-06

Methane VOC
kg/Mg Ib/ton









1.6E+00 3.2E+00

4.0 E-01 8.0 E-01


in
o
Q,
o
VI
e.
       a Units are pollutants emitted of dry sludge burned.  Source Classification Code 5-01-005-16.
       b Wet ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
       c Uncontrolled Emission Factors for NOX and CO apply to all Air Pollution Control Device Types.
       d Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
to

    -------
  8

  ss
  o z
  o g
  5 w
  0 2
  Q »»
  Z W
  < O


  O W

  n °
  CJ ryl
    Q
   ~U
  •a
  ts
U
OS
a
2
CO
62

w
£
i
60
"55

_o
^,
O
I

S
CD
"S,
E



"S
1
o
o









C
^§
^^

(an
S
~£b

|
£


£>
S
~5b

c
,2
s



ao
S
ao
c
S
£
W>
1)


•a
i
"tj
1










-* — < O ON
99-79
w w w w
^^ ^5 ^5 ^"^
^4 v^ ^0 ^^

1 1 II

p p o es
vd •« to ri
S
W
p
vo

o

u
p
S
w
ri
?
W
^
/^"\ »*H
*^^ ^TJ/
2 «
c^ -0
^ § Q
l^sgg
S fr" U CJ
.a §> oo H s
t2 -a ^ w ca
1 s 3 £ £








ON ON Os O oo oo ON ON ON ^ *^ *™* ^ CS V^ *o
999V999999999999
WWUUWWWWWtQUJWoqWWW
OOOOVOOCSOCStSVOCSfOOOOCS-^O
— — OOTJ- — — oof^csu^ — TtTj-oocN —

r^t^-vop^vovovovo^o^^oo*— cOtspn
wwuwwwwwSSwwwwS9

O O CO O CS CS ^^ ^O CO VO ^" ^ O »"• CS O
ONOV^NVO^^ 	 ^X3 ^.-.
§§§|Vs88ll!Li|
££-S5^^££-B^S«§fg|
PJ Ss co'^co to w 
    -------
                                                                 Table 2.2-7 (cont.).
Pollutant
Chloroform15
Ethylbenzeneb
Methylene Chlorideb
Naphthalene15
Perchloroethyleneb
Toluene15
Trichloroetheneb
Uncontrolled
g/Mg | Ib/ton







Impingement
g/Mg Ib/ton







Venturi/Impingement
g/Mg Ib/ton
2.0 E+00 4.0 E-03
2.5 E-02 5.0 E-05
7.0E-01 1.4 E-03
9.7E+01 1.9E-01
1.2E-01 2.4E-04

3.0 E-02 6.0 E-05
Cyclone/Impingement
g/Mg Ib/ton





3.5 E-01 7.0 E-04

C/5
O
       a Units are pollutants emitted of dry sludge burned. Source Classification Code 5-01-005-16. Blanks indicate no data.
       b Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
•
o
S.
 o

    -------
   w
   o
   Q
   P
   co
   O
   CO
   Q
   OQ
   Q
   N
   Q
   D
   UH

   g


   I
O
          a:
   iD «^    H
   55"    u
   g«    £
  W ^
  i
  p
   60
  T3
  OO
  ts
  «N
  I
o
co
CO
          UQ
H


1
«
.S
'EL
f
|
:>




c
o>
•|
1—1







1

"S
g;
O

C
P










e
.2
.0


1

|
£>



1
bo

e

2
j5

CUD
2
~£b





o
•4-t
£





bn
1
"So




•4—*
J2
"o
(X








CO
9
w
oo
CO


8
+
W
ON
"""






























Aluminum

3
w
p

1
p
vi
9
0
CO


1
•n
*•"












CO
§
•n
CO


*— i
o
1
u
oo







I" % 'i -2 B *- i
| a ! 1 1 1 = 1 .1
SZcuonononHHN














i2
IT)
9


•o
o
U
to
o
S
%
G3
u
0)
CJ
Ui
0
on
.
"S
c
-j
4D
a> -
fe/i ^
"§ i
ft
0 „
T3 'S
S 03
1 S
SI
1 "
_3 >
"o i,
o. II
"c *>
D^
rt _D





























ti
^*N
•is
^C
c
«

Q
CD
•3
c
•o
.M
00
•*— *
t

'S3
Hazardous
o
2.2-42
                        EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
      Table 2.2-9 (Metric And English Units). SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR
               ELECTRIC INFRARED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source Category1*
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Cyclone
Cyclone/impingement
Cyclone/venturi
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Impingement
Venturi
Venturi/impingement/
afterburner
Venturi/impingement
Venturi/impingement/
Wet ESP
Venturi/Wet ESP
Paniculate Matter
kg/Mg Ib/ton
3.7 E+00 7.4 E+00



1.9 E+00 3.8 E+00



8.2 E-01 1.6 E+00


9.5 E-01 1.9 E+00


Sulfur Dioxide
kg/Mg Ib/ton
9.2 E+00 1.8 E+01










2.3 E+00 4.6 E+00


Nitrogen Oxides
kg/Mg Ib/ton
4.3 E+00 8.6 E+00










2.9 E+00 5.8 E+00


  a Units are pollutants emitted of dry sludge burned.
  b Wet ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
            Source Classification Code 5-01-005-17.
1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-43

    -------
   Table 2.2-10 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                       FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Size
fam)
15
10
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.625
Cumulative Mass % Stated Size
Uncontrolled
MHb
15
10
5.3
2.8
1.2
0.75
EIC
43
30
17
10
6.0
5.0
Controlled (Scrubber)
MH
30
27
25
22
20
17
FBd
7.7
7.3
6.7
6.0
5.0
2.7
El
60
50
35
25
18
15
a Reference 5.
b MH = multiple hearth incinerator. Source Classification Code (SCC) 5-01-005-15.
c El = electric infrared incinerator. SCC 5-01-005-17.
d FB = fluidized bed incinerator.  SCC 5-01-005-16.
2.2-44
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
VO
                 Table 2.2-11 (Metric And English Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                                            FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS8
 to
 to
 ^
                                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle
Size
(M"0
15
10
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factor
Uncontrolled
MHb
kg/Mg
6.0E+00
4.1 E+00
2.1 E+00
1.1 E+00
4.7 E-01
3.0 E-01
Ib/ton
1.2E+01
8.2 E+00
4.2 E+00
2.2 E+00
9.4 E-01
6.0 E-01
EIC
kg/Mg
4.3 E+00
3.0 E+00
1.7 E+00
1.0 E+00
6.0 E-01
5.0 E-01
Ib/ton
8.6 E+00
6.0 E+00
3.4 E+00
2.0 E+00
1.2 E+00
1.0 E+00

Controlled
MH
kg/Mg
1.2 E-01
1.1 E-01
1.0 E-01
9.0 E-02
8.0 E-02
7.0 E-02
Ib/ton
2.4 E-01
2.2 E-01
2.0 E-01
1.8 E-01
1.6 E-01
1.4 E-01
(Scrubber)
FBd
kg/Mg
2.3 E-01
2.2 E-01
2.0 E-01
1.8 E-01
1.5 E-01
8.0 E-02
Ib/ton
4.6 E-01
4.4 E-01
4.0 E-01
3.6 E-01
3.0 E-01
1.6 E-01

El
kg/Mg
1.2 E+00
1.0 E+00
7.0 E-01
5.0 E-01
3.5 E-01
3.0 E-01
Ib/ton
2.4 E+00
2.0 E+00
1.4 E+00
1.0 E+00
7.0 E-01
6.0 E-01
GO
G
f
on
a Reference 5.
b MH = multiple hearth incinerator. Source Classification Code (SCC) 5-01-005-15.
c El  = electric infrared incinerator. SCC 5-01-005-17.
d FB = fluidized bed incinerator.  SCC 5-01-005-16.

    -------
                       j?9.0
                       09
                       Jt
0
41
y


** 6.0


§
•H
• ,  ,



1
                       •3
                         1-5
                       u
                       a
                           i.i
                                          CMU*U
                                  | I I  I II II
                  i.t             »
                    hrtlck 
    -------
                f
                * 5
                «•
                S
                3*
                I
                :s
                1
                   M
                             I  I t I I •>
                                  l.fl
           "A    '   i i i i i111 0
            10             104
                            l.SO
                            1.25
                                  5
                                  "Si
                                  U
                            1.0   ^

                                  g
                            0.75  S
                                  •H

                            0.50
                                                                  0.25
                                                                       •8
                                                                       «•<
                                                                       •-i
                                                                       o
                     Figure 2.2-6.  Cumulative Particle Size Distribution and
                           Size-Specific Emission Factors for Electric
                                     (infrared) Incinerators
References For Section 2.2

1.      Second Review Of Standards Of Performance For Sewage Sludge Incinerators,
       EPA-450/3-84-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       North  Carolina, March 1984.

2.      Process Design Manual For Sludge Treatment And Disposal, EPA-625/1-79-011,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1979.

3.      Control Techniques For Paniculate Emissions From Stationary Sources - Volume 1,
       EPA-450/3-81-005a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       North  Carolina, September 1982.

4.      Final Draft Test Report-Site 01 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-A, National Dioxin Study.
       Tier 4: Combustion Sources.  EPA Contract No. 68-03-3148, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1986.

5.      Final Draft Test Report-Site 03 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-B, National Dioxin Study.
       Tier 4: Combustion Sources.  EPA Contract No. 68-03-3148, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1986.

6.     Draft Test Report-Site 12 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-C, EPA Contract No. 68-03-3138,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April
       1986.
 1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
                                                                                       2.2-47

    -------
 7.      M. Trichon and R. T. Dewling, The Fate Of Trace Metals In A Fluidized-Bed Sewage Sludge
        Incinerator, (Port Washington). (GCA).

 8.      Engineering-Science, Inc., Participate And Gaseous Emission Tests At Municipal Sludge
        Incinerator Plants "O",  "P", "Q", And "R" (4 tests), EPA Contract No. 68-02-2815,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, McLean, Virginia, February 1980.

 9.      Organics Screening Study Test Report.  Sewage Sludge Incinerator No. 13, Detroit Water And
        Sewer Department, Detroit, Michigan, EPA Contract No.  68-02-3849, PEI Associates, Inc.,
        Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1986.

 10.     Chromium Screening Study  Test Report.  Sewage Sludge Incinerator No.  13, Detroit Water
        And Sewer Department, Detroit Michigan, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3849, PEI Associates,
        Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, August  1986.

 11.     Results Of The October 24,  1980, Paniculate Compliance  Test On The No. 1 Sludge
        Incinerator Wet Scrubber Stack, MWCC St. Paul Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul,
        Minnesota, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/27/86-No. 02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines, Minnesota,
        November 1980.

 12.     Results Of The June 6, 1983, Emission Compliance Test On The No. 10 Incinerator System In
        The F&I 2 Building, MWCC Metro Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
        05/27/86-No.  02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,  Minnesota, June 1983.

 13.     Results Of The May 23, 1983, Emission Compliance Test On The No.  9 Incinerator System In
        The F&I 2 Building, MWCC Metro Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
        05/27/86-No.  02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,  Minnesota, May 1983.

 14.    Results Of The November 25, 1980, Paniculate Emission Compliance  Test On The No. 4
        Sludge Incinerator Wet Scrubber Stack, MWCC St. Paul Wastewater Treatment Plant,
        St. Paul, Minnesota, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/27/86-No. 02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,
        Minnesota, December, 1980.

 15.    Results Of The March 28, 1983, Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 8
       Incinerator, MWCC Metro Plant, St.  Paul, Minnesota,  [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-
        No. 06], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines, Minnesota, April  1983.

 16.    Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Sewage Sludge  Incinerator, City Of Shelby Wastewater
        Treatment Plant,  [STAPPA/ALAPCO/07/28/86-No. 06], North Carolina Department of
        Natural Resources, February 1979.

 17.    Source Sampling Evaluation For Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant, Concord,
       Nonh Carolina, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-No. 06], Mogul Corp., Charlotte,
        North Carolina, July 1982.

 18.    Performance Test Repon: Rocky Mount Wastewater Treatment Facility,  [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
       07/28/86-No.  06], Envirotech, Belmont, California, July 1983.

 19.    Performance Test Repon For The Incineration System At The Honolulu Wastewater Treatment
       Plant, Honolulu,  Oahu, Hawaii, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 11], Zimpro, Rothschild,
       Wisconsin, January 1984.

2.2-48                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 20.     (Test Results) Honolulu Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ewa, Hawaii, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
        05/22/86-No. 11], Zimpro, Rothschild, Wisconsin, November 1983.

 21.     Air Pollution Source Test. Sampling And Analysis Of Air Pollutant Effluent From Wastewater
        Treatment Facility-Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant in Honolulu, Hawaii, [STAPPA/
        ALAPCO/05/22/86-No.  11], Ultrachem,  Walnut Creek, California, December 1978.

 22.     Air Pollution Source Test. Sampling And Analysis Of Air Pollutant Effluent From Wastewater
        Treatment Facility—Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant In Honolulu, Hawaii—Phase II,
        [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 11], Ultrachem, Walnut Creek, California, December
        1979.

 23.     Stationary Source Sampling Report, EEI Reference No.  2988, At The Osborne Wastewater
        Treatment Plant, Greensboro, North Carolina, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/07/28/86-No. 06],
        Paniculate Emissions and Particle Size Distribution Testing. Sludge Incinerator Scrubber
        Inlet and Scrubber Stack, Entropy, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1985.

 24.     Metropolitan Sewer District-Little Miami Treatment Plant (three tests: August 9, 1985,
        September 16, 1980, And September 30, 1980) And Mill Creek Treatment Plant (one test:
        January 9, 1986), [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-No. 14], Southwestern  Ohio Air Pollution
        Control Agency.

 25.     Paniculate Emissions Compliance Testing, At  The City  Of Milwaukee South Shore Treatment
        Plant, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/06/12/86-No.  19], Entropy, Research
        Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 1980.

 26.     Paniculate Emissions Compliance Testing, At  The City of Milwaukee South Shore Treatment
        Plant, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/06/12/86-No.  19], Entropy, Research
        Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 1980.

 27.    Stack Test Report—Bayshore Regional Sewage Authority, In Union Beach, New Jersey,
        [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12], New Jersey State Department of Environmental
       Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, March 1982.

 28.    Stack Test Report—Jersey City Sewage Authority, In Jersey City, New Jersey,
       [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12], New Jersey State Department of Environmental
       Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, December 1980.

29.    Stack Test Report-Northwest Bergen County Sewer Authority, In Waldwick, New Jersey,
       [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12], New Jersey  State Department of Environmental
       Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, March 1982.

30.    Stack Test Report-Pequannock, Lincoln Park, And Fairfield Sewerage Authority, In Lincoln
       Park, New Jersey, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12], New Jersey State Department of
       Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, December 1975.

31.    Atmospheric Emission Evaluation, Of The  Anchorage Water And Wastewater Utility Sewage
       Sludge Incinerator, ASA, Bellevue, Washington, April 1984.
1/95                               Solid Waste Disposal                               2.2-49

    -------
 32.    Stack Sampling Report For Municipal Sewage Sludge Incinerator No. 1, Scrubber Outlet
       (Stack), Providence, Rhode Island, Recon Systems, Inc., Three Bridges, New Jersey,
       November 1980.

 33.    Stack Sampling Report, Compliance Test No. 3, At The Attleboro Advanced Wastewater
       Treatment Facility, In Attleboro, Massachusetts, David Gordon Associates, Inc., Newton
       Upper Falls, Massachusetts,  May  1983.

 34.    Source Emission Survey, At The Rowlett Creek Plant, North Texas Municipal Water District,
       Piano, Texas, Shirco, Inc., Dallas, Texas, November 1978.

 35.    Emissions Data For Infrared Municipal Sewage Sludge Incinerators (Five tests), Shirco, Inc.,
       Dallas, Texas, January 1980.

 37.    Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency On A Multiple Hearth Incinerator Burning Sewage Sludge,
       Contract No. 68-03-3148,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       North Carolina, August 1986.

 38.    Baghouse Efficiency On A  Multiple Hearth Incinerator Burning Sewage Sludge, Contract
       No. 68-03-3148, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
       Carolina, August 1986.

 39.    J. B. Farrell and H. Wall, Air Pollution Discharges From Ten Sewage Sludge Incinerators,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1985.

 40.    Emission Test Report.  Sewage Sludge Incinerator, At The Davenport Wastewater Treatment
       Plant, Davenport,  Iowa, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No.  119], PEDCo Environmental,
       Cincinnati, Ohio, October  1977.

 41.    Sludge Incinerator Emission Testing. Unit No. 1 For City Of Omaha, Papillion Creek Water
       Pollution Control Plant, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/10/28/86-No.  100], Particle Data Labs, Ltd.,
       Elmhurst, Illinois, September 1978.

 42.    Sludge Incinerator Emission Testing. Unit No. 2 For City Of Omaha, Papillion Creek Water
       Pollution Control Plant, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/10/28/86-No.  100], Particle Data Labs, Ltd.,
       Elmhurst, Illinois, May 1980.

 43.    Paniculate And Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Test Report For Zimpro On The Sewage Sludge
       Incinerator Stack at the Cedar Rapids Water Pollution Control Facility, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
       11/04/86-No.  119], Serco, Cedar Falls, Iowa, September 1980.

44.    Newport Wastewater Treatment Plant, Newport, Tennessee.  (Nichols; December 1979).
       [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21].

45.    Maryville Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emission Test Report,
       [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21], Enviro-measure,  Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, August
       1984.

46.    Maryville Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge Incinerator Emission Test Report,
       [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21], Enviro-measure,  Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, October
       1982.

2.2-50                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 47.    Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cleveland, Ohio, Incinerator No. 3, [STAPPA/
        ALAPCO/11/12/86-No. 124], Envisage Environmental, Inc., Richfield, Ohio, May 1985.

 48.    Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cleveland, Ohio.  Incinerator No.  1, [STAPPA/
        ALAPCO/11/12/86-No. 124], Envisage Environmental, Inc., Richfield, Ohio, August 1985.

 49.    Final Report For An Emission Compliance Test Program (July I, 1982), At The City Of
        Waterbury Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Incinerator, Waterbury, Connecticut,
        [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Services Corp, July 1982.

 50.    Incinerator Compliance Test, At The City Of Stratford Sewage Treatment Plant, Stratford,
        Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], Emission Testing Labs, September
        1974.

 51.    Emission Compliance Tests At The Norwalk Wastewater Treatment Plant In South Smith
        Street, Norwalk, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Research Corp,
        Stamford, Connecticut, February 1975.

 52.    Final Report—Emission Compliance Test Program At The East Shore Wastewater Treatment
        Plant In New Haven, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Services
        Corp., Stamford, Connecticut, September 1982.

 53.    Incinerator Compliance Test At The Enfield Sewage Treatment Plant In Enfield, Connecticut,
        [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Research Corp., Stamford,  Connecticut, July
        1973.

 54.     Incinerator Compliance Test At The Glastonbury Sewage Treatment Plant In Glastonbury,
        Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Research Corp., Stamford,
        Connecticut, August 1973.

 55.     Results of the May 5, 1981, Paniculate Emission Measurements of the Sludge Incinerator, at
        the Metropolitan District Commission Incinerator Plant, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-
        No.  136], Henry Souther Laboratories, Hartford, Connecticut.

 56.     Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted on the Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation
        Sludge Incinerator at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in Middletown, Connecticut,
        [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], Rossnagel and Associates, Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
        November 1976.

 57.    Measured Emissions From The West Nichols-Neptune Multiple Hearth Sludge Incinerator At
        The Naugatuck Treatment Company In Naugatuck, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/
        12/17/86-No.  136], The Research Corp., East Hartford, Connecticut, April 1985.

58.     Compliance Test Report-(August 27, 1986), At The Mattabasset District Pollution Control
       Plant Main Incinerator In Cromwell, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136],
       ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc., West Hartford, Connecticut, September 1986.

59.    Stack Sampling Report (May 21, 1986)  City of New London No. 2 Sludge Incinerator Outlet
       Stack Compliance Test, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136],  Recon Systems,  Inc., Three
       Bridges, New Jersey, June 1986.
1/95                                Solid Waste Disposal                              2.2-51

    -------
 60.     Paniculate Emission Tests, At The Town of Vernon Municipal Sludge Incinerator in Vernon,
        Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], The Research Corp., Wethersfield,
        Connecticut, March 1981.

 61.     Non-Criteria Emissions Monitoring Program For The Envirotech Nine-Hearth Sewage Sludge
        Incinerator, At The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility In St. Paul, Minnesota, ERT
        Document No. P-E081-500, October 1986.

 62.     D. R. Knisley, et al., Site 1 Revised Draft Emission Test Report, Sewage Sludge Test
        Program, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory,
        Cincinnati, Ohio, February 9, 1989.

 63.     D. R. Knisley, et al., Site 2 Final Emission Test Report, Sewage Sludge Test Program,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
        Ohio, October 19, 1987.

 64.     D. R. Knisley, et al., Site 3 Draft Emission Test Report And Addendum, Sewage Sludge Test
        Program. Volume 1:  Emission Test Results, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
        Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1, 1987.

 65.     D. R. Knisley, et al., Site 4 Final Emission Test Report, Sewage Sludge Test Program,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
        Ohio, May 9, 1988.

 66.     R. C. Adams, et al., Organic Emissions from the Exhaust Stack of a Multiple Hearth Furnace
       Burning Sewage Sludge, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering
        Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 30, 1985.

 67.    R. C. Adams, et al., Paniculate Removal Evaluation Of An Electrostatic Precipitator Dust
       Removal System Installed  On A Multiple Hearth Incinerator Burning Sewage Sludge,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
       Ohio, September 30, 1985.

 68.    R. C. Adams, et al., Paniculate Removal Capability Of A Baghouse Filter On The Exhaust Of
       A Multiple Hearth Furnace Burning Sewage Sludge, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 30, 1985.

69.    R. G. Mclnnes, et al., Sampling And Analysis Program At The New Bedford Municipal
       Sewage Sludge Incinerator, GCA Corporation/Technology Division, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 1984.

70.    R. T. Dewling, et al., "Fate And Behavior Of Selected Heavy Metals In Incinerated Sludge."
       Journal Of The Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 52, No. 10, October 1980.

71.    R. L. Bennet, et al., Chemical And Physical Characterization Of Municipal Sludge
       Incinerator Emissions, Report No. EPA 600/3-84-047, NTIS No. PB 84-169325, U. S.
       Environmental Protection  Agency, Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, Research
       Triangle Park, North Carolina,  March 1984.

72.    Acurex Corporation.  7990 Source  Test Data For The Sewage Sludge Incinerator,
       Project 6595, Mountain View, California, April 15, 1991.

2.2-52                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 73.    Emissions Of Metals, Chromium, And Nickel Species, And Organics From Municipal
        Wastewater Sludge Incinerators, Volume I:  Summary Report, U. S. Environmental Protection
        Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,  1992.

 74.    L. T. Hentz, et al., Air Emission Studies Of Sewage Sludge, Incinerators At The Western
        Branch Wastewater Treatment Plan, Water Environmental Research, Vol. 64, No. 2,
        March/April,  1992.

 75.    Source Emissions Testing Of The Incinerator #2 Exhaust Stack At The Central Costa Sanitary
        District Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plan, Mortmez, California, Galson Technical
        Services, Berkeley, California, October, 1990.

 76.    R. R. Segal, et al., Emissions Of Metals, Chromium And Nickel Species, And Organics From
        Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators, Volume II:  Site 5 Test Report - Hexavalent
        Chromium Method Evaluation, EPA 600/R-92/003a, March 1992.

 77.    R. R. Segal, et al., Emissions Of Metals, Chromium And Nickel Species, And Organics From
        Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators, Volume III: Site 6 Test Report,
        EPA 600/R-92/003a, March 1992.

 78.     A. L. Cone et al., Emissions Of Metals,  Chromium, Nickel Species, And Organics From
        Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators.  Volume 5:  Site 7 Test Report CEMS, Entropy
        Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1992.

 79.     R. R. Segal, et al., Emissions Of Metals, Chromium And Nickel Species, And Organics From
        Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators, Volume VI:  Site 8 Test Report,
        EPA 600/R-92/003a, March 1992.

 80.     R. R. Segal, et al., Emissions Of Metals, Chromium And Nickel Species, And Organics From
        Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators, Volume VII:  Site 9 Test Report,
        EPA 600/R-92/003a, March 1992.

 81.     Stack Sampling For THC And Specific Organic Pollutants At MWCC Incinerators.  Prepared
        for the Metropolitan Waste  Control Commission, Mears Park Centre, St. Paul, Minnesota,
        July 11,  1991, QC-91-217.
1/95                                Solid Waste Disposal                                2.2-53

    -------

    -------
2.3  Medical Waste Incineration

        Medical waste incineration involves the burning of wastes produced by hospitals, veterinary
facilities, and medical research facilities.  These wastes include both infectious ("red bag") medical
wastes as well as non-infectious, general housekeeping wastes. The emission factors presented here
represent emissions  when both types of these wastes are combusted rather than just infectious wastes.

        Three main  types of incinerators are used: controlled air, excess air, and rotary kiln.  Of the
incinerators identified in this study, the majority (>95 percent) are controlled air units.  A small
percentage (<2 percent) are excess air.  Less than 1 percent were identified as rotary kiln.  The
rotary kiln units tend to be larger,  and typically are equipped with air pollution control devices.
Approximately 2 percent of the total population identified in this  study were found to be equipped
with air pollution control devices.

2.3.1 Process Description1"6

        Types of incineration described in this section include:

        -  Controlled air,

        -  Excess air, and

        -  Rotary kiln.

2.3.1.1  Controlled-Air Incinerators -
        Controlled-air incineration  is the most widely used medical waste incinerator (MWI)
technology, and now dominates the market for new systems at hospitals and similar medical facilities.
This technology is also known as starved-air incineration, two-stage incineration, or modular
combustion.  Figure 2.3-1 presents a typical schematic diagram of a controlled air unit.

        Combustion  of waste in controlled air incinerators  occurs in two stages.  In the first stage,
waste is fed into the primary, or  lower, combustion chamber, which is operated with less than the
stoichiometric amount of air required for  combustion.  Combustion air enters the primary chamber
from beneath the incinerator hearth  (below the burning bed of waste).  This air is called primary or
underfire air. In the primary (starved-air) chamber, the low  air-to-fuel ratio dries and facilitates
volatilization of the  waste, and most of the residual carbon in the ash burns. At these conditions,
combustion gas temperatures are  relatively low (760 to 980°C  [1,400 to  1,800°F]).

        In the second stage, excess  air is added to the volatile gases formed in the primary chamber to
complete  combustion.  Secondary chamber temperatures are higher than primary  chamber
temperatures-typically 980 to 1,095°C (1,800 to 2,000°?).,  Depending on the heating value and
moisture content of the waste, additional heat may be needed.  This can be provided by auxiliary
burners located at the entrance to the secondary (upper) chamber to maintain desired temperatures.

        Waste feed capacities for controlled air incinerators range from about 0.6 to 50 kg/min (75 to
6,500 Ib/hr) (at an assumed fuel heating value of 19,700 kJ/kg [8,500 Btu/lb]). Waste feed and ash
removal can be manual or automatic, depending on the unit size and options purchased.  Throughput
capacities for lower  heating value wastes may be higher, since  feed capacities are limited by primary


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.3-1

    -------
                                                                    Caibon Dioxide,
                                                                    Water Vapor
                                                                    Oxygen and Nitrogen
                                                                    and Excess
                                                                    to Atmosphere
                               Air
      Main Burner for
      Minimum Combustion
      Temperature
                              Air


                               Volatile Content
                                is Burned in
                               Upper Chamber

                               Excess Ait
                               Condition
               Starved-Air
               Condition in
               Lower Chamber
             Controlled
             Underfire Air
             for Burning
             Down Waste
                            Figure 2.3-1.  Controlled Air Incinerator
2.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
chamber heat release rates. Heat release rates for controlled air incinerators typically range from
about 430,000 to 710,000 U/hr-m3 (15,000 to 25,000 Btu/hr-ft3).

       Because of the low air addition rates in the primary chamber, and corresponding low flue gas
velocities (and turbulence), the amount of solids entrained in the gases leaving the primary chamber is
low.  Therefore, the majority of controlled air incinerators do not have add-on gas cleaning devices.

2.3.1.2 Excess Air Incinerators -
       Excess air incinerators are typically small modular units.  They are also referred to as batch
incinerators, multiple  chamber incinerators, or "retort" incinerators. Excess air incinerators are
typically a compact cube with a series of internal chambers and baffles.  Although they can be
operated continuously, they are usually operated in a batch mode.

       Figure 2.3-2 presents a schematic for an excess air unit. Typically, waste is manually fed
into the combustion chamber.  The charging door is then closed, and an afterburner is ignited to bring
the secondary chamber to a target temperature (typically 870 to 980°C [1600 to  1800°F]). When the
target temperature is reached, the primary chamber burner ignites. The waste is dried, ignited, and
combusted by heat provided by the primary chamber burner, as  well as by radiant heat from the
chamber walls.  Moisture and volatile components in the waste are vaporized, and pass (along with
combustion gases) out of the primary chamber and through a flame port which connects the primary
chamber to the secondary or mixing chamber. Secondary air is  added  through the flame port and is
mixed with the volatile components in the secondary chamber.  Burners  are also installed in the
secondary chamber to maintain adequate temperatures for combustion of volatile gases. Gases exiting
the secondary chamber are  directed to the incinerator stack or to an air pollution control device.
When the waste  is consumed, the primary burner shuts off.  Typically, the afterburner shuts off after
a set time.  Once the chamber cools,  ash is manually removed from the primary chamber floor and a
new charge of waste can be added.

       Incinerators designed to burn general hospital waste operate at  excess air levels of up to
300 percent.  If only pathological wastes are combusted, excess air levels near 100 percent are more
common.  The lower excess air helps maintain higher chamber temperature when burning high-
moisture waste.  Waste feed capacities for excess air incinerators are usually 3.8 kg/min (500 Ib/hr)
or less.

2.3.1.3 Rotary Kiln Incinerators -
       Rotary kiln incinerators, like  the other types, are designed with a primary  chamber, where the
waste is heated and volatilized, and a secondary chamber, where combustion of the volatile fraction is
completed.  The primary chamber consists of a slightly inclined, rotating kiln in which waste
materials migrate from the  feed end to the ash discharge end.  The waste throughput rate is controlled
by adjusting the  rate of kiln rotation and the angle of inclination.  Combustion air  enters the primary
chamber through a port.  An auxiliary burner is generally used to  start combustion and maintain
desired combustion temperatures.  Both the primary and secondary chambers are usually lined with
acid-resistant refractory brick,  as shown in the schematic drawing, Figure 2.3-3.

       Volatiles and combustion gases pass from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber.
The secondary chamber operates at excess air.  Combustion of the volatiles  is  completed in the
secondary chamber. Due to the turbulent motion of the waste in the primary chamber, solids burnout
rates and paniculate entrainment in the flue gas are higher for rotary kiln incinerators than for other
incinerator designs.  As a result, rotary kiln incinerators generally have add-on gas cleaning devices.
7/93 (Refomiatted 1/95)                   Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.3-3

    -------
                                  Flame Port
                           Stack
                                                                  Secondary
                                                                  Air Ports
                                                                  Secondary
                                                               iX'BumerPoxt
                                                                     Mixing
                                                                     Chamber
                                                                First
                                                                Underneath. Port
                 Hearth
                     Secondary
                    Combustion
                     Chamber
         Mixing
        Chamber   Flame Port
      Side View
                           Cleanout
                            Doors
                                                                    Charging Door


                                                                    Hearth
                                   Primary
                                   Burner Port
                            Secondary
                            Underneath Port
                            Figure 2.3-2. Excess Air Incinerator
2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                                                                                        o

                                                                                                        cs
                                                                                                        w*
                                                                                                        O)
                                                                                                        e

                                                                                                       'o
                                                                                                       p
                                                                                                       CD
                                                                                                       W)
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Solid Waste Disposal
2.3-5

    -------
2.3.2 Emissions And Controls2'4'7"43

       Medical waste incinerators can emit significant quantities of pollutants to the atmosphere.
These pollutants include:  (1) paniculate matter (PM), (2) metals, (3) acid gases, (4) oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), (5) carbon monoxide (CO), (6) organics, and (7) various other materials present in
medical wastes, such as pathogens, cytotoxins, and radioactive diagnostic materials.

       Paniculate matter is emitted as a result of incomplete combustion of organics (i. e., soot) and
by the entrainment of noncombustible ash due to the turbulent movement of combustion gases.
Paniculate matter may  exit as a solid or an aerosol, and may contain heavy metals, acids, and/or trace
organics.

       Uncontrolled paniculate emission rates vary widely, depending on the type of incinerator,
composition of the waste,  and the operating practices employed.  Entrainment of PM in the
incinerator exhaust is primarily a function of the gas velocity within the combustion chamber
containing the solid waste.  Controlled air incinerators have the lowest turbulence and, consequently,
the lowest PM emissions; rotary kiln incinerators have highly turbulent combustion, and thus have the
highest PM emissions.

       The type and amount of trace metals in the flue gas are directly related to the metals
contained  in the waste.  Metal emissions are affected by the level of PM  control and the flue gas
temperature.  Most metals (except mercury) exhibit fine-particle enrichment and are removed by
maximizing small particle collection. Mercury, due to its high vapor pressure, does not show
significant particle enrichment, and removal is not a function of small particle collection in gas
streams at temperatures greater than 150°C  (SOOT).

       Acid gas concentrations of hydrogen chloride (HC1) and sulfur dioxide (SO^ in MWI flue
gases are directly related to the chlorine and sulfur content of the waste.  Most of the chlorine, which
is chemically bound within the waste in the  form of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and  other chlorinated
compounds, will be converted to HC1. Sulfur is also chemically bound within the materials making
up medical waste and is oxidized during  combustion to form SO2.

       Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) represent  a mixture of mainly nitric oxide (NO)  and  nitrogen
dioxide (NO^.  They are formed during combustion by: (1) oxidation of nitrogen chemically bound
in the waste, and (2) reaction between molecular nitrogen and oxygen in  the combustion air.  The
formation of NOX is dependent on the quantity of fuel-bound nitrogen compounds, flame temperature,
and air/fuel ratio.

       Carbon monoxide  is a product of incomplete combustion.  Its presence can be related to
insufficient oxygen, combustion (residence)  time, temperature, and turbulence (fuel/air mixing) in the
combustion zone.

       Failure to achieve complete  combustion of organic materials evolved from the waste can result
in emissions of a variety of organic  compounds.  The products of incomplete combustion (PICs) range
from low  molecular weight hydrocarbon (e. g., methane or ethane) to high molecular weight
compounds (e.  g., polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans [CDD/CDF]).  In general,
combustion conditions  required for control of CO (i. e., adequate oxygen, temperature, residence
time, and  turbulence) will also minimize emissions of most organics.

       Emissions of CDDs/CDFs from MWIs may occur as either a vapor or as a fine particulate.
Many factors are believed to be involved  in the formation of CDDs/CDFs and many theories exist

2.3-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reforniatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
concerning the formation of these compounds.  In brief, the best supported theories involve four
mechanisms of formation.2  The first theory states that trace quantities of CDDs/CDFs present in the
refuse feed are carried over, unburned, to the exhaust. The second theory involves formation of
CDDs/CDFs from chlorinated precursors with similar structures.  Conversion of precursor material to
CDDs/CDFs can potentially occur either in the combustor at relatively high temperatures or at lower
temperatures such as are present in wet scrubbing systems. The third theory  involves synthesis of
CDDs/CDFs compounds from a variety of organics and a chlorine donor. The fourth mechanism
involves catalyzed reactions on fly ash  particles at low temperatures.

        To date, most MWIs have operated without add-on air pollution control devices (APCDs).  A
small percentage (approximately 2 percent) of MWIs do use APCDs.  The most frequently used
control  devices are wet scrubbers and fabric filters (FFs).  Fabric filters provide mainly PM control.
Other PM control technologies  include venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators  (ESPs).  In
addition to wet scrubbing, dry sorbent  injection (DSI) and spray dryer (SD) absorbers have also been
used for acid gas control.

        Wet scrubbers  use gas-liquid absorption to transfer pollutants from a gas to a liquid stream.
Scrubber design  and the type of liquid solution used largely determine contaminant removal
efficiencies.  With plain water,  removal efficiencies for acid gases could be as high as 70 percent for
HC1 and 30 percent for SO2. Addition of an alkaline reagent to the scrubber  liquor for acid
neutralization has been shown to result in removal efficiencies of 93 to 96 percent.

        Wet scrubbers  are generally classified according to the energy required to overcome the
pressure drop through the system.  Low-energy scrubbers (spray towers) are primarily  used for acid
gas control only, and are usually circular in cross section.  The liquid is sprayed down the tower
through the rising gas. Acid gases are absorbed/neutralized by the scrubbing liquid. Low-energy
scrubbers mainly remove particles larger than 5-10 micrometers (/*m)  in diameter.

        Medium-energy scrubbers can be used for paniculate matter and/or acid gas control. Medium
energy devices rely  mostly on impingement to facilitate removal of PM.  This can be accomplished
through a variety of configurations, such as packed  columns, baffle plates, and liquid impingement
scrubbers.

        Venturi scrubbers are high-energy systems that are used primarily for PM control.  A typical
venturi  scrubber consists of a converging and a diverging section connected by a throat section. A
liquid (usually water) is introduced into the gas stream upstream of the throat. The flue gas impinges
on the liquid stream in the converging section.  As the gas passes through the throat, the shearing
action atomizes the liquid  into fine droplets. The gas then decelerates through the diverging section,
resulting in further contact between particles and liquid droplets.  The droplets are then removed from
the gas stream by a cyclone, demister, or swirl vanes.

        A fabric  filtration system (baghouse) consists of a number of filtering elements  (bags) along
with a bag  cleaning  system contained in a main shell structure with dust hoppers.  Particulate-laden
gas passes through the bags so that the particles are retained on the upstream  side of the fabric, thus
cleaning the gas. A FF is typically divided into several  compartments or sections.  In a FF, both the
collection efficiency and the pressure drop across  the bag surface increase as the dust layer on the bag
builds up.  Since the system cannot continue to operate with an increasing pressure drop, the bags are
cleaned periodically. The cleaning processes include reverse flow with bag collapse, pulse jet
cleaning, and mechanical shaking.  When reverse flow and mechanical shaking are used, the
particulate matter is collected on the inside of the bag; particulate  matter  is  collected on the outside of
the bag in pulse jet systems. Generally, reverse flow FFs operate with lower gas flow  per unit area

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Solid Waste Disposal                                  2.3-7

    -------
of bag surface (air-to-cloth ratio) than pulse jet systems and, thus, are larger and more costly for a
given gas flow-rate or application.  Fabric filters can achieve very high (>99.9 percent) PM removal
efficiencies.  These systems are also very effective in controlling fine particulate matter, which results
in good control of metals and organics entrained on fine particulate.

       Particulate collection in an ESP occurs in 3 steps:  (1) suspended particles are given an
electrical charge; (2) the charged particles migrate to a collecting electrode of opposite polarity; and
(3) the collected PM is dislodged from the collecting electrodes and collected in hoppers for disposal.

       Charging of the particles is usually caused by ions produced in a high voltage corona.  The
electric fields and the corona necessary for particle charging are provided by converting alternating
current to direct current using high voltage transformers and rectifiers. Removal of the collected
particulate matter is accomplished mechanically by rapping or vibrating the collecting electrode plates.
ESPs have been used in many applications due to their high reliability and efficiency  in controlling
total PM emissions. Except for very large and carefully designed ESPs, however, they are less
efficient than FFs at control of fine particulates and metals.

       Dry sorbent injection (DSI) is another method for controlling acid gases. In the DSI process,
a dry alkaline material is injected into the flue gas into a dry venturi within the ducting or into the
duct ahead of a particulate control device.  The alkaline material reacts with and neutralizes acids  in
the flue gas.  Fabric filters are employed downstream of DSI to:  (1) control the PM  generated by the
incinerator,  (2) capture the DSI reaction products and unreacted sorbent, and (3) increase sorbent/acid
gas contact time, thus enhancing acid gas removal efficiency and sorbent utilization.  Fabric filters are
commonly used with DSI because they provide high sorbent/acid gas contact. Fabric filters are less
sensitive to PM loading changes or combustion upsets than other PM control devices  since they
operate with nearly constant efficiency. A potential disadvantage of ESPs used in conjunction with
DSI  is that the  sorbent increases the electrical resistivity of the PM being collected.  This
phenomenon makes the PM more difficult to charge and, therefore, to collect.  High  resistivity can be
compensated for by flue gas conditioning or by increasing the plate area and size of the ESP.

       The major factors affecting DSI performance are flue gas temperature, acid gas dew point
(temperature at which the acid gases condense), and sorbent-to-acid gas ratio. DSI performance
improves as the difference between flue gas and acid dew point temperatures decreases  and the
sorbent-to-acid  gas  ratio increases.  Acid gas removal efficiency with DSI also depends on sorbent
type and the extent of sorbent mixing with the flue gas.  Sorbents that have been successfully applied
include hydrated lime (Ca[OH]2), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3).
For hydrated lime,  DSI can achieve 80 to 95 percent of HC1 removal and 40 to  70 percent removal of
SO2 under proper operating conditions.

       The primary advantage of DSI compared to wet scrubbers is the relative simplicity of the
sorbent preparation, handling, and injection systems as well as the easier handling and disposal of dry
solid process wastes. The primary  disadvantages are its lower sorbent utilization rate and
correspondingly higher sorbent and waste disposal  rates.

       In the spray drying process, lime slurry is injected into the SD through either a rotary
atomizer or dual-fluid nozzles.  The water in the slurry evaporates to cool the flue gas, and the lime
reacts with acid gases to form calcium salts that can be removed by a PM control device.  The SD is
designed to  provide sufficient contact and residence time to produce a dry product before leaving the
SD adsorber vessel. The residence time in the adsorber vessel is typically 10 to 15 seconds.  The
particulates  leaving the SD (fly ash, calcium salts,  and unreacted hydrated lime) are collected by an
FF or ESP.

2.3-8                                 EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
        Emission factors and emission factor ratings for controlled air incinerators are presented in
Tables 2.3-1, 2.3-2, 2.3-3, 2.3-4, 2.3-5, 2.3-6, 2.3-7, 2.3-8, 2.3-9, 2.3-10, 2.3-11, 2.3-12, 2.3-13,
2.13-14, and 2.3-15. For emissions controlled with wet scrubbers, emission factors are presented
separately for low-,  medium-, and high-energy wet scrubbers. Particle size distribution data for
controlled air incinerators are presented in Table 2.3-15 for uncontrolled emissions and controlled
emissions following a medium-energy wet scrubber/FF and a low-energy wet scrubber. Emission
factors and emission factor ratings for rotary kiln incinerators are presented in Tables 2.3-16, 2.3-17,
and 2.3-18.  Emissions data are not available for pathogens because there is not an accepted
methodology for measurement of these emissions.  Refer to References 8, 9, 11, 12, and  19 for more
information.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Solid Waste Disposal                                  2.3-9

    -------
N>
         Table 2.3-1 (English And Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX), CARBON MONOXIDE (CO),
                      AND SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS"

                                                  Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Levelb
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scriibber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injectioa/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
NOXC
Ib/ton
3.56 E+00









kg/Mg
1.78 E+00









EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A









COC
Ib/ton
2.95 E+00









kg/Mg
1.48 E+00









EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A









SO2C
Ib/ton
2.17 E+00

3.75 E-01
8.45 E-01
2.09 E+00
2.57 E-02
3.83 E-01
7. 14 E-01
1.51 E-02

kg/Mg
1.09 E+00

1.88 E-01
4.22 E-01
1.04 E+00
1.29 E-02
1.92 E-01
3.57 E-01
7.57 E-03

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E
E
E
E
E
E
E

w
S
^-t
00
00
>»H
O
Z
•n
oo
      a References 7-43.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.  Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
      c NOX and CO emission factors for uncontrolled facilities are applicable for all add-on control devices shown.

    -------
~J
'S
/—S
I
             Table 2.3-2 (English And Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PARTICULATE MATTER, LEAD, AND
                  TOTAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (TOC) FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS8

                                                 Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Levelb
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scrubber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
Total Paniculate Matter
Ib/ton
4.67 E+00
9.09 E-01
1.61 E-01
1.75 E-01
2.90 E+00
1.48 E+00
3.37 E-01
7.23 E-02
2.68 E+00
7.34 E-01
kg/Mg
2.33 E+00
4.55 E-01
8.03 E-02
8.76 E-02
1.45 E+00
7.41 E-01
1.69 E-01
3.61 E-02
1.34 E+00
3.67 E-01
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Leadc
Ib/ton
7.28 E-02

1.60E-03
9.92 E-05
7.94 E-02
6.98 E-02
6.25 E-05
9.27 E-05
5. 17 E-05
4.70 E-03
kg/Mg
3.64 E-02

7.99 E-04
4.96 E-05
3.97 E-02
3.49 E-02
3.12E+01
4.64 E-05
2.58 E-05
2.35 E-03
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TOC
Ib/ton kg/Mg
2.99 E-01 1.50 E-01


6.86 E-02 3.43 E-01
1.40 E-01 7.01 E-02
1.40 E-01 7.01 E-02
4.71 E-02 2.35 E-02



EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B


E
E
E
E



GO
o^
El
3
K
r-f-
CP

2
V>'
T3
O
      a References 7-43.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.  Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
      c Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
to
lo

    -------
    >
  W fi
    >•
          CQ
         U*

         •s
          CQ
         W






         _c



         (5


o
GO
09
Ou

3
o
H








o 1
U
X










ill
S2 O h
w "-
00
1




0



Igg
co H r1
to rj H
1^


ea
1






c
o
•*:
i~-








^
"S
J
1
'c
o
U

u

I

tn
cs


1
Tf


O



f-H
o
U
*"""




o

U
£
f>









Uncontrolled













u



o
U
3
Os




8

UJ
0
Os










Low Energy Scrubber/FF













u



8
*""•




8

u
CM
oo
"







U.
U.
Medium Energy Scrubber













U



8
u
00
cs




8

OJ
so
vi









tt.
UH













U



9
u
S
>ri




8

u
8










Low Energy Scrubber













U Q



9 +
u u
r- r-
so so




— O
9 +
tu u
OS f-










High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF













PL) OJ



9 S
pg CU
O -H
>n r~
•* •*





9 ®
u u
S 5
OS Os









DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber













u



9
u
CN





3
u
oo
Os
*









DSI/ESP










•o
o
c
1
1
c
5
9
i
s
„
9
o
o
1
9
Vi
 «5
LH •*•"*
ca
ESP = Electrostatic
Hazardous air pollut
u
2.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
  U
  z
  CO
  (A
  Z
  sg
  sg
  O H
  UnCO
  2 !>
  os ^

  B^
  3 u
  ^« h—I
  co 5
  is
  •s o
  .o Z

  «> O
  f£-t
  CA
  B
  t
  rn
  ri
  
0
— ;




Uncontrolled









































Low Energy Scrubber/FF

U
I
pi
in
g
rJ
pi


U




Tf
S
*-*
?
u
s
pi



















U.
u.
Medium Energy Scrubber,

U
00
s
r-
9
ID
at
PI


































tu
u.

u
9
u
-I
i
^
^*


































Low Energy Scrubber

pj m
9 S?
w w
3fO
ON
9 9
u u
cs 2
pi >-<


U U




s s
U [i]
S 8
CM -
9 9
W UJ
00 O
O ~*
•* tN


ID

9
M
^^

.


PI

U
PI
p
pi




High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF

U
U4
ts
PI
9
UQ
^3
^H


ID




O
U
PI
""
8
rji
^
^


Mj

9
w
o
>o



PI
o
u
o^
0\
(S




DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber

u
9
u
5
9
u
0
•n


































DSI/ESP








.
CO
«^
•o
o
c
05
o
1
CA
C
s
.
9
|/"\
8
o
r-
1
O
>o
CA

•a
o
CJ
c
o

'1
C-

CA
—
0
CJ
3
References 7-43. So
FF = Fabric Filter
cd .O























ti
^
*^


§
G

(U
-s
c

S — 3
n 2 S
•3 o< .52
0 'o ""
,U U «9
C o . C
>-H ^^ ert
DSI = Dry Sorbent
ESP = Electrostatic
Hazardous air polluti
0
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
                      Solid Waste Disposal
2.3-13

    -------
  CJ

  Q
UM, BERYLL1
:iNERATORSa
  OQ
  on
  < Q
  PU f.Tl


  O c^
  c H
  D Z
  o O
  •co

  Ig
   S1
  e
  CO
  E2
2
I

I
^
u


• Vft
1
u










u
1
3
o"
CO









S
03
00







ill
e*
|

|

w*

2 o 2
si u P
§ < ^
u


00




£-
O
£

to H rj
fcM *jj ^
w * "


M
J?




2
.O







13
j
|
c
o

OQ
9
w
o
9
w
00
^
•rj

O




0
UJ
*-H
cn*

g
tu
cs
NO
Q



S
a
S
—


cp
3
CO







Uncontrolled









































rT
8;
Low Energy Scrubbei

01
3
«
od
1
00
P"*
~*















ta



I
S
—


q>
u
S
ri




u.
t_
o
XI
o
CO
E
1

pi frl n) r1! fTi
? § 9 9 ?
S P S 8 S
en tn —< ^- \o
m c-i m 
99999
(£} U] DJ tU U
f^ m ^5 os f^\
o\ ^tf ^ o\ co
« r- CN o\ «

U




9
O)
Si
— .

S
tu
s
co-
U UJ



ID v^
9 9
UJ pi
® S
CO CO


9 9
U U
CO CO
r^ t~






u.
w U g;
u w c
1 1 ii
& & § §
S g •& co
t§ w | g |
a, o -SP S5 So E5
£ j K Q Q 0

u
s
w
ts
§
(Tj
o\
^


































DSI/ESP










2
•o
o
c
s
1
T3
•S
CA
C
5
•
c=>
§
r.
10
9
!
o
a>
"o
O
c
o
1
s
"en
co
U
-
y
t-<
3
O
c/o w
References 7-43.
FF = Fabric Fill
C3 ^



































c
_o
*^_»
0
o>
,s

CD
X2
O
&0
>.
Q
II
c/5
Q



































S
CO
!&
"o

D«
.>
'5
ESP = Electrosti




























t5
"T
c
§
G

5
e
"™
w
.a
w^
tya
C
*2
.3
Hazardous air po
0
2.3-14
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                   Table 2.3-6 (English And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHROMIUM, COPPER, AND IRON
                                     FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS11

                                                   Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Levelb
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scrubber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
Chromium0
Ib/ton
7.75 E-04

2.58 E-04
2.15 E-06
4.13 E-04
1.03 E-03
3.06 E-04
1.92 E-04
3.96 E-05
6.58 E-04
kg/Mg
3.88 E-04

1.29 E-04
1.07 E-06
2.07 E-04
5.15 E-04
1.53 E-04
9.58 E-05
1.98 E-05
3.29 E-04
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Copper
Ib/ton
1.25E-02





1.25 E-03
2.75 E-04


kg/Mg
6.24 E-03





6.25 E-04
1.37 E-04


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E





E
E


Iron
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING
1.44E-02 7.22 E-03 C



9.47 E-03 4.73E -03 E





o,
Cu
•O
o
      a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF  = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
      c Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
N>

    -------
N>
                Table 2.3-7 (English and Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MANGANESE, MERCURY, AND NICKEL
                                     FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS8

                                                  Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Level*5
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scrubber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
Manganese0
Ib/ton
5.67 E-04



4.66 E-04
6. 12 E-04




kg/Mg
2.84 E-04



2.33 E-04
3.06 E-04




EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C



E
E




Mercury0
Ib/ton
1.07E-01

3.07 E-02

1.55 E-02
1.73 E-02
1.11 E-01
9.74 E-03
3.56 E-04
1.81 E-02
kg/Mg
5.37 E-02

1.53 E-02

7.75 E-03
8.65 E-03
5.55 E-02
4.87 E-03
1.78 E-04
9.05 E-03
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

E

E
E
E
E
E
E
Nickel0
Ib/ton
5.90 E-04

5.30 E-04

3.28 E-04
2.54 E-03
4.54 E-04
2.84 E-04

4.84 E-04
kg/Mg
2.95 E-04

2.65 E-04

1.64 E-02
1.27 E-03
2.27 E-04
1.42 E-04

2.42 E-04
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B

E

E
E
E
E

E
m
GO
GO
I—4
O
:z
Tl
>
oo
      a References 7-43.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
      c Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
1
VO

~J

    -------
VO
UJ
Table 2.3-8 (English And Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SILVER AND THALLIUM
             FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS8
                                                  Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Levelb
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scrubber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
Silver
Ib/ton kg/Mg
2.26 E-04 1.13E-04

1.71 E-04 8.57 E-05


4.33 E-04 2.17 E-04
6.65 E-05 3.32 E-05
7. 19 E-05 3.59 E-05


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E


E
E
E


Thallium
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING
1.10E-03 5.51 E-04 D









GO
o.
s
o>
D
T3
O
H
      a References 7-43.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator

    -------
to
OO
   Table 2.3-9 (English And Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR TRIOXIDE (SO3)
AND HYDROGEN BROMIDE (HBr) FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS*

                             Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Control Levelb
Uncontrolled
Low Energy Scrubber/FF
Medium Energy Scrubber/FF
FF
Low Energy Scrubber
High Energy Scrubber
DSI/FF
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
DSI/FF/Scrubber
DSI/ESP
SO3
Ib/ton








9.07 E-03

kg/Mg








4.53 E-03

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING








E

HBr
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING
4.33 E-02 2.16 E-02 D

5.24 E-02 2.62 E-02 E




4.42 E-03 2.21 E-03 E


m
OO
I-H
i
2
n
c/3
      a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.
      b FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
        ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator

    -------
  U
  z
  U

  Q
  Z
  Q
  ^ H
  Z <
  W DtJ
  £y
  2|
  CO ^

  is
  o g
  IS
  'S H

  -§
  lg
  (S

  —
  2

  H
         UH
         Q
1
U)
U9




1

w
g*
  S3   |

1
.2

O









o
E
•1
sT





EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
BA
!>
x

1
s





EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


If
"*


e
o
jo








_a
Control Level'
0)
9
w
PI

*
9
tu
s





Q UJ

CM m
9 9
UJ U
t~ \o


9 S
UJ UJ
Os e*>
. .
— —





U.
tu
1 S £
« 5 S § ^
^ 1 £ 1 £
i £ e § 3, s
«9 8? «« M ^ S
i r i n u.
Ill f 11 S 1 1
c 54.U- S •- w «o to «o
SjSfcjKQQQQ





ts
•o
o
c
2
to
o
•a
1
CM
5
9
9
^
>o
9
9
1/3
(U
•a
o
(J
c
_o
OS
tj
W5

U
OJ
o
3
O
on >_,
a>
^
fi -7"
rj- BH
ri .*
«« _0
11
1"
<3 tu
di b
a] Xl

















*•
Nj
1
r\

6
UH ^
O '^
c 11
.2 'EL, 2
o 'S -1
.Si, 2 *2
*5 0^ 5
DSI .= Dry Sorbent
ESP = Electrostatic
c Hazardous air polluti
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
                       Solid Waste Disposal
2.3-19

    -------
  CO

  g
  H
  U
  CO

  CO
  Q W
  °s

  o^
  N 2
  Ql
  Q ^
  W i—1
  H <
  < U
  3^
  tf w

  D o
    o
    U
  §»
  U
  g
A

UH





1
ca


I




I
&

S
a:

1
E5
Q








u
"5
<»
1:





Ui
O
'£
|
cd
£







1
c
o
o
e
D




go o P
sf

JJP


|
£

itfg
CO H ft
S3 ^ b
U fc
ao
1

e
2
£

«o Fj H
5 < <
g 2 «

68
1

c
o
Jo

igg
« FJ H
5 < "*•
w H. «
BO
}?



1
2


.fi^
1
o
O

u a)
o g
1 T
W CM

oo r)
ci pi
^? ^
W UJ
ss
in vo

U OJ

= 9
ui u
in •»
^T fl
vd ~
2g
[il UJ
gj 5
-; N
u u
ov ao
9 9
u u
vo t^
r> --
.
a> i>-
9 9
U U
VO -H

tU CQ


00 I~-
9 9
U) U
en --«
r- 0
ri >n

oo vo
UJ UJ
58
vi —


00
D KS
Q "V o
O c*i f^

u
UJ

p!
-<
.^
S
5
n

ti CQ U U U CQ p-1 CQ PJ

OO OO\OO o\O r-
^^••^ *-^o^^^^ o^^ o
CQ CQ U CQ m CQ txl CQ CQ
SC"*1 V^1^*^^ C*1"^^ OO
P*- O^NOOO ^Ov »— i
C*"l CS ^N *^ "^ CS CO ^^ ^N
OO QsQNOO ONOS «O
^^^H OO**4^^ OO O
It 1 1 1 1 II 1
CQ W UQ UJ CQ CQ W CQ UJ
oo f) ^^ oo c*i r*** ^^ oo '^
o»n ooc^csr^ ^^ °°
\o*vi -ncsosvi \o*-< »-<
CQ
\o
o
CQ
S

9
00
vo


CU W UJ U4 CQ


O O 0\ oo ir,
^H ^H O O O
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
Ov t~- C~> — ' t~-
00 O vo ~* O
— « vd cs ^* ^^

o ov o\ oo in
*? 9 999
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
1^ C^ CM CS — <
ri -; ^  *™~"
o =2
ii
CO 3
. "o
•* v.
t~ CO
V5 r/3
« 3
Referenc
Hazardo
ca .0
                                                                    o

                                                                   '5
                                                                    u
                                                                   •5*
                                                                    o
                                                                   CO
                                                                 I
                                                                 u.
FF
                                                                   CO

                                                                   Q
2.3-20
                       EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
I
Table 2.3-12 (English And Metric Units).  CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSION FACTORS
                 FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS11

                              Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
1





C/3
BI
^
8?
??
a
(75*
"0
O
C/l
EL







Congener
TCDD
2,3,7,8-
Total
PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-
Total
HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-
1,2,3,7,8,9-
1,2,3,4,7,8-
Total
HpCDD
2,3,4,6,7,8-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Total
OCDD - Total
Total CDD
DSI/Carbon Injection/FF
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING

8.23 E-10 4.11 E-10 E













5.38 E-08 2.69 E-08 E
DSI/ESP*1
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING

1.73 E-10 8.65 E-ll E














      a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.
      b Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
      c FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI  = Dry Sorbent Injection
      d ESP  = Electrostatic Precipitator

    -------
to
lo
to
to
Table 2.3-13 (English And Metric Units). CHLORINATED DIBENZOFURAN EMISSION FACTORS
               FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS'1

                             Rating (A-E) Follows Each Factor
Congener1"
TCDF
2,3,7,8-
Total
PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-
2,3,4,7,8-
Total
HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-
1,2,3,6,7,8-
2,3,4,6,7,8-
1,2,3,7,8,9-
Total
HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
Total
OCDF - Total
Total CDF
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
2.40 E-07
7.21 E-06
7.56 E-10
2.07 E-09
7.55 E-09
2.53 E-09
7.18 E-09
1.76E-08
2.72 E-09
7.42 E-08
7.15 E-05
kg/Mg
1.20 E-07
3.61 E-06
3.78 E-10
1.04 E-09
3.77 E-09
1.26 E-09
3.59 E-09
8.78 E-09
1.36 E-09
3.71 E-08
3.58 E-05
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
B
Fabric Filter
Ib/ton
3.85 E-08
1 .28 E-06




8.50 E-06
kg/Mg
1.97 E-08
6.39 E-07




4.25 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E




E
Wet Scrubber
Ib/ton
1.26 E-08
4.45 E-07
1.04 E-09
3.07 E-09
6. 18 E-09
8.96 E-09
3.53 E-09
9.59 E-09
3.51 E-10
5. 10 E-09
1.79 E-08
3.50 E-09
1.91 E-09
4.91 E-10
4.92 E-06
kg/Mg
6.30 E-09
2.22 E-07
5.22 E-10
1.53 E-09
3.09 E-09
4.48 E-09
1.76 E-09
4.80 E-09
1.76 E-10
2.55 E-09
8.97 E-09
1.75 E-09
9.56 E-10
2.45 E-10
2.46 E-06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
DSI/FF0
EMISSION
FACTOR
Ib/ton kg/Mg RATING
4.93 E-09 2.47 E-09 E
1.39 E-07 6.96 E-08 E




1.47 E-06 7.37 E-07 E
tn
§
55
C/3
n
H
o
»
oo
      a References 7-43.  Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.
      b Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
      c FF = Fabric Filter
        DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection
                                                Blanks indicate no data.

    -------

CO
O
H
0
b
Z
O
CO
CO
|g
H
UH fe
O 0
§s §
W W u
CQ H (2
1!
52 Q £
§g ~
— i •* u
° 5 S
. oo
^^s ^^ jj
la s
.oO
'i H
so
c ^
< OS
J5 0
•52 WM
I1
B
^J1
n
(S
23
03
H









"p ,
1
CO
Q







o
U.
tu
o
1
s*
o
ja
H
O
Q







|||
U



bo
s
31


|



EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


bO
s*




c
2
*p^
"™






"in
C
4)
60
O

U



o

$
oo

W
m
~<


U U U

O 5\ oo
T9 9
U U W
«o r- Tt
n •*


O oo oo
-r 9 9
U U U
^H ^-< f**.
C^  ~"
o ?2
3 C
0 2

• o ii
^V ^^ Ll^
i^ *""
r- '« .H
* 3 "rt
ll "
«*- N .
q> 03 l,^
P^ DC FT i
O -C O























it
.1
o -a
"S .&
o o
 O

JO ™
o o

>» g
i 3
II II
i— 0-
Q W
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Solid Waste Disposal
2.3-23

    -------
 Table 2.3-15.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR CONTROLLED AIR MEDICAL WASTE
                INCINERATOR PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Cut Diameter
G«n)
0.625
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
Uncontrolled Cumulative Mass
% Less Than Stated Size
31.1
35.4
43.3
52.0
65.0
Scrubber
Cumulative Mass % Less Than
Stated Size
0.1
0.2
2.7
28.1
71.9
 References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.
2.3-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 O
              Table 2.3-16 (English And Metric Units).  ROTARY KILN MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATOR EMISSION FACTORS

                                        FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND ACID GASES"


                                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
PM
TOC
HCld
HF4
HBr
H2SO4
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton 1 kg/Mg
3.82 E-01 1.91 E-01
4.63 E+00 2.31 E+00
1.09E+00 5.43 E-01
3.45 E+01 1.73 E+01
6.66 E-02 3.33 E-02
4.42 E+01 2.21 E+01
9.31 E-02 4.65 E-02
1.05 E+00 5.25 E-01

SD/Fabric Filterb
Ib/ton
3.89 E-02
5.25 E+00
6.47 E-01
3.09 E-01
4.11 E-02
2.68 E-01
2.99 E-02
6.01 E-02

kg/Mg
1.94 E-02
2.63 E+00
3.24 E-01
1.54 E-01
2.05 E-02
1.34 E-01
1.50 E-02
3.00 E-02

SD/Carbon Injection/FF0
Ib/ton
4.99 E-02
4.91 E+00
3.00 E-01
7.56 E-02
5.05 E-02
3.57 E-01

1.90 E-02

kg/Mg
2.50 E-02
2.45 E+00
1.50 E-01
3.78 E-02
2.53 E-02
1.79 E-01

9.48 E-03

High Energy Scrubber
Ib/ton
5.99 E-02
4.08 E+00

8.53 E-01
2.17 E-02
2.94 E+01


2.98 E+00
kg/Mg
3.00 E-02
2.04 E+00

4.27 E-01
1.08 E-02
1.47 E+01


1.49 E+00
in
o
O
K"
T3
O
VI
EL
a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05. Blanks indicate no data.

b SD = Spray Dryer

c FF = Fabric Filter

d Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
fe

    -------
                       Table 2.3-17 (English And Metric Units). ROTARY KILN MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATOR
                                               EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALS8

                                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Pollutant
Aluminum
Antimonyd
Arsenicd
Barium
Berylliumd
Cadmiumd
Chromiumd
Copper
Leadd
Mercuryd
Nickeld
Silver
Thallium
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
6.13E-01
1.99E-02
3.32 E-04
8.93 E-02
4.81 E-05
1.51 E-02
4.43 E-03
1.95E-01
1.24E-01
8.68 E-02
3.53 E-03
1.30 E-04
7.58 E-04
kg/Mg
3.06 E-01
9.96 E-03
1.66 E-04
4.46 E-02
2.41 E-05
7.53 E-03
2.21 E-03
9.77 E-02
6. 19 E-02
4.34 E-02
1.77 E-03
6.51 E-05
3.79 E-04
SD/Fabric Filterb
Ib/ton 1 kg/Mg
4. 18 E-03 2.09 E-03
2. 13 E-04 1.15 E-04

2.71 E-04 1.35 E-04
5.81 E-06 2.91 E-06
5.36 E-05 2.68 E-05
9.85 E-05 4.92 E-05
6.23 E-04 3. 12 E-04
1.89 E-04 9.47 E-05
6.65 E-02 3.33 E-02
8.69 E-05 4.34 E-05
9.23 E-05 4.61 E-05

SD/Carbon Injection/FFc
Ib/ton
2.62 E-03
1.41 E-04

1.25 E-04

2.42 E-05
7.73 E-05
4. 11^ E-04
7.38 E-05
7.86 E-03
3.58 E-05
8.05 E-05

kg/Mg
1.31 E-03
7.04 E-05

6.25 E-05

1.21 E-05
3.86 E-05
2.06 E-04
3.69 E-05
3.93 E-03
1.79 E-05
4.03 E-05

m
00
on
•n
>
O
3
      a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.  ND = no data. Blanks indicate no data.
      b SD = Spray Dryer.
      c FF = Fabric Filter.
      d Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.

    -------
             Table 2.3-18 (English And Metric Units).  ROTARY KILN MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATOR EMISSION FACTORS
                                                FOR DIOXINS AND FURANS*

                                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Congener*1
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Total CDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
Total CDF
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
6.61 E-10
7.23 E-09
7.49 E-07
1.67E-08
2.55 E-07
5.20 E-06
kg/Mg
3.30 E-10
3.61 E-09
3.75 E-07
8.37 E-09
1.27 E-07
2.60 E-06
SD/Fabric Filterb
Ib/ton
4.52 E-10
4. 16 E-09
5.79 E-08
1.68 E-08
1.92 E-07
7.91 E-07
kg/Mg
2.26 E-10
2.08 E-09
2.90 E-08
8.42 E-09
9.58 E-08
3.96 E-07
SD/Carbon Injection/FF
Ib/ton
6.42 E-ll
1.55 E-10
2.01 E-08
4.96 E-10
1.15 E-08
7.57 E-08
kg/Mg
3.21 E-ll
7.77 E-ll
1.01 E-08
2.48 E-10
5.74 E-09
3.78 E-08
I
O
a References 7-43. Source Classification Codes 5-01-005-05, 5-02-005-05.
b SD = Spray Dryer.
c FF = Fabric Filter.
d Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
K>

    -------
References For Section 2.3

1.     Locating And Estimating Air Toxic Emissions From Medical Waste Incinerators,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rochester, New York, September 1991.

2.     Hospital Waste Combustion Study: Data Gathering Phase, EPA-450/3-88-017,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
       December 1988.

3.     C. R. Brunner, "Biomedical Waste Incineration", presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the
       Air Pollution Control Association, New York, New York, June 21-26, 1987.  p. 10.

4.     Flue Gas Cleaning Technologies For Medical Waste Combustors, Final Report,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1990.

5.     Municipal Waste Combustion Study; Recycling Of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, EPA Contract 68-02-433, pp.5-6.

6.     S. Black and J. Netherton, Disinfection, Sterilization, And Preservation.  Second Edition,
       1977, p.  729.

7.     J. McCormack, et al., Evaluation Test On A Small Hospital Refuse Incinerator At Saint
       Bernardine's Hospital In San Bernardino, California, California Air Resources Board, July
       1989.

8.     Medical  Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, Cape Fear Memorial Hospital, Wilmington,
       North Carolina, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, December  1991.

9.     Medical  Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, Jordan Hospital, Plymouth, Massachusetts,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1992.

10.    J. E. McCormack, Evaluation Test Of The Kaiser Permanente Hospital Waste Incinerator in
       San Diego, California Air Resources Board, March 1990.

11.    Medical  Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, Lenoir Memorial Hospital, Kinston,
       North Carolina, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 12, 1991.

12.    Medical  Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, AMI Central Carolina Hospital, Sanford,
       North Carolina, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, December  1991.

13.    A. Jenkins, Evaluation Test On A Hospital Refuse Incinerator At Cedars Sinai Medical
       Center, Los Angeles, California, California Air Resources Board, April  1987.

14.    A. Jenkins, Evaluation Test On A Hospital Refuse Incinerator At Saint Agnes Medical Center,
       Fresno, California, California Air Resources Board, April 1987.

15.    A. Jenkins, et al., Evaluation Retest On A Hospital Refuse Incinerator At Sutler General
       Hospital, Sacramento, California, California Air Resources Board, April 1988.

16.    Test Report For Swedish American Hospital Consumat Incinerator, Bel ing Consultants,
       Rockford, Illinois, December 1986.

2.3-28                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 17.    J. E. McCormack, ARE Evaluation Test Conducted On A Hospital Waste Incinerator At Los
       Angeles County-USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, California Air Resources
       Board, January 1990.

 18.    M. J. Bumbaco, Report On A Stack Sampling Program To Measure The Emissions Of Selected
       Trace Organic Compounds, Particulates, Heavy Metals, And HCl From The Royal Jubilee
       Hospital Incinerator, Victoria, British Columbia, Environmental Protection Programs
       Directorate, April 1983.

 19.    Medical Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, Borgess Medical Center, Kalamazoo,
       Michigan, EMB Report 91-MWI-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
       Quality Planning and Standards, December 1991.

20.    Medical Waste Incineration Emission Test Report, Morristown Memorial Hospital,
       Morristown, New Jersey, EMB Report 91-MWI-8, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December  1991.

21.    Report Of Emission Tests, Burlington County Memorial Hospital, Mount Holly, New Jersey,
       New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, November 28, 1989.

22.    Results Of The November 4 And 11, 1988 Paniculate And Chloride Emission Compliance Test
       On The Morse Boulger Incinerator At The Mayo Foundation Institute Hills Research Facility
       Located In Rochester, Minnesota,  HDR Techserv, Inc., November 39,  1988.

23.    Source Emission Tests At ERA Tech, North Jackson, Ohio, Custom Stack Analysis
       Engineering Report, CSA Company, December 28, 1988.

24.    Memo to Data File, Hershey Medical Center, Derry Township, Pennsylvania, from Thomas
       P. Bianca, Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,  May 9, 1990.

25.    Stack Emission Testing, Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga,  Tennessee, Report 1-6299-2,
       Campbell & Associates, May 6, 1988.

26.    Emission Compliance Test Program, Nazareth Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ralph
       Manco, Nazareth Hospital, September 1989.

27.    Report Of Emission Tests, Hamilton Hospital, Hamilton, New Jersey, New Jersey State
       Department of Environmental Protection, December 19, 1989.

28.    Report of Emission Tests, Raritan  Bay Health Services Corporation, Penh Amboy,
       New Jersey, New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, December 13, 1989.

29.    K. A. Hansen, Source Emission Evaluation On A Rotary Atomizing Scrubber At Klamath
       Falls, Oregon, AM Test, Inc., July 19,  1989.

30.    A. A. Wilder, Final Repon For Air Emission Measurements From A Hospital Waste
       Incinerator, Safeway Disposal Systems, Inc., Middletown, Connecticut.

31.    Stack Emission Testing, Erlanger Medical Center, Chattanooga,  Tennessee, Report 1-6299,
       Campbell & Associates, April  13, 1988.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                               2.3-29

    -------
32.    Compliance Emission Testing For Memorial Hospital, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Air Systems
       Testing, Inc., July 29, 1988.

33.    Source Emission Tests At ERA Tech, Northwood, Ohio, Custom Stack Analysis Engineering
       Report, CSA Company, July 27, 1989.

34.    Compliance Testing For Southland Exchange Joint Venture, Hampton, South Carolina, ETS,
       Inc., July 1989.

35.    Source Test Report, MEGA Of Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, August, 1988.

36.    Report On Paniculate And HO Emission Tests On Therm-Tec Incinerator Stack, Efyra, Ohio,
       Maurice L. Kelsey & Associates, Inc., January 24, 1989.

37.    Compliance Emission Testing For Paniculate And Hydrogen Chloride At Bio-Medical Service
       Corporation, Lake City, Georgia, Air Techniques Inc., May 8, 1989.

38.    Paniculate And Chloride Emission Compliance Test On The Environmental Control
       Incinerator At The Mayo Foundation Institute Hills Research Facility, Rochester, Minnesota,
       HDR Techserv, Inc., November 30, 1988.

39.    Report On Paniculate And HO. Emission Tests On Therm-Tec Incinerator Stack, Cincinnati,
       Ohio, Maurice L.  Kelsey & Associates, Inc., May 22, 1989.

40.    Repon On Compliance Testing, Hamot Medical Center, Erie, Pennsylvania, Hamot Medical
       Center, July 19, 1990.

41.    Compliance Emission Testing For HCA North Park Hospital, Hixson, Tennessee, Air Systems
       Testing, Inc., February 16,  1988.

42.    Compliance Paniculate Emission Testing On The Pathological Waste Incinerator, Humana
       Hospital-East Ridge, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Air Techniques, Inc., November 12, 1987.

43.    Repon Of Emission Tests, Helens Fuld Medical Center, Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey
       State Department of Environmental Protection, December 1, 1989.
2.3-30                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Refoimatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
2.4  Landfills

2.4.1 General1-4

        A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well,
or waste pile.  An MSW landfill unit may also receive other types of wastes, such as commercial solid
waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste.  The municipal solid waste types potentially
accepted by MSW landfills include:

        -   MSW,
        -   Household hazardous waste,
        -   Municipal sludge,
        -   Municipal waste combustion ash,
        -   Infectious waste,
        -   Waste tires,
        -   Industrial nonhazardous waste,
        -   Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous waste,
        -   Construction and demolition waste,
        -   Agricultural wastes,
        -   Oil and gas wastes, and
        -   Mining wastes.

        Municipal solid waste management in the United States is dominated by disposal in landfills.
Approximately 67 percent of solid waste is landfilled, 16 percent is incinerated, and 17 percent is
recycled or composted.  There were an estimated 5,345  active MSW landfills in the United States in
1992. In 1990, active landfills were receiving an estimated 118 million megagrams (Mg) (130 million
tons) of waste annually,  with 55 to 60 percent reported as household waste, and 35 to 45 percent
reported as commercial waste.

2.4.2 Process Description2'5

        There are three major designs for municipal landfills.  These are the area, trench, and ramp
methods.  All of these methods utilize a three step process, which includes spreading the waste,
compacting the waste, and covering the waste with soil.  The trench and ramp methods are not
commonly  used, and are not the preferred methods when liners and leachate collection systems are
utilized  or required by law.   The area fill method involves placing waste on the ground surface or
landfill  liner, spreading it in  layers, and compacting with heavy equipment. A daily soil cover is
spread over the compacted waste.  The trench method entails excavating trenches designed to receive a
day's worth of waste.  The soil from the excavation is often used for cover material and wind breaks.
The ramp method is typically employed on sloping land, where waste is spread and compacted similar
to the area  method; however, the cover material obtained is generally from the front of the working
face of the filling operation.

        Modern landfill design often incorporates liners  constructed of soil (e. g., recompacted clay),
or synthetics (e. g., high density polyethylene), or both to provide an impermeable barrier to leachate
(i. e., water that has passed through the landfill) and gas migration from the landfill.
1/95                                 Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.4-1

    -------
2.4.3 Control Technology1'2'6

       The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations promulgated on
October 9,  1991, require that the concentration of methane generated by MSW landfills not exceed
25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) in on-site structures, such as scale houses, or the LEL at
the facility property boundary.

       Proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for air
emissions from MSW landfills for  certain new and existing landfills were published in the Federal
Register on May 30, 1991.  The regulation, if adopted, will require that Best Demonstrated
Technology (BUT) be used to reduce MSW landfill emissions from  affected new and existing MSW
landfills emitting greater than or equal to 150 Mg/yr (165 tons/yr) of non-methanogenic organic
compounds (NMOCs).  The MSW landfills that would be affected by the proposed NSPS would be
each new MSW landfill, and each existing MSW landfill that has accepted waste since November 8,
1987, or that has capacity available for future use.  Control systems would require:  (1) a well-designed
and well-operated gas collection system, and (2) a control device capable of reducing NMOCs in the
collected gas by 98 weight-percent.

       Landfill gas collection systems are either active or passive systems.  Active collection systems
provide a pressure gradient in order to extract landfill gas by use of mechanical blowers or
compressors.  Passive systems allow the natural pressure gradient created by the increase in landfill
pressure from landfill gas generation to mobilize the gas  for collection.

       Landfill gas control  and treatment options include (1) combustion of the landfill gas, and
(2) purification of the landfill gas.  Combustion techniques include techniques that do not recover
energy (i. e.,  flares and thermal incinerators), and techniques that recover energy (i. e., gas turbines
and internal combustion engines) and generate electricity from the combustion of the landfill gas.
Boilers can also be employed to recover energy from landfill gas in  the form of steam.  Flares involve
an open combustion process that requires oxygen for combustion, and can be open or enclosed.
Thermal incinerators heat an organic chemical to a high enough temperature in the presence of
sufficient oxygen to oxidize the chemical to carbon dioxide (C02) and water.  Purification techniques
can also be used to process raw landfill gas to pipeline quality natural gas by using adsorption,
absorption, and membranes.

2.4.4 Emissions2'7

       Methane (CH^ and  CO2 are the primary constituents of landfill gas, and are produced by
microorganisms within the landfill  under anaerobic conditions. Transformations of CH4 and CO2 are
mediated by microbial populations  that are adapted to the cycling of materials in anaerobic
environments. Landfill gas  generation, including rate and composition, proceeds through four phases.
The first phase is aerobic (e. g., with  oxygen [O2]  available) and the primary gas produced is CO2.
The second phase is characterized by O2 depletion, resulting in an anaerobic environment, where large
amounts of CO2 and some hydrogen (H2) are produced.  In the third phase, CH4 production begins,
with an accompanying reduction in the amount of CO2 produced. Nitrogen (N2) content is initially
high in landfill gas in the first phase, and declines sharply as the landfill proceeds through the second
and third phases. In the fourth phase, gas production of CH4, CO2, and N2 becomes fairly steady.
The total time and phase duration of gas generation varies with landfill conditions (e. g., waste
composition,  design management,  and anaerobic state).

       The rate of emissions from a landfill is governed by gas production and transport mechanisms.
Production mechanisms involve the production of the emission constituent in its vapor phase through

2.4-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
vaporization, biological decomposition, or chemical reaction.  Transport mechanisms involve the
transportation of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase to the surface of the landfill, through the air
boundary layer above the landfill, and into the atmosphere.  The three major transport mechanisms that
enable transport of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase are diffusion, convection, and displacement.

2.4.4.1  Uncontrolled Emissions -
        To estimate uncontrolled emissions of the various compounds present in landfill gas, total
landfill gas emissions must first be estimated.  Uncontrolled CH4 emissions may be estimated for
individual landfills by using a theoretical first-order kinetic model of methane production developed by
the EPA.2 This model is known as the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model, and can be accessed
from the EPA's Control Technology Center bulletin board.  The Landfill Air Emissions Estimation
model equation is as follows:

                                    QcH4 = L0 R (e'kc - e-*)                                 (1)
where:

         QCH4  =  Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr;
           L0  =  Methane generation potential, m3 CH4/Mg refuse;
            R  =  Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg/yr;
             e  =  Base log, unitless;
             k  =  Methane generation rate constant, yr"1;
             c  =  Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
             t  =  Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.

        Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R,  c, and t.  When refuse
acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be determined by dividing the refuse in place
by the age of the landfill.  Also, nondegradable refuse should be subtracted from the mass of
acceptance rate to prevent overestimation of CH4 generation. The average annual acceptance rate
should only be estimated by this method when there is inadequate information available on the actual
average acceptance rate.

        Values for variables L0 and k must be estimated.  Estimation of the potential CH4 generation
capacity of refuse (L0) is generally treated as a function of the moisture and organic content of the
refuse.  Estimation of the CH4 generation constant (k) is a function of a variety of factors, including
moisture, pH, temperature, and other environmental factors, and landfill operating  conditions.  Specific
CH4 generation constants can be computed by use of the EPA Method 2E.

        The Landfill  Air Emission Estimation model uses the proposed regulatory default values for L0
and k. However, the defaults were developed for regulatory compliance purposes.  As a result, it
contains conservative L0 and k default values in order to protect human health, to encompass a wide
range of landfills, and to encourage the use of site-specific data.  Therefore, different L0 and k values
may be appropriate in estimating landfill emissions for particular landfills and for use in an emissions
inventory.

       A k value of 0.04/yr is appropriate for areas with normal or above normal precipitation rather
than the default value of 0.02/yr.  For landfills with drier waste,  a k value of 0.02/yr is more
appropriate.  An L0 value of 125 m3/Mg (4,411 ft3/Mg) refuse is  appropriate for most landfills. It
should be emphasized that in order to comply with the NSPS, the model defaults for k and L0 must be
applied as specified in the final rule.
1/95                                  Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.4-3

    -------
       Landfill gas consists of approximately 50 percent by volume CO2, 50 percent CH4, and trace
amounts of NMOCs when gas generation reaches steady state conditions.  Therefore, the estimate
derived for CH4 generation using the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model can also be used to
represent CO2 generation. Addition of the CH4 and CO2 emissions will yield an estimate of total
landfill gas emissions.  If site-specific information is available to suggest that the CH4 content of
landfill gas is not 50 percent, then the site-specific information should be used, and the CO2 emission
estimate should  be adjusted accordingly.

       Emissions of NMOCs result from NMOCs contained in the landfilled waste,  and from their
creation from biological processes and chemical reactions within the landfill cell.  The Landfill Air
Emissions Estimation model contains a proposed regulatory default value for total NMOCs of
8000 ppmv, expressed as hexane. However, there is a wide range for total NMOC values from
landfills. The proposed regulatory default value for NMOC  concentration was developed for
regulatory compliance and to provide the most cost-effective default values on a national basis. For
emissions inventory purposes, it would be preferable that site-specific information be taken into
account when determining the total NMOC concentration. A value of 4,400 ppmv as hexane is
preferable for landfills known to have co-disposal of MSW and commercial/industrial organic wastes.
If the landfill  is  known to contain only MSW or have very little organic commercial/industrial wastes,
then a total NMOC value of 1,170 ppmv as hexane  should be used.

       If a site-specific total NMOC concentration  is available (i. e., as measured by EPA Reference
Method 25C), it must be corrected  for air infiltration into the collected landfill gas before it can be
combined with the estimated landfill gas  emissions to estimate total NMOC emissions.  The total
NMOC concentration is adjusted for air infiltration  by assuming that CO2 and CH4 are the primary
(100 percent)  constituents of landfill gas, and the following equation is used:
where:
               cNMOc(PPmv a* hexane) (1  x 106)  =   CNMOC ppmv as hexane
                 Cco  (ppmv) + CCH (ppmv)      (corrected for air infiltration)
                = Total NMOC concentration in landfill gas, ppmv as hexane;
                                                                                  (2)
          Cco  = CO2 concentration in landfill gas, ppmv;
          CCH  = CH4 Concentration in landfill gas, ppmv; and
         1 x 106 = Constant used to correct NMOC concentration to units of ppmv.

Values for Cco and CCH  can be usually be found in the source test report for the particular landfill
along with the total NMOC concentration data.
where:
To estimate total NMOC emissions, the following equation should be used:
               QNMOC = 2 QCH4 * CNMOC/(1 x 106)                                (3)


 QNMOC  = NMOC emission rate, m3/yr;
  QCH   = CH4 generation rate, m3/yr (from the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model);
      C  = Total NMOC concentration in landfill gas, ppmv as hexane; and
      2  = Multiplication factor (assumes that approximately 50 percent of landfill gas is
           CH4).
2.4-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
The mass emissions per year of total NMOCs (as hexane) can be estimated by the following equation:

                              A,      _  ^          f 1050.2 1                           /4i
                              MNMOC ~  VNMOC  *   (273+T)

where:

         MNMOC  = NMOC (total) mass emissions (kg/yr);
          QNMOC  = NMOC emission rate (m3/yr); and
               T  = Temperature of landfill gas (°C).

This equation assumes that the operating pressure of the system is approximately 1 atmosphere, and
represents total NMOCs, based on the molecular weight of hexane.  If the temperature of the landfill
gas is not known, a temperature of 25°C (75°F) is recommended.

       Uncontrolled emission concentrations of individual NMOCs along with some inorganic
compounds are presented in Table 2.4-1. These individual NMOC and inorganic concentrations have
already been corrected for air infiltration and can be used as input parameters in the Landfill Air
Emission Estimation model for estimating individual NMOC emissions from landfills when site-specific
data are not available. An analysis of the data based on the co-disposal history (with hazardous wastes)
of the individual landfills from which the concentration data were derived indicates that for benzene
and toluene, there is a difference in the uncontrolled concentration.  Table 2.4-2 presents the corrected
concentrations for benzene and toluene to use based on the site's co-disposal history.

       Similar to the estimation of total NMOC emissions, individual NMOC emissions can be
estimated by the following equation:


                             QNMOC = 2 QCH4 * CNMOC/(1 x 106)                          (5)

where:

        QNMOC  =   NMOC emission rate, m3/yr;
          QCH4  =   CH4 generation  rate, m3/yr (from the Landfill Air Emission Estimation model);
        CNMOC  =   NMOC concentration in landfill gas, ppmv; and
              2  =   Multiplication factor (assumes that approximately 50 percent of landfill gas is
                     CH4).

       The mass emissions per year of each individual landfill gas compound can be estimated by the
following equation:

          INMOC   =  QNMOC   *             (Molecular weight of compound)              (6)
                                     (8.205 x 1Q-5 m3-atm/mol-°K) (1000 g) (273 + T)
where:

       INMOC  =  Individual NMOC mass emissions (kg/yr);
       QNMOC  =  NMOC emission rate (m3/yr); and
             T  =  Temperature of landfill gas (°C).
1/95                                 Solid Waste Disposal                                2.4-5

    -------
         Table 2.4-1.  UNCONTROLLED LANDFILL GAS CONCENTRATIONS3
Compound
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)*
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane*
1,1-Dichloroethane (ethyl idene dichloride)*
1,1-Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)*
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)*
1,2-Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)*
Acetone
Acrylonitrile*
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon disulfide*
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride*
Carbonyl sulfide*
Chlorobenzene*
Chlorodiflouromethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)*
Chloroform*
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)*
Dimethyl sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethane
Ethyl mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethyl benzene*
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexane*
Hydrogen sulfide
Methyl ethyl ketone*
Methyl isobutyl ketone*
Methyl mercaptan
NMOC (as hexane)
Pentane
Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)*
Molecular
Weight
133.42
167.85
133.42
98.95
96.94
98.96
112.98
58.08
53.06
163.87
58.12
76.13
28.01
153.84
60.07
112.56
67.47
64.52
119.39
50.49
120.91
102.92
84.94
62.13
30.07
62.13
106.16
137.38
86.17
34.08
72.10
100.16
48.10
86.17
72.15
165.83
Median
ppmv
0.27
0.20
0.10
2.07
0.22
0.79
0.17
6.89
7.56
2.06
3.83
1.00
309.32
0.00
24.00
0.20
1.22
1.17
0.27
1.14
12.17
4.37
14.30
76.16
227.65
0.86
4.49
0.73
6.64
36.51
6.13
1.22
10.43
1170
3.32
3.44
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
C
E
B
B
B
C
B
D
C
B
E
C
B
E
D
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
D
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
2.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                    1/95

    -------
                                     Table 2.4-1 (cont.).


Compound
Propane
Trichloroethylene*
t- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride*
Xylene*

Molecular
Weight
44.09
131.40
96.94
62.50
106.16

Median
ppmv
10.60
2.08
4.01
7.37
12.25
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
a References 9-35. Source Classification Code 5-02-006-02.  * = Hazardous air pollutants listed in
  the Clean Air Act.
  Table 2.4-2. UNCONTROLLED CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE AND TOLUENE BASED
                      ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL HISTORY"
Compound
Benzene*
Co-disposal
Unknown
No co-disposal
Toluene*
Co-disposal
Unknown
No co-disposal
Molecular Weight
78.11

92.13


Concentration
ppmv

24.99
2.25
0.37
102.62
31.63
8.93
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
B
D
D
B
D
a References 9-35.  Source Classification Code 5-02-006-02.  * = Hazardous air pollutants listed in
  the Clean Air Act.
2.4.4.2  Controlled Emissions -
       Emissions from landfills are typically controlled by installing a gas collection system, and
destroying the collected gas through the use of internal combustion engines, flares, or turbines. Gas
collection systems are not 100 percent efficient in collecting landfill gas, so emissions of CH4 and
NMOCs at a landfill with a gas recovery system still occur.  To estimate controlled emissions of CH4,
NMOCs, and other constituents in landfill gas, the collection efficiency of the system must first be
estimated. Reported collection efficiencies typically range from 60 to 85 percent, with an average of
75 percent most commonly assumed.  If site-specific collection efficiencies are available, they should
be used instead of the 75 percent average.

       Uncollected CH4, CO2, and NMOCs can be calculated with the following equation:
1/95
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-7

    -------
      Table 2.4-4 (Metric Units).  EMISSION RATES FOR SECONDARY COMPOUNDS
                            EXITING CONTROL DEVICES*
Control Device
Flare
(5-02-006-01)
(5-03-006-01)


1C Engine
(no SCC)
Turbine
(no SCC)
Compound
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Methane
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Average Rate,
kg/hr/dscmm
Uncontrolled Methane
85.7b
0.80
0.11
1.60
0.03
85.7b
0.80
85.7b
0.32
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
C
E
B
E
B
E
a Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Carbon dioxide emission factors are based on a mass balance on the combustion of a 50/50 mixture
  of methane and CO2-
       Table 2.4-5 (English Units).  EMISSION RATES FOR SECONDARY COMPOUNDS
                            EXITING CONTROL DEVICES'1
Control Device
Flare
(5-02-006-01)
(5-03-006-01)


1C Engine
(no SCC)
Turbine
(no SCC)
Compound
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Methane
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Average Rate,
Ib/hr/dscfrn
Uncontrolled Methane
5.3b
0.050
0.007
0.105
0.002
5.3b
0.050
5.3b
0.021
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
C
E
B
E
B
E
a Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Carbon dixoide emission factors are based on a mass balance on the combustion of a 50/50 mixture
  of methane and CO2.
References For Section 2.4

1.      Criteria For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 40 CFR Part 258, Volume 56, No. 196.
       October 9, 1991.
2.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
2.     Air Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards And Guidelines. Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
       EPA^50/3-90-011a.  Chapters 3 and 4. March 1991.

3.     Characterization Of Municipal Solid Waste In The United States:  1992 Update. Office Of
       Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.  EPA-530-R-92-019.
       NTIS No. PB92-207-166.  July 1992.

4.     Eastern Research Group, Inc., List Of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.  Prepared For The
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Solid Waste, Municipal And Industrial
       Solid Waste Division, Washington,  D.C.  September 1992.

5.     Suggested Control Measures For Landfill Gas Emissions.  State Of California Air Resources
       Board, Stationary Source Division,  Sacramento, California. August 1990.

6.     Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources And Guidelines For Control Of Existing
       Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline, And Notice Of Public
       Hearing. 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 60. Vol. 56, No. 104. May 30,  1991.

7.     S. W. Zison, Landfill Gas Production Curves.  "Myth Versus Reality."  Pacific Energy, City
       Of Commerce, California. [Unpublished]

8.     R. L. Peer, et al., Development Of An Empirical Model Of Methane Emissions From Landfills.
       U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office Of Research And Development.
       EPA-600/R-92-037, Cincinnati, OH. 1992.

9.     A. R. Chowdhury,  Emissions From  A Landfill Gas-Fired Turbine/Generator Set.  Source Test
       Report C-84-33.  Los Angeles County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality
       Management District, June 28,  1984.

10.    Engineering-Science, Inc., Report Of Stack Testing At County Sanitation District Los Angeles
       Puente Hills Landfill. Los Angeles  County Sanitation District, August 15,  1984.

11.    J. R. Manker, Vinyl Chloride (And Other Organic Compounds) Content Of Landfill Gas Vented
       To An Inoperative Flare, Source Test Report 84-496.  David Price Company, South Coast Air
       Quality Management  District, November 30,  1984.

12.    S. Mainoff, Landfill Gas Composition, Source Test Report 85-102.  Bradley Pit Landfill, South
       Coast Air Quality Management District, May 22, 1985.

13.    J. Littman, Vinyl Chloride And Other Selected Compounds Present In A Landfill Gas Collection
       System Prior To And After Flaring, Source Test Report 85-369. Los Angeles County Sanitation
       District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 9,  1985.

14.    W. A. Nakagawa, Emissions From A Landfill Exhausting Through A Flare System, Source Test
       Report 85-461.  Operating Industries, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
       October 14, 1985.

15.    S. Marinoff, Emissions From A Landfill Gas Collection System, Source Test Report 85-511.
       Sheldon Street Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 9, 1985.

1/95                                Solid Waste  Disposal                               2.4-11

    -------

    -------
2.5  Open Burning

2.5.1  General1

        Open burning can be done in open drums or baskets, in fields and yards, and in large open
dumps or pits.  Materials commonly disposed of in this manner include municipal waste, auto body
components, landscape refuse, agricultural field refuse, wood refuse, bulky industrial refuse, and
leaves.

        Current regulations prohibit open burning of hazardous waste.  One exception is for open
burning and detonation of explosives, particularly waste explosives that have the potential to detonate,
and bulk military propellants which cannot safely be disposed of through other modes of treatment.

        The following Source Classification Codes (SCCs) pertain to open burning:

               Government
                      5-01-002-01    General Refuse
                      5-01-002-02    Vegetation Only

               Commercial /Institutional
                      5-02-002-01    Wood
                      5-02-002-02    Refuse

               Industrial
                      5-03-002-01    Wood /Vegetation/Leaves
                      5-03-002-02    Refuse
                      5-03-002-03    Auto Body Components
                      5-03-002-04    Coal Refuse Piles
                      5-03-002-05    Rocket Propellant


2.5.2 Emissions1"22
       Ground-level  open burning emissions are affected by many variables, including wind, ambient
temperature,  composition and moisture content of the debris burned,  and compactness of the pile.  In
general, the relatively low temperatures associated with open burning increase emissions of paniculate
matter, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons and suppress emissions of nitrogen oxides.  Emissions of
sulfur oxides are a direct function of the sulfur content of the refuse.

2.5.2.1  Municipal Refuse -
       Emission factors for the open burning of municipal  refuse are presented in Table 2.5-1.

2.5.2.2  Automobile Components -
       Emission factors for the open burning of automobile components including upholstery, belts,
hoses, and tires are presented in Table 2.5-1.

       Emission factors for the burning of scrap tires only are presented in Tables 2.5-2, 2.5-3, and
2.5-4.  Although it is illegal in many states to dispose of tires using open burning, fires often occur at
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.5-1

    -------
      Table 2.5-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
                                   OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Municipal Refuse1"
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Automobile Components0
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Participate

8
16

50
100
Sulfur
Oxides

0.5
1.0

Neg
Neg
Carbon
Monoxide

42
85

62
125
TOC"
Methane

6.5
13

5
10
Nomnethane

15
30

16
32
Nitrogen
Oxides

3
6

2
4
a Data indicate that total organic compounds (TOC) emissions are approximately 25% methane, 8%
  other saturates,  18% olefins, 42% others (oxygenates, acetylene, aromatics, trace formaldehyde).
b References 2 and 7.
c Reference 2.  Upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires burned together.
tire stockpiles and through illegal burning activities.  If the emission factors presented here are used
to estimate emissions from an accidental tire fire, it should be kept in mind that emissions from
burning tires are generally dependent on the burn rate of the tire.  A greater potential for emissions
exists at lower burn rates, such as when a tire is smoldering,  rather than burning out of control.  In
addition, the emission factors presented here for tire "chunks" are probably more appropriate than for
"shredded" tires for estimating emissions from an accidental tire fire because there is likely to be
more air-space between the tires in an actual fire.  As discussed in Reference 21, it is difficult to
estimate emissions from a large pile of tires based on these results, but emissions can be related to a
mass burn rate. To use the information presented here, it may be helpful to use the following
estimates:  tires tested in Reference 21  weighed approximately 7 kilograms (kg) (15.4 pounds [lb])
and the volume of 1 tire is approximately 0.2  cubic meter (m3)  (7 cubic feet [ft3]). Table 2.5-2
presents emission factors for paniculate metals.  Table 2.5-3 presents emission factors for polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and Table 2.5-4 presents emissions for other volatile hydrocarbons.
For more detailed information on this subject consult the reference cited at the end of this chapter.

2.5.2.3 Agricultural Waste -

Organic Agricultural Waste -
        Organic refuse burning consists of burning field crops, wood,  and leaves.  Emissions from
organic agricultural refuse burning are dependent mainly on the moisture content of the refuse and, in
the case of the field crops, on whether the refuse is burned in a headfire or a backfire.  Headfires are
started at the upwind side of a field and allowed to progress in the direction of the wind,  whereas
backfires are started at the downwind edge and forced to progress in a direction opposing the wind.

        Other variables such as fuel loading (how much refuse material is burned per unit of land
area) and how the refuse is arranged (in piles, rows, or spread out) are also important in certain
instances.  Emission factors for open agricultural burning  are presented in Table 2.5-5 as a function
of refuse type and also, in certain instances, as a function  of burning techniques and/or moisture
content when these variables are known to significantly affect emissions.  Table 2.5-5 also presents
typical fuel loading values associated with each type of refuse.  These values can be used, along with
2.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
N>

I
   Table 2.5-2 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE METALS EMISSION FACTORS FROM OPEN BURNING OF TIRESa

                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Tire Condition
Pollutant
Aluminum
Antimony0
Arsenic0
Barium
Calcium
Chromium0
Copper
Iron
Leadc
Magnesium
Nickel0
Selenium0
Silicon
Sodium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chunkb
mg
kg tire
3.07
2.94
0.05
1.46
7.15
1.97
0.31
11.80
0.34
1.04
2.37
0.06
41.00
7.68
7.35
7.35
44.96
Ib
1000 tons tire
6.14
5.88
0.10
2.92
14.30
3.94
0.62
23.61
0.67
2.07
4.74
0.13
82.00
15.36
14.70
14.70
89.92
Shreddedb
mg
kg tire
2.37
2.37
0.20
1.18
4.73
1.72
0.29
8.00
0.10
0.75
1.08
0.20
27.52
5.82
5.92
5.92
24.75
Ib
1000 tons tire
4.73
4.73
0.40
2.35
9.47
3.43
0.58
15.99
0.20
1.49
2.15
0.40
55.04
11.63
11.83
11.83
49.51
t/o
•o
o
VI
e.
JO
I/I
a Reference 21.
b Values are weighted averages.
0 Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.

    -------
N)
               Table 2.5-3 (Metric And English).  POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FROM
                                                 OPEN BURNING OF TIRES8

                                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Tire Condition
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(A)pyrene
Benzo(B)fluoranthene
Benzo(G,H,I)perylene
Benzo(K)fluoranthene
Benz(A)anthracene
Chrysene
Dibenz(A,H)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene
Naphthalene1*
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Chunkb>c
mg
kg tire
718.20
570.20
265.60
173.80
183.10
36.20
281.80
7.90
48.30
54.50
42.30
43.40
58.60
0.00
28.00
35.20
Ib
1000 tons tire
1436.40
1 140.40
531.20
347.60
366.20
72.40
563.60
15.80
96.60
109.00
84.60
86.80
117.20
0.00
56.00
70.40
Shreddedb>c
mg
kg tire
2385.60
568.08
49.61
115.16
89.07
160.84
100.24
103.71
94.83
0.00
463.35
189.49
86.38
490.85
252.73
153.49
Ib
1000 tons tire
4771.20
1136.17
99.23
230.32
178.14
321.68
200.48
207.43
189.65
0.00
926.69
378.98
172.76
981.69
505.46
306.98
m
§
c/5
c/1
O
z
T1

9
O
jo
c/o
15
8.
o
to
      a Reference 21.
      b 0.00 values indicate pollutant was not found.
      c Values are weighted averages.
      d Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.

    -------
      Table 2.5-4 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM OPEN BURNING OF TIRES8



                                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Tire Condition
Pollutant
1,1'Biphenyl, methyl
In Fluorene
1 -Methyl naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Benzaldehyde
Benzened
Benzodiazine
Benzofuran
Benzothiophene
Benzo(B)thiophene
Benzsisothiazole
Biphenyld
Butadiened
Cyanobenzene
Cyclopentadiene
Chunkb-c
kg tire
12.71
191.27
299.20
321.47
592.70
223.34
1526.39
13.12
40.62
10.31
50.37
0.00
190.08
117.14
203.81
67.40
Ib
1000 tons tire
25.42
382.54
598.39
642.93
1185.39
446.68
3052.79
26.23
81.24
20.62
100.74
0.00
380.16
234.28
407.62
134.80
Shreddedb-c
mg
kg tire
0.00
315.18
227.87
437.06
549.32
322.05
1929.93
17.43
0.00
914.91
0.00
151.66
329.65
138.97
509.34
0.00
Ib
1000 tons tire
0.00
630.37
455.73
874.12
1098.63
644.10
3859.86
34.87
0.00
1829.82
0.00
303.33
659.29
277.95
1018.68
0.00
c/5
o
O>

O
VI

BL
NJ

\J\

    -------
                 


  I
                     «   -«t   "<
                                                                            OS
 3

6
               tu
                          cs
                          m
                                                                                         '^t
                                                                                         vo
on
e Cond
an
Po







                                           S

                                                §

                                                    CD

                                                   f>

                                                            i








                                                       s   s   S
                                                       •~<   c"   it\
                                                                   2


     a>

     aj

    -------
  ts
   D


  I
          0
          C/5
          u
re Condition


Po
                           gri
                           vo
                           «n
                                                  —   t-
                       vo
                       CS— '
                       ON
                                                  (S
                                                           CM
                                                                                  CS
                                                                              vo  oo
                           oo— <
                                                  o\
                                                  o
                                                                    — i   in   —
                            S
                                4>
                                §
s
fl>
N
§
                                              4)
                                                  «
                                              a    §

                                                   i
                                                   *
«
     r**
         «

    ">*
                                     0)
                                     §
                                                                              rS
                                     2
s
w
*>
S

                                                       S

10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)
  Solid Waste Disposal
                                                          2.5-7

    -------
J°

00
                                                                 Table 2.5-4 (cont.).
Tire Condition
Pollutant
Methylethyl benzene
Phenold
Propenyl, methyl benzene
Propenyl naphthalene
Propyl benzene
Styrened
Tetramethyl benzene
Thiophene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trimethyl benzene
Trimethyl naphthalene
Chunkb-c
mg
kg tire
41.40
337.71
0.00
26.80
19.43
618.77
0.00
17.51
138.10
195.59
0.00
Ib
1000 tons tire
82.79
675.41
0.00
53.59
38.87
1237.53
0.00
35.02
276.20
391.18
0.00
Shreddedb-c
mg
kg tire
224.23
704.90
456.59
0.00
215.13
649.92
121.72
31.11
0.00
334.80
316.26
Ib
1000 tons tire
448.46
1409.80
913.18
0.00
430.26
1299.84
243.44
62.22
0.00
669.59
632.52
m
2
HH
in
00
^^
O
o
H
O
5
       a Reference 21.
       b 0.00 values indicate the pollutant was not found.
       c Values are weight averages.
       d Hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
o
\o

    -------
          Table 2.5-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING

                                         OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS8
                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
8.
Refuse Category
Field Cropsd
Unspecified
Burning techniques not
significant6
Asparagusf
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Grasses
Pineapple8
Riceh
Safflower
Sorghum
Sugar cane1
Headfire Burning)
Alfalfa
Bean (red)
Hay (wild)
Oats
Pea
Wheat
Particulateb
kg/Mg

11


20
11
7
4
8
4
4
9
9
2.3-3.5

23
22
16
22
16
11
Ib/ton

21


40
22
14
8
16
8
9
18
18
6-8.4

45
43
32
44
31
22


Carbon Monoxide
kg/Mg

58


75
78
54
88
50
56
41
72
38
30-41

53
93
70
68
74
64
Ib/ton

117


150
157
108
176
101
112
83
144
77
60-81

106
186
139
137
147
128
TOCC
Methane
kg/Mg

2.7


10
2.2
2
0.7
2.2
1
1.2
3
1
0.6-2

4.2
5.5
2.5
4
4.5
2
Ib/ton

5.4


20
4.5
4
1.4
4.5
2
2.4
6
2
1.2-3.8

8.5
11
5
7.8
9
4
Nonmethane
kg/Mg

9


33
7.5
6
2.5
7.5
3
4
10
3.5
2-6

14
18
8.5
13
15
6.5
Ib/ton

18


66
15
12
5
15
6
8
20
7
4-12

28
36
17
26
29
13
Fuel Loading Factors
(waste production)
Mg/hectare

4.5


3.4
3.8
9.4
3.8


6.7
2.9
6.5
8-46

1.8
5.6
2.2
3.6
5.6
4.3
ton/acre

2


1.5
1.7
4.2
1.7


3.0
1.3
2.9
3-17

0.8
2.5
1.0
1.6
2.5
1.9
GO
O.

51


3
O
v>

EL
to

Ut

    -------
                              e
                              §  a
                             •3  8
u*
                                      4)
                                      00
                                     s
                                             oo in  o vo ON   in

                                             o 


                                 «
   S
         c



        JD
 bO
s
"bb
                           g
                                                        in
                                                                    o\    — -H
                                                                         oo
                                                                                   •^•cn—
                                                \o
                                             >n
                                                        rn   oo

                                                        —I   o
                                                                    in    «s«s
                                                                                         in   oo cs in oo cs in
                   m
    o
   JO


   O
                                             O-vOOOVOOO   —
                                             « •* in co o   in
S
                                      in    os •*
                                      oo    o m
                                            m
                                                                         in—
                                                                                                    — «vot~-rO
                                 o>
                                      bO
                                       o
                                             a\ •* r- — ^  m   in     in   tsin
                                                   oo •— «  \o  en     oo   -
                                       §>
                                      U

                                       4>
                                       Kl




                                      1
             £
             C

             2
             CQ
                                          03 .
                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                     g>

                                                                                                     C
                        o.

                        8
                2.5-10
                            EMISSION FACTORS
                                                             (Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
                                                               Table 2.5-5 (cont.).



Refuse Category
Orchard Cropsd)1'm
Olive
Peach
Pear
Prune
Walnut
Forest Residues"
Unspecified
Hemlock, Douglas fir,
cedarp
Ponderosa pineq




Particulateb
kg/Mg

6
3
4
2
3

8

2
6
Ib/ton

12
6
9
3
6

17

4
12




Carbon Monoxide
kg/Mg

57
21
28
24
24

70

45
98
Ib/ton

114
42
57
47
47

140

90
195
TOCC


Methane
kg/Mg

2
0.6
1
1
1

2.8

0.6
1.7
Ib/ton

4
1.2
2
2
2

5.7

1.2
3.3


Nonmethane
kg/Mg

7
2
3.5
3
3

9

2
5.5
Ib/ton

14
4
7
6
6

19

4
11


Fuel Loading factors
(waste production)
Mg/hectare

2.7
5.6
5.8
2.7
2.7

157

ND
ND
ton/acre

1.2
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.2

70

ND
ND
on
o
5
o
D
on'
"g
on
EL
 to
a Expressed as weight of pollutant emitted per weight of refuse material burned.  ND = no data.
b Reference 12. Particulate matter from most agricultural refuse burning has been found to be in the submicrometer size range.
c Data indicate that total organic compound (TOC) emissions average 22% methane, 7.5% other saturates, 17% olefins, 15% acetylene,
  38.5% unidentified.  Unidentified TOCs are expected to include aldehydes, ketones, aromatics, cycloparaffms.
d
  References 12-13 for emission factors, Reference 14 for fuel loading factors.
e For these refuse materials, no significant difference exists between emissions from headfiring and backfiring.
f Factors represent emissions under typical high moisture conditions. If ferns are dried to < 15% moisture, paniculate emissions will be
  reduced by 30%, CO emissions 23%, TOC emissions 74%.
g Reference 11.  When pineapple  is allowed to dry to <20% moisture,  as it usually is, firing technique is not important. When headfired
  at 20%  moisture, paniculate emissions will increase to 11.5 kg/Mg (23 Ib/ton) and TOCs will increase to 6.5 kg/Mg (13 Ib/ton).
h Factors are for dry (15% moisture) rice straw.  If rice straw is burned at higher moisture levels, particulate emissions  will increase to
  14.5 kg/Mg (29  Ib/ton), CO emissions to 80.5 kg/Mg (181  Ib/ton), and VOC emissions to 11.5 kg/Mg (23 Ib/ton).
1  Reference 20.  See Section 8.12 for discussion of sugar cane burning.  The following fuel loading factors are  to be used in the
  corresponding states:  Louisiana, 8 - 13.6 Mg/hectare (3 - 5 ton/acre); Florida, 11-19 Mg/hectare (4 - 7 ton/acre);
  Hawaii, 30 - 48  Mg/hectare (11-17 ton/acre).  For other areas, values generally increase with length of growing season.  Use larger end
  of the emission factor range for lower loading factors.

    -------
  trt
  ci
   4>
2
*^
1 *
® c?
'§ S
O I
= g
•SO
= S
11
P
l§
15
S.S
•g ^
!«
tfj
CA
O en
!•=
7 4->
d, ^
§•2
'i-S
E "S
•s «C
S M
§1
'en W)
.52 —
si
*i
=£ ^
£^ -
O M
s1!
ca J=
0 60
si
'^ en
tsib ei^
£
*lri
«B
1

o
,o
4~*
"S
IB

00
'~»
_e
*bri
cB
^<
%
x>
^M
o
^o
*•»
1
•o
Ul
c2
1
S
&o
^
'1
J
1

i
"3
CA1
.2
"CA
CA
1
*->
1







^
intervals

«
I
CA
S
•o
r
'E,
•o
8
.1
5
3
i
i %
.2 2
55 CX
M 4>
1 S
•S • "S
en ,fc: a>
co 1C S
SJ CA
Ill's
**••• o w
^ 2 '«•
*- o. "•"
ss *® 1
ijfi
 *>
ts ° !>
fill
* ai *"*
•8 S'S I
S
X)
3
CA
ra
en
a*
E
5
Q.
Orchard
_M
en
00
_e
|

1

.1
j=
o
«^
o
1

4>
CA
O
P
O.

5
CA
«1
remov;
•o
l-l
CQ
O
M
E
In
_O
CA
1
Q
2:
0
o
Referenc
c





2
D
Referenc
a.





vo

    -------
the corresponding emission factors, to estimate emissions from certain categories of agricultural
burning when the specific fuel loadings for a given area are not known.

       Emissions from leaf burning are dependent upon the moisture content, density, and ignition
location of the leaf piles.  Increasing the moisture content of the leaves generally increases the amount
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and particulate emissions.  Carbon monoxide emissions decrease if
moisture content is high but increase if moisture content is  low.  Increasing the density of the piles
increases the amount of hydrocarbon and particulate emissions, but has a variable effect on carbon
monoxide emissions.

       The highest emissions from open burning of leaves occur when the base of the leaf pile is
ignited. The lowest emissions generally arise from igniting a single spot on the top of the pile.
Particulate, hydrocarbon, and carbon monoxide emissions from windrow ignition (piling the leaves
into a long row  and igniting one end, allowing it to burn toward the other end) are intermediate
between top and bottom ignition. Emission factors for leaf burning are presented in Table 2.5-6.  For
more detailed information on this subject, the reader should consult the reference cited at the end of
this section.

2.5.2.4 Agricultural Plastic Film -
       Agricultural plastic film that has been used for ground moisture  and weed control. Large
quantities of plastic film are commonly disposed of when field crops are burned. The plastic film
may also be gathered into large piles and burned separately or burned in an air curtain. Emissions
from burning agricultural plastic are dependent on whether  the film is new or has been exposed to
exposed to vegetation and possibly pesticides. Table 2.5-7  presents emission factors for organic
compounds emitted from burning new  and used plastic film in piles or in piles where air has been
forced through them to simulate combustion in an air curtain. Table 2.5-8 presents  emission factors
for PAHs emitted from open burning of inorganic plastic film.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                2.5-13

    -------
 g
 3
 g
U

tu

Z
2
03   04
£2   5
 u
 D
 w
 •g
  o
 wo
  

              '§
              ex
              60

              s
                                  WO — 
                  oovo —
                         CS — —H — — H
                                             WO


                                             (S —'

                             S

                                       0 g
                    o           j-
                  <-S^'rt'-'goS-c'^>— IT^^OU:   ta

                  illfgllfllllliti
                                                    «
                                                    j9«
                                                    "c3

                                                  «3
                                                  s<
                                                  S 2
                                                    809 tU
                                                    $ •«
                                                      8
                                                    
                                                         en

                                                         '£
                                              S o
.&  - ^
^) *Q_ E
G, re o
** S b

2 fe 'E
si > ^
§ ^ 5
O 6O
ti   en

: is
                                                         S.
                                                        C C
                                                        ca .
                                                        O ^


2 «

^ £
t3 tvo
                                                        O «8

                                                        C ^
                                                   0.  "



2.5-14
                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
       Table 2.5-7 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC
                    COMPOUNDS FROM BURNING PLASTIC FILMa

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Benzene

Toluene

Ethyl benzene

1-Hexene

Units
mg/kg plastic
lb/1000 tons plastic
mg/kg plastic
lb/1000 tons plastic
mg/kg plastic
lb/1000 tons plastic
mg/kg plastic
lb/1000 tons plastic
Condition Of Plastic
Unused Plastic
Pileb
0.0478
0.0955
0.0046
0.0092
0.0006
0.0011
0.0010
0.0020
Forced
Airc
0.0288
0.0575
0.0081
0.0161
0.0029
0.0058
0.0148
0.0296
Used
Pileb
0.0123
0.0247
0.0033
0.0066
0.0012
0.0025
0.0043
0.0086
Plastic
Forced
Airc
0.0244
0.0488
0.0124
0.0248
0.0056
0.0111
0.0220
0.0440
  a Reference 22.
  b Emission factors are for plastic gathered in
  c Emission factors are for plastic burned in a
       a pile and burned.
       pile with a forced air current.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)
Solid Waste Disposal
2.5-15

    -------
  w
  o

  [fa
e
  05

  03
W


§"2
CO S-
SB,
CA
o£
OS 2
Q j
>< S
« J
U <
C &




                    £
                          vo
                                                                  — 
                                                         oo
                                                o

                                                            C

                                                            U

                                                            O

                                                            «
                                                            -D
2.5-16
                            EMISSION FACTORS
                                                     (Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
                                                                    Table 2.5-8 (cont.).
Pollutant
Fluoranthene

Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Retene

Units
/ig/kg plastic film
lb/1000 tons plastic film
Mg/kg plastic film
lb/1000 tons plastic film
/xg/kg plastic film
lb/1000 tons plastic film
/xg/kg plastic film
lb/1000 tons plastic film
/
    -------
References For Section 2.5

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
       Durham, NC Contract Number CPA A-22-69-119, Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA,
       April 1970.

2.     R. W. Gerstle and D. A. Kemnitz, "Atmospheric Emissions From Open Burning", Journal Of
       Air Pollution Control Association, 12: 324-327, May 1967.

3.     J. O. Burkle, et al., 'The Effects Of Operating Variables And Refuse Types On Emissions
       From A Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator', In:  Proceedings Of 1968 Incinerator Conference,
       American Society Of Mechanical Engineers. New York, p.34-41, May 1968.

4.     M. I. Weisburd and S. S. Griswold (eds.),  Air Pollution Control Field Operations Guide: A
       Guide For Inspection And Control, PHS Publication No. 937, U. S. DHEW, PHS, Division
       Of Air Pollution, Washington, D.C., 1962.

5.     Unpublished Data On Estimated Major Air Contaminant Emissions, State Of New York
       Department Of Health, Albany, NY, April 1, 1968.

6.     E. F. Darley, et al.,  "Contribution Of Burning Of Agricultural Wastes To Photochemical Air
       Pollution", Journal Of Air Pollution Control Association, 16: 685-690, December 1966.

7.     M. Feldstein,  et al., "The Contribution Of The Open Burning Of Land Clearing Debris To
       Air Pollution", Journal Of Air Pollution Control Association, 13: 542-545, November 1963.

8.     R. W. Boubel, et al., "Emissions From Burning Grass Stubble And Straw",  Journal Of Air
       Pollution Control Association, 19: 497-500, July  1969.

9.     "Waste Problems Of Agriculture And Forestry", Environmental Science And Technology,
       2:498, July 1968.

10.    G. Yamate, et al., "An Inventory Of Emissions From Forest Wildfires, Forest Managed
       Burns, And Agricultural  Burns And Development Of Emission Factors For Estimating
       Atmospheric Emissions From Forest Fires", Presented At 68th Annual Meeting Air Pollution
       Control Association, Boston, MA, June 1975.

11.    E. F. Darley, Air Pollution Emissions From Burning Sugar Cane And Pineapple From
       Hawaii, University Of California, Riverside, Calif. Prepared For Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C, as amendment of Research Grant No. R800711.
       August 1974.

12.    E. F. Darley, et al., Air Pollution From Forest And Agricultural Burning.  California Air
       Resources Board Project 2-017-1, California Air Resources Board Project No. 2-017-1,
       University Of California, Davis, CA, April 1974.

13.    E. F. Darley, Progress Report On Emissions From Agricultural Burning,  California Air
       Resources Board Project 4-011, University Of California,  Riverside, CA, Private
       communication  with permission of Air Resources Board, June 1975.
2.5-18                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95)  10/92

    -------
14.    Private communication on estimated waste production from agricultural burning activities.
       California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.  September 1975.

15.    L. Fritschen, et al., Flash Fire Atmospheric Pollution.  U. S. Department of Agriculture,
       Washington, D.C., Service Research Paper PNW-97.  1970.

16.    D. W. Sandberg, et al., "Emissions From Slash Burning And The Influence Of Flame
       Retardant Chemicals".  Journal Of Air Pollution Control Association, 25:278, 1975.

17.    L. G. Wayne And M. L. McQueary, Calculation Of Emission Factors For Agricultural
       Burning Activities, EPA-450-3-75-087, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, Prepared Under Contract No. 68-02-1004, Task Order No. 4. By Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, November 1975.

18.    E. F. Darley, Emission Factor Development For Leaf Burning, University of California,
       Riverside, CA, Prepared For Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       Under Purchase Order No. 5-02-6876-1, September 1976.

19.    E. F. Darley, Evaluation Of The Impact Of Leaf Burning — Phase I: Emission Factors For
       Illinois Leaves, University Of California, Riverside, CA, Prepared For State of Illinois,
       Institute For Environmental Quality, August 1975.

20.    J. H. Southerland and A. McBath.  Emission Factors And Field Loading For Sugar Cane
       Burning, MDAD, OAQPS, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, January 1978.

21.    Characterization Of Emissions From The Simulated Open Burning Of Scrap  Tires,
       EPA-600/2-89-054,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1989.

22.    W.  P. Linak, et al., "Chemical And Biological Characterization Of Products Of Incomplete
       Combustion From The Simulated Field Burning Of Agricultural Plastic", Journal Of Air
       Pollution Control Association, 39(6), EPA-600/J-89/025, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency Control Technology Center, June 1989.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                               2.5-19

    -------

    -------
2.6  Automobile Body Incineration

        The information presented in this section has been reviewed but not updated since it was
originally prepared because no recent data were found and it is rarely practiced today. Auto bodies are
likely to be shredded or crushed and used as scrap metal in secondary metal production operations,
which are discussed in Chapter 12 (Metallurgical Industry).

2.6.1 Process Description

        Auto incinerators consist of a single primary combustion chamber in which one or several
partially stripped cars are burned. (Tires are removed.) Approximately 30 to 40 minutes is required to
burn two bodies simultaneously.2  As many as 50 cars per day can be burned in this batch-type
operation, depending on the capacity of the incinerator. Continuous operations in which cars are
placed on a conveyor belt and passed through a tunnel-type incinerator have capacities of more than
SO cars per 8-hour day.

2.6.2 Emissions And Controls1

        Both the degree of combustion  as determined by the incinerator design and the amount of
combustible material left on the car greatly affect emissions.  Temperatures on the order of 650°C
(1200°F) are reached during auto body incineration.2  This relatively low combustion temperature is a
result of the large incinerator volume needed to contain the bodies as compared with the small quantity
of combustible material.  The use of overfire air jets in the primary combustion chamber  increases
combustion efficiency by providing air and increased turbulence.

        In an attempt to reduce the various air pollutants produced by this method of burning, some
auto incinerators  are equipped with emission control devices.  Afterburners and low-voltage
electrostatic precipators have been used to reduce paniculate emissions; the former also reduces some
of the gaseous emissions.3'4  When afterburners are used to  control emissions, the temperature in the
secondary combustion chamber should  be at least 815°C (1500°F).  Lower temperatures result in
higher emissions.  Emission factors for auto body incinerators are presented in Table 2.6-1.  Paniculate
matter is likely to be mostly in the PM-10 range, but no data are available to support this hypothesis.
Although no data are available, emissions of HC1 are expected due to the increased use of chlorinated
plastic materials in  automobiles.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                 2.6-1

    -------
        Table 2.6-1 (English And Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUTO BODY
                                    INCINERATION8
                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutants
Particulatesb
Carbon monoxide*5
TOC (as CH^
Nitrogen oxides (NO-^
Aldehydes (HCOH)d
Organic acids (acetic)d
Uncontrolled
Ib/car
2
2.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.21
kg/car
0.9
1.1
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.10
With Afterburner
Ib/car
1.5
Neg
Neg
0.02
0.06
0.07
kg/car
0.68
Neg
Neg
0.01
0.03
0.03
  Based On 250 Ib (113 kg) Ui wuuiuuauuit uiaicuoi uu »u.
b References 2 and 4.
c Based on data for open burning and References 2 and 5.
d Reference 3.
References For Section 2.6

1.      Air Pollutant Emission Factors Final Report, National Air Pollution Control Administration,
       Durham, NC, Contract Number CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research Inc. Reston, VA,
       April 1970.

2.      E. R. Kaiser and J. Tolcias, "Smokeless Burning Of Automobile Bodies", Journal of the Air
       Pollution Control Association, 72:64-73, February 1962.

3.      F. M. Alpiser, "Air Pollution From Disposal Of Junked Autos", Air Engineering, 70:18-22,
       November 1968.

4.      Private communication with D. F. Walters, U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution,
       Cincinnati, OH, July 19, 1963.

5.      R. W. Gerstle and D. A. Kemnitz, "Atmospheric Emissions From Open Burning", Journal of
       the Air Pollution Control Association, 77:324-327.  May 1967.
2.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
2.7 Conical Burners

       The information presented in this section has not been updated since it was originally prepared
because no recent data were found.  The use of conical burners is much less prevalent now than in the
past and they are essentially obsolete.

2.7.1  Process Description1

       Conical burners are generally truncated metal cones with screened top vents.  The charge is
placed on a raised grate by either conveyor or bulldozer; however, the use of a conveyor results in
more efficient burning.  No supplemental fuel is used, but combustion air is often supplemented by
underfire air blown into the chamber below the grate and by overfire air introduced through peripheral
openings in the shell.

2.7.2  Emissions And Controls

       The quantities and types of pollutants released from conical burners are dependent on the
composition and moisture content of the charged material, control of combustion air,  type of charging
system used, and the condition in which the incinerator is maintained. The most critical of these factors
seems to be the level of maintenance on the incinerators.  It is not uncommon for conical burners to
have missing doors and numerous holes in the shell, resulting in excessive combustion air, low
temperatures, and, therefore, high emission rates of combustible pollutants.2

       Paniculate control systems have been adapted to conical burners with some success. These
control systems include water curtains (wet caps) and water scrubbers.  Emission factors for conical
burners are shown in Table 2.7-1.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                  2.7-1

    -------
  o

  H
  S
txi O
N FACTOR
ITHOUT C
0 ^
K CO
22 *
2§
w§
• P

R RATING:
0
E-
^•J
Z
o
  5<

  '£ Z
  « O
  S u

  •ss
  en
  w
  r-

  cs
  CQ

8
•o
g
e

1
.1-1
Z





^ .
o
z




Monoxide
c
o
•§
U


C/5
3
6



Particulates



60

~5o
•*

e
o
4^



oo


C^
&

o
s


00
2
3*

c
2
£

00
s
•*
1
w*
&0
"ftA
•*
£



S
%
CO
£


l/°) I/")
es o



•T) -4




^o

o *n



f\J *— 1



o m

S CO

i/"i
-H O
«s o

O O CO O
*— 4 v—t
•o
o"
C^J
- V^ <«^ £Q ***
CM o ~ ^ tN
O

^-^

u
en
'S <3 o
^ Qj O
3 " ^



















. 58
2 -s
*O 03
§ *•
£ S
.a §.
"^ S
« 2 N
^ en O
J & =3
PQ ui S
* *^3 ^
^ ^ O J2
f/3 ™
W *C "^
* '!
1 § £?
^.22
u, S -S
O c^
8? o .2
° c S
>^ O tti
S'S §*
CQ en •<->
fired is approxim
es, factors are ba
ge for intermitten
3.

V5 CO !l3 6)
C3 "™" 2 O

4_» O C^^ 5
S e ° h
« W « e2
§ O,TJ a>
cj Ui 'en PS
CO eg JS C
h ,H 00 0
« g--3 "S
"5 O t> en
^ X M CQ
2 UJ D CO
o) JO O "O



'3 >>
q> C
tc -3 g
1 1 •§
o .5 cs
_ x —
•2 2 'S
c o. -S
53 ON
U) « «*5
c *. o

** 'S s
I 2 1
*O (4-4 O
2 o x>
t/3 *— i 1.4
3 S «3 •
^ 1 S.3
T3 ^O *^. 4> 3 c
•s c M «
i: >. .s -
S *5. ^ M
h «• 1 | a
CQ h ** fc^ -TS
 2 •*
« «3 0 ^ ~
._:*r Cv £4 r \
S ^W fc?
CQ 4_» .-^ »5 .
4^ .^^ «Q *^ ^r
3 cO ui . o> tN
"O^^-^ (- a> fl __.
« ^ ."§ 3 3 ^
5^ i 1* §
'?^ S3 S-8'3
§?il|s
1 ® -a a 1 S
•aSlrig
•I S f g -g 8
•g ^ '« ^^ o, 52
'CQ '« *" o ** >-,
s |^8 G'B
fgl?r|
2 ^ a; -s 2
^s^g|
c'C-B-g §•"
O ^ ^ c« ^
•s "S h „ >>13
CO "ti rv uT ii **3
w 2 br* '^^ ^ M
. « g 0 C8 *-
? SI HI.
S8S«!|3
W .S « • 3 e^ 3 00
fe ^ 12 « 0 >..=
| « | a g s &
Oi co .S P — > oo
O "— &0 -C
2.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/92

    -------
References For Section 2.7

1.      Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research Inc.
       Reston, VA. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC
       April 1970.

2.      T. E. Kreichelt, Air Pollution Aspects Of Teepee Burners, U. S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air
       Pollution.  Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-28. September 1966.

3.      P. L. Magill and R. W. Benoliel, "Air Pollution In Los Angeles County:  Contribution Of
       Industrial Products", Ind. Eng.  Chem, 44:1347-1352. June 1952.

4.      Private communication with Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
       Cincinnati, Ohio.  October 31,  1969.

5.      D. M. Anderson, et al., Pure Air For Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Department of Health,
       Harrisburg PA, November 1961. p. 98.

6.      R. W. Boubel, etal., Wood Waste Disposal And Utilization. Engineering Experiment Station,
       Oregon State University,  Corvallis, OR, Bulletin Number 39. June 1958. p.57.

7.      A. B. Netzley and J. E. Williamson. Multiple Chamber Incinerators For Burning Wood Waste,
       In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U. S. DHEW, PHS, National
       Center for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati, OH.  PHS  Publication Number 999-AP-40.
       1967.  p. 436-445.

8.      H. Droege and G. Lee, The Use Of Gas Sampling And Analysis For The Evaluation Of
       Teepee Burners,  Bureau  Of Air Sanitation, California Department Of Public Health,
       (Presented At The 7th Conference On Methods In Air Pollution Studies, Los Angeles, CA,
       January 1965.)

9.      R. W. Boubel, "Paniculate Emissions From Sawmill Waste Burners", Engineering
       Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, Bulletin Number 42,  August
       1968, p. 7-8.
10/92 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Solid Waste Disposal                                2.7-3

    -------

    -------
       3.  STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
      Internal combustion engines often are used in applications similar to those associated with
external combustion sources. The major items within this category are gas turbines and large
heavy-duty general utility reciprocating engines.  Most stationary internal combustion engines are used
to generate electric power, to pump gas or other fluids, or to compress air for pneumatic machinery.
The major pollutants of concern are total organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen.  There also may
be organic compounds that may be toxic or hazardous.
1/95                       Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                     3.0-1

    -------
3.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

    -------
3.1  Stationary Gas Turbines For Electricity Generation

3.1.1 General

       Stationary gas turbines are applied in electric power generators, in gas pipeline pump and
compressor drives, and in various process industries.  Gas turbines (greater than 4021 horsepower
(electric) or 3 megawatts (electric) are used in electrical generation for continuous, peaking, or
standby power.  The primary fuels used are natural gas and distillate (No. 2) fuel oil, although
residual fuel oil is used in a few applications.

3.1.2 Emissions And Controls

       Emission control technologies for gas turbines have advanced to a point where all new and
most existing units are complying with various levels of specified emission limits. For these sources,
the emission factors become an operational specification rather than a parameter to be quantified by
testing. This section treats uncontrolled (i. e., baseline) emissions and controlled emissions with
specific control technologies.

       The emission factors presented are for simple cycle gas turbines. These factors also apply to
cogeneration/combined cycle gas turbines.  In general, if the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)
is not supplementary fired, the simple cycle input-specific emission factors (nanograms per joule
[ng/J] and pounds per million British thermal unit [lb/MMBtu]) will apply to cogeneration/combined
cycle systems.  The output-specific emissions (grams per kilowatt-hour [g/kw-hr] and pounds per
horsepower-hour [lb/hp-hr]) will decrease according to the ratio of simple cycle to combined cycle
power output. If the HRSG is supplementary fired,  the emissions  and fuel usage must be considered
to estimate stack emissions. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from regenerative cycle turbines
(which account for only a small percentage of turbines in use) are greater than emissions from simple
cycle turbines because of the increased combustion air temperature entering the turbine.  The carbon
monoxide (CO) and total organic compounds (TOC) emissions may be lower with the regenerative
system for a comparable design.  More power is produced from the same energy input, so the input-
specific emissions factor will be affected by changes in emissions,  while output-specific emissions will
reflect the increased power output.

       Water/steam injection is the most prevalent NOX control for cogeneration/combined cycle gas
turbines. The water or steam is injected with the air and fuel  into  the turbine combustion to lower the
peak temperatures that, in turn, decreases the thermal NOX produced.  The lower average temperature
within the combustor may produce higher levels of CO and TOCs  as a result of incomplete
combustion.

       Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a postcombustion control that selectively reduces NOX
by reaction of ammonia (NH3) and NOX on a catalytic surface to form nitrogen gas (N^ and water
(H2O).  Although SCR systems can be used alone, all existing applications of SCR have been used hi
conjunction with water/steam injection  controls.  For optimum SCR operation, the flue gas must be
within a temperature range of 315 - 426°C  (600 - SOOT)  with the precise limits dependent on the
catalyst.  Some SCR systems also utilize a CO catalyst to  give simultaneous  catalytic CO/NOX
control.
1/95                         Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                        3.1-1

    -------
        Advanced combustor can designs are currently being phased into production turbines. These
dry techniques decrease turbine emissions by modifying the combustion mixing, air staging, and
flame stabilization to allow operation at a much leaner air/fuel ratio relative to normal operation.
Operating at leaner conditions will lower peak temperatures within the primary flame zone of the
combustor.  The lower temperatures may also  increase CO and TOC emissions.

        With the proliferation and advancement of NOX control technologies for gas  turbines during
the past 15 years, the emission factors for the installed gas turbine population are quite different than
those for uncontrolled  turbines.  However, uncontrolled turbine emissions have not changed
significantly.  Therefore a careful review of specific turbine details should be performed before
applying uncontrolled emission factors.  Today, most gas turbines are controlled to meet local, state,
and/or federal regulations.

        The average gaseous emission factors for uncontrolled gas turbines (firing natural gas and fuel
oil) are presented in Tables  3.1-1 and 3.1-2. There is some variation in emissions over the
population of large uncontrolled gas turbines because  of the diversity of engine designs and models.
Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 present emission factors for  gas turbines controlled for NOX using water
injection,  steam injection, or SCR.  Tables 3.1-5 and  3.1-6 present emission  factors  for large distillate
oil-fired turbines controlled  for NOX using water injection.

        Gas turbines firing distillate or residual oil may emit trace metals carried over from the metals
content of the fuel.  If the fuel analysis is known, the metals content of the fuel should be used for
flue gas emission factors assuming all metals pass through the turbine.  If the fuel analysis is not
known, Table 3.1-7 provides order-of-magnitude levels  of trace elements for turbines fired with
distillate oil.
3.1-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
                Table 3.1-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
                            UNCONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*
Pollutant
NOX
CO
COj4
TOC (as methane)
SOX (as SO^6
PM-10
Solids
Condensables
Sizing %
<0.05 Aim
<0.10/im
<0.15/un
<0.20 /im
<0.25 pm
< 1 /on
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATINGb
C
D
B
D
B

E
E

D
D
D
D
D
D
Natural Gas
(SCC 2-01-002-01)
g/kW-hr°
(power output)
2.15
0.52
546
0.117
4.57S

0.094
0.11

15%
40%
63%
78%
89%
100%
ng/J
(fuel input)
190
46
48,160
10.32
404S

8.30
9.72

15%
40%
63%
78%
89%
100%
Fuel Oil (Distillate)
(SCC 2-01-001-01)
g/kW-hr0
(power output)
3.41
0.233
799
0.083
4.92S

0.185
0.113

16%
48%
72%
85%
93%
100%
ng/J
(fuel input)
300
20.6
70,520
7.31
434.3S

16.3
9.89

16%
48%
72%
85%
93%
100%
a References 1-8.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  PM-10 = paniculate matter less than or
  equal to 10 micrometers (/xm) aerodynamic diameter,  and sizing % is expressed in /*m.
b Ratings reflect limited data and/or a lack of documentation of test results, may not apply to specific
  facilities or populations, and should be used with care.
c Calculated from ng/J assuming an average heat rate of 11,318 kJ/kW-hr.
d Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to CO2. CO2 [ng/J]  = 3.67*C/E, where C = carbon
  content of the fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 55.6 kJ/g. The uncontrolled
  CO2 emission factors are also applicable to controlled gas turbines.
e All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to SO2.  S =  % sulfur in fuel.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.1-3

    -------
               Table 3.1-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
                            UNCONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*

Pollutant
NOX
CO
ca,d
TOC (as methane)
SOX (as SO^6
PM-10
Solids
Condensables
Sizing %
<0.05 fim
<0.10/im
< 0.15 fun
<0.20 pm
<0.25 fun
<1 fun
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATINGb
C
D
B
D
B

E
E

D
D
D
D
D
D
Natural Gas
(SCC 2-01-002-01)

Ib/hp-hr0
(power output)
3.53 E-03
8.60 E-04
0.897
1.92 E-04
7.52 E-03S

1.54 E-04
1.81 E-04

15%
40%
63%
78%
89%
100%

Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.44
0.11
112
0.024
0.94S

0.0193
0.0226

15%
40%
63%
78%
89%
100%
Fuel Oil (Distillate)
(SCC 2-01-001-01)

Ib/hp-hr*
(power output)
5.60 E-03
3.84 E-04
1.31
1.37 E-04
8.09 E-03S

3.04 E-04
1.85 E-04

16%
48%
72%
85%
93%
100%

Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.698
0.048
164
0.017
1.01S

0.038
0.023

16%
48%
72%
85%
93%
100%
a References 1-8.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  PM-10 = paniculate matter less than or
  equal to 10 /*m aerodynamic diameter, and sizing % is expressed in /im.
b Ratings reflect limited data and/or a lack of documentation of test results, may not apply to specific
  facilities or populations, and should be used with care.
c Calculated from Ib/MMBtu assuming an average heat rate of 8,000 Btu/hp-hr.
d Based on  100% conversion of the fuel carbon to C02. CO2 [Ib/MMBtu] =  3.67*C/E, where
  C = carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, (0.0239 MMBtu/lb).
  The uncontrolled CO2 emission factors are also applicable to controlled gas turbines.
e All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to SO2. S  = % sulfur in fuel.
3.1-4
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
         Table 3.1-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE GAS-FIRED
                            CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC (as methane)
NH3
NMHC
Formaldehyde0
Water Injection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
0.66
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ng/J
(fuel input)
61
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
Steam Injection
(1 .2 water/fuel ratio)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
0.59
0.71
ND
ND
ND
ND
ng/J
(fuel input)
52
69
ND
ND
ND
ND
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
(with water
injection)
ng/J
(fuel input)
3.78b
3.61
6.02
2.80
1.38
1.16
a References 3,10-15.  Source Classification Code 2-01-002-01.  All data are averages of a limited
  number of tests and may not be typical of those reductions that can be achieved at a specific
  location.  NMHC = nonmethane hydrocarbons. ND = no data.
b An SCR catalyst reduces NOX by an average of 78%.
c Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
                                                                                 3.1-5

    -------
         Table 3.1-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE GAS-FIRED
                            CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC (as methane)
NH3
NMHC
Formaldehyde0
Water Injection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
1.10E-03
2.07 E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.14
0.28
ND
ND
ND
ND
Steam Injection
(1.2 water/fuel ratio)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
9.70 E-04
1.17 E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.12
0.16
ND
ND
ND
ND
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
(with water
injection)
ng/J
(fuel input)
0.03b
0.0084
0.014
0.0065
0.0032
0.0027
* References 3,10-15. Source Classification Code 2-01-002-01. All data are averages of a limited
  number of tests and may not be typical of those reductions that can be achieved at a specific
  location.  NMHC = nonmethane hydrocarbons. ND = no data.
b An SCR catalyst reduces NOX by an average of 78%.
c Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
3.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  1/95

    -------
               Table 3.1-5 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
                 DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC (as methane)
sox
PM-IO*1
EMISSION FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
B
E
Water Injection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
g/kW-hrk
(power output)
1.41
0.090
0.023
	 c
0.181
ng/J
(fuel input)
125
8.26
2.06
	 c
16.00
a Reference 16. Source Classification Code 2-01-001-01. PM-10 = paniculate matter
  aerometric diameter.
b Calculated from fuel input assuming an average heat rate of 11,319 kJ/kW-hr.
c All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to SOX.
d All PM is ^ 1 ftm in size.
                                                                            10 urn
               Table 3.1-6 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
                 DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED CONTROLLED GAS TURBINES*
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC (as methane)
sox
PM-IO*1
EMISSION FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
B
E
Water lajection
(0.8 water/fuel ratio)
lb/hp-hrb
(power output)
2.31 E-03
1.48 E-04
3.75 E-05
	 c
2.98 E-04
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.290
0.0192
0.0048
	 c
0.0372
a Reference 16. Source Classification Code 2-01-001-01. PM-10 = paniculate matter
  aerometric diameter.
b Calculated from fuel input assuming an average heat rate of 8,000 Btu/hp-hr.
c All sulfur in the fuel is assumed to be converted to SOX.
d All PM is ^ 1 pra in size.
                                                                            10 jim
1/95
                          Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.1-7

    -------
       Table 3.1-7 (Metric And English Units). TRACE ELEMENT EMISSION FACTORS
                     FOR DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED GAS TURBINES"

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  Eb
Trace Element
Aluminum
Antimony6
Arsenic0
Barium
Beryllium0
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium0
Calcium
Chromium0
Cobalt0
Copper
Iron
Lead0
Magnesium
Manganese0
Mercury0 '
Molybdenum
Nickel0
Phosphorus0
Potassium
Selenium0
Silicon
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
pg/J
64
9.4
2.1
8.4
0.14
28
1.8
1.8
330
20
3.9
578
256
25
100
145
0.39
3.6
526
127
185
2.3
575
590
35
1.9
294
Ib/MMBtu
1.5E-04
2.2 E-05
4.9E-06
2.0 E-05
3.3 E-07
6.5 E-05
4.2E-06
4.2E-06
7.7E-04
4.7 E-05
9.1E-06
1.3 E-03
6.0E-04
5.8 E-05
2.3E-04
3.4 E-04
9.1 E-07
8.4E-06
1.2 E-03
3.0 E-04
4.3 E-04
5.3E-06
1.3 E-03
1.4 E-03
8.1 E-05
4.4E-06
6.8 E-04
a Reference 1. Source Classification Code 2-01-001-01.
b Ratings reflect limited data, may not apply to specific facilities or populations, and should be used
  with care.
0 Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Oean Air Act.
3.1-8
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
References For Section 3.1

1.     C. C. Shin, et al., Emissions Assessment Of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems,
       Vol. II:  Internal Combustion Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029c, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1979.

2.     Final Report - Gas Turbine Emission Measurement Program, GASLTR787, General Applied
       Science Laboratories, Westbury, NY, August 1974.

3.     P. C. Malte, et al., NOX Exhaust Emissions For Gas-Fired Turbine Engines,
       ASME 90-GT-392, The American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, Bellevue, WA,
       June 1990.

4.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement,  Volume 1: Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Stationary Gas Turbines, EPA-450/2-77-017a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

5.     C. T. Hare and K. J. Springer, Exhaust Emissions From Uncontrolled Vehicles And Related
       Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines, Part 6:  Gas Turbines, Electric Utility Power
       Plant, APTD-1495, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1974.

6.     M. Lieferstein, Summary Of Emissions From Consolidated Edison Gas Turbine,  Department
       Of Ah- Resources, City Of New York, NY, November 5, 1975.

7.     J. F. Hurley and S. Hersh, Effect Of Smoke And Corrosion Suppressant Additives On
       Particulate And  Gaseous Emissions From Utility Gas Turbine, EPRI FP-398, Electric Power
       Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, March 1977.

8.     A. R. Crawford, et al., "The Effect Of Combustion Modification On Pollutants  And
       Equipment Performance Of Power Generation Equipment", In Proceedings Of The Stationary
       Source Combustion Symposium, Vol. Ill:  Field Testing And Surveys, EPA-600/2-76-152c,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.

9.     D. E. Carl,  et al., "Exhaust Emissions From A 25-MW Gas Turbine Firing Heavy And Light
       Distillate Fuel Oils And Natural Gas", presented at the Gas Turbine Conference And Products
       Show, Houston, TX, March 2-6, 1975.

10.    G. S. Shareef and D. K. Stone, Evaluation Of SCR NOX Controls For Small Natural Gas-
      fueled Prime Movers - Phase I, GRI-90/0138,  Gas Research Institute, Chicago, JL, July 1990.

11.    R. R. Pease, SCAQMD Engineering Division Report - Status Report On SCR For Gas
       Turbines, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, July 1984.

12.    CEMS Certification And Compliance Testing At Chevron USA, Inc. 's Gaviota  Gas Plant,
       Report PS-89-1837, Chevron USA, Inc., Goleta, CA, June 21, 1989.

13.    Emission Testing At The Bonneville Pacific Cogeneration Plant, Report PS-92-2702,
       Bonneville Pacific Corporation, Santa Maria, CA, March 1992.
1/95                       Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                       3.1-9

    -------
14.     Compliance test report on a production gas-fired 1C engine, ESA, 19770-462, Procter And
       Gamble, Sacramento, CA, December 1986.

15.     Compliance test report on a cogeneration facility, CR 75600-2160, Procter And Gamble,
       Sacramento, CA, May 1990.

16.     R. Larkin and E. B. Higginbotham, Combustion Modification Controls For Stationary Gas
       Turbines, Vol. II:  Utility Unit Field Test, EPA 600/7-81-122, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1981.
3.1-10
                                   EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
3.2  Heavy-duty Natural Gas-fired Pipeline Compressor Engines

3.2.1  General

        Engines in the natural gas industry are used primarily to power compressors used for pipeline
transportation, field gathering (collecting gas from wells), underground storage, and gas processing
plant applications, i. e., prime movers.  Pipeline engines are concentrated in the major gas-producing
states (such as those along the Gulf Coast) and along the major gas pipelines.  Gas turbines emit
considerably smaller amounts of pollutants than do reciprocating engines; however, reciprocating
engines are generally more efficient in their use of fuel.

        Reciprocating engines are separated into 3 design classes:  2-cycle (stroke) lean burn, 4-stroke
lean burn,  and 4-stroke rich burn.  Each of these have design differences that affect both baseline
emissions as well as the potential for emissions control. Two-stroke engines complete the power cycle
in a single engine revolution compared to 2 revolutions for 4-stroke engines. With the 2-stroke engine,
the air/fuel charge is injected with the piston near the bottom of the power stroke. The valves are all
covered or closed, and the piston moves to the top of the cylinder  compressing the charge. Following
ignition and combustion, the power stroke starts with the downward movement of the piston.  Exhaust
ports or valves are then uncovered to remove the combustion products, and  a new air/fuel charge is
ingested.  Two-stroke engines may be turbocharged using an exhaust-powered turbine to pressurize the
charge for  injection into the cylinder.  Nonturbocharged engines may be either blower scavenged or
piston scavenged to improve removal of combustion products.

        Four-stroke engines use a separate engine revolution for the intake/compression stroke and the
power/exhaust stroke. These engines may be either naturally aspirated, using the suction from the
piston to entrain the air charge, or turbocharged, using a turbine to pressurize the charge.
Turbocharged units produce a higher power output for a given engine displacement,  whereas naturally
aspirated units have lower initial cost and maintenance.  Rich burn engines operate near the air/fuel
stoichiometric limit with exhaust excess oxygen levels less than 4 percent.  Lean burn engines may
operate up  to the lean flame extinction limit, with exhaust oxygen  levels of 12 percent or greater.
Pipeline population statistics show a nearly equal installed capacity of turbines and reciprocating
engines. For reciprocating engines, 2-stroke designs contribute approximately two-thirds of installed
capacity.

3.2.2 Emissions And Controls

        The primary pollutant of concern is nitrogen oxides  (NOX), which readily forms in the high-
temperature, pressure, and excess air  environment found hi natural gas-fired compressor engines.
Lesser amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and total organic compounds (TOC) are emitted, although
for each unit of natural gas burned, compressor engines (particularly reciprocating engines) emit
significantly more of these pollutants than do external combustion  boilers. Sulfur oxides emissions  are
proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel and will usually be quite low because of the negligible
sulfur content of most pipeline gas. This section will  also discuss  the major variables affecting NOX
emissions and the various control technologies that will reduce uncontrolled  NOX emissions.

       The major variables affecting NOX emissions from compressor engines include the air/fuel
ratio, engine load (defined as the ratio of the operating horsepower to the rated horsepower), intake
(manifold)  air temperature, and absolute humidity.  In general, NOX emissions increase with increasing


1/95                         Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                         3.2-1

    -------
load and intake air temperature, and decrease with increasing absolute humidity and air/fuel ratio (the
latter already being, in most compressor engines, on the "lean" side of that air/fuel ratio at which
maximum NOX formation occurs). Quantitative estimates of the effects of these variables are presented
in Reference 10.

       Because NOX is the primary pollutant of significance emitted from pipeline compressor
engines, control measures to date have been directed mainly at limiting NOX emissions.  Reference 11
summarizes control techniques and emission  reduction efficiencies.  For gas turbines, the early control
applications used  water or steam injection. New applications of dry low NOX combustor can designs
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) are appearing.  Water injection has achieved reductions of 70 to
80 percent with utility gas turbines. Efficiency penalties of 2 to 3 percent are typical due to the added
heat load of the water.  Turbine power outputs typically increase, however. Steam injection may also
be used, but the resulting NOX reductions may not be as great as with water injection, and it has the
added disadvantage that a supply of steam must be readily available.  Water injection has not been
applied to pipeline compressor engines because of the lack of water availability.

       The efficiency penalty and operational impacts associated with water injection have led
manufacturers to develop dry low NOX combustor can designs based on lean burn and/or staging to
suppress NOX formation.  These are entering the market in the early  1990s.  Stringent gas turbine NOX
limits have been achieved in California in the late 1980s with SCR. This is an ammonia-based
postcombustion technology that can achieve in excess of 80 percent NOX reductions. Water or steam
injection is frequently used in combination with  SCR to minimize ammonia costs.

       For reciprocating engines, both combustion controls and postcombustion catalytic reduction
have been developed. Controlled rich burn engines have mostly been equipped with non-SCR (NSCR)
that uses unreacted TOCs and CO to reduce NOX by 80 to 90 percent.  Some rich burn engines can be
prestratified charge engines that reduce the peak flame temperature hi the NOX- forming  regions.  Lean
burn engines have mostly met N0x-reduction requirements with lean combustion controls using torch
ignition or chamber redesign to enhance flame stability.  NOX reductions of 70 to 80 percent are typical
for numerous engines with retrofit or new unit controls. Lean burn engines may also be controlled
with SCR, but the operational problems  associated with engine control under low NOX operation have
been a deterrent.

       Emission factors for natural gas-fired pipeline compressor engines are presented in
Tables 3.2-1  and  3.2-2 for baseline operation and in Tables 3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.2-6, and 3.2-7 for
controlled operation. The factors for controlled operation are taken from a single source test.
Table 3.2-3 lists noncriteria emission factors. Factors are expressed in units of grams per kilowatt-
hour (g/kW-hr) and grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr), and nanograms per joule (ng/J) and pounds
per million British thermal unit (Ib/MMBtu), indicating metric and English units, respectively, for each
set of units.
32-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
            Table 3.2-1 (Metric Units).  CRITERIA EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS4

                                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A (except as noted)
Pollutant
NOX
CO
CO2b
TOC
TNMOC
CH4
Gas Turbines
(SCC 2-02-002-01)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
1.70
1.11
543
0.24
0.013
0.228
ng/J
(fuel input)
145
71
47,424
22.8
0.86
21.9
2-Cycle Lean Bum
(SCC 2-02-002-52)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
14.79
2.04
543
8.14
0.58
7.56
ng/J
(fuel input)
1,165
165
47,424
645
47.3
615
4-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-53)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
16.1
2.15
543
6.57
0.97
5.50
ng/J
(fuel input)
1,376
181
47,424
516
77.4
473
4-Cycle Rich Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-54)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
13.46
11.55
543
1.66
0.19
1.48
ng/J
(fuel input)
989
687
47,424
116
12.9
103
00
s
§
3
fiL
O
o
3
o*
oo
o
"-I
o
o>
on
a References 1-5. Factors are based on entire population.  Factors for individual engines from specific manufacturers may vary.
  SCC  = Source Classification Code.  TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B.  Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to CO2. CO2 [ng/J] = 3.67*C/E, where
  C =  carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 55.6 kJ/g. The uncontrolled CO2 emission factors are also
  applicable to natural gas prime movers controlled by combustion modifications, NSCR, and SCR.
to

    -------
to
           Table 3.2-2 (English Units). CRITERIA EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS8

                                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A (except as noted)
Pollutant
NOX
CO
CO2b
TOC
TNMOC
CH4
Gas Turbines
(SCC 2-02-002-01)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
2.87 E-03
1.83 E-03
0.89
3.97 E-04
2.20 E-05
3.75 E-04
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
0.34
0.17
110
0.053
0.002
0.051
2-Cycle Lean Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-52)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
0.024
3.31 E-03
0.89
0.013
9.48 E-04
0.012
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
2.7
0.38
110
1.5
0.11
1.4
4-Cycle Lean Bum
(SCC 2-02-002-53)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
0.026
3.53 E-03
0.89
0.011
1.59 E-03
9.04 E-03
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
3.2
0.42
110
1.2
0.18
1.1
4-Cycle Rich Burn
(SCC 2-02-002-54)
Ib/hp-hr
(power output)
0.022
0.019
0.89
2.65 E-03
3.09 E-04
2.43 E-03
Ib/MMBtu
(fuel input)
2.3
1.6
110
0.27
0.03
0.24
w
2
t—t
V)
00
k«H
O
n
a
a References 1-5.  Factors are based on entire population.  Factors for individual engines from specific manufacturers may vary.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B.  Based on 100% conversion of the fuel carbon to CO2. CO2 [Ib/MMBtu] = 3.67*C/E, where
  C = carbon content of fuel by weight (0.75), and E = energy content of fuel, 0.0239 MMBtu/lb. The uncontrolled CO2 emission
  factors are also applicable to natural  gas prime movers controlled by combustion modifications, NSCR, and SCR.

    -------
      Table 3.2-3 (Metric And English Units).  NONCRTTERIA EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Pollutant
Formaldehyde1*
Benzene*5
Tolueneb
Ethylbenzeneb
Xylenesb
2-Cycle
ng/J
140
0.17
0.17
0.086
0.26
Lean Burn
Ib/hp-hr
2.93 E-03
3.62 E-06
3.62 E-06
1.81 E-06
5.43 E-06
  a Reference 1. Source Classification Code 2-02-002-52. Ratings reflect very limited data and may
    not apply to specific facilities.
  b Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.2-5

    -------
  CO
  OS
  S

  o-

  O *

  23


  <1
    DtJ
  Q P
  W CQ
  jZ
  0<
E
  OS

  Z
  o
  o 5
  OS g
  o o
  H co
  .SO
  5 P
  1-1 CO
  •c 3
  s ffl

  I|
  o
  'i
  cs
  CO
  iU

  1
i
o

U

U.
    Q   Z

    5   2
    <   C/3

    Li*   *5!
    C5   ^


00
.2
§
3
£
if
.0
1
1
"I
s
§
U















U
.S
1
at

















5
CQ
2
S
£

!^
O*

lH
OH
.0


b*
.C
i
00



/MMBtu
_D





"So



w«
a.
^




^

i
~3>




_s
^^
0
a,



w>
rx


o
VO


_
q
o




oo
vo




o\
cs






8
2


cs
cs
o
c>





m







ox
Z



vo m
•^ vo oo t-
O cs >i O


8Q O O
O oo cs
cs *" ' f»- m
T«t

9 9
w _ ^ ca
ON m
f> o o v>
fi C3 O VI




cs — oo" en




oo oo
CS CS NO VO
o cs « o"






o o o o
CS vo r- ON



s s
0 f^ -H m
q q q q
cs C5 C3 iri





m q -^
—• o r- rn







U
O
o 8 1 x
U H H U


in
8
o"


cs


S
w
rn



>rv
CS
0




O






8



I
Jn
rn





cs
0



?
3
1
c
1
2 3
i o
S H
a,


00
m
O
C>


VO


s
W
00



f^.
0




§
O






m



W
i2
cs





d





^
C3
I


^.
o
6

m
^


g
w
oo


oo

O




O
0





m
^



W
cs
*— 1



VO
r«*
0
o"



c-
3
i
J

Condensat



^
S
I
**
1
t>
CO
I
a>
fe
.9
wa
'B
o
_i
U
.
 O
il
"2 I
2 CO
.»
II "^
TNMOC =
particulate

3.2-6
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                      1/95

    -------
           Table 3.2-5 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS:

                                          NSCR ON 4-CYCLE RICH BURN ENGINE8



                                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC
NH3
C7 - C16
C16 +
PM solids
(front half)
Benzeneb
Tolueneb
Xylenesb
Propylene
Naphthaleneb
Formaldehydeb
Acetaldehydeb
Acroleinb
Inlet
g/kW-hr
10
16
0.44
0.07
0.026
0.029
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/hp-hr
0.017
0.026
7.28 E-04
1.10E-04
4.19E-05
3.75 E-05
6.61 E-06
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ng/J
770
1208
33.97
5.16
1.81
1.72
0.301
0.31
0.099
0.025
0.069
0.021
0.69
0.026
0.016
Ib/MMBtu
1.8
2.8
0.079
0.012
0.0042
0.004
0.0007
7.1 E-04
2.3 E-04
<5.9 E-05
< 1.6 E-04
<4.9 E-05
<1.6E-03
<6.1 E-05
<3.7 E-05
Outlet
g/kW-hr
3.4
14
0.27
1.10
0.0055
0.0008
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/hp-hr
5.51 E-03
0.022
4.41 E-04
1.81 E-03
9.04 E-06
1.32 E-06
6.61 E-06
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ng/J
250
1000
20
82
0.39
0.043
0.30
0.047
0.0099
0.017
0.069
0.021
0.003
0.0021
0.0041
Ib/MMBtu
0.58
2.4
0.047
0.19
0.0009
0.0001
0.0007
1.1 E-04
<2.3 E-05
<4.0 E-05
<1.6 E-04
<4.9 E-05
<7.2 E-06
<4.8 E-06
<9.6 E-06
00

<-f

o'

O
o



I
v>
C.
O


00
o
      a References 4,7.  Ratings reflect very limited data and may not apply to specific facilities.  ND = no data.

      b Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
to

    -------
u>
K>
oo
Table 3.2-6 (Metric And English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS:
                                SCR ON 4-CYCLE LEAN BURN ENGINE"
                                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
NOX
CO
NH3
C7 - C16
C16 +
Inlet
g/kW-hr
26
1.6
ND
0.009
0.017
Ib/hp-hr 1 ng/J
0.042 2,800
2.65 E-03 160
ND ND
1.54E-05 0.99
2.87 E-05 1.9
Ib/MMBtu
6.4
0.38
ND
0.0023
0.0044
Outlet
g/kW-hr
4.8
1.5
0.36
0.0042
0.0032
Ib/hp-hr
7.94 E-03
2.43 E-03
5.95 E-04
6.83 E-06
5.29 E-06
ng/J
510
160
39
0.56
0.34
Ib/MMBtu
1.2
0.37
0.091
0.0013
0.0008
m
t/3
C/3
Tl
>
n
      a Reference 8. Ratings reflect very limited data and may not apply to specific facilities. CO2 emissions are not affected by control.
       ND = no data.
in

    -------
§

Oi
o
          Table 3.2-7 (Metric And English Units). CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR NATURAL GAS PRIME MOVERS:

                      CLEAN BURN AND PRECOMBUSTION CHAMBER ON 2-CYCLE LEAN BURN ENGINE*



                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
NOX
CO
TOC
TNMOC
CH4
Clean Burn
g/kW-hr
3.1
1.5
3.4
0.16
3.3
Ib/hp-hr
5.07 E-03
2.43 E-03
5.51 E-03
2.65 E-04
5.29 E-03
ng/J
360
130
330
65
260
Ib/MMBtu
0.83
0.30
0.77
0.15
0.62
Precombustion Chamber
g/kW-hr
3.9
3.3
8.6
1.2
7.4
Ib/hp-hr
6.39 E-03
5.29 E-03
0.014
1.94 E-03
0.012
ng/J
370
290
760
110
650
Ib/MMBtu
0.85
0.67
1.8
0.25
1.5
GO

g
6
I
a Reference 9. Source Classification Code 2-02-002-52.  CO2 emissions are not affected by control.  TNMOC = total nonmethane organic

 compounds.
to

vb

    -------
References For Section 3.2

1.     Engines, Turbines, And Compressors Directory, Catalog #XF0488, American Gas Association,
       Arlington, VA, 1985.

2.     N. L. Martin and R. H. Thring, Computer Database Of Emissions Data For Stationary
       Reciprocating Natural Gas Engines And Gas Turbines In Use By The Gas Pipeline
       Transmission Industry Users Manual (Electronic Database Included), GRI-89/0041, Gas
       Research Institute, Chicago, IL, February 1989.

3.     Air Pollution Source Testing For California AB2588 On An Oil Platform Operated By Chevron
       USA, Inc. Platform Hope, California, Chevron USA, Inc., Ventura, CA, August 29, 1990.

4.     Air Pollution Source Testing For California AB2588 Of Engines At The Chevron USA, Inc.
       Carpinteria Facility, Chevron USA, Inc., Ventura, CA, August 30, 1990.

5.     Pooled Source Emission Test Report: Gas Fired 1C Engines in Santa Barbara County,  ARCO,
       Bakersfield, CA, July 1990.

6.     C. Castaldini, Environmental Assessment OfNOx  Control On A Spark-ignited Large Bore
       Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine, EPA-600/7-86-002A, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, January 6, 1986.

7.     C. Castaldini and L. R. Waterland, Environmental Assessment Of A Reciprocating Engine
       Retrofitted With Nonselective Catalytic Reduction, EPA-600/7-84-073B, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, June 1984.

8.     C. Castaldini and L. R. Waterland, Environmental Assessment Of A Reciprocating Engine
       Retrofitted With Selective Catalytic Reduction, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3188, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1984.

9.     R. E. Fanick, et al., Emissions Data For Stationary Reciprocating Engines And Gas Turbines
       In Use By The Gas Pipeline Transmission Industry - Phases I & II, Project PR-15-613, Pipeline
       Research Committee, American Gas Association, Arlington, VA, April 1988.

10.    Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Stationary Internal
       Combustion Engines, EPA-450/2-78-125a, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.

11.    C. Castaldini, NOX Reduction Technologies For Natural Gas Industry Prime Movers,
       GRI-90/0215, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL,  August 1990.
3.2-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
3.3  Gasoline And Diesel Industrial Engines

3.3.1  General

        The engine category addressed by this section covers a wide variety of industrial applications
of both gasoline and diesel internal combustion (1C) engines such as aerial lifts, fork lifts, mobile
refrigeration units, generators, pumps, industrial sweepers/scrubbers, material handling equipment
(such as conveyors), and portable well-drilling equipment.  The rated power of these engines covers a
rather substantial range, up to 186 kilowatts (kW) (250 horsepower [hp]) for gasoline engines and up
to 447 kW (600 hp) for diesel engines.  (Diesel engines greater than 447 kW or 600 hp are covered
in Section 3.4,  "Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines".)  Understandably,
substantial differences in engine duty cycles exist.  It was necessary, therefore, to make reasonable
assumptions concerning usage hi order to formulate some of the emission factors.

3.3.2  Process Description

        All reciprocating 1C engines operate by the same basic process.  A combustible mixture is
first compressed in a small volume between the head of a piston and its surrounding cylinder.  The
mixture is then ignited, and the resulting high-pressure products of combustion push the piston
through the cylinder.  This movement is converted from linear to rotary motion by a crankshaft. The
piston returns, pushing out exhaust gases,  and the cycle is repeated.

        There are 2  methods used for stationary reciprocating 1C engines:  compression ignition (CI)
and spark ignition (SI).  This section deals with both types of reciprocating 1C engines. All diesel-
fueled engines are compression ignited, and all gasoline-fueled engines are spark ignited.

        In CI  engines, combustion air is first compression heated in the cylinder, and diesel fuel oil is
then injected into the hot air. Ignition is spontaneous because the air is above the autoignition
temperature of the fuel. SI engines initiate combustion by the spark of an electrical discharge.
Usually the fuel is mixed with the air  in a carburetor (for gasoline) or at the intake valve (for natural
gas), but occasionally the fuel is injected into the compressed air in the cylinder.

        CI engines usually operate at a higher compression ratio (ratio of cylinder volume when the
piston is at the bottom of its stroke to the volume when it is at the top) than SI engines because fuel is
not present during compression; hence there is no danger of premature autoignition. Since engine
thermal  efficiency rises with increasing pressure ratio (and pressure ratio varies directly with
compression ratio), CI engines are more efficient than SI engines. This increased efficiency is  gamed
at the expense of poorer response to load changes and a heavier structure to withstand the higher
pressures.

3.3.3 Emissions And  Controls

        The most accurate method for calculating such emissions is on the basis of "brake-specific"
emission factors (grams per kilowatt-hour [g/kW-hr] or pounds per horsepower-hour [lb/hp-hr]).
Emissions are the product of the brake-specific emission factor, the usage in hours, the rated power
available, and the load factor (the power actually used divided by the power available).  However, for
emission inventory purposes, it is often easier to assess this activity on the basis of fuel used.
1/95                          Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                        3.3-1

    -------
       Once reasonable usage and duty cycles for this category were ascertained, emission values
were aggregated to arrive at the factors for criteria and organic pollutants presented in Tables 3.3-1
and 3.3-2.  Factors are also expressed in units of nanograms per joule (ng/J) and pounds per million
British thermal unit (Ib/MMBtu).  Emission data for a specific design type were weighted according
to estimated material share for industrial engines.  The emission factors in these tables, because of
their aggregate nature, are most appropriately applied to a population of industrial engines rather than
to an individual power plant. Table 3.3-3 shows unweighted speciated organic compound and air
toxic emission factors based upon only 2 engines.  Their inclusion in this section is intended for
rough order-of-magnitude estimates only.

       Table 3.3-4 summarizes whether the various diesel emission reduction technologies (some of
which may be applicable to gasoline engines) will generally increase or decrease the selected
parameter.  These technologies are categorized into fuel modifications, engine modifications, and
exhaust after treatments.  Current data are insufficient to quantify the results of the modifications.
Table 3.3-4 provides general information on the trends of  changes on selected parameters.
     Table 3.3-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED GASOLINE
                           AND DIESEL INDUSTRIAL ENGINES"
Pollutant
NOX
CO
sox
PM-10b
C02C
Aldehydes
TOC
Exhaust
Evaporative
Crankcase
Refueling
Gasoline Fuel
(SCC 2-02-003-01,
2-03-003-01)
g/kW-hr ng/J
(power output) (fuel input)
6.92 699
267 26,947
0.359 36
0.439 44
661 66,787
0.30 29

8.96 905
0.40 41
2.95 298
0.66 66
Diesel Fuel
(SCC 2-02-001-02,
2-03-001-01)
g/kW-hr ng/J
(power output) (fuel input)
18.8 1,896
4.06 410
1.25 126
1.34 135
704 71,065
0.28 28

1.50 152
0.00 0.00
0.03 2.71
0.00 0.00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
B
D

D
E
E
E
a References 1,3,6.  When necessary, the average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) value used
  to convert from ng/J to g/kW-hr was 9,902 kJ/kW-hr.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  TOC = total organic compounds.
b PM-10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (/im) aerodynamic diameter. All
  participate is assumed to be ^ 1 jun in size.
c Assumes  100% conversion of carbon in fuel to CO2 with 87 weight % carbon in diesel,
  86 weight % carbon in gasoline, average BSFC of 9,901,600 J/kW-hr, diesel heating value of
  44,900 J/g,  and gasoline heating value of 47,200 J/g.
3.3-2
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 3.3-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED GASOLINE
                          AND DIESEL INDUSTRIAL ENGINESa
Pollutant
NOX
CO
sox
PM-10b
C02C
Aldehydes
TOC
Exhaust
Evaporative
Crankcase
Refueling
Gasoline Fuel
(SCC 2-02-003-01,
2-03-003-01)
Ib/hp-hr Ib/MMBtu
(power output) (fuel input)
0.011 1.63
0.439 62.7
5.91 E-04 0.084
7.21 E-04 0.10
1.09 155
4.85 E-04 0.07

0.015 2.10
6.61 E-04 0.09
4.85 E-03 0.69
1.08E-03 0.15
Diesel Fuel
(SCC 2-02-001-02,
2-03-001-01)
Ib/hp-hr Ib/MMBtu
(power output) (fuel input)
0.031 4.41
6.68 E-03 0.95
2.05 E-03 0.29
2.20 E-03 0.31
1.16 165
4.63 E-04 0.07

2.47 E-03 0.35
0.00 0.00
4.41 E-05 0.01
0.00 0.00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
B
D

D
E
E
E
a References 1,3,6. When necessary, the average brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) value used
  to convert from Ib/MMBtu to Ib/hp-hr was 7,000 Btu/hp-hr.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b PM-10 = paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 /xm aerodynamic diameter.  All paniculate is
  assumed to be < 1 /un in size.
c Assumes 100% conversion of carbon in fuel to CO2 with 87 weight  % carbon in diesel,
  86 weight %  carbon in gasoline, average BSFC of 7,000 Btu/hp-hr, diesel heating value of
  19,300 Btu/lb, and gasoline heating value of 20,300 Btu/lb.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.3-3

    -------
   Table 3.3-3 (Metric And English Units). SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION
                 FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED DIESEL ENGINES*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Benzeneb
Tolueneb
Xylenesb
Propyleneb
l,3-Butadieneb'c
Formaldehydeb
Acetaldehydeb
Acroleinb
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Naphthalene1"
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
TOTAL PAH
Fuel Input
ng/J
0.401
0.176
0.122
1.109
< 0.017
0.509
0.330
< 0.040

3.64 E-02
<2.17 E-03
<6.11 E-04
1.26 E-02
1.26 E-02
8.02 E-04
3.27 E-03
2.06 E-03
7.21 E-04
1.52 E-04
<4.26 E-05
<6.67 E-05
< 8.07 E-05
<1.61 E-04
<2.50 E-04
< 2. 10 E-04
7.22 E-02
Ib/MMBtu
9.33 E-04
4.09 E-04
2.85 E-04
2.58 E-03
<3.91 E-05
1.18 E-03
7.67 E-04
<9.25 E-05

8.48 E-05
<5.06 E-06
< 1.42 E-06
2.92 E-05
2.94 E-05
1.87 E-06
7.61 E-06
4.78 E-06
1.68 E-06
3.53 E-07
<9.91 E-08
< 1.55 E-07
< 1.88 E-07
<3.75 E-07
<5.83 E-07
<4.89 E-07
1.68 E-04
a Based on the uncontrolled levels of 2 diesel engines from References 6-7.  Source Classification
  Codes 2-02-001-02, 2-03-001-01.
b Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
c Based on data from 1 engine.
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                Table 3.3-4. DIESEL EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY*
 Technology
                                                        Affected Parameter
                       Increase
     Decrease
 Fuel modifications
   Sulfur content increase
   Aromatic content increase
   Cetane number
   10% and 90% boiling point
   Fuel additives
   Water/Fuel emulsions
 Engine modifications
   Injection timing retard
   Fuel injection pressure
   Injection rate control
   Rapid  spill nozzles
   Electronic timing & metering
   Injector nozzle geometry
   Combustion chamber modifications
   Turbocharging
   Charge cooling
   Exhaust gas recirculation
   Oil consumption control
 Exhaust after-treatment
   Paniculate traps
   Selective catalytic reduction
   Oxidation catalysts
               PM, wear
               PM, NOX
               PM, BSFC
               PM, NOX
               PM, power

               PM, power, wear
PM, NOX
PM
PM, NOX
NOX

NOX, power

NOX, PM
PM
NOX, PM
PM
NOX, PM
NOX
NOX
NOX
PM, wear
                                        PM
                                        NOX
                                        TOC, CO, PM
a Reference 4. PM = paniculate matter.  BSFC = brake-specific fuel consumption.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
                3.3-5

    -------
References For Section 3.3

1.     C. T. Hare and K. J. Springer, Exhaust Emissions From Uncontrolled Vehicles And Related
       Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines, Part 5: Farm, Construction, And Industrial
       Engines, APTD-1494, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1973.

2.     H.I. Lips, et al., Environmental Assessment Of Combustion Modification Controls For
       Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, EPA-600/7-81-127, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1981.

3.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Stationary Internal
       Combustion Engines, EPA-450/2-78-125a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.

4.     Technical Feasibility Of Reducing NOX And Paniculate Emissions From Heavy-duty Engines,
       CARB Contract A132-085, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, March 1992.

5.     Nonroad Engine And Vehicle Emission Study - Report, EPA-460/3-91-02,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1991.

6.     Pooled Source Emission Test Report:  Oil And Gas Production Combustion Sources, Fresno
       And Ventura Counties, California, ENSR 7230-007-700, Western States Petroleum
       Association, Bakersfield, CA, December 1990.

7.     W. E. Osborn and M. D. McDannel, Emissions Of Air Toxic Species: Test Conducted  Under
       AB2588 For The Western States Petroleum Association, CR 72600-2061, Western States
       Petroleum Association, Glendale, CA, May 1990.
3.3-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
3.4  Large Stationary Diesel And All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines

3.4.1  General

       The primary domestic use of large stationary diesel engines (greater than 447 kilowatts [kW]
[600 horsepower (hp)]) is in oil and gas exploration and production. These engines, in groups of 3 to
5, supply mechanical power to operate drilling (rotary table), mud pumping, and hoisting equipment,
and  may also operate pumps or auxiliary power generators.  Another frequent application of large
stationary diesels is electricity generation for both base and standby service.  Smaller uses include
irrigation, hoisting, and nuclear power plant emergency cooling water  pump operation.

       Dual-fuel engines were developed to obtain compression ignition performance and the
economy of natural gas, using a minimum  of 5 to 6 percent diesel fuel to ignite the natural gas.
Large dual-fuel engines have been used almost exclusively for prune electric power generation.  This
section includes all dual-fuel engines.

3.4.2  Process Description

       All reciprocating internal combustion (1C) engines operate by the same basic process.  A
combustible mixture is first compressed in a small volume between the head of a piston and its
surrounding cylinder.  The mixture is then ignited, and the resulting high-pressure products of
combustion push the piston  through the cylinder.  This movement is converted from linear to rotary
motion by a crankshaft.  The piston returns, pushing out exhaust gases, and the cycle is repeated.

       There are 2 ignition methods used  in stationary reciprocating 1C engines, compression ignition
(CI) and spark ignition (SI).  This discussion deals only with CI engines.

       In CI engines, combustion air is first compression heated in the cylinder, and diesel fuel oil is
then injected into the hot air.  Ignition is spontaneous because the air is above the autoignition
temperature of the fuel.  SI  engines initiate combustion by the spark of an electrical discharge.
Usually the fuel is mixed with the air in a carburetor (for gasoline) or  at the intake valve (for natural
gas), but occasionally the fuel is injected into the compressed air in the cylinder.  Although all diesel-
fueled engines are compression ignited and all gasoline- and gas-fueled engines are spark ignited, gas
can be used in a CI engine if a small amount of diesel fuel is injected into the compressed gas/air
mixture to burn any mixture ratio of gas and diesel oil (hence the name dual fuel), from 6 to
100  percent diesel oil.

       CI engines usually operate at a higher compression ratio (ratio  of cylinder volume when the
piston is at the bottom of its stroke to the volume when it is at the top) than SI engines because fuel is
not present during compression; hence there is no danger  of premature autoignition.  Since engine
thermal efficiency rises with increasing pressure ratio (and pressure ratio varies directly with
compression ratio), CI engines are more efficient than SI engines. This increased efficiency is gained
at the expense of poorer response to load changes and a heavier  structure to withstand the higher
pressures.
1/95                          Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                        3.4-1

    -------
3.4.3  Emissions And Controls

        Most of the pollutants from 1C engines are emitted through the exhaust.  However, some total
organic compounds (TOC) escape from the crankcase as a result of blowby (gases that are vented
from the oil pan after they have escaped from the cylinder past the piston rings) and from the fuel
tank and carburetor because of evaporation.  Nearly all of the TOCs from diesel  CI engines enter the
atmosphere from the exhaust.  Crankcase blowby is minor because TOCs are not present during
compression of the charge.  Evaporative losses are insignificant in diesel engines due to the low
volatility of diesel  fuels.  In general, evaporative losses are also negligible in engines using gaseous
fuels because these engines receive their fuel continuously from a pipe rather than via a fuel storage
tank and fuel pump.

        The primary pollutants from 1C engines are oxides of nitrogen (NOX), TOCs, carbon
monoxide (CO), and particulates, which include both visible (smoke) and nonvisible emissions.  The
other pollutants are primarily the result of incomplete combustion. Ash and metallic additives hi the
fuel also contribute to the paniculate content of the exhaust.  Oxides of sulfur (SOX) also appear hi
the exhaust from 1C engines.

        The primary pollutant of concern from large stationary diesel and all stationary dual-fuel
engines is NOX, which readily forms in the high temperature, pressure, nitrogen  content of the fuel,
and excess air environment found in these engines. Lesser amounts of CO and organic compounds
are emitted.  The sulfur compounds, mainly sulfur dioxide (SO^, are directly related to the sulfur
content of the fuel. SOX emissions will usually be quite low because of the negligible sulfur content
of diesel fuels and  natural gas.

        Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 contain gaseous emission factors, which are expressed in units of
grams  per kilowatt hour (g/kw-hr) and pounds per horsepower-hour (Ib/hp-hr), and nanograms per
joule (ng/J) and pounds per million British thermal unit (Ib/MMBtu).

        Table  3.4-3 shows the speciated organic compound emission factors and Table 3.4-4 shows
the emission factors for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). These tables do not  provide a
complete speciated organic compound and PAH listing because they are based only on a single engine
test; they are to be used for rough order of magnitude comparisons.

        Table  3.4-5 shows the paniculate and particle-sizing emission factors.

        Control measures  to date have been directed mainly at limiting NOX emissions because NOX is
the primary pollutant from diesel and dual-fuel engines. Table 3.4-6 shows the NOX reduction and
fuel consumption penalties for diesel and dual-fueled engines based on some of the available control
techniques.  All of these controls are engine control techniques except for the selective  catalytic
reduction (SCR) technique, which is a postcombustion control.  The emission reductions shown are
those that have been demonstrated.  The effectiveness of controls on an particular engine will  depend
on the specific design of each engine and the effectiveness of each technique could vary considerably.
Other NOX control techniques exist but are not included in Table 3.4-6.  These techniques include
internal/external exhaust gas recirculation, combustion chamber modification, manifold air cooling,
and turbocharging.
3.4-2
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
        Table 3.4-1 (Metric Units).  GASEOUS EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL AND ALL
                                                 STATIONARY DUAL-FUEL ENGINES4
Pollutant
NOX
CO
soxc
CO2d
TOC (as CH4)
Methane
Nonmethane
Diesel Fuel
(SCC 2-02-004-01)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
14
3.2
4.92$!
703
0.43
0.04
0.44
ng/J
(fuel input)
1,322
349
434Sj
70,942
38
4
45
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
C
C
B
B
C
Ee
Ec
Dual Fuelb
(SCC 2-02-004-02)
g/kW-hr
(power output)
12.3
3.1
0.25SJ + 4.34S2
469
3.2
2.4
0.8
ng/J
(fuel input)
1,331
340
21 .7$! -1- 384S2
47,424
352
240
80
EMISSION
FACTOR RATING
D
D
B
B
D
Ef
Ef
o
B
8
EL
O
o
o
00
g
1-1
a Based on uncontrolled levels for each fuel, from References 4-6. When necessary, the average heating value of diesel was assumed to be
  44,900 J/g with a density of 851 g/liter. The power output and fuel input values were averaged independently from each other, because
  of the use of actual brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) values for each data point and of the use of data possibly sufficient to
  calculate only 1 of the 2 emission factors (e. g., enough information to calculate ng/J, but not g/kW-hr). Factors are based on averages
  across all manufacturers and duty cycles.  The actual emissions from a particular engine or manufacturer could vary considerably from
  these levels.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Dual fuel assumes 95% natural gas and 5% diesel fuel.
c Assumes that all sulfur in the fuel is converted to S02. St =  % sulfur in fuel oil; S2 = % sulfur in natural gas.
d Assumes 100% conversion of carbon in fuel to  CO2 with 87 weight % carbon in diesel, 70 weight % carbon in natural gas, dual-fuel
  mixture of 5% diesel with 95% natural gas, average BSFC of 9,901,600 J/kW-hr, diesel heating value of 44,900 J/g, and natural gas
  heating value of 47,200 J/g.
e Based on data from 1 engine.
f Assumes that nonmethane organic compounds are 25% of TOC emissions from dual-fuel engines.  Molecular weight of nonmethane gas
  stream is assumed to be that of methane.
£

    -------
nits
  B
  
3d ±;3
£ 9 go.
•a H S-S
89 5 -H
8 cs $ 2
<3 u =2fe
^
^ 1-
1§
-C Uc
sl
A


g
3
3
1


eo"
*-• •— < o\
— oo o S
m o <-• m o
VO
*-«
to"
? ? s
^. « W «
s a s 2 g
o wi oo — 1 r^
^
S
U
09
03
x °* "°r4 U
0 0 000
Z 0 «3 0 H


S 2
6 b

m •«*•
9 9
u u
— ' 00
« N
\o ^
U
e
S 1
5 E
i I
3.4-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                    1/95

    -------
    Table 3.4-3 (Metric And English Units). SPECIATED ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION
        FACTORS FOR LARGE UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL ENGINES*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Pollutant
Benzeneb
Tolueneb
Xylenesb
Propylene
Fonnaldehydeb
Acetaldehydeb
Acroleinb
ng/J
3.34 E-01
1.21 E-01
8.30 E-02
1.20 E-00
3.39 E-02
1.08 E-02
3.39 E-03
Ib/MMBtu
7.76 E-04
2.81 E-04
1.93 E-04
2.79 E-03
7.89 E-05
2.52 E-05
7.88 E-06
  a Based on 1 uncontrolled diesel engine from Reference 5.  Source Classification
    Code 2-02-004-01. There was enough information to compute the input-specific emission
    factors of ng/J and Ib/MMBtu, but not enough to calculate the output-specific emission factors
    of g/kW-hr and Ib/hp-hr.
  b Hazardous air pollutant listed in the Clean Air Act.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.4-5

    -------
       Table 3.4-4 (Metric And English Units).  PAH EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE
                  UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL ENGINES'

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
PAH
Naphthalene1*
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Pbenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
TOTAL PAH
Fuel
ng/J
5.59 E-02
3.97 E-03
2.01 E-03
5.50 E-03
1.75 E-02
5.29 E-04
1.73 E-03
1.60 E-03
2.67 E-04
6.58 E-04
4.77 E-04
<9.37E-05
< 1.10 E-04
< 1.78 E-04
< 1.49 E-04
< 2.39 E-04
9.09 E-02
Input
Ib/MMBtu
1.30 E-04
9.23 E-06
4.68 E-06
1.28 E-05
4.08 E-05
1.23 E-06
4.03 E-06
3.71 E-06
6.22 E-07
1.53 E-06
1.11 E-06
<2.18E-07
< 2.57 E-07
< 4. 14 E-07
< 3.46 E-07
< 5.56 E-07
2.12 E-04
  a Based on 1 uncontrolled diesel engine from Reference 5. Source Classification
    Code 2-02-004-01. There was enough information to compute the input-specific emission
    factors of ng/J and Ib/MMBtu but not enough to calculate the output-specific emission factors
    of g/kW-hr and Ib/hp-hr.
  b Hazardous air pollutant listed hi the Clean Air Act.
3.4-6
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       Table 3.4-5 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE AND PARTICLE-SIZING
   EMISSION FACTORS FOR LARGE UNCONTROLLED STATIONARY DIESEL ENGINES'1

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Pollutant
Filterable particulateb
< 1 /xm
< 3 /«n
< 10 /im
Total filterable particulate
Condensable particulate
Total PM-10C
Total particulated
Fuel
ng/J

20.6
20.6
21.3
26.7
3.31
24.7
30.0
Input
Ib/MMBtu

0.0478
0.0479
0.0496
0.0620
0.0077
0.0573
0.0697
  a Based on 1 uncontrolled diesel engine from Reference 6.  Source Classification
    Code 2-02-004-01. The data for the particulate emissions were collected using Method 5, and
    the particle size distributions were collected using a Source Assessment Sampling System.
    PM-10 = particulate matter < 10 micrometers (jim) aerometric diameter.
  b Particle size is expressed as aerodynamic diameter.
  c Total PM-10 is the sum of filterable particulate less than 10 /*m aerodynamic diameter and
    condensable particulate.
  d Total particulate is the sum of the total filterable particulate and condensable particulate.
1/95
Stationary Internal Combustion Sources
3.4-7

    -------
    Table 3.4-6.  NOX REDUCTION AND FUEL CONSUMPTION PENALTIES FOR LARGE
                   STATIONARY DIESEL AND DUAL-FUEL ENGINES4
Control Approach
Derate 10%
20%
25%
Retard 2°
4°
8°
Air-to-fuel 3%
±10%
Water injection (H2O/fuel ratio) 50%
SCR
Diesel
(SCC 2-02-004-01)
NOX
Reduction
(%)
ND
<20
5-23
<20
<40
28-45
ND
7-8
25-35
80-95
ABSFCb
(%)
ND
4
1-5
4
4
2-8
ND
3
2-4
0
Dual Fuel
(SCC 2-02-004-02)
NOX
Reduction
(%)
<20
ND
1-33
<20
<40
50-73
<20
25-40
ND
80-95
ABSFC
(%)
4
ND
1 -7
3
1
3-5
0
1-3
ND
0
  References 1-3. The reductions shown are typical and will vary depending on the engine and
  duty cycle. SCC = Source Classification Code. ABSFC  = change in brake-specific fuel
  consumption.  ND  =  no data.
References For Section 3.4

1.     H. I. Lips, et al., Environmental Assessment Of Combustion Modification Controls For
       Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, EPA-600/7-81-127, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1981.

2.     L. M. Campbell, et al., Sourcebook: NOX Control Technology Data, Control Technology
       Center, EPA-600/2-91-029, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       July 1991.

3.     Catalysts For Air Pollution Control, Manufacturers Of Emission Controls Association
       (MECA), Washington, DC, March 1992.

4.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Stationary Internal
       Combustion Engines, EPA-450/2-78-125a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.
3.4-8
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
5.     Pooled Source Emission Test Report:  Oil And Gas Production Combustion Sources, Fresno
       And Ventura Counties, California, ENSR # 7230-007-700, Western States Petroleum
       Association, Bakersfield, CA, December 1990.

6.     C. Castaldini, Environmental Assessment OfNOx Control On A Compression Ignition Large
       Bore Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine,  Volume I: Technical Results,
       EPA-600/7-86/001a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH, April 1984.
1/95                        Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                        3.4-9

    -------

    -------
                    4.  EVAPORATION LOSS  SOURCES
       Evaporation losses include the organic solvents emitted from dry cleaning plants, surface
coating operations, and degreasing operations.  This chapter presents the volatile organic emissions
from these sources. Where possible, the effect is shown of controls to reduce the emissions of
organic compounds.
1/95                            Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.0-1

    -------
4.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

    -------
4.1  Dry Cleaning

4.1.1  General1'2

        Dry cleaning involves the cleaning of fabrics with nonaqueous organic solvents.  The dry
cleaning process requires 3 steps:  (1) washing the fabric in solvent, (2) spinning to extract excess
solvent, and (3) drying by tumbling in a hot air stream.

        Two general types of cleaning fluids are used in the industry, petroleum solvents and synthetic
solvents.  Petroleum solvents, such as Stoddard or 140-F, are inexpensive combustible hydrocarbon
mixtures similar to kerosene. Operations using petroleum solvents are known as petroleum plants.
Synthetic solvents are nonflammable but more expensive halogenated hydrocarbons.
Perchloroethylene and trichlorotrifluoroethane are the 2 synthetic dry cleaning solvents presently in
use. Operations using these synthetic solvents are respectively called "perc" plants and fluorocarbon
plants.

        There are 2 basic types of dry cleaning machines, transfer and dry-to-dry.  Transfer machines
accomplish washing and drying in separate machines. Usually, the washer extracts excess solvent
from the clothes before they are transferred to the dryer, but some older petroleum plants have
separate extractors for this purpose. Dry-to-dry machines are single units that perform all of the
washing, extraction, and drying operations.  All petroleum solvent machines are the transfer type, but
synthetic solvent plants can be either type.

        The dry cleaning industry can be divided into 3 sectors: coin-operated facilities, commercial
operations, and industrial cleaners.  Coin-operated facilities are usually part of a laundry supplying
"self-service"  dry cleaning for consumers. Only synthetic solvents are used in com operated dry
cleaning machines. Such machines are small,  with a capacity of 3.6 to 11.5 kg (8 to 25 Ib) of
clothing.

        Commercial operations, such as small  neighborhood or franchise dry cleaning shops, clean
soiled apparel for the consumer.  Generally, perchloroethylene and petroleum solvents are used in
commercial operations.  A typical "perc" plant operates a 14 to 27 kg (30 to 60 Ib) capacity
washer/extractor and an equivalent size reclaiming dryer.

        Industrial  cleaners are larger dry  cleaning plants which supply rental service of uniforms,
mats, mops, etc.,  to businesses or industries. Perchloroethylene is used by approximately 50 percent
of the industrial dry cleaning establishments.  A typical large industrial cleaner has a 230 kg (500 Ib)
capacity washer/extractor and 3 to 6 38-kg (100-lb) capacity dryers.

        A typical perc plant is shown in Figure 4.1-1.  Although  1  solvent tank may be used, the
typical perc plant uses 2 tanks for washing.  One tank contains pure solvent, and the other contains
"charged" solvent (used solvent to which small amounts of detergent have been added to  aid in
cleaning).  Generally, clothes are cleaned in charged solvent and rinsed in pure solvent.  A water bath
may also be used.

        After the clothes have been washed, the used solvent is filtered, and part of the filtered
solvent is returned to the charged solvent tank for washing  the next load.  The remaining solvent is
then distilled to remove oils, fats, greases, etc., and is returned to the pure solvent tank.   The
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.1-1

    -------


(•V >te
i
j
i
j

i
i

-I
> • u.
-II t-
ol c
s«! 2
Ml I

_i
o
CO

	 1
\.




r
i°^ S
ccg
ss
UL CO









cc
. fc L
1 i
cc
o
5 g
= -WVV g
a. <
w 2
CO
£
I







§ a
1 I
UJ C

T


1

LLJ g NX
^™* - r
£^- S
CO


C3 UJ S
°=>f
?~2 _
5S •* 	

1 £
j ^
1 <*2
t SS
5°
°= z
K 5<
UJ UJ
OQ a
K -.— fc.
0 '
CO
o
<
ttl
1 ^ Q_
!UJ DC
w
1 s
i
IN__ .
s
#

V
\










H
z
UJ
U
UJ
UJ
O


cc
UJ
ta
z
UJ
a
z
0
u
II .
1

*s
U iC
= 0
E o






o
4
_l
_l
CO
a
,t
< 1
ml
xl











°=^s
LU ^ rf
^Wl/ Hgg
Is°
CO
i
1
^:
CJ
3
E

UJ UJ
_, = »
^\/i/), -j ° 2 <
peo =
<«s°
^eo
t
z
|s
3°
=i t-
h- 0
CO 00
a




ac <
u
i

1



<
s
o
e
sr





<
CO
0
a.
ta
a
if
i

c
<
>
«
c
c
L
C
1-
>
O


h
S =
« C
S C/
1
1
1
i ,
r















c
3
5
C
k.
u
o





- z
: o
i S3
^ "»
9 1
) UJ
5


                                                                                   I
                                                                              I
                                                                                   f
                                                                                   1
                                                                                   OH
                                                                                    0>
4.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
collected solids (muck) are usually removed from the filter once a day.  Before disposal, the muck
may be "cooked" to recover additional solvent. Still and muck cooker vapors are vented to a
condenser and separator, where more solvent is reclaimed.  In many perc plants, the condenser
offgases are vented to a carbon adsorption unit for additional solvent recovery.

        After washing, the clothes are transferred to the dryer to be tumbled in a heated air stream.
Exhaust gases from the dryer, along with a small amount of exhaust gases from the washer/extractor,
are vented to a water-cooled condenser and water separator.  Recovered solvent is returned to the
pure solvent storage tank.  In 30 to 50 percent of the perc plants, the condenser offgases are vented to
a carbon adsorption unit for additional solvent recovery.  To reclaim this solvent, the unit  must be
periodically desorbed with steam, usually at the end of each day.  Desorbed solvent and water are
condensed and separated,  and recovered  solvent is returned to the pure solvent tank.

        A petroleum plant would differ from Figure 4.1-1 chiefly in that there would be no recovery
of solvent from the washer and dryer and no muck cooker.  A fluorocarbon plant would differ in that
an unvented refrigeration  system would be used in place of a carbon adsorption unit. Another
difference is that a typical fluorocarbon plant could use a cartridge filter which is drained and
disposed of after several hundred cycles.

4.1.2  Emissions And Controls1"3

        The solvent itself is the primary  eniission from dry cleaning operations.  Solvent is given off
by washer, dryer,  solvent still, muck cooker,  still residue, and filter muck storage areas, as well as by
leaky pipes, flanges, and pumps.

        Petroleum plants have not generally employed solvent recovery,  because of the low cost of
petroleum solvents and the fire hazards associated with collecting vapors.  Some emission control,
however, can be obtained by maintaining all equipment (e. g., preventing lint accumulation,  solvent
leakage, etc.) and by using good operating practices (e. g., not overloading machinery).  Both carbon
adsorption and incineration appear to be  technically feasible controls for petroleum plants,  but costs
are high.

        Solvent recovery is necessary in  perc plants due to the higher cost of perchloroethylene. As
shown in Figure 4.1-1, recovery is effected on the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker through the
use of condensers, water/solvent separators and carbon adsorption units. Typically once a  day,
solvent in the carbon adsorption unit is desorbed with steam, condensed, separated from the
condensed water, and returned to the pure solvent storage tank.  Residual solvent emitted from treated
distillation bottoms and muck is not recovered.  As in petroleum plants,  good emission control can be
obtained by good housekeeping (maintaining all equipment and using good operating practices).

        All fluorocarbon machines are of the dry-to-dry variety to conserve solvent vapor,  and all are
closed systems with built in solvent recovery.  High emissions  can occur, however, as a result of
poor maintenance and operation of equipment. Refrigeration systems are installed on newer machines
to recover solvent  from the washer/dryer exhaust gases.

        Emission factors for dry cleaning operations are presented in Table 4.1-1.

        Typical coin-operated and commercial plants emit less than 106 grams (1  ton) per year.  Some
applications of emission estimates are too broad to identify every small facility. For estimates over
large areas, the factors in  Table 4.1-2 may be applied for coin-operated and commercial dry cleaning
emissions.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.1-3

    -------
Table 4.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  SOLVENT LOSS EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS




                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Solvent Type (Process Used)
Petroleum
(transfer process)

w
on
in
i
"fl
> Perchloroethylene
O (transfer process)
v>




§. Trichlorotrifluoroethane
S (dry-to-dry process)
H-
(SJ
Source
Washer/dryerb
Filter disposal
Uncooked (drained)
Centrifuged
Still residue disposal
Miscellaneous*1
Washer/dryer/still/muck cooker
Filter disposal
Uncooked muck
Cooked muck
Cartridge filter
Still residue disposal
Miscellaneous*1
Washer/dryer/stillf
Cartridge filter disposal
Still residue disposal
Miscellaneous*1
Emission Rate*
Typical System,
kg/100 kg (lb/100 Ib)
18

8

1
1
8e
14
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.5
0
1
0.5
1-3
Well-Controlled System,
kg/100 kg (lb/100 Ib)
2°


0.5-1
0.5-1
1
0.3C

0.5 - 1.3
0.5-1.1
0.5 - 1.6
1
0
1
0.5
1 -3

    -------

         ™ va

-IP   t?
£3 i Sa-S S
jp | g£ § |
3-a.Sl8.sJ
5% of solv
About
8
               ,a   a»
               4^   »*
                  tf
                  00
                  4^

                  §

                  •s
                  D
                  bO
                     8
                   8
                ^ a
                   e «* e
                     1-! *-!
     M a? ^ w •* s -t:
     HI-IS'5.!

          j fi Ǥ
          E o «
          « o c
             g
             09
             s _
             >> c
             •5P
II «
•g |3
1st
•o g 
    -------
 Table 4.1-2 (Metric And English Units). PER CAPITA SOLVENT LOSS EMISSION FACTORS
                             FOR DRY CLEANING PLANTS"

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Operation
Commercial
Coin-operated
Emission Factors
kg/yr/capita
(Ib/year/cap)
0.6
(1.3)
0.2
(0.4)
g/day/capitab
(Ib/day/cap)
1.9
(0.004)
0.6
(0.001)
a References 2-4.  All nonmethane VOC.
b Assumes a 6-day operating week (313 days/yr).
References For Section 4.1

1.      Study To Support New Source Performance Standards For The Dry Cleaning Industry,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-1412, TRW, Inc., Vienna, VA, May 1976.

2.      Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners — Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-79-029a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August 1980.

3.      Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems,
       EPA-450/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1978.

4.      Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Petroleum Dry Cleaners (Draft), Office Of Air
       Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, February 1981.
4.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
4.2 Surface Coating

       Surface coating operations involve the application of paint, varnish, lacquer, or paint primer,
for decorative or protective purposes. This is accomplished by brushing, rolling, spraying, flow
coating, and dipping operations.  Some industrial surface coating operations include automobile
assembly, job enameling, and manufacturing of aircraft, containers, furniture, appliances, and plastic
products.  Nonindustrial applications of surface coatings include automobile refinishing and
architectural coating of domestic, industrial, government, and institutional structures, including
building interiors and exteriors and exteriors and signs and highway markings. Nonindustrial Surface
Coating is discussed below in Section 4.2.1, and Industrial Surface Coating in Section 4.2.2.

       Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) occur in surface coating operations because
of evaporation of the paint vehicle, thinner, or solvent used to facilitate the application of coatings.
The major factor affecting these emissions is the amount of volatile matter contained in the coating.
The volatile portion of most common surface coatings averages about 50 percent, and most, if not all,
of this is emitted during the application of coatings.  The compounds released include aliphatic and
aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones, esters, alkyl and aryl hydrocarbon solvents, and mineral
spirits.  Table 4.2-1 presents emission factors for general surface coating operations.
    Table 4.2-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GENERAL SURFACE
                                 COATING APPLICATIONS4

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Coating Type
Paint
Varnish and shellac
Lacquer
Enamel
Primer (zinc chromate)
VOC Emissions
kg/Mg
560
500
770
420
660
Ib/ton
1,120
1,000
1,540
840
1,320
a References 1-2.


References For Section 4.2

1.     Products Finishing, 4J(6A):4-54, March 1977.

2.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of Print.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.2-1

    -------

    -------
4.2.1 Nonindustrial Surface Coating1*3'5

       Nonindustrial surface coating operations are nonmanufacturing applications of surface coating.
Two major categories are architectural surface coating and automobile refinishing.  Architectural
surface coating is considered to involve both industrial and nonindustrial structures. Automobile
refinishing pertains to the painting of damaged or worn highway vehicle finishes and not to the
painting of vehicles during manufacture.

       Emissions from coating a single architectural structure or an automobile are calculated by
using total volume and content and specific application. To estimate emissions for a large
geographical area which includes many major and minor applications of nonindustrial  surface coatings
requires that area source estimates be developed. Architectural surface coating and auto refinishing
emissions data are often difficult to compile for  a large geographical area. In cases where a large
emissions inventory is being developed and/or where resources are unavailable for detailed accounting
of actual coatings volume for these applications, emissions may be assumed proportional to population
or to number of employees in the activity. Table 4.2.1-1  presents factors from national emission data
and gives emissions per population or employee for architectural surface coating and automobile
refinishing.
 Table 4.2.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  NATIONAL EMISSIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS
                  FOR VOC FROM ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE COATING
                             AND AUTOMOBILE REFINISHING3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emissions
National
Mg/yr (ton/yr)
Per capita
kg/yr (Ib/yr)
g/day (Ib/day)
Per employee
Mg/yr (ton/yr)
kg/day (Ib/day)
Architectural Surface Coating

446,000 (491,000)

2.09 (4.6)
5.8 (0.013)b

ND
ND
Automobile Refinishing

181,000 (199,000)

0.84(1.9)
2.7 (0.006)c

2.3 (2.6)
7.4 (16.3)c
a References 3,5-8.  All nonmethane organics. ND = no data.
b Reference 8. Calculated by dividing kg/yr (Ib/yr) by 365 days and converting to appropriate units.
c Assumes a 6-day operating week (312 days/yr).
       Using waterborne architectural coatings reduces VOC emissions. Current consumption trends
indicate increasing substitution of waterborne architectural coatings for those using solvent.
Automobile refinishing often is done in areas only slightly enclosed,  which makes emissions control
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.1-1

    -------
difficult.  Where automobile refinishing takes place in an enclosed area, control of the gaseous
emissions can be accomplished by the use of adsorbers (activated carbon) or afterburners.  The
collection efficiency of activated carbon has been reported at 90 percent or greater.  Water curtains or
filler pads have little or no effect on escaping solvent vapors, but they are widely used to stop paint
paniculate emissions.

References For Section 4.2.1

1.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of Print.

2.     Control Techniques For Hydrocarbon And Organic Gases From Stationary Sources, AP-68,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1969.

3.     Control Techniques Guideline For Architectural Surface Coatings (Draft), Office Of Air
       Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, February  1979.

4.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, HEW Contract No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research
       Inc., Reston, VA, April 1970.

5.     Procedures For The Preparation Of Emission Inventories For Volatile Organic Compounds,
       Volume I, Second Edition, EPA-450/2-77-028,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1980.

6.     W. H.  Lamason, "Technical Discussion Of Per Capita Emission Factors For Several Area
       Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds", Technical Support Division, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 15, 1981.  Unpublished.

7.     End  Use Of Solvents Containing Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA-450/3-79-032,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

8.     Written communications between Bill Lamason and Chuck Mann, Technical Support Division,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1980, and
       March  1981.
4.2.1-2                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
43.2  Industrial Surface Coating




4.2.2.1    General Industrial Surface Coatings



4.2.2.2    Can Coating




4.2.2.3    Magnet Wire Coating



4.2.2.4    Other Metal Coating



4.2.2.5    Flat Wood Interior Panel Coating




4.2.2.6    Paper Coating



4.2.2.7    Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates




4.2.2.8    Automobile And Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations



4.2.2.9    Pressure Sensitive Tapes And Labels



4.2.2.10   Metal Coil Surface Coating



4.2.2.11   Large Appliance Surface Coating




4.2.2.12   Metal Furniture Surface Coating




4.2.2.13   Magnetic Tape Manufacturing




4.2.2.14   Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts For Business Machines
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.2.2-1

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.1  General Industrial Surface Coating1"4

4.2.2.1.1 Process Description

        Surface coating is the application of decorative or protective materials in liquid or powder
form to substrates. These coatings normally include general solvent type paints, varnishes, lacquers,
and water thinned paints.  After application of coating by 1 of a variety of methods such as brushing,
rolling, spraying, dipping and flow coating, the surface is air and/or heat dried to  remove the volatile
solvents from the coated surface.  Powder type coatings can be applied to a hot surface or can be
melted after application and caused to flow together.  Other coatings can be polymerized after
application by thermal curing with infrared or electron beam systems.

Coating Operations -
        There are both "toll" ("independent") and "captive" surface coating operations. Toll
operations fill orders to various manufacturer specifications, and thus change coating and solvent
conditions more frequently than do captive companies, which fabricate and coat products within a
single facility and which may operate continuously with the same solvents. Toll and captive
operations differ in emission control systems applicable to coating lines, because not all controls are
technically feasible in toll situations.

Coating Formulations -
        Conventional coatings contain at least 30 volume percent solvents to permit easy handling and
application. They typically contain 70 to 85  percent solvents by volume.  These solvents may be of
1 component or of a mixture of volatile ethers, acetates, aromatics, cellosolves, aliphatic
hydrocarbons, and/or water.  Coatings with 30 volume percent of solvent or less are called  low
solvent or "high solids" coatings.

       Waterborne coatings, which have recently gamed substantial use, are of several types:  water
emulsion, water soluble and colloidal dispersion, and electrocoat.  Common ratios of water to solvent
organics hi emulsion  and dispersion coatings  are 80:20 and 70:30.

       Two-part catalyzed coatings to be dried, powder coatings, hot melts,  and radiation cured
(ultraviolet and  electron beam) coatings contain essentially no volatile organic compounds (VOC),
although some monomers and other lower molecular weight organics may volatilize.

       Depending on the product requirements and the material being coated, a surface may have
1 or more layers of coating applied. The first coat may be applied to cover surface imperfections or
to assure adhesion of the coating.  The intermediate coats usually provide the required color, texture
or print, and a clear protective topcoat is often added.  General coating types do not differ from those
described, although the intended use and the  material to be  coated determine the composition and
resins used hi the coatings.

Coating Application Procedures -
       Conventional  spray, which is  air atomized and usually hand operated, is  1  of the most
versatile coating methods.  Colors can be changed easily, and a variety of sizes and shapes can be
painted under many operating conditions. Conventional, catalyzed, or waterborne coatings  can be
applied with little modification.  The disadvantages are low efficiency from overspray and high
energy requirements for the air compressor.


4/81 (Reformatted  1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.1-1

    -------
        In hot airless spray, the paint is forced through an atomizing nozzle.  Since volumetric flow is
less, overspray is reduced.  Less solvent is also required, thus reducing VOC emissions. Care must
be taken for proper flow of the coating, to avoid plugging and abrading of the nozzle orifice.
Electrostatic spray is most efficient for low viscosity paints. Charged paint particles are attracted to
an oppositely charged surface.  Spray guns, spinning discs, or bell shaped atomizers can be used to
atomize the paint.  Application efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent are possible, with good "wraparound"
and edge coating.  Interiors and recessed surfaces are difficult to coat, however.

        Roller coating is used to apply coatings and inks to flat surfaces. If the cylindrical rollers
move hi the same direction as the surface to be coated, the system is called a direct roll coaler.  If
they rotate hi the opposite direction, the system is a reverse roll coater. Coatings can be applied to
any flat surface efficiently and uniformly and at high speeds.  Printing  and decorative graining are
applied with direct rollers.  Reverse rollers are used to apply fillers to porous or imperfect substrates,
including papers and fabrics, to give a smooth uniform surface.

        Knife coating is relatively inexpensive, but it is not appropriate for coating unstable materials,
such as some knit goods, or when a high degree of accuracy in the coating thickness is required.

        Rotogravure printing is widely used in coating vinyl imitation leathers and wallpaper,  and hi
the application of a transparent protective layer over the printed pattern.  In rotogravure printing, the
unage area is recessed, or "intaglio", relative to the copper plated cylinder on which the image is
engraved.  The ink is picked up on the engraved area, and excess ink is scraped off the nonimage
area with a "doctor blade". The unage is transferred directly to the paper or other substrate, which is
web fed, and the product is then dried.

        Dip coating requires that the surface of the subject be immersed hi a bath of paint.  Dipping
is effective for coating irregularly shaped or bulky items and for pruning. All surfaces are covered,
but coating thickness varies, edge blistering can occur, and a good appearance is not always achieved.

        In flow coating, materials  to be coated are conveyed through a flow of paint.  Paint flow is
directed, without atomization, toward the surface through multiple nozzles, then is caught hi a trough
and recycled.  For flat surfaces, close control of film thickness can be maintained by passing the
surface through a constantly flowing curtain of paint  at a controlled rate.

4.2.2.1.2 Emissions And Controls

        Essentially all of the VOC emitted from the surface coating industry is from the solvents
which are used hi the paint formulations, used to thin paints at the coating facility, or used for
cleanup. All unrecovered solvent can be considered potential emissions.  Monomers and low
molecular weight organics can be  emitted from those coatings that do not include solvents, but such
emissions are essentially negligible.

        Emissions from surface coating for an uncontrolled facility can be estimated by assuming that
all VOC hi the coatings is emitted.  Usually, coating consumption volume will be known, and some
information about the types of coatings and solvents will be available.  The choice of a particular
emission factor will depend on the coating data available.  If no specific information is given for the
coating, it  may be estimated from the data hi Table 4.2.2.1-1.

        All solvents separately purchased as solvent that are used in surface coating operations and are
not recovered subsequently can be considered potential emissions.  Such VOC emissions at a facility
can result from onsite dilution of coatings with solvent, from "makeup solvents" required hi flow

4.2.2.1-2                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
 Table 4.2.2.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  VOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
                                    SURFACE COATINGa

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
        Available Information On Coating
                                                            Emissions Of VOCb
                                                kg/liter Of Coating Or Ib/gal Of Coating0
  Conventional or waterborne paints:

   VOC, wt % (d)

                      or

   VOC, vol % (V)

  Waterborne paint:

   X =  VOC as wt % of total volatiles
         including water; and
   d =   total volatiles as wt % of coating
                                                        d • (coating density)/100


                                                        V • (solvent density)/100
                                                      d • X • (coating density)/100
                      or
   Y =
      VOC as vol % of total volatiles
      including water; and
V =  total volatiles as vol % of coating
                                                         V • Y • (solvent density)/100
a Based on material balance, assuming entire VOC content is emitted.
b For special purposes, factors expressed in kg per liter of coating less water may be desired.  These
  can be computed as follows:

                  kg per liter of coating    =   kg per liter of coating less water
                  1 - (vol % water/100)

0 If coating density is not known, typical densities are given in Table 4.2.2.1-2.  If solvent density is
  not known, the average density of solvent in coatings is 0.88 kg/L (7.36 Ib/gal).
coating and, in some instances, dip coating, and from the solvents used for cleanup. Makeup solvents
are added to coatings to compensate for standing losses, concentration or amount, and thus to bring
the coating back to working specifications.  Solvent emissions should be added to VOC emissions
from coatings to get total emissions from a coating facility.

       Typical ranges of control efficiencies are given in Table 4.2.2.1-3.  Emission controls
normally fall under 1 of 3 categories:  modification in paint formula, process changes,  or add-on
controls. These are discussed further in the specific subsections that follow.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
                                Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.1-3

    -------
  Table 4.2.2.1-2 (Metric And English Units). TYPICAL DENSITIES AND SOLIDS CONTENTS
                                   OF COATINGS*
Type Of Coating
Enamel, air dry
Enamel, baking
Acrylic enamel
Alkyd enamel
Primer surfacer
Primer, epoxy
Varnish, baking
Lacquer, spraying
Vinyl, roller coat
Polyurethane
Stain
Sealer
Magnet wire enamel
Paper coating
Fabric coating
Density
kg/L
0.91
1.09
1.07
0.96
1.13
1.26
0.79
0.95
0.92
1.10
0.88
0.84
0.94
0.92
0.92
Ib/gal
7.6
9.1
8.9
8.0
9.4
10.5
6.6
7.9
7.7
9.2
7.3
7.0
7.8
7.7
7.7
Solids (Volume %)
39.6
42.8
30.3
47.2
49.0
57.2
35.3
26.1
12.0
31.7
21.6
11.7
25.0
22.0
22.0
* Reference 1.
    Table 4.2.2.1-3.  CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS8
               Control Option
                                                           Reduction1*
  Substitute waterborne coatings
  Substitute low solvent coatings
  Substitute powder coatings
  Add afterburners/incinerators
                            60-95
                            40-80
                            92-98
                              95
a References 2-4.
b Expressed as % of total uncontrolled emission load.
4.2.2.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.1

1.      Controlling Pollution From the Manufacturing And Coating Of Metal Products: Metal Coating
        Air Pollution Control, EPA-625/3-77-009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Cincinnati, OH, May 1977.

2.      H. R. Powers, "Economic And Energy Savings Through Coating Selection", The
        Sherwin-Williams Company, Chicago, DL, February 8, 1978.

3.      Air Pollution Engineering Manual> Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
        Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973. Out of Print.

4.      Products Finishing, 4/(6A):4-54, March 1977.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.1-5

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.2  Can Coating1"4

4.2.2.2.1  Process Description

        Cans may be made from a rectangular sheet (body blank) and 2 circular ends (3-piece cans),
or they can be drawn and wall ironed from a shallow cup to which an end is attached after the can is
filled (2-piece cans).  There are major differences in coating practices, depending on the type of can
and the product packaged in it.  Figure 4.2.2.2-1 depicts a 3-piece can sheet printing operation.

        There are both "toll" and "captive" can coating operations. The former fill orders to
customer specifications, and the latter coat the metal for products fabricated within one facility.  Some
can coating operations do both toll and captive work, and some plants fabricate just can ends.

        Three-piece can manufacturing  involves sheet coating and  can fabricating.  Sheet coating
includes base coating and printing or lithographing, followed by curing at temperatures of up to
220°C (425°F).  When the sheets have been formed into cylinders, the seam is sprayed, usually with
a lacquer, to protect the exposed metal.  If they are to contain an edible product, the interiors are
spray coated, and the cans baked at up to 220°C (425°F).

        Two-piece cans are used largely by beer and other beverage industries.  The exteriors may be
reverse roll coated hi white and cured at 170 to 200°C (325 to 400°F). Several colors of ink are then
transferred (sometimes by lithographic printing) to the cans as they rotate on a mandrel.  A protective
varnish may be roll coated over the inks. The coating is then cured hi a single or multipass oven at
temperatures of 180 to 200 °C (350 to 400 °F). The cans are spray coated on the ulterior and spray
and/or roll coated on the exterior of the bottom end. A final baking at  110 to 200°C (225 to 400°F)
completes the process.

4.2.2.2.2 Emissions  And Controls

        Emissions from  can coating operations depend on composition of the coating, coated area,
thickness of coat, and efficiency of application.  Post-application chemical changes and nonsolvent
contaminants like oven fuel combustion products may also affect the composition of emissions.  All
solvent used and not recovered can be  considered potential emissions.

        Sources of can coating VOC emissions include the coating area and the oven area of the sheet
base and lithographic coating lines, the 3-piece can side seam and  ulterior spray coating processes,
and the 2-piece can coating and end sealing compound lines.  Emission rates vary with line speed, can
or sheet size, and coating type.  On sheet coating lines, where the coating is applied by rollers, most
solvent evaporates hi the oven.  For  other coating processes, the coating operation itself is the major
source. Emissions can be estimated  from the amount of coating applied by using the factors hi
Table 4.2.2.1-1 or, if the number and general nature of the coating lines are known, from
Table 4.2.2.2-1.

        Incineration and the use of waterborne and low solvent coatings both reduce organic vapor
emissions. Other technically feasible control options, such as electrostatically sprayed powder
coatings, are not presently  applicable to the whole industry.  Catalytic and thermal incinerators both
can be used.  Primers, backers (coatings on the reverse or backside of the coil),  and some waterborne
low- to medium-gloss topcoats have been developed that equal the performance of organic


4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.2-1

    -------
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        §•
                                                                                        u,
                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                        
4.2.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
   «d


   S
   CO
   CO
   &
   1

   §
   u

   I
   CO

   I
1
CO
CO
HH
S
w
   1
   r
   es
      o
      Z
      P
   W
        <
        CO
   ^   S2
   §   i










.a

^>*S
o-i
*"jj «a

£
"e
2

"Sib
S

e-
ills
"3 2 ^
_?3 [1, g
UH
ijig
a
I
GA
.*°

w
.1
H


















.1*

CO *3
O a)
^ C
r
tu


 CO
1 8
oo
oo


o
oo


1
'-'



oo



in



(S

>,
^T
o<
CO
"o
JD
^
_O
1
T
^
o
V
g1
i
ui <»
ll

'p, g*
|l

OO
fS

s
cs


Q
Z




Q
Z



00



CO













4>
'i
o

.^
I


'£
i
CO
09
1
1
o
03
O
1
6
JD






























S
.2
"S
8
IP
'i
&
§•
73
1
a
o
a.
p
•8
0
4/81 (Refonnatted 1/95)
                                   Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.2-3

    -------
solventborne coatings for aluminum but have not yet been applied at full line speed in all cases.
Waterborne coatings for other metals are being developed.

        Available control technology includes the use of add-on devices like incinerators and carbon
adsorbers and a conversion to low solvent and ultraviolet curable coatings.  Thermal and catalytic
incinerators both may be used to control emissions from 3-piece can sheet base coating lines, sheet
lithographic coating lines, and interior spray coating.  Incineration is applicable to 2-piece can coating
lines.  Carbon adsorption is most acceptable to low temperature processes which use a limited number
of solvents.  Such processes include 2- and 3-piece can interior spray coating, 2-piece can end sealing
compound lines, and 3-piece can side seam spray coating.

        Low solvent coatings  are not yet available to replace all the organic solventborne formulations
presently used in the can industry. Waterborne basecoats have been successfully applied to 2-piece
cans.  Powder coating technology is used for side seam coating of noncemented 3-piece cans.

        Ultraviolet curing technology is available for rapid drying of the first 2 colors of ink on
3-piece can sheet lithographic coating lines.

        The efficiencies of various control technologies for can coating lines are presented in
Table 4.2.2.2-2.
4.2.2.2-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
           Table 4.2.2.2-2. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR CAN COATING LINES'
       Affected Facility1*
           Control Option
Reduction (%)c
  Two-piece Can Lines
   Exterior coating
   Interior spraying coating
  Three-piece Can Lines
   Sheet coating lines
     Exterior coating
    Interior spray coating

   Can fabricating lines
    Side seam spray coating

    Interior spray coating
  End Coating Lines
   Sealing compound
   Sheet coating
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating
Ultraviolet curing
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating
Powder coating
Carbon adsorption
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating
Ultraviolet curing
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating

Waterborne and high solids coating
Powder (only for uncemented seams)
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating
Powder (only for uncemented seams)
Carbon adsorption

Waterborne and high solids coating
Carbon adsorption
Thermal and catalytic incineration
Waterborne and high solids coating
       90
    60-90
    <100
       90
    60-90
      100
       90
       90
    60-90
    <100
       90
    60-90

    60-90
      100
       90
    60-90
      100
       90

    70-95
       90
       90
    60-90
a Reference 3.
b Coil coating lines consist of coaters, ovens, and quench areas.  Sheet, can, and end wire coating
  lines consist of coaters and ovens.
c Compared to conventional solvent base coatings used without any added thinners.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
     Evaporation Loss Sources
           4.2.2.2-5

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.2

1.     T. W. Hughes, et al., Source Assessment: Prioritization Of Air Pollution From Industrial
       Surface Coating Operations, EPA-650/2-75-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, November 1975.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume I:  Control
       Methods For Surface Coating Operations, EPA-450/2-76- 028, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May  1977.

3.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface
       Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977.

4.     Air Pollution Control Technology Applicable To 26 Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27,  1977.  Unpublished.
4.2.2.2-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
4.2.23 Magnet Wire Coating1

4.2.2.3.1  Process Description

       Magnet wire coating is applying a coat of electrically insulating varnish or enamel to
aluminum or copper wire used in electrical machinery.  The wire is usually coated in large plants that
both draw and insulate it and then sell it to electrical equipment manufacturers. The wire coating
must meet rigid electrical, thermal, and abrasion specifications.

       Figure 4.2.2.3-1 shows a typical wire coating operation.  The wire is unwound from spools
and passed through an annealing furnace.  Annealing softens the wire and cleans it by burning off oil
and dirt. Usually, the wire then passes through a bath hi the coating applicator and is drawn through
an orifice or coating die to scrape off the excess.  It is then dried and cured in a 2-zone oven first at
200°C, then 430QC (400 and 806°F). Wire may pass through the coating applicator and the oven as
many as  12 times to acquire the necessary thickness of coating.

4.2.2.3.2 Emissions And Controls

       Emissions from wire coating operations depend on composition of the coating, thickness of
coat and efficiency of application. Postapplication chemical changes, and nonsolvent contaminants
such as oven fuel combustion products, may also affect the composition of emissions. All solvent
used and not recovered can be considered potential emissions.

       The exhaust from the oven is the most important source of solvent emissions in the wire
coating plant. Emissions from the applicator are comparatively low, because a dip coating technique
is used (see Figure 4.2.2.3-1).

       Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions may  be  estimated from the factors in
Table 4.2.2.1-1, if the coating usage is known and if the coater has no controls.  Most wire coalers
built since  1960 do have controls, so the information in the following paragraph may be applicable.
Table 4.2.2.3-1 gives estimated emissions  for a typical wire coating line.

       Incineration is the only commonly used technique to control emissions from wire coating
operations.  Since about 1960, all major wire coating  designers have incorporated catalytic
incinerators into their oven designs because of the economic benefits.  The internal catalytic
incinerator burns  solvent fumes and circulates heat back into the wire drying zone.  Fuel  otherwise
needed to operate the oven is eliminated or greatly reduced, as are costs.  Essentially all solvent
emissions from the oven can be directed to an incinerator with a combustion efficiency of at least
90 percent.

       Ultraviolet cured coatings are available for special systems. Carbon adsorption is not
practical.  Use of low solvent coatings is only a potential control, because they have not yet been
developed with properties that meet  industry's requirements.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.3-1

    -------
                                                                                        i
                                                                                        1
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        i
                                                                                        •
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        to
                                                                                       c
                                                                                       •*"
                                                                                        
    -------
     Table 4.2.2.3-1 (Metric And English Units).  ORGANIC SOLVENT EMISSIONS FROM A
                             TYPICAL WIRE COATING LINEa
Coating Lineb
kg/hr
Ib/hr
12 26
Annual Totals0
Mg/yr
ton/yr
84 93
a Reference 1.
b Organic solvent emissions vary from line to line by size and speed of wire, number of wires per
  oven, and number of passes through oven.  A typical line may coat 544 kg (1,200 Ib) wire/day. A
  plant may have many lines.
c Based upon normal operating conditions of 7,000 hr/yr for one line without incinerator.
References For Section 4.2.2.3

1.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface
       Coating For Insulation Of Magnet Wire, EPA-450/2-77-033, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

2.     Controlled And Uncontrolled Emission Rates And Applicable Limitations For Eighty Processes,
       EPA Contract Number 68-02-1382, TRC Of New England, Wethersfield, CT, September
       1976.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.3-3

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.4  Other Metal Coating1"4

4.2.2A.I Process Description

        Large appliance, metal furniture, and miscellaneous metal part and product coating lines have
many common operations, similar emissions and emission points, and available control technology.
Figure 4.2.2.4-1 shows a typical metal furniture coating line.

        Large appliances include doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts of washers,
dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, air conditioners, and associated products. Metal
furniture includes both outdoor and indoor pieces manufactured for household, business, or
institutional use. "Miscellaneous parts and products" herein denotes large and small farm machinery,
small appliances, commercial and industrial machinery, fabricated metal products and other industries
that coat metal under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 33 through 39.

Large Appliances -
        The coatings applied to large appliances are usually epoxy, epoxy/acrylic, or polyester
enamels for the primer or single coat, and acrylic enamels for the topcoat.  Coatings containing alkyd
resins are also used.  Prime and interior single coats are applied at 25 to 36 volume percent solids.
Topcoats and exterior single coats are applied  at 30 to 40 volume percent.  Lacquers may  be used to
touch up any scratches that occur during assembly.  Coatings contain 2 to IS solvents, typical of
which are esters, ketones, aliphatics, alcohols, aromatics, ethers, and terpenes.

        Small parts are generally dip coated, and flow or spray coating is used for larger parts. Dip
and flow coating are performed  in an enclosed room vented either by a roof fan or by an exhaust
system adjoining the drain board or tunnel. Down or side draft booths remove overspray  and organic
vapors from prune coat spraying.  Spray booths are also equipped with dry filters or a water wash to
trap overspray.

        Parts may be touched up manually with conventional or airless spray equipment.  Then they
are sent to a flashoff area (either open or tunneled) for about 7 minutes and are baked in a multipass
oven for about 20 minutes at 180 to 230°C (350 to 450°F).  At that point, large appliance exterior
parts go on to the topcoat application area, and single coated ulterior parts are moved to the assembly
area of the plant.

       The topcoat, and sometimes primers, are applied by automated electrostatic disc, bell,  or
other types of spray equipment.  Topcoats often are more than 1 color, changed by automatically
flushing out the system with solvent. Both the topcoat and touchup spray areas are designed with
side- or down-draft exhaust control. The parts go through about a 10-minute flashoff period,
followed by baking in a multipass oven for 20 to 30 minutes at 140 to 180°C (270 to 350°F).

Metal Furniture -
       Most metal  furniture coatings are enamels, although some lacquers are used.  The  most
common coatings are alkyds, epoxies, and acrylics, which  contain the same solvents used in large
appliance coatings, applied at about 25 to 35 percent solids.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.4-1

    -------
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         •«

                                                                                         a

                                                                                         .2
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         .83

                                                                                         8
                                                                                         4-1
                                                                                         o

                                                                                         •o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         I*
                                                                                         o.

4.2.2.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
        On a typical metal furniture coating line (see Figure 4.2.2.4-1), the prime coat can be applied
 with the same methods used for large appliances, but it may be cured at slightly lower temperatures,
 150 to 200°C (300 to 400°F).  The topcoat, usually the only coat, is applied with electrostatic spray
 or with conventional airless or air spray.  Most spray coating is manual, in contrast to large appliance
 operations. Flow coating or dip coating is done, if die plant generally uses only  1 or 2 colors on a
 line.

        The coated furniture is usually baked, but in some cases it is air dried. If it is to be baked, it
 passes through a flashoff area into a multizone oven at temperatures ranging from 150 to 230 °C
 (300 to 450°F).

 Miscellaneous Metal Parts And Products -
        Both enamels (30 to 40 volume percent solids) and lacquers (10 to 20 volume percent solids)
 are used to coat miscellaneous metal parts and products, although enamels are more common.
 Coatings often are purchased at higher volume percent solids but are thinned before application
 (frequently with aromatic solvent blends).   Alkyds are popular with industrial and farm machinery
 manufacturers.  Most of the coatings contain several (up to 10) different solvents, including ketones,
 esters, alcohols, aliphatics, ethers, aromatics, and terpenes.

        Single or double coatings are applied in conveyored or batch operations.  Spraying is usually
 employed for single coats. Flow and dip coating may be used when only 1 or 2 colors  are applied.
 For 2-coat operations,  primers are usually applied by flow or dip coating, and topcoats are almost
 always applied by spraying. Electrostatic  spraying is common.  Spray booths and areas are kept at a
 slight negative pressure to capture overspray.

        A manual 2-coat operation may be used for large items like industrial and farm  machinery.
 The coatings on large products are often air dried rather than oven baked, because the machinery,
 when completely assembled, includes heat sensitive materials and may be too large to be cured hi an
 oven.  Miscellaneous parts and products can be baked in single or multipass ovens at 150 to 230 °C
 (300 to 450°F).

 4.2.2.4.2  Emissions And Controls

        Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted from application and flashoff areas  and the
 ovens of metal coating lines (see Figure 4.2.2.4-1).  The composition of emissions varies among
 coating lines according to physical construction,  coating method, and type of coating applied, but
 distribution of emissions among individual operations has been assumed to be fairly constant,
 regardless of the type of coating line or the specific product coated, as Table  4.2.2.4-1 indicates.  All
 solvent used can be considered potential emissions.  Emissions can be calculated from the factors hi
 Table 4.2.2.1-1 if coatings use is known, or from the factors  in Table 4.2.2.4-1 if only a general
 description of the plant is  available. For emissions from the cleansing and pretreatment area, see
 Section 4.6, Solvent Degreasing.

       When powder coatings, which contain almost no VOC,  are applied to some metal products as
 a coating modification, emissions are greatly reduced. Powder coatings are applied as single coats on
 some large appliance interior parts and as topcoat for kitchen ranges. They are also used on metal
bed and chair frames, shelving, and stadium seating, and they have been applied as single coats on
small appliances, small farm machinery, fabricated metal product parts,  and industrial machinery
 components.  The usual application methods are manual or automatic electrostatic spray.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.4-3

    -------
  £
  o

  H
  O
  I
  g
  O
  2
  O
  t/j   ^-»
  c/?   Z<
  53   O
  U
  P
   %
  U
  tN
£
     m

     o
     2

     1
     04

     g
       00

M
1
on
en
'§
U
Estimated












on
C
en
.s
B)






















en
C
O




||
^"i
<






Ui
c
2






S


O
c
Q
***
o
"O
1
0-







I

o


*n O o o
en »n «o NO
N s s § s




00 *O ^O ^D
*ri o o o








^ ^ rS cs ?5
en »n ^H *-» >r-»






10 S? <5 ^ -^
i-H O « ^^ it-4


•^«. ^* ^* ^"» ^*»
as "*"** "^** •o*1 ^^
0 O O O O

0. XX XX
OO QQ ^rj \^ ^
t-. •* w









>-,
1 %
sn ji o
1 1 0
8 gU, E "5> Q.
iHKs^t
Illlf jit
4) E -- W) 60 O C C
g? "C 1 .S .S g o o
Sa,2«otoaOO
I-H ^ *£

O
o




0
00
1
R








tN
tN






i


s,
o


X
>o










"So
*G0
Conveyoi

§
o




g
g








5?
m






r— «


S,
?
^

X
VO







g
Oi
09
•o
c
a
§
Conveyoi

o
o




0
1
g








Sr
r>






en


U|
?
O

X
VO







x
n
"O
e
05
.S*
•3
!
Conveyoi

o
8




0
oo
f?
















1


M
e
0

X
\0










>,
1
i
o
Conveyoi


o




S









§








S
js
"o
>

>>
*
c

^
"o
C/2
vi
o
o
o
'e
<+-
0
CO
a>

•g
"rfi

e
**•«
8

E
i
"8
"OB
8
I
2.l
M\ «^
Reference
Estimatec
a J3






.52
1
a>
43
o
•45
C
_O
^_»
08

5


p^J

s-Z.
-S?
en
^

~5o
oo
oo
O
<4-
»
>,

i
T3
•B
§
"o
CO
S?
^
g
.2
'G
£


x

^^^
i
o

4>
cd
2
1
«N
II
XJJ
>


H


^
t
8





v5d
Sv
CD
|
"o
U
O
^
II
> >
iual electrostatic equipment.
£
E
CO

<8
3
8
.5
bA
c
'E
CO
O.
"
O


1
*O
"Sb g «g
S^'


i


>*/
W3
CQ
H






•
0
0>
•^
2
•8
co
.§
'o
1
3
i
VH

c3
8
o<
•3
•o
5
_o

o -o
trostatic equipment but coats a wide range of product sizes and
8
S

y
;->
•4^
O
•I
bfl
e
presumi
••
0
v>

2
•8
assum
o
C
'u
ti
1
03
H
u




















g
_o
I
c
8

4.2.2.4-4
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
        Improving transfer efficiency is a method of reducing emissions.  One such technique is the
electrostatic application of the coating, and another is dip coating with waterborne paint.  For
example, many makers of large appliances are now using electrodeposition to apply prime coats to
exterior parts and single coats to interiors, because this technique increases corrosion protection and
resistance to detergents.  Electrodeposition of these waterborne coatings is also being used at several
metal furniture coating plants and at some farm, commercial machinery, and fabricated metal products
facilities.

        Automated  electrostatic spraying is most efficient, but manual and conventional methods  can
be used, also.  Roll coating is another option on some miscellaneous parts.  Use of higher solids
coatings is a practiced technique for reduction of VOC emissions.

        Carbon adsorption is technically feasible for collecting emissions from prime, top, and single-
coat applications and flashoff areas. However, the entrained sticky paint particles are a filtration
problem, and adsorbers are not commonly used.

        Incineration is used to reduce organic vapor emissions from baking ovens for large
appliances, metal furniture, and miscellaneous products, and it is an option for  control of emissions
from application and flashoff areas.

        Table 4.2.2.4-1 gives emission factors for large appliance, metal furniture, and miscellaneous
metal parts coating lines, and Table 4.2.2.4-2 gives  their estimated control  efficiencies.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.4-5

    -------
 o
to
Table 4.2.2.4-2. ESTIMATED CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR METAL COATING LINES*
Control Technology
Powder

Waterborne (spray,
dip, flowcoat)
Waterborne
(electrodeposition)
Higher solids (spray)


Carbon absorption



Incineration

Application
Large Appliances
Top, exterior or
interior single coat
All applications

Prime or interior
single coat
Top or exterior
single coat and
sound deadener
Prime, single or
topcoat application
and flashoff areas

Prime, top or single
coat ovens
Metal Furniture
Top or single coat

Prime, top or
single coat
Prime or single
coat
Top or single coat


Prime, top or
single coat
application and
flashoff areas
Ovens

Miscellaneous
Oven-baked single coat or topcoat

Oven-baked single coat, primer and
topcoat; air dried primer and topcoat
Oven-baked single coat and primer

Oven-baked single coat and topcoat; air
dried primer and topcoat

Oven-baked single coat, primer and topcoat
application and flashoff areas; air dried
primer and topcoat application and drying
areas
Ovens

Organic Emissions Reduction (%)
Large
Appliances
95 - 99b

70 - 90b

90 - 95b

60-80b


90d



90"1

Metal
Furniture
95 - 99b

60-90b

90 - 95b

50 - 80b


90d



90*

Miscellaneous
95 - 98C

60-90°

90 - 95C

50 - 80°


90d



90+d

w
CO
C/3
9
8
C/5
       a References 1-3.
       b The base case against which these % reductions were calculated is a high organic solvent coating that contains 25 volume % solids and
        75 volume % organic solvents.  Transfer efficiencies for liquid coatings are assumed to be about 80% for spray and 90% for dip or
        flowcoat,  for powders about 93%, and for electrodeposition, 99%.
       c Figures reflect the range of reduction possible.  Actual reduction achieved depends on compositions of the conventional coating originally
        used and replacement low organic solvent coating, on transfer efficiency, and on relative film thicknesses of the two coatings.
       d Reduction is only across the control device and does not account for capture efficiency.

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.4

1.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume III: Surface
       Coating Of Metal Furniture, EPA-450/2-77-032, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface
       Coating Of Large Appliances, EPA-450/2-77-034, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

3.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface
       Coating Of Miscellaneous Metal Parts And Products, EPA-450/2-78-015,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1978.

4.     G. T. Helms,  "Appropriate Transfer Efficiencies For Metal Furniture And Large Appliance
       Coating", Memorandum, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 28, 1980.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.4-7

    -------

    -------
433.5  Flat Wood Interior Panel Coating

4.2.2.5.1  Process Description1

         Finished flat wood construction products are interior panels made of hardwood plywoods
(natural  and lauan), particle board, and hardboard.

        Fewer than 25 percent of the manufacturers of such flat wood products coat the products in
their plants, and in some of the plants that do coat, only a small percentage of total production is
coated.  At present, most coating is done by toll coalers who receive panels from manufacturers and
undercoat or finish them according to customer specifications and product requirements.

        Some of the layers and coatings that can be factory-applied to flat woods are filler, sealer,
groove coat, primer, stain, basecoat, ink, and topcoat.  Solvents used in organic base flat wood
coatings are usually component mixtures, including methyl ethyl ketone,  methyl isobutyl ketone,
toluene,  xylene, butyl acetates, propanol, ethanol, butanol, naphtha, methanol, amyl acetate, mineral
spirits, SoCal I and n, glycols, and glycol ethers.  Those most often used in waterborne coatings are
glycol, glycol ethers, propanol, and butanol.

        Various forms of roll coating are the preferred techniques for applying coatings to flat woods.
Coatings used for surface cover can be applied with a direct roller coater, and reverse roll coaters are
generally used to apply fillers, forcing the filler into panel cracks  and voids.  Precision coating and
printing  (usually with offset gravure grain printers) are also forms of roll coating, and several types of
curtain coating may be employed, also (usually for topcoat application).  Various spray techniques
and brush coating may be used, too.

       Printed interior panelings are produced from plywoods with hardwood surfaces (primarily
lauan) and from various wood composition panels, including hardboard and particle board. Finishing
techniques are used to cover the original surface and to produce various decorative effects.
Figure 4.2.2.5-1 is a flow diagram showing some, but not all, typical production line variations for
printed ulterior paneling.

       Groove coatings, applied in different  ways and at different points in the coating procedure,
are usually pigmented low resin solids reduced with water before use, therefore yielding few, if any,
emissions.  Fillers, usually applied by reverse roll  coating, may be of various formulations:
0) polyester (which is ultraviolet cured) (2) water base, (3) lacquer base,  (4) polyurethane, and
(5) alkyd urea base.  Water base fillers are hi common use on printed paneling lines.

       Sealers may be of water or solvent base, usually applied by  airless spray or direct  roll
coating,  respectively.  Basecoats, which are usually direct roll coated, generally are of lacquer,
synthetic, vinyl modified alkyd urea, catalyzed vinyl, or water base.

       Inks are applied  by an offset gravure printing operation similar to direct roll coating.  Most
lauan printing inks are pigments dispersed in  alkyd resin, with some nitrocellulose added for better
wipe and printability.  Water base inks have a good future for clarity, cost, and environmental
reasons.   After printing, a board goes through 1 or 2 direct or precision roll coaters for application of
the clear protective topcoat.  Some topcoats are synthetic, prepared from  solvent soluble alkyd or
polyester resins,  urea formaldehyde cross 1 hikings, resins, and solvents.


4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.5-1

    -------
                         O
                                                    d8
                                                    n
                                                    tg tf
                    2 S
                    I  I
                    U t)
T
OVEN

>,
'
COOLING
                                                                                  1
                                                                                  0
                                                                                  ex
                                                                                  §
                                                                                  §
                                                                                  I?
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  cx

                                                                                  _o
                                                                                  'lH
                                                                                  
    -------
        Natural hardwood plywood panels are coated with transparent or clear finishes to enhance and
protect their face ply of hardwood veneer.  Typical production lines are similar to those for printed
ulterior paneling, except that a primer sealer is applied to the filled panel, usually by direct roll
coating.  The panel is then embossed and "valley printed" to give a "distressed" or antique
appearance.  No basecoat is  required.  A sealer is also applied after printing but before application of
the topcoat, which  may be curtain coated, although direct roll coating remains the usual technique.

4.2.2.5.2 Emissions And Controls1'2

       Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) at flat wood coating plants occur primarily
from reverse roll coating of  filler, direct roll coating of sealer and basecoat, printing of wood grain
patterns, direct roll or curtain coating of topcoat(s), and oven drying after 1 or more of those
operations (see Figure 4.2.2.5-1).  All solvent used and not recovered can be considered potential
emissions.  Emissions can be calculated from the factors in Table 4.2.2.1-1 if the coating use is
known.  Emissions for interior printed panels can be estimated from the factors hi Table 4.2.2.5-1, if
the area of coated panels is known.

       Waterborne coatings are increasingly used to reduce emissions.  They can be applied to
almost all flat wood except redwood and, possibly, cedar.  The major use of waterborae flat wood
coatings  is in the filler and basecoat applied to printed interior paneling. Limited use has been made
of waterborae materials for inks, groove coats, and topcoats with printed paneling, and for inks and
groove coats with natural hardwood panels.

       Ultraviolet  curing systems are applicable to clear or semitransparent fillers, topcoats on
particle board coating lines,  and specialty coating operations.  Polyester, acrylic,  urethane, and alkyd
coatings  can be cured by this method.

       Afterburners  can be used to control VOC emissions from baking ovens, and there would seem
to be ample recovered heat to use. Extremely few flat wood coating operations have  afterburners  as
add-on controls, though, despite the fact that they are a viable control  option for reducing emissions
where product  requirements  restrict the use of other control techniques.

       Carbon adsorption is technically feasible, especially for specific applications (e. g., redwood
surface treatment),  but the use of multicomponent solvents and different coating formulations in
several steps along  the coating line has thus far precluded its use to control  flat wood coating
emissions and to reclaim solvents. The use of low solvent coatings to fill pores and to seal wood has
been demonstrated.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.5-3

    -------
                  Table 4.2.2.5-1 (Metric And English Units).  VOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR INTERIOR PRINTED PANELS*

                                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Paint
Category
Filler
Sealer
Basecoat
Ink
Topcoat
Total
Coverage1*
liter/100 m2
Water-
borne
6.5
1.4
2.6
0.4
2.6
13.5
Conven-
tional
6.9
1.2
3.2
0.4
2.8
14.5
gal/ 1000 ft2
Water-
borne
1.6
0.35
3.2
0.1
0.65
3.4
Conven-
tional
1.7
0.3
0.65
0.1
0.7
3.6
Uncontrolled VOC Emissions
kg/ 100 m2 Coated
Water-
borne
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.4
1.2
Conven-
tional
3.0
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.8
8.0
Ultra-
violet0
Neg
0
0.24
0.10
Neg
0.4
lb/1000 ft2 Coated
Water-
borne
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.8
2.5
Conven-
tional
6.1
1.1
5.0
0.6
3.7
16.5
Ultra-
violet0
Neg
0
0.5
0.2
Neg
0.8
on
on
00
a Reference 1.  Organics are all nonmethane.  Neg = negligible.
b Reference 3.  From Abitibi Corp., Cucamonga, CA. Adjustments between water and conventional paints made using typical nonvolatiles
  content.
c UV line uses no sealer, uses waterborne basecoat and ink. Total adjusted to cover potential emissions from UV coatings.
$
vo
vo

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.5

1.      Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII:
        Factory Surface Coating Of Flat Wood Interior Paneling, EPA-450/2-78-032, U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1978.

2.      Air Pollution Control Technology Applicable To 26 Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds,
        Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27, 1977.  Unpublished.

3.      Products Finishing, 4?(6A):4-54, March 1977.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.5-5

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.6 Paper Coating

4.2.2.6.1 Process Description1"2

        Paper is coated for various decorative and functional purposes with waterborne, organic
solventborne, or solvent-free extruded materials. Paper coating is not to be confused with printing
operations, which use contrast coatings that must show a difference in brightness from the paper to be
visible. Coating operations are the application of a uniform layer or coating across a substrate.
Printing results hi an image or design on the substrate.

        Waterborne coatings improve printability and gloss but cannot compete with organic
solventborne coatings in resistance to weather, scuff, and chemicals.  Solventborne coatings, as an
added advantage, permit a wide range of surface textures.  Most solventborne coating is done by
paper converting companies that buy paper from mills and apply coatings to produce a final product.
Among the many products that are coated with solventborne materials are adhesive tapes and labels,
decorated paper, book covers, zinc oxide-coated office copier p*aper, carbon paper, typewriter
ribbons, and photographic film.

        Organic solvent formulations generally used are made up of film-forming materials,
plasticizers, pigments, and solvents. The main  classes of film formers used in paper coating are
cellulose derivatives (usually nitrocellulose) and vinyl  resins (usually the copolymer of vinyl chloride
and vinyl acetate). Three common plasticizers are  dioctyl phthalate, tricresyl phosphate, and castor
oil.  The major solvents used are toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, isopropyl alcohol, methanol,
acetone, and ethanol. Although a single solvent is  frequently used, a mixture is often necessary to
obtain the optimum drying rate, flexibility, toughness, and abrasion resistance.

        A variety of low solvent coatings, with negligible emissions, have been developed for some
uses to form organic resin films equal to those of conventional solventborne coatings.  They can be
applied up to 1/8 inch thick (usually by reverse roller  coating) to products like artificial leather goods,
book covers, and carbon paper.  Smooth hot melt finishes can be applied over  rough textured paper
by heated gravure or roll coaters at temperatures from 65 to 230°C (150 to 450°F).

        Plastic extrusion coating is a type of hot melt coating in which a molten thermoplastic sheet
(usually low or medium density polyethylene) is extruded from a slotted die at temperatures of up to
315°C (600°F). The substrate and the molten plastic coat are united by pressure between a rubber
roll and a chill roll which solidifies the plastic.  Many products, such as the polyethylene-coated milk
carton, are coated with solvent-free extrusion coatings.

        Figure 4.2.2.6-1 shows a typical paper coating line that uses organic solventborne
formulations. The application device is usually a reverse roller, a knife, or a rotogravure printer.
Knife coaters can apply solutions  of much higher viscosity than roll coaters can, thus emitting less
solvent per pound of solids applied.  The gravure printer can print patterns  or can coat a solid sheet
of color on a paper web.

        Ovens may be divided into from 2 to 5 temperature zones.  The first zone is usually at about
430°C (110°F), and  other zones have progressively higher temperatures to cure the coating after most
solvent has evaporated.  The typical curing temperature is 120°C (250°F), and ovens are generally
limited to 200°C (400°F) to avoid damage to the paper. Natural gas is the fuel most often used in


4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.6-1

    -------
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           c.
                                                                                          *4~<
                                                                                           W
                                                                                           O
                                                                                           ex
                                                                                           ra
                                                                                          cu
                                                                                          vq

                                                                                          CN

                                                                                          CN
                                                                                          bo
4.2.2.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                          (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
direct-fired ovens, but fuel oil is sometimes used.  Some of the heavier grades of fuel oil can create
problems, because sulfur oxide (SO) and particulate may contaminate the paper coating. Distillate
fuel oil usually can be used satisfactorily. Steam produced from burning solvent retrieved from an
adsorber or vented to an incinerator may also be used to heat curing ovens.

4.2.2.6.2 Emissions And Controls2

       The main emission points from paper coating lines are the coating applicator and the oven
(see Figure 4.2.2.6-1).  In a typical paper-coating plant, about 70 percent of all solvents used are
emitted from the coating lines, with most coming from the first zone of the oven.  The other
30 percent are emitted from solvent transfer, storage, and mixing operations and can be reduced
through good housekeeping practices. All solvent used and not recovered or destroyed can be
considered potential emissions.

       Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from individual paper  coating plants vary with
size and number of coating lines, line construction, coating formulation, and substrate composition, so
each must be evaluated individually.  VOC emissions can be estimated from the factors in
Table 4.2.2.6-1  if coating use is known and sufficient information on coating composition  is
available. Since many paper coating formulas are proprietary, it may be necessary to have
information on the total solvent used and to assume that, unless a control device is used, essentially
all solvent is  emitted. Rarely would  as much as 5 percent be retained in the product.
          Table 4.2.2.6-1.  CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR PAPER COATING LINES*
Affected Facility
Coating line
Control Method
Incineration
Carbon adsorption
Low solvent coating
Efficiency (%)
95
90+
80 - 99b
a Reference 2.
b Based on comparison with a conventional coating containing 35% solids and 65% organic solvent,
  by volume.
       Almost all solvent emissions from the coating lines can be collected and sent to a control
device.  Thermal incinerators have been retrofitted to a large number of oven exhausts, with primary
and even secondary heat recovery systems heating the ovens.  Carbon adsorption is most easily
adaptable to lines which use single solvent coating.  If solvent mixtures are collected by adsorbers,
they usually must be distilled for reuse.

       Although available for some products, low solvent coatings are not yet available for all
paper-coating operations. The nature of the products, such as some types of photographic film, may
preclude development of a low-solvent option.  Furthermore, the more complex the mixture of
organic solvents in the coating, the more difficult and expensive to  reclaim them for reuse with a
carbon adsorption system.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.6-3

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.6

1.     T. W. Hughes, et al., Source Assessment: Prioritization Of Air Pollution From Industrial
       Surface Coating Operations, EPA-650/2-75-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, February 1975.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface
       Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977.
4.2.2.6-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
422.1  Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates1"8

        "Polymeric coating of supporting substrates" is defined as a web coating process other than
paper coating that applies an elastomer or other polymeric material onto a supporting substrate.
Typical substrates include woven, knit, and nonwoven textiles; fiberglass; leather; yarn; and cord.
Examples of polymeric coatings are natural and synthetic rubber, urethane, polyvinyl chloride,
acrylic, epoxy, silicone, phenolic resins, and nitrocellulose. Plants have from 1 to more than
10 coating lines.  Most plants are commission coaters where coated substrates are produced according
to customer specifications. Typical products include rainwear, conveyor belts, V-belts, diaphragms,
gaskets,  printing blankets, luggage, and aircraft and military products.  This industrial source
category has been retitled from "Fabric Coating" to that listed above to reflect the general use of
polymeric coatings on substrate materials including but not limited to conventional textile fabric
substrates.

4.2.2.7.1 Process Description1'3

       The process of applying a polymeric coating to a supporting substrate consists of mixing the
coating ingredients (including solvents), conditioning the substrate, applying  the coating to the
substrate, drying/curing the coating in a drying oven, and subsequent curing  or vulcanizing if
necessary.  Figure 4.2.2.7-1 is a schematic of a typical solvent-borne polymeric coating operation
identifying volatile organic compound (VOC) emission locations.  Typical plants have 1 or 2 small
(<38 m3 or 10,000 gallons) horizontal or vertical solvent storage tanks that  are operated at
atmospheric pressure; however, some plants have as many as 5.  Coating preparation equipment
includes  the mills, mixers, holding tanks, and pumps used to prepare polymeric coatings for
application.  Urethane coatings typically are purchased premixed and require little or no mixing  at the
coating plant. The conventional types of equipment for applying organic solvent-borne and
waterborne coatings include knife-over-roll, dip, and reverse-roll coaters Once applied to the
substrate, liquid coatings are solidified by evaporation of the solvent in a steam-heated or direct-fired
oven.  Drying ovens usually are of forced-air convection design in order to maximize drying
efficiency and prevent a dangerous localized buildup of vapor concentration or temperature.  For safe
operation, the concentration of organic vapors is usually held between 10 and 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit  (LEL).  Newer ovens  may be designed for concentrations of up to  50 percent of the
LEL through the  addition of monitors, alarms, and fail-safe shutdown systems.  Some coatings
require subsequent curing or vulcanizing in separate ovens.

4.2.2.7.2 Emission Sources1"3

       The significant VOC emission sources in a polymeric coating plant include the coating
preparation equipment, the coating application and flashoff area, and the drying ovens.  Emissions
from the solvent storage tanks and the cleanup area are normally only a small percentage of the total.

       In the mixing or coating preparation area, VOCs are emitted from the individual mixers  and
holding tanks during the following operations:  filling of mixers, transfer of the coating, intermittent
activities such as changing the filters in the holding tanks, and mixing (if mix equipment is not
equipped with tightly fitting covers).  The factors affecting emissions in the mixing area include tank
size, number of tanks, solvent vapor pressure, throughput, and the design and performance of tank
covers.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.7-1

    -------
 •ft
 k)
m
O
n
H
o
                               A                   4
                                   CONDITIONED     I
                                    SUBSTRATE      I

                                        I.
                             COATING
                           PREPARATION
                            EQUIPMENT
   COATING
APPLICATION/
  FLASHOFF
    AREA
                                                                                  \
 DRYING
  OVEN
                                   CLEAN UP
                                   SOLVENT
                                                   *
                                                  I
                        w
                       LJ
   1
  CURING
  OVEN
(OPTIONAL)

                                                                                                      COATED
                                                                                                      SUBSTRATE
                                                                                    VOC emissions  ar« denoted by an"*,
M5
OO
OO
                              Figure 4.2.2.7-1. Solventborne polymeric coating operation and VOC emission locations.1

    -------
        Emissions from the coating application area result from the evaporation of solvent around the
coating application equipment during the application process and from the exposed substrate as it
travels from the coater to the drying oven entrance (flashoff).  The factors affecting emissions are the
solvent content of the coating, line width and speed, coating thickness, volatility of the solvent(s),
temperature, distance between coater and oven, and air turbulence in the coating area.

        Emissions from the drying oven result from the fraction of the remaining solvent that is
driven off in the oven.  The factors affecting uncontrolled emissions are the solvent content of the
coating and the amount of solvent retained in the finished product. Fugitive emissions due to the
opening of oven doors also may be significant in some operations. Some plasticizers and reaction
byproducts may be emitted if the coating is subsequently cured or vulcanized.  However, emissions
from the curing or vulcanizing of the coating are usually negligible compared to the total emissions
from the operation.

        Solvent type and quantity are the common factors affecting emissions from all the operations
in a polymeric coating facility.  The rate of evaporation or drying is dependent upon solvent vapor
pressure at a given temperature and concentration.  The most commonly used organic solvents are
toluene, dimethyl formamide (DHF), acetone, methyl  ethyl ketone (MEK), isopropyl alcohol, xylene,
and ethyl acetate.  Factors affecting solvent selection are cost, solvency, toxicity, availability, desired
rate of evaporation, ease of use after solvent recovery, and compatibility with solvent recovery
equipment.

4.2.2.7.3 Emissions Control1'2'4"7

        A control system for evaporative emissions consists of 2 components:  a capture device and a
control  device.  The efficiency of the control system is determined by the efficiencies of the
2 components.

        A capture device is used to  contain emissions from a process operation and direct them to a
stack or to a control device. Covers, vents,  hoods,  and partial and total enclosures are alternative
capture devices used on coating preparation equipment.  Hoods and partial and total enclosures are
typical capture devices for use hi the coating application area.  A  drying oven  can be considered a
capture device because it both contains and directs VOC emissions from the process. The efficiency
of capture devices is variable and depends upon the  quality of design and the level of operation and
maintenance.

        A control device is any equipment that has as its primary  function  the reduction of emissions.
Control devices typically used in this industry are carbon adsorbers, condensers, and incinerators.
Tightly fitting covers on coating preparation equipment may be considered both capture and control
devices.

        Carbon adsorption units use activated carbon to adsorb VOCs from a gas stream; the VOCs
are later recovered from the carbon. Two types  of carbon adsorbers are available: fixed-bed and
fluidized bed.  Fixed-bed carbon adsorbers are designed with a steam-stripping technique to recover
the VOC material and regenerate the activated carbon.  The fluidized-bed units used in this industry
are designed to use nitrogen for VOC vapor recovery and carbon regeneration.  Both types achieve
typical VOC control efficiencies of 95 percent when properly designed, operated, and maintained.

        Condensation units control  VOC emissions by cooling the solvent-laden gas to the dew point
of the solvents) and collecting the droplets.  There are 2 condenser designs commercially available:
nitrogen (inert gas) atmosphere, and air atmosphere.  These systems differ in the design and operation

9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.7-3

    -------
of the drying oven (i. e., use of nitrogen or air in the oven) and in the method of cooling the solvent
laden air (i. e., liquified nitrogen or refrigeration).  Both design types can achieve VOC control
efficiencies of 95 percent.

       Incinerators control VOC emissions through oxidation of the organic compounds into carbon
dioxide and water.  Incinerators used to control VOC emissions may be of thermal or catalytic design
and may use primary or secondary heat recovery to reduce fuel costs.  Thermal incinerators operate
at approximately 890°C (1600°F) to ensure oxidation of the organic compounds.  Catalytic
incinerators operate in the rage of 325 to 430°C (600 to 800°F) while using a catalyst to achieve
comparable oxidation of VOCs. Both design types achieve a typical VOC control efficiency of
98 percent.

       Tightly fitting covers control VOC emissions from mix vessels by reducing evaporative
losses. Airtight covers can be fitted with conservation vents to avoid excessive internal pressure or
vacuum.  The parameters affecting the efficiency of these controls are solvent vapor pressure, cyclic
temperature change,  tank size, throughput, and the pressure and vacuum settings on the conservation
vents.  A good system of tightly fitting covers on" mixing area vessels is estimated to reduce emissions
by approximately 40 percent.  Control efficiencies of 95 or 98 percent  can be obtained by directing
the captured VOCs to an adsorber, condenser,  or incinerator.

       When the efficiencies of the capture device and control device are known, the efficiency of
the control system can be computed by the following equation:

               (capture efficiency) x (control efficiency) = (control system efficiency)

The terms of this equation are fractional efficiencies rather than percentages.  For instance, a system
of hoods delivering 60 percent of VOC emissions to a 90 percent efficient carbon adsorber would
result in a control system efficiency of 54 percent (0.60 x 0.90 = 0.54). Table 4.2.2.7-1 summarizes
the control system efficiencies that may be used in the absence of measured data on mix  equipment
and coating operations.
                  Table 4.2.2.7-1. SUMMARY OF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES'1
                 Control Technology
Overall Control Efficiency, %b
 Coating Preparation Equipment
   Uncontrolled
   Sealed covers with conservation vents
   Sealed covers with carbon adsorber/condenser
 Coating Operations0
   Local ventilation with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Partial enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Total enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Total enclosure with incinerator
               0
              40
              95
              81
              90
              93
              96
a Reference 1.  To be used hi the absence of measured data.
b To be applied to uncontrolled emissions from indicated process area, not from entire plant.
c Includes coating application/flashoff area and drying oven.
4.2.2.7-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
4.2.2.7.4 Emissions Estimation Techniques1'4"8

        In this diverse industry, realistic estimates of emissions require solvent usage data.  Due to
the wide variation found in coating formulations, line speeds, and products, no meaningful inferences
can be made based simply on the equipment present.

        Plantwide emissions can be estimated by performing  a liquid material balance in uncontrolled
plants and in those where VOCs are recovered for reuse or sale.  This technique is based on the
assumption that all solvent purchased replaces VOC's which  have been emitted. Any identifiable and
quantifiable side-streams should be subtracted from this total. The general formula for this is:


                         / solvent  \  _  / quantifiable \   =  / VOC \
                         \ purchased/     \solvent output/      \emitted/


The first term encompasses all solvent purchased including thinners, cleaning agents, and the solvent
content of any premixed coatings, as well as any solvent directly used in coating formulation.  From
this total, any quantifiable solvent outputs are subtracted.  These outputs may include solvent retained
in the finished product, reclaimed solvent sold for use outside the plant, and solvent contained  in
waste streams.  Reclaimed solvent which is reused at the plant is not subtracted.

        The advantages of this method are that it is based on  data that are usually readily available, it
reflects actual operations rather than theoretical steady-state production and control conditions,  and it
includes emissions from all sources at the plant.  However, care should be taken not to apply this
method over too short a time span. Solvent purchases, production, and waste removal occur hi then-
own cycles, which may not coincide exactly.

        Occasionally, a liquid material balance may be possible on a smaller scale than the entire
plant. Such an approach may be feasible for a single coating line or group of lines served by a
dedicated mixing area and a dedicated control and recovery system.  In this case, the computation
begins with total solvent metered to the mixing area instead of solvent purchased.  Reclaimed solvent
is subtracted from this volume whether or not it is reused onsite. Of course, other solvent input and
output streams must be accounted for as previously indicated. The difference between total solvent
input and total solvent output is then taken to be the quantity  of VOCs emitted from the equipment in
question.

        The configuration of meters,  mixing areas, production equipment, and controls usually will
not make this approach possible.  In cases where control devices  destroy potential emissions or a
liquid material balance is inappropriate for other reasons,  plant-wide emissions can be estimated by
summing the emissions calculated for specific areas of the plant.  Techniques for these calculations
are presented below.

        Estimating VOC emissions from a coating operation (application/flashoff area and drying
oven) starts with the assumption  that the uncontrolled emission  level is equal to the quantity of solvent
contained hi the coating applied.   In other words, all the VOC in the coating evaporates by the end of
the drying process. This quantity should be adjusted downward to account for solvent retained hi the
finished product in cases where it is quantifiable and significant.

       Two factors are necessary to calculate the quantity of solvent applied: the solvent content of
the coating and the quantity of coating applied.  Coating solvent content can be directly measured
using EPA Reference Method 24.  Alternative ways of estimating the VOC content include the use of

9/88 (Reformatted i/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.7-5

    -------
either data on coating formulation that are usually available from the plant owner/operator or
premixed coating manufacturer or, if these cannot be obtained, approximations based on the
information in Table 4.2.2.7-2.  The amount of coating applied may be directly metered. If it is not,
it must be determined from production data. These should be available from the plant
owner/operator.  Care should be taken in developing these 2 factors to ensure that they are in
compatible units.
      Table 4.2.2.7-2.  SOLVENT AND SOLIDS CONTENT OF POLYMERIC COATINGS*
Polymer Type
Rubber
Urethanes
Acrylics
Vinylc
Vinyl plastisol
Organised
Epoxies
Silicone
Nitrocellulose
Typical Percentage, By Weight
% solvent
50-70
50-60
_b
60-80
5
15-40
30-40
50-60
70
% solids
30-50
40-50
50
20-40
95
60-85
60-70
40-50
30
a Reference 1.
b Organic solvents are generally not used in the formulation of acrylic coatings.  Therefore, the
  solvent content for acrylic coatings represents nonorganic solvent use (i. e., water).
c Solventborne vinyl coating.
       When an estimate of uncontrolled emissions is obtained, the controlled emissions level is
computed by applying a control system efficiency factor:
                /uncontrolled\
                \   VOC    I
1 -  control system efficiency)
                           I
I VOC \
\emitted;
As previously explained, the control system efficiency is the product of the efficiencies of the capture
device and the control device. If these values are not known, typical efficiencies for some
combinations of capture and control devices are presented in Table 4.2.2.7-1.  It is important to note
that these control system efficiencies are applicable only to emissions that occur within the areas
served by the systems.  Emissions  from such sources as process wastewater or discarded waste
coatings may not be controlled at all.

        In cases where emission estimates from the mixing area alone are desired, a slightly different
approach  is necessary. Here,  uncontrolled emissions will be only that portion of total solvent that
evaporates during the mixing process.  A liquid material balance across the mixing area (i.  e., solvent
entering minus solvent content of coating applied) would provide a good estimate.  In the absence of
4.2.2.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
      (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
any measured value, it may be assumed that approximately 10 percent of the total solvent entering the
mixing area is emitted during the mixing process, but this can vary widely.  When an estimate of
uncontrolled mixing area emissions has been made, the controlled emission rate can be calculated as
discussed previously.  Table 4.2.2.7-1 lists typical overall control efficiencies for coating mix
preparation equipment.

       Solvent storage tanks of the size typically found in this industry are regulated by only a few
States and localities.  Tank emissions are generally small (< 125 kg/yr [275 lb/yr]). If an  estimate of
emissions is desired, it can be computed using the equations, tables, and figures provided in
Chapter 7.

References For Section 4.2.2.7

1.     Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates, Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-022a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1985.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources — Volume II:
       Surface Coating  Of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977,

3.     E. J. Maurer,  "Coating Operation Equipment Design And Operating Parameters",
       Memorandum  To Polymeric Coating Of Supporting Substrates File, MRS, Raleigh, NC,
       April 23, 1984.

4.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume I:  Control
       Methods For Surface-Coating Operations, EPA-450/2-76-028, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1976.

5.     G. Crane, Carbon Adsorption For VOC Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1982.

6.     D. Moscone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS", Memorandum, Office Of Air
       Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June 11,  1980.

7.     D. Moscone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS, Addendum", Memorandum,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, July 22, 1980.

8.      C. Beall, "Distribution Of Emissions Between Coating Mix:  Preparation Area And The
       Coating Line", Memorandum To Magnetic Tape Coating Project File, MRS, Raleigh, NC,
       June 22, 1984.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.7-7

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.8 Automobile And Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations1"4

4.2.2.8.1  General

       Surface coating of an automobile body is a multistep operation carried out on an assembly line
conveyor system.  Such a line operates at a speed of 3 to 8 meters (9 to 25 feet) per minute and
usually produces 30 to 70 units per hour.  An assembly plant may operate up to 2 8-hour production
shifts per day, with a third shift used for cleanup and maintenance.  Plants may stop production for a
vacation of one-and-a-half weeks at Christmas through New Year's Day and may stop for several
weeks in summer for model changeover.

       Although finishing processes vary from plant to plant, they have some common
characteristics.  Major steps of such processes are:

               Solvent* wipe                       Curing of guide coat
               Phosphating treatment                Application of topcoat(s)
               Application of prime coat            Curing of topcoat(s)
               Curing of prime coat                 Final repair operations
               Application of guide  coat

       A general diagram of these consecutive steps is presented in Figure 4.2.2.8-1. Application of
a coating takes place in a dip tank or spray booth, and curing occurs in the flashoff area and bake
oven.  The typical structures for application and curing are contiguous, to prevent exposure of the wet
body to the ambient environment before the coating is cured.

       The automobile body is assembled from a number of welded metal sections. The body and
the parts to be coated all pass through the same metal preparation process.

       First, surfaces are wiped with solvent to eliminate traces of oil and grease.  Second, a
phosphating process prepares surfaces for the primer application. Since iron and steel rust readily,
phosphate treatment is necessary to retard such.  Phosphating also improves the adhesion of the
primer and the metal.  The phosphating process occurs in a multistage washer, with detergent
cleaning, rinsing, and coating of the metal surface with zinc phosphate.  The parts and bodies pass
through a water spray cooling process. If solventborne primer is to be applied, they are then oven
dried.

       A primer is applied to protect the metal surface from corrosion and to ensure good adhesion
of subsequent coatings.  Approximately half of all assembly plants use solventborne primers with a
combination of manual and automatic spray application.  The rest use waterborne primers. As new
plants are constructed and existing plants modernized, the use of waterborne primers is  expected to
increase.

       Waterborne primer  is most often applied in an electrodeposition (EDP) bath.  The
composition of the bath is about 5 to 15 volume percent solids, 2 to 10 percent solvent, and the rest
water.  The solvents used are typically organic compounds of higher molecular weight and low
volatility,  like ethylene glycol monobutyl ether.
"The term "solvent" here means organic solvent.

8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.8-1

    -------
o
jo
oo
<0
W

&>
in
HH
o
9
o
 Body welded,  \
 solder applied >
 and ground    /


 Sealants applied
	1—~
     V
Prime coat
(and sealant)
cured
           Topcoat cured
                                               Solvent
                                              (kerosene)
                                                 wipe
                                                          A
                                              Prime coat  ^~^
                                              applied (spray
                                              or dip)
                                              Prime coat
                                              sanded
                                             Topcoat
                                             sprayed*
                                                     A
                                                           A
                                            Second  topcoat and
                                              touchup  sprayed
                                       Paint  repair
                                       cured  or
                                       air dried
                                                                      7 stage
                                                                   phosphating
                                                                                    T
                                                                                Water spray
                                                                                  cooling
                                                                                Guide coat.
                                                                                  sprayed
                                                                   Guide coat
                                                                     cured
                                                                   Second topcoat
                                                                     cured
\
f
Assembly
                                                                                                 'Potential  A
                                                                                                  emission  *-—^
                                                                                                 .points
                        *To get sufficient  film build,  for two colors or a base  coat/clear coat,
                           there may be multiple topcoats.
oo
to
                               Figure 4.2.2.8-1.  Typical automobile and light duty truck surface coating line.

    -------
       When EDP is used, a guide coat (also called a primer surfacer) is applied between the primer
and the topcoat to build film thickness, to fill hi surface imperfections, and to permit sanding between
the primer and topcoat. Guide coats are applied by a combination of manual and automatic spraying
and can be solventborne or waterborne.  Powder guide coat is used at one light duty truck plant.

       The topcoat provides the variety of colors and surface appearance to meet customer demand.
Topcoats are applied in 1 to 3  steps to ensure sufficient coating thickness. An oven bake may follow
each topcoat application, or the coating may be applied wet on wet.  At a minimum, the final topcoat
is baked hi a high-temperature oven.

       Topcoats hi the automobile industry traditionally have been solventborne lacquers and
enamels.  Recent trends have been to higher solids content. Powder topcoats have been tested at
several plants.

       The current trend hi the industry is toward base coat/clear coat (BC/CC) topcoating systems,
consisting of a relatively thin application of highly pigmented metallic base coat followed by a thicker
clear coat. These BC/CC topcoats have more appealing appearance than do  single coat metallic
topcoats, and competitive pressures  are expected to increase their use by U.  S. manufacturers.

       The VOC content of most BC/CC coatings hi use today is higher than that of conventional
enamel topcoats.  Development and testing  of lower VOC content (higher solids) BC/CC coatings are
being done, however, by automobile manufacturers and coating suppliers.

       Following the application of the topcoat, the body goes to the trim operation area,  where
vehicle assembly is completed.  The final step of the surface coating operation is generally the final
repair process, hi which damaged coating is repaired in a spray booth and is air dried or baked hi a
low temperature oven to prevent damage of heat sensitive plastic parts added hi the trim operation
area.

4.2.2.8.2  Emissions And Controls

       Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the major pollutants from surface coating operations.
Potential VOC emitting operations are shown hi Figure 4.2.2.8-1. The application and curing of the
prune coat, guide coat, and topcoat account for  50 to  80 percent of the VOC emitted from assembly
plants. Final topcoat repair, cleanup, and miscellaneous sources such as  the coating of small
component parts and application of sealants, account for the remaining  20 percent. Approximately
75 to 90 percent of the VOC emitted during the application and curing process is emitted from the
spray booth and flashoff area, and 10 to 25 percent from the bake oven.  This emissions split is
heavily dependent on the types of solvents used and on transfer efficiency. With unproved transfer
efficiencies and the newer coatings,  it is expected that the percent of VOC emitted from the spray
booth and the flashoff area will decrease,  and the percent of VOC emitted from the bake oven will
remain fairly constant. Higher solids coatings, with then- slower  solvents, will tend to have a greater
fraction of emissions from the  bake oven.

       Several factors affect the mass of VOC emitted per vehicle from surface coating operations hi
the automotive industry. Among these are:

              VOC content of coatings (pounds of coating, less  water)
              Volume solids  content of coating
              Area coated per vehicle
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.8-3

    -------
               Film thickness
               Transfer efficiency

The greater the quantity of VOC in the coating composition, the greater will be the emissions.
Lacquers having 12 to 18 volume percent solids are higher in VOCs than enamels having 24 to
33 volume percent solids.   Emissions are also influenced by the area of the parts being coated, the
coating thickness, the configuration of the part, and the application technique.

       The transfer efficiency (fraction of the solids in the total consumed coating that remains on the
part) varies with the type of application technique.  Transfer efficiency for typical air atomized
spraying ranges from 30 to SO percent. The range for electrostatic spraying, an application method
that uses an electrical potential to increase transfer efficiency of the coating solids, is from  60 to
95 percent.  Both air atomized and electrostatic spray equipment may be used in the same spray
booth.

       Several types  of control techniques are available to reduce VOC emissions from automobile
and light duty truck surface coating operations.  These methods can be broadly categorized as either
control devices or new coating and application systems.  Control devices reduce emissions  by either
recovering or destroying VOC before it is discharged into the ambient air.  Such techniques include
thermal and catalytic incinerators on bake ovens, and carbon absorbers on spray booths.  New
coatings with relatively low VOC levels can be used in place of high-VOC-content coatings.  Such
coating systems include electrodeposition of waterborne prime coatings, and for top coats, air spray of
waterborne enamels and air or electrostatic spray of high solids, solventborne enamels and  powder
coatings.  Improvements hi the transfer efficiency decrease the amount of coating which must be used
to achieve a given film thickness, thereby reducing emissions of VOC to the ambient air.

       Calculation of VOC emissions for representative conditions provides the emission factors in
Table 4.2.2.8-1. The factors were calculated with the typical value of parameters present in
Tables 4.2.2.8-2 and 4.2.2.8-3.  The values for the various parameters for automobiles and light duty
trucks represent average conditions existing hi the automobile and light duty truck industry in 1980.
A more accurate estimate of VOC emissions can be calculated with the equation in Table 4.2.2.8-1
and with site-specific values for the various parameters.

       Emission factors are not available for final  topcoat repair,  cleanup, coating of small parts, and
application of sealants.
4.2.2.8-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
  Table 4.2.2.8-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND
               LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Coating
Prime Coat
Solventborne spray
Cathodic electrodeposition
Guide Coat
Solventborne spray
Waterborne spray
Topcoat
Lacquer
Dispersion lacquer
Enamel
Basecoat/clear coat
Waterborne
Automobile
kg Ob) Of VOC
Per Vehicle

6.61
(14.54)
0.21
(0.45)

1.89
(4.16)
0.68
(1.50)

21.96
(48.31)
14.50
(31.90)
7.08
(15.58)
6.05
(13.32)
2.25
(4.95)
Per Hourb

363
(799)
12
(25)

104
(229)
38
(83)

1208
(2657)
798
(1755)
390
(857)
333
(732)
124
(273)
Light Duty Truck
kg Ob) Of VOC
Per Vehicle

19.27
(42.39)
0.27
(0.58)

6.38
(14.04)
2.3
(5.06)

NA
NA
17.71
(38.96)
18.91
(41.59)
7.03
(15.47)
Per Hour0

732
(1611)
10
(22)

243
(534)
87
(192)

NA
NA
673
(1480)
719
(1581)
267
(588)
a All nonmethane VOC.  Factors are calculated using the following equation and the typical values of
  parameters presented in Tables 4.2.2.8-2 and 4.2.2.8-3.  NA = not applicable.
                                      Av Cl Tf Vc
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.8-5

    -------
                                     Table 4.2.2.8-1 (cont.).

where:

        Ey = emission factor for VOC, mass per vehicle (Ib/vehicle) (exclusive of any add-on
              control devices)
        Av = area coated per vehicle (ft2/vehicle)
        Cj = conversion factor: 1 ft/12,000 mil
        Tf = thickness of the dry coating film (mil)
        Vc = VOC (organic solvent) content of coating as applied, less water (lb VOC/gal coating,
              less water)
        C2 = conversion factor: 7.48 gal/ft3
        Sc = solids in coating as applied, volume fraction (gal solids/gal coating)
        ej = transfer efficiency fraction (fraction of total coating solids used that remains on coated
              parts)

Example: The VOC emissions per automobile from a cathodic electrodeposited prime coat.


                            (850 ft2) (1/12000) (0.6 mil) (1.2 lb/gal-H2O) (7.58  gal/ft3)
           mass of VOC =
                                               (0.84 gal/gal) (1.00)

                         = 0.45 lb VOC/vehicle (0.21 kg VOC/vehicle)
b Based on an average line speed of 55 automobiles/hr.
c Based on an average line speed of 38 light duty trucks/hr.
4.2.2.8-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
      Table 4.2.2.8-2 (English Units). PARAMETERS FOR THE AUTOMOBILE SURFACE
                                 COATING INDUSTRY4
Application
Prime coat
Solventborne spray
Cathodic electrodeposition
Guide coat
Solventbome spray
Waterborne spray
Topcoat
Solventborne spray
Lacquer
Dispersion lacquer
Enamel
Base coat/clear coatb
Base coat
Clear coat
Waterborne spray
Area Coated
Per Vehicle,
ft2

4SO
(220-570)
850
(660-1060)

200
(170-280)
200
(170-280)


240
(170-280)
240
(170-280)
240
(170-280)
240
240
(170-280)
240
(170-280)
240
(170-280)
Film
Thickness,
mil

0.8
(0.3-2.5)
0.6
(0.5-0.8)

0.8
(0.5-1.5)
0.8
(0.5-2.0)


2.5
(1.0-3.0)
2.5
(1.0-3.0)
2.5
(1.0-3.0)
2.5
1.0
(0.8-1.0)
1.5
(1.2-1.5)
2.2
(1.0-2.5)
• VOC Content,
lb/gal-H2O

5.7
(4.2-6.0)
1.2
(1.2-1.5)

5.0
(3.0-5.6)
2.8
(2.6-3.0)


6.2
(5.8-6.6)
5.8
(4.9-5.8)
5.0
(3.0-5.6)
4.7
5.6
(3.4-6.4)
4.0
(3.0-5.1)
2.8
(2.6-3.0)
Volume
Fraction
Solids,
gal/gal-H2O

0.22
(0.20-0.35)
0.84
(0.84-0.87)

0.30
(0.25-0.55)
0.62
(0.60-0.65)


0.12
(0.10-0.13)
0.17
(0.17-0.27)
0.30
(0.25-0.55)
0.33
0.20
(0.13-0.48)
0.42
(0.30-0.54)
0.62
(0.60-0.65)
Transfer
Efficiency,
%

40
(35-50)
100
(85-100)

40
(35-65)
30
(25-40)


40
(30-65)
40
(30-65)
40
(30-65)
40
40
(30-50)
40
(30-65)
30
(25-40)
a All values for coatings as applied except for VOC content and volume fraction solids that are for
  coatings as applied minus water.  Ranges in parentheses.  Low VOC content (high solids) base
  coat/clear coats are still undergoing testing and development.
b Composite of base coat and clear coat.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.8-7

    -------
  Table 4.2.2.8-3 (English Units).  PARAMETERS FOR THE LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE
                                  COATING INDUSTRY'
Application
Prime coat
Solventbome spray
Cathodic electrodeposition
Guide coat
Solventborne spray
Waterborne spray
Topcoat
Solventborne spray
Enamel
Base coat/clear coatb
Base coat
Clear coat
Waterborne spray
Area Coated
Per Vehicle,
ft2

875
(300-1000)
1100
(850-1250)

675
(180-740)
675
(180-740)


750
(300-900)
750
750
(300-900)
750
(300-900)
750
(300-900)
Film
Thickness,
mil

1.2
(0.7-1.7)
0.6
(0.5-0.8)

0.8
(0.7-1.7)
0.8
(0.5-2.0)


2.0
(1.0-2.5)
2.5
1.0
(0.8-1.0)
1.5
(1.2-1.5)
2.2
(1.0-2.5)
VOC Content,
to/gal-HjO

5.7
(4.2-6.0)
1.2
(1.2-1.5)

5.0
(3.0-5.6)
2.8
(2.6-3.0)


5.0
(3.0-5.6)
4.7
5.6
(3.4-6.4)
4.0
(3.0-5.1)
2.8
(2.6-3.0)
Volume
Fraction
Solids,
gal/gal-rljO

0.22
(0.20-0.35)
0.84
(0.84-0.87)

0.30
(0.25-0.55)
0.62
(0.60-0.65)


0.30
(0.25-0.55)
0.33
0.20
(0.13-0.48)
0.42
(0.30-0.54)
0.62
(0.60-0.65)
Transfer
Efficiency,
%

40
(35-50)
100
(85-100)

40
(35-65)
30
(25-40)


40
(30-65)
40
40
(30-50)
40
(30-65)
30
(25-40)
a All values for coatings as applied, except for VOC content and volume fraction solids that are for
  coatings as applied minus water. Ranges in parentheses.  Low VOC content (high solids) base
  coat/clear coats are still undergoing testing and development.
b Composite of typical base coat and clear coat.
References For Section 4.2.2.8

1.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources — Volume II:
       Surface Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977.

2.     Study To Determine Capabilities To Meet Federal EPA Guidelines For Volatile Organic
       Compound Emissions, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, MI, November 1978.
4.2.2.8-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
3.     Automobile And Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations — Background Information For
       Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-79-030, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

4.     Written communication from D. A. Frank, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI, to
       H. J. Modetz, Acurex Corporation, Morrisville, NC, April 14, 1981.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.8-9

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.9  Pressure Sensitive Tapes And Labels

4.2.2.9.1  General1'5

        The coating of pressure sensitive tapes and labels (PSTL) is an operation in which some
backing material (paper, cloth, or film) is coated to create a tape or label product that sticks on
contact.  The term "pressure sensitive" indicates that the adhesive bond is formed on contact, without
wetting, heating, or adding a curing agent.

        The products manufactured by the PSTL surface coating industry may have several different
types of coatings applied to them.  The 2 primary types of coatings are adhesives and releases.
Adhesive coating is a necessary step in the manufacture of almost all PSTL products.  It is generally
the heaviest coating (typically 0.051 kg/m2, or 0.011 Ib/ft2 and therefore has the highest level of
solvent emissions (generally 85 to 95 percent of total line emissions).

        Release coatings are applied to the backside of tape or to the mounting paper of labels.  The
function of release coating is to allow smooth and easy unrolling of a tape or removal of a label from
mounting paper. Release coatings are applied in a very thin coat (typically  0.00081 kg/m2, or
0.00017 Ib/ft2).  This thin coating produces less emissions than does a comparable size adhesive
coating line.

        Five  basic coating processes can be used to apply both adhesive and release coatings:

               solvent base coating
               waterborne (emulsion) coating
                100 percent solids (hot melt) coating
               calender coating
               prepolymer coating

        A solvent base coating process is used to produce 80 to 85 percent of all products in the
PSTL industry, and essentially all of the solvent emissions from the industry result from solvent base
coating.  Because of its broad application and significant emissions, solvent base coating of PSTL
products is discussed hi greater detail.

4.2.2.9.2  Process Description1'2'5

       Solvent base surface coating is conceptually a simple process.  A continuous roll of backing
material (called the web) is unrolled, coated, dried, and rolled again.  A typical solvent base coating
line is shown in Figure 4.2.2.9-1.  Large lines in this industry have typical  web widths of
152 centimeters (60 in.), while small lines are generally 48 centimeters (24  in.).  Line speeds vary
substantially, from 3 to 305 meters per minute (10 to 1000 ft/min). To initiate the coating process
the continuous  web material is unwound from its roll.  It travels to a coating head, where the solvent
base coating formulation is applied.  These formulations have specified levels of solvent and coating
solids by weight.  Solvent base adhesive formulations contain approximately 67 weight percent solvent
and 33 weight percent coating solids.  Solvent base releases average about 95 weight percent solvent
and 5 weight percent coating solids. Solvents used include toluene, xylene, heptane, hexane, and
methyl ethyl  ketone. The coating solids portion of the formulations consists of elastomers (natural
rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyacrylates), tackifying resins (polyterpenes, rosins, petroleum


8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.9-1

    -------
                                                                            OJ
                                                       to
                                                       O)
      V)
      -M
      w>
to

to
3
<0
^=
X
LU
C
(O
o>
Gt y
L_



0)
O
Control

3
(O
^:
X
LU
C
(1)
>
O
cr>
c
•r-
• ^
L_





I
~



•(->
c
OJ
>
1 — to
O C
(/> O
O) CO
> to
•r— •!—
4-> (=
MS
-C
•!->
XI
-1(5
4-> 0^-
c o:
a>
>
S\
n \ c
•••«




                              D


                              O


                              O
                                                                   O
 c
 O)
 >
O

 en
 c


'&
Q
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            •"•«


                                                                                             I?
                                                                                             8
                                                                                            "a?
                                                                                            •S
                                                                                             t
                                                                                             
    -------
 hydrocarbon resins, asphalts), plasticizers (phthalate esters, polybutenes, mineral oil), and fillers (zinc
 oxide, silica, clay).

        The order of application is generally release coat, primer coat (if any), and adhesive coat.  A
 web must always have a release coat before the adhesive can be applied. Primer coats are not
 required on all products, generally being applied to improve the performance of the adhesive.

        Three basic categories of coating heads are used in the PSTL industry.  The type of coating
 head used has a great effect on the quality of the coated product, but only a minor effect on overall
 emissions.  The first type operates by applying coating to the web and scraping excess off to a desired
 thickness.  Examples of this type of coater are the knife coaler, blade coaler, and metering rod coaler.
 The second category of coating head meters on a specific amount of coating.  Gravure and reverse
 roll coalers are the most common examples.  The third category of coating head does not actually
 apply a surface coating, but rather it saturates the web backing.  The most common example hi mis
 category is  the dip and squeeze coater.

        After solvent base coatings have been applied, the web moves into the drying oven where the
 solvents are evaporated from the web.  The important characteristics of the drying oven operation are:

               source of heat
               temperature profile
               residence time
               allowable hydrocarbon concentration hi the dryer
               oven ah* circulation

        Two basic types of heating are used in conventional drying ovens, direct and indirect.  Direct
 heating routes the hot combustion gases (blended with ambient ah- to the proper temperature) directly
 into the drying zone. With  indirect heating, the incoming oven ah- stream is heated in a heat
 exchanger with steam or hot combustion gases but does not physically mix with them.  Direct-fired
 ovens are more common in  the PSTL industry because of their higher thermal efficiency.  Indirect
 heated ovens are less energy efficient in both the production of steam and the heat transfer in the
 exchanger.

        Drying oven temperature  control is an important consideration in PSTL production.  The oven
 temperature must be above the boiling point of the applied solvent.  However, the temperature profile
 must be controlled by using multizoned ovens.  Coating flaws known as "craters" or "fish eyes" will
 develop if the initial drying  proceeds too quickly.   These ovens  are physically divided into several
 sections, each with its own hot air supply and exhaust.  By keeping the temperature of the first zone
 low, and then gradually increasing it in subsequent zones, uniform drying can be accomplished
 without flaws.  After exiting the drying oven, the continuous web is wound on a roll, and the coating
 process is complete.

 4.2.2.9.3 Emissions1'6-10

       The only pollutants emitted in significant quantities from solvent base coating of pressure
 sensitive tapes and labels are volatile organic compounds  (VOC) from solvent evaporation.  In an
uncontrolled facility, essentially all of the solvent used hi the coating formulation is emitted to the
 atmosphere. Of these uncontrolled emissions,  80 to 95 percent are emitted with the drying oven
 exhaust.  Some solvent (from zero to 5 percent) can remain in the final coated product, although this
 solvent will eventually evaporate into the atmosphere.  The remainder of applied solvent is lost from a
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.2.2.9-3

    -------
number of small sources as fugitive emissions.  The major VOC emission points in a PSTL surface
coating operation are indicated in Figure 4.2.2.9-1.

        There are also VOC losses from solvent storage and handling, equipment cleaning,
miscellaneous spills, and coating formulation mixing tanks.  These emissions are not addressed here,
as these sources have a comparatively small quantity of emissions.

        Fugitive solvent emissions during the coating process come from the evaporative loss of
solvent around the coating head and from the exposed wet web prior to its entering the drying oven.
The magnitude of these losses is determined by the width of the web, the line speed, the volatility and
temperature of the solvent, and the air turbulence in the coating area.

        Two factors that directly determine total line emissions are the weight (thickness) of the
applied coating on the web and the solvent/solids  ratio of the coating formulations.  For coating
formulations with a constant solvent/solids ratio during coating, any increases in coating weight would
produce higher levels of VOC emissions.  The solvent/solids ratio in coating formulations is not
constant industrywide.  This ratio varies widely among products.  If a coating weight is constant,
greater emissions will be produced by increasing the weight percent solvent of a particular
formulation.

        These 2 operating  parameters, combined with line speed, lice width, and solvent volatility,
produce a number  of potential mass emission situations. Table 4.2.2.9-1 presents emission factors for
controlled and uncontrolled PSTL surface coating operations.  The potential amount of VOC
emissions from the coating process is equal to the total amount of solvent applied at the coating head.

4.2.2.9.4 Controls1'6-18

        The complete air pollution control system for a modern pressure sensitive tape  or label
surface coating facility consists of 2 sections, the  solvent vapor capture system and the  emission
control device. The capture system collects VOC vapors from the coating head, the wet web, and the
drying oven. The captured vapors are directed  to a control device to be either recovered (as liquid
solvent) or destroyed.  As an alternate emission control technique, the PSTL industry is also using
low-VOC content coatings to reduce their VOC emissions.  Waterborne and hot melt coatings and
radiation-cured prepolymers are examples of these low-VOC-content coatings.  Emissions of VOC
from such coatings are negligible or zero.  Low-VOC-content coatings are not universally applicable
to the PSTL industry, but  about 25 percent of the production in this industry is presently using these
innovative coatings.

4.2.2.9.4.1  Capture Systems -
        In a typical PSTL  surface coating facility, 80 to 95 percent of VOC emissions from the
coating process is captured hi the coating line drying ovens.  Fans are used to direct drying oven
emissions to a control device.  In some facilities,  a portion of the drying oven exhaust is recirculated
into the oven instead of to a control device.  Recirculation is used to increase the VOC concentration
of the drying oven exhaust gases going to the control device.

        Another important aspect of capture in a PSTL facility involves fugitive VOC emissions.
Three techniques can be used to collect fugitive VOC emissions from PSTL coating lines. The first
involves the use of floor sweeps  and/or hooding systems around the coating head and exposed coated
web.  Fugitive emissions collected in the hoods can be directed into the drying oven and on to a
control device, or they can be sent directly to the control device.  The second capture technique
involves enclosing the entire coating line or the coating application and flashoff areas.  By

4.2.2.9-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted  1/95) 8/82

    -------
 Table 4.2.2.9-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRESSURE SENSITIVE
                    TAPE AND LABEL SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Emission Points
Drying oven exhaustb
Fugitives0
Product retention*1
Control device6
Total emissionsf
Nonmethane VOCa
Uncontrolled,
kg/kg Gb/lb)
0.80 - 0.95
0.01 -0.15
0.01 - 0.05
—
1.0
85% Control,
kg/kg (lb/lb)
—
0.01 - 0.095
0.01 - 0.05
0.045
0.15
90% Control,
kg/kg (lb/lb)
—
0.0025 - 0.0425
0.01 - 0.05
0.0475
0.10
a Expressed as the mass of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted per mass of total solvent used.
  Solvent is assumed to consist entirely of VOC.
b References 1,6-7,9.  Dryer exhaust emissions depend on coating line operating speed, frequency of
  line downtime, coating composition, and oven design.
c Determined by difference between total emissions and other point sources.  Magnitude is
  determined by size of the line equipment, line speed, volatility and temperature of the solvents, and
  air turbulence in the coating  area.
d References 6-8.  Solvent in the product eventually evaporates into the atmosphere.
e References 1,10,17-18. Emissions are residual content in captured solvent-laden air vented after
  treatment.  Controlled coating line emissions are based on an overall reduction efficiency which is
  equal to capture efficiency times control device efficiency.  For 85% control, capture efficiency is
  90% with a 95% efficient control device.  For 90% control, capture efficiency is 95% with a 95%
  efficient control device.
f Values assume that uncontrolled coating lines eventually emit  100% of all solvents used.
maintaining a slight negative pressure within the enclosure, a capture efficiency of 100 percent is
theoretically possible. The captured emissions are directed by fans into the oven or to a control
device.  The third capture technique is an expanded form of total enclosure.  The entire building or
structure which houses the coating line acts as an enclosure. The entire room air is vented to a
control device.  The maintenance of a slight negative pressure ensures that very few emissions escape
the room.

       The efficiency of any vapor capture system is highly dependent on its design and its degree of
integration with the coating line equipment configuration.  The design of any system must allow safe
and adequate access to the coating line equipment for maintenance.  The system must also be designed
to protect workers from exposure to unhealthy concentrations of the organic solvents used in the
surface coating processes. The efficiency of a well-designed combined dryer exhaust  and fugitive
capture system is 95 percent.

4.2.2.9.4.2  Control Devices -
       The control devices and/or techniques that may be used to control captured VOC emissions
can be classified into 2 categories, solvent recovery and solvent destruction.  Fixed-bed carbon
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.9-5

    -------
adsorption is the primary solvent recovery technique used in this industry.  In fixed-bed adsorption,
the solvent vapors are adsorbed onto the surface of activated carbon, and the solvent is regenerated by
steam. Solvent recovered in this manner may be reused in the coating process or sold to a reclaimer.
The efficiency of carbon adsorption systems can reach 98 percent, but a 95 percent efficiency is more
characteristic of continuous long term operation.

       The  primary solvent destruction technique used in the PSTL industry is thermal incineration,
which can be as high as 99 percent efficient.  However, operating experience with incineration
devices has shown that 95 percent efficiency is more characteristic.  Catalytic incineration could be
used to control VOC emissions with the  same success as thermal incineration, but no catalytic devices
have been found in the industry.

       The  efficiencies of carbon adsorption and thermal incineration control techniques on PSTL
coating VOC emissions have been determined to be equal.  Control device emission factors presented
in Table 4.2.2.9-1 represent the residual VOC content in the exhaust air after treatment.

       The  overall emission reduction efficiency for VOC emission control systems is equal to the
capture efficiency times the control device efficiency. Emission factors for 2 control  levels are
presented in Table 4.2.2.9-1. The 85 percent control level represents 90 percent capture with a
95 percent efficient control device. The 90 percent control level represents 95 percent capture with a
95 percent efficient control device.

References For Section 4.2.2.9

1.     The Pressure Sensitive Tape And Label Surface Coating Industry—Background Information
       Document, EPA-450/3-80-003a,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, September 1980.

2.     State Of California Tape And Label Coaters Survey, California Air Resources Board,
       Sacramento, CA, April 1978. Confidential.

3.     M. R.  Rifi, "Water Based Pressure Sensitive Adhesives, Structure vs. Performance",
       presented at Technical Meeting On Water Based Systems, Chicago, IL, June 21-22, 1978.

4.     Pressure Sensitive Products And Adhesives Market,  Frost and Sullivan Inc., Publication
       No.  614, New York, NY, November 1978.

5.     Silicone Release Questionnaire, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 4,
       1979. Confidential.

6.     Written communication from Frank Phillips, 3M Company, to G. E. Harris, Radian
       Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 5, 1978. Confidential.

7.     Written communication from R.  F. Baxter, Avery International, to G. E. Harris, Radian
       Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 16,  1978. Confidential.

8.     G. E. Harris, "Plant Trip Report, Shuford Mills, Hickory, NC", Radian  Corporation,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, July 28, 1978.

9.     T. P. Nelson, "Plant Trip Report, Avery International, Painesville, OH", Radian Corporation,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, July 26, 1979.

4.2.2.9-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
 10.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II:
        Surface Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
        EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        May 1977.

 11.     Ben Milazzo, "Pressure Sensitive Tapes", Adhesives Age, 22:27-28, March 1979.

 12.     T. P. Nelson, "Trip Report For Pressure Sensitive Adhesives—Adhesives Research, Glen
        Rock, PA", Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 16,  1979.

 13.     T. P. Nelson, "Trip Report For Pressure Sensitive Adhesives—Precoat Metals, St. Louis,
        MO", Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,  NC, August 28, 1979.

 14.     G. W. Brooks, "Trip Report For Pressure Sensitive Adhesives—E. J. Gaisser, Incorporated,
        Stamford, CT", Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 12,  1979.

 15.     Written communication from D. C. Mascone to J. R. Farmer, Office Of Air  Quality Planning
        And Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        June 11, 1980.

 16.     Written communication from R. E. Miller, Adhesives Research, Incorporated, to T. P.
        Nelson, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 18,  1979.

 17.     A. F. Sidlow, Source Test Report Conducted At Fasson Products, Division OfAvery
        Corporation, Cucamonga, CA, San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District, San
        Bernardino, CA, January 26, 1972.

 18.     R. Milner, et al., Source Test Report Conducted At Avery Label Company, Monrovia, CA,
        Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA, March 18, 1975.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.9-7

    -------

    -------
 4.2.2.10  Metal Coil Surface Coating

 4.2.2.10.1  General1'2

        Metal coil surface coating (coil coating) is the linear process by which protective or decorative
 organic coatings are applied to flat metal sheet or strip packaged in rolls or coils. Although the
 physical configurations of coil coating lines differ from one installation to another, the operations
 generally follow a set pattern. Metal strip is uncoiled at the entry to a coating line and is passed
 through a wet section, where the metal is thoroughly cleaned and is given a chemical treatment to
 inhibit rust and to promote coatings adhesion to the metal  surface.  In some installations, the wet
 section contains an electrogalvanizing operation.  Then the metal strip is dried and sent through a
 coating application station, where rollers coat one or both  sides of the metal strip. The strip then
 passes through an oven where the coatings are dried and cured.  As the strip exits the oven, it is
 cooled by a water spray and again dried. If the line is a tandem line, there is first the application of a
 prime coat, followed by another of top or finish coat.  The second coat is also dried and cured hi an
 oven, and the strip is again cooled and dried before being  rewound into a coil and packaged for
 shipment or further processing. Most coil coating lines have accumulators at the entry and exit that
 permit continuous metal strip movement through the coating process while a new coil is mounted at
 the entry or a full coil removed at the exit.  Figure 4.2.2.10-1 is a flow diagram of a coil coating
 line.

        Coil coating lines process metal in widths ranging from a few centimeters to  183 centimeters
 (72 niches), and in thicknesses of from 0.018 to 0.229 centimeters (0.007 to 0.090 niches). The
 speed of the metal strip through the line is as high as 3.6 meters per second (700 feet per minute
 [ft/min]) on some of the newer lines.

       A wide variety of coating formulations is used by  the coil coating industry.  The more
 prevalent coating types include polyesters, acrylics,  polyfluorocarbons, alkyds, vinyls and plastisols.
 About 85 percent of the coatings used are organic solvent  base and have solvent contents ranging
 from near 0 to 80 volume percent, with the prevalent range being 40 to 60 volume percent. Most of
 the remaining 15 percent of coatings are waterborne, but they contain organic solvent in the range of
 2 to 15 volume percent.  High solids coatings, in the form of plastisols, organosols, and powders, are
 also used to some extent by the industry, but the hardware is different for powder applications.

       The solvents most  often used in the coil coating industry include xylene,  toluene, methyl ethyl
 ketone (MEK), Cellosolve Acetate™  , butanol, diacetone alcohol, Cellosolve™, Butyl  Cellosolve ,
 Solvesso  100 and 150™, isophorone, butyl carbinol,  mineral spirits, ethanol, nitropropane,
 tetrahydrofuran, Panasolve  , methyl isobutyl ketone, Hisol 100™, Tenneco T-125 , isopropanol, and
 diisoamyl ketone.

       Coil coating operations can be classified in 1 of 2  operating categories, toll coalers and
 captive coalers. The toll coaler is a service coaler who works for many cuslomers according to the
needs and specifications of each. The coated metal is delivered to the customer,  who forms the end
products.  Toll coalers use many different coating formulations and normally use mostly organic
solvent-base coatings.  Major markets for toll coating operations include the transportation industry,
the construction industry, and appliance, furniture, and container manufacturers.  The captive coaler
is normally 1 operalion in a manufacturing process.  Many steel and aluminum companies have their
own coil coating operations, where ihe metal they produce is  coated and then formed into end


8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                         4.2.2.10-1

    -------
 o
NJ
m
00
00
*-H
o
2;
                                                  SOLVENT LOSS
                                                    FROM PRIME ,
                                                  COATING AREA I
                         UNCOILING
                           METAL
                                                         MET SECTION
                                                                               PRIME     PRIME
                                                                              COATING    OVEN
                                                                               AREA
 PRIME    TOPCOAT   TOPCOAT      TOPCOAT
QUENCH   COATING    OVEN       QUENCH
          AREA
RECOILING
 METAL
I
GO
OO
to
                                                      Figure 4.2.2.10-1.  Flow diagram of model  coil coating line.

    -------
products.  Captive coaters are much more likely to use water-base coatings because the metal coated
is often used for only a few end products.  Building products such as aluminum siding are one of the
more important uses of waterborne metal coatings.

4.2.2.10.2 Emissions And Controls1'12

        Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the major pollutants emitted from metal coil surface
coating operations.  Specific operations that emit VOC are the coating application station, the curing
oven and the quench area.  These are identified in Figure 4.2.2.10-1. VOC emissions result from the
evaporation of organic solvents contained in the coating.  The percentage of total VOC emissions
given off at each emission point varies from one installation to another, but, on the average, about
8 percent is given off at the coating application station, 90 percent the oven and 2 percent the quench
area. On most coating lines, the coating application station is enclosed or hooded to  capture fugitive
emissions  and to direct them into the oven.  The quench is an enclosed operation located immediately
adjacent to the exit end of the oven so that a large fraction of the emissions given off at the quench is
captured and directed into the oven by the oven ventilating air.  In operations such as these,
approximately 95 percent of the total emissions are exhausted by the oven, and the remaining
5 percent escape as fugitive emissions.

        The rate of VOC emissions from individual coil coating lines may vary widely from one
installation to another.  Factors that affect the emission rate include VOC content of coatings as
applied, VOC density, area of metal coated, solids content of coatings as applied, thickness of the
applied coating and number of coats applied.  Because the coatings are applied by roller coating,
transfer efficiency is generally considered to approach 100 percent and therefore does not affect the
emission rate.

        Two  emission control  techniques are widespread in the coil coating industry,  incineration and
use of low-VOC-content coatings.   Incinerators may be either thermal or catalytic, both of which have
been demonstrated to achieve consistently a VOC destruction efficiency of 95 percent or greater.
When used with coating rooms or hoods to capture fugitive emissions,  incineration systems can
reduce overall emissions by 90 percent or more.

        Waterborne coatings are the only low-VOC-content coating technology that is used to a
significant extent in the coil coating industry.  These coatings have substantially lower VOC emissions
than most of the organic solventborne coatings.  Waterborne coatings are used as an emission control
technique most often by installations that coat metal for only a few products, such as  building
materials.   Many such coaters are captive to the firm that produces and sells the products  fabricated
from the coated coil.  Because waterborne coatings have not been developed for many coated metal
coil uses, most toll coaters use organic solventborne coatings and control their emissions by
incineration.  Most newer incinerator installations use heat recovery to reduce the operating cost of an
incineration system.

        Emission factors for coil coating operations and the equations used to compute them are
presented in Table 4.2.2.10-1.  The values  presented therein represent maximum, minimum, and
average emissions from small, medium, and large coil coating lines.  An average film thickness and
an average solvent content are assumed to compute the average emission factor.  Values for the  VOC
content  near the maximum and minimum used by the industry are assumed for the calculations of
maximum  and minimum emission factors.

        The emission factors in Table 4.2.2.10-1 are useful in estimating VOC emissions for a large
sample of coil coating sources, but they may not be applicable to  individual plants. To estimate the

8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.10-3

    -------
emissions from a specific plant, operating parameters of the coil coating line should be obtained and
used in the equation given in the footnote to Table 4.2.2.10-1.  If different coatings are used for
prime and topcoats,  separate calculations must be made for each coat. Operating parameters on
which the emission factors are based are presented in Table 4.2.2.10-2.
 Table 4.2.2.10-1 (Metric And English Units).  VOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR COIL COATINGa

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Coatings
Solventborne
Uncontrolled
Controlled15
Waterbome
kg/hr (Ib/hr)
Average | Normal Range
303 50 - 1,798
(669) (110 - 3,964)
30 5 - 180
(67) (11-396)
50 3 - 337
(111) (7-743)
kg/m2 (Ib/ft2)
Average Normal Range
0.060 0.027-0.160
(0.012) (0.006 - 0.033)
0.0060 0.0027 - 0.0160
(0.0012) (0.0006 - 0.0033)
0.0108 0.0011-0.0301
(0.0021) (0.0003 - 0.0062)
a All nonmethane VOC. Factors are calculated using the following equations and the operating
  parameters given in Table 4.2.2.10-2.
                         (1)
 E =
                                          0.623 ATVD
  where:

         E = Mass of VOC emissions per hour (Ib/hr)
         A = Area of metal coated per hour (ft2)
           = Line speed (ft/min) x strip width (ft) x 60 min/hr
         T = Total dry film thickness of coatings applied (in.).
         V = VOC content of coatings (fraction by volume)
         D = VOC density (assumed to be 7.36 Ib/gal)
         S = Solids content of coatings (fraction by volume)

  The constant 0.623 represents conversion factors of 7.48 gal/ft3 divided by the conversion factor of
  12 in./ft.
                         (2)
  where:
        M = Mass of VOC emissions per unit area coated.

b Computed by assuming a 90% overall control efficiency (95% capture and 95% removal by the
  control device).
4.2.2.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
         Table  4.2.2.10-2 (English Units).  OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR SMALL,
                      MEDIUM, AND LARGE COIL COATING LINES'
Line Size
Solventborne
coatings
Small
Medium
Large
Waterborne
coatings
Small
Medium
Large
Line Speed
(ft/min)


200
300
500


200
300
500
Strip Width
(ft)


1.67
3
4


1.67
3
4
Total Dry
Film
Thicknessb
(in.)


0.0018
0.0018
0.0018


0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
VOC
Content0
(fraction)


0.40
0.60
0.80


0.02
0.10
0.15
Solids
Content0
(fraction)


0.60
0.40
0.20


0.50
0.40
0.20
VOC
Density1"
Ob/gal)


7.36
7.36
7.36


7.36
7.36
7.36
a Obtained from Reference 3.
b Average value assumed for emission factor calculations. Actual values should be used to estimate
  emissions from individual sources.
c All three values of VOC content and solids content were used in the calculation of emission factors
  for each plant size to give maximum, minimum, and average emission factors.
References For Section 4.2.2.10

1.     Metal Coil Surface Coating Industry — Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA- 450/3-80-035a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1980.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources Volume II:  Surface
       Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA-450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977.

3.     Unpublished survey of the Coil Coating Industry, Office Of Water And Waste Management,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1978.

4.     Communication between Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, and Bob Morman, Glidden Paint Company, Strongville, OH, June 27, 1979.

5.     Communication between Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, and Jack Bates,  DeSoto, Incorporated, Des Plaines, IL, June 25, 1980.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.10-5

    -------
6.     Communication between Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, and M. W. Miller, DuPont Corporation, Wilmington, DE, June 26, 1980.

7.     Communication between Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, and H. B. Kinzley, Cook Paint and Varnish Company, Detroit, MI, June 27, 1980.

8.     Written communication from J. D. Pontius, Sherwin Williams, Chicago, IL, to J. Kearney,
       Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 8, 1980.

9.     Written communication from Dr. Maynard Sherwin, Union Carbide, South Charleston, WV,
       to Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 21,
       1980.

10.    Written communication from D. O. Lawson, PPG Industries, Springfield, PA, to Milton
       Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 8, 1980.

11.    Written communication from National Coil Coaters Association, Philadelphia, PA, to Office
       Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, May 30, 1980.

12.    Written communication from Paul Timmerman,  Hanna Chemical Coatings Corporation,
       Columbus,  OH, to Milton Wright, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       July 1, 1980.
4.2.2.10-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
4.2.2.11  Large Appliance Surface Coating

4.2.2.11.1  General1

        Large appliance surface coating is the application of protective or decorative organic coatings
to preformed large appliance parts.  For this discussion, large appliances are defined as any metal
range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, freezer, washing machine, dryer,  dishwasher, water
heater, or trash compactor.

        Regardless of the appliance, similar manufacturing operations  are involved. Coiled or sheet
metal is cut and stamped into the proper shapes, and the major parts are welded together. The
welded parts are cleaned with organic degreasers or a caustic  detergent (or both) to remove grease
and mill scale accumulated during handling, and the parts are then rinsed hi one or more water rinses.
This is often followed by a process to improve the grain of the metal before treatment in a phosphate
bath. Iron or zinc phosphate is commonly used to deposit a microscopic matrix of crystalline
phosphate on the surface of the metal. This process provides corrosion resistance and increases the
surface area of the part, thereby allowing superior coating adhesion.  Often the highly reactive metal
is protected with a rust inhibitor to prevent rusting prior to painting.

        Two separate coatings have traditionally been applied to these prepared appliance parts:  a
protective prune coating that also covers surface imperfections and contributes to total coating
thickness, and a final, decorative topcoat.  Single-coat systems, where only a  prune coat  or only a
topcoat is applied, are becoming more common.  For parts not exposed to customer view, a prune
coat alone may suffice.  For exposed parts, a protective coating may be formulated and applied so as
to act as the topcoat. There are many different application techniques hi the large appliance industry,
including manual, automatic, and electrostatic spray operations, and several dipping methods.
Selection of a particular method depends largely upon the geometry and use of the part, the
production rate, and the type of coating being used. Typical application of these coating  methods is
shown in Figure 4.2.2.11-1.

        A wide variety of coating formulations is used by the large appliance  industry.  The prevalent
coating types include epoxies, epoxy/acrylics, acrylics, and polyester enamels. Liquid coatings may
use either an organic solvent or water as the main carrier for the  paint solids.

       Waterborne coatings are of 3 major classes: water solutions, water emulsions,  and water
dispersions.  All of the waterborne coatings, however, contain a small amount (up  to 20 volume
percent) of organic solvent that acts as a stabilizing, dispersing or emulsifying agent. Waterborne
systems offer some advantages over organic solvent systems.  They do not exhibit as great an increase
hi viscosity with increasing  molecular weight of solids, they are nonflammable, and they  have limited
toxicity.  But because of the relatively slow evaporation rate of water, it is difficult to achieve a
smooth finish with waterborne coatings.  A bumpy "orange peel" surface often results.  For this
reason, their main use in the large appliance industry is as prime coats.

       While conventional organic solventborne coatings also are used for prime coats, they
predominate as topcoats. This is due hi large part to the controllability of the finish and the
amenability of these materials to application by electrostatic spray techniques.  The most  common
organic solvents are  ketones, esters, ethers, aromatics, and alcohols.  To obtain or  maintain certain
application characteristics, solvents are often added to coatings at the plant.  The use of powder


5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.11-1

    -------
                                                                                          is
                                                                                          en

                                                                                          .1

                                                                                          8
                                                                                          
                                                                                          •s
                                                                                          so
                                                                                          T3
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          O

                                                                                          03
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          H
                                                                                          cs
                                                                                          cs
                                                                                          ••I-'
                                                                                          o>
                                From Sheet Metal Manufacturing
4.2.2.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
coatings for topcoats is gaining acceptance in the industry.  These coatings, which are applied as a
dry powder and then fused into a continuous coating film through the use of heat, yield negligible
emissions.

4.2.2.11.2 Emissions And Controls1"2

        Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the major pollutants emitted from large appliance
surface coating operations. VOC from evaporation of organic solvents contained in the coating are
emitted in the application station, the flashoff area and the oven. An estimated 80 percent of total
VOC emissions is given off in the application station and flashoff area.  The remaining 20 percent
occurs in  the oven.  Because the emissions are widely dispersed, the use of capture systems and
control devices is not an  economically attractive means of controlling  emissions. While both
incinerators and carbon adsorbers are technically feasible, none is known to be used in production,
and none  is expected. Improvements in coating formulation and application efficiency are the major
means of  reducing emissions.

        Factors that affect the emission rate include the volume of coating used, the coating's solids
content, the coating's VOC content, and the VOC density.  The volume of coating used is a function
of 3 additional variables:  (1) the area coated, (2) the coating thickness,  and (3) the application
efficiency.

        While a reduction in coating VOC content  will reduce  emissions, the transfer efficiency with
which the coating is applied (i. e., the volume required to coat a given surface area) also has a direct
bearing on the emissions. A transfer efficiency of 60 percent means that 60 percent of the coating
solids consumed is deposited usefully onto appliance parts.  The other 40 percent is wasted overspray.
With a specified VOC content, an application system with a high transfer efficiency will have lower
emission levels than will  a system with a low transfer efficiency, because a smaller volume of coating
will coat the same surface area.  Since not every application method can be used with all parts and
types of coating, transfer efficiencies in this  industry range  from 40 to over 95 percent.

        Although waterborne prune coats are becoming common, the trend for topcoats appears to be
toward use of "high solids" solventborne material,  generally 60 volume  percent or greater solids.  As
different types of coatings are required to meet different performance specifications, a combination of
reduced coating VOC content and improved transfer efficiency is the most common means of
emission reduction.

        In the absence of control systems that remove or destroy a known fraction of the VOC prior
to emission to the atmosphere, a material balance provides the quickest and most accurate emissions
estimate.  An equation to calculate emissions is presented below.  To the extent that the parameters of
this equation are known or can be determined, its use is encouraged. In the event that both a prime
coat and a topcoat are used, the emissions from each must be calculated  separately and added to
estimate total emissions.  Because of the diversity of product mix and  plant sizes, it is difficult to
provide emission factors for "typical" facilities.  Approximate values for several of the variables in
the equation are provided, however.


                                (6.234xlO-4)PAtV0  D0
                          E =  	     	 + Ld  Dd
                                           T s A
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.11-3

    -------
where:
        E = mass of VOC emissions per unit time (Ib/unit time)
        P = units of production per unit time
        A = area coated per unit of production (ft2) (see Table 4.2.2.11-2)
        t = dry coating thickness (mils) (see Table 4.2.2.11-2)
      V0 = proportion of VOC in the coating (volume fraction), as received1
      D0 = density of VOC solvent in the coating (Ib/gal), as receiveda
      Vs = proportion of solids in the coating (volume fraction), as received
a
 a
        T = transfer efficiency (fraction: the ratio of coating solids deposited onto appliance parts to
             the total  amount of coating solids used.  See Table 4.2.2.11-1.)
       Ld = volume of VOC solvent added to the coating per unit time (gal/unit time)
      Dd = density of VOC solvent added (Ib/gal)

The constant 6.234 x 10"4 is the product of 2 conversion factors:

                                8.333  x  10"5 ft        7.481  gal
                                      mil
If all the data are not available to complete the above equation, the following may be used as
approximations:

          V0 = 0.38
          D0 = 7.36 Ib/gal
          Vs = 0.62
          Ld = 0 (assumes no solvent added at the plant)

       In the absence of all operating data, an emission estimate of 49.9 Mg (55 tons) of VOC per
year may be used for the average appliance plant.  Because of the large variation in emissions among
plants (from less than 10 to more than 225 Mg [10 to 250 tons] per year), caution is advised when
this estimate is used for anything except approximations for a large geographical area.  Most of the
known large appliance plants are in localities considered nonattainment areas for achieving the
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  The 49.9-Mg-per-year (55-ton-per-year)
average is based on an emission limit of 2.8 Ib of VOC per gallon of coating (minus water), which is
the limit recommended by  the Control Techniques  Guideline (CTG) applicable in those areas. For a
plant operating in an area where there are no emission  limits, the emissions may be 4 times  greater
than from an identical plant subject to the CTG-recommended limit.
a If known, V0, D0, and Vs for the coating as applied (i. e., diluted) may be used in lieu of the values
  for the coating as received, and the term Ld Dd deleted.

4.2.2.11-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
                        Table 4.2.2.11-1. TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
              Application Method
                        Transfer Efficiency (T)
  Air atomized spray
  Airless spray
  Manual electrostatic spray
  Flow coat
  Dip coat
  Nonrelational automatic electrostatic spray
  Rotating head automatic electrostatic spray
  Electrodeposition
  Powder
                                0.40
                                0.45
                                0.60
                                0.85
                                0.85
                                0.85
                                0.90
                                0.95
                                0.95
  Table 4.2.2.11-2 (Metric And English Units).  AREAS COATED AND COATING THICKNESS8
Appliance
Compactor
Dishwasher
Dryer
Freezer
Microwave oven
Range
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Water heater
Prune Coat
A (ft2)
20
10
90
75
8
20
75
70
20
t (mils)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
Topcoat
A (ft2)
20
10
30
75
8
30
75
25
20
t(mils)
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
a A = area coated per unit of production,  t = dry coating thickness.

References For Section 4.2.2.11
1.     Industrial Surface Coating: Appliances—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-80-037a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1980.
2.     Industrial Surface Coating:  Large Appliances—Background Information For Promulgated
       Standards, EPA 450/3-80-037b, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, 27711, October 1982.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.11-5

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.12 Metal Furniture Surface Coating

4.2.2.12.1  General

       The metal furniture surface coating process is a multistep operation consisting of surface
cleaning, coatings application, and curing.  Items such as desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, bookcases,
and lockers are normally fabricated from raw material to finished product in the same facility.  The
industry uses primarily solventborne coatings, applied by spray, dip, or flow coating processes.
Spray coating is the most common application technique used.  The components of spray coating lines
vary from plant to plant, but generally consist of the following:

                      3- to 5-stage  washer
                      Dryoff oven
                      Spray booth
                      Flashoff area
                      Bake oven

       Items to be coated are first cleaned in the washer to remove any grease, oil, or dirt from the
surface.  The washer generally consists of an alkaline cleaning solution, a phosphate treatment to
improve surface adhesion characteristics, and a hot water rinse.  The items are then dried in an oven
and conveyed to the spray booth,  where the surface coating is applied. After this application, the
items are conveyed through the flashoff area to the bake oven, where the surface coating is cured. A
diagram of these consecutive steps is presented in Figure 4.2.2.12-1.  Although most metal furniture
products receive only 1 coat of paint, some facilities  apply  a prime coat before the topcoat to improve
the corrosion resistance of the product.  In these cases, a separate spray booth and bake oven for
application of the prime coat are added to the line, following the dryoff oven.

       The coatings used in the industry are primarily solventborne resins, including acrylics,
amines, vinyls, and cellulosics. Some metallic coatings are also used on office furniture.  The
solvents used are mixtures of aliphatics, xylene, toluene,  and other aromatics.   Typical coatings that
have been used in the industry contain 65 volume percent solvent and 35 volume percent solids.
Other types of coatings now being used in the industry are  waterborne, powder, and solventborne
high solids coatings.

4.2.2.12.2  Emissions And Controls

       Volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the evaporation of organic solvents in the coatings
are the major pollutants from metal furniture surface coating operations.  Specific operations that emit
VOC are the coating application process, the flashoff area and the bake oven.  The percentage of total
VOC emissions given off at each emission point varies from one installation to another, but on the
average spray coating line, about 40 percent is given off at  the application station,  30 percent in the
flashoff area, and 30 percent in the bake oven.

       Factors affecting  the quantity of VOC emitted from metal furniture surface coating operations
are the VOC content of the coatings applied, the  solids content of coatings as applied, and the transfer
efficiency.  Knowledge of both the VOC content and solids content of coatings is necessary in cases
where the coating contains other components, such as water.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.12-1

    -------
•*»
jo

    -------
        The transfer efficiency (volume fraction of the solids in the total consumed coating that
remains on the part) varies with the application technique. Transfer efficiency for standard (or
ordinary) spraying ranges from 25 to 50 percent.  The range for electrostatic spraying, a method that
uses an electrical potential to increase transfer efficiency of the coating solids,  is from 50 to
95 percent, depending on part size and shape.  Powder coating systems normally capture and
recirculate overspray material and, therefore, are considered  in terms of a "utilization rate"  rather
than a transfer efficiency. Most facilities achieve a powder utilization rate of 90 to 95 percent.

        Typical values for transfer efficiency with various application devices are in Table 4.2.2.12-1.


               Table 4.2.2.12-1.  COATING METHOD TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
                      Application Methods
Transfer Efficiency (Te)
  Air atomized spray

  Airless spray

  Manual electrostatic spray

  Nonrelational automatic electrostatic spray

  Rotating head electrostatic spray (manual and automatic)

  Dip coat and flow coat

  Electrodeposition
         0.25

         0.25

         0.60

         0.70

         0.80

         0.90

         0.95
        Two types of control techniques are available to reduce VOC emissions from metal furniture
surface coating operations.  The first technique makes use of control devices such as carbon absorbers
and thermal or catalytic incinerators to recover or destroy VOC before it is discharged into the
ambient air.  These control methods are seldom used in the industry, however, because the large
volume of exhaust air and low concentrations of VOC in the exhaust reduce their efficiency.  The
more prevalent control technique involves reducing the total amount of VOC likely to be evaporated
and emitted.  This is accomplished by use of low VOC content coatings  and by improvements in
transfer efficiency.  New coatings with relatively low VOC levels can be used instead of the
traditional high VOC content coatings. Examples of these new systems include waterborne coatings,
powder coatings, and higher solids coatings.   Improvements in coating transfer efficiency decrease the
amount that must be used to achieve a given  film thickness, thereby reducing emissions of VOC to
the ambient air. By using a system with increased transfer efficiency (such as electrostatic spraying)
and lower VOC content coatings, VOC emission reductions can approach those achieved with control
devices.

        The data presented in Tables 4.2.2.12-2 and 4.2.2.12-3 are representative of values which
might be obtained from existing plants with similar operating characteristics. Each plant has its own
combination of coating formulations,  application equipment, and operating parameters.  It is
recommended  that, whenever possible, plant-specific values be obtained for all  variables when
calculating emission estimates.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.12-3

    -------
  Table 4.2.2.12-2 (Metric Units).  OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR COATING OPERATIONS
Plant Size
Small
Medium
Large
Operating
Schedule
(hr/yr)
2,000
2,000
2,000
Number Of
Lines
1
(1 spray booth)
3
(3 booths/line
10
(3 booths/line)
Line Speed*
(m/min)
2.5
2.4
4.6
Surface Area
Coated/yr (m2)
45,000
780,000
4,000,000
Liters Of
Coating Usedb
5,000
87,100
446,600
* Line speed is not used to calculate emissions, only to characterize plant operations.
b Using 35 volume % solids coating, applied by electrostatic spray at 65% transfer efficiency.
      Table 4.2.2.12-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR VOC FROM SURFACE
                               COATING OPERATIONS*'1*
Plant Size And Control Techniques
Small
Uncontrolled emissions
65 Volume % high solids coating
Waterborne coating
Medium
Uncontrolled emissions
65 Volume % high solids coating
Waterborne coating
Large
Uncontrolled emissions
65 Volume % high solids coating
Waterborne coating

kg/m2 Coated

0.064
0.019
0.012

0.064
0.019
0.012

0.064
0.019
0.012
VOC Emissions
kg/yr

2,875
835
520

49,815
14,445
8,970

255,450
74,080
46,000

kg/hr

1.44
0.42
0.26

24.90
7.22
4.48

127.74
37.04
23.00
a Calculated using the parameters given in Table 4.2.2.12-2 and the following equation. Values have
  been rounded off.

                                   _   0.0254 ATVD
                                   E = 	
                                            S Te
where:
        E
        A
        T
Mass of VOC emitted per hour (kg)
Surface area coated per hour (m2)
Dry film thickness of coating applied (mils)
4.2.2.12-4
                    EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
                                    Table 4.2.2.12-3 (cont.)-

         V =  VOC content of coating, including dilution solvents added at the plant (fraction by
               volume)
         D =  VOC density (assumed to be 0.88 kg/L)
         S =  Solids content of coating (fraction by volume)
        Te =  Transfer efficiency (fraction)

The constant 0.0254 converts the volume of dry film applied per m2 to liters.

           Example:  The VOC emission from a medium size plant applying
                     35 volume % solids coatings and the parameters given in
                     Table 4.2.2.12-3.

                                 =  (0.0254)  (390 m2/hr) (1 mil) (0.65)  (0.88 kg/L)
             ^kilograms of VOC/hr                    (0.35) (0.65)

                                 = 24.9 kilograms of VOC/hr


b Nominal  values of T, V, S, and Te:

      T = 1 mil (for all cases)
      V = 0.65 (uncontrolled), 0.35 (65 volume %  solids), 0.117 (waterborne)
      S = 0.35 (uncontrolled), 0.65 (65 volume %  solids), 0.35 (waterborne)
     Te = 0.65 (for all cases)
       Another method that also may be used to estimate emissions for metal furniture coating
operations involves a material balance approach.  By assuming that all VOC in the coatings applied
are evaporated at the plant site, an estimate of emissions can be calculated using only the coating
formulation and data on the total quantity of coating used in a given time period.  The percentage of
VOC solvent in the coating, multiplied by the quantity of coating used yields the total emissions.
This method of emissions estimation avoids the requirement to use variables such as coating thickness
and transfer efficiency, which are often difficult to define precisely.

Reference For Section 4.2.2.12

1.     Surface Coating Of Metal Furniture—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-80-007a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1980.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.12-5

    -------

    -------
4.2.2.13  Magnetic Tape Manufacturing1"9

        Magnetic tape manufacturing is a subcategory of industrial paper coating, which includes
coating of foil and plastic film.  In the manufacturing process, a mixture of magnetic particles, resins,
and solvents is coated on a thin plastic film or "web".  Magnetic tape is used largely for audio and
video recording and computer information storage. Other uses include magnetic cards, credit cards,
bank transfer ribbons, instrumentation tape, and dictation tape. The magnetic tape coating industry is
included in two Standard Industrial Classification codes,  3573 (Electronic Computing Equipment) and
3679 (Electronic Components Not Elsewhere Classified).

4.2.2.13.1  Process Description1'2

        The process of manufacturing magnetic tape consists of:

                1.  mixing the coating ingredients  (including solvents)
               2.  conditioning the web
               3.  applying the coating to the web
               4.  orienting the magnetic particles
               5.  drying the coating in a drying oven
               6.  finishing the tape by calendering, rewinding, slitting, testing,and packaging

        Figure 4.2.2.13-1 shows a typical magnetic tape coating operation, indicating volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission points.  Typical plants have from 5 to  12 horizontal or vertical solvent
storage tanks, ranging in capacity from 3,800 to 75,700 liters (1,000 to 20,000 gallons), that are
operated at or slightly above atmospheric pressure. Coating preparation equipment includes the mills,
mixers, polishing tanks,  and holding tanks used to prepare the magnetic coatings before application.
Four types of coaters are used in producing magnetic tapes:   extrusion (slot die), gravure, knife, and
reverse roll  (3- and 4-roll).  The web may carry coating on  1 or both sides. Some products receive a
nonmagnetic coating on the back.  After coating, the web is guided through an orientation field, in
which  an electromagnet or permanent magnet aligns the individual magnetic particles in the intended
direction. Webs from which flexible disks are to be produced do not go through the orientation
process.  The coated web then passes through a drying oven, where the solvents  in the coating
evaporate. Typically, air flotation ovens are used, in which the web is supported by jets of drying
air. For safe operation,  the concentration of solvent vapors  is held between 10 and 40 percent of the
lower explosive limit.  The dry coated web may be passed through several calendering rolls to
compact the coating and  to smooth the surface finish.  Nondestructive testing is performed on up to
100 percent of the final product, depending on the level of precision required of the final product.
The web may then be slit into the desired tape widths.  Flexible disks are punched from the finished
web with a die.  The final product is then packaged. Some  plants  ship the coated webs in bulk to
other facilities for slitting and packaging.

        High performance tapes require very clean production conditions, especially in the coating
application and drying oven areas.  Air supplied to these areas is conditioned  to remove dust particles
and to  adjust the temperature and humidity. In some cases,  "clean room" conditions are rigorously
maintained.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.13-1

    -------
                u
                                                                                           •
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           0)
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           CO
                                                                                           a1

                                                                                           1
                                                                                           w
                                                                                           •a
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           •s
                                                                                           C/3
                                                                                           en
                                                                                           *-H

                                                                                           es
                                                            >- o
                                                            
    -------
4.2.2.13.2 Emissions And Controls1"8

        The significant VOC emission sources in a magnetic tape manufacturing plant include the
coating preparation equipment, the coating application and flashoff area, and the drying ovens.
Emissions from the solvent storage tanks and the cleanup area are generally only a negligible
percentage of total emissions.

        In the mixing or coating preparation area, VOCs are emitted from the individual pieces of
equipment during the following operations: filling of mixers and tanks; transfer of the coating;
intermittent activities,  such as changing the filters in the holding tanks; and mixing (if mix equipment
is not equipped with tightly fitting covers).  Factors affecting emissions in the mixing areas include
the capacity of the equipment, the number of pieces of equipment, solvent vapor pressure,
throughput, and the design and performance of equipment covers.  Emissions will be intermittent or
continuous, depending on whether the preparation method is batch or continuous.

        Emissions from the coating application area result from the evaporation of solvent during use
of the coating application equipment and from the exposed web as it travels from the coater to the
drying oven (flashoff).  Factors affecting emissions are the solvent content of the coating,  line width
and speed, coating thickness, volatility of the solvents), temperature, distance between coater and
oven, and air turbulence in the coating area.

        Emissions from the drying oven are of the remaining solvent that is driven off hi the oven.
Uncontrolled emissions at this point are determined by the solvent content of the coating when it
reaches the oven.  Because the oven evaporates all the remaining solvent from the coating, there are
no process VOC emissions after oven drying.

        Solvent type and quantity are the common factors affecting emissions from all operations in a
magnetic tape coating facility.  The rate of evaporation or drying depends on solvent vapor pressure
at a given temperature and concentration.  The most commonly used organic solvents are toluene,
methyl ethyl  ketone (MEK), cyclohexanone, tetrahydrofuran, and methyl isobutyl ketone.  Solvents
are selected for their cost, solvency,, availability,  desired evaporation rate,  ease of use after recovery,
compatibility with solvent recovery equipment, and toxicity.

        Of the total uncontrolled VOC emissions  from the mixing area and coating operation
(application/flashoff area and drying oven), approximately 10 percent is emitted from the mixing area,
and 90 percent from the coating operation.  Within the coating operation, approximately 10 percent
occurs in the application/flashoff area, and 90 percent hi the drying oven.

        A control system for evaporative emissions consists of 2 components, a capture device and a
control device. The efficiency of the control system is determined by the efficiencies of the
2 components.

        A capture device is used to contain emissions  from a process operation and direct them to a
stack or to a  control device.  Room ventilation systems, covers, and hoods  are possible capture
devices from coating preparation equipment.  Room ventilation systems, hoods, and partial and total
enclosures are typical capture devices used in the coating application area.   A drying oven can be
considered a  capture device, because it both contains and directs VOC process emissions.  The
efficiency of  a capture device or a combination of capture devices is variable and depends  on the
quality of design and the levels of operation and maintenance.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.13-3

    -------
       A control device is any equipment that has as its primary function the reduction of emissions
to the atmosphere. Control devices typically used in this industry are carbon adsorbers, condensers,
and incinerators.  Tightly fitting covers on coating preparation equipment may be considered both
capture and control devices, because they can be used either to direct emissions to a desired point
outside the equipment or to prevent potential emissions from escaping.

       Carbon adsorption units use activated carbon to adsorb VOCs from a gas stream, after which
the VOCs are desorbed and recovered from the carbon.  Two types of carbon adsorbers are available,
fixed-bed and fluidized-bed.  Fixed-bed carbon adsorbers are designed with a steam-stripping
technique to recover the VOCs and to regenerate the activated carbon.  The fluidized-bed units used
in this industry are designed to use nitrogen for VOC vapor recovery and carbon regeneration.  Both
types achieve typical VOC control efficiencies of 95 percent when properly designed,  operated, and
maintained.

       Condensers control VOC emissions by cooling the solvent-laden gas to the dew point of the
solvent(s)  and then collecting the droplets. There  are 2 condenser designs commercially available,
nitrogen (inert gas) atmosphere and air atmosphere.  These systems differ in the design and  operation
of the drying oven (i.  e., use of nitrogen or air in  the oven) and in the method of cooling the
solvent-laden air (i. e., liquified nitrogen or refrigeration). Both design types can achieve VOC
control efficiencies of 95 percent.

       Incinerators control VOC emissions by oxidation of the organic compounds into carbon
dioxide and water. Incinerators used to control  VOC emissions  may be of thermal or catalytic design
and may use primary or secondary heat recovery to  reduce fuel costs. Thermal incinerators operate
at approximately 890°C (1600°F) to ensure oxidation of the organic compounds.  Catalytic
incinerators operate in the range of 400° to 540°C (750° to 1000°F) while using a catalyst to achieve
comparable oxidation  of VOCs. Both design types achieve a typical VOC control efficiency of
98 percent.

       Tightly fitting covers control  VOC emissions from coating preparation equipment by reducing
evaporative losses. The parameters affecting the efficiency of these controls are solvent vapor
pressure, cyclic temperature change, tank size, and product throughput.   A good system of tightly
fitting covers on coating preparation equipment reduces emissions by as much as  40 percent. Control
efficiencies of 95 or 98 percent can be obtained  by venting the covered equipment to an adsorber,
condenser, or incinerator.

       When the efficiencies of a capture device and control device are known, the efficiency of the
control system  can be computed by the following equation:


                         capture      control device  _  control system
                        efficiency  x     efficiency     ~    efficiency


The terms of this equation are  fractional efficiencies rather than  percentages.  For instance,  a system
of hoods delivering 60 percent of VOC emissions  to a 90 percent efficient carbon adsorber would
have a control system efficiency of 54 percent (0.60 x 0.90 = 0.54). Table 4.2.2.13-1 summarizes
control system  efficiencies, which may be used to estimate emissions in the absence of measured data
on equipment and coating operations.
4.2.2.13-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                   Table 4.2.2.13-1.  TYPICAL OF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES11
                      Control Technology
Control Efficiency %l
  Coating Preparation Equipment
   Uncontrolled
   Tightly fitting covers
   Sealed covers with carbon adsorber/condenser
                   ,c
  Coating Operation'
   Local ventilation with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Partial enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Total enclosure with carbon adsorber/condenser
   Total enclosure with incinerator
          0
         40
         95
         83
         87
         93
         95
a Reference 1.
b To be applied to uncontrolled emissions from indicated process area, not from entire plant.
0 Includes coating application/flashoff area and drying oven.


4.2.2.13.3 Emission Estimation Techniques1'3"9

        In this industry, realistic emission estimates require solvent consumption data.  The variations
found in coating formulations,  line speeds, and products mean that no reliable inferences can be made
otherwise.

        In uncontrolled plants and in those where VOCs are recovered for reuse or sale, plantwide
emissions can be estimated by performing a liquid material balance based on the assumption that all
solvent purchased replaces that which has been emitted. Any identifiable and quantifiable side
streams should be subtracted from this total.  The liquid material balance may be performed using the
following general formula:

                              solvent    _   quantifiable   =   VOC
                            purchased     solvent output  ~   emitted


The first term encompasses all solvent purchased, including thinners, cleaning agents, and any solvent
directly used in coating formulation.  From this total, any quantifiable solvent outputs are subtracted.
Outputs may include reclaimed solvent sold for use outside the plant or solvent contained in waste
streams.  Reclaimed solvent that is reused at the plant is not subtracted.

        The advantages of this method are that it is based on data that are usually readily available, it
reflects actual operations rather than theoretical steady state production and control conditions, and it
includes emissions from all sources at the plant. Care should be taken not to apply this method over
too short a tune span.  Solvent purchase, production, and waste  removal  occur in cycles that may not
coincide exactly.

        Occasionally, a liquid material balance may be possible on a scale smaller than the entire
plant.  Such an approach may be feasible for a single coating line or group of lines, if served by a
dedicated  mixing area and a dedicated control and recovery system.  In this case, the computation
begins with total solvent metered to the mixing area, instead of with solvent purchased. Reclaimed
solvent is subtracted from this volume, whether or not it is reused on the site. Of course, other
solvent input and output streams must be accounted for, as previously indicated. The difference

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.13-5

    -------
between total solvent input and total solvent output is then taken to be the quantity of VOCs emitted
from the equipment in question.

        Frequently, the configuration of meters, mixing areas, production equipment, and controls
will make the liquid material balance approach impossible.  In cases where control devices destroy
potential emissions, or where a liquid material balance is inappropriate for other reasons, plantwide
emissions can be estimated by summing the emissions calculated for specific areas of the plant.
Techniques for these calculations are presented below.

        Estimating VOC emissions from a coating operation (applieation/flashoff area and drying
oven) starts with the assumption that the uncontrolled emission level is equal to the quantity of solvent
contained in the coating applied. In other words, all the VOC in the coating evaporates by the end of
the drying process.

        Two factors are necessary to calculate the quantity of solvent applied:  solvent content of the
coating and the quantity of coating applied. Coating solvent content can be either directly measured
using EPA Reference Method 24 or estimated using coating formulation data usually available from
the plant owner/operator. The amount of coating applied may be directly metered.  If it is not, it
must be determined from production data.  These data should be available from the plant
owner/operator.  Care should be taken in developing these 2 factors to ensure that they are in
compatible units. In cases where plant-specific data cannot be obtained, the information in
Table 4.2.2.13-2 may be useful in approximating the quantity of solvent applied.

        When an estimate of uncontrolled emissions is obtained, the controlled emissions level is
computed by applying a control system efficiency factor:

               (uncontrolled VOC) x (1 - control system efficiency) = (VOC  emitted)

As previously explained, the control system efficiency is the product of the efficiencies of the capture
device and of the control device. If these values are not known, typical  efficiencies for  some
combinations of capture and control devices are presented hi Table 4.2.2.13-1.  It is important to  note
that these control system efficiencies apply  only to emissions that occur within the areas serviced by
the systems.  Emissions from sources such as process wastewater or discarded waste coatings may not
be controlled at all.

        In cases where emission estimates from the mixing area alone  are desired, a slightly different
approach is necessary. Here, uncontrolled  emissions will consist of only that portion of total solvent
that evaporates during the mixing process.  A liquid material balance across the mixing  area
(i. e., solvent entering minus solvent content of coating applied) would provide a good estimate.  In
the absence of any measured value,  it may be assumed, very approximately, that 10 percent of the
total solvent entering the mixing area is emitted during the mixing process. When an estimate of
uncontrolled mixing area emissions  has been made, the controlled emission rate can be calculated as
discussed previously.  Table 4.2.2.13-1 lists typical overall control efficiencies for coating mix
preparation equipment.

        Solvent storage tanks of the size typically found  in this industry  are regulated by only a few
states and localities. Tank emissions are generally  small  (130 kilograms  [285 Ib] per year or less).  If
an emissions estimate is desired, it can be computed using the equations, tables, and figures provided
in Chapter 7.
4.2.2.13-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
     Table 4.2.2.13-2 (Metric And English Units). SELECTED COATING MIX PROPERTIES11
Parameter
Solids
VOC
Density of Coating
Density of Coating Solids
Resins/binder
Magnetic particles
Density of magnetic material
Viscosity
Coating thickness
Wet
Dry
Unit
weight %
volume %
weight %
volume %
kg/L
Ib/gal
kg/L
Ib/gal
weight % of solids
weight % of solids
kg/L
Ib/gal
Pa-s
Ibf-s/ft2
/un
mil
ftm
mil
Range
15-50
10-26
50-85
74-90
1.0 - 1.2
8-10
2.8 - 4.0
23-33
15-21
66-78
1.2 - 4.8
10-40
2.7 - 5.0
0.06-0.10
3.8 - 54
0.15-2.1
1.0-11
0.04 - 0.4
  Reference 9. To be used when plant-specific data are unavailable.
References For Section 4.2.2.13

1.     Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-85-029a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1985.

2.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II:  Surface
       Coating Of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, And Light Duty Trucks,
       EPA 450/2-77-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1977.

3.     C. Beall, "Distribution Of Emissions Between Coating Mix Preparation Area And The Coating
       Line", Memorandum file, Midwest Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, June 22, 1984.

4.     C. Beall, "Distribution Of Emissions Between Coating Application/Flashoff Area And Drying
       Oven", Memorandum to file, Midwest Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, June 22, 1984.

5.     Control Of Volatile Organic Emission From Existing Stationary Sources—Volume I: Control
       Methods For Surface-coating Operations, EPA-450/2-76- 028, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1976.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.13-7

    -------
6.     G. Crane, Carbon Adsorption For VOC Control, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1982.

7.     D. Mascone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS", Memorandum, Office Of Air
       Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June 11, 1980.

8.     D. Mascone, "Thermal Incinerator Performance For NSPS, Addendum", Memorandum,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 22, 1980.

9.     C. Beall, "Summary Of Nonconfidential Information On U.S. Magnetic Tape Coating
       Facilities", Memorandum, with attachment, to file, Midwest Research Institute, Raleigh, NC,
       June 22, 1984.
4.2.2.13-8                          EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
4.2.2.14  Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts For Business Machines

4.2.2.14.1  General1'2

        Surface coating of plastic parts for business machines is defined as the process of applying
coatings to plastic business machine parts to improve the appearance of the parts, to protect the parts
from physical or chemical stress, and/or to attenuate electromagnetic interference/radio frequency
interference (EMI/RFI) that would otherwise pass through plastic housings. Plastic parts for business
machines  are synthetic polymers formed into panels, housings, bases, covers, or other business
machine components.  The business machines category includes items such as typewriters, electronic
computing devices, calculating and accounting machines, telephone and telegraph equipment,
photocopiers,  and miscellaneous office machines.

        The process of applying an exterior coating to a plastic part can include surface preparation,
spray coating, and curing, with each step possibly being repeated several times. Surface preparation
may involve merely wiping off the surface, or it could involve sanding  and puttying to smooth the
surface.  The plastic parts are placed on racks or trays, or are hung on  racks or hooks from an
overhead  conveyor track for transport  among spray booths,  flashoff areas,  and ovens.  Coatings are
sprayed onto parts in partially enclosed booths.  An induced air flow is maintained through the booths
to remove overspray and to keep solvent concentrations in the room air at  safe levels.  Although low-
temperature bake ovens (60°C [140°F] or less) are often used to speed  up  the curing process,
coatings also may be partially or completely cured at room temperature.

        Dry filters or water curtains (in water wash spray booths) are used to remove overspray
particles from the booth exhaust.  In waterwash spray booths, most of the  insoluble material is
collected as sludge, but some of this material is dispersed hi the water along with the soluble
overspray components.  Figure 4.2.2.14-1 depicts a typical  dry filter spray booth, and
Figure 4.2.2.14-2 depicts a typical water wash spray booth.

        Many surface coating plants have only 1 manually operated spray gun per spray booth, and
they interchange spray guns according to what type of coating is to be applied to the plastic parts.
However, some larger surface coating plants operate several spray guns (manual or robotic) per spray
booth, because coating a large volume of similar parts on conveyor coating lines makes production
more efficient.

        Spray coating systems commonly used in this  industry fall into  3 categories, 3-coat, 2-coat,
and single-coat. The 3-coat system  is  the most common, applying a prune coat, a color or base coat,
and a texture coat. Typical dry film thickness for the 3-coat system ranges from 1 to 3 mils for the
prune coat, 1 to 2 mils for the color coat, and 1 to 5  mils for the texture coat.   Figure 4.2.2.14-3
depicts a typical conveyorized coating  line using the 3-coat system.  The conveyor line consists of
3 separate spray booths, each followed by a flashoff (or drying) area, all of which is followed by a
curing oven. A 2-coat system applies  a color or base  coat, then a texture coat.  Typical dry film
thickness for the 2-coat system is 2 mils for the color  (or base) coat, and 2 to 5  mils for the texture
coat.  The rarely used single-coat system applies only  a thin color coat, either to protect the plastic
substrate or to improve color matching between parts whose color and texture are molded in.  Less
coating solids  are  applied with the single-coat system  than with the other systems. The dry film
thickness applied for the single-coat system depends on the function of the  coating. If protective
properties are desired, the dry film thickness must be at least 1 mil (0.001  inches). For purposes of


9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation  Loss  Sources                          4.2.2.14-1

    -------
w
GO
C/3
2
o
H
O
»
05
I
vo
i
                         SPRAY
                         BOOTH
                         EXHAUST
            OPTIONAL
            CONVEYORIZED
            TRACK
                                                 MOTOR  FOR
                                                 EXHAUST  FAN
                                                                                              OVERSPRAY

                                                                                              FILTERED AIR
                                                         FILTER  MATERIAL
                            OPENING FOR
                            MOVEMENT OF
                            OPTIONAL
                            CONVEYORIZED
                            TRACK
                                          Figure 4.2.2.14-1.  Typical dry filter spray booth. 3~4

    -------
V£>
I
£
&
o
a
00
g
.*».
K>
ts)
                 SPRAY
                 BOOTH EXHAUST
                                               MOTOR FOR
                                               EXHAUST FAN

                                                                        WATER  CURTAIN
                                                                                       OVERSPRAY
                                                                                       FILTERED AIR
                                                                                   ... WATER
                         OPTIONAL
                         CONVEYORIZED
                         TRACK
                                                          WATER BATH
         WATER TREATMENT/
         SLUDGE REMOVER UNIT
                                        OPENING FOR
                                        OPTIONAL
                                        CONVEYORIZED TRACK
                                          Figure 4.2.2.14-2. Typical water wash spray booth.3

    -------
 O
 O
                                      CURING  OVEN
C/5
n
H
g
C/3
          LOADING/
          UNLOADING
          AREA
                                                                       FLASH-OFF  AREA
                                                                                                   A
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                TEXTURE
                                                                                                BOOTH
A
I
I  VOC EMISSIONS
I
FLASH-OFF
AREA
A
I
I
i
PRIME
BOOTH
A
I
FLASH-OFF AREA
l >-
^
A
1
1
COLOR
BOOTH
                                          Figure 4.2.2,14-3.  Typical conveyor line for 3-coat system.

    -------
color matching among parts having molded-in color and texture, a dry film thickness of 0.5 mils or
less is needed to avoid masking the molded-in texture.  The process of applying 0.5 mils of coating or
less for color matching is commonly known as "fog coating", "mist coating", or "uniforming".

        The 3 basic spray methods used in this industry to apply decorative/exterior coatings are air-
atomized spray, air-assisted airless spray, and electrostatic air spray.  Air-atomized spray is the most
widely used coating technique for plastic business machine parts.  Air-assisted airless spray is
growing in popularity but is still not frequently found.  Electrostatic air spray is rarely used, because
plastic parts are not conductive.  It has been used to coat parts that have been either treated with a
conductive sensitizer or plated with a thin film of metal.

        Air-atomized spray coating uses compressed air, which may be heated and filtered, to atomize
the coating and to direct the spray.  Air-atomized spray equipment is compatible with all coatings
commonly found on plastic parts for business machines.

        Air-assisted airless spray is a variation of airless spray, a spray technique used hi other
industries. In airless spray coating, the coating is atomized without air by forcing the liquid coating
through specially designed nozzles, usually at pressures of 7 to 21  megapascals (MPa) (1,000 to
3,000 pounds per square inch [psi]).  Air-assisted airless spray atomizes the coating by the same
mechanism as airless spray, but at lower fluid pressures (under 7 MPa [1,000 psi]).  After  atomizing,
air is then used to atomize the coating further and to help shape the spray pattern, reducing overspray
to levels lower than those achieved with airless atomization alone.  Figure 4.2.2.14-4 depicts a typical
air-assisted airless spray gun.  Air-assisted airless spray has been used to apply prune and color coats
but not texture coats, because the larger size of the  sprayed coating droplet (relative to that achieved
by conventional air atomized spray) makes it difficult to achieve the desired surface finish quality for
a texture coat.  A touch-up coating step with air atomized equipment is sometimes necessary to apply
color to recessed and louvered areas  missed by air-assisted airless spray.
                     Figure 4.2.2.14^-.  Typical air-assisted airless spray gun.


       In electrostatic air spray, the coating is usually charged electrically, and the parts being coated
are grounded to create an electric potential between the coating and the parts.  The atomized coating
is attracted to the part by electrostatic force.  Because plastic is an insulator, it is necessary to provide
a conductive surface that can bleed off the electrical charge to maintain the ground potential of the
part as the charged coating particles accumulate on the surfaces.  Electrostatic air spray has been
demonstrated for application of prime and color coats and has been used to apply texture coats, but
this technique does not function well with the large-size particles generated for the texture coat, and it
offers no substantial improvement over air-atomized spray for texture coating.  A  touch-up coating
step with air-atomized spray is sometimes necessary to apply color and texture to recessed and
louvered areas missed by electrostatic spray.

9/90 (Reformatted  1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.2.2.14-5

    -------
        The coatings used for decorative/exterior coats are generally solvent-based and waterborne
coatings.  Solvents used include toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, xylene, acetone,
and isopropanol. Typically, organic solvent-based coatings used for decorative/exterior coats are
2 types of 2-component catalyzed urethanes.  The solids contents of these coatings are from 30 to
35 volume percent (low solids) and 40 to 54 volume percent (medium solids) at the spray gun
(i. e., at the point of application, or as applied).  Waterborne decorative/exterior coatings typically
contain no more than 37 volume percent solids at the gun. Other decorative/exterior coatings being
used by the industry include solvent-based high solids coatings (i. e., equal to or greater than
60 volume percent solids) and 1-component low solids and medium solids coatings.

        The application of an EMI/RFI shielding coat is done in a variety of ways.  About 45 percent
of EMI/RFI shielding applied to plastic parts is done by zinc-arc spraying, a process that does not
emit volatile  organic compounds (VOC). About 45 percent is done using organic solvent-based and
waterborne metal-filled coatings, and the remaining EMI/RFI shielding is achieved by a variety of
techniques involving electroless plating, and vacuum metallizing or sputtering (defined below),  and
use of conductive plastics, and metal inserts.

        Zinc-arc spraying is a 2-step process in which the plastic surface (usually the ulterior of a
housing) is first roughened by sanding or grit blasting and then sprayed with molten zinc. Grit
blasting and zinc-arc spraying are performed in separate booths specifically equipped for those
activities.  Both the surface preparation and the zinc-arc spraying steps currently are performed
manually, but robot systems  have recently become available.  Zinc-arc spraying requires a spray
booth, a special spray gun, pressurized air, and zinc wire. The zinc-arc spray gun mechanically feeds
2 zinc wires into the tip of the spray gun, where they are  melted by an electric arc. A high pressure
air nozzle blows the molten zinc particles onto  the surface of the plastic part.  The coating thickness
usually  ranges from 1 to 4 mils,  depending on  product requirements.

        Conductive coatings can be applied with most conventional spray equipment used to apply
exterior coatings.  Conductive coatings are usually applied manually with air spray guns, although
air-assisted airless spray guns are sometimes used.  Electrostatic spray methods cannot be used
because of the high conductivity of EMI/RFI shielding coatings.

        Organic solvent-based conductive coatings contain particles of nickel, silver, copper, or
graphite, in either an acrylic or urethane resin.  Nickel-filled  acrylic coatings are the most frequently
used, because of their shielding ability and their lower cost.  Nickel-filled acrylics and urethanes
contain from 15 to 25 volume percent solids at the gun. Waterborne nickel-filled acrylics with
between 25 and 34 volume percent solids at the gun (approximately 50 to 60 volume percent solids,
minus water) are less frequently used than are organic solvent-based conductive coatings.

        The application of a conductive coating usually involves 3 steps: surface preparation, coating
application, and curing.  Although the first step can be eliminated if parts are kept free of
mold-release  agents and dirt, part surfaces are usually cleaned by wiping with organic solvents  or
detergent solutions and then roughened by light sanding.   Coatings are usually applied to the interior
surface  of plastic housings, at a dry film thickness of 1 to 3 mils.  Most conductive coatings can be
cured at room temperature, but some must be baked in an oven.

        Electroless plating is a dip process  hi which a film of metal is deposited hi aqueous  solution
onto all exposed surfaces of the part.  In the case of plastic business machine housings, both sides of
a housing are coated.   No VOC emissions are associated with the plating process itself.  However,
coatings applied before the plating step, so that only selected  areas of the parts are plated, may emit
VOCs.  Waste water treatment may be necessary to treat the spent plating chemicals.

4.2.2.14-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                  (Refbmatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
        Vacuum metallizing and sputtering are similar techniques in which a thin film of metal
 (usually aluminum) is deposited from the vapor phase onto the plastic part. Although no VOC
 emissions occur during the actual metallizing process, prime coats often applied to ensure good
 adhesion and top coats to protect the metal film may both emit VOCs.

        Conductive plastics are thermoplastic resins that contain  conductive flakes or fibers of
 materials such as aluminum, steel, metallized glass, or carbon.  Resin types currently available with
 conductive fillers include acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene/polycarbonate
 blends, polyphenylene oxide, nylon 6/6, polyvinyl chloride, and polybutyl terephthalate.  The
 conductivity, and therefore the EMI/RFI shielding effectiveness, of these materials relies on contact
 or near-contact between the conductive particles  within the resin matrix.  Conductive plastic parts
 usually are formed by straight injection molding. Structural foam injection molding can reduce the
 EMI/RFI shield effectiveness of these materials because air pockets in the foam separate the
 conductive particles.

 4.2.2.14.2 Emissions And Controls

        The major pollutants from surface coating of plastic parts for business machines are VOC
 emissions from evaporation of organic solvents hi the coatings used, and from reaction byproducts
 when the coatings cure.  VOC sources include spray booth(s), flashoff area(s), and oven(s) or drying
 area(s). The relative contribution of each to total VOC emissions vary from plant to plant, but for an
 average coating operation, about 80 percent is emitted from the spray booth(s), 10 percent from the
 flashoff area(s), and 10 percent from the oven(s) or drying area(s).

        Factors affecting the quantity of VOC emitted are the VOC content of the coatings applied,
 the solids content of coatings as applied, film build (thickness of the applied coating), and the transfer
 efficiency (TE) of the application equipment.  To determine of VOC emissions when waterborne
 coatings are used, it is necessary to know the amounts of VOC, water, and solids in the coatings.

        The TE is the fraction of the solids sprayed that remains on a part. TE varies with
 application technique and with type of coating applied. Table 4.2.2.14-1 presents typical TE values
 for various application methods.

        Volatile organic compound emissions can be reduced by  using low VOC content coatings
 (i. e., high solids or waterborne coatings), using surface finishing techniques that do not emit VOC,
 improving TE, and/or adding controls. Lower VOC content decorative/exterior coatings include high
 solids content (i. e., at least 60 volume percent solids at the spray gun), 2-component catalyzed
 urethane coatings, and waterborne coatings (i. e., 37 volume percent  solids and 12.6 volume percent
 VOC at the spray gun).  Both  of these types of exterior/decorative coatings contain less VOC than
 conventional urethane coatings, which are typically 32 volume percent solids at the gun.  Lower VOC
 content EMI/RFI shielding  coatings include organic solvent-based acrylic or urethane conductive
 coatings containing at least  25 volume percent solids at the spray gun  and waterborne conductive
 coatings containing 30 to 34 volume percent solids at the gun.  Use of lower VOC content coatings
 reduces emissions  of VOCs both by reducing the volume of coating needed to cover the part(s) and
 by reducing the amount of VOC in the coatings that are sprayed.

        The major technique which provides an attractive exterior/decorative finish on plastic parts for
business machines without emitting VOCs is the use of molded-in color and texture.  VOC-free
techniques for EMI/RFI shielding include zinc-arc spraying, electroless plating, the use of conductive
plastics or metal inserts, and in some cases, vacuum metallizing and sputtering.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                          4.2.2.14-7

    -------
                         Table 4.2.2.14-1. TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES*
Application Methods
Air-atomized spray
Air-assisted airless spray
Electrostatic air spray
Transfer Efficiency
(%)
25
40
40
Type Of Coating
Prime, color, texture, touchup, and fog coats
Prime, color coats
Prime, color coats
a As noted in the promulgated standards, values are presented solely to aid in determining compliance
  with the standards and may not reflect actual TE at a given plant.  For this reason, table should be
  used with caution for estimating VOC emissions from any new facility.  For a more exact estimate
  of emissions, the actual TE from specific coating operations at a given plant should be used.
  Reference 1.
       Transfer efficiency can be unproved by using air-assisted airless or electrostatic spray
equipment, which are more efficient than the common application technique (air atomized). More
efficient equipment can reduce VOC emissions by as much as 37 percent over conventional air
atomized spray equipment, through reducing the amount of coating that must  be sprayed to achieve a
given film thickness.

       Add-on controls applied to VOC emissions in other surface coating industries include thermal
and catalytic incinerators, carbon adsorbers, and condensers.  However, these control technologies
have not been used in the surface coating of plastic parts because the large volume of exhaust air and
the low concentrations of VOC in the exhaust reduce their efficiency.

       The operating parameters in Tables 4.2.2.14-2 and 4.2.2.14-3 and the emissions factors in
Tables 4.2.2.14-4 and 4.2.2.14-5 are representative of conditions at existing plants with similar
operating  characteristics.  The 3  general sizes of surface coating plants presented in these tables
(small, medium, and large) are given to assist hi making a general estimate of VOC emissions.
However, each plant has its own combination of coating formulations,  application equipment, and
operating  parameters.  Thus,  it is recommended that, whenever possible, plant-specific values be
obtained for all variables when calculating emission estimates.

       A material balance may be used to provide a more accurate estimate of VOC emissions from
the surface coating of plastic parts  for business machines.  An emissions  estimate can be calculated
using coating composition data (as  determined by EPA Reference Method 24), and data on coating
and solvent quantities used hi a given time period by a surface coating operation.  Using this
approach, emissions are calculated as follows:

                                     MT = E  Lei Dei Woi
                                           i = l

where:

       MT =  total mass of VOC emitted (kg)
        Lc =  volume of each  coating consumed, as sprayed (L)
        Dc =  density of each coating consumed, as  sprayed (kg/L)
       W0 =  the proportion of VOC hi each coating, as sprayed (including dilution solvent added
                at plant) (weight fraction)
          n =  number of coatings applied

4.2.2.14-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted  1/95) 9/90

    -------
 Table 4.2.2.14-2 (Metric Units). REPRESENTATIVE PARAMETERS FOR SURFACE COATING
              OPERATIONS TO APPLY DECORATIVE/EXTERIOR COATINGS*
Plant
Size
Small

Medium

Large

Operating
Schedule
(hr/yr)
4,000

4,000

4,000

Number Of
Spray Booths
Dry Water
Filter Wash
2 0

5! 0

6> 3k

Surface Area
Coated/yr
(nf^Of
Plastic)
9,711

77,743

194,370

Coating Option/Control
Techniques
Baseline coating mixb
Low solids SB coating*1
Medium solids SB
coating6
High solids SB coatingf
WB coating11
Baseline coating mixb
Low solids SB coatingd
Medium solids SB
coating6
High solids SB coating^
WB coating11
Baseline coating mixb
Low solids SB coating
Medium solids SB
coating6
High solids SB coatingf
WB coating11
Coating Sprayed
(L/yr)
16,077°
18,500°
11,840°
9,867C/6,167*
16,000°
128,704°
148,100°
94,784°
78,987°/49,3678
128,086°
321,760°
370,275°
236,976°
197,480°/123,425*
320,238°
a Does not address EMI/RFI shielding coatings. SB = solventborne. WB = waterborne.
b Assumes baseline decorative/exterior coating consumption consists of a mix of coatings as follows:
    64.8%  =  Solvent base 2-component catalyzed urethane containing
               32 volume % solids at the gun.
    23.5%  =  Solvent base two-component catalyzed urethane containing
               SO volume % solids at the gun.
    11.7%  =  Waterborne acrylic containing 37 volume % solids and
               12.6 volume % organic solvent at the gun.
c Assumes 25% transfer efficiency (TE) based on the use of air-atomized spray equipment.
d Assumes use of a solvent base coating containing 32 volume % solids at the gun.
e Assumes use of a solvent base coating containing 50 volume % solids at the gun.
f Assumes the use of solvent base 2-component catalyzed urethane coating containing 60 volume %
  solids at the gun.
g Assumes 40% TE based on the use of air-assisted airless spray equipment, as required by new
  source performance standards.
h Assumes the use of a waterborne coating containing 37 volume % solids and 12.6 volume %
  organic solvent at the gun.
1 Assumes 2 spray booths are for batch surface coating operations and remaining 3 booths are on a
  conveyor line.
J Assumes 2 spray booths are for batch surface coating operations and remaining 4 booths are on a
  conveyor line.
k Assumes that 3 spray booths are on a conveyor line.
9/90 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.14-9

    -------
Table 4.2.2.14-3 (Metric Units). REPRESENTATIVE PARAMETERS FOR SURFACE COATING
                OPERATIONS TO APPLY EMI/RFI SHIELDING COATINGS3
Plant
Size
Small



Medium



Large



Operating
Schedule
(hr/yr)
4,000



4,000



4,000



Number Of Spray
Booths
Grit Zinc Arc
Blasting8 Spray8
0 0



2 2



4 4



Surface
Area
Coated/yr
(m2Of
Plastic)
4,921



109,862



239,239



Coating Option/Control
Technique
Low solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coatingc>d
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coatingd>e
WB EMI/RFI shielding
coatingd>f
Zinc arc sprayg~'
Low solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coatingc>d
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coating >e
WB EMI/RFI shielding
coatingd>^
Zinc arc spray8"1
Low solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coatingc>d
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI
shielding coatingd'e
WB EMI/RFI shielding
coating '
Zinc arc spray8"1
Coating
Sprayed
(L/yr)b
3,334
2,000
1,515
750
74,414
44,648
33,824
16,744
162,040
97,224
73,654
34,460
a Includes sprayed conductive coatings using the dry filter and water wash spray booths listed in
  Table 4.2.2.14-2. SB = solventborne.  WB = waterborne.
b Assumes 50% transfer efficiency (TE).
c Assumes use  of solvent base EMI/RFI shielding coating containing 15 volume % solids at the gun.
d Applied at a 2 mil thickness (standard industry practice).
e Assumes use  of a solvent base EMI/RFI shielding coating containing 25 volume % solids at the
  gun.
f Assumes use  of a waterborne EMI/RFI  shielding coating containing 33 volume % solids and
  18.8 volume  % organic solvent at the gun.
g Assumes use  of zinc-arc spray shielding.
h Applied at a 3 mil thickness (standard industry practice).
1 Based on amount of zinc wire sprayed per year (kg/yr) and zinc density of 6.32 g/mL.
4.2.2.14-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
       Table 4.2.2.14-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR VOC FROM SURFACE
        COATING OPERATIONS TO APPLY DECORATIVE/EXTERIOR COATINGS*'6
Plant Configuration And
Control Technique
Small
Baseline coating mix0
Low solids SB coatingd
Medium solids SB coating6
High solids SB coatingf
WB coating8
Medium
Baseline coating mixc
Low solids SB coatingd
Medium solids SB coating6
High solids SB coatingf
WB coating*
Large
Baseline coating mixc
Low solids SB coatingd
Medium solids SB coating6
High solids SB coatingf
WB coating8
kg/m2 Coated

0.84
1.14
0.54
0.36 - 0.22
0.18

0.84
1.14
0.54
0.36 - 0.22
0.18

0.84
1.14
0.54
0.36 - 0.22
0.18
Volatile
kg/yr

8,122
11,096
5,221
3,481-2,176
1,778

64,986
88,825
41,800
27,867 - 17,417
14,234

162,463
222,076
104,506
69,671 - 43,544
35,589
Organics
kg/hr

2.0
2.8
1.3
0.87 - 0.54
0.44

16.2
22.2
10.4
7.0 - 4.4
3.6

40.6
55.5
26.1
17.4 - 10.9
8.9
a Assumes values given in Table 4.2.2.14-2, using the following equation: E = LDV
  where:
          E = VOC emission factors from surface coating operations (kg/yr)
          L = Volume of coating sprayed (L)
          D = Density coating sprayed (kg/L)
          V = Volatile content of coating, including dilution solvents added at plant (weight
               fraction)

b Assumes all VOC present is emitted. Values have been rounded off. Does not address EMI/RFI
  shielding coatings. Assumes annual operating schedule of 4,000 hours. SB = solventborne.
  WB = waterborne.
c Based on use of the baseline coating mix in Table 4.2.2.14-2.
d Based on use of a solvent base coating containing 32 volume %  solids at the gun.
e Based on use of a solvent base coating containing 50 volume %  solids at the gun.
f Based on use of a solvent base coating containing 60 volume %  solids at the gun.
g Based on use of a waterborne coating containing 37 volume % solids and 12.6 volume % organic
  solvent at the gun.
9/90 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.2.2.14-11

    -------
 Table 4.2.2.14-5 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR VOC FROM SURFACE COATING
                OPERATIONS TO APPLY EMI/RFI SHIELDING COATINGSa'b
Plant Configuration And Control Technique
Small
Low solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coating0
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coatingd
WB EMI/RFI shielding coating6
Zinc-arc sprayf
Medium
Low solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coating0
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coatingd
WB EMI/RFI shielding coating6
Zinc-arc sprayf
Large
Low solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coating0
Higher solids SB EMI/RFI shielding coatingd
WB EMI/RFI shielding coating6
Zinc-arc sprayf
kg/m2
Coated

0.51
0.27
0.05
0

0.51
0.27
0.05
0

0.51
0.27
0.05
0
Volatile Organics
kg/yr

2,500
1,323
251
0

55,787
29,535
5,609
0

121,484
64,314
12,214
0
kg/hr

0.62
0.33
0.063
0

13.9
7.4
1.4
0

30.4
16.1
3.1
0
a Assumes values given in Table 4.2.2.14-3, using the following equation:  E = LDV
  where:
          E = VOC emission factors from surface coating operations (kg/yr)
          L = Volume of coating sprayed (L)
          D = Density coating sprayed (kg/L)
          V = Volatile content of coating, including dilution solvents added at plant (fraction by
               weight)

b Assumes all VOC present is emitted. Values have been rounded off. Does not address EMI/RFI
  shielding coatings. Assumes annual operating schedule of 4,000 hours.  SB = solventborne.
  WB = waterborne.
c Assumes use of solvent base EMI/RFI shielding coating containing 15 volume % solids at the gun.
d Assumes use of a solvent base EMI/RFI shielding coating containing 25 volume % solids at the
  gun.
e Assumes use of a waterborne EMI/RFI shielding coating containing 33 volume % solids and
  18.8 volume  % organic solvent at the gun.
f Assumes use of a zinc-arc spray shielding.
4.2.2.14-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
References For Section 4.2.2.14

1.      Surface Coating Of Plastic Pans For Business Machines—Background Information For
        Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-85-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
        Triangle Park, NC, December 1985.

2.      Written communication from Midwest Research Institute, Raleigh, NC, to David Salman,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 19, 1985.

3.      Protectaire® Spray Booths, Protectaire Systems Company, Elgin, IL, 1982.

4.      Binks* Spray Booths And Related Equipment, Catalog SB-7, Binks Manufacturing Company,
        Franklin Park, IL, 1982.

5.      Product Literature On Wagner*  Air Coat* Spray Gun, Wagner Spray Technology,
        Minneapolis, MN, 1982.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                        4.2.2.14-13

    -------

    -------
4.3  Waste Water Collection, Treatment And Storage

4.3.1  General

        Many different industries generate waste water streams that contain organic compounds.
Nearly all of these streams undergo collection, contaminant treatment, and/or storage operations
before they are finally discharged into either a receiving body of water or a municipal treatment plant
for further treatment.  During some of these operations, the waste water is open to the atmosphere,
and volatile organic  compounds (VOC) may be emitted from the waste water into the air.

        Industrial waste water operations can range from pretreatment to full-scale treatment
processes.  In a typical pretreatment facility, process and/or sanitary waste water and/or storm water
runoff is collected, equalized, and/or neutralized and then discharged to a municipal waste water
plant, also known as a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), where it is then typically treated
further by biodegradation.

        In a full-scale treatment operation, the waste water must meet Federal and/or state quality
standards before it is finally discharged into a receiving body of water. Figure 4.3-1 shows a generic
example of collection,  equalization, neutralization, and biotreatment of process waste water in a full-
scale industrial treatment facility.  If required, chlorine is added as a  disinfectant. A storage basin
contains the treated water until the whiter months (usually January to May), when the facility is
allowed to discharge to the receiving body of water.  In the illustration, the receiving body of water is
a slow-flowing stream.  The facility is allowed to discharge hi the rainy season when the facility
waste water is diluted.

        Figure 4.3-1 also presents a typical treatment system at a POTW  waste water facility.
Industrial waste water sent to POTWs may be treated or untreated. POTWs may also treat waste
water from residential, institutional, and commercial facilities; from infiltration  (water that enters the
sewer system from the ground); and/or storm water runoff. These types of waste water generally do
not contain VOCs. A POTW usually consists of a collection system, primary settling,  biotreatment,
secondary settling, and disinfection.

        Collection, treatment,  and storage systems are facility-specific. All facilities have  some type
of collection system, but the complexity will depend on the number and volume of waste water
streams generated.  As mentioned above, treatment and/or storage operations also vary hi size and
degree of treatment.  The size and degree of treatment  of waste water streams will depend on the
volume and degree of contamination of the waste water and on the extent of contaminant removal
desired.

4.3.1.1  Collection Systems -
       There are many types of waste water collection systems.  In general, a collection system is
located at or near the point of waste water generation and is designed to receive 1 or more waste
water streams and then to direct these streams to treatment and/or storage systems.

       A typical industrial collection system may include drains, manholes, trenches, junction boxes,
sumps, lift stations,  and/or weirs. Waste  water streams from different points throughout the industrial
facility normally enter the collection system through  individual drams or trenches connected to a main
sewer line. The drains and trenches are usually open to the atmosphere.  Junction boxes, sumps,


9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                                4.3-1

    -------
      •u i
      e
      •o
      c
      §
      o
      U
      CO
      ra
      "C
      «

      •O
      ffi
                                                                                          .&
                                                                                          'o
                                                                                          '5
                                                                                          •o
                                                                                          •a
                                                                                           a)
                                                       0>
                                                       E
                                                       TO

                                                       C
                                                       s
                                                       £
                                                                                           o
                                                                                          'E.
                                                                                           3
                                                                                           OX)
4.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
trenches, lift stations, and weirs will be located at points requiring waste water transport from 1 area
or treatment process to another.

        A typical POTW facility collection system will contain a lift station, trenches, junction boxes,
and manholes. Waste water is received into the POTW collection system through open sewer lines
from all sources of influent waste water.  As mentioned previously, these sources may convey
sanitary, pretreated or untreated industrial, and/or storm water runoff waste water.

        The following paragraphs briefly describe some of the most common types of waste water
collection system components found in industrial and POTW facilities. Because the arrangement of
collection system components is facility-specific, the order hi which the collection system descriptions
are presented  is somewhat arbitrary.

        Waste water streams normally are introduced into the collection system through individual or
area drains, which can be open to the atmosphere or sealed to  prevent waste water contact with the
atmosphere. In industry, individual drains may be dedicated to a single source or piece of equipment.
Area drams will serve several sources and are located centrally among the sources or pieces of
equipment that they serve.

        Manholes into sewer lines permit service, inspection, and cleaning of a line.  They may be
located where sewer lines intersect or where there is a significant change in direction, grade, or sewer
line diameter.

        Trenches can be used to transport industrial waste water from point of generation to collection
units such as junction boxes and lift station, from 1 process  area of an industrial facility to another, or
from 1 treatment unit to another.  POTWs also use trenches to transport waste water from 1 treatment
unit to another.  Trenches are likely to be either open or covered with a safety grating.

        Junction boxes typically serve several process sewer lines, which  meet at the junction box to
combine multiple waste water streams into 1.  Junction boxes normally are sized to suit the total flow
rate of the entering streams.

        Sumps are used typically for collection and equalization of waste  water flow from trenches or
sewer lines before treatment or storage. They are usually quiescent and open to the atmosphere.

        Lift stations are usually the last collection unit before the treatment system, accepting waste
water from 1 or several sewer lines. Their main function is to lift the collected waste water to a
treatment and/or storage system, usually by  pumping or by use of a hydraulic lift, such as a screw.

        Weirs can act as open channel  dams, or they can be  used to discharge cleaner effluent from a
settling basin, such as a clarifier.  When used as a dam, the  weir's face is normally aligned
perpendicular  to the bed and walls of the channel. Water from the channel usually flows over the
weir and falls  to the receiving body of water,  m some cases, the water may pass through a notch or
opening hi the wen- face.  With this type of wen-, flow rate through the channel can be measured.
Weir height, generally the distance the water falls, is usually no more than 2 meters (6 feet).  A
typical clarifier weir is designed to allow settled waste water to overflow  to the next treatment
process. The  weir is  generally placed  around the perimeter of the settling basin, but it can also be
towards the middle.  Clarifier weir height is usually only about 0.1 meters (4 inches).
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.3-3

    -------
4.3.1.2 Treatment And/Or Storage Systems -
       These systems are designed to hold liquid wastes or waste water for treatment, storage, or
disposal.  They are usually composed of various types of earthen and/or concrete-lined basins, known
as surface impoundments. Storage systems are used typically for accumulating waste water before its
ultimate disposal, or for temporarily holding batch (intermittent) streams before treatment.

       Treatment systems are divided into 3 categories: primary, secondary, or tertiary, depending
on their design, operation, and application.  In primary treatment systems, physical operations remove
floatable and settleable solids. In secondary treatment systems, biological and chemical processes
remove most of the organic matter hi the waste water.  In tertiary treatment systems, additional
processes remove constituents not taken out by secondary treatment.

       Examples of primary treatment include oil/water separators, primary clarification, equalization
basins, and primary treatment tanks.  The first process hi an industrial waste water treatment plant is
often the removal of heavier solids and lighter oils by means of oil/water separators.  Oils are usually
removed continuously with a skimming device, while solids can be removed with a sludge removal
system.

       In primary treatment, clarifiers are usually located near the beginning of the treatment process
and are used to settle and remove settleable or suspended solids contained in the influent waste water.
Figure 4.3-2 presents an example design of a clarifier.  Clarifiers are generally cylindrical and are
sized according to both the settling rate of the suspended solids and the thickening characteristics of
the sludge.  Floating scum is generally skimmed continuously from the top of the clarifier, while
sludge is typically removed continuously from the bottom of the clarifier.

       Equalization basins are used to reduce fluctuations in the waste water flow rate and organic
content before the waste is sent to downstream treatment processes.  Flow rate equalization results in
a more uniform effluent quality hi downstream settling units  such as clarifiers.  Biological treatment
performance can also benefit from the damping of concentration and flow fluctuations, protecting
biological processes from upset or failure  from shock loadings of toxic or treatment-inhibiting
compounds.

       In primary treatment, tanks are generally used to alter the chemical or physical properties of
the waste water by, for example, neutralization and the addition and dispersion of chemical nutrients.
Neutralization can control the pH of the waste water by adding an acid or a base.  It usually precedes
biotreatment, so that the system is not upset by high or low pH values. Similarly, chemical nutrient
addition/dispersion precedes biotreatment, to ensure that the biological organisms have sufficient
nutrients.

       An example of a secondary treatment process is biodegradation.  Biological waste treatment
usually is accomplished by aeration in basins with mechanical surface aerators or with a diffused air
system.  Mechanical surface aerators float on the water surface and rapidly mix the water. Aeration
of the water is accomplished through splashing.  Diffused ah* systems, on the other hand, aerate the
water by bubbling oxygen through the water from the bottom of the tank or device.  Figure 4.3-3
presents an example  design of a mechanically aerated biological treatment basin.  This type of basin is
usually an earthen or concrete-lined pond  and is used to treat large flow rates of waste water.  Waste
waters with high pollutant concentrations,  and in particular high-flow sanitary waste waters, are
typically treated using an activated sludge  system where biotreatment is followed by secondary
clarification. In this system, settled  solids containing biomass are recycled from clarifier sludge to the
biotreatment system.  This creates a high biomass concentration and therefore allows biodegradation
to occur over a shorter residence time. An example of a tertiary treatment process is nutrient


4.3-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                Effluent Weir
                Scraper Blades
                              Sludge Drawoff Pipe
                                Figure 4.3-2.  Example clarifier configuration.
                          Cable Ties
       Surface
      Mechanical
       Aerators

       A
                                                                    Wastewater
                                                                   Inlet Manifold
                                                                                  Overflow
                                                                                   Weir
                                                                                     Agitated
                                                                                     Surface
                          Figure 4.3-3. Example aerated biological treatment basin.
9/91  (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-5

    -------
removal.  Nitrogen and phosphorus are removed after biodegradation as a final treatment step before
waste water is discharged to a receiving body of water.

4.3.1.3 Applications -
       As previously mentioned, waste water collection, treatment, and storage are common in many
industrial categories and  in POTW. Most industrial facilities and POTW collect, contain, and treat
waste water. However, some industries do not treat their waste water, but use storage systems for
temporary waste water storage or for accumulation of waste water for ultimate disposal.  For
example, the Agricultural Industry does little waste water treatment but needs waste water storage
systems, while the Oil and  Gas Industry also has a need for waste water disposal systems.

       The following are waste water treatment and storage applications identified by type  of
industry:

       1.      Mining And Milling Operations - Storage of various waste waters such as acid mine
               water, solvent wastes from solution mining, and leachate from disposed mining
               wastes.  Treatment operations include settling, separation, washing, sorting  of mineral
               products  from tailings, and recovery of valuable minerals by precipitation.

       2.      Oil And Gas Industry - One of the largest sources of waste water.  Operations treat
               brine produced during oil extraction and deep-well pressurizing operations,  oil-water
               mixtures, gaseous fluids to be separated or stored during emergency conditions, and
               drill cuttings and drilling muds.

       3.      Textile And Leather Industry  - Treatment and sludge disposal. Organic species
               treated or disposed of include dye carriers such as halogenated hydrocarbons and
               phenols.  Heavy metals treated or disposed of include chromium, zinc, and  copper.
               Tanning and finishing wastes  may contain sulfides and nitrogenous compounds.

       4.      Chemical And Allied Products Industry - Process waste water treatment and storage,
               and sludge disposal. Waste constituents are process-specific and include organics and
               organic phosphates, fluoride, nitrogen compounds,  and assorted trace metals.

       5.      Other Industries - Treatment and storage operations are found at petroleum  refining,
               primary metals production, wood treating, and metal finishing facilities.  Various
               industries store and/or treat air pollution scrubber sludge and dredging spoils sludge
               (i. e., settled solids removed from the floor of a surface impoundment).

4.3.2 Emissions

       VOCs are emitted from waste water collection, treatment, and storage systems through
volatilization of organic compounds at the liquid surface. Emissions can occur by diffusive or
convective mechanisms, or both.  Diffusion occurs when organic concentrations at the water surface
are much higher than ambient concentrations. The organics volatilize, or diffuse into the air, in an
attempt to reach equilibrium between aqueous and vapor phases.  Convection occurs when air flows
over the water surface, sweeping organic vapors from the water surface into the air.  The rate of
volatilization relates directly to the speed of the air flow over the water surface.

       Other factors that can  affect the  rate of volatilization include waste water surface  area,
temperature, and  turbulence; waste water retention time in the system(s); the depth of the waste water
in the system(s); the concentration of organic compounds in the waste water and their physical


4.3-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                   (Refomiatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
properties, such as volatility and diffusivity in water; the presence of a mechanism that inhibits
volatilization, such as an oil film; or a competing mechanism, such  as biodegradation.

        The rate of volatilization can be determined by using mass transfer theory.  Individual gas
phase and liquid phase mass transfer coefficients (kg and k(, respectively) are used to estimate overall
mass transfer coefficients (K, Koil, and KD) for eacn VOC.1'2 Figure 4.3-4 presents a flow diagram
to assist in determining the appropriate emissions model for estimating VOC emissions from various
types of waste water treatment, storage, and collection systems.  Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, respectively,
present the emission model equations and definitions.

        VOCs vary in their degree of volatility.  The emission models presented in this section can be
used for high-, medium-, and low-volatility organic compounds. The Henry's law constant (HLC) is
often used as a measure of a compound's volatility, or the diffusion of organics into the air relative to
diffusion through liquids.  High-volatility VOCs are HLC > 10"3 atm-m3/gmol; medium-volatility
VOCs  are 10"3 < HLC <  10'5 atm-m3/gmol; and low-volatility VOCs are HLC <  10'5 atm-m3/
gmol.1

        The design and arrangement of collection, treatment, and storage systems are facility-specific;
therefore the most accurate waste water emissions estimate will come from actual tests of a facility
(i. e., tracer studies or direct measurement of emissions from openings). If actual data are
unavailable, the emission models provided in this section can be used.

        Emission models should be given site-specific information whenever it is available. The most
extensive characterization of an actual system will produce the most accurate estimates from an
emissions model. In addition, when  addressing systems involving biodegradation, the accuracy of the
predicted rate of biodegradation is improved when site-specific compound biorates are input.
Reference 3 contains information on a test method for measuring site-specific biorates, and
Table 4.3-4 presents estimated biorates for approximately 150 compounds.

        To estimate an emissions rate (N), the first step is to calculate individual gas phase and liquid
phase mass transfer coefficients kg and ke.  These individual coefficients are then used to calculate the
overall mass transfer coefficient, K.  Exceptions to this procedure are the calculation of overall mass
transfer coefficients in the oil phase,  Koil, and  the overall mass transfer coefficient for a weir, KD.
Koil requires  only kg, and KD does not require any individual mass transfer coefficients. The overall
mass transfer coefficient is then used to calculate the emissions rates. The following discussion
describes how to use Figure 4.3-4 to  determine an emission rate.  An example calculation is presented
in Part 4.3.2.1 below.

        Figure 4.3-4 is divided  into 2 sections:  waste water treatment and storage systems, and waste
water collection systems. Waste water treatment and storage systems are further segmented into
aerated/nonaerated systems, biologically active systems, oil film layer systems, and surface
impoundment flowthrough or disposal.  In flowthrough systems, waste water is treated and discharged
to a POTW or a receiving body of water, such as a river or stream.   All waste water collection
systems are by definition flowthrough.  Disposal systems, on the other hand, do not discharge any
waste water.

       Figure 4.3-4 includes information needed to estimate air emissions from junction boxes, lift
stations, sumps, weirs, and clarifier weirs.  Sumps are considered quiescent, but junction boxes,  lift
stations, and weirs are turbulent in nature. Junction boxes and lift stations are turbulent because
incoming flow is normally above the  water level in the component, which creates some splashing.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.3-7

    -------
         Wastewater/  '*
                      System
       Treatment and \Aei
      aNumbered equations are presented in Table 4.3-1
      K( - Individual liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
      Ka - Individual gas phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
      Kjj| - Overall mass transfer coefficient in the oil phase, m/s
      IC> - Volatilization - reaeratlon theory mass transfer coefficient
      YT - Overall mass transfer coefficient m/s
      N  - Emissions, g/s
                               Waslewater Collection
                                                                       Sump
                                                                       Weir
                                         Equations Used to Obtain:8

                                          Kg   Koil  Kp  K     N


                                      12              7     20



                                                         7     19



                                                         7     14



                                                         7     13



                                                         7     16



                                                         7     15



                                                         7     12



                                                         7     11



                                                         7     16



                                                         7     15



                                                         7     12



                                                         7     11
                                                                                       2    9
                                                                                       2    9
                                                                                       2    9
                                                                    Clarifier Weir
                                      3    2
                                                                                   3   2
                                                                                   1   2
                                                                                    5   6
                                                                                                 10
                                                                                                           18
                                                                                                           17
                                                                                                           22
                                                               23
                                                         7     12
                                                                                                      7     12
                                                                                                      7     12
                                                                                                            21
                                                                                                       8    24
        Figure 4.3.4.  Flow diagram for estimating  VOC emissions from waste water collection,
                                        treatment, and storage systems.
4.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted  1/95) 9/91

    -------
       Table 4.3-1. MASS TRANSFER CORRELATIONS AND EMISSIONS EQUATIONS*
  Equation
     No.                                        Equation
  Individual liquid flc/) and gas fkJ) phase mass transfer coefficients
             ^      »      r=* ^~8  •
      1       k, (m/s) =  (2.78 x
                For: 0  < U10 < 3.25 m/s and all F/D ratios

             k, (m/s) =  [(2.605 x 1Q-9)(F/D) + (1.277 x l 3.25 m/s and 14 < F/D < 51.2
             kf (m/s) = (2.61 x
                For:  U10  > 3.25 m/s and F/D > 51.2

             k, (m/s) = 1.0 x 10-6 + 144 x W4 (U*)2-2 (Sci)"0'5; U* < 0.3
             k, (m/s) = 1.0 x HT6 + 34.1 x 10^ U* (Sc^^; U* > 0.3
               For:  U10 > 3.25 m/s and F/D <  14
                     where:
                        U* (m/s) = (0.01)(U10)(6.1 + 0.63(U10))°-5
                             Sc^ = Mi/^iJ^w)
                             F/D = 2 (A/*-)03

             kg (m/s) = (4.82 x 10-3)(U10)°-78 (ScG)-°-67 (d^-11
                     where:
                             ScG = /i-/(/)aDa)
                           de(m) = 2(A/7r)°-5

             kf (m/s) = [(8.22 x 10-9)(J)(POWR)(1.024)(T-20>(Ot)(106) *
                      where:
                          POWR (hp)  =  (total power to aerators)(V)
                              Vav(fr)  =  (fraction of area agitated)(A)

            kg (m/s) = (1.35 x IQ-^ORe)1-42 (P)°-4 (ScG)°-5 (Fr)-°-21(Da MWa/d)
                      where:
                             Re  = d2 w pa/Ma
                              P  = [(0.85)(POWR)(550 ft-lb/s-hp)/^] gc/(pL(d*)V)
                            ScG  =
                             Fr  =
            k, (m/s) = (f^ £)(Q)/[3600 s/min
                      where:
                              ^air f =  1 ~ l/r
                                 'r =  exp [0.77(h/-623(Q/7rdc)0-66(Dw^)02(W)0-66]

            kg (m/s) = 0.001 + (0.0462(U**)(ScG)-°-67)
                      where:
                            U** (m/s) = [6.1 + (0.63)(U10)]°-5(U10/100)
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.3-9

    -------
                                    Table 4.3-1 (cont.).
  Equation
    No.                                       Equation
 Overall mass transfer coefficients for water (K) and oil (Koil) phases and for weirs (KD)

     7      K=  (k,Keqkg)/(Keqkg + kf)
                     where:
                           Keq = H/(RT)

     8      K (m/s) = [[MWL/(k,  L*(100 cm/m)] + [MWa/(k^>aH*
                      55,555(100 cm/m))]]-1 MWL/[(100 cm/m)pL]
            Koil =
                     where:
                            Keq^a = P*paMWoil/(poil MWa P0)

     10     KD =  0.16h (IVD02)W)0-75
 Air emissions (N)

     11      N(g/s) = (1 - Ct/Co) V Colt
                     where:
                           Ct/Co  = exp[-K A t/V]

     12      N(g/s) = K CL A
                     where:
                           CL(g/m3) =  Q Co/(KA + Q)

     13      N(g/s) = (1 - Ct/Co) V Co/t
                     where:
                            Ct/Co = exp[-(KA + KeqQa)t/V]

     14      N(g/s) = (KA + QaKeq)CL
                     where:
                           CL(g/m3)  = QCo/(KA + Q + QaKeq)

     15      N(g/s) = (1 - Ct/Co) KA/(KA + Kmax bj V/K,,) V Co/t
                     where:
                           Ct/Co   = exp[-Kmax b4 t/Ks - K A t/V]

     16      N(g/s) = K CL A
                           CL(g/m3) = [-b + (b2 - 4ac)°-5]/(2a)
                      and:
                                  a = KA/Q + 1
                                  b = KS(KA/Q + 1) + Kmax bj V/Q - Co
                                  c = -KsCo                      _
4.3-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                 (Refoimatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                     Table 4.3-1 (cont.).
  Equation
    No.                                         Equation
     17      N(g/s) = (1 - Ctoil/Cooil)VoiICooil/t
                      where:
                              Ctoil/Cooil = exp[-Koil t/Doil]
                      and:
                                   Cooil = Kow Co/[l - FO + FO(Kow)]
                                    Voil = (FO)(V)
                                    Doil = (FO)(V)/A

     18      N(g/s) = KoilCL>oilA
                      where:
                             CL)0il(g/m3) = QoilCooil/(KoilA + Qoil)
                      and:
                                    Cooil = Kow Co/[l - FO + FO(Kow)]
                                     Qoil = (FO)(Q)
     19      N(g/s) = (1 - Ct/Co)(KA + QaKeq)/(KA  + QaKeq + Kmax bj V/K^ V Co/t
                      where:
                            Ct/Co = exp[-(KA + KeqQJt/V - Kmax Di t/KJ

     20      N(g/s) = (KA + QaKeq)CL
                      where:
                            CL(g/m3)  = [-b +(b2 -  4ac)°-5]/(2a)
                      and:
                                   a  = (KA + QaKeq)/Q  + 1
                                   b  = KS[(KA +  QaKeq)/Q + 1] + Kmax bj V/Q - Co
                                   c  = -KsCo

     21      N (g/s) =  (1  - exp[-KD])Q Co

     22      N(g/s) = KoilCL>oilA
                      where:
                             CL)0il(g/m3)  = Qoil(Cooil*)/(KoilA + Qoil)
                      and:
                                   Cooil*  = Co/FO
                                     Qoil  =(FO)(Q)

     23      N(g/s) = (1 -  Ctoil/Cooil*)(Voil)(Cooil*)/t
                      where:
                              Ctoil/Cooil* = exp[-Koil t/Doil]
                      and:
                                  Cooil* = Co/FO
                                    Voil = (FO)(V)
                                    Doil = (FO)(V)/A

     24      N (g/s) = (1 - exp[-K TT dc hc/Q])Q Co          _
  All parameters in numbered equations are defined in Table 4.3-2.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.3-11

    -------
  Table 4.3-2. PARAMETER DEFINITIONS FOR MASS TRANSFER CORRELATIONS AND
                           EMISSIONS EQUATIONS
Parameter
A
bi
CL
CL,oil
Co
COoil
Cooil*
Ct

Ctoil

d
D
d*
Da
dc
de
Dether
D02,w
Doil
Dw
fair,*
F/D
FO
Fr
So
Definition
Waste water surface area
Biomass concentration (total biological solids)
Concentration of constituent in the liquid phase
Concentration of constituent in the oil phase
Initial concentration of constituent in the liquid
phase
Initial concentration of constituent in the oil phase
considering mass transfer resistance between
water and oil phases
Initial concentration of constituent in the oil phase
considering no mass transfer resistance between
water and oil phases
Concentration of constituent in the liquid phase at
time = t
Concentration of constituent in the oil phase at
tune = t
Impeller diameter
Waste water depth
Impeller diameter
Diffusivity of constituent in air
Clarifier diameter
Effective diameter
Diffusivity of ether in water
Diffusivity of oxygen in water
Oil film thickness
Diffusivity of constituent hi water
Fraction of constituent emitted to the ah-,
considering zero gas resistance
Fetch to depth ratio, de/D
Fraction of volume which is oil
Froude number
Gravitation constant (a conversion factor)
Units
m2orft2
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3

g/m3

cm
m or ft
ft
cm2/s
m
m
cm2/s
cm2/s
m
cm2/s
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
Ibm-ft/s2-lbf
Codea
A
B
D
D
A
D
D
D

D

B
A,B
B
C
B
D
(S.SxlO-6)1'
(2.4xlO'5)b
B
C
D
D
B
D
32.17
4.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                         Table 4.3-2 (cont.).
Parameter
h
he
H
J
K

KD
Keq
Keqon
kg
k,
Kmax
Koil
Kow
Ks
MWa
MWoil
MWL
N
NI
ot
P
P*
PO
POWR
Q
Definition
Weir height (distance from the waste water
overflow to the receiving body of water)
Clarifier weir height
Henry's law constant of constituent
Oxygen transfer rating of surface aerator
Overall mass transfer coefficient for transfer of
constituent from liquid phase to gas phase
Volatilization-reaeration theory mass transfer
coefficient
Equilibrium constant or partition coefficient
(concentration hi gas phase/concentration hi
liquid phase)
Equilibrium constant or partition coefficient
(concentration hi gas phase/concentration in oil
phase)
Gas phase mass transfer coefficient
Liquid phase mass transfer coefficient
Maximum biorate constant
Overall mass transfer coefficient for transfer of
constituent from oil phase to gas phase
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Half saturation biorate constant
Molecular weight of air
Molecular weight of oil
Molecular weight of water
Emissions
Number of aerators
Oxygen transfer correction factor
Power number
Vapor pressure of the constituent
Total pressure
Total power to aerators
Volumetric flow rate
Units
ft
m
atm-m3/gmol
Ib 02/(hr-hp)
m/s

dimension! ess
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
m/s
m/s
g/s-g biomass
m/s
dimension! ess
g/m3
g/gmol
g/gmol
g/gmol
g/s
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
dimension! ess
atm
atm
hp
m3/s
Code"
B
B
C
B
D

D
D
D
D
D
A,C
D
C
A,C
29
B
18
D
A,B
B
D
C
A
B
A
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-13

    -------
                                      Table 4.3-2 (cont.).
Parameter
Qa
Qoil
r
R
Re
ScG
ScL
T
t
U*
U**
UIQ
V
\/Q
T Ay
Voil
w
Pa
PL
Poil
/*a
ML
Definition
Diffused air flow rate
Volumetric flow rate of oil
Deficit ratio (ratio of the difference between the
constituent concentration at solubility and actual
constituent concentration in the upstream and the
downstream)
Universal gas constant
Reynolds number
Schmidt number on gas side
Schmidt number on liquid side
Temperature of water
Residence time of disposal
Friction velocity
Friction velocity
Wind speed at 10 m above the liquid surface
Waste water volume
Turbulent surface area
Volume of oil
Rotational speed of impeller
Density of air
Density of water
Density of oil
Viscosity of air
Viscosity of water
Units
m3/s
m3/s
dimension! ess
atm-m3/gmol-K
dimension! ess
dimensionless
dimension! ess
°C or Kelvin
(K)
s
m/s
m/s
m/s
nr'orft3
ft2
m3
rad/s
g/cm3
g/cm3 or Ib/ft3
g/m3
g/cm-s
g/cm-s
Code*
B
B
D
8.21xlO'5
D
D
D
A
A
D
D
B
A
B
B
B
(1.2xlO-3)b
lb or 62.4b
B
(1.81xlO'4)b
(8.93xlO'3)b
a Code:
  A = Site-specific parameter.
  B = Site-specific parameter.  For default values, see Table 4.3-3.
  C = Parameter can be obtained from literature.  See Attachment 1 for a list of ~ 150 compound
       chemical properties at T = 25°C (298°K).
  D = Calculated value.
b Reported values at 25°C (298 °K).
4.3-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                   Table 4.3-3.  SITE-SPECIFIC DEFAULT PARAMETERS"
  Default Parameter15
                    Definition
   Default Value
  General
   T

  Biotreatment Systems
Temperature of water
Windspeed
   POWR
   W
   d(d*)
   ot
   N
Biomass concentration (for biologically active
  systems)
  Quiescent treatment systems
  Aerated treatment systems
  Activated sludge units
Total power to aerators
  (for aerated treatment systems)
  (for activated sludge)
Rotational speed of impeller
  (for aerated treatment systems)
Impeller diameter
  (for aerated treatment systems)
Turbulent surface area
  (for aerated treatment systems)
  (for activated sludge)
Oxygen transfer rating to surface aerator
  (for aerated treatment systems)
Oxygen transfer correction factor
  (for aerated treatment systems)
Number of aerators
  Diffused Air Systems
   Qa                 Diffused air volumetric flow rate
  Oil Film Layers
   MW
       oil
   Veil
Molecular weight of oil
Depth of oil layer
Volume of oil
Volumetric flow rate of oil
Density of oil
       298 °K
     4.47 m/s
      50 g/m3
     300 g/m3
     4000 g/m3

0.75 hp/1000 ft3 (V)
  2 hp/1000 ft3 (V)

126 rad/s (1200 rpm)

    61 cm (2 ft)

     0.24 (A)
     0.52 (A)

   3 Ib 02/hp«hr

       0.83
     POWR775

  0.0004(V) m3/s

    282 g/gmol
   0.001  (V/A) m
   0.001 (V) m3
  0.001 (Q) m3/s
    0.92 g/cm3
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
             Evaporation Loss Sources
               4.3-15

    -------
                                       Table 4.3-3 (cont.).
Default Parameter15
FO
Junction Boxes
D
NI
Lift Station
D
NI
Sump
D
Weirs
dc
h
°c
Definition
Fraction of volume which is oilc

Depth of Junction Box
Number of aerators

Depth of Lift Station
Number of aerators

Depth of sump

Clarifier weir diameterd
Weir height
Clarifier weir height6
Default Value
0.001

0.9m
1

1.5m
1

5.9m

28.5m
1.8m
O.lm
a Reference 1.
b As defined in Table 4.3-2.
c Reference 4.
d Reference 2.
e Reference 5.
Waste water falls or overflows from weirs and creates splashing in the receiving body of water (both
weir and clarifier weir models). Waste water from weirs can be aerated by directing it to fall over
steps, usually only the weir model.

       Assessing VOC emissions from drains, manholes, and trenches is also important in
determining the total waste water facility emissions.  As these sources can be open to the atmosphere
and closest to the point of waste water generation (i. e., where water temperatures and pollutant
concentrations are greatest), emissions can be significant.  Currently, there are no well-established
emission models for these collection system types.  However,  work is being performed to address this
need.

       Preliminary models of VOC emissions from waste collection system units have been
developed.4  The emission equations presented  in Reference 4 are used with standard collection
system parameters to estimate the fraction of the constituents released as the waste water flows
through each unit.  The fractions released from several units are estimated for high-, medium-, and
low-volatility compounds. The units used in the estimated fractions included open drains, manhole
covers, open trench drains,  and covered sumps.
4.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
        The numbers in Figure 4.3-4 under the columns for k£, kg, Koi], KD, K, and N refer to the
appropriate equations in Table 4.3-1.a Definitions for all parameters in these equations are given in
Table 4.3-2.  Table 4.3-2 also supplies the units that must be used for  each parameter, with codes to
help locate input values.  If the parameter is coded with the letter A, a site-specific value is required.
Code B also requires a site-specific parameter, but defaults are available.  These defaults are typical
or average values and are presented by specific system  hi Table 4.3-3.

        Code C means the parameter can be obtained from literature data.  Table 4.3-4 contains a list
of approximately 150 chemicals and their physical properties needed to calculate emissions from
waste water, using the correlations presented in Table 4.3-1. All properties are at 25°C (77°F).
A more extensive chemical properties data base is contained in Appendix C of Reference 1.)
Parameters coded D are calculated values.

        Calculating air emissions from waste water collection, treatment, and storage systems is a
complex procedure, especially if several systems are present.  Performing the calculations by hand
may result in errors and will be tune consuming. A personal computer program called the Surface
Impoundment Modeling System (SIMS) is now available for estimating air emissions.  The program is
menu driven and can estimate air emissions from all surface impoundment  models  presented in
Figure 4.3-4, individually or in series. The program requires for each collection, treatment, or
storage system  component,  at a minimum,  the waste water flow rate and component  surface  area. All
other inputs are provided as default values.  Any available site-specific information should be entered
in place of these defaults, as the most fully characterized system will provide the most accurate
emissions estimate.

        The SIMS program with user's manual and background technical document can be obtained
through state air pollution control  agencies and through the U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Control Technology Center in Research Triangle Park,  NC, telephone (919) 541-0800.  The user's
manual and background technical document should be followed to produce  meaningful  results.

        The SIMS program and user's manual also can  be downloaded  from EPA's Clearinghouse For
Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) electronic bulletin board (BE).  The CHIEF BB is open to
all persons involved in air emission inventories. To access this BB, one needs a computer, modem,
and communication package capable of communicating  at up to  14,400 baud, 8  data bits, 1 stop bit,
and no parity (8-N-l).  This BB is part of EPA's OAQPS Technology Transfer Network system and
its telephone number is (919)  541-5742.  First-time users must register before access is allowed.

       Emissions estimates from SIMS are based on mass transfer models  developed by Emissions
Standards Division (ESD) during evaluations of TSDFs and VOC emissions from industrial waste
water. As a part of the TSDF project, a Lotus* spreadsheet program called CHEMDAT7 was
developed for estimating VOC emissions  from waste water land treatment systems, open landfills,
closed landfills, and waste storage piles, as well as from various types of surface impoundments. For
more information about CHEMDAT7, contact the ESD's Chemicals And Petroleum Branch (MD 13),
US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
aAll emission model systems presented in Figure 4.3-4 imply a completely mixed or uniform waste
water concentration system.  Emission models for a plug flow system, or system in which there is no
axial, or horizontal mixing, are too extensive to be covered in this document.  (An example of plug
flow might be a high waste water flow in a narrow channel.) For information on emission models of
this type, see Reference 1.

9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.3-17

    -------
4.3.2.1  Example Calculation -
       An example industrial  facility operates a flowthrough, mechanically aerated biological
treatment impoundment that receives waste water contaminated with benzene at a concentration of
10.29 g/m3.

       The following format is used for calculating benzene emissions from the treatment process:

        I.  Determine which emission  model to use
       n.  User-supplied information
       in.  Defaults
       IV.  Pollutant physical  property data and water, air, and other properties
       V.  Calculate individual mass transfer coefficient
       VI.  Calculate the overall mass transfer coefficients
      VH.  Calculate VOC emissions

 I. Determine Which Emission Model To Use — Following the flow diagram in Figure 4.3-4, the
    emission model  for a treatment system that is aerated, but not by diffused air, is biologically
    active, and is a flowthrough system, contains the following equations:


                                                                          Equation Nos.
   Parameter                          Definition                         from Table 4.3-1

      K        Overall mass  transfer coefficient, m/s                              7

      kf        Individual liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s               1,3

      kg        Individual gas phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s                 2,4

      N        VOC emissions,  g/s                                              16

 II. User-supplied Information — Once the correct emission model is determined,  some site-specific
    parameters are required.  As a minimum for this model, site-specific flow rate, waste water
    surface area and depth, and pollutant concentration should be provided. For this example, these
    parameters have the following values:

        Q = Volumetric  flow rate = 0.0623 m3/s
        D = Waste water depth  = 1.97 m
        A = Waste water surface area  =  17,652 m2
       Co = Initial  benzene concentration in the liquid phase  =  10.29 g/m3

III. Defaults — Defaults for some emission model parameters  are presented in Table 4.3-3.
    Generally, site-specific values should  be  used when available.  For this facility, all available
    general and biotreatment system defaults from Table 4.3-3 were used:

         U10   = Wind speed at  10 m  above the liquid surface = e = 4.47 m/s
           T   = Temperature of water = 25°C  (298 °K)
           bj   = Biomass concentration for aerated treatment  systems = 300 g/m3
            J   = Oxygen transfer rating to surface aerator =  3 Ib O2/hp-hr
      POWR   = Total power to aerators  =  0.75 hp/1,000 ft3 (V)
          Ot   = Oxygen transfer correction factor =  0.83
         Vay   = Turbulent surface area = 0.24 (A)
            d   = Impeller diameter  = 61 cm


4.3-18                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
           d*  = Impeller diameter = 2 ft
           w  = Rotational speed of impeller =  126 rad/s
           Nj  = Number of aerators = POWR/75 hp

 IV. Pollutant Physical Property Data, And Water, Air and Other Properties — For each pollutant,
     the specific physical properties needed by this model are listed in Table 4.3-4.  Water, air, and
     other property values are given in Table 4.3-2.

     A.  Benzene (from Table 4.3-4)
                   Dw,benzene = Diffusivity of benzene in water = 9.8 x 10"* cm2/s
                    Da'benzenc = Diffusivity of benzene in air = 0.088 cm2/s
                     "benzene = Henry's law constant for benzene  = 0.0055 atm- nxVgmol
                 ^"^benzene = MaKumun biorate constant for benzene =  5.28 x 10"6 g/g-s
                    Kg benzene = Half saturation biorate constant for benzene = 13.6 g/m3

     B.  Water, Air, and Other Properties (from Table  4.3-3)
                           pa = Density of air =  1.2 x 103 g/cm3
                           pL = Density of water  = 1 g/cm3 (62.4
                           /xa = Viscosity of air = 1.81 x 10"4 g/cm-s
                       DO2)W = Diffusivity of oxygen in water = 2.4 x 10"5 cm2/s
                       Dether = Diffusivity of ether in water = 8.5 x 10"6 cm2/s
                        MWL = Molecular weight of  water =18 g/gmol
                        MWa = Molecular weight of  air  = 29 g/gmol
                           gc = Gravitation constant  = 32.17 lbm-ft/lbrs2
                           R = Universal gas constant = 8.21 x 10"5 atm-m3/gmol

 V. Calculate Individual Mass Transfer Coefficients — Because part of the impoundment is turbulent
     and part is quiescent, individual mass transfer coefficients are determined for both turbulent and
     quiescent areas of the surface impoundment.

     Turbulent area of impoundment — Equations 3 and 4 from Table 4.3-1.

     A.  Calculate the individual liquid mass transfer coefficient, k(:
         k,(m/s) = [(8.22 x 10-9)(J)(POWR)(1.024)(T-20>  *
                   (Ot)(106)MWL/(VavpL)](Dw^)02(W)0-5

         The total power to the aerators, POWR,  and the turbulent surface area, Vay, are calculated
         separately  [Note: some conversions  are necessary.]:

         1. Calculate total power to aerators, POWR (Default presented in HI):
                         POWR (hp) = 0.75 hp/1,000 ft3 (V)
                                  V = waste water volume, m3
                             V (m3) = (A)(D)  = (17,652 m2)(1.97 m)
                                  V = 34,774  m3
                             POWR = (0.75 hp/1,000 ft3)(ft3/0.028317 m3)(34,774 m3)
                                     = 921 hp
         2.  Calculate turbulent surface area, Va^ (default presented in El):
                            Vav (ft2)  = 0.24 (A)
                                     = 0.24(17,652 m2)(10.758 ft2/m2)
                                     = 45,576 ft2

9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.3-19

    -------
         Now, calculate k;, using the above calculations and information from n, HI, and IV:
                           k, (m/s) = [(8.22 x !Q-9)(3 Ib O2/hp-hr)(921 hp) *
                                       (1.024)(25-20>(0.83)(106)(18g/gmol)/
                                       ((45,576 ftfyl g/cm3))] *
                                       [(9.8 x  1Q-6 cm2/s)/(2.4 x 10'5 cm2/s)]°-5
                                    = (0.00838)(0.639)
             *                   k, = 5.35 x 10'3 m/s

     B.  Calculate the individual gas phase mass transfer coefficient, k •
         kg (m/s) = (1.35 x 10-7)(Re)1-42(P)°-4(ScG)°-5(Fr)-°-21(Da MWa/d)

         The Reynolds number, Re, power number, P, Schmidt number on the gas side, ScG, and
         Froude's number Fr, are calculated separately:

         1.  Calculate Reynolds number, Re:
                   Re = d2 w pa//ia
                      = (61 cm)2(126 rad/s)(1.2 x 10'3 g/cm3)/(1.81 x 1Q-4 g/cm-s)
                      = 3.1 x 106

         2.  Calculate power number, P:
                    P = [(0.85)(POWR)(550 ft-lbf/s-hpJ/N,] gc/(pL(d*)5 w3)
                   Nj = POWR/75 hp (default presented in ffl)
                    P = (0.85)(75 hp)(POWR/POWR)(550 ft-lb/s-hp) *
                         (32.17 Ib  -ft/lbrs2)/[(62.4 Ibm/ft3)(2 ft)5(126 rad/s)3]
                      = 2.8 x 10-4

         3.  Calculate Schmidt number on the gas side, ScG:

                      = (L8iax 10-4 g/cm-s)/[(1.2 x 10'3 g/cm3)(0.088 cm2/s)]
                      = 1.71

         4.  Calculate Froude number, Fr:
                   Fr = (d*)w2/gc
                      = (2 ft)(126 rad/s)2/(32.17 lbffi-ft/lbrs2)
                      = 990

         Now, calculate k  using the above calculations and information from n, ffl, and IV:

              kg (m/s) = (1.35 x 10-7)(3.1 x 106)L42(2.8  x KT4)0-^!.?!)0-5  *
                         (990)-°'21(0.088 cm2/s)(29 g/gmol)/(61 cm)
                      = 0.109 m/s

     Quiescent surface area of impoundment — Equations 1 and 2 from Table 4.3-1

     A.  Calculate the individual liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, kt:
                               F/D = 2(A/u-)°-5/D
                                    = 2(17,652 m2/ir)°-5/(1.97 m)
                                    = 76.1
                                U10 = 4.47 m/s

4.3-20                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
               For U10  > 3.25 m/s and F/D > 51.2 use the following:
                            k, (m/s) =  (2.61 x 10-;')(U10)2(D^ether)2/3
                                     =  (2.61 x 10-7)(4.47 m/s)2[(9.8 x 10"6 cm2/s)/
                                        (8.5 x 10-6 cn^/s)]273
                                     =  5.74 x KT6 m/s

     B.  Calculate the individual gas phase mass transfer coefficient, kg:
                           kg  = (4.82 x 10-3)(U10)0-78(ScG)-°-67(de)-°-11

         The Schmidt number on the gas  side, ScG, and the effective diameter, de, are calculated
         separately:

         1.  Calculate the Schmidt number on the gas side, ScG:
                                   —  1-71 (same as for turbulent impoundments)
         2.  Calculate the effective diameter, de:
                          de (m) = 2(A/7r)°-5
                                 = 2(17,652 m2/*)0'5
                                 = 149.9 m
                         k (m/s) = (4.82 x 10'3)(4.47 m/s)0-78 (1.71)-°-67 (149.9 m)"0-11
                                 = 6.24 x 1(T3  m/s

 VI. Calculate The Overall Mass Transfer Coefficient — Because part of the impoundment is
     turbulent and part is quiescent, the overall mass transfer coefficient is determined as an area-
     weighted average of the turbulent and quiescent overall mass transfer coefficients.  (Equation 7
     from Table 4.3-1).

     Overall mass transfer coefficient for  the turbulent surface area of impoundmentrKT

                     KT (m/s) = (k,Keqk )/(Keqk  +  kf )
                         Keq = H/RT
                              = (0.0055 atm-m3/gmol)/[(8.21 x 10'5 atm-m3/ gmol-°K)(298°K)]
                              = 0.225
                     KT (m/s) = (5.35 x 10'3 m/s)(0.225)(0.109)/f(0.109 m/s)(0.225) +
                                (5.35 x  W6 m/s)]
                          KT = 439 x  10'3 mis

     Overall mass transfer coefficient for  the quiescent surface area of impoundment. KQ

                        (m/s) = (kfKeqk )/(Keqk  +  k£)
                              = (5.74 x 10-6 m/s)(0.225)(6.24 x 10'3 m/s)/
                                 [(6.24 X lO'3 m/s)(0.225) + (5.74 x 10"6 m/s)]
                              = 5.72 x  10-* m/s

     Overall mass transfer coefficient. K.  weighted by turbulent and quiescent surface areas.
     Aj and AQ
                      K (m/s) = (KTAT  + KQAQ)/A
                          AT = 0.24(A) (Default value presented hi El:  AT = Va,,)
                          AQ = (1 - 0.24)A
                      K (m/s) = [(4.39 x 10'3 m/s)(0.24 A) +  (5.72 x lO"6 m/s)(l - 0.24)A]/A
                              = 1.06 x  10'3 m/s


9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.3-21

    -------
Vn. Calculate VOC Emissions For An Aerated Biological Flowthrough Impoundment — Equation 16
     from Table 4.3-1:

                                       N (g/s) = K CL A

     where:
                       CL (g/m3) =  [-b + (b2 - 4ac)°-5]/(2a)

     and:
                                a =  KA/Q + 1
                                b =  ^(KA/Q +  1) +  Kmax bj V/Q - Co
                                c =  -
     Calculate a, b, c, and the concentration of benzene in the liquid phase, CL, separately:

     1.  Calculate a:
                 a =  (KA/Q + 1) =  [(1.06 x 1(T3 m/s)(17,652 m2)/(0.0623 m3/s)] + 1
                   =  301.3

     2.  Calculate b (V = 34,774 m3 from IV):
                b =  Ks (KA/Q + 1) + Kmax bj V/Q - Co
                   =  (13.6 g/m3)[(1.06 x lO'3 m/s)(17,652 m2)/(0.0623 m3/s)] +
                      [(5.28 x 10-6 g/g-s)(300 g/m3)(34,774 m3)/(0.0623 m3/s)] - 10.29 g/m3
                   =  4,084.6  + 884.1 - 10.29
                   =  4,958.46 g/m3

     3.  Calculate c:
                 c =  -K.CO
                   =  -(13.6 g/m3)(10.29 g/m3)
                   =  -139.94

     4.  Calculate the concentration of benzene in the liquid phase,  CL, from a, b, and c above:
            CL (g/m3) = [-b +  (b2 - 4ac)°-5]/(2a)
                       = [(4,958.46 g/m3) + [(4,958.46 g/m3)2 -
                         [4(301 .3)(-139.94)]]°-5]/(2(301 .3))
                       = 0.0282 g/m3

         Now calculate N with the above calculations and information from n and V:
               N (g/s) = K A CL
                       = (1.06 x 10'3 m/s)(17,652 m2)(0.0282 g/m3)
                       = 0.52 g/s

4.3.3 Controls

       The types of control  technology generally used in reducing VOC emissions from waste water
include:  steam stripping or air  stripping, carbon adsorption (liquid phase), chemical oxidation,
membrane separation, liquid-liquid extraction,  and biotreatment  (aerobic or anaerobic).  For efficient
control, all control elements  should be placed as close as possible to the point of waste  water
generation, with all collection, treatment, and storage systems ahead of the control technology being
covered to suppress emissions.  Tightly covered, well-maintained collection systems can suppress
4.3-22                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
emissions by 95 to 99 percent.  However, if there is explosion potential, the components should be
vented to a control device such as an incinerator or carbon adsorber.

       The following are brief descriptions of the control technology listed above and of any
secondary controls that may need to be considered for fugitive air emissions.

       Steam stripping is the fractional distillation of waste water to remove volatile organic
constituents, with the basic operating principle being the direct contact of steam with waste water.
The steam provides the heat of vaporization for the more volatile organic constituents.  Removal
efficiencies vary with volatility and solubility of the organic impurities. For highly volatile
compounds (HLC  greater than 10~3 atm-m3/gmol), average VOC removal ranges from 95 to
99 percent.  For medium-volatility compounds (HLC between 10~5 and 10"3 atm-m3/gmol), average
removal ranges from 90 to 95 percent.  For low-volatility compounds (HLC < 10~5 atm-m3/gmol),
average removal ranges from less than 50 to 90 percent.

       Air stripping involves the contact of waste water and air to strip out volatile organic
constituents. By forcing large volumes of air through contaminated water,  the surface area of water
hi contact with air is greatly increased,  resulting in an increase in the transfer rate of the organic
compounds into the vapor phase.  Removal efficiencies vary with volatility and solubility of organic
impurities.  For highly volatile compounds, average removal ranges from 90 to 99 percent; for
medium- to  low-volatility compounds, removal ranges from less than 50 to 90 percent.

       Steam stripping and air stripping controls most often are vented to a secondary control,  such
as a combustion device or gas phase carbon adsorber.  Combustion devices may include incinerators,
boilers, and flares. Vent gases of high  fuel value can be used as an alternate fuel. Typically, vent
gas is combined with  other fuels such as natural gas and fuel oil.  If the fuel value is very low,  vent
gases can be heated and combined with combustion air.  It is important to note that organics such as
chlorinated hydrocarbons can emit toxic pollutants when combusted.

       Secondary control by gas phase carbon adsorption processes takes advantage of compound
affinities for activated carbon. The types of gas phase carbon adsorption systems  most commonly
used to control VOC are fixed-bed carbon adsorbers and carbon canisters.  Fixed-bed carbon
adsorbers are used to  control continuous organic gas streams with flow rates ranging from 30 to over
3000 m3/min.  Canisters are much  simpler and smaller than fixed-bed systems and are usually
installed to control gas flows of less than 3 m3/min.4  Removal efficiencies depend highly on the type
of compound being removed. Pollutant-specific activated carbon is usually required. Average
removal efficiency ranges from 90 to 99 percent.

       Like gas phase carbon adsorption, liquid phase carbon adsorption takes advantage of
compound affinities for activated carbon.  Activated carbon is an excellent adsorbent, because of its
large surface area and because it is usually in granular or powdered form for easy handling. Two
types of liquid phase carbon adsorption are the fixed-bed and moving-bed systems.  The fixed-bed
system is used primarily for low-flow waste water streams with contact times around 15 minutes, and
it is a batch  operation (i. e., once the carbon is spent, the system is taken off line).  Moving-bed
carbon adsorption systems operate continuously with waste water typically being introduced from the
bottom of the column  and regenerated carbon from the top  (countercurrent flow).  Spent carbon is
continuously removed from the bottom of the bed.  Liquid phase carbon adsorption  is usually used for
low concentrations of nonvolatile components and for high  concentrations of nondegradable
compounds.5 Removal efficiencies depend on whether the compound is adsorbed  on activated carbon.
Average removal efficiency ranges from 90 to 99 percent.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.3-23

    -------
       Chemical oxidation involves a chemical reaction between the organic compound and an
oxidant such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, permanganate, or chlorine dioxide.  Ozone is usually
added to the waste water through an ultraviolet-ozone reactor.  Permanganate and chlorine dioxide are
added directly into the waste water.  It is important to note that adding chlorine dioxide can form
chlorinated hydrocarbons hi a side reaction.  The applicability of this technique depends on the
reactivity of the individual organic compound.

       Two types of membrane separation processes are ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis.
Ultrafiltration is primarily a physical sieving process driven by a pressure gradient across the
membrane. This process separates organic compounds with molecular weights greater than 2000,
depending on the size of the membrane pore.  Reverse osmosis is the process by which a solvent is
forced across a semipermeable membrane because of an osmotic pressure gradient. Selectivity is,
therefore, based on osmotic diffusion properties of the compound and on the molecular diameter of
the compound and membrane pores.4

       Liquid-liquid extraction as a separation technique involves differences hi solubility of
compounds hi various solvents. Contacting a solution containing the desired compound with a solvent
in which the compound has a greater solubility may  remove the compound from the solution. This
technology is often used for product and process solvent recovery.  Through distillation, the target
compound is usually recovered, and the solvent reused.

       Biotreatment is the aerobic or anaerobic chemical breakdown of organic chemicals by
microorganisms.  Removal of organics by biodegradation is highly dependent on the compound's
biodegradability, its volatility,  and its ability to be adsorbed onto solids. Removal efficiencies range
from almost zero to 100 percent. In general, highly volatile compounds such as chlorinated
hydrocarbons and aromatics will biodegrade very little because of their high-volatility, while alcohols
and other compounds soluble in water, as well as low-volatility compounds, can be almost totally
biodegraded hi an acclimated system.  In the acclimated biotreatment system, the microorganisms
easily convert available organics into biological cells, or biomass.  This often requires a mixed culture
of organisms,  where each organism utilizes the food source most suitable to its metabolism.  The
organisms will starve and the organics will not be biodegraded if a system is not acclimated,  i. e., the
organisms cannot metabolize the available food source.

4.3.4  Glossary Of Terms

Basin -               an earthen or concrete-lined depression used to hold liquid.

Completely mixed -    having the same characteristics and quality throughout or at all times.

Disposal -             the act of permanent storage. Flow of liquid into, but not  out of a device.

Drain -               a device used for the collection of liquid. It may be open to the atmosphere
                      or be equipped with a seal to prevent emissions of vapors.

Flowthrough -        having a continuous flow into and out of a device.

Plug flow -           having characteristics and  quality not uniform throughout.  These will change
                      in the direction the fluid flows, but not perpendicular to the direction of flow
                      (i. e., no axial movement)
4.3-24                               EMISSION FACTORS                   (Refoimatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
Storage -              any device to accept and retain a fluid for the purpose of future discharge.
                       Discontinuity of flow of liquid into and out of a device.

Treatment -            the act of improving fluid properties by physical means.  The removal of
                       undesirable impurities from a fluid.

VOC -                volatile organic compounds, referring to all organic compounds except the
                       following, which have been shown not to be photochemically reactive:
                       methane, ethane, trichlorotrifluoroethane, methylene chloride,
                       1,1,1,-trichloroethane, trichlorofluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane,
                       chlorodifluoromethane, trifluoromethane, dichlorotetrafluoroethane, and
                       chloropentafluoroethane.
9/91 (Refomiatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.3-25

    -------
  s
  E
  i
O,= 0
1—1 0
i"3 "5 "£•
:s .§ d^
J J Is <2-
ia u '-1
t*-,
OJS
ll|H
3 5 > ±J A
Is ^
O
> j-. j^-

J ^
Bfl ^« <^
r^ ^
1 §
as g _
u
S
3
£ u "3
^ cs *
o ^^ c

of
I*
V 41
1^
2
1
g
3
5
0
o
g
Z
Chemical


3
o

5
§
®
O



tO
S
|
o




s
r-

8
5




75-07-0



ETALDEHYDE
<

CO
o

c<
1
®
o




r-
i
o



^
12


S
3




2
5



Q
O
y
<

a
o

CO
I
o
o



o\
§
i
o



o\
>n


S
s




I-;-
§



ETIC ANHYDRIDE
<

§
o

2


o



m
Q
i
0




»
C4

8
oo
in




67-64-1



ETONE
<

oo o
o o
i 1
o o



cs
o 3-
o\ •*


8 2
5 £




00
°? r!
I i



ETONITRILE
ROLEIN
U U
< <

o\ •*
o o o o o o

*G ^ ^ 00 ^ v
i i i I i i
o o o o o o
O O 0 O O O
C4 *o
*O O

1 0 00 1 00 1?
O O O O Q S
i i i i i i
o o o o o o
m
cs
cs 8 —
on 8 co in
o m « o co o


g o o *t o n
— cs to vo oo «£
i— r» m •& in o




1 i^ CO ^j" OO 1
Ch cj\ o CM o vS



S ° I
w 9 s S o
1 1 1 U I
|J rJ P 0 J O
« s s s 5 |
O O O Q J S

|
o

1
S
o
o



£
§^*

o


CO
8
o


fN
»-i




a
^H



IINOPHENOL(-P)
^

§
O

CO
i
o
0



00
§CH

o




g
•<»•

S
£



r-
r-



Z
i
^

i &
0 0

CS CO
I I
o o
o o



S S
*? o
i i
o o



8
V> ^l


oo o
O en
C*l ^
«— «




628-37-8
62-53-3



IYL ACETATE(-N)
ILINE
3 5

oo -^
<§ s
o o

00
i i
o o
0 0
oo
CO

I
vi O
i i
0 0
2
?5
g
CM 8
w% O



r» CN
CM




CS CO
CO Wl
s s


z
NZENE
NZO(A)ANTHRACE
g g

i
o


1
o
o
oo
CO

1
x
i
0

oo
*
8
o


0
«




oo
cs
s



NZO(A)PYRENE
CD
  o

  
    -------
   1
   i
   t
   fO
    		• r* P* S e a*£ CO Ui 1 1 s 1 3 Z •^ u Chemical Name s i 0 0 00 S 1 i o o o o ^ ^H ZH § S 8 8 o o f\ O 0 en 8 8 00 O o r~ ro O £ 3 f} *-H —i •* RESYLIC ACID ROTONALDEHYDE O U ^ e rH | O o § 0 0 •o "* s ® 00 ts oo 0 sr u IJMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZ O Ov 00 o 0 s 1 o o r- S o 8 i-H o s fS 00 ri t-H YCLOHEXANE U l-H es 0 rt 00 1 o o r- ^ g 8 o cs ts rt o 8 9 OS of. o VCLOHEXANOL U •t 1 0 fM 00 | o o PI ^ g 8 o 00 Tt o 00 4 oo o 1—t rCLOHEXANONE O J 0 g § o o ^ 2 o o s § o 00 ji. T-H »-H [-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE D 00 i 0 £ 1 o o o g 8 o _j 0 o 00 3 pp ^^ 00 BUTYLPHTHALATE Q 1 O cs § o o o\ 0 8 o t-- oo "" -. [CHLOROBENZENE(1,3) (-f Q i o o\ 1 o o VO 8 o C-l *— t 8 s pj- vA o ^ CHLOROBENZENE(1,4) (-1 Q | 0 O »-H § o | g ® op rH P^ lf\ r~ U 5 CHLORODIFLUOROMETH Q i 0 , 0 o •«!• £ 8 o CO ts 8 §; 3 *? \f*i *" CHLOROETHANE(l.l) Q •—i o § 1 o o r) 8 o i 8 §; cs s f— o CHLOROETH ANE(1 ,2) Q 1/1 i o _ o OS 0 o 8 „. s 4 ^ 1O •"* CHLOROETH YLENE(1 ,2) Q 1 o r? 1 o o ^ g 8 o »— « o o 3 00 fyj l-H CHLOROPHENOL(2,4) Q 00 00 Wl o o f* s 1 o o c-J o 1 8 s T r^ Tt rf Q u f ) CHLOROPHENOXYACETI Q i 0 00 1 o O a 8 o § OS 2 r~ 00 00 CHLOROPROPANE(1 ,2) Q a o ^ 00 1 o o g § g 8 o 00 s o o a ? 5 ^ ^~» OS ETHYL (N,N) ANILIN Q 9/91 (Reformatted 1/95) Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-27 
    -------
  8




o
;|
Js
2





























<*-«
^ o
•^ *c3 JC] ^
" IN If
§e$~
£ u
!|!rj*r
" ^ S -§-
0
o
^ * ^ "s
jy ^o *jj
^21

§1 1
a § -s-
o
e
3 _
S U "So

S Ii\ Pi
rt, *l
1*1
«
VH
3.C
f i W)
•* >S
^
S3
-D
E
3
Z
u



o
Chemical Nam


CS
S
o
(
00
in
|
s
o




rH
S
o


00




O

S
CM




84-66-2




ETHYL PHTHALATE
Q

OX
S
o
»
3

o
o



s>
§*^

o







Tt

s
p




VO




METHYL FORMAMIDE
Q


§
o
3


o



^.
cs
•— (
^
o







r>
in

O
s




*~l
1
in



-^
METHYL HYDRAZINEO
Q

00
VO
o
en
|
5
o


m

§
8
o

r-
00




o

o
ov
T— 1



1
en




METHYL PHTHALATE
Q

__.
i
o
oo
5
1
o
o
^
^5
^5
8
§
i
o







o

en
VO
in




in
U
7:
PJ
ce
METHYLBENZ(A)ANTH
Q

CM

O
OO
1
o
O



_,
CS
§
o



en
r-
in
0
o

vo
i— t
es




§




METHYLPHENOL(2,4)
Q


r~
CN
O
3
|
o
o



fS
cs
§
o





*o
o
o

o
oo
VO




o
o\
0\




NITROBENZENE (-M)
Q


s
o
1
|
o
0


r-
§

§
o




m
0
o
o

o
cs
00




3
1




NITROTOLUENE(2,4)
Q


o\
o
g


0



en

g
o







r-

o
oo
oo




i




OXANE(1,4)
Q


S
o
VO
in
|
8
o



es
00
g"
O







o

8
cs
en



NOCAS2




Z
O
Q


i
o
en
|
5
o


00
r-
es

§
o


m
r-
cn
0
o
o

o
cs
s




o
i




PHENYLAMINE
Q


i
o
oo
1
8
o



cs

s
0




in
§
o







3

8
§




140-88-5




PHYL ACRYLATE
M


S
O
in


0





0
o







8
CS

S
S




en
in
r—




PHYL CHLORIDE
PJ


VO
O
00
1
s
O



a

§
o







£

o
cs




in
3

z
5
Q
PHYL-(2)PROPYL-(3) ACI
w

_l
§
o
g
i
s
o



00
^H
§
O







8

o
00
oo




oo
1^-




PHYLACETATE
a


i
o
00
1
s
o




:$
8
o







o

o
§




100-41-4




PHYLBENZENE
DJ


s
O
,„
§"

O



rs
2
g
o







o
*-H
8
5




op
cs




PHYLENEOXIDE
U
4.3-28
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
   I.
   I
   t
   en
   Tt
   4>
**"* e C_>
:t|§1
|53~
O S
fls^c?
3U
o
> ° *-*
ttH>
§ 1 1
ac §e
o
g
3
S O 'S
la?

CO
I-
43 **
u "53
**
S3
"1
3
i



i
01
Chemical N


I
o

I
o


oo
8
o




K

o
JJ



t^-





ETHYLETHER


S
o

0000198
o


r?
«n
8
o




8
CO
8
o
CO



0
8
6





FORMALDEHYDE


§•« *t r- r~ •«*
O O oo oo 10
-H —. O — O
o o o o o o

CO CM ^ — O>
«-" CM O t~ 
f2 52





ISOPHORONE
METHANOL


|
o

|
o


s
8
o




R

o
^



I





METHYL ACETATE


§
o

i
o


2
8
o




o
oo

O
s



CO
£





METHYL CHLORIDE

9/91 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-29

    -------
  8
  !
  t
  ro

fj II
|6^~
0 £
1 IlS'i
go
o
S S% «=•
^ — E
•°° ^"""S
§ i i
ac §A
o
3
S U "S2
rtj 0 ta*
9 5 1
P. ^^ "*• /
OS
i*

J3
"1
3
O


Chemical Name
i
o
00
i
o


in
en

|
O




8


o
p

s


METHYL ETHYL KETONE
i
o
00
i
o


Ov
§
i
o



r-
12


S
8

108-10-1
u
Z
| METHYL ISOBUTYL KETO
.
o
1
i
0


VO
S
i
o




Ov


0
8

80-62-6

rrl
| METHYL METHACRYLATI
S
o
Tt
vH
i
o



5\
i
0



1
o


8
00

ov

^1
METHYL STYRENE (ALPH
o
O

Ov


| NITROBENZENE
i
o
en
i
o



en

o


VO
0
o


.
o

Ov
00
s


| PENTACHLOROBENZENE
1
o
i
i
o




s
o



^
•*


o
s

r-
1


1 PENTACHLOROETHANE
VO
8
o
1
§
o


CM
g
i
0


OV
g
o


i
g

S
oo
H-
oo


1 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
i
o
i
|
o


8
o


o
2

85-44-9


[ PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
i
o
VO
i
o


(^
£H
§
o



„.
o


CM
S

OV
s


| PICOLINE(-2)
8
o

1
o



^.
i
o


00
8
o


8
o

1336-36-3
z
u
1 POLYCHLORINATED BIPH
00
o
S
^H
|
O



w%
1
o



00
5!


s
S

oo
s
r-


1 PROPANOL (ISO)
g
o
S
i
o



in
i
o




8
en

g
S?

oo
S


| PROPIONALDEHYDE
4.3-30
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
   1



O
.Ir
"5
'P.
5
























S£F
li^i
is o '•<
c
" u ^
.§ 5 vjp?
i ^ s j.
u
u
i * '~*
«8 CN ®

OB ^1 e*T"
fr c e

±li
« O "So
S * ^
Qrt f-il «•
7 " |
si ^* *»^
09
!*

"3 *£
s
1
E
3
U


Chemical Name

i
o
g

§
0


v>


8
8
o


en
o


i—i
SO
P^



r1-


PROPYLENE GLYCOL

S
o

%
8
o




Tf-

8
o



fN
*o

o
00
V"i



75-66-9


1 PROPYLENE OXIDE

§
o
SO
Pi
8
o


SO

CN
8
8
0



o


0
OS
r*-



110-86-1


1 PYRIDINE

i
o
t~
§
8
o
00
00
Q

S
8
8
0
SO
?5
<^*>
0


*— 1
o




2
Tt
OO
O


1 RESORCINOL

g g
o o
00 ?
8 8
8 8
O 0




— *
CS eS
8 8
0 0


en r>
cs oo
Sf^
so



100-42-5
630-20-6

es
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETH ANE(1,1,1

§
o
R
<|>
8
o




eo


o


V)
SO


58
^.
SO



en

?J
1 TETRACHLOROETHANE(1,1,2

s
o
g
§
8
o





e^
0
o



OS


00
V)
SO



00
i


1 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

oo
g
O
8


O



OS

8
8
0


1—t
r*


CJ

8
o




00
so
8
0



o
en


o





OO
00
g


1 TOLUENE

I
o
„
^
8
o


en

o
8
8
0



o


SO
^
c**



I
•4-
oo


1 TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE(2,4

oo
s
o
N
§
8
o





V)
S?
o



8
en

00
en
^
oo



1
W
1
1 TRICHLORO(1,1,2)TRIFLUORO
SO
§
o
p
<*!
8
o




es
2
8
o

00

o


o
^H
00



120-82-1


1 TRICHLOROBENZENE(1,2,4)

i
o
p
§
8
o






sS
Tt

OS

•*


5?
^H
SO



NOCAS5


1 TRICHLOROBUTANE(1,2,3)

I
o
oo
00

8
o




es

8
0



«n
^H

9
en
en



t~


1 TRICHLOROETHANE(1,1,1)

1
o
00
<*>
8
o



tN



O



IN


,
en
en



|


1 TRICHLOROETHANE(1,1,2)

1
O
-

§
o





§""*

o



t^


o
^.t
en



79-01-6


1 TRICHLOROETHYLENE

o
o
t-
^
§
o





U
S
o



(T,
l~-

0
t-




75-69-4


TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHAN
*
    -------
  8
Sa?
•flSc?
Is-l1
0 £
>»— O ~
.« «J h • -2
> 3 3 jgrT;
J— E 5 N E
» > Jg s2-
So
u
o
5 8 "g
J w -i

b^^
SIS
jg c «
•*• o ^^
U
S o '3
la?
aU
OJ
1i
^ ^
1^
1
E
3
CO
U

u
i
z
Chemicai

g a
d d
R R
§ S
0 §
d d


S
C*^
d d



en vd

3 o
^ s



T ^
OO O
^b r**
c* «n

^1
&
TRICHLOROPROPAN
UREA

i § 8
odd
8 S S
g § §
§ § i
odd


N
^5
o vo m
O 00 ~*
o o o
d d d




~* ts "^
§ 8 S
*o r-i r»
00 
    -------
                                 O   -H
                                                                                 00

                                                                                 tn
                                                          oo

                                                          en
                                                                                                O   es
                                                                                                oo   en

                                                                                                *-!   <*
                                                                    oo


                                                                    5   %


                                                                    8



                                                                    I   £
                                           3
                                           en
                   •*   cS   oo   o\

                   S   5   en   S
                                                                        §!
                                       *O   n
                            «-t   *^    ^*   C\
                            O   en    t~-   v>
                                 51
          |   2   2
          ^   es   en
               o\   oo   es

               S!   3   S
     >n   en
     1-1   en
     ^o   e^   v0


0   g   =   §
     --   -H   (S
   S
   u

   i
   CO
               es
r-   o\        en   es   oo
-H   —   o\    o\   >n   en
-H   -H   en    ts   vo   q
                                                          
    -------

&
? J | »J
*o t *rn ^
c o5 o *->

o ^^ CJ
o
1
08 ^2 ^^
Co o ,29
X
1 1 f i
.5 *-• tR o
es 
a -
•s £ § J
•S e S ,2 0
•2 .g 5 "jj
t °
IH
| > 1 1
| J | S «
*rs
i -

-•288
to •> g -g
.S c * «g <
JJ£|'

Chemical Name
to
m
Ov
o\




m
£

to
Ov
§
g
O


o


o





o

BENZYL CHLORIDE
Ov
oo
f— 1
o
00
to




1
8

£
oo
Ov
§
g
o


o


o





0

\ BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER

§
o
00
to



oo
to
00

00
§
i
o


o


o





o
M
1 BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETH

S
VO
ts

Ov
OV

CN
ts

1
X
g
o


o


o





o
H
| BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALA
to
8
Ov

T-^



S
0

OO
Ov
§
g
O


O


o





o

| BROMOFORM
m
oo
ts
•-<




i
O

oo
g
1
O


O


O





O

| BROMOMETHANE
r^
to
•
«

3
en
*— i
2

o.
00
to
VO
§
§
0


o


o





o

| BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE


^^





•n
t^
00
in

CO
»
2
§
0

Ov
m
S


o\
VO



^
Ov
VO

| CARBON DISULFIDE
S
g
00
^

If)




1-H

s
2
§
o


o

5
cs
tN
*-^


Tl-
tO
Ov
VO

| CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
_
S
00
•n
CM
^H


OV
CM
in

Ov
00
2
g
0


o


o





0

| CHLORO(-P)CRESOL(-M)
>n
0
CO





00
CO
00
Ov

Ov
00
§
§
0


o


o





0

| CHLOROACETALDEHYDE
„
IN
VO

to



s


to
CO
o
§
§
0

8
tN

m
o
CO
*— 1


00
r-
Ov
VO

| CHLOROBENZENE
00
§
^
OV




in
P
CO

00
2
1
0

s
2


Ov
Ov


Ov
^
VO

| CHLOROFORM
Ov
CO
&
in
CM
00

CO


g
tN

00
00
Ov
2
§
0


o


0





o

1 CHLORONAPHTHALENE-(2)


^^





ts
to
VO

1
2
§
o •

f-
r~

,
CO



*— 1
VO

VO

| CHLOROPRENE
CO
$
CO
to





CO
!8
to
-1

P
2
§
0

g
s

VO
CO
VO
m
oo


??
m


CRESOL(-M)
VO
^«-
*n





to
-1

tN
?
g
0

VO
S

>n

    -------
   I
   /-"\
   CM
III?
2. i3 a ">
pa*
..
•3 H f j=
X 3 o ,w
.
-Ill
C •% -S «

So 0Q
55 *o *£
«ss
.:>lsl
mr
CT1
W
_ S" ts
•S> H i
C 3 y
Q 5 oa J£« CQ

5 ti £ o
^C 2 ^* r \
S
i «

.s c s 
*— t


CO
vd



«
u
UMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZ
U
i
00
CO

CO
n
CS

^
O
o
S



CO
m
*-H
O
cs



_
oo
vd





rCLOHEXANE
U
1
CO
VO
g
00

I
cs
g
o
o
CO
s


r-
00
cs
1— f
0V



in
a
vd





rCLOHEXANOL
U
§
vo
_
S
•*— 1

s
s
g
o
o
VO
S


CS
*— I
f*.
CO

cs


s
«





i'CLOHEXANONE
O

•*

S
o

S
g
i
o
o

o




o






o





[-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
Q
co
OS
oo
Tl-
00
»— 4

^
O

s
§
g
o
0
*o
«n
*-H



f^l
•M»

f*.
»— t


Ov
vd





BUTYLPHTHALATE
Q
cs
S
P
£
Os

00
g
g
o
o

o




o






o





CHLORO(-2)BUTENE(1 ,4)
Q
cs
CO
00
00
CO
cs
s
to
^-

I
1
g
o
o

o




o





VO
^




jr-
CHLOROBENZENE(1,2) (-(
Q
CO
oo
oo
Os
CO
cs
S
r£
cs

E
g
§
o
o

0




o






0




c-
CHLOROBENZENE(1,3) (-1
Q
S5
oo
Tj-
s
r£
cs

E
v-t
g
o
0

'o




0





Ov
s




f~.
CHLOROBENZENE(1,4) (-1
Q
oo
Os
§
-
CO
S
cs

O\
oo
00
Os

g
o
0

o




0






o



u
<
CHLORODIFLUOROMETH
Q
1
VO
S
!S
^

s
00
Os

g
O
o

o




0






o





CHLOROETHANE(l.l)
Q
n
S





CHLOROETHANE(1 ,2)
Q


^
CO
so

Os
00
00
Os
cs
g
o
o
Os




Os
^H

1— 1
V-H


in
VO
Os
vo°





CHLOROETHYLENE(1 ,2)
Q
CO
CO
5
CO
§
00
K
f-»

i
s
g
c^
o

o




o






o





CHLOROPHENOL(2,4)
Q

    -------
   c
   o
   u

5

^ S
II


^ .S
« ^
35 ^
.
e
_g
11
l-f

«
B
« c S
"2 .2 8
^5 £
•§ §• *•
W|
a
."> c? o

e ^ 3
•2 .1 8
5 S £
Jr
a
-«> I
-S n g
2 .2 8
U








,2i o
1*
u

|ms
o °^
o-
ll
11
«> «
a M
P^ Q£

•g
.Si
* r )
*«
°


U
O
£ m
O


.'§
Sp <;





u
c
Chemical Nar




^H


§
CM

1
|
o
o




oo
?J




^H
g
en


oo
vo





CHLOROPROPANE(1 ,2)
Q
vo

m
9


|
[••*.
tN
a
|
o
o




WJ
00



fv.
>n
S



i
r-





ETHYL (N,N) ANILIN
Q
r~
en
in
rj
^*


00
1— *

g
i
o
o





o





o




o





ETHYL PHTHALATE
Q



*~*



v>
»— 1
g
|
o
0



en
•^
Ov



r^1
oo
8
•«t


Ov
VO





METHYL FORMAMIDE
Q



^H


cn
\fl

s
1
o
o



m
V*
JQ



r-t
Ov

2


1
•-




-.
METHYL HYDRAZINE(
Q
S
en

?


1
O

i-H
|
O
0



fV,
-^1-
io



^_|
en
8
t-


S
"*





METHYL PHTHALATE
Q
ss

en
1
vo
00
en
en
O

9>
00
en
|
O
o





o





o




o

a

r>
2
METHYLBENZ(A)ANTO
Q
00

O
VO
PI


1
d

1
1
o
0





o





o




o





METHYLPHENOL(2,4)
Q
00
00
00
cs
en


ON
OV
M
$
|
O
O





en
'



f^
ft
ts


en
*





NITROBENZENE (-M)
Q
« X

en vo
2 - ~


en -* r»
?3 8 5
«ri f- en
Ov ^ vo

§ i 1
III
o o o
o o o



,j.
oo en
VO § P



00
vo m
oo TI> m
n 12 S


oo —i
o\ c*i oo
r» t eo
v> p» es





NITROTOLUENE(2,4)
(OXANE(1,4)
[OXIN
Q Q Q
S S i i

V"l O Tf *•"'
I - ° °


en CM oo —
o -H r- n
5- "* i^ 8
oo vo ov en

ills
1 i 1 1
o o o o
o o o o



vo 
    -------

i
1 -
;2 c S vj
!£ O iA o
_L "5 <> V^
1 ti S ^
|£ 83

o
slK
X 5 o ^
co
I«I
I •§ 1 1
'3 e« U -2
rt O .. CQ
ST3 «J ~,
o a °*
jq OS ^ao
-fro*
liil-
cy
W
i, «
." a u e
fli *^ ft ^
c "^ =» '3
Ill's"
TO
t "
a -
£> a 1
a "^ 3 -o
l|||<



0
i
03
Chemical


_



S
t*i

en
oo
00.
g
s

^7
o


00
oo
t~
T-l




tfl
ov

£H


«— 1
0







ETHYLACETATE
55
en
CJ
^


v-H
00
en

1
3
S

C7
o


es




\f)
C4
S



vn
(•*•
VO






1 ETHYLBENZENE
- S
i ^
es en
•*


S S
« a
^i" t^-

r* 5
!8 I
T-^ ^7
s §
8 8

^7 ^7
o o


*°t °°.
p» oo
en (S
cs c<




•«t p>
"i °.
"* 3>
O O


00
fsj C^l
P- VO






ETHYLENEOXIDE
ETHYLETHER
vo VO P^ P*
en -* oo TJ- vo
O '"^ en oo en ov
P* O ^H *-< P* en o
oo p« en  e>l

?i
P- M vo CJ ~*
P- — < en O 10
o\ •* o\ 5 *4
en en •— < o en vo
O — vo ^f oo «o o
~*
00 ^K ^^ 9* OS W) OO
S o p o o o o
8888888

O ^7 ^7 ^7 ^7 ^7 ^7
o o o o o o o


•— r-- pt oo 5
•* p o p- r4 es o
^ vo CS VO *-<
cs M r< — 


0






o





o





tu
1 HEXACHLOROETHANi
•n

•^
5?


n
r»
j,
g
8

^7
o


0






o





o






| ISOPHORONE
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
                                                                                           4.3-37

    -------
C*l   fl    00
*O   OO    CO


Os   --    r»

-H   OO    «-H
                                                         8
                                                             P.   2
     o   r-   r-   o
         O   *-H
         Os
                                                                                S
                                                                                     00

                                                                                     s
                                                                                     Os
                                                                  a
                                           00
                                           CM
                                                                                                             SO
                                                                                                                 o   «
                                      00

                                      rt
                                                         00

                                                         §
                                                                  ao
                                                                  Os
                                                -«   os   f»
                                          CM   **   CM
                                 SO

                                 CM
                                 iO   . .   _

                                 CM   CM   CM    CM
              -<   -
                                 «   J   X
                                 o   a   H
                                 <   u   w
                                               M
                                               z
KE
SOBU
E
E
E
E
                                           UJ   6
                                 5^   5J   ^   5^   ^   rf    rf
                                 «   g   ^   ^
                                 S   EC    S

                                 ai   u    u

                                 S   S    S
METH
                                      O   E


                        p   *   s   a   i   |
                        S   S   w   o   5   fc  „
                        2   S   S   S   z   z  z
                            §   a
                            S   ^
                            Z   K
                            S   S
                            S   S
                            s   s
                            x   ac

                            2   2
                                 N

                                 U
                                 a




                                 g   I  I
                                                                          j
                                                                          o

                                                                          g
                                                                          X
                                                                          a,

                                                                          §

                                                                          S
                                                                          s
                                                                          o


                                                                          z   a   o
                                                                          g   K   DC
                                                                          a,   &.   &.
     U

J   §
o   o
Z   OT
              a
              Q
              06


         Bg

         ^   i   -

         o   o   g

         ^   ^   5

         £   £
                                                         EC    U
                                                         K    »—i
4.3-38
                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                          (Refonnatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------

   4)
|||g
C 53 "0 *J
S ft. o <

g

q$ C *
s £"5
co § "3)
« O
eg
X
III
3 -2 °° *
1 56 1
5 "2 w

8
•0> s 1
s 3 s
1 1 i i °
t °
§, -
.« « u C
o > " .2
S ^ 2 3
Ills

„ 1 s
* ^fc M ^
J e « *J 
^^
p>
?!



^
o

o
0

p»
vr>
1




CTV
1


00
8
oo




1 PROPYLENE GLYCOL

•"*


^_4
5^
OS
P>



00
o
^
o
0

VO

s


**4*
00
00
%


\D
fi
OO




1 PROPYLENE OXIDE
I
*


Os
PI
Os
VO
^H


P
o
8
o
0

oo
OS
s




oo
P
en


*"H
§
r-




1 PYRIDINE
I
PI
VO






o
o


OS
g




»H
§


^^
S
VO




1 TETRACHLOROETHANE(1,1,
£j
00
os


\Q
f*.
*-*
0\



z
o
8
o
o

p>
In
c5



(Vj
^
£
p>



00
•vo




I TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
*— t
u,
>n
R


C^
^5
W
o



I
o
^
o
o

"1
c4
§



^^
C^
1


If}
o\
VO




1 TETRAHYDROFURAN
i
i


f^
^D
VO
O



2
cs


0

oo
•<*
Os
?5




00
I


**^
OS
VO




1 TOLUENE

v-H




m
IQ



a
o
^
o
o



0





o




o



^
1 TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE(2,
00
S3
ts
p>
00
*

Vfl
^^
CO
PI



00
Os
O
^
o
o


in
S




Os
1



OO
00
VO

U
5
1
o
1 TRICHLORO(1,1,2)TRIFLUOR(
£
§
5
>n
Os

V)
OS
3

vo



1
O
^
o
o



0





o




o




1 TRICHLOROBUTANE(1,2,3)
1
0


I**
ON
R!
••*•



1
o
^
o
o


00
i




VO
VO
en


en
3
00




1 TRICHLOROETHANE(1,1,1)

^


f«»
o\
^
•*



1
o
^
S
o


C"J
i



^H
^
^t


^^
S
VO




| TRICHLOROETHANE(1,1,2)
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-39

    -------
  o
  CN
  t
  rn
s
•S e «* o
> .2 -2 o
J. 3 2 "">
2 t; S3 °*
C d a) «-»
i^a*
C *j
O C ^-N

"3 2 S jj
«:n
i .i § i w
5 'S (£ o
1*
a -
•s > § .§
.5 c « « <

cS*

1
CO
"a
o
1
6

00
OV
TJ-
OV

oo

9

1

§
i
0


(•^
ts



vq
oo'
o


00
VI
vO


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

l-H
•*
00
00
CO
to

cs

CO



§
§
o


oo




8
o


Tf
oo
00
VO

1
| TRICHLOROFLUOROMETH

00
IS
r-
oo

CM

00
00
«

§
§
o



o



o





o


1 TRICHLOROPHENOL(2,4,6)

CM
P
m

o\

f;
o
OV
00
00
OV

^
i
o



o



o





o


1 TRICHLOROPROPANE(1,1,1

oo
r-
to
OV

OV

£
0
fH
OV
oo
oo

§
i
o

ft\
CM*
CO
Tl-
ts

00
00
I—


to
OV
VO


| TRICHLOROPROPANE(1,2,3
00
CM
CO
i

g\

00

„

g
i
o



0



o





o


u
1*
D
ts

oo

to
VO

s
I
VO
CM

§
0

VA
v!5
vO



CO
VO*
ts



CM
f-


| VINYL ACETATE

vH
00


CM
i^
CO
VO

CO
§
|
o



0



o



a

to


| VINYL CHLORIDE




CM

to
VO
00
VO
s

§
i
o


CM




OS
OV
O


PJ
OV
VO


| VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
OV
t-H
to
00

^

3
-1
OS
oo
00

§
o

^^
^^
w->
^-*
o

!
2




^


1 XYLENE(-M)

1
i

OS
SO
VI
oo
^
§
CO

§~

o

-_
s
CO

cs

§
2


oo
OV
Ov
VO


| XYLENE(-O)
4.3-40
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
References For Section 4.3

1.     Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, And Disposal Facilities (TSDF) — Air Emission
       Models, EPA-450/3-87-026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, April 1989.

2.     Waste Water Treatment Compound Property Processor Air Emissions Estimator (WATER 7),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, available early 1992.

3.     Evaluation Of Test Method For Measuring Biodegradation Rates Of Volatile Organics, Draft,
       EPA Contract No. 68-D90055, Entropy Environmental, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1989.

4.     Industrial Waste Water Volatile Organic Compound Emissions — Background Information For
       BACT/LAER Determinations, EPA-450/3-90-004, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1990.

5.     Evan K. Nyer, Ground Water Treatment Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
       New York, 1985.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.3-41

    -------

    -------
4.4  Polyester Resin Plastic Products Fabrication

4.4.1  General Description1"2

        A growing number of products are fabricated from liquid polyester resin reinforced with glass
fibers and extended with various inorganic filler materials such as calcium carbonate, talc, mica, or
small glass spheres.   These composite materials are often referred to as fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP), or simply "fiberglass". The Society Of The Plastics industry designates these materials as
"reinforced plastics/composites"  (RP/C).  Also, advanced reinforced plastics products are now
formulated with fibers other than glass, such as carbon, aramid, and aramid/carbon hybrids.  In some
processes, resin products are fabricated without fibers.  One major product using resins with fillers
but no reinforcing fibers is the synthetic marble used in manufacturing bathroom countertops, sinks,
and related items. Other applications of nonreinforced resin plastics include automobile body filler,
bowling balls, and coatings.

        Fiber-reinforced plastics  products have a wide range of application in industry, transportation,
home, and recreation. Industrial uses include storage tanks, skylights, electrical equipment, ducting,
pipes, machine components, and corrosion resistant structural and process equipment.   In
transportation, automobile and aircraft applications are increasing rapidly. Home and recreational
items include bathroom tubs and showers, boats (building and repair), surfboards and skis, helmets,
swimming pools and hot tubs, and a variety of sporting goods.

        The thermosetting polyester resins considered here are complex polymers resulting from the
cross-linking reaction of a liquid unsaturated polyester with a vinyl type monomer, list often styrene.
The unsaturated polyester is formed from the condensation reaction of an unsaturated dibasic acid or
anhydride, a saturated dibasic acid or anhydride, and a polyfunctional alcohol.  Table 4.4-1 lists the
most common compounds used for each component of the polyester "backbone", as well as the
principal cross-linking monomers.  The chemical reactions that form both the unsaturated polyester
and the cross-linked polyester resin are shown in Figure 4.4-1.  The emission factors presented here
apply to fabrication processes that use the finished liquid  resins (as received by fabricators from
chemical manufacturers), and not to the chemical processes used to produce these resins.
(See Chapter 6,  Organic Chemical Process Industry.)

        In order to be used in the fabrication of products, the liquid resin must be mixed with a
catalyst to initiate polymerization into a solid thermoset.  Catalyst concentrations generally range from
1 to 2 percent by original weight of resin; within certain limits, the higher the catalyst  concentration,
the faster the  cross-linking reaction proceeds. Common catalysts are organic peroxides, typically
methyl ethyl ketone peroxide or benzoyl peroxide.  Resins may contain inhibitors, to avoid self-curing
during resin storage,  and promoters, to allow polymerization to occur at lower temperatures.

        The polyester resin/fiberglass industry consists of many small facilities (such as boat repair
and small contract firms) and  relatively few large firms that consume the major fraction of the total
resin.  Resin usage at these operations ranges from less than 5,000 kilograms per year
(11,000 pounds) to over 3 million kilograms (6.6 million pounds) per year.

        Reinforced plastics products are fabricated using any of several processes, depending on their
size, shape,  and other desired physical characteristics. The principal processes include hand layup,
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.4-1

    -------
                      Table 4.4-1.  TYPICAL COMPONENTS OF RESINS
To Form The Unsaturated Polyester
Unsaturated Acids
Maleic anhydride
Fumaric acid
Saturated Acids
Phthalic anhydride
Isophthalic acid
Adipic acid
Polyfunctional Alcohols
Propylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol
Dipropylene glycol
Neopentyl glycol
Pentaerythritol
Cross-Linking Agents (Monomers)
Styrene
Methyl methacrylate
Vinyl toluene
Vinyl acetate
Diallyl phthalate
Acrylamide
2-Ethyl hexylacrylate
  REACTION 1

    0        0
     %      ^
      ?-°-?                 '     °*      **
   n-HC = CH + 2n-HOH2C-CH2OH + n-C-O-C     —*
 Maleic
anhydride
    Ethylene
     glycol
                                     Phthalic
                                    anhydride
               0    0
               R    I
C-0-CH2-CH2-0-C    C-0-CH2-CH2-0-

              HC = CH

      Unsaturated polyester
REACTION 2


CH2 = CH  -

 Styrene
Unsaturated
 polyester
                            0
                            ii
                       _». (-CH2-CH2-0-C-CH-CH-C- 0-CH2-CH2-0-C-

                                        H-C-H
                       0
                       II
            -C-0-CH2-CH2
                                       -CH9-0-C-CH-CH-C-0-CH7-CH7-)n
                                               0   H-C-H
                                                  H-C-
                                                    i
                                                      CH2—CH2-


                                                        Cross-linked
                                                       polyester resin
        Figure 4.4-1. Typical reactions for unsaturated polyester and polyester resin formation.
  4.4-2
                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                     (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
spray layup (sprayup), continuous lamination, pultrusion, filament winding, and various closed
molding operations.

        Hand layup, using primarily manual techniques combined with open molds, is the simplest of
the fabrication processes.  Here, the reinforcement is manually fitted to a mold wetted with catalyzed
resin mix, after which it is saturated with more resin.  The reinforcement is in the form of either a
chopped strand mat, a woven fabric, or often both.  Layers of reinforcement and resin are added to
build the desired laminate thickness.  Squeegees, brushes, and rollers are used to smooth and compact
each layer as it is applied. A release agent is usually first applied to the mold to facilitate removal of
the composite. This is often a wax, which can be treated with a water soluble barrier coat such as
polyvinyl alcohol to promote paint adhesion on parts that are to be painted. In many operations, the
mold is first sprayed with gel coat, a clear or pigmented  resin mix that forms the smooth outer
surface of many products.  Gel coat spray systems consist of separate sources of resin and catalyst,
with an airless hand spray gun that mixes them together into an atomized resin/catalyst stream.
Typical products are boat hulls and decks, swimming pools, bathtubs and showers, electrical consoles,
and automobile components.

        Spray layup, or "sprayup", is another open mold process, differing from hand layup in that it
uses mechanical spraying and chopping equipment for depositing the resin and glass reinforcement.
This process allows a greater production rate and more uniform parts than does hand layup, and often
uses more complex molds. As in hand layup, gel coat is frequently applied to the mold before
fabrication to produce the desired surface qualities.  It is  common practice to combine hand layup and
sprayup operations.

        For the reinforced layers,  a device is attached to the sprayer system to chop glass fiber
"roving" (uncut fiber) into predetermined lengths and project it to merge with the resin mix stream.
The stream precoats the chop, and both are deposited simultaneously to the desired layer thickness on
the mold surface (or on the gel coat that was applied to the mold). Layers are built up and rolled out
on the mold as necessary to form the part.  Products manufactured by sprayup are similar to those
made by hand layup,  except that more uniform and complex parts can generally be produced more
efficiently with sprayup techniques.  However, compared to hand layup, more resin generally is used
to produce similar parts by spray layup because of the inevitable overspray of resin during
application.

        Continuous lamination of reinforced plastics  materials involves impregnating various
reinforcements with resins on an in-line conveyor. The resulting laminate is cured and trimmed as it
passes  through the various conveyor zones.  In this process, the resin mix is metered onto a bottom
carrier film, using a blade to control thickness. This film, which defines the panel's surface,  is
generally polyester, cellophane, or nylon and may have a smooth, embossed, or matte surface.
Methyl methacrylate is sometimes used as the cross-linking agent, either alone or in combination with
styrene,  to increase strength and weather resistance.  Chopped glass fibers free-fall into the resin mix
and are allowed to saturate with resin, or "wet  out".  A second carrier film is applied on top of the
panel before subsequent forming and curing. The cured panel is then stripped of its films, trimmed,
and cut to the desired length.  Principal products include  translucent industrial skylights and
greenhouse panels, wall and ceiling liners for food areas, garage doors, and cooling tower louvers.
Figure 4.4-2 shows the basic elements of a continuous laminating production line.

        Pultrusion, which can be thought of as  extrusion by pulling, is used to produce  continuous
cross-sectional lineals similar to those made by extruding metals such as aluminum. Reinforcing
fibers are pulled through a liquid resin mix bath and  into a long machined steel die, where heat
initiates an exothermic reaction to polymerize the thermosetting resin matrix.  The composite profile

9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                                4.4-3

    -------
          Resin metering device—
          Resin mix
                                                                        Cross cut saw or shear
                                                                  inspection area

                                                                       Slacking device
                 Figure 4.4-2. Typical continuous lamination production process.2

emerges from the die as a hot, constant cross-sectional that cools sufficiently to be fed into a clamping
and pulling mechanism.  The product can then be cut to desired lengths.  Example products include
electrical insulation materials, ladders, walkway gratings, structural supports, and rods and antennas.

        Filament winding is the process of laying a band of resin impregnated fibers onto a rotating
mandrel surface in a precise geometric pattern, and curing them to form the product. This is an
efficient method of producing cylindrical parts with optimum strength characteristics suited to the
specific design and application.  Glass fiber is most often used for the filament, but aramid, graphite,
and sometimes boron and various metal wires may be used. The filament can be wetted during
fabrication, or previously impregnated filament ("prepreg") can be used.  Figure 4.4-3 shows the
filament winding process, and indicates the 3 most common winding patterns. The process
illustration depicts circumferential winding, while the 2 smaller pictures show helical and polar
winding.  The various winding patterns can be used alone or in combination to achieve the desired
strength and shape characteristics. Mandrels are made of a wide variety of materials and, in some
applications, remain inside the finished product as a liner or core.  Example products are storage
tanks, fuselages, wind turbine and helicopter blades,  and tubing and pipe.
                                                                         Helical Winding
                                                                        Polar Winding
                         Figure 4.4-3.  Typical filament winding process.;
       Closed, such as compression or injection, molding operations involve the use of 2 matched
dies to define the entire outer surface of the part.  When closed and filled with a resin mix, the
matched die mold is subjected to heat and pressure to cure the plastic.  For the most durable
production configuration, hardened metal dies are used (matched metal molding).  Another closed
4.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
molding process is vacuum or pressure bag molding. In bag molding, a hand layup or sprayup is
covered with a plastic film, and vacuum or pressure is applied to rigidly define the part and improve
surface quality. The range of closed molded parts includes tool and appliance housings, cookware,
brackets and other small parts, and automobile body and electrical components.

        Synthetic marble casting, a large segment of the resin products industry, involves production
of bathroom sinks, vanity tops, bathtubs, and accessories using filled resins that have the look of
natural marble.  No reinforcing fibers are used in these products.  Pigmented or clear gel coat can
either be applied to the mold itself or sprayed onto the product after casting to simulate the look of
natural polished marble. Marble casting can be an open mold process, or it may be considered a
semiclosed process if cast parts are removed from a closed mold for subsequent gel coat spraying.

4.4.2  Emissions And Controls

        Organic vapors consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted from fresh resin
surfaces during the fabrication process, and from the use of solvents (usually  acetone) for cleanup of
hands, tools, molds, and spraying equipment. Cleaning solvent emissions can account for over
36 percent of the total plant VOC emissions.4 There also may be some release  of particulate
emissions from automatic fiber chopping equipment, but these emissions have not been quantified.

        Organic vapor emissions from polyester resin/fiberglass fabrication processes occur when the
cross-linking agent (anomer) contained in the liquid resin evaporates into the air during resin
application and curing. Styrene, methyl methacrylate,  and vinyl toluene are 3 of the principal
monomers used as cross-linking agents.  Styrene is by far the most common.  Other chemical
components of resins are emitted only at trace levels because they not only have low vapor pressures,
but also are substantially converted to polymers.5"6

        Since emissions result from evaporation of monomer  from the uncured resin, they depend
upon the amount of resin surface exposed to the air and the time of exposure. Thus,  the potential for
emissions varies with the manner in which the resin is mixed, applied, handled, and cured. These
factors vary among the different fabrication processes.   For example, the spray layup process has the
highest potential for VOC emissions because the atomization  of resin into a spray creates an
extremely large surface area from which volatile monomer can evaporate.  By contrast, the emission
potential in synthetic marble casting and closed molding operations is  considerably lower because of
the lower anomer content in the casting resins (30 to 38 percent, versus about 43 percent) and the
enclosed nature of these molding operations. It has been found that styrene evaporation increases
with increasing gel time, wind speed, and ambient temperature, and that increasing the hand rolling
time on a hand layup or sprayup results in significantly higher styrene losses.1  Thus, production
changes that lessen the exposure of fresh resin surfaces to the air should be effective in reducing these
evaporation losses.

        In addition to production changes, resin formulation can be varied to affect the VOC emission
potential. In general, a resin with lower monomer content should produce lower emissions.
Evaluation tests with low-styrene emission laminating resins having a 36-percent styrene content
found a 60- to 70-percent decrease in emission levels, compared to conventional resins (43 percent
styrene), with no sacrifice in the physical properties of the laminate.7  Vapor  suppressing agents also
are sometimes added to resins to reduce VOC emissions.  Most vapor suppressants are paraffin
waxes, stearates, or polymers of proprietary composition,  constituting up to several weight percent of
the mix. Limited laboratory and field data indicate that vapor suppressing resins reduce styrene losses
by 30 to 70 percent.7'8
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.4-5

    -------
       Emission factors for several fabrication processes using styrene content resins have been
developed from the results of facility source tests (B Rating) and laboratory tests (C Rating), and
through technology transfer estimations (D Rating).1 Industry experts also provided additional
information that was used to arrive at the final factors presented in Table 4.4-2.6  Since the styrene
content varies over a range of approximately 30 to 50 weight percent, these factors are based on the
quantity of styrene monomer used in the process, rather than on the total amount of resin used. The
factors for vapor-suppressed resins are typically 30 to 70 percent of those for regular resins.  The
factors are expressed as ranges because of the observed variability in source and laboratory test
results and of the apparent sensitivity of emissions to process parameters.

       Emissions should be calculated using actual resin monomer contents.  When  specific
information about the percentage of styrene is unavailable, the representative average values in
Table 4.4-3 should be used.  The sample calculation illustrates the application of the emission factors.

Sample Calculation -
       A fiberglass boat building facility consumes an average of 250 kg per day of styrene-
containing resins using a combination of hand layup (75%) and spray layup (25%) techniques.  The
laminating resins for hand and spray layup contain 41.0 and 42.5 weight percent, respectively, of
styrene.  The resin used for hand layup contains a vapor-suppressing agent.

       From Table 4.4-2 the weight percent of monomer emitted for hand layup using a vapor-
suppressed resin is 2 - 7 (0.02 to 0.07 fraction of total styrene emitted); the factor for spray layup is
9-13 (0.09 to 0.13 fraction emitted). Assume the midpoints of these emission factor ranges (0.045
and 0.11, respectively).

       Total VOC emissions are:

             (250 kg/day) [(0.75)(0.410)(0.045) + (0.25)(0.425)(0.11)] = 6.4 kg/day.

       Emissions from use of gel coat would be calculated in the same manner. If the monomer
content of the resins  were unknown, a representative value of 43 percent could be selected from
Table 4.4-3 for this process combination.  It should be noted that these emissions represent
evaporation of styrene monomer only, and not of acetone or other solvents used for cleanup.

       In addition to process changes and materials substitution, add-on control equipment can be
used to reduce vapor emissions from styrene resins.  However, control equipment is infrequently used
at RP/C fabrication facilities, due to low exhaust VOC concentrations and the potential for
contamination of adsorbent materials. Most plants use forced ventilation techniques to reduce worker
exposure to styrene vapors, but vent the vapors directly to the atmosphere with no attempt at
collection. At 1 continuous  lamination facility where incineration was applied to vapors vented from
the impregnation table, a 98.6 percent control efficiency was measured.1 Carbon adsorption,
absorption, and condensation have also been considered for recovering styrene and other organic
vapors, but these techniques have not been applied to any significant extent in this industry.

       Emissions from cleanup solvents can be controlled through good housekeeping and use
practices, reclamation of spent solvent, and substitution with water-based solvent substitutes.
4.4-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
        Table 4.4-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED POLYESTER RESIN
                          PRODUCT FABRICATION PROCESSES8

                            (weight % of starting monomer emitted)
Process
Hand layup
Spray layup
Continuous lamination
Pultrusiond
Filament winding6
Marble casting
Closed molding8
Resin
NVS
5- 10
9-13
4-7
4-7
5-10
1 -3
1 -3
vsb
2-7
3-9
1-5
1-5
2-7
1-2
1 -2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
B
B
D
D
B
D
Gel Coat
NVS VSb
26-35 8-25
26-35 8-25
	 c 	 c
	 c 	 c
_c 	 c
_f _f
_c __c
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
B
—
—
—
—
—
a Reference 9. Ranges represent the variability of processes and sensitivity of emissions to process
  parameters. Single value factors should be selected with caution.  NVS = nonvapor-suppressed
  resin. VS  = vapor-suppressed resin.
b Factors are 30-70% of those for nonvapor-suppressed resins.
c Gel coat is not normally used in this process.
d Resin factors for the continuous lamination process are assumed to apply.
e Resin factors for the hand layup process are assumed to apply.
f Factors unavailable.  However, when cast parts are subsequently sprayed with gel coat, hand and
  spray layup gel coat factors are assumed to apply.
g Resin factors for marble casting, a semiclosed process, are assumed to apply.
                  Table 4.4-3. TYPICAL RESIN STYRENE PERCENTAGES
Resin Application
Hand layup
Spray layup
Continuous lamination
Filament winding
Marble casting
Closed molding
Gel coat
Resin Styrene Content8
(wt. %)
43
43
40
40
32
35
35
a May vary by at least +5 percentage points.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-7

    -------
References For Section 4.4

1.     M. B. Rogozen, Control Techniques For Organic Gas Emissions From Fiberglass
       Impregnation And Fabrication Processes, ARB/R-82/165, California Air Resources Board,
       Sacramento, CA, (NTIS PB82-251109), June 1982.

2.     Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 1986-1987, 
    -------
4.5  Asphalt Paving Operations

4.5.1  General1'3

        Asphalt surfaces and pavements are composed of compacted aggregate and an asphalt binder.
Aggregate materials are produced from rock quarries as manufactured stone or are obtained from
natural gravel or soil deposits. Metal ore refining processes produce artificial aggregates as  a
byproduct.  In asphalt,  the aggregate performs 3 functions:  it transmits the load from the surface to
the base course, takes the abrasive wear of traffic, and provides a nonskid surface.  The asphalt
binder holds the aggregate together, preventing displacement and loss of aggregate and providing a
waterproof cover for the base.

        Asphalt binders take the form of asphalt cement (the residue of the distillation of crude oils),
and liquified asphalts.  To be used for pavement, asphalt cement, which is semisolid, must be heated
prior to mixing with aggregate. The resulting hot mix asphalt concrete is generally applied in
thicknesses of from  5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches).  Liquified asphalts  are: (1) asphalt cutbacks
(asphalt cement thinned or "cutback" with volatile petroleum distillates such as naptha, kerosene, etc.)
and (2) asphalt emulsions (nonflammable liquids produced by combining asphalt and water with an
emulsifying agent, such as soap).  Liquified asphalts are used in tack and seal operations, in  priming
roadbeds for hot mix application, and for paving operations up to several inches thick.

        Cutback asphalts fall into 3 broad categories: rapid cure (RC), medium cure (MC), and slow
cure (SC) road oils.   SC, MC, and RC cutbacks are prepared by blending asphalt cement with heavy
residual oils, kerosene-type solvents, or naptha and gasoline solvents, respectively.  Depending on the
viscosity desired, the proportions of solvent added generally range from 25 to 45  percent by  volume.

        Emulsified asphalts are of 2 basic types:  1 type relies on water  evaporation to  cure,  the other
type (cationic  emulsions) relies on ionic bonding of the emulsion and the aggregate surface.
Emulsified asphalt can substitute for cutback in almost any application.  Emulsified  asphalts  are
gaining in popularity because of the energy and environmental problems associated with the use of
cutback asphalts.

4.5.2  Emissions1'2

        The primary pollutants of concern from asphalts and asphalt paving operations  are volatile
organic compounds  (VOC).  Of the 3 types of asphalts, the  major source of VOC is cutback. Only
minor  amounts of VOCs are emitted from emulsified asphalts and asphalt cement.

        VOC emissions from cutback asphalts result from the evaporation of the petroleum distillate
solvent, or diluent, used to liquify the asphalt cement. Emissions occur at both the job site and the
mixing plant.  At the job site, VOCs are emitted from the equipment used to apply the asphaltic
product and from the road surface.  At the mixing plant, VOCs are released during mixing and
stockpiling. The largest source of emissions, however, is the road surface itself.

       For any given amount of cutback asphalt, total emissions are believed to be the same,
regardless of stockpiling, mixing, and application times. The 2 major variables affecting both the
quantity of VOCs emitted and the time over which emissions occur are the  type and the quantity of
petroleum distillate used as a diluent. As an approximation, long-term emissions  from cutback


7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.5-1

    -------
asphalts can be estimated by assuming that 95 percent of the diluent evaporates from rapid cure (RC)
cutback asphalts, 70 percent from MC cutbacks, and about 25 percent from SC asphalts, by weight
percent.  Some of the diluent appears to be retained permanently in the road surface after application.
Limited test data suggest that from RC asphalt, 75 percent of the total diluent loss occurs on the first
day after application, 90 percent occurs within the first month, and 95  percent in 3 to 4 months.
Evaporation takes place more slowly from MC asphalts, with roughly 20 percent of the diluent being
emitted during the first day, 50 percent during the first week,  and  70 percent after 3 to 4 months.  No
measured data are available for SC asphalts, although the  quantity  emitted is believed to be
considerably less than with either RC or MC asphalts, and the tune during which emissions  take place
is expected to be considerably longer (Figure 4.5-1).  An  example  calculation for determining VOC
emissions from cutback asphalts is given below:

Example:      Local  records indicate that 10,000 kg of RC cutback asphalt (containing 45 percent
               diluent, by volume) was applied in a given area during the year.  Calculate the mass
               of VOC emitted during the year from this application.

               To determine VOC emissions, the volume of diluent present hi the cutback asphalt
               must first be determined.  Because the density of naptha (0.7 kg/L) differs from that
               of asphalt cement (1.1 kg/L), the following equations should be solved to determine
               the volume of diluent (x) and the volume of asphalt cement (y)  in the  cutback asphalt:

  10,000 kg cutback asphalt  = (x liter, diluent)  •   ——I  + (y liter,  asphalt cement) •
                                                [  liter J

               and

                 x liter, diluent  = 0.45 (x liter, diluent  + y liter, asphalt cement)

               From these equations, the volume of diluent present in the cutback asphalt is
               determined to be about 4900 liters, or about 3400 kg.  Assuming that 95 percent of
               this is evaporative VOC, emissions are then: 3400  kg x 0.95  = 3200  kg (i.  e., 32%,
               by weight, of the cutback asphalt eventually evaporates).

These equations can be used for medium cure and slow cure asphalts by assuming typical diluent
densities of 0.8 and 0.9 kg/liter, respectively. Of course, if actual density values are  known from
local records, they should be used hi the above equations  rather than typical values.  Also, if different
diluent contents are used, they should also be reflected in the above calculations.  If actual diluent
contents are not known, a typical value of 35 percent may be assumed  for inventory purposes.

       In lieu of solving the equations in the above example,  Table 4.5-1 may be used to estimate
long-term emissions from cutback asphalts. Table 4.5-1 directly yields long-term emissions as a
function of the volume of diluent added to the cutback and of the density of the diluents and asphalt
cement used in the cutback asphalt. If short-term emissions are to be estimated, Figure 4.5-1  should
be used hi conjunction with Table 4.5-1.

       No control devices are employed to reduce evaporative emissions from cutback asphalts.
Asphalt emulsions are typically used hi place of cutback asphalts to eliminate VOC emissions.
4.5-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

    -------
                                       1 DAY     1WEEK    1 MONTH  S MONTHS
            Figure 4.5-1. Percent of diluent evaporated from cutback asphalt over time.
      Table 4.5-1.  EVAPORATIVE VOC EMISSIONS FROM CUTBACK ASPHALTS AS A
           FUNCTION OF DILUENT CONTENT AND CUTBACK ASPHALT TYPEa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Type Of Cutback11
Rapid cure
Medium cure
Slow cure
Percent, By Volume, Of Diluent In
25%
17
14
5
35%
24
20
8
Cutback0
45%
32
26
10
* These numbers represent the percent, by weight, of cutback asphalt evaporated. Factors are based
  on References 1-2.
b Typical densities assumed for diluents used in RC, MC, and SC cutbacks are 0.7, 0.8, and
  0.9 kgAiter, respectively.
0 Diluent contents typically range between 25 - 45%, by volume.  Emissions may be linearly
  interpolated for any given type of cutback between these values.
References For Section 4.5

1.     R. Keller and R. Bonn, Nonmethane Volatile Organic Emissions From Asphalt Cement And
       Liquified Asphalts, EPA-450/3-78-124, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, December 1978.

2.     F. Kirwan and C. Maday, Air Quality And Energy Conservation Benefits From Using
       Emulsions To Replace Asphalt Cutbacks In Certain Paving Operations, EPA-450/2-78-004,
       U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.5-3

    -------
3.     David W. Markwordt, Control Of Volatile Organic Compounds From Use Of Cutback
       Asphalt, EPA 450/2-77-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, December 1977.
                                   EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

    -------
4.6  Solvent Degreasing

4.6.1 General1'2

       Solvent degreasing (or solvent cleaning) is the physical process of using organic solvents to
remove grease, fats, oils, wax or soil from various metal, glass, or plastic items.  The types of
equipment used in this method are categorized as cold cleaners, open top vapor degreasers, or
conveyorized degreasers.  Nonaqueous solvents such as petroleum distillates, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, ketones, and alcohols are used.  Solvent selection is based on the solubility of the
substance to be removed and on the toxicity, flammability, flash point, evaporation rate, boiling
point, cost, and several other properties of the solvent.

       The metalworking industries are the major users of solvent degreasing, i. e., automotive,
electronics, plumbing, aircraft, refrigeration, and business machine industries.  Solvent cleaning is
also used in industries such as printing, chemicals,  plastics, rubber, textiles, glass, paper,  and electric
power.  Most repair stations for transportation vehicles and electric tools use solvent cleaning at least
part of the time.  Many industries use water-based alkaline wash systems for degreasing, and since
these systems emit no solvent vapors to the atmosphere,  they are not included in this discussion.

4.6.1.1   Cold Cleaners -
       The 2 basic types of cold cleaners are maintenance and manufacturing. Cold cleaners are
batch loaded, nonboiling solvent degreasers, usually providing the simplest and least expensive
method of metal cleaning.  Maintenance cold cleaners  are smaller, more numerous, and generally use
petroleum solvents as mineral spirits (petroleum distillates and Stoddard solvents).  Manufacturing
cold cleaners use a wide variety of  solvents, which perform more specialized and higher quality
cleaning  with about twice the average emission rate of maintenance cold cleaners. Some cold cleaners
can serve both purposes.

       Cold cleaner operations  include spraying, brushing, flushing, and immersion.  In a typical
maintenance cleaner (Figure 4.6-1), dirty parts are cleaned manually by spraying and then soaking in
the tank.  After cleaning, the parts  are either suspended over the tank to drain or are placed on an
external rack that routes the drained solvent back into  the cleaner.  The cover is intended to be closed
whenever parts are not being handled in the cleaner.  Typical manufacturing cold cleaners  vary
widely in design, but there are 2 basic tank designs: the simple spray sink and the dip tank.  Of
these, the dip tank provides more thorough cleaning through immersion, and often is made to improve
cleaning  efficiency by agitation. Small cold cleaning operations may be numerous in urban areas.
However, because of the small  quantity of emissions from each operation, the large number of
individual sources within an urban area, and the application of small cold cleaning to industrial uses
not directly associated with degreasing, it is difficult to identify individual small cold cleaning
operations.  For these reasons, factors are provided in Table 4.6-1 to estimate emissions from small
cold cleaning operations over large  urban geographical areas. Factors in Table 4.6-1 are for
nonmethane VOC and include 25 percent 1,1,1 trichloroethane, methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane.

4.6.1.2  Open-Top Vapor  Systems  -
       Open-top vapor degreasers  are batch loaded boiling degreasers that  clean with condensation of
hot solvent vapor on colder metal parts.  Vapor degreasing uses halogenated solvents (usually
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.6-1

    -------
                                                                          oc
                                                                          a
                                                                          UJ
                                                                          Q
                                                                          OC
                                                                          O
                                                                          a.
                                                                          <

                                                                          a.
                                                                          O
                                                                          I-
                                                                          z
                                                                                      "I
                                                                                       GO

                                                                                       §

                                                                                      1
                                                                                       v
                                                                                       £
                                                                                       3,
4.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
   Table 4.6-1 (Metric And English Units).  NONMETHANE VOC EMISSIONS FROM SMALL
                       COLD CLEANING DECREASING OPERATIONS*

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
                    Operating Period
Per Capita Emission Factor
  Annual
  Dailyb
            1.8kg
            4.0 Ib

            5.8 g
            0.013 Ib
a Reference 3.
b Assumes a 6-day operating week (313 days/yr).
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or 1,1,1-trichloroethane), because they are not flammable and
their vapors are much heavier than air.

       A typical vapor degreaser (Figure 4.6-1) is a sump containing a heater that boils the solvent to
generate vapors. The height of these pure vapors is controlled by condenser coils and/or a water
jacket encircling the device.  Solvent and moisture condensed on the coils are directed to a water
separator, where the heavier solvent is drawn off the bottom and is returned to the vapor degreaser.
A "freeboard'1 extends above the top of the vapor zone to minimize vapor escape.  Parts to be cleaned
are immersed in the vapor zone,  and condensation continues until they are heated to the vapor
temperature.  Residual liquid solvent on the parts rapidly evaporates as they are slowly removed from
the vapor zone. Lip mounted exhaust systems carry solvent vapors away from operating personnel.
Cleaning action is often increased by spraying the parts with solvent below the vapor level or by
immersing them in the liquid solvent bath.  Nearly all vapor degreasers are equipped with a water
separator which allows the solvent to flow back into the degreaser.

       Emission rates are usually estimated from solvent consumption data for the particular
degreasing operation under consideration. Solvents are often purchased specifically for use in
degreasing and are not used in any other plant operations.  In these cases, purchase records provide
the necessary information, and an emission factor of 1000 kg of volatile organic  emissions per Mg
(2000 Ib/ton) of solvent purchased can be applied, based on the assumption that all solvent purchased
is eventually emitted.  When information on solvent consumption is not available, emission rates can
be estimated if the number and type of degreasing units are known.  The factors  in Table 4.6-2 are
based on the number of degreasers and emissions produced nationwide and may be considerably in
error when applied to  a particular unit.

       The expected effectiveness of various control devices and procedures is listed in Table 4.6-3.
As a first approximation, this efficiency can be applied without regard for the specific solvent being
used.  However, efficiencies are generally higher for more volatile solvents. These solvents also
result in higher emission rates than those computed from the "average" factors listed in Table 4.6-2.

4.6.1.3  Conveyorized Degreasers -
       Conveyorized  degreasers may operate with either cold or vaporized solvent, but they merit
separate consideration because they are continuously loaded and are almost always hooded or
enclosed.  About 85 percent are vapor types, and 15 percent are nonboiling.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.6-3

    -------
      Table 4.6-2 (Metric And English Units).  SOLVENT LOSS EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                 DECREASING OPERATIONS

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Type Of Degreasjng
Allb
Cold cleaner
Entire unit0
Waste solvent loss
Solvent carryout
Bath and spray
evaporation
Entire unit
Open top vapor
Entire unit
Entire unit
Conveyorized, vapor
Entire unit
Conveyorized, nonboiling
Entire unit
Activity Measure
Solvent consumed

Units in operation
Surface area and duty
cycled
Units in operation
Surface area and duty
cycle6
Units in operation
Units in operation
Uncontrolled Organic
l,OOOkg/Mg

0.30 Mg/yr/unit
0.165 Mg/yr/unit
0.075 Mg/yr/unit
0.06 Mg/yr/unit
0.4 kg/hr/m2
9.5 Mg/yr/unit
0.7 kg/hr/m2
24 Mg/yr/unit
47 Mg/yr/unit
Emission Factor*
2,000 Ib/ton

0.33 tons/yr/unit
0.18 tons/yr/unit
0.08 tons/yr/unit
0.07 tons/yr/unit
0.08 lb/hr/ft2
10.5 ton/yr/unit
0.15 lb/hr/ft2
26 tons/yr/unit
52 tons/yr/unit
a 100% Nonmethane VOC.
b Solvent consumption data will provide much more accurate emission estimates than any of the other
  factors presented.
c Emissions generally would be higher for manufacturing units and lower for maintenance units.
d Reference 4, Appendix C-6.   For trichloroethane degreaser.
e For trichloroethane degreaser. Does not include waste solvent losses.


4.6.2 Emissions And Controls1"3

       Emissions from cold cleaners occur through:  (1) waste solvent evaporation, (2) solvent
carryout (evaporation from wet parts),  (3) solvent bath evaporation, (4) spray evaporation, and
(5) agitation (Figure 4.6-1).  Waste solvent loss, cold cleaning's greatest emission source, can be
reduced through distillation and transport of waste solvent to special  incineration plants.  Draining
cleaned parts for at least 15 seconds reduces carryout emissions.  Bath evaporation can be controlled
by using a cover regularly, by allowing an adequate freeboard height, and by avoiding excessive
drafts in the workshop. If the solvent used is insoluble in and heavier than water, a layer of water
5 to  10 centimeters (2 to 4 inches) thick covering the solvent can also reduce bath evaporation.  This
is known as a "water cover".  Spraying at low pressure also helps to reduce solvent loss from this
part  of the process. Agitation emissions can be controlled by using a cover, by agitating no longer
than necessary, and by avoiding the use of agitation with low volatility solvents.  Emissions of low
volatility solvents increase significantly with agitation.  However, contrary to what one might expect,
agitation causes only a small increase in emissions of high volatility solvents.  Solvent type is the
variable that most affects cold cleaner emission rates, particularly the volatility at operating
temperatures.
4.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
 Table 4.6-3. PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTION FACTORS FOR SOLVENT DECREASING*
System
Control devices
Cover or enclosed design
Drainage facility
Water cover, refrigerated chiller, carbon
adsorption or high freeboardb
Stolid, fluid spray stream0
Safety switches and thermostats
Emission reduction from control devices (%)
Operating procedures
Proper use of equipment
Waste solvent reclamation
Reduced exhaust ventilation
Reduced conveyor or entry speed
Emission reduction from operating procedures (%)
Total emission reduction (%)
Cold Cleaner
A

X
X




13-38

X
X


15-45
28-83e
B

X
X

X
X

NAd

X
X


NAd
55-69f
Vapor Degreaser
A 1 B

X X
X

X
X
X
20-40 30-60

X X
X X
X X
X X
15-35 20-40
30-60 45-75
Conveyorized
Degreaser
A 1 B

X X
X

X

X
40-60

X X
X X
X X
X X
20-30 20-30
20-30 50-70
a Reference 2.  Ranges of emission reduction present poor to excellent compliance.  X indicates
  devices or procedures that will produce the given reductions.  Letters A and B indicate different
  control device circumstances.  See Appendix B of Reference 2.
b Only one of these major control devices would be used in any degreasing system.  Cold cleaner
  system B could employ any of them.  Vapor degreaser system B could employ any except water
  cover.  Conveyorized degreaser system B could employ any except water cover and high freeboard.
c If agitation by spraying is used, the spray should not be a shower type.
d Breakout between control equipment and operating procedures is not available.
e A manual or mechanically assisted cover would contribute 6-18% reduction; draining parts
  15 seconds within the degreaser, 7-20%; and storing waste solvent in containers, an additional
  15-45%.
f Percentages represent average compliance.
       As with cold cleaning, open top vapor degreasing emissions relate heavily to proper operating
methods.  Most emissions are due to (6) diffusion and convection, which can be reduced by using an
automated cover, by using a manual cover regularly, by spraying below the vapor level,  by
optimizing work loads, or by using a refrigerated freeboard chiller (for which a carbon adsorption
unit would be substituted on larger units). Safety switches and thermostats that prevent emissions
during malfunctions and abnormal operation also reduce diffusion and convection of the vaporized
solvent. Additional sources of emissions are solvent carryout, exhaust systems, and waste solvent
evaporation. Carryout is directly affected by the size and shape of the workload, by racking of parts,
and by cleaning and drying time.  Exhaust emissions can be nearly eliminated by a  carbon adsorber
that collects the solvent vapors for reuse. Waste solvent evaporation is not so much a problem with
vapor degreasers as it  is with cold cleaners, because the halogenated solvents used are often distilled
and recycled by solvent recovery systems.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.6-5

    -------
       Because of their large workload capacity and the fact that they are usually enclosed,
conveyorized degreasers emit less solvent per part cleaned than do either of the other 2 types of
degreaser.  More so than operating practices, design and adjustment are major factors affecting
emissions, the main source of which is carryout of vapor and liquid solvents.

References For Section 4.6

1.     P. J. Mara, et al., Source Assessment: Solvent Evaporation — Degreasing,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-1874,  Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, January 1977.

2.     Jeffrey Shumaker,  Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning,
       EPA-450/2-77-022, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1977.

3.     W. H. Lamason, "Technical Discussion Of Per Capita Emission Factors For Several Area
       Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds", Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 15, 1981,
       unpublished.

4.     K.  S. Suprenant and D. W. Richards, Study To Support New Source Performance Standards
       For Solvent Metal  Cleaning Operations, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1329, Dow Chemical
       Company,  Midland, MI, June 1976.
 4.6-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
 4.7 Waste Solvent Reclamation
                                                                                      *
 4.7.1  Process Description1"4

        Waste solvents are organic dissolving agents that are contaminated with suspended and
 dissolved solids, organics, water, other solvents, and/or any substance not added to the solvent during
 its manufacture. Reclamation is the process of restoring a waste solvent to a condition that permits its
 reuse, either for its original purpose or for other industrial needs. All waste solvent is not reclaimed,
 because the cost of reclamation may exceed the value of the recovered solvent.

        Industries that produce waste solvents include solvent refining, polymerization processes,
 vegetable oil extraction, metallurgical operations, pharmaceutical manufacture, surface coating, and
 cleaning operations (dry cleaning and solvent degreasing).  The amount of solvent recovered from the
 waste varies from about 40 to 99 percent, depending on the extent and characterization of the
 contamination and on the recovery process employed.

        Design parameters and economic factors determine whether solvent reclamation is
 accomplished as a main process by a private contractor, as an integral part of a main process (such as
 solvent refining), or as an added process (as hi the surface coating and cleaning industries).  Most
 contract solvent reprocessing operations recover halogenated hydrocarbons (e. g., methylene chloride,
 trichlorotrifluoroethane, and trichloroethylene) from degreasing, and/or aliphatic,  aromatic, and
 naphthenic solvents such as those used hi the paint and  coatings industry. They may also reclaim
 small quantities of numerous specialty solvents such as  phenols, nitriles, and oils.

        The general reclamation scheme for solvent reuse is illustrated hi Figure 4.7-1. Industrial
 operations may not incorporate all of these steps. For instance, initial treatment is necessary only
 when liquid waste solvents contain dissolved  contaminants.
    STORAGE
   TANK VENT
     O
 FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
CONDENSER
  VENT *
                         O!
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
 STORAGE
TANK VENT
                                               ol
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
WASTE	
SOLVENTS
i

STORAGE
AND
HANDLING



INITIAL
TREATMENT


DISTILLATION




PURIFI-
CATION



STORAGE
AND
HANDLING
                                                                          RECLAIMED
                                                                          -.SOLVENT
                                                            G
                                                 WASTE
                                                DISPOSAL
                                                     -^INCINERATOR STACK
                                                     -^••FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
            Figure 4.7-1.  General waste solvent reclamation scheme and emission points.1
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
                       Evaporation Loss Sources
                                                                    4.7-1

    -------
4.7.1.1  Solvent Storage And Handling -
       Solvents are stored before and after reclamation in containers ranging in size from 0.2-m3
(55-gallon) drums to tanks with capacities of 75 m3 (20,000 gallons) or more.  Storage tanks are of
fixed or floating roof design. Venting systems prevent solvent vapors from creating excessive
pressure or vacuum inside fixed roof tanks.

       Handling includes loading waste solvent into process equipment and filling drums and tanks
prior to transport and storage. The filling  is most often done through submerged or bottom loading.

4.7.1.2  Initial Treatment -
       Waste solvents are initially treated  by vapor recovery or mechanical separation.  Vapor
recovery entails removal of solvent vapors  from a gas stream hi preparation for further reclaiming
operations.  In mechanical separation, undissolved solid contaminants are removed from liquid
solvents.

       Vapor recovery or collection methods  employed include condensation,  adsorption,  and
absorption.  Technical  feasibility of the method chosen depends on the  solvent's miscibility, vapor
composition and concentration, boiling point, reactivity, and solubility, as well as several other
factors.

       Condensation of solvent vapors is accomplished by water-cooled condensers and refrigeration
units. For adequate recovery, a solvent vapor concentration well above 20 milligrams per cubic
meter (mg/m3) (0.009 grains per cubic foot [gr/ft3]) is required.  To avoid explosive mixtures of a
flammable solvent and air in the process gas stream, ah- is replaced with an inert gas, such as
nitrogen.  Solvent vapors that escape condensation are recycled through the main process stream or
recovered by adsorption or absorption.

       Activated carbon adsorption is the most common method of capturing solvent emissions.
Adsorption systems are capable of recovering solvent vapors in concentrations below 4 mg/m3
(0.002 gr/ft3) of air. Solvents with boiling points of 200°C (290°F) or more do not desorb
effectively with the  low-pressure steam commonly used to regenerate the carbon beds.  Figure 4.7-2
shows a flow diagram of a typical fixed-bed activated carbon solvent recovery  system.  The mixture
of steam and solvent vapor passes to a water-cooled condenser.  Water-immiscible solvents are simply
decanted to separate the solvent, but water-miscible solvents must be distilled,  and solvent mixtures
must be both decanted  and distilled.  Fluidized bed operations are also  in use.

       Absorption  of solvent vapors is accomplished by passing the waste gas stream through a liquid
in scrubbing towers or spray chambers. Recovery by condensation and adsorption results  in a
mixture of water and liquid solvent, while  absorption recovery results in an oil and solvent mixture.
Further reclaiming procedures are required if solvent vapors are collected  by any of these 3 methods.

       Initial treatment of liquid  waste solvents is accomplished by mechanical separation methods.
This includes both removing water by decanting and removing undissolved solids  by filtering,
draining, settling, and/or centriruging. A combination of initial treatment methods^ may be necessary
to prepare waste solvents for further processing.

4.7.1.3  Distillation-
       After initial treatment, waste solvents are distilled to remove dissolved impurities and to
separate solvent mixtures.  Separation of dissolved impurities is accomplished by simple batch,  simple
continuous,  or steam distillation.  Mixed solvents are separated by multiple simple distillation
methods, such as batch or continuous rectification.  These processes are shown in Figure 4.7-3.

4.7-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
                   PROCESS m.OWER
                                                                      COOLING WATER IN

                                                                       •WATER CUT
              Figure 4.7-2.  Typical fixed-bed activated carbon solvent recovery system.*
                                     SOLVENT VAPOR
 WASTE  SOLVENT
        STEAM   _
                    EVAPORATION
                        J
                                     SOLVENT
                                      VAPOR
            1
                                                             REFLUX
                                    II   i
i  FRACTIONATION i
                                                            i
                              1
                                CONDENSATION
                                           I
                      SLUDGE
                                 DISTILLED  SOLVENT
                      Figure 4.7-3.  Distillation process for solvent reclaiming.1
       In simple distillation, waste solvent is charged to an evaporator.  Vapors are then
continuously removed and condensed, and the resulting sludge or still bottoms are drawn off.  In
steam distillation, solvents are vaporized by direct contact with steam which is injected into the
evaporator.  Simple batch, continuous, and steam distillations follow Path I in Figure 4.7-3.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
                                                4.7-3

    -------
       The separation of mixed solvents requires multiple simple distillation or rectification. Batch
and continuous rectification are represented by Path n in Figure 4.7-3. In batch rectification, solvent
vapors pass through a fractionating column, where they contact condensed solvent (reflux) entering at
the top of the column.  Solvent not returned as reflux is drawn off as overhead product. In
continuous rectification, the waste solvent feed enters continuously at an intermediate point in the
column.  The more volatile solvents are drawn off at the top, while those with higher boiling points
collect at the bottom.

       Design criteria for evaporating vessels depend on waste solvent composition. Scraped surface
stills or agitated thin film evaporators are the  most suitable for heat sensitive or viscous materials.
Condensation is accomplished by barometric or shell and tube condensers.  Azeotropic  solvent
mixtures are separated by the addition of a third solvent component, while solvents with higher
boiling points, e. g., in the range of high-flash naphthas (155°C, 310°F), are most effectively
distilled under vacuum.  Purity requirements for the reclaimed solvent determine the number of
distillations, reflux ratios,  and  processing time needed.

4.7.1.4 Purification-
       After distillation, water is removed from solvent by decanting or salting. Decanting is
accomplished with immiscible  solvent and water which, when condensed, form separate liquid layers,
1 or the other of which can be drawn off mechanically.  Additional cooling of the solvent/water mix
before decanting increases the separation of the 2 components by reducing their solubility. In salting,
solvent is passed through a calcium chloride bed, and water is removed by absorption.

       During purification, reclaimed solvents are stabilized,  if necessary.  Buffers are added to
virgin solvents to ensure that pH level is kept constant during use.  To renew it, special additives are
used during purification. The  composition of these additives  is considered proprietary.

4.7.1.5 Waste Disposal -
       Waste materials  separated from solvents during initial treatment and distillation are disposed
of by incineration, landfilling,  or deep well injection. The composition of such waste varies,
depending on the original use of the solvent.  But up to 50 percent is unreclaimed solvent, which
keeps the waste product viscous yet liquid, thus facilitating pumping and handling procedures.  The
remainder consists of components such as oils, greases, waxes, detergents, pigments, metal fines,
dissolved metals, organics, vegetable fibers, and resins.

       About 80 percent of the waste from solvent reclaiming by private contractors is disposed of hi
liquid waste incinerators.  About 14 percent is deposited in sanitary landfills, usually hi 55-gallon
drums.  Deep well injection is the pumping of wastes between impermeable geologic strata.  Viscous
wastes may have to be diluted  for pumping  into the desired stratum level.

4.7.2 Emissions And Controls1'3"5

       Volatile organic and particulate emissions result from waste solvent reclamation.  Emission
pouits include storage tank vents [1], condenser vents [2], incinerator  stacks [3], and fugitive losses
(numbers refer to Figure 4.7-1 and Figure 4.7-3).  Emission factors for these sources are given hi
Table 4.7-1.

       Solvent storage results in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent
evaporation (Figure  4.7-1, emission point 1).  The condensation of solvent vapors during distillation
(Figure 4.7-3) also involves VOC emissions,  and if steam ejectors are used, emission of steam and
noncondensables as well (Figure 4.7-1 and Figure 4.7-3, point 2).  Incinerator stack emissions consist

4.7-4                                 EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
  Table 4.7-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOLVENT RECLAIMING"

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Storage tank ventb
Condenser vent
Incinerator stack0
Incinerator stack
Fugitive emissions
Spillage0
Loading
Leaks
Open sources
Criteria Pollutant
Volatile organics
Volatile organics
Volatile organics
Particulates

Volatile organics
Volatile organics
Volatile organics
Volatile organics
Emission Factor Average
kg/Mg
0.01
(0.002 - 0.04)
1.65
(0.26-4.17)
0.01
0.72
(0.55 - 1.0)

0.10
0.36
(0.00012 - 0.71)
ND
ND
Ib/ton
0.02
(0.004 - 0.09)
3.30
(0.52 - 8.34)
0.02
1.44
(1.1 -2.0)

0.20
0.72
(0.00024-1.42)
ND
ND
a Reference 1.  Data obtained from state air pollution control agencies and presurvey sampling.  All
  emission factors are for uncontrolled process equipment, except those for the incinerator stack.
  (Reference 1 does not, however, specify what the control is on this stack.)  Average factors are
  derived from the range of data points available.  Factors for these sources are given in terms of
  kilograms per megagram  and pounds per ton of reclaimed solvent.  Ranges in parentheses.
  ND = no data.
b Storage tank is of fixed roof design.
0 Only  1 value available.
of solid contaminants that are oxidized and released as participates, unburned organics, and
combustion stack gases (Figure 4.7-1, point 3).

       VOC emissions from equipment leaks, open solvent sources (sludge drawoff and storage from
distillation and initial treatment operations), solvent loading, and solvent spills are classified as
fugitive.  The former 2 sources are continuously released, and the latter 2, intermittently.

       Solvent reclamation is viewed by industry as a form of control in itself.  Carbon adsorption
systems can remove up to 95 percent of the solvent vapors from an air stream.  It is estimated that
less than 50 percent of reclamation plants run by private contractors use any control technology.

       Volatile organic emissions from the storage of solvents can be reduced by as much as
98 percent by converting  from fixed to floating roof tanks, although the exact percent reduction also
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.7-5

    -------
depends on solvent evaporation rate, ambient temperature, loading rate, and tank capacity.  Tanks
may also be refrigerated or equipped with conservation vents which prevent air inflow and vapor
escape until some preset vacuum or pressure develops.

       Solvent vapors vented during distillation are controlled by scrubbers and condensers.  Direct
flame and catalytic afterburners can also be used to control noncondensables and solvent vapors not
condensed during distillation.  The time required for complete combustion depends on the
flammability of the solvent.  Carbon or oil adsorption may be employed also, as in the case of vent
gases from the manufacture of vegetable oils.

       Wet scrubbers are used to remove particulates from sludge incinerator exhaust gases, although
they do not effectively control submicron particles.

       Submerged rather than splash filling of storage tanks and tank cars can reduce solvent
emissions from this source by more than SO percent. Proper plant maintenance and loading
procedures reduce emissions from leaks and spills. Open solvent sources can be covered to reduce
these fugitive emissions.

References For Section 4.7

1.     D. R. Tierney and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Reclaiming Of Waste Solvents — State
       Of The Art, EPA-600/2-78/004f, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       April  1978.

2.     J. E. Levin and F. Scofield,  "An Assessment Of The Solvent Reclaiming Industry",
       Proceedings of the 170th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chicago, IL,
       35(2):416-418, August 25-29, 1975.

3.     H. M. Rowson, "Design Considerations In Solvent Recovery", Proceedings of the
       Metropolitan Engineers' Council On Air Resources (MECAR) Symposium On New
       Developments In Air Pollutant Control, New York, NY, October 23, 1961, pp. 110-128.

4.     J. C. Cooper  and F. T. Cuniff, "Control Of Solvent Emissions", Proceedings of the
       Metropolitan Engineers' Council On Air Resources (MECAR) Symposium On New
       Developments In Air Pollution Control, New York, NY, October 23, 1961, pp. 30-41.

5.     W. R. Meyer, "Solvent Broke", Proceedings of TAPPI Testing Paper Synthetics Conference,
       Boston, MA,  October 7-9,  1974, pp. 109-115.

6.     Nathan R. Shaw, "Vapor Adsorption Technology For Recovery Of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
       And Other Solvents", Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
       Association, Boston, MA, June 15-20,  1975.
4.7-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
4.8  Tank And Drum Cleaning

4.8.1  General

        Rail tank cars, tank trucks, and drums are used to transport about 700 different commodities.
Rail tank cars and most tank trucks and drums are in dedicated service (carrying one commodity only)
and, unless contaminated, are cleaned only prior to repair or testing.  Nondedicated tank trucks (about
20,000, or 22 percent of the total in service) and drums (approximately 5.6 million, or 12.5 percent
of the total) are cleaned after every trip.

4.8.1.1  Rail Tank Cars -
        Most rail tank cars are privately owned.  Some cars, like those owned by the railroads, are
operated for hire. The commodities hauled are 35 percent petroleum products, 20 percent organic
chemicals, 25 percent inorganic chemicals, 15 percent compressed gases, and 5 percent food
products.  Petroleum products considered in this study are glycols, vinyls,  acetones, benzenes,
creosote, etc.  Not included in these figures are  gasoline, diesel oil, fuel oils, jet fuels, and motor
oils, the greatest portion of these being transported in dedicated service.

        Much tank car cleaning is conducted at shipping and receiving terminals, where the wastes go
to the manufacturers' treatment systems.  However, 30 to 40 percent is done at service stations
operated by tank car owners/lessors.  These installations clean waste of a wide variety of
commodities,  many of which require special cleaning methods.

        A typical tank car cleaning facility cleans 4 to 10 cars per day.  Car capacity varies from
40 to 130 cubic meters (m3)  (10,000 to 34,000 gallons [gal]). Cleaning agents include steam, water,
detergents, and solvents, which are applied using steam hoses, pressure wands, or rotating spray
heads placed through the opening in the top of the car.  Scraping of hardened or crystallized products
is often necessary.  Cars carrying gases and volatile materials, and those needing to be pressure
tested, must be filled or flushed with water.  The average amount of residual material  cleaned from
each car is estimated to be 250 kilograms (kg) (550 pounds  [lb]). Vapors from car cleaning not
flared or dissolved in water are dissipated to the atmosphere.

4.8.1.2 Tank Trucks  -
        Two-thirds of the tank trucks in service in the United States are operated for hire.  Of these,
80 percent are used to haul bulk liquids.  Most companies operate fleets of 5 trucks or less, and
whenever possible, these trucks are assigned to dedicated service.  Commodities hauled and cleaned
are 15 percent petroleum products (except as noted in Part 4.8.1.1), 35 percent organic chemicals,
5 percent food products, and 10 percent other products.

       Interior washing is carried out at many tank truck dispatch terminals.  Cleaning agents include
water, steam,  detergents, bases, acids, and solvents, which are applied with hand-held pressure wands
or by Turco or Butterworth rotating  spray nozzles.  Detergent, acidic, or basic solutions are usually
used until spent and then sent to treatment facilities. Solvents are recycled in a closed system, with
sludges either  incinerated or landfilled.  The average amount of material cleaned from  each trailer is
100 kg (220 lb).  Vapors from volatile material are flared at a few terminals, but most commonly are
dissipated to the atmosphere.  Approximately 0.23 m3 (60 gal) of liquid are used per tank truck steam
cleaning and 20.9 m3 (5500 gal) for  full flushing.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                                4.8-1

    -------
4.8.1.3 Drums -
       Both 0.2- and 0.11-m3 (30- and 55-gal) drums are used to ship a vast variety of commodities,
with organic chemicals (including solvents) accounting for 50 percent. The remaining 50 percent
includes inorganic chemicals, asphaltic materials, elastomeric materials, printing inks, paints, food
additives, fuel oils, and other products.

       Drums made entirely of 18-gauge steel have an average life, with total cleaning, of 8 trips.
Those with 20-gauge bodies  and 18-gauge heads have an average life of 3 trips.  Not all drums are
cleaned, especially those of thinner construction.

       Tighthead drums that have carried materials that are easy to  clean are steamed or washed with
base. Steam cleaning is done by inserting a nozzle into the drum, with vapors going to the
atmosphere. Base washing is done by tumbling the drum with a charge of hot caustic solution and
some pieces of chain.

       Drums used to  carry materials that are difficult to clean are burned out, either in a furnace or
in the open. Those with tightheads have the tops cut out and are reconditioned as open head drums.
Drum burning furnaces may  be batch or continuous.  Several gas burners bathe the drum in flame,
burning away the contents, lining, and outside paint in a nominal 4-minute period and at a
temperature of at least 480°C (900°F) but not more than 540°C (1000°F) to prevent warping of the
drum.  Emissions are vented to an afterburner or secondary combustion chamber, where the gases are
raised to at least 760°C (1400°F) for a minimum of 0.5 seconds.  The average amount of material
removed from each drum is 2 kg (4.4 Ib).

4.8.2 Emissions And Controls

4.8.2.1  Rail Tank Cars And Tank Trucks -
       Atmospheric  emissions from tank car  and truck cleaning are predominantly volatile organic
chemical vapors.  To achieve a practical but representative picture of these emissions, the organic
chemicals hauled by the carriers must be known by classes of high, medium,  and low viscosities and
of high, medium, and low vapor pressures.  High-viscosity materials do not dram readily, affecting
the  quantity of material remaining in the tank, and high-vapor-pressure materials volatilize more
readily during cleaning and tend to lead to greater emissions.

       Practical and economically feasible controls of atmospheric emissions from tank car and truck
cleaning do not exist, except for containers transporting commodities that produce  combustible gases
and water soluble vapors (such as ammonia  and chlorine).  Gases displaced as tanks are filled are sent
to a flare and burned. Water soluble vapors are absorbed in water and are  sent to  the waste water
system. Any other emissions are vented to the atmosphere.

       Tables 4.8-1  and 4.8-2 give emission factors for representative organic chemicals hauled by
tank cars and trucks.

4.8.2.2 Drums -
       There is no control for emissions from steaming of drums. Solution or caustic washing yields
negligible air emissions, because the drum is closed during the wash cycle. Atmospheric emissions
from steaming or washing drums are predominantly organic chemical vapors.

       Air emissions from drum burning furnaces are controlled by proper operation of the
afterburner or secondary combustion  chamber, where gases are raised to at least 760°C  (1400°F) for
a minimum of 0.5 seconds.  This normally ensures complete combustion of organic materials and

4.8-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
      Table 4.8-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR RAIL TANK CAR
                                       CLEANING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Compound
Ethylene glycolb
Chlorobenzeneb
o-Dichlorobenzeneb
Creosote0
Chemical Class
Vapor Pressure
low
medium
low
low
Viscosity
high
medium
medium
high
Total Emissions8
g/car
0.3
15.7
75.4
2350
Ib/car
0.0007
0.0346
0.1662
5.1808
a Reference 1. Emission factors are in terms of average weight of pollutant released per car cleaned.
b Two-hour test duration.
c Eight-hour test duration.
 Table 4.8-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TANK TRUCK CLEANING11

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Compound
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
Chemical Class
Vapor Pressure
high
high
medium
low
low
Viscosity
low
low
medium
low
high
Total Emissions*
g/truck
311
215
32.4
5.5
1.07
Ib/truck
0.686
0.474
0.071
0.012
0.002
a Reference 1. One-hour test duration.
prevents the formation, and subsequent release, of large quantities of NOX, CO, and particulates.  In
open burning, however, there is no feasible way of controlling the release of incomplete combustion
products to the atmosphere.  The conversion of open cleaning operations to closed-cycle cleaning, and
the elimination of open-air drum burning seem to be the only control alternatives immediately
available.

       Table 4.8-3 gives emission factors for representative criteria pollutants emitted from drum
burning and cleaning.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.8-3

    -------
     Table 4.8-3 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM BURNING4

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E


Pollutant
Particulate
NOX
voc
Total Emissions
Controlled
g/drum
12b
0.018
Neg
Ib/drum
0.02646
0.00004
Neg
Uncontrolled
g/drum
16
0.89
Neg
Ib/drum
0.035
0.002
Neg
a Reference 1.  Emission factors are in terms of weight of pollutant released per drum burned, except
  for VOC, which are per drum washed.  Neg = negligible.
b Reference 1, Table 17, and Appendix A.
Reference For Section 4.8

1.     T. R. Blackwood, et al., Source Assessment:  Rail Tank Car, Tank Truck, And Drum
       Cleaning, State Of The Art, EPA-600/2-78-004g, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, April 1978.
4.8-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
4.9  Graphic Arts




4.9.1  General Graphic Printing




4.9.2  Publication Gravure Printing
1/95                                Evaporation Loss Sources                               4.9-1

    -------

    -------
4.9.1  General Graphic Printing

4.9.1.1  Process Description

        The term "graphic arts" as used here means 4 basic processes of the printing industry:  web
offset lithography, web letterpress, rotogravure, and flexography.  Screen printing and manual and
sheet-fed techniques are not included in this discussion.

        Printing may be performed on coated or uncoated paper and on other surfaces, as in metal
decorating and some fabric coating (see Section 4.2, Surface Coating).  The material to receive the
printing is called the substrate.  The distinction between printing and paper coating,  which may
employ rotogravure or lithographic methods, is that printing invariably involves the  application of ink
by a printing press.  However, printing and paper coating have these elements in common: application
of a relatively high-solvent-content material to the surface of a moving web or film,  rapid solvent
evaporation by movement of heated air across the wet surface, and solvent-laden air exhausted from
the system.

        Printing inks vary widely in  composition, but all consist of 3 major components:  pigments,
which produce the desired colors and are composed of finely divided organic and inorganic materials;
binders, the solid components that lock the pigments to the substrate and are composed of organic
resins and polymers or, in some inks, oils and rosins; and solvents, which dissolve or disperse the
pigments and binders and are usually composed of organic  compounds.  The binder  and solvent make
up the "vehicle" part of the ink.  The solvent evaporates  from the ink into the atmosphere during the
drying process.

4.9.1.1.1 Web Offset Lithography -
        Lithography, the process used to produce about 75  percent of books and pamphlets and an
increasing number of newspapers, is characterized by a planographic image carrier (i. e., the image
and nonimage areas  are on the same  plane). The image area is ink wettable and water repellant, and
the nonimage area is chemically repellant to ink.  The solution used to dampen the plate may contain
15 to 30 percent isopropanol, if the Dalgren dampening system is used.8 When the  image is applied
to a rubber-covered  "blanket" cylinder and then transferred onto the substrate, the process is known
as "offset" lithography. When a web (i. e., a continuous roll) of paper is employed  with the offset
process, this is known as web offset printing.  Figure 4.9.1-1 illustrates a web offset lithography
publication printing line.  A web newspaper printing line contains no dryer, because the ink contains
very little solvent, and somewhat porous paper is generally used.

        Web offset employs "heatset" (i. e., heat drying offset) inks that dry very quickly.  For
publication work the inks contain about 40 percent solvent, and for newspaper work 5 percent solvent
is used.  In both cases, the solvents are usually petroleum-derived hydrocarbons. In a publication
web offset process, the web is printed on both sides simultaneously and passed through a tunnel or
floater dryer at about 200 - 290°C (400 - 500°F). The dryer may be hot ah- or direct flame.
Approximately 40 percent of the incoming solvent remains  in the ink film, and more may be
thermally degraded in a direct flame  dryer.  The web passes over chill rolls before folding and
cutting.  In newspaper work no dryer is used, and most of the solvent is believed to  remain in the ink
film on the paper.11
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.9.1-1

    -------
j THERMAL OR
GAS— *-, CATALYTIC INK SOLVENT AND
INiriNFRATOR aULV tIM 1 AIMU
1 INCINERATOR | 	 1 THERMAL DEGRADATION
1 1 j PRODUCTS
— i 	 T_
| 	 H^^T 	 j COMBUSTION
1 EXCHANGER 1 	 k PRODUCTS.
1 #1 1 H UNBURNED
WASHUP -« 	
SOLVENTS 	 ».

1 	 ._
i ,
EXHAUST FAN.
V
i
FAN
Tt
HEATSET
INK WATEF
1 ISOPRO
VAP
INK
FOUNTAINS
1 t


1 *
DAMPENING
SYSTEM *"
\ SHELL AND O, DEPLETED
	 FLAT TUBE 2 A|R
HEAT
EXCHANGER
i \
) | FILTER || FILTER
FAN ^Tj|
GAS
r AIR HEATER
FOR DRYER
,
— >^. ^
INK SOLVENT AND
HERMAL DEGRADATION
PRODUCTS (
\ AND WASHUP ^m
PANOL SOLVENTS
°? it
PLATE AND FLOATER
BLANKET -*— DRYER
CYLINDERS
L. _ _ ^ __i
N
AIR AND SMOKE
) FAN
CHILL

WATER AND t t
ROPANOL VAPOR ' '
            WATER
                    ISOPROPANOL
                    (WITH DALGREN
                    DAMPENING SYSTEM)
         Figure 4.9.1-1. Web offset lithography publication printing line emission points.11
4.9.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
4.9.1.1.2 Web Letterpress -
        Letterpress is the oldest form of moveable type printing, and it still dominates in periodical
and newspaper publishing, although numerous major newspapers are converting to web offset.  In
letterpress printing, the image area is raised, and the ink is transferred to the paper directly from the
image surface. The image carrier may be made of metal or plastic.  Only web presses using
solventborne inks are discussed here.  Letterpress newspaper and sheet-fed printing use oxidative
drying inks, not a source of volatile organic emissions.  Figure 4.9.1-2 shows 1 unit of a web
publication letterpress line.

        Publication letterpress printing uses a paper web that is printed on 1 side at a time and dried
after each color is applied.  The inks employed are heatset, usually of about 40 volume percent
solvent.  The solvent in high-speed operations is generally a selected petroleum fraction akin to
kerosene and fuel oil, with a boiling point of 200 - 370°C (400 - 700°F).13

4.9.1.1.3 Rotogravure -
        In gravure printing, the image area is engraved, or "intaglio" relative to the surface of the
unage carrier, which is a copper-plated steel cylinder that is usually also chrome plated to enhance
wear resistance.  The gravure cylinder rotates in an ink trough or fountain.  The ink is picked up in
the engraved area, and ink is scraped off the nonimage area with a steel "doctor blade".  The image is
transferred directly to the web when it is pressed against the cylinder by a rubber covered impression
roll, and the product is then dried.  Rotary gravure (web fed) systems are known as "rotogravure"
presses.

        Rotogravure can produce illustrations  with excellent color control, and it may be used on
coated or uncoated paper, film, foil, and almost every other type of substrate. Its use is concentrated
hi publications and advertising such as newspaper supplements, magazines, and mail  order catalogues;
folding cartons and other flexible packaging materials; and  specialty products such as wall and floor
coverings, decorated household paper products, and vinyl upholstery.  Figure 4.9.1-3 illustrates  1 unit
of a publication rotogravure press.  Multiple units are required for  printing multiple colors.

        The inks  used hi rotogravure publication printing contain from 55 to 95 volume percent low
boiling solvent (average is 75 volume percent), and they must have low viscosities.  Typical gravure
solvents include alcohols, aliphatic  naphthas, aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, glycol ethers, ketones,
and nitroparaffms.  Water-base inks are in regular production use in some packaging and specialty
applications, such as sugar bags.

        Rotogravure is similar to letterpress printing hi that the web is printed on one side at a time
and must be dried after application  of each color. Thus,  for 4-color, 2-sided publication printing,
8 presses are employed, each including a pass over a steam drum or through a hot air dryer at
temperatures from ambient up to 120°C (250°F) where nearly all of the solvent is removed.3 For
further information, see Section 4.9.2.
                                                                                 $
4.9.1.1.4  Flexography -
       In flexographic printing, as hi letterpress, the unage area is above the surface of the plate.
The distinction is that flexography uses a rubber unage carrier and  alcohol-base inks.  The process is
usually web fed and is employed for medium or long multicolor runs on a variety of substrates,
including heavy paper, fiberboard, and metal and plastic foil. The major categories of the
flexography market are flexible packaging and laminates, multiwall bags, milk cartons, gift wrap,
folding cartons, corrugated paperboard (which is sheet fed), paper cups and plates, labels, tapes, and
envelopes. Almost all milk cartons and multiwall bags and half of all flexible packaging are printed
by this process.

4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.9.1-3

    -------
WEB
r
1 THERMAL
1 INCINERATOR P
1 1
-y—
-
GAS | HEAT |
1 EXCHANGER
1 -wi
» '
1 . —
EXHAUST FAN C
i
I
FAN ^~\
< i
__/
HEATSET INK

	 , COMBUSTION
PRODUCTS.
~ ~j UNBURNED
ROTARY 1 ORGANICS.
* HtAD 1 * U2 ULI LL 1 LU
x #2 1 A|R
* * EXCHGR r* rncsii AIR
J , 	 1
FILTER | I FILTER 1 	 '
H^FAN GAS * ONLY WHEN
\\ i CATALYTIC
1 1 UNIT IS
T 	 t_ _ USED HERE
' 1 1
^ , AIR HEATER j CATALYTIC |
FOR DRYER "] INCINERATORJ
! !
f ±-—'
GAS ( M SUPPLY FAN
•» <"» 4 , ..
SOLVENT AND THERMAL AIR AND SMOKE
DEGRADATION
PRODUCTS

TUNNEL OR
DRYPR KUL1_5>
	 "-WASHUP UKYtK
••—SOLVENTS
                                  AIR
                                                  ITT
                         COOL WATER
           Figure 4.9.1-2.  Web letterpress publication printing line emission points.11
 4.9.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                   (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
TO ATM
OSPHERE
TRACES OF
WATER
AND
SOLVENT
J
p
i
HOT WATER
_ 1 , 	
•CONDENSER) (DECANTER
L J ' 1
COOL WATER
STEAM PLUS
SOLVENT
VAPOR 1 |
• ADSORBER i
"* j (ACTIVE MODE) J


1 ADSORBER '
1 	 J
SOLVENT) I
-.MIXTUREi h
J f. JSTII Ll
U j L
j WARM ! i
WATER 	
<— |
r
i
STEAM J
l_
	 »•
SOLVENTS
»
	 *- WATER
COMBUSTION
PRODUCTS
t
1
STEAM BOILER |
GAS AIR 1
WATER
                                                   SOLVENT LADEN AIR
   WEB-
INK
! -
j
INK
FOUNTAIN



PRESS
(ONE UNIT)


<

STEAM DRUM OR
HOT AIR DRYER
•+-
i

CHILL
ROLLS
                                                                           PRINTED WEB
                                AIR
                                             AIR
                                                     HEAT
                                                   FROM STEAM,
                                                   HOT WATER,
                                                   OR HOT AIR
                                                              HT
                                                                 COOL WATER
 Figure 4.9.1-3.  Rotogravure and flexography printing line emission points (chill rolls not used in
                             rotogravure publication printing).11
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.9.1-5

    -------
        Steam set inks, employed in the "water flexo" or "steam set flexo" process, are low-viscosity
inks of a paste consistency that are gelled by water or steam.  Steam-set inks are used for paper bag
printing, and they produce no significant emissions.  Water-base inks, usually pigmented suspensions
in water, are also available for some flexographic operations, such as the printing of multiwall bags.

       Solvent-base inks are used primarily in publication printing, as shown hi Figure 4.9.1-3. As
with rotogravure, flexography publication printing uses very fluid inks of about 75 volume percent
organic solvent. The solvent, which must be rubber compatible, may  be alcohol, or alcohol mixed
with an aliphatic hydrocarbon or ester.  Typical solvents also include glycols, ketones, and ethers.
The inks dry by solvent absorption into the web and by evaporation, usually hi high velocity steam
drum or hot air dryers, at temperatures below 120°C (250°F).3»13  As in letterpress publishing, the
web is printed on only 1  side at a tune. The web passes over chill  rolls after drying.

4.9.1.2 Emissions And Controls

       Significant emissions from printing operations consist primarily of volatile organic solvents.
Such emissions vary with printing process, ink formulation and coverage, press size and speed,  and
operating tune. The type of paper (coated or uncoated) has little effect on the quantity of emissions,
although low levels of organic emissions are derived from the paper stock during drying.13  High-
volume web-fed presses such as those discussed above are the principal sources of solvent vapors.
Total annual emissions from the industry hi 1977  were estimated to be 380,000 megagrams (Mg)
(418,000 tons). Of this total, lithography emits 28 percent, letterpress 18 percent, gravure
41 percent, and flexography 13 percent/

       Most of the solvent contained in the ink and used for dampening and cleanup  eventually finds
its way into the atmosphere, but some solvent remains with the printed product leaving the plant and
is released to the atmosphere later.  Overall solvent emissions can be computed from  Equation 1 using
a material balance concept, except hi cases where a direct flame dryer is used and some of the solvent
is thermally degraded.

       The density of naphtha base solvent at 21 °C (70°F) is 0.742 kilogams per liter (kg/L)
(6.2 pounds per gallon [lb/gal]).

                                           Etotal  = T                                         (1)
where:

         ^totai =  *°tal solvent emissions including those from the printed product, kg (lb)
           T =  total solvent use including solvent contained  hi ink as used, kg (lb)

The solvent emissions from the dryer and other printline components can be computed from
Equation 2. The remaining solvent leaves the plant with the printed product and/or is degraded in the
dryer.

                                                 (100-P)                                      .
                                            100    100

where:
               E  = solvent emissions from printline, kg (lb)
               I  = ink use, liters (gallons)
         S and P  = factors from Table 4.9.1-1.
               d  = solvent density, kg/L (lb/gal)

4.9.1-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
     Table 4.9.1-1. TYPICAL PARAMETERS FOR COMPUTING SOLVENT EMISSIONS
                                FROM PRINTING LINESa'b
Process
Web Offset Lithography
Publication
Newspaper
Web Letterpress
Publication
Newspaper
Rotogravure
Flexography
Solvent Content Of Ink
(Volume %) [S]
40
5
40
0
75
75
Solvent Remaining
In Product Plus That
Destroyed In Dryer
(%) [P]c
40 (hot air dryer)
60 (direct flame dryer)
100
40
NA
2-7
2-7
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
NA
C
C
a References 1,14.  NA = not applicable.
b Values for S and P are typical.  Specific values for S and P should be obtained from a source to
  estimate its emissions.
c For certain packaging products, amount of solvent retained is regulated by the Food and Drug
  Administration (FDA).
4.9.1.2.1 Per Capita Emission Factors -
       Although major sources contribute most of the emissions for graphic arts operations,
considerable emissions also originate from minor graphic arts applications, including inhouse printing
services in general industries. Small sources within the graphic arts industry are numerous and
difficult to identify, since many applications are associated with nonprinting industries.  Table 4.9.1-2
presents per capita factors for estimating emissions from small graphic arts operations.  The factors
are entirely nonmethane VOC and should be used for emission estimates over broad geographical
areas.
    Table 4.9.1-2 (Metric And English Units). PER CAPITA NONMETHANE VOC EMISSION
                  FACTORS FOR SMALL GRAPHIC ARTS APPLICATIONS

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Units
kg/year/capita
Ib/year/capita
g/day/capita
Ib/day/capita
Emission Factor*
0.4
0.8
lb
0.003b
a Reference 15.  All nonmethane VOC.
b Assumes a 6-day operating week (313 days/yr)
4/81 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.9.1-7

    -------
4.9.1.2.2 Web Offset Lithography -
       Emission points on web offset lithography publication printing lines include:  (1) the ink
fountains, (2) the dampening system,  (3) the plate and blanket cylinders, (4) the dryer, (5) the chill
rolls, and (6) the product (see Figure 4.9.1-1).

       Alcohol is emitted from Points 2 and 3. Washup solvents are a small source of emissions
from Points 1 and 3. Drying (Point 4) is the major source, because 40 to 60 percent of the ink
solvent is removed from the web during this process.

       The quantity of web offset emissions may be estimated from Equation  1, or from Equation 2
and the appropriate data from Table 4.9.1-1.

4.9.1.2.3 Web Letterpress -
       Emission points on web letterpress publication printing lines are:  (1) the press (includes the
image  carrier and hiking mechanism), (2) the dryer, (3) the chill rolls, and (4) the product (see
Figure 4.9.1-2).

       Web letterpress publication printing produces significant emissions, primarily from the ink
solvent, about 60 percent of which  is  lost hi the drying process.  Washup solvents are a small source
of emissions.  The quantity of emissions  can be computed as described for web offset.

       Letterpress publication printing uses a variety of papers and inks that lead to  emission control
problems, but losses can be reduced by a thermal or catalytic incinerator, either of which may be
coupled with a heat  exchanger.

4.9.1.2.4 Rotogravure-
       Emissions from rotogravure printing occur at:  (1) the ink fountain, (2) the press, (3) the
dryer,  and (4) the chill rolls (see Figure 4.9.1-3).  The dryer is the major  emission point, because
most of the VOC in the low boiling ink is removed during  drying.  The quantity of emissions can be
computed from Equation  1, or from Equation  2 and the appropriate parameters from  Table 4.9.1-1.

       Vapor capture systems are necessary to minimize fugitive solvent vapor loss around the ink
fountain  and at the chill rolls. Fume  incinerators and carbon adsorbers are the only devices that have
a high efficiency in controlling vapors from rotogravure operations.

       Solvent recovery by carbon adsorption systems has been quite successful at a number of large
publication rotogravure plants.  These presses use a single water-immiscible solvent (toluene) or a
simple mixture that  can be recovered  hi approximately the proportions used hi the ink.  All new
publication gravure plants are being designed to include solvent recovery.

       Some smaller rotogravure operations,  such as those that print  and  coat packaging materials,
use complex solvent mixtures hi which many of the solvents are water soluble. Thermal incineration
with heat recovery is usually the most feasible control for such operations. With adequate primary
and secondary heat recovery, the amount  of fuel required to operate both the incinerator and the dryer
system can be reduced to less than that normally required to operate the dryer  alone.

       In addition to thermal and catalytic incinerators, pebble bed incinerators are also available.
Pebble bed incinerators combine the functions of a heat exchanger and a combustion device, and can
achieve a heat recovery efficiency of  85 percent.
4.9.1-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
       VOC emissions can also be reduced by using low-solvent inks. Waterborne inks, in which
the volatile portion contains up to 20 volume percent water soluble organic compounds, are used
extensively in rotogravure printing of multiwall bags, corrugated paperboard, and other packaging
products, although water absorption into the paper limits the amount of waterborne ink that can be
printed on thin stock before the web is seriously weakened.

4.9.1.2.5 Flexography -
       Emission points on flexographic printing lines are: (1) the ink fountain,  (2) the press, (3) the
dryer, and (4) the chill rolls (see Figure 4.9.1-3).  The dryer is the major emission point, and
emissions can be estimated from Equation 1, or from Equation 2 and the appropriate parameters from
Table 4.9.1-1.

       Vapor capture systems are necessary to minimize fugitive solvent vapor loss around the ink
fountain and at the chill rolls.  Fume incinerators are the only devices proven highly efficient in
controlling vapors from flexographic operations.  VOC emissions can also be reduced by using
waterborne inks, which are used extensively in flexographic printing of packaging products.

       Table 4.9-3 shows estimated control efficiencies for printing  operations.
             Table 4.9-3.  ESTIMATED CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENCIES
                                    FOR PRINTING LINES
Method
Carbon adsorption
Incineration1'



Waterborne inks6

Application
Publication rotogravure
operations
Web offset lithography
Web letterpress
Packaging rotogravure
printing operations
FJexography printing
operations
Some packaging rotogravure
printing operations
Some flexography packaging
printing operations
Reduction hi Organic Emissions
(%)
75a
95C
95d
65a
60*
65-75a
60"
a Reference 3.  Overall emission reduction efficiency (capture efficiency multiplied by control device
  efficiency).
b Direct flame (thermal) catalytic and pebble bed.  Three or more pebble beds hi a system have a heat
  recovery efficiency of 85%.
c Reference 12.  Efficiency of volatile organic removal — does not consider capture efficiency.
d Reference 13.  Efficiency of volatile organic removal — does not consider capture efficiency.
e Solvent portion consists of 75 volume % water and 25 volume % organic solvent.
f With less demanding quality requirements.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.9.1-9

    -------
References For Section 4.9.1

1.     "Air Pollution Control Technology Applicable To 26 Sources Of Volatile Organic
       Compounds", Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27, 1977. Unpublished.

2.     Peter N. Formica, Controlled And Uncontrolled Emission Rates And Applicable Limitations
       For Eighty Processes, EPA-340/1-78-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, April 1978.

3.     Edwin J. Vincent and William M. Vatavuk, Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From
       Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII:  Graphic Arts — Rotogravure And Flexography,
       EPA-450/2-78-033, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1978.

4.     Telephone communication with C. M. Higby, Cal/Ink, Berkeley, CA, March 28, 1978.

5.     T. W.  Hughes, et al., Prioritization Of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating
       Operations, EPA-650/2-75-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       February 1975.

6.     Harvey F. George, "Gravure Industry's Environmental Program", Environmental Aspects Of
       Chemical Use In Printing Operations, EPA-560/1-75-005, U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1976.

7.     K. A. Bownes, "Material Of Flexography", ibid.

8.     Ben H. Carpenter and Garland R. Hilliard, "Overview Of Printing Processes And Chemicals
       Used", ibid.

9.     R. L. Harvin,  "Recovery And Reuse of Organic Ink Solvents", ibid.

10.    Joseph L.  Zborovsky, "Current Status Of Web Heatset Emission Control Technology", ibid.

11.    R. R. Gadomski, et al., Evaluations Of Emission And Control Technologies In  The  Graphic
       Arts Industries, Phase I: Final Report, APTD-0597, National Air Pollution Control
       Administration, Cincinnati, OH, August 1970.

12.    R.R. Gadomski, et al., Evaluations Of Emissions And Control Technologies In  The  Graphic
       Arts Industries, Phase II: Web  Offset And Metal Decorating Processes, APTD-1463,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

13.    Control Techniques For Volatile Organic Emissions From Stationary Sources,
       EPA-450/2-78-022, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1978.

14.    Telephone communication with Edwin J. Vincent,  Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.
4.9.1-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
 15.    W. H. Lamason, "Technical Discussion Of Per Capita Emission Factors For Several Area
       Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds", Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 15, 1981.
       Unpublished.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                           4.9.1-11

    -------

    -------
4.9.2  Publication Gravure Printing

4.9.2.1  Process Description1"2

        Publication gravure printing is the printing by the rotogravure process of a variety of paper
products such as magazines, catalogs, newspaper supplements and preprinted inserts, and
advertisements. Publication printing is the largest sector involved in gravure printing, representing
over 37 percent of the total gravure product sales value in a 1976 study.

        The rotogravure press is designed to operate as a continuous printing facility, and normal
operation may be either continuous or nearly so.  Normal press operation experiences numerous
shutdowns caused by web breaks or mechanical problems.  Each rotogravure press generally consists
of 8 to 16 individual printing units, with an 8-unit press the most common.  In publication printing,
only 4 colors of ink are used:  yellow, red, blue, and black.  Each unit prints 1 ink color on 1 side of
the web, and colors other than these 4 are produced by printing 1 color over another to yield the
desired product.

        In the rotogravure printing process,  a web or substrate from a continuous roll is passed over
the image surface of a revolving gravure cylinder. For publication printing, only paper webs are
used.  The printing images are formed by many tiny recesses or cells etched or engraved into the
surface of the gravure cylinder.  The cylinder is  about  one-fourth submerged in a fountain of low-
viscosity mixed ink.  Raw ink is solvent-diluted at the press and is sometimes mixed with related
coatings, usually referred to as extenders or varnishes.  The ink, as applied, is a mixture of pigments,
binders, varnish, and solvent.  The mixed ink is  picked up by the cells on the revolving cylinder
surface and is continuously applied to the paper web. After impression is made, the web travels
through an enclosed heated air dryer to evaporate the volatile solvent.  The web is then guided along
a series of rollers to the next printing unit. Figure 4.9.2-1 illustrates  this printing process by an end
(or side) view of a single printing unit.

        At present, only solventborne inks are used on a large scale for publication printing.
Waterborne inks are still in research and development stages, but some  are now being used  in a few
limited cases.  Pigments, binders, and varnishes  are the nonvolatile solid components of the mixed
ink. For publication printing, only aliphatic and aromatic organic liquids are used as solvents.
Presently, 2 basic types of solvents, toluene and  a toluene-xylene-naphtha mixture, are used. The
naphtha base solvent is the more common.  Benzene is present hi both solvent types as an impurity,
in concentrations up to about 0.3 volume percent. Raw inks, as purchased, have 40 to 60 volume
percent solvent, and the related coatings typically contain about 60 to 80 volume percent solvent. The
applied mixed ink consists of 75 to 80 volume percent  solvent, required to achieve the proper fluidity
for rotogravure printing.

4.9.2.2 Emissions And Controls1'3"4

        Volatile organic compound  (VOC) vapors are the only significant air pollutant emissions from
publication rotogravure printing.  Emissions from the printing presses depend on the total amount of
solvent used.  The sources of these VOC emissions are the solvent components in the raw inks,
related coatings used at the printing presses, and  solvent added for dilution and press cleaning.  These
solvent organics are photochemically reactive. VOC emissions from both controlled and uncontrolled
publication rotogravure facilities in 1977 were about 57,000 megagrams (Mg) (63,000 tons),

4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.9.2-1

    -------
VO
io
w
in
C/3
s
I
                     ADJUSTABLE
                    COMPENSATING
                       ROLLER
                                                                             TO NEXT UNIT

                                                              DRYER EXIT AIR FLOW
                                                                                           RECIRCULATION
                                                                                                FAN
                                                                                                         TO DRYER
                                                                                                         EXHAUST
                                                                                                          HEADER
                                                                                                     EXTENDER/VARNISH

                                                                                                     INK

                                                                                                     SOLVENT
                                                            CIRCULATION
                                                               PUMP
                                                                                         Ml LIQUID VOLUME METERS
I
^
oo
                                                Figure 4.9.2-1.  Diagram of a rotogravure printing unit.

    -------
 15 percent of the total from the graphic arts industry. Emissions from ink and solvent storage and
 transfer facilities are not considered here.

        Table 4.9.2-1 presents emission factors for publication printing on rotogravure presses with
 and without control equipment. The potential amount of VOC emissions from the press is equal to
 the total amount of solvent consumed in the printing process (see Footnote f).  For uncontrolled
 presses, emissions occur from the dryer exhaust vents, printing fugitive vapors, and evaporation of
 solvent retained in the printed product.  About 75 to 90 percent of the VOC emissions occur from the
 dryer exhausts, depending on press operating speed, press shutdown frequency, ink and solvent
 composition, product printed, and dryer designs and efficiencies.  The amount of solvent retained by
 the various rotogravure printed products is 3 to 4 percent of the total solvent in the ink used.  The
 retained solvent eventually evaporates after the printed product leaves the press.

        There are numerous points around the printing press from which fugitive emissions occur.
 Most of the fugitive vapors result from solvent evaporation in the ink fountain, exposed parts of the
 gravure cylinder, the paper path at the dryer inlet, and from the paper web after exiting the dryers
 between printing units. The quantity of fugitive vapors depends on the solvent volatility, the
 temperature of the ink and solvent in the ink fountain, the amount of exposed area around the press,
 dryer designs and efficiencies, and the frequency of press shutdowns.

        The complete air pollution  control system for a modern publication rotogravure printing
 facility consists of 2 sections:  the solvent vapor capture system and the emission control device.  The
 capture system collects VOC vapors emitted from the presses and directs them to a control device
 where they are either recovered or destroyed.  Low-VOC waterborne ink systems to replace a
 significant amount of solventborne inks have not been developed as an emission reduction alternative.

 4.9.2.2.1  Capture Systems -
        Presently, only the concentrated dryer exhausts are captured at most facilities. The dryer
 exhausts contain the majority of the VOC vapors emitted. The  capture efficiency of dryers is limited
 by their operating temperatures and other factors that affect the release of the solvent vapors from the
 print and web to the dryer air. Excessively high temperatures impair product quality. The capture
 efficiency of older design dryer exhaust systems  is about  84 percent, and modern dryer systems can
 achieve 85 to 89 percent capture.  For a typical press, this type capture system consists of ductwork
 from each printing unit's dryer exhaust joined in a large header. One or more large fans are
 employed to pull the solvent-laden air from the dryers and to direct it to the control device.

        A few facilities have increased capture efficiency  by gathering fugitive solvent vapors  along
 with the dryer exhausts.  Fugitive vapors  can be captured by a hood above the press, by  a partial
 enclosure around the press, by a system of multiple spot pickup vents, by multiple floor  sweep vents,
 by total pressroom ventilation capture, or by various combinations of these. The design of any
 fugitive vapor capture system needs to be versatile enough to allow safe and adequate access to the
press  in press shutdowns. The efficiencies of these  combined dryer exhaust and fugitive capture
 systems can be as high as 93 to 97  percent at times, but the demonstrated achievable  long term
 average when printing several types of products  is only about 90 percent.

4.9.2.2.2 Control Devices -
        Various control devices and techniques may be employed to control captured  VOC vapors
from rotogravure presses.  All such controls are  of 2 categories: solvent recovery and solvent
destruction.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.9.2-3

    -------
      Table 4.9.2-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PUBLICATION
                            ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING PRESSES

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Emission Points
Dryer exhaustsb
Fugitives0
Printed productd
Control device6
Total emissionsf
VOC Emissions8
Uncontrolled
Total
Solvent
kg/kg
(Ib/lb)
0.84
0.13
0.03
—
1.0
Raw Ink
kg
L
1.24
0.19
0.05
—
1.48
Ib
gal
10.42
1.61
0.37
—
12.40
75% Control
Total
Solvent
kg/kg
(Ib/lb)
—
0.13
0.03
0.09
0.25
Raw Ink
L
—
0.19
0.05
0.13
0.37
Ib
gal
—
1.61
0.37
1.12
3.10
85% Control
Total
Solvent
kg/kg
(Ib/lb)
—
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.15
Raw
_kg_
L
—
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.22
Ink
Ib
gal
—
0.87
0.37
0.62
1.86
a All nonmethane.  Mass of VOC emitted per mass of total solvent used are more accurate factors.
  Solvent assumed to consist entirely of VOC.  Total solvent used includes all solvent in raw ink and
  related coatings, all dilution solvent added and all cleaning solvent used. Mass of VOC  emitted per
  volume of raw ink (and coatings) used  are general factors, based on typical dilution solvent volume
  addition.  Actual factors based on ink use can vary significantly, as follows:

         - Typical total solvent volume/raw  ink (and coatings) volume ratio - 2.0 (liter/liter)
           (L/L) (gal/gal); range, 1.6 - 2.4.  See References 1,5-8.

         - Solvent density (Ds) varies with composition and temperature.  At 21°C (70°F),
           the density of the most common mixed solvent used is 0.742 kg/L (6.2 Ib/gal);
           density of toluene solvent used is 0.863 kg/L (7.2 Ib/gal)! See Reference 1.

         - Mass of VOC emitted/raw ink (and coating) volume ratio determined from the
           mass emission factor ratio, the solvent/ink volume  ratio, and the solvent density.

                                   kg/L = kg/kg x L/L x Ds
                                 (Ib/gal = Ib/lb x gal/gal x Ds)

b Reference 3 and test data for presses with dryer exhaust control only (Reference 1). Dryer exhaust
  emissions depend on press operating speed, press shutdown frequency, ink and solvent composition,
  product printed, and dryer design and efficiencies. Emissions can range from 75-90% of total
  press emissions.
c Determined by difference between total emissions and other point emissions.
d Reference 1.  Solvent temporarily retained  in product after leaving  press depends on dryer
  efficiency, type of paper,  and type of ink used.  Emissions have been reported to range from
  1-7% of total press emissions.
e Based on capture and control device efficiencies (see Footnote f).  Emissions are residual content in
  captured  solvent-laden air vented after  treatment.
f References  1,3. Uncontrolled presses  eventually emit 100%  of total solvent used.  Controlled press
  emissions are based on overall reduction efficiency equal  to capture efficiency x control  device
  efficiency.  For 75% control, the capture efficiency is 84% with a  90% efficient control device.
  For 85% control, the capture efficiency is 90% with a 95% control device.
4.9.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
        Solvent recovery is the only present technique to control VOC emissions from publication
presses. Fixed-bed carbon adsorption by multiple vessels operating in parallel configuration,
regenerated by steaming, represents the most used control device.  A new adsorption technique using
a fluidized bed of carbon might be employed in the future. The recovered solvent can be directly
recycled to the presses.

        There are 3 types of solvent destruction devices used to control VOC emissions:
(1) conventional thermal oxidation,  (2) catalytic oxidation, and (3) regenerative thermal combustion.
These control devices are employed for other rotogravure printing.  At present, none are being used
on publication rotogravure presses.

        The efficiency of both solvent destruction and solvent recovery control devices can be as high
as 99 percent.  However, the achievable long-term average efficiency for publication printing is about
95 percent. Older carbon adsorber  systems were designed to perform at about 90 percent efficiency.
Control device emission factors presented in Table 4.9.2-1 represent the residual vapor content of the
captured solvent-laden air vented after treatment.

4.9.2.2.3  Overall Control -
        The overall emission reduction efficiency for VOC control systems is equal to the capture
efficiency tunes the control device efficiency. Emission factors for 2 control levels are presented in
Table 4.9.2-1. The 75 percent control level represents 84 percent capture with a 90 percent efficient
control device. (This is the EPA control techniques guideline recommendation for State regulations
on old existing presses.) The 85 percent control level represents 90 percent capture with a 95 percent
efficient control device. This corresponds to application of best demonstrated control technology for
new publication presses.

References For Section 4.9.2

1.      Publication Rotogravure Printing — Background Information For Proposed Standards,
        EPA-450/3-80-031a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        October 1980.

2.      Publication Rotogravure Printing — Background Information For Promulgated Standards,
        EPA-450/3-80-031b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
        Expected  November 1981.

3.      Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII;
        Graphic Arts — Rotogravure And Flexography, EPA-450/2-78-033, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1978.

4.      Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Graphic Arts — Publication
        Rotogravure Printing, 45 FR 71538, October 28, 1980.

5.      Written communication from Texas Color Printers, Inc., Dallas, TX, to Radian Corp.,
        Research  Triangle Park, NC, July 3, 1979.

6.      Written communication from Meredith/Burda, Lynchburg, VA, to Edwin Vincent, Office Of
        Ah" Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
        Triangle Park,  NC, July 6,  1979.

7.      W. R. Feairheller, Graphic Arts Emission Test Report, Meredith/Burda, Lynchburg, VA,
        EPA Contract No. 68-02-2818, Monsanto Research Corp., Dayton, OH, April 1979.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                Evaporation Loss Sources                            4.9.2-5

    -------
8.      W. R. Feairheller, Graphic Arts Emission Test Report, Texas Color Printers, Dallas, TX,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-2818, Monsanto Research Corp., Dayton, OH, October 1979.
4.9.2-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
4.10  Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use

4.10.1 General1'2

       Commercial and consumer use of various products containing volatile organic compounds
(VOC) contributes to formation of tropospheric ozone.  The organics in these products may be
released through immediate evaporation of an aerosol spray, evaporation after application, and direct
release in the gaseous phase.  Organics may act either as a carrier for the active product ingredients
or as active ingredients themselves. Commercial and consumer products that release VOCs include
aerosols, household products, toiletries, rubbing compounds, windshield washing fluids, polishes and
waxes, nonindustrial adhesives, space deodorants, moth control applications, and laundry detergents
and treatments.

4.10.2 Emissions

       Major volatile organic constituents of these products which are released to the atmosphere
include special naphthas, alcohols, and various chloro- and fluorocarbons.  Although methane is not
included in these products, 31 percent of the VOCs released in the use  of these products is considered
nonreactive under EPA policy. *4

       National emissions and per capita emission factors for commercial and consumer solvent use
are presented in Table 4.10-1. Per capita emission factors can be applied to area source inventories
by multiplying the factors by inventory area population.  Note that adjustment to exclude the
nonreactive emission fraction cited above should be applied to total emissions or to the composite
factor. Care is advised in making adjustments, in that substitution of compounds within the
commercial/consumer products market may alter the nonreactive fraction of compounds.
            Table 4.10-1 (Metric And English Units).  EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
                     FROM COMMERCIAL/CONSUMER SOLVENT USE

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Nonmethane VOC*

Use
Aerosol products
Household products
Toiletries
Rubbing compounds
Windshield washing
Polishes and waxes
National Emissions
103 Mg/yr
342
183
132
62
61
48
103 tons/yr
376
201
145
68
67
53
Per Capita Emission Factors
kg/yr 1 Ib/yr
1.6 3.5
0.86 1.9
0.64 1.4
0.29 0.64
0.29 0.63
0.22 0.49
g/dayb
4.4
2.4
1.8
0.80
0.77
0.59
ID'3 Ib/day
9.6
5.2
3.8
1.8
1.7
1.3
4/81 (Refomatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.10-1

    -------
                                    Table 4.10-1 (cont.).
Nonmethane VOCa
Use
Nonindustrial
adhesives
Space deodorant
Moth control
Laundry detergent
Total0
National Emissions
103 Mg/yr
29
18
16
4
895
103 tons/yr
32
20
18
4
984
Per Capita Emission Factors
kg/yr
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.02
4.2
Ib/yr
0.29
0.19
0.15
0.04
9.2
g/dayb
0.36
0.24
0.19
0.05
11.6
ID'3 Ib/day
0.79
0.52
0.41
0.10
25.2
a References 1-2.
b Calculated by dividing kg/yr (Ib/yr) by 365 and converting to appropriate units.
c Totals may not be additive because of rounding.
References For Section 4.10

1.     W. H. Lamason, "Technical Discussion Of Per Capita Emission Factors For Several Area
       Sources Of Volatile Organic Compounds ",  Monitoring And Data Analysis Division,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 15, 1981.
       Unpublished.

2.     End  Use Of Solvents Containing Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA^50/3-79-032,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

3.     Final Emission Inventory Requirements For 1982 Ozone State Implementation Plans,
       EPA-450/4-80-016, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1980.

4.     Procedures For The Preparation Of Emission Inventories For Volatile Organic Compounds,
       Volume I, Second Edition, EPA-450/2-77-028, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1980.
4.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
4.11  Textile Fabric Printing

4.11.1  Process Description1"2

        Textile fabric printing is part of the textile finishing industry.  In fabric printing, a decorative
pattern or design is applied to constructed fabric by roller, flat screen, or rotary screen methods.
Pollutants of interest in fabric printing are volatile organic compounds (VOC) from mineral spirit
solvents in print pastes or inks.  Tables 4.11-1, 4.11-2, and 4.11-3 show typical printing run
characteristics  and VOC emission sources,  respectively, for roller, flat screen, and rotary screen
printing methods.

        In the roller printing process, print paste is applied to an engraved roller, and the fabric is
guided between it and a central cylinder. The pressure of the roller and central cylinder forces the
print paste into the fabric.  Because of the high quality it can achieve, roller printing is the most
appealing method for printing designer and fashion apparel fabrics.

        In flat  screen printing, a screen on which print paste has been applied is lowered onto a
section of fabric.  A squeegee then moves across die screen, forcing the print paste through the screen
and into the fabric. Flat screen machines are used mostly in printing terry towels.

        In rotary screen printing, tubular screens rotate at the  same velocity as the fabric. Print paste
distributed inside the tubular screen is forced into the fabric as it is pressed between the screen and a
printing blanket (a continuous rubber belt).  Rotary screen printing machines are used mostly but not
exclusively for bottom  weight apparel fabrics or fabric not for apparel use.  Host knit fabric is printed
by the rotary screen method, because it does not stress (pull or stretch) the fabric during the process.

        Major  print paste components include clear and color concentrates, a solvent, and in pigment
printing, a low crock or binder resin. Print paste color concentrates contain either pigments or dyes.
Pigments are insoluble particles physically bound to fabrics.  Dyes are in solutions applied to impart
color by becoming chemically or physically incorporated into  individual fibers.  Organic solvents are
used almost exclusively with pigments.  Very little organic solvent is used in nonpigment print pastes.
Clear concentrates extend color concentrates to create light and dark shades.  Clear and color
concentrates do contain some VOC but contribute less than 1 percent of total VOC emissions from
textile printing operations.  Defoamers and resins are included hi print paste to increase color
fastness.  A small amount of thickening agent is also added to each print paste to control print paste
viscosity.  Print defoamers, resins, and thickening agents do not contain VOC.

        The majority of emissions from print paste are from the  solvent, which may be aqueous,
organic (mineral spirits), or both. The organic solvent concentration in print pastes may vary from
0 to 60 weight percent, with no consistent ratio of organic solvent  to water.   Mineral spirits used in
print pastes vary widely hi physical  and chemical properties (see Table 4.11-4).

        Although some mineral spirits evaporate hi the early stages of the printing process, the
majority of emissions to the atmosphere is from the printed fabric  drying process, which drives off
volatile compounds (see Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 for typical VOC emission splits). For some
specific print paste/fabric combinations, color fixing occurs in a  curing process,  which may be
entirely separate or merely a separate segment of the drying process.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Evaporation Loss Sources                              4.11-1

    -------




u
p
f3
JT3
(_
u

*^
PC

c
W
1
N— •
T-H
1
^-<
^
I







i
o
*•*
p*
fc











a
2
u
CO
J^>
5
S









.S
"3
P£







2P
5
1






&
S
.3
^*<





1
•£




S,
1



1
S
^
^^






S)
s
OS


O
CO
1
I
Cj


,*
Vl ^^ t^ *™^ C^ C^J "^f
fi m *o *^ 0*1 o o
d d o, co d o, *-* 2,


Tf ^ ^ *~^ ^5 ^H
to »~< r^ vo oo vo ^H
OO fl*O CS^ O»^
d do ca do do"
i ii i ii ii
C"4 ^ C^ CO ON P1- ^o O
C^ ^^ f^* C*4 VO 0s) *~^ f^
d *^ "J ^1 °. °
° 2, ° S- ° S-


~ ^ tN ^
vo co r^ ^ o o
f^ <^ <^ f^ f^t ^5 ^^ ^^




VO CO O*V CO
00 — C4  S ^ •I'J
§* to °o •s'-o '5, "g jj — 'S, -5
III li 1 1 h i }
^D.O£^ S04^^ §*




c? S
-ci

(f^
i/^ c^.
S\ "i
* vo"
^^ 1
' vo
P- CO
oo t—
c^* *•




^
g g
*~s


^
f- *k
B|




i—t C —
Tf «S
t- VO_



x_s
\f)
Tt §
t? — "
1 '
co O
r~ ov
^
2
§
c
i
en
£
8.«
4-1 ^V
.S £
£ ^






.. "2
f^^ Q
"O
>» .W
•* ^
f^ CO
\O 6*^
, .-** C4^
^_ o
^^ S
E £
S -^
- -8
*** "2
u !S

Sll 'I

"5. 7L " tf ^
||| |f
O >> .2 •*
S ^ 2 £ *
e^f -2P-P
.S | | -S
O —~. * t) \g
"^ S .22 "C "S
rt ^^ C3 ^_>
(4-4 *n S ^> Wi 3>
5 0<-S « « o
Si> M ^ S >>•«:
§ s|^ s-s
J S ^ OJ O PH
(8 JD O T3 O


















o
%-*

i
s
<*5
.S
£2
'C
's*
ii
s|
4> o
UN "S
Ci ^2
CX ^5
^i^
«^ o
"t3 c^
ci 
    -------
00
oo
to
I
 Table 4.11-2 (Metric Units).  SOURCES OF MINERAL SPIRIT EMISSIONS FROM A TYPICAL TEXTILE FABRIC PRINTING RUNa
Source
Mineral spirits used in runb
Wasted mineral spirits (potential water emissions)0
Overprinted mineral spirit fugitives'1
Tray and barrel fugitives6
Flashoff fugitives0
Dryer emissions6 *
Percent Of
Total
Emissions
100.0
6.2
3.5
0.3
1.5
88.5
Roller
Range
(kg)
0-458
0-28
0- 16
0- 1
0-7
0-405
Average
(kg)
193
12
7
1
3
170
Rotary
Range
(kg)
0-1,249
0-77
0-44
0-4
0- 19
0-1,105
Screen
Average
(kg)
23
1
1
0
0
21
Flat Screen
Range
(kg)
181 - 684
11 -42
6-24
1 -2
3-10
160 - 606
Average
(kg)
288
18
10
1
4
255
•s
o
3
5
C/5

g
a Length of run = 10,000 m; fabric width =  1.14 m; total fabric area = 11,400 m2; line speed = 40 m/min; distance, printer to
  oven = 5 m.
b Print paste used in run multiplied by mineral spirits added to print paste, weight percent.
c Estimate provided by industry contacts.
d Estimated on the basis of 2.5 cm of overprint on each side of fabric.
e Emission splits calculated from percentages provided by evaporation computations.

    -------
      Table 4.11-3 (English Units). SOURCES OF MINERAL SPIRIT EMISSIONS FROM A TYPICAL TEXTILE FABRIC PRINTING RUNa
Source
Mineral spirits used in runb
Wasted mineral spirits (potential water emissions)0
Overprinted mineral spirit fugitives'1
Tray and barrel fugitives6
Flashoff fugitives6
Dryer emissions6
Percent Of
Total
Emissions
100.0
6.2
3.5
0.3
1.5
88.5
Roller
Range
(Ib)
0- 1,005
0-62
0-35
0-2
0- 15
0- 889
Average
(Ib)
425
26
15
2
6
375
Rotary Screen
Range
(Ib)
0 - 2,754
0- 170
0-97
0-9
0-41
0 - 2,436
Average
(Ib)
51
2
2
0
1
46
Flat Screen
Range
(Ib)
399 - 1,508
24-93
13-53
1 -4
6-22
353 - 1,337
Average
(Ib)
635
40
22
2
9
562
w
GO
GO
g
GO
a Length of run =  10,936 yd; fabric width = 1.25 yd; total fabric area = 13,634 yd2; line speed = 44 yd/min; distance, printer to
  oven = 5.5 yd.
b Print paste used in run multiplied by mineral spirits added to print paste, weight percent.
c Estimate provided by industry contacts.
d Estimated on the basis  of 1 in. of overprint on each side of fabric.
e Emission splits calculated from percentages provided by evaporation computations.
oo

    -------
           Table 4.11-4 (Metric And English Units).  TYPICAL INSPECTION VALUES
                                   FOR MINERAL SPIRITS"
                   Parameter
                                 Range
  Specific gravity at 15°C (60°F)

  Viscosity at 25 °C (77 °F)

  Flash point (closed cup)

  Aniline point

  Kauri-Butanol number

  Distillation range
   Initial boiling points
   50 percent value
   Final boiling points

  Composition (%)
   Total saturates
   Total aromatics
   C8 and higher
                              0.778 - 0.805

                              0.83 - 0.95 cP

                         41 -45°C(105- 113°F)

                         43-62°C(110- 144°F)

                                 32-45


                        157 -  166°C (315 - 330°F)
                        168 -  178°C (334 - 348°F)
                        199-201°C(390-394°F)


                               81.5-92.3
                               7.7 - 18.5
                               7.5 - 18.5
a References 2,4.
       Two types of dryers are used for printed fabric, steam coil or natural gas fired dryers,
through which the fabric is conveyed on belts, racks, etc., and steam cans, with which the fabric
makes direct contact.  Most screen printed fabrics and practically all printed knit fabrics and terry
towels are dried with the first type of dryer, not to stress the fabric. Roller printed fabrics and
apparel fabrics requiring soft handling are dried on steam cans, which have lower installation and
operating costs  and which  dry the fabric more quickly than other dryers.

       Figure 4.11-1 is a  schematic diagram of the rotary screen printing process, with emission
points indicated.  The flat  screen printing process is virtually identical.  The symbols for fugitive
VOC emissions to the atmosphere indicate mineral spirits evaporating from print paste during
application to fabric before drying. The largest VOC emission source is the drying and curing oven
stack, which vents evaporated solvents (mineral spirits and water) to the atmosphere.  The symbol for
fugitive VOC emissions to the waste water indicates print paste mineral spirits washed with water
from the printing  blanket (continuous belt) and discharged in waste water.

       Figure 4.11-2 is a  schematic diagram of a roller printing process in which all emissions are
fugitive.  Fugitive VOC emissions from the "back grey" (fabric backing material that absorbs excess
print paste) hi the illustrated process are emissions to the atmosphere because the back grey is dried
before being washed.  In processes where the back grey is washed before drying, most of the fugitive
VOC emissions from the back grey will be discharged into the waste water. In some roller printing
processes, steam cans for drying printed fabric are enclosed, and drying process emissions are vented
directly to the atmosphere.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.11-5

    -------
                                                                   Q
                                                                   Ul
                                                                                     )
4.11-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
oo
8
 §

                                                                         STEAM CANS
                           I
FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS
TO ATMOSPHERE
                                           PRINTED
                                           FABRIC
                        GRAVURE ROLLER
                      LINT DOCTOR

                     BRUSH ROLLER
             PRINT
             PASTE
                                                                             DRY PRINTED FABRIC
                                                                                        DRY BACK GREY
                               THOUGH
                            Figure 4.11-2. Schematic diagram of the roller printing process, with fabric drying on steam cans.

    -------
4.11.2  Emissions And Controls1'3'12

        Presently there is no add-on emission control technology for organic solvent used in the textile
fabric printing industry.  Thermal incineration of oven exhaust has been evaluated in the Draft
Background Information Document for New Source Performance Standard development1 and has been
found unaffordable for some fabric printers. The feasibility of using other types of add-on emission
control  equipment has not been fully evaluated.  Significant organic solvent emissions reduction has
been accomplished by reducing or eliminating the consumption of mineral spirit solvents. The use of
aqueous or low organic solvent print pastes has increased during the past decade, because of the high
price of organic solvents and higher energy costs associated with the use of higher solvent volumes.
The only fabric printing applications presently requiring the use of large quantities of organic solvents
are pigment printing of fashion or designer apparel fabric, and terry towels.

        Table 4.11-5 presents average emission factors and ranges for each type of printing process
and an average annual emission factor per print line, based on estimates submitted by individual
fabric printers.  No emission tests were done. VOC emission rates involve 3 parameters: organic
solvent  content of print pastes, consumption of print paste (a function of pattern coverage and fabric
weight), and rate of fabric processing.  With the quantity of fabric printed held constant, the lowest
emission rate represents minimum organic solvent content print paste and minimum print paste
consumption, and the maximum emission rate represents maximum organic solvent  content print paste
and maximum print paste consumption.  The average emission rates shown for roller and rotary
screen printing are based on the results of a VOC usage survey conducted by the American Textile
Manufacturers Institute, Inc. (ATMI), in 1979. The average  flat screen printing emission factor is
based on information from 2 terry towel printers.

        Although the average emission factors for roller and rotary screen printing are representative
of the use of medium organic solvent content print pastes at average rates of print paste consumption,
very little printing is actually done with medium organic solvent content pastes.  The distribution of
       Table 4.11-5 (Metric And English Units).  TEXTILE FABRIC PRINTING ORGANIC
                                    EMISSION FACTORS*

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
VOC
kg/Mg fabric or lb/1000 Ib
fabric
Mg (ton)/yr/print line0
Roller
Range
0 - 348°

Average
142d
130°
(139)
Rotary
Range
0 - 945C

Screen
Average
23d
29C
(31)
Flat Screen15
Range
51 - 191°

Average
79e
29C
(31)
a Transfer printing, carpet printing, and printing of vinyl-coated cloth are specifically excluded from
  this compilation.
b Flat screen factors apply to terry towel printing. Rotary screen factors should be applied to flat
  screen printing of other types of fabric (e. g., sheeting, bottom weight apparel, etc.).
c Reference 13.
d Reference 5.
e Reference 6.
4.11-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
print paste use is bimodal, with the arithmetic average falling between the modes.  Most fabric is
printed with aqueous or low organic solvent print pastes. However, in applications where the use of
organic solvents is beneficial, high organic solvent content print pastes are used to derive the full
benefit of using organic solvents. The most accurate emissions data can be generated by obtaining
organic solvent use data for a particular facility. The emission factors presented here should only be
used to estimate actual process  emissions.

References For Section 4.11

1.     Fabric Printing Industry: Background Information For Proposed Standards (Draft), EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-3056, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 21,
       1981.

2.     Exxon Petroleum Solvents, Lubetext DG-1P, Exxon Company, Houston, TX,  1979.

3.     Memorandum from S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute, to Textile Fabric Printing AP-42
       file,  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, March 25, 1981.

4.     C. Marsden, Solvents Guide, Interscience Publishers,  New York, NY, 1963, p. 548.
                 •
5.     Letter from W. H. Steenland, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc., to Dennis
       Grumpier, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 8,
       1980.

6.     Memorandum from S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute, to Textile Fabric Printing AP-42
       File, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, March 12, 1981.

7.     Letter from A. C. Lohr, Burlington Industries,  to James Berry,  U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 26,  1979.

8.     Trip Report/Plant Visit To Fieldcrest Mills, Foremost Screen Print Plant, memorandum from
       S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute, to C. Gasperecz, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 28, 1980.

9.     Letter from T. E. Boyce, Fieldcrest Corporation, to S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 23, 1980.

10.    Telephone conversation, S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute, with Tom Boyce, Foremost
       Screen Print Plant, Stokesdale, NC, April 24, 1980.

11.    "Average Weight And Width Of Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray)", Current Industrial Report,
       Publication No. MC-22T (Supplement), Bureau Of The Census, U. S. Department Of
       Commerce, Washington, DC, 1977.

12.    "Sheets, Pillowcases, and Towels", Current Industrial Report, Publication No. MZ-23X,
       Bureau Of The Census, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1977.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Evaporation Loss Sources                             4.11-9

    -------
13.     Memorandum from S. B. York, Research Triangle Institute, to Textile Fabric Printing AP-42
       File, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 3, 1981.

14.     "Survey of Plant Capacity,  1977", Current Industrial Report, Publication No. DQ-C1(77)-1,
       Bureau Of The Census, U.S. Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC, August 1978.
4.11-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
                          5.  PETROLEUM  INDUSTRY
       The petroleum industry involves the refining of crude petroleum and the processing of natural
gas into a multitude of products, as well as the distribution and marketing of petroleum-derived
products.  The primary pollutant emitted is volatile organic compounds arising from leakage, venting,
and evaporation of the raw materials and finished products. Significant amounts of sulfur oxides,
hydrogen sulfide, paniculate matter, and a number of toxic species can also be generated from
operations specific to this industry. In addition, a wide variety of fuel combustion devices emits all
of the criteria pollutants and a number of toxic species.
1/95                                 Petroleum Industry                                 5.0-1

    -------
5.0-2                        EMISSION FACTORS                         1/95

    -------
5.1 Petroleum Refining1

5.1.1  General Description

       The petroleum refining industry converts crude oil into more than 2500 refined products,
including liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oils, lubricating
oils, and feedstocks for the petrochemical industry. Petroleum refinery activities start with receipt of
crude for storage at the refinery, include all petroleum handling and refining operations, and they
terminate with storage preparatory to shipping the refined products from the refinery.

       The petroleum refining industry employs a wide variety of processes. A refinery's processing
flow scheme is largely determined by the composition of the crude oil feedstock and the chosen slate
of petroleum products. The example refinery flow scheme presented in Figure 5.1-1 shows the
general processing arrangement used by refineries in the United States for major refinery processes.
The arrangement of these processes will vary among refineries, and few,  if any, employ all of these
processes.  Petroleum refining processes having direct emission sources are presented on the figure in
bold-line boxes.

Listed below are 5 categories of general refinery processes and associated operations:

       1.  Separation processes
          a. Atmospheric distillation
          b. Vacuum distillation
          c. Light ends recovery (gas processing)
      2.  Petroleum conversion processes
          a. Cracking (thermal and catalytic)
          b. Reforming
          c. Alkylation
          d. Polymerization
          e. Isomerization
          f. Coking
          g. Visbreaking
      3.  Petroleum treating processes
          a. Hydrodesulfurization
          b. Hydrotreating
          c. Chemical sweetening
          d. Acid gas removal
          e. Deasphalting
      4.  Feedstock and product handling
          a. Storage
          b. Blending
          c. Loading
          d. Unloading
      5.  Auxiliary facilities
      *   a. Boilers
          b. Waste water treatment
          c. Hydrogen production
          d. Sulfur recovery plant


1/95                                   Petroleum Industry                                  5.1-1

    -------
                                                                OLEFIN GAS
                                                                                      I





                                                                                      g
                                                                                      0>
                                                                                      
    -------
           e.  Cooling towers
           f.  Blowdown system
           g.  Compressor engines

These refinery processes are defined below, and their emission characteristics and applicable emission
control technology are discussed.

5.1.1.1  Separation Processes -
       The first phase in petroleum refining operations is the separation of crude oil into its major
constituents using 3 petroleum separation processes:  atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, and
light ends recovery (gas processing).  Crude oil consists of a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds
including paraffmic, naphthenic, and aromatic hydrocarbons with small amounts of impurities
including sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and metals.  Refinery separation processes separate these crude oil
constituents into common boiling-point fractions.

5.1.1.2  Conversion Processes -
       To meet the demands for high-octane gasoline,  jet fuel,  and diesel fuel, components such as
residual oils, fuel oils, and light ends are converted to gasolines and other light fractions.  Cracking,
coking,  and visbreaking processes are used to break large petroleum molecules  into smaller ones.
Polymerization and alkylation processes are used to combine small petroleum molecules into larger
ones. Isomerization and reforming processes are applied to rearrange the structure of petroleum
molecules to produce higher-value molecules of a similar molecular size.

5.1.1.3  Treating Processes -
       Petroleum treating processes stabilize and upgrade petroleum products by separating them
from less desirable products  and by removing objectionable elements.  Undesirable elements such as
sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen are removed by hydrodesulfurization, hydrotreating, chemical
sweetening, and acid gas removal.  Treating processes, employed primarily for the separation of
petroleum products, include such processes as deasphalting.  Desalting is used to remove salt,
minerals, grit, and water from crude oil feedstocks before refining.  Asphalt blowing is used for
polymerizing and stabilizing  asphalt to improve its weathering characteristics.

5.1.1.4  Feedstock And Product Handling -
       The refinery feedstock and  product handling operations consist of unloading,  storage,
blending, and  loading activities.

5.1.1.5  Auxiliary Facilities -
       A wide assortment of processes and equipment  not directly involved in the refining of crude
oil is used  in functions vital to the operation of the refinery.  Examples are boilers, waste water
treatment facilities, hydrogen plants, cooling towers,  and sulfur  recovery units.   Products from
auxiliary facilities (clean water, steam, and process heat) are required by most process units
throughout the refinery.

5.1.2  Process Emission Sources And Control Technology

       This section presents descriptions of those refining processes that are significant air pollutant
contributors.  Process flow schemes, emission characteristics, and emission control technology are
discussed for each process.  Table 5.1-1 lists the emission factors for direct-process emissions in
1/95                                    Petroleum Industry                                   5.1-3

    -------
                     Table 5.1-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES8
Process
Boilers and process heaters
Fuel oil
Natural gas
Fluid catalytic cracking units
(FCC)C
Uncontrolled
kg/103 L fresh feed

lb/103 bbl fresh feed

Electrostatic precipitator
and CO boiler
kg/103 L fresh feed

lb/103 bbl fresh feed

Moving-bed catalytic
cracking unitsf
kg/103 L fresh feed
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
Fluid coking units8
Uncontrolled
kg/103 L fresh feed
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
Electrostatic precipitator
and CO boiler
kg/103 L fresh feed
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
Particulate

Sulfur Oxides
(as S02)

Carbon
Monoxide

Total
Hydro-
carbons'1

Nitrogen Oxides
(as NO2)

Aldehydes

Ammonia

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

See Section 1 .3 - "Fuel Oil Combustion"
See Section 1.4- "Natural Gas Combustion"



0.695
(0.267 to 0.976)
242
(93 to 340)


0.128d
(0.020 to 0.428)
45"
(7 to 150)


0.049
17


1.50
523


0.0196
6.85



1.413
(0.286to 1.505)
493
(100 to 525)


1.413
(0.286 to 1.505)
493
(100 to 525)


0.171
60


ND
ND


ND
ND



39.2

13,700



Neg

Neg



10.8
3,800


ND
ND


Neg
Neg



0.630

220



Neg

Neg



0.250
87


ND
ND


Neg
Neg



0.204
(0.107 to 0.416)
71.0
(37.1 to 145.0)


0.2046
(0.107to 0.416)
71. Oe
(37.1 to 145.0)


0.014
5


ND
ND


ND
ND



0.054

19



Neg

Neg



0.034
12


ND
ND


Neg
Neg



0.155

54



Neg

Neg



0.017
6


ND
ND


Neg
Neg



B

B



B

B



B
B


C
C


C
C
m

£
I—H
V)
C/3
H-*
O
z

•n
>
o



§
C/3

    -------
   o>
7* — ^
O o
§i

T
1
.2
E



1
S
Z
!5
•n
1
Z
en


o
o
c 2
CA
U
•o
•3
6
—
CO





  O 4> O
z z z z

Reciprocating engines
kg/103 m3 gas burned
lb/103 ft3 gas burned
Gas turbines
kg/103 m3 gas burned
lb/103 ft3 gas burned
Blowdown systems'1


0 O
8? £P
Z Z


ee eo
jy ,y
z z
00 00
o o
2 2




cs o
vO *«
***


£? If
z z



g> g»
z z


&0 b£
U W
z z

-a "S
1 «s §
e> g" S.
O C <"
«§«§£•
_- O t- W
T? >- _ > oo
^ i 3 0 C
•S J S H 'C
r^ «
1 ^> s s. =
*— •% ^^ n CQ
3 >


0
00
u


I
1
o


8
o
o


tM
0
o



^^^
o
0


8?
z

I
u
e
J
*b
"So


U
00
o
Z


I
oo



00
o



f*">
•*




>0

z



oo
u


o


Controlled (vented to heater




























1 or incinerator)
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.1-5

    -------























.
8

_«
H





















^i Q^ r«*
55 H S
tvj u H
s 2i «
PU

.s

Q

1
s
"O
J?
2

«
1-
OQ"
c 2
|S

2



, Xi
!il
HK «
u
c •&
o 'S
•e g
ul

CA
U
.12 ^
o §
3 »
5s -S-
3

U
"ca
"5
o
'•£
<£









EA
&«
















O
1

h;

"3


od
0
V)
V)














as
2
•O
C


c c
.2 u
ai
3 fl>
o ~
















a
•o
o
c

II
Q

m
3
"bi> c
0> Rt
c ^
l|
• o

ll

•is
on _O
D bj
3 S
*«H U
5 o
•st
« —
c -2
CQ O
M **
fy^
i °
•3 ^
^2
""" 2?

j=

3
1
2
1
u
1
"p
VM
o
o
"2
fft
Cv
•*— »
O
w
g
1
pj -a
4)  Ut ^S
11^
£^30

o -o






























imonia.
w
o
_0
"*-*
3
1
8

.g
1
uT
•gj
fl
2 oi

4> Wt
en
"2
1
(U
•o

c
o
bO
1

T3

^
§
«
0
"s

Se

^
^

*-•
1
c2
3
CO
tB
1C
i^
en
on
2
«2
"3
CM*
O
C
•2
3
JO
.if .
^5 O i
"T Q CM ""I
en ^^ ^O en

o o C [5 °
c c o -S2 c
£ £ -o g s
«g «s g « «g
Q> 4> CQ t ^>
(X P^ P"l *n f^

60 JC ._ ^



1

*^N

P
|
O
Jja
6s-
en
•^
(^^
s
3
O
> e
^ g

E -1
^ W
S "
eS g

« —
•P 1
g'S
**" 0
i'l
it
5 o
c§
W «3
fl
^ o
•J3 4_»
*i
e" <-
§•8
If
-— O
fl> 4>
2l
12
CM J^
M* "*
in "S
V C
CM a>
. en
cn ""
es 2
"~ " "P
^ «

^-* ->^
C M
a> a>
CM cH
D (U
O< OJ

E
5.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
petroleum refineries. Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per 1000 liters (kg/103 L) or
kilograms per 1000 cubic meters (kg/103 m3)  and pounds per 1000 barrels (lb/103 bbl) or pounds per
1000 cubic feet Ob/103 ft3).  The following process emission sources are discussed here:

        1.  Vacuum distillation
        2.  Catalytic cracking
        3.  Thermal cracking processes
        4.  Utility boilers
        5.  Heaters
        6.  Compressor engines
        7.  Slowdown systems
        8.  Sulfur recovery

5.1.2.1 Vacuum Distillation -                                                      „
        Topped crude withdrawn from the bottom of the atmospheric distillation column is composed
of high boiling-point hydrocarbons.  When distilled at atmospheric pressures, the crude oil
decomposes and polymerizes and will foul  equipment.  To separate topped crude into components, it
must be distilled in  a vacuum column at a very low pressure and in a steam atmosphere.

        In the vacuum distillation unit, topped crude is heated with a process heater to temperatures
ranging from 370 to 425°C (700 to 800°F). The heated topped crude is flashed into a multitray
vacuum distillation column operating at absolute pressures ranging from 350 to 1400 kilograms per
square meter (kg/m2) (0.5 to 2 pounds per  square inch absolute [psia]).  In the vacuum column, the
topped crude is separated into common boiling-point fractions by vaporization and condensation.
Stripping steam is normally injected into the bottom of the vacuum distillation column to assist the
separation by lowering the effective partial  pressures of the components.  Standard petroleum
fractions withdrawn from the vacuum distillation column include lube distillates, vacuum oil, asphalt
stocks, and residual oils.  The vacuum in the vacuum distillation column  is usually maintained by the
use of steam ejectors but may be maintained by the use of vacuum pumps.

        The major sources of atmospheric emissions from the vacuum distillation column are
associated with the steam ejectors or vacuum pumps.  A major portion of the vapors withdrawn from
the column by the ejectors or pumps is recovered in condensers. Historically, the noncondensable
portion of the vapors has been vented to the atmosphere from the condensers.  There are
approximately 0.14  kg of noncondensable hydrocarbons per m3 (50 lb/103 bbl) of topped crude
processed  in the vacuum distillation column.2'12"13  A second source of atmospheric emissions from
vacuum distillation columns  is combustion  products from the process heater.  Process heater
requirements  for the vacuum distillation column are approximately 245 megajoules per cubic meter
(MJ/m3) (37,000 British thermal units  per barrel [Btu/bbl]) of topped crude processed in the vacuum
column. Process heater emissions and their control are  discussed below.   Fugitive hydrocarbon
emissions  from leaking seals and fittings are also associated with the  vacuum distillation unit, but
these are minimized by the low operating pressures and  low vapor pressures in the unit.  Fugitive
emission sources are also discussed later.

       Control technology applicable to the noncondensable emissions vented from the vacuum
ejectors or pumps includes venting into blowdown systems or fuel gas systems, and incineration in
furnaces or waste heat boilers.2'12"13  These control techniques are generally greater than 99 percent
efficient in the control of hydrocarbon  emissions,  but they also contribute to the emission of
combustion products.
1/95                                  Petroleum Industry                                  51-7

    -------
5.1.2.2 Catalytic Cracking-
        Catalytic cracking, using heat, pressure, and catalysts, converts heavy oils into lighter
products with product distributions favoring the more valuable gasoline and distillate blending
components.  Feedstocks are usually gas oils from atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation,
coking, and deasphalting processes.  These feedstocks typically have a boiling range of 340 to 540°C
(650 to 1000°F). All of the catalytic cracking processes in use today can be classified as either
fluidized-bed or moving-bed units.

5.1.2.2.1  Fluidized-bed Catalytic Cracking (FCC) -
        The FCC process uses a catalyst in the form of very fine particles  that act as a fluid when
aerated with a vapor. Fresh feed is preheated in a process heater and introduced into the bottom of a
vertical transfer line or riser with hot regenerated catalyst.  The hot catalyst vaporizes the feed,
bringing both to the desired reaction temperature, 470 to 525 °C (880 to 980 °F) The high activity of
modern catalysts causes most of the cracking reactions to take place in the riser as the catalyst and oil
mixture flows upward into the reactor.  The hydrocarbon vapors are separated from the catalyst
particles by cyclones in the reactor.  The reaction products are sent to a fractionator for separation.

        The spent catalyst falls to the bottom of the reactor and is steam stripped as it exits the reactor
bottom to remove absorbed hydrocarbons.  The spent catalyst is then conveyed to a regenerator. In
the regenerator, coke deposited on the catalyst as a result of the cracking reactions is burned off in a
controlled combustion process with preheated air.  Regenerator temperature is usually 590 to  675°C
(1100 to 1250°F).  The catalyst is then recycled to be mixed with fresh hydrocarbon feed.

5.1.2.2.2 Moving-bed Catalytic Cracking-
        In the moving-bed  system, typified by the Thermafor Catalytic Cracking (TCC) units, catalyst
beads ( — 0.5 centimeters [cm] [0.2 inches (in.)]) flow into the top of the reactor, where they contact a
mixed-phase hydrocarbon feed.  Cracking reactions take place as the catalyst and hydrocarbons move
concurrently downward through the reactor to a zone where the catalyst is separated from the vapors.
The gaseous reaction products flow out of the reactor to the fractionation section of the unit.  The
catalyst is steam stripped to remove any adsorbed hydrocarbons. It then falls into the regenerator,
where coke is burned from the catalyst with air.  The regenerated catalyst  is separated  from the flue
gases and recycled to be mixed with fresh hydrocarbon feed. The  operating temperatures of the
reactor and  regenerator in the TCC process are comparable to those in the FCC process.

        Air emissions from catalytic cracking processes are (1)  combustion products from process
heaters and  (2) flue gas from catalyst regeneration. Emissions from process heaters are discussed
below.  Emissions from the catalyst regenerator include hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur, ammonia,
aldehydes, oxides of nitrogen, cyanides, carbon monoxide (CO), and participates (Table 5.1-1).  The
paniculate emissions from  FCC units are much greater than those from TCC units because of the
higher catalyst circulation rates used.2"3'5

        FCC paniculate emissions are controlled by cyclones and/or electrostatic precipitators.
Paniculate control efficiencies are as high as 80 to 85 percent.3'5  Carbon  monoxide waste heat
boilers reduce the CO and  hydrocarbon emissions from FCC units to negligible levels.3  TCC catalyst
regeneration produces similar pollutants to FCC units, but in much smaller quantities (Table 5.1-1).
The paniculate emissions from a TCC unit are normally controlled by high-efficiency cyclones.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from a TCC unit are incinerated to negligible levels by
passing the  flue gases through a process heater firebox or smoke plume burner.  In some installations,
sulfur  oxides are removed  by passing the regenerator flue gases through a  water or caustic
scrubber.2"3'5
5j.8                                 EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
5.1.2.3  Thermal Cracking -
       Thermal cracking processes include visbreaking and coking, which break heavy oil molecules
by exposing them to high temperatures.

5.1.2.3.1  Visbreaking -
       Topped crude or vacuum residuals are heated and thermally cracked  (455 to 480°C, 3.5 to
17.6 kg/cnr [850 to 900°F, 50 to 250 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)]) in the visbreaker
furnace to reduce the viscosity, or pour point, of the charge.  The cracked products are quenched
with gas oil and flashed into a fractionator. The vapor overhead from the fractionator is separated
into light distillate products.  A heavy distillate recovered from the fractionator liquid can be used as
either a fuel oil blending component or catalytic cracking feed.

5.1.2.3.2  Coking -
       Coking is a thermal cracking process  used to convert low value residual fuel oil to higher-
value gas oil and petroleum coke.  Vacuum residuals and thermal tars are cracked in the coking
process at high temperature and low pressure. Products are petroleum coke, gas oils, and lighter
petroleum stocks.  Delayed coking is the most widely used  process today, but fluid coking is expected
to become an important process in the future.

       In the delayed coking process, heated charge stock is fed into the bottom of a fractionator,
where light ends are stripped from the feed.   The stripped feed  is then combined with recycle
products from the coke drum and rapidly heated in the  coking heater to a temperature of 480 to
590°C (900 to 1100°F).  Steam injection is used to  control  the  residence time in the heater.  The
vapor-liquid feed leaves the heater, passing to a coke drum  where,  with controlled  residence time,
pressure (1.8 to 2.1 kg/cm2 [25 to  30 psig]),  and  temperature (400°C  [750°F]), it is cracked to form
coke and vapors. Vapors from the drum return to the fractionator, where the thermal cracking
products are recovered.

       In the fluid coking process, typified by Flexicoking, residual oil feeds are injected into the
reactor, where they are thermally cracked, yielding  coke and a wide range of vapor products.  Vapors
leave the reactor and are quenched in a scrubber,  where entrained coke fines are removed.  The
vapors are then fractionated.  Coke from the reactor enters  a heater and is devolatilized. The
volatiles from the heater are treated for fines  and  sulfur removal to yield  a particulate-free, low-sulfur
fuel gas.  The devolatilized coke is circulated from the  heater to a gasifier where 95 percent of the
reactor coke is gasified at high temperature with steam  and  air or oxygen. The gaseous products  and
coke from the gasifier are returned to the heater to supply heat for the devolatilization. These gases
exit the heater with the heater volatiles through  the same fines and sulfur removal processes.

       From available literature, it is unclear what  emissions are released and where they are
released.  Air emissions from thermal cracking  processes include coke dust from decoking operations,
combustion gases from the  visbreaking and coking process heaters, and fugitive emissions. Emissions
from the process heaters are discussed below.  Fugitive emissions from miscellaneous leaks are
significant because of the high temperatures involved, and are dependent upon equipment type  and
configuration, operating conditions, and  general maintenance practices. Fugitive emissions are also
discussed below.  Paniculate emissions from delayed coking operations are potentially very
significant.  These emissions are associated with removing the coke from the coke  drum and
subsequent handling and storage operations.  Hydrocarbon emissions are  also associated with cooling
and venting the coke drum before coke removal.  However, comprehensive data for delayed coking
emissions have not been included in available literature.4"5
1/95                                   Petroleum Industry                                   5.1-9

    -------
       Paniculate emission control is accomplished in the decoking operation by wetting down the
coke.5 Generally, there is no control of hydrocarbon emissions from delayed coking.  However,
some facilities are now collecting coke drum emissions in an enclosed system and routing them to a
refinery flare.4"5

5.1.2.4 Utilities Plant-
       The utilities plant supplies the steam necessary for the refinery. Although the steam can be
used to produce electricity by throttling through a turbine, it is primarily used for heating and
separating hydrocarbon streams.  When used for heating, the steam usually heats the petroleum
indirectly in heat exchangers and returns to the boiler.  In direct contact operations, the steam can
serve as a stripping medium or a process fluid. Steam may also be used in vacuum ejectors to
produce a vacuum. Boiler emissions and applicable emission control technology are discussed in
much greater detail in Chapter 1.

5.1.2.5 Sulfur Recovery Plant -
       Sulfur recovery plants are used in petroleum refineries to convert the hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
separated from refinery gas streams into the more disposable byproduct, elemental sulfur. Emissions
from sulfur recovery plants and their control are discussed in Section 8.13, "Sulfur Recovery".

5.1.2.6 Slowdown System-
       The blowdown system provides for the safe disposal of hydrocarbons (vapor and liquid)
discharged from pressure relief devices.

       Most refining processing units and equipment subject to planned or unplanned hydrocarbon
discharges are manifolded into a collection unit, called blowdown system. By using a series of flash
drums and condensers arranged in decreasing pressure, blowdown material is separated into vapor  and
liquid cuts.  The separated liquid is recycled into the refinery.  The gaseous cuts can either be
smokelessly flared or recycled.

       Uncontrolled blowdown emissions primarily consist of hydrocarbons but can also include any
of the other criteria pollutants.  The emission rate in a blowdown system is a function of the amount
of equipment manifolded into the system, the frequency of equipment discharges, and the blowdown
system controls.

       Emissions  from the blowdown system  can be effectively controlled by combustion of the
noncondensables in a flare.  To obtain complete combustion or smokeless burning (as required by
most states), steam is injected in the combustion zone  of the flare to provide turbulence and air.
Steam injection also reduces emissions  of nitrogen oxides by lowering the flame temperature.
Controlled emissions are listed in Table 5.1-1.2'11

5.1.2.7 Process Heaters-
       Process heaters (furnaces) are used extensively in refineries to supply the heat necessary to
raise the temperature of feed materials to reaction or distillation level. They are designed to raise
petroleum fluid temperatures to a maximum  of about 510°C (950°F).  The fuel  burned may be
refinery gas, natural gas, residual fuel oils, or combinations, depending on economics, operating
conditions, and emission requirements.  Process heaters may also use CO-rich regenerator flue gas as
fuel.
5.1_10                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
        All the criteria pollutants are emitted from process heaters. The quantity of these emissions is
a function of the type of fuel burned, the nature of the contaminants in the fuel, and the heat duty of
the furnace.  Sulfur oxides can be controlled by fuel desulfurization or flue gas treatment. Carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons can be controlled by more combustion efficiency. Currently,
4 general techniques or modifications for the control of nitrogen oxides are being investigated:
combustion modification,  fuel modification, furnace design, and flue gas treatment.  Several of these
techniques are being applied to large utility boilers, but their applicability to process heaters has  not
been established.2'14

5.1.2.8  Compressor Engines-
        Many older refineries run high-pressure compressors with reciprocating and gas turbine
engines fired with natural gas.  Natural gas has usually been a cheap, abundant source of energy.
Examples of refining units operating at high pressure include hydrodesulfurization, isomerization,
reforming, and hydrocracking.  Internal combustion engines are less reliable and harder to maintain
than are steam engines or electric motors.  For this reason, and because of increasing natural gas
costs, very few such units have been installed in the last few years.

        The major source of emissions from compressor engines is combustion products in the
exhaust gas.  These emissions include CO, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, aldehydes, and ammonia.
Sulfur oxides may also be present, depending on the sulfur content of the natural gas.  All these
emissions are significantly higher in exhaust from reciprocating engines than from turbine engines.

        The major emission control technique applied to compressor engines is carburetion adjustment
similar to that applied on automobiles.  Catalyst systems similar to those of automobiles may also be
effective in reducing emissions, but their use has not been  reported.

5.1.2.9  Sweetening-
        Sweetening of distillates is accomplished by the conversion of mercaptans to alkyl disulfides
in the presence of a catalyst.  Conversion may be followed by an extraction step for removal of the
alkyl disulfides. In the conversion process, sulfur is added to the  sour distillate with a small amount
of caustic and air. The mixture is then passed upward through a fixed-bed catalyst, counter to a flow
of caustic entering at the top  of the vessel.  In the conversion and  extraction process, the  sour
distillate is washed with caustic and then is contacted in the extractor with a solution of catalyst and
caustic.  The extracted distillate is then contacted with air to convert mercaptans to disulfides.  After
oxidation, the distillate  is  settled, inhibitors are added, and the distillate is sent to storage.
Regeneration is accomplished by  mixing caustic from the bottom of the extractor with air and then
separating the disulfides and excess air.

        The major emission problem is hydrocarbons from contact of the distillate product and air  in
the "air blowing" step.  These emissions  are  related to equipment  type and configuration, as well as
to operating conditions and maintenance practices.4

5.1.2.10 Asphalt Blowing-
        The asphalt blowing process polymerizes asphaltic  residual oils by oxidation, increasing their
melting temperature and hardness to achieve  an increased resistance to weathering.  The oils,
containing a large quantity of polycyclic aromatic compounds (asphaltic oils), are oxidized by blowing
heated air through a heated batch mixture or, in a continuous process,  by  passing hot air
countercurrent to the oil flow.  The reaction is exothermic, and quench steam is sometimes needed for
temperature control. In some cases, ferric  chloride or phosphorus pentoxide is used as a catalyst to
increase the reaction rate and to impart special characteristics to the asphalt.
1795                                   Petroleum Industry                                  5.1-11

    -------
       Air emissions from asphalt blowing are primarily hydrocarbon vapors vented with the blowing
air.  The quantities of emissions are small because of the prior removal of volatile hydrocarbons in
the distillation units, but the emissions may contain hazardous polynuclear organics. Emissions are
30 kg/megagram (Mg) (60 Ib/ton) of asphalt.13 Emissions from asphalt blowing can be controlled to
negligible levels by vapor scrubbing, incineration, or both.4-13

5.1.3 Fugitive Emissions And Controls

       Fugitive emission sources include leaks of hydrocarbon vapors from process equipment and
evaporation of hydrocarbons from open areas, rather than through a stack or vent.  Fugitive emission
sources include valves of all types, flanges, pump and compressor seals, process drains, cooling
towers, and oil/water separators.  Fugitive emissions are attributable to the evaporation of leaked or
spilled petroleum liquids and gases.  Normally, control of fugitive emissions involves minimizing
leaks and spills through equipment changes, procedure changes, and improved monitoring,
housekeeping, and maintenance practices. Controlled  and uncontrolled fugitive emission factors for
the following sources are listed in Table 5.1-2:

       -  Oil/water separators (waste water treatment)
       -  Storage
       -  Transfer operations
       -  Cooling towers

Emission factors for fugitive  leaks from the following types of process equipment can be found in
Protocol For Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-93-026, June 1993, or subsequent
updates:

       -  Valves (pipeline, open ended, vessel relief)
       -  Flanges
       -  Seals (pump, compressor)
       -  Process drains

5.1.3.1  Valves, Flanges, Seals, And Drains -
       For these sources, a very high correlation has been found between mass emission rates and
the type of stream service in which the sources are employed.  The four stream  service types are
(1) hydrocarbon gas/vapor streams (including gas streams with up to 50 percent hydrogen by
volume), (2) light liquid and gas/liquid streams, (3) kerosene and heavier liquid streams (includes all
crude oils), and (4)  gas streams containing more than  50 percent hydrogen by  volume. It is found
that sources  in gas/vapor stream service have higher emission rates than those in heavier stream
service. This trend is especially pronounced for valves and pump seals. The  size of valves, flanges,
pump seals,  compressor seals, relief valves, and process drains does not affect their leak rates.17  The
emission factors are independent of process unit or refinery throughput.

       Valves, because of their number  and relatively high emission factor, are the major emission
source.  This conclusion is based on an analysis of a hypothetical refinery coupled with the emission
rates. The total quantity of fugitive VOC emissions in a typical oil  refinery with a capacity of
52,500 m3 (330,000 bbl) per day is estimated as 20,500 kg (45,000 Ib) per day  (see Table 5.1-3).
This estimate is based on a typical late 1970s refinery without  a leak inspection  and maintenance
(I/M) program. See the Protocol document for details on how to estimate emissions for a specific
refinery.
5.M2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
           Table 5.1-2 (Metric And English Units). FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS
                              FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Emission
Source
Cooling
towersb

Oil/water
separators6

Storage
Loading
Emission Factor
Units
kg/106 L cooling
water
lb/106 gal cooling
water
kg/103 L
waste water
lb/103 gal
waste water
Emission Factors
Uncontrolled Controlled
Emissions Emissions
0.7 0.08
6 0.7
0.6 0.024
5 0.2
Applicable Control Technology
Minimization of hydrocarbon leaks
into cooling water system;
monitoring of cooling water for
hydrocarbons
Minimization of hydrocarbon leaks
into cooling water system;
monitoring of cooling water for
hydrocarbons
Covered separators and/or vapor
recovery systems
Covered separators and/or vapor
recovery systems
See Chapter 7 - Liquid Storage Tanks
See Section
5.2 - Transportation And M
arketing Of Petroleum Liquids
a References 2,4,12-13.
b If cooling water rate is unknown (in liters or gallons) assume it is 40 times the refinery feed rate (in
  liters or gallons).  Refinery feed rate is defined as the crude oil feed rate to the atmospheric
  distillation column.  1 bbl (oil) = 42 gallons (gal),  1 m3 = 1000 L.
c If waste water flow rate to oil/water separators is unknown (in liters or gallons) assume it is
  0.95 times the refinery feed rate (in liters or gallons).  Refinery feed rate is defined as the crude oil
  feed rate to the atmospheric distillation column.  1 bbl (oil) = 42 gal, 1 m3 = 1000 L.
5.1.3.2  Storage-
       All refineries have a feedstock and product storage area, termed a "tank farm", which
provides surge storage capacity to ensure smooth, uninterrupted refinery operations.  Individual
storage tank capacities range from less than 160 m3 to more than 79,500 m3 (1,000 to 500,000 bbl).
Storage tank designs, emissions, and emission control technology are discussed in detail in
AP-42 Chapter 7, and the TANKS software program is available to perform the emissions
calculations, if desired.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.1-13

    -------
        Table 5.1-3 (Metric And English Units). FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS FROM AN
      UNCONTROLLED OIL REFINERY OF 52,500 nvVday (330,000 bbl/day) CAPACITY*1
Source
Valves
Flanges
Pump seals
Compressor seals
Relief valves
Drains
Cooling towersb
Oil/water separators (uncovered)b
TOTAL
Number
11,500
46,500
350
70
100
650
1
1
—
VOC Emissions
kg/day
3,100
300
590
500
200
450
730
14,600
20,500
Ib/day
6,800
600
1,300
1,100
500
1,000
1,600
32,100
45,000
a Reference 17.
b Based on limited data.
5.1.3.3  Transfer Operations-
       Although most refinery feedstocks and products are transported by pipeline, some are
transported by trucks, rail cars, and marine vessels.  They are transferred to and from these transport
vehicles in the refinery tank farm area by specialized pumps and piping systems.  The emissions from
transfer operations and applicable emission control technology are discussed in much greater detail in
Section 5.2, "Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids".

5.1.3.4  Waste Water Treatment Plant-
       All refineries employ some form of waste water treatment so water effluents can safely be
returned to the environment or reused in the refinery.  The design of waste water treatment plants is
complicated by the diversity of refinery pollutants, including oil, phenols, sulfides, dissolved solids,
and toxic chemicals.  Although the treatment processes employed by refineries vary greatly, they
generally include neutralizes, oil/water separators, settling chambers, clarifiers, dissolved air
flotation systems, coagulators, aerated lagoons, and activated sludge ponds.  Refinery water effluents
are collected from various processing units and are conveyed through sewers and ditches  to the
treatment plant.  Most of the treatment occurs in open ponds and tanks.

       The main components of atmospheric emissions from waste water treatment plants are fugitive
VOCs and dissolved gases that evaporate from the surfaces of waste water residing in open process
drains, separators, and ponds (Table 5.1-2). Treatment processes that involve extensive contact of
waste water and  air, such as aeration ponds and dissolved air flotation, have an even greater potential
for atmospheric emissions. Section 4.3, "Waste Water Collection, Treatment And Storage", discusses
estimation techniques for such water treatment operations.  WATERS and SIMS software models are
available to perform the calculations.
5.1-14
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       The control of waste water treatment plant emissions involves covering systems where
emission generation is greatest (such as oil/water separators and settling basins) and removing
dissolved gases from water streams with sour water strippers and phenol recovery units before their
contact with the atmosphere.  These control techniques potentially can achieve greater than 90 percent
reduction of waste water system emissions.13

5.1.3.5  Cooling Towers -
       Cooling towers are used extensively in refinery cooling water systems to transfer waste heat
from the cooling water to the atmosphere.  The only refineries not employing cooling towers are
those with once-through cooling. The increasing scarcity of a large water supply required for
once-through cooling is contributing to the disappearance of that form of refinery cooling.  In the
cooling tower, warm cooling water returning from refinery processes is contacted with air by
cascading through packings Cooling water circulation rates for refineries commonly  range from
7 to 70 L/minute  per m3/day (0.3 to 3.0 gal/minute per bbl/day) of refinery capacity.2>1°

       Atmospheric emissions from the cooling tower consist of fugitive VOCs and  gases stripped
from the cooling water as the air and  water come  into contact.  These contaminants enter the cooling
water system from leaking heat exchangers and condensers. Although the predominant contaminants
in cooling water are VOCs, dissolved gases such as H2S and ammonia may also be found
(see Table 5.1-2).2'4-17

       Control of cooling tower emissions is accomplished by reducing contamination of cooling
water through the proper maintenance of heat exchangers and condensers. The effectiveness of
cooling tower controls is highly variable, depending on refinery configuration and existing
maintenance practices.4

References For Section 5.1

1.     C. E. Burklin, et al., Revision Of Emission Factors For Petroleum Refining,
       EPA-450/3-77-030, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1977.

2.     Atmospheric Emissions From Petroleum Refineries:  A Guide For Measurement And Control,
       PHS No.  763, Public Health Service, U. S. Department Of Health And Human Services,
       Washington, DC, 1960.

3.     Background Information For Proposed New Source Standards:  Asphalt Concrete Plants,
       Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters And Refineries, Brass Or
       Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron And Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants,
       APTD-1352a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973.

4.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1973.  Out of Print.

5.     Ben G.  Jones, "Refinery Improves Paniculate Control", Oil And Gas Journal,
       69(26):60-62,  June 28, 1971.

6.     "Impurities In Petroleum", Petreco Manual, Petrolite Corp., Long Beach, CA, 1958.

7.     Control Techniques For Sulfur Oxide In Air Pollutants, AP-52, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1969.

1/95                                  Petroleum Industry                                5.1-15

    -------
8.     H. N. Olson and K. E. Hutchinson,  "How Feasible Are Giant, One-train Refineries?", Oil
       And Gas Journal, 70(l):39-43, January 3, 1972.

9.     C. M. Urban and K. J. Springer, Study Of Exhaust Emissions From Natural Gas Pipeline
       Compressor Engines, American Gas Association, Arlington, VA, February 1975.

10.    H. E. Dietzmann and K. J. Springer, Exhaust Emissions From Piston And Gas Turbine
       Engines Used In Natural Gas Transmission, American Gas Association, Arlington, VA,
       January 1974.

11.    M. G. Klett and J. B. Galeski, Flare Systems Study, EPA-600/2-76-079, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1976.

12.    Evaporation Loss In The Petroleum Industry, Causes And Control, API Bulletin 2513,
       American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC,  1959.

13.    Hydrocarbon Emissions From Refineries, API Publication No. 928, American Petroleum
       Institute, Washington, DC, 1973.

14.    R. A. Brown, et al., Systems Analysis Requirements For Nitrogen Oxide Control Of Stationary
       Sources, EPA-650/2-74-091, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  1974.

15.    R. P. Hangebrauck, et al., Sources Of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons In The Atmosphere,
       999-AP-33; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1967.

16.    W. S. Crumlish, "Review Of Thermal Pollution Problems, Standards, And Controls At The
       State Government Level", Presented at the Cooling Tower Institute Symposium, New
       Orleans, LA, January 30,  1966.

17.    Assessment Of Atmospheric Emissions From Petroleum Refining, EPA-600/2-80-075a  through
       075d, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1980.
5,1_16                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
5.2  Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids1'3

5.2.1  General

        The transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids involve many distinct operations, each
of which represents a potential source of evaporation loss.  Crude oil is transported from production
operations to a refinery by tankers, barges, rail tank cars, tank trucks, and pipelines.  Refined
petroleum products are conveyed to fuel marketing terminals and petrochemical industries by these
same modes.  From the fuel marketing terminals, the fuels  are delivered by tank trucks to service
stations, commercial accounts, and local bulk storage plants. The final destination for gasoline is
usually a motor vehicle gasoline tank.  Similar distribution  paths exist for fuel oils and other
petroleum products. A general depiction of these activities is shown in Figure 5.2-1.

5.2.2  Emissions And  Controls

        Evaporative emissions from the transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids may be
considered, by storage equipment and mode of transportation used, in four categories:

        1.  Rail tank cars, tank trucks, and marine vessels: loading, transit, and ballasting losses.
        2.  Service stations: bulk fuel drop losses and underground tank breathing losses.
        3.  Motor vehicle tanks: refueling losses.
        4.  Large storage tanks:  breathing, working, and standing storage losses. (See Chapter 7,
            "Liquid Storage Tanks".)

        Evaporative and exhaust emissions are also associated  with motor vehicle  operation, and these
topics are discussed in AP-42  Volume II: Mobile Sources.

5.2.2.1 Rail Tank Cars, Tank Trucks, And Marine Vessels -
        Emissions from these sources are from loading losses, ballasting  losses, and transit losses.

5.2.2.1.1 Loading Losses -
        Loading losses are the primary source of evaporative emissions from rail tank car, tank truck,
and marine vessel operations.  Loading losses occur  as organic vapors in "empty" cargo tanks are
displaced to the atmosphere by the liquid being loaded into  the tanks.  These vapors are  a composite of
(1) vapors formed in the empty tank by evaporation of residual product from previous loads, (2) vapors
transferred to the tank in vapor balance systems  as product  is being unloaded, and (3) vapors generated
in the tank as the new  product is being loaded. The  quantity of evaporative losses from  loading
operations is, therefore, a function of the following parameters:

        -  Physical and chemical characteristics of the previous cargo;
        -  Method of unloading the previous cargo;
        -  Operations to transport the empty carrier to a loading terminal;
        -  Method of loading the new cargo; and
        -  Physical and chemical characteristics of the new cargo.

The principal methods of cargo carrier loading are illustrated in Figure 5.2-2, Figure 5.2-3, and
Figure 5.2-4.  In the splash loading method, the fill pipe dispensing the cargo is lowered only part way
into the cargo tank. Significant turbulence and vapor/liquid contact occur during the splash


1/95                                   Petroleum Industry                                   5.2-1

    -------
to
W
00
00

O
2
O
3
5S
oo
  BULK
 PLANT
STORAGE
 TANKS
                                                                                                               AUTOMOBILES
                                                                                                                AND OTHER
                                                                                                                 MOTOR
                                                                                                                 VEHICLES
Ui
                                    Figure 5.2-1.  Flow sheet of petroleum production, refining, and distribution systems.
                                               (Points of organic emissions are indicated by vertical arrows.)

    -------
                                                          FILL PIPE
                                 VAPOR EMISSIONS
                                                                •HATCH COVER
                                                            ?  CARGO TANK
                             Figure 5.2-2. Splash loading method.
                                   VAPOR EMISSIONS
                                                           FILL PIPE
                                                                  HATCH COVER
                                                               CARGO TANK
                                 Figure 5.2-3.  Submerged fill pipe.
                            VAPOR VENT
                            TO RECOVERY
                            OR ATMOSPHERE
                                                HATCH CLOSED
                          !PRODUCT
                                                              CARGO TANK
                                                                 FILL PIPE
                                 Figure 5.2-4.  Bottom loading.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.2-3

    -------
loading operation, resulting in high levels of vapor generation and loss.  If the turbulence is great
enough, liquid droplets will be entrained in the vented vapors.

       A second method of loading is submerged loading.  Two types are the submerged fill pipe
method and the bottom loading method.  In the submerged fill pipe method, the fill pipe extends almost
to the bottom of the cargo tank. In the bottom loading method,  a permanent fill pipe is attached to the
cargo tank bottom.  During most of submerged loading by both  methods, the fill pipe opening is below
the liquid surface level.  Liquid turbulence is controlled significantly during submerged loading,
resulting in much lower vapor generation than encountered during splash loading.

       The recent loading history of a cargo carrier is just as important a factor in loading losses as
the method of loading. If the carrier has carried a nonvolatile liquid such as fuel oil, or has just been
cleaned, it will contain vapor-free air. If it has just carried gasoline and has not been vented, the air in
the carrier tank will contain volatile organic vapors, which will be expelled during the loading
operation along with newly generated vapors.

       Cargo carriers are sometimes designated to transport only one product, and in such cases are
practicing "dedicated service". Dedicated gasoline cargo tanks return to a loading terminal containing
air fully or partially saturated with vapor from the previous load.  Cargo tanks may also be "switch
loaded" with various products, so that a nonvolatile product being loaded may expel the vapors
remaining from a previous load of a volatile product such as gasoline.  These  circumstances vary with
the type of cargo tank and with the ownership of the carrier, the petroleum liquids being transported,
geographic location, and season of the year.

       One control measure for vapors displaced during liquid loading is called "vapor balance
service", in which the cargo tank retrieves the vapors displaced  during product unloading at bulk plants
or service stations and transports the vapors back to the loading  terminal. Figure 5.2-5 shows a tank
truck in vapor balance service filling a service station underground tank  and taking on displaced
gasoline vapors for return to the terminal.  A cargo tank returning to a bulk terminal in vapor balance
service normally is saturated with organic vapors, and the presence of these vapors at the start of
submerged loading of the tanker truck results in greater loading losses than encountered during
nonvapor balance, or "normal", service. Vapor balance service is usually not practiced with marine
vessels, although some vessels practice emission control by means of vapor transfer within their own
cargo tanks during ballasting operations, discussed below.

       Emissions from loading petroleum liquid can be estimated (with a probable error of
+ 30 percent)4 using the following expression:
                                       L   = 12.46  -                                         (1)
where:
5.2-4
       LL = loading loss, pounds per 1000 gallons (lb/103 gal) of liquid loaded
         S = a saturation factor (see Table 5.2-1)
         P = true vapor pressure of liquid loaded, pounds per square inch absolute (psia)
             (see Figure 7.1-5, Figure 7.1-6, and Table 7.1-2)
        M = molecular weight of vapors, pounds per pound-mole (Ib/lb-mole) (see Table 7.1-2)
         T = temperature of bulk liquid loaded, °R (°F + 460)
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
       MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
                                                         VAPOR VENT LINE
                     TRUCKSTORAG
                     COMPARTMENTS
                                                   PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES
                                                        X
                                               V\M  1111 m
                                                                      UNDERGROUND
                                                                      .STORAGE TANK
 Figure 5.2-5.  Tank truck unloading into a service station underground storage tank and practicing
                          "vapor balance" form of emission control.
    Table 5.2-1.  SATURATION (S) FACTORS FOR CALCULATING PETROLEUM LIQUID
                                     LOADING LOSSES
 Cargo Carrier
              Mode Of Operation
S Factor
 Tank trucks and rail tank cars
 Marine vessels'1
Submerged loading of a clean cargo tank
Submerged loading:  dedicated normal service
Submerged loading:  dedicated vapor balance
 service
Splash loading of a clean cargo tank
Splash loading:  dedicated normal service
Splash loading:  dedicated vapor balance service
Submerged loading:  ships
Submerged loading:  barges
  0.50
  0.60

  1.00
  1.45
  1.45
  1.00
  0.2
  0.5
a For products other than gasoline and crude oil.  For marine loading of gasoline, use factors from
  Table 5.2-2.  For marine loading of crude oil, use Equations 2 and 3 and Table 5.2-3.
1/95
       Petroleum Industry
      5.2-5

    -------
The saturation factor, S, represents the expelled vapor's fractional approach to saturation, and it
accounts for the variations observed in emission rates from the different unloading and loading
methods.  Table 5.2-1 lists suggested saturation factors.

       Emissions from controlled loading operations can be calculated by multiplying the uncontrolled
emission rate calculated in Equation 1 by an overall reduction efficiency term:
                                           1  -
 eff
Too
       The overall reduction efficiency should account for the capture efficiency of the collection
system as well as both the control efficiency and any downtime of the control device.  Measures to
reduce loading emissions include selection of alternate loading methods and application of vapor
recovery equipment.  The latter captures organic vapors displaced during loading operations and
recovers the vapors by the use of refrigeration, absorption, adsorption, and/or compression.  The
recovered product is piped back to storage.  Vapors can also be controlled through combustion in a
thermal oxidation unit, with no product recovery.  Figure 5.2-6 demonstrates the recovery of gasoline
vapors from tank trucks  during loading operations at bulk terminals. Control efficiencies for the
recovery units range from 90 to over 99 percent, depending on both the nature of the vapors and the
type of control equipment used.5"6  However, only 70 to 90 percent of the displaced vapors reach the
control device, because of leakage from both the tank truck and collection system.6 The collection
efficiency should be assumed to be 90 percent for tanker trucks required to pass an annual leak test.
Otherwise, 70 percent should be assumed.
  VAPOR RETURN LINE
                                                                               TREATED
                                                                              AIR VENTED
                                                                                 TO
                                                                              ATMOSPHERE
                                          RECOVERED  PRODUCT
                                                TO STORAGE
           PRODUCT FROM
         LOADING TERMINAL
           STORAGE TANK
                     Figure 5.2-6. Tank truck loading with vapor recovery.
5.2-6
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
                                             1/95

    -------
Sample Calculation -

       Loading losses (L^ from a gasoline tank truck in dedicated vapor balance service and
practicing vapor recovery would be calculated as follows, using Equation 1:

Design basis -

       Cargo tank volume is 8000 gal
       Gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) is 9 psia
       Product temperature is 80°F
       Vapor recovery efficiency is  95 percent
       Vapor collection efficiency is 90 percent (for vessels passing annual leak test)

Loading loss equation -

                                 LL =  12.46  ™r<     eff


where:

        S = saturation factor (see Table 5.2-1) - 1.00
        P = true vapor pressure of gasoline (see Figure 7.1-6) = 6.6 psia
       M = molecular weight of gasoline vapors (see Table 7.1-2) = 66
        T = temperature of gasoline = 540 °R
       eff = overall reduction efficiency (95 percent control x 90 percent collection) = 85 percent
                           L  =  1246
                                              540              100


                                = 1.5  lb/103gal


Total loading losses are:

                         (1.5 lb/103 gal) (8.0 x 103 gal) = 12 pounds (Ib)

       Measurements of gasoline loading losses from ships and barges have led to the development of
emission factors for these specific loading operations.7 These factors are presented in Table 5.2-2
and should be used instead of Equation 1 for gasoline loading operations at marine terminals.  Factors
are expressed in units of milligrams per  liter (mg/L) and pounds per 1000 gallons (lb/103 gal).
1/95                                   Petroleum Industry                                 5.2-7

    -------
 Table 5.2-2 (Metric And English Units).  VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) EMISSION
       FACTORS FOR GASOLINE LOADING OPERATIONS AT MARINE TERMINALS3
Vessel Tank
Condition
Uncleaned
Ballasted
Cleaned
Gas-freed
Any condition
Gas-freed
Typical overall
situation6
Previous
Cargo
Volatile0
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
Nonvolatile
Any cargo
Any cargo
Ships/Ocean Bargesb
mg/L
Transferred
315
205
180
85
85
ND
215
lb/103 gal
Transferred
2.6
1.7
1.5
0.7
0.7
ND
1.8
Bargesb
mg/L
Transferred
465
_d
ND
ND
ND
245
410
lb/103 gal
Transferred
3.9
_d
ND
ND
ND
2.0
3.4
a References 2,8.  Factors are for both VOC emissions (which excludes methane and ethane) and total
  organic emissions, because methane and ethane have been found to constitute a negligible weight
  fraction of the evaporative emissions from gasoline.  ND = no data.
b Ocean barges (tank compartment depth about 12.2 m [40 ft]) exhibit emission levels similar to tank
  ships. Shallow draft barges (compartment depth 3.0 to 3.7 m [10 to 12 ft]) exhibit higher emission
  levels.
c Volatile cargoes are those with a true vapor pressure greater than  10 kilopascals (kPa) (1.5 psia).
d Barges are usually not ballasted.
e Based on observation that 41% of tested ship compartments were uncleaned,  11% ballasted,
  24% cleaned, and 24% gas-freed. For barges, 76% were uncleaned.
       In addition to Equation 1, which estimates emissions from the loading of petroleum liquids,
Equation 2 has been developed specifically for estimating emissions from the loading of crude oil into
ships and ocean barges:
                                                  CG                                    (2)
                                      CL = CA
where:
       CL = total loading loss, lb/103 gal of crude oil loaded
       CA = arrival emission factor, contributed by vapors in the empty tank compartment before
             loading, lb/103 gal loaded (see Note below)
       CG = generated emission factor, contributed by evaporation during loading, lb/103 gal loaded

Note:  Values of CA for various cargo tank conditions are listed in Table 5.2-3.
5.2-8
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                       1/95

    -------
    5.2-3 (English Units).  AVERAGE ARRIVAL EMISSION FACTORS, CA, FOR CRUDE OIL
                              LOADING EMISSION EQUATION*
Ship/Ocean Barge Tank Condition
Uncleaned
Ballasted
Cleaned or gas-freed
Any condition
Previous Cargo
Volatile5
Volatile
Volatile
Nonvolatile
Arrival Emission Factor, lb/103 gal
0.86
0.46
0.33
0.33
a Arrival emission factors (CA) to be added to generated emission factors (CG) calculated in Equation 3
  to produce total crude oil loading loss (C^.  Factors are for total organic compounds; VOC emission
  factors average about 15%  lower, because VOC does not include methane or ethane.
b Volatile cargoes are those with a true vapor pressure greater than 10 kPa  (1.5 psia).


This equation was developed empirically from test measurements of several vessel compartments.7
The quantity CG can be calculated using Equation 3:
                               CG = 1.84 (0.44 P - 0.42)
                                                   (3)
where:

        P = true vapor pressure of loaded crude oil, psia (see Figure 7.1-5 and Table 7.1-2)
        M = molecular weight of vapors,  Ib/lb-mole (see Table 7.1-2)
        G = vapor growth factor =  1.02  (dimensionless)
        T = temperature of vapors,  °R (°F  + 460)

       Emission factors derived from Equation 3 and Table 5.2-3 represent total organic compounds.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emission factors (which exclude methane and ethane because they
are exempted from the regulatory definition of "VOC") for crude oil vapors have been found to range
from approximately  55 to 100 weight percent of these total organic factors. When specific vapor
composition information is not available, the VOC emission factor can be estimated by taking
85 percent of the total organic factor.3

5.2.2.1.2  Ballasting Losses -
       Ballasting operations are a major source of evaporative emissions associated with the unloading
of petroleum liquids at marine terminals. It is common practice to load several cargo tank
compartments with sea water after the cargo has been unloaded. This water, termed "ballast",
improves the stability of the empty tanker during the subsequent voyage. Although ballasting practices
vary, individual cargo tanks are ballasted typically about 80 percent, and the total vessel  15 to
40 percent, of capacity.  Ballasting emissions  occur as vapor-laden air in the "empty" cargo tank is
displaced to the atmosphere by ballast water being pumped into the tank. Upon arrival at a loading
port, the ballast water is pumped from the cargo tanks before the new cargo is loaded. The ballasting
of cargo tanks reduces the quantity of vapors returning in the empty tank, thereby reducing the quantity
of vapors emitted during subsequent tanker loading.   Regulations administered by the U.  S. Coast
Guard require that, at marine terminals located in ozone nonattainment areas, large tankers with crude
oil washing systems  contain the organic vapors from ballasting.9  This is accomplished principally by
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.2-9

    -------
displacing the vapors during ballasting into a cargo tank being simultaneously unloaded. In other
areas, marine vessels emit organic vapors directly to the atmosphere.

       Equation 4 has been developed from test data to calculate the ballasting emissions from crude
oil ships and ocean barges7:
                               LB = 0.31 + 0.20 P + 0.01 PUA
 (4)
where:
       LB = ballasting emission factor, lb/103 gal of ballast water
        P = true vapor pressure of discharged crude oil, psia (see Figure 7.1-5 and Table 7.1-2)
       UA = arrival cargo true ullage, before dockside discharge, measured from the deck, feet;
             (the term  "ullage" here refers to the distance between the cargo surface level and the
             deck level)
       Table 5.2-4 lists average total organic emission factors for ballasting into uncleaned crude oil
cargo compartments. The first category applies to "full" compartments wherein the crude oil true
ullage just before cargo discharge is less than 1.5 meters (m) (5 ft).  The second category applies to
lightered, or short-loaded, compartments (part of cargo previously discharged, or original load a partial
fill), with an arrival true ullage greater than 1.5 m (5 ft).  It should be remembered that these tabulated
emission factors are examples only, based on average conditions, to be used when crude oil vapor
pressure is unknown.  Equation 4 should be used when information about crude oil vapor pressure and
cargo compartment condition is available. The following sample calculation illustrates the use of
Equation 4.
           5.2-4 (Metric And English Units).  TOTAL ORGANIC EMISSION FACTORS
                               FOR CRUDE OIL BALLASTING3
Compartment Condition
Before Cargo Discharge
Fully loaded0
Lightered or previously '
short loadedd
Average Emission Factors
By Category
mg/L Ballast
Water
111
171
lb/103 gal
Ballast Water
0.9 1
1.4 '
Typical Overall
mg/L Ballast
Water
129
lb/103 gal
Ballast Water
1.1
a Assumes crude oil temperature of 16°C (60°F) and RVP of 34 kPa (5 psia).  VOC emission factors
  average about 85% of these total organic factors, because VOCs do not include methane or ethane.
b Based on observation that 70% of tested compartments had been fully loaded before ballasting. May
  not represent average vessel practices.
c Assumed typical arrival ullage of 0.6 m (2 ft).
d Assumed typical arrival ullage of 6.1 m (20 ft).
5.2-10
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
Sample Calculation -

       Ballasting emissions from a crude oil cargo ship would be calculated as follows, using
Equation 4:

Design basis -

       Vessel and cargo description:  80,000 dead-weight-ton tanker, crude oil capacity
                                     500,000 barrels (bbl); 20 percent of the cargo capacity is filled
                                     with ballast water after cargo discharge.  The crude oil has an
                                     RVP of 6 psia and is discharged at 75°F.

       Compartment conditions:      70 percent of the ballast water is loaded into compartments that
                                     had been fully loaded to 2 ft ullage, and 30 percent is loaded
                                     into compartments that had been lightered to  15 ft ullage before
                                     arrival at dockside.

Ballasting emission equation -

                                LB = 0.31 + 0.20 P + 0.01 PUA

where:

        P = true vapor pressure of crude oil (see Figure 7.1-5)
           = 4.6 psia
       UA = true cargo ullage for the full compartments = 2 ft, and true cargo ullage for the
             lightered compartments = 15 ft

                        LB  = 0.70 [0.31 + (0.20) (4.6) + (0.01) (4.6) (2)]
                            + 0.30 [0.31 + (0.20) (4.6) + (0.01) (4.6) (15)]

                            =  1.5 lb/103 gal

Total ballasting emissions are:

                    (1.5 lb/103 gal) (0.20) (500,000 bbl) (42 gal/bbl)  = 6,300 Ib

Since VOC emissions average about 85 percent of these total organic emissions, emissions of VOCs
are about:  (0.85)(6,300 Ib) = 5,360 Ib

5.2.2.1.3  Transit Losses -
       In addition to loading and ballasting losses, losses occur while the cargo is in transit.  Transit
losses are similar in many ways to breathing losses associated with petroleum storage (see Section 7.1,
"Organic Liquid Storage Tanks").  Experimental tests on ships and barges4 have indicated that transit
losses can be calculated using Equation 5:

                                          LT = 0.1  PW                                       (5)
1/95                                   Petroleum Industry                                 5.2-11

    -------
where:

       Lp = transit loss from ships and barges, lb/week-103 gal transported
        P = true vapor pressure of the transported liquid, psia (see Figure 7.1-5, Figure 7.1-6, and
             Table 7.1-2)
       W = density of the condensed vapors, Ib/gal (see Table 7.1-2)

Emissions from gasoline truck cargo tanks during transit have been studied by a combination of
theoretical and experimental techniques, and typical emission values are presented in Table 5.2-5.10"11
Emissions depend on the extent of venting from the cargo tank during transit, which in turn depends on
the vapor tightness of the tank, the pressure relief valve settings, the pressure in the tank at the start of
the trip, the vapor pressure of the fuel being transported, and the degree of fuel vapor saturation of the
space in the tank.  The emissions are not directly proportional to the time spent in transit. If the vapor
leakage rate of the tank increases, emissions increase up to a point, and then the rate changes as other
determining factors take over. Truck tanks in dedicated vapor balance service usually  contain saturated
vapors, and this leads to lower emissions  during transit because no additional  fuel evaporates to raise
the pressure in the tank to cause venting.  Table 5.2-5 lists "typical" values for transit emissions and
"extreme" values that could occur in the unlikely event that all determining factors combined to cause
maximum emissions.
    Table 5.2-5 (Metric And English Units). TOTAL UNCONTROLLED ORGANIC EMISSION
        FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID RAIL TANK CARS AND TANK TRUCKS
Emission Source
Loading operations6
Submerged loading -
Dedicated normal service
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Submerged loading -
Vapor balance service
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Splash loading -
Dedicated normal service
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Splash loading -
Vapor balance service
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Gasoline*


590
5

980
8

1,430
12

980
8
Crude
Oilb


240
2

400
3

580
5

400
3
Jet
Naphtha
(JIM)


180
1.5

300
2.5

430
4

300
2.5
Jet
Kerosene


1.9
0.016

	 6
	 e

5
0.04

	 e
	 e
Distillate
Oil No. 2


1.7
0.014

	 e
	 e

4
0.03

	 c
	 e
Residual
Oil No. 6


0.01
0.0001

	 e
	 e

0.03
0.0003

	 e
	 e
5.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         1/95

    -------
                                      Table 5.2-5 (cont.).
Emission Source
Transit losses
Loaded with product
mg/L transported
Typical
Extreme
lb/103 gal transported
Typical
Extreme
Return with vapor
mg/L transported
Typical
Extreme
lb/103 gal transported
Typical
Extreme
Gasoline8



0-1.0
0-9.0

0-0.01
0 - 0.08


0-13.0
0-44.0

0-0.11
0-0.37
Crude
Oilb



ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
Jet
Naphtha
(JP-4)



ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
Jet
Kerosene



ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
Distillate
Oil No. 2



ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
Residual
Oil No. 6



ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
a Reference 2.  Gasoline factors represent emissions of VOC as well as total organics, because methane
  and ethane constitute a negligible weight fraction of the evaporative emissions from gasoline. VOC
  factors for crude oil can be assumed to be 15% lower than the total organic factors, to account for the
  methane and ethane content of crude oil evaporative emissions.  All other products should be
  assumed to have VOC factors equal to total organics. The example gasoline has an RVP of 69 kPa
  (10 psia).  ND = no data.
b The example crude oil has an RVP of 34 kPa (5 psia).
c Loading emission factors are calculated using Equation  1 for a dispensed product temperature of
  16°C (60°F).
d Reference 2.
e Not normally used.
       In the absence of specific inputs for Equations 1 through 5, the typical evaporative emission
factors presented in Tables 5.2-5 and 5.2-6 should be used. It should be noted that, although the crude
oil used to calculate the emission values presented in these tables has an RVP of 5, the RVP of
crude oils can range from less than 1 up to 10.  Similarly, the RVP of gasolines ranges from 7 to 13.
In areas where loading and transportation sources are major factors affecting air quality, it is advisable
to obtain the necessary parameters and to calculate emission estimates using Equations 1 through 5.

5.2.2.2 Service Stations  -
       Another major source of evaporative emissions is the  filling of underground gasoline storage
tanks at service stations.  Gasoline is usually delivered to service stations in 30,000-liter (8,000-gal)
tank trucks or smaller account trucks. Emissions are generated  when gasoline vapors in the
1/95
Petroleum Industry
                                                                                          5.2-13

    -------
        Table 5.2-6 (Metric And English Units).  TOTAL ORGANIC EMISSION FACTORS
                       FOR PETROLEUM MARINE VESSEL SOURCES*
Emission Source
Loading operations
Ships/ocean barges
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Barges
mg/L transferred
lb/103 gal transferred
Tanker ballasting
mg/L ballast water
lb/103 gal ballast
water
Transit
mg/week-L transported
lb/week-103 gal
transported
Gasoline8


_d
_d

_d
_d

100
0.8

320
2.7
Crude
Oilc


73
0.61

120
1.0

	 e
	 e

150
1.3
Jet
Naphtha
(JIM)


60
0.50

150
1.2

ND
ND

84
0.7
Jet Kerosene


0.63
0.005

1.60
0.013

ND
ND

0.60
0.005
Distillate Oil
No. 2


0.55
0.005

1.40
0.012

ND
ND

0.54
0.005
Residual Oil
No. 6


0.004
0.00004

0.011
0.00009

ND
ND

0.003
0.00003
a Factors are for a dispensed product of 16°C (60°F).  ND = no data.
b Factors represent VOC as well as total organic emissions, because methane and ethane constitute a
  negligible fraction of gasoline evaporative emissions.  All products other than crude oil can be
  assumed to have VOC factors equal to total organic factors. The example gasoline has an RVP of
  69 kPa (10 psia).
c VOC emission factors for a typical crude oil are 15%  lower than the total organic factors shown, in
  order to account for methane and ethane. The example crude oil has an RVP of 34 kPa (5  psia).
d See Table 5.2-2 for these factors.
e See Table 5.2-4 for these factors.
underground storage tank are displaced to the atmosphere by die gasoline being loaded into the tank.
As with other loading losses, the quantity of loss in service station tank filling depends on several
variables, including the method and rate of filling, the tank configuration, and the gasoline
temperature, vapor pressure  and composition.  An average emission rate for submerged filling is
880 mg/L (7.3 lb/1000 gal) of transferred gasoline, and the rate for splash filling is 1380 mg/L
(11.5 lb/1000 gal) transferred gasoline (see Table 5.2-7).5

       Emissions from underground tank filling operations at service stations can  be reduced by the
use of a vapor balance system such as in  Figure 5.2-5 (termed Stage I vapor control). The vapor
balance system employs a hose that returns gasoline vapors displaced from the underground tank to the
tank truck cargo compartments being emptied. The control efficiency of the balance system ranges
from 93 to 100 percent. Organic emissions from underground tank filling operations at a service
station employing a vapor balance system and submerged filling are not expected to exceed 40 mg/L
(0.3 lb/1000 gal) of transferred gasoline.
5.2-14
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
    Table 5.2-7 (Metric And English Units). EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
                             SERVICE STATION OPERATIONS4
•
Emission Source
Filling underground tank (Stage I)
Submerged filling
Splash filling
Balanced submerged filling
Underground tank breathing and emptying15
Vehicle refueling operations (Stage II)
Displacement losses (uncontrolled)0
Displacement losses (controlled)
Spillage
Emission Rate
mg/L
Throughput

880
1,380
40
120

1,320
132
80
lb/103 gal
Throughput

7.3
11.5
0.3
1.0

11.0
1.1
0.7
a Factors are for VOC as well as total organic emissions, because of the methane and ethane content of
  gasoline evaporative emissions is negligible.
b Includes any vapor loss between underground tank and gas pump.
c Based on Equation 6, using average conditions.
       A second source of vapor emissions from service stations is underground tank breathing.
Breathing losses occur daily and are attributable to gasoline evaporation and barometric pressure
changes.  The frequency with which gasoline is withdrawn from the tank, allowing fresh air to enter
to enhance evaporation, also has a major effect on the quantity of these emissions.  An average
breathing emission rate is  120 mg/L (1.0 lb/1000 gal) of throughput.

5.2.2.3  Motor Vehicle Refueling -
       Service station vehicle refueling activity also produces evaporative emissions. Vehicle
refueling emissions come from vapors displaced from the automobile tank by dispensed gasoline and
from spillage. The quantity of displaced vapors depends on gasoline temperature, auto tank
temperature, gasoline RVP, and dispensing rate.  Equation 6 can be used to  estimate uncontrolled
displacement losses from vehicle refueling for a particular set of conditions.13
             ER = 264.2 [(-5.909) - 0.0949 (AT) + 0.0884 (TD)  + 0.485 (RVP)]
                                                    (6)
where:
       ER = refueling emissions, mg/L
       AT = difference between temperature of fuel in vehicle tank and temperature of dispensed fuel,
             °F
       TD = temperature of dispensed fuel, °F
     RVP = Reid vapor pressure, psia
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.2-15

    -------
Note that this equation and the spillage loss factor are incorporated into the MOBILE model. The
MOBILE model allows for disabling of this calculation if it is desired to include these emissions in the
stationary area source portion of an inventory rather than in the mobile source portion.  It is estimated
that the uncontrolled emissions from vapors displaced during vehicle refueling average 1320 mg/L
(11.0 lb/1000 gal) of dispensed gasoline.5'12
                                             *
        Spillage loss is made up of contributions from prefill and postfill nozzle drip and from
spit-back and overflow from the vehicles's fuel tank filler pipe during filling. The amount of spillage
loss can depend on several variables, including service station business characteristics, tank
configuration, and operator techniques.  An average spillage loss is 80 mg/L (0.7 lb/1000 gal) of
dispensed gasoline.5'12

        Control  methods for vehicle refueling emissions  are based on conveying the vapors displaced
from the vehicle fuel tank to the underground storage tank  vapor space through the use of a special
hose and nozzle, as depicted in Figure 5.2-7 (termed  Stage II vapor control).  In  "balance" vapor
control  systems, the vapors are conveyed by natural pressure differentials established during refueling.
In "vacuum assist" systems, the conveyance of vapors from the auto fuel tank to  the underground
storage  tank is assisted by a vacuum pump. Tests on a few systems have indicated overall systems
control  efficiencies in the range of 88 to 92 percent.5'12  When inventorying these emissions as an area
source,  rule penetration and rule effectiveness should also be taken into account.   Procedures For
Emission Inventory Preparation,  Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d, provides more
detail on this.
                                                           SERVICE
                                                           STATION
                                                            PUMP

                   Figure 5.2-7.  Automobile refueling vapor recovery system.


References For Section 5.2

1.      C. E. Burklin and R. L. Honercamp, Revision Of Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors,
        EPA-450/3-76-039, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        August 1976.

2.      G. A. LaFlam, et al., Revision Of Tank Truck Loading Hydrocarbon Emission Factors, Pacific
        Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, May 1982.
5.2-16
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
3.     G. A. LaFlam, Revision Of Marine Vessel Evaporative Emission Factors, Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, November 1984.

4.     Evaporation Loss From Tank Cars, Tank Trucks And Marine Vessels, Bulletin No. 2514,
       American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1959.

5.     C. E. Burklin, et al., A Study Of Vapor Control Methods For Gasoline Marketing Operations,
       EPA-450/3-75-046A and -046B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, May 1975.

6.     Bulk Gasoline Terminals - Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-80-038a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1980.

7.     Atmospheric Hydrocarbon Emissions From Marine Vessel Transfer Operations,
       Publication 2514A, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1981.

8.     C. E. Burklin, et al., Background Information On Hydrocarbon Emissions From Marine
       Terminal Operations, EPA-450/3-76-038a and -038b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1976.

9.     Rules For The Protection Of The Marine Environment Relating  To Tank Vessels Carrying Oil In
       Bulk, 45 FR 43705, June 30, 1980.

10.    R. A. Nichols, Analytical Calculation Of Fuel Transit Breathing Loss, Chevron USA, Inc., San
       Francisco, CA, March 21, 1977.

11.    R. A. Nichols, Tank Truck Leakage Measurements, Chevron USA, Inc., San Francisco, CA,
       June 7, 1977.

12.    Investigation Of Passenger Car Refueling Losses: Final Report, 2nd Year Program,
       APTD-1453, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
       1972.

13.    Refueling Emissions From Uncontrolled Vehicles, EPA-AA-SDSB-85-6, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, June 1985.
1/95                                Petroleum Industry                                5.2-17

    -------

    -------
5.3 Natural Gas Processing

5.3.1  General1

       Natural gas from high-pressure wells is usually passed through field separators at the well to
remove hydrocarbon condensate and water. Natural gasoline, butane, and propane are usually present
in the gas, and gas processing plants are required for the recovery of these liquefiable constituents
(see Figure 5.3-1).  Natural gas is considered "sour" if hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present in amounts
greater than 5.7 milligrams per normal cubic meters (mg/Nm3) (0.25 grains per 100 standard cubic
feet [gr/100 scf]).  The H2S must be removed (called "sweetening" the gas) before the gas can be
utilized.  If H2S is present, the gas is usually sweetened by absorption of the H2S in an amine
solution.  Amine processes are used for over 95 percent of all gas sweetening in the United  States.
Other methods, such as carbonate processes, solid bed absorbents, and physical absorption,  are
employed in the other sweetening plants.  Emission data for sweetening processes other than amine
types are very meager, but a material balance on sulfur will give accurate estimates for sulfur dioxide
(SOj).

       The major emission sources in the natural  gas processing industry are compressor engines,
acid gas wastes,  fugitive emissions  from leaking process equipment and if present, glycol dehydrator
vent streams.  Compressor engine emissions are discussed in Section 3.3.2. Fugitive leak emissions
are detailed in Protocol For Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-93-026, June 1993.
Regeneration of the glycol solutions used for dehydrating natural gas can release significant  quantities
of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,  and xylene, as well as a wide range of less toxic organics.  These
emissions can be estimated by a thermodynamic software model (GRI-DEHY)  available from the Gas
Research Institute.  Only the SO2 emissions from gas sweetening operations are discussed here.

5.3.2 Process Description2"3

       Many chemical processes are available for sweetening natural gas.  At present, the amine
process (also known as the Girdler  process), is the most widely used method for H2S removal.  The
process is summarized in reaction 1 and illustrated in Figure 5.3-2.


                                 2 RNH2 + H2S   -» (RNH3)2S                             (1)

where:

         R = mono, di, or tri-ethanol
         N = nitrogen
         H = hydrogen
          S = sulfur

       The recovered hydrogen sulfide gas stream may be:  (1) vented, (2) flared in waste gas flares
or modern smokeless flares, (3) incinerated, or (4) utilized for the production  of elemental sulfur or
sulfuric acid.  If the recovered H2S gas stream is not to be utilized as a feedstock  for commercial
applications, the gas is usually passed  to a tail gas incinerator in which the H2S is oxidized to SO2
and is then passed to the atmosphere out a stack. For more details, the reader should consult
Reference 8.


1/95                                   Petroleum  Industry                                  5.3-1

    -------
                                                                               $
                                                                               1
                                                                               I
                                                                               s
                                                                               3
                                                                               
                                                                               O
                                                                               OJ
                                                                               >->
5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                                                         ACID GAS
         PURIFIED
           GAS
                                                                                 STEAM
                                                                                 REBOILER
                                                   HEAT EXCHANGER

              Figure 5.3-2.  Flow diagram of the amine process for gas sweetening.
5.3.3 Emissions4"5

       Emissions will result from gas sweetening plants only if the acid waste gas from the amine
process is flared or incinerated.  Most often, the acid waste gas is used as a feedstock in nearby sulfur
recovery or sulfuric acid plants.  See Sections 8.13 "Sulfur Recovery", or 8.10, "Sulfuric Acid",
respectively, for these associated processes.

       When flaring  or incineration is practiced, the major pollutant of concern is SO2. Most plants
employ elevated smokeless flares or tail gas incinerators for complete combustion of all waste gas
constituents, including virtually 100 percent conversion of H2S to SO2.  Little paniculate,  smoke, or
hydrocarbons result from these devices,  and because gas temperatures do not usually exceed 650°C
(1200°F), significant  quantities of nitrogen oxides are not formed.  Emission factors for gas
sweetening plants with smokeless flares  or incinerators are presented in Table 5.3-1. Factors are
expressed in units of kilograms per 1000 cubic meters (kg/103 m3) and pounds per million standard
cubic feet Ob/106 scf).

       Some plants still use older, less-efficient waste gas flares. Because these flares usually burn
at temperatures lower than necessary for complete combustion, larger emissions of hydrocarbons and
paniculate, as well as H2S, can occur. No data are available to estimate the magnitude of these
emissions from waste gas flares.
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.3-3

    -------
              Table 5.3.1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               GAS SWEETENING PLANTS3

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  SULFUR OXIDES:  A
                                     ALL OTHERS:  C
Process1"
Amine
kg/103 m3 gas processed
lb/106 scf gas processed
Particulate

Neg
Neg
Sulfur Oxides6
(SO-,)

26.98 Sd
1685 Sd
Carbon
Monoxide

Neg
Neg
Hydrocarbons

	 e
	 e
Nitrogen
Oxides

Neg
Neg
a Factors are presented only for smokeless flares and tail gas incinerators on the amine gas
  sweetening process with no sulfur recovery or sulfuric acid production present.  Too little
  information exists to characterize emissions from older, less-efficient waste gas flares on the amine
  process or from other, less common gas sweetening processes. Factors for various internal
  combustion  engines used in a gas processing plant are given in Section 3.3, "Gasoline and Diesel
  Industrial Engines".  Factors  for sulfuric acid plants and sulfur recovery plants are given in
  Section 8.10, "Sulfuric Acid", and Section 8.13, "Sulfur Recovery", respectively.
  Neg = negligible.
b References 2,4-7. Factors are for emissions after smokeless flares (with fuel gas and steam
  injection) or tail gas incinerators.
c Assumes that 100% of the H2S  in the acid gas stream is converted to  SO2 during flaring or
  incineration and that the sweetening process removes 100% of the H2S in  the feedstock.
d S is the H2S content of the sour gas entering the gas sweetening plant, in mole or volume percent.
  For example, if the H2S content is 2%, the emission factor would be 26.98 times 2,
  or 54.0 kg/1000 m3  (3370 lb/106 scf) of sour gas processed.   If the H2S mole % is unknown,
  average values  from Table 5.3-2 may be substituted. Note: If H2S contents are reported in ppm or
  grains (gr) per  100 scf, use the  following factors to  convert to mole %:
     10,000 ppm H2S =  1 mole  % H2S
     627 gr H2S/100 scf = 1 mole % H2S
  The m3 or scf are to be measured at 60°F and 760 mm Hg for this application
  (1 Ib-mol = 379.5 scf).
e Flare or incinerator stack gases are expected to have negligible hydrocarbon emissions.  To estimate
  fugitive hydrocarbon emissions  from leaking compressor seals, valves, and flanges, see "Protocol
  For Equipment Leak Emission Estimates", EPA-453/R-93-026, June 1993  (or updates).
5.3-4
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
          Table 5.3-2.  AVERAGE HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS
             IN NATURAL GAS BY AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION*
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas

California



Colorado




Florida
Kansas
f
Louisiana

Michigan
Mississippi

Montana

New Mexico

North Dakota
AQCR Name
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (FL, MS)
Four Corners (CO, NM, UT)
Monroe-El Dorado (LA)
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (LA, OK, TX)
Metropolitan Los Angeles
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
Southeast Desert
Four Corners (AZ, NM, UT)
Metropolitan Denver
Pawnee
San Isabel
Yampa
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (AL, MS)
Northwest Kansas
Southwest Kansas
Monroe-El Dorado (AZ)
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (AZ, OK, TX)
Upper Michigan
Mississippi Delta
Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern
Mississippi (AL, FL)
Great Falls
Miles City
Four Corners (AZ, CO, UT)
Pecos-Permian Basin
North Dakota
AQCR
Number
5
14
19
22
24
31
32
33
14
36
37
38
40
5
97
100
19
22
126
134
5
141
143
14
155
172
Average H2S,
mole %
3.30
0.71
0.15
0.55
2.09
0.89
3.66
1.0
0.71
0.1
0.49
0.3
0.31
3.30
0.005
0.02
0.15
0.55
0.5
0.68
3.30
3.93
0.4
0.71
0.83
1.74b
1/95
Petroleum Industry
5.3-5

    -------
                                    Table 5.3-2 (cont.).
State
Oklahoma


Texas







Utah
Wyoming

AQCR Name
Northwestern Oklahoma
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (AZ, LA, TX)
Southeastern Oklahoma
Abilene-Wichita Falls
Amarillo-Lubbock
Austin-Waco
Corpus Christi-Victoria
Metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth
Metropolitan San Antonio
Midland-Odessa-San Angelo
Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler (AZ, LA, OK)
Four Corners (AZ, CO, NM)
Casper
Wyoming (except Park, Bighorn, and
Washakie Counties)
AQCR
Number
187
22
188
210
211
212
214
215
217
218
22
14
241
243
Average H2S,
mole %
1.1
0.55
0.3
0.055
0.26
0.57
0.59
2.54
1.41
0.63
0.55
0.71
1.262
2.34C
a Reference 9.  AQCR = Air Quality Control Region.
b Sour gas only reported for Burke, Williams, and McKenzie Counties, ND.
c Park, Bighorn, and Washakie Counties, WY, report gas with an average H2S content of 23 mole
References For Section 5.3

1.     D. K. Katz, et al., Handbook Of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
       New York, 1959.

2.     R. R. Maddox, Gas And Liquid Sweetening, 2nd Ed.  Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman,
       OK, 1974.

3.     R. E. Kirk and D. F. Othmer (eds.), Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology. Vol. 7,
       Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc., New York, NY, 1951.

4.     Sulfur Compound Emissions Of The Petroleum Production Industry, EPA-650/2-75-030.
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  1974.

5.     Unpublished stack test data for gas sweetening plants, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX,
       1974.
5.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                       1/95

    -------
6.     Control Techniques For Hydrocarbon And Organic Solvent Emissions From Stationary
       Sources, AP-68, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1970.

7.     Control Techniques For Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources, AP-67,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1970.

8.     B. J. Mullins, et al., Atmospheric Emissions Survey Of The Sour Gas Processing Industry,
       EPA-450/3-75-076, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1975.

9.     Federal Air Quality Control Regions, AP-102, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1972.
1/95                                  Petroleum Industry                                  5.3-7

    -------

    -------
             6.  ORGANIC  CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
       Possible emissions from the manufacture of chemicals and chemical products are significant,
but for economic necessity are usually recovered.  In some cases, the manufacturing operation either is
a closed system or is vented to a combustion device with little or no process vent emissions to the
atmosphere.  Emission sources from chemical processes include heaters and boilers; valves, flanges,
pumps and compressors; storage and transfer of products and intermediates; waste water handling; and
emergency vents.

       Emissions reaching the atmosphere from chemical processes are generally gaseous and are
controlled by incineration, adsorption or absorption.  Particulate emissions also could be a problem,
since the particulate emitted is usually extremely small, requiring very efficient treatment for removal.

       Emission data from chemical processes are sparse. It has been frequently necessary, therefore,
to make estimates of emission factors on the  basis of material balances, yields or process similarities.
1/95                         Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.0-1

    -------
6.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                          1/95

    -------
6.1  Carbon Black

6.1.1  Process Description

        Carbon black is produced by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel such as oil or gas with a
limited supply of combustion air at temperatures of 1320 to 1540°C (2400 to 2800°F).  The unburned
carbon is collected as an extremely fine black fluffy particle, 10 to 500 nanometers (nm) in diameter.
The principal uses of carbon black are as a reinforcing agent in rubber compounds (especially tires) and
as a black pigment in printing inks, surface coatings, paper, and plastics.  Two major processes are
presently used in the United States to manufacture carbon black, the oil furnace process and the thermal
process.  The oil furnace process accounts for about 90 percent of production, and the thermal, about
10 percent. Two others, the lamp  process for production of lamp black and the cracking of acetylene
to produce acetylene black, are each used at 1 plant hi the U. S. However, these are small-volume
specialty black operations that constitute less than 1 percent of total production in this country. The
gas furnace process is being phased out, and the last channel black plant in the U. S. was closed in
1976.

6.1.1.1  Oil Furnace Process -
        In the oil furnace process (Figure 6.1-1  and Table 6.1-1), an aromatic liquid hydrocarbon
feedstock is heated and injected continuously into the combustion zone of a natural gas-fired furnace,
where it is decomposed to form carbon black. Primary quench water cools the gases to 500°C
(1000°F) to stop the cracking.  The exhaust gases entraining the carbon particles  are further cooled to
about 230°C (450°F) by passage through heat exchangers and direct water sprays. The black is then
separated from the gas stream, usually by a fabric filter. A cyclone for primary collection and particle
agglomeration may precede the filter. A single  collection system often serves several manifolded
furnaaes.

        The recovered carbon black is finished to a marketable product by pulverizing and wet
pelletizing to increase bulk density. Water from the wet pelletizer is driven off hi a gas-fired rotary
dryer.  Oil or process gas can be used.  From 35 to 70 percent of the dryer combustion gas is charged
directly to the interior of the dryer, and the remainder acts as an indirect heat source for the dryer.
The dried pellets are then conveyed to bulk storage.  Process yields range from 35 to 65 percent,
depending on the feed composition and the grade of black produced.  Furnace designs and operating
conditions determine the particle size and the other physical and chemical properties  of the black.
Generally, yields are highest for large particle blacks and lowest for  small particle blacks.

6.1.1.2  Thermal Process-
        The thermal process is a cyclic operation in which natural gas is thermally decomposed
(cracked) into carbon particles, hydrogen,  and a mixture of other organics.  Two  furnaces are used in
normal operation.  The first cracks natural gas and makes carbon black and hydrogen.  The effluent gas
from the first reactor  is cooled by water sprays to about 125°C (250°F), and the black is collected in a
fabric filter.  The filtered gas (90 percent hydrogen,  6 percent methane, and 4 percent higher
hydrocarbons) is used as  a fuel to heat a second  reactor. When the first reactor becomes too cool to
crack the natural gas feed, the positions of the reactors are reversed,  and the second reactor is used to
crack the gas while the first is heated. Normally, more than enough hydrogen is  produced to make the
thermal black process self-sustaining, and the  surplus hydrogen is used to fire boilers that supply
process steam and electric power.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.1-1

    -------
                                                                                       co
                                                                                       8
                                                                                       s
                                                                                       &,

                                                                                       c3
                                                                                       IS

                                                                                       o
                                                                                       03
                                                                                       (J

                                                                                        I
                                                                                        Ui
                                                                                        W)
                                                                                       .2
                                                                                       •3

                                                                                        o
6.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
 Table 6.1-1.  STREAM IDENTIFICATION FOR THE OIL FURNACE PROCESS (FIGURE 6.1-1)
           Stream
                        Identification
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              12
              13
              14
              15
              16
              17
              18
              19
              20
              21
              22
              23
              24
              25
              26'
              27
              28
              29
              30
            Oil feed
            Natural gas feed
            Air to reactor
            Quench water
            Reactor effluent
            Gas to oil preheater
            Water to  quench tower
            Quench tower effluent
            Bag filter effluent
            Vent gas  purge for dryer fuel
            Main process vent gas
            Vent gas  to incinerator
            Incinerator stack gas
            Recovered carbon black
            Carbon black to micropulverizer
            Pneumatic conveyor system
            Cyclone vent gas recycle
            Cyclone vent gas
            Pneumatic system vent gas
            Carbon black from bag filter
            Carbon black from cyclone
            Surge bin vent
            Carbon black to pelletizer
            Water to  pelletizer
            Pelletizer effluent
            Dryer direct heat source vent
            Dryer heat exhaust after bag filter
            Carbon black from dryer bag filter
            Dryer indirect heat source vent
            Hot gases to dryer
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.1-3

    -------
                                      Table 6.1-1 (cont.).
           Stream
            Identification
             31

             32

             33
             34

             35

             36

             37

             38

             39
Dried carbon black

Screened carbon black

Carbon black recycle

Storage bin vent gas

Bagging system vent gas

Vacuum cleanup system vent gas

Combined dryer vent gas

Fugitive emissions

Oil storage tank vent gas
       The collected thermal black is pulverized and pelletized to a final product in much the same
manner as is furnace black. Thermal process yields are generally high (35 to 60 percent), but the
relatively coarse particles produced, 180 to 470 nm, do not have the strong reinforcing properties
required for rubber products.

6.1.2 Emissions And Controls

6.1.2.1 Oil Furnace Process -
       Emissions from carbon black manufacture include particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO),
organics, nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and trace elements.

       The principal source of emissions in the oil furnace process is the main process vent.  The vent
stream consists of the reactor effluent and the quench water vapor vented from the carbon black
recovery system.  Gaseous emissions may vary considerably according to the grade of carbon black
being produced. Organic and CO emissions tend to be higher for small particle production,
corresponding with the lower yields obtained.  Sulfur compound emissions are a function of the feed
sulfur content.  Tables 6.1-2, 6.1-3, and 6.1-4  show the normal emission ranges to be expected, with
typical average values.

       The combined dryer vent (stream 37 hi Figure 6.1-1) emits carbon black from the dryer bag
filter and contaminants from the use of the main process vent gas if the gas is used as a supplementary
fuel for the dryer.  It also emits contaminants from the combustion of impurities in the natural gas fuel
for the dryer.  These contaminants include sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and the unburned portion of
each of the species present hi the main process vent gas (see Table 6.1-2).  The oil feedstock storage
tanks are a source of organic emissions. Carbon black emissions also occur from the pneumatic
transport system vent, the plantwide vacuum cleanup system vent, and from cleaning, spills, and leaks
(fugitive emissions).

       Gaseous emissions from the main process vent may be controlled with CO boilers,
incinerators, or flares.  The pellet dryer combustion furnace, which is, in essence, a thermal
incinerator, may a^c be employed in a control system. CO boilers, thermal incinerators, or
combinations of these devices can achieve essentially complete oxidation of organics and can oxidize


6.1-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
  Table 6.1-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES
                  FROM OIL FURNACE CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE8
Chemical Substance
Carbon disulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Methane

Nonmethane VOC
Acetylene

Ethane
Ethylene
Propylene
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
n-Pentane
POM
Trace elements'1
Main Process Vent Gasb
kg/Mg
30
10
25
(10 - 60)

45
(5 - 130)
Oc
1.6
Oc
0.23
0.10
0.27
Oc
0.002
<0.25
Ib/ton
60
20
50
(20 - 120)

90
(10 - 260)
Oc
3.2
Oc
0.46
0.20
0.54
Oc
0.004
<0.50
a Expressed in terms of weight of emissions per unit weight of carbon black produced.
  VOC = volatile organic compounds.
b These chemical substances are emitted only from the main process vent. Average values are based
  on 6 sampling runs made at a representative plant (Reference 1).  Ranges given in parentheses are
  based on results of a survey of operating plants (Reference 4).
c Below detection limit of 1 ppm.
d Beryllium, lead, and mercury, among several others.


sulfur compounds in the process flue gas. Combustion efficiencies of 99.6 percent for hydrogen
sulfide and 99.8 percent for CO have been measured for a flare on a carbon black plant. Paniculate
emissions may also be reduced by combustion of some of the carbon black particles, but emissions of
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are thereby increased.

6.1.2.2 Thermal Process -
       Emissions from the furnaces in this process are very low because the offgas is recycled and
burned in the next furnace to provide heat for cracking, or sent to a  boiler as fuel.  The carbon black is
recovered in a bag filter between the 2 furnaces. The rest is recycled in the offgas.  Some adheres to
the surface of the checkerbrick where it is burned off in each firing cycle.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.1-5

    -------
  a
  D

  U
  U
CO
Z
O
a:
u

o
LL
ACTORS 1
BH
2^
O
55
on
§
W
'S
P
u


O
d
Z
H
S
FACTOR
Z
O
55
CO
§
U




  «



  H
c
8*2
•o 3
«""
nmethane
VOCC
o
Z
a
«5
01
*2 "S
co O

c w
1°

Carbon
Monoxide
-o
CO
3
u
'•2
(X






09
u
2
0-

fn
^H T-(
o ' *- d
« vn
V> ,_ C-? _
7 « ' ON
S o "^ - d






r-^ o
d d



OC
Z

U)
u


^ f
i-H
_ oo1
^ CM  VI ' t^*
O i c4 Os ^H
0 ^
CS

o £?
00 - _ >0
CM CM Q NO
d • Z •*

O ^ oo
o ^i 2 °°.
SC^ CM . O
i CM
•V -H OO
- § 2
•a •"• ^
CM ' f«1 7 °
« 5 - N -




tH
O

M
U
e
°» c °
s | -s
8 «, -g
tH 05 5
O* 0 *
8 2 |
go. -^
3 C & ~°
«« •« ja p
a 2 It, O
O
CM d ^ —i
O i O O
8
o.
NO d o •&
m , •-< o
d M « d
0,
o
d
o^ o" o* TI
•» r~ t~- 0
CMONOO O\O mdOCM
o^,®—, °vo o^oo
o o o o
S- 2- a s
a:
c
u

c
•** S "2-
•*j C .- Jj O
S^ C ? .., OS
"^ u ^> ^" t_<
"^ ^ ^^ '•' Lj P U
.Ss 5 1s S§|E > 0
-° en 2 i60 ^"i60 i-S-a
c ^ o u ^ i ^ o ^ M *^
oCQ co cCQ ^^cdCQ so
u a< O > ii, co


4>
Z

Q
Z

S?
z

Sf
z









hermal processk
H
6.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
8S                                                             Table6.1-3(cont.).
1
3      a Expressed in terms of weight of emissions per unit weight of carbon black produced.  Blanks indicate no emissions.  Most plants use bag
1        filters on all process trains for product recovery except solid waste incineration. Some plants may use scrubbers on at least one process
„       train.  ND = no data.
8,     b The paniculate matter is carbon black.
       0 Emission factors do not include organic sulfur compounds that are reported separately in Table 6.1-2.  Individual organic species
         comprising the nonmethane VOC emissions are included in Table 6.1-2.
       d Average values based on surveys  of plants (References 4-5).
       e Average values based on results of 6 sampling runs conducted at a representative plant with a mean production rate of 5. 1 x 10 Mg/yr
         (5.6 x 10 ton/yr).  Ranges of values are based on a survey of 15 plants (Reference 4). Controlled by bag filter.
!?     f Not detected at detection limit of 1 ppm.
(TQ
g     g S is the weight %  sulfur in the feed.
«'     h Average values and corresponding ranges of values are based on a survey of plants (Reference 4) and on the public files of Louisiana Air
Q       Control Commission.
3     ' Emission factor calculated using empirical correlations for petrochemical losses from  storage tanks (vapor pressure = 0.7 kPa).
g^       Emissions are mostly aromatic oils.
*a     J Based on emission rates obtained from the National Emissions Data System. All plants do not use solid waste incineration.  See
°       Section 2. 1 .
S>     k Emissions from the furnaces are negligible.  Emissions from the dryer vent, pneumatic system vent, vacuum cleanup system, and fugitive
g<       sources are similar to those for the oil furnace process.
O.
 C/3
  \

    -------
                    Table 6.1-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE"



                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Process
Oil furnace process
Main process vent

Flare

CO boiler and incinerator
Combined dryer vent11
Bag filter

Scrubber
Pneumatic system vent*1
Bag filter

Oil storage tank vent1
Uncontrolled
Vacuum cleanup system venth
Bag filter

Fugitive emissions'1
Solid waste incinerator'
Thermal processk
Particulateb

6.53d
(0.2 - 10)
2.70
(2.4 - 3)
2.07

0.24
(0.02 - 0.80)
0.71
(0.02- 1.40)
0.58
(0.12 - 1.40)



0.06
(0.02-0.10)
0.20
0.24
Neg
Carbon
Monoxide

2,800e
(1,400-4,400)
245
(216 - 274)
1.75













0.02
Neg
Nitrogen
Oxides

0.56°
(2 - 5.6)
ND

9.3

0.73
(0.24- 1.22)
2.20









0.08
ND
Sulfur
Oxides

Oe'f
(0 - 24)
50
(44 - 56)
35.2

0.52
(0.06- 1.08)
0.40









0.02
Neg
Methane

50e
(20 - 120)


















Nonmethane
VOCC

100e
(20 - 300)
3.7
(3.4 - 4)
1.98









1.44



0.02
Neg
Hydrogen
Sulfide

60e
(10S - 26S)«
2

0.22














Neg
m

§

GO
GO
i—i


§
g
GO
I
oo

    -------
2S                                                              Table6.1-4(cont.).
1
3      a Expressed in terms of weight of emissions per unit weight of carbon black produced.  Blanks indicate no emissions.  Most plants use bag
I        filters on all process trains for product recovery except solid waste incineration.  Some plants may use scrubbers on at least one process
_       train.  ND =  no data.
8i     b The paniculate matter is carbon black.
       c Emission factors do not include organic sulfur compounds that are reported separately in Table 6.1-2.  Individual organic species
         comprising the nonmethane VOC emissions are included in Table 6.1-2.
       d Average values based on surveys of plants (References 4-5).
       e Average values based on results of 6 sampling runs conducted at a representative plant with a mean production rate of 5.1 x 10 Mg/yr
         (5.6 x 10 tons/yr).  Ranges of values are based on a survey of 15 plants (Reference 4). Controlled by bag filter.
£?     f Not detected at detection limit of 1 ppm.
tro
g     g S is the weight % sulfur in the feed.
«'     h Average values and corresponding ranges of values  are based on a survey of plants (Reference 4) and on the public files of Louisiana Air
P       Control Commission.
§     ' Emission factor calculated using empirical correlations for petrochemical losses from storage tanks (vapor pressure = 0.7 kPa).
§       Emissions are mostly aromatic oils.
•-a     J Based on emission  rates obtained from the National Emissions Data System.  All plants do not use solid waste incineration.  See
o       Section 2.1.
8»     k Emissions from the furnaces are negligible.  Emissions from  the dryer vent, pneumatic system vent, vacuum cleanup system, and fugitive

 o.
 c
         sources are similar to those for the oil furnace process.

    -------
       Emissions from the dryer vent, the pneumatic transport system vent, the vacuum cleanup
system vent, and fugitive sources are similar to those for the oil furnace process, since the operations
that give rise to these emissions in the 2 processes are similar. There is no emission point in the
thermal process that corresponds to the oil storage tank vents in the oil furnace process.  Also in the
thermal process, sulfur compounds, POM, trace elements, and organic compound emissions are
negligible, because low-sulfur natural gas is used, and the process offgas is burned as fuel.

References For Section 6.1

1.     R. W. Serth and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Carbon Black Manufacture,
       EPA-600/2-77-107k, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1977.

2.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

3.     I. Drogin, "Carbon Black", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 75:216-228,
       April 1968.

4.     Engineering And Cost Study Of Air Pollution Control For The Petrochemical Industry, Vol. 1:
       Carbon Black Manufacture By The Furnace Process, EPA-450/3-73-006a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.

5.     K. C. Hustvedt and L. B. Evans, Standards Support And  Emission Impact Statement:  An
       Investigation Of The Best Systems Of Emission Reduction  For Furnace Process Carbon Black
       Plants In The Carbon Black Industry (Draft), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1976.

6.     Source Testing Of A Waste Heat Boiler, EPA-75-CBK-3,  U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1975.

7.     R. W. Gerstle and J. R. Richards, Industrial Process Profiles For Environmental Use,
       Chapter 4: Carbon Black Industry, EPA-600-2-77-023d,  U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1977.

8.     G. D. Rawlings and T. W. Hughes,  "Emission Inventory Data For Acrylonitrile, Phthalic
       Anhydride, Carbon Black, Synthetic Ammonia, And Ammonium Nitrate", Proceedings Of
       APCA Specialty Conference On Emission Factors And Inventories, Anaheim, CA,
       November 13-16, 1978.
6.1-10                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
6.2  AdipicAcid

6.2.1  General1-3'5

        Adipic acid, HOOQCH^COOH, is a white crystalline solid used primarily in the
manufacture of nylon-6,6 polyamide and is produced in 4 facilities in the U. S. Worldwide demand
for adipic acid in 1989 was nearly 2 billion megagrams (Mg) (2 billion tons), with growth continuing
at a steady rate.

        Adipic acid historically has been manufactured from either cyclohexane or phenol, but shifts
in hydrocarbon markets have nearly resulted in the elimination of phenol as a feedstock hi the U. S.
This has resulted in experimentation with alternative feedstocks, which may have commercial
ramifications.

6.2.2  Process Description1'4"5

        Adipic acid is manufactured from cyclohexane in two major  reactions.  The first step, shown
in Figure 6.2-1, is the oxidation of cyclohexane to produce cyclohexanone  (a ketone) and
cyclohexanol (an alcohol).  This ketone-alcohol (KA) mixture is then converted to adipic acid by
oxidation with nitric acid in the second reaction,  as shown in Figure 6.2-2. Following these
2 reaction stages, the wet adipic acid crystals are separated from water and nitric acid.  The product
is dried and cooled before packaging and shipping.  Dibasic acids (DBA) may be recovered from the
nitric acid solution and sold as a coproduct.  The remaining nitric acid is then recycled to the second
reactor.

        The predominant method of cyclohexane oxidation is metal-catalyzed oxidation, which
employs a small amount of cobalt, chromium, and/or copper, with moderate temperatures and
pressures.  Air, catalyst, cyclohexane, and in some cases small quantities of benzene are fed into
either a multiple-stage column reactor or a series of stirred tank reactors, with a low conversion rate
from feedstock to oxidized product.  This low rate of conversion necessitates effective recovery and
recycling of unreacted cyclohexane through distillation of the oxidizer  effluent.

        The conversion of the intermediates cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone to adipic acid uses the
same fundamental technology as that developed and used since  the early  1940s.  It entails oxidation
with 45 to 55 percent nitric acid in the presence of copper and  vanadium catalysts.  This results in a
very high yield of adipic acid.  The reaction is exothermic, and can reach an autocatalytic runaway
state if temperatures exceed 150°C (300°F).  Process control is achieved by using large amounts of
nitric acid.  Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are removed by bleaching with air, water is removed by vacuum
distillation,  and the adipic acid is separated from the nitric acid by crystallization.  Further refining,
typically recrystallization from water, is needed to achieve polymer-grade material.

6.2.3  Emissions And Controls1"2'4'7

        Emissions from the manufacture of adipic acid consist primarily of organic compounds  and
carbon monoxide (CO) from the first reaction, NOX from the second reaction,  and paniculate matter
from product cooling, drying, storage, and loading.  Tables 6.2-1  and  6.2-2 present emission factors
for the processes in Figure 6.2-1 and Figure 6.6-2, respectively.  Emissions estimation of in-process
1/95                            Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.2-1

    -------
                                  SCRUBBER OFFGAS
                                                                              TANK
                                                                             VENTS
                       DECANTER &
                      COLUMN VENTS
     KA - ketone-alcohol mixture
            Figure 6.2-1.  Adipic acid manufacturing process:  Oxidation of cyclohexane.
combustion products, fractional distillation evaporation losses, oxidizer effluent streams, and storage
of volatile raw or intermediate materials, is addressed in Chapter 12, "Metallurgical Industry".

       The waste gas stream from cyclohexane oxidation, after removal of most of the valuable
unreacted cyclohexane by 1 or more scrubbers, will still contain CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), and
organic compounds.  In addition, the most concentrated waste stream, which comes from the final
distillation  column (sometimes called the "nonvolatile residue"),  will contain metals, residues from
catalysts, and volatile and nonvolatile organic compounds.  Both the scrubbed gas stream and the
nonvolatile residue may be used as fuel in process heating units.  If a caustic soda solution is used as
a final purification step for the KA, the spent caustic waste can be burned or sold as a recovered
byproduct.  Analyses of gaseous effluent streams  at 2 plants indicate that compounds containing cobalt
and chromium,  in addition to normal products of combustion, are emitted when nonvolatile residue is
burned.  Caproic, valeric, butyric,  and succinic acids are emitted from tanks storing the nonvolatile
residue.  Cyclohexanone, cyclohexanol, and hexanol are among the organic compounds emitted from
the cyclohexane recovery equipment (such as decanters and distillation columns.)

       The nitric acid  oxidation of the KA results in 2  main streams. The liquid effluent, which
contains primarily water, nitric acid, and adipic acid, contains significant quantities of NOX, which
are considered part of the process stream with recoverable economic value. These NOX are stripped
6.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       EMER6ENCY
          VENT
                      ABSORBER
                       OFFGAS
               NITRIC  ACID
                TANK FUME
                  SWEEP
                                                               FILTER &    BAG FILTER
                                                               BLOWER    & SCRUBBER
                                                               VENTS      VENTS
                                                                                       . STACK
         CATALYST
                                 FILTER VENT                         TANK VENTS



                                              DBA CO-PRODUCT
                                          r
                                                        METHANOL
     . _, - ketone-alcohol mixture
   DBA - dibasic acid
   DBE - dibasic esters
                                               DBE CO-PRODUCT
 Figure 6.2-2.  Adipic acid manufacturing process:  Nitric acid oxidation of ketone-alcohol mixture.
1/95
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.2-3

    -------
     Table 6.2-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                  PRIMARY OXIDATION ADIPIC ACID MANUFACTURE8

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
(Cyclohexane -> KA)
High-pressure
scrubber
Low-pressure scrubber
TNMOCb
kg/Mg
7.0°
1.4d
Ib/ton
14b
2.8C
CO
kg/Mg
25
9.0
Ib/ton
49
18
C02
kg/Mg
14
3.7
Ib/ton
28
7.4
CH4
kg/Mg
0.08
0.05
Ib/ton
0.17
0.09
a Factors are kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton Ob/ton) of adipic acid.
  KA = ketone-alcohol mixture. TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds.
b One TNMOC composition analysis at a third plant utilizing only 1 scrubber yielded the following
  speciation: 46% butane, 16% pentane, 33% cyclohexane, 5%  other; this test not used in total
  TNMOC emission factor calculation.
c Multiple TNMOC composition analyses from 2 reactors within 1 plant yielded the following
  average speciation: 1.6% ethane,  1.2% ethylene, 6.7% propane, 63% butane, 16% pentane,
  11% cyclohexane.
d Multiple TNMOC composition analyses from 2 reactors within 1 plant yielded the following
  average speciation: 2.3% ethane,  1.7% ethylene, 5.2% propane, 54% butane, 10% pentane,
  26% cyclohexane.
from the stream in a bleaching column using air.  The gaseous effluent from oxidation contains NOX,
CO2, CO, nitrous oxide (N2O), and DBAs.  The gaseous effluent from both the bleacher and the
oxidation reactor typically is passed through an absorption tower to recover most of the NOX, but this
process does not significantly reduce the concentration of N2O in the stream.  The absorber offgases
and the fumes from tanks storing solutions high in nitric acid content are controlled by extended
absorption at 1 of the 3 plants utilizing cyclohexane oxidation, and by thermal reduction at the
remaining 2.  Extended absorption is accomplished by simply increasing the volume of the absorber,
by extending the residence time of the NOx-laden gases with the absorbing water, and by providing
sufficient cooling to remove the heat released by the absorption process. Thermal reduction involves
reacting the NOX with excess fuel in a reducing atmosphere, which is less economical than extended
absorption.

       Both scrubbers and bag filters are used commonly to control adipic acid dust particulate
emissions from product drying, cooling, storage, and loading operations. Nitric acid emissions occur
from the product blowers and from the centrifuges and/or filters used to recover adipic acid crystals
from the effluent stream leaving the second reactor.  When chlorine is added to  product cooling
towers, all of it can typically be assumed to be emitted to the atmosphere.  If DBA are recovered
from the nitric acid solution and converted to dibasic esters  (DBE) using methanol, methanol
emissions will also occur.
6.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
VO
IS)
             Table 6.2-2 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY
                                     OXIDATION ADIPIC ACID MANUFACTURE*
                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E (except as noted)
Source
(KA •* Adipic Acid)
Oxidation reactorb>c
Nitric acid tank fiime sweepd
Adipic acid refining6
Adipic acid drying/cooling/
storage
TNMOC
kg/Mg
0.28
0.007
0.3
0
Ib/ton
0.55
0.014
0.5
0
CO
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton
0.25 0.49
0.14 0.28
0 0
0 0
C02
kg/Mg
60
2.6
NA
NA
Ib/ton
120
5.2
NA
NA
N20
kg/Mg
290
1.3
NA
NA
Ib/ton
590
2.6
NA
NA
NOX
kg/Mg
7.0
0.81
0.3
0
Ib/ton
14
1.6
0.6
0
PM
kg/Mg
NA
NA
0.18
0.48
Ib/ton
NA
NA
O.lf
O.lf
o
ET
I
O
e.
o
O-
c
VI
a Factors are kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton) of adipic acid. KA = ketone-alcohol mixture.
  TNMOC = total nonmethane organic compounds. NA = not applicable.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
c Derived from multiple gas-stream composition analyses at 2 plants, 1 of which can use extended absorption to lower NOX emissions to
  3.2 Ib/ton adipic acid.
d Derived from gas-stream composition analysis during 1 stack test.
e Includes chilling, crystallization, and centrifuging.
f Factors are after baghouse control device, no efficiency given.
p\
'to

    -------
References For Section 6.2

1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, "Adipic Acid",  Vol. 1, 4th Ed.,
       New York, Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc., 1991.

2.     Handbook: Control Technologies For Hazardous Air Pollutants, EPA-625/6-91-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, June 1991.

3.     1990 Directory Of Chemical Producers:  United States, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

4.     Alternative Control Techniques Document — Nitric And Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-450/3-91-026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1991.

5.     Written communication from J. M. Rung, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Victoria,
       TX, to D. Beauregard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, 30 April 1992.

6.     Confidential written communication letter from C. D.  Gary, Allied-Signal Inc., Hopewell,
       VA, to D. Beauregard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       9 March 1992.

7.     Confidential written communication from J. M. Rung, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
       Victoria, TX, to D. Beauregard, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, 30 April 1992.
6.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
63 Explosives

6.3.1 General1

       An explosive is a material that, under the influence of thermal or mechanical shock,
decomposes rapidly and spontaneously with the evolution of large amounts of heat and gas.  There are
two major categories, high explosives and low explosives. High explosives are further divided into
initiating, or primary, high explosives and secondary high explosives. Initiating high explosives are
very sensitive and are generally used in small quantities in detonators and percussion caps to set off
larger quantities of secondary high explosives.  Secondary high explosives, chiefly nitrates, nitro
compounds, and nitramines,  are much less sensitive to mechanical or thermal shock, but they explode
with great violence when set off by an initiating explosive.  The chief secondary high explosives
manufactured for commercial and military use are ammonium nitrate blasting agents and
2,4,6,-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Low explosives, such as black powder and nitrocellulose, undergo
relatively slow autocombustion when set off and evolve large volumes of gas in a definite and
controllable manner.  Many different types of explosives are manufactured.  As examples of high and
low explosives, the production of TNT and nitrocellulose (NC) are discussed below.

6.3.2 TNT Production1'3'6

       TNT may be prepared by either a continuous or a batch process, using toluene, nitric acid
(HNO3) and sulfuric acid as  raw materials.  The production of TNT follows the same chemical
process, regardless of whether batch or continuous method is used. The flow chart for TNT
production is shown in Figure 6.3-1. The overall chemical reaction may be expressed as:
                3HONO
                                H2SO4
                                                 3H2°
                                                                                 H2 SO4
Toluene
Nitric
Acid
                                  Sulfuric
                                   Acid
                                                     NO,
                                 TNT
                                                  Water
                                                                                   Sulfuric
                                                                                    Acid
The production of TNT by nitration of toluene is a 3-stage process performed in a series of reactors, as
shown hi Figure 6.3-2. The mixed acid stream is shown to flow countercurrent to the flow of the
organic stream.  Toluene and spent acid fortified with a 60 percent HNO3 solution are fed into the first
reactor. The organic layer formed hi the first reactor is pumped into the second reactor, where it is
subjected to further nitration with acid from the third reactor fortified with additional HNO3. The
product from the second nitration step, a mixture of all possible isomers of dinitrotoluene (DNT), is
pumped to the third reactor.  In the final reaction, the DNT is treated with a fresh feed of nitric acid
and oleum (a solution of sulfur trioxide [SO3] in anhydrous sulfuric acid). The crude TNT from this
third nitration consists primarily of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene.  The crude TNT is washed to remove  free
acid, and the wash water (yellow water) is recycled to the early nitration stages. The washed TNT is
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
           Organic Chemical Process Industry
                                                                                          6.3-1

    -------
](NOX.SOX,
', 'TOLUENE,
; 'TRIN(TROMETHANE)
TOLUENE
MIXED ACID


REC\
t
rO MIXED AC)
PREPARATIO



NITRATION

1
rcL
L
D
N
E '


SPENT
ACID
i
'



STI
1


AM '
02
f t
SPENT ACID
RECOVERY
CRUDE
TNT
DFPVPI F
(NOX,SOX)




BYPRODUCT
H2S04
t(*NOx.'SOx)
PURIFICATION
<



YELLOW
WATER

-»*•
\

RED
WATER





PURIFIEC
TNT
SLURRY
'
1

FINISHING
t
WASTE
ACID
1
FLA
Tfl
                                         T
                                     TO DISPOSAL
                       FT          I
                   TO DISPOSAL  TO DISPOSAL   TO STORAGE
                           H2S04OR
                           Mg(N03)2
                  NITRIC ACID
                CONCENTRATION
                                                       GASEOUS EMISSIONS
                                                       "NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT
                                Figure 6.3-1. TNT production.
TOLUENE

SPENT ACID

1st
NITRATION
NITRO-
TOLUEIME

A
OLEUM
t
2nd
NITRATION
60%HN03
DNT

60%HNO;
3rd
NITRATION
f

PRODUCT
                                                                 97% HN03

                     Figure 6.3-2. Nitration of toluene to form trinitrotoluene.
6.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
discharged directly as a liquid waste stream, is collected and sold, or is concentrated to a slurry and
incinerated.  Finally, the TNT crystals are melted and passed through hot air dryers, where most of the
water is evaporated. The dehydrated product is solidified, and the TNT flakes packaged for transfer to
a storage or loading area.

6.3.3 Nitrocellulose Production1'6

       Nitrocellulose is commonly prepared by the batch-type mechanical dipper process.  A newly
developed continuous nitration processing method is also being used.  In batch production, cellulose in
the form of cotton linters, fibers, or specially prepared wood pulp is purified by boiling and bleaching.
The dry and purified cotton linters or wood pulp are added to mixed nitric and sulfuric acid in metal
reaction vessels known as dipping pots.  The reaction is represented by:
(C6H702(OH)3)X

   Cellulose
                         3HONO2 + H2SO4
                          Nitric
                          Acid
Sulfuric
 Acid
                     (C6H7O2(ONO2)3)X + 3H2O + H2SO4

                        Nitrocellulose     Water  Sulfuric
                                                    Acid
Following nitration, the crude NC is centrifuged to remove most of the spent nitrating acids and is put
through a series of water washing and boiling treatments to purify the final product.

6.3.4 Emissions And Controls2'3'5'7

       Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur (SOX) are the major emissions from the processes
involving the manufacture, concentration, and recovery of acids in the nitration process of explosives
manufacturing.  Emissions from the manufacture of nitric and sulfuric acid are discussed in other
sections. Trinitromethane (TNM) is a gaseous byproduct of the nitration process of TNT manufacture.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions result primarily from fugitive vapors from various solvent
recovery operations.  Explosive wastes and contaminated packaging material are regularly disposed of
by open burning, and such results in uncontrolled emissions,  mainly of NOX and particulate matter.
Experimental burns of several explosives to determine "typical" emission factors for the open burning
of TNT are presented in Table 6.3-1.


    Table 6.3-1 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE OPEN BURNING OF TNTa>b
                                 (lb pollution/ton TNT burned)
Type Of Explosive
TNT
Particulates
180.0
Nitrogen Oxides
150.0
Carbon Monoxide
56.0
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
1.1
a Reference 7. Particulate emissions are soot.  VOC is nonmethane.
b The burns were made on very small quantities of TNT, with test apparatus designed to simulate open
  burning conditions. Since such test simulations can never replicate actual open burning, it is
  advisable to use the factors in this Table with caution.
       In the manufacture of TNT, emissions from the nitrators containing NO, NO2, N2O, TNM,
and some toluene are passed through a fume recovery system to extract NOX as nitric acid, and then are
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
                                                                                   6.3-3

    -------
vented through scrubbers to the atmosphere.  Final emissions contain quantities of unabsorbed NOX and
TNM . Emissions may also come from the production of Sellite solution and the incineration of red
water. Red water incineration results in atmospheric emissions of NOX, SO2, and ash (primarily
        In the manufacture of nitrocellulose, emissions from reactor pots and centrifuges are vented to
a NOX water absorber.  The weak HNO3 solution is transferred to the acid concentration system.
Absorber emissions are mainly NOX.  Another possible source of emissions is the boiling tubs, where
steam and acid vapors vent to the absorber.

        The most important fact affecting emissions from explosives manufacture is the type and
efficiency of the manufacturing process.  The efficiency of the acid and fume recovery systems for
TNT manufacture will directly affect the atmospheric emissions.  In addition, the degree to which acids
are exposed to the atmosphere during the manufacturing process affects the NOX and SOX emissions.
For nitrocellulose production, emissions are influenced by the nitrogen content and the desired product
quality.  Operating conditions will also affect emissions.  Both TNT and nitrocellulose can be produced
in batch processes. Such processes may never reach steady state, emission concentrations may vary
considerably with time, and fluctuations in emissions will influence the efficiency of control methods.

        Several measures may be taken to reduce emissions from explosive manufacturing. The effects
of various control devices and process changes, along with emission factors for explosives
manufacturing, are shown in Tables 6.3-2 and 6.3-3.  The emission factors are all  related to the
amount of product produced and are appropriate either for estimating long-term emissions or for
evaluating plant operation at full production conditions.  For short time periods, or for plants with
intermittent operating schedules, the emission factors in Tables 6.3-2 and 6.3-3 should be used with
caution because processes not associated with the nitration step are often not in operation at the same
time as the nitration reactor.
 6.3-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------

                     Table 6.3-2 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING"1'15



                                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Process
TNT - Batch process0
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery

Acid recovery

Nitric acid concentrators

Sulfuric acid concentrators
Electrostatic precipitator (exit)

Electrostatic precipitator with scrubber*

Red water incinerator
Uncontrolledf

Wet scrubber8

Sellite exhaust

TNT - Continuous process*1
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery

Acid recovery

Particulates


—

—

—


—

—


12.5
(0.015 - 63)
0.5

—



—

—

Sulfur Oxides
(S02)


—

—

—


7
(2 - 20)
Neg


1
(0.025- 1.75)
1
(0.025- 1.75)
29.5
(0.005 - 88)


—

—

Nitrogen Oxides
(N02)


12.5
(3 - 19)
27.5
(0.5 - 68)
18.5
(8 - 36)

20
(1 - 40)
20
(1 - 40)

13
(0.75 - 50)
2.5

—



4
(3.35 - 5)
1.5
(0.5 - 2.25)
Nitric Acid Mist
(100% HNO3)


0.5
(0.15 - 0.95)
46
(0.005 - 137)
—


—

—


—

—

—



0.5
(0.15-0.95)
0.01
(0.005 - 0.015)
Sulfur Acid Mist
(100% H2SO4)


—

—

4.5
(0.15 - 13.5)

32.5
(0.5 - 94)
2.5
(2-3)

—

—

3
(0.3 - 8)


—

—

8
 I
 C/5
 ON

    -------
         09 ^-v
         '
        3-
        CO ^
        l
   o
    .2

                                       0-3
                                       2 ^
                                         s   o
                                         s   -a
                                         ^   §
                                         5   fe
                                              0 J3
                                              c >
                                              I S

                                                                  00
                                                                  o>
                                                                 •a
                         ii
                         Iw
                         K O
                           O
                         £>
                         •S »
                         S.2:
                         "2 •-
                         C 60

                         I"3-
                         .£ o
               -: 1 § 8    |
               ^3 t« +•• IS
                3 re c •—       fa
                O w Ip wa

               182*    I
               * -a s S    «

                                       2 S
                                       55
                  .S °
                  co C~
                  C 4>
                  O >
                  i'M
                  S -2
                  > S3
                                       c  ?
                                         "
         ^e
         i
                                 ^O S-a
                                 1Z^1
                                     • 60 S
                                 J?  S3S 8
                                                      - S -s «
                                                      ^i§«
                          1
                          •a
                                            0>
                                            CO
                                                                 —•
                                                      i? w ,a -H   «
                                              4>
                    o «
                    2 S
                                             g
es.
nitrocel
       C «3
      .2 g
       g 9>
    e O
    |Z
       S_i
     CO
     O
                                        Z
ogen
                                             •S  a 8
es
ficant e
nitration
S
For so
parenth
TNT or
Signi
from
ons
             «0
     2 « JM °
    ii's'i
     c
     4>
S   O
ail
d
ed
   » ti
   CJ 5O
   c 'S
"•e  « «
III
o oi <
No data ava
Use low end
Apparent
Reference
                          1
                          Q.

                          &
                                                   O TS  O •— BO J3 .«
6.3-6
          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                 (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
oo
u>



1
Table 6.3-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING1^



                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Process
TNT - Batch process0
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery

Acid recovery

Nitric acid concentrators

Sulfuric acid concentrators'1
Electrostatic precipitator (exit)

Electrostatic precipitator with scrubber6

Red water incinerator
Uncontrolledf

Wet scrubber8

Sellite exhaust

TNT - Continuous process1*
Nitration reactors
Fume recovery

Acid recovery

Particulates


—

—

—


—

—


25
(0.03 - 126)
1

—



—

—

Sulfur Oxides
(S02)


—

—

—


14
(4 - 40)
Neg


2
(0.05 - 3.5)
2
(0.05 - 3.5)
59
(0.01 - 177)


—

—

Nitrogen Oxides
(N02)


25
(6 - 38)
55
(1 - 136)
37
(16-72)

40
(2 - 80)
40
(2 - 80)

26
(1.5- 101)
5

—



8
(6.7 - 10)
3
(1 - 4.5)
Nitric Acid Mist
(100% HN03)


1
(0.3 - 1.9)
92
(0.02 - 275)
—


—




—

—

—



1
(0.3 - 1.9)
0.02
(0.01 - 0.03)
Sulfur Acid Mist
(100% H2S04)


—

—

9
(0.3 - 27)

65
(1 - 188)
5
(4-6)

—

—

6
(0.6 - 16)


—

—

O

o

3.

o°
o
o
I
0\

    -------
  **!
  vo

Bfl
S—


^3
1
<5
3
W3


.2
•o
"1
_o
2


1
O
g
CO)
2
!Z




0
•1
O
1
"3
CO







^
f?
\j
CO
C4
X
^
8
*— (



d1
z
X
^
8
^^


^
o"
Z,





I


83
1
1
ti
<2


M
CA
U
o
2
a.




i i i 2 i




\o
r*
i s j; i i i
s.



XTS ^^
• 3; «•
oo n rt
t>- i 2 ' 2 ' 1 N
___. £•••. fm*
*~* *• . W
v£, C. ^i





3 «^
xf x cs r>
^ •* ' i " i
O ' rt OO ' OO ' 1
1 s - 5
9, •"

1^
«« o"
^ ' 1 1 1 1
0 to 1 ' 1 1
e>
o.




2 1
o £ g
.S ""o § ° "2 01
i i i 1 1 !
| 1 '2 -8 1 1
1 | 1 'I 1 £





_e
8
00
e
2
•>
E
'ia
c
1
CA
CA
CA
CU
3
cd
•8
o
&
Ui
<+M
O
eU
S?
k*
eU

V
1
CA
.2
en
en
1
_g

CA
p*
O
For some processes, considerable variat
03

t^
53
a
••-»
S
a*~*

<4-l
0
CA
"S
§
ON
<4_
0
S
'e
3
C
'i
CA
1
<2
_g
"CA
_CA

£
W

«
1
S
•«-»
£
•4»*
CU
0
U*
O
CA
VHl
j>>
"c
o
^
cu

parentheses. Where only 1 number is g
ton of TNT or nitrocellulose produced.
£»
*£ S
•^ >
Z I
£ 2
si
cu >
11
^^ cn
2 §
*!
c >
.2 S
«<§
S -
S 3
« >
•^ CO
g15
11
* .2
« CA
^ -52
ll
a o
/^v
>,>
»^* 1^
is (u
3 .1
•o .ts
C bD
«<2
3* -
•1 §
5 <
g-
cu o>
« P
5I
<- <2
^1
"S I
•e ^
§£
«- H
c «
s -s
*-s
Significant emissions of VOCs have not
from nitration reactors have been report
-D































operations. See Reference 6.
Reference 5.
o





















"53
£
8
cs
^

>
d>
r^H

>>
•o
o
_o
Acid mist emissions influenced by nitrol
•o










u
CU
f>
1
U4
o
CA
5>^
£
"g
1
S
S
CU
f>
o
«s
*^4
^
s
3
CA
CA
CO
£
03
1
_O
'«3
CA
1
><
O
z
S3
x>
X2
P
W
O
M
^
No data available for NOX emissions aft
o



















CA
'S
3
«^
.2
'3
£
CU
CA
M
£
'O
(U
&0
'£
en
•w
'S
3
g
V
"o
!
U4
eu
T3
I
Ǥ
CU
&0
1
<4M
o
t3
CU
1
D
en
D
**




•4-*
I
•*^
S
T— )
>»
o
c
o
•s
%
x>
CU
13
3
"I
CU
CA
S
S
CU
CA
^

O
0>
*o
1
1
.2?
"cA
CU
X3
|
S^,
CG
8
^
8
u-
4>
o
C
s
<4-c
O
1
V
S
i?
js
CU
CA
content
g
V
60
8
+^
'S
1
6A
2
5
'?

en
t>
3
*O
8
M
&.
t2
V
60
k.
•s
•o
g
f
J=
CU
CA
3

^^
*
CS
'*~S
+J
o>
•4— »
8
g
00
8
^^
'2
__o
5
'$
4-*
CJ
•o
8
a.
1
.»
6.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
References For Section 6.3

1.     R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company,
       New York, 1967.

2.     Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing, Office Of Criteria And
       Standards, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, June 1970.

3.     F. B. Higgins, Jr., et al., "Control of Air Pollution From TNT Manufacturing",
       Presented at 60th annual meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Cleveland,  OH,
       June 1967.

4.     Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Radford Army Ammunition Plant,
       U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, MD, July 1967, July 1968.

5.     Air Pollution Engineering Source Sampling Surveys, Volunteer Army Ammunition  Plant And
       Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood
       Arsenal,  MD, July 1967, July 1968.

6.     Industrial Process Profiles For Environmental Use: The Explosives Industry,
       EPA-600/2-77-0231, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1977.

7.     Specific Air Pollutants From Munitions Processing And Their Atmospheric Behavior, Volume 4:
       Open Burning And Incineration  Of Waste Munitions, Research Triangle Institute, Research
       Triangle  Park, NC, January 1978.
5/83 (Refonnatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.3-9

    -------

    -------
6.4 Paint And Varnish

6.4.1  Paint Manufacturing1

       The manufacture of paint involves the dispersion of a colored oil or pigment in a vehicle,
usually an oil or resin, followed by the addition of an organic solvent for viscosity adjustment. Only
the physical processes of weighing, mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning, and packaging take place.  No
chemical reactions are involved.

       These processes take place in large mixing tanks at approximately room temperature.

       The primary factors affecting emissions from paint manufacture are care in handling dry
pigments, types of solvents used, and mixing temperature. About 1 or 2 percent of the solvent is lost
even under well-controlled conditions.  Paniculate emissions amount to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the
pigment handled.

       Afterburners can reduce emitted volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 99 percent and
particulates by about 90 percent.  A water spray and  oil filter system can reduce paniculate emissions
from paint blending by 90 percent.

6.4.2 Varnish Manufacturing1"3'5

       The manufacture of varnish also involves the mixing and blending of various ingredients to
produce a wide range of products.  However  in this case, chemical reactions are initiated by heating.
Varnish is cooked in either open or enclosed gas-fired kettles for periods of 4 to 16 hours at
temperatures of 93 to 340°C (200 to 650°F).

       Varnish cooking emissions, largely in the form of volatile organic compounds, depend on the
cooking temperatures and times, the solvent used, the degree of tank enclosure and the type of air
pollution controls used. Emissions from varnish cooking range from  1 to 6 percent of the raw
material.

       To reduce organic compound emissions from the manufacture of paint and varnish, control
techniques include condensers  and/or adsorbers on solvent handling operations, and scrubbers and
afterburners on cooking operations.  Afterburners can reduce volatile organic compounds by
99 percent.  Emission factors for paint and varnish are  shown in Table 6.4-1.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.4-1

    -------
 Table 6.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAINT
                          AND VARNISH MANUFACTURING^

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type Of Product
Paintd
Varnish
Bodying oil
Oleoresinous
Alkyd
Acrylic
Paniculate
kg/Mg Pigment Ib/ton Pigment
10 20

— —
— —
— —
— —
Nonmethane VOCC
kg/Mg Of Product
15

20
75
80
10
Ib/ton Of Product
30

40
150
160
20
a References 2,4-8.
b Afterburners can reduce VOC emissions by 99% and participates by about 90%.  A water spray and
  oil filter system can reduce particulates by about 90%.
c Expressed as undefined organic compounds whose composition depends upon the type of solvents
  used in the manufacture of paint and varnish.
d Reference 4.  Paniculate mater (0.5 - 1.0%) is emitted from pigment handling.
References For Section 6.4

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

2.     R. L. Stenburg, "Controlling Atmospheric Emissions From Paint And Varnish Operations,
       Part I", Paint And Varnish Production, September 1959.
                                                                         t
3.     Private communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, And National Paint,
       Varnish And Lacquer Association, Washington, DC, September 1969.

4.     Unpublished engineering estimates based on plant visits in Washington, DC, Resources
       Research, Inc., Reston, VA, October 1969.

5.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May  1973.

6.     E. G. Lunche, et al., "Distribution Survey Of Products Emitting Organic Vapors In Los
       Angeles County", Chemical Engineering Progress, 55(8):371-376, August 1957.

7.     Communication on emissions from paint and varnish operations between Resources Research,
       Inc., Reston, VA, and G. Sallee, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       December 17,  1969.

8.     Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and Roger Higgins,
       Benjamin Moore Paint Company,  June 25, 1968.
6.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
6.5 Phthalic Anhydride

6.5.1   General1

        Phthalic anhydride (PAN) production in the United States in 1972 was 0.9 billion pounds per
year; this total is estimated to increase to 2.2 billion pounds per year by 1985.  Of the current
production, 50 percent is used for plasticizers,  25 percent for alkyd resins, 20 percent for unsaturated
polyester resins, and 5 percent for miscellaneous and exports.  PAN is produced by catalytic
oxidation of either orthoxylene or naphthalene.  Since naphthalene is a higher-priced feedstock and
has a lower feed utilization (about 1.0 Ib PAN/lb o-xylene versus 0.97 Ib PAN/lb naphthalene), future
production growth is predicted to utilize o-xylene. Because emission factors are intended for future as
well as present application, this report will focus mainly on PAN production utilizing o-xylene as the
main feedstock.

        The processes for producing PAN by o-xylene or naphthalene are the same except for
reactors, catalyst handling, and recovery facilities required for fluid bed reactors.

        In PAN production using o-xylene as the basic feedstock, filtered air is preheated,
compressed, and  mixed with vaporized o-xylene and fed into the fixed-bed tubular reactors. The
reactors contain the catalyst, vanadium pentoxide, and are operated at 650 to 725°F (340 to 385°C).
Small amounts of sulfur dioxide  are added to the reactor feed to maintain catalyst activity.
Exothermic heat is removed by a molten salt bath circulated around the reactor tubes  and  transferred
to a steam generation system.

        Naphthalene-based feedstock is made up of vaporized naphthalene and compressed air. It is
transferred to the fluidized bed reactor and oxidized  in the presence of a catalyst, vanadium
pentoxide, at 650 to 725°F (340  to 385°C).  Cooling tubes located in the catalyst bed remove the
exothermic heat,  which is used to produce high-pressure steam.  The reactor effluent consists of PAN
vapors, entrained catalyst, and various byproducts and nonreactant gas. The catalyst is removed by
filtering and returned to the reactor.

        The chemical reactions for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene are as follows.
                    CH
                   CH
30
                       3         2

                o-xylene + oxygen
                                                                         O    +
                            phthalic
                           anhydride
                                                     3HO
                                                        2
water
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
  Organic Chemical Process Industry
        6.5-1

    -------
                                                                       2H O
                                                                          2
                                             2CO,
         naphthalene + oxygen
                    phthalic   +
                   anhydride
water  +   carbon
           dioxide
The reactor effluent containing crude PAN plus products from side reactions and excess oxygen
passes to a series of switch condensers where the crude PAN cools and crystallizes. The condensers
are alternately cooled and then heated, allowing PAN crystals to form and then melt from the
condenser tube fins.

       The crude liquid is transferred to a pretreatment section in which phthalic acid is dehydrated
to anhydride.  Water, maleic anhydride, and benzoic acid are partially evaporated. The liquid then
goes to a vacuum distillation section where pure PAN (99.8  wt. percent pure) is recovered.  The
product can be stored and shipped either as  a liquid or a solid (in which case it is dried, flaked, and
packaged in multi-wall  paper bags). Tanks  for holding liquid PAN are kept at 300°F (150°C) and
blanketed with dry nitrogen to prevent the entry  of oxygen (fire) or water vapor (hydrolysis to
phthalic acid).

       Maleic anhydride is currently the only byproduct being recovered.

       Figure 6.5-1  and Figure 6.5-2 show the process flow for air oxidation of o-xylene and
naphthalene, respectively.

6.5.2 Emissions And Controls1

       Emissions from o-xylene and naphthalene storage are small and presently  are not controlled.

       The major contributor of emissions  is the reactor and condenser effluent which is vented from
the condenser unit.  Paniculate, sulfur oxides (for o-xylene-based production),  and carbon monoxide
make up the emissions, with carbon monoxide comprising over half the total.  The most efficient
(96 percent) system of control is the combined usage of a water scrubber and thermal  incinerator. A
thermal incinerator alone is approximately 95 percent efficient in combustion of pollutants for
o-xylene-based production, and 80 percent efficient for naphthalene-based production.  Thermal
incinerators with steam generation show the same efficiencies as thermal  incinerators alone.
Scrubbers have a 99 percent efficiency in collecting particulates, but are practically ineffective in
reducing carbon  monoxide emissions.  In naphthalene-based  production, cyclones  can  be used to
control catalyst dust emissions with 90 to 98 percent efficiency.

       Pretreatment  and distillation emissions—particulates  and hydrocarbons—are normally
processed  through the water scrubber and/or incinerator  used for the main process stream (reactor and
condenser) or scrubbers alone, with the same efficiency percentages applying.
6.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
     (Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
        Product storage in the liquid phase results in small amounts of gaseous emissions. These gas
streams can either be sent to the main process vent gas control devices or first processed through
sublimation boxes or devices used to recover escaped PAN.  Flaking and bagging emissions  are
negligible, but can be sent to a cyclone for recovery of PAN dust. Exhaust from the cyclone presents
no problem.

        Table 6.5-1 gives emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled emissions from the
production of PAN.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.5-3

    -------
 n
                                                                                                                PARTICULATE
                                                                                                               SULFUR OXIDE
                                                                                                              CARBON MONOXIDE
           AIR
W
GO
CO
n
H
o
                                                                           SALT COOLER AND
                                                                          STEAM GENERATION
                                                                                                     HOT AND COOL
                                                                                                     CIRCULATING
                                                                                                     OIL STREAMS/
                                                                                                   WATER AND STEAM
                                                                             -W BOILER FEED
                                                                                   WATER
kM


i


^^^
SWITCH*
CONDENSERS


CRUDE
PRODUCT
STORAGE

                       PARTICULATE
 PARTICULATE
HYDROCARBON
                        PRETREAT
                         MENT
                                        STEAM-
                       PARTICULATE
  STRIPPER
  COLUMN
REFINING
COLUMN
                             •STEAM
                                                                                                                      PHTHALIC
                                                                                                                    'ANHYDRIDE
                                                               PARTICULATE
                                                              HYDROCARBON
                                 Figure 6.5-1.  Flow diagram for phthalic anhydride using o-xylene as basic feedstock.1

    -------
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   
    -------
 Table 6.5-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE4




                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Oxidation of o-xylenec
Main process streamd
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
W/incinerator with
steam generator
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and
thermal incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and
thermal incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Oxidation of naphthalene6
Main process streamd
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Paniculate
kg/Mg


69e

3
4

4

6.4S

0.3
0.4

45e

2
2


28>'k
6
0.3

2.5m
0.5
<0.1
Ib/ton


138e

6
7

7

138

0.5
0.7

89e

4
4


56i>k
11
0.6

5m
1
<0.1
sox
kg/Mg Ib/ton


4.7f 9.4f

4.7 9.4
4.7 9.4

4.7 9.4

0 0

0 0
0 0

0 0

0 0
0 0


0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
Nonmethane
vocb
kg/Mg


0

0
0

0

0

0
0

1.2e'h

<0.1
<0.1


0
0
0

0
0
0
Ib/ton


0

0
0

0

0

0
0

2.4e>h

<0.1
0.1


0
0
0

0
0
0
CO
kg/Mg


151

6
8

8

0

0
0

0

0
0


50
10
50

0
0
0
Ib/ton


301

12
15

15

0

0
0

0

0
0


100
20
100

0
0
0
6.5-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
                                       Table 6.5-1 (com.).
Process
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Paniculate
kg/Mg Ib/ton

19* 38>
4 8
0.2 0.4
sox
kg/Mg Ib/ton

0 0
0 0
0 0
Nonmethane
vocb
kg/Mg Ib/ton

5hJ l&j
1 2
<0.1 0.1
CO
kg/Mg

0
0
0
Ib/ton

0
0
0
a  Reference 1. Factors are in kg of pollutant/Mg (Ib/ton) of phthalic athydride produced.
b  Emissions contain no methane.
c  Control devices listed are those currently being used by phthalic anhydride plants.
d  Main process stream includes reactor and multiple switch condensers as vented through
   condenser unit.
e  Consists of phthalic anhydride, maleic anhydride, benzoic acid.
f  Value shown corresponds to relatively fresh catalyst, which can change with catalyst age.  Can be
   9.5 - 13 kg/Mg (19 - 25 Ib/ton) for aged catalyst.
8  Consists of phthalic anhydride and maleic anhydride.
h  Normally a vapor, but can be present as a particulate at low temperature.
J   Consists of phthalic anhydride, maleic anhydride, naphthaquinone.
k  Does not include catalyst dust, controlled by cyclones with efficiency of 90 - 98%.
m  Particulate is phthalic anhydride.
Reference For Section 6.5

1.     Engineering And Cost Study Of Air Pollution Control For The Petrochemical Industry, Vol. 7:
       Phthalic Anhydride Manufacture From Ortho-xylene, EPA-450/3-73-006g, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1975.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.5-7

    -------

    -------
6.6 Plastics




6.6.1  Polyvinyl Chloride




6.6.2  Polyethylene Terephthalate)




6.6.3  Polystyrene
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)              Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.6-1

    -------

    -------
6.6.1 Polyvinyl Chloride

6.6.1.1  Process Description1

       The manufacture of most resins or plastics begins with the polymerization or linking of the
basic compound (monomer), usually a gas or liquid, into high molecular weight noncrystalline solids.
The manufacture of the basic monomer  is not considered part of the plastics industry and is usually
accomplished at a chemical  or petroleum plant.

       The manufacture of most plastics involves an enclosed reaction or polymerization step, a
drying step, and a final treating and forming step. These plastics  are polymerized or otherwise
combined hi completely enclosed stainless steel or glass-lined vessels. Treatment of the resin after
polymerization varies with the proposed use.  Resins for moldings are dried and crushed or ground
into molding powder.  Resins such as the alkyd to be used for protective coatings are usually
transferred to an agitated thinning tank, where they are thinned with some type of solvent and then
stored in large steel tanks equipped with water-cooled condensers  to prevent loss of solvent to the
atmosphere. Still other resins are stored in latex form as they come from the kettle.

6.6.1.2  Emissions And Controls1

       The major sources of air  contamination hi plastics manufacturing are the raw materials or
monomers, solvents, or other volatile liquids emitted during the reaction; sublimed solids such as
phthalic anhydride emitted hi alkyd production; and solvents lost during storage and handling of
thinned resins.  Emission factors  for the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride are shown in
Table 6.6.1-1.
  Table 6.6.1-1 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PLASTICS MANUFACTURING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Type of Plastic
Polyvinyl chloride
Paniculate
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
17.5b 35b
Gases
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
8.5C 17C
a References 2-3.
b Usually controlled with fabric filter, efficiency of 98-99%.
c As vinyl chloride.
       Much of the control equipment used in this industry is a basic part of the system serving to
recover a reactant or product. These controls include floating roof tanks or vapor recovery systems
on volatile material, storage units, vapor recovery systems (adsorption or condensers), purge lines
venting to a flare system, and vacuum exhaust line recovery systems.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6.6.1-1

    -------
References For Section 6.6.1

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA,
       Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, under Contract
       Number CPA-22-69-119, April 1970.

2.     Unpublished data, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Air Pollution
       Control Administration, Durham, NC, 1969.

3.     Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and State Department Of
       Health, Baltimore, MD, November 1969.
6.6.1-2                            EMISSIONS FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
 6.6.2 Poly(ethylene Terephthalate)1*2

 6.6.2.1  General

       Poly(ethylene terephthalate), or PET, is a thermoplastic polyester resin.  Such resins may be
 classified as low-viscosity or high-viscosity resins. Low-viscosity PET typically has an intrinsic
 viscosity of less than 0.75, while high-viscosity PET typically has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.9 or
 higher.  Low-viscosity resins, which are sometimes referred to as "staple" PET (when used in textile
 applications), are used in a wide variety of products,  such as apparel fiber, bottles, and photographic
 film. High-viscosity resins, sometimes referred to as "industrial" or "heavy denier"  PET, are used in
 tire cord, seat belts, and the like.

       PET is  used extensively in the manufacture of synthetic fibers (i. e., polyester fibers), which
 compose the largest segment of the synthetic fiber industry.  Since it is a pure and regulated material
 meeting FDA food contact requirements, PET is also widely used in food packaging, such as
 beverage bottles and frozen food trays that can be heated in a microwave or conventional oven.  PET
 bottles are used for a variety of foods and beverages, including alcohol, salad dressing, mouthwash,
 syrups, peanut butter, and pickled food.  Containers made of PET are being used for toiletries,
 cosmetics, and  household and pharmaceutical products (e. g., toothpaste pumps).  Other applications
 of PET include molding resins, X-ray and other photographic films, magnetic tape, electrical
 insulation, printing sheets, and food packaging film.

 6.6.2.2  Process Description3"15                      «

       PET resins are produced commercially from ethylene glycol (EG) and either  dimethyl
 terephthalate  (DMT) or terephthalic acid (TPA).  DMT and TPA are solids. DMT has a melting
 point of 140°C (284°F), while TPA sublimes (goes directly from the solid phase  to the gaseous
 phase).  Both processes first produce the intermediate bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-terephthalate (BHET)
 monomer and either methanol (DMT process)  or water (TPA process).  The BHET monomer is then
 polymerized under reduced pressure with heat and catalyst to produce PET resins. The primary
 reaction for the DMT process is:
  CH3OOC 0 COOCH3 + HOCH2CH2OH-^HO - (OC -O COOCH2CH2O)nH + 2nCH3OH

           DMT                  EG                      PET


The primary  reaction for the TPA process is:

    HOOC O COOH -I- HOCH2CH2OH-^HO - (OC -O COOCH2CH2O)nH + 2nH2O

           TPA               EG                     PET
Both processes can produce low- and high-viscosity PET.  Intrinsic viscosity is determined by the
high polymerizer operating conditions of:  (1) vacuum level, (2) temperature, (3) residence time, and
(4) agitation (mechanical design).


9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6.6.2-1

    -------
       The DMT process is the older of the two processes.  Polymerization grade TPA has been
available only since 1963.  The production of methanol in the DMT process creates the need for
methanol recovery and purification operations.  In addition, this methanol can produce major VOC
emissions.  To avoid the need to recover and purify the methanol and to eliminate the potential VOC
emissions,  newer plants tend to use the TPA process.

DMT Process -
       Both batch and continuous operations are used to  produce PET using DMT.  There are three
basic differences between the batch process and continuous process:  (1) a column-type reactor
replaces the kettle reactor for esterification (ester exchange between DMT and ethylene glycol),
(2) "no-back-mix" (i. e., no stirred tank) reactor designs are required in the continuous operation, and
(3) different additives and catalysts are required to ensure proper product characteristics
(e. g., molecular weight, molecular weight distribution).

       Figure 6.6.2-1  is a schematic representation of the PET/DMT continuous process, and the
numbers and letters following refer to this figure. Ethylene glycol is drawn from raw material
storage (1) and fed to a mix tank (2), where catalysts and additives are mixed in.  From  the mix tank,
the mixture is fed, along with DMT, to the esterifiers, also known as ester exchange reactors (3).
About 0.6 pounds (Ib) of ethylene glycol and 1.0 Ib of DMT are used for each pound of PET
product.  In the esterifiers, the first reaction step occurs at an elevated temperature (between 170 and
230 °C [338 and 446 °F]) and at or above atmospheric pressure.  This reaction produces the
intermediate BHET monomer  and the byproduct methanol.  The methanol vapor must be removed
from the esterifiers to shift the conversion to produce more BHET.

       The vent from the esterifiers  is fed to the methanol recovery system (11), which separates the
methanol by distillation in a methanol column.  The recovered methanol is then sent to storage (12).
Vapor from the top of the methanol column  is sent to a cold water (or refrigerated)  condenser, where
the condensate returns to the methanol column, and noncondensables are purged with nitrogen  before
being emitted to the atmosphere.  The bottom product of  methanol column, mostly ethylene glycol
from the column's reboiler, is reused.

       The BHET monomer, with other esterifier products, is fed to a  prepolymerization reactor (4)
where the temperature is increased to 230 to 285°C (446  to 545°F), and the pressure is reduced to
between 1 and 760 millimeters (mm) of mercury (Hg) (typically, 100 to 200 mm  Hg). At these
operating conditions, residual  methanol and ethylene glycol  are vaporized,  and the reaction that
produces PET resin starts.

       Product from the prepolymerizer is fed to one or  more polymerization reactors (5), in series.
In the polymerization reactors, sometimes referred to as end finishers, the temperature is further
increased to 260 to 300°C (500 to 572°F). The pressure is further reduced (e. g., to an absolute
pressure of 4 to 5 mm Hg). The final temperature and pressure depend on whether low- or high-
viscosity PET is being produced.  For high-viscosity PET, the pressure in the final  (or second) end
finisher is less than 2 mm Hg. With high-viscosity PET, more process vessels are used than low-
viscosity PET to achieve the higher temperatures and lower pressures needed.

       The vapor (ethylene glycol, methanol,  and other trace hydrocarbons from the
prepolymerization and polymerization reactors) typically is evacuated through scrubbers  (spray
condensers) using spent ethylene glycol.  The recovered ethylene glycol is  recirculated in the scrubber
system, and part of the spent ethylene glycol from the scrubber system is sent to storage in process
tanks (13),  after which it is sent to the ethylene glycol recovery  system  (14).
6.6.2-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    2
                                                                                                    o.
                                                                                                    «3
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    1
                                                                                                   H
                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                   6
                                                                                                   (X
                                                                                                   •o
                                                                                                    £
                                                                                                   "S
                                                                                                   CN
                                                                                                   vq
                                                                                                   vd
                                                                                                    «
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.2-3

    -------
       The ethylene glycol recovery system (14) usually is a distillation system composed of a low
boiler column, a refining column, and associated equipment.  In such a system, the ethylene glycol
condensate is fed to the low boiler column. The top product from this column is sent to a condenser,
where methanol is condensed and sent to methanol storage. The noncondensable vent (from the low
boiler condenser) is purged with nitrogen and sent to the atmosphere (Stream G in the flow diagram).
The bottom product of the low boiler column goes to its reboiler, with the vapor recycled back to the
low boiler column and the underflow sent to the refining column.  The refining column is under
vacuum and is evacuated to the atmosphere. Top product from the refining column goes through a
condenser, and the condensate is collected in a reflux tank. Part of the ethylene glycol condensate
returns to the refining column. The remaining liquid goes to refined ethylene glycol storage (15).
The reflux tank is purged with nitrogen.  (The purge gas vented to the atmosphere from the reflux
tank consists of only nitrogen.) The bottom product of the refining column goes  to a reboiler, vapor
returns to the column, and what remains  is a sludge byproduct (16).

       The vacuum conditions in the prepolymerization and polymerization reactors are created by
means of multistage steam jet  ejector (venturi) systems. The vacuum system typically is composed of
a series of steam jets, with condensers on the discharge side of the steam jet to cool the jets and to
condense the steam.  The condensed steam  from the vacuum jets and the evacuated vapors are
combined with the cooling water during the condensation process. This stream exiting the vacuum
system goes either to a cooling tower (17),  where the water is cooled and then recirculated through
the vacuum  system, or to a waste water treatment plant (once-through system) (18).

       Product from the polymerization  reactor (referred  to as the polymer melt) may be sent directly
to fiber spinning and drawing  operations  (6).  Alternatively, the polymer melt may be chipped or
pelletized (7), put into product analysis bins (8), and then  sent to product storage (9) before being
loaded into hoppers (10) for shipment to  the customer.

gTA Process -
       Figure 6.6.2-2 is a schematic diagram of a continuous PET/TPA process, and the numbers
and letters following refer to this figure.  Raw materials are brought on site and stored (1).
Terephthalic acid, in powder form,  may be stored  in silos. The ethylene glycol is stored in tanks.
The terephthalic acid and  ethylene glycol, containing catalysts, are mixed in a tank (2) to form a
paste.  In the mix tank, ethylene glycol flows into  a manifold that sprays the glycol through many
small slots  around the periphery of the vent line.  The terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are mixed
by kneading elements working in opposite directions. Combining these materials into a paste is a
simple means of introducing them to the  process, allowing more accurate control of the feed rates to
the esterification vessels.  A portion of the  paste is recycled to the mix tank. This paste  recycle and
feed rates of TPA and ethylene glycol are used to maintain an optimum paste density or weight
percent of terephthalic acid.

       The paste from the mix tanks is fed, using gear pumps to  meter the flow, to a series of
esterification vessels (referred to as esterifiers, or ester exchange reactors).  Two or more esterifiers
may be used.  Residence time is controlled by valves in the transfer lines between each vessel.  These
esterifiers are closed, pressurized reactors.  Pressure and temperature operating conditions in the
primary  esterifier (3) are between 30 and 50 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and 230 to 260 °C
(446 to 500°F), respectively.  Vapors, primarily water (steam) and glycol, are vented to  a reflux
column or distillation column.  A heat exchanger cools the vapors.  Recovered glycol is returned to
the primary esterifier.  The water vapor is  condensed using 29°C  (85°F) cooling water in a shell-and-
tube condenser and then is discharged to  the waste water treatment system.  The  monomer formed  in
the primary esterifier and the remaining reactants are pumped to the secondary esterifier.
6.6.2-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
IIP
                                                                                           S3
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           O

                                                                                           C
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           o.
                                                                                           H
                                                                                           a,
                                                                                           <+-
                                                                                           o

                                                                                           03
                                                                                           60
                                                                                           2
                                                                                           •3

                                                                                           o
                                                                                           5=

                                                                                           "8
                                                                                           "a,


                                                                                           t/3
                                                                                           CN

                                                                                           CN

                                                                                           VO

                                                                                           SO

                                                                                           S

                                                                                           bo
9/91 (Refomatted 1/95)
              Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.2-5

    -------
       The secondary esterifier (4) is operated at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature of 250 to
270°C (482 to 518°F).  The vapors from the secondary esterifier, primarily water vapor, are vented
to a spray condenser, and this condensate is sent to a central ethylene glycol recovery unit (12).  The
condensate water is cooled by cooling water in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger and then recycled.

       At one plant, the secondary esterifiers for the staple PET lines have a manhole (or rotary
valve on some lines) through which chips and reworked yarn pellets are recycled.  These manholes
are not present on the secondary esterifiers for the industrial PET lines.  Water vapor and monomer
are emitted from the manholes, and the monomer sublimates on piping near the manhole.

       Monomer (BHET) from the secondary esterifier is then pumped to the polymerization
reactors. The number of reactors and their operating conditions depends on the type of PET being
produced.  Typically, there will be at least two polymerization reaction vessels in series, an initial
(low) polymerizer and a final (high) polymerizer. The former is sometimes referred to as a
prepolymerizer or a prepolycondensation reactor. The latter is sometimes called an end finisher.  In
producing high-viscosity PET, a second end finisher is sometimes used.

       In the initial (low) polymerizer (5), esterification is completed  and polymerization occurs
(i. e., the joining of short molecular chains).  Polymerization is  "encouraged" by the removal of
ethylene glycol.  This reactor is operated under pressures of 20 to 40 mm Hg and  at 270 to 290°C
(518 to 554°F) for staple (low-viscosity) PET, and 10 to 20  mm  Hg and 280 to 300°C (536 to
572°F) for industrial filament PET. The latter conditions produce a longer molecule, with-the greater
intrinsic viscosity and tenacity required in industrial fibers.  Glycol released in the polymerization
process and any excess or unreacted glycol are drawn  into a contact spray condenser (scrubber)
countercurrent to a spent ethylene glycol spray.  (At one facility, both the low and high polymerizer
spray condensers have four spray nozzles, with rods to clear blockage  by solidified polymer.  Care is
taken to ensure that the spray pattern and flow are maintained.)  Recovered glycol  is pumped  to a
central glycol recovery unit, a distillation column.  Vacuum  on the reactors is maintained by a series
of steam jets  with barometric inter condensers.  At one plant, a two-stage steam ejector system with a
barometric intercondenser is used to evacuate the low  polymerizer. The condensate from the
intercondensers and the last steam jets is discharged to an open recirculating water system, which
includes an open trough (referred to as a "hot well") and cooling tower.  The recirculation system
supplies cooling water to the intercondensers.

       In the production of high-viscosity PET,  the polymer from the low polymerizer is pumped to
a high polymerizer vessel (6). In the high polymerizer, the short polymer  chains formed in the low
polymerizer are lengthened.  Rotating wheels within these vessels are used to create large surface
exposure for  the polymer to facilitate removal of ethylene glycol  produced by the interchange reaction
between the glycol ester ends. The high polymerizer is operated at a low absolute pressure (high
vacuum), 0.1 to  1.0 mm Hg, and at about 280 to 300°C (536 to  572°F).  Vapors evolved in  the high
polymerizer,  including glycol, are drawn through a glycol spray  condenser. If very  "hard" vacuums
are drawn (e. g., 0.25 mm Hg),  such spray condensers are very difficult, if not impossible, to use.
At least one facility does not use any spray condensers off the polymerizers (low and high).
Recovered glycol is collected in a receiver and is pumped to a central ethylene glycol recovery unit.
At one plant, chilled water between -3.9 and 1.7°C (25 and  35°F) is used on the heat exchanger
associated with the high polymerizer spray condenser.

       At least one facility uses two high polymerizers (end finishers) to produce high-viscosity PET.
At this plant, the first end finisher is usually operated  with an intermediate vacuum level of about
2 mm Hg. The polymer leaving this reactor then enters a second end  finisher, which may have a
vacuum level as  low as 0.25 mm Hg.

6.6.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted  1/95) 9/91

    -------
        Vapors from the spray condenser off the high polymerizers are also drawn through a steam jet
ejector system.  One facility uses a five-jet system.  After the first three ejectors, there is a
barometric intercondenser.  Another barometric intercondenser is located between the fourth and fifth
ejectors. The ejectors discharge to the cooling water hot well. The stream exiting the vacuum system
is sent either to a cooling tower (16) where the water is recirculated through the vacuum system, or to
a waste water treatment plant (once-through system) (IS).

        Vacuum pumps were installed at one plant as an alternative to the last two ejectors. These
pumps were installed as part of an energy conservation program and are used at the operator's
discretion.  The vacuum pumps are operated about SO percent of the time.  The vacuum system was
designed for a maximum vapor load  of about 10 kilograms per hour (kg/hr). If vacuum is lost, or is
insufficient in the low or high polymerizers, off-specification product results.  Each process line has a
dual vacuum system.   One five-stage ejector/vacuum pump system is maintained as a standby for each
industrial filament (high-viscosity) process  line.  The staple (low-viscosity) lines have a standby
ejector system, but with only one vacuum pump per process line.  Steam ejectors reportedly recover
faster from a slug of liquid carryover than do vacuum pumps, but the spare system is used in the
production of either high- or low-viscosity  PET.

        At many facilities, molten PET from the high polymerizer is pumped at high pressure directly
through an extruder spinerette, forming polyester filaments (7).  The filaments  are air cooled and then
either cut into staple or wound onto spools. Molten PET can also be pumped out to form blocks as it
cools and solidifies (8), which are then cut into chips or are pelletized (9).  The chips or pellets are
stored (10) before being shipped to the customer, where they are remelted for end-product
fabrication.

        Ethylene glycol recovery (12) generally involves a system similar to that of the DMT process.
The major difference is the lack of a methanol recovery step.  At least one TPA facility has a very
different process for ethylene glycol  recovery. At this plant, ethylene glycol emissions  from the low
and high polymerizers are allowed to pass directly to the vacuum system and into the cooling tower.
The ethylene glycol is then recovered from the water in the cooling tower.  This arrangement allows
for a higher ethylene glycol concentration in the cooling tower.

6.6.2.3  Emissions  And Controls3-5-11'13'16-21

        Table 6.6.2-1 shows the VOC and particulate emissions for the PET/DMT continuous
process, with similar levels  expected for batch processes. The extensive use of spray condensers and
other ethylene glycol and  methanol recovery systems is economically essential to PET production, and
these are not generally considered  "controls".

       Total VOC  emissions will  depend greatly on the type of system used to recover the ethylene
glycol from the prepolymerizers and  polymerization reactors, which give rise to emission  streams El,
E2, E3, F,  G, H, and J.  The emission streams from the prepolymerizers and polymerization  reactors
are primarily ethylene  glycol, with small amounts of methanol vapors and volatile impurities in the
raw materials.  Of these emission streams, the greatest emission potential is from the cooling tower
(Stream E3).   The amount of emissions from the cooling tower depends on a number of factors,
including ethylene glycol concentration and windage rate. The ethylene glycol  concentration depends
on a number of factors, including use of spray condensers off the polymerization vessels,
circulation rate of the cooling water in the cooling tower, blowdown rate (the rate are which water is
drawn out of the cooling tower), and sources of water to cooling tower (e. g.,  dedicated cooling
tower versus plant-side cooling tower).
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.6.2-7

    -------
         Table 6.6.2-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PET/DMT PROCESS3
Stream
Identification
A
B
C
D
E
El
E2

E3

F
G
H

I
J
Total Plant
Emission Stream
Raw material storage
Mix tanks
Methanol recovery system
Recovered methanol storage
Polymerization reaction
Prepolymerizer vacuum system
Polymerization reactor vacuum
system

Cooling tower8
Ethylene glycol process tanks
Ethylene glycol recovery condenser
Ethylene glycol recovery vacuum
system
Product storage
Sludge storage and loading

Nonmethane
vocb
0.1
negligible*1
0.3e
0.09f

0.009
0.005

0.2
3.4
0.0009
0.01
0.0005

ND
0.02
0.73J
3.9*
Particulate
0.165C
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND

0.0003h
ND
0.17
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C

C
C


C
C
C
C

C
C

References
17
13
3, 17
3, 17

17
17


18- 19
17
17
17

17
17

a Stream identification refers to Figure 6.6.2-1. Units are grams per kilogram of product.
  ND = no data.
b Rates reflect extensive use of condensers and other recovery equipment as part of normal industry
  economical practice.
c From storage of DMT.
d Assumed same as for TPA process.
e Reference 3. For batch PET production process, estimated to be 0.15 grams VOC per kilogram of
  product.
f Reflects control by refrigerated condensers.
g Based on ethylene glycol  concentrations at two PET/TPA plants. The lower estimate reflects
  emissions where spray condensers are used off the prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
  The higher estimate reflects emissions where spray condensers are not used off the prepolymerizers
  and the polymerization reactors.  A site-specific  calculation is highly recommended for all cooling
  towers, because of the many variables.  The following equation  may be used to estimate windage
  emissions from cooling towers:
E =
x CTcr x 60 x WR] x [(4.2 x
                                                             + (3.78 x H2Owt%)]
6.6.2-8
          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                             (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                      Table 6.6.2-1 (cont.).

where:

              E = Mass of VOC emitted (kilograms per hour)
                   Concentration of ethylene glycol, weight percent (fraction)
             60 = Minutes per hour
           CTcr = Cooling tower circulation rate, gallons per minute
           WR = Windage rate, fraction
            4.2 = Density of ethylene glycol (kilograms per gallon)
           3.78 = Density of water (kilograms per  gallon)
                   Concentration of water, weight percent (fraction)
        Example:  The VOC emissions from a cooling tower with an ethylene glycol concentration of
                  8.95% by weight, a water concentration of 91.05% by weight, a cooling tower
                  circulation rate of 1270 gallons per minute,  and a windage rate of 0.03% are
                  estimated to be:

             E = [0.0895 x 1270 x 60 x 0.0003] x [(4.2 x 0.0895) + (3.78 x 0.9105)]

                = 7.8 kilograms per hour

h Emission rate is for "controlled" emissions.  Without controls, the estimated emission rate is
  0.4 grams per kilogram of product.
J With spray condensers off all prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
k With no spray condensers off all prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
        Most plants recover the ethylene glycol by using a spent ethylene glycol spray scrubber
condenser directly off these process vessels and before the stream passes through the vacuum system.
The condensed ethylene glycol may then be recovered through distillation.  This type of recovery
system results in relatively low concentrations of ethylene glycol in the cooling water at the tower,
which in turn lowers emission rates for the cooling tower and the process as a whole. At one
PET/TPA plant, a typical average concentration of about 0.32 weight percent ethylene glycol was
reported, from which an emission rate of 0.2 grams VOC per kilogram  (gVOC/kg) of product was
calculated.

        Alternatively, a plant may send the emission stream directly through the vacuum system
(typically steam ejectors) without using spent ethylene glycol spray  condensers. The steam ejectors
used to produce a vacuum will produce contaminated water, which is then cooled for reuse.  In this
system, ethylene glycol is recovered from the water  in the cooling tower by drawing off water from
the tower (blowdown) and sending the blowdown to distillation columns. This method of recovering
ethylene glycol can result in much higher concentrations of ethylene glycol  in the cooling tower than
when the ethylene glycol is recovered with spray condensers directly off the process vessels.  (The
actual concentration of ethylene glycol in the cooling water depends, in part, on the blowdown rate.)
Higher concentrations in the cooling tower result in greater ethylene glycol emissions from the
cooling tower and, in turn, from the process as a whole. At one PET/TPA plant recovering the
ethylene glycol from the cooling tower, emissions from the cooling  tower were approximately
3.4 gVOC/kg of product.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.6.2-9

    -------
       Next to the cooling tower, the next largest potential emission source in the PET/DMT process
is the methanol recovery system. Methanol recovery system emissions (Stream C) from a plant using
a continuous process are estimated to be approximately 0.3 gVOC/kg of product and about
0.09 gVOC/kg of product from the recovered methanol storage tanks. The emissions from the
methanol recovery system (Stream C) for a batch process were reported to be 0.15 gVOC/kg of
product, and typically are methanol and nitrogen.

       The other emission streams related to the prepolymerizer and polymerization reactors are
collectively relatively small, being about 0.04 gVOC/kg of product. VOC emissions from raw
material storage (mostly ethylene glycol) are estimated to be about 0.1 gVOC/kg of product.  Fixed
roof storage tanks (ethylene glycol) and bins (DMT) are used throughout the industry.  Emissions are
vapors of ethylene glycol and DMT result from vapor displacement and tank breathing. Emissions
from the mix tank are believed to be negligible.

       Paniculate emissions occur from storage of both raw material (DMT) and end product.
Those from product storage may be controlled before release to the atmosphere. Uncontrolled
paniculate emissions from raw material storage are estimated to be approximately 0.17 g/kg of
product.  Paniculate emissions from product storage are estimated to be approximately 0.0003 g/kg of
product after control and approximately 0.4 g/kg of product before control.

       Total VOC emissions from a PET/DMT continuous process are approximately 0.74 gVOC/kg
of product if spray condensers are used off all of the prepolymerizers and polymerization reaction
vessels. For a batch process, this total decreases to approximately 0.59 gVOC/kg of product. If
spray condensers are not used, the ethylene glycol concentration in the cooling  tower is expected to
be higher, and total  VOC emissions will be greater. Calculation of cooling tower emissions for site-
specific plants  is recommended.  Total paniculate emissions are approximately  0.17 g/kg of product,
if product storage emissions are  controlled.

       Table 6.6.2-2 summarizes VOC and paniculate emissions for the PET/TPA continuous
process, and similar emission levels are expected for PET/TPA batch processes. VOC emissions are
generally "uncontrolled", in that the extensive use of spray condensers and other ethylene glycol
recovery systems are essential to the economy of PET production.

       Emissions from raw material storage include losses from the raw materials storage and
transfer (e.  g., ethylene glycol).  Fixed roof storage tanks and bins with conservation vents are used
throughout  the process.  The emissions, vapors of ethylene glycol, TPA, and TPA dust, are from
working and breathing losses.  The VOC emission estimate for raw materials storage is assumed to be
the same as that for  the PET/DMT process. No emission estimate was available for the storage and
transfer of TPA.

       VOC emissions from the mix tank are believed to be negligible.  They  are emitted at ambient
temperatures through a vent line from the  mixer.

       VOC emissions from the esterifiers occur from the condensers/distillation columns on the
esterifiers.  Emissions, which  consist primarily of steam and ethylene glycol vapors, with small
amounts of feed impurities and volatile side reaction products,  are estimated to be 0.04 gVOC/kg of
product.  Exit  temperature is reported to be approximately 104°C (220°F). At least one plant
controls the primary esterifier condenser vent with a second condenser.  At this plant, emissions were
0.0008 gVOC/kg of product with the second condenser operating, and 0.037  gVOC/kg of product
without the second condenser operating. The temperature for the emission stream from the second
6.6.2-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
          Table 6.6.2-2 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PET/TPA PROCESS8
Stream
Identification
A
B
C
D
Dl
D2
D3
E
F
G
Total Plant
Emission Stream
Raw material storage
Mix tanks
Esterification
Polymerization reaction
Prepolymerizer vacuum
system
Polymerization reactor
vacuum system
Cooling tower*
Ethylene glycol process
tanks
Ethylene glycol recovery
vacuum system
Product storage

Nonmethane
vocb
O.lc
negligible
0.04d

0.009C
0.005C
0.2
3.4
0.0009C
0.0005C
ND
0.368
3.6h
Paniculate
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0003c'f

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
A

C
C
C
C
C
C

References
17
13
20-21

17
17
18- 19
17
17
17

a Stream identification refers to Figure 6.6.2-2.  Units are grams per kilogram of product.
  ND — no data.
b Rates reflect extensive use of condensers and other recovery equipment as part of normal industry
  economical practice.
c Assumed same as for DMT process.
d At least one plant controls the primary esterifier condenser vent with a second condenser. Emissions
  were 0.0008 grams VOC per kilogram of product with the second condenser operating, and
  0.037 grams VOC per kilogram of product without the second condenser operating.
e Based on ethylene glycol  concentrations at two PET/TPA plants. The lower estimate reflects
  emissions where spray condensers are used off the prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
  The higher estimate reflects emissions where spray condensers are not used off the prepolymerizers
  and the polymerization reactors.  It is highly recommended that a site-specific calculation be done
  for all cooling towers as many variables affect actual emissions.  The equation found in footnote g
  for Table 6.6.2-1 may be used to estimate windage emissions from cooling towers.
f Reflects control of product storage emissions. Without controls, the estimated  emission rate is
  0.4 grams per kilogram of product.
g With spray condensers off all prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
h With no use of spray condensers off all prepolymerizers and the polymerization reactors.
condenser was reported to be 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F). The emissions from the second condenser
were composed of di-iso-propyl amine (DIPA) and acetaldehyde, with small amounts of ethylene.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.2-11

    -------
       Emissions from the prepolymerizers and polymerization reaction vessels in both PET/TPA
and PET/DMT processes should be very similar.  The emissions were discussed earlier under the
DMT process.

       The estimates of VOC emissions from the ethylene glycol process tanks and the ethylene
glycol recovery system, and of particulate emissions from product storage, are assumed to be the
same as for the DMT process.

       Total VOC emissions from the PET/TPA process are approximately 0.36 gVOC/kg of
product if spray condensers are used with all of the prepolymerizers and polymerization reaction
vessels. If spray  condensers are not used with all of these process vessels, the concentration in the
cooling tower can be expected to be higher, and total VOC emissions will be greater.  For example,
at one plant, emissions from the cooling tower were calculated to be approximately 3.4 gVOC/kg of
product, resulting in a plantwide estimate of 3.6 gVOC/kg of product.  Calculation of cooling tower
emissions for site-specific plants is recommended. Excluding TPA particulate emissions (no estimate
available), total particulate emissions are expected to be small.

References For Section 6.6.2

1.     Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 1988, McGraw Hill, New York,  1988.

2.     Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources; Polypropylene, Polyethylene,
       Polystyrene, And  Polyethylene terephthalate), 55 FR 51039, December 11,  1990.

3.     Polymer Industry  Ranking By VOC Emissions Reduction That Would Occur From New Source
       Performance Standards, Pullman-Kellogg, Houston, TX, August 30,  1979.

4.     Karel Verschueren, Handbook  Of Environmental Data On Organic Compounds, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold  Co., New York,  NY, 1983.

5.     Final Trip Report To Tennessee Eastman Company's Polyester Plant, Kingsport, TN,
       Energy And Environmental Analysis, Inc., Durham, NC, October 2, 1980.

6.     Written communication from R. E.  Lee, Tennessee Eastman Co., Kingsport, TN, to
       A. Limpiti, Energy And Environmental Analysis, Inc., Durham, NC, November 7, 1980.

7.     Written communication from P. Meitner, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc.,
       Wilmington, DE, to Central  Docket Section, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, February 8,  1988.

8.     Written communication from P. Meitner, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc.,
       Wilmington, DE, to J.  R.  Farmer, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park,  NC, August 29, 1988.

9.     Final Trip To DuPont's Poly (ethylene terephthalate) Plant, Kinston, NC, Pacific
       Environmental  Services, Inc., Durham, NC, February 21, 1989.

10.    Telephone communication  between  R. Purcell, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham,
       NC, and J. Henderson and L. Williams, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc.,
       Kinston, NC, December 1988.
6.6.2-12                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
11.    Final Trip Report To Fiber Industries Polyester Plant, Salisbury, NC, Pacific Environmental
       Services, Inc., Durham, NC, September 29, 1982.

12.    Written communication from D. V. Perry, Fiber Industries, Salisbury, NC, to K. Meardon,
       Pacific Environmental  Services, Inc., Durham, NC, November 22, 1982.

13.    Written communication from R. K. Smith, Allied Chemical, Moncure, NC, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 27, 1980.

14.    Final Trip Report To Monsanto's Polyester Plant, Decatur, Alabama, Energy and
       Environmental Analysis, Durham,  NC, August 27, 1980.

15.    Written communication from R. K. Smith, Allied Fibers and Plastics, Moncure, NC, to
       J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 15, 1982.

16.    Written communication from D. Perry, Fiber Industries, Salisbury, NC,  to K. Meardon,
       Pacific Environmental  Services, Inc., Durham, NC, February  11, 1983.

17.    Written communication from D. O. Quisenberry,  Tennessee Eastman Company, Kingsport,
       TN, to S. Roy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August 25, 1988.

18.    K. Meardon, "Revised Costs For PET Regulatory Alternatives", Docket  No. A-82-19,
       Item II-B-90. U. S. EPA, Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW,
       Washington, DC, August 20, 1984.

19.    Written communication from J. W. Torrance,  Allied  Fibers and Plastics, Petersburg, VA, to
       J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 4, 1984.

20.    Written communication from A. T. Roy, Allied-Signal, Petersburg, VA, to K. Meardon,
       Pacific Environmental  Services, Inc., Durham, NC, August 18, 1989.

21.    Telephone communication between K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
       Durham, NC, and A. Roy, Allied-Signal, Petersburg, VA, August 18, 1989.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                      6.6.2-13

    -------

    -------
6.6.3  Polystyrene1"2

6.6.3.1  General

        Styrene readily polymerizes to polystyrene by a relatively conventional free radical chain
mechanism.  Either heat or initiators will begin the polymerization.  Initiators thermally decompose,
thereby forming active free radicals that are effective in starting the polymerization process.
Typically initiators used in the suspension process  include benzoyl peroxide and di-tert-butyl
per-benzoate. Potassium persulfate is a typical initiator used in emulsion polymerizations. In the
presence of inert materials, styrene monomer will react with itself to form a homopolymer.  Styrene
monomer will react with  a variety of other monomers to form a number of copolymers.

        Polystyrene is an odorless, tasteless, rigid thermoplastic.  Pure polystyrene has the following
structure.
        The homopolymers of styrene are also referred to as general purpose, or crystal, polystyrene.
Because of the brittleness of crystal polystyrene, styrene is frequently polymerized in the presence of
dissolved polybutadiene rubber to improve the strength of the polymer. Such modified polystyrene is
called high-impact, or rubber-modified, polystyrene.  The styrene content of high-impact polystyrene
varies from about 88 to 97 percent. Where a blowing (or expanding) agent is added to the
polystyrene, the product is referred to as an expandable polystyrene.  The blowing agent may be
added during the polymerization process (as in the production of expandable beads), or afterwards as
part of the fabrication process (as in foamed polystyrene applications).

        Polystyrene is the  fourth largest thermoplastic by production volume. It is used in
applications in the following major markets (Hsted in order of consumption):  packaging,
consumer/institutional goods, electrical/electronic goods, building/construction, furniture,
industrial/machinery, and transportation.

        Packaging applications using crystal polystyrene biaxial film include meat and vegetable trays,
blister packs, and other packaging where transparency is required.  Extruded polystyrene foam sheets
are formed into egg carton containers, meat and poultry trays,  and fast food containers requiring hot
or cold  insulation.  Solid polystyrene sheets are formed into drinking cups and lids, and disposable
packaging of edibles.  Injection  molded grades of polystyrene are used extensively hi the manufacture
of cosmetic and personal care containers, jewelry and photo equipment boxes, and photo film
packages.  Other formed polystyrene items include refrigerator door liners, audio and video cassettes,
toys, flower pots, picture frames, kitchen utensils, television and radio cabinets, home smoke
detectors, computer housings, and profile moldings in the construction/home-building industry.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.6.3-1

    -------
6.6.3.2 General Purpose And High Impact Polystyrene1"2

        Homopolymers and copolymers can be produced by bulk (or mass), solution (a modified
bulk),  suspension, or emulsion polymerization techniques.  In solution (or modified bulk)
polymerization, the reaction takes place as the monomer is dissolved in a small amount of solvent,
such as ethylbenzene.  Suspension polymerization takes place with the monomer suspended in a water
phase.  The bulk and solution polymerization processes are homogenous (taking place in one phase),
whereas the suspension and emulsion polymerization processes are heterogeneous (taking place in
more than one phase).  The bulk (mass) process is the most widely used process for polystyrene
today.   The suspension process is also common, especially in the production of expandable beads.
Use of the emulsion process for producing styrene homopolymer has decreased significantly since the
mid-1940s.

6.6.3.2.1  Process Descriptions1"3 -

Batch Process -
        Various grades of polystyrene can be produced by a variety of batch processes. Batch
processes generally have a high conversion efficiency, leaving only small amounts of unreacted
styrene to be emitted should the reactor be purged or opened between batches.  A typical plant will
have multiple process trains, each usually capable of producing a variety of grades of polystyrene.

        Figure 6.6.3-1 is a schematic representation of the polystyrene batch bulk polymerization
process, and the following numbered steps refer to that figure.  Pure styrene monomer (and
comonomer, if a copolymer product is desired) is pumped from storage (1) to the feed dissolver (2).
For the production of impact-grade polystyrene, chopped polybutadiene rubber is added to the feed
dissolver, where it is dissolved in the hot styrene.  The mixture is agitated for 4 to 8 hours to
complete rubber dissolution.  From the feed dissolver, the mixture usually is fed to an agitated
tank (3), often a prepolymerization reactor, for mixing the reactants.  Small amounts of mineral oil
(as a lubricant and plasticizer), the dimer of alpha-methylstyrene (as a polymerization regulator), and
an antioxidant are  added. The blended or partially polymerized feed is then pumped into a batch
reactor (4).  During the reactor filling process, some styrene vaporizes and is vented through an
overflow vent drum (5).  When the reactor is charged, the vent and reactor are closed.  The mixture
in the reactor is heated to the reaction temperature to initiate (or continue) the polymerization. The
reaction may also be begun by introducing a free radical initiator into the feed dissolver (2) along
with other reactants. After polymerization is complete, the polymer melt (molten product) containing
some unreacted styrene monomer, ethylbenzene (an impurity from the styrene feed), and low
molecular weight polymers (dimers, trimers, and other oligomers), is pumped to a vacuum
devolatilizer (6).  Here, the residual styrene monomer, ethylbenzene,  and the low molecular weight
polymers are removed, condensed (7), passed through a devolatilizer condensate tank (9), and then
sent to the byproduct recovery unit. Overhead vapors from the condenser are usually exhausted
through a vacuum system (8).  Molten polystyrene from the bottom of the devolatilizer, which may
be heated to 250 to 280°C (482 to 536°F), is extruded (10) through a stranding die plate (a plate with
numerous holes to form strands), and then immersed  in a cold water bath.  The cooled strands are
pelletized (10) and sent to product storage (11).

Continuous Process -
        As with the batch process, various continuous steps are used to make a variety of grades of
polystyrene or copolymers of styrene. In continuous processes, the chemical reaction does not
approach completion as  efficiently as in batch processes.  As a result, a lower percentage of styrene is
converted to polystyrene, and larger amounts of unreacted styrene may be emitted from continuous
6.6.3-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   §
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                   cd
                                                                                                  4-i
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                  .2
                                                                                                  •3

                                                                                                   o

                                                                                                  "8
                                                                                                  5s
                                                                                                  U
                                                                                                  fi
                                                                                                   00
9/91 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.3-3

    -------
process sources. A typical plant may contain more than one process line, producing either the same
or different grades of polymer or copolymer.

        A typical bulk (mass) continuous process is represented in Figure 6.6.3-2. Styrene,
polybutadiene (if an impact-grade product is desired), mineral oil (lubricant and plasticizer), and small
amounts of recycled polystyrene, antioxidants, and other additives are charged from storage (1) into
the feed dissolver mixer (2) in proportions that vary according to the grade of resin to be produced.
Blended feed is pumped continuously to the reactor system (3) where it is thermally polymerized to
polystyrene.  A process line usually employs more than one reactor in  series.  Some polymerization
occurs in the initial reactor, often referred to as the prepolymerizer.  Polymerization to successively
higher levels occurs in subsequent reactors in the series, either stirred autoclaves or tower reactors.
The polymer melt, which contains unreacted styrene monomer, ethylbenzene (an impurity from the
styrene feed), and low molecular weight polymers, is pumped to a vacuum devolatilizer (4). Here,
most of the monomer, ethylbenzene, and low molecular weight polymers are removed, condensed (5),
and sent to the styrene recovery unit (8 and 9). Noncondensables (overhead vapors) from the
condenser typically are exhausted through a vacuum pump (10). Molten  polystyrene from the bottom
of the devolatilizer is pumped by an extruder (6) through a stranding die  plate into a cold water bath.
The solidified strands are then pelletized  (6) and sent to storage (7).

        In the styrene recovery unit, the crude styrene monomer recovered from the condenser (5)  is
purified in a distillation column (8). The styrene overhead from the tower is condensed (9) and
returned to the feed dissolver mixer.  Noncondensables are vented through a vacuum system (11).
Column bottoms containing low molecular weight polymers are used sometimes as a fuel supplement.

6.6.3.2.2  Emissions And  Controls3"9 -

        As seen in Figure 6.6.3-1, six emission streams have been identified for batch processes:
(1) the monomer storage and feed dissolver vent (Stream A); (2) the reactor vent drum vent
(Stream B);  (3) the devolatilizer condenser vent (Stream C); (4) the devolatilizer condensate tank
(Stream D);  (5) the extruder  quench vent (Stream E); and (6) product storage emissions (Stream F).
Table 6.6.3-1 summarizes  the emission factors for these streams.
  Table 6.6.3-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH PROCESS POLYSTYRENE3

                                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Stream
Identification
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total Plant
Emission Stream
Monomer storage and feed dissolver tanks
Reactor vent drum vent
Devolatilizer condenser vent
Devolatilizer condensate tank
, Extruder quench vent
Product storage

Nonmethane VOC
0.09b
0.12 - 1.35C
0.25 - 0.75C
0.002b
0.15 -0.3C
negligible
0.6 - 2.5
References
3
3-4
3 -4
3
3-4
3

a Stream identification refers to Figure 6.6.3-1.  Units are grams VOC per kilogram of product.
b Based on fixed roof design.
c Reference 4.  The higher factors are more likely during the manufacture of lower molecular weight
  products. Factor for any given process train will change with product grade.
6.6.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                                                       = a~
                                                                    JI
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              2
                                                                                              Oc
                                                                                              §
                                                                                             1
                                                                                              02

                                                                                              O
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              S
                                                                                              03

                                                                                              I
                                                                                             •o
                                                              1
                                                              t.
                                                              CO

9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.3-5

    -------
       The major vent is the devolatilizer condenser vent (Stream C). This continuous offgas vent
emits 0.25 to 0.75 grams of VOC per kilogram (gVOC/kg) of product depending on the molecular
weight of the polystyrene product being produced.  The higher emission factor is more likely during
the manufacture of lower molecular weight products. The emissions are unreacted styrene, which is
flashed from the product polymer in the vacuum devolatilizer, and it is extremely diluted in air
through leakage.  The stream is exhausted through a vacuum system and then through an oil demister
to the atmosphere.  The oil demister is used primarily to separate out organic mist.

       The second largest vent stream is likely to be the reactor vent drum vent, with an emission
rate ranging from 0.12 to 1.35 gVOC/kg of product, this range also being associated with the
molecular weight of the polystyrene product being produced. The higher emission factor is more
likely during the manufacture of lower molecular weight products.  These emissions, which are the
only intermittent emissions from the process, occur only during reactor filling periods and they are
vented to the atmosphere. The rate of 0.12 gVOC/kg of product is based on a facility having two
batch reactors that are operated alternately on 24-hour cycles.

       Stream  E, the extruder quench vent, is the third largest emission stream, with an emission
rate of 0.15 to 0.3 gVOC/kg of product.  This stream, composed of styrene in water vapor, is formed
when the hot, extruded polystyrene strands from the stranding die plate contact the cold water in the
quenching bath. The resulting stream of steam with styrene is usually vented through a forced draft
hood  located over the water bath and then passed through a mist separator or electrostatic precipitator
before venting to the atmosphere.

       The other emission streams are relatively small continuous emissions.  Streams A and D
represent emissions from various types of tanks and dissolver tanks. Emissions from these streams
are estimated, based on fixed roof tanks.  Emissions from product storage, Stream F, have been
reported to be negligible.

       There are no VOC control devices typically  used at polystyrene plants employing batch
processes.  The condenser (7) off the vacuum devolatilizer (6) typically is used for process  reasons
(recovery of unreacted styrene and other reactants).  This  condenser reduces VOC emissions, and its
operating characteristics will affect the quantity of emissions  associated with batch processes
(Stream C in particular).

       Total process uncontrolled emissions are estimated to range from 0.6 to 2.5 gVOC/kg of
product.  The higher emission rates are associated with the manufacture of lower molecular weight
polystyrene. The emission factor for any given process line will change with changes in the grade of
the polystyrene being produced.

       Emission factors for the  continuous polystyrene process are presented in Table 6.6.3-2, and
the following numbered steps refer to Figure 6.6.3-2. Emissions from the continuous process are
similar to those for the batch process, although the continuous process lacks a reactor vent  drum.
The emission streams, all of which are continuous, are: (1) various types of storage (Streams A and
G); (2) the feed dissolver vent (Stream B); (3)  the devolatilizer condenser vent (Stream C); (4) the
styrene recovery unit condenser vent (Stream D); (5) the extruder quench vent (Stream E);  and
(6) product storage emissions (Stream F).

       Industry's experience with continuous polystyrene plants indicates a wide range  of emission
rates  from plant to plant depending in part on the type of vacuum system used.  Two types are now
used  in the industry, one relying on steam ejectors and the other on vacuum pumps.  Where steam
ejectors are used, the overheads from  the devolatilizer condenser vent and the styrene recovery unit

6.6.3-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
           Table 6.6.3-2 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTINUOUS
                                PROCESS POLYSTYRENE*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Stream
Identification
Al
A2


A3
B
C
D
C+D
E
F

Gl
G2
Total Plant

Emission Stream
Styrene monomer
storage
Additives
General purpose
High impact
Ethylbenzene storage
Dissolvers
Devolatilizer
condenser ventb
Styrene recovery unit
condenser vent

Extruder quench vent
Pellet storage
Other storage
General purpose
High impact


Nonmethane VOC
Uncontrolled Controlled
0.08

0.002
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.05C 0.04d
2.96e
0.05C
0.13e
0.024 - 0.3f 0.0048
0.01C
0.15e'«-h
negligible

0.008
0.007
0.21C
3.34e
References
3,5

5
5-6
5
3,5
4-5,7
3
4,7
3
5-6,8
4
3
3

3,5
3,5


a Stream identification refers to Figure 6.6.3-2.  Units are grams VOC per kilogram of product.
b Reference 9.  Larger plants may route this stream to the styrene recovery section.  Smaller plants
  may find this too expensive.
0 For plants using vacuum pumps.
d Condenser is used downstream of primary process condensers; includes emissions from dissolvers.
  Plant uses vacuum pumps.
e For plants using steam jets.
f Lower value based on facility using refrigerated condensers as well as conventional cooling water
  exchangers; vacuum pumps in use.  Higher value for facility using vacuum pumps.
g Plant uses an organic scrubber to reduce emissions. Nonsoluble organics are burned as fuel.
h This factor may vary significantly depending on overall process.  Reference 6 indicates an emission
  factor of 0.0012 gVOC/kg product at a plant whose process design is "intended to  minimize
  emissions".
9/91 (Refoimatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.3-7

    -------
condenser vent are composed mainly of steam. Some companies have recently replaced these steam
ejectors with mechanical vacuum pumps.  Emissions from vacuum pumps usually are lower than from
steam ejectors.

       It is estimated that the typical total VOC emission rate for plants using steam ejectors is about
3.34 gVOC/kg of product, with the largest emission stream being the devolatilizer condenser vent
(2.96 gVOC/kg of product).  Emissions from the styrene recovery unit condenser vent and the
extruder  quench vent are estimated to be 0.13 and 0.15 gVOC/kg of product, respectively, although
the latter may vary significantly depending on overall plant design. One plant designed to minimize
emissions reported an emission factor of 0.0012 gVOC/kg product for the extruder quench vent.

       For plants using vacuum pumps, it is estimated that the total VOC emission rate is about
0.21 gVOC/kg of product.  In these plants, emissions from the devolatilizer condenser vent and the
styrene recovery unit condenser vent are each estimated to be 0.05 gVOC/kg of product.  Styrene
monomer and other storage emissions can be the largest emission sources at such plants,
approximately 0.1 gVOC/kg of product. Some plants combine emissions from the dissolvers with
those from the devolatilizer condenser vent.  Other plants may combine the dissolver, devolatilizer
condenser vent, and styrene recovery unit condenser vent emissions.  One plant uses an organic
scrubber to reduce these emissions to 0.004 gVOC/kg of product.

       Condensers are a critical, integral part of all continuous polystyrene processes. The amount
of unreacted styrene recovered for reuse in the process can vary greatly,  as condenser operating
parameters vary from one plant to another. Lowering the coolant operating temperature will lower
VOC emissions,  all other things being equal.

       Other than the VOC reduction achieved by the process condensers, most plants do not use
VOC control devices. A plant having controls, however, can significantly reduce the level of VOC
emissions.  One company, for example, uses an organic scrubber to reduce VOC air emissions.
Another uses a condenser downstream from the primary process condensers to control VOCs.

6.6.3.3  Expandable Polystyrene1"2'10"11

       The suspension process is a batch polymerization process that may be used to produce crystal,
impact, or expandable polystyrene beads. An expandable polystyrene (EPS) bead typically consists of
high molecular weight crystal grade polystyrene (to produce the proper structure when the beads are
expanded) with 5 to 8 percent being a low-boiling-point aliphatic hydrocarbon blowing agent
dissolved in the polymer bead. The blowing agent typically is pentane or isopentane although others,
such as esters, alcohols, and aldehydes, can be used. When used to produce an EPS bead, the
suspension process can be adapted in one of two ways for the impregnation of the bead with the
blowing agent. One method is to add the blowing agent to a reactor after polymerization, and the
other is to add the blowing agent to the monomer before polymerization. The former method, called
the "post-impregnation" suspension process,  is more common than the latter, referred to as the
"in-situ"  suspension process.  Both processes are  described below.

       EPS beads generally are processed in one of three ways, (1) gravity- or air-fed into closed
molds, then heated to expand up  to 50 times  their original volume; (2) pre-expanded by heating and
then molding in a separate processing operation; and (3) extruded into sheets.  EPS beads are used to
produce a number of foamed polystyrene materials.  Extruded foam sheets are formed into egg
cartons, meat and poultry trays, and fast food containers.  In the building/construction industry, EPS
board is used extensively as a low-temperature insulator.
6.6.3-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
6.6.3.3.1  Process Description1-1042 -

Post-impregnation Suspension Process -
       This process is essentially a two-part process using two process lines in series. In the first
process line, raw styrene monomer is polymerized and a finished polystyrene bead is produced.  The
second process line takes the finished bead from the first line, impregnates the bead with a blowing
agent, and produces a finished EPS bead.  Figure 6.6.3-3 is a schematic representation of this
process.

       In the first line, styrene monomer, water, initiator, and suspending agents form the basic
charge to the suspension reactor (1).  The styrene-to-water ratio varies with the type of polystyrene
required.  A typical ratio is about one-quarter to one-half monomer to water volume.  Initiators are
commonly used because the reaction temperature is usually too  low for adequate thermal  initiation of
polymerization.  Suspending agents are usually protective colloids and insoluble inorganic salts.
Protective colloids are added to increase the viscosity of the continuous water phase, and insoluble
inorganic salts such as magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) are added to prevent coalescence of the drops
upon collision.

       In the reactor, the styrene is suspended, through use of mechanical agitation and suspending
agents, in the  form of droplets throughout the water phase.  Droplet size may range from about 0.1 to
1.0 mm.  The reactor is heated to start the polymerization, which takes place within the droplets.  An
inert gas, such as nitrogen, is frequently used as a blanketing agent in order to maintain a positive
pressure at all times during the cycle to prevent air leaks.  Once polymerization starts, temperature
control is typically maintained through a water-cooled jacket around the reactor and is facilitated by
the added heat capacity of the water in the reactor. The size of the product bead depends on both the
strength of agitation and the  nature of the monomer and suspending system.  Between 20 and
70 percent conversion, agitation becomes extremely critical.  If agitation weakens or stops between
these limits, excessive agglomeration of the polymer particles may occur, followed by a runaway
reaction.  Polymerization typically occurs within several hours, the actual time varying largely with
the temperature and with the amount and type of initiators) used.  Residual styrene concentrations at
the end of a run are frequently as  low as 0.1 percent.

       Once the reaction has been completed (essentially 100 percent conversion), the
polystyrene-water slurry is normally pumped from the reactor to a hold tank (2), which has an
agitator to maintain dispersion of the polymer particles.  Hold tanks have at least three functions:
(1)  the polymer-water slurry is cooled to below  the heat distortion temperature of the polymer
(generally 50 to 60°C [122 to 140°F]); (2) chemicals are added to promote solubilization of the
suspension agents; and (3) the tank serves as a storage tank until the slurry can be centrifuged.  From
the hold tanks, the polymer-water slurry is fed to  a centrifuge (3) where the water and solids are
separated. The solids are then washed with water, and the wash water is separated from  the solids
and is discarded.  The polymer product beads, which may retain between 1 and 5 percent water, are
sent to dryers  (4).  From the dryers,  they may be sent to a classifier (5) to separate the beads
according to size, and then to storage bins or tanks (6). Product beads do not always meet criteria for
further processing into expandable beads, and "off-spec" beads may be processed and sold as crystal
(or  possibly impact) polystyrene.

       In the  second line, the product bead (from the storage bins of the first line), water, blowing
agent (7), and any desired additives are added to an impregnation reactor (8).  The beads are
impregnated with the blowing agent through utilization of temperature and pressure.  Upon
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.6.3-9

    -------
                   5--3
                                                                                             o

                                                                                             2
                                                                                             G«


                                                                                            .2


                                                                                             
    -------
completion of the impregnation process, the bead-water slurry is transferred to a hold tank (9) where
acid may be added and part of the water is drained as waste water. From the hold tanks, the slurry is
washed and dewatered in centrifuges (10) and then dried in low-temperature dryers (11).  In some
instances, additives (12) may be applied to the EPS bead to improve process characteristics.  From
the dryers, the EPS bead may undergo sizing, if not already done, before being transferred to storage
silos (13) or directly to packaging (14) for shipment to the customer.

In-situ Suspension Process -
        The in-situ suspension process is shown schematically in Figure 6.6.3-4. The major
difference between this process and the post-impregnation suspension process is that polymerization
and impregnation takes place at the same time in a single reactor.  The reaction mixture from the mix
tank (1), composed of styrene monomer, water, polymerization  catalysts, and additives, are charged
to a reactor (2) to which a blowing agent is added. The styrene monomer is polymerized at elevated
temperatures and pressure in the presence of the blowing agent, so that 5 to 7 percent of the blowing
agent is entrapped in the polymerized bead.  After polymerization and impregnation have taken place,
the EPS bead-water slurry follows essentially the same steps as in the post-impregnation suspension
process. These steps are repeated in Figure 6.6.3-4.

6.6.3.3.2 Emissions And Controls10'12'16 -

        Emission rates have been determined from information on three plants using the
post-impregnation suspension process.  VOC emissions from this type of facility are generally
uncontrolled. Two of these plants gave  fairly extensive information and, of these, one reported an
overall uncontrolled VOC emission rate of 9.8 g/kg of product.  For  the other, an overall
uncontrolled VOC emission rate of 7.7  g/kg is indicated, by back-calculating two emission streams
controlled by condensers.

        The information on emission rates for individual streams varied greatly from plant to plant.
For example, one plant reported a VOC emission  rate for the suspension reactor of 0.027 g/kg of
product, while another reported a rate of 1.9 g/kg of product. This inconsistency in emission rates
may be because of differences in process reactors, operating temperatures, and/or reaction times, but
sufficient data to determine this are not available.  Therefore, individual stream  emission rates for the
post-impregnation process are not given here.

        Paniculate emissions (emissions  of fines from dryers, storage, and pneumatic transfer of the
polymer) usually are controlled by either cyclones alone or cyclones followed by baghouses.   Overall,
controlled paniculate emissions are relatively small, approximately 0.18 g particulate/kg of product or
less.  Control efficiencies of 99 percent were indicated and, thus, uncontrolled particulate emissions
might be around 18 g particulate/kg of product.

        Table 6.6.3-3 summarizes uncontrolled VOC emissions factors  for the in-situ process, based
on a study of a single plant.  An uncontrolled emission rate of about 5.4 gVOC/kg of product is
estimated for this suspension EPS process.  Most emission streams are  uncontrolled  at this plant.
However, reactor emissions are vented to the boiler as primary fuel, and some of the dryer emissions
are vented to the boiler as supplementary fuel, thereby resulting in some VOC control.

       The blowing agent, which continually diffuses out of the bead both in manufacturing and
during storage, constitutes almost all VOCs emitted from both processes.  A small amount of styrene
is emitted from the suspension reactors  in the post-impregnation process and from the mix tanks and
reactors in the in-situ process.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                       6.6.3-11

    -------
                 ®"
                                                                                         £
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         o>
                                                                                         a.
                                                                                         W2

                                                                                         SO

                                                                                         3
                                                                                         ex
                                                                                         ex
                                                                                         x •
                                                                                         
    -------
          Table 6.6.3-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR IN-SITU PROCESS
                               EXPANDABLE POLYSTYRENE*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Stream
Identification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Total Plant
Emission Stream
Mix tank vents
Regranulator hoppers
Reactor vents
Holding tank vents
Wash tank vents
Dryer vents
Product improvement vents
Storage vents and conveying losses

Nonmethane VOC
0.13
negligible
1.09b
0.053
0.023
2.77b
0.008
1.3
5.37°
References
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16

a Stream identification refers to Figure 6.6.3-4. Units are grams VOC per kilogram of product.
b Reference 16.  All reactor vents and some dryer vents are controlled in a boiler.  Rates are before
  control.
c At plant where all reactor vents and some dryer vents are controlled in a boiler (and assuming
  99% reduction), an overall emission rate of 3.75 is estimated.
       Because of the diffusing of the blowing agent, the EPS bead is unstable for long periods of
time. Figure 6.6.3-5 shows the loss of blowing agent over time when beads are stored under standard
conditions. This diffusion means that the stock of beads must be rotated.  An up-to-date analysis of
the blowing agent content of the bead (measured as percent volatiles at 100°C [212°F]) also needs to
be maintained, because the blowing agent content determines processing characteristics, ultimate
density, and economics.  Expandable beads should be stored below 32°C (90°F) and in full
containers (to reduce gas volume space).

       Since pentane, a typical blowing agent, forms explosive mixtures, precautions  must be taken
whenever it is used. For example, after storage containers are opened, a time lag of 10 minutes is
suggested to allow fumes or pentane vapors toUissipate out of the containers.  Care must be taken to
prevent static electricity and sparks from igniting the blowing agent vapors.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.6.3-13

    -------
                            8.00
                            775
                            7.50
                            7.25
                            7.00
                            6.75
                            6.50
                            625
                            6.00
                            575
                            5.50
                            5.25
                            5.00
I    I   I   I
              1   I
         Reg. crystal grade
           polystyrene
I    I   I   I
              I	I
                                         6   8  10  12  14  16
                                           Weeks
            Figure 6.6.3-5. EPS beads stored in fiber drum at 21 - 24°C (70 - 75°F).
References For Section 6.6.3
1.      L. F. Albright, Processes For Major Addition-type Plastics And Their Monomers,
       McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974.
2.      Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 1981-1982, McGraw Hill, New York, 1982.
3.      Written communication from E. L. Bechstein, Pullman Kellogg, Houston, TX, to
       M. R. Glowers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 6, 1978.
4.      Written communication from J. S. Matey, Chemical Manufacturers Association,  Washington,
       DC, to E. J. Vincent, U. S..Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 19, 1981.
5.     Written communication from P. R. Chaney, Mobil Chemical Company, Princeton, NJ, to
       J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       October 13, 1988.
6.     Report Of Plant Visit To Monsanto Plastics And Resins Company, Port Plastics,  OH, Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, September 15, 1982.
 7.     Written communication from R. Symuleski, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), Chicago, IL, to
       A.  Limpiti, Energy And Environmental Analysis, Inc., Durham, NC, July 2, 1981.
 8.     Written communication from J. R. Strausser, Gulf Oil Chemicals Company, Houston, TX, to
       J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        November 11,  1982.
 9.      Written communication from J. S. Matey, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington,
        DC, to C. R. Newman, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Durham, NC, May 5,
        1981.
 6.6.3-14
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                       (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
10.    Calvin J. Benning, Plastic Foams: The Physics And Chemistry Of Product Performance And
       Process Technology, Volume I: Chemistry And Physics Of Foam Formation, John Wiley And
       Sons, New York, 1969.
11.    S. L. Rosen, Fundamental Principles Of Polymeric Materials, John Wiley And Sons, New
       York, 1982.

12.    Written communication from K. Fitzpatrick, ARCO Chemical Company, Monaca, PA, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 18, 1983.

13.    Written communication from B. F. Rivers, American Hoechst Corporation, Leominster, MA,
       to J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 4, 1983.

14.    Written communication from B. F. Rivers, American Hoechst Corporation, Leominster, MA,
       to K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, July 20,  1983.

15.    Written communication from T. M. Nairn, Cosden Oil And Chemical Company, Big Spring,
       TX, to J. R.  Farmer, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 30,  1983.

16.    Written communication from A. D. Gillen, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, to
       J. R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 18, 1983.

17.    Telephone communication between K. Meardon, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
       Durham, NC, and A. Gillen, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, June 21, 1983.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                      6.6.3-15

    -------

    -------
6.6.4 Polypropylene

6.6.4.1  Process Description1

       The manufacture of most resins or plastics begins with the polymerization or linking of the
basic compound (monomer), usually a gas or liquid, into high molecular weight noncrystalline solids.
The manufacture of the basic monomer is not considered part of the plastics industry and is usually
accomplished at a chemical or petroleum plant.

       The manufacture of most plastics  involves an enclosed reaction or polymerization step, a
drying step, and a final treating and forming step. These plastics are polymerized or otherwise
combined in completely enclosed stainless steel or glass-lined vessels.  Treatment of the resin after
polymerization varies with the proposed use. Resins for moldings are dried and crushed or ground
into molding powder. Resins such as the alkyd to be used for protective coatings are usually
transferred to an agitated thinning tank, where they are thinned with some type of solvent and then
stored in large steel tanks equipped with water-cooled condensers to prevent loss of solvent to the
atmosphere. Still other resins are stored in latex form as they come from the kettle.

6.6.4.2  Emissions And Controls1

       The major sources of air contamination in plastics manufacturing are the raw materials or
monomers, solvents,  or other volatile liquids emitted during the reaction; sublimed solids such as
phthalic anhydride emitted in alkyd production, and solvents lost during storage and handling of
thinned resins.  Emission factors for the manufacture of polypropylene are shown in Table 6.6.4-1.
    Table 6.6.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PLASTICS MANUFACTURING*

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Type of Plastic
Polypropylene
Particulate
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
1.5 3
Gases
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
0.35b 0.7b
a References 2-3.
b As propylene.
       Much of the control equipment used in this industry is a basic part of the system serving to
recover a reactant or product. These controls include floating roof tanks or vapor recovery systems
on volatile material, storage units, vapor recovery systems (adsorption or condensers), purge lines
venting to a flare system, and vacuum exhaust line recovery systems.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6.6.4-1

    -------
References For Section 6.6.4

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report.  Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA,
       Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, under Contract
       Number CPA-22-69-119, April 1970.

2.     Unpublished data. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Air Pollution
       Control Administration, Durham, NC, 1969.

3.     Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and State Department of
       Health, Baltimore, MD, November 1969.
6.6.4-2                            EMISSIONS FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
6.7 Printing Ink

6.7.1  Process Description1

       There are 4 major classes of printing ink: letterpress and lithographic inks, commonly called
oil or paste inks; and flexographic and rotogravure inks, which are referred to as solvent inks. These
inks vary considerably in physical appearance, composition,  method of application, and drying
mechanism.  Flexographic and rotogravure inks have many elements in common with the paste inks
but differ in that they are of very low viscosity, and they almost  always dry by evaporation of highly
volatile solvents.2

       There are 3 general processes in the manufacture of printing inks:  (1) cooking the vehicle
and adding dyes, (2) grinding of a pigment into the vehicle using a roller mill,  and (3) replacing
water in the wet pigment pulp by an ink vehicle (commonly  known as the flushing process).3 The ink
"varnish" or vehicle is generally cooked in large kettles at 200 to 600°F (93 to 315°C) for an average
of 8 to 12 hours in much the same way that regular varnish is made. Mixing of the pigment and
vehicle is done in dough mixers or in large agitated tanks. Grinding is most often carried out in
3-roller or 5-roller horizontal or vertical mills.

6.7.2 Emissions And Controls1'4

       Varnish or vehicle preparation by heating is by far the largest source of ink manufacturing
emissions.  Cooling the varnish components — resins, drying oils, petroleum oils, and solvents —
produces odorous emissions.  At about 350°F (175°C) the products begin to decompose, resulting in
the emission of decomposition products from the cooking vessel. Emissions continue throughout the
cooking process with the maximum rate of emissions occurring just after the maximum temperature
has been reached.  Emissions from the cooking phase can be reduced by more than 90 percent with
the use of scrubbers or condensers followed by afterburners.4"5

       Compounds emitted from the cooking of oleoresinous varnish (resin plus varnish) include
water vapor, fatty acids, glycerine, acrolein, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, terpene  oils, terpenes, and
carbon dioxide. Emissions of thinning  solvents used in flexographic and rotogravure inks may also
occur.

       The  quantity, composition, and rate of emissions  from ink manufacturing depend upon the
cooking temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing additives, the degree of
stirring, and the extent of air or inert gas blowing.  Particulate emissions resulting from  the addition
of pigments  to the vehicle are affected by the type of pigment and its particle size.  Emission factors
for the manufacture of printing ink are presented in Table 6.7-1.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.7-1

    -------
        Table 6.7-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRINTING
                                 INK MANUFACTURING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of Process
Vehicle cooking
General
Oils
Oleoresinous
Alkyds
Pigment mixing
Nonmethane
Volatile Organic Compounds'5
kg/Mg
of Product

60
20
75
80
NA
Ib/ton
of Product

120
40
150
160
NA
Particulates
kg/Mg
of Pigment

NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Ib/ton
of Pigment

NA
NA
NA
NA
2
a Based on data from Section 6.4, Paint and Varnish.  NA = not applicable.
b The nonmethane VOC emissions are a mix of volatilized vehicle components, cooking
  decomposition products, and ink solvent.
References For Section 6.7

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

2.     R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed., New York, McGraw Hill Book Co.,
       1967.

3.     L. M. Larsen, Industrial Printing Inks, New York, Remhold Publishing Company, 1962.

4.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

5.     Private communication  with Ink Division of Interchemical Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio,
       November 10, 1969.
6.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
6.8  Soap And Detergents

6.8.1  General

6.8.1.1 Soap Manufacturing1 -3 >6 -
        The term "soap" refers to a particular type of detergent in which the water-solubilized group is
carboxylate and the positive ion is usually sodium or potassium.  The largest soap market is bar soap
used for personal bathing.  Synthetic detergents replaced soap powders for home laundering in the late
1940s, because the carboxylate ions of the soap react with the calcium and magnesium ions in the
natural hard water to form insoluble materials called lime soap. Some commercial laundries that have
soft water continue to use soap powders.  Metallic soaps are alkali-earth or heavy-metal long-chain
carboxylates that are insoluble in water but soluble in nonaqueous solvents. They are used as additives
in lubricating oils, greases, rust inhibitors, and jellied fuels.

6.8.1.2 Detergent Manufacturing1-3'6'8 -
        The term "synthetic detergent products" applies broadly to cleaning and laundering compounds
containing  surface-active (surfactant) compounds along with other ingredients.  Heavy-duty powders
and liquids for home and commercial laundry detergent comprise 60 to 65 percent of the U. S. soap
and detergent market and were estimated at 2.6 megagrams  (Mg) (2.86 million tons) in 1990.

        Until the early 1970s,  almost all laundry detergents  sold in the U. S. were heavy-duty powders.
Liquid detergents were introduced that utilized sodium citrate and sodium silicate. The liquids offered
superior performance and solubility at a slightly increased cost. Heavy-duty liquids now account for
40 percent  of the laundry detergents sold in the U. S., up from 15 percent in 1978. As a result,
50 percent  of the spray drying facilities for laundry granule  production have closed since 1970.  Some
current trends, including the introduction  of superconcentrated powder detergents, will probably lead to
an increase in spray drying operations at some facilities.  Manufacturers are also developing more
biodegradable surfactants from natural oils.

6.8.2 Process Descriptions

6.8.2.1 Soap1'3'6-
        From American colonial days to the early 1940s,  soap was manufactured by an alkaline
hydrolysis reaction called saponification.  Soap was  made in huge kettles into which fats, oils, and
caustic soda were piped and heated to a brisk boil. After  cooling for several days, salt was added,
causing the mixture to separate into two layers with  the "neat" soap on top and spent lye and water on
the bottom.  The soap was pumped to a closed mixing tank called a crutcher where builders,  perfumes,
and other ingredients were added.  Builders are alkaline compounds that improve the cleaning
performance of the soap. Finally, the soap was rolled into flakes, cast or milled into bars, or spray-
dried into soap powder.

       An important modern process (post 1940s) for making soap is the direct hydrolysis of fats by
water at high temperatures.  This permits  fractionation of the fatty acids, which are neutralized to soap
in a continuous process as shown in Figure 6.8-1. Advantages for this process include close  control of
the soap concentration, the preparation of soaps of certain chain lengths for specific purposes, and easy
recovery of glycerin, a byproduct.  After the soap is recovered, it is  pumped to the crutcher and treated
the same as the product from the kettle process.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.8-1

    -------
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         co
                                                                                        •O
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                        .s
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         O
                                                                                        u
                                                                                        oo
                                                                                        vd

                                                                                         2

                                                                                         1^
                                                                                        tu
6.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
6.8.2.2 Detergent1'3-6'8 -
        The manufacture of spray-dried detergent has 3 main processing steps: (1) slurry preparation,
(2) spray drying, and (3) granule handling. The 3 major components of detergent are surfactants (to
remove dirt and other unwanted materials), builders (to treat the water to improve surfactant
performance), and additives to improve cleaning performance.  Additives may include bleaches, bleach
activators, antistatic agents, fabric softeners, optical brighteners, antiredeposition agents, and fillers.

        The formulation of slurry for detergent granules requires the intimate mixing of various liquid,
powdered, and granulated materials. Detergent slurry is produced by blending liquid surfactant with
powdered and liquid materials (builders and other additives) in a closed mixing tank called a soap
crutcher.  Premixing of various minor ingredients is performed in a variety of equipment prior to
charging to the crutcher or final mixer.  Figure 6.8-2 illustrates the various operations.  Liquid
surfactant used in making the detergent slurry is produced by the sulfonation of either a linear alkylate
or a fatty acid, which is then neutralized with a caustic solution containing sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
The blended slurry is held in a surge vessel for continuous pumping to a spray dryer.  The slurry is
atomized by spraying through nozzles rather than by centrifugal action.  The slurry is sprayed at
pressures of 4.100 to 6.900 kilopascals (kPa) (600 to 1000 pounds per square inch [psi]) in single-fluid
nozzles and at pressures of 340 to 690 kPa (50 to 100 psi) in 2-fluid nozzles.  Steam or air is used as
the atomizing fluid in the 2-fluid nozzles.  The slurry is sprayed at high pressure into a vertical drying
tower having a stream of hot air of from 315 to 400°C (600 to 750°F).  All spray drying equipment
designed for detergent granule production incorporates the following components:  spray drying tower,
air heating and supply system, slurry atomizing and pumping equipment, product cooling equipment,
and conveying equipment.  Most towers designed for detergent production are countercurrent, with
slurry introduced at the top and heated air introduced at the bottom.  The towers are cylindrical with
cone bottoms and range in size from 4 to 7 meters (m) (12 to 24 feet [ft]) in diameter and 12 to 38 m
(40 to 125 ft) hi height.  The detergent granules are conveyed mechanically or by air from the tower to
a mixer to incorporate additional dry or liquid ingredients, and finally to packaging and storage.

6.8.3 Emissions And Controls

6.8.3.1  Soap1'3'6-
        The main atmospheric pollution problem in soap manufacturing is odor. The storage and
handling of liquid ingredients (including sulfonic acids and salts) and sulfates  are some  of the sources
of this odor.  Vent lines, vacuum exhausts, raw material and product storage, and waste streams are all
potential odor sources.  Control  of these odors may be achieved by scrubbing exhaust fumes and, if
necessary,  incinerating the remaining volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Odors emanating from the
spray dryer may be controlled by scrubbing with an acid solution. Blending,  mixing, drying,
packaging, and other physical operations may all involve dust emissions.  The production of soap
powder by spray drying is the single largest source of dust in the manufacture of synthetic detergents.
Dust emissions from other finishing operations can be controlled by dry filters such as baghouses.  The
large sizes of the paniculate from synthetic detergent drying means that high-efficiency cyclones
installed hi series can achieve satisfactory control.  Currently, no emission factors are available for
soap manufacturing.  No information on hazardous air pollutants (HAP), VOCs, ozone depleters, or
heavy metal emissions information were found for soap manufacturing.

6.8.3.2  Detergent1'3-4'6'8 -
        The exhaust air from detergent spray drying towers contains 2 types of air contaminants:
(1) fine detergent particles and (2) organics vaporized in the higher temperature zones of the tower.
Emission factors for particulates from spray drying operations are shown in Table 6.8-1.  Factors are
expressed hi units of kilograms per megagram  (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton) of product.
7/93 (Refoimatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.8-3

    -------
OS
bo
00
o
z
TJ
g
00
             Receiving,  Storage
               and Transfer
                                    Slurry  Preparation
                                                                            Spray  Drying
                                                                                                             Blending  and  Packing
                Surfactants:
            LAS, slurry  alcohols,
               and ethoxylates
   Builders:
  Phosphates,
silicates, and
 carbonates
                 Additives:
               Perfumes dyes
              anti-caking agents
                             To
                             crutcher
                             and
                             post-
                             addition
                             mixer
                                                                                                                                       Finished
                                                                                                                                       detergents
                                                                                                                                       to  warehouse
           LAS - linear alkyl sulfonate
                                                          Figure 6.8-2.  Manufacture of spray-dried detergents.

    -------
       Table 6.8-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               DETERGENT SPRAY DRYING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: Eb
Control Device
Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-01-009-01)
Cyclone
Cyclone with:
Spray chamber
Packed scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber/ESP
Packed bed/ESP
Fabric filter
Efficiency
(%)
NA
85

92
95
97
99
99.9
99C
99
Paniculate
kg/Mg
of Product
45
7

3.5
2.5
1.5
0.544
0.023
0.47
0.54
Ib/ton
of Product
90
14

7
5
3
1.09
0.046
0.94
1.1
a Some type of primary collector, such as a cyclone, is considered integral to a spray drying system.
  NA = not applicable. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Emission factors are estimations and are not supported by current test data.
c Emission factor has been calculated from a single source test.  An efficiency of 99% has been
  estimated.
Dust emissions are generated at scale hoppers, mixers, and crutchers during the batching and mixing of
fine dry ingredients to form slurry. Conveying, mixing, and packaging of detergent granules can also
cause dust emissions.  Pneumatic conveying of fine materials causes dust emissions when conveying air
is separated from bulk solids.  For this process, fabric filters are generally used, not only to  reduce or
to eliminate dust emissions, but also to recover raw materials. The dust emissions principally consist
of detergent compounds, although some of the particles are uncombined phosphates, sulfates, and other
mineral compounds.

       Dry cyclones and cyclonic impingement scrubbers are the primary collection equipment
employed to capture the detergent dust in the spray dryer exhaust for return to processing. Dry
cyclones are used in parallel or in series to collect this paniculate matter (PM) and recycle it back to
the  crutcher.  The dry cyclone separators can remove 90 percent or more by weight of the detergent
product fines  from the exhaust air.  Cyclonic impinged scrubbers are used in parallel to collect the
paniculate from a scrubbing slurry and to  recycle it to the crutcher.

       Secondary collection equipment is used to collect fine particulates that escape from primary
devices.  For example,  cyclonic impingement scrubbers are often followed by mist eliminators, and dry
cyclones are followed by fabric filters or scrubber/electrostatic precipitator units.  Several types of
scrubbers can be used following the cyclone collectors.  Venturi scrubbers have been used but are
being replaced with packed bed scrubbers.  Packed bed scrubbers are usually followed by wet-pipe-
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.8-5

    -------
type electrostatic precipitators built immediately above the packed bed in the same vessel. Fabric
filters have been used after cyclones but have limited applicability, especially on efficient spray dryers,
due to condensing water vapor and organic aerosols binding the fabric filter.

       In addition to paniculate emissions, volatile organics may be emitted when the slurry contains
organic materials with low vapor pressures. The VOCs originate primarily  from the surfactants
included in the slurry. The amount vaporized depends on many variables such as tower temperature
and the volatility of organics used in the slurry.  These vaporized organic materials condense in the
tower exhaust airstream into droplets or particles.  Paraffin alcohols and amides in the exhaust stream
can result in a highly visible plume that persists  after the condensed water vapor plume has dissipated.

       Opacity and the organic emissions are influenced by granule temperature and moisture at the
end of drying, temperature profiles in the dryer, and formulation of the slurry.  A method for
controlling visible emissions would be to remove offending organic compounds (i. e.,  by substitution)
from the slurry. Otherwise, tower production rate may be reduced thereby reducing air inlet
temperatures and exhaust temperatures. Lowering production rate will also  reduce organic emissions.

       Some of the HAPs and VOCs identified  from the VOC/PM Speciate Database  Management
System (SPECIATE) are:  hexane, methyl alcohol, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, perchloroethylene, benzene,
and toluene.  Lead was identified from SPECIATE data as the only heavy metal constituent.  No
numerical data are presented for lead, HAP, or VOC emissions due to the lack of sufficient supporting
documentation.

References For Section 6.8

1.     Source Category Survey: Detergent Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3059, June 1980.

2.     A. H. Phelps, "Air Pollution Aspects Of Soap And Detergent Manufacture", APCA Journal,
       77(8):505-507, August 1967.

3.     R. N. Shreve, Third Edition: Chemical  Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
       New York, NY.

4.     J. H. Perry, Fourth Edition:  Chemical Engineers Handbook,  McGraw-Hill Book Company,
       New York, NY.

5.     Soap And Detergent Manufacturing: Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-018-a, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1974.

6.     J. A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Edition), AP-4Q, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of Print.

7.     A. Lanteri,  "Sulfonation And Sulfation Technology", Journal Of The American Oil Chemists
       Society, 55:128-132, January 1978.

8.     A. J. Buonicore and W. T. Davis, Eds., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992.

9.     Emission Test Report, Procter And Gamble, Augusta, GA, Georgia Department Of Natural
       Resources, Atlanta, GA, July 1988.
6.8-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
10.    Emission Test Report, Time Products, Atlanta, GA, Georgia Department Of Natural Resources,
       Atlanta, GA, November 1988.

11.    AIRS Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes And Emission Factor Listing For Criteria
       Air Pollutants, EPA-450/4-90-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March 1990.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.8-7

    -------

    -------
6.9  Synthetic Fibers

6.9.1  General1'3

        There are 2 types of synthetic fiber products, the semisynthetics, or cellulosics (viscose rayon
and cellulose acetate), and the true synthetics, or noncellulosics (polyester, nylon, acrylic and
modacrylic, and polyolefin). These 6 fiber types compose over 99 percent of the total production of
manmade fibers in  the U. S.

6.9.2  Process Description2"6

        Semisynthetics are formed from natural polymeric materials such as cellulose.  True
synthetics are products of the polymerization of smaller chemical units into long-chain molecular
polymers.  Fibers are formed by forcing a viscous fluid or solution of the polymer through the small
orifices of a spinnerette (see Figure 6.9-1) and immediately solidifying or precipitating the resulting
filaments.  This prepared polymer may also be used in the manufacture of other nonfiber products
such as the enormous number of extruded plastic and synthetic rubber products.
                                      SPINNING SOLUTION
                                      OR DOPE
                                         FIBERS
                                    Figure 6.9-1.  Sp innerette.

        Synthetic fibers (both semisynthetic and true synthetic) are produced typically by 2 easily
distinguishable methods, melt spinning and solvent spinning.  Melt spinning processes use heat to
melt the fiber polymer to a viscosity suitable for extrusion through the spinnerette.  Solvent spinning
processes use large amounts of organic solvents, which usually are recovered for economic reasons,
to dissolve the fiber polymer into a fluid polymer solution suitable for extrusion through a spinnerette.
The major solvent spinning operations are dry spinning and wet spinning. A third method, reaction
spinning,  is also used, but to a much  lesser extent.  Reaction spinning processes involve the formation
of filaments from prepolymers and monomers that are further polymerized and  cross-linked after the
filament is formed.

        Figure 6.9-2 is a general process diagram for synthetic fiber production using the major types
of fiber spinning procedures.  The spinning process used for a particular polymer is determined by


9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                           6.9-1

    -------
the polymer's melting point, melt stability, and solubility in organic and/or inorganic (salt) solvents.
(The polymerization of the fiber polymer is typically carried out at the same facility that produces the
fiber.) Table 6.9-1 lists the different types of spinning methods with the fiber types produced by each
method.  After the fiber is spun, it may undergo one or more different processing treatments to meet
the required physical or handling properties.  Such processing treatments include drawing, lubrication,
crimping, heat setting, cutting, and twisting.  The finished fiber product may be classified as tow,
staple, or continuous filament yarn.
       Table 6.9-1.  TYPES OF SPINNING METHODS AND FIBER TYPES PRODUCED
                 Spinning Method
                              Fiber Type
         Melt spinning
         Solvent spinning
           Dry solvent spinning
           Wet solvent spinning
         Reaction spinning
                     Polyester
                     Nylon 6
                     Nylon 66
                     Polyolefin
                     Cellulose acetate
                     Cellulose triacetate
                     Acrylic
                     Modacrylic
                     Vinyon
                     Spandex

                     Acrylic
                     Modacrylic
                     Spandex
                     Rayon (viscose process)
6.9.2.1  Melt Spinning -
         Melt spinning uses heat to melt the polymer to a viscosity suitable for extrusion.  This type
of spinning is used for polymers that are not decomposed or degraded by the temperatures necessary
for extrusion.  Polymer chips may be melted by a number of methods. The trend is toward melting
and immediate extrusion of the polymer chips  in an electrically heated screw extruder.  Alternatively,
the molten polymer is processed in an inert gas atmosphere, usually nitrogen, and is metered through
a precisely machined gear pump to a filter assembly consisting of a series of metal gauges
interspersed hi layers of graded sand. The molten polymer is  extruded at high pressure and constant
rate through a spinnerette into a relatively cooler air stream that solidifies the filaments. Lubricants
and finishing oils are applied to the fibers in the spin cell. At the base of the spin cell, a thread guide
converges the individual filaments to produce a continuous filament yarn, or a spun yarn, that
typically is composed of between 15 and 100 filaments.  Once formed, the filament yarn either is
immediately wound onto bobbins or is further treated for certain desired characteristics or end use.

         Since melt spinning does not require the use of solvents, VOC emissions are significantly
lower than those from dry and wet solvent spinning processes. Lubricants and oils are sometimes
added during the spinning of the fibers to provide certain properties necessary for subsequent
operations such as lubrication and static suppression.  These lubricants and oils vaporize, condense,
6.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                                                                                   C*



                                                                                                   I

                                                                                                   &
                                                                                                   •o
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   •4-T


                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   Ǥ

                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                   bH
                                                                                                   .2
                                                                                                   "3
                                                                                                   en
                                                                                                    u
                                                                                                    s
                                                                                                    <1>
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   cs
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    u.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
                                                                                                  6.9-3

    -------
 and then coalesce as aerosols primarily from the spinning operation, although certain post-spinning
 operations may also give rise to these aerosol emissions.  Treatments include drawing, lubrication,
 crimping, heat setting, cutting, and twisting.

 6.9.2.2. Dry Solvent Spinning -
        The dry spinning process begins by dissolving the polymer in an organic solvent. This
 solution is blended with additives and is filtered to produce a viscous polymer solution, referred to as
 "dope", for spuming.  The polymer solution is then extruded through a spinnerette as filaments into a
 zone of heated gas or vapor. The solvent evaporates into the gas stream and leaves solidified
 filaments, which are further treated using one or more of the processes described in the general
 process description section. (See Figure 6.9-3.) This  type of spinning is used for easily dissolved
 polymers such as cellulose acetate, acrylics, and modacrylics.
         POLYMER
                                                 SPIN CELL
                                                i— INERT GAS
                                                    SOLVENT-LADEN
                                                    STREAM TO
                                                    RECOVERY
                                                                          •PRODUCT
                                   Figure 6.9-3.  Dry spinning.


        Dry spinning is the fiber formation process potentially emitting the largest amounts of VOCs
 per pound of fiber produced.  Air pollutant emissions include volatilized residual monomer, organic
 solvents, additives, and other organic compounds used in fiber processing.  Unrecovered solvent
 constitutes the major substance.  The largest amounts of unrecovered solvent are emitted from the
 fiber spinning step and drying the fiber.  Other emission sources include dope preparation
 (dissolving the polymer, blending the spinning solution, and filtering the dope), fiber processing
 (drawing, washing, and crimping), and solvent recovery.

 6.9.2.3  Wet Solvent Spinning -
        Wet spinning also uses solvent to dissolve the polymer to prepare the spinning dope.  The
 process begins by dissolving polymer chips in a suitable organic solvent, such as dimethylformamide
 (DMF), dimethylacetamide  (DMAc), or acetone, as in dry spinning; or in  a weak inorganic acid, such
' as zinc chloride or aqueous sodium thiocyanate.  In wet spinning, the spinning solution is extruded
 through spinnerettes into  a precipitation bath that contains a coagulant (or precipitant) such as aqueous
 6.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
DMAc or water. Precipitation or coagulation occurs by diffusion of the solvent out of the thread and
by diffusion of the coagulant into the thread.  Wet spun filaments also undergo one or more of the
additional treatment processes described earlier, as depicted in Figure 6.9-4.
      POLYMER
                                                                              •PRODUCT
 PRECIPITATION
 BATH SOLUTION
      LY
 Ull*U i d    	  ^M*Mtr
 SOLVENT/WATER    T
 MIXTURE)         L-
                       MORE CONCENTRATED
                       SOLUTION OF
                       SOLVENT AND WATER
                       TO RECOVERY
                             SPINNERET
                                   Figure 6.9-4. Wet spinning.

        Air pollution emission points in the wet spinning organic solvent process are similar to those
of dry spinning.  Wet spinning processes that use solutions of acids or salts to dissolve the polymer
chips emit no solvent VOC, only unreacted monomer, and are,  therefore, relatively clean from an air
pollution standpoint.  For those that require solvent, emissions occur as solvent evaporates from the
spuming bath and from the fiber in post-spinning operations.

6.9.2.4 Reaction Spinning -
        As in the wet and dry spinning processes, the reaction spinning process begins with the
preparation of a viscous spinning solution, which is prepared by dissolving a low molecular weight
polymer, such as polyester for the production of spandex fibers, in a suitable solvent and a reactant,
such as di-isocyanate.  The spinning solution is then forced through spinnerettes into a solution
containing a diamine, similarly to wet spinning, or is combined with the third reactant and then dry
spun.  The primary distinguishable characteristic of reaction spinning processes is that the final
cross-linking between the polymer molecule chains in the filament occurs after the  fibers have been
spun.  Post-spinning steps  typically include drying and lubrication.  Emissions from the wet and dry
reaction spinning processes are similar to those of solvent wet and dry spinning, respectively.

6.9.3  Emissions And Controls

        For each pound of fiber produced with the organic solvent spinning processes, a pound of
polymer is dissolved in about 3 pounds of solvent. Because of the economic value of the large
amounts of solvent used, capture and recovery of these solvents are an integral portion of the solvent
spinning processes.  At present, 94 to 98 percent of the solvents used in these fiber formation
processes is recovered.  In both dry and wet spinning processes, capture systems with subsequent
solvent recovery are applied most frequently to the fiber spinning operation alone,  because the
emission stream from the spinning operation contains the highest concentration of solvent and,
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-5

    -------
emission stream from the spinning operation contains the highest concentration of solvent and,
therefore, possesses the greatest potential for efficient and economic solvent recovery.  Recovery
systems used include gas adsorption, gas absorption, condensation, and distillation and are specific to
a particular fiber type or spinning method.  For example, distillation is typical in wet spinning
processes to recover solvent from the spinning bath, drawing, and washing (see Figure 6.9-8), while
condensers or scrubbers are typical in dry spinning processes for recovering solvent from the spin cell
(see Figure 6.9-6 and Figure 6.9-9).  The recovery systems themselves are also a source of emissions
from the spuming processes.

       The majority of VOC emissions from pre-spinning (dope preparation, for example) and
post-spinning  (washing, drawing, crimping, etc.) operations typically are not recovered for reuse. In
many instances, emissions from these operations are captured by hoods or complete enclosures to
prevent worker exposure to solvent vapors and unreacted monomer.  Although already captured, the
quantities of solvent released from these operations are typically much smaller than those released
during the spinning operation.  The relatively high air flow rates required  in order to reduce solvent
and monomer concentrations around the process line to acceptable health and safety limits make
recovery economically unattractive.  Solvent recovery, therefore, is usually not attempted.

       Table 6.9-2 presents emission factors from production of the most widely known
semisynthetic  and true synthetic fibers.  These emission factors address emissions only from the
spinning and post-spinning operations and the associated recovery or control systems. Emissions
from the polymerization of the  fiber  polymer and from the preparation of the fiber polymer for
spinning are not included in these emission factors.  While significant emissions  occur in the
polymerization and related processes, these emissions are discussed in Sections 6.6, "Plastics", and
6.10, "Synthetic Rubber".

       Examination of VOC pollutant emissions from the synthetic fibers industry has recently
concentrated on those fiber production processes that use an organic solvent to dissolve the polymer
for extrusion or that use an organic solvent in some other way during the filament forming step.
Such processes, while representing only about 20 percent of total industry production, do generate
about 94 percent of total industry VOC emissions.  Paniculate emissions from fiber plants are
relatively low, at least an order of magnitude lower than the solvent VOC  emissions.

6.9.4  Semisynthetics

6.9.4.1 Rayon Fiber Process Description5'7"10 -
       In the United States, most rayon is made by the viscose process.  Rayon fibers are made
using cellulose (dissolved wood pulp),  sodium hydroxide, carbon disulfide, and sulfuric acid.  As
shown in Figure 6.9-5, the series of chemical reactions in the viscose process used to make rayon
consists of the following stages:

        1.     Wood cellulose and a concentrated solution of sodium hydroxide react to form soda
               cellulose.

        2.     The soda cellulose reacts with carbon disulfide to form sodium cellulose xanthate.

        3.     The sodium cellulose xanthate is dissolved in a dilute solution of sodium hydroxide to
               give a viscose solution.
6.9-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
          Table 6.9-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SYNTHETIC FIBER
                                   MANUFACTURING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Type Of Fiber
Rayon, viscose process
Cellulose acetate, filter tow
Cellulose acetate and triacetate, filament yarn
Polyester, melt spun
Staple
Yarnk
Acrylic, dry spun
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Modacrylic, dry spun
Acrylic and modacrylic, wet spun
Acrylic, inorganic wet spun
Homopolymer
Copolymer
Nylon 6, melt spun
Staple
Yarn
Nylon 66, melt spun
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Polyolefin, melt spun
Spandex, dry spun
Spandex, reaction spun
Vinyon, dry spun
Nonmethane
Volatile
Organics
0
112d
199d'e

0.6f'8
0.05f>s

40
32m
1258>h
6.75P

20.7S'l
2.75S>r

3.93S
0.45s

2.13f>t
0.31f-v
5«
4.23m
138X
150m
Paniculate
	 c
	 c
	 c

252hJ
0.03SJ

	 c
	 c
	 c
	 c

	 c
	 c

0.01g
	 c

0.5U
O.lu
0.01S
	 c
	 c
	 c
References
7-8,10,35-36
11,37
11,38
41-42


21,43^4


45
19,46
47-48


25,49


26


5,25,28,49
32
50-51
52
a  Factors are pounds of emissions per 1000 pounds (Ib) of fiber spun including waste fiber.
b  Uncontrolled carbon disulfide (CS^ emissions are 251 Ib CS2/1000 Ib fiber spun; uncontrolled
   hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions are 50.4 Ib H2S/1000 Ib fiber spun.  If recovery of CS2 from
   the "hot dip" stage takes place, CS2 emissions are reduced by about 16%.
c  Particulate emissions from the spinning solution preparation area and later stages through the
   finished product are essentially nil.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-7

    -------
                                      Table 6.9-2 (cont.).

d  After recovery from the spin cells and dryers.  Use of more extensive recovery systems can
   reduce emissions by 40%  or more.
e  Use of methyl chloride and methanol as the solvent, rather than acetone, in production of triacetate
   can double emissions.
f  Emitted in aerosol form.
g  Uncontrolled.
h  After control on extrusion parts cleaning operations.
J   Mostly paniculate, with some aerosols.
k  Factors for high intrinsic viscosity industrial and tire yarn production are 0.18 Ib VOC and 3.85 Ib
   p articulate.
m  After recovery from spin cells.
n  About 18 Ib is from dope preparation, and about 107 Ib is from sphining/post-spinning operations.
p  After solvent recovery from the spinning, washing, and drawing stages. This factor includes
   acrylonitrile emissions. An emission factor of 87 lb/1000 Ib fiber has been reported.
q  Average emission factor; range is from 13.9 to 27.7 Ib.
r  Average emission factor; range is from 2.04 to 16.4 Ib.
s  After recovery of emissions from the spin cells.  Without recovery, emission factor would be
   1.39 Ib.
1   Average of plants producing yarn from batch and continuous polymerization processes.  Range is
   from abut 0.5 to 4.9 Ib.  Add 0.1 Ib to the average factor for plants producing tow or staple.
   Continuous polymerization processes average emission rates approximately 170%.  Batch
   polymerization processes average emission rates approximately 80%.
u  For plants with spinning equipment  cleaning operations.
v  After control of spin cells in plants with batch and continuous polymerization processes producing
   yarn.  Range is from 0.1 to 0.6 Ib.  Add 0.02 Ib to the average controlled factor for producing
   tow or staple. Double the average controlled emission factor for plants using continuous
   polymerization only; subtract 0.01 Ib for plants using batch polymerization only.
w  After control of spinning equipment cleaning operation.
x  After recovery by carbon  adsorption from spin cells and post-spinning operations.  Average
   collection efficiency 83%.  Collection efficiency of carbon adsorber decreases over 18 months
   from 95% to 63%.
       4.      The solution is ripened or aged to complete the reaction.

       5.      The viscose solution is extruded through spinnerettes into dilute sulfuric acid, which
               regenerates the cellulose in the form of  continuous filaments.

Emissions And Controls -
       Air pollutant emissions from viscose rayon fiber production are mainly carbon disulfide
(CS-2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and small amounts of particulate matter. Most CS2 and  H2S
emissions occur during the spinning and post-spinning processing operations. Emission controls are
not used extensively in the rayon fiber industry.  A countercurrent scrubber (condenser) is used in at
least one instance to recover CS2 vapors from the sulfuric acid bath alone.  The emissions from this
operation are high enough in concentration and low enough in volume to make such recovery both
technically and economically feasible.  The scrubber recovers nearly all of the CS2 and H2S that
enters it, reducing overall CS2 and H2S emissions from the process  line by about 14 percent.  While
carbon adsorption systems are capable of CS2 emission  reductions of up to 95 percent, attempts to use
carbon adsorbers  have had serious  problems.
6.9-8                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                              Figure 6.9-5.  Rayon viscose process.

6.9.4.2.  Cellulose Acetate And Triacetate Fiber Process Description5-11"14 -
       All cellulose acetate and triacetate fibers are produced by dry spinning. These fibers are used
for either cigarette filter tow or filament yarn.  Figure 6.9-6 shows the typical process for the
production of cigarette filter tow. Dried cellulose acetate polymer flakes are dissolved in a solvent,
acetone and/or a chlorinated hydrocarbon hi a closed mixer. The spinning solution (dope) is filtered,
as it is with other fibers. The dope is forced through spinnerettes to form cellulose acetate filaments,
from which the solvent rapidly evaporates as the filaments pass down a spin cell or column. After
the filaments emerge from the spin cell, there is a residual solvent content that continues to evaporate
more slowly until equilibrium is attained. The  filaments then undergo several post-spinning
operations before they  are cut and baled.

       In the production of filament yarn, the same basic process steps are carried out as  for filter
tow, up through and including the actual spinning of the fiber.  Unlike filter tow filaments, however,
filaments used for filament yarn do not undergo the series of post-spinning operations shown in
Figure 6.9-6, but rather are wound immediately onto bobbins as they emerge from the spin cells. In
some instances, a slight twist is given to the filaments to meet product specifications.  In another area,
the wound filament yarn is subsequently removed from the bobbins  and wrapped on beams or cones
(referred to as "beaming") for shipment.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-9

    -------
                                                                        VOC EMISSIOHS
                 FIITMT10H
                                                           OPTING
                                                                    CUTTING
                      Figure 6.9-6. Cellulose acetate and triacetate filter tow.

Emissions And Controls -
       Air pollutant emissions from cellulose acetate fiber production include solvents, additives, and
other organic compounds used in fiber processing.  Acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methanol are
the only solvents currently used in commercial production of cellulose acetate and triacetate fibers.

       In the production of all cellulose acetate fibers, i. e., tow, staple, or filament yarn, solvent
emissions occur during dissolving of the acetate flakes, blending and filtering of the dope, spinning of
the fiber, processing of the fiber after spinning, and the solvent recovery process.  The largest
emissions of solvent occur during spinning and  processing of the fiber. Filament yams are typically
not dried as thoroughly hi the spinning cell as are tow or staple yarns. Consequently,  they contain
larger amounts  of residual solvent, which evaporates into the spuming room air where the filaments
are wound and  into the room air where the wound yarn is subsequently transferred to beams.  This
residual solvent continues to evaporate for several days until an equilibrium is attained. The largest
emissions occur during the spinning of the fiber and the  evaporation of the residual solvent from the
wound and beamed filaments. Both processes also emit  lubricants (various vegetable and mineral
oils) applied to the fiber after  spinning and before winding,  particularly from the dryers in the
cigarette filter tow process.

       VOC control techniques are primarily carbon adsorbers and scrubbers.  They are used to
control and recover solvent emissions from process gas streams from the spin cells in both the
production of cigarette filter tow  and filament yarn. Carbon adsorbers also  are used to control and
recover solvent emissions from the dryers used  in the production of cigarette filter tow.  The solvent
recovery efficiencies of these recovery systems  range from 92 to 95 percent. Fugitive emissions from
other post-spinning operations, even though they are a major source, are generally not controlled. In
at least one instance however, an air management system is being used in which the air from the dope
preparation and beaming areas is  combined at carefully controlled rates with the spinning room air
that is used to provide the quench air for the spin cell.  A fixed amount of spinning room air is then
combined with  the process gas stream from the  spin cell and this mix is vented to the recovery
system.
6.9-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
6.9.5  True Synthetic Fibers

6.9.5.1  Polyester Fiber Process Description5'11'15"17  -
        Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer is produced from ethylene glycol and either
dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) or terephthalic acid (TPA).  Polyester filament yarn and staple are
manufactured either by direct melt spinning of molten PET from the polymerization equipment or by
spinning reheated polymer chips.  Polyester fiber spinning is done almost exclusively with extruders,
which feed the molten polymer under pressure through the spinnerettes.  Filament solidification is
induced by blowing the filaments with cold air at the top of the spin cell. The filaments are then led
down the spin cell through a fiber finishing application, from which they are gathered into tow,
hauled off, and coiled into spinning cans.  The post-spinning processes, steps 14 through 24 in
Figure 6.9-7, usually take up more time and space and may be located far from the spinning
machines.  Depending on the desired product, post-spuming operations vary but may include
lubrication, drawing, crimping,  heat setting, and stapling.
      1  Chip.
      2  Oryar
      3  Extruoar
      4  Or dlr«ct .pinning, .pinning manlloW
      5  Filtration
                                  6 Spinnarat
                                  7 Comantional haul-on
  . Blowing air
  9 Spinning than. aolldificaHon
  10 Flnlah application
  11 Tow
  12 Ham-off unit
  13 Flora can
14  Can craal
IS  Flnlah
IS  Drawing
17  Haatlngiona
IS  (sailing)
1*  Crimping
20  Tow
21  Stapling (tatting)
22 Flocks
23 Batopma
24 Carton filling
                                Figure 6.9-7.  Polyester production.

Emissions And Controls -
        Air pollutant emissions from polyester fiber production include polymer dust from drying
operations, volatilized residual monomer, fiber lubricants (in the form of fume or oil smoke), and the
burned polymer and combustion products from cleaning the spinning equipment.  Relative to the
solvent  spinning processes, the melt spinning of polyester fibers does not generate significant amounts
of volatilized monomer or polymer, so emission control measures typically are not used in the
spinning area.  Finish  oils that are applied in polyester fiber spinning operations are usually  recovered
and recirculated.  When applied, finish oils are vaporized in the spin cell to some extent and, in some
instances, are vented to either demisters, which remove some of the oils, or catalytic incinerators,
which oxidize significant quantities of volatile hydrocarbons. Small amounts of finish oils are
vaporized hi the post-spinning process.  Vapors from hot draw operations are typically controlled by
devices  such as electrostatic precipitators.  Emissions from most other steps are not controlled.

6.9.5.2  Acrylic And Modacrylic Fiber Process Description5'18"24'53 -
        Acrylic and modacrylic fibers  are based on acrylonitrile  monomer, which  is derived  from
propylene and ammonia. Acrylics are defined as those fibers that are composed of at least 85 percent
acrylonitrile. Modacrylics are defined as those fibers that are composed  of between 35 and
85 percent acrylonitrile. The remaining composition of the fiber typically  includes at least one  of the
following: methyl methacrylate, methyl acrylate,  vinyl acetate, vinyl chloride, or vinylidene chloride.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
               6.9-11

    -------
Polyacrylonitrile fiber polymers are produced by the industry using 2 methods, suspension
polymerization and solution polymerization.  Either batch or continuous reaction modes may be
employed.

       As shown in Figure 6.9-8 and Figure 6.9-9, the polymer is dissolved hi a suitable solvent,
such as dimethylformamide or dimethylacetamide.  Additives and delusterants are added,  and the
solution is usually filtered in plate and frame presses.  The solution is then pumped through a
manifold to the spinnerettes (usually a bank of 30 to 50 per machine).  At this point hi the process,
either wet or dry spuming may be used to form the acrylic fibers.  The spinnerettes are hi a spuming
bath for wet spun fiber or at the top of an enclosed column for dry spinning.  The wet spun filaments
are pulled from the bath on takeup wheels, then washed to remove more solvent.  After washing, the
filaments are gathered into a tow band, stretched to improve strength, dried, crimped, heat set, and
then cut into  staple.  The dry spun filaments are gathered into a tow band, stretched,  dried, crimped,
and cut into staple.

Emissions And Controls -
       Air pollutant emissions from the production of acrylic and modacrylic fibers include emissions
of acrylonitrile (volatilized residual  monomer), solvents, additives, and other organics used in fiber
processing.  As shown hi Figure 6.9-8 and Figure 6.9-9, both the wet and the dry spinning processes
have many emission points.  The  major emission areas for the wet spin fiber process  are the  spinning
and washing steps.  The major emission areas from dry spinning of acrylic and modacrylic fibers are
the spinning and post-spinning areas, up through and including drying. Solvent recovery hi
dry-spinning  of modacrylic fibers is also a major emission point.

       The most cost-effective method for reducing solvent VOC emissions from both wet and dry
spinning processes is a solvent recovery system.  In wet spinning processes, distillation is used to
recover and recycle solvent from the solvent/water stream that circulates through the  spinning,
washing, and drawing operations.  In dry spinning processes, control techniques  include scrubbers,
condensers, and carbon adsorption.  Scrubbers and condensers are used to recover solvent emissions
from the spinning cells and the dryers.  Carbon adsorption is used to recover solvent emissions from
storage tank vents  and from mixing and filtering operations.  Distillation columns are also used hi dry
spinning processes to recover solvent from the condenser, scrubber, and wash water (from the
washing operation).

6.9.5.3 Nylon Fiber 6 And 66 Process Description5'17'24"27 -
       Nylon 6 polymer is produced from caprolactam. Caprolactam  is derived most commonly
from cyclohexanone, which in turn  comes from either  phenol or cyclohexane.  About 70 percent of
all nylon 6 polymer is produced by continuous polymerization. Nylon 66 polymer is made from
adipic  acid and hexamethylene diamine, which react to form hexamethylene diamonium adipate (AH
salt). The salt is then washed in a methyl alcohol bath.  Polymerization then takes place under heat
and pressure  hi a batch process.  The fiber spinning and processing procedures are the same as
described earlier hi the description of melt spinning. The nylon production process is shown in
Figure 6.9-10.

Emissions And Controls -
       The major air pollutant emissions from production of nylon 6 fibers are volatilized monomer
(caprolactam) and oil vapors or mists.  Caprolactam emissions may occur at the spinning step because
the polymerization reaction is reversible and exothermic, and the heat of extrusion causes the polymer
to revert partially to the monomer form.  A  monomer  recovery system is used on caprolactam
volatilized at the spinnerette during nylon 6 fiber formation.  Monomer recovery systems are not used
hi nylon 66 (polyhexamethylene adipamide) spinning operations because nylon 66 does not contain a
significant amount of residual monomer.  Emissions, though small, are in some instances controlled
by catalytic incinerators.  The finish oils, plasticizers,  and lubricants applied to both nylon 6 and 66


6.9-12                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95)  9/90

    -------
                                                        IDC   I   FINISH     anmc    CHINPIK     sen IK  CUTIIW
                                                             AWUCATIOH                       OUTER
                                                                                 70C EMISSIONS
                               mute ur
                               sa««r
                                 Figure 6.9-8.  Acrvlic fiber wet spinning.
                                                            RECOVERED SOLVENT
DISTILL'
IPORAT10N
IS LOW
1


. 1
t

TION





HASH
HATER

                                                                                          SOLVENT
                                                                                         EMISSIONS
     >   voc EMISSIONS


u o
PIDDLING
BOX





DRAWING





HASHING


A


FINISH
PPLICATIO


N


CRIMPING





STEAMING





DRriNG



                                                                                   FIBER OUT
                                                                                   (RESIDUAL
                                                                                    SOLVENT)
                                                                                              CUTTING 1
                                                                                               BALING
                                   Figure 6.9-9.  Acrylic fiber dry spinning.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-13

    -------
                           Una
                            airs
                                Figure 6.9-10. Nylon production.

fibers during the spinning process are vaporized during post-spinning processes and, in some instances
such as the hot drawing of nylon 6, are vented to fabric filters, scrubbers and/or electrostatic
precipitators.

6.9.5.4  Polyolefin Fiber Process Description2'5'28'30 -
       Polyolefin fibers are molecularly oriented extrusions of highly crystalline olefinic polymers,
predominantly polypropylene.  Melt spinning of polypropylene is the method of choice because the
high degree of polymerization makes wet spinning or dissolving of the polymer difficult.  The fiber
spinning and processing procedures are generally the same as described earlier for melt spinning.
Polypropylene is also manufactured by the split film process in which it is extruded as a  film and then
stretched and split into flat filaments, or narrow tapes, that are twisted or wound into a fiber.  Some
fibers are manufactured as a combination of nylon and polyolefin polymers being melted together in a
ratio of about 20 percent nylon 6 and 80 percent polyolefin such as  polypropylene, and being spun
from this melt. Polypropylene is processed more like nylon 6 than  nylon 66 because of the lower
melting point of 203°C (397°F) for nylon 6 versus 263°C (505°F) for nylon 66.  The polyolefin
fiber production process is shown in Figure 6.9-11.

Emissions And Controls -
       Limited information is available on emissions from the actual spinning or processing of
polyolefin fibers.  The available data quantify and describe the emissions from the extruder/pelletizer
stage, the last stage of polymer manufacture, and from just before the melting of the polymer for
spinning.  VOC content of the dried polymer after extruding and pelletizing was found to be as much
as 0.5 weight percent. Assuming the content is as high as 0.5 percent and that all this VOC is lost in
the extrusion and  processing of the fiber (melting, spinning, drawing, winding, etc.), there would be
5 pounds of VOC emissions per 1,000 pounds  of polyolefin fiber. The VOCs hi the dried polymer
are hexane, propane, and methanol, and the approximate proportions are 1.6 pounds of hexane,
1.6 pounds of propane,  and 1.8 pounds of methanol.

       During processing,  lubricant and finish oils are added  to the fiber, and some of these additives
are driven off in the form of aerosols during processing.  No specific information has been obtained
6.9-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
(•;
(5






Q

                                     IU.L
                                     HOJ.S


MKM.IK 0»t»








	
k,


                                                                                   VOC EMISSIONS
                                                                    nun
                                                                    TOILS
                            Figure 6.9-11. Polyolefin fiber production.

to describe the oil aerosol emissions for polyolefin processing, but certain assumptions may be made
to provide reasonably accurate values.  Because polyolefins are melt spun similarly to other melt spun
fibers (nylon 6, nylon 66, polyester, etc.), a fiber similar to the polyolefins would exhibit similar
emissions. Processing temperatures are similar for polyolefins  and nylon 6.  Thus, aerosol  emission
values for nylon 6 can be assumed valid for polyolefins.

6.9.5.5  Spandex Fiber Manufacturing Process Description5'31"33 -
        Spandex is a generic name for  a polyurethane fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a
long chain of synthetic polymer comprised of at least 85 percent of a segmented polyurethane.  In
between the urethane groups, there are long chains that may be polyglycols, polyesters, or
polyamides.  Being spun from a polyurethane (a rubber-like material), spandex fibers are elastomeric,
that is,  they stretch.  Spandex fibers are used in such stretch fabrics as belts, foundation garments,
surgical stockings, and stocking tops.

        Spandex is produced by 2 different processes in the United States.  One process is similar in
some respects to that used for acetate textile yarn, in that the fiber is dry spun, immediately wound
onto takeup bobbins, and then twisted or processed in other ways.  This process is referred to as dry
spinning. The other process, which uses reaction spinning, is substantially different from any other
fiber forming process used by domestic synthetic fiber producers.

6.9.5.6  Spandex Dry Spun Process Description -
        This manufacturing process, which is illustrated in Figure 6.9-12, is characterized by use of
solution polymerization and dry spinning with an organic solvent.  Tetrahydrofuran is the principal
raw material.  The compound's molecular ring structure is opened, and the resulting straight chain
compound is polymerized to give a low molecular weight polymer. This polymer is then treated with
an excess of a di-isocyanate.  The reactant, with any  unreacted di-isocyanate, is next reacted with
some diamine,  with monoamine added  as a stabilizer. This final polymerization stage is carried out in
dimethylformamide solution, and then the spandex is dry spun from this solution.  Immediately after
spinning, spandex yarn is wound onto a bobbin as continuous filament yarn.  This yarn is later
transferred to large spools for shipment or for further processing in another part of the plant.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-15

    -------
                            SOLVENT
                            STORAGE

                            V
                             TOTAL
                            SOLVENT
                                     SOL VI
                                         NT
    CONDENSER  t*
                                                           DISTILLATION
                                       SUN CELL
                                                CONDENSE*
                                                                      ,' VOC EMISSIONS
                   FILTRATION
                                                                           I-OLYKR FIBER
                                                                             OUT
                                                               IEAHING I
                                                               PACKAGING
                               Figure 6.9-12.  Spandex dry spinning.
Emissions And Controls -
       The major emissions from the spandex dry spinning process are volatilized solvent losses,
which occur at a number of points of production.  Solvent emissions occur during filtering of the spin
dope, spinning of the fiber, treatment of the fiber after spinning, and the solvent recovery process.
The emission points from this process are also shown in Figure 6.9-12.

       Total emissions from spandex fiber dry spinning are considerably lower than from other dry
spinning processes.  It appears that the single most influencing factor that accounts for the lower
emissions is that, because of nature of the polymeric material and/or spinning conditions, the amount
of residual solvent in the fiber as it leaves the spin cell is considerably lower than other dry spun
fibers. This situation may be because of the lower solvent/polymer ratio that is used hi spandex dry
spinning. Less solvent is used for each unit of fiber produced relative to other fibers. A
condensation system is used to recover solvent emissions from the spin cell exhaust gas.  Recovery of
solvent emissions from this process is as high as 99 percent.  Since the residual solvent in the fiber
leaving the spin cell is much lower than for other fiber types, the potential for economic capture and
recovery is also much lower.  Therefore, these post-spinning emissions, which are small, are not
controlled.

6.9.5.7   Spandex Reaction Spun Process Description -
       In the reaction spun process, a polyol (typically polyester) is reacted with an excess of
di-isocynate to form the urethane prepolymer, which is pumped through spinnerettes at a constant rate
into a bath of dilute solution of ethylenediamine in toluene. The ethylenediamine reacts  with
isocyanate end groups on the resin to form long-chain cross-linked polyurethane elastomeric  fiber.
The final cross-linking reaction takes place after the fiber has been spun.  The fiber is transported
from the bath to an oven, where solvent is evaporated. After drying, the fiber is lubricated and is
wound on tubes for shipment.
6.9-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
Emissions And Controls -
        Essentially all air that enters the spinning room is drawn into the hooding that surrounds the
process equipment and then leads to a carbon adsorption system (see Figure 6.9-13). The oven is
also vented to the carbon adsorber.  The gas streams from the spinning room and oven are combined
and cooled hi a heat exchanger before they enter the activated carbon bed.
               Recovered
               Solvent
              Prepolymer
                                                                         Filament
                                                                         Winding
                                                                       VOC
                                                                       EMISSIONS
                            Figure 6.9-13.  Spandex reaction spinning.


6.9.5.8  Vinyon Fiber Process Description5'34 -
        Vinyon is a copolymer of vinyl chloride (88 percent) and vinyl acetate (12 percent).  The
polymer is dissolved in a ketone (acetone or methyl ethyl ketone) to make a 23 weight percent
spuming solution. After filtering, the solution is extruded as filaments into warm air to evaporate the
solvent and to allow its recovery and reuse. The spinning process is similar to that of cellulose
acetate.  After spuming, the filaments are stretched to achieve molecular orientation to impart
strength.

Emissions And Controls -
        Emissions occur at steps similar to those of cellulose acetate, at dope preparation and
spinning, and as fugitive emissions from the spun fiber during processes such as winding and
stretching.  The major source of VOCs is the spinning step, where the warm air stream evaporates the
solvent.  This air/solvent stream is sent to either a scrubber or carbon adsorber for solvent recovery.
Emissions may also occur at the exhausts from these control devices.

6.9.5.9 Other Fibers -
       There are synthetic fibers manufactured on a small volume scale relative to the commodity
fibers. Because of the wide variety of these fiber manufacturing processes, specific products and
processes are not discussed.  Table 6.9-3 lists some of these fibers and the respective producers.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.9-17

    -------
               Table 6.9-3.  OTHER SYNTHETIC FIBERS AND THEIR MAKERS
                     Fiber
                                           Manufacturer
             Nomex (aramid)
             Kevlar (aramid)
             FBI (polybenzimidazole)
             Kynol (novoloid)
             Teflon
                                            DuPont
                                            DuPont
                                            Celanese
                                            Carborundum
                                            DuPont
Crimping:


Coagulant:


Continuous filament
yarn:

Cutting:

Delusterant:


Dope:


Drawing:



Filament:


Filament yarn:

Heat setting:
Lubrication:
                    GLOSSARY

A process in which waves and angles are set into fibers, such as acrylic fiber
filaments, to help simulate properties of natural fibers.

A substance, either a salt or an acid, used to precipitate polymer solids out of
emulsions or latexes.

Very long fibers that have been converged to form a multifiber yarn, typically
consisting of 15 to 100 filaments.

Refers to the conversion of tow to staple fiber.

Fiber finishing additives (typically clays or barium sulfate) used to dull the
surfaces of the fibers.

The polymer,  either in molten form or dissolved in solvent,  that is spun into
fiber.

The stretching of the filaments in order to  increase the fiber's strength; also
makes the fiber more supple and unshrinkable (that is, the stretch is
irreversible).  The degree of stretching varies with the yarn being spun.

The solidified  polymer that has emerged from a single hole or orifice in a
spinnerette.

See continuous filament yarn.

The dimensional stabilization of the fibers  with heat so that the fibers are
completely undisturbed by subsequent treatments such as washing or dry
cleaning at a lower temperature. To  illustrate, heat setting allows a pleat to
be retained in  the fabric while helping prevent undesirable creases later in the
life of the fabric.

The application of oils or similar substances to the fibers in  order, for
example, to facilitate subsequent handling  of the fibers and to provide static
suppression.
6.9-18
               EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
Spinnerette:           A spinnerette is used in the production of all man-made fiber whereby liquid
                      is forced through holes. Filaments emerging from the holes are hardened and
                      solidified.  The process of extrusion and hardening is called spinning.

Spun yarn:            Yarn made from staple fibers that have been twisted or spun together into a
                      continuous strand.

Staple:                Lengths of fiber made by cutting man-made fiber tow into short (1- to 6-inch)
                      and usually uniform lengths, which are subsequently twisted into spun yarn.

Tow:                 A collection of many (often thousands) parallel, continuous filaments, without
                      twist, that are grouped together in a rope-like form having a diameter of about
                      one-quarter inch.

Twisting:             Giving  the filaments in a yam a very slight twist that prevents the fibers from
                      sliding  over each other when pulled, thus increasing the strength of the yarn.
References For Section 6.9

1.     Man-made Fiber Producer's Base Book, Textile Economics Bureau Incorporated, New York,
       NY, 1977.

2.     "Fibers 540.000",  Chemical Economics Handbook, Menlo Park, CA, March 1978.

3.     Industrial Process Profiles For Environmental Use - Chapter 11 - The Synthetic Fiber
       Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1310, Aeronautical Research Associates of Princeton,
       Princeton, NJ, November 1976.

4.     R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY,
       1967.

5.     R. W.  Moncrief, Man-made Fibers, Newes-Butterworth, London, 1975.

6.     Guide To Man-made Fibers, Man-made Fiber Producers Association, Inc. Washington, DC,
       1977.

7.     "Trip Report/Plant Visit To American Enka Company, Lowland, Tennessee", Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, January 22, 1980.

8.     "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Avtex Fibers, Inc., Rayon Fiber Division, Front Royal,
       VA", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham,  NC, January  15, 1980.

9.     "Fluidized Recovery System Nabs Carbon Disulfide", Chemical Engineering, 70(8):92-94,
       April 15,  1963.

10.    Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7, H-B-83,
       "Viscose Rayon Fiber Production - Phase I Investigation", U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, February 25, 1980.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.9-19

    -------
11.    "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Tennessee Eastman Company Synthetic Fibers
       Manufacturing", Kingsport, TN, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
       December  13, 1979.

12.    "Report Of The Phase H Plant Visit To Celanese's Celriver Acetate Plant In Rock Hill, SC",
       Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, May 28, 1980.

13.    "Report Of The Phase H Plant Visit To Celanese's Celco Acetate Fiber Plant In Narrows,
       VA", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, August 11, 1980.

14.    Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7, H-I-43,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1979.

15.    E. Welfers, "Process And Machine Technology Of Man-made Fibre Production",
       International Textile Bulletin, World Spinning Edition, Schlieren/Zurich, Switzerland,
       February 1978.

16.    Written communication from R. B. Hayden, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington,
       DE, to E. L. Bechstein, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, November 8, 1978.

17.    Written communication from E. L. Bechstein, Pullman,  Inc., Houston, TX, to
       R. M. Glowers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 17, 1978.

18.    "Report Of The Plant Visit To Badische Corporation's Synthetic Fibers Plant In
       Williamsburg, VA",  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, November 28,
       1979.

19.    "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Monsanto Company's Plant In Decatur, AL",  Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, April 1, 1980.

20.    "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To American Cyanamid Company", Pacific Environmental
       Services, Inc., Durham, NC, April 11, 1980.

21.    Written communication from G. T. Esry, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington,
       DE, to D.  R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, July 7, 1978.

22.    "Report Of The Initial Visit To duPont's Acrylic Fiber Plant In Waynesboro, VA",
       Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, May 1, 1980.

23.    "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit To duPont's Acrylic Fiber May Plant In Camden, SC",
       Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, August 8, 1980.

24.    C. N. Click and D. K. Webber, Polymer Industry Ranking By VOC Emission Reduction That
       Would Occur From New Source Performance Standards, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2619,
       Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, August 30, 1979.

25.    Written communication from E. L. Bechstein, Pullman,  Inc., Houston, TX, to
       R. M. Glowers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 28, 1978.

6.9-20                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
26.    Written communication from R. B. Hayden, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington,
       DE, to W. Talbert, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, October  17, 1978.

27.    "Report OfThe Initial Plant Visit To Allied Chemical's Synthetic Fibers Division",
       Chesterfield, VA, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham', NC, November 27, 1979.

28.    Background Information Document — Polymers And Resins Industry, EPA-450/3-83-019a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1984.

29.    H. P. Frank, Polypropylene, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, NY, 1968.

30.    A. V. Galanti and C. L. Mantell, Polypropylene — Fibers and Films, Plenum Press,
       New York, NY, 1965.

31.    D. W. Grumpier, "Trip Report — Plant Visit To Globe Manufacturing Company",
       D. Grumpier, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 16 and 17,  1981.

32.    "Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7, H-I-115,
       Lycra Reamout Plan", U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       May 10, 1979.

33.    "Standards Of Performance For Synthetic Fibers NSPS, Docket No. A-80-7, II-I-95",
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 2, 1982.

34.    Written communication from W. K.  Mohney, Avtex Fibers, Inc., Meadville, PA, to
       R. Manley, Pacific Environmental Services, Durham,  NC, April 14, 1981.

35.    Personal communication from J. H.  Cosgrove, Avtex  Fibers, Inc., Front Royal, VA, to
       R. Manley, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, November 29, 1982.

36.    Written communication from T. C. Benning, Jr., American Enka Co., Lowland, TN, to
       R. A. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, February 12,  1980.

37.    Written communication from R. O. Goetz, Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board,
       Richmond, VA, to Director, Region II, Virginia State Air  Pollution Control Board,
       Richmond, VA, November 22, 1974.

38.    Written communication from H. S. Hall, Avtex Fibers, Inc., Valley Forge, PA, to
       J. R. Fanner, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 12, 1980.

39.    Written communication from J. C. Pullen, Celanese Fibers Co., Charlotte, NC, to
       R. A. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, July 3, 1980.

40.    Written communication from J. C. Pullen, Celanese Fibers Co., Charlotte, NC, to National
       Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 8, 1981.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.9-21

    -------
41.    "Report Of The Initial Plant Visit To Tennessee Eastman Company Synthetic Fibers
       Manufacturing, Kingsport, TN", Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC,
       December 13, 1979.

42.    Written communication from J. C. Edwards, Tennessee Eastman Co., Kingsport, TN, to
       R. Zerbonia, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, April 28, 1980.

43.    Written communication from C. R. Earnhart, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Camden,
       SC, to D. W. Grumpier, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, November 5, 1981.

44.    C. N. Click and D. K. Weber, Emission Process And Control Technology Study Of The
       ABS/SAN Acrylic Fiber and NBR Industries, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2619, Pullman, Inc.,
       Houston, TX, April 20, 1979.

45.    Written communication from D. O. Moore, Jr., Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, to
       D. C. Mascone, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       April 18,  1979.

46.    Written communication from W. M.  Talbert, Pullman, Inc., Houston, TX, to R. J. Kucera,
       Monsanto Textiles Co., Decatur, AL, July 17,  1978.

47.    Written communication from M. O. Johnson, Badische Corporation, Williamsburg, VA, to
       D. R. Patrick, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1, 1979.

48.    Written communication from J. S. Lick, Badische Corporation, Williamsburg, VA, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 14, 1980.

49.    P. T. Wallace, "Nylon Fibers", Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute,
       Menlo Park, CA, December 1977.

50.    Written communication from R. Legendre, Globe Manufacturing Co., Fall River, MA, to
       Central Docket Section, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       August 26,  1981.

51.    Written communication from R. Legendre, Globe Manufacturing Co., Fall River, MA, to
       J. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 26, 1980.

52.    Written communication from R. H. Hughes, Avtex Fibers Co., Valley Forge, PA, to
       R. Manley,  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, February 28, 1983.

53.    "Report Of The Phase II Plant Visit, DuPont's Acrylic Fiber May Plant In Camden, SC",
       Pacific  Environmental Services, Inc., Durham, NC, April 29, 1980.
6.9-22                             EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
6.10  Synthetic Rubber

6.10.1  Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Copolymers

6.10.1.1  General -
        Two types of polymerization reaction are used to produce styrene-butadiene copolymers, the
emulsion type and the solution type. This section addresses volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the manufacture of copolymers of styrene and butadiene made by emulsion
polymerization processes. The emulsion products can be sold in either a granular solid form, known
as crumb, or hi a liquid form, known as latex.

        Copolymers of styrene and butadiene can be made with properties ranging from those of a
rubbery material to those of a very resilient plastic.  Copolymers containing less than 45 weight
percent styrene are known as styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR). As the styrene content is increased
over 45 weight percent, the product becomes increasingly more plastic.

6.10.1.2  Emulsion Crumb Process -
        As shown hi Figure 6.10-1, fresh styrene and butadiene are piped separately to the
manufacturing plant from the storage area.  Polymerization of styrene and butadiene proceeds
continuously through a tram of reactors, with a residence tune in each  reactor of approximately
1 hour.  The reaction product formed in the emulsion phase of the reaction mixture is a milky white
emulsion called latex. The overall polymerization reaction ordinarily is not carried  out beyond a
60 percent conversion of monomers to polymer, because the reaction rate falls off considerably
beyond this point and product quality begins to deteriorate.

        Because recovery of the unreacted monomers and then- subsequent purification are essential to
economical operation, unreacted butadiene and styrene from the emulsion crumb polymerization
process normally are recovered. The latex emulsion is introduced to flash tanks where, using vacuum
flashing, the unreacted butadiene is removed. The butadiene is then compressed, condensed, and
pumped back to the tank farm storage area for subsequent reuse.  The condenser tail gases and
noncondensables pass through a butadiene adsorber/desorber unit, where more butadiene is recovered.
Some noncondensables and VOC vapors pass to the atmosphere or, at some plants, to a flare system.
The latex stream from the butadiene recovery area is then sent to the styrene recovery process,
usually taking place in perforated plate steam stripping columns.  From the styrene stripper, the latex
is stored in blend tanks.

        From this point  in the manufacturing process, latex is processed continuously. The latex is
pumped from the blend tanks to coagulation vessels, where dilute sulfuric acid (H2SO4 of pH 4 to
4.5) and sodium chloride solution are added.  The acid and brine mixture causes the emulsion to
break, releasing the styrene-butadiene copolymer as crumb product. The coagulation vessels are open
to the atmosphere.

        Leaving the coagulation process, the crumb and brine acid slurry is separated by screens into
solid and liquid. The crumb product is processed in rotary presses that squeeze out most of the
entrained water. The liquid  (brine/acid) from the screening area and the rotary presses is cycled to
the coagulation area for  reuse.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.10-1

    -------
L
z
>


HI
IIUTADIENE
AKIORIER/
OEEOfttER
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       j>>

                                                                                       "o
                                                                                       a.


                                                                                       o
                                                                                       I
                                                                                        o


                                                                                        I
                                                                                       T3
                                                                                        8
                                                                                        O.


                                                                                       1
                                                                                        S
                                                                                        8
                                                                                        2
                                                                                        0,
                                                                                        On
                                                                                        >>

                                                                                       H
                                                                                        o>


                                                                                        I

                                                                                       £
                                                   ?hl
                                                   • S*o
                                                   il":
6.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
        The partially dried crumb is then processed in a continuous belt dryer that blows hot air at
approximately 93 °C (200 °F) across the crumb to complete the drying of the product.  Some plants
have installed single-pass dryers, where space permits, but most plants still use the triple-pass dryers,
which were installed as original equipment in the 1940s.  The dried product is baled and weighed
before shipment.

6.10.1.3  Emulsion Latex Process -
        Emulsion polymerization can also be used to produce latex products.  These latex products
have a wider range of properties and uses than do the crumb products, but the plants are usually
much smaller.  Latex production, shown in Figure 6.10-2, follows the same basic processing steps as
emulsion crumb polymerization, with the exception of final product processing.

        As hi emulsion crumb polymerization, the monomers are piped to the processing plant from
the storage area. The polymerization reaction is taken to near completion (98 to 99 percent
conversion), and the recovery of unreacted monomers is therefore uneconomical.  Process economy is
directed towards maximum conversion of the monomers in one process trip.

        Because most emulsion latex polymerization is done in a batch process, the number of
reactors used for latex production is usually smaller than for crumb production.  The latex is sent to a
blowdown tank where, under vacuum,  any unreacted butadiene and some unreacted  styrene are
removed from the latex. If the unreacted styrene content of the latex has not been reduced
sufficiently to meet product specifications hi the blowdown step, the latex is introduced to a series of
steam stripping steps to reduce the content further.  Any steam and styrene vapor from these stripping
steps is taken overhead and is sent to a water-cooled condenser. Any uncondensables leaving the
condenser are vented to the atmosphere.

        After discharge from the blowdown tank or the styrene stripper, the latex is stored in process
tanks.  Stripped latex is passed through a series of screen filters to remove unwanted solids and is
stored in blending tanks, where antioxidants are added and mixed. Finally, latex is  pumped from the
blending tanks to be packaged into drums or to  be bulk loaded into railcars or tank trucks.

6.10.2  Emissions And Controls

        Emission factors for emulsion styrene-butadiene copolymer production processes are presented
in Table 6.10-1.

        In the emulsion crumb process, uncontrolled noncondensed tail gases  (VOCs) pass through a
butadiene absorber control device, which is 90 percent efficient, to the atmosphere or, in some plants,
to a flare stack.

        No controls are presently employed for  the blend tank and/or coagulation tank areas, on either
crumb or latex facilities. Emissions from dryers hi the crumb process  and the monomer removal part
of the latex process do not employ control devices.

       Individual  plant emissions may vary from the average values listed in Table  6.10-1 with
facility age,  size, and plant modification factors.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.10-3

    -------
                                                                                   I
                                                                                    a

                                                                                   .1
                                                                                    t/5

                                                                                   1
                                                                                   .0

                                                                                    a
                                                                                   1
                                                                                    £
                                                                                    Cu
                                                                                    v
6.10-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
        Table 6.10-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMULSION
                    STYRENE-BUTADIENE COPOLYMER PRODUCTION*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Emulsion Crumb
Monomer recovery, uncontrolled0
Absorber vent
Blend/coagulation tank, uncontrolledd
Dryers6
Emulsion Latex
Monomer removal condenser ventf
Blend tanks, uncontrolledf
Volatile Organic Emissions15
g/kg

2.6
0.26
0.42
2.51

8.45
0.1
Ib/ton

5.2
0.52
0.84
5.02

16.9
0.2
a Nonmethane VOC, mainly styrene and butadiene.  For emulsion crumb and emulsion latex
  processes only. Factors for related equipment and operations (storage, fugitives, boilers, etc.) are
  presented in other sections of AP-42.
b Expressed as units per unit of copolymer produced.
c Average of 3 industry-supplied stack tests.
d Average of 1 industry stack test and 2 industry-supplied emission estimates.
e No controls available. Average of 3 industry-supplied stack tests and 1 industry estimate.
f EPA estimates from industry supplied data, confirmed by industry.
References For Section 6.10

1.     Control Techniques Guideline (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-02-3168, GCA, Inc.,
       Chapel Hill, NC, April 1981.

2.     Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Copolymers: Background Document, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3063, TRW Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.

3.     Confidential written communication from C. Fabian, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, to Styrene-Butadiene Rubber File (76/15B), July 16, 1981.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Organic Chemical Process Industry
6.10-5

    -------

    -------
6.11  Terephthalic Acid

6.11.1  Process Description1

        Terephthalic acid (TPA) is made by air oxidation of/wtylene and requires purification for use
in polyester fiber manufacture. A typical continuous process for the manufacture of crude
terephthalic acid (C-TPA) is shown in Figure 6.11-1.  The oxidation and product recovery portion
essentially consists of the Mid-Century oxidation process, whereas the recovery and recycle of acetic
acid and recovery of methyl acetate are essentially as practiced by dimethyl terephthalate (DMT)
technology. The purpose of the DMT process is to convert the terephthalic acid contained in C-TPA
to a form that will permit its separation from impurities.   C-TPA is extremely insoluble in both water
and most common organic  solvents.  Additionally, it does not melt, it sublimes.  Some products of
partial oxidation ofp-xylene, such as/7-toluic acid and/7-formyl benzoic acid, appear as impurities in
TPA.  Methyl acetate is also formed in  significant amounts in the reaction.
           HOAC +

        (ACETIC ACID      (p-XYLENE)    (AIR)    ^     (TEREPHTHALIC ACID)     (WATER)
         SOLVENT)

                           fMlNOR RPArrrn™'         (CARBON       (CARBON    (WATER)
                           (MINOR REACTION)          MONOXIDE)      DIOXIDE)


6.11.1.1 C-TPA Production-

Oxidation Of p-Xylene -
       p-Xylene (stream 1 of Figure 6.11-1), fresh acetic acid (2), a catalyst system such as
manganese or cobalt acetate and sodium bromide (3), and recovered acetic acid are combined into the
liquid feed entering the reactor  (5). Ah- (6), compressed to a reaction pressure of about 2000 kPa
(290 psi), is fed to the reactor.  The temperature of the exothermic reaction is maintained at about
200 °C (392 °F) by controlling the pressure at which the reaction mixture is permitted to boil and form
the vapor stream leaving the reactor (7).

       Inert gases, excess oxygen, CO, CO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) (8) leave the
gas/liquid separator and are sent to the high-pressure absorber.  This stream is scrubbed with water
under pressure, resulting in a gas stream (9) of reduced VOC content. Part of the discharge from the
high-pressure absorber is dried  and is used as a source of inert gas (IG), and the remainder is passed
through a pressure control valve and a noise silencer before being discharged to the atmosphere
through process vent A.  The underflow (23) from the absorber is sent to the azeotrope still for
recovery of acetic acid.

Crystallization And Separation -
       The reactor liquid containing TPA (10)  flows to a series of crystallizers, where the pressure is
relieved and the liquid is cooled by the vaporization and return of condensed VOC and water.  The
partially oxidized impurities are more soluble in acetic  acid and tend to remain  in solution, while TPA
crystallizes from the liquor. The inert gas that  was dissolved and entrained hi the liquid under
pressure is released when the pressure is relieved and is subsequently vented to the atmosphere along

5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.11-1

    -------
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       4>
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       12
                                                                                       'o
                                                                                       03
                                                                                       •
                                                                                       V
                                                                                       T3



                                                                                       U
                                                                                       S
6.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
with the contained VOC (B). The slurry (11) from the crystallizers is sent to solid/liquid separators,
where the TPA is recovered as a wet cake (14). The mother liquor (12) from the solid/liquid
separators is sent to the distillation section, while the vent gas (13) is discharged to the atmosphere
(B).

Drying, Handling And Storage -
        The wet cake (14) from solid/liquid separation is sent to dryers, where with the use of heat
and IG, the moisture, predominately acetic acid, is removed leaving the product, C-TPA, as dry free-
flowing crystals (19). IG is used to  convey the product (19) to storage silos. The transporting gas
(21) is vented from the silos to bag dust collectors to reduce its paniculate loading, then  is  discharged
to the atmosphere (D).  The solids (S) from the bag filter can be forwarded to purification or can be
incinerated.

        Hot VOC-laden IG from the drying operation is cooled to condense and recover VOC (18).
The cooled IG (16) is vented to the atmosphere (B), and the condensate (stream 18) is sent  to the
azeotrope still for recovery of acetic acid.

Distillation And Recovery -
        The mother liquor (12) from solid/liquid separation flows to the residue still, where acetic
acid, methyl acetate, and water are recovered overhead (26) and product residues are discarded. The
overhead (26) is sent to the azeotrope still where dry acetic acid is obtained by using n-propyl acetate
as the water-removing agent.

        The aqueous phase (28) contains saturation amounts of n-propyl acetate and methyl  acetate,
which are stripped from the aqueous matter in the waste water still.  Part of the bottoms  product is
used as process water in absorption, and the remainder (N) is sent to waste water treatment. A purge
stream of the organic phase (30) goes to the methyl acetate still, where methyl acetate and saturation
amounts of water are recovered as an overhead product (31) and are disposed of as a fuel (M).
7i-Propyl acetate, obtained as the bottoms product (32), is returned to the azeotrope still.  Process
losses of n-propyl acetate are made up from storage (33).  A small amount of inert gas, which is used
for blanketing and instrument purging, is emitted to the atmosphere through vent C.

6.11.1.2 C-TPA Purification -
        The purification portion of the Mid-Century oxidation process involves the hydrogenation of
C-TPA over a palladium-containing catalyst at about 232°C (450°F).  High-purity TPA is
recrystallized from a high-pressure water solution of the hydrogenated material.

        The Olin-Mathieson manufacturing process is similar to the Mid-Century process except the
former uses 95  percent oxygen, rather than air, as the oxidizing agent.  The final purification step
consists essentially of a continuous sublimation and condensation procedure.  The C-TPA is combined
with small quantities of hydrogen and a solid catalyst,  dispersed in steam, and transported to a
furnace. There the C-TPA is vaporized and certain of the contained impurities are catalytically
destroyed.  Catalyst and nonvolatile impurities  are removed in a series of filters, after which the pure
TPA is  condensed and transported to storage silos.

6.11.2  Emissions And Controls1"3

        A general characterization of the atmospheric emissions from the production of C-TPA  is
difficult because of the variety of processes.  Emissions vary considerably, both qualitatively and
quantitatively.   The Mid-Century oxidation process appears to be one of the lowest polluters,  and its
predicted preeminence will suppress  future emissions totals.

5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)              Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6.11-3

    -------
       The reactor gas at vent A normally contains nitrogen (from air oxidation); unreacted oxygen;
unreacted /J-xylene; acetic acid (reaction solvent); carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methyl
acetate from oxidation of/»-xylene and acetic acid not recovered by the high-pressure absorber;  and
water. The quantity of VOC emitted at vent A can vary with absorber pressure and the temperature
of exiting vent gases.  During crystallization of TPA and separation of crystallized solids from the
solvent (by centrifuge or filters), noncondensable gases carrying VOG are released.  These vented
gases and the C-TPA dryer vent gas are combined and released to the atmosphere at vent B.
Different methods used in this process can affect the amounts of noncondensable gases and
accompanying VOCs emitted from this vent.

        Gases released from the distillation section at vent C are the small amount of gases dissolved
in the feed  stream to distillation; the IG used in inert blanketing,  instrument purging pressure control;
and the VOC vapors carried by the noncondensable gases.  The quantity of this discharge is usually
small.

       The gas vented from the bag filters on the product storage tanks (silos) (D)  is dry,
reaction-generated IG containing the VOC not absorbed  in the high-pressure absorber.  The vented
gas stream  contains a small quantity of TPA paniculate that is not removed by the bag filters.

       Performance of carbon adsorption control technology for a VOC gas stream similar to the
reactor vent gas (A) and product transfer vent gas (D) has been demonstrated,  but CO emissions will
not be reduced. An alternative to the carbon adsorption system is a thermal oxidizer that provides
reduction of both CO and VOC.

       Emission sources and factors for the C-TPA process are presented in Table  6.11-1.
      Table 6.11-1 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR CRUDE
                          TEREPHTHALIC ACID MANUFACTURE*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Emission Source
Reactor vent
Crystallization, separation, drying vent
Distillation and recovery vent
Product transfer ventd
Stream
Designation
(Figure 6. 11-1)
A
B
C
D
Emissions (g/kg)
Nonmethane
vocb-c
15
1.9
1.1
1.8
COC
17
NA
NA
2
a Factors are expressed as g of pollutant/kg of product produced.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 1.  VOC gas stream consists of methyl acetate, />-xylene, and acetic acid. No methane
  was found.
c Reference 1.  Typically, thermal oxidation results in >99% reduction of VOC and CO. Carbon
  adsorption gives a 97% reduction of VOC only (Reference 1).
d Stream contains 0.7 g of TPA particulates/kg. VOC and CO emissions originated in reactor offgas
  (IG) used for transfer.
6.11-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
References For Section 6.11

1.     S. W. Dylewski, Organic Chemical Manufacturing,  Volume 7:  Selected Processes,
       EPA-450/3-80-028b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       January 1981.

2.     D. F. Durocher,  et al., Screening Study To Determine Need For Standards Of Performance
       For New Sources Of Dimethyl Terephthalate And Terephthalic Acid Manufacturing,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-1316, Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, July 1976.

3.     J. W. Pervier,  et al., Survey Reports On Atmospheric Emissions From The Petrochemical
       Industry, Volume II, EPA-450/3-73-005b, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park,  NC, April 1974.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6.11-5

    -------

    -------
6.12 LeadAlkyI

6.12.1  Process Description1

       Two alkyl lead compounds, tetraethyl lead (TEL) and tetramethyl lead (TML), are used as
antiknock gasoline additives.  Over 75 percent of the 1973 additive production was TEL, more than
90 percent of which was made by alkylation of sodium/lead alloy.

       Lead alkyl is produced in autoclaves by the reaction of sodium/lead alloy with an excess of
either ethyl (for TEL) or methyl (for TML) chloride in the presence of an acetone catalyst.  The
reaction mass is distilled to separate the product, which is then purified, filtered,  and mixed with
chloride/bromide additives. Residue is sluiced to a sludge pit, from which the bottoms are sent to an
indirect steam dryer, and the dried sludge is fed to a reverberatory furnace to recover lead,

       Gasoline additives are also manufactured by the electrolytic process, in which a solution of
ethyl (or methyl^ magnesium chloride and ethyl (or methyl) chloride is electrolyzed,  with lead metal
as the anode.

6.12.2 Emissions And Controls1

       Lead emissions from the sodium/lead alloy process consist of particulate lead oxide from the
recovery furnace (and, to a lesser extent, from the melting furnace and alloy reactor), alkyl lead
vapor from process vents, and fugitive emissions from the sludge pit.  Lead emission factors for the
manufacture of lead alkyl appear in Table 6.12-1.  Factors are expressed hi units  of kilograms per
megagram (kg/Mg) and  pounds per ton (lb/ton).

       Emissions from  the lead recovery furnace are controlled by fabric filters or wet scrubbers.
Vapor streams rich hi lead alkyl can either be incinerated and passed through a fabric filter or be
scrubbed with water prior to incinerating. Control efficiencies are presented in Table 6.12-2.

       Emissions from  electrolytic process vents are controlled by using an elevated flare and a
liquid incinerator, while a scrubber with toluene as the scrubbing medium controls emissions from the
blending and tank car loading/unloading systems.
12/81 (Reformatted 1/95)           Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.12-1

    -------
    Table 6.12-1 (Metric And English Units).  LEAD ALKYL MANUFACTURE LEAD
                                  EMISSION FACTORS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Electrolytic13
Sodium/lead alloy
Recovery furnace0
Process vents, TELd
Process vents, TMLd
Sludge pitsd
Lead
kg/Mg
0.5

28
2
75
0.6
Ib/ton
1.0

55
4
150
1.2
a No information on other emissions from lead alkyl manufacturing is available. Emission factors are
  expressed as weight per unit weight of product.
b References 1-3.
c References 1-2,4.
d Reference 1.


          Table 6.12-2.  LEAD ALKYL MANUFACTURE CONTROL EFFICIENCIES51
Process
Sodium/lead alloy
Control
Fabric filter
Low energy wet scrubber
High energy wet scrubber
Percent Reduction
99+
80-85
95-99
8 Reference 1.


References For Section 6.12

1.     Background Information In Support Of The Development Of Performance Standards For The
       Lead Additive Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
       Inc., Cincinnati, OH, January 1976.

2.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

3.     W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-0271, U. E. Davis and Associates, Leawood, KS, April 1973.

4.     R. P. Betz, et al., Economics Of Lead Removal In Selected Industries, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0611, Batelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, August 1973.
6.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 12/81

    -------
6.13 Pharmaceuticals Production

6.13.1  Process Description

        Thousands of individual products are categorized as Pharmaceuticals.  These products usually
are produced in modest quantities in relatively small plants using batch processes.  A typical
pharmaceutical plant will use the same equipment to make several different products at different
times.  Rarely is equipment dedicated to the manufacture of a single product.

        Organic chemicals  are used as raw materials and as solvents, and some chemicals such as
ethanol, acetone, isopropanol, and acetic anhydride are used in both ways.  Solvents are almost
always  recovered and used many times.

        In a typical batch process, solid reactants and solvent are charged to a reactor where they are
held (and usually heated) until the desired product is formed.  The solvent is distilled off, and the
crude residue may be treated several times with additional solvents to purify it. The purified material
is separated from the remaining solvent by centrifuge and finally is dried to remove the last traces of
solvent. As a rule, solvent recovery is practiced  for each step in the process where it is convenient
and cost effective to do so.  Some operations involve very small solvent losses, and the vapors are
vented to the atmosphere through a fume hood.  Generally, all operations are carried out inside
buildings, so some vapors may be exhausted through the building ventilation system.

        Certain pharmaceuticals — especially antibiotics — are produced by fermentation processes.
In these instances, the reactor contains an aqueous nutrient mixture with living organisms such as
fungi or bacteria.  The crude antibiotic is recovered by solvent extraction and is purified by
essentially the same methods described above for chemically synthesized pharmaceutical.  Similarly,
other pharmaceuticals are produced by extraction from natural plant or  animal sources.  The
production of insulin from  hog or beef pancreas is an example.  The processes are not greatly
different from those used to isolate antibiotics from fermentation broths.

6.13.2  Emissions And  Controls

        Emissions consist almost entirely of organic solvents that escape from dryers, reactors,
distillation systems, storage tanks, and other operations.  These emissions are exclusively nonmethane
organic compounds.  Emissions of other pollutants are negligible (except for particulates in unusual
circumstances) and are not  treated here.  It is not practical to attempt to evaluate emissions from
individual  steps in the production process or to associate emissions with individual pieces of
equipment because of the great variety of batch operations that may be carried out at a single
production plant.  It is more reasonable to obtain data on total solvent purchases by a plant and to
assume  that these represent replacements for solvents lost by evaporation.  Estimates can be refined
by subtracting the materials that do not enter the air because of being incinerated or incorporated into
the pharmaceutical product by chemical  reaction.

        If plant-specific information is not available, industrywide data may be used instead.
Table 6.13-1  lists annual purchases of solvents by U. S. pharmaceutical manufacturers and shows the
ultimate disposition of each solvent.  Disposal methods vary so widely with the type of solvent that it
is not possible to recommend average factors  for air emissions from generalized solvents.  Specific
information for individual solvents must be used.  Emissions can be estimated by obtaining


10/80 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.13-1

    -------
         Table 6.13-1.  SOLVENT PURCHASES AND ULTIMATE DISPOSITION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS8
Solvent
Acetic Acid
Acetic Anhydride
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Amyl Acetate
Amyl Alcohol
Benzene
Blendan (AMOCO)
Butanol
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Cyclohexylamine
o-Dichlorobenzene
Diethylamine
Diethyl Carbonate
Dimethyl Acetamide
Dimethyl Formamide
Annual
Purchase
(megagrams)
930
1,265
12,040
35
285
1,430
1,010
530
320
1,850
500
3,930
60
50
30
95
1,630
Ultimate Disposition (%)
Air
Emissions
1
1
14
83
42
99
29
—
24
11
57
—
2
94
4
7
71
Sewer Incine
82
57
Solid Waste
or
ration Contract Haul
—
_
22 38 7
17
58
— -
—
—
—
37 16 8
— —
8 1
7 s:
5
— —
98
6
71
— —
—
I 36
1 —
38
—
—
—
—
93
Product
17
42
19
—
—
1
10
100
31
—
—
100
—
—
25
—
3 20 6 -
Liquid Density
Ib/gal @ 68'F
8.7
9.0
6.6
6.6
7.3
6.8
7.3
NA
6.8
13.3
12.5
7.2
10.9
5.9
8.1
7.9
7.9
oo
oo
g
oo
oo
o

    -------
oo
o

I
Table 6.13-1  (cont.).
Solvent
Dimethylsulfoxide
1 ,4-Dioxane
Ethanol
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Bromide
Ethylene Glycol
Ethyl Ether
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Freons
Hexane
Isobutyraldehyde
Isopropanol
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methyl Cellosolve
Annual
Purchase
(megagrams)
750
43
13,230
2,380
45
60
280
30
440
7,150
530
85
3,850
480
25
7,960
195
Ultimate Disposition (%)
Air
Emissions
1
5
10
30
—
—
85
19
—
0.1
17
50
14
28
50
31
47
Sewer
28
—
6
47
100
100
4
77
67
—
—
50
17
11
50
45
53
Incineration
71
—
7
20
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
—
17
61
—
14
—
Solid Waste or
Contract Haul Product
— —
95 -
1 76
3 -
— —
— —
11 -
- 4
26 7
- 99.9
68 -
— —
7 45
— —
— —
6 4
— —
Liquid Density
Ib/gal @ 68°F
11.1
8.6
6.6
7.5
12.1
9.3
6.0
_b
9.5
	 c
5.5
6.6
6.6
7.3
6.0
6.6
8.7
E
O
O
cn

    -------
                                                             Table 6.13-1 (cont.).
Solvent
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Formate
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Polyethylene Glycol 600
Pyridine
Skelly Solvent B (hexanes)
Tetrahydroruran
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Xylene
Annual
Purchase
(megagrams)
10,000
260
415
260
3
3
1,410
4
6,010
135
3,090
Ultimate Disposition (%)
Air
Emissions
53
65
—
80
—
—
29
—
31
100
6
Sewer
5
12
74
—
—
100
2
—
14
—
19
Incineration
20
23
—
—
—
—
69
100
26
—
70
Solid Waste
or
Contract Haul Product
22 -
— —
12 14
- 20
- 100
_ _
— —
— —
29 -
— —
5 -
Liquid Density
Ib/gal @ 68'F
11.1
6.7
8.2
6.7
9.5
8.2
5.6
7.4
7.2
11.3
7.2
w
C/5
in
o
H
O
*
c
    -------
plant-specific data on purchases of individual solvents and computing the quantity of each solvent that
evaporates into the air, either from information in Table 6.13-1 or from information obtained for the
specific plant under consideration.  If solvent volumes are given, rather than weights, liquid densities
in Table 6.13-1 can be used to compute weights.

        Table 6.13-1 gives for each plant the percentage of each solvent that is evaporated into the air
and the percentage that is flushed into the sewer.  Ultimately, much of the volatile material from the
sewer will evaporate and will reach the air somewhere other than the pharmaceutical plant. Thus, for
certain applications it may be appropriate to  include both the air emissions and the sewer disposal in
an emissions inventory that covers  a broad geographic area.

        Since solvents are expensive and must be recovered and reused for economic reasons, solvent
emissions are controlled as part of the normal operating procedures in a pharmaceutical industry. In
addition, most manufacturing is carried out inside buildings, where solvent losses must be minimized
to protect the health of the workers.  Water- or brine-cooled condensers are the most common control
devices, with carbon adsorbers in occasional use.  With each of these methods, solvent can be
recovered. Where the main objective is not  solvent reuse but is the control  of an odorous  or toxic
vapor, scrubbers or incinerators are used.  These control systems are usually designed to remove a
specific chemical vapor and will be used only when a batch of the corresponding drug is being
produced.  Usually, solvents are not recovered from scrubbers and reused and, of course, no solvent
recovery is possible from an incinerator.

        It is difficult to make a quantitative estimate of the efficiency of each control method because
it depends on the process being controlled, and pharmaceutical manufacture  involves hundreds of
different processes. Incinerators, carbon  adsorbers, and scrubbers have been reported to remove
greater than 90 percent of the organics in the control equipment inlet stream.  Condensers  are limited
in that they can only reduce the concentration hi the gas stream to saturation at the condenser
temperature, but not below that level. Lowering the temperature will, of course, lower the
concentration at saturation, but it is not possible to operate at a temperature  below the freezing point
of one of the components of the gas stream.

Reference For Section 6.13

1.      Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions From Manufacture Of Synthesized Pharmaceutical
        Products, EPA-450/2-78-029, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
        Park, NC, December 1978.
10/80 (Reformatted 1/95)           Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6.13-5

    -------

    -------
6.14 Maleic Anhydride

6.14.1  General1

        The dominant end use of maleic anhydride (MA) is in the production of unsaturated polyester
resins.  These laminating resins, which have high structural strength and good dielectric properties,
have a variety of applications in automobile bodies, building panels, molded boats, chemical storage
tanks, lightweight pipe, machinery housings, furniture, radar domes, luggage, and bathtubs.  Other
end products are fumaric acid,  agricultural chemicals, alkyd resins, lubricants, copolymers, plastics,
succinic acid, surface active agents, and more.  In the United States, one plant uses only n-butane and
another uses n-butane for 20 percent of its feedstock, but the primary raw material used ia the
production of MA is benzene.  The MA industry is converting old benzene plants and building new
plants to use n-butane.  MA also is a byproduct of the production of phthalic anhydride. It is a solid
at room temperature but is a liquid or gas during production. It is a strong irritant to skin, eyes, and
mucous membranes of the upper respiratory system.

        The model MA plant, as described in this section, has a benzene-to-MA conversion rate of
94.5 percent, has a capacity of 22,700 megagrams (Mg) (25,000 tons) of MA produced per year, and
runs 8000 hours per year.

        Because of a lack of data on the n-butane process, this discussion covers only the benzene
oxidation process.

6. 14.2  Process Description2

        Maleic anhydride is produced by the controlled air oxidation of benzene, illustrated by the
following chemical reaction:
              2C6H6  +  9O2     - >   2C4H2O3   +   H2O   +   4 CO2
                                     Mo03

              Benzene      Oxygen   Catalyst    Maleic          Water     Carbon
                                     - >   anhydride                  dioxide

        Vaporized benzene and air are mixed and heated before entering the tubular reactor.  Inside
the reactor, the benzene/air mixture is reacted  hi the presence of a catalyst that contains
approximately 70 percent vanadium pentoxide  (V2O5), with usually 25 to  30 percent molybdenum
trioxide (MoO3), forming a vapor of MA, water, and carbon dioxide.  The vapor, which may also
contain oxygen, nitrogen,  carbon monoxide, benzene, maleic acid, formaldehyde, formic acid, and
other compounds from side reactions, leaves the reactor and is cooled and partially condensed so that
about 40 percent of the MA is recovered in a crude liquid state. The effluent is then passed through a
separator that directs the liquid to storage and  the remaining vapor to the product recovery absorber.
The absorber contacts the vapor with  water, producing a liquid of about 40 percent maleic acid.  The
40 percent mixture is converted to MA, usually by azeotropic distillation with xylene.  Some
processes may use a double-effect vacuum evaporator at this point.  The effluent then flows to the
xylene stripping column where the xylene is extracted.  This MA is then combined in storage with
that from the separator.  The molten product is aged to allow color-forming impurities to polymerize.


5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)             Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6. 14-1

    -------
These are then removed in a fractionation column, leaving the finished product.  Figure 6.14-1
represents a typical process.

       MA product is usually stored in liquid form, although it is sometimes flaked and palletized
into briquets and bagged.

6.14.3 Emissions And Controls2

       Nearly all emissions from MA production are from the main process vent of the product
recovery absorber, the largest vent in the process. The predominant pollutant is unreacted benzene,
ranging from 3 to 10 percent of the total benzene feed. The composition of uncontrolled emissions
from the product recovery absorber is presented in Table 6.14-1.  The refining vacuum system vent,
the only other exit for process emissions, produces 0.28 kilograms (kg) (0.62 pounds [lb]) per hour of
MA and xylene.
  Table 6.14-1 (Metric And English Units).  COMPOSITION OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
                         FROM PRODUCT RECOVERY ABSORBER*
Component
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Water
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Maleic acid
Formic acid
Total
Wt.%
73.37
16.67
4.00
3.33
2.33
0.33
0.05
0.01
0.01

kg/Mg
21,406.0
4,863.0
1,167.0
972.0
680.0
67.0
14.4
2.8
2.8
29,175.0
Ib/ton
42,812.0
9,726.0
2,334.0
1,944.0
1,360.0
134.0
28.8
5.6
5.6
58,350.0
a Reference 2.
       Fugitive emissions of benzene, xylene, MA, and maleic acid also arise from the storage
(see Chapter 7) and handling (see Section 5.1.3) of benzene, xylene, and MA. Dust from the
briquetting operations can contain MA, but no data are available on the quantity of such emissions.

       Potential sources of secondary emissions are spent reactor catalyst, excess water from the
dehydration column, vacuum system water, and fractionation column residues.  The small amount of
residual organics in the spent catalyst after washing has low vapor pressure and produces a small
percentage of total emissions.  Xylene is the principal organic contaminant in the excess water from
the dehydration column and in the vacuum system water.  The residues from the fractionation column
are relatively heavy organics, with a molecular weight greater than 116, and they produce a small
percentage of total emissions.
6.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
Ul
oo
•I.
 o
 n

 I.
 O
 EL
o
o

          BENZENE
          STORAGE
                                                       STEAM
                   VAPORIZER
                                   INTERCHANGER,/'
                                   	I
                                                                            V
                                                                               SEPARATOR
                                                       WATER
                                            (Q> ' REACTOR(S)

                                          SPENT CATALYST
 PARTIAL
CONDENSER,
                                                                       (I
           CRUDE MA
           STORAGE
                                                                                                                  MAKEUP
                                                                                                                  WATER
 PRODUCT
RECOVERY
ABSORBER
                                                                                                                     EXCESS
                                                                                                                     WATER
           DEHYDRATION
               COLUMN
                                                                                                    RESIDUES
                                                                                                               L
                                                                                                                   PRODUCT
                                                                     AGED ANHYDRIDE
                                                                        STORAGE
                                                               KEY
                                                  A - PRODUCT RECOVERY ABSORBER VENT
                                                  B-VACUUM SYSTEM VENT
                                                  C - STORAGE AND HANDLING EMISSIONS
                                                  D -SECONDARY EMISSION POTENTIAL
                                       Figure 6.14-1.  Process flow diagram for uncontrolled model plant.

    -------
       Benzene oxidation process emissions can be controlled at the main vent by means of carbon
adsorption, thermal incineration, or catalytic incineration.  Benzene emissions can be eliminated by
conversion to the n-butane process.  Catalytic incineration and conversion from the benzene process
to the n-butane process are not discussed for lack of data.  The vent from the refining vacuum system
is combined with that of the main process as a control for refining vacuum  system emissions.  A
carbon adsorption system or an incineration system can be designed and operated at a 99.5 percent
removal efficiency for benzene and volatile organic compounds with the operating parameters given in
Appendix R of Reference 2.

       Fugitive emissions from pumps and valves may be controlled by  an appropriate leak detection
system and maintenance program. No control devices are presently being used for secondary
emissions. Table 6.14-2 presents emission factors for MA production.


  Table 6.14-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  MALEIC ANHYDRIDE
                                      PRODUCTION*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Source
Product vents (recovery absorber and
refining vacuum system combined vent)
Uncontrolled
With carbon adsorption6
With incineration
Storage and handling emissions*1
Fugitive emissions6
Secondary emissionsf
Nonmethane VOCb
kg/Mg

87
0.34
0.43
_d
	 e
ND
Ib/ton

174
0.68
0.86
_d
	 e
ND
Benzene
kg/Mg

67.0
0.34
0.34
_d
	 e
ND
Ib/ton

134.0
0.68
0.68
_d
	 e
ND
a No data are available for catalytic incineration or for plants producing MA from n-butane.
  ND = no data.
b VOC also includes the benzene. For recovery absorber and refining vacuum, VOC can be MA and
  xylene; for storage and handling, MA, xylene and dust from briquetting operations; for secondary
  emissions, residual organics from spent catalyst, excess water from dehydration column, vacuum
  system water, and fractionation column residues.  VOC contains no methane.
c Before exhaust gas stream goes into carbon adsorber, it is scrubbed with caustic to remove organic
  acids and water soluble organics. Benzene is the only likely VOC remaining.
d See Chapter 7.
e See Section 5.1.3.
f Secondary emission sources are excess water from dehydration column, vacuum system water, and
  organics from fractionation column.  No data are available on the quantity of these emissions.
6.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 5/83

    -------
References For Section 6.14

1.     B. Dmuchovsky and J. E. Franz, "Maleic Anhydride", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
       Chemical Technology, Volume 12, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1967,
       pp. 819-837.

2.     J. F. Lawson, Emission Control Options For The Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
       Industry: Maleic Anhydride Product Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2577, Hydroscience,
       Inc., Knoxville, TN, March 1978.
5/83 (Reformatted 1/95)            Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6.14-5

    -------

    -------
6.15 Methanol



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-15-1

    -------

    -------
6.16 Acetone And Phenol



                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-16-1

    -------

    -------
6.17 Propylene




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6-17-1

    -------

    -------
6.18 Benzene, Toluene, And Xylenes



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-18-1

    -------

    -------
(.19 Butadiene



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6-19-1

    -------

    -------
6.20 Cumene




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                         Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-20-1

    -------

    -------
6.21 Ethanol



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6-21-1

    -------

    -------
6.22 Ethyl Benzene



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6-22-1

    -------

    -------
6.23  Ethylene




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Organic Chemical Process Industry                          6-23-1

    -------

    -------
6.24 Ethylene Bichloride And Vinyl Chloride




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-24-1

    -------

    -------
6.25  Ethylene Glycol




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-25-1

    -------

    -------
6.26 Ethylene Oxide




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-26-1

    -------

    -------
6.27 Formaldehyde




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-27-1

    -------

    -------
6.28 Glycerine



                                      [Work In Progress]
 1/95                           Organic Chemical Process Industry                         6-28-1

    -------

    -------
6.29 Isopropyl Alcohol



                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                          Organic Chemical Process Industry                        6-29-1

    -------

    -------
                         7.   LIQUID STORAGE TANKS
        This chapter presents models for estimating air emissions from organic liquid storage tanks.
It also contains detailed descriptions of typical varieties of such tanks, including horizontal, vertical,
and underground fixed roof tanks, and internal and external floating roof tanks.

        The emission estimation equations presented herein have been developed by the American
Petroleum Institute (API), which retains the legal right to these equations.  API has granted EPA
permission for the nonexclusive, noncommercial distribution of this material to governmental and
regulatory agencies. However, API reserves its rights regarding all commercial duplication and
distribution of its  material.  Hence, the material presented is available for public use, but it cannot be
sold without written permission  from both the American Petroleum Institute and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

        The major pollutant of concern is volatile organic  compounds.  There also may be speciated
organic compounds that may be  toxic or hazardous.
1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                                 7.0-1

    -------
7.0-2                             EMISSION FACTOR                             1/95

    -------
 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks

 7.1.1  Process Description1"2

        Storage vessels containing organic liquids can be found in many industries, including
 (1) petroleum producing and refining, (2) petrochemical and chemical manufacturing, (3) bulk storage
 and transfer operations, and (4) other industries consuming or producing organic liquids.  Organic
 liquids in the petroleum industry, usually called petroleum liquids, generally are mixtures of
 hydrocarbons having dissimilar true vapor pressures (for example,  gasoline and crude oil).  Organic
 liquids in the chemical industry, usually called volatile organic liquids, are composed of pure
 chemicals or mixtures of chemicals with similar true vapor pressures (for example, benzene or a
 mixture of isopropyl and butyl alcohols).

        Five basic tank designs are used for organic liquid storage vessels:  fixed roof (vertical and
 horizontal), external floating roof, internal floating roof, variable vapor space, and pressure (low and
 high).  A brief description of each tank is provided below.  Loss mechanisms associated with each
 type of tank are provided in Part 7.1.2, below.

        The emission estimating equations presented herein were developed by the American
 Petroleum Institute (API). API retains the copyright to these equations.  API has granted permission
 for the nonexclusive, noncommercial distribution of this material to governmental and regulatory
 agencies. However, API reserves its rights regarding all commercial duplication and distribution of
 its material. Therefore, the material presented in Part 7.1  is available for public use, but the material
 cannot be sold without written permission from the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency.

 7.1.1.1 Fixed Roof Tanks -
        A typical vertical fixed roof tank is shown in Figure 7.1-1. This type of tank consists of a
 cylindrical steel shell with a permanently affixed roof, which may vary in design from cone- or dome-
 shaped to flat.

        Fixed roof tanks are either freely vented or equipped with a pressure/vacuum vent.  The latter
 allows them to operate at a slight internal pressure or vacuum to prevent the release of vapors during
 very small changes in temperature, pressure, or liquid level.  Of current tank designs, the fixed roof
 tank is the least expensive to construct and is generally considered the minimum acceptable equipment
 for storing organic liquids.

        Horizontal fixed roof tanks are constructed for both above-ground and underground service,
 and are usually constructed of steel, steel with a fiberglass overlay, or fiberglass-reinforced polyester.
 Horizontal tanks are generally small storage tanks with capacities of less than 40,000  gallons.
 Horizontal tanks are constructed such that the length of the tank is not greater than 6 times the
 diameter to  ensure structural integrity. Horizontal tanks are usually equipped with pressure-vacuum
vents, gauge hatches  and sample wells, and manholes to provide access to these tanks. In addition,
underground tanks are cathodically protected to prevent  corrosion of the tank shell.  Cathodic
protection is accomplished by placing sacrificial anodes in the tank that are connected to  an impressed
current system or by using galvanic anodes in the tank.
1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                        '          7.1-1

    -------
        The potential emission sources for above-ground horizontal tanks are the same as those for
vertical fixed roof tanks.  Emissions from underground storage tanks are associated mainly with
changes in the liquid level in the tank. Losses due to changes in temperature or barometric pressure
are minimal for underground tanks because the surrounding earth limits the diurnal temperature
change, and changes in the barometric pressure result in only small losses.

7.1.1.2 External Floating Roof Tanks -
        A typical external floating roof tank consists of an open-topped cylindrical steel shell equipped
with a roof that floats on the surface of the stored liquid. Floating roof tanks that are currently in use
are constructed of welded steel plate and are of 2 general types:  pontoon or double-deck.  Pontoon-
type and double-deck-type external floating roofs are shown in Figure 7.1-2 and Figure 7.1-3,
respectively. With all types of external floating roof tanks, the roof rises and falls with the liquid
level in the tank.  External floating roof tanks are equipped with a seal system,  which is attached to
the roof perimeter and contacts the tank wall.  The purpose of the floating roof and seal system is to
reduce evaporative loss of the stored liquid.  Some annular space remains between the seal system and
the tank wall.  The seal system slides against the tank wall as the roof is raised  and lowered. The
floating roof is also equipped with roof fittings that penetrate the floating roof and serve operational
functions.  The external floating roof design is such that evaporative losses from the stored liquid are
limited to losses from the seal system and roof fittings (standing storage loss) and any exposed liquid
on the tank walls (withdrawal loss).

7.1.1.3  Internal Floating Roof Tanks -
        An internal floating roof tank has both a permanent fixed roof and a floating deck inside.
The terms  "deck" and "floating roof can be used interchangeably in reference to the structure
floating on the liquid inside the tank.  There are 2 basic types of internal floating roof tanks: tanks in
which the fixed roof is supported by vertical columns within the tank, and tanks with a self-supporting
fixed roof and no internal support  columns.  Fixed roof tanks that have been retrofitted to use a
floating deck are typically of the first type. External floating roof tanks that have been converted to
internal floating roof tanks typically have a self-supporting roof. Newly constructed internal floating
roof tanks may be of either type.  The deck in internal floating roof tanks rises and falls with the
liquid level and either floats directly on the liquid surface (contact deck) or rests on pontoons several
inches above the liquid surface (noncontact deck).  The majority of aluminum internal floating roofs
currently in service are noncontact decks. Typical contact deck and noncontact  deck internal floating
roof tanks are shown in Figure 7.1-4.

        Contact decks can be (1) aluminum sandwich panels that are bolted together, with a
honeycomb aluminum core floating in contact  with the liquid; (2) pan steel decks floating in contact
with the liquid, with or without pontoons; and (3) resin-coated, fiberglass-reinforced polyester (FRP)
buoyant panels floating in contact with the liquid. The majority of internal contact floating roofs
currently in service are aluminum  sandwich panel-type or pan steel-type.  The FRP roofs are less
common.  The panels of pan  steel  decks are usually welded together.

       Typical noncontact decks have an aluminum deck and an aluminum grid framework supported
above the liquid surface by tubular aluminum pontoons or some other buoyant structure. The
noncontact decks usually have bolted deck seams. Installing a  floating roof or deck minimizes
evaporative losses of the stored liquid.  As with the external floating roof tanks, both contact and
noncontact decks incorporate rim seals and deck fittings for the same purposes previously described
for external floating roof tanks.  Evaporation losses from decks may come from deck fittings,
nonwelded deck seams, and the annular space between the deck and tank wall. In addition, these
tanks are freely vented by circulation vents at the top of the fixed roof.  The vents minimize the
possibility of organic vapor accumulation in concentrations approaching the flammable range. An

7.1.2        '                        EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 internal floating roof tank not freely vented is considered a pressure tank.  Emission estimation
 methods for such tanks are not provided in AP-42.

 7.1.1.4 Variable Vapor Space Tanks -
        Variable vapor space tanks are equipped with expandable vapor reservoirs to accommodate
 vapor volume fluctuations attributable to temperature and barometric pressure changes.  Although
 variable vapor space tanks are sometimes used independently, they are normally connected to the
 vapor spaces of 1 or more fixed roof tanks.  The 2 most common types of variable vapor space tanks
 are lifter roof tanks and flexible diaphragm tanks.

        Lifter roof tanks have a telescoping roof that fits loosely around the outside of the main tank
 wall.  The space between the roof and the wall is closed by either a wet seal, which is a trough filled
 with liquid, or a dry seal, which uses a flexible coated fabric.

        Flexible diaphragm tanks use flexible membranes to provide expandable volume.  They may
 be either separate gasholder units  or integral units mounted atop fixed roof tanks.

        Variable vapor space tank losses occur during tank filling when vapor is displaced by liquid.
 Loss of vapor occurs only when the tank's vapor storage capacity is exceeded.

 7.1.1.5  Pressure Tanks -
        Two classes of pressure tanks are in general use:  low pressure (2.5 to 15 psig)  and high
 pressure (higher than 15 psig). Pressure tanks generally are used for storing organic liquids and gases
 with high vapor pressures and are found in many sizes and shapes, depending on the operating
 pressure of the tank. Pressure tanks are equipped  with a pressure/vacuum vent that is set  to prevent
 venting loss from boiling and breathing loss from daily temperature or barometric pressure changes.
 High-pressure storage tanks can be operated so that virtually no evaporative or working  losses occur.
 In low-pressure tanks, working losses can occur with atmospheric venting of the tank during filling
 operations.  No appropriate correlations are available to estimate vapor losses from pressure tanks.

 7.1.2  Emission Mechanisms And Control

        Emissions from organic liquids in storage occur because of evaporative loss of the liquid
 during its storage and as a result of changes in the liquid level.  The emission sources vary with tank
 design, as does the  relative contribution of each type of emission source.  Emissions from fixed roof
 tanks are a result of evaporative losses during storage and are known as breathing losses (or standing
 storage losses), and evaporative losses during filling and emptying operations are known as working
 losses.  External and internal floating roof tanks are emission sources because of evaporative losses
 that occur during standing storage and withdrawal of liquid from the tank.  Standing storage losses
 are a result of evaporative losses through rim seals, deck fittings, and/or deck seams.  The loss
 mechanisms for fixed roof and external and internal floating roof tanks are described in more detail in
 this part.  Variable vapor space tanks are also emission sources because of evaporative losses that
 result during filling operations. The loss mechanism for variable vapor space tanks is also described
 in this  part.  Emissions occur from pressure tanks, as well.  However, loss mechanisms  from these
 sources are not described in this part.

7.1.2.1  Fixed Roof Tanks -
       The 2 significant types of emissions from fixed roof tanks are storage and working losses.
Storage loss is the expulsion of vapor from a tank through vapor expansion and contraction, which
are the result of changes in temperature and barometric pressure. This loss occurs without any liquid
level change in the tank.

 1/95                                   Liquid Storage Tanks                                 7.1-3

    -------
        The combined loss from filling and emptying is called working loss.  Evaporation during
filling operations is a result of an increase in the liquid level in the tank.  As the liquid level
increases, the pressure inside the tank exceeds the relief pressure and vapors are expelled from the
tank. Evaporative loss during emptying occurs when air drawn into the tank during liquid removal
becomes saturated with organic vapor and expands, thus exceeding the capacity of the vapor space.

        Fixed roof tank emissions vary as a function of vessel capacity, vapor pressure of the stored
liquid, utilization rate of the tank, and atmospheric conditions at the tank location.

        Several methods  are used to control emissions from fixed roof tanks.  Emissions from fixed
roof tanks can be controlled by installing an internal floating roof and seals to minimize evaporation
of the product being stored. The control efficiency of this method ranges from 60 to 99 percent,
depending on the type of roof and seals installed and on the type of organic liquid stored.

        Vapor balancing  is another means of emission control. Vapor balancing is probably most
common in the filling of tanks at gasoline stations. As the storage tank is filled, the vapors expelled
from the storage tank are directed to the emptying gasoline tanker truck. The truck then transports
the vapors to a centralized station where a vapor recovery or control system is used to control
emissions.  Vapor balancing can have control efficiencies as high as 90 to 98 percent if the vapors are
subjected to vapor recovery or control. If the truck vents the vapor to the atmosphere instead of to a
recovery or control system, no control is achieved.

        Vapor recovery systems  collect emissions from storage vessels and convert them to liquid
product. Several vapor recovery procedures may be used,  including vapor/liquid absorption, vapor
compression, vapor cooling, vapor/solid adsorption, or a combination of these.  The overall  control
efficiencies of vapor recovery systems are as high as 90 to 98 percent, depending on the methods
used, the design of the unit, the composition of vapors recovered, and the mechanical condition of the
system.

        In a typical thermal  oxidation system, the air/vapor mixture is injected through a burner
manifold into the combustion area of an incinerator. Control efficiencies for this system can range
from 96 to 99 percent.

7.1.2.2 External Floating Roof Tanks2'3-5 -
        Total emissions from external floating roof tanks are the sum of withdrawal losses and
standing storage losses. Withdrawal losses occur as the liquid level, and thus the  floating roof,  is
lowered. Some liquid remains attached to the tank surface and is exposed to the atmosphere.
Evaporative losses will occur until the tank is filled and the exposed surface (with the liquid) is again
covered. Standing storage losses from external floating roof tanks include rim seal and roof fitting
losses.  Rim seal losses can occur through many complex mechanisms, but the majority of rim seal
vapor losses have been found to be wind-induced.  Other potential standing  storage loss mechanisms
include breathing losses as a result of temperature and pressure changes. Also, standing storage
losses can occur through  permeation of the seal material with vapor or via a wicking effect of the
liquid.  Testing has indicated that breathing,  solubility, and wicking loss mechanisms are small in
comparison to the wind-induced loss.  Also, permeation of the seal  material generally does not occur
if the correct seal fabric is used.  The rim seal loss factors  incorporate all types of losses.

        The roof fitting losses  can be explained by the same mechanisms as the rim seal loss
mechanisms.   However, the relative contribution of each is not known.  The roof fitting losses
identified in this section account  for the combined effect of all of the mechanisms.
7.1-4
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
        A rim seal system is used to allow the floating roof to travel within the tank as the liquid level
 changes.   The seal system also helps to fill the annular space between the rim and the tank shell and
 therefore minimize evaporative losses from this area. A rim seal system may consist of just a
 primary seal, or a primary seal and a secondary seal, which is mounted above the primary seal.
 Examples of primary and secondary seal configurations are shown in Figure 7.1-5,  Figure-7.1-6, and
 Figure 7.1-7.  3 basic types of primary seals are used on external floating roofs:  mechanical
 (metallic) shoe, resilient filled (nonmetallic), and flexible wiper. The resilient seal  can be mounted to
 eliminate the vapor space between the seal and liquid surface (liquid mounted) or to allow a vapor
 space between the seal and liquid surface (vapor mounted).  A primary seal serves as a vapor
 conservation device by closing the  annular space between the edge of the floating roof  and the tank
 wall.  Some primary seals are protected by a metallic weather shield.  Additional evaporative loss
 may be controlled by a secondary seal. Secondary seals can be either flexible wiper seals or resilient
 filled seals.  Two configurations  of secondary seals are currently available: shoe mounted and rim
 mounted.  Although there  are other seal systems, the systems described here include the majority in
 use today.

        Roof fitting loss emissions  from external floating roof tanks result from penetrations in the
 roof by deck fittings, the most common of which are described below.  Roof fittings are also shown
 in Figure 7.1-8 and Figure 7.1-9.  Some of the fittings are typical of both external and  internal
 floating roof tanks.

        1. Access hatch.  An access hatch is an opening in the deck with a peripheral vertical  well
 that is large  enough to provide passage for workers and materials through the deck for  construction or
 servicing. Attached to the opening is a removable cover that may be bolted and/or gasketed to reduce
 evaporative loss.  On internal floating roof tanks with noncontact decks, the well should extend down
 into the liquid to seal off the vapor space below the noncontact deck. A typical access  hatch is shown
 in Figure 7.1-8a.

        2. Gauge-float well.  A gauge-float is used to indicate the level of liquid within the tank.
 The float  rests  on the liquid surface and is housed  inside a well that is closed by a cover.  The cover
 may be bolted and/or gasketed to reduce evaporation loss.  As with other similar deck penetrations,
 the well extends down into the liquid on noncontact decks in internal floating roof tanks.  A typical
 gauge-float well is shown in Figure 7.1-8b.

        3. Gauge-hatch/sample well.  A gauge-hatch/sample well consists of a pipe sleeve equipped
 with a self-closing gasketed cover (to reduce evaporative losses) and allows hand-gauging or sampling
 of the stored liquid.  The gauge-hatch/sample well is usually located beneath the gauger's platform,
 which is mounted on top of the tank shell.  A cord may  be attached to the self-closing gasketed cover
 so that the cover can be opened from the platform.  A typical gauge-hatch/sample well  is shown in
 Figure 7. l-8c.

        4.  Rim vents. Rim vents are usually used only  on tanks equipped with a mechanical-shoe
 primary seal. A typical rim vent is shown in Figure 7.1-8d.  The vent  is used to release any excess
 pressure or vacuum that is  present in the vapor space bounded by the primary-seal shoe and the
 floating roof rim,  and the primary-seal fabric and the liquid level. Rim vents usually consist of
 weighted pallets that rest on a gasketed cover.

        5.  Roof drains.  Currently  2 types of roof drains are in use (closed and open roof drains) to
 remove rainwater from the floating  roof surface. Closed  roof drains carry rainwater from the surface
of the roof through a flexible hose or some other type of piping system  that runs through the stored
1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                                  7.1-5

    -------
 liquid prior to exiting the tank. The rainwater does not come in contact with the liquid, so no
 evaporative losses result.

        Open roof drains can be either flush or overflow drains  and are used only on double-deck
 external floating roofs.  Both types consist of a pipe that extends below the roof to allow the
 rainwater to drain into the stored liquid.  The liquid from the tank enters the pipe, so evaporative
 losses can result from the tank opening. Flush drains are flush with the roof surface.  Overflow
 drains are elevated above the roof surface.  A typical overflow roof drain is shown in Figure 7.1-9a.
 Overflow drains are used to  limit the maximum amount of rainwater that can accumulate on the
 floating roof, providing emergency drainage of rainwater if necessary.  Overflow drains are usually
 used in  conjunction with a closed drain system to carry rainwater outside the tank.

        6.  Roof leg.  To prevent damage to fittings underneath  the deck and to allow for tank
 cleaning or repair, supports are provided to hold the deck at a predetermined distance off the tank
 bottom.  These supports consist of adjustable or fixed legs attached to the floating deck or hangers
 suspended from the fixed roof.  For adjustable legs or hangers, the load-carrying element passes
 through a well or sleeve into the deck.  With noncontact decks,  the well should extend into the liquid.
 Evaporative losses may occur in the annulus between the roof leg and its sleeve.  A typical roof leg is
 shown in Figure 7.1-9b.

        7.  Unslotted guidepole wells.  A guidepole well is an antirotational device that is fixed to the
 top and  bottom of the tank, passing through the floating roof.  The guidepole is used to prevent
 adverse movement of the roof and thus  damage to roof fittings and the rim  seal system. A typical
 guidepole well is shown in Figure 7.1-9c.

        8.  Slotted guidepole/sample wells.  The function of the  slotted guidepole/sample well is
 similar to the unslotted guidepole well but also has  additional features.  A typical slotted guidepole
 well is shown in Figure 7.1-9d. As shown in this figure, the guidepole is slotted to allow stored
 liquid to enter.  The liquid entering the guidepole is well mixed, having the same composition as the
 remainder of the stored liquid, and is at the same liquid level as  the liquid in the tank.   Representative
 samples can therefore be collected from the slotted guidepole.  The opening at the top of the
 guidepole and along the exposed sides is typically the emission source.  However, evaporative loss
 from the top of the guidepole can be reduced by placing a float inside the guidepole.

        9.  Vacuum breaker.  A vacuum breaker equalizes the pressure of the vapor space across the
deck as  the deck is either being landed on or floated off its legs. A typical  vacuum breaker is shown
 in Figure 7.1-9e.  As depicted  in this figure, the vacuum breaker consists of a well with a cover.
Attached to the underside of  the cover is a guided leg long enough to  contact the tank bottom as the
floating  deck approaches. When in contact with the tank bottom, the guided leg mechanically opens
the breaker by lifting the cover off the well; otherwise, the cover closes the  well. The closure may
be gasketed or ungasketed. Because the purpose of the vacuum breaker is to allow the free exchange
of air and/or vapor, the well  does not extend appreciably below the deck.

7.1.2.3  Internal Floating Roof Tanks4"5 -
        Total emissions from internal floating roof tanks are the  sum of withdrawal losses and
 standing storage losses. Withdrawal losses occur in the same manner as in external floating roof
tanks: as the floating roof lowers, some liquid remains attached to the tank  surface and evaporates.
 Also,  in internal floating roof tanks that have a column-supported fixed  roof, some liquid clings to the
 columns. Standing storage losses from  internal floating roof tanks include rim seal, deck fitting, and
deck seam losses.  The loss mechanisms described in Part 7.1.2.2 for external  floating roof rim seal
and roof fitting losses also apply to internal  floating roofs.  However, unlike external floating roof

7 !_6                                EMISSION  FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 tanks in which wind is the predominant factor affecting rim seal loss, no dominant wind loss
 mechanism has been identified for internal floating roof tank rim seal losses.  Deck seams in internal
 floating roof tanks are a source of emissions to the extent that these seams may not be completely
 vapor tight.  The loss mechanisms described hi Part 7.1.2.2 for external floating roof tank rim seals
 and roof fittings can describe internal floating  roof deck seam losses. As with internal floating roof
 run seal and roof fittings, the relative importance of each of the loss mechanisms is not known. It
 should be noted that welded internal floating roofs do not have deck seam losses.

        Internal floating roofs typically incorporate 1 of 2 types of flexible, product-resistant seals:
 resilient foam-filled seals, or wiper seals.  Similar to those used on external floating roofs, each of
 these seals closes the annular vapor space between the edge of the floating roof and the tank shell to
 reduce evaporative losses. They are designed  to compensate for small irregularities in the tank shell
 and allow the roof to move freely up and down in the tank without binding.

        A resilient foam-filled seal used on an internal floating roof is similar in design to that
 described in Part 7.1.2.2 for external floating roofs.  Two types of resilient foam-filled seals for
 internal floating roofs are shown in Figure 7.1-10a and Figure 7.1-10b. These seals can be mounted
 either in contact with the liquid surface (liquid-mounted) or several centimeters above the liquid
 surface (vapor-mounted).

        Resilient foam-filled seals work because of the expansion and contraction of a resilient
 material to maintain contact  with the tank shell while accommodating varying annular rim space
 widths.  These seals consist  of a core of open-cell foam encapsulated in a coated fabric.  The
 elasticity of the foam core pushes  the fabric into contact with the tank shell.  The seals are attached to
 a mounting on the deck perimeter and are continuous around the roof circumference.  Polyurethane-
 coated nylon fabric and polyurethane foam are commonly used materials.  For emission control, it is
 important that the mounting  and radial seal joints be vapor-tight and that the seal be in substantial
 contact with the tank shell.

        Wiper seals are commonly used as primary seals for internal floating roof tanks.  This type of
 seal is depicted  in Figure 7.1-10c.  New tanks  with wiper seals may have dual wipers, 1  mounted
 above the other.

        Wiper seals generally consist of a  continuous  annular blade of flexible material fastened to a
 mounting bracket on  the deck perimeter that spans the annular rim space and contacts the tank shell.
 The mounting is such that the blade is flexed, and its  elasticity provides a sealing pressure against the
 tank shell. Such seals are vapor-mounted; a vapor space exists between the liquid stock and the
 bottom of the seal. For emission control,  it is  important that the mounting be vapor-tight, that the
 seal be continuous around the circumference of the roof, and that the blade be in substantial contact
 with the tank shell.

        Two types of materials are commonly used to make the wipers.  One type consists of a
 cellular, elastomeric material tapered in cross section  with the thicker portion at the mounting.
Buna-N rubber is a commonly used material.  All  radial joints in the blade are joined.

        A second type of wiper seal construction uses a foam core  wrapped with a coated fabric.
Polyurethane on nylon fabric and polyurethane foam are common materials. The core provides the
flexibility and support,  while the fabric provides the vapor barrier  and wear surface.
1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                                 7.1-7

    -------
        Secondary seals may be used to provide some additional evaporative loss control over that
 achieved by the primary seal.  The secondary seal is mounted to an extended vertical rim plate, above
 the primary seal, as shown in Figure 7.1-11.  Secondary seals can be either a resilient foam-filled seal
 or an elastomeric wiper seal, as previously described.  For a given roof design, using a secondary
 seal further limits the operating capacity of a tank due to the need to keep the seal from interfering
 with the fixed-roof rafters when the tank is filled.

        Numerous deck fittings penetrate or are attached to an internal floating roof. These fittings
 accommodate structural support members or allow for operational functions. The fittings can be a
 source of evaporative loss in that they require penetrations in the deck.  Other accessories are used
 that do  not penetrate the deck and are not, therefore, sources of evaporative loss.  The most common
 fittings  relevant to controlling vapor losses are described in the following paragraphs.

        The access hatches, guidepole wells, roof legs, vacuum breakers, and automatic gauge-float
 wells for internal floating roofs are similar fittings to those already described for external floating
 roofs. Other fittings used on internal floating roof tanks include column wells, ladder wells, and stub
 drains.

        1.  Column wells. The most common fixed-roof designs  are normally supported from inside
 the tank by means of vertical columns, which necessarily penetrate an internal floating deck.  (Some
 fixed roofs are  entirely self-supporting and,  therefore, have no support columns.)  Column wells are
 similar to unslotted guidepole wells on external floating roofs.  Columns are made of pipe with
 circular cross sections or of structural shapes with irregular cross sections (built-up). The number of
 columns varies  with tank diameter from a minimum of 1 to over 50 for very large tanks.

        The columns pass through deck openings via peripheral vertical wells. With noncontact
 decks, the well  should extend down into the liquid stock.  Generally, a closure device exists between
 the top of the well and the column.  Several proprietary designs exist for this closure, including
 sliding covers and fabric sleeves, which must accommodate the movements of the deck relative to the
 column  as the liquid  level changes. A sliding cover rests on  the upper rim of the column well (which
 is normally fixed to the  roof) and bridges the gap or space between the column well and the column.
 The cover, which has a  cutout, or opening, around the column slides vertically relative to the column
 as the roof raises and lowers.  At the same time, the cover slides  horizontally relative to the rim of
 the  well, which is fixed  to the roof.  A gasket around the rim of the well reduces emissions from this
 fitting.  A flexible fabric sleeve seal between the rim of the well and the column (with a cutout or
 opening, to allow vertical motion of the seal relative to the columns) similarly accommodates limited
horizontal motion of the roof relative to the column.   A third design combines the advantages of the
 flexible  fabric sleeve seal with a well that excludes all but a small portion of the liquid surface from
direct exchange with the vapor space above the floating  roof.

        2.  Ladder wells. Some tanks are equipped with internal ladders that extend from a manhole
 in the fixed roof to the tank bottom. The deck opening  through which the ladder passes is
 constructed with similar design details and considerations to  deck openings for column wells, as
previously discussed.

        3.  Stub drains.  Bolted internal floating roof decks are typically equipped with stub drains to
 allow any stored product that may be on the deck surface to drain back to the underside of the deck.
 The drains are attached so that they are flush with the upper deck. Stub drains are approximately
 1 inch in diameter and extend down into the product on  noncontact decks.
7.1.8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 7.1.3  Emission Estimation Procedures

        The following section presents the emission estimation procedures for fixed roof, external
 floating roof, and internal floating roof tanks.  These procedures are valid for all petroleum liquids,
 pure volatile organic liquids, and chemical mixtures with similar true vapor pressures.  It is important
 to note that in all the emission estimation procedures, the physical properties of the vapor do not
 include the noncondensables (e. g., air) in the gas, but only refer to the condensable components of
 the stored liquid. To aid in the emission estimation procedures, a list of variables with their
 corresponding definitions was developed and is presented in Table 7.1-1.

        The factors presented in AP-42 are those that are currently available and have been reviewed
 and  approved by the Agency.  As storage tank equipment vendors design new floating decks and
 equipment, new emission factors may be developed based on that equipment.  If the new emission
 factors are reviewed and approved, the emission factors will be added to AP-42 during the next
 update.

        The emission estimation procedures outlined  in this chapter have been used as the basis for
 the development of a software program to estimate emissions from storage tanks.  The software
 program entitled TANKS is available through the CHIEF bulletin board system maintained  by the
 Agency.

 7.1.3.1 Total Losses From Fixed Roof Tanks4-6"12 -
        The following equations, provided to estimate standing storage and working loss emissions,
 apply to tanks with  vertical cylindrical shells and fixed roofs.  These tanks must be substantially
 liquid- and vapor-tight and  must operate approximately at atmospheric pressure. Total losses from
 fixed roof tanks are equal to the sum of the standing storage loss and working loss:

                                        LT = Ls  + Lw                                    (1-1)

 where:

       Lj =  total losses, Ib/yr

       Ls =  standing storage losses, Ib/yr

      Lw =  working losses, Ib/yr

Standing Storage Loss -
       Fixed roof tank breathing or standing storage losses can be estimated from:

                                    Ls  = 365 VVWVKEKS                                (1-2)

where:

      Ls =  standing storage loss, Ib/yr

      Vv =  vapor space volume, ft3

     Wv =  vapor density, Ib/ft3

      KE =  vapor space expansion factor, dimensionless

1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                                 7.1-9

    -------
       Ks =  vented vapor saturation factor, dimensionless

      365 =  constant, days/year
                                                                 *
 Tank Vapor Space Volume. Vv -
        The tank vapor space volume is calculated using the following equation:

                                       Vv = lD2Hvo                                 C1'3)


 where:

       Vv =   vapor space volume, ft3

        D =   tank diameter, ft; see Note 1 for horizontal tanks

      Hvo =   vapor space outage, ft

       The vapor space outage, Hvo, is the height of a cylinder of tank diameter, D, whose volume
 is equivalent to the vapor space volume of a fixed roof tank, including the volume under the cone or
 dome roof.  The vapor space outage, Hvo, is estimated  from:

                                   Hvo = Hs - HL  + HRO                              (1-4)

 where:

      Hvo =  vaP°r space outage, ft

       Hs =  tank shell height, ft

       HL =  liquid height, ft

      HRO =  roof outage, ft; see Note 2 for a cone roof or Note 3 for a dome roof

Notes:

 1. The emission estimating equations presented above were developed for vertical fixed roof tanks.
If a user needs to estimate emissions from a horizontal fixed roof tank,  some of the tank parameters
can be modified before using the vertical tank emission estimating equations. First, by assuming that
the tank is one-half filled, the surface area of the liquid in the tank is  approximately equal to the
length of the tank times the diameter of the tank.  Next,  assume that this area represents a circle,
i. e., that the liquid is an upright cylinder.  Therefore, the effective diameter, DE, is then equal to:
                                      DE-f
7.1.10                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 where:

      DE =  effective tank diameter, ft

        L =  length of tank, ft

        D =  actual diameter of tank, ft

 One-half of the actual  diameter of the horizontal tank should be used as the vapor space outage, Hvo.
 This method yields only a very approximate value for emissions from horizontal storage tanks.  For
 underground horizontal tanks, assume that no breathing or standing storage losses occur (Ls = 0)
 because the insulating  nature of the earth limits the diurnal temperature change.  No modifications to
 the working loss equation are necessary for either above-ground or underground horizontal tanks.

 2.  For a cone roof, the roof outage, HRO, is calculated as follows:

                                        HRO = 1/3 HR                                   (1-6)

 where:

       HRO =  roof outage (or shell height equivalent to the volume contained under the roof), ft

        HR =  tank roof height, ft

 The tank roof height, HR, is equal to SR Rs

 where:

        SR =  tank cone roof slope, ft/ft (if unknown, a standard value of 0.0625 ft/ft is used)

        Rs =   tank shell radius, ft

 3. For a dome roof, the roof outage, HRO, is calculated as follows:

                                                            2
                                HRO ~ HI
1/2 + 1/6
                                                                                         (1-7)
where:

      HRO =  roof outage, ft

        HR =  tank roof height, ft

        Rs =  tank shell radius, ft

The tank roof height, HR, is calculated:

                                   HR = RR - (V - RS2)°-5                              d-8)


1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-11

    -------
 where:

       HR =   tank roof height, ft

       RR =   tank dome roof radius, ft

       Rs =   tank shell radius, ft

 The value of RR usually ranges from 0.8D - 1.2D.  If RR is unknown, the tank diameter is used in its
 place.  If the tank diameter is used  as the value for RR, Equations 1-7 and 1-8 reduce to
 HR = 0.268 Rs and HRO = 0.137 Rs.

 Vapor Density. Wv -
       The density of vapor is calculated using the following equation:
where:

      Wv = vapor density, lb/ft3

      Mv = vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1

        R = the ideal gas constant, 10.731 psia • n^/lb-mole • °R

      PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2

      TLA = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3

Notes:

1. The molecular weight of the vapor, Mv, can be determined from Tables 7. 1-2 and 7. 1-3 for
selected petroleum liquids and volatile organic liquids, respectively, or by analyzing vapor samples.
Where mixtures of organic liquids are stored in a tank, Mv can be calculated from the liquid
composition. The molecular weight of the vapor, Mv, is equal to the sum of the molecular weight,
Mj, multiplied by the vapor mole fraction, yj, for each component.  The vapor mole fraction is equal
to the partial pressure of component i divided by the total vapor pressure. The partial pressure of
component i is equal to the true vapor pressure of component i (P) multiplied by the liquid mole
fraction, (Xj).  Therefore,
                                 Mv = E Mjyi =
                                                       PX;
                                                       PVA
(1-10)
where PVA> tota^ vapor pressure of the stored liquid, by Raoult's law, is:

                                         PVA = SPxi                                   (1-11)


-j 1.12                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 For more detailed information, please refer to Part 7.1.4.

 2.  True vapor pressure is the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by a volatile organic liquid, as
 defined by ASTM-D 2879 or as obtained from standard reference texts.  Reid vapor pressure is the
 absolute vapor pressure of volatile crude oil and volatile nonviscous petroleum liquids, except
 liquified petroleum gases, as determined by ASTM-D-323.  True vapor pressures for organic liquids
 can be determined from Table 7.1-3. True vapor pressure can be determined for crude oils using
 Figure 7.1-12a and Figure 7.1-12b.  For refined stocks (gasolines and naphthas), Table 7.1-2 or
 Figure 7.1-13a and Figure 7. l-13b can be used.  In order to use Figure 7.1-12a, Figure 7.1-12b,
 Figure 7.1-13a, or Figure 7.1-13b, the stored liquid surface temperature, TLA, must be determined in
 degrees Fahrenheit.  See Note 3 to determine TLA.

        Alternatively, true vapor pressure for selected petroleum liquid stocks,  at the stored liquid
 surface temperature, can be determined using the following equation:

                                    PVA = exp [A - (B/TLA)]                            (l-12a)
 where:

      exp =  exponential function

        A =  constant in the vapor pressure equation, dimensionless

        B =  constant in the vapor pressure equation, °R

     TLA =  daily average liquid surface temperature, °R

     PVA =  true vapor pressure, psia

        For selected petroleum liquid stocks, physical property data are presented in Table 7.1-2.  For
 refined petroleum stocks, the constants A and B can be calculated from the equations presented in
 Figure 7.1-14 and the distillation slopes presented in Table 7.1-4.  For crude oil stocks, the constants
 A and B can be calculated from the equations presented in Figure 7.1-15. Note that in
 Equation l-12a, TLA is determined in degrees Rankine instead of degrees Fahrenheit.

        The true vapor pressure of organic liquids at the stored liquid temperature can be estimated by
 Antoine's equation:

                                     logPVA = A-_JL_                             (
where:

       A =  constant in vapor pressure equation

       B =  constant in vapor pressure equation

       C =  constant in vapor pressure equation

     TLA =  daily average liquid surface temperature, °C

     PVA =  vapor pressure at average liquid surface temperature, mm Hg

1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-13

    -------
        For organic liquids, the values for the constants A, B, and C are listed in Table 7.1-5.  Note
that in Equation l-12b, TLA is determined in degrees Celsius instead of degrees Rankine. Also, in
Equation l-12b, PVA is determined in mm Hg rather than psia (760 mm Hg = 14.7 psia).

3.  If the daily average liquid surface temperature, TLA, is unknown, it is calculated using the
following equation:

                            TLA = 0.447^  + 0.56TB + 0.0079 al                      (1-13)

where:

      TLA =  daily average liquid surface temperature, °R

      T^ =  daily average ambient temperature, °R; see Note 4

       TB  =  liquid bulk temperature, °R; see Note 5

        a =  tank paint  solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-7

        I  =  daily total  solar insolation factor,  Btu/ft2»day; see Table 7.1-6

If TLA is used to calculate PVA from Figures 7.1-12a through 7.1-13b, TLA must be converted from
degrees Rankine to degrees Fahrenheit (°F = °R - 460).  If TLA is used to calculate PVA from
Equation l-12b,  TLA must be converted from degrees Rankine to degrees Celsius
[°C = (°R - 492)/1.8]. Equation 1-13 should not be used to estimate liquid surface temperature from
insulated tanks.  In the case of insulated tanks, the average liquid surface temperature should be based
on liquid surface temperature measurements  from the tank.

4.  The daily average ambient temperature, T^, is calculated using the following equation:

                                    TAA  = (TAX + TAN)^                              (1-14)
where:

      TAA =  daily average ambient temperature, °R

      TAX =  daily maximum ambient temperature,  °R

      TAN =  daily minimum  ambient temperature, °R

Table 7.1-6 gives values of TAX and T,^ for selected U.S. cities.

5. The liquid  bulk temperature, TB, is calculated using the following equation:

                                     TB = TAA + 6« - 1                               d'15)
where:

       TB =  liquid bulk temperature, °R

      T^ =  daily average ambient temperature, °R, as calculated in Note 4

        a =  tank paint solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-7

7>1_14                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 Vapor Space Expansion Factor. KE -
        The vapor space expansion factor, KE, is calculated using the following equation:
                                              .                                        (1-16)
                                         1 LA    FA ~ *VA

where:

      ATV =  daily vapor temperature range, °R; see Note 1

      APV =  daily vapor pressure range, psi;  see Note 2

      APB =  breather vent pressure setting range, psi; see Note 3

      TLA =  daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3 for Equation 1-9

       PA =  atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia

      PVA =  vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2 for
              Equation 1-9

Notes:

1. The daily vapor temperature range ATV, is  calculated using the following equation:

                                 ATV = 0.72 ATA  -I- 0.028 al                          (1-17)

where:

      ATV =  daily vapor temperature range, °R

      ATA =  daily ambient temperature range, °R; see Note 4

        a —  tank paint solar absorptance, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-7

         I =  daily total solar insolation factor, Btu/ft2'day; see Table 7.1-6

2. The daily vapor pressure range, APV, can be calculated using the following equation:

                                      APV = Pvx - PVN                                (1-18)

where:

      APV =  daily vapor pressure range, psia

      Pvx =  vapor pressure at the daily maximum liquid surface temperature, psia; see Note 5

      PVN =  vapor pressure at the daily minimum liquid surface temperature, psia; see Note 5




1/95                                  Liquid  Storage Tanks                               7.1-15

    -------
        The following method can be used as an alternate means of calculating APV for petroleum
 liquids:


                                           0.50BPVAATV
                                    APV = - ™ - X                             (1-19)
 where:

      APV = daily vapor pressure range, psia

         B = constant in the vapor pressure equation, °R; see Note 2 to Equation 1-9

      PVA = vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2
              to Equation 1-9

      ATV — daily vapor temperature range, °R; see Note 1

      TLA = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R; see Note 3 to Equation 1-9


 3.  The breather vent pressure setting range, APB, is calculated using the following equation:

                                       ^PB = PBP - PBV                                 (1-20)
 where:

      APB = breather vent pressure setting range,  psig

      PBp = breather vent pressure setting, psig

      PBV = breather vent vacuum setting, psig

       If specific information on the breather vent pressure setting and vacuum setting is not
 available, assume 0.03 psig for PBP and -0.03 psig for PBV as typical values.  If the fixed roof tank is
 of bolted or riveted construction in which the roof or shell plates are not vapor tight, assume that
 APB = 0, even if a breather vent is used.  The estimating equations for fixed roof tanks do not apply
 to either low or high pressure tanks.  If the breather vent pressure or vacuum setting exceeds
 1.0 psig, the standing storage losses could potentially be negative.

 4.  The daily ambient temperature range, ATA, is calculated using the following equation:

                                      ATA = TAX-TAN                                (1-21)

 where:

      ATA = daily ambient temperature range,  °R

      TAX =  daily maximum  ambient temperature, °R

      TAN =  daily minimum ambient temperature, °R

7.1-16                               EMISSION  FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 Table 7.1-6 gives values of Ty^ and T^ for selected cities in the United States.11

 5.  The vapor pressures associated with daily maximum and minimum liquid surface temperature,
 Pvx and PVN> respectively, are calculated by substituting the corresponding temperatures, TLX and
 TLN, into the pressure function discussed in Notes 1 and 2 to Equation 1-9.  If TLX and TLN are
 unknown, Figure 7.1-16 can be used to calculate their values.

 Vented Vapor Saturation Factor. Ks -
       The vented vapor saturation factor, Ks, is calculated using the following equation:

                                                 1                                     (1-22)
                                         1 * 0.053 PVAHVO

 where:

       Ks =  vented vapor saturation factor, dimensionless

      PVA =  vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1 and 2 to
              Equation 1-9

      Hvo =  vapor space outage, ft, as calculated in Equation 1-4

 Working Loss -
       The working loss, Lw, can be estimated from:

                                Lw  = 0.0010 MVPVAQKNKP,                          (1-23)

 where:

      Lw =  working losses, Ib/yr

      Mv =  vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9

      PVA =  vaP°r pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1  and 2 to
              Equation 1-9

        Q =  annual net throughput, bbl/yr

      KN =  turnover factor, dimensionless; see Figure 7.1-17
              for turnovers >  36, KN = (180  + N)/6N
              for turnovers ^  36, KN = 1

              N =  number of turnovers per year, dimensionless
                                        N =
                                              VLX
1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-17

    -------
               where:
                         N = number of turnovers per year, dimensionless

                         Q = annual net throughput, bbl/yr

                      VLX = tank maximum liquid volume, ft3


                                        VLX = f D2HLX                               0-25)


                      where:

                                D =  diameter, ft

                              HLX =  maximum liquid height, ft

       Kp =  working loss product factor, dimensionless, 0.75 for crude oils. For all other organic
              liquids, Kp=l

7.1.3.2 Total Losses From External Floating Roof Tanks3"4'11 -
       Total external floating roof tank emissions are the sum of rim seal, withdrawal,  and roof
fitting losses.  The equations presented in this part apply only to external floating roof tanks. The
equations  are not intended to be used in the following applications:

       1.  To estimate losses from unstable or boiling stocks, or from mixtures of hydrocarbons or
petrochemicals for which the vapor pressure is not known or cannot readily be predicted; or

       2.  To estimate losses from tanks in which the materials used in the rim seal and/or roof
fitting are either deteriorated or significantly permeated by the stored liquid.

       Total losses from external floating roof tanks may be written as:

                                    LT = LR + LWD + LF                              (2-1)

where:

       LT =  total loss, Ib/yr

       LR =  rim seal loss, Ib/yr;  see Equation 2-2

     LWD =  withdrawal loss, Ib/yr; see Equation 2-4

       LF =  roof fitting loss, Ib/yr; see Equation 2-5

Rim Seal Loss -
       Rim seal loss from floating roof tanks can be estimated using the following equation:

                                     LR =  KRvnP*DMvKc                               (2-2)
7.1.18                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 where:

        LR = rim seal loss, Ib/yr

        KR = seal factor, lb-mole/(mph)nft»yr; see Table 7.1-8 or Note 3

         v = average wind speed at tank site, mph; see Note 1 and Note 3

         n = seal-related wind speed exponent, dimensionless; see Table 7.1-8 or Note 3

        P* = vapor pressure function, dimensionless; see Note 2


                                               P   /P
                                 P *  =	VA  A	                            (2-3)
                                        [1+(1-[PVA/PA])°-5]2


        where:

                 PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia;
                        See Notes 1 and 2 to Equation 1-9 and Note 4 below

                  PA = atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia

          D = tank diameter, ft

         My = average vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9

         Kc = product factor; Kc = 0.4 for crude oils; Kc = 1 for all other organic liquids

Notes:

1.  If the wind speed at the tank site is not available, use wind speed data from the nearest local
weather station or values from Table 7.1-9.

2.  P* can be calculated or read directly from Figure 7.1-18.

3.  The rim seal loss factor, FR = KRvn, can also be read  directly from Figure 7.1-19, Figure 7.1-
20, Figure 7.1-21, and Figure 7.1-22. Figure 7.1-19, Figure 7.1-20, Figure 7.1-21, and Figure
7.1-22 present FR for both  average and tight-fitting seals.  However, it is recommended that only the
values for average-fitting seals be used in estimating rim seal losses because of the difficulty in
ensuring the seals are tight  fitting at all liquid heights in the tank.

4.  The API recommends using the stock liquid temperature to calculate PVA for use in Equation 2-3
in lieu of the liquid surface temperature.  If the stock liquid temperature is unknown, API
recommends the following equations to estimate the stock temperature:
1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-19

    -------
Tank Color
White
Aluminum
Gray
Black
Average Annual Stock
Temperature, Ts (°F)
Ta + O.O3
Ta + 2.5
Ta + 3.5
Ta + 5.0
aTa is the average annual ambient temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.

Withdrawal Loss -
       The withdrawal loss from floating roof storage tanks can be estimated using Equation 2-4.

                                            (0.943)QCWL
                                            - -                               ^   '
where:

     LWD == withdrawal loss, Ib/yr

        Q = annual throughput, bbl/yr, (tank capacity [bbl] times annual turnover rate)

        C = shell clingage factor, bbl/1,000 ft2; see Table 7.1-10

      WL = average organic liquid density, Ib/gal; see Note 1

        D = tank diameter, ft

     0.943 = constant, 1,000 ft3 x gal/bbl2

Note:

1. A listing of the average organic liquid density for select petrochemicals is provided in
Tables 7.1-2 and 7.1-3.  If WL is not known for gasoline, an average value of 6.1 Ib/gal can be
assumed.

Roof Fitting Loss -
       The roof fitting loss from external floating roof tanks can be estimated by the following
equation:

                                      LF = FF P*MVKC                                 (2-5)
where:

       LF =   the roof fitting loss, Ib/yr

       FF =   total roof fitting loss factor, Ib-mole/yr; see Figure 7.1-23 and Figure 7.1-24

                          FF = [(NF1KF1) - (N^K^) + .... + (NFnKFn)]                    (2-6)
7.1-20
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
       where:

                NF. = number of roof fittings of a particular type (i = 0,l,2,...,nf), dimensionless

                KF. = roof fitting loss factor for a particular type fitting (i  = 0,l,2,...,nf),
                   1    Ib-mole/yr; see Equation 2-7

                 nf = total number of different types of fittings, dimensionless

        P*, Mv, Kc  are as defined for Equation 2-2.

        The value of FF may be calculated by using actual tank-specific data for the number of each
 fitting type (NF) and then multiplying by the fitting loss factor for each fitting (KF).

        The roof fitting loss factor, KF. for a particular type of fitting,  can be estimated by the
 following equation:

                                     KF. =  KF  . + KF..vmi                                (2-7)
                                      M     hai     hbi
 where:

       KF.  = loss factor for a particular type of roof fitting, Ib-moles/yr

      KF .  = loss factor for a particular type of roof fitting, Ib-moles/yr
         3.1
      KF .  = loss factor for a particular type of roof fitting, lb-mole/(mph)m • yr
         bi
        m±  = loss factor for a particular type of roof fitting, dimensionless

          i  = 1, 2, ..., n, dimensionless

         v  = average wind speed, mph

        Loss factors KF , KF , and m are provided  in Table 7.1-11  for the most common  roof fittings
                      a    b        	
used on external floating roof tanks.  These factors apply only to typical roof fitting conditions and
when the average wind speed is between 2 and 15 mph.  Typical numbers of fittings are presented in
Tables 7.1-11, 7.1-12, and 7.1-13.  Where tank-specific  data for the number and kind of deck fittings
are unavailable,  FF can be approximated according  to tank diameter.  Figure 7.1-23 and
Figure 7.1-24 present FF plotted against tank diameter for pontoon  and double-deck external floating
roofs, respectively.

7.1.3.3 Total Losses From Internal Floating Roof Tanks4 -
       Total internal floating roof tank emissions are the sum of rim seal, withdrawal,  deck fitting,
and deck seam losses.

       The equations provided in this section apply only to freely vented internal floating roof tanks.
These equations  are not intended to estimate losses from  closed internal floating roof tanks (tanks
vented only through a pressure/vacuum vent).
1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-21

    -------
       Emissions from internal floating roof tanks may be estimated as:

                                  LT = LR+LWD+LF+LD                             (3-1)

where:

       Lj =  total loss, Ib/yr

       LR =  rim seal loss, Ib/yr; see Equation 3-2

     LWD =  withdrawal loss, Ib/yr;  see Equation 3-4

       LF =  deck fitting loss, Ib/yr; see Equation 3-5

       LD =  deck seam loss, Ib/yr; see Equation 3-6

Rim Seal Loss -
       Rim seal losses from floating roof tanks can be estimated by the following equation:

                                     LR = KRP*DMVKC                               (3-2)

where:

       LR =  rim seal loss, Ib/yr

       KR =  seal factor, lb-mole/(ft-yr); see Table 7.1-14

       P* =  vapor pressure function, dimensionless; see Note 2 to Equation 2-2


                                             P  /P
                                P * =	VA  A	                           (3-3)
                                      [1+(1-[PVA/PA])°-5]2




       where: PVA and PA are as defined for Equation 2-3


        D =  tank diameter, ft

      My =  average vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9

       Kc =  product factor; Kc = 0.4 for crude oils; Kc = 1.0 for all other organic liquids

Withdrawal Loss -
       The withdrawal loss from internal floating roof storage tanks can be estimated using
Equation 3-4:
7.1.22                              EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
                                      (0.943)QCW,       NCFC                          n~
                                      :	±__b  !+__!£                          (3-4)
 where:

       Nc =  number of columns, dimensionless; see Note 1

        Fc =  effective column diameter, ft (column perimeter [ft])/7r); see Note 2

     0.943 =  constant, 1,000 ft3 \ gal/bbl2

        L-wD' Q, C, WL, and D are as defined for Equation 2-4.

 Notes:

 1.  For a self-supporting fixed roof or an external floating roof tank:

               Nc = 0

   For a column-supported fixed roof:

               Nc = use tank-specific information or see Table 7.1-15

 2.  Use tank-specific effective column diameter or

               Fc  = 1.1 for 9-inch by 7-inch built-up columns, 0.7 for 8-inch-diameter pipe
                     columns, and 1.0 if column construction details are not known

 Deck Fitting Losses -
        Fitting losses from internal floating roof tanks can be estimated by the following equation:

                                       LF = FFP*MVKC                                  (3-5)

 where:

       FF =  total deck fitting loss factor, Ib-mole/yr
          where:

                  NF. =   number of deck fittings of a particular type (i = 0, 1,2, ..., nf),
                     1     dimensionless; see Table 7. 1-164

                  KF. =   deck fitting loss factor for a particular type fitting (i =  0, 1,2, ..., nf),
                     1     Ib-mole/yr; see Table 7. 1-164

                   nf =   total number of different  types of fittings


1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-23

    -------
        P*, Mv, and Kc are as defined in Equations 2-2 and 2-5.

        The value of FF may be calculated by using actual tank-specific data for the number of each
 fitting type (NF) and then multiplying by the fitting loss factor for each fitting (KF). Values of fitting
 loss factors and typical number of fittings are presented in Table 7.1-16.  Where tank-specific data for
 the number and kind of deck fittings are unavailable, then FF can be approximated according to tank
 diameter.  Figure 7.1-25 and Figure 7.1-26 present FF plotted against tank diameter for column-
 supported fixed roofs and self-supported fixed roofs, respectively.

 Deck Seam Loss -
        Welded internal floating roof tanks do not have deck seam losses.  Tanks with bolted decks
 may have deck seam losses. Deck seam loss can be estimated by the following equation:
where:
       KD =
       SD =
                      LD = KDSDD2P*MVKC



deck seam loss per unit seam length factor, Ib-mole/ft-yr

0.0 for welded deck

0.34 for bolted deck; see Note 1

deck seam length factor, ft/ft2

L.
                                                                                         (3-6)
       where:
                     =  total length of deck seams, ft
 Adeck =
                             of deck> ft2 = TT D2/4
       D, P*, Mv, and Kc are as defined for Equation 2-2.

       If the total length of the deck seam is not known, Table 7.1-17 can be used to determine SD.
For a deck constructed from continuous metal sheets with a 7-ft spacing between the seams, a value
of 0. 14 ft/ft2 can be used. A value of 0.33 ft/ft2 can be used for SD when a deck is constructed from
rectangular panels 5 ft by 7.5 ft. Where tank-specific data concerning width of deck sheets or size of
deck panels are unavailable, a default value for SD can be assigned.  A value of 0.20 ft/ft2 can be
assumed to represent the most common bolted decks currently  in use.

Note:

1 .  Recently vendors of bolted decks have been using various techniques in an effort to reduce deck
seam losses.  However, emission factors are not currently available in AP-42 that represent the
emission reduction achieved by these techniques. Some vendors have  developed specific factors for
their deck designs; however, use of these factors is not recommended until approval has been
obtained from the governing regulatory agency or permitting authority.
7.1-24
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                           1/95

    -------
 7.1.3.4 Variable Vapor Space Tanks13 -
        Variable vapor space filling losses result when vapor is displaced by liquid during filling
 operations.  Since the variable vapor space tank has an expandable vapor storage capacity, this loss is
 not as large as the filling loss associated with fixed roof tanks.  Loss of vapor occurs only when the
 tank's vapor storage capacity is exceeded.

        Variable vapor space system filling losses  can be estimated from:

                        Lv =  (2.40 x 10-2) UVPVA/V1 [(Vj) - (0.25V2N2)]                    (4-1)

 where:

        Lv =  variable vapor space filling loss, lb/1,000 gal throughput

       Mv =  molecular weight of vapor in storage tank, Ib/lb-mole; see Note 1 to Equation 1-9

       PVA =  true vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia; see Notes 1
               and 2 to Equation 1-9

        V:  =  volume of liquid pumped into system, throughput, bbl/yr

        V2 =  volume expansion capacity of system, bbl; see Note 1

        N2 =  number of transfers  into system, dimensionless; see Note 2

 Notes:

 1.  V2 is the volume expansion capacity of the variable vapor space achieved by roof lifting or
 diaphragm flexing.

 2.  N2 is the number of transfers into the system during the time period that corresponds to a
 throughput of Vj.

        The accuracy of Equation 4-1 is not documented. Special tank operating conditions may
 result in actual losses significantly different from the estimates provided by Equation 4-1. It should
 also be noted that, although not developed for use with heavier petroleum liquids such as kerosenes
 and fuel oils, the equation is recommended for use with heavier petroleum liquids in the absence of
better data.

7.1.3.5 Pressure Tanks -
        Losses occur during withdrawal and filling operations in low-pressure (2.5 to 15 psig) tanks
when atmospheric venting occurs.  High-pressure tanks are considered closed systems, with virtually
no emissions. Vapor recovery systems are often found on low-pressure tanks.  Fugitive losses are
also associated with pressure tanks and their equipment, but with proper  system maintenance, these
losses are considered insignificant.  No appropriate correlations are available to estimate vapor losses
from pressure tanks.

7.1.3.6 Variations Of  Emission Estimation Procedures -
       All of the emission estimation procedures presented in Part 7.1.3 can be used to estimate
emissions  for shorter time periods by manipulating the inputs to the equations for the time period in
question.  For all of the emission estimation procedures, the daily average liquid surface temperature

1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-25

    -------
should be based on the appropriate temperature and solar insolation data for the tune period over
which the estimate is to be evaluated.  The subsequent calculation of the vapor pressure should be
based on the corrected daily liquid surface temperature.  For example, emission calculations for the
month of June would be based only on the meteorological data for June. It is important to note that a
1-month time frame is recommended as the shortest time period for which  emissions should be
estimated.

        In addition to  the temperature and vapor pressure corrections, the constant in the standing
storage loss equation for fixed roof tanks would need to  be revised based on the actual time frame
used. The constant, 365, is  the number  of days in a year. To change the equation for a different
time period, the constant should be changed to the appropriate number of days in the time period for
which emissions are being estimated.   The only change that would need to  be made to the working
loss equation for fixed roof tanks would  be to change the throughput per year to the throughput
during the tune period for which emissions are being estimated.

        Other than changing the meteorological data and the vapor pressure data, the only changes
needed for the floating roof rim seal, fitting, and deck seam losses would be to modify the tune frame
by dividing the individual losses by the appropriate number of days or months. The only change to
the withdrawal losses would be to change the throughput to the throughput for the time period for
which emissions are being estimated.

        Another variation that is frequently made to the emission estimation procedures is an
adjustment in the working or withdrawal loss equations if the tank is operated as a surge tank or
constant-level tank. For constant-level tanks or surge tanks where the throughput and turnovers are
high but the liquid level in the tank remains relatively constant, the actual throughput or turnovers
should not be used in the working loss or withdrawal loss equations.  For these tanks, the turnovers
should be estimated by determining the average change in the liquid height. The average change in
height should then be divided by the total shell height. This  estimated turnover value should then be
multiplied by the tank volume to obtain the net throughput for the loss equations.   Alternatively, a
default turnover rate of 4 could be used based on data from these type tanks.

7.1.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) Speciation Methodology

        In some cases  it may be important to know the annual emission  rate for a component (e. g.,
HAP) of a stored liquid  mixture. There  are 2 basic approaches that can be used to estimate emissions
for a single component of a stored liquid mixture.  One approach involves calculating the total losses
based upon the known physical properties of the mixture (i. e., gasoline) and then  determining the
individual component losses  by multiplying the total loss by the weight fraction of the desired
component.  The second approach is similar to the first approach except that the mixture properties
are unknown; therefore, the mixture properties are first determined based on the composition of the
liquid mixture.

Case 1 -
        If the physical properties of the mixture are known (PVA> MV» ML  and WL), the total losses
from the tank should be  estimated using the procedures described previously for the particular tank
type.  The component losses are then determined  from either Equation 5-1 or 5-2.  For fixed roof
tanks, the emission rate  for each individual component can be estimated by:

                                                                                         (5-1)
7.1_26                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 where:

       Lj..  =  emission rate of component i, Ib/yr

       Zj v  =  weight fraction of component i in the vapor. Ib/lb

        LT  =  total losses, Ib/yr

        For floating roof tanks, the emission rate for each individual component can be estimated by:

                          Lp. =  (Zi)V) (LR + LF + LD) + (Z; L) (LWD)                    (5-2)

 where:

       LT.  =  emission rate of component i, Ib/yr

       Zj y  =  weight fraction of component i in the vapor, Ib/lb

       LR  =  rim seal losses, Ib/yr

       LF =  roof fitting losses, Ib/yr

       LD =  deck seam losses, Ib/yr

       Zj L =  weight fraction of component i  in the liquid, Ib/lb

           =  withdrawal losses, Ib/yr
If Equation 5-1 is used in place of Equation 5-2 for floating roof tanks, the value obtained will be
approximately the same value as that achieved with Equation 5-2 because withdrawal losses are
typically minimal for floating roof tanks.

        In order to use Equations 5-1 and 5-2, the weight fraction of the desired component in the
liquid and vapor phase is needed. The liquid weight fraction of the desired component is typically
known or can be readily calculated for most mixtures.  In order to calculate the weight fraction in the
vapor phase, Raoult's law must first be used to determine the partial pressure of the component. The
partial pressure of the component can then be divided by the total vapor pressure of the mixture to
determine the mole fraction of the component in the vapor phase. Raoult's law states that the mole
fraction of the component in the liquid (Xj) multiplied by the vapor pressure of the pure component (at
the daily average liquid  surface temperature) (P) is  equal to the partial pressure (Pj) of that
component:

                                          Pi = (P)(Xj)                                     (5-3)
where:

        Pj =  partial pressure of component i, psia

         P =  vapor pressure of pure component i at the daily average liquid surface temperature,
              psia

        Xj =  liquid mole fraction, Ib-mole/lb-mole

1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-27

    -------
        The vapor pressure of each component can be calculated from Antoine's equation or found in
 standard references, as shown in Part 7.1.3.1.  In order to use Equation 5-3, the liquid mole fraction
 must be determined from the liquid weight fraction by:
                                     Xi =  (Zj L) (MJ / (Mj)                               (5-4)

where:

        Xj =   liquid mole fraction of component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole

      Zj;L =   weight fraction of component i, Ib/lb

       ML =   molecular weight of liquid stock, Ib/lb-mole

        Mj =   molecular weight of component i, Ib/lb-mole

If the molecular weight of the liquid is not known, the liquid mole fraction can be determined by
assuming a total weight of the liquid mixture (see Example 1 in Part 7.1.5).

        The liquid mole fraction and the vapor pressure of the  component at the daily average liquid
surface  temperature can then be substituted into Equation 5-3 to obtain the partial pressure of the
component.  The vapor mole fraction of the component can be determined from the following
equation:


                                          y--                                     (5-5)
                                                 VA

where:

        Vj =  vapor mole fraction of component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole

        Pj =  partial pressure of component i, psia

      PVA =  total vapor pressure of liquid mixture, psia

The weight fractions in the vapor phase are calculated from the mole fractions in the vapor phase.
                                                                                        (5-6)
                                          1>      Mv

where:

      Zj v =  vapor weight fraction of component i, Ib/lb

        yj =  vapor mole fraction of component i, Ib/lb-mole

       Mj =  molecular weight of component i, Ib/lb-mole

      Mv =  molecular weight of vapor stock, Ib/lb-mole



7 1_28                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 The liquid and vapor weight fractions of each desired component and the total losses can be
 substituted into either Equation 5-1 or 5-2 to estimate the individual component losses.


        For cases where the mixture properties are unknown but the composition of the liquid is
 known (i. e., nonpetroleum organic mixtures), the equations presented  above can be used to obtain a
 reasonable estimate of the physical properties of the mixture.  For nonaqueous organic mixtures,
 Equation 5-3 can be used to determine the partial pressure of each component.  If Equation 5-4 is
 used to determine the liquid mole fractions, the molecular weight of the liquid stock must be known.
 If the molecular weight of the liquid stock is unknown, then the liquid  mole fractions can be
 determined by assuming a weight basis and calculating the number of moles (see Example 1 in
 Part 7.1.5).  The partial pressure of each component can then be determined from Equation 5-3.

        For special cases, such as waste water, where the liquid mixture is a dilute aqueous solution,
 Henry's law should be used instead of Raoult's law in calculating total  losses.  Henry's law states that
 the mole fraction of the component in the liquid phase (Xj) multiplied by the Henry's law constant for
 the component in the mixture is equal to the partial pressure (Pj) for that component. For waste
 water, Henry's law constants are typically provided in the form of atm  • m3/g-mole.

        Therefore, the appropriate form of Henry's law equation is:

                                         Pi = (HA)  (q)                                   (5-7)

 where:

         PJ =  partial pressure of component i,  atm

       HA =  Henry's law constant for component i, atm • m3/g-mole

        C; =  concentration of component i in the waste water, g-mole/m3; see Note 1

 Section 4.3,  "Waste Water Collection, Treatment,  And Storage," presents Henry's law constants for
 selected organic liquids.  The partial pressure calculated from Equation 5-7 will need to be converted
 from atmospheres to psia (1 atm  = 14.7 psia).

 Note:

 1. Typically waste water concentrations are given in mg/liter,  which is equivalent to g/m3.  To
 convert the concentrations to g-mole/m3 divide the concentration by the molecular weight of the
 component.

       The total vapor pressure of the mixture can be calculated from the sum of the partial
pressures:

                                          PVA =  = Pi                                     (5-8)

where:

      PVA =   vaP°r  pressure at  daily average liquid surface temperature, psia

        Pj =   partial pressure  of component i, psia

1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-29

    -------
        This procedure can be used to determine the vapor pressure at any temperature. After
 computing the total vapor pressure, the mole fractions in the vapor phase are calculated using
 Equation 5-5.  The vapor mole fractions are used to calculate the molecular weight of the vapor, Mv.
 The molecular weight of the vapor can be calculated by:

                                         Mv =  E Miyi                                    (5-9)

 where:

       Mv =   molecular weight of the vapor, Ib/lb-mole

        MJ =   molecular weight of component i, Ib/lb-mole

         yj =   vapor mole fraction of component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole

        Another variable that may need to be calculated before estimating the total  losses if it is not
 available in a standard reference is the density of the liquid, WL.  If the density of the liquid is
 unknown, it can be estimated based on the liquid weight fractions of each component (see Part 7.1.5,
 Example 3).
       All of the mixture properties are now known (PVA> Mv> an^ WL)' therefore, these values can
be inputted into the emission estimation procedures outlined in Part 7.1.3 to estimate total losses.
After calculating the total losses, the component losses can be calculated by using either Equation 5-1
or 5-2.  Prior to calculating component losses, Equation 5-6 must be used to determine the vapor
weight fractions of each component.

7.1.5 Sample Calculations14

Example 1 - Chemical Mixture In A Fixed Roof Tank -
       Determine the yearly emission rate of the total product mixture and each component for a
chemical mixture stored in a vertical cone roof tank in Denver,  Colorado.  The chemical mixture
contains (for every 3,171 Ib of mixture) 2,812 Ib of benzene, 258 Ib of toluene, and 101 Ib of
cyclohexane.  The tank is 6 ft in diameter, 12 ft high, usually holds about 8 ft of product, and is
painted white.  The tank working volume is 1,690 gallons. The number of turnovers per year for the
tank is 5 (i. e., the throughput of the tank is 8,450 gal/yr).

Solution -

1. Determine tank type.  The tank is a fixed-cone roof, vertical tank.

2. Determine estimating methodology.  The product is made up of 3 organic liquids, all of which are
miscible in each other, which makes a homogenous mixture if the material is well mixed. The tank
emission rate will be based upon the properties of the mixture.  Raoult's law (as discussed in
Part 7.1.4) is assumed to apply to the mixture and will be used to determine the properties of the
mixture.

3. Select equations  to be used.  For a vertical, fixed roof storage tank, the following equations apply:

       Lp = Ls + Lw                                                                   (1-1)
7.1-30                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
        Ls = 365 WVVVKEKS                                                          (1-2)




        Lw = 0.0010 MvPVAQKNKp                                                    (1-23)




 where:




        L-j. = total loss, Ib/yr




        Ls = standing storage loss, Ib/yr




       LW ~ working loss, Ib/yr




       Vv = tank vapor space volume, ft3




                                      Vv = 7T/4 D2 Hvo                                (1-3)




       Wv = vapor density, Ib/ft3
                                        Wv -                                          (1-9)
       KE = vapor space expansion factor, dimensionless
                                        TLA     PA ~ PVA
       Ks = vented vapor space saturation factor, dimensionless
                                  KS  =
                                            0.053 PVAHVO
        D = diameter, ft




     Hvo  = vapor space outage, ft




      Mv  = molecular weight of vapor, Ib/lb-mole




     PVA  = vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia




       R  = the ideal gas constant,  10.731 psia • ft3/lb-mole • °R




     TLA  = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R




     ATV  = daily vapor temperature range, °R




     APV  = daily vapor pressure range, psia





1/95                                Liqu id Storage Tanks                               7.1-31

    -------
      APB  = breather vent pressure setting range, psi

       PA  = atmospheric pressure, psia

        Q  = annual net throughput, bbl/yr

      KN  = working loss turnover factor, dimensionless

       Kp  = working loss product factor, dimensionless

4.  Calculate each component of the standing storage loss and working loss functions.

a.  Tank vapor space volume, Vv.

                                     Vv = 7T/4 D2 Hvo                                  (1-3)

        D = 6 ft (given)

For a cone roof, the vapor space outage, Hvo, is calculated by:

                                   HVO = Hs - HL + HRO                               (1-4)

where:

       Hs = tank shell  height,  12 ft (given)

       HL = stock liquid height, 8 ft (given)

      HRO = roof outage, 1/3 HR =  1/3(SR)(RS)                                            (1-6)

       SR = tank cone  roof slope, 0.0625 ft/ft (given) (see Note 1 to Equation 1-4)

       Rs = tank shell  radius = 1/2 D = 1/2 (6) = 3

Substituting values in Equation 1-6 yields

               HRO = i (0.0625)(3)  = 0.0625 ft


Then use Equation 1-4 to calculate HVo>

               Hvo = 12 - 8 + 0.0625 = 4.0625 ft

Therefore,

               Vv =  TT  (6)2 (4.0625) = 114.86 ft3
                     4

b.  Vapor density, Wv




7-1_32                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
                                        w    MV PVA                                 (\ Q\
                                        Wv=	                                 {L-y)





         R =  ideal gas constant = 10.731 psia  • frVlb-mole • °R



       My =  stock vapor molecular weight, Ib/lb-mole



      PVA =  stock vapor pressure at the daily average liquid surface temperature, psia



      TLA =  daily average liquid surface temperature, °R



        First, calculate TLA using Equation 1-13.



                           TLA =0.44 T^ + 0.56 TB + 0.0079 a I                    (1-13)



 where:



      TAA =  daily average ambient temperature, °R



        Tg =  liquid bulk temperature, °R



         I =  daily total solar absorptance, Btu/ft-day = 1,568 (see Table 7.1-6)



         a =  tank paint solar absorptance = 0.17 (see Table 7.1-7)



 TAA and TB must be calculated from Equations 1-14 and 1-15.






                                     T    = TAX  +TAN                             (1-14)
                                      AA         2






 From Table 7.1-6, for Denver,  Colorado:



      TAX = daily maximum ambient temperature = 64.3°F



      TAN = daily minimum ambient temperature =  36.2 °F



 Converting to °R:



      TAX = 6*3 +  460 = 524.3 °R



      T^ = 36.2 +  460 = 496.2 °R



Therefore,




      TAA = (524-3 +  496.2)/2 = 510.25 °R



       Tg = liquid bulk temperature = T^ +  6a -  1                                   (1-15)






1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                              7.1-33

    -------
      T^ = 510.25 °R from previous calculation

         or = paint solar absorptance = 0.17 (see Table 7.1-7)

         I = daily total solar insolation on a horizontal surface = 1,568 Btu/ft2-day (see
              Table 7.1-6)

Substituting values in Equation 1-15,

        TB = 510.25 + 6 (0.17) - 1 = 510.27 °R

Using Equation  1-13,

      TLA = (0.44)  (510.25°R)  + 0.56 (510.27°R) + 0.0079 (0.17) (1,568) = 512.36°R

        Second,  calculate PVA using Raoult's law.

        According to Raoult's law, the partial pressure of a component is the product of its pure
vapor pressure and its liquid mole fraction. The sum of the partial pressures are equal to the total
vapor pressure of the component mixture stock.

        The pure vapor pressure for benzene, toluene, and cyclohexane can be calculated from
Antoine's equation. For benzene, Table 7.1-5 provides the Antoine's coefficients, which are
A = 6.905, B = 1,211.033,  and  C = 220.79.   For toluene, A =  6.954, B  = 1,344.8,  and
C = 219.48.  For cyclohexane, A = 6.841, B  =  1,201.53, and C = 222.65.  Therefore:

                                     log P = A -    B
                                       6           T + C

        TLA, average liquid surface temperature (°C) = (512.36 -  492)/1.8 =  11

For benzene,

                              log P - 6.905 -     1'211'033
                                *               (11°C * 220.79)

        P = 47.90 mmHg =  0.926 psia

Similarly for toluene and cyclohexane,

        P = 0.255 psia for toluene

        P = 0.966 psia for cyclohexane

In order to calculate the mixture vapor pressure, the partial pressures need to be calculated for each
component.  The partial pressure is the product of the pure vapor pressures of each component
(calculated above) and the mole fractions of each component in the liquid.

       The mole fractions of each component are  calculated as follows:
7.1.34                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
Amount, Ib
2,812
258
101

^M;
78.1
92.1
84.2

Moles
36.0
2.80
1.20
40.0
xi
0.90
0.07
0.03
1.00
 where:

        Mj =  molecular weight of component

         Xj =  liquid mole fraction

 The partial pressures of the components can then be calculated by multiplying the pure vapor pressure
 by the liquid mole fraction as follows:
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
P at 52°F
0.926
0.255
0.966

xi
0.90
0.07
0.03
1.0
p
partial
0.833
0.018
0.029
0.880
The vapor pressure of the mixture is then 0.880 psia.

       Third, calculate the molecular weight of the vapor, Mv. Molecular weight of the vapor
depends upon the mole fractions of the components in the vapor.
where:
                                          Mv =



       Mj =  molecular weight of the component

        yj =  vapor mole fraction

The vapor mole fractions, y;, are equal to the partial pressure of the component divided by the total
vapor pressure of the mixture.  Therefore,

                          Ybenzene  = Ppartial/Ptotal = 0.833/0.880 = 0.947

Similarly, for toluene and Cyclohexane,

                           Ytoluene  = Ppartial/Ptotal = 0-020

                       ycyclohexane  = Ppartial'Motal = 0.033
1/95
                                      Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-35

    -------
The mole fractions of the vapor components sum to 1.0.

       The molecular weight of the vapor can be calculated as follows:
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
Mi
78.1
92.1
84.2

Yi
0.947
0.020
0.033

Mv
74.0
1.84
2.78
78.6
Since all variables have now been solved, the stock density, Wv, can be calculated:
I
wv = _

tfyPvA
RTLA
(78.6) (0.880) _ j 2£xin-2 lb
(10.731) (512.36) ft3


c.  Vapor space expansion factor, KE.
ATV    APV-APB

T\I +  PA-PVA
where:
                                                                                     (1-16)
      ATV = daily vapor temperature range, °R

      APV = daily vapor pressure range, °R

      APB = breather vent pressure setting range, psia

       PA = atmospheric pressure,  14.7 psia (given)

      PVA = vapor pressure at daily average liquid surface temperature, psia = 0.880 psia (from
             Step 4b)

      TLA = daily average liquid surface temperature, °R = 512.36°R (from Step 4b)

       First, calculate the daily vapor temperature range from Equation 1-17,
                                 ATV = 0.72 ATA + 0.028al
                                              (1-17)
7.1-36
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                 1/95

    -------
 where:

      ATV =  daily vapor temperature range, °R

      ATA =  daily ambient temperature range = TAX - TAN

         a =  tank paint solar absorptance, 0.17 (given)

         I =  daily total solar insolation, 1,568 Btu/ft3 -day (given)

 From Table 7.1-6, for Denver, Colorado:

      TAX =  64.3°F

      TAN =  36.2°F

 Converting to  °R,

      TAX =  64.3 + 460  = 524.3 °R

      TAN =  36.2 + 460  = 496.2°R

 From Equation 1-17 and ATA  =  TAX ' TAN

      ATA =  524.3 - 496.2 = 28.1°R

 Therefore,

      ATV  =  0.72 (28.1) + (0.028)(0.17)(1568)  = 27.7°R

       Second, calculate the daily yapor pressure range using Equation 1-18,

                                     APV = PVX-PVN                                (1-18)

 where:

 Pvx, PVN  = vapor pressures  at  the daily maximum, minimum liquid temperatures can be calculated
             in a manner similar to the PVA calculation shown earlier.

      TLX  = maximum liquid temperature, TLA + 0.25 ATV (from Figure 7.1-16)

      TLN  = minimum liquid temperature, TLA - 0.25 ATV (from Figure 7.1-16)

      TLA  = 512.36  (from Step  4b)

     ATV  = 27.7°R

      TLX = 512.36  + (0.25) (27.7) = 519.3°R or 59°F

     TLN = 512.36  - (0.25) (27.7) = 505.4°R or 45°F



1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-37

    -------
 Using Antoine's equation, the pure vapor pressures of each component at the minimum liquid surface
 temperature are:


               Pbenzene = °-758 Psia
                Ptoluene = O-203


            Pcyclohexane = °-794 Psia

The partial pressures for each component at TLN can then be calculated
as follows:
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
P at 45 °F
0.758
0.203
0.794

xi
0.90
0.07
0.03
1.0
p
1 partial
0.68
0.01
0.02
0.71
Using Antoine's equation, the pure vapor pressure of each component at the maximum liquid surface
temperature are:
                benzene
                 oluene
                       = 0-32
             cyclohexane =

The partial pressures for each component at TLX can then be calculated as follows:
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
P
1.14
0.32
1.18

xi
0.90
0.07
0.03
1.0
p
* partial
1.03
0.02
0.04
1.09
Therefore, the vapor pressure range, APV = PLX - PLN = 1.09 - 0.710 = 0.38 psia.

       Next, calculate the breather vent pressure, APB, from Equation 1-20:
                                       APB - PBp - PBV
where:
                      (1-20)
      PBP =  breather vent pressure setting = 0.03 psia (given) (see Note 3 to Equation 1-16)
7.1-38
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
                        1/95

    -------
      PBV =  breather vent vacuum setting = -0.03 psig (given) (see Note 3 to Equation 1-16)

      APB =  0.03 - (-0.03) = 0.06 psig


 Finally, KE can be calculated by substituting values into Equation 1-16.

                          K  =  (27.7)  +     0.38 - 0.06 psia
                            E   (512.36)    14.7 psia - 0.880 psia

 d.  Vented vapor space saturation factor, Ks
                                  Kc = _ - _                            (1-22)
                                    s    1 +0.053 PVAHVO
 where:

      PVA =  0.880 psia (from Step 4b)

      Hvo =  4.0625 ft (from Step 4a)
                                       =  0.841
              1 + 0.053(0.880)(4.0625)

5.  Calculate standing storage losses.

                                    Ls = 365 WVVVKEKS

       Using the values calculated above:

      Wv =  1.26 x 10"2  ft? (from Step 4b)

       Vv =  114.86 ft3 (from Step 4a)

       KE =  0.077 (from Step 4c)

       Ks =  0.841 (from Step 4d)

       Ls =  365 (1.26xlO-2)(114.86)(0.077)(0.841) = 34.2 Ib/yr

6. Calculate working losses. The amount of VOCs emitted as a result of filling operations can be
calculated from the following equation:

                            Lw =  (0.0010) (MV)(PVA)(Q)(KN)(KP)                      (1-23)
From Step 4:

      Mv =  78.6 (from Step 4b)

     PVA =  0.880 psia (from Step 4b)



1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-39

    -------
         Q =  8,450 gal/yr x 2.381 bbl/100 gal = 201 bbl/yr (given)

        Kp =  product factor, dimensionless = 1  for volatile organic liquids, 0.75 for crude oils

       KN =  1 for turnovers ^36 (given)

        N  =  turnovers per year = 5 (given)

       Lw =  (0.0010)(78.6)(0.880)(201)(1)(1) = 13.9 Ib/yr

7.  Calculate total losses. Ly.

                                       Ly  = Ls + Lw

where:

        Ls =  34.2 Ib/yr

       Lw =  13.9 Ib/yr

       LT =  34.2 + 13.9 = 48.1 Ib/yr

8.  Calculate the amount of each component emitted from the tank.  The amount of each component
emitted is equal to the weight fraction of the component in the vapor times the amount of total VOC
emitted.  Assuming 100  moles of vapor are present, the number of moles of each component will be
equal to the mole fraction multiplied by 100.  This assumption is valid regardless of the actual
number of moles present.  The vapor mole fractions were determined in 4b. The weight of a
component present in a mixture is equal to the product of the number of moles and molecular weight,
Mj, of the component. The weight fraction of each component is calculated as follows:
                                Weight fraction =
                pounds;
              total pounds
Therefore,
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
No. of Moles x MJ = Pounds;
(0.947 x 100) = 94.7
(0.02 x 100) = 2.0
(0.033 x 100) = 3.3
100
78.1
92.1
84.3

7,396
184
278
7,858
Weight
Fraction
0.94
0.02
0.04
1.0
The amount of each component emitted is then calculated as:

                        Emissions of component; = (weight fraction;)^)
7.1-40
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
Weight Total VOC Emissions,
Fraction x Emitted, Ib/yr = Ib/yr
0.94
0.02
0.04

48.1
48.1
48.1

45.2
0.96
1.92
48.1
 Example 2 - Chemical Mixture In A Horizontal Tank -
        Assuming that the tank mentioned in Example 1 is now horizontal, calculate emissions.
 (Tank diameter is 6 ft and length is 12 ft.)

 Solution -
        Emissions from horizontal tanks can be calculated by adjusting parameters in the fixed roof
 equations.  Specifically, an effective diameter,  DE, is used in place of the tank diameter, D. The
 vapor space height, Hvo, is assumed to be half the actual tank diameter.

 1.  Horizontal tank adjustments.  Make adjustments to horizontal tank values so that fixed roof tank
 equations can be used. The effective diameter, DE, is calculated as follows:
         Dc=U6)02)= 9.577 ft
                 0.785
The vapor space height, Hvo is calculated as follows:

       Hvo = 1/2 D = 1/2 (6) = 3 ft

2.  Given the above adjustments, the standing storage loss. Ls. can be calculated. Calculate values
for each affected variable on the standing loss equation.

         Ls  = 365 (Vv) (Wv) (KE) (Ks)

       Vv and Ks depend on the effective tank diameter, DE, and vapor space height, Hvo.

These variables can be calculated using the values derived in Step 1:

        VV =  |(DE)2HVO
        Vv = - (9.577)2 (3) = 216.10 ft3
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-41

    -------
         K   = _ _
          s    1 + (0.053) (PVA)(HVo)


         Kc  = _ I _ = 0.877
          s    1 + (0.053) (0.880) (3)


 3.  Calculate standing storage loss using the values calculated in Step 2.

        Ls = 365 (VV)(WV)(KE)(KS)

       Vv = 216.10 ft3 (from Step 2)

       Wv = 1.26 x 10'2 Ib/ft3 (from Step 4b, example 1)

       KE = 0.077 (from Step 4c, example 1)

       Ks = 0.877 (from Step 2)

       Ls = (365)(1.26x 10-2)(216.10)(0.077)(0.877)

       Ls = 67.1 Ib/yr

4.  Calculate working loss. Since the parameters for working loss do not depend on diameter or
vapor space height, the working loss for a horizontal tank of the same capacity as the tank in
Example 1 will be the same.
           =  13.9 Ib/yr

5.  Calculate total emissions.
       Lp =  67.1 + 13.9 = 81 Ib/yr

Example 3 - Chemical Mixture In An External Floating Roof Tank -
       Determine the yearly emission rate of a mixture that is 75 percent benzene, 15 percent
toluene, and 10 percent cyclohexane, by weight, from a 100,000-gallon external floating roof tank
with a pontoon roof. The tank is 20 feet in diameter.  The tank has 10 turnovers per year.  The tank
has a mechanical shoe seal (primary seal) and a shoe-mounted secondary seal.  The tank is made of
welded steel and has a light rust covering the inside surface of the shell.  The tank shell is painted
white, and the tank is located in Newark, New Jersey.  The floating roof is equipped with the
following fittings:  (1) an ungasketed access hatch with an unbolted cover, (2) an unspecified number
of ungasketed vacuum breakers with weighted mechanical  actuation, and (3) ungasketed gauge
hatch/sample wells with weighted mechanical actuation.

Solution -

1. Determine tank type.  The tank is an external floating roof storage tank.
7.1-42
                                    EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 2.  Determine estimating methodology.  The product consists of 3 organic liquids, all of which are
 miscible in each other, which make a homogenous mixture if the material is well mixed. The tank
 emission rate will be based upon the properties of the mixture.  Because the components have similar
 structures and molecular weights, Raoult's law is  assumed to apply to the mixture.

 3.  Select equations to be used. For an external floating roof tank,

        LT = LWD  + LR + LF                                                           (2-1)

      LWD = (0.943) QCWL/D                                                           (2-4)

        LR = KRvnP*DMvKc                                                            (2-2)

        LF = FFP*MVKC                                                                 (2-5)

 where:

        Lj = total loss, Ib/yr

      LWD = withdrawal loss, Ib/yr

        LR = rim seal loss from external floating roof tanks, Ib/yr

        LF = roof fitting loss, Ib/yr

        Q = product average throughput, bbl/yr

        C = product withdrawal shell clingage factor,  bbl/1,000 ft2; see Table 7.1-10

      WL = density of product,  Ib/gal

        D = tank diameter,  ft

       KR = seal factor, lb-mole/[ft(mph)n • ft • yr)]

        v = average wind speed for the tank site, mph

        n =  seal wind speed exponent, dimensionless

        P* =  the vapor pressure function, dimensionless

           =  (PVA/PA)/(! + [1-OWPA)]0-5)2

       where:

              PVA = the true vapor pressure of the materials stored, psia

               PA = atmospheric pressure, psia =  14.7

      My = molecular weight of product vapor,  Ib/lb-mole



1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-43

    -------
       Kc = product factor, dimensionless

        FF = the total deck fitting loss factor, Ib-mole/yr

                  nf
                  E = l(NFiKFi)  = [(NFlKFl) +  (NF2KF2) +  ...  + NpnfKpnf)]           (2-6)
                  i

        where:

               NF.  = number of fittings of a particular type, dimensionless.  Np. is determined for
                  1    the specific tank or estimated from Tables 7.1-11, 7.1-12, br 7.1-13

               Kp.  = roof fitting  loss factor for a particular type of fitting, Ib-mol/yr.  Kp. is
                  1    determined  for each fitting type from Equation 2-7 and the loss factors in
                      Table 7.1-11.

                 nf  = number of different types of fittings, dimensionless; nf = 3 (given)

4.  Identify parameters to be calculated/determined from tables. In this example, the following
parameters are not specified:  WL, FF, C, KR, v, n, PVA, P*, Mv, and Kc.  Some typical
assumptions that can be made are as follows:

            v =  average wind speed for the tank site = 10.2 mph (see Table 7.1-9)

          Kc =  1.0 for volatile organic liquids (given in Part 7.1.3.2)

           C =  0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2 for tanks with light rust (from Table 7.1-10)

          KR =  0.8 (from Table 7.1-8)

            n =  1.2 (from Table 7.1-8)

FF, WL, PVA> P*> ^d Mv still need to be calculated.

       FF is estimated by calculating the individual Kp. and Np. for each of the 3 types  of roof
fittings used in this example.  For the ungasketed access1 hatches with unbolted covers,  the KF value
can be calculated using information  in Table 7.1-11.  For this fitting, KFa = 2.7, Kj^  =  7.1, and
m = 1.  There is normally 1 access hatch.  So,

            KFaccess = KFa + KFb(vm)

                    = 2.7 + (7.1)(10.2)1

       KFaccess hatch = 75.1 Ib-mole/yr

         Faccess hatch

       The number of vacuum breakers can be taken from Table 7.1-12. For tanks  with a diameter
of 20 feet and a pontoon  roof, the number of vacuum breakers is 1.  Table 7.1-11 provides fitting
7.1-44
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 factors for weighted mechanical action, ungasketed vacuum breakers when the average wind speed is
 10.2 mph.  Based on this table, KFa = 1.1, 1^.= 3.0, and m =1. So,

       KFvacuum breaker = KFa + KFb (v™)

       Kpvacuum breaker = I-1  + 3.0 (10.2)1

       Kpvacuum breaker = 31-7 lb-mole/yr

       •^Fvacuum breaker ~~ *

        For the ungasketed gauge-hatch/sample wells with weighted mechanical actuation,
 Table 7.1-11 indicates that tanks normally have only  1.  This table also indicates that KFa = 0.91,
 K^ = 2.4, and m =  1.  Therefore,


         KFgauge-hatch/sample well =  KFa + KFb (v™)

                            Kp =  0.91  + 2.4 (10.2)1

         KFgauge-hatch/sainple well =  25-4 Ib-mol/yr

           Fgauge-hatch/sample well ~  *•


 FF can be calculated from Equation 2-6:

              3
       Fp =  S(KF )(NF )
           =  132.2 Ib-mole/yr

5. Calculate mole fractions in the liquid. The mole fractions of components in the liquid must be
calculated in order to estimate the vapor pressure of the liquid using Raoult's law.  For this example,
the weight fractions (given as 75 percent benzene, 15 percent toluene, and 10 percent cyclohexane) of
the mixture  must be converted to mole fractions.  First, assume that there are 1000 Ib of liquid
mixture. Using this  assumption, the mole fractions calculated will be valid no matter how many
pounds of liquid actually are present.  The corresponding amount (pounds) of each component is
equal to the product of the weight fraction and the assumed total pounds of mixture of 1000.  The
number of moles of each component is calculated by dividing the weight of each component by the
molecular weight of the component. The mole fraction of each  component is equal to the number of
moles of each component divided by the total  number of moles.  For this example the following
values are calculated:
1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                                7.1-45

    -------
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
Weight
Fraction
0.75
0.15
0.10
1.00
Weight, Ib
750
150
100
1,000
Molecular
Weight, Mi5
Ib/lb-moles
78.1
92.1
84.2

Moles
9.603
1.629
1.188
12.420
Mole
Fraction
0.773
0.131
0.096
1.000
For example, the mole fraction of benzene in the liquid is 9.603/12.420 = 0.773.

6. Determine the daily average liquid surface temperature.  The daily average liquid surface
temperature is equal to:

      TLA = 0.44 TAA + 0.56 TB + 0.0079 a 1

      TAA ~ ("TAX + TAN)/2

       TB = TAA + 6a - 1

For Newark, New Jersey (from Table 7.1-6):

       TAX = 62.5°F = 522.2°R

       TAN = 45.9°F = 505.6°R

          I = l,165Btu/ft2-d

From Table 7.1-7, a = 0.17

Therefore;

       TAA = (522-2 + 505.6)/2 =  513.9°R

        TB = 513.9°R + 6 (0.17) - 1 = 513.92°R

       TLA = 0.44 (513.9) + 0.56 (513.92) + 0.0079  (0.17)(1,165)

            = 515.5°R = 55.8°F = 56°F

7. Calculate partial pressures and total vapor pressure of the liquid. The vapor pressure of each
component at 56°F can be determined using Antoine's equation.  Since Raoult's law is assumed to
apply in this example, the partial pressure of each component is the liquid mole fraction (Xj) times the
vapor pressure of the component (P).
7.1-46
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
P at 56°F
1.04
0.29
1.08

xi
0.773
0.131
0.096
1.00
p
•"•partial
0.80
0.038
0.104
0.942
 The total vapor pressure of the mixture is estimated to be 0.942 psia.

 8.  Calculate mole fractions in the vapor.  The mole fractions of the components in the vapor phase
 are based upon the partial pressure that each component exerts (calculated in Step 7).
        So for benzene,
                           Ybenzene =
                                                 = 0.80/0.942 = 0.85
where:
         vbenzene =  mo^e fraction of benzene in the vapor

          ^partial =  partial pressure of benzene in the vapor, psia

           Ptotal =  total vapor pressure of the mixture, psia

Similarly,

         ytoluene =  0.038/0.942  = 0.040

     Ycyclohexane =  0.104/0.942  = 0.110

The vapor phase mole fractions sum to 1.0.

9.  Calculate molecular weight of the vapor. The molecular weight of the vapor depends upon the
mole fractions of the components  in the vapor.
                                         Mv  =
where:
       Mv =  molecular weight of the vapor

       MJ =  molecular weight of the component

        yj =  mole fraction of component in the vapor
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-47

    -------
Component
Benzene
Toluene
Cyclohexane
Total
Mi
78.1
92.1
84.2
yi
0.85
0.040
0.110
1.00
My = E(Mj)(yj)
66.39
3.68
9.26
79.3
The molecular weight of the vapor is 79.3 Ib/lb-mole.
10. Calculate weight fractions of the vapor. The weight fractions of the vapor are needed to
calculate the amount (in pounds) of each component emitted from the tank.  The weight fractions are
related to the mole fractions calculated in Step 7 and molecular weight calculated in Step 9:

                7    yiMj
                   "
Zi)V=
Zi)V=
Zi,v =
                                  = 0.84 for benzene
                                   = 0.04 for toluene
                          79.3
                               -    = 0.12 for cyclohexane
11. Calculate total VQC emitted from the tank.  The total VOC emitted from the tank is calculated
using the equations identified in Step 3 and the parameters calculated in Steps 4 through 9.
a.  Calculate withdrawal losses:
where:
                                   LWD =0.943 QCWL/D
        Q =  100,000 gal x  10 turnovers/yr (given)


          =  1,000,000 gal  x 2.381 bbl/100 gal = 23,810 bbl/yr


        C =  0.0015 bbl/103 ft2 (from Table 7.1-10)


      WL =  !/[£ (wt fraction in liquid)/(liquid component density from Table 7.1-3)]


Weight fractions


  Benzene =  0.75 (given)
7.1-48
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         1/95

    -------
    Toluene = 0.15 (given)

Cyclohexane = 0.10 (given)


  Liquid densities

    Benzene = 7.4 (see Table 7.1-3)

    Toluene =7.3 (see Table 7.1-3)

Cyclohexane = 6.5 (see Table 7.1-3)


        WL = l/[(0.75/7.4) +  (0.15/7.3) + (0.10/6.5)]

             = 1/(0.101 +  0.0205 + 0.0154)

             = 1/0.1369

             = 7.3 Ib/gal

          D = 20 ft (given)


       LWD = °-943 QCWL/D

             = [0.943(23,810)(0.0015)(7.3)/20]

             = 12.3 Ib  of VOC/yr from withdrawal losses

  b.  Calculate rim seal losses:

                                      LR  = KRvnP*DMvKc
  where:

        KR = 0.8 (from Step 4)

          v = 10.2 mph (from  Step 4)

          n = 1.2 (from Step 4)

       PVA = 0.942 psia (from Step 7)

         p* = (0.942/14.7)/(1 + [1-(0.942/14.7)]°-5)2 = 0.017 (formula from Step 3)

        Mv = 79.3 Ib/lb-mole (from Step 9)

        LR = (0.8)(10.2)1-2(0.017)(20)(79.3)(1.0)

            =  350 Ib of VOC/yr from rim seal losses

  1/95                                 Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-49

    -------
 c.  Calculate roof fitting losses:

                                      LF = FFP*MVKC

 where:

        FF =  132.2 Ib-mole/yr (from Step 4)

        P* =  0.017

      Mv =  79.3 Ib/lb-mole

       Kc =  1.0  (from Step 4)

        Lp =  (132.2)(0.017)(79.3)(1.0)

           =  178 Ib/yr of VOC emitted from roof fitting losses

 d.  Calculate total losses:

       LT =  LWD + LR + LF

           =  12.3 + 350 + 178

           =  540 Ib/yr of VOC emitted from tank

 12. Calculate  amount of each component emitted from the tank.  For an external floating roof tank,
 the individual component losses are determined by  a simplified version of Equation 5-2 where LD
 (deck seam losses)  are negligible:
                             LTJ = (zi,v)(LR + LF) + (

Therefore,

       Li-benzene =  (0.84)(528) + (0.75)(12.3) = 453 Ib/yr benzene

        Li-toluene =  (0.040)(528) + (0.15)(12.3) = 23 Ib/yr toluene

    Lreyciohexane =  «>.12)(528) + «UO)(12.3) = 65 Ib/yr cyclohexane

Example 4 - Gasoline In An Internal Floating Roof Tank -
       Determine emissions of product from a 1 million gallon, internal floating roof tank containing
gasoline (RVP 13). The tank is painted white and is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  The annual
number of turnovers for the tank is 50. The tank is 70 ft in diameter and 35 ft high, and is equipped
with a liquid-mounted primary seal plus a secondary seal. The tank has a column-supported  fixed
roof. The tank's deck is welded and equipped with the following:  (1) 2 access hatches with an
unbolted, ungasketed  cover; (2) an automatic gauge-float well with an unbolted, ungasketed cover;
(3) a pipe column well with a flexible fabric sleeve seal; (4) a sliding cover, gasketed ladder  well;
(5) fixed roof legs; (6) a slotted sample pipe well with a gasketed sliding cover; and (7) a weighted,
gasketed vacuum breaker.


7.1_50                               EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 Solution -

 1 .  Determine tank type. The following information must be known about the tank in order to use the
 internal floating roof equations:

        -  the number of columns
        -  the effective column diameter
        -  the system seal description (vapor- or liquid-mounted, primary or secondary seal)
        -  the deck fitting types and the deck seam length

 Some of this information depends on specific construction details, which may not be known.  In these
 instances, approximate values are provided for use.

 2.  Determine estimating methodology.  Gasoline consists of many organic compounds, all of which
 are miscible in each other, which form a homogenous mixture. The tank emission rate will be based
 on the properties of RVP 13 gasoline. Since vapor pressure data have already been compiled,
 Raoult's law will not be used.  The molecular weight of gasoline also will be taken from a table and
 will not be calculated.  Weight fractions of components will be assumed to be available from
 SPECIATE database.

 3.  Select equations to be used.

                           + LR + Lp + LD                                            (3-1)
                      (0.943) QCWLr,    , NcFc ,,
                  =              LF1 + ( _ )]                                       (3-4)
                             D              D
               LR=  KRP*DMVKC                                                      (3-2)

               LF =  FFP*MVKC                                                        (3-5)

               LD =  KDSDD2P*MVKC                                                  (3-6)


where:

       LT =  total loss, Ib/yr

     LWD =  withdrawal loss, Ib/yr

       LR =  rim seal loss, Ib/yr

       LF =  deck fitting loss, Ib/yr

       LD =  deck seam loss, Ib/yr

For this example:

        Q =  product average throughput, bbl/yr [tank capacity (bbl/turnover) x turnovers/yr]

        C =  product withdrawal shell clingage factor, bbl/1,000 ft2

1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-51

    -------
       WL =  density of liquid, Ib/gal

        D =  tank diameter, ft

       Nc =  number of columns, dimension! ess

       Fc =  effective column diameter, ft

       KR =  seal factor, Ib-mole/ft • yr

       Mv =  the average molecular weight of the product vapor, Ib/lb-mole

       Kc =  the product factor, dimensionless

       P* =  the vapor pressure function, dimensionless
       where:

                PVA = the vapor pressure of the material stored, psia

                 PA = average atmospheric pressure at tank location, psia

                 FF = the total deck fitting loss factor, Ib-mole/yr


                    =  Ef(NF.KF.) = [(NFlKFl) + (NF2KF2) + ...  4-


              where:

                       NFj  = number of fittings of a particular type, dimensionless.  NFj is
                              determined for the specific tank or estimated from Table 7.1-16

                       KF.  = deck fitting loss factor for a particular type of fitting, Ib-mole/yr.
                              KF. is determined for each fitting type from Table 7.1-16

                         nf  = number different types of fittings, dimensionless

       KD = the deck  seam loss factor, Ib-mole/ft • yr

          = 0.34 for  nonwelded roofs

          = 0 for welded decks

       SD = deck seam length factor, ft/ft2
7.1_52                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
        where:

                Lseam = total length of deck seams, ft

                Adeck = area of deck, ft2 =  7rD2/4

 4.  Identify parameters to be calculated or determined from tables.  In this example, the following
 parameters are not specified:  Nc, Fc, P, Mv, Ks, P*, Kc, FF, KD, and SD.  The density of the
 liquid (WL) and the vapor pressure of the liquid (P) can be read from tables and do not need to be
 calculated. Also, the weight fractions of components in the vapor can be obtained from speciation
 manuals.  Therefore, several steps required in preceding examples will not be required in this
 example.  In each case, if a step is not required, the reason is presented.

        The following parameters can be obtained from tables or assumptions:

        Kc =  1.0 (for volatile organic liquids)

        Nc =  1 (from  Table 7.1-15)

        Fc =  1.0 (assumed)

        KR =  1.6 (from Table 7.1-14)

       Mv = 62  Ib/lb-mol (from Table 7.1-2)

       WL = 4.9 Ib/gal (from Table 7.1-2)

         C = 0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2 (from Table 7.1-10)

       KD = 0 (for welded roofs)

        SD = 0.2 ft/ft2 (from Table 7.1-17)

        FF = £ (KF.NF.)

Substituting values taken from Table 7.1-16 for access hatches, gauge-float wells, pipe column well,
ladder well, roof leg, sample pipe well, and vacuum breaker, respectively, yields:

        FF =  (25)(2) + (28)(1) + (10)(1) +  (56)(1) + 0 [5 + (70/10)  -I- (702/600)] + (44)(1) +
              (0.7X1)

           =  188.7 Ib-mole/yr

5. Calculate mole fractions in the liquid. This step is not required because liquid mole fractions are
only used to calculate liquid vapor pressure, which is given in this example.

6. Calculate the daily average  liquid surface temperature.  The daily average liquid surface
temperature is equal  to:
1/95                                  Liquid Storage Tanks                               7.1-53

    -------
      TLA = 0.44 TAA + 0.56 TB + 0.0079 a I

      TAA = (TAX + T^/2

        TB = TAA + 6« - 1

 For Tulsa, Oklahoma (from Table 7.1-6):

      TAX = 71-3°F = 530.97°R

      TAN = 49-2°F = 508.87°R

         I = l,373Btu/ft2'day

 From Table 7.1-7, a =  0.17

 Therefore,

      TAA = (530.97 + 508.87)72  = 519.92°R

        TB = 519.92 + 6(0.17) - 1  = 519.94°R

      TLA = O-44 (519.92) + 0.56 (519.94)  + 0.0079(0. 17)(1, 373)

      TLA = 228.76 + 291.17 + 1.84

      TLA = 52 1.77 or 62 °F

7.  Calculate partial pressures and total vapor pressure of the liquid.  The vapor pressure of gasoline
RVP 13 can be interpolated from Table 7.1-2.  The interpolated vapor pressure at 62 °F is equal to
7.18 psia.  Therefore,

        P* = (7.18/14.7)/[1 +  (1-(7.18/14.7))0-5]2

           = 0.166

8.  Calculate mole fractions of components in the vapor. This step is not required because vapor
mole fractions are needed to calculate the weight fractions and the  molecular weight of the vapor,
which are already specified.

9.  Calculate molecular weight of the vapor. This step is not required because the molecular weight
of gasoline vapor is already specified.

10.  Calculate weight fractions of components of the vapor.  The weight fractions of components in
gasoline vapor can be obtained from  a VOC speciation manual.

1 1 .  Calculate total VOC emitted from the tank.  The total VOC emitted from the tank is calculated
using the equations identified in Step 3 and the parameters specified in Step 4.

                     LR + LF  + LD
7.1-54                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 a.  Calculate withdrawal losses:

                         LWD = I(0.943)QCWL]/D X [1 + (NCFC)/D]

 where:

        Q =  (1,000,000 gal) X (50 turnovers/yr)

           =  (50,000,000 gal) X (2.381 bbl/100 gal) = 1,190,500 bbl/yr

        C =  0.0015 bbl/1,000 ft2

      WL =  4.9 Ib/gal

        D =  70ft

       Nc=  1

       Fc=  1

     LWD =  [(0.943)(1,190,500)(Q.0015)(4.9)]/70X [1 + (1)(1)/70] = 119.6 Ib/yr VOC for
              withdrawal losses

 b.  Calculate rim seal losses:

                                     LR = KRDP*MVKC

 where:

       KR =  1.61b-mole/ft-yr

       P* =  0.166

        D =  70 ft

      Mv =  62 Ib/lb-mole

      Kc =  1.0

       LR =  (1.6)(0.166)(70)(62)(1.0) = 1,153 Ib/yr VOC from rim seal losses

c.  Calculate deck fitting losses:

                                      LF = FFP*MVKC

where:

       FF =  188.7 Ib-mole/yr

       P* = 0.166



1/95                                Liquid Storage Tanks                              7.1-55

    -------
       Mv =  62 Ib/lb-mole

       Kc=  1

       LF =  (188.7)(0.166)(62)(1.0) = 1,942 Ib/yr VOC from deck fitting losses


 d.  Calculate deck seam losses:
                                   LD = KDSDD2P*MVKC
 where:

       KD= 0

       SD = 0.2

        D = 70ft

       P* = 0.166

      Mv = 62 Ib/lb-mole

       Kc = 1.0

       LD = (0.0)(0.2)(70)2(0.166)(62)(1.0) = 0 Ib/yr VOC from deck seam losses

e. Calculate total losses

       LT = LWQ + LR + LF + LD

           = 119.6 + 1,153 + 1,942 + 0  = 3,215 Ib/yr of VOC emitted from the tank

 12. Calculate amount of each component emitted from the tank. The individual component losses
are equal to:

                         LT>i = (Zi>v)(LR + LF + LD) +  (Zj^OLwo)

Since the liquid weight fractions are unknown, the individual component losses are calculated based
on the vapor weight fraction and the total losses.  This procedure should yield approximately the same
values as the above equation because withdrawal losses are typically low for floating roof tanks. The
amount of each component emitted is the weight fraction of that component in the vapor (obtained
from a VOC species data manual and shown  below) times the total amount of VOC  emitted from the
tank.  The amount emitted for each component is shown in the following example:
7.1-56                             EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
                               EMISSIONS FOR EXAMPLE 4
Constituent
Air toxics
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
O-xylene
Nontoxics
Isomers of pentane
N-butane
Iso-butane
N-pentane
Isomers of hexane
3-methyl pentane
Hexane
Others
Total
Weight Percent In Vapor x 3,215 Ib/yr

0.77
0.66
0.04
0.05

26.78
22.95
9.83
8.56
4.78
2.34
1.84
21.40
100
= Pounds Emitted/yr

24.8
21.2
1.29
1.61

861
738
316
275
154
75.2
59.2
688
3,215
       Pressure/Vocuum Vent


       Fix«d Roof

       Floot Gauge
       Ro o f Co Iumo
       L i <|u > a1 L« v« I
       Indicator
       Inlet Nozzle

       Out Iet Nozzl
                                 Roo f  Manhole


                                 Gauae-Hatch/
                                 Samp I * We I I


                                 Gouger's Platform
                                 5p i ra I  St a i rway


                                 CyI i ndr i cal  She I I



                                 She I I Manho t e
                           Figure 7.1-1. Typical fixed-roof tank.1
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
                                                                                    7.1-57

    -------
    SIM VENT
    PONTOON  ACCESS HATCH
    WIND GIRDER
    VACUUM BREAKER
    RIM SEAL
    PONTOON ROOF LEG
    CENTER ROOF  LEG
    ACCESS HATCH
                                                                                GAUGER'S  PLATFC-f
                                                                                GAUGE-FLOAT WELL
                                                                                GUIDE POLS
                                                                                GAUGE-HATCH/
                                                                                SAMPLE WELL
                                                                                ROLLING LADDER
                                                                                ROOF" DRAIN
                                                                                LEG FLOOR PAD
                      Figure 7.1-2.  External floating roof tank (pontoon type).
    RIM VENT
    WIND GIRDER
    VACUUM BREAKER
    ROOF LEG
    RIM SEAL
    ACCESS HATCH
     EMERGENCY ROOT DRAIN
                                                                                 AUGER'S PLAT.-ORM
                                                                                GAUGE-FLOAT WELL
                                                                                GUIDE POLE
GAUGE-HATCH/
SAMPLE WELL
                                                                                ROLLING LADDER
                                                                                 ROOF  DRAIN
                                                                                 LEG FLOOR PAD
                   Figure 7.1-3. External floating roof tank (double-deck type).1
7.1-58
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
              1/95

    -------
                                                           Center Vent
                  Peripheral
                  Roof Vent
               Primary Seal
                    Manhole
                                        Tank Support
                                        Column with
                                        Column Well
                                    a. Contact internal floating roof
               Peripheral
               Roof Vent
             Primary Seal
                 Manhole
                                                        Center Vent
                                                                             Tank Support
                                                                             Column with
                                                                             Column Well
                   Rim Plato
                  	  Rim Pontoons
                                         Rim Pontoons
                                  Pontoons
                             Vapor Space
                                  b.  Noncontact internal floating roof.
                              Figure 7.1-4.  Internal floating roof tanks."
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-59

    -------
           •Tank Wail
                       Metallic
                       Weather Shield
                          Floating Roof
                      **- Scuff Band
     a.  Liquid-filled seal with
        weather shield.
            Tank Watt
                       Metallic
                       Weather Shield
                                    X
                         Floating Roof
                         Seal Fabric
     c. Vapor-mounted resilient
        foam-filled seal with
        weather shield.
                    Tank Wail
                               Envelop*

                               Shoe
                                   Floating Roof
               b. Metallic shoe seal.
                              Metallic
                              Weather Shield
                                 Floating Roof
                              >- Seal Fabric
                d.   Liquid-mounted resilient
                    foam-filled seal with
                    weather shield.
                              Figure 7.1-5. Primary seals.2
7.1-60
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       •Tank Watt
            A
            *- Floating Roof
          ^Shoe
         wy/>y>y>>Bf>y>y>>>>>

     a. Shoe seal with rim-mounted
        secondary seal.
•TankWaN
                    Rim-Mounted
                    Secondary Seal
                                 X
                       Floating Roof
                    >-Seai Fabric
                       Resiaent
                       Foam Log
                       Vapor Space
      c.  Resilient foam seal (vapor-
         mounted) with tin-mounted
         secondary seal.
                                    r~ Tank Wall
                                    \ 4
                                                            Rim-Mounted
                                                            Secondary Seal

                                                                         X
                                                              Floating Roof
                                                              Scuff Band
                                                              Liquid-Filled
                                                              Tuba
                                                                  >>>>>>>>>£

                                     b. Liquid-filled seal with rim-
                                        mounted secondary seat
                                                 •Tank Wan
                                                    Rim-Mounted
                                                    Secondary Seal
                                                                  X
                                                       Floating Roof
                                                    >- Seal Fabric
                                                       Resilient
                                                       Foam Log
                                      d. Resilient foam seal (liquid
                                         mounted) with rim-mounted
                                         secondary seal.
            Figure 7.1-6. Rim-mounted secondary seals on external floating roofs.
1/95
                        Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-61

    -------
                           •Tank Wall
                                            ndaiy Seal
                                       (WiparType)
                                           Floating Roof

                                           Vapor Spact
                                                *

              Figure 7.1-7.  Metallic shoe seal with shoe-mounted secondary seal.3
7.1-62
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                   alh^     OMi
                                   i*rpi
                                     Liquid to*

     a.  Access hatch
             b.  Gauge-float well
                                                                                .FlMt
Nrf*"*V
SdW-h, JL
LZ
-1
Fly dim g


'


c. Gauee-batcl
^— Cool (
4

4


/



l/SWTipk1. w<>
»
»

^






u

)
Rs/
P3
/v^v-
^JWdocra



	 1





•f
















• •^^
TtokriMU •
ftbcic _
Prinaiy ml ~
•hoc -
Flo«Jiaf roof
nm
Rimvtpoc —
•{WO*
Liquid l^W ~




d. Rimvei
-«v-
X
b d
v y>
^..^
5»-
^


^
^k^M

It
(,
1


•MMHMHMi^BM
1
1




__l
IM^VM
«^^


s






>— Rna i
Riak*
"" piy*

^sad







rait
•M









                    Figure 7.1-8. Roof fittings for external floating roof tanks.3
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-63

    -------
     Screened
     cover
                                                     Atfe'Mtabfe kf
                                                                             Floating roof
 a.  Overflow drain
b.  Roof leg
c.  Unslotted guide pole well
d.  Slotted guide pole/sample well
                                   e.  Vacuum breaker
                   Figure 7.1-9.  Roof fittings for external floating roof tanks/
7.1-64
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                         1/95

    -------
                FLEXIBLE WIPE-
               'SECONDARY SEAL
s
"~

\
\l lO
RESILIENT FILLED SEAL
^(VAPOR-MOUNTED)

^ ////////// /////s
un i cvci \


^•^

—


—^^—

i
;_'//// 	

                                        v BUOYANT PANEL DECK

                     a. Resilient foam-filled seal (vapor-mounted).
                    RESILIENT FILLED SEAL
                    (LIQUID-MOUNTED)
                      RIM PLATE
             LIQUID LEVEL
                                         ^PAN-TYPE DECK
         -•	TANK SHELL

                     b.  Resilient foam-filled seal (liquid-mounted).
             .FLEXIBLE WIPER SEVM.
                            ^COLUMN
                            .COVER


M \f
( \
\J
11 un i ci
;
y
/ei \
••^•H


X

A WELL
r /
^ /
\ -s
^DEC
                                           'PONTOON
                              c. Elastomeric wiper seal.

     Figure 7.1-10. Typical floatation devices and perimeter seals for internal floating roofs.4
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
                                                                               7.1-65

    -------
                                           Primary sea' immersed in VOL
                                              Contact-type intend flottinj roof
             Figure 7.1-11. Rim-mounted secondary seal on an internal floating roof.5
7.1-66
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     r-   O.S
                                                                                         140
                                                                                        130 —=
2



i
>
§

i
35
 6



 7



 8






10


11


12


13

14

15
        20
                                            r—  2




                                                3



                                                4



                                                5
                                         i
                                         &

                                         I
                                            -10
                                            — 15
                                                                                        120 —E
                                                                                        110
                                                                                        100  —z
                                                                                         80 —=
                                                                                         70
                                                                                         60  —E
                                                                                         so
                                                                                         40
                                                                                         30
                                                                                         I


                                                                                         I

                                                                                         10 —E
                                                                                         o 	-
          Figure 7.1-12a.  True vapor pressure of crude oils with a Reid vapor pressure of

                                 1 to 15 pounds per square inch.4
 1/95
                                        Liquid Storage Tanks
                                                                                    7.1-67

    -------
                 — 320
              f— 0.30

              — 040

              — 050
              — 0.60
              — 070
              — 0.80
              5~ 090
              — 1.00
                 — 1.50


                 — 2.00

                    2.50

                    3.00

                    3.50
                —  4.00
                                                          i
                                                                                              120
                                                                                              110
                                                                                              100
                                                                                              90
                                                                                           80-3
                                                                                          70-3
                 - 6.00
                 - 7.00
— 8.00
— 9.00
— 10.0
— 11.0
— 12.0
— 13.0
— 14.0
— 15.0
— 16.0
— 170
— 18.0
— 19.0
ir-20.o
— 21 0
— 22.0
— 23 0
— 240






Notes
1. S .

In the
2. The
                                                                                             30-
                                                                                             20-
                                                             " 10
                                                                        -*"—• in
                               [
    -------
  where:
            P  = stock true vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
            T  = stock temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
         RVP  = Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch.

  Note:  This equation was derived from a regression analysis of points read off Figure 7. l-12a over the full
         range of Reid vapor pressures, slopes of the ASTM distillation curve at 10 percent evaporated, and
         stock  temperatures.  In general, the equation yields P values that are within +O.OS pound per square
         inch absolute of the values obtained directly from the nomograph.
     Figure 7.1-12b.  Equation for true vapor pressure of crude oils with a Reid vapor pressure of
                                   2 to 15 pounds per square inch.4
°-7553 -                    s°        <**> -   1-854 -
                                                                -  I1
  where:
          P  = stock true vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
          T  = stock temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
       RVP  = Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch.
          S  = slope of the ASTM distillation curve at 10 percent evaporated, in degrees Fahrenheit per
               percent.

  Note:  This equation was derived from a regression analysis of points read off Figure 7.1-13a over the full
         range of Reid vapor pressures, slopes of the ASTM distillation curve at  10 percent evaporated, and
         stock temperatures. In general, the equation yields P values that are within +0.05 pound per
         square inch absolute of the values obtained directly from the nomograph.
   Figure 7.1-13b.  Equation for true vapor pressure of refined petroleum stocks with a Reid vapor
                             pressure of 1 to 20 pounds per square inch.4
                         A = 15.64 - 1.854 S0-5 - (0.8742-0.3280 S°-5)ln(RVP)
                         B  = 8,742 - 1,042 S°'5 - (1,049-179.4 S0'5)ln(RVP)
 where:
       RVP = stock Reid vapor pressure, in pounds per square inch
          hi = natural logarithm function
          S = stock ASTM-D86 distillation slope at 10 volume percent evaporation (°F/vol %)


            Figure 7.1-14.  Equations to determine vapor pressure constants A and B for
                                     refined petroleum stocks.6
1/95                                    Liquid Storage Tanks                                  7.1-69

    -------
                                A = 12.82 - 0.9672 In (RVP)




                                B = 7,261 - 1,216 In (RVP)




   where:




       RVP  =  Reid vapor pressure, psi




          In  =  natural logarithm function
   Figure 7.1-15.  Equations to determine vapor pressure constants A and B for crude oils stocks.6
                 Daily maximum and minimum liquid surface temperature, (°R)




                      TLX = TLA + 0-25 ATV




                      TLN = TLA - 0-25 ATV



   where:



       TLX  =  daily maximum liquid surface temperature, °R



       TLA 1S 3s defined in Note 3 to Equation 1-9



       ATV is as defined in Note  1 to Equation 1-16




        TLN =  daily mimmum liquid  surface temperature, °R
    Figure 7.1-16. Equations for the daily maximum and minimum liquid surface temperatures.e
7.1-70
                                   EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
                     I
                     a.
                     at
                     01

                     O
1.0





0.8





0.6




0.4





0.2




  0
                                      100
                   200
300
400
                       TURNOVER PER YEAR  - ANNUAL THROUGHPUT

                                                TANK CAPACITY



                         Note: For 36 turnovers per year or less, K* =  1.0
                  Figure 7.1-17. Turnover factor (KN) for fixed roof tanks/
1/95
      Liquid Storage Tanks
                         7.1-71

    -------
l.v
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01

••>
•w
••»


3
WB
••»
•M
••»
••»
•»•
MB
MB
~

^
•B>
M»

^

•»
= /
-
i ! ;













/
/
r

i











/
/




i









/
/














X"

















\








{1
















1
i







s








- (PI9
I






/









)r /
1







^









1
\





/










i




/















f
/












I
L
/-i
/-i
/ -
-
-
5
5
-
•M


^


—
~
^
E
'•V
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
'
4
j
7 00"!
                  2    3    4    5     S    7     8    9    10    11    12   13   14    15
                          Stock tnw vapor procure. P (pounds p«r •quart inch abtoluM)
Notes:
i. Broken line illustrates sample problem for P = 5.4 pounds per square inch absolute.
2. Curve is for atmospheric pressure, P., equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute.
                             Figure 7.1-18.  Vapor pressure function/
7.1-72
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                               1/95

    -------
                     100
                      50
                I    10
                I
                     0.5
                     0.1
                         1
                                     7  /

                                                               /
                                                                   /-
                                                                                   • Primary only
                                                                                   Primary and sho«-
                                                                                  ' mounted secondary
                                                                                   Primary and rim-
                                                                                  ' mounted secondary
                                   5          10         20     30

                             speed. V (miles per hour)

Note: Solid line indicates average-fitting seal, broken line indicates tight-fitting seal; F, » K,V"
                                                                                                     ^
     Figure 7.1-19.  Rim-seal loss factor for a welded tank with a mechanical-shoe primary seal."
1/95
                          Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-73

    -------
               1000'
                500'
            I
            i
            i
100
                 50
                 10
                                   T
                                  1
                                                   1
                                                 ill

                                                        Z
                                                             /±
                                                            r
                                                                                 on»y
                                                           Primary and
                                                              nary and rinv
                                                                           mountad sacondary
                                                           Primary only

                                                          • Primary and
                                                            Primary and rim-

                                                            mountad i
                                             5          10         20    30


                                             , V (mat par hour)


            Note: Solid line :ndici.is average-fitting seal: broken iine indicates tight-fining seal; F, - K,V.
    Figure 7.1-20.  Rim-seal loss factor a for a welded tank with a vapor-mounted, resilient-filled

                                           primary seal.3
7.1-74
                                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                  1/95

    -------
                  100
                   50
              I   10
              2
              i
                   0.5
                   0.1
                                  /;

                                                                                 Primary only
                                      Primary and
                                     ' weather srueW
                                                                                 Primary and nm-
                                                                                 mounttd secondary
                             20    30
                      1                          5          10

                                        Vvtnd spMd, V (rntn par hour)

               Note: Solid line indicates average-filling seal; broken line indicates tight-fitting seal; F, * K,V".
     Figure 7.1-21.  Rim-seal loss factor for a welded tank with a liquid-mounted, resilient-filled
                                              primary seal.3
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-75

    -------
                100
                 50
                 10
             1
                0.5
                0.1
                                                                           Primary only
                                                                          Primary and i
                                                                          mountad secondary
                                                                         i Primary and rim-
                                                                          mountad sacondary
                                                                 20    30



                              Note: Solid line indicates average-fitting seal: F, * K,V~.
          5         10
Wind spMd. V (mila* p«r hour)
     Figure 7.1-22.  Rim-seal loss factor for a riveted tank with a mechanical-shoe primary seal.-
7.1-76
                                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               1/95

    -------
         3500
         3000
         2500
         2000
                   A =  1000 + 1.40O
                     Fr = 680 + 1.05O
                     Fi = 340 + 0.71O
                                                                  15 mites per hour
                                                                   10 miles per hour
                                                                   5 miles per hour
                i   i  i  i    i  i   i  i     i  i   i  i    i  i   i  i     i  i   i   i     I  i   i  i
         1500
         1000
                                       100          150         200
                                           Tank diameter, 0 (feet)
                                                   300
     Figure 7.1-23. Total roof-fitting loss factor for typical fittings on pontoon floating roofs.3
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
                                                                                         7.1-77

    -------
        3500
        3000
        2500
        2000
         1500
        1000
                                         Tank diamottr, D (fMt)
          500?
    Figure 7.1-24.  Total roof-fitting loss factor for typical fittings on double-deck floating roofs.3
7.1-78
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
asoo
MOO
7500
7000
&500
8000
5500
5000
4SOO
4000
3800
3000
2SOO
2000
15OO
1000
400
C
;
















•_.— "^









b*
F,-(O.C






^^
***








OtTEDDE
>481)D2 -





Xx
^
iiii







•CK(S«t*
«• (1.392)




//


111!








tott)
D + 134.

/
M








/
V
{/
'/






/
1
/ /
I
/




1
1
1
I I
\ /
/






' / WELDED DECK
/Ff~ (0.0385)£>2 + (1.392)D + 1



riii



i i i i



t j : ;



•, t i i













34.2




                                        100
                                                 ISO
                                                         JOO
                                                                          300
                                                                                   380
                                                                                           400
                                             TANK DIAMETER, D (feet)
    Basis:   Fittings include: (1) access batch with ungaslceted, unbolted cover, (2) built-up column wells with ungasketed
           sliding cover, (3) adjustable deck legs; (4) gauge float well with ungasketed unbolted cover, (5) ladder well with
           ungasketed sliding cover, (6) sample well with slit fabric seal (10 percent open area); (7) 1-inch-diameter stub
           drains (only on bolted deck); and (8) vacuum breaker with gasketed weighted mechanical actuation. This basis
           was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers. Other fittings may be typically used within particular
           companies or organizations to reflect standards and/or specifications of that group. This figure should not
           supersede information based on actual tank data.

    NOTE:  If no specification information is available, assume bolted decks are the most common/typical type currently in ui
           in tanks with column-supported fixed roofs.
   Figure 7.1-25.  Approximated total deck fitting loss factors (Ff) for typical fittings in tanks with
       column-supported fixed roofs and either a bolted deck or a welded deck.  (Use only when
              tank-specific data on the number and kind of deck fittings  are unavailable.)4
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-79

    -------
             I
             I
                     4500
                     4000
                     3500
                     3000
                     2500
                     2000
1500
                     1000
                      500
                                         BOLTED DECK
                               Ff = (0.0228)02 -t- (0.79)D + 105.2
                                                 /
                                              7
                                                                      WELDED DECK (S~ Now)
                                                                     (0.0132)D2 •»• (0.79)D -f 105.2
                                  50       100      ISO      200     250      300

                                             TANK DIAMETER, D (feet)
                                                                                   360
                                                                                           400
    Basis:   Fittings include:  (1) access batch with ungasketed, unbolted cover, (2) adjustable deck legs; (3) gauge float well
            with ungasketed unbolted cover, (4) sample well with slit fabric seal (10 percent open area); (5) 1-inch-diameter
            stub drains (only on bolted deck); and (6) vacuum breaker with gasketed weighted mechanical actuation. This
            basis was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers. Other fittings may be typically used within particular
            companies or organizations to reflect standards and/or specifications of that group. This figure should not
            supersede information based on actual tank data.

    NOTE:  If no specification information is available, assume welded decks are the most common/typical type currently in
            use in tanks with column-supported fixed roofs.


    Figure 7.1-26.  Approximated total deck fitting  loss factors (Ff) for typical fittings  in tanks with
  self-supported fixed roofs and  either a bolted deck or a welded deck.  (Use only when tank-specific
                      data on the number and  kind of deck fittings are unavailable).4
7.1-80
                      EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
VO
                                         Table 7.1-1.  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TANK EQUATIONS
              Variable     Description
                                                Variable    Description
                                                Variable    Description
CL.
GO
8
*-i
w
CTQ
(U
H


I
            total losses, Ib/yr
 ,s          standing storage losses, Ib/yr
            working losses, Ib/yr
v y         vapor space volume, ft3
Wv         vapor density, Ib/ft
KE         vapor space expansion factor,
            dimensionless
Ks         vented vapor saturation factor,
            dimensionless
D           tank diameter, ft
HyQ        vapor space outage, ft
Hs         tank shell height, ft
HL         liquid height, ft
HRO        roof outage, ft
HR         tank roof height,  ft
SR         tank cone roof slope, ft/ft
Rs         tank shell radius, ft
RR         tank dome roof radius, ft
My         vapor molecular weight,
            Ib/lb-mole
R           ideal gas constant,
            (10.731 psia  • ft3/lb-moIe»°R)
PVA        vapor pressure at daily average
            liquid surface temperature,
            psia
TLA        daily averaEe liquid surface
            temperature,  °R
M|         molecular weight of
            component i, Ib/lb-mole
y;          vapor mole fraction of
            component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole
X;          liquid mole fraction of
            component i, Ib-mole/lb-mole
P           true vapor pressure of
            component i, psia
A           constant in vapor pressure
            equation, dimensionless
B           constant in vapor pressure
            equation, °R
TAA        daily average ambient
            temperature, °R
TB         liquid bulk temperature,  °R
a           tank paint solar absorptance,
            dimensionless
I           daily total solar insolation
            factor, Btu/ft2»day
TAX        daily maximum ambient
            temperature, °R
TA|S[        daily minimum ambient
            temperature,  °R
DE         effective tank diameter, ft
L           length of tank,  ft
ATV        daily vapor temperature range,
            °R
APy        daily vapor pressure range, psi
APB        breather vent pressu-e setting
            range, psig
PA         atmospheric pressure, psi
ATA        daily ambient temperature
            range, °R
Pyx        vapor pressure at  the daily
            maximum liquid surface
            temperature, psia
PVN        vapor pressure at  the daily
            minimum liquid surface
            temperature, psia
 -j
 H-*
 oo
PBP         breather vent pressure setting,
            psig
PBV         breather vent vacuum setting,
            psig
Q          annual net throughput, bbl/yr
KN         turnover factor, dimensionless
N          number  of turnovers per year,
            dimensionless
TT          constant, (3.14159)
VLX        tank maximum liquid volume,
            ft3
HLX        maximum liquid height, ft
KP         working loss product factor for
            fixed roof tanks, dimensionless
LR         rim seal loss, Ib/yr
LWD        withdrawal loss, Ib/yr
Lp         roof fitting loss, Ib/yr
KR         seal factor, Ib-
            mole/mph"«ft«yr for external
            floating roof tanks or Ib-
            mole/ft»yr for internal  floating
            roof tanks
v          average wind speed, mph
n          seal-related speed exponent,
            dimensionless
P*         vapor pressure function,
            dimensionless
FR         rim seal loss factor, Ib-
            moles/ft'yr
KC         product factor for floating roof
            tanks, dimensionless
C          shell clingage factor,
            bbl/1,000 ft2
WL         average organic liquid  density,
            Ib/gal
Fp         total roof fitting loss factor,
            Ib-mole/yr

    -------




















o

1
r-'
3
a
H


















e
_o
"E,
•c
o
8
Q
3
CO
•c
«











_o
o
CA




J
"E,
•c
o
S
Q
_u
3
CS
C3











3 2
'g 60 C«.S -jT

^* ^^ 2j v o o

o. •*" £ tf d. c «
e u _e 5 « S3
§ o 5 3 o vj .3;

^ i'U.'s .1 *§•§
*o 3-£.e Se
ca o g 2^^> « 2  — n M
J J > > Z
M cu 4)  tH t!
° 2 c « ~ ^> J2 ^ J2 ^
jp,22«JJ3t>R|u??|i>
lilllilili
«^-3 « B.J5 O-JS O.J)
^« ,IM a ea "^ ca •" c8 ~"
§62-1^.^.^1
t*«'"Xit/-k,Si,Svs o *? o ^? c
C Q* tj O ^5 O mi» O ™5 O C



£ - JF J?






























<0
Sg *:S^-,,g 2<4-.'3n-c c c
s-ij i-s«s| I ° 1 ° '! a
illfi l|lli 1 -L^-LU
:-|:.| is-ifl-j," isi,?fs|fs
l-^IUllMlli fc-'i!t---|lt
2« *rl^ § « i 8 1 M| § '« S S-VS §S «-g
O ^| , • 4i v- *J* >. S S «5 t. ? C "« "U ^ C p D "O
,C^j Q C "•* 3? C *S *** ,ri w »-^ O "en °^ "O ® O ?3 W ® *"* 3 "rt

SS ^cs"^ ^ E^2 *i c^^JS S"^- ^5-^*3.^ ci^S^.^ S--
5^- -a g'-o'S -o^-u5 S g..^a 8 £ g ? 82 Ss:
j
•<^
s -* H
«8 j > o
fT 9^ r^J5 Q ?
7.1-82
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                       Table 7.1-2.  PROPERTIES (Mv, Wvc, PVA, WL) OF SELECTED PETROLEUM LIQUIDS8





Petroleum Liquid
Gasoline RVP 13
Gasoline RVP 10
Gasoline RVP 7
Crude oil RVP 5
Jet naphtha (JP-4)
Jet kerosene
Distillate fuel oil No. 2
Residual oil No. 6
Vapor
Molecular
Weight At
60°F,
Mv
(Ib/lb-mole)
62
66
68
50
80
130
130
190
Condensed
Vapor
Density
At 60°F,
Wvc
(Ib/gal)
4.9
5.1
5.2
4.5
5.4
6.1
6.1
6.4

Liquid
Density At
60°F,
WL
(Ib/gal)
5.6
5.6
5.6
7.1
6.4
7.0
7.1
7.9








True Vapor Pressure


40°F
4.7
3.4
2.3
1.8
0.8
0.0041
0.0031
0.00002


50°F
5.7
4.2
2.9
2.3
1.0
0.0060
0.0045
0.00003


60° F
6.9
5.2
3.5
2.8
1.3
0.0085
0.0074
0.00004


70°F
8.3
6.2
4.3
3.4
1.6
0.011
0.0090
0.00006


PVA (Psi>


80°F
9.9
7.4
5.2
4.0
1.9
0.015
0.012
0.00009





90°F
11.7
8.8
6.2
4.8
2.4
0.021
0.016
0.00013





100°F
13.8
10.5
7.4
5.7
2.7
0.029
0.022
0.00019
ex

CO

5
»-t
u>
(TQ
o>
5T
    a References 7-8.
oo
UJ

    -------
w
EC
CH

Q
w
H
U
W
J
w
&o
tL,
O
(X
g
OH
y
00

K
cu
c
D
s




<
3"
en
CX
2
CA
2
LH
0
OH
>




_-o
'3
rj-
J
w><
I'i
™ PL,




(!<
o
O
O
u.
o
ON
11.
O
00
IX,
o
O
r~
tu
o
s
u-
o
wo
tt,
§
<*^ "^
U)
.S'iS
§?•
Qs
2
o
ttT
|t
<
Ui
« ^
"5 -^
3.2?
!*
Formula
&>
£
a
wo
04
t-
r-
ON
wo
o\
0\
vo
Tt
CO
r~
co
04
VO
oo
04
WO
oo
oi
04
oo
VO

oo
0
vo
VO
o
CO
CO

00
o
00
wo
CO
I
o
o
0
f")
33
u
[Acetone
co
CO
CO
VO
9
04
s
00
~
oi
Tt
^H
CO
00
o
'~l
CO
oo
o
00
s
o
oo
WO
wo
VO
o\
00
r^

V)
o
5
O
«**
X
U
Acetonitrile
04
S
Tt
CO
CO
CO
00
o-
CO
CM
ON
t—
r-
*"*
CO
r-
co
•""*
r~
VO
ON
o
04
oo
o
00
wo
I'-
ve
WO
CO
I'-

ve
O
CO
wo
O
X
o
'(N
X
o
Acrylonitrile
VO
o
o

VO
f-
o
(S
04
>/">
o
r-
00
CO
o
vo
04
O
CO
ON
O
WO
CO
o
WO
O4
t—
vo
vo
o

00
o
oo
wo
x
o
c-)
U
0
'(S
X
o
"o
.e
o
^o
"3
]>,
<
wo
s
s
O
*— 1
ON
r-
Tt
Tt
r-
wo
o
VO
t-
ON
t—
<*
PJ
r-
co
00
ON
o
o4
s
00
c-
04
CO

CO
wo
VO
r-
1
U
X
o
'r*4
X
o
o
•o
i«
_o
3
o
jx,
<
o
00
VO
o
04
s
r-
VO
o
04
VI
CO
o
s
o
o
00
Tt
00
o
CO
vo
VO
o
CO
wi
00
Tt
r-
o
CO
00

8
w-i
CO
1
X
q^
X*
z
Ammonium hydroxide
(28.8% solution)
r—
00
cs
CO
o
s
cs
cs
s
~
CO
o
U1
^^
s
^H
^
00
o
CO
CO
VO
o
wo
VO
CO
r~
04
VO
r~

,__,
00
r-
«
>o
U
I Benzene
5-
>0
0
t-~
co
CO
o
s
o
CO
0\
o
v/1
CO
o
t—
§
o
00
g
o
o)
r—
VO

r~
CN

04
•*
(CH3)2CHCH2OH
0
_=
0
o
A
^
ffl
i
.^2
s
"
00
m

VO
CO
r-
r-

VO
•0
o
1 Cyclohexane
00
VO
vo
ON
CO
VO
o
CO
r~
wo
vo
?
O4
wo
r-
t~
Tl-
0-
00
O4
CO
Tt
wo
04
oo
Tt
O4
vo
r-
o
O4

CO
o
r-
o
x"
Wl
u
1 Cyclopentane
CO
o\
c-
§
00
wo
00
CO
r-
•*
F-
o-
co
o
ON
O4
CO
Tt
O4
04
04
00
vo
~
VO
00
a\

w^
CO

t^
ON
OO
ON
IS
U
O
fi
O
1 1,1-Dichloroethane
1
Tt
O
oo
04
CO
Tt
04
04
0
Tt
P»
"
CO
Tt
^-
wo
OJ
o
*^
CO
r-
t-~
O
VO
wo
o
wo
o
wo
04
00

t~
ON
00
ON
U
C4
•J
o
C-4
X
o
1 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
r-
o
00
VO
vo
Tt
VO
wo
§
Tt
Tt
VO
-"t
CO
00
VO
vo
O4
o
04
o
wo
Tt

CO
£
o
04
o
Tt

wo
ON
vo
ON
o
o
0
X
u
1 cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethy lene
vo
o
o
wo
CO
00
r-
o
00
VO
o
CO
wo
wo
wo
CO
Tf
Tt
00
CO
CO
04
wo
wo
O4
Tt
O4
wo
o

ON

wo
ON
VO
o\
0
O
O
O
trans-\ ,2-Dichloro-
ethylene
T?
WO
r-
o
CO
VO
04
ON
CO
Tt
r-
vo
00
CO
04
VO
00
04
04
ON
ON
~
Tt
S

§
ON
WO
ON
CO

Tt
CO
r-
(C2H5)2NH
1 Diethylamine
crt
O
m
04
•<1-
CO
CO
04
•^~
Tt
O
(S
o
r-
00
o\
o
r-
VO
S
uo
wo
04
Tt
00
00
OA
wo
CO
•*
o\

04
-*
1-
C2H5OC2H5
1
t5
^
'o
Q
00
a
wo
•<1-
wo
04
•*
00
TT
CO
VO
Tf
r-
04
B
cs
vo
CO
u~,
~
ON
O\

wo
5
vo
wo
CO
wo

r—
01
O
(CH3)2CHOCH(CH3)2
t«l
u
.c
'u
">,
a
£
c.
i
.^
3
CO
o
wo
"
Tt
'"'
^—,
CO
CO
o
ON
VO
o
wo
O4
Tt
o
ON
04
m
o
04
CO
O4
o
o-\
wo
VO
00
r-
Tt

o
00
00
(S
o
01
u
o
n
U
C4
0
•
O
1 ,4-Dioxane
o
04
CO
01
VO
r-
CO
*~H
CO
Tt
~
04
O
^
CO
oo
o
O\
VO
0
wo
s?
o
s
O4
vo
oo
wo
ON

O-
01
0
CO
0
(S
O
01
U
!
1
o
f^l
o
Dipropyl ether
ON
CO
Tt
WO
01
Tt
CO
ON
~
ON
OO
Tt
1—1
2
*~^
CO
oo
O
O
CO
wo
o
wo
wo
r-
ON
O
o~

0
CO
00
CO
U
O
O
^
X
n
tj
—
"ra
'u
o
C3
">,
JZ
UJ
7.1-84
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 o
r~
_4>

 ca




3
cs
'1
D
efl
r?
a





11
'2 £
C
oo5
"Sj
&•
UH
5
"c




H.
§
u.
§
u.
o
o
OO
Li.
o
^
UN
O
^
u.
o
in
U.
o
Tt
_8>
o
O
VO
o
Q
r

ej
1)
£
Formula
o
Z


o
~*
cs
cs

00
o
%
m
0
T?
0
o
Os
CS
o
en
0
o
n

00


_*
1
C2H5OOCCH:CH2
o
a
3

w
8
cs
cs
00
SO

00
es
•"•*
00
0
OS
so
0
SO
o
en
0
o
SO

n

5
SO
Tt
X
tT
5
o

UJ
S
en
CS
S
OS
en
so
T?
en
O
o
OS
0
1
00
es
en
o
r—
o
00
Tt
*-
Tt
n

oo
en
B
UH
J

c
S
SO
oc
^"*
00

i
o
in
en
r-
O
Tt
in
O
1
O
o
Os
cs
o
5

es
0

N
O
O
CH3(CH2)5CH3
J
a,

CN
Tt
SO
en
in
S3
en
SO
en
Tt
CS
00
*~*
o
Tt
~
es
O
'"'
N
in


!n

r-.
SO
oo
CH3(CH2)4CH3
o
X
u
r-
en
cs
S
en
SO
in
00
en
in
en
in
oo
-
m
Os
en
00
r-
oo
cs
SO
rs

en
XI

en
O
s
J
o
•o
3
5-
3
0
•o
T?
'-'
CS
Ov
en

en
S
•""'
cs
00
0
o
00
0
00
en
o
en
cs
0
Tt
3S

SO
o

es
cs
Tt
(CH3)3CCH2CH(CH3)2

J3
o
3
r-
m
so
cs
r?
en
00
Tt
en
en
in
m
CS
O
O
Os
00
00
r-
00
r-
00
in
Os
3s


CS
00

m
s
(CH3)2CHCH2CH3
3
c
X
en
!L«
en
o
in
Tt
1
^™
00
OS
si
•"
0
en
so
r-
m
t—
Tt
R

in
en
Os

_
8
3?
y
X
u
en
X
o,
0"
IS
J,
u
u
1
Os
•""*
SO
Os
CS

00
cs
Os
O
r-
SO
o
en
oo
Tt
O
Os
CS
en
0
en
cs
O
n


o
00

§
s
X
0
X
o
eft
3
S
o
n"
SO
CS
en
Os

O
5
"*
§
~*
c?
00
o
IS
O
en
oo
0
00
so

Tt
Os

s
SO
CH2:CH(CH3)CN
3
cs
ts
so
Os
SO
s
in
OS
OS
SO
Tt
en
Os
SO
en
SO
TI-
CS
o
cs
Os
00
Tt
•""'
en
oo

oo
Ti-
en

oo
Tt
£H33OO£H3
acetate
>,
•3
c
en
oo
Os
en
cs
r-
•^
Tt
in
en
*•*
O
^^
p
o
o\
Os
O
so
8s-

Os
SO

§
SO
00
es
O
X
O
O
O
en
O
0
3
3
CS
>,
1
V:
<
X
u
alcohol
>,
"u
CN
'"'
en

OS
O
en
O
Tt
O
cs
0
s
en
O
Tt
Tt
so

en

00
00
Os
so
rr,
X
u
cyclohexane
>,
ts
Tt
Tt
Tt
SO
so
-,
«3
Tt
en
en
00
8
cs
1
cs
S
Tt
'"•'
OS
Os
•""'
00
cs
OS
o
r-
o
r-
SO
en
tG

o
s
X
U*
J
x'
u
5
ij
>>
u
en
en
*"*
Tt

P
O
Tt
O
oo
Tt
en
o
en
is
o
so
O
S
OS

O
CS

_
o
o
CH3OOC(CH3):CH2
methacrylate
>^
3
OS
£
en
i
-
Tt
OS
00
o
^
i
SO
oo
p
'*
SO
en
8
so

s

es
r?
r-
a:
f^t
o
fi
X
o
3
s.
>>
"a
en
en
*"*
SO
8

P
o
8
in
O
T?
en
O
cs
0
en
cs
O
oo
en
os
cs
Tt

Tt
O
SO
6*
u
a
E

?
>n
Os
OS
cs
T?
Tt
O
en
T?
OO
00
cs
00
SO
Tt
Tt
in
en
OS
CS
Tt
m

OS
S

>n
S
CH3(CH2)3CH3
o

u
ex
cs
m
Os
Tt
S
00
SO
en
in
so
0
in
B
Tt
Os
*— «
en
SO
in
Tf
cs
o
8
SO

OS

^
OS
in
X
•C
sT
a
3
Q.
C
os
Os
Tt
r-
o
en
en
o
SO
cs
o
en
O
CN
SO
00
m
^*
00
es
~
S
OS
0
SO
CS
-
cs
in
so

es
Tt
en
n
J
X
"richloroethane
,
_,*
o
SO
CS
o
s
cs
§
^H
1
*""*
OS
oo
00
O
r~
o
8
in
O
^
Si
cs
SO
00
00

T?
n
J
O
ac
u
S

_
1
*~<
en
o
o
00
m
o
in
T?
O
s
en
o
en
cs
0
Tt
f-
o
s


n

en
JS
X*
if
X*
o
u
3
D
"o
CS
es
O
Tt
en
en
2
cs
0)
s
*"•
s
"
so
oo
OS
0
tn
O
x>

in
S

OS
O
SO
oo
CH2:CHOOCCH3
u
3

o
cs
en
cs
O
00
cs
m
Os
os
«•*
§
oo
Os
1
t-
Tt
en
so
o
OS
Cs
Tt
bo
en
o

§0

>n
SO
OS
J























O\
a>
o
0>
4ii
PS
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-85

    -------
    Table 7.1-4 (English Units).  ASTM DISTILLATION SLOPE FOR SELECTED REFINED
                            PETROLEUM STOCKSa
Refined Petroleum Stock
Aviation gasoline
Naptha
Motor gasoline
Light naptha
Reid Vapor Pressure, RVP (psi)
ND
2-8
ND
9- 14
ASTM-D86 Distillation Slope
At 10 Volume Percent
Evaporated (°F/vol%)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
a Reference 6. ND = no data.
7.1-86
                             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
         Table 7.1-5 (Metric Units). VAPOR PRESSURE EQUATION CONSTANTS
                             FOR ORGANIC LIQUIDS3
Name
Acetaldehyde
Acetic acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Aniline
Benzene
Butanol (iso)
Butanol-(l)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Cresol (-M)
Cresol (-0)
Cresol (-P)
Cumene (isopropylbenzene)
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Dichloroethane(l,2)
Dichloroethylene (1,2)
Diethyl (N,N) anilin
Dimethyl formamide
Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)
Dimethyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene
Dioxane (1,4)
Epichlorohydrin
ithanol
ithanolamine (mono-)
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl chloride
Ethylacetate
ithylbenzene
Ethylether
?ormic acid
Vapor Pressure Equation Constants
A
(dimensionless)
8.005
7.387
7.149
7.117
7.119
11.2932
5.652
7.038
7.32
6.905
7.4743
7.4768
6.942
6.934
6.978
6.493
6.161
7.508
6.911
7.035
6.963
6.841
6.255
7.8492
7.025
6.965
7.466
6.928
7.408
4.522
4.337
7.431
8.2294
8.321
7.456
7.9645
6.986
7.101
6.975
6.92
7.581
B
(°C)
1600.017
1533.313
1444.718
1210.595
1314.4
3939.877
648.629
1232.53
1731.515
1211.033
1314.19
1362.39
1169.11
1242.43
1431.05
929.44
783.45
1856.36
1435.5
1511.08
1460.793
1201.53
912.87
2137.192
1272.3
1141.9
1993.57
1400.87
1305.91
700.31
229.2
1554.68
2086.816
1718.21
1577.67
1897.011
1030.01
1244.95
1424.255
1064.07
1699.2
C
(°Q
291.809
222.309
199.817
229.664
230
273.16
154.683
222.47
206.049
220.79
186.55
178.77
241.59
230
217.55
196.03
179.7
199.07
165.16
161.85
207.78
222.65
109.13
273.16
222.9
231.9
218.5
196.43
225.53
51.42
-137
240.34
273.16
237.52
173.37
273.16
238.61
217.88
213.21
228.8
260.7
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-87

    -------
                                     Table7.1-5(cont.).
Name
Furan
Furfural
Heptane (iso)
Hexane (-N)
Hexanol (-1)
Hydrocyanic acid
Methanol
Methyl acetate
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl metharcrylate
Methyl styrene (alpha)
Methylene chloride
Morpholine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Phenol
Picoline (-2)
Propanol (iso)
Propylene glycol
Propylene oxide
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,1,2)
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2)
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofiiran
Toluene
Trichloro(l , 1 ,2)trifluoroethane
Trichloroethane (1,1,1)
Trichloroethane (1,1,2)
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloropropane (1,2,3)
Vinyl acetate
Vinylidene chloride
Xylene (-m)
Xylene (-0)
Vapor Pressure Equation Constants
A
(dimensionless)
6.975
6.575
6.8994
6.876
7.86
7.528
7.897
7.065
6.9742
6.672
8.409
6.923
7.409
7.7181
7.01
7.115
6.74
7.133
7.032
8.117
8.2082
8.2768
7.041
6.9243
7.14
6.898
6.631
6.98
6.995
6.954
6.88
8.643
6.951
6.518
6.884
6.903
7.21
6.972
7.009
6.998
B
(°C)
1060.87
1198.7
1331.53
1171.17
1761.26
1329.5
1474.08
1157.63
1209.6
1168.4
2050.5
1486.88
1325.9
1745.8
1733.71
1746.6
1378
1516.79
1415.73
1580.92
2085.9
1656.884
1373.8
1884.547
1574.51
1365.88
1228.1
1386.92
1202.29
1344.8
1099.9
2136.6
1314.41
1018.6
1043.004
788.2
1296.13
1099.4
1426.266
1474.679
C
(°C)
227.74
162.8
212.41
224.41
196.66
260.4
229.13
219.73
216
191.9
274.4
202.4
252.6
235
201.86
201.8
197
174.95
211.63
219.61
203.540
273.16
214.98
186.060
224.09
209.74
179.9
217.53
226.25
219.48
227.5
302.8
209.2
192.7
236.88
243.23
226.66
237.2
215.11
213.69
a Reference 10.
7.1-88
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
               Table 7.1-6 (English Units). METEOROLOGICAL DATA (TAX, TAN, I) FOR SELECTED U. S. LOCATIONS3

Location
Birmingham, AL
Montgomery, AL
tiomer, AK
Phoenix, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Fort Smith, AR
Little Rock, AR
Bakersfield, CA
Long Beach, CA
Los Angeles AP, CA
Sacramento, CA
San Francisco AP, CA
Property
Symbol
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
Units
»F
op
Btu/ft2 day
«F
oF
Btu/ft2 day
«F
»F
Btu/ft2 day
op
°F
Btu/ft2 day
op
»F
Btu/ft2 day
»F
op
Btu/ft2 day
«F
»F
Btu/ft2 day
op
«F
Btu/ft2 day
op
op
Blu/ft2 day
op
»F
Btu/ft2 day
°F
«F
Btu/ft2 day
»F
«F
Btu/ft2 day
Monthly Averages
Jan.
52.7
33.0
707
57.0
36.4
752
27.0
14.4
122
65.2
39.4
1021
64.1
38.1
1099
48.4
26.6
744
49.8
29.9
731
57.4
38.9
766
66.0
44.3
928
64.6
47.3
926
52.6
37.9
597
55.5
41.5
708
Feb.
57.3
35.2
967
60.9
38.8
1013
31.2
17.4
334
69.7
42.5
1374
67.4
40.0
1432
53.8
30.9
999
54.5
33.6
1003
63.7
42.6
1102
67.3
45.9
1215
65.5
48.6
1214
59.4
41.2
939
59.0
44.1
1009
Mar.
65.2
42.1
1296
68.1
45.5
1341
34.4
19.3
759
74.5
46.7
1814
71.8
43.8
1864
62.5
38.5
1312
63.2
41.2
1313
68.6
45.5
1595
68.0
47.7
1610
65.1
49.7
1619
64.1
42.4
1458
60.6
44.9
1455
Apr.
75.2
50.4
1674
77.0
53.3
1729
42 A
28.1
1248
83.1
53.0
2355
80.1
49.7
2363
73.7
49.1
1616
73.8
50.9
1611
75.1
50.1
2095
70.9
50.8
1938
66.7
52.2
1951
71.0
45.3
2004
63.0
46.6
1920
May
81.6
58.3
1857
83.6
61.1
1897
49.8
34.6
1583
92.4
61.5
2677
88.8
57.5
2671
81.0
58.2
1912
81.7
59.2
1929
83.9
57.2
2509
73.4
55.2
2065
69.1
55.7
2060
79.7
50.1
2435
66.3
49.3
2226
lune
87.9
65.9
1919
89.8
68.4
1972
56.3
41.2
1751
102.3
70.6
2739
98.5
67.4
2730
88.5
66.3
2089
89.5
67.5
2107
92.2
64.3
2749
77.4
58.9
2140
72.0
59.1
2119
87.4
55.1
2684
69.6
52.0
2377
July
90.3
69.8
1810
91.5
71.8
1841
60.5
45.1
1598
105.0
79.5
2487
98.5
73.8
2341
93.6
70.5
2065
92.7
71.4
2032
98.8
70.1
2684
83.0
62.6
2300
75.3
62.6
2308
93.3
57.9
2688
71.0
53.3
2392
Aug.
89.7
69.1
1724
91.2
71.1
1746
60.3
45.2
1189
102.3
77. 5
2293
95.9
72.0
2183
92.9
68.9
1877
92.3
69.6
1861
96.4
68.5
2421
83.8
64.0
2100
76.5
64.0
2080
91.7
57.6
2368
71.8
54.2
2117
Sept.
84.6
63.6
1455
86.9
66.4
1468
54.8
39.7
791
98.2
70.9
2015
93.5
67.3
1979
85.7
62.1
1502
85.6
63.0
1518
90.8
63.8
1992
82.5
61.6
1701
76.4
62.5
1681
87.6
55.8
1907
73.4
54.3
1742
Oct.
74.8
50.4
1211
77.5
53.1
1262
44.0
30.6
437
87.7
59.1
1577
84.1
56.7
1602
75.9
49.0
1201
75.8
50.4
1228
81.0
54.9
1458
78.4
56.6
1326
74.0
58.5
1317
77.7
50.0
1315
70.0
51.2
1226
Nov.
63.7
40.5
858
67.0
43.0
915
34.9
22.8
175
74.3
46.9
1151
72.2
45.2
1208
61.9
37.7
851
62.4
40.0
847
67.4
44.9
942
72.7
49.6
1004
70.3
52.1
1004
63.2
42.8
782
62.7
46.3
821
Dec.
55.9
35.2
661
59.8
37.9
719
27.7
15.8
64
66.4
40.2
932
65.0
39.0
996
52.1
30.2
682
53.2
33.2
674
57.6
38.7
677
67.4
44.7
847
66.1
47.8
849
53.2
37.9
538
56.3
42.2
642
Annual
Average
73.2
51.1
1345
75.9
53.9
1388
43.6
29.5
,_ 838
85.1
57.3
1869
81.7
54.2
1872
72.5
49.0
1404
72.9
50.8
1404
77.7
53.3
1749
74.2
53.5
1598
70.1
55.0
1594
73.4
47.8
1643
64.9
48.3
1608
»Q


51

GO
r-»•
o
•-t
£U
CfQ
oo
vo

    -------
I
VO
 CD

1
i
E
<











ca
U)
2
1
>,
s
o











>%
tt
o
0.
&

- 41
1 S1
3 
3
>-»

g
3

>-.
CQ

O.

b
CO

^
£

c
n
»—i
09
'5
"3
jz
>^
to
1 Location
<*) ro
00 >0 00
NO Tf 0
NO m
Tf 00 f
NO «n O
ON — •
oo r) f
NO TT r-
ON
m NO
c.
r^
oo cs
cs m NO
r- NO o
cs
— •<»•
cs cs —
r- NO ^~
m
cs
OX NO
ON ON ON
<£> rt •*•
Z
en .
•§
S
u, B, H
o o CQ
X Z
< <
H H ~
<
U
.2"
*c
eg
S
5
c
e3
V)
en cs
•^- \o oo
N0~£,
— -i ON
NO OO O*
* -p
Tf -N
CS vn ^
*n r4 oo
oo
00 ON
*O NO -H
en
»n r*
r^ r^ r-
p- -^ es
(-*•
oo o
vn r- T
oo vn '.r
S
o t—
oo oo m
oo NO r-
cs
cs
NO •*»•
_ CS —
OO NO NO
C*l
cs
r-. NO
o m NO
t— t m
cs
o r-
-* m ON
NO m r^
oo
cs r-
— T»- 0
NO cs cn
NO
ON CS
NO O t~-
-
— ON
m NO o
•» « •»
oo
>,
eg
•o
c-l
G
u, u, 3
o o CQ
X 2
h?^-
O
U
1)
u
D
r- NO
NO ON ON
NO m  •«•
NO CS NO
NO
NO •«•
•^- CS ON
-
r- cs
NO NO ^^
«-£
>>
CO
T3
5
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV~
Grand Junction, CO
NO NO
fl ^ 00
* "*" §
NO CO
•» cs oo
00 •»
•» NO NO
NO co •^I
NO
r- ON
NO NO •»
ON
oo o
r-' oo oo
t— m —
co
— •*
SNO NO
NO —
\o
NO ro
Eg 8
oo
cs cs
— —1 CO
oo \o oo
oo
r— r-
cs ~ o
r- NO —
r-
O 00
co — o
NO "* 00
^~
ON NO
O CS ON
NO CO •»
00 NO
— •«• r-
oo
CM CS
ON co *•*
co cs r-
NO
>,
«
•o
£
u. it 3
o o CM
X 2
nV-
Wilmington, DE
en — <
*_i ~« v")
r- w> T
en
«-• oo
"> m £
NO co
cs ~ co
NO TJ- OO
00
ON •»
s N^ §
CS
CO >O
cs co cs
00 NO CS
NO f-
t^ oo ON
00 NO O
l^
ON CS
ESS 2
OO
NO ON
W"l \T) ^f
oo \o -*
ON
oo r-*
ON OO **•
r- w> vo
oo
fS ^f
en o vo
r- vn oo
^O
n r-
m — ' ^.f
\O T O
m
m v^
V> T^ Ov
ON
C^ xO
— . >
«j
•o
s
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV-
Atlanta, GA
r- -«
»o wi *o
r^- »n NO
m
wn ^j-
CS ON ^>
XO «*» V)
r*
>ri »n
ON V> -N
NO Tt TT
ON
OO O\
r- w*) r-
(S
NO NO
»r> r^ TJ-
oo \o vo
en
— Tj-
Os f^ »
CO
•o
%
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
H*^-
Savannah, GA
 NO
fO
ON m
ON W) O
r- NO oo
>s
CO
•o
%
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV-
Honolulu, HI
r» p»
OO ON vn
^ "5
O f*l
wi O r-i
f^  g
«s
o —
O OO ON
l^- -V oo
r^
oo oo
OO OO ON
wi rn NO
^»-
f^ NO
•«• r- r~
•«•  OO O
r^
r4 NO
ON <*i r^-
,
&
•o
%
u. o. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV-
J
0
C*
CD
U
Ic
U.
vO W^
sss
r^i
•<*• o
oo m O
«n C4 o\
^r
(S ON
— 
^ <*1 ^~
O ON
00 O —
OO
OO C^

f*l — « OO
»n
>»
C3
•^
r*
c:
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV-
Springield, IL
o n
(S 
— Tj-
NO m r^
ON
ON cn
r^ MI -a-
I1*- *r> 0
NO C*^ *— '
to (»N r-
oo
CJ ON
— NO O
<-)
o  en
8
^- VO
oo T m
vo -^r oo
r*-
oo ^J-
V) (N NO
v/-i m O
'T
^— i
\O T OO
•V .
•S
b u. 3
o o CQ
X 2
F-V-
Wichita, KS
7.1-90
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 o
VO



1











CO
U)
2
S
^>»
S
o










>>
•c
u
1

. «
3 P
3 0
5-5

c.

§

-;
6

a.
u
CO

b
<

>,
s
*-»

i
»••»

>,

a.

n

JD
u
U.

C
n
N^
'5
1
>,
M
1 Location 1
— c->
g ^ 2
c
••»• Ov
«O OO OO
f CM 00
TT
vrt vo
*n vo en
«% m >g
M r4
Ov vo C4

VO -"
O Ov —
OO W1 vo
tr.
r* —
VO VO O
OO vc OO
VO
VO W)
r- r- oo
oo vo m
oc
0 m
^r m •*
00 vo O
o\
r» vo
vc •* o
r- «-,  NO
r*- w^ r-
NO Tf NO
ON C-»
•«r *T) cs

00 — i
O ^ NO
^- o* ^r
vi
>»
CQ
•o
^
0*0^1
X Z
nV. ,
Louisville, KY
0 0
fS K ?:
m
co m
m n r-
vo •» m
n*
— C4
O O~ O
r^ *»• o4
ON
— ' en
° *° o
en
•* en
r— oo TJ-
OO VO VO
TJ"
00 O
o 04 r-
o\ r- o-
 VO
Ov o~ "*r
r~
vo 0
0 O vo
ovr-g

ON r- —
P-* vj oo
NO
\o n-
— H ON ON
p- •**• t"-
fj
vi p-
Tj- (S TJ-
NO ---i- V)
o
~H V/->
-H O V>
NO "I- 00
1 —
>»
W
•O
"3=
u, a, |
o o CQ
X 2
nV.,
<
oT
M
§
C*
c
o
1
NO ri
~* m oo
Ov r- oo
( —
•» •*
Ov -* O
oo r- r--
o\
— vo
SW1 Ov
VO •*
OO
00 Ov
r- oo o
t- vn t—
*o
v^ oo
o o 
•* T o
^^2
00 ,
n
T3
r4
«
tt. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
nV~
^_
»T
JH
"
CO
j=
jj
2
r- <~
1— 00 1—
Tf
^j- oo
Tf TT Ov
vo •<» I—
— Ov
£?p
ON
•* o
ON ON V>
(T
00 «
NO O *-.
a
-o
cs
C5
B, U. 3
o o CQ
X 2
nV,.
<
uT
c
n
u
6
z
u
^
C* Ov
OO OO O
-
rf vo
w> — T
tn P4 M
?*
vo 1-
r~ — oo
•Q- m r-
^-
>n n
O — < vo

•* n rf
— Ov vo
oo vn r^
»n
— t-
S3g^
OO
O en
ON NO NO
r* vi vo
oo
** r-
ON NO NO
*"* S
r- o.
I— vo 0\
«n m ov
en
TT vn
<*1 vo O
•«• r) g
vn 0
en oo o
m — oo
vo
vo —
O vo t-
Tf
>>
n
•^
OJ
 t*- «n
=
00 1^
CO 0 —
en 
NO ^r »o
p*
ON NO
NO «0 fS
vo m — •
•*
NO *0
« ^r -t
*M2
P- NO
»- vn oo
m -* ^~
NO
O ON
ON -^ O
-,
n
-o
n
n O
•* M oo
TT
r- TT
Ov Ov O
vn m vo

O IN
-. O vn
^ "> S
Ov m
O O r^
OO vo OO
VC
'T r-
m C4 O
oo vo r-
Ov
>n r-
oo r- oo
t^- vn • m
r^
O O
vo vo n
VO 00 Tf
*
a
T3
r*
c:
tt* tu B
o o ca
x z
nV.,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
m ON
NO C4 ON

0 —
Sen's
p^
v> f*j
r-  ro
r-1 — ON
ON p- o
O\
VI O\
O P- rf
0,«g
— 00
rr O —
OO NO ^
ON
f*> ON
r^ (S oo
r* v> o
p-
T 
r^
>-,
n
T3
M
c;
U« tU 3
o o CQ
X 2
nV 	
Jackson, MS
o\ •<*•
l^- »rt v>
t*
o c<
NO OO —
«n — •* 
•^f W-)
^r wi —
•^r rs NO
>o
O w-i
-^ r- r^-
ON
m w^
,
n
•o
O
r- « —
v> m oo
OO
O 
— no
v:
t~ \C
•* >O 1—
O\ \0 g

O O
NO m oo
V) en r*
ON
>»
CQ
•O
(N
C±
U, UU |
o o CQ
X 2
nV- ,
>•
Z
tn
CO
U)
U
>•
«J
*rj ON
c»i v> w%

m NO
cs oo ^r
^  m ON
n
OO vo Ov
VO 0
—i fi r-
!-« g
f*l O\
*-* C^ ON
NO ^ "3-
'T
— ' r
^" *** 2
,
C3
•O
(N
02
u< tu 3
o o CQ
X 2
H5^
2
j«r
i
o
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-91

    -------
 C
 o
 o

1
i
t
<












1
£•
B
0











C
O



z M
t n
U

o

1

u
o

o.
in

1

>>
"

C
3




t-i
O-

u
C3

1

C
ro
en
"5
"o
f
CO
Location
co vn
vn r- o
oc
p- cs
VO 00 CS
vn cs vo
ON
— • o
CO VO *-i
VO CO CO
oo vn
vn P- P-
p~ ^- cs
vn
ON vo
^ O\ CO
oo vo -^
ON
co O
— r^ cs
r- o
CO ON — «
CS
— oo
ro ^r O
o vo
vn vn ON
cs
ON OO
vo vo oo
C*- T *•" '
r- ON
p- p- p-
VO CO O
oo
rr TT
O — i CO
vo co P-
co
TJ- Tt
vn r~ r^
o
ro
•o
r-4
?•?• 1
X Z
H5!-? —
Roswell, NM
oo en
vn ON -^-
vn en en
o
O vn
vn es en
en cs oo
cs
0 NO
r^ en en
t en O
CS t-
O CS Tj-
NO ^t 00
TT r-
— cs cs
r~- vn vn
cs NO
oo ON en
r~ vn —
vn
cs cs
O — NO
-
NO •»
r^ In o
00
ON en
vn NO r-
—
•a- en
vn en — <
t NO
O Nn ON
•^ CS 00
oo
TT vn
en — • ft
O O
en ~ ?
•o
CM
u. u, 3
o o CQ
X Z
H'H'P-I
Z
=3
CQ
0 vn
NO *"" P
vn oo
— ' 0 C-
^r en vn
ON CS
vn ^r ON
vn vn
rj- 0 —
ON
CS CS
"* "* 00
en cs
cs oo en
OO NO OO
ON ON
CO OO *-f
p—
p- cs
OO CO CS
p^ so o
oo
r- r-
ON CO O
2
NO CS
a*§
CO VO
•^- co —•
cs ro
ON f"- *O
CO CS ON
^ _
r^ NO oo
en es -^
vn
C3
u, u, 3
o o CQ
X Z
f-^r- ~
New York, NY
(LaGuardia Airport)
vn r-
00 O —
vn TT g
vn NO
r* -^ oo
en cs —
en
en en
ON rf NO
^f en NO
r- NO
cs en r-
NO -
•— ' VO
oo — r-
co cs P^
VO
r- ^s-
•^- ON ON
co •-* vn
ro
•o
(S
U, U. 3
o o CQ
X Z
H H —
Columbus, OH
OO CO
oo oo ro
vn co co
vn NO
vn o vn
ro cs vn
ro
ON VO
P- O OO
^ CO ON
CO — «
CO O ^
— cs
vn -^ vo
r— vn P—
cs
oo •*
« oo vo
oo vn — •
VO
<* CS
CO O ON
OO
ON O
ON VO OO
p- *O P^
oo
*o NO
O vo r-
^
-H vn
ON VO 1^P
VO CO OO
ro
vo -
^" vo P-
•^J- cs ON
0 vn
^r p- o
CO ^H OO
r- vn
O vn vo
CO — CO
CQ
•o
ri
u, u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
H H ~
O
6
•o
u
cs \o
— oo «
1- TT NO
r-> ~*
O ON vo
vn cs cs
ON vo
ON P- — •
VO CO O
ON
CO CS
**• O ro
r- vn 53
t- ON
oo NO vn
vn
oo •*
SON O
NO vn
ON
vn NO
en O oo
S
NO CO
P** NO ^"
00 VO ^t-
o r-
ON P* OO
ON
r- NO
— oo vn
P- T CS
o «•
vo co O
cs ^-r
vn cs vn
o
vo cs
vD vn —
-T CS O
OO
ro
CM
u, u, 3
o o CQ
X Z
H H -
Oklahoma City, OK
CO CS
« O\ ro
P- <*• P-
CO
CO CO
O ON ON
vo cs vn
VO
CS -
goo p-
co cs
oo
ON co
^- O ^f
p^ vn vo
O vn
vn cs co
OO NO P-
0 CO
co o vn
ON p- vo
oo
ON TJ-
ON P ~
8
o\ vn
p- r- —
00 vo ^
p- vn
ON 00 CS
00
^~ vn
CS ON CO
OO P-
o r* vo
VO CO O
CO
ON vo
*-* ON OO
vn cs p-
VO 00
vo ^ CS
^t CS CO
p-
ro
•o
tu U. 3
o o CQ
X Z
H H -
O
J
u __ l
OO CO O
OO CO
oo r-- ~-
^r co vo
cs
vo r-
CO ON P-
vn co co
CO
^ CO
S?2
OO CS
t** O* CO
VO vo
OO CS ON
vo vn ON
ON cs
P- CS VO
p-
ON CS
CO ON NO
NO rr es
CS —
O TT oo
NO
vn p-
VO ON CO
VO CO VO
ON O\
^ vo vo
vo ro NO
oo
vo •-«
o r- vo
VO CO Tf-
vn
oo -«•
vo *n vi
TT ro •-•
CO
ro
•o
 vn
oo vo -^
oo
O vn
CO CS O
vo
CS vo
ro cs ^r
NO ^ CO
vo — •
O CO OO
vn ro O
— • 0
I-H *o vn
•^r cs ON
NO OO
oo ro vn
co cs vn
VO
ro
-o
CN
U- M- 3
o o CQ
X Z
H H ~
Philadelphia, PA
7.1-92
                             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                                              Table7.1-6(cont.).

Location
Pittsburgh, PA


'rovidence, RI


Columbia, SC


Sioux Falls, SD


Memphis, TN


Amarillo, TX


Corpus Christi, TX


Dallas, TX


Houston, TX


Midland-Odessa, TX


Salt Lake City, UT


Property
Symbol
TAX
TAN
[
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
TAX
TAN
I
Units
»F
°F
Btu/ft2 day
op
op
Btu/ft2 day
oF
«F
Btu/ft2 day
op
op
Btu/ft2 day
op
op
Btu/ft2 day
op
«F
Btu/ft2 day
op
«F
Btu/ft2 day
op
oF
Btu/ft2 day
oF
«F
Btu/ft2 day
oF
op
Btu/ft2 day
«F
op
Btu/ft2 day
Monthly Averages
Jan.
34.1
19.2
424
36.4
20.0
506
56.2
33.2
762
22.9
1.9
533
48.3
30.9
683
49.1
21.7
960
66.5
46.1
898
54.0
33.9
822
61.9
40.8
772
57.6
29.7
1081
37.4
19.7
639
Feb.
36.8
20.7
625
37.7
20.9
739
59.5
34.6
1021
29.3
8.9
802
53.0
34.1
945
53.1
26.1
1244
69.9
48.7
1147
59.1
37.8
1071
65.7
43.2
1034
62.1
33.3
1383
43.7
24.4
989
Mar.
47.6
29.4
943
45.5
29.2
1032
67.1
41.9
1355
40.1
20.6
1152
61.4
41.9
1278
60.8
32.0
1631
76.1
55.7
1430
67.2
44.9
1422
72.1
49.8
1297
69.8
40.2
1839
51.5
29.9
1454
Apr.
60.7
39.4
1317
57.5
38.3
1374
77.0
50.5
1747
58.1
34.6
1543
72.9
52.2
1639
71.0
42.0
2019
82.1
63.9
1642
76.8
55.0
1627
79.0
58.3
1522
78.8
49.4
2192
61.1
37.2
1894
May
70.8
48.5
1602
67.6
47.6
1655
83.8
59.1
1895
70.5
45.7
1894
81.0
60.9
1885
79.1
51.9
2212
86.7
69.5
1866
84.4
62.9
1889
85.1
64.7
1775
86.0
58.2
2430
72.4
45.2
2362
June
79.1
57.1
1762
76.6
57.0
1776
89.2
66.1
1947
80.3
56.3
2100
88.4
68.9
2045
88.2
61.5
2393
91.2
74.1
2094
93.2
70.8
2135
90.9
70.2
1898
93.0
66.6
2562
83.3
53.3
2561
July
82.7
61.3
1689
81.7
63.3
1695
91.9
70.1
1842
86.2
61.8
2150
91.5
72.6
1972
91.4
66.2
2281
94.2
75.6
2186
97.8
74.7
2122
93.6
72.5
1828
94.2
69.2
2389
93.2
61.8
2590
Aug.
81.1
60.1
1510
80.3
61.9
1499
91.0
69.4
1703
83.9
59.7
1845
90.3
70.8
1824
89.6
64.5
2103
94.1
75.8
1991
97.3
73.7
1950
93.1
72.1
1686
93.1
68.0
2210
90.0
59.7
2254
Sept.
74.8
53.3
1209
73.1
53.8
1209
85.5
63.9
1439
73.5
48.5
1410
84.3
64.1
1471
82.4
56.9
1761
90.1
72.8
1687
89.7
67.5
1587
88.7
68.1
1471
86.4
61.9
1844
80.0
50.0
1843
Oct.
62.9
42.1
895
63.2
43.1
907
76.5
50.3
1211
62.1
36.7
1005
74.5
51.3
1205
72.7
45.5
1404
83.9
64.1
1416
79.5
56.3
1276
81.9
57.5
1276
77.7
51.1
1522
66.7
39.3
1293
Nov.
49.8
33.3
505
51.9
34.8
538
67.1
40.6
921
43.7
22.3
608
61.4
41.1
817
58.7
32.1
1033
75.1
54.9
1043
66.2
44.9
936
71.6
48.6
924
65.5
39.0
1176
50.2
29.2
788
Dec.
38.4
24.3
347
40.5
24.1
419
58.8
34.7
722
29.3
10.1
441
52.3
34.3
629
51.8
24.8
872
69.3
48.8
845
58.1
37.4
780
65.2
42.7
730
59.7
32.2
1000
38.9
21.6
570
Annual
Average
59.9
40.7
1069
59.3
41.2
1112
75.3
51.2
1380
56.7
33.9
1290
71.6
51.9
1366
70.7
43.8
1659
81.6
62.5
1521
76.9
55.0
1468
79.1
57.4
1351
77.0
49.9
1802
64.0
39.3
1603
CL.
OO
S
»-!

H

    -------
 o
 o
 CQ

i
i
4






Averages
j*.
o






>^
•c
«>
£

s a
i g
c£
1
0
u
o
s.
u
VI

3
_^>
3
*-i
i
*•»
i
&.

tj
(0
.0
u
uu
c
C3
on
*C
•s
f
>,
CO
Location
OO VO
S^g
M ^0
o o»* r^
*/1 Ol ^O
W-l
vrj en
Sr^ m
m m
r*
v> r*-
o \o" m
r* ^r m
o
o tn
-^ o^ oo
OO W) "-t
en
""! ^
oo \o o
»0
**  QC
Ot5 »O O
^ " 5
\o --
ov oo r^
-^ CM r-
oo
r^ wj
VO vo (S
•^- rs m
VO
>*
c3
•o
^
u* u. S
o o n
X Z
nV~
Richmond, VA
t> O;
vn •* w>
o
vo ro
*rt vo —i
•V «n -*
 m
C*l
vo f*i
ox vo vo
vo ^ «o
VO
r~ o
00 — 00
vo vo ^r
o\ rn
r- 
<0 *T 00
r- voa

\d o TJ-
(S
""! °?
— ^ r-^ o\
V> fn ^*-
oo
oo oo
OO vd wi
TT m Ov
TT
ON rn
en ^* »
ra
•o
%
u. u. 3
o o CQ
X Z
h^H^
f
&
2-
^,2
jj «
s «*
S 52,
CO
v> q
>O TT ^i en  >O
oo v> r-»
r-
q oo
VO — Ov
t*- >o <*i
«
rn rn
r* fn \o
ro
"t t
>0 ^ O
vi m ^^
o
": oo
>X >X i^
"3- CS O
r-
00 O\
— • rn oo
^ rs 'o
TT
>>
eg
•a
«
U. B. 2
0 o 0Q
X Z
H^H^
Charleston, WV
m O
\o ^ r^
c; »ft
w^ oo r*
* ^^
X X vo r~-
•^ «N vo
r«
~ VO
— TT VO
•^ (S 0 M Ov
•» es
$SfS
VO
»o ^
vo en m
•V 04 £> r»;
•^- Os »n
^ m o\
o\
O \0
^- o\ •-«
r-
^ ^
m O en
Tf o
r-
>>
eo
"O
S
u. u, 2
o o CQ
X Z
nV-
Cheyenne, WY


1
«a
o
S
1
fe
V3
II

4— »
•^*
g
43
S
minimi
u
z
H-
S
3
2

    -------
           Table 7.1-7. PAINT SOLAR ABSORPTANCE FOR FIXED ROOF TANKSa


Paint Color
Aluminum
Aluminum
Gray
Gray
Red
White


Paint Shade or Type
Specular
Diffuse
Light
Medium
Primer
NA
Paint Factors (a)
Paint Condition
Good Poor
0.39 0.49
0.60 0.68
0.54 0.63
0.68 0.74
0.89 0.91
0.17 0.34
 aReference 6.  If specific information is not available, a white shell and roof, with the paint in good
 condition, can be assumed to represent the most common or typical tank paint in use.  If the tank roof
 and shell are painted a different color, a is determined from a = (aR + as)/2, where aR is the tank
 roof paint solar absorptance and o;s is the tank shell paint solar absorptance.  NA = not applicable.
           Table 7.1-8. RIM-SEAL LOSS FACTORS, KR AND n, FOR EXTERNAL
                                FLOATING ROOF TANKS
Tank Construction And Rim-Seal System
Average-Fitting
KR
(lb-mole/[mph]n-ft-yr)
Welded Tanks
Mechanical-shoe seal
Primary only
Shoe-mounted secondary
Rim-mounted secondary
Liquid-mounted resilient-filled seal
Primary only
Weather shield
Rim-mounted secondary
Vapor-mounted resilient-filled seal
Primary only
Weather shield
Rim-mounted secondary
1.2b
0.8
0.2
1.1
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.2
Seals
n
(dimensionless)

1.5b
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.4
2.3
2.2
2.6
Riveted Tanks
Mechanical-shoe seal
Primary only
Shoe-mounted secondary
Rim-mounted secondary
1.3
1.4
0.2
1.5
1.2
1.6
a Reference 3.
b If no specific information is available, a welded tank with an average-fitting mechanical-shoe
  primary seal can be used to represent the most common or typical construction and rim-seal system
  in use.
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-95

    -------
   Table 7.1-9. AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED (v) FOR SELECTED U. S. LOCATIONS3
Location
Alabama
Birmingham
Huntsville
Mobile
Montgomery

Alaska
Anchorage
Annette
Barrow
Barter Island
Bethel
Settles
Big Delta
Cold Bay
Fairbanks
Gulkana
Homer
Juneau
King Salmon
Kodiak
Kotzebue
McGrath
Nome
St. Paul Island
Talkeetna
Valdez
Yakutat

Arizona
Flagstaff
Phoenix
Tucson
Wind
Speed
(mph)

7.2
8.2
9.0
6.6


6.9
10.6
11.8
13.2
12.8
6.7
8.2
17.0
5.4
6.8
7.6
8.3
10.8
10.8
13.0
5.1
10.7
17.7
4.8
6.0
7.4


6.8
6.3
8.3
Location
Arizona (continued)
Winslow
Yuma

Arkansas
Fort Smith
Little Rock

California
Bakersfield
Blue Canyon
Eureka
Fresno
Long Beach
Los Angeles (City)
Los Angeles Int'l. Airport
Mount Shasta
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco (City)
San Francisco Airport
Santa Maria
Stockton

Colorado
Colorado Springs
Denver
Grand Junction
Pueblo
^
Connecticut
Bridgeport
Hartford
Wind
Speed
(mph)

8.9
7.8


7.6
7.8


6.4
6.8
6.8
6.3
6.4
6.2
7.5
5.1
7.9
6.9
8.7
10.6
7.0
7.5


10.1
8.7
8.1
8.7


12.0
8.5
Location
Delaware
Wilmington

District of Columbia
Dulles Airport
National Airport

Florida
Apalachicola
Daytona Beach
Fort Meyers
Jacksonville
Key West
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
Tallahassee
Tampa
West Palm Beach

Georgia
Athens
Atlanta
Augusta
Columbus
Macon
Savannah

Hawaii
Hilo
Honolulu
Kahului
Lihue
Wind
Speed
(mph)

9.1


7.4
9.4


7.8
8.7
8.1
8.0
11.2
9.3
8.5
68.4
6.3
8.4
9.6


7.4
9.1
6.5
6.7
7.6
7.9


7.2
11.4
12.8
12.2
7.1-96
                             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                        Table 7.1-9 (cont.).
Location
Idaho
Boise
Pocatello

Illinois
Cairo
Chicago
Moline
Peoria
Rockford
Springfield

Indiana
Evansville
Fort Wayne
Indianapolis
South Bend
Iowa
Des Moines
Sioux City
Waterloo

Kansas
Concordia
Dodge City
Goodland
Topeka
Wichita

Kentucky
Cincinnati Airport
Jackson
Lexington
Louisville
Wind
Speed
(mph)

8.8
10.2


8.5
10.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.2


8.1
10.0
9.6
10.3

10.9
11.0
10.7


12.3
14.0
12.6
10.2
12.3


9.1
7.2
9.3
8.4
Location
Louisiana
Baton Rouge
Lake Charles
New Orleans
Shreveport

Maine
Caribou
Portland

Maryland
Baltimore

Massachusetts
Blue Hill Observatory
Boston
Worcester
Michigan
Alpena
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Houghton Lake
Lansing
Muskegon
Sault Sainte Marie

Minnesota
Duluth
International Falls
Minneapolis-Saint Paul
Rochester
Saint Cloud

Wind
Speed
(mph)

7.6
8.7
8.2
8.4


11.2
8.8


9.2


15.4
12.4
10.2

8.1
10.2
10.2
9.8
8.9
10.0
10.7
9.3


11.1
8.9
10.6
13.1
8.0

Location
Mississippi
Jackson
Meridian

Missouri
Columbia
Kansas City
Saint Louis
Springfield

Montana
Billings
Glasgow
Great Falls
Helena
Kalispell
Missoula
Nebraska
Grand Island
Lincoln
No'rfolk
North Platte
Omaha
Scottsbuff
Valentine

Nevada
Elko
Ely
Las Vegas
Reno
Winnemucca


Wind
Speed
(mph)

7.4
6.1


9.9
10.8
9.7
10.7


11.2
10.8
12.8
7.8
6.6
6.2

11.9
10.4
11.7
10.2
10.6
10.6
9.7


6.0
10.3
9.3
6.6
8.0


1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
                                                                                           7.1-97

    -------
                                  Table 7.1-9 (cont.).
Location
New Hampshire
Concord
Mount Washington

New Jersey
Atlantic City
Newark

New Mexico
Albuquerque
Roswell

New York
Albany
Birmingham
Buffalo
New York (Central Park)
New York (JFK Airport)
New York (La Guarida
Airport)
Rochester
Syracuse
North Carolina
Asheville
Cape Hatteras
Charlotte
Greensboro-High Point
Raleigh
Wilmington

North Dakota
Bismark
Fargo
Williston
Wind
Speed
(mph)

6.7
35.3


10.1
10.2


9.1
8.6


8.9
10.3
12.0
9.4
12.0
12.2
9.7
9.5

7.6
11.1
7.5
7.5
7.8
8.8


10.2
12.3
10.1
Location
Ohio
Akron
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Mansfield
Toledo
Youngstown

Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
Tulsa

Oregon
Astoria
Eugene
Medford
Pendleton
Portland
Salem
Sexton Summit
Pennsylvania
Allentown
Avoca
Erie
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh Int'l
Airport
Williamsport

Puerto Rico
San Juan

Wind
Speed
(mph)

9.8
10.6
8.5
9.9
11.0
9.4
9.9


12.4
10.3


12.4
7.6
4.8
8.7
7.9
7.1
11.8

9.2
8.3
11.3
7.6
9.5
9.1
7.8


8.4

Location
Rhode Island
Providence

South Carolina
Charleston
Columbia
Greenville-
Spartanburg
South Dakota
Aberdeen
Huron
Rapid City
Sioux Falls

Tennessee
Bristol-Johnson
City
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Oak Ridge
Texas
Abilene
Amarillo
Austin
Brownsville
Corpus Christi
Dallas-Fort Worth
Del Rio
El Paso
Galveston
Houston
Lubbock
Wind
Speed
(mph)

10.6


8.6
6.9
6.9


11.2
11.5
11.3
11.1


5.5
6.1
7.0
8.9
8.0
4.4

12.0
13.6
9.2
11.5
12.0
10.8
9.9
8.9
11.0
7.9
12.4
7.1-98
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                1/95

    -------
                                         Table7.1-9(cont.).
Location
Texas (continued)
Midland-Odessa
Port Arthur
San Angelo
San Antonio
Victoria
Waco
Wichita Falls

Utah
Salt Lake City
Vermont
Burlington
Virginia
Lynchburg
Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
Washington
Olympia
Quillayute
Seattle Int'l. Airport
Spokane
Walla Walla
Yakima
West Virginia
Belkley
Charleston
Elkins
Huntington
Wind
Speed
(mph)

11.1
9.8
10.4
9.3
10.1
11.3
11.7


8.9

8.9

7.7
10.7
7.7
8.1

6.7
6.1
9.0
8.9
5.3
7.1

9.1
6.4
6.2
6.6
Location
Wisconsin
Green Bay
La Crosse
Madison
Milwaukee

Wyoming
Casper
Cheyenne
Lander
Sheridan



















Wind
Speed
(mph)

10.0
8.8
9.9
11.6


12.9
13.0
6.8
8.0



















Location






























Wind
Speed
(mph)






























      Reference 11.
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-99

    -------
             Table 7.1-10 (English Units). AVERAGE CLINGAGE FACTORS, Ca
                                      (bbl/103 ft2)

Product Stored
Gasoline
Single-component stocks
Crude oil

Light Rust
0.0015
0.0015
0.0060
Shell Condition
Dense Rust
0.0075
0.0075
0.030

Gunite Lining
0.15
0.15
0.60
   aReference 3.  If no specific information is available, the values in this table can be assumed to
            represent the most common or typical condition of tanks currently in use.
7.1-100
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
    Table 7.1-11 (English Units). EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF-FITTING LOSS FACTORS,
          KFa, K^, AND m, AND TYPICAL NUMBER OF ROOF FITTINGS, NFa
Fitting Type And Conslruction Details
Access hatch (24-inch diameter well)
Bolted cover, gasketed
Unboiled cover, ungasketed
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Unskilled guidepole well (8-inch
diameter unslotted pole, 21-inch
diameter well)
Ungasketed sliding cover
Gasketed sliding cover
Slotted guide-pole/sample well (8 inch
diameter slotted pole, 21-inch
diameter well)
Ungasketed sliding cover, withoul
float
Ungasketed sliding cover, with float
Gasketed sliding cover, without floal
Gaskeled sliding cover, with float
Gauge-float well (20-inch diameter)
Unbolted cover, ungasketed
Unbolted cover, gasketed
Bolted cover, gasketed
Gauge-hatch/sample well (8-inch
diameter)
Weighted mechanical actuation,
gasketed
Weighted mechanical actuation,
ungasketed
Vacuum breaker (10-inch diameter
well)
Weighted mechanical actuation,
gasketed
Weighted mechanical actuation,
ungasketed
Roof drain (3-inch diameter)
Open
90% closed
Roof leg (3-inch diameter)
Adjustable, ponloon area
Adjustable, center area
Adjustable, double-deck roofs
Fixed
Roof leg (2-1/2 inch diameter)
Adjustable, pontoon area
Adjustable, center area
Adjustable, double-deck roofs
Fixed

(Ib-mole/yr)

0
2.7
2.9



0
0




0
0
0
0

2.3
2.4
0



0.95

0.91



1.2

1.1

0
0.51

1.5
0.25
0.25
0

1.7
0.41
0.41
0
Loss Factors
Kpt, m
(lb-mole/(mph)m-yr) (dimensionless)

0 Ob
7.1 1.0
0.41 1.0



67 0.98b
3.0 1.4




310 1.2
29 2.0
260 1.2
8.5 2.4

5.9 1.0b
0.34 1.0
0 0



0.14 1.0b

2.4 1.0



0.17 1.0b

3.0 1.0

7.0 1.4d
0.81 1.0

0.20 1.0b
0.067 1.0b
0.067 1.0
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Typical Number Of
Fittings, NF
1





1




c





1




1




NF6 (Table 7.1. -12)





Np? (Table 7.1. -12)


Npg (Table7.1-13)e




Npg (Table 7.1-13)6




1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-101

    -------
                                     Table 7.1-11 (cont.).
Fitting Type And Construction Details
Rim vent (6-inch diameter)
Weighted mechanical actuation,
gasketed
Weighted mechanical actuation,
ungasketed
Loss Factors
KFa
(Ib-mole/yr)
0.71
0.68
Kpb
(lb-mole/(mph)m-yr)
0.10
1.8
m
(dimensionless)
1.0b
1.0
Typical Number Of
Fittings, NF
lf
a Reference 3.  The roof-fitting loss factors, KFa, Kpj,, and m, may be used only for wind speeds
  from 2 to 15 miles per hour.
b If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most common or
  typical roof fitting currently in use.
c A slotted guide-pole/sample well is an optional fitting and is not typically used.
d Roof drains that drain excess rainwater into the product are not used on pontoon floating roofs.
  They are, however,  used on double-deck floating roofs and are typically left open.
e The most  common roof leg diameter is 3 in.  The loss factors  for 2.5-in. diameter roof legs are
  provided for use if this smaller size roof leg is used on a particular floating roof.
f Rim vents are used only with mechanical-shoe primary seals.
        Table 7.1-12.  EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS: TYPICAL NUMBER OF
                   VACUUM BREAKERS, NF6, AND ROOF DRAINS, Nf/
Tank
Diameter
D (feet)b
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Number Of Vacuum Breakers, NF6
Pontoon Roof
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Double-Deck Roof
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Number Of Roof Drains,
NF7
(double-deck roof)c
1
1
2
3
5
7
ND
ND
a Reference 3.  This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers.  The actual number
  of vacuum breakers may vary greatly, depending on throughput and manufacturing prerogatives.
  The actual number of roof drains may also vary greatly, depending on the design rainfall and
  manufacturing prerogatives. For tanks more than 350 ft in diameter,  actual tank data or the
  manufacturer's recommendations may be needed for the number of roof drains.  This table should
  not be used when actual tank data are available. ND  = no data.
b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed,  the closest diameter listed should be used.  If
  the actual diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger diameter should be used.
c Roof drains that drain excess rainwater into the product are not used on pontoon floating roofs.
  They are, however, used on double-deck floating roofs and are typically left open.
7.1-102
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        Table 7.1-13. EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS:  TYPICAL NUMBER OF
                                     ROOF LEGS, NF8a
Tank Diameter, D
(feet)b
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
Pontoon Roof
Number Of Pontoon
Legs
4
4
6
9
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
37
38
38
39
39
40
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
Number Of Center
Legs
2
4
6
7
9
10
12
16
20
24
28
33
38
42
49
56
62
69
77
83
92
101
109
118
128
138
148
156
168
179
190
202
213
226
238
252
266
281
Number Of Legs On
Double-Deck Roof
6
7
8
10
13
16
20
25
29
34
40
46
52
58
66
74
82
90
98
107
115
127
138
149
162
173
186
200
213
226
240
255
270
285
300
315
330
345
a Reference 3. This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers.  The actual number
  of roof legs may vary greatly depending on age, style of floating roof, loading specifications, and
  manufacturing prerogatives.  This table should not be used when actual tank data are available.
b If the actual diameter is between the diameters listed, the closest diameter listed should be used.
  the actual diameter is midway between the diameters listed, the next larger diameter should be
  used.
                                                     If
1/95
Liquid Storage Tanks
7.1-103

    -------
        Table 7.1-14. INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF RIM SEAL LOSS FACTORS (KR)a
                Rim Seal System Description
                                                               KR(lb-mole/ft-yr)
Average
 Vapor-mounted primary seal only
 Liquid-mounted primary seal only
 Vapor-mounted primary seal plus secondary seal
 Liquid-mounted primary seal plus secondary seal
  6.7»
  3.0
  2.5
  1.6
a Reference 4.
b If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most
  common/typical rim seal system currently in use.
  Table 7.1-15.  TYPICAL NUMBER OF COLUMNS AS A FUNCTION OF TANK DIAMETER
  FOR INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS WITH COLUMN-SUPPORTED FIXED ROOFSa
Tank Diameter Range, D (ft)
0 < D < 85
85 < D < 100
100 < D < 120
120 < D <£ 135
135 < D < 150
150 < D < 170
170 < D < 190
190 < D < 220
220 < D < 235
235 < D < 270
270 < D < 275
275 < D < 290
290 < D < 330
330 < D < 360
360 < D < 400
Typical Number of Columns, Nc
1
6
7
8
9
16
19
22
31
37
43
49
61
71
81
a Reference 4. This table was derived from a survey of users and manufacturers.  The actual number
  of columns  in a particular tank may vary greatly with age, fixed roof style, loading specifications,
  and manufacturing prerogatives.  This table should not be used when actual tank data are available.
7.1-104
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
               1/95

    -------
          Table 7.1-16. SUMMARY OF INTERNAL FLOATING DECK FITTING LOSS
                 FACTORS (KF) AND TYPICAL NUMBER OF FITTINGS (NF)a
                 Deck Fitting Type
                                                   Deck Fitting Loss
                                                      Factor, KF
                                                      (Ib-mole/yr)
     Typical
   Number Of
   Fittings,  Np
 Access hatch (24-inch diameter)
  Bolted cover, gasketed
  Unbolted cover, gasketed
  Unbolted cover, ungasketed
 Automatic gauge float well
  Bolted cover, gasketed
  Unbolted cover, gasketed
  Unbolted cover, ungasketed
 Column well (24-inch diameter)c
  Builtup column-sliding cover, gasketed
  Builtup column-sliding cover, ungasketed
  Pipe column-flexible fabric sleeve seal
  Pipe column-sliding cover, gasketed
  Pipe column-sliding cover, ungasketed
 Ladder well (36-inch  diameter)0
  Sliding cover, gasketed
  Sliding cover, ungasketed
 Roof leg or hanger wellc>d
  Adjustable
  Fixed
 Sample pipe or well (24-inch diameter)
  Slotted pipe-sliding cover, gasketed
  Slotted pipe-sliding cover, ungasketed
  Sample well-slit fabric seal 10% open area
 Stub drain (1-inch diameter)d>e
 Vacuum breaker (10-inch diameter)
  Weighted mechanical actuation, gasketed
  Weighted mechanical actuation, ungasketed
                                                          1.6
                                                         11
                                                         25b

                                                          5.1
                                                         15
                                                         28b

                                                         33
                                                         47b
                                                         10
                                                         19
                                                         32

                                                         56
                                                         76b

                                                          7.9b
                                                          0
                                                        44
                                                        57
                                                        12b
                                                          1.2


                                                         0.7b
                                                         0.9
                                                                                 1
(see Table 7.1-15)
         -
      10  600
       125
        1
a Reference 4.
b If no specific information is available, this value can be assumed to represent the most
  common/typical deck fittings currently used.
c Column wells and ladder wells are not typically used with self-supported roofs.
d D = tank diameter (ft).
e Not used on welded contact internal floating decks.
  Not typically used on tanks with self-supporting fixed roofs.
f
1/95
                                    Liquid Storage Tanks
             7.1-105

    -------
  Table 7.1-17 (English Units).  DECK SEAM LENGTH FACTORS (SD) FOR TYPICAL DECK
               CONSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS3
                  Deck Construction
Typical Deck Seam Length Factor,
           SD (ft/ft2)
  Continuous sheet construction13
   5 ft wide
   6 ft wide
   7 ft wide

  Panel construction11
   5 x 7.5 ft rectangular
   5 x 12 ft rectangular
               0.20°
               0.17
               0.14


               0.33
               0.28
a Reference 4. Deck seam loss applies to bolted decks only.
b SD =  1/W, where W = sheet width (ft).
c
  If no specific information is available, this factor can be assumed to represent the most common
  bolted decks currently in use.
d SD = (L+W)/LW, where W = panel width (ft) and L = panel length (ft).
References For Section 7.1

 1.    Royce J. Laverman, Emission Reduction Options For Floating Roof Tanks, Chicago Bridge and
      Iron Technical Services Company, Presented at the Second International Symposium on
      Aboveground Storage Tanks, Houston, TX, January 1992.

 2.    VOC Emissions From Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks—Background Information For
      Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-81-003a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, July 1984.

 3.    Evaporative Loss From External Floating Roof Tanks, Third Edition, Bulletin No. 2517,
      American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1989.

 4.    Evaporation Loss From Internal Floating Roof Tanks, Third Edition, Bulletin No. 2519,
      American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1982.

 5.    Benzene Emissions From Benzene Storage Tanks—Background Information For Proposed
      Standards, EPA-450/3-80-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC, December  1980.

 6.    Evaporative Loss From Fixed Roof Tanks, Second Edition, Bulletin No. 2518, American
      Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, October 1991.

 7.    Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, EPA-450/4-88-004,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, October 1988.

 8.    Henry C. Barnett, et al, Properties Of Aircraft Fuels, NACA-TN 3276, Lewis Flight
      Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, OH, August 1956.
7.1-106
                                   EMISSION FACTORS
                              1/95

    -------
  9.    Petrochemical Evaporation Loss From Storage Tanks, First Edition, Bulletin No. 2523,
       American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1969.

 10.    Surface Impoundment Modeling system (SIMS) Version 2.0, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1990.

 11.    Comparative Climatic Data Through 1990, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration,
       Asheville, NC, 1990.

 12.    Input For Solar Systems, National Climatic Center,  U.  S. Department Of Commerce,
       Asheville, NC, August 1979.

 13.    Use Of Variable Vapor Space Systems To Reduce Evaporation Loss, Bulletin No. 2520,
       American Petroleum Institute, New York, NY,  1964.

 14.    VOC/PM Speciation Data Base Management System (SPECIATE), U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1990.
1/95                               Liquid Storage Tanks                             7.1-107

    -------

    -------
                  8.  INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
       Possible emissions from the manufacture and use of inorganic chemicals and chemical
products are high but, because of economic necessity, they are usually recovered.  In some cases, the
manufacturing operation is run as a closed system, allowing little or no emissions to escape to the
atmosphere.  Emission sources from chemical processes include heaters and boilers; valves, flanges,
pumps, and compressors; storage and transfer of products and intermediates; waste water handling;
and emergency vents.

       The emissions that do reach the atmosphere from the  inorganic chemical industry generally
are gaseous and are controlled by adsorption or absorption. Paniculate emissions also could be a
problem, since the particulate emitted is usually extremely small, requiring very efficient treatment
for removal.

       Emissions data from chemical processes are sparse. It has been frequently necessary,
therefore, to make estimates of emission factors on the basis of material balances, yields, or process
similarities.
1/95                             Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.0-1

    -------
8.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                          1/95

    -------
8.1  Synthetic Ammonia

8.1.1 General1'2

        Synthetic ammonia (NH3) refers to ammonia that has been synthesized (Standard Industrial
Classification 2873) from natural gas. Natural gas molecules are reduced to carbon and hydrogen.
The hydrogen is then purified and reacted with nitrogen to produce ammonia.  Approximately
75 percent of the ammonia produced is used as fertilizer, either directly as ammonia or indirectly after
synthesis as urea, ammonium nitrate, and monoammonium or diammonium phosphates. The
remainder is used as raw material in the manufacture of polymeric resins, explosives, nitric acid, and
other products.

        Synthetic ammonia plants are located throughout the U. S. and Canada. Synthetic ammonia is
produced in 25 states by 60 plants which have an estimated combined annual production capacity of
15.9 million megagrams (Mg) (17.5 million tons) in 1991. Ammonia plants are concentrated in areas
with abundant supplies of natural gas. Seventy percent of U. S. capacity is located in Louisiana, Texas,
Oklahoma, Iowa, and Nebraska.

8.1.2 Process Description1-3"4

        Anhydrous ammonia is  synthesized by reacting hydrogen with nitrogen at a molar ratio of
3 to 1, then compressing the gas and cooling it to -33°C (-27°F).  Nitrogen is obtained from the air,
while hydrogen is obtained from either the catalytic steam reforming of natural gas (methane [CH^) or
naphtha, or the electrolysis of brine at chlorine plants.  In the U. S.,  about 98 percent of synthetic
ammonia is produced by catalytic steam  reforming of natural gas.  Figure 8.1-1 shows a general
process flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.

        Six process steps are required to produce synthetic ammonia using the catalytic steam
reforming method:  (1) natural gas desulfurization, (2) catalytic steam reforming, (3) carbon monoxide
(CO) shift, (4) carbon dioxide (CO^ removal,  (5) methanation, and (6) ammonia synthesis. The first,
third, fourth, and fifth steps remove impurities such as sulfur, CO, CO2 and water  (H2O) from the
feedstock, hydrogen, and synthesis gas streams.  In the second step, hydrogen is manufactured and
nitrogen (air) is introduced into this 2-stage process.  The sixth step produces anhydrous ammonia from
the synthetic gas. While all ammonia plants use this basic process, details such as operating pressures,
temperatures, and quantities of feedstock vary from plant to plant.

8.1.2.1  Natural Gas Desulfurization -
        In this step, the sulfur content (as hydrogen sulfide [H2S])  in natural gas is  reduced to below
280 micrograms per cubic meter Otg/m3) (122 grams per cubic feet) to prevent poisoning of the nickel
catalyst in the primary reformer. Desulfurization can be accomplished by using either activated carbon
or zinc oxide. Over 95  percent of the ammonia plants  in the U. S. use activated carbon fortified with
metallic oxide additives for feedstock desulfurization.  The remaining plants use a tank filled with zinc
oxide for desulfurization.  Heavy hydrocarbons can decrease the effectiveness of an activated carbon
bed. This carbon bed also has another disadvantage in that it cannot remove carbonyl sulfide.
Regeneration of carbon is accomplished by passing superheated steam through the carbon bed.  A zinc
oxide bed offers several advantages over the activated carbon bed.  Steam regeneration to use as energy
is not required when using a zinc oxide bed.  No  air emissions are created by the zinc oxide bed, and
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.1-1

    -------
       NATURAL GAS
                                 FEEDSTOCK
                              DESULFUREATION
                            FUEL
                   AIR
  EMISSIONS
(SCC 3-01-003-09)
                     PROCESS
                  CONDENSATE
             STEAM
                                     PRIMARY REFORMER
                                SECONDARY
                                REFORMER
                                    HIGH TEMPERATURE
                                          SHIFT
                             LOW TEMPERATURE
                                  SHIFT
                                      CO  ABSORBER
                                       METHANATION
                                    AMMONIA SYNTHESIS
                                                                EMISSIONS DURING
                                                                  REGENERATION
                                                            (SCC 3-01-00*05)

                                                                FUEL COMBUSTION
                                                                   EMISSIONS
                                                            (SCC 3-01-003-06 Xnatmal gas)
                                                            (SCC 3-01-00347) (oil fired)
                                                                    EMISSIONS
                                                                  (SCC 3-01-003-008)
                                                         O>2 SOLUTION
                                                         REGENERATION
                                                                     STEAM
                                                      PURGE GAS VENTED TO
                                                        PRIMARY REFORMER
                                                            FOR FUEL
                Figure 8.1-1.  General flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
                         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
8.1-2
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
the higher molecular weight hydrocarbons are not removed. Therefore, the heating value of the natural
gas is not reduced.

8.1.2.2 Catalytic Steam Reforming -
       Natural gas leaving the desulfurization tank is mixed with process steam and preheated to
540°C (1004°F). The mixture of steam and gas enters the primary reformer (natural gas fired primary
reformer) and oil fired primary reformer tubes, which are filled with a nickel-based reforming catalyst.
Approximately 70 percent of the CH4 is converted to hydrogen and CO2. An additional amount of
CH4 is converted to CO.  This process gas is then sent to the secondary reformer, where it is mixed
with compressed air that has been preheated to about 540°C (1004°F).  Sufficient air is added to
produce a final synthesis gas having a hydrogen-to-nitrogen mole ratio of 3 to 1. The gas leaving the
secondary reformer is then cooled to 360°C (680°F) in a waste heat boiler.

8.1.2.3 Carbon Monoxide Shift -
       After cooling, the secondary reformer effluent gas enters a high temperature CO shift converter
which is filled with chromium oxide initiator  and iron oxide catalyst. The following reaction takes
place in the carbon monoxide converter:

                                  CO + H2O  - C02 + H2                                (1)

The exit gas is then cooled in a heat exchanger. In some plants,  the gas is passed through a bed of zinc
oxide to remove any residual sulfur contaminants that would poison the low-temperature shift catalyst.
In other plants,  excess low-temperature shift catalyst is added to  ensure that the unit will operate as
expected.  The low-temperature shift converter is filled with a copper oxide/zinc oxide catalyst. Final
shift gas from this converter is cooled from 210 to 110°C (410 to 230°F) and enters the bottom of the
carbon dioxide absorption system. Unreacted steam is condensed and separated from the gas in a
knockout drum.  This condensed  steam (process condensate) contains ammonium carbonate
([(NH4)2 CO3 • H2O]) from the high-temperature shift converter, methanol  (CH3OH) from the low-
temperature shift converter, and small amounts of sodium,  iron,  copper, zinc, aluminum and calcium.

       Process condensate is sent to the stripper to remove volatile gases such as ammonia, methanol,
and carbon dioxide. Trace metals remaining  in the process condensate are removed by the ion
exchange unit.

8.1.2.4 Carbon Dioxide Removal-
       In this step, CO2  in the final shift gas is removed.  CO2 removal can be done by using
2 methods: monoethanolamine (C2H4NH2OH) scrubbing and hot potassium scrubbing.
Approximately 80 percent of the ammonia plants use monoethanolamine (MEA) to aid in removing
CO2.  The  CO2 gas is passed upward through an adsorption tower countercurrent to a 15 to 30 percent
solution of MEA in water fortified with effective corrosion inhibitors. After absorbing the CO2, the
amine solution is preheated and regenerated (carbon dioxide regenerator) in  a reactivating tower.  This
reacting tower removes CO2 by steam stripping and then by heating.  The CO2 gas (98.5 percent CO2)
is either vented to the atmosphere or used for chemical feedstock in other parts of the plant complex.
The regenerated MEA is pumped back to the  absorber tower after being cooled in a heat exchanger and
solution cooler.

8.1.2.5 Methanation-
       Residual CO2 in the synthesis gas is removed by catalytic methanation which is conducted over
a nickel catalyst at temperatures of 400 to 600 °C (752 to 1112°F) and pressures up  to
3,000 kilopascals (kPa) (435 pounds per square inch absolute [psia]) according to the following
reactions:
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.1-3

    -------
                                 CO + 3H2  -  CH4  + H2O                              (2)


                                  CO2  + H2  -*  CO + H2O                               (3)


                                C02 + 4H2  -»  CH4  + 2H20                              (4)


Exit gas from the methanator, which has a 3:1 mole ratio of hydrogen and nitrogen, is then cooled to
38°C (100°F).

8.1.2.6  Ammonia Synthesis -
       In the synthesis step, the synthesis  gas from the methanator is compressed at pressures ranging
from 13,800 to 34,500 kPa (2000 to 5000 psia), mixed with recycled synthesis gas, and cooled to 0°C
(32°F).  Condensed ammonia is separated from the unconverted synthesis gas in a liquid-vapor
separator and sent to a let-down separator.  The unconverted synthesis is compressed and preheated to
180°C (356°F) before entering the synthesis converter which contains iron oxide catalyst.  Ammonia
from the exit gas is condensed and separated, then sent to the let-down separator. A small portion of
the overhead gas is purged to prevent the buildup of inert gases such as  argon in the circulating gas
system.

       Ammonia in the let-down separator is flashed to 100 kPa (14.5 psia) at -33 °C (-27°F) to
remove impurities from the liquid. The flash vapor is condensed in the let-down chiller where
anhydrous ammonia is drawn off and stored at low temperature.

8.1.3  Emissions And Controls1 '3

       Pollutants from the manufacture of synthetic anhydrous ammonia are emitted from 4 process
steps: (1) regeneration of the desulfurization bed, (2) heating of the catalytic steam, (3) regeneration of
carbon dioxide scrubbing solution, and (4) steam stripping of process condensate.

       More than 95 percent of the ammonia plants in the U. S.  use activated carbon fortified with
metallic oxide additives for feedstock desulfurization. The desulfurization bed must be regenerated
about once every 30 days for an average period of 8 to 10 hours.  Vented regeneration steam contains
sulfur oxides (SOX) and H2S,  depending on the amount of oxygen in the steam.  Regeneration also
emits hydrocarbons and CO.  The reformer,  heated with natural gas or fuel oil, emits combustion
products such as oxides of nitrogen, CO, CO2, SOX, hydrocarbons, and particulates. Emission factors
for the reformer may be estimated using factors presented in the appropriate section in Chapter 1,
"External Combustion Source".  Table 8.1-1 presents uncontrolled emission factors for a typical
ammonia plant.

       CO2 is removed from the synthesis gas by scrubbing with MEA or hot potassium carbonate
solution. Regeneration of this CO2 scrubbing solution with steam produces emission of water, NH3,
CO, CO2, and MEA.

       Cooling the synthesis gas after low temperature shift conversion forms a condensate containing
NH3, CO2, CH3OH, and trace metals. Condensate steam strippers are used to remove NH3 and
methanol from the water, and steam from this is vented to the atmosphere, emitting NH3, C02, and
CH3OH.


8.1-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
            Table 8.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR A TYPICAL AMMONIA PLANT"

                                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Emission Point
Desulfurization unit regeneration15
(SCC 3-01-003-05)
Carbon dioxide regenerator
(SCC 3-01-003-008)
Condensate steam stripper
(SCC 3-01-003-09)
CO
kg/Mg
6.9
1.0e
NA
Ib/ton
13.8
2.0e
NA
SO2
kg/Mg
0.0288c'd
NA
NA
Ib/ton
0.0576c-d
NA
NA
Total Organic
Compounds
kg/Mg
3.6
0.52f
0.6«
Ib/ton
7.2
1.04
1.2
NH3
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton
NA NA
1.0 2.0
1.1 2.2
CO2
kg/Mg
ND
1220
3.4h
Ib/ton
ND
2440
6.8h
§
n

I
o
B.

o.
C/3
a References 1,3-  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = not applicable.  ND = no data.
b Intermittent emissions.  Desulfurization tank is regenerated for a 10-hour period on average once every 30 days.
c Assumed worst case, that all sulfur entering tank is emitted during regeneration.
d Normalized to a 24-hour emission factor. Total sulfur is 0.0096 kg/Mg (0.019 Ib/ton).
e Mostly CO.
f 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) is monoethanolamine.
g Mostly methanol, which is classified as Non Methane Organic Compound and a hazardous air pollutant.
h +60%.
OO

    -------
       Some processes have been modified to reduce emissions and to improve utility of raw materials
and energy.  One such technique is the injection of the overheads into the reformer stack along with the
combustion gases to eliminate emissions from the condensate steam stripper.

References For Section 8.1

1.     Source Category Survey: Ammonia Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-80-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1980.

2.     North American Fertilizer Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December 1991.

3.     G. D. Rawlings and R. B. Reznik, Source Assessment: Synthetic Ammonia Production,
       EPA-600/2-77-107m, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November
       1977.

4.     AIRS Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes And Emission Factor Listing For Criteria
       Pollutants, EPA-450/4-90-003,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March  1990.
8.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.2  Urea

8.2.1 General1'13

        Urea [CCXNH^L also known as carbamide or carbonyl diamide, is marketed as a solution or
in solid form. Most urea solution produced is used in fertilizer mixtures, with a small amount going to
animal feed supplements. Most solids are produced as prills or granules, for use as fertilizer or protein
supplement in animal feed, and in plastics manufacturing.  Five U. S. plants produce solid urea in
crystalline form.  About 7.3 million megagrams (Mg) (8 million tons) of urea were produced in the
U. S. in 1991. About 85 percent was used in fertilizers (both solid and solution forms), 3 percent in
animal feed supplements, and the remaining 12 percent in plastics and other uses.

8.2.2 Process Description1"2

        The process for manufacturing urea involves a combination of up to 7 major unit operations.
These operations, illustrated by the flow diagram in Figure 8.2-1, are solution synthesis, solution
concentration, solids formation, solids cooling, solids screening, solids coating and bagging, and/or
bulk shipping.
                          ADDITIVE*
  AMMONIA—fr
  CARBON	
  DIOXIDE
  •OPTIONAL WITH INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
                      Figure 8.2-1.  Major area manufacturing operations.

       The combination of processing steps is determined by the desired end products.  For example,
plants producing urea solution use only the solution formulation and bulk shipping operations.
Facilities producing solid urea employ these 2 operations and various combinations of the remaining
5 operations, depending upon the specific end product being produced.

       In the solution synthesis operation, ammonia (NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are reacted to
form ammonium carbamate (NH2CO2NH4). Typical operating conditions include temperatures from
180 to 200°C (356 to 392 °F), pressures from 140 to 250 atmospheres (14,185 to 25,331 kilopascals)
NH3:CO2 molar ratios from 3:1 to 4:1, and a retention time of 20 to 30 minutes.  The carbamate is
then dehydrated to yield 70 to 77 percent aqueous urea solution. These reactions are as follows:
                                2NH3 + CO2  ^  NH2CO2NH4
                                                          (1)
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.2-1

    -------
                             NH2CO2NH4  -  NH2CONH2 + H2O                           (2)
The urea solution can be used as an ingredient of nitrogen solution fertilizers, or it can be concentrated
further to produce solid urea.

       The 3 methods of concentrating the urea solution are vacuum concentration, crystallization, and
atmospheric evaporation. The method chosen depends upon the level of biuret (NH2CONHCONH2)
impurity allowable in the end product. Aqueous urea solution begins to decompose at 60°C (140°F) to
biuret and ammonia. The most common method of solution concentration is evaporation.

       The concentration process furnishes urea "melt" for solids formation. Urea solids are
produced from the urea melt by 2 basic methods: prilling and granulation. Prilling is a process by
which solid particles are produced from molten urea.  Molten urea is sprayed from the top of a prill
tower.  As the droplets fall through a countercurrent air flow, they cool and solidify into nearly
spherical particles.  There are 2 types of prill towers: fluidized bed and nonfluidized bed. The major
difference is that a separate solids cooling operation may be required to produce agricultural grade
prills in a nonfluidized bed prill tower.
       Granulation is used more frequently than prilling in producing solid urea for fertilizer.
Granular urea is generally stronger than prilled urea, both in crushing strength and abrasion resistance.
There are 2 granulation methods:  drum granulation and pan granulation.  In drum granulation, solids
are built up in layers on seed granules placed in a rotating drum granulator/cooler approximately
4.3 meters (14 feet) in diameter.  Pan granulators also form the product in a layering process, but
different equipment is used and pan granulators are not commonly used  in the U. S.

       The solids cooling operation is generally accomplished during solids formation, but for pan
granulation processes and for some agricultural grade prills, some supplementary cooling is provided
by auxiliary rotary drums.

       The solids screening operation removes offsize product from solid urea.  The offsize material
may be returned to the process in the solid phase or be redissolved in water and returned to the solution
concentration process.

       Clay coatings are used in the urea industry to reduce product caking and urea dust formation.
The coating also reduces the nitrogen content of the product.  The use of clay coating has diminished
considerably, being replaced by injection of formaldehyde additives into the liquid or molten urea
before solids formation. Formaldehyde reacts with urea to from methylenediurea,  which is the
conditioning agent. Additives reduce solids caking during storage and urea dust formation during
transport and handling.

       The majority of solid urea product is bulk shipped in trucks, enclosed railroad cars, or barges,
but approximately 10 percent is bagged.

8.2.3  Emissions And Controls1-3"7

       Emissions from urea manufacture are mainly ammonia and particulate matter. Formaldehyde
and methanol, hazardous air pollutants, may be emitted if additives are used.  Formalin™, used as a
formaldehyde additive, may contain  up to 15 percent methanol.  Ammonia is emitted during the
solution synthesis and solids production processes.  Particulate matter is emitted during all urea
processes.  There have been no reliable measurements of free gaseous formaldehyde emissions. The


8.2-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
chromotropic acid procedure that has been used to measure formaldehyde is not capable of
distinguishing between gaseous formaldehyde and methylenediurea, the principle compound formed
when the formaldehyde additive reacts with hot urea.

       Table 8.2-1 summarizes the uncontrolled and controlled emission factors, by processes, for
urea manufacture. Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per
ton (Ib/ton).  Table 8.2-2 summarizes particle sizes for these emissions.  Units are expressed in terms
of micrometers (/on).

       In the synthesis process, some emission control is inherent in the recycle process where
carbamate gases and/or liquids are recovered and recycled.  Typical emission sources from the solution
synthesis process  are noncondensable vent streams from ammonium carbamate decomposers and
separators. Emissions from synthesis processes are generally combined  with emissions from the
solution concentration process and are vented through a common stack.  Combined paniculate
emissions from urea synthesis and concentration operations are small compared to particulate emissions
from a typical solids-producing urea plant.  The synthesis and concentration operations are usually
uncontrolled except for recycle provisions to recover ammonia. For these reasons, no factor for
controlled emissions from synthesis and concentration processes is given in this section.

       Uncontrolled emission rates from prill towers may be affected by the following factors:
(1) product grade being produced,  (2) air flow rate through the tower, (3) type of tower bed, and
(4) ambient temperature and humidity.

       The total  of mass emissions per unit is usually lower for feed grade prill production than for
agricultural grade prills, due to lower airflows. Uncontrolled particulate emission rates for fluidized
bed prill towers are higher than those for nonfluidized bed prill towers making agricultural grade prills,
and are approximately  equal to those for nonfluidized bed feed grade prills. Ambient air conditions
can affect prill tower emissions. Available data indicate that colder temperatures promote the
formation of smaller particles in the prill tower exhaust. Since smaller particles are more difficult to
remove, the efficiency of prill tower control devices tends to decrease with ambient temperatures.  This
can lead to higher emission levels for prill towers operated during cold weather.  Ambient humidity can
also affect prill tower emissions.  Air flow rates must be increased with high humidity, and higher air
flow rates usually cause higher  emissions.

       The design parameters of drum granulators and rotary drum coolers may affect emissions.
Drum granulators have an advantage over prill towers in that they are capable of producing very large
particles without difficulty.  Granulators also require less air for operation than do prill towers. A
disadvantage of granulators is their inability to produce the smaller feed  grade granules economically.
To produce smaller granules, the drum must be operated at a higher seed particle recycle rate. It has
been reported that, although the increase in seed material results in a lower bed temperature, the
corresponding increase in fines  in the granulator causes a higher emission rate.  Cooling air passing
through the drum granulator entrains approximately 10 to 20 percent of the product. This air stream is
controlled with a  wet scrubber which is standard process equipment on drum granulators.

       In the solids screening process, dust is generated by abrasion of urea particles and the vibration
of the screening mechanisms. Therefore, almost all screening operations used in the urea
manufacturing industry are enclosed or are covered over the uppermost screen.  This operation is a
small emission  source; therefore particulate emission factors from solids screening are not presented.

       Emissions attributable to coating include entrained clay dust from loading, inplant transfer, and
leaks from the seals of the coater.  No emissions data are available to quantify this fugitive dust source.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.2-3

    -------
    Table 8.2-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR UREA PRODUCTION

                       EMISSON FACTOR RATING:  A (except as noted)
Type Of Operation
Solution formation and
concentration0
Nonfluidized bed prilling
Agricultural gradef
Feed grade11
Fluidized bed prilling
Agricultural grade*1
Feed grade11
Drum granulation)
Rotary drum cooler
Bagging
Paniculate*
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
Of
Product
0.0105d

1.9
1.8

3.1
1.8
120
3.89m
0.095°
Ib/ton
Of
Product
0.021d

3.8
3.6

6.2
3.6
241
77gm
0.19n
Controlled
kg/Mg
Of
Product
ND

0.0328
ND

0.39
0.24
0.115
0.10°
ND
Ib/ton
Of
Product
ND

0.0638
ND

0.78
0.48
0.234
0.20°
ND
Ammonia
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
Of
Product
9.23e

0.43
ND

1.46
2.07
1.07k
0.0256m
NA
Ib/ton
Of
Product
18.46C

0.87
ND

2.91
4.14
2.15k
0.051m
NA
Controlled1"
kg/Mg
Of
Product
ND

ND
ND

ND
1.04
ND
ND
NA
Ib/ton
Of
Product
ND

ND
ND

ND
2.08
ND
ND
NA
a Paniculate test data were collected using a modification of EPA Reference Method 3. Reference 1,
  Appendix B explains these modifications. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b No ammonia control demonstrated by scrubbers  installed for paniculate control.  Some increase in
  ammonia emissions exiting the control device was noted.
c References 9,11.  Emissions from the synthesis process are generally combined with emissions from
  the solution concentration process and vented through a common stack. In the synthesis process,
  some emission control is inherent in the recycle process where carbamate gases and/or liquids are
  recovered and recycled.
d EPA test data indicated a range of 0.005 to 0.016 kg/Mg (0.010 to 0.032 Ib/ton).
e EPA test data indicated a range of 4.01  to 14.45  kg/Mg (8.02  to 28.90 Ib/ton).
f Reference 12.  These factors were determined at an ambient temperature of 14 to 21 °C
  (57 to 69°F). The controlled emission factors are based on ducting exhaust through a downcomer
  and then a wetted fiber filter scrubber achieving  a 98.3% efficiency. This represents a higher degree
  of control than is typical in this industry.
g Only runs 2 and 3 were used (test Series A).
h Reference 11.  Feed grade factors were determined at an ambient temperature of 29 °C (85 °F) and
  agricultural grade factors at an ambient temperature of 27°C (80°F). For fluidized bed prilling,
  controlled emission factors are based on use of an entrainment scrubber.
J References 8-9.  Controlled emission factors are based on use of a wet entrainment scrubber.  Wet
  scrubbers are standard process equipment on drum granulators. Uncontrolled emissions were
  measured at the scrubber inlet.
k EPA test data indicated a range of 0.955 to 1.20 kg/Mg (1.90 to 2.45 Ib/ton).
m Reference 10.
n Reference 1. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.  Data were provided by industry.
8.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
          Table 8.2-2 (Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR
                                    UREA PRODUCTION
Type Of Operation
Solid Formation
Nonfluidized bed prilling
Agricultural grade
Feed grade
Fluidized bed prilling
Agricultural grade
Feed grade
Drum granulation
Rotary drum cooler
Particle Size
(cumulative weight %)
^ 10 fim ^ 5 /xm £ 2.5 pm
90 84 79
85 74 50
60 52 43
24 18 14
	 a 	 a 	 a
0.70 0.15 0.04
a All paniculate matter k 5.7 /tm was collected in the cyclone precollector sampling equipment.


       Bagging operations are sources of participate emissions. Dust is emitted from each bagging
method during the final stages of filling, when dust-laden air is displaced from the bag by urea.
Bagging operations are conducted inside warehouses and are usually vented to keep dust out of the
workroom area, as mandated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
Most vents are controlled with baghouses.  Nationwide, approximately 90 percent of urea produced is
bulk loaded.  Few plants control their bulk loading operations. Generation of visible fugitive particles
is negligible.

       Urea manufacturers presently control paniculate matter emissions from prill towers, coolers,
granulators, and bagging operations.  With the exception of bagging operations, urea emission sources
are usually controlled with wet scrubbers.  Scrubber systems are preferred over dry collection systems
primarily for the easy recycling of dissolved urea collected in the device.  Scrubber liquors are
recycled to the solution concentration process to eliminate waste disposal problems and to recover the
urea collected.

       Fabric filters (baghouses) are used to control fugitive dust from bagging operations, where
humidities are low and binding of the bags is not a problem. However, many bagging operations are
uncontrolled.

References For  Section 8.2

1.     Urea Manufacturing Industry: Technical Document, EPA-450/3-81-001, U.  S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1981.

2.     D. F. Bress and M. W. Packbier,  "The Startup Of Two Major Urea Plants", Chemical
       Engineering Progress, May 1977.

3.     Written communication from Gary McAlister, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, to Eric Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 28, 1983.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.2-5

    -------
4.     Formaldehyde Use In Urea-Based Fertilizers, Report Of The Fertilizer Institute's
       Formaldehyde Task Group, The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC, February 4, 1983.

5.     J. H. Cramer, "Urea Prill Tower Control Meeting 20% Opacity".  Presented at the Fertilizer
       Institute Environment Symposium, New Orleans, LA, April 1980.

6.     Written communication from M. I. Bornstein, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, to E. A.
       Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 2, 1978.

7.     Written communication from M. I. Bornstein and S. V. Capone, GCA Corporation, Bedford,
       MA, to E. A. Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 23, 1978.

8.     Urea Manufacture: Agrico Chemical Company Emission Test Report, EMB Report 78-NHF-4,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.

9.     Urea Manufacture: CF Industries Emission Test Report, EMB Report 78-NHF-8,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

10.    Urea Manufacture: Union Oil Of California Emission Test Report, EMB Report 80-NHF-15,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September  1980.

11.    Urea Manufacture: W. R.  Grace And Company Emission Test Report, EMB Report 80-NHF-3,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.

12.    Urea Manufacture: Reichhold Chemicals Emission Test Report, EMB Report 80-NHF-14,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1980.

13.    North American Fertilizer Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December 1991.
8.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.3  Ammonium Nitrate

8.3.1  General1'3

        Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) is produced by neutralizing nitric acid (HNO3) with ammonia
(NH3). In 1991, there were 58 U. S. ammonium nitrate plants located in 22 states producing about
8.2 million megagrams (Mg) (9 million tons) of ammonium nitrate.  Approximately 15 to 20 percent
of this amount was used for  explosives and the balance for fertilizer.

        Ammonium nitrate is marketed in several forms, depending  upon its use.  Liquid ammonium
nitrate may be sold as a fertilizer, generally in combination with urea.  Liquid ammonium nitrate may
be concentrated to form an ammonium nitrate "melt" for use in solids formation processes.   Solid
ammonium nitrate may be produced in the form of prills, grains, granules, or crystals.  Prills can be
produced in either high or low density form, depending on the concentration of the melt.  High
density prills, granules, and  crystals are used as fertilizer, grains are used solely in explosives, and
low density prills can be used as either.

8.3.2  Process Description1'2

        The manufacture of ammonium nitrate involves several major unit operations including
solution formation and concentration; solids formation, finishing, screening, and coating;  and product
bagging and/or bulk shipping.  In some cases, solutions may be blended for marketing as liquid
fertilizers.  These operations are shown schematically in Figure 8.3-1.

        The number of operating steps employed depends on the end product desired.  For example,
plants producing ammonium nitrate solutions alone use only the solution formation, solution blending,
and bulk shipping operations.  Plants producing a solid ammonium nitrate product may employ all of
the operations.

        All ammonium nitrate plants produce an aqueous ammonium nitrate solution through the
reaction of ammonia and nitric acid in a neutralizer as follows:

                                 NH3  + HNO3  ^  NH4NO3

Approximately 60 percent of the ammonium nitrate produced in the  U. S. is sold as a solid product.
To produce a solid product, the ammonium nitrate solution  is concentrated in an evaporator or
concentrator. The resulting  "melt" contains about 95 to 99.8 percent ammonium nitrate at
approximately 149°C (300°F).  This  melt is then  used to make solid ammonium nitrate products.

        Prilling and granulation are the most common processes used to produce solid ammonium
nitrate. To produce prills, concentrated melt is sprayed into the top of a prill tower.  In the tower,
ammonium nitrate droplets fall countercurrent to a rising air stream  that cools and solidifies the
falling droplets into spherical prills. Prill density can be varied by using different concentrations of
ammonium nitrate melt. Low density prills, in  the range of 1.29 specific gravity, are formed from a
95 to 97.5 percent ammonium nitrate melt,  and  high density prills, in the range of 1.65 specific
gravity, are formed from a 99.5 to 99.8 percent melt. Low density  prills are more porous than high
density prills.  Therefore, low density prills are used for making blasting agents because they will
absorb oil.  Most high density prills are used as fertilizers.
7/93 (Refoimatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                               8.3-1

    -------
00
                                                        ADDITIVE
tn

S
h-H
GO
00
n
H
O
jo
on
           AMMONIA


          NITRIC ACID
 SOLUTION


FORMATION
                         SOLUTIONS
   SOLUTION


CONCENTRATION
   SOLIDS

 FORMATION


 PRILLING

GRANULATING
 SOLIDS

FINISHING


DRYING

COOLING
 SOLUTION


 BLENDING
                 a ADDITIVE MAY BE ADDED BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER CONCENTRATION

                 b SCREENING MAY BE PERFORMED BEFORE OR AFTER SOLIDS FINISHING
                                        Figure 8.3-1.  Ammonium nitrate manufacturing operations.

    -------
        Rotary drum granulators produce granules by spraying a concentrated ammonium nitrate melt
 (99.0 to 99.8 percent) onto small seed particles of ammonium nitrate in a long rotating cylindrical
 drum.  As the seed particles rotate in the drum, successive layers of ammonium nitrate are added to
 the particles, forming granules.  Granules are removed from the granulator and screened. Offsize
 granules are crushed and recycled to the granulator to supply additional seed particles or are dissolved
 and returned to the solution process.  Pan granulators operate on the same principle as drum
 granulators, except the solids are formed in a large, rotating circular pan. Pan granulators produce a
 solid product with physical characteristics similar to those of drum granules.

        Although not widely used, an additive such as magnesium nitrate or magnesium oxide may be
 injected directly into the melt stream. This additive serves 3 purposes: to raise the crystalline
 transition temperature of the final solid product; to act as a desiccant, drawing water into the final
 product to reduce caking; and to allow solidification to occur at a low temperature by reducing the
 freezing point of molten ammonium nitrate.

        The temperature of the ammonium nitrate product exiting the solids formation process is
 approximately 66 to 124°C (150 to 255°F).  Rotary drum or fluidized bed cooling prevents
 deterioration and agglomeration of solids before storage and shipping.  Low density prills have a high
 moisture content because of the lower melt concentration, and therefore require drying in rotary
 drums or fluidized beds before cooling.

        Since the solids are produced  in a wide variety of sizes, they must be screened for
 consistently sized prills or granules.  Cooled  prills are screened and offsize prills are dissolved and
 recycled to the solution concentration process.  Granules are screened before cooling.  Undersize
 particles are returned directly to the granulator and oversize granules may be either crushed and
 returned to the granulator or sent to the solution concentration process.

        Following screening,  products can be coated in a rotary drum to prevent agglomeration during
 storage and shipment.  The most common coating  materials are clays and diatomaceous earth.
 However, the use of additives in the ammonium nitrate melt before solidification, as described above,
 may preclude the use of coatings.

        Solid ammonium nitrate is stored and shipped in either bulk or bags.  Approximately
 10 percent of solid ammonium nitrate produced in  the U. S. is bagged.

 8.3.3  Emissions And Controls

        Emissions from ammonium nitrate production plants are particulate matter (ammonium nitrate
 and coating materials), ammonia, and nitric acid.   Ammonia and nitric acid are emitted primarily
 from solution formation and granulators. Particulate matter (largely as ammonium nitrate) is emitted
 from most of the process operations and is the primary emission addressed here.

        The emission sources in solution formation and concentration processes are neutralizes and
 evaporators, primarily emitting nitric acid and ammonia. The vapor stream off the top of the
neutralization reactor is primarily steam with  some ammonia and NH4NO3 particulates present.
Specific plant operating characteristics, however, make these emissions vary depending upon use of
excess ammonia or acid in the neutralizes  Since the neutralization operation can dictate the quantity
of these emissions, a range of emission factors is presented in  Tables 8.3-1 and 8.3-2.  Units are
expressed in terms of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).  Particulate
emissions from these operations tend to be smaller in size than those from solids production and
handling processes and generally are recycled back to the process.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.3-3

    -------
 o
         Table 8.3-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS8

                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A (except as noted)
Process
Neutralizer
Evaporation/concentration operations
Solids formation operations
High density prill towers
Low density prill towers
Rotary drum granulators
Pan granulators
Coolers and dryers
High density prill coolers
Low density prill coolers
Low density prill dryers
Rotary drum granulator coolers
Pan granulator coolers
Coating operations6
Bulk loading operations8
Particulate Matter
Uncontrolled
(kg/Mg Of Product)
0.045 - 4.3e
0.26

1.59
0.46
146
1.34

0.8
25.8
57.2
8.1
18.3
<; 2.od
<; o.oid
Controlled1*
(kg/Mg Of Product)
0.002 - 0.22e
ND

0.60
0.26
0.22
0.02

0.01
0.26
0.57
0.08
0.1 8d
^ 0.02d
ND
Ammonia
Uncontrolled*1
(kg/Mg Of Product)
0.43 - IS-fld
0.27 - 16.7

28.6
0.13
29.7
0.07

0.02
0.15
0- 1.59
ND
ND
NA
NA
Nitric Acid
Controlled*1
(kg/Mg Of Product)
0.042 - le
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
w
K"H
00
00
H-H
o
z
T)
>
O
H
O
?d
oo
90
o
o1
a Some ammonium nitrate emission factors are based on data gathered using a modification of EPA Method 5 (See Reference 1).
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Based on the following control efficiencies for wet scrubbers, applied to uncontrolled emissions: neutralizes, 95%; high density prill towers,
  62%; low density prill towers, 43%; rotary drum granulators, 99.9%; pan granulators, 98.5%; coolers, dryers, and coaters, 99%.
c Given as ranges because of variation in data and plant operations. Factors for controlled emissions not presented due to conflicting results
  on control efficiency.
d Based on 95% recovery in a granulator recycle scrubber.
e EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B.
f Factors  for coolers represent combined precooler  and cooler emissions, and factors for dryers represent combined predryer and dryer
  emissions.
g Fugitive particulate emissions arise from coating and bulk loading operations.

    -------
         Table 8.3-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESSES IN AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS8

                                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A (except as noted)
Process
Neutralizer
Evaporation/concentration operations
Solids formation operations
High density prill towers
Low density prill towers
Rotary drum granulators
Pan granulators
Coolers and dryers
High density prill coolers
Low density prill coolers
Low density prill dryers
Rotary drum granulator coolers
Pan granulator coolers
Coating operations8
Bulk loading operations6
Particulate Matter
Uncontrolled
(Ib/ton Of Product)
0.09 - 8.6°
0.52

3.18
0.92
392
2.68

1.6
51.6
114.4
16.2
36.6
<: 4.0"1
<, 0.02d
Controlled15
(Ib/ton Of Product)
0.004 - 0.43d
ND

1.20
0.52
0.44
0.04

0.02
0.52
1.14
0.16
0.36d
<: 0.04d
ND
Ammonia
Uncontrolled0
(Ib/ton Of Product)
0.86 - 36.02d
0.54 - 33.4

57.2
0.26
59.4
0.14

0.04
0.30
0-3.18
ND
ND
NA
NA
Nitric Acid
Controlled"1
(Ib/ton Of Product)
0.084 - 2d'e
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
o
f-l
crq
o
n>


I
t-H

I
c/3
 OO
a Some ammonium nitrate emission factors are based on data gathered using a modification of EPA Method 5 (See Reference 1).
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Based on the following control efficiencies for wet scrubbers, applied to uncontrolled emissions: neutralizes, 95%; high density prill
  towers, 62%; low density prill towers, 43%; rotary drum granulators, 99.9%; pan granulators, 98.5%; coolers, dryers, and coalers,
  99%.
c Given as ranges because of variation in data and plant operations.  Factors for controlled emissions not presented due to conflicting results
  on control efficiency.
d Based on 95% recovery in a granulator recycle scrubber.
e EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B.
f Factors for coolers represent combined precooler and cooler emissions, and factors for dryers represent combined predryer and dryer
  emissions.
g Fugitive paniculate emissions arise from coating and bulk loading operations.

    -------
        Emissions from solids formation processes are ammonium nitrate paniculate matter and
ammonia.  The sources of primary importance are prill towers (for high density and low density
prills) and granulators (rotary drum and pan). Emissions from prill towers result from carryover of
fine particles and fume by the prill cooling air flowing through the tower.  These fine particles are
from  microprill formation, from attrition of prills colliding with the tower or with one another, and
from  rapid transition of the ammonia nitrate between crystal states.  The uncontrolled paniculate
emissions from prill towers, therefore, are affected by tower airflow, spray melt  temperature,
condition and type of melt spray device, air temperature, and crystal state changes of the solid prills.
The amount of microprill mass that can be entrained in the prill tower exhaust is determined by the
tower air velocity.  Increasing spray melt temperature causes an increase in the amount of gas-phase
ammonium nitrate generated.  Thus, gaseous emissions from high density prilling are greater than
from  low density towers.

        Microprill formation  resulting from partially plugged orifices of melt spray devices can
increase fine dust loading and emissions.  Certain designs (spinning buckets) and practices (vibration
of spray plates) help reduce microprill formation.  High ambient air temperatures can cause increased
emissions because of entrainment as a result of higher air flow required to cool prills and because of
increased fume formation at the higher temperatures.

        The granulation process in general provides a larger degree of control in  product formation
than does prilling.  Granulation produces a solid ammonium nitrate product that, relative to prills, is
larger and has greater abrasion resistance and crushing strength.  The air flow in granulation
processes is lower than that in prilling operations.  Granulators, however, cannot produce low  density
ammonium nitrate economically with current technology.  The design and operating parameters of
granulators may affect emission rates. For example, the recycle rate of seed ammonium nitrate
particles affects the bed temperature in the granulator.  An increase in bed temperature  resulting from
decreased recycle of seed particles may  cause an increase in dust emissions from granule
disintegration.

        Cooling and drying are usually conducted in rotary drums.  As with granulators, the design
and operating parameters of the rotary drums  may affect the quantity of emissions.  In addition to
design parameters, prill and granule temperature control is necessary to control emissions from
disintegration of solids caused by changes in crystal state.

        Emissions from screening operations are generated by the attrition of the ammonium nitrate
solids against the screens and against one another.  Almost all screening operations used in the
ammonium nitrate manufacturing industry are enclosed or have a cover over the uppermost screen.
Screening equipment is located inside a building and emissions are ducted from the process for
recovery or reuse.

        Prills and granules are typically coated in a rotary drum.  The rotating action produces a
uniformly coated product. The mixing action also causes some of the coating material to be
suspended, creating particulate emissions.  Rotary  drums used to coat solid product are typically kept
at a slight negative pressure and emissions are vented to a particulate control device.  Any dust
captured is usually recycled to the coating storage  bins.

        Bagging and bulk loading operations are a source of particulate emissions.  Dust is emitted
from  each type of bagging process during final filling when dust-laden air is displaced from the bag
by the ammonium nitrate. The potential for emissions during bagging is greater for coated than for
uncoated material.  It is  expected that emissions from bagging operations are primarily  the kaolin,
talc, or diatomaceous earth coating matter.  About 90 percent of solid ammonium nitrate produced

8.3-6                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
domestically is bulk loaded.  While paniculate emissions from bulk loading are not generally
controlled, visible emissions  are within typical state regulatory requirements (below 20 percent
opacity).

       Tables 8.3-1 and 8.3-2 summarize emission factors for various processes involved in the
manufacture of ammonium nitrate.  Uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter, ammonia, and nitric
acid are also given in Tables 8.3-1 and 8.3-2.  Emissions of ammonia and nitric acid depend upon
specific operating practices, so ranges of factors are given for some emission sources.

       Emission factors for controlled particulate emissions are also in Tables 8.3-1 and 8.3-2,
reflecting wet scrubbing particulate control techniques.  The particle size distribution data presented in
Table 8.3-3 indicate the emissions.  In addition, wet scrubbing is used as a control technique because
the solution containing the recovered ammonium nitrate can be sent to the solution concentration
process for reuse in production of ammonium nitrate, rather than to waste disposal facilities.
  Table 8.3-3 (Metric Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR UNCONTROLLED
         EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES*
Operation
Solids Formation Operations
Low density prill tower
Rotary drum granulator
Coolers and Dryers
Low density prill cooler
Low density prill predryer
Low density prill dryer
Rotary drum granulator cooler
Pan granulator precooler
Cumulative Weight %
< 2.5 /mi

56
0.07

0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.3
:< 5 yxm

73
0.3

0.09
0.06
0.04
0.5
0.3
< 10 /xm

83
2

0.4
0.2
0.15
3
1.5
a
  References 5,12-13,23-24.  Particle size determinations were not done in strict accordance with
  EPA Method 5. A modification was used to handle the high concentrations of soluble nitrogenous
  compounds.1  Particle size distributions were not determined for controlled particulate emissions.
References For Section 8.3

1.     Ammonium Nitrate Manufacturing Industry:  Technical Document, EPA-450/3-81-002,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1981.

2.     W. J. Search and R. B. Reznik, Source Assessment:  Ammonium Nitrate Production,
       EPA-600/2-77-107i, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cinncinnati, OH,
       September 1977.

3.     North American Fertilizer Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority,  Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December,  1991.

4.     Memo from C.  D. Anderson, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to
       Ammonium  Nitrate file, July 2, 1980.


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.3-7

    -------
5.     D. P. Becvar, et al., Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Union Oil Company Of
       California, EMB-78-NHF-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1979.

6.     K. P. Brockman, Emission Tests For Particulates, Cominco American, Beatrice, ME, 1974.

7.     Written communication from S. V. Capone, GCA Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC, to
       E. A. Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 6, 1979.

8.     Written communication from D. E. Cayard, Monsanto Agricultural Products Company,
       St. Louis, MO, to E. A. Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, December 4, 1978.

9.     Written communication from D. E. Cayard, Monsanto Agricultural Products Company,
       St. Louis, MO, to E. A. Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, December 27, 1978.

10.    Written communication from T. H. Davenport, Hercules Incorporated, Donora, PA, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 16, 1978.

11.    R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Source Sampling Report: Atlas Powder Company, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.

12.    M. D. Hansen, et al., Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report:  Swift Chemical Company,
       EMB-79-NHF-11, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July
       1980.

13.    R. A. Kniskern, et al., Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Cominco American, Inc.,
       Beatrice,  NE, EMB-79-NHF-9, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, April 1979.

14.    Written communication from J. A. Lawrence, C. F. Industries, Long Grove, IL, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 15, 1978.

15.    Written communication from F. D. McLauley, Hercules Incorporated, Louisiana, MO, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 31, 1978.

16.    W. E. Misa, Report  Of Source Test:  Collier Carbon And Chemical Corporation (Union Oil),
       Test No.  5Z-78-3, Anaheim, CA, January 12, 1978.

17.    Written communication from L. Musgrove, Georgia Department Of Natural Resources,
       Atlanta, GA, to R. Rader, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,  NC, May 21, 1980.

18.    Written communication from D. J. Patterson, Nitrogen Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, to
       E. A. Noble, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 26, 1979.
8.3-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 19.    Written communication from H. Schuyten, Chevron Chemical Company, San Francisco, CA,
       to D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2, 1979.

 20.    Emission Test Report: Phillips Chemical Company, Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX,
       1975.

 21.    Surveillance Report: Hawkeye Chemical Company, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 29, 1976.

 22.    W. A. Wade and R. W. Cass, Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report:  C.F. Industries,
       EMB-79-NHF-10, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1979.

 23.    W. A. Wade, et al., Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Columbia Nitrogen
       Corporation, EMB-80-NHF-16, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January, 1981.

 24.    York Research Corporation, Ammonium Nitrate Emission Test Report: Nitrogen Corporation,
       EMB-78-NHF-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
       1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)              Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.3-9

    -------

    -------
8.4 Ammonium Sulfate

8.4.1  General1'2

       Ammonium sulfate ([NH^SO^ is commonly used as a fertilizer.  In 1991, U. S. facilities
produced about 2.7 million megagrams (Mg) (3 million tons) of ammonium sulfate in about 35 plants.
Production rates at these plants range from 1.8 to 360 Mg  (2 to 400 tons) per year.

8.4.2  Process Description1

       About 90 percent of ammonium sulfate is produced by  3 different processes:  (1) as a
byproduct of caprolactam [(CH^COHN] production, (2) from synthetic manufacture, and (3) as a
coke oven byproduct. The remainder  is produced as a byproduct of either nickel or methyl
methacrylate manufacture, or from ammonia (NH3) scrubbing of tailgas at sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
plants. These minor sources are not discussed here.

       Ammonium sulfate is produced as a byproduct from the caprolactam oxidation process stream
and the rearrangement reaction stream. Synthetic ammonium sulfate is produced by combining
anhydrous ammonia and sulfuric acid in a reactor.  Coke oven byproduct ammonium sulfate is
produced by reacting the ammonia recovered from coke oven offgas with sulfuric acid.  Figure 8.4-1
is a diagram of typical ammonium sulfate manufacturing for each of the 3 primary commercial
processes.

       After formation  of the ammonium sulfate solution,  manufacturing operations of each process
are similar.  Ammonium sulfate crystals are formed by circulating the  ammonium sulfate liquor
through a water evaporator, which thickens the solution. Ammonium sulfate crystals are separated
from the liquor in a centrifuge. In the caprolactam byproduct process, the product is first transferred
to a settling tank to reduce the liquid load on the centrifuge.  The saturated liquor is returned to the
dilute ammonium sulfate brine of the evaporator. The crystals, which  contain about 1 to 2.5 percent
moisture by weight after the centrifuge, are fed to either a  fluidized-bed or a rotary drum dryer.
Fluidized-bed dryers are continuously  steam heated, while  the rotary dryers are fired directly with
either oil or natural gas  or may use steam-heated air.

       At coke oven byproduct plants, rotary vacuum filters may be used  in place of a centrifuge and
dryer.  The crystal layer is  deposited on the filter and is  removed as product.  These crystals are
generally not screened, although they contain a wide range of particle sizes.  They are then carried by
conveyors to bulk storage.

       At synthetic plants, a small quantity (about 0.05 percent) of a heavy organic (i.  e., high
molecular weight organic) is added to  the product after drying to reduce  caking.

       Dryer exhaust gases pass through a paniculate collection device,  such as a wet scrubber.
This collection controls  emissions and  reclaims residual product.  After being dried, the ammonium
sulfate crystals are screened into coarse and fine crystals.  This screening is done in  an  enclosed area
to restrict fugitive dust in the building.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                          •   8.4-1

    -------
                                                                                    on


                                                                                    s
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    w
                                                                                    OH
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    a
                                                                                    o

                                                                                    'S.
                                                                                    >.
8.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.4.3 Emissions And Controls
       Ammonium sulfate paniculate is the principal emission from ammonium sulfate manufacturing
plants. The gaseous exhaust of the dryers contains nearly all the emitted ammonium sulfate.  Other
plant processes, such as evaporation, screening and materials handling, are not significant sources of
emissions.

       The paniculate emission rate of a dryer is dependent on gas velocity and particle size
distribution. Gas velocity, and thus emission rates, varies according to the dryer type. Generally, the
gas velocity of fluidized-bed dryers is higher than for most rotary drum dryers.  Therefore, the
paniculate emission rates are higher for fluidized-bed dryers.  At caprolactam byproduct plants,
relatively small amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted from the dryers.

       Some plants use baghouses for emission control, but wet scrubbers, such as venturi and
centrifugal scrubbers, are more suitable for reducing paniculate emissions from the dryers.  Wet
scrubbers use the process streams as the scrubbing liquid so that the collected paniculate can be easily
recycled to  the production system.

       Table 8.4-1 shows uncontrolled and controlled paniculate and VOC emission factors for
various dryer types. Emission factors are in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds
per ton (Ib/ton).  The VOC  emissions shown apply only to caprolactam byproduct plants.
  Table 8.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR AMMONIUM SULFATE
                                     MANUFACTUREa

                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C (except as noted)
Dryer Type
Rotary dryers
Uncontrolled
Wet scrubber
Fluidized-bed dryers
Uncontrolled
Wet scrubber
Paniculate
kg/Mg
23
0.02C
109
0.14
Ib/ton
46
0.04C
218
0.28
vocb
kg/Mg
0.74
0.11
0.74
0.11
Ib/ton
1.48
0.22
1.48
0.22
a Reference 3. Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of ammonium sulfate produced (Ib of pollutant/ton of
  ammonium sulfate produced).
b VOC emissions occur only at caprolactam plants. The emissions are caprolactam vapor.
c Reference 4. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A.
References For Section 8.4

1.      Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture: Background Information For Proposed Emission Standards,
       EPA-450/3-79-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.4-3

    -------
2.     North American Fertilizer Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December 1991.

3.     Emission Factor Documentation For Section 8.4, Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture, Pacific
       Environmental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1981:

4.     Compliance Test Report:  J. R.  Simplot Company, Pocatello, ID, February, 1990.
 8.4-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.5  Phosphate Fertilizers

        Phosphate fertilizers are classified into 3 groups of chemical compounds. Two of these
groups are known as superphosphates and are defined by the percentage of phosphorus as phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5). Normal superphosphate contains between 15 and 21 percent phosphorus as P2O5
whereas triple superphosphate contains over 40 percent phosphorus.  The remaining group is
ammonium phosphate (NH4H2PO4).
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.5-1

    -------

    -------
8.5.1  Normal Superphosphates

8.5.1.1  General1'3

        Normal superphosphate refers to fertilizer material containing 15 to 21 percent phosphorus as
phosphorus pentoxide (P2^s)-  As defined by the Census Bureau, normal superphosphate contains not
more than 22 percent of available ^2^5- There are currently about 8 fertilizer facilities producing
normal superphosphates in the U. S. with an estimated total production of about 273,000 megagrams
(Mg) (300,000 tons) per year.

8.5.1.2  Process Description1

        Normal superphosphates are prepared by reacting ground phosphate rock with 65 to
75 percent sulfuric acid.  An important factor in the production of normal superphosphates is the
amount of iron and  aluminum in the phosphate rock. Aluminum (as A12O3) and iron (as F^O^)
above 5 percent imparts an extreme stickiness to the superphosphate and makes it difficult to handle.

        The 2 general types of sulfuric acid used in superphosphate manufacture are virgin and spent
acid.  Virgin acid is produced from elemental sulfur, pyrites, and industrial gases and is relatively
pure.  Spent acid is a recycled waste product from various industries that use large quantities of
sulfuric acid.  Problems encountered with using spent acid include unusual  color, unfamiliar odor,
and  toxicity.

        A generalized  flow diagram of normal superphosphate production is shown in Figure 8.5.1-1.
Ground phosphate rock and acid are mixed in a reaction vessel, held in an enclosed area for about
30 minutes until the reaction is partially completed,  and then transferred, using an enclosed conveyer
known as the den, to a storage pile for curing (the completion of the reaction).  Following  curing, the
product is  most often used as a high-phosphate additive in the production of granular fertilizers. It
can  also be granulated for sale as granulated superphosphate or granular mixed fertilizer. To produce
granulated normal superphosphate, cured superphosphate is fed through a clod breaker and sent to a
rotary drum granulator where steam, water, and acid may be added to aid in granulation.  Material is
processed through a rotary drum granulator, a rotary dryer, and a rotary cooler, and is then screened
to specification.  Finally, it is stored in bagged or bulk form prior to being sold.

8.5.1.3  Emissions And Controls1"6

        Sources of emissions at a normal superphosphate plant  include rock unloading and feeding,
mixing operations (in the reactor), storage (in the curing building), and  fertilizer handling operations.
Rock unloading, handling, and feeding generate paniculate emissions of phosphate rock dust.  The
mixer, den, and curing building emit gases in the form of silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4), hydrogen
fluoride (HF), and particulates composed of fluoride and phosphate material. Fertilizer handling
operations  release fertilizer dust. Emission factors for the production of normal  superphosphate are
presented in Table 8.5.1-1.  Units are expressed in terms of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and
pounds per ton (lb/ton).

        At a typical  normal superphosphate plant, emissions from the rock unloading, handling, and
feeding operations are controlled by a baghouse.  Baghouse cloth filters have reported efficiencies of
den are controlled by a wet scrubber.  The curing building and fertilizer handling operations over


7/93 (Reformatted  1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.5.1-1

    -------
    Paniculate
    emissions
                                     Paniculate
                                     emissions
                                                                 To gypsum
                                                                   pond
                                                                     Paniculate and
                                                                    fluoride emissions
                                                                                   Particulate and
                                                                                *- fluoride  emissions
                                                                                    (uncontrolled)
                                                                                          Product
               Figure 8.5.1-1.  Normal superphosphate process flow diagram.1
8.5.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
  Table 8.5.1-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
                                NORMAL SUPERPHOSPHATE

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Emission Point
Rock unloading8
Rock feeding8
Mixer and dend

Curing building6

Pollutant
Particulateb
PM-10C
Particulateb
PM-10C
Particulateb
Fluorideb
PM-10C
Particulateb
Fluorideb
PM-10C
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
OfP205
Produced
0.28
0.15
0.06
0.03
0.26
0.10
0.22
3.60
1.90
3.0
Ib/ton
OfP2O5
Produced
0.56
0.29
0.11
0.06
0.52
0.2
0.44
7.20
3.80
6.1
a Factors are for emissions from baghouse with an estimated collection efficiency of 99%.
  PM-10 = paniculate matter no greater than 10 micrometers.
b Reference  1, pp. 74-77,  169.
c Taken from Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants.
d Factors are for emissions from wet scrubbers with a reported 97% control efficiency.
e Uncontrolled.
99 percent under ideal conditions.  Collected dust is recycled.  Emissions from the mixer and den are
controlled by a wet scrubber. The curing building and fertilizer handling operations normally are not
controlled.

       SiF4 and HF emissions, and paniculate from the mixer, den, and curing building are
controlled by scrubbing the offgases with recycled water.  Gaseous SiF4 in the presence of moisture
reacts to form gelatinous silica,  which has a tendency to plug scrubber packings.  The use of
conventional packed-countercurrent scrubbers and other contacting devices with small gas passages for
emissions control is therefore limited. Scrubbers that can be used are cyclones, venturi,
impingement, jet ejector, and spray-crossflow packed scrubbers.  Spray towers are also used  as
precontactors for fluorine removal at relatively high concentration levels of greater than 4.67 grams
per cubic meter (3000 parts per million).

       Air pollution control techniques vary with particular plant designs.  The effectiveness of
abatement systems in removing  fluoride and paniculate also varies from plant to plant, depending on
a number of factors.  The effectiveness of fluorine abatement is determined by the inlet fluorine
concentration, outlet or saturated gas temperature, composition and temperature of the scrubbing
liquid, scrubber type and transfer units, and the  effectiveness of entrainment separation.  Control
efficiency is enhanced by increasing the number  of scrubbing stages in series and by using a fresh
water scrub in the final stage. Reported  efficiencies for fluoride control range from less than
90 percent to over 99 percent, depending on  inlet fluoride concentrations and the system employed.
An efficiency of 98 percent for paniculate control is achievable.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.5.1-3

    -------
       The emission factors have not been adjusted by this revision, but they have been downgraded
to an "E" quality rating based on the absence of supporting source tests. The PM-10 (paniculate
matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers) emission factors have been added to the table, but
were taken from the AIRS Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, which is also rated "E".  No additional
or recent data were found concerning fluoride emissions from gypsum ponds.  A number of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) have been identified by SPECIATE as being present in the phosphate
manufacturing process.  Some HAPs identified include hexane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, methyl
ethyl ketone,  benzene, toluene, and styrene. Heavy metals such as lead  and mercury are present in
the phosphate rock.  The phosphate rock is mildly radioactive due to the presence of some
radionuclides. No emission factors are included for these HAPs,  heavy  metals, or radionuclides due
to the lack  of sufficient data.

References For Section 8.5.1

1.     J. M. Nyers, et al., Source Assessment: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, EPA-600/2-79-019c,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cinncinnati, OH, May  1979.

2.     H.  C. Mann, Normal Superphosphate, National Fertilizer  & Environmental Research Center,
       Tennessee Valley  Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL, February 1992.

3.     North American Fertilizer Capacity Data (including supplement), Tennessee Valley Authority,
       Muscle Shoals, AL, December 1991.

4.     Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
       Volume  1: Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-019a, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

5.     Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
       Volume  2:  Test Data Summary, EPA-450/2-74-019b, U.  S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

6.     Final Guideline Document: Control Of Fluoride Emissions From Existing Phosphate Fertilizer
       Plants, EPA-450/2-77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March  1977.
8.5.1-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.5.2  Triple Superphosphates

8.5.2.1  General2'3

        Triple superphosphate, also known as double, treble, or concentrated superphosphate, is a
fertilizer material with a phosphorus content of over 40 percent, measured as phosphorus pentoxide
(P2O5).  Triple superphosphate is produced in only 6 fertilizer facilities in the U. S.  In 1989, there
were an estimated 3.2 million megagrams  (Mg) (3.5 million tons) of triple superphosphate produced.
Production rates from the various facilities range from 23 to 92 Mg (25 to 100 tons) per hour.

8.5.2.2  Process Description1"2

        Two processes have been used to produce triple superphosphate: run-of-the-pile (ROP-TSP)
and granular (GTSP). At this time, no facilities in the U.  S. are currently producing ROP-TSP, but a
process description is given.

        The ROP-TSP material is essentially a pulverized mass of variable particle size produced in a
manner similar to normal superphosphate. Wet-process phosphoric acid (50 to 55 percent ?2O5) is
reacted with  ground phosphate rock in a cone mixer.   The resultant slurry begins to solidify on a slow
moving conveyer en route to the curing area. At the point of discharge from the den, the material
passes through a rotary mechanical cutter that breaks up the solid mass.  Coarse ROP-TSP product is
sent to a storage pile and cured for 3 to 5  weeks.  The product is then mined from the storage pile to
be crushed, screened, and shipped in bulk.

        GTSP yields  larger, more uniform particles with improved storage and handling properties.
Most of this  material is made with the Dorr-Oliver slurry granulation process, illustrated in
Figure 8.5.2-1.  In this process,  ground phosphate rock or limestone is reacted with phosphoric acid
in 1  or 2 reactors in series.  The phosphoric acid used in this process is appreciably lower  in
concentration (40 percent ¥2^5) t^ian mat use^ to manufacture ROP-TSP product.  The lower strength
acid maintains the slurry in a fluid state during a mixing period of 1 to 2  hours.  A small sidestream
of slurry is continuously removed and distributed onto dried, recycled fines, where it coats the
granule surfaces and builds  up  its size.

        Pugmills and rotating drum granulators have been used in the granulation process.  Only
1 pugmill is  currently operating in the U. S.  A pugmill is composed of a U-shaped trough carrying
twin counter-rotating shafts, upon which are mounted  strong blades or paddles.  The blades agitate,
shear,  and knead the  liquified mix and transport the material along the trough.  The basic rotary drum
granulator consists of an open-ended, slightly inclined rotary cylinder, with retaining  rings at each end
and a scraper or cutter mounted inside the drum shell.  A rolling bed of dry material  is maintained  in
the unit while the slurry is introduced through distributor pipes set lengthwise in the drum  under the
bed. Slurry-wetted granules are  then discharged onto  a rotary dryer, where excess water is
evaporated and the chemical reaction is accelerated to  completion by the dryer heat.  Dried granules
are then sized on vibrating screens.  Oversize particles are crushed and recirculated to the screen, and
undersize particles are recycled to the granulator.  Product-size granules are cooled in a
countercurrent rotary drum, then sent to a storage pile for  curing.  After a curing period of 3 to
5 days, granules are removed from storage, screened,  bagged, and shipped.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.5.2-1

    -------
 >
 t
to
ID
2
O
•z.
•n
H
O
   PART1CULATE
    EMISSIONS
                                            BAGHOUSE
1
PARTICULATE
AND
FLUORIDE
EMISSIONS
                                      ROCK
                                                GROUND
                                                PHOSPHATE ROCK
                              WET PROCESS
                              PHOSPHORIC
                              ACID
                                                                          SCRUBBER
                                              ROCK
                                               BIN
                                                               PARTICULATE
                                                                EMISSIONS
                                   BAOHOUSE
1
JSE
„
r-*\ SCRUBBER h

I    ACID
|_ CONTROL
                                                                          PARTICULATE
                                                                         AND  FLUORIDE
                                                                           EMISSIONS
                                                                                                                                                           RECYCLED
                                                                                                                                                         POND  WATER
                                                                                                ELEVATOR
                                                                                                                                CURING  BU1LDINQ
                                                                                                                               (STORAGE & SHIPPING)
                                          Figure 8.5.2-1.  Dorr-Oliver process for granular triple superphosphate production.1

    -------
8.5.2.3 Emissions And Controls1"6

       Controlled emission factors for the production of GTSP are given in Table 8.5.2-1.  Units are
expressed in terms of kilograms per megagrams (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton Ob/ton). Emission
factors for ROP-TSP are not given since it is not being produced currently in the U. S.
   Table 8.5.2-1 (Metric And English Units). CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE
                       PRODUCTION OF TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATES

                              EMISSION  FACTOR RATING: E
Granular Triple Superphosphate Process
Rock unloading*
Rock feeding8
Reactor, granulator, dryer, cooler,
and screens'1
Curing buildingd
Pollutant
Particulateb
PM-10C
Particulateb
PM-10C
Particulateb
Fluorideb
PM-10C
Particulateb
Fluoride1"
PM-10C
Controlled Emission Factor
kg/Mg
Of Product
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.08
Ib/ton
Of Product
0.18
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.24
0.08
0.20
0.04
0.17
a Factors are for emissions from baghouses with an estimated collection efficiency of 99%.
  PM-10 = particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
b Reference 1, pp. 77-80, 168,  170-171.
c Based on Aerometic Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Listing For Criteria Air Pollutants.
d Factors are for emissions from wet scrubbers with an estimated 97% control efficiency.
       Sources of paniculate emissions include the reactor, granulator, dryer, screens, cooler, mills,
and transfer conveyors. Additional emissions of paniculate result from the unloading, grinding,
storage, and transfer of ground phosphate rock.  One facility uses limestone, which is received in
granulated form and does not require additional milling.

       Emissions of fluorine compounds and dust particles occur during the production of GTSP
triple superphosphate.  Silicon tetrafluoride (SiF^ and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are released by the
acidulation reaction and they evolve from the reactors, den, granulator, and dryer.  Evolution of
fluoride is essentially finished  in the dryer and there is little fluoride evolved from the storage pile in
the curing building.

       At a typical plant, baghouses are used to control the fine rock particles generated by the rock
grinding and handling activities. Emissions from the reactor, den, and granulator are controlled by
scrubbing the effluent gas with recycled gypsum  pond water in cyclonic scrubbers.  Emissions from
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.5.2-3

    -------
the dryer, cooler, screens, mills, product transfer systems, and storage building are sent to a cyclone
separator for removal of a portion of the dust before going to wet scrubbers to remove fluorides.

       Particulate emissions from ground  rock unloading, storage, and transfer systems are
controlled by baghouse collectors.  These baghouse cloth filters have reported efficiencies of over
99 percent.  Collected solids are recycled to the process.  Emissions of SiF4, HF, and paniculate
from the production area and curing building are controlled by scrubbing the offgases with recycled
water.  Exhausts from the dryer, cooler, screens, mills, and curing building are sent first to a cyclone
separator and then to a wet scrubber.  Tailgas wet scrubbers perform final cleanup of the plant
offgases.

       Gaseous SiF4 in the presence of moisture reacts to form gelatinous silica, which has the
tendency to plug scrubber packings.  Therefore, the use of conventional packed countercurrent
scrubbers and other contacting devices with small gas passages for emissions control is not feasible.
Scrubber types that can be used are:  (1) spray tower, (2)  cyclone, (3) venturi, (4) impingement,
(5) jet ejector, and (6) spray-crossflow packed.

       The  effectiveness of abatement systems for the removal of fluoride and particulate varies from
plant to plant, depending on a number of factors.  The effectiveness of fluorine abatement is
determined by:  (1) inlet fluorine concentration, (2) outlet or saturated gas temperature,
(3) composition and temperature of the scrubbing liquid, (4) scrubber type and transfer units, and
(5) effectiveness of entrainment separation. Control  efficiency is enhanced by increasing the number
of scrubbing stages in series and by using  a fresh water scrub in the final stage.  Reported efficiencies
for fluoride  control range from less than 90 percent to over 99 percent, depending on inlet fluoride
concentrations and the system employed.   An efficiency of 98 percent for particulate control is
achievable.

       The  particulate and fluoride emission factors are identical to the previous revisions, but have
been downgraded to  "E" quality because no documented, up-to-date source tests were available and
previous emission factors could not be validated from the  references which  were given.  The PM-10
emission factors have been added to the table, but were derived from the AIRS  data base, which also
has an "E" rating. No additional or recent data were found concerning fluoride emissions from
gypsum ponds. A number of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) have been identified by SPECIATE as
being present in the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process.  Some HAPs identified include
hexane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl  ketone, benzene, toluene, and styrene.  Heavy
metals such  as lead and mercury are present in the phosphate rock.  The phosphate  rock is mildly
radioactive due to the presence of some radionuclides. No emission factors  are included for these
HAPs, heavy metals,  or radionuclides due to the lack of sufficient data.

References For Section 8.5.2

1.     J. M. Nyers,  et al., Source Assessment: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, EPA-600/2-79-019c,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cinncinnati, OH, May 1979.

2.     H. C. Mann,  Triple Superphosphate, National Fertilizer & Environmental Research Center,
       Tennessee Valley Authority,  Muscle Shoals, AL, February 1992.

3.     'North American Fertilizer Capacity Data (including supplement), Tennessee Valley Authority,
       Muscle Shoals, AL, December 1991.
8.5.2-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
4.     Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
       Volume 1:  Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-019a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October  1974.

5.     Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
       Volume 2:  Test Data Summary, EPA-450/2-74-019b, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October  1974.

6.     Final Guideline Document: Control Of Fluoride Emissions From Existing Phosphate Fertilizer
       Plants, EPA-450/2-77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1977.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                           8.5.2-5

    -------

    -------
8.53  Ammonium Phosphate

8.5.3.1  General1

        Ammonium phosphate (NH4H2PO4) is produced by reacting phosphoric acid (H3PO£ with
anhydrous ammonia (NH3).  Ammoniated superphosphates are produced by adding normal
superphosphate or triple superphosphate to the mixture.  The production of liquid ammonium
phosphate and ammoniated superphosphates in fertilizer mixing plants is considered a separate
process.  Both solid and liquid ammonium phosphate fertilizers are produced in the U. S. This
discussion covers only the granulation of phosphoric acid with anhydrous ammonia to produce
granular fertilizer. Total ammonium phosphate production in the U.  S. in 1992 was estimated to be
7.7 million megagrams (Mg) (8.5 million tons).

8.5.3.2  Process Description1

        Two basic mixer designs are used by ammoniation-granulation plants:  the pugmill
ammoniator and the rotary drum ammoniator. Approximately 95 percent of ammoniation-granulation
plants in the U. S. use a rotary drum mixer developed and patented by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA).  The basic rotary  drum ammoniator-granulator consists of a slightly inclined open-
end rotary cylinder with retaining rings at each end, and a scrapper or cutter mounted inside the drum
shell.  A rolling bed of recycled solids is maintained in the unit.

        Ammonia-rich offgases pass through a wet scrubber before exhausting to the atmosphere.
Primary scrubbers use raw materials mixed with acids (such  as scrubbing liquor), and secondary
scrubbers use gypsum pond water.

        In the TVA process, phosphoric acid is mixed in an acid surge tank with 93 percent sulfuric
acid (H2SO4), which is used for product analysis control, and with recycled acid from wet scrubbers.
(A schematic diagram of the ammonium phosphate process flow diagram is shown in Figure 8.5.3-1.)
Mixed acids are men partially neutralized with liquid or gaseous anhydrous ammonia in a brick-lined
acid reactor.  All of the phosphoric acid and approximately 70 percent of the ammonia are introduced
into this vessel.  A slurry of ammonium phosphate and 22 percent water are produced and sent
through steam-traced lines to the ammoniator-granulator.   Slurry from the reactor is distributed on the
bed; the remaining ammonia (approximately 30 percent) is sparged underneath.  Granulation, by
agglomeration and by coating paniculate with slurry, takes place in the rotating drum and is
completed hi the dryer.  Ammonia-rich  offgases pass through a wet scrubber before exhausting to the
atmosphere. Primary scrubbers use  raw materials mixed with acid (such as scrubbing liquor), and
secondary scrubbers use pond water.

        Moist ammonium phosphate  granules are transferred  to a rotary concurrent  dryer and then to
a cooler.  Before being exhausted to  the atmosphere, these offgases pass through cyclones and wet
scrubbers. Cooled granules pass to a double-deck screen,  in which oversize and undersize particles
are separated from product particles.  The product ranges in granule size from  1 to  4 millimeters.
The oversized granules are crushed,  mixed with the undersized, and recycled back to the ammoniator-
granulator.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.5.3-1

    -------
                                                                                          T3


                                                                                          O
                                                                                          53
                                                                                          O

                                                                                          2
                                                                                          o.
                                                                                          4>
                                                                                          tg

                                                                                          O<
                                                                                          V3
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          O


                                                                                          S
                                                                                         feO
8.5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.5.3.3  Emissions And Controls1

       Sources of air emissions from the production of ammonium phosphate fertilizers include the
reactor, the ammoniator-granulator, the dryer and cooler, product sizing and material transfer, and
the gypsum pond. The reactor and ammoniator-granulator produce emissions of gaseous ammonia,
gaseous fluorides such as hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4), and paniculate
ammonium phosphates.  These 2 exhaust streams are generally combined and passed through primary
and secondary scrubbers.

       Exhaust gases from the dryer and cooler also contain ammonia, fluorides, and particulates and
these streams are commonly combined and passed through cyclones and primary and secondary
scrubbers.  Paniculate emissions and low levels of ammonia and fluorides from product sizing and
material transfer operations are controlled the same way.

       Emissions factors for ammonium phosphate production are summarized in Table 8.5.3-1.
Units are expressed in terms of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (lb/ton) of
product.  These emission factors are averaged based on recent source test data from controlled
phosphate fertilizer plants in Tampa, Florida.
Table 8.5.3-1 (Metric And English Units). AVERAGE CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                    THE PRODUCTION OF AMMONIUM PHOSPHATES3

                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E (except as noted)

Emission Point
Reactor/
ammoniator -
granulator
Dryer/cooler
Product sizing
and material
transfer11
Total plant
emissions
Fluoride as F
kg/Mg
Of
Product

0.02

0.02
0.001
0.02C

lb/ton
Of
Product

0.05

0.04
0.002
0.04C

Particulate
kg/Mg
Of
Product

0.76

0.75
0.03
0.34d

lb/ton
Of
Product

1.52

1.50 •
0.06
0.68d

Ammonia
kg/Mg
Of
Product

ND

NA
NA
0.07

lb/ton
Of
Product

ND

NA
NA
0.14

SO2
kg/Mg
Of
Product

NA

NA
NA
0.04C

lb/ton
Of
Product

NA

NA
NA
0.08e

a Reference 1, pp. 80-83, 173. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Represents only 1 sample.
c References 7-8,10-11,13-15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A.  EPA has promulgated a fluoride
  emission guideline of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton) P205 input.
d References 7-9,10,13-15.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A.
e Based on limited data from only one plant, Reference 9.
       Exhaust streams from the reactor and ammoniator-granulator pass through a primary
scrubber, in which phosphoric acid is used to recover ammonia and paniculate. Exhaust gases from
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.5.3-3

    -------
the dryer, cooler, and screen first go to cyclones for participate recovery, and then to primary
scrubbers.  Materials collected in the cyclone and primary scrubbers are returned to the process. The
exhaust is sent to secondary scrubbers, where recycled gypsum pond water is used as a scrubbing
liquid to control fluoride emissions.  The scrubber effluent is returned to the gypsum pond.

       Primary scrubbing equipment commonly includes venturi and cyclonic spray towers.
Impingement scrubbers and spray-crossflow packed bed scrubbers are used as secondary controls.
Primary scrubbers generally use phosphoric acid of 20 to 30 percent as scrubbing liquor, principally
to recover ammonia.  Secondary scrubbers  generally use gypsum and pond water for fluoride control.

       Throughout the industry, however,  there are many combinations and variations.  Some plants
use reactor-feed concentration phosphoric acid (40 percent phosphorous pentoxide [P2O5]) hi both
primary and secondary scrubbers, and some use phosphoric acid near the dilute end of the 20 to
30 percent P2O5 range in only a single scrubber. Existing plants are equipped  with ammonia
recovery scrubbers on the reactor,  ammoniator-granulator and dryer, and paniculate controls on the
dryer and cooler.  Additional scrubbers for fluoride removal exist, but they are  not typical. Only
15 to 20 percent of installations contacted in an EPA survey were equipped with spray-crossflow
packed bed  scrubbers or  their equivalent for fluoride removal.

       Emission control efficiencies for ammonium phosphate plant control equipment are reported
as 94 to 99 percent for ammonium, 75 to 99.8 percent for particulates, and 74 to 94 percent for
fluorides.

References For Section 8.5.3

1.     J. M.  Nyers, et al.,  Source Assessment:  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, EPA-600/2-79-019c,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cinncinnati,  OH, May 1979.

2.     North American  Fertilizer  Capacity Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December 1991.

3.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texas gulf Inc., Granular Triple Super Phosphate Plant,
       Aurora, NC, May 1987.

4.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texas gulf Inc., Diammonium Phosphate Plant No.2, Aurora,
       NC, August 1989.

5.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texas gulf Inc., Diammonium Phosphate Plant #2, Aurora,
       NC, December 1991.

6.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texasgulf, Inc., Diammonium Phosphate  #1, Aurora,  NC,
       September 1990.

7.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texasgulf Inc., Ammonium Phosphate Plant #2, Aurora, NC,
       November 1990.

8.     Compliance Source Test Report: Texasgulf Inc., Diammonium Phosphate Plant #2, Aurora,
       NC, November 1991.

9.     Compliance Source Test Report: IMC Fertilizer, Inc., #7 DAP Plant, Western Polk County,
       FL, October 1991.

8.5.3-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 10.     Compliance Source Test Report: IMC Fertilizer, Inc., #2 DAP Plant, Western Polk County,
        FL, June 1991.

 11.     Compliance Source Test Report: IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Western Polk County, FL, April 1991.
7/93 (Refonnatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                           8.5.3-5

    -------

    -------
8.6  Hydrochloric Acid

8.6.1  General1

        Hydrochloric acid (HC1) is listed as a Title HI Hazardous Air Pollutant. Hydrochloric acid is
a versatile chemical used in a variety of chemical processes, including hydrometallurgical processing
(e. g., production of alumina and/or titanium dioxide), chlorine dioxide synthesis, hydrogen
production,  activation of petroleum  wells, and miscellaneous cleaning/etching operations including
metal cleaning (e. g., steel pickling).  Also known as muriatic acid, HC1 is used by masons to clean
finished brick work, is also a common ingredient in many reactions, and is the preferred acid for
catalyzing organic processes. One example is a carbohydrate reaction promoted by hydrochloric acid,
analogous to those in the digestive tracts of mammals.

        Hydrochloric acid may be manufactured by several different processes, although over
90 percent of the HC1 produced in the U. S.  is a byproduct of the chlorination reaction.  Currently,
U. S. facilities produce approximately 2.3 million megagrams  (Mg) (2.5 million tons) of HC1
annually,  a slight decrease from the 2.5  million Mg (2.8 million tons) produced in 1985.

8.6.2  Process Description1^

        Hydrochloric acid can be produced by 1 of the 5 following processes:

        1.     Synthesis from elements:

                                      H2  +  C12   -»  2HC1                                    (1)


        2.      Reaction of metallic chlorides, particularly  sodium chloride (NaCl), with sulfuric acid
               (H2SO4) or a hydrogen sulfate:

                              NaCl  + H2SO4  -»  NaHSO4  + HC1                            (2)

                             NaCl  +  NaHSO4  -»  Ns^SC^ + HC1                           (3)

                             2NaCl + H2SO4 -  Na^C^ + 2HC1                           (4)
       3.      As a byproduct of chlorination, e. g., in the production of dichloromethane,
               trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, or vinyl chloride:

                                   C2H4 + C12  -* C2H4C12                                 (5)

                                  C2H4C12  •*  C2H3C1 + HC1                               (6)


       4.      By thermal decomposition of the hydrated heavy-metal chlorides from spent pickle
               liquor in metal treatment:

                          2FeCl3  + 6H20  ->  Fe203  + 3H20 + 6HC1                        (7)
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.6-1

    -------
       5.      From incineration of chlorinated organic waste:

                          C4H6C12 + 5O2  -*  4CO2 + 2H2O + 2HC1                        (8)


Figure 8.6-1 is a simplified diagram of the steps used for the production of byproduct HC1 from the
chlorination process.



                              CHLORINATION GASES                                  VENT {JAS
                                    1
Ethyiaw DicUeride (SCC 3-01-125-04)
               3-01-125-22)
CHLORINATION
PROCESS
W

HO
ABSORPTION
Ha
CHLORIKE ^
1
SCRUBBER
1
                                                 1.1.1 TricUontfhme (SCC 3-01-125-26)
                                                 Vinyl Chloride (SCC 341-125-42)              W


                                CONCENTRATED                                    DQOTEHC1
                                 LIQUID HO
                    Figure 8.6-1.  HC1 production from chlorination process.
                              (SCC = Source Classification Code.)
       After leaving the chlorination process, the HCl-containing gas stream proceeds to the
absorption column, where concentrated liquid HC1 is produced by absorption of HC1 vapors into a
weak solution of hydrochloric acid.  The HCl-free chlorination gases are removed for further
processing.  The liquid acid is then either sold or used elsewhere in the plant.  The final gas stream is
sent to a scrubber to remove the remaining HC1 prior to venting.

8.6.3 Emissions4'5

       According to a 1985 emission inventory, over 89 percent of all HC1  emitted to the atmosphere
resulted from the combustion of coal.  Less than 1 percent of the HC1 emissions came from the direct
production of HC1.  Emissions from HC1 production result primarily from gas exiting the HC1
purification system. The contaminants are HC1 gas, chlorine, and chlorinated organic compounds.
Emissions data are only available for HC1 gas.  Table 8.6-1 lists estimated emission factors for
systems with and without final scrubbers.  Units are expressed in terms of kilograms per megagram
(kg/Mg)  and pounds per ton.
8.6-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
              Table 8.6-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         HYDROCHLORIC ACID MANUFACTURE8

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Byproduct Hydrochloric Acid Process
With final scrubber (SCC 3-01-01 l-99)b
Without final scrubber (SCC 3-01-01 l-99)b
HC1 Emissions
kg/Mg
HC1
Produced
Ib/ton
HC1
Produced
0.08 0.15
0.90 1.8
a Reference 5. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b This SCC is appropriate only when no other SCC is more appropriate. If HC1 is produced as a
  byproduct of another process such as the production of dichloromethane, trichloroethane,
  perchloroethylene, or vinyl chloride then the emission factor and SCC appropriate for that
  process vent should be used.
References For Section 8.6

1.     Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Third Edition, Volume 12, John Wiley and Sons,
       New York, 1978.

2.     Ullmann's Encyclopedia Of Industrial Chemistry, Volume A, VCH Publishers, New York,
       1989.

3.     Encyclopedia Of Chemical Processing And Design, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1987.

4.     Hydrogen Chloride And Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Factors For The NAPAP (National Acid
       Precipitation Assessment Program) Emission Inventory, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC, October 1985.

5.     Atmospheric Emissions From Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing Processes, AP-54,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1969.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.6-3

    -------

    -------
8.7  Hydrofluoric Acid

8.7.1 General5"*

       Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is listed as a Title ni Hazardous Air Pollutant.  Hydrogen fluoride is
produced in 2 forms, as anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and as aqueous hydrofluoric acid.  The
predominant form manufactured is hydrogen fluoride, a colorless liquid or gas that fumes on contact
with air and is water soluble.

       Traditionally, hydrofluoric acid has been used to etch and polish glass.  Currently, the largest
use for HF is  in aluminum production.  Other HF uses include uranium processing, petroleum
alkylation, and stainless steel pickling.  Hydrofluoric acid is also used to produce fluorocarbons used
in aerosol sprays and in refrigerants.  Although fluorocarbons are heavily regulated due to
environmental concerns, other applications for fluorocarbons include manufacturing of resins,
solvents, stain removers, surfactants, and Pharmaceuticals.

8.7.2 Process Description1"3'6

       Hydrofluoric acid is manufactured by the reaction of acid-grade fluorspar (CaF^ with sulfuric
acid (H2SO4)  as shown below:

                               CaF2 + H2S04 -»  CaS04 + 2HF

       A typical HF plant is shown schematically in Figure 8.7-1.  The endothermic reaction
requires 30 to 60 minutes in horizontal rotary kilns externally heated to 200 to 250°C (390 to 480°F).
Dry fluorspar ("spar") and a slight excess of sulfuric acid are fed continuously to the front end  of a
stationary prereactor or directly to the kiln by a screw conveyor.  The prereactor mixes the
components prior to charging to the rotary kiln.  Calcium sulfate (CaSO4) is removed through an air
lock at the opposite end of the kiln. The gaseous reaction products—hydrogen fluoride and excess
H2SO4 from the primary reaction and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4),  sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon
dioxide (CO^, and water produced in secondary reactions—are removed from the front end of the
kiln along with entrained paniculate.  The particulates are removed from the gas stream by a dust
separator and  returned to the kiln. Sulfuric  acid and water  are removed by a precondenser.
Hydrogen fluoride vapors are then condensed in refrigerant condensers forming  "crude HF",  which is
removed to intermediate storage tanks.  The remaining gas  stream passes through a sulfuric acid
absorption tower or acid scrubber, removing most of the remaining hydrogen fluoride and some
residual sulfuric acid, which are also placed in intermediate storage.  The gases  exiting the scrubber
then pass through water scrubbers, where the SiF4 and remaining HF are recovered as fluosilicic acid
(H2SiF6).   The water scrubber tailgases are passed through  a caustic scrubber before being released to
the atmosphere.  The hydrogen fluoride and sulfuric acid are delivered from intermediate storage
tanks to distillation columns, where the hydrofluoric acid is extracted at 99.98 percent purity.
Weaker concentrations (typically 70 to 80 percent) are prepared by dilution with water.

8.7.3 Emissions And Controls1"2'4

       Emission factors for various HF process operations are shown in Tables 8.7-1 and 8.7-2.
Units are expressed in terms of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton)
Emissions are suppressed to a great extent by the condensing, scrubbing, and absorption  equipment
used in the recovery and purification of the hydrofluoric and fluosilicic acid products.  Paniculate

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)             , Inorganic Chemical  Industry                              8.7-1

    -------
00
T)
>
O
H

g
oo
                                                                            PRINCIPAL EMISSION LOCATIONS
                                                                                                                      C02 , S02. SIP^ HP


                                                                                                                            > VENT
t
                        FLUORSPAR
                                       CALOUM
                                       SULFATC

UL

1

PRODUCT
STORAGE
                                                                                                          99.98* HP
                                                                                                                       30 - 35* H2SiF6
U)
                                                 Figure 8.7-1.  Hydrofluoric acid process flow diagram.

                                                       (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

    -------
        Table 8.7-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROFLUORIC ACID
                                     MANUFACTURE4

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Operation And Controls
Spar drying5 (SCC 3-01-012-03)
Uncontrolled
Fabric filter
Spar handling silosc (SCC 3-01-012-04)
Uncontrolled
Fabric filter
Transfer operations (SCC 3-01-012-05)
Uncontrolled
Covers, additives

Tailgasd (SCC 3-01-012-06)
Uncontrolled


Caustic scrubber


Control
Efficiency
(*)

0
99

0
99

0
80


0


99


Emissions
Gases
kg/Mg
Acid Produced

ND
ND

NA
NA

NA
NA


12.5 (HF)
15.0 (SiF4)
22.5 (SO2)
0.1 (HF)
0.2 (SiF4)
0.3 (SO2)
Paniculate (Spar)
kg/Mg
Fluorspar Produced

37.5
0.4

30.0
0.3


3.0
0.6

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 1. Averaged from information provided by 4 plants. Hourly fluorspar input calculated
  from reported 1975 year capacity, assuming stoichiometric amount of calcium fluoride and 97.5%
  content in fluorspar. Hourly emission rates calculated from reported baghouse controlled rates.
  Values averaged are as follows:
             Plant      1975 HF Capacity (Me)
               1                13,600
               2                18,100
               3                45,400
               4                10,000
                  Emissions Fluorspar (kg/Mg)
                              53
                              65
                              21
                              15
c Reference 1.  Four plants averaged for silo emissions, 2 plants for transfer operations emissions.
d Three plants averaged from Reference 1.  Hydrogen fluoride and SiF4 factors from Reference 4.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.7-3

    -------
        Table 8.7-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROFLUORIC ACID
                                    MANUFACTURE3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Operation And Control
Spar drying15 (SCC 3-01-012-03)
Uncontrolled
Fabric filter
Spar handling silos0 (SCC 3-01-012-04)
Uncontrolled
Fabric Filter
Transfer operations (SCC 3-01-012-05)
Uncontrolled
Covers, additives
Tailgasd (SCC 3-01-012-06)
Uncontrolled

Caustic scrubber
Control
Efficiency
0
99
0
99
0
80
0

99
Emissions
Gases
Ib/ton
Acid Produced
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.0 (HF)
30.0 (SiF^)
45.0 (SO2)
0.2 (HF)
0.3 (SiF4)
0.5 (S02)
Particulate (Spar)
Ib/ton
Fluorspar Produced
75.0
0.8
60.0
0.6
6.0
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. NA  = not applicable.
b Reference 1. Averaged from information provided by 4 plants.  Hourly fluorspar input calculated
  from reported 1975 year capacity, assuming stoichiometric amount of calcium fluoride and 97.5%
  content in fluorspar. Hourly emission rates calculated from reported baghouse controlled rates.
  Values averaged are as follows:
             Plant      1975 HF Capacity (tons')

                1                15,000
                2               20,000
                3               50,000
                4                11,000
                Emissions Fluorspar (Ib/ton)

                            106
                            130
                             42
                             30
c Reference 1. Four plants averaged for silo emissions, 2 plants for transfer operations emissions.
d Three plants averaged from Reference 1. Hydrogen fluoride and SiF4 factors from Reference 4.
in the gas stream is controlled by a dust separator near the outlet of the kiln and is recycled to the
kiln for further processing. The precondenser removes water vapor and sulfuric acid mist, and the
condensers, acid scrubber, and water scrubbers remove all but small amounts of HF, SiF4, SO2, and
CO2 from the tailgas.  A caustic scrubber is employed to further reduce the levels of these pollutants
in the tailgas.
8.7-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
       Particulates are emitted during handling and drying of the fluorspar.  They are controlled with
bag filters at the spar silos and drying kilns. Fugitive dust emissions from spar handling and storage
are controlled with flexible coverings and chemical additives.

       Hydrogen fluoride emissions are minimized by maintaining a slight negative pressure in the
kiln during normal operations.  Under upset conditions, a standby caustic scrubber or a bypass to the
tail caustic scrubber are used to control HF emissions from the kiln.

References For Section 8.7

1.     Screening Study On Feasibility Of Standards Of Performance For Hydrofluoric Acid
       Manufacture, EPA-450/3-78-109, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October 1978.

2.     "Hydrofluoric Acid", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Interscience
       Publishers, New York, 1965.

3.     W. R. Rogers and K. Muller, "Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture", Chemical Engineering
       Progress, 59(5): 85-8,  May  1963.

4.     J. M. Robinson, et al., Engineering And Cost Effectiveness Study Of Fluoride Emissions
       Control, Vol. 1, PB 207 506, National  Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1972.

5.     "Fluorine", Encyclopedia Of Chemical  Processing And Design, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
       New York, 1985.

6.     "Fluorine Compounds, Inorganic", Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology,
       John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.7-5

    -------

    -------
8.8  Nitric Acid

8.8.1  General1'2

       In 1991, there were approximately 65 nitric acid (HNO3) manufacturing plants in the U. S.
with a total capacity of 10 million megagrams (Mg) (11 million tons) of acid per year.  The plants
range in size from 5,400 to 635,000 Mg (6,000 to 700,000 tons) per year. About 70 percent of the
nitric acid produced is consumed as an intermediate in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate
(NH4NO3), which hi turn is used in fertilizers. The majority of the nitric acid plants are located in
agricultural regions such as the Midwest, South Central, and Gulf States in order to accommodate the
high concentration of fertilizer use.   Another 5 to 10 percent of the nitric  acid produced is used for
organic oxidation in adipic acid manufacturing.  Nitric acid  is also used in organic oxidation to
manufacture terephthalic acid and other organic compounds.  Explosive manufacturing utilizes nitric
acid for organic nitrations.  Nitric acid nitrations are used in producing nitrobenzene, dinitrotoluenes,
and other chemical  intermediates.1  Other end uses of nitric acid are gold  and silver separation,
military munitions, steel and brass pickling, photoengraving, and acidulation of phosphate rock.

8.8.2  Process Description1-3-4

       Nitric acid is produced by 2 methods.  The first method utilizes oxidation, condensation, and
absorption to produce a weak nitric acid.  Weak nitric  acid can have concentrations ranging from
30 to 70 percent nitric acid. The second method combines dehydrating, bleaching, condensing, and
absorption to produce a high-strength nitric acid from a weak nitric acid.  High-strength nitric acid
generally contains more than 90 percent nitric acid. The following text provides more specific details
for each of these processes.

8.8.2.1 Weak Nitric Acid Production1'3^ -

       Nearly all the nitric acid produced in the U. S. is manufactured by the high-temperature
catalytic oxidation of ammonia as shown schematically in Figure 8.8-1. This process typically
consists of 3  steps:  (1) ammonia oxidation, (2) nitric oxide oxidation, and (3) absorption.  Each step
corresponds to a distinct chemical reaction.

Ammonia Oxidation -
       First, a 1:9 ammonia/air mixture is oxidized at a temperature of 750  to 800°C (1380 to
1470°F) as it passes through a catalytic converter, according to the following reaction:

                                4NH3 •«• 5O2  -»  4NO + 6H2O                              (1)

The most commonly used catalyst is made of 90 percent platinum and  10  percent rhodium gauze
constructed from squares of fine wire. Under these conditions the oxidation of ammonia to nitric
oxide (NO) proceeds in an exothermic reaction with a range of 93 to 98 percent yield. Oxidation
temperatures  can vary from 750 to 900°C (1380 to 1650°F). Higher catalyst temperatures increase
reaction selectivity toward NO production. Lower catalyst temperatures tend to be more selective
toward less useful products; nitrogen (N^ and nitrous oxide (N2O).  Nitric oxide is considered to be
a criteria pollutant and nitrous oxide is known to be a global warming gas. The nitrogen
dioxide/dimer mixture then passes through a waste heat boiler and a platinum filter.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.8-1

    -------
                               EMISSION
                                POINT
              AIR
                                          (SCC 3-01-013-02)
  COMPRESSOR
  EXPANDER
                             WASTE
                             HEAT
                             BOILER
                   PLATINUM
                                  NITROGEN
                                  DIOXIDE
                                                                              ENTRAINED
                                                                                  MIST
                                                                              SEPARATOR
rii-iiiK i j

j
SECONDARY AIR

n
1 COOLING
1 WATER

)

)
C

	 >•

>,

AID



[ER

)

)









>



>„



ABSORPTION
TOWER

	



— — — — — — '

                                             COOLER
                                            CONDENSER
                                                           NO-
                                                                          PRODUCT
                                                                          (50 - 70%
                                                                          HNO3 )
    Figure 8.8-1. Flow diagram of typical nitric acid plant using single-pressure process
                            (high-strength acid unit not shown).
                        (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
8.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
Nitric Oxide Oxidation -
       The nitric oxide formed during the ammonia oxidation must be oxidized.  The process stream
is passed through a cooler/condenser and cooled to 38°C (100°F) or less at pressures up to
800 kilopascals (kPa) (116 pounds per square inch absolute [psia]).  The nitric oxide reacts
noncatalytically with residual oxygen to form nitrogen dioxide (NO^ and its liquid dimer, nitrogen
tetroxide:

                              2NO + O2  -»  2NO2  £»  N2O4                              (2)

This slow, homogeneous reaction is highly temperature and pressure dependent.  Operating at low
temperatures and high pressures promotes maximum production of NO2 within a minimum reaction
time.

Absorption -
       The final step introduces the nitrogen dioxide/dimer mixture into an absorption process after
being cooled.  The mixture is pumped into the bottom of the absorption tower, while liquid dinitrogen
tetroxide is added at a higher point. Deionized process water enters the top of the column. Both
liquids flow countercurrent to the nitrogen dioxide/dimer gas mixture.  Oxidation takes place in the
free space between the trays, while absorption occurs on the trays. The absorption trays are usually
sieve or bubble cap trays. The exothermic reaction occurs as follows:

                                3NO2 + H2O  -*  2HNO3 + NO                             (3)

       A secondary air stream is introduced into the column to re-oxidize the NO that is formed in
Reaction 3.  This secondary air also removes  NO2 from the product acid.  An aqueous solution of
55 to 65  percent (typically) nitric acid is withdrawn from the bottom of the tower. The acid
concentration can vary from 30 to 70 percent nitric acid.  The acid concentration depends upon the
temperature, pressure, number of absorption stages, and concentration of nitrogen oxides entering the
absorber.

       There are 2 basic types of systems used to produce weak nitric acid:  (1) single-stage pressure
process, and (2) dual-stage pressure process.  In the past, nitric acid plants have been operated at a
single pressure, ranging from atmospheric pressure to 1400 kPa (14.7 to 203  psia).  However, since
Reaction 1 is favored by low pressures and Reactions 2 and 3 are favored by higher pressures, newer
plants tend to operate a dual-stage pressure system, incorporating a compressor between the ammonia
oxidizer and the condenser.  The oxidation reaction  is carried out at pressures from slightly negative
to about 400 kPa (58 psia), and the absorption reactions are carried out at 800 to  1,400 kPa (116 to
203 psia).

       In the dual-stage pressure system,  the nitric  acid formed in the absorber (bottoms) is usually
sent to an external bleacher where air is used  to remove (bleach) any dissolved oxides of nitrogen.
The bleacher gases are then compressed and passed through the absorber.  The absorber tail gas
(distillate) is sent to an entrainment separator  for acid mist removal.  Next, the tail gas is reheated in
the ammonia oxidation heat exchanger to approximately 200°C  (392°F).  The final step expands the
gas in the power-recovery turbine. The thermal energy produced in this turbine can be used to drive
the compressor.

8.8.2.2 High-Strength Nitric Acid Production1'3  -

       A high-strength nitric acid (98 to 99 percent concentration) can be obtained by concentrating
the weak nitric acid (30 to 70 percent concentration) using extractive distillation.  The weak nitric
acid cannot be concentrated by simple fractional distillation. The distillation must be carried  out in
the presence of a dehydrating agent.  Concentrated sulfuric acid (typically 60 percent sulfuric acid) is

7/93  (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.8-3

    -------
most commonly used for this purpose.  The nitric acid concentration process consists of feeding
strong sulfuric acid and 55 to 65 percent nitric acid to the top of a packed dehydrating column at
approximately atmospheric pressure. The acid mixture flows downward, countercurrent to ascending
vapors.  Concentrated nitric acid leaves the top of the column as 99 percent vapor, containing a small
amount of NO2 and oxygen  (O2) resulting from dissociation of nitric acid.  The concentrated acid
vapor leaves the column and goes to a bleacher and a countercurrent condenser system to effect the
condensation of strong nitric acid and the separation of oxygen and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
byproducts.  These byproducts then flow to an absorption column where the nitric oxide mixes  with
auxiliary air to form NO2, which is recovered as weak nitric acid. Inert and unreacted gases are
vented to the atmosphere from the top of the absorption column.  Emissions from this process are
relatively minor.  A small absorber can be used to recover NO2.  Figure 8.8-2 presents a flow
diagram of high-strength nitric acid production from weak nitric acid.
„ COOLING
H, SO.
WATER
5*70* HN03.N02>02
HNO3 CONDENSER
AIR


........ .,„...,,, .... .
COLUMN BLEACHER x

1 	 f 	 ••
1
STRONG
NITRIC ACID


GAS
x-K





ABSORPTION
COLUMN


t *
                                                                                   INERT.
                                                                                   UNRBACTED
                                                                                     WEAK
                                                                                     NITRIC ACID
      Figure 8.8-2. Flow diagram of high-strength nitric acid production from weak nitric acid.

8.8.3 Emissions And Controls3"5

       Emissions from nitric acid manufacture consist primarily of NO, NO2 (which account for
visible emissions), trace amounts of HNO3 mist,  and ammonia (NH3). By  far, the major source of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) is the tailgas from the acid absorption tower.  In general, the quantity of NOX
emissions is directly related to the kinetics of the nitric acid formation reaction and absorption tower
design.  NOX emissions can increase when there is (1) insufficient air supply to the oxidizer and
absorber,  (2) low pressure, especially in the absorber, (3) high temperatures in the cooler-condenser
and absorber, (4) production of an excessively  high-strength product acid, (5) operation at high
throughput rates, and (6) faulty equipment such as compressors or pumps that lead to lower pressures
and leaks, and decrease plant efficiency.

       The 2 most common techniques used to control absorption tower tail gas emissions are
extended absorption and catalytic reduction.  Extended absorption reduces NOX emissions by
increasing the efficiency of the existing process absorption tower or incorporating an additional
absorption tower.  An efficiency increase is achieved by increasing the number of absorber trays,
8.8-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
operating the absorber at higher pressures, or cooling the weak acid liquid in the absorber.  The
existing tower can also be replaced with a single tower of a larger diameter and/or additional trays.
See Reference 5 for the relevant equations.

       In the catalytic reduction process (often termed catalytic oxidation or incineration), tail gases
from the absorption tower are heated to ignition temperature, mixed with fuel (natural gas, hydrogen,
propane, butane, naphtha, carbon monoxide, or ammonia) and passed over a catalyst bed.  In the
presence of the catalyst, the fuels are oxidized and the NOX are reduced to N2. The extent of
reduction of NO2 and NO to N2 is a function of plant design, fuel type, operating temperature and
pressure, space velocity through the reduction catalytic reactor, type of catalyst, and reactant
concentration.  Catalytic reduction can be used in conjunction with other NOX emission controls.
Other advantages include the capability to operate at any pressure and the option of heat recovery to
provide energy for process compression as well as extra steam. Catalytic reduction can achieve
greater NOX reduction than extended absorption.  However, high fuel costs have caused a decline in
its use.

       Two seldom used alternative control devices for absorber tailgas are molecular sieves and wet
scrubbers.  In the molecular sieve adsorption technique, tailgas is contacted with an active molecular
sieve that catalytically oxidizes  NO to NO2 and selectively adsorbs the NO2.  The NO2 is then
thermally stripped from the molecular sieve and returned to the absorber.  Molecular sieve adsorption
has successfully controlled  NOX emissions in existing  plants.  However, many new plants do not
install this method of control. Its implementation incurs high capital and energy costs.  Molecular
sieve adsorption is a cyclic system, whereas most new nitric acid plants are continuous systems.
Sieve bed fouling can also cause problems.

       Wet scrubbers use an aqueous solution of alkali hydroxides or carbonates, ammonia, urea,
potassium permanganate, or caustic chemicals to "scrub" NOX from the absorber tailgas.  The NO
and NO2 are absorbed and recovered as nitrate or nitrate salts.  When caustic chemicals are used, the
wet scrubber is referred to  as a caustic scrubber.  Some of the caustic chemicals used are solutions of
sodium hydroxide, sodium  carbonate,  or other strong  bases that will absorb NOX in the form of
nitrate or nitrate salts. Although caustic scrubbing can be an effective control device, it is often not
used due to its incurred high costs and the necessity to treat its  spent scrubbing solution.

       Comparatively small amounts  of nitrogen oxides are also lost from acid concentrating plants.
These losses (mostly NO^  are from the condenser system, but the emissions are small enough to be
controlled easily by inexpensive absorbers.

       Acid mist emissions do not occur from the tailgas of a properly operated plant.  The small
amounts that may be present in the absorber exit gas streams are removed by a separator or collector
prior to entering the catalytic reduction unit or expander.

       The acid production system and storage tanks  are the only significant sources of visible
emissions at most nitric acid plants. Emissions from acid storage tanks may occur during tank filling.

       Nitrogen oxides emission  factors shown in Table 8.8-1 vary considerably with the type of
control employed and with process conditions. For comparison purposes, the New Source
Performance Standard on nitrogen emissions expressed as NO2  for both new and modified plants is
1.5 kilograms  (kg) of NO2  emitted per Mg (3.0 pounds/ton [Ib/tonj) of 100 percent nitric  acid
produced.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.8-5

    -------
        Table 8.8-1 (Metric And English Units).  NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM
                                  NITRIC ACID PLANTS8

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Weak acid plant tailgas
Uncontrolled1"'0
Catalytic reduction0
Natural gasd
Hydrogen6
Natural gas/hydrogen (25%/75%)f
Extended absorption
Single-stage process6
Dual-stage process11
Chilled absorption and caustic
scrubber1
High-strength acid plantk
Control
Efficiency
%
0
99.1
97 - 98.5
98 - 98.5
95.8
ND
ND
NOX
kg/Mg
Nitric Acid Produced
28
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.95
1.1
1.1
5
Ib/ton
Nitric Acid Produced
57
0.4
0.8
0.9
1.9
2.1
2.2
10
a Assumes 100% acid.  Production rates are in terms of total weight of product (water and acid).  A
  plant producing 454 Mg (500 tons) per day of 55 weight % nitric acid is calculated as producing
  250 Mg (275 tons)/day of 100% acid. ND = no data.
b Reference 6. Based on a study of 12 plants, with average production rate of 207 Mg
  (100% HNO3)/day (range 50 - 680 Mg)  at average rated capacity of 97% (range 72 - 100%).
0 Single-stage pressure process.
d Reference 4. Fuel is assumed to be natural gas.  Based on data from 7 plants, with average
  production rate of 309 Mg (100% HNO3)/day (range 50 - 977 Mg).
e Reference 6. Based on data from 2 plants, with average production rate of 145 Mg
  (100% HNO3)/day (range 109 - 190 Mg) at average rated capacity of 98% (range 95 - 100%).
  Average absorber exit temperature is 29°C (85°F) (range 25 - 32 °C [78 - 90°F]), and the average
  exit pressure is 586 kPa (85 pounds per square inch gauge [psig]) (range 552 - 648 kPa
  [80 - 94 psig]).
f Reference 6. Based on data from 2 plants, with average production rate of 208 Mg
  (100% HNO3)/day (range 168 - 249 Mg) at average rated capacity of 110% (range 100 - 119%).
  Average absorber exit temperature is 33 °C (91°F) (range 28 - 37 °C [83 - 98°F]), and average exit
  pressure is 545 kPa (79 psig) (range 545 - 552 kPa [79 - 80 psig]).
g Reference 4. Based on data from 5 plants, with average production rate of 492 Mg
  (100%HNO3)/day (range 190 - 952 Mg).
h Reference 4. Based of data from 3 plants/with  average production rate of 532 Mg
  (100% HNO3)/day (range 286 - 850 Mg).
J Reference 4. Based on data from 1 plant, with a production rate of 628 Mg  (100%  HN03)/day.
k Reference 2. Based on data from 1 plant, with a production rate of 1.4 Mg (100% HN03)/hour at
  100% rated capacity, of 98% nitric acid.
8.8-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
References For Section 8.8

1.     Alternative Control Techniques Document: Nitric And Adipic Acid Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-450/3-91-026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       December 1991.

2.     North American Fertilizer Capacity Data,  Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL,
       December 1991.

3.     Standards Of Performance For Nitric Acid Plants, 40 CFR 60 Subpart G.

4.     Marvin Drabkin,  A Review Of Standards Of Performance For New Stationary
       Sources — Nitric Acid Plants, EPA-450/3-79-013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

5.     Unit Operations Of Chemical Engineering, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1976.

6.     Atmospheric Emissions From Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes, 999-AP-27,
       U. S. Department of Health, Education, And Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, December 1966.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.8-7

    -------

    -------
8.9  Phosphoric Acid

8.9.1  General1'2

        Phosphoric acid (I^PO^ is produced by 2 commercial methods: wet process and thermal
process. Wet process phosphoric acid is used in fertilizer production.  Thermal process phosphoric
acid is of a much higher purity and is used in the manufacture of high grade chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals, detergents, food products, beverages, and other nonfertilizer products.  In  1987,
over 9 million megagrams (Mg) (9.9 million tons) of wet process phosphoric acid was produced in
the form of phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5).  Only about 363,000 Mg (400,000 tons) of P2O5  was
produced from the thermal process.  Demand for phosphoric acid has increased approximately
2.3 to 2.5 percent per year.

        The production of wet process phosphoric acid generates a considerable quantity  of acidic
cooling water with high concentrations of phosphorus and fluoride.  This excess water is collected in
cooling ponds that are used to temporarily store excess precipitation for subsequent evaporation and to
allow recirculation of the process water to the plant for re-use. Leachate seeping is therefore a
potential source of groundwater contamination.  Excess rainfall also results in water overflows from
settling ponds. However, cooling water can be treated to an acceptable level of phosphorus  and
fluoride if discharge is necessary.

8.9.2  Process Description3'5

8.9.2.1 Wet Process Acid Production -

        In a wet process facility (see Figure 8.9-1A and Figure 8.9-1B), phosphoric acid  is produced
by reacting sulfuric acid (H2SO4) with naturally occurring phosphate rock.  The phosphate rock is
dried, crushed, and then continuously fed into the reactor along with sulfuric acid. The reaction
combines calcium from the phosphate rock with sulfate, forming calcium sulfate (CaSO4), commonly
referred to as gypsum.  Gypsum is separated from the reaction solution by filtration.  Facilities in the
U. S. generally use a dihydrate process that produces gypsum in the form of calcium sulfate with
2 molecules of water (H20)  (CaSO4 • 2 H2O or  calcium sulfate dihydrate).  Japanese facilities use a
hemihydrate process that produces  calcium sulfate with a half molecule of water (CaSO4  • V4 H2O).
This one-step hemihydrate process  has the advantage of producing wet process phosphoric acid with a
higher P2O5 concentration and less impurities than the dihydrate process. Due  to these advantages,
some U. S. companies have recently converted to the hemihydrate process.   However, since most wet
process phosphoric  acid is still produced by the dihydrate process, the hemihydrate process will not
be discussed  in detail here.  A simplified reaction for the dihydrate process is as follow:

               Ca3(PO4)2 + 3H2SO4 + 6H2O  -*  2H3PO4 + 3[CaSO4  • 2H2O]1            (1)

        In order to make the strongest phosphoric acid possible and to decrease evaporation  costs,
93 percent sulfuric acid is normally used.  Because the proper ratio of acid to rock in the reactor is
critical, precise automatic process control equipment is employed in the regulation of these 2 feed
streams.

        During the reaction, gypsum crystals are precipitated and separated from the acid by
filtration. The separated crystals must be washed thoroughly to yield at least a  99 percent recovery of
the filtered phosphoric acid.   After washing,  the slurried gypsum is pumped  into a gypsum pond for

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical  Industry                              8.9-1

    -------
                                                                                          —
                                                                                          "5,
                                                                                          ."2
                                                                                          'o
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          o
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           2
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          E
                                                                                          bO
                                                                                          o
                                                                                          E
                                                                                          0\
                                                                                          od
                                                                                          (D
                                                                                          Ui
                                                                                          3
8.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                                          TO VACUUM
                                                          AND HOT WELL
                          TO AODfUNT
                                        HYDROfLUOSOJC AOD      TO SCRUBBER
            Figure 8.9-1B. Flow diagram of a wet process phosphoric acid plant (cont.).


storage.  Water is syphoned off and recycled through a surge cooling pond to the phosphoric acid
process.  Approximately 0.3 hectares of cooling and settling pond area is required for every
megagram of daily P2O5 capacity (0.7 acres of cooling and settling pond area for every ton of daily
P2O5 capacity).

       Considerable heat is generated in the reactor.  In older plants, this heat was removed by
blowing air over the hot slurry surface.  Modern plants vacuum flash cool a portion of the slurry, and
then recycle it back into the reactor.

       Wet process phosphoric acid normally contains 26 to 30 percent P2O5.  In most cases, the
acid must be further concentrated to meet phosphate feed material specifications for fertilizer
production.  Depending on the types of fertilizer to be produced, phosphoric acid is usually
concentrated to 40 to 55 percent P205 by using 2 or 3 vacuum evaporators.

8.9.2.2 Thermal Process Acid Production -
       Raw materials for the production of phosphoric acid by the thermal  process are elemental
(yellow) phosphorus, air, and water. Thermal process phosphoric acid manufacture,  as shown
schematically in Figure 8.9-2, involves 3 major steps:  (1) combustion, (2) hydration, and
(3) demisting.

       In combustion, the liquid elemental phosphorus is burned (oxidized) in ambient air in a
combustion chamber at temperatures of 1650 to 2760°C (3000 to 5000°F) to form phosphorus
pentoxide (Reaction 2).  The phosphorus  pentoxide is then hydrated with dilute H3PO4 or water to
produce strong phosphoric acid liquid (Reaction 3).  Demisting, the final step, removes the
phosphoric acid mist from the combustion gas stream before release to the atmosphere.  This is
usually done with high-pressure drop demistors.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.9-3

    -------
                                                                                           CO


                                                                                          i
                                                                                           I
                                                                                          13
                                                                                           CO
                                                                                          <<-(
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           oo
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           I
                                                                                          ti.
8.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                     P4 + 5O2  -  2P2O5                                  (2)

                                  2P2O5 +. 6H2O  -»  4H3PO4                               (3)

        Concentration of H3PO4 produced from thermal process normally ranges from 75 to
85 percent. This high concentration is required for high grade chemical production and other
nonfertilizer product manufacturing. Efficient plants recover about 99.9 percent of the elemental
phosphorus burned as phosphoric acid.

8.9.3  Emissions And Controls3"6

        Emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled wet phosphoric acid production are shown in
Tables 8.9-1 and 8.9-2, respectively.  Emission factors for controlled thermal phosphoric acid
production are shown in Table 8.9-3.

8.9.3.1  Wet Process-
        Major emissions from wet process acid production includes gaseous fluorides, mostly silicon
tetrafluoride (SiF4) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).  Phosphate rock contains 3.5 to 4.0 percent fluorine.
In general, part of the fluorine from the rock is precipitated out with the gypsum, another part is
leached out with the phosphoric acid product, and the remaining portion is vaporized in the reactor or
evaporator. The relative quantities of fluorides in the filter acid ai,d gypsum depend on the type of
rock and the operating conditions.   Final disposition of the volatilized fluorine depends on the design
and operation of the plant.

        Scrubbers may be used to control fluorine emissions.  Scrubbing  systems used in phosphoric
acid plants include venturi, wet cyclonic, and semi-cross-flow  scrubbers.  The leachate portion of the
fluorine may be deposited in settling ponds. If the pond water becomes saturated with fluorides,
fluorine gas may  be emitted to the atmosphere.

        The reactor in which phosphate rock is reacted with sulfuric acid  is the main source of
emissions.  Fluoride emissions accompany the air used to cool the reactor slurry.  Vacuum flash
cooling has replaced the air cooling method to a large extent, since  emissions are minimized in the
closed system.

        Acid concentration  by evaporation is another source of fluoride emissions.  Approximately
20 to  40 percent of the fluorine originally present in the rock vaporizes in this operation.

        Total paniculate emissions from process equipment were measured for 1 digester and for
1 filter.  As much as 5.5 kilograms of paniculate per megagram (kg/Mg) (11 pounds per ton [lb/ton])
of P2O5 were produced by  the digester, and approximately 0.1 kg/Mg (0.2 lb/ton) of P2O5 were
released by the filter.  Of this  paniculate, 3 to 6 percent were  fluorides.

        Paniculate emissions occurring from phosphate rock handling are discussed in Section 11.21,
Phosphate Rock Processing.

8.9.3.2  Thermal Process -
        The major source of emissions  from the thermal process is H3PO4 mist contained in the gas
stream from the hydrator.  The particle size of the acid mist ranges  from  1.4 to 2.6 micrometers. It is
not uncommon for as much as half of the total P205 to be present as liquid phosphoric acid particles
suspended in the gas stream.  Efficient  plants are economically motivated to control this potential loss
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                              8.9-5

    -------
    Table 8.9-1 (Metric And English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR WET
                           PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B (except as noted)
Source
Reactor* (SCC 3-01-016-01)
Evaporator0 (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Belt filter0 (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Belt filter vacuum pumpc (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Gypsum settling & cooling pondsd>e (SCC 3-01-016-02)
Fluorine
kg/Mg
P2O5 Produced
1.9x 10'3
0.022 x 10'3
0.32 x 10'3
0.073 x 10'3
Site-specific
Ib/ton
P2O5 Produced
3.8 x 10'3
0.044 x 10'3
0.64 x 10'3
0.15 x ID'3
Site-specific
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b References 8-13.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
c Reference 13.
d Reference 18. Site-specific.  Acres of cooling pond required: ranges from 0.04 hectare per
  daily Mg (0.10 acre per daily ton) P2O5 produced in the summer in the southeastern U. S. to 0 in
  the colder locations in the winter months when the cooling ponds are frozen.
e Reference 19 states "Based on our findings concerning the emissions of fluoride from gypsum
  ponds, it was concluded than no investigator had as yet established experimentally the fluoride
  emission from gypsum ponds".


  Table 8.9-2 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR WET
                           PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION11

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C (except as noted)
Source
Reactor11 (SCC 3-01-016-01)
Evaporator0 (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Belt filter0 (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Belt filter vacuum pump0 (SCC 3-01-016-99)
Gypsum settling & cooling pondsd>c (SCC 3-01-016-02)
Nominal Percent
Control Efficiency
99
99
99
99
ND
Fluoride
kg/Mg
P2O5 Produced
0.19
0.00217
0.032
0.0073
Site-specific
Ib/ton
P2O5 Produced
0.38
0.0044
0.064
0.015
Site-specific
a SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = No Data.
b References 8-13. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B.
c Reference 13.
d Reference 18.  Site specific. Acres of cooling pond required: ranges from 0.04 hectare per daily
  Mg (0.10 acre per daily ton) P2O5 produced in the summer in the southeastern U. S. to 0 in the
  colder locations in the winter months when the cooling ponds are frozen.
e Reference 19 states "Based on our findings concerning the emissions of fluoride from gypsum
  ponds, it was concluded than no investigator had as yet established experimentally the fluoride
  emission from gypsum ponds".
8.9-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 Table 8.9-3 (Metric And English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR THERMAL
                             PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Packed tower (SCC 3-01-017-03)
Venturi scrubber (SCC 3-01-017-04)
Glass fiber mist eliminator (SCC 3-01-017-05)
Wire mesh mist eliminator (SCC 3-01-017-06)
High pressure drop mist (SCC 3-01-017-07)
Electrostatic precipitator (SCC 3-01-017-08)
Nominal
Percent
Control
Efficiency
95.5
97.5
96 - 99.9
95
99.9
98-99
Paniculate5
kg/Mg
P205 Produced
1.07
1.27
0.35
2.73
0.06
0.83
Ib/ton
P2O5 Produced
2.14
2.53
0.69
5.46
0.11
1.66
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 6.
with various control equipment.  Control equipment commonly used in thermal process phosphoric
acid plants includes venturi scrubbers, cyclonic separators with wire mesh mist eliminators, fiber mist
eliminators, high energy wire mesh contractors, and electrostatic precipitators.

References For Section 8.9

1.     "Phosphoric Acid", Chemical And Engineering News, March 2, 1987.

2.     Sulfuric/Phosphoric Acid Plant Operation, American Institute Of Chemical Engineers, New
       York,  1982.

3.     P. Becker, Phosphates And Phosphoric Acid, Raw Materials, Technology, And Economics Of
       The Wet Process, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,  1989.

4.     Atmospheric Emissions From Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture,  AP-57,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

5.     Atmospheric Emissions From Thermal Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture, AP-48, U.  S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1968.

6.     Control Techniques For Fluoride Emissions, Unpublished, U. S. Public Health Service,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1970.

7.     Final Guideline Document: Control Of Fluoride Emissions From Existing Phosphate Fertilizer
       Plants, EPA-450/2-77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1977.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.9-7

    -------
8.     Summary Of Emission Measurements—East Phos Acid, International Minerals And Chemical
       Corporation, Polk County, FL, August 1990.

9.     Summary Of Emission Measurements—East Phos Acid, International Minerals And Chemical
       Corporation, Polk County, FL, February 1991.

10.    Summary Of Emission Measurements—East Phos Acid, International Minerals And Chemical
       Corporation, Polk County, FL, August 1991.

11.    Source Test Report, Seminole Fertilizer Corporation, Bartow, FL, September «1990.

12.    Source Test Report, Seminole Fertilizer Corporation, Bartow, FL, May 1991.

13.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Texas gulf Chemicals Company,  Aurora, NC, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1987.

14.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Texasgulf Chemicals Company,  Aurora, NC, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1987.

15.    Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Test, Phosphoric Acid Plant, Texasgulf Chemicals Company,
       Aurora, NC, Entropy Environmentalists,  Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, August  1988.

16.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Texasgulf Chemicals Company,  Aurora, NC, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1987.

17.    Source Test Report, FMC Corporation, Carteret, NJ, Princeton Testing Laboratory,
       Princeton, NJ, March 1991.

18.    A. J. Buonicore and W. T. Davis, eds., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, New York, 1992.

19.    Evaluation Of Emissions And Control Techniques For Reducing Fluoride Emission From
       Gypsum Ponds In The Phosphoric Acid Industry, EPA-600/2-78-124, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency,  Cinncinnati, OH,  1978.
8.9-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.10  SuIfuricAcid

8.10.1  General1'2

        Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is a basic raw material used in a wide range of industrial processes and
manufacturing operations. Almost 70 percent of sulfur ic acid manufactured is used in the production
of phosphate fertilizers.  Other uses include copper leaching, inorganic pigment production, petroleum
refining, paper production, and  industrial organic chemical production.

        Sulfuric acid may be manufactured commercially by either the lead chamber process or the
contact process.  Because of economics, all of the sulfuric acid produced in the U. S.  is now
produced by the contact process. U. S. facilities produce approximately 42 million megagrams (Mg)
(46.2 million tons) of H2SO4 annually.  Growth in demand was about 1 percent per year from 1981
to 1991 and is projected to continue to  increase at about 0.5 percent per year.

8.10.2  Process Description3'5

        Since the contact process is the  only process currently used, it will be the only one discussed
in this section. Contact plants are classified according to the raw materials charged to them:
elemental sulfur burning,  spent sulfuric acid and hydrogen sulfide burning, and metal  sulfide ores and
smelter gas burning.  The contributions from these plants to the total  acid production  are 81, 8, and
11 percent, respectively.

        The contact process incorporates 3 basic operations, each of which corresponds to a distinct
chemical reaction.  First,  the sulfur in the feedstock is oxidized (burned) to sulfur dioxide
                                        S  + O2  -»  SO2                                     (1)


The resulting sulfur dioxide is fed to a process unit called a converter, where it is catalytically
oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO3):

                                      2SO2 + O2   -»  2SO3                                  (2)


Finally, the sulfur trioxide is absorbed in a strong 98 percent sulfuric acid solution:


                                     SO3 + H2O  -  H2SO4                                 (3)


8.10.2.1 Elemental Sulfur Burning Plants -
       Figure 8.10-1 is a schematic diagram of a dual absorption contact process sulfuric acid plant
that burns elemental sulfur.  In the Frasch process, elemental sulfur is melted, filtered to remove ash,
and sprayed under pressure into a combustion chamber.  The sulfur is burned in clean air that has
been dried by scrubbing with 93 to 99 percent sulfuric acid.  The gases from the combustion chamber
cool by passing through a waste heat boiler and then enter the catalyst (vanadium pentoxide)
converter.  Usually, 95 to 98 percent of the sulfur dioxide from the combustion chamber is converted
to sulfur trioxide, with an accompanying large evolution of heat.  After being cooled, again by
generating steam, the converter exit gas enters an absorption tower.  The absorption tower is a packed
column where acid is sprayed in the top and where the sulfur trioxide enters from the bottom.  The

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.10-1

    -------
                                                                                         <3
                                                                                         *3
                                                                                         1
                                                                                         c
                                                                                         3

                                                                                         1
                                                                                         "a,
                                                                                         12

                                                                                         o
                                                                                         *C
                                                                                         a
                                                                                         c/3
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         "B,
                                                                                         O

                                                                                         od

                                                                                         Ui
                                                                                         3

                                                                                         E
8.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
sulfur trioxide is absorbed in the 98 to 99 percent sulfuric acid.  The sulfur trioxide combines with
the water in the acid and forms more sulfuric acid.

        If oleum (a solution of uncombined SO3 dissolved in H2SC>4) is produced, SO3 from the
converter is first passed to an oleum tower that is fed with 98 percent acid from the absorption
system.  The gases from the oleum tower are then pumped to the absorption column where the
residual sulfur trioxide is removed.

        In the dual absorption process shown in Figure 8.10-1, the SO3 gas formed in the primary
converter stages is sent to an interpass absorber where most of the SO3 is removed to form H2SO4.
The remaining unconverted  sulfur dioxide is forwarded to the final stages in the converter to remove
much of the remaining SO2  by oxidation to SO3, whence it is sent to the final absorber for removal of
the remaining sulfur trioxide.  The single absorption process uses only one absorber, as the name
implies.

8.10.2.2 Spent Acid And Hydrogen Sulfide Burning Plants  -
        A schematic diagram of a contact process sulfuric acid plant that burns spent acid is shown in
Figure 8.10-2.  Two types of plants are used to process this type of sulfuric  acid.  In one, the sulfur
dioxide and other products from the combustion of spent acid and/or hydrogen sulfide with undried
atmospheric air are passed through gas cleaning and  mist removal equipment.  The gas stream next
passes through  a drying tower.   A blower draws the  gas from the drying tower and discharges the
sulfur dioxide gas to the sulfur trioxide converter, then to the oleum tower and/or absorber.

        In a "wet gas plant", the wet gases from the  combustion  chamber are charged directly to the
converter, with no intermediate treatment.  The gas from the converter flows to the absorber, through
which 93 to 98 percent sulfuric acid is circulated.

8.10.2.3 Sulfide Ores And  Smelter Gas Plants -
        The configuration of this type of plant is essentially the same as that of a spent acid plant
(Figure 8.10-2), with the primary exception that a roaster is used in place of the combustion  furnace.

        The feed used in these plants is smelter gas,  available from such equipment as  copper
converters, reverberatory furnaces, roasters, and flash smelters.  The sulfur dioxide in the gas is
contaminated with  dust, acid mist, and gaseous impurities. To remove the impurities, the gases must
be cooled and passed through purification equipment consisting of cyclone dust collectors,
electrostatic dust and mist precipitators, and scrubbing and gas cooling towers.  After the gases are
cleaned and the excess water vapor is removed, they are scrubbed with 98 percent acid in a drying
tower.  Beginning with the drying tower stage, these plants are nearly identical to the elemental sulfur
plants shown in Figure 8.10-1.

8.10.3  Emissions4'6-7

8.10.3.1 Sulfur Dioxide-
        Nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions from sulfuric  acid plants are found in the exit stack gases.
Extensive testing has shown that the mass of these SO2 emissions is an inverse function of the sulfur
conversion efficiency (SO2 oxidized to SO3).  This conversion is always incomplete, and is affected
by the number of stages in the catalytic converter, the amount of catalyst used, temperature and
pressure, and the concentrations of the reactants (sulfur dioxide and oxygen). For example, if the
inlet S02 concentration to the converter were 9 percent by volume (a representative value), and the
conversion temperature was  430°C (806°F), the conversion efficiency would be 98 percent.  At this
conversion, Table 8.10-1 shows  that the uncontrolled emission factor for SO2 would be 13 kilograms

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.10-3

    -------


                                                                                        JS
                                                                                        "3,
                                                                                        I
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         o
                                                                                        I
                                                                                        "3
                                                                                         
    -------
per megagram (kg/Mg) (26 pounds per ton [lb/ton]) of 100 percent sulftiric acid produced.  (For
purposes of comparison, note that the Agency's new source performance standard [NSPS] for new
and modified plants is 2 kg/Mg (4 lb/ton) of 100 percent acid produced, maximum 2 hour average.)
As Table 8.10-1 and Figure 8.10-3 indicate, achieving this standard requires a conversion efficiency
of 99.7 percent in an uncontrolled plant, or the equivalent  S02 collection mechanism in a controlled
facility.

        Dual absorption, as discussed above, has generally been accepted as the best available control
technology for meeting NSPS emission limits.  There are no byproducts or waste scrubbing materials
created, only additional sulfuric acid. Conversion efficiencies of 99.7 percent and higher are
achievable, whereas most single absorption plants have SO2 conversion efficiencies ranging only from
95 to 98 percent.  Furthermore, dual absorption permits higher converter inlet sulfur dioxide
concentrations than are used in single absorption plants, because the final conversion stages effectively
remove any residual  sulfur dioxide from the interpass absorber.

        In addition to exit gases, small quantities of sulfur  oxides are emitted  from storage tank vents
and tank car and tank truck vents during loading operations, from sulfuric acid concentrators,  and
through leaks in process equipment.  Few data are available on the quantity of emissions from these
sources.
     Table 8.10-1 (Metric And English Units).  SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                  SULFURIC ACID PLANTS1

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
SO2 To SO3
Conversion Efficiency
(%)
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
99.5
99.7
100
(SCC 3-01-023-18)
(SCC 3-01-023-16)
(SCC 3-01-023-14)
(SCC 3-01-023-12)
(SCC 3-01-023-10)
(SCC 3-01-023-08)
(SCC 3-01-023-06)
(SCC 3-01-023-04)
NA
(SCC 3-01-023-01)
SO2 Emissions'3
kg/Mg Of Product
48.0
41.0
35.0
27.5
20.0
13.0
7.0
3.5
2.0
0.0
lb/ton Of Product
96
82
70
55
40
26
14
7
4
0.0
a Reference 3.  SCC = Source Classification Code. NA = not applicable.
b This linear interpolation formula can be used for calculating emission factors for conversion
  efficiencies between 93 and 100%: emission factor (kg/Mg of Product) = 682 - 6.82
  (% conversion efficiency) (emission factor [lb/ton of Product] = 1365 -  13.65 [%  conversion
  efficiency]).
8.10.3.2 Acid Mist -
       Nearly all the acid mist emitted from sulfuric acid manufacturing can be traced to the
absorber exit gases.  Acid mist is created when sulfur trioxide combines with water vapor at a
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.10-5

    -------
oo
                                              S02 EXIT GAS CONCENTRATION, PPM by vol
m

or>
bo
HH
O
q
8
              OO
              Ul
              o
            • I
            i-f
            in o
            to o
            a   .
            a- 5'
            a;
             .
            c  a
            3  I
               o.

               g
               VJ
               00
               1.
               oo
                         8
                                                                       PERFORMANCE STANDARD

    -------
temperature below the dew point of sulfur trioxide.  Once formed within the process system, this
mist is so stable that only a small quantity can be removed in the absorber.

       In general, the quantity and particle size distribution of acid mist are dependent on the type of
sulfur feedstock used, the strength of acid produced, and the conditions in the absorber.  Because it
contains virtually no water vapor, bright elemental sulfur produces little acid mist when burned.
However, the hydrocarbon impurities in other feedstocks  (i.  e., dark sulfur, spent acid, and hydrogen
sulfide) oxidize to water vapor during combustion.  The water vapor, in turn, combines with sulfur
trioxide as the gas cools in the system.

       The strength of acid produced, whether oleum or  99 percent sulfuric acid, also affects mist
emissions.  Oleum plants produce greater quantities of finer, more stable mist.  For example, an
unpublished report found that uncontrolled mist emissions from oleum plants burning spent acid range
from 0.5 to 5.0 kg/Mg  (1.0 to 10.0 Ib/ton), while those from 98 percent acid plants burning
elemental sulfur range from 0.2  to 2.0 kg/Mg (0.4 to 4.0 Ib/ton).4 Furthermore, 85 to 95 weight
percent of the mist particles from oleum plants are less than  2 micrometers (jj-m) in diameter,
compared with only 30  weight percent that are less than 2 urn in diameter  from 98 percent acid
plants.

       The operating temperature of the absorption column directly affects sulfur trioxide absorption
and, accordingly, the quality of acid mist  formed after exit gases leave the stack. The optimum
absorber operating temperature depends on the strength of the acid produced, throughput rates, inlet
sulfur trioxide concentrations, and other variables peculiar to each individual plant.  Finally, it should
be emphasized that the percentage conversion of sulfur trioxide has no direct effect on acid mist
emissions.

       Table 8.10-2 presents uncontrolled acid mist emission factors for various sulfuric acid plants.
Table 8.10-3 shows emission factors for plants that use fiber mist  eliminator  control devices.  The
3 most commonly used  fiber mist eliminators are the vertical tube, vertical panel, and horizontal dual
pad types.  They differ  from one another in the arrangement of the fiber elements, which are
composed of either chemically resistant glass or fluorocarbon, and in the means employed to collect
the trapped liquid. Data are available only with percent oleum ranges for 2 raw material categories.

8.10.3.3 Carbon Dioxide-
       The 9 source tests mentioned  above were also used to determine the amount of carbon dioxide
(COy), a global wanning gas, emitted by sulfuric acid production facilities. Based on the tests, a
CO2 emission factor of  4.05 kg emitted per Mg produced (8.10 Ib/ton) was developed, with an
emission factor rating of C.
7/93 (Refonnatted 1/95)                 Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.10-7

    -------
 Table 8.10-2 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED ACID MIST EMISSION FACTORS
                            FOR SULFURIC ACID PLANTS"
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Raw Material
Recovered sulfur (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Bright virgin sulfur (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Dark virgin sulfur (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Spent acid (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Oleum Produced,
% Total Output
0-43
0
0-100
0-77
Emissions'5
kg/Mg Of
Product
0.174-0.4
0.85
0.16-3.14
1.1 - 1.2
Ib/ton Of
Product
0.348 - 0.8
1-7
0.32 - 6.28
2.2 - 2.4
  M.        X              r
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Emissions are proportional to the percentage of oleum in the total product.  Use low end of ranges
  for low oleum percentage and high end of ranges for high oleum percentage.
  Table 8.10-3 (Metric And English Units).  CONTROLLED ACID MIST EMISSION FACTORS
                             FOR SULFURIC ACID PLANTS

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E (except as noted)
Raw Material
Elemental sulfur1 (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Dark virgin sulfurb (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Spent acid (SCC 3-01-023-22)
Oleum
Produced,
% Total
Output
0- 13
0-56
Emissions
kg/Mg Of Product
0.064
0.26- 1.8
0.014 - 0.20
Ib/ton Of Product
0.128
0.52 - 3.6
0.28 - 0.40
a References 8-13,15-17. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 3.
References For Section 8.10

1.      Chemical Marketing Reporter, 240:%, Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York,
       September 16, 1991.

2.      Fined Guideline Document: Control Of Sulfuric Add Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
       Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

3.      Atmospheric Emissions From Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes, 999-AP-13,
       U. S. Department Of Health, Education And Welfare, Washington, DC, 1966.

4.      Unpublished Report On Control Of Air Pollution From  Sulfuric Acid Plants, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1971.
8.10-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
5.     Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Sulfuric Acid Plants, EPA-450/3-85-012,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1985.

6.     Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Sources, 36 FR 24875, December 23, 1971.

7.     "Sulfuric Acid", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Air And Water Management Association,
       1992.

8.     Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sulfuric Acid Stack, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West
       Chester, PA, October 1989.

9.     Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sulfuric Acid Stack, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West
       Chester, PA, February 1988.

10.    Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sulfuric Acid Stack, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West
       Chester, PA, December 1989.

11.    Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Sulfuric Acid Stack, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West
       Chester, PA, December 1991.

12.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Sulfuric Acid Plant, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1983.

13.    Source Emissions Test: Sulfuric Acid Plant, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis,
       TN, October 1989.

14.    Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Air Pollution Emission Tests, Sulfuric Acid Stack,
       Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, September 1973.

15.    Kennecott Copper Corporation, Air Pollution Emission Tests, Sulfiiric Acid Stack—Plant 6,
       Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC, August 1972.

16.    Kennecott Copper Corporation, Air Pollution Emission Tests, Sulfuric Acid Stack—Plant 7,
       Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC, August 1972.

17.    American Smelting Corporation, Air Pollution Emission Tests, Sulfuric Acid Stack,
       Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC, June 1972.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                           8.10-9

    -------

    -------
8.11  Chlor-Alkali

8.11.1  General1'2

        The chlor-alkali electrolysis process is used in the manufacture of chlorine, hydrogen, and
sodium hydroxide (caustic) solution.  Of these 3, the primary product is chlorine.

        Chlorine is 1 of the more abundant chemicals produced by industry and has a wide variety of
industrial uses. Chlorine was first used to produce bleaching agents for the textile and paper
industries and for general cleaning and disinfecting.  Since 1950, chlorine has become increasingly
important as a raw material for synthetic organic chemistry.  Chlorine is an essential component of
construction materials, solvents, and insecticides.  Annual production from U. S. facilities was
9.9 million megagrams (Mg) (10.9 million tons) in 1990 after peaking at 10.4 million Mg
(11.4 million tons) in 1989.

8.11.2  Process Description1"3

        There are 3 types of electrolytic processes used in the production of chlorine: (1) the
diaphragm cell process, (2) the mercury cell process,  and (3) the membrane cell process.  In each
process, a salt solution is electrolyzed by the action of direct electric current that converts chloride
ions to elemental  chlorine.  The overall process reaction is:


                            2NaCl + 2H2O  -»  C12 + H2 + 2NaOH


In all 3 methods,  the chlorine (C12) is produced at the positive electrode (anode) and the caustic soda
(NaOH) and hydrogen (H2) are produced, directly or  indirectly, at the negative electrode (cathode).
The 3 processes differ in the  method by which the anode products are kept separate from the cathode
products.

        Of the chlorine produced in the U. S. in 1989, 94 percent was produced either by the
diaphragm cell or mercury  cell  process.  Therefore, these will be the only 2 processes discussed in
this section.

8.11.2.1 Diaphragm Cell -
        Figure 8.11-1 shows a simplified block diagram of the diaphragm cell process.  Water (H2O)
and sodium chloride (NaCl) are combined to create the starting brine solution.  The brine undergoes
precipitation and filtration to  remove impurities.  Heat is applied and more salt is added.  Then the
nearly saturated, purified brine  is heated again before direct electric current is applied.  The anode is
separated from the cathode  by a permeable asbestos-based diaphragm to prevent the caustic soda from
reacting with the chlorine.  The chlorine produced at the anode is removed, and the saturated brine
flows through the diaphragm  to the cathode chamber.  The chlorine is then purified by liquefaction
and evaporation to yield a pure liquified product.

       The caustic brine produced at the cathode is separated from salt and concentrated in  an
elaborate evaporative process to produce commercial caustic soda. The salt is recycled to saturate the
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.11-1

    -------
         SALT
                             SALT
                  WATER     (BRINE)
                 _J	1
                         BRINE
                      SATURATION
                              RAW BRINE
                     PRECIPITATION
                      FILTRATION
      CHLORINE
                               PURIFIED BRINE
                         HEAT
                       EXCHANGE
           SALT
                         BRINE
                      SATURATION
                          HEAT
                       EXCHANGE
           HYDROGEN
                     ELECTROLYSIS
         SALT
                   CONCENTRATION
                       COOLING
                        STORAGE
                   SODIUM   HYDROXIDE
                                              HYDROGEN
                              OXYGEN
                              REMOVAL
                                              HYDROGEN
                                                                   PRECEPITANTS
                                                                      RESIDUE
                                                                   CHLORINE GAS
                                                        DRYING
                                                                       COMPRESSION
                                                                       LIQUEFACTION
                                                                        EVAPORATION
                                                                       CHLORINE
8.11-2
Figure 8.11-1.  Simplified diagram of the diaphragm cell process.

                    EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
dilute brine.  The hydrogen removed in the cathode chamber is cooled and purified by removal of
oxygen, then used in other plant processes or sold.

8.11.2.2  Mercury Cell -
       Figure 8.11-2 shows a simplified block diagram for the mercury cell process.  The recycled
brine from the electrolysis process (anolyte) is dechlorinated and purified by a precipitation-filtration
process.  The liquid mercury cathode and the brine enter the cell flowing concurrently. The
electrolysis process creates chlorine at the anode and elemental sodium at the cathode. The chlorine
is removed from the anode, cooled, dried, and compressed. The sodium combines with mercury to
form a sodium amalgam.  The amalgam is further reacted with water in  a separate reactor called the
decomposer to produce hydrogen gas and caustic soda solution.  The caustic and hydrogen are then
separately cooled and  the mercury is removed before proceeding to storage, sales, or other processes.

8.11.3 Emissions And Controls4

       Tables 8.11-1  and 8.11-2 are is a summaries of chlorine emission factors for chlor-alkali
plants. Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and  pounds per ton
(Ib/ton).  Emissions from diaphragm and mercury cell plants include chlorine gas, carbon dioxide
(CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen. Gaseous chlorine is present in the blow gas from
liquefaction, from vents in tank cars and tank containers during loading and unloading, and from
storage tanks and process transfer tanks.  Carbon dioxide emissions result from  the decomposition of
carbonates in the brine feed when contacted with  acid. Carbon monoxide and hydrogen are created
by side reactions within the production cell.  Other emissions  include mercury vapor from mercury
cathode cells and chlorine from compressor seals, header seals, and the air blowing of depleted brine
in mercury-cell plants. Emissions from these locations are, for the most part, controlled through the
use of the gas in other parts of the plant,  neutralization in alkaline scrubbers, or recovery of the
chlorine from effluent gas streams.

       Table 8.11-3 presents mercury emission factors based on 2 source tests used to substantiate
the mercury national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants.   Due to insufficient data,
emission factors for CO, CO2, and hydrogen are  not presented here.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.11-3

    -------
             DILUTED BRINE
   CAUSTIC
  SOLUTION
      DECHLORINATION
  HYDROCHLORIC
     ACID
                  ANOLYTE
                     AMALGAM
         WATER
     CAUSTIC
    SOLUTION
         COOLING
          MERCURY
          REMOVAL
          STORAGE
                                            SALT
                                       BRINE
                                    SATURATION
                                           RAW BRINE
                                    PRECIPITATION
                         PRECIPrrANTS
   FILTRATION
                                                         RESIDUE
                                      COOLING
                                                         HYDROCHLORIC ACID
                                    ELECTROLYSIS
                                                  MERCURY
                                     AMALGAM
                                   DECOMPOSITION
            HYDROGEN
                                      COOLING
                                                                      CHLORINE GAS
                                 COOLING
    MERCURY
    REMOVAL
DRYING
                               COMPRESSION
     SODIUM HYDROXIDE               HYDROGEN                  CHLORINE
                Figure 8.11-2. Simplified diagram of the mercury cell process.
8.11-4
EMISSION FACTORS
  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
          Table 8.11-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHLORINE FROM
                               CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS8

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
                         Source
                                  Chlorine Gas
                          (kg/Mg Of Chlorine Produced)
 Liquefaction blow gases
   Diaphragm cell (SCC 3-01-008-01)
   Mercury cell (SCC 3-01-008-02)
   Water absorbed (SCC 3-01-008-99)
   Caustic scrubbed  (SCC 3-01-008-99)
 Chlorine loading
   Returned tank car vents (SCC 3-01-008-03)
   Shipping container vents  (SCC 3-01-008-04)
 Mercury cell brine air blowing (SCC 3-01-008-05)
                                    10-50
                                    20-80
                                    0.830
                                    0.006

                                    4.1
                                    8.7
                                    2.7
a Reference 4.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Control devices.
         Table 8.11-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHLORINE FROM
                               CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
                         Source
                                  Chlorine Gas
                           (Ib/ton Of Chlorine Produced)
 Liquefaction blow gases
   Diaphragm cell (SCC 3-01-008-01)
   Mercury cell (SCC 3-01-008-02)
   Water absorbed (SCC 3-01-008-99)
   Caustic scrubber13  (SCC 3-01-008-99)
 Chlorine loading
   Returned tank car vents  (SCC 3-01-008-03)
   Shipping container vents  (SCC 3-01-008-04)
 Mercury cell brine air blowing  (SCC 3-01-008-05)
                                    20- 100
                                    40- 160
                                     1.66
                                     0.012

                                     8.2
                                    17.3
                                     5.4
a Reference 4.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Control devices.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.11-5

    -------
    Table 8.11-3 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MERCURY FROM
                       MERCURY CELL CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS4

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type Of Source
Hydrogen vent (SCC 3-01-008-02)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
End box (SCC 3-01-008-02)
Mercury Gas
kg/Mg
Of Chlorine Produced
0.0017
0.0006
0.005
Ib/ton
Of Chlorine Produced
0.0033
0.0012
0.010
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
References For Section 8.11

1.      Ullmam's Encyclopedia Of Industrial Chemistry, VCH Publishers, New York, 1989.

       The Chlorine Institute, Inc., Washington, DC, January 1991.
2.

3.


4.


5.


6.
       1991 Directory Of Chemical Producers, Menlo Park, California: Chemical Information
       Services, Stanford Research Institute, Stanford, CA, 1991.

       Atmospheric Emissions From Chlor-Alkali Manufacture, AP-80, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1971.

       B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company Chlor-Alkali Plant Source Tests, Calvert City, Kentucky,
       EPA Contract No. CPA 70-132, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,  May 1972.

       Diamond Shamrock Corporation Chlor-Alkali Plant Source Tests, Delaware City, Delaware,
       EPA Contract No. CPA 70-132, Roy F. Weston, Inc., June 1972.
8.11-6
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
8.12  Sodium Carbonate

8.12.1  General1'3

        Sodium carbonate (NaaCOj), commonly referred to as soda ash, is one of the largest-volume
mineral products in the U. S., with 1991 production of over 9 million megagrams (Mg) (10.2 million
tons).  Over 85 percent of this soda ash originates in Wyoming, with the remainder coming from
Searles Valley, California. Soda ash is used mostly in the production of glass, chemicals, soaps, and
detergents, and by consumers.  Demand depends to great extent upon the price of, and environmental
issues surrounding, caustic soda, which is interchangeable with soda ash in many uses and is widely
coproduced with chlorine (see Section 8.11,  "Chlor-Alkali").

8.12.2  Process Description4'7

        Soda ash may be manufactured synthetically or  from naturally occurring raw materials such as
ore.  Only 1 U. S. facility recovers small quantities of Na^O;, synthetically as a byproduct  of
cresylic acid production.   Other synthetic processes include the Solvay process, which involves
saturation of brine with ammonia (NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO;,) gas, and the Japanese ammonium
chloride (NH4C1) coproduction process. Both of these synthetic processes generate ammonia
emissions. Natural processes include the calcination of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3),  or nahcolite, a
naturally occurring ore found in vast quantities in Colorado.

        The 2 processes currently used to produce natural soda ash differ only in the recovery stage in
primary treatment of the  raw material used.  The raw material for Wyoming soda ash is mined trona
ore, while California soda ash comes from sodium carbonate-rich brine  extracted from Searles Lake.

        There are 4 distinct methods used to mine the Wyoming trona ore: (1) solution mining,
(2) room-and-pillar,  (3) longwall, and (4) shortwall. In solution mining, dilute sodium hydroxide
(NaOH), commonly  called caustic soda, is injected into the trona to dissolve it.  This solution is
treated with CO2 gas in carbonation towers to convert the NajCOj in solution to NaHCO3, which
precipitates and is filtered out.  The crystals are again dissolved in water, precipitated with carbon
dioxide, and filtered. The product is calcined to produce dense soda ash.  Brine extracted from below
Searles Lake in California is  treated similarly.

        Blasting is used in the room-and-pillar, longwall, and shortwall  methods. The conventional
blasting agent is prilled ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and fuel oil, or ANFO (see Section 13.3,
"Explosives Detonation").  Beneficiation is accomplished with either of  2 methods, called the
sesquicarbonate and  the monohydrate processes.  In the sesquicarbonate process, shown schematically
in Figure  8.12-1, trona ore is first dissolved in water (H2O) and then treated as brine.  This  liquid is
filtered to remove insoluble impurities before the sodium sesquicarbonate (Na^CO-, • NaHCO3 • 2H2O)
is precipitated out using vacuum crystallizers.  The result is centrifuged  to remove remaining water,
and can either be sold as a finished product or further calcined to yield soda ash of light to
intermediate density. In the monohydrate process, shown schematically in Figure 8.12-2, crushed
trona is calcined in a rotary kiln, yielding dense soda ash and carbon dioxide and water as
byproducts. The calcined material is combined with water to allow settling out or filtering of
impurities such as shale,  and  is then concentrated by triple-effect evaporators and/or mechanical vapor
recompression crystallizers to precipitate sodium carbonate monohydrate (Na2C03-H2O). Impurities
7/93 (Reformatted i/9S)                   Inorganic Chemical Industry                             8.12-1

    -------
                                                                                      DRY
                                                                                     SODIUM
                                                                                    CARBONATE
          Figure 8.12-1. Flow diagram for sesquicarbonate sodium carbonate processing.
                                                                                         DRY

                                                                                        SODIUM

                                                                                       CARBONATE
            Figure 8.12-2.  Flow diagram for monohydrate sodium carbonate processing.


such as sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) remain in solution.  The crystals and
liquor are centrifuged, and the recovered crystals are calcined again to remove remaining water.  The
product must then be cooled, screened, and possibly bagged, before shipping.

8.12.3 Emissions And Controls

       The principal air emissions from the sodium carbonate production methods now used in the
U. S. are paniculate emissions from ore calciners; soda ash coolers and dryers; ore crushing,
screening, and transporting operations; and product handling and shipping operations. Emissions of
products  of combustion, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon
dioxide, occur from direct-fired process heating units such as ore calcining kilns and soda ash dryers.
With the exception of carbon dioxide, which is suspected of contributing to global climate change,
insufficient data are available to quantify these emissions with a reasonable level of confidence, but
similar processes are addressed in various sections of Chapter 11 of AP-42, "Mineral Products
Industry".  Controlled emissions of filterable and total particulate matter from individual processes
and process components are given in Tables 8.12-1 and 8.12-2.  Uncontrolled emissions from these
same processes are given in Table 8.12-3. No data quantifying emissions  of organic condensable
particulate matter from sodium carbonate manufacturing processes are available, but  this portion of
8.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
    Table 8.12-1 (Metric Units). CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE
                    MATTER FROM SODIUM CARBONATE PRODUCTION
Process
Ore mining0 (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore crushing and screening0
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore transfer0 (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Monohydrate process: rotary ore calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-04/05)
Sesquicarbonate process: rotary calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Sesquicarbonate process: fluid-bed calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Rotary soda ash dryers (SCC 3-01-023-06)
Fluid-bed soda ash dryers/coolers
(SCC 3-01-023-07)
Soda ash screening (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Soda ash storage/loading and unloading0
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Filterable
kg/Mg
Of
Product
0.0016
0.0010
0.00008
0.091
0.36
0.021
0.25
0.015
0.0097
0.0021
Emissions*
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
D
E
A
B
C
C
C
E
E
Total Emissions'*
kg/Mg
Of
Product
ND
0.0018
0.0001
0.12
0.36
ND
0.25
0.019
0.013
0.0026
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
C
E
B
C
NA
D
D
E
E
a Filterable paniculate matter is that material collected in the probe and filter of a Method 5 or
  Method 17 sampler. SCC  = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. NA  = not applicable.
b Total paniculate matter includes filterable paniculate and inorganic condensable paniculate.
c For ambient temperature processes, all paniculate matter emissions can be assumed to be filterable
  at ambient conditions.  However,  paniculate sampling according to EPA Reference Method 5
  involves the heating of the  front half of the sampling train to temperatures that may vaporize some
  portion of this paniculate matter,  which will then recondense in the back half of the sampling train.
  For consistency, paniculate matter measured as condensable according to  Method 5 is reported as
  such.
the paniculate matter can be assumed to be negligible. Emissions of carbon dioxide from selected
processes are given in Table 8.12-4.  Emissions from combustion sources such as boilers, and from
evaporation of hydrocarbon fuels used to fire these combustion sources, are covered in other chapters
of AP-42.

       Paniculate emissions from calciners and dryers are typically controlled by venturi scrubbers,
electrostatic precipitators, and/or cyclones.  Baghouse filters are not well suited to applications such
as these, because of the high moisture content of the effluent gas.  Paniculate emissions from ore and
product handling operations are typically controlled by either venturi scrubbers or baghouse filters.
These control devices are an integral part of the manufacturing process, capturing raw materials and
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.12-3

    -------
   Table 8.12-2 (English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE
                   MATTER FROM SODIUM CARBONATE PRODUCTION
Process
Ore mining* (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore crushing and screening0 (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore transfer" (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Monohydrate process: rotary ore calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-04/05)
Sesquicarbonate process: rotary calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Sesquicarbonate process: fluid-bed calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Rotary soda ash dryers (SCC 3-01-023-06)
Fluid-bed soda ash dryers/coolers
(SCC 3-01-023-07)
Soda ash screening (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Soda ash storage/loading and unloading0
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Filterable Emissions"
Ib/ton
Of
Product
0.0033
0.0021
0.0002
0.18
0.72
0.043
0.50
0.030
0.019
0.0041
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
D
E
A
B
C
C
C
E
E
Total Emissions'1
Ib/ton
Of
Product
ND
0.0035
0.0002
0.23
0.73
ND
0.52
0.39
0.026
0.0051
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
C
E
B
C
NA
D
D
E
E
a Filterable paniculate matter is that material collected in the probe and filter of a Method 5 or
  Method 17 sampler.  SCC = Source Classficiation Code.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Total paniculate matter includes filterable paniculate and inorganic condensable paniculate.
c For ambient temperature processes, all paniculate matter emissions can be assumed to be filterable
  at ambient conditions; however, paniculate sampling according to EPA Reference Method 5
  involves the heating of the front half of the sampling train to temperatures that may vaporize some
  portion of this paniculate matter, which will then recondense in the back half of the sampling train.
  For consistency, paniculate matter measured as condensable according to Method 5 is reported as
  such.
product for economic reasons. Because of a lack of suitable emissions data for uncontrolled
processes, both controlled and uncontrolled emission factors are presented for this industry.  The
uncontrolled emission factors have been calculated by applying nominal control efficiencies to the
controlled emission factors.
8.12-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
    Table 8.12-3 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                  PARTICULATE MATTER FROM SODIUM CARBONATE
Process
Ore mining (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore crushing and screening (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Ore transfer (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Monohydrate process: rotary ore calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-04/05)
Sesquicarbonate process: rotary calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Sesquicarbonate process: fluid-bed calciner
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Rotary soda ash dryers (SCC 3-01-023-06)
Fluid-bed soda ash dryers/coolers (SCC 3-01-023-07)
Soda ash screening (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Soda ash storage/loading and unloading
(SCC 3-01-023-99)
Nominal
Control
Efficiency
(%)
99.9
99.9
99.9

99.9
00
"-7
99

99
99
99.9

99.9

kg/Mg
Of
Product
1.6
1.7
0.1
90

36

2.1

25
1.5
10
2.6

Total"
Ib/ton
Of
Product
3.3
3.5
0.2
180

72

4.3

50
3.0
19
5.2


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
E
B

D

D

E
E
E
E

  Values for uncontrolled total paniculate matter can
  both organic and inorganic condensable paniculate.
  than ambient temperatures, these factors have been
  efficiency to the controlled (as-measured) filterable
  SCC  = Source Classification Code.
be assumed to include filterable paniculate and
 For processes operating at significantly greater
calculated by applying the nominal control
paniculate emission factors above.
    Table 8.12-4 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
             CARBON DIOXIDE FROM SODIUM CARBONATE PRODUCTION3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Process
Monohydrate process: rotary ore calciner (SCC 3-01-023-04/05)
Sesquicarbonate process: rotary calciner (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Sesquicarbonate process: fluid-bed calciner (SCC 3-01-023-99)
Rotary soda ash dryers (SCC 3-01-023-06)
Emissions
kg/Mg
Of
Product
Ib/ton
Of
Product
200 400
150 310
90 180
63 130
a Factors are derived from analyses during emission tests for criteria pollutants, rather than from fuel
  analyses and material balances.  SCC  = Source Classification Code. References 8-26.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Inorganic Chemical Industry
                                    8.12-5

    -------
References For Section 8.12

1.      D. S. Kostick, "Soda Ash", Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department OfThe
       Interior, 1992.

2.      D. S. Kostick, "Soda Ash", Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And Minerals,
       U. S. Department OfThe Interior, 1990.

3.      Directory Of Chemical Producers: United States of America,  1990, SRI International, Menlo
       Park, CA, 1990.

4.      L. Gribovicz, "FY 91 Annual Inspection Report:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Westvaco
       Soda Ash Refinery", Wyoming Department Of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, WY,
       11 June 1991.

5.      L. Gribovicz, "FY 92 Annual Inspection Report:  General Chemical Partners, Green River
       Works", Wyoming Department Of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, WY,
       16 September 1991.

6.      L. Gribovicz, "FY 92 Annual Inspection Report:  Rh6ne-Poulenc Chemical Company, Big
       Island Mine and Refinery", Wyoming Department Of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne,  WY,
       17 December 1991.

7.      L. Gribovicz, 91 Annual Inspection Report: Texasgulf Chemical Company, Granger Trona
       Mine & Soda Ash Refinery", Wyoming Department Of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne,
       WY, 15 July 1991.

8.      "Stack Emissions Survey:  General Chemical, Soda Ash Plant, Green River, Wyoming",
       Western Environmental Services And Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, February 1988.

9.      "Stack Emissions Survey:  General Chemical, Soda Ash Plant, Green River, Wyoming",
       Western Environmental Services And Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, November 1989.

10.    "Rh6ne-Poulenc Wyoming Co.  Particulate Emission Compliance Program", TRC
       Environmental Measurements Division, Englewood, CO, 21 May 1990.

11.    "Rhone-Poulenc Wyoming Co.  Particulate Emission Compliance Program", TRC
       Environmental Measurements Division, Englewood, CO, 6 July 1990.

12.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming",
       FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, October  1990.

13.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming",
       FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, February 1991.

14.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming",
       FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, January  1991.

15.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming",
       FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, October  1990.
8.12-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                    (Refo™^ 1/99 7/93

    -------
16.    "Compliance Test Report:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming",
       FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, 6 June 1988.

17.    "Compliance Test Report:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming", FMC-
       Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, 24 May  1988.

18.    "Compliance Test Report:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming", FMC-
       Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, 28 August 1985.

19.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  FMC-Wyoming Corporation, Green River, Wyoming", FMC-
       Wyoming Corporation, Green River, WY, December 1990.

20.    "Emission Measurement Test Report Of GR3A Crusher", The Emission Measurement People,
       Inc., Canon City, CO,  16 October 1990.

21.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  TG Soda Ash, Inc., Granger, Wyoming", Western Environmental
       Services And Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, August 1989.

22.    "Compliance Test Reports", Tenneco Minerals,  Green River, WY, 30 November 1983.

23.    "Compliance Test Reports", Tenneco Minerals,  Green River, WY, 8 November  1983.

24.    "Paniculate Stack Sampling Reports", Texasgulf, Inc., Granger, WY, October 1977 —
       September 1978.

25.    "Fluid Bed Dryer Emissions Certification Report", Texasgulf Chemicals Co., Granger,
       WY, 18 February 1985.

26.    "Stack Emissions Survey:  General Chemical, Soda Ash Plant, Green River, Wyoming",
       Western Environmental Services And Testing, Inc., Casper, WY, May 1987.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Inorganic Chemical Industry                           8.12-7

    -------

    -------
8.13  Sulfur Recovery

8.13.1  General1'2

        Sulfur recovery refers to the conversion of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to elemental sulfur.
Hydrogen sulfide is a byproduct of processing natural gas and refining high-sulfur crude oils.  The
most common conversion method used is the Claus process.  Approximately 90 to 95 percent of
recovered sulfur is produced by the Claus process. The Claus process typically recovers 95 to
97 percent of the hydrogen sulfide feedstream.

        Over 5.9 million megagrams (Mg) (6.5 million tons) of sulfur were recovered in 1989,
representing about 63 percent of the total elemental sulfur market in the U. S.  The remainder was
mined or imported. The average production rate of a sulfur recovery plant in the U. S. varies from
51 to 203 Mg (56 to 224 tons) per day.

8.13.2  Process Description1'2

        Hydrogen sulfide, a byproduct of crude oil and natural gas processing, is recovered and
converted to elemental sulfur by the Claus process.  Figure 8.13-1 shows a typical Claus sulfur
recovery unit. The process  consists of multistage catalytic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide according to
the following overall reaction:

                                  2H2S + O2   -»  2S + 2H2O                              (1)

Each catalytic stage consists of a gas reheater, a catalyst chamber, and a condenser.

        The Claus process involves burning one-third of the H2S with air in a reactor furnace to form
sulfur dioxide (SO^ according to the following reaction:

                            2H2S  + 3O2   -»  2SO2 + 2H2O  + heat                         (2)

The furnace normally operates at combustion chamber temperatures ranging from 980 to 1540°C
(1800 to 2800°F) with pressures rarely higher than 70 kilopascals (kPa) (10 pounds per square inch
absolute).  Before entering a sulfur condenser, hot gas from the combustion chamber is quenched in a
waste heat boiler that  generates high to medium pressure steam.  About 80 percent of the heat
released could be recovered  as useful energy.  Liquid sulfur from the condenser runs through a seal
leg into a covered pit  from which it is pumped to trucks or  railcars for shipment to end users.
Approximately 65 to 70 percent of the sulfur  is recovered.  The cooled  gases exiting the condenser
are then sent to the catalyst beds.

        The remaining uncombusted two-thirds of the hydrogen sulfide undergoes Claus reaction
(reacts with SO^ to form elemental sulfur as  follows:

                              2H2S + SO2   *-^3S  + 2H2O  + heat                           (3)

The catalytic reactors  operate at lower temperatures, ranging from 200 to 315°C (400 to 600°F).
Alumina or bauxite is sometimes used as a catalyst. Because this reaction represents an equilibrium
chemical reaction, it is not possible for a Claus plant to convert all the incoming sulfur compounds to
elemental sulfur.  Therefore, 2 or more stages are used in series to recover the sulfur.  Each catalytic
stage can recover half to two-thirds of the  incoming sulfur.  The number of catalytic stages depends
upon the level of conversion desired.  It is estimated that 95 to 97 percent overall recovery can be

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Inorganic Chemical Industry                           8.13-1

    -------
                                                                              SULFUR
                                                                             CONDENSER^
         *ADD1TIONAL CONVERTERS/CONDENSERS TO
          ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL RECOVERY OP
          ELEMENTAL SULFUR ARE OPTIONAL AT THIS
          POINT.
            Figure 8.13-1.  Typical Claus sulfur recovery unit.  CW = Cooling water.
                           STM = Steam.  BFW = Boiler feed water.
achieved depending on the number of catalytic reaction stages and the type of reheating method used.
If the sulfur recovery unit is located in a natural gas processing plant, the type of reheat employed is
typically either auxiliary burners or heat exchangers, with steam reheat being used occasionally. If
the sulfur recovery unit is located in a crude oil refinery, the typical reheat scheme uses 3536 to
4223 kPa (500 to 600 pounds per square inch guage [psig]) steam for  reheating purposes.  Most
plants are now built with 2 catalytic stages, although some air quality  jurisdictions require 3. From
the condenser of the final catalytic stage, the process stream passes to some form of tailgas treatment
process.  The tailgas, containing H2S, SO2, sulfur vapor,  and traces of other sulfur compounds
formed in the combustion section, escapes with the inert gases from the tail end of the plant. Thus, it
is frequently necessary to follow the Claus unit with a tailgas cleanup  unit to achieve higher recovery.

       In addition to the oxidation of H2S to SO2 and the reaction of SO2 with H2S  in the reaction
furnace, many other side reactions can  and do occur in the furnace.  Several of these possible side
reactions are:
                                 CO,
+ H2S
             COS
H20
                                  COS + H2S  -»  CS2  + H2O

                                    2 COS  -»  CO2 +  CS2
(4)

(5)

(6)
8.13.3 Emissions And Controls1"4
       Table 8.13-1 shows emission factors and recovery efficiencies for modified Claus sulfur
recovery plants. Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per
ton (Ib/ton). Emissions from the Claus process are directly related to the recovery efficiency. Higher
8.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
    Table 8.13-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODIFIED GLAUS
                               SULFUR RECOVERY PLANTS

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Number of
Catalytic Stages
1, Uncontrolled
3, Uncontrolled
4, Uncontrolled
2, Controlledf
3, Controlled^
Average %
Sulfur
Recovery*
93. 5b
95.5d
96.5e
98.6
96.8
SO2 Emissions
kg/Mg
Of
Sulfur Produced
139b'c
94c,d
73c>e
29
65
Ib/ton
Of
Sulfur Produced
278b,c
188c'd
145c-e
57
129
a Efficiencies are for feedgas streams with high H2S concentrations.  Gases with lower H2S
  concentrations would have lower efficiencies.  For example, a 2- or 3-stage plant could have a
  recovery efficiency of 95% for a 90% H2S stream, 93% for 50% H2S, and 90% for 15% H2S.
b Reference 5. Based on net weight of pure sulfur produced. The emission factors were determined
  using the average of the percentage recovery of sulfur.  Sulfur dioxide emissions are calculated
  from percentage sulfur recovery by one of the following equations:
SQ2 emissions (kg/Mg)  = (100%
                                                   % recovery
                                                                 2000
                       S02 emissions Ob/ton) =  (100% recovery)  4000
                                                  % recovery
c Typical sulfur recovery ranges from 92 to 95%.
d Typical sulfur recovery ranges from 95 to 96%.
e Typical sulfur recovery ranges from 96 to 97%.
f Reference 6. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B. Test data indicated sulfur recovery ranges from
  98.3 to 98.8%.
g References 7-9.  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B.  Test data indicated sulfur recovery ranges
  from 95 to 99. 8%. recovery efficiencies.  The efficiency depends upon several factors, including the
  number of catalytic stages, the concentrations of H2S and contaminants in the feedstream,
  stoichiometric balance of gaseous components of the inlet, operating temperature, and catalyst
  maintenance.
recovery efficiencies mean less sulfur emitted in the tailgas.  Older plants, or very small Claus plants
producing less than 20 Mg (22 tons) per day of sulfur without tailgas cleanup, have varying sulfur
recovery efficiencies. The efficiency depends upon several factors, including the number of catalytic
stages, the concentrations of H2S and contaminants in the feedstream, stoichiometric balance of
gaseous components of the inlet, operating temperature, and catalyst maintenance.

       A 2-bed catalytic Claus plant can achieve 94 to 96 percent efficiency.  Recoveries range from
96 to 97.5 percent for a 3-bed catalytic plant and range from 97 to 98.5 percent for a 4-bed catalytic
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
           Inorganic Chemical Industry
8.13-3

    -------
plant.  At normal operating temperatures and pressures, the Claus reaction is thermodynamically
limited to 97 to 98 percent recovery. Tailgas from the Claus plant still contains 0.8 to  1.5 percent
sulfur compounds.

       Existing new source performance standards limit sulfur emissions from Claus sulfur recovery
plants of greater than 20.32  Mg (22.40 ton) per day capacity to 0.025 percent by volume (250 parts
per million volume [ppmv]).  This limitation is effective at 0 percent oxygen on a dry basis if
emissions are controlled by an oxidation control system or a reduction control system followed by
incineration. This is comparable to the 99.8 to 99.9 percent control level for reduced sulfur.

       Emissions from the Claus process may  be reduced by:  (1) extending the Claus  reaction into a
lower temperature liquid phase, (2) adding a scrubbing process to the Claus exhaust stream, or
(3) incinerating the hydrogen sulflde gases to form sulfur dioxide.

       Currently, there are  5 processes available that extend the Claus reaction into a lower
temperature liquid phase including the BSR/selectox, Sulfreen, Cold Bed Absorption, Maxisulf, and
IFP-1 processes.  These processes take advantage of the enhanced Claus conversion at cooler
temperatures in the catalytic stages. All of these processes give higher overall sulfur recoveries of 98
to 99 percent when following downstream of a  typical  2- or 3-stage Claus sulfur recovery unit, and
therefore reduce sulfur emissions.

       Sulfur emissions can also be reduced by adding a scrubber at the tail end of the plant.  There
are essentially 2 generic types of tailgas scrubbing processes:  oxidation tailgas scrubbers and
reduction tailgas scrubbers.  The first scrubbing process  is used to scrub SO2 from incinerated  tailgas
and recycle the concentrated SO2 stream back to the Claus process for conversion to elemental  sulfur.
There are at least 3 oxidation scrubbing processes:  the Wellman-Lord, Stauffer Aquaclaus, and
IFP-2. Only the Wellman-Lord process has been applied successfully to U. S. refineries.

       The Wellman-Lord process uses a wet generative process to reduce stack gas sulfur dioxide
concentration to less than 250 ppmv and can achieve approximately 99.9 percent sulfur  recovery.
Claus plant tailgas is incinerated and all sulfur species  are oxidized to form SO2 in the Wellman-Lord
process.  Gases are then cooled and quenched to remove excess water and to reduce gas temperature
to absorber conditions. The rich S02 gas is then reacted with a solution of sodium sulfite  (Na2SO3)
and sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3) to form the bisulfite:


                             SO2 + Na2SO3 + H2O  -*  2NaHSO3                           (7)


The offgas is reheated and vented to the atmosphere. The resulting bisulfite solution is boiled  in an
evaporator-crystallizer, where it decomposes to SO2 and water (H2O) vapor and sodium sulfite is
precipitated:

                            2NaHSO3  -»  Na^Ogi  + H2O + SO2t                          (8)
                                    3  -»        g       2        2


Sulfite crystals are separated and redissolved for reuse as lean solution in the absorber.  The wet SO2
gas is directed to a partial condenser where most of the water is condensed and reused to dissolve
sulfite crystals.  The enriched SO2 stream is then recycled back to the Claus plant for conversion to
elemental sulfur.

       In the second type of scrubbing process, sulfur in the tailgas is converted to H2S by
hydrogenation in a reduction step.  After hydrogenation, the  tailgas is cooled and water is removed.

8.13-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
The cooled tailgas is then sent to the scrubber for H2S removal prior to venting.  There are at least
4 reduction scrubbing processes developed for tailgas sulfur removal:  Beavon, Beavon MDEA,
SCOT, and ARCO.  In the Beavon process, H2S is converted to sulfur outside the Claus unit using a
lean H2S-to-sulfur process (the Strefford process).  The other 3 processes utilize conventional amine
scrubbing and regeneration to remove H2S and recycle back as Claus feed.

       Emissions from the Claus process may also be reduced by incinerating sulfur-containing
tailgases to form sulfur dioxide. In order to properly remove the sulfur, incinerators must operate at
a temperature of 650°C (1,200°F) or higher if all the H2S is to be combusted. Proper air-to-fuel
ratios are needed to eliminate pluming from the incinerator stack. The stack should be equipped with
analyzers to monitor the SO2 level.

References For Section 8.13

1.     B. Goar, et al., "Sulfur Recovery Technology", Energy Progress, Vol. 6(2): 71-75,
       June 1986.

2.     Written communication from Bruce Scott, Bruce Scott, Inc., San Rafael, CA, to David
       Hendricks, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, February  28,
       1992.

3.     Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Petroleum Refinery Claus Sulfur Recovery
       Plants, EPA-450/3-83-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1983.

4.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Petroleum Refinery Sulfiir Recovery Plants, EPA-450/2-76-016a,
       U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.

5.     D. K. Beavon, "Abating Sulfur Plant Gases", Pollution Engineering, pp. 34-35,
       January/February  1972.

6.     "Compliance Test Report:  Collett Ventures Company, Chatom, Alabama", Environmental
       Science & Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 1991.

7.     "Compliance Test Report:  Phillips Petroleum Company, Chatom, Alabama", Environmental
       Science & Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, July 1991.

8.     "Compliance Test Report:  Mobil Exploration And Producing Southeast, Inc., Coden,
       Alabama", Cubix Corporation, Austin, TX, September  1990.

9.     "Emission Test Report: Getty Oil Company,  New Hope, TX," EMB  Report No. 81-OSP-9,
       July 1981.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)               Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.13-5

    -------

    -------
8.14 Hydrogen Cyanide




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Inorganic Chemical Industry                            8.14-1

    -------

    -------
              9.   FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
       This chapter comprises the activities that are performed before and during the production and
preparation of consumer products. With agricultural crops, the land is tilled in preparation for
planting, fertilizers and pesticides are applied, and the crops are harvested and stored before
processing into consumer products. With animal husbandry, livestock and poultry are raised and sent
to slaughterhouses. Food and agricultural  industries yield either consumer products directly or related
materials that are then used to produce such products (e. g., leather or cotton).

       All of the steps in producing such consumer items, from crop planting or animal raising to the
processing into end products, present the potential for air pollution problems.  For each of these
activities, pollutant emission factors are presented where data are available. The primary pollutants
emitted by these processes are total organic compounds and participate.
1/95                           Food and Agricultural Industries                           9.0-1

    -------
9.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
9.1 Tilling Operations



                                      [Work In Progress]
 1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.2  Growing Operations




9.2.1  Fertilizer Application




9.2.2  Pesticide Application




9.2.3  Orchard Heaters
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                            9.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.2.1 Fertilizer Application



                                       [Work In Progress]
 1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.2.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.2.2  Pesticide Application

9.2.2.1  General1'2

        Pesticides are substances or mixtures used to control plant and animal life for the purposes of
increasing and improving agricultural production, protecting public health from pest-borne disease and
discomfort,  reducing property damage caused by pests, and improving the aesthetic quality of outdoor
or indoor surroundings.  Pesticides are used widely in agriculture, by homeowners, by industry, and
by government agencies.  The largest usage of chemicals with pesticidal activity, by weight of "active
ingredient"  (AI), is hi agriculture. Agricultural pesticides  are used for cost-effective control of
weeds, insects, mites, fungi, nematodes, and other  threats  to the yield, quality, or safety of food.
The annual  U. S. usage of pesticide AIs (i. e., insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) is over
800 million pounds.

        Au:  emissions from pesticide use arise because of the volatile nature of many AIs, solvents,
and  other additives used in formulations, and  of the dusty nature of some formulations.  Most modern
pesticides are organic compounds. Emissions can result directly during application or as the AI or
solvent volatilizes over time from soil and vegetation. This discussion will focus on emission factors
for volatilization.  There are insufficient data  available on paniculate emissions to permit emission
factor  development.

9.2.2.2  Process Description3"6

Application Methods -
        Pesticide application methods vary according to the target pest and to the crop or other value
to be protected.  In some cases, the pesticide is applied directly to the pest, and in others to the host
plant.  In still others, it is used on the soil or  in an enclosed air space.  Pesticide manufacturers have
developed various formulations of AIs to meet both the pest control needs and the preferred
application methods (or available equipment) of users. The types of formulations are dry, liquid, and
aerosol.

        Dry formulations can be dusts, granules, wettable and soluble powders, water dispersible
granules, or baits.  Dusts contain small particles and are subject to wind drift.  Dusts also may
present an efficacy problem if they do not remain on the target plant surfaces.  Granular formulations
are larger, from about 100 to 2,500 micrometers Gnn),  and are usually intended for soil application.
Wettable powders and water-dispersible granules both form suspensions when mixed with water
before application.  Baits, which are about the same size as granules, contain the AI mixed with a
food source for the target pest (e. g.,  bran or  sawdust).

        Liquid formulations may be solutions, emulsions (emulsifiable concentrates), aerosols, or
fumigants.  In a liquid solution, the AI is solubilized hi either water or organic solvent.  True
solutions are formed when miscible liquids or soluble powders are dissolved in either water or
organic liquids.  Emulsifiable concentrates are made up of the AI, an organic solvent, and an
emulsifier, which permits the pesticide to be mixed with water hi the field.  A flowable formulation
contains an AI that  is not amenable to the formation of a solution.  Therefore, the AI is mixed with a
liquid petroleum base and emulsifiers to make a creamy or powdery suspension that can be readily
field-mixed  with water.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.2.2-1

    -------
        Aerosols, which are liquids with an AI in solution with a solvent and a propellant, are used
for fog or mist applications.  The ranges of optimum droplet size, by target, are 10 to 50 /tin for
flying insects, 30 to 50 /tm for foliage insects, 40 to 100 pan for foliage, and 250 to 500 pm for soil
with drift avoidance.

        Herbicides  are usually applied as granules to the surface of the soil or are incorporated into
the soil for field crops, but are applied directly to plant foliage to control brush  and noxious weeds.
Dusts or fine aerosols are often used for insecticides but not for herbicides.  Fumigant use is limited
to confined spaces.  Some  fumigants are soil-injected, and then sealed below the soil surface with a
plastic sheeting cover to minimize vapor loss.

        Several types of pesticide application equipment are used, including liquid pumps (manual and
power operated), liquid atomizers (hydraulic energy, gaseous energy, and centrifugal energy),  dry
application, and soil application (liquid injection application).

9.2.2.3 Emissions And Controls1'7'14

        Organic compounds and particulate matter are the principal air emissions from pesticide
application.  The active ingredients of most types of synthetic pesticides used in agriculture have some
degree of volatility.  Most are considered to be essentially nonvolatile or semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC) for analytical purposes, but a few are volatile (e. g., fumigants). Many widely
used pesticide formulations are liquids and emulsifiable concentrates, which contain volatile organic
solvents (e. g., xylene),  emulsifiers, diluents, and other organics.  In this discussion, all organics
other than the AI that are liquid under ambient conditions, are considered to have the potential to
volatilize from the formulation.  Particulate matter emissions with adsorbed active ingredients  can
occur during application of dusts used as pesticide carriers, or from subsequent wind erosion.
Emissions also may contain pesticide degradation products, which may or may not  be volatile.  Most
pesticides, however, are sufficiently long lived to allow some volatilization before degradation occurs.

        Processes affecting emissions through volatilization of agricultural pesticides applied to soils
or plants have been studied in numerous laboratory and field research investigations.  The 3 major
parameters that influence the rate  of volatilization are the nature of the AI, the meteorological
conditions, and soil adsorption.

        Of these 3 major parameters, the nature of the AI probably has the greatest effect. The
nature of the AI encompasses physical properties, such as vapor pressure, Henry's  law constant, and
water solubility; and chemical properties, including soil particle adsorption and hydrolysis or other
degradative mechanisms. At a given temperature, every AI has a characteristic Henry's law constant
and vapor pressure.  The evaporation rate of an AI is determined in large part by its vapor pressure,
and the vapor pressure increases with temperature and decreases with adsorption of the AI to soil.
The extent of volatilization depends  hi part on air and soil temperature.  Temperature has a different
effect on each component relative to its vapor pressure.  An increase in temperature can increase or
decrease volatilization because of  its influence on other factors such as diffusion of the AI toward or
away from the soil  surface, and movement of the water in the soil.   Usually, an increase in
temperature enhances volatilization because the vapor pressure of the AI  increases.  Wind conditions
also can affect the rate of AI volatilization.  Increased wind and turbulence decrease the stagnant
layers above a soil  surface and increase the mixing of air components near the surface, thus
increasing volatilization. The effects of the third major parameter,  soil adsorption, depend not only
on the chemical reactivity of the AI but to a great extent on the characteristics of the soil.  Increased
amounts of organic matter  or clay hi soils can increase adsorption and decrease the volatilization rate
of many AIs, particularly the more volatile AIs that are nonionic, weakly polar molecules.  The soil

9.2.2-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
moisture content can also influence the rate of vaporization of the weakly polar AIs.  When soil is
very dry, the volatility of the AI is lowered significantly, resulting in a decrease in emissions.  The
presence of water in the soil can accelerate the evaporation of pesticides because, as water evaporates
from the soil surface, the AI present in the soil will be transported to the surface, either in solution or
by codistillation or convection effects.  This action is called the "wick effect" because the soil acts as
a wick for movement of the AI.

        Many materials used as  inert ingredients in pesticide formulations are organic compounds that
are volatile liquids or gases at ambient conditions. All of these compounds are considered to be
volatile organic compounds (VOC).  During the application of the pesticides and for a subsequent
period of time, these organic compounds are volatilized into the atmosphere.  Most of the liquid inert
ingredients in agriculture pesticide formulations have higher vapor pressures than the AIs. However,
not all inert ingredients are VOCs.  Some liquid formulations  may contain water, and solid
formulations typically contain nonvolatile (solid) inert ingredients. Solid formulations contain small
quantities of liquid organic compounds in their matrix.  These compounds are often incorporated as
carriers, stabilizers, surfactants, or emulsifiers, and after field application are susceptible to
volatilization from the formulation.  The VOC inert ingredients are the major contributors to
emissions that occur within 30 days after application. It is assumed that  100 percent of these VOC
inert ingredients volatilize within that  time.

        Two important mechanisms  that increase emissions are diffusion  and volatilization from plant
surfaces.  Pesticides in the soil diffuse upward to the surface as the pesticide at the  soil surface
volatilizes.  A pesticide concentration  gradient is thus formed between the depleted  surface and the
more concentrated subsurface.  Temperature,  pesticide concentration, and soil composition influence
the rate of diffusion.  The rate of volatilization from plant surfaces depends on the manner in which
the pesticide covers the plant structure.  Higher volatilization losses can occur from plant surfaces
when the pesticide is present as  droplets on the surface. Volatilization slows when  the remaining
pesticide is either left in the regions of the plant structure less exposed to air circulation or is
adsorbed onto the plant material.

        Alternative techniques for pesticide application or usage are not widely used, and  those that
are used are often  intended to increase cost effectiveness.  These techniques include (1) use of
application equipment that increases the ratio  of amount of pesticide on target plants or soil to that
applied; (2) application using soil incorporation; (3) increased usage of water-soluble pesticides in
place of solvent-based pesticides; (4) reformulation of pesticides to reduce volatility; and (5) use of
integrated pest management (IPM) techniques to reduce the amount of pesticide needed.
Microencapsulation is another technique in which the active ingredient is contained  in various
materials that slowly degrade to allow for timed release of pesticides.

9.2.2.4 Emission  Factors1'15'21

        The variety in pesticide AIs, formulations, application methods, and field conditions, and the
limited data base on these aspects combine to preclude the development of single-value emission
factors. Modeling approaches have been, therefore, adopted to derive emission factors from readily
available data, and algorithms have been developed to calculate emissions for surface application and
soil incorporation from product-specific data, supplemented, as necessary, by default values.
Emission factors for pesticide AIs, derived through modeling approaches, are given in Table 9.2.2-4.
Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per  ton (Ib/ton). No
emission factors are estimated beyond  30 days because after that time degradation processes (e. g.,
hydrolysis or microbial degradation) and surface runoff can have major effects on the loss of AIs, and
volatilization after  that time may not be the primary loss mechanism.  The emission factors calculated

1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.2.2-3

    -------
using the model are rated "E" because the estimates are derived from mathematical equations using
physical properties of the AIs. Because the factors were developed from a very limited data base,
resulting emission estimates should be considered approximations.  As additional data become
available, the algorithm and emission factors will be revised, when appropriate, to incorporate the
new data.

        This modeling approach estimates emissions from volatilized organic material.  No emission
estimates were developed for paniculate because the available data were inadequate to establish
reliable emission factors.  The modeled emission factors also address only surface-applied and
soil-incorporated pesticides.  In aerial application, drift effects predominate over volatilization, and
insufficient data are currently available to develop emission factors for this application method.

        The model covers the 2 key types of volatilization emissions, (1) those of active (pesticidal)
ingredients, and (2) those VOC constituents of the inert (nonpesticidal)  ingredients.  For some
formulations (e. g., liquids and emulsifiable concentrates), emissions of inert VOCs may be an order
of magnitude or more higher than those of the AIs, but for other formulations (e. g., granules) the
VOC emissions are either relatively less important or unimportant.  Thus, both parts of the model are
essential, and both depend on the fact that volatilization rates depend in large measure on the vapor
pressure of specific ingredients, whether AIs or inerts.  Use of the model, therefore, requires the
collection of certain information for each  pesticide application.

        Both the nature of the pesticide and the method by which it is applied must either be known
or estimated.  Pesticide formulations contain both an AI and inert ingredients, and the pesticide
volatilization algorithm is used to  estimate their emissions separately.  Ideally, the information
available for the algorithm calculation will match closely the actual conditions.  The following
information is necessary to use the algorithm.

        -  Total quantity of formulation  applied;

        -  Method by which the formulation was applied (the algorithm cannot be used for aerially
           applied pesticide formulations);

        -  Name of the specific AI(s) in  the formulation;

        -  Vapor pressure of the AI(s);

        -  Type of formulation (e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, granules, microcapsules, powder);

        -  Percentage of inert ingredients; and

        -  Quantity or percentage of VOC in the inerts.

9.2.2.5  UseOf The Algorithm1'18'20

        The algorithm for estimating volatilization emissions is  applied in a 6-step procedure, as
follows:

        1.  Determine both  the application method and the quantity of pesticide product applied.
        2.  Determine the type of formulation used.
        3.  Determine the specific AI(s) in the formulation and  its vapor pressure(s).
        4.  Determine the percentage of the AI  (or each  AI) present.

9.2.2-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
        5.  Determine the VOC content of the formulation.
        6.  Perform calculations of emissions.

        Information for these steps can be found as follows:

        -   Item 1 — The quantity can be found either directly from the weight purchased or used for
           a given application or, alternately, by multiplying the application rate (e. g., kg/acre)
           times the number of units (acres) treated. The algorithm cannot be used for aerial
           application.

        -   Items 2, 3, and 4 — This information is presented on the labels of all pesticide containers.
           Alternatively, it can be obtained from either the manufacturer, end-use formulator, or
           local distributor.  Table 9.2.2-1 provides vapor pressure data for selected AIs. If the
           trade name of the pesticide and the type of formulation are known, the specific AI hi the
           formulation can be obtained from  Reference 2 or similar sources.  Table 9.2.2-2 presents
           the specific AIs found hi several common trade name formulations.  Assistance hi
           determining the various formulations for specific AIs applied may be available from the
           National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department Of Agriculture, Washington,
           DC.

        -   Item 5 — The percent VOC content of the inert ingredient portion of the formulation can
           be requested from either the manufacturer or end-use formulator.  Alternatively,  the
           estimated average VOC content of the inert portions of several common  types of
           formulations is given in Table 9.2.2-3.

        -   Item 6 — Emissions estimates are calculated separately for the AI using  Table 9.2.2-4,
           and for the VOC inert ingredients as described below and illustrated in the example
           calculation.

Emissions Of Active Ingredients -
        First, the total quantity of AI applied to the crop is calculated by multiplying the percent
content of the AI hi the formulation by the total quantity of applied formulation. Second, the vapor
pressure of the specific AI(s) at 20 to 25°C is determined from Table 9.2.2-1, Reference 20, or other
sources. Third, the vapor pressure range that corresponds to the vapor pressure of the specific AI is
found hi Table 9.2.2-4. Then the emission factor for the AI(s) is calculated.  Finally, the total
quantity of applied AI(s) is multiplied by the emission factor(s) to determine the total quantity of AI
emissions within 30 days after application. Table 9.2.2-4 is  not applicable to emissions from
ramigant usage, because these gaseous or liquid products are highly volatile and would be rapidly
discharged to the atmosphere.

Emissions Of VOC Inert Ingredients -
        The total  quantity of emissions because of VOCs hi the inert ingredient portion of the
formulation  can be obtained by using the percent of the inert portion contained hi the formulated
product, the percent of the VOCs contained hi the inert portion, and the total quantity  of formulation
applied to the crop.  First, multiply the percentage of inerts hi the formulation by the total quantity of
applied formulation to obtain the total quantity of inert ingredients  applied. Second, multiply the
percentage of VOCs hi the inert portion by the total quantity of inert ingredient applied to obtain the
total quantity of VOC inert ingredients. If the VOC content  is not known, use a default value from
Table 9.2.2-3 appropriate to the formulation.  Emissions of VOC inert ingredients are assumed to be
100 percent  by 30 days after application.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.2.2-5

    -------
Total Emissions -
       Add the total quantity of VOC inert ingredients volatilized to the total quantity of emissions
from the AI.  The sum of these quantities represents the total emissions from the application of the
pesticide formulation within 30 days after application.

Example Calculation -
       3,629 kg, or 8,000 Ib, of Spectracide® have been surface applied to cropland, and an estimate
is desired of the total  quantity of emissions within 30 days after application.

       1.  The active ingredient hi Spectracide* is diazinon (Reference 2, or Table 9.2.2-2).  The
           pesticide container states that the formulation is an emulsifiable concentrate containing
           58 percent active ingredient and 42 percent inert ingredient.

       2.  Total quantity of AI applied:

           0.58 *  3,629 kg = 2,105 kg (4,640 Ib) of diazinon applied

                           = 2.105 Mg

           2.105 Mg *  1.1 ton/Mg = 2.32 tons of diazinon applied

       From Table 9.2.2-1, the vapor pressure of diazmon is 6 x 10"5 millimeters (mm) mercury at
about 25°C.  From Table 9.2.2-4, the emission factor for AIs with vapor pressures between 1 x 10"6
and 1 x 10"4 during a 30-day interval after application is 350 kg/Mg (700 Ib/ton) applied.  This
corresponds to a total quantity of diazmon volatilized of 737 kg (1,624 Ib) over the 30-day interval.

       3.  From the pesticide container label, it is determined that the inert ingredient content of the
           formulation is 42 percent and, from Table 9.2.2.3, it can be determined that the average
           VOC content of the inert portion of emulsifiable concentrates is 56 percent.

           Total quantity of emissions from inert ingredients:

           0.42 *  3,629 kg * 0.56 = 854 kg (1,882 Ib) of VOC inert ingredients

           One hundred percent of the VOC inert ingredients is assumed to volatilize within 30 days.

       4.  The total quantity of emissions during this 30-day interval is the sum of the emissions
           from inert ingredients and from the AI.  In this example, the emissions are 854 kg
           (1,882  Ib) of VOC plus 737 kg (1,624 Ib) of AI, or 1,591 kg (3,506 Ib).
9.2.2-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
         Table 9.2.2-1. VAPOR PRESSURES OF SELECTED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS11
                Active Ingredient
                                Vapor Pressure
                            (mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)
  1,3-Dichloropropene
  2,4-D acid
  Acephate
  Alachlor
  Aldicarb
  Aldoxycarb
  Amitraz
  Amitrole (aminotriazole)
  Atrazine
  Azinphos-methyl
  Benefin (benfluralin)
  Benomyl
  Bifenox
  Bromacil acid
  Bromoxynil butyrate ester
  Butylate
  Captan
  Carbaryl
  Carbofuran
  Chlorobenzilate
  Chloroneb
  Chloropicrin
  Chlorothalonil
  Chlorpyrifos
  Clomazone (dimethazone)
  Cyanazine
  Cyromazine
  DCNA (dicloran)
  DCPA (chlorthal-dimethyl; Dacthal*)
  Diazinon
  Dichlobenil
  Dicofol
  Dicrotofos
  Dunethoate
  Dinocap
                                 29
                                  8.0 x 10-6
                                  1.7 x 10-6
                                  1.4x 10'5
                                  3.0 x 10'5
                                  9 x lO'5
                                  2.6 x 10-6
                                  4.4 x 1(T7
                                  2.9 x 10'7
                                  2.0 x 10'7
                                  6.6 x 10'5
                               <  l.OxlO'10
                                  2.4 x ID"6
                                  3.1 x 10'7
                                  l.OxlO-4
                                  1.3 x 10'2
                                  8.0 x 10'8
                                  1.2 x 10-6
                                  6.0 x 10-7
                                  6.8 x 10-6
                                  3.0 x 10'3
                                 18
                                  1.0 x 10'3 (estimated)
                                  1.7 x 10'5
                                  1.4 x 10-4
                                  1.6 x 10'9
                                  3.4 x lO'9
                                  1.3 x 10-6
                                  2.5 x 10-6
                                  6.0 x 10-5
                                  l.OxlO'3
                                  4.0 x 10'7
                                  1.6x 10^
                                  2.5 x 10'5
                                  4.0 x lO'8
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-7

    -------
                                     Table 9.2.2-1 (cont.).
               Active Ingredient
                           Vapor Pressure
                       (mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)
 Disulfoton
 Diuron
 Endosulfan
 EPTC
 Ethalfluralin
 Ethion
 Ethoprop (ethoprophos)
 Fenamiphos
 Fenthion
 Fluometuron
 Fonofos
 Isofenphos
 Lindane
 Linuron
 Malathion
 Methamidophos
 Methazole
 Methiocarb (mercaptodimethur)
 Methomyl
 Methyl parathion
 Metolachlor
 Metribuzin
 Mevinphos
 Molinate
 Naled
 Norflurazon
 Oxamyl
 Oxyfluorfen
 Parathion (ethyl parathion)
 PCNB
 Pendimethalin
 Permetiirin
 Phorate
 Phosmet
 Profenofos
                              1.5 x
                              6.9 x 10'8
                              1.7 x 1(T7
                              3.4 x 10'2
                              8.8 x 10'5
                              2.4 x KT6
                              3.8 x 10-4
                              l.Ox 1Q-6
                              2.8 x 10-6
                              9.4 x 10'7
                              3.4 x 10-4
                              3.0 x 10-6
                              3.3 x 10-5
                              1.7 x 10'5
                              8.0 x 10-6
                              8.0 x 10^
                              l.Ox UT6
                              1.2 x 10-4
                              5.0 x lO'5
                              l.SxlQ-5
                              3.1 x 10'5
                           <  l.Ox lO'5
                              1.3 x 10"4
                              5.6 x 10-3
                              2.0 x 10-4
                              2.0 x 1Q-8
                              2.3 x 10-4
                              2.0 x 10'7
                              5.0 x 10-6
                              1.1 x 1Q-4
                              9.4 x 1Q-6
                              1.3 x 10-8
                              6.4 x 10-4
                              4.9 x 10'7
                              9.0 x 10-7
9.2.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                   Table 9.2.2-1 (cont.).
Active Ingredient
Prometon
Prometryn
Propachlor
Propanil
Propargite
Propazine
Propoxur
Siduron
Simazine
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Terbufos
Thiobencarb
Thiodicarb
Toxaphene
Triallate
Tribufos
Trichlorfon
Trifluralin
Triforine
Vapor Pressure
(mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)
7.7 x 10-6
1.2 x KT6
2.3 x ID"4
4.0 x 10'5
3.0 x lO'3
1.3 x 10'7
9.7 x 1QT6
4.0 x 1(T9
2.2 x 10'8
2.0 x 10-6
3.1 x 10'7
3.2 x 1Q-4
2.2 x 1C'5
1.0 x 10'7
4.0 x 10-6
1.1 x 10-4
1.6x 10-6
2.0 x 10"6
1.1 x 10-4
2.0 x 10'7
  Reference 20.  Vapor pressures of other pesticide active ingredients can also be found there.
          Table 9.2.2-2. TRADE NAMES FOR SELECTED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS*
Trade Namesb
Insecticides
AC 8911
Acephate-met
Alkron*
Aileron*
Aphamite*
Bay 17147
Bay 19639
Bay 70143
Active Ingredient0

Phorate
Methamidophos
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Azinphos-methyl
Disulfoton
Carbofuran
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-9

    -------
                                  Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Bay 71628
Benzoepin
Beosit®
Brodan®
BugMaster®
BW-21-Z
Carbamine*
Carfene®
Cekubaryl®
Cekudifol®
Cekuthoate®
CGA-15324
Chlorpyrifos 99%
Chlorthiepin®
Comite*
Corothion®
Crisulfan®
Crunch*
Curacron
Curaterr*
Cyclodan®
Cygon 400*
D1221
Daphene®
Dazzel®
Denapon*
Devicarb*
Devigon®
Devisulphan*
Devithion®
Diagran®
Dianon®
Diaterr-Fos®
Diazajet®
Diazatol*
Diazide®
Dicarbam®
Active Ingredient0
Methamidophos
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Chlorpyrifos
Carbaryl
Permethryn
Carbaryl
Azinphos-methyl
Carbaryl
Dicofol
Dimethoate
Profenofos
Chlorpyrifos
Endosulfan
Propargite
Ethyl Parathion
Endosulfan
Carbaryl
Profenofos
Carbofuran
Endosulfan
Dunethoate
Carbofuran
Dimethoate
Diazinon
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Dimethoate
Endosulfan
Methyl Parathion
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Diazinon
Carbaryl
9.2.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
                Trade Namesb
                             Active Ingredient0
        Dicomite®
        Dimethogen®
        Dimet*
        Dizinon®
        DPX 1410
        Dyzol®
        E-605
        Ectiban®
        Endocide®
        Endosol®
        ENT 27226
        ENT27164
        Eradex®
        Ethoprop
        Ethoprophos
        Ethylthiodemeton
        Etilon®
        Fezudin
        FMC-5462
        FMC-33297
        Fonofos
        Force®
        Fosfamid
        Furacarb®
        G-24480
        Gardentox®
        Gearphos®
        Golden Leaf Tobacco Spray*
        Hexavin®
        Hoe 2671
        Indothrin*
        Insectophene*
        Insyst-D®
        Karbaspray®
        Kayazinon*
        Kayazol®
        Kryocide®
                     Dicofol
                     Dimethoate
                     Dimethoate
                     Diazinon
                     Oxamyl
                     Diazinon
                     Ethyl Parathion
                     Permethryn
                     Endosulfan
                     Endosulfan
                     Propargite
                     Carbofuran
                     Chlorpyrifos
                     Ethoprop
                     Ethoprop
                     Disulfoton
                     Ethyl Parathion
                     Diazinon
                     Endosulfan
                     Permethryn
                     Dyfonate
                     Tefluthrin
                     Dimethoate
                     Carbofuran
                     Diazinon
                     Diazinon
                     Methyl Parathion
                     Endosulfan
                     Carbaryl
                     Endosulfan
                     Permethryn
                     Endosulfan
                     Disulfoton
                     Carbaryl
                     Diazinon
                     Diazinon
                     Cryolite
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-11

    -------
                                 Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Lannate® LV
Larvin®
Metafos
Metaphos*
Methomex*
Methyl
Metiltriazotion
Nipsan*
Niran®
Nivral®
NRDC 143
Ortho 124120
Orthophos®
Panthion®
Paramar®
Paraphos*
Parathene®
Parathion
Parathion
Parawet*
Partron M®
Penncap-M*
PhoskU*
Piridane®
Polycron®
PP557
Pramex®
ProkU®
PT265®
Qamlin*
Rampart®
Rhodiatox®
S276
SD 8530
Septene®
Sevin 5 Pellets®
Soprathion®
Active Ingredient0
Methomyl
Thiodicarb
Methyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Methomyl
Methyl Parathion
Azinphos-methyl
Diazinon
Ethyl Parathion
Thiodicarb
Permethryn
Acephate
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Chlorpyrifos
Profenofos
Permethryn
Permethryn
Cryolite
Diazinon
Permethryn
Phorate
Ethyl Parathion
Disulfoton
Trimethacarb
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Ethyl Parathion
9.2.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                        Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Spectracide*
SRA 5172
Stathion*
Tekwaisa®
Temik®
Tercyl*
Thimul*
Thiodan
Thiofor*
Thiophos
Tricarnam*
Trimetion*
UC 51762
UC 27867
Uniroyal D014
Yaltox®
None listed
None listed
Herbicides
A-4D
AC 92553
Acclaim
Acme MCPA Amine 4»
Aljaden®
Amiben®
Amilon®-WP
Amine*
Aqua-Kleen*
Arrhenal®
Arsinyl®
Assure*
Avadex® BW
Banlene Plus®
Banvel*
Barrage*
Basagran
Bay 30130
Active Ingredient0
Diazinon
Methamidophos
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Aldicarb
Carbaryl
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Ethyl Parathion
Carbaryl
Dimethoate
Thiodicarb
Trimethacarb
Propargite
Carbofuran
Dicrotophos
Terbufos

2,4-D
Pendimethalin
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
MCPA
Sethoxydim
Chloramben
Chloramben
MCPA
2,4-D
DSMA
DSMA
Quizalofop-ethyl
Triallate
MCPA
Dicamba
2,4-D
Bentazon
Propanil
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-13

    -------
                                 Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Bay DIG 1468
Bay 94337
Benefex*
Benfluralin
Bentazon
Bethrodine
BH* MCPA
Bioxone*
Blazer*
Bolero*
Border-Master*
Brominex*
C-2059
Cekuiron*
Cekuquat*
Cekusima*
CGA-24705
Checkmate*
Chloroxone*
Classic*
Clomazone
Command*
CP50144
Crisuron*
Croprider*
Dacthal*
Dailon®
Depon*
Dextrone*
Di-Tac*
Dialer*
DMA
DMA-100*
DPA
DPX-Y6202
EL-110
EL-161
Active Ingredient0
Metribuzin
Metribuzin
Benefin
Benefin
Bentazon
Benefin
MCPA
Methazole
Aciflurofen
Thiobencarb
MCPA
Bromoxynil
Fluometuron
Diuron
Paraquat
Simazine
Metolachlor
Sethoxydim
2,4-D
Chlorimuron-ethyl
Clomazone
Clomazone
Alachlor
Diuron
2,4-D
DCPA
Diuron
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Paraquat
DSMA
Diuron
DSMA
DSMA
Propanil
Quizalofop-ethyl
Benefin
Ethalfluralin
9.2.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                    Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
                Trade Namesb
                             Active Ingredient0
        Emulsamine*
        Esgram*
        Excel*
        EXP-3864
        Expand*
        Far-Go*
        Fannco Diuron*
        Farmco Atrazine Gesaprim*
        Fervinal*
        Ferxone*
        Furore*
        Fusilade 2000
        G-30027
        G-34161
        G-34162
        Gamit*
        Genate Plus*
        Glyphosate Isopropylamine Salt
        Goldquat* 276
        Grasidim*
        HerbAll*
        Herbaxon*
        Herbixol*
        Higalcoton*
        Hoe 002810
        Hoe-023408
        Hoe-Grass*
        Hoelon*
        Illoxan*
        Kilsem*
        Lasso*
        Lazo*
        Legumex Extra*
        Lexone® 4L
        Lexone* DF*
        Linorox*
        LS 801213
                     2,4-D
                     Paraquat
                     Fenoxaprop-ethyl
                     Quizalofop-ethyl
                     Sethoxydim
                     Triallate
                     Diuron
                     Atrazine
                     Sethoxydim
                     2,4-D
                     Fenoxaprop-ethyl
                     Fluazifop-p-butyl
                     Atrazine
                     Prometryn
                     Ametryn
                     Clomazone
                     Butylate
                     Glyphosate
                     Paraquat
                     Sethoxydim
                     MSMA
                     Paraquat
                     Diuron
                     Fluometuron
                     Linuron
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     Diclofop-methyl
                     MCPA
                     Alachlor
                     Alachlor
                     MCPA
                     Metribuzin
                     Metribuzin
                    Linuron
                    Aciflurofen
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-15

    -------
                                 Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
M.T.F.*
Magister*
Mephanac*
Merge 823*
Methar*30
Mezopur*
Monosodium methane arsenate
Nabu*
Option*
Oxydiazol
Paxilon®
Pillarquat*
Pillarxone®
Pillarzo®
Pilot*
Plantgard®
Pledge*
PP005
Primatol Q®
Probe
Prop-Job*
Propachlor
Prowl*
Rattler*
RH-6201
Rodeo*
Roundup*
S 10145
Sarclex*
Saturno*
Saturn*
Scepter*
SD 15418
Sencor* 4
Sencor* DF
Shamrox*
Sodar*
Active Ingredient0
Trifluralin
Clomazone
MCPA
MSMA
DSMA
Methazole
MSMA
Sethoxydim
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Methazole
Methazole
Paraquat
Paraquat
Alachlor
Quizalofop-ethyl
2,4-D
Bentazon
Fluazifop-p-butyl
Prometryn
Methazole
Propanil
Propachlor
Pendimethalin
Glyphosate
Aciflurofen
Glyphosate
Glyphosate
Propanil
Linuron
Thiobencarb
Thiobencarb
Imazaquin
Cyanazine
Metribuzin
Metribuzin
MCPA
DSMA
9.2.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                       Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
Trade Namesb
Sonalan*
Squadron*
Squadron*
Strel*
Surpass*
Targa®
Target MSMA*
Telok*
Tigrex*
Total*
Toxer®
Trans-Vert*
Tri-4*
Tri-Scept*
Tributon®
Trifluralina 600*
Trinatox D*
Tritex-Extra®
Tunic®
Unidron®
VCS 438
Vegiben®
Vernam 10G
Vernam 7E
Vonduron®
Weed-Rhap*
Weed-B-Gon*
Weedatul*
Weedtrine-n®
Whip®
WL 19805
Zeaphos®
Zelan*
None listed
None listed
None listed
None listed
Active Ingredient0
Ethalfluralin
Imazaquin
Pendimethalin
Propanil
Vernolate
Quizalofop-ethyl
MSMA
Norflurazon
Diuron
Paraquat
Paraquat
MSMA
Trifluralin
Imazaquin
2,4-D
Trifluralin
Ametryn
Sethoxydim
Methazole
Diuron
Methazole
Chloramben
Vernolate
Vernolate
Diuron
MCPA
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Cyanazine
Atrazine
MCPA
EPTC
Fomesafen
Molinate
Tridiphane
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-17

    -------
                                  Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
               Trade Namesb
                       Active Ingredient0
 Other Active Ingredients
       A7 Vapam*
       Aquacide®
       Avicol®
       Carbarn (MAP)
       Clortocaf Ramato®
       Clortosip®
       Cotton Aide HC®
       De-Green*
       DBF®
       Deiquat
       Dextrone®
       E-Z-Off D®
       Earthcide®
       Exothenn Termil*
       Folex®
       Folosan®
       Fos-Fall A®
       Karbation®
       Kobutol*
       Kobu®
       Kypman® 80
       M-Diphar*
       Mancozin*
       Maneba®
       Manebe
       Manzate® 200
       Manzeb
       Manzin®
       Maposol*
       Metam for the Acid
       Moncide®
       Montar*
       Nemispor®
       Pentagen®
       Quintozene
       Rad-E-Cate® 25
               Metam Sodium
               Diquat
               PCNB
               Metam Sodium
               Chlorothalonil
               Chlorothalonil
               Cacodylic
               Tribufos
               Tribufos
               Diquat
               Diquat
               Tribufos
               PCNB
               Chlorothalonil
               Tribufos
               PCNB
               Tribufos
               Metam Sodium
               PCNB
               PCNB
               Maneb
               Maneb
               Mancozeb
               Maneb
               Maneb
               Mancozeb
               Mancozeb
               Mancozeb
               Metam Sodium
               Metam Sodium
               Cacodylic
               Cacodylic
               Mancozeb
               PCNB
               PCNB
               Cacodylic
9.2.2-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                   Table 9.2.2-2 (cont.).
               Trade Namesb
                            Active Ingredient0
       Region
       Riozeb*
       RTU» PCNB
       Sectagon® H
       SMDC
       Soil-Prep*
       Sopranebe*
       Superman* Maneb F
       Terrazan*
       Tersan 1991*
       TriPCNB*
       Tubothane*
       Weedtrine-D*
       Ziman-Dithane*
       None listed
       None listed
       None listed
                   Diquat
                   Mancozeb
                   PCNB
                   Metam Sodium
                   Metam Sodium
                   Metam Sodium
                   Maneb
                   Maneb
                   PCNB
                   Benomyl
                   PCNB
                   Maneb
                   Diquat
                   Mancozeb
                   Dimethipin
                   Ethephon
                   Thiadiazuron
a Reference 2.  See Reference 22 for selected pesticides used on major field crops.
b Reference 2.
c Common names. See Reference 2 for chemical names.
       Table 9.2.2-3. AVERAGE VOC CONTENT OF PESTICIDE INERT INGREDIENT
                          PORTION, BY FORMULATION TYPEa
              Formulation Type
                   Average VOC Content Of Inert Position
                                 (wt. %)
 Oils
 Solution/liquid (ready to use)
 Emulsifiable concentrate
 Aqueous concentrate
 Gel, paste, cream
 Pressurized gas
 Flowable (aqueous) concentrate
 Microencapsulated
 Pressurized liquid/sprays/foggers
 Soluble powder
 Impregnated material
                                   66
                                   20
                                   56
                                   21
                                   40
                                   29
                                   21
                                   23
                                   39
                                   12
                                   38
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.2-19

    -------
                                   Table 9.2.2-3 (cont.).
               Formulation Type
              Average VOC Content Of Inert Position
                             (wt. %)
 Pellet/tablet/cake/briquette
 Wettable powder
 Dust/powder
 Dry flowable
 Granule/flake
 Suspension
 Paint/coatings
                               27
                               25
                               21
                               28
                               25
                               15
                               64
a Reference 21.
                         Table 9.2.2-4 (Metric And English Units).
     UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS4

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Vapor Pressure Range
(mm Hg at 20 to 25°C)b
Surface application
(SCC 24-61-800-001)
1 x 10-4 to 1 x NT6
> 1 x HT4
Soil incorporation
(SCC 24-61-800-002)
< 1 x 10T6
1 x KT4 to 1 x 10-6
> 1 x KT4
Emission Factor0
kg/Mg
350
580
2.7
21
52
Ib/ton
700
1,160
5.4
42
104
a Factors are functions of application method and vapor pressure.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b See Reference 20 for vapor pressures of specific active ingredients.
c References 1,15-18. Expressed as equivalent weight of active ingredients volatilized/unit weight of
  active ingredients applied.
References For Section 9.2.2
 1.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 9.2.2, Pesticide Application, EPA
       Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1994.

 2.     Farm Chemicals Handbook -1992, Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby,  OH, 1992.
9.2.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 4.     L. E. Bode, et al., eds., Pesticide Formulations And Applications Systems, Volume 10,
       American Society For Testing And Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA, 1990.

 5.     T. S. Colvin and J. H. Turner, Applying Pesticides, 3rd Edition, American Association Of
       Vocational Materials, Athens, Georgia,  1988.

 6.     G. A. Matthews, Pesticide Application Methods, Longham Groups Limited, New York, 1979.

 7.     D. J. Arnold, "Fate Of Pesticides In Soil: Predictive And Practical Aspects", Environmental
       Fate Of Pesticides, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.

 8.     A. W. White, et al.,  "Trifluralin Losses From A Soybean Field", Journal Of Environmental
       Quality, 5(1): 105-110, 1977.

 9.     D. E. Glotfelty, "Pathways Of Pesticide Dispersion In The Environment", Agricultural
       Chemicals Of The Future, Rowman And Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, 1985.

10.     J. W. Hamaker, "Diffusion And Volatilization", Organic  Chemicals In The Soil Environment,
       Dekker, New York, 1972.

11.     R. Mayer, et al., "Models For Predicting Volatilization Of Soil-incorporated Pesticides",
       Proceedings Of The American Soil Scientists, 38:563-568, 1974.

12.     G. S. Hartley, "Evaporation Of Pesticides",  Pesticidal Formulations Research Advances In
       Chemistry, Series 86, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1969.

13.     A. W. Taylor, et al., "Volatilization Of Dieldrin And Heptachlor From A Maize Field",
       Journal Of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 24(3):625-631, 1976.

14.     A. W. Taylor, "Post-application Volatilization Of Pesticides Under Field Conditions", Journal
       Of Air Pollution Control Association, 2S(9):922-927, 1978.

15.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Use Of Models For Assessing Relative Volatility, Mobility, And
       Persistence Of Pesticides And Other Trace Organics In Soil Systems", Hazard Assessment Of
       Chemicals:   Current Developments, 2:1-43, 1983.

16.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: I. Model
       Description", Journal Of Environmental Quality, 72(4):558-564, 1983.

17.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: n. Chemical
       Classification And Parameter Sensitivity", Journal Of Environmental Quality, J3(4):567-572,
       1984.

18.     W. A. Jury, et al., "Behavior Assessment Model For Trace Organics In Soil: HI. Application
       Of Screening Model", Journal Of Environmental Quality,  J3(4):573-579, 1984.

19.     Alternative Control Technology Document: Control Of VOC Emissions From The Application
       Of Agricultural Pesticides, EPA-453/R-92-011, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, March  1993.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.2.2-21

    -------
20.    R. D. Wauchope, et al., "The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database For
       Environmental Decision-making", Reviews Of Environmental Contamination And Toxicology,
       Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.

21.    Written communication from California Environmental Protection Agency, Department Of
       Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA, to D. Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 6, 1993.

22.    Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1991 Field Crops Summary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
       Washington, DC, March 1992.
9.2.2-22                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
9.2.3  Orchard Heaters

9.2.3.1  General1"6

        Orchard heaters are commonly used in various areas of the United States to prevent frost
damage to fruit and fruit trees.  The 5 common types of orchard heaters—pipeline, lazy flame, return
stack,  cone, and solid fuel—are shown in Figure 9.2.3-1. The pipeline heater system is operated
from a central control and fuel is distributed by a piping system from a centrally located tank.  Lazy
flame, return stack, and cone heaters contain integral fuel reservoirs, but can be converted to a
pipeline system.  Solid fuel heaters usually consist only of solid briquettes, which are placed on the
ground and ignited.

        The ambient temperature at which orchard heaters are required is determined primarily by the
type of fruit and stage of maturity, by the daytime temperatures, and by tiie moisture content of the
soil and air.

        During a heavy thermal inversion, both convective and radiant heating methods are useful hi
preventing frost damage; there is little difference in the effectiveness of the various heaters. The
temperature response for a given fuel rate is about the same for each type of heater as long as the
heater is clean and does not leak.  When there is little or no thermal inversion, radiant heat provided
by pipeline, return stack, or cone heaters  is the most effective method for preventing damage.

        Proper  location of the heaters is essential to the uniformity of the radiant heat distributed
among the trees.  Heaters are usually located in the center space between 4 trees  and are staggered
from 1 row to the next.  Extra heaters are used on the borders of the orchard.

9.2.3  Emissions1'6

        Emissions from orchard heaters are dependent on the fuel usage rate and  the type of heater.
Pipeline heaters have the lowest particulate emission rates of all orchard heaters.  Hydrocarbon
emissions are negligible in the pipeline heaters and hi lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters that
have been converted to a pipeline system.  Nearly all of the hydrocarbon losses are evaporative losses
from fuel contained hi the heater reservoir. Because of the low burning  temperatures used, nitrogen
oxide emissions are negligible.

        Emission factors for the different  types of orchard heaters  are presented hi Table 9.2.3-1 and
Figure 9.2.3-2.  Factors are expressed hi  units of kilograms per heater-hour (kg/htr-hr) and pounds
per heater-hour (Ib/htr-hr).
4/73 (Reformatted 1/95)              Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.2.3-1

    -------
   PIPELINE HEATER
LAZY FLAME
                                                               RETURN STACK
                                               SOLID FUEL
                 CONE STACK
                        Figure 9.2.3-1. Types of orchard heaters.6
9.2.3-2
   EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/73

    -------
                                                                                                       **?.
                                                                                                       «*T
                                                                                             a:

                                                                                             UJ
                                                                                                        B
                                                                                                        1)



                                                                                                       1

                                                                                                       •S
                                                                                                        t-l
                                                                                                        o


                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        03
                                                                                                        c
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        I

                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                       ts

                                                 'SNOISSIW3
4/73 (Refonnatted 1/95)
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.2.3-3

    -------
  Table 9.2.3-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORCHARD HEATERSa

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulate
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-br
Sulfur oxides0
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Carbon monoxide
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
VOCse
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Nitrogen oxidesf
kg/htr-hr
Ib/htr-hr
Type Of Heater
Pipeline
_b
_b
0.06Sd
0.13S

2.8
6.2

Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Lazy Flame
_b
_b
0.05S
0.1 IS

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Return Stack
_b
_b
0.06S
0.14S

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Cone
_b
__b
0.06S
0.14S

ND
ND

7.3
16.0
Neg
Neg
Solid Fuel
0.023
0.05
ND
ND

ND
ND

Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
a References 1,3-4, and 6. ND = no data.  Neg = negligible.
b Particulate emissions for pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters are shown in
  Figure 9.2.3-2.
c Based on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3.
d S = sulfur content.
e Reference 1. Evaporative losses only. Hydrocarbon emissions from combustion are considered
  negligible.  Evaporative hydrocarbon losses for units that are part of a pipeline system are
  negligible.
f Little nitrogen oxides are formed because of the relatively low combustion temperatures.
References For Section 9.2.3

1.     Air Pollution In Ventura County, County Of Ventura Health Department, Santa Paula, CA,
       June 1966.

2.     Frost Protection In Citrus, Agricultural Extension Service, University Of California, Ventura,
       CA, November 1967.

3.     Personal communication with Mr. Wesley Snowden, Valentine, Fisher, And Tomlinson,
       Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA, May 1971.

4.     Communication with the Smith Energy Company, Los Angeles, CA, January  1968.

5.     Communication with Agricultural Extension Service, University Of California, Ventura, CA,
       October 1969.

6.     Personal communication with Mr. Ted Wakai, Air Pollution Control District, County Of
       Ventura, Ojai, CA, May 1972.
9.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/73

    -------
9.3 Harvesting Operations




9.3.1  Cotton Harvesting




9.3.2  Grain Harvesting




9.3.3  Rice Harvesting




9.3.4  Cane Sugar Harvesting
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                            9.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.3.1  Cotton Harvesting

9.3.1.1  General

        Wherever it is grown in the U. S., cotton is defoliated or desiccated prior to harvest.
Defoliants are used on the taller varieties of cotton that are machine picked for lint and seed cotton,
and desiccants usually are used on short, stormproof cotton varieties of lower yield that are harvested
by  mechanical stripper equipment.  More than 99 percent of the national  cotton area is harvested
mechanically. The 2 principal harvest methods are machine picking, with 70 percent of the harvest
from 61 percent of the area, and machine stripping, with 29 percent of the harvest from 39 percent of
the area.  Picking is practiced throughout the cotton regions of the U. S., and stripping is limited
chiefly to the dry plains of Texas and Oklahoma.

        Defoliation may be defined as the process by which leaves are abscised from the plant. The
process may be initiated by drought stress, low temperatures, or disease, or it may be chemically
induced by topically applied defoliant agents or by overfertilization.  The process helps lodged plants
to return to an erect position, removes the leaves that can clog the spindles of the picking machine
and stain the fiber, accelerates the opening of mature bolls, and reduces boll rots.  Desiccation by
chemicals is the drying or rapid killing of the leaf blades and petioles, with the leaves remaining in a
withered state on the plant.  Harvest-aid chemicals are applied to cotton as water-based spray, either
by  aircraft or by a ground machine.

        Mechanical cotton pickers, as the name implies, pick locks of seed cotton from open cotton
bolls and leave the empty burs and unopened bolls on the plant.  Requiring only 1 operator, typical
modern pickers are self-propelled and can simultaneously harvest 2 rows  of cotton at  a speed of 1.1 to
1.6 meters per second (m/s) (2.5 - 3.6 miles per hour [mph]). When the picker basket gets filled
with seed cotton, the machine is driven to a cotton trailer at the edge of the field.  As the basket is
hydraulically raised and tilted, the top swings open allowing the cotton to fall into the trailer.  When
the trailer is full, it is pulled from the field, usually by  pickup truck, and taken to a cotton gin.

        Mechanical cotton strippers remove open and unopened bolls, along with burs, leaves, and
stems from cotton plants,  leaving only bare branches. Tractor-mounted,  tractor-pulled, or
self-propelled strippers require only 1 operator.  They harvest from 1 to 4 rows of cotton at speeds of
1.8 to 2.7 m/s (4.0 - 6.0 mph).  After the cotton is stripped, it enters a conveying system that carries
it from the stripping unit to an elevator.  Most conveyers utilize either augers or a series of rotating
spike-toothed cylinders to move the cotton, accomplishing some cleaning by moving the cotton over
perforated, slotted, or wire mesh screen.  Dry plant material (burs, stems, and leaves) is crushed and
dropped through openings to the ground. Blown air is  sometimes used to assist cleaning.

9.3.1.2  Emissions And Controls

        Emission factors for the drifting of major chemicals  applied to cotton were compiled from
literature and reported in Reference 1.  In addition, drift losses from arsenic acid spraying were
developed by field testing. Two off-target collection stations, with 6 air samplers each, were located
downwind from the ground spraying operations. The measured concentration was applied to an
infinite line source atmosphere diffusion model  (in reverse) to calculate the drift emission  rate.  This
was in turn used for the final emission factor calculation. The emissions  occur from July  to October,
preceding by 2 weeks the  period of harvest in each cotton producing  region.  The drift emission


7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)              Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.3.1-1

    -------
factor for arsenic acid is 8 times lower than previously estimated, since Reference 1 used a ground rig
rather than an airplane, and because of the low volatility of arsenic acid.  Various methods of
controlling drop size, proper timing of application, and modification of equipment are practices that
can reduce drift hazards.  Fluid additives have been used that increase the viscosity of the spray
formulation, and thus decrease the number of fine droplets (< 100 micrometers |>m]).  Spray nozzle
design and orientation also control the droplet size spectrum.  Drift emission factors for the
defoliation or desiccation of cotton are listed in Table 9.3.1-1.  Factors are expressed in units of
grams per kilogram (g/kg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).
      Table 9.3.1-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR DEFOLIATION
                               OR DESICCATION OF COTTON*

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Pollutant
Sodium chlorate
DBF*0
Arsenic acid
Paraquat
Emission Factor1*
g/kg
10.0
10.0
6.1
10.0
Ib/ton
20.0
20.0
12.2
20.0
a Reference 1.
b Factor is hi terms of quantity of drift per quantity applied.
c Pesticide trade name.
       Three unit operations are involved hi mechanical harvesting of cotton:  harvesting, trailer
loading (basket dumping), and transport of trailers in the field. Emissions from these operations are
in the form of solid participates. Particulate emissions (<7 /tm mean aerodynamic diameter) from
these operations were developed hi Reference 2.  The particulates are composed mainly of raw cotton
dust and solid  dust, which contains free silica.  Minor emissions include small quantities of pesticide,
defoliant, and desiccant residues that are present in the emitted particulates.  Dust concentrations from
harvesting were measured by following each harvesting machine through the field at a constant
distance directly downwind from the machine while staying in the visible plume centerline. The
procedure for trailer loading was the same, but since the trailer is stationary while being loaded, it
was necessary  only to stand a fixed distance directly downwind from the trailer while the plume or
puff passed over.  Readings were taken upwind of all field activity to get background concentrations.
Particulate emission factors for the principal types of cotton harvesting operations hi the U. S. are
shown in Table 9.3.1-2.  The factors are based on average machine speed of 1.34 m/s (3.0 mph) for
pickers, and 2.25 m/s (5.03 mph) for strippers, on a basket capacity of 109 kg (240 Ib), on a trailer
capacity of 6 baskets, on a lint cotton yield of 63.0 megagrams per square kilometer (Mg/km2)
(1.17 bales/acre) for pickers and 41.2 Mg/km2 (0.77 bale/acre) for strippers, and on a transport speed
of 4.47 m/s  (10.0 mph).  Factors are expressed hi units of kg/km2 and pounds per square mile
(lb/mi2).  Analysis of particulate samples showed average free silica content of 7.9 percent for
mechanical cotton picking and 2.3 percent for mechanical cotton stripping.  Estimated maximum
percentages for pesticides, defoliants, and desiccants from harvesting are also noted hi Table 9.3.1-2.
No  current cotton harvesting  equipment or practices provide for control of emissions.  In fact,
9.3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

    -------
        Table 9.3.1-2 (Metric And English Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS*
                         FOR COTTON HARVESTING OPERATIONS

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Type of Harvester
Kckerb
Two-row, with basket
Stripper0
Two-row, pulled trailer
Two-row, with basket
Four-row, with basket
Weighted average11
Harvesting
kg/km2

0.46

7.4
2.3
2.3
4.3
lb/mi2

2.6

42
13
13
24
Trailer Loading
kg/km2

0.070

NA
0.092
0.092
0.056
fo/mr2

0.40

NA
0.52
0.52
0.32
Transport
kg/km2

0.43

0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
to/mi2

2.5

1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Total
kg/km2

0.96

7.7
2.7
2.7
4.6
lb/mi2

5.4

44
15
15
26
a Emission factors are from Reference 2 for paniculate of < 7 jim mean aerodynamic diameter.
  NA = not applicable.
b Free silica content is 7.9% maximum content of pesticides and defoliants is 0.02%.
c Free silica content is 2.3%; maximum content of pesticides and desiccants  is 0.2%.
d The weighted average stripping factors are based on estimates  that 2% of all strippers are 4-row
  models with baskets and, of the remainder, 40% are 2-row models pulling trailers and 60% are
  2-row models with mounted baskets.
equipment design and operating practices tend to maximize emissions.  Preharvest treatment
(defoliation and desiccation) and harvest practices are limed to minimize moisture and trash content,
so they also tend to maximize emissions. Soil dust emissions from field transport can be reduced by
lowering vehicle speed.

References For Section 9.3.1

1.     J. A. Peters and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Defoliation Of Cotton—State Of The
       Art, EPA-600/2-77-107g, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       July 1977.

2.     J. W. Snyder and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Mechanical Harvesting Of Cotton-
       State Of The Art, EPA-600/2-77-107d, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, July 1977.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.3.1-3

    -------

    -------
93.2  Grain Harvesting

9.3.2.1  General1

        Harvesting of grain refers to the activities performed to obtain the cereal kernels of the plant
for grain, or the entire plant for forage and/or silage uses.  These activities are accomplished by
machines that cut, thresh, screen, clean, bind, pick, and shell the crops in the field. Harvesting  also
includes loading harvested crops  into trucks and transporting crops in the grain field.

        Crops harvested for their cereal kernels are cut as close as possible to the inflorescence (the
flowering portion containing the kernels). This portion is threshed, screened, and cleaned to separate
the kernels. The grain  is stored in the harvest machine while the remainder of the plant is discharged
back onto the  field.

        Combines perform all of the above activities in 1 operation.  Binder machines only cut the
grain plants and tie them into bundles, or leave them in a row in the field  (called a windrow). The
bundles are allowed to dry for threshing later by a combine with a pickup  attachment.

        Corn harvesting requires  the only exception to the above procedures.  Corn is harvested by
mechanical pickers, picker/shellers, and combines with corn head attachments. These machines cut
and husk the ears from  the standing stalk. The sheller unit also removes the kernels from the ear.
After husking, a binder is sometimes used to bundle entire plants into piles (called shocks) to dry.

        For forage and/or silage,  mowers, crushers, windrowers, field choppers, binders, and similar
cutting machines are used to harvest grasses, stalks, and cereal kernels.  These machines cut the
plants as close to the  ground as possible and leave them hi a windrow.  The plants are later picked up
and tied by a baler.

        Harvested crops are loaded onto trucks hi the field.  Grain kernels are loaded through a spout
from the combine, and forage and silage bales are manually or mechanically placed hi the trucks.
The harvested crop is then transported from the field to a storage facility.

9.3.2.2 Emissions And Controls1

        Emissions are generated by 3 grain harvesting operations: (1) crop handling by the harvest
machine, (2) loading of the harvested crop into trucks, and  (3) transport by trucks hi the field.
Paniculate matter, composed of soil  dust and plant tissue fragments  (chaff), may be entrained by
wind.  Paniculate emissions from these operations (<7 micrometers [pan]  mean aerodynamic
diameter) were developed in Reference 1.   For this study, collection stations with ah- samplers were
located downwind (leeward) from the harvesting operations, and dust concentrations were measured at
the visible plume centerline and at a constant distance behind the combines. For product loading,
since the trailer is stationary while being loaded, it was necessary only to take measurements a fixed
distance downwind from the trailer while the plume or puff passed over. The concentration measured
for harvesting and loading was applied to a point source atmospheric diffusion model to calculate the
source emission rate.  For field transport, the air samplers were again placed a fixed distance
downwind from the path of the truck, but this time the concentration measured was applied to a line
source diffusion model.  Readings taken upwind of all field activity gave background concentrations.
Paniculate emission factors for wheat and sorghum harvesting operations are shown hi Table 9.3.2-1.


2/80 (Reformatted 1/93)              Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.3.2-1

    -------
         Table 9.3.2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION RATES/FACTORS FROM
                                   GRAIN HARVESTING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D


Operation
Harvest machine
Truck loading
Field transport
Emission Rateb
Wheat
mg/s 1 Ib/hr
3.4 0.027
1.8 0.014
47.0 0.37
Sorghum
mg/s
23.0
1.8
47.0
Ib/hr
0.18
0.014
0.37
Emission Factor0
Wheat
g/km2
170.0
12.0
110.0
lb/mi2
0.96
0.07
0.65
Sorghum
g/km2
1110.0
22.0
200.0
lb/mi2
6.5
0.13
1.2
a Reference 1.
b Assumptions from References 1 are an average combine speed of 3.36 meters per second, combine
  swath width of 6.07 meters, and a field transport speed of 4.48 meters per second.
0 In addition to footnote b, assumptions are a truck loading time of 6 minutes, a truck capacity of
  0.052 km2 for wheat and 0.029 km2 for sorghum,  and a filled truck travel time of 125 seconds per
  load.
Emission rates are expressed in units of milligrams per second (mg/s) and pounds per hour (Ib/hr);
factors are expressed in units of grams per square kilometer (g/km2) and pounds per square mile
(lb/mi2).

       There are no control techniques specifically implemented for the reduction of air pollution
emissions from grain harvesting.  However, several practices and occurrences do affect emission rates
and concentration.  The use of terraces, contouring, and stripcropping to inhibit soil erosion will
suppress the entrainment of harvested crop fragments in the wind.  Shelterbelts, positioned
perpendicular to the prevailing wind, will lower emissions by reducing the wind velocity across the
field.  By minimizing tillage and avoiding residue burning, the soil will remain consolidated and less
prone to disturbance from transport activities.

Reference For Section 9.3.2

1.     R. A. Wachten and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Harvesting Of Grain—State Of The
       An, EPA-600/2-79-107f, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH, July 1977.
9.3.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Refoimatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
9.3.3 Rice Harvesting




                                       [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.3.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.3.4 Cane Sugar Harvesting



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.3.4-1

    -------

    -------
9.4 Livestock And Poultry Feed Operations




9.4.1  Cattle Feedlots




9.4.2  Swine Feedlots




9.4.3  Poultry Houses




9.4.4  Dairy Farms
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.4-1

    -------

    -------
9.4.1  Cattle Feedlots




                                       [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.4.2 Swine Feedlots




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.4.3 Poultry Houses




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.4.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.4.4 Dairy Farms



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.4.4-1

    -------

    -------
9.5  Animal And Meat Products Preparation




9.5.1  Meat Packing Plants




9.5.2  Meat Smokehouses




9.5.3  Meat Rendering Plants




9.5.4  Manure Processing




9.5.5  Poultry Slaughtering
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.5-1

    -------

    -------
9.5.1 Meat Packing Plants



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.5.2  Meat Smokehouses




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.5.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.5.3 Meat Rendering Plants




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.5.4 Manure Processing



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                          Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.4-1

    -------

    -------
9.5.5 Poultry Slaughtering




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.5.5-1

    -------

    -------
9.6 Dairy Products




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.6-1

    -------

    -------
9.6.1 Natural And Processed Cheese



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.6.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.7 Cotton Ginning




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                            9.7-1

    -------

    -------
9.8  Preserved Fruits And Vegetables




9.8.1 Canned Fruits And Vegetables




9.8.2 Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables




9.8.3 Pickles, Sauces And Salad Dressings
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.8-1

    -------

    -------
9.8.1  Canned Fruits And Vegetables



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.8.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.8.2 Dehydrated Fruits And Vegetables




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.8.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.8.3 Pickles, Sauces And Salad Dressings



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.8.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.9 Grain Processing



9.9.1  Grain Elevators And Processes




9.9.2  Cereal Breakfast Food




9.9.3  Pet Food




9.9.4  Alfalfa Dehydration




9.9.5  Pasta Manufacturing




9.9.6  Bread Baking



9.9.7  Corn Wet Milling
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                           9.9-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.1 Grain Elevators And Processes




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.1-1

    -------

    -------

    -------

    -------
9.9.2 Cereal Breakfast Food



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.3 Pet Food
                                     [Work In Progress]
 1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.4 Alfalfa Dehydration




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.9.4-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.5 Pasta Manufacturing



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.9.5-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.6 Bread Baking




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.9.6-1

    -------

    -------
9.9.7  Corn Wet Milling

9.9.7.1  General1

        Establishments in corn wet milling are engaged primarily in producing starch, syrup, oil,
sugar, and byproducts such as gluten feed and meal, from wet milling of corn and sorghum. These
facilities may  also produce starch from other vegetables and grains, such as potatoes and wheat.  In
1994, 27 corn wet milling facilities were reported to be operating in the United States.

9.9.7.2  Process Description1"4

        The corn wet milling industry has grown in its 150 years of existence into the most diversified
and integrated of the grain processing industries.  The com refining industry produces hundreds of
products and byproducts, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn syrup, starches, animal feed,
oil, and alcohol.

        In the com wet milling process, the corn kernel (see Figure 9.9.7-1) is separated into
3 principal parts:  (1) the outer skin, called the bran or hull; (2) the germ,  containing most of the oil;
and (3) the endosperm (gluten and starch). From an average bushel of corn weighing 25 kilograms
(kg) (56 pounds [lb]), approximately 14 kg (32 Ib) of starch is produced, about 6.6 kg (14.5 Ib) of
feed and feed  products, about 0.9 kg (2 lb) of oil, and the remainder is  water.  The overall corn wet
milling process  consists of numerous steps or stages, as shown schematically in Figure 9.9.7-2.

        Shelled  corn is delivered to the wet milling plant primarily by rail and truck and is unloaded
into a receiving pit. The corn is then elevated  to temporary storage bins and scale hoppers for
weighing and  sampling.  The corn then passes through mechanical cleaners designed to remove
unwanted material, such as pieces of cobs, sticks, and husks, as well as meal and stones.  The
cleaners agitate  the kernels over a series of perforated metal sheets through which the smaller foreign
materials drop.  A blast of air blows away chaff and dust, and electromagnets remove bits of metal.
Coming out of storage bins,  the corn is given a second cleaning before going into "steep" tanks.

        Steeping, the first step in the process, conditions the grain for subsequent milling and
recovery of corn constituents.  Steeping softens the kernel for milling, helps break down the protein
holding the starch particles, and removes certain  soluble constituents.  Steeping takes place in a series
of tanks, usually referred to as steeps, which are operated in continuous-batch process.  Steep tanks
may hold from 70.5 to 458 cubic meters (m3) (2,000 to 13,000 bushels [bu]) of corn, which is then
submerged in  a  current of dilute sulfurous  acid solution at a temperature of about 52°C (125°F).
Total steeping time ranges from 28 to 48 hours.  Each tank in the series holds corn that has been
steeping for a different length of time.

        Corn that has steeped for the desired length of time is discharged from its tank for further
processing, and the tank is filled with fresh corn.  New steeping liquid is added, along with recycled
water from other mill operations, to the tank with the "oldest" corn (in  steep time).  The liquid is
then passed through a series  of tanks, moving each time to the tank holding the next "oldest" batch of
corn until the  liquid reaches the newest batch of corn.

        Water drained from the newest corn steep is discharged to evaporators as so-called "light
steepwater" containing about 6 percent of the original dry weight of grain.  By dry-weight, the solids


1/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                           9.9.7-1

    -------
                      ENDOSPERM
                          1
                          *
                     RAW STARCH

CORN SYRUP-s
Mixed Table
Syrups
Candles
Confectionery
IceCream
Shoe Polishes








CORN SUGAR
Infant Feeding
Diabetic Diet
Caramel Coloring







I )
EDIBLE STARCH
Com Starch
Jeifes
Candles

DEXTRIN
Mucilage
Glue
Textile Sizing
Food Sauces
Fireworks
                                                                        GERM
                                                                          I
         OIL CAKE
         (OR MEAL)
         Cattle Feed
CRUDE CORN OIL
                                                   HULL





L-+ SOAP
GLYCERIN
SOLUBLE
PLASTIC CORN OIL
RESIN Textile Sizing
Rubber Ctoth Coloring
Substitutes
Erasers
Elastic
Heels REFINED CORN O
             Tanning Mixtures
             Brewing
             Artificial Silk
                                                  BRAN
                                                   Cattle
                                                   Feed
                             INDUSTRIAL STARCH                          Salad Oils
                              Laundry Starch                                 Cooking Oils
                              Textile Sizing Manufacture                          Medicinal Oils
                              Filler in Paper
                              Cosmetics
                              Explosives

                               Figure 9.9.7-1.  Various uses of corn.

in the steepwater contain 35 to 45 percent protein and are worth recovering as feed supplements.  The
steepwater is concentrated to 30 to 55  percent solids in multiple-effect evaporators.  The resulting
steeping liquor, or heavy steepwater, is usually added to the fibrous milling residue, which is sold as
animal feed.  Some steepwater may also be sold for use as a nutrient in fermentation processes.

        The steeped corn passes through degerminating mills, which tear the kernel apart to free both
the germ and about half of the starch and gluten.  The resultant pulpy material is pumped through
liquid cyclones to extract the germ from the mixture of fiber, starch, and gluten.  The germ is
subsequently washed, dewatered, and dried; the oil extracted; and the spent germ sold as corn oil
meal or as part of corn gluten feed.  More details on  corn oil production are contained in
Section 9.11.1,  "Vegetable Oil Processing".

        The product slurry passes through a series of washing, grinding, and screening operations to
separate the starch and gluten from the fibrous material.  The hulls are discharged to the feed house,
where they are dried for use in animal feeds.

        At this point, the main product stream  contains starch, gluten, and  soluble organic materials.
The lower density gluten is separated from the starch by centrifugation, generally in 2 stages. A
high-quality gluten, of 60 to 70 percent protein and 1.0 to 1.5 percent solids, is then centrifuged,
dewatered, and dried for adding to animal feed.  The centrifuge underflow  containing the starch is
passed to starch washing filters to remove any  residual gluten and solubles.

        The pure starch slurry is now directed  into 1  of 3 basic finishing operations, namely,  ordinary
dry starch, modified starches, and corn syrup and sugar.  In the production of ordinary dry starch,
the starch slurry is dewatered  with vacuum filters or basket centrifuges.  The discharged starch cake
has a moisture content of 35 to 42 percent and  is further dewatered thermally in 1 of several types of
dryers.  The dry starch is then packaged or shipped in bulk, or a portion may be kept for use in
making dextrin.
9.9.7-2
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
                          1/95

    -------
             PM
             A
                                     PM
                                                                             PM
                                                                              A
STORAGE


CLEANING
(SCC 3-02-007-53)


TEMPORARY
STORAGE


RECEIVING
(SCC3-02-007-S1)
 PM-<-
       (SCC 3-02-007-53)
                      TEEPWATER


                         LIGHT STEEPWATER
                                                  HEAVY
                                                STEEPWATER
                                                                                          GLUTEN
                                                                                        FEED DRYING
      (SCC 3-02-007-61)
                                             (SCC 3-02-007-62)
                                                                                                 (SCC 3-02-007-63, -64)
                                                           CORN STEEP
                                                             LIQUOR
                                                                                                  CORN GLUTEN FEED
       DEGERMINATING
      (SCC 3-02-007-65)
                                                                                      CORN OIL
                                                                                        MEAL
                                                                                             CRUDE
                                                                                              OIL
                                                                                        TO CORN OIL
                                                                                          REFINING
                                                                                        OPERATIONS
                                                                               (SCC 3-02-019-16)
               (STARCH, GLUTEN, AND FIBROUS MATERIAL
       (SCC 3-02-007-66)
                               (SCC 3-02-007-67)
              (STARCH, GLUTEN, AND SOLUBLE ORGANIC MATERIAL)
                                                                            CORN GLUTEN MEAL
                                                      (SCC 3-02-007-68, -69)
                                          FINISHING OPERATIONS
                        HCI OR__
                       ENZYME I  , ,
                                             CHEMICALS-,

                                                       *
                                                                                   UNMODIFIED
                                                                                     STARCH
                                                                                     DRYING
                                                                                (SCC 3*2-014-12,-13)
                                                               MODIFIED STARCH
                                                                   DRYING
                                                              (SCC 3-02-014-10.-11)
                                                                                    UNMODIFIED
                                                                                   CORN STARCH
                                                                                     STORAGE
                                                                                  (SCC 3-02-014-07)
                 CORN SYRUP.
                HIGH FRUCTOSE
                 CORN SYRUP
                                          (SCC 3-02-007-70)
                                                    (SCC 3-02-014-07)
ENZYMES
ETHANOL
                                                DEXTROSE
                        Figure 9.9.7-2.  Corn wet milling process flow diagram.1"4
                                (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
                           Food And Agricultural Industry
                                                                                                       9.9.7-3

    -------
        Modified starches are manufactured for various food and trade industries for which
unmodified starches are not suitable. For example, large quantities of modified starches go into the
manufacture of paper products as binding for the fiber.  Modifying is accomplished hi tanks that treat
the starch slurry with selected chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, to produce acid-modified starch;
sodium hypochlorite, to produce oxidized starch; and ethylene oxide, to produce hydroxyethyl
starches.  The treated starch is then washed, dried, and packaged for distribution.

        Across the corn wet milling industry, about 80 percent of starch slurry goes to corn syrup,
sugar, and alcohol production.  The relative amounts of starch slurry used for corn syrup, sugar, and
alcohol production vary widely among plants.  Syrups and sugars are formed by hydrolyzing the
starch — partial hydrolysis resulting in corn syrup, and  complete hydrolysis producing corn sugar.
The hydrolysis step can be accomplished using mineral acids, enzymes,  or a combination of both.
The hydrolyzed product is then refined,  which is the decolorization with activated carbon and the
removal of inorganic salt impurities with ion exchange resins.  The refined syrup is concentrated to
the desired level in evaporators and is cooled for storage and shipping.

        Dextrose production is quite similar to corn syrup production, the major difference being that
the hydrolysis process is allowed to go to completion. The hydrolyzed liquor is refined with activated
carbon and ion exchange resins, to remove  color and inorganic salts, and the product stream  is
concentrated by evaporation to the 70 to 75 percent solids range.  After cooling, the liquor is
transferred to crystallizing vessels, where it is  seeded with sugar crystals from previous batches.  The
solution is held for several days while the contents are further  cooled and the dextrose crystallizes.
After about 60 percent of the dextrose solids crystallize, they are removed from the liquid by
centrifuges, are dried, and are packed for shipment.

        A smaller portion of the syrup refinery is devoted to the production of corn syrup solids. In
this operation, refined corn syrup is further concentrated by evaporation to  a high dry substance level.
The syrup is then solidified by rapid cooling and subsequently milled to form an amorphous
crystalline product.

        Ethanol is produced by the addition of enzymes  to the pure starch slurry to hydrolyze the
starch to fermentable sugars. Following hydrolysis, yeast is added to initiate the fermentation
process. After about 2 days, approximately 90 percent of the starch is converted to ethanol.  The
fermentation broth is transferred to a still where the ethanol (about 50 vol%) is distilled. Subsequent
distillation and treatment steps produce 95 percent,  absolute, or denatured ethanol.  More details  on
this ethanol production process, emissions,  and emission factors is contained in Section 6.21,
"Ethanol".

9.9.7.3 Emissions And Controls1"2'4"8

        The diversity of operations in corn  wet milling results  in numerous and varied potential
sources of air pollution.  It has been reported that the number of process emission points at a typical
plant is well over 100.  The main pollutant of concern in grain storage and handling operations in
corn wet milling facilities is paniculate  matter (PM).  Organic emissions (e. g., hexane) from certain
operations at corn oil extraction facilities may  also be significant.  These organic emissions (and
related emissions from soybean processing) are discussed in Section 9.11.1, "Vegetable Oil
Processing".  Other possible pollutants of concern are volatile  organic compounds (VOC) and
combustion products from grain drying, sulfur dioxide (SO2) from corn wet milling operations, and
organic materials from starch production. The focus here is primarily on PM sources for grain
handling operations. Sources of VOC and SO2 are identified,  although  no data are available to
quantify emissions.

9.9.7-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
        Emission sources associated with grain receiving, cleaning, and storage are similar in
character to those involved in all other grain elevator operations, and other PM sources are
comparable to those found in other grain processing plants as described in Section 9.9.1, "Grain
Elevators And Processes".  However, com wet milling operations differ from other processes in that
they are also sources of SO2 and VOC emissions, as described below.

        The corn wet milling process uses about  1.1 to 2.0 kg of SO2 per megagram (Mg) of corn
(0.06 to 0.11 Ib/bu). The SO2 is dissolved in process waters, but its pungent odor is present in the
slurries, necessitating the enclosing and venting of the process equipment.  Vents can be wet-scrubbed
with an alkaline solution to recover the SO2 before the exhaust gas is discharged to the atmosphere.
The most significant source of VOC emissions, and also a source of PM emissions, from corn wet
milling is the exhaust from the different drying processes. The starch modification procedures also
may be sources of acid mists and VOC emissions, but data are insufficient to characterize or to
quantify these emissions.

        Dryer exhausts exhibit problems with odor and blue haze (opacity).  Germ dryers  emit a
toasted smell that is not considered objectionable in most areas. Gluten dryer exhausts do not create
odor or visible emission problems if the drying temperature does not exceed 427°C (800°F).  Higher
temperatures promote hot smoldering areas in the drying equipment, creating a burnt odor and a blue-
brown haze. Feed drying, where steepwater is present, results in environmentally unacceptable odor
if the drying temperature exceeds 427°C  (800°F).  Blue haze formation is a concern when drying
temperatures are elevated.  These exhausts contain VOC with acrid odors, such as acetic acid and
acetaldehyde.  Rancid odors can  come from butyric  and valeric acids, and fruity smells emanate from
many of the aldehydes present.

        The objectionable odors indicative of VOC emissions from process dryers have been reduced
to commercially acceptable levels with ionizing wet-collectors, in which particles are charged
electrostatically with up to 30,000 volts.  An  alkaline wash is necessary before and after the ionizing
sections.  Another approach  to odor/VOC control is thermal  oxidation at approximately 750 °C
(1382°F) for 0.5 seconds,  followed by some form of heat recovery. This hot exhaust can be used as
the heat source for other dryers or for generating steam in a boiler specifically designed for this type
of operation. Incineration can be accomplished in conventional  boilers by routing the dryer exhaust
gases to the primary air intake.  The limitations of incineration are potential fouling of the boiler air
intake system with PM and derated boiler capacity because of low oxygen content.  These limitations
severely restrict this practice. At least 1  facility has attempted to use a regenerative system,  in which
dampers divert the gases across ceramic fill where exhaust heats the fumes to be incinerated.
Incinerator size can be reduced 20 to 40 percent when some of the dryer exhaust is fed back  into the
dryer furnace.  From 60 to 80 percent of the dryer exhaust may be recycled by chilling it  to  condense
the water before recycling.

        The PM emissions generated from grain receiving, handling, and processing operations at
corn wet milling  facilities can be controlled either by process modifications designed to prevent or
inhibit emissions or by application of capture collection systems.

        The fugitive emissions from grain handling operations generated by mechanical energy
imparted to the dust, both by the operations themselves and by local air currents in the vicinity of the
operations, can be controlled by modifying the process or facility to limit the generation of fugitive
dust.  The primary preventive measures used  by facilities are construction and sealing practices that
limit the effect of air currents, and minimizing grain free fall distances and grain velocities during
handling and transfer.  Some recommended construction and sealing practices that minimize emissions
are: (1) enclosing the receiving area to the extent practicable; (2) specifying dust-tight cleaning and

1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                          9.9.7-5

    -------
processing equipment; (3) using lip-type shaft seals at bearings on conveyor and other equipment
housings; (4) using flanged inlets and outlets on all spouting, transitions, and miscellaneous hoppers;
and (5) fully enclosing and sealing all areas in contact with products handled.

        While preventive measures can reduce emissions, most facilities also require ventilation or
capture/collection systems to reduce emissions to  acceptable levels.  Milling operations generally are
ventilated, and some facilities use hood systems on all handling and transfer operations. The control
devices typically used in conjunction with capture systems for grain handling and processing
operations are cyclones (or mechanical collectors) and fabric filters.  Both of these systems can
achieve acceptable levels of control for many grain handling and processing sources.  However, even
though cyclone collectors can achieve acceptable performance in some scenarios, and fabric filters are
highly efficient, both  devices are subject to failure if not properly operated and maintained.
Ventilation system malfunction, of course, can  lead to increased emissions at the source.

        Table 9.9.7-1 shows the filterable PM emission factors developed from the available data on
several source/control combinations.  Table 9.9.7-2 shows potential sources of VOC and SO2,
although no data are available to characterize these emissions.
 9.9.7-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
  Table 9.9.7-1 (Metric And English Unta). PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS
                     FOR CORN WET MILLING OPERATIONS*

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Emission Source
Grain receiving0 (trucks)
(SCC 3-02-007-51)
Grain handling0 (legs, belts, etc.)
(SCC 3-02-007-52)
Grain cleaningd
(SCC 3-02-007-53)
Grain cleaning*1
(SCC 3-02-007-53)
Starch storage bine
(SCC 3-02-014-07)
Starch bulk loadoutf
(SCC 3-02-014-08)
Gluten feed drying
Direct-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-63)
Indirect-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-64)
Starch drying
Flash dryers*
(SCC 3-02-014-10, -12)
Spray dryersk
(SCC 3-02-014-11, -13)
Gluten drying
Direct-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-68)
Indirect-fired rotary dryers8
(SCC 3-02-007-69)
Fiber drying
(SCC 3-02-007-67)
Germ drying
(SCC 3-02-007-66)
Dextrose drying
(SCC 3-02-007-70)
Degerminating mills
(SCC 3-02-007-65)
Milling
(SCC 3-02-007-56)
Type Of Control
Fabric filter
None
None
Cyclone
Fabric filter
Fabric filter


Product recovery
cyclone
Product recovery
cycloneh

Wet scrubber
Fabric filter

Product recovery
cyclone
Product recovery
cyclone
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
0.016
0.43
0.82
0.086
0.0007
0.00025


0.13
0.25

0.29
0.080

0.13
0.25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
0.033
0.87
1.6
0.17
0.0014
0.00049


0.27
0.49

0.59
0.16

0.27
0.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industry
9.9.7-7

    -------
                                    Table 9.9.7-1 (cont.).

a For grain transfer and handling operations, factors are for an aspirated collection system of 1 or
  more capture hoods ducted to a paniculate collection device. Because of natural removal processes,
  uncontrolled emissions may be overestimated.  ND = no data.  SCC =  Source Classification Code.
b Emission factors based on weight of PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of corn throughput
  unless noted.
c Assumed to be similar to country grain elevators (see Section 9.9.1).
d Assumed to be similar to country grain elevators (see Section 9.9.1). If 2 cleaning stages are used,
  emission factor should be doubled.
e Reference 9.
f Reference 9. Emission factor based on weight of PM per unit weight of starch loaded.
g Reference 10. Type of material dried not specified, but expected to be gluten meal or gluten feed.
  Emission factor based on weight of PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of gluten meal or gluten
  feed produced.
h Includes data for 4 (out of 9) dryers known to be vented through product recovery cyclones, and
  other systems are expected to have such cyclones.  Emission factor based on weight of PM,
  regardless of size, per unit weight of gluten meal or gluten  feed produced.
J  References  11-13.  EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  D.  Type of material dried is starch, but
  whether the starch is modified or unmodified is not known. Emission factor based on weight of
  PM, regardless of size, per unit weight of starch produced.
k Reference 14. Type of material dried is starch, but whether the starch is modified or unmodified is
  not known.  Emission factor based on weight of PM, regardless of size,  per unit weight of starch
  produced.
  Table 9.9.7-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CORN WET MILLING
                                        OPERATIONS
Emission Source
Steeping
(SCC 3-02-007-61)
Evaporators
(SCC 3-02-007-62)
Gluten feed drying
(SCC 3-02-007-63, -64)
Germ drying
(SCC 3-02-007-66)
Fiber drying
(SCC 3-02-007-67)
Gluten drying
(SCC 3-02-007-68, -69)
Starch drying
(SCC 3-02-014-10, -11,
-12, -13)
Dextrose drying
(SCC 3-02-007-70)
Oil expelling/extraction
(SCC 3-02-019-16)
Type Of
Control
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
VOC
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SO2
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
9.9.7-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
References For Section 9.9.7

 1.     Written communication from M. Kosse, Corn Refiners Association, Inc., Alexandria, VA, to
       D. Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 18,
       1994.

 2.     L. J. Shannon, et al., Emissions Control In The Grain And Feed Industry, Volume I:
       Engineering And Cost Study, EPA-450/3-73-003a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1973.

 3.     G. F. Spraque and J. W. Dudley, Corn And Corn Improvement, Third Edition, American
       Society Of Agronomy, Crop Science Society Of America, and Soil Science Society Of
       America, Madison, WI, 1988.

 4.     S. A. Watson and P. E. Ramstad, Corn Chemistry And Technology, American Association of
       Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 1987.

 5.     American Feed Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, Feed Technology,  1985.

 6.     D. Wallace, "Grain Handling And Processing", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van
       Nostrand Reinhold, NY,  1992.

 7.     H. D. Wardlaw, Jr., et al., Dust Suppression Results With Mineral Oil Applications For Corn
       And Milo, Transactions Of The American Society Of Agricultural Engineers, Saint Joseph,
       MS,  1989.

 8.     A. V. Myasnihora, et al., Handbook Of Food Products — Grain And Its Products, Israel
       Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel, 1969.

 9.     Starch Storage Bin And Loading System, Report No. 33402,  prepared by Beling Consultants,
       Moline, IL, November 1992.

10.    Source Category Survey:  Animal Feed Dryers, EPA-450/3-81-017, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December  1981.

11.    Starch Flash Dryer, Report No. 33405, prepared by Beling Consultants, Moline, IL,
       February 1993.

12.    No.  4 Starch Flash Dryer, Report No. 1-7231-1, prepared by The Almega  Corporation,
       Bensenville, IL, May 1993.

13.    No.  1 Starch Flash Dryer, Report No. 86-177-3, prepared by Burns & McDonnell, Kansas
       City, MO, August 1986.

14.    Starch Spray Dryer, Report No. 21511, prepared by Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc.,
       Bensenville, IL, August 1992.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.9.7-9

    -------

    -------
 9.10  Confectionery Products



 9.10.1  Sugar Processing




 9.10.2  Salted And Roasted Nuts and Seeds
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.10-1

    -------

    -------
9.10.1 Sugar Processing




9.10.1.1  Cane Sugar Processing




9.10.1.2  Beet Sugar Processing
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.10.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.10.1.1  Cane Sugar Processing

9.10.1.1.1 General1'3

        Sugar cane is burned in the field prior to harvesting to remove unwanted foliage as well as to
control rodents and insects.  Harvesting is done by hand or, where possible, by mechanical means.

        After harvesting, the cane goes through a series of processing steps for conversion to the final
sugar product.  It is first washed to remove dirt and trash, .then crushed and shredded to reduce the
size of the stalks.  The juice is next extracted by 1 of 2 methods, milling or diffusion. In milling, the
cane is pressed between heavy rollers to squeeze out the juice; in diffusion, the sugar is leached out
by water and thin juices. The raw sugar then goes through a series of operations including
clarification,  evaporation, and crystallization in order to produce the final product.  The fibrous
residue remaining  after sugar extraction is called bagasse.

        All mills fire some or all of their bagasse hi boilers to provide power necessary hi their
milling operation.  Some, having more bagasse than can be utilized internally, sell the remainder for
use hi the manufacture of various chemicals such as furfural.

9.10.1.1.2 Emissions2'3

        The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the openfield burning in the
harvesting of the crop, and the burning of bagasse as fuel.  In the various processes of crushing,
evaporation, and crystallization, relatively small quantities of particulates are emitted. Emission
factors for sugar cane field burning are shown hi Table 2.$-2. Emission factors for bagasse firing hi
boilers are included hi Section 1.8.

References For Section 9.10.1.1

1.      "Sugar Cane," In:  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Vol. IX, New York,
        John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

2.      E. F. Darley, "Air Pollution Emissions From Burning Sugar Cane And Pineapple From
        Hawaii", In:  Air Pollution From Forest And Agricultural Burning, Statewide Air Pollution
        Research Center, University of California, Riverside, California, Prepared for the U. S.
        Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, under Grant No.  R800711,
        August  1974.

3.      Background Information For Establishment Of National Standards Of Performance For New
        Sources, Raw Cane Sugar Industry, Environmental Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL,
        Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, under
        Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order 9c, July 15, 1971.
4/76 (Reformatted 1/95)              Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.10.1.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.10.1.2 Beet Sugar Processing




                                      [Work In Progress]
1195                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.10.1.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.10.2  Salted And Roasted Nuts And Seeds

        This industry encompasses a range of edible nuts and seeds processed primarily for human
consumption.  The salted and roasted nuts and seeds industry primarily includes establishments that
produce salted, roasted, dried, cooked, or canned nuts, or that process grains and seeds for snack use.
This industry does not encompass facilities that manufacture candy-coated nuts or those that
manufacture peanut butter.  The overall production of finished salted and roasted nuts and seeds has
two primary components.  Typically, nuts undergo post harvest processing such as hulling and
shelling, either by the farmer on the farm, or by contractor companies either on the farm or at
facilities near the farm, called crop preparation service facilities.  The shelled nuts or seeds are
shipped to food processing plants to produce the final product.

        Many of the post-harvest operations and processes are common to most of the nuts and seeds,
including field harvesting and loading, unloading, precleaning, drying, screening, and hulling.  Other
operations specific to individual nuts and seeds include sizing, grading, skinning, and oil or dry
roasting. The processing of harvested nuts and seeds can produce paniculate emissions primarily from
the unloading, precleaning, hulling or shelling, and screening operations.  In almond processing, all
of the operations,  except for unloading, are usually controlled to reduce the level of ambient
participate.  The emissions from the unloading operation are usually uncontrolled.

        In this document, the industry is divided into Section 9.10.2.1, "Almond Processing", and
Section 9.10.2.2, "Peanut Processing".  Sections on other nuts and seeds may be published in later
editions if sufficient data on the processes are available.
1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                         9.10.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.10.2.1  Almond Processing

9.10.2.1.1  General1'2

        Almonds are edible tree nuts, grown principally in California.  The nuts are harvested from
orchards and transported to almond processing facilities, where the almonds are hulled and shelled.
The function of an almond huller/sheller is to remove the hull and shell of the almond from the nut,
or meat.  Orchard debris, soil, and pebbles represent 10 to 25 percent of the field weight of material
brought to the almond processing facility.  Clean almond meats are obtained as about 20 percent of
the field weight. Processes for removing the debris  and almond hulls and shells are potential sources
of air emissions.

9.10.2.1.2  Process Description1'7

        After almonds are collected from the field, they undergo two processing phases, post-harvest
processing and finish processing. These phases are typically conducted at two different facilities.
There are two basic  types of almond post-harvest processing facilities:  those that produce hulled, in-
shell almonds as a final product (known as hullers),  and those that produce hulled, shelled, almond
meats as a final product (known as huller/shellers).   Almond precleaning, hulling, and separating
operations are common to both types of facilities.  The huller/sheller includes additional steps to
remove the almond meats from their shells.  A typical almond hulling operation is shown in
Figure 9.10.2.1-1.  A typical almond huller/sheller is depicted in Figure 9.10.2.1-2. The hulled,
shelled  almond meats are shipped to large production facilities where the almonds may undergo
further processing into various end products.  Almond harvesting, along with precleaning, hulling,
shelling, separating, and final processing operations, is discussed in more detail below.

        Almond harvesting and processing are a seasonal industry, typically beginning in August and
running from two to four months. .However, the beginning and duration of the season vary with the
weather and with the size of the crop. The almonds  are harvested either manually,  by knocking the
nuts from the tree limbs with a long pole, or mechanically, by shaking them from the tree.  Typically
the almonds remain on the ground for 7 to 10 days to dry.  The fallen  almonds are then swept into
rows.  Mechanical pickers gather the rows for transport to the almond huller or huller/sheller.  Some
portion of the material in the gathered rows includes orchard debris, such as leaves, grass,  twigs,
pebbles, and soil.  The fraction of debris is a function of farming practices (tilled versus unfilled),
field soil characteristics, and age of the orchard, and it can range from less than 5 to 60 percent of
the material collected.  On average, field weight yields 13 percent debris, 50 percent hulls, 14 percent
shells, and 23 percent clean almond meats and pieces, but these ratios can vary substantially from
farm to farm.

        The almonds are delivered to the processing  facility and are dumped into a receiving pit.  The
almonds are transported by screw conveyors  and bucket elevators to a series of vibrating screens.
The screens selectively remove orchard debris, including leaves, soil, and pebbles.  A destoner
removes stones, dirt clods, and other larger debris.   A detwigger removes twigs and small sticks.
The air streams from the various screens, destoners,  and detwiggers are ducted to cyclones or fabric
filters for paniculate matter removal.  The recovered soil and fine debris, such  as leaves and grass,
are disposed of by spreading on surrounding  farmland.  The recovered twigs may be chipped and
used as fuel for co-generation plants.  The precleaned almonds are transferred from the precleaner
area by another series of conveyors and elevators to  storage bins to await further processing. (In


1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.1-1

    -------
                                    CYCLONE OR
                                     BAGHOUSE
                               LEAVES, STICKS, STONES,
                                 DIRT, AND ORCHARD
                                       TRASH
        UNLOADING ALMONDS
         TO RECEIVING PIT
          (SCC 3-02-017-11)
                       PRECLEANING
                     ORCHARD DEBRIS
                      FROM ALMONDS
                      (SCC 3-02-017-12)
  DRYING
             = PM EMISSIONS
                                                             TEMPORARY
                                                              STORAGE
         IN-SHELL
           NUTS
   GRAVITY SEPARATOR/
    CLASSIFIER SCREEN
          DECK
     (SCC 3-02-017-15)
    RECYCLE
                 AIR LEG
             (SCC 3-02-017-16)
0 HULLERS
                               HULLS
                                 •
                                               HULL REMOVAL AND
                                                SEPARATION OF
                                               IN-SHELL ALMONDS
                                                (SCC 3-02-017-13)
                                                 HULLING
                                                 CYLINDER
       AND SCREENS
            MEATS
      GRAVITY SEPARATOR/
      CLASSIFIER SCREEN
             DECK
        (SCC 3-02-017-15)
                         AIR LEG
                      (SCC 3-02-017-16)
                                                               SCREEN
                                                                     FINE
                                                                    TRASH
CYCLONE OR
 BAGHOUSE
                                       HULLS
                                         •
      RECYCLE TO HULLERS
         AND SCREENS
                                                COLLECTION
           Figure 9.10.2.1-1. Representative almond hulling process flow diagram.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.10.2.1-2
                 EMISSION FACTORS
             1/95

    -------
                                CYCLONE OR
                                 BAGHOUSE
                           LEAVES, STICKS, STONES,
                             DIRT, AND ORCHARD
                                   TRASH
       UNLOADING
       ALMONDS TO
      RECEIVING PIT
     (SCC 3-02-017-11)
                           PRECLEANING
                          ORCHARD DEBRIS
                           FROM ALMONDS
                          (SCC 3-02-017-12)
>=PM EMISSIONS
1= POTENTIAL VOC EMISSION
  DRYING
                                                         TEMPORARY
                                                          STORAGE
                                       HULL
                                    ASPIRATION
                                                     SHEAR
                                                     ROLLS
         SCREENS
                                          HULLING/SHELLING
                                          (SCC 3-02-017-14)
                             SHEAR
                             ROLLS
 SCREENS
         SHELL
       ASPIRATION
                             SHELL
                           ASPIRATION
   HULL
ASPIRATION

AIR I

1
SHi
4
.EGS
ELLS
ft


t
GRAVITY SEPARATORS/
CLASSIFIER SCREEN
DECK (SCC 3-02-01 7-1 5)
i
RECV
'CLE TO
MEATS ROASTER
(SCC 3-02-01 7-1 7)

                                SHEAR ROLLS AND
                                    SCREENS
         Figure 9.10.2.1-2. Representative almond huller/sheller process flow diagram.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
                     Food And Agricultural Industry
              9.10.2.1-3

    -------
some instances, the precleaned almonds may be conveyed to a dryer before storage.  However, field
drying is used in most operations.)

       Almonds are conveyed on belt and bucket conveyors to a series of hulling cylinders or shear
rolls, which crack the almond hulls.  Hulling cylinders are typically used in almond huller facilities.
Series of shear rolls are generally used in huller/shellers. The hulling cylinders have no integral
provision for aspiration of shell pieces.  Shear rolls, on the other hand, do have integral aspiration to
remove shell fragments  from loose hulls and almond meats.  The cracked almonds are then
discharged to a series of vibrating screens or a gravity table, which separates hulls and unhulled
almonds from the in-shell almonds, almond meats, and fine trash.  The remaining unhulled almonds
pass through additional hulling cylinders or shear rolls  and screen separators.  The number of passes
and the combinations of equipment vary among facilities. The hulls are conveyed to storage and  sold
as an ingredient in the manufacture of cattle feed.  The fine trash is ducted to a cyclone or fabric
filter for collection  and disposal.

       In a hulling facility, the hulled, in-shell almonds are separated from  any remaining hull pieces
in a  series of air legs (counter-flow forced air gravity separators) and are then graded, collected, and
sold as finished product, along with an inevitable small percentage of almond meats. In
huller/shellers, the in-shell almonds continue through more  shear rolls and screen separators.

       As the in-shell almonds make additional passes through sets of shear rolls, the almond shells
are cracked or sheared away from the meat.  More sets of vibrating screens  separate the shells from
the meats and small shell pieces.  The separated shells are aspirated and collected in a fabric filter or
cyclone, and then conveyed to storage for sale as  fuel for co-generation plants. The almond meats
and small  shell pieces are conveyed on vibrating conveyor belts and bucket elevators to  air classifiers
or air legs that separate the small shell  pieces from the meats.  The number  of these air separators
varies among facilities.  The shell pieces removed by these  air classifiers are also collected and stored
for sale as fuel for co-generation plants. The revenues generated from the sale of hulls  and shells are
generally sufficient to offset the costs of operating the almond processing facility.

       The almond meats are then conveyed to a series of gravity tables or separators  (classifier
screen decks), which sort the meats by lights, middlings, goods, and heavies.  Lights, middlings, and
heavies, which still contain hulls and shells, are returned to various points in the process.  Goods are
conveyed to the finished meats box for storage.  Any remaining shell pieces are aspirated and sent to
shell storage.

       The almond meats are now ready either for sales as raw product or for further processing,
typically at a separate facility. The meats may be blanched, sliced, diced, roasted, salted, or smoked.
Small meat pieces  may be ground into  meal or pastes for bakery products.   Almonds are roasted  by
gradual heating in  a rotating drum.  They are heated slowly to prevent the skins and outer layers  from
burning.  Roasting time develops the flavor and affects the color of the meats.  To obtain almonds
with a light  brown color and a medium roast requires a 500-pound roaster fueled with natural gas
about 1.25 hours at 118°C (245°F).

9.10.2.1.3 Emissions And Controls1"3'5"9

       Paniculate matter (PM) is the primary air pollutant emitted from almond post-harvest
processing operations.  All operations in an almond processing facility involve dust generation from
the movement of trash,  hulls, shells, and meats.   The quantity of PM emissions varies  depending on
the type of facility, harvest method, trash content, climate,  production rate,  and the type and number
of controls used by the  facility.  Fugitive PM emissions are attributable primarily to unloading

9.10.2.M                           EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
operations, but some fugitive emissions are generated from precleaning operations and subsequent
screening operations.

       Because farm products collected during harvest typically contain some residual dirt, which
includes trace amounts of metals, it stands to reason that some amount of these metals will be emitted
from the various operations along with the dust. California Air Resources Board (CARB) data
indicate that metals emitted from almond processing include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper,
lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel in quantities on the order of 5 x 10"11 to 5 x 10"4 kilograms
(kg) of metal per kg of PM emissions (5 x 10"11 to 5 x 10"4 pounds [Ib]  of metal  per Ib of PM
emissions).  It has been suggested that sources of these metals other than the inherent trace metal
content of soil may include fertilizers, other agricultural sprays, and groundwater.

       In the final processing operations, almond roasting is a potential source of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions. However, no chemical characterization data are available to hypothesize
what compounds might be emitted, and no emission source test data are  available to quantify these
potential emissions.

       Emission control systems at almond post-harvest processing facilities include both ventilation
systems to capture the dust generated during handling and processing of almonds, shells, and hulls,
and an air pollution control device to collect the captured PM.  Cyclones formerly served as the
principal air pollution control devices for PM emissions from almond post harvest processing
operations.  However, fabric filters,  or a combination of fabric filters and cyclones, are becoming
common.  Practices of combining and controlling specific exhaust streams from various operations
vary considerably among facilities.  The exhaust stream from a single operation may be split and
ducted to  two or more control devices.  Conversely, exhaust streams from several operations may be
combined and ducted to a single control device.  According to one source within the almond
processing industry, out of approximately 350 almond hullers and huller/shellers, no two are alike.

       Emission factors for almond  processing sources are presented in Table 9.10.2.1-1.
1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.1-5

    -------
       Table 9.10.2.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ALMOND
                                      PROCESSING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Source
Unloading0
(SCC 3-02-017-11)
Precleaning cycloned
(SCC 3-02-017-12)
Precleaning baghouse6
(SCC 3-02-017-12)
Hulling/separating cycloned
(SCC 3-02-017-13)
Hulling/separating baghousee
(SCC 3-02-017-13)
Hulling/shelling baghousef
(SCC 3-02-017-14)
Classifier screen deck
cycloned
(SCC 3-02^017-15)
Air legd
(SCC 3-02-017-16)
Roaster8
(SCC 3-02-017-17)
Filterable PM
kg/Mg
0.030
0.48
0.0084
0.57
0.0078
0.026
0.20
0.26
ND

Ib/ton
0.060
0.95
0.017
1.1
0.016
0.051
0.40
0.51
ND

Condensable Inorganic
PM
kg/Mg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0068
ND
ND
ND

Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.014
ND
ND
ND

PM-10b
kg/Mg
ND
0.41
0.0075
0.41
0.0065
ND
0.16
ND
ND

Ib/ton
ND
0.82
0.015
0.81
0.013
ND
0.31
ND
ND

a Process weights used to calculate emission factors include nuts and orchard debris as taken from the
  field, unless noted. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b PM-10 factors are based on particle size fractions found in Reference 1 applied to the filterable PM
  emission factor for that source.  See Reference 3 for a detailed discussion of how these emission
  factors were developed.
c References 1-3,10-11.
d Reference 1.  Emission factor is for a single air leg/classifier screen deck cyclone.  Facilities may
  contain multiple cyclones.
e References 1,9.
f Reference 10.
g Factors are based on finished product throughputs.
9.10.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
References For Section 9.10.2.1

 1.     Report On Tests Of Emissions From Almond Hullers In The San Joaquin Valley, File
       No. C-4-0249, California Air Resources Board, Division Of Implementation And
       Enforcement, Sacramento, CA, 1974.

 2.     Proposal To Almond Hullers And Processors Association For Pooled Source Test, Eckley
       Engineering, Fresno, CA, December 1990.

 3.     Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 9.10.2, Salted And Roasted Nuts And
       Seeds, EPA  Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Midwest Research Institute, Cary, NC, May 1994.

 4.     Jasper Guy Woodroof, Tree Nuts:  Production, Processing Product, Avi Publishing, Inc.,
       Westport, CT, 1967.

 5.     Written communication from Darin Lundquist, Central California Almond Growers
       Association, Sanger, CA, to Dallas Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 9, 1993.

 6.     Written communication from Jim Ryals, Almond Hullers and Processors Association,
       Bakersfield,  CA, to Dallas Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, July 7, 1993.

 7.     Written communication from Wendy Eckley, Eckley Engineering,  Fresno, CA, to Dallas
       Safriet, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 7, 1993.

 8.     Private communications between Wendy Eckley, Eckley Engineering, Fresno, CA,  and Lance
       Henning, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City,  MO, August-September 1992, March
       1993.

 9.     Almond Huller Baghouse Emissions Tests, Superior  Farms, Truesdail Laboratories,  Los
       Angeles,  CA, November 5,  1980.

10.     Emission Testing On Two Baghouses At Harris Woolf California Almonds, Steiner
       Environmental, Inc., Bakersfield, CA, October 1991.

11.     Emission Testing On One Baghouse At Harris Woolf California Almonds, Steiner
       Environmental, Inc., Bakersfield, CA, October 1992.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industry                      9.10.2.1-7

    -------

    -------
9.10.2.2 Peanut Processing

9.10.2.2.1  General

        Peanuts (Arachis hypogaed), also known as groundnuts or goobers, are an annual leguminous
herb native to South America.  The peanut peduncle, or peg (the stalk that holds the flower),
elongates after flower fertilization and bends down into the ground, where the peanut seed matures.
Peanuts have a growing period of approximately 5 months.  Seeding typically occurs mid-April to
mid-May, and harvesting during August in the United States.

        Light, sandy loam soils are preferred for peanut production.  Moderate rainfall of between
51 and  102 centimeters (cm) (20 and  40 inches [in.]) annually is also necessary.   The leading peanut
producing states are Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia,  Florida, and Oklahoma.

9.10.2.2.2 Process Description

        The initial step in processing  is harvesting, which typically  begins with the mowing of mature
peanut plants. Then the peanut plants are inverted by specialized machines, peanut inverters, that dig,
shake, and place the peanut plants, with the peanut pods on top, into windrows for field curing.
After open-air drying,  mature peanuts are picked up from the windrow with combines that separate
the peanut pods from the plant using  various thrashing operations.  The peanut plants are deposited
back onto the fields and the pods are  accumulated  in hoppers.   Some combines dig and separate the
vines and stems from the peanut pods in 1 step, and peanuts harvested by this method are cured in
storage. Some small producers still use traditional harvesting methods,  plowing the plants from the
ground  and manually stacking them for field curing.

        Harvesting is normally followed by  mechanical drying.  Moisture in peanuts is usually kept
below 12 percent, to prevent aflatoxin molds from growing.  This low moisture content is difficult to
achieve under field conditions without overdrying  vines and stems,  which reduces combine efficiency
(less foreign material is separated  from the pods).  On-farm dryers usually consist of either storage
trailers  with air channels along the floor or  storage bins with air vents.  Fans blow heated air
(approximately 35°C [95 °F]) through the air channels and up through the peanuts. Peanuts are dried
to moistures of roughly 7 to 10 percent.

        Local peanut mills take peanuts from the farm to be further cured (if necessary), cleaned,
stored,  and processed for various uses (oil production,  roasting, peanut butter production, etc.).
Major process steps include processing peanuts for in-shell consumption and shelling peanuts for other
uses.

9.10.2.2.2.1  In-shell Processing -
        Some peanuts are processed for in-shell roasting.  Figure 9.10.2.2-1 presents a typical flow
diagram for in-shell peanut processing. Processing begins with separating foreign material (primarily
soil, vines, stems, and  leaves) from the peanut pods  using a series of screens and blowers.  The pods
are then washed in wet, coarse sand that removes stains and discoloration. The sand is then screened
from the peanuts for reuse.  The nuts are then dried  and powdered with talc or kaolin to whiten the
shells.  Excess talc/kaolin is shaken from the peanut shells.
1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industry                       9.10.2.2-1

    -------
  UNLOADING
    DRYING
  POWDERING
   DRYING
   SCREENING
                                               LEAVES, STEMS, VINES,
                                             STONES, AND OTHER TRASH
                                                       1
PRECLEANING
                                           SAND
IN-SHELL PEANUT
  PACKAGING
    TALC OR
    KAOLIN
                                   = PM EMISSIONS
            Figure 9.10.2.2-1. Typical in-shell peanut processing flow diagram.
9.10.2.2-2
  EMISSION FACTORS
                1/95

    -------
9.10.2.2.2.2  Shelling -
        A typical shelled peanut processing flow diagram is shown in Figure 9.10.2.2-2.  Shelling
begins with separating the foreign material with a series of screens, blowers, and magnets.  The
cleaned peanuts are then sized with screens (size graders). Sizing is required so that peanut pods can
be crushed without also crushing the peanut kernels.

        Next, shells of the sized peanuts are crushed, typically by passing the peanuts  between rollers
that have been adjusted for peanut size. The gap between rollers must be narrow enough to crack the
peanut hulls, but wide enough to prevent damage to the kernels. A horizontal drum, with a
perforated and ridged bottom and a rotating beater,  is also used to  hull peanuts.  The rotating beater
crushes the peanuts against the bottom ridges, pushing both the shells and peanuts through the
perforations.  The beater can be adjusted for different sizes of peanuts, to avoid damaging the peanut
kernels. Shells are aspirated from the peanut kernels as they fall from the drum.  The crushed shells
and peanut kernels are then separated with oscillating shaker screens and air separators.  The
separation process also removes undersized kernels and  split kernels.

        Following crushing and hull/kernel separation, peanut kernels are sized  and graded. Sizing
and grading can be done by hand, but most mills use screens to size kernels and electric eye sorters
for grading.  Electric eye sorters can detect discoloration and can separate peanuts by  color grades.
The sized and graded peanuts are bagged in 45.4-kg (100-lb) bags for shipment to end users, such as
peanut butter plants and nut roasters.  Some peanuts are shipped in bulk in rail hopper cars.

9.10.2.2.2.3  Roasting -
        Roasting imparts the typical flavor many people associate with peanuts.  During roasting,
amino acids and carbohydrates react to produce tetrahydrofuran derivatives. Roasting also dries the
peanuts further and causes them to turn brown as peanut oil stains  the peanut cell walls. Following
roasting, peanuts are prepared for packaging or for further processing into candies or peanut butter.
Typical peanut roasting processes are shown in Figure 9.10-2.2-3.  There are 2 primary methods for
roasting peanuts, dry roasting and oil roasting.

Dry Roasting -
        Dry roasting is either a batch or continuous process.  Batch roasters offer the advantage of
adjusting for different moisture contents of peanut lots from storage.  Batch roasters are typically
natural  gas-fired revolving ovens (drum-shaped). The rotation of the oven continuously stirs the
peanuts to produce an even roast. Oven temperatures are approximately 430°C (800°F),  and  peanut
temperature is raised to approximately 160°C (320°F) for 40 to 60 min.  Actual roasting temperatures
and times vary with the condition of the peanut batch and the desired end characteristics.

        Continuous dry roasters vary considerably in type.  Continuous roasting reduces labor,
ensures a steady flow of peanuts for other processes (packaging, candy production, peanut butter
production,  etc.), and decreases spillage. Continuous roasters may move peanuts through an oven on
a conveyor or by gravity feed.  In one type of roaster, peanuts are  fed by a conveyor into a stream of
countercurrent hot air that roasts the  peanuts.  In this system, the peanuts are agitated  to ensure that
air  passes around the individual kernels to promote an even roast.

        Dry roasted peanuts  are cooled and blanched.  Cooling occurs in cooling boxes or on
conveyors where large quantities of air are blown over the peanuts immediately following roasting.
Cooling is necessary to stop the roasting process and maintain a uniform quality.  Blanching  removes
the skin of the peanut as well as dust, molds,  and other  foreign  material. There are several blanching
methods including dry, water, spin,  and air impact.
1/95                              Food And Agricultural Industry                        9.10.2.2-3

    -------
   UNLOADING
SHELL ASPIRATION
       t
   SCREENING
  DRYING
                                               LEAVES, STEMS, VINES,
                                             STONES, AND OTHER TRASH
                          SHELL ASPIRATION
                                                        t
CLEANING
^
^ — 	 —

ROLL
CRUSHING
1
^
^
SCREEN
SIZING
      AIR
  SEPARATING
 KERNEL SIZING
 AND GRADING
 SHELLED PEANUT
-  BAGGING OR
  BULK SHIPPING
 SHELL ASPIRATION
                                    = P'M EMISSIONS
            Figure 9.10.2.2-2. Typical shelled peanut processing flow diagram.
9.10.2.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
               1/95

    -------
                           BATCH
                  DRY
                ROASTING
                          PROCESS
                                          BATCH ROASTER
                                             NATURAL GAS
                                                           HOT AIR
                          CONTINUOUS
                           PROCESS
   ROASTING OVEN
O.
00
s
I
t/1
BLANCHING (DRY)
                             COOLING BOX OR
                               CONVEYOR
COOLING BOX OR
  CONVEYOR
                              CONTINUOUS
                               ROASTER
                                                                   BATCH ROASTER
                                                                                             BLANCHING (DRY)
                                                       BLANCHING (DRY)
                          COOLING BOX OR
                            CONVEYOR
                                                      COOLING BOX OR
                                                        CONVEYOR
                                                                                ^ ROASTED PEANUT
                                                                               -^ BAGGING OR BULK
                                                                                        SHIPPING
                                                                                                                 AIR
                                                                          AIR
                                                           ROASTED PEANUT
                                                           BAGGING OR BULK
                                                              SHIPPING
                                                                                                      = PM EMISSIONS

                                                                                                      = POTENTIAL VOC EMISSIONS
p
to
                                        Figure 9.10.2.2-3.  Typical shelled peanut roasting processing flow diagram.

    -------
       Dry blanching is used primarily in peanut butter production, because it removes the kernel
hearts which affect peanut butter flavor. Dry blanching heats the peanuts to approximately!38°C
(280°F) for 25 minutes to crack and loosen the skins.  The heated peanuts are then cooled and passed
through either brushes or ribbed rubber belting to rub off the skins.  Screening is used to separate the
hearts from the cotyledons (peanut halves).

       Water blanching  passes the peanuts  on conveyors through stationary blades that slit the peanut
skins.  The skins are then loosened with hot water sprayers and removed by passing the peanuts under
oscillating canvas-covered pads on knobbed conveyor belts.  Water blanching requires drying the
peanuts back to a moisture content of 6 to 12 percent.

       Spin blanching uses steam to loosen the skins of the peanuts.  Steaming is followed by
spinning the peanuts on revolving spindles as the peanuts move, single file, down a grooved
conveyor.  The spinning unwraps the peanut skins.

       Air impact blanching uses a horizontal drum (cylinder) in which the peanuts are placed and
rotated. The inner surface of the drum has  an abrasive surface that aids in the removal of the skins as
the drum rotates. Inside the drum are air jets that blow the peanuts counter to the rotation of the
drum creating air impact which loosens the skin. The combination of air impacts and the abrasive
surface of the  drum results in skin removal. Either batch or continuous air impact blanching can be
conducted.

Oil Roasting -
       Oil roasting is also done on a batch or continuous basis.  Before roasting, the peanuts are
blanched to remove the skins.  Continuous  roasters move the peanuts on a conveyor through a long
tank of heated oil. In both batch and continuous roasters, oil is heated to temperatures of 138 to
143°C (280 to 290°F), and roasting times vary from 3 to 10 minutes depending on desired
characteristics and peanut quality.  Oil  roaster tanks have heating elements on the sides to prevent
charring the peanuts on the bottom.   Oil is  constantly monitored for quality, and  frequent filtration,
neutralization, and replacement are necessary to maintain quality.  Coconut oil  is preferred,  but oils
such as peanut and cottonseed  are frequently used.

       Cooling also follows oil roasting, so that a uniform roast can be achieved.  Cooling is
achieved by blowing large quantities of-air  over the peanuts either on conveyors or in cooling boxes.

9.10.2.2.3  Emissions And Controls

       No  information is currently available on emissions or emission control  devices for the peanut
processing industry.  However, the similarities of some of the processes to those in the almond
processing industry make it is reasonable to assume that emissions would be comparable. No data are
available, however, to make any comparisons about relative quantities of these emissions.

Reference For Section 9.10.2.2

1.     Jasper Guy Woodroof, Peanuts:  Production, Processing, Products, 3rd Edition, Avi
       Publishing Company, Westport, CT, 1983.
 9.10.2.2-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
9.11 Fats And Oils



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.11-1

    -------

    -------
9.11.1 Vegetable Oil Processing




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.11.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.12  Beverages




9.12.1 Malt Beverages




9.12.2 Wines And Brandy



9.12.3 Distilled And Blended Liquors
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.12-1

    -------

    -------
9.12.1 Malt Beverages



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.12.1-1

    -------

    -------
9.12.2 Wines And Brandy




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.12.2-1

    -------

    -------
9.12.3 Distilled And Blended liquors



                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.12.3-1

    -------

    -------
9.13 Miscellaneous Food And Kindred Products




9.13.1  Fish Processing




9.13.2  Coffee Roasting




9.13.3  Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying




9.13.4  Yeast Production
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                          9.13-1

    -------

    -------
9.13.1  Fish Processing

9.13.1.1 General

        Fish canning and byproduct manufacturing are conducted hi 136 plants hi 12 states.  The
majority of these plants are hi Washington, Alaska, Maine, Louisiana, and California.  Some
processing occurs hi Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. The industry
experienced an 18 percent increase hi the quantity of fish processed hi 1990, and additional increases
were expected hi 1992 as well. Exports of canned fish and fish meal also are increasing because of
diminishing supply hi other countries.

9.13.1.2 Process Description

        Fish processing includes both the canning of fish for human consumption and the production
of fish byproducts such as meal and oil. Either a precooking method or a raw pack method can be
used hi canning.  In the precooking method, the raw fish are cleaned and cooked before the canning
step.  In the raw pack method, the raw fish are cleaned and placed hi cans before cooking.  The
precooking method is used typically for larger fish such as tuna, while the raw pack method is used
for smaller fish such as sardines.

        The byproduct manufacture segment of the fish industry uses canning or filleting wastes and
fish that are not suitable for human consumption to produce fish meal and fish oil.

Canning -
        The precooking method of canning (Figure 9.13.1-1) begins with thawing the fish, if
necessary.  The fish are eviscerated and washed, then cooked.  Cooking is accomplished using steam,
oil, hot air, or smoke for 1.5 to 10 hours, depending on fish size.  Precooking removes the fish oils
and coagulates the protein hi the fish to loosen the meat.  The fish are men cooled, which may take
several hours. Refrigeration may be used  to reduce the cooling time. After cooling, the head, fins,
bones, and undesirable meat are removed,  and the remainder is cut or chopped to be put hi cans.
Oil, brine, and/or water are added to the cans, which are sealed and pressure cooked before shipment.

        The raw pack method of canning (Figure 9.13.1-2) also begins with thawing  and weighing the
fish. They are then washed and possibly brined, or "nobbed", which is removing the heads, viscera,
and tails. The fish are placed hi cans and  then cooked, drained, and dried.  After drying, liquid,
which may be oil, brine, water, sauce, or other liquids, is added to the cans.  Finally, the cans are
sealed, washed, and sterilized with steam or hot water.

Byproduct Manufacture -
       The only process used hi the U. S. to extract oil from the fish is the wet steam process. Fish
byproduct manufacturing (Figure 9.13.1-3) begins with cooking the fish at 100°C (lower for some
species) hi a continuous cooker.  This process coagulates the protein and ruptures die cell walls to
release the water and oil.  The mixture may be strained with an auger hi a perforated casing before
pressing with a screw press.  As the fish are moved along the screw press, the pressure is increased
and the volume is decreased.  The liquid from the mixture,  known as pressing liquor, is squeezed out
through a perforated casing.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.13.1-1

    -------
                                                        VOC Emissions
       Thawed
      Whole Fish
Evisceration
and Washing
 Precooking with
Steam, Hot Air, Oil,
 Water, or Smoke
(SCC 3-02-012-04)
                                                                                     1
Refrigeration



In Air


                                                                       Removal of Heads,
                                                                        Fins, Bones, etc.
        Sealing and
         Retorting
 Addition of Oil
 Brine, or Water
   Placement in
      Cans
                                                                             i
Cutting or
Chopping
                      Figure 9.13.1-1.  Flow diagram of precooking method.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.1-2
        EMISSION FACTORS
                                         1/95

    -------
                         en


                         "5
                         O
                         O
                o
                'co
                «o


                LU

                O
                          o


                          8
                          CO
                         Ei
                         go
                         1
                         ffl
                          O)
                         II
         Eg

         °fi
                                                                 o®
                                   i?fc
                                                                  := CO
                                                                  s°
                                                                  (0
                                                  •g
                                                                    s
                                                                                   6
                                                                                .§


                                                                  N Ci5
                                                                  C ±i-
                                                                  C0£
                                                                  o*
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
                                                                                9.13.1-3

    -------
                                 voc
                              Emissions (1)
      Raw Fish
     and Fish Parts
                                  t
    Cooker
(SCC 3-02-012-01)
(SCC 3-02-012-02)
  VOC and Paniculate
     Emissions (2)
                                        VOC and
                                        Participate
                                      Emissions (3)
                                                (1) VOC emissions consist of H2S and (Ch^^N, but no participates

                                                (2) Large odor source, as well as smoke

                                                (3) Slightly less odor than direct fired dryers, and no smoke
              Figure 9.13.1-3.  Flow diagram of fish meal and crude fish oil processing.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.1-4
             EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        The pressing liquor, which consists of water, oil, and some solids, is transported to a
centrifuge or desludger where the solids are removed.  These solids are later returned to the press
cake in the drying step.  The oil and water are separated using a disc-type centrifuge in the oil
separator.  The oil is  "polished" by using hot water washes and centrifugation and is then sent to an
oil-refining operation.  The water removed from the oil (stickwater) goes to an evaporator to
concentrate the solids.

        The press cake, stickwater, and solids are mixed and sent to either a direct-fired or an
indirect-fired dryer (steam tube dryer).  A direct-fired dryer consists of a slowly rotating cylinder
through which air, heated to about  600°C by an open flame, passes through the meal to evaporate the
liquid.  An indirect-fired dryer consists of a fixed cylinder with rotating scrapers that heat the meal
with steam or hot fluids flowing through discs,  tubes, coils, or the dryer casing itself.  Air also passes
through this apparatus, but it is not heated and flows hi the opposite direction to the meal  to entrain
the evaporated water.  Indirect-fired dryers require twice as much time to dry the meal as direct-fired
dryers.

        The dried meal is cooled, ground to a size that passes through a U. S. No. 7 standard screen,
and transferred by pneumatic conveyor to storage.  The ground meal is stored hi bulk or in  paper,
burlap, or woven plastic bags.  This meal is used in animal and pet feed because of its high protein
content.

        The "polished  oil" is further purified by a process called "hardening" (Figure 9.13.1-4).
First, the polished oil is refined by mixing the oil with an alkaline solution hi a large stirred vat.  The
alkaline solution reacts with the free fatty acids  hi the oil to form insoluble soaps.  The mixture is
allowed to settle overnight, and the cleared oil is extracted off the top.  The oil is then washed with
hot water to remove any remaining soaps.
Crude Oil

>.
•
Refining
Vat1
>_.

Bleaching
>.

                                                                  Hardened Oil
                                                               Bottling and Storage
                             Figure 9.13.1-4. Oil hardening process.

       Bleaching occurs hi the next step by mixing the oil with natural clays to remove oil pigments
and colored matter.  This process proceeds at temperatures between 80 and 116°C, hi either a batch
or continuous mode.  After bleaching, hydrogenation of the unsaturated fatty acid chains is the next
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.1-5

    -------
step.  A nickel catalyst, at a concentration of 0.05 to 0.1 percent by weight, is added to a vat of oil,
the mixture is heated and stirred, and hydrogen is injected into the mixture to react with the
unsaturated fatty acid chains. After the hydrogenation is completed, the oil is cooled and filtered to
remove the nickel.

       The hydrogenated oil is refined again before the deodorization step, which removes odor and
flavor-producing chemicals.  Deodorization occurs in a vacuum chamber where dry, oxygen-free
steam is bubbled through the oil to remove the undesirable chemicals. Volatilization of the
undesirable chemicals occurs at temperatures between 170 to 230 °C. The oil is then cooled to about
38°C before exposure to air to prevent formation of undesirable chemicals.

9.13.1.2  Emissions And Controls

       Although smoke and paniculate may be a problem, odors are the most objectionable emissions
from fish processing plants.  The fish byproducts segment results in more  of these odorous
contaminants than canning, because the fish are often hi a further state of decomposition, which
usually results in greater concentrations of odors.

       The largest odor source in the fish byproducts segment is the fish meal driers.  Usually,
direct-fired driers emit more odors than steam-tube driers.  Direct-fired driers also emit smoke and
paniculate.

       Odorous gases  from reduction cookers consist primarily of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
trimethylamine [(CH3)3N] but are emitted from this stage hi appreciably smaller volumes than from
fish meal driers.  There are virtually no paniculate emissions from reduction cookers.

       Some odors are produced by the canning processes.  Generally, the precooked method emits
fewer odorous gases than the raw pack method.  In the precooked process, the odorous exhaust gases
are trapped hi the cookers, whereas in the raw pack process, the steam and odorous gases typically
are vented directly to the atmosphere.

       Fish cannery and fish byproduct processing odors can be controlled with afterburners,
chlorinator-scrubbers, or condensers.  Afterburners are most effective, providing virtually  100 percent
odor control, but they are costly from a fuel-use standpoint. Chlorinator scrubbers have been found
to be 95 to 99 percent effective in controlling odors from cookers and driers.  Condensers  are the
least effective control device.

       Paniculate emissions from the fish meal process are usually limited to the dryers, primarily
the direct-fired dryers, and to the grinding and convey ing of the dried fish meal. Because  there is a
relatively small quantity of fines hi the ground fish meal, paniculate emissions from the grinding,
pneumatic conveyors and bagging operations are expected to be very low.  Generally, cyclones have
been found to be  an effective means to collect paniculate from the dryers,  grinders and conveyors,
and from the bagging of the ground fish meal.

       Emission factors for fish processing are presented hi Table 9.13.1-1.  Factors are expressed hi
units of kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).
9.13.1-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
     Table 9.13.1-1 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
                FOR FISH CANNING AND BYPRODUCT MANUFACTURE*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C


Process
Cookers, canning
(SCC 3-02-012-04)
Cookers, scrap
Fresh fish (SCC 3-02-012-01)
Stale fish (SCC 3-02-012-02)
Steam tube dryer
(SCC 3-02-012-05)
Direct-fired dryer
(SCC 3-02-012-06)


Paniculate
kg/Mg
Neg


Neg
Neg
2.5

4

Ib/ton
Neg


Neg
Neg
5

8

Trimethylamine
[(CH3)3N]
kg/Mg
	 c


0.15C
1.75C
_b

_b

Ib/ton
	 c


0.3°
3.5C
_b

_b

Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S)
kg/Mg
	 c


0.005C
0.10°
_b

_b

Ib/ton
	 c


0.01C
0.2C
__b

_b

a Reference 1.  Factors are in terms of raw fish processed. SCC =  Source Classification Code.
  Neg = negligible.
b Emissions suspected, but data are not available for quantification.
c Reference 2.
References For Section 9.13.1

1.     W. H. Prokop, "Fish Processing", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
       Reinhold, New York, 1992.

2.     W. Summer, Methods Of Air Deodorization, Elsevier Publishing, New York City, 1963.

3.     M. T. Gillies, Seafood Processing, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ, 1971.

4.     F. W. Wheaton and T. B. Lawson, Processing Aquatic Food Products, John Wiley and Sons,
       New York, 1985.

5.     M. Windsor and S. Barlow, Introduction To Fishery Byproducts, Fishing News Books, Ltd.,
       Surrey, England, 1981.

6.     D. Warne, Manual On Fish Canning, Food And Agricultural Organization Of The United
       Nations, Rome, Italy, 1988.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.1-7

    -------

    -------
9.13.2 Coffee Roasting




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.13.2-1
                                         *e

    -------

    -------
 9.133  Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying

 9.13.3.1  General1'3

        The production of potato chips, tortilla chips, and other related snack foods is a growing,
 competitive industry.  Sales of such snack chips in the United States are projected to  grow 5.7 percent
 between 1991 and 1995.  Between 1987 and 1991, potato chip sales increased from
 649 x 106 kilograms (kg) to 712 x 106 kg (1,430 x 106 pounds pb] to 1,570 x 106 Ib), an increase of
 63 x 106 kg (140 x 106 Ib) (10 percent).  Snack chip plants are widely dispersed across the country,
 with the highest concentrations in California and Texas.

        New products  and processes are being developed to create a more health-conscious image for
 snack chips.  Examples include the recent introduction of multigrain chips and the use of vegetable
 oils (noncholesterol) in frying. Health concerns are also encouraging the promotion and introduction
 of nonfried snack products like pretzels, popcorn,  and crackers.

 9.13.3.2  Process Description1

        Vegetables and other raw foods are  cooked by industrial deep fat frying and are packaged for
 later use by consumers.  The batch frying process consists of immersing the food in the cooking oil
 until it is cooked and then removing it from the oil.  When the raw food is immersed in hot cooking
 oil, the oil replaces the naturally occurring moisture in the food as it cooks.  Batch and continuous
 processes may be used for deep  fat frying.  In the continuous frying method, the food is moved
 through the cooking oil on a conveyor.  Potato chips are one example of a food prepared  by deep fat
 frying.  Other examples include corn chips, tortilla corn chips, and multigrain chips.

        Figure 9.13.3-1 provides general diagrams for the deep fat frying process for potato chips and
 other snack chips.  The differences between the potato chip process and other snack chip processing
 operations are also shown. Some snack food processes (e. g., tortilla chips) include a toasting step.
 Because the potato chip processes represent  the largest industry segment, they are discussed here as a
 representative example.

       In the initial potato preparation, dirt, decayed potatoes, and other debris are first removed hi
 cleaning hoppers.  The potatoes  go next to washers,  then to abrasion, steam, or lye peelers. Abrasion
 is the most popular method.  Preparation is  either  batch or continuous, depending on  the number of
 potatoes to be peeled.

       The next step is slicing,  which is performed  by a rotary slicer.  Potato slice widths will vary
 with the condition of the potatoes and with the type of chips being made.  The potato slices move
 through rotating reels where high-pressure water separates the slices and removes starch from  the cut
 surfaces.  The slices are then transferred to the rinse tank for final rinsing.

       Next, the surface moisture is removed by 1 or more of the folio whig methods:  perforated
 revolving  drum, sponge rubber-covered squeeze roller, compressed air systems, vibrating mesh belt,
heated air, or centrifugal extraction.

       The partially dried chips are then fried.  Most producers use a continuous process, in which
the slices are automatically moved through the fryer  on a mesh belt. Batch frying,  which is used for


 1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                        9.13.3-1

    -------
        POTATO CHIP
                   OTHER SNACK CHIPS
 RAW MATERIAL PREPARATION

       • Cleaning
       • Slicing
       • Starch removal
       « Moisture reduction
                       RAW MATERIAL
                       PREPARATION

                         • Extruder
                         • Die/Cutter
                                  NOX AND VOC
                           EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE
                                      t
                          GAS FIRED
                           TOASTER
                       (SCC 3-02-036-04)
                              PARTICULATE MATTER
                              AND VOC EMISSIONS
                                TO ATMOSPHERE
            HOT OIL
        DEEP FAT FRYING
        (SCC 3-02-036-01)
        (SCC 3-02-036-03)
                            HOT OIL
                         DEEP FAT FRYING
                         (SCC 3-02-036-02)
           SEASONING
              and
           PACKAGING
                          SEASONING
                              and
                          PACKAGING
             Figure 9.13.3-1. Generalized deep fat frying process for snack foods.
                       (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
9.13.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
a smaller quantity of chips, involves placing the chips in a frying kettle for a period of time and then
removing them.  A variety of oils may be used for frying chips, with cottonseed, corn, and peanut
oils being the most popular.  Canola and soybean oils also are used.  Animal fats are rarely used in
this industry.

        As indicated in Figure 9.13.3-1, the process for other snack chips is similar to that for potato
chip frying.  Typically, the raw material is extruded and cut before entering the fryer.  In some cases,
the chips may be toasted before frying.

9.13.3.2  Emissions And Controls2'3

Emissions -
        Paniculate matter is the major air pollutant emitted from the  deep fat frying process.
Emissions are released when moist foodstuff, such as potatoes, is introduced into hot oil.  The rapid
vaporization of the moisture in the foodstuff results in violent bubbling, and cooking oil droplets, and
possibly vapors, become entrained in the water vapor stream.  The emissions are exhausted from the
cooking vat and into the ventilation system.  Where emission controls are employed, condensed water
and oil droplets in the exhaust stream are collected by control devices before the exhaust is routed to
the atmosphere.  The amount of paniculate matter emitted depends on process  throughput, oil
temperature, moisture content of the feed material, equipment design, and stack emission controls.

        Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are also produced hi deep fat frying, but they are not a
significant percentage of total frying emissions because of the low vapor pressure of the vegetable oils
used.  However, when the oil is entrained into the water vapor produced  during frying, the oil may
break down into volatile products. Small amounts of VOC and combustion products may  also be
emitted from toasters, but quantities are expected to be negligible.

        Tables 9.13.3-1 and 9.13.3-2 provide uncontrolled and controlled paniculate matter emission
factors, in metric and English units, for snack chip frying. Table 9.13.3-3 provides VOC emission
factors, in metric and English units, for snack chip frying without controls.  Emission factors are
calculated as the weight of paniculate matter or VOC per ton of finished  product, including salt and
seasonings.

Controls -
        Paniculate matter emission control equipment is typically installed on potato chip fryer
exhaust streams because of the elevated paniculate loadings caused by the high volume of water
contained hi potatoes.  Examples of control devices are mist  eliminators,  impingement devices, and
wet scrubbers.  One manufacturer has indicated that catalytic and thermal incinerators are not
practical because of the high moisture content of the exhaust  stream.
1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13.3-3

    -------
     Table 9.13.3-1 (Metric Units). PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYINGa

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E (except as noted)
Process
Continuous deep fat fryer— potato
chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer— other
snack chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist eliminator-
potato chips0
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
high-efficiency mesh pad mist
eliminator— potato chips6
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist eliminator-
other snack chipsf
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Batch deep fat fryer with hood
scrubber— potato chipsg
(SCC 3-02-036-03)
Filterable PM
PM
0.83
0.28
0.35d
0.12
0.1 ld
0.89d
PM-10
ND
ND
0.30
ND
0.088
ND
Condensable PM
Inorganic
ND
ND
0.0040d
0.12
0.017
0.66d
Organic Total
ND 0.19
ND 0.12
0.19d 0.19
0.064 0.18
0.022 0.039
0.17 0.83
Total
PM-10
ND
ND
0.49
ND
0.13
ND
a Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, except as noted.  All emission factors in kg/Mg of chips
  produced. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
c References 6, 10-11.  The standard mesh pad mist eliminator, upon which these emission factors
  are based, includes a single, 6-inch, 2-layer mist pad that operates with a pressure drop of about
  0.5-inch water column (when clean).
d EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
e References 4-5. The high-efficiency mesh pad eliminator, upon which these emission factors are
  based, includes a coarse-weave 4-inch mist pad and a 6-inch fine weave pad, and operates with a
  2.5- to 3-inch water column pressure drop (when clean).
f References 6-7.
g References 8-9.
9.13.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 9.13.3-2 (English Units).  PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYING*

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E  (except as noted)
Process
Continuous deep fat fryer— potato
chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer-other
snack chipsb
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist
eliminator-potato chips6
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with high-
efficiency mesh pad mist
eliminator— potato chips0
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Continuous deep fat fryer with
standard mesh pad mist
eliminator-other snack chipsf
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
Batch deep fat fryer with hood
scrubber-potato chipsg
(SCC 3-02-036-03)
Filterable PM
PM PM-10
1.6 ND
0.56 ND
Q.1&* 0.60
0.24 ND
0.22d 0.18
1.8d ND
Condensable PM
Inorganic Organic Total
ND ND 0.39
ND ND 0.24
O.OOSO41 0.37d 0.38
0.23 0.13 0.36
0.034 0.044 0.078
1.3d 0.33 1.6
Total
PM-10
ND
ND
0.98
ND
0.26
ND
a Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, except as noted. All emission factors in Ib/ton of chips
  produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
c References 6, 10-11.  The standard mesh pad mist eliminator, upon which these emission factors
  are based, includes a single, 6-inch, 2-layer mist pad that operates with a pressure drop of about
  0.5 inch water column (when clean).
d EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
e References 4-5. The high-efficiency mesh pad eliminator, upon which these emission factors are
  based, includes a coarse-weave 4-inch mist pad and a 6-inch fine weave pad and operates with a
  2.5- to 3-inch water column pressure drop (when clean).
f References 6-7.
g References 8-9.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.3-5

    -------
        Table 9.13.3-3 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED VOC EMISSION FACTORS
                        FOR SNACK CHIP DEEP FAT FRYINGa'b

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Process
Deep fat fryer — potato chips
(SCC 3-02-036-01)
Deep fat fryer— other snack chips
(SCC 3-02-036-02)
VOC
kg/Mg
0.0099
0.043
Ib/ton
0.020
0.085
a Reference 3.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Expressed as equivalent weight of methane (CH^/unit weight of product.
References For Section 9.13.3

 1.     O. Smith, Potatoes: Production, Storing, Processing, Avi Publishing, Westport, CT, 1977.

 2.     Background Document For AP-42 Section 9.13.3, Snack Chip Deep Fat Frying, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1994.

 3.     Characterization Of Industrial Deep Fat Fryer Air Emissions, Frito-Lay Inc., Piano, TX,
       1991.

 4.     Emission Performance Testing For Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services,
       Redondo Beach, CA, November 19,  20, and 21, 1991.

 5.     Emission Performance Testing On One Continuous Fryer, Western Environmental Services,
       Redondo Beach, CA, January 26, 1993.

 6.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, November 1990.

 7.     Emission Performance Testing Of One Tortilla Continuous Frying Line, Western
       Environmental Services, Redondo Beach, CA, October 20-21,  1992.

 8.     Emission Performance Testing Of Fryer No. 5, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, February 4-5, 1992.

 9.     Emission Performance Testing Of Fryer No. 8, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, February 3-4, 1992.

 10.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, November 1989.

 11.     Emission Performance Testing Of Two Fryer Lines, Western Environmental Services, Redondo
       Beach, CA, June 1989.
9.13.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
9.13.4  Yeast Production

9.13.4.1  General1

        Baker's yeast is currently manufactured in the United States at 13 plants owned by 6 major
companies.  Two main types of baker's yeast are produced, compressed (cream) yeast and dry yeast.
The total U.. S. production of baker's yeast in 1989 was 223,500 megagrams (Mg) (245,000 tons).
Of the total production, approximately 85 percent of the yeast is compressed (cream) yeast, and the
remaining 15 percent is dry yeast. Compressed yeast is sold mainly to wholesale bakeries, and dry
yeast is sold mainly to consumers for home baking needs.  Compressed and dry yeasts are produced
in a similar manner, but dry yeasts are developed from a different yeast strain and are dried after
processing.  Two types of dry yeast are produced, active dry yeast (ADY) and instant dry yeast
(IDY).  Instant dry yeast is produced from a faster-reacting yeast strain than that used for ADY.  The
main difference between ADY and IDY is that ADY has to be dissolved  in warm water before usage,
but IDY does not.

9.13.4.2  Process Description1

        Figure 9.13.4-1 is a process flow diagram for the production of baker's yeast.  The first stage
of yeast production consists of growing the yeast from the pure yeast culture in a series of
fermentation vessels.  The yeast is recovered  from the final fermentor by using centrifugal action to
concentrate  the yeast solids.  The yeast solids are subsequently filtered by a filter press or a rotary
vacuum filter to concentrate the yeast further.  Next, the yeast filter cake is  blended in mixers with
small amounts of water, emulsifiers, and cutting oils.  After this, the mixed press cake is extruded
and  cut. The yeast cakes  are then either wrapped for shipment or dried to form  dry yeast.

Raw Materials1"3 -
        The principal raw materials used in producing baker's yeast are the pure yeast culture and
molasses. The yeast strain used in producing compressed yeast is Saccharomyces cerevisiae.  Other
yeast strains are required to produce each of the 2 dry yeast products, ADY and IDY.  Cane molasses
and  beet molasses are the  principal carbon sources to promote yeast growth.  Molasses contains 45 to
55 weight percent fermentable sugars, in the forms of sucrose, glucose, and fructose.

        The amount and type of cane and beet molasses used depend on the  availability of the
molasses types, costs, and the presence of inhibitors and toxins.   Usually, a blend consisting of both
cane and beet molasses is  used in the fermentations.  Once the molasses mixture is blended, the pH is
adjusted to between 4.5 and 5.0 because an alkaline mixture promotes bacteria growth.  Bacteria
growth  occurs under the same conditions as yeast growth, making pH monitoring very important.
The molasses mixture is clarified to remove any sludge and is then sterilized with high-pressure
steam.  After sterilization, it is diluted with water and held in holding tanks  until it is needed for the
fermentation process.

        A variety of essential nutrients and vitamins  is also required in yeast production. The nutrient
and  mineral requirements  include nitrogen, potassium, phosphate, magnesium, and calcium, with
traces of iron,  zinc, copper, manganese, and molybdenum.  Normally,  nitrogen is supplied by adding
ammonium salts, aqueous  ammonia, or anhydrous ammonia to the feedstock. Phosphates and
magnesium are added, in the form of phosphoric acid or phosphate salts and magnesium  salts.
Vitamins are also required for yeast growth (biotin, inositol, pantothenic  acid, and thiamine).


1/95                            Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13.4-1

    -------
                                                  RAW MATERIALS
                                                                            VOC, CO2
                                               FERMENTATION STAGES
                                                Flask Fermentation (F1)
                                             Pure Culture Fermentation (F2/F3)
                                              Intermediate Fermentation (F4)
                                                     3-02-034-04
                                                Stock Fermentation (F5)
                                                     3-02-034-05
                                                Pitch Fermentation (F6)
                                                     3-02-034-06
                                                Trade Fermentation (F7)
                                                    3-02-034-07
                                                                                 t
            VOC
            VOC
                                                   EXTRUSION AND CUTTING
                                                 SHIPMENT OF PACKAGED YEAST
  Figure 9.13.4-1.  Typical process flow diagram for the seven-stage production of baker's yeast, with
 Source Classification Codes shown for compressed yeast.  Use 3-02-035-XX for compressed yeast.
 Thiamine is added to the feedstock.  Most other vitamins and nutrients are already present in
 sufficient amounts in the molasses malt.

 Fermentation1"3 -
        Yeast cells are grown in a series of fermentation vessels.  Yeast fermentation vessels are
 operated under aerobic conditions (free oxygen or excess air present) because under anaerobic
 conditions (limited or no oxygen) the fermentable sugars  are consumed in the formation of ethanol
"and carbon dioxide, which results in low yeast yields.
 9.13.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        The initial stage of yeast growth takes place in the laboratory. A portion of the pure yeast
culture is mixed with molasses malt in a sterilized flask, and the yeast is allowed to grow for
2 to 4 days.  The entire contents of this flask are used to inoculate the first fermentor in the pure
culture stage. Pure culture fermentations are batch fermentations, where the yeast is allowed to grow
for 13 to 24 hours.  Typically, 1 to 2 fermentors are used  in this stage of the process.  The pure
culture fermentations are basically  a continuation of the flask fermentation, except that they have
provisions for sterile aeration and aseptic transfer to the next stage.

        Following the pure culture fermentations, the yeast mixture is transferred to an intermediate
fermentor that is either batch or fed-batch.  The next fermentation stage is a stock fermentation.  The
contents from the intermediate fermentor are pumped into the stock fermentor, which is equipped for
incremental feeding with good aeration.  This stage is called stock fermentation, because after
fermentation is complete, the yeast is separated from the bulk of the fermentor liquid by centrifuging,
which produces a stock, or pitch, of yeast for the next stage.  The next stage, pitch fermentation,  also
produces a stock, or pitch, of yeast.  Aeration is vigorous, and molasses and other nutrients are fed
incrementally.  The liquor from this fermentor is usually divided into several parts for pitching the
final trade fermentations (adding the yeast to start fermentation).  Alternately, the yeast may be
separated by centrifuging and stored for several days before its use in the final trade fermentations.

        The final trade fermentation has the highest degree of aeration, and molasses and other
nutrients are fed  incrementally.  Large air supplies are required during the final trade fermentations,
so these vessels are often started in a staggered fashion to reduce the size of the air compressors.  The
duration of the final fermentation stages ranges from 11 to 15 hours.  After all of the required
molasses has been fed into the fermentor, the liquid  is aerated for an additional 0.5 to 1.5 hours to
permit further maturing of the yeast,  making it more stable for refrigerated storage.

        The amount of yeast growth in the main fermentation stages described above increases  with
each stage.  Yeast growth is typically 120 kilograms (270 pounds) in  the intermediate fermentor,
420 kilograms (930 pounds) in the stock fermentor, 2,500  kilograms (5,500 pounds) in the pitch
fermentor, and 15,000 to 100,000 kilograms (33,000 to 220,000 pounds)  in the trade fermentor.

        The sequence of the main fermentation stages varies among manufacturers.  About half of
existing yeast operations are 2-stage processes, and the remaining are 4-stage processes. When the
2-stage final fermentation series is used, the only fermentations following the pure culture stage are
the stock and trade fermentations.  When the 4-stage fermentation series is used, the pure culture
stage is followed by intermediate, stock, pitch, and trade fermentations.

Harvesting And Packaging1"2  -
        Once an optimum quantity  of yeast has been grown, the yeast cells are recovered from the
final trade fermentor by centrifugal yeast separators.  The centrifuged yeast solids  are further
concentrated by a filter press or rotary vacuum filter. A filter press forms a filter cake containing
27 to 32 percent solids.  A rotary vacuum filter forms cakes  containing approximately 33 percent
solids.  This filter cake is then blended in mixers with small  amounts of water, emulsifiers, and
cutting oils to form the end product.  The final packaging steps, as described below, vary depending
on the type of yeast product.

        In compressed yeast production (SCC 3-02-035-XX), emulsifiers are added to give the  yeast a
white, creamy appearance and to inhibit water spotting of the yeast cakes. A small amount of oil,
usually soybean or  cottonseed oil, is added to help extrude the yeast through nozzles to form
continuous ribbons  of yeast cake.  The ribbons are cut,  and the yeast  cakes are wrapped and cooled to
below 8°C (46°F),  at which time they are ready for shipment in refrigerated  trucks.

1/95                             Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.13.4-3

    -------
       In dry yeast production (SCC 3-02-034-XX), the product is sent to an extruder after filtration,
where emulsifiers and oils (different from those used for compressed yeast) are added to texturize the
yeast and to aid in extruding it.  After the yeast is extruded in thin ribbons, it is cut and dried in
either a batch or a continuous drying system.  Following drying, the yeast is vacuum packed or
packed under nitrogen gas before heat sealing.  The shelf life of ADY and IDY at ambient
temperature is 1  to 2 years.

9.13.4.3  Emissions1'4"5

       Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are generated as byproducts of the fermentation
process.  The 2 major VOCs emitted are ethanol and acetaldehyde.  Other byproducts consist of other
alcohols, such as butanol, isopropyl alcohol, 2,3-butanediol, organic acids, and acetates. Based on
emission test data, approximately 80 to 90 percent of total VOC emissions is ethanol, and the
remaining 10 to 20 percent consists of other alcohols and acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is a hazardous
air pollutant as defined under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

       Volatile byproducts form as a result of either excess sugar (molasses) present in the fermentor
or an insufficient oxygen supply to it. Under these conditions, anaerobic  fermentation occurs,
breaking down the excess sugar into alcohols and carbon dioxide. When  anaerobic fermentation
occurs, 2 moles of ethanol and 2 moles of carbon dioxide are formed from 1 mole of glucose.  Under
anaerobic conditions, the ethanol yield is increased,  and yeast yields are decreased.  Therefore, in
producing baker's yeast,  it is essential to suppress ethanol  formation in the final fermentation stages
by incremental feeding of the molasses mixture with sufficient oxygen to  the fermentor.

       The rate of ethanol formation is higher in the earlier stages (pure  culture stages) than in the
final stages of the fermentation process.  The earlier fermentation stages are batch fermentors, where
excess sugars are present and less aeration is used during the fermentation process.  These
fermentations are not controlled to the degree that the  final fermentations  are controlled because the
majority of yeast growth occurs in the final fermentation stages. Therefore, there is no economical
reason for manufacturers to equip the earlier fermentation stages with process control equipment.

       Another  potential emission source at yeast manufacturing facilities is the system used to treat'
process waste waters.   If the facility does not use an anaerobic biological  treatment system, significant
quantities of VOCs could be emitted from this stage of the process.   For more information on
waste water treatment systems as an emission source of VOCs,  please refer to EPA's Control
Technology Center document on industrial waste water treatment systems, Industrial Wastewater
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions - Background Information For BACT/LAER, or see  Section 4.3
of AP-42.  At facilities manufacturing dry yeast, VOCs may also be emitted from the yeast dryers,
but no information is available on the relative quantity of VOC  emissions from this source.

9.13.4.4  Controls6

       Only 1 yeast manufacturing facility uses  an add-on pollution control system to reduce VOC
emissions from the fermentation process.  However, all yeast manufacturers suppress ethanol
formation through varying degrees of process control, such as incrementally feeding the molasses
mixture to the fermentors so that excess sugars are not present,  or supplying sufficient oxygen  to the
fermentors to optimize the dissolved oxygen content of the liquid in the fermentor.  The adequacy of
oxygen distribution depends upon the proper design and  operation of the  aeration and mechanical
agitation systems of the fermentor.  The distribution of oxygen  by the air sparger  system to the malt
mixture is critical. If oxygen is not being transferred  uniformly throughout the malt, then ethanol
9.13.4-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
will be produced in the oxygen-deficient areas of the fermentor.  The type and position of baffles
and/or a highly effective mechanical agitation system can ensure proper distribution of oxygen.

        A more sophisticated form of process control involves using a continuous monitoring system
and feedback control. In such a system, process parameters are monitored,  and the information is
sent to a computer.  The computer is then used to calculate sugar consumption rates through material
balance techniques.  Based on the calculated data, the computer continuously controls the addition of
molasses.  This type of system is feasible, but it is difficult to design and implement.  Such enhanced
process control measures can suppress ethanol formation from 75 to 95 percent.

        The  1 facility with add-on control uses a wet scrubber followed by a biological filter.
Performance data from this unit suggest an emission control efficiency of better than 90 percent.

9.13.4.5  Emission Factors1'6'9

        Table 9.13.4-1 provides emission factors for a typical yeast fermentation process with a
moderate degree of process control. The process emission factors in Table 9.13.4-1 were developed
from 4 test reports from 3 yeast manufacturing facilities.  Separate emission factors are given for
intermediate, stock/pitch, and trade fermentations.  The emission factors in Table 9.13.4-1  are
expressed in units of VOC emitted per fermentor per unit of yeast produced in that fermentor.

        In order to use the emission factors for each fermentor, the amount of yeast produced in each
fermentor must be known.  The following is an example calculation  for a typical facility:
Fermentation
Stage
Intermediate
Stock
Pitch
Trade
TOTAL
Yeast Yield Per
Batch, Ib (A)
265
930
5,510
33,070
—
No. Of Batches
Processed Per
Year, tf/yr (B)
156
208
208
1,040
—
Total Yeast
Production Per
Stage, tons/yr
(C = Ax
B/2,000)
21
97
573
17,196
—
Emission
Factor, Ib/ton
(D)
36
5
5
5
—
Emissions, Ib
(E = C x D)
756
485
2,865
85,980
90,086
Percent of Total
Emissions
0.84
0.54
3.18
95.44
100
In most cases, the annual yeast production per stage will not be available. However, a reasonable
estimate can be determined based on the emission factor for the trade fermentor and the total yeast
production for the facility. Trade fermentors  produce the majority of all VOCs emitted from the
facility because of the number of batches processed per year and of the amount of yeast grown in
these fermentors.  Based on emission test data and process data regarding the number of batches
processed per year, 80 to 90 percent of VOCs emitted from fermentation operations are a result of the
trade fermentors.

        Using either a 2-stage or 4-stage fermentation process has no significant effect on the
overall emissions for the facility. Facilities that use the 2-stage process may have larger fermentors
or may produce more batches per year than facilities that use a 4-stage process. The main factors
affecting emissions are the total  yeast production for a facility  and the degree of process control used.
1/95
Food And Agricultural Industries
9.13.4-5

    -------
     Table 9.13.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC)
                  EMISSION FACTORS FOR YEAST MANUFACTURING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
 Emission Pointb
                                                      VOCC
VOC Emitted Per Stage Per
Amount Of Yeast Produced
       In A Stage,
    kg VOC/Mg Yeast
VOC Emitted Per Stage Per
Amount Of Yeast Produced
       In A Stage,
    Ib VOC/ton Yeast
 Fermentation stages'1
   Flask (Fl)
   Pure culture (F2/F3)
   Intermediate (F4)
    (SCC 3-02-034-04)
   Stock (F5)
    (SCC 3-02-034-05)
   Pitch (F6)
    (SCC 3-02-034-06)
   Trade (F7)
    (SCC 3-02-034-07).
 Waste treatment
   (SCC 3-02-034-10)
 Drying
   (SCC 3-02-034-20)
           ND
           ND
          18

           2.5

           2.5

           2.5
           ND
           ND
           36

           5.0

           5.0

           5.0
                 See Section 4.3 of AP-42
           ND
           ND
a References 1,6-10.  Total VOC as ethanol.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  F numbers refer to fermentation stages (see Figure 9.13.4-1).
b Factors are for both dry yeast (SCC 3-02-034-XX) and compressed yeast (SCC 3-02-035-XX).
c Factors should be used only when plant-specific emission data are not available because of the high
  degree of emissions variability among facilities and among batches within a facility.
d Some yeast manufacturing facilities use a 2-stage final fermentation process, and others use a
  4-stage final fermentation process. Factors for each stage cannot be summed to determine an
  overall  emission factor for a facility, since they are based on yeast yields in each fermentor rather
  than total yeast production. Total yeast production for a facility equals only the yeast yield from
  the trade fermentations. Note that CO2 is also a byproduct of fermentation,  but no data are
  available on the amount emitted.
References For Section 9.13.4

1.      Assessment Of VOC Emissions And Their Control From Baker's Yeast Manufacturing
       Facilities, EPA-450/3-91-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, January 1992.

2.      S. L. Chen and M. Chigar, "Production Of Baker's Yeast", Comprehensive Biotechnology,
       Volume 20, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 1985.

3.      G. Reed and H. Peppier, Yeast Technology, Avi Publishing Company, Westport, CT,  1973.

9.13.4-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
4.     H. Y. Wang, et al., "Computer Control Of Baker's Yeast Production", Biotechnology And
       Bioengineering, Cambridge, MA, Volume 21, 1979.

5.     Industrial Wastewater VOC Emissions - Background For BACT/LAER, EPA-450/3-90-004,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1990.

6.     Written communication from R. Jones,  Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, to the project
       file, April 28, 1993.

7.     Fermentor Emissions Test Report, Gannet Fleming, Inc., Baltimore, MD, October 1990.

8.     Final Test Report For Fermentor No.  5, Gannett Fleming, Inc., Baltimore,  MD, August 1990.

9.     Written communication from J. Leatherdale, Trace Technologies, Bridgewater, NJ, to J.
       Hogan, Gist-brocades Food Ingredients, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ, April 7, 1989.

10.    Fermentor Emissions Test Report, Universal Foods, Inc., Baltimore, MD, Universal Foods,
       Inc., Milwaukee, WI, 1990.
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                       9.13.4-7

    -------

    -------
9.14 Tobacco Products



                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.14-1

    -------

    -------
9.15 Leather Tanning




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.15-1

    -------

    -------
9.16 Agricultural Wind Erosion




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                           Food And Agricultural Industries                         9.16-1

    -------

    -------
                    10.  WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
       Wood processing in this industry involves the conversion of trees into useful consumer products
and/or building materials such as paper, charcoal, treated and untreated lumber, plywood, particle board,
wafer board, and medium density fiber board.  During the conversion processes, the major pollutants of
concern are paniculate, PM-10, and volatile organic compounds.  There also may be speciated organic
compounds that may be toxic or hazardous.
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                            10.0-1

    -------
10.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

    -------
10.1 Lumber




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                            10.1-1

    -------

    -------
10.2  Chemical Wood Pulping

10.2.1  General

        Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by dissolving the
lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together. The 4 processes principally used in chemical pulping
are kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite semichemical (NSSC),  and soda. The first 3 display the greatest
potential for causing air pollution.  The kraft process alone accounts for over 80 percent of the
chemical pulp produced in the United States.  The choice of pulping process is determined by the
desired product, by the wood species available,  and by economic considerations.

10.2.2  Kraft Pulping

10.2.2.1  Process Description1 -
        The kraft pulping process (see Figure 10.2-1) involves the digesting of wood chips at elevated
temperature and pressure in "white liquor", which is a water solution of sodium sulfide and sodium
hydroxide.  The white liquor  chemically dissolves the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers together.

        There are 2 types of digester systems, batch and continuous.  Most kraft pulping is done hi
batch digesters, although the more recent installations are of continuous digesters. In a batch
digester, when cooking is complete, the contents of the digester are transferred to an atmospheric tank
usually referred to  as a blow tank.  The entire contents of the blow tank are sent to pulp washers,
where the spent cooking liquor is separated from the pulp. The pulp then proceeds through various
stages of washing,  and  possibly bleaching, after which it is pressed and dried into the finished
product. The "blow" of the digester does not apply to continuous digester systems.

        The balance of the kraft process is designed to recover the cooking chemicals  and heat.  Spent
cooking liquor and the pulp wash water are combined to form a weak black liquor which is
concentrated hi a multiple-effect evaporator system to about 55 percent solids.  The black liquor is
then further concentrated to 65 percent solids in a direct-contact evaporator, by bringing the liquor
into contact with the flue gases from the recovery furnace, or in an indirect-contact concentrator. The
strong black liquor is then fired in a recovery furnace.  Combustion of the organics dissolved in the
black liquor provides heat for generating process steam and for converting sodium sulfate to sodium
sulfide. Inorganic  chemicals present in the black liquor collect as a molten smelt at the bottom of the
furnace.

        The smelt is dissolved hi water to form green liquor, which is transferred to a causticizing
tank where quicklime (calcium oxide) is added to  convert the solution back to white liquor for return
to the digester system.  A lime mud precipitates from the causticizing tank, after which it is calcined
hi a lime kiln to regenerate quicklime.

        For process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power, etc., many mills
need more steam than can be provided by the recovery furnace alone. Thus, conventional industrial
boilers that burn coal, oil, natural gas, or bark and wood are commonly used.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Wood Products Industry                               10.2-1

    -------
p
to
             CHIPS
                                RELIEF
                                     , CHaSCHa, H2S
                                NONCONDENSABLES
tfl
§
Tl
g
                       CH3SH, CHaSCHa, H2S
                        NONCONDENSABLES

                                \
                                                             H2S, CHaSH, CHaSCHa,
                                                           AND HIGHER COMPOUNDS
      CONTAMINATED
      -*• WATER
                                                                                   TURPENTINE
                                                                    CONTAMINATED WATER


                                                                   STEAM, CONTAMINATED WATER,
                                                                         H2S, AND CHaSH
                        PULP     13% SOLIDS

                        SPENT AIR, CH3SCH3,-«-
                          AND CHaSSCHa
OXIDATION
  TOWER
ON


|

'





m
TJ
o
j>
o
a:
1
                          BLACK LIQUOR
                            50% SOLIDS


DIRECT CON"
EVAPORA1
' \
FACT
UR f
                                                                                                    PRECIPITATOR
                                                                                        IBLACK
                                                                                   LIQUOR 70% SOLIDS^
                                                                                CaO        Na2S04 ~~*1
1 f
c
h
i

WATER
—
RECOVERY
FURNACE
OXIDIZING
ZONE
REDUCTION
ZONE
t


MJLI-UK

1 *
GREEN
LIQUOR

Na2$ + N32CC
                                                                                    AIR
                                          Figure 10.2-1. Typical kraft sulfate pulping and recovery process.

    -------
 10.2.2.2  Emissions And Controls1'7 -
        Particulate emissions from the kraft process occur largely from the recovery furnace, the lime
 kiln and the smelt dissolving tank. These emissions are mainly sodium salts, with some calcium salts
 from the lime kiln.  They are caused mostly by carryover of solids and sublimation and condensation
 of the inorganic chemicals.

        Paniculate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways. In mills with either
 cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator as the direct-contact evaporator, further control is necessary,
 as these devices are generally only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these
 cases, an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is employed after the direct-contact evaporator, for an overall
 paniculate control efficiency of from 85 to more than 99 percent.  Auxiliary scrubbers may be added
 at existing mills after a precipitator or a venturi scrubber  to supplement older and less efficient
 primary paniculate control devices.

        Paniculate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers. Electrostatic
 precipitators have been used hi a few mills.  Smelt dissolving tanks usually are controlled by mesh
 pads, but scrubbers can provide further control.

        The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused by the emission of reduced sulfur
 compounds, the most common of which are hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide,
 and dimethyl disulfide, all with extremely low odor thresholds.  The major source of hydrogen sulfide
 is the direct contact evaporator, in which the sodium sulfide hi the black liquor reacts with the carbon
 dioxide in the furnace  exhaust.  Indirect contact evaporators can significantly reduce the emission of
 hydrogen sulfide.  The lime kiln can also be a potential source of odor, as a similar reaction occurs
 with residual sodium sulfide in the lime mud.  Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with
 the noncondensables of offgases from the digesters and multiple-effect evaporators.

        Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the wood component,
 lignin.  Dimethyl disulfide is formed through  the oxidation of mercaptan groups derived from the
 lignin.  These compounds are emitted from many points within a mill, but the main sources are the
 digester/blow tank systems and the direct contact evaporator.

        Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally found in kraft mills, emitted sulfur
 compounds can be reduced by process modifications and unproved operating conditions. For
 example, black liquor oxidation systems, which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can
 considerably reduce odorous sulfur emissions  from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent
 gases from such systems become minor odor sources themselves. Also, noncondensable odorous
 gases vented from the digester/blow  tank system and multiple effect evaporators can be destroyed by
 thermal oxidation, usually by passing them through the lime kiln.  Efficient operation of the recovery
 furnace, by avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen, residence time, and
 turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of  reduced sulfur compounds from this source as well.
 The use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates hi the scrubbers and pulp washers further
 reduces odorous emissions.

        Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the conventional direct-
 contact evaporators. In one system,  heated combustion  air, rather than fuel gas, provides direct-
 contact evaporation. In another, the multiple-effect evaporator system is  extended to replace the
direct-contact evaporator altogether.  In both systems, sulfur emissions from the recovery
furnace/direct-contact evaporator can be reduced by more  than 99 percent.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Wood Products Industry                              10.2-3

    -------
        Sulfur dioxide is emitted mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds in the recovery
furnace. It is reported that the direct contact evaporator absorbs about 75 percent of these emissions,
and further scrubbing can provide additional control.

        Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process include the recovery
furnace and lime kilns. The major cause of carbon monoxide emissions is furnace operation well
above rated capacity, making it impossible to maintain oxidizing conditions.

        Some nitrogen oxides also are emitted from the recovery furnace and lime kilns, although
amounts are relatively  small. Indications are that nitrogen oxide emissions  are on the order of 0.5 to
1.0 kilograms per air-dried megagram (kg/Mg) (1 to 2 pounds per air-dried ton [lb/ton]) of pulp
produced from the lime kiln and recovery furnace, respectively.5"6

        A major source of emissions hi a kraft mill is  the boiler for generating auxiliary steam and
power. The fuels are coal, oil, natural gas,  or bark/wood waste. See Chapter 1, "External
Combustion Sources",  for emission factors for boilers.

        Table 10.2-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill. The most widely used
paniculate control devices are shown, along  with the odor reductions through black liquor oxidation
and incineration of noncondensable offgases.  Tables 10.2-2, 10.2-3,  10.2-4, 10.2-5,  10.2-6, and
10.2-7 present cumulative size distribution data and size-specific emission factors for paniculate
emissions from sources within a conventional kraft mill.  Uncontrolled and  controlled size-specific
emission factors7 are presented in Figure 10.2-2, Figure 10.2-3,  Figure 10.2-4, Figure 10.2-5,
Figure 10.2-6, and Figure 10.2-7.  The particle sizes are expressed in terms of the aerodynamic
diameter in micrometers (/tin).

10.2.3  Acid Sulfite Pulping

10.2.3.1 Process Description -
        The production of acid  sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to kraft pulping, except that different
chemicals are used in the cooking liquor.  In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve the lignin
in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed.   To buffer the cooking solution, a bisulfite of sodium,
magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used.  A diagram of a typical magnesium-base process is
shown in Figure 10.2-8.

        Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature, in either batch mode or
continuous digesters, and hi the presence of a sulfurous acid/bisulfite cooking liquid.   When cooking
is completed,  either the digester is discharged at high pressure into a blow pit, or its  contents are
pumped into a dump tank at lower pressure.   The spent sulfite liquor (also called red liquor) then
drains through the bottom of the tank and is  treated and discarded,  incinerated, or sent to a plant for
recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp is then washed and processed through screens and
centrifuges to remove knots, bundles of fibers, and other material.  It  subsequently may be bleached,
pressed, and dried in papermaking operations.

        Because of the variety of cooking liquor bases  used, numerous schemes have  evolved for heat
and/or chemical recovery. In calcium base systems, found mostly in older mills, chemical recovery is
not practical, and the spent liquor is usually  discharged or incinerated. In ammonium base
operations, heat can be recovered by combusting the spent liquor, but the ammonium base is thereby
consumed.  In sodium  or magnesium base operations,  the heat, sulfur, and base all may be feasibly
recovered.
10.2-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
VO

VO
o
Table 10.2-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KRAFT PULPING4



                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Source
Digester relief and blow
tank
Brown stock washer
Multiple effect evaporator
Recovery boiler and direct
evaporator





Noncontact recovery boiler
without direct contact
evaporator

Smelt dissolving tank


Lime kiln


Turpentine condenser
Miscellaneous"
Type
Of
Control

Untreatedb
Untreatedb
Untreated15

Untreatedd
Venturi
scrubber
ESP
Auxiliary
scrubber


Untreated
ESP
Untreated
Mesh pad
Scrubber
Untreated
Scrubber
or ESP
Untreated
Untreated
Paniculate
kg/Mg

ND
ND
ND

90

24
1

1.5-7.58


115
1
3.5
0.5
0.1
28

0.25
ND
ND
Ib/ton

ND
ND
ND

180

48
2

3-158


230
2
7
1
0.2
56

0.5
ND
ND
Sulfur Dioxide
(S02)
kg/Mg

ND
ND
ND

3.5

3.5
3.5




ND
ND
0.1
0.1
ND
0.15

ND
ND
ND
Ib/ton

ND
ND
ND

7

7
7




ND
ND
0.2
0.2
ND
0.3

ND
ND
ND
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
kg/Mg

ND
ND
ND

5.5

5.5
5.5




5.5
5.5
ND
ND
ND
0.05

0.05
ND
ND
Ib/ton

ND
ND
ND

11

11
11




11
11
ND
ND
ND
0.1

0.1
ND
ND
Hydrogen Sulfide
(Sm)
kg/Mg

0.02
0.01
0.55

6e

6e
6e
6e



0.05h
0.05h
0.1J
0.1J
0.1J
0.25m

0.25m
0.005
ND
Ib/ton

0.03
0.02
1.1

12e

12e
12e
12e



O.lh
O.lh
0.2*
0.2»
0.2»
0.5m

0.5m
0.01
ND
RSH, RSR, RSSR
(Sm)
kg/Mg

0.6
0.2°
0.05

1.5e

1.5e
1.5°
1.5e



ND
ND
0.151
0.15J
0.15J
O.lm

O.lm
0.25
0.25
Ib/ton

1.2
0.4C
0.1

3e

3e
3e
3c



ND
ND
0.3J
0.3*
0.3*
0.2m

0.2°
0.5
0.5
Co
Ul
o
a
o
o.


I
H—t

I
VI
p

N>

    -------
  -r   2
                o -o o    <»
10.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
      Table 10.2-2 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
         SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A
                    DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESP*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
G*m)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
95.0
93.5
92.2
83.5
56.5
45.3
26.5
100
Controlled
ND
ND
68.2
53.8
40.5
34.2
22.2
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
86
84
83
75
51
41
24
90
Controlled
ND
ND
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
Reference 7. ND = no data.
               100

                90

                so

            S-  70
            «»
            -a
            Ji  60
            *i
            Si  so
            •j »
            r »  40
            It
                20

                10
Uncontrolled
                     Controlled
  1.0

  .9

  0.8

-|0.7 w_
                         I  I  I I I I I
                                            I I  I I I II
                                          0.4 i

                                          0.3 °;

                                          0.2

                                          0.1
                 0.1
        1.0               10
         Particle dlMeter (p>)
                                                                 100
          Figure 10.2-2.  Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission
               factors for recovery boiler with direct-contact evaporator and ESP.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
       Wood Products Industry
             10.2-7

    -------
      Table 10.2-3 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
      SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITHOUT A
                 DIRECT-CONTACT EVAPORATOR BUT WITH AN ESP*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
(Mm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <,
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
ND
ND
ND
78.0
40.0
30.0
17.0
100
Controlled
78.8
74.8
71.9
67.3
51.3
42.4
29.6
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
ND
ND
ND
90
46
35
20
115
Controlled
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.0
'Reference 7. ND = no data.
              ISO
           Si
               50
                          Controlled
                                           Uncontrolled
                      '   i  I I  I I ILL
                                      '   I  i I  I ill
                                                      '   I  I  I I III
                                  1.0


                                  0.9


                                  0.8


                                  0-7 Jj-S

                                     «a
                                  0.6 c?

                                     S*
                                  0.5 gi

                                     **
                                  0-4 |f


                                  0.3 J~


                                  0.2


                                  0.1
                0.1
                                 1.0
                                                 10
                                                                100
                                   Particle diameter
     Figure 10.2-3. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                recovery boiler without direct-contact evaporator but with ESP.
10.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
      Table 10.2-4 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
   SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBER*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Paniculate Size
Gim)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <,
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
98.9
98.3
98.2
96.0
85.0
78.9
54.3
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.14
0.25
aReference 7.
                30

              -
                         Control!*!
                                      Uncontrolled
                          I  I I
                                                   II
                                                            I  I  l I 11
                 0.1
                                  1.0
                                    Particle diuwter
                                                   10
                                                                     0.3
                                                                     0.2-23-

                                                                   100
      Figure 10.2-4.  Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                             lime kiln with venturi scrubber.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Wood Products Industry
10.2-9

    -------
      Table 10.2-5 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
          SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH AN ESP*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
GmO
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
91.2
88.5
86.5
83.0
70.2
62.9
46.9
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.25
Reference 7.
               30
             S 20
            5*
            I-  10
                          Controlled
                                       Uncontrolled
                                                                     0.3
                                    0-2 S-S
                                                                        ii
                                     0.1 £ «
                                         ~
                 0.1
                                  J.O
                                                   10
                                                                  JLL) 0
                                                                   100
                                    tettcli diMtt
     Figure 10.2-5.  Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                                  lime kiln with ESP.
10.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
       Table 10.2-6 (Metric Units).  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
      SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
                                   PACKED TOWER*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
Own)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
40.0
25.5
100
Controlled
95.3
95.3
94.3
85.2
63.8
54.2
34.2
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.43
0.32
0.27
0.17
0.50
Reference 7.
            5i 4
            J-s
            Z*
            Ii 3
                          C 
    -------
     Table 10.2-7 (Metric Units). CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND
     SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
                               VENTURI SCRUBBER*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Paniculate Size
Oun)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative Mass % <
Stated Size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
40.0
25.5
100
Controlled
89.9
89.5
88.4
81.3
63.5
54.7
38.7
100
Cumulative Emission Factor
(kg/Mg of Air-Dried Pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
aReference 7.
           j!
               0.1
                        Controlled
                                               tticimtroUtd
                        i  i  i i i 111
1.0               10
    Partlclt dt««Ur
                                   1.0

                                   0.9

                                   0.8

                                   "•'is
                                                                   -

                                   0.4  «
                                      If
                                   0-3 Si

                                   0.2
                                                                   0.1

                                                                   0
                                                                100
     Figure 10.2-7. Cumulative particle size distribution and size-specific emission factors for
                        smelt dissolving tank with venturi scrubber.
10.2-12
 EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------

                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   •o
                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                   73
                                                                                                   u
                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   •s
                                                                                                   ">.
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   r-H
                                                                                                   o«
                                                                                                   §
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   S
                                                                                                   0)

                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                   53
                                                                                                   2
                                                                                                   o,
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   "3,
                                                                                                   S
                                                                                                   00
                                                                                                   cs
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   a
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Wood Products Industry
10.2-13

    -------
        If recovery is practiced, the spent (weak) red liquor (which contains more than half of the raw
materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated hi a multiple-effect evaporator and a direct-
contact evaporator to 55 to 60 percent solids.  This strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and
burned, producing steam to operate the digesters, evaporators, etc. and to meet other power
requirements.

        When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which magnesium oxide
is recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white power. The magnesium oxide is then water slaked
and is used as circulating liquor in a series of venturi scrubbers, which are designed  to absorb sulfur
dioxide from the flue gas and to form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When sodium
base liquor is burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten smelt containing sodium
sulfide and sodium carbonate.  This smelt may be processed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas and sulfur burner.  In some sodium base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a
nearby kraft mill as raw material  for producing green liquor.

        If liquor recovery is not practiced, an acid plant is necessary of sufficient capacity to fulfill
the mill's total sulfite requirement.  Normally, sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner.  The gas
produced is then cooled by heat exchangers and a water spray and is then absorbed hi a variety of
different scrubbers  containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical.  Where recovery is
practiced, fortification is accomplished similarly, although a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide
must be produced to make up for that lost in the process.

10.2.3.2 Emissions And Controls11  -
        Sulfur dioxide (SO^  is generally considered the major pollutant of concern from sulfite pulp
mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor is  not emitted because volatile reduced sulfur compounds are
not products of the lignin/bisulfite reaction.

        A major SO2 source is the digester and blow pit (dump tank) system.  Sulfur dioxide is
present in the intermittent digester relief gases, as well as in the gases  given off at the end of the cook
when the digester contents are discharged into the blow pit. The quantity of sulfur dioxide evolved
and emitted to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH  of the cooking liquor, the
pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effectiveness of the absorption systems
employed for SO2 recovery.  Scrubbers  can be installed that reduce SO2 from this source by as much
as 99 percent.

        Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system.  Since magnesium,
sodium, and ammonium base recovery systems all use absorption systems to recover SO2 generated hi
recovery furnaces, acid fortification towers, multiple effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SO2
emissions depends on the desired  efficiency of these systems.  Generally, such absorption systems
recover better than 95 percent of the sulfur so it can be reused.

        The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also potential sources of
SO2.  These operations are numerous and may account for a significant fraction of a mill's SO2
emissions if not controlled.

        The only significant particulate source in the pulping and recovery process is the absorption
system handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Ammonium base systems generate less particulate than
do magnesium or sodium base systems.   The combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water
vapor, and sulfur dioxide.
10.2-14                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
        Auxiliary power boilers also produce emissions in the sulfite pulp mill, and emission factors
 for these boilers are presented in Chapter 1, "External Combustion Sources".  Table 10.2-8 contains
 emission factors for the various sulfite pulping operations.

 10.2.4  Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping

 10.2.4.1  Process Description9-12'14 -
        In this method, wood chips are cooked hi a neutral solution of sodium sulfite and sodium
 carbonate. Sulfite ions react with the lignin in wood, and the sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to
 maintain a neutral solution.  The major difference between all semichemical techniques and those of
 kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a portion of the lignin is removed during the  cook, after
 which the pulp is further reduced by mechanical disintegration.  This method achieves yields as high
 as 60 to 80 percent, as opposed to  50 to 55 percent for other chemical processes.

        The NSSC process varies from mill to mill.  Some mills dispose of their spent liquor, some
 mills recover the cooking chemicals, and some, when operated in conjunction with kraft  mills, mix
 their spent liquor with the kraft liquor  as a source of makeup chemicals.  When recovery is practiced,
 the involved steps parallel those of the  sulfite process.

 10.2.4.2 Emissions And  Controls9'12'14 -
        Paniculate emissions are a  potential problem only when  recovery systems are involved.  Mills
 that do practice recovery but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations often utilize
 fluidized bed reactors to burn then* spent liquor.  Because the flue gas contains sodium sulfate and
 sodium carbonate dust, efficient paniculate collection may be included for chemical recovery.

        A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, digester/blower tank
 systems, and recovery furnaces are the main sources of SO2,  with amounts emitted dependent upon
 the capability of the scrubbing devices  installed for control and recovery.

        Hydrogen sulfide  can also be emitted from NSSC mills which use kraft type recovery
 furnaces.  The main potential source is the absorbing tower, where  a significant quantity  of hydrogen
 sulfite is liberated as the cooking liquor is made.  Other possible sources, depending on the operating
 conditions, include the recovery furnace, and in mills where some green liquor is used in the cooking
 process, the digester/blow tank system. Where green liquor is used, it is also possible that significant
 quantities of mercaptans will be produced.  Hydrogen sulfide emissions can be eliminated if burned to
 sulfur dioxide before the absorbing system.

        Because the NSSC process  differs greatly from mill to mill, and because of the scarcity of
 adequate data, no emission factors are presented for this process.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Wood Products Industry                              10.2-15

    -------
  g
  s
  p
  CO


  g
  PH

  CO
  Oi
  O
  t-
  U
  O

  Eo
  CO
  D

  o

  *C

  «
  op

  (S

  o


  0>
ill
s ^ $
fn Tj. Q5
w









-*-
(S
.2
Cfi
a
w








1
.2
0
O
>/> -^


CO 00 00 00 00 60 00 00 00 ^ 60 60 60 00
Z ZZZ Zzzzz ZZZSZ
^^





bA bfl &0 &A CD &A ofi bfl bfi MN QA 00 6£ bD
^ 2
° S
S ** S S o "S .
.0 ,*^ .O -O so C W
1 § 11 111
O C O O t* C5 P
8 rS S 8 § d 5
•o •* •« j» o »
! i . ! 5 i !• i
v v*;vvv eaofl fli
00 00 g 00 60 60 S Q JS
OI^OP oo oriT35oOL,flp
Illllli lifilijig^
O O C O >— ^ ^* O O w *S 13 P H *5 C *S Q i~s
COM *^ oo C Ci C ^ )*| *3 .^H 6 5 !S >

, , ^J ^J ^5 ^? b^P bSP »rt «« ^J k^P «( b^P frt «* ^^
^3 &D ofl bfi DO Lff nr t-^ _^ ftfl rjj t^ j^ ^^ » ^-j


o.
a
p
•o
o
'». °|
£ «
l-i« ^V S
*H VH W
4> 4> *"^ _-•
Oi *a O T3 4)
.S?JS « 'o ^
Q K < O

.1
S
Ui
II

s
Q
^J

1
U(
6jO
60
g
"8
Q/
o
J
•2
jj
.1

1

H
"— s
I^J •
5 t
<4-i
g °
o c
'3 o
'2 M
« s
1 1
> «!
3 1
bo o
G "2
5 T3
•g • .b
o ~^ -2
|||
B ^t
2 <*.
t3 o
<2 S' •'"^
=3 Z £
^ c ^
»-< ° w
** "S
III
« S a,
«> C X
OH § U
03 X)
10.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
o
a
B
5
 O
 is)
                                                               Table 10.2-8 (cont.).

       c Factors represent emissions after cook is completed and when digester contents are discharged into blow pit or dump tank.  Some relief
         gases are vented from digester during cook cycle, but these are usually transferred to pressure accumulators and SO2 herein reabsorbed
         for use in cooking liquor. In some mills, actual emissions will be intermittent and for short periods.
       d May include such measures as raising cooking liquor pH  (thereby lowering free SO2), relieving digester pressure before contents
         discharge, and pumping out digester contents instead of blowing out.
       e Recovery system at most mills is closed and includes recovery furnace, direct contact evaporator, multiple effect evaporator, acid
         fortification tower, and SO2 absorption scrubbers.  Generally only one emission point for entire system.  Factors include high S02
         emissions during periodic purging  of recovery systems.
       f Necessary in mills with insufficient or nonexistent recovery systems.
       g Control is practiced, but type of system is unknown.
       h Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc.

    -------
References For Section 10.2

1.     Review Of New Source Performance Standards For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/3-83-017,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1983.

2.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I:  Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.

3.     Kraft Pulping - Control Of TRS Emissions From Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-003b,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

4.     Environmental Pollution Control, Pulp And Paper Industry, Part I: Air, EPA-625/7-76-001,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1976.

5.     A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Lime Kilns, Technical Bulletin Number 107,
       National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY,
       April 1980.

6.     A Study Of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Large Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Technical
       Bulletin Number 111,  National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
       Improvement, New York, NY, January 1981.

7.     Source Category Report For The Kraft Pulp Industry, EPA Contract Number 68-02-3156,
       Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1983.

8.     Source test data, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.

9.     Atmospheric Emissions From The Pulp And Paper Manufacturing Industry,
       EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1973.

10.    Carbon Monoxide Emissions From Selected Combustion Sources Based On Short-Term
       Monitoring Records, Technical Bulletin Number 416, National Council of the Paper Industry
       for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY, January 1984.

11.    Background Document: Acid Sulftte Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.

12.    E. R. Hendrickson, et al., Control Of Atmospheric Emissions In The Wood Pulping Industry,
       Volume I, HEW Contract Number CPA-22-69-18, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, March 15,  1970.

13.    M. Benjamin, et al., "A  General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping And Bleaching
       Processes", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 19(3): 155-161, March 1969.

14.    S. F. Caleano and B. M. Dillard,  "Process Modifications For Air Pollution Control In Neutral
       Sulfite Semi-chemical Mills", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       22(3): 195-199, March 1972.
10.2-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
103 Pulp Bleaching




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                             10.3-1

    -------

    -------
10.4 Paper-making
                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95
Wood Products Industry
10.4-1

    -------

    -------
10.5 Plywood




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                             10.5-1

    -------

    -------
10.6 Reconstituted Wood Products




10.6.1  Waferboard And Oriented Strand Board




10.6.2  Particleboard




10.6.3  Medium Density Fiberboard
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                             10.6-1

    -------

    -------
10.6.1  Waferboard And Oriented Strand Board




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                           10.6.1-1

    -------

    -------
10.6.2 Particleboard




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                                Wood Products Industry                            10.6.2-1

    -------

    -------
10.6.3  Medium Density Fiberboard




                                     [Work In Progess]
1/95                               Wood Products Industry                           10.6.3-1

    -------

    -------
10.7  Charcoal




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                             10.7-1

    -------

    -------
10.8 Wood Preserving




                                     [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Wood Products Industry                             10.8-1

    -------

    -------
                   11.  MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
       The production, processing, and use of various minerals are characterized by paniculate
emissions in the form of dust.  Frequently,  as in the case of crushing and screening, this dust is
identical in composition to the material being handled.  Emissions occur also from handling and
storing the finished product because this material  is often dry and fine.  Paniculate emissions from
some of the processes such as quarrying, yard storage,  and dust from transport are difficult to
control, but most can be reduced by conventional paniculate control equipment such as cyclones,
scrubbers, and fabric filters. Because of the wide variety in processing equipment and final products,
emission levels will range widely.
1/95                             Mineral Products Industry                            11.0-1

    -------
11.0-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

    -------
11.1  Hot Mix Asphalt Plants

11.1.1  General1'2-23'42^3

        Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of well-graded, high-quality aggregate
(which  can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]) and liquid asphalt cement, which is heated and
mixed in measured quantities to produce HMA. Aggregate and RAP (if used) constitute over
92 percent by weight of the total mixture.  Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt cement used,
mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used. A
certain  percentage of fine aggregate (less than 74 micrometers [jim] in physical diameter) is required
for the  production of good quality HMA.

        Hot mix asphalt paving materials can be manufactured by: (1) batch mix plants,
(2) continuous mix (mix outside drum) plants, (3) parallel flow drum mix plants, and (4) counterflow
drum mix plants.  This order of listing generally reflects the chronological order of development and
use within the HMA  industry.

        There are approximately 3,6dO active asphalt plants in the United States.  Of these,
approximately 2,300  are batch plants, 1,000 are parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are
counterflow drum  mix plants. About 85 percent of plants being manufactured today are of the
counterflow drum  mix design, while batch plants and parallel flow drum mix plants account for
10 percent and 5 percent, respectively.  Continuous mix plants represent a very small fraction of the
plants in use (<0.5 percent) and, therefore, are not discussed further.

        An HMA plant can be constructed  as a permanent plant, a skid-mounted  (easily relocated)
plant, or a portable plant.  All plants can have RAP processing capabilities.  Virtually all plants being
manufactured today have RAP processing capability.

Batch Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-1 shows the batch mix HMA production process.  Raw aggregate normally is
stockpiled near the plant.  The bulk aggregate moisture content typically stabilizes between 3 to
5 percent by weight.

        Processing begins as the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the
appropriate hoppers of the cold feed unit.  The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyer
belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired).  Dryers are equipped with
flights designed to shower the aggregate inside the drum to promote drying efficiency.

        As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer,  it drops  into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a
set of vibrating screens where it is classified into as many as 4 different grades (sizes), and is dropped
into individual "hot" bins according to size. To control aggregate size  distribution in the final batch
mix, the operator opens various hot bins over  a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are
obtained.  Reclaimed  asphalt pavement may be added at this point, also. Concurrent with the
aggregate being weighed,  liquid asphalt cement is pumped from a heated storage tank to an asphalt
bucket,  where it is weighed to achieve the desired aggregate-to-asphalt cement ratio in the final mix.

        The aggregate from the weigh hopper is dropped into the mixer (pug mill) and dry-mixed for
6 to 10  seconds. The liquid  asphalt is then dropped into the pug mill where it is mixed for an


1195                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.1-1

    -------
                                                                                D.
                                                                                C
                                                                                •O
                                                                                3
                                                                                o
                                                                                O
                                                                                o
                                                                                .1
                                                                                60
                                                                                CQ
                                                                                "3,
                                                                                 *
                                                                                '£
                                                                                f
                                                                                 DO
                                                                                 o
                                                                                53
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 cl
                                                                                "w
                                                                                 u<
                                                                                 D
                                                                                o
11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
additional period of time.  Total mixing time is usually less than 60 seconds.  Then the hot mix is
conveyed to a hot storage silo or is dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site.

Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-2 shows the parallel flow drum mix process.  This process is a continuous mixing
type process, using proportioning cold feed controls for the process materials.  The major difference
between this process and the batch process is that the dryer is used not only to dry the material but
also to mix the heated and dried aggregates with the liquid asphalt cement.  Aggregate, which has
been proportioned by size gradations, is introduced to the drum at the burner end.  As the drum
rotates, the aggregates, as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end of the drum  in
parallel. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump electronically linked to the
new (virgin) aggregate and RAP weigh scales. The asphalt cement is introduced in the mixing zone
midway down the drum in a lower temperature zone, along with any RAP and paniculate matter
(PM) from collectors.

        The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and is conveyed to either a surge bin or
HMA storage silos.  The exhaust gases also  exit the end of the drum and pass on to the collection
system.

        Parallel flow drum mixers have an advantage, in that mixing in the discharge end of the drum
captures a substantial portion of the aggregate dust, therefore lowering the load on the downstream
collection equipment.* For this reason, most parallel flow drum mixers are followed only by primary
collection equipment (usually a baghouse or  venturi scrubber). However, because the mixing of
aggregate and liquid asphalt cement occurs in the hot combustion  product flow, organic emissions
(gaseous and liquid aerosol) may be greater than in other processes.

Counterflow Drum  Mix Plants -
        Figure 11.1-3 shows a counterflow drum mix plant.  In this type of plant, the material flow  in
the drum is  opposite or counterflow to the direction of exhaust gases. In addition, the liquid asphalt
cement  mixing zone is located behind the burner flame zone so as to remove the  materials from direct
contact  with hot exhaust gases.

        Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically
linked to the virgin aggregate and RAP weigh scales. It is injected into  the mixing zone along with
any RAP and particulate matter from primary and secondary collectors.

        Because the liquid asphalt cement, virgin aggregate, and RAP are mixed  in a  zone removed
from the exhaust gas stream,  counterflow drum mix plants will likely have organic emissions (gaseous
and liquid aerosol) that are lower than parallel flow drum  mix plants. A counterflow drum mix plant
can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with  little or no observed effect upon emissions.
Today's counterflow drum mix plants are designed for improved thermal efficiencies.

Recycle Processes -
        In recent years, the use of RAP has been initiated  in the HMA industry.  Reclaimed asphalt
pavement significantly reduces the amount of virgin rock and asphalt cement needed to produce
HMA.

        In the reclamation process, old asphalt pavement is removed from the road base.  This
material is then transported to the plant, and is crushed  and screened to the appropriate size for
further processing.  The paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable),
and the  proper  amount of new asphalt cement is added to produce a high-quality grade of HMA.

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.1-3

    -------
m
1
C/5
               EXHAUST-,
                    FANJI
                        -. EXHAUST TO
                          ' ATMOSPHERE
                               SECONDARY FINES
                               RETURN LINE
                                                                                                            FINE AGGREGATE
                                                                                                              STORAGE PILE
                                                                                                            (SCO 3-05-002-03)
                                                                                 COURSE
                                                                                AGGREGATE
                                                                               STORAGE PILE
                                                                              (SCO 3-05-002-03)
                                                                   DRYER    fo,
                                                                  BURNER   .T^!J
!   ~jt    PARALLEL-FLOW    CONVEYOR    SCALPING    /     COLD AGGREGATE
!   A     DRUM MIXER                   SCREEN   cc/ncoc        BINS
         (SCC 3-05-002-05)                           FEEDERS   (scc 3.05-002-04)
                                                                             ASPHALT CEMENT        HEATER
                                                                                 STORAGE    (SCC 3-05-002-06, -07, -08, -09)
                                                                                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                       I   Emission Points

                                                                       (o) Ducted Emissions

                                                                       (P^ Process Fugitive Emissions

                                                                       (bo) Open Dust Emissions
                                                                                               43
                   Figure 11.1-2.  General process flow diagram for drum mix asphalt plants.    (Source Classification Goes in parentheses.)

    -------
s
5'
o
CL.

O
£7
»—<

D.
                                                                                                                                     LOADER
                                                                                                                                  (SCO 3-05-002-04)
                                                                                                                                           COURSE AGGREGATE
                                                                                                                                             STORAGE PILE
                                                                                                                                            (SCC 3-05-002-03)
                                                                                                                  EXHAUST TO
                                                                                                                  ATMOSPHERE
                                RAP BIN & CONVEYOR
                                                                                            SECONDARY
                                                                                            COLLECTOR
                                                                 FINE AGGREGATE
                                                                  STORAGE PILE
                                                                 (SCC 3^)5-002-03)
                                                                                             SECONDARY FINES
                                                                                             RETURN LINE
 DRYER
BURNER  „.,-, .»
                                                                                                                           COLD AGGREGATE BINS
                                                                                                                              (SCC 3-05-002-04)
                 COUNTER-FLOW
                  DRUM MIXER
                 (SCC 3-05-002-05)
                                                                                                       SCALPING
                                                                                                       SCREEN
                                                                                  ASPHALT CEMENT
                                                                                  STORAGE
                                                     HEATER
                                             (SCC 3-05-002-06, -07, -08, 08)
                                                                                                                                   Emission Points

                                                                                                                                  ) Ducted Emissions

                                                                                                                                  ) Process Fugitive Emissions

                                                                                                                                  ) Open Dust Emissions
                                                                                                               43
             Figure 11.1-3.  General process flow diagram for counterflow drum mix asphalt plants.    (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

    -------
11.1.2  Emissions And Controls23-42-43

        Emission points discussed below refer to Figure 11.1-1 for batch mix asphalt plants, and to
Figure 11.1-2 and Figure 11.1-3 for drum mix plants.

Batch Mix Plants -
        As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have 2 major
categories of emissions:  ducted sources (those vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack,
vent, or pipe), and fugitive sources  (those not confined  to ducts and vents but emitted directly  from
the source to the ambient air).  Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported by an
industrial ventilation system having 1 or more fans or air movers, eventually to be emitted  to the
atmosphere through some type of stack. Fugitive emissions result from process  and open sources and
consist of a combination of gaseous pollutants and PM.

        The most significant source of ducted emissions from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary
drum dryer.  Emissions from the dryer consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate, PM,
and small amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC) of various species (including hazardous air
pollutants [HAP]) derived from combustion exhaust gases.

        Other potential process sources include the hot-side conveying, classifying, and  mixing
equipment, which are vented to either the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or  to a
separate dust collection system.  The vents and enclosures that collect emissions  from these sources
are commonly called "fugitive air" or "scavenger" systems. The scavenger system may or may not
have its own separate ah* mover device, depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured
and transported by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain  gaseous
VOCs and a fine  aerosol of condensed liquid particles.  This liquid aerosol is created by the
condensation of gas into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement
in the mixer (pug mill).  The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the
temperature of the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill.  Organic  vapor and  its
associated aerosol are also emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck
loadout, from the bed of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from the asphalt storage
tank. In addition to low molecular  weight VOCs, these organic emission  streams may contain small
amounts of polycyclic compounds.  Both the low molecular weight VOCs and the polycyclic organic
compounds can include HAPs.  The ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage tanks may
include  VOCs and combustion products from the tank heater.

        The choice of applicable control equipment for  the dryer exhaust and vent line ranges from
dry mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric collectors.  Attempts to  apply electrostatic
precipitators have met with little success.  Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment
with large diameter cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers.  These chambers  are often used as
classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator and to combine it with  the drier aggregate.
To capture remaining PM, the primary collector  effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device.
Most plants use either a baghouse or a  venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control.

        There are also a  number of fugitive dust  sources associated with batch mix HMA plants,
including vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads,  aggregate material
handling, and other aggregate processing operations. Fugitive dust may range from 0.1 //.m to more
than 300 /*m in aerodynamic diameter.   On average, 5  percent of cold aggregate feed is less than
74 fim (minus 200 mesh).  Fugitive dust that may escape collection before primary control generally
consists of PM with 50 to 70 percent of the total mass less than 74 /un.  Uncontrolled PM  emission
11.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
factors for various types of fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Section 13.2.3,  "Heavy
Construction Operations".

Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants -
       The most significant ducted source of emissions is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the
drum consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate, PM, and small amounts of VOCs of
various species (including HAPs) derived from combustion exhaust gases, liquid asphalt cement,  and
RAP, if utilized.  The VOCs result from incomplete combustion ajid from the heating and mixing of
liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. The processing of RAP materials may increase VOC
emissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during processing.

       Once the VOCs cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a fine
liquid aerosol or "blue smoke" plume. A number of process modifications or restrictions have been
introduced to reduce blue smoke including installation of flame shields, rearrangement of flights
inside the drum, adjustments of the asphalt injection point,  and other design  changes.

Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
       The most significant ducted source of emissions is the rotary drum dryer in a counterflow
drum mix plant. Emissions from the drum consist of water as steam evaporated from the aggregate,
PM, and small amounts of VOCs of various species (including HAPs) derived from combustion
exhaust gases, liquid asphalt cement,  and RAP, if used.

       Because liquid asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in
contact with the hot exhaust gas stream,  counterflow drum mix plants will likely have lower  VOC
emissions than parallel flow drum mix plants. The organic compounds that are emitted from
counterflow drum mix plants are likely to be products of a slight inefficient combustion and can
include HAP.

Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
       Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plant hot screens, elevators, and the mixer
(pug mill) are not present in the drum mix processes. However, there may  be slight fugitive VOC
emissions from transport and handling of the hot mix from  the drum mixer to the storage silo and
also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks.  Since the drum process is continuous, these
plants must have surge bins or storage silos.  The fugitive dust sources associated with drum mix
plants are similar to those of batch mix plants with regard to truck traffic and to  aggregate material
feed and  handling operations.

       Tables 11.1-1 and 11.1-2 present emission factors for filterable PM  and PM-10, condensable
PM, and total PM for batch mix HMA plants.  The emission factors are based on both the type of
control technology employed and the type of fuel used to fire the dryer.  Particle size data for batch
mix HMA plants, also based on the control technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-3.
Tables 11.1-4 and  11.1-5 present filterable PM and PM-10, condensable PM, and total PM emission
factors for drum mix HMA plants. The emission factors are based on both the type of control
technology employed and the type of fuel used to fire the dryer. Particle size data for drum mix
HMA plants, also based on the control technology used, are shown in Table  11.1-6. Tables  11.1-7
and 11.1-8 present emission factors for carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and total organic compounds  (TOC) from batch and drum mix
plants. Table 11.1-9 presents organic pollutant emission factors for batch plants.  Tables 11.1-10 and
11.1-11 present organic pollutant emission factors for drum mix plants.  Tables 11.1-12 and  11.1-13
present metal emission  factors for batch and drum mix plants, respectively.
1195                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.1-7

    -------
                     Table 11.1-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*
oo
Process
Natural gas-fired
dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Uncontrolled
Low-energy
scrubber*
Venturi scrubber"
Fabric filter
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber*
Fabric filter
Filterable PM
PM



16°

0.039
0.026
0.020f


16C
0.026
0.020e
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



E

D
E
D


E
E
D
PM-10b



2.2

ND
ND
0.0080


2.2
ND
0.0080
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



E



D


E

D
Condensable PM
Inorganic



0.0017d

0.0017
ND
0.00148


0.0083d
0.0083
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



D

D

D


D
E

EMIS
FAC
Organic RAT



SIGN
TOR
ING Total



0.00039d D 0.0021

ND
ND

ND
ND
0.00039h D 0.0018h


ND
ND
ND


0.022d
ND
0.022k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



D



D


D

D
Total PM
EMIS
FAC
PM RAT



SION
TOR
ING PM-10



16 E 2.2

ND
ND

ND
* ND
0.022" D 0.0098




16 E 2.2
ND
ND
0.042m D 0.030
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



E



D


E

D
m
in
GO
O
H
O
?a
GO
a Factors are kg/Mg of product. Filterable PM emission factors were developed from tests on dryers fired with several different fuels.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Particle size data from Reference 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factors shown.
c Reference 5.
d Although no data are available for uncontrolled condensable PM, values are assumed to be equal to the maximum controlled value
  measured.
e Reference 15.
f References 15,24,40-41.
g Reference 24.
h References 24,39.
J  References 15,24,39-41.
k Reference 39.
m Reference 40.

    -------
   E-

   <

   o.


   <

   £
   tvn
   X

   §

   S
   X
   X
   i
   CQ
   C*
   O
   UH
   CO
   a;
   O

   O
   C/3
   CO
   *J
   'S
   cs






Jg
i













i
o
3
3
U
1
o
U












£
«
2




lg§
co G H
5 ^ ^
3 * **

o
s
B«
Igl

S B. «

«g
o.

£81
CO t- «
23 u H
w ^ *


I

Z ft/ r»
2 o S
55 r s
22 ^ £?
^ ***
*^
a
£?
O

loi
icf
w ^ ^

o
1

igg
co H —
a C H
E < <
u •*• *

-jb
5
a.
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

S
a.


m
cu

U



v, Q Q
^ Z Z
H



Q Q
r>
•^

.


S

x-y
il-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01
Uncontrolled
O





Q
Z




Q
Z





a




Q
Z


U]



I—
o
d




Q
Z

U

d


Venturi scrubber6


Q



i
d
Q


e
i
d

O



i
d




Q
Z






Q

Q


VO
p
d

Q
£,
0
d


o
x>



f
C/}
*8>
a
•g
§
i

1
>
to

•§
"8
u.
52
9>

Ui
T3
O
c/3
t/3
B
«ts
"8
CX
*a>
^
•rt
£
a>
U3
O
4~>
_O
'33

T3
Particle size i
Reference 5.
a o




4>
"I
>
•s
1
C
8
E
s
E
'S
CU
«
2
03
3
Z
0>
X)

O
4—*
•s
C/3
t/3
CO
£
c3
CO
CU
3
C3
S
0.
J2
2
03
V)
o>
•a
c
o
o
I
s
s
1
3
i-
«8

1
"S3
>
03
c3
03
•a
Although no
•o












































measured.
Reference 15
u
                                                                                                 in
                                                                                    -  «.N
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                        
                                                                                        o  o  o
                                                                                        c  c  c
                                                                                        0>  

                                                     oJ oi at
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-9

    -------
               Table 11.1-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                     FOR BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS4
Particle
Size, /tmb
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than Or Equal To Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled
0.83
3.5
14
23
30
Cyclone
Collectors
5.0
11
21
29
36
Multiple Centrifugal
Scrubbers
67
74
80
83
84
Gravity Spray
Towers
21
27
37
39
41
Fabric
Filters
33
36
40
47
54
a Reference 23, Table 3-36.  Rounded to two significant figures.
b Aerodynamic diameter.
c Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
        Table 11.1-4 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX
                                   ASPHALT PLANTSa

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Filterable PM
PM
9.4d
0.017S
0.007011
9.4d
0.017«
0.0070h
PM-10C
2.2
ND
0.0022
2.2
ND
0.0022
Condensable
Inorganic
0.0 14e
ND
ND
0.0126
ND
0.012k
Organic
0.027f
0.010f
ND
0.0013e
ND
0.0013k
PM
Total
0.041
ND
0.0019J
0.013e
ND
0.013k
Total
PM
9.4
ND
0.0089
9.4
ND
0.020
PMb
PM-10
2.2
ND
0.0041
2.2
ND
0.015
a Factors are kg/Mg of product. Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt
  pavement (RAP).  Because of the limited data available, the effect of RAP processing on emissions
  could not be determined.  Filterable PM emission factors were developed from tests on dryers firing
  several different fuels.  SCC  = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and total condensable PM emission factors.
  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable  PM-10 and total condensable PM emission
  factors.
c Particle size data from Reference 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission
  factors shown.
d References 31,36-38.
e Although no emission test data are available for uncontrolled condensible PM, values are assumed
  to be equal to the maximum controlled value measured.
f References 36-37.
g References 29,32,36-37,40.
h References 25-28,31,33,40. EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C.
J Reference 39.
k References 25,39.
11.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        Table 11.1-5 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX
                                   ASPHALT PLANTS21

                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Dryer (oil-fired)
(SCC 3-05-002-05)
Uncontrolled
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Filterable PM
PM

19d
0.033S
0.014h

19d
0.033?
0.014h
PM-10C

4.3
ND
0.0045

4.3
ND
0.0045
Condensable PM
Inorganic

0.027e
ND
ND

0.023"
ND
0.023k
Organic

0.054f
0.020f
ND

0.0026C
ND
0.0026k
Total

0.081
ND
0.0037)

0.026C
ND
0.026k
Total
PM

19
ND
0.018

19
ND
0.040
PMb
PM-10

4.4
ND
0.0082

4.3
ND
0.031
a Factors are Ib/ton of product.  Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt
  pavement (RAP). Because of the limited data available, the effect of RAP processing on emissions
  could not be determined.  Filterable PM emission factors were developed from tests on dryers firing
  several different fuels.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Total PM emission factors are the sum of filterable PM and total condensable PM emission factors.
  Total PM-10 emission factors are the sum of filterable PM-10 and total condensable PM emission
  factors.
c Particle size data from Reference 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission
  factors shown.
d References 31,36-38.
e Although no emission test data are available for uncontrolled condensable PM, values are assumed
  to be equal to the maximum controlled value measured.
f References 36-37.
« References 29,32,36-37,40.
h References 25-28,31,33,40. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
J  Reference 39.
k References 25,39.
               Table 11.1-6.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                      FOR DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Particle Size, /imb
2.5
10.0
15.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than Or Equal To Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled
5.5
23
27
Fabric Filters'1
11
32
35
a Reference 23, Table 3-35.  Rounded to two significant figures.
b Aerodynamic diameter.
c Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
d Includes data from two out of eight tests where about 30% reclaimed asphalt pavement was
  processed using a split feed process.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-11

    -------
       Table 11.1-7 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BATCH MIX
                              HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
CO
kg/Mg
0.17°
0.035*
Ib/ton
0.34°
0.069e
C02
kg/Mg
17"
198
Ib/ton
35d
398
NOX
kg/Mg
0.013°
0.0846
Ib/ton
0.025C
o.ir
S02
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
0.00256 0.0050°
0.12e 0.24°
TOCb
kg/Mg
0.0084f
0.023f
Ib/ton
0.017f
0.046f
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of product.  Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Factors represent TOC as methane, based on EPA Method 25A test data.
c References 24,34,39.
d References 15,24,39.
e Reference 39.  Dryer tested was fired with #6 fuel oil.  Dryers fired with other fuel oils will have
  different SO2 emission factors.
f References 24,39.
g References 15,39.
       Table 11.1-8 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM MIX
                              HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)
CO
kg/Mg
0.028C

0.018C

Ib/ton
0.056°

0.0366

C02
kg/Mg
14d

19f

Ib/ton
27d

37f

NO,
kg/Mg
0.015°

0.0388

Ib/ton
0.030°

0.0758

S02
kg/Mg
0.0017°

0.0288

Ib/ton
0.0033°

0.0568

TOCb
kg/Mg | Ib/ton
0.025° 0.051°

0.0358 0.0698

a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of product.  Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.
  Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Because of limited
  data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Factors represent TOC as methane, based on EPA Method 25A test data.
c Reference 39. Includes data from both parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers. Organic
  compound emissions from counterflow systems are expected to be smaller than from parallel flow
  systems. However, the available data are insufficient to accurately quantify the difference in these
  emissions.
d References 30,39.
e Reference 25.
f References 25-27,29,32-33,39.
g References 25,39.  Includes data from both parallel  flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.
  Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems are expected to be smaller than from
  parallel flow systems.  However, the available data  are insufficient to accurately quantify the
  difference in these emissions.  One of the dryers tested was fired with #2 fuel oil (0.003 kg/Mg
  [0.006 Ib/ton]) and the other dryer was fired with waste oil (0.05 kg/Mg [0.1 Ib/ton]). Dryers fired
  with other fuel oils will have different SO2 emission factors.
 11.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 Table 11.1-9 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
              EMISSIONS FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)











Oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)





CASRN
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
75-07-0
67-64-1
120-12-7
100-52-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
78-84-2
218-01-9
4170-30-3
100-41-4
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
66-25-1
74-82-8
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
106-51-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-57-6
206-44-0
50-00-0

91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
Pollutant
Name
2-Methylnaphthaleneb
Acenaphtheneb
Acenaphthyleneb
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Anthracene1*
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthraceneb
Benzo(b)fluorantheneb
Benzo(k)fluorantheneb>c
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Chryseneb
Crotonaldehyde
Ethyl benzene
Fluorantheneb
Fluoreneb
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
Methane
Naphthalene15
Phenanthreneb
Pyreneb
Quinone
Toluene
Xylene
2-Methylnaphthaleneb
Fluorantheneb
Formaldehyde0
Methane
Naphthalene15
Phenanthrenebi°
Pyreneb
Emission Factor
kg/Mg 1 Ib/ton
3.8X10'5 7.7xlO-5
6.2xlQ-7 1.2X1Q-6
4.3X10'7 8.6xlO'7
0.00032 0.00064
0.0032 0.0064
l.SxKT7 S.lxlO'7
6.4xlO'5 0.00013
0.00017 0.00035
2.3xlQ-9 4.5X10'9
2.3xlO-9 4.5xlO-9
1.2xlO-8 2.4xlO-8
l.SxlO'5 3.0xlO-5
S.lxlO-9 6.1xlO-9
l.SxlO'5 2.9xlO-5
0.0016 0.0033
1.6X10'7 3.1xlO-7
9.8xlO-7 2-OxlO-6
0.00043 0.00086
1.2xlQ-5 2.4xlO'5
0.0060 0.012
2.1xlO'5 4.2xlO-5
1.6X1Q-6 3.3X10-6
3.1xlO-8 6.2xlO'8
0.00014 0.00027
0.00088 0.0018
0.0021 0.0043
3.0xlQ-5 6.0xlO-5
1.2xlO-5 2.4xlO-5
0.0016 0.0032
0.0022 0.0043
2.2X10"5 4.5xlO-5
l.SxlO'5 3.7xlO'5
2.7xlO-5 5.5xlO-5
Ref.
Nos.
24,39
34,39
34,39
24
24
34,39
24
24,39
39
39
34
24
39
24
24,39
34,39
34,39
24,39
24
39
34,39
34,39
34,39
24
24,39
24,39
39
39
39,40
39
39
39
39
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Factors represent uncontrolled
  emissions, unless noted.  CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Controlled by a fabric filter.  Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter (POM), as
  defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-13

    -------
Table 11.1-10 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
            EMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS*
                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Natural gas- or
propane-fired dryerb
(SCC 3-05-002-05)

























Oil-fired dryer0
(SCC 3-05-002-05)



CASRN
91-58-7
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
100-41-4
206-44-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
50-OQ-O
193-39-5
74-82-8
71-55-6
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-57-6
208-96-8
75-07-0
67-64-1
Pollutant
Name
2-Chloronaphthalenec
2-Methylnaphthalenec
Acenaphthene0
Acenaphthylenec
Anthracene0
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracenec
Benzo(a)pyrenec
Benzo(b)fluoranthenec
Benzo(e)pyrenec
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene°
Benzo(k)fluoranthenec
Chrysenec
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenec>e
Ethylbenzene6
Fluoranthenec
Fluorenec
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyded>e
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenec
Methane
Methyl chloroform6
Naphthalene0
Perylenec>e
Phenanthrenec
Pyrenec
Toluene
Xylene
2-Methylnaphthalenec
Acenaphthylene0
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
8.9xlO-7
3.7xlO-5
6.4X10'7
4.2X10-6
LOxlO'7
0.00060
l.OxlO-7
4.6X10'9
S.lxlO'8
5.2X10'8
1.9xlO-8
2.6xlO-8
l.SxlO-7
1.3xlO-9
0.00015
3.0xlO-7
2.7X10-6
0.0018
0.00079
3.6xlO'9
0.010
2.4xlO-5
2.4xlO-5
6.2xlO'9
4.2xlO-6
2.3xlQ-7
0.00010
0.00020
8.5xlO-5
l.lxlO'5
0.00065
0.00042
Ib/ton
l.SxlO-6
7.4xlO'5
1.3X10-6
8.4X10-6
2.1xlO-7
0.0012
2.0X10'7
9.2xlO'9
l.OxlO-7
l.OxlO'7
3.9xlO-8
5.3xlO-8
3.5xlO-7
2.7xlO-9
0.00029
5.9xlO-7
5.3X10-6
0.0036
0.0016
7.3xlO-9
0.021
4.8xlO-5
4.8xlO-5
1.2xlO-8
8.4X10-6
4.6xlO'7
0.00020
0.00040
0.00017
2.2xlO'5
0.0013
0.00083
Ref.
Nos.
39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
39
39
39
35,39
39
39
39
39
39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
40
39
39
35
35,39
39
35,39
35,39
35,39
39
39
39
25
25
11.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 11.1-10 (cont.).
Process























CASRN
107-02-8
120-12-7
100-52-7
71-43-2
78-84-2
4170-30-3
100-41-4
86-73-7
50-00-0
50-00-0
66-25-1
590-86-3
74-82-8
78-93-3
91-20-3
85-01-8
123-38-6
129-00-0
106-51-4
108-88-3
110-62-3
1330-20-7
Pollutant
Name
Acrolein
Anthracene0
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Butyraldehyde/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene0
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde*1'6
Hexanal
Isovaleraldehyde
Methane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene6
Phenanthrene0
Propionaldehyde
Pyrenec>e
Quinone
Toluene
Valeraldehyde
Xylene
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
1.3X10'5
l.SxMr6
5.5xl(T5
0.00020
S.OxlO-5
4.3xlO-5
0.00019
S.SxlO"6
0.0012
0.00026
5.5x10-*
1.6X10'5
0.0096
1.0x10-5
0.00016
2.8xlO-5
6.5xlO'5
1.5x10-*
S.OxlO'5
0.00037
3.4x10-5
8.2xlO-5
Ib/ton
2.6xlO-5
3.6X10-6
0.00011
0.00041
0.00016
8.6xlO-5
0.00038
1.7X10'5
0.0024
0.00052
0.00011
3.2xlO-5
0.020
2.0X10'5
0.00031
5.5xlO'5
0.00013
3-OxlO-6
0.00016
0.00075
6.7x10-5
0.00016
Ref.
Nos.
25
39
25
25
25
25
25
39
25,39
40
25
25
25,39
25
25,39
39
25
39
25
25
25
25
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced.  Table includes data from both parallel
  flow and counterflow drum mix dryers.  Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems
  are expected to be less than from parallel flow systems, but the available data are insufficient to
  quantify accurately the difference in these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service
  Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Because of limited
  data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined.
c Controlled by a fabric filter.  Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter (POM), as
  defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
d Controlled by a wet scrubber.
e EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-15

    -------
 Table 11.1-11 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
               EMISSIONS FROM HOT MIX ASPHALT HOT OIL HEATERS*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

Process
Hot oil heater fired
with No.2 fuel oil
(SCC 3-05-002-08)





















CASRN
83-32-9

208-96-8
120-12-7
205-99-2
206^4-0
86-73-7
50-00-0
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
19408-74-3
39227-28-6

35822-46-9

3268-87-9




67562-39^
39001-02-0
Pollutant
Name
Acenaphtheneb

Acenaphthyleneb
Anthraceneb
Benzo(b)fluorantheneb
Fluorantheneb
Fluoreneb
Formaldehyde
Naphthaleneb
Phenanthreneb
Pyreneb
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDFb
PeCDFb
HxCDFb
HpCDFb
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDF
Emissior
kg/L
6.4xlO'8

2.4xlO'8
2.2xlO'8
1.2xlO-8
5.3xlO'9
3.8xlO'9
0.0032
2.0X10-6
5.9xlO-7
3.8xlO'9
9.1xlO'14
8.3xlO'14
7.4xlO'13
l.SxlO'12
2.4xlO-12
1.9xl
    -------
   Table 11.1-12 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
                   FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTSa

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-01)











Pollutant
Arsenicb
Barium
Beryllium5
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Hexavalent chromiumb
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniumb
Zinc
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
3.3xlO-7
7.3xlO'7
UxHT7
4.2X10'7
4.5xlQ-7
1.8xlO-6
4.9xlO-9
3.7xlO-7
S.OxlO-6
2.3xlO-7
2.1X10-6
4.6xlO"8
3.4xlO-6
Ib/ton
6.6xlQ-7
l.SxlO-6
2.2xlO'7
8.4X10'7
8.9xlO-7
3.7XKT6
9.7xlO-9
7.4xlO'7
9.9xlO'6
4.5xlO-7
4.2xlO'6
9.2x10-*
6.8xlO-6
Ref. Nos.
34,40
24
34
24,34
24
24,34
34
24,34
24,34
34
24,34
34
24,34
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced.  Emissions controlled by a fabric filter.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
   Table 11.1-13 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
                   FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Dryerb
(SCC 3-05-002-05)










Pollutant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Zinc
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
5.5xlO-7
2.4xlO'6
2.2xlO-7
6.0xlQ-6
S.lxlO'6
1.7xlQ-6
5.5xlO-6
3.7xlO-9
7.5xlO-6
2.8X10'5
7.0xlO-7
2.1xlO'5
Ib/ton
l.lxlO-6
4.8xlQ-6
4.4xlQ-7
1.2xlQ-5
6.1xlO'6
3.3xlO'6
l.lxKT5
7.3xlO'9
l.SxlO'5
5.5xlO-5
1.4xlO-6
4.2xlO-5
Ref. Nos.
25,35
25
25,35
25
25
25,35
25
35
25
25
25
25,35
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Emissions controlled by a fabric filter.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Feed material includes RAP.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-17

    -------
References For Section 11.1

 1.     Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0076,
       Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Seattle, WA, November 1971.

 2.     Guide For Air Pollution Control Of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Information Series 17, National
       Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.

 3.     R. M. Ingels, et al., "Control Of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants In Los Angeles
       County", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 70(l):29-33, January 1960.

 4.     H. E. Friedrich,  "Air Pollution Control Practices And Criteria For Hot Mix Asphalt Paving
       Batch Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 79(12):924-928,
       December 1969.

 5.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.

 6.     G. L. Allen, et al., "Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dust And Fumes In Los Angeles
       County, California", Information Circular 7627, U. S. Department Of The Interior,
      , Washington, DC, April 1952.

 7.     P. A. Kenline, Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process
       industries, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May  1959.

 8.     Private communication between G. Sallee, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1970.

 9.     J. A. Danielson,  "Unpublished Test Data From Asphalt Batching Plants, Los Angeles County
       Air Pollution Control District", presented at Air Pollution Control Institute, University Of
       Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, November  1966.

10.     M. E. Fogel, et al., Comprehensive Economic Study Of Air Pollution  Control Costs For
       Selected Industries And Selected Regions, R-OU-455, U. S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1970.

11.     Preliminary Evaluation Of Air Pollution Aspects Of The Drum Mix Process,
       EPA-340/1-77-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1976.

12.     R. W. Beaty and B. M. Bunnell, "The Manufacture Of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures In The
       Dryer Drum", presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Technical Asphalt
       Association, Quebec City, Quebec, November 19-21, 1973.

13.     J. S. Kinsey, "An Evaluation Of Control Systems And  Mass Emission Rates From Dryer
       Drum Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       26(12): 1163-1165, December 1976.

14.     Background Information For Proposed New Source Performance Standards, APTD-1352A and
       B, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
11.1-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
15.    Background Information For New Source Performance Standards, EPA 450/2-74-003,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1974.

16.    Z. S. Kahn and T. W. Hughes, Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hot Mix.,
       EPA-600/2-77-107n, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December
       1977.

17.    V. P. Puzinauskas and L. W. Corbett, Report On Emissions From Asphalt Hot Mixes,
       RR-75-1A, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD,  May 1975.

18.    Evaluation Of Fugitive Dust From Mining, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, PEDCo
       Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.

19.    J. A. Peters and P. K. Chalekode, "Assessment Of Open Sources", Presented at the Third
       National Conference On Energy And The Environment, College Corner,  OH, October 1,
       1975.

20.    Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot Mix Asphalt Plant, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
       Santa Monica, CA, 1978.

21.    Herman H. Forsten, "Applications Of Fabric Filters To Asphalt Plants",  presented at the 71st
       Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.

22.    Emission Of Volatile Organic Compounds From Drum Mix Asphalt Plants,
       EPA-600/2-81-026, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, February 1981.

23.    J. S. Kinsey, Asphaltic Concrete Industry - Source Category Report,  EPA-600/7-86-038,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.

24.    Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #6, LaCrosse,  Wisconsin,
       EMB-No. 91-ASP-ll, Emission Assessment Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  February
       1992.

25.    Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #26, New Richmond, Wisconsin,
       EMB-No. 91-ASP-10, Emission Assessment Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  April 1992.

26.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill,
       North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, February  1988.

27.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lee Paving Company, Aberdeen, Nonh Carolina,
       RAMCON Environmental Corporation,  Memphis, TN, September 1989.

28.    Stationary Source Sampling Repon, S. T. Woolen Company, Drugstore, Nonh Carolina,
       Entropy Environmentalists  Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1989.

29.    Source Sampling Repon For Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill, Nonh Carolina,
       Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1988.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.1-19

    -------
30.    Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Of Shelby, Inc., King's Mountain,
       North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.

31.    Emission Test Report, Western Engineering Company, Lincoln, Nebraska, EMB-83-ASP-5,
       Emission Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1984.

32.    Source Sampling Report For Smith And Sons Paving Company, Pineola, North Carolina,
       Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, June 1988.

33.    Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Superior Paving Company, Statesville, North
       Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.

34.    Report O/AB2588 Air Pollution Source Testing At Industrial Asphalt, Irwindale, California,
       Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.

35.    A Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report As Required Under The Air Toxics  "Hot Spots"
       Information And Assessment Act Of 1987, Calmat Co., Fresno II Facility, Fresno California,
       Engineering-Science, Inc., Pasadena, CA, September 1990.

36.    Emission Test Report, Sloan Company, Cocoa, Florida, EMB-84-ASP-8, Emission
       Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1984.

37.    Emission Test Report, T. J. Campbell  Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, EMB-83-ASP-4,
       Emission Measurement Branch, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1984.

38.    Characterization Qflnhalable Particulate Matter Emissions From A Drum-mix Asphalt Plant,
       Final Report, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  February 1983.

39.    Kathryn O'C. Gunkel, NAPA Stack Emissions Program, Interim Status Report, National
       Asphalt Pavement Association, Baltimore, MD, February 1993.

40.    Written communication from L. M. Weise, Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources, to
       B. L. Strong, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, May 15, 1992.

41.    Stationary Source Sampling Report, Alliance Contracting Corporation, Durham, North
       Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1988.

42.    Katherine O'C. Gunkel, Hot Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities, Wildwood Environmental
       Engineering Consultants,  Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1992.

43.    Written communication from R. Gary Fore, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham,
       MD, to Ronald Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1, 1994.
11.1-20                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
11.2  Asphalt Roofing

11.2.1  General1'2

        The asphalt roofing industry manufactures asphalt-saturated felt rolls, fiberglass and organic
(felt-based) shingles, and surfaced and smooth roll roofing. Most of these products are used in roof
construction, but small quantities are used in walls and other building applications.

11.2.2  Process Description1"4

        The production of asphalt roofing products consists of six major operations:  (1) felt
saturation, (2) coating, (3)  mineral surfacing (top and bottom), (4) cooling and drying, (5) product
finishing (seal-down strip application, cutting and trimming, and laminating of laminated shingles),
and (6) packaging.  There are six major production support operations:  (1) asphalt storage,
(2) asphalt blowing, (3) back surfacing and granule storage, (4) filler storage, (5) filler heating, and
(6) filler and coating asphalt mixing.  There are two primary roofing substrates:   organic (paper felt)
and fiberglass.  Production of roofing products from the two substrates differ mainly in the
elimination of the saturation process when using fiberglass.

        Preparation of the asphalt is  an integral part of the production of asphalt  roofing.  This
preparation, called "blowing," involves the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through liquid
asphalt flux  at 260°C (500°F) for 1 to 10 hours. The amount of time depends on the desired
characteristics of the roofing asphalt, such as softening point and penetration rate.  Blowing results in
an exothermic reaction that requires  cooling. Water sprays are applied either internally or externally
to the shell of the blowing  vessel. A typical plant blows four to six batches per  24-hour day.
Blowing may be done in either vertical vessels or in horizontal chambers (both are frequently referred
to as  "blowing stills").  Inorganic salts such as ferric chloride (FeCl3) may be used as catalysts to
achieve desired properties and to increase the rate of reaction  in the blowing still, decreasing the time
required for each blow.  Blowing operations may be located at oil refineries, asphalt processing
plants, or asphalt roofing plants.  Figure 11.2-1  illustrates an  asphalt blowing operation.

        The most basic asphalt  roofing product is asphalt-saturated felt.  Figure 11.2-2 shows a
typical line for the manufacture of asphalt-saturated felt. It consists of a dry felt feed  roll,  a dry
looper section, a saturator spray section (seldom used today),  a saturator dipping section, heated
drying-in drums,  a wet looper,  cooling drums, a finish floating looper, and a roll winder.

        Organic felt may weigh from approximately 20 to 55 pounds (Ib) per 480 square feet (ft2) (a
common unit in the paper industry),  depending upon the intended product. The  felt is unrolled from
the unwind stand onto the dry looper, which maintains a constant tension on the  material.   From the
dry looper, the felt may pass into the spray section of the saturator (not used in all plants), where
asphalt at 205 to 250°C (400 to 480°F) is sprayed onto one side of the felt through several nozzles.
In the saturator dip section, the saturated felt is drawn over a  series of rollers, with the bottom rollers
submerged in hot asphalt at 205 to 250°C (400 to 480°F).  During the next step, heated drying-in
drums and the wet looper provide the heat and time, respectively, for the asphalt to penetrate the felt.
The saturated felt then passes through water-cooled rolls onto the finish floating looper, and then is
rolled and cut to product size on the roll  winder. Three common weights of asphalt felt are
approximately 12, 15, and  30 Ib per 108 ft2 (108 ft2 of felt covers exactly 100 ft2 of roof).
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.2-1

    -------
EMISSION SOURCE
ASPHALT BLOWING: SATURANT
ASPHALT BLOWING: COATING
ASPHALT BLOWING: (GENERAL)
FIXED ROOF ASPHALT
STORAGE TANKS
FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT
STORAGE TANKS
sec
3-05-001-01
3-O5-001-02
3-05-001-10
3-O5-O01-30, -31
3-05-001-32, -33
                                                             KNOCKOUT BOX
                                                              OR CYCLONE
                                            AIR. WATER VAPOR, OIL.
                                               VOC'S, AND PM
                                                              RECOVERED OIL
   ASPHALT
     FLUX
               ASPHALT HEATER
          VENT TO
        CONTROL OR
        ATMOSPHERE
  VENT TO
ATMOSPHERE
                                                     TO
                                   AIR, WATER VAPOR, w ^r.^p^i
                                    voc's. AND PM  >C£EVK:E
                   BLOWN ASPHALT
                            HEATER
               ASPHALT FLUX
               STORAGE TANK
                     Figure 11.2-1. Asphalt blowing process flow diagram.1'4
                               (SCC = Source Classification Code)
11.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
           EMISSION SOURCE

           DIPPING ONLY
           SPRAYING ONLY
           DIPPING/SPRAYING
           DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. MET LOOPS;. AND COATER
           DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. AND COATER
           OP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. AND WET LOOPER
           SPRAY/OP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM. V«ET LOOPS?.
           COATER. AND STORAGE TANKS
           FIXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
           FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
         SCC

         3-OS001-11
         3-05-001-12
         3-05-001-13
         3-05-001-16
         W&001-17
         J-O5-001-18
         3-05-001-30, <31
         WW01-32, .33
                                                          VENT TO CONTROL
                                                             EQUIPMENT
                                                                          SATURATOR ENCLOSURE -i
                                                                                                               FINISH
                                                                                                         FLOATING LOOPER
   VENT TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
         OR ATMOSPHERE
 BURNER
                       Figure 11.2-2.  Asphalt-saturated felt manufacturing process.1'2
                                       (SCC = Source Classification Code)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-3

    -------
       The typical process arrangement for manufacturing asphalt shingles, mineral-surfaced rolls,
and smooth rolls is illustrated in Figure 11.2-3.  For organic products, the initial production steps are
similar to the asphalt-saturated felt line.  For fiberglass (polyester) products, the initial saturation
operation is eliminated although the dry looper is utilized.  A process flow diagram for fiberglass
shingle and roll manufacturing is presented in Figure  11.2-4.  After the saturation process, both
organic and fiberglass (polyester) products follow essentially the same production steps, which include
a coaler, a granule and sand or backing surface applicator, a press section, water-cooled rollers
and/or water spray cooling, finish floating looper, and a roll winder (for roll products), or a
seal-down applicator and a shingle cutter (for shingles), or a laminating applicator and laminating
operation (for laminated shingles), a shingle stacker, and a packaging station.

       Saturated felt (from the saturator) or  base fiberglass (polyester) substrate enters the coater.
Filled asphalt coating at 180 to 205 °C (355 to 425 °F) is released through a valve onto the top of the
mat just  as it passes into the coater.  Squeeze rollers in the coater apply filled coating to the backside
and distribute it evenly to form a thick base coating to which surfacing materials will  adhere.  Filled
asphalt coating is prepared by mixing coating asphalt  or modified asphalt at approximately 250°C
(480°F)  and a mineral stabilizer (filler) in approximately equal proportions.  Typically, the filler is
dried and preheated at about 120°C (250°F)  in a filler heater before mixing with the coating asphalt.
Asphalt modifiers can include rubber polymers or olefin polymers.  When modified asphalt is used to
produce  fiberglass roll roofing, the process is similar  to the process depicted in Figure 11.2-4 with
the following exception: instead of a coater, an impregnation vat is used, and preceding this vat,
asphalt, polymers,  and mineral stabilizers are combined in mixing tanks.

       After leaving the coater, the coated sheet to be made into shingles or mineral-surfaced rolls
passes through the granule applicator where granules are fed onto the hot, coated surface.   The
granules are pressed into the coating as the mat passes around a press roll where it is  reversed,
exposing the bottom side.  Sand, talc, or mica is applied to the back surface and is also pressed  into
the coating.

       After application of the mineral surfacing, the mat is cooled rapidly by water-cooled rolls
and/or water sprays and is passed through air pressure-operated press rolls used to embed the
granules firmly into the filled coating. The mat then  passes through a drying section  where it is air
dried.  After drying, a strip of adhesive (normally asphalt) is applied to the roofing surface. The strip
will  act to seal the loose edge of the roofing  after application to a roof.  A finish looper in the line
allows continuous movement of the sheet through the preceding operations and serves to further cool
and dry the roofing sheet.  Roll roofing is completed  at this point is and moves to a winder where
rolls are formed.  Shingles are passed through a cutter, which cuts  the sheet into individual shingles.
(Some shingles are formed into laminated products by layering the  shingle pieces and binding them
together  with a laminating material, normally a modified asphalt.  The laminant is applied in narrow
strips to  the backside of the sheet.) The finished shingles are stacked and packaged for shipment.

       There are several operations that support the asphalt roofing production line.  Asphalt (coating
and saturant) is normally delivered to the facility by truck and rail and stored in heated storage tanks.
Filler (finely divided mineral) is delivered by truck and normally is pneumatically conveyed to storage
bins that supply the filler heater. Granules and back surfacing material are brought in by  truck or rail
and mechanically or pneumatically conveyed to storage bins.

11.2.3 Emissions And Controls

       Emissions from the asphalt roofing industry consist primarily of particulate matter (PM) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Both are emitted from asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills,

11.2-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                                   1/95

    -------
                                                         EMISSION SOURCE	

                                                         FST SATURATION: DIPPING ONLY
                                                         FB.T SATURATION: DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                         DIPPING ONLY
                                                         SPRAYING ONLY
                                                         CUPPING/SPRAYING
                                                         CMP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, WET LOOPER. AND COATER
                                                         DIP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, AND COATER
                                                         DIP SATURATOR. DRYING-IN DRUM, AND \A£T LOOPER
                                                         SPRAY/DIP SATURATOR. ORYING-4N DRUM. V«T LOOPER.
                                                          COATER AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                         FIXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                         FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                                                                        SCO	

                                                                                                        3-05-001-O3
                                                                                                        345-001-04
                                                                                                        aOS-001-11
                                                                                                        3-05-001-12
                                                                                                        3-05-001-13
                                                                                                        3-05-001-16
                                                                                                        345-001-17
                                                                                                        3-05-001-18
                                                                                                        345-001-19

                                                                                                        345-001-30.31
                                                                                                        3-05-001-32. -33
                                                TO CONTROL
                                               AEOUPMENT
RAIL
CAR     TANK
       TRUCK
                               GRANULES AND SAND
                                   STORAGE
                                                                      Z^\      TO CONTROL
                                                                                 EQUIPMENT     GAS
                                                                                            BURNER
l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
            TANK TRUCK
                                                              MINERAL I     r\     f  FILLER
                                                               DUST   I     |  W^4- HEATER
                                                                          BUCKET 	     ~
                                                                         ELEVATOR
                                            VENT TO    SCREW
                                            CONTROL    CONVEYOR
                                           EQUIPMENT
                                                                        VENT TO CONTROL
                                                                          EQUIPMENT
                                                                                     VERTICAL
                                                                                       MXER
                                                                                                         VENT TO
                                                                                                        CONTROL
                                                                                     GRANULES
                                                                                     APPLICATOR
                               GATE DP SECTION
                                                                                     01    lOt    10

                                                                                       COOLING ROLLS
                            VENT TO
                            CONTROL
                           EQUIPMENT
                                                                             FINISH FLOATING
                                                                                LOOPER
                                                                  ROLLS TO
                                                                  STORAGE
                                VENT TO
                                CONTROL
                               EQUIPMENT
                  GAS-  -i
                 FIRED
                HEATER-
                                                                                                              STORAGE
                                                                                                               TANK
                                                                             LAMINANT
                                                                           STORAGE TANK
            Figure  11.2-3.   Organic shingle  and  roll  manufacturing process flow diagram.1'2
                                       (SCC  =  Source Classification  Code)
1/95
                                            Mineral Products Industry
                                                                                                                 11.2-5

    -------
                                                      EMISSION SOURCE

                                                      FELT SATURATION: DIPPING ONLY
                                                      FELT SATURATION: DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                      DIPPING ONLY
                                                      SPRAYING ONLY
                                                      DIPPING/SPRAYING
                                                      DIP SATURATOR, DRYINGJN DRUM, WET LOOPER. AND COATES
                                                      DIP SATURATOR, DRY1NG-IN DRUM, AND COATER
                                                      DIP SATURATOR. DRYING JN DRUM, AND WET LOOPS?
                                                      SPRAYWP SATURATOR, DRYING-IN DRUM, WET LOOPER,
                                                       COATER. AND STORAGE TANKS
                                                      FIXED ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                      FLOATING ROOF ASPHALT STORAGE TANKS
                                                        SCC	

                                                        3-05-001-03
                                                        3-05.001-04
                                                        3-OS-001-11
                                                        3-OS-C01-12
                                                        SOS-001-13
                                                        3-OS-001-18
                                                        3-05-001-17
                                                        3-05-001-18
                                                        3O5-OW-18

                                                        305-001-30-31
                                                        3-05-001-32, 33
                                          TO CONTROL
                                           EQUIPMENT
                           A  *  A  A
                             GRANULES AND
                            BACKING STORAGE
                      LOWER!
                          YXYX
                          ^ixv'.vM'.rv'.vqv
                              SCREW CONVEYOR
                     °b BLOWER
                                                                    -TO-,
                                                                      SHINGLE
                                                                      CUTTER
                                                                                 SEAL DOWN
                                                                                 APPLICATOR
                                                                   LAMINATOR
                                                                  USE TANK
                                                                     LAMINANT
                                                                   STORAGE TANK
                                                                                                  USE TANK
                                                                                                  STORAGE
                                                                                                   TANK
          Figure 11.2-4.  Fiberglass shingle and roll manufacturing process flow diagram.1'2
                                   (SCC = Source Classification Code)
11.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                           1/95

    -------
saturators, coater-mixer tanks, and coalers.  The PM from these operations is primarily recondensed
asphalt fume.  Sealant strip and laminant applicators are also sources of small amounts of PM and
VOCs.  Mineral surfacing operations and materials handling are additional sources of PM.  Small
amounts of polycyclic organic matter (POM) are also emitted from blowing stills and saturators.
Asphalt and filler heaters are sources of typical products of combustion from natural gas or the fuel in
use.

       A common method for controlling emissions from the saturator, including the wet looper, is
to enclose them completely and vent the enclosure to a control device.  The coater may be partially
enclosed, normally with a canopy-type hood that is vented to a control device. Full enclosure is  not
always practical due to operating constraints. Fugitive emissions from the saturator or coater may
pass through roof vents and other building openings if not captured by enclosures or hoods.  Control
devices for saturator/coater emissions  include low-voltage electrostatic precipitators (ESP),
high-energy air filters (HEAP), coalescing filters (mist eliminators), afterburners (thermal oxidation),
fabric filters, and wet scrubbers.  Blowing operations are controlled by thermal oxidation
(afterburners).

       Emission factors for filterable PM from the blowing and saturation processes are summarized
in Tables 11.2-1 and 11.2-2.  Emission factors for total organic compounds (TOC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are shown in Tables 11.2-3 and 11.2-4.

       Paniculate matter associated with mineral handling and storage operations is captured by
enclosures, hoods, or pickup pipes and controlled by fabric filtration (baghouses) with removal
efficiencies of approximately 95 to 99 percent.  Other control devices that may be used with mineral
handling and storage operations are wet scrubbers and cyclones.

       In the  industry,  closed silos and bins are used for mineral  storage, so open storage piles are
not an emission source. To protect the minerals from moisture pickup, all conveyors that  are outside
the buildings are covered or enclosed.  Fugitive mineral emissions may occur at unloading points
depending on the type of equipment used and the mineral handled. The discharge from the conveyor
to the silos and bins is normally controlled by a fabric filter (baghouse).
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.2-7

    -------
       Table 11.2-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING8

Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphaltd
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with afterburner0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburnerd
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section,
wet looper, and coatere
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
looper, and coater with ESPf
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, and
wet looper with HEAFg
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanksh
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanks with HEAFh
(SCC 3-05-001-19)

Filterable
PMb
3.3
12
0.14
0.41
0.60
0.016
0.035
1.6
0.027
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors in kg/Mg of shingles
produced unless noted. Polycyclic organic matter emissions comprise approximately 0.03% of
PM for blowing stills and 1.1% of PM for saturators. SCC = Source Classification Code.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
b As measured using EPA Method 5A. Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the
filter, which is heated to 42.2°C (108°F).
c Reference 10. Saturant blow of 1.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
d Reference 10. Coating blow of 4.5 hours. Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
e References 6-7,9.
f Reference 6.
g Reference 9.
h Reference 8.
11.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       Table 11.2-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING8

Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt6
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphaltd
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with afterburner0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburnerd
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
looper, and coaler6
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, wet
looper, and coater with ESPf
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum section, and
wet looper with HEAFg
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanks'1
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator,, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, coater, and storage tanks with HEAFh
(SCC 3-05-001-19)

Filterable
PMb
6.6
24
0.27
0.81
1.2
0.032
0.071
3.2
0.053
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors in Ib/ton of shingles
produced unless noted. Polycyclic organic matter emissions comprise approximately 0.03% of
PM for blowing stills and 1.1% of PM for saturators. SCC = Source Classification Code.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
b As measured using EPA Method 5A. Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the
filter, which is heated to 42.2°C (108°F).
c Reference 10. Saturant blow of 1.5 hours. Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
d Reference 10. Coating blow of 4.5 hours. Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
e References 6-7,9.
f Reference 6.
' Reference 9.
h Reference 8.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-9

    -------
        Table 11.2-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING3
Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt^
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt*1
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with
afterburner0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburner'1
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler6
(SCC 3-05-O01-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler with ESP
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and coater8
(SCC 3-05-001-17)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and wet looper with HEAP
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coater, and storage
tanks'
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coater, and storage
tanks with HEAP
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Asphalt blowing*
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
Asphalt blowing with afterburner
(SCC 3-O5-001-10)
TOCb
0.66

1.7


0.0022

0.085


0.046


0.049


ND


0.047



0.13



0.16

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E


D

D


D


D





D



D



D





CO
ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


0.0095


ND



ND



ND

0.14

1.9

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
















D












E

E

  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Emission factors in kg/Mg
    of shingles produced unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b Total organic compounds as measured with an EPA Method 25A (or equivalent) sampling
    train.
  c Reference 10.
  d Reference 10.
 Saturant blow of 1.5 hours.  Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
 Coating blow of 4.5 hours.  Expressed as kg/Mg of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7.
  f Reference 6.
  g Reference 7.
  h Reference 9.
  J  Reference 8.
  k Reference 3.
Emission factors in kg/Mg of saturated felt produced.
11.2-10
                   EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
         Table 11.2-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING*
Process
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt0
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Asphalt blowing: saturant asphalt with
afterburner
(SCC 3-05-001-01)
Asphalt blowing: coating asphalt with afterburner
(SCC 3-05-001-02)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaterc
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, wet looper, and coaler with ESP^
(SCC 3-05-001-16)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and coaler8
(SCC 3-05-001-17)
Shingle saturation: dip saturator, drying-in drum
section, and wet looper wilh HEAP1
(SCC 3-05-001-18)
Shingle saturation: spray /dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tanks'
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Shingle saturation: spray/dip saturator, drying-in
drum section, wet looper, coaler, and storage
tanks with HEAP
(SCC 3-05-001-19)
Asphalt blowingk
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
Asphalt blowing with afterburner*
(SCC 3-05-001-10)
TOCb
1.3

3.4


0.0043

0.017


0.091


0.098


ND


0.094



0.26



0.32

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E


D

D


D


D





D



D



D





CO
ND

ND


ND

ND


ND


ND


0.0019


ND



ND



ND

0.27

3.7

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
















D












E

E

  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Emission factors in Ib/ton of
    shingles produced unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
    ESP = electrostatic precipitator. HEAP = high-energy air filter.
  b Total organic compounds as measured with an EPA Method 25A (or equivalent) sampling
    train.
  c Reference 10.  Saturant blow of 1.5 hours. Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  d Reference 10.  Coating blow of 4.5 hours.  Expressed as Ib/ton of asphalt processed.
  e References 6-7.
  f Reference 6.
  g Reference 7.
  h Reference 9.
  J  Reference 8.
  k Reference 3.  Emission factors in Ib/ton of saturated felt produced.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.2-11

    -------
References For Section 11.2

1.      Written communication from Russel Snyder, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association,
       Rockville, MD, to Richard Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, May 2, 1994.

2.      J. A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.), AP-40, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of print.

3.      Atmospheric Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Processes, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, Pedco
       Environmental, Cincinnati, OH, October 1974.

4.      L. W. Corbett, "Manufacture of Petroleum Asphalt," Bituminous Materials: Asphalts, Tars,
       and Pitches, 2(1), Interscience Publishers, New York,  1965.

5.      Background Information for Proposed Standards Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Industry,
       EPA 450/3-80-02la, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1980.

6.      Air Pollution Emission Test, Celotex Corporation, Fairfield, Alabama, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-13, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1976.

7.      Air Pollution Emission Test, Certain-Teed Products, Shakopee, Minnesota, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-12, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  May
       1977.

8.      Air Pollution Emission Test, Celotex Corporation, Los Angeles,  California, EMB Report
       No. 75-ARM-8, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August  1976.

9.      Air Pollution Emission Test, Johns Manville Corporation, Waukegan, Illinois, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-13, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August 1976.

10.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Elk Roofing Company, Stephens, Arkansas, EMB Report
       No. 76-ARM-ll, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  May
       1977.
 11.2-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
11.3  Bricks And Related Clay Products

11.3.1  Process Description

        The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe, pottery, and some types of
refractory brick involves the mining, grinding, screening, and blending of the raw materials, and the
forming, cutting or shaping, drying or curing, and firing of the final product.

        Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits.  Most fine clays are found underground.
After mining, the material is crushed to remove stones and is stirred before it passes onto screens for
segregation by particle size.

        To start the forming process, clay is mixed with water, usually in  a pug mill. The 3 principal
processes for forming bricks are stiff mud, sort mud, and dry press.  In the stiff mud process,
sufficient water is added to give the clay plasticity, and bricks are formed  by forcing the clay through
a die.  Wire is used in separating bricks.  All structural tile and most brick are formed by this
process. The soft mud process is usually used with clay too wet for the stiff mud process.  The clay
is mixed with water to a moisture content of 20 to 30 percent, and the bricks are formed in molds.
In the dry press process, clay is mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by
applying pressure of 3.43 to 10.28 megapascals (500 to 1500 pounds per square inch).  A typical
brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 11.3-1.
CRUSHING
AMU
STORAGE
(P)


PULVERIZING
(P)
-
SCREENING
(P)



FORMING
AND
CUTTING


DRYING
(P)



HOT
GASES


PTJEL



JL

KILN
(P)




STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
(P)
                Figure 11.3-1.  Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing process.
                           (P = a major source of paniculate emissions.)

        Wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried before firing, usually with
waste heat from kilns.  Many types of kilns are used for firing brick, but the most common are the
downdraft periodic kiln and the tunnel kiln. The periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure with a
number of fireholes where fuel enters the furnace.  Hot gases from the fuel are drawn up over the
bricks, down through them by underground flues, and out of the oven to the chimney.  Although
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.3-1

    -------
lower heat recovery makes this type less efficient than the tunnel kiln, the uniform temperature
distribution leads to a good quality product.  In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying about 1200 bricks
travel on rails through the kiln at the rate of one 1.83-meter (6-foot) car per hour.  The fire zone is
located near the middle of the kiln and is stationary.

       In all kilns,  firing takes place  in 6 steps: evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation,
vitrification, flashing, and cooling.  Normally, gas or residual oil is used for heating, but coal may be
used. Total heating time varies with the type of product; for example, 22.9-centimeter (9-inch)
refractory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of firing.  Maximum temperatures of about  1090°C
(2000°F) are used in firing  common brick.

11.3.2 Emissions And Controls1'3

       Paniculate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of bricks. The main source of
dust is the materials handling procedure, which includes drying, grinding, screening, and storing the
raw material.  Combustion products are emitted from the fuel consumed in  the dryer and the  kiln.
Fluorides,  largely in gaseous form, are also emitted from brick manufacturing operations. Sulfur
dioxide may be  emitted from the bricks when temperatures reach or exceed 1370°C (2500°F), but no
data on such emissions  are available.4

       A variety of control systems may be used to reduce both particulate and gaseous emissions.
Almost any type of particulate control system will reduce emissions from the material handling
process, but good plant design and hooding are also required to keep emissions to an acceptable level.

       The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the kiln at temperatures below
1090°C (2000°F) and by choosing clays with low fluoride  content.  Satisfactory control can be
achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with water, since wet cyclonic scrubbers can remove fluorides with
an efficiency of 95  percent or higher.

       Tables 11.3-1 and 11.3-2 present emission  factors for brick manufacturing without controls.
Table 11.3-3 presents data on particle size distribution and emission factors for uncontrolled
sawdust-fired brick kilns. Table 11.3-4 presents data on particle size distribution  and  emission factors
for uncontrolled coal-fired tunnel brick kilns.  Table 11.3-5 presents data on particle size distribution
and emission factors for uncontrolled  screening and grinding of raw materials for  brick and related
clay products.  Figure 11.3-2, Figure  11.3-3, and Figure 11.3-4 present a particle size distribution for
Tables 11.3-3, 11.3-4, and  11.3-5 expressed as the cumulative weight percent of particles less than a
specified aerodynamic diameter (cut point), in micrometers (p.m).
 11.3-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                 Table 11.3-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR BRICK MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS8

                                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Process
Raw material handling0
Drying
Grinding
Storage
Brick dryer*1
Coal/gas fired
Curing and firing6
Tunnel kiln
Gas fired
Oil fired
Coal fired
Coal/gas fired
Sawdust fired
Periodic kiln
Gas fired
Oil fired
Coal fired
Particulates

35
38
17

0.006A


0.012
0.29
0.34A
0.16A
0.12

0.033
0.44
9.42
Sulfur
Oxides

ND
ND
ND

0.55S


Neg
1.98S
3.65S
0.31S
ND

Neg
2.93S
6.06S
Carbon
Monoxide

ND
ND
ND

ND


0.03
0.06
0.71
ND
ND

0.075
0.095
1.19
Volatile Organic Compounds
Nonmethane

ND
ND
ND

ND


0.0015
0.0035
0.005
ND
ND

0.005
0.005
0.01
Methane

ND
ND
ND

ND


0.003
0.013
0.003
ND
ND

0.01
0.02
0.005
Nitrogen
Oxides

ND
ND
ND

0.33


0.09
0.525
0.73
0.81
ND

0.25
0.81
1.18
Fluorides

ND
ND
ND

ND


0.5
0.5
0.5
ND
ND

0.5
0.5
0.5
p
s
EL
>d
*-i
o
o.
o
O.
C
OJ
u>
a Expressed as units per unit weight of brick produced, kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg). One brick weighs about 2.95 kg. ND = no
  data. A = % ash in coal. S = % sulfur in fuel.  Neg = negligible.
b References 3,6-10.
c Based on data from Section 11.7, "Ceramic Clay Manufacturing" in this publication.  Because of process variation, some steps may be
  omitted. Storage losses apply only to that quantity of material stored.
d Reference 12.
e References 1,5,12-16.

    -------
3
o


z
o
o


i
s
HH


O
  H
  O


  tt.

  P

  Z
u


n

a:
O
u.


S
O
H
O
  on
  en
  UJ
  P
  tS
   «
  H
      U


      d
       oi

       g
       U
       to
.0
en
U
••g
o
3
E


C
|S
ij "x
Z°


1 0
§ |
5. jj
o «
U
c
CO
bO q>
(H C
O JS
1 i
*2 c
o o
> Z

u
o °x


t_ en
3 u
<= T3
3 "x
to o



8
o
C
IX





en
en
U
1








Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z





Q Q Q |
Z Z Z °




Q O Q Q
Z Z Z Z




Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z




Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z


Q Q Q o
Z Z Z ^




q
0*0^ o
c — t*- en








U)
C DO
1 1 1 c

'S M SL » "c -^
*S »,nC U ^^WS-^
« 2?^ 08^ MaT3
P.S? «^=^ MC
:>s.Si?j C u O -g O'C 3
gauss-no SH
05 CO O




OOOQQ OOO
---ZZ ^ « ^





o' — " *~* Z o — i oi




OOOQQ 000
o'o'oZZ odd



c^j r^~
00 — ^,-^ — i — ' cs
°.°.°99 °. °. °.
OOO^-^ OOO




o o »— < z z. ooc^


^*J OS (<) \^ H7 ^ OO •"•
Z ' ' " " ^ • r




IN o\ r~ — rf voooTi-
owi^Ocncs oe»oo
o" d d d o" o d od









1 1
-q "8 w ^ ~ "P "S
^"^e Si"' ^"^is
o o u o i55 's o o u





w
"rt
T3

o
c
1!
z
•o
c
3
o
M5
•^»
o
•«
60
'53
_y
o
'LH
g
O
.
0
c
o
•a S
C "Cn
3 *v^
"S ii
o "
-g M
1^
j«i — ;
•~ §
<*. .S
k^
."§•3
0> en
•4—*
'S ||
3
cL

S 0 "=>
c o -7
3 r- ^O
"*5 Ǥ *>
in °
^ ii 5>
X D
tiJ 

                                                                                       3
                                                                                      CQ
                                                                                        O
                                                                                         3
                                                                                         C-,
           .si
                                                                                           -
                                                                                           3
                                                                                           o


                                                                                           "a,
                                                                                      d>  3> •*-• a>  a>
                                                                                     <*-  en "3 <*H =4-1
                                                                                      «  « S »  <"
11.3-4
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 Table 11.3-3 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   UNCONTROLLED SAWDUST-FIRED BRICK KILNSa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0

Cumulative Weight % < Stated Size
36.5
63.0
82.5
Emission Factor1*
(kg/Mg)
0.044
0.076
0.099
Total paniculate emission factor 0.12C
a Reference 13.
b Expressed as cumulative weight of paniculate < corresponding particle size/unit weight of brick
  produced.
c Total mass emission factor from Table 11.3-1.
                    •O
                    V
                   a  ..>
                   s
                   3
                                                         p«rc«nc
                                                         n (actor
                                                                     30

                                                                     z
                              Particle diameter,  /on

    Figure 11.3-2.  Cumulative weight percent of particles  less than stated particle diameters for
                            uncontrolled sawdust-fired brick kilns.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.3-5

    -------
 Table 11.3-4 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                 UNCONTROLLED COAL-FIRED TUNNEL BRICK KILNSa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative Weight % < Stated Size
24.7
50.4
71.0
Emission Factor5
(kg/Mg)
0.08A
0.17A
0.24A
Total paniculate emission factor 0.34AC
a References 12,17.
b Expressed as cumulative weight of paniculate < corresponding particle size/unit weight of brick
  produced.  A = % ash in coal. (Use 10%  if ash content is not known.)
c Total mass emission factor from Table 11.3-1.
                    N
                    "*
                    CO
                    2
                    3

                    J  "
                                                    taiulen ftccar
                                                                    I
                                                                    CD
                                                                    01
                                                                 «.) o
                                                                    a
                                                                    a
                                                                    n
                                                                    jr
                                                                    oo
                                  i  *  i fc '  » « i
                                 Particle  diameter,  pm

     Figure 11.3-3. Cumulative weight percent of particles less than stated particle diameters for
                          uncontrolled coal-fired tunnel brick kilns.
 11.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 Table 11.3-5 (Metric Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR
    UNCONTROLLED SCREENING AND GRINDING OF RAW MATERIALS FOR BRICK
                           AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/tin)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative Weight % < Stated Size
0.2
0.4
7.0
•Emission Factor1*
(kg/Mg)
0.08
0.15
2.66
Total participate emission factor 38°
a References 11,18.
b Expressed as cumulative weight of paniculate <, corresponding particle size/unit weight of raw
  material processed.
c Total mass emission factor from Table 11.3-1.
                   4)
                   N
                   V

                   3)
                   •hi
                   a
                   SO

                   oi
                   3
                   S
                   3
                   u
                                                         faecar
                                                                   o
                                                                   a
                                                                  OQ

                                  Particle  diameter,pm

    Figure 11.3-4.  Cumulative weight percent of particles less than stated particle diameters for
      uncontrolled screening and grinding of raw materials for brick and related clay products.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.3-7

    -------
References For Section 11.3

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

2.     "Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction", Pamphlet No. 9, Structural Clay Products
       Institute, Washington, DC, September 1961.

3.     Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions, U. S. Department Of Health And
       Welfare, Washington, DC, May 1970.

4.     M. H. Allen, "Report On Air Pollution, Air Quality Act Of 1967 And Methods Of
       Controlling The Emission Of Paniculate And Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants", Structural Clay
       Products Institute, Washington, DC, September 1969.

5.     F. H. Norton,  Refractories,  3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.

6.     K. T. Semrau, "Emissions Of Fluorides From Industrial Processes: A Review", Journal Of
       The Air Pollution  Control Association, 7(2): 92-108, August 1957.

7.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Vol. 5, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and
       Sons, New York,  1964.

8.     K. F. Wentzel, "Fluoride Emissions In The Vicinity Of Brickworks", Staub, 25(3):45-50,
       March 1965.

9.     "Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts and Fumes In Los Angeles County",
       Information Circular  No.  7627, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of Interior, Washington,
       DC, April 1952.

10.    Notes on oral communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and  New
       Jersey Air Pollution Control Agency, Trenton, NJ, July  20, 1969.

11.    H. J. Taback,  Fine Particle  Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
       South Coast Air Basin, PB 293  923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
       VA, February 1979.

12.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Industry — Lee Brick And Tile Co., Sanford, NC, EMB
       80-BRK-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  April
       1980.

13.    Building Brick And Structural Clay Wood Fired Brick Kiln — Emission Test Report - Chatham
       Brick And Tile Company, Gulf, North Carolina, EMB-80-BRK-5, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1980.

14.    R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report: Lee Brick And Tile Co.,
       Sanford, NC,  Compliance Testing, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research  Triangle Park,
       NC, February 1978.
 11.3-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
15.    R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report: Lee Brick And Tile Co.,
       Sanford, NC, Compliance Testing, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1978.

16.    F. J. Phoenix and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report - Chatham Brick And Tile
       Co., Sanford, NC, Paniculate Emissions Compliance Testing, Entropy Environmentalists,
       Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.

17.    Fine Particle Emissions Information System, Series Report No. 354, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.3-9

    -------

    -------
11.4  Calcium Carbide Manufacturing

11.4.1  General

        Calcium carbide (CaC2) is manufactured by heating a lime and carbon mixture to 2000 to
2100°C (3632 to 3812°F) in an electric arc furnace.  At those temperatures, the lime is reduced by
carbon to calcium carbide and carbon monoxide (CO), according to the following reaction:

                                   CaO +  3C -» CaC2 + CO

Lime for the reaction is usually made by calcining limestone in a kiln at the plant site.  The sources
of carbon for the reaction are petroleum coke, metallurgical coke, and anthracite coal. Because
impurities in the furnace charge remain in the calcium carbide product, the lime should contain no
more than 0.5 percent each of magnesium oxide, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, and 0.004 percent
phosphorus. Also, the coke charge should be low in ash and sulfur.  Analyses indicate that 0.2 to
1.0 percent ash and 5 to 6 percent sulfur are typical in petroleum coke.  About 991 kilograms (kg)
(2,185 pounds [lb]) of lime, 683 kg (1,506 Ib) of coke, and 17 to 20 kg (37 to 44 Ib) of electrode
paste are required to produce 1 megagram (Mg) (2,205 lb) of calcium carbide.

        The process for manufacturing calcium carbide is illustrated in Figure 11.4-1. Moisture is
removed from coke in a coke dryer, while limestone  is converted to lime in a lime kiln. Fines from
coke drying and lime operations are removed  and may be recycled. The two charge materials are
then conveyed to an electric arc furnace, the primary piece of equipment used to produce calcium
carbide.  There are three basic types of electric arc furnaces:  the open furnace, in which the CO
burns to carbon dioxide (CO2) when it contacts the air above the charge; the closed furnace, in which
the gas  is collected from the furnace and is either used as fuel for other processes or flared; and the
semi-covered furnace, in which mix is fed around the electrode openings in the primary furnace cover
resulting in mix  seals.  Electrode paste composed of coal tar pitch binder and  anthracite coal is fed
into a steel casing where it is baked by heat from the electric arc furnace before being introduced into
the furnace. The baked electrode exits the steel casing just inside the furnace  cover and  is consumed
in the calcium carbide production process. Molten calcium carbide is tapped continuously from the
furnace into chills and is allowed to cool and  solidify. Then, the solidified calcium carbide goes
through primary crushing by jaw crushers, followed by secondary crushing and screening for size.
To prevent explosion hazards from acetylene generated by the reaction of calcium carbide with
ambient moisture, crushing and screening operations  may be performed in either an air-swept
environment before the calcium carbide has completely cooled, or in an inert atmosphere.  The
calcium carbide product is used primarily in generating acetylene and in desulfurizing iron.

11.4.2  Emissions And Controls

        Emissions from calcium carbide manufacturing  include paniculate matter (PM), sulfur oxides
(SOX), CO, CO2, and hydrocarbons.  Particulate matter is emitted from a variety of equipment and
operations in the production of calcium carbide including the coke dryer, lime kiln, electric furnace,
tap fume vents, furnace room vents, primary and secondary crushers, and conveying equipment.
(Lime kiln emission factors are presented  in Section 11.17).  Particulate matter emitted  from a
process source such as  an electric furnace is ducted to a PM  control device, usually a fabric filter or
wet scrubber.  Fugitive PM from sources  such as tapping operations, the furnace room, and
conveyors is captured and sent to a PM control device.  The composition of the PM varies according


1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                              11.4-1

    -------
          PM emissions
          Gaseous emissions
                             Limestone
                        Coke
      To
     Flare
                                          Primary
                                              I
                        Furnace
                        Room
                        Vents

                   SCO 3-05-004-03
                         Tap
                        Fume
                        Vents

                   SCC 3-05-004-04
                                                          Coke
                                                          Dryer
                                                    SCC 3-05-004-02
             Electric
               Arc
             Furnace

         SCC 3-05-004-01
                     (3)
                      A
             Primary
             Crushing

         SCC 3-05-004-05
                                             Secondary
                                             Crushing
                                         SCC 3-05-004-05
                                       Acetylene
                                      Generation
                                         or
                                      Cyanamide
                                      Production
            Figure 11.4-1.  Process flow diagram for calcium carbide manufacturing.
                           (SCC = Source Classification Code).
11.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
to the specific equipment or operation, but the primary components are calcium and carbon
compounds, with significantly smaller amounts of magnesium compounds.

        Sulfur oxides may be emitted both by the electric furnace from volatilization and oxidation of
sulfur in the coke feed, and by the coke dryer and lime kiln from fuel combustion.  These process
sources are not controlled specifically for SOX emissions. Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of
calcium carbide production in the electric furnace.  Carbon monoxide emissions to the atmosphere are
usually  negligible.  In open furnaces, CO is oxidized to CO2, thus eliminating CO emissions.  In
closed furnaces, a portion of the generated CO is burned in the flames surrounding the furnace charge
holes, and the remaining CO is either used as fuel for other processes or is flared. In semi-covered
furnaces, the CO that is generated is either used as fuel for the lime kiln or other  processes,  or is
flared.

        The only potential source of hydrocarbon emissions  from the manufacture of calcium carbide
is the coal tar pitch binder in the furnace electrode paste.  Since the maximum volatiles content in the
electrode paste is about 18 percent, the electrode paste represents only a small potential source of
hydrocarbon emissions.  In closed furnaces, actual hydrocarbon emissions from the consumption of
electrode paste typically are negligible because of high furnace operating temperature and flames
surrounding the furnace charge holes.  In open furnaces, hydrocarbon emissions are expected to be
negligible because of high furnace operating temperatures and the presence of excess oxygen above
the furnace. Hydrocarbon emissions from semi-covered  furnaces are also expected to be negligible
because of high furnace operating temperatures.

        Tables  11.4-1 and 11.4-2 give controlled and uncontrolled emission factors in metric and
English units, respectively, for various processes in the manufacture of calcium carbide.  Controlled
factors are based  on test data and permitted emissions for operations with the fabric filters and wet
scrubbers that are typically used to control PM emissions in calcium carbide manufacturing.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.4-3

    -------
  a
  O
  z
u

u-



3

Q



U


tat
U
u

g
UM

S
O
      "8
      z
  PL,
     o:
     O

     o
z    <
g    u,
So    Z
22    O
S    So
m    CO
  D


*s*
8
O 60

"So
^



u <5-
3 g
x <£
O BO

|~5b
CO ^


J) >^ -"^
3 g "2
^ *^
o -a e*
I i>«!
o g "3)
>S


^
•S "S
cw 55
ijj ^^
3 60

VN ^
J5 S1
£ *











CA
£




Q 60
z Z







** Q
- Z






00
Q E:
2 d






M

**!
u d
fi
rt





"^j
9

i
Q
CO
"O j"*
Electric arc furnace main stack (SCC 3-05-004-01
Electric arc furnace main stack with fabric filter (




Q
z







Q
Z







Q
Z






o

ts
d








"^^
9
S
S
«•>
u
u
w,
i
1
•5
1
CA
C
0>
2
<&
§
O
8
S




^60
Z







Q
Z







Q
Z





^i
I*}
en
0
d







•c
(2
•5
1
t-i
O
1
o
60
1
U
1
(3
U
1
"S^~l
H
* CO
o N~'
•e j
S




Q
Z







"*>
_;







Q
Z







V-
q
,-H














q
U
U
I
•o
4>
U




Q Q
Z Z







< Q
Z Z







Q Q
Z Z






e
c*"i
"^
Q ^^
2













Coke dryer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-004-02)
Furnace room vents (SCC 3-05-004-03)




Q Q
Z Z







Q Q
Z Z







Q Q
Z Z






c c
r- r-
0 0
d d












m
9
S 5>
O ^T
9 9
PI i
u 8
*c
i g
1C tT
o 5
11
f 1
1 1
> w
I!
u 6
§ H
3 cT
U, H




< <
Z Z







< <
Z Z







Q Q
Z Z





e
»/•> c

O ~
d d







S
4- _
8 f
O ^
i S
i s
'•-' u
S U
Ui
°c ~
**• o
11
in ,_
2 |
£ «
1 §
C
o wi
§ 1
c ^
:>» ^
C" _«
(X U

iT
•o
•6 •
... o "O
o
'S s o
0 .3 e
•s-a-B
O CO
• • o
~ ' £
3 u 'S
S-s «
g 2 u
c o jj
•s § §
a> g g
iS C/3
•q "c II .S
S c ^M CQ
"S _, •— ^-~,
flu
^ ii 2
60 (U " •—
^H fl 3 *
^^ ii QJ3 MM p^
•^ fli ^*
"^^" C . _ D "!III
so & Z 2
K> -* *^ U. j"
^^ rT^ Q
 rs^
. ^ Q < ft. 8
1 ° z & "* E
O ' • _, O 3
o> S 3 ^ § "o
•— ' ^* o O '-p -g
•^ ^ '^ 1-* Q .-s
llfl ?l
"5 W § -C C -^
Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, unlei
furnace - coke and lime; coke dryer - coke; i
charging conveyor - coke and lime. NA. =
Filterable PM is that collected on or before 1
Condensable PM is that collected in the impi
Emission factors applicable to open furnaces
Reference 4.
rt _D O TD 0)









































• rj
Oj
cLs
=« P
From previous AP-42 section; reference not
References 8,13. EMISSION FACTOR RA
Reference 13.
<— tjo _n


































'S
o
3
-o
0.
(O
."2
c3
o
1
'o
"3
Reference 12; emission factor in kg/Mg of c
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
— 1 -^













































'Reference 12.
Reference 1.
E c
11.4-4
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------






a
O
z
2

£
<
B-
P
Z
s
2
u
Q
9
<

^^
MM
u
<
u
OS
0
00
g
<
*•
O
^H
on
1
'S
f
w,
CN
H


















f
0
C
C/3
s-
d
v
fjj

I
p
1
OS
o
u
tti
EMISSION
^^
& 2
0 2
^*^



-
"x "e1
O 2
Jl
"3
CO

0
* S
"ft?
"i H^
c^ o
J3


.O
OH ^
JS o
11
4) O-
uu





Process

Q
^






*o
rn






O
Z







vo







9
u
u
CO
«>
a
a
o
1
H

"*«> Q
Z ^






Q Q
Z Z






c Q
5 z





& b
vO w^
6 6



^
9 ^
B ^
«A §
S >q
8°
oo U
~ U
« 5S
IS 43
o 1
^ ^
•S -S
* *
1 1
 CO
1 !
I a
i2 f2

< <
z z






<; 
CO ^
IB
•_: 52-
5 1
•§ c
<2 o
J3 'C
* ^
'? «a
QO "**
i!
2 o
|l
•S 8
O 60
1 'g,
•O cs
§ -s
b s
II
o S
'C .3

13 «->
i V
o
un M VH
•53 2 S
.2-^o
S 2 ..
s
"S .1 ^

PN *rt *
n q> .S
^ Sis S
^ o — °°
e S "3) .g
8 - § 1
II §
•5 ^. c^
60
•oca) ^
S g 5" c5
a> o f- S3
"*- O ra
<4-l t"'
c I ^ '§, e
£ Z o ® 2
£ 
^ o I < 1 §
35 o -— i c
1 « S g ° §
8 | | «g .1 g

a Factors are for uncontrolled emissions, unless othei
furnace - coke and lime; coke dryer - coke; tap furr
carbide; charging conveyor - coke and lime. NA =
Classification Code.
b Filterable PM is that collected on or before the fllte
c Condensable PM is that collected in the impinger pi
d Emission factors applicable to open furnaces using ]
e Reference 4.
From previous AP-42 section; reference not specifli
s References 8,13. EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
h Reference 13.



























"8
tj
-o
1
(U
*o
s
CO
J Reference 12; emission factor in kg/Mg of calcium
k EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
m Reference 12.
n Reference 1.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.4-5

    -------
References For Section 11.4

1.     Permits To Operate: Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Jefferson County Air Pollution
       Control District, Louisville, KY, December 16, 1980.

2.     Manufacturing Or Processing Operations: Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Jefferson
       County Air Pollution Control District, Louisville, KY, September 1975.

3.     Written communication from A. J. Miles, Radian Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC, to
       Douglas Cook, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA, August 20, 1981.

4.     Furnace Offgas Emissions Survey: Airco Carbide, Louisville, Kentucky, Environmental
       Consultants, Inc., Clarksville, IN, March 17, 1975.

5.     J. W. Frye, "Calcium Carbide Furnace Operation," Electric Furnace Conference Proceedings,
       American Institute of Mechanical Engineers, NY, December 9-11, 1970.

6.     The Louisville Air Pollution Study, U.  S. Department of Health and Human Services,
       Robert A. Taft Center, Cincinnati, OH, 1961.

7.     R. N. Shreve and J. A. Brink, Jr., Chemical Process Industries, Fourth Edition,  McGraw-
       Hill Company, NY, 1977.

8.     J. H. Stuever, Paniculate Emissions -  Electric Carbide Furnace Test Report: Midwest
       Carbide,  Pryor, Oklahoma, Stuever and Associates, Oklahoma City, OK, April 1978.

9.     L. Thomsen, Paniculate Emissions Test Repon: Midwest Carbide, Keokuk, Iowa, Being
       Consultants, Inc., Moline, IL, July.l,  1980.

10.    D. M. Kirkpatrick, "Acetylene from Calcium Carbide Is an Alternate Feedstock Route," Oil
       And Gas Journal, June 7, 1976.

11.    L. Clarke and R. L. Davidson, Manual For Process Engineering Calculations, Second
       Edition, McGraw-Hill Company, NY, 1962.

12.    Test Repon:  Paniculate Emissions-Electric Carbide Furnace,  Midwest Carbide Corporation,
       Pryor, Oklahoma," Stuever and Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 1978.

13.    Written communication from C. McPhee, State of Ohio EPA,  Twinsburg, Ohio, to
       R. Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, March 16,  1993.
11.4-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
11.5  Refractory Manufacturing

11.5.1  Process Description1'2

        Refractories are materials that provide linings for high-temperature furnaces and other
processing units.  Refractories must be able to withstand physical wear, high temperatures (above
538°C [1000°F]), and corrosion by chemical agents.  There are two general classifications of
refractories, clay  and  nonclay.  The six-digit source classification code (SCC) for refractory
manufacturing is 3-05-005.  Clay refractories are produced from fireclay (hydrous silicates of
aluminum) and alumina (57 to 87.5 percent).  Other clay minerals used in the production of
refractories include kaolin, bentonite, ball clay, and common clay.  Nonclay refractories are produced
from a composition of alumina (<87.5 percent), mullite, chromite, magnesite, silica, silicon carbide,
zircon,  and other  nonclays.

        Refractories are produced in two basic forms, formed objects, and unformed granulated or
plastic compositions.  The preformed products are called bricks and shapes. These products are used
to form the walls, arches, and floor tiles of various high-temperature process equipment.  Unformed
compositions include mortars, gunning mixes, castables (refractory concretes), ramming mixes, and
plastics. These products are cured in place to form a monolithic, internal structure after application.

        Refractory manufacturing involves four processes:  raw material processing,  forming, firing,
and final processing.  Figure 11.5-1 illustrates the refractory manufacturing process.   Raw material
processing consists of crushing and grinding raw materials, followed if necessary by size classification
and raw materials calcining and drying.   The processed raw material then may be dry-mixed with
other minerals and chemical compounds, packaged, and shipped as product. All of these processes
are not  required for some refractory products.

        Forming consists of mixing the raw materials and forming them into the desired shapes. This
process frequently occurs under wet or moist conditions. Firing involves heating the refractory
material to high temperatures in a periodic (batch) or  continuous tunnel kiln to form  the ceramic bond
that gives the product its refractory properties.  The final processing stage involves milling, grinding,
and sandblasting of the finished product.  This step keeps the product in correct shape and size after
thermal expansion has occurred. For certain products, final processing may also include product
impregnation with tar and pitch, and final packaging.

        Two other types of refractory processes also warrant discussion.  The first is production of
fused products. This  process involves using an electric arc furnace to melt the refractory raw
materials, then pouring the melted materials into sand-forming molds.  Another type of refractory
process is ceramic fiber production.  In this process, calcined kaolin is melted in an electric arc
furnace. The molten clay is either fiberized in a blowchamber with a centrifuge device or is dropped
into an air jet and immediately  blown into fine strands.  After the blowchamber, the  ceramic fiber
may then be conveyed to an oven for curing, which adds structural rigidity to the fibers.  During the
curing process, oils are used to lubricate both the fibers and the machinery used to handle and form
the fibers. The production of ceramic fiber for refractory material is very similar to the production of
mineral wool.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                              11.5-1

    -------

TRANSPORTING

1 
	 X BLENDING 	 * PACKAGING -,
(OPTIONAL)





A A ,
: ; V
>. /-j-u-u IM/-. - . -W MILLING; -^ ^innnirjr
OOOLING ^ FINISHING ^ ol III PINO
11.5-2
Figure 11.5-1. Refractory manufacturing process flow diagram.1
         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                      1/95

    -------
11.5.2 Emissions And Controls2"6

       The primary pollutant of concern in refractory manufacturing is paniculate matter (PM).
Paniculate matter emissions occur during the crushing, grinding, screening, calcining, and drying of
the raw materials; the drying and  firing of the unfired "green" refractory bricks, tar and pitch
operations; and finishing of the refractories (grinding, milling, and sandblasting).

       Emissions from crushing and grinding operations generally are controlled with fabric filters.
Product recovery cyclones followed by wet scrubbers are used on calciners and dryers to control PM
emissions from these sources.  The primary sources of PM emissions are the refractory firing kilns
and electric arc furnaces.  Paniculate matter  emissions from kilns generally are not controlled.
However, at least one refractory manufacturer currently uses a multiple-stage scrubber to control kiln
emissions. Paniculate matter emissions from electric arc furnaces generally are controlled by a
baghouse. Paniculate removal of 87 percent and fluoride removal of greater than 99 percent have
been reported at one facility that uses an ionizing wet scrubber.

       Pollutants emitted  as a result of combustion in the calcining and kilning processes include
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and
volatile organic compounds (VOC).  The emission  of SOX is also a function of the sulfur content of
certain clays and the plaster added to refractory materials to induce brick setting.  Fluoride emissions
occur during the kilning process because of fluorides in the raw materials. Emission factors for
filterable PM, PM-10, SO2, NOX, and CO2 emissions from rotary dryers and calciners processing fire
clay are presented in Tables 11.5-1 and 11.5-2.  Particle size distributions for filterable paniculate
emissions from rotary dryers and  calciners processing fire clay are presented in Table 11.5-3.

       Volatile organic compounds emitted from tar and pitch operations generally are controlled by
incineration, when inorganic particulates are not significant. Based on  the expected destruction of
organic aerosols, a control efficiency in excess of 95 percent can be achieved using incinerators.

       Chromium is used in several types of nonclay refractories, including chrome-magnesite,
(chromite-magnesite),  magnesia-chrome, and chrome-alumina.  Chromium compounds are emitted
from the ore crushing, grinding, material drying and storage, and brick firing and finishing processes
used in producing these types of refractories.  Tables 11.5-4 and 11.5-5 present emission factors for
emissions of filterable PM, filterable PM-10, hexavalent chromium, and total chromium from the
drying and firing of chromite-magnesite ore. The emission factors are  presented in units of kilograms
of pollutant emitted per  megagram of chromite ore processed (kg/Mg Cr03) (pounds per ton of
chromite ore processed [Ib/ton CrO3]). Particle size distributions for the drying and  firing of
chromite-magnesite ore are summarized in Table 11.5-6.

       A number of elements in trace concentrations including aluminum, beryllium, calcium,
chromium, iron, lead, mercury, magnesium, manganese, nickel, titanium,  vanadium, and zinc  also
are emitted in trace amounts by the drying, calcining,  and firing operations of all types of refractory
materials. However, data  are inadequate to develop emission factors for these  elements.

       Emissions of PM from electric arc furnaces producing fused cast refractory material are
controlled with  baghouses. The efficiency of the fabric filters often exceeds 99.5 percent. Emissions
of PM from the ceramic fiber process also are controlled with fabric filters, at  an efficiency similar to
that found in the fused cast refractory process.  To control blowchamber emissions, a fabric filter is
used to remove small pieces of fine threads formed in the fiberization stage.  The efficiency of fabric
filters in  similar control devices exceeds 99 percent.  Small particles of ceramic fiber are broken off
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                              11.5-3

    -------
or separated during the handling and forming of the fiber blankets in the curing oven.  An oil is used
in this process, and higher molecular weight organics may be emitted.  However, these emissions
generally are controlled with a fabric filter followed by incineration, at an expected overall efficiency
in excess of 95 percent.
            Table 11.5-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY
                             MANUFACTURING:  FIRECLAY3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Process
Rotary dryer0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
SO2
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
3.8d

NOX
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
0.87d

CO2
15
15
15

300°
300C
300C

Filterable13
PM
33
5.6
0.052

62d
31f
0.15d

PM-10
8.1
2.6
ND

14e
ND
0.0316

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted.  All emission factors in kg/Mg of raw
  material feed.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA  Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 3.
d References 4-5.
e Reference 4.
f Reference 5.
11.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 Table 11.5-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                                      FIRE CLAY3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Rotary dryer6
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-005-01)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-005-06)
S02
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
7.6d

NOX
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
1.7d

CO2
30
30
30

600C
600C
ND

Filterableb
PM
65
11
0.11

120d
61f
0.30d

PM-10
16
5.1
ND

30e
ND
0.062e

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted. All emission factors in Ib/ton of raw
  material feed.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
0 Reference 3.
d References 4-5.
e Reference 4.
f Reference 5.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.5-5

    -------
           Table 11.5-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR REFRACTORY
                          MANUFACTURING:  FIRECLAY*

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Diameter
O^m)
Uncontrolled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Multiclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone/Scrubber
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Rotary Dryers (SCC 3-05-005-01)b
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2.5
10
24
37
51
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
31
46
60
68
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Rotary Calciners (SCC 3-05-005-06)c
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
3.1
4.1
6.9
17
34
50
62
13
14
23
39
50
63
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
43
46
55
69
81
91
a For filterable PM only.  ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 3.
c References 4-5 (uncontrolled).  Reference 4 (multiclone-controlled).  Reference 5 (cyclone/scrubber-
  controlled).
11.5-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 Table 11.5-4 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                             CHROMITE-MAGNESITE OREa

                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D (except as noted)
Process
Rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-08)
Rotary dryer with
cyclone and fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-005-08)
Tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-09)
Filterable15
PM
0.83
0.15
0.41
PM-10
0.20
ND
0.34
Chromium0
Hexavalent
3.8xlO-5
1.9xlO-5
0.0087
Total
0.035
0.064
0.13
a Reference 6. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. Factors for filterable PM are kg/Mg of
  material processed.  Factors for chrominum are kg/Mg of chromite ore processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code for chromium.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution and
  filterable PM emission factor.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
 Table 11.5-5 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                             CHROMITE-MAGNESITE OREa

                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D (except as noted)
Process
Rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-08)
Rotary dryer with
cyclone and fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-005-08)
Tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-09)
Filterable6
PM
1.7
0.30
0.82
PM-10
0.41
ND
0.69
Chromium6
Hexavalent
7.6xlO'5
3.7xlO-5
0.017
Total
0.70
0.13
0.27
a Reference 6. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions. Factors for filterable PM are Ib/ton of
  material processed.  Factors for chromium are Ib/ton of chromite ore processed. SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution and
  filterable PM emission factor.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.5-7

    -------
  Table 11.5-6.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR REFRACTORY MANUFACTURING:
                   CHROMITE-MAGNESITE ORE DRYING AND FIRING*
Diameter
Gtm)
Filterable PMb
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Hexavalent Chromium0
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Total Chromium0
Cumulative % Less
Than Diameter
Uncontrolled rotary dryer (SCC 3-05-005-01)
1
2
10
1.2
13
24
3.5
39
64
0.8
9
19
Uncontrolled tunnel kiln (SCC 3-05-005-07)
1
5
10
71
78
84
71
81
84
84
91
93
a Reference 6.  For filterable PM only. SCC = Source Classification Code.
b EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
or separated during the handling and forming of the fiber blankets in the curing oven.  An oil is used
in this process, and higher molecular weight organics may be emitted.  However, these emissions
generally are controlled with a fabric filter followed by incineration, at an expected overall efficiency
in excess of 95 percent.

References For Section 11.5

1.     Refractories, The Refractories Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987.

2.     Source Category Survey: Refractory Industry, EPA-450/3-80-006, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1980.

3.     Caltiners And Dryers Emission Test Report, North American Refractories Company, Farber,
       Missouri, EMB Report 84-CDR-14, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, March 1984.

4.     Emission Test Report:  Plant A, Document No. C-7-12, Confidential Business Information
       Files, BSD Project No. 81/08, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, June 13, 1983.

5.     Caltiners And Dryers Emission Test Report, A. P. Green Company, Mexico, Missouri, EMB
       Report 83-CDR-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1983.
 11.5-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
6.     Chromium Screening Study Test Report, Harbison-Walker Refractories, Baltimore, Maryland,
       EMB Report 85-CHM-12, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1985.
1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                            11.5-9

    -------

    -------
11.6  Portland Cement Manufacturing

11.6.1  Process Description1"7

        Portland cement is a fine powder, gray or white in color, that consists of a mixture of
hydraulic cement materials comprising primarily calcium silicates, aluminates and aluminoferrites.
More than 30 raw materials are known to be used in the manufacture of portland cement, and these
materials can be divided into four distinct categories:  calcareous, siliceous, argillaceous, and
ferrifrous.  These materials are chemically combined through pyroprocessing  and subjected to
subsequent mechanical processing operations to form gray and white portland cement. Gray portland
cement  is used for structural applications and is the more common type of cement produced. White
portland cement has lower iron and manganese contents than gray portland cement and is used
primarily for decorative purposes. Portland cement manufacturing plants are  part of hydraulic cement
manufacturing,  which also includes natural, masonry, and pozzolanic cement. The six-digit Source
Classification Code (SCC) for portland cement plants with wet process kilns is 3-05-006, and the
six-digit SCC for plants with dry process kilns is 3-05-007.

        Portland cement accounts for 95 percent of the hydraulic cement production in the United
States.  The balance of domestic cement production is primarily masonry cement.   Both  of these
materials are produced in  portland cement manufacturing plants.  A diagram of the process, which
encompasses production of both portland and masonry  cement, is shown in Figure 11.6-1. As shown
in the figure, the process can be divided into the following primary components:   raw materials
acquisition and handling, kiln feed preparation, pyroprocessing, and finished cement grinding.  Each
of these process  components is described briefly below. The primary  focus of this discussion is on
pyroprocessing operations, which constitute the core of a portland cement plant.

        The initial production step in portland cement manufacturing is raw materials acquisition.
Calcium, the element of highest concentration in portland cement, is obtained from a variety of
calcareous raw materials,  including limestone, chalk, marl, sea shells, aragonite, and an  impure
limestone known as "natural cement rock".  Typically, these raw materials are obtained from open-
face quarries, but underground mines or dredging operations are also used.  Raw materials vary from
facility  to facility. Some quarries produce relatively pure limestone that requires the use of additional
raw materials to provide the correct  chemical blend in the raw mix. In other  quarries, all or part of
the noncalcarious constituents are found naturally in the limestone.  Occasionally,  pockets of pyrite,
which can significantly increase emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), are found  in deposits of limestone,
clays, and shales used  as raw materials for portland cement.  Because  a large  fraction (approximately
one third) of the mass  of this primary material is lost as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the kiln, portland
cement  plants are located close to a calcareous raw material source whenever  possible.  Other
elements included in the raw mix are silicon, aluminum, and iron.  These materials are obtained from
ores and minerals such as sand, shale, clay, and iron ore.  Again, these materials  are most commonly
from open-pit quarries or  mines, but they may be dredged or excavated from  underwater deposits.

        Either gypsum or  natural anhydrite, both of which are forms of calcium sulfate,  is introduced
to the process during the finish grinding operations  described below.  These materials, also excavated
from quarries or mines, are generally purchased from an  external source, rather than obtained directly
from a captive operation by the cement plant.  The portland cement manufacturing industry is relying
increasingly on replacing virgin materials  with waste materials or byproducts  from other
manufacturing operations, to the extent that such replacement can be implemented without adversely


1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.6-1

    -------
os
to
m
§
K
co
O
o
H
O
JO
oo

Y PM EMISSIONS
©GASEOUS EMISSIONS ,-. .-.
A 0 ©
	 OPTIONAL PROCESS STEP ^ A

OPTIONAL
^fc. PREHEATER/ - -
f PRECALCINER 1
^ 0 © '
DRY PROCESS ©1
RAW MATERIAL ^ DRY MIXING OPTIONAL I
QUARRYING PREPARATION *• AND *-r >» PREHEATER
RAW -> (PROPORTIONING BLFNTHNG (0)
MATERIALS AND GRINDING) BLtNUINt> \}JJ


A © © © © ©
" i V A A A
PROCESSING RAW "*" 111;
MATERIALS (PRIMARY ' _ ' -1 	 ^ (
AND SECONDARY /- k> ROTARY CLINKER *.

EMISSION SOURCE
Dry process-general
Wet process-general
A. Kiln
B. Raw material unloading
C. Raw material piles
D. Primary crushing
E. Secondary crushing
F. Screening
G. Raw material transfer
H. Raw material grinding/drying
1. Clinker cooler
J. Clinker piles
K. Clinker transfer
L. Clinker grinding
M. Cement silos
N. Cement load out
O. Raw mill feed belt
P. Raw mill weigh hopper
0. Raw mill air separator
R. Finish grinding mill feed belt
S. Finish grinding mill weigh hopper
T. Finish grinding mill air separator
U. Preheater kiln
V. Preheater/precalciner kiln
GYl
K; CLINKER &
^ STORAGE

|®(g>B)©©©©®| RAW MATERIAL ^ ,,,_„, .«, T A '
b PREPARATION © SLURRY ©
^ /pirnpnnTinwiMr — It- MIXINO AND '
AND GRINDING) BLENDING
Ctf
A FUEL


PSUM
A
FINISH pc
T ^ SR'NP'NG -^ SI
•* MILL
®® ©
v q
	 4
AIR 1


sec
3-05-006-
3-05-007-
-07
•08
-09
-10 -
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-24
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
3-05-006-22
3-C5-006-22
A A
fo^GE^5"™^1
)
                                      WATER
                                           WET PROCESS
                                      Figure 11.6-1.  Process flow diagram for portland cement manufacturing.
                                                      (SCC = Source Classification Code.)

    -------
affecting plant operations, product quality or the environment.  Materials that have been used include
fly ash, mill scale, and metal smelting slags.

        The second step in portland  cement manufacture is preparing the raw mix, or kiln feed, for
the pyroprocessing operation.  Raw  material preparation includes a variety of blending and sizing
operations that are designed to provide a feed with appropriate chemical and physical properties. The
raw material processing operations differ somewhat for wet and dry processes,  as described below.

        Cement raw materials are received with an initial moisture content varying from 1 to more
than SO percent.  If the facility uses  dry process kilns, this moisture is usually reduced to less than
1 percent before or during grinding.  Drying alone can be accomplished in impact dryers, drum
dryers, paddle-equipped rapid dryers, air separators, or autogenous mills.  However, drying can also
be accomplished during grinding in ball-and-tube mills or roller mills. While thermal energy for
drying can be supplied by exhaust gases from separate, direct-fired coal, oil,  or gas burners, the most
efficient and widely used source of heat for drying is the hot exit gases from  the pyroprocessing
system.

        Materials transport associated with dry raw milling systems can be accomplished by a variety
of mechanisms, including screw conveyors, belt conveyors, drag  conveyors, bucket elevators, air
slide conveyors, and pneumatic conveying systems.  The dry raw mix is pneumatically blended and
stored in specially constructed  silos until it is fed to the pyroprocessing system.

        In the wet process, water  is  added to the raw mill during  the grinding of the raw materials in
ball or tube mills, thereby producing a pumpable slurry, or slip, pf approximately 65 percent  solids.
The slurry is agitated, blended, and  stored in various kinds  and sizes of cylindrical tanks or slurry
basins until it is fed to the pyroprocessing system.

        The heart of the portland cement manufacturing process is the pyroprocessing system.  This
system transforms the raw mix into  clinkers, which are gray, glass-hard, spherically shaped nodules
that range from 0.32 to 5.1 centimeters (cm) (0.125 to 2.0 inches [in.])  in diameter.   The chemical
reactions and physical processes that constitute the transformation are quite complex, but they can be
viewed conceptually as the following sequential events:

        1.  Evaporation of free water;

        2.  Evolution of combined water in the argillaceous components;

        3.  Calcination of the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to calcium oxide (CaO);

        4.  Reaction of CaO with  silica to form dicalcium silicate;

        5.  Reaction of CaO with  the aluminum and iron-bearing  constituents to form the liquid
           phase;

        6.  Formation of the clinker nodules;

        7.  Evaporation of volatile constituents (e. g., sodium,  potassium, chlorides, and sulfates);
           and

        8.  Reaction of excess CaO with dicalcium silicate to form tricalcium silicate.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                               11.6-3

    -------
       This sequence of events may be conveniently divided into four stages, as a function of
location and temperature of the materials  in the rotary kiln.

       1.  Evaporation of uncombined water from raw materials, as material temperature increases to
           100°C (212°F);

       2.  Dehydration, as the material temperature increases from 100°C to approximately 430°C
           (800°F) to form oxides of silicon, aluminum, and iron;

       3.  Calcination, during which carbon dioxide (CO2) is evolved, between 900°C (1650°F) and
           982°C (1800°F), to form CaO; and

       4.  Reaction, of the oxides in the  burning zone of the rotary kiln, to form cement clinker at
           temperatures of approximately 1510°C  (2750°F).

       Rotary kilns are long, cylindrical, slightly inclined furnaces that are lined with refractory to
protect the steel shell and retain heat within the kiln.  The raw material mix enters the kiln at the
elevated end, and the combustion fuels  generally are introduced into the lower end of the kiln in a
countercurrent manner.  The materials are continuously and slowly moved to the lower end by
rotation of the kiln. As they move down the kiln, the raw materials are changed to cementitious or
hydraulic minerals as a result of the increasing temperature within the kiln. The most commonly used
kiln fuels are coal, natural gas, and occasionally oil.  The use of supplemental fuels such as waste
solvents, scrap rubber, and petroleum coke has  expanded in recent years.

       Five different processes are used  in the  portland cement industry to accomplish the
pyroprocessing step: the wet process, the dry process (long dry process), the semidry process,  the
dry process with a preheater,  and the dry process with a preheater/precalciner. Each of these
processes accomplishes the physical/chemical  steps defined above. However, the processes vary with
respect to equipment design, method of operation, and fuel consumption. Generally, fuel
consumption decreases in the  order of the processes listed.  The paragraphs below briefly describe the
process, starting with the wet process and then noting differences in the other processes.

       In the wet process and long dry process, all of the pyroprocessing activity occurs in the rotary
kiln.  Depending on the process type, kilns have length-to-diameter ratios in the range of 15:1 to
40:1.  While some wet process kilns may be as long as 210 m (700 ft), many wet process kilns and
all dry process kilns are shorter. Wet process and  long dry process pyroprocessing systems  consist
solely of the simple rotary kiln.  Usually, a system of chains is provided at the feed end of the kiln in
the drying  or preheat zones to improve heat transfer from the hot gases to the solid materials.  As the
kiln rotates, the chains are raised and exposed to the hot gases.  Further kiln rotation causes the hot
chains to fall into the cooler materials at the bottom of the kiln, thereby transferring the heat to the
load.

       Dry process pyroprocessing systems have been improved  in thermal efficiency and productive
capacity through the addition  of one or more cyclone-type preheater vessels in the gas stream exiting
the rotary kiln. This system is called the preheater process.  The vessels are arranged vertically, in
series, and are supported by a structure known  as the preheater tower. Hot exhaust gases from the
rotary kiln pass countercurrently through the downward-moving raw materials in  the preheater
vessels.  Compared to the simple rotary kiln,  the heat transfer rate is significantly increased, the
degree of heat utilization is greater, and the process time is markedly reduced by  the intimate contact
of the solid particles with the hot gases.  The improved heat transfer allows the length of the rotary
kiln to be reduced. The hot gases  from the preheater tower  are often used as a source of heat for

11.6-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
drying raw materials in the raw mill.  Because the catch from the mechanical collectors, fabric filters,
and/or electrostatic precipitators (ESP) that follow the raw mill is returned to the process, these
devices are considered to be production machines as well  as pollution control devices.

        Additional thermal efficiencies and productivity gains have been achieved by diverting some
fuel to a calciner vessel at the base of the preheater tower. This system is called the
preheater/precalciner process.  While a substantial amount of fuel is used  in the precalciner, at least
40 percent of the thermal energy is required  in the rotary  kiln. The amount of fuel that is introduced
to the calciner is determined by the availability and source of the oxygen for combustion in the
calciner.  Calciner systems sometimes use lower-quality fuels (e. g., less-volatile matter) as a means
of improving process economics.

        Preheater and precalciner kiln systems often have  an  alkali bypass system between the feed
end of the rotary kiln and the preheater tower to remove the  undesirable volatile constituents.
Otherwise, the volatile constituents condense in the preheater tower and subsequently recirculate to
the kiln.  Buildup of these  condensed materials can restrict process and gas flows.  The alkali content
of portland cement is often limited by product specifications  because excessive alkali metals  (i. e.,
sodium and potassium) can cause deleterious reactions in concrete.  In a bypass system, a portion of
the kiln exit gas stream is withdrawn and quickly cooled by air or water to condense the volatile
constituents to fine particles. The solid particles, containing  the undesirable volatile constituents, are
removed from the gas stream and thus the process by fabric filters and ESPs.

        The semidry process is a variation of the dry process. In the semidry process, the water is
added to the dry raw mix in a pelletizer to form moist nodules or pellets.  The pellets then are
conveyed on  a moving grate preheater before being fed to the rotary kiln. The pellets are dried and
partially calcined by hot kiln exhaust gases passing through the moving grate.

        Regardless of the type of pyroprocess used, the last component of the pyroprocessing system
is the clinker cooler. This process step recoups up to 30 percent of the heat input to the kiln system,
locks in desirable product qualities by freezing mineralogy, and makes it possible to handle the cooled
clinker with conventional conveying equipment. The more common types of clinker coolers  are
(1)  reciprocating grate, (2) planetary, and (3) rotary.  In these coolers, the clinker is cooled from
about 1100°C to 93°C (2000°F to 200°F) by ambient air  that passes through the clinker and into the
rotary kiln for use as combustion air.  However, in the reciprocating grate cooler, lower clinker
discharge temperatures are achieved by passing an additional quantity of air through the clinker.
Because this additional air  cannot be utilized in the kiln for efficient combustion, it  is vented to the
atmosphere, used for drying coal or raw materials,  or used as a combustion air source for the
precalciner.

        The final step in portland cement manufacturing involves a sequence of blending and grinding
operations that transforms clinker to finished portland cement.  Up to 5 percent gypsum or natural
anhydrite is added to the clinker during grinding to control the cement setting time, and other
specialty chemicals are added as needed to impart specific product properties.  This finish milling  is
accomplished almost exclusively in ball or tube mills. Typically, finishing is conducted in a closed-
circuit system, with product sizing by air separation.

11.6.2  Emissions And Controls1'3"7

        Paniculate matter (PM and PM-10),  nitrogen oxides  (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), and CO2 are the primary emissions in the manufacture of portland  cement.   Small
quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), chlorine, and  hydrogen chloride

1/95                                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.6-5

    -------
(HC1), also may be emitted. Emissions may also include residual materials from the fuel and raw
materials or products of incomplete combustion that are considered to be hazardous. Because some
facilities burn waste fuels, particularly spent solvents in the kiln, these systems also may emit small
quantities of additional hazardous organic pollutants.  Also, raw material feeds and fuels typically
contain trace amounts of heavy metals that may be emitted as a paniculate or vapor.

       Sources of PM at cement plants include (1) quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage,
(3) grinding and blending (in the dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and
(6) packaging and loading.  The largest emission source of PM  within cement plants is the
pyroprocessing system that includes the kiln and clinker cooler  exhaust stacks. Often, dust from the
kiln is collected and recycled into the kiln, thereby producing clinker from the dust. However, if the
alkali content of the raw materials is  too high,  some or all of the dust is discarded or leached before
being returned to the kiln.  In many instances,  the maximum allowable cement alkali content of
0.6 percent (calculated as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can be recycled.  Bypass
systems sometimes  have a separate exhaust stack.  Additional sources of PM are raw material storage
piles, conveyors, storage silos, and unloading facilities. Emissions from portland cement plants
constructed or modified after August 17,  1971  are regulated to limit PM emissions from portland
cement kilns to 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) of feed (dry basis), and to limit PM emissions  from clinker
coolers to 0.050 kg/Mg (0.10 Ib/ton) of feed (dry basis).

       Oxides of nitrogen are generated during fuel combustion by oxidation of chemically-bound
nitrogen in the fuel and by thermal fixation of nitrogen in the combustion air. As flame temperature
increases, the amount of thermally generated NOX increases.  The amount of NOX generated from fuel
increases with the quantity of nitrogen in the fuel.  In the cement manufacturing process, NOX is
generated in both the burning zone of the kiln and the burning zone of a precalcining vessel.  Fuel
use affects the quantity and type  of NOX generated. For example, in the kiln, natural gas combustion
with a high flame temperature and low fuel nitrogen generates a larger quantity of NOX than does oil
or coal, which have higher fuel nitrogen but which burn with lower flame temperatures.   The
opposite may be true in a precalciner. Types of fuels used vary across the industry. Historically,
some combination  of coal, oil, and natural gas  was used, but over the last 15  years, most plants have
switched to coal, which generates less NOX than does oil or gas. However, in recent years a number
of plants have switched to systems that burn a  combination of coal and  waste fuel. The  effect of
waste fuel use on NOX emissions is not clearly established.

        Sulfur dioxide may be. generated both from the sulfur compounds in the raw materials and
from sulfur  in the fuel.  The sulfur content of both raw materials and fuels varies  from plant to plant
and with geographic location.  However, the alkaline nature of the cement provides for direct
absorption of SO2  into the product, thereby mitigating the quantity of SO2 emissions in the exhaust
stream. Depending on the process and the source of the sulfur, SO2  absorption ranges from about
70 percent to more than 95 percent.

        The CO2 emissions from portland cement  manufacturing are  generated by two mechanisms.
As with most high-temperature, energy-intensive industrial processes, combusting fuels to generate
process energy releases substantial quantities of CO2.  Substantial quantities of CO2 also are
generated through  calcining of limestone  or other calcareous material.  This calcining process
thermally decomposes CaC03 to CaO and CO2. Typically, portland cement contains the equivalent
of about 63.5 percent CaO.  Consequently, about  1.135 units of CaCO3 are required to produce  1
unit of cement, and the amount of C02 released in the calcining process is about 500 kilograms (kg)
per Mg of portland cement produced (1,000 pounds [Ib] per ton of cement). Total CO2 emissions
from the pyroprocess depend on energy consumption and generally fall in the range of 0.85 to
1.35 Mg of C02 per Mg of clinker.

11.6-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
       In addition to CO2 emissions, fuel combustion at portland cement plants can emit a wide
range of pollutants in smaller quantities.  If the combustion reactions do not reach completion, CO
and volatile organic pollutants, typically measured as total organic compounds (TOC), VOC, or
organic condensable particulate, can be emitted.  Incomplete combustion also can lead to emissions of
specific hazardous organic air pollutants, although these pollutants are generally emitted at
substantially lower levels than CO or TOC.

       Emissions of metal compounds from portland cement kilns can be grouped into three general
classes:  volatile metals, including mercury (Hg) and thallium (Tl); semivolatile metals,  including
antimony (Sb), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), potassium (K),  and sodium (Na);
and refractory or nonvolatile metals, including barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As),  nickel (Ni),
vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and silver (Ag).  Although the partitioning of these
metal groups is affected by kiln operating conditions,  the refractory metals tend to concentrate in the
clinker, while the volatile and semivolatile  metals tend to be discharged through the primary exhaust
stack and the bypass stack, respectively.

       Fugitive dust sources in the industry include quarrying and mining operations, vehicle traffic
during mineral extraction and at the manufacturing site,  raw materials storage piles, and clinker
storage piles. The measures used to control emissions from these fugitive dust sources are
comparable to those used throughout the mineral products industries.  Vehicle traffic controls include
paving and road wetting. Controls that are applied to other open dust sources include water sprays
with and without surfactants, chemical dust suppressants, wind screens, and process modifications to
reduce drop heights or  enclose storage operations. Additional information on these control measures
can be found in Chapter 13 of AP-42, "Miscellaneous Sources".

       Process fugitive emission  sources include materials handling and transfer, raw milling
operations in dry process facilities, and finish milling operations. Typically, emissions from these
processes are captured by a ventilation system and collected in fabric filters.  Some facilities use an
air pollution control system comprising one or more mechanical collectors with a fabric filter in
series. Because the dust from these units is returned to the process, they are considered to be process
units as well as air pollution control devices.  The industry uses shaker, reverse air, and pulse jet
filters as well as some cartridge units, but most newer facilities use pulse jet filters. For process
fugitive operations, the different systems are reported to achieve typical outlet PM loadings of
45 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) (0.02 grains per actual cubic foot [gr/acfj).

       In the pyroprocessing units, PM emissions are controlled by fabric filters (reverse  air, pulse
jet, or pulse plenum) and electrostatic precipitators (ESP).  Typical control  measures for the kiln
exhaust are  reverse air  fabric filters with an air-to-cloth  ratio of 0.41:1 m3/min/m2 (1.5:1 acfm/ft2)
and ESP with a net surface collection  area of 1,140 to 1,620 m2/l,000 m3 (350 to 500 ft2/l,000 ft3).
These systems  are reported to achieve outlet PM loadings of 45 mg/m3 (0.02 gr/acf).  Clinker cooler
systems are controlled most frequently with pulse jet or  pulse plenum fabric filters. A few gravel bed
filters also have been used to control clinker cooler emissions.  Typical outlet PM loadings are
identical to those reported for kilns.

       Cement kiln systems have highly alkaline internal environments that can absorb up to
95 percent of potential  SO2 emissions. However,  in systems that have sulfide sulfur (pyrites) in the
kiln feed, the sulfur absorption rate may  be as low as 70 percent without unique design considerations
or changes in raw materials.  The cement kiln system itself has been determined to provide substantial
SO2 control. Fabric filters on cement kilns are also reported to absorb SO2.  Generally, substantial
control is not achieved.  An absorbing reagent (e.  g.,  CaO) must be present in the filter cake for SO2
capture to occur.  Without the presence of water, which is undesirable in the operation of a fabric

1/95                                 Mineral Products  Industry                              11.6-7

    -------
filter, CaCO3 is not an absorbing reagent.  It has been observed that as much as 50 percent of the
SO2 can be removed from the pyroprocessing system exhaust gases when this gas stream is used in a
raw mill for heat recovery and drying. In this case, moisture and calcium carbonate are
simultaneously  present for sufficient time to accomplish the chemical reaction with SO2.

        Tables  11.6-1 and 11.6-2 present emission factors for PM emissions from portland cement
manufacturing kilns and clinker coolers.  Tables 11.6-3 and 11.6-4 present emission factors for PM
emissions from raw material and product processing and handling. Particle size distributions for
emissions from wet process and dry process kilns are presented in Table 11.6-5, and Table 11.6-6
presents the particle size distributions for emissions from clinker coolers. Emission factors for SO2,
NOX, CO, CO2, and TOC emissions from portland cement kilns are summarized in Tables 11.6-7 and
11.6-8. Table  11.6-9 summarizes emission factors for other pollutant emissions from portland cement
kilns.

        Because of differences in the sulfur content of the raw material and fuel and in process
operations, a mass balance for sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific
facility than the SO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8.  In addition, CO2
emission factors estimated using a mass balance on carbon may be more representative for a specific
facility than the CO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8.
 11.6-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
                  Table 11.6-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
                                          KILNS AND CLINKER COOLERS3
Process
Wet process kiln
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
Wet process kiln with ESP
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
Wet process kiln with fabric filter
(SCC 2-05-007-06)
Wet process kiln with cooling tower,
multiclone, and ESP
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
Dry process kiln with ESP
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
Dry process kiln with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
Preheater kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-22)
Preheater kiln with ESP
(SCC 3-05-006-22)
Preheater kiln with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-22)
Preheater/precalciner kiln with ESP
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
Preheater/precalciner process kiln
with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
Preheater/precalciner process kiln
with PM controls
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
Filterable15
PM
65d
0.38f
0.23J
0.10*

0.50m
0.10"
1301

0.13r

0.13s

0.024"
0.10V

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
E
E

D
D
D

D

C

D
D



EMISSION
FACTOR
PM-10 RATING
16e D
0.33S D
ND
ND

ND
0,084? D
ND

ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

Condensable"
EMIS
FAC
Inorganic RAT
ND
SIGN
TOR
ING Organic
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

0.076h D ND
0.10) E ND
0.14k E ND



0.19m D ND
0.45" D ND
ND

ND

ND

ND





0.017' D ND

ND
ND


ND
ND





0.078W D ND



ct>
o.
o
D.
I
ca

    -------
   8

^
3
09
en
Condon;







2s
JJ
£



| EMISSION
FACTOR
O
o
1
O
| EMISSION



| EMISSION




FACTOR



| FACTOR




| RATING
o
i
o
c
| RATING

o
1
1
00 E- S
i































cn
VI
0>
O
2
Q-







Q
Z


Q
X
00
d





Q
Z

Q
X
oo
S
d



&


.c ^
•^ *7*
^ ^o
*H ??
O i
is
i ^
.S Wi
D ^

Q
Z


Q
00
S
d





Q
Z

Q
X
00
S
d

5
o
X!


^
'S
>
t*
ii
O
8
u
U
^
O

Q
Z


Q
U
d

Q
J3
TJ-
00
O
d

Q
1
d
Ui
n
o
O
O

                                        (U
                                        U
                                        U
                                        "8
                                        S
                                        c

                                              _c
                                              'S3
                                              W)
                                              C
                                              g

                                              1
                                                                                                  o
                                                         •> ts
                                                                 cs
                                        2  .
                                        « o
                                        u-
      _c

      "3.
                                                        a>
                                                        o
                                                        C
                                                        
                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                            53
                                           S a.
                                        .22 "3
                                        'ft w
                                                 O
                                         „ £ <*3
 §0.

 gu
.0
'S3  nj
 «5  iJ

 S-o
    o

"8  c
=  ii
                                                 t
                                                 8
                                              8|
                                                 -
               Tj-  ^.
               \o  o
                                                          JH T^
                   vo
                                                          o °
                                                                                                  O O\
                                              «
             (-sj  OO
             o" -t
                          -
                       -O
                        n
                     oo ov
                                          * a

       ^^      .       t         en  en







 OCJOCJOOOOOOOCJ
 cccccccccecc




 ^>^>^>ofl^^fliflifliol^o
 DidiPiOiDiOiQiOiOiOiQiDi

—.js^Ec  cxcr'i-«iJD>&
                                                                 en
                                                                 o"
                                                                                                           c-
                                                                  C/J
                                                               a)  
    -------
  O
  Z
  5


  I
  <
  u-
  D
  ua

  u
  u
  O Q

  < Z
  13
  i>o 53






3a
(A
5
•o
1




•°u
3
c




2oz
c« H &
£2 U f"
u "•
o
'c
a
£?


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
o
1
o
e
ill
o
•


o£u
2 p z
§gi

a.







CO
(O
U
£^
£







Q
Z



Q
Z

Q
o
f>


Q

"^5
^•*








?
s ^
sS
0 ^
*8
5 52-





Q
Z


Q
ti
o
Q
oo
So
o



o
f-
d







ex
j2
If
— Q
839
|S





Q
Z


.
g
d

Q
Z


rjl
^D
d


t_i

E

o
•c
"§
x:
If
e t^
ra 0
•^9
« ITi
S9
o ^
^
|5S





Q Q
Z Z


W Q
^ e
C7^ OO
d d

Q Q
Z Z


U Q
cs o
d ^

1

O



1 85
o U
j= a. f
"Iwf If
c *n f^. c *o
'Cj rt Q 15 O
tfl flT W^ en \o
S §9 39
II C |C
a30 &0
«3 C t/2 >~-C/3
^ S^ Q^





Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z


Q Q Q
ON Q Q m Q Q vo
">. Z Z 9 Z Z "I
o o o
Q
<=> Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z


Q Q a 0 D Q
3
C u- M 00 >
CS CS C^J O CS Q
o o d d o d ^
r5
O-
l- C/5 C C
o pj JS .S
S fli _C *^ "^
— .^5 60 CO
O -^ ^ co co
t£3 CL, "C ™ <- *-"
J3 ^5 ^
*5p r4 ^C'J •£ t^ .5f^ .Hu,^ .5.— c^*
3? 5? ^9 c§ go |S9 8§9
M^ ."^v-i - — \r\ -"^»n >-m v-o\n i-"o»n
go -^o -^o -^o ^o ^'Z o ^ o
J^ r \ ^2 r \ ^i r \ ^ r \ ^i r \ ^i ^^ r } ^i ^^ r \
ao ^o ^o Jo ^o ^^u ^ .« u
  .£3


  c
  ,2
  3
  c«
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-11

    -------

  •8
  H








°o
3
S
c
u
c
o
O















-°u
1
1
E


















0
to
2>

2
U





Z
to
to

w






o
55
£2
M
u






2
o
1
2
UJ















«
o
H
0

^






OS

<;
U.






a:
8
u

u.







Q
u
•^
UN















0
*— «
H*

tt!

2
'e
g>
O

0
Z
H

K




1
o
c
a
z
•^


o

CL



Z
H
*5
OS



cu






Process











Q
Z



Q





X
8
O






Q
Z



Q





X
o






a.
j- ^
§2
u CO
u U
•* O
.S oo
U ""








Q




Q






o
0






Q
Z



Q





r>
d




Uj
S
S
Q
•c:
•£ ^
'1 3
u o
W <*1
o O
O ~








Q
Z



Q





O
1
d
Q



^
vO
d




Q





i
d



Ui
U
S
1

L
•3 «
Is
o CJ
O ""


^
Uf
3
O
C/5
U
U
CO

•g
tL*
o
i
•a
3
"S
V
O
3
1
pi
1
C
"o
'-t-
o
e
o

Ul
S2
o

tu

I
S
W3

^
4>
J±
O
en
J
e
.3
en
O
en
1
I
1
+-*
O
O
C
3
4_>
U
§
It
en
Ul
O
*-»
£j
ca
U.
cS



























o
a
!§•
'0
ex
.a
CQ
*^
CA
o
Ui

(U
"a3
II
0.
utJ
_
3
•o
o
II
Q
Z


"«3
3
g*
Ui
^
**)
T3
jj
0>
2
<
D.
U
«
tj-
0
Ul
-w
S

<2
43
0
O
•*-«
J3

"I
CD
S
ai
E
^






















.
_c
U4
c

"S,
CQ

S
^
<4_
°
O
*^t
Q •
CX • ^Q
^ S o^
M 0"^
C \O rt
1 !l

•i J-^"
C CO Tj-
? s«"
S cs"l
0) CO VO
O CN lA
O ' (N
to CN cT

en vo ^ °°" ^
"" .x <^ oo *^« o
SSo-.^^l
c^ ^— r 04 ^^ oo ^^
^^ ^? —i ^ i * *
di 0s! ro oo rO oo ^" *~^
t/^OOOOOCJCJ
CCCCGCCG
"cc£Jt2t£c2Je£t2^2
O 4i fli ^ W fli tt^ fli
Uc^c^cdoS^o^oS
O "O Hi <*— W) ^ .— j ^4
                                                        a\
                                                        CN^

                                                        CN'
                                                        CN
                                                                                                   . cs
                                                                                                  *^ CS
                                                                                               en jn  05
                                                                                               fl) D  fl>
                                                                                               O O  o
                                                                                               e c  c
                                                                                               (D 4>  d>
                                                                                               O5 OS

                                                                                               « -D
                                                                   CN

                                                                   oC
                                                   ON ON
                                                   IT) IO

                                                   vo —"


                                                   »-T r--"
                                                   m co

                                                   co~ co'
                                                   CO CO
                                                                   ooooooooo
                                                                   CCCCCCCCC
                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                  CO^

                                                                                                  o"
                                                                                                  
    o
    C
11.6-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        Table 11.6-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
   MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING3
Process
Raw mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-13)
Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-24)
Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-25)
Raw mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-26)
Finish grinding mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17)
Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27)
Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28)
Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29)
Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-09)h
Primary limestone screening with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-1 l)h
Limestone transfer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-12)h
Secondary limestone screening and crushing with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -ll)h

PM
0.0062C

0.0016d

0.0106
0.016e
0.0042f
0.0012d
0.0047e
0.0148
0.00050
0.00011
1.5 x 10'5
0.00016
Filterable13
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E

E
E
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
PM-10
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING














a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted.  Factors are kg/Mg of material
^process, unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
4b
  Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c References  15,56-57.
d Reference 57.
e Reference 15.
f References  10,12,15,56-57.
% References  10,15.
h Reference 16.  Alternatively, emission factors from Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing",
  can be used for similar processes and  equipment.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-13

    -------
        Table 11.6^ (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
  MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING3
Process
Raw mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-13)
Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-24)
Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-25)
Raw mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-26)
Finish grinding mill with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17)
Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27)
Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28)
Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29)
Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-09)h
Primary limestone screening with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-1 l)h
Limestone transfer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-12)h
Secondary limestone screening and crushing with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -ll)h

PM
0.012C
0.003 ld
0.0196
0.032e
0.0080f
0.0024d
0.00946
0.028?
0.0010
0.00022
2.9 x 10'5
0.00031
Filterable11
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
PM-10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING












a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted. Factors are Ib/ton of material
  processed, unless noted.  SCC  = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c References 15,56-57.
d Reference 57.
e Reference 15.
f References 10,12,15,56-57.
g References 10,15.
h Reference 16.  Alternatively, emission factors from the Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone
  Processing", can be used for similar processes and equipment.
11.6-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
        Table 11.6-5. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                        FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNSa
Particle
Size, fim
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size
Uncontrolled
Wet process
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
7
20
24
35
57
Dry process
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
18
ND
42
44
ND
Controlled
Wet process
With ESP
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
64
83
85
91
98
Dry process
WithFF
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
45
77
84
89
100
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
        Table 11.6-6.  SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                   FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CLINKER COOLERS3
Particle Size, fim
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size
Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14)
0.54
1.5
8.6
21
34
With Gravel Bed Filter
(SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14)
40
64
76
84
89
a Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-15

    -------
ON
ON
                Table 11.6-7 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING8
Process
Wet process kiln
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
Long dry process kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
Preheater process kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-22)
Preheater/precalciner kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
Preheater/precalciner kiln with
spray tower
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
so2b
4.1d

4.9h

0.27P

0.54"


0.50*

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

D

D

D


E

NOX
3.7e

3.0)

2.4<>

2.1V


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

D

D

D




CO
0.060f

O.llk

0.49r

1.8W


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E '

D

D




CO2C
1,1008

900m

9009

900X


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

D

C

E




TOC
0.014f

0.014n

0.0901

0.059?


ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E

D

D




m
O
z
n
o
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are kg/Mg of clinker produced, unless noted. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.  ND  — no data,
b Mass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the SO2 emission factors presented in
  this table.
0 Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the CO2 emission factors presented in
  this table.
d References 20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.
e References 26,34-36,43,64.
  Reference 64.
8 References 25-26,32,34-36,44,60,64.
h References 11,19,39,40.
J  References 11,38-40,65.
k References 39,65.
m References 11,21,23,65.
11 References 40,65.  TOC as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.
P References 47-50.
* References 48-50.
r Reference 49.
s References 24,31,47-50,61.

    -------
                     a. 
                     2 -S
  -M    CM
                     t« 60

                     • *• C
                     en •—
  •s

                     •81
         CO
          i
     ».
.H ro
 S "1
 s ^
             *"*  5

             B  g

             §.|



             P
             5  o
                    t  •

                     "-*
                        «*
         —    ,   .   ,
         •X  O" O" O" —" ff
         2  <*t <**, **!> <*! **V.
         • - od" oo" oo" •*" o"
         S  
    CJ    o  4>  1>  Q>  3>


   a   O    4>  fl>
   a; oi ai as «  oS
1/95
                                 Mineral Products Industry
11.6-17

    -------
                      Table 11.6-8 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING*
00
Process
Wet process kiln
(SCC 3-05-007-06)
Long dry process kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-06)
Preheater process kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-22)
Preheater/precalciner kiln
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
Preheater/precalciner kiln
with spray tower
(SCC 3-05-006-23)
SO2b
8.2d
1011
0.55P
l.lu
l.O2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
D
D
D
E
NOX
7.4e
6.0)
4.8<1
4.2V
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D

CO
0.12f
0.21k
0.98r
3.7W
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
D
D

C02C
2,1008
l,800m
1,800s
1,800X
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
C
E

TOC
0.028f
0.028n
0.181
0.12?
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
D
D

m
•fl
>
O
H
O
»
on
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are Ib/ton of clinker produced, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
b Mass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the SO2 emission factors presented
  in this  table.
c Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the CO2 emission factors
  presented in this table.
d References 20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.
e References 26,34-36,43,64.
f Reference 64.
§ References 25-26,32,34-36,44,60,64.
h References 11,19,39-40.
J  References 11,38-40,65.
k References 39,65.
m References 11,21,23,65.
n References 40,65.  TOC as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.
P References 47-50.
1 References 48-50.
r Reference 49.
s References 24,31,47-50,61..
1  Reference 49; total organic compounds as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.

    -------
  I
  oo
   O, «J
   a. c

   C *
   eo >


  P

  '1 ®
   C •<
   8{Q

  •2-8
  2 -S

  II
   s« bo
   «.s
   B g
          o\
          m
        o\
          •o
           ca
   i i

   1 i
   C. en

   ǤJ
   c<5 C

   si
   tt S

   c 8

   §l
     §•
     o
 1
; ffi
            'oo -  o
        O O O '—i CO
        CO CO CO CO CO

        oo" oo" oo" TJ-" o"
        CS CS (S  1>  CD
cj  cj o  o
c  c c  c
        Cl>  CD D CL>  CL> CD
             W U-i  UN V-(
             CO CO  CD CO
        3  >
                     C4

                     N
1/95
                      Mineral Products Industry
                                                                            11.6-19

    -------
   Table 11.6-9 (Metric And English Units).  SUMMARY OF NONCRTTERIA POLLUTANT
               EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNSa
               (SCC 3-05-006-06, 3-05-007-06, 3-05-006-22, 3-05-006-23)
Pollutant
Name
Type Of
Control
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
Inorganic Pollutants
SUver (Ag)
Aluminum (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Calcium (Ca)
Cadmium (Cd)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium (Cr)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Hydrogen chloride (HC1)
Hydrogen chloride (HC1)
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Hg)
Potassium (K)
Manganese (Mn)
Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonium (NH^
Nitrate (NO3)
Sodium (Na)
Lead(Pb)
Lead(Pb)
Sulfur trioxide (SO3)
Sulfur trioxide (SO3)
Sulfate (SO^
Sulfate (SO^
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
3.1xl(T7
0.0065
6.5x10-*
6.0x10-*
0.00018
0.00023
3.3xlO-7
0.12
4.2x10-*
l.lxlQ-6
0.34
0.0011
3.9X10-6
7.0X10'5
0.0026
0.00045
0.0085
0.025
0.073
0.00011
1.2xlO-5
0.0090
0.00043
0.0051
0.054
0.0023
0.020
0.00036
S.SxlO'5
0.042
0.0073
0.10
0.0036
Ib/ton
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
References

6.1x10-'
0.013
1.3xlO-5
1.2X10'5
0.00035
0.00046
6.6xlO-7
0.24
8.3x10-*
2.2x10-*
0.68
0.0021
7.7x10-*
0.00014
0.0053
0.00090
0.017
0.049
0.14
0.00022
2.4xlO-5
0.018
0.00086
0.010
0.11
0.0046
0.038
0.00071
7.5xlO-5
0.086
0.014
0.20
0.0072
D
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
63
65
65
63
64
63
63
65
64
63
25,42-44
63
64
63
62
43
65
41,65
59,63
64
11,63
25,42-43
65
59
25,42-44
43
25,42^4
64
63
25
24,30,50
25,42-44
30,33,52
11.6-20
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                       Table 11.6-9 (cont.).
Pollutant
Name
Selenium (Se)
Selenium (Se)
Thallium (Th)
Titanium (Ti)
Zinc (Zn)
Zinc (Zn)
Type Of
Control
ESP
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
7.5xlO'5
0.00010
2.7X1Q-6
0.00019
0.00027
0.00017
Ib/ton
0.00015
0.00020
5.4X10"6
0.00037
0.00054
0.00034
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
D
E
D
D
References
65
62
63
65
64
63
Organic Pollutants
CASRNb | Name
35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
C3 benzenes
C4 benzenes
C6 benzenes
208-96-8 acenaphthylene
67-64-1 acetone
100-52-7 benzaldehyde
71-43-2 benzene
71-43-2 benzene
benzo(a)anthracene
50-32-8 benzo(a)pyrene
205-99-2 benzo(b)fluoranthene
191-24-2 benzo(g,h,i)perylene
207-08-9 benzo(k)fluoranthene
65-85-0 benzoic acid
95-52-4 biphenyl
1 17-81-7 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
74-83-9 bromomethane
75-15-0 carbon disulfide
108-90-7 chlorobenzene
74-87-3 chloromethane
218-01-9 chrysene
84-74-2 di-n-butylphthalate
53-70-3 dibenz(a,h)anthracene
101-41-4 ethylbenzene
206-44-0 fluoranthene
86-73-7 fluorene
50-00-0 formaldehyde
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
FF
FF
l.lxlO'10
l.SxlO'6
3.0xlO-6
4.6xlO-7
5.9xlO'5
0.00019
1.2xlO'5
0.0016
0.0080
2.1xlO'8
6.5xlO-8
2.8X10'7
3.9xlO-8
7.7X10"8
0.0018
S.lxlG'6
4.8xlO'5
2.2xlO-5
5.5xlO'5
S.OxlO-6
0.00019
S.lxlO'8
2.U10-5
S.lxlO'7
9.5xlO-6
4.4X10'6
9.4xlO-6
0.00023
2.2x1 0'10
2.6X10-6
6.0X10-6
9.2xlO-7
0.00012
0.00037
2.4x1 0'5
0.0031
0.016
4.3x1 0'8
l.SxlO'7
5.6xlO-7
7.8x10-*
l.SxlO'7
0.0035
6.1xlO'6
9.5xlO-s
4.3xlO'5
0.00011
l.exlO'5
0.00038
1.6xlO'7
4.1xlO-5
6.3X10'7
1.9xlO'5
8.8x10-*
1.9X10'5
0.00046
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
D
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
62
65
65
65
62
64
65
64
62
62
62
62
62
62
64
65
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
62
64
62
62
62
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.6-21

    -------
                                   Table 11.6-9 (cont.).
Pollutant
CASRNb

193-39-5
78-93-3
75-09-2

91-20-3
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
100-42-5
108-88-3

3268-87-9

132-64-9
132-64-9
1330-20-7
Name
freon 113
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
methyl ethyl ketone
methylene chloride
methylnaphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
phenol
pyrene
styrene
toluene
total HpCDD
total OCDD
total PCDD
total PCDF
total TCDF
xylenes
Type Of
Control
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
FF
ESP
ESP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
ESP
Average Emission Factor
kg/Mg
2.5xlO'5
4.3x10-*
l.SxlO'5
0.00025
2-lxlQ-6
0.00085
0.00011
0.00020
S.SxlO'5
2.2X1Q-6
7.5xlO-7
0.00010
2.0X10'10
l.OxlO'9
1.4xlO'9
1.4xlO-10
1.4xlO'10
6.5xlO'5
Ib/ton
S.OxlO'5
8.7X10-8
S.OxlO'5
0.00049
4.2X10-6
0.0017
0.00022
0.00039
0.00011
4.4X10"6
l.SxlQ-6
0.00019
3.9xlO-10
2.0xlO-9
2.7xlO-9
2.9X10'10
2.9xlO-10
0.00013
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
D
References
65
62
64-65
65
65
62
64
62
64
62
65
64
62
62
62
62
62
64
a Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of clinker produced.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = electrostatic precipitator. FF = fabric filter.
b Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (organic compounds only).
References For Section 11.6

1.     W. L. Greer, et al., "Portland Cement", Air Pollution Engineering Manual, A. J. Buonicore
       and W. T. Davis (eds.), Von Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1992.

2.     U. S. And Canadian Portland Cement Industry Plant Information Summary, December 31,
       1990, Portland Cement Association, Washington, DC,  August 1991.

3.     J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry - Source Category Report, Volume II, EPA-600/7-87-
       007, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February  1987.

4.     Written communication from Robert W.  Crolius, Portland Cement Association, Washington,
       DC, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
       March 11, 1992.

5.     Written communication from Walter Greer, Ash Grove Cement Company, Overland Park,
       KS, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 30,  1993.
11.6-22
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                       1/95

    -------
6.     Written communication from John Wheeler, Capitol Cement, San Antonio, TX, to Ron
       Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 21,
       1993.

7.     Written communication from F. L. Streitman, ESSROC Materials, Incorporated, Nazareth,
       PA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 29, 1993.

8.     Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Maule Industries, Inc., ETB
       Test No.  71-MM-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1972.

9.     Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-03, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1972.

10.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-04, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1972.

11.    Emissions From Dry Process Cement Kiln At Dragon Cement Company, ETB Test No.
       71-MM-05, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

12.    Emissions From Wet Process Clinker Cooler And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement
       Company, ETB Test No. 71-MM-06, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

13.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Giant Portland Cement,  ETB Test No.
       71-MM-07, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

14.    Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Oregon Portland Cement, ETB Test No.
       71-MM-15, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1972.

15.    Emissions From Dry Process Raw Mill And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company,
       ETB Test No. 71-MM-02, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, April 1972.

16.    Part I, Air Pollution Emission Test:  Arizona Portland Cement, EPA Project Report No.
       74-STN-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

17.    Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Dry Process Cement
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       February  1983.

18.    Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Wet Process Cement
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August
       1983.
1/95                             Mineral Products Industry                           11.6-23

    -------
19.    Paniculate Emission Testing At Lone Star Industries' Nazareth Plant, Lone Star Industries,
       Inc., Houston, TX, January  1978.

20.    Particulate Emissions Testing At Lone Star Industries' Greencastle Plant, Lone Star
       Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, July  1977.

21.    Gas Process Survey At Lone  Star Cement, Inc. 's Roanoke No. 5 Kiln System, Lone Star
       Cement, Inc., Cloverdale, VA, October 1979.

22.    Test Report: Stack Analysis  For Particulate Emissions:  Clinker Coolers/Gravel Bed Filter,
       Mease Engineering Associates, Port Matilda, PA, January 1993.

23.    Source Emissions Survey  Of  Oklahoma Cement Company's Kiln Number 3 Stack, Mullins
       Environmental Testing Co.,  Inc., Addison, TX, March 1980.

24.    Source Emissions Survey  Of Lone Star Industries, Inc.: Kilns 1, 2, and 3,  Mullins
       Environmental Testing Co.,  Inc., Addison, TX, June  1980.

25.    Source Emissions Survey  Of Lone Star Industries, Inc., Mullins Environmental Testing Co.,
       Inc., Addison, TX, November 1981.

26.    Stack Emission Survey And Precipitator Efficiency Testing At Bonner Springs Plant, Lone Star
       Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, November 1981.

27.    NSPS Paniculate Emission Compliance Test:  No. 8 Kiln, Interpoll, Inc., Elaine, MN, March
       1983.

28.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1983.

29.    Source Emissions Survey  OfLehigh Portland Cement Company, Mullins Environmental
       Testing Co., Inc., Addison,  TX, August 1983.

30.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1984.

31.    Particulate Compliance Test: Lehigh Portland Cement Company,  CH2M Hill, Montgomery,
       AL,  October 1984.

32.    Compliance Test Results: Particulate & Sulfur Oxide Emissions At Lehigh Portland Cement
       Company, KVB, Inc., Irvine, CA, December  1984.

33.    Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield,
       CA,  May 1985.

34.    Stack Tests for Particulate, SO2, NOX And Visible Emissions At Lone Star Florida Holding,
       Inc., South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., West  Palm Beach, FL, August 1985.

35.    Compliance Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc., South Florida Environmental
       Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July  1981.
 11.6-24                             EMISSION FACTORS                               .1/95

    -------
36.    Preliminary Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc., South Florida Environmental
       Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July 1981.

37.    Quarterly Testing For Lone Star  Cement At Davensport, California, Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, September 1985.

38.    Written Communication from David S.  Cahn, CalMat Co., El Monte, CA, to Frank Noonan,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1987.

39.    Technical Report On The Demonstration Of The Feasibility OfNOx Emissions Reduction At
       Riverside Cement Company, Crestmore Plant (Pans I-V), Riverside Cement Company,
       Riverside, CA, and Quantitative  Applications, Stone Mountain, GA, January 1986.

40.    Emission Study Of The Cement Kiln No. 20 Baghouse Collector At The Alpena Plant, Great
       Lakes Division, Lafarge Corporation, Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., Novi, MI,
       March 1989.

41.    Baseline And Solvent Fuels Stack Emissions Test At Alpha Portland Cement Company In
       Cementon, New York, Energy &  Resource Recovery Corp., Albany, NY, January 1982.

42.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

43.    Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana, Entropy
       Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

44.    Source Emissions Survey Of Kiln  No.  1 At Lone Star Industries, Inc., New Orleans,
       Louisiana, Mull ins Environmental Testing Company, Inc., Addison, TX, March 1984.

45.    Written Communication from Richard Cooke, Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., Durkee, OR, to
       Frank Noonan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 13, 1987.

46.    Source Emissions Survey Of Texas Cement Company OfBuda, Texas, Mullins Environmental
       Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX,  September  1986.

47.    Determination  of Paniculate and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From The Kiln And Alkali
       Baghouse Stacks At Southwestern Portland Cement Company, Pollution Control Science, Inc.,
       Miamisburg, OH, June 1986.

48.    Written Communication from Douglas Maclver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Victorville, CA, to John Croom,  Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA,
       October 23, 1989.

49.    Source Emissions Survey Of Southwestern Portland Cement Company, KOSMOS  Cement
       Division, MetCo Environmental,  Dallas, TX, June 1989.

50.    Written Communication from John Mummert, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Amarillo, TX,  to Bill Stewart, Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX, April 14,  1983.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.6-25

    -------
51.    Written Communication from Stephen Sheridan, Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., Portland,
       OR, to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, January 15,  1980.

52.    Written Communication from David Cahn, CalMat Co., Los Angeles, CA, to John Croom,
       Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, December 18,  1989.

53.    Source Emissions Compliance Test Report On The Kiln  Stack At Marquette Cement
       Manufacturing Company, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Performance Testing & Consultants,
       Inc., Kansas City, MO, February 1982.

54.    Assessment Of Sulfur Levels At Lone Star Industries In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, KVB,
       Elmsford,  NY, January 1984.

55.    Written Communication from Douglas Maclver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company,
       Nephi, UT, to Brent Bradford, Utah Air Conservation Committee, Salt Lake City, UT,
       July 13, 1984.

56.    Performance Guarantee Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, February 1985.

57.    Compliance Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement,  Pape & Steiner Environmental
       Services, Bakersfield, CA, April 1985.

58.    Emission Tests On Quarry Plant No. 2 Kiln At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape & Steiner
       Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, March  1987.

59.    Emission Tests On The No. 2 Kiln Baghouse At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape &
       Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA,  April 1987.

60.    Compliance Stack Test Of Cooler No. 3 At Lone Star Florida, Inc., South Florida
       Environmental Services, Inc., Belle Glade, FL, July  1980.

61.    Stack Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc., Portland Cement Plant At Maryneal,
       Texas, Ecology Audits,  Inc., Dallas, TX,  September 1979.

62.    Emissions  Testing Report Conducted At Kaiser Cement, Coupertino, California, For Kaiser
       Cement, Walnut Creek,  California, TMA Thermo Analytical, Inc., Richmond, CA, April 30,
       1990. *

63.    Certification Of Compliance Stack Emission Test Program At Lone Star Industries, Inc., Cape
       Girardeau, Missouri, April & June 1992, Air Pollution Characterization and Control, Ltd.,
       Tolland, CT,  January 1993.

64.    Source Emissions Survey OfEssrock Materials, Inc., Eastern Division Cement Group, Kilns
       Number 1  And 2 Stack,  Frederick, Maryland, Volume I (Draft), Metco Environmental,
       Addison, TX, November 1991.

65.    M. Branscome, et al., Evaluation  Of Waste Combustion In A Dry-process Cement Kiln At
       Lone Star  Industries, Oglesby, Illinois, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, December 1984.
11.6-26                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
11.7  Ceramic Clay Manufacturing

11.7.1 Process Description1

       The manufacture of ceramic clay involves the conditioning of the basic ores by several
methods.  These include the separation and concentration of the minerals by screening, floating, wet
and dry grinding, and blending of the desired ore varieties. The basic raw materials in ceramic clay
manufacture are kaolinite (A12O3 •  2SiO2  • 2H2O) and montmorillonite [(Mg, Ca) O • A1203  •
5SiO2 • nH2O] clays. These clays are refined by separation and bleaching, blended, kiln-dried, and
formed into such items as whiteware, heavy clay products (brick,  etc.), various stoneware, and other
products such as diatomaceous earth, which is used as a filter aid.

11.7.2 Emissions And Controls1

       Emissions consist primarily of particulates, but some fluorides and acid gases are also emitted
in the drying process. The high temperatures of the firing kilns are also conducive to the fixation of
atmospheric nitrogen and the subsequent release of NO, but no published information has been found
for gaseous emissions. Particulates are also emitted from the grinding process and from storage of
the ground product.

       Factors affecting emissions  include the amount of material processed, the type of grinding
(wet or dry), the temperature of the drying kilns,  the gas velocities and flow direction in the kilns,
and the amount of fluorine in the ores.

       Common control techniques include settling chambers, cyclones, wet scrubbers, electrostatic
precipitators, and bag filters.  The most effective  control is provided by cyclones for the coarser
material, followed by wet scrubbers, bag filters, or electrostatic precipitators for dry dust.  Emission
factors for ceramic clay manufacturing are presented in Table 11.7-1.
Table 11.7-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC
                                 CLAY MANUFACTURING3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A
Type Of Process
Dryingd
Grinding6
Storage*1
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
35
38
17
Ib/ton
70
76
34
Cycloneb
kg/Mg
9
9.5
4
Ib/ton
18
19
8
Multiple-Unit
Cyclone And Scrubber0
Ib/ton
7
ND
ND
kg/Mg
3.5
ND
ND
a Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of input to process. ND  = no data.
b Approximate collection efficiency: 75%.
c Approximate collection efficiency: 90%.
d References 2-5.
e Reference 3.
2/72 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.7-1

    -------
References For Section 11.7

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA,
       prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, under Contract
       Number CPA-22-69-119, April 1970.

2.     G. L. Allen, et al., Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts And Fumes In Los Angeles
       County, Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, Information Circular
       Number 7627, April 1952.

3.     Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, VA, and the State
       Of New Jersey Air Pollution Control Program, Trenton, NJ, July 20, 1969.

4.     J. J.  Henn, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay:  An Evaluation Of Two Lime
       Sinter Processes, Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, Report of
       Investigations Number 7299, September 1969.

5.     F. A. Peters, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay: An Evaluation Of The
       Lime-Soda Sinter Process, Bureau Of Mines, Department  Of Interior, Washington, DC,
       Report of Investigation Number 6927,  1967.
 11.7-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/72

    -------
11.8  Clay And Fly Ash Sintering

        NOTE:         Clay and fly ash sintering operations are no longer conducted in the
                       United States.  However, this section is being retained for historical
                       purposes.

11.8.1  Process Description1"3

        Although the process for sintering fly ash and clay are similar, there are some distinctions that
justify a separate discussion of each process.  Fly ash sintering plants are generally located near the
source, with the fly ash delivered to a storage silo at the plant.  The dry fly ash is moistened with a
water solution of lignin and agglomerated into pellets or balls.  This material goes to a traveling-grate
sintering machine where direct contact with hot combustion gases sinters the individual particles of
the pellet and completely burns off the residual  carbon  in the fly ash. The product  is then crushed,
screened, graded, and stored in yard piles.

        Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter.  It is desirable that the
clay contain a sufficient amount  of volatile matter so that the resultant aggregate will not be too
heavy.  It is thus sometimes necessary to mix the clay with finely pulverized coke (up to 10 percent
coke by weight).  In the sintering process, the clay is first mixed with pulverized coke, if necessary,
and then pelletized.  The clay is next sintered in a rotating kiln or on a traveling grate. The sintered
pellets are then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure similar to that for fly ash pellets.

11.8.2  Emissions And  Controls1

        In fly ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem.  Adequate
design features, including fly ash wetting systems and paniculate collection systems on all transfer
points and on crushing and screening operations, would greatly  reduce emissions.  Normally, fabric
filters are used to control emissions from the storage silo, and emissions are low.  The absence of this
dust collection system, however, would create a major  emission  problem.  Moisture is added at the
point  of discharge from silo to the agglomerator, and very few emissions occur there.  Normally,
there  are few emissions from the sintering machine, but if the grate is not properly  maintained, a dust
problem is created.  The consequent crushing, screening, handling,  and storage of the sintered
product also create dust problems.

        In clay sintering,  the addition of pulverized coke presents an emission problem because the
sintering of coke-impregnated dry pellets produces more paniculate emissions than the sintering of
natural  clay.  The crushing, screening, handling, and storage of the sintered clay pellets creates dust
problems similar  to those encountered in fly-ash sintering.  Emission factors for both clay and fly-ash
sintering are shown in Tables 11.8-1 and 11.8-2.
2/72 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                               11.8-1

    -------
  a


  §
  U-

  Q
  Z
  O
  UH
  on

  g
  tL.
  Z
  o
   c
  P
  oo



o
a.
O
3
03
B
U
T3
C
O
U













"'l)
s
£







1
CD








_o
'S
i>





o
i
s
ex





S
D.



2 o z
">5 H «
&o O H
l^^
60 "«
toij co
-* s

^
£*\ ON r^
^^ ^^ *^
r!X f^- ^*
t/3 p^ ^H
^5
S S
w
"e3
^ ii_, 'C
^ o £
60 03
z
2 o z
J2 o P
«5 <^ *C
^1 ti< ^^
UJ
l
60 .2
S ja 'S
"So ea
•^ s
? Di O
i?l
22 u <
u ^ ^

60 3
2 Q <3
« |





o
u
yp.

o
3
o











Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z











Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z








Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z

UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ


If)
w"i o r~- ^o \o
W) 04
5P C M -O
C3 •*"• y^~N C3

1 89*
.B S S "
"L 9 "1
II I II I i-^

^ S5 ^ 5 ^ 60 6O "^
b 9 "« u 9 .c _c 9
^o  O
§2 og o2 •§ "3 ^
-2 o i^ o *^ ( ,_, gjjfj
•C«_0^^j« 03 03«
w "2 >•>' >-."2 3 ^o
>>§ ^C-J2§ « tS i
E o u z z
                                                             Q
                                  S
                                  -s
                                                                         ^
                                                             «
                                                                UJ 03

                                                                r- '•<-
                                                             o fe C
                                                             t« -2; o
                                                             '> S Cli

                                                             ^ 
                                                                         60
                                  v
                                  >
                                  03
                       a>  o

                      •3 'C
                          —
                                                                   C   T3
                                                                   '""    S
                      '5 T?  «    ^
                       E  o JJ    o

                      •Sis    1i
                        _  a)
                          W-i -^  kn l_i ^  L^

                                  a) c§  a>
                                  DS CQ  Oi
                                                              _   -
                                                              as .T; C
                                                             tu tu U
11.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/72

    -------
   I
   I
   z
   Q
   Z
   u
   g
   u.
   CJ
   •<
   b

   Z
   O
   So
   1X3
   5
   J2
   cu
   •-


o

0*
 H S
£2 O H
s < <
|2«!

^-
J o 'I
a ^







LJ
U
1
O









Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z











Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z










Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z



UJ ti] u tU pQ


O O I/I fS {S
^-< ^^ ^H ^H »— 4
'"^



^ too
£P c aa -o
•S '3 ^ c
S § o
1 § 1 8?
'on wa S .S3
^ ^ Is-
so /— » so ao'tJ-v >o g
•§ o -jj -g o *•? o
So*' 3 O " — ' "•• ^-~
"~ S • s S S 1 I §
W) * 3 ai 3 ' •*"•* -3 O
c ^3, ^ ^ ^ sS -S 2 '
-^o> "SO "Pd> ^ ^?
^ tJ) C Q. C W) >^ ro
C 2 4> O 1> 2 *""* f"M ^""^
o ^ c5 uh^ Q ^ ^4^
f^ *^ O . L O "£i *~2 ^-^ &0
ii Is li § il
E u u z Z





s
03
•a
o
•
H .S
cQ a>
Q h J
Z bo *c
c y
* ^5 2
^q ci* c
O § tt>
U S .S
J? 1
g a> .S
Cq -^ V3
o w
ts > *
'£ '3 2
% cr . ^
O3 4> C i
n u "s &
o S 3
" IX bO ="~
3 -a -S "*
O ^"-i ^"^ C^
CX^ P(

"Is 1
U «fi 'S
^al^ s-
Wnl OJ
Cv tw
•a c «g M
•2 <^ c 
a> 55 ui ^
.22 « O J5
U^ -. Jr^ ^
•c •£ %> £
0 o-| 8
va *^ e 	 .
«; u, c -a
,«o— g
c 'C o> •—
3 CI, ^C3 »-(
S S.g ^
O 3
.s c -a a<
5/3 O 55
1 "S S § N- jj
M o =3 -1 !i £
•S5 8 ^^1
^^ O ^> ^ j •«<
O ° g *O — *"
S S <-> ^ o >^
1 | . 2 g | !•
-4— » ^ ( <4_ j^
g. °- 3 "" ^ -a ^
*-" i^ ^ O O C o
v) & G C! C O C
w< c^ i>  a> a>
PH PM O tt! ft- ffl fy^
rt _O O "O O <*-« &0
2/12 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.8-3

    -------
References For Section 11.8

1.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report, Resources Research, Inc., VA, prepared for
     National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, NC, under Contract
     No. PA-22-68-119, April 1970.

2.   Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and a clay sintering firm,
     October 2, 1969.

3.   Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, and an anonymous air
     pollution control agency, October 16, 1969.

4.   J. J. Henn, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay: An Evaluation Of Two Lime
     Sinter Processes, U. S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, Report of
     Investigation No. 7299, September 1969.

5.   F. A.  Peters, et al., Methods For Producing Alumina From Clay: An Evaluation Of The Lime-
     Soda Sinter Process, U. S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of Interior, Washington, DC,  Report
     of Investigation No. 6927, 1967.
 H.8-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/72

    -------
11.9  Western Surface Coal Mining

11.9  General1

        There are 12 major coal fields in the western states (excluding the Pacific Coast and Alaskan
fields),  as shown in Figure 11.9-1. Together, they account for more than 64 percent of the surface
minable coal reserves in the United States.2  The 12 coal fields have varying characteristics that may
influence fugitive dust emission rates from mining operations including overburden and coal seam
thicknesses and structure, mining equipment, operating procedures, terrain, vegetation, precipitation
and surface moisture, wind speeds, and temperatures.  The operations  at a typical western surface
mine  are shown in Figure 11.9-2.  All operations that involve movement of soil, coal, or equipment,
or exposure of erodible surfaces, generate some amount of fugitive dust.

        The initial operation is removal of topsoil and subsoil with large scrapers.  The topsoil is
carried  by the scrapers to cover a previously mined and regraded area  as part of the reclamation
process or is placed in temporary stockpiles. The exposed overburden, the earth that is between the
topsoil and the coal seam, is leveled, drilled, and blasted.  Then the overburden material is removed
down to the coal seam, usually by a dragline or a shovel and truck operation.  It is placed in the
adjacent mined cut, forming a spoils pile. The uncovered  coal seam is then drilled and blasted. A
shovel or front end loader loads the broken coal into haul trucks, and it is taken out of the pit  along
graded haul  roads to the tipple, or truck dump.  Raw coal sometimes may be dumped onto a
temporary storage pile and later rehandled by a front end loader or bulldozer.

        At the tipple, the coal is dumped into a hopper that feeds the primary crusher, then is
conveyed through additional coal preparation equipment such as secondary crushers and screens to the
storage area. If the mine has open storage piles, the crushed coal passes through a coal stacker onto
the pile. The piles, usually worked by bulldozers, are subject to wind erosion.  From the storage
area,  the coal is conveyed to a train loading facility and is  put into rail cars.  At a  captive mine, coal
will go  from the storage pile to the power plant.
                               t
        During mine reclamation, which proceeds continuously throughout the life of the mine,
overburden spoils piles are smoothed and contoured by bulldozers. Topsoil is placed on the graded
spoils, and the land is prepared for revegetation by furrowing, mulching, etc.  From the time an area
is disturbed until the new vegetation emerges, all disturbed areas are subject to wind erosion.

11.9  Emissions

        Predictive emission factor equations for open dust sources at western surface coal mines are
presented in Tables 11.9-1  and 11.9-2.  Each equation is for a single dust-generating activity, such as
vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. The predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in
emission factors by relating emissions to 3 sets of source parameters:  (1) measures of source activity
or energy expended (e. g., speed and weight of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved road);
(2) properties of the material being disturbed (e. g., suspendable fines  in the surface material of an
unpaved road); and (3) climate  (in  this case, mean wind speed).

        The  equations may be used to estimate paniculate emissions generated per  unit of source
extent (e. g., vehicle distance traveled or mass of material transferred). The equations were
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.9-1

    -------
             COAL  TYPE
             LIGNITE
             SUBBITUMINOUSCZJ
             BITUMINOUS
                       1
                       2
                       3
                       4
                       5
                       6
                       7
                       8
                       9
                     10
                     11
                     12
     Coal field

Fort Union
Powder River
North Central
Bighorn Basin
Wind River
Hams Fork
Uinta
Southwestern Utah
San Juan River
Raton Mesa
Denver
Greac River
Scrippable  reserves
    (106  cons}	

      23,529
      56,727
  All  underground
  All  underground
           3
       1,000
        308
        224
       2,318
  All  underground
  All  underground
       2.120
                     Figure 11.9-1.  Coal fields of the western United States.
11.9-2
        EMISSION FACTORS
                       (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
oo
oo


'TO
o

o1






I
I
3
o
CL
&%•&**'*'*** ovbd
Vi *!,*_.<   ../
              To Preparation and

                 Shipping Facilities
                haul road
                                              Figure 11.9-2.  Operations at typical western surface coal mines.

    -------
  co
  W
  u
  a:

  8
  CO
  E~
  co
  D
  Q


  I?
  OH
  O
  Q
  U




  I-
  Z co
  O W
  z w
  o ^
  CXco
  W Z
  £5
  O W
  H H
  Cj co
  CO
  co
  tu
^
co H ~
co Q H
5 < 5j
u fc


en
"3
D







H.
.c
u

1
Q
.2
A
E
1
O
^£
o
85)
etj
OS
.§
C/3

!5
1

m
VI
C
_o
£
U




CO
E
a.
vi
cs
VI


„
1
O
VI





E
VI





E
a.
O
VI
o.
CO



"a
•c

S





c
o
fi
u
£X
O



u « « « « < CQ « < X)



3 BO ^ Hf-HH S

2>^ ^=5-5 ?"?'•?'>• w ^
oil ^ £y £• ^ £« £>. £*, ~gv, *^ 2
^•^ X. X, ^4 ^A 8
;S'

o\(Siot~- OWi>/1>/1 OOOO _
\D f*~ ^- fv f^. \^ \^ \Q \Q (_J
do odd dddd Z


,„
ri
(^*
P: Z. o -o
o|» -5.* -^.» %« 2lo' r *V
•^ rtrC' ^S'^'C^C^Cr' -Q \Q •]£«'•** ^r
z SIS ?§.!sl-sS ^g H§. 1
od d °. 2 °- °.
0 x ° °
CM
cs

ri r)
— O "^ ^
-< -1 "^ U, "•"• " c^~v -^
fS oop-« ^ -< 1/t'-' *~ o "^ ^^ fnr* ^ =
§>Ti| CT" ^" O >^- i^ *O CT" '^ ***" • \ £? > °°
o|S,^S\o§,gS, « g -|2,-2- _;
• ^'jjj^^c-i^^o^^ do ^^o
0 ^ d §
^o d
o\

c
u c c
•O DO
u = "E "S
s-e | i
— o _- — T: T: _.
as > rt rt 4) O c3
0 0 0 0 > > 0
0 U U O O 0


S -n
•o rg_ g
oo ^ 2 1 ° § 'o'
•1 M 1 i'"! ^ s| 1

oo -2 'N c i-UMo-S Ew-o —
•i o ' w OQ y*1 W "X3 •*"• W) *^J J^ '^ CQ
,5 Z3 ea S^ca-C'"1 -^ — * £ r-
^ 2 ^ 2 ho2o~ ao-2-E
mHCQ QtoU> X<



II


aj
CO
"3
_o
•£
CO
Pi

c

W2
S C?
"2 2
o _
••=• c
II -S
o
CO CO
o>
"* u.
o ^
c a,
q> C
U- C
t2J "*
4> ...
as S
£ S
2 1>
C J3
o *o
'-^ r^
T3
'c, *^
rt>
OJO W
1 *

t/3 W
"cO ~j
0 . g

^T fli
^ -S s g
— o .2 o
o< c ,, "S
i"P
-Q « ""
— ' Z 
                                                                                     J2  o

                                                                                     '   °
                                                                                     ii
11.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
                                                              Table 11.9-1 (cont.).
             s  = material silt content (%)
             u  = wind speed (m/sec)
             d  = drop height (m)
            W  = mean vehicle weight (Mg)
             S  = mean vehicle speed (kph)
            w  = mean number of wheels
            L  = road surface silt loading (g/m2)
       d Multiply the ^15 /zm equation by this fraction to determine emissions.
       e Multiply the TSP predictive equation by this fraction to determine emissions in the <,2.5 pm size range.
       f Rating applicable to Mine Types I, II, and IV  (see Tables  11.9-5 and 11.9-6).
3
0.
o
CL

t/3

    -------
              Table 11.9-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR UNCONTROLLED OPEN DUST SOURCES
                                              AT WESTERN SURFACE COAL MINESa
Operation
Blasting
Truck loading
Bulldozing


Dragline
Scraper
(travel mode)
Grading
Vehicle traffic
(light/medium duty)
Haul truck
Active storage pile
(wind erosion and
maintenance)
Material
Coal or
overburden
Coal
Coal
Overburden

Overburden





Coal
Emissions By
TSP 5 30 nm
0.0005A1'5
1.16
(M)172
78.4 (s)1'2
(M)1'3
5.7 (s)1;2
(M)1-3
0.0021 (d)1-1
(M)0-3
2.7 x 10'5 (s)1-3 (W)2-4
0.040 (S)2'5

5.79
0.0067 (w)3-4 (L)°-2
1.6 u
Particle Size Range (Aerodymanic
5 15pm 510
Diameter)b'°
limd 52.5 pm/TSP6
ND 0.52e ND
0.119 0.
18.6 (s)1'5 0.
(M)1'4
l.O(c)'-5 0.
(M)1-4
0.0021 (d)0'7 0.
(M)0-3
75 0.019
75 0.022
75 0.105

75 0.017
6.2 x 10-6 (s)1'4 (W)2-5 0.60 0.026
0.051 (S)20 0.60 0.031


3.72 0.60 0.040
0.0051 (w)3-5 0.60 0.017
ND ND ND
Units
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton

lb/yd3
Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT

Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
Ib
(acre)(hr)
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
B
B
B

B
A
B

B
A
Cf
on
GO
H-(
O
z
Ti
>
n
3
to
8.
a Reference 1, except for coal storage pile equation from Reference 4.  TSP = total suspended particulate.  VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
  ND = no data.
b TSP denotes what is measured by a standard high volume sampler (see Section 13.2).
c Symbols for equations:
      A = horizontal area, with blasting depth  ^70 ft.  Not for vertical face of a bench.
     M = material moisture content (%)

    -------
                                     

                                    •3
    8
                                        8
                                  1>  C E_<
                                 T3  O ^

                                  03  8
                                     w  «
            II  II  II   II  II   II   II   ^^-
                                 5 5 tS
                                 S S os
9/88  (Reformatted 1/95)                    Mineral Products Industry                                   11.9-7

    -------
developed through field sampling of various western surface mine types and are thus applicable to any
of the surface coal mines located in the western United States.

       In Tables 11.9-1 and 11.9-2, the assigned quality ratings apply within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equations given in Table 11.9-3. However, the
equations should be derated 1 letter value (e. g., A to B) if applied to eastern surface coal mines.

       In using the equations to estimate emissions from sources found in a  specific western surface
mine, it is necessary that reliable values for correction parameters be determined for the specific
sources of interest if the assigned quality ranges of the equations are to be applicable. For example,
actual silt content of coal or overburden measured at a facility should be used instead of estimated
values.  In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be obtained, the
appropriate geometric mean values from Table  11.9-3 may be used, but the assigned quality rating of
each emission factor equation should be reduced by 1 level (e. g., A to B).

       Emission factors for open dust sources not covered in Table 11.9-3 are in Table 11.9-4.
These factors were determined through source testing at various western coal mines.
  Table 11.9-3 (Metric And English Units).  TYPICAL VALUES FOR CORRECTION FACTORS
           APPLICABLE TO THE PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS3
Source
Coal loading
Bulldozers
Coal

Overburden

Dragline


Scraper


Grader

Light/Medium duty
vehicle
Haul truck


Correction Factor
Moisture

Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance
Drop distance
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Weight
Speed
Speed
Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading
Silt loading
Number Of
Test
Samples
7

3
3
8
8
19
19
7
10
15
15
7

7
29
26
26
Range
6.6 - 38

4.0 - 22.0
6.0- 11.3
2.2- 16.8
3.8- 15.1
1.5-30
5- 100
0.2 - 16.3
7.2 - 25.2
33 -64
36-70
8.0 - 19.0
5.0- 11.8
0.9 - 1.70
6.1 - 10.0
3.8 - 254
34 - 2270
Geometric
Mean
17.8

10.4
8.6
7.9
6.9
8.6
28.1
3.2
16.4
48.8
53.8
11.4
7.1
1.2
8.1
40.8
364
Units
%

%
%
%
%
m
ft
%
%
Mg
ton
kph
mph
%
number
g/m2
Ib/acre
a Reference 1.
11.9-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
           Table 11.9-4 (English And Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN DUST

                                   SOURCES AT WESTERN SURFACE COAL MINES
Source
Drilling

Topsoil removal by scraper

Overburden replacement
Truck loading by power shovel (batch drop)0
Train loading (batch or continuous drop)0

Bottom dump truck unloading (batch drop)0



Material
Overburden
Coal
Topsoil

Overburden
Overburden
Coal

Overburden
Coal


Mine
Location*
Any
V
Any
IV
Any
V
Any
HI
V
IV
III
II
TSP
Emission
Factor1*
1.3
0.59
0.22
0.10
0.058
0.029
0.44
0.22
0.012
0.0060
0.037
0.018
0.028
0.014
0.0002
0.0001
0.002
0.001
0.027
0.014
0.005
0.002
0.020
0.010
Units
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/ton
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/Mg
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
E
E
E
E
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
s.
o
G.

o
I

    -------
  O


2§i
CO c** *•*
vj rj f"^
*5 ^ ^
*C Ou 06



*g





§•*>
&< '5 o
^" £ «






a
0 _0
J







CO
•c
U
2














U
2
o
to











QQQQUUUUU U



~
oo oo oo oo s»L ^-^
f-.«S H 5 H 5 H 5 •—' ojl?
^t$ ^-^ ^ ^ E— ' 'o' *; *~
rt q5
^



O
-HQvoc'ipQ'ttSoo \n
do do dd odd d







„ | > > |



c
"8
J3
.0
O
>
"S
&! ^
"C "i
M 00
1 s
_ — "2
o o _5
i— tfl "O "U
™ EX flj qj
o o C >
U H co o






o
'tx
|
J=
O v
e I 1
Ofl "O ^S
.S j= -P
^ o S
1 « 0
•I * §•
3 oo o
j^ S <*-
o -o °
SCS (-•
~ ° 0
o. 1 '%
£ S e
3 S U
T3 0, T3
•age
c " >

"ca
O
CJ
c 42
O t3
'53 ^
.1 £
Kl
^ ni ^**
•§ O< ci
£ « 2
^ "S 5
t/3 I *^
O «> D,
O CD
ca ^ a>
c *S "e
•55 
« t? E
S S o
O •" ct!
J^.S
^ ' ^
_0 D -5
^ C
> 'E S
<- » "2

^^ 4J ^Q
V5 P^ WH
O '-*r >
1- s
J^ o ,O
o ca ^^
^ '£.

•S o ?i
£ C/2 X
•" o 1>
H  » *
x: ^ t^
2^1
j-. ,— . ^TO
t
HH *O 4>
tf^ C J
ill
E Cv rC
3 ^J H
C ^
C v^ ^
E IS 2
O c^ y
oi H 42
cd




.
m
Ui
•4—*
ca
U
C/2
x-i, |Z
prj 'e
c S
.2 "-1
t3
V
c/3 ca
o> »T
" — ' o

^ c/2
"S, '5


ca
o
E g
f .£
ra "^
GD 
•C ^_,
'"S 2
*-• 3
•S o

cd
•*-> o
u^

"^^ £
XI o
•81
S °
0^ ^.
E —

C/!3 UH
t •• f*?
co 33
J™ &C
« "2
jj up*
0 *
C "^
c
oT-2

fc- 1-
*-• t_,
O
II

C8 C
Jl
t) 
    -------
        The factors in Table 11.9-4 for mine locations I through V were developed for specific
geographical areas. Tables 11.9-5 and 11.9-6 present characteristics of each of these mines (areas).
A "mine-specific" emission factor should be used only if the characteristics of the mine for which an
emissions estimate is needed are very similar to those of the mine for which the emission factor was
developed.  The other (nonspecific) emission factors were developed at a variety of mine types and
thus are applicable to any western surface coal mine.

        As an alternative to the single valued emission factors given in Table 11.9-4 for  train or truck
loading and for truck or scraper unloading, 2 empirically derived emission factor equations are
presented in Section 13.2.4 of this document.   Each equation was developed for a source operation
(i. e., batch drop and continuous drop, respectively) comprising a single dust-generating mechanism
that crosses industry lines.

        Because the predictive equations allow emission factor adjustment to specific source
conditions, the equations should be used in place of the factors in Table 11.9-4 for the sources
identified above if emission estimates for a specific western surface coal mine  are needed.  However,
the generally higher quality ratings assigned to the equations are applicable only if:  (1) reliable
values of correction parameters have been determined for the specific sources of interest, and (2) the
correction parameter values lie within the ranges tested in developing the equations.  Table 11.9-3
lists measured properties of aggregate materials that can be used to estimate correction parameter
values for the predictive emission factor equations in Chapter 13, in the event  that site-specific values
are not available.  Use of mean correction parameter values from Table 11.9-3 will reduce the quality
ratings of the emission factor equations in Chapter 13 by 1 level.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                              11.9-11

    -------
  Z
  MM
 o
 u
 u
 u


 I
 oo
  00

  H
  ac

  _i
  il
  ° OJ
   . w
  /— N r-r
  2 S
  'S as

  «

U
J S
^t "5?
u«
C "o
S 8
S *•



•o
i ™
s
1
'"o
CO

•S



o


.c
a.

1
&
II
ll




u
> .
u
>




















.5
g
[2
*«
o
0 -S
I2

c
_0
S
2


u
c
S

!2 2



00 *&


rf
>ri ri
rn o
CS VO
S 51 £
C^ -3 ^
. _. I- C
1 1 a « 1
£ J -S-i I
^ 1 S S 8
u <


-C -C
S -fi o" -fi
^ & a a>
° g g. s
A CO




^ "S
1 a
Co, P
u Jr S
"§ S £
S " c55


3 3
.•a .«
J2 J3
JO JD
3 3
CO CO

O &JO
-o e
1 1
3 !•
^ 5-
Z co
*O
1
"

^
1
oo
es
r-
o
00
"*
II
^ S
es O
"3 tn
•S '5
III
CO


U "O
2 o J
«>.£'§ £
B 1 | g
§, E o. &
CO


-o
DO Sr\
_>> 0
S 2
0


|
1
CO

es
C
C
o
ai
CO

E:



5


f-4
-
q
m
o
O p*»
— ^
if
j S



Moderate,
prairie
grassland



00
1
'E
U
U



I
O
03
Q
•c
o
1
'c
V
U

2



f>


„.
2
0
vd
-1
>> 	 , ^^
TJ "O C-4
ceo
a « _(
o "o -2



Is
CO
60
J3
"2

1
CJ>
^03


1
15
,E>
3
CO

C
'E
o
ui
Z
- «• S > >
                                                           c

                                                           k-c


                                                          "aS



                                                          «
11.9-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
    Table 11.9-6 (English Units).  OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COAL MINES
                            REFERRED TO IN TABLE 11.9-4a
Parameter
Production rate
Coal transport
Stratigraphic
data





Coal analysis
data



Surface
disposition





Storage
Blasting



Required Information
Coal mined
Avg. unit train frequency
Overburden thickness
Overburden density
Coal seam thicknesses
Parting thicknesses
Spoils bulking factor
Active pit depth
Moisture
Ash
Sulfur
Heat content
Total disturbed land
Active pit
Spoils
Reclaimed
Barren land
Associated disturbances
Capacity
Frequency, total
Frequency, overburden
Area blasted, coal
Area blasted, overburden
Units
106 ton/yr
per day
ft
lb/yd3
ft
ft
%
ft
%
%, wet
%, wet
Btu/lb
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
per week
per week
ft2
ft2

I
1.13
NA
21
4000
9,35
50
22
52
10
8
0.46
11000
168
34
57
100
—
12
NA
4
3
16000
20000

II
5.0
NA
80
3705
15,9
15
24
100
18
10
0.59
9632
1030
202
326
221
30
186
NA
4
0.5
40000
—
Mine
III | IV
9.5 3.8
2 NA
90 65
3000 -
27 2,4,8
NA 32,16
25 20
114 80
24 38
8 7
0.75 0.65
8628 8500
2112 1975
87 —
144 —
950 -
455 —
476 -

V
12.0b
2
35
—
70
NA
—
105
30
6
0.48
8020
217
71
100
100
—
46
- NA 48000
3 7
3 NA
— 30000
- NA
7b
7b
—
—
a Reference 4.
b Estimate.
NA = not applicable.  Dash = no data.
References For Section 11.9

1.      K. Axetell and C. Cowherd, Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western
       Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1981.
9/88 (Reformatted 1/95)
                   Mineral Products Industry
11.9-13

    -------
2.     Reserve Base OfU. S. Coals By Sulfur Content: Pan 2, The Western States, IC8693, Bureau
       Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1975.

3.     Bituminous Coal And Lignite Production And Mine Operations -1978, DOE/EIA-0118(78),
       U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, June 1980.

4.     K. Axetell, Survey Of Fugitive Dust From Coal Mines, EPA-908/1-78-003, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO, February 1978.

5.     D. L. Shearer, et al., Coal Mining Emission Factor Development And Modeling Study, Amax
       Coal Company, Carter Mining Company, Sunoco Energy Development Company, Mobil Oil
       Corporation, and Atlantic Richfield Company, Denver,  CO, July 1981.
 H.9-14                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/88

    -------
 11.10 Coal Cleaning

 11.10.1  Process Description1 >2

        Coal cleaning is a process by which impurities such as sulfur, ash and rock are removed from
 coal to upgrade its value.  Coal cleaning processes are categorized as either physical cleaning or
 chemical cleaning. Physical coal cleaning processes, the mechanical separation of coal from its
 contaminants using differences in density, are by far the major processes in use today.  Chemical coal
 cleaning processes are not commercially practical and are therefore not included in this discussion.

        The scheme used in physical coal cleaning processes varies among coal cleaning plants but
 can generally be divided into 4 basic phases:  initial preparation, fine coal processing, coarse coal
 processing, and final preparation. A sample process flow diagram for a physical coal cleaning plant
 is presented in Figure 11.10-1.

        In  the initial preparation phase of coal cleaning, the raw coal is unloaded, stored, conveyed,
 crushed, and classified by screening into coarse and fine coal fractions.  The size fractions are then
 conveyed to their  respective  cleaning processes.

        Fine coal processing and coarse coal processing use very similar operations and equipment to
 separate the contaminants. The primary differences are the severity of operating parameters.  The
 majority of coal cleaning processes use upward currents or pulses of a fluid such as water to fluidize
 a bed of crushed coal and impurities. The lighter coal particles rise and are removed from the top of
 the bed. The heavier impurities are removed from the bottom.  Coal cleaned in the wet processes
 then must  be dried in the final preparation processes.

        Final preparation processes are used to remove moisture from coal, thereby reducing freezing
 problems and weight, and raising the heating value.  The first processing step is dewatering, in  which
 a major portion of the water is removed by the use of screens,  thickeners, and cyclones. The second
 step is normally thermal drying, achieved by any  1 of 3 dryer types: fluidized bed, flash, and
 multilouvered.  In the fluidized  bed  dryer, the coal is suspended and dried above a perforated plate by
 rising hot gases.  In the flash dryer, coal  is fed into a stream of hot gases  for instantaneous drying.
 The dried  coal  and wet gases are drawn up a drying column and into a cyclone for separation. In the
 multilouvered dryer, hot gases are passed through a falling curtain of coal. The coal  is raised by
 flights of a specially designed conveyor.

 11.10.2  Emissions And Controls1'2

        Emissions from the initial coal preparation phase of either wet or dry processes consist
primarily of fugitive particulates, as coal dust, from roadways, stock piles, refuse areas, loaded
railroad cars, conveyor belt pouroffs, crushers, and classifiers.  The major control technique used to
reduce these emissions is water  wetting.  Another technique applicable to unloading, conveying,
crushing, and screening operations involves enclosing the process area and circulating air from the
area through fabric filters.

       The major emission source in the fine or coarse coal processing phases is the  air exhaust from
the air separation processes.  For the dry  cleaning process, this is where the coal is stratified by
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.10-1

    -------
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         CJ

                                                                                         O

                                                                                         ns

                                                                                         O
                                                                                         ea
                                                                                        _«j

                                                                                        'B.
                                                                                         >->
                                                                                         «
                                                                                         Ui
11.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
pulses of air.  Paniculate emissions from this source are normally controlled with cyclones followed
by fabric filters.  Potential emissions from wet cleaning processes are very low.

       The major source of emissions from the final preparation phase is the thermal dryer exhaust.
This emission stream contains coal particles entrained in the drying gases in addition to the standard
products of coal combustion resulting from burning coal to generate the hot gases.  Factors for these
emissions are presented in Table 11.10-1.  The most common technologies used to control this source
are venturi scrubbers and mist eliminators  downstream from the product recovery cyclones.  The
paniculate control efficiency of these technologies ranges from 98 to 99.9 percent.  The venturi
scrubbers also have an NOX removal efficiency of 10 to 25 percent, and an SO2 removal efficiency
ranging from 70 to 80 percent for low-sulfur coals to 40 to 50 percent for high-sulfur coals.
    Table 11.10-1 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL CLEANING3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Operation/Pollutant
Particulates
Before cyclone
After cycloned
After cyclone
After cyclone
After scrubber
NOXJ
After scrubber
vock
After scrubber
Fluidized Bed
kg/Mg

10b
6e
0.05e
0.22h
0.13

0.07

0.05
Ib/ton

20b
12e
0.09e
0.43h
0.25

0.14

0.10
Flash
kg/Mg Ib/ton

8b 16b
5f 10f
0.2f 0.4f
— —
— —

— —

— —
Multilouvered
kg/Mg Ib/ton

13C 25C
4C 8C
0.05C O.lf
— —
— —

— —

— —
a Emission factors expressed as units per weight of coal dried. Dash = no data.
b References 3-4.
c Reference 5.
d Cyclones are standard pieces of process equipment for product collection.
e References 6-10.
f Reference 1.
g References 7-8.  The control efficiency of venturi scrubbers on SO2 emissions depends on the inlet
  SO2 loading, ranging from 70 to 80%  removal for low-sulfur coals (0.7%  S) down to 40 to 50%
  removal for high-sulfur coals (3%  S).
h References 7-9.
J  Reference 8.  The control efficiency of venturi scrubbers on NOX emissions is approximately 10 to
  25%.
k Volatile organic compounds as pounds of carbon per ton of coal  dried.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.10-3

    -------
References For Section 11.10

1.      Background Information For Establishment Of National Standards Of Performance For New
       Sources:  Coal Cleaning Industry, Environmental Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, EPA
       Contract No. CPA-70-142, July 1971.

2.      Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Contract
       No. CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research Inc., Reston, VA, April 1970.

3.      Stack Test Results On Thermal Coal Dryers (Unpublished), Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
       Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, PA.

4.      "Amherst's Answer To Air Pollution  Laws", Coal Mining And Processing, 7(2):26-29,
       February 1970.

5.      D. W. Jones,  "Dust Collection At Moss  No. 3", Mining Congress Journal, 55(7) 53-56,
       July  1969.

6.      Elliott Northcott, "Dust Abatement At Bird Coal", Mining Congress Journal, 53:26-29,
       November 1967.

7.      Richard W. Kling, Emissions From The Island Creek Goal Company Coal Processing Plant,
       York Research Corporation, Stamford, CT, February  14, 1972.

8.      Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Consolidation Coal Company, Bishop, West Virginia,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-0233, Scott  Research Laboratories, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA,
       November 1972.

9.      Coal Preparation Plant Emission Tests, Westmoreland Coal Company,  Wentz Plant, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-0233, Scott Research Laboratories, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA,  April 1972.

10.    Background Information For Standards Of Performance:  Coal Preparation Plants, Volume 2:
       Test Data Summary, EPA-450/2-74-021b, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.
 11.10-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
11.11  Coal Conversion

       In addition to its direct use for combustion, coal can be converted to organic gases and
liquids, thus allowing the continued use of conventional oil- and gas-fired processes when oil and gas
supplies are not available.  Currently, there is little commercial coal conversion in the United States.
Consequently, it is very difficult to determine which of the many conversion processes will be
commercialized in the future. The following sections provide general process descriptions and
general emission discussions for high-, medium- and low-Btu gasification (gasifaction) processes and
for catalytic and solvent extraction liquefaction processes.

11.11.1 Process Description1"2

11.11.1.1   Gasification-
       One means of converting coal to an alternate form of energy is gasification.  In this process,
coal is combined with oxygen and steam to produce a combustible gas, waste gases,  char, and ash.
The more than 70 coal gasification systems available or being developed in  1979 can be classified by
the heating value of the gas produced and by the type of gasification reactor used.  High-Btu
gasification systems produce a gas with a heating value greater than 900  Btu/scf (33,000 J/m3).
Medium-Btu gasifiers produce a gas having a heating value between 250 - 500 Btu/scf
(9,000 - 19,000 J/m3).  Low-Btu gasifiers produce a gas having a heating value of less than
250 Btu/scf (9,000 J/m3).

       The majority of the gasification systems consist of 4 operations:  coal pretreatment, coal
gasification, raw gas cleaning, and gas beneficiation.  Each of these operations consists of several
steps.  Figure 11.11-1 is a flow diagram for an example coal gasification facility.

       Generally, any coal can be gasified if properly pretreated. High-moisture coals may require
drying. Some caking coals may require partial oxidation to simplify gasifier operation.  Other
pretreatment operations include  crushing, sizing, and briqueting of fines  for feed to fixed bed
gasifiers.  The coal feed is pulverized for fluid or entrained bed gasifiers.

       After pretreatment, the coal enters the gasification reactor where it reacts with oxygen and
steam to produce a combustible gas.  Air is used as the oxygen source for making  low-Btu gas, and
pure oxygen is used for making medium- and high-Btu gas (inert nitrogen in the air dilutes the
heating value of the product). Gasification reactors are classified by type of reaction bed (fixed,
entrained, or fluidized), the operating pressure (pressurized or  atmospheric), the method of ash
removal (as molten slag or dry ash), and the number of stages  in the gasifier (1  or 2).  Within each
class, gasifiers have similar emissions.

       The raw gas from the gasifier contains varying concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen, methane, other organics, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), miscellaneous acid
gases, nitrogen (if air was used  as the oxygen source), particulates,  and  water.  Four gas purification
processes may be required to prepare the gas for combustion or further beneficiation: paniculate
removal, tar and oil removal, gas quenching and cooling, and acid gas removal. The primary
function of the paniculate removal process is the removal of coal dust, ash, and tar aerosols in the
raw product gas. During tar and oil removal and gas quenching and cooling, tars and oils are
condensed, and other impurities such  as ammonia are scrubbed from raw product gas using either
aqueous or organic scrubbing liquors.  Acid gases such as H2S, COS, CS2, mercaptans, and CO2 can


2/80 (Reformatted  1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.11-1

    -------
    Oxygen or
      Air
                   Coal Preparation
                    "Drying
                    "Crushing
                    "Partial Oxidatiqn
                    "Briqueting
                                           Coal
                                           preparation
                                        T»Coal Hopper Gas
                                                                       Tar
                           product gas

                       High-Btu
                      Product Gas
                                                                       •Tail Gas
                                                                                  Gasification
                                                                       Sulfur
                                                                                  Raw gas
                                                                                  cleaning
                                                                                  Gas
                                                                                  beneficiation
                    Figure 11.11-1. Flow diagram of typical coal gasification plant.
11.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
be removed from gas by an acid gas removal process.  Acid gas removal processes generally absorb
the acid gases in a solvent, from which they are subsequently stripped, forming a nearly pure acid gas
waste stream with some hydrocarbon carryover.  At this point, the raw gas is classified as either a
low-Btu or medium-Btu gas.

       To produce high-Btu gas, the heating value of the medium-Btu gas is raised by shift
conversion and methanation. In the shift conversion process, H2O and a portion of the CO are
catalytically reacted to form CO2 and H2.  After passing through an absorber for CO2 removal,  the
remaining CO and H2 in the product gas are reacted in a methanation reactor to yield CH4 and H20.

       There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal gasification facility, which
provide various support functions.  Among the typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power
and steam plant, sulfur recovery unit, water treatment plant, and cooling towers.

11.11.1.2  Liquefaction -
       Liquefaction is a conversion process designed to produce synthetic organic liquids from  coal.
This conversion is achieved by reducing the level of impurities and increasing the hydrogen-to-carbon
ratio of coal to the point that it becomes fluid.  There were over 20 coal liquefaction processes in
various stages of development by both industry and Federal agencies in  1979.  These processes  can be
grouped into 4 basic liquefaction techniques:

       -  Indirect liquefaction
       -  Pyrolysis
       -  Solvent  extraction
       -  Catalytic liquefaction

Indirect liquefaction involves the gasification of coal followed by the catalytic conversion of the
product gas to a liquid.  Pyrolysis liquefaction involves heating coal to very high temperatures,
thereby cracking the coal into liquid and gaseous products.  Solvent extraction uses a solvent
generated within the process to dissolve the coal and to transfer externally produced hydrogen to the
coal molecules.  Catalytic liquefaction resembles solvent extraction, except that hydrogen is added to
the coal with the aid of a catalyst.

       Figure 11.11-2 presents the flow diagram of a typical solvent extraction or catalytic
liquefaction plant.  These coal liquefaction processes  consist of 4 basic operations:  coal  pretreatment,
dissolution and liquefaction, product separation and purification, and residue gasification.

       Coal pretreatment generally consists of coal pulverizing and drying.  The dissolution of  coal
is best effected if the coal is dry and finely ground.  The heater used to dry coal is typically coal
fired, but it may also combust low-BTU-value product streams or may use waste heat from other
sources.

       The dissolution and liquefaction operations are conducted in a series of pressure  vessels. In
these processes, the coal is mixed  with  hydrogen and recycled solvent, heated to high temperatures,
dissolved, and hydrogenated.  The order in which these operations occur varies among the
liquefaction processes and, in the case of catalytic liquefaction, involves  contact with a catalyst.
Pressures in these  processes range up to 2000 psig (14,000 Pa), and temperatures range up to 900°F
(480°C).  During the dissolution and liquefaction process, the coal is hydrogenated to liquids and
some gases, and the oxygen and sulfur  in the coal are hydrogenated to H20 and H2S.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.11-3

    -------
m
§
GO
GO

O
•z
T)
>
o

O
»
GO
                        Coal

                     preparation
                                                    Hydrogen
Gasification

 "Shift  conversion

 "Acid gas  removal

 "Dehydration
                                                                     Mineral  residue
                                                ~S»- Condensates

                                                *•  Ash

                                                   Waste gases
                                                                                                                                             Product
                                                                                          Product

                                                                                         „liquids
I
00
o
Figure  11.11-2.  Flow diagram for an example coal liquefaction facility.

    -------
        After hydrogenation, the liquefaction products are separated through a series of flash
separators, condensers, and distillation units into a gaseous stream, various product liquids, recycle
solvent, and  mineral residue.  The gases from the separation process are separated further by
absorption into a product gas stream and a waste acid gas stream.  The recycle solvent is returned to
the dissolution/liquefaction process, and the mineral residue of char, undissolved coal,  and ash is used
in a conventional gasification plant to produce hydrogen.

        The residue gasification plant closely resembles a conventional high-Btu coal gasifaction plant.
The residue is gasified in the presence of oxygen and steam to produce CO, H2, H2O,  other waste
gases, and particulates.  After treatment for removal of the waste gases and particulates, the CO and
H2O go into a shift reactor to produce CO2 and additional H2.  The H2-enriched product gas  from the
residue gasifier is used subsequently in the hydrogenation of the coal.

        There are also many auxiliary processes accompanying a coal liquefaction facility that provide
various support functions.  Among the typical auxiliary processes are oxygen plant, power and steam
plant, sulfur recovery unit, water treatment plant, cooling towers, and sour water  strippers.

11.11.2 Emissions And Controls1'3

        Although characterization data are available for some of the many developing coal conversion
processes, describing these data in detail would require a more extensive discussion than possible
here.  So, this section will cover emissions and controls for coal conversion processes on a qualitative
level only.

11.11.2.1  Gasification -
        All of the major operations associated with low-, medium- and high-Btu gasification
technology (coal pretreatment, gasification, raw gas cleaning, and gas beneficiation) can produce
potentially hazardous air emissions.  Auxiliary operations, such as sulfur recovery and  combustion of
fuel for electricity and steam generation, could account  for a major portion of the emissions from a
gasification plant.  Discharges to the air from both major  and auxiliary operations are summarized
and discussed in Table 11.11-1.

        Dust emissions from coal storage, handling, and crushing/sizing can be controlled with
available techniques.  Controlling air emissions from coal drying, briqueting, and partial oxidation
processes is more difficult because of the volatile organics and possible trace metals liberated as  the
coal is heated.

        The coal gasification process itself appears to be the most serious potential source of air
emissions. The feeding of coal  and the withdrawal of ash release emissions of coal or  ash dust and
organic and inorganic gases that are potentially toxic and carcinogenic.  Because of their reduced
production of tars and condensable organics, slagging gasifiers pose less severe emission problems at
the coal inlet and ash outlet.

        Gasifiers and associated equipment also will be  sources of potentially hazardous fugitive  leaks.
These leaks may be more severe from pressurized gasifiers and/or gasifiers operating at high
temperatures.

        Raw gas cleaning and gas beneficiation operations appear to be smaller sources of potential air
emissions. Fugitive emissions have not been characterized but are potentially large. Emissions from
the acid gas removal process depend on the kind of removal process employed at a plant.  Processes
used for acid gas removal may remove both sulfur compounds and C02 or may be operated

2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.11-5

    -------
  I
  O
  k**4
  u.
  o
  u
  o
  c*
  u-

  oo


  §
  ft-H
  00
  00
  UU


Summary Of Emission Control Choices
Characterization Of Emission
e
g
c
~fli
3
O
CO

*CA
VI
1
u
.2
1
4>
rt*





* —
2 oo
Water sprays and polymer coatings are used to
control dust emissions from coal storage piles.
Water sprays and enclosed equipment are vented
baghouse to reduce or capture particulates from <
handling. Emissions from crushing/sizing are als
usually vented to a baghouse or other particulate
control device.
Emissions from coal storage, handling, and
crushing/sizing mainly consist of coal dust. These
emissions vary from site to site depending on wind
velocities, coal and pile size, and water content.

i
00
*(5
!>
c
J=
vt
U

"§
es
S .3 c
2 =3.2
C C ">
^s ^ •»-•
3 *^ P
i ,? O
O 4>
<£ g 3
"3 2 Q
O tO
O


In addition to particulate control devices,
afterburners may be needed to destroy organic
species.
These emissions comprise coal dust and combustion
gases along with a variety of organic compounds
devolatilized from the coal. Organic species have
not been determined.
oo
e
'i
3
.0
>^
£•
CO
c"
_O
'3
T3
O
rt
'•£ <"
13 u
fi. a
. 00
.5 E
C*^
Q



This stream could represent a significant
environmental problem. Control could include
"O oo
it
"2 u
c a
"5 o
c .=










C/i
vi
CO
00
1 «
'w ?*
«
w Sr
os .is
*« o
o u,
o

f
scrubbing or incineration (to capture or destroy tl
most hazardous species), or venting to the raw
^2
£ e3






















1 £•
product gas or gasifier inlet air. The desired con
depends on the type and size of gasification facili
Screw fed conveyors can be used instead of lock


1
inorganics. The size and composition of this stream
depend on the type of gasifier, e. g., fluidized bed
gasifiers emit substantially fewer tars and oils than
fixed bed gasifiers.












































These emissions have not been sufficiently
Emissions from ash removal and disposal depend on








vt
U
en
C3
00
C

_
^
o
e
•"
V)
•
1
>

o.
3
•e
3
co

VI
a
o
3
T3
S
G.
2
(0
.£





















  13
  oo
  0)

  I
11.11-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
   I
   I



8
_o
'o
O
1
K
0
C
.2
*<«
CA
'i
U
*, ,
o
£>
<&
C
CO

Characterization Of Emission
E



0
o
u*
3
0
CO
c
_o
"en
en
"E
UJ
C
.2
'a
u
C*i
o







8
C
§
1
•a
o
o
OJ3
1
O
>>
!s
eS
E
Crt
T3
^
ts
E
1
S
o
O
These emissions have not been characterized, but














as
u
I-S

3
u-








•
CA
O
o

1
a.
Ml
a
g.
o
T3
C
a
1 •
•£ ^
.so"
•o U
3 ^A
en
is
O 3?
1 -
S «
J2 XT «5
D 3 *>
« OT -£
O "o ffl
•£ 0.0






















u
Q
c

.S
o
o
&e
involve
>i
is

CO
T3
O
f
E
"o
IM
"S
O
O
These emissions have not been characterized, but







§
I
t+M
U
C
U
OQ
.1
C
2
U en
a >
O S
an
^ 3
B PU
«








e/3
O
O

O
t
ec
'S
tM
U
O.
o
T3
C
a
they comprise hazardous species found in the various
gas streams. Other emissions result from leaks from





































o
2°
o
en
•o
S
0.
•o
c
a
en
U
to
C
O
en
U
at
S""
en





















5 S
J5 •** *0
M t c— Z3 »
U ("^ OT ^
|l|||j||
I"3 ^ | §*|| ^
55 g§ § ^ta=<2
J^-§c|2|1
^ "§ ^ *^ §3 -2n ^ "><
<».oc8g8§3

1 ellsi «l
ijij| j | s
, c^^H ^0*""^^
'? 1 « i *! "5 1 1 1
Oo^OKiS'-'WV-
co ci H o eii £. ocxcx
The composition of this stream highly depends on the
kind of acid gas removal employed Processes
featuring the direct removal and conversion of sulfur
species in a single step (e. g., the Stretford process)
produce tail gases containing small amounts of HN3
and other species. Processes absorbing and
consequently desorbing a concentrated acid gas
stream require a sulfur recovery process to avoid the
emission of highly toxic gases having quantities of
H2S.
See Section 8.13
See Section 1 . 1







o —
tn c
a °
80 '-5
— i ^
*S w

C
"3 2 E
> S >-. a
O 2 u "
E u > »
U 0. 0 ^3
fy Q y »
en >^ ^ ^
O .2 .3 g

"2 X 3 O
U 3 CO Q.
< <

§
c
4>
C
|
u
S
3
i
03
S

o.

1
E
U
^
£
These streams comprise volatile organic and
e/s
U
V)
CS
GO
.2
*(/j
1
tu
1
'c
1
1
*!
.is
1


W)
CO
^
O
Ui
9t
J
i
2

w
J2
2
^
3

1
<£

_«j
.0
CL.
inorganic species that desorb from quenching/cooling 1

























1
I
Q&
1
ed

^

*
"S
"S
c
1
liquor. The streams potentially include all the
hazardous species found in the product gas.





















o
'<=
S>
£?
o
£
Js
"o
>
GA
3
O
if hazard
w
.1

en
V)
1
3
c
S
a
a
Emissions from cooling towers are usually minor.







en
eo
VI
3
c$
W
z
*
0
t-
_c


o
U
e
__
O
60
'en
3
X>
"S
T3
'S
>
i
09

1|
2 °
1 §
CO
.stj
11
However, if contaminated water is used as cooling
water makeup, volatile organic and inorganic species
from the contaminated water could be released.





















2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.11-7

    -------
selectively to remove only the sulfur compounds.  Typically, the acid gases are stripped from the
solvent and processed in a sulfur plant. Some processes, however, directly convert the absorbed
hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur.  Emissions from these direct conversion processes (e. g., the
Stretford process) have not been characterized but are probably minor, consisting of C02, air,
moisture, and small amounts of NH3.

       Emission controls for 2 auxiliary processes (power and steam generation and sulfur recovery)
are discussed elsewhere in this  document (Sections 1.1 and 8.13, respectively).  Gases stripped or
desorbed from process waste waters are potentially hazardous, since they contain*many of the
components found in  the product gas.  These include sulfur and nitrogen species, organics, and other
species that are toxic  and potentially carcinogenic.  Possible controls for these gases include
incineration, byproduct recovery, or venting to the raw product gas or inlet air.  Cooling towers are
usually minor emission sources, unless the cooling water is contaminated.

11.11.2.2  Liquefaction -
       The potential  exists for generation of significant levels of atmospheric pollutants from every
major operation in a coal liquefaction facility.  These pollutants include coal dust, combustion
products,  fugitive organics, and fugitive gases. The fugitive organics and gases could  include
carcinogenic polynuclear organics, and toxic gases such as metal carbonyls, hydrogen sulfides,
ammonia, sulfurous gases, and cyanides.  Many studies are currently underway to characterize these
emissions and to establish effective control methods.  Table 11.11-2 presents information now
available on liquefaction emissions.

       Emissions from coal  preparation include coal dust from the many handling operations and
combustion products from the drying operation. The most significant pollutant from these operations
is the coal dust from crushing,  screening, and drying activities.  Wetting down the surface of the
coal, enclosing the operations,  and venting effluents to a scrubber or fabric filter are effective means
of paniculate control.

       A major source of emissions from the coal dissolution and liquefaction operation is the
atmospheric vent on the slurry  mix tank.  The slurry mix  tank  is used for mixing feed coal and
recycle solvent. Gases dissolved in the recycle solvent stream under pressure will flash from the
solvent as it enters the unpressurized slurry mix tank. These gases can contain hazardous volatile
organics  and acid gases.  Control techniques proposed for this source include scrubbing, incineration,
or venting to the combustion air supply for either  a power plant or a process heater.

       Emissions from process heaters fired with waste process gas or waste liquids will  consist of
standard  combustion products.  Industrial combustion emission sources and available controls are
discussed in Section 1.1.

       The major emission source in the product  separation and purification operations is the sulfur
recovery plant tail gas. This can contain significant levels of acid  or sulfurous gases.  Emission
factors and control techniques for sulfur recovery  tail gases are discussed in Section 8.13.

       Emissions from the residue gasifier used to supply hydrogen to the system are very similar to
those for coal gasifiers previously discussed in this section.

       Emissions from auxiliary processes include combustion products from onsite steam/electric
power plant and volatile emissions from the waste water system, cooling towers,  and fugitive
emission sources.  Volatile emissions from  cooling towers,  waste water systems,  and fugitive
11.11-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
   z
   o

   <
   a
   N-*
   U-,
   co
   <
   O
   O
   O
   o
   oi
   tt<
   tO

   O
   co
   CO
   w
   u-
   o


Summary Of Emission Control Choices


Characterization Of Emission


£
S
55
o
g
3
o
co
B
.9
'en
en
tu
"c
2
1
8.
o





•o
c
Water sprays and polymer coatings are used to
control dust from storage sites. Water sprays a
enclosures vented to baghouses are effective on

o
Emissions primarily consist of fugitive coal dusi
generated at transfer points and points exposed
wind erosion. A potentially significant source.




BO
C
[5
•&'
_c
'J=
CA

O
1
a
BO
c -S
•2 1
2 S
a -^
8" 0
C BO
a, «
«VH O
« 2
0 CO
o


1 crushing and sizing operations.






















CO
1
Scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and bagho
are effective coal dust controls. Low drying
temperatures reduce organics formation.

2 *i
Emissions include coal dust, combustion produc
from heater, and organics volatilized from the c
A potentially significant particulate source.















SP
c
'g.
Q













c
o
1
o
3
 rt w
« S §
O "In w
2 o t
1-, O *•
^ •§ 1
5 s "S
as <

BO
Enclosure of the waste water system and ventin
gases from system to scrubbers or incinerators.


See Section 1.1
Volatile organics, acid gases, ammonia, and
cyanides, that evolve from various waste water
collection and treating systems.







c
o

1
o
c
o —
wo c
0
s ts
OJ >>
0) vi
CA t-
•o S
g I
t-l fli
o y
> en
> rt
£ ^


8
Good heat exchanger maintenance and surveilla
of cooling water quality.
L*
ti
| j
BO U
s s s
•o u I
8-§^>
o * c
~ en a
1|§
ill
Si-!
^ II
,cs -c -5
^ BO&
S S o
~|i
.S S «
_ o
.§ I5
E* 2
a ». -n
ill
<. CA «5











S"
b*
o
5.
?
Q
BO
c
"o
o
a


"2
Good housekeeping, frequent maintenance, and
selection of durable components are major cent
techniques.
^
g.J
e H CM
All organic and gaseous compounds in plant cai
from valves, flanges, seals, and sample ports.
may be the largest source of hazardous organic;














CO
O
.>
"S>
3
U-.
   on

   CN

2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.11-9

    -------
emission sources possibly can include every chemical compound present in the plant.  These sources
will be the most significant and most difficult to control in a coal liquefaction facility.  Compounds
that can be present include hazardous organics, metal carbonyls, trace elements such as mercury, and
toxic gases such as CO2, H2S, HCN, NH3, COS, and CS2.

       Emission controls for waste water systems involve minimizing the contamination of water
with hazardous compounds, enclosing the waste water systems, and venting the waste water systems
to a scrubbing or incinerating system.  Cooling tower controls focus on good heat exchanger
maintenance, to prevent chemical leaks into the system, and on surveillance of cooling water quality.
Fugitive emissions from various valves, seals, flanges, and sampling ports are individually small but
collectively very significant. Diligent housekeeping and frequent maintenance, combined with a
monitoring program, are the best controls for fugitive sources.  The selection of durable low leakage
components, such as double mechanical seals,  is also effective.

References for Section  11.11

1.     C. E. Burklin and W. J. Moltz, Energy Resource Development System, EPA Contract
       No. 68-01-1916, Radian Corporation and The University Of Oklahoma, Austin, TX,
       September 1978.

2.     E. C. Cavanaugh, et al., Environmental Assessment Data Base For Lo\v/Medium-BTU
       Gasification Technology,  Volume I, EPA-600/7-77-125a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1977.

3.     P. W. Spaite and G. C. Page, Technology Overview: Low- And Medium-BTU Coal
       Gasification Systems, EPA-600/7-78-061, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, March 1978.
H.ll-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 2/80

    -------
11.12  Concrete Batching

11.12  Process Description1"4

       Concrete is composed essentially of water, cement, sand (fine aggregate), and coarse
aggregate.  Coarse aggregate may consist of gravel, crushed stone, or iron blast furnace slag.  Some
specialty aggregate products could be either heavyweight aggregate (of barite, magnetite, limonite,
ilmenite, iron, or steel) or lightweight aggregate (with sintered clay, shale, slate, diatomaceous shale,
perlite, vermiculite, slag,  pumice, cinders,  or sintered fly ash).  Concrete batching plants store,
convey, measure, and discharge these constituents into trucks for transport to a job site.  In some
cases, concrete is prepared at a building construction site or for the manufacture of concrete products
such as pipes and prefabricated construction parts. Figure 11.12-1 is a generalized process diagram
for concrete batching.

       The raw materials can be delivered to a plant by rail, truck, or barge.  The cement is
transferred to elevated  storage silos pneumatically or by bucket elevator.  The sand and coarse
aggregate are transferred to elevated bins by front end loader, clam shell crane, belt conveyor, or
bucket elevator.  From these elevated bins, the  constituents are fed by gravity or screw conveyor to
weigh hoppers, which combine the proper amounts of each material.

       Truck mixed (transit mixed) concrete involves approximately 75 percent of U. S. concrete
batching plants.  At these plants, sand, aggregate, cement, and water are all gravity fed from the
weigh hopper into the mixer trucks.  The concrete is mixed on the way to the site where the concrete
is to be poured.  Central mix facilities (including shrink mixed) constitute the other one-fourth of the
industry.  With these, concrete is mixed and then transferred to either an open bed dump truck or an
agitator truck for transport to the job site.  Shrink mixed concrete is concrete that is partially mixed at
the central  mix plant and then completely mixed in a truck mixer on the way to the job site.  Dry
batching, with concrete mixed and hauled to the construction site in dry form, is seldom, if ever,
used.

11.12-2  Emissions And Controls5"7

       Emission factors for concrete batching are given in Tables 11.12-1 and 11.12-2, with potential
air pollutant emission points shown. Paniculate matter, consisting primarily of cement dust but
including some aggregate  and sand dust emissions, is the only pollutant of concern.  All but one of
the emission points are fugitive in nature. The only point source is the transfer of cement to the silo,
and this is usually vented to a fabric filter or "sock".  Fugitive sources  include the transfer of sand
and aggregate, truck loading, mixer loading, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand  and
aggregate storage piles. The amount of fugitive emissions generated  during the transfer of sand and
aggregate depends primarily on the  surface moisture content of these  materials.  The extent of fugitive
emission control varies widely from plant to plant.

       Types of controls  used may include  water sprays,  enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds,
movable and telescoping chutes, and the like.  A  major source of potential emissions,  the movement
of heavy trucks over unpaved or dusty surfaces in and around the plant, can be controlled by good
maintenance and wetting of the road surface.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                              11.12-1

    -------
                                                  r^
                                V\   1=
                                       I
                                      
    -------
       Table 11.12-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING3
Source (SCC)
Sand and aggregate transfer to elevated bin
(3-05-01 l-06)d
Cement unloading to elevated storage silo
Pneumatic6
Bucket elevator (3-05-01 l-07)f
Weigh hopper loading (3-05-011-8)8
Mixer loading (central mix) (3-05-011-09)8
Truck loading (truck mix) (3-05-011-10)8
Vehicle traffic (unpaved roads) (3-05-011- 	 )h
Wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles
(3-05-01 !__)'
Total process emissions (truck mix)(3-05-011-_))

PM
0.014

0.13
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.01
4.5
3.9
0.05
Filterableb
RATING
E

D
E
E
E
E
C
D
E

PM-10
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Condensable PM°
Inorganic
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Organic
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  All emission factors are in kg/Mg
  of material mixed unless noted. Based on a typical yd3 weighing 1.818 kg (4,000 Ib) and
  containing 227 kg (500 Ib) cement, 564 kg (1,240 Ib) sand, 864 kg (1,900 Ib) coarse aggregate, and
  164 kg (360 Ib) water.  SCC  = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 6.
e For uncontrolled emissions measured before filter.  Based on 2 tests on pneumatic conveying
  controlled by a fabric filter.
f Reference 7. From test of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by
  enclosed bucket  elevator to elevated bins with fabric socks over bin vent.
g Reference 5. Engineering judgment, based on observations and emissions tests of similar controlled
  sources.
h From Section 13.2-1, with k  = 0.8, s =  12, S = 20, W  = 20, w = 14, and p = 100; units of
  kg/vehicle kilometers traveled; based on facility producing 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr) of
  concrete, with average truck load of 6.2 m3 (8 yd3) and plant road length of 161 meters (0.1 mile).
1  From Section 11.19-1, for emissions <30 micrometers from inactive storage piles; units of
  kg/hectare/day.
J  Based on pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck mix facility.   Does not include vehicle traffic or
  wind erosion from storage piles.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.12-3

    -------
     Table 11.12-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING*-"
Source (SCC)
Sand and aggregate transfer to elevated bin
(3-05-01 l-06)e
Cement unloading to elevated storage silo
Pneumaticf

Bucket elevator (3-05-011-07)8

Weigh hopper loading (3-05-01 l-08)h

Mixer loading (central mix) (3-05-01 l-09)h

Truck loading (truck mix) (3-05-01 l-10)h

Vehicle traffic (unpaved roads) (3-05-011- 	 )'

Wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage
piles (3-05-01 !-__)>
Total process emissions (truck mix)
(3-05-01 l-_)m
Filterable0
PM
0.029
(0.05)

0.27
(0.07)
0.24
(0.06)
0.02
(0.04)
0.04
(0.07)
0.02
(0.04)
16
(0.02)
3.5k
(O.I)1
0.1
(0.2)
RATING
E


D

E

E

E

E

C

D

E

PM-10
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Condensable PMd
Inorganic
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Organic
ND


ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  All emission factors are in Ib/ton
  (lb/yd3) of material mixed unless noted.  SCC =  Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Based on a typical yd3 weighing 1.818 kg (4,000 Ib) and containing 227 kg (500 Ib) cement, 564 kg
  (1,240 Ib) sand, 864 kg (1,900 Ib) coarse aggregate, and 164 kg (360 Ib) water.
c Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to  the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
d Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
e Reference 6.
f For uncontrolled emissions measured before filter.  Based on 2 tests on pneumatic conveying
  controlled by a fabric filter.
g Reference 7. From test of mechanical unloading  to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by
  enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with fabric socks over bin vent.
h Reference 5. Engineering judgment, based on observations and emission tests of similar controlled
  sources.
' From Section 13.2.1, with k  = 0.8, s = 12, S = 20, W = 20, w = 14, and p =  100; units of
  Ib/vehicle miles traveled; based on facility producing 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr) of concrete,
  with average truck load of 6.2 m3 (8 yd3) and plant road length of 161  meters (0.1 mile).
J From Section 11.19.1, for emissions <30 micrometers from inactive storage piles.
k Units of Ib/acre/day.
1 Assumes 1,011 m2 (1/4  acre) of sand and aggregate storage at plant with production of
  23,000 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr).
m Based on pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck mix facility; does not include vehicle traffic  or
  wind erosion from storage piles.


        Predictive equations that allow for emission factor adjustment based on plant-specific
conditions are given in Chapter 13.  Whenever plant specific data are available, they should be used
in lieu of the fugitive emission  factors presented in Table 11.12-1.
 11.12-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
References For Section 11.12

1.     Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

2.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974. Out of Print.

3.     Telephone and written communication between Edwin A. Pfetzing, PEDCo Environmental,
       Inc., Cincinnati, OH, and Richard Morris  and Richard Meininger, National Ready Mix
       Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD, May 1984.

4.     Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards Of Performance,
       The Concrete Products Industries, Draft, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, August 1975.

5.     Technical Guidance For Control Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA-450/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.

6.     Fugitive Dust Assessment At Rock And Sand Facilities In The South Coast Air Basin, Southern
       California Rock Products Association and  Southern California Ready Mix Concrete
       Association, Santa Monica, CA, November 1979.

7.     Telephone communication between T. R. Blackwood, Monsanto Research Corp.,  Dayton,
       OH,  and John Zoller, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, October 18,  1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)               Mineral Products Industry                           11.12-5

    -------

    -------
11.13  Glass Fiber Manufacturing

11.13.1  General1"4

        Glass fiber manufacturing is the high-temperature conversion of various raw materials
(predominantly borosilicates) into a homogeneous melt, followed by the fabrication of this melt into
glass fibers.  The 2 basic types of glass fiber products, textile and wool, are manufactured by similar
processes.  A typical diagram of these processes is shown in Figure 11.13-1.  Glass fiber production
can be segmented into 3 phases:  raw materials handling, glass melting and refining, and wool glass
fiber forming and finishing, this last phase being slightly different for textile and wool glass fiber
production.

Raw Materials Handling -
        The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying  quantities of
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials.  The bulk supplies
are received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
These raw  materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
and vibrator/gravity systems.  Conveying to and from storage piles and  silos is accomplished by belts,
screws, and bucket elevators.  From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit.  The weighing,
mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.

Glass Melting And Refining -
        In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials  are heated to temperatures ranging from
1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
molten glass.  Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are  generally large, shallow, and
well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are  introduced
continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where  they slowly mix and dissolve.  Mixing is effected
by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
into the bottom of the bed.

        Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method  of heat application
into 4 types:  recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter.  The  recuperative, regenerative,
and unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil.   The current trend  is from gas-fired to oil-
fired.  Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from  the exhaust gases by
exchange with the combustion air.  Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste
heat from exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a
chamber containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
corresponding brickwork lattice.  About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt.  Electric furnaces are
either hot-top or cold-top.  The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the
electric current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of
the electrical properties of the glass formulation.  Unit melters are used  only for the "indirect" marble
melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.13-1

    -------
                              Raw materials
                           receiving and handling
                                    I
                           Raw materials storage
                         Crushing, weighing, mixing
                            Melting and refining
                            Direct
                           process
                      Wool glass fiber
                                          Indirect
                                          process
                                                        Marble forming
                                                          Annealing
                                                     Marble storage, shipment
                                                         Marble melting
       Textile glass fiber
               Forming
                        Forming
             Binder addition
                 Sizing, binding addition
             Compression
                        Winding
              Oven curing
                      Oven drying
               Cooling
                      Oven curing
              Fabrication
                       Fabrication
              Packaging
                      Packaging
                                                 Raw
                                                material
                                                handling
                                                 Glass
                                                 melting
                                                  and
                                                 forming
         Fiber
        forming
         and
        finishing
             Figure 11.13-1. Typical flow diagram of the glass fiber production process.
11.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
        In the "indirect" melting process, molten glass passes to a forehearth, where it is drawn off,
sheared into globs, and formed into marbles by roll-forming. The marbles are then stress-relieved in
annealing ovens, cooled, and conveyed to storage or to other plants for later use. In the "direct"
glass fiber process, molten glass passes from the furnace into a refining unit, where bubbles and
particles are removed by settling, and the melt is allowed to cool to the proper viscosity for the fiber
forming operation.

Wool Glass Fiber Forming And Finishing -
        Wool fiberglass is produced for insulation and is formed into mats that are cut into batts.
(Loose wool is primarily a waste product formed from mat trimming, although some is a primary
product, and is only  a small part of the total wool fiberglass produced.  No specific emission data for
loose wool production are available.)  The insulation is used primarily in the construction industry
and is produced to comply with ASTM C167-64, the "Standard Test Method for Thickness and
Density of Blanket- or Batt-Type Thermal Insulating Material".

        Wool fiberglass insulation production lines usually consist of the following processes:
(1) preparation of molten glass, (2) formation of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat, (3) curing the
binder-coated fiberglass mat, (4) cooling the mat, and (5) backing, cutting, and packaging the
insulation.  Fiberglass plants contain various sizes, types, and numbers of production lines, although a
typical plant has 3 lines.  Backing (gluing a flat flexible material, usually paper, to the mat), cutting,
and packaging operations are not significant sources of emissions to the atmosphere.

        The trimmed edge waste from the mat and the fibrous dust generated during the cutting and
packaging operations are collected by a cyclone and either are transported to a hammer mill to be
chopped into blown wool (loose insulation) and bulk packaged or are recycled to the forming section
and blended with newly formed product.

        During the formation of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat (the process known as "forming" in
the industry), glass fibers are made from molten glass, and a chemical binder is simultaneously
sprayed on the fibers as they are created. The binder is a thermosetting resin that holds the glass
fibers together. Although the binder composition varies with product type, typically the binder
consists of a solution of phenol-formaldehyde resin, water, urea, lignin, silane, and ammonia.
Coloring agents may also be added to the binder. Two methods of creating fibers are used by the
industry. In the rotary spin process, depicted in Figure 11.13-2, centrifugal force causes molten glass
to flow  through small holes in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder to create fibers that are broken
into pieces by an air  stream.  This is the newer of the 2 processes and dominates the industry today.
In the flame attenuation process, molten glass flows by gravity from a furnace through numerous
small orifices to create threads that are then attenuated (stretched to the point of breaking) by high
velocity, hot air, and/or a flame.  After the glass fibers are created (by either process) and sprayed
with the binder solution, they are collected  by gravity on a conveyor belt in the form of a mat.

        The conveyor carries the newly formed mat through a large oven to cure the thermosetting
binder and then through a cooling section where ambient air is drawn down through the mat.
Figure 11.13-3 presents a schematic drawing of the curing and cooling sections.  The cooled mat
remains on the conveyor for trimming of the uneven edges.  Then, if product specifications require it,
a backing is applied with an adhesive to form a vapor barrier.  The mat is then cut into batts of the
desired  dimensions and packaged.

Textile Glass Fiber Forming And Finishing -
        Molten glass  from either the direct melting furnace or the indirect marble melting furnace is
temperature-regulated to a precise viscosity and delivered to forming stations.  At the forming

9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.13-3

    -------
     SE
     u CQ

     II
                                                                                o
                                                                                o
                                                                                a

                                                                                c
                                                                                03

                                                                                O
                                                                                o
                                                                                u-

                                                                                3
11.13-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                                                                                                    4)

                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    O)
                                                                                                    •o
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    c/
                                                                                                    3
                                                                                                    BO
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral  Products Industry
11.13-5

    -------
stations, the molten glass is forced through heated platinum bushings containing numerous very small
openings.  The continuous fibers emerging from the openings are drawn over a roller applicator,
which applies a coating of a water-soluble sizing and/or coupling agent.  The coated fibers are
gathered and wound into a spindle.  The spindles of glass fibers are next conveyed to a drying oven,
where moisture is removed from the sizing and coupling agents.  The spindles are then sent to an
oven to cure the coatings.  The final fabrication includes twisting, chopping, weaving, and packaging
the fiber.

11.13.2 Emissions And Controls1'3-4

       Emissions and controls for glass fiber manufacturing can be categorized by the 3 production
phases with  which  they are associated.  Emission factors for the glass fiber manufacturing industry
are given in Tables 11.13-1, 11.13-2, and 11.13-3.

Raw Materials Handling -
       The major  emissions from the raw materials handling phase are fugitive dust and  raw material
particles generated at each of the material transfer points.  Such a point would be where sand pours
from a conveyor belt into a storage silo.  The 2 major control techniques are wet or moist handling
and fabric filters. When fabric filters are used, the transfer points are enclosed, and air from the
transfer area is continuously circulated through the fabric filters.

Glass Melting  And Refining -
       The emissions from glass melting and refining include volatile organic compounds from the
melt, raw material  particles entrained in the furnace flue gas, and, if furnaces are heated with fossil
fuels, combustion products.  The variation in emission rates among furnaces is attributable to varying
operating temperatures, raw material compositions, fuels, and flue gas flow rates.   Of the various
types of furnaces used, electric furnaces generally have the lowest emission rates,  because of the lack
of combustion products and of the lower temperature of the melt surface caused by bottom heating.
Emission control for furnaces is primarily fabric filtration.  Fabric filters are effective on  paniculate
matter (PM) and sulfur oxides  (SOX) and, to a lesser extent, on carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOX),  and  fluorides. The efficiency of these compounds is attributable to both  condensation
on filterable PM and chemical  reaction  with PM trapped on the filters.  Reported fabric filter
efficiencies on regenerative and recuperative wool furnaces are for PM, 95+ percent; SOX,
99+ percent; CO,  30 percent;  and fluoride, 91 to 99 percent. Efficiencies on other furnaces are
lower because of lower emission loading and pollutant characteristics.

Wool Fiber  Forming And Finishing -
       Emissions  generated during  the manufacture of wool fiberglass insulation include  solid
particles of glass and binder resin, droplets of binder, and components of the binder that have
vaporized.  Glass particles may be entrained in the exhaust gas stream during forming,  curing, or
cooling operations. Test data show  that approximately 99 percent of the total emissions from the
production line are emitted from the forming and curing sections.  Even though cooling emissions are
negligible at some  plants, cooling emissions at others may include fugitives from the curing  section.
This commingling  of emissions occurs because fugitive emissions from the open terminal  end of the
curing oven may be induced into the cooling exhaust ductwork and be discharged  into the
atmosphere. Solid particles of resin may be entrained in the gas stream  in either the curing  or cooling
sections. Droplets of organic binder may be entrained in the gas stream in the forming section or
may be a result of condensation of gaseous pollutants as the gas stream is  cooled.   Some  of the liquid
binder used in the  forming section is vaporized by the elevated temperatures in the forming and
curing processes.  Much of the vaporized material will condense when the gas stream cools in the
ductwork or in the emission control device.

11.13-6                              EMISSION  FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
   6
   z
   2


   u
   z
   OH



   CO
   O


   g
   UH
   !>0
   OH
   O

   B

   S


   o
         03


         6
g
o
ss
z
o
   55    GO

   S2    S2


   m    W
   en

   "S


0
2s
OH
JU
3
C
4>
•o
r-t
O
U








£>

™
3
1
E























o
'c
8»
O







.is
§
8?
o
g

o
1
JIS
0.






bl
OH





















•S -8
il I

W> 2> Ui
^ o«






O "c3 5>
§1 |


J* OH
0||

S t3 °
^tih 5 2
^ ^^ C^




o -a -8
bo *™i cc
^^ o> o>
~3b S ^










4>
O
o
00








QQQQ QQQQ QQQ Q Q Q Q
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z









QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz zz zz




QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz. zzzz zzz zz zz






10 m
V) *~^ CO C^J *•* I/") tO ^D
—'dog) d — ' <*' — oo (n — d rod
Z ~ -

u
CrT
T3 «N O

— (S *Tl
CM — O
i -o o '
CN ^"^- I CO
T — r *"O 1^1 •• ..^^ 1_> 1}
S SrA 99o TV2 §s> S^

« OO i-H T— < £2 •"<•-< P>1 2*"1 ^ ^"^
ols^p^ SS9 ^^9 ^ - 9j>
U^cn^ ^990 99g o9 o'5
M ' ^ "M — UUrj UO^ Hrri HM

cO-=-g ori>>t-t<>>u1 g^'^'oS 8
0 U •§) " £ -S •£ .S .S ~ "3 B -2 o o .2 ^

1 1 1 1 i^l || | III ?| f || I
1 1 t 1 11 a a a 1 a a a III « I «
"c o .a g ^SuOOO — O O O oE o |E |
DooSUO O u, fc O O
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
                               Mineral Products Industry
11.13-7

    -------
                                                              Table 11.13-1 (cont.).
oo
Source
Rotary spin wool glass manufacturing (3-05-0 12-04)f
R-19
R-ll
Ductboard
Heavy density
Filterable5
PM
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed
PM-10
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed
17.81 ND
19.61 ND
27.72 ND
4.91 ND
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed
Organic
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed
ND 4.25
ND 3.19
ND 8.55
ND 1.16
m
oo
oo

O
2:
o
H
O
JO
oo
a Factors are uncontrolled, unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.  Neg = negligible.

b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.

c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.

d Reference 1.

e Reference 5.

f Reference 4.  Units are expressed kg/Mg of finished product.

    -------
   b
   z
   S
UJ
S
E
on
O
a:
O
C/3
OH
0
H
a
UH
Z
o
So
on
S
u



n
RATING:
o<
O
H
a
UH
z
o
53
on
§
UH
   C



   4=
   60
   g
o
s
OH
d>
1
C/3
1
1

Filterableb
o
1
O


'S
M
UH
0
1
(X

OH
C*^ t 13
O W 4>
e 'S S
^? *rf fj
v^D .^^ U^


Sal
c S> 8
® eo u
S-al
e 55 S
2 j «

Sal
g S3 £
O ±i cj
2 S °



o
u.
O
I>0




QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z

QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz zz zz
QQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQ QQ
zzzz zzzz zzz z z z z
o
fT^ {si \o bo *D ^*"^ (S|
CD ,*j i
CO O O ^y O O4 Os 0*4 \c \^ rsi ^-H \o ^^
o9~5'5b ^CJCJO OOO Oco U'
f S ^ 1 ^|^^^ ^s-ssy, & y & i
1 o I 1 1 2 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 _ | III |
! II i i?lll fill ?| f il I
.S ^T 3 ""^ UN U-< ^ _ UN UH O gjj (jjj M ^
OCC ."J "S CrtfljC^C^V3 C/3c^C/3CX2 CjS C C 5 C
^ 	 t ^ ^j 2J t/J r~ CCCvTO WCvwC^ •— ^ C IT ^ S7
C ^ V^ ^ ^.^ [T^] ^^ ^^ ^^ ^_^ ^^ (^ ^^ * p^ Q ^. p^ >.
^Dc/^SuO O LL.ix.OCD
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.13-9

    -------
                                                              Table 11.13-2 (com.).




Source
Rotary spin wool glass manufacturing (SCC 3-05-012-04)'
R-19
R-ll
Ductboard
Heavy density
Filterable15
PM
Ib/ton Of
Material
Processed
PM-10
Ib/ton Of
Material
Processed

36.21 ND
39.21 ND
55.42 ND
9.81 ND
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
Ib/ton Of
Material
Processed
Organic
Ib/ton Of
Material
Processed

ND 8.52
ND 6.37
ND 17.08
ND 2.33
m
S
t—-J
c/o
oo
O

TJ
>
O
H
O
50
oo
a Factors are uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC  = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.  Neg = negligible.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
c Condensable  PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 1.
e Reference 5.
f Reference 4.  Units are Ib/ton of finished product.
oo
Ul

    -------
   a
   O
   z
   D

   tj
   OQ
   E
   to
   to

   O

   g

   CO
   Oi


   I
   PH
      CQ

      6
      z
      H
      OS
      e
      <
      p-
        z
        o
z
o
^    52
to    22
   c
   CO

   CO



o








X
i








o*





3
*» "2
^> ^
S
o g
W) /i"*
^H &N
^5
5
13
1
H
^H fli
o §

S
jjp

•a
"fcH
2£

1 s
CM CA
CQ CA
o —
0



IO

d







o








!2















1-H
I
9
o
CO
U
U
Gas - recuperative




10
d







o
i-H








«0
»— H














1— «
1
9
o
CO
U
U
Gas - regenerative



\f)
•^ •^^ ^^
d z z







s 22








Q < <
Z Z Z















CO O? ,—.
-r 92
CN tN .
o 32
•0 10 9
CO CO 9
u BB
Gas - unit melter (
Forming - woolb
Flame attenuation (
Forming - textile*5 (S




00
— '







„








Q
Z















(SCC 3-05-012-09)
Oven curing - woolb
Flame attenuation



i— .
.^
d







co








Z










•o
*7*
9
9
CO
u
u
52,
•^>
•4— >
1
•a
to
o
1
O


d>

•O
.a
"E<
o.
03
1
II
Z
*S
T3
O
C
II
Q
Z
•o
o
O
d
o
'i
t>
!*3

M
U
CD
u.
3
O
to
U
U
to
•8
1
(U
lied unless otherwis
Factors are uncontro






































Reference 5.
?s .0
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
                                    Mineral Products Industry
11.13-11

    -------
 OS
 o
 Z
 o

 u.

 Z
a:
u
m
E
oo
00
0
O
b
S
O
H
U
u-
Z
O
on
00
§
U





PQ
§
1
C*
O
H
a
b
Z
O
So
on
§

  bo
  _«


  H
'C
« u
° 2 1
u X ?>
O o
1 ^
£


!3
2
/-?* *^ ««
i Si
JH ^
2

~^


U«
5 ®

8 S |
J  D -•-•
bJ) o "S
 C-
1 1 1
y; c/3 c/3
C^ CC CO
o o o



•0 ON < < 10 >^
o" — O Z Z r«-> *-"






O O O 55 0 0 >0 =
0 0 £ U S G ^
Q Q. y OO r^ OO .S
"B « a) — ' ?2- — °
M -^ -S S -2 « § .2 "
2 2"a3"os3'-" ?^c
... o> (U e § 3 t? i 3c«
|§-Sfi|lg>Sg>
<2 i i i c1 S c3 o 2 3
c«c«c/:c/3c£ccSc2
«ci3caa3C_2C53_!2a3
0 u, u, O 0




e8
O
C
II
Q
Z
U
c
o
'i
0
s
C/3
es
U
o
3
0
00
II
U
U
00
I
c
UH
d>
•S
CA
J2
"2

S2
.0
C«
•-•
1
1
4_»
O
c
4)
Q
t£
«
[I-
11.13-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                       Table 11.13-5 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR GLASS FIBER MANUFACTURING3

                                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Source
Glass furnace - wool
Electric (SCC 3-05-0 12-03)b
Gas - regenerative (SCC 3-05-012-01)
Gas - recuperative (SCC 3-05-012-02)
Gas - unit melter (SCC 3-05-012-07)
Glass furnace - textile*3
Gas - recuperative (SCC 3-05-012-12)
Gas - regenerative (SCC 3-05-012-11)
Gas - unit melter (SCC 3-05-012-13)
Forming - wool
Flame attenuation (SCC 3-05-012-08)b
Forming - textile (SCC 3-05-01 2- 14)b
Oven curing - wool
Flame attenuation (SCC 3-05-012-09)b
Oven curing and cooling - textile (SCC 3-05-01 2- 15)b
Rotary spin wool glass fiber manufacturing
(SCC 3-05-012-04)°
R-19
R-ll
Ductboard
Heavy density
VOC
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

0.15
Neg

3.5
Neg


ND
ND
ND
ND
Phenol ics
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND

ND
ND


3.21
6.21
10.66
0.88
Phenol
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND

ND
ND


0.96
0.92
3.84
0.53
Formaldehyde
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND

ND
ND


0.75
1.23
1.80
0.43
Fluorides
kg/Mg Of
Material
Processed

0.001
0.06
0.06
0.06

1
1
1

ND
NA

ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND
B
O>
8.
o
a.
o
5?
t— <
3
Q.
        8 Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
          NA = not applicable. Neg = negligible.
        b Reference 5.
        c Reference 4.
UJ

    -------
  a!
  O
  z
  u
  04

  09



  on



  O

  c*
  O
  UH




  I
  CJ

  UH


  O
  I—I
  oo
  oo
  «
  c
  2
  B
  CO
  3
OQ


i
H
g
CJ
Z
o
oo
00
8
"S
o
E
D
43
13
2

S
o


,
§




o
"o
1
a,


O

















S
c
2
£

0
B
2
"^
~^


0



I— H

O
(3
2
£

<4-i
O
2
£>
















!3 1
*-H ^
±£ o
5 S
•^ &.

>a
'S I
*2 o
o
5 C
•*• cu


"9
"C «]
*^ o
>S o
^ »-c
^ OH

.2 c/a
S3 8
1 S
^ O-

•3*8
.M wa
S3 i
•ti o
M O
2 "-1
o-










4)
O





g  a>

^ Sj C/3 C/2 W5
CA _^ C^ CC CQ
JS WOOO
u



ts «N «s



QQQ
ZZZ





QQQ
ZZZ





QQQ
ZZZ



QQQ
ZZZ












fN 04 -i
O O 04
i i o
>n m i
9^^ IX1}
___^ _^ ^P
-° ^S^^
g .> .1 S3
1 § O"3
h u v- 3
n
o
rn
CJ
C
0
- wool
attenuat:
fl
S «
SE
tu,


<;
Z



Q
Z





Q





Q
Z



Z












.0
o
in
9
CO
CJ
52-
><
i
bo
'£
VH
O
U.


Q
Z



Q
Z





Q
Z





Q
Z



t^












§
O
i
o
CJ
8.1
^ 1
^1
'C «
3|
§1
£fc


Q
Z



Q
Z





Q
Z





Q
Z



60
0)
Z





*^"*»,
>n
i
"o
O
in
9
CO
CJ
CJ
—
t<
i
no
~3
8
T3
CO
.S
"l_,
O
C
CD


QQQQ
ZZZZ



o vo —• m
in •* vo oo
•— i O4 CO O





O4 Tfr OO Tf




rs) — , >-. Tj-
Os TJ- CO t~-
\O rsj — ' — «'
— 04



QQQQ
ZZZZ











c3
ss fiber manufactur
f
•af
Is
^9 >,
•|9 it
^>^^ ^^ ^"^ ^^ ^
W r \ ^^^ ^^ w Cv
(S^"





«s
ts
•o
g
II
II
Q
Z
o>
,-S
o
CJ
B
O

to
u
en
OS
O
§
3
O
II
CJ
u
.
1
o
B
u-
4)
•S
O
VI
S
"B
3
t/3 JS
[controlled emissior
e. Neg = negligib
B!
si.

O
1
<8
S
o
11.13-14
                              EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
       Paniculate matter is the principal pollutant that has been identified and measured at wool
fiberglass insulation manufacturing facilities.  It was known that some fraction of the PM emissions
results from condensation of organic compounds used in the binder.  Therefore, in evaluating
emissions and control device performance for this source,  a sampling method,  EPA Reference
Method 5E, was used that permitted collection and measurement of both solid particles and condensed
PM.
       Tests were performed during the production of R-ll building insulation,  R-19 building
insulation, ductboard, and heavy-density insulation. These products, which account for 91 percent of
industry production, had densities ranging from 9.1 to  12.3 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3)
(0.57 to 0.77 pounds per cubic foot [Ib/ft3]) for R-ll, 8.2  to 9.3 kg/m* (0.51 to 0.58  Ib/ft3) for
R-19, and 54.5 to 65.7 kg/m3 (3.4 to 4.1 Ib/ft3) for ductboard.  The heavy-density insulation had a
density of 118.5 kg/m3 (7.4 Ib/ft3). (The remaining 9 percent of industry wool fiberglass production
is a variety of specialty products for which  qualitative and  quantitative information is not available.)
The loss on ignition (LOI) of the product is a measure of the amount of binder present.  The LOI
values ranged from 3.9 to 6.5 percent, 4.5 to 4.6 percent,  and 14.7 to 17.3 percent for R-ll, R-19,
and ductboard, respectively. The LOI for heavy-density insulation is 10.6 percent.  A production line
may be used to manufacture more than one  of these product types because the processes involved do
not differ.  Although the data base did not show sufficient  differences in mass emission levels to
establish separate emission standards for each product, the uncontrolled emission factors are
sufficiently different to warrant their segregation for AP-42.

       The level of emissions control found in the wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing industry
ranges from uncontrolled to control of forming, curing, and cooling emissions  from a line.  The
exhausts  from these process operations may be controlled separately or in combination.  Control
technologies currently used by the industry  include wet ESPs, low- and high-pressure-drop wet
scrubbers, low- and high-temperature thermal incinerators, high-velocity air filters, and process
modifications.  These added control technologies are available to all firms in the  industry, but the
process modifications  used in this industry are considered confidential.  Wet ESPs are considered to
be best demonstrated technology for the  control of emissions from wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing lines.  Therefore, it is expected that most new facilities will be controlled in this
manner.

Textile Fiber Forming And Finishing -
       Emissions from the forming and finishing processes include glass fiber particles, resin
particles, hydrocarbons (primarily phenols and aldehydes), and combustion products from dryers and
ovens. Emissions are usually lower in the textile fiber glass process than in the wool fiberglass
process because of lower turbulence in the forming step, roller application of coatings, and use of
much less coating per ton of fiber produced.

References For Section 11.13

1.     J. R. Schorr et al., Source Assessment: Pressed And Blown Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/2-77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH,  January 1977.

2.     Annual Book OfASTM Standards, Pan 18, ASTM Standard C167-64 (Reapproved 1979),
       American Society For Testing And  Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

3.     Standard Of Performance For Wool  Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants, 50 FR 7700,
       February 25, 1985.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                            11.13-15

    -------
4.     Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Industry:  Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-83-Q22a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, December 1983.

5.     Screening Study to Determine Need for Standards of Performance for New Sources in the
       Fiber Glass Manufacturing Industry—Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1976.
 H.13-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
11.14 Frit Manufacturing



                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                           11.14-1

    -------

    -------
 11.15 Glass Manufacturing

 11.15.1  General1'5

        Commercially produced glass can be classified as soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, or
 96 percent silica.  Soda-lime glass, since it constitutes 77 percent of total glass production, is
 discussed here. Soda-lime glass consists of sand, limestone, soda ash, and cullet (broken glass).  The
 manufacture of such glass is in four phases:  (1) preparation of raw material, (2) melting in a furnace,
 (3) forming and (4) finishing.  Figure 11.15-1 is a diagram for .typical glass manufacturing.

        The products of this industry are flat glass, container glass, and pressed and blown glass.
 The procedures for manufacturing glass are the same for all products  except forming and finishing.
 Container glass and pressed  and blown glass, 51 and 25 percent respectively of total soda-lime glass
 production, use pressing, blowing or pressing and blowing to form the desired product. Flat glass,
 which is the remainder, is formed by float, drawing, or rolling processes.

        As the sand, limestone, and soda ash raw materials are received, they  are crushed  and stored
 in separate elevated bins.  These materials are then transferred through a gravity feed system to a
 weigher and mixer, where the material is mixed with  cullet to ensure  homogeneous melting.  The
 mixture  is conveyed to a batch storage bin where it is held until dropped into the feeder to the melting
 furnace. All  equipment used in handling and preparing the raw material is housed  separately from the
 furnace and is usually referred to as the batch plant.  Figure 11.15-2 is a flow diagram of a typical
 batch plant.

        The furnace most commonly used is a continuous regenerative furnace capable of producing
 between 45 and 272 megagrams (Mg) (50 and 300 tons) of glass per day.  A furnace may have either
 side or end ports that connect brick checkers to the inside of the melter.  The purpose of brick
 checkers (Figure 11.15-3 and Figure 11.15-4) is to conserve fuel by collecting furnace exhaust gas
 heat that, when the air  flow  is reversed, is used to preheat the furnace combustion air.  As material
 enters the melting furnace through the feeder, it floats on the top of the molten glass already in the
 furnace. As it melts, it passes to the front of the melter and eventually flows through a throat leading
 to the refiner.  In the refiner, the molten glass is heat conditioned for  delivery to the forming process.
 Figures 11.15-3 and 11.15-4 show side port and end port regenerative furnaces.

        After refining,  the molten glass leaves the furnace through forehearths (except in the float
 process, with molten glass moving directly  to the tin bath) and goes to be shaped by pressing,
 blowing, pressing and blowing, drawing, rolling, or floating to produce the desired product.  Pressing
 and blowing are performed mechanically, using blank molds and glass cut into sections (gobs) by a
 set of shears.  In the drawing process, molten glass is drawn upward in a sheet through rollers, with
 thickness of the sheet determined  by the speed of the draw and the configuration of the draw bar.
 The rolling process is similar to the drawing process except that the glass is drawn horizontally on
 plain or patterned rollers and, for plate glass, requires grinding and polishing.  The float process is
 different, having a molten  tin bath over which the glass is drawn and formed into a finely finished
 surface requiring no grinding or polishing.  The end product undergoes finishing (decorating or
 coating)  and annealing  (removing unwanted stress areas in the glass) as required, and is then
 inspected and prepared  for shipment to market. Any damaged or  undesirable glass is transferred back
to the batch plant to be used as cullet.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.15-1

    -------
                                                FINISHING
     RAW
   MATERIAL
                   MELTING
                   FURNACE
        .GLASS
       FORMING
                                       GULLET
                                      CRUSHING
                                     FINISHING
ANNEALING
                                                                                1
INSPECTION
   AND
 TESTING
                                                        RECYCLE UNDESIRABLE
                               GLASS
                                       PACKING
                           STORAGE
                              OR
                           SHIPPING
                       Figure 11.15-1. Typical glass manufacturing process.
             cuuu
      Oil MATERUIS
      RECEIVING
      HOfFER
           V
               SCREI
               CONVET3R
STORAGE BINS
mi OR RAi MATERIALS
                                                   MINOR
                                                   INGREDIENT
                                                   STORAGE
                                                   BINS
                      BATCH
                      STORAGE
                      BIN
                                                                           FURNACE
                                                                           FEEDER
                                                                                       CLASS   i
                                                                                        FURNACE
                        Figure 11.15-2.  General diagram of a batch plant.
11.15-2
      EMISSION FACTORS
                   (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                     Figure 11.15-3.  Side port continuous regenerative furnace.
                     Figure li.15-4.  End port continuous regenerative furnace.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.15-3

    -------
11.15.2  Emissions And Controls1"5

       The main pollutant emitted by the batch plant is particulates in the form of dust.  This can be
controlled with 99 to 100 percent efficiency by enclosing all possible dust sources and using
baghouses or cloth filters.  Another way to control dust emissions, also with an efficiency
approaching 100 percent, is to treat the batch to reduce the amount of fine particles present, by
presintering, briquetting, pelletizing, or liquid alkali treatment.

       The melting furnace contributes over 99 percent of the total emissions from a glass plant, both
particulates and gaseous pollutants. Particulates result from volatilization of materials in the melt that
combine with gases and form condensates. These either are collected in the checker  work and gas
passages or are emitted to the atmosphere. Serious problems arise when the checkers are not properly
cleaned in that slag can form, clog the passages, and eventually deteriorate the condition and
efficiency of the furnace.  Nitrogen oxides form when nitrogen and oxygen react in the high
temperatures of the furnace.  Sulfur oxides result from the decomposition of the sulfates in the batch
and sulfur in the fuel.  Proper maintenance and firing of the furnace can control emissions and also
add to the efficiency of the furnace and reduce operational costs.  Low-pressure wet centrifugal
scrubbers have been used to control paniculate and sulfur oxides, but their inefficiency
(approximately 50 percent) indicates their inability to collect particulates of submicrometer  size.
High-energy venturi scrubbers are approximately 95 percent effective in reducing paniculate and
sulfur oxide emissions. Their effect on nitrogen oxide emissions is unknown.  Baghouses,  with up to
99 percent paniculate collection efficiency, have been used on small regenerative furnaces,  but fabric
corrosion requires careful temperature control.  Electrostatic precipitators have an efficiency of up to
99 percent in the collection of particulates.  Tables 11.15-1 and 11.15-2 list  controlled and
uncontrolled emission factors for glass manufacturing.  Table 11.15-3 presents particle size
distributions and  corresponding  emission factors for uncontrolled and controlled glass melting
furnaces, and these are depicted in Figure 11.15-5.

       Emissions from the forming and finishing phases depend upon the type of glass  being
manufactured.  For container, press, and blow machines, the majority of emissions results from the
gob coming into contact with the machine lubricant.  Emissions, in the form of a dense white cloud
mat can exceed 40 percent opacity, are generated by flash vaporization of hydrocarbon greases and
oils.  Grease and oil lubricants are being replaced by silicone emulsions and water soluble oils, which
may virtually eliminate this smoke. For  flat glass, the only contributor to air pollutant emissions is
gas combustion in the annealing lehr (oven), which is totally enclosed except for product entry and
exit openings.  Since emissions  are small and operational procedures are efficient,  no controls are
used on flat glass processes.
 11.15-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
o
oo
       Table 11.15-1 (Metric And English Units). PARTICULATE, SULFUR OXIDES, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSION FACTORS
                                          FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING3
                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Raw materials handlingb (all types of glass)
Melting furnace0
Container
Uncontrolled

w/low-energy scrubber*1
w/venturi scrubber6
w/baghousef
w/electrostatic precipitatorg
Flat
Uncontrolled

w/low-energy scrubbed
w/venturi scrubber6
w/baghousef
w/electrostatic precipitatorg
Pressed and blown
Uncontrolled

Paniculate
kg/Mg
Neg


0.7
(0.4 - 0.9)
0.4
<0.1
Neg
Neg

1.0
(0.4-1.0)
0.5
Neg
Neg
Neg

8.4
(0.5 - 12.6)
Ib/ton
Neg


1.4
(0.9 - 1.9)
0.7
0.1
Neg
Neg

2.0
(0.8 - 3.2)
1.0
Neg
Neg
Neg

17.4
(1.0-25.1)
Sulfur
kg/Mg
0


1.7
(1.0-2.4)
0.9
0.1
1.7
1.7

1.5
(1.1 - 1.9)
0.8
0.1
1.5
1.5

2.8
(0.5 - 5.4)
Oxides
Ib/ton
0


3.4
(2.0 - 4.8)
1.7
0.2
3.4
3.4

3.0
(2.2 - 3.8)
1.5
0.2
3.0
3.0

5.6
(1.1- 10.9)
Nitrogen Oxides
kg/Mg
0


3.1
(1.6-4.5)
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1

4.0
(2.8 - 5.2)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0

4.3
(0.4 - 10.0)
Ib/ton
0


6.2
(3.3-9.1)
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2

8.0
(5.6 - 10.4)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0

8.5
(0.8 - 20.0)
1
E.
"0
"-!
o
o.
o.

    -------
  §

c«
•o
'x
O
c
a>
00
0
\-t
+J





g
"2
'x
O
1





od







PO
^~


fi
d




d

o\
d




v->
d



venturi scrubber6
S



>/")
od







rn
•^


VO
vi



oo


ts
d




-«
d



M
O
f
x>
"i



ID S^ S?
od Z Z







CO ^ g)
•* z z


'O q^ ^j
«« 2 "Z.



00 00
M z z

cs ^ S^
d Z Z




— S1 S1
d Z Z

M
2
ca
electrostatic precipil
ing and finishing
tainerh^
^ c = «
f g o J2
O ^^ ^<
tu

M Q
Z Z







^ Q
Z Z


*0 Q
Z Z



S?a
Z

§? Q
Z Z




a? Q

Is
1
"S
ised and blownhJ
glass manufacturing
VJ
£J "°
0^ i)
j
                                             °   -5)


                                             I   I
                                             en   .ii

                                             *   S
                                             •73   4>
                                             ®   0>

                                             i   M
                                             o.
                                             X
                                             W
                                                  o
                                o
                                                                i
                       c« ""*    o -2
                       4) t«     -tJ

                       Is    S I



                       c|    11
                       4> C    .- O

                       ^&   --B"
    CA




    C

                                             
                                                 ^ 'i .2 .2 S
                              «'tt   w
                                                                     .S


                                                                     5

                                                  « J3 S » « «>    e   -—
                                             ao

                                              §
                                              »
                                             Q
                                                      sU
                           H

V2   .^
4>   *->

g   «r
                                                    o ." .5 .5 .5 .c o-
                                                    o •—
                                                                     .2 e5 «

                                                  8-
                                                                 -
                                                                     '  ^

11.15-6
EMISSION FACTORS
  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
  CO

  I

  U

  uu
  Z
  O
  So
  CO
  Q

  U

  O
  Z
  s s
  og
  17- tJ

  &

  ii
  PQ ^^
  Ob "^
  
  H
         PQ
O


P
g

U
<
UH

Z
o
So
CO
U
c
2

•o
§
bo
^
^
« §
12 °
'>< ]S
O "~*
c
o
e
.g bo
W ^3
ea **
U bb
^

c
o
•"•
U


bo

"bb











c£
O
O




Q
Z



Q
Z
o




o


o





0




—
"bb
<*-
o
(U
Q*
5*

*rrt
4S
^
.s
*3
r-i
Raw materials hai
Melting furnace0
Container

Q Q
Z Z



Q Q
Z Z
rs d c^
d ' d
o



<~T
-* o — c
O i O
g,

^v
 d
i
o










T3
a>
43
o

Uncontrolled
w/low-energy

Q
Z



Q
Z
cs
d




»— H
d


d





d














u
>
bO
1
0>
1
_O
^

Q
Z



Q
Z
d
V



^-
d
V


d
V




d
V













UH
X)

w/venturi scru

Q
Z



Q
Z
d
V



_
d
V


d
V




d
V
















w/baghousef

Q Q
Z Z



Q Q
Z Z
i 2



_
? 5


d d
V




d d
V








em

O
ta
°s<

clc S

w/electrostatic
Pressed and bio1
Uncontrolled








d
1
o,

^^
d

g.
^^
~
^^>
^^


^T
d
_

d.















10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
                        Mineral Products Industry
11.15-7

    -------

  I







S
-1













B
2

— '




BO
S





1



bo
^b




I

^^




bo
"So






Process



Q
Z






Q
Z





0



o




CO
0




ca
o







w/low-energy scrubberd



Q
Z






Q





o



*•»«
O




CO
O




cs
0







w/venturi scrubber6



Q
Z






Q
Z





0



o




co
0




o'







w/baghousef



Q
Z






Q
Z





o



o




CO
O




o







w/electrostatic precipitator8



Q
Z






Q
Z





Z



S1
z




^
00




^-







Forming and finishing
Container11 -J



Q
Z






Q
Z





bO
57
Z



bo

co o
S3 O C
_eo jo gj
bo u co
<*-< JO W3

-P ;S? «; '3
g ~5b . $ g
2 a? e «> .2
-5 c I | J£
O «> o g -SJjiC
1 i l| II
BO O co
- 3 »-2 Si
e« e (U Va (U *r^
E *O ^ +•* "Jrt
1 « o 'S s 1
» ^«* **^ /*. .M «>
S ^2 B ° g "2
j; "5 DC OB
o< o bo J> Ss o
X .5 o M 2 °
U S x. is 2 *-
. {££ '5 .« S f
^ .2 B *: ^ §
JO en J> O g — •«
J-2 4>^i^4->o -0 P<
co S~-t*-W^* >-c>
£ * S) B _ W ^ «
^ ^o j2 .2 g ^ S3 o
^ ^2 V5 Q B ^ "Z3
•> B S P "S -2 13 Ui
=« '=?i!Rt/3'*> -rtS
D * ' S .83 E
J2 WiS^^^ ZE
E "^ _o *"* S ai "H
£ .83 -° > 12 r2 "'jo'
co 3 cO '^ '^ ^
1 !:-!!!|^!
1 lijiilli
OS ^"^ ° « i § "E ^
^j H-^^SSSS^C
•S •Saj"S.-i-|-|2cj
'bO «> . §* .0 _o _o '-1-
ii •p^'5a1boei06ObC2
11 g g .8 .S .S .S .s &<
bo 3tj>yyyijao
Z I'S'^'I'I'Sg-s
G-E3c — _.«^;
Reference 2-3,5. ND = no datj
produced.
Not separated into types of glass
almost all plants utilize some foi
Control efficiencies for the varic
Approximately 52% efficiency i
Approximately 95% efficiency i
Approximately 99% efficiency i
Calculated using data for furnaci
Organic emissions are from dec*
a xi o-u
o
t«
3
VJ
bo
.S
3
•s
e
's
0>
o

^^
12
o

o
g
2
•o
J3
"E
CO
*S-i
_O
•§
^
*j~!
•s
s
J-s
4>"^
'G o
j9 ^
"6 -d
efl" bO ^
C/3 *SJ CO
"ob"bb bo
E •* .S
? — ' E
c o ^
known.
For container and pressed and b
treatment process at a rate of <
References 6-7. Particulate conl
— . -*4
11.15-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                                    UNCOKTHOtilD
                                                  -*- u«ifhc pcrcnc
                                                  	 EaiMion factor
                                                    coirntOLLED
                                                          p«rc«ic
                                      Particle dl««»t«r, tai
 Figure 11.15-5.  Particle size distributions and emission factors for glass melting furnace exhaust.
  Table 11.15-3 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS
             FOR UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED MELTING FURNACES
                              IN GLASS MANUFACTURING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter, fim
2.5
6.0
10
Particle Size
Uncontrolled
91
93
95
Distribution15
ESP Controlledd
53
66
75
Size-Specific Emission
Factor, kg/Mgc
Uncontrolled
0.64
0.65
0.66
a References 8-11.
b Cumulative weight % of particles < corresponding particle size.
c Based on mass particulate emission factor of 0.7 kg/Mg glass produced, from Table 11.15-1.  Size-
  specific emission factor = mass particulate emission factor x particle size distribution, %/100.
  After ESP  control, size-specific emission factors are negligible.
d References 8-9.  Based on a single test.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.15-9

    -------
References For Section 11.15

1.     J. A. Danielson, ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Ed., AP-40,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of
       Print.

2.     Richard B. Reznik, Source Assessment: Flat Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/20-76-032b, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1976.

3.     J. R. Schoor, et al., Source Assessment: Glass Container Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/2-76-269, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1976.

4.     A. B. Tripler, Jr. and G. R. Smithson, Jr., A Review Of Air Pollution Problems And Control
       In The  Ceramic Industries, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, presented at the 72nd
       Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society, May 1970.

5.     J. R. Schorr, et al., Source Assessment: Pressed And Blown Glass Manufacturing Plants,
       EPA-600/77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, January 1977.

6.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

7.     Confidential test data, Pedco-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.

8.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In  The
       South Coast Air Basin, PS-293-923, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
       February 1979.

9.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information  System (FPEIS), Series Report  No. 219,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

10.    Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.  cit., Series No.  223.

11.    Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.  cit., Series No.  225.
 H.15-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
11.16 Gypsum Manufacturing

11.16.1  Process Description1"2

        Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4  • 2H2O), a white or gray naturally occurring
mineral. Raw gypsum ore is processed into a variety of products such as a portland cement additive,
soil conditioner, industrial and building plasters, and gypsum wallboard.  To produce plasters or
wallboard, gypsum must be partially dehydrated or calcined to produce calcium sulfate hemihydrate
(CaSO4  • ViH2O), commonly  called stucco.

        A flow diagram for a typical gypsum process producing both crude and finished gypsum
products is shown in Figure 11.16-1. In this process gypsum is crushed, dried, ground, and calcined.
Not all of the operations shown in Figure 11.16-1  are performed at all gypsum plants. Some plants
produce only wallboard, and many plants do not produce soil conditioner.

        Gypsum ore, from quarries and underground mines, is crushed and stockpiled  near a plant.
As needed, the stockpiled ore  is further crushed and screened to about 50 millimeters (2 inches) in
diameter. If the moisture content of the mined ore is greater than about 0.5 weight percent, the ore
must  be dried in a rotary dryer or a heated roller mill. Ore dried in a rotary dryer is conveyed to a
roller mill, where it is ground to the extent that 90 percent of it is less  149 micrometers (/mi)
(100 mesh).  The ground gypsum exits the mill in a gas stream and is collected in a product cyclone.
Ore is sometimes dried in the  roller mill by heating the gas stream, so that drying and grinding are
accomplished simultaneously and no rotary dryer is needed. The finely ground gypsum ore is known
as landplaster, which may  be used as a soil  conditioner.

        In most plants, landplaster is fed to  kettle calciners or flash calciners,  where it is heated to
remove three-quarters  of the chemically bound water to form stucco.  Calcination occurs at
approximately 120 to 150°C (250 to 300°F), and 0.908 megagrams (Mg) (1 ton) of gypsum calcines
to about 0.77 Mg (0.85 ton) of stucco.

        In kettle calciners,  the gypsum is indirectly heated by hot combustion  gas passed through flues
in the kettle, and the stucco product is discharged into a "hot pit" located below the kettle. Kettle
calciners may be operated in either batch or continuous mode.   In flash calciners, the gypsum is
directly contacted with hot gases, and the stucco product is collected at the bottom of the calciner.

        At some gypsum plants, drying, grinding,  and calcining are performed in heated impact mills.
In these mills hot gas contacts gypsum as it  is ground. The gas  dries and calcines the  ore and then
conveys the stucco to a product cyclone for  collection. The use of heated impact mills eliminates  the
need for rotary dryers, calciners, and roller  mills.

        Gypsum and stucco are usually transferred from one process to another by means of screw
conveyors or bucket elevators.  Storage bins or silos are normally located downstream of roller mills
and calciners but may  also be used elsewhere.
7/93 (Reforniatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                            11.16-1

    -------
                                                               G>
                                                                                                  Product
                                                                                                  Cyclone

[3 3-05-015-05, -06
E
B
IB
m
m
m
m
m
CD
E
[2
34)5-015-06
3-05-015-07
3-05-015-09
3-05-015-01
3-05-015-02
3-054)15-04
3-05-015-11, -12
3-05-015-14
3-05-015-18
3-05-015-17
3-05-015-21, -22
^—-^




Laadplaster
4 4
Conveying
m



                                                          Storage]
                                                  ©


T r
Conveying
s



                                                               f
                                                                                       Calciner
                                                                               Key to Enrissian Sources
                                                                             (T)   Point Source PM Emissions
                                                                                   Combustion Emissions

                                                                             (j)   Fugitive PM Emissions
                                                                                 Sold as
                                                                               Prefabricated
                                                                                 Board
                                                                                 Products
                Figure 11.16-1.  Overall process flow diagram for gypsum processing.2
11.16-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted  1/95) 7/93

    -------
        In the manufacture of plasters, stucco is ground further in a tube or ball mill and then batch-
mixed with retarders and stabilizers to produce plasters with specific setting rates.  The thoroughly
mixed plaster is fed continuously from intermediate storage bins to a bagging operation.

        In the manufacture of wallboard, stucco from storage is first mixed with dry additives such as
perlite, starch, fiberglass, or vermiculite.  This dry mix is combined with water, soap foam,
accelerators and shredded paper, or pulpwood  in a pin mixer at the head of a board forming line.
The slurry is then spread between 2 paper sheets that serve as a mold.  The edges of the paper are
scored, and sometimes chamfered, to allow precise folding of the paper to form the edges of the
board.  As the wet board travels the length of a conveying line, the  calcium sulfate hemihydrate
combines with the water hi the slurry  to form solid calcium sulfate dihydrate, or gypsum, resulting in
rigid board.  The board is rough-cut to length, and it enters a multideck kiln dryer,  where it is dried
by direct contact with hot combustion gases or by indirect steam heating. The dried board is
conveyed to the board end sawing area and is trimmed and bundled  for shipment.

11.16.2  Emissions And Controls2'7

        Potential emission sources in gypsum processing plants are shown in Figure 11.16-1. While
paniculate matter (PM)  is the dominant pollutant in gypsum processing plants, several sources may
emit gaseous pollutants  also. The major sources of PM emissions include rotary ore dryers, grinding
mills, calciners, and board end sawing operations.  Particulate matter emission factors for these
operations are shown in Table 11.16-1 and 11.16-2. In  addition, emission factors for PM less than or
equal to 10 fan in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) emissions from selected processes are presented in
Tables 11.16-1 and 11.16-2.  All of these factors are based on output production rates. Particle size
data for ore dryers, calciners, and board end sawing operations are shown in Tables 11.16-2 and
11.16-3.

        The uncontrolled emission factors presented in Table  11.16-1 and 11.16-2 represent the
process dust entering the emission control device.  It is important to note that emission control
devices are frequently needed to  collect the product from  some gypsum processes and, thus,  are
commonly thought of by the industry as process equipment and not as added control devices.

        Emissions sources in gypsum plants are most often controlled with fabric filters.  These
sources include:

        - rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)   - board  end sawing (SCC 3-05-015-21,-22)
        - roller mills (SCC 3-05-015-02)        - scoring and chamfering (SCC 3-05-015-_J
        - impact mills (SCC 3-05-015-13)       - plaster mixing and bagging (SCC 3-05-015-16,-17)
        - kettle calciners (SCC 3-05-015-11)     - conveying systems (SCC 3-05-015-04)
        - flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)      - storage bins (SCC 3-05-015-09,-10,-14)

Uncontrolled emissions  from scoring and chamfering, plaster mixing and bagging, conveying systems,
and storage bins are not well quantified.

        Emissions from some gypsum sources  are also controlled with electrostatic precipitators
(ESP).  These sources include rotary ore dryers, roller mills,  kettle calciners, and conveying systems.
Although rotary ore dryers may be controlled separately,  emissions from roller mills and conveying
systems are usually controlled jointly with kettle calciner  emissions.  Moisture in the kettle calciner
exit gas improves the ESP performance by lowering the resistivity of the dust.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                              11.16-3

    -------
      Table 11.16-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Crushers, screens, stockpiles, and
roads (SCC 3-05-015-05,-06,-07,-08)
Rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)
Rotary ore dryers w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-01)
Roller mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mill and kettle calciner
w/electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-02,-! 1)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
w/fabric filters (SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners w/cyclones
and electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)
Flash calciners w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-12)
Impact mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Impact mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Board end sawing-2.4-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21)
Board end sawing— 3. 7-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-22)
Board end sawing w/fabric filters--
2.4-and 3. 7-m boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21, -22)
Filterable PMb
_d
0.0042(FFF)1-7e
0.020S
1.3h
0.060h

0.050hJ

21k
0.0030k
0.050*
19m
0.020m

50?
0.010P
0.0401
0.0301
36r

PM-10
_d
0.00034(FFF)1-7
0.0052
ND
ND

ND

13
ND
ND
7.2m
0.017m

ND
ND
ND
ND
27r

CO2C
NA
12f
NA
NA
NA

ND

ND
NA
NA
55n
ND

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified. All emission factors are kg/Mg
  of output rate.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = not applicable.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
11.16-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                      Table 11.16-1 (cont.).

0 Typical pollution control devices generally have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions.
d Factors for these operations are in Sections 11.19 and 13.2.
e References 3-4,8,11-12.  Equation is for the emission rate upstream of any process cyclones and
  applies only to concurrent rotary ore dryers with flow rates of 7.5 cubic meters per second (m3/s)
  or less. FFF in the uncontrolled emission factor equation is "flow feed factor," the ratio of gas
  mass rate per unit dryer cross section area to the dry mass feed rate, in the following units:
  (kg/hr-m2 of gas flow)/(Mg/hr dry feed). Measured uncontrolled emission factors for 4.2 and
  5.7 m3/s range from 5 to 60 kg/Mg.
f References 3-4.
g References 3-4,8,11-12.  Applies to  rotary dryers with and without cyclones upstream of fabric
  filter.
h References 11-14. Applies to both heated and unheated roller mills.
J  References 11-14. Factor is for combined emissions from roller mills and kettle calciners, based on
  the sum of the roller mill and kettle  calciner output rates.
k References 4-5,11,13-14.  Emission  factors based on the kettle and the hot pit do not apply to batch
  kettle calciners.
mReferences 3,6,10.
n References 3,6,9.
p References 9,15.  As used here, an impact mill is a process unit used to dry, grind, and calcine
  gypsum simultaneously.
q References 4-5,16. Emission  factor units = kg/m2.  Based on 13-mm  board thickness and 1.2 m
  board width.  For other thicknesses, multiply the appropriate emission  factor by 0.079 times board
  thickness in mm.
r References 4-5,16. Emission  factor units = kg/106 m2.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.16-5

    -------
      Table 11.16-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING*

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Crushers, screens, stockpiles, and roads
(SCC 3-05-015-05,-06,-07,-08)
Rotary ore dryers (SCC 3-05-015-01)
Rotary ore dryers w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-01)
Roller mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-02)
Roller mill and kettle calciner
w/electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-02,-! 1)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners and hot pit
w/fabric filters (SCC 3-05-015-11)
Continuous kettle calciners w/cyclones
and electrostatic precipitators
(SCC 3-05-015-11)
Flash calciners (SCC 3-05-015-12)
Flash calciners w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-12)
Impact mills w/cyclones
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Impact mills w/fabric filters
(SCC 3-05-015-13)
Board end sawing— 8-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21)
Board end sawing- 12-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-22)
Board end sawing w/fabric filters-
8- and 12-ft boards
(SCC 3-05-015-21, -22)
Filterable PMb
_d
0.16(FFF)L77e
0.0406
2.6h
0.12h

0.090hJ

41k
0.0060k
0.090*
37m
0.040m

100P
0.020?
0.80<*
0.501
7.5r

PM-10
_d
0.013(FFF)L7
0.010
ND
ND

ND

26
ND
ND
14m
0.034171

ND
ND
ND
ND
5.7r

CO2°
NA
23f
NA
NA
NA

ND

ND
NA
NA
110"
ND

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise specified. All emission
  of output rate.  SCC = Source Classification Codes.  NA = not applicable. ND
                                     factors are Ib/ton
                                     = no data.
11.16-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                     Table 11.16-2 (cont.).

b Filterable PM is that participate collected on or prior to an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling
  train.
c Typical pollution control devices generally have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions.
d Factors for these operations are in Sections 8.19 and 13.2.
e References 3-4,8,11-12.  Equation is for the emission rate upstream of any process cyclones and
  applies only to concurrent rotary ore dryers with flow rates of 16,000 actual cubic feet per minute
  (acfm) or less.  FFF in the uncontrolled emission factor equation is "flow feed factor," the ratio of
  gas mass rate per unit dryer cross section area to the dry mass feed rate, in the following units:
  (lb/hr-ft2 of gas flow)/(ton/hr dry feed).  Measured  uncontrolled emission factors for 9,000 and
  12,000 acfm range from 10 to  120 Ib/ton.
f References 3-4.
£ References 3-4,8,11-12.  Applies to rotary dryers with and without cyclones upstream of fabric
  filter.
h References 11-14.  Applies to both heated and unheated roller mills.
J  References 11-14.  Factor is for combined  emissions from roller mills and kettle calciners, based  on
  the sum of the roller mill and kettle calciner output rates.
k References 4-5,11,13-14.  Emission factors based on the kettle and the hot pit do not apply to batch
  kettle calciners.
m References 3,6,10.
n References 3,6,9.
P References 9,15. As used here, an impact mill is a process unit used to dry, grind,  and  calcine
  gypsum simultaneously.
1 References 4-5,16. Emission factor units = lb/100 ft2. Based on  1/2-in. board thickness and 4-ft
  board width.  For other thicknesses,  multiply the appropriate emission  factor by 2 times  board
  thickness in inches.
r References 4-5,16. Emission factor units = lb/106 ft2.
          Table 11.16-3. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR
              UNCONTROLLED PM EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM PROCESSING3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Diameter
(Mm)
2.0
10.0
Cumulative % Less Than Diameter
Rotary Ore
Dryerb
Rotary Ore Dryer
With Cyclone0
Continuous Kettle
Calcinerd
Flash Calciner6
1 12 17 10
8 45 63 38
a Weight % given as filterable PM.  Diameter is given as aerodynamic diameter, except for
  continuous kettle calciner, which is given as equivalent diameter, as determined by Bahco and
  Sedigraph analyses.
b Reference 3.
c Reference 4.
d References 4-5.
e References 3,6.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.16-7

    -------
         Table 11.16-4. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR
    FABRIC FILTER-CONTROLLED PM EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM MANUFACTURING*

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Diameter
(tan)
2.0
10.0
Cumulative % Less Than Diameter
Rotary Ore Dryerb
9
26
Flash Calciner0
52
84
Board End Sawing0
49
76
a
  Aerodynamic diameters, Andersen analysis.
b Reference 3.
c Reference 3,6.
       Other sources of PM emissions in gypsum plants are primary and secondary crushers,
screens, stockpiles, and roads. If quarrying is part of the mining operation, PM emissions may also
result from drilling and blasting. Emission factors for some of these sources are presented in
Sections 11.19 and 13.2. Gaseous emissions from gypsum processes result from fuel combustion and
may include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide (CO^.  Processes
using  fuel  include rotary ore dryers, heated roller mills, impact mills, calciners, and board drying
kilns.  Although some  plants use residual fuel oil, the majority of the industry uses clean fuels such as
natural gas or distillate fuel oil. Emissions from fuel combustion may be estimated using  emission
factors presented in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 and fuel consumption data in addition to  those emission
factors presented in Table 11.16-1.

References For Section 11.16

 1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Volume 4, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
       New York, 1978.

 2.     Gypsum Industry - Background Information for Proposed Standards (Draft),
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  April 1981.

 3.     Source Emissions Test Report, Gold Bond Building  Products, EMB-80-GYP-1,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  November 1980.

 4.     Source Emissions Test Report, United States Gypsum Company,  EMB-80-GYP-2,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  November 1980.

 5.     Source Emission Tests, United States Gypsum Company Wallboard Plant, EMB-80-GYP-6,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  January 1981.

 6.     Source Emission Tests, Gold Bond Building Products, EMB-80-GYP-5, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December  1980.

 7.     S. Oglesby and G. B. Nichols, A Manual Of Electrostatic Precipitation Technology,  Part II:
       Application Areas, APTD-0611, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH,
       August 25, 1970.

 11.16-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 8.     Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted On The Rock Dryer And No. 3 Calcidyne
       Unit, Gold Bond Building Products, Report No. 5767, Rosnagel and Associates, Medford,
       NJ, August 3, 1979.

 9.     Paniculate Analysis Of Calcinator Exhaust At Western Gypsum Company, Kramer, Callahan
       and Associates, Rosario, NM, April 1979. Unpublished.

10.    Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted On The #7 Calcidyner Baghouse Exhaust At The
       National Gypsum Company, Report No. 2966, Rossnagel and Associates, Atlanta, GA,
       April 10, 1978.

11.    Report To  United States Gypsum Company On Paniculate Emission Compliance Testing,
       Environmental Instrument Systems, Inc., South Bend, IN, November 1975. Unpublished.

12.    Paniculate Emission Sampling And Analysis, United States Gypsum Company, Environmental
       Instrument Systems, Inc., South Bend, IN, July 1973. Unpublished.

13.    Written communication from Wyoming Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY, to
       M. Palazzolo, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, 1980.

14.    Written communication from V. J. Tretter, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Atlanta, GA, to
       M. E. Kelly, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, November 14, 1979.

15.    Telephone communication between M. Palazzolo, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, and
       D. Louis, C. E. Raymond Company, Chicago, IL, April 23, 1981.

16.    Written communication from M. Palazzolo, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, to
       B. L. Jackson, Weston Consultants, West Chester, PA, June 19, 1980.

17.    Telephone communication between P. J. Murin, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC, and
       J. W. Pressler, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC,
       November 6, 1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.16-9

    -------

    -------
11.17  Lime Manufacturing

11.17.1  Process Description1'5

        Lime is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone.  Although limestone
deposits are found in every state, only a small portion is pure enough for industrial lime
manufacturing.  To be classified as limestone, the rock must contain at least 50 percent calcium
carbonate.  When the rock contains 30 to 45 percent magnesium carbonate, it is referred to as
dolomite, or dolomitic limestone.  Lime can also be produced from aragonite, chalk, coral, marble,
and sea shells.   The Standard Industry Classification (SIC) code for lime manufacturing is 3274.  The
six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for lime manufacturing is 3-05-016.

        Lime is manufactured  in various kinds of kilns by 1 of the following reactions:

        CaCO3  + heat -> CO2 +  CaO (high calcium lime)
        CaCO3 • MgC03 4- heat -» 2CO2  + CaO • MgO (dolomitic lime)

In some lime plants, the resulting  lime is reacted (slaked) with water to form  hydrated lime. The
basic processes  in the production of lime are:  (1) quarrying raw limestone; (2) preparing limestone
for the kilns by crushing and sizing; (3) calcining limestone; (4) processing the lime further by
hydrating; and  (5) miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling operations.  A generalized material
flow diagram for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Figure 11.17-1.  Note that some  operations
shown may  not  be performed in all plants.

        The heart of a lime plant is the kiln.  The prevalent type of kiln is the rotary kiln, accounting
for about 90 percent of all lime production in the United States.  This kiln is  a long, cylindrical,
slightly inclined, refractory-lined furnace, through which the limestone and hot combustion gases pass
countercurrently.  Coal, oil, and natural gas may all be fired in rotary kilns.  Product coolers and kiln
feed preheaters of various types are commonly  used to recover heat from the hot lime product and hot
exhaust gases, respectively.

        The next most common type of kiln in the United States is the vertical, or shaft, kiln.  This
kiln  can be described as an upright heavy  steel  cylinder lined with  refractory material.  The limestone
is  charged at the top and is calcined as it descends slowly to discharge at the bottom of the kiln.  A
primary advantage of vertical kilns over rotary  kilns is higher average fuel efficiency. The primary
disadvantages of vertical kilns are  their relatively low production rates and the fact that coal cannot be
used without degrading the quality of the lime produced. There have been few recent vertical kiln
installations in the United States because of high product quality requirements.

        Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized bed kilns. Both kiln
types can achieve high production  rates, but neither can operate with coal.  The "calcimatic" kiln, or
rotary hearth kiln, is a circular kiln with a slowly revolving doughnut-shaped hearth. In fluidized bed
kilns, finely divided limestone  is brought into contact with hot combustion air in a turbulent zone,
usually above a perforated grate.   Because of the amount of lime carryover into the exhaust gases,
dust collection equipment must be installed on fluidized bed kilns for process economy.

        Another alternative process that is beginning to  emerge in the United  States  is the parallel
flow regenerative (PR) lime kiln.  This process combines 2 advantages.  First, optimum

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.17-1

    -------
                                    HIGH CALCIUM AND DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE
X
f
QUARRY AND MINE OPERATIONS
(DRILLING, BLASTING. AND
CONVEYING BROKEN LIMESTONE)
'
, ©
                                           RAW MATERIAL STORAGE
                                                        ©
                                             PRIMARY CRUSHING
                                          (S) =3-05-016-02
                                          © =M5-016-03TO-06,-17to-23
                                          ©=3-05-016-07
                                             =30^016-08
                                             = 105-01 6-09
                                                                                = 305-016-11
                                          ©=3-05-016-13
                                             =305016-14
                                          © =3OSO16-1S
                                             =3J35O16-16
                                          © =305016-24

                                          © = 3-05-016-25
                                          ©=305-016-26
                                          © = 3O5O16-27
                                                                                                          DESCRIPTION
                    PRIMARY CRUSHING
                    SECONDARY CRUSHING/SCREENING
                    CALCINING
                    RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                    RAW MATERIAL UNLOADING
                    HYDRATOR: ATMOSPHERIC
                    RAW MATERIAL STORAGE PILES
                    PRODUCT COOLER
                    PRESSURE HYDRATOR
                    LIME SILOS
                    PACKAGING/SHIPPING
                    PRODUCT TRANSFER
                    PRIMARY SCREENING
                    CONVEYOR TRANSFER. PRIMARY
                    CRUSHED MATERIAL
                    SECONDARY/TERTIARY SCREENING
                    PRODUCT LOADING. ENCLOSED TRUCK
                    PRODUCT LOADING, OPEN TRUCK
                                        SCREENING AND CLASSIFICATION I
                                        0.64-6.4 c 	.  _
                                         FOR ROTARY KILNS
                                            SECONDARY CRUSHING
                                  - I    SCREENING AND CLASSIFICATION (£
            £   Z   P
            I   !   I
            88"
            M
[    SCRgNING AND CLASSIFICATION @
>
. 0
       LIMESTONE PRODUCTS
PULVERIZED
STONE
>
0 o

1
, ©
SCREENING

QUICKLIME
i


'
0
f
PEBBLE AND LUMP QUICKLIME

              O
                          . HIGH CALCIUM AND
                           DOLOMITIC Of4LY
     -L
                                                   CRUSHING AND PULVERIZING
   OOLOMITIC
" QUICKLIME ONLY "
                           o
           o
                                                                                                        WATER AND/OR
                                                                                                           STEAM
                                                                                           PRESSURE HYDRATOR
                                                      MAX SIZE 0.54-1.3 cm
                                               GROUND AND PULVERIZED QUICKLIME
>
r
HIGH CALCIUM AND DOLOMITIC ^)
NORMAL HYDRATED LIME s~>.
STORAGE. PACKAGING. AND SHIPRNG \J$J
©
1

DOLOMITIC PRESSURE (7)
HYDRATED LIME STORAGE. 5^
PACKAGING. AND SHIPPING (£)
©
©
                        Figure  11.17-1.  Process flow diagram  for lime manufacturing.4
                                         (SCC  = Source Classification  Code.)
11.17-2
               EMISSION FACTORS
                                            1/95

    -------
heating conditions for lime calcining are achieved by concurrent flow of the charge material and
combustion gases. Second, the multiple-chamber regenerative process uses the charge material as the
heat transfer medium to preheat the combustion air.  The basic PR system has 2 shafts, but 3 shaft
systems are used with small size grains to address the increased flow resistance associated with
smaller feed sizes.

       In the 2-shaft system, the shafts alternate functions, with 1 shaft serving as the heating shaft
and the other as the flue gas shaft.  Limestone is charged alternatively to the 2 shafts and flows
downward  by gravity flow. Each shaft includes a heating zone, a combustion/burning zone, and a
cooling zone.  The 2 shafts are connected in the middle to allow gas flow between them.  In the
heating shaft,  combustion air flows downward through the heated charge material. After being
preheated by the charge material, the combustion air combines with the fuel (natural gas or oil), and
the air/fuel mixture is fired downward into the  combustion zone.  The hot combustion gases pass
from the combustion zone in the heating shaft to the combustion zone in the flue gas shaft. The
heated exhaust gases flow upward through the flue gas shaft combustion zone and into the preheating
zone where they heat the charge material. The function of the 2 shafts reverses on a 12-minute cycle.
The bottom of both shafts  is a cooling zone.  Cooling air flows upward through  the shaft
countercurrently to the flow of the  calcined product. This air mixes with the combustion gases in the
crossover area providing additional combustion air. The product flows by gravity from the bottom of
both shafts.

       About 15 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked) lime.  There are
2 kinds of hydrators:  atmospheric  and pressure.  Atmospheric hydrators, the more prevalent type,
are used  in continuous  mode to produce high-calcium and dolomitic hydrates.  Pressure hydrators, on
the other hand, produce only a completely hydrated dolomitic lime and operate only in batch mode.
Generally,  water sprays or wet scrubbers perform the hydrating process and prevent product loss.
Following hydration, the product may be milled and then conveyed to air separators for further
drying and removal of coarse fractions.

       The major uses of lime are metallurgical (aluminum,  steel, copper, silver, and gold
industries), environmental  (flue gas desulfurization, water softening, pH control, sewage-sludge
destabilization, and hazardous  waste treatment), and construction (soil stabilization, asphalt additive,
and masonry lime).

11.17.2  Emissions  And Controls1"*'33

       Potential air pollutant emission points in lime manufacturing plants are indicated by SCC in
Figure 11.17-1.  Except for gaseous pollutants  emitted from kilns, paniculate matter (PM) is the only
dominant pollutant.  Emissions of filterable PM from rotary lime kilns constructed or modified after
May 3, 1977 are regulated to  0.30  kilograms per megagram  (kg/Mg) (0.60 pounds per ton [lb/ton])
of stone feed under 40  CFR Part 60, subpart HH.

       The largest ducted source of particulate is the kiln. The properties of the limestone feed and
the ash content of the coal (in coal-fired kilns) can significantly affect PM emission rates.  Of the
various kiln types, fiuidized beds have the highest levels of uncontrolled PM emissions because of the
very small  feed rate combined with the high air flow through these kilns.  Fiuidized bed kilns are
well controlled for maximum  product recovery.  The rotary kiln is second worst in uncontrolled PM
emissions because of the small feed rate and relatively high air velocities and because of dust
entrainment caused by the  rotating chamber.  The calcimatic (rotary hearth) kiln ranks third in dust
production primarily because of the larger feed  rate and the fact that, during calcination, the limestone
remains stationary relative to the hearth.  The vertical kiln has the lowest uncontrolled dust emissions

1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                             11.17-3

    -------
due to the large lump feed, the relatively low air velocities, and the slow movement of material
through the kiln.  In coal-fired kilns, the properties of the limestone feed and the ash content of the
coal can significantly affect PM emissions.

        Some sort of paniculate control is generally applied to most kilns.  Rudimentary fallout
chambers and cyclone separators are commonly  used to control the larger particles. Fabric and
gravel bed  filters, wet (commonly venturi) scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are used for
secondary control.

        Carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide  (CO^,  sulfur dioxide (S02), and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) are all produced in kilns. Sulfur dioxide  emissions are influenced by several factors, including
the sulfur content of the fuel, the sulfur content  and mineralogical form (pyrite or gypsum) of the
stone  feed, the  quality of lime being produced, and the type of kiln.  Due to variations in these
factors, plant-specific SO2 emission factors are likely to vary significantly from the average emission
factors presented here. The dominant source of sulfur emissions is the kiln's fuel, and the vast
majority of the fuel sulfur is not emitted because of reactions with calcium oxides in the kiln.  Sulfur
dioxide emissions may be further reduced if the  pollution equipment uses a wet process or if it brings
CaO and SO2 into intimate contact.

        Product coolers are emission sources only  when some of their exhaust gases are not recycled
through the kiln for use as combustion air. The trend is away from the venting of product cooler
exhaust, however, to maximize fuel use efficiencies.  Cyclones,  baghouses, and wet scrubbers have
been used on coolers for paniculate control.

        Hydrator emissions are low because water sprays or wet scrubbers are usually installed to
prevent product loss in the exhaust gases.  Emissions from pressure hydrators may be higher than
from the more  common atmospheric hydrators because the exhaust gases are released intermittently,
making control more difficult.

        Other paniculate sources in lime plants include  primary  and secondary crushers, mills,
screens, mechanical  and pneumatic transfer operations,  storage piles, and roads.  If quarrying is  a
part of the  lime plant operation, paniculate emissions may also result from drilling and blasting.
Emission factors for some of these operations  are presented in Sections  11.19 and  13.2 of this
document.

        Tables  11.17-1 (metric units) and 11.17-2  (English units) present emission factors for PM
emissions from lime manufacturing calcining,  cooling, and hydrating.  Tables 11.17-3 (metric units)
and 11.17-4 (English units) include emission factors for the mechanical  processing (crushing,
screening,  and  grinding) of limestone and for some materials handling operations.  Section 11.19,
Construction Aggregate Processing, also includes stone processing emission factors that are based on
more  recent testing,  and, therefore, may be more representative of emissions from stone crushing,
grinding, and screening.  In addition, Section  13.2, Fugitive Dust Sources, includes emission factors
for materials handling that may be more representative of materials handling emissions than the
emission factors in Tables 11.17-3 and  11.17-4.

        Emission factors for emissions of SO2, NOX, CO, and CO2 from lime manufacturing are
presented in Tables  11.17-5 and 11.17-6. Particle size  distribution for rotary lime kilns is provided in
Table 11.17-7.
11.17-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
  O
  •z.
  a
  o

  u.
  go
  H <

  ^  -
  < O
  &-Z


  Si
  U3 O
  D
  •s

o
23
1
o
O


la
3
1
£



|||
2
1
2oz
co H —
£3 o h
2
0
c
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
o
Q.
1||
— o ^
ft.
Source

BJ UJ
X
00 \O
v> O
o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QO
zzzzzzz zzz z
Q UJ Q UJ UJ Q UJ U
<». 8 CT w « ^ O X
^» ^^ ^f .— < ^ ^^ *^ ^^
•O -H ^^c-j OO 
    -------
  8



1

3
at
Condens















"38
2
u
I








is
ffiU
wfc
O
1

1
o
ISSION 1
CTOR |
S ^
m ^

O
^
Oh

°S
o
c
is
WH
to u
S jj-
UJ





o ^
55 H
to c_>
2 [^

0
H
a


o
i
1


O
Z
5
oi

i
i
o
CO



Q
Z


UJ




^
2
o







Q
Z


u





Tf



o
as-fired calcimatic kiln (SCC 3-05-016
O



Q









Q
Z






Q
Z


Q




N
l-H
0



.c
'I
2 t^
MO
1
}S
si
o



Q


Q



a
5
§
o







Q
Z


Q



I
§
6





tmospheric hydrator with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-016-09)
<



Q
Z


U




^
o
o







Q
Z


U




CO





539
§9
W fr\
1 °
s£
OH


1
1
"S
3
1
!
o,
a>
.§

"o
bO
S
"So
c/5
u.
3
CJ
<*-
£j
g
"v>
CA
'e
i>
3
•
v
I
VI
'i
&
j=
o
C/3
O)
"c
3
CA
•i
'S




























a>
•a
o
O
c
.—
co
o
S
1
c
Factors represent uncontrolled e
ND = no data. SCC = Source
«







e
'S
**
w
.S
1*
ee

S
_S
'3
Ix

>n

*o
1

U
C3
CO
<4-<
o
a3
_2
S
«
.^
3
_o
'C
c.
Ui
O
C
o
•g
ts
O)
"o
o
OH
«
•S
VI
OH
a>
i
S
•*— »
E
JO















"cO

bl)
B
•^
CO
V3

«
C4_
O
O
'S
o
Q.
a>
SP
'S<
4>
•s
_c
^
^
Condensable PM is that PM coll
References 9-10.
o -a




































References 4,9-10.
References 9,11.
u <—
                                                                                        1
                                                                                        •a
                                                                                        S
                                                                                        a.
                                                                                        to


                                                                                        i
                                                                                        to
                                                                                        w<
                                                                                        T3
                                                      CM
                                                                      O

                                                                     • WT",
                                                     13
                                                     1/3
                                                     4H»

                                                     'c
                                                   .
                                                 ON *"^
                                                  cccccccccc
                                                 OBJ:
OO
CC
                                            OO
                                            BC
                                                                                    OOO
                                                                                    CCC
                                                                                     Qi D<
11.17-6
EMISSION FACTORS
            1/95

    -------
  o

  z
  U
  o
  z
  I

  I
  S
  s p
  U-
  "*" O"
  ^ S
  o 3
  1°

  /—N
  C^
  ^J
  "c
  e
  rN
  D


  1

  H
loi
li§
o
o 'c
s a
0. J;
0 O
3
ca
tM

W Z ^ r^
Ts 2 o z
3 sug
0
'c
&
£r
Q
J
55 H —
o
s

J5
CO *7
IH ^" QJ r»}
J3 2O Z
E MM P

2
o.








U
0
CO






W
0
-1 QQQQQQQ QQQ
ZZZ Z ZZZ ZZZ







Q U Q M OJ Q U
S o- i. . T* - t-
u~ oo oo es oo oo oo
en en eN CN ^ O O
^ Q°QOOOQ O Q o"
Z Z Z Z
Q Q Q
I/I C
— < en
^ Q<=>-*QQQQ QQQ
"t Z ZZZZ ZZZ


Q Q Q Q Q W W W QQU
"06 a. r~ o\ T-
C^l *O ^T *^ O^ OO t^»
Q "Q OOO^^OOQ O^^^
»/^ c-» °° oo
en »-i
u
•n J
u w '§ I 1
is o S > ^ J
-2S OT *5 ^ *^ —
*o ~c -° .^3 ^ '>

£? "-§ CO I 0- 2 C C S .-§ — ^
45««2 U > g &3 32 t.^ If
5vi5 £ £ j- ^ =;. ^-^Su
^ 9 ^ '^ '^ 'I 'I 1 1 "*> 2 ® 1
i?igi?i2|2|?|f|f|«|St?
s? 3% 3! I*! i^s 1*1 ^9 ^s "l^o !i" I"!
2 to QCO o>/^ oio 010 ^>v^ ^>o rti/^ ^s ^"^ o SG' o u"i
O ^— ' O O O CO uO Wlo "^ ._ ^ O
"c3co'«;t>'e3co'c3cO'«CO toCO ico"« Q
z z







W UJ

X t^
»-< cs
Q *•* O
z

QQQ
ZZZ


U W U

CN «
*"* "^ fc.
o\

^>
o *-<
§, 3
5 5 'C
"> '> -^

^ J3 T3
2 a =
1-1 ^-^ fcH
'S C^ 'S =8 C
" \O " fe, ~
tg tj^l?
3 en 3 > o •- o
||||S p
°* S rt G *"

6 u ^ o ^
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-7

    -------






















/•\
•g
o
£*,

q
o










Q
Z

Q

3
i
d





(H
U
i
g
o
CO
I
£

tmospheric hydrator w
(SCC 3-05-016-09)
<






Q
Z


U




s
q
o










Q
Z

w


oo
V5










t-i
"o
8
13
3
O
0.













































(SCC 3-05-016-11)


rt
13
•o
o

II
Q
•8
1
"c
"2
3
"O
O
o.
4)
£
(4-1
O


*
^

^M
0>
01
Cfl
3
o

1
4)
'i
1
o
i
c
3
en
C
'35
C/2
4)
1

1
Z
O
O
C
3
Factors represent
a








.S
'53
i




s
4>
_>
O"
4)

t-4
^O,
m

•o

4>
2

I
"o
fe
4K*
4)
O
o
*C
Q.
1-1
O
. 0
ll
^>a
c =
o o
'*2 °
W L_,
0 ^
s »<
« 4-.
co 15
«3 e
SCC = Source Cl
Filterable PM is tl
.0

















.
.^*

u.
60
_e

"o.
53
CO
»«ej
«
VhH
O
_O
O
e.
4)
bo
'S,
.E
(U
•s

.s
s
4)
"o
*5
a, ^
*-» 	 ! CO
S^S T^ *" "
f* CO ^^ ^"^
•S oT^^
.^2 - cs^oo"^ r- ^t
^5 * ^_H • OO hi .11 ^2
^--t ^D i ^~* T"H ^5 OO ^5 ^O CO CO
£^4 ^-H ON *™^ ^ »T ^^ ""^ '~H 0s! '"^ , i-T
«> ON ^ oC • O -H -^ i^T -^ oo" oo* 2 ^-i r^ oo ^-H so
]S c«c«c« c«c«vac/5c/3c/5 c/5
c54>a)a>a>a>ooa)Oi>4>D(t>(i>
t^CJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
cccccccccccccccccc
fl)DDCU^^l>ODD'Dl>4)i)4>^4>(D
*ri u(U1>O^OJ4> ,1) ^> <1> O ^> d> 1>
Oa>^>3>
    d>^J4i<1^0>Cl>W
^fi^r^f^r^f^f^f^f^f^r^r^Mf^r^r^fyif^
OTJ O <**-> W) J= .— , ^ S C CXCTu- cn^ 3 > ^





























1
^j
"§
a.

i^
T3
1>
13
Ui
•p
,e
(*-(
O
C
o
JD
4>
w
en
Reference 32.
Reference 23.
Reference 34.
Reference 22; unil
X >, N a
11.17-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 11.17-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
             RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING3
Source
Primary crusher0
(SCC 3-O5-016-01)
Scalping screen and hammermill (secondary crusher)0
(SCC 3-05-016-02)
Primary crusher with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-OlfrOl)
Primary screen with fabric filter0
(SCC 3-05-016-16)
Crushed material conveyor transfer with fabric filte/
(SCC 3-05-016-24)
Secondary and tertiary screen with fabric filter8
(SCC 3-05-016-25)
Product transfer and conveying
(SCC 3-05-016-15)h
Product loading, enclosed truck
(SCC 3-05-016-26)h
Product loading, open truck
(SCC 3-05-016-27)h

PM
0.0083

0.31

0.00021

0.0030

4.4xlO-5

6.5X10'5

1.1

0.31

0.75

Filterable1*
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

E

D

D

D

D

E

D

D

PM-10
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


















  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are kg/Mg of
    material processed unless noted. ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
    sampling train.
  c Reference 6; units of kg/Mg of stone processed.
  d Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Includes scalping
    screen, scalping screen discharges, primary crusher, primary crusher discharges, and ore
    discharge.
  e Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Includes primary
    screening,  including the screen feed, screen discharge, and surge bin discharge.
  f Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Based on average of
    three runs each of emissions from two conveyor transfer points on the conveyor from the
    primary crusher to the primary stockpile.
  g Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed.  Based on sum of
    emissions from two emission points that include conveyor transfer point for the  primary
    stockpile underflow to the secondary screen, secondary screen, tertiary screen, and tertiary
    screen discharge.
  h Reference 10; units of kg/Mg of product loaded.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-9

    -------
     Table 11.17-4 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
            RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING*
Source
Primary crusher0
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Scalping screen and hammermill (secondary crusher)
(SCC 3-05-016-02)°
Primary crusher with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-016-01)
Primary screen with fabric filter6
(SCC 3-05-016-16)
Crushed material conveyor transfer with fabric filter^
(SCC 3-05-016-24)
Secondary and tertiary screen with fabric filter8
(SCC 3-05-016-25)
Product transfer and conveying
(SCC 3-05-016-15)h
Product loading, enclosed truck
(SCC 3-05-016-26)h
Product loading, open truck
(SCC 3-05-016-27)h
Filterable15
PM
0.017


0.62
0.00043

0.00061

8.8xlO-5

0.00013

2.2
0.61
1.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E


E
D

D

D

D

E
D
D
PM-10
ND


ND
ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING















  a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are Ib/ton of
   material processed unless noted.  ND = no data.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
   sampling train.
  c Reference 6; factors are Ib/ton.
  d Reference 34.  Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Includes scalping screen, scalping
   screen discharges, primary crusher, primary crusher discharges, and ore discharge.
  e Reference 34.  Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Includes primary screening,  including
   the screen feed, screen discharge, and surge bin discharge.
  f Reference 34.  Factors are Ib/ton of material processed.  Based on average of three runs each
   of emissions from two conveyor transfer points on the conveyor from the primary crusher to
   the primary stockpile.
  g Reference 34.  Emission factors in units of kg/Mg of material processed. Based on sum of
   emissions from two emission points that include conveyor transfer point for the primary
   stockpile underflow to the secondary screen, secondary screen, tertiary screen,  and tertiary
   screen discharge.
  h Reference 10; units  are Ib/ton of product loaded.
11.17-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
Ul
                       Table 11.17-5 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING3
Source
Coal-fired rotary kiln
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Coal-fired rotary kiln with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Coal-fired rotary kiln with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Gas-fired rotary kiln (SCC 3-05-016-19)
Coal- and gas-fired rotary kiln with
venturi scrubber (SCC 3-05-016-20)
Coal- and coke-fired rotary kiln with
venturi scrubber (SCC 3-05-016-21)
Coal-fired rotary preheater kiln
with dry PM controls
(SCC 3-05-016-22)
Coal-fired rotary preheater kiln with
multiclone, water spray, and fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-016-22)
Gas-fired calcimatic kiln
(SCC 3-05-016-05)
Gas-fired parallel flow regenerative kiln
with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-016-23)
Product cooler (SCC 3-05-016-11)
SO2b
2.71

0.83h

0.15)

ND

ND

ND

1.1
    -------
                                                               Table 11.17-5 (cont.).
m
C/3
C/3
O

Tl
>
O
00
         h References 18,29,31.
         J  Reference 25.
         k Reference 13.
         •"Reference 12.
         " Reference 17.
         P Reference 28.
         q References 16,24.
         r Reference 32.
         s Reference 23.
         1  Reference 34.

    -------
VO
                             Table 11.17-6 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING8
Source
Coal-fired rotary kiln
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Coal-fired rotary kiln with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Coal-fired rotary kiln with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-016-18)
Gas-fired rotary kiln (SCC 3-05-016-19)
Coal- and gas fired rotary kiln with
venturi scrubber (SCC 3-05-016-20)
Coal- and coke-fired rotary kiln with
venturi scrubber (SCC 3-05-016-21)
Coal-fired rotary preheater kiln with dry
PM controls (SCC 3-05-016-22)
Coal-fired rotary preheater kiln with
multiclone, water spray, and fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-016-22)
Gas-fired calcimatic kiln
(SCC 3-05-016-05)
Gas-fired parallel flow regenerative kiln
with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-016-23)
Product cooler
(SCC 3-05-016-11)
EMISSION
FACTOR
SO2b RATING
5.4d D
1.7h D
0.30) D
ND
ND
ND
2.3'' E
6.4r E
ND

0.0012' D
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
SO3 RATING
ND
ND
0.21k E
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
NOX RATING
3.1e C
ND
ND
3.5m E
2.7" D
ND
ND
ND
0.15s D

0.24' D
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
CO RATING
1.5f D
ND
ND
2.2m E
0.83n D
ND
ND
6.3r E
ND

0.45' D
ND

C02C
3,2008
ND
ND
ND
3,200"
3,000?
ND
2,400r
2,700s

ND
7.8s

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C



D
D

E
E


E

s
5'
e.
^0
»-!
o
o.
o
Q.
C
       a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  Factors are Ib/ton of lime produced unless noted.
        SCC  = Source Classification Code.
       b Mass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility.
       c Mass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility.
       d References 9,18.
K-     e References 9,11,18,29,31.
•~     f References 18,25.
£     g References 8-9,24-27,29.
OJ
ND = no data.

    -------
                                                              Table 11.17-6 (cont.).
m
§
GO
GO
Tl
g
       h References 18,29,31.
       J  Reference 25.
       k Reference 13.
       m Reference 12.
       n Reference 17.
       P Reference 28.
       q References 16,24.
       r Reference 32.
       s Reference 23.
       1  Reference 34.

    -------
          Table 11.17-7. AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR ROTARY
                                       LIME KILNSa
Particle Size
(f-m)
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Mass Percent Less Than Stated Particle Size
Uncontrolled
Rotary Kiln
1.4
2.9
12
31
ND
Rotary Kiln With
Multiclone
6.1
9.8
16
23
31
Rotary Kiln
With ESP
14
ND
50
62
ND
Rotary Kiln With
Fabric Filter
27
ND
55
73
ND
  Reference 4, Table 4-28; based on A- and C-rated particle size data.  Source Classification Codes
  3-05-016-04, and -18 to -21.  ND = no data.
       Because of differences in the sulfur content of the raw material and fuel and in process
operations, a mass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific
facility than the SO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.17-5 and 11.17-6. In addition, CO2
emission factors estimated using a mass balance on carbon may be more representative for a specific
facility than the CO2 emission factors presented in Tables 11.17-5 and 11.17-6.  Additional
information on estimating emission factors for CO2 emissions from lime kilns can be found in the
background report for this AP-42 section.

References For Section 11.17

 1.     Screening Study For Emissions Characterization From Lime Manufacture, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0299,  Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, August 1974.

 2.     Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Proposed Standards Of
       Performance For Lime Manufacturing Plants, EPA-450/2-77-007a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1977.

 3.     National Lime Association, Lime Manufacturing, Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
       Buonicore, Anthony J. and Wayne T. Davis (eds.), Air and Waste Management  Association,
       Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992.

 4.     J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry—Source Category Report, Volume I: Lime Industry,
       EPA-600/7-86-031, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  September
       1986.

 5.     Written communication from J. Bowers, Chemical  Lime Group, Fort Worth, TX, to R.
       Marinshaw, Midwest  Research Institute, Gary, NC, October 28, 1992.

 6.     Air Pollution Emission Test, J. M. Brenner Company, Lancaster, PA, EPA Project
       No. 75-STN-7, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards,  Research Triangle Park, NC, November  1974.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.17-15

    -------
7.     D. Crowell et al., Test Conducted at Marblehead Lime Company, Beliefonte, PA, Report on
       the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse, Marblehead, Lime Company, Chicago,
       IL, July 1975.

8.     Stack Sampling Report of Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted on Kiln No. 1 at J.
       E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, Princeton Chemical Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ,
       March  1975.

9.     W. R. Feairheller, and T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Virginia Lime  Company,
       Ripplemead, VA, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 11, (EPA, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards), Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, May 1975.

10.     G. T. Cobb et  al., Characterization oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions from a Lime
       Plant, Vol. I, EPA-600/X-85-342a, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  May 1983.

11.     W. R. Feairheller et al., Source Test of a Lime Plant, Standard Lime Company, Woodville,
       OH,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 12 (EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards), Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, December  1975.

12.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Dow Chemical, Freepon,  TX, Project Report No. 74-LIM-6,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
       Research Triangle Park,  NC, May 1974.

13.     J. B. Schoch, Exhaust Gas Emission Study, J. E.  Baker Company,  Millersville, OH, George
       D. Clayton and Associates, Southfield, MI, June 1974.

14.     Stack Sampling Repon of Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted on Kiln No. 2
       Scrubber at J.  E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, Princeton Chemical Research,  Inc.,
       Princeton, NJ,  May 1975.

15.     R. L. Maurice and P. F. Allard, Stack Emissions on No. 5 Kiln, Paul Lime Plant, Inc.,
       Engineers Testing Laboratories, Inc., Phoenix, AZ, June 1973.

16.     R. L. Maurice, and P. F. Allard, Stack Emissions Analysis, U.S. Lime Plant, Nelson, AZ,
       Engineers Testing Laboratories, Inc., Phoenix, AZ, May 1975.

17.     T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Allied Products Company, Montevallo, AL, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task 20 (EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards),
       Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, September  1975.

18.     T. L. Peltier, Air Pollution Emission Test, Manin-Marietta Corporation, Calera, AL, (Draft),
       EMB Project No. 76-LIM-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  Air Quality
       Planning and Standards,  Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1975.

19.     Repon on the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 1 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), August  1977.

20.     Repon on the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 2 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), May 1977.
11.17-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
21.    Report on the Paniculate Emissions from a Lime Kiln Baghouse (Exhibit 3 supplied by the
       National Lime Association), May 1977.

22.    Air Pollution Emission Test, U.S. Lime Division, Flintkote Company, City of Industry, CA,
       Report No. 74-LIM-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning  and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

23.    T. L. Peltier and H. D. Toy, Paniculate and Nitrogen  Oxide Emission Measurements from
       Lime Kilns, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task No. 17, (EPA, National Air Data Branch,
       Research  Triangle Park, NC), Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, October 1975.

24.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Kilns 4, 5, and 6, Manin-Marietta Chemical Corporation,
       Woodville, OH, EMB Report No. 76-LIM-12, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.

25.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Kilns 1 and 2, J. E. Baker Company, Millersville, OH, EMB
       Project No. 76-LIM-ll, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning  and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.

26.    Paniculate Emission Tests Conducted on the Unit #2 Lime Kiln in Alabaster, Alabama, for
       Allied Products Corporation, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL,  October 1990.

27.    Paniculate Emission Tests Conducted on #1 Lime Kiln  in Alabaster, Alabama, for Allied
       Products  Corporation,  Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds,  AL, October 1991.

28.    Mass Emission Tests Conducted on the #2 Rotary Lime  Kiln in  Saginaw, Alabama, for SI Lime
       Company, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL, October 1986.

29.    Flue Gas  Characterization Studies Conducted on the #4 Lime Kiln in Saginaw,  Alabama, for
       DravoLime Company, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds,  AL, July 1991.

30.    R. D. Rovang, Trip Repon, Paul Lime Company, Douglas, /4Z, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, January 1973.

31.    T. E. Eggleston, Air Pollution Emission  Test, Bethlehem Mines Corporation Annville, PA,
       EMB Test No. 74-LIM-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
       Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1974.

32.    Air Pollution Emission Test, Marblehead Lime Company, Gary, Indiana, Report No.
       74-LIM-7, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1974.

33.    Written communication from A.  Seeger,  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, to R. Myers, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, RTP,  NC, November 3,  1993.

34.    Emissions Survey Conducted at Chemstar Lime Company, Located in Bancroft,  Idaho,
       American Environmental Testing Company, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah, February 26, 1993.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                          11.17-17

    -------

    -------
11.18 Mineral Wool Manufacturing

11.18.1  General1-2

        Mineral wool often is defined as any fibrous glassy substance made from minerals (typically
natural rock materials such as basalt or diabase) or mineral products such as slag and glass. Because
glass wool production is covered separately in AP-42 (Section 11.13), this section deals only with the
production of mineral wool from natural rock and slags such as iron blast furnace slag, the primary
material, and copper, lead, and phosphate slags.  These materials are processed into insulation and
other fibrous building materials that are used for structural strength and fire resistance. Generally,
these products take 1 of 4 forms:  "blowing" wool or "pouring" wool, which is put into the structural
spaces of buildings; batts, which may be covered with a vapor barrier of paper or foil and are shaped
to fit between the structural members of buildings; industrial and commercial products such as high-
density fiber felts and blankets, which are used for insulating boilers, ovens, pipes, refrigerators, and
other process equipment; and bulk fiber, which is used as a raw material in manufacturing other
products, such as ceiling tile, wall board, spray-on insulation, cement, and mortar.

        Mineral wool manufacturing facilities are included in Standard Industrial  Classification (SIC)
Code 3296, mineral wool.  This SIC code also includes the production of glass wool  insulation
products, but those facilities engaged in manufacturing textile glass fibers are included in SIC
Code 3229. The 6-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for mineral wool manufacturing is
3-05-017.

11.18.2  Process Description1'4'5

        Most mineral wool produced in the United States today is produced from slag or a mixture of
slag and rock.  Most of the slag used by the industry is generated by integrated iron and steel plants
as a blast furnace byproduct from pig iron production.  Other sources of slag include the copper,
lead, and phosphate industries.  The production process has 3 primary components—molten mineral
generation  in the cupola, fiber formation and collection, and final product formation.  Figure 11.18-1
illustrates the mineral wool manufacturing process.

       The first step in the process  involves melting the mineral feed.  The raw material (slag and
rock) is loaded  into a cupola  in alternating layers with  coke at weight ratios of about 5 to 6 parts
mineral to  1 part coke.  As the coke is ignited and burned, the mineral charge is heated to the molten
state at a temperature of 1300 to  1650°C (2400 to 3000°F).  Combustion air is supplied through
tuyeres located  near the bottom of the furnace.  Process modifications at some plants  include air
enrichment and the use of natural gas auxiliary burners to reduce coke consumption.  One facility also
reported using an aluminum  flux  byproduct to reduce coke consumption.

       The molten mineral charge exits the bottom of the cupola in a water-cooled trough and falls
onto a fiberization device. Most  of the mineral wool produced in the United States is made by
variations of 2 fiberization methods.  The Powell process uses groups of rotors revolving at a high
rate of speed to form the fibers.   Molten material is distributed in a thin film on the surfaces of the
rotors and then is thrown off by centrifugal force. As  the material is discharged from the rotor, small
globules develop on the rotors and form long, fibrous tails as they travel horizontally. Air or steam
may be blown around the rotors to assist in fiberizing the material.  A second fiberization method, the
Downey process, uses a spinning concave rotor with air or steam attenuation.  Molten material is


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.18-1

    -------
                                                                     From Process i ng
        Slag, Coke,
        Add 111
                                                         Granu)ated
                                                          Proaucts
                Figure 11.18-1.  Mineral wool manufacturing process flow diagram.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)

distributed over the surface of the rotor, from which it flows up and over the edge and is captured
and directed by a high-velocity stream of air or steam.

        During the spinning process, not all globules that develop are converted into fiber.  The
nonfiberized globules that remain  are referred to as "shot."  In raw mineral wool, as much as half of
the mass of the product may consist of shot.  As shown in Figure 11.18-1, shot is usually separated
from the wool by gravity immediately following fiberization.

        Depending on the desired  product, various chemical agents  may be applied to the newly
formed fiber immediately  following the rotor.  In almost all cases, an oil is applied to suppress dust
and, to some degree, anneal the fiber.  This oil can be either a proprietary product or a medium-
weight fuel or lubricating  oil.  If the fiber is  intended for use as loose wool or bulk products, no
further chemical treatment is necessary.  If the mineral wool product is required to have structural
rigidity, as in batts and industrial  felt, a binding agent is applied with or in place of the oil treatment.
This binder is typically a phenol-formaldehyde resin that requires curing at elevated temperatures.
Both the oil and the  binder are applied by  atomizing the liquids and spraying the agents to coat the
airborne fiber.
11.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
        After formation and chemical treatment, the fiber is collected in a blowchamber. Resin-
and/or oil-coated fibers are drawn down on a wire mesh conveyor by fans located beneath the
collector.  The speed of the conveyor is set so that a wool blanket of desired thickness can be
obtained.

        Mineral wool containing the binding agent is carried by conveyor to a curing oven, where the
wool blanket is compressed to the appropriate density and the binder is baked.  Hot air, at a
temperature of 150 to 320°C (300 to 600°F), is forced through the blanket until the binder has set.
Curing time  and temperature depend on the type of binder used and the mass rate through the oven.
A cooling section follows the oven, where blowers force air at ambient temperatures through the wool
blanket.

        To make batts and industrial felt products, the cooled wool blanket is cut longitudinally and
transversely to the desired size.  Some insulation products are then covered with a vapor barrier of
aluminum foil or asphalt-coated kraft paper on one side and untreated paper on the other side. The
cutters, vapor barrier applicators, and conveyors are sometimes referred to collectively as a batt
machine.  Those products that do not require a vapor barrier, such as industrial felt and some
residential insulation batts, can be packed  for shipment immediately after cutting.

        Loose wool products consist primarily of blowing  wool and bulk fiber. For these products,
no binding agent is applied, and the curing oven is eliminated. For granulated wool products, the
fiber blanket leaving the blowchamber is fed to a shredder and pelletizer.  The pelletizer forms small,
1-inch diameter pellets and separates shot  from the wool.  A bagging operation completes the
processes. For other loose wool products, fiber can be transported directly from  the blowchamber to
a baler  or bagger for packaging.

11.18.3 Emissions And Controls1'13

        The sources of emissions in the mineral wool manufacturing industry are  the cupola;  binder
storage, mixing, and application;  the blow chamber; the curing oven; the mineral wool cooler;
materials handling and bagging operations; and waste water treatment and storage.  With the
exception of lead, the industry emits the full range of criteria pollutants.  Also, depending on the
particular types of slag and binding agents used, the facilities may emit both metallic and organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

        The primary source of emissions in the mineral wool manufacturing process is the cupola.  It
is a significant source of paniculate matter (PM) emissions and is likely to be a source of PM less
than 10 micrometers G*m) in diameter (PM-10) emissions, although no particle size data are available.
The  cupola is also a potential source of HAP metal emissions attributable to the coke and slags used
in the furnace.  Coke combustion in the furnace produces carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(CO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions.  Finally, because blast furnace slags  contain sulfur, the
cupola is also a source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions.

        The blowchamber is a source of PM (and probably PM-10) emissions.  Also, the annealing
oils and binders used  in the process can lead to VOC emissions from the process.  Other sources of
VOC emissions include batt application, the curing oven, and waste water storage and treatment.
Finally, fugitive PM emissions can be generated during cooling, handling, and bagging operations.
Tables 11.18-1 and 11.18-2 present emission factors for filterable PM emissions from various mineral
wool manufacturing processes; Tables 11-18.3 and 11.18-4 show emission factors for CO, CO2, SO2,
and sulfates;  and Tables 11.18-5 and 11.18-6 present emission factors for NOX, N2O, H2S and
fluorides.

7/93 (Reforniatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.18-3

    -------
       Mineral wool manufacturers use a variety of air pollution control techniques, but most are
directed toward PM control with minimal control of other pollutants. The industry has given greatest
attention to cupola PM control, with two-thirds of the cupolas in operation having fabric filter control
systems.  Some cupola exhausts are controlled by wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs);
cyclones are also used for cupola PM control either alone or in combination with other control
devices.  About half of the blow chambers in the industry also have some level of PM control, with
the predominant control device being low-energy wet scrubbers.  Cyclones and fabric filters have
been used to a limited degree on blow chambers. Finally, afterburners have been used to control
VOC emissions from blow chambers and curing ovens and CO emissions  from cupolas.
          Table 11.18-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                     MANUFACTURING3
Process
Cupola0 (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filterd (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Reverberatory furnace6 (SCC 3-05-017-02)
Batt curing ovene (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Batt curing oven with ESPf (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber0 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Blow chamber with wire mesh filter^ (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler6 (SCC 3-05-017-05)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg Of
Product
8.2
0.051
2.4
1.8
0.36
6.0
0.45
1.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c References 1,12.  Activity level is assumed to be total feed charged.
d References 6,7,8,10,11.  Activity level is total feed charged.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 9.
g Reference 7.  Activity level is mass of molten mineral feed charged.
 11.18-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
          Table 11.18-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                    MANUFACTURING1



Process
Cupola0 (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filterd (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Reverberatory furnace6 (SCC 3-05-017-02)
Batt curing ovene (SCC 3-05-017-04)
Batt curing oven with ESPf (SCC 3^)5-017-04)
Blow chamber0 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Blow chamber with wire mesh filter8 (SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler6 (SCC 3-05-017-05)
Filterable PMb

Ib/ton Of
Product
16
0.10
4.8
3.6
0.72
12
0.91
2.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 1,12. Activity level is assumed to be total feed charged.
d References 6,7,8,10,11. Activity level is total feed charged.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 9.
g Reference 7. Activity level is mass of molten mineral feed charged.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.18-5

    -------
         Table 11.18-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                 MANUFACTURING3
Source
Cupola
(SCC 3-05-017 01)
Cupola with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Batt curing oven
(SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber
(SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler
(SCC 3-05-017-05)
C0b
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
125
NA
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D




C02b
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
260
NA
ND
80e
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


E

S02
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
4.0C
NA
0.58d
0.43d
0.034d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E
E
E
SO3
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
Charged
3.2d
0.077b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E



a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  NA = not applicable. ND = no data.
b Reference 6.
0 References 6,10,11.
d Reference 12.
e Reference 9.
11.18-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
          Table 11.18-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL
                                   MANUFACTURING3
Source
Cupola
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Batt curing oven
(SCC 3-05-017-04)
Blow chamber
(SCC 3-05-017-03)
Cooler
(SCC 3-05-017-05)
C0b
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
250
NA
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D




CO2b
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
520
NA
ND
160e
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D


E

SO2
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
8.0»
' NA
1.2"
O.OBT6
0.068d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D

E
E
E
SO3
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
6.3d
0.15b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E



a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC  = Source Classification
  Code. NA = not applicable. ND = no data.
b Reference 6.
c References 6,10,11.
d Reference 12.
e Reference 9.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.18-7

    -------
oo

oo
                       Table 11.18-5 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING"
Process
Cupola (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Batt curing oven
(SCC 3-05-017-14)
NOX
kg/Mg Of
Total Feed
Charged
0.8b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E



N20
kg/Mg Of
Total Feed
Charged
ND
ND
ND
0.079
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



E
H2S
kg/mg Of
Total Feed
Charged
1.5b
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E



Fluorides
kg/Mg Of
Total Feed
Charged
ND
0.019°
0.19d
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

w

S
(•_<
CO
00
H*H
O
2
i
      a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.

      b Reference 1.

      c References 10-11. Coke only used as fuel.

      d References 10-11. Fuel combination of coke and aluminum smelting byproducts.
I

    -------
                      Table 11.18-6 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING*
Process
Cupola (SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Cupola with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-017-01)
Bart curing oven
(SCC 3-05-017-14)
NOX
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
1.6b E
ND
ND
ND
N20
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND
ND
ND
0.16 E
H2S
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
3.0b E
ND
ND
ND
Fluorides
Ib/ton
Of Total
Feed
Charged
ND
0.038°
0.38d
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

§
BL
I
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Reference 1.
c References 10-11. Coke only used as fuel.
d References 10-11. Fuel combination of coke and aluminum smelting byproducts.
oo
sb

    -------
References For Section 11.18

 1.     Source Category Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-80-016, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

 2.     The Facts On Rocks And Slag Wool, Pub. No. N 020, North American Insulation
       Manufacturers Association, Alexandria, VA, Undated.

 3.     ICF Corporation, Supply Response To Residential Insulation Retrofit Demand,  Report to the
       Federal Energy Administration, Contract No. P-14-77-5438-0, Washington, DC,  June 1977.

 4.     Personal communication between F. May, U.S.G. Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, and
       R. Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, June 5, 1992.

 5.     Memorandum from K. Schuster, N. C. Department Of Environmental Management, to
       M. Aldridge, American Rockwool, April 25, 1988.

 6.     Sulfur Oxide Emission Tests Conducted On The $1 And #2 Cupola Stacks In Leeds, Alabama
       For Rock Wool Company, November 8 & 9, 1988, Guardian Systems, Inc., Leeds, AL,
       Undated.

 7.     Paniculate Emissions Tests For U. S. Gypsum Company On The Number 4 Dry Filter And
       Cupola Stack Located In Birmingham, Alabama On January 14, 1981, Guardian Systems,
       Inc., Birmingham, AL, Undated.

 8.     Untitled Test Report, Cupolas Nos.  1, 2, and 3, U. S. Gypsum, Birmingham,  AL, June 1979.

 9.     Paniculate Emission Tests On Batt Curing Oven For U. S.  Gypsum, Birmingham, Alabama
       On October 31-November 1, 1977, Guardian Systems, Inc., Birmingham, AL, Undated.

10.     J. V. Apicella, Paniculate, Sulfur Dioxide, And Fluoride Emissions From Mineral Wool
       Emission, With Varying Charge Compositions, American Rockwool, Inc.  Spring Hope, NC,
       27882, Alumina Company Of America, Alcoa Center, PA, June 1988.

11.     J. V. Apicella, Compliance Report On Paniculate, Sulfur Dioxide,  Fluoride, And Visual
       Emissions From Mineral Wool Production, American Rockwool, Inc., Spring Hope, NC,
       27882, Aluminum Company Of America, Alcoa Center, PA,  February 1988.

12.     J. L. Spinks, "Mineral Wool Furnaces", In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
       J. A. Danielson, ed., U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center For Air Pollution Control,
       Cincinnati, OH, PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40, 1967, pp. 343-347.

13.     Personal communication between M. Johnson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, and D. Bullock, Midwest Research Institute,  Gary, NC,
       March 22, 1993.
11.18-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
11.19  Construction Aggregate Processing1"2

       The construction aggregate industry covers a range of subclassifications of the nonmetallic
minerals industry (see Section 11.24, Metallic Minerals Processing, for information on that similar
activity).  Many operations and processes are common to both groups, including mineral extraction
from the earth, loading, unloading, conveying, crushing, screening, and loadout.  Other operations
are restricted to specific subcategories.  These include wet and dry fine milling or grinding, air
classification, drying, calcining, mixing, and bagging. The latter group of operations is not generally
associated with the construction aggregate industry but can be conducted on the same raw materials
used to produce aggregate. Two examples are processing of limestone and sandstone.  Both
substances can be used as construction materials and may be processed further for other uses at the
same location.  Limestone is a common source of construction aggregate, but it can be further milled
and classified to produce agricultural limestone.  Sandstone can be processed into construction sand
and also  can be wet and/or dry milled, dried, and air classified into industrial sand.

       The construction aggregate industry can be categorized by source, mineral type or form, wet
versus dry, washed or unwashed, and end uses,  to name but a few.  The industry is divided in this
document into Section  11.19.1, Sand And Gravel Processing, and Section 11.19.2, Crushed Stone
Processing.  Sections on other categories of the  industry will be published when data on these
processes become available.

       Uncontrolled construction aggregate processing can produce nuisance problems and can have
an effect upon attainment of ambient paniculate standards.  However, the generally large particles
produced often can be controlled readily.  Some of the individual operations such as wet crushing and
grinding, washing, screening, and dredging take place with "high" moisture (more than about 1.5 to
4.0 weight percent).  Such wet processes do not generate appreciable paniculate emissions.

References For Section 11.19

1.     Air Pollution Control Techniques For Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August  1982.

2.     Review Emissions Data Base And Develop Emission Factors For The Construction Aggregate
       Industry, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia,  CA, September  1984.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.19-1

    -------

    -------
11.19.1  Sand And Gravel Processing



                                     [Work In Progress]
1 /95                              Mineral Products Industry                          11.19.1-1

    -------

    -------
11.19.2  Crushed Stone Processing

11.19.2.1  Process Description1"2

        Major rock types processed by the rock and crushed stone industry include limestone, granite,
dolomite, traprock, sandstone, quartz, and quartzite.  Minor types include calcareous marl, marble,
shell, and slate.  Industry classifications vary considerably and, in many cases, do not reflect actual
geological definitions.

        Rock and crushed stone products generally are loosened by drilling and blasting, then are
loaded by power shovel or front-end loader into large haul trucks that transport the material to the
processing operations. Techniques used for extraction vary with the nature and location of the
deposit.  Processing operations may include crushing, screening, size classification, material handling,
and storage operations. All of these processes can be significant sources of PM and  PM-10 emissions
if uncontrolled.

        Quarried stone normally is delivered to the processing plant by truck and is dumped into a
hoppered feeder, usually a vibrating grizzly type,  or onto screens, as  illustrated in Figure 11.19.2-1.
The feeder or screens  separate large boulders from finer rocks that do not require primary crushing,
thus reducing the load to the primary crusher. Jaw, impactor, or gyratory crushers are usually used
for initial reduction.  The crusher product, normally 7.5 to 30 centimeters (3 to 12 inches) in
diameter, and the grizzly throughs (undersize material) are discharged onto a belt conveyor and
usually are conveyed to a surge pile for temporary storage, or are sold  as coarse aggregates.

        The stone from the surge pile  is conveyed to a vibrating inclined screen called the scalping
screen. This unit separates oversized  rock from the smaller stone.  The undersize material from the
scalping screen is considered to be a product stream and is transported to a storage pile and sold as
base material.  The stone that is too large to pass  through the top deck of the scalping screen is
processed in the secondary crusher.  Cone crushers are commonly used for secondary crushing
(although impact crushers are sometimes used), which typically reduces material to about 2.5 to
10 centimeters (1 to 4 inches).  The material  (throughs) from the second level of the screen bypasses
the secondary crusher because it is sufficiently small for the last crushing step. The  output from the
secondary crusher and the throughs from the secondary screen are transported by conveyor to the
tertiary circuit, which includes a sizing screen and a tertiary crusher.

        Tertiary crushing is usually performed using cone crushers or other types of impactor
crushers. Oversize material from the top deck of the sizing screen is fed  to the tertiary crusher.  The
tertiary crusher output, which is typically about 0.50 to 2.5 centimeters (3/16th to 1  inch), is returned
to the sizing screen.  Various product  streams with different size gradations are separated in the
screening operation.  The products are conveyed or trucked directly to finished product bins, open
area stockpiles, or to otiier processing systems such as washing, air separators, and screens and
classifiers (for  the production of manufactured sand).

        Some stone crushing plants produce manufactured sand. This is a small-sized rock product
with a maximum size of 0.50 centimeters (3/16th  inch).  Crushed stone from the  tertiary sizing screen
is sized in a vibrating  inclined screen (fines screen) with relatively small mesh  sizes.  Oversized
material is processed in a cone crusher or a hammermill  (fines crusher) adjusted to produce small
diameter material.  The output is then returned to the fines  screen for resizing.


1/95                                 Mineral Products Industry                           11.19.2-1

    -------
DRILL INO AND
BLASTING
SCC3-OM2049.-10



TRUCK LOADING
SCCMM20-33


HAUL ROADS
SCC3-OM20-11


Tf
TRUCK
UNLOADING AND
ORIZZLY FEEDER
SCC 3-06-02CK31
3RIZZLY
ROUGHS


>
t
PRIMARY CRUSHER
SCC 3-05-020-01
                                                                                  SCALPING
                                                                                  SCREEN
                                                                                SCC WWI20-15
                                                                                   SIZING SCREEN
                                                                                 SCC 3-05-020-02, -03. -04
         Note: All processes are potential
         sources of PM emissions.
                                                                                             FINES SCREEN
                                                                                             SCC 3-05-020-21
                                                                                          ;-<3/16 Inert)
                                                                                          .NUFACTURED
                                                                                          ,NO STORAGE
                           Figure 11.19.2-1.  Typical stone processing plant.2
                                  (SCC =  Source Classification Code.)
11.19.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       In certain cases, stone washing is required to meet particular end product specifications or
demands as with concrete aggregate processing.  Crushed and broken stone normally is not milled but
is screened and shipped to the consumer after secondary or tertiary crushing.

11.19.2.2  Emissions And Controls1'8

       Emissions of PM  and PM-10 occur from a number of operations in stone quarrying and
processing.  A substantial portion of these emissions consists of heavy particles that may settle out
within the plant.  As in other operations, crushed stone emission sources may be categorized as either
process sources or fugitive dust sources.  Process sources include those for which emissions are
amenable to capture and subsequent control.  Fugitive dust sources generally involve the
reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement.  Emissions from process sources should
be considered fugitive unless the sources are vented to a baghouse or are contained in an enclosure
with a forced-air vent or stack. Factors affecting emissions from either source category include the
stone size distribution and surface moisture content of the stone processed; the process throughput
rate; the  type of equipment and operating practices used; and topographical and climatic factors.

       Of geographic and seasonal factors, the primary variables affecting uncontrolled PM
emissions are wind and material moisture content. Wind parameters vary with geographical location,
season, and weather.  It can be expected that the level of emissions from unenclosed sources
(principally fugitive dust sources) will be greater during periods of high winds.  The material
moisture content also varies with geographic  location, season, and weather. Therefore, the levels of
uncontrolled emissions from both process emission sources and fugitive dust sources generally will be
greater in arid regions of the country than in  temperate ones, and greater during the summer months
because of a higher evaporation rate.

       The moisture content of the material processed can have a substantial effect on emissions.
This effect is evident throughout the processing operations.  Surface wetness causes fine particles to
agglomerate on, or to adhere to, the faces of larger stones, with a resulting dust suppression effect.
However, as  new fine particles are created by crushing and attrition, and as the moisture content is
reduced by evaporation, this suppressive effect diminishes and  may disappear.  Plants that use wet
suppression systems (spray nozzles) to  maintain  relatively high material moisture contents can
effectively control PM emissions throughout the process.  Depending on the geographic and climatic
conditions, the moisture content of mined rock may range from nearly zero to several percent.
Because moisture content  is usually expressed on a basis of overall weight percent, the actual
moisture amount per unit  area will vary with the size of the rock being handled. On a constant
mass-fraction basis, the per-unit area moisture content varies inversely with the diameter  of the rock.
Therefore, the suppressive effect of the moisture depends on both the absolute mass  water content and
the size of the rock product.  Typically, wet material contains 1.5 to 4 percent water or more.

       A variety of material, equipment, and operating factors can influence emissions from
crushing. These factors include (1) stone type, (2) feed size and distribution, (3) moisture content,
(4)  throughput rate, (5) crusher type, (6) size reduction ratio, and (7) fines content.  Insufficient data
are available to present a matrix of rock crushing emission factors detailing the  above classifications
and variables. Available data indicate that PM-10 emissions from limestone and granite processing
operations are similar. Therefore, the  emission  factors developed from the emission data gathered at
limestone and granite processing facilities are considered to be representative of typical crushed stone
processing operations.  Emission factors for filterable PM and PM-10 emissions from crushed  stone
processing operations are  presented in Tables 11.19-1 (metric units) and 11.19-2 (English units).
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                            11.19.2-3

    -------
  Table 11.19.2-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING
                                       OPERATIONS4
Sourceb
Screening
(SCC 3-05-020-02.-03)
Screening (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02-03)
Primary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-O2)
Tertiary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Primary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Fines crushing1
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines crushing (controlled)1
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines screening1
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Fines screening (controlled)!
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Conveyor transfer point*
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer point (controlled^
(SCC 3-05-O20-06)
Wet drilling: unfragmented stone™
(SCC 3-05-020-10)
Truck unloading: fragmented stonem
(SCC 3-05-020-31)
Truck loading— conveyor: crushed stone"
(SCC 3-05-020-32)
Total
Paniculate
Matter
_d

_d

0.00035f

ND

_d

ND

ND

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING




E





























Total
PM-10C
0.00766

0.000426

NO*

NDS

0.0012h

ND«

NDS

0.0002911

0.0075

0.0010

0.036

0.0011

0.00072

2.4xlO'5

4.0xlO'5

S.OxlO-6

S.OxlO-5

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C





C





C

E

E

E

E

D

D

E

E

E

a Emission factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.  Emission factors in kg/Mg of
  material throughput.  SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Controlled sources (with wet suppression) are those that are part of the processing plant that
  employs current wet suppression technology similar to the study group.  The moisture content of
  the study group without wet suppression systems operating (uncontrolled) ranged from 0.21 to
  1.3 percent and the same facilities operating wet suppression sytems (controlled) ranged from
  0.55 to 2.88 percent. Due to carry over or the small  amount of moisture required, it has been
  shown that each source, with the exception of crushers, does not need to employ direct water
  sprays.  Although the moisture content was the only variable measured, other process features may
  have as much influence on emissions from a given source.  Visual  observations from each source
  under normal operating conditions are probably the best indicator of which emission factor is most
  appropriate.  Plants that employ sub-standard control  measures as indicated by visual observations
  should use the uncontrolled factor with an appropriate control  efficiency that best reflects the
  effectiveness of the controls employed.
c Although total suspended particulate (TSP) is not a measurable property from a process, some states
  may require estimates of TSP emissions.  No data are available to  make these estimates. However,
  relative ratios in AP-42 Sections 13.2.2 and 13.2.4 indicate that TSP emission factors may be
  estimated by multiplying PM-10 by 2.1.
 11.19.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 11.19.2-1 (cont.).

d Emission factors for total paniculate are not presented pending a re-evaluation of the EPA
  Method 20la test data and/or results of emission testing.  This re-evaluation is expected to be
  completed by July 1995.
e References 9,  11, 15-16.
f Reference 1.
g No data available, but emission factors for PM-10 emission factors for tertiary crushing can be used
  as an upper limit for primary or secondary crushing.
h References 10-11, 15-16.
•>  Reference 12.
k References 13-14.
m Reference 3.
n Reference 4.
 1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                           11.19.2-5

    -------
 Table 11.19.2-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING
                                       OPERATIONS'1
Sourceb
Screening
(SCC 3-05-020-02.-03)
Screening (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02-03)
Primary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing
(SCC 3-O5-020-03)
Primary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-01)
Secondary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-02)
Tertiary crushing (controlled)
(SCC 3-05-020-03)
Fines crushing1
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines crushing (controlled)'
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Fines screening1
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Fines screening (controlled)1
(SCC 3-05-020-21)
Conveyor transfer point1
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer point (controlkd)k
(SCC 3-05-020-06)
Wet drilling: unfragmented stone"
(SCC 3-05-020-10)
Truck unloading: fragmented stone™
(SCC 3-05-020-31)
Truck loading— conveyor: crushed stone"
(SCC 3-05-020-32)
Total
Paniculate
Matter
_d

_d

0.00070f

ND

_d

ND

ND

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

_d

ND

ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING




E





























Total PM-100
0.0156

0.00084e

ND«

NO?

0.0024h

ND*

ND8

O.OOOS^

0.015

0.0020

0.071

0.0021

0.0014

4.8xlO-5

S.OxlO'5

1.6xlO-5

0.00010

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C

C





C

NA

NA

C

E

E

E

E

D

D

E

E

E

a Emission factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted. Emission factors in Ib/ton of
  material throughput.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Controlled sources (with wet suppression) are those that are part of the processing plant that
  employs current wet suppression technology similar to the study group.  The moisture content of
  the study group without wet suppression systems operating (uncontrolled) ranged from 0.21 to
  1.3 percent and the same facilities operating wet suppression systems (controlled) ranged from
  0.55 to 2.88 percent. Due to carry over or the small  amount of moisture required,  it has been
  shown that each source, with the exception of crushers,  does not need to employ direct water
  sprays.  Although the moisture content was the only variable measured, other process features may
  have as much influence on emissions from a given source.  Visual observations from each source
  under normal operating conditions are probably the best indicator of which emission factor is most
  appropriate.  Plants that employ sub-standard  control  measures as indicated by visual observations
  should use the uncontrolled factor with an appropriate control efficiency that best reflects the
  effectiveness of the controls employed.
c Although total suspended particulate (TSP) is  not a measurable property from a process, some states
  may require estimates of TSP emissions.  No  data are available to make these estimates. However,
  relative ratios in AP-42 Sections 13.2.2 and 13.2.4 indicate that TSP emission factors may be
  estimated by multiplying PM-10 by 2.1.
 11.19.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                    Table 11.19.2-2 (cont.).

d Emission factors for total paniculate are not presented pending a re-evaluation of the EPA
  Method 201a test data and/or results of emission testing. This re-evaluation is expected to be
  completed by July 1995.
e References 9, 11, 15-16.
f Reference 1.
g No data available, but emission factors for PM-10 emission factors for tertiary crushing can be used
  as an upper limit for primary or secondary crushing.
h References 10-11, 15-16.
J  Reference 12.
k References 13-14.
m Reference 3.
n Reference 4.
       Emission factor estimates for stone quarry blasting operations are not presented here because
of the sparsity and unreliability of available test data. While a procedure for estimating blasting
emissions is presented in Section 11.9, Western Surface Coal Mining, that procedure should not be
applied to stone quarries because of dissimilarities in blasting techniques, material blasted, and size of
blast areas.  Milling of fines is not included in this section as this operation is normally associated
with nonconstruction aggregate end uses and will be covered elsewhere when information is adequate.
Emission factors for fugitive dust sources, including paved and unpaved roads, materials handling and
transfer, and wind  erosion of storage piles, can be determined using the predictive emission factor
equations presented in AP-42 Section 13.2.

References For Section 11.19.2

 1.     Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1982.

 2.     Written communication from J. Richards, Air Control Techniques, P.C., to B. Shrager, MRI.
       March 18,  1994.

 3.     P. K. Chalekode et al., Emissions from the Crushed Granite Industry: State of the Art,
       EPA-600/2-78-021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February
       1978.

 4.     T. R. Blackwood et al., Source Assessment: Crushed Stone, EPA-600/2-78-004L, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1978.

 5.     F. Record and W. T. Harnett, Paniculate Emission Factors for the Construction Aggregate
       Industry, Draft Report, GCA-TR-CH-83-02, EPA  Contract No. 68-02-3510, GCA
       Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC, February 1983.

 6.     Review Emission Data Base and Develop Emission Factors for the Construction Aggregate
       Industry, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, CA, September 1984.

 7.     C. Cowherd, Jr. et al., Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources,
       EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       June 1974.


1/95                               Mineral Products Industry                          11.19.2-7

    -------
 8.     R. Bohn et al., Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.

 9.     J. Richards, T. Brozell, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Deister Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-D1-0055, Task 2.84, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.

10.     J. Richards, T. Brozell, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Tertiary Crusher, EPA Contract No. 68-D1-0055, Task 2.84, U. S.  Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1992.

11.     W. Kirk, T. Brozell, and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Deister Vibrating Screen and Crusher, National Stone Association, Washington DC,
       December 1992.

12.     T. Brozell, J. Richards, and W. Kirk, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant
       Tertiary Crusher and Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1992.

13.     T. Brozell, PM-10 Emission Factors for Two Transfer Points at a Granite Stone Crushing
       Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, January 1994.

14.     T. Brozell, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant Transfer Point, EPA Contract
       No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1993.

15.     T. Brozell and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
       Screen and Crusher for Bristol,  Tennessee, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0163, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.

16.     T. Brozell and J. Richards, PM-10 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
       Screen and Crusher for Marysville, Tennessee, EPA Contract  No. 68-D2-0163, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.
11.19.2-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
11.20 Lightweight Aggregate Manufacturing

11.20.1  Process Description1'2

       Lightweight aggregate is a type of coarse aggregate that is used in the production of
lightweight concrete products such as concrete block, structural concrete, and pavement.  The
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for lightweight aggregate manufacturing is 3295; there
currently is no Source Classification Code (SCC) for the industry.

       Most lightweight aggregate is produced from materials such as clay, shale, or slate.  Blast
furnace slag, natural pumice, vermiculite, and perlite can be used as substitutes, however. To
produce lightweight aggregate,  the raw material  (excluding pumice) is expanded to about twice the
original volume  of the raw material.  The expanded material has properties similar to  natural
aggregate, but is less dense and therefore yields  a lighter concrete product.

       The production of lightweight aggregate begins with mining or quarrying the raw material.
The material is crushed with cone crushers,  jaw  crushers, hammermills, or pugmills and  is screened
for size.  Oversized material is  returned to the crushers, and the material that passes through the
screens is transferred to hoppers. From the hoppers,  the material is fed to a rotary kiln, which is
fired with coal, coke,  natural gas, or fuel oil, to temperatures of about 1200°C  (2200°F).  As the
material is heated, it liquefies and carbonaceous  compounds in the material form gas bubbles, which
expand the material; in the process, volatile organic compounds (VOC) are released. From the kiln,
the expanded product  (clinker) is transferred by conveyor into the clinker cooler where it is cooled by
air, forming a porous  material.   After cooling, the lightweight aggregate is screened for size, crushed
if necessary,  stockpiled, and shipped.  Figure 11.20-1 illustrates the lightweight aggregate
manufacturing process.

       Although the majority (approximately 90 percent) of plants use rotary kilns, traveling grates
are also used to heat the raw material.  In addition, a few plants process naturally occurring
lightweight aggregate  such  as pumice.

11.20.2  Emissions And Controls1

       Emissions  from the production of lightweight aggregate consist primarily of particulate
matter (PM), which is emitted by the rotary kilns, clinker coolers, and crushing, screening, and
material transfer operations. Pollutants emitted as a result of combustion in the rotary kilns include
sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides  (NOX),  carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and
VOCs.  Chromium, lead, and chlorides also are  emitted from the kilns. In addition, other metals
including aluminum, copper, manganese, vanadium, and zinc are emitted in trace amounts by the
kilns. However, emission rates for these pollutants have not been quantified. In addition to PM,
clinker coolers emit CO2 and VOCs.  Emission factors for crushing, screening, and material transfer
operations can be found in  AP-42 Section 11.19.

       Some lightweight aggregate plants fire kilns with material classified as hazardous waste under
the Resource Conservation  and  Recovery Act.  Emission  data are available for emissions of hydrogen
chloride, chlorine,  and several metals from  lightweight aggregate kilns  burning  hazardous waste.
However, emission factors  developed from these data have not been incorporated in this AP-42
section because the magnitude of emissions  of these pollutants is largely a function of the waste fuel
composition,  which can vary considerably.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.20-1

    -------
Oversize
Material


Crushing
1
Screening
          Figure 11.20-1.  Process flow diagram for lightweight aggregate manufacturing.


       Emissions from rotary kilns generally are controlled with wet scrubbers.  However, fabric
filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) are also used to control kiln emissions. Multiclones and
settling chambers generally are the only types of controls for clinker cooler emissions.

       Tables 11.20-1 and  11.20-2 summarize uncontrolled and controlled emission factors for PM
emissions (both filterable and condensable) from rotary kilns and clinker coolers. Emission factors
for SOX,  NOX, CO, and C02 emissions from rotary kilns are presented in Tables 11.20-3 and
11.20-4,  which also include an emission factor for CO2 emissions from clinker coolers.
Table 11.20-5 presents emission factors for total VOC (TVOC) emissions from rotary kilns. Size-
specific PM emission factors for rotary kilns and clinker coolers are presented in Table 11.20-6.
11.20-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
           Table 11.20-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                               AGGREGATE PRODUCTION3

Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Rotary kiln with fabric
filter
Rotary kiln with ESP
Clinker cooler with
settling chamber
Clinker coller with
multiclone
Filterable6
PM
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
63d
0.398
0.13'
0.34k
0.141

0.15m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
D
D

D
PM-10
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
ND
0.15h
ND
ND
0.0551

0.060m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


D

D
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.41e
0.1011
0.070)
0.015k
0.00851

0.0013m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D

D
Organic
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.0080f
0.0046h
ND
ND
0.000341

0.0014m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D

D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
0 Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d References 3,7,14. Average of 3 tests that ranged from 6.5 to  170 kg/Mg.
e References 3,14.
f Reference 3.
8 References 3,5,10,12-14.
h References 3,5.
5 References 7,14,17-19.
J Reference 14.
k References 15,16.
1 References 3,6.
m Reference 4.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.20-3

    -------
          Table 11.20-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                               AGGREGATE PRODUCTION3
Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Rotary kiln with fabric
filter
Rotary kiln with ESP
Clinker cooler with
settling chamber
Clinker cooler with
multiclone
Filterableb
PM
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
130*
0.788
0.26'
0.67k
0.281
0.30™
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
D
D
D
PM-10
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
ND
0.29*
ND
ND
O.ll1
0.12m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


D
D
Condensable PMC
Inorganic
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
0.826
0.1911
0.14)
0.031k
0.0171
0.0025™
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
D
D
D
Organic
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
0.016f
0.0092h
ND
ND
0.000671
0.0027m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D
D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d References 3,7,14. Average of 3 tests that ranged from 13 to 340 Ib/ton.
e References 3,14.
f Reference 3.
« References 3,5,10,12-14.
h References 3,5.
| References 7,14,17-19.
•> Reference 14.
k References 15,16.
1 References 3,6.
m Reference 4.
 11.20-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
          Table 11.20-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                              AGGREGATE PRODUCTION*

Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Clinker cooler with
dry multicyclone

kg/Mg
Of
Feed
2.8b
1.7C

ND
sox
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C


NOX
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
ND
1.0f

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


CO
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
0.29°
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C



C02
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
240d
ND

22S
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C


D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b References 3,4,5,8.
c References 17,18,19.
d References 3,4,5,12,13,14,17,18,19
e References 3,4,5,9.
f References 3,4,5.
8 Reference 4.
          Table 11.20-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                              AGGREGATE PRODUCTION21


Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with
scrubber
Clinker cooler with
dry multicyclone

lb/ton
Of
Feed
5.6b
3.4e

ND
sox
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C


NOX
lb/ton
Of
Feed
ND
1.9f

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D


CO
lb/ton
Of
Feed
0.59C
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C



C02
lb/ton
Of
Feed
480d
ND

43S
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C


D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b References 3,4,5,8.
c References 17,18,19.
d References 3,4,5,12,13,14,17,18,19
e References 3,4,5,9.
f References 3,4,5.
g Reference 4.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.20-5

    -------
     Table 11.20-5 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT
                            AGGREGATE PRODUCTION*
Process
Rotary kiln
Rotary kiln with scrubber
TVOCs
kg/Mg
Of
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Feed
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND ND D
0.39b 0.78b D
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. ND = no data.
b Reference 3.
Table 11.20-6 (Metric And English Units). PARTICULATE MATTER SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
      FACTORS FOR EMISSIONS FROM ROTARY KILNS AND CLINKER COOLERS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D


Diameter, micrometers

Cumulative %
Less Than Diameter
Emission Factor


kg/Mg
Rotary Kiln With Scrubberb
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
35
46
50
55
57
0.10
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.16


Ib/ton

0.20
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.32
Clinker Cooler With Settling Chamber0
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
9
21
35
49
58
0.014
0.032
0.055
0.080
0.095
0.027
0.063
0.11
0.16
0.19
Clinker Cooler With Multicloned
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
19
31
40
48
53
0.029
0.047
0.060
0.072
0.080
0.057
0.093
0.12
0.14
0.16
a Emission factors based on total feed.
b References 3,5.
c References 3,6.
d Reference 4.
11.20-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
References For Section 11.20

1.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries-Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1985.

2.     B. H. Spratt, The Structural Use Of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Cement And Concrete
       Association, United Kingdom, 1974.

3.     Emission Test Report:  Vulcan Materials Company, Bessemer, Alabama, EMB Report
       80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
       1982.

4.     Emission Test Report:  Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate Corporation,  West Memphis,
       Arkansas, EMB Report 80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.

5.     Emission Test Report:  Plant K6, from Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries -
       Background Information Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1985.

6,     Emission Test Report:  Galite Corporation, Rockmart, Georgia, EMB Report 80-LWA-6,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.

7.     Summary Of Emission Measurements On No. 5 Kiln,  Carolina Solite Corporation, Aquadale,
       North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants, Inc.,  Gainesville, FL, April
       1983.

8.     Sulfur Dioxide Emission Measurements, Lightweight Aggregate Kiln No. 5 (Inlet), Carolina
       Solite Corporation, Aquadale, North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 1991.

9.     Sulfur Dioxide Emission Measurements, Lightweight Aggregate Kiln No. 5 (Outlet), Carolina
       Solite Corporation, Aquadale, North Carolina, Sholtes & Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Inc., Gainesville, FL, May 1991.

10.    Summary Of Paniculate Matter Emission Measurements,  No.  5 Kiln Outlet, Florida Solite
       Corporation,  Green Cove Springs,  Florida, Sholtes and Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Gainesville, FL, June 19,  1981.

11.    Summary Of Paniculate Matter Emission Measurements,  No.  5 Kiln Outlet, Florida Solite
       Corporation,  Green Cove Springs,  Florida, Sholtes and Koogler Environmental Consultants,
       Gainesville, FL, September 3, 1982.

12.    Paniculate Emission Source Test Conducted On No. 1 Kiln Wet Scrubber At Tombigbee
       Lightweight Aggregate Corporation, Livingston, Alabama, Resource Consultants, Brentwood,
       TN, November 12, 1981.

13.    Paniculate Emission Source Test Conducted On No. 2 Kiln Wet Scrubber At Tombigbee
       Lightweight Aggregate Corporation, Livingston, Alabama, Resource Consultants, Brentwood,
       TN, November 12, 1981.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.20-7

    -------
14.     Report Of Simultaneous Efficiency Tests Conducted On The Orange Kiln And Baghouse At
       Carolina Stalite, Gold Hill, N.C., Rossnagel & Associates, Charlotte, NC, May 9, 1980.

15.     Stack Test Report No. 85-1, Lehigh Lightweight Aggregate Plant, Dryer-Kiln No. 2,
       Woodsboro, Maryland, Division Of Stationary Source Enforcement, Maryland Department Of
       Health And Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, February 1, 1985.

16.     Stack Test Report No. 85-7, Lehigh Lightweight Aggregate Plant, Dryer-Kiln No. 1,
       Woodsboro, Maryland, Division Of Stationary Source Enforcement, Maryland Department Of
       Health And Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, May 1985.

17.     Emission Test Results For No. 2 And No. 4 Aggregate Kilns,  Solite Corporation, Leaksville
       Plant,  Cascade, Virginia, IEA, Research Triangle Park,  NC, August 8, 1992.

18.     Emission Test Results For No. 2 Aggregate Kiln, Solite Corporation, Hubers Plant, Brooks,
       Kentucky, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 12, 1992.

19.     Emission Test Results For No. 7 And No. 8 Aggregate Kilns,  Solite Corporation, A. F. Old
       Plant, Arvonia, Virginia, IEA, Research Triangle Park, NC,  August 8, 1992.
11.20-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
11.21  Phosphate Rock Processing

11.21.1  Process Description1"5

        The separation of phosphate rock from impurities and nonphosphate materials for use in
fertilizer manufacture consists of beneficiation, drying or calcining at some operations, and grinding.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for phosphate rock processing is 1475.  The 6-digit
Source Classification Code (SCC) for phosphate rock processing is 3-05-019.

        Because the primary use of phosphate rock is in the manufacture of phosphatic fertilizer, only
those phosphate rock processing operations associated  with fertilizer manufacture are discussed here.
Florida and North Carolina accounted for 94 percent of the domestic phosphate rock mined and
89 percent of the marketable phosphate rock produced during 1989. Other states in which phosphate
rock is mined and processed include Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Tennessee. Alternative flow
diagrams of these operations are shown in Figure  11.21-1.

        Phosphate rock from the mines is first sent to beneficiation units to separate sand and clay and
to remove  impurities.  Steps used in beneficiation  depend on the type of rock.  A typical beneficiation
unit for separating phosphate rock mined in Florida begins with wet screening to separate pebble rock
that is  larger than 1.43 millimeters (mm) (0.056 inch [in.]) or 14 mesh, and smaller than 6.35 mm
(0.25 in.) from the balance of the rock.  The pebble rock is shipped as pebble product.  The  material
that is  larger than 0.85 mm (0.033 in.), or 20 mesh, and smaller than 14 mesh is separated using
hydrocyclones and finer mesh screens and is added to the pebble product.  The fraction smaller than
20 mesh is treated by 2-stage flotation. The flotation process uses hydrophilic  or hydrophobic
chemical reagents with aeration to separate suspended particles.

        Phosphate rock mined in North Carolina does not contain pebble rock.  In processing this
type of phosphate, 10-mesh screens are used.  Like Florida rock, the fraction that  is less than
10 mesh is treated by 2-stage flotation, and the fraction larger than 10 mesh is  used for secondary
road building.

        The 2 major western phosphate rock ore deposits are located in southeastern Idaho and
northeastern Utah, and the beneficiation processes used on materials from these deposits differ
greatly.  In general, southeastern Idaho deposits require crushing, grinding, and classification.
Further processing may include filtration and/or drying, depending on the phosphoric acid plant
requirements. Primary size reduction generally is accomplished by crushers (impact) and grinding
mills.  Some classification of the primary crushed  rock may be  necessary before secondary grinding
(rod milling) takes place. The ground material then passes through hydrocyclones that are oriented in
a 3-stage countercurrent arrangement. Further processing in the form of chemical flotation may be
required.  Most of the processes are wet to facilitate material transport and to reduce dust.

        Northeastern Utah deposits are a lower grade and harder than the southeastern Idaho  deposits
and require processing similar to that of the Florida deposits.  Extensive crushing and grinding is
necessary to liberate phosphate from the material.  The primary product is classified with 150- to
200-mesh screens, and the finer material is disposed of with the tailings. The coarser fraction is
processed through multiple steps of phosphate flotation and then diluent flotation.  Further processing
may include filtration and/or drying,  depending on the phosphoric acid plant requirements. As is the
case for southeastern Idaho deposits,  most of the processes are wet to facilitate material transport and
to reduce dust.

7/93 (Reformatted  1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                            11.21-1

    -------
                                                                                 (D   PM emissions
                                                                                 (2)   Gaseous emissions
              Amber Add Production
          Phosphate rock
            from mine

BenefidaBon



Rock
Transfer
SCO 3-05-019-03
                          To phosphoric
                         acid manufacturing
            Green Add Production
                                                       ©
          Phosphate rock   ^|
            from mine     ~~ L

Benefidation



Drying
SCC 3-05-019-01
or
Calcining
SCC 3-05-019-05



Rock
Transfer
SCC 3-05-019-03
                                               To phosphoric
                                               add production
                                               Fuel
                                                       Air
                  Granular Triple Super Phosphate Production (GTSP)
          Phosphate rock
            from mine

Benefidation




Grinding
SCC 3-05-019-02



Rock
Transfer
SCC 3-05-019-03
                                                   To GTSP
                                                   production
          Figure 11.21-1.  Alternative process flow diagrams for phosphate rock processing.
11.21-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
        The wet beneficiated phosphate rock may be dried or calcined, depending on its organic
content. Florida rock is relatively free of organics and is for the most part no longer dried or
calcined.  The rock is maintained at about  10 percent moisture and is stored in piles at the mine
and/or chemical plant for future use.  The rock is  slurried in water and wet-ground in ball mills or
rod mills at the chemical plant.  Consequently, there is no significant emission potential from wet
grinding.  The small amount of rock that is dried in Florida is dried in direct-fired dryers at about
120°C (250°F), where the moisture content of the rock falls from 10 to 15 percent to 1 to 3 percent.
Both rotary and fluidized bed dryers are  used, but rotary dryers  are more common. Most dryers are
fired with natural gas or fuel oil (No. 2 or No. 6), with many equipped to burn more than 1 type of
fuel.  Unlike Florida rock, phosphate rock mined from other reserves contains organics and must be
heated to 760 to 870°C (1400 to 1600°F) to remove them.  Fluidized-bed calciners are most
commonly used for this purpose, but rotary calciners  are also  used.  After drying, the rock is usually
conveyed to storage silos on weather-protected conveyors and, from there, to grinding mills.  In
North Carolina, a portion of the beneficiated rock is calcined at temperatures generally between
800 and 825°C (1480 and 1520°F) for use in "green" phosphoric acid production, which is used for
producing super phosphoric acid and as a raw material for purified phosphoric acid manufacturing.
To produce "amber" phosphoric acid, the calcining step is omitted, and the beneficiated rock is
transferred directly to the phosphoric acid production processes.   Phosphate rock that is to be used for
the production of granular triple super phosphate (GTSP) is beneficiated, dried, and ground before
being transferred to the GTSP production processes.

        Dried or calcined rock is ground in roll or ball mills to a fine powder, typically specified as
60 percent by weight passing a 200-mesh sieve.  Rock is fed into the mill by a rotary valve, and
ground rock is swept from the mill by a  circulating air stream. Product size  classification is provided
by a "revolving whizzer, which is  mounted on top of the ball mill,"  and by an air classifier.  Oversize
particles are recycled to the mill, and product size particles are separated from the carrying air stream
by a cyclone.

11.21.2 Emissions And Controls1'3"9

        The major emission sources for phosphate rock processing are dryers, calciners, and grinders.
These sources emit paniculate matter (PM) in the form of fine rock dust and  sulfur dioxide (SO^.
Beneficiation has no significant emission potential because the operations involve slurries of rock and
water.   The majority of mining operations  in Florida handle only the beneficiation step at the mine;
all wet grinding is done at the chemical processing facility.

        Emissions  from dryers depend on several factors including fuel types, air flow rates, product
moisture content, speed of rotation, and the type of rock.  The pebble portion of Florida rock receives
much less washing than the concentrate rock from the flotation processes. It  has a higher clay content
and generates more emissions when dried.  No significant differences have been noted in gas volume
or emissions from  fluid bed or rotary dryers.  A typical dryer processing 230 megagrams per hour
(Mg/hr) (250 tons per hour  [ton/hr]) of rock will discharge between 31 and 45 dry normal cubic
meters per second  (dry normal m3/sec) (70,000 and 100,000 dry standard cubic feet per minute
fdscfm]) of gas, with a PM loading of 1,100 to 11,000 milligrams per dry normal cubic meters
(mg/nm3)  (0.5 to 5 grains per dry  standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]).  Emissions from calciners consist of
PM and S02 and depend on fuel type (coal or  oil), air flow rates, product moisture, and grade of
rock.

       Phosphate rock contains radionuclides in concentrations that are 10 to 100 times the
radionuclide concentration found in most natural material. Most of the radionuclides consist of
uranium and its decay products. Some phosphate rock also contains elevated levels of thorium and its

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.21-3

    -------
daughter products. The specific radionuclides of significance include uranium-238, uranium-234,
thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222, lead-210, and polonium-210.

       The radioactivity of phosphate rock varies regionally, and within the same region the
radioactivity of the material may vary widely from deposit to deposit.  Table 11.21-1 summarizes data
on radionuclide concentrations (specific activities) for domestic deposits of phosphate rock in
picocuries per gram (pCi/g).  Materials handling and processing operations can emit radionuclides
either as dust or in the case of radon-222, which is a decay product of uranium-238, as a gas.
Phosphate dust particles generally have the same specific activity as the phosphate rock from which
the dust originates.
  Table 11.21-1.  RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS OF DOMESTIC PHOSPHATE ROCK8
                            Origin
Typical Concentration Values,
            pCi/g
  Florida

  Tennessee

  South Carolina

  North Carolina

  Arkansas, Oklahoma

  Western States
          48 to  143

         5.8 to  12.6

         267

           5.86b

           19 to 22

          80 to  123
a Reference 8, except where indicated otherwise.  Specific activities in units of picocuries per gram.
b Reference 9.
        Scrubbers are most commonly used to control emissions from phosphate rock dryers, but
electrostatic precipitators are also used.  Fabric filters are not currently being used to control
emissions from dryers.  Venruri scrubbers with a relatively low pressure loss (3,000 pascals [Pa]
[12 in. of water]) may remove 80 to 99 percent of PM 1 to 10 micrometers (^m) in diameter, and
10 to 80 percent of PM  less than 1 /im.  High-pressure-drop scrubbers (7,500 Pa [30 in. of water])
may have collection efficiencies of 96 to 99.9 percent for PM in the size range of 1 to 10 /*m and
80 to 86 percent for particles less than 1 /zm.  Electrostatic precipitators may remove 90 to 99 percent
of all PM. Another control technique for phosphate rock dryers is use of the wet grinding process.
In this process, rock is ground in a wet slurry and then added directly to wet process phosphoric acid
reactors without drying.

        A typical 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr) calciner will discharge about  13 to 27 dry normal m3/sec
(30,000 to 60,000 dscfm) of exhaust gas, with a PM loading of 0.5 to 5 gr/dscf. As with dryers,
scrubbers are the most common control devices used for calciners. At least one operating calciner is
equipped with a precipitator.  Fabric filters could also be applied.

        Oil-fired dryers and calciners have a potential to emit sulfur oxides when high-sulfur residual
fuel oils are burned.  However, phosphate rock typically contains about 55 percent lime (CaO),  which
reacts with the SO2 to form calcium sulfites and sulfates and thus reduces  SO2 emissions.  Dryers and
calciners also emit fluorides.
 11.21-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
       A typical grinder of 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr) capacity will discharge about 1.6 to 2.5 dry normal
m3/sec (3,500 to 5,500 dscftn) of air containing 1.14 to  11.4 g/dry normal m3 (0.5 to 5.0 gr/dscf) of
PM.  The air discharged is "tramp air," which infiltrates the circulating streams.  To avoid fugitive
emissions of rock dust, these grinding processes are operated at negative pressure.  Fabric filters, and
sometimes scrubbers, are used to control grinder emissions.  Substituting wet grinding for
conventional grinding would reduce the potential for PM emissions.

       Emissions from material handling systems are difficult to quantify because several different
systems are  used to convey rock.  Moreover, a large part of the emission potential for these
operations is fugitives.  Conveyor belts moving dried rock are usually covered and sometimes
enclosed.  Transfer points are sometimes hooded and evacuated.  Bucket elevators are usually
enclosed and evacuated to a control device, and ground rock is generally conveyed in totally enclosed
systems with well defined and easily controlled discharge points. Dry rock is normally stored in
enclosed bins or silos, which are vented to the atmosphere, with fabric filters frequently used to
control emissions.

       Table  11.21-2 summarizes  emission factors for controlled emissions of SO2 from phosphate
rock calciners  and for uncontrolled emissions of CO and CO2 from phosphate rock dryers and
calciners.  Emission factors for PM emissions from  phosphate rock dryers, grinders, and calciners are
presented  in Tables 11.21-3 and 11.21-4.   Particle size distribution for uncontrolled filterable PM
emissions from phosphate rock dryers and calciners  are presented in Table 11.21-5, which shows that
the size distribution of the uncontrolled calciner emissions is very similar to that of the dryer
emissions. Tables 11.21-6 and 11.21-7 summarize emission factors for emissions of water-soluble
and total fluorides from phosphate rock dryers and calciners.  Emission factors for controlled and
uncontrolled radionuclide emissions from phosphate rock grinders also are presented in
Tables 11.21-6 and 11.21-7. Emission factors for PM emissions from phosphate rock ore storage,
handling,  and  transfer can be developed using the equations presented in Section 13.2.4.
      Table 11.21-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE
                                     ROCK PROCESSING3

                              EMISSIONS FACTOR RATING:  D




Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)
Calciner with scrubber (SCC 3-05-019-05)
SO2
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
ND ND
0.0034d 0.0069
CO2
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
43b 86b
115e 230e
CO
kg/Mg
Of
Total
Feed
Ib/ton
Of
Total
Feed
0.17C 0.34C
ND ND
a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC =  Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.
b References 10,11.
c Reference 10.
d References 13,15.
e References 14-22.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.21-5

    -------
 Table 11.21-3 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING3
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)6
Dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-019-02)d
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02/
Calciner (SCC 3-05-019-05)d
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)
Transfer and storage
(SCC 3-05-019-_)d
Filterable PMb
PM
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
2.9
0.035
0.016
0.8
0.0022
7.7
0.108

2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
C
D
D
C

E
PM-10
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
2.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E




E



Condensable PMC
Inorganic
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
0.015
0.004
ND
0.0011
ND
0.00798

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D
D

D

C


Organic
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.044h

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING






D


a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 1.
e References 1,10-11.
f References 1,11-12.
£ References 1,14-22.
h References 14-22.
11.21-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 Table 11.21-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING4




Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)6
Dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-0190-2)d
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)f
Calciner (SCC 3-05-019-05)d
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)
Transfer and storage
(SCC 3-05-019-_)d
Filterable PMb
PM
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
5.7
0.070

0.033

1.5
0.0043

15
0.208

1

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

D

C
D

D
C

E

PM-10
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
4.8
ND

ND

ND
ND

15
ND

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E







E




Condensable PMC
Inorganic
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
0.030

0.008

ND
0.0021

ND
0.16S

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D

D


D


C



Organic
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND
0.088h

ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING









D



a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Condensable PM is that PM collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.
d Reference 1.
e References 8,10-11.
f References 1,11-12.
% References 1,14-22.
h References 14-22.
      Table 11.21-5.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FILTERABLE PARTICULATE
            EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYERS AND CALCINERSa

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Diameter, pm
10
5
2
1
0.8
0.5
Percent Less Than Size
Dryers
82
60
27
11
7
3
Calciners
96
81
52
26
10
5
a Reference 1.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.21-7

    -------
  Table 11.21-6 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING3
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)°
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05-019-02)6
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)6
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)f
Fluoride, H2O-Soluble
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
0.00085
0.00048
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D



Fluoride, Total
kg/Mg
Of Total
Feed
0.037
0.0048
ND
ND
0.00081
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D


D
Radionuclidesb
pCi/Mg
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
800R
5.2R
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


E
E

a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC  = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.
b R is the radionuclide concentration (specific activity) of the phosphate rock. In units of pCi/Mg of
  feed.
c Reference 10.
d References 10-11.
e References 7-8.
f Reference 1.
 Table 11.21-7 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING3
Process
Dryer (SCC 3-05-019-01)c
Dryer with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-01)d
Grinder (SCC 3-05~019-02)c
Grinder with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-019-02)e
Calciner with scrubber
(SCC 3-05-019-05)f
Fluoride, H2O-Soluble
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
0.0017
0.00095
ND
ND

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D




Fluoride, Total
lb/ton
Of Total
Feed
0.073
0.0096
ND
ND

0.0016
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D



D
Radionuclidesb
pCL/ton
Of Total
Feed
ND
ND
730R
4.7R

ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


E
E


a Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.
b R is the radionuclide concentration (specific activity) of the phosphate rock.  In units of pCi/Mg of
  feed.
c Reference 10.
d References 10-11.
e References 7-8.
f Reference 1.
 11.21-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
       The new source performance standard (NSPS) for phosphate rock plants was promulgated in
April 1982 (40 CFR 60 Subpart NN).  This standard limits PM emissions and opacity for phosphate
rock calciners, dryers, and grinders and limits opacity for handling and transfer operations. The
national emission standard for radionuclide emissions from elemental phosphorus plants was
promulgated in December 1989 (40 CFR 61 Subpart K). This  standard limits emissions of
polonium-210 from phosphate rock calciners and nodulizing kilns at elemental phosphorus  plants and
requires annual compliance tests.

References For Section 11.21

1.      Background Information: Proposed Standards For Phosphate Rock Plants (Draft),
       EPA-450/3-79-017, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1979.

2.      Minerals Yearbook, Volume I, Metals And Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of
       The Interior, Washington DC,  1991.

3.      Written communication from B. S. Batts, Florida Phosphate Council, to R. Myers, Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 12, 1992.

4.      Written communication from K. T. Johnson, The Fertilizer Institute, to R. Myers,  Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       April 30, 1992.

5.      Written communication for K.  T. Johnson, The Fertilizer Institute to R. Myers, Emission
       Inventory Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 12,  1989.

6.      "Sources Of Air Pollution And Their  Control," Air Pollution, Volume III, 2nd Ed., Arthur
       Stern, ed., New York, Academic Press, 1968, pp. 221-222.

7.      Background Information Document: Proposed Standards For Radionuclides,
       EPA 520/1-83-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Radiation Programs,
       Washington, DC, March  1983.

8.      R. T. Stula et al., Control Technology Alternatives And Costs For Compliance—Elemental
       Phosphorus Plants, Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-6429, Energy Systems Group,
       Science Applications, Incorporated, La Jolla, CA, December 1, 1983.

9.      Telephone communication from B.  Peacock, Texasgulf, Incorporated, to R. Marinshaw,
       Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, April 4, 1993.

10.    Emission Test Report: International Minerals And Chemical Corporation, Kingsford,  Florida,
       EMB Report 73-ROC-l, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC,  February 1973.

11.    Emission Test Report: Occidental Chemical Company,  White Springs, Florida, EMB
       Report 73-ROC-3, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       January 1973.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.21-9

    -------
12.    Emission Test Report:  International Minerals And Chemical Corporation, Noralyn, Florida,
       EMB Report 73-ROC-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, February 1973.

13.    Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate Test, No. 1  Calciner, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, North
       Carolina, Texasgulf Environmental Section, Aurora, NC, May 1990.

14.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 4, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 28, 1991, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 25, 1991.

15.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 6, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 5 and 6, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 17, 1992.

16.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 4, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 30, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 16,  1992.

17.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 1, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 10, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 8, 1992.

18.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 2, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, July 7, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 16, 1992.

19.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 5, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, June 16, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, July 8, 1992.

20.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 6, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 4 and 5, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 21, 1992.

21.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 3, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 27, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 21, 1992.

22.    Source Performance Test, Calciner Number 2, Texasgulf, Inc., Phosphate Operations, Aurora,
       NC, August 21 and 22, 1992, Texasgulf, Incorporated, Aurora, NC, September 20, 1992.
 11.21-10                            EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
11.22  Diatomite Processing




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.22-1

    -------

    -------
11.23  Taconite Ore Processing

11.23.1  General1-2

        More than two-thirds of the iron ore produced in the United States consists of taconite, a low-
grade iron ore largely from deposits in Minnesota and Michigan, but from other areas as well.
Processing of taconite consists of crushing and grinding the ore to liberate ironbearing particles,
concentrating the ore by separating the particles from the waste material (gangue), and pelletizing the
iron ore concentrate.  A simplified flow diagram of these processing steps is shown in
Figure 11.23-1.

Liberation -
        The first step in processing crude taconite ore is crushing and grinding.  The ore must be
ground to a particle size sufficiently close to the grain size of the ironbearing mineral to allow for a
high degree of mineral liberation.  Most of the taconite used today requires very fine grinding.  The
grinding is normally performed in 3 or 4 stages of dry crushing, followed by wet grinding in rod
mills and ball mills.   Gyratory crushers are generally used for primary crushing, and cone crushers
are used for secondary and tertiary fine crushing.  Intermediate  vibrating screens remove undersize
material from the feed to the next  crusher and allow for closed circuit operation of the fine crushers.
The rod and ball mills are also in  closed circuit with classification systems such as cyclones.  An
alternative is to feed some coarse ores directly to wet or dry semiautogenous or autogenous (using
larger pieces of the ore  to grind/mill the smaller pieces) grinding mills, then to pebble or ball mills.
Ideally, the liberated particles of iron minerals and barren gangue should be removed from the
grinding circuits as soon as  they are formed, with larger particles returned for further grinding.

Concentration -
        As the iron ore  minerals are liberated by the crushing steps, the ironbearing particles must be
concentrated.  Since only about 33 percent of the crude taconite becomes a shippable product for iron
making, a large amount of gangue is generated.  Magnetic separation and flotation are most
commonly used for concentration of the taconite ore.

        Crude ores in which most  of the recoverable iron is magnetite (or, in rare cases, maghemite)
are normally concentrated by magnetic separation.  The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total
iron by  assay, but theoretically only about 75 percent of this is recoverable  magnetite. The remaining
iron is discarded with the gangue.

       Nonmagnetic taconite ores are concentrated by froth flotation or by a combination of selective
flocculation and flotation. The method is determined by the differences in surface activity between
the iron and gangue particles. Sharp separation is often difficult.

       Various combinations of magnetic separation and flotation may be used to concentrate ores
containing various iron minerals (magnetite and hematite, or maghemite) and  wide ranges of mineral
grain sizes.  Flotation is also often used as a final polishing operation on magnetic concentrates.

Pelletization -
       Iron ore concentrates must be coarser than about No.  10 mesh to be acceptable as blast
furnace feed without further treatment.  The finer concentrates are agglomerated  into small "green"
pellets.  This is normally accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum or


10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.23-1

    -------
                                                o
                                                u
                       o
                       z
                       5
                       z

                                                 22

                                                          U
                                                          
= z
^ ^
0 *
E

                                                                                       c
11.23-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
balling disc.  A binder, usually powdered bentonite, may be added to the concentrate to improve ball
formation and the physical qualities of the "green" balls.  The bentonite is lightly mixed with the
carefully moistened feed at 5 to  10 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (10 to 20 pounds per ton
[lb/ton]).

       The pellets are hardened by a procedure called induration, the drying and heating of the green
balls in an oxidizing atmosphere at incipient fusion temperature of 1290 to  1400°C (2350 to 2550°F),
depending on the composition of the balls, for several minutes and then cooling.  Four general types
of indurating apparatus are currently used.  These are the vertical shaft furnace, the straight grate, the
circular grate, and grate/kiln.  Most of the large plants and new plants use the grate/kiln.  Natural gas
dis most commonly used for pellet induration now, but probably not in the future. Heavy oil  is being
used at a few plants, and coal may be used at future plants.

       In the vertical shaft furnace, the wet green balls are distributed evenly over the top of the
slowly descending bed of pellets. A rising stream of hot gas of controlled temperature and
composition flows counter to the descending bed of pellets.  Auxiliary fuel  combustion chambers
supply hot gases midway between the top and bottom of the furnace.  In the straight grate apparatus,
a continuous bed  of agglomerated green pellets is carried through various up and down flows of gases
at different temperatures.  The grate/kiln apparatus consists  of a continuous traveling grate followed
by a rotary kiln.  Pellets indurated by the straight grate apparatus are cooled on an extension of the
grate or in a separate cooler.  The grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler, usually an
annular cooler with counter-current airflow.

11.23.2  Emissions And Controls1"4

       Emission  sources in taconite ore processing plants are indicated  in Figure 11.23-1.
Paniculate emissions also arise from ore mining operations. Emission factors for the major
processing sources without controls are presented in Table 11.23-1, and control efficiencies in
Table 11.23-2.  Table 11.23-3 and Figure 11.23-2 present data on particle size distributions and
corresponding size-specific emission factors for the controlled main waste gas  stream from  taconite
ore pelletizing operations.
      Table 11.23-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   TACONITE ORE PROCESSING, WITHOUT CONTROLS3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Ore transfer
Coarse crushing and screening
Fine crushing
Bentonite transfer
Bentonite blending
Grate feed
Indurating furnace waste gas
Grate discharge
Pellet handling
Emissions'*
kg/Mg
0.05
0.10
39.9
0.02
0.11
0.32
14.6
0.66
1.7
lb/ton
0.10
0.20
79.8
0.04
0.22
0.64
29.2
1.32
3.4
a Reference 1.  Median values.
b Expressed as units per unit weight of pellets produced.


10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.23-3

    -------
                  Table 11.23-2. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR COMBINATIONS OF CONTROL DEVICES AND SOURCES8
K>

E
Control
Scrubber



Cyclone
Multiclone

Rotoclone

Bag collector



Electrostatic prccipltator

Dry mechanical collector
Centrifugal collector


Coarse
Crushing
95(1 0)f
91.6(4)f
99(2)m

85(l)f
92(2)f
88(2)f
91.6(4)f

99(2)m
99.9(2)m
99(4)e
99.9(2)e


85(l)f



Ore
Transfer
99.5(18)f
99(5)f
97(4)m
99(l)m
95(2)e


98(l)f







85(l)f



Fine
Crushing
99.5(5)f
99.6(6)f
97(1 0)m
97(1 9)e



99.7(7)f
98.3(4)f










Bentonite
Transfer
98(l)f


fj





99(8)e









Bentonite
Blending
98.7(l)f
99.3(l)f







99(2)f
99.7(l)f








Grate
Feed
98.7(2)f
98(l)m
99(5)e













88(l)f
98(l)e
99.4(l)e
Grate
Discharge
99.3(2)f
98(5)ra
99(1 )e













88(l)f
99.4(l)e

Waste
Gas
98.5(l)e
89(l)e


95 - 98(56)f
95 - 98(2)f







98.9(2)f
98.8(1)6




Pellet
Handling
99.3(2)f
99.7(l)f
99(2)f
97.5(l)e



98(l)e











m
(X!
c/o
n
H
O
*3
C/3
 S.
a Reference 1.  Control efficiencies are expressed as percent reduction. Numbers in parentheses are the number of indicated combinations
  with the stated efficiency. The letters m, f, e denote whether the stated efficiencies were based upon manufacturer's rating (m), field
  testing (f), or estimations (e).  Blanks indicate that no such combinations of source and control technology are known to exist, or that no
  data on the efficiency of the combination are available.
 oo
 ON

    -------
     Table 11.23-3 (Metric Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
 EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONTROLLED INDURATING FURNACE WASTE GAS STREAM
                          FROM TACONITE ORE PELLETIZINGa

                     SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Aerodynamic
Particle
Diameter, ^m
2.5
6.0
10.0
Particle Size
Cyclone
Controlled
17.4
25.6
35.2
Distribution15
Cyclone/ESP
Controlled
48.0
71.0
81.5
Size-Specific Emission Factor,
kg/Mgc
Cyclone
Controlled
0.16
0.23
0.31
Cyclone/ESP
Controlled
0.012
0.018
0.021
a Reference 3.  ESP = electrostatic precipitator. After cyclone control, mass emission factor is
  0.89 kg/Mg, and after cyclone/ESP control, 0.025 kg/Mg.  Mass and size-specific emission factors
  are calculated from data in Reference 3, and are expressed as kg particulate/Mg of pellets produced.
b Cumulative weight  % < particle diameter.
c Size-specific emission factor = mass emission factor x particle size distribution, %/100.
     Figure 11.23-2.  Particle size distributions and size-specific emission factors for indurating
                    furnace waste gas stream from taconite ore pelletizing.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.23-5

    -------
       The taconite ore is handled dry through the crushing stages.  All crushers, size classification
screens, and conveyor transfer points are major points of particulate emissions.  Crushed ore is
normally wet ground in rod and ball mills.  A few plants, however, use dry autogenous or
semi-autogenous grinding and have higher emissions than  do conventional plants.  The ore remains
wet through the rest of the beneficiation process (through  concentrate storage, Figure 11.23-1) so
particulate emissions after crushing are generally insignificant.

       The first source of emissions in the pelletizing process is the transfer and blending of
bentonite.  There are no other significant emissions in the balling section, since the iron ore
concentrate is normally  too wet to cause appreciable dusting.  Additional emission points in the
pelletizing process include the main waste gas stream from the indurating furnace, pellet handling,
furnace transfer points (grate feed and discharge), and for plants using the grate/kiln furnace, annular
coolers.  In addition, tailings basins  and unpaved roadways can be sources of fugitive emissions.
       Fuel used to fire the indurating furnace generates low levels of sulfur dioxide
emissions. For a natural gas-fired furnace, these emissions are about 0.03 kilograms of SO2 per
megagram of pellets produced (0.06 Ib/ton).  Higher S02 emissions (about 0.06 to 0.07 kg/Mg, or
0.12 to 0.14 Ib/ton) would result from an oil- or coal-fired furnace.

       Particulate emissions from taconite ore processing plants are controlled by a variety of
devices, including cyclones, multiclones, rotoclones, scrubbers, baghouses, and electrostatic
precipitators.  Water sprays are also used to suppress dusting.  Annular coolers are generally left
uncontrolled because their mass loadings of particulates are small, typically less than 0.11 grams per
normal cubic meter (0.05 gr/scf).

       The largest source of particulate emissions in taconite ore mines is traffic on unpaved haul
roads.4 Table 11.23-4 presents size-specific emission factors for this source determined through
source testing at one taconite mine. Other significant particulate emission sources at taconite mines
are wind erosion and blasting.4
    Table 11.23-4 (Metric and English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
        HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT TACONITE MINESa
Surface Material
Crushed rock and glacial
till

Crushed taconite and
waste

Emission Factor By Aerodynamic Diameter, jtm
<30
3.1
11.0
2.6
9.3
<15
2.2
7.9
1.9
6.6
<10
1.7
6.2
1.5
5.2
<5
1.1
3.9
0.9
3.2
<2.5
0.62
2.2
0.54
1.9
Units
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
D
D
  Reference 4. Predictive emission factor equations, which provide generally more accurate
  estimates, are in Chapter 13. VKT = vehicle kilometers travelled.  VMT = vehicle miles
  travelled.
 11.23-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Refoirnatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
Chapter  13 of this document.  Each equation has been developed for a source operation defined by a
single dust-generating mechanism common to many industries such as vehicle activity on unpaved
roads. The predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in measured emission factors
by relating emissions to parameters that characterize source conditions. These parameters may be
grouped  into 3 categories, (1) measures of source activity or energy expended, (i. e., the speed and
weight of a vehicle on an unpaved road); (2) properties of the material being disturbed, (i. e., the
content of suspendable fines in the surface material of an unpaved road); and (3) climatic parameters,
such as the number of precipitation-free days per year, when emissions tend to a maximum.

       Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment to specific source
conditions, such equations should be used in place of the single-value factors for open dust sources in
Tables 11.23-1 and 11.23-4 whenever emission estimates are needed for sources in  a specific taconite
ore mine or processing facility.  One should remember that the generally higher quality ratings
assigned to these equations apply only if (1) reliable values of correction parameters have been
determined for the specific sources of interest, and (2) the correction parameter values  lie within the
ranges tested in developing the equations.  In the event that site-specific values are not  available,
Chapter  13 lists measured properties of road surface and aggregate process materials found in taconite
mining and processing facilities, and these can be used to estimate correction parameter values for the
predictive emission factor equations. The use of mean correction parameter values  from Chapter 13
reduces the quality  ratings of the factor equations by  1 level.

References For Section 11.23

1.     J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions From Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation and
       Pelletization,  Volume 1,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute,
       Minnetonka, MN, June 1983.

2.     A. K. Reed, Standard Support And Environmental Impact Statement For The Iron Ore
       Beneficiation Industry (Draft), EPA  Contract No. 68-02-  1323, Battelle Columbus
       Laboratories,  Columbus, OH, December 1976.

3.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB 76-IOB-2,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November  1975.

4.     T. A. Cuscino, et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution Control
       Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.23-7

    -------

    -------
11.24 Metallic Minerals Processing

11.24.1  Process Description1"6

        Metallic mineral processing typically involves the mining of ore from either open pit or
underground mines; the crushing and grinding of ore; the separation of valuable minerals from matrix
rock through various concentration steps; and at some operations, the drying, calcining, or pelletizing
of concentrates to ease further handling and refining.  Figure 11.24-1 is a general flow diagram for
metallic mineral processing.  Very few metallic mineral processing facilities will contain all of the
operations depicted in this figure, but all facilities will use at least some of these operations in the
process of separating valued minerals from the matrix rock.

        The number of crushing steps necessary to reduce ore to the proper size vary with the type of
ore.  Hard ores, including some copper, gold, iron, and molybdenum ores, may require as much  as a
tertiary crushing.  Softer ores,  such as some uranium, bauxite, and titanium/zirconium ores, require
little or no crushing. Final comminution of both hard and soft ores is often accomplished  by grinding
operations using media such as balls or rods of various materials.  Grinding is most often  performed
with an ore/water slurry, which reduces paniculate matter (PM) emissions to negligible levels.  When
dry grinding processes are used, PM emissions can be considerable.

        After final size reduction, the beneficiation of the ore increases the concentration of valuable
minerals by separating them from the matrix rock.  A variety of physical  and chemical processes  is
used to concentrate the mineral.  Most often, physical or chemical separation is performed in an
aqueous environment, which eliminates PM emissions, although some ferrous and titaniferous
minerals are separated by magnetic or electrostatic methods in a dry environment.

        The concentrated mineral products may be dried to remove surface moisture.  Drying is most
frequently done in natural gas-fired rotary dryers.  Calcining or pelletizing of some products, such as
alumina or iron concentrates, is also performed.  Emissions from calcining and pelletizing operations
are not covered in this section.

11.24.2  Process Emissions7"9

       Paniculate matter emissions result from metallic mineral plant operations such as crushing and
dry grinding ore,  drying concentrates, storing and reclaiming ores and concentrates from storage bins,
transferring materials, and loading final products for shipment. Paniculate matter emission factors
are provided in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for various metallic mineral process operations including
primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing; dry grinding; drying; and material  handling and transfer.
Fugitive emissions are also possible from roads and open stockpiles, factors for which are  in
Section 13.2.

       The emission factors in Tables 11.24-1  and  11.24-2 are for the process operations  as a whole.
At most metallic mineral processing plants,  each process operation requires several types of
equipment.  A single crushing operation likely includes a hopper or ore dump, screen(s), crusher,
surge bin, apron feeder, and conveyor belt transfer points.  Emissions from these various pieces of
equipment are often  ducted to a single control device. The emission factors provided in
Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing operations are for process
units that  are typical arrangements of the above equipment.


8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Minerals Products Industry                             11.24-1

    -------
                    ORE
                   MINING
               SCC: 3-05-
             PRIMARY CRUSHING
             SCC: 3-03-024-01,05
            SECONDARY CRUSHING
              SCC: 3-03-024-02, 06
                                            STORAGE
                                         SCC: 3-05-
             TERTIARY CRUSHING
             SCC: 3-03-024-03, 07
                                            STORAGE
                                         SCC: 3-05-
                  GRINDING
              SCC: 3-03-024-09,10
                BENEFICIATION
           Tailings
                   DRYING
               SCC: 3-03-024-11
     t   t
     CT) ©
                PACKAGING AND
                   SHIPPING
              SCC: 3-05-024-04,08
                   KEY
               PM emissions
               Gaseous emissions
           Figure 11.24-1. Process flow diagram for metallic mineral processing.
11.24-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
             Table 11.24-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALLIC
                                  MINERALS PROCESSING3

               EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS: (A-E) Follow The Emission Factor
Source
Low-moisture ore0
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-01)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-02)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-03)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)°
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024- 10)e
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Material handling and transfer-all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-04)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-04)8'h
High-moisture orec
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-05)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-06)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-07)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)6
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024- 10)e
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-ll)f
Drying— titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024- ll)f
Material handling and transfer-all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-08)g
Material handling and transfer— bauxite/alumina
(SCC 3-03-024-08)S'h
Filterableb'c
PM

0.2
0.6
1.4
Neg
14.4
1.2
9.8
0.3
0.06
0.6

0.01
0.03
0.03
Neg
14.4
1.2
9.8
0.3
0.005
ND

RATING

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C
C

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C


PM-10

0.02
ND
0.08
Neg
13
0.16
5.9
ND
0.03
ND

0.004
0.012
0.01
Neg
13
0.16
5.9
ND
0.002
ND

RATING

C

E

C
D
C
C
C


C
D
E

C
D
C

C


a References 9-12; factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted; controlled
  emission factors are discussed in Section 11.24.3.  All emission factors are in kg/Mg of material
  processed  unless noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code. Neg =  negligible.  ND =  no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA  Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Defined in Section 11.24.2.
d Based on weight of material entering primary crusher.
e Based on weight of material entering grinder; emission factors are the same for both low-moisture
  and high-moisture ore because material is usually dried before entering grinder.
f Based on weight of material exiting dryer; emission factors are the same for both high-moisture and
  low-moisture ores; SOX emissions are fuel dependent (see Chapter 1);  NOX emissions depend on
  burner design and combustion temperature (see Chapter 1).
g Based on weight of material transferred; applies to  each loading or unloading operation and to  each
  conveyor belt transfer point.
h Bauxite with moisture content as high as 15 to 18% can exhibit the emission characteristics of low-
  moisture ore; use low-moisture ore emission factor for bauxite unless  material exhibits obvious
  sticky, nondusting characteristics.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)
Minerals Products Industry
11.24-3

    -------
            Table 11.24-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR METALLIC
                                MINERALS PROCESSING3'15

              EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS:  (A-E) Follow The Emission Factor
Source
Low-moisture orec
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-O24-01)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 303-024-02)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-03)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)e
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-10)6
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Drying-titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-1 l)f
Material handling and transfer— all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-04)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-04)S'h
High-moisture ore0
Primary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-05)d
Secondary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-06)d
Tertiary crushing (SCC 3-03-024-07)d
Wet grinding
Dry grinding with air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-09)6
Dry grinding without air conveying and/or air classification (SCC 3-03-024-10)°
Drying— all minerals except titanium/zirconium sands (SCC 3-03-024-11)
Drying— titanium/zirconium with cyclones (SCC 3-03-024-ll)f
Material handling and transfer-all minerals except bauxite (SCC 3-03-024-08)8
Material handling and transfer-bauxite/alumina (SCC 3-03-024-08)8-h
Filterableb>c
PM

0.5
1.2
2.7
Neg
28.8
2.4
19.7
0.5
0.12
1.1

0.02
0.05
0.06
Neg
28.8
2.4
19.7
0.5
0.01
ND
RATING

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C
C

C
D
E

C
D
C
C
C

PM-10

0.05
ND
0.16
Neg
26
0.31
12
ND
0.06
ND

0.009
0.02
0.02
Neg
26
0.31
12
ND
0.004
ND
RATING

C

E

C
D
C
C
C


C
D
E

C
D
C

C

a References 9-12; factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted; controlled
  emission factors are discussed in Section 11.24.3. All emission factors are in Ib/ton of material
  processed unless noted. SCC  = Source Classification Code. Neg = negligible. ND  = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Defined in Section  11.24.2.
d Based on weight of material  entering primary crusher.
e Based on weight of material  entering grinder; emission factors are the same for both low-moisture
  and high-moisture ore because material is usually dried before entering grinder.
f Based on weight of material  exiting dryer; emission factors are the same for both high-moisture and
  low-moisture ores;  SOX emissions are fuel dependent (see Chapter 1); NOX emissions depend on
  burner design and combustion temperature (see Chapter 1).
g Based on weight of material  transferred; applies to each loading or unloading operation and to each
  conveyor belt transfer point.
h Bauxite with moisture content as high as 15 to 18% can exhibit the emission characteristics of low-
  moisture ore;  use low-moisture ore emission factor for bauxite  unless material  exhibits obvious
  sticky, nondusting characteristics.
11.24-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
        Emission factors are provided in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for two types of dry grinding
operations:  those that involve air conveying and/or air classification of material and those that
involve screening of material without air conveying. Grinding operations that involve air conveying
and air classification usually require dry cyclones for efficient product recovery. The factors in
Tables  11.24-1 and  11.24-2 are for emissions after product recovery cyclones.  Grinders in closed
circuit with screens  usually do not require cyclones.  Emission factors are not  provided  for wet
grinders because the high-moisture content in these operations can reduce emissions to negligible
levels.

        The emission factors for dryers  in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 include transfer points integral
to the drying operation. A separate emission factor is provided for dryers at titanium/zirconium
plants that use dry cyclones for product recovery and for emission control.  Titanium/zirconium sand-
type ores do not require crushing or grinding, and the ore is washed to remove humic and clay
material before concentration and drying operations.

        At some metallic mineral processing plants, material is stored in enclosed bins between
process operations.  The emission factors provided in Tables 11.24-1 and 11.24-2 for the handling
and transfer of material should be applied to the loading of material into storage bins and the
transferring of material from the bin.  The emission factor will usually  be applied twice to a storage
operation: once for the loading operation and once  for the reclaiming operation.  If material is stored
at multiple points in the plant, the emission factor should be applied to  each operation and should
apply to the material being stored at each bin. The  material handling and transfer factors do not
apply to small hoppers, surge bins, or transfer points that are integral with crushing, drying, or
grinding operations.

        At some large metallic mineral processing plants, extensive material transfer operations with
numerous conveyor  belt transfer points may be required. The emission factors for material handling
and transfer should be applied to each transfer point that is  not an integral part of another process
unit.  These emission factors should be applied to each such conveyor transfer point and should be
based on the amount of material transferred through that point.

        The emission factors for material handling can also be applied to final  product loading for
shipment.  Again, these factors should be applied to each transfer point, ore dump, or other point
where material is allowed to fall freely.

        Test data collected in the mineral processing industries indicate that the moisture content of
ore can have a significant effect on emissions from several process operations.  High moisture
generally reduces the uncontrolled emission rates, and separate emission rates are provided for
primary crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers, and material handling and transfer operations
that process high-moisture ore.  Drying  and dry grinding operations are assumed to produce or to
involve only low-moisture material.

        For most metallic minerals covered in this section, high-moisture ore is defined  as ore whose
moisture content, as measured at the primary  crusher inlet or at the mine, is 4 weight percent or
greater.  Ore defined as high-moisture at the primary crusher is presumed to be high-moisture ore at
any subsequent operation for which high-moisture factors are provided unless a drying operation
precedes the operation under consideration. Ore is defined  as low-moisture when a dryer precedes
the operation under  consideration or when the ore moisture at the mine or primary crusher is less than
4 weight percent.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Minerals Products Industry                             11.24-5

    -------
        Separate factors are provided for bauxite handling operations because some types of bauxite
with a moisture content as high as 15 to 18 weight percent can still produce relatively high  emissions
during material handling procedures. These emissions could be eliminated by adding sufficient
moisture to the ore, but bauxite then becomes so sticky that it is difficult to handle.  Thus, there is
some advantage to keeping bauxite in a relatively dusty state, and the low-moisture emission factors
given represent conditions fairly typical of the industry.

        Paniculate matter size distribution data for some process operations have been obtained for
control device inlet streams. Since these inlet streams contain PM from several activities, a
variability has been anticipated in the calculated size-specific emission factors for PM.

        Emission factors for PM equal to or less than 10 /*m in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) from
a limited number of tests performed to characterize the processes are presented in Table 11.24-1.

        In some plants, PM emissions from multiple pieces of equipment and operations are collected
and ducted to a control device.  Therefore, examination of reference documents is recommended
before applying the factors to specific plants.

       .Emission factors for PM-10 from high-moisture primary crushing operations and material
handling and transfer operations were based on test results usually in the 30 to  40 weight percent
range.  However, high values were obtained for high-moisture ore at both the primary crushing and
the material handling and transfer operations, and  these were included in the average values in the
table.  A similarly wide  range occurred in the low-moisture drying operation.

        Several other factors are generally assumed to affect the level of emissions from a particular
process operation.  These include ore characteristics such as hardness, crystal and grain  structure, and
friability.  Equipment design characteristics, such  as crusher type, could also affect the  emissions
level.  At this time, data are not sufficient to quantify each of these variables.

11.24.3 Controlled Emissions7'9

        Emissions from  metallic mineral processing plants are usually controlled with wet scrubbers
or baghouses.  For moderate to heavy uncontrolled emission rates from typical dry ore  operations,
dryers, and dry grinders, a wet scrubber with pressure drop of 1.5 to 2.5 kilopascals (kPa)  (6 to
10 inches of water) will  reduce emissions by approximately 95 percent.  With very low uncontrolled
emission rates typical of high-moisture conditions, the percentage reduction will be lower
(approximately 70 percent).

        Over a wide range of inlet mass loadings,  a well-designed and maintained baghouse will
reduce emissions to a relatively constant outlet concentration.  Such baghouses  tested in the mineral
processing industry consistently reduce emissions  to less than 0.05 gram per dry standard cubic meter
(g/dscm) (0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot  [gr/dscf]),  with an average concentration  of
0.015 g/dscm (0.006 gr/dscf).  Under conditions of moderate to high uncontrolled emission rates of
typical dry ore facilities, this level of controlled emissions represents greater than 99 percent removal
of PM emissions. Because baghouses reduce emissions to a relatively constant outlet concentration,
percentage emission reductions would be less for baghouses on facilities with a low level of
uncontrolled emissions.
 H.24-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 8/82

    -------
References For Section 11.24

 1.     D. Kram, "Modern Mineral Processing:  Drying, Calcining And Agglomeration",
       Engineering And Mining Journal, 181 (6): 134-151, June 1980.

 2.     A. Lynch, Mineral Crushing And Grinding Circuits, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
       New York, 1977.

 3.     "Modern Mineral Processing:  Grinding", Engineering And Mining Journal,
       181(161): 106-113, June 1980.

 4.     L. Mollick, "Modern Mineral Processing: Crushing", Engineering And Mining Journal,
       181(6):96-IQ3, June 1980.

 5.     R. H. Perry, et al., Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
       1963.

 6.     R. Richards and C. Locke, Textbook Of Ore Dressing, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1940.

 7.     "Modern Mineral Processing:  Air And Water Pollution Controls", Engineering And Mining
       Journal, 181 (6): 156-171, June 1980.

 8.     W. E. Horst and R. C. Enochs, "Modern Mineral Processing:  Instrumentation And Process
       Control", Engineering And Mining Journal, 7S7(6):70-92, June 1980.

 9.     Metallic Mineral Processing Plants - Background Information For Proposed Standards (Draft).
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-3063, TRW, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981.

10.     Telephone communication between E. C. Monnig, TRW, Environmental Division, and R.
       Beale, Associated Minerals, Inc.,  May 17, 1982.

11.     Written communication from W. R. Chalker, DuPont, Inc., to S. T. Cuffe, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 21, 1981.

12.     Written communication from P. H. Fournet, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, to
       S. T. Cuffe, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 5,
       1982.
8/82 (Reformatted 1/95)                Minerals Products Industry                           11.24-7

    -------

    -------
11.25  Clay Processing

11.25.1  Process Description1"4

        Clay is defined as a natural, earthy, fine-grained material, largely of a group of crystalline
hydrous silicate minerals known as clay minerals.  Clay minerals are composed mainly of silica,
alumina, and water, but they may also contain appreciable quantities of iron, alkalies,  and alkaline
earths.  Clay is formed by the mechanical and chemical breakdown of rocks.  The six-digit Source
Classification Codes (SCC) for clay processing are as follows: .SCC 3-05-041 for kaolin processing,
SCC 3-05-042 for ball clay processing, SCC 3-05-043 for fire clay processing, SCC 3-05-044 for
bentonite processing, SCC 3-05-045 for fuller's earth processing, and SCC 3-05-046 for common clay
and shale processing.

        Clays are categorized into six groups by the U. S. Bureau Of Mines.  The categories  are
kaolin, ball clay, fire clay, bentonite, fuller's earth, and common clay and shale. Kaolin, or china
clay, is defined as a white, claylike material composed mainly of kaolinite, which is a hydrated
aluminum silicate (Al2O3«2SiO2*2H2O), and other kaolin-group minerals. Kaolin has a wide variety
of industrial applications including paper coating and filling, refractories, fiberglass  and insulation,
rubber, paint, ceramics, and chemicals.  Ball clay is  a plastic, white-firing clay that  is composed
primarily of kaolinite and is used mainly for bonding in ceramic ware, primarily dinnerware, floor
and wall tile, pottery,  and sanitary ware.  Fire clays  are composed primarily of kaolinite, but also
may contain several other materials including diaspore, burley, burley-flint, ball clay,  and bauxitic
clay and shale.  Because of their ability to withstand  temperatures of 1500°C (2700°F) or higher, fire
clays generally are used for refractories or to raise vitrification temperatures in heavy  clay products.
Bentonite is a clay composed primarily of smectite minerals, usually montmorillonite,  and is used
largely in drilling muds, in foundry sands, and in pelletizing taconite iron  ores.  Fuller's earth is
defined as a nonplastic clay or claylike material that typically is high in magnesia and  has specialized
decolorizing and purifying properties. Fuller's earth, which is very similar to bentonite, is  used
mainly as absorbents of pet waste, oil, and grease. Common clay is defined as a plastic clay or
claylike material with a vitrification point below 1100°C (2000°F).  Shale is a laminated sedimentary
rock that is formed by the consolidation of clay,  mud, or silt.  Common clay and shale are  composed
mainly of illite or chlorite, but also may contain  kaolin and montmorillonite.

        Most domestic clay is mined by open-pit methods using various types of equipment, including
draglines, power shovels,  front-end loaders, backhoes, scraper-loaders, and shale planers.  In
addition, some kaolin is extracted by hydraulic mining and dredging.  Most underground  clay mines
are located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, where the clays are associated with coal
deposits.  A higher percentage of fire clay is mined underground than other clays, because the higher
quality fire clay deposits are found at depths that make open-pit mining less profitable.

        Clays usually are transported by truck  from the mine to the processing plants,  many of which
are located at or near the mine.  For most applications, clays are processed by mechanical methods,
such as crushing, grinding, and screening, that do not appreciably alter the chemical or mineralogical
properties of the material. However, because clays are used in such a wide range of applications, it
is often necessary to use other mechanical and chemical processes, such as drying, calcining,
bleaching, blunging, and extruding to prepare the material for use.
1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.25-1

    -------
       Primary crushing reduces material size from as much as one meter to a few centimeters in
diameter and typically is accomplished using jaw or gyratory crushers.  Rotating pan crushers, cone
crushers, smooth roll crushers, toothed roll crushers, and hammer mills are used for secondary
crushing, which further reduces particle size to 3 mm (0.1  in.) or less.  For some applications,
tertiary size reduction is necessary and is accomplished by  means of ball, rod, or pebble mills, which
are often combined with air separators. Screening typically is carried out by means of two or more
multi-deck sloping screens that are mechanically or electromagnetically vibrated.  Pug mills are used
for blunging, and rotary, fluid bed, and vibrating grate dryers are used for drying clay materials.  At
most plants that calcine clay, rotary or flash calciners are used.  However, multiple hearth furnaces
often are used to calcine kaolin.

       Material losses through basic mechanical processing generally are insignificant.  However,
material losses for processes such as washing and sizing  can reach 30 to 40 percent.  The most
significant processing losses occur in the processing of kaolin and fuller's earth.  The following
paragraphs describe the steps used to process each of the six categories of clay. Table 11.25-1
summarizes these processes by clay type.

Kaolin -
       Kaolin is both dry- and wet-processed.  The dry  process is simpler and produces a lower
quality product than the wet process.  Dry-processed kaolin is used mainly in the rubber industry, and
to a lesser extent, for paper filling and to produce  fiberglass and sanitary ware. Wet-processed kaolin
is used extensively  in the paper manufacturing industry.  A process flow  diagram for kaolin mining
and dry processing is presented in Figure 11.25-1, and Figure  11.25-2 illustrates the wet processing
of kaolin.

       In the dry process, the raw material  is crushed to the desired size, dried in rotary dryers,
pulverized and air-floated  to remove most of the coarse grit.  Wet processing of kaolin begins with
blunging to produce a slurry, which then is fractionated into coarse and fine fractions using
centrifuges, hydrocyclones, or hydroseparators.  At this  step in the process, various chemical
methods, such as bleaching, and physical and magnetic methods, may be used to refine the material.
Chemical processing includes leaching with sulfuric acid, followed by the addition of a strong
reducing agent such as hydrosulfite.  Before drying, the  slurry is filtered  and  dewatered by means of
a filter press, centrifuge, rotary vacuum filter, or tube filter.  The filtered dewatered slurry material
may be shipped or further processed by drying in apron, rotary, or spray dryers.  Following the
drying step, the kaolin may be calcined for use as  filler or  refractory material.  Multiple hearth
furnaces are most often used to calcine kaolin.  Flash and rotary calciners also are used.

Ball Clay -
       Mined ball  clay, which typically has a moisture content of approximately  28 percent,  first is
stored in drying sheds until the moisture content decreases  to 20 to 24 percent. The clay then is
shredded in a disintegrator into small pieces 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (cm) (0.5  to 1 in.) in thickness.
The shredded material then is either dried or ground in a hammer mill.  Material exiting the hammer
mill is mixed with water and bulk loaded as a slurry for  shipping.  Figure 11.25-3 depicts the process
flow for ball clay processing.

       Indirect rotary or vibrating grate dryers are used to dry ball clay.  Combustion gases  from the
firebox pass through an air-to-air heat exchanger to heat  the drying air to a temperature of
approximately 300°C (570°F). The clay is  dried to a moisture content of 8 to 10 percent.  Following
drying, the material is ground in a roller mill  and  shipped.  The ground ball clay may also be mixed
with water as a slurry for bulk shipping.
 11.25-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
                       Table 11.25-1.  CLAY PROCESSING OPERATIONS
Process
Mining
Stockpiling
Crushing
Grinding
Screening
Mixing
Blunging
Air flotation
Slurry ing
Extruding
Drying
Calcining
Packaging
Other







Kaolin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
Water
fraction-
ation,
magnetic
separation,
acid
treatment,
bleaching
Ball Clay
X
X
X
X

X

X
X



X
Shredding,
pulverizing






Fire Clay
X
X
X
X
X





X
X
X
Weathering,
blending






Bentonite
X
X
X
X






X

X
Cation
exchange,
granulating,
air
classifying



Fuller's
Earth
X
X
X
X
X

X


X
X

X
Dispersing







Common
Clay And
Shale
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X










Fire Clay -
       Figure 11.25-4 illustrates the process flow for fire clay processing.  Mined fire clay first is
transported to the processing plant and stockpiled.  In some cases, the crude clay is weathered for
6 to 12 months, depending on the type of fire clay.  Freezing and thawing break the material up,
resulting in smaller particles and improved plasticity.  The material then is crushed and ground.  At
this stage in the process, the clay has a moisture content of 10 to 15 percent.  For certain
applications,  the clay is dried in mechanical dryers to reduce the moisture content of the material to
7 percent or less.  Typically, rotary and vibrating grate dryers fired with natural gas or fuel oil are
used for  drying fire clay.

       To increase the refractoriness of the material, fire  clay often is calcined.  Calcining eliminates
moisture and organic material and causes a chemical reaction to occur between the alumina and silica
in the clay, rendering a material (mullite) that is harder, denser, and more easily crushed than
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-3

    -------
1
OPEN PIT MINING
SCX) 3-05-041 -01
Rainwater
Ground Wate
I

>r
SETTLING PONDS
1
                   Truck—*.
   RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-041-03
                                   I
                   RAW MATERIAL STORAGE
                     SCC 3-05-041 -02
   RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
       SCC 3-05-041-O3
       SCC 3-05-041 -03
                         DRYING
                   SCC 3-05-041-30 TO 33, 39
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-041 -70
                      SCREENING /
                    CLASSIFICATION
                      SCC 3-05-041-51
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-041-70
                       PACKAGING
                      SCC 3-05-041-72
                   EFFLUENT
CRUSHING
SCC 3-05-041-1 5
WJSFER
_?
i i
I I
i i
                                         Solid Waste
                                 KEY
                          CD PM emissions
                          (D Gaseous emissions
                                          TO ONSITE
                                         REFRACTORY
                                        MANUFACTURING
                     PRODUCT SHIPPING
           Figure 11.25-1. Process flow diagram for kaolin mining and dry processing.
                           (SCC = Source Classification Code.)
11.25-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       RAW MATERIAL
        TRANSFER

      SCC 0346441-03
              RAW MATERIAL
                STORAGE

              SCC 034544142
       RAW MATERIAL

        TRANSFER
     SCC 03-05-041-03
BUUNQMQAfKyORPUQ
MILLING

4
                                -Watw
              DEGRITTINGAND
              CLASSIFICATION

             SCC 0345441-29
       RAW MATERIAL
        TRANSFER

     SCC 034544143
            CD©

             t t
 BLEACHING AND/OR

CHEMICAL TREATMENT

   SCC 03-06-041-60
          KEY

 (T) PM emissions

 (2) Gaseous emissions

	Optional process
               FILTRATION
PR
TR
SCC


©(!>
1 i
1 1
DRYING
SCC 03-06-0*1 -30 TO 33, 38
ODUCT
ANSFER
03-05-041-70
©@
t t
CALCINING
SCC 03-06-041-40 TO 4Z, 48

BULK
SLURRY
— •- 70% Sluny Produd
PRODUCT TRANSFER ©
SCC 034)6-041-70 +


PRODUCT TRANSFER Y
SCC 03-05-041-70 t

1
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 03-05-041-71
t
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 03-05-041-71

PRODUCT TRANSFER V
SCC 03-05-041 -70 {
S
PRODUCT TRANSFER^
SCC 03-0&O41-70 t

I
PACKAGING
SCC 0346441 -72
I
HIPPING ©
i
|
PACKAGING
SCC 0345441 -72
                                                                                  SHIPPING
        Figure  11.25-2.  Process flow diagram for wet process kaolin for high grade products.
                                 (SCC = Source Classification Code.)
1/95
        Mineral Products Industry
                           11.25-5

    -------
1
1
MININO
SCC305042-C
(T
t
1
PFK
S
t
1
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 3-06-042
*
PACKAQINC
SCC3O5O42
SHIPPING
RAW MATERIAL © | RAW MATERIAL 0
TRANSFER i 1 TRANSFER A
SCC 3-05-042-03 ] SHED STORAGE SCC 3-05-042-03 ] oulml,,..,.
1 SCC 345442-02
F
RAW MATER
SCC »
DFT
SCC 34!
^ THROUC

JDUCT TRANSFER
CC 3-05-042-70
IAW MATERIAL TRANSFER i
SCC 3-06-042-03 	
SHREDDING

IAL TRANSFER © © RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
06042-03 f | SCC30504203
1 	 __l
® ©
* *
1 i i 	
t
1
nNG GRINDING
5042-30 SCC 3-05042-1 9 ff)

t L
©
I
! nsE
FINAL GRINDING '
SCC 306042-50
71 ' 	
*
1
}
•n n^
i — .
SLURF
LOA
1 SLURF
	 T LOA
PRODUCT TRANSFER /^.
SCC 3O6O42-70 W
i
ilNG]
PRODUCT
STORAGE
SCC 3O5O42-71
W BULK i
DING
PACKAGING
SCC3O5O42-72
1.
i
1
PRODUCT TRANSFER
SCC 3-06-042-70
t
* 1
(ING 1 PRODUCT
	 ' STORAGE
SCC 3-05-042-71
.—
RY BULK 4
DING , i
PACKAGING
SCC 3-05-042-72
SHIPPING
KEY
rt~) PM wniwkxtt
(z\ Gaseous •misciont
                                         SHIPPING
                 Figure 11.25-3. Process flow diagram for ball clay processing.
                             (SCC  = Source Classification Code.)
11.25-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                        ©
                                         t
                                  MINING

                               SCC 346443-01
                                        ©

                                         t
                                         I
                              TRANSPORTATION

                               SCC3-O5-O43-01
                                        ©
                                           KEY

                                   (T)  PM emissions

                                   (%\  Gaseous emissions

                                   	Optional process
                               STOCKPIUNQ

                               SCO 3-05-043-02
                RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                   SCO 3-06-043-03
                                ©
                                i
                                I
 © 0
 I   4
                     WEATHERING

                    SCC 3-05-043-02
                                CRUSHING

                               SCC 3-06-043-15
                RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                   SCC 34504343
 © ©
 i   *
     I
                                GRINDING

                               SCC 346443-19
                RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                   SCC 34544343
 ©

J
                     CALCINING

                   SCC 345-043-40
                    THROUGH 42.48
                                                   ©

                                                    t
                                                    I
        DRYING

    SCC 345443-30
    THROUGH 33,39
                  PRODUCT TRANSFER
                    SCC 345443-70
      ©

      t
                               FINAL GRINDING

                               SCC 345443-50
                  PRODUCT TRANSFER
                    SCC 345443-70
                              FINAL SCREENING

                              SCC 34544341
                                                  ©
                                                   i
                                                   I
             PRODUCT TRANSFER
               SCC 345443-70
PRODUCT STORAGE
SCC 345443-71

©
I
TOONS
                                                                                 REFRACTORY
                                                                               MANUFACTURING
                                                                                  PROCESS
                    Figure 11.25-4.  Process flow diagram for fire clay processing.
                                  (SCC = Source  Classification Code.)
1/95
    Mineral  Products Industry
11.25-7

    -------
uncalcined fire clay.  After the clay is dried and/or calcined, the material is crushed, ground, and
screened.  After screening, the processed fire clay may be blended with other materials, such as
organic binders, before to being formed in the desired shapes and fired.

Bentonite  -
       A flow diagram for bentonite processing is provided in Figure 11.25-5.  Mined bentonite first
is transported to the processing plant and stockpiled.  If the raw clay has a relatively high moisture
content (30 to  35 percent), the stockpiled material may be plowed to facilitate air drying to a moisture
content of 16 to 18 percent. Stockpiled bentonite may also be blended with other grades of bentonite
to produce a uniform material.  The material then is passed through a grizzly and crusher to reduce
the clay pieces to less than 2.5 cm (1 hi.) in size.  Next, the crushed bentonite is dried in rotary or
fluid bed dryers fired with natural gas, oil, or coal to reduce the moisture content to 7 to 8 percent.
The temperatures in bentonite dryers generally range from 900°C (1650T) at the inlet to 100 to
200°C (210 to 390°F) at the outlet.  The dried material then is ground by means of roller or hammer
mills.  At some facilities which produce specialized bentonite products, the material is passed through
an air classifier after being ground.  Soda ash  also may be added to the processed material to improve
the swelling properties of the clay.

Fuller's Earth  -
       A flow diagram for fuller's  earth processing is provided in Figure 11.25-6.  After being
mined, fuller's earth is transported to the processing plant, crushed, ground, and stockpiled.  Before
drying, fuller's earth is fed into secondary grinders to reduce further the size of the material.  At
some plants, the crushed material is fed into a pug mill, mixed with water, and extruded to improve
the properties  needed for certain end products. The material then is dried in rotary or fluid bed
dryers fired with natural gas or fuel oil.  Drying  reduces the moisture content to 0 to 10 percent from
its initial moisture content of 40 to  50 percent. The temperatures in fuller's earth dryers depend on
the end used of the product.  For colloidal grades of fuller's earth, drying temperatures of
approximately 150°C  (SOOT) are used, and for absorbent grades, drying temperatures of 650°C
(1200°F)  are typical.  In some plants, fuller's earth is calcined rather than dried. In these cases, an
operating  temperature of approximately 675°C (1250°F) is used. The dried or calcined material then
is ground  by roller or hammer mills and screened.

Common  Clay And Shale -
       Figure 11.25-7 depicts common clay and  shale processing.  Common clay and shale generally
are mined, processed, formed, and  fired at the same site to produce the end product.  Processing
generally  begins with primary crushing and stockpiling.  The material then is ground and screened.
Oversize material may be further ground to produce particles of the desired size. For some
applications, common clay and shale are dried to reduce the moisture content to desired levels.
Further processing may include blunging or mixing with water in a pug mill, extruding,  and  firing in
a kiln, depending on the type of end product.

11.25.2 Emissions And Controls3'9'10

       The primary pollutants of concern in clay processing operations are particulate matter (PM)
and PM less than 10 micrometers (PM-10).  Particulate matter is emitted from all dry mechanical
processes, such as crushing, screening,  grinding, and materials handling and transfer operations. The
emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX), in addition to filterable and
condensible PM.  Volatile organic compounds associated with the raw materials and the fuel  also may
be emitted from drying and calcining.
 11.25-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
                                         MINING
                                      SCC £4544441
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-05444-03
                                     OPEN STOCKPILING
                                      SCO 3-06-044-O2
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCO 34544443
                                        CRUSHING
                                      SCC 345444-15
                       RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                          SCC3-O544443
      i
    _J
                                         DRYING
                                      SCC 3-05-044-30
                                      THROUGH 33.39
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC 3-05444-70
      i
    _J
                                      FINAL GRINDING
                                      SCC 346444-60
                           PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC34S444-70
                          PRODUCT TRANSFER
                             SCC 345444-70
    J
                                     PRODUCT STORAGE
                                      SCC 345-044-71
                          PRODUCT TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-05-044-70
      4
    	J
                                        PACKAGING
                                      SCC 345-044-72
        KEY
(T) PM emissions
(T) Gaseous emissions
	Optional process step
                                                               AIR CLASSIFYING
                                                                SCC 345444-51
                                        SHIPPING
                    Figure  11.25-5.  Process flow diagram for bentonite processing.
                                  (SCC =  Source Classification Code.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
                              11.25-9

    -------
                         RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                             SCC3-05-O46-03
                              A A
                                   KEY

                           (T)  PM emissions

                           (2~)  Gaseous omissions

                           	Optional process
                LOW/HIQH TEMPERATURE
                      DRYING
                  SCC 3-05-046-30
                  THROUGH 33.39
      PRODUCT TRANSFER
        SCC 3-05-045-70
FINAL GRINDING
SCC 3-05-045-50
WSFER
15-70
'
J i
' I
FINAL GRINDING
SCC 3-05-045-51

f PRODUCT
PRODUCT TRANSFER SCC 3-<
snr n-nxj\AR ?n
I
! (r)
STORAGE f
35-045-71 PRODUCT TRANSFER

    -------
                                            MINING

                                         SCC 345-046-01
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCO 3-0544643
                                       PRIMARY CRUSHING

                                         SCC 3-05-046-1 5
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCO 3-05-046-03
                                           STORAGE

                                         SCC 3-05-046-02
                        RAW MATERIAL TRANSFER
                            SCC 3-05-046-03
w
i
1

GRINDING
SCC 3-05446-19
Oversize Materia

I
W
I
SCREENING
SCC 345446-29
                            PRODUCT TRANSFER
                              SCC 3-05-046-03
                                                    Undersize
                                                     Material
© ©
t t
I 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
;
DRYING (OPTIONAL)
SCC 345446-30
THROUGH 33, 39



PRODUCT TT
SCC 345-
PRODUCT STORAGE
SCC 3-05446-71
3ANSFER
04643
PRODUCT TRANSFER
SCC 34544643

                                       FINAL PROCESSING:
                                      MIXING. FORMING, AND
                                            FIRING
                                            KEY

                                   (jp)  PM emissions

                                   (2)  Gaseous emissions

                                   	Optional process
           Figure 11.25-7. Process flow diagram for common clay and shale processing.
                               (SCC  = Source Classification Code.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-11

    -------
       Cyclones, wet scrubbers, and fabric filters are the most commonly used devices to control PM
emissions from most clay processing operations.  Cyclones often are used for product recovery from
mechanical processes.  In such cases, the cyclones are not considered to be an air pollution control
device.  Electrostatic precipitators also are used at some facilities to control PM emissions.

       Tables 11.25-2 (metric units) and 11.25-3 (English units) present the emission factors for
kaolin processing, and  Table 11.25-4 presents particle size distributions for kaolin processing.
Table 11.25-5 (metric and English units) presents the emission factors for ball clay processing.
Emission factors for fire clay processing are presented  in Tables 11.25-6 (metric units) and 11.25-7
(English  units).  Table 11.25-8 presents the particle size distributions for fire clay processing.
Emission factors for bentonite processing are presented in Tables 11.25-9 (metric units) and 11.25-10
(English  units), and Table 11.25-11 presents the particle size distribution for bentonite processing.
Emission factors for processing common clay and shale to manufacture bricks are presented in AP-42
Section 11.3, "Bricks And Related Clay Products". No data are available for processing common
clay and  shale for other applications.

       No data are available also for  individual sources of emissions from fuller's earth processing
operations.  However,  data from one fuller's earth plant indicate the following emission factors for
combined sources controlled with multiclones and wet  scrubbers:  for fuller's earth dried from
approximately 50 percent to approximately 12 percent, 0.69 kg/Mg (1*4 Ib/ton) for filterable PM and
310 kg/Mg (610 Ib/ton) for CO2 emissions from a rotary dryer, rotary cooler, and packaging
warehouse.  For fuller's earth dried from approximately 12 percent to 1 to 2 percent, assume
0.32 kg/Mg (0.63 Ib/ton) for filterable PM emissions from a rotary dryer, rotary cooler, grinding and
screening operations, and packaging warehouse. It should be noted that the sources tested may not be
representative of current fuller's earth processing operations.
 11.25-12                            EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
       Table 11.25-2 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Spray dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-31)
Apron dryer
(SCC 3-05-041-32)
Multiple hearth furnace
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Multiple hearth furnace with
venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-041^0)
Flash calciner
(SCC 3-05-04M2)
Flash calciner with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-04M2)
Filterable PMb
0.12d
0.62f
178
0.128

5508

0.0288

Filterable PM-100
ND
ND
8.28
ND

2808

0.0238

CO2
81e
140f
1408
NA

2608

NA

a Factors are kg/Mg produced. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable, control device has negligible effects on
  CO2 emissions.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
d References 3,5.
e Reference 5.
f Reference 6.
g Reference 8.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-13

    -------
      Table 11.25-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Spray dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-31)
Apron dryer
(SCC 3-05-041-32)
Multiple hearth furnace
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Multiple hearth furnace with venturi scrubber
(SCC 3-05-041-40)
Flash calciner
(SCC 3-05-041-42)
Flash calciner with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-041-42)
Filterable PMb
0.23d
1.2f
348
0.238
1,1008
0.0558
Filterable PM-10C
ND
ND
168
ND
5608
0.0468
C02
160e
280f
2808
NA
5108
NA
a Factors are kg/Mg produced. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable, control device has negligible effects on
  CO2 emissions.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
0 Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
d References 3,5.
e Reference 5.
f Reference 6.
g Reference 8.
11.25-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                    1/95

    -------
       Table 11.25-4.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR KAOLIN PROCESSING*1
Particle Size, fim
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10
15
20
Cumulative Percent Less Than
Multiple Hearth
Furnace,
Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-041^0)
5.65
8.21
22.99
42.1
47.22
52.02
56.61
Size
Flash Calciner (SCC 3-05-041-42)
Uncontrolled
ND
11.14
25.32
44.65
50.87
55.35
59.45
With Fabric Filter
26.93
31.88
55.29
77.34
88.31
94.77
96.56
a Reference 8. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
      Table 11.25-5 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BALL CLAY
                                    PROCESSING3

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Source
Vibrating grate dryer with
(SCC 3-05-042-33)
fabric filter
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
0.071
Ib/ton
0.14
a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg and Ib/ton of ball clay processed.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-15

    -------
     Table 11.25-6 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING4

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Rotary dryer0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
Rotary calciner with multiclone and
wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
S02
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
3.8d

NOX
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
0.87d

C02
15b
ND
ND

300C
ND
ND

Filterable13
PM
33
5.6
0.052

62d
31f
0.15d

PM-10
8.1
2.6
ND

14e
ND
0.03 le

a Factors are kg/Mg of raw material feed.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 11.
d References 12-13.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 13.
 11.25-16
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 11.25-7 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Process
Rotary dryer0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone6
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary dryer with cyclone and wet
scrubber0
(SCC 3-05-043-30)
Rotary calciner
(SCC 3-05-043^0)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
(SCC 3-05-043-40)
Rotary calciner with multiclone
and wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-043^0)
S02
ND

ND


ND

ND

ND


7.6d

NOX
ND

ND


ND

ND

ND


1.7d

CO2
30

ND


ND

600C

ND


ND

Filterable13
PM
65

11


0.11

120d

61f


0.30d

PM-10
16

5.1


ND

30e

ND


0.062e

a Factors are kg/Mg of raw material feed. Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted. SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.  PM-10 values are based on cascade impaction particle size distribution.
c Reference 11.
d References 12-13.
e Reference 12.
f Reference 13.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-17

    -------
      Table 11.25-8. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FIRE CLAY PROCESSING4

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

Diameter
G«n)
Uncontrolled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Multiclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Cyclone/Scrubber
Controlled
Cumulative %
Less Than
Diameter
Rotary Dryers (SCC 3-05-043-30)b
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2.5
10
24
37
51
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
31
46
60
68
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Rotary Calciners (SCC 3-05-43-40)c
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
3.1
4.1
6.9
17
34
50
62
13
14
23
39
50
63
81
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
43
46
55
69
81
91
a For filterable PM only. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
b Reference 11.
c References 12-13 (uncontrolled).  Reference 12 (multiclone-controlled).  Reference 13
  (cyclone/scrubber-controlled).
11.25-18
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 11.25-9 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING3
Source
Rotary dryer
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Filterable
PMb
140
0.050
0.016
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
PM-10C
10
0.037
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg produced.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
    Table 11.25-10 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING1
Source
Rotary dryer
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Rotary dryer with ESP
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
Filterable
PMb
290
0.10
0.033
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
PM-10C
20
0.074
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

a Reference 3. Factors are kg/Mg produced.  Emissions are uncontrolled, unless noted.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Based on filterable PM emission factor and particle size data.
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.25-19

    -------
     Table 11.25-11.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR BENTONITE PROCESSING*
Particle Size, /xm
1.0
1.25
2.5
6.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Cumulative Percent Less Than Size
Rotary Dryer, Uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
0.2
0.3
0.8
2.2
7.0
12
25
Rotary Dryer With Fabric Filter
(SCC 3-05-044-30)
2.5
3.0
12
44
74
92
97
a Reference 3.  SCC = Source Classification Code.


References For Section 11.25

 1.     S. H. Patterson and H. H. Murray, "Clays", Industrial Minerals And Rocks, Volume 1,
       Society Of Mining Engineers, New York, 1983.

 2.     R. L. Virta, Annual Report 1991: days (Draft), Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The
       Interior, Washington, DC, September 1992.

 3.     Caldners And Dryers In Mineral Industries - Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC,  October 1985.

 4.     J. T. Jones and M. F.  Berard, Ceramics, Industrial Processing And Testing, Iowa State
       University Press,  Ames, IA, 1972.

 5.     Report On  Paniculate Emissions From No. 3 Spray Dryer, American Industrial Clay
       Company, Sandersonville, Georgia, July 21, 1975.

 6.     Report On  Paniculate Emissions From Apron Dryer, American Industrial Clay Company,
       Sandersonville, Georgia, July 21, 1975.

 7.     Emission Test Repon:  Thiele Kaolin, Sandersonville, Georgia, EMB-78-NMM-7, Emission
       Measurement Branch,  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March  1979.

 8.     Emission Test Repon:  Plant A, ESD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1983.

 9.     Source Test Repon, Plant B, Kiln Number 2 Outlet, Technical Services, Inc., Jacksonville,
       FL, February 1979.
11.25-20
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                      1/95

    -------
10.    Source Test Report, Plant B, Number 1 Kiln Outlet Paniculate Emissions, Technical Services,
       Inc., Jacksonville, FL, February 1979.

11.    Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, North American Refractories Company, Farber,
       Missouri, EMB - 84-CDR-14, Emission Measurement Branch, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1984.

12.    Emission Test Report: Plant A, ESD Project No. 81/08, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 13, 1983.

13.    Calciners And Dryers Emission Test Report, A. P. Green Company, Mexico, Missouri,
       EMB-83-CDR-1, Emission Measurement Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1983.
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                          11.25-21

    -------

    -------
11.26  Talc Processing

11.26.1  Process Description1"4

       Talc, which is a soft, hydrous magnesium silicate (3MgO4SiO2'H2O), is used in a wide
range of industries including the manufacture of ceramics, paints, paper, and asphalt roofing.  The
end-uses for talc are determined by variables such as chemical and mineralogical composition, particle
size and  shape, specific gravity, hardness, and color.  The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code for talc mining is 1499 (miscellaneous nonmetallic minerals, except fuels), and the SIC code for
talc processing is 3295 (minerals and earths, ground or otherwise treated). There is no Source
Classification Code (SCC) for the source category.

       Most domestic talc is mined from open-pit operations; over 95 percent of the talc ore
produced in the United States comes from open-pit mines. Mining operations usually consist of
conventional drilling and blasting  methods. The softness of talc makes it easier to mine and process
than most other minerals.

       Figure  11.26-1 is a process flow diagram for a typical U.S. talc plant.  Talc ore generally is
hauled to the plant by truck from  a nearby mine.  The ore is crushed and screened, and coarse
(oversize) material is returned to the crusher.  Rotary dryers may be used to dry the material.
Secondary grinding is achieved with pebble mills or roller mills, producing a product that is 44 to
149 micrometers (jim) (325 to 100 mesh) in size. Hammer mills or jet air mills may be used to
produce  additional final products.  Air classifiers (separators), generally in closed-circuit with the
mills, separate  the material into coarse, coarse-plus-fine, and fine fractions. The coarse and coarse-
plus-fine fractions then are stored  as products.  The fines may be concentrated  using a shaking table
(tabling process) to separate product containing small  quantities of nickel, iron, cobalt, or other
minerals and then undergo a one-step flotation process. The resultant talc slurry is dewatered and
filtered prior to passing through a flash dryer.  The flash-dried product is then stored for shipment, or
it may be further ground to meet customer specifications.

       Talc deposits mined in the southwestern United States contain organic impurities and must be
calcined  prior to additional processing to yield a product with uniform chemical and physical
properties. Generally, a separate  product will be used to produce the calcined  talc.  Prior to
calcining, the mined ore passes through a crusher and is ground to a specified screen size. After
calcining in a rotary kiln, the material passes through a rotary cooler.  The cooled calcine
(zero percent free water) is then stored for shipment, or it may be further processed.  Calcined talc
may be mixed with dried talc from other product lines and passed through a roller mill prior to bulk
shipping.

11.26.2  Emissions And Controls1'2'4'5

       The primary pollutant of concern in talc processing is particulate matter (PM) and PM less
than 10 Jim (PM-10). Particulate  matter is emitted from drilling, blasting, crushing, screening,
grinding, drying, calcining, classifying, and materials handling and transfer operations. Particulate
matter emissions may include trace amounts  of several inorganic compounds that are  listed hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) including chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and phosphorus.
1/95                                     Talc Processing                                  11.26-1

    -------
                 Figure 11.26-1.  Process flow diagram for talc processing.1'4
11.26-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
       The emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion such as carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, in addition to filterable and
condensable PM.  Volatile organic compounds also are emitted from the drying and calcining of
southwestern United States talc deposits, which generally contain organic impurities.

       Emissions from talc dryers and calciners are typically controlled with fabric filters.  Fabric
filters also are used at some facilities to control emissions from mechanical processes such as crushing
and grinding.

       Due to a lack of available data, no emission factors for talc processing are presented.

References For Section 11.26

1.      Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries-Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
       October 1985.

2.      L. A. Roe and R. H. Olson, "Talc", Industrial Rocks And Minerals, Volume /, Society of
       Mining Engineers, NY,  1983.

3.      R. L. Virta, The Talc Industry-An Overview, Information Circular 9220, Bureau of Mines, U.
       S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

4.      Written communication from B. Virta, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the Interior,
       Washington, D.C., to R. Myers, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
       Park, NC, March 28, 1994.

5.      Emission Study At A Talc Crushing And Grinding Facility, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,
       Johnson, Vermont, October 19-21, 1976, Report No. 76-NMM-4, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1977.
1/95                                   Talc Processing                                  11.26-3

    -------

    -------
11.27  Feldspar Processing

11.27.1  General1

       Feldspar consists essentially of aluminum silicates combined with varying percentages of
potassium, sodium, and calcium, and it is the most abundant mineral of the igneous rocks.  The two
types of feldspar are soda feldspar (7 percent or higher Na2O) and potash feldspar (8 percent or
higher K2O).  Feldspar-silica mixtures can occur naturally, such as in sand deposits, or can be
obtained  from flotation of mined and crushed rock.

11.27.2  Process Description 1'2

       Conventional open-pit mining methods including removal of overburden, drilling and blasting,
loading, and transport  by trucks are used to mine ores containing feldspar.  A froth flotation process
is used for most feldspar ore beneficiation.  Figure 11.27-1 shows a process flow diagram of the
flotation process.   The ore is crushed by primary and secondary crushers and ground by jaw crushers,
cone crushers, and rod mills until it is reduced to less than 841 /*m (20 mesh).  Then the ore passes
to a three-stage, acid-circuit flotation process.

       An amine  collector that floats off and removes mica is used in the first flotation step.  Also,
sulfuric acid, pine oil,  and fuel oil are added.  After the feed is dewatered in a  classifier or cyclone to
remove reagents,  sulfuric  acid is added to lower the pH. Petroleum sulfonate (mahogany soap) is
used to remove iron-bearing minerals. To finish the flotation process, the discharge from the second
flotation  step is dewatered again, and a cationic amine is used for collection as  the feldspar is floated
away from quartz  in an environment of hydrofluoric acid (pH of 2.5 to 3.0).

       If feldspathic sand is the raw material,  no size reduction may be required. Also, if little or no
mica is present, the first flotation step may be bypassed. Sometimes  the final flotation stage is
omitted, leaving a feldspar-silica mixture (often referred to as sandspar), which is usually used in
glassmaking.

       From the completed flotation process, the feldspar float concentrate is dewatered to 5 to 9
percent moisture.  A rotary dryer is then used to reduce the moisture content to 1 percent or less.
Rotary dryers are the most common dryer type used, although fluid bed dryers are also used.  Typical
rotary  feldspar dryers are  fired with No. 2 oil or natural gas, operate at about 230°C (450°F), and
have a retention time of 10 to 15 minutes.  Magnetic separation  is used as a backup process to
remove any iron minerals  present.  Following the drying process, dry grinding is sometimes
performed to reduce the feldspar to less than 74 /im (200 mesh)  for use in ceramics, paints, and tiles.
Drying and grinding are often performed simultaneously by passing the dewatered cake through  a
rotating gas-fired  cylinder lined with ceramic blocks and charged with ceramic  grinding balls.
Material processed in this  manner must then be screened for size or air classified to ensure proper
particle size.

11.27.2  Emissions And Controls

       The primary pollutant of concern that is emitted from feldspar processing is particulate matter
(PM).  Particulate matter is emitted by several feldspar processing operations, including crushing,
grinding, screening, drying, and materials handling and transfer operations.


7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Mineral Products Industry                             11.27-1

    -------
                                                                 >20 MESH
                                                                 OVERFLOW SLIME
                                                                    TO WASTE
                                                                  AMINE,  H 2S04 ,
                                                                 PINE OIL, FUEL OIL
                                                                 OVERFLOW CMICA}
                                                                 H  S0a ,  PETROLEUM SULFONATE
                                                                 OVERFLOW CGARNET)
SCC:
DRYER
3-05-034-02
                                                          GLASS PLANTS
FLOTAT 1 ON
CELLS
                              I
                             DRYER
                         SCC:  3-05-034-02
             GLASS PLANTS
MAGNET 1 C
SEPARATION
                                             I
PEBBLE
MILLS
                                             t
                                          POTTERY
                            Figure 11.27-1.  Feldspar flotation process.1
11.27-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
       Emissions from dryers typically are controlled by a combination of a cyclone or a multiclone
and a scrubber system.  Paniculate matter emissions from crushing and grinding generally are
controlled by fabric filters.

       Table 11.27-1 presents controlled emission factors for filterable PM from the drying process.
Table 11.27-2 presents emission factors for CO2 from the drying process.  The controls used in
feldspar processing achieve only incidental control of CO2.
      Table 11.27-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FILTERABLE
                                 PARTICULATE MATTER3
Process
Dryer with scrubber and demisterb (SCC 3-05-034-02)
Dryer with mechanical collector and scrubberc>d
(SCC 3-05-034-02)
Filterable Paniculate
kg/Mg
Feldspar
Dried
Ib/Ton
Feldspar
Dried
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
0.60 1.2 D
0.041 0.081 D
a SCC = Source Classification Code
b Reference 4.
c Reference 3.
d Reference 5.
    Table 11.27-2 (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTOR FOR CARBON DIOXIDE8
Process
Carbon Dioxide
kg/Mg
Feldspar
Dried
Ib/Ton
Feldspar
Dried
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
Dryer with multiclone and scrubbed (SCC 3-05-034-02) 51 102 D
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Scrubbers may achieve incidental control of CO2 emissions. Multiclones do not control CO2
  emissions.
References For Section 11.27

1.      Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1985.

2.      US Minerals Yearbook 1989: Feldspar, Nepheline syenite, and Aplite:  US Minerals
       Yearbook 1989, pp. 389-396.

3.      Source Sampling Report For The Feldspar Corporation: Spruce Pine, NC, Environmental
       Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, May 1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)
Mineral Products Industry
11.27-3

    -------
4.     Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Scrubber Stack At International Minerals Corporation:
       Spruce Pine, NC, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources & Community
       Development, Division of Environmental Management, September 1981.

5.     Paniculate Emission Test Report For Two Scrubber Stacks At Lawson United Feldspar &
       Mineral Company:  Spruce Pine, NC, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources &
       Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, October 1978.
H.27-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
11.28  Vermiculite Processing




                                      [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.28-1

    -------

    -------
11.29 Alumina Manufacturing




                                    [Work In Progress]
1/95                              Mineral Products Industry                            11.29-1

    -------

    -------
 1130 Perlite Processing

 11.30.1  Process Description1 >2

        Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock with a pearl-like luster.  It usually exhibits numerous
 concentric cracks that cause it to resemble an onion skin.  A typical perlite sample is composed of
 71 to 75 percent silicon dioxide, 12.5 to 18.0 percent alumina, 4 to 5 percent potassium oxide, 1  to
 4 percent sodium and calcium oxides, and trace amounts of metal oxides.

        Crude perlite ore is mined, crushed, dried in a rotary dryer, ground, screened, and shipped to
 expansion plants.  Horizontal rotary or vertical stationary expansion furnaces are used to expand the
 processed perlite ore.

        The normal size of crude perlite expanded for use in plaster aggregates ranges from plus
 250 micrometers (/an) (60 mesh) to  minus 1.4 millimeters (mm) (12 mesh).  Crude perlite expanded
 for use as a concrete  aggregate ranges from 1 mm (plus 16 mesh) to 0.2 mm (plus 100 mesh).
 Ninety percent of the crude perlite ore expanded for horticultural uses is greater than 841 /un
 (20 mesh).

        Crude perlite is mined using open-pit methods and then is moved to the plant site where it is
 stockpiled.  Figure 11.30-1 is a flow diagram of crude ore processing.  The first processing step is to
 reduce the diameter of the ore to approximately 1.6 centimeters (cm) (0.6 inch [in.]) in a primary jaw
 crusher.  The crude ore is  then passed through a rotary dryer, which reduces the moisture content
 from between 4  and  10 percent to less than 1 percent.

        After drying, secondary grinding takes place in a closed-circuit system using screens, air
 classifiers, hammer mills,  and rod mills.  Oversized material produced  from the secondary circuit is
 returned to the primary crusher.  Large quantities of fines, produced throughout the processing
 stages, are removed by air classification  at designated stages.  The desired size processed perlite ore
 is stored until it is shipped to an expansion plant.

        At the expansion plants, the  processed ore is either preheated or fed directly to the furnace.
 Preheating the material to approximately 430°C (800°F) reduces the amount of fines produced in  the
 expansion process, which increases usable output and controls the uniformity of product density.  In
 the furnace, the  perlite ore reaches a temperature  of 760 to 980°C (1400 to 1800°F), at which point it
 begins to soften  to a plastic state where the entrapped combined water is released as steam. This
 causes the hot perlite particles to expand 4 to 20 times their original size.  A suction fan draws the
 expanded particles out of the furnace and transports them pneumatically to a cyclone classifier system
 to be collected.  The  air-suspended perlite particles are also cooled as they are transported to the
 collection equipment. The cyclone classifier system collects the expanded perlite, removes the
 excessive fines,  and discharges gases to a baghouse or wet scrubber for air pollution control.

       The grades of expanded perlite produced can also be adjusted by changing the heating cycle,
 altering the cutoff points for size collection, and blending various crude ore sizes.  All processed
products are graded for specific uses and are usually stored before being shipped.  Most production
rates are less than 1.8 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (2 tons/hr), and expansion furnace temperatures
range from 870 to 980°C (1600 to 1800°F).  Natural gas is typically used for fuel, although No. 2
fuel oil and propane are occasionally used. Fuel consumption varies from 2,800 to 8,960 kilojoules
per kilogram (kJ/kg)  (2.4 x 106 to 7.7 x  106 British thermal units per ton [Btu/ton]) of product.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Mineral Products Industry                             11.30-1

    -------
                   -YARD STORAGE
                                                                DRYER
                                                               STORAGE
                                                                                        SCREEN ING
                                                                                        AND SIZING
   BAGHOUSE OH

   WET  SCRUBBER
                       STORAGE
                         BINS
                                                     EXPANSION
                                                     FURNACE
                                                   CSCC:   3-05-018-013
         BAGGING
        -AND
         SHIPPING
                                       SHIPPING

                                       TO EXPANSION

                                       PLANT
                        Figure 11.30-1.  Flow diagram for perlite processing.1
                             (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)
11.30-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 11.30.2  Emissions And Controls1'3"11

       The major pollutant of concern emitted from perlite processing facilities is paniculate matter
 (PM).  The dryers, expansion furnaces, and handling operations can all be sources of PM emissions.
 Emissions of nitrogen oxides from perlite expansion and drying generally are negligible.  When
 sulfur-containing fuels are used, sulfur dioxide (SO^ emissions may result from combustion sources.
 However, the most common type of fuel used in perlite expansion furnaces and dryers is natural gas,
 which is not a significant source of SO2 emissions.

       Test data from one perlite plant indicate that perlite expansion furnaces emit a number of trace
 elements including aluminum, calcium, chromium, fluorine, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
 mercury, nickel, titanium, and zinc.  However, because the data consist of a single test run, emission
 factors were not developed for these elements.  The sample also was analyzed for beryllium, uranium,
 and vanadium, but these elements were not detected.

       To control PM emissions  from both dryers and expansion furnaces, the majority of perlite
 plants use baghouses, some use cyclones either alone or in conjunction with baghouses, and a few use
 scrubbers.  Frequently, PM emissions from material handling processes and from the dryers are
 controlled by the same device. Large plants generally have separate fabric filters for dryer emissions,
 whereas small plants often use a common fabric filter to  control emissions from dryers  and materials
 handling operations. In most plants, fabric filters  are preceded by cyclones for product recovery.
 Wet scrubbers are also used in a small number of  perlite plants to control emissions from perlite
 milling and expansion sources.

       Table 11.30-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the
 expanding and drying processes.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                             11.30-3

    -------
 Table 11.30-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PERLITE PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D



Process
Expansion furnace (SCC 3-05-018-01)
Expansion furnace with wet cyclone
(SCC 3-05-018-01)
Expansion furnace with cyclone and baghouse
(SCC 3-05-018-01)
Dryer (SCC 3-05-01 8-_J
Dryer with baghouse (SCC 3-05-0 18-_)
Dryer with cyclones and baghouses
(SCC 3-05-01 8-_)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
Perlite
Expanded
ND
l.ld

0.15e

ND
0.64f
0.13S

Ib/ton
Perlite
Expanded
ND
2.1d

0.29s

ND
1.3f
0.258

C02
kg/Mg
Perlite
Expanded
420C
NA

NA

16f
NA
NA

Ib/ton
Perlite
Expanded
850C
NA

NA

31f
NA
NA

a All emission factors represent controlled emissions.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 4.
d Reference 11.
e References 4,8.
f Reference 10.
g References 7,9.
References For Section 11.30

 1.     Calciners And Dryers In Mineral Industries — Background Information For Proposed
       Standards, EPA-450/3-85-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, October  1985.

 2.     Perlite:  US Minerals Yearbook 1989, Volume I: Metals And Minerals, U. S. Department of
       the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, pp. 765 - 767.

 3.     Perlite Industry Source Category Survey, EPA-450/3-80-005, U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.

 4.     Emission Test Report (Perlite):  W. R. Grace And Company, Irondale, Alabama, EMB Report
       83-CDR-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       February 1984.

 5.     Paniculate Emission Sampling And Analysis: United States Gypsum Company, East Chicago,
       Indiana, Environmental  Instrument Systems,  Inc., South Bend, IN, July 1973.
11.30-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 6.    Air Quality Source Sampling Report #27(5:  Grefco, Inc., Perlite Mill, Socorro, New Mexico,
       State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Santa Fe, NM, January 1982.

 7.    Air Quality Source Sampling Report #'198:  Johns Manville Perlite Plant, No Agua, New
       Mexico, State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Santa Fe, NM, February
       1981.

 8.    Stack Test Report, Perlite Process:  National Gypsum Company, Roll Road, Clarence Center,
       New York, Buffalo Testing Laboratories, Buffalo, NY, December 1972.

 9.    Paniculate Analyses Of Dryer And Mill Baghouse Exhaust Emissions At Silbrico Perlite Plant,
       No Agua, New Mexico, Kramer, Callahan & Associates, NM, February 1980.

 10.    Stack Emissions Survey For U. S. Gypsum, Perlite Mill Dryer Stack, Grants,  New Mexico,
       File Number EA 7922-17, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX, August 1979.

 11.    Sampling Observation And Report Review, Grefco, Incorporated, Perlite Insulation Board
       Plant, Florence, Kentucky, Commonwealth  of Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
       and Environmental Protection, Bureau of Environmental Protection, Frankfort, KY, January
       1979.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                Mineral Products Industry                            11.30-5

    -------

    -------
11.31 Abrasives Manufacturing

11.31.1  General1

        The abrasives industry is composed of approximately 400 companies engaged in the following
separate types of manufacturing: abrasive grain manufacturing, bonded abrasive product
manufacturing, and coated abrasive product manufacturing.  Abrasive grain manufacturers produce
materials for use by the other abrasives manufacturers to make abrasive products.  Bonded abrasives
manufacturing is very diversified and includes the production of grinding stones and wheels, cutoff
saws for masonry and metals, and other products. Coated abrasive products manufacturers include
those facilities that produce large rolls of abrasive-coated fabric or paper, known as jumbo  rolls, and
those facilities that manufacture belts and other products from jumbo rolls for end use.

        The six-digit Source Classification Codes (SCC) for the industry are 3-05-035 for abrasive
grain processing, 3-05-036 for bonded abrasives manufacturing, and 3-05-037 for coated abrasives
manufacturing.

11.31.2  Process Description1'7

        The process  description is broken into three distinct segments discussed in the following
sections:  production of the abrasive grains, production  of bonded abrasive products, and production
of coated abrasive products.

Abrasive Grain Manufacturing -
        The most commonly used abrasive materials are aluminum oxides and silicon carbide.  These
synthetic materials account for as much as 80 to 90 percent of the total quantity of abrasive grains
produced domestically.  Other materials used for abrasive grains are cubic boron nitride (CBN),
synthetic diamonds,  and several naturally occurring minerals such as garnet and emery.  The use of
garnet as an abrasive grain is decreasing.  Cubic boron  nitride is used for machining the hardest steels
to precise forms and finishes.  The largest application of synthetic diamonds has been in wheels for
grinding carbides and ceramics. Natural diamonds are used primarily in diamond-tipped drill bits and
saw blades for cutting or shaping rock, concrete, grinding wheels,  glass, quartz, gems, and high-
speed tool steels. Other naturally occurring abrasive materials (including garnet, emery,  silica  sand,
and  quartz) are used in finishing wood, leather, rubber,  plastics, glass, and softer metals.

        The following paragraphs describe the production  of aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, CBN,
and  synthetic diamond.

        1.  Silicon carbide.  Silicon carbide (SiC) is manufactured in a resistance arc furnace charged
with a mixture of approximately 60 percent silica sand and 40 percent finely ground petroleum  coke.
A small amount of sawdust is added to the mix to increase its porosity so that the carbon monoxide
gas formed during the process can escape freely.  Common salt is added to the mix to promote the
carbon-silicon reaction and to remove impurities in the sand and coke.  During the heating period, the
furnace core reaches approximately 2200°C (4000°F), at which point a large portion of the load
crystallizes. At the end of the run, the furnace contains a  core of loosely knit silicon carbide crystals
surrounded by unreacted or partially reacted raw materials.  The silicon carbide crystals are removed
to begin processing into abrasive grains.
1795                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.31-1

    -------
       2.  Aluminum oxide. Fused aluminum oxide (A12O3) is produced in pot-type, electric-arc
furnaces with capacities of several tons. Before processing, bauxite, the crude raw material, is
calcined at about 950CC (1740°F) to remove both free and combined water.  The bauxite is then
mixed with ground coke (about 3 percent) and iron borings (about 2 percent).  An electric current is
applied and the intense heat, on the order of 2000°C (3700°F), melts the bauxite and reduces the
impurities that settle to the bottom of the furnace.  As the fusion process  continues, more bauxite
mixture is added until the furnace is full.  The furnace is then emptied and the outer impure layer is
stripped off.  The core of aluminum oxide is then removed to be processed into abrasive grains.

       3.  Cubic boron nitride.  Cubic boron nitride is synthesized in crystal form from hexagonal
boron nitride, which is composed of atoms of boron and nitrogen. The hexagonal boron nitride is
combined  with a catalyst such as metallic lithium at temperatures in the range of 1650°C (3000°F)
and pressures of up to 6,895,000 kilopascals (kPa) (1,000,000 pounds per square inch [psi]).

       4.  Synthetic diamond.  Synthetic diamond is manufactured  by subjecting graphite in the
presence of a metal catalyst to pressures in the range of 5,571,000 to 13,100,000 kPa (808,000 to
1,900,000 psi) at temperatures in the range of 1400 to 2500°C (2500 to 4500°F).

Abrasive Grain Processing -
       Abrasive grains for both bonded and coated abrasive products are made by graded crushing
and close sizing of either natural or synthetic abrasives.  Raw abrasive materials first are crushed by
primary crushers and are then reduced by jaw crushers to  manageable size, approximately
19 millimeters (mm) (0.75 inches [in]).  Final  crushing is  usually accomplished with roll crushers that
break up the small  pieces into a usable range of sizes. The crushed abrasive grains  are then separated
into specific grade  sizes by passing them over a series of screens. If necessary, the grains are washed
in classifiers to remove slimes, dried, and passed through  magnetic  separators to remove iron-bearing
material, before the grains are again closely sized on screens.  This careful sizing is necessary to
prevent contamination of grades by coarser grains.  Sizes finer than 0.10  millimeter (mm) (250 grit)
are separated by hydraulic flotation and sedimentation or by air classification.  Figure 11.31-1
presents a process flow diagram for abrasive grain processing.

Bonded Abrasive Products Manufacturing  -
       The grains in bonded abrasive products are held together by one of six types of bonds:
vitrified or ceramic (which account for more than 50 percent of all grinding wheels), resinoid
(synthetic resin), rubber, shellac, silicate of soda, or oxychloride of magnesium.  Figure 11.31-2
presents a process flow diagram for the manufacturing of vitrified bonded abrasive products.

       Measured amounts of prepared abrasive grains are moistened and mixed with porosity media
and bond material.  Porosity  media are used for creating voids in the finished wheels and consist of
filler  materials, such as paradichlorobenzene (moth ball crystals) or walnut shells, that are vaporized
during firing.  Feldspar and  clays generally are used as bond materials in vitrified wheels.  The mix
is moistened with water or another temporary binder to make the wheel stick together after it is
pressed.  The mix  is then packed and uniformly distributed into a steel grinding wheel mold, and
compressed in a hydraulic press under pressures varying from 1,030 to 69,000  kPa (150 to
10,000 psi). If there is a pore-inducing media in the mix  such as paradichlorobenzene, it is removed
in a steam autoclave.  Prior to firing, smaller wheels are dried in continuous dryers; larger wheels are
dried  in humidity-controlled, intermittent dry houses.

       Most vitrified wheels are fired  in continuous tunnel kilns in which the molded wheels ride
through the kiln on a moving belt.  However,  large wheels are often fired in bell or periodic kilns.
In the firing process, the wheels are brought slowly to temperatures approaching  1400°C (2500°F)

11.31-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
                                                                   (T)   PM emissions

                                                                   (2)   Gaseous emissions

Abrasives
Material
? A

(Optional) ^
(SCC 3-05-035-05) ^~~


\
V :
Separating
(SCC 3-05-035-08)

CD
A
i
i
w^ Primary Crushing
^ (SCC 3-05-035-01)
A
,
Screening
(SCC 3-05-035-04)


A
|
•w. Screening
^ (SCC 3-05-035-06)



>^









>„
*

W
A
Secondary Crushing
(SCC 3-05-035-02)
v i

Final
Crushing
(SCC 3-05-035-03)


A

Classification
(SCC 3-05-035-07)

                Figure 11.31-1.  Process flow diagram for abrasive grain processing.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
Mineral Products Industry
11.31-3

    -------
                                                                  PM emissions

                                                                  Gaseous emissions
       Porosity
        Media



Water ' 	 ~~~
i i
i i
Firing
or ^_
Curing "^
(SCC 3-05-036-05)
1 I

Cooling
(SCC 3-05-036-06)

^ Mixing

(SCC 3-05-036-01) ^
i i
1 '
Drying ^
(SCC 3-05-036-04) ^

^^
i
Final
^^ Mnchinino
(SCC 3-05-036-07)

Molding

*" (SCC 3-05-036-02)
1 i

Steam
Autoclaving
(SCC 3-05-036-03)






 Figure 11.31-2.  Process flow diagram for the manufacturing of vitrified bonded abrasive products.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.31-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
for as long as several days depending on the size of the grinding wheels and the charge.  This slow
temperature ramp fuses the clay bond mixture so that each grain is surrounded by a hard glass-like
bond that has high strength and rigidity.  The wheels are then removed from the kiln and slowly
cooled.

        After cooling, the wheels are checked for distortion, shape, and size.  The wheels are then
machined to  final size, balanced, and overspeed tested to ensure operational safety. Occasionally wax
and oil, rosin, or sulfur are applied to improve the cutting effectiveness of the wheel.

        Resin-bonded wheels are produced similarly to vitrified wheels. A thermosetting synthetic
resin, in liquid or powder form, is mixed with the abrasive grain and a plasticizer (catalyst) to allow
the mixture to be molded. The mixture is then hydraulically pressed to size and cured at 150 to
200°C (300 to 400°F) for a period of from 12 hours to 4 or 5  days depending on  the size of the
wheel.  During the curing period, the mold first softens  and then hardens as the oven reaches curing
temperature.   After cooling, the mold retains  its cured hardness. The remainder of the production
process is  similar to that for vitrified wheels.

        Rubber-bonded wheels are produced by selecting the abrasive grain, sieving it, and kneading
the grain into a natural or synthetic rubber. Sulfur is added as a vulcanizing agent and then the mix
is rolled between steel calendar rolls to form  a sheet  of the  required thickness.  The grinding wheels
are cut out of the rolled sheet to a specified diameter and hole size.  Scraps are kneaded, rolled, and
cut out again. Then the wheels are vulcanized in molds  under  pressure in ovens at approximately
150 to 175°C (300 to 350°F).  The finishing  and inspection processes  are similar  to those for other
types of wheels.

        Shellac-bonded wheels represent a small percentage of the bonded abrasives market.  The
production of these wheels begins by mixing abrasive grain with shellac in a steam-heated mixer,
which thoroughly coats the grain with the bond material  (shellac).  Wheels 3 mm (0.125  in.) thick or
less are molded to exact size in heated steel molds.  Thicker wheels are hot-pressed in steel  molds.
After pressing, the wheels are set in quartz sand and  baked  for a few hours  at approximately 150°C
(300°F).  The finishing and inspection processes are  similar to those for other types of wheels.

        In  addition to grinding wheels,  bonded abrasives are formed into blocks, bricks, and sticks for
sharpening and polishing  stones such as oil stones,  scythe stones, razor and cylinder hones.  Curved
abrasive blocks and abrasive segments are manufactured  for grinding or polishing  curved surfaces.
Abrasive segments can also be combined into large wheels such as pulpstones.  Rubber pencil and ink
erasers contain abrasive grains; similar  soft rubber wheels,  sticks,  and  other forms are made for
finishing soft metals.

Coated Abrasive  Products Manufacturing -
        Coated abrasives consist of sized abrasive grains held by a film of adhesive to a flexible
backing. The backing may be film, cloth, paper, vulcanized fiber, or a combination of these
materials.  Various types  of resins, glues, and varnishes  are used as adhesives or bonds.  The glue is
typically animal hide glue.  The resins and varnishes are generally liquid phenolics or ureas, but
depending  on the end use of the abrasive, they may be modified to yield shorter or longer drying
times, greater strength, more flexibility, or other required properties.  Figure 11.31-3 presents a
process flow  diagram for  the manufacturing of coated abrasive  products.

       The production of coated abrasive products begins with a length of backing, which is passed
through a printing press that imprints the brand name, manufacturer, abrasive, grade number, and
other identifications on the back. Jumbo rolls typically are  1.3 m  (52 in.) wide by 1,372 m

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                            11.31-5

    -------
                                                               PM emissions

                                                               Gaseous emissions
Printing
of
Backing
(SCC 3-05-037-01)

>.
•
"Make" Coat
Application
(SCC 3-05-037-02)
>„
^

Grain Application
(SCC 3-05-037-03)
i
® © ©
A A A
i i '
i i '

Final
Drying
and Curing
(SCC 3-05-037-06)




"Size" Coat
Application
(SCC 3-05-037-05)
i






• .
; ' '
f i i
i i
Drying/Curing
(SCC 3-05-037-04)

            Winding
            of Rolls
       (SCC 3-05-037-07)
        Final
     Production
 (SCC 3-05-037-08)
     Figure 11.31-3.  Process flow diagram for the manufacturing of coated abrasive products.
                         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
11.31-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                        1/95

    -------
(1,500 yards [yd]) to 2,744 m (3,000 yd) in length.  The shorter lengths are used for fiber-backed
products, and the longer lengths are used for film-backed abrasives. Then the backing receives the
first application of adhesive bond, the "make" coat,  in a carefully regulated film, varying in
concentration and quantity according to the particle size of the abrasive to be bonded.  Next, the
selected  abrasive grains are applied either by a mechanical or an electrostatic method.  Virtually all of
the abrasive grain used for coated abrasive products is either silicon carbide or aluminum oxide,
augmented by small quantities of natural garnet or emery for woodworking, and minute amounts of
diamond or CBN.

        In mechanical application, the abrasive grains are poured in a controlled stream onto the
adhesive-impregnated backing, or the impregnated backing is passed through a tray of abrasive
thereby picking up the grains. In the electrostatic method, the adhesive-impregnated backing is
passed adhesive-coated side down over a tray of abrasive grains, while at the same time passing an
electric current through the abrasive.  The electrostatic  charge  induced by the current causes the
grains to imbed upright in the wet bond on the backing.  In effect the sharp cutting edges of the grain
are bonded perpendicular to the backing.  It also causes the individual grains to be spaced more
evenly due to individual grain repulsion.  The amount of abrasive grains deposited on the backing  can
be controlled extremely accurately by  adjusting  the abrasive stream and manipulating the speed of the
backing sheet through the abrasive.

        After the abrasive is applied, the product is carried by  a festoon conveyor system through a
drying chamber to the sizing unit, where a second layer of adhesive, called the size coat or sand size,
is applied.  The size coat unites with the make coat to anchor the abrasive grains securely.  The
coated material is then carried by  another longer festoon conveyor through the final drying and curing
chamber in  which the temperature and humidity are  closely controlled to ensure uniform  drying and
curing.   When the bond is properly dried and cured, the coated abrasive is wound into jumbo rolls
and stored for subsequent conversion into marketable forms of coated abrasives. Finished coated
abrasives are available as sheets, rolls, belts, discs, bands, cones, and many other specialized forms.

11.31.3  Emissions And Controls1'7

       Little information is available on emissions from the manufacturing of abrasive grains and
products. However,  based on similar  processes in other industries, some assumptions can be made
about the types of emissions that are likely to result from abrasives manufacturing.

       Emissions from the production of synthetic abrasive grains, such as aluminum oxide and
silicon carbide, are likely to consist primarily of particulate matter (PM), PM less than
10 micrometers  (PM-10), and carbon monoxide (CO) from the furnaces. The PM and PM-10
emissions are likely to consist of filterable,  inorganic condensable, and organic condensable PM.  The
addition  of salt and sawdust to the furnace charge for silicon carbide production is likely  to result in
emissions of chlorides and volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Aluminum oxide processing takes
place in an electric arc furnace and involves temperatures up to 2600°C (4710°F) with raw materials
of bauxite ore, silica, coke,  iron borings,  and a  variety  of minerals  that include chromium oxide,
cryolite,  pyrite,  and silane.  This processing is likely to emit fluorides,  sulfides, and metal
constituents  of the feed material. In addition, nitrogen oxides (NOX) are emitted from the Solgel
method of producing  aluminum  oxide.

       The primary emissions from abrasive grain processing  consist of PM and PM-10  from the
crushing, screening, classifying, and drying operations.   Particulate matter also is emitted from
materials handling and transfer operations.  Table 11.31-1 presents  emission factors for filterable
PM and CO2 emissions from grain drying operations in metric and  English units. Table  11.31-2

1/95                                Mineral Products Industry                             11.31-7

    -------
            Table 11.31-1 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                           ABRASIVE MANUFACTURING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Process
Rotary dryer, sand blasting grit, with wet
scrubber (SCC 3-05-035-05)
Rotary dryer, sand blasting grit, with fabric
filter (SCC 3-05-035-05)
Filterable PMb
kg/Mg
ND
0.0073d
Ib/ton
ND
0.015d
CO2
kg/Mg
22C
ND
Ib/ton
43C
ND
a Emission factors in kg/Mg and Ib/ton of grit fed into dryer. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.
b Filterable PM is that PM collected on or prior to the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent)
  sampling train.
c Reference 9.
d Reference 8.
            Table 11.31-2 (Metric And English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                           ABRASIVE MANUFACTURING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Source
Rotary dryer: sand blasting grit,
with wet scrubber
(SCC 3-05-035-05)







Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Mercury
Thallium
Nickel
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
4.0 x 10'5
0.00012
4.1 x lO'6
0.0022
0.00048
0.00023
3.1 x 10-5
8.5 x 10'7
4.0 x 10'5
0.0013
Ib/ton
8.1 x 10'5
0.00024
8.2 x lO'6
0.0044
0.00096
0.00045
6.1 x 10-5
1.7x 10-6
8.1 x 10'5
0.0026
a Reference 9. Emission factors in kg/Mg and Ib/ton of grit fed into dryer. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
11.31-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
presents emission factors developed from the results of a metals analysis conducted on a rotary dryer
controlled by a wet scrubber.

       Emissions generated in the production of bonded abrasive products may involve a small
amount of dust generated by handling the loose abrasive, but careful control of sizes of abrasive
particles limits the amount of fine particulate that can be entrained in the ambient air.  However, for
products made from finer grit sizes—less than 0.13 mm (200 grit)—PM emissions may be a significant
problem.  The main emissions from production of grinding wheels are generated during the curing of
the bond structure for wheels.  Heating ovens or kilns emit various types of VOC depending upon the
composition of the bond system. Emissions from dryers and kilns also include products of
combustion, such as CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur oxides (SOX), in
addition to filterable and  condensable PM.  Vitrified products produce some emissions as filler
materials included to provide voids in the wheel structure are vaporized.  Curing resins or rubber that
is used in  some types of bond systems also  produce emissions of VOC, Another small source of
emissions  may be vaporization during curing of portions of the chloride- and sulfur-based materials
that are included within the bonding structure as grinding aids.

       Emissions that may result from the  production of coated abrasive products consist primarily of
VOC from the curing of the resin bonds and adhesives used to coat and attach the abrasive grains to
the fabric  or paper backing.  Emissions from dryers and curing ovens also may include products of
combustion, such as CO, CO2, NOX, and SOX, in addition to filterable and condensable PM.
Emissions that come from conversion of large rolls of coated abrasives into smaller products such as
sanding belts consist of PM and PM-10. In addition, some VOC may be emitted as a result of the
volatilization of adhesives used to form joints in those products.

       Fabric filters preceded by cyclones are used at some facilities to control PM emissions from
abrasive grain production. This configuration of control  devices can attain controlled emission
concentrations of 37 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (0.02 grains per dry standard
cubic foot) and control efficiencies  in excess of 99.9 percent.  Little other information is available on
the types of controls used by the abrasives industry to control PM emissions.  However, it is assumed
that other  conventional devices such as scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators can be used to  control
PM emissions from abrasives grain and products manufacturing.

       Scrubbers are used at some facilities to control NOX emissions from aluminum oxide
production.  In addition, thermal oxidizers are often used in the coated abrasives industry to control
emissions  of VOC.

References For Section 11.31

1.     Telephone communication between Ted Giese, Abrasive Engineering Society, and
       R. Marinshaw, Midwest Research Institute, Gary, NC, March 1, 1993.

2.     Stuart C. Salmon, Modern Grinding Process Technology, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
       1992.

3.     Richard P. Hight, Abrasives, Industrial Minerals And Rocks, Volume 1, Society of Mining
       Engineers, New York, NY,  1983.

4.     Richard L.  McKee, Machining With Abrasives, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
       1982.
1 /95                               Mineral Products Industry                            11.31-9

    -------
5.     Kenneth B. Lewis, and William F. Schleicher, The Grinding Wheel, 3rd edition, The
       Grinding Wheel Institute, Cleveland, OH, 1976.

6.     Coated Abrasives-Modern Tool of Industry, 1st edition, Coated Abrasives Manufacturers'
       Institute, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,  New York, 1958.

7.     Written communication between Robert Renz, 3M Environmental Engineering and Pollution
       Control, and R. Myers, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, March 8, 1994.

8.     Source Sampling Report: Measurement Of Particulates Rotary Dryer, MDC Corporation,
       Philadelphia, PA, Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Service Corp., Valley Forge, PA,
       March  18, 1992.

9.     Source Sampling Report for Measurement Of Paniculate And Heavy Metal Emissions, MDC
       Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, November 1988.
 11.31-10                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
                      12.   METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
       The metallurgical industry can be broadly divided into primary and secondary metal production
operations.  Primary refers to the production of metal from ore.  Secondary refers to production of
alloys from  ingots and to recovery of metal from scrap and salvage.

       The primary metals industry includes both ferrous and nonferrous operations. These processes
are characterized by emission of large quantities of sulfur oxides and particulate. Secondary
metallurgical processes are also discussed, and the major air contaminant from such activity is
particulate in the forms of metallic fumes, smoke, and dust.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                              12.0-1

    -------
12.0-2                        EMISSION FACTORS                          1/95

    -------
12.1  Primary Aluminum Production

12.1.1  General1

        Primary aluminum refers to aluminum produced directly from mined ore.  The ore is refined
and electrolytically reduced to elemental aluminum. There are 13 companies operating 23 primary
aluminum reduction facilities in the U. S.  In 1991, these facilities produced 4.1 million megagrams
(Mg) (4.5 million tons) of primary aluminum.

12.1.2  Process Description2"3

        Primary aluminum production begins with the mining of bauxite ore, a hydrated oxide of
aluminum consisting of 30 to 56 percent alumina (A1203) and lesser amounts of iron, silicon, and
titanium.  The ore is refined into alumina by the Bayer process. The alumina is then shipped to a
primary aluminum plant for electrolytic reduction to aluminum. The refining and reducing processes
are seldom accomplished at the same facility.  A schematic diagram of primary  aluminum production
is shown in Figure 12.1-1.

12.1.2.1 Bayer Process Description -
        In the Bayer process, crude bauxite ore is dried, ground in ball mills, and mixed with a
preheated spent leaching solution of sodium  hydroxide (NaOH). Lime (CaO) is added to control
phosphorus content and to improve the solubility of alumina.  The resulting slurry is combined with
sodium hydroxide and pumped  into a pressurized digester operated at 105 to 290°C (221 to 554°F).
After approximately 5 hours, the slurry of sodium aluminate (NaAl2OH) solution and insoluble red
mud is  cooled to 100°C (212°F) and sent through either a gravity separator or a wet cyclone to
remove coarse sand particles.  A flocculent,  such as starch, is added to increase the settling rate of
the red  mud.  The overflow from the settling tank contains the alumina in solution, which is further
clarified by filtration and then cooled.  As the solution cools, it becomes supersaturated with sodium
aluminate.  Fine crystals of alumina trihydrate (A1203 • 3H20) are seeded in the solution, causing the
alumina to precipitate out  as alumina trihydrate.  After being washed and filtered, the alumina
trihydrate is calcined to produce a crystalline form of alumina, which is advantageous for electrolysis.

12.1.2.2 Hall-Heroult Process  -
        Crystalline A12O3  is used in the Hall-Heroult process to produce aluminum metal.
Electrolytic reduction of alumina occurs in shallow rectangular cells, or "pots",  which are steel shells
lined with carbon.  Carbon electrodes extending into the pot serve as the anodes, and the carbon
lining as the cathode.  Molten cryolite (Na3AlF6) functions as both the electrolyte and the solvent for
the alumina.  The electrolytic reduction of A1203 by the carbon from the electrode occurs as follows:

                                 2A12O3 + 3C  -> 4A1 + 3CO2                              (1)

        Aluminum is deposited  at the cathode, where it remains as molten metal below the surface of
the cryolite bath. The carbon anodes are continuously depleted by the reaction.  The aluminum
product is tapped every 24 to 48 hours  beneath the cryolite cover, using a vacuum siphon.  The
aluminum is then transferred to a reverberatory holding furnace where it is alloyed, fluxed, and
degassed to remove trace impurities. (Aluminum reverberatory furnace operations are discussed in
detail in Section 12.8,  "Secondary Aluminum Operations".) From the holding furnace, the aluminum
is cast or transported to fabricating plants.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.1-1

    -------
                                                                                                   4-*
                                                                                                   c.
                                                                                                   c
                                                                                                  •a
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                  U
                                                                                                   c
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                  4)
                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                  w
                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                  oo
                                                                                                  c/;
                                                                                                  t/;
                                                                                                  CD

                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                  d,
                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                  _O


                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                  T3

                                                                                                  2
                                                                                                  d,

                                                                                                  S
                                                                                                  C

                                                                                                  g
                                                                                                  03
                                                                                                  L«
                                                                                                  &0
                                                                                                  .2
                                                                                                  •5
                                                                                                  o

                                                                                                  'fa
                                                                                                  g
                                                                                                  53

                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                  C/}
12.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
        Three types of aluminum reduction cells are now in use: prebaked anode cell (PB), horizontal
 stud Soderberg anode cell (HSS), and vertical stud Soderberg anode cell (VSS).  Most of the
 aluminum produced in the U. S. is processed using the prebaked cells.

        All three aluminum cell configurations require a "paste"  (petroleum coke mixed with a pitch
 binder). Paste preparation includes crushing, grinding, and screening of coke and blending with a
 pitch binder in a steam jacketed mixer.  For Soderberg anodes, the thick paste mixture is added
 directly to the anode casings. In contrast, the prebaked ("green") anodes  are produced as an ancillary
 operation at a reduction plant.

        In prebake anode preparation, the paste mixture is molded into green anode blocks ("butts")
 that are baked in either a direct-fired ring furnace or a Reid Hammer furnace, which is indirectly
 heated. After baking, steel rods are inserted and sealed with molten iron. These rods become the
 electrical  connections to the prebaked carbon anode.  Prebaked cells are preferred over Soderberg
 cells because they are electrically more efficient and emit fewer organic compounds.

 12.1.3  Emissions And Controls2"9'12

        Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for total particulate matter, gaseous fluoride,  and
 particulate fluoride are given in Tables 12.1-1 and 12.1-2. Tables 12.1-3 and 12.1-4 give available
 data for size-specific particulate matter emissions for primary aluminum industry processes.

        In bauxite grinding, hydrated aluminum oxide calcining,  and materials handling operations,
 various dry dust collection devices (centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or ESPs and/or wet
 scrubbers) have been used. Large amounts of particulate are generated during the calcining of
 hydrated aluminum oxide, but the economic value of this dust leads to the use of extensive controls
 which reduce emissions to relatively small quantities.

        Emissions from aluminum reduction processes are primarily gaseous hydrogen fluoride and
 particulate fluorides, alumina, carbon monoxide, volatile organics, and sulfur dioxide (S02)  from the
 reduction cells.  The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride electrolyte,
 which contains cryolite, aluminum fluoride (A1F3), and fluorospar (CaF2).

        Particulate emissions from reduction cells include alumina and carbon from anode dusting,
 and cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite (Na5Al3F14), and ferric oxide.
 Representative  size distributions for fugitive emissions from PB and HSS  plants, and for particulate
 emissions from HSS  cells, are presented in Tables  12.1-3 and 12.1-4.

        Emissions from reduction cells also include hydrocarbons or organics, carbon monoxide, and
 sulfur oxides. These emission factors are not presented here because of a lack of data.  Small
 amounts of hydrocarbons are released by PB pots, and larger amounts are emitted from HSS and VSS
pots.  In vertical cells, these organics are incinerated in integral gas burners. Sulfur oxides originate
from sulfur in the anode coke and pitch, and concentrations of sulfur oxides in  VSS cell emissions
range from 200 to 300 parts per million.  Emissions from PB plants usually have SO9 concentrations
ranging from 20 to 30 parts per million.

        Emissions from anode bake ovens include the products of fuel combustion; high boiling
organics from the cracking, distillation, and oxidation  of paste binder pitch; sulfur dioxide from the
sulfur in carbon paste, primarily from the petroleum coke; fluorides from  recycled anode butts; and
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.1-3

    -------
      Table 12.1-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM
                          PRODUCTION PROCESSES3'5

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Operation
Bauxite grinding*1
(SCC 3-03-000-01)
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower and spray screen
Aluminum hydroxide calcining6
(SCC 3-03-002-01)
Uncontrolled'
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower
ESP
Anode baking furnace
(SCC 3-03-001-05)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-11)
Spray tower
ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Prebake cell
(SCC 3-03-001-01)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-08)
Emissions to collector
Crossflow packed bed
Multiple cyclones
Spray tower
Dry ESP plus spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Dry alumina scrubber
Coated bag filter dry scrubber
Dry plus secondary scrubber
Total
Particulatec


3.0
0.9
0.85
0.5


100.0
30.0
28.0
17.0
2.0


1.5
ND
0.375
0.375
0.03


47.0
2.5
44.5
13.15
9.8
8.9
2.25
8.9
0.9
0.9
0.35
Gaseous
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.45
ND
0.02
0.02
0.004


12.0
0.6
11.4
3.25
11.4
0.7
0.7
0.25
0.1
1.7
0.2
Particulate
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.05
ND
0.015
0.015
0.001


10.0
0.5
9.5
2.8
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.15
References


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


2,10-11
ND
10
2
2,10


1-2,10-11
2,10
2
10
2
2
2,10
2
2,10
2
10
12.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                     Table 12.1-1 (cont.).
Operation
Vertical Soderberg stud cell
(SCO 3-03-001-03)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-10)
Emissions to collector
Multiple cyclones
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Dry alumina scrubber
Scrubber plus ESP plus spray
screen and scrubber
Horizontal Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-02)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 30300109)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Scrubber plus wet ESP
Wet ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Total
Particulatec


39.0
6.0
33.0
16.5
8.25
1.3
0.65

3.85


49.0
5.0
44.0
11.0
9.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
Gaseous
Fluoride


16.5
2.45
14.05
14.05
0.15
0.15
0.15

0.75


11.0
1.1
9.9
3.75
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
Participate
Fluoride


5.5
0.85
4.65
2.35
1.15
0.2
0.1

0.65


6.0
0.6
5.4
1.35
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
References


2,10
10
10
2
2
2
2

2


2,10
2,10
2,10
2,10
2
2,10
10
10
a Units are kilograms (kg) of pollutant/Mg of molten aluminum produced. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Sulfur oxides may be estimated, with an EMISSION FACTOR RATING of C, by the following
  calculations.
               Anode baking furnace, uncontrolled S02 emissions (excluding furnace
               fuel combustion emissions):
                           20(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) kg/Mg   (Metric units)
                     40(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) pounds/ton (Ib/ton)   (English units)
                      Prebake (reduction) cell, uncontrolled SO2 emissions:
                              0.2(C)(S)(K) kg/Mg   (Metric units)
                              0.4(C)(S)(K) Ib/ton    (English units)
               where:
                      C  =  Anode consumption* during electrolysis, Ib anode consumed/lb
                            Al produced (English units)
                      S  =  % sulfur in anode before baking
                      K  =  % of total SO2 emitted by prebake (reduction) cells.

               *Anode consumption weight is weight of anode paste (coke + pitch)
               before baking.

c Includes particulate fluorides, but does not include condensable organic paniculate.
d For bauxite grinding, units are kg of pollutant/Mg of bauxite processed.
e For aluminum hydroxide calcining,  units are kg of pollutant/Mg of alumina produced.
f After multicyclones.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.1-5

    -------
     Table 12.1-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM
                         PRODUCTION PROCESSES**

                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Operation
Bauxite grinding4*
(SCC 3-03-000-01)
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower and spray
screen
Aluminum hydroxide calcining6
(SCC 3-03-002-01)
Uncontrolled^
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Quench tower
ESP
Anode baking furnace
(SCC 3-03-001-05)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-11)
Spray tower
ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Prebake cell
(SCC 3-03-001-01)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-08)
Emissions to collector
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina scrubber
Dry ESP plus spray tower
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Coated bag filter dry scrubber
Crossflow packed bed
Dry plus secondary scrubber
Total
Particulatec


6.0
1.8
1.7

1.0


200.0
60.0
56.0
34.0
4.0


3.0
ND
0.75
0.75
0.06


94.0
5.0
89.0
19.6
1.8
4.5
112.8
112.8
1.8
26.3
0.7
Gaseous
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg

Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.9
ND
0.04
0.04
0.009


24.0
1.2
22.8
22.8
0.2
1.4
1.4
0.5
3.4
6.7
0.4
Particulate
Fluoride


Neg
Neg
Neg

Neg


Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg


0.1
ND
0.03
0.03
0.002


20.0
1.0
19.0
4.2
0.4
3.4
3.8
3.8
0.4
5.6
0.3
Reference


1,3
1,3
1,3

1,3


1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3


2,10-11
ND
10
2
2,10


1-2,10-11
2,10
2
2
2,10
2,10
2
2
2
10
10
12.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                      Table 12.1-2 (cont.).
Operation
Vertical Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-03)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-10)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina scrubber
Scrubber plus ESP plus spray
screen and scrubber
Horizontal Soderberg stud cell
(SCC 3-03-001-02)
Uncontrolled
Fugitive (SCC 3-03-001-09)
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Scrubber plus wet ESP
Wet ESP
Dry alumina scrubber
Total
Particulatec


78.0
12.0
66.0
16.5
2.6
33.0
1.3

7.7


98.0
10.0
88.0
22.0
19.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
Gaseous
Fluoride


33.0
4.9
28.1
0.3
0.3
28.1
0.3

1.5


22.0
2.2
19.8
7.5
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.4
Paniculate
Fluoride


11.0
1.7
9.3
2.3
0.4
4.7
0.2

1.3


12.0
1.2
10.8
2.7
2.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
Reference


2,10
10
10
2
2
2
2

2


2,10
2,10
2,10
2,10
2
2,10
10
10
a Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of molten aluminum produced.  SCC =  Source Classification Code.
b Sulfur oxides may be estimated, with an EMISSION FACTOR RATING of C, by the following
  calculations.
               Anode baking furnace, uncontrolled SO2 emissions (excluding furnace fuel
               combustion emissions):
                            20(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) kg/Mg  (Metric units)
                           40(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) Ib/ton   (English units)
               Prebake (reduction) cell, uncontrolled SO2 emissions:
                              0.2(C)(S)(K) kg/Mg
                              0.4(C)(S)(K) Ib/ton
              where:
                       (Metric units)
                       (English units)
                      C  =

                      S  =
                      K  =
Anode consumption* during electrolysis, Ib anode consumed/lb Al
produced
% sulfur in anode before baking
% of total SO? emitted by prebake (reduction) cells.
              *Anode consumption weight is weight of anode paste (coke + pitch)
              before baking.

c Includes paniculate fluorides, but does not include condensable organic paniculate.
d For bauxite grinding, units are Ib of pollutant/ton of bauxite processed.
e For aluminum hydroxide calcining, units are Ib of pollutant/ton of alumina produced.
f After multicyclones.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
         Metallurgical Industry
12.1-7

    -------
 o
                 Table 12.1-3 (Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE
                                   DISTRIBUTION IN ALUMINUM PRODUCTION8
                                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Particle Sizeb (jj.m)
0.625
1.25
2.5
5
10
15
Total
Prebake Aluminum Cells0
Cumulative Mass
% ^ Stated Size
13
18
28
43
58
65
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
0.33
0.46
0.70
1.08
1.45
1.62
2.5
HSS Aluminum Cells
Cumulative Mass
% £ Stated Size
8
13
17
23
31
39
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
0.40
0.65
0.85
1.15
1.55
1.95
5.0
HSS Reduction Cells
Cumulative Mass
% £ Stated Size
26
32
40
50
58
63
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
12.7
15.7
19.6
25.5
28.4
30.9
49
m
§
CO
co
HH
O
Z
T)
>
n

O
&
CO
a Reference 5. Units are kg of pollutant/Mg of aluminum produced.
b Expressed as equivalent aerodynamic particle diameter.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

    -------
oo
ON


f
o1
Table 12.1-4 (English Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE
                  DISTRIBUTION IN ALUMINUM PRODUCTION8


                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Particle Sizeb (/zm)
0.625
1.25
2.5
5
10
15
Total
Prebake Aluminum Cells0
Cumulative Mass
% £ Stated Size
13
18
28
43
58
65
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
0.67
0.92
1.40
2.15
2.90
3.23
2.5
HSS Aluminum Cells
Cumulative Mass
% <. Stated Size
8
13
17
23
31
39
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
0.8
1.3
1.7
2.3
3.1
3.9
10.0
HSS Reduction Cells
Cumulative Mass
% £ Stated Size
26
32
40
50
58
63
100
Cumulative
Emission Factor
25.5
31.4
39.2
49.0
56.8
61.7
98
e.
c*
o3.
o
VI
      a Reference 5.  Units are Ib of pollutant/ton of aluminum produced.
      b Expressed as equivalent aerodynamic particle diameter.
      c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

    -------
 other paniculate matter.  Emission factors for these components are not included in this document due
 to insufficient data.  Concentrations of uncontrolled SO2 emissions from anode baking furnaces range
 from 5 to 47 parts per million (based on 3 percent sulfur in coke).

        High molecular weight organics and other emissions from the anode paste are released from
 HSS and VSS cells.  These emissions can be ducted to gas burners to be oxidized, or they can be
 collected and recycled or sold.  If the heavy tars are not properly collected, they can cause plugging
 of exhaust ducts, fans, and emission control equipment.

        A variety of control devices has been used to abate emissions from reduction cells and anode
 baking furnaces.  To control gaseous and paniculate fluorides and paniculate emissions, 1 or more
 types of wet scrubbers (spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds,
 Venturis) have been applied to all 3  types of reduction cells and to anode baking furnaces.  In
 addition, paniculate control methods such as wet and dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs),  multiple
 cyclones, and dry alumina  scrubbers (fluid bed, injected, and coated filter  types) are used on all 3 cell
 types and with anode baking furnaces.

        The fluoride adsorption system is becoming more prevalent and is used on all 3  cell types.
 This system uses a fluidized bed of alumina,  which has  a high affinity for  fluoride, to capture gaseous
 and paniculate fluorides. The pot offgases are passed through the crystalline form of alumina, which
 was generated using the Bayer process.  A fabric filter is operated downstream from the fluidized bed
 to capture the alumina dust entrained in the exhaust gases passing through the fluidized bed. Both the
 alumina used in the fluidized bed and that captured by the fabric filter are  used as feedstock for the
 reduction cells, thus  effectively recycling the fluorides.  This system has an overall control  efficiency
 of 99 percent for both gaseous  and paniculate fluorides. Wet ESPs approach adsorption in  paniculate
 removal efficiency, but they must be coupled to a wet scrubber or coated baghouse to catch hydrogen
 fluoride.

        Scrubber systems also remove a portion of the SO2 emissions.  These emissions could be
 reduced by wet scrubbing or by reducing the quantity of sulfur  in the anode coke and pitch, i.  e.,
 calcining the coke.

        The molten aluminum may be batch treated in furnaces  to remove  oxide, gaseous impurities,
 and active metals such as sodium and magnesium. One process consists of adding a flux of chloride
 and fluoride salts and then  bubbling chlorine gas, usually mixed with an inert gas, through the molten
 mixture.  Chlorine reacts with the impurities to form HC1, A12O3 and metal  chloride emissions.  A
 dross forms on the molten  aluminum and is removed before casting.

        Potential sources of fugitive paniculate emissions in the primary aluminum industry are
 bauxite grinding, materials handling, anode baking, and the 3 types of reduction  cells (see
 Tables 12.1-1 and 12.1-2).  These fugitive emissions probably have particulate size distributions
 similar to those presented in Tables 12.1-3 and 12.1-4.

 References For Section 12.1

 1.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U.  S. Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior,
„'       Washington, DC.

 2.     Engineering And Cost Effectiveness Study Of Fluoride Emissions Control, Volume I,
        APTD-0945, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January
        1972.

 12.1-10                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
3.     Air Pollution Control In The Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I, EPA-450/3-73-004a,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1973.

4.     Paniculate Pollutant System Study, Volume I, APTD-0743, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.

5.     Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Repon For The Nonferrous Industry,
       Contract No. 68-02-3159, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, October 1985.

6.     Emissions From Wet Scrubbing System, Y-7730-E, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, May 1972.

7.     Emissions From Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant, Y-7730-B, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, June 1972.

8.     Emissions From The Wet Scrubber System, Y-7730-F, York Research Corporation,
       Stamford, CT, June 1972.

9.     T. R. Hanna and M. J. Pilat, "Size Distribution Of Particulates Emitted From A Horizontal
       Spike Soderberg Aluminum Reduction Cell", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control
       Association, 22:533-5367, July 1972.

10.    Background Information For Standards Of Performance: Primary Aluminum Industry: Volume
       I, Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-020a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, October  1974.

11.    Primary Aluminum: Guidelines For Control Of Fluoride Emissions From Existing Primary
       Aluminum Plants, EPA-450/2-78-049b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.

12.    Written communication from T. F. Albee, Reynolds Aluminum, Richmond, VA, to
       A. A. McQueen, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 20, 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                             12.1-11

    -------

    -------
12.2  Coke Production

12.2.1 General

       Metallurgical coke is produced by destructive distillation of coal in coke ovens.  Prepared coal
is "coked", or heated in an oxygen-free atmosphere until all volatile components in the coal
evaporate.  The material remaining is called coke.

       Most metallurgical coke is used in iron and steel industry processes such as blast furnaces,
sinter plants, and foundries to reduce iron ore to iron.  Over 90 percent of the total metallurgical coke
production is dedicated to blast furnace operations.

       Most coke plants are co-located with iron and steel production facilities.  Coke demand is
dependent on the iron and  steel industry.  This represents a continuing decline from the about
40 plants that were operating in 1987.

12.2.2 Process Description1-2

       All metallurgical coke  is produced using the "byproduct" method.  Destructive distillation
("coking") of coal occurs in coke ovens without contact with air. Most U. S. coke plants use the
Kopper-Becker byproduct oven. These ovens must remain airtight  under the cyclic stress of
expansion and contraction.  Each oven has 3 main parts:  coking chambers, heating chambers, and
regenerative chambers.  All of the chambers  are lined with refractory (silica) brick.  The coking
chamber has ports in the top for charging of the coal.

       A coke oven battery is a series of 10 to  100 coke ovens operated together.  Figure 12.2-1
illustrates a byproduct coke oven battery. Each oven holds between 9 to 32 megagrams  (Mg) (10 to
35 tons) of coal.  Offtake flues on either end remove gases produced.  Process heat comes from the
combustion of gases between the coke chambers.  Individual coke ovens operate intermittently, with
run times  of each oven coordinated to ensure a consistent flow of collectible gas.  Approximately
40 percent of cleaned oven gas (after the removal of its byproducts) is used to heat the coke ovens.
The rest is either used in other production processes related to steel production or sold.  Coke oven
gas is the  most common fuel for underfiring coke ovens.

       A typical coke manufacturing process is shown  schematically in Figure 12.2-2. Coke
manufacturing includes preparing, charging, and heating the coal; removing and cooling  the coke
product; and  cooling, cleaning, and recycling the oven gas.

       Coal is prepared for coking by pulverizing so that 80 to 90  percent passes through a
3.2 millimeter (1/8 inch) screen.  Several types of coal  may be blended to produce the desired
properties, or to  control the expansion of the coal mixture in the oven.  Water or oil may be added to
adjust the  density of the coal to control  expansion and prevent damage to the oven.

       Coal may be added to the ovens in either a dry  or wet state. Prepared wet coal is finely
crushed before charging to the oven.  Flash-dried coal may be transported directly to the ovens by the
hot gases used for moisture removal. Wall temperatures should stay above  1100°C (2000°F) during
loading operations and actual coking. The ports are closed after charging and sealed with luting
("mud") material.


1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.2-1

    -------
                                                                                        0>




                                                                                       1
                                                                                        8
                                                                                       -a

                                                                                       a

                                                                                        o

                                                                                       'i
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       C/3
                                                                                       'o
                                                                                        c
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        W)
                                                                                        c
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        I

                                                                                        O
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                       •o

                                                                                       2
                                                                                       a.
                                                                                       >-.
                                                                                       03
                                                                                       ts
                                                                                       6JO
12.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------


Ul
1-

o
1-
Q.


f-
— » -
PARTIC


UJ

PARTICUL
L WATER]
i 1 1
O


UJ
o •* 	
1-
UL
o_






DC
U
K
—l




LENDED COt
BUNKER
m



MIXING/
CRUSHING
SCREENING
(SCO 3-03-003-10




< UJ
°2
°2
^ o
•% 1-
K05


























'
Ul
l-
O *
H
O.



<
a:






O
Z T
) SCREE
sec 3-03-00:
z



(WJ-COO-EO-E DOS)




REMOVAL



j
>
j
)
)























i
<
c
C






















2
D
o f
3 <
a a
3







O <
o









TAR &
AMMONIA














*-









-














a:
i-



^».
CONDENSER




AMMONIA
sni iiTinu


u
<
c
c
u








cc.
O
EXTRAC"




EXHAUSTER




SPRAY


j
C
)
>
>


































IROGEN
i cinp
>• cr
X



a
C
i-
3
c:



2
U
4
3
1-
1
a
4
_2


IE
z <
o "
s ^









1
1




)
J
)
1




J
J
c
,


J
t
3
3









,_




-




-



•^




Z
UJ
z >
<0
UJ
-1 UJ
u *
o
0




UBBING
0£
0
<0



ABSORPTION



Q
u
0
u
C
t
c
t

a
C
i-
4
a
P

C
)




























                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          CL,
                                                                                                          C
                                                                                                          0)
                                                                                                          T3

                                                                                                          3


                                                                                                          .0
                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                          0
                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                          a

                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          Cu



                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          C
                                                                                                          S3
                                                                                                          •4u*
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                          8
                                                                                                          <*-
                                                                                                          o

                                                                                                          ca

                                                                                                          -I
                                                                                                          •3
                                                                                                          (N



                                                                                                          CN


                                                                                                          O)
                                                                                                          I-
                                                                                                          3
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-3

    -------
         The blended coal mass is heated for 12 to 20 hours for metallurgical coke. Thermal energy
  from the walls of the coke chamber heats the coal mass by conduction from the sides to the middle of
  the coke chamber.  During the coking process, the charge is in direct contact with the heated wall
  surfaces and develops into an aggregate "plastic zone". As additional thermal energy is absorbed, the
  plastic zone thickens  and merges toward the middle of the charge.  Volatile gases escape in front of
  the developing zone due to heat progression from the side walls. The maximum temperature attained
  at the center of the coke mass is usually 1100 to 1150°C  (2000 to 2100°F). This distills all volatile
  matter from the coal mass  and forms a high-quality metallurgical coke.

         After coking  is  completed (no volatiles remain), the coke in the chamber is ready to be
  removed.  Doors on both sides of the chamber are opened and a ram is inserted into the chamber.
  The coke is pushed out of the oven in less than 1 minute, through the coke guide and into a quench
  car.  After the coke is pushed from the oven, the doors are  cleaned and repositioned.  The oven is
  then ready to receive another charge of coal.

         The quench car carrying the hot coke moves along the battery tracks to a  quench tower where
  approximately  1130 liters (L) of water per Mg of coke (270 gallons of water per ton) are sprayed
* onto the coke mass to cool it from about 1100 to 80°C (2000 to 180CF) and to prevent it from
  igniting.  The quench car may rely on a movable hood to collect paniculate emissions, or it may have
  a scrubber car attached.  The car then discharges the coke onto a wharf to drain and continue cooling.
  Gates on the wharf are opened to allow the coke to fall onto a conveyor that carries it to the crushing
  and screening station. After sizing, coke is  sent to the blast furnace or to storage.

         The primary purpose of modern coke ovens is the production of quality coke for the iron and
  steel  industry.  The recovery of coal chemicals is an economical necessity, as they equal
  approximately  35 percent of the value of the coal.

         To produce quality metallurgical coke, a high-temperature carbonization process is used.
  High-temperature carbonization, which takes place above 900°C (1650°F), involves chemical
  conversion of coal into  a mostly gaseous product.  Gaseous products from high-temperature
  carbonization consist  of hydrogen, methane, ethylene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen
  sulfide, ammonia, and nitrogen.  Liquid products include water, tar, and crude light oil. The coking
  process produces approximately 338,000 L of coke oven gas (COG) per megagram of coal charged
  (10,800 standard cubic feet of COG per ton).

         During the coking  cycle, volatile matter driven from the coal mass passes upward through
  cast iron "goosenecks" into a common horizontal steel pipe (called the collecting main), which
  connects all the ovens in series.  This unpurified "foul" gas contains water vapor, tar, light oils, solid
  paniculate of coal dust, heavy hydrocarbons, and complex carbon compounds. The condensable
  materials  are removed from the exhaust gas  to obtain purified coke oven gas.

         As it leaves the coke chamber, coke oven coal gas is initially cleaned with a weak ammonia
  spray, which condenses some tar and ammonia from the gas.  This liquid condensate flows down the
  collecting main until  it reaches a settling tank. Collected ammonia is used in the  weak ammonia
  spray, while the rest is pumped  to an ammonia still.  Collected coal tar is pumped to a storage tank
  and sold to tar distillers, or used as fuel.

         The remaining gas is cooled as it passes through a condenser and then compressed by an
  exhauster. Any remaining coal tar is removed by a tar extractor, either by impingement against a
  metal surface or collection by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The gas still contains 75 percent of
  original ammonia and 95 percent of the original light oils.  Ammonia is removed by passing the gas

  12.2-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
through a saturator containing a 5 to 10 percent solution of sulfuric acid. In the saturator, ammonia
reacts with sulfuric acid to form ammonium sulfate. Ammonium sulfate is then crystallized and
removed. The gas is further cooled, resulting in the condensation of naphthalene.  The light oils are
removed in an absorption tower containing water mixed with "straw oil" (a heavy fraction of
petroleum).  Straw oil acts as an absorbent for the light oils, and is later heated to release the light
oils for recovery and refinement.  The last cleaning step is the removal of hydrogen sulfide from the
gas.  This is normally done in a scrubbing tower containing a solution of ethanolamine (Girbotol),
although several other methods have been used in the past.  The clean  coke oven coal gas is used as
fuel for the coke ovens, other plant combustion processes, or sold.

12.2.3  Emissions And Controls

        Paniculate, VOCs, carbon monoxide and other emissions originate from several byproduct
coking operations:  (1) coal preparation, (2) coal preheating (if used), (3) coal charging, (4) oven
leakage during the coking period, (5) coke removal, (6) hot coke quenching and (7) underfire
combustion stacks. Gaseous emissions collected from the ovens during the coking process are
subjected to various operations for separating ammonia, coke oven gas, tar, phenol,  light oils
(benzene, toluene, xylene), and pyridine.  These unit operations  are potential sources of VOC
emissions.   Small emissions may occur when transferring coal between conveyors or from conveyors
to bunkers.  Figure 12.2-2 portrays major emission points from a typical coke oven  battery.

        The emission factors available for coking operations for total paniculate,  sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, VOCs, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia are given in Tables  12.2-1  and 12.2-2.
Tables 12.2-3 and 12.2-4 give size-specific emission factors for coking operations.

        A few domestic plants preheat the coal to about 260°C (500°F) before charging, using a flash
drying column heated by the combustion of coke oven gas or by natural gas. The air stream that
conveys coal through the drying column usually passes through conventional wet scrubbers for
paniculate removal before discharging to the atmosphere. Leaks occasionally occur from  charge lids
and oven doors during pipeline charging due to the positive pressure. Emissions from the  other
methods are similar to conventional wet charging.

        Oven charging can produce significant emissions of paniculate  matter and VOCs from coal
decomposition if not properly controlled.  Charging techniques can draw most charging emissions  into
the battery collecting main.  Effective control requires that goosenecks  and the collecting main
passages be cleaned frequently to prevent obstructions.

        During the coking cycle, VOC emissions from the thermal distillation process can occur
through poorly sealed doors, charge lids, offtake caps, collecting main, and cracks that may develop
in oven brickwork. Door leaks may be controlled by  diligent door cleaning and maintenance,
rebuilding doors, and, in some plants, by manual application of lute (seal) material.  Charge lid and
offtake leaks may be controlled by an effective patching and luting program.  Pushing coke into the
quench car is another major source of paniculate emissions.  If the coke mass is not fully  coked,
VOCs and combustion products will be emitted. Most facilities control pushing emissions by using
mobile scrubber cars with hoods, shed enclosures evacuated to a gas cleaning device, or traveling
hoods with a fixed duct leading to a stationary gas cleaner.

       Coke quenching entrains paniculate from the coke mass.   In addition, dissolved solids from
the quench water may become entrained  in the steam plume rising from the tower.  Trace  organic
compounds may also be present.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.2-5

    -------
N)
to

dh
Table 12.2-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR COKE MANUFACTURING8
Type Of Operation
Coal crushing (SCC 3-03-003-10)
With cyclone
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled6
With scrubber
With wet ESP
Oven charging (larry car)
(SCC 3-03-003-02)
Uncontrolled
With sequential charging
With scrubber
Oven door leaks (SCC 3-03-003-08)
Uncontrolled
Oven pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled
With ESpg
With venturi scrubber1
With baghouse
With mobile scrubber carj
Quenching (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled
Dirty water*1-
Clean water™
With baffles
Dirty water1'
Clean water"1
Particulateb

0.055

1.75
0.125
0.006


0.24
0.008
0.007

0.27

0.58
0.225
0.09
0.045
0.036


2.62
0.57

0.65
0.27
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D

C
C
C


E
E
E

D

B
C
D
D
C


D
D

B
B
SO2

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.01
ND
ND



ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


NA
NA

NA
NA
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
COC

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.3
ND
ND

0.3

0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
D
D
D
D


NA
NA

NA
NA
VOCC|d

NA

ND
ND
ND


1.25
ND
ND

0.75

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
D
D
D
D


NA
NA

NA
NA
NOXC

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.015
ND
ND

0.005

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


NA
NA

NA
NA
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
Ammonia0

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.01
ND
ND

0.03

0.05
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
tn
§
D5
on
H- <
o
z
T)
g
on

    -------

















^V
S
o
•^s
^H
1
C-i


•li
H











2§§
co H r3
£2 o fr"1
2 S o2
cu
!a
£J
0
e
1
ISi
%%£

O*

? oi o
±£ O 'y
r* r { ^
2 o f"1
^ LL Ptf
24
M
o"
O
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
°0
O


2§i
GO H g
2 o r"1
u< c^«
•M

c/a


£ as u
- P Z
o o H
Particulateb

c
_o
1
O
O
o


Z



Q
Z

Z

Q
Z

^
Z



Q
Z
Z
Q
Z



Q



ri




<
en
d

05-
R S?
U OQ g-
o o O
*".*". 0
•ggg £
£§§•§
r* CO t^l ^H
I ° *? 2
5* r^i f^ -^
_2 U O g
•§ u u 8
5 co co >-5
O O O- i— '
O

Z



Q
Z

Z

Q
Z

<
Z



Q
Z
Z
Q
Z



U


a.
d




<
d

Uncontrolled (desulfurized COG)


Z Z Z



Q Q Q
Z Z Z

z z z

Q Q Q
Z Z Z

<«
z z z



Q Q Q
Z Z Z
z z z
Q Q Q
Z Z Z



Q0<


0- v.
"* f^ r\
to c*^ w
d d Z




< « Q
>n >o vi
oo •» >o
C5 0 C3

Uncontrolled (BFG)
With ESP (BFG)
With ESP (COG)





































With baghouse (COG)


Z



Q
Z

Z

Q
Z

<
Z



a
z
z
Q
Z



z



a
z




Q
d







































i
m
O
U
U
52-
BJD
c
c
03
U
o
U

Z



^
Z

z

z

<
z



^
z
z
Q
Z



z



Q
Z




Q
o
o
d

en
C
U
1


a>
»c
S
"a.
ra
•t->
g
II
"O
O
U
e
o
ts
o
'3
«
U
g
0
CO
II
0
U
on
o
3
•a
o
a,
jg
o
o
fl_l
o
bO
S

a
S3
tjj
"o •
J?§
c l_l
•sf
w: 52
CA tU
Emission Factors are expre
ND = no data. BFG = bl
Reference 1.
a JD
-So
..g-a1
KS 3 O
.0 -Si
5^5
.»'« ^>
a> c§ ' — '
* M M
^ ,_)
oo C S
"r 5 S
0 § So
=§ .52 8 a
a g-g 1
•x > w -5
2 o CM ^
1 s^l
•s ilf
"« « « 2
O J3 g -^
^* o X ^- i'
1 §~o~
^ o C-co
i o It 2
2 ^ « -5
.2 c Mt^
53 § c o
ai 73 ?n .
v C y^ -^->
S 8S§
* |1^
2 !I§1
1 s-sil
S a£gJ
c .2 g -2 e
O ±2 (3 C3 4>
»— < •^H *v i_j n)
o -o H <5 3?
>. c a,-0
<•> o .ss o X
>^ C i- §
H 4> § S
•S -^ 1 -S 13
C 15 0 o J3
8 e 2 e eo
a> o> _ •- ' c
CX3 ^J *o "rn "p
T3 21,1^
c . c< S.T S3 11
« • 03 0) S3 -^ «
^_ J2 -o w -c w "2
>» 3 -^  ^- ro
csWcggooot.^Tj-c^aj^fs,^
(U-aSjojs^js^^aj^^wicoa)
oai n-iCCCWi.o'titiiaoo
OSWWUWWWQUoi Ci-o 8 OS Cd
o-oo«4-iaoj3._j^£e &,cr
































reening.
o
CO
•§
W
M
W2
S «

OS Q
tn U)
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-7

    -------
to
'to
Table 12.2-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR COKE MANUFACTURING3
Type Of Operation
Coal crushing (SCC 3-03-003-10)
With cyclone
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled6
With scrubber
With wet ESP
Oven chargingf (larry car)
(SCC 3-03-003-02)
Uncontrolled
With sequential charging
With scrubber
Oven door leaks (SCC 3-03-003-08)
Uncontrolled
Oven pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled
With ESPS
With venturi scrubber11
With baghouseh
With mobile scrubber car
Quenching) (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled
Dirty water'
Clean water"1
With baffles
Dirty water'
Clean water1"
Particulateb

0.11

3.50
0.25
0.012


0.48
0.016
0.014

0.54

1.15
0.45
0.18
0.09
0.072


5.24
1.13

1.30
0.54
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D

C
C
C


E
E
E

D

B
C
D
D
C


D
D

B
B
SO2

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.02
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


NA
NA

NA
NA
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
CO0

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.6
ND
ND

0.6

0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
D
D
D
D


NA
NA

NA
NA
VOCc'd

NA

ND
ND
ND


2.5
ND
ND

1.50

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
D
D
D
D


NA
NA

NA
NA
NO/

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.03
ND
ND

0.01

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


NA
NA

NA
NA
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
Ammonia0

NA

ND
ND
ND


0.02
ND
ND

0.06

0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA

NA
NA
NA


D
NA
NA

D

D
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA
w
on
on
HH
O
2
Tl
>
O
H

8
on

    -------
   o
  cs
   CO
Z Qj
y o
co f-1
co o
S^£
fi
w




Z Q/
2o
co H
co u
S <
*j [1^
WJ


2p
co H
co o
2^f
f T .
tt4 ^^



2o
co H
co o
S <-
U



11SSIONI
iCTOR |
2 2"
U




Z Oj
M O
a o
w «•










o
z

^
K

U
*s
c

1
o
z
t~
^
o*

o
ox
U
z

H
^c
CM


"^
O
o
z
s
OS


'i.
o
o
OS


CO


O
z

«
•°«
eS
3
^o
I


pe Of Operation
H




















































•g
S

o
T3
O
b.
C.
a)

O
o
o
c
o
<~1

_c
i
L
«S M
n Factors are
blast furnace
Emissioi
BFG =
a

















































Reference 1.
a










.

Cv
60
O
£
1
13


.s
*Ui

•S
CS
5£



2
CO
W3
o
+-»
"8
1/3
3

•a
c
CO

CO
.£
c.
•-i—
0
.8
C/3
1
References 23.
Expressed as methane.
Exhaust gas discharged
t> T3 O <•















































i
1
l
CO
"to
O
"8
S?
CO
42














































1
en
12
"en

CO
b^
«^
Emissions captured by













































losure.
o
0
o
1
cr
Emissions captured by












































en
12
•s
>
s
."3
—
J
Ui
4>
to
« MI j= — , .*:











































W5
^
1
1
_cn
"eo
^—t
S
>n
Ui
CO
E
"8
• - c
xS> W
&v D
4- JO
JS v,
.2?"-
3* 59
^. CO
S bo
<» e
0 g>
.— ®
_ 4>
I!
2 °
T3 l^
1?
CO *J
JC 3
£-> 0
•a-S
O X-,
^^
o •-
= -
C bA
0) °°
•*-* ^M
C £5
O^ 4>
«^.
u S
U.
3 a>
* j*
"3 8
e« ^
c?s
^^
w
.11
•*-• c
ll
8.2
<» e
> «
•S o
cs O
C O
 -^^
oi Ci
B
§
4^
cn
•o
C
3
a
VO,
^
§
w>
CO
60
1
i
60
Oi
'£
t^,
C4
o
^^*
00
CU


"*-c
^

4_*
en
O)

0>
*S "^
O> N
P
> "3

l-i
*2 e
§|
*«
!r! (3
CU
•s s
0 J3
e 60
""" C
11
3 fe
.2-g
3
3 QO
T3 60

J'S
« 60
0> CO
0,J=
0 &5
£••3
'C .2
1?
^ 60
3 co
M-g
•C 13
3 O
•o o
















































R
U
1
Reference 21, desulfuri
Reference 22.
Reference 23.
o. a- u.














































.1°

1
TJ
1
en
g
1
I
n
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-9

    -------
           Table 12.2-3. (Metric Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR COKE MANUFACTURING3
                  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled






Controlled with venturi scrubber







Oven charging sequential or stage0







Coke pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
44
48.5
55
59.5
79.5
97.5
99.9
100
78
80
83
84
88
94
96.5
100
13.5
25.2
33.6
39.1
45.8
48.9
49.0
100
3.1
7.7
14.8
16.7
26.6
43.3
50.0
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.29
0.58
Reference
Source
Number
8







8







9







10- 15







12.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         1/95

    -------
                                       Table 12.2-3  (cont.).
Process
Controlled with venturi scrubber







Mobile scrubber car






Quenching (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled (dirty water)





Uncontrolled (clean water)





With baffles (dirty water)

•



Particle
Size
0*m)b
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
24
47
66.5
73.5
75
87
92
100
28.0
29.5
30.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
100

13.8
19.3
21.4
22.8
26.4
100
4.0
11.1
19.1
30.1
37.4
100
8.5
20.4
24.8
32.3
49.8
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.036

0.36
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.69
2.62
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.57
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.65
Reference
Source
Number
10, 12







16






17






17





17





1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-11

    -------
                                   Table 12.2-3  (cont.).
Process
With baffles (clean water)





Combustion stackd
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
G«n)b
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
1.2
6.0
7.0
9.8
15.1
100

77.4
85.7
93.5
95.8
95.9
96
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.27

0.18
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Reference
Source
Number
17






18-20






a Emission factors are expressed in kg of pollutant/Mg of material processed.
b fim = micrometers
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
d Material processed is coke.
 12.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
           Table 12.2^. (English Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                         FOR COKE MANUFACTURING1

                  EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D (except as noted)
Process
Coal preheating (SCC 3-03-003-13)
Uncontrolled






Controlled with venturi scrubber







Oven charging sequential or stage0







Coke pushing (SCC 3-03-003-03)
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
44
48.5
55
59.5
79.5
97.5
99.9
100
78
80
83
84
88
94
96.5
100
13.5
25.2
33.6
39.1
45.8
48.9
49.0
100
3.1
7.7
14.8
16.7
26.6
43.3
50.0
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.29
0.58
Reference
Source
Number
8







8







9







10- 15







1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-13

    -------
                               Table 12.2-4  (com.).
Process
Controlled with venturi scrubber






Mobile scrubber car






Quenching (SCC 3-03-003-04)
Uncontrolled (dirty water)




Uncontrolled (clean water)




With baffles (dirty water)




Particle
Size
Gxm)b
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
24
47
66.5
73.5
75
87
92
100
28.0
29.5
30.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
100
13.8
19.3
21.4
22.8
26.4
100
4.0
11.1
19.1
30.1
37.4
100
8.5
20.4
24.8
32.3
49.8
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.036
0.36
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.69
2.62
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.57
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.65
Reference
Source
Number
10, 12






16






17




17




17




12.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 12.2-4  (cent.).
Process
With baffles (clean water)





Combustion stackd
Uncontrolled






Particle
Size
0*m)b
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size
1.2
6.0
7.0
9.8
15.1
100

77.4
85.7
93.5
95.8
95.9
96
100
Cumulative
Mass
Emission
Factors
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.27

0.18
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Reference
Source
Number
17






18-20






a Emission factors are expressed in Ib of pollutant/ton of material processed.
b
      = micrometers.
c EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
d Material processed is coke.
       Combustion of gas in the battery flues produces emissions from the underfire or combustion
stack.  Sulfur dioxide emissions may also occur if the coke oven gas is not desulfurized.  Coal fines
may leak into the waste combustion gases if the oven wall brickwork is damaged.  Conventional gas
cleaning equipment, including electrostatic precjpitators and fabric filters, have been installed on
battery combustion stacks.

       Fugitive paniculate emissions are associated with material handling  operations.  These
operations consist of unloading, storing, grinding and sizing of coal, screening, crushing, storing, and
unloading of coke.

References For Section 12.2

1.     George T. Austin, Shreve's Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Fifth
       Edition, 1984.

2.     Theodore Baumeister, Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers, McGraw-Hill
       Book Company, Eighth Edition, 1978.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.2-15

    -------
3.     John Fitzgerald, et al., Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For The Metallurgical
       Coke Industry, TR-83-97-g, Contract No. 68-02-3157, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, July
       1986.

4.     Air Pollution By Coking Plants, United Nations Report: Economic Commission for Europe,
       ST/ECE/Coal/26,  1986.

5.     R. W. Fullerton, "Impingement Baffles To Reduce Emissions From Coke Quenching",
       Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 17: 807-809, December 1967.

6.     J. Varga and H. W. Lownie, Jr., Final Technological Report On A Systems Analysis Study Of
       The Integrated Iron And Steel Industry, Contract No. PH-22-68-65, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May, 1969.

7.     Paniculate Emissions Factors Applicable To The Iron And Steel Industry, EPA-450/479-028,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

8.     Stack Test Repon For J &L Steel, Aliquippa Works, Betz Environmental Engineers, Plymouth
       Meeting, PA, April 1977.

9.     R. W. Bee, et. al., Coke Oven Charging Emission Control Test Program, Volume I,
       EPA-650/2-74-062-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September
       1977.

10.    Emission Testing And Evaluation Of Ford/Koppers Coke Pushing Control System,
       EPA-600-2-77-187b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September
       1974.

11.    Stack Test Repon, Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN, Bethlehem Steel,  Bethlehem, PA,
       September 1974.

12.    Stack Test Repon For Inland Steel Corporation, East Chicago, IN Works, Betz Environmental
       Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA, June 1976.

13.    Stack Test Repon For Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, St. Louis, MO,  Clayton
       Environmental Services, Southfield, MO, April 1975.

14.    Source Testing Of A Stationary Coke Side Enclosure, Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor Plant,
       EPA-3401-76-012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1977.

15.    Stack Test Repon For Allied Chemical Corporation, Ashland, KY, York  Research
       Corporation, Stamford, CT, April 1979.

16.    Stack Test Repon, Republic Steel Company, Cleveland, OH, Republic Steel, Cleveland, OH,
       November 1979.

17.    J. Jeffrey, Wet Coke Quench Tower Emission Factor Development, Dofasco, Ltd.,
       EPA-600/X-85-340, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       August 1982.
12.2-16                            EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 18.    Stack Test Report For Shenango Steel, Inc., Neville Island, PA, Betz Environmental
       Engineers, Plymouth Meeting, PA, July 1976.

 19.    Stack Test Report For J & L Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Mostardi-Platt Associates,
       Bensenville, IL, June 1980.

 20.    Stack Test Report For J & L Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Wheelabrator Frye, Inc.,
       Pittsburgh, PA, April 1980.

 21.    R. B. Jacko, et al, Byproduct Coke Oven Pushing Operation: Total And Trace Metal
       Paniculate Emissions, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, June 27, 1976.

 22.    Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

 23.    Stack Test Report For Republic Steel, Cleveland, OH, PEDCo (Under Contract to
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), weeks of October 26 and November 7, 1981, EMB
       Report 81-CBS-l.

 24.    Stack Test Report, Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD, State Of Maryland, Stack Test
       Report No. 78, June and July 1975.

 25.    Stack Test Report, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, Ford Motor Company, November 5-
       6, 1980.

 26.    Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources Of Benzene, EPA-450/4-84-007, U.  S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1988.

 27.    Metallurgical Coke Industry Paniculate Emissions:  Source Category Report,
       EPA-600/7-86-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December
       1986.

 28.    Benzene Emissions From Coke Byproduct Recovery Plants:  Background Information For
       Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-83-016a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, May 1984.
1/95                               Metallurgical Industry                              12.2-17

    -------

    -------
 12.3  Primary Copper Smelting

 12.3.1  General1

        Copper ore is produced in 13 states.  In 1989, Arizona produced 60 percent of the total
 U. S. ore. Fourteen domestic mines accounted for more than 95 percent of the 1.45 megagrams
 (Mg) (1.6 millon tons) of ore produced in 1991.

        Copper is produced in the U. S. primarily by pyrometallurgical smelting methods.
 Pyrometallurgical techniques use heat to separate copper from copper sulfide ore concentrates.
 Process steps include mining, concentration, roasting,  smelting, converting, and finally fire and
 electrolytic refining.

 12.3.2  Process Description2"4

        Mining produces ores with less than 1 percent copper.  Concentration is accomplished at the
 mine sites by crushing,  grinding, and flotation purification, resulting in ore with 15 to 35 percent
 copper.  A continuous process called floatation, which uses water, various  flotation chemicals,  and
 compressed air,  separates the ore into fractions.  Depending upon the chemicals used, some minerals
 float to the surface and  are removed in a foam of air bubbles, while others sink and are reprocessed.
 Pine oils, cresylic acid,  and long-chain alcohols are used for the flotation of copper ores.  The
 flotation concentrates are then dewatered by clarification and filtration, resulting in 10 to 15 percent
 water, 25 percent sulfur, 25 percent iron, and varying quantities of arsenic, antimony, bismuth,
 cadmium, lead, selenium, magnesium, aluminum,  cobalt, tin, nickel, tellurium, silver, gold, and
 palladium.

        A typical pyrometallurgical copper smelting process, as illustrated in Figure 12.3-1, includes
 4 steps:  roasting, smelting, concentrating, and fire refining.  Ore concentration is roasted to reduce
 impurities, including sulfur, antimony, arsenic, and lead.  The roasted product, calcine, serves  as a
 dried and heated charge for the smelting furnace.  Smelting of roasted (calcine feed) or unroasted
 (green feed) ore concentrate produces matte, a molten mixture of copper sulfide (Cu2S), iron sulfide
 (FeS), and some heavy metals.  Converting the matte yields a high-grade "blister" copper, with
 98.5 to 99.5 percent copper.  Typically, blister copper is then fire-refined in  an anode furnace,  cast
 into "anodes", and sent  to an electrolytic refinery for further impurity elimination.

        Roasting is performed in copper smelters prior to charging reverberatory furnaces. In
 roasting, charge material of copper concentrate mixed with a siliceous flux (often a low-grade copper
 ore) is heated in air to about 650°C (1200°F), eliminating 20 to 50 percent of the sulfur as sulfur
 dioxide (SO2).  Portions of impurities such as antimony, arsenic, and lead are driven off,  and some
 iron is converted  to iron oxide.  Roasters are either multiple hearth or fluidized bed; multiple hearth
 roasters accept moist concentrate, whereas fluidized bed roasters are fed finely ground material. Both
 roaster types have self-generating energy by the exothermic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide,  shown in
the reaction below.

                          H2S +  O2  -*•  SO2  + H20 + Thermal energy                       (1)

       In the smelting process, either hot calcine from the roaster or raw unroasted concentrate is
melted with siliceous flux in a smelting furnace to  produce copper matte.  The required heat comes
from partial oxidation of the sulfide charge and from burning external fuel.  Most of the iron and

 10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.3-1

    -------
                                    ORE CONCENTRATES WITH SILICA FLUXES
                           FUEL
                             AIR
                                                       ROASTING

                                                    (SCC 3-03-005-02)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                   CONVERTER SLAG (2% Cu)
                           FUEL
                             AIR
                             AIR
              GREEN POLES OR GAS
                           FUEL
                             AIR
               SLAG TO CONVERTER
                                                             CALCINE
                                                       SMELTING

                                                     (SCC 3-03-005-03)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                        SLAG TO DUMP
                                        (0.5% Cu)
                                                              MATTE C^-  40% Cu)
                                                      CONVERTING

                                                     (SCC 3-O3-005-04)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                                             BLISTER COPPER (98.5+% Cu)
                                                      FIRE REFINING

                                                     (SCC 3-03-005-05)
                                                                                      OFFGAS
                                                ANODE COPPER (99.5% Cu)
                                               TO ELECTROLYTIC REFINERY
                        Figure 12.3-1.  Typical primary copper smelter process.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 some of the impurities in the charge oxidize with the fluxes to form a slag on top of the molten bath,
 which is periodically removed and discarded.  Copper matte remains in the furnace until tapped.
 Matte ranges from 35 to 65 percent copper, with 45 percent the most common.  The copper content
 percentage is referred to as the matte grade. The 4 smelting furnace technologies used in the
 U. S.  are reverberatory, electric, Noranda, and flash.

        The reverberatory furnace smelting operation is a continuous process, with frequent charging
 and periodic tapping of matte, as well as skimming slag. Heat is supplied by natural gas,  with
 conversion to oil during gas restrictions. Furnace temperature may exceed 1500°C (2730°F), with
 the heat being transmitted by radiation from the burner flame, furnace walls, and roof into the charge
 of roasted and unroasted materials mixed with flux. Stable copper sulfide (Cu2S) and stable FeS form
 the matte with excess sulfur leaving as sulfur dioxide.

        Electric arc furnace smelters generate heat with carbon electrodes that are lowered through the
 furnace roof and submerged hi the slag layer of the molten bath.  The feed consists of dried
 concentrates or calcine. The  chemical and physical changes occurring in the molten bath are similar
 to those occurring in the molten bath of a reverberatory furnace.  The matte and slag tapping
 practices are also similar.

        The Noranda process, as originally designed, allowed the continuous production of blister
 copper in a single vessel by effectively combining roasting, smelting, and converting into 1 operation.
 Metallurgical problems, however, led to the operation of these reactors for the production of copper
 matte. The Noranda process  uses heat generated by the exothermic oxidation of hydrogen sulfide.
 Additional heat is supplied by oil burners or by coal mixed with the ore concentrates. Figure 12.3-2
 illustrates the Noranda process reactor.

        Flash furnace smelting combines the operations of roasting and smelting to produce a high-
 grade copper matte from concentrates and flux. In flash smelting, dried ore concentrates and finely
 ground fluxes are injected together with oxygen and preheated air (or a mixture of both), into a
 furnace maintained at approximately  1000°C (1830°F).  As with the Noranda process reactor, and in
 contrast to reverberatory and  electric furnaces, flash furnaces use the heat generated from partial
 oxidation of their sulfide charge to provide  much  or all of the required heat.

        Slag produced by flash furnace operations contains significantly higher amounts of copper
 than reverberatory or electric  furnaces.  Flash furnace slag is treated in a slag cleaning furnace with
 coke or iron sulfide.  Because copper has a higher affinity for sulfur than oxygen, the copper in the
 slag (as copper oxide) is converted to copper sulfide. The copper sulfide is removed and the
 remaining slag is discarded.

       Converting produces blister copper by  eliminating the remaining iron and sulfur present in the
 matte.  All but one U. S. smelter uses Fierce-Smith converters, which are refractory-lined  cylindrical
 steel shells mounted on trunnions at either end, and rotated about the major axis for charging and
pouring. An opening in the center of the converter functions as a mouth through which molten matte,
siliceous flux, and scrap copper are charged and gaseous products are vented.  Air, or oxygen-rich
 air, is blown through the molten matte.  Iron sulfide is oxidized to form iron oxide (FeO) and SO2.
Blowing and slag skimming continue until an adequate amount of relatively pure Cu2S, called "white
metal", accumulates in the bottom of the converter. A final air blast ("final blow") oxidizes the
copper sulfide to SO2, and blister copper forms, containing 98 to 99 percent coppers.  The blister
copper is removed from the converter for subsequent refining.  The SO2 produced throughout the
operation is vented to pollution control devices.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.3-3

    -------
                                                        SO,  OFF-GAS
       CONCENTRATE AND FLUX
                      AIR TUYERES
                     Figure 12.3-2.  Schematic of the Noranda process reactor.

        One domestic smelter uses Hoboken converters.  The Hoboken converter, unlike the Fierce-
Smith converter, is fitted with an inverted u-shaped side flue at one end to siphon gases from the
interior of the converter directly to an offgas collection system. The siphon results in a slight vacuum
at the converter mouth.

        Impurities in blister copper may include gold, silver, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, iron, lead,
nickel, selenium, sulfur, tellurium, and zinc.  Fire refining and electrolytic refining are used to purify
blister copper even further.  In fire refining, blister copper is usually mixed with flux and charged
into the furnace, which is maintained at 1100°C (2010°F). Air is blown through the molten mixture
to oxidize the copper and any remaining impurities.  The impurities are removed as slag. The
remaining copper oxide is then subjected to a reducing atmosphere to form purer copper. The fire-
refined  copper is then cast into anodes for even further purification by electrolytic refining.

        Electrolytic refining separates copper from impurities by electrolysis in a solution containing
copper sulfate (Cu2SO4) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4).  The copper anode is dissolved and deposited at
the cathode.  As the copper anode dissolves, metallic impurities precipitate and form  a sludge.
Cathode copper, 99.95 to 99.96 percent pure, is then cast into bars, ingots, or slabs.

12.3.3  Emissions And Controls

        Emissions from primary copper smelters are principally paniculate matter and sulfur oxides
(SOX).  Emissions are generated from the roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters. Fugitive
emissions are generated during material handling operations.

        Roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters are sources of both paniculate matter
and SOX. Copper and iron oxides are the primary constituents of the paniculate matter,  but other
oxides,  such as arsenic, antimony, cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc, may also be present, along
with metallic sulfates and sulfuric acid mist.  Fuel combustion products also contribute to the
paniculate emissions from multiple hearth roasters and reverberatory furnaces.

        Gas effluent from roasters usually are sent to an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or spray
chamber/ESP system or are combined with smelter furnace gas effluent before particulate collection.
Overall, the hot ESPs remove only 20 to 80 percent  of the total particulate (condensed and vapor)
present  in the gas.  Cold ESPs  may remove more than 95 percent of the total particulate present in
12.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
the gas.  Paniculate collection systems for smelting furnaces are similar to those for roasters.
Reverberatory furnace off-gases are usually routed through waste heat boilers and low-velocity
balloon flues to recover large particles and heat, then are routed through an ESP or spray
chamber/ESP system.

        In the standard Fierce-Smith converter, flue gases are captured during the blowing phase by
the primary hood over the converter mouth.  To prevent the hood from binding to the converter with
splashing molten metal, a gap exists between the hood and the vessel.  During  charging and pouring
operations, significant fugitives may be emitted when the hood is removed to allow crane access.
Converter off-gases are treated in ESPs to remove particulate matter, and in sulfuric acid plants to
remove SO2.

        Remaining smelter operations process material containing very little sulfur, resulting in
insignificant SO2 emissions.  Particulate may be emitted from fire refining operations. Electrolytic
refining does not produce emissions unless the associated sulfuric acid tanks are open to  the
atmosphere.  Crushing and grinding systems used in ore, flux,  and slag processing also contribute to
fugitive dust problems.

        Control of SO2 from smelters is commonly performed in a sulfuric acid plant. Use of a
sulfuric acid plant to treat copper smelter effluent gas streams requires that particulate-free gas
containing minimum SO2 concentrations, usually of at least 3 percent SO2, be maintained.
Table 12.3-1 shows typical average SO2 concentrations from the various smelter units.  Additional
information on the operation of sulfuric acid plants is discussed in Section 8.10 of this document.
Sulfuric acid plants also treat converter gas effluent.  Some multiple hearth and all fluidized bed
roasters use sulfuric acid plants. Reverberatory furnace effluent contains minimal SO2 and is usually
released directly to the atmosphere with no SO2 reduction.  Effluent from the other types of smelter
furnaces contain higher concentrations of SO2 and  are treated in sulfuric acid plants before being
vented. Single-contact sulfuric acid plants achieve 92.5 to 98 percent conversion of plant effluent
gas. Double-contact acid plants collect from 98 to more than 99 percent of the SO2, emitting about
500 parts per million (ppm)  SO2. Absorption of the SO2 in dimethylaniline (DMA) solution has also
been used in domestic smelters to produce liquid SO2.

       Particular emissions  vary depending upon configuration of the smelting equipment.
Tables 12.3-2 and 12.3-3 give the emission factors for various smelter configurations, and
Tables 12.3-4,  12.3-5, 12.3-6,  12.3-7, 12.3-8, and 12.3-9 give size-specific emission factors for those
copper production processes where information is available.

       Roasting, smelting, converting, fire refining, and slag cleaning are potential fugitive emission
sources.  Tables 12.3-10  and 12.3-11 present fugitive emission  factors for these sources.
Tables 12.3-12, 12.3-13, 12.3-14, 12.3-15, 12.3-16,  and 12.3-17 present cumulative size-specific
particulate emission factors for fugitive emissions from reverberatory furnace matte tapping, slag
tapping, and converter slag and copper blow operations.  The actual  quantities of emissions from
these sources depend on the  type and condition of the equipment and on the smelter operating
techniques.

       Fugitive emissions are generated during the discharge and transfer of hot calcine  from
multiple hearth roasters.  Fluid bed roasting is a closed loop operation, and has negligible fugitive
emissions.  Matte tapping and slag skimming  operations are sources of fugitive emissions from
smelting furnaces.  Fugitive  emissions can also result from charging  of a smelting furnace or from
leaks, depending upon the furnace type and condition.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.3-5

    -------
             Table 12.3-1.  TYPICAL SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
                OFFGAS FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING SOURCES3
                            Unit
                                SO2 Concentration
                                  (Volume %)
 Multiple hearth roaster (SCC 3-03-005-02)
 Fluidized bed roaster (SCC 3-03-005-09)
 Reverberatory furnace (SCC 3-03-005-03)
 Electric arc furnace (SCC 3-03-005-10)
 Flash smelting furnace (SCC 3-03-005-12)
 Continuous smelting furnace (SCC 3-03-005-36)
 Pierce-Smith converter (SCC 3-03-005-37)
 Hoboken converter (SCC 3-03-005-38)
 Single contact H2SO4 plant (SCC 3-03-005-39)
 Double contact H2SO4 plant (SCC 3-03-005-40)
                                     1.5-3
                                     10- 12
                                    0.5 - 1.5
                                      4-8
                                     10-70
                                      5- 15
                                      4-7
                                       8
                                    0.2 - 0.26
                                      0.05
a SCC = Source Classification Code.
       Each of the various converter stages (charging, blowing, slag skimming, blister pouring, and
holding) is a potential source of fugitive emissions.  During blowing, the convener mouth is in the
stack (a close-fitting primary hood is over the mouth to capture offgases). Fugitive emissions escape
from the hood. During charging, skimming, and pouring, the converter mouth is out of the stack (the
converter mouth is rolled out of its vertical position, and the primary hood is isolated). Fugitive
emissions are discharged during roll out.
  Table 12.3-2. (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa-b
Configuration0
Reverberatory furnace (RF) followed by
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-23)
Multiple hearth roaster (MHR) followed by
reverberatory furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-29)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed by
reverberatory furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-25)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by electric
furnace (EF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-27)
Process
RF
C

MHR
RF
C
FBR
RF
C
CD
EF
C
Particulate
25
18

22
25
18
ND
25
18
5
50
18
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B
ND
B
B
B
B
B
Sulfur
Dioxided
160
370

140
90
300
180
90
270
0,5
I ?.C
410
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
References
4-10
9,11-15

4-5,16-17
4-9,18-19
8,11-13
20
	 e
e
21-22
15
8,11-13,15
 12.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                      Table 12.3-2 (cont.)-
Configuration0
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed by electric
furnace (EF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-30)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by flash
furnace (FF), cleaning furnace (SS) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-26)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed by Noranda
reactors (NR) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-41)
Process
FBR
EF
C
CD
FF
ssf
Ce
CD
NR
C
Paniculate
ND
50
18
5
70
5
NDS
5
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND
B
B
B
B
B
ND&
B
ND
ND
Sulfur
Dioxided
180
45
300
0.5
410
0.5
120
0.5
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
ND
ND
References
20
15,23
3
21-22
24
22
22
21-22
—
—
a Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter. Approximately
  4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of blister copper.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
b For particulate matter removal, gaseous effluents from roasters, smelting furnaces, and converters
  usually are treated in hot ESPs at 200 to 340°C (400 to 650°F) or in cold ESPs with  gases cooled
  to about 120°C (250°F before) ESP.  Particulate emissions from copper smelters contain volatile
  metallic oxides that remain in vapor form at higher temperatures, around 120°C (250°F).
  Therefore, overall particulate removal in hot ESPs may range 20 to 80% and  in cold  ESPs may be
  99%. Converter gas effluents and, at some smelters, roaster gas effluents are treated in single
  contact acid plants (SCAP) or double contact acid plants (DCAP) for  SO2 removal. Typical SCAPs
  are about 96% efficient, and DCAPs are up to 99.8% efficient in S02 removal.  They also remove
  over 99% of particulate matter.  Noranda and flash furnace offgases are also processed through acid
  plants and are subject to the same collection  efficiencies as cited for converters and some roasters.
c In addition to sources indicated, each smelter configuration contains fire refining anode furnaces
  after the converters.  Anode furnaces emit negligible SO2. No particulate emission data are
  available for anode furnaces.
d Factors for all  configurations except reverberatory furnaces followed by converters have been
  developed by normalizing test data for several smelters to represent 30% sulfur content in
  concentrated ore.
e Based on the test data for the configuration multiple hearth roaster followed by reverberatory
  furnaces and converters.
f Used to recover copper from furnace slag and converter slag.
g Since converters at flash furnace and Noranda furnace smelters treat high copper content matte,
  converter particulate emissions from flash furnace smelters are expected to be lower than those from
  conventional smelters with multiple hearth roasters,  reverberatory furnaces, and converters.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-7

    -------
                   Table 12.3-3 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa>b
Configuration0
Reverberatory furnace (RF)
followed by converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-23)
Multiple hearth roaster (MHR)
followed by reverberatory
furnace (RF) and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-29)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by reverberatory furnace (RF)
and converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-25)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-27)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-30)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by flash furnace (FF),
cleaning furnace (SS) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005-26)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by Noranda reactors (NR) and
converter (C)
(SCC 3-03-005^1)
Process
RF
C

MHR
RF
C

FBR
RF
C

CD
EF
C

FBR
EF
C

CD
FF
ssf
Ce

CD
NR
C

Particulate
50
36

45
50
36

ND
50
36

10
100
36

ND
100
36

10
140
10
NDS

10
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B

ND
B
B

B
B
B

ND
B
B

B
B
B
NDS

B
ND
ND

Sulfur
dioxided
320
740

280
180
600

360
180
540

1
240
820

360
90
600

1
820
1
240

1
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B

B
B
B
B

B
ND
ND

References
4-10
9,11-15

4-5,16-17
4-9,18-19
8,11-13

20
	 e
	 e

21-22
15
8,11-13,15

20
15,23
3

21-22
24
22
22

21-22
—
—

a Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.  Approximately 4 unit
  weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of blister copper. SCC = Source
  Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b For paniculate matter removal,  gaseous effluents from roasters, smelting furnaces and converters
  usually are treated in hot ESPs at 200 to 340°C (400 to 650°F) or in cold ESPs with gases cooled
  to about 120°C (250°F before) ESP.  Particulate emissions from copper smelters contain volatile
  metallic oxides which remain in vapor form at higher temperatures, around 120°C (250°F).
  Therefore, overall particulate removal in hot ESPs may range 20 to 80% and in cold ESPs may be
  99%.  Converter gas effluents and, at some smelters, roaster gas effluents are treated in single
  contact acid plants (SCAPs) or double contact acid plants (DCAPs) for SO2 removal.  Typical
  SCAPs are about 96% efficient, and DCAPs are up to 99.8% efficient in SO2 removal. They also
  remove over 99% of particulate matter.  Noranda and flash furnace offgases are also processed
  through acid plants and are subject to the same collection efficiencies as cited for converters and
  some roasters.
c In addition to sources indicated, each  smelter configuration contains fire refining anode furnaces
  after the converters.  Anode furnaces  emit negligible SO2.  No particulate emission data are
  available for anode furnaces.
12.3-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                       Table 12.3-3 (cont.).

d Factors for all configurations except reverberatory furnaces followed by converters have been
  developed by normalizing test data for several smelters to represent 30% sulfur content in
  concentrated ore.
e Based on the test data for the configuration multiple hearth roaster followed by reverberatory
  furnaces and converters.
f Used to recover copper from furnaces slag and converter slag.
g Since converters at flash furnaces and Noranda furnace smelters treat high copper content matte,
  converter paniculate emissions from flash furnace smelters are expected to be lower than those from
  conventional smelters with multiple hearth roasters, reverberatory furnaces,  and converters.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.3-9

    -------
 Table 12.3-4 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
         FACTORS FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH ROASTER AND REVERBERATORY
                             SMELTER OPERATIONS'1

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
Oxm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
47
47
47
46
31
12
ESP Controlled0
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.40
0.36
0.29
a Reference 26. Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
Table 12.3-5 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION
         FACTORS FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH ROASTER AND REVERBERATORY
                             SMELTER OPERATIONS'1

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle Sizeb
(p.m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
95
94
93
80
72
59
ESP Controlled0
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.80
0.72
0.59
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.
12.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
             Table 12.3-6 (Metric Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                    FOR REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS"

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle Sizeb
(jj-rri)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
6.8
5.8
5.3
4.0
2.3
ESP Controlled0
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.08
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
             Table 12.3-7 (English Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                    FOR REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS51

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
13.6
11.6
10.6
8.0
4.6
ESP Controlled0
0.42
0.40
0.36
0.28
0.20
0.16
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-11

    -------
           Table 12.3-8 (Metric Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         COPPER CONVERTER OPERATIONS1

                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
(jim)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
10.6
5.8
2.2
0.5
0.2
ESP Controlled0
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.05
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal paniculate removal efficiency is 99%.
          Table 12.3-9 (English Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                     REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONS1

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Sizeb
(/nn)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Emission Factors
Uncontrolled
NR
21.2
11.5
4.3
1.1
0.4
ESP Controlled0
0.36
0.36
0.26
0.20
0.15
0.11
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
  NR = not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
c Nominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.
12.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
             Table 12.3-10 (Metric Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source Of Emission
Roaster calcine discharge (SCC 3-03-005-13)
Smelting furnaceb (SCC 3-03-005-14)
Converter (SCC 3-03-005-15)
Converter slag return (SCC 3-03-005-18)
Anode refining furnace (SCC 3-03-005-16)
Slag cleaning furnace0 (SCC 3-03-005-17)
Paniculate
1.3
0.2
2.2
ND
0.25
4
SO2
0.5
2
65
0.05
0.05
3
a References 17,23,26-33. Expressed as mass kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by
  the smelter. Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of
  copper metal.  Factors for flash furnace smelters and Noranda furnace smelters may be lower than
  reported values. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Includes fugitive emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  About 50% of
  fugitive paniculate emissions and about 90% of total SO2 emissions are from matte tapping
  operations, with remainder from slag skimming.
c Used to treat slags from smelting furnaces and converters at the flash furnace smelter.
             Table 12.3-11 (English Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Source Of Emission
Roaster calcine discharge (SCC 3-03-005-13)
Smelting furnaceb (SCC 3-03-005-14)
Converter (SCC 3-03-005-15)
Converter slag return (SCC 3-03-005-18)
Anode refining furnace (SCC 3-03-005-16)
Slag cleaning furnace0 (SCC 3-03-005-17)
Particulate
2.6
0.4
4.4
ND
0.5
8
SO2
1
4
130
0.1
0.1
6
a References 17, 23, 26-33. Expressed as mass Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by
  the smelter. Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce  1 unit weight of
  copper metal.  Factors for flash furnace smelters and Noranda furnace smelters may be lower than
  reported values.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
b Includes fugitive emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations. About 50% of
  fugitive particulate emissions and about 90% of total SO2 emissions are from matte tapping
  operations, with remainder from slag skimming.
c Used to treat slags from smelting furnaces and converters at the flash  furnace smelter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-13

    -------
    Table 12.3-12 (Metric Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
   EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                         MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS*

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
Oim)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
76
74
72
69
67
65
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.069
0.067
0.065
a Reference 26. Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   Table 12.3-13 (English Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE SPECIFIC
  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                         MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
(/xm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
76
74
72
69
67
65
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.152
0.148
0.144
0.138
0.134
0.130
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
12.3-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   Table 12.3-14 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
            FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                           SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS'1

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle Sizeb
Otm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
33
28
25
22
20
17
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.033
0.028
0.025
0.022
0.020
0.017
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
  Table 12.3-15 (English Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
            FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE
                           SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle Sizeb
G*m)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
33
28
25
22
20
17
Cumulative Emission Factors
0.066
0.056
0.050
0.044
0.040
0.034
a Reference 26. Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-15

    -------
Table 12.3-16 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM CONVERTER SLAG
                         AND COPPER BLOW OPERATIONS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
(Mm)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
98
96
87
60
47
38
Cumulative Emission Factors
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
a Reference 26.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg weight of concentrated ore processed by the
  smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
  Table 12.3-17 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                 FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM CONVERTER SLAG
                         AND COPPER BLOW OPERATIONS'1

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle Sizeb
Gun)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Cumulative Mass %
< Stated Size
98
96
87
60
47
38
Cumulative Emission Factors
4.3
4.2
3.8
2.6
2.1
1.7
  Reference 26.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton weight of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.
b Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
12.3-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                Table 12.3-18 (Metric Units). LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa
Operation
Roasting0 (SCC 3-03-005-02)
Smeltingd (SCC 3-03-005-03)
Converting6 (SCC 3-03-005-04)
Refining (SCC 3-03-005-05)
EMISSION FACTORb
0.075
0.036
0.13
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
ND
a Reference 34.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of concentrated ore processed by smelter.
  Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weights of copper metal.
  Based on test data for several smelters with 0.1 to 0.4%  lead in feed throughput.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b For process and fugitive emissions totals.
c Based on test data on multihearth roasters.  Includes total of process emissions and calcine transfer
  fugitive emissions. The latter are about 10% of total process and fugitive emissions.
d Based on test data on reverberatory furnaces.  Includes total process  emissions and fugitive
  emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations. Fugitive emissions from matte tapping
  and slag skimming operations amount to about 35%  and  2%, respectively.
e Includes total of process and fugitive emissions.  Fugitives constitute about 50%  of total.
               Table 12.3-19 (English Units). LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS3
Operation
Roasting0 (SCC 3-03-005-02)
Smeltingd (SCC 3-03-005-03)
Converting6 (SCC 3-03-005-04)
Refining (SCC 3-03-005-05)
EMISSION FACTORb
0.15
0.072
0.27
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
ND
a Reference 34.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of concentrated ore processed by smelter.
  Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weights of copper metal.
  Based on test data for several smelters with 0.1 to 0.4% lead in feed throughput.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code. ND = no data.
b For process and fugitive emissions totals.
c Based on test data on multihearth roasters.  Includes total of process emissions and calcine transfer
  Fugitive emissions.  The latter are about 10% of total process and fugitive emissions.
d Based on test data on reverberatory furnaces.  Includes total process emissions and fugitive
  emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations. Fugitive emissions from matte tapping
  and slag skimming operations amount to about 35% and 2%, respectively.
e Includes total of process and fugitive emissions.  Fugitives  constitute about 50%  of total.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.3-17

    -------
        Occasionally slag or blister copper may not be transferred immediately to the converters from
the smelting furnace.  This holding stage may occur for several reasons, including insufficient matte
in the smelting furnace, unavailability of a crane, and others.  Under these conditions, the converter
is rolled out of its vertical position and remains in a holding position and fugitive emissions may
result.

        At primary copper smelters, both process emissions and fugitive paniculate from various
pieces of equipment contain oxides of many inorganic elements, including lead. The lead content of
paniculate emissions depends upon both the lead content of the smelter feed and the process offgas
temperature.  Lead emissions are effectively removed in paniculate control systems operating at low
temperatures, about 120°C (250°F).

        Tables 12.3-18 and 12.3-19 present process and fugitive lead emission  factors for various
operations of primary copper smelters.

        Fugitive emissions from primary copper smelters are captured by applying either local
ventilation or general ventilation techniques.  Once captured, fugitive emissions may be vented
directly to a collection device or can be combined with process off-gases before collection. Close-
fitting exhaust hood capture systems are used for multiple hearth roasters and hood ventilation
systems for smelt matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  For converters, secondary hood
systems or building evacuation systems are used.

        A number of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are identified as being present in some copper
concentrates being delivered to primary copper smelters for processing.  They  include arsenic,
antimony, cadmium, lead, selenium, and cobalt. Specific emission factors are  not presented due to
lack of data.  A part of the reason for roasting the concentrate is to remove certain volatile impurities
including  arsenic and antimony. There are HAPs still contained in blister copper, including arsenic,
antimony, lead, and selenium.  After electrolytic refining, copper is 99.95 percent to 99.97 percent
pure.

References For Section 12.3

1.      Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.

2.      Background Information For New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc And
        Lead Smelters, Volume I, Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

3.      Arsenic Emissions From Primary Copper Smelters - Background Information For Proposed
        Standards, Preliminary Draft, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3060,  Pacific Environmental Services,
        Durham, NC, February 1981.

4.      Background Information Document For Revision Of New Source Performance Standards For
        Primary Copper Smelters, EPA Contract No.  68-02-3056, Research Triangle Institute,
        Research Triangle Park, NC, March 31, 1982.

5.      Air Pollution Emission  Test: Asarco Copper Smelter, El Paso, TX, EMB-77-CUS-6,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1977.

6.      Written communications from W.  F. Cummins,  Inc., El Paso, TX, to A. E. Vervaert,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1977.

12.3-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
7.      AP-42 Background Files, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1978.

8.      Source Emissions Survey QfKennecott Copper Corporation, Copper Smelter Converter Stack
       Met And Outlet And Reverberatory Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet And Outlet, Hurley, NM,
       EA-735-09, Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX, April 1973.

9.      Trace Element Study At A Primary Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-78-065a and 065b,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  March 1978.

10.    Systems Study For Control Of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry, Volume II:
       Appendices A and B, PB 184885, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
       June 1969.

11.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies: White Pine Copper Smelter,
       EPA-600/2-76-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February
       1976.

12.    R. M. Statnick, Measurements Of Sulfur Dioxide,  Paniculate And Trace Elements In Copper
       Smelter Converter And Roaster/Reverberatory Gas Streams,  PB 238095, National Technical
       Information Service, Springfield, VA, October  1974.

13.    AP-42 Background Files, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.

14.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies, Kennecott-McGill Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036c, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       February 1976.

15.    Emission Test Report (Acid Plant) OfPhelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Ajo, AZ,
       EMB-78-CUS-11, Office of Air Quality Planning  and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
       March 1979.

16.    S. Dayton, "Inspiration's Design For Clean Air", Engineering And Mining Journal, 175:6,
       June 1974.

17.    Emission Testing OfAsarco Copper Smelter, Tacoma,  WA, EMB-78-CUS-12,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  April 1979.

18.    Written communication from A. L. Labbe, Asarco, Inc., Tacoma, WA, to S. T. Cuffe,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  November 20,  1978.

19.    Design And Operating Parameters For Emission Control Studies: Asarco-Harden.Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036J, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC,
       February 1976.

20.    Design And Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies:  Kennecott, Hoyden Copper
       Smelter, EPA-600/2/76-036b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
       February 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                            12.3-19

    -------
21.    R. Larkin, Arsenic Emissions At Kennecott Copper Corporation, Hoyden, AZ, EPA-76-NFS-1,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1977.

22.    Emission Compliance Status, Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, Inspiration, AZ,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, 1980.

23.    Written communication from M. P. Scanlon, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Hidalgo, AZ, to
       D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October  18, 1978.

24.    Written communication from G. M. McArthur, Anaconda Company, to D. R. Goodwin,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1977.

25.    Telephone communication from V. Katari, Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC, to
       R. Winslow, Hidalgo Smelter, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Hidalgo, AZ, April 1, 1982.

26.    Inhalable Paniculate Source Category Report For The Nonferrous Industry, Contract
       68-02-3159, Acurex Corp., Mountain View, CA,  August 1986.

27.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Douglas, AZ, EMB-78-CUS-8,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1979.

28.    Emission Testing Of Kennecott Copper Smelter, Magna,  UT, EMB-78-CUS-13,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.

29.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Ajo, AZ, EMB-78-CUS-9,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1979.

30.    Written communication from R. D. Putnam, Asarco, Inc., to M. O. Varner,  Asarco, Inc.,
       Salt Lake City, UT, May 12, 1980.

31.    Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge Copper Smelter, Playas, NM, EMB-78-CUS-10,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

32.    Asarco Copper Smelter, El Paso, TX, EMB-78-CUS-7, U. S. Environmental  Protection
       Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, April 25, 1978.

33.    A. D. Church, et al., "Measurement Of Fugitive Paniculate And Sulfur Dioxide Emissions At
       Inco's Copper Cliff Smelter", Paper A-79-51, The Metallurgical Society, American Institute of
       Mining,  Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), New York, NY.

34.    Copper Smelters, Emission  Test Report—Lead Emissions, EMB-79-CUS-14, Office of Air
       Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, September 1979.
12.3-20                            EMISSION FACTORS               (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
12.4  Ferroalloy Production

12.4.1  General

        Ferroalloy is an alloy  of iron with some element other than carbon. Ferroalloy is used to
physically introduce or "carry" that element into molten metal, usually during steel manufacture. In
practice, the term ferroalloy is used to include any alloys that introduce reactive elements or alloy
systems, such as nickel and cobalt-based aluminum systems.   Silicon metal is consumed in the
aluminum industry as an alloying agent and in the chemical industry as a raw material in silicon-based
chemical manufacturing.

        The ferroalloy industry is associated with the iron and steel industries, its largest customers.
Ferroalloys  impart distinctive  qualities to steel and cast iron and serve important functions during iron
and steel production cycles. The principal ferroalloys are those of chromium, manganese, and
silicon.  Chromium provides corrosion resistance to stainless steels.   Manganese is  essential to
counteract the harmful effects  of sulfur in the production of virtually all steels and cast iron. Silicon
is used primarily for deoxidation in steel and  as an alloying agent in cast iron.  Boron, cobalt,
columbium, copper, molybdenum, nickel,  phosphorus, titanium, tungsten,  vanadium, zirconium, and
the rare earths impart specific characteristics and are usually added as ferroalloys.

        United States ferroalloy production in 1989 was  approximately 894,000 megagrams (Mg)
(985,000 tons), substantially less than shipments in 1975 of approximately  1,603,000 megagrams
(1,770,000 tons). In 1989, ferroalloys were produced in the U. S. by 28 companies, although 5 of
those produced only ferrophosphorous as a byproduct of elemental phosphorous production.

12.4.2  Process Description

        A typical ferroalloy plant is illustrated in Figure 12.4-1.  A variety of furnace types, including
submerged  electric arc furnaces, exothermic (metallothermic) reaction furnaces, and electrolytic cells
can be used  to produce ferroalloys. Furnace descriptions and  their ferroalloy products are given in
Table 12.4-1.

12.4.2.1 Submerged Electric  Arc Process -
        In most cases,  the submerged electric  arc furnace produces the desired product directly.  It
may produce an intermediate product that is subsequently used in additional processing methods.  The
submerged arc process is a reduction  smelting operation. The reactants consist of metallic ores
(ferrous oxides, silicon oxides, manganese oxides, chrome oxides, etc.) and a carbon-source reducing
agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and low-volatility  coal, or wood chips. Limestone
may also be added as a flux material.  Raw materials are crushed, sized, and, in some cases, dried,
and then conveyed to a mix house for weighing and blending.  Conveyors, buckets, skip hoists,  or
cars transport the processed material to hoppers above the furnace. The mix is then gravity-fed
through a feed chute either continuously or intermittently, as needed.  At high temperatures in the
reaction zone, the carbon source reacts with metal oxides to form carbon monoxide and to reduce the
ores to base metal.  A  typical  reaction producing ferrosilicon is shown below:

                           Fe2O3 + 2SiO2  + 7C   -*  2FeSi + 7  CO                          (1)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.4-1

    -------





















LU
1 —

L>
C





u
•C
D
v
<
1.

































p-
'SI
* w
i o
~
i




































































C
z
c
H
,


C
4
H
L
C

t


h—
LU



LU
— 1
h—
o:
a.


j

LU
ft\

O
t—

j




CD
-z.
>
LU
O
LU
£V


f

!)
^
L
f

L


D
^

U
»
Q




Q
LU
LL.











£
56
1
i
52.





O
Z
Q

O
	 i
Z
13




































































1
(0
z
X
CO
c:
O



































































































1












1



















































































CO

UL






















































LU
I—


G;




i —
_j
13


a.


UJ
t—



Q.

^^_^
LU
^c
13
O
^-
Q.



j


<


<
{







































^


1
E

/)
<
J


t



















































t
i
«
£
C


j


U
C!
«

I-



C
^
^
U
p
C
c/
i

f

1
u

L
t




n
2
<

LU
Z)
u.


i




2
u
5
L
c
/]





J
>
C





)
r

J
/
)
>


11


5
3

)





UJ
«£
	 1

O
c:
Q.






































t

0
^
£V.
II 1
1—
O
x
UJ

t



                                                                                       a>



                                                                                       tu
                                                                                       VI
                                                                                       03

                                                                                      0
                                                                                       O
                                                                                      00
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       c
                                                                                      _o

                                                                                       o

                                                                                      •a
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       ca
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       u
                                                                                      CN
                                                                                       3
                                                                                       00
12.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
       Table 12.4-1. FERROALLOY PROCESSES AND RESPECTIVE PRODUCT GROUPS
                   Process
                            Product
  Submerged arc furnace3
  Exothermic13
   Silicon reduction
   Aluminum Reduction


   Mixed aluminothermal/silicothermal

  Electrolytic0

  Vacuum furnaced

  Induction furnace0
         Silvery iron (15-22% Si)
         Ferrosilicon (50% Si)
         Ferrosilicon (65-75% Si)
         Silicon metal
         Silicon/manganese/zirconium (SMZ)
         High carbon (HC) ferromanganese
         Siliconmanganese
         HC ferrochrome
         Ferrochrome/silicon
         FeSi (90% Si)
         Low carbon (LC) ferrochrome, LC
         ferromanganese, medium carbon (MC)
         ferromanganese

         Chromium metal, ferrotitanium,
         ferrocolumbium, ferovanadium

         Ferromolybdenum,  ferrotungsten

         Chromium metal, manganese metal

         LC ferrochrome

         Ferrotitanium
a Process by which metal is smelted in a refractory-lined cup-shaped steel shell by submerged
  graphite electrodes.
b Process by which molten charge material is reduced, in exothermic reaction, by addition of silicon,
  aluminum, or a combination of the 2.
c Process by which simple ions  of a metal, usually chromium or manganese in an electrolyte, are
  plated on cathodes by direct low-voltage current.
d Process by which carbon is removed from solid-state high-carbon ferrochrome within vacuum
  furnaces maintained  at temperatures near melting point of alloy.
e Process that, converts electrical energy into heat, without  electrodes, to melt metal charges in  a cup
  or drum-shaped vessel.
       Smelting in an electric arc furnace is accomplished by conversion of electrical energy to heat.
An alternating current applied to the electrodes causes current to flow through the charge between the
electrode tips. This provides a reaction zone at temperatures up to 2000°C (3632°F).  The tip  of
each electrode changes polarity continuously as the alternating current flows between the tips.  To
maintain  a uniform electric load, electrode depth is continuously varied automatically by mechanical
or hydraulic means.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-3

    -------
       A typical submerged electric arc furnace design is depicted in Figure 12.4-2.  The lower part
of the submerged electric arc furnace is composed of a cylindrical steel shell with a flat bottom or
hearth.  The interior of the shell is lined with 2 or more layers of carbon blocks.  The furnace shell
may be water-cooled to protect it from the heat of the process.  A water-cooled cover and fume
collection hood are mounted over the furnace shell.  Normally, 3 carbon electrodes arranged in a
triangular formation  extend through the cover and into the furnace shell opening.  Prebaked or self-
baking (Soderberg) electrodes ranging from 76 to over 100 cm (30 to over 40 inches) in diameter are
typically used.  Raw materials are sometimes charged to the furnace through feed chutes from above
the furnace. The surface of the furnace charge, which contains both molten material and unconverted
charge during operation, is typically maintained near the top of the furnace shell.  The lower ends of
the electrodes are maintained at about 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) below the charge surface.
Three-phase electric  current arcs from electrode to electrode, passing through the charge material.
The charge material melts and reacts to form the desired product as the electric energy is converted
into heat. The carbonaceous material in the furnace charge reacts with oxygen in the metal oxides  of
the charge and reduces them to base metals. The reactions produce large quantities of carbon
monoxide (CO) that passes upward through the furnace charge.  The  molten metal and slag are
removed (tapped) through 1 or  more tap holes extending through the  furnace shell at the hearth level.
Feed materials may be charged continuously or intermittently. Power is applied continuously.
Tapping  can be intermittent or continuous based on production rate of the furnace.

       Submerged electric arc  furnaces are of 2 basic types, open and covered.  Most of the
submerged electric arc furnaces in the U. S. are open furnaces.  Open furnaces have a fume collection
hood at least 1 meter (3.3 feet)  above the top of the furnace shell.  Moveable panels or screens are
sometimes used to reduce the open area between the furnace and hood, and to improve emissions
capture efficiency. Carbon monoxide rising through the furnace charge burns in the area between the
charge surface and the capture hood.  This substantially increases the volume of gas the containment
system must handle.  Additionally, the vigorous  open combustion process entrains finer material  in
the charge. Fabric filters  are typically used to control  emissions from open furnaces.

       Covered furnaces may have a water-cooled steel cover that fits closely to the furnace shell.
The objective of covered furnaces is to reduce air infiltration into the furnace gases, which reduces
combustion of that gas. This reduces the volume of gas requiring collection and treatment. The
cover has holes for the charge and electrodes to pass through. Covered furnaces that partially close
these hood openings  with charge material are referred to as "mix-sealed" or "semi-enclosed furnaces".
Although these  covered furnaces significantly reduce air infiltration, some combustion  still occurs
under the furnace cover.  Covered furnaces that have mechanical seals around the electrodes and
sealing compounds around the outer edges are referred to as "sealed" or "totally closed".  These
furnaces  have little, if any, air infiltration and undercover combustion.  Water leaks from the cover
into the furnace must be minimized  as this leads to excessive gas production and unstable furnace
operation. Products  prone to highly variable releases of process gases are typically not made in
covered furnaces for safety reasons.  As the degree of enclosure increases, less gas  is produced for
capture by the hood system and the concentration of carbon monoxide in the furnace gas increases.
Wet scrubbers are used to control emissions from covered furnaces.  The scrubbed, high carbon
monoxide content  gas may be used within the plant or flared.

       The molten alloy and slag that accumulate on the furnace hearth are removed at 1  to 5-hour
intervals through the tap hole.  Tapping typically lasts 10 to 15 minutes. Tap holes are opened with
pellet shot from a  gun, by drilling, or by oxygen lancing.  The molten metal  and slag flow from the
tap hole  into a carbon-lined trough, then into a carbon-lined runner that directs the metal and slag into
a reaction ladle, ingot molds, or chills.  (Chills are low, flat iron or steel pans that  provide rapid
 12.4-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
            CARBON    ELECTRODES
                 Figure 12.4-2.  Typical submerged arc furnace design.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-5

    -------
cooling of the molten metal.)  After tapping is completed, the furnace is resealed by inserting a
carbon paste plug into the tap hole.

       Chemistry adjustments may be necessary after furnace smelting to achieve a specified product.
Ladle treatment reactions are batch processes and may include metal and alloy additions.

       During tapping, and/or in the reaction ladle, slag is skimmed from the surface of the molten
metal.  It can be disposed of in landfills, sold as road ballast, or used as a raw material  in a furnace
or reaction ladle to produce a chemically related ferroalloy product.

       After cooling and solidifying, the large ferroalloy castings may be broken with drop weights
or hammers.  The broken ferroalloy pieces are then crushed, screened (sized), and stored in bins until
shipment.  In some instances, the alloys are stored in lump form in inventories prior to  sizing for
shipping.

12.4.2.2  Exothermic (Metallothermic) Process -
       The exothermic process is generally used to produce high-grade alloys with low-carbon
content. The intermediate molten alloy used in the process may come directly from a submerged
electric arc furnace or from another type of heating device.  Silicon or aluminum combines with
oxygen in the molten alloy, resulting in a sharp temperature rise and strong agitation of the molten
bath.  Low- and medium-carbon content ferrochromium (FeCr) and ferromanganese (FeMn) are
produced by silicon reduction. Aluminum  reduction is used to produce chromium metal,
ferrotitanium, ferrovanadium, and ferrocolumbium.  Mixed alumino/silico thermal processing is used
for producing ferromolybdenum and ferrotungsten.  Although aluminum is more expensive than
carbon or silicon, the products are purer.  Low-carbon (LC) ferrochromium is typically produced by
fusing chromium ore and lime in a furnace. A specified amount is then placed in a ladle (ladle
No. 1). A  known amount of an intermediate grade ferrochromesilicon is then added to  the ladle.
The reaction is extremely exothermic and liberates chromium from its ore, producing LC
ferrochromium and a calcium silicate slag.  This slag, which still contains recoverable chromium
oxide, is reacted in a second ladle (ladle No. 2) with molten high-carbon ferrochromesilicon to
produce the intermediate-grade ferrochromesilicon.  Exothermic processes are generally carried out in
open vessels and may have emissions similar to the submerged arc process for short periods while the
reduction is occurring.

12.4.2.3  Electrolytic Processes -
       Electrolytic processes are used to produce high-purity manganese and chromium.  As of 1989,
there were 2 ferroalloy facilities using  electrolytic processes.

       Manganese may be produced by the electrolysis of an electrolyte extracted from manganese
ore or manganese-bearing ferroalloy slag.  Manganese ores contain close to 50 percent manganese;
furnace slag normally contains about 10 percent manganese.  The process has 5 steps:  (1) roasting
the ore to convert it to  manganese oxide (MnO), (2) leaching the roasted ore with sulfuric acid
(H2S04) to solubilize manganese, (3) neutralization and filtration to remove iron and aluminum
hydroxides, (4) purifying the leach liquor by treatment with sulfide and filtration to remove  a wide
variety of metals, and (5) electrolysis.

       Electrolytic chromium is  generally produced from high-carbon ferrochromium.  A large
volume of hydrogen gas is produced by dissolving the alloy in sulfuric acid.  The leachate is treated
with ammonium sulfate and conditioned to remove ferrous ammonium sulfate and produce a chrome-
alum for feed to the electrolysis cells.  The electrolysis cells are well ventilated to reduce ambient
hydrogen and hexavalent chromium  concentrations in the cell rooms.

12.4-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted  1/95) 10/86

    -------
 12.4.3  Emissions And Controls

        Paniculate is generated from several activities during ferroalloy production, including raw
 material handling, smelting, tapping, and product handling.  Organic materials are generated almost
 exclusively from the smelting operation.  The furnaces are the largest potential sources of paniculate
 and organic emissions. The emission factors are given in Tables 12.4-2 and 12.4-3.  Size-specific
 emission factors for submerged  arc ferroalloy furnaces are given in Tables 12.4-4 and 12.4-5.

        Paniculate emissions from electric arc furnaces in the form of fumes account for an estimated
 94 percent of the total paniculate emissions in the ferroalloy industry.  Large amounts of carbon
 monoxide and organic materials also are emitted by submerged electric arc furnaces.  Carbon
 monoxide is formed as a byproduct of the chemical reaction between oxygen in the metal oxides of
 the charge and carbon contained in the reducing agent (coke, coal, etc.).  Reduction gases containing
 organic compounds and carbon monoxide continuously rise from the high-temperature reaction zone,
 entraining fine particles and fume precursors. The mass  weight of carbon monoxide produced
 sometimes exceeds that of the metallic product.  The heat-induced fume consists of oxides of the
 products being produced and carbon from the reducing agent.  The fume  is  enriched by silicon
 dioxide, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide, if present in the charge.

        In an open electric arc furnace, virtually all carbon monoxide and much of the organic matter
 burns with induced air at the furnace top. The remaining fume, captured by hooding about 1  meter
 above the furnace, is directed to a gas cleaning device. Fabric filters are used to control emissions
 from  85 percent of the open furnaces in the U. S.  Scrubbers are used on 13 percent of the furnaces,
 and electrostatic precipitators on 2 percent.

        Two emission capture systems, not usually connected to the same gas cleaning device, are
 necessary for covered furnaces.  A primary capture system withdraws gases from beneath the furnace
 cover.  A secondary system captures fumes  released around the electrode seals and during tapping.
 Scrubbers are used almost exclusively to control exhaust  gases from sealed furnaces.  The scrubbers
 capture a substantial percentage  of the organic emissions, which are much greater for covered
 furnaces than open furnaces. The  gas from sealed and mix-sealed furnaces is usually flared at the
 exhaust of the scrubber. The  carbon monoxide-rich gas is sometimes used as a fuel in kilns and
 sintering machines.  The efficiency of flares for the control of carbon monoxide and the reduction of
 VOCs has been estimated to be greater than 98 percent.   A gas  heating reduction of organic and
 carbon monoxide emissions is 98 percent efficient.

        Tapping operations  also  generate fumes.  Tapping is intermittent and is usually conducted
 during 10 to 20 percent of the furnace operating time.  Some fumes originate from the carbon lip
 liner, but most are a result of induced heat transfer from  the molten metal or slag as it contacts  the
 runners, ladles, casting beds, and ambient air.  Some  plants capture these emissions to varying
 degrees with a main  canopy hood.  Other plants employ separate tapping hoods ducted to either the
 furnace emission control device  or a separate control device.  Emission factors for tapping emissions
 are unavailable due to lack of data.

        After furnace tapping is  completed, a reaction ladle may be used to adjust the metallurgy by
 chlorination, oxidation, gas  mixing,  and slag metal reactions. Ladle reactions are an intermittent
process, and emissions have not been quantified.  Reaction ladle emissions are often captured by the
tapping emissions control system.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.4-7

    -------
§
a;
tu
<
j

r \ 08

p W
Di^
< •<
S Z
UH
  UH
SS
£d
^^
< Q
§s

%%
s<
W Q
 . W
^2
.tJ 0d
G U
^2
o 03
'S D
a> oo
S^
(S
CN

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



W5
S0
« «^3
42 £ .2
1 fi S
r .2 «
^l5
cu


•o
8
g
u
Q
"s

c
o
O
0 ^ 0
K O 2
gel
gasss



a 1 %
ca * 1=5
- fc g
•2 g 1
tJ .S o
£ .a S
6 S
UJ

8.
>>
H
8
cd
E
3
tL,




J2
|







« u u u ^ ^







ON S \r> o Q Q





•*> >> >%
1 ^ § ! ^ 1

^ -9 M !* -2 *
SP g E ,3 §J Q Q
m tn so Z Z

CQ U W W W





" "* 12 —c S







••^
°5 % %
"2- g ^ e E
c o c o c
o > u > t>
c^ o o, o cii
O CJ QUO



- (S m
o o o
o o o
9 99
C^ C^ fl
9 99
cA fi n
0 U O
0 U U
S ^ S
O *r> o
SO- C- S-

Rl
CQ

A





3







c^
c
o4


^
1
?
pi
0
o
62-
^^
»
.
•g
E
i«

oa w u ^ o o o







?i oo c3 Q r» — < 12
C) O ID 2 -H C-4 O


S

X >^ _£) >>
5? " 53 o <>r - fc
§13 § S § °b S3 S

^2j£2;5Q^ 1 1 E
CQ to co Z U co co

03 W W U U I





2 *° Pi " S 1







*^T3 *1 «
*1 S 3" "^ *.
C O U C CO
W > "TI3 O O *^Z3
a. o g °* °< u
O U co O O co


S
C" o
vo o 9
9 ^ cj ^
9 ° y 9
^o X o
o u '5' o
O to, _g ^

S" "f Jo
g S ^ CO
^c ^c ~~* ^
"i "i y S
U, U, U, co
^ g
 O
_d •-* r )
•iJ 4_l V^
§&!<*>
4_»
wa

M 5 C
S 0 60
.2 c jo
t> «> O
9J ""• t8
HI*

«3 „
3 >» hft
•° -3 g*
8 ts ;=
« b *o
i 11

|| 2?
|1 1
W U* ^J*
W3 "^ *~
O ^ ^
« 75 o
BU c ~
•= ts
•o 2-o
O> cs o
"o J?*o
£s f^i S
&1 . ^ OJ
Q* •*-* c" 2
»-i UH O c3
r=i o '£ o
« c5 *^"
II HI
C To &, O S

| | 1 II -S
o_, cfl --J* •^C pj
* blJ ^ ^
o 2 « £P
^ C u- «
^.22^ ^
c§ "I bS"^ "^*
1 1 1 * 1
S" S 13 § S
s 1 1 « ^
Z* I'S'S
i .§ ^ § §
<*s > *^ •— • s
i> . . 'JS to
'«3 "o -o S g
'""£"«"
w 8 .1 u (2
ed .O
12.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   -*
   cs
l_c
"53 —
£ 0
g|
w 05
"C |
^^ UH
rP ^^
1 8"
c g
O ti Oi
03 O
CO 0 J^
L. CA X
CA C O
I § «
2 W "S
'5 ^ -2
co IS O
tl> C*4
S *° A
"1* £?
2 > <
2 g. g
-S s '! ^
60 r^
® _CA g *"
J£ 1 •*= »
1 S> S ?
UH T? • "
&0 CN <^

Si
o S
c »
In most source testing, fugitive emissions are
contribution to total emissions could not be de

O 'S
% 8
1ST
c c
— CO
O "o
"£
V Q
C± -o
• < 0
S J3 *
.a •* M
5 ^.s
C^ fl> OH
s,s §•
§»* ^.
1 2-°
S C8 T3
S CA £
o< >- h
0^3^-
•O X> ca t»
C 3 o ~
« u, O
c S 8-
.S? >,g *
S £?=S g
-0 J> CA «
— C co C
g cp ^ co
£ £.2 £
^ o « o3
i^J £ oi
luded. Fugitive emissions at 1 source measured an additional 10.5 kg/Mg alloy,

_c
4-1
g
CA
O
CA
CA
CO
co
'eo
a
8
o
0
CA
'.*-.
O
60 •?
UH ^
I|
0 ^
£ 0




References 4,10.
CA

CT!
CO
13
CO
.JS
Does not include emissions from tapping or m
References 25-26.
Reference 23.
system (escaped fugitive emissions not included in factor).

o
o

Estimated 60% of tapping emissions captured
References 10,13.
system (escaped fugitive emissions not included in factor).

£
o
o

Estimated 50% of tapping emissions captured
References 4,10,12.
ms. Fugitive emissions measured at 33% of total uncontrollable emissions.
o
emissi
S g

- &
o ^*
hi "3
•g ju
&
•-S CO
If
c S<
It
CA CA
CO CO
•o -o
-2 —
o o


0
O
C
o
Assumes tapping fumes not included in emissi
Reference 14.




Does not include tapping or fugitive emissions
Tapping emissions included.
References 2, 15-17.
ded fugitive emissions (3.4% of total uncontrolled emissions). Second test
3
"o
O
o
CA
S
CA
i
H
CA
CO
*U«
co
CA
4_>
CA
4)
4— »
cs
M-.
o
CO
60
CS
l_l
CO
03
en
Ui
O
4_»
CJ
C3
UH
2
.S
•s
T3
_3
"o
CO
1
insufficient to determine if fugitive emissions
References 2, 18- 19.
operated at A? = 47-57 inches of H20, the other at unspecified AP. Uncontrolled

8"
O
L-.
§ ^
CA —
Factors developed from 2 scrubber controlled
tapping operations emissions are 2. 1 kg/Mg al
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                                  12.4-9

    -------
  o
  oi
  u.
  u

  <

  p
  o
  f-1
  eg
  ^
  ^o
  fc OS
  2 otf
  2g
  i2 O
  '5 °*


  2S
  •S CQ
  ~
  ca
  H
EMISSION
FACTOR




M
O
ta S
3
0 C
« -2
1 .2
"c
ClJ



Control


t^
O o
K H
s **•
u ^



VI
Ui
0 0
5 o
CN >n





i £
 1>
O OH
u o







s
I
o
ri
U
O
co.
^-.
o

'•§
0,
03







cs





Baghousen'P



03







CN
00





a.
G
C
g.
o






, — ,
o
o
u
U
52-
ST
00
,_

i
CO
03 K U





oo

C) *-< C!




*
>, -i,
._ M OO
5*-. s s
° ^L c i-, c
=5 o o o o
g * J= -0 j;
jz -S oo ^oo
oo g 15 g S
rt O "™ O ^^
03 co co



03 U







00 CS
CN «


.



& 1
C 0
o >
a, o
O 0








3" ^J
u C
1) d^
co O




^-.
o
*o
o
tA
o
O
O
CO
o
•e
rt
,_
•^

U
u
u.
o u





o

•* o





Scrubberaa'bb
Scrubbed'*
High energy



u !







2 '






S
N -a
e u
a g
O co








o
VD
O
9
cp
cA
O
O
CO

c
CO
*J
TO
1
CO
Q
4>
,0
i
•*— »
^"»
o
*]""!
O

^^
C
O
4-*
3
•o
0)
1
_c
Ct3
S
.2
£
CO
t-i
2
TO
U.

"S
3
O
>»
_O
<
'o
2
ca
*i
—
o
p ,

o


—
TO

CO
to
C.
X
52
o
o

o
en
CO

u
ca
te sources
TO
3
.£M
TO
P-
•
*o
I
CO
"

o
S
tied separately
.^1
S
1
w
0


3
"o
.^^
(0
03
^
H
•*-•
o
JS
^
TO
CJ
3
CO
en

_2
to
.*«

S
Uf
d>
O
O
co
T3
"o

8

= Source
O
O
oo
.
.£?
bo
03
o
TO
Q.
*^
C
TO

_C
^
TO
.S
a>
o
CO
bS
to
3
O

tj
•a
o
W
•o
.*.
.2 •
•*"* _~t
2 3
p; ^o
fcn O< tj
•a ^-a
* i cL
i> || C
fc; ^ C
2 Z **
"1 . w
bo TO bo
.S TO .S
r~; T3 >-»
"O r^
G 0 2
J3
— He
ill
TO CD
E • •£
ii-s
>- U «>
Uw
. . C TO
"S -2 g
*o "TO GO
3 O TO
"o **- 'c
C 'in a)
••" to o
*-> TO w
J3
12.4-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   _



   O
'S e
•3 -2
SCO
— 1
+£ O
CO O
co "O
>> os
Ccl CO
S t«
•c g

>»«2
•° -3
*c3 'S
.— H ^
O r/t
- 0

0 g (S
CO co a
« 60 <*-
ll 1
CO ^ O
.22 >> C
e 73 '""
§8 ®
M so

""* ^»
&S eu
2 > ^
^ 4±
UH CC *~*
Q> C ">
•£^ ^ "^ -""N
^ g >»c3£
O u< §
•sl I*:
o E i «
 .£ «
S M ^"g
T3 ,? aT«
2 <*- £
3 • 0'43
C/3 *O ,« OT
ca ct) ?5 a>
C - .§ >»

<_, S c c
o co IT .—
In most source testing, fugitive emissions are i
contribution to total emissions could not be de
system design and operating practices.
Low-energy scrubbers are those with &P < 2(
Includes fumes captured by tapping hood (effu
References 4, 10,21.
o
_o
13
c
0

^^
ts

c
*^
•3
•a
CQ
p5
CQ
1
UH
3
s
CO
JJ
3
O
CO

^"^
4_»
«
CO
C
_O
CO
.22
rj
CO
CO
_>
^— *
"Ei

.^
M-i
1
_3
"o

4_1
o
C
CO
C
CO
1
_>
-*—>
a"
0
3
O
CA
m
*o
bo
t-i ^
o> -c
^ ^ "^^"
UH 10
















































References 4,10.









































CO
CC
—
CQ
CO
CO
.X
Does not include emissions from tapping or m
References 25-26.
















































Reference 23.










s-<
O
o
42

.S
13
•o
3
J
•4-*
O
c
CO
.2

c/3
C/3
's
CO
CO
.^
•*"!
CO
a
•o

o
CO

" — '
1
CO
"o
w
CM
O
°
^
Estimated 60% of tapping emissions captured
References 10,13.










hi
o
o
<*S

,s
"8
•o
3
1
O
C
CO
_0

C^
CA
£


•

3
—
2


CO
CO
08

•s
Ui
3
CO
s
s
CO
C
_O
CO
.22
S
CO
CO
>

•— «
^

C
_o
"^ ij
CO g
S ^5
CO ?Q
CO _
.S g
Estimated 50% of tapping emissions captured
References 4,10,12.
Includes fumes only from primary control syst
Includes tapping fumes and mix seal leak fugit
Assumes tapping fumes not included in emissii
















































Reference 14.















































.
Does not include tapping or fugitive emissions
Tapping emissions included.
References 2,15-17.

•4-t
CO

c
8
CO
00
x — s
i
C^3
CA

fli

*s
"o

c
8
^^
2
o
•4«>
<*-!
o

b?
^
•
' — '
CO
C
_o
CO
GO
S*
0>
CO

*J~i CC
'5o ®
a_c
•rt
® "5?
l|

c "o
'^^ .S
CO
ui VH
0 5
Factor is average of 2 test series. Tests at 1 S'
insufficient to determine if fugitive emissions '
References 2,18-19.





cu
•^
1

'o
o.
CO
3
^_»
c^
w
•s
o

g^
Factors developed from 2 scrubber controlled
Uncontrolled tapping operations emissions are
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.4-11

    -------
         Table 12.4-4 (Metric Units).  SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                  SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES
Product
50% FeSi
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-01)
















80% FeMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-06)
















Control
Device

Noneb-c








Baghouse









Nonee-f








Baghouse6








Particle Sizea
G*m)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

45
50
53
57
61
63
66
69
100
31
39
44
54
63
72
80
85
100

30
46
52
62
72
86
96
97
100
20
30
35
49
67
83
92
97
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
0.28
0.35
0.40
0.49
0.57
0.65
0.72
0.77
0.90

4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
14
0.048
0.070
0.085
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.220
0.235
0.240
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B









B








B








12.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                        Table 12.4-4 (cont.).
Product
Si Metais
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-04)















FeCr (HC)
Open furnace
(SCG 3-03-006-07)














Control
Device

Noneh








Baghouse








NonebJ







ESP







Particle Size3
G*m)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

57
67
70
75
80
86
91
95
100
49
53
64
76
87
96
99
100

19
36
60
63k
76
88k
91
100
33
47
67
80
86
90
100

Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

249
292
305
327
349
375
397
414
436
7.8
8.5
10.2
12.2
13.9
15.4
15.8
16.0

15
28
47
49
59
67
71
78
0.40
0.56
0.80
0.96
1.03
1.08
1.2

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B

















C







C







10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-13

    -------
                                     Table 12.4-4 (cont.).
Product
SiMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-05)













Control
Device

Noneb>m







Scrubber"1-"






Particle Sizea
Own)

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
Cumulative
Mass %
<: Stated Size

28
44
60
65
76
85
96k
100
56
80
96
99
99.5
99.9k
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg alloy)

27
42
58
62
73
82
92k
96
1.18
1.68
2.02
2.08
2.09
2.10"
2.1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C







C






g
h
j
k
m
Aerodynamic diameter, based on Task Group On Lung Dynamics definition.
Particle density =  1 g/cm3.
Includes tapping emissions.
References 4,10,21.
Total paniculate, based on Method 5 total catch (see Tables 12.4-2  and 12.4-3).
Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 50%).
References 4,10,12.
References 10,13.
Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 60%).
References 1,15-17.
Interpolated data.
References 2,18-19.
Primary emission control system only, without tapping emissions.
 12.4-14
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
          Table 12.4-5 (English Units). SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                    SUBMERGED ARC FERROALLOY FURNACES
Product
50% FeSi
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-01)
















80% FeMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-06)
















Control
Device

Noneb'c








Baghouse









Nonee'f








Baghousee








Particle Sizea
G*m)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

45
50
53
57
61
63
66
69
100
31
39
44
54
63
72
80
85
100

30
46
52
62
72
86
96
97
100
20
30
35
49
67
83
92
97
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton alloy)

32
35
37
40
43
44
46
48
70
0.56
0.70
0.80
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.8

8
13
15
17
20
24
26
27
28
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.44
0.47
0.48
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B









B








B








10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-15

    -------
                                  Table 12.4-5 (cont.).
Product
Si Metais
Open Furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-04)















FeCr (HC)
Open furnace
(SCC 3-03-006-07)














Control
Device

Noneh








Baghouse








NonebJ







ESP







Particle Sizea
fain)

0.63
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
_d
1.00
1.25
2.50
6.00
10.00
15.00
20.00


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

57
67
70
75
80
86
91
95
100
49
53
64
76
87
96
99
100

19
36
60
63k
76
88k
91
100
33
47
67
80
86
90
100

Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(Ib/ton alloy)

497
584
610
654
698
750
794
828
872
15.7
17.0
20.5
24.3
28.0
31.0
31.7
32.0

30
57
94
99
119
138
143
157
0.76
1.08
1.54
1.84
1.98
2.07
2.3

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B








B








C







C







12.4-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                      Table 12.4-5 (cont.).
Product
SiMn
Open furnace
(SCC 3-05-006-05)













Control
Device

Noneb>m







Scrubber1"-"






Particle Sizea
(Aim)

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
6.0
10.0
Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated Size

28
44
60
65
76
85
96k
100
56
80
96
99
99.5
99.9k
100
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
Ob/ton alloy)

54
84
115
125
146
163
177k
192
2.36
3.34
4.03
4.16
4.18
4.20k
4.3
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C







C






a  Aerodynamic diameter, based on Task Group On Lung Dynamics definition.
   Particle density =  1 g/cm3.
b  Includes tapping emissions.
c  References 4,10,21.
d  Total paniculate, based on Method 5 total catch (see Tables 12.4-2 and 12.4-3).
e  Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 50%).
f  References 4,10,12.
s  References 10,13.
h  Includes tapping fumes (estimated capture efficiency 60%).
J   References 1,15-17.
k  Interpolated data.
m  References 2,18-19.
n  Primary emission control system only, without tapping emissions.
       Available data are insufficient to provide emission factors for raw material handling,
pretreatment, and product handling.  Dust paniculate is emitted from raw material handling, storage,
and preparation activities (see Figure 12.4-1). These activities include unloading raw materials from
delivery vehicles (ship, railway car, or truck), storing raw materials in piles, loading raw materials
from storage piles into trucks or gondola cars, and crushing and screening raw materials.  Raw
materials may be dried before charging in rotary or other types of dryers, and these dryers can
generate significant paniculate emissions. Dust  may also be generated by heavy vehicles used for
loading, unloading, and transferring material. Crushing,  screening, and storage of the ferroalloy
product emit paniculate matter in the form of dust. The properties of paniculate matter emitted as
dust are similar to the natural properties of the ores or alloys from which they originated, ranging in
size from 3 to 100 micrometers (jim).
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.4-17

    -------
       Approximately half of all ferroalloy facilities have some type of control for dust emissions.
Dust generated from raw material storage may be controlled in several ways, including sheltering
storage piles from the wind with block walls, snow fences, or plastic covers.  Occasionally, piles are
sprayed with water to prevent airborne dust.  Emissions generated by heavy vehicle traffic may be
reduced by using a wetting agent or paving the plant yard.  Moisture in the raw materials, which may
be as high as 20 percent, helps to limit dust emissions from raw material unloading and loading.
Dust generated by crushing, sizing, drying, or other pretreatment activities may be controlled by dust
collection equipment such as scrubbers, cyclones, or fabric filters. Ferroalloy product crushing and
sizing usually require a fabric filter.  The raw material emission collection equipment may be
connected to the furnace emission control system.  For fugitive emissions from open sources, see
Section 13.2 of this document.

References  For Section 12.4

1.     F. J. Schottman,  "Ferroalloys", 1980 Mineral Facts And Problems, Bureau Of Mines,
       U.  S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.

2.     J. O. Dealy and A. M. Killin, Engineering And Cost Study Of The Ferroalloy Industry,
       EPA-450/2-74-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1974.

3.     Background Information On Standards Of Performance: Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces
       For Production Of Ferroalloys, Volume I: Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-018a,
       U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

4.     C. W.  Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Level I Environmental Assessment Of Electric
       Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-% 1-038, U. S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March  1981.

5.     F. J. Schottman,  "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I:  Metals And Minerals, Bureau
       Of  Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.

6.     S. Beaton and H. Klemm, Inhalable Paniculate Field Sampling Program For The Ferroalloy
       Industry, TR-80-115-G,  GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, November 1980.

7.     C. W.  Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Environmental Impact Of Ferroalloy Production
       Interim Report:  Assessment Of Current Data, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, November 1978.

8.     K. Wark and C. F. Warner, Air Pollution: Its Origin And Control, Harper And Row, New
       York,  1981.

9.     M.  Szabo and R. Gerstle, Operations And Maintenance Of Paniculate Control Devices On
       Selected Steel And Ferroalloy Processes, EPA-600/2-78-037, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.

10.    C. W.  Westbrook, Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces
       Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-83-092, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, September 1983.
12.4-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 11.    S. Gronberg, et al., Ferroalloy Industry Paniculate Emissions: Source Category Report,
       EPA-600/7-86-039, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November
       1986.

 12.    T. Epstein, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Roane Limited,
       Rockwood, Tennessee, EPA-600/X-85-325, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, DC, June 1981.

 13.    S. Beaton, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Interlace Inc., Alabama
       Metallurgical Corp., Selma, Alabama,  EPA-600/X-85-324, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Washington, DC, May 1981.

 14.    J. L. Rudolph, et al., Ferroalloy Process Emissions Measurement, EPA-600/2-79-045,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1979.

 15.    Written Communication From Joseph F. Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation, Charleston, SC, to
       GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, February 10, 1982, Citing Airco Alloys And Carbide Test
       R-07-7774-000-1, Gilbert Commonwealth, Reading,  PA.  1978.

 16.    Source Test, Airco Alloys And Carbide, Charleston,  SC, EMB-71-PC-16(FEA),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC.  1971.

 17.    Telephone communication between Joseph F.  Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation, Charleston, SC,
       and Evelyn J. Limberakis, GCA Corporation, Bedford,  MA. February 23,  1982.

 18.    Source Test, Chromium Mining And Smelting  Corporation, Memphis, 77V, EMB-72-PC-05
       (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1972.

 19.    Source Test, Union Carbide Corporation, Ferroalloys Division, Marietta, Ohio,
       EMB-71-PC-12 (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC. 1971.

 20.    R. A. Person, "Control Of Emissions From Ferroalloy Furnace Processing", Journal Of
       Metals, 23(4): 17-29, April 1971.

 21.    S. Gronberg, Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development Foote Minerals, Graham,
       W. Virginia, EPA-600/X-85-327, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC,
       July 1981.

 22.    R. W. Gerstle,  et al., Review Of Standards Of Performance For New Stationary Air Sources:
       Ferroalloy Production Facility, EPA-450/3-80-041, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park,  NC. December  1980.

 23.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report,  APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  April 1970.

24.    Telephone Communication Between Leslie B.  Evans, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, And
       Richard Vacherot, GCA  Corporation, Bedford, MA.   October  18, 1984.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                             12.4-19

    -------
25.    R. Ferrari, "Experiences In Developing An Effective Pollution Control System For A
       Submerged Arc Ferroalloy Furnace Operation", J. Metals, p. 95-104, April 1968.

26.    Fredriksen and Nestas, Pollution Problems By Electric Furnace Ferroalloy Production, United
       Nations Economic Commission For Europe, September 1968.

27.    A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Paniculate Pollutant System Study—Mass Emissions, PB-203-128,
       PB-203-522 And P-203-521, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. May
       1971.

28.    Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  December 1977.

29.    W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       EPA-APTD-1543, W. E. Davis And  Associates, Leawood, KS.  April 1973.

30.    Source Test, Foote Mineral Company, Vancoram Operations, Steubenville, OH,
       EMB-71-PC-08 (FEA),  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC.  August  1971.

31.    C. R. Neuharth, "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I: Metals And Minerals,
       Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

32.    N. Irving Sox and R. J. Lewis, Sr., Rowley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Van
       Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., Eleventh Edition,  1987.

33.    Theodore Baumeister, Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers, McGraw-Hill,
       Eighth Edition, 1978.
12.4-20                             EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
12.5  Iron And Steel Production

12.5.1  Process Description1"3

        The production of steel at an integrated iron and steel plant is accomplished using several
interrelated processes.  The major operations are:  (1) coke production, (2) sinter production, (3) iron
production, (4) iron preparation, (5) steel production, (6) semifinished product preparation,
(7) finished product preparation, (8) heat and electricity supply, and (9) handling and transport of
raw, intermediate, and  waste materials.  The interrelation of these operations is depicted in a general
flow diagram of the iron and steel industry in Figure 12.5-1. Coke production is discussed in detail
in Section  12.2 of this publication, and more information on the handling and transport of materials is
found in Chapter 13.

12.5.1.1 Sinter Production -
        The sintering process converts fine-sized raw materials, including iron ore, coke breeze,
limestone,  mill scale, and  flue dust, into an agglomerated product, sinter, of suitable size for charging
into the blast furnace.   The raw materials are sometimes mixed with water to provide a cohesive
matrix,  and then placed on a continuous, travelling grate called die sinter strand.  A  burner hood, at
the beginning of the sinter strand ignites the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self
supporting and it provides sufficient heat, 1300 to 1480°C (2400 to 2700°F), to  cause surface melting
and agglomeration of the mix.  On the underside of the sinter strand is a series of windboxes that
draw combusted air down  through the material bed into a common duct, leading to a gas cleaning
device.  The fused sinter is discharged at the end  of the sinter strand, where it is crushed  and
screened.  Undersize sinter is recycled to the mixing mill and back to die strand. The remaining
sinter product is cooled in open air or in a circular cooler with water sprays or mechanical fans.  The
cooled sinter is crushed and  screened  for a final time, then the fines are recycled, and the product is
sent to be charged to the blast furnaces.   Generally, 2.3 Mg (2.5  tons) of raw materials, including
water and fuel, are required  to produce 0.9 Mg (1 ton) of product sinter.

12.5.1.2 Iron Production-
        Iron is  produced in blast furnaces by the reduction of iron bearing materials with a hot gas.
The large,  refractory lined furnace is  charged through its top with iron as ore, pellets,  and/or sinter;
flux as limestone, dolomite,  and sinter; and coke for fuel. Iron oxides, coke and fluxes react with the
blast air to form molten reduced iron, carbon monoxide (CO), and slag.  The molten iron and slag
collect in the hearth at the base of the furnace.  The byproduct gas is collected through offtakes
located  at the top of the furnace and is recovered for use as fuel.

        The production of 1  ton of iron requires 1.4 tons of ore or other iron bearing material;  0.5 to
0.65 tons of coke; 0.25 tons of limestone or dolomite;  and  1.8 to 2 tons of air.  Byproducts consist of
0.2 to 0.4 tons of slag, and 2.5 to 3.5 tons of blast furnace gas containing up to  100 pounds (Ib) of
dust.

        The molten iron and slag are removed, or  cast, from die furnace periodically.  The casting
process begins  with  drilling  a hole, called the taphole, into the clay-filled iron notch  at the base of the
hearth.  During casting, molten iron flows  into runners that  lead to transport ladles.  Slag also flows
into the clay-filled iron notch at die base of die hearth. During casting, molten iron  flows into
runners that lead to transport ladles.  Slag also flows from the furnace, and is directed through
separate runners to a slag pit adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag pots for transport to a remote slag


10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-1

    -------
                                                                                      •a
                                                                                      .1
                                                                                      •3
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      13
                                                                                      (U
                                                                                      O
                                                                                      (D
                                                                                      Ul
12.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
pit.  At the conclusion of the cast, the taphole is replugged with clay.  The area around the base of
the furnace, including all iron and slag runners, is enclosed by a casthouse.  The blast furnace
byproduct gas, which is collected from the furnace top, contains CO and paniculate.  Because of its
high CO content, this blast furnace gas has a low heating value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per liter
(J/L) (75 to 90 British thermal units per cubic foot [Btu/ft3]) and is used as a fuel within the steel
plant.  Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however, the gas must be cleaned of paniculate.
Initially, the gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60 percent of the
paniculate.  Next, the gases undergo a 1- or 2-stage cleaning operation.  The primary cleaner is
normally a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining paniculate.  The
secondary cleaner is a high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator,
either of which can remove up to 90 percent of the paniculate that eludes the primary cleaner.
Together these control devices provide a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams per cubic meter (g/m3)
(0.02 grains per cubic foot [g/fr]).  A portion of this gas is fired in the blast furnace stoves to
preheat the blast air, and the rest is used in other plant operations.

12.5.1.3 Iron Preparation Hot Metal Desulfurization -
        Sulfur in the molten iron is sometimes reduced before charging into the steelmaking furnace
by adding reagents.  The reaction forms a floating slag which can be skimmed off.  Desulfurization
may be performed hi the hot metal transfer (torpedo) car at a location between the blast furnace and
basic oxygen furnace (BOF), or it may be done in the hot metal  transfer (torpedo) ladle at a station
inside the BOF shop.
       The most common reagents are powdered calcium carbide (CaCy and calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) or salt-coated magnesium granules. Powdered reagents are injected into the metal through a
lance with high-pressure nitrogen. The process duration varies with the injection rate, hot metal
chemistry,  and desired final sulfur content, and is in the range of 5 to 30 minutes.

12.5.1.4 Steelmaking Process — Basic Oxygen Furnaces -
       In the basic oxygen process (BOP), molten iron from a blast furnace and iron scrap are
refined in a furnace by lancing (or injecting) high-purity oxygen. The input material is typically
70 percent  molten metal and 30 percent scrap metal. The oxygen reacts with carbon and other
impurities to remove them from the metal.  The reactions are exothermic, i. e., no external heat
source is necessary to melt the scrap and to  raise the temperature of the metal to the desired range for
tapping.  The large quantities of CO produced by the reactions  in the BOF can be controlled by
combustion at the mouth of the furnace and  then vented to gas cleaning devices, as with open hoods,
or combustion can be suppressed at the furnace mouth, as with closed hoods.  BOP steelmaking is
conducted in large (up to 363 Mg [400 ton]  capacity) refractory lined pear shaped furnaces. There
are 2 major variations of the process.  Conventional BOFs have oxygen blown into the top of the
furnace through a water-cooled lance.  In the newer, Quelle Basic Oxygen process (Q-BOP), oxygen
is injected through tuyeres located in the bottom of the furnace.  A typical BOF cycle consists of the
scrap charge, hot metal charge, oxygen blow (refining) period,  testing for temperature and chemical
composition of the steel, alloy additions and reblows (if necessary), tapping, and slagging.  The full
furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45 minutes.

12.5.1.5  Steelmaking Process — Electric Arc Furnace -
       Electric arc furnaces (EAF) are used to produce carbon and alloy steels.  The input material
to an EAF is typically 100 percent scrap.  Cylindrical, refractory lined EAFs are equipped with
carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through the furnace roof. With electrodes retracted, the
furnace roof can be rotated aside to permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane.  Alloying
agents and fluxing materials usually are added through the doors on the side of the furnace. Electric
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-3

    -------
current of the opposite polarity electrodes generates heat between the electrodes and through the
scrap.  After melting and refining periods, the slag and steel are poured from the furnace by tilling.

       The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process.  Cycles, or "heats", range from about
1-1/2 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours or more to produce alloy steel.
Scrap steel is charged to begin a cycle, and alloying agents and slag materials are added for refining.
Stages of each cycle normally are charging and melting operations, refining (which usually includes
oxygen blowing), and tapping.

12.5.1.6 Steelmaking Process — Open Hearth Furnaces -
       The open hearth furnace (OHF) is a  shallow, refractory-lined basin hi which scrap and molten
iron are melted and refined into steel.  Scrap is charged to the furnace through doors in the furnace
front.  Hot metal from the blast furnace is added by pouring from a ladle through a trough positioned
hi the door. The mixture of scrap and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal, but a half-
and-half mixture is most common. Melting heat is provided by gas burners above and at the side of
the furnace. Refining is accomplished by the oxidation of carbon in the metal and the formation  of a
limestone slag to remove impurities.   Most furnaces are equipped with oxygen lances to speed  up
melting and refining.  The steel product is tapped by opening a hole in the base of the furnace  with an
explosive charge. The open hearth Steelmaking process with oxygen lancing normally requires from
4 to 10 hours for each heat.

12.5.1.7  Semifinished Product Preparation -
       After the steel has been tapped, the molten metal is teemed (poured) into ingots which  are
later heated and formed into other shapes, such as blooms, billets, or slabs.  The molten steel may
bypass this entire process and go directly to  a continuous casting operation. Whatever the production
technique, the blooms, billets, or slabs undergo a surface preparation step, scarfing, which removes
surface defects before shaping or rolling.  Scarfing can be performed by a machine applying jets  of
oxygen to the surface of hot semifinished steel, or by hand (with torches) on cold or slightly heated
semifinished steel.

12.5.2 Emissions And Controls

12.5.2.1  Sinter-
       Emissions from sinter plants are generated from raw material handling, windbox exhaust,
discharge end (associated sinter crushers and hot screens), cooler, and cold screen.  The windbox
exhaust is the primary source of paniculate emissions,  mainly  iron oxides, sulfur oxides,
carbonaceous compounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and  chlorides. At the discharge end, emissions are
mainly iron and  calcium oxides. Suiter strand windbox emissions commonly are controlled by
cyclone cleaners followed by a dry or wet ESP,  high pressure  drop wet scrubber, or baghouse.
Crusher and hot screen emissions, usually controlled by hooding and a baghouse or scrubber, are the
next largest emissions source. Emissions  are also generated from other  material handling operations.
At some  suiter plants, these emissions are captured and vented to a baghouse.

12.5.2.2  Blast Furnace-
       The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the casting operation.  Paniculate emissions
are generated when the molten iron and slag contact air above  their surface.  Casting emissions also
are generated by drilling and plugging the taphole. The occasional use of an oxygen lance to open  a
clogged taphole can cause heavy emissions.  During the casting operation, iron oxides, magnesium
oxide and carbonaceous compounds are generated as  paniculate. Casting emissions at existing blast
furnaces  are controlled by evacuation  through retrofitted capture hoods to a gas cleaner, or by
suppression techniques. Emissions controlled by hoods and an evacuation system are usually vented

12.5-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
to a baghouse. The basic concept of suppression techniques is to prevent the formation of pollutants
by excluding ambient air contact with the molten surfaces.  New furnaces have been constructed with
evacuated runner cover systems and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.

        Another potential source of emissions is the blast furnace top. Minor emissions may occur
during charging from imperfect bell seals hi the double bell system.  Occasionally, a cavity may form
in the blast furnace charge, causing a collapse of part of the burden (charge) above it.  The resulting
pressure surge in the furnace opens a relief valve to the atmosphere to prevent damage to the furnace
by the high pressure created and is referred to as a "slip".

12.5.2.3  Hot Metal Desulfurization -
        Emissions during the hot metal desulfurization process are created by both the reaction of the
reagents injected into the metal and the turbulence during injection. The pollutants emitted are mostly
iron oxides, calcium oxides, and oxides of the compound injected.  The sulfur reacts with the reagents
and is skimmed off as slag. The emissions generated from desulfurization may be collected by a
hood positioned over the ladle and  vented to a baghouse.

12.5.2.4  Steelmaking -
        The most significant emissions from the EOF process occur during the oxygen blow period.
The predominant compounds emitted are iron oxides, although heavy metals and fluorides are usually
present.  Charging emissions will vary with the quality and quantity of scrap metal charged to the
furnace and with the pour rate.  Tapping emissions include iron oxides, sulfur oxides, and other
metallic oxides, depending on the grade of scrap used. Hot metal transfer emissions are mostly iron
oxides.

        BOFs are equipped with a primary hood capture system located directly over the open mouth
of the furnaces to control emissions during oxygen blow periods.  Two types of capture systems  are
used to collect exhaust gas as it leaves the furnace mouth: closed hood (also known as an off gas, or
O.  G., system) or open, combustion-type hood.  A closed hood fits snugly against the furnace mouth,
ducting all paniculate and CO to a  wet scrubber gas cleaner.  CO is flared at the scrubber outlet
stack. The open hood design allows dilution air to be drawn into the hood, thus combusting the  CO
in the hood system.  Charging and  tapping emissions  are controlled by a variety of evacuation
systems and operating practices.  Charging hoods, tapside enclosures, and full furnace enclosures are
used in the industry  to capture these emissions and send them to either the primary hood gas cleaner
or a second gas cleaner.

12.5.2.5 Steelmaking  — Electric Arc Furnace -
       The operations which generate emissions during the electric arc furnace Steelmaking process
are melting and refining, charging scrap, tapping steel, and dumping slag.  Iron oxide is the
predominant constituent of the particulate emitted during  melting. During refining, the primary
particulate compound emitted is calcium oxide from the slag.  Emissions from  charging scrap are
difficult to quantify,  because they depend on the grade of scrap utilized.  Scrap emissions usually
contain iron and other metallic oxides from alloys  in the scrap metal. Iron oxides and oxides from
the fluxes are the primary constituents of the slag emissions.  During tapping, iron oxide is the major
particulate compound emitted.

       Emission control techniques involve an emission capture system and a gas cleaning system.
Five emission capture systems used in the industry are fourth hold (direct shell) evacuation, side  draft
hood, combination hood, canopy hood, and furnace enclosures.  Direct shell evacuation consists of
ductwork attached  to a separate or fourth hole hi the furnace roof which draws emissions to a gas
cleaner.  The fourth  hole system works only when the furnace is up-right with the roof in place.  Side

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.5-5

    -------
draft hoods collect furnace off gases from around the electrode holes and the work doors after the
gases leave the furnace.  The combination hood incorporates elements from the side draft and fourth
hole venulation systems.  Emissions are collected both from the fourth hole and around the
electrodes. An air gap in the ducting introduces secondary air for combustion of CO in the exhaust
gas. The combination hood requires careful regulation of furnace interval pressure. The canopy
hood is the least efficient of the 4 ventilation systems, but it does capture emissions during charging
and tapping.  Many new electric arc furnaces incorporate the canopy hood with one of the other
3 systems. The full furnace enclosure completely surrounds the furnace and evacuates furnace
emissions through hooding in the top  of the enclosure.

12.5.2.6  Steelmaking — Open Hearth Furnace -
        Paniculate emissions from an open hearth furnace vary considerably during the process.  The
use of oxygen lancing increases emissions of dust and fume. During the melting and refining cycle,
exhaust gas drawn from the furnace passes through a slag pocket and a regenerative checker chamber,
where some of the paniculate settles out.  The emissions, mostly iron oxides, are  then ducted to
either an ESP or a wet scrubber.  Other furnace-related process operations which produce fugitive
emissions inside the shop include transfer and charging of hot metal, charging of scrap, tapping steel,
and slag dumping. These emissions are usually uncontrolled.

12.5.2.7  Semifinished Product Preparation -
        During this activity, emissions are produced when molten steel is poured (teamed) into ingot
molds, and when semifinished steel is machine or manually scarfed to remove surface defects.
Pollutants emitted are iron and other oxides (FeO, Fe2O3, SiO2, CaO, MgO). Teeming emissions are
rarely controlled. Machine scarfing operations generally use as ESP or water spray chamber for
control.  Most hand scarfing operations are uncontrolled.

12.5.2.8  Miscellaneous  Combustion -
        Every iron and steel plant operation requires energy in the form of heat or electricity.
Combustion sources that produce emissions on plant property are blast furnace stoves, boilers,
soaking pits, and reheat furnaces.  These facilities burn combinations of coal, No. 2 fuel oil, natural
gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas.  In blast furnace stoves, clean gas from the blast furnace is
burned to heat the refractory checker  work, and in turn, to heat the blast air.  In soaking pits, ingots
are heated until the temperature distribution over the cross-section of the ingots is acceptable and the
surface temperature is uniform for further rolling into semifinished products (blooms, billets,  and
slabs).  In slab furnaces, a slab is heated before being rolled into finished products (plates, sheets, or
strips).  Emissions from the combustion of natural gas, fuel oil, or coal in the soaking pits or slab
furnaces are estimated to be the same as those for boilers. (See Chapter 1 of this document.)
Emission  factor data for blast furnace gas and coke oven gas are not available and must be estimated.
There are 3  facts available for making the estimation. First, the gas exiting the blast furnace passes
through primary and secondary cleaners and can be  cleaned to less than 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 g/ft3).
Second, nearly one-third of the coke oven gas is methane.  Third, there are no blast furnace gas
constituents that generate paniculate when burned.  The combustible constituent of blast furnace gas is
CO, which burns clean.  Based on facts 1 and 3, the emission factor for combustion of blast furnace
gas is equal to the paniculate loading of that fuel, 0.05 g/m3 (2.9 lb/106 ft3) having an average heat
value of 3092 J/L (83 Btu/ft3).

        Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas  can  be estimated in the same fashion.  Assume
that cleaned coke oven gas has as much paniculate as cleaned blast furnace gas.  Since one-third of
the coke oven gas is methane, the main component of natural gas, it is assumed that the combustion
of this methane in coke oven gas generates 0.06 g/m3 (3.3 lb/106 ft3) of paniculate.  Thus, the
emission factor for the combustion  of coke oven gas is the sum of the paniculate  loading and  that

12.5-6                               EMISSION  FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
generated by the methane combustion, or 0.1 g/m3 (6.2 lb/106 ft3) having an average heat value of
19,222 J/L (516 Btu/ft3).

       The paniculate emission factors for processes in Table 12.5-1 are the result of an extensive
investigation by EPA and the American Iron and Steel Institute.3  Particle size distributions for
controlled and uncontrolled emissions from specific iron and steel industry processes have been
calculated and summarized from the best available data.1  Size distributions have been used with
paniculate emission factors to calculate size-specific factors for the sources listed in Table 12.5-1 for
which data are available. Table 12.5-2 presents these size-specific paniculate emission factors.
Particle size distributions are presented in Figure  12.5-2, Figure 12.5-3, and Figure 12.5-4.CO
emission factors are in Table 12.5-3.6

12.5.2.9  Open Dust Sources -
       Like process emission sources, open dust sources contribute to the atmospheric paniculate
burden.  Open dust sources include vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, raw material handling
outside of buildings,  and wind erosion from storage piles and exposed terrain. Vehicle traffic consists
of plant personnel and visitor vehicles, plant service vehicles, and trucks handling raw materials,  plant
deliverables, steel products,  and waste materials.  Raw materials are handled by  clamshell buckets,
bucket/ladder conveyors, rotary railroad dumps, bottom railroad dumps, front end loaders, truck
dumps, and conveyor transfer stations, all of which disturb the raw material  and expose fines to the
wind.  Even fine materials, resting on flat areas or in storage piles are exposed and are subject to
wind erosion.  It is not unusual to have several million tons of raw materials stored at a plant and to
have in the range of 9.7 to 96.7 hectares (10 to 100 acres) of exposed area there.

       Open dust source emission factors for  iron and steel production are presented  in Table 12.5-4.
These factors were determined through source testing at various integrated iron and steel plants.

       As an alternative to the single-valued open dust emission factors given in Table 12.5-4,
empirically derived emission factor equations are presented in Section 13.2 of this document.  Each
equation was developed for a source operation defined on the basis of a single dust generating
mechanism which crosses industry lines,  such  as vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.  The predictive
equation explains much of the observed variance in measured emission factors by relating emissions
to parameters which characterize source conditions. These parameters may be grouped into
3 categories:  (1) measures of source activity or energy expended (e. g., the  speed and weight of a
vehicle traveling on an unpaved road),  (2) properties of the material being disturbed (e. g., the
content of suspendible fines  in the surface material on an unpaved road) and  (3) climatic parameters
(e. g., number of precipitation free days per year, when emissions tend to a maximum).4

       Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment to  specific source
conditions, the equations should be used in place of the factors in Table 12.5-4, if emission  estimates
for sources in a specific iron and steel facility  are needed.  However, the generally higher-quality
ratings assigned to the equations are applicable only if (1)  reliable values of correction parameters
have been determined for the specific sources of interest and (2) the correction parameter values lie
within the ranges tested in developing the equations.  Section 13.2 lists measured properties of
aggregate process materials and road surface materials in the iron and steel industry, which can be
used to estimate correction parameter values for the predictive emission factor equations, in the event
that site-specific values are not available.

       Use of mean correction parameter values from Section 13.2 reduces the quality ratings of the
emission factor equation by one level.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                                12.5-7

    -------
to

V1
oo
Table 12.5-1 (Metric And English Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS8
Source
Sintering
Windbox
Uncontrolled
Leaving grate
After coarse participate removal
Controlled by dry ESP
Controlled by wet ESP
Controlled by venturi scrubber
Controlled by cyclone
Sinter discharge
(breaker and hot screens)
Uncontrolled
Controlled by baghouse
Controlled by venturi scrubber
Windbox and discharge
Controlled by baghouse
Units

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished sinter







kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished sinter



kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished sinter

Emission Factor



5.56 (11.1)
4.35 (8.7)
0.8 (1.6)
0.085 (0.17)
0.235 (0.47)
0.5 (1.0)

3.4 (6.8)
0.05 (0.1)
0.295 (0.59)

0.15 (0.3)
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



B
A
B
B
B
B

B
B
A

A
Particle
Size Data



Yes


Yes
Yes
Yes


Yes



m


1
GO
HH
o
2;

Tl

    -------
   §
   o
   u-j
   •s
   E-
i!
ill


o
^j

b
c
"en
so
E
w


.•§
D










4>
CJ
Id
O
CO

„ „

Q m m PQ Q
s- © sr sr §
r—. o ^ o ^
OO ^"^ >""' s" ^ >™*'





ID 10 m
o\ o o o o
C3 95
i I

tn J3 X3
"S1 91 'eT
O O O
*-» *J 4^
£ £ £
OO 00 OO
^
D
s
o 2
c ^
1 1
s ill
g 85 ° "i
•s -a •» -a
i -t o la
O *3 *S "O
•S -s .•§ -g I -8
1 1 I J S 3 1
! ,11 111 S
tg^CW 3 «*-J5
«5 co S it, H o »3
PQ X

Q
i
Q
x— •



to
"^"
§
o














Controlled by baghouse
asic oxygen furnace (EOF
PQ














1
•^ft
C
o
•4-*
^
00
S
5

*s
•o
OO
_£
1
1
2


PQ < PQ
£T 2 S
OO O O
cs ^^ ^-^
s^'



J^ I^"J
l^J ^3 ^J"
^^ ^5 ^M^
•*" o" o










,
2


    -------
  8
  ts
  v—4
  O)

  I
2
3 Q
08 **
n. .y
CO
•jgr
t. o z
22 ° 5
2
o
CQ
C
.0
'so
(A
1



•*2
63













8
1
CO

3 8 8
^1 >H P>H




•< Q PQ PQ
OO ^v CP"
2- S- 2- S-





§ ^ i I
d odd
3
I
+•*
o
43
/gs
Q
^^
^
00
2
^
2
1
c
•a
O "U
1 s 1
5 -§00
ca 'S w
5 0 -°
" oo G £
?? c eo
S s t g 1 1
1 | a 1 1 1
£ §&,*.« 0
o co O < < U
U CQ



















13
OJ
to
'c?
Q
^^
.0
00
2
^





00
'S<
H
UH
O
CD

va CA
Q) 0}
Jx JH




Q PQ PQ •<
r? o7 Q ST
O\ (S O —<
S- 2 S- S-





>n »-i • in
% 2 § §
odd d
3
i
^_ »
o
43
^
O
*-•
£
00
2
X





    -------
   I
   (S
IQ
§ a>
CQ hO

ogg
&o H P
K O H
<-,
2
t>
CO
c
_o
as
1



D













>-i
§
&0

ws wa
4) ri 10 O

§
8
2
"8
I
/— ^
•o
o
o



1
o^
"""'


v->
i
o
















1
o
•§
u

10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-11

    -------
§ «! Q
0.
Z »>y
g""' Z
p
w fc


Wi
O
ea
n.
c
_o
2
1




tt
'S
p














4)
CJ
o

II


Q Q U


/-v 0?
x^s 00 VO
^ 8- S




If) Tj- OO
I/I "-" O
O O C>




<1>
1
o
•*-*
£_
bo

"So










oo (^
a> .S W5
0 c U
1 "§ "8 * t-
* -& = -o 2
•g § 2 1 |
1 §» § 2 |
•5 2 S § "8
g « P 0 Q
Ci< ^^ Q^


<


r— ^
OO
o
^^



1
O




1

"g1
^J
£>
too
53
"So


'a?
o
Ui
§

.J
cd
"8

i
4>
S
Teeming
Leaded steel
Uncontrolled (


<

90~

§
o
^^


Os
8
c>












2
1
















'«?
o
O
en
t .
M
•8

measu
Uncontrolled (


<

®
^— i
8
o
s™^


OO

O












2
^S
c

•o

Q
43

o
JS
1
S
a>
S
o
4-1
43
6O
S
J?











Machine scarfing


CQ



^
c$




S
O























Uncontrolled


<


m
8
o
^""^


m
o
d






















Cu
00
U
1 Controlled by
12.5-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   o
   o
   •s
   H







EMISSION









« 1
1 ^

(S .s
e/3


FACTOR
RATING



§
UH
O
'S
CO
1


£
°5
o
00





<«*
1


"l



















v_i
CJ
Miscellaneous combustion sour


Q

x-^
CO
q
s—'

S
0





5*
CQ
VO
0
^*

N^
<£>
*-H
"So






1

•8
1o
!„
'O. 1)
bo a,
.S u
0 I
co cfi
a3 eo
IM •••*
o PQ
09


Q

^
£2
q
s—'

i
o




















60
§
o
jg
o
U





































Reference 3, except as noted.














C
o
'§
s
U
I
CO
1
w
2
0
o
CO

|
>>

0
co
Q

o
co"
"o
£
f*
S
o
•s
$
CO
1
O
13
1


09

D
to
CO
2
3
§•
o
o
•g
g
jg
*
^
IS
!
o

'I
aa
C
S
"8
to
1

•8

8
^3 *^
1 |
•o c
§ §
* 's
•a §
y «
5 13
•s 'S
'? §
co >•
« T3
ll
4 "°
ll
|§
'o -3
"m u
ti
^* 4>
H £>
OS Xl 0


60
s

00

CO
1
o
•s
&
2
*v!
«2
|
IJQ
ci
bo
vo
CN
S3
u

e-
2
^^

1
4>
$
t_
Cu
2
x— \
O
^^
£

s
V-H
i 2
Ul ^
-:!
ii
c« .
c« ^"
Id-
•o







g emissions.
c
'5
2
1
S
.^^
1
^
o
a
1
J
CS
s
CO
S
"33

S
• ~4
*o
i
IX
.0
CA
CO
's
<0
CO
s??
g
ex
Building evacuation collects all
o <
52
."3
O
.Q
C>
CO
*«>
a
o
g
5
Ǥ
r*5
\^
I-H
^J
«
O
B
<
z
55
1
0
P
i
i
o
^

5
<4-<

^^
s
f
o
c
CO
Q
o

C
_o
CO
1
o>
s
V
CO
3
co"
"w

    -------
       Table 12.5-2 (Metric And English Units). SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Sintering
Windbox
Uncontrolled leaving grate






Controlled by wet ESP






Controlled by venturi scrubber






Controlled by cyclone6






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D






C






C






C






Particle
Size


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5 •
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
-d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size


4b
4
65
9
15
20C
100
18*
25
33
48
59b
69
100
55
75
89
93
96
98
100
25C
37b
52
64
74
80
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg


0.22
0.22
0.28
0.50
0.83
1,11
5.56
0.015
0.021
0.028
0.041
0.050
0.059
0.085
0.129
0.176
0.209
0.219
0.226
0.230
0.235
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.32
0.37
0.40
100 0.5
Ib/ton


0.44
0.44
0.56
1.00
1.67
2,22
111
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.26
0.35
0.42
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.25
0.37
0.52
0.64
0.74
0.80
1.0
12.5-14
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                         Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Controlled by baghouse






Sinter discharge breaker and hot
screens controlled by baghouse






Blast furnace
Uncontrolled casthouse
emissions
Roof monitor^






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C






C









C






Particle
Size
Gun)'
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d



0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <,
Stated Size
3.0
9.0
27.0
47.0
69.0
79.0
100.0
2b
4
11
20
32b
42b
100



4
15
23
35
51
61
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
0.005
0.014
0.041
0.071
0.104
0.119
0.15
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.010
0.016
0.021
0.05



0.01
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.18
0.3
Ib/ton
0.009
0.027
0.081
0.141
0.207
0.237
0.3
0.002
0.004
0.011
0.020
0.032
0.042
0.1



0.02
0.09
0.14
0.21
0.31
0.37
0.06
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-15

    -------
                                   Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Furnace with local evacuation8






Hot metal desulfurizationh
Uncontrolled






Hot metal desulfurizationh
Controlled baghouse






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C







E







D






Particle
Size
Oim)»
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % £
Stated Size
?c
9
15
20
24
26
100

	 j
2C
11
19
19
21
100

8
18
42
62
74
78
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.65


0.01
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.55

0.0004
0.0009
0.0019
0.0028
0.0033
0.0035
0.0045
Ib/ton
0.09
0.12
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.34
1.3


0.02
0.12
0.22
0.22
0.23
1.09

0.0007
0.0016
0.0038
0.0056
0.0067
0.0070
0.009
12.5-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                        Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Basic oxygen furnace BOF
Top blown furnace melting and
refining controlled by closed
hood and vented to scrubber






BOF charging at source^






Controlled by baghouse






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C






E






D






Particle
Size
G«n)a

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size

34
55
65
66
67
72C
100
8C
12
22
35
46
56
100
3
10
22
31
45
60
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg

0.0012
0.0019
0.0022
0.0022
0.0023
0.0024
0.0034
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.3
9.0X10-6
3.0xlO-5
6.6xlO-5
9.3xlO-5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
Ib/ton

0.0023
0.0037
0.0044
0.0045
0.0046
0.0049
0.0068
0.05
0.07
0.13
0.21
0.28
0.34
0.6
l.SxlO-5
6.0xlO-5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0006
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-17

    -------
                                    Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
BOF tapping at source^






BOF tapping
Controlled by baghouse






Q-BOP melting and refining
controlled by scrubber






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E







D






D






Particle
Size
(Mm)"
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated Size
_ j
11
37
43
45
50
100

4
7
16
22
30
40
100
45
52
56
58
68
85C
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg
	 j
0.05
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.46

5.2xlO-5
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0013
0.013
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.019
0.024
0.028
Ib/ton
_ j
0.10
0.34
0.40
0.41
0.46
0.92

0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0026
0.025
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.038
0.048
0.056
12.5-18
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                        Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Electric arc furnace melting
and refining carbon steel
Uncontrolled"1






Electric arc furnace
Melting, refining, charging,
tapping, slagging
Controlled by direct shell
evacuation plus charing hood
vented to common baghouse
for carbon steel"






Open hearth furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

D








E








E






Particle
Size
G*m)«

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <,
Stated Size

8
23
43
53
58
61
100


74b
74
74
74
76
80
100


lb
21
60
79
83
85C
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg

1.52
4.37
8.17
10.07
11.02
11.59
19.0


0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0163
0.0172
0.0215


0.11
2.22
6.33
8.33
8.76
8.97
10.55
Ib/ton

3.04
8.74
16.34
20.14
22.04
23.18
38.0


0.0318
0.0318
0.0318
0.0318
0.0327
0.0344
0.043


0.21
4.43
12.66
16.67
17.51
17.94
21.1
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.5-19

    -------
                                    Table 12.5-2 (cont.).
Source
Open hearth furnaces
Controlled by ESP?






EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E






Particle
Size
Gim)a
0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
_d
Cumulative
Mass % <.
Stated Size
10b
21
39
47
53b
56b
100
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
kg/Mg Ib/ton
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.06
0.05 0.10
0.07 0.13
0.07 0.15
0.08 0.16
0.14 0.28
  a Particle aerodynamic diameter micrometers (jim) as defined by Task Group on Lung
    Dynamics.  (Particle density = 1 g/cm3).
  b Interpolated data used to develop size distribution.
  c Extrapolated, using engineering estimates.
  d Total paniculate based on Method 5 total catch.  See Table 12.5-1.
  e Average of various cyclone efficiencies.
  f Total casthouse evacuation control system.
  g Evacuation runner covers and local hood over taphole, typical of new state-of-the-art blast
    furnace technology.
  h Torpedo ladel desulfurization with CaC^ and CaCO3.
  J  Unable to extrapolate because of insufficient data and/or curve exceeding limits.
  k Doghouse-type furnace enclosure using front and back sliding doors, totally enclosing the
    furnace,  with emissions vented to hoods.
  mFull cycle emissions captured by canopy and side draft hoods.
  n Information on control system not available.
  p May not be representative.  Test outlet size distribution was larger than inlet and may indicate
    reentrainment problem.
      Table 12.5-3 (Metric And English Units).  UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE
                   EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS8

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Source
Sintering windboxb
Basic oxygen furnace0
Electric arc furnace0
kg/Mg
22
69
9
Ib/ton
44
138
18
  a Reference 6.
  b kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished sinter.
  0 kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished steel.
12.5-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
§
                                3ZIS Q31V1S N7H1 SS31 % SS7N
0
40
                                                                        0
                                                                        M
1
1
1
1
a
, ^
O o •*
I * ?
z § 2
<-> § 5
* i i
§ II

2 5 5
W i r*
<•> -
i ; ?
«* 5 vi
I *
1 1
i ! •
• i
i i
* s
5 o
« Si 1
s s s
o o o
• « •
? s ?

5 5 5

z z z
Ml M M



Z _
z <
l^ QC
X
U4 UJ
>. c
a
z
o o
kU
£ 3

x z
UJ H-
! |

                                                                                                        Ui
                                                                                                        §
                                        \
                                                                    \   \
                                                                                                        fe
                                                                                                        Jl
                                                                                                        *53
                                                                                                        <4-l
                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                        e
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        s

                                                                                                        1
                                                        o
                                                       1

                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                        IX,
              10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
  Metallurgical Industry
12.5-21

    -------
      o
      o
         32 IS  Q3171S

            o
                      o
                      10
SS3T % SSVW


      O
o
(M
                 I
                                 I
o
cc
                                                           2 cr
                                                             O   c-

                                                             u

                                                             i'

                                                             Z'
                                                                  l\
                                                                    u

                                                                    f
                                                                o

                                                                •
                                                                <

                                                                o
                                                                  e e

                                                                  "•
                                                             z
                                                             UJ'
                                                             <
                                                             cr
                                                             <
                                                             a.

                   1
            i  I
            •II1   £S
            I  I     I   ££§
^»
z
o
o

e
o
o
u
Ul
o
e
^
o

e
w
J
O
f
UNCON1I
O
Z
u

o




M
m
BACHOU
•x
O
Z
w

o



o
M

ONTROL
u
z
1

o






HOUSC
o
;
^
a
•


X
B

/SCHUI
o
X
X
c
1
^
o
0
*p

m
0
3
C
u
M
O
Z
I
1
&
O
S
o

Q
U4
^

O
a.
ae
x.
UJ
(
j


Z
o

*/>
ua
cr
u
S
i
1




                               S
                               <5

                               I

                               g
                               u

                               1

                               o

                               I

                               £>
                                                                          03

                                                                          .2


                                                                          I
                                                                              cs
                                                                              2
12.5-22
                           EMISSION FACTORS
                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
           o
           o
             3ZIS Q3171S  NVHi SS3T %


                 O         o          O
                     T
                                                                                       VI


                                                                                       o
                                                                _*»
                 I  I   I
                                                                                  o

                                                                                  a

                                                                                  •S
                                                                                  a

                                                                                  1
                                                                                  •o


                                                                                  I


                                                                                 I

                                                                                 •o
                                                                                  s

                                                                                  8
                                                                                  eo


                                                                                 •3
      2  2»
      =  1*
z
o
VJ
Z



it

o <
z a
     w z

     it
o«*

55


S3
-5
32
1C

5»
25

s:

Is
             O

             c
       J  5
     2  x
     z  i
   «» °  ^
six*
z •*  o  o

3 •  Z  C
>. >.  <  «
^ »  ^  a

5 5  •*  fc
« «  -i  j
3 3  3  3
" »  M  A

U u  •"  ••
« K  O  O
                                 o a.

                                 2 <
                                 o o
             Z


             X
          Z


          X  U
          u w  «  «


          «f  5  =
*2 -2
                        O

                        Z
10/86 (Refonnatted 1/95)
                             Metallurgical Industry
                                                                        12.5-23

    -------
    Table 12.5-4 (Metric And English Units). UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION
           FACTORS FOR OPEN DUST SOURCES AT IRON AND STEEL MILLSa
Operation
Continuous Drop
Conveyor
transfer station
sinter0

Pile formation
stacker pellet
ore0

Lump orec

Coald

Batch drop
Front end
loader/truck0
High silt skg

Low silt skg

Vehicle travel on
unpaved roads
Light duty
vehicle*1

Medium duty
vehicle*1

Heavy duty
vehicle4

Vehicle travel on
paved roads
Light/heavy
vehicle mixc

Emissions By Particle Size Range (Aerodynamic Diameter)
£ 30 pm



13
0.026


1.2
0.0024
0.15
0.00030
0.055
0.00011



13
0.026
4.4
0.0088



0.51
1.8

2.1
7.3

3.9
14



0.22
0.78
£ 15 /mi £ 10 urn



9.0 6.5
0.018 0.013


0.75 0.55
0.0015 0.0011
0.095 0.075
0.00019 0.00015
0.034 0.026
0.000068 0.000052



8.5 6.5
0.017 0.013
2.9 2.2
0.0058 0.0043



0.37 0.28
1.3 1.0

1.5 1.2
5.2 4.1

2.7 2.1
9.7 7.6



0.16 0.12
0.58 0.44
S 5 pm ^ 2.5 /tm



4.2 2.3
0.0084 0.0046


0.32 0.17
0.00064 0.00034
0.040 0.022
0.000081 0.000043
0.014 0.0075
0.000028 0.000015



4.0 2.3
0.0080 0.0046
1.4 0.8
0.0028 0.0016



0.18 0.10
0.64 0.36

0.70 0.42
2.5 1.5

1.4 0.76
4.8 2.7



0.079 0.042
0.28 0.15
Unitsb



g/Mg
Ib/ton


g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton



g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT




kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

kg/VKT
Ib/VMT



kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



D
D


B
B
C
C
E
E



C
C
C
C
C
C




C
C

B
B
C
C



  a Predictive emission factor equations are generally preferred over these single values emission
    factors. Predictive emission factor estimates are presented in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.
    VKT = Vehicle kilometers traveled.  VMT = Vehicle miles traveled.
  b Units/unit of material transferred or units/unit of distance traveled.
  c Reference 4.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
  d Reference 5.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
12.5-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
References For Section 12.5

1.     J. Jeffery and J. Vay, Source Category Report For The Iron and Steel Industry,
       EPA-600/7-86-036, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1986.

2.     H. E. McGannon, ed., The Making, And Shaping And Treating Of Steel, U. S. Steel
       Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, 1971.

3.     T. A. Cuscino, Jr., Paniculate Emission Factors Applicable To The Iron And Steel Industry,
       EPA-450/4-79-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       September 1979.

4.     R. Bonn, et  al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
       EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1978.

5.     C. Cowherd,. Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
       EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1979.

6.     Control Techniques For Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources, AP-65, 0. S.
       Department  Of Health, Education And Welfare, Washington, DC, March 1970.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.5-25

    -------

    -------
12.6  Primary Lead Smelting

12.6.1  General15

        Lead is found naturally as a sulfide ore containing small amounts of copper, iron, zinc,
precious metals, and other trace elements.  The lead in this ore, typically after being concentrated at
or near the mine (see Section  12.18), is processed into metallurgical lead at 4 facilities in the U. S.
(2 smelters/refineries in Missouri, 1 smelter in Montana, and 1 refinery in Nebraska).  Demand for
lead from these primary sources is expected to remain relatively stable in the early  1990s, due in
large part to storage battery recycling programs being implemented by several states.  Significant
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO^, paniculate matter, and especially lead have caused much attention
to be focused on identifying, and quantifying emissions from, sources within these facilities.

12.6.2  Process Description15'16

        The processing of lead concentrate into metallurgical lead involves 3  major steps: sintering,
reduction, and refining.  A diagram of a typical facility, with particle and gaseous emission sources
indicated, is shown in Figure  12.6-1.

12.6.2.1 Sintering-
        The primary purpose of the sinter machine is the reduction of sulfur content of the feed
material.  This feed material typically consists of the following:

        1.      Lead concentrates, including pyrite concentrates that are high in sulfur content, and
               concentrates that are high in impurities such as  arsenic, antimony, and bismuth,  as
               well as relatively pure high-lead-concentrates;

        2.      Lime rock and silica, incorporated  in the feed to maintain  a desired sulfur content;

        3.      High-lead-content sludge byproducts from other facilities;  and

        4.      Undersized sinter recycled from the roast exiting the sinter machine.

        The undersized sinter  return stream mixes with the other feed components,  or green feed, as
the 2 streams enter a rotary pelletizing drum.  A water spray  into the drum enhances the formation of
nodules in which the sinter returns form a core rich in lead oxide and the green feed forms a coating
rich in lead sulfide.  The smaller nodules are separated out and conveyed through an ignition furnace,
then covered with the remaining nodules on a moving grate and conveyed through the sinter machine,
which is essentially a large oven. Excess air is forced upward through the grate, facilitating
combustion, releasing SO2 and oxidizing the lead sulfide to lead oxide.  The "strong gas" from the
front end of the sinter machine, containing 2.5 to 4 percent SO2, is vented to gas cleaning equipment
before possibly being piped to a sulfuric plant. Gases from the rear part of the sinter machine are
recirculated up through the moving grate and are typically vented to a baghouse. That portion of the
product which is undersized, usually due to insufficient desulfurization, is filtered out and recycled
through the sinter; the remaining sinter roast is crushed before being transported to the blast furnace.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.6-1

    -------
to
 tfl
 O
 2
 Tl
 >
 n
 H
 O
                                Incoming


                               Concentrates
                                                                                                                                 Ore Proportioning
                                                                                                                                      Feeders
                                                            New Ore Storage
                                                          and Handling Facility
                                                             (SCC 3-03-010-12)
                                                                                              Blast Furnace
                                                                                              (SCC 3-03-010-02)

                                                                                                        Lead
                                                                                                        Bullion
                                                                                                                             Matte and
                                                                                                                             Speiss


                                                                                                                      Refinery
                                                                                                                      (SCC 3-03-010-22)
                                               Speiss
                                                                                                                                                     Reverbatory
                                                                                                                                                     Furnace
                                                                                                                                                     (SCC 3-03-010-03)
                                                                                                                                                     oo
                                To Customers
                                                                                Process Material
                                                                                Flow

                                                                                Process
                                                                                Gases
Clean Gases

Paniculate
Emissions
                                  To Copper Smelter
 U)
                               Figure 12.6-1.  A typical primary lead smelting and refining.   (Source Classification Code in parentheses.)

    -------
 12.6.2.2  Reduction-
        The sinter roast is then conveyed to the blast furnace in charge cars along with coke, ores
 containing high amounts of precious metals,  slags and byproducts dusts from other smelters,  and
 byproduct dusts from baghouses and various other sources within the facility.  Iron scrap is often
 added to the charge to aid heat distribution and to combine with the arsenic in the charge.  The blast
 furnace process rate is controlled by the proportion of coke hi the charge and by the air flow through
 the tuyeres in the floor of the furnace.  The charge descends through the furnace shaft into  the
 smelting zone, where it becomes molten, and is tapped into a series of settlers that allow the
 separation of lead from slag.  The slag is allowed to cool before being stored, and the molten lead of
 roughly 85 percent purity is transported in pots to the dross building.

 12.6.2.3  Refining -
        The dressing area consists of a variety of interconnected kettles, heated from below by natural
 gas combustion.  The lead pots arriving from the blast furnace are poured into receiving kettles and
 allowed to cool to the point at which  copper  dross rises to the top of the top and can be skimmed off
 and transferred to a reverbatory furnace.  The remaining lead dross  is transferred to a finishing kettle
 where such materials as wood chips, coke fines, and sulfur are added and mixed  to facilitate further
 separation, and this sulfur dross is also skimmed  off and transferred to the reverbatory  furnace.  To
 the drosses hi the reverbatory furnace are added tetrahedrite ore, which is high in silver content but
 low in lead and may have been dried  elsewhere within the facility, coke fines, and soda ash.  When
 heated in the same fashion as the kettles, the dross in the reverbatory furnace separates  into 3 layers:
 lead bullion settles to the bottom  and  is tapped back to the receiving kettles, and  matte (copper sulfide
 and other metal sulfides), which rises to the top, and speiss (high hi arsenic and antimony content)  are
 both typically forwarded to copper smelters.

       The third and final phase hi the processing of lead ore to metallurgical lead, the refining of
 the bullion in cast iron kettles, occurs hi 5 steps:  (1) removal of antimony, tin, and arsenic;
 (2) removal of precious metals by Parke's Process, in which zinc combines with  gold and silver to
 form  an insoluble intermetallic at operating temperatures; (3) vacuum removal of zinc; (4) removal of
 bismuth by the Betterson Process, in which calcium and magnesium are added to form an insoluble
 compound with the bismuth that is skimmed  from the kettle; and (5) removal  of remaining traces of
 metal impurities through the adding of NaOH and NaNO3. The final refined  lead, from 99.990 to
 99.999 percent pure,  is typically cast  into 45 kilogram (100 pound) pigs for shipment.

 12.6.3 Emissions And  Controls15"17

       Emissions of lead and paniculate occur hi varying amounts from nearly every process and
process component within primary lead smelter/refineries, and SO2 is also emitted from several
sources.  The lead and paniculate emissions point, volume, and area sources may include:

       1.      The milling, dividing, and fire assaying of samples of incoming concentrates and
               high-grade ores;

       2.      Fugitive emissions within the crushing mill area, including the loading and unloading
               of ores and concentrates from rail cars onto conveyors;

       3.      The ore crushers and associated transfer points, which may be controlled by
               baghouses;
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.6-3

    -------
        4.      Fugitive emissions from the unloading, storage, and transfer of byproduct dusts, high-
               grade ores, residues, coke, lime, silica, and any other materials stored in outdoor
               piles;

        5.      Strong gases from the front end of the sinter machine, which are typically vented to
               an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), 1 or more scrubbers, and a wet ESP for sulfuric
               acid mist elimination, but during shutdowns of the acid plant may bypass the ESP;

        6.      Weak gases from the back end of the suiter machine, which are high in lead dust
               content but typically pass through cyclones and a baghouse;

        7.      Fugitive emissions from the sinter building, including leaks in the suiter machine and
               the sinter cake crusher;

        8.      Gases exiting the top of the blast furnace, which are typically controlled with a
               baghouse;

        9.      Fugitive emissions from the blast furnace, including leaks from the furnace covers  and
               the bottoms of charge cars, dust from the charge car bottom dump during normal
               operation, and escaping gases when blow holes develop hi the shaft and must be
               "shot" with explosives;

        10.     Lead fumes from the molten lead and slag leaving the blast furnace area;

        11.     Fugitive leaks from the tapping of the kettles and settlers;

        12.     The hauling and dumping of slag, at both the handling and cooling area and the slag
               storage pile;

        13.     The combustion  of natural gas, as well  as the creation of lead-containing fumes at the
               kettles and reverbatory furnace, all of which are typically vented to a baghouse at the
               dressing building;

        14.     Fugitive emissions from the various pouring, pumping, skimming, cooling, and
               tapping operations within the dressing building;

        15.     The transporting, breaking, granulating, and storage of speiss and matte;

        16.     The loading, transferring, and drying of tetrahedrite ore, which is typically controlled
               with cyclones and a baghouse;

        17.     The periodic cleanout of the blast and reverbatory furnaces; and

        18.     Dust caused by wind erosion and plant  vehicular traffic, which are normally estimated
               with factors from Section 13.2 of AP-42, but are addressed herein due to the high
               lead content of the dust at primary lead smelting and refining facilities.

        Tables  12.6.1 and 12.6.2 present paniculate, PM-10, lead,  and S02 emission factors for
primary lead smelting.
12.6-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
   O
   CO

   Q
         O
O-


g    Z
U,    H
   O
   H
   U

   S
   oo
   00
   U
   P
   u
      g
      E-
      U
      <
      tu


      O
      So
      CO
      W
   ts



   2

   E-

CO

3

0
i
i
§
t:
A
(X



Process






8
o
oo
O
d
i
d


f
o
»-H
O

9
U
u
CO
•o
O
"•S
1
1



8
o

8
d
d


P

9
f>
u
u
53
%
screenin
1



s
o

0
d
(N
O
d


oo
V
o
9

JC


8
o

8
d
§
d



BO
S^\
%
60
1 o^
i ^
^ o
§9
3 g
i2
»8
.?&
CO
< <
Z Z
vo ^
o Z
o
oo
8 «
d
00
s *


6

•i
oo 2J
1 S
S i^" u
M tS U
=26 w
Mo "3,
Is ?
9  o
•° U *
53 u S
.1 52, 1
33 35



o Z
o

d
2 3S


O •"?
»-H CO
1 ^»
w 0
u ^
^r co
jl
CO co
                                                                &

                                                                4-»


                                                                §
                                                                      O

                                                                      B
                                                               U
1
                                                                         $
                                                                         O
                                                                         x
          2
          o
                                                                               1
                                                                               •g

                                                                               Q-
 o  g


 8  I
                                                             $
                                                             09

                                                             O

                                                             OA
                                                             03


                                                             >.
                                                            X)

                                                                      q5  C^4

                                                                      «  !rt
                                                                     .2  c
                                                                     -O  W
      S-S
      C T3


      If
      O —^


      vl :f
      . ^ 'o

 CO


 s

"S3
                         o



                         CO
                                                                                        S
                                                                                        o
                                                                                           O
                                                                                        *-
                                                                                  s










1/95
                                       Metallurgical Industry
                                       12.6-5

    -------
to
b\
Table 12.6-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING8

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Process
Ore crushing*1 (SCC 3-03-010-04)
Ore screening6 (SCC 3-03-010-27)
Tetrahedrite drier*
(SCC 3-03-010-28)
Sinter machine (weak gas)g
(SCC 3-03-010-29)
Sinter building fugitivesg
(SCC 3-03-010-25)
Sinter storage! (SCC 3-03-010-30)
Blast furnace* (SCC 3-03-010-02)
Speiss pitm (SCC 3-03-101-31)
Particulateb
0.0445
0.007
0.023
0.10
0.24
NA
0.43
NA
PM-10C
0.036
0.009
0.026
0.104
0.117
NA
0.863
NA
Lead
0.002
0.002
0.0006
0.019
0.032
NA
0.067
NA
SO2
NA
NA
NA
550h
NA
NA
45h
NA
c/3
i—i
O
g
00
       a  Most of the processes are controlled by baghouses; otherwise it is noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  NA = not applicable.
       b  Filterable paniculate only.
       0  Filterable and condensable participate; ^ 10 /*m mean diameter.
       d  Entire ore crushing building at one facility, including transfer points; Ib/ton of ore,  except lead, which is Ib/ton of lead in ore.
       e  Tests at one facility;  Ib/ton ore.
       f  Ib/ton dried; tests at one facility.
       g  Ib/ton sinter produced; tests at one facility.  The sinter machine is controlled by ESP and scrubbers.
       h  Uncontrolled emission factor from 1971 tests on two facilities (5,6).
       •>  Ib/ton throughput; includes charge car loading; from tests at one facility.
       k  Ib/ton of bullion, includes dross kettles; from tests at one facility.
       m Ib/ton granulated; from tests at one facility.

    -------
References For Section 12.6

1.     C. Darvin and F. Porter, Background Information For New Source Performance Standards:
       Primary Copper, Zinc, And Lead Smelters, Volume I, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

2.     A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Particulate Pollutant System Study,  Volume I: Mass Emissions,
       APTD-0743, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
       1971.

3.     A. Worcester and  D. H. Beilstein, "The State Of The Art:  Lead Recovery", Presented At
       The 10th Annual Meeting Of The Metallurgical Society, AIME, New York, NY, March
       1971.

4.     Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead, And Zinc Industries
       (Prepublication), EPA Contract No. 68-03-2537, PedCo Environmental, Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1978.

5.     T. J. Jacobs, Visit To St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead Smelter, Herculaniem, MO, Office
       Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, October 21, 1971.

6.     T. J. Jacobs, Visit To Amax Lead Company, Boss, MO, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
       Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 28,
       1971.

7.     Written communication from R. B. Paul, American Smelting And Refining Co., Glover,  MO,
       to Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Kansas City, MO,
       April  3, 1973.

8.     Emission Test No.  72-MM-14, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1972.

9.     Source Sampling Report:  Emissions From Lead Smelter At American Smelting And Refining
       Company, Glover, MO, July 1973 to July 23, 1973, EMB-73-PLD-1, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1974.

10.    Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions From Two Primary Lead Smelters, EPA-450/3-77-031, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1977.

11.    Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation (Interim Report), Contract
       No. 68-02-1343, PedCo Environmental,  Durham, NC, February  1975.

12.    R. E.  Iversen, Meeting  with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and AISI On Steel
       Facility Emission Factors, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.  S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1976.

13.    G. E. Spreight, "Best Practicable Means In The Iron And Steel Industry", The Chemical
       Engineer, London, England, 271:132-139. March 1973.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                              12.6-7

    -------
14.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.

15.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department OfThe Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

16.     Task 2 Summary Report: Revision And Verification Of Lead Inventory Source List, North
       American Weather Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT, June 1990.

17.     Task 5 Summary Report: ASARCO East Helena Primary Lead Smelter Lead Emission
       Inventory, Volume 1: Point Source Lead Emission Inventory, North American Weather
       Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT, April 1991.
12.6-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
12.7  Zinc Smelting

12.7.1 General1'2

       Zinc is found in the earth's crust primarily as zinc sulfide (ZnS).  Primary uses for zinc
include galvanizing of all forms of steel, as a constituent of brass, for electrical conductors,
vulcanization of rubber  and in primers and paints.  Most of these applications are highly dependent
upon zinc's resistance to corrosion and its light weight characteristics. In 1991, approximately
260,000 megagrams (287,000 tons) of zinc were refined at the 4 U. S. primary zinc smelters. The
annual production volume has remained  constant since the 1980s.  Three of these 4 plants, located in
Illinois, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, utilize electrolytic technology, and the 1 plant hi Pennsylvania
uses an electrothermic process.  This annual production level approximately equals production
capacity, despite a mined zinc ore recovery level of 520 megagrams (573 tons), a domestic zinc
demand of 1190 megagrams (1311 tons), and a secondary smelting production level of only
110 megagrams (121  tons). As a result, the U. S.  is a leading exporter of zinc concentrates as well
as the world's largest importer of refined zinc.

       Zinc ores typically may contain from 3 to  11 percent zinc, along with cadmium, copper, lead,
silver, and iron.  Beneficiation, or the concentration of the zinc  in the recovered ore, is accomplished
at or near the mine by crushing, grinding, and  flotation process. Once concentrated, the zinc ore is
transferred to smelters for the production of zinc or zinc oxide.  The primary  product of most zinc
companies is slab zinc,  which is produced in 5 grades:  special high grade, high grade,  intermediate,
brass special, and prime western.  The 4 U.  S. primary smelters also produce sulfuric acid as a
byproduct.

12.7.2 Process Description

       Reduction of zinc sulfide concentrates to metallic zinc is accomplished through either
electrolytic deposition from a sulfate solution or by distillation in retorts or furnaces. Both of these
methods begin  with the  elimination of most of  the sulfur in the concentrate through a roasting
process, which is described below. A generalized process diagram depicting primary zinc smelting is
presented  in Figure 12.7-1.

       Roasting is  a high-temperature process  that converts zinc sulfide concentrate to an impure zinc
oxide called calcine.  Roaster types include multiple-hearth, suspension, or fluidized bed.  The
following  reactions  occur during roasting:

                                2ZnS  + 3O2  -»  2ZnO +  SO2                            (1)

                                     2SO2 + O2 -*   2SO3                                  (2)

       In a multiple-hearth roaster, the concentrate drops through a series of  9 or more hearths
stacked inside a brick-lined cylindrical column.  As the feed concentrate drops through the furnace, it
is first dried by the hot  gases passing through the hearths  and then oxidized to produce calcine. The
reactions are slow and can  be sustained only by the addition of fuel.  Multiple hearth roasters are
unpressurized and operate at about 690°C (1300°F). Operating  time depends  upon the composition
of concentrate and the amount of the sulfur removal required.  Multiple hearth roasters have the
capability  of producing a high-purity calcine.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.7-1

    -------


1 1
! UJ !
1 5 1
i £ r
1 	 1






1 1
1 LU 1
llh
1 1
L J


Q 1

ico il
ice uji
|_i X), 	 1
L^j








































CJ
i


•^
MOLTE


O
RETORTS
1
SINTER 1
'

(5
1
Z
CO












~
8
8
ss



z
N

S

8
n

1


-03-030-03)
0
!ii























!






















j

i
c

«
I




c.
3















t
L
£
s
I
? :
s ;
c u
3 7
i $
I \




1 U
\ i

1




D
< ^
Q
CC UJ
3§
i 	
§
CO



c
U
»
>
.
J
D
3
3
^
3 a
C (0




: SULFATE
i z
1 N






|
j
1


o
Nl






















L
i
<
C

c
',
p
c
«
c

L
k
c
























U
f
s

3
|-

i QJ
1?


i i
i K~
i i
L J





1 1
i r-
i i
i i




bi
S 1 	
Q 1
9 '
L CO
! i


iz
S'g

D
j
L


1?


P
^
J









UJ
CO fc
> «u|
1 |g
9 g ||
0 < I§

L? S DO
co O coo

< ,.

co ° ^

— CC O
S DO
NI a. <
UJ
i—
JI
g
5 ft
< UJ UJ CC nj
o z o uj 3
i ° g S o S
£ CO ° ^ 2 5
51 S z 5 ^ S
co 13 F3 i- o co

i 	 i






                                                                                             s/5


                                                                                             ^



                                                                                             a>
                                                                                             Ui


                                                                                             o.


                                                                                             c
                                                                                            T3
                                                                                             O

                                                                                            CJ



                                                                                            .
                                                                                            0

                                                                                             8
                                                                                             o
                                                                                            GO
                                                                                            13
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             co



                                                                                            *C
                                                                                             c,

                                                                                             u.

                                                                                            ,O
                                                                                            S3
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            "8
                                                                                            N
                                                                                            g

                                                                                            O
                                                                                            3
                                                                                            &0
12.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
        In a suspension roaster, the concentrates are blown into a combustion chamber very similar to
that of a pulverized coal furnace. The roaster consists of a refractory-lined cylindrical steel shell,
with a large combustion space at the top and 2 to 4 hearths in the lower portion, similar to those of a
multiple hearth furnace.  Additional grinding,  beyond that required for a multiple hearth furnace, is
normally required to ensure that heat transfer to the material  is sufficiently rapid for the
desulfurization and oxidation reactions to occur in the furnace chamber.  Suspension roasters are
unpressurized and operate at about 980°C (1800°F).

        In a fluidized-bed roaster, finely ground sulfide concentrates are suspended and oxidized in a
feedstock bed supported on an air column.  As in the suspension roaster, the reaction rates for
desulfurization are more rapid than in the older multiple-hearth processes.  Fluidized-bed roasters
operate under a pressure slightly lower than atmospheric and at temperatures averaging 1000°C
(1800°F). In the fluidized-bed process, no additional fuel is required after ignition has been
achieved.  The major advantages of this roaster are greater throughput capacities and greater sulfur
removal capabilities.

        Electrolytic processing of desulfurized calcine consists of 3 basic steps, leaching, purification,
and electrolysis.  Leaching occurs in an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid, yielding a zinc sulfate
solution as shown in Equation 3 below.

                                    ZnO +  SO3  -»  ZnSO4                                   (3)

In double leaching, the calcine is first leached  in a neutral or slightly alkaline solution, then hi an
acidic solution, with  the liquid passing countercurrent to the flow of calcine.  In the neutral leaching
solution, sulfates from the calcine dissolve, but only a portion of the zinc oxide enters into solution.
The acidic leaching solution dissolves the remainder of the zinc oxide, along with metallic impurities
such as arsenic, antimony, cobalt, germanium, nickel, and thallium. Insoluble zinc ferrite, formed
during concentrate roasting by the reaction of iron with zinc, remains in the leach residue, along with
lead and silver. Lead and silver typically are shipped to a lead smelter for recovery, while the zinc is
extracted from the zinc ferrite to increase recovery efficiency.

        In the purification process, a number of various reagents are added to the zinc-laden
electrolyte in a sequence of steps designed to precipitate the metallic impurities,  which otherwise will
interfere with deposition of zinc.  After purification, concentrations of these impurities are limited to
lest  than 0.05 milligram per liter (4 x 10~7  pounds per gallon). Purification is usually conducted  in
large agitated tanks.  The process takes place at temperatures ranging from 40 to 85°C (104 to
185°F), and pressures ranging from atmospheric to 240 kilopascals (kPa) (2.4 atmospheres).

        In electrolysis, metallic zinc is recovered from the purified solution by passing current
through an electrolyte solution, causing zinc to deposit on an aluminum cathode.  As the electrolyte is
slowly circulated through the cells, water in the electrolyte dissociates, releasing oxygen gas at the
anode.  Zinc metal is deposited at the cathode  and sulfuric acid is regenerated for recycle to the leach
process.  The sulfuric acid acts as a catalyst in the process ^s a whole.

       Electrolytic zinc smelters contain as many as several hundred cells.  A portion of the
electrical energy is converted into heat, which  increases the temperature of the electrolyte.
Electrolytic cells  operate at temperature ranges from 30 to 35°C (86 to 95°F) and at atmospheric
pressure.  A portion of the electrolyte is continuously circulated through the cooling towers both to
cool and concentrate  the electrolyte through evaporation of water.  The cooled and concentrated
electrolyte is then recycled to the cells.  Every 24 to 48 hours, each cell is  shut down, the  zinc-coated
cathodes are removed and rinsed, and the zinc  is mechanically stripped from the aluminum plates.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                 12.7-3

    -------
        The electrothermic distillation retort process, as it exists at 1 U. S. plant, was developed by
the St. Joe Minerals Corporation in 1930.  The principal advantage of this pyrometallurgical
technique over electrolytic processes is its ability to accommodate a wide variety of zinc-bearing
materials, including secondary items such as calcine derived from electric arc furnace (EAF) dust.
Electrothennic processing of desulfurized calcine begins with a downdraft sintering operation, in
which grate pallets are joined to form a continuous conveyor system.  The suiter feed is essentially a
mixture of roaster calcine and EAF calcine.  Combustion air is drawn down through the conveyor,
and impurities such as lead, cadmium, and halides hi the suiter feed are driven off and collected in a
bag filter.  The product sinter typically includes 48 percent zinc,  8 percent iron, 5 percent aluminum,
4 percent silicon, 2.5 percent calcium, and smaller quantities of magnesium, lead,  and other metals.

        Electric retorting with its greater thermal efficiency than externally heated furnaces, is the
only pyrometallurgical technique utilized by the U. S. primary zinc industry, now and in the future.
Product suiter and, possibly, secondary zinc materials are charged with coke to an electric retort
furnace. The charge moves downward from a rotary feeder in the furnace top into a refractory-lined
vertical cylinder.  Paired graphite electrodes protrude from the top and bottom of this cylinder,
producing a current flow.  The coke serves  to provide electrical resistance, producing heat and
generating the carbon monoxide required for the reduction process. Temperatures of 1400°C
(2600 °F) are attained, immediately vaporizing zinc oxides according to the following reaction:

                              ZnO + CO  -*  Zn (vapor)  +  CO2                            (4)

The zinc vapor and carbon dioxide pass to a vacuum condenser, where zinc is recovered by bubbling
through a molten zinc bath.  Over 95 percent of the zinc vapor  leaving the retort is condensed to
liquid zinc.  The carbon dioxide is regenerated with carbon, and the carbon monoxide is recycled
back to the retort furnace.

12.7.3  Emissions And Controls

        Each of the 2 smelting processes generates emissions along the various process steps.  The
roasting process in a zinc smelter is typically responsible for more than 90 percent of the potential
SO2 emissions.  About 93 to 97 percent of the sulfur in the feed is emitted as sulfur oxides.
Concentrations of SO2 in the offgas vary with the type of roaster  operation.  Typical SO2
concentrations for multiple hearth,  suspension, and fluidized bed roasters are 4.5 to 6.5 percent,  10 to
13 percent, and 7 to 12 percent, respectively. Sulfur dioxide emissions from the roasting processes at
all 4 U. S. primary zinc processing facilities are recovered at on-site sulfuric acid plants.  Much of
the paniculate matter emitted  from primary  zinc processing facilities is also attributable to the
concentrate roasters.  The amount and composition of paniculate varies with operating parameters,
such as air flow rate and equipment configuration. Various combinations  of control devices such as
cyclones, electrostatic precipitators (ESP), and baghouses can be used on roasters and on sintering
machines, achieving 94 to 99 percent emission reduction.

        Controlled and uncontrolled paniculate emission factors for points within a zinc smelting
facility are presented in Tables 12.7-1 and 12.7-2. Fugitive emission factors are presented hi
Tables 12.7-3 and 12.7^. These emission factors should be  applied carefully.  Emission  factors for
sintering operations are derived from data from  a single facility no longer operating.  Others are
estimated based on similar operations in the steel, lead, and copper industries. Testing on
1 electrothermic primary zinc smelting facility indicates that cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
nickel, and zinc are contained in the offgases from both the sintering machine and the retort furnaces.
12.7-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   Table 12.7-1 (Metric Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ZINC SMELTING4
Process
Roasting
Multiple hearthb (SCC 3-03-030-02)
Suspension0 (SCC 3-03-030-07)
Fluidized bedd (SCC 3-03-030-08)
Sinter plant (SCC 3-03-030-03)
Uncontrolled6
With cyclonef
With cyclone and ESPf
Vertical retort8 (SCC 3-03-030-05)
Electric retorth (SCC 3-03-030-29)
Electrolytic process* (SCC 3-03-030-
06)
Uncontrolled

113
1000
1083

62.5
NA
NA
7.15
10.0
3.3

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
E
E

E
NA
NA
D
E
E

Controlled

ND
4
ND

NA
24.1
8.25
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA

NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA

a Factors are for kg/Mg of zinc ore processed. SCC  = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = Electrostatic precipitator. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b References 5-7.  Averaged from an estimated 10% of feed released as particulate, zinc production
  rate at 60% of roaster feed rate, and other estimates.
c References 5-7.  Based on an average 60% of feed released as particulate emission and a zinc
  production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate.  Controlled emissions based on 20% dropout hi waste
  heat boiler and 99.5% dropout hi cyclone and ESP.
d References 5,13.  Based  on an average 65% of feed released as particulate  emissions and a zinc
  production rate of 60% of roaster feed rate.
e Reference 5.  Based on unspecified  industrial source data.
f Reference 8.  Data not necessarily compatible with uncontrolled emissions.
g Reference 8.
h Reference 14.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
J  Reference 10.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.7-5

    -------
  Table 12.7-2 (English Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ZINC SMELTING8
Process
Roasting
Multiple hearthb (SCC 3-03-030-02)
Suspension0 (SCC 3-03-030-07)
Fluidized beda (SCC 3-03-030-08)
Sinter plant (SCC 3-03-030-03)
Uncontrolled6
With cyclonef
With cyclone and ESPf
Vertical retort (SCC 3-03-030-05)
Electric retort11 (SCC 3-03-030-29)
Electrolytic process5 (SCC 3-03-030-
06)
Uncontrolled

227
2000
2167

125
NA
NA
14.3
20.0
6.6

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

E
E
E

E
NA
NA
D
E
E

Controlled

ND
8
ND

NA
48.2
16.5
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA

NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA

a Factors are for Ib/ton of zinc ore processed. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ESP = Electrostatic precipitator. ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b References 5-7.  Averaged from an estimated 10% of feed released as paniculate, zinc production
  rate at 60% of roaster feed rate, and other estimates.
c References 5-7.  Based on an average 60%  of feed released as paniculate emission and a zinc
  production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate.  Controlled emissions based  on 20% dropout hi waste
  heat boiler and 99.5% dropout hi cyclone and ESP.
d References 5,13.  Based on an average 65% of feed released as paniculate  emissions and  a zinc
  production rate of 60% of roaster feed rate.
e Reference 5.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
f Reference 8.  Data not necessarily compatible with uncontrolled emissions.
g Reference 8.
h Reference 14.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
•>  Reference 10.
 12.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
    Table 12.7-3 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
                         FACTORS FOR SLAB ZINC SMELTING4
Process
Roasting (SCC 3-03-030-24)
Sinter plantb
Wind box (SCC 3-03-030-25)
Discharge screens (SCC 3-03-030-26)
Retort building0 (SCC 3-03-030-27)
Castingd (SCC 3-03-030-28)
Emissions
Negligible
0.12-0.55
0.28- 1.22
1.0-2.0
1.26
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
E
E
E
E
a Reference 9. Factors are in kg/Mg of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  NA  = not applicable.
b From steel industry operations for which there are emission factors. Based on quantity of sinter
  produced.
c From lead industry operations.
d From copper industry operations.
    Table 12.7-4 (English Units). UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
                         FACTORS FOR SLAB ZINC SMELTING3
Process
Roasting (SCC 3-03-030-24)
Sinter plantb
Wind box (SCC 3-03-030-25)
Discharge screens (SCC 3-03-030-26)
Retort building0 (SCC 3-03-030-27)
Castingd (SCC 3-03-030-28)
Emissions
Negligible
0.24- 1.10
0.56 - 2.44
2.0-4.0
2.52
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
E
E
E
E
a Reference 9. Factors are in Ib/ton of product.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  NA = not applicable.
b From steel industry operations for which there are emission factors. Based on quantity of sinter
  produced.
c From lead industry operations.
d From copper industry operations.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.7-7

    -------
References For Section 12.7

 1.     J. H. Jolly, "Zinc", Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department OfThe Interior,
       Bureau of Mines.

 2.     J. H. Jolly, "Zinc", Minerals Yearbook 1989, U. S. Department OfThe Interior, Washington,
       DC, 1990.

 3.     R. L. Williams, "The Monaca Electrothermic Smelter—The Old Becomes The New", Lead-
       Zinc '90, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.

 4.     Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead And Zinc Industries,
       EPA-600/2-82-066, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, October 1978.

 5.     Paniculate Pollutant System Study, Volume I:  Mass Emissions, APTD-0743,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.

 6.     G. Sallee, Personal Communication, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO.  June
       1970.

 7.     Systems Study For Control Of Emissions In The Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry,
       Volume I, APTD-1280, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, June 1969.

 8.     R. B. Jacko and D. W. Nevendorf, "Trace Metal Emission Test Results From A Number Of
       Industrial And Municipal Point Sources", Journal OfThe Air Pollution Control Association,
       27(10):989-994.  October 1977.

 9.     Technical Guidance For Control  Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA-450/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.

10.     Background Information For New Source Performance Standards:  Primary Copper, Zinc And
       Lead Smelters, Volume I:  Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-002a, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1974.

11.     Written communication from J. D. Reese, Zinc Corporation Of America, Monaca, PA, to
       C. M. Campbell, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 18, 1992.

12.     Emission Study Performed For Zinc Corporation Of America At The Monaca Facilities,
       May 13-30, 1991, EMC Analytical, Inc., Gilberts,  IL, April 27, 1992.

13.     Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley  and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1967.

14.     Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use, Chapter 28 Primary Zinc Industry,
       EPA-600/2-80-169, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, July 1980.
12.7-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
12.8  Secondary Aluminum Operations

12.8.1  General1

        Secondary aluminum producers recycle aluminum from aluminum-containing scrap, while
primary aluminum producers convert bauxite ore into aluminum.  The secondary aluminum industry
was responsible for 27.5 percent of domestic aluminum produced  in 1989. There are approximately
116 plants with a recovery capacity of approximately 2.4 million megagrams (2.6 million tons) of
aluminum per year.  Actual total secondary aluminum production  was relatively constant during the
1980s.  However, increased demand for aluminum by the automobile industry has doubled in the last
10 years to an average of 78.5 kilograms (173 pounds) per car. Recycling of used aluminum
beverage cans (UBC) increased more than 26 percent from 1986 to 1989. In 1989, 1.3 million
megagrams (1.4 million tons) of UBCs were recycled, representing over 60 percent of cans shipped.
Recycling a ton of aluminum requires only 5 percent of the energy required to refine a ton of primary
aluminum from bauxite ore, making the secondary aluminum economically viable.

12.8.2  Process Description

        Secondary aluminum production involves 2 general categories of operations, scrap
pretreatment and smelting/refining.  Pretreatment operations include sorting, processing, and cleaning
scrap.  Smelting/refining operations  include  cleaning, melting,  refining, alloying, and pouring of
aluminum recovered from scrap. The  processes used to convert scrap aluminum to products such as
lightweight aluminum alloys for industrial castings are presented in Figure 12.8-1A and
Figure  12.8-1B. Some or all the steps in these figures may be involved at any one facility.  Some
steps  may be combined or reordered, depending on scrap quality,  source of scrap, auxiliary
equipment available, furnace design, and product specifications. Plant configuration, scrap type
usage, and product output varies throughout the secondary aluminum industry.

12.8.2.1 Scrap Pretreatment-
        Aluminum scrap comes from a variety of sources.  "New" scrap is generated by pre-
consumer sources, such as drilling and machining of aluminum castings, scrap from aluminum
fabrication and manufacturing operations, and aluminum bearing residual  material (dross) skimmed
off molten aluminum during smelting operations. "Old" aluminum scrap  is  material that has been
used by the consumer and discarded. Examples of old scrap include used appliances, aluminum foil,
automobile and airplane parts,  aluminum siding, and beverage  cans.

        Scrap pretreatment involves sorting and processing scrap to remove  contaminants  and to
prepare the material for smelting.  Sorting and processing separates the aluminum from other metals,
dirt, oil, plastics, and  paint.  Pretreatment cleaning processes are based  on mechanical,
pyrometallurgical, and hydrometallurgical techniques.

12.8.2.1.1  Mechanical Cleaning -
        Mechanical cleaning includes the physical separation of aluminum from other scrap, with
hammer mills, ring rushers, and other  machines to break scrap containing aluminum into  smaller
pieces.  This improves the efficiency of downstream recovery by magnetic removal of iron. Other
recovery processes include vibratory screens and air classifiers.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.8-1

    -------
                         r
                                          PRETREATMENT
                                               A
                                             FUEL
   Figure 12.8-1A.  Typical process diagram for secondary aluminum processing industry.
                      (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                           PRODUCT
                                       inrjr
                                            -CHLORINE
                                            -FLUX
                                            -FUEL
                               REVERBERATORY
                                  (CHLORINE)
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                  (SCO 3-04-001-04)
                                             FLUORINE
                                            -FLUX
                                           —FUEL
                                       TTT	
      TREATED
      ALUMINUM
        SCRAP
                               REVERBERATORY
                                  (FLUORINE)
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                  (SCO 3-04-001-05)
                                             FLUX
                                           r-FUEL
                             	TT	

                                   CRUCIBLE
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                   (SCC 3-04-001-02)
                                  INDUCTION
                             SMELTING/REFINING
                                          — ELECTRICITY
   Figure 12.8-1B.  Typical process diagram for secondary aluminum processing industry.
                       (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-3

    -------
       An example of mechanical cleaning is the dry milling process. Cold aluminum-laden dross
and other residues are processed by milling and screening to obtain a product containing at least 60 to
70 percent aluminum.  Ball, rod, or hammer mills can be used to reduce oxides and nonmetallic
particles  to fine powders for ease of removal during screening.

12.8.2.1.2  Pyrometallurgical Cleaning -
       Pyrometallurgical techniques (called drying in the industry) use heat to separate aluminum
from contaminates and other metals.  Pyrometallurgical techniques include roasting and sweating.
The roasting process involves heating aluminum scrap that contains organic contaminates  in rotary
dryers to temperatures high enough to vaporize or carbonize organic contaminates, but not high
enough to melt aluminum (660°C [1220°F]).  An example of roasting is the APROS delacquering and
preheating process used during the processing of used beverage cans (shown in Figure 12.8-2). The
sweating process involves heating aluminum scrap containing other metals in a sweat furnace to
temperatures above the melting temperature of aluminum, but below that of the other metal.  For
example, sweating recovers aluminum from high-iron-content scrap by heating the scrap in an open
flame reverberatory furnace.  The temperature is raised and maintained above the melting temperature
of aluminum, but below the melting temperature of iron.  This condition causes aluminum and other
low melting constituents to melt  and trickle down the sloped hearth, through a grate and into air-
cooled molds or collecting pots.  This product is called  "sweated pig". The higher-melting materials,
including iron, brass, and the oxidation products formed during the sweating process, are periodically
removed  from the furnace.

       In addition to roasting and  sweating, a catalytic  technique may also be used to clean aluminum
dross.  Dross is a layer of impurities and semisolid flux that has been skimmed  from the surface of
molten aluminum. Aluminum may be recovered from dross by batch fluxing with a salt/cryolite
mixture in a mechanically rotated,  refractory-lined barrel furnace.  Cryolite acts as a catalyst that
decreases aluminum surface tension and therefore increases recovery rates. Aluminum is  tapped
periodically through a hole in the base of the furnace.

12.8.2.1.3  Hydrometallurgical Cleaning -
       Hydrometallurgical techniques use water to clean and process aluminum scrap.
Hydrometallurgical techniques include leaching and heavy media separation.  Leaching is  used to
recover aluminum from dross, furnace skimmings, and  slag. It requires wet milling, screening,
drying, and finally magnetic separation to remove fluxing salts  and other waste products from the
aluminum.  First, raw material is fed into a long rotating drum or a wet-ball mill  where water soluble
contaminants are rinsed  into  waste water and removed Opened).  The remaining washed material is
then screened to remove fines and undissolved salts.  The screened material is then dried and passed
through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous materials.

       The heavy media separation hydrometallurgical  process separates high density metal from low
density metal using a viscous medium, such as copper and iron, from aluminum.  Heavy media
separation has been used to concentrate aluminum recovered from shredded cars.  The cars are
shredded after large aluminum components have been removed (shredded material contains
approximately 30 percent aluminum) and processed in heavy media to further concentrate
aluminum to 80 percent or more.

12.8.2.2  Smelting/Refining  -
       After scrap pretreatment, smelting and refining  is performed.  Smelting and  refining  in
secondary aluminum recovery takes place primarily in reverberatory furnaces. These furnaces are
brick-lined and constructed with  a curved roof.  The term reverberatory is used because heat rising
12.8-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
      Scrap
      Aluminum
      Inlet
                   Dust   Collector
                             Reverberatory.
                                  Furnace
                      Exhaust
       Heated,  Recycle  Gas
                                  Combustor
                                                   Fuel
                                                                       Hot   Gas
                                                                     Recycle   Fan
                 Figure 12.8-2. APROS delacquering and preheating process.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-5

    -------
from ignited fuel is reflected (reverberated) back down from the curved furnace roof and into the
melted charge.  A  typical reverberatory furnace has an enclosed melt area where the flame heat
source operates directly above the molten aluminum.  The furnace charging well is connected to the
melt area by channels through which molten aluminum is pumped from the melt area into the
charging well.  Aluminum flows back into the melt section of the furnace under gravity.

       Most secondary aluminum recovery facilities use batch processing in smelting and refining
operations. It is common for 1 large melting  reverberatory furnace to support the flow requirements
for 2 or more smaller holding furnaces.  The melting furnace is used to melt the scrap, and remove
impurities and entrained gases.  The molten aluminum is then pumped into a holding furnace.
Holding furnaces are better suited for final alloying, and for making any additional adjustments
necessary to ensure that the aluminum meets product specifications. Pouring takes place from holding
furnaces, either into molds or as feedstock for continuous casters.

       Smelting and refining operations can involve the following steps:  charging, melting, fluxing,
demagging, degassing, alloying, skimming, and pouring. Charging consists of placing pretreated
aluminum scrap into a melted aluminum pool  (heel) that is  maintained in  melting furnaces.  The
scrap, mixed  with  flux material, is normally placed into the furnace charging well, where heat from
the molten aluminum surrounding the scrap causes it to melt by conduction.  Flux materials combine
with contaminates  and float to the surface of the aluminum, trapping impurities and providing a
barrier (up to 6 inches thick) that reduces oxidation of the melted aluminum.  To minimize aluminum
oxidation (melt loss), mechanical methods are used to submerge scrap into the heel as quickly as
possible. Scrap may be charged as high density bales, loosely packed bales, or as dry shredded scrap
that is continuously fed  from a conveyor and into the vortex section of the charging well. The
continuous feed system is advantageous when  processing uniform scrap directly from a drier (such as
a delacquering operation for UBCs).

       Demagging reduces the magnesium content of the molten charge from approximately
0.5 percent to about 0.1 percent (a typical product specification).  In the past, when demagging with
liquid chlorine, chlorine was injected under pressure to react with magnesium as  the chlorine bubbled
to the surface.  The pressurized chlorine was released through carbon lances directed under the heel
surface, resulting in high chlorine emissions.

       A more recent chlorine aluminum demagging process has replaced the carbon lance
procedure.  Molten aluminum in the furnace charging well gives up thermal energy to the scrap as
scrap is melted.  In order to maintain high melt rates in the charging well, a circulation pump moves
high temperature molten aluminum from the melt section of the reverberatory furnace to the charging
well.  Chlorine gas is metered into the circulation pump's discharge pipe.  By inserting chlorine gas
into the turbulent flow of the molten aluminum at an angle to the aluminum pump discharge, small
chlorine-filled gas  bubbles are sheared off and mixed rapidly in  the turbulent flow found in the
pump's discharge pipe.  In actual practice, the flow rate of chlorine gas is increased until a slight
vapor (aluminum chloride) can be seen above  the surface of the molten aluminum.  Then the flow rate
is decreased until no more vapor is seen.  It is reported that chlorine usage approaches the
stoichiometric relationship using this process.  Chlorine emissions resulting from this procedure have
not been made available, but it is anticipated that reductions of chlorine emissions (in the form of
chloride compounds) will be reported in the future.

       Other chlorinating agents or fluxes, such as anhydrous aluminum  chloride or chlorinated
organics, are used  in demagging operations.  Demagging with fluorine is  similar to demagging with
chlorine, except that aluminum fluoride (A1F3) is employed instead of chlorine. The A1F3 reacts with
12.8-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
magnesium to produce molten metallic aluminum and solid magnesium fluoride salt that floats to the
surface of the molten aluminum and is trapped in the flux layer.

        Degassing is a process used to remove gases entrained in molten aluminum.  High-pressure
inert gases are released below the molten surface to violently agitate the melt.  This agitation causes
the entrained gasses to rise to the surface to be absorbed in the floating flux.  In some operations,
degassing is combined with the demagging operation. A combination demagging and degassing
process has been developed that uses  a 10 percent concentration of chlorine gas mixed with a
nonreactive gas (either nitrogen or argon).  The combined high-pressure gases are forced through a
hand held nozzle that has a designed distribution pattern of hole sizes across the face of the nozzle.
The resulting high turbulent flow and the diluted chlorine content primarily degasses the melt.
Chlorine emissions resulting from this process are not available.

        Alloying combines aluminum with  an alloying agent in order to change its strength and
ductility.  Alloying agents include zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, and silicon.  The alloying
steps include an analysis of the furnace charge, addition of the required alloying agents, and then a
reanalysis of the charge.  This iterative process continues until the correct  alloy is reached.

        The skimming operation physically removes  contaminated semisolid fluxes (dross, slag, or
skimmings) by ladling them from the surface of the melt. Skimming is normally  conducted several
times during the melt cycle, particularly  if the pretreated scrap contains high levels of contamination.
Following the last skimming,  the melt is allowed to cool before pouring into molds or casting
machines.

        The crucible smelting/refining process is used to melt small batches of aluminum scrap,
generally limited to 500 kg (1,100 Ib) or less.  The metal-treating process  steps are essentially the
same as those of reverberatory furnaces.

        The induction smelting and refining process is designed to produce aluminum alloys with
increased strength and hardness by blending aluminum and hardening agents in an electric induction
furnace. The process steps include charging scrap, melting, adding and blending the hardening agent,
skimming, pouring, and casting into notched bars.  Hardening agents include manganese and silicon.

 12.8.3 Emissions And Controls2"8

        The major sources of emissions from scrap pretreatment processes are  scrap crushing and
screening operations, scrap driers, sweat furnaces, and UBC delacquering systems.  Although each
step in scrap treatment and smelting/refining is a potential source of emissions, emission factors for
scrap treatment processes  have not been sufficiently characterized and documented and are therefore
not presented below.

        Smelting and refining emission sources originate from charging, fluxing, and demagging
processes.  Tables 12.8-1  and 12.8-2 present emission factors for sweating furnaces, crucible
furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, and  chlorine demagging process.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.8-7

    -------
  on

  O
  S
  z
  3
  Q
  z
  o
  o
  OS
  O
  PU

  CO
  a;
  O
  Z
  o
  »-H
  to
  CO
  D
  O

  H
   C

  D
  oo

  5 u w


u
s Q i
- Z °





u aw





fv| O\ —_
t-~' o ts



-_ CS f»
^1 -gl e 1
II 1? Ii
« 9 « ^ g ^
MM M 3 O .g Q
•§ 0 -S -3 0 fe o
Sy -S 252 i552
£ 52 S U a!
co to




cs





a






8
in


-a -^
Chlorine demagging'
(SCC 3-04-001-04)


I
60
60
CO
1
•o
C 
CO 13
1 C
w o
Q. *g
s-5!
CJ CX5
I C
a g
60 v"
.S o
i "
•o 0
S O
CO c/3
60
1 s
» s


                                                               "8
                                                     .—     CQ
                                                          "2
                                                           CO
                                                           CO

                                                          55
                                                          5    P
                           c
                           o
                           o

                           3

                           O

                           c
                                                               'i    "8
                      I
                                                             60
                   O  C
                   en  
                  cs  Jo

                   o  §
                   S -a
                   60 V
                   w  2
                   Uc  CO
                   
o « oo
o CO —<
12.8-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   I
   u
   a-
   O
   3
   Q
   §
   g
   1/5
   00
   D
   U
   60
   U
  oo
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



t> u
li
o/a *i
O '2
11
w o«

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING



Cfl
o
•a
«
«





z ,,>
O o S
»—H V-— ' ^L
to H ft
co cj H
§ < ^
w

1
1
•g
o
c
D






o
1

Z g w ' S5


Q Q "i
z z -




Q
Z


PS $ W U


u
m- Q ^
*> Z







o



U PQ U U


«o OY co
^* *••* ^*








X™-. /*~N
—^ (N CO
dr _ o o
•* 2 S 5 o 3
So §S °>,S
II Ǥ? i?
£9 „ fern
gJ^ M 3 o £ o
•S 0 -S "3 U fe U
2^ 3 S£, ^5S
&52, s u cd
5/3 C/5






rt







Chlorine demaggingd
(SCC 3-04-001-04)

3 1
2P "P ^
.S is c
60 S 2
60 8 '"»

e 52
C3 *-v C
4> we
*O *-» ^
Q> r^ *O
c « ; -s ^
Si e" S
2 -2 ^ S
gl £ S
o ca IT)  *o £3 ^f
So S .2
| .25 Q i
^ S 'ii "§
tn (S "5 g

M «= "O U
c JS TS e
^ O 55 ^
g "g o
^ 3 2 C
"3 C/3 cs
•o ri S -o
c H - •«
CC ^^ flJ UH
too i«i "^
'•g -g S S
1 3 a2
^ Qi S? H « W5
w C *j o to
•S S 8 S ~
2 s s g> s
2 ° 5 2 e "
0 «4-t «  2 0
^ c 2 w « "
e o o c ~ o
o *= " o ^ — '
Reference 3. Emissi
emission factor is lb/
Based upon averages
Uncontrolled, based
emission factor is Q.'.
Based on average of
36 Ib/ton.
a .0 o -o
                                   3
                                  .c"
                                   0>
                                   O
                                                                            "S
                                                                            8
                                                                            E
                                                                            o
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-9

    -------
 12.8.3.1 Scrap Pretreatment Emissions -
        Mechanical cleaning techniques involve crushing, shredding, and screening and produce
 metallic and nonmetallic particulates. Burning and drying operations (pyrometallurgic techniques)
 emit particulates and organic vapors. Afterburners are frequently used to convert unburned VOCs to
 carbon dioxide and water vapor.  Other gases that may be present, depending on the composition of
 the contaminants, include chlorides,  fluorides, and sulfur oxides.  Specific emission factors for these
 gases are not presented due to lack of data.  Oxidized aluminum fines blown out of the dryer by  the
 combustion gases contain paniculate emissions.  Wet scrubbers or fabric filters are sometimes used in
 conjunction with afterburners.

        Mechanically generated dust from rotating barrel dross furnaces constitutes the main air
 emission of hot dross processing.  Some fumes are produced from the fluxing reactions.  Fugitive
 emissions are controlled by enclosing the barrel furnace in a hood system and by ducting the
 emissions to a fabric filter.  Furnace offgas emissions, mainly fluxing salt fume, are often controlled
 by a venturi scrubber.

       Emissions from sweating furnaces vary with  the feed scrap composition. Smoke may result
 from incomplete combustion of organic contaminants (e. g., rubber, oil and grease, plastics, paint,
 cardboard, paper) that may be present.  Fumes can result from the oxidation of magnesium and zinc
 contaminants and from fluxes in recovered dross and skims.

       In dry milling, large amounts of dust are generated from the crushing,  milling,  screening, air
 classification, and materials transfer  steps.  Leaching operations (hydrometallurgic techniques) may
produce paniculate emissions during drying.  Paniculate emissions from roasting result from the
 charring of carbonaceous materials (ash).

 12.8.3.2 Smelting/Refining Emissions -
       Emissions from reverberatory furnaces represent a significant fraction of the total paniculate
and gaseous  effluent generated in the secondary aluminum industry.   Emissions from the charging
well consist of organic and inorganic paniculate, unburned organic vapors, and carbon dioxide.
Emissions from furnace burners contain carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfuric oxide, and
nitrogen oxide.  Furnace burner emissions are usually separated from process emissions.

       Emissions that result from fluxing operations are dependent upon both the type  of fluxing
agents and the amount required, which are a function of scrap quality.  Emissions may  include
common fluxing salts such as sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and cryolite. Aluminum and
magnesium chloride also may be generated from the  fluxing materials being added to the melt.
Studies have suggested that fluxing paniculate emission are typically less than 1 micrometer in
diameter. Specific emission factors for these compounds are not presented due to lack of information.

       In the past, demagging represented the most severe source of emissions for the secondary
 aluminum industry.  A more recent process change where chlorine gas is mixed into molten
aluminum from the furnace circulation pump discharge may reduce chlorine emissions.   However,
total chlorine emissions are directly related to the amount of demagging effort and product
specifications (the magnesium content in the scrap and the required magnesium reduction). Also, as
the magnesium percentage decreases during demagging, a disproportional increase in emissions results
due to the decreased efficiency of the scavenging process.

       Both the chlorine and aluminum fluoride demagging processes create highly corrosive
emissions.  Chlorine demagging results in the formation of magnesium chloride that contributes to
fumes leaving the dross.  Excess chloride combines with aluminum to form aluminum chloride, a

 12.8-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
vapor at furnace temperatures, but one that condenses into submicrometer fumes as it cools.
Aluminum chloride has an extremely high affinity for water (hygroscopic) and combines with water
vapor to form hydrochloric acid.  Aluminum chloride and hydrochloric acid are irritants and
corrosive.  Free chlorine that does not form compounds may also escape from the furnace and
become an emission.

        Aluminum fluoride (A1F3) demagging results in the formation of magnesium fluoride as a
byproduct. Excess fluorine combines with hydrogen to form hydrogen fluoride.  The principal
emissions resulting from aluminum fluoride demagging is a highly corrosive fume containing
aluminum fluoride, magnesium fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride. The use of A1F3 rather than
chlorine in the demagging step reduces demagging emissions. Fluorides  are emitted as gaseous
fluorides (hydrogen fluoride, aluminum and magnesium fluoride vapors, and silicon tetrafluoride) or
as dusts.  Venturi scrubbers are usually used for gaseous fluoride emission control.

        Tables 12.8-3 and 12.8-4 present particle size distributions and corresponding emission factors
for uncontrolled chlorine demagging and metal refining in secondary aluminum reverberatory
furnaces.

        According to  the VOC/PM Speciate Data Base Management System (SPECIATE) data base,
the following hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) have been found in emissions from reverberatory
furnaces:  chlorine, and compounds of manganese, nickel, lead, and chromium.  In addition to the
HAPs listed for reverberatory furnaces, general secondary aluminum plant emissions have been found
to include HAPs such as antimony, cobalt, selenium, cadmium, and arsenic, but specific emission
factors for these HAPs are not presented due to lack of information.

        In summary,  typical furnace effluent gases contain combustion products, chlorine,  hydrogen
chloride and metal chlorides of zinc, magnesium and aluminum, aluminum oxide and various metals
and metal compounds, depending on the quality of scrap charged.
      Table 12.8-3 (Metric Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
       EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED REVERBERATORY FURNACES IN
                         SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS4

Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Particle Size
Distribution5

Chlorine
Demagging
19.8
36.9
53.2

Refining
50.0
53.4
60.0
Size-Specific Emission Factor0 (kg/Mg)

Chlorine
Demagging
99.5
184.5
266.0
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E

Refining
1.08
1.15
1.30
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
a References 4-5.
b Cumulative weight percent is less than the aerodynamic particle diameter,
c Size-specific emission factor equals total paniculate emission factor multiplied by particle size
  distribution (percent)/100. From Table 12.8-1, total paniculate emission factor for chloride
  demagging is 500 kg/Mg chlorine used, and for refining, 2.15 kg/Mg aluminum processed.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.8-11

    -------
     Table 12.8-4 (English Units).  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE-SPECIFIC
      EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED REVERBERATORY FURNACES IN
                        SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS*
Aerodynamic Particle
Diameter (jim)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Particle size
Distribution13
Chlorine
Demagging
19.8
36.9
53.2
Refining
50.0
53.4
60.0
Size-Specific Emission Factor0 (Ib/ton)
Chlorine
Demagging
199
369
532
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
Refining
2.16
2.3
2.6
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
a References 4-5.
b Cumulative weight percent is less than the aerodynamic particle diameter, urn.
c Size-specific emission factor equals total paniculate emission factor multiplied by particle size
  distribution (percent)/100. From Table 12.8-2, total paniculate emission factor for chloride
  demagging is 1000 Ib/ton chlorine used, and for refining, 4.3 Ib/ton aluminum processed.
References For Section 12.8

1.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau of Mines.

2.     W. M.  Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary Nonferrous
       Metal Industry, Draft Final Report, 2 vols., EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian
       Corporation, Austin, TX, June 1976.

3.     W. F. Hammond and S. M. Weiss, Unpublished Report On Air Contaminant Emissions From
       Metallurgical Operations In Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
       District, July 1964.

4.     Emission Test Data From Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information System (EPEIS), Series Report No. 231, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

5.     Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op.cit., Series Report No. 331.

6.     Danielson, John., "Secondary Aluminum-Melting Processes".  Air Pollution Engineering
       Manual, 2nd Ed., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Report Number
       AP-40, May 1973.

7.     Secondary Aluminum Reverberatory Furnace, Speciation Data Base. U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, Profile Number 20101, 1989.

8.     Secondary Aluminum Plant—General, Speciation Data Base.  U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, Profile Number 90009, 1989.
12.8-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
12.9 Secondary Copper Smelting

12.9.1  General1'2

        As of 1992, more than 40 percent of the U. S. supply of copper is derived from secondary
sources, including such items as machine shop punchings, turnings, and borings; manufacturing
facility defective or surplus goods; automobile radiators, pipes,  wires, bushings, and bearings; and
metallurgical process skimmings and dross.  This secondary copper can be refined into relatively pure
metallic copper, alloyed with zinc or tin to form brass or bronze, incorporated into chemical
products, or used in a number of smaller applications. Six secondary copper smelters are in operation
in the U. S.:  3 in Illinois and 1 each in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. A large number
of mills and foundries reclaim relatively pure copper scrap for alloying purposes.

12.9.2  Process Description2'3

        Secondary copper recovery is divided into 4 separate operations:  scrap pretreatment,
smelting, alloying, and casting.   Pretreatment includes the cleaning and consolidation of scrap in
preparation for smelting.  Smelting consists of heating and treating the scrap for separation and
purification of specific metals.  Alloying involves the addition of 1 or more other  metals to copper to
obtain desirable qualities characteristic of the combination of metals. The major secondary copper
smelting operations are shown in Figure 12.9-1;  brass and bronze alloying operations are shown in
Figure  12.9-2.

12.9.2.1  Pretreatment-
        Scrap pretreatment may be achieved through manual, mechanical, pyrometallurgical,  or
hydrometallurgical methods.  Manual and mechanical  methods include sorting, stripping, shredding,
and  magnetic  separation.  The scrap may then be compressed into bricquettes in a hydraulic press.
Pyrometallurgical pretreatment may include sweating (the separation of different metals by slowly
staging furnace air temperatures to liquify each metal separately),  burning insulation from copper
wire, and drying in rotary kilns to volatilize  oil and other organic compounds.  Hydrometallurgical
pretreatment methods include flotation and leaching to recover copper from slag.   Flotation is
typically used when slag contains greater than 10 percent copper.  The slag is slowly cooled such that
large, relatively pure crystals are formed and recovered.  The remaining slag is cooled, ground, and
combined with water and chemicals that facilitate flotation. Compressed air and the flotation
chemicals separate the ground slag into various fractions of minerals.  Additives cause the copper to
float in a foam of air bubbles for subsequent removal, dewatering, and concentration.

        Leaching is used to  recover copper from  slime, a byproduct of electrolytic refining.   In this
process, sulfuric acid is circulated through the slime in a pressure filter.  Copper dissolves in the acid
to form a solution of copper sulfate (CuSO4), which can then be either mixed with the electrolyte in
the refinery cells or sold as  a product.

12.9.2.2  Smelting -
        Smelting of low-grade copper scrap begins with melting in either a blast or a rotary furnace,
resulting in slag and impure copper.  If a blast furnace is used, this copper is charged to a converter,
where the purity is increased to  about 80 to 90 percent, and then to a reverberatory furnace, where
copper of about 99 percent purity is achieved.  In these fire-refining furnaces, flux is added to the
copper and air is blown upward  through the mixture to oxidize impurities. These  impurities  are then


1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                                12.9-1

    -------
    ENTERING  THE  SYSTEM
                                   LEAVING  THE  SYSTEM
     LOW  GRADE  SCRAP.
      (SLA6, SKIMMINGS.
DROSS,  CHIPS. BORINGS)

                   FUEL

                    AIR
                   FLUX

                   FUEL

                    AIR
    PYROMETALLURGICAL
       PRETREATMENT
         (DRYING)
       (SCC 3-04-002-07)
                                      TREATED
                                      SCRAP
          CUPOLA
       (SCC 3-04-002-10)
                   FLUX

                   FUEL
                   FLUX

                   FUEL

                    AIR
                                      BLACK
                                      COPPER
GASES. DUST. METAL OXIDES
TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                     CARBON MONOXIDE. PARTICULATE DUST.
                                     METAL OXIDES. TO AFTERBURNER AND
                                     PARTICULATE  CONTROL
                                                                   -»• SLAG TO DISPOSAL
     SMELTING FURNACE
      CREVERBERATORY)
       (SCC 3-04-002-14)
                                      SEPARATED
                                      COPPER
                                                   SLAG
        CONVERTER
       (SCC 3-04-002-50)
                            BLISTER
                            COPPER
                   AIR

                  FUEL

     REDUCING MEDIUM
              CPOLINS)
FIRE REFINING
                         BLISTER
                         COPPER
                 CASTING  AND SHOT
                    PRODUCTION
                    (SCC 3*4-002-39)
GASES  AND METAL OXIDES
TO CONTROL  EQUIPMENT
GASES  AND  METAL OXIDES
TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                                                           FUGITIVE  METAL OXIDES FROM
                                                                           POURING TO EITHER HOODING
                                                                           OR PLANT ENVIRONMENT
        GASES. METAL DUST.
        TO CONTROL DEVICE
REFINED
COPPER
                              Figure  12.9-1.  Low-grade copper recovery.
                              (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.9-2
         EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                                          1/95

    -------
      ENTERING  THE  SYSTEM
                              LEAVING THE SYSTEM
       HIGH GRADE SCRAP.
     (WIRE. PIPE. BEARINGS.
    PUNCHINGS, RADIATORS)
MANUAL AND MECHANICAL
     PRETREATMENT
       (SORTING)
-». FUGUTIVE DUST TO ATMOSPHERE
   (SCC 3-04-002-30)
                                                                  UNDESIPED SCRAP TO SALE
                                                     I
                                DESIRED
                             COPPER SCRAP
              DESIRED BRASS
            AND BRONZE SCRAP

                   I
                    FUEL-

                     AIR-
                                                                GASES. METAL OXIDES
                                                               ' TO CONTROL EQUIPMENT

                                                               .LEAD. SOLDER. BABBITT METAL
                    FLUX-

                    FUEL-

          ALLOY MATERIAL-
          (ZINC. TIN. ETC.)
      MELTING AND
   ALLOYING FURNACE
                               _».  PARTICULATES. HYDROCARBONS.
                                   ALDEHYDES, FLUORIDES. AND
                                   CHLORIDES TO AFTERBURNER
                                   AND PARTICULATE CONTROL
     METAL OXIDES TO
     CONTROL EQUIPMENT

     SLAG TO DISPOSAL
                                       ALLOY MATERIAL
                                         CASTING
                                      (FINAL PRODUCT)
                                   FUGITIVE METAL OXIDES GENERATED
                                ->• DURING POURING TO EITHER PLANT
                                   ENVIRONMENT OR HOODING
                                   (sec a-o4-oo2-3e)
                        Figure 12.9-2.  High-grade brass and bronze alloying.
                            (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
removed as slag.  Then, by reducing the furnace atmosphere, cuprous oxide (CuO) is converted to
copper.  Fire-refined copper is cast into anodes, which are used during electrolysis.  The anodes are
submerged in a sulfuric acid solution containing copper sulfate. As copper is dissolved from the
anodes, it deposits on the cathode.  Then the cathode copper, which is as much as 99.99 percent
pure, is extracted and recast.  The blast furnace and converter may be omitted from the process if
average copper content of the  scrap being used is greater than about 90 percent.

       The process used by 1 U. S.  facility involves the use of a patented top-blown rotary converter
in lieu of the blast, converting, and reverberatory furnaces and the electrolytic refining process
described above.  This facility begins with low-grade copper scrap and conducts its entire refining
operation in a single vessel.

12.9.2.3 Alloying-
       In alloying, copper-containing scrap is charged to  a melting furnace along with 1 or more
other metals such as tin, zinc, silver, lead, aluminum, or nickel.  Fluxes are added to remove
impurities and to protect the melt against oxidation by air.  Air or pure oxygen may be blown through
1/95
      Metallurgical Industry
                               12.9-3

    -------
the melt to adjust the composition by oxidizing excess zinc. The alloying process is, to some extent,
mutually exclusive of the smelting and refining processes described above that lead to relatively pure
copper.

12.9.2.4  Casting -
        The final recovery process step is the casting of alloyed or refined metal products.  The
molten metal is poured into molds from ladles or small pots serving as surge hoppers and flow
regulators.  The resulting products include shot, wirebar, anodes, cathodes, ingots, or other cast
shapes.

12.9.3  Emissions And Controls3

        The principal pollutant emitted from secondary copper smelting activities is paniculate matter.
As is characteristic of secondary metallurgical industries, pyrometallurgical processes used to separate
or refine the desired metal, such as the burning of insulation from copper wire, result in emissions of
metal oxides and unburned insulation.  Similarly, drying of chips and borings to remove excess oils
and cutting fluids can cause discharges of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and products of
incomplete combustion.

        The smelting process utilizes large volumes of air to oxidize sulfides, zinc, and other
undesirable constituents of the scrap.  This oxidation procedure generates paniculate matter in the
exhaust gas stream.  A broad spectrum of particle sizes and grain loadings exists  in the escaping gases
due to variations in furnace design and in the quality of furnace charges. Another major factor
contributing to differences in emission rates is the amount of zinc present in scrap feed materials.
The low-boiling zinc volatilizes and is oxidized to produce  copious amounts of zinc oxide as
submicron paniculate.

        Fabric filter  baghouses are the most effective control technology  applied to secondary copper
smelters.  The control efficiency of these baghouses  may exceed 99 percent, but cooling systems may
be needed to prevent hot exhaust gases from damaging or destroying the bag filters.  Electrostatic
precipitators are not as well suited to this application, because they have a low collection efficiency
for dense paniculate such as oxides of lead and zinc. Wet  scrubber installations are  ineffective as
pollution control devices in the secondary copper industry because scrubbers are useful for particles
larger than 1 micrometer (jari), and the metal oxide fumes  generated are generally submicron in size.

        Paniculate emissions  associated with drying  kilns can also be controlled with baghouses.
Drying  temperatures up to 150°C (SOOT) produce exhaust gases that require no precooling prior to
the baghouse inlet.  Wire burning generates large amounts  of particulate  matter, primarily composed
of partially combusted organic compounds.  These emissions can be effectively controlled by direct-
flame incinerators called afterburners.  An efficiency of 90  percent or more can be achieved if the
afterburner combustion temperature is  maintained above  1000°C (1800°F).  If the insulation contains
chlorinated organics such as polyvinyl chloride, hydrogen chloride gas will be generated.  Hydrogen
chloride is not controlled by the afterburner and is emitted  to the atmosphere.

        Fugitive emissions occur from each process associated with secondary copper smelter
operations.  These emissions  occur during the pretreating of scrap, the charging of scrap into furnaces
containing molten metals, the transfer of molten copper from one operation to another, and from
material handling.  When charging scrap into furnaces, fugitive emissions often occur when the scrap
is not sufficiently compact to allow a full  charge to fit into  the furnace prior to heating.  The
introduction of additional material onto the liquid metal surface produces significant  amounts of
volatile  and  combustible materials  and smoke. If this smoke exceeds the capacity of the exiting

12.9-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
 capture devices and control equipment, it can escape through the charging door.  Forming scrap
 bricquettes offers a possible means of avoiding the necessity of fractional charges. When fractional
 charging cannot be eliminated, fugitive emissions are reduced by turning off the furnace burners
 during charging. This reduces the flow rate of exhaust gases and allows the exhaust control system to
 better accommodate the additional temporary emissions.

        Fugitive emissions of metal oxide fumes are generated not only during melting, but also while
 pouring molten metal into molds. Additional dusts may be generated by the charcoal or other lining
 used in the mold.  The method used to make "smooth-top" ingots involves covering the metal surface
 with ground charcoal.  This process creates a shower of sparks, releasing emissions into the plant
 environment at the vicinity of the furnace top and the molds being filled.

        The electrolytic refining process produces emissions of sulfuric acid mist, but no data
 quantifying these emissions are available.

        Emission factor averages and ranges for 6  different types of furnaces are presented in
 Tables 12.9-1  and 12.9-2, along with PM-10 emission rates and reported fugitive and lead emissions.
 Several of the metals contained in much of the  scrap used in secondary copper smelting operations,
 particularly lead, nickel, and cadmium, are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in Title III of
 the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.  These metals will exist in the paniculate matter emitted from
 these processes in proportions related to their existence in the scrap.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                                12.9-5

    -------
  Table 12.9-1 (Metric Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR FURNACES USED
          IN SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING PROCESS3
Furnace And Charge Type
Cupola
Scrap iron (SCC 3-04-002-13)
Insulated copper wire
(SCC 3-04-002-11)
Scrap copper and brass
(SCC 3-04-002-12)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-34)
Reverberatory furnace
High lead alloy (58%)
(SCC 3-04-002-43)
Red/yellow brass
(SCC 3-04-002-44)
Other alloy (7%)
(SCC 3-04-002-42)
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-14)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-15)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-35)
Rotary furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-17)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-36)
Crucible and pot furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-19)
Fugitive emissions1*
(SCC 3-04-002-37)
Electric arc furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-20)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-21)
Electric induction
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-23)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-24)
Fugitive emissions'"
(SCC 3-04-002-38)
Control
Equipment

None
None
ESP1
None
ESP11

None

None

None

None

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None


None
ESI*1
None


None
ESPd
None


None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None

Total
Particulate

0.002
120
5
35
1.2

ND

ND

ND

ND

2.6
0.2
18
1.3
ND


150
7
ND


11
0.5
ND


2.5
0.5
5.5
3

3.5
0.25
10
0.35
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

B
B
B
B
B

NA

NA

NA

NA

B
B
B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
B
B

B
B
B
B
NA

PM-10b

ND
105.6
ND
32.1
ND

1.1

ND

ND

ND

2.5
ND
10.8
ND
1.5


88.3
ND
1.3


6.2
ND
0.14


2.5
ND
3.2
ND

3.5
ND
10
ND
0.04

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
E
NA
E
NA

E

NA

NA

NA

E
NA
E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E
NA

E
NA
E
NA
E

Leadc

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

25

6.6

2.5

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

B

B

B

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

12.9-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                    Table 12.9-1 (cont.).

a Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg ore processed.  The information for paniculate in Table 12.9-1
  was based on unpublished data furnished by the following:
  Philadelphia Air Management Services,  Philadelphia, PA.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Metro Field Office, Springfield, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Newark Field Office, Newark, NJ.
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, NY.
  The City of New York Department of Air Resources, New York, NY.
  Cook County Department of Environmental Control, Maywood, JL.
  Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution Division, Detroit, MI.
  City of Cleveland Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution Control,
   Cleveland, OH.
  State of Ohio Environmental Protection  Agency, Columbus, OH.
  City of Chicago  Department  of Environmental  Control, Chicago, IL.
  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, CA.
b PM-10 and fugitive emissions are listed  in Airs Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes and
  Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
  450/4-90-003, March 1990.   These estimates should be considered to have an EMISSION FACTOR
  RATING of E.
c References 1,6-7.  Expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg product.
d ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                               12.9-7

    -------
    Table 12.9-2 (English Units). PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR FURNACES
        USED IN SECONDARY COPPER SMELTING AND ALLOYING PROCESS3
Furnace And Charge Type
Cupola
Scrap iron
(SCC 3-04-002-13)
Insulated copper wire
(SCC 3-04-002-11)
Scrap copper and brass
(SCC 3-04-002-12)
Fugitive emissions1*
(SCC 3-04-002-34)
Reverberatory furnace
High lead alloy (58%)
(SCC 3-04-002-43)
Red/yellow brass
(SCC 3-04-002-44)
Other alloy (7%)
(SCC 3-04-002-42)
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-14)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-15)
Fugitive emissionsb
(SCC 3-04-002-35)
Rotary furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-17)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-36)
Crucible and pot furnace
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-19)
Fugitive emissionsb
(SCC 3-04-002-37)
Electric arc furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-20)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-21)
Electric induction furnace
Copper
(SCC 3-04-002-23)
Brass and bronze
(SCC 3-04-002-24)
Fugitive emissions
(SCC 3-04-002-38)
Control
Equipment


None
None
ESP"1
None
ESPd
None


None

None

None

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None


None
ESPd
None


None
ESPd
None


None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse

None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None

Total
Particulate


0.003
230
10
70
2.4
ND


ND

ND

ND

5.1
0.4
36
2.6
ND


300
13
ND


21
1
ND


5
1
11
6

7
0.5
20
0.7
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


B
B
B
B

NA


NA

NA

NA

B
B
B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
NA


B
B
B
B

B
B
B
B
NA

PM-10b


ND
211.6
ND
64.4
ND
2.2


ND

ND

ND

5.1
ND
21.2
ND
3.1


177.0
ND
2.6


12.4
ND
0.29


5
ND
6.5
ND

7
ND
20
ND
0.04

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


NA
E
NA
E
NA
E


NA

NA

NA

E
NA
E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E


E
NA
E
NA

E
NA
E
NA
E

Leadc


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


50

13.2

5.0

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND


ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


B

B

B

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
12.9-8
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 12.9-2 (cont.).

* Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton ore processed.  The information for paniculate in Table 12.9-2 was
  based on unpublished data furnished by the following:
  Philadelphia Air Management Services, Philadelphia, PA.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Metro Field Office, Springfield, NJ.
  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Newark Field Office, Newark, NJ.
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, NY.
  The City of New York Department of Air Resources, New York, NY.
  Cook County Department of Environmental  Control, Maywood, IL.
  Wayne County Department of Health, Air Pollution Division, Detroit, MI.
  City of Cleveland Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Air Pollution Control,
    Cleveland, OH.
  State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.
  City of Chicago Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL.
  South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles, CA.
b PM-10 and fugitive emissions are listed in Airs Facility Subsystem Source Classification Codes and
  Emission Factor Listing for Criteria "Air Pollutants, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
  450/4-90-003, March 1990.  These estimates should be considered to have an EMISSION FACTOR
  RATING of E.
c References 1,6-7.  Expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton product.
d ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
References For Section 12.9

1.     Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

2.     Air Pollution Aspects Of Brass And Bronze Smelting And Refining Industry, U. S. Department
       Of Health, Education And Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Raleigh,
       NC,  Publication No. AP-58, November 1969.

3.     J.  A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual (2nd Ed.), AP-40, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. Out of Print.

4.     Emission Factors And Emission Source Information For Primary And Secondary Copper
       Smelters, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Publication
       No. EPA-450/3-051, December 1977.

5.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-*50-2/77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

6.     H. H. Fukubayashi, et al., Recovery Of Zinc And Lead From Brass Smelter Dust, Report of
       Investigation No. 7880, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington,
       DC,  1974.

7.     "Air  Pollution Control  In The Secondary Metal Industry", Presented  at the First Annual
       National Association Of Secondary Materials Industries Air Pollution Control Workshop,
       Pittsburgh, PA, June 1967.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                               12.9-9

    -------

    -------
12.10  Gray Iron Foundries

12.10.1  General

       Iron foundries produce high-strength castings used in industrial machinery and heavy
transportation  equipment manufacturing.  Castings include crusher jaws, railroad car wheels, and
automotive and truck assemblies.

       Iron foundries cast 3 major types of iron: gray iron, ductile iron, and malleable iron.  Cast
iron is an iron-carbon-silicon alloy, containing from 2 to 4 percent carbon and 0.25 to 3.00 percent
silicon, along with varying percentages of manganese, sulfur, and phosphorus.  Alloying elements
such as nickel, chromium,  molybdenum,  copper, vanadium, and titanium are sometimes added.
Table 12.10-1  lists different chemical compositions of irons produced.

       Mechanical properties of iron castings are determined by the type, amount, and distribution of
various carbon formations.  In addition, the casting design, chemical composition, type of melting
scrap, melting process, rate of cooling of the casting, and heat treatment determine the final
properties of iron castings.  Demand for iron casting in 1989 was estimated at 9540 million
megagrams (10,520 million tons), while domestic production during the same period was
7041 million megagrams (7761 million tons).  The difference is a result of imports.  Half of the total
iron casting were used by the automotive and truck manufacturing companies, while half the total
ductile iron castings  were pressure pipe and fittings.

   Table 12.10-1.  CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FERROUS CASTINGS BY PERCENTAGES
Element
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Sulfur
Phosphorus
Gray Iron
2.0-4.0
1.0-3.0
0.40- 1.0
0.05 - 0.25
0.05- 1.0
Malleable Iron
(As White Iron)
1.8-3.6
0.5 - 1.9
0.25 - 0.80
0.06 - 0.20
0.06-0.18
Ductile Iron
3.0-4.0
1.4-2.0
0.5 - 0.8
<0.12
<0.15
Steel
<2.0a
0.2-0.8
0.5 - 1.0
<0.06
<0.05
a Steels are classified by carbon content:  low carbon is less than 0.20 percent; medium carbon is
  0.20-0.5 percent; and high carbon is greater than 0.50 percent.

12.10.2 Process Description1'5'39

       The major production operations in iron foundries are raw material handling and preparation,
metal melting, mold  and  core production, and casting and finishing.

12.10.2.1  Raw Material Handling And Preparation -
       Handling operations include the conveying of all raw materials for furnace charging, including
metallics, fluxes and fuels. Metallic raw materials are pig iron, iron and steel scrap, foundry returns,
and metal turnings.   Fluxes include carbonates (limestone, dolomite),  fluoride (fluorospar), and
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-1

    -------
12.10.2.1  Raw Material Handling And Preparation -
       Handling operations include the conveying of all raw materials for furnace charging, including
metallics, fluxes and fuels.  Metallic raw materials are pig iron, iron and steel scrap, foundry returns,
and metal turnings.  Fluxes include  carbonates (limestone, dolomite), fluoride (fluorospar), and
carbide compounds (calcium carbide).  Fuels include coal, oil, natural gas, and coke.  Coal, oil, and
natural gas are used to fire reverberatory furnaces.  Coke, a derivative of coal, is used for electrodes
required  for heat production in electric arc furnaces.

       As shown in Figure 12.10-1, the raw materials, metallics, and fluxes are added to the melting
furnaces  directly.  For electric induction furnaces, however, the scrap metal added to the furnace
charge must first be pretreated to remove grease and oil.  Scrap metals may be degreased with
solvents, by centrifugation, or by preheating to combust the organics.

12.10.2.2  Metal Melting -
       The furnace charge includes metallics, fluxes, and fuels.  Composition of the charge depends
upon specific metal characteristics required.  The basic melting process operations are furnace
operations, including charging, melting, and backcharging; refining, during  which the chemical
composition is adjusted to meet product specifications; and slag removal and molding the molten
metal.

12.10.2.2.1 Furnace Operations-
       The 3 most common furnaces used in the iron foundry industry are cupolas, electric arc, and
electric induction furnaces.  The cupola is the major type of furnace used  in the iron foundry
industry.  It is typically a cylindrical steel shell with a refractory-lined or  water-cooled inner wall.
The cupola is  the only furnace type that uses coke as a fuel.  Iron is melted  by the burning coke and
flows down the cupola. As the melt proceeds, new charges are added at the top. The flux combines
with nonmetallic impurities in the iron to form slag, which can be removed.  Both the molten iron
and the slag are removed  at the bottom of the cupola.

       Electric arc furnaces (EAFs) are large, welded steel cylindrical vessels equipped with a
removable roof through which 3 retractable carbon electrodes are inserted.  The electrodes are
lowered through the roof of the furnace and are energized by 3-phase alternating current, creating
arcs that  melt the metallic charge with their heat.  Electric arc furnace capacities range from 5 to
345 megagrams (6 to 380 tons).  Additional heat is produced by the resistance of the metal between
the arc paths.   Once the melting cycle is complete, the carbon electrodes are raised and the roof is
removed. The vessel can then be tilted to pour the molten iron.

       Electric induction furnaces are cylindrical or cup-shaped refractory-lined vessels that are
surrounded by electrical coils. When these coils are energized with high frequency alternating
current, they produce a fluctuating electromagnetic field which heats the metal charge. The induction
furnace is simply a melting furnace to which high-grade scrap is added to make  the desired product.
Induction furnaces are kept closed except when charging,  skimming and tapping. The molten metal is
tapped by tilting and pouring through a hole in the side of the vessels.

12.10.2.2.2 Refining-
       Refining is the process in which magnesium and other elements are  added to molten iron to
produce ductile iron.  Ductile iron is formed as a steel matrix containing spheroidal particles (or
nodules)  of graphite.  Ordinary cast iron contains flakes of graphite.  Each flake acts as a crack,
which makes cast iron brittle.  Ductile irons have high tensile strength and are silvery in appearance.
12.10-2                               EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
                                                                                                          (U
                                                                                                          C3
                                                                                                          o.
                                                                                                         •a
                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                         U

                                                                                                          §
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                          
    -------
       Two widely used refining processes are the plunge method and the pour-over method.  In
plunging, magnesium or a magnesium alloy is loaded into a graphite "bell" which is plunged into a
ladle of molten iron. A turbulent reaction takes place as the magnesium boils under the heat of the
molten iron.  As much as 65 percent of the magnesium may be evaporated.  The magnesium vapor
ignites in air, creating large amounts of smoke.

       In the pour-over method, magnesium  alloy is placed in the bottom of a vessel and molten iron
is poured over it. Although this method produces more emissions and is less efficient than plunging,
it requires no capital equipment other than air pollution control equipment.

12.10.2.2.3  Slag Removal And Molding -
       Slag is removed from furnaces through a tapping hole or door. Since slag is lighter than
molten iron, it remains on top of the molten iron and can be raked or poured out. After slag has
been removed, the iron is cast into molds.

12.10.2.3  Mold And Core Production -
       Molds are forms used to shape the exterior of castings.  Cores are molded sand shapes used
to make internal voids in castings. Molds are prepared from wet sand, clay,  and organic additives,
and are usually dried with hot air.  Cores are  made by mixing sand with organic binders or organic
polymers,  molding the sand into a core, and baking the core in an oven.  Used sand from castings
shakeout is recycled and cleaned to remove any clay or carbonaceous buildup. The sand is screened
and reused to make new molds*

12.10.2.4  Casting And Finishing -
       Molten iron is tapped into a ladle or directly into molds.  In larger, more mechanized
foundries,  filled molds are conveyed automatically through a cooling tunnel.  The molds are then
placed on a vibrating grid to shake the mold sand and core sand loose from the casting.

12.10.3 Emissions And Controls9'31'52

       Emission points and types of emissions from  a typical foundry are shown in Figure 12.10-2.
Emission factors are presented in Tables 12.10-2, 12.10-3, 12.10-4, 12.10-5, 12.10-6, 12.10-7,
12.10-8, and  12.10-9.

12.10.3.1  Raw Material Handling And Preparation -
       Fugitive particulate emissions are generated from the receiving, unloading, and conveying of
raw materials.  These emissions can be controlled by enclosing the points  of disturbance
(e. g., conveyor belt transfer points)  and routing  air from enclosures through fabric filters or wet
collectors.

       Scrap preparation with heat will emit  smoke,  organic compounds,  and carbon monoxide;
scrap preparation with solvent degreasefs will emit organics.  Catalytic incinerators and  afterburners
can control about 95 percent of organic and carbon monoxide emissions (see Section 4.6, "Solvent
Degreasing").

12.10.3.2  Metal Melting -
       Emissions released from melting furnaces include particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small quantities of chloride and fluoride
compounds.  The particulates, chlorides, and  fluorides are generated from incomplete combustion of
carbon additives, flux additions,  and dirt and  scale on the scrap charge. Organic material on scrap
and furnace temperature affect the amount of  carbon monoxide generated.  Fine particulate fumes

12.10-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
                                                                         FUGITIVE
                                                                       PARTICULARS
                                                   RAW MATERIALS
                                               UNLOADING.  STORAGE.
                                                     TRANSFER

                                                 • FLUX
                                                 • METALS
                                                 • CARBON SOURCES
                                                 • SAND
                                                 • BINDER
                    FUGITIVE
                      DUST
                                                      SCRAP
                                                   PREPARATION
                                                   (SCC 3-04-003-14)
                                  FUMES AND
                                    FUGITIVE
                                     OUST
                            .FUGITIVE
                               DUST
                                                                       HYDROCARBONS.
                                                                      .      CO.
                                                                         AND SMOKE
                         FURNACE
                           VENT
                                                   FUGITIVE
                                                     OUST
     FURNACE
• CUPOLA(SCC»««X»«1)
• ELECTRIC ARCCSCCIWWOWM)
• INDUCTIONfSCCMWOWO)
• OTHER
                                                     JAPPING.
                                                     TREATING
                                                   (SCC 3-04-003-18)
                                                                        FUGITIVE FUMES
                                                                          AND  DUST
                                                                        FUGITIVE  FUMES
                                                                          AND DUST
                                                  MOLD POURING.
                                                     COOLING
                                                             OVEN VENT
                                                     CASTING
                                                    SHAKEOU!
                                                   (SCC3-04-OOM1)
                                                     COOLING
                                                    (SCC 3-04403-25)
                                                    CLEANING.
                                                     FINISHING
                                                   (SCC 34440340)
                         FUGITIVE
                        '  DUST
                         FUMES  AND
                        •  FUGITIVE
                            DUST
                         FUGITIVE
                        '  DUST
                          Figure 12.10-2.  Emission points in a typical iron foundry.
                                  (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-5

    -------
           Table 12.10-2 (Metric Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                    IRON FURNACES*
Process
Cupola.(SCC 3-04-003-01)







Electric arc furnace
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Electric induction
furnace (SCC 3-04-003-03)
Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)
Control Device
Uncontrolled13
Scrubber0
Venturi scrubberd
Electrostatic precipitator6
Baghousef
Single wet capg
Impingement scrubber8
High-energy scrubber8
Uncontrolled11
Baghousei
Uncontrolled11
Baghousem
Uncontrolled"
Baghousem
Total Paniculate
6.9
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.3
4.0
2.5
0.4
6.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.1
0.1
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
a Emission Factors are expressed in kg of pollutant/Mg of gray iron produced.
b References 1,7,9,10.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References 12,15. Includes averages for wet cap and other scrubber types not already listed.
d References 12,17,19.
e References 8,11.
f References 12-14.
« References 8,11,29,30.
h References 1,6,23.
J  References 6,23,24.
k References 1,12. For metal melting only.
m Reference 4.
n Reference 1.
 12.10-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
           Table 12.10-3 (English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                                     IRON FURNACES*
Process
Cupola (SCC 3-04-003-01)







Electric arc furnace
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Electric induction
furnace (SCC 3-04-003-03)
Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)
Control Device
Uncontrolled13
Scrubber0
Venturi scrubber*1
Electrostatic precipitator6
Baghousef
Single wet capg
Impingement scrubber8
High energy scrubber8
Uncontrolled11
BaghouseJ
Uncontrolledk
Baghouse1"
Uncontrolled"
Baghousem
Total Paniculate
13.8
3.1
3.0
1.4
0.7
8.0
5.0
0.8
12.7
0.4
0.9
0.2
2.1
0.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
a Emission Factors expressed
b References 1,7,9,10.  SCC
c References 12,15. Includes
d References 12,17,19.
e References 8,11.
f References 12-14.
« References 8,11,29,30.
h References 1,6,23.
J  References 6,23,24.
k References 1,12. For metal  melting only.
m Reference 4.
n Reference 1.
as Ib of pollutant/ton of gray iron produced.
= Source Classification Code.
averages for wet cap and other scrubber types not already listed.
1/95
         Metallurgical Industry
12.10-7

    -------
  So
  w
  3
  Q
  z
  g
  u-
  Z
  i

  g
  o
  u
  <
  PL,

  O
  So
  -J
  Q
  Z
a
to
O
<
2
H
2
u
   c
  D
   o
o

cs"

 CD
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

_i

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

O
^

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


X
o


OH W
y o 2
22 o f-
| u. c<

(S



6 oi o
^J Q Hy
§ u P
^3 -^ *£
2 2; BS

O
U


0
H
1

CQ
VO
O
>A
o
d

Z

Q
Z


Z


Q
Z




a


13
S2
d





W


u
P


o
i
upola (SCC 3-04
Uncontrolled
O
Z

Q
Z

Z

Q
Z


Z


Q
Z




U


"O
d





U


{*")
r-



1
t_i
o
en
£?
o
c
u
s

z

Q

U
IT)
9
«*>
o
o
U

en
I
0



U


S?





w

OS
^
vn
o


^
S
o
S pi,
•So
u
BQ
O
o
s
o
o
Z

Q
Z



II
60
Z
o>°
•o
0
U
e
•x

&
CO
O
4)
O
O
to
II
U
U
to
"8
o
•n
o
1-1
c
o
CO
BO
rt
0
00
2
a
o
60
Expressed as k
OS
                                                           d4
                                                         o
                                                           O
                                                           CO
                                                           V]
                                                         O
                                                         o

                                                         CD
                                                         JS
                                                           «s
                                                           "3
^2 en
 ca   ^
 cj ^i
                                                                 CS
                                                   s  cS
                                                         CD
                                                    o o o o
                                                    c c c c
                                                    D CO O CD
                                                    U. 1— W i-
                                                    CD CD CD CD

                                              ^   .  4J CD CD CD
                                              w Z o; o^ os oi

                                                      O  T3   U
                                                                 to
                                                                 o
                                                                 O>
12.10-8
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
                                                1/95

    -------
  a
  s
  g
  u.
  Z
  S

  g
  UL-
  00
  05
  O
  o
  Eo
  on
  HM
  S
  w
  Q
ogi
aoh
isssi



N*4

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

U
^

o % v
a O z
CO t™1 S"*
J2 U H
|22



K
0

0 £ u
i°S
S3 u H
s 2- £
w & «


o
CO


EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

O
O




0
8
a
i,

to

^
J*
o

2

Q
Z



Z



Q


ft)



•o
-


ft)

o
2



^^
s
Cupola (SCC 3-04-003
Uncontrolled

Z

Q
Z


Z

Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


ftl



"w
o


ftl

«j>
"




1-1
High energy scrubbe

Z

Q
Z


ftl

9
s
o


ft)


VO
9
S
0


ftl



CO
u
Z


ft)

i-
«





£
i
°2S
« cA
-c u
8^
S

CO
^
9

.
o
Z

Q
Z



Z



Q


ft)



00
u
Z


ftl

no
u






Electric induction^
(SCC 3-04-003-03)

03
2
s
cs
0
d
Z

Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z



Q
Z


Z

Q
Z





Reverberatory
(SCC 3-04-003-02)


03
13
•o
o
c
II
Q
Z
,2
2
'ea
c
II
M
Z
1>
"O
a
c
_o
C3
CQ
u
(J
Ua
O
t/3
II
U
u
on
1
s
•a
a
0,
o
ni
UN
Ml
o
C
o
'G
to
J3
"O 4J
-1
o S
5^
^ S-
w ra
"S 1
W3 C
§ "I
Q, ^<
.33
o3















d"
CO
2
•8
oS
o
8
CA
U-!
a
3
uo
^^*
O
^
O
fl
C/3
S
3
M
O
u

•w
_c
u.
5
"3

•*' ^
r^
" References 11,31,
c Reference 2.
d Reference 4. S =





































e Reference 4,6.
                                                                   • oo
                                                                    s
                                                                    o
                                                                    g
                                                                    £
                                                                    (D
1195
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-9

    -------
  CO
  U
  CJ
  OJ


  O
  CO
  u.
  Q
  <
  CO
  §
  p
  at
  Z OJ
  < Q

  05 5
  co
  U S
  CO
  y
  «
  'c
  H
lei
— u tf
a 2
H u
•st
.s °
u <
ill
M
ill
£ >
w w

Isi
8 P
S 2: o5
UJ

c
_2
.« *••

w 1
a tu
o
H


u
o
u
Q

2
c
o
O






wi
w
8
1

u u
—i tS
d d

u u
ts o\
d d



UJ UJ UJ




•o
ts
en o* i/i
d d _;







3 3 3

111
'c S c
o o o
o u o
c c c
D D 3
"°oo
S
U
-C
oS
c

ea tf^ C >""* ^
r- ^-t Si ^^ C^l
-12 V c cs 
Ja CO CJJ *£ (S r/s

UJ
g
d

U
d



bQ U4 UJ






•-<  o
C° *" O M 4
3^0 S O
•0 e 52- U U
i ••§ o 52,
CO 0






a)
o
U
c
_o
•4-*
03
G
S
O
co
II
U
^o

•
O
U
•o
0
c.
c
o
.^
>.
2
bo
"o
fr^ft
2
1
1

<+-.
o
Expressed as kg
Reference 4.
a .0
nce 1,4

nce 35.
                                                                               8    -'
                                                                               °1    cs
                                                                               <*>    ^r
                                                                                D  u a) o>
                                                                                o  o o o
                                                                                C  C C C
                                                                          4) 0>  tU  O ^> Q>
efe

efe
                                                                                aj ,a> ,a> ,   D
                                     os  o; oi oi oi oi
12.10-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
  g
  o
  o

  u
  U'S



  P
  00
  on H
  w
  CJ
  g

Ssi
to rj P
s£S
W B. 06
0 S
H o
if

i 1
w <
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
& "
f-4 C
111
| i

2§i
to H «
to o H
3-3S2

c
_o
' VI
1!
>** TT
1
H

U
O
's
Q
c
o
U





vt
U
u
1


U) U U U



tS TT »H i-H
O O O -i


U U U U


V) OO C^l ^^
d -J 6 —

U4 UJ U] U U3UJ tt}OUUJ





«n • !g 0
\O oo ' O O N «
O ^ <^ Tt ror- rioo —






!§ 2 3 S 1 3 1^2
| "s s s 2 | e's'^a
C C C C CC C-goC
O O O O OO O-S.CO
o o o o oo o5oi>«
c c c c cc c^S'c
D 3 3 3 3D 3(0003



^^ ^-,
oo T1 
CJ
c
_o
s
u
a)
t-
o
II
II
CJ
CJ

"S
3
O
a.
e
o
'^
Ui
W*J
o
c
o
•s
c
«•»
"o
D,
'o
J3 (S)
•a -* - «^ « -
dj CD (D Q) D U
W5 O O O O O
cl) cO tU 4J O O
Q^ O 1) O 4) O
^< 1) cU 1) li D





































2 CS
a o
s s
11
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-11

    -------
          Table 12.10-8 (Metric Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
             AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES'1
Source
Cupola fiirnaceb
(SCC 3-04-003-01)
Uncontrolled







Controlled by baghouse







Controlled by venturi
scrubber*5






Electric arc furnaced
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Uncontrolled





Particle Size
G«n)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0



1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Sizeb


44.3
69.1
79.6
84.0
90.1
90.1
90.6
100.0
83.4
91.5
94.2
94.9
94.9
94.9
95.0
100.0
56.0
70.2
77.4
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
100.0


13.0
57.5
82.0
90.0
93.5
100.0
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg metal)


3.1
4.8
5.5
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.9
0.33
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.4
0.84
1.05
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.50


0.8
3.7
5.2
5.8
6.0
6.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


C







E







C









E





12.10-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                     Table 12.10-8 (cont.)
Source
Pouring, coolingb
(SCC 3-04-0030-18)
Uncontrolled







Shakeoutb (SCC 3-04-003-31)
Uncontrolled







Particle Size
fam)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative Mass
% < Stated Sizeb


_d
19.0
20.0
24.0
34.0
49.0
72.0
100.0

23.0
37.0
41.0
42.0
44.0
70.0
99.9
100.0
Cumulative
Mass Emission
Factor
(kg/Mg metal)


ND
0.40
0.42
0.50
0.71
1.03
1.51
2.1

0.37
0.59
0.66
0.67
0.70
1.12
1.60
1.60
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D








E







a Emission Factor expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of metal produced.  Mass emission rate data
  available in Tables 12.10-2 and  12.10-6 to calculate size-specific emission factors.
  SCC =  Source Classification Code.  ND =  no data.
b References  13,21,22,25,26.
0 Pressure drop across venturi:  approximately 25 kPa of water.
d Reference 3, Exhibit VI-15.  Averaged from data on 2 foundries.  Because original test data could
  not be obtained, EMISSION  FACTOR RATING is E.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-13

    -------
       Table 12.10-9 (English Units). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
                EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES*
Source
Cupola furnace"3
(SCC 3-04-003-01)
Uncontrolled







Controlled by baghouse






Controlled by venturi scrubber0







Electric arc furnaced
(SCC 3-04-003-04)
Uncontrolled





Particle Size
Oim)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0



1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated
Sizeb


44.3
69.1
79.6
84.0
90.1
90.1
90.6
100.0
83.4
91.5
94.2
94.9
94.9
95.0
100.0
56.0
70.2
77.4
77.7
77.7
77.7
77.7
100.0


13.0
57.5
82.0
90.0
93.5
100.0
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
(Ib/ton metal)


6.2
9.6
11.0
11.6
12.4
12.4
12.6
13.8
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.80
1.68
2.10
2.32
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
3.0


1.6
7.4
10.4
11.6
12.0
12.8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


C







E






C









E





12.10-14
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                      Table 12.10-9 (cont.)
Source
Pouring, coolingb
(SCC 3-04-003-18)
Uncontrolled







Shakeoutb (SCC 3-04-003-31)
Uncontrolled







Particle Size
(taxi)


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0


0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Mass %
< Stated
Sizeb


_d
19.0
20.0
24.0
34.0
49.0
72.0
100.0

23.0
37.0
41.0
42.0
44.0
70.0
99.9
100.0
Cumulative Mass
Emission Factor
Ob/ton metal)


ND
0.80
0.84
1.00
1.42
2.06
3.02
4.2

0.74
1.18
1.32
1.34
1.40
2.24
3.20
3.20
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING


D








E







a Emission factors are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of metal produced.  Mass emission rate data
  available in Tables 12.10-3 and 12.10-7 to calculate size-specific emission factors.
  SCC =  Source Classification Code. ND  = no data.
b References 13,21-22,25-26.
c Pressure drop across venturi: approximately 102 inches of water.
d Reference 3,  Exhibit VI-15. Averaged from data on 2 foundries. Because original test data could
  not be obtained, EMISSION FACTOR RATING is E.
backcharging, alloying, slag removal, and tapping operations. These emissions can escape into the
furnace building or can be collected and vented through roof openings.  Emission controls for melting
and refining operations involve venting furnace gases and fumes directly to a control device. Canopy
hoods or special hoods near furnace doors and tapping points capture emissions and route them to
emission control systems.

12.10.3.2.1  Cupolas -
       Coke burned in cupola furnaces produces several emissions.  Incomplete combustion of coke
causes carbon monoxide emissions and sulfur in the coke gives rise to sulfur dioxide emissions.  High
energy scrubbers and fabric filters are used  to control paniculate emissions from cupolas and electric
arc furnaces and can achieve efficiencies of 95 and 98 percent, respectively.  A cupola furnace
typically has an afterburner as well, which achieves up to 95 percent efficiency.  The afterburner is
located in the furnace stack to oxidize carbon monoxide and burn organic fumes, tars, and oils.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.10-15

    -------
Reducing these contaminants protects the paniculate control device from possible plugging and
explosion.

       Toxic emissions from cupolas include both organic and inorganic materials.  Cupolas produce
the most toxic emissions compared to other melting equipment.

12.10.3.2.2 Electric Arc Furnaces -
       During melting in an electric arc furnace, paniculate emissions of metallic and mineral oxides
are generated by the vaporization of iron and transformation of mineral additives.  This paniculate
matter is controlled by high-energy scrubbers (45 percent efficiency) and fabric filters (98 percent
efficiency).  Carbon monoxide emissions result from  combustion of graphite from electrodes and
carbon added to the charge.  Hydrocarbons result from vaporization and incomplete combustion of
any oil remaining on the scrap iron charge.

12.10.3.2.3 Electric Induction Furnaces-
       Electric induction furnaces using clean steel scrap produce paniculate emissions comprised
largely of iron oxides.  High emissions from clean charge emissions are due to cold charges,  such as
the first charge of the day.  When contaminated charges are used, higher emissions rates result.

       Dust emissions from electric induction furnaces also depend on the charge material
composition, the melting method (cold charge or continuous), and the melting rate of the materials
used. The highest emissions occur during a cold charge.

       Because induction furnaces emit negligible amounts of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions and relatively little paniculate, they are typically uncontrolled, except during charging and
pouring operations.

12.10.3.2.4 Refining -
       Paniculate emissions are generated during the refining of molten iron before pouring.  The
addition of magnesium to molten metal to produce ductile iron causes a violent reaction between the
magnesium and molten iron, with emissions of magnesium oxides and metallic fumes. Emissions
from pouring consist of metal fumes from the melt, and carbon monoxide, organic compounds, and
paniculate evolved from the mold and core materials. Toxic emissions of paniculate, arsenic,
chromium, halogenated  hydrocarbons, and aromatic hydrocarbons are released  in the  refining process.
Emissions from pouring normally are captured by a collection system and vented, either controlled or
uncontrolled, to the atmosphere. Emissions continue as the molds  cool. A significant quantity of
paniculate is also generated during the casting shakeout operation.  These fugitive emissions are
controlled by either high energy scrubbers or fabric filters.

12.10.3.3  Mold And Core Production -
       The major pollutant emitted in mold and core production operations is paniculate from sand
reclaiming, sand preparation, sand mixing with binders and additives, and mold and core forming.
Organics, carbon monoxide, and paniculate are emitted from core baking and organic emissions from
mold drying.  Fabric filters and high energy scrubbers generally  are used to control paniculate from
mold and  core production.  Afterburners and catalytic incinerators  can be used to control organics and
carbon monoxide emissions.

       In addition to organic binders, molds and cores may be held together in the desired shape by
means of a cross-linked organic polymer network. This network of polymers undergoes thermal
decomposition when exposed to the very high temperatures of casting, typically 1400°C (2550°F).
At these temperatures it is likely that pyrolysis of the chemical binder will produce a complex of free

12.10-16                             EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
radicals which will recombine to form a wide range of chemical compounds having widely differing
concentrations.

       There are many different types of resins currently in use having diverse and toxic
compositions.  There are no data currently available for determining the toxic compounds in a
particular resin which are emitted to the atmosphere and to what extent these emissions occur.

12.10.3.4 Casting And Finishing -
       Emissions during pouring include decomposition products of resins, other organic compounds,
and particulate matter.  Finishing operations emit particulates during the removal of burrs, risers, and
gates, and during shot blast cleaning.  These emissions are controlled by cyclone separators and fabric
filters. Emissions are related to mold size, mold composition, sand to metal ratio, pouring
temperature, and pouring rate.

References For Section  12.10

1.     Summary Of Factors Affecting Compliance By Ferrous Foundries, Volume I: Text,
       EPA-340/1-80-020, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.  January 1981.

2.     Air Pollution Aspects Of The Iron Foundry Industry, APTD-0806, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  February 1971.

3.     Systems Analysis Of Emissions And Emission Control In The Iron Foundry Industry, Volume
       II: Exhibits, APTD-0645, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC.  February 1971.

4.     J. A. Davis, et al, Screening Study On Cupolas And Electric Furnaces In Gray Iron
       Foundries, EPA Contract No.  68-01-0611, Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. August
       1975.

5.     R. W.  Hein, et al,  Principles Of Metal Casting, McGraw-Hill, New York,  1967.

6.     P. Fennelly and P.  Spawn, Air Pollution  Control Techniques For Electric Arc Furnaces In The
       Iron And Steel Foundry Industry,  EPA-450/2-78-024, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.  June 1978.

7.     R. D. Chmielewski and S. Calvert, Flux Force/Condensation Scrubbing For Collecting Fine
       Particulate From Iron Melting Cupola, EPA-600/7-81-148, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September  1981.

8.     W. F. Hammond and S. M. Weiss, "Air  Contaminant Emissions From Metallurgical
       Operations In Los Angeles  County",  presented at the Air Pollution Control Institute, Los
       Angeles,  CA, July  1964.

9.     Particulate Emission Test Report On A  Gray Iron Cupola At Cherryville Foundry Works,
       Cherryville, NC, Department Of Natural And Economic Resources, Raleigh, NC, December
       18, 1975.

10.    J. W. Davis and A. B. Draper, Statistical Analysis Of The Operating Parameters Which Affect
       Cupolas Emissions, DOE Contract No. EY-76-5-02-2840.*000, Center For Air Environment
       Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, December 1977.

1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                            12.10-17

    -------
11.    Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973. Out of print.

12.    Written communication from Dean Packard, Department Of Natural Resources, Madison, WI,
       to Douglas Seeley, Alliance Technology, Bedford, MA, April 15,  1982.

13.    Paniculate Emissions Testing At Opelika Foundry, Birmingham, AL, Air Pollution Control
       Commission, Montgomery, AL, November 1977 - January 1978.

14.    Written communication from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN, to Mike
       Jasinski, Alliance Technology, Bedford, MA, July 12, 1982.

15.    Stack Test Report, Dunkirk Radiator Corporation Cupola Scrubber, State Department Of
       Environmental Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY,  November  1975.

16.    Particulate Emission Test Report For A Scrubber Stack For A Gray Iron Cupola At Dewey
       Brothers, Goldsboro, NC, Department Of Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC,  April 7, 1978.

17.    Stack Test Report, Worthington Corp. Cupola, State Department Of Environmental
       Conservation, Region IX, Albany, NY, November 4-5,  1976.

18.    Stack Test Report, Dresser Clark Cupola  Wet Scrubber, Orlean, NY, State Department Of
       Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, July 14 & 18, 1977.

19.    Stack Test Report, Chevrolet Tonawanda  Metal Casting, Plant Cupola #3 And Cupola #4,
       Tonawanda, NY, State Department Of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, August
       1977.

20.    Stack Analysis For Paniculate Emission, Atlantic States Cast Iron Foundry/Scrubber, State
       Department Of Environmental  Protection, Trenton, NJ, September  1980.

21.    S. Calvert, et al, Fine Particle Scrubber Performance, EPA-650/2-74-093,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH, October 1974.

22.    S. Calvert, et al, National Dust Collector Model  850 Variable Rod Module Venturi Scrubber
       Evaluation, EPA-600/2-76-282, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       December 1976.

23.    Source Test, Electric Arc Furnace At Paxton-Mitchell Foundry, Omaha, NB, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, October  1974.

24.    Source Test, John Deere Tractor Works, East Moline, IL, Gray Iron Electric Arc Furnace,
       Walden Research, Willmington, MA, July 1974.

25.    S. Gronberg, Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From An Iron
       Foundry, Lynchburg Foundry, Archer Creek Plant, EPA-600/X-85-328, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  August 1984.

26.    Paniculate Emissions Measurements From The Rotoclone And General Casting Shakeout
       Operations Of United States Pipe &  Foundry, Inc., Anniston, AL, Black, Crow And Eidsness,
       Montgomery, AL, November 1973.

12.10-18                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
27.    Report Of Source Emissions Testing At Newbury Manufacturing, Talladega, AL, State Air
       Pollution Control Commission, Montgomery, AL, May 15-16,  1979.

28.    Paniculate Emission Test Report For A Gray Iron Cupola At Hardy And Newson, La Grange,
       NC, State Department Of Natural Resources And Community Development, Raleigh,  NC,
       August 2-3, 1977.

29.    H. R. Crabaugh, et al, "Dust And Fumes From Gray Iron Cupolas: How Are They
       Controlled In Los Angeles County?" Air Repair, 4(3): 125-130,  November 1954.

30.    J. M.  Kane, "Equipment For Cupola Control", American Foundryman's Society Transactions,
       64:525-531, 1956.

31.    Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, 2 Volumes, EPA-450/2-77-012,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, December 1977.

32.    W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       APTD-1543, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, April
       1973.

33.    Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-27, Office Of Air Quality  Planning And Standards,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, February 1972.

34.    Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-30, Office Of Air Quality  Planning And Standards,
       U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1972.

35.    John Zoller, et al, Assessment Of Fugitive Paniculate Emission  Factors For Industrial
       Processes, EPA-450/3-78-107, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle
       Park,  NC, September 1978.

36.    John Jeffery, et al,  Gray Iron Foundry Industry Paniculate Emissions:  Source Category
       Repon, EPA-600/7-86-054, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       December, 1986.

37.    PM-10 Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology  Transfer, EPA-450/4-022, U. S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC, November 1989.

38.    Generalized Panicle Size Distributions For Use In Preparing Size Specific Paniculate
       Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4-86-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park,  NC,  July 1986.

39.    Emission Factors For Iron Foundries—Criteria And Toxic Pollutants, EPA Control
       Technology Center, Research Triangle Park, EPA-600/2-90-044.  August  1990.

40.     Handbook Of Emission Factors, Ministry Of Housing, Physical  Planning And Environment.

41.     Steel Castings Handbook, Fifth Edition, Steel Founders Society  Of America, 1980.

42.     Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry, APTD-0806 (NTIS PB 204 712),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC, 1971.
1/95                               Metallurgical Industry                            12.10-19

    -------
43.    Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, (NTIS PB 89-128631),
       Supplement B, Volume I, Fourth Edition, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.

44.    M. B. Stockton and J. H. E.  Stelling, Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors For The 1985
       NAPAP* Emissions Inventory, EPA-600/7-87-015 (NTIS PB 87-198735), U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC, 1987. (*National Acid Precipitation
       Assessment Program)

45.    V. H. Baldwin Jr., Environmental Assessment Of Iron Casting, EPA-600/2-80-021
       (NTIS PB 80-187545), U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,  1980.

46.    V. H. Baldwin, Environmental Assessment Of Melting, Inoculation And Pouring, American
       Foundrymen's Society, 153:65-72, 1982.

47.    Temple Barker and Sloane, Inc., Integrated Environmental Management Foundry Industry
       Study, Technical Advisory Panel, presentation to  the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       April 4, 1984.

48.    N. D. Johnson, Consolidation Of Available Emission Factors For Selected Toxic Air
       Pollutants, ORTECH International, 1988.

49.    A. A. Pope, et al., Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors—A Compilation For Selected Air
       Toxic Compounds And Sources, EPA^50/2-88-006a (NTIS PB 89-135644),
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1988.

50.    F. M. Shaw,  CIATG Commission 4 Environmental Control:  Induction Furnace Emission,
       commissioned by F. M. Shaw, British Cast Iron  Research Association, Fifth Report, Cast
       Metals  Journal, 6:10-28,  1982.

51.    P. F. Ambidge and P. D. E. Biggins, Environmental Problems Arising From The  Use Of
       Chemicals In Moulding Materials, BCIRA Report, 1984.

52.    C. E. Bates and W. D. Scott, The Decomposition Of Resin Binders And The Relationship
       Between Gases Formed And The Casting Surface Quality—Pan 2: Gray Iron, American
       Foundrymen's Society, Des Plains, IL, pp. 793-804, 1976.

53.    R. H. Toeniskoetter and R. J. Schafer, Industrial Hygiene Aspects Of The Use Of Sand
       Binders And Additives, BCIRA Report 1264,  1977.

54.    Threshold Limit Values And Biological Exposure Indices For 1989-1990; In: Proceedings Of
       American Conference Of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, OH, 1989.

55.    Minerals Yearbook, Volume I, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

56.    Mark's Standard Handbook For Mechanical Engineers,  Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill,  1978.
12.10-20                           EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 12.11 Secondary Lead Processing

 12.11.1  General

        Secondary lead smelters produce lead and lead alloys from lead-bearing scrap material.  More
 than 60 percent of all secondary lead is derived from scrap automobile batteries.  Each battery
 contains approximately 8.2 kg (18 Ib) of lead, consisting of 40 percent lead alloys and 60 percent lead
 oxide.  Other raw materials used  in secondary lead smelting include wheel balance weights, pipe,
 solder, drosses, and lead sheathing. Lead produced by secondary smelting accounts for half of the
 lead produced in the U. S. There are 42 companies operating 50 plants with individual capacities
 ranging from 907 megagrams (Mg) (1,000 tons) to 109,000 Mg (120,000 tons) per year.

 12.11.2  Process Description1"7

        Secondary lead smelting includes 3 major operations: scrap pretreatment, smelting, and
 refining.  These are shown schematically in Figure 12.11-1 A, Figure  12.11-1B, and Figure 12.11-1C,
 respectively.

 12.11.2.1  Scrap Pretreatment -
        Scrap pretreatment is the  partial removal of metal and nonmetal contaminants  from lead-
 bearing scrap and residue.  Processes used for scrap pretreatment include battery breaking, crushing,
 and sweating. Battery breaking is the draining and crushing of batteries, followed by manual
 separation of the lead from nonmetallic materials. Lead plates, posts, and intercell connectors are
 collected and stored in a pile for subsequent charging to the furnace.  Oversized pieces of scrap and
 residues are usually put through jaw crushers. This separated lead scrap is then sweated in a gas- or
 oil-fired reverberatory or rotary furnace to separate lead from metals with higher  melting points.
 Rotary furnaces are usually used to process low-lead-content scrap  and residue, while  reverberatory
 furnaces are used to process high-lead-content scrap.  The partially purified lead is periodically tapped
 from these furnaces for further  processing in smelting furnaces or pot furnaces.

 12.11.2.2  Smelting -
        Smelting produces lead by melting and separating the lead from metal and nonmetallic
 contaminants and by reducing oxides to elemental lead.  Smelting is carried out in blast,
 reverberatory, and rotary kiln furnaces.  Blast furnaces produce hard or antimonial lead containing
 about 10 percent antimony. Reverberatory and rotary kiln furnaces are used to produce semisoft lead
 containing 3 to 4 percent antimony; however, rotary kiln furnaces are rarely used in the U.S. and
 will not be discussed in detail.

       In blast furnaces pretreated scrap metal, rerun slag, scrap iron, coke,  recycled dross, flue
 dust,  and limestone are used as charge materials  to the furnace. The process  heat needed to melt the
 lead is produced by the reaction of the charged coke with blast air that is blown into the furnace.
 Some of the coke combusts to melt the charge, while the remainder reduces lead oxides to elemental
lead.  The furnace is charged with combustion air at 3.4 to 5.2 kPa (0.5 to 0.75 psi) with an exhaust
temperature ranging from 650 to 730°C  (1200 to 1350°F).

       As the lead  charge melts,  limestone and iron float to the top of the molten bath and form a
flux that retards oxidation of the product  lead. The molten lead flows from the furnace into a holding
pot at a nearly continuous rate.  The product lead constitutes roughly 70 percent of the charge.  From


 10/86 (Reformatted  1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.11-1

    -------
                                  PRETREATMENT
                                                           FUEL
              Figure 12.11-1A.  Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                        (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                   SMELTING
          PRETREATED
            SCRAP
                                  SO,
                                  REVERBERATORY
                                     SMELTING
                                    (SCC 3-04-004-02)
                                      -RECYCLED DUST

                                     —RARE SCRAP

                                     —FUEL
                                       BLAST
                                     FURNACE
                                     SMELTING
                                    {SCC 3-04-004-03)
                                      -LIMESTONE

                                      -RECYCLED DUST

                                    —COKE

                                    — SLAG RESIDUE

                                    — LEAD OXIDE

                                    —SCRAP IRON

                                    — PURE SCRAP

                                      -RETURN SLAG
               Figure 12.11-1B.  Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                          (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.11-3

    -------
                                   REFINING
             CRUDE
           !   LEAD
           !  BULLION
                                     KETTLE (ALLOYING)
                                          REFINING
                                  -FLUX

                                  -FUEL

                                  -ALLOYING AGENT

                                  -SAWDUST
                                                FUME
                                      KETTLE OXIDATION
                                        (SCC 3-04-004-08)
                                       REVERBERATORY
                                         OXIDATION
                                  -FUEL

                                  -AIR
               Figure 12.11-1C. Process flow for typical secondary lead smelting.
                         (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)
12.11-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
the holding pot, the lead is usually cast into large ingots called pigs or sows.  About 18 percent of the
charge is recovered as slag, with about 60 percent of this being a sulfurous slag called matte.
Roughly 5 percent of the charge is retained for reuse, and the remaining 7 percent of the charge
escapes as dust or fume.  Processing capacity of the blast furnace ranges from 18 to 73 Mg per day
(20 to 80 tons per day).

        The reverberatory furnace used to produce semisoft lead is charged with lead scrap,  metallic
battery parts, oxides, drosses, and other residues.  The charge is heated directly to a temperature of
1260°C (2300°F) using natural gas, oil, or coal.  The average furnace capacity is about
45 megagrams  (50 tons) per day.  About 47 percent of the charge is recovered as lead product and is
periodically tapped into molds or holding pots. Forty-six  percent of the charge is removed as slag
and is later processed in blast furnaces. The remaining 7 percent of the furnace charge escapes as
dust or  fume.

12.11.2.3  Refining -
        Refining and casting the crude lead from the smelting furnaces can consist of softening,
alloying, and oxidation depending on the degree of purity  or alloy type desired.  These operations are
batch processes requiring from 2 hours to 3 days.  These operations can be performed in
reverberatory furnaces; however, kettle-type furnaces are most commonly used.  Remelting process is
usually  applied to lead alloy ingots that require no further  processing before casting.  Kettle  furnaces
used for alloying, refining, and oxidizing  are usually gas-  or oil-fired, and have typical capacities of
23 to 136 megagrams (25 to 150 tons) per day.  Refining and alloying operating temperatures range
from 320 to 700°C (600 to BOOT).  Alloying furnaces simply melt and mix ingots of lead  and alloy
materials.  Antimony, tin, arsenic, copper, and nickel are  the most common alloying materials.

        Refining furnaces are used to either remove copper and  antimony for soft lead production, or
to remove arsenic, copper, and nickel for  hard lead production.   Sulfur may be added to the molten
lead bath to remove copper.  Copper sulfide skimmed off as dross may subsequently be processed in
a blast furnace to recover residual lead. Aluminum chloride flux may be used to remove copper,
antimony,  and nickel.  The antimony content can be reduced to  about 0.02 percent by bubbling  air
through the molten lead. Residual antimony can be removed by adding sodium nitrate and sodium
hydroxide  to the bath and skimming off the resulting dross.  Dry dressing  consists of adding sawdust
to the agitated mass of molten metal.  The sawdust supplies carbon to help separate globules of lead
suspended  in the dross and to reduce some of the lead oxide to elemental lead.

        Oxidizing furnaces, either kettle or reverberatory units,  are used to oxidize lead and  to entrain
the product lead oxides in the combustion air stream for subsequent recovery in high-efficiency
baghouses.

12.11.3  Emissions And  Controls1'4"5

       Emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled processes and fugitive paniculate are given in
Tables 12.11-1, 12.11-2, 12.11-3, and 12.11-4.  Paniculate emissions from most processes are based
on accumulated test data, whereas fugitive paniculate emissions  are  based on the assumption that
5 percent of uncontrolled stack emissions are released as fugitive emissions.

       Reverberatory and blast furnaces account for the vast majority of the total lead emissions from
the secondary lead industry. The relative  quantities emitted from these 2 smelting processes cannot
be specified, because of a lack of complete information.  Most of the remaining processes  are small
emission sources with undefined emission  characteristics.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.11-5

    -------
                           Table 12.11-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING8
Process
Sweating" (kg/Mg charge)
(SCC 3-04-004-04)
Reverberatory smelting
(SCC 3-04-004-02)
Blast smelting-cupola*1
(SCC 3-04-004-03)
Kettle refining
(SCC 3-04-004-26)
Kettle Oxidation
(SCC 3-04-004-08)
Casting (SCC 3-04-004-09)
Particulateb
Uncontrolled
16-35
162
(87-242)e
153
(92-207)>
0.02P
£ 20'
0.02P
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
C
E
C
Controlled
ND
0.50
(0.26-0.77)f
1.12
(0.11-2.49)k
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
C
C
NA
NA
NA
Leadb
Uncontrolled
4-8d
32
(17-48)8
52
(31-70)™
0.006P
ND
0.007P
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
C
C
C
NA
C
Controlled
ND
ND
0.15
(0.02-0.32)°
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
NA
C
NA
NA
NA
SO
Uncontrolled
ND
40
(36-44)f
27
(9-55)e
ND
ND
ND
2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
ND
C
C
NA
NA
NA
w
S
H-4
on
O
H
O
»
oo
50
n
5*
a  Emission factor units expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg metal produced. SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data. NA = not
   applicable.
b  Paniculate and lead emission factors are based on quantity of lead product produced, except as noted.
c  Reference 1.  Estimated from sweating furnace emissions from nonlead secondary nonferrous processing industries.
d  References 3,5. Based on assumption that uncontrolled reverberatory furnace flue emissions are 23% lead.
e  References 8-11.
f  References 6,8-11.
g  Reference 13.  Uncontrolled reverberatory furnace flue emissions assumed to be 23% lead.  Blast ftirnace emissions have lead content of
   34%, based on single uncontrolled plant test.
h  Blast furnace emissions are combined flue gases and associated ventilation hood streams (charging and tapping).
j   References 8,11-12.
k  References 6,8,11-12,14-15.
m  Reference 13.  Blast furnace emissions have lead content of 26%, based on single controlled plant test.
n  Based on quantity of material charged to furnaces.
p  Reference 13.  Lead content of kettle refining emissions is 40% and of casting emissions is 36%.
q  References  1-2. Essentially all product lead oxide is entrained in an air stream and subsequently recovered by baghouse with average
   collection efficiency  >99%.  Factor represents emissions of lead oxide that escape a baghouse used to collect the lead oxide product.
   Represents approximate upper limit for emissions.

    -------
  a
  O
  z
  O

  s
  &

  Q
  <
  UJ
  Q

  §
  O
  u-
  O
  H
  O
  Z

  O



  22


  w



  Ul
  4—•

  'c
  ."§
  "Hb

  W,

  cs
  •s
  H




D
CO











jj
J"°












^
^
S3
3
O
"€
£






2 p z
22 u H
*5 ^ "5
^ UN PH

"S
|
'c
g
^
Z gg „
2 o z
^o t*** "^
^^ rj £^
S "*• ^
w

I
S
o
U

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

3

|
'S
8
c
D
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
"8
a
2
c
o
O


Igg
to H —
63 o H
5<<
|Sos
S
S
'c
0
(J
c
3





Process



Z




Q
Z



Z



Q
Z



UJ



•o
~
£••».

Z


Q
Z




W


0
rJ
m


^*
oo
u
jS ^
O -^
II
°oorn
rt CJ
> S-
co

0 U




•— 5~.
So 2
CD oo en .
oo ' in ,
r~ 2



1 «


c
n,^
9 ^9
Z o m
o
o.

O 0

u, S

8? 2?
C- j


0 U
<*^ ^
10 oo
IO 00
°. T ^i "f
^H m rsl -, O D£ O
IS sS
2 ' o '
J3 CJ StJ
o O — O
S S- S 52-
QS ^ 5 ""

z




Q
Z



Z



Q
Z



O

o.

o
o



Z


Q
Z




O

0.
O
o







^^
Jl
II

*~

Z




Q
Z



Z



Q
Z



Z



Q
Z


Z


a
z




UJ


a*
O
"*
V!





^
oo
o
1?
SI

sS"

z




Q
Z



z



Q
Z



o

o.

o
o



Z


Q




O

?t
S
c>



,^
0

^
g
S
0
0
S2-
Ml
C
«
U

4»*
o
c


<
z
«
C8
O
*"
II
Q
Z

2
f^---f

C/2
_j
5>
i
0.
X


52
mission facto
w
a
                                                                  O
                                                                  o
                                                                  4>
                                                        CD
                    T3
                              -
                              e   .s
     C

     a.
                              C    T3
                              u-    c
                                                                                      4>
                                                  "^ x
                                                  a> o
                                                  CA
                                                  3 T3
                                                  O «
                  O
                  CD
                                                    O


                                                    o
                  - 3 g
                  & S §

                  11
                   -§
                  -
                                                                  PQ
                                                                 S
                                   £?
                                   a

                                          O
                                          o

                                          
O
S3
C

CQ

T3



s
                                          5


                                          T3 S S2 S
             -    s   s
                              •e-a.5
                              (U  S o
                                                                             •  —i OO

                                                                       « oo so" <

                                                   ..§  2


                                                                         a>  n> a>  a> m a> ^> }q
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
                    12.11-7

    -------
             Table 12.11-3 (Metric Units). FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Operation
Sweating (SCC 3-04-004-12)
Smelting (SCC 3-04-004-13)
Kettle refining (SCC 3-04-004-14)
Casting (SCC 3-04-004-25)
Paniculate
0.8-1.8b
4.3-12.1
0.001
0.001
Lead
0.2-0.9°
0.1-0.3d
0.0003e
0.0004e
a Reference 16.  Based on amount of lead product except for sweating, which is based on quantity of
  material charged to furnace.  Fugitive emissions estimated to be 5% of uncontrolled stack
  emissions.  SCC= Source Classification Code.
b Reference 1.  Sweating furnace emissions estimated from nonlead secondary nonferrous processsing
  industries.
c References 3,5. Assumes 23% lead content of uncontrolled blast furnace flue emissions.
d Reference 24.
e Reference 13.
            Table 12.11-4 (English Units).  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING*

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Operation
Sweating (SCC 3-04-004-12)
Smelting (SCC 3-04-004-13)
Kettle refining (SCC 3-04-004-14)
Casting (SCC 3-04-004-25)
Particulate
1.6-3.5b
8.6-24.2
0.002
0.002
Lead
0.4-1.8C
0.2-0.6d
0.0006e
0.0007e
a Reference 16.  Based on amount of lead product, except for sweating, which is based on quantity of
  material charged to furnace.  Fugitive emissions estimated to be 5% of uncontrolled stack
  emissions.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
b Reference 1.  Sweating furnace emissions estimated from nonlead secondary nonferrous processsing
  industries.
c References 3,5. Assumes 23% lead content of uncontrolled blast furnace flue emissions.
d Reference 24.
e Reference 13.
12.11-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95)  10/86

    -------
        Emissions from battery breaking are mainly of sulfuric acid mist and dusts containing dirt,
battery case material, and lead compounds. Emissions from crushing are also mainly dusts.

        Emissions from sweating operations are fume, dust, soot particles, and combustion products,
including sulfur dioxide (SO^. The SO2 emissions come from combustion of sulfur compounds in
the scrap and fuel.  Dust particles range in size from 5 to 20 micrometers (/*m)  and unagglomerated
lead fumes range in size from 0.07 to 0.4 fim, with an average diameter of 0.3 /*m.  Particulate
loadings in the stack gas from reverberatory sweating range from 3.2 to 10.3 grams per cubic meter
(1.4 to 4.5 grains per cubic foot).  Baghouses are usually used to control sweating emissions, with
removal efficiencies exceeding 99 percent.  The emission factors for lead sweating in Tables 12.11-1
and 12.11-2 are based on measurements at similar sweating furnaces in other secondary metal
processing industries, not on  measurements at lead sweating furnaces.

        Reverberatory smelting furnaces emit paniculate and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
Particulate consists of oxides, sulfldes and sulfates of lead,  antimony, arsenic, copper, and tin, as well
as unagglomerated lead fume. Particulate loadings range from to 16 to 50 grams per cubic meter
(7 to 22 grains per cubic foot).  Emissions are generally controlled with settling and cooling
chambers, followed by a baghouse.  Control efficiencies generally exceed 99 percent.  Wet scrubbers
are sometimes used to reduce SO2 emissions.  However,  because of the small particles emitted from
reverberatory furnaces, baghouses are more often used than scrubbers for paniculate control.

        Two chemical analyses by electron spectroscopy have shown the paniculate to consist of 38 to
42 percent lead, 20 to 30 percent tin, and about 1 percent zinc.17 Particulate emissions from
reverberatory smelting furnaces are estimated to contain 20 percent lead.

        Emissions from blast  furnaces occur at charging doors, the slag tap, the lead well, and the
furnace stack.  The emissions are combustion gases  (including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,  and
oxides of sulfur and nitrogen) and particulate.  Emissions from the charging doors and the slag tap
are hooded and routed to the  devices treating the furnace stack emissions.  Blast furnace particulate is
smaller than that emitted from reverberatory furnaces and is suitable for control by scrubbers or
fabric filters downstream of coolers.  Efficiencies for various  control devices are shown in
Table 12.11-5. In one application, fabric filters alone captured over 99 percent of the blast furnace
particulate emissions.

        Particulate recovered  from the uncontrolled flue emissions at 6 blast furnaces had an average
lead content of 23  percent.3'5  Particulate recovered from the uncontrolled charging  and tapping
hoods at 1 blast furnace had an average lead content of 61 percent.13 Based on relative emission
rates, lead is 34 percent of uncontrolled  blast furnace emissions.  Controlled emissions from the same
blast furnace had lead content of 26 percent, with 33 percent from flues, and 22 percent from
charging and tapping operations.13  Particulate recovered from another blast furnace contained 80 to
85 percent lead sulfate and lead chloride, 4 percent tin, 1 percent cadmium, 1 percent zinc,
0.5 percent antimony, 0.5 percent arsenic, and less than 1 percent organic matter.18

        Kettle furnaces for melting, refining, and alloying are relatively minor emission sources.  The
kettles are hooded, with fumes and dusts typically vented to baghouses and recovered at efficiencies
exceeding 99 percent. Twenty measurements of the uncontrolled particulates from kettle furnaces
showed a mass median aerodynamic particle diameter of 18.9 micrometers,  with particle size ranging
from 0.05 to 150 micrometers.  Three chemical analyses  by electron spectroscopy showed the
composition of particulate to vary from 12 to 17 percent lead, 5 to 17 percent tin, and 0.9 to
5.7 percent zinc.16
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.11-9

    -------
          Table 12.11-5.  EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
              ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
Control Equipment
Fabric filter3

Dry cyclone plus fabric filter*
Wet cyclone plus fabric filterb
Settling chamber plus dry
cyclone plus fabric filter0
Venturi scrubber plus demisterd
Furnace Type
Blast
Blast Reverberatory
Blast
Reverberatory
Reverberatory
Blast
Control Efficiency
98.4
99.2
99.0
99.7
99.8
99.3
a Reference 8.
b Reference 9.
c Reference 10.
d Reference 14.
       Emissions from oxidizing furnaces are economically recovered with baghouses.  The
particulates are mostly lead oxide, but they also contain amounts of lead and other metals.  The
oxides range in size from 0.2 to 0.5 /mi.  Controlled emissions have been estimated to be
0.1 kilograms per megagram (0.2 pounds per ton) of lead product, based on a 99 percent efficient
baghouse.
References For Section 12.11.

1.     William M. Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary
       Nonferrous Metal Industry (Draft), Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian Corporation, Austin,
       TX, June 1976.

2.     H. Nack, et al., Development Of An Approach To Identification Of Emerging Technology And
       Demonstration Opportunities, EPA-650/2-74-048, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, May 1974.

3.     J. M.  Zoller, et al., A Method Of Characterization And Quantification Of Fugitive Lead
       Emissions From Secondary Lead Smelters, Ferroalloy Plants And Gray Iron Foundries
       (Revised), EPA-450/3-78-003 (Revised), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, August 1978.

4.     Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of Print.

5.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
12.11-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
6.     Background Information For Proposed New Source Performance Standards, Volumes I And II:
       Secondary Lead Smelters And Refineries, APTD-1352a and b, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.

7.     J. W. Watson and K. J. Brooks, A Review Of Standards Of Performance For New Stationary
       Source—Secondary Lead Smelters, Contract No. 68-02-2526, Mitre Corporation,
       McLean, VA, January 1979.

8.     John E. Williamson, et al., A Study Of Five Source Tests On Emissions From Secondary Lead
       Smelters, County Of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA,
       February 1972.

9.     Emission Test No. 72-CI-8, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1972.

10.    Emission Test No. 72-CI-7, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.

11.    A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Paniculate Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I: Mass Emissions,
       APTD-0743,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
       May 1971.

12.    Emission Test No. 71-CI-34, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1972.

13.    Emission And Emission Controls At A Secondary Lead Smelter (Draft), Contract
       No. 68-03-2807, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1981.

14.    Emission Test No. 71-CI-33, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August  1972.

15.    Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling At General Battery Corporation, Reading,
       Pennsylvania, Contract No. 68-02-0230, Battelle Institute, Columbus, OH, July 1972.

16.    Technical Guidance For Control Of Industrial Process Fugitive Paniculate Emissions,
       EPA-450/3-77-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       March 1977.                                                                      .

17.    E. I. Hartt, An Evaluation Of Continuous Paniculate Monitors At A Secondary Lead Smelter,
       M. S. Report No. O. R. -16, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.  Date Unknown.

18.    J. E. Howes,  et al., Evaluation Of Stationary Source Paniculate Measurement Methods,
       Volume V:  Secondary Lead Smelters, Contract No. 68-02-0609, Battelle Laboratories,
       Columbus, OH, January 1979.

19.    Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation (Interim Report), Contract
       No. 68-02-1343, Pedco, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, February 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Metallurgical Industry                             12.11-11

    -------
20.    Rives, G. D. and A. J. Miles, Control Of Arsenic Emissions From The Secondary Lead
       Smelting Industry, Technical Document, Prepared Under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3816,
       Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1985.

21.    W. D. Woodbury, Minerals Yearbook,  United States Department Of The Interior, Bureau of
       Mines, 1989.

22.    R. J. Isherwood, et al., The Impact Of Existing And Proposed Regulations  Upon The
       Domestic Lead Industry. NTIS, PBE9121743.  1988.

23.    F. Hall, et al., Inspection And Operating And Maintenance Guidelines For Secondary Lead
       Smelter Air Pollution Control, Pedco-Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1984.
12.11-12                           EMISSION FACTORS                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
12.12  Secondary Magnesium Smelting

12.12.1  General1'2

       Secondary magnesium smelters process scrap which contains magnesium to produce
magnesium alloys.  Sources of scrap for magnesium smelting include automobile crankcase and
transmission housings, beverage cans, scrap from product manufacture, and sludges from various
magnesium-melting operations. This form of recovery is becoming an important factor in magnesium
production.  In 1983, only 13 percent of the U. S. magnesium supply  came from secondary
production; in 1991, this number increased to 30 percent, primarily due to increased recycling of
beverage cans.

12.12.2  Process Description3'4

       Magnesium scrap is sorted and charged into a steel crucible maintained at approximately
675°C (1247°F).   As the charge begins to burn, flux must be added to control oxidation.  Fluxes
usually contain chloride salts of potassium, magnesium, barium, and magnesium oxide and calcium
fluoride.  Fluxes are floated on top of the melt to prevent contact with air. The method of heating the
crucible causes the bottom layer of scrap to melt first while the top remains solid. This semi-molten
state allows cold castings to be added without danger of "shooting", a  violent reaction that occurs
when cold metals are added to hot liquid metals.  As  soon as the surface of the feed becomes liquid, a
crusting flux must be added to inhibit  surface burning.

       The composition of the melt is carefully monitored.  Steel, salts, and oxides coagulate at the
bottom of the furnace. Additional metals are  added as needed to reach specifications.  Once the
molten metal  reaches the desired levels of key components, it is poured, pumped, or ladled into
ingots.

12.12.3  Emissions And Controls5'6

       Emissions for a typical magnesium smelter are given in Tables 12.12-1 and 12.12-2.
Emissions from magnesium smelting include paniculate magnesium oxides (MgO) and from the
melting and fluxing processes, and nitrogen oxides from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the
furnace temperatures. Carbon monoxide and nonmethane hydrocarbons have also been detected.  The
type of flux used on the molten material, the amount of contamination of the scrap (especially oil and
other hydrocarbons), and the type and extent of control equipment affect the amount of emissions
produced.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.12-1

    -------
                  Table 12.12-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
Type of Furnace
Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Paniculate
Emission Factor3

2
0.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
C
a References 5 and 6.  Emission factors are expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg of metal processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.
                 Table 12.12-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
            Type of Furnace
            Particulate
         Emission Factor3
EMISSION FACTOR
      RATING
 Pot Furnace (SCC 3-04-006-01)

   Uncontrolled

   Controlled
               4

               0.4
         C

         C
a References 5 and 6.  Emission factors are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton of metal processed.
  SCC = Source Classification Code.


References For Section 12.12

1.     Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed., Vol. 14, John Wiley And Sons,
       Canada,  1981.

2.     Mineral  Commodity Summaries 1992, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC.

3.     Light Metal Age, "Recycling:  The Catchword Of The '90s", Vol. 50, CA, February,  1992.

4.     National Emission Inventory Of Sources And Emissions Of Magnesium, EPA-450 12-74-010,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.

5.     G. L. Allen, et al.,  Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts And Fumes In Los Angeles
       County.  Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC, Information
       Circular Number 7627, April 1952.

6.     W. F. Hammond, Data On Nonferrous Metallurgical Operations, Los Angeles County Air
       Pollution Control District, November 1966.
12.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
   (Reformatted 1/95)  11/94

    -------
12.13    Steel Foundries

12.13.1  General

        Steel foundries produce steel castings weighing from a few ounces to over  180 megagrams
(Mg) (200 tons). These castings are used in machinery, transportation, and other industries requiring
parts that are strong and reliable.  In 1989, 1030 million Mg (1135 million tons) of steel (carbon and
alloy) were cast by U. S. steel foundries, while demand was calculated at 1332 Mg (1470 million
tons).  Imported steel accounts for the difference between the amount cast and  the demand amount.
Steel casting is done by small- and medium-size manufacturing  companies.

        Commercial steel castings are divided into 3 classes:  (1) carbon steel,  (2) low-alloy steel, and
(3) high-alloy steel. Different compositions and heat treatments of steel castings result in a tensile
strength range of 400 to 1700 MPa (60,000 to 250,000 psi).

12.13.2  Process Description1

        Steel foundries produce steel castings by melting scrap, alloying, molding,  and finishing.  The
process flow diagram of a typical steel  foundry with fugitive emission points is presented in
Figure 12.13-1. The major processing operations of a typical steel foundry are raw materials
handling, metal melting, mold and core production, and casting and finishing.

12.13.2.1  Raw Materials Handling -
        Raw material handling operations include receiving, unloading, storing, and conveying all raw
materials for the foundry. Some of the raw materials  used  by steel foundries are iron and steel scrap,
foundry returns, metal turnings, alloys, carbon additives, fluxes (limestone, soda ash, fluorspar,
calcium carbide), sand, sand additives,  and binders. These raw materials are received in ships,
railcars, trucks, and containers, and are transferred by trucks, loaders, and conveyors to both open-
pile and enclosed storage areas. They are then transferred by similar means  from storage to the
subsequent processes.

12.13.2.2  Metal Melting9 -
        Metal melting process operations are:  (1) scrap preparation;  (2) furnace charging, in which
metal,  scrap, alloys, carbon, and flux are added to the furnace;  (3) melting, during which the furnace
remains closed; (4) backcharging, which is  the addition of more metal and possibly alloys;
(5) refining by single (oxidizing) slag or double (oxidizing and reducing) slagging operations;
(6) oxygen lancing, which is injecting oxygen into the molten steel to adjust the chemistry of the
metal and speed up the melt; and (7) tapping the molten metal into a  ladle or directly into molds.
After preparation, the scrap,  metal, alloy, and flux are weighed and charged to the  furnace.

       Electric furnaces are used almost exclusively in the  steel foundry for melting and formulating
steel. There are 2 types of electric furnaces:  direct arc and induction.

       Electric arc furnaces  are charged with raw materials by  removing the lid through a chute
opening in the lid or through a door in  the side. The molten metal is tapped by tilting and pouring
through a spout on the side.  Melting capacities range  up to 10  Mg (11 tons) per hour.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.13-1

    -------
                                                                        FUGITIVE
                                                                      PARTICIPATES
                                                 RAW  MATERIALS
                                              UNLOADING. STORAGE.
                                                    TRANSFER

                                                • FLUX
                                                • METALS
                                                • CARBON SOURCES
                                                • SAND
                                                • BINDER
                                                     SCRAP
                                                  PREPARATION
                                                  (SCC KM-003-U)
                                                                      HYDROCARBONS.
                                                                     ».     CO.
                                                                        AND SMOKE
                                                                       FURNACE
                                                                        VENT
                                                                                               FUGITIVE
                                                                                                DUST
                                                   FURNACE
                                               CUPOLA(SCCM*
    -------
        A direct electric arc furnace is a large refractory-lined steel pot, fitted with a refractory roof
 through which 3 vertical graphite electrodes are inserted, as shown in Figure 12.13-2.  The metal
 charge is melted with resistive heating generated by electrical current flowing among the electrodes
 and through the charge.
                     RETRACTABLE  ELECTRODES
                              Figure 12.13-2.  Electric arc steel furnace.

        An induction furnace is a vertical refractory-lined cylinder surrounded by coils energized with
alternating current. The resulting fluctuating magnetic field heats the metal.  Induction furnaces are
kept closed except when charging, skimming, and tapping.  The molten metal is tapped by tilting and
pouring through a spout on the side.  Induction furnaces are also used in conjunction with other
furnaces, to hold and superheat a charge, previously melted and refined in another furnace.  A very
small fraction of the secondary steel industry also uses crucible and pneumatic converter furnaces.  A
less common furnace used in steel foundries is the open hearth furnace, a very large shallow
refractory-lined batch operated vessel. The open hearth furnace is fired at alternate ends, using the
hot waste combustion gases to heat  the incoming combustion air.

12.13.2.3 Mold And Core Production-
        Cores are forms used to make the internal features in castings.  Molds are forms used to
shape the casting exterior.  Cores are made of sand with organic binders, molded into a core and
baked in an oven.  Molds are made of sand with clay or chemical binders.  Increasingly, chemical
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.13-3

    -------
binders are being used in both core and mold production.  Used sand from castings shakeout
operations is usually recycled to the sand preparation area, where it is cleaned, screened, and reused.

12.13.2.4 Casting And Finishing -
        When the melting process is complete, the molten metal is tapped and poured into a ladle.
The molten metal may be treated in the ladle by adding alloys and/or other chemicals.  The treated
metal is then poured into molds and allowed to partially cool under carefully controlled conditions.
When cooled, the castings are placed on a vibrating grid and the sand of the mold and core are
shaken away from the casting.

        In the cleaning and finishing process, burrs, risers, and gates are broken or ground off to
match the contour of the casting. Afterward, the castings can be shot-blasted to remove remaining
mold sand and scale.

12.13.3  Emissions And Controls1'16

        Emissions from the raw materials handling operations are fugitive participates generated from
receiving, unloading, storing,  and conveying all raw materials for the foundry. These emissions are
controlled by enclosing the major emission points and routing the air from the enclosures through
fabric filters.

        Emissions from scrap preparation consist of hydrocarbons if solvent degreasing is used and
consist of smoke, organics, and carbon monoxide (CO) if heating is used. Catalytic incinerators and
afterburners of approximately  95 percent control efficiency for carbon monoxide and organics can be
applied to these sources.

        Emissions from melting furnaces are particulates, carbon monoxide, organics, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and small quantities of chlorides and fluorides.  The particulates, chlorides, and
fluorides are generated by the  flux.  Scrap contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dirt
particles, along with oxidized phosphorus, silicon, and manganese.  In addition, organics on the scrap
and the carbon additives increase CO emissions. There are also trace constituents such as nickel,
hexavalent chromium, lead, cadmium, and arsenic.  The highest concentrations of furnace emissions
occur when the furnace lids and doors are opened during charging, backcharging,  alloying, oxygen
lancing, slag removal, and tapping operations.  These emissions escape into the furnace building and
are vented through roof vents.  Controls for emissions during the melting and refining operations
focus on venting the furnace gases and fumes directly to an emission  collection duct and control
system.  Controls for fugitive  furnace emissions involve either the use of building roof hoods or
special hoods near the furnace doors, to collect emissions and route them to emission control systems.
Emission control systems commonly used to control paniculate emissions from electric arc and
induction furnaces are bag filters, cyclones, and venturi scrubbers.  The capture efficiencies of the
collection systems are presented in Tables 12.13-1 and 12.13-2.  Usually, induction furnaces are
uncontrolled.

        Molten steel is tapped  from a furnace into a ladle.  Alloying agents can be added to the ladle.
These include aluminum, titanium,  zirconium, vanadium, and boron.  Ferroalloys are used to produce
steel alloys and adjust the oxygen content while the molten steel is in the ladle.  Emissions consist of
iron oxides during tapping in addition to oxide fumes from alloys added to the ladle.

        The major pollutant from mold and core production are  particulates from sand reclaiming,
sand preparation, sand mixing with binders and additives, and mold and core forming.  Particulate,
12.13-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
   CO
   U

   52
   Q
   Z

   O
   g
   tu
   co
   tti

   g
   O

   CO
   CO
   00
   4-*

   'S
  •s
2 o 1
5/j f-H t—*
^ft r\ £«H

i2 r£* Q^
«


u
3 o
g 5

s *


Z (V* r»>
2 o i

IB.
§ 3
S?:2
is x
Z°

og°
§ H S
5 ^ ^a
w fc
(B
-S S
jD rt jr*"
|||
OH















CO



z z





Q Q
Z Z





w u

v>
- §
O 0


PJ PJ


S- o
C-) — '
o o
rj, ^,
vd vi

















Melting
Electric arcb>c (SCC 3-04-007-01)
Open hearthd>e (SCC 3-04-007-02)

Z





Q
Z





Z

Q


U



>?r

o













o

§
i
o
o
00
1
OS
S
00
O
.C
1
§
a.
O

W





i
b





Z

Q
Z


tu





S
b















,-— *.
o
Electric induction11 (SCC 3-04-007

U4 W





tio
O C*l





Z

z


z





Q
Z







?
ri.
1
4
o
u
"~3o
_c
eg
S
2
o
o
1
eg
2
13
00
c
eg
C
00
eg
CO

W W





Is ">
•^ b





Z

Q
Z


Z





Q
Z


















Core ovens' (SCC 3-04-007-07)

u






—





Z

Q
Z


Z





Q
Z

















ccT
0
O
U
52-
"I*
en
eg
o
eg
00
•c
I

w





>n
oo
b





Z.

Z


z





Q


















1 Casting cleaning* (SCC 3-04-007-1 1]

tt>





oo
b





Z

Z


z





Q


















1 Charge handling) (SCC 3-04-007-12]

U





f-
b





Z

Z


z





Q


















en"
|
O
U
"G"
"3
o
u
CQ
O
c x>
.2 S
oo 2
.2 3.
g a
*> *_>
d> O
Xj C
•0* "
>»^
o Z
"5,
E A
4> «g
C/3 "O
'i §
C
60 .
>> D
X T3
O O
03 O
O O
f* .i«
<4-i "*S>
<-< -2
° °
0 |
O CO

c* "
>,^
a>

«i ejj
"" c
^~5 pj
*2 *-*

I o
w"<2
U! ^^
O (D
_e <*-<
•S o
12
IJ2

CJ *^
o a>
0,*
•« g
u
<*- e
0 S
bO O
^ x:
$ °
&0 u
^ X5
oo T3
51
Si *
2 S
&§
w i
1
U.
•*-»
8
1
2
oo

s
In

X^
^aT
CA


bo
S3


>•>
I
'3
«
"o
•g
o

oo
o
D Electrostatic precipitator, 92 t
e 3 ^
Q CO OO
li^
e ft *"*
u « ON
a) O
5 « S3
•a " S
35 _> 3
^$5

"5, .-
| S 3
r*^ c3
.52 ^^ Q)
g> § ?1
'3 ii o
c §

S !S
^Q . QJ
>. OJ _,
X T3 o
0 r9 S
*"rt \^ pj
55 <-- O
rf\ ti f i
« .2

2i ^a ^**
O o O>
C JT^* ^^
t*- "So O
.*^ oo •*-*
t- ^2 oo
o^o ON
^ u /u?
'553
WH O (T1
O CO
>» II •"
• - r *
SM 1
Hi O
.S2 bo x!
C GJ3
*TZj C3 C3
p l-« _f*i

s 2 >^

^ ! :li g^
I* *<-^
O (D O

2 <4-c "W
•5 o — i
«*-  ON
ft£ 0
-^^
2 E CN
tJ g ON
E* c
t*- C O
° 13
bo O -tJ
•5 x: ft
$ ° '3 >>
bo « g o .
•** ft § r?
S 2 o '3 
S-S S c
Illll
w <£ S 8 a!
eg J3 O
si efficient
^
c
8
6x
ON
ON
2
^D
ON
uT
X)
x>
5
00
•~
|
g
>

^i
O
C
.2
'3
tS
aj

g
C
O
gcj
ON
ON
ON
3
O
00
CO
XS

>%
o

.2
'o

0)
L 	 f
c
•*->
8
fc?
oo
ON
O
•+••>

ON
t^
1
•&o
« T
ft«
o r^
Electrostati
References
"O U *
c

"3
(-^
o

^
oo
ON
o

in
ON
~
CD
X3
X:
3
o
oo
3
•^
§
^

•^1
Cj
C
.2^
'o
?!"")
*
0
feC>
&v
ON
ON
3
O
bo
ea
X)

>i
o
C
—
"3
£

r t
2
S
8
fc?
00
ON
O

W")
ON
^
O
S
!&
cj >n
Electrostati
References
« M


































•s
1
ss
X!

•o
C


'S

bo
^E
~Y^
e
3
"3
ft
"o
bo

c«

13
t controlled.
13.
ictor express
Usually noi
Reference :
Emission fi
j= — , M
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.13-5

    -------
  C/5

  UJ
  Q

  Z

  D

  O
  tu

  J
  UJ
  U

  H
  oo



  g
  tin

  00
  Qi


  B
  O
  z
  o
  NH
  00

  £2


  u
  .«

  p
  en
  ««4


  cs
IB*
pi
o
3 2
S S
E fc
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
c
o ??
II
2°
Isi
to H S
II
0 .0
5 t:
a.



O







12 *!Z, *Z,
-^ j«:
QJ^ /»s ON ^ cs O
W fcJ o to O cs ON
Z Z Z " * * "

« « < < < <


2 | z z z z
VO
(si rt ej -^

< < < <


Z Z Z Z
u4 pj m m ^5 ^S ^^S^S^S
z z z, z z z
222 Q Q
""* *y *y
•f C4 00 ^ <-. , g 1 9 u
o *i O f> -S o ^
•°" "js j= = "ab o 52-

OS at c3 -S ^ O "^
.2 ^ J .2 -S  u
a> £ c c £ MO §
•3 8g,^8-aOu
"" S o o 53 S52.S
S tfl U
Q Q O Q
Z Z Z Z




^».
0
s 2" 3" s-
o > ' «7
4 S o r~
9998
0 9 9 S


                           43    '5
                            0 o s
                               a ON
                              ^— oo
                            o O ON


                            >i o ^


                           *  II
                            i-    en

                            J>  . 3

                            >  0) O

                            «  0043

                           •52  C ao
                           ^_  C^ W

                           13  <- 43


                            9>  ^ -  "

                            £  2 >>
                            ^^  « ^ tj
                                                                  1) ^, 0)

                                                                  4=  O —

                                                                  C  » 2
                           "S*
                                                                  a  i
                                 oo


                                 o


                                 ts
                                                                       .s

                                                                     • *
CJ
e
.22
'o
£
"3
£:
c
o
o
o
&^
ON
ON
2
^o
ON
af
43
S
w
^

1
>
C
"o
s
is
1

o
o
o
o1^
ON
ON
ON
C/3
3
O

43
. «-
^~i
O
C
"o
*+H
o>
1
£3
o
0

^
oo
ON
0
in
ON

O
2
"o
^
T o,
CS o
w5 *r^
0> 03
O -^
§1
g> 0
n^ 5
j -a

,^_
o
C
'o
<3

"o

f-»
o
o

^
00
ON
O

ON
«-T
43
5
o
c«
1
>;
e

I
o
o

go
oo
ON
O
in
ON

O
+-»
• 'S<
o -G .
1 ^ ^^
°° 0,1
CS o V>
^ *^"1 y^
o t:; o
C § C
rti . Q>
i-i | . U-i

C£ H Qi
0 •« M




































•
qj
•^4
CS
42
•o
C
CO

O
C
o
•*— '
"£
4—*
^~l
o
a.
o
£
00

•s
c^
« U,
S Q.
8 £
C i-
0 . 0
^— > T-H CO
o <*-<
c g g
^ c o
=: £ -a
3 '4-* *?
wa U C
P OS W
43.-,^
12.13-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 VOC, and CO emissions result from core baking and VOC emissions occur during mold drying. Bag
 filters and scrubbers can be used to control particulates from mold and core production.  Afterburners
 and catalytic incinerators can be used to control VOC and CO emissions.

        During casting operations, large quantities of particulates can be generated in the steps prior
 to pouring.  Emissions from pouring consist of fumes, CO, VOCs, and particulates from the mold
 and core materials when contacted by the molten steel. As the mold cools, emissions continue.  A
 significant quantity of paniculate emissions is generated during the casting shakeout operation. The
 paniculate emissions from the shakeout operations can be controlled by either high-efficiency cyclone
 separators or bag filters. Emissions from pouring are usually uncontrolled.

        Emissions from  finishing operations consist of particulates  resulting from the removal of
 burrs, risers, and gates and during shot blasting.  Particulates from finishing operations can be
 controlled by cyclone separators.

        Nonfurnace emissions sources in steel foundries are very similar to those in iron foundries.
 Nonfurnace emissions factors and particle size distributions for iron foundry  emission sources for
 criteria  and toxic pollutants are presented in Section 12.10, "Gray Iron Foundries".

 References For Section 12.13

 1.      Paul F. Fennelly And Petter D. Spawn, Air Pollutant Control Techniques For Electric Arc
        Furnaces In The Iron And Steel Foundry Industry, EPA-450/2-78-024, U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1978.

 2.      J. J. Schueneman,  et al., Air Pollution Aspects Of The Iron And Steel Industry, National
        Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, OH. June 1963.

 3.      Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, 2nd Edition, Foundry Air Pollution Control
        Committee, Des Plaines,  IL, 1967.

 4.      R. S. Coulter, "Smoke, Dust, Fumes Closely Controlled  In Electric Furnaces", Iron Age,
        173:107-110, January 14, 1954.

 5.     J. M. Kane and R. V. Sloan, "Fume Control Electric Melting Furnaces", American
       Foundryman, 18:33-34, November 1950.

 6.      C. A. Faist, "Electric Furnace Steel", Proceedings Of The American Institute Of Mining And
       Metallurgical Engineers, 11:160-161, 1953.

7.     I.  H. Douglas, "Direct Fume Extraction And Collection Applied To A Fifteen-Ton Arc
       Furnace", Special Report On Fume Arrestment, Iron And Steel Institute,  1964, pp.  144, 149.

8.     Inventory Of Air Contaminant Emissions, New York State Air Pollution Control Board,
       Table XI, pp. 14-19. Date unknown.

9.     A. C. Elliot and  A. J. Freniere, "Metallurgical Dust Collection In Open  Hearth And Sinter
       Plant", Canadian Mining And Metallurgical Bulletin, 55(606):724-732.  October 1962.

10.    C. L. Hemeon, "Air Pollution Problems Of The Steel Industry", JAPCA, 10(3):208-218.
       March  1960.

1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.13-7

    -------
11.    D. W. Coy, Unpublished Data, Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, VA.

12.    E. L. Kotzin, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Revision, 1992.

13.    PM10 Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology Transfer, EPA-450/4-89-022.

14.    W. R. Barnard, Emission Factors For Iron And Steel Sources—Criteria And Toxic Pollutants,
       E.H. Pachan and Associates, Inc., EPA-600/2-50-024, June 1990.

15.    A. A. Pope, et al., Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors A Compilation For Selected Air
       Toxic Compounds And Sources, Second Edition, Radian Corporation, EPA-450/2-90-011.
       October 1990.

16.    Electric Arc Furnaces And Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels In The Steel Industry:
       Background Information For Proposed Revisions To Standards, EPA-450/3-B-020A,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC.  July 1983.
12.13-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 12.14  Secondary Zinc Processing

 12.14.1 General1

        The secondary zinc industry processes scrap metals for the recovery of zinc in the form of
 zinc slabs, zinc oxide, or zinc dust. There are currently  10 secondary zinc recovery plants operating
 in the U. S., with an aggregate capacity of approximately 60 megagrams (60 tons) per year.

 12.14.2 Process Description2"3

        Zinc recovery involves 3 general operations performed on scrap, pretreatment, melting, and
 refining.  Processes typically used in each operation are shown in Figure 12.14-1.

 12.14.2.1  Scrap Pretreatment -
        Scrap metal is delivered to the secondary zinc processor as ingots, rejected castings, flashing,
 and other mixed metal scrap containing zinc.  Scrap pretreatment includes:  (1) sorting, (2) cleaning,
 (3) crushing and screening, (4) sweating, and (5) leaching.

        In the sorting operation, zinc scrap is manually separated according to zinc content and any
 subsequent processing requirements. Cleaning removes foreign materials to improve product quality
 and recovery efficiency.  Crushing facilitates the ability to separate the zinc from the contaminants.
 Screening and pneumatic classification concentrates the zinc metal for further processing.

        A sweating furnace (rotary, reverberatory,  or muffle furnace) slowly heats the scrap
 containing zinc  and other metals to approximately 364°C (687°F).  This temperature is sufficient to
 melt zinc but is still below the melting point of the remaining metals.  Molten zinc collects at the
 bottom of the sweat furnace and is subsequently  recovered.  The remaining scrap metal is cooled and
 removed to be sold to other secondary processors.

        Leaching with sodium carbonate solution converts dross and skimmings to zinc oxide, which
 can be reduced to zinc metal.  The zinc-containing material  is crushed and washed with water,
 separating contaminants from zinc-containing metal.  The contaminated aqueous stream is treated with
 sodium carbonate to convert zinc chloride into sodium chloride (NaCl) and insoluble zinc hydroxide
 [Zn(OH)2].  The NaCl is separated from the insoluble residues by filtration and settling.  The
 precipitate zinc hydroxide is dried and calcined (dehydrated into a powder at high temperature) to
 convert it into crude zinc oxide (ZnO). The ZnO product is usually refined to  zinc at primary zinc
 smelters.  The washed zinc-containing metal portion becomes the raw material  for the melting
 process.

 12.14.2.2 Melting-
        Zinc scrap is melted in kettle,  crucible, reverberatory,  and electric induction furnaces.  Flux
 is used in these furnaces to trap impurities from the molten zinc.  Facilitated by agitation, flux and
 impurities float to the surface of the melt as dross,  and is skimmed from the surface. The
remaining molten zinc may be poured  into molds or transferred to the refining  operation in a molten
state.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                               12.14-1

    -------
 0
                                                                      |





                                                                      D
            tlT fJT tl
                                                                      O



                                                                      O
                                                                      03



                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                           o

                                           2
                                           o.


                                          _c



                                           &•


                                           e
                                                                      2
                                                                      •5
                                               S 3
                                               f- Q
                                               <^ uj


                                               S 9 S
                                               5 x =3

                                               <00


                                               zoj

                                               OZ<

                                               O r-4 CO
                                                                      CN
12.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
        Zinc alloys are produced from pretreated scrap during sweating and melting processes.  The
 alloys may contain small amounts of copper, aluminum, magnesium, iron, lead, cadmium, and tin.
 Alloys containing 0.65 to 1.25 percent copper are significantly stronger than unalloyed zinc.

 12.14.2.3  Refining -
        Refining processes remove further impurities in clean zinc alloy scrap and in zinc vaporized
 during the melt phase in retort furnaces, as shown in Figure 12.14-2.  Molten zinc is heated until it
 vaporizes.  Zinc vapor is condensed and recovered in several forms, depending upon temperature,
 recovery time, absence or presence of oxygen, and equipment used during zinc vapor condensation.
 Final products from refining processes include zinc ingots, zinc dust, zinc oxide, and zinc alloys.

        Distillation retorts and furnaces are used either to reclaim zinc from alloys or to refine crude
 zinc.  Bottle retort furnaces consist of a pear-shaped ceramic retort (a long-necked vessel used for
 distillation).  Bottle retorts are filled with zinc alloys and heated until most of the zinc is vaporized,
 sometimes as long as 24 hours. Distillation involves vaporization of zinc at temperatures from 982 to
 1249°C (1800 to 2280°F) and condensation as zinc dust or liquid zinc. Zinc dust is produced by
 vaporization and rapid cooling, and liquid zinc results when the vaporous product is condensed slowly
 at moderate temperatures. The melt is cast into ingots  or slabs.

        A muffle furnace, as shown in Figure 12.14-3,  is a continuously charged retort furnace,
 which can operate for several days at a time.  Molten zinc is charged through a feed well that also
 acts as an airlock.  Muffle furnaces generally have a much greater vaporization capacity than bottle
 retort furnaces.  They produce both zinc ingots and zinc oxide of 99.8 percent purity.

        Pot melting, unlike bottle retort and muffle furnaces, does not incorporate distillation as a part
 of the refinement process. This method merely monitors the composition of the intake to control the
 composition of the product.  Specified die-cast scraps containing zinc are melted in a steel pot.  Pot
 melting is a simple indirect heat melting operation where the final alloy cast into zinc alloy slabs is
 controlled by the scrap input into the pot.

        Furnace distillation with oxidation produces zinc oxide dust.  These processes are similar to
 distillation without the condenser.  Instead of entering a condenser, the zinc vapor discharges directly
 into an air stream leading to  a refractory-lined  combustion chamber.  Excess air completes the
 oxidation and cools the zinc oxide dust before it is collected in a fabric filter.

        Zinc oxide is transformed into zinc  metal though a retort reduction process using coke as a
 reducing agent.  Carbon monoxide produced by the partial oxidation of the coke reduces the zinc
 oxide to metal and carbon dioxide. The zinc vapor is recovered by condensation.

 12.14.3  Emissions And Controls2"5

       Process  and fugitive emission factors for secondary zinc operations are tabulated in
 Tables 12.14-1, 12.14-2,  12.14-3, and 12.14-4. Emissions from sweating and melting operations
 consist of particulate, zinc fumes, other volatile metals, flux fumes, and smoke generated by the
 incomplete combustion of grease, rubber, and plastics in zinc scrap. Zinc fumes are negligible at low
furnace temperatures.  Flux emissions may be minimized by using a nonfuming flux. In production
requiring special fluxes that do generate fumes, fabric filters may be used to collect emissions.
Substantial emissions may arise from  incomplete combustion of carbonaceous material  in the zinc
scrap.  These contaminants are usually controlled by afterburners.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Metallurgical Industry                               12.14-3

    -------
                         Figure  12.14-2.  Zinc retort distillation furnace.
         STACK
    MOLTEN METAL
    TAPHOLE
                                                                      ,   FLAME  PORT
                                                                         AIR IN
                                                                              DUCT FOR OXIDE
                                                                              COLLECTION
                                                                        RISER CONDENSER
                                                                              UNIT
                                                                             MOLTEN METAL
                                                                                TAPHOLE
                          Figure 12.14-3. Muffle furnace and condenser.
12.14-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
    Table 12.14-1 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                           FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING*
Operation
Reverberatory sweating (in mg/Mg feed material)
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-18)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-28)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-38)
Rotary sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-09)
Muffle sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-10)
Kettle sweating1"
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-14)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-24)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-34)
Electric resistance sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-11)
Sodium carbonate leaching calciningd (SCC 3-04-008-06)
Kettle potd, mg/Mg product (SCC 3-04-008-03)
Crucible melting (SCC 3-04-008-41)
Reverberatory melting (SCC 3-04-008-42)
Electric induction melting (SCC 3-04-008-43)
Alloying (SCC 3-04-008-40)
Retort and muffle distillation, in kg/Mg of product
Pouring0 (SCC 3-04-008-51)
Casting0 (SCC 3-04-008-52)
Muffle distillation** (SCC 3-04-008-02)
Graphite rod distillation0'6 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidationf (SCC 3-04-008-54)
Muffle distillation/oxidationf (SCC 3-04-008-55)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-01)
Galvanizingd (SCC 3-04-008-05)
Emissions

Negligible
6.5
16
5.5 - 12.5
5.4 - 16

Negligible
5.5
12.5
< 5
44.5
0.05
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.2 - 0.4
0.1 -0.2
22.5
Negligible
10-20
10-20
23.5
2.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING

C
C
C
C
C

C
C
C
C
C
C
NA
NA
NA
NA

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a Factors are for kg/Mg of zinc used, except as noted. SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 4.
c Reference 5.
d References 6-8.
e Reference 2.
f Reference 5.  Factors are for kg/Mg of ZnO produced. All product zinc oxide dust is carried over
  in the exhaust gas from the furnace and is recovered with 98-99% efficiency.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.14-5

    -------
    Table 12.14-2 (English Units).  UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                          FOR SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING5
Operation
Reverberatory sweating*5 (in mg/Mg feed material)
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-18)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-28)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-38)
Rotary sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-09)
Muffle sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-10)
Kettle sweating
Clean metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-14)
General metallic scrap (SCC 3-04-008-24)
Residual scrap (SCC 3-04-008-34)
Electric resistance sweating0 (SCC 3-04-008-11)
Sodium carbonate leaching calciningd (SCC 3-04-008-06)
Kettle potd, mg/Mg product (SCC 3-04-008-03)
Crucible melting (SCC 3-04-008-41)
Reverberatory melting (SCC 3-04-008-42)
Electric induction melting (SCC 3-04-008-43)
Alloying (SCC 3-04-008-40)
Retort and muffle distillation, in Ib/ton of product
Pouring0 (SCC 3-04-008-51)
Casting0 (SCC 3-04-008-52)
Muffle distillation** (SCC 3-04-008-02)
Graphite rod distillation0'6 (SCC 3-04-008-53)
Retort distillation/oxidatior/ (SCC 3-04-008-54)
Muffle distillation/oxidationf (SCC 3-04-008-55)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-01)
Galvanizingd (SCC 3-04-008-05)
Emissions
Negligible
13
32
11 -25
10.8 - 32
Negligible
11
25
<10
89
0.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4 -0.8
0.2 - 0.4
45
Negligible
20-40
20 -40
47
5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a Factors are for Ib/ton of zinc used, except as noted.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 4.
c Reference 5.
d References 6-8.
e Reference 2.
f Reference 5.  Factors are for Ib/ton of ZnO produced.  All product zinc oxide dust is carried over
  in the exhaust gas from the furnace and is recovered with 98-99% efficiency.
12.14-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
       Table 12.14-3 (Metric Units).  FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                               SECONDARY ZINC SMELTINGa
Operation
Reverberatory sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating5 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per kg processed5
(SCC 3-04-008-65)
Crushing/screening0 (SCC 3-04-008-12)
Sodium carbonate leaching (SCC 3-04-008-66)
Kettle (pot) melting furnace5 (SCC 3-04-008-67)
Crucible melting furnaced (SCC 3-04-008-68)
Reverberatory melting furnace5 (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction melting5 (SCC 3-04-008-70)
Alloying retort distillation (SCC 3-04-008-71)
Retort and muffle distillation (SCC 3-04-008-72)
Casting5 (SCC 3-04-008-73)
Graphite rod distillation (SCC 3-04-008-74)
Retort distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-75)
Muffle distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-76)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-77)
Emissions
0.63
0.45
0.54
0.28
0.25
2.13
ND
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
ND
1.18
0.0075
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Reference 9.  Factors are kg/Mg of end product, except as noted.  SCC = Source Classification
  Code.  ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
5 Estimate based on stack emission factor given in Reference 2, assuming fugitive emissions to be
  equal to 5% of stack emissions.
c Reference 2.  Factors are for kg/Mg of scrap processed. Average of reported emission factors.
d Engineering judgment, assuming fugitive emissions from crucible melting furnace to be equal to
  fugitive emissions from kettle (pot) melting furnace.
       Paniculate emissions from sweating and melting are most commonly recovered by fabric
filter.  In 1 application on a muffle sweating furnace, a cyclone and fabric filter achieved paniculate
recovery efficiencies in excess of 99.7 percent.  In 1 application on a reverberatory sweating furnace,
a fabric filter removed 96.3 percent of the paniculate.  Fabric filters show similar efficiencies in
removing paniculate from exhaust gases of melting furnaces.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.14-7

    -------
     Table 12.14-4 (English Units).  FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING3
Operation
Reverberatory sweatingb (SCC 3-04-008-61)
Rotary sweatingb (SCC 3-04-008-62)
Muffle sweating (SCC 3-04-008-63)
Kettle (pot) sweating15 (SCC 3-04-008-64)
Electrical resistance sweating, per ton processed1*
(SCC 3-04-008-65)
Crushing/screening0 (SCC 3-04-008-12)
Sodium carbonate leaching (SCC 3-04-008-66)
Kettle (pot) melting furnaceb (SCC 3-04-008-67)
Crucible melting furnaced (SCC 3-04-008-68)
Reverberatory melting furnace5 (SCC 3-04-008-69)
Electric induction meltingb (SCC 3-04-008-70)
Alloying retort distillation (SCC 3-04-008-71)
Retort and muffle distillation (SCC 3-04-008-72)
Casting13 (SCC 3-04-008-73)
Graphite rod distillation (SCC 3-04-008-74)
Retort distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-75)
Muffle distillation/oxidation (SCC 3-04-008-76)
Retort reduction (SCC 3-04-008-77)
Emissions
1.30
0.90
1.07
0.56
0.50
4.25
ND
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
ND
2.36
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
E
E
NA
E
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Reference 9.  Factors are Ib/ton of end product, except as noted.  SCC  = Source Classification
  Code. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Estimate based on stack emission factor given in Reference 2, assuming fugitive emissions to be
  equal to 5% of stack emissions.
c Reference 2.  Factors are for Ib/ton of scrap processed. Average of reported emission factors.
d Engineering judgment,  assuming fugitive emissions from crucible melting furnace to be equal to
  fugitive emissions from kettle (pot) melting furnace.
       Crushing and screening operations are also sources of dust emissions. These emissions are
composed of zinc, aluminum, copper, iron, lead, cadmium, tin, and chromium.  They can be
recovered by hooded exhausts used as capture devices and can be controlled with fabric filters.
12.14-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 4/81

    -------
        The sodium carbonate leaching process emits zinc oxide dust during the calcining operation
 (oxidizing precipitate into powder at high temperature).  This dust can be recovered in fabric filters,
 although zinc chloride in the dust may cause plugging problems.

        Emissions from refining operations are mainly metallic fumes. Distillation/oxidation
 operations emit their entire zinc oxide product in the exhaust gas.  Zinc oxide is usually recovered in
 fabric filters  with collection efficiencies of 98 to 99 percent.
 References For Section 12.14

 1.      Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992, U. S. Department Of Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

 2.      William M. Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment Of The Secondary
        Nonferrous Metal Industry, Draft, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319, Radian Corporation,
        Austin, TX, June 1976.

 3.      John A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  2nd Edition, AP-40,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973.  Out of Print.

 4.      W. Herring, Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition Study (Part I),
        APTD-0706, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
        1971.

 5.      H. Nack, et al., Development Of An Approach To Identification Of Emerging Technology And
        Demonstration Opportunities, EPA-650/2-74-048, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1974.

 6.      G. L. Allen, et al., Control Of Metallurgical And Mineral Dusts And Fumes In Los Angeles
        County,  Report Number 7627, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, April
        1952.

 7.      Restricting Dust And Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Lead Smelters, VDI Number 2285,
        U. S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Washington, DC, September 1961.

 8.      W. F. Hammond, Data On Nonferrous Metallurgical Operations, Los Angeles  County Air
        Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, CA, November 1966.

 9.      Assessment Of Fugitive Paniculate Emission Factors For Industrial Processes,
        EPA-450/3-78-107, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        September 1978.

 10.     Source Category Survey:  Secondary Zinc Smelting And Refining Industry, EPA-450/3-80-012,
        U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
4/81 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.14-9

    -------

    -------
 12.15 Storage Battery Production

 12.15.1  General1'2

         The battery industry is divided into 2 main sectors:  starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI)
 batteries and industrial/traction batteries.  SLI batteries are primarily used in automobiles.  Industrial
 batteries include those used for uninterruptible power supply and traction batteries are used to power
 electric vehicles such as forklifts.  Lead consumption in the U. S. in 1989 was 1.28 million
 megagrams (1.41 million tons); between 75 and 80 percent of this is attributable to the manufacture of
 lead acid storage batteries.

        Lead acid storage battery plants range in production capacity from less than 500 batteries per
 day to greater than 35,000 batteries per day. Lead acid storage batteries are produced in many  sizes,
 but the majority are produced for use in automobiles and fall into a standard size range.  A standard
 automobile battery  contains an average of about 9.1 kilograms (20 Ib) of lead, of which about half is
 present in the lead grids and connectors and half in the lead oxide paste.

 12.15.2  Process Description3'12

        Lead acid storage batteries are produced from lead alloy ingots and lead oxide. The lead
 oxide may be prepared by the battery manufacturer, as is the case for many larger battery
 manufacturing facilities, or may be purchased from a supplier.  (See Section 12.16, "Lead Oxide And
 Pigment Production".)

        Battery grids are manufactured by either casting or stamping operations.  In the casting
 operation,  lead alloy ingots are charged to a melting pot, from which the molten lead flows into
 molds that form the battery grids.  The stamping operation involves  cutting or stamping the battery
 grids from lead sheets.  The grids are often cast or stamped in doublets and split apart (slitting) after
 they have been either flash dried or cured.  The pastes used to fill the battery grids are made  in batch-
 type processes.  A mixture of lead oxide powder, water, and sulfuric acid produces a positive paste,
 and the same ingredients in slightly different proportions with the addition of an expander (generally a
 mixture of barium sulfate, carbon black,  and organics), make the negative paste.  Pasting machines
 then force these pastes into the interstices of the grids, which are made into plates.  At the completion
 of this process, a chemical reaction starts in the paste and the mass gradually hardens, liberating heat.
 As the setting process continues, needle-shaped crystals of lead sulfate (PbSO4) form  throughout the
 mass.  To provide optimum conditions for the setting process, the plates are kept at a relative
 humidity near 90 percent and a temperature near 32°C (90°F) for about 48 hours and are then
 allowed to  dry under ambient conditions.

       After the plates are cured  they are sent to the 3-process operation of plate stacking,  plate
burning, and element assembly in the battery case (see Figure 12.15-1). In this process the doublet
plates are first cut apart and depending upon whether they are dry-charged or to be wet-formed, are
stacked in an alternating positive and negative block formation, with insulators between them. These
insulators are made of materials such as non-conductive plastic, or glass fiber.  Leads are then welded
to tabs on each positive or negative plate or in an element during the burning operation. An
alternative to this operation, and more predominantly used than the manual burning operation, is the
cast-on connection,  and positive and negative tabs are then independently welded to produce an
element.  The elements are automatically  placed  into a battery case.  A top is placed on the


 1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.15-1

    -------
                                                                                  t/5
                                                                                  4>
                                                                                  fS
                                                                                  o.
                                                                                  T3
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  U
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  oo
                                                                                  O
                                                                                 'I
                                                                                 -a
                                                                                  <

                                                                                 £
                                                                                  £
                                                                                  fe
                                                                                  re
                                                                                  2
                                                                                  WJ
12.15-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
batterycase.  The posts on the case top then are welded to 2 individual points that connect the positive
and negative plates to the positive and negative posts, respectively.

        During dry-charge formation, the battery plates are immersed in a dilute sulfuric acid
solution; the positive plates are connected to the positive pole of a direct current (DC) source and the
negative plates connected to the negative pole of the DC source. In the wet formation process, this is
done with the plates in the battery case.  After forming, the acid may be dumped and fresh acid is
added, and a boost charge is applied to complete the battery.  In dry formation, the individual plates
may be assembled into elements first and then formed in tanks or formed as individual plates.  In this
case of formed elements, the elements are then placed hi the battery cases, the positive and negative
parts of the elements are connected to the positive and negative terminals of the battery, and the
batteries are shipped dry.  Defective parts are either reclaimed at the battery plant or are sent to a
secondary lead smelter (See Section 12.11, "Secondary Lead Processing").  Lead reclamation
facilities at battery plants are generally small pot furnaces for non-oxidized lead. Approximately 1 to
4 percent of the lead processed at a typical lead acid battery plant is recycled through the reclamation
operation as paste or metal.  In recent years, however, the general trend in the lead-acid battery
manufacturing industry has been to send metals to secondary lead smelters for reclamation.

12.15.3  Emissions And Controls3'9'13-16

        Lead oxide emissions result from the discharge of air used in the lead oxide production
process. A cyclone, classifier, and fabric filter is generally used as  part of the process/control
equipment to capture paniculate emissions from lead oxide  facilities.  Typical air-to-cloth ratios of
fabric filters used for these facilities are in the range of 3:1.

        Lead and other paniculate matter are generated  in several operations, including grid casting,
lead reclamation, slitting, and small parts casting, and during the 3-process operation.  This
particulate is usually collected by ventilation systems and  ducted through fabric filtration systems
(baghouses) also.

        The paste mixing operation consists of 2 steps.  The first, in which dry ingredients are
charged to the mixer, can result in significant emissions of lead oxide from the mixer.  These
emissions are usually collected and ducted through a baghouse.  During the second step, when
moisture is present in the exhaust stream from acid addition, emissions from the paste mixer  are
generally collected and ducted to  either an impingement scrubber or fabric filter. Emissions from
grid casting machines and lead reclamation facilities are sometimes processed by impingement
scrubbers as well.

        Sulfuric acid mist emissions are generated during  the formation step.  Acid mist emissions are
significantly higher for dry formation processes than for wet formation processes because wet
formation is conducted  in battery cases, while dry formation is conducted in open tanks.  Although
wet formation process usually do not require control, emissions of sulfuric acid mist from dry
formation processes can be reduced by more than 95 percent with mist eliminators.  Surface foaming
agents are also commonly used in dry formation baths to strap process, in which molten lead is
poured around the plate tabs to form the control acid mist emissions.

       Emission reductions of 99 percent and above can be obtained when  fabric filtration is used to
control slitting, paste mixing, and the 3-process operation.  Applications of scrubbers to paste mixing,
grid casting, and lead reclamation facilities can result in emission reductions of 85 percent or better.
1/95                                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.15-3

    -------
       Tables 12.15-1 and 12.15-2 present uncontrolled emission factors for grid casting, paste
mixing, lead reclamation, dry formation, and the 3-process operation as well as a range of controlled
emission factors for lead oxide production. The emission  factors presented in the tables include lead
and its compounds, expressed as elemental lead.
          Table 12.15-1 (Metric Units).  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION2
Process
Grid casting (SCC 3-04-005-06)
Paste mixing (SCC 3-04-005-07)
Lead oxide mill (baghouse outlet)b
(SCC 3-04-005-08)
3-Process operation (SCC 3-04-005-09)
Lead reclaim furnace0 (SCC 3-04-005-10)
Dry formation*1 (SCC 3-04-005-12)
Small parts casting (SCC 3-04-005-11)
Total production (SCC 3-04-005-05)
Paniculate
(kg/103 batteries)
0.8 - 1.42
1.00- 1.96
0.05-0.10
13.2 -42.00
0.70 - 3.03
14.0 - 14.70
0.09
56.82 - 63.20
Lead
(kg/103 batteries)
0.35 - 0.40
0.50- 1.13
0.05
4.79 - 6.60
0.35 - 0.63
ND
0.05
6.94 - 8.00
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
NA
a References 3-10,13-16.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  NA =  not applicable.
b Reference 7.  Emissions measured for a "state-of-the-art" facility (fabric filters with an average air-
  to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.025 kg paniculate/1000 batteries and 0.024 kg lead/1000 batteries.
  Factors represent emissions from a facility with typical controls (fabric filtration with an air-to-cloth
  ratio of about 4:1).  Emissions from a facility with typical controls are estimated to be about
  2-10 times higher than those from a  "state-of-the-art" facility (Reference 3).
c Range due to  variability of the scrap quality.
d For sulfates in aerosol form, expressed as sulfuric acid or paniculate, and not accounting for water
  and other substances which might be present.
 12.15-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
          Table 12.15-2 (English Units). UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                            STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION*
Process
Grid casting (SCC 3-04-005-06)
Paste raking (SCC 3-04-005-07)
Lead oxide mill (baghouse outlet)b
(SCC 3-04-005-08)
3-Process operation (SCC 3-04-005-09)
Lead reclaim furnace0 (SCC 3-04-005-10)
Dry formationd (SCC 3-04-005-12)
Small parts casting (SCC 3-04-005-11)
Total production (SCC 3-04-005-05)
Paniculate
Ob/103 batteries)
1.8-3.13
2.20 - 4.32
0.11 -0.24
29.2 - 92.60
1.54-6.68
32.1 -32.40
0.19
125.00 - 139.00
Lead
(lb/103 batteries)
0.77 - 0.90
1.10-2.49
0.11 -0.12
10.60 - 14.60
0.77 - 1.38
ND
0.10
15.30 - 17.70
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
NA
a References 3-10, 13-16.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND = no data.
  NA = not applicable.
b Reference 7. Emissions measured for a "state-of-the-art" facility (fabric filters with an average air-
  to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.055 Ib paniculate/1000 batteries and 0.053 Ib lead/1000 batteries.
  Factors represent emissions from a facility with typical controls (fabric filtration with an air-to-cloth
  ratio of about 4:1). Emissions from a facility with typical controls are estimated to be about
  2-10 times higher than those from a "state-of-the-art" facility (Reference 3).
c Range due to variability of the scrap quality.
d For sulfates in aerosol  form, expressed as sulfuric acid, and not accounting for water and other
  substances which might be present.
References For Section 12.15

1.     William D. Woodbury, Lead.  New Publications—Bureau Of Mines,  Mineral Commodity
       Summaries,  1992., U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1991.

2.     Metals And Minerals, Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1.  U. S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

3.     Lead Acid Battery Manufacture—Background Information For Proposed Standards,
       EPA 450/3-79-028a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       November 1979.

4.     Source Test, EPA-74-BAT-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, March 1974.

5.     Source Testing Of A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plant—Globe-Union, Inc., Canby, OR,
       EPA-76-BAT-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1976.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.15-5

    -------
6.     R. C. Fulton and C. W. Zolna, Report Of Efficiency Testing Performed April 30, 1976, On
       American Air Filter Roto-clone, General Battery Corporation, Hamburg,  PA, Spotts, Stevens,
       And  McCoy, Inc., Wyomissing, PA, June 1, 1976.

7.     Source  Testing At A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Company—ESB, Canada, Ltd.,
       Mississauga, Ontario, EPA-76-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, 1976.

8.     Emissions Study At A Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Company—ESB,  Inc., Buffalo, NY,
       EPA-76-BAT-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       1976.

9.     Test Report—Sulfiiric Acid Emissions From ESB Battery Plant Forming Room, Allentown, PA,
       EPA-77-BAT-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.

10.    PM-10  Emission Factor Listing Developed By Technology Transfer And AIRS Source
       Classification Codes, EPA-450/4-89-022,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC, November 1989.

11.    (VOC/PM) Speciation Data Base, EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286. Radian Corporation,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1990.

12.    Harvey E. Brown, Lead Oxide:  Properties And Applications, International Lead Zinc
       Research Organization, Inc., New York, 1985.

13.    Screening Study To Develop Information And Determine The Significance Of Emissions From
       The Lead—Acid Battery Industry. Vulcan -  Cincinnati Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0299,
       Cincinnati, OH, December 4,  1972.

14.    Confidential  data from a major battery manufacturer, July 1973.

15.    Paniculate And Lead  Emission Measurement From Lead Oxide Plants, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0266, Monsanto Research Corp,  Dayton, OH, August 1973.

16.    Background Information In Support Of The Development Of Performance Standards For The
       Lead Acid Battery Industry: Interim Report No. 2, EPA  Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo
       Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,  OH, December 1975.
 12.15-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
12.16  Lead Oxide And Pigment Production

12.16.1  General1'2'7

       Lead oxide is a general term and can be either lead monoxide or "litharge" (PbO); lead
tetroxide or "red lead" (Pb3C>4); or black or "gray" oxide which is a mixture of 70 percent lead
monoxide and 30 percent metallic lead. Black lead is made for specific use in the manufacture of
lead acid storage batteries. Because of the size of the lead acid battery industry, lead monoxide is the
most important commercial compound of lead, based on volume. Total oxide production in 1989 was
57,984 megagrams (64,000 tons).

       Litharge is used primarily in the manufacture of various ceramic products.  Because of its
electrical and electronic properties, litharge is also used hi capacitors, Vidicon* tubes, and
electrophotographic plates, as well as hi ferromagnetic and ferroelectric materials.  It is also used as
an activator in rubber, a curing agent in elastomers, a sulfur removal agent in the production of
thioles and in oil refining,  and an oxidation catalyst hi several organic chemical processes. It also has
important markets hi the production of many lead chemicals, dry colors, soaps (i. e., lead stearate),
and driers for paint.  Another important use of litharge is the production of lead salts, particularly
those used as stabilizers for plastics, notably polyvinyl chloride materials.

       The major lead pigment is red lead (Pb^O^), which is used principally hi ferrous metal
protective paints.  Other lead pigments include white lead and lead chromates.  There are several
commercial  varieties of white lead including leaded zinc oxide, basic carbonate white lead, basic
sulfate white lead, and basic lead silicates.  Of these, the most important is leaded zinc oxide, which
is used almost entirely as white pigment for exterior oil-based paints.

12.16.2  Process Description8

       Black oxide is usually produced by a Barton Pot process. Basic carbonate white lead
production is based on the reaction of litharge with acetic acid or acetate ions.  This product, when
reacted with carbon dioxide, will form lead carbonate.  White leads (other than carbonates) are made
either by chemical, fuming, or mechanical blending processes.  Red lead is produced by oxidizing
litharge hi a reverberatory  furnace. Chromate pigments  are generally manufactured by precipitation
or calculation as in the following equation:

                          Pb(NO3)2  + Na2(CrO4) - PbCrO4 + 2 NaNO3                       (1)

       Commercial lead oxides can all be prepared by wet chemical methods.  With the exception of
lead dioxide, lead oxides are produced by thermal processes hi which lead is directly oxidized with
ahr.  The processes may be classified according to the temperature of the reaction:  (1) low
temperature, below the melting point of lead;  (2) moderate temperature, between the melting points of
lead and lead monoxide; and  (3) high temperature, above the melting point of lead monoxide.

12.16.2.1 Low Temperature Oxidation-
       Low temperature oxidation of lead is accomplished by tumbling slugs of metallic lead hi a ball
mill  equipped with an air flow.   The ah- flow provides oxygen and is used as a coolant.  If some form
of cooling were not supplied, the heat generated by the oxidation of the lead plus the mechanical heat
of the tumbling charge would raise the charge temperature above the melting point of lead.  The ball
mill product is a "leady" oxide with 20 to 50 percent free lead.

1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.16-1

    -------
12.16.2.2  Moderate Temperature Oxidation -
        Three processes are used commercially in the moderate temperature range:  (1) refractory
furnace, (2) rotary tube furnace, and (3) the Barton Pot process. In the refractory furnace process, a
cast steel pan is equipped with a rotating vertical shaft and a horizontal crossarm mounted with plows.
The plows move the charge continuously to expose fresh surfaces for oxidation.  The charge is heated
by a gas flame on its surface.  Oxidation of the charge supplies much of the reactive heat as the
reaction progresses.  A variety of products can be manufactured from pig lead feed by varying the
feed temperature, and tune of furnacing.  Yellow litharge (orthorhombic) can be made by cooking for
several hours at 600 to 700°C (1112 to 1292°F) but may contain traces of red lead and/or free
metallic lead.

        In the rotary tube furnace process, molten lead is introduced into the upper end of a
refractory-lined inclined rotating tube.  An oxidizing flame in the lower end maintains the desired
temperature of reaction.  The tube is long  enough so that the charge is  completely oxidized when it
emerges from the lower end. This type of furnace has been used commonly to produce lead
monoxide (tetragonal type), but it is not unusual for the final product to contain traces of both free
metallic and red lead.

        The Barton Pot process (Figure 12.16-1) uses a cast iron pot with an upper and lower  stirrer
rotating at different speeds. Molten lead is fed through a port in the cover  into the pot, where it is
broken up into droplets by high-speed blades.  Heat is supplied initially to develop an operating
temperature from 370 to 480°C  (698 to  896°F).  The exothermic heat from the resulting oxidation of
the droplets is usually sufficient  to maintain the desired temperature. The oxidized product  is  swept
out of the pot by an air stream.

        The operation is controlled by adjusting the rate of molten lead feed, the speed of the stirrers,
the temperature of the system, and the rate of air flow through the pot.  The Barton Pot produces
either litharge or leady litharge (litharge with 50 percent free lead).  Since it operates at a higher
temperature than a ball mill unit, the oxide portion will usually contain some orthorhombic litharge.
It  may also be operated to obtain almost entirely orthorhombic product.

12.16.2.3  High Temperature Oxidation -
        High temperature oxidation is a fume-type process.  A very fine particle,  high-purity
orthorhombic litharge is made by burning  a fine stream of molten lead hi a special blast-type burner.
The flame temperature is around 1200°C (2192°F).  The fume  is swept out of the chamber by an air
stream, cooled hi a series of "goosenecks" and collected hi a baghouse.  The median particle diameter
is  from 0.50 to 1.0 micrometers, as compared with 3.0 to 16.0 micrometers for lead monoxide
manufactured by other methods.

12.16.3 Emissions And Controls3^1'6

        Emission factors for lead oxide and pigment production processes are given in Tables  12.16-1
and  12.16-2.  The emission factors were assigned an E rating because of high variabilities in test run
results and nonisokinetic sampling.  Also, since storage battery production  facilities produce lead
oxide using the Barton Pot process, a comparison of the lead emission factors from both industries
has been performed. The lead oxide emission factors from the battery plants were found to be
considerably lower than the emission factors from the lead oxide and pigment industry.  Since lead
battery production plants are covered under federal regulations, one would  expect lower emissions
from these sources.
12.16-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
     LEAD
     FEED
                                                 GAS
                                                STREAM
                                                 EXIT
LEAD OXIDE
LEAD
SEMLING
CHAMBER
1
r
— "(cvci
>
3 GAS STREAM

BAGHOUSE
^
• 	 1
                                                               CONVEYER
                                                               (PRODUCT TO STORAGE)
                                                               (SCC 3-01-035-54)
                         Figure 12.16-1. Lead oxide Barton Pot process.
                           (Source Classification Codes in parentheses.)


       Automatic shaker-type fabric filters, often preceded by cyclone mechanical collectors or
settling chambers, are the common choice for collecting lead oxides and pigments.  Control
efficiencies of 99 percent are achieved with these control device combinations.  Where fabric filters
are not appropriate, scrubbers may be used to achieve control  efficiencies from 70 to 95 percent.  The
ball mill  and Barton Pot processes of black oxide manufacturing recover the lead product by these
2 means.  Collection of dust and fumes from the production of red lead is likewise an economic
necessity, since paniculate emissions, although small, are about 90 percent lead.  Emissions data from
the production of white lead pigments are not available, but they have been estimated because of
health  and safety regulations. The emissions from dryer  exhaust scrubbers account for over
50 percent of the total lead emitted in lead chromate production.
1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.16-3

    -------
     Table 12.16-1 (Metric Units). CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM LEAD OXIDE AND
                              PIGMENT PRODUCTION*
Process
Lead Oxide Production
Barton Potb
(SCC 3-01-035-06)
Calcining
(SCC 3-01-035-07)
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Pigment Production
Redleadb
(SCC 3-01-035-10)
White leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-15)
Chrome pigments
(SCC 3-01-035-20)
Paniculate
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.21 - 0.43 E
7.13 E
0.032 E

0.5C B
ND NA
ND NA
Lead
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.22 E
7.00 E
0.024 E

0.50 B
0.28 B
0.065 B
References

4,6
6
6

4,5
4,5
4,5
a Factors are for kg/Mg of product.  SCC =  Source Classification Code. ND = no data. NA = not
  applicable.
b Measured at baghouse outlet.  Baghouse is considered process equipment.
c Only PbO and oxygen are used in red lead production, so particulate emissions are assumed to be
  about 90% lead.
 12.164
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 12.16-2 (English Units).  CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM LEAD OXIDE AND
                                 PIGMENT PRODUCTION8
Process
Lead Oxide Production
Barton Potb
(SCC 3-01-035-06)
Calcining
(SCC 3-01-035-07)
Baghouse Inlet
Baghouse Outlet
Pigment Production
Red leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-10)
White leadb
(SCC 3-01-035-15)
Chrome pigments
(SCC 3-01-035-20)
Paniculate
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.43 - 0.85 E
14.27 E
0.064 E

1.0C B
ND NA
ND NA
Lead
EMISSION
FACTOR
Emissions RATING

0.44 E
14.00 E
0.05 E

0.90 B
0.55 B
0.13 B
References

4,6
6
6

4,5
4,5
4,5
 a Factors are for Ib/ton of product. SCC  = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.
  NA = not applicable.
 b Measured at baghouse outlet.  Baghouse is considered process equipment.
 c Only PbO and oxygen are used in red lead production, so particulate emissions are assumed to be
  about 90%  lead.
 References For Section 12.16

 1.      E. J. Ritchie, Lead Oxides, Independent Battery Manufacturers Association, Inc., Largo, FL,
        1974.

 2.      W. E.  Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970, EPA
        Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis And Associates, Leawood, KS, April 1973.

 3.      Background Information In Support Of The Development Of Performance Standards For The
        Lead Additive Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo Environmental Specialists,
        Inc., Cincinnati, OH, January 1976.

 4.      Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A. U. S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

• 5.      R. P. Betz, et al., Economics Of Lead  Removal In Selected Industries, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-0299, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus OH, December 1972.
 1/95
Metallurgical Industry
12.16-5

    -------
6.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Contract No. 74-PB-O-l, Task No. 10, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, August 1973.

7.     Mineral Yearbook, Volume 1:  Metals And Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of
       The Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.

8.     Harvey E. Brown, Lead Oxide: Properties And Applications, International Lead Zinc
       Research Organization,  Inc., New York, NY,  1985.
12.16-6                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
12.17  Miscellaneous Lead Products

12.17.1  General1

        In 1989 the following categories (in decreasing order of lead usage) were significant in the
miscellaneous lead products group:  ammunition, cable covering, solder, and type metal.  However,
in 1992, U. S. can manufacturers no longer use lead solder. Therefore, solder will not be included as
a miscellaneous lead product in this section. Lead used in ammunition (bullets and shot) and for shot
used at nuclear facilities in 1989 was 62,940 megagrams (Mg) (69,470 tons).  The use of lead sheet
in construction and  lead cable sheathing in communications also increased to  a combined total of
43,592 Mg (48,115 tons).

12.17.2  Process  Description

12.17.2.1  Ammunition And Metallic Lead Products8 -
        Lead is consumed in the manufacture of ammunition, bearing metals, and other lead products,
with subsequent lead emissions.  Lead used in the manufacture of ammunition is melted and alloyed
before it is cast, sheared, extruded,  swaged, or mechanically worked. Some  lead is also reacted to
form lead azide, a detonating agent.  Lead is used in bearing manufacture by alloying it with copper,
bronze, antimony, and tin, although lead usage in this category is relatively small.

        Other lead products include terne metal (a plating alloy), weights and ballasts, caulking lead,
plumbing supplies, roofing materials, casting metal  foil, collapsible metal tubes, and sheet lead. Lead
is also used for galvanizing, annealing, and plating.  In all of these cases lead is usually melted and
cast prior to mechanical forming operations.

12.17.2.2  Cable Covering8'11 -
        About 90 percent of the lead cable covering produced in the United States is lead-cured
jacketed cables, the remaining 10 percent being lead sheathed cables.  The manufacture of cured
jacketed cables involves a stripping/remelt operation as an unalloyed lead cover that is applied in the
vulcanizing treatment during the manufacture of rubber-insulated cable must be stripped from the
cable and remelted.

        Lead coverings are applied to insulated cable by hydraulic extrusion of solid lead around the
cable.  Extrusion rates of typical presses average  1360 to 6800 Mg/hr (3,000 to 15,000 Ib/hr).  The
molten lead is continuously fed into the extruder or screw press, where it solidifies as it progresses.
A melting kettle supplies lead to the press.

12.17.2.3  Type Metal Production8  -
        Lead type, used primarily in the letterpress  segment of the printing industry, is cast from a
molten lead alloy and remelted after use. Linotype  and  monotype processes produce a mold, while
the stereotype process produces a plate for printing.  All type is an alloy consisting of 60 to
85 percent recovered lead, with antimony, tin, and a small amount of virgin metal.

12.17.3  Emissions  And Controls

        Tables 12.17-1 and 12.17-2 present emission factors for miscellaneous lead products.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.17-1

    -------
    Table 12.17-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES8
Process
Type Metal
Production
(SCC 3-60-001-01)
Cable Covering
(SCC 3-04-040-01)
Metallic Lead
Products:
Ammunition
(SCC 3-04-051-01)
Bearing Metals
(SCC 3-04-051-02)
Other Sources of Lead
(SCC 3-O4-051-03)
Participate
0.4b
0.3C

ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

NA
NA
NA
Lead
0.13
0.25

< 0.5
Negligible
0.8
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

C
NA
C
Reference
2,7
3,5,7

3,7
3,7
3,7
a Factors are expressed as kg/Mg lead (Pb) processed. ND = no data.  NA = not applicable.
b Calculated on the basis of 35% of the total (Reference 2).  SCC = Source Classification Code.
c References, p. 4-301.
   Table 12.17-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES3
Process
Type Metal Production
Cable Covering
(SCC 3-04-040-01)
Metallic Lead Products:
Ammunition
(SCC 3-04-051-O1)
Bearing Metals
(SCC 3-04-051-02)
Other Sources of Lead
(SCC 3-04-051-03)
Participate
0.7b
0.6 c

ND
ND
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

NA
NA
NA
Lead
0.25
0.5

1.0
Negligible
1.5
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C

C
NA
C
Reference
2,7
3,5,7

3,7
3,7
3,7
a Factors are expressed as Ib/ton lead (Pb) processed.  ND = no data. NA = not applicable.
b Calculated on the basis of 35% of the total (Reference 2).  SCC = Source Classification Code.
c Reference 8, p. 4-301.


12.17.3.1  Ammunition And Metallic Lead Products8 -
       Little or no air pollution control equipment is currently used by manufacturers of metallic lead
products.  Emissions from bearing manufacture are negligible, even without controls.
 12.17-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
12.17.3.2  Cable Covering8'11 -
       The melting kettle is the only source of atmospheric lead emissions and is generally
uncontrolled.  Average particle size is approximately 5 micrometers, with a lead content of about
70 to 80 percent.

       Cable covering processes do not usually include paniculate collection devices.  However,
fabric filters, rotoclone wet collectors, and dry cyclone collectors can reduce lead emissions at control
efficiencies of 99.9 percent, 75 to 85 percent, and greater than 45 percent, respectively. Lowering
and controlling the melt temperature, enclosing the melting unit and using fluxes to provide a cover
on the melt can also minimize emissions.

12.17.3.3  Type Metal Production2'3 -
       The melting pot is again the major source of emissions, containing hydrocarbons as well as
lead particulates. Pouring the molten metal into the molds  involves surface oxidation of the metal,
possibly  producing oxidized fumes, while the trimming and finishing operations emit lead particles.
It is estimated that 35 percent of the total  emitted paniculate is lead.

       Approximately half of the current lead type operations control lead emissions, by
approximately 80 percent. The other operations are uncontrolled.  The most frequently controlled
sources are the main melting pots and dressing areas. Linotype equipment does not require controls
when operated properly.  Devices in current use on monotype and stereotype lines include rotoclones,
wet scrubbers, fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators,  all of which can be used in various
combinations.

       Additionally, the VOC/PM Speciation Data Base has identified phosphorus, chlorine,
chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, arsenic, selenium, cadmium,  antimony, mercury, and lead as
occurring in emissions from type metal production and lead cable coating operations.  All of these
metals/chemicals are listed in CAA Title III as being hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and should be
the subject of air emissions testing by industry sources.

References For Section 12.17

1.      Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1.  Metals And Minerals, U. S.  Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

2.      N. J. Kulujian, Inspection Manual For The Enforcement Of New Source Performance
       Standards: Portland Cement Plants, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1355, PEDCo-Environmental
       Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,  January 1975.

3.      Atmospheric Emissions From Lead Typesetting Operation Screening Study, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2085, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, January 1976.

4.      W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970, EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis Associates,  Leawood, KS, April  1973.

5.      R. P. Betz, et al., Economics Of Lead Removal In Selected Industries, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0611, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, August  1973.

6.      E. P. Shea, Emissions From Cable Covering Facility, EPA Contract No.  68-02-0228.
       Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO, June 1973.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.17-3

    -------
7.     Mineral Industry Surveys: Lead Industry In May 1976, U.S. Department Of The Interior,
       Bureau Of Mines, Washington, DC, August 1976.

8.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

9.     Test Nos. 71-MM-01, 02, 03, 05.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
       Triangle Park, NC.

10.    Personal Communication with William Woodbury, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau
       Of Mines, February 1992.

11.    Air Pollution Emission Test, General Electric Company, Wire And Cable Department,
       Report No. 73-CCC-l.

12.    Personal communication with R. M. Rivetna, Director, Environmental Engineering, American
       National Can Co., April 1992.
12.17-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
 12.18 Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding

 12.18.1  General1

        Leadbearing ore is mined from underground or open pit mines.  After extraction, the ore is
 processed by crushing, screening, and milling.  Domestic lead mine production for 1991 totaled
 480,000 megagrams (Mg) (530,000 tons) of lead in ore concentrates, a decrease of some 15,000 Mg
 (16,500 tons) from 1990 production.

        Except for mines in Missouri, lead ore is closely interrelated with zinc and silver.  Lead ores
 from Missouri  mines are primarily associated with zinc and copper.  Average grades of metal from
 Missouri mines have been reported as high as 12.2 percent lead, 1 percent zinc, and 0.6 percent
 copper.  Due to ore body formations, lead and zinc ores are normally deep-mined (underground),
 whereas copper ores are mined hi open pits. Lead, zinc, copper,  and silver are usually  found
 together (in varying percentages) in combination with sulfur and/or oxygen.

 12.18.2  Process Description2-5'7

        In underground mines the ore is disintegrated by percussive drilling machines, processed
 through a primary crusher, and then conveyed to the surface.  In open pit mines, ore and gangue  are
 loosened and pulverized by explosives, scooped up by mechanical equipment, and transported to the
 concentrator.  A trend toward increased mechanical excavation as a substitute for standard cyclic mine
 development, such as drill-and-blast and surface shovel-and-truck routines has surfaced as an element
 common to  most metal mine cost-lowering techniques.

        Standard crushers, screens, and rod and ball mills classify and reduce the ore to powders  in
 the 65 to 325 mesh range. The finely divided particles are separated from the gangue and are
 concentrated in a liquid medium by gravity and/or selective flotation, then cleaned, thickened, and
 filtered.  The concentrate is dried prior to shipment to the smelter.

 12.18.3  Emissions And Controls2"4-8

       Lead emissions are largely fugitive  and are caused  by drilling, loading, conveying,  screening,
 unloading, crushing, and grinding. The primary means of control are good mining techniques and
 equipment maintenance. These practices include enclosing the truck loading operation, wetting or
 covering truck loads and stored concentrates, paving the road  from mine to concentrator, sprinkling
 the unloading area, and preventing leaks in the crushing and grinding enclosures.  Cyclones and
 fabric filters can be used in the milling operations.

       Paniculate and lead emission factors for lead ore crushing and materials handling operations
 are given in Tables 12.18-1 and  12.18-2.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Metallurgical Industry                               12.18-1

    -------
  Table 12.18-1 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND GRINDING
Type Of Ore And
Lead Content
(wt %)
Lead6 5.1
(SCC 3-03-031-01)
Zincd 0.2
(SCC 3-03-03 1-02)
Copper6 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-03)
Lead-Zincf 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-04)
Copper-Lead8 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-05)
Copper-Zinch 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-06)
Copper-Lead-Zinc1 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-07)
Particulate
Emission
Factor3
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lead
Emission
Factorb
0.15
0.006
0.006
0.06
0.06
0.006
0.06
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a Reference 2.  Units are expressed as kg of pollutant/Mg ore processed.  SCC  = Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 2,3,5,7.
c Refer to Section 12,6.
d Characteristic of some mines in Colorado.
c Characteristic of some mines in Alaska, Idaho, and New York.
f Characteristic of Arizona mines.
g Characteristic of some mines in Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.
h Characteristic of some mines in Missouri.
1 Does not appear in ore characterization of the top 25 domestic lead producing mines.
12.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

    -------
  Table 12.18-2 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND GRINDING
Type Of Ore And
Lead Content
(wt %)
Lead0 5.1
(SCC 3-03-031-01)
Zincd 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-02)
Copper6 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-03)
Lead-Zincf 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-04)
Copper-Lead8 2.0
(SCC 3-03-03 1-05)
Copper-Zinch 0.2
(SCC 3-03-031-06)
Copper-Lead-Zinc1 2.0
(SCC 3-03-031-07)
Particulate
Emission
Factor8
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.0
6.4
6.4
6.4
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Lead
Emission
Factor6
0.30
0.012
0.012
0.12
0.12
0.012
0.12
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a Reference 2. Units are expressed as Ib of pollutant/ton ore processed.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b Reference 2,3,5,7.
c Refer to Section 12.6.
d Characteristic of some mines in Colorado.
e Characteristic of some mines in Alaska, Idaho, and New York.
f Characteristic of Arizona mines.
g Characteristic of some mines in Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.
h Characteristic of some mines in Missouri.
1 Does not appear in ore characterization of the top 25 domestic lead producing mines.
7/79 (Reformatted 1/95)
Metallurgical Industry
12.18-3

    -------
References For Section 12.18

1.     Mineral Commodity Summary 1992, U. S. Department Of Interior, Bureau Of Mines.

2.     Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012A, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

3.     W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants, 1970,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-0271, W. E. Davis And Associates, Leawood, KS, April 1973.

4.     B. G. Wixson and J. C. Jennett, The New Lead Belt In The Forested Ozarks Of Missouri,
       Environmental Science And Technology, 9(13): 1128-1133, December 1975.

5.     W. D. Woodbury, "Lead", Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1. Metals And Minerals,
       U. S. Department Of The Interior, Bureau Of Mines,  1989.

6.     Environmental Assessment Of The Domestic Primary Copper, Lead, And Zinc Industry,
       EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
       September 1976.

7.     A. 0. Tanner, "Mining And Quarrying Trends In The Metals And Industrial Minerals
       Industries", Minerals Yearbook, Volume 1.  Metals And Minerals, U. S. Department Of The
       Interior, Bureau Of Mines, 1989.

8.     VOC/PM Speciation Data System, Radian Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286,
       November 1990.
 12.18-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/79

    -------
12.19 Electric Arc Welding

        NOTE: Because of the many Source Classification Codes (SCCs) associated with electric arc
welding, the text of this Section will give only the first 3 of the 4 SCC number fields. The last field
of each applicable SCC will be found in Tables 12.19-1  and 12.19-2 below.
 12.19.1  Process Description1"2

        Welding is the process by which 2 metal parts are joined by melting the parts at the points of
 contact and simultaneously forming a connection with molten metal from these same parts or from a
 consumable electrode. In welding,  the most frequently used methods for generating heat employ
 either an electric arc or a gas-oxygen flame.

        There are more than 80 different types of welding operations in commercial use. These
 operations include not only arc and oxyfuel welding, but also brazing, soldering, thermal cutting,  and
 gauging operations.  Figure 12.19-1 is a diagram  of the major types of welding and related processes,
 showing their relationship to one another.

        Of the various processes illustrated in Figure 12.19-1, electric arc welding is by far the most
 often found. It is also the process that has the greatest emission potential.  Although the national
 distribution of arc welding processes by frequency of use is not now known, the percentage of
 electrodes consumed in 1991,  by process type, was as follows:

        Shielded metal arc welding  (SMAW) - 45 percent
        Gas metal arc welding (GMAW) - 34 percent
        Flux cored arc welding (FCAW) -  17 percent
        Submerged arc welding (SAW) - 4 percent

 12.19.1.1  Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW)3 -
        SMAW uses heat produced  by an electric  arc to melt a covered electrode and the welding
joint at the base metal.  During operation, the rod core both conducts electric current to produce the
 arc and provides filler metal for the joint.  The core of the covered electrode consists of either a solid
 metal rod of drawn or cast material or a solid metal rod fabricated by encasing metal powders in a
 metallic sheath.  The electrode covering provides  stability to the arc and  protects the molten metal by
 creating shielding gases by vaporization of the cover.

 12.19.1.2  Gas Metal Arc Welding  (GMAW)3 -
        GMAW is a consumable electrode welding process that produces an arc between the pool of
 weld and a continuously supplied filler metal.  An externally supplied gas is used to shield the arc.

 12.19.1.3  Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW)3 -
        FCAW is a consumable electrode welding process that uses the heat generated by an arc
between the continuous filler metal  electrode and the weld pool to bond the metals.  Shielding gas is
provided from flux contained in the tubular electrode. This flux cored electrode consists of a  metal
sheath  surrounding a core of various powdered materials. During the welding process,  the electrode
core material produces a slag cover  on the face of the weld bead. The welding pool can be protected
from the atmosphere either by self-shielded vaporization of the flux core  or with a separately supplied
shielding gas.


 1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                              12.19-1

    -------



                                                                           2
                                                                           3-i
                                                                                    0)
                                                                                    C,

                                                                                    c
                                                                                    •o
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    U

                                                                                    c
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    VI
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    re


                                                                                    U
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    0)


                                                                                    s
                                                                                    B,
                                                                                    •o

                                                                                    re

                                                                                    Mi



                                                                                    2
                                                                                    
    -------
 12.19.1.4 Submerged Arc Welding (SAW)4 -
       SAW produces an arc between a bare metal electrode and the work contained in a blanket of
 granular fusible flux.  The flux submerges the arc and welding pool. The electrode generally serves
 as the filler material.  The quality of the weld depends on the handling and care of the flux. The
 SAW process is limited to the downward and horizontal positions, but it has an extremely low fume
 formation rate.

 12.19.2 Emissions And Controls4"8

 12.19.2.1  Emissions -
       Particulate matter and particulate-phase hazardous air pollutants  are the major concerns in the
 welding processes. Only electric arc welding generates these pollutants  in substantial quantities.  The
 lower operating temperatures of the other welding processes cause fewer fumes to be released. Most
 of the paniculate matter produced by welding is submicron in size and,  as such, is considered to be
 all PM-10 (i. e., particles  < 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter).

       The  elemental composition of the fume varies with the electrode type and with the workpiece
 composition. Hazardous metals designated in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that have been
 recorded in welding fume include manganese (Mg), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), and lead
 (Pb).

       Gas  phase pollutants are also generated during welding operations, but little information is
 available on these pollutants.  Known gaseous pollutants (including "greenhouse" gases) include
 carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and ozone (O3).

       Table 12.19-1 presents PM-10 emission factors from SMAW, GMAW, FCAW,  and SAW
 processes, for commonly used electrode types.  Table 12.19-2 presents similar factors for hazardous
 metal emissions. Actual emissions will depend not only on the process  and the electrode type, but
 also on the base metal material, voltage, current, arc length, shielding gas, travel speed, and welding
 electrode angle.

 12.19.2.2  Controls -
       The best way to control welding fumes is to choose the proper process and operating variables
 for the given task.  Also,  capture and collection systems may be used to contain the fume at the
 source and to remove the fume with a collector.  Capture systems may be welding booths, hoods,
torch fume extractors, flexible ducts, and portable ducts.  Collection systems may be high efficiency
filters, electrostatic precipitators, paniculate scrubbers, and activated carbon filters.
1/95                                 Metallurgical Industry                               12.19-3

    -------



So
o
E— '
^
s
***
o
Q

UJ
OS
0
PL,
05

O


LL!
o
So
03
5
W
0
V—4
CU
c«


jr
~So
tS
c

_o
"ui
4_»
t
*~p
Si
2
0>
.0
«
H










O
z
p
FACTOR 1
Z
0
S
u





Ul
0 .£
U :3'
cd o
* 77 S
g5 3
Is |
s ^ «
W S -o
1^1
3 -29 J2
— Pj
1 0
H





CT
W3
S.O
r>^ so
|Q
i- c^*
O tn
3 j
1







en
en
U
O
o
IH
c
"•5
1




ouoaoQ«OQ«ouuuQoauua o * is "1 ^ n ov o
00 "MP1 CJ y^y^O^p^^j^








j: ":3v-i' S= d.tTi-»^3 >S XS-.N
S § 2 S S S S $ S f ? " -S! in S S 5§ PJ iS g 2 ^ 2 CN ® JS S






o
o 5 2
too o — csmoOTtooooiooo^o^O ~> Svi>oUO
S2o2i22oooooooooorosss o^SSCSS
zz -^H ff) c^i -f*1! ^ *^ "^ ^ *^ r*" f"~ r**" oo ^^ -^ ~w x-« x-« x-< c'n r*** CM CM cc oc* EK
^p^UU^U^^pLJUUpJUJUtUtL]tt]UJUJtJj[X]tU UQtJjWtiJpUpJtiJ







^ 
    -------
                                                          Table 12.19-1 (cont.).
Welding Process
FCAWf'«
(SCC 3-09-053)




SAWS
(SCC 3-09-054)
Electrode Type
(With Last 2 Digits Of SCC)
El 10 (-06)"
El 1018 (-08)
E308LT (-12)bb
E316LT (-20)cc
E70T (-54)dd
E71T (-55)"
EM12K (-10)ff

Total Fume Emission Factor
(g/kg [lb/103 Ib] Of
Electrode Consumed)1*
20.8
57.0
9.1
8.5
15.1
12.2
0.05

EMISSION FACTOR RATING
D
D
C
B
B
B
C

I
C
era
o°
EL

n.
References 7-18.  SMAW  = shielded metal arc welding; GMAW = gas metal arc welding; FCAW = flux cored arc welding;
SAW = submerged arc welding.  SCC = Source Classification Code.
Mass of pollutant emitted per unit mass of electrode consumed. All welding fume is considered to be PM-10 (particles ^  10 /mi in
aerodynamic diameter).
Current = 102 to 229 A; voltage = 21 to 34 V.
Current = 160 to 275 A; voltage = 20 to 32 V.
Current = 275 to 460 A; voltage =  19 to 32 V.
Current = 450 to 550 A; voltage = 31 to 32 V.
Type of shielding gas employed will  influence emission factor.
Includes E11018-M
Includes E308-16 and E308L-15
Includes E310-16
Includes E316-15, E316-16, and E316L-16
Includes E410-16
Includes E8018C3
Includes E9015B3
Includes E9018B3 and  E9018G
Includes ECoCr-A
Includes ENiCrMo-4
Includes ENi-Cu-2
Includes E308LSi
Includes E70S-3, E70S-5,  and E70S-6
Includes ER316I-Si and ER316L-SJ
                                                                       aa
                                                                       bb
                                                                       cc
                                                                       dd
       Includes ENiCrMo-3 and ENi-CrMo-4
       Includes ERNiCu-7
                                                                ee
                                                                ff
Includes E110TS-K3
Includes E308LT-3
Includes E316LT-3
Includes E70T-1, E70T-2, E70T-4, E70T-5, E70T-7, and
E70T-G
Includes E71T-1 and E71T-11
Includes EM12K1 and F72-EM12K2

    -------
CO

Z
3
g
t





1
U
<;
tu



1
CO
z

s
D
2
on

8
Q
N
Z D
(3 ^
i— | S
CO E-
£2 <•
w "
•5k
|
o

•o
u
U
<+-(
O
£
o
:^
J£?
"So
d
^^v
u.
0
«
B-
C
'^
'§
W
d<
ffi
« 1
a.-
£**

f
^
•4-t N
0} *














s o
5 Z
c <
£

z




e
^

o
U



^^
!r^
O
CJ




^
CJ

n
^
Si
5 ^
» CJ
-u
^ "3
J O
•^ ^^
^>
••


en
a>
o
Q
£
U)
e
!2
"53
^



000000.0g.ooooio|000
QQOcsQQOQQQOQSQQQQQQQ
ZZZoZZZZZZZZ^'ZZZZZZZ

covoiDTT'J'n rNfN — co Ot~co
r~QO"O OD ^j \^ - » ^
JS2o2i22oOOOOOOOOQ o^^'^

^i [T^ pq fr^ fT~| fr] [yl [T^ fT^ fr^ fT^ fi^ ["T^ [T~] fT^ pr^ [T") [T) ^ pq

^^

>o
9
s

J> ,.
? CJ
5 W)
00


U < Q Q Q « U
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
z z z z z z z

Tf ^H \O — «
00 O /•} co O
V
~ 3 > 5 X
rs ^r CD **o o ^o CD
— m — (N (N t~ OO
i i i i t i i


0
s
S^C ^ 3
1^) V^ ^^ ^
00 00 ^*^ ^^ *~* *5? ^5
O ^5 *""3 *O ^0 ^i ^i

tU UJ UJ (-U [JQ UJ UJ

i<^

i^^
9
H9
•o co
^ O
< U
-a ^
o ""'
CN
 12.19-6
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                                          Table 12.19-2 (cont.).
Welding Process
FCAWf-8
(SCC 3-09-053)




SAWh
(SCC 3-09-054)
Electrode Type
(With Last 2 Digits
Of SCC)
El 10 (-06)^
El 10 18 (-08)z
E308 (-12)
E316 (-20)aa
E70T (-54)bb
E71T (-55)cc
EM12K (-10)

HAP Emission Factor ( 10'1 g/kg [10'1 lb/103 Ib] Of Electrode Consumed)b
Cr
0.02
9.69
ND
9.70
0.04
0.02
ND

Cr(VI)
ND
ND
ND
1.40
ND
ND
ND

Co
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
< 0.01
ND

Mn
20.2
7.04
ND
5.90
8.91
6.62
ND

-Ni
1.12
1.02
ND
0.93
0.05
0.04
ND

Pb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
ND
B
B
B
ND

    K
    b
a
Q.
c
>— .   u
References 7-18.  SMAW = shielded metal arc welding; GMAW = gas metal arc welding; FCAW = flux cored arc welding;
SAW = submerged arc welding.  SCC = Source Classification Code.  ND  = no data.
Mass of pollutant emitted per unit mass of electrode consumed.  Cr = chromium.  Cr(VI)  = chromium +6 valence state.  Co = cobalt.
Mn = manganese.  Ni = nickel.  Pb = lead. All HAP emissions are in the PM-10 size range (particles ^  10 /on in aerodynamic diameter).
Current = 102 to 225 A; voltage =  21 to 34 V.
Current = 275 to 460 A; voltage =  19 to 32 V.
Type of shielding gas employed will  influence emission factors.
Current = 160 to 275 A; voltage =  22 to 34 V.
Current = 450 to 550 A; voltage =  31 to 32 V.
Includes E11018-M
Includes E308-16 and E308L-15
Includes E310-15
Includes E316-15, E316-16,  and E316L-16
Includes E410-16
Includes 8018C3
Includes 9018B3
Includes ENiCrMo-3 and ENiCrMo-4
Includes ENi-Cu-2
Includes E308LSi
Includes E70S-3, E70S-5, and E70S-6
    v  Includes ER316I-Si
w Includes ERNiCrMo-3 and ERNiCrMo-4
x Includes ERNiCu-7
y Includes El 10TS-K3
z Includes El 1018-M
aa Includes E316LT-3
bb Includes E70T-1, E70T-2, E70T-4, E70T-5, E70T-7, and
  E70T-G
cc Includes E71T-1 and E71T-11

    -------
References For Section 12.19

1.     Telephone conversation between Rosalie Brosilow, Welding Design And Fabrication
       Magazine, Penton Publishing, Cleveland, OH, and Lance Henning, Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, MO, October 16, 1992.

2.     Census Of Manufactures, Industry Series, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of
       Census, Washington, DC, March 1990.

3.     Welding Handbook,  Welding Processes, Volume 2, Eighth Edition, American Welding
       Society, Miami, FL, 1991.

4.     K. Houghton and P. Kuebler, "Consider A Low Fume Process For Higher Productivity",
       Presented at the Joint Australasian Welding And Testing Conference, Australian Welding
       Institute And Australian Institute For Nondestructive Testing, Perth, Australia, 1984.

5.     Criteria For A Recommended Standard Welding, Brazing, And Thermal Cutting, Publication
       No. 88-110, National Institute For Occupational Safety And Health, U. S. Department Of
       Health And Human Services, Cincinnati, OH, April 1988.

6.     I. W.  Head and S. J. Silk,  "Integral Fume Extraction In MIG/CO2 Welding", Metal
       Construction, 77(12):633-638, December  1979.

7.     R. M. Evans, et al., Fumes And Gases In The Welding Environment, American Welding
       Society, Miami, FL, 1979.

8.     R. F.  Heile and D. C. Hill, "Particulate Fume Generation In Arc Welding Processes",
       Welding Journal, 54(7):201s-210s, July 1975.

9.     J. F. Mcllwain and L. A. Neumeier, Fumes From Shielded Metal Arc (MMA Welding)
       Electrodes,  RI-9105, Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Rolla Research
       Center, Rolla, MO,  1987.

10.    I. D. Henderson, et al., "Fume Generation And Chemical Analysis Of Fume For A Selected
       Range Of Flux-cored Structural Steel Wires", AWRA Document P9-44-85, Australian
       Welding Research, 75:4-11, December 1986.

11.    K. G. Malmqvist et al., "Process-dependent Characteristics  Of Welding Fume Particles",
       Presented at the International Conference On Health Hazards And Biological Effects Of
       Welding Fumes And Gases, Commission Of the European Communities.  World Health
       Organization and Danish Welding Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, February 1985.

12.    J. Moreton, et al., "Fume Emission When Welding Stainless Steel", Metal Construction,
       77(12):794-798, December 1985.

13.    R. K.  Tandon, et al., "Chemical Investigation Of Some Electric Arc Welding Fumes And
       Their  Potential Health Effects", Australian Welding Research, 75:55-60, December 1984.

14.    R. K.  Tandon, et al., "Fume Generation And Melting Rates Of Shielded Metal Arc Welding
       Electrodes", Welding Journal, 
    -------
15.    E. J. Fasiska, et al., Characterization Of Arc Welding Fume, American Welding Society,
       Miami, FL, February 1983.

16.    R. K. Tandon, et al., "Variations In The Chemical Composition And Generation Rates Of
       Fume From Stainless Steel Electrodes Under Different AC Arc Welding Conditions", AWRA
       Contract 90, Australian Welding Research, 11:27-30, December 1982.

17.    The Welding Environment, Parts HA, IIB, and III, American Welding Society, Miami, FL,
       1973.

18.    Development of Environmental Release Estimates For Welding Operations, EPA Contract
       No. 68-C9-0036, IT Corporation, Cincinnati, OH,  1991.

19.    L. Henning and J. Kinsey,  "Development Of Paniculate And Hazardous Emission Factors For
       Welding Operations", EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
       City, MO, April 1994.
1/95                                Metallurgical Industry                             12.19-9

    -------

    -------
                       13.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
       This chapter contains emission factor information on those source categories that differ
substantially from, and hence cannot be grouped with, the other "stationary" sources discussed in this
publication. Most of these miscellaneous emitters, both natural and manmade, are truly area sources,
with their pollutant-generating process(es) dispersed over  large land areas.  Another characteristic of
these sources is the inapplicability, in most cases, of conventional control methods such as wet/dry
equipment, fuel switching, process changes, etc. Instead, control of these emissions,  where possible
at all, may involve such techniques as modification of agricultural burning practices, paving with
asphalt or concrete, or stabilization of dirt roads. Finally, miscellaneous sources generally emit
pollutants intermittently, compared to most stationary point  sources.  For example, a wildfire may
emit large quantities of paniculate and carbon monoxide for several hours or even days. But, when
measured against a continuous emitter over a long period  of time its emissions may seem relatively
minor.  Also, effects on air quality may be of relatively short duration.
1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                               13.0-1

    -------
13.0-2                          EMISSION FACTORS                           1/95

    -------
13.1  Wildfires And Prescribed Burning

13.1.1  General1

        A wildfire is a large-scale natural combustion process that consumes various ages, sizes, and
types of flora growing outdoors in a geographical area. Consequently, wildfires are potential sources
of large amounts of air pollutants that should be considered when trying to relate emissions to air
quality.

        The size and intensity,  even the occurrence, of a wildfire depend directly on such variables as
meteorological  conditions, the species of vegetation involved and their moisture content, and the
weight of consumable fuel per acre (available fuel loading). Once a fire begins, the dry combustible
material is consumed first.  If the energy release  is  large and of sufficient duration, the drying of
green, live material occurs, with subsequent burning of this material as well.  Under proper
environmental and fuel conditions, this process may initiate a chain reaction that results in a
widespread conflagration.

        The complete combustion of wildland fuels  (forests, grasslands, wetlands) require a heat flux
(temperature gradient), adequate oxygen supply, and sufficient burning time.  The size and quantity of
wildland fuels,  meteorological conditions, and topographic features interact to modify the burning
behavior as the fire spreads, and the wildfire will attain different degrees of combustion efficiency
during its lifetime.

        The importance of both fuel type and fuel loading on the fire process cannot be
overemphasized.  To meet the pressing need for this kind of information,  the U. S. Forest Service is
developing a model of a nationwide fuel identification system that will provide estimates of fuel
loading by size class. Further, the  environmental parameters of wind, slope, and expected moisture
changes have been superimposed on this fuel model and incorporated into a  National Fire Danger
Rating System (NFDRS).  This system considers  five classes of fuel, the components of which are
selected on the  basis of combustibility, response of  dead fuels to moisture, and whether the living
fuels are herbaceous (grasses, brush) or woody (trees, shrubs).

        Most fuel loading figures are based on values for  "available fuel", that is, combustible
material that will be consumed  in a wildfire under specific weather conditions. Available fuel values
must not be confused with corresponding values for either "total fuel" (all the combustible material
that would burn under the most severe weather and  burning conditions) or "potential fuel" (the larger
woody material that remains even after an extremely high intensity wildfire).  It must be emphasized,
however, that the various methods of fuel identification are of value only when they are related to the
existing fuel quantity, the quantity consumed by the fire, and the geographic area and conditions
under which the fire occurs.

        For the sake of conformity and convenience, estimated fuel loadings estimated for the
vegetation in the U. S. Forest Service Regions are presented in Table 13.1-1.  Figure 13.1-1
illustrates these areas and regions.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Miscellaneous Sources                                13.1-1

    -------
Table 13.1-1 (Metric And English Units). SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMED BY
                                        WILDFIRES8
National Regionb
Rocky Mountain
Region 1: Northern
Region 2: Rocky Mountain
Region 3: Southwestern
Region 4: Intel-mountain
Pacific
Region 5: California
Region 6: Pacific Northwest
Region 10: Alaska
Coastal
Interior
Southern
Region 8: Southern
Eastern
North Central
Region 9: Conifers
Hardwoods
Estimated Average Fuel Loading
Mg/hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
135
36
135
25
20
20
25
25
22
27
ton/acre
37
60
30
10
8
19
18
60
16
60
11
9
9
11
11
10
12
a Reference
  K.eierence i.
  See Figure 13.1-1 for region boundaries.
13.1.2  Emissions And Controls1

        It has been hypothesized, but not proven, that the nature and amounts of air pollutant
emissions are directly related to the intensity and direction (relative to the wind) of the wildfire, and
are indirectly related to the rate at which the fire spreads.  The factors that affect the rate of spread
are (1) weather (wind velocity, ambient temperature, relative humidity); (2) fuels (fuel type, fuel bed
array, moisture content, fuel size); and (3) topography (slope and profile).  However, logistical
problems (such as size of the burning area) and difficulties in safely situating personnel and equipment
close to the fire have prevented the collection of any reliable emissions data on actual wildfires, so
that it is not possible to verify or disprove the hypothesis. Therefore, until such measurements are
made, the only available  information is that obtained from burning experiments hi the laboratory.
These data, for both emissions and emission factors, are contained in Table 13.1-2.  It must be
emphasized that the factors presented here are adequate for laboratory-scale emissions estimates, but
that substantial errors may result if they  are used to calculate actual wildfire emissions.
13.1-2
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                                         •    HEADQUARTERS
                                                     	REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
                Figure 13.1-1.  Forest areas And U. S. Forest Service Regions.
       The emissions and emission factors displayed in Table 13.1-2 are calculated using the
following formulas:
                                                                                          (1)
                                                = PjLA
                                                      (2)
where:
        Fj  = emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of forest consumed)
        Pj  = yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit mass of forest fuel consumed)
           = 8.5 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (17 pound per ton [lb/ton])  for total paniculate
           = 70 kg/Mg  (140 lb/ton) for carbon monoxide
           = 12 kg/Mg  (24 lb/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as CH4)
           = 2 kg/Mg (4 lb/ton) for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
           = negligible  for sulfur oxides (SOX)
        L  = fuel loading consumed (mass of forest fuel/unit land area burned)
        A  = land area.burned
        EJ  = total emissions of pollutant "i" (mass pollutant)
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.1-3

    -------
       O
       z
  z
  o
  M>*4
  00
  C/3
  W
  ts
       g
       O

  Z    «
  ^    or>
  f2
j> co
1°
•Sis
**g *g
'ao "S oo
& O
v>

•1 =1
"E | 1
w Is |
5

o

tS
3
•^
08
O,
e
1> *A
II
2°
3 0-o,

5 ^ §
2
2
£ c •§
g | 1
'S u o
.52 S
1
1
•e
<£
1.2?
UN *•* 3?
2 I ^
•3 o 5
•sue-
^ *•» *H SB
< S " S s
O ^Jj* _.f_
CJ ?• <=•

2
1
0
(X
2
9
3
u

oo
r-
55
S
oo
en



en
CM
o*
oo
-*

f^.
S
8
CM


2


S
ON


0
oa
m


1



en
00


r-
o\
en
en
en



ocky Mountain
PS
in O
CM 00_
00* 00*
en
CM r-
o\ in
in —i
o* en
CM m
CM



en g
* 0
& 2
C*~t m
l-H

OO "^"
CM vo
CM r-
vo en
1-H


o\ in
vo en
CM -H


O oo
CM 0
VO 00


0 0

O\ rt


5 S
*~t "^
_~


in t~-
en vo


vo es
r~- oo
CM 00
CM m
Tf VO



*""*
Northern (Region
Rocky Mountain
(Region 2)

m
P.
en
en
en
in
S



£
•^
en



r~
in
in



in
••t


Ov
vo
CM


O
t--
in
«


o\



CM


in
r^
en
00




Southwestern
(Region 3)

g

o
VO
"*



en
m

CM



(**)
CM
en



VO
en


m
t-H
CM


O
vo
CM
—


en
in



o


vn
^~
CM




Intermountain
(Region 4)

§
o
Tf
vo
CM

I



00
r~
|

<-"

O

o
»— 4


m
00


CM
>n


0
o\
CM


CM
VO
en



en


S
CTv
|




O
"5
'3
£
en vo
en r-
m en
« O*
en
vo m
O\ in
— CM
O\ CM
00



m -•*
Sin
^~«
Jn S
o
*•<"

•* 00
S S
« gj
^— <


—i CM
oo r-


in —
OO CO
T n-


o o
m -*
oo in
CM CM


en m
•
P
Ov



9


VO
CM


0
en



O
CM



•n
o


5\

c>




orth Central and
Eastern
Z
1
VO*
£
r-
3



VO
t^
3
CM


OO
o\
m
gj



9


S
CM


0
en



o
CM



m
CM


00
en
CM
5
^H



&
c
o
1

o m
CM O\
en oo
CM" -<"
en
oo o\
Ov en
en »i




2 S
S §
vo
•**

Ov CM
in in
oo m
o\ c?
v2
in


o\ vo
•* c^


VO 00
Ov in
CM <»


0 O
en r~



O •*
~< CM
CM en



in oo
CM en


VO 0
^T CM
O OO
r- o
^- en

»— i


20D
O
«"^ S
03 ^^ O
PQ H
                                                                                    
    -------
        For example, suppose that it is necessary to estimate the total paniculate emissions from a
 10,000-hectare wildfire hi the Southern area (Region 8). From Table  13.1-1, it is seen that the
 average fuel loading is 20 Mg/hectare (9 tons/acre). Further, the pollutant yield for particulates is
 8.5 kg/Mg (17 Ib/ton).  Therefore, the emissions are:

         E =  (8.5 kg/Mg of fuel) (20 Mg of fuel/hectare) (10,000 hectares)

         E =  1,700,000 kg = 1,700 Mg

        The most effective method of controlling wildfire emissions is, of course, to prevent the
 occurrence of wildfires by various means at the land manager's disposal.  A frequently used technique
 for reducing wildfire occurrence is "prescribed" or "hazard reduction" burning.  This type of
 managed burn involves combustion of litter and underbrush to prevent fuel buildup under controlled
 conditions, thus reducing the danger of a wildfire.  Although some air pollution is generated by this
 preventive burning, the net amount is believed to be a relatively smaller quantity then that produced
 by wildfires.

 13.1.3  Prescribed Burning1

        Prescribed burning is a land treatment, used under controlled conditions, to accomplish
 natural  resource management objectives. It is one of several land treatments, used individually or in
 combination, including chemical and mechanical methods.  Prescribed fires are conducted within the
 limits of a fire plan and prescription that describes both the acceptable range of weather, moisture,
 fuel, and fire behavior parameters, and the ignition method to achieve the desired effects.  Prescribed
 fire is a cost-effective and ecologically sound tool for forest, range, and wetland management.  Its use
 reduces the potential for destructive wildfires and thus maintains long-term air  quality.  Also, the
 practice removes logging residues, controls bisects and disease, improves wildlife habitat and forage
 production,  increases water yield, maintains natural succession of plant communities, and reduces the
 need for pesticides and herbicides. The major  air pollutant of concern is the smoke produced.

        Smoke from prescribed fires is a complex mixture of carbon, tars, liquids, and different
 gases.   This open combustion source produces particles of widely ranging size, depending to some
 extent on the rate of energy release of the fire.  For example,  total paniculate and paniculate less than
 2.5 micrometers (jtm) mean mass cutpoint diameters are produced hi different proportions,  depending
 on rates of heat release by the fire.2  This difference is greatest for the highest-intensity fires, and
 particle volume distribution is bimodal, with peaks near 0.3 fan and exceeding 10 /un.   Particles
 over about 10 fan, probably of ash and partially burned plant matter, are entrained by the turbulent
 nature of high-intensity fires.

        Burning methods differ with fire objectives  and with fuel and weather conditions.4  For
 example, the various ignition techniques used to burn under standing trees include: (1) heading fire,
 a line of fire that runs with the wind; (2) backing fire, a line of fire that moves into the wind; (3) spot
 fires, which burn from a number of fires ignited along a line or in a pattern; and (4) flank fire, a line
 of fire that is lit into the wind, to spread laterally to the direction of the wind.  Methods of igniting
the fires depend on forest management  objectives and the size of the area. Often, on areas of 50 or
more acres,  helicopters with aerial ignition devices are used to light broadcast burns.  Broadcast fires
may involve many lines of fire in a pattern that allows the strips of fire to burn together over a
sizeable area.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                                13.1-5

    -------
       In discussing prescribed burning, the combustion process is divided into preheating, flaming,
glowing, and smoldering phases.  The different phases of combustion greatly affect the amount of
emissions produced.5"7  The preheating phase seldom releases significant quantities of material to the
atmosphere.  Glowing combustion is usually associated with burning of large concentrations of woody
fuels such as logging residue piles.  The smoldering combustion phase is a very inefficient and
incomplete combustion process that emits pollutants at a much higher ratio to the quantity of fuel
consumed than does the flaming combustion of similar materials.

       The amount of fuel consumed depends on the moisture content of the fuel.8"9  For most fuel
types, consumption during the smoldering phase is  greatest when the fuel is driest.  When lower
layers of the fuel are moist, the fire usually is extinguished rapidly.10

       The major pollutants from wildland burning are paniculate, carbon monoxide, and volatile
organics.  Nitrogen oxides are emitted at rates of from 1 to 4  g/kg burned, depending on combustion
temperatures.  Emissions of sulfur oxides are negligible.11"12

       Paniculate emissions depend on the mix of combustion phase, the rate of energy release, and
the type of fuel consumed. All of these elements must be considered in selecting the appropriate
emission factor for a given fire and fuel situation.  In some cases, models developed by the U. S.
Forest Service have been used to predict paniculate emission factors and source strength.13  These
models address fire behavior, fuel chemistry,  and ignition technique, and they predict the mix of
combustion products. There is insufficient knowledge at this tune to describe the effect of fuel
chemistry on emissions.

       Table 13.1-3 presents emission factors from various pollutants, by fire and fuel configuration.
Table 13.1-4. gives emission factors for prescribed burning, by geographical area within the United
States. Estimates of the percent of total fuel consumed by region were compiled by polling experts
from the Forest Service.  The emission factors are  averages and  can vary by as much as 50 percent
with fuel and fire conditions. To use these factors, multiply the mass of fuel consumed per hectare
by the emission factor for the appropriate fuel type. The mass of fuel consumed by a fire is defined
as the available fuel.  Local forestry officials often  compile information on fuel consumption for
prescribed fires and have techniques for estimating  fuel consumption under local conditions.  The
Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook1  and the Prescribed Fire Smoke Management
Guide15 should be consulted when using these emission factors.

       The regional emission factors in Table 13.1-4 should be  used only for general planning
purposes. Regional averages are based on estimates of the acreage and vegetation type burned and
may not reflect prescribed burning activities in a given state.   Also, the regions identified are broadly
defined, and the mix of vegetation and acres burned within a given state may vary considerably from
the regional averages provided. Table 13.1-4 should not be used to develop emission inventories and
control strategies.

       To develop state emission inventories, the user is strongly urged to contact that state's federal
land management agencies and  state forestry agencies that conduct prescribed burning to obtain the
best information on such activities.
13.1-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------



cS
O
g
t*(

«
D
w
CO
52
o
CO
1
M«
1
CO
e
C^
CJ




methane
c
o



g.
at
.C

*g

o
H
C^ ®
s








£
1
o
'5
£






5
o
H




o
^

W1
s
OH

SO
OS
C
O

2
3
60
«
C
O
O
"3
u.
1
E


< < •< < < < (3D 03 03 03 03 03
co ("*" c^i i** c*^ r** o o
09p":'* ^C1*0r':'^c^
fj r** ^ cs^'fi'-^vS^j" QQQ




^HO^H cncs>ot^ or^oo
c4o6\d ci t^ «o *-* r* in ^-iod^




^ \o c4 cs *o *o *o *o ^o oo ^o r**




mooo «sot-ONn-*-vo






•^ "1; ts "^s^5"!;^ * ^«^^






O O O 4)
B-toJ* B.eo.^H.eo-^ B.tOjb

cn
J5 » h
cn -C jg

C *** O "^
• 3 "O S O
^^ li U *•
£ ~° ? 'S « !§ "s
| | fc I 1 |||
SX oeo -J o'QZ
03 0 J
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                       13.1-7

    -------
 I
oo
                                                                        Table 13.1-3  (cont.).
Fire/Fuel Configuration
10 to 30% Mineral soil6
25% Organic soil6
Range fire
Juniper slash


Sagebrushf


Chaparral shrub
communities


Line fire
Conifer
Long needle (pine)

Palmetto/gallberry'


Chaparralk
Grasslands'
Phase
S
S

F
S
Fire*
F
S
Fire*
F
S
Fire


Heading'
Backing11
Heading
Backing
Fire
Heading
Fire
Pollutant (g/kg)
Particulate
PM-2.5
ND
ND

7
12
9
15
13
13
7
12
10


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
PM-10
ND
ND

8
13
10
16
15
15
8
13
11


40
20
15
15
8-22
9
10
Total
25
35

11
18
14
23
23
23
16
23
20


50
20
17
15
ND
15
10
Carbon
Monoxide
200
250

41
125
82
78
106
103
56
133
101


200
125
150
100
ND
62
75
Volatile
Methane
ND
ND

2.0
10.3
6.0
3.7
6.2
6.2
1.7
6.4
4.5


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.8
ND
Organics
Nonmethane
ND
ND

2.7
7.8
5.2
3.4
7.3
6.9
8.2
15.6
12.5


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.5
0
Fuel Mix
(*)
ND
ND

8.2
15.6
12.5















EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D

B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A


D
D
D
D
D
C
D
 w

 §

 oo
 
    -------
   rn



   ro
0>
II
t
Ui
•o
1
II
CO
i
03
53
II
PU
Al
*o
Ml
C
etermined by field test
•o
"8
I
(U
"1
c/a
•a

06
t**-
C/3
qj

i
**H
(^
=a



.
re
•o
g
II
Q
Z
co'
"O
i
PH
F
A

1
Jn
>



CTOR RATING: C.
PH
Z
o
CO
CO
S
r-'
8
1

c£
^
o


>i
^
£
J3

Q
FACTOR RATING:
1
CO
CO
§
U
1
1

(S
„
^5
T-H

2
0.
^
£
o

Q
FACTOR RATING:
O
CO
CO
§
W
r-"
r.
CO
1

(^
^
O

1
§
J_^
£
T3


ry combustion hood.
I
1
W)
3
etermined
Q

Ol >O

4> 4)
O O
c c
(£~ C^H
q^ 4>
U V.
fire average for emission inventory purposes.
3o
D
CQ
O.
C
1
o>
c
1
tf
o

'o
qj
C/3
i
3
X3
c"
"S oo
8 £;
c *~^

^j
X O
S |
Q) ^»<
tu o<
be -C .

•o
^
ratory combustion hoc
o
Jl
i
3
1
. Determi
•**•
ro
*•"*
c/5
4)
O
§
u-
t^*
£
•^ "







Tf
1
^•H
CO
4)
o
5
»P*
CO
*
9/91 (Refonnatted 1/95)                    Miscellaneous Sources                                 13.1-9

    -------
      Table 13.1-4 (Metric Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING
                                BY U. S. REGION
Regional Configuration
And Fuel Typea
Pacific Northwest
Logging slash
Piled slash
Douglas fir/Western hemlock
Mixed conifer
Ponderosa pine
Hardwood
Underburning pine
Average for region
Pacific Southwest
Sagebrush
Chaparral
Pinyon/Juniper
Underburning pine
Grassland
Average for region
Southeast
Palmetto/gallbery
Underburning pine
Logging slash
Grassland
Other
Average for region
Percent
Of Fuelb


42
24
19
6
4
5
100

35
20
20
15
10
100

35
30
20
10
5
100
Pollutant*5
Particuiate (g/kg)
PM-2.5 PM-10


4 5
12 13
12 13
13 13
11 12
30 30
9.4 10.3

9
8 9
13
30
10
13.0

15
30
13
10
17
18.8
PM


6
17
17
20
18
35
13.3

15
15
17
35
10
17.8

16
35
20
10
17
21.9
CO


37
175
175
126
112
163
111.1

62
62
175
163
15
101.0

125
163
126
75
175
134
13.1-10
                              EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
                                     Table 13.1-4  (cont.).
Regional Configuration
And Fuel Type*
Rocky Mountain
Logging slash
Underburning pine
Grassland
Other
Average for region
North Central and Eastern
Logging slash
Grassland
Underburning pine
Other
Average for region
Percent
ofFuelb

50
20
20
10
100

50
30
10
10
100
Pollutant*
Paniculate (g/kg)
PM-2.5 PM-10

4
30
10
17
11.9

13
10
30
17
14
PM

6
35
10
17
13.7

17
10
35
17
16.5
CO

37
163
75
175
83.4

175
75
163
175
143.8
a Regional areas are generalized, e. g., the Pacific Northwest includes Oregon, Washington, and parts
  of Idaho and California.  Fuel types generally reflect the ecosystems of a region, but users should
  seek advice on fuel type mix for a given season of the year.  An average factor for Northern
  California could be more accurately described as chaparral, 25%; Underburning pine, 15%;
  sagebrush, 15%; grassland,  5%; mixed conifer, 25%; and douglas fir/Western hemlock, 15%.
  Blanks indicate no data.
b Based on the judgement of forestry experts.
c Adapted from Table 13.1-3 for the dominant fuel types burned.
References For Section 13.1

1.      Development Of Emission Factors For Estimating Atmospheric Emissions From Forest Fires,
       EPA-450/3-73-009, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       October 1973.

2.      D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy, Advances In The Characterization And Control Of Emissions
       From Prescribed Broadcast Fires Of Coniferous Species Logging Slash On Clearcut Units,
       EPA DW12930110-01-3/DOE DE-A179-83BP12869, U. S. Forest Service, Seattle, WA,
       January 1986.

3.      L. F. Radke, et al., Airborne Monitoring And Smoke Characterization Of Prescribed Fires On
       Forest Lands In Western Washington And Oregon, EPA-600/X-83-047, U. S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1983.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.1-11

    -------
4.     H. E. Mobley. et al., A Guide For Prescribed Fire In Southern Forests, U. S. Forest Service,
       Atlanta, GA, 1973.

5.     Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook, SE-10, U. S. Forest Service, Asheville,
       NC, 1976.

6.     D. E. Ward and C. C. Hardy, "Advances In The Characterization And Control Of Emissions
       From Prescribed Fires", Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting Of The Air Pollution Control
       Association, San Francisco, CA, June 1984.

7.     C. C. Hardy and D. E. Ward, "Emission Factors For Paniculate Matter By Phase Of
       Combustion From Prescribed Burning", Presented at the Annual Meeting Of The  Air
       Pollution Control Association Pacific Northwest International Section, Eugene, OR,
       November 19-21, 1986.

8.     D. V. Sandberg and R. D.  Ottmar, "Slash Burning And Fuel Consumption In The Douglas
       Fir Subregion", Presented at the 7th Conference On Fire And Forest Meteorology, Fort
       Collins, CO, April  1983.

9.     D. V. Sandberg, "Progress In Reducing Emissions From Prescribed Forest Burning In
       Western Washington And Western Oregon", Presented at the Annual  Meeting Of The Air
       Pollution Control Association Pacific Northwest International Section, Eugene, OR,
       November 19-21, 1986.

10.    R. D. Ottmar and D. V. Sandberg, "Estimating 1000-hour Fuel Moistures In The Douglas Fir
       Subregion", Presented  at the 7th Conference On Fire And Forest Meteorology, Fort Collins,
       CO, April 25-28, 1983.

11.    D. V. Sandberg, et al., Effects Of Fire On Air — A State Of Knowledge Review, WO-9,
       U. S.  Forest Service, Washington, DC,  1978.

12.    C. K. McMahon, "Characteristics Of Forest Fuels, Fires, And Emissions", Presented at the
       76th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

13.    D. E. Ward, "Source Strength Modeling Of Particulate Matter Emissions From Forest Fires",
       Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting Of The Air Pollution Control Association, Atlanta,  GA,
       June 1983.

14.    D. E. Ward, et al., "Particulate Source Strength Determination For Low-intensity Prescribed
       Fires", Presented at the Agricultural Air Pollutants Specialty Conference, Air Pollution
       Control Association, Memphis, TN, March  18-19, 1974.

15.    Prescribed Fire Smoke  Management Guide,  420-1, BIFC-BLM Warehouse, Boise, ID,
       February 1985.

16.    Colin C. Hardy, Emission Factors For Air Pollutants From Range Improvement Prescribed
       Burning of Western Juniper And Basin Big Sagebrush, PNW 88-575, Office Of Air Quality
       Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
       NC, March 1990.
13.1-12                            EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
 17.    Colin C. Hardy And D. R. Teesdale, Source Characterization and Control Of Smoke
        Emissions From Prescribed Burning Of California Chaparral, CDF Contract No. 89CA96071,
        California Department Of Forestry And Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA  1991.

 18.    Darold E. Ward And C. C. Hardy,  "Emissions From Prescribed Burning Of Chaparral",
        Proceedings Of The 1989 Annual Meeting Of The Air And Waste Management Association,
        Anaheim, CA June 1989.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Miscellaneous Sources                             13.1-13

    -------

    -------
 13.2 Fugitive Dust Sources

        Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material
 exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not
 discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream.  Common sources of fugitive dust include
 unpaved roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction
 operations.

        For the above sources of fugitive dust, the dust-generation process is caused by 2 basic
 physical phenomena:

        1.   Pulverization and abrasion of surface materials by application of mechanical force
             through implements (wheels, blades, etc.).

        2.   Entrainment of dust particles by the action of turbulent air currents, such as wind erosion
             of an exposed surface by wind speeds over 19 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (12 miles per
             hour [mph]).

        In this section of AP-42, the principal pollutant of interest is PM-10 — paniculate matter
 (PM) no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (/imA).  Because PM-10 is the size
 basis for the current primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for paniculate
 matter, it represents the particle size range of the greatest regulatory interest.  Because formal
 establishment of PM-10 as the primary standard basis occurred in 1987, many earlier emission tests
 have been referenced to other particle size ranges, such as:

        TSP   Total Suspended Paniculate, as measured by the standard high-volume ("hi-vol") air
               sampler, has a relatively coarse size range.  TSP was the basis for the previous
               primary NAAQS for PM and is still the basis of the secondary standard. Wind tunnel
               studies show that the particle mass capture efficiency curve for the high-volume
               sampler is very broad, extending from  100 percent capture of particles smaller than
               10 /-cm to a few percent  capture of particles as large  as 100 fim.  Also, the capture
               efficiency curve varies with wind speed and wind direction, relative to roof ridge
               orientation.  Thus, high-volume samplers do not provide definitive particle size
               information for emission factors.  However, an effective cut point of 30 /*m
               aerodynamic diameter is frequently  assigned to the standard high volume sampler.

        SP     Suspended Paniculate, which is often used as a surrogate for TSP, is defined as PM
               with an  aerodynamic diameter no greater  than 30 /*m.  SP may also be denoted as
               PM-30.

        IP     Inhalable Paniculate is defined as PM with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than
               15 pro.  IP also may be denoted as PM-15.

        FP     Fine Paniculate is defined as PM with an aerodynamic diameter no greater than
               2.5 fim.  FP may also be denoted as PM-2.5.

        The impact of a fugitive dust source on air pollution depends on the quantity and drift
potential of the dust particles  injected into the atmosphere.  In  addition to large dust particles that


 1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2-1

    -------
settle out near the source (often creating a local nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine
particles also are emitted and dispersed over much greater distances from the source.  PM-10
represents a relatively fine particle size range and, as such, is not overly susceptible to gravitational
settling.

       The potential drift distance of particles is governed by the initial injection height of the
particle, the terminal settling velocity of the particle, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence.
Theoretical drift distance, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, has been computed
for fugitive dust emissions.  Results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 16 km/hr
(10 mph), particles  larger than about 100 /*m are likely to settle out within 6 to 9 meters (20 to
30 feet [ft]) from the edge of the road or other point of emission. Particles that are 30 to 100 pm in
diameter are likely to undergo impeded settling.  These particles, depending upon the extent of
atmospheric turbulence, are likely to settle within a few hundred feet from the road.  Smaller
particles, particularly IP, PM-10, and FP, have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are
much more likely to have their settling rate retarded by atmospheric turbulence.

       Control techniques for fugitive dust sources  generally involve watering, chemical stabilization,
or reduction of surface wind speed with windbreaks or source enclosures.  Watering, the most
common and, generally, least expensive method, provides only temporary dust control.  The use of
chemicals to treat exposed surfaces provides longer dust suppression, but may  be costly, have adverse
effects on plant and animal life, or contaminate the treated material.  Windbreaks and source
enclosures are often impractical because of the size of fugitive dust sources.

       The reduction of source extent and the incorporation of process modifications or adjusted
work practices, both of which reduce the amount of dust generation, are preventive techniques for the
control of fugitive dust emissions. These techniques could include,  for example, the elimination of
mud/dirt carryout on paved roads at construction sites.  On the other hand, mitigative measures entail
the periodic removal of dust-producing material. Examples of mitigative control measures include
clean-up of spillage on paved or unpaved travel surfaces and clean-up of material spillage at conveyor
transfer points.
 13.2-2                                EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 13.2.1 Paved Roads

 13.2.1.1  General

        Paniculate emissions occur whenever vehicles travel over a paved surface, such as a road or
 parking lot.  In general terms, particulate emissions from paved roads originate from the loose
 material present on the surface. In turn, that surface  loading, as it is moved or removed, is
 continuously replenished by other sources.  At industrial sites, surface loading  is replenished by
 spillage of material and trackout from unpaved roads  and staging areas.   Figure 13.2.1-1 illustrates
 several transfer processes occurring on public streets.

        Various field studies have found that public streets and highways, as well as roadways at
 industrial facilities, can be major sources of the atmospheric particulate  matter within an area.1"8  Of
 particular interest in many parts of the United States are the increased levels of emissions from public
 paved roads when the equilibrium between deposition and removal processes is upset.  This situation
 can occur for various reasons,  including application of snow and ice controls, carryout from
 construction activities in the area,  and wind and/or water erosion from surrounding unstabilized areas.

 13.2.1.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

        Dust emissions from paved roads have been found to vary with  what is termed the "silt
 loading" present on the road surface as well as the average weight of vehicles traveling the road.  The
 term silt loading (sL) refers to the mass of silt-size material (equal to or less than 75 micrometers
 [fjm]  in physical diameter) per unit area of the travel surface.4"5  The total road surface dust loading
 is that of loose material that can be collected by broom sweeping and vacuuming of the traveled
 portion of the paved road.  The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of the loose
 dry surface dust that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method.   Silt loading
 is the product of the silt fraction and the total loading, and is abbreviated "sL".  Additional details on
 the sampling and analysis of such material are provided in AP-42 Appendices C.I and C.2.

        The surface sL provides a  reasonable means of characterizing seasonal variability in a paved
 road emission inventory.9  In many areas of the country, road surface loadings  are heaviest during the
 late winter and early spring months when the residual loading  from snow/ice controls is greatest.

 13.2.1.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equations9

       The quantity of dust emissions from vehicle traffic on  a paved road may be estimated using
the following empirical expression:

                                                0.65      1.5                                  (I)
                                    E = k (sL/2)    (W/3)                                    W
where:

        E  = particulate emission factor
        k  = base emission factor for particle size range and units of interest (see below)
       sL  = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter) (g/m2)


1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.1-1

    -------
to
tn
O
O
H
O
                                                                                                   DEPOSITION
                                                                                           PAVEMENT WEAR AND DECOMPOSITION
                                                                                           VEHICLE RELATED DEPOSITION
                                                                                           DUSTFALL
                                                                                           LITTER
                                                                                           MUD AND DIRT CARRYOUT
                                                                                           EROSION FROM ADJACENT AREAS
                                                                                           SPILLS
                                                                                           BIOLOGICAL DEBRIS
                                                                                           ICE CONTROL COMPOUNDS
                                            U^v
                REMOVAL
              REENTRAINMENT
              WIND EROSION
              DISPLACEMENT
              RAINFALL RUNOFF TO CATCH BASIN
              STREET SWEEPING
                                      -^"lAjuX
 \NJS>     °*^*,      ->..
**£»»«*&«.4x ^^.^   ^
                                            Figure 13.2.1-1.  Deposition and removal processes.

    -------
 The particle size multiplier (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as follows:

                         Particle Size Multipliers For Paved Road Equation

Size Rangea
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-15
PM-30C
Multiplier kb
g/VKT
2.1
4.6
5.5
24
g/VMT
3.3
7.3
9.0
38
Ib/VMT
0.0073
0.016
0.020
0.082
a Refers to airborne participate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than
  x micrometers.
b Units shown are grams per vehicle kilometer traveled (g/VKT), grams per vehicle mile traveled
  (g/VMT), and pounds per vehicle mile traveled (Ib/VMT).
c PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogate for TSP.
To determine particulate emissions for a specific particle size range, use the appropriate value of
k above.

        The above equation is based on a regression analysis of numerous emission tests, including
65  tests for PM-10.9  Sources tested include public payed roads, as well as controlled and
uncontrolled industrial paved roads. The equations retain the quality rating of A (B for PM-2.5), if
applied within the range of source conditions that were tested hi developing the equation as follows:
        Silt loading:
        Mean vehicle weight:
        Mean vehicle speed:
0.02 -  400 g/m2
0.03 -  570 grains/square foot (ft2)

1.8  -  38 megagrams (Mg)
2.0  -  42 tons

16   -  88 kilometers per hour (kph)
10   -  55 miles per hour (mph)
        To retain the quality rating for the emission factor equation when it is applied to a specific
paved road, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values for the specific road hi question
be determined. The field and laboratory procedures for determining surface material silt content and
surface dust loading are summarized hi Appendices C.I and C.2. In the event that site-specific values
cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for an industrial road may be selected from the mean values
given in Table 13.2.1-1, but the quality rating of the equation should be reduced by 1 level.

        With the exception of limited access roadways, which are difficult to sample, the collection
and use of site-specific sL data for public paved road emission inventories are strongly recommended.
Although hundreds of public paved road  sL measurements have been made since 1980,7> 13~20
uniformity has been lacking in sampling  equipment and analysis  techniques, in roadway classification
schemes, and hi the types of data reported.9 The assembled data set (described below) does not yield
any readily identifiable, coherent relationship between sL and road class, average daily traffic (ADT),
etc.  Further complicating any analysis is the fact that, in many parts of the country, paved road sL
1/95
       Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                        13.2.1-3

    -------
  CO
  a

  1
  I

  05
  O
  UH

  C<0
  u
  p
  o

  »-4
  Q

  g


  Q
  Z
  J D
  < Q
  D
  W
  ts
 ^
 3
 0
                 OS
      CO

     OS
o

6
                 6J)
   SI
   6E
               .

              O g

          cs

          (S

O\ rfr

m' >n
*- m
in n







'""•     *°.      'R


J,     vo      ts
                               oo
                               O\
                            «
                            _,
                          -a
                                             60
                                 B
                                 ««
                                             a>
                                 a
                                                    §8
                                                   -
                                        JO ,_.

                                        "3 S
                                                 ts
                                               (-1
                                               ca

                                              a
                                                           il
                                                                          ^     E
"S -
5 *•"
O 3
                                        •S "S    3
                                        £  §    |
                                                            o ts

                                                              -

                                                           I  £
                                                           1  !»
                                                              "
                                                                               I
                                                                               o
                                                           53
                                                           o.
                                                                       ee
                                                                          _
                                                                          cs
                                                  g m  *»  c

                                                  I S  1-g

                                                  |.l|  |


                                                  i 51 -i
                                                  •a —:
                                                  > c^
                                                                       ts
                                                                    o


                                                              ^"iS
                                                               « cj O
                                         g — en _>>

                                         D  0> -H O,
                                         W  I-   . •«
                                         q>  3 fS iiS

                                         "S  ^rX 2
                                         e4 E .-. S

                                         oi       JD
13.2.1-4
                         EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                            1/95

    -------
 varies greatly over the course of the year.  For example, repeated sampling of the same roads over a
 period of 3 calendar years at 4 Montana municipalities indicated a noticeable annual cycle. Silt
 loading declines during the first 2 calendar quarters and increases during the fourth quarter.

        Figure 13.2.1-2 and Figure 13.2.1-3 present the cumulative frequency distribution for the
 public paved road sL data base assembled during the preparation of this AP-42 section.9  The data
 base includes samples taken from roads that were treated with sand and other snow/ice controls.
 Roadways are grouped into high- and low-ADT sets, with 5000 vehicles per day being the
 approximate  cutpoint.  Figure 13.2.1-2 and Figure 13.2.1-3, respectively, present the cumulative
 frequency distributions for high- and low-ADT roads.

        In the absence of site-specific sL data to serve as input to a public paved road inventory,
 conservatively high emission estimates can be obtained by using the following values taken from the
 figures.  For annual  conditions, the median sL values of 0.4 g/m2 can be used for high-ADT roads
 (excluding limited access roads that are discussed below) and 2.5 g/m2 for low-ADT roads.  Worst-
 case loadings can be estimated for high-ADT (excluding limited access roads) and low-ADT roads,
 respectively,  with the 90th percentile values of 7 and 25 g/m2.  Figure 13.2.1-4, Figure 13.2.1-5,
 Figure 13.2.1-6, and Figure 13.2.1-7 present similar cumulative frequency distribution information
 for high- and low-ADT roads, except that the sets were divided based on whether the sample was
 collected during the first or second half of the year. Information on the 50th and 90th percentile
 values is summarized in Table 13.2.1-2.
  Table 13.2.1-2 (Metric Units). PERCENTILES FOR NONINDUSTRIAL SILT LOADING (g/m2)
                                         DATA BASE

Averaging Period
Annual
January-June
July-December
High-ADT Roads
50th
0.4
0.5
0.3
90th
7
14
3
Low-ADT Roads
50th
2.5
3
1.5
90th
25
30
5
In the event that sL values are taken from any of the cumulative frequency distribution figures, the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded 2 levels.

       As an alternative method of selecting  sL values in the absence of site-specific data, users can
review the public (i. e., nonindustrial) paved road sL data base presented in Table 13.2.1-3 and can
select values that are appropriate for the roads and seasons of interest. Table 13.2.1-3 presents paved
road surface loading values together with the  city, state, road  name,  collection date (samples collected
from the same road during the same month  are averaged), road ADT if reported, classification of the
roadway, etc.   Recommendation of this approach recognizes that end users of AP-42 are capable of
identifying roads in the data base that are similar to roads in the area being inventoried. In the event
that sL values are developed in this way, and  that the selection process is fully described, then the
quality ratings for the emission estimates should be downgraded only 1 level.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                       13.2.1-5

    -------
       0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5      1     2        5     10     20       50     100
 0.9
 0.8
 0.7
 0.6
 0.5
 0.4
 0.3
 0.2
 0.1
 0.0
                                                                            •3-
                                                                           32
                                                                  2*2
                                                               22-
                                                              32
                                                            32
                                                          ••3
                                                         4«
                                                        •4
                                                       33
                                                      •3-
                                                      5
                                           •4
                                          23
                                         •4
                                        32
                                        5
                                       •32
                                      32
                                     4-
                                   •22
                                   5
                                  4-
                                32
                               4.
                              4«
                            3 3
                          •22
                          5
                         32
                        4.
                       5
                      32
                     23
                     6                                High-ADT roads, including majors,
                    •3«                                arteriats, collectors  with ADT
                    5                                  given as > 5000 vehicles/day
                  2*2
                 4-
             • 4
             5
           • 4
          42
      3 «
      5
mm 2  m
2
i	i	i	i	i
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1     2        5     10     20       50     100

                                     SILT LOADING, »sL"  (g/m2)
 Figure 13.2.1-2. Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on high-ADT roadways.
13.2.1-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                                    1/95

    -------
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5      1      2       5     10     20      50     100
 1-0 i	-i	r       iii        ...        ...

                                                                                        2
                                                                                       3
                                                                                     •2
 0.9
                                                                                  2
                                                                                 2-
                                                                               2-
                                                                              3
 0.8
 0.7
 0.6
 0.5
 0.4
 0.3
 0.2
 0.1
 0.0
                                        2
                                                                            2.
                                                                           2-
                                                                         •2
                                                                         2
                                  3
                                                                       3
                                                                      3
                                                                     2
                                                                   3
                                                                  2-
                           •  2
                         2
                        2-
                        3
                       2-
                      2-
                     • •
                    3
                    3
                   .2
                   2
                 • 2
                •2
               3
               2
               3
              •2
            •2
           2               Low-ADT roads, including  local,
          2*                residential, rural,  and collector
         3                 (excluding collector,  with ADT given
      •• •                 as > 5000 vehicles/day)
      2
    2 •
2  •
2
                               I	I	I	I	i	I	L_
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2        5     10    20       50     100
                                       SILT LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
 Figure 13.2.1-3.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on low-ADT roadways.
1/95                                    Miscellaneous Sources                                13.2.1-7

    -------
      0.01   0.02     0.05    0.1     0.2     0.5     1      2        5    10     20      50     100
 1.0
0.9
 0.8
 0.7
0.6
0.5
 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
          High-ADT roads,  including majors,                                       2*
          arterials, collectors with ADT                                        32
          given as > 5000  vehicles/day                                        «3
                                                                         2 2
          First 2 calendar quarters                                 2 •• •
                                                              23
                                                            .2-
                                                            4
                                                         22-
                                                         4
                                                       23
                                                      -3
                                                      4
                                                    •3-
                                                   •3
                                                  •4
                                                 3>
                                                 4
                                               •3.
                                              22
                                             4>
                                            22
                                           4
                                          4-
                                         3-
                                       •3-
                                      -3
                                   -2 >
                                  4«
                                 3>
                                4.
                                4
                               3>
                              4«
                             •3
                            4*
                            4
                         •3
                       2 3
                      2 2
                      5
                    • 3
                  •3
               5
               4
         3  2
         i _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I - 1 _ I - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2     0.5     1      2        5     10     20      50     100
                                       SILT LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
           Figure 13.2.1-4.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
            high-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                    1/95

    -------
         0.01   0.02    0.05   0.1    0.2     0.5     1     2        5     10     20       50    100
  1.0
 0.0
          r      i
 0.9
 0.8
 0.7
 0.6
 0.5
 0.4

                                                           High-ADT  roads, including majors,
                                                           arterials, collectors with ADT
                                                           given as  > 5000 vehicles/day
 0.3
                                                           Last 2 calendar quarters
 0.2
 0.1
          i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2       5     10    20       50     100
                                       SILT LOADING,  "SL"  (g/m2)
            Figure 13.2.1-5.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
           high-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
1/95                                    Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.1-9

    -------
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1     2       5     10     20      50     100
 1.0
0.9
0.3
 0.1
 0.0
                                                                  i      I      i         i      i
                                                                                    2
                                                                                   2
                                                                              2
                                                                             2.
0.8
0.7

                                                                      2
                                                                     2
                                                                    2-
0.6
                                                                2
                                                                2
0.5
                                                            2
                                                           2
                                                           2
                                                       • ••
0.4
0.2
                                                                Low-ADT roads, including  locals,
                                        • •                     residential, rural and collector
                                       ••                       (excluding collector with ADT given
                                     2                           as > 5000 vehicles/day)
2
                                                                First 2 calendar quarters
         i	i	i	i	i	i
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1     2       5     10    20      50     100
                                      SILT LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
           Figure 13.2.1-6.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
             low-ADT roadways, based on samples during first half of the calendar year.
13.2.1-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                                   1/95

    -------
        0.01   0.02   0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5     1      2       5     10    20       50    100
 1.0
 0.9
 0.8
 0.7
 0.6
 0.5
 0.4
 0.3
 0.2
 0.0
          1      I        1       T      I        1      T      I         III        II
Low-ADT roads, including local,
residential, rural  and collector
(excluding collector with ADT
given as > 5000 vehicles/day)
                                                                   Last 2 calendar quarters
 0.1
         j	i
        0.01   0.02    0.05    0.1    0.2      0.5    1      2       5     10    20       50     100
                                      SILT LOADING, "sL"  (g/m2)
            Figure 13.2.1-7.  Cumulative frequency distribution for surface silt loading on
            low-ADT roadways, based on samples during second half of the calendar year.
1/95                                   Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.1-11

    -------
       Limited access roadways pose severe logistical difficulties in terms of surface sampling, and
few sL data are available.  Nevertheless, the available data do not suggest great variation in sL for
limited access roadways from 1  part of the country to another. For annual conditions, a default value
of 0.02 g/m2 is recommended for limited access roadways.  Even fewer of the available data
correspond to worst-case situations, and elevated loadings are observed to be quickly depleted because
of high ADT rates.  A default value of 0.1 g/m2 is recommended for short periods of tune following
application of snow/ice controls to limited access roads.

13.2.1.4 Controls6'21

       Because of the importance of the surface loading, control techniques for paved roads attempt
either to prevent material from being deposited onto the surface (preventive controls) or to remove
from the travel lanes any material that has been deposited (mitigative controls). Regulations requiring
the covering of loads in trucks, or the paving of access areas to unpaved lots or construction sites, are
preventive measures. Examples of mitigative controls include vacuum sweeping, water flushing, and
broom sweeping and flushing.

       In general, preventive controls are usually more cost effective than mitigative controls. The
cost-effectiveness of mitigative controls falls off dramatically as the size of an area to be treated
increases. That is to say, the number and length of public roads within most areas of interest
preclude any widespread and routine use of mitigative controls. On the other hand, because of the
more limited scope of roads at an industrial site, mitigative measures may be used quite successfully
(especially hi situations where truck spillage occurs). Note, however, that public agencies could make
effective use of mitigative controls to remove sand/salt from  roads after the whiter ends.

       Because available controls will affect the sL,  controlled emission factors may be obtained by
substituting  controlled loading values into the equation.  (Emission factors from controlled industrial
roads were used hi the development of the equation.) The collection  of surface loading samples from
treated,  as well as baseline (untreated), roads provides a means to track effectiveness of the controls
over tune.
 13.2.1-12
                                      EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
Q

O
Z

a
OH
s
d
u
S
S
a

ra Q <^
•2 ;g Q
o 5 -5
H(3 *,
a
a S /~^
& S "-•'
U
bfl
+•* '2^—
J.**
~
I
**
«
£^

CO
CO
cd
u

§ 1
"« !7
•21
M(§
Q
"2. 0
S £
co «5

^.^
«-»
U
CO






Tf
f^


V^
oo
~*

VO
o

o

00
r-
S

1



g



CO
00
d
S
H






in
f^


m
^
^-i

vn
o

^3

00
s
•a
Resident



Yellowstone



CO
.s
s
H






ON
^


ON
ri
n

Tt
OO

1
*
oo
s
•a
Resident



Bancroft


a
Missoul
H






•<*•
«s


VO
o


VO
^-

R

00
S
•a
Resident



CA
i-H



1
m
s






oo
o
oo


r-


t--
t*t
o
o
VO

oo
3
•a
Resident



Z,



1
ffl
H
2
^

&
a
tH
to"
I
s
(O


*-<
OX
•— (

VO
T— 1

Jn
vo
oo
S

Collectol



4
•§
1



CO
.a
n
H
S






V)
Ov


^
t-


r~
r-

oo
m
00
t-
cS

Collectoi



a
<
•5?



CO
.s
s
H







VO


ON

VO


VO

IT)
$

00
r-


Collectoi



CO
VO


at
Missoul
s






o
f^.



«n


ON
,_i

1
?!
oo
r-
S

Arterial



Harrison



o
3
s






m
f^t


ON
vi
I/I

ON
,_4

00
oo
oo
r-
s

Arterial



1
s


Hi
Missoul
s






ON
«-H


VO
vo


oo
O

ON
2
oo
r-
S

Arterial



Montana



J8
n
S






«M
VI
O

m
^


-H
V*)

o

00
s
•a
Resident



Thurman
a
a
£
1
U
S






^ ^
ON vo' vi § S

f^



VO



f^.

8
ON

oo
oo
8

Collectoi



Mineral Ave



I
H
S
p
Q
o
S5
es
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-13

    -------

Garfield Av





£
m
H






oo
00

—
o

o\
o

s
>n
00
00
s


Arterial



Q
Continental





1
m
H
2





3

i>
oo


^H

eM
SO


oo
s
"3

Resident



D
Garfield Av





a)
CO
H
2





s

OS
O

00
e**i

§


00
s
"3

Resident



0
>
0
CO





CQ
H






so

SO
en

es
^

S


00
g


Arterial



Q
Continental





o
3
H
2





s

00
SO

r-
^_,

o
a


oo
oo
0


•a
j




CO
§
s


CS

o
10
X
V)
H






-

—
^

^
o

en


oo
oo
o

VH
Collecto




CO
1
2


IS




w>
e^4


fM

o\

o\
oo
oo
o


Arterial




es
CO


K


1
H






i

in
ON


Q

O
OS
en

0

2
^-

Resideni




CO
^
ie
CC


c^
Columb
H
2





en

en
•<*•

oo
oo

1

0

2
_

Resideni




CO
.g
rr
GO
"e3
rj(

tS
Columb
H
2





1

fn
•^
~

A
52
o

o
OS
en
o
_

Resident




•o
en
GO
ec
U.,

33
Columb
H
2





g

•^f
V)


— i
g
0
fN
*"*
o
OS
en
O
*co

Resident




>
w
*c3
LL,

e«
Columb
H
2





g

en
^o
""

— .
55
0

o
OS
2


•a




ts
tD
1
U
us
"3
tu

A
Columb
H
2





g

oo
oo


A
g
0
*""'
0

2

tH
Collecto




{
to
"c3
U.

e«
Columb
H
2





g


r-


^
s
9
"*
0
OS
2

(-<
Collecto




CO
•2
en
«
at
fc,

rt
Columb
H
2





os
en


o
*"*

V)

o
p
Tf
0

2

t-i
Collecto




Nucleus
50
CS
U,

A
Columb
H
2
13.2.1-14
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
O
•s




1*
£]
d
.±3 £
CO §
U
00

CO "1







tS
J










d

a
u
rT
29

S^
^_^


^L
«
1
f



«
U
i
CO
o
PA
1-1


>>
U



CO





§


«_»
c§
W
H
S




>n ON r» rJ ON vo
ts o r» m vo «s m

vo ^ ON m ts
O VI •* t~ VI t- O
1 ' * ' ""

^5 C*J If) ^^ OO C*J ^if
m fi ^~* ^«i o o f}
SO O O O O OS O
*~* O O f^i fl f*^ *O
r*"i ^ ^" ^ I*- O f^i
cs r* »^ m
^5 ^D C^ ^5 ^D ^5 ^5
ON c^ ^^ &\ ON ^^ ^^
(^ t*- OO 00 OO OO O
O O O O O O ^


1 ^ ^ i 1 a ^
3 a 1 ^ = S I
O H Q O O H Q
U < J U U < J

J3
**
& ~ > < = g
d 2 < a .2 cs 2
1 s I 3 i 3 1
CO W 05
•— J »— J »— H
oS nJ dL [T TT. oi
c a ^* ^ a
X K 1 x 1 1 ffi
— -^ 3 ,0 3 3 -
§ « "S r2 "3 "0 8
W W U J U U W
H H H H H H H
s s s s s s s





oo

VO
V)


V5
^
5
o
ON
0



Collecto



a
3


s
:£
•*-»
c§
W
s







Ov
f^
"~*

VO
o
8
0
0



Arterial



CO


as
C

c§
W
H





oo

>/•>
^n
l-H


«s

r-

0
Ov
00
o
ON
VO
0
-H


Arterial



i
05
•a
u,
a
3
O
U
H




ON rt Tt- vo
fr) 0 vo 0
(N >n «

VO >-> •* Tj-
ON t-~ >rt n
fS -H

V) vo
3 2
g O O V)
S f»
o o o
ON ON ON «~t
oo ON n ?^
0 0 — «
01 CM «S °


•3 2 2
.2 0 0 __
fe ^J JJ 13
| =3 =3 g
•< U U J

ja
^t~
>
Ol C3 co ofl
to ^ S -S
5 S H W


1
o>
HTJ

js ^5 t; 2
>-j >--i ffl r i
H H H H
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-15

    -------

(S

^
H
^
CO


CO




















00
]
a
o
U
I
TO
•3








a"
o
3
a
U)
"3.
CO






Comments
,
ta
Q

CO
U

o
^
•s
&
«"
V
U4
CO


>.
U

CO

«n m -* vo «M
VO ? fl "-i
oo -i —  O vo O O Q
«M *n «-i o n o
^" C^ <*"l Ov Ov O

^ ^, rt _, gv gv
S o o o « ^
0 0

13 i
1 1 a S 1 1
8 8 •» -e 8 -3
j j u -5 j u


o
§ *
x § co § I
3 -S Q _i -2 23
I s -I M g .f
£ S S S £ fl
CO CO
*c3 "3
§ctf cc A *^ ^^
C3 Q C3 rt rt
 eft w
KM M M CU &<
)JLt »JH I-IH e- r-
^ *- ^ *- S 9
t& m t& en w w
W t3 PQ W H H
Ht~l t«rf b^ t-H t-»
^5 ^5 ^5 ^5 I'M »*5

t-
S

r—

>O
^^

O

_^
o


•a
J


•a
CL,
1



1 § a a s
ryi TTI i i i i rn
H H H H H
2 2 S S 2

VO OV
VO n
oo vo

OV 0\
-H ^>
fs r*j
0 0
(H
•a o
.^ t5
S X
5 "3
•< U
to
*
a
i
Harrison
3rd btwn



o.
0) w
^ w
CQ N1
H H
2 2

M
oo
•<*•
O
{N

{^.

o
P

o\
§
o

a
S
•5



a
1



13
H
2

VO
ov
t-H
OV
t—

r-
U*)
o
1

Ov
?i
0

•a
3



Preston
w
"c3
n,
a
a.
1
.a
H
H
S


E
oo
t-^

oo
VO
VO
I

Ov

o
lH
o.
£
"3
u


i
I
£
CO
13
u,
1
H
2


oo

VO

Tt
^

s
OV
s

—
8


1
5
S



Montana



1
1
H
-2
13.2.1-16
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------

en
V— H

(U






§ a
•i! CS
ca 'z
y
W^
d
"S, 0
| 2



U

oo















V)
^
2
»-H
&

ON
r>
1
-H

s
Collector
to

^J
^
d
•a
JO
£



1
£
H
oo
o
1
00
o
. .
&
i



o.
1


O
(S
ON

ON
S
•a






Preston


cd
1

H
V)
t^
i
O
T-C
, .
00
§



g.
CO
tN

ON
OO

V)
Vl

^

I

ON
S
Collector





|
t
S
Cfi

•a
fr,
g
1
e
s
VO
•
VI

-H
p.
So
i


CO
V
G,
i
tN

ON
^


m
00
^
^-i
O
VI

ON
f!
O
Collector



^
~**
|
d
"3
2



^
x
J
S
c-i
i
^.
^^
i— C
. .
Si
§


s
c"
i
tn

ON
,_4
*-
V,
0_N

o
tN
i

ON
S
•3
1






«N



^
J
§















r-
oo
Tf
00
oo

^

o
a

ON
s
•3






Morton


s
o
1
tS
s















r^
vt

r-
oo
V)
o

t-

ON
S
Arterial






i


CO
to
a
U
S
o
Tt
1
t^l
o
B>
Si
g


CA

CL,
cc
T*'

m
vo

r-
V)
^-i
c,
,_,

1

ON
S
•3
J






Preston
CO

13
d
5.
I

2
tN

§


CO
O
CS
. .
s>
§


CO
O.
i
tN

00
r-


5
VI
f)

o
«n
V)

PN
S
Collector



^
^*
3!
d
"3



X
3
H
ON

V)

g

ON
Vi
o
1







    -------
§
cs
2
a
S
S
o
U
3|^
*l$
a
•S •§ S"
to § ^
U
00
*^ IS fl
*JS
1





<0
u
a °
§ a
•a js
^

c
CO 50



£?
U

to









r^
^
(S

r~

o

ON
r-
s


Collecto



S
•*
a
•a
S




I
H
2






vo <*> r-
^5 t/^ ON

SO ^f
fS| v— 1 ^H
T-H *— 1 T-»

oo f- oo
(^ *-H OO
Is §

ON ^ ^
S r= P^
i ° °


•a 2
1 1 |





01 1 -a
3 1 1


eg eg
C a
4> 4)
CU 


ON
O
8
ON
?3

ON
£



Arterial





Montana




eg
a
a>
1
H







ON
00

tN
oo
tN

>r>

O
PI

ON

t-

t-i
Collecto





8
H




CQ
H
S






OO PI
- X

 cn
1 1
H H
2 S






PI
ON


**t
«M


Tf
0

ON
S
oo


Arterial





a
1




d.
CO
1
H








"

VO
^)


— <
o
oo

ON
H3
oo


Arterial





i


FT"
eg
Columb
H
S






«
ON

Pi
oo


VO

g

ON
O
oo


•O
5

^5
1
§
JD
1



eg
Missoul
H
S







s

u^
rt
r>


^•i
PI

oo

O

ON
NO
O


•a





Morton


eg
c
0>
1
w
H
S
13.2.1-18
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
§
cs
o>

S3
§
U



d°^
^1^
a
ii 3£ ^p*

u^
"O ^v
~ -S^S
-^
1


^


*»
3
U
d" 2
.2 I
g 55
M J
"I 1
co to





*->
U

CO








^

 2

00


H
4> «
4) ^O
1 1
H H
2 2








O

f*"l

-1

r4

o
V)

ON
fN
O

Arterial




CM
S

CO

1™

OS
Columb
H
2







00
"

fn

ts

«s

1

ON
S
— <

Collector
Cfl
.,
ca
i
.0
S






I
H
2







oo
o

VO

oo

r~

o
1

ON
00

VO

VO

~

~
— '
1
m

OX
O
g

Collector




3
g
H






1
H
2








S g S S

v> en O\

p^l ^^ ^D ON

m tn m r-
oo oo vo O
Os O O O
ao r* m \r>

ON ON ON Ox
c^l tQ c^ 55
g g g g

1 1 1 S
s o 6 o
•< J J U


$J
1
| d « <
11*1
EC <2 i> 2




    -------

rs




d
3
0




00 /-^
rj fi r4
2 a a
o 3 -9
H C5 ^
a
.§£
If-
^* ^ pj
tJ5 » "5
^^
1


aj
O

CO
CO
O
q- g

*"* TO
I !s
5 ts
i— 1 C8
o
d
Scu
1_
« -2
CO CO



o



CO












PI
f-


r-

T-(
^_,
oo
1
fS
ON
i

Collecto
"to

.1
^5
d
1

43
1


(
"cu
"3
XI
H
S












en
*— (


tN
PI

*TJ
VO

o
t-
tN

O

Arterial






d
i


^ t
(U
8-
"3
*
H
2












tN
Pt

OS
2
PI
Tf
O

1

r-J
i

•3
O
,3






Preston
CO
b
o
CO
CM
8
O
j3
H
H
S

o
1
^*-
o
s>
1
S"

1
«

r*
^*

tN
OO

oo
o

I

r^
o\
1
i-i
Collecto




1

4
a
tft
&
Q
CO
CM
S
o
H
H













<«
V)

00
VI
•**•

Os
o
tN
1

a,
CO
•a
*
H

PI
O
i
VO
VO
So
8


0,
PI

V)
PIJ

VO
V>

PI
OO

o
3

tN
Os
S

i
TS

PI
£>
•O
a
43
1


	 ,
"su
&
"3
IxJ
H
2

—
1
PI
vo
CU
g
f>
CO
cu
O.
PI

00
VI
tN

PI

*r>
oo

s

tN
Os
i

ts
1
to-

.»
'c
Ct
i

42
S


	 ,
CD
&
•a
M
H


Os
i
oo
n
So
§
CO*
V
0.
PI

t>-
,_,
tN
VO
s

»-H
Vl

o
m

fS
8

1






a
i


	 ,
1
"3
*
H
2












t~
p^
tN
>n
vo

•<*•
PI

O
PI
«N
OS
«— i

1





*->
1



^
.£
3
H













Tf
OS

Os
00

VO
v^

0
PI
>n
tN
OS
i

Collecto



dg
|

<
a
i



>,
43
^
H
S












TJ-
Os
«
VO
a

^
o

I

tN
Os
i

Arterial






i




43
^
H
2













t-n
O

VO

0\
VO

O
s
tN
o\
VS
8

I






s
u«
O
S

S
JS

S
w
H
S












oo
tN
VO
tN
2

•^>
VO

SO
(N
Os
i

Collecto






CO
ct
•3
s

c

K
CB
W
H
2













t-


VO

tN
,_(

8
tN
Os
i

Arterial






i

§
CU
dS
c§
w
f_
s












V)
Tf


S


^^

1
n
Os
VI

Collecto






1
CO
C8
tL,
.2
1
•3
U
H
S












VO
V^

•<*•
-


*-H

1
tN
Os
S
s

"3


V}
=%!
5
g
43
N


CO
1

"*
H
S
13.2.1-20
                               EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
§
CO
•8




W
a
4)
a
1
u







ej) ^^
^ M fl
O cc *5
H^^J,
3^
•^j 'tn )^?
CO 0 -^
U

•a --^
33S
1

1

*co
08
u
d1 2
-2 |
O ^^
J5 "S
a *
P, "qj
u

H

















Tfr
00
o


Tt


pa
iQ
o
P4
o
i
i

%
o
_
"o
U
|
^
•o

d
1
i
1
i
H
2

















r-.
*o


^H
f^
*-H


"
1
P4
O
1
i


*c3
"C
1

^
V
o
d
•o
Ui
1
EO
§
H

r-
d
•
S
d
ff
D
1


X

tx
a

"*

o\
o\



P4


P4
d
o\
»— t

oo
s

^
"3
.1 s
<£ 3




X
"5
U
pj
1
1
o
u
vo

i
oo
O
d

ii
I
,,
CO
_U
"S,

a
00


r^
VO
2

t**
^


R
d
S

1

J^
13
|S




"o
U
pj
1H
d

Cu
1
S

05
cn
i-i
w




S
tH
-H


»— H
d
o
VO
o\
oo
i

^
13
|S




CO
1
w
1
£
8

s
d
i
§
d
, .
1
h

GO
a>
O.

S
>n

>^>
ri

VO
vo
•^j-


2
d
o
VI
Ov
OO
i

^
w "3
o '5
d




'3
PJ
d

O
U

00
PJ
i
2
d
..
1


VI
£*
CL,

3
VO


Q
g




^
5

g
O
o

_
"3
o "C
ii




E. Louisiana
1

o
u


















^\
*




•d


i
o
^
Tj-
r<
o

*i»,
2
3



D
ui
Ui
D
D
Q
O
U

£
d
i
£
d
, ,
«
efi
M

CO

"o.
a
3
P>1


A
g





VO
d
g
1
e>
«
i— *
o
XI
CO
s
09
cn
2
t


r?
&
i
•a
s
0>
s
CO
s
Q
O
U
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.1-21

    -------

ts




2
d

OH
1
^
^
•
*— 1
1
VO
^4
4>
60
§
l_<

BB
P
O,
i



IH

ce
V
"ft,
1
n
£
o

S
o



t4
fc
ca
4>
o,

VO
«-H













"S,
1
•"*











00
U
§0,

tn
00
^
en
i^
O
o
o

§
t*

EA
JJ
0,
1
«/1
VO
c^)
(
S
o

&

S
^
6O

OH

j*
(M

,««
0
1
t-H
O
o
fl>
U)
3
^



"S,
1
VO

f^
o
1
C>1
o
d>


IH



Tt
1
VO
















2
o

g
1-1
o
4>


hi



o<
1
rf
gg 81 II g 1 ii 1 §
88 II gg § 1 ii g S
o\

VO

1?
ts
s
o

§

§
15
1.H
•o
0
s
o
•o
O
•o
o
B
o
gg ii i i i i Ii g 1
0
3
S
^
>
8
JT
VO
State Highway :

fc
d

O
U
O
02/03/9

^
si
-E" -5

1
I

s
d

O
U
o
1


1

CO
o
1
w

S3
d

0
U

o

^
•a
II
& <

4
"o
U
w

s
d

8

o
o
XI
0
8
*
VO
State Highway :

S
§

O
U
0
o
i

.0
»!
si
«>
E. Louisiana A A

Ui
V
d
a
o
U

O

^
d 'C
.a -S
*C H
ft- <

<
CO
w

>
d

O
U

O
O

^
11
0. <

>
"3
U

S
d
Q
8

o
o


1

1

S
d
Q
8

O
ON
1

Xi
al

I

s
d
Q
O
U
o
ov
oo
i

^
II

4
15
U
w

S
d
Q
8

"l


Arterial

4b>
w
1

it
~ 3
"* r9
co U
B
13.2.1-22
                              EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
I
en
tN

en
i—i

CO




1
CO

1
U






oo ^_^
O cct -5

co § S
U
OO
Sjl
^
°



Q


ce
U
g|
CB 2;
ll
"& **
CO CO

U
H
CO
t~-
m
o
(S

Cv)
c>
fl>
H
Ul

O.


CO
•*
tN
S


f-
1—1
oo
oo
tN
O
o
P5


1


Collecto



CO
CO
CO
si
co U
^
^

8
o
1
^H
^^
o
o
CO

tH
CO
CO
a.


CO
10

O
„
1—4
tN
§
O
o
®
t—





CO
1




o
oo

3*
"-1 a
IS
£
^
VO
o
1
oo

o
o
CO
9*
VH
CO
co
a.
a

w
SO
2
0

*Ti

oo
5?
1— <





I
1




»— <

si
co U
^
^
tN
•7
[i
^^
6
OH
§



§

.
"•
i
J?
g
^>

Ov
1— «
§
1/1





•a



w

4)
s|
co U
^
^














5J
v
*

5?
o"
'
^^
o
co
Cfi
•-
CO

i
i>
d
CO
CO
S
cfi
U
0,



tN
VO

0
Tf
*"
OS
O
g

^
oo
J5
o

1


•3

1

b£
CO
p.
45

K
1
00

co
a0
*
cfi
a,
S


tN
VO

0
^H
•n
vn

g

^
oo
^
o
l-H

•a



s
1
s
M
p.
*

m
o
i
vo
h-
0
CO

<~
CO
O.
S


tN
?


Tf
tN

O
|

t-
oo
r-
o
o

Collecto



CO
S
n

00
-p.
A














^

tN
tN
T— <
B
o
^



1


•a
1


>s
•O
CO
O
l-i

Phoenix
y
<














g


v*>

O
O
g



1


Arterial


1
U
§
CO

Phoenix
%
%














§
i— i

f*"i

S
o
g



1


Arterial
00
tN
Al
1
CO
1

Phoenix
^
3
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                                         13.2.1-23

    -------

cs
en
2
a
i
s
a
w*^
a & ^
K §6
u
Ofl ^_^
*jl
H

O

"to
0



(f g
2 1
IS
I*
Cfl *•*
co 03



ij

H





1
o\
m

S
o
§

1

•a
'S

•*



00
1



•a
1
d
s





oo
cs
00

i
o
B

1

3
•£
•*



I



•3
1
0
S





oo
q
o\
00

o\
o
s

1


S
<



1
08
OB
S



!
^
s





Sf*>
«N
d d

f- m

Tf eo
S 8
o o
il

1 1

1 !
« "3
•? U
o
.5;
O
£. McKellips &
17th & Highland



X
•g
cd ^j
4> ®
S s
9 5!





d •* •* T-H o\ •* d
oo ~H ^ tn *t *-• \r>
~* ^H \O tM VO OO \O

oo  J^
•yo-Sf'a^-s,,
•aSS«ii*s>
S •< < *o 1 ^ a
2? £> i>
d d d

^ s> s> O O O
•§•§•§ u u u
! o | | I a a
S £ £ £ £ £ £
a S 5! S a S 51





t^ 00
O ro
S S
•o r>

S i^
O O
II

1 1

1 1





„ s
« "5
a I
* i-j
1 1

d d
9 3
0 0
U U
rt A
ft. ft.
y N





s
d
*
«

0
o
§

1

1
tt
^



s
o
1
O

d
a
0
U
cS
OH
9





d
«
oo

8
o
i

1

3
•g
•^



1

d

o
U
eg
a
&.
53





8
d
£
^

    -------
§
cs


1
§
I
u





bfi
S IS g


k_J N~''


ea
4-* Q> /— V
J^JJJ *|* Wp

u ^

a^T
i i*^
Q sS9

1

«
Q



ca
GA
to

9
**
JB
CL,
1
(*>


(S






OO
VO


0
d


g

0
i



Arterial




•a
r-

c
ansas
M


3
8
i
d
s>
§
Ut
IB
J *"'

^
d d


wi >n

O\ VO
— (S
8 o


1 4
3 £


X—, /— S
1 1
•§ •§
1 1
CO Q CO O
& vS £> v2-


^ ^
5 J3
9 9
Q a


S S

2
ca
•a
c
II
Q
Z

0
CO
t!

T3


60
S
>
c3


^^
Q

1
o
d
*-»
S
X
4)
1

4)
Ui
C
U
'5b
•3
>•
•g
09
_O
.£
1
U~^
c>
2
a>
C

II
Q
^^

"8
1

cS
*j
S
X
4>
S
1
a3
i*
C
U
'5b
S3
•I

•g
03
_o
.£
i
u
c>
r^>
-1^-

CA
•s
CO
2
o
£
CT3
Ut
•^J
_p^
1
A
a>
•B
.M
1

60
CO
"I
>



CM
^
•-
S
*V4
«s
•a
c
1
.Si
Cfl
•a
a>
Ǥ
CO
OS
o
i
2
.2
2
n
S
CL,
E
8
>»
"S
.§
•3

1
a>
S
S
1
i-
I
>
.2
09
s
•8
.1

2
"2
"S
CA
1
3
"E.
e
ca
bO
i
"E.
09
Ǥ
^^
§
£
*oo
s
to
•o
o

    -------
References For Section 13.2.1

1.   D. R. Dunbar, Resuspension Of Paniculate Matter, EPA-450/2-76-031, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1976.

2.   R. Bonn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

3.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
     EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

4.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Quantification Of Dust Entrainment From Paved Roadways,
     EPA-450/3-77-027," U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     July 1977.

5.   Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA
     Contract No. 68-02-3158,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

6.   T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation,
     EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1983.

7.   C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Paved Road Particulate Emissions, EPA-600/7-84-077,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1984.

8.   C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Industrial
     And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH,
     September  1985.

9.   Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Sections 11.2.5 and 11.2.6 — Paved Roads, EPA
     Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March  1993.

10.  Evaluation  Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
     No.  68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, March 1979.

11.  PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract
     No.  68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, September 1987.

12.  Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, Contract
     No.  68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, May 1988.

13.  Montana Street Sampling Data, Montana Department Of Health And Environmental Sciences,
     Helena, MT, July 1992.

14.  Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
     October 1989.

15.  Evaluation  Of PM-10 Emission Factors For Paved Streets, Harding Lawson Associates, Denver,
     CO, October 1991.

16.  Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, RTP Environmental Associates, Inc., Denver, CO,
     July 1990.

13.2.1-26                          EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
17.  Post-storm Measurement Results — Salt Lake County Road Dust Silt Loading Winter 1991/92
     Measurement Program, Aerovironment, Inc., Monrovia, CA, June 1992.

18.  Written communication from Harold Glasser, Department of Health, Clark County (NV).

19.  PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

20.  Characterization Of PM-10 Emissions From Antiskid Materials Applied To Ice- And Snow-
     covered Roadways, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0137, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
     MO, October 1992.

21.  C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1/95                                Miscellaneous Sources                           13.2.1-27

    -------

    -------
 13.2.2  Unpaved Roads

 13.2.2.1  General

        Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a familiar sight in rural
 areas of the United States. When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the
 road surface causes pulverization of surface material.  Particles are lifted and dropped from the
 rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the
 surface.  The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle
 has passed.

 13.2.2.2  Emissions Calculation And  Correction Parameters

        The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies linearly with the
 volume of traffic.  Field investigations also have shown that emissions depend on correction
 parameters (average vehicle speed, average vehicle weight, average number of wheels per vehicle,
 road surface texture, and road surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a particular road
 and the associated vehicle traffic.1"4

        Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct proportion to the
 fraction of silt (particles smaller than  75 micrometers \jirn]  in diameter) in the road surface
 materials.1  The silt fraction is determined  by  measuring the proportion of loose dry  surface dust that
 passes a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method. Table 13.2.2-1 summarizes measured silt
 values for industrial and rural  unpaved roads.

        Since the silt content of a rural dirt road will vary with location, it should be measured for
 use in projecting emissions. As a conservative approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in the
 area can be used. Tests, however, show that road silt content is normally lower than in the
 surrounding parent soil, because the fines are continually removed by the vehicle traffic, leaving a
 higher percentage of coarse particles.

       Unpaved roads have a  hard, generally  nonporous surface that usually  dries  quickly after a
 rainfall.  The temporary reduction in emissions caused by precipitation may be accounted for by not
 considering emissions on "wet" days  (more than 0.254 millimeters [mm] [0.01 inches (in.) ] of
precipitation).

       The following empirical expression may be used to  estimate the quantity of size-specific
paniculate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) or vehicle mile
traveled (VMT):
       E =
365-p I            ,,  [kg]/VKT)
                                                           365  J
                                                                                            (1)
                                                          "''  " ;     (pounds  flbJ/VMT)
                                                           365
1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.2-1

    -------
       Table 13.2.2-1.  TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIAL
                      ON INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADSa
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel production
Sand and gravel processing
Stone quarrying and
processing

Taconite mining and
processing

Western surface coal
mining




Rural roads


Municipal roads
Municipal solid waste
landfills
Road Use Or
Surface Material
Plant road
Plant road
Plant road

Plant road
Haul road

Service road
Haul road

Haul road
Access road
Scraper route
Haul road
(freshly graded)
Gravel/crushed
limestone
Dirt
Unspecified
Disposal routes
Plant
Sites
1
19
1

2
1

1
1

3
2
3

2
3

7
3
4
No. Of
Samples
3
135
3

10
10

8
12

21
2
10

5
9

32
26
20
Silt Content (%)
Range
16-19
0.2 - 19
4.1 -6.0

2.4 - 16
5.0 - 15

2.4-7.1
3.9-9.7

2.8- 18
4.9-5.3
7.2 - 25

18-29
5.0 - 13

1.6-68
0.4 - 13
2.2-21
Mean
17
6.0
4.8

10
9.6

4.3
5.8

8.4
5.1
17

24
8.9

12
5.7
6.4
a References 1,5-16.
where:
        E = emission factor
        k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
        s = silt content of road surface material (%)
        S = mean vehicle speed, kilometers per hour (km/hr) (miles per hour [mph])
       W = mean vehicle weight,  megagrams (Mg) (ton)
        w = mean number of wheels
        p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation per year (see
            discussion below about the effect of precipitation.)
13.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 follows:
        The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range as
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k) For Equation 1
<30/*ma
1.0
<30 /tin < 15 fim <, 10 fan £5 /im
0.80 0.50 0.36 0.20
<2.5 fim
0.095
 a Stokes diameter.
        The number of wet days per year, p, for the geographical area of interest should be
 determined from local climatic data.  Figure 13.2.2-1 gives the geographical distribution of the mean
 annual number of wet days per year in the United States.17 The equation is rated "A" for dry
 conditions (p  = 0) and "B" for annual or seasonal conditions (p > 0). The lower rating is applied
 because extrapolation to seasonal or annual conditions assumes that emissions occur at the estimated
 rate on days without measurable precipitation and, conversely, are absent on days with measurable
 precipitation.  Clearly, natural mitigation depends not only on how much precipitation falls, but also
 on other factors affecting the evaporation rate, such  as ambient air temperature, wind  speed, and
 humidity.  Persons in dry, arid portions  of the country may wish to base p  (the number of wet days)
 on a greater amount of precipitation than 0.254 mm (0.01  in.).  In addition, Reference 18 contains
 procedures to estimate the emission reduction achieved by the application of water to an unpaved road
 surface.

        The equation retains the assigned quality rating;  if applied within the ranges of source
 conditions that were tested in  developing the equation, as follows:
Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation
Road Silt Content
(wt %)
4.3 - 20
Mean Vehicle Weight
Mg
2.7 - 142
ton
3 - 157
Mean Vehicle Speed
km/hr
21 -64
mph
13-40
Mean No.
Of Wheels
4- 13
Moreover, to retain the quality rating of the equation when addressing a specific unpaved road, it is
necessary that reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question.  The field
and laboratory procedures for determining road surface silt content are given in AP-42
Appendices C.I and C.2. In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be
obtained, the appropriate mean values from Table 13.2.2-1 may be used, but the quality rating of the
equation is reduced by 1 letter.

        For calculating annual average emissions, the equation is to be multiplied by annual vehicle
distance traveled (VDT).  Annual average values  for each of the correction parameters are to be
substituted for the equation.  Worst-case emissions, corresponding to dry road conditions, may be
calculated by setting p = 0 in the equation (equivalent to dropping the last term from the equation).
A separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and a higher than normal VDT value may also be
justified for the worst-case average period (usually 24 hours).   Similarly, in using the equation to
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-3

    -------
                                                                                        I
                                                                                        on
                                                                                        o

                                                                                        'i
                                                                                        .«
                                                                                        &,

                                                                                        1
                                                                                        OH
                                                                                        (4-1
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        >
                                                                                        «
                                                                                        •O
                                                                                        <4-l
                                                                                        O


                                                                                        S3
                                                                                        e
                                                                                        Ml
13.2.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
calculate emissions for a 91-day season of the year, replace the term (365-p)/365 with the term
(91-p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91-day period. Use appropriate seasonal
values for the nonclimatic correction parameters and for VDT.

13.2.2.3 Controls18'21

        Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with penetration
chemicals, working stabilization chemicals  into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control regulations.
Chemical stabilizers work either by binding the surface material or by enhancing moisture retention.
Paving, as a control technique, is often not economically practical.  Surface chemical treatment and
watering can be accomplished at moderate to low costs, but frequent treatments are required.  Traffic
controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide moderate emission reductions,
but may be difficult to enforce.  The control efficiency obtained by speed reduction can be calculated
using the predictive emission factor equation given above.

        The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing emission factors
for unpaved and paved road conditions, relative to airborne particle size range of interest. The
predictive emission factor equation for paved roads, given in Section 13.2.4,  requires estimation of
the silt loading on the traveled portion of the paved  surface,  which in turn depends on whether the
pavement is periodically cleaned. Unless curbing is to be installed, the effects of vehicle excursion
onto shoulders (berms) also must be taken into  account in estimating control efficiency.

        The control efficiencies afforded by the periodic use of road stabilization chemicals are much
more difficult to estimate.  The application parameters that determine control efficiency include
dilution ratio, application intensity, mass of diluted chemical per road area, and application frequency.
Other factors that affect the performance of chemical stabilizers include vehicle characteristics
(e. g., traffic volume, average weight) and  road characteristics (e. g., bearing strength).

        Besides water, petroleum resin products historically have been the dust suppressants most
widely used on industrial unpaved roads. Figure 13.2.2-2 presents a method  to estimate average
control efficiencies associated with petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads.19 Several items should
be noted:

        1.  The term  "ground inventory" represents the total volume (per unit area) of petroleum
           resin concentrate (not solution) applied since the start of the dust  control season.

       2.  Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied to unpaved roads, the
           use of a time-averaged control efficiency value is appropriate. Figure 13.2.2-2 presents
           control efficiency values averaged over 2 common application intervals, 2 weeks and
           1 month.  Other application  intervals will require interpolation.

       3.  Note that zero efficiency is assigned until the ground inventory reaches 0.2 liter per
           square meter (L/m2) (0.05 gallon per square yard [gal/yd2]).

       As an example of the application of Figure 13.2.2-2, suppose that the equation was used to
estimate an emission factor of 2.0 kg/VKT  for PM-10 from a particular road.  Also, suppose that,
starting on May  1, the road is treated with  1 L/m2 of a solution (1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts
water) on the first of each month through September.  Then, the following average controlled
emission factors are found:
1/95                                 Miscellaneous Sources                              13.2.2-5

    -------
£6/1
                 SH01DVJ NOISSIW3
                AVERAGE CONTROL EFFICIENCY
             o
                     ro
                     o
                                       oo
                                       o
o
o
  O
                                                   «
                                                       O  Q)

                                                          (D
      z
      m
   I?
                                                cn
                                                p
                                                cn
                                                p

                                                cn

    -------
Period
May
June
July
August
September
Ground
Inventory
(L/m2)
0.17
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.83
Average Control
Efficiency3
(%)
0
62
68
74
80
Average Controlled
Emission Factor
(kg/VKT)
2.0
0.76
0.64
0.52
0.40
a From Figure 13.2.2-2, < 10 /*m.  Zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less than
  0.2 L/m2 (0.05 gal/yd2).
       Newer dust suppressants are successful in controlling emissions from unpaved roads. Specific
test results for those chemicals, as well as for petroleum resins and watering, are provided in
References 18 through 21.

References For Section 13.2.2

1.     C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,
       EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       June 1974.

2.     R. J. Dyck and J. J. Stukel, "Fugitive Dust Emissions From  Trucks On Unpaved Roads",
       Environmental Science And Technology, 70(10): 1046-1048, October 1976.

3.     R. O. McCaldin and K. J. Heidel, "Paniculate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over Unpaved
       Roads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
       Houston, TX, June 1978.

4.     C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
       EPA-600/2-79-013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

5.     R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,
       EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

6.     Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO, March 1979.

7.     C. Cowherd, Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation, MRI-4343-L,  Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO, February  1977.

8.     T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution
       Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

9.     Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,
       2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental and Midwest Research
       Institute,  Kansas City, MO,  July 1981.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.2-7

    -------
10.    T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control
       Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
       October 1983.

11.    Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

12.    C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Paniculate Emission Factors For Industrial
       And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, September 1985.

13.    PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract 68-02-3891,
       Work Assignment 30, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.

14.    Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-4395, Work Assignment 1, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       May 1988.

15.    PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

16.    Oregon Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, EPA Contract 68-DO-0123, Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, MO, January 1992.

17.    Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U. S. Department Of Commerce,  Washington, DC,
       June 1968.

18.    C. Cowherd, Jr.  et al.,  Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  September 1988.

19.    G. E. Muleski, et al., Extended Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants In The Iron
       And Steel Industry, EPA-600/2-84-027,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
       OH, February 1984.

20.    C. Cowherd, Jr., and J. S. Kinsey, Identification, Assessment And Control Of Fugitive
       Paniculate Emissions, EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, August 1986.

21.    G. E. Muleski and C. Cowherd,  Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Chemical Dust
       Suppressants On Unpaved Roads, EPA-600/2-87-102, U. S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Cincinnati, OH, November 1986.
13.2.2-8                            EMISSION FACTORS                                1/95

    -------
 13.2.3 Heavy Construction Operations

 13.2.3.1  General

        Heavy construction is a source of dust emissions that may have substantial temporary impact
 on local air quality.  Building and road construction are 2  examples of construction activities with
 high emissions potential.  Emissions during the construction of a building or road can be associated
 with land clearing, drilling and blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations (i.e., earth
 moving), and construction of a particular facility itself.  Dust emissions often vary substantially from
 day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing
 meteorological conditions. A large portion of the emissions results from equipment traffic over
 temporary roads at the construction site.

        The temporary nature of construction differentiates it from other fugitive dust sources as to
 estimation and control of emissions. Construction consists of a series of different operations, each
 with its own duration and potential  for dust generation.  In other words, emissions from any single
 construction site can be expected (1) to have a definable beginning and an end and (2) to vary
 substantially over different phases of the construction process. This is in contrast to most other
 fugitive dust sources, where emissions are either relatively steady or follow a discernable annual
 cycle.  Furthermore, there is often  a need to  estimate areawide construction emissions,  without regard
 to the actual plans of any individual construction project.  For these reasons, following  are methods
 by which either areawide or site-specific emissions may be estimated.

 13.2.3.2  Emissions  And Correction Parameters

        The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations is proportional to the area of land
 being worked and to the level of construction activity.  By analogy to the parameter dependence
 observed for other similar fugitive dust sources,1 one can expect emissions from heavy  construction
 operations to be positively correlated with the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than
 75 micrometers [/mi] in diameter), as well as with the speed and weight of the average vehicle, and to
 be negatively correlated with the soil moisture content.

 13.2.3.3  Emission Factors

       Only 1 set of field studies has been performed that attempts to relate the emissions from
 construction directly to an emission  factor.1"2  Based on field measurements of total suspended
 paniculate (TSP) concentrations surrounding apartment and shopping center construction projects,  the
 approximate emission factors for construction activity operations are:

       E  = 2.69 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/month of activity
       E  =  1.2 tons/acre/month of activity

       These values are most useful for developing estimates of overall emissions from construction
 scattered throughout a geographical  area.  The value is most applicable to construction operations
 with:  (1) medium activity level, (2) moderate silt contents, and (3) semiarid climate.  Test data were
 not sufficient to derive the specific dependence of dust emissions on correction parameters.  Because
the above emission factor is referenced to TSP, use of this  factor to estimate paniculate  matter (PM)
 no greater than 10 /im in aerodynamic diameter (PM-10) emissions wiU result in conservatively high


 1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.3-1

    -------
estimates.  Also, because derivation of the factor assumes that construction activity occurs 30 days per
month, the above estimate is somewhat conservatively high for TSP as well.

       Although the equation above represents a relatively straightforward means of preparing an
areawide emission inventory, at least 2 features limit its usefulness for specific construction sites.
First, the conservative nature of the emission factor may result in too high an estimate for PM-10 to
be of much use for a specific site under consideration.  Second, the equation provides neither
information about which particular construction activities have the greatest emission potential nor
guidance for developing an effective dust control plan.

       For these reasons, it is strongly recommended that when emissions  are to be estimated for a
particular construction site, the construction process be broken down into component operations.
(Note that many general contractors typically employ planning and scheduling tools, such as critical
path method [CPM], that make use of different sequential operations to allocate resources.) This
approach to emission estimation uses a unit or  phase method to consider the more basic dust sources
of vehicle travel and material handling. That is to say, the construction project is viewed as
consisting of several operations, each involving traffic and material movements, and emission factors
from other AP-42 sections are used to generate estimates.  Table 13.2.3-1 displays the dust sources
involved with construction, along with the recommended emission factors.3

       In addition to the on-site activities shown in Table  13.2.3-1, substantial emissions are possible
because of material tracked out from the site and deposited on adjacent paved streets. Because all
traffic passing the site  (i. e., not just that associated with the construction) can  resuspend the
deposited material, this "secondary" source of  emissions may be far more important than all the dust
sources actually  within the construction site.  Furthermore, this secondary source will be present
during all construction operations.  Persons developing construction site emission estimates must
consider the potential for increased adjacent emissions from off-site paved roadways (see
Section 13.2.1, "Paved Roads").  High wind events also can lead to emissions  from cleared land and
material stockpiles.  Section 13.2.5, "Industrial Wind Erosion", presents an estimation methodology
that can be used for such sources at construction sites.

13.2.3.4 Control Measures4

       Because  of the relatively short-term nature of construction activities, some control measures
are more cost effective than others.  Wet suppression and wind speed reduction are 2 common
methods used to control open dust sources at construction sites,  because a source of water and
material for wind barriers tend to be readily available on a construction site. However, several other
forms of dust control are available.

       Table 13.2.3-2 displays each of the preferred control measures, by dust source.3"*  Because
most of the controls listed in the table modify independent variables in the emission factor models, the
effectiveness can be calculated by comparing controlled and uncontrolled emission estimates from
Table 13.2.3-1.  Additional  guidance on controls is provided in the AP-42 sections from which the
recommended emission factors were taken, as well  as in other documents, such as Reference 4.
13.2.3-2                             EMISSION FACTORS                                  1/95

    -------
                        Table 13.2.3-1.  RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS3
         Construction Phase
  Dust-generating Activities
                                                            Recommended Emission Factor
Comments
   Rating
Adjustment15
       I.  Demolition and
          debris removal
I
c/3
o
c
1. Demolition of buildings or
  other (natural) obstacles
  such as trees, boulders, etc.
  a. Mechanical
     dismemberment
     ("headache ball") of
     existing structures
  b. Implosion of existing
     structures
  c. Drilling and blasting of
     soil
                                 d. General land clearing

                               2. Loading of debris into
                                 trucks
                               3. Truck transport of debris
                               4.  Truck unloading of debris
                                                                         NA
                                                                         NA
                                                            Drilling factor in Table 11.9-4

                                                            Blasting factor NA
                             Dozer equation (overburden) in
                             Tables 11.9-1  and 11.9-2
                             Material handling factor in
                             Section 13.2.2
                             Unpaved road emission factor
                             in Section 13.2.2, or paved
                             road emission factor in
                             Section 13.2.1
                             Material handling factor in
                             Section 13.2.2
                                                           Blasting factor in
                                                           Tables 11.9-1 and 11.9-2 not
                                                           considered appropriate for
                                                           general construction activities
                                                                                                                            NA
                                                                                           May occur offsite
u>
o

    -------
  8
  
re
tL
Recommended Emission


en
—
•4-rf
^t
^^
bfi
'i
CU
§
bO
•^^
Cfl
Q

«i
JS
CU

C
o
*p^
o
3
kri
t<5
c
o
U

o
^
1













e
•«-*
j— »y
9^
Dozer equation (overburde








bC
Bulldozir
1— H

Q


2
C3
£-

1"^
N-*
•— (





















es
o\
•s
re
ON
en
D
1
H












„ 	 ^
&o
c

^
2
c

•S
Ui
c«
o



—


















3
o
42
bo
•3
"S ON
3 ^^-
UH I-H
Q, 4)


^•^
'o
en
0.
O
•4— »
b£
c
•3
re
|
re
o
on

S
5.7 kg/vehicle kilometer tr


^,
"S
1
bo
C
o
1)
k.
en
1
o
Th


































.2
"s

. 53
Si
> 2


























U

0

















Material handling factor in
"re
Wt
cO
c«
s
1
IS

5
o
<4-
be
i
,3
uS



































cs
cs
rn
_O
-*— •
8
tvo








en
O
•*-•
O
S
















o
1
9





2
'.*%
sc
o
3
O
o
o

f




'i
1
bfi
^ ^
•g J
Ui

o i- c c
•55 (so D e
S2 S a> .9-
s l£ g.
W *O T3 O
0;
T*H


— < _C
.S HI 'e
c a .2
O — i oS
*l • 1 "J
CO """' hiQ
i^ en C
u £ '-5
N 3 re
O re k.
Q H 0







tX)
2 1
"S *^
o fco
1 a
1 1
r~ 06



































•§
re

























13.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                                                              Table 13.2.3-1  (cont.).
Construction Phase
III. General
Construction





Dust-generating Activities
1 . Vehicular traffic
2. Portable plants
a. Crushing
b. Screening
c. Material transfers
3. Other operations
Recommended Emission Factor
Unpaved road emission factor in
Section 13.2.2, or paved road emission
factor in Section 13.2.1

Factors for similar material/operations
in Chapter 1 1 of this document
Factors for similar material/operations
in Chapter 1 1 of this document
Material handling factor in
Section 13.2.2
Factors for similar material/operations
in Chapter 1 1 of this document
Comments






Rating
Adjustment11
-0/-lc
-0/-lc

-1/-2C
-1/-2C
-0/-lc
—
en
o
o>
I
VI
CSi
o
a NA = not applicable.
b Refers to how many additional letters the emission factor should be downrated (beyond the guidance given in. the other sections of AP-42)
  for application to construction activities. For example,  "-2" means that an A-rated factor should be considered of C quality in estimating
  construction emissions. All emission factors assumed to have site-specific input values; otherwise, additional downgrading of one letter
  should be employed.  Note that no rating can be lower than E.
0 First value for cases with independent variables within range given in AP-42 section; second value for cases with at least 1 variable
  outside the range.
d Rating for emission factor given. Reference 5.
e In the event that individual operations cannot be identified, one may very conservatively overestimate PM-10 emissions by using
  Equation 1.
OJ
 o

    -------
           Table 13.2.3-2. CONTROL OPTIONS FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
                                OPEN SOURCES OF PM-10
              Emission Source
                                                   Recommended Control Method(s)
                                             Wind speed reduction
                                             Wet suppression*1

                                             Wet suppression
                                             Paving
                                             Chemical stabilization0

                                             Wet suppression4

                                             Wet suppression of travel routes

                                             Wind speed reduction
                                             Wet suppression

                                             Wet suppression
                                             Paving
                                             Chemical stabilization

                                             Wind speed reduction
                                             Wet suppression
                                             Early paving of permanent roads
Debris handling


Truck transport*5



Bulldozers

Pan scrapers

Cut/fill material handling


Cut/fill haulage



General construction
a Dust control plans should contain precautions against watering programs that confound trackout
  problems.
b Loads could be covered to avoid loss of material in transport, especially if material is transported
  offsite.
c Chemical stabilization usually cost-effective for relatively long-term or semipermanent unpaved
  roads.
d Excavated materials may already be moist and not require additional wetting. Furthermore, most
  soils are associated with an "optimum moisture" for compaction.
References For Section 13.2.3

1.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al, Development Of Emissions Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,
     EPA-450/3-74-03, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     June 1974.

2.   G. A. Jutze, et al., Investigation Of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions And Control,
     EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     June 1974.

3.   Background Documentation For AP-42 Section 11.2.4, Heavy Construction Operations, EPA
     Contract No. 69-DO-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1993.

4.   C. Cowherd  : al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September  1988.
13.2.3-6
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
 5.    M. A. Grelinger, et al., Gap Filling PM-10 Emission Factors For Open Area Fugitive Dust
      Sources, EPA-450/4-88-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, March 1988.
1/95                                Miscellaneous Sources                             13.2.3-7

    -------

    -------
13.2.4  Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles

13.2.4.1  General

        Inherent in operations that use minerals in aggregate form is the maintenance of outdoor
storage piles. Storage piles are usually left uncovered, partially because of the need for frequent
material transfer into or out of storage.

        Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle, such as material loading onto the
pile, disturbances by strong wind currents, and loadout from the pile.  The movement of trucks and
loading equipment  in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of dust.

13.2.4.2  Emissions And Correction Parameters

        The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage operations varies with the volume  of
aggregate passing through the storage cycle. Emissions also depend on 3 parameters of the condition
of a particular storage pile:  age of the pile, moisture content, and proportion of aggregate fines.

        When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto a storage pile, the potential for dust
emissions is at a maximum.  Fines are easily disaggregated and released to the atmosphere upon
exposure to air currents, either from aggregate transfer itself or from high winds.  As the aggregate
pile weathers, however, potential for dust emissions is greatly reduced.  Moisture causes aggregation
and cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles.  Any significant rainfall soaks the interior
of the pile, and then the drying process is very slow.

        Silt (particles equal to or less than 75 micrometers [/im] in diameter) content is determined by
measuring the portion of dry aggregate material that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using
ASTM-C-136 method.1  Table 13.2.4-1 summarizes measured silt and moisture values for industrial
aggregate materials.

13.2.4.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

        Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles result from several distinct source activities
within the .storage cycle:

        1.  Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop operations).
        2.  Equipment  traffic in storage area.
        3.  Wind erosion of pile surfaces and ground areas around piles.
        4.  Loadout of aggregate for shipment or for return to the process stream (batch or
           continuous  drop operations).

        Either adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually involves dropping the
material onto a receiving surface.  Truck  dumping on the pile or loading out  from the pile to a truck
with a front-end loader  are examples of batch drop  operations.  Adding material to the pile by a
conveyor stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                             13.2.4-1

    -------
              Table 13.2.4-1. TYPICAL SILT AND MOISTURE CONTENTS OF MATERIALS AT VARIOUS INDUSTRIES3
to
Industry
Iron and steel production








Stone quarrying and processing

Taconite mining and processing

Western surface coal mining


Coal-fired power plant
Municipal solid waste landfills






No. Of
Facilities
9








2

1

4


1
4



•


Material
Pellet ore
Lump ore
Coal
Slag
Flue dust
Coke breeze
Blended ore
Sinter
Limestone
Crushed limestone
Various limestone products
Pellets
Tailings
Coal
Overburden
Exposed ground
Coal (as received)
Sand
Slag
Cover
Clay/dirt mix
Clay
Fly ash
Misc. fill materials
Silt
No. Of
Samples
13
9
12
3
3
2
1
1
3
2
8
9
2
15
15
3
60
1
2
5
1
2
4
1
Content (%)
Range
1.3- 13
2.8 - 19
2.0-7.7
3.0-7.3
2.7 - 23
4.4 - 5.4
—
—
0.4 - 2.3
1.3- 1.9
0.8 - 14
2.2-5.4
ND
3.4- 16
3.8 - 15
5.1-21
0.6-4.8
—
3.0 - 4.7
5.0- 16
—
4.5-7.4
78-81
—
Mean
4.3
9.5
4.6
5.3
13
4.9
15
0.7
1.0
1.6
3.9
3.4
11
6.2
7.5
15
2.2
2.6
3.8
9.0
9.2
6.0
80
12
Moisture Content (%)
No. Of
Samples
11
6
11
3
1
2
1
0
2
2
8
7
1
7
0
3
59
1
2
5
1
2
4
1
Range
0.64 - 4.0
1.6-8.0
2.8- 11
0.25 - 2.0
—
6.4 - 9.2
—
—
ND
0.3-1.1
0.46 - 5.0
0.05 - 2.0
—
2.8 - 20
—
0.8 - 6.4
2.7 - 7.4
—
2.3-4.9
8.9 - 16
—
8.9-11
26-29
—
Mean
2.2
5.4
4.8
0.92
7
7.8
6.6
—
0.2
0.7
2.1
0.9
0.4
6.9
—
3.4
4.5
7.4
3.6
12
14
10
27
11
m
OO
C/3
I— <
o
Z
oo
      a References 1-10.  ND = no data.

    -------
        The quantity of particulate emissions generated by either type of drop operation, per kilogram
 (kg) (ton) of material transferred, may be estimated, with a rating of A, using the following empirical
 expression:11
                         E=k(0.0016)
                         E=k(0.0032)
                                            JLJji-3
                                            2.2
               (kg/megagram  [Mg])
                                                                                              (1)
               (pound  [lb]/ton)
where:

         E = emission factor
         k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
         U = mean wind speed, meters per second (m/s) (miles per hour [mph])
        M = material moisture content (%)

The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range, as follows:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k) For Equation 1
< 30 /on
0.74
< 15 /*m
0.48
< 10 urn
0.35
< 5 nm
0.20
< 2.5 nm
0.11
        The equation retains the assigned quality rating if applied within the ranges of source
conditions that were tested in developing the equation, as follows. Note that silt content is included,
even though silt content does not appear as a correction parameter in the equation. While it is
reasonable to expect that silt content and  emission factors are interrelated, no significant correlation
between the 2 was found during the derivation of the equation, probably because most tests with high
silt contents were conducted under lower winds,  and vice versa.  It is recommended that estimates
from the equation be reduced 1 quality rating level if the silt content used  in a  particular application
falls outside the range given:
Ranges Of Source Conditions For Equation 1
Silt Content
(%)
0.44 - 19
Moisture Content
(%)
0.25-4.8
Wind Speed
m/s
0.6 - 6.7
mph
1.3 - 15
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.4-3

    -------
        To retain the quality rating of the equation when it is applied to a specific facility, reliable
correction parameters must be determined for specific sources of interest.  The field and laboratory
procedures for aggregate sampling are given in Reference 3. In the event that site-specific values for
correction parameters cannot be obtained, the appropriate mean from Table 13.2.4-1 may be used,
but the quality rating of the equation is reduced by 1  letter.

        For emissions from equipment traffic (trucks, front-end loaders, dozers, etc.) traveling
between or on piles, it is recommended that the equations for vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be
used (see  Section 13.2.2).  For vehicle travel between storage piles, the silt value(s) for the areas
among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for the stored materials) should be used.

        Worst-case emissions from storage pile areas  occur under dry, windy conditions.  Worst-case
emissions from materials-handling operations may be calculated by substituting into the equation
appropriate values for aggregate material moisture content and for anticipated wind speeds during the
worst case averaging period, usually 24 hours.  The treatment of dry  conditions for Section 13.2.2,
vehicle traffic, "Unpaved Roads", follows the methodology described in that section centering on
parameter p.  A separate set of nonclimatic  correction parameters and source extent values
corresponding to higher than normal storage pile activity also may be justified for the worst-case
averaging period.

13.2.4.4  Controls12-13

        Watering and the use of chemical wetting agents are the principal means for control of
aggregate storage pile emissions.  Enclosure or covering of inactive piles to reduce wind erosion can
also reduce emissions.  Watering is  useful mainly to reduce emissions from vehicle traffic in the
storage pile area.  Watering of the storage piles themselves typically has only a very temporary slight
effect on total emissions.  A much more effective technique is to  apply chemical agents (such as
surfactants) that permit more extensive wetting.  Continuous chemical treating of material loaded onto
piles, coupled with watering or treatment of roadways, can reduce total particulate emissions from
aggregate  storage operations by up to 90 percent.12

References For Section 13.2.4

1.      C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,
        EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        June 1974.

2.      R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron  And Steel Plants,
        EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

3.      C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant  Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,
        EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

4.      Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA Contract
        No.  68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO, March 1979.

5.      C. Cowherd, Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation, MRI-4343-L, Midwest
        Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1977.

6.      T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution
        Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

13.2.4-4                            EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
 7.      Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,
        2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental, Kansas City, MO, and
        Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, July 1981.

 8.      Determination Of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions From Rotary Railcar Dumping, TRC,
        Hartford, CT, May 1984.

 9.      PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In the Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO, September 1987.

 10.     Chicago Area Paniculate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO, May 1988.

 11.     Update Of Fugitive Dust Emission Factors In AP-42 Section 11.2, EPA Contract
        No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, MO, July 1987.

 12.     G. A. Jutze, et al., Investigation Of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions And Control,
        EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
        June 1974.

 13.     C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1/95                                Miscellaneous Sources                             13.2.4-5

    -------

    -------
13.2.5  Industrial Wind Erosion

13.2.5.1 General1'3

        Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open aggregate storage piles and
exposed areas within an industrial facility. These sources typically are characterized by
nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated with nonerodible elements (particles larger than approximately
1 centimeter [cm] in diameter).  Field testing of coal piles and other exposed materials using a
portable wind tunnel has shown that (a) threshold wind speeds exceed 5 meters per second (m/s)
(11 miles per hour [mph]) at 15 cm above the surface or  10 m/s (22 mph) at 7 m above the  surface,
and (b) paniculate emission rates tend to decay rapidly (half-life of a few minutes) during an erosion
event.   In other words, these aggregate material surfaces are characterized by finite availability of
erodible material (mass/area) referred to as the erosion potential. Any natural crusting of the surface
binds the erodible material, thereby reducing the erosion potential.

13.2.5.2 Emissions And Correction Parameters

        If typical values for threshold wind speed at 15 cm are corrected to typical wind sensor height
(7 - 10 m), the resulting values exceed the upper extremes of hourly mean wind speeds observed  in
most areas of the country.  In other words, mean atmospheric wind speeds are not sufficient to sustain
wind erosion from flat surfaces of the type tested.  However,  wind  gusts may quickly deplete a
substantial  portion of the erosion potential.  Because erosion potential has been found to increase
rapidly with increasing wind speed, estimated emissions should be related to the gusts  of highest
magnitude.

        The routinely measured  meteorological variable that best reflects the magnitude of wind gusts
is the fastest mile.  This quantity represents the wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind
movement  that has passed by the 1 mile contact anemometer in the least amount of time.  Daily
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local Climatological Data (LCD)
summaries. The duration of the fastest mile, typically about 2 minutes (for a fastest mile of 30 mph),
matches well with the half-life of the erosion process, which ranges between 1  and 4 minutes. It
should be noted, however, that peak winds can significantly exceed the daily fastest mile.

        The wind speed profile in the surface boundary layer is found to follow a logarithmic
distribution:

                                  u(z) = ^|  In A     (2>z0)                              (1)
where:
         u =  wind speed, cm/s
        u* =  friction velocity, cm/s
         z =  height above test surface, cm
        z0 =  roughness height, cm
       0.4 =  von Karman's constant, dimensionless
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                             13.2.5-1

    -------
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the credible surface, as determined
from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile.  The roughness height (z0) is a measure of the
roughness of the exposed surface as determined from the y intercept of the velocity profile, i. e., the
height at which the wind speed is zero.  These parameters are illustrated in Figure 13.2.5-1 for a
roughness height of 0.1  cm.
                                   10,
                                   8»

                                                   WIND SreED  AT Z
                                                   vJ/ND -3f££O AT  /Om
                   Figure 13.2.5-1.  Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.
        Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the frequency of disturbance of
the erodible surface because each time that a surface is disturbed, its erosion potential is restored.  A
disturbance is defined as an action that results in the exposure of fresh surface material.  On a storage
pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either added  to or removed from the old
surface.  A disturbance of an exposed area may also result from the turning of surface material to a
depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces  of material present.

13.2.5.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equation4

        The emission factor for wind-generated particulate emissions from mixtures of erodible and
nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance may be expressed in units of grams per square
meter (g/m2) per year as follows:
                                                        N
                                   Emission factor = k
                       P;
                (2)
13.2.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
where:
         k = particle size multiplier
        N = number of disturbances per year
        PJ = erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or probable) fastest mile of wind for
              the ith period between disturbances, g/m2

The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies with aerodynamic particle size, as follows:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multipliers For Equation 2
30 fim
1.0
<15 fim
0.6
<10ftm
0.5
<2.5 fim
0.2
        This distribution of particle size within the under 30 micrometer (/un) fraction is comparable
to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources where wind speed is a factor. This is
illustrated, for example, in the distributions for batch and continuous drop operations encompassing a
number of test aggregate materials (see Section 13.2.4).

        In  calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface that is subject to a different
frequency of disturbance should be treated separately.  For a surface disturbed daily, N  = 365 per
year, and for a surface disturbance once every 6 months, N = 2 per year.

        The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface is:


                                 P = 58  (u*- u*)2 + 25(u*  - u*)
                                                                                              (3)
                                 P = 0 for u * 
    -------
    FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
                  (from a 1952 laboratory procedure published by W. S.  Chepil):

        1.      Prepare a nest of sieves with the following openings: 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm,
               and 0.25 mm. ^Place a collector pan below the bottom (0.25 mm) sieve.

        2.      Collect a sample representing the surface layer of loose particles (approximately 1 cm
               in depth, for  an encrusted surface), removing any rocks larger than about 1 cm in
               average physical diameter.  The area to be sampled should  be not less than 30 cm by
               30cm.

        3.      Pour the sample into the top sieve (4-mm  opening), and place a lid on the top.

        4.      Move  the covered sieve/pan unit by hand, using a broad  circular arm motion in the
               horizontal plane.  Complete 20  circular movements at a speed just necessary to
               achieve some relative horizontal motion between the sieve and the particles.

        5.      Inspect the relative quantities of catch within each sieve,  and determine where the
               mode  in the aggregate size distribution lies, i. e., between the opening size of the
               sieve with the largest catch and  the opening size of the next largest sieve.

        6.      Determine the threshold friction velocity from Table  13.2.5-1.
The results of the sieving can be interpreted using Table 13.2.5-1. Alternatively, the threshold
friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of the aggregate size distribution using
the graphical relationship described by Gillette.5"6  If the surface material contains nonerodible
elements that are too large to include in the sieving (i. e., greater than about 1 cm in diameter), the
effect of the elements must be taken into account by increasing the threshold friction velocity.10
        Table 13.2.5-1 (Metric Units). FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF
                             THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
Tyler Sieve No.
5 .
9
16
32
60
Opening (mm)
4
2
1
0.5
0.25
Midpoint (mm)

3
1.5
0.75
0.375
u*(cm/s)

100
76
58
43
       Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been determined by field
measurements with a portable wind tunnel.  These values are presented in Table 13.2.5-2.
13.2.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
             Table 13.2.5-2 (Metric Units). THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES
Material
Overburden8
Scoria (roadbed material)3
Ground coal (surrounding
coal pile)8
Uncrusted coal pile8
Scraper tracks on coal pilea>b
Fine coal dust on concrete pad0
Threshold
Friction
Velocity
(m/s)
1.02
1.33
0.55
1.12
0.62
0.54
Roughness
Height (cm)
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.2
Threshold Wind Velocity At
10 m (m/s)
z0 = Act
21
27
16
23
15
11
z0 = 0.5 cm
19
25
10
21
12
10
8 Western surface coal mine.  Reference 2.
b Lightly crusted.
c Eastern power plant.  Reference 3.
       The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be obtained from the
monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather station that is representative of the site in
question.7  These summaries report actual fastest mile values for  each day of a given month.  Because
the erosion potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile, mean values of the fastest mile
are inappropriate.  The anemometer heights of reporting weather  stations are found in Reference 8,
and should be corrected to a 10-m reference height using Equation 1.

       To convert the fastest mile of wind (u+) from a reference anemometer height of  10 m to the
equivalent friction velocity (u*), the logarithmic wind speed profile may be used to yield the following
equation:
                                        u * = 0.053 u
                                                      10
                                                                             (4)
where:
          u  =
         uio =
friction velocity (m/s)

fastest mile of reference anemometer for period between disturbances (m/s)
       This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain. Equation 4 is restricted
to large relatively flat piles or exposed areas with little penetration into the surface wind layer.

       If the pile significantly penetrates the surface wind layer (i.  e., with a height-to-base ratio
exceeding 0.2), it is necessary to divide the pile area into subareas representing different degrees of
exposure to wind.  The results of physical modeling show that the frontal face of an elevated pile is
exposed to wind speeds of the same order as the approach wind speed at the top of the pile.
1/95
                      Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-5

    -------
       For 2 representative pile shapes (conical and oval with flattop, 37-degree side slope), the
ratios of surface wind speed (us) to approach wind speed (ur) have been derived from wind tunnel
studies.9 The results are shown in Figure 13.2.5-2 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11  m, a
reference (upwind) anemometer height of 10 m, and a pile surface roughness height (z0) of 0.5 cm.
The measured surface winds correspond to a height of 25 cm above the surface.  The area fraction
within each contour pair is specified in Table 13.2.5-3.
             Table 13.2.5-3. SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF us/ura
Pile Subarea
0.2a
0.2b
0.2c
0.6a
0.6b
0.9
1.1
Percent Of Pile Surface Area
Pile A
5
35
NA
48
NA
12
NA
Pile Bl Pile
5
B2 Pile B3
3 3
2 28 25
29 NA NA
26 29 28
24 22 26
14 15 14
NA
3 4
  NA = not applicable.
       The profiles of us/ur in Figure 13.2.5-2 can be used to estimate the surface friction velocity
distribution around similarly shaped piles, using the following procedure:
        1.
        2.
Correct the fastest mile value (u+) for the period of interest from the anemometer
height (z) to a reference height of 10 m UIQ using  a variation of Equation 1:
                          = u
                                              In (10/0.005)
                                              In (z/0.005)
                                                                            (5)
where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 m) has been assumed.  If a site-
specific roughness height is available, it should be used.

Use the appropriate part of Figure 13.2.5-2 based on the pile shape and orientation to
the fastest mile of wind, to obtain the corresponding surface wind speed distribution
(O
                         Us  ='
                                                    '10
                                                                                           (6)
 13.2.5-6
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                          1/95

    -------
       Flow
    Direction
                         Pile  A
                           Pile B2
                                                                       Pile B3
               Figure 13.2.5-2.  Contours of normalized surface windspeeds, us/ur.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-7

    -------
       3.      For any subarea of the pile surface having a narrow range of surface wind speed, use
               a variation of Equation  1 to calculate the equivalent friction velocity (u*):
                                                                                             (7)
                                            lnO.5
From this point on, the procedure is identical to that used for a flat pile, as described above.

       Implementation of the above procedure is carried out in the following steps:

       1.      Determine threshold friction velocity for erodible material of interest (see
               Table 13.2.5-2 or determine from mode of aggregate size distribution).

       2.      Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant frequency of disturbance
               (N).

       3.      Tabulate fastest mile values (u+) for each frequency of disturbance and correct them
               to 10 m (u^ using Equation 5.5

       4.      Convert fastest mile values (u10) to equivalent friction velocities (u*), taking into
               account (a) the uniform wind exposure of nonelevated surfaces, using Equation 4, or
               (b) the nonuniform wind exposure of elevated surfaces (piles), using Equations 6 and
               7.

       5.      For elevated surfaces (piles), subdivide areas of constant N into subareas of constant
               u* (i. e., within the isopleth values of us/ur in Figure  13.2.5-2 and Table 13.2.5-3)
               and determine the size of each subarea.

       6.      Treating each  subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate source, calculate the
               erosion potential  (Pj)  for each period between disturbances using Equation 3 and the
               emission factor using Equation 2.

       7.      Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the size of the subarea, and
               add the emission  contributions of all subareas. Note that the highest 24-hour (hr)
               emissions would  be expected to occur on the windiest day of the year.  Maximum
               emissions are  calculated assuming a single event with the highest fastest mile value for
               the annual period.

       The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that all of the erosion
potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind  is lost during the period between disturbances.
Because the fastest mile event typically lasts only about 2 minutes, which corresponds roughly to the
half-life for the decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued that the emission factor
overestimates paniculate emissions.  However, there are other aspects of the wind erosion process
that offset this apparent conservatism:

        1.      The  fastest mile event contains peak winds that substantially exceed the mean value
               for the event.
 13.2.5-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                                 1/95

    -------
       2.      Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a number of periods of
               slightly lower mean wind speed that contain peak gusts of the same order as the
               fastest mile wind speed.

       Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind erosion emissions in the case of
surfaces disturbed infrequently in comparison to the rate of crust formation.

13.2.5.4 Example 1:  Calculation for wind erosion emissions from conically shaped coal pile

       A coal burning facility maintains a conically shaped surge pile 11 m in height and 29.2 m in
base diameter, containing about 2000 megagrams (Mg) of coal, with  a bulk density of 800 kilograms
per cubic meter (kg/m3) (50 pounds per cubic feet [Ib/ft3]).  The total exposed surface area of the pile
is calculated as follows:

                                S =  z r (r2 + h2)

                                  =  3.14(14.6) (14.6)2 + (ll.O)2

                                  =  838 m2

       Coal is added to the pile by means of a  fixed stacker and reclaimed by front-end loaders
operating at the base of the pile on the downwind side. In addition, every 3 days 250 Mg
(12.5 percent  of the stored capacity of coal) is added back to the  pile by a topping off operation,
thereby restoring the full capacity of the pile. It is assumed that  (a) the reclaiming operation disturbs
only a limited portion of the surface area where the daily activity is occurring, such that the
remainder of the pile surface remains intact, and (b) the topping off operation creates a fresh surface
on the entire pile while restoring its original shape  in the area depleted by daily reclaiming activity.

       Because of the high frequency of disturbance of the pile,  a large number of calculations must
be made to determine each contribution to the total annual wind erosion emissions.  This illustration
will use a single month as an example.
        Step 1:  In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction velocity, a value of
1.12 m/s is obtained from Table 13.2.5-2.

        Step 2:  Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see Figure 13.2.5-3), the entire pile
surface is disturbed every 3 days, corresponding to a value of N = 120 per year. It will be shown
that the contribution of the area where daily activity occurs  is negligible so that it does not need to be
treated separately in the calculations.

        Step 3:  The calculation procedure involves determination of the fastest mile for each period
of disturbance.  Figure 13.2.5-4 shows a representative set of values (for a 1-month period) that are
assumed to be applicable to the geographic area of the pile location. The values  have been separated
into 3-day  periods, and the highest value in each period is indicated.  In this example, the
anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction to 10 m is needed for the fastest mile values.
From Equation 5,
                                           +   f In (10/0.005) 1
                                   110 "J7    [in (7/0.005)]

                                       = 1.05  u7+
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.2.5-9
                                   u

    -------
        Prevailing
        Wind
        Direction
                                                                        Circled  values
                                                                        refer  to
        * A portion of  ^  is disturbed daily by reclaiming  activities.
                                                            Pile Surface
Area
ID
A
B
cl + C2

us
0.9
0.6
0.2

Z
12
48
40

Area (m2)
101
402
335
Total 838
         Figure 13.2.5-3.  Example 1:  Pile surface areas within each wind speed regime.
13.2.5-10
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
               Local  Climatoloeical  Data
                         MONTHLY
!

CC
O
*-
3
•»
-B
~
U
UJ
ec
I
30
01
10
1 3
12
20
29
29
22
1 4
29
17
2 1
10
10
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
4
3 I
30
30
33
34
29

.
x
•- a
5 zr'

-1 0

 UJ
uj a.
cc is*
M
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1 .0
1 1 .3
M.I
19.6
10.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
3.7
1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
0.3
7.1
2.4
5.9
1 .3
2. 1
8.3
8.2
5.0
3. 1
4.9

o
UJ
a.
«/»
UJ
C3 3
•c
e a.
UJ
•>• Z
"*
15
6.9
FASTEST
MILE


.
=
• o
knJ 6
* UJ
0. Z
t/t
16
^
10.6 1 y)
6.0 10
1 .4 I 16

z
2

• i-f
UJ
£T

°
17
36
01
02
13
' .9 LSI 11
19.0 P? 30
ig.efoJT 30
11.2 17 30
8. 1 [ 15 1 13
15.
23.3
3.5
15.5
9.6
6.8
3.8
1 1 .5
5.8
23 12
Qj) 29
23 1 17
18
f
_i2-
10.2 14
7.8 OS
0.6Ll6_
17.31 ©
18
13
36
31
35
24
20
32
8.S TS 13
8 . 8 1 151 02
I .7
12.2
8.5
8.3
6.6
5.2
5.5
(\~n
^
16
0_5
lu
9
8
32
32
26
32
32
31
25
FOP THE MONTH: I
30
— •
3.3

I . 1
	 C
31
29
ATE: 11
•







^_
^
O
22
i
2
3
4
c
£
7
5
9
10
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
ie
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
25
29
30
3!



          Figure 13.2.5-4.  Example daily fastest miles wind for periods of interest.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-11

    -------
       Step 4:  The next step is to convert the fastest mile value for each 3-day period into the
equivalent friction velocities for each surface wind regime (i. e., us/ur ratio) of the pile, using
Equations 6 and 7.  Figure 13.2.S-3 shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction of
the approach wind speed at a height of 10 m).  The surface areas lying within each wind speed
regime are tabulated below the figure.

       The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 13.2.5-4.  As indicated, only 3 of the
periods contain a friction velocity which exceeds the threshold value of 1.12 m/s for an uncrusted
coal pile.  These 3 values all occur within the us/ur = 0.9 regime of the pile surface.
                    Table 13.2.5-4 (Metric And English Units).  EXAMPLE 1:
                         CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
3-Day Period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u.
mph
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13
j
m/s
6.3
13.0
13.4
13.9
9.8
9.4
7.2
11.2
7.6
5.8
u
mph
15
31
32
33
23
22
17
26
18
14
10
m/s
6.6
13.7
14.1
14.6
10.3
9.9
7.6
11.8
8.0
6.1
u*
us/ur: 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
= O.lu^ (m/s)
us/ur: 0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
us/ur: 0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.68
1.06
0.72
0.55
        Step 5: This step is not necessary because there is only 1 frequency of disturbance used in
the calculations. It is clear that the small area of daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the
us/ur = 0.2 regime) is never subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.

        Steps 6 and 7:  The final set of calculations (shown in Table 13.2.5-5) involves the tabulation
and summation of emissions for each disturbance period and for the affected subarea.  The erosion
potential (P) is calculated from Equation 3.

        For example, the calculation for the second 3-day period is:

                             P  = 58(u * -  ut* )2 + 25(u * - ut*)

                             P2= 58(1.23 -1.12)2 + 25(1.23 -1.12)

                                 = 0.70+2.75 = 3.45 g/m2
 13.2.5-12
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
     Table 13.2.5-5 (Metric Units).  EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF PM-10 EMISSIONS8
3-Day Period
2
3
4
TOTAL
u* (m/s)
1.23
1.27
1.31

* *
u - Ut
(m/s)
0.11
0.15
0.19

P (g/m2)
3.45
5.06
6.84

ID
A
A
A

Pile Surface
Area
(m2)
101
101
101

kPA
(g)
170
260
350
780
a Where 14* = 1.12 m/s for uncrusted coal and k = 0.5 for PM-10.
        The emissions of paniculate matter greater than 10 i*m (PM-10) generated by each event are
found as the product of the PM-10 multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the affected
area of the pile (A).

        As shown in Table 13.2.5-5, the results of these calculations indicate a monthly PM-10
emission total of 780 g.

13.2.5.5 Example 2: Calculation for wind erosion from flat area covered with coal dust

        A flat circular area 29.2 m in diameter is covered with coal dust left over from the total
reclaiming of a conical coal pile described in the example above.  The total  exposed surface area is
calculated as follows:
                            s  =  1  d2 =  0.785 (29.2)2 = 670 m2
                                  4

        This area will remain exposed for a period of 1 month when a new pile will be formed.

        Step 1: In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold friction velocity, a value of
0.54 m/s is obtained from Table 13.2.5-2.

        Step 2: The entire surface area is exposed for a period of 1 month after removal of a pile and
N =  1/yr.

        Step 3: From Figure 13.2.5-4, the highest value of fastest mile for the 30-day period
(31 mph) occurs on the llth day of the period.  In this example, the reference anemometer height is
7 m, so that a height correction is needed for the fastest mile value.  From Step 3 of the previous
example, u+0  = 1.05 uij", so that uj^  = 33 mph.

        Step 4: Equation 4 is used to  convert the fastest mile value of 14.6 m/s  (33 mph) to an
equivalent friction velocity of 0.77 m/s.  This value  exceeds the threshold friction velocity from
Step 1 so that erosion does occur.

        Step 5: This step  is  not necessary, because there is only 1 frequency of disturbance for the
entire source area.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.2.5-13

    -------
       Steps 6 and 7: The PM-10 emissions generated by the erosion event are calculated as the
product of the PM-10 multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P) and the source area (A). The
erosion potential is calculated from Equation 3 as follows:

                           P =58(u*-  ut*)2+25(u*- ut*)

                           P = 58(0.77 - 0.54)2 + 25(0.77 - 0.54)

                              = 3.07 + 5.75

                              = 8.82g/m2


Thus the PM-10 emissions for the 1-month period are found to be:

                           E = (0.5)(8.82 g/m2)(670 m2)

                              = 3.0 kg

References For Section 13.2.5

1.     C. Cowherd, Jr.,  "A New Approach To Estimating Wind  Generated Emissions From Coal
       Storage Piles", Presented at the APCA Specialty Conference on Fugitive Dust Issues in the
       Coal Use Cycle, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1983.

2.     K. Axtell and C. Cowherd, Jr., Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Surface
       Coal Mining Sources, EPA-600/7-84-048,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, March  1984.

3.     G. E Muleski, "Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement", Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
       City, MO, March 1985.

4.     Update Of Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors In AP-42 Section 11.2 — Wind Erosion, MRI No.
       8985-K, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, 1988.

5.     W. S. Chepil, "Improved Rotary Sieve For Measuring State And Stability Of Dry Soil
       Structure", Soil Science Society Of America Proceedings, 75:113-117, 1952.

6.     D. A. Gillette, et al., "Threshold Velocities For Input Of Soil  Particles Into The Air By
       Desert Soils", Journal Of Geophysical Research, 85(C 10):5621-5630.

7.     Local Climatological Data, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.

8.     M. J. Changery,  National Wind Data Index Final Report,  HCO/T1041-01  UC-60, National
       Climatic Center,  Asheville, NC, December 1978.

9.     B. J. B. Stunder and S. P. S. Arya, "Windbreak Effectiveness  For Storage Pile Fugitive Dust
       Control:  A Wind Tunnel Study", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association,
       38:135-143, 1988.

10.    C. Cowherd, Jr.,  et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/3-88-008, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.

13.2.5-14                            EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
 13.3 Explosives Detonation

 13.3.1  General1'5

        This section deals mainly with pollutants resulting from the detonation of industrial explosives
 and firing of small arms. Military applications are excluded from this discussion.  Emissions
 associated with the manufacture of explosives are treated in Section 6.3, "Explosives".

        An explosive is a chemical material that is capable of extremely rapid combustion resulting in
 an explosion or detonation.   Since an adequate supply of oxygen cannot be drawn from the air, a
 source of oxygen must be incorporated into the explosive mixture.  Some  explosives, such as
 trinitrotoluene (TNT), are single chemical species, but most explosives are mixtures of several
 ingredients.  "Low explosive" and "high explosive" classifications are based on the velocity of
 explosion, which is directly related to the type of work the explosive can perform. There appears to
 be no direct relationship between the velocity of explosions and the end products of explosive
 reactions. These end products are determined primarily by the oxygen balance of the explosive.  As
 in other combustion reactions, a deficiency of oxygen favors the formation of carbon monoxide and
 unburned organic compounds and produces little, if any, nitrogen oxides.  An excess of oxygen
 causes more  nitrogen oxides and less carbon monoxide and other unburned organics.  For ammonium
 nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) mixtures, a fuel oil content of more than 5.5 percent creates a deficiency
 of oxygen.

        There are hundreds  of different explosives, with no universally accepted system for
 classifying them.  The classification used in Table 13.3-1  is based on the chemical composition of the
 explosives, without regard to other properties, such as rate of detonation, which relate to  the
 applications of explosives but not to their specific end products.  Most explosives are used hi 2-, 3-,
 or 4-step trains that are shown schematically in Figure 13.3-1.  The simple removal of a tree stump
 might be done with a 2-step train made up of an electric blasting cap and a stick of dynamite. The
 detonation wave from the blasting cap  would cause detonation of the dynamite.  To make a large hole
 in the earth,  an inexpensive explosive such as ANFO might be used. In this case, the  detonation
 wave from the blasting cap is not powerful enough to cause detonation, so a booster must be used in
 a 3- or 4-step train.  Emissions from the blasting caps and safety fuses used in these trains are usually
 small compared to those from the main charge, because the emissions  are roughly proportional to the
 weight of explosive used, and the main charge makes up most of the total weight. No factors are
 given for computing emissions from blasting caps or iuses, because these have not been measured,
 and because the uncertainties are so great in estimating emissions  from the main and booster charges
that a precise estimate  of all emissions  is not practical.

 13.3.2  Emissions  And Controls2'4-6

       Carbon monoxide is the  pollutant produced in greatest quantity from explosives detonation.
 TNT, an oxygen-deficient explosive, produces more CO than most dynamites, which are oxygen-
 balanced.  But all explosives produce measurable amounts of CO. Particulates are produced as well,
but such large quantities of paniculate are generated in the shattering of the rock and earth by the
 explosive that the quantity of particulates from the explosive charge cannot be distinguished.
 Nitrogen oxides (both nitric oxide  [NO] and nitrogen  dioxide [NO2]) are formed, but only limited
data are available on these emissions.  Oxygen-deficient explosives are said to produce little or no
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Miscellaneous Sources                                13.3-1

    -------
                 Table 13.3-1  (Metric And English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR DETONATION OF EXPLOSIVES


                                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Explosive
Black
powder2


Smokeless
powder

Dynamite,
straight2


Dynamite,
ammonia




Dynamite,
gelatin2

Composition
75/15/10;
Potassium
(sodium)
nitrate/
charcoal
sulfur
Nitrocellulose
(sometimes
with other
materials)
20-60%
Nitroglycerine/
sodium nitrate/
wood pulp/
calcium
carbonate
20-60%
Nitroglycerine/
ammonium
nitrate/sodium
nitrate/ wood
pulp
20-100%
Nitroglycerine

Uses
Delay fuses


Small arms,
propellant

Rarely used


Quarry work,
stump blasting




Demolition,
construction
work,
blasting in
mines
Carbon Monoxide"
kg/Mg
85
(38-120)


38
(34-42)

141
(44-262)


32
(23-64)




52
(13-110)

Ib/ton
170
(76-240)


77
(68-84)

281
(87-524)


63
(46-128)




104
(26-220)

Nitrogen Oxides8
kg/Mg Ib/ton
ND ND


ND ND

ND ND


ND ND




26 53
(4-59) (8-119)

Methane*5
kg/Mg
2.1
(0.3-4.9)


0.6
(0.4-0.6)

" 1.3
(0.3-2.8)


0.7
(0.3-1.1)




0.3
(0.1-0.8)

Ib/ton
4.2
(0.6-9.7)


1.1
(0.7-1.5)

2.5
(0.6-5.6)


1.3
(0.6-2.1)




0.7
(0.3-1.7)

Other
Pollutant kg/Mg
H2S 12
(0-37)


H2S 10
(10-11)
Pb -c
H2S 3
(0-7)


H2S 16
(9-19)




H2S 2
(0-3)
SO2 1
(0-8)
Ib/ton
24
(0-73)


21
(20-21)
	 c
6
(0-15)


31
(19-37)




4
(0-6)
1
(1-16)
m
§
£5
C/3
I-H
o
o
H
O
*l
on
?
NO
u\
K>
oo
o

    -------
   8
   CO
   en


I*
o
•s
Q






£1
O
e
CS
f
S



ca
en
U
JO
'x
O
c
o
BO
S
Z

a
£
o
c
o
c
o
•e
U

c
2
BO
"So



w
1
1

c
o



60


"*
o
2


60
"So
M

c
o
""*

BO
"So


8
en


Composition


u
en
"B.
UJ


-I
^^
~* o^




CD*
CO

Q
Z



Q
Z


-H


oo



£



en

.2 -S
•Q 60
5 .x -J3 S
1 = J J
o f .0 E
U

_~
Ammonium
nitrate with
5.8-8% fuelo:


"">.
1

~ ~ ^ ^ •^rf'


« Z "if'T? m
Z K tTu1 Z
^
" V Q
2 f-j z
2

p
tsi r^ Q
S NO Z
NO,
Q Q
Z Z


a Q
z z


5 "*
^ ON NO V^
?: r1- 2 NO
O W)

(N P
f^ ^ ON OO
c- ^i-
s>s M %
JZ " "o 13 4^ kri
" t: «5 2 ^ o
c ra 'o5 o 3 ">
| .S S. E 8 §
2 ca

t*>
S d" g
J & , § 1
o .^'C o ca
s -S !• s
i pit



% X
Z Q
H OS


ci o
irT
"^ O,




aT
z

Q
Z



Q
Z

O
z


Q
Z


o7
Sj 2
t^-
Ci

f
ON «
— ob
^,

Booster


C(CH2ON02)4
Pentaerythrito]
tetranitrate



^
g



1
<8
UH
a.
X
U
. O
^ %
"= 9
ii i-
il
0
z"!
w g1
4>
"2 ~
"•3
z-!
H.§
° «
PH ^
^ Ul
«4- ^
o 2
V3 O
C^ <2
0 G
•S "? 6
e w M
'H £ c«
>< g "
o .S •*
S | g
2 g |
s'§ 1
C cu s
o " _
.1 1 1

£ ° 5
xperiments c;
i apply to the
Studies were
D t .
c o
0 ^ g
O ^2
c/^ 4i •*— '
« H E
a x>























^
2
^o
^
-*'
b2
1
VO
&
1
'o5
_e
Ui
00

E
CO
•S
1-
o
o n

                                                                           I
                                                                           o
                                                                           3

                                                                           o

                                                                          I


                                                                           o>


                                                                          |
                                                                          ,«
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.3-3

    -------
                                                     Z DYNAMITE
                                    1. ELECTRIC
                                     BLASTING CAP
                                  PRIMARY
                                  HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                                    SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                a.   Two-step  explosive  train
                                                         3. DYNAMITE
                         1. SAFETY FUSE
                                     2. NONELECTRIC
                                       BLASTING CAP
                           LOW EXPLOSIVE    PRIMARY
                           (BLACK POWDER)   HIGH
                                         EXPLOSIVE
                                                   SECONDARY HIGH EXPLOSIVE
                                b.   Three-step explosive train
f

1 SAFETY *• NONELECTRIC
FUSE BLASTING CAP
H"""*™
LOW
V ™
]
PRIMAL
LOSIVE HIGH E
Y

    -------
 nitrogen oxides, but there is only a small body of data to confirm this.  Unburned hydrocarbons also
 result from explosions, but in most instances, methane is the only species that has been reported.

        Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia all have been reported as products of
 explosives use.  Lead is emitted from the firing of small arms ammunition with lead projectiles and/or
 lead primers, but the explosive charge does not contribute to the lead emissions.

        The emissions from explosives detonation are influenced by many factors such as explosive
 composition, product expansion, method of priming, length of charge, and confinement.  These
 factors  are difficult to measure and control in the field and are almost impossible to duplicate in a
 laboratory test facility.  With the exception of a few studies in underground mines, most studies have
 been performed in laboratory test chambers that differ substantially from the actual environment.
 Any estimates of emissions from explosives use must be regarded as approximations that cannot be
 made more precise because explosives are not used in a precise, reproducible manner.

        To a certain extent, emissions can be altered by changing the composition of the explosive
 mixture.  This has been practiced for many years to safeguard miners who must use explosives. The
 U. S. Bureau of Mines has a continuing program to study the products from explosives and to
 identify explosives that can be used safely underground.   Lead emissions from small  arms use can be
 controlled by using jacketed soft-point projectiles and special leadfree primers.

        Emission factors are given in Table 13.3-1.  Factors are expressed in units of kilograms per
 megagram (kg/Mg) and pounds per ton (Ib/ton).

 References For Section 13.3

 1.      C. R. Newhouser, Introduction To Explosives, National Bomb Data Center, International
        Association Of Chiefs Of Police, Gaithersburg, MD (undated).

 2.      Roy V. Carter, "Emissions From The Open Burning Or Detonation Of Explosives", Presented
        at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control  Association, Houston, TX, June
        1978.

 3.      Melvin A. Cook, The Science Of High Explosives, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New
        York, 1958.

 4.      R. F. Chaiken, et. al., Toxic Fumes From Explosives:  Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil Mixtures,
        Bureau  Of Mines Report Of Investigations 7867, U. S. Department Of Interior, Washington,
        DC, 1974.

 5.      Sheridan J. Rogers, Analysis OfNoncoal Mine Atmospheres: Toxic Fumes From Explosives,
        Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of Interior, Washington, DC, May  1976.

6.      A. A. Juhasz, "A Reduction Of Airborne Lead In Indoor Firing Ranges By Using Modified
        Ammunition", Special  Publication 480-26, Bureau Of Standards, U. S. Department Of
        Commerce, Washington, DC, November 1977.
2/80 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.3-5

    -------

    -------
 13.4  Wet Cooling Towers

 13.4.1  General1

        Cooling towers are heat exchangers that are used to dissipate large heat loads to the
 atmosphere.  They are used as an important component in many industrial and commercial processes
 needing to dissipate heat.  Cooling towers may range in size from less than 5.3(10)6 kilojoules (kJ)
 (5[10]6 British thermal units per hour [Btu/hr]) for small air conditioning cooling towers to over
 5275(10)6 kJ/hr (5000[106] Btu/hr) for large power plant cooling towers.

        When water is used as the heat transfer medium, wet, or evaporative, cooling towers may be
 used.  Wet cooling towers rely on the latent heat of water evaporation to exchange heat between the
 process and the air passing through the cooling tower. The cooling water may be an integral part of
 the process or may provide cooling via heat exchangers.

        Although cooling towers can be classified several ways, the primary classification is into dry
 towers or wet towers, and some hybrid wet-dry combinations exist. Subclassifications can include the
 draft type and/or the  location of the draft relative to the heat transfer medium, the type of heat
 transfer medium, the relative direction of air movement, and the type of water distribution system.

        In wet cooling towers, heat transfer is measured by the decrease in the process temperature
 and a corresponding increase in both the moisture content and the wet bulb temperature of the air
 passing through the cooling tower.  (There also may be a change in the sensible,  or dry bulb,
 temperature, but its contribution to the heat transfer process is very small and is typically ignored
 when designing wet cooling towers.)  Wet cooling towers typically contain a wetted medium called
 "fill"  to promote evaporation by providing a large surface area and/or by creating many water drops
 with a large cumulative surface area.

        Cooling towers can be categorized by the type of heat transfer; the type of draft and location
 of the draft, relative to the heat transfer medium; the type of heat transfer medium; the relative
 direction of air and water contact; and the type of water distribution system. Since wet, or
 evaporative, cooling towers are the dominant type,  and they also generate air pollutants, this section
 will address only that type of tower. Diagrams of the various tower configurations are shown in
 Figure 13.4-1 and Figure 13.4-2.

 13.4.2  Emissions And Controls1

        Because wet cooling towers provide direct contact between the cooling water and the air
 passing through the tower, some of the liquid water may be entrained in the air stream and be carried
 out of the tower as "drift" droplets.  Therefore, the particulate matter constituent of the drift droplets
 may be classified as an emission.

        The magnitude of drift loss is influenced by the number and size of droplets produced  within
the cooling tower, which in turn are determined by the fill design, the air and water patterns, and
other  interrelated factors.  Tower maintenance and operation levels also can influence the formation of
drift droplets. For example,  excessive water flow,  excessive airflow, and water bypassing the tower
drift eliminators can promote and/or increase drift emissions.
1/95                                  Miscellaneous Sources                               13.4-1

    -------
                               Wi
                               WtfwOUM
                                                                         MrOuM
             AirOoO*
        Courtorltaw Natural Draft Ti
             MrOriM
                                                                              MrOuM
                           Mr
                                                                                  DnM
                  Figure 13.4-1  Atmospheric and natural draft cooling towers.
       Because the drift droplets generally contain the same chemical impurities as the water
circulating through the tower, these impurities can be converted to airborne emissions.  Large drift
droplets settle out of the tower exhaust air stream and  deposit near the tower.  This process can lead
to wetting, icing, salt deposition, and related problems such as damage to equipment or to vegetation.
Other drift droplets may evaporate before being deposited in the area surrounding the tower, and they
also can produce PM-10 emissions. PM-10 is generated when the drift droplets evaporate and leave
fine paniculate  matter formed by crystallization of dissolved solids.  Dissolved solids found in cooling
tower drift can  consist of mineral matter, chemicals for corrosion  inhibition, etc.
13.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/95

    -------
                AirOuttM
                                                                           Air Outlet
                         Pan
     Intel
 Air
 Inlat
                             • Rl
=Ln  ml
•Air
'•Met
                                                                     Fomd Onft Countaritew T<
          Induced Draft Counttrflow Toww
      W«t«r
                                                             WitarlnM
         nil  I  I   I  n
                                                                      Fon»d Drat Cm* Ftow To
         Induced Draft CracsHow Tow«r
                          Figure 13.4-2.  Mechanical draft cooling towers.
        To reduce the drift from cooling towers, drift eliminators are usually incorporated into the
tower design to remove as many droplets as practical from the air stream before exiting the tower.
The drift eliminators used in cooling towers rely on inertia! separation caused by direction changes
while passing through the eliminators.  Types of drift eliminator configurations include herringbone
(blade-type), wave form,  and cellular (or honeycomb) designs. The cellular units generally are the
most efficient. Drift eliminators may include various materials, such as ceramics, fiber reinforced
cement, fiberglass,  metal, plastic, and wood installed or formed into closely spaced slats, sheets,
honeycomb  assemblies, or tiles.  The materials may include other features, such as corrugations and
water removal channels, to enhance the drift removal further.

        Table 13.4-1 provides available paniculate emission factors for wet cooling towers.  Separate
emission factors are given for induced draft and natural draft cooling towers. Several features in
Table 13.4-1 should be noted.  First, a conservatively high PM-10 emission factor can be obtained by
(a) multiplying the total liquid drift factor by the total dissolved solids (TDS) fraction in the
circulating water and (b) assuming that, once the water evaporates, all remaining solid particles are
within the PM-10 size range.

       Second, if TDS data for the cooling tower are not available, a source-specific TDS content
can be estimated by obtaining the TDS data for the make-up water and multiplying them by the
cooling tower cycles of concentration.  The cycles of concentration ratio is the ratio of a measured
1/95
                                 Miscellaneous Sources
                                                        13.4-3

    -------
   Table 13.4-1 (Metric And English Units).  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR WET
                                    COOLING TOWERS8
Tower Typed
Induced Draft
(SCC 3-85-001-01,
3-85-001-20,
3-85-002-01)
Natural Draft
(SCC 3-85-001-02,
3-85-002-02)
Total Liquid Driftb
Circulating
Water lb/103
Flow1* g/daL gal
0.020 2.0 1.7
0.00088 0.088 0.073
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
PM-10C
lb/103
g/daLe gal
0.023 0.019
ND ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E

a References 1-17. Numbers are given to 2 significant digits. ND = no data.  SCC = Source
  Classification Code.
b References 2,5-7,9-10,12-13,15-16. Total liquid drift is water droplets entrained in the cooling
  tower exit air stream.  Factors are for % of circulating water flow (10~2 L drift/L [10~2 gal
  drift/gal] water flow) and g drift/daL (Ib drift/103 gal) circulating water flow.
  0.12 g/daL = 0.1 lb/103 gal; 1 daL = 101 L.
c See discussion in text on how to use the table to obtain PM-10 emission estimates.  Values shown
  above are the arithmetic average of test results from References 2,4,8, and 11-14, and they imply
  an effective TDS content of approximately  12,000 parts per million (ppm) in the circulating water.
d See Figure 13.4-1 and Figure 13.4-2.  Additional SCCs for wet cooling towers of unspecified draft
  type are 3-85-001-10 and 3-85-002-10.
e Expressed as g PM-10/daL (Ib PM-10/103 gal) circulating water flow.
parameter for the cooling tower water (such as conductivity, calcium, chlorides, or phosphate) to that
parameter for the make-up water.  This estimated cooling tower TDS can be used to calculate the
PM-10 emission factor as above.  If neither of these methods can be used, the arithmetic average
PM-10 factor given in Table 13.4-1 can be used. Table 13.4-1 presents the arithmetic average PM-10
factor calculated from the test data in References 2, 4, 8, and 11 -  14.  Note that this average
corresponds to an effective cooling tower recirculating water TDS content of approximately
11,500 ppm for induced draft towers.  (This can be found by dividing the total liquid drift factor into
the PM-10 factor.)

       As an alternative approach,  if TDS data are unavailable for an induced draft tower, a value
may  be selected from Table 13.4-2 and then be combined  with the total liquid drift factor in
Table 13.4-1 to determine an apparent PM-10 factor.

       As shown in Table 13.4-2, available data do not suggest that there is any significant
difference between TDS levels in counter and cross flow towers. Data for natural draft towers are
not available.
13.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                         1/95

    -------
              Table 13.4-2.  SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
                   SOLIDS (JDS) CONTENT IN CIRCULATING WATER1
Type Of Draft
Counter Flow
Cross Flow
Overall8
No. Of Cases
10
7
17
Range Of TDS Values
(ppm)
3700 - 55,000
380 - 91,000
380 - 91,000
Geometric Mean TDS Value
(ppm)
18,500
24,000
20,600
a References 2,4,8,11-14.
b Data unavailable for natural draft towers.
References For Section 13.4

1.      Development Of Paniculate Emission Factors For Wet Cooling Towers, EPA Contract
       No. 68-DO-0137, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1991.

2.      Cooling Tower Test Report, Drift And PM-10 Tests T89-50, T89-51, And T89-52, Midwest
       Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February 1990.

3.      Cooling Tower Test Report, Typical Drift Test, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       January 1990.

4.      Mass Emission Measurements Performed On Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation's Westend
       Facility, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, And Environmental Systems
       Corporation, Knoxville, TN, December 1989.

5.      Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  January 1989.

6.      Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  October 1988.

7.      Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  August 1988.

8.      Report Of Cooling Tower Drift Emission Sampling At Argus And Sulfate #2 Cooling Towers,
       Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, and Environmental Systems Corporation,
       Knoxville, TN, February 1987.

9.      Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  February 1987.

10.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas  City, MO,  January 1987.
1/95
Miscellaneous Sources
13.4-5

    -------
11.     Isoldnetic Droplet Emission Measurements Of Selected Induced Draft Cooling Towers, Kerr-
       McGee Chemical Corporation, Trona, CA, and Environmental Systems Corporation,
       Knoxville, TN, November 1986.

12.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, December 1984.

13.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report For Member Of The Cooling Tower Institute,
       Houston, TX, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August 1984.

14.     Confidential Cooling Tower Drift Test Report, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
       November 1983.

15.     Chalk Point Cooling Tower Project, Volumes 1 and 2, JHU PPSP-CPCTP-16,  John Hopkins
       University, Laurel, MD, August 1977.

16.     Comparative Evaluation Of Cooling Tower Drift Eliminator Performance, MIT-EL 77-004,
       Energy Laboratory And Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute Of
       Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 1977.

17.     G. O. Schrecker, et al., Drift Data Acquired On Mechanical Salt Water Cooling Devices,
       EPA-650/2-75-060, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1975.
13.4-6                             EMISSION FACTORS                               1/95

    -------
13.5  Industrial Flares

13.5.1  General

        Flaring is a high-temperature oxidation process used to burn combustible components, mostly
hydrocarbons, of waste gases from industrial operations.  Natural gas, propane, ethylene, propylene,
butadiene and butane constitute over 95 percent of the waste gases flared.  In combustion, gaseous
hydrocarbons react with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO^ and water.  In some waste
gases, carbon monoxide (CO) is the major combustible component.  Presented below, as an example,
is the combustion reaction of propane.

                               C3H8 + 5  O2—> 3 CO2 + 4 H2O

        During a combustion reaction, several intermediate products are formed, and eventually, most
are converted to CO2 and water.  Some quantities of stable intermediate products such as carbon
monoxide, hydrogen, and hydrocarbons will escape as emissions.

        Flares are used extensively to dispose of (1) purged and wasted products from refineries,
(2) unrecoverable gases emerging with oil from oil wells, (3) vented gases from blast furnaces,
(4) unused gases from  coke ovens, and (5) gaseous wastes from chemical industries. Gases flared
from refineries, petroleum production, chemical industries, and to some extent, from coke ovens, are
composed largely of low  molecular weight hydrocarbons with high heating value.  Blast ftirnace flare
gases are largely of inert  species and CO, with low heating value.  Flares are also used  for burning
waste gases generated by sewage digesters, coal gasification, rocket engine testing, nuclear power
plants with sodium/water heat exchangers, heavy water plants, and ammonia fertilizer plants.

        There are two types of flares,  elevated and ground flares.  Elevated flares, the more common
type, have larger capacities than ground flares.  In elevated flares, a waste gas  stream is fed through a
stack anywhere from 10 to over 100 meters tall and is combusted  at the tip  of the stack. The flame is
exposed to atmospheric disturbances such as wind and precipitation. In ground flares, combustion
takes place at ground level.  Ground flares vary in complexity, and they may consist either of
conventional flare burners discharging horizontally with no enclosures or of multiple burners in
refractory-lined steel enclosures.

        The typical flare system consists of (1) a gas collection header and piping for collecting gases
from processing units,  (2) a knockout drum (disentrainment drum) to remove and store  condensables
and entrained liquids, (3) a proprietary seal,  water seal, or purge gas supply to prevent  flash-back,
(4) a single- or multiple-burner  unit and a flare stack, (5) gas pilots and an ignitor to ignite the
mixture of waste gas and air, and, if required, (6) a provision for  external momentum force (steam
injection or forced air)  for smokeless flaring. Natural gas, fuel gas, inert gas,  or nitrogen can be
used as purge gas.  Figure 13.5-1 is a diagram of a typical steam-assisted elevated smokeless flare
system.

        Complete combustion requires sufficient combustion air and proper  mixing of air and waste
gas. Smoking may result from  combustion,  depending upon waste gas components and  the quantity
and distribution of combustion air. Waste gases containing methane, hydrogen, CO, and ammonia
usually burn without smoke.   Waste gases containing heavy hydrocarbons such as paraffins above
methane, olefms, and aromatics, cause smoke. An external momentum force, such as steam injection


9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Miscellaneous Sources                                13.5-1

    -------
                                     ASSIST SIM)      r  MIDI WWEIS


                                     IUUEI m
                                        snu
                  SUM
                       NKtftlS
             ENIUIM
             souec
             •
                              CttUCTION NEAPEt
                              TUUSftl UK
                                                           IfiNIIN
                                                           o-
                                   . IHIITII*
                                                                        • Miai us
                  IUK1 SEAL


                   (IUNIMIIWKI WM
                                               MAU
           Figure 13.5-1. Diagram of a typical steam-assisted smokeless elevated flare.


or blowing air, is used for efficient air/waste gas mixing and turbulence, which promotes smokeless
flaring of heavy hydrocarbon waste gas. Other external forces may be used for this purpose,
including water spray, high velocity vortex action, or natural gas.  External momentum force is rarely
required in ground flares.

        Steam injection is accomplished either by nozzles on an external ring around the top of the
flare tip or by a single nozzle located concentrically within the tip.  At installations where waste gas
flow varies, both are used.  The internal nozzle provides steam at low waste gas flow rates, and the
external jets are used with large waste gas flow rates. Several other special-purpose flare tips are
commercially available, one of which is for injecting both steam and air. Typical steam usage ratio
varies from 7:1 to 2:1, by weight.

        Waste gases  to be flared must have a fuel value of at least 7500 to 9300 kilojoules per cubic
meter kJ/m3 (200 to  250 British thermal units per cubic foot [Bru/ft3]) for complete combustion;
otherwise fuel must be added.  Flares*providing  supplemental fuel to waste gas are known as fired,  or
endothermic, flares.  In some cases, even flaring waste gases having the necessary heat content
will also require supplemental heat.  If fuel-bound nitrogen is present, flaring ammonia with a heating
value of 13,600 U/m3  (365 Btu/ft3) will require higher heat to minimize nitrogen oxides (NOX)
formation.

        At many locations, flares normally used  to dispose of low-volume continuous emissions are
designed to handle large quantities of waste gases that may be  intermittently generated during plant
emergencies.  Flare gas volumes can vary from a few cubic meters per hour during regular operations
13.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
up to several thousand cubic meters per hour during major upsets. Flow rates at a refinery could be
from 45 to 90 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (100 - 200 pounds per hour [lb/hr]) for relief valve leakage
but could reach a full plant emergency rate of 700 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (750 tons/hr).
Normal process blowdowns may release 450 to 900 kg/hr (1000 - 2000 lb/hr), and unit maintenance
or minor failures may release 25 to 35 Mg/hr (27 - 39 tons/hr).  A 40 molecular weight gas typically
of 0.012 cubic nanometers per second (nm3/s)  (25 standard cubic feet per minute [scfm]) may rise to
as high as 115 nm3/s (241,000 scfm). The required flare turndown ratio for this typical case is over
15,000 to 1.

        Many flare systems have 2 flares, in parallel or in series. In the  former, 1 flare can be shut
down for maintenance while the other serves the system. In systems of flares in series, 1 flare,
usually a low-level ground flare, is intended to handle regular gas volumes, and the other, an elevated
flare, to handle excess gas flows from emergencies.

13.5.2  Emissions

        Noise and heat are the most apparent undesirable effects of flare operation.  Flares are usually
located away from populated areas or are sufficiently isolated, thus minimizing their effects on
populations.

       Emissions from flaring include carbon particles  (soot), unburned hydrocarbons, CO, and other
partially burned and altered hydrocarbons.  Also emitted are NOX and,  if sulfur-containing material
such as hydrogen sulfide or mercaptans is flared, sulfur dioxide (SO2).  The quantities of hydrocarbon
emissions generated relate to the degree of combustion.  The degree of combustion depends largely on
the rate and extent of fuel-air mixing and on the flame temperatures achieved and maintained.
Properly operated flares achieve at least 98 percent combustion efficiency in the flare plume, meaning
that hydrocarbon  and CO emmissions amount to less than 2 percent of hydrocarbons in the gas
stream.

       The tendency of a fuel to smoke or make soot is influenced by fuel characteristics and by the
amount and distribution of oxygen in the combustion zone. For complete combustion,  at least the
stoichiometric amount of oxygen must be provided in the combustion zone. The theoretical amount
of oxygen required increases with the molecular weight of the gas burned.  The oxygen supplied as
air ranges from 9.6 units of air per unit of methane to 38.3 units of air per unit of pentane, by
volume.  Air is supplied to the flame as primary air and secondary air.  Primary air is mixed with the
gas before combustion, whereas secondary air is drawn  into the flame.  For smokeless combustion,
sufficient primary air must be supplied, this varying  from about 20 percent of stoichiometric air for a
paraffin to about 30 percent for an olefin. If the amount of primary air is insufficient, the gases
entering the base of the flame are preheated by the combustion zone, and  larger hydrocarbon
molecules crack to form hydrogen, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and carbon. The carbon particles may
escape further combustion and cool down to form soot or smoke.  Olefins and other unsaturated
hydrocarbons may polymerize to form larger molecules  which crack, in turn forming more carbon.

       The fuel characteristics influencing soot formation include the carbon-to-hydrogen (C-to-H)
ratio and the molecular structure of the gases to be burned.  All hydrocarbons above methane, i.  e.,
those with a C-to-H ratio of greater than 0.33, tend to soot.  Branched chain paraffins smoke more
readily than corresponding normal isomers.  The more highly branched the paraffin, the greater the
tendency to smoke. Unsaturated hydrocarbons  tend more toward soot formation than do saturated
ones. Soot is eliminated by adding steam or air; hence, most industrial flares are steam-assisted and
some are air-assisted. Flare gas composition is a critical factor in determining the amount of steam
necessary.

9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Miscellaneous Sources                                13.5-3

    -------
        Since flares do not lend themselves to conventional emission testing techniques, only a few
attempts have been made to characterize flare emissions.  Recent EPA tests using propylene as flare
gas indicated that efficiencies of 98 percent can be achieved when burning an offgas with at least
11,200 kJ/m3 (300 Btu/ft3).  The tests conducted on steam-assisted flares at velocities as low as
39.6 meters per minute (m/min) (130 ft/min) to 1140 m/min (3750 ft/min), and on air-assisted flares
at velocities of 180 m/min (617 ft/min) to 3960 m/min (13,087 ft/min) indicated that variations in
incoming gas flow rates  have no effect on the combustion efficiency. Flare gases with less than
16,770 U/m3 (450 Btu/ft3) do not smoke.

       Table 13.5-1 presents flare emission factors, and Table 13.5-2 presents emission composition
data obtained from the EPA tests.1 Crude propylene was used as flare gas during the tests. Methane
was a major fraction of hydrocarbons in the flare emissions, and acetylene was the dominant
intermediate hydrocarbon species.  Many other reports on flares indicate that acetylene is always
formed as a stable intermediate product. The acetylene formed in the combustion reactions may react
further with hydrocarbon radicals to form polyacetylenes followed by polycyclic hydrocarbons.

       In flaring waste gases containing no nitrogen compounds, NO is formed either by the fixation
of atmospheric  nitrogen  (N) with oxygen (O) or by the reaction between the hydrocarbon radicals
present in the combustion products and atmospheric nitrogen, by way of the intermediate stages,
HCN, CN, and OCN.2  Sulfur compounds contained in a flare gas stream are converted to SO2 when
burned. The amount of SO2 emitted depends directly on the quantity of sulfur in the flared gases.


        Table 13.5-1 (English Units).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLARE OPERATIONS3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Component
Total hydrocarbons15
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sootc
Emission Factor
(lb/106 Bra)
0.14
0.37
0.068
0-274
a Reference 1.  Based on tests using crude propylene containing 80% propylene and 20% propane.
b Measured as methane equivalent.
c Soot in concentration values: nonsmoking flares, 0 micrograms per liter (/*g/L); lightly smoking
  flares, 40 /xg/L; average smoking flares, 177 fig/L; and heavily smoking flares, 274 /ig/L.
13.5-4                              EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 9/91

    -------
            Table 13.5-2.  HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION OF FLARE EMISSION4
Composition
Methane
Ethane/Ethylene
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
Volume %
Average
55
8
5
7
25
Range
14-83
1 - 14
0.3 - 23
0-16
1-65
 a Reference 1.  The composition presented is an average of a number of test results obtained under
  the following sets of test conditions: steam-assisted flare using high-Btu-content feed; steam-
  assisted using low-Btu-content feed; air-assisted flare using high-Btu-content feed; and air-assisted
  flare using low-Btu-content feed.  In all tests, "waste" gas was a synthetic gas consisting of a
  mixture of propylene and propane.
 References For Section 13.5

 1.     Flare Efficiency Study, EPA-600/2-83-052, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Cincinnati, OH, July 1983.

 2.     K. D. Siegel, Degree Of Conversion Of Flare Gas In Refinery High Flares, Dissertation,
       University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, February 1980.

 3.     Manual On Disposal Of Refinery Wastes, Volume On Atmospheric Emissions, API Publication
       931, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, June 1977.
9/91 (Reformatted 1/95)
Miscellaneous Sources
13.5-5

    -------

    -------
                                 APPENDIX A




               MISCELLANEOUS DATA AND CONVERSION FACTORS
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix A                              A-l

    -------
A-2                                      EMISSION FACTORS                     (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                     SOME USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Unit Of Measure
grain
gram
ounce
kilogram
pound
pound (troy)
ton (short)
ton (l°ng)
ton (metric)
ton (shipping)
centimeter
inch
foot
meter
yard
mile
centimeter2
inch2
foot2
meter2
yard2
mile2
centimeter3
inch3
foot3
foot3
Equivalent
0.002
0.04
28.35
2.21
0.45
12
2000
2240
2200
40
0.39
2.54
30.48
1.09
0.91
1.61
0.16
6.45
0.09
1.2
0.84
2.59
0.061
16.39
283.17
1728
ounces
ounces
grams
pounds
kilograms
ounces
pounds
pounds
pounds
feet3
inches
centimeters
centimeters
yards
meters
kilometers
inches2
centimeters2
meters2
yards2
meters2
kilometers2
inches3
centimeters3
centimeters3
inches3
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-3

    -------
                     SOME USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (cont.)
Unit Of Measure
meter3
yard3
cord
cord
peck
bushel (dry)
bushel
gallon (U. S.)
barrel
hogshead
township
hectare
Equivalent
1.31
0.77
128
4
8
4
2150.4
231
31.5
2
36
2.5
yeads3
meters3
feet3
meters3
quarts
pecks
inches3
inches3
gallons
barrels
miles2
acres
                                 MISCELLANEOUS DATA

One cubic foot of anthracite coal weighs about 53 pounds.

One cubic foot of bituminous coal weighs from 47 to 50 pounds.

One ton of coal is equivalent to two cords of wood for steam purposes.

A gallon of water (U. S. Standard) weighs 8.33 pounds and  contains 231 cubic inches.

There are 9 square feet of heating surface to each square  foot of grate surface.

A cubic foot of water contains  7.5 gallons and 1728 cubic inches, and weighs 62.5 Ibs.

Each nominal horsepower of a boiler requires 30 to 35 pounds of water per hour.

A horsepower is equivalent to raising 33,000 pounds one foot per minute, or 550 pounds one foot per
second.

To find the pressure in pounds per square inch of a column of water, multiply the height of the
column in feet by 0.434.
A-4
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                      TYPICAL PARAMETERS OF VARIOUS FUELSa
Type Of Fuel
Solid Fuels
Bituminous Coal
Anthracite Coal
Lignite (@ 35% moisture)
Wood (@ 40% moisture)
Bagasse (@ 50% moisture)
Bark (@ 50% moisture)
Coke, Byproduct
Liquid Fuels
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Diesel
Gasoline
Kerosene
Liquid Petroleum Gas
Gaseous Fuels
Natural Gas
Coke Oven Gas
Blast Furnace Gas
Heating Value
kcal

7,200/kg
6,810/kg
3,990/kg
2,880/kg
2,220/kg
2,492/kg
7,380/kg

9.98 x 106/m3
9.30 x 106/m3
9.12x 106/m3
8.62 x 106/m3
8.32 x 106/m3
6.25 x 106/m3

9,341/m3
5,249/m3
890/m3
Btu

13,000/lb
12,300/lb
7,200/lb
5,200/lb
4,000/lb
4,500/lb
13,300/lb

150,000/gal
140,000/gal
137,000/gal
130,000/gal
135,000/gal
94,000/gal

1,050/SCF
590/SCF
100/SCF
Sulfur
% (by weight)

0.6-5.4
0.5-1.0
0.7
N
N
N
0.5-1.0

0.5-4.0
0.2-1.0
0.4
0.03-0.04
0.02-0.05
N

N
0.5-2.0
N
Ash
% (by weight)

4-20
7.0-16.0
6.2
1-3
1-2
l-3b
0.5-5.0

0.05-0.1
N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N
a N = negligible.
b Ash content may be considerably higher when sand, dirt, etc., are present.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-5

    -------
                THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Type Of Fuel
Solid fuels
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Lignite
Wood
Liquid fuels
Residual fuel oil
Distillate fuel oil
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas
Liquefied petroleum
gas
Butane
Propane
kcal

(5.8 to 7.8) x 106/Mg
7.03 x 106/Mg
4.45 x 106/Mg
1.47 x 106/m3

10 x lO^liter
9.35 x 103/liter

9,350/m3


6,480/liter
6,030/liter
Btu (gross)

(21.0 to 28.0) x 106/ton
25.3 x 106/ton
16.0 x 106/ton
21. Ox 106/cord

6.3 x 106/bbl
5.9 x 106/bbl

1,050/ft3


97,400/gal
90,500/gal
                    WEIGHTS OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Type Of Substance
Asphalt
Butane, liquid at 60°F
Crude oil
Distillate oil
Gasoline
Propane, liquid at 60 °F
Residual oil
Water
g/liter
1030
579
850
845
739
507
944
1000
Ib/gal
8.57
4.84
7.08
7.05
6.17
4.24
7.88
8.4
A-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                      DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Substance
Fuels
Crude Oil
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas
Butane
Propane
Wood (Air dried)
Elm
Fir, Douglas
Fir, Balsam
Hemlock
Hickory
Maple, Sugar
Maple, White
Oak, Red
Oak, White
Pine, Southern
Agricultural Products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral Products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Density

874 kg/m3
944 kg/m3
845 kg/m3
739 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
579 kg/m3
507 kg/m3

561 kg/m3
513 kg/m3
400 kg/m3
465 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
689 kg/m3
529 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
641 kg/m3

25.4 kg/bu
25.4 kg/bu
14.5 kg/bu
21.8 kg/bu
27.2 kg/bu
226 kg/bale

2.95 kg/brick
170 kg/bbl
1483 kg/m3

7.3 Ib/gal
7.88 Ib/gal
7.05 Ib/gal
6. 17 Ib/gal
1 lb/23.8 ft3
4.84 Ib/gal (liquid)
4.24 Ib/gal (liquid)

35 lb/ft3
32 lb/ft3
25 lb/ft3
29 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
43 lb/ft3
33 lb/ft3
42 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
40 lb/ft3

56 Ib/bu
56 Ib/bu
32 Ib/bu
48 Ib/bu
60 Ib/bu
500 Ib/bale

6.5 Ib/brick
375 Ib/bbl
2500 lb/yd3
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-7

    -------
                  DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES (cont.)-
Substance
Concrete
Glass, Common
Gravel, Dry Packed
Gravel, Wet
Gypsum, Calcined
Lime, Pebble
Sand, Gravel (Dry, loose)
Density


1600-

880
850-
1440-
2373 kg/m3
2595 kg/m3
1920 kg/m3
2020 kg/m3
- 960 kg/m3
1025 kg/m3
1680 kg/m3


100-

55
53
90-
4000 lb/yd3
162 Ib/ft3
120 Ib/ft3
126 Ib/ft3
- 60 Ib/ft3
- 64 Ib/ft3
105 Ib/ft3
A-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                                  CONVERSION FACTORS

       The table of conversion factors on the following pages contains factors for converting English
to metric units and metric to English units as well as factors to manipulate units within the same
system. The factors are arranged alphabetically by unit within the following property groups.

       -   Area
       -   Density
       -   Energy
       -   Force
       -   Length
       -   Mass
       -   Pressure
       -   Velocity
       -   Volume
       -   Volumetric Rate

To convert a number from one unit to another:

       1.  Locate the unit in which the number is currently expressed in the left-hand  column of the
           table;

       2.  Find the desired  unit in the center column; and

       3.  Multiply the number by the corresponding conversion factor in the right-hand column.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix A                                      A-9

    -------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS3
To Convert From
Area
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq feet
Sq inches
Sq inches
Sq inches
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq kilometers
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq miles
Sq miles
To

Sq feet
Sq kilometers
Sq meters
Sq miles (statute)
Sq yards
Acres
Sq cm
Sq inches
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq feet
Sq meters
Sq mm
Acres
Sq feet
Sq meters
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq cm
Sq feet
Sq inches
Sq kilometers
Sq miles
Sq mm
Sq yards
Acres
Sq feet
Sq kilometers
Multiply By

4.356 x 104
4.0469 x 1(T3
4.0469 x 103
1.5625 x ID'3
4.84 x 103
2.2957 x 1Q-5
929.03
144.0
0.092903
3.587 x 10'8
0.111111
6.9444 x 10'3
6.4516 x ID'4
645.16
247.1
1.0764x 107
l.Ox 106
0.386102
1.196x 106
l.Ox 104
10.764
1.55x 103
l.Ox UT6
3.861 x 10'7
l.Ox 106
1.196
640.0
2.7878 x 107
2.590
A-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Sq miles
Sq miles
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Sq yards
Density
Dynes/cu cm
Grains/cu foot
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu meter
Grams/liter
Kilograms/cu meter
Kilograms/cu meter
Kilograms/cu meter
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu inch
To
Sq meters
Sq yards
Acres
Sq cm
Sqft
Sq inches
Sq meters
Sq miles

Grams/cu cm
Grams/cu meter
Dynes/cu cm
Grains/milliliter
Grams/milliliter
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/cu foot
Pounds/cu inch
Pounds/gal (Brit.)
Pounds/gal (U. S., dry)
Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
Grains/cu foot
Pounds/gal (U. S.)
Grams/cu cm
Pounds/cu ft
Pounds/cu in
Grams/cu cm
kg/cu meter
Grams/cu cm
Grams/liter
kg/cu meter
Multiply By
2.59 x 106
3.0976 x 106
2.0661 x 10^
8.3613 x 103
9.0
1.296x 103
0.83613
3.2283 x 10-7

1.0197 x 10-3
2.28835
980.665
15.433
1.0
1.162
62.428
0.036127
10.022
9.7111
8.3454
0.4370
8.345 x 10'3
0.001
0.0624
3.613 x ID"5
0.016018
16.018
27.68
27.681
2.768 x 104
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-ll

    -------
                              CONVERSION FACTORS (com.).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
  Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
  Pounds/gal (U. S., liq.)
 Energy
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/hr
  Btu/lb
  Btu/lb
  Btu/lb
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Calories, kg (mean)
  Ergs
  Ergs
Grams/cu cm
Pounds/cu ft

Cal. gm (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Cal. kg/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Kilowatts
Foot-pounds/lb
Hp-hr/lb
Joules/gram
Btu (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Btu
Foot-poundals
   0.1198
   7.4805

 251.83
   1.05435 x 1010
 777.65
   3.9275 x lO"4
1054.2
 107.51
   2.9283 x 1Q-4
   0.252
   2.929 x 106
 777.65
   3.9275 x 10-4
   2.9856 x lO'5
   3.926 x 10"4
   3.982 x 1Q-4
   2.929 x 1Q-4
 777.65
   3.9275 x 10-4
   2.3244
   3.9714
   4.190 x 1010
   3.0904 x 103
   1.561 x ID"3
   4.190x 103
 427.26
   1.1637x 10-3
   9.4845 x 10'11
   2.373 x lO'6
A-12
  EMISSION FACTORS
     (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                            CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Ergs
Ergs
Ergs
Ergs
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (boiler)
To
Foot-pounds
Joules (Int.)
kW-hours
kg-meters
Btu (1ST.)
Cal. kg (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Hp-hours
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours (Int.)
Newton-meters
Btu/min
Ergs/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (metric)
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/hr
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts (Int.)
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Multiply By
7.3756 x 10'8
9.99835 x lO'8
2.7778 x 1(T14
1.0197x lO'8
1.2851 x 1(T3
3.2384 x 10^
1.3558 x 107
32.174
5.0505 x 10'7
1.3558
0.138255
3.76554 x 10'7
1.3558
2. 1432 x 10-5
2.2597 x 105
5.0505 x 10'7
5.121 x 10-7
3.766 x 10'7
2.5425 x 103
7.457 x 109
1.980x 106
0.07602
0.9996
1.0139
745.70
0.74558
3.3446 x 104
9.8095 x 1010
4.341 x 105
13.155
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-13

    -------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (boiler)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (electric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower (metric)
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Horsepower-hours
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
  Joules (Int.)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Cal. kg/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
kg-meters/sec
Kilowatts
Btu (mean)
Foot-pounds
Joules
kg-meters
kW-hours
Btu (1ST.)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Foot-pounds
kW-hours
 13.15
 13.337
  9.8095 x 103
  9.8095
  2.5435 x 103
641.87
  7.46 x 109
  3.3013 x 104
  0.07605
  1.0143
746.0
  0.746
  2.5077 x 103
  7.355 x 109
  3.255 x 104
  0.98632
  0.07498
  0.9859
 75.0
  0.7355
  2.5425 x 103
  1.98x 106
  2.6845 x 106
  2.73745 x 105
  0.7457
  9.4799 x 10-4
  1.0002x 107
  12.734
  0.73768
  2.778 x ID'7
A-14
  EMISSION FACTORS
    (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Int.)/sec
Joules (Int.)/sec
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters
Kilogram-meters/sec
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatts (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Kilowatt-hours (Int.)
Newton-meters
Newton-meters
To
Btu (mean)/min
Cal. kg/min
Horsepower
Btu (mean)
Cal. kg (mean)
Ergs
Foot-poundals
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kW-hours
Watts
Btu (IST.)/hr
Cal. kg (IST.)/hr
Ergs/sec
Foot-poundals/min
Foot-pounds/min
Horsepower (mechanical)
Horsepower (boiler)
Horsepower (electric)
Horsepower (metric)
Joules (Int.)/hr
kg-meters/hr
Btu (mean)
Foot-pounds
Hp-hours
Joules (Int.)
kg-meters
Gram-cm
kg-meters
Multiply By
0.05683
0.01434
1.341 x 10'3
9.2878 x lO'3
2.3405 x ID'3
9. 80665 x 107
232.715
7.233
3.653 x 10'6
9.805
2.724 x 10'6
9.80665
3.413 x 103
860.0
1.0002x 1010
1.424x 106
4.4261 x 104
1.341
0.10196
1.3407
1.3599
3.6 x 106
3.6716 x 105
3.41 x 103
2.6557 x 106
1.341
3.6 x 106
3.6716 x 105
1.01972 x 104
0.101972
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-15

    -------
                         CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Newton-meters
Force
Dynes
Dynes
Dynes
Newtons
Newtons
Poundals
Poundals
Poundals
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Length
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Feet
Inches
Inches
Inches
Inches
Kilometers
Kilometers
Kilometers
Kilometers
Meters
Meters
Micrometers
To
Pound-feet

Newtons
Poundals
Pounds
Dynes
Pounds (avdp.)
Dynes
Newtons
Pounds (avdp.)
Dynes
Newtons
Poundals

Centimeters
Inches
Kilometers
Meters
Miles (statute)
Centimeters
Feet
Kilometers
Meters
Feet
Meters
Miles (statute)
Yards
Feet
Inches
Angstrom units
Multiply By
0.73756

l.Ox 10'5
7.233 x It)'5
2.248 x lO'6
l.Ox ID'5
0.22481
1.383 x 104
0.1383
0.03108
4.448 x 105
4.448
32.174

30.48
12
3.048 x 10-4
0.3048
1.894x 10^
2.540
0.08333
2.54 x 10-5
0.0254
3.2808 x 103
1000
0.62137
1.0936x 103
3.2808
39.370
l.Ox 104
A-16
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Micrometers
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Miles (statute)
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Millimeters
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Nanometers
Yards
Yards
Mass
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grams
To
Centimeters
Feet
Inches
Meters
Millimeters
Nanometers
Feet
Kilometers
Meters
Yards
Angstrom units
Centimeters
Inches
Meters
Micrometers
Mils
Angstrom units
Centimeters
Inches
Micrometers
Millimeters
Centimeters
Meters

Grams
Milligrams
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (metric)
Dynes
Multiply By
l.Ox lO'3
3.2808 x lO"6
3.9370 x 10'5
l.Ox 10-6
0.001
1000
5280
1.6093
1.6093 x 103
1760
l.Ox 107
0.1
0.03937
0.001
1000
39.37
10
l.Ox 10'7
3.937 x lO'8
0.001
l.Ox 10-6
91.44
0.9144

0.064799
64.799
1.7361 x 10-4
1.4286x 1Q-4
6.4799 x 1Q-8
980.67
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-17

    -------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
        To Convert From
            To
  Multiply By
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Grams
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Kilograms
   Megagrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Milligrams
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (apoth. or troy)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Ounces (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
   Pounds (avdp.)
Grains
Kilograms
Micrograms
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons, metric (megagrams)
Grains
Poundals
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons Gong)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Tons (metric)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Ounces (avdp.)
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (avdp.)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Poundals
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Tons (long)
 15.432
  0.001
  1 x 106
  2.205 x 10'3
  1 x 10-6
  1.5432x 104
 70.932
  2.679
  2.2046
  9.842 x 10^
  0.001
  1.1023x 10-3
  1.0
  0.01543
  l.Ox HT3
  3.215 x 10-5
  3.527 x ID'5
  2.679 x 10"6
  2.2046 x IQ-6
480
 31.103
  1.097
437.5
 28.350
  0.9115
  0.075955
  0.0625
 32.174
  1.2153
  4.4643 x 1Q-4
A-18
  EMISSION FACTORS
    (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                           CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (long)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Pressure
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Inches of Hg (60°F)
To
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Grains
Grams
Ounces (apoth. or troy)
Ounces (avdp.)
Kilograms
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Grams
Megagrams
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (short)
Kilograms
Pounds (apoth. or troy)
Pounds (avdp.)
Tons (long)
Tons (metric)

cm of H2O (4°C)
FtofH20(39.2°F)
In. of Hg(32°F)
kg/sq cm
mmofHg(0°C)
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
Multiply By
4.5359 x 10"4
5.0 x ID"4
7000
453.59
14.583
16
1.016 x 103
2.722 x 103
2.240 x 103
1.016
1.12
l.Ox 106
1.0
2.6792 x 103
2.2046 x 103
0.9842
1.1023
907.18
2.4301 x 103
2000
0.8929
0.9072

1.033 x 103
33.8995
29.9213
1.033
760
* 14.696
0.03333
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-19

    -------
                          CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of Hg (60°F)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Inches of H2O (4°C)
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Kilograms/sq cm
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Millimeters of Hg (0°C)
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Pounds/sq inch
Velocity
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec
Centimeters/sec *»
To
Grams/sq cm
mm of Hg (60°F)
Pounds/sq ft
Atmospheres
In. ofHg(32°F)
kg/sq meter
Pounds/sq ft
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cm of Hg (0°C)
FtofH2O(39.2°F)
In. ofHg(32°F)
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
Grams/sq cm
Pounds/sq inch
Atmospheres
cmofHg(0°C)
cm of H2O (4°C)
In. ofHg(32°F)
In. ofH2O(39.2°F)
kg/sq cm
mmofHg (0°C)

Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Miles/hr
Multiply By
34.434
25.4
70.527
2.458 x 1(T3
0.07355
25.399
5.2022
0.036126
0.96784
73.556
32.809
28.959
14.223
1.3158x 1Q-3
1.3595
0.019337
0.06805
5.1715
70.309
2.036
27.681
0.07031
51.715

1.9685
0.0328
0.036
0.6
0.02237
A-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                           CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.)-
To Convert From
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/minute
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Meters/min
Meters/min
Meters/min
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Miles/hr
Volume
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
To
cm/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Meters/sec
Miles/hr
cm/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min
Miles/hr
cm/sec
Feet/hr
Feet/min
Meters/sec
Miles (statute)/hr
cm/sec
Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
cm/sec
Feet/hr
Feet/min
Feet/sec
Kilometers/hr
Meters/min

Cu feet
Gallons (U. S.)
Liters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Multiply By
0.508
0.01829
0.3048
5.08 x 10'3
0.01136
30.48
1.0973
18.288
0.6818
27.778
3.2808 x 103
54.681
0.27778
0.62137
1.6667
3.2808
0.05468
0.06
44.704
5280
88
1.4667
1.6093
26.822

5.6146
42
158.98
4.2109
7.2765 x 103
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-21

    -------
                          CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic centimeters
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic inches
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
To
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Cufeet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Cu centimeters
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Cu cm
Cu feet
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Barrels (U. S., liq.)
Cu cm
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Bushels (Brit.)
Bushels (U. S.)
Cu cm
Multiply By
0.1192
31.5
119.24
3.5315 x 1(T5
0.06102
l.Ox 1Q-6
1.308 x 1Q-6
2.642 x 1Q-4
1.0567x 10-3
2.8317 x 104
0.028317
7.4805
28.317
16.387
5.787 x 10-4
1.6387x 10-5
2.1433 x ID'5
4.329 x ID-3
0.01639
0.01732
8.3864
l.Ox 106
35.315
6. 1024 x 104
1.308
264.17
1000
21.022
21.696
7.6455 x 105
A-22
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                             CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Cubic yards
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
Liters
To
Cufeet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Liters
Quarts
Quarts
Quarts
Barrels (U.S., liq.)
Barrels (petroleum, U. S.)
Bushels (U. S.)
Cu centimeters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Cu yards
Gallons (wine)
Liters
Ounces (U. S., fluid)
Pints (U. S., liq.)
Quarts (U. S., liq.)
Cu centimeters
Cu feet
Cu inches
Cu meters
Gallons (U. S., liq.)
Ounces (U. S., fluid)
Multiply By
27
4.6656 x 104
0.76455
168.18
173.57
201.97
764.55
672.71
694.28
807.90
0.03175
0.02381
0.10742
3.7854 x 103
0.13368
231
3.7854 x 10'3
4.951 x 10'3
1.0
3.7854
128.0
8.0
4.0
1000
0.035315
61.024
0.001
0.2642
33.814
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-23

    -------
                              CONVERSION FACTORS (cont.).
To Convert From
Volumetric Rate
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu ft/min
Cu meters/min
Cu meters/min
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Gallons (U. S.)/hr
Liters/min
Liters/min
To

Cu cm/sec
Cuft /hr
Gal (U. S.)/rnin
Liters/sec
Gal (U. S.)/min
Liters/min
Cuft/hr
Cu meters/min
Cu yd/min
Liters/hr
Cu ft/min
Gal (U. S., liq.)/min
Multiply By

471.95
60.0
7.4805
0.47193
264.17
999.97
0.13368
6.309 x 10-5
8.2519 x 10-5
3.7854
0.0353
0.2642
a Where appropriate, the conversion factors appearing in this table have been rounded to four to six
  significant figures for ease in use. The accuracy of these numbers is considered suitable for use
  with emissions data; if a more accurate number is required, tables containing exact factors should be
  consulted.
 A-24
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
      CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS




                      AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
To Convert From
Milligrams/cu m




Grams/cu ft




Grams/cu m




Micrograms/cu m




Micrograms/cu ft




Pounds/ 1000 cu ft




To
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Pounds/ 1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Multiply By
283.2 x 10"6
0.001
1000.0
28.32
62.43 x ID"6
35.3 145 x 103
35.314
35.3 14 x 106
l.Ox 106
2.2046
1000.0
0.02832
l.Ox 106
28.317 x 103
0.06243
0.001
28.317 x 10-9
l.Ox 1Q-6
0.02832
62.43 x 10'9
35.314 x 10-3
1.0 x IQ-6
35.314 x 1Q-6
35.314
2.2046 x 10"6
16.018 x 103
0.35314
16.018 x 106
16.018
353. 14 x 103
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-25

    -------
   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS (cont.).
                              SAMPLING PRESSURE
      To Convert From
           To
Multiply By
 Millimeters of mercury (0°C)
 Inches of mercury (0°C)

 Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)
Millimeters of mercury (0°C)
Inches of mercury (0°C)
 0.5358
13.609
 1.8663
73.48 x
A-26
   EMISSION FACTORS
   (Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
    CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS (cont.).
                                 ATMOSPHERIC GASES
       To Convert From
             To
 Multiply By
 Milligrams/cu m
 Micrograms/cu m
 Micrograms/liter
 ppm by volume (20°C)
 ppm by weight
 Pounds/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
ppm by volume (20°C)
ppm by weight	
  1000.0
     1.0
   24.04/M
     0.8347
   62.43 x 10'9
     0.001
     0.001
     0.02404/M
  834.7 x 10"6
   62.43 x 10'12
     1.0
  1000.0
   24.04/M
     0.8347
   62.43 x 10'9
 M/24.04
  M/0.02404
 M/24.04
 M/28.8
M/385.1 x 106
     1.198
     1.198x 10'3
     1.198
   28.8/M
     7.48 x 10-6
   16.018 x 106
   16.018x 109
   16.018x 106
  385.1 x 106/M
  133.7 x 103
M = Molecular weight of gas.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
        Appendix A
                A-27

    -------
   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS  (cont.).




                                VELOCITY
To Convert From
Meters/sec


Kilometers/hr


Feet/sec


Miles/hr


To
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Multiply By
3.6
3.281
2.237
0.2778
0.9113
0.6214
0.3048
1.09728
0.6818
0.4470
1.6093
1.4667
                          ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
To Convert From
Atmospheres


Millimeters of mercury


Inches of mercury


Millibars


To
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
VOLUME EMISSIONS
To Convert From
Cubic m/min
Cubic ft/miq
To
Cubic ft/min
Cubic m/min












Multiply By
760.0
29.92
1013.2
1.316x 10-3
39.37 x ID'3
1.333
0.03333
25.4005
33.35
0.00987
0.75
0.30

Multiply By
35.314
0.0283
A-28
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
           BOILER CONVERSION FACTORS
   1  Megawatt - 10.5 x 106 BTU/hr
               (8 to 14 x 106 BTU/hr)

   1  Megawatt »  8 x 103 lb steam/hr
               (6 to 11 x 103 lb steam/hr)

   1  BHP      =34.5 lb steam/hr

   1  BHP      - 45 x 103 BTU/hr
               (40 to 50 x 103 BTU/hr)

I  lb  steam/hr - 1.4 x 103 BTU/hr
               (1.2 to 1.7 x 103 BTU/hr)
      NOTES:  In the  relationships,

            Megawatt is the net electric power production of a steam
            electric power plant.

            BHP is boiler horsepower.

            Lb steam/hr is the steam production rate of the boiler.

            BTU/hr is the heat input rate to the boiler (based on  the
            gross or high heating value of the fuel burned).

For less efficient (generally older and/or smaller) boiler operations,
use the higher values expressed.   For more efficient operations
(generally newer and/or larger),  use the lower vlaues.
VOLUME
Cubic Inches 	
Milliliters 	
Liters 	
Ounces (U. S. fl.)
Gallons (U. S.)*..
Barrels (U. S.)...
Cubic feet 	
cu. in.

0.061024
61.024
1.80469
231
7276.5
1728
ml.
16.3868

1000
29.5729
3785.3
1.1924x105
2.8316xl04
liters
.0163868
0.001

0.029573
3.7853
119.2369
28.316
ounces
(U. S. fl.)
0.5541
0.03381
33.8147

128
4032.0
957.568
gallons
(U. S.)
4.3290xlO"3
2.6418x10-*
0.26418
7.8125xlO-3

31.5
7.481
barrels
(U. S.)
1.37429xlO~4
8.387x10-6
8.387xlO~3
2. 48x10-*
0.031746

0.23743
cu. ft.
5.78704x10-*
3.5316x10-5
0.035316
1.0443xlO~3
0.13368
4.2109

  1V.  S.  gallon of water at 16.7°C (62°F)  weighs  3.780  kg.  or 8.337  pounds  (avoir.)
MASS


Ounces (avoir.)...
Pounds (avoir.)*..
Grains 	
Tons (U. S.) 	
Milligrams 	
grams

1000
28.350
453.59
0.06480
9.072xl05
0.001
kilograms
0.001

0.028350
0.45359
6.480x10-5
907.19
1x10-6
ounces
(avoir . )
3.527x10-2
35.274

16.0
2.286xlQ-3
3.200xl04
3.527x10-5
po und s
(avoir.)
2.205xlO-3
2.2046
0.0625

1.429xlO-4
2000
2.205xlO-6
grains
15.432
15432
437.5
7000

1.4xl07
0.015432
tons
(U. S.)
1.102x10-6
1.102xlO-3
3.125x10-5
5.0x10-*
7.142xlO-8

1. 102xlO-9
milligrams
1000
1x106
2.8350x10*
4.5359xl05
64.799
9.0718xl08

         f 27.692 cubic inches  water  weighed  in  air  at  4.0°C,  760  mm mercury  pressure.
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
    Appendix A
A-29

    -------

§

s

a
8.


0)
O
X
D.
X
fl

•
S
at


z
0

Joulea

ta
v

t
*
cfl
01
5-
Z
Q
i
7
1.1628xl(
r
O
CO
CM
NO
«

•7
»

1
O
X
£
en
O
O

00
o

00
"
o
oo
NO
NO
00
io
3
eo
4
1
o

Cram Calorlee
(mean) 	

5
o
00
-

£


t
o
X
2
S
*

CO
3

rs.
O
o
00
«
oo
0
X
NO
00
^a-

§
O
Kilogram Calories.
o
X
OO
o
CO
CM
0
o
M
^r
0
X
CM
O
1
o
00
00
00
o
r*.
O
00
o
in
*"3
O
i
i
0
X
':


2.3889xlO"u
2.3889xlO"8
0
o
It
o
X
CO
CN
O
CO
~

-
^

'
X
«•>
o
CO
CO

2
o

£
o
o
o*.


o
X

2.3889x10-'*
CO
CO
CM
O
9
a
J
o
CN|
0
t
X
o
ON
O
o
in
CN*

1
X
CM
ON
ON
O
NO
^

CO
o\
r^



CO
o
0
0
CO
o
-
00
o
CO
c
a
s
i
o
•o
NO
o
NO
"

-
*->.

1
X
o
in
CO
0
o

CO
o



1
o
00
CNJ
CO
in
o
CO
in
-
3.2389XIQ-11
CO
CN
O

o
X
NO
o
-
-

^
CM

1
X
NO
03
O
o



o
m
-
0
X
^
NO
NO
o
CO
CT*
0
1
o*
2.3427xlO-3
3
Klloaram meters • •
i
O
X
NO
CO
CM
1
O
NO
CO
(••*

z
pg

'
X
«



3
O

fi
2

O
O
CO
O
O
o
-
o
X
o
NO
o
1,1 ter Atmosphe res
(normal) 	

m
In
O

O
in
0
NO





NO
O
^
CM
NO
O
o
°:

CM
NO
O
X
•n
CO
NO
CM
0
CD
NO
(M
O
NO
i
n
o
1
01
n
u
O
in
O
in
0
CO
o
in
in
O
-




O
X
NO
in
O
X
CO
-
o
£
CM
CO
2
O
o
1
0
X
«
-a-
o
tn
O
O
,»
NO
1
o
X
NO
o
o
0.010067
Foot pounds Is . . - .

o
o
o



o
s
CO



-
o
X
-
in
O
O\
o
NO
m
NO
0
X
m
CM
o

3 .6000 xlO6
O
O
g
NO
ft
o
o
NO
CO
8.6001xl05
Kl lowatt Hours . . .


0
o

o
o
CO

o
X

(—1 I
o,
X
en
o
NO

en
£
CM
O

o
O'
NO,
o
0
6000x
en
o
o
sO
CO
o
o
o
NO
CO
•
ta
3
O
X
3
A-30
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                                          o
                                          "x
                                                    o
                                                    "x
                                        3 TJ
                                        O C
                                        S. o
                                                      o
                                                      o &
             I
9/85 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix A
A-31

    -------
                  CONVERSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SUBSTANCESa
Type Of Substance
Fuel
Oil
Natural gas
Gaseous Pollutants
03
NO2
SO2
H2S
CO
HC (as methane)
Agricultural products
Corn
Milo
Oats
*
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Mobile sources, fuel efficiency
Motor vehicles
Waterborne vessels
Miscellaneous liquids
Beer
Paint
Varnish
Whiskey
Water
Conversion Factors

1 bbl = 159 liters (42 gal)
1 therm = 100,000 Btu (approx.25000 kcal)

1 ppm, volume = 1960/ig/m3
1 ppm, volume = 1880/ig/m3
1 ppm, volume = 2610/ig/m3
1 ppm, volume = 1390 /*g/m3
1 ppm, volume =1.14 mg/m3
1 ppm, volume = 0.654 mg/m3

1 bu = 25.4 kg = 56 Ib
1 bu = 25.4 kg = 56 Ib
1 bu = 14.5 kg = 32 Ib
1 bu = 21.8 kg = 48 Ib
1 bu = 27.2 kg = 60 Ib
1 bale = 226 kg = 500 Ib

1 brick = 2.95 kg = 6.5 Ib
1 bbl = 170 kg = 375 Ib
1 yd3 = 1130kg = 2500 Ib
1 yd3 = 1820 kg = 4000 Ib

1 .0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km

1 bbl = 31. 5 gal
1 gal = 4.5 to 6.82 kg = 10 to 15 Ib
1 gal = 3.18kg = 71b
1 bbl = 190 liters = 50.2 gal
1 gal = 3.81 kg = 8.3 Ib
 Many of the conversion factors in this table represent average values and approximations and some
 of the values vary with temperature and pressure.  These conversion factors should, however, be
 sufficiently accurate for general field use.
A-32
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/85

    -------
                               APPENDIX B.I

                   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
               SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                 Appendix B.I                             B.l-1

    -------
B.l-2                                   EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                               CONTENTS

AP-42
Section                                                              Page

Introduction  ..................................................  B.l-5

1.8 BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER:  EXTERNAL COMBUSTION .................  B.l-6

2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION:
     MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR  ..................  B.l-8
     MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR ...................  B.l-10

4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING
     OPERATIONS:  AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)  .  B.l-12

6.1 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER ............  B.l-14

8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER ................  B.l-16

8.10 SULFURIC ACID:
     ABSORBER (ACID ONLY) ...................................  B.l-18
     ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM ...................................  B.l-20
     ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM ...................................  B.l-22
     SECONDARY ABSORBER ...................................  B.l-24

8.xx BORIC ACID DRYER ........................................  B.l-26

8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER  ....... .................  B.l-28

8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER .........................  B.l-30

9.7 COTTON GINNING:
     BATTERY CONDENSER ....................................  B.l-32
     LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST ...............................  B.l-34

9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
     GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS .  ..................  B.I -36
     CONVEYING ............................................  B.l-38
     RICE DRYER ............................................  B.l-40

9.9.2  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER .........  B.l-42

9.9.4  ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE ........  B.l-44

9.9.xx FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER  .
10.5 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
     BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE ......................  B.l-48
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                Appendix B.I                            B.l-3

    -------
                             CONTENTS (cont.)-

AP-42
Section                                                              Page

11.10 COAL CLEANING:
     DRY PROCESS	 B.l-50
     THERMAL DRYER	 B.l-52
     THERMAL INCINERATOR	 B.l-54

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):
     COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN	 B.l-56
     DRYER	 B.l-58
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  	 B.l-60

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  	 B.l-62

11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
     COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN	 B.l-64
     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER  	 B.l-66

11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
     CALCINER  	 B.l-68
     OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS	 B.l-70
     OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER	 B.l-72
     BALL MILL	 B.l-74
     ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING  	 B.l-76

11.26 NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  TALC PEBBLE MILL	 B.I-78

11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS:
     ELDSPAR BALL MILL  	 B.l-80
     FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER	 B.l-82

12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:
     BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE 	 B.l-84
     BAUXITE PROCESSING - UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP  	 B.l-86

12.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES:
     CASTINGS SHAKEOUT	 B.l-88
     OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST  	 B.l-90

12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:
     GRID CASTING 	 B.l-92
     GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING	 B.l-94
     LEAD OXIDE MILL  	 B.l-96
     PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING	 B.l-98
     THREE-PROCESS OPERATION	 B.1-100

12.xx BATCH TINNER	 B.1-102
B.l-4                        EMISSION FACTORS             (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                       APPENDIX B.I

                        PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND
                   SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
Introduction
       This appendix presents particle size distributions and emission factors for miscellaneous
sources or processes for which documented emission data were available.  Generally, the sources of
data used to develop particle size distributions and emission factors for this appendix were:

       1. Source test reports in the files of the Emissions Monitoring, and Analysis Division of
          EPA's Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards.

       2. Source test reports in the Fine Particle Emission Information System (FPEIS), a
          computerized data base maintained by EPA's Air And Energy Engineering Research
          Laboratory, Office Of Research And Development.

       3. A series of source tests titled Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous
          Sources In  The South Coast Air Basin, by H. J. Taback.

       4. Particle size distribution data reported in the literature by various individuals and
          companies.

       Particle size data from FPEIS were mathematically normalized into more uniform and
consistent data. Where EMB tests and Taback report data were filed in FPEIS, the normalized data
were used in developing this appendix.

       Information on each source category in Appendix B.I is presented in a 2-page format:  For a
source category, a graph provided on the first page presents a particle size distribution expressed as
the cumulative weight percent of particles less than a specified aerodynamic diameter (cut point), in
micrometers. A sized emission factor can be derived from the mathematical product of a mass
emission factor and the cumulative weight percent of particles smaller than a specific cut point in the
graph. At the bottom of the page is a table of numerical values for particle size distributions and
sized emission factors, in micrometers, at selected values of aerodynamic particle diameter.  The
second page gives some information on the data used to derive the particle size distributions.

       Portions of the appendix denoted TBA in the table of contents refer to  information that will be
added at a later date.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                     Appendix B.I                                    B.l-5

    -------
              1.8 BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER: EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
       *9


       98
     4)
     N
     •o
     V
     JJ
     CO M
       70
       50

     3

     3
        2


        1


       O.S.




       0.1






       0.01
                   CONTROLLED
                   Weight   percent
                   Emission factor
                                         1.3
                                            r*t
                                            a
                                            H*>
                                            09
                                            03
                                            M>
                                            o
                                            3
                                                                         1.0
                                                                            3Q
                                                                         0.3
                                         0.0
                         3   4   5 S  7 8 » 10        20    10

                              Particle diameter, urn
                          40 $0  60 70 SO 90 100
. Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, um
2.5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Wet scrubber controlled
46.3
70.5
97.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Wet scrubber controlled
0.37
0.56
0.78
B.l-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                1.8  BAGASSE-FIRED BOILER:  EXTERNAL COMBUSTION


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/un):       2.5      6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                       46.3     70.5     97.1

              Standard deviation (Cum. %):             0.9      0.9      1.9

              Min (Cum. %):                        45.4     69.6     95.2

              Max (Cum. %):                        47.2     71.4     99.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Approximately 0.8 kg particulate/Mg bagasse
charged to boiler.  This factor is derived from AP-42, Section 1.8, 4/77, which states that the
participate emission factor from an uncontrolled bagasse-fired boiler is 8 kg/Mg and that wet
scrubbers typically provide 90% paniculate control.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a Riley Stoker Corp. vibrating grate spreader stoker boiler rated
at 120,000 Ib/hr but operated during this testing at 121% of rating.  Average steam temperature and
pressure were 579°F and 199 psig, respectively.  Bagasse feed rate could not be measured, but was
estimated to be about 41 (wet) tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, U. S. Sugar Company, Bryant, FL, EMB-80-WFB-6, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-7

    -------
      2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
     01
     N
     •O
     01
     go

     v

     M
    99


    9»



    95



    90



    SO


    70


    60


    50


    40
     *   »
     V
     »   20
2   »

iH
3   5


U   2

    1

    0.5



    0.1





   0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                 — Weight percent
                                                 •—Emission factor
                                                                         10.0
                                                                         8.0
             09
             09
             01
             n
                                                                        cw

                                                                        00
                                                                         4.0
                                                                         z.o
                          3   4   56789 10       20     10   405060708090100

                               Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Uncontrolled
26.0
30.6
10.0 38.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled ;
3.9 i
4.6 :
5.7
B.l-8
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
     2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR


NUMBER OF TESTS: 7, conducted before control


STATISTICS:   Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (jim):      2.5      6.0     10.0


               Mean (Cum. %):                     26.0     30.6     38.0

               Standard deviation (Cum. %):            9.5     13.0     14.0

               Min (Cum. %):                      18      22       24

               Max (Cum. %):                      40      49       54


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Municipal incinerators reflected in the data base include various mass
burning facilities of typical design and operation.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Unknown

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Determination of Uncontrolled Emissions, Product 2B, Montgomery County, Maryland, Roy F.
      Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1984.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix B.I                                B.l-9

    -------
      2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
       99.99
       99.9
   99

   98


V

3  »5
a

•a  90
«


™  80
a

\/  70

*•*  to

4J
J=  30
      3 30
      V
      > to
3 10 L,
S    *^

^  J



   2


   1


  0.3




  0.1
       0.01
                                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                               —•—  Weight percent
                                               	  Emission  factor
                                                                          10.0
                                                                              en
                                                                              3
                                                                              h*
                                                                          a.o  at
                                                                              o>
                                                                              B>
                                                                              n
                                                                              rr
                                                                              O
                                                                     6.0
                                                                        OQ


                                                                        OQ
                                                                          4.0
                                                                          2.0
                                 5  *  7  » 9 10       20    TO

                               Particle  diameter,  urn
                                                       *0 90 M 70 M M IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
54.0
60.1
67.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
8.1
9.0
10.1
B.l-10
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
      2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION:  MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (jim):      2.5     6.0     10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                      54.0    60.1     67.1

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):           19.0    20.8     23.2

                Min (Cum.  %):                       34.5    35.9     37.5

                Max (Cum.  %):                       79.9    86.6     94.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Modular incinerator (2-chambered) operation was at 75.9% of the design
process rate (10,000 Ib/hr) and 101.2% of normal steam production rate.  Natural gas is required to
start the incinerator each week.  Average waste charge rate was 1.983T/hr.  Net heating value of
garbage 4200-4800 Btu/lb garbage charged.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, City of Salem, Salem, Va, EMB-80-WFB-1, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-11

    -------
  4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
              AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)




V
N
CO
•o
V
^J
03
CO

V
M

A
00
1
«
—4
a
fH
3
B
3
U








99.9
99

98

9S

90

SO


70
60

50
40
30

20

10


5

2
1
0.5
0.1


3.01
-

_
.

m

m


,

m /
'
_ s _
/'
' ^^^*^^
9*"^ /
/
''
„



^


-
CONTROLLED
-•- Weight percent
	 Emission factor
. .,,,.,,, 	


3.0





PI
9
CD
(B
h—
O
3
2"° «,
n
0

3Q
OQ




1.0






0.0
                        3   4   5  6 7 a 9 10       20

                            Particle diameter, urn
                                                   30  M)  SO 60 70 SO 90 LOO
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Water curtain controlled
28.6
38.2
46.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg
i
Water curtain controlled
1.39
1.85
2.26
B.l-12
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
                AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER-BASE ENAMEL)
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after water curtain control


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):      2.5     6.0     10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                     28.6    38.2     46.7

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):          14.0    16.8     20.6

                Min(Cum. %):                      15.0    21.4     26.1

                Max (Cum. %):                      42.2    54.9     67.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 4.84 kg particulate/Mg of water-base enamel
sprayed. From References a and b.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a water-base enamel spray booth in an automotive assembly
plant. Enamel spray rate is 568 Ib/hour, but spray gun type is not identified. The spray booth
exhaust rate is 95,000 scfm.  Water flow rate to the water curtain control device is 7181 gal/min.
Source is operating at 84% of design rate.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  SASS and Joy trains with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCES:

a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous Sources in the South
      Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
      February 1979.

b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series  Report No. 234, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-13

    -------
            6.1  CARBON BLACK:  OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER
       99.99
        99.9
  99

  »6





CO


   i
                                                                           1.75
                                                                              CD
                                                                              OB
                                                                           I.SO
                                                                              at
                                                                              n
                                                                              OQ
                                                                     1.25
                                                                     t.OO
                             *   5  * 7 » » 10        20    30
                                Particle diameter, urn
                                                            40 50  *O 7O 80 M 100
Aerodynamic
1 particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative we . Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.3
95.0
97.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled !
1.40
i
1.52 ;
1.55
B.l-14
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
            6.1 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFFGAS BOILER

NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted at offgas boiler outlet

STATISTICS:   Aerodynamic particle diameter (jjaa):      2.5      6.0      10.0

               Mean (Cum.  %):                     87.3     95.0      97.0
               Standard Deviation (Cum. %):           2.3      3.7       8.0
               Min (Cum. %):                      76.0     90.0      94.5
               Max (Cum. %):                      94.0     99       100

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.6 kg particulate/Mg carbon black produced, from
reference.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Process operation: "normal" (production rate =  1900 kg/hr). Product is
collected in fabric filter, but the offgas boiler outlet is uncontrolled.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
      Air Pollution Emission Test, Phillips Petroleum Company, Toledo, OH, EMB-73-CBK-1,
      U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1974.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-15

    -------
              8.4  AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER:  ROTARY DRYER
       99.99
        99.9
  99

  »•


  9S
      00
0)
XJ
(B 80
to
      0)
      3 30

      g 20
      s
        10
        0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                    Weight percent
                                                    Emission  factor
                                                               t   1111
                                                                          X)
                                                                            09
                                                                            0)
                                                                            o
                                                                            s
                                                                          20
                                                                      era
                                                                      2^
                                                                      OQ
                                                                          10
                             4   5 t> 7 « 9 10        20    30

                               Particle diameter,  urn
                                                              50  60 7Q 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Uncontrolled
10.8
49.1
98.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled ;
2.5 :
LI. 3
22.7 ':
B.l-16
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
               8.4 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     10.8    49.1    98.6

             Standard Deviation (Cum.  %):           5.1    21.5     1.8

             Min (Cum. %):                       4.5    20.3    96.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      17.0    72.0   100.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  23 kg particulate/Mg of ammonium sulfate
produced.  Factor from AP-42, Section 8.4.

SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted at 3 ammonium sulfate plants operating rotary
dryers within the following production parameters:


             Plant	A       C      D

             % of design process rate              100.6    40.1    100

             production rate, Mg/hr                16.4     6.09     8.4


SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Cascade Impactors

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture — Background Information For Proposed Emission Standards,
      EPA-450/3-79-034a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      December 1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-17

    -------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
      9)
      ti
      •o
      01
      4J
      CO
      jj
      CO

      V
       o
      — H
      01


      01
      «TJ
      —I

      s
      a
      u
         99.99
          99.9
          99


          98



          95
90  l_



80


:o


60


50


.0


10


:o
                                      r
                                                            UNCONTROLLED

                                                           U«igbc perccnc

                                                           Eal.Ml.oa factor (0.2)

                                                                   factor (2.0)
                                                                                  2.0
          1.5
              09
              09
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       3
                                                                                       01
                                                                                       n
                                                                            3Q
                                                                                   1.5
                                                                                  0.0
                              5   •   5  o ~  i > 10        20    30


                                  Particle  diameter, urn
                                                                   -.0  50  oO '0 SO 90 100
! Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter, um
2.5
; 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
51.2
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
(0.2) (2.0)
0.10
0.20
0.20
1.0
2.0 |
2.0 !
B.l-18
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)


NUMBER OF TESTS:  Not available


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn):     2.5      6.0      10.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                    51.2    100       100

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                Min (Cum. %):

                Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.2 to 2.0 kg acid mist/Mg sulfur charged, for
uncontrolled 98% acid plants burning elemental sulfur.  Emission factors are from AP-42
Section 8.10.

SOURCE OPERATION: Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCES:

a.    Final Guideline Document: Control Of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.    R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfuric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.    J. A. Brink, Jr.,  "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-19

    -------
                  8.10  SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
     •o
      01
      ea
      J_l
      CO
        99.99
         99.9
99


98




95




90




ao



70


60


50


>0


30


ZO
      V


      "2  10
       I  '
       3

          2


          I


         0.5




         O.I
         Q.Ol
                                                    UNCONTROLLED

                                                     Weight oercent
                           3   4   5 6 7 8 9 10        10    30   40 50 60 70 SO 90 100



                                 Particle diameter,  urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
1 10.0
Cumulative wt . Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
97.5
100
100
Emission factor, k.g/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 8.10-2


B.l-20
                       EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM


NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available


STATISTICS:     Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m)*:     1.0     1.5       2.0


                 Mean (Cum. %):                      26      50       73

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum.  %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants are a
function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product. See AP-42, Section 8.10, Tables 8.10-2
and 8.10-3.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     Final Guideline Document: Control Of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.     R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfuric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,  Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.     J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
*100% of the paniculate is less than 2.5 /xm in diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-21

    -------
                  8.10  SULFURIC ACID:  ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
        W.M
         M.9
         0.01
                                                  UNCONTROLLED
                                                   Weight  percent
                                 5  6  7  a 9 io        :o

                               Particle diameter,  urn
                                                       30   «O 50 60 70 30 90 LOO
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
100
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 8.10-2 :


B.l-22
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                    8.10  SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM


NUMBER OF TESTS:  Not available


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter (/tin)*:     1.0    1.5       2.0


                Mean (Cum. %):                     41     63        84

                Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                Min(Cum.  %):

                Max (Cum. %);


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants are a
function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product.  See AP-42, Section 8.10, Table 8.10-2.

SOURCE OPERATION: Not available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     Final Guideline Document:  Control Of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
      Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.

b.     R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Standards For Sulfuric
      Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, June 1974.

c.     J. A. Brink, Jr.,  "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Industrial and Engineering
      Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
"100% of the particulate is less than 2.5 um in diameter.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-23

    -------
                  8.10 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
       V
       N
       •O  90
       V
       4J

       «  ,0

       IB
          60
       90
       —  40
          30
          :o
          10
         0.01
                                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                                     Weight percent
                                  5  4  7  8 » 1.0       20

                                Particle  diameter, urn
                             «0  SO 60 70 M 90 100
Aerodynamic
: particle
; diameter , um
! 2.5
' 6.0
: 10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
48
78
87
Emission factor , kg/Mg
Uncontrolled i
Not Available j
Available
Not Available
B.l-24
EMISSION FAC7CJ.S
(Reformatted 1/95) iO/86

    -------
                    8.10 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER


NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available


STATISTICS:    Aerodynamic particle diameter <>m):     2.5     6.0     10.0


                Mean (Cum.  %):                    48     78       87

                Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                Min (Cum. %):

                Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTTCULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emission factors vary widely according
to type of sulfur feedstock. See AP-42 Section 8.10 for guidance.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source is the second absorbing tower in a double absorption sulfuric acid
plant. Acid mist loading is 175 - 350 mg/m3.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack,  "Paniculate Emissions From Non-fired Sources In Petroleum
      Refineries:  A Review Of Existing Data", Publication No. 4363, American Petroleum
      Institute, Washington, DC, December 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-25

    -------
                              8.xx  BORIC ACID DRYER
       99.99
       99.9
        99

        9<
      S
        90
     •o


      CO 80

      CO
        70
     V



      •u 50
      4)
      3 30
      SI
»
      to
      —I 10
      3


      I  »
 1


0.3
        0.1
       0.01
                                            UNCONTROLLED
                                           - Weight percent
                                           - Emission  factor
                                            CONTROLLED
                                           - Weight percent
                                                                       »  » t o.o
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            0.4
                                                                    0.3
                                                                        PI
                                                                        S

                                                                        CO
                                                                        CD
                                                                        1-^
                                                                        o
                                                                        3
                                                                                rr
                                                                                O
             OQ

             2
             OQ
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.1
                          3   4   J  6  7  a 9 10        20    30   40  50 6O 70 SO 9O 10O

                               Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
0.3
3.3
6.9
Fabric filter
3.3
6.7
10.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.01
0.14
0.29
Fabric filter,
controlled
O.OOA :
0.007 :
0.011
B.l-26
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                8.xx  BORIC ACID DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 1, conducted before controls
                     (b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control

STATISTICS: (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter G*m):        2.5     6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                        0.3     3.3     6.9
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jan):        2.5     6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                        3.3     6.7     10.6
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Before control, 4.15 kg particulate/Mg boric acid
dried.  After fabric filter control, 0.11 kg particulate/Mg boric acid dried. Emission factors from
Reference a.
SOURCE OPERATION:  100% of design process rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a) Joy train with cyclones
                         (b) SASS train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
REFERENCES:
a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
       South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
       VA, February 1979.
b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information System, Series Report No. 236, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    *>  Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-27

    -------
                   8.xx  POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
    9)
    N
      99.99
       99.9
99

98



95



90
    8)  80
    93
    u
    as

    V
     o
    ^H
    
    -------
                     8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 7, before control
                      (b) 1, after cyclone and high pressure drop venturi scrubber control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter Qj.m):   2.5       6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                   0.95      2.46     4.07
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):        0.68      2.37     4.34
                 Min (Cum. %):                    0.22      0.65     1.20
                 Max  (Cum. %):                    2.20      7.50    13.50

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm):   2.5       6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                   5.0       7.5      9.0
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max  (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Uncontrolled emissions of 33 kg particulate/Mg of
potassium chloride product from dryer, from AP-42.  It is assumed that paniculate emissions from
rotary gas-fired dryers for potassium chloride are similar to paniculate emissions from rotary steam
tube dryers for sodium carbonate.
SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium chloride is dried in a rotary gas-fired dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Andersen Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
REFERENCES:
a.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona,  CA, EMB-79-POT-4, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
b.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona,  CA, EMB-79-POT-5, U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-29

    -------
                    8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER
   N
     99.9
99


98




»S




90




SO
   VJ  70
   0)
      SO
   bO
   •H  30
   01

   3  20
   "  10



   8   3

   3

       2

       I
      0.1
     0.01
                                               CONTROLLED

                                           •   Weight percent

                                         — ——Emission factor
                                                                          3.020
            m
            a

            OB
            a

            o"
            9
                                                                          0.0,5  •
                                                                         OQ

                                                                         2
                                                                         era

                                                                    o.oio
                                                                          0.005
                            4   J  *  7  I 9 10        20

                              Particle  diameter, urn
                                                        M
                                                            4O  50  40 70 *O 90 100
I Aerodynamic
i particle
, diameter (urn)
i
i
; 6.0
i 10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Controlled with fabric filter
18.0
32.0
43.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg .
Controlled with fabric
filter :
0.006
0.011
0.014
B.l-30
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                     8.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after fabric filter


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on):     2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                    18.0    32.0     43.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           7.5    11.5     14.0

             Min (Cum.  %):                      10.5    21.0     29.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      24.5    44.0     14.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: After fabric filter control, 0.033 kg of paniculate
per Mg of potassium sulfate product from the dryer. Calculated from an uncontrolled emission factor
of 33 kg/Mg and control efficiency of 99.9%.  From Reference a and AP-42, Section 8.12.  It is
assumed that paiticulate emissions from rotary gas-fired dryers are similar to those from rotary steam
tube dryers.

SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium sulfate is dried in a rotary gas-fired dryer.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-4, Office Of Air Quality
      Planning And Standards,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, April  1979.

b.     Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-5, Office Of Air Quality
      Planning And Standards,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
      NC, April  1979.
10/86 (Refonnaited 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-31

    -------
                    9.7  COTTON GINNING:  BATTERY CONDENSER
      99.99
      99.*
   99

   M

   95

M
•3  *>

4)  SO
a
£  70
\x  to
    00
    so

    40

    30

    20


    10
     3

    I
    2

    1

    0.5



    0.1




   0.01
         CYCLONE
    • • Weight percent
  	 Emission factor
CYCLONE  AND WET SCRUBBER
  —•— Weight percent
  • • • Emission factor
                                t   i  i  i i  t
                                                                          O.IOO
                                                                              GO
                                                                              CD
                                                                              O
                                                                              3
                                                                              a>
                                                                              o
                                                                         0.030
                                                                              OQ
                                                                              
    -------
                    9.7  COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a)  2, after cyclone
                      (b)  3, after wet scrubber


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter frim):   2.5     6.0    10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                   8      33      62

                 Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jari)

                 Mean (Cum. %.):                  11      26      52

                 Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum. % ):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  Paniculate emission factor for battery condensers
with typical controls is 0.09 kg (0.19 lb)/bale of cotton. Factor is from AP-42, Section 9.7.  Factor
with wet scrubber after cyclone is 0.012 kg (0.026 lb)/bale. Scrubber efficiency is 86%. From
Reference b.

SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, source was operating at 100% of design capacity.  No other
information on source is  available.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: UW Mark 3 Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No. 27, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research  Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

b.     Robert E. Lee, Jr., et d., "Concentration And Size Of Trace Metal Emissions From A Power
      Plant, A Steel Plant, And  A Cotton Gin", Environmental Science And Technology, P(7)643-7,
      July 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-33

    -------
                9.7  COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST
        99

        91
    V
    N
    •««   »0
    a
    .u
    01
    60
    «*
    Si
    3
    8
80


70

M

SO

40

30

20



10



 5



 2

 I

0.5



0.1
       0.01
                                       % i  i  i
                                                        CTCLONK
                                                       •— Height  percent
                                                       — - EaiMloa factor
                                                       CTCLOME AND UET
                                                       •  Height  percent
                                             0.3
                                                                                    05
                                                                                    CO
                                                 o
                                                 3
                                                                                    0>
                                                                                0.2  n
                                                 OQ
                                                 cr
                                                 i—
                                                 
    -------
                 9.7  COTTON GINNING:  LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 4, after cyclone
                     (b) 4, after cyclone and wet scrubber

STATISTICS: (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter 0*m):         2.5     6.0    10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                         1     20     54
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

             (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):         2.5     6.0    10.0
                 Mean (Cum.  %):                        11     74     92
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.37 kg particulate/bale of cotton processed, with
typical controls.  Factor is from AP-42, Section 9.7.
SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted while processing both machine-picked and ground-
harvested upland cotton, at a production rate of about 6.8 bales/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Coulter counter
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
      S. E. Hughs, et al., "Collecting Particles From Gin Lint Cleaner Air Exhausts", presented at
      the 1981 Winter Meeting of the American Society Of Agricultural  Engineers, Chicago, IL,
      December 1981.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-35

    -------
        9*.** I
       N
       •*
       CD
         n

         »3
1^
5    I
  70
N/
  60



SO M)

§30

5 20
      J5 10
       3

      I »
         2

         1

        0.3
        0.01
                 9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
                   GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
                                            L
                                                UNCONTROLLED
                                                 Weight percent
                                                 Emission factor
                                                                      i.s
                                                                      i.o
                                                                          31
                                                                          0]
                                                                          09
                                                                          n
                                                                          XT
                                                                         OQ


                                                                         OQ
                                                                      0.5
                                                                       0.0
                               5  *  7  8 » 10        20    3O

                             Particle  diameter, urn
                                                         4O SO
                                                                70 W  IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10. C
Cumulative wgt. Z 
    -------
                  9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
                    GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (fan):     2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     13.8   30.5   49.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           3.3    2.5   —

             Min (Cum. %):                      10.5   28.0   49.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      17.0   33.0   49.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.3 kg particulate/Mg of grain unloaded, without
control.  Emission factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.1.

SOURCE OPERATION: During testing, the facility was continuously receiving wheat of low
dockage.  The elevator is equipped with a dust collection system that serves the dump pit boot and
leg.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Nelson Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No.  154, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.

b.     Emission Test Report, Uniontown Co-op, Elevator No. 2, Uniontown, WA, Report No. 75-34,
      Washington State Department Of Ecology, Olympia, WA, October 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-37

    -------
            9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CONVEYING
      9»
      H
     •o
      01
      u
      — Weight percent
                                           — Emission factor
                                                                         - 0.3
                                                                           0.4
            CD
            CD
                                                                               09
                                                                               o
                                                                  o.:  jc
                                                                               IX
                                                                  O.I
                                 5 6 7 8 9 10        20


                                Particle diameter,  un
                                                             40  50  4O 70 80 90 1UC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
16.8
41.3
69.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.08
0.21
0.35
B.l-38
                       EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
            9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING

NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):      2.5    6.0   10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                     16.8   41.3   69.4

              Standard deviation (Cum. %):            6.9   16.3   27.3

              Min(Cum. %):                       9.9   25.0   42.1

              Max (Cum. %):                      23.7   57.7   96.6


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR: 0.5 kg particulate/Mg of grain processed, without
control. Emission factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.1.

SOURCE OPERATION: Grain is unloaded from barges by "marine leg" buckets lifting the grain
from the barges and discharging it onto an enclosed belt conveyer, which transfers the grain to the
elevator. These tests measured the combined emissions from the "marine leg" bucket unloader and
the conveyer transfer points. Emission rates averaged  1956 Ib particulate/hour (0.67 kg/Mg gram
unloaded). Grains are corn and soy beans.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Model B Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corporation, Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-GRN-7, U. S.
      Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1974.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-39

    -------
         9.9.1 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  RICE DRYER
99.99


99.9





99

9t

o n
•H
CO
•0 90
V
<0 90
00
70
K 60
- 30
J? 40
 20

<0
"2 10
S
3
a s

2

1
0.3

0.1



/
/
/
" /
*
/
1
t
1
1
1 «•
• *
/
•
>
(
f
'
,'
~ * .^
— '
»
/
I
I
1
"~ ' f
' v'
/ j*
1 /
t ^/
~ / ^s*
!^s^ •«
^
• ** 9
i
j
UNCONTROLLED
— •— Weight percent
	 Emission factor
• i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i











0.015



PJ
S
CD
09
o
o.oio CD
n
0
J1

._•
OQ
*^i»
2





0.005







o.oo
I 2 3 4 5 * 7 « y 10 20 30 40 30 6O 70 80 90 100
                            Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < Stated Size
Uncontrolled
2.0
8.0
19.5
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
0.003
0.01 \
0.029
B.l-40
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                            (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
            9.9.1  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  RICE DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted on uncontrolled source.


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (pm):    2.5      6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      2.0      8.0     19.5

             Standard Deviation (Cum. %):          —      3.3      9.4

             Min(Cum.  %):                       2.0      3.1     10.1

             Max (Cum.  %):                       2.0      9.7     28.9


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.15 kg particulate/Mg of rice dried. Factor from
AP-42, Section 9.9.1.  Table 9.9.1-1, footnote b for column dryer.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source operated at 100% of rated capacity, drying 90.8 Mg rice/hr. The
dryer is heated by 4 9.5-kg/hr burners.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  SASS train with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCES:

a.      H. J. Taback, Fine Panicle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
       South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
       VA, February 1979.

b.      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
       Information System, Series Report No. 228, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-41

    -------
          9.9.2  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER



         99.99
         99.9
          99
        s »
        •e *>
        ai
        u

        a so
        u
        a


        v 70


        »4 «0
          JO
        a
        •H 10


        B


        O 3
           i


          0.5
         0.01
                                                    UNCONTROLLED

                                                     Weight  percent

                                                     Emission factor
                                                                         0.75
                                              05

                                              09
                                              O

                                              3
                                                                         0.50 0)
                                                                             n
                                                                             IT

                                                                             o
                                                                            OQ




                                                                            OQ
                                                                         0.25
                                                                         0.0
                                 S67I910       20    30


                                Particle diameter,  um
                             4O 50  60 70 M 90 LOO
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
27
37
44
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.20
0.28
0.33
B.l-42
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
          9.9.2 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CEREAL DRYER

NUMBER OF TESTS: 6, conducted before controls

STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):     2.5    6.0     10.0

             Mean (Cum. %):                    27     37      44
             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):          17     18      20
             Min (Cum. %):                     13     20      22
             Max (Cum. %):                     47     56      58

TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.75 kg particulate/Mg cereal dried. Factor taken
from AP-42, Section 9.9.2.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Confidential
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark HI Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
      Confidential test data from a major grain processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO,
      January  1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                              B.l-43

    -------
         9.9.4 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
       M
     v n
     N
    T5
     V
     4H*
     <8

     0)

     V
   30

   70
   40

.j  ;Q

"ac  io

•>  30
    CJ
                                                  UNCONTROLLZD
                                                  Weight  percent
                                                  Emission factor
                            1	t  I  i I  t
                                                                      0-4
                                                                         39
                                                                         r.
                                                                         73
                                                                      O.I
                                                                      0.0
                               :  a  ' s ? :o        ;a

                             Particle diameter, ura
                                                           :0  iC TO 3C
! Aerodynamic
i Particle
: diameter, urn
; 2-5
; 6.0
10.0
Cum. we. 2 < stated size
Uncontrolled
70.6
82.7
90.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
3.5
4.1
4.5
B.l-44
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
          9.9.4 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE


NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):     2.5    6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                    70.6   82.7   90.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %)

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.0 kg particulate/Mg alfalfa pellets before control.
Factor from AP-42, Section 9.9.4.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During this test, source dried 10 tons of alfalfa/hour in a direct-fired rotary
dryer.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 152, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                              B.l-45

    -------
     9.9.xx  FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:  CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
       T3
       V
         9».9
99

9t


95


90


80

70

SO
       "5o  to
       "«  30
       (U  20
       03 10


       I  5
         0.01
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                    Weight  percent
                                                    Emission factor
                                                                        0.75
                                                                            31
                                                                            CO
                                                                        0.50 a>
                                                                            n
                                                                        0.25
                                                                        o.o
                          3  <•   5  i  7  3 9 10        20    ]Q   4O  50 60 70 SO 90 IOC
                               Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
: particle
: diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < stated size
Uncontrolled
3.0
3.2
9.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg ;
Uncontrolled •
0.11 :
0.12 :
0.36
B.l-46
                      EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
     9.9.xx FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER


NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jan):      2.5     6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      3.0     3.2    9.6

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.8 kg/Mg carob kibble roasted. Factor from
Reference a, p. 4-175.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source roasts 300 kg carob pods per hour, 100% of the design rate.
Roaster heat input is 795 kJ/hr of natural gas.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Joy train with 3 cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCES:

a.     H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary And Miscellaneous Sources In The
      South Coast Air Basin,  PB  293 923/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
      VA, February 1979.

b.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System Series, Report No. 229, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle  Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-47

    -------
              10.5 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
                     BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
       99.99
       99.9
        99


        9t
     V
     N  91
     •O
     4)
        *>
      «  SO

      CO
     X M


     - 50

     00
     •<* *0
     0)

     3 30

     01
     > 20
 10



 5



 2


 I


 0.5




 0.1






0.01
                                     CYCLONE CONTROLLED
                                     —•- Weight percent
                                     	 Emission factor
                                       FABRIC FILTER
                                     -•- Weight percent
                                                            _i___l__l_l__l_J 0.0
                                                               3.0
                                                                  rn
                                                                  3
                                                                          O
                                                                          S
                                                               -> Q 01
                                                                  n
                                                                  rr
                                                                  O
                                                                  1
                                                                       1.0
                         }   *  5 * 7 * 9 10       20    30   40  50  60 70 80 90 100

                              Particle diameter, urn
: Aerodynamic
' particle
: diameter, urn
' 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Cyclone
29.5
42.7
52.9
After cyclone
and fabric filter
14.3
17.3
32.1
Emission factor, k.g/hour:
of cyclone operation
Af t er ;
cyclone collector
0.68 ;
0.98
1.22
B.M8
                        EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
               10.5  WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
                       BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a)  1, conducted after cyclone control
                     (b)  1, after cyclone and fabric filter control


STATISTICS:  (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):        2.5    6.0   10.0

                  Mean (Cum. %):                        29.5   42.7   52.9

                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                  Min (Cum. %):

                  Max (Cum. %):


              (b)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/mi):        2.5    6.0   10.0

                  Mean (Cum. %.):                        14.3   17.3   32.1

                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                  Min (Cum. %):

                  Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  2.3 kg particulate/hr of cyclone operation. For
cyclone-controlled source, this emission factor applies to typical large diameter cyclones into which
wood waste is fed directly, not to cyclones that handle waste previously collected in cyclones.  If
baghouses are used for waste collection, paniculate emissions will be negligible. Accordingly, no
emission factor is provided for the fabric filter-controlled source. Factors from AP-42.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source was sanding 2-ply panels of mahogany veneer, at 100% of design
process rate of 1110 m2/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a)  Joy train with 3 cyclones
                         (b)  SASS train with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 238, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-49

    -------
                       11.10  COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
     
    -------
                        11.10  COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS


NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, conducted after fabric filter control
     •

STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm):     2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     16     26      31

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.01 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed.
Emission factor is calculated from data in AP-42, Section 11.10, assuming 99% paniculate control by
fabric filter.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source cleans coal with the dry (air table) process. Average coal feed rate
during testing was 70 tons/hr/table.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Coulter counter

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      R. W. Kling, Emissions From The Florence Mining Company Coal Processing Plant At
      Seward, PA, Report No. 72-CI-4, York Research Corporation, Stamford, CT, February 1972.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-51

    -------
                     11.10 COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER
        9».W
         W.9
    99

    98



s   «
-H
CO

T,   *
V
.u
CO   80

CO
    70

»<   *0



t  '°

0)
3   30
          3
         0.5
         3.1
         0.01
                                              UNCONTROLLED
                                              - Weight percent
                                              - Emission factor
                                              CONTROLLED
                                              - Weight percent
                                                                           5.0
                                                                              09
                                                                              09
                                                                              o
                                                                              3
                                                                           3.0 0)

                                                                              rr
                                                                              O
                                                                              7?
                                                                             OQ


                                                                             aq
                                                                           1.0
                           }   4   5  4  7  8 9 10       20    30   4O SO  6O 70 80 9O 100

                                 Particle  diameter,  um
Aerodynamic
: particle
: diameter, um
I 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
42
86
96
After
wet scrubber
53
85
91
Emission factor, k.g/Mg :
Uncontrolled
1.47
3.01
3.36
After ;
wet scrubber ;
0.016 !
0.026
0.027
B.l-52
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                       11.10  COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 1, conducted before control
                      (b) 1, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm):        2.5    6.0   10.0

                 Mean (Cum.  %):                        42     86     96

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max  (Cum. %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diamter (jari):         2.5    6.0   10.0

                 Mean (Cum.  %):                        53     85     91

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max  (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.5 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed (after
cyclone) before wet scrubber control. After wet scrubber control, 0.03 kg/Mg. These are site-
specific emission factors and are calculated from process data measured during source testing.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source operates a thermal dryer to dry coal cleaned by wet cleaning
process. Combustion zone in the thermal dryer is about 1000°F, and the air temperature at the dryer
exit is about 125 °F.  Coal processing rate is about 450 tons per hour.  Product is collected in
cyclones.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a)  Coulter counter
                         (b)  Each sample was dispersed with aerosol OT, and further dispersed
                              using an ultrasonic bath.  Isoton was the electrolyte used.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      R. W. Kling,  Emission Test Report, Island Creek Coal Company Coal Processing Plant,
      Vansant, Virgina, Report No. Y-7730-H, York Research Corporation, Stamford, CT,
      February 1972.
10/86 (Refomatted 1/95)                    Appendix B. 1                                 B. 1-53

    -------
                11.10 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
        99.9
        99


        98
      s
     •O *>
      0)
      u
      * 80

      0)

     v 70

     »•? 60



      00
      •H ^0
      
    -------
                  11.10 COAL PROCESSING:  THERMAL INCINERATOR

NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 2, conducted before controls
                     (b) 2, conducted after multicyclone control

STATISTICS:   (a)   Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):        2.5    6.0    10.0
                   Mean (Cum. %):                         9.6   17.5    26.5
                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                   Min (Cum.  %):
                   Max (Cum. %):

               (b)   Aerodynamic particle diamter (/zm):         2.5    6.0    10.0
                   Mean (Cum. %):                        26.4   35.8    46.6
                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                   Min (Cum.  %):
                   Max (Cum. %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.7 kg particulate/Mg coal dried, before
multicyclone control. Factor from AP-42, Section 11.10.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a thermal incinerator controlling gaseous emissions from a rotary
kiln drying coal. No additional operating data are available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Mark HI Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
      Confidential test data from a major coal processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January
      1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-55

    -------
        11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):  COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN
        99.99
         99.9
          99

          98
       0  95
       N
          90
       41
       V

       »•*
   30
jj  50

"3> i0
^**

g  30

y  ;o
       8
          l

          l.i
                                      X
                                             WET SCRUBBER  and
                                            SETTLING CHAMBER
                                           -•— Weight percent
                                           	 Emission  factor
                                              WET SCRUBBER
                                           -*- Weight percent
                                                                         2.0
                                                                           3)
                                                                           00
                                                                           03
                                                                           n
                                                                           3Q
                                                                         1.0
                           3   4  5 S 7 8 9 10       10

                                Particle diameter,  urn
                                                                         0.0
                                                           iO 50  dO TO 30 30 100
: Aerodynamic
\ particle
\ diameter (um)
! 2-5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
Wet scrubber
and settling chamber
55
65
81
Wet
scrubber
55
75
84
Emission factor (kg/Mg)
Wet scrubber •.
and settling chamber
0.97 '
1-15
1.43
B.l-56
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
         11.20  LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):  COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN

NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 4, conducted after wet scrubber control
                     (b) 8, conducted after settling chamber and wet scrubber control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (/im):       2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                       55    75      84
                 Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum.  %):
                 Max (Cum.  %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (/im):       2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                       55    65      81
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum.  %):
                 Max (Cum.  %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.77 kg particulate/Mg of clay processed, after
control by settling chamber and  wet scrubber. Calculated from data in Reference c.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in pulverized coal-fired rotary
kilns. Kiln capacity for Source  b is 750 tons/day, and operation is continuous.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
      EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May
       1981.
b.     Emission test  data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 341, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Research Triangle  Park,  NC, June 1983.
c.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate
      Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC, May 1981.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B. 1                                B. 1-57

    -------
                 11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY):  DRYER
       99.99
        99.9
99


M



M



90
      T3
      V
        70
      3
        20
      « 10
      u
         2


         I


        O.J




        0.1






        0.01
                   UNCONTROLLED
                    Weighc  percent
                    Emission factor
 i  111
                                                                        40
                                           pa
                                           3
                                           H*
                                           0)
                                           00
                                           h*
                                           O
                                           3
                                                                          09
                                                                          n
                                                                          PT
                                                                          O
                                                                          2
                                                                          OQ
                                                                        20
                               5 * 7 » » 10        20

                              Particle diameter,  urn
                                                      30   40  50 60 70 W 90 IX
i Aerodynamic
i particle
diameter, urn
1 2.5
\ 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
37.2
74.8
89.5
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
13.0
26.2
31.3
B.l-58
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                       (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                  11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted before controls


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on):      2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                    37.2   74.8    89.5

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           3.4    5.6     3.6

             Min (Cum. %):                      32.3   68.9    85.5

             Max (Cum. %):                      41.0   80.8    92.7


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR:  65 kg/Mg clay feed to dryer. From
Section 11.20.

SOURCE OPERATION:  No information on source operation is available

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data  from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 88, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
      Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-59

    -------
11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
      99.99
       99.9
       99

       98


       93


       90
N

CO

•o
V
09  10

CO

V
        70
     •u  50

     J?  *°
     cu
     3  30

     §  :o
     -H  10
     3
     S

     5  5
       0.5
                                     MULTICLONE CONTROLLED
                                      —•- Weight percent
                                      	 Emission factor
                                          FABRIC FILTER
                                      —•— Weight percent
                                                                0.15
                                                                         0>
                                                                         s>
                                                                        o
                                                                        a
                                                                     0. ;o
                                                                   n
                                                                   rr
                                                                   O
                                                                   30

                                                                   DQ
                                                                     0,05
                                                                      0-0
                               5  *  r s 9 io        :o
                             Particle diameter, um
                                                     30  »0 iO  60 70 SO 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Multi clone
19.3
38.1
56.7
Fabric filter
39
48
54
Emission factor, kg/Mg j
i
Multi clone !
!
0.03 i
0.06 |
0.09 ;
B.l-60
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 11.20  LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  12, conducted after Multicyclone control
                     (b)   4, conducted after Multicyclone and fabric filter control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):      .                 19.3   38.1     56.7

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):             7.9   14.9     17.9

                 Min (Cum. %):                         9.3   18.6     29.2

                 Max (Cum.  %):                        34.6   61.4     76.6


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):       2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       39    48       54

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum. %):

                 Max (Cum.  %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.157 kg particulate/Mg clay processed, after
multicyclone control. Factor calculated from data in Reference b. After fabric filter control,
paniculate emissions are negligible.

SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in a coal-fired rotary kiln and
reciprocating grate clinker cooler.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a)  Andersen Impactor
                          (b)  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCES:

a.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
      EMB-80-LWA-3, in U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      May 1981.

b.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Lightweight Aggregate
      Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
      Park, NC, May 1981.

c.     Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report  No. 342, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June  1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-61

    -------
      99.99
      99.9
       99


       99



       91



       90
N
i-l
(0

•a
v

B  «0

a
   70
V

^  M
       JO
     8
     3
       10
       0.5
       O.I
      0.01
                  11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
                   RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
                                             CONTROLLED
                                             Weight percent
                                             Emission factor
                                                                     o.os
                                                                     0.03
                                                                         09
                                                                         03
                                                                         3
                                                                         3
                                                                         O
                                                                         >t
                                                                         05


                                                                         3Q
                                                                     0.01
                                                                 0.0

                   3   4  5 * 7 I » 10       20    30  4O iO  M 70 SO 90 100

                        Particle diameter,  urn
\ Aerodynami c
; particle
\ diameter, um
2.5
' 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Settling chamber control
8.2
17.6
25.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Settling chamber control
0.007
0.014 ;
0.020
B.l-62
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                     11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE):
                      RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS:  4, conducted after settling chamber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):      2.5    6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                       8.2   17.6    25.6

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):            4.3    2.8     1.7

             Min (Cum. %):                        4.0   15.0    24.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      14.0   21.0    28.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.08 kg particulate/Mg of aggregate produced.
Factor calculated from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates 2 kilns to produce lightweight shale aggregate, which is
cooled and classified on a reciprocating grate clinker cooler. Normal production rate of the tested
kiln is 23 tons/hr, about 66% of rated capacity. Kiln rotates at 2.8 rpm. Feed end temperature is
1100°F.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Vulcan Materials  Company,
      EMB-80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      March 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-63

    -------
       11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN
       99.99
       99.9
        99


        M
      S
      0) 10
      jj
      3)
        70
      V

      K 40


      ij JO


      §«
      
    -------
        11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL-FIRED ROTARY KILN

NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  3, conducted before control
                     CD)  5, conducted after wet scrubber control

STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):       2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                       13.0   29.0     42.0
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):

              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):  '     2.5    6.0     10.0
                 Mean (Cum. %):                       33.0   36.0     39.0
                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):
                 Min (Cum. %):
                 Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  For uncontrolled source, 56.0 kg particulate/Mg of
feed.  After wet scrubber control,  1.8 kg particulate/Mg of feed. Factors are calculated from data in
reference.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Source produces lightweight aggregate from slate in coal-fired rotary kiln
and reciprocating grate clinker cooler.  During testing source was operating at a feed rate of
33 tons/hr, 83% rated capacity. Firing zone temperatures are about 2125°F and kiln rotates at
3.25 rpm.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a)  Bacho
                         (b)  Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
REFERENCE:
      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-6,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-65

    -------
                    11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
                     RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
       »».»»
      s «
•X5
<  *°

44  30
      0)
      ?  JO


      S  20
     5 10
      3
         2


         1


         0.3




         0.1






        0.01
                                             CONTROLLED
                                             Weight  percent
                                             Emission  factor

                                                                      0.2
                                                                         73
                                                                         CD
                                                                         0
                                                                         3
                                                                         S)
                                                                         ,1
                                                                      0.1
                                                                 0.0
                            4  3 * 7  t » 10       20


                             Particle diameter, um
                                                     JO   40 SO »0 70 »0 *0 100
i Aerodynamic
particle
I diameter, um
; 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After settling chamber control
9.8
23.6
41.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg \
After
settling chamber control :
0.02
0.05
0.09 !
B.l-66
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                     11.20 LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE):
                      RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS:  5, conducted after settling chamber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):  2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                  9.8     23.6   41.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.22 kg particulate/Mg of raw material feed.
Factor calculated from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces lightweight slate aggregate in a coal-fired kiln and a
reciprocating grate clinker cooler. During testing, source was operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr,
83% of rated capacity.  Firing zone temperatures are about 2125°F, and kiln rotates at 3.25 rpm.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-6,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-67

    -------
       o>
       CO
  99.99


   99.9



    99
    98

    95

    90
5   80
«C
4J   70
to
v   60
*«   50

X   *°
4?   30
01
&   20
V
5   10

    5
       3
           2

           I
          0.5
         0.01
                   11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  CALCINER
                                             CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER
                                              	  Weight percent
                                              	  Emission factor
                                                                         0.075
                                                                             o>
                                                                             00
                                                                             o
                                                                             3
                                                                         0.050
                                                                             OQ
                                                                         0.025
                           3   4  5 6 7 8 9 10       20    30  40 50  60 70 80 90 10O
                                Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter , um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
94.0
97.0
98.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
0.064
0.066
0.067
aCyclones  are typically used in phosphate  rock processing as product collectors
 Uncontrolled emissions are emissions  in the  air exhausted from  such cyclones.
B.l-68
                        EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                   11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: CALCINER


NUMBER OF TESTS:  6, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/im):      2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     94.0    97.0    98.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):            2.5     1.6     1.5

             Min (Cum. %):                      89.0    95.0    96.0

             Max (Cum. %):                      98.0    99.2    99.7


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0685 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate rock
calcined, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone, and wet scrubber controls. Factor from
reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source is a phosphate rock calciner fired with No. 2 oil, with a rated
capacity of 70 tons/hr. Feed to the calciner is beneficiated  rock.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID, EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                               B.I-69

    -------
                      11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
             OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS
     0)
     N
      99.99
       99.9
    99


    91



    95



    90
TJ
«  30


u  70
09

xx  »0
»<  50



"So
•M  30
41
»  20

0)

v4
JJ  10
a



I   5

    2

    1

   o.s




   0.1
       0.01
                                             WET SCRUBBER AND  ESP
                                              -*— Weight percent

                                              — Emission  factor
                                                                       0.015
                                                                           09
                                                                           09
                                                                           O
                                                                           3
                                                                       3.010 09
                                                                           n
                                                                           OQ


                                                                           OQ
                                                                       .005
                               567S9IO       20    10  4O5O6070M90100


                             Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
78.0
88.8
93.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
0.010
0.011
0.012
B.l-70
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                        11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
              OIL-FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED-BED TANDEM DRYERS
NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted after wet scrubber and electrostatic precipitator control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/un):     2.5    6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                     78.0   88.8     93.8

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):          22.6    9.6      2.5

             Min (Cum. %):                      62     82       92

             Max (Cum. %):                      94     95       95


TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.0125 kg particulate/Mg phosphate rock
processed, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone and wet scrubber/ESP controls. Factor
from reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source operates a rotary and a fluidized bed dryer to dry various types of
phosphate rock. Both dryers are fired with No. 5 fuel oil, and exhaust into a common duct.  The
rated capacity of the rotary dryer is 300 tons/hr, and that of the fluidized bed dryer is
150-200 tons/hr. During testing, source was operating at 67.7% of rated capacity.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, W. R. Grace Chemical Company, Bartow, FL, EMB-75-PRP-1,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-71

    -------
            11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER
         99.99
         99.9
          99
      4>
      N
          90
      •O
      01   ao
 OJ
 JJ
 oa

v

x

jj
JT
 00
      V
      3
      a
70


60


SO


40


30


20




10
 2


 1


 0.5




 0.1






3.01
                                            croon
                                           -•—««ifht percent
                                           ---EaiMloa factor
                                            croon AMD MET scmazi
                                           •*— Height percent
                                           	 E»l»«ion factor
                                                                            1.3
                                                                       rn
                                                                       a
                                                                       *••
                                                                       05
                                                                       CD
                                                                       ^»
                                                                       o
                                                                       3
                                                                                01
                                                                                n
                                                                                rr
                                                                                O
                                                                      OQ

                                                                       2
                                                                      OQ
                                                                           0.5
                                                                           0.02
                                   5 6  7  a 9 10        20

                                 Particle diameter, um
                                                 30   40  JO 60 70 10 90 100
'Aerodynamic
! particle
1 diameter, (um)
I 2.5
; 6.0
i 10.0
Cumulative wt. 7. < seated size
After
cyclone3
15.7
41.3
58.3
After
wet scrubber
89
92.3
96.6
Emission factor , kg/Mg ;
After
cyclone3
0.38
1.00
1.41
After i
wet scrubber i
0.017 :
\
0.018 i
0.018 '
aCyclones  are typically used in phosphate  rock processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in  the air exhausted from  such cyclones.
  B.l-72
                          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
           11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL-FIRED ROTARY DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a)  3, conducted after cyclone
                     (b)  2, conducted after wet scrubber control


STATISTICS:   (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (>m):        2.5    6.0    10.0

                   Mean  (Cum.  %):                        15.7   41.3    58.3

                   Standard deviation (Cum. %):             5.5    9.6    13.9

                   Min (Cum. %):                         12     30      43

                   Max (Cum. %):                         22     48      70


               (b)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on):        2.5    6.0    10.0

                   Mean  (Cum.  %):                        89.0   92.3    96.6

                   Standard Deviation (Cum. %):             7.1    6.0     3.7

                   Min (Cum. %):                         84     88      94

                   Max (Cum. %):                         94     96      99
Impactor cut points for the tests conducted before control are small, and many of the data points are
extrapolated. These particle size distributions are related to specific equipment and source operation,
and are most applicable to paniculate emissions from similar sources operating similar equipment.
Table 11.21-2, Section 11.21, AP-42 presents particle size distributions for generic phosphate rock
dryers.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS: After cyclone, 2.419 kg particulate/Mg rock
processed.  After wet scrubber control, 0.019 kg/Mg.  Factors from reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source dries phosphate rock in #6 oil-fired rotary dryer. During these tests,
source operated at 69%  of rated dryer capacity of 350 tons/day, and processed coarse pebble rock.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Brinks Cascade Impactor
                         (b)  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Mobil Chemical, Nichols, FL, EMB-75-PRP-3, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January  1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-73

    -------
                  11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: BALL MILL
          99. »
           99

           98


           95
       N
       •H  90
       CO
 J   80


 5   70
 at

V   »

*<   50
       -7  30
       01
       3  :o
       4J  10
       v
           i

          3.5
          1.01
                                                       CYCLONE
                                                  •   Weight percent
                                                 ——•Emission factor
                                                                          0.4
                                                                             a
                                                                             CD
                                                                             o
                                                                             a
                                                                             m
                                                                             n
                                                                      OQ

                                                                      2
                                                                         0.2
                                  5  4  7  8 9 10        20    30

                                Particle diameter, urn
                                                     40  JO 60 70 30 90 10O
: Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
; 2-5
\ 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After cyclone3
6.5
19.0
30.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg :
After cyclone3 i
0.05 ;
0.14 ;
0.22 i
aCyclones are typically used in phosphate rock  processing as product  collectors.
 Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in  the  air  exhausted from  such  cyclones.
 B.l-74
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                  11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  BALL MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS:  4, conducted after cyclone


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):      2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                      6.5    19.0     30.8

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):            3.5     0.9      2.6

             Min (Cum. %):                       3      18      28

             Max (Cum. %):                      11     20      33


Impactor cutpoints were small, and most data points were extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.73 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate rock milled,
after collection of airborne product in cyclone. Factor from reference cited below.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source mills  western phosphate rock. During testing source was operating
at 101% of rated capacity, producing 80 tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID, EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
10/86 (Reformatted i/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-75

    -------
    11.21  PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING
         99.99
         99.9
          99

          9»

          W
       01
       5  N
       «

       •8  «
       u
       2  70
       o>
       XX  *°
       M  50
          20
ij  10
<0

I'
o
    1
   0.5
          0.1
         0.01
                                   CYCLONE
                                     Weight percent
                                   — Emission factor
                                   CYCLONE AND FABRIC  FILTER
                                     Weight percent
                                                                 1.5
                                                                 1.0
                                                                     a
                                                                     3
                                                                     a
                                                                     o
                                                                     OQ

                                                                     3Q
                                                                        0.5
                              *   5  6  7  8 9 10       20

                               Particle  diameter, urn
                                                10   4O  50 60 70 SO tO 100
i Aerodynamic
\ particle
• diameter, urn
! 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
Cumulative
After
cyclone3
21
45
62
wt. Z < stated size
After fabric filter
25
70
90
Emisslc
After
cyclone3
0.27
0.58
0.79
n factor , kg/Mg
After fabric filter
Negligible
Negligible i
Negligible i
Cyclones are typically used in phosphate  rock processing as product  collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions  in the air exhausted from such  cyclones.
  B.l-76
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
   11.21 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:  ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 2, conducted after cyclone
                     (b)  1, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: (a)  Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):         2.5     6.0    10.0

                  Mean (Cum.  %):                         21.0    45.0    62.0

                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):               1.0     1.0     0

                  Min (Cum. %):                          20.0    44.0    62.0

                  Max (Cum.  %):                          22.0    46.0    62.0


              (b)  Aerodynamic particle diamter 0*m):          2.5     6.0    10.0

                  Mean (Cum.  %):                         25     70      90

                  Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                  Min (Cum. %):

                  Max (Cum.  %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR.  0.73 kg particulate/Mg of rock processed, after
collection of airborne product in a cyclone. After fabric filter control, 0.001 kg particulate/Mg rock
processed. Factors calculated from data in reference cited below. See Table 11.21-3 for guidance.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During testing, source was operating at 100% of design process rate.
Source operates 1 roller mill with a rated capacity of 25 tons/hr of feed, and 1 bowl mill with a rated
capacity of 50 tons/hr of feed.  After product has been collected in cyclones, emissions from each
mill are vented to a coin baghouse. Source operates 6 days/week, and processes Florida rock.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a) Brink Cascade Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, The Royster Company, Mulberry, FL, EMB-75-PRP-2, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                 B.l-77

    -------
                11.26  NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  TALC PEBBLE MILL
        M.W
         99
         98
 N "
•r4
 CO
•o90
 0)
 a so
 4J
 0)
   70
         50
         30
>
•H
4_l
(B
.-t
e
         10
         i
         0.5
        0-0!
                                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                                     Weight  percent
                                                     Emission factor
                                _l_  i  i  111
                                                                         10
                                                                            CD
                                                                            3)
                                                                            o
                                                                            a
                                                                          15 »
                                                                            ("5
                                                                            3Q

                                                                            3Q
                                                                          10
                                 5  j  7  a 9 LO       10
                               Particle  diameter,  um
                                                        30   40  30 60 70 80 9O 100
; Aerodynamic
particle
: diameter, um
1 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Before controls
30.1
42.4
56.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Before controls j
5.9
8.3 !
11.1 ;
B.l-78
                          EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                 11.26  NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter 0*m):      2.5     6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                      30.1    42.4     56.4

              Standard deviation (Cum.  %):            0.8     0.2      0.4

              Min(Cum. %):                       29.5    42.2     56.1

              Max (Cum. %):                       30.6    42.5     56.6
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 19.6 kg particulate/Mg ore processed.  Calculated
from data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source crushes talc ore then grinds crushed ore in a pebble mill.  During
testing, source operation was normal according to the operators.  An addendum to the reference
indicates throughput varied between 2.8 and 4.4 tons/hr during these tests.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Sample was collected in an alundum thimble and analyzed with a
Spectrex Prototron Particle Counter Model ILI 1000.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Pfizer, Inc., Victorville, CA, EMB-77-NMM-5, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-79

    -------
             11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
      99.99
       9».9
       99


       9t
     V 95
     N
       90
     •O
     V
       80
        70

     V
        60
     M

     ^ 50


     "so io
     •n
     V ..
     3 30


     
    -------
                11.xx  NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jj.m):      2.5     6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     11.5    22.8    32.3

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):            6.4     7.4     6.7

             Min (Cum. %):                        7.0    17.5    27.5

             Max (Cum. %):                      16.0    28.0    37.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  12.9 kg particulate/Mg feldspar produced.
Calculated from data in reference and related documents.

SOURCE OPERATION: After crushing and grinding of feldspar ore, source produces feldspar
powder in a ball mill.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Alundum thimble followed by 12-inch section of stainless steel probe
followed by 47-mm type SGA filter contained in a stainless steel Gelman filter holder. Laboratory
analysis methods:  microsieve and electronic particle counter.

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, International Minerals and Chemical Company, Spruce Pine, NC,
      EMB-76-NMM-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
      September 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-81

    -------
    11.xx  NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
       99.99
        99.9
         99


         9f
      «  95
      N
         90
      •O
      0)
   70

V
   so


jj  50
       oc
         »
         :o
      J5 10
         0.5
        0.01
                                                    CONTROLLED

                                                    Weight  percenc

                                                    Emission factor
                                                                       0.4
                                                                    PI
                                                                    3
                                                                          o
                                                                          3
                                                                          a
                                                                          r>
                                                                    30



                                                                    3Q
                                                                       0.2
                                                                        0.0
                             <,   s  6 7  a 9 10       :o

                               Particle diameter, urn
                                                      30  <-0 50  60 70 30 9O 1.00
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
: 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
After fabric filter control
10
30
48
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After fabric filter control
0.04
0.11
0.18
B.l-82
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                          (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
      11.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS:  FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER


NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (pm):  2.5     6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                  10      30    48

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

             Min (Cum. %):

             Max (Cum. %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR: 0.375 kg particulate/Mg ore dried, after fabric
filter control. Factors from reference.

SOURCE OPERATION:  Source dries fluorspar ore in a rotary drum dryer at a feed rate of
2 tons/hr.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Mark HI Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Confidential test data from a major fluorspar ore processor, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden,
      CO, January 1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                               B.l-83

    -------
12.1  PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE
     •o
     v
       99.99
       99.9
99


9>



95



90



80


70


60
     u  50
     S.
     00 40
     1-4

     I  »
     v  :o
     ,3 10
      E
     5  >
        3.1
       0.01
                    CONTROLLED
                    Weight percent
                    Emission factor
                                1_ . r I I
                                                                          0.00075
                                               9
                                               H*>
                                               0)
                                               a
                                               >•*
                                               o
                                               3
                                                                         0.00050
                                              n
                                              rr
                                              O
                                              -I
                                              3Q

                                              au
                                                                         0.00025
                                                                          0.00
                         3   4   5 & 7 8 9 10        20    30

                                Particle diameter, um
                                                           40 50  60 70 8O 90 100
Aerodynamic
i particle
diameter, um
; 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size
Fabric filter controlled
50.0
62.0
58.0
Emission factor, k.g/Mg ;
Fabric filter \
controlled ;
0.00025
0.0003
0.0003
 B.l-84
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                  (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXITE PROCESSING - FINE ORE STORAGE


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, after fabric filter control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter dan):      2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                      50.0   62.0    68.0

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):          15.0   19.0    20.0

             Min (Cum.  %):                       35.0   43.0    48.0

             Max (Cum.  %):                      65.0   81.0    88.0


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  0.0005 kg particulate/Mg of ore filled, with fabric
filter control.  Factor calculated from emission and process data in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina. Bauxite ore, unloaded from ships,
is conveyed to storage bins from which it is fed to the alumina refining process.  These tests
measured the emissions  from the bauxite ore storage bin filling operation (the ore drop from the
conveyer into the bin), after fabric filter control.  Normal bin filling rate is between 425 and 475 tons
per hour.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-80-MET-9,
      U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-85

    -------
          12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXTTE PROCESSING

                           UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
       99.99
        99.9
        99


        98
      V
      14 9S
     TJ *>
      01
     u

      n to
*4  60


ti  so

"ab
•»H  ta
        :o
         2



         1



        0.5






        0.1









        0.01
                                              CONTROLLED

                                              Weight  percent

                                              Emission factor
                                                                    0.0075
                                                                         0.0050
                                                                               CD

                                                                               CD
                                                                               o
                                                                               3
                                                                               rr

                                                                               O
                                                                         0.0025
                                                                    0.00
                          3   i   5  & 7  8 » 10        20


                               Particle diameter, um
                                                 30   iO 50  (.0 70 SO 90 100
: Aerodynamic
; particle
: diameter, um
i 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Wet
scrubber controlled
60.5
67.0
70.0
Emission factor, Icg/Mg i
Wet scrubber
controlled
0.0024
0.0027
0.0028
B.l-86
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
           12.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION:  BAUXITE PROCESSING-
                             UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
NUMBER OF TESTS:  1, after venturi scrubber control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (jan):     2.5     6.0   10.0


             Mean (Cum.  %):                    60.5    67.0   70.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):

             Min(Cum. %):

             Max (Cum.  %):


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.004 kg particulate/Mg bauxite ore unloaded after
scrubber control.  Factor calculated from emission and process data contained in reference.

SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina.  Ship unloading facility normally
operates at 1500-1700 tons/hr, using a self-contained extendable boom conveyor that interfaces with a
dockside conveyor belt through an accordion chute. The emissions originate at the point of transfer
of the bauxite ore from the ship's boom conveyer as the ore drops through the chute onto the
dockside conveyer. Emissions are ducted to a dry cyclone.and men to a Venturi scrubber.  Design
pressure drop across scrubber is 15 inches, and efficiency during test was 98.4%.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company,  Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-80-MET-9,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1980.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-87

    -------
                 12.13  STEEL FOUNDRIES:  CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
99.9
99
98
cu «s
N
•**
co
90
4)
eg M

    -------
                   12.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES:  CASTINGS SHAKEOUT


NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted at castings shakeout exhaust hood before controls


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter G*m):      2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     72.2    76.3    82.0

             Standard deviation (Cum.  %):           5.4    6.9    4.3

             Min (Cum.  %):                       66.7    69.5    77.7

             Max (Cum.  %):                       77.6    83.1    86.3


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  16 kg particulate/Mg metal melted, without
controls.  Although no nonfurnace emission factors are available for steel foundries, emissions are
presumed to be similar to those in iron foundries. Nonfurnace emission factors for iron foundries are
presented in AP-42, Section 12.13.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a steel foundry casting steel pipe. Pipe molds are broken up at
the castings shakeout operation.  No additional information is available.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Model BMS-11 Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 117, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-89

    -------
                12.1? STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST
       99.
        99.9
    99


    98



    95
     V
     N  90
     «  70

     ffl  60
    V
        50


     jj  40

    "Sb  30
0)

-.   10

CO

*3    5
S
         1

        0.5
        0.1
        0.01
 UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
• Emission factor
 CONTROLLED
- Weight Percent
. Emission factor
                                                                          .0
                                                                         7.0
                                                                         6.0
                                                                             en
                                                                             3
                                                                     5.0  «
                                                                        O
                                                                        3
                                                                        09
                                                                        n
                                                                     4.0 IT
                                                                        o
                                                               t  t   i i  i
                                                                         j.o
                                                                         0.5
                                                                             3Q
                                                                             3Q
                                                                         0.3
                                                                         o.i


                                                                         0.0
                                 5  4  7  9 9 10       20    30  40 SO  60 70 80 90 100


                                Particle  diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
'• particle
diameter, urn
2.5
1 6.0
10. 0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
79.6
82.8
85.4
ESP
49.3
58,6
66.8
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
4.4
4.5
4.7
ESP :
0.14 i
0.16 ;
0.18 :
B.l-90
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
                                                             (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                  12.13  STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST


NUMBER OF TESTS:  (a) 1, conducted before control
                     (b) 1, conducted after ESP control


STATISTICS: (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/zm):        2.5      6.0    10.0

                Mean (Cum, %):                       79.6     82.8    85.4

                Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                Min (Cum.  %):

                Max (Cum. %):


             (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (jim):        2.5      6.0    10.0

                Mean (Cum. %):                       49.3     58.6    66.8

                Standard Deviation (Cum. %):

                Min (Cum.  %):

                Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  5.5 kg particulate/Mg metal processed, before
control.  Emission factor from AP-42, Section 12.13. AP-42 gives an ESP control efficiency of 95 to
98.5%. At 95% efficiency, factor after ESP control is 0.275 kg particulate/Mg metal processed.

SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces steel castings by melting, alloying, and casting pig iron
and steel scrap. During these tests, source was operating at 100% of rated capacity of 8260 kg metal
scrap feed/hour, fuel oil-fired, and 8-hour heats.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  (a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
                         (b) SASS train with cyclones

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Particle Emission
      Information System, Series Report No. 233, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-91

    -------
               12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING
         99.9
          99


          98



          »5
•M   90
C
      <8
      u
      CD
     JS
      60
      4)

    so


    70


    60


    30


    40


    30


    20
          10
    2


    1


    0.3




    Q.I







   Q.01
                                                                     2.0
                                                   UNCONTROLLED
                                                  •  Weight perceac
                                                 	Emission factor
                          _I_
                              _1_
                                    *
                                                                           .3
                                                                               CD
                                                                               00
                                                                               O
                                                                               3
            CD
            n
                                                                               7C
                                                                               3Q
            O
             UJ
                                                                               er
                                                                               0
                                                                               rs
                                                                               09
                           3   4   i  6  7  a 9 10       20    JO   40 30 M> 70 SO 90 100


                                Particle diameter,  um
; Aerodynamic
particle
; diameter (um)
; 2.5
i 6.0
10.0
i
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size

Uncontrolled
87.8 '
100
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
1.25
1.42
1.42
B.l-92
                           EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING
NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (juri):      2.5    6.0     10.0
             Mean (Cum. %):                     87.8  100      100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):          10.3    —       —

             Min (Cum.  %):                      75.4  100      100

             Max (Cum.  %):                     100    100      100


Impactor cut points were so small that most data points had to be extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.42 kg particulate/103 batteries produced, without
controls.  Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.

SOURCE OPERATION:  During tests, plant was operated at 39% of design process rate. Six of
nine of the grid casting machines were operating during the test. Typically, 26,500 to 30,000 pounds
of lead per 24-hour day are  charged to the grid casting operation.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Refonnatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.l-93

    -------
     12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING

       99.
     V
     N
     CO


     01
     CO

     V
     a
     ••^
     01
     3

     3
     0
98



95



90



80



70


60


50


40


30


20




10
         i

        0.5
        0.1
        o.ot
                                         UNCONTROLLED
                                          Weight  percent
                                          Emission factor
                                                              !	t  lit
          r«J

          H~
          03
          CD
          h*»
          o
          3
                                                                           OS
                                                                           n
          30


          O
           UJ

          er

          rr
          rr
          fO


          fD
                          3   *•   5 6 7 8 9 10       20    30  40  50  60 70 SO 90 100


                               Particle diameter,  un
; Aerodynamic
: particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
; 6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. Z < stated size

Uncontrolled
65.1
90.4
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
2.20
3.05
3.38
B.l-94
                       EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
     12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (pm):      2.5      6.0     10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     65.1     90.4    100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):          24.8      7.4     —

             Min(Cum. %):                      44.1     81.9    100

             Max (Cum. %):                      100      100     100


TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  3.38 kg particulate/103 batteries, without controls.
Factor is from AP-42, Section 12.15, and is the sum of the individual factors for grid casting and
paste mixing.

SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, plant was operated at 39% of the design process rate.  Grid
casting operation consists of 4 machines.  Each 2,000 Ib/hr paste mixer is controlled for product
recovery by a separate low-energy, impingement-type wet collector designed for an 8 - 10 inch w. g.
pressure drop at 2,000 acftn.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix B.I                                B.l-95

    -------
           12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: LEAD OXIDE MILL
U.TI
99.9

99
98

95
N
-I 90
CO

•o
01 SO
u

    -------
              12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION:  LEAD OXIDE MILL


NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted after fabric filter


STATISTICS:  Aerodynamic particle diameter (/an):      2.5     6.0     10.0


              Mean (Cum. %):                      32.8    64.7     83.8

              Standard deviation (Cum. %):           14.1    29.8     19.5

              Min (Cum. %):                       17.8  . 38.2     61.6

              Max (Cum. %):                       45.9    97.0    100


TOTAL PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTOR: 0.05 kg paniculate/103 batteries, after typical
fabric filter control (oil-to-cloth ratio of 4:1).  Emissions from a well-controlled facility (fabric filters
with an average air-to-cloth ratio of 3:1) were 0.025 kg/103 batteries (Table 12.15-1 of AP-42).

SOURCE OPERATION: Plant receives metallic lead and manufactures lead oxide by the ball mill
process. There are 2 lead oxide production lines, each with a typical feed rate of 15  100-pound lead
pigs per hour.  Product is  collected with a cyclone and baghouses with 4:1 air-to-cloth ratios.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario, EMB-76-BAT-3,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                 B.l-97

    -------
  12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING
         99.9
          99

          98


          95
       4)
       N
      —t   90
      •O
       V
       to
       *J
       m
       oo
80

70

60

50

40

30

:o
       jj  10
       to
       ^H
       1   5
       o
           1
          o.s
          o.t
         0.01
                                         UNCONTROLLED
                                       •  Weight  percent
                                      	 Emission factor
                                         CONTROLLED
                                       • Weight  percent


                                                               2.0  03
                                                                  31
n
rr
•^
                                                                         .0  ,T>
                                  5 * 7 g 9 10       20

                               Particle diameter, urn
                                                        30  40 SO  60 70 80 90 1OO
• Aerodynamic
; particle
diameter (urn)
: 2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative vt. Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
80
100
100
Fabric filter
47
87
99
Emission factor :
(kg/103 batteries) ;
Uncontrolled ,
1.58 I
1.96
1.96
B.l-98
                     EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                (Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
 12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING AND LEAD OXIDE CHARGING


NUMBER OF TESTS: (a) 1, conducted before control
                     (b) 4, conducted after fabric filter control


STATISTICS:  (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter Orni):        2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %):                       80     100      100

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):

                 Min (Cum.  %):

                 Max (Cum.  %):


              (b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (/on):        2.5    6.0     10.0

                 Mean (Cum. %.):                       47     87       99

                 Standard deviation (Cum. %):             33.4   14.5      0.9

                 Min (Cum.  %):                         36     65       98

                 Max (Cum.  %):                        100     100      100
Impactor cut points were so small that many data points had to be extrapolated. Reliability of particle
size distributions based on a single test is questionable.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  1.96 kg. particulate/103 batteries, without controls.
Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.

SOURCE OPERATION: During test, plant was operated at 39% of the design process rate.  Plant
has normal production rate of 2,400 batteries per day and maximum capacity of 4,000 batteries per
day.  Typical amount of lead oxide charged to the mixer is 29,850 lb/8-hour shift.  Plant produces
wet batteries, except formation is carried out at another plant.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: (a) Brink Impactor
                         (b) Andersen Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test,  Globe Union,  Inc., Canby, OR,  EMB-76-BAT-4, U.  S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                                B.I-99

    -------
      12.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE-PROCESS OPERATION
N
—I
0
     tJ
     0>
      to

     V

     *-(
     j:
      BO
      3

      4)
    »5



    90



    SO



    70


    40


    50


    40


    30


    20
•u   10

    -------
         12.15  STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE-PROCESS OPERATION


NUMBER OF TESTS:  3, conducted before control


STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/tin):      2.5    6.0    10.0


             Mean (Cum. %):                     93.4  100    100

             Standard deviation (Cum. %):           6.43

             Min (Cum.  %):                      84.7

             Max (Cum. %):                      100


Impactor cut points were so small that data points had to be extrapolated.

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  42  kg particulate/103 batteries, before controls.
Factor from AP-42, Section 12.15.

SOURCE OPERATION: Plant representative stated that the plant usually operated at 35% of design
capacity.  Typical production rate is 3,500 batteries per day (dry and wet),  but up to 4,500 batteries
per day can be produced. This is equivalent to normal and maximum daily element production of
21,000 and 27,000 battery elements, respectively.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Brink Impactor

EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E

REFERENCE:

      Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario, EMB-76-BAT-3,
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                              B. 1-101

    -------
                                12.xx BATCH TINNER
           »8
        V
        N
•o
0)
4J
tg  to

09
   70
 41
 3 30


 I! 20
            2


            I


           0.5




           C.I







          0.01
                                                UNCONTROLLED
                                                 Weight percent
                                                 Emission factor
                                                                               2.0
                                                                                  rn
                                                                                  3
                                                                                  *-*»
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  CO
                                                                                  H*«
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  a
                                                                                  ca
                                                                                  n
                                                                                  9Q
                                                                               1.0
                                     5  6  7  » * 10        20

                                   Particle diameter, urn
                                                                       0.0
                                                            JO   tO 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
i Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
. 10.0
Cumulative wt . Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
37.2
45.9
55.9
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.93
1.15
1.40
B.1-102
                         EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 10/86

    -------
                                12.xx BATCH TINNER

NUMBER OF TESTS:  2, conducted before controls

STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (/xm):      2.5    6.0    10.0

             Mean (Cum.  %):                     37.2   45.9    55.9
             Standard deviation (Cum. %):
             Min (Cum. %):
             Max (Cum. %):

TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR:  2.5 kg particulate/Mg tin consumed, without
controls.  Factor from AP-42, Section 12.14.
SOURCE OPERATION:  Source is a batch operation applying a lead/tin coating to tubing.  No
further source operating information is available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:  Andersen Mark ffl Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
       Confidential test data, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 (Reformatted 1/95)                   Appendix B.I                              B. 1-103

    -------

    -------
                                 APPENDIX B.2




                   GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix B.2                              B.2-1

    -------
B.2-2                                 EMISSION FACTORS                   (Refomutted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                          CONTENTS




                                                                                        Page




 B.2.1  Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions	 B.2-3




 B.2.2  How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Uncontrolled Processes  . B.2-3




 B.2.3  How to Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Controlled Processes . . . B.2-16




 B.2.4  Example Calculation	B.2-16




        References  	 B.2-18
9/90 (Reformatted i/95)                      Appendix B.2                                   B.2-3

    -------
B 2-4                                  EMISSION FACTORS                    (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                           Appendix B.2

                               Generalized Particle Size Distributions

B.2.1  Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions

        The preparation of size-specific paniculate emission inventories requires size distribution
information for each process.  Particle size distributions for many processes are contained in
appropriate industry sections of this document.  Because particle size information for many processes
of local impact and concern  are unavailable, this appendix provides "generic" particle size
distributions applicable to these processes. The concept of the "generic" particle size distribution is
based on categorizing measured particle size data from similar processes generating emissions from
similar materials.  These generic distributions have been developed from sampled size distributions
from about 200 sources.

        Generic particle size distributions are approximations.  They should be used only in the
absence of source-specific particle size distributions for areawide emission inventories.

B.2.2  How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Uncontrolled Processes

        Figure B.2-1 provides an example calculation to assist the analyst in preparing particle size-
specific emission estimates using generic size distributions.

        The following instructions for the calculation apply to each paniculate emission source for
which  a particle size distribution  is desired and for which no source specific particle size information
is given elsewhere in this document:


        1.      Identify and  review the  AP-42 section dealing with that process.

        2.       Obtain the uncontrolled paniculate emission factor for the process from the main text
               of AP-42, and calculate uncontrolled total paniculate emissions.

        3.      Obtain the category number of the appropriate generic particle size distribution from
               Table B.2-1.

        4.      Obtain the particle size  distribution for the appropriate category from Table B.2-2.
               Apply the particle size distribution to the uncontrolled paniculate emissions.

        Instructions for calculating the  controlled size-specific emissions are given in Table B.2-3 and
illustrated in Figure B.2-1.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)                        Appendix B.2                                     B.2-5

    -------
                 Figure B.2-1. Example calculation for determining uncontrolled
                         and controlled particle size-specific emissions.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address: ABC Brick Manufacturing
                        24 Dusty Wav
                        Anywhere. USA
                      Dryers/Grinders
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
 emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:  3057.6 tons/year
                      8.3. Bricks And Related Clay Products
                      96 Ibs/ton
                       63.700 tons/year
                       (units)
                       (units)
                       (units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:  Mechanically Generated/Aggregated. Unprocessed Ores
Category number:   3
Generic distribution, Cumulative
 percent equal to or less than the size:
Cumulative mass
  (tons/year):
                   particle size emissions
                                                               Particle size

                                                        
    -------
                   Table B.2-1.  PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
AP-42
Section
                     Source Category
Category
Number*
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
                    External combustion
 1.1    Bituminous and subbitumiiious coal
         combustion
 1.2    Anthracite coal combustion
 1.3    Fuel oil combustion
         Residual oil
           Utility
           Commercial
         Distillate oil
           Utility
           Commercial
           Residential
 1.4    Natural gas combustion
 1.5    Liquefied petroleum gas
 1.6    Wood waste combustion in boilers
 1.7    Lignite combustion
 1.8    Bagasse combustion
 1.9    Residential fireplaces
 1.10   Residential wood stoves
 1.11   Waste oil combustion
                    Solid waste disposal
 2.1     Refuse combustion
 2.2     Sewage sludge incineration
 2.7     Conical burners (wood waste)
                Internal combustion engines
        Highway vehicles
 3.2     Off highway vehicles:
                Organic chemical processes
 6.4     Paint and varnish
 6.5     Phthalic anhydride
 6.8     Soap and detergents
                Inorganic chemical processes
 8.2     Urea
 8.3     Ammonium nitrate fertilizers
 8.4     Ammonium  sulfate
         Rotary dryer
         Fluidized bed dryer
 8.5     Phosphate fertilizers

9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                                                   a
                                                   a

                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   b
                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   a

                                                   a
                                                   a
                                                   2

                                                   c
                                                   1

                                                   4
                                                   9
                                                   a

                                                   a
                                                   a

                                                   b
                                                   b
                                                   3
            8.5.3   Ammonium phosphates
                     Reactor/ammoniator-granulator
                     Dryer/cooler
            8.7    Hydrofluoric acid
                     Spar drying
                    •Spar handling
                     Transfer
            8.9    Phosphoric acid (thermal process)
            8.10    Sulfuric acid
            8.12    Sodium carbonate
                            Food and agricultural
            9.3.1   Defoliation and harvesting of cotton
                    Trailer loading
                    Transport
            9.3.2   Harvesting of grain
                    Harvesting machine
                    Truck loading
                    Field transport
            9.5.2   Meat smokehouses
            9.7    Cotton ginning
            9.9.1   Grain elevators and processing plants
            9.9.4   Alfalfa dehydrating
                    Primary cyclone
                    Meal collector cyclone
                    Pellet cooler cyclone
                    Pellet regrind cyclone
            9.9.7   Starch manufacturing
            9.12    Fermentation
            9.13.2  Coffee roasting
                         Wood products
            10.2    Chemical wood pulping
            10.7    Charcoal
                         Mineral products
            11.1    Hot mix  asphalt plants
            11.3    Bricks and related clay products
                    Raw materials handling
                      Dryers, grinders, etc.
                                                                                                          4
                                                                                                          4

                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                          3
                                             6
                                             6

                                             6
                                             6
                                             6
                                             9
                                             b
                                             b
                                             7
                                             7
                                             7
                                             7
                                            6,7
                                             6

                                             a
                                             9
                                               Appendix B.2
                                                         B.2-7

    -------
                                            Table B.2-1 (cent.)-
 AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
        Tunnel/periodic kilns
         Gas fired                                  a
         Oil fired                                  a
         Coal fired                                 a
11.5   Refractory manufacturing
        Raw material dryer                         3
        Raw material crushing and screening          3
        Electric arc melting                         8
        Curing oven                                3
11.6   Portland cement manufacturing
        Dry process
          Kilns                                     a
          Dryers, grinders, etc.                      4
        Wet process
          Kilns                                     a
          Dryers, grinders, etc.                      4
11.7   Ceramic clay manufacturing
        Drying                                     3
        Grinding                                   4
        Storage                                    3
11.8   Clay and fly ash sintering
        Fly ash sintering, crushing,
           screening, yard storage                   5
        Clay mixed with coke
        Crushing, screening, yard storage            3
11.9   Western surface coal mining                   a
11.10  Coal cleaning                                3
11.12  Concrete batching                            3
11.13  Glass fiber manufacturing
        Unloading  and conveying                    3
        Storage bins                                3
        Mixing and weighing                       3
        Glass furnace - wool                        a
        Glass furnace - textile                       a
11.15  Glass manufacturing                          a
                                        11.16   Gypsum manufacturing
                                                 Rotary ore dryer                      a
                                                 Roller mill                            4
                                                 Impact mill                           4
                                                 Flash calciner                         a
                                                 Continuous kettle calciner              a
                                        11.17   Lime manufacturing                     a
                                        11.18   Mineral wool manufacturing
                                                 Cupola                                8
                                                 Reverberatory furnace                  8
                                                 Blow chamber                         8
                                                 Curing oven                           9
                                                 Cooler                                9
                                        11.19.1 Sand and gravel processing
                                                 Continuous drop
                                                   Transfer station                      a
                                                   Pile formation - stacker               a
                                                   Batch  drop                          a
                                                 Active storage piles                    a
                                                 Vehicle traffic on unpaved road         a
                                        11.19.2 Crushed stone processing
                                                 Dry crushing
                                                   Primary crushing                     a
                                                   Secondary crushing and screening     a
                                                   Tertiary crushing and screening       3
                                                   Recrushing and screening             4
                                                    Fines mill                          4
                                                 Screening, conveying, handling         a
                                        11.21   Phosphate rock processing
                                                 Drying                                a
                                                 Calcining                             a
                                                 Grinding                              b
                                                 Transfer and storage                   3
                                        11.23   Taconite  ore processing
                                                 Fine crushing                         4
B.2-8
                        EMISSION FACTORS
                                           (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                             Table B.2-1 (cont.).
  AP-42
  Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
AP-42
Section
Source Category
Category
Number*
          Waste gas                               a
          Pellet handling                           4
          Grate discharge                          5
          Grate feed                               4
          Bentonite blending                       4
          Coarse crushing                          3
          Ore transfer                             3
          Bentonite transfer                        4
          Unpaved roads                           a
 11.24   Metallic minerals processing                a
                      Metallurgical
 12.1     Primary aluminum production
          Bauxite grinding                          4
          Aluminum hydroxide calcining             5
          Anode baking furnace                     9
          Prebake cell                             a
          Vertical Soderberg                       8
          Horizontal Soderberg                     a
 12.2     Coke manufacturing                       a
 12.3     Primary copper smelting                    a
 12.4     Ferroalloy production                      a
 12.5     Iron and steel production
          Blast furnace
           Slips                                  a
           Cast house                             a
          Sintering
           Windbox                               a
           Sinter discharge                        a
           Basic oxygen furnace                    a
           Electric arc furnace                    a
 12.6     Primary lead  smelting                     a
* Data for numbered categories are given Table B.2-
  in the AP-42 text; for  "b"  categories, in Appendix
  Mobile Sources.
                                      12.7   Zinc smelting                           8
                                      12.8   Secondary aluminum operations
                                               Sweating furnace                       8
                                               Smelting
                                               Crucible furnace                       8
                                               Reverberatory furnace                  a
                                      12.9   Secondary copper smelting
                                               and alloying                           8
                                      12.10  Gray iron foundries                      a
                                      12.11  Secondary lead processing                a
                                      12.12  Secondary magnesium smelting            8
                                      12.13  Steel foundries - melting                  b
                                      12.14  Secondary zinc processing                8
                                      12.15  Storage battery production                b
                                      12.18  Leadbearing ore crushing and grinding      4
                                                     Miscellaneous sources
                                      13.1    Wildfires and prescribed burning           a
                                      13.2   Fugitive dust                            a
                                    •2.  Particle size data on "a" categories are found
                                    B.I; and for "c" categories, in AP-42 Volume II:
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                           Appendix B.2
                                                        B.2-9

    -------
                           Figure B.2-2. CALCULATION SHEET
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address:	
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
 emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
                                                                  (units)
                                                                  (units)
                                                                  (units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:         	
Category number:	
                                           Particle size

                                       2.5       < 6
                                                                                10
Generic distribution, Cumulative
  percent equal to or less than the size:
Cumulative mass
  (tons/year):
particle size emissions
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device:     	
                                                    0-2.5
                                            Particle size (jj.m)

                                               2.5-6        6-10
Collection efficiency (Table B.2-3):
Mass in size range** before control
  (tons/year):
Mass in size range after control
  (tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):

*   These'data do not include results for the greater than 10 jim particle size range.
**  Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.  Control efficiency
    data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
B.2-10
                 EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
               Table B.2-2.  DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORIES

Category:      1
Process:       Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Material:      Gasoline and Diesel Fuel

       Category 1 covers size-specific emissions from stationary internal combustion engines.  The
particulate emissions are generated from fuel combustion.

REFERENCES:  1,9
                        «   99
                        i-s*
                        Z   98
                        o
                        |   95
                        4/1
                        v   90
                        >-
                        z

                        £   80
                        l*J
                        ^   70
                        »
                        C   60

                        3   50

                        o   40
                              1
 2     3    4   s         10
PARTICLE DIAMETER,  ug
Particle Size, pm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.021
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
82
88
90
90
92
93
93
96
Minimum
Value


78



86
92
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


11



7
4
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0
  for the calculated value.
                    No statistical parameters are given
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
 Appendix B.2
B.2-11

    -------
                                      Table B.2.2 (com.).

Category:      2
Process:        Combustion
Material:       Mixed Fuels

       Category 2 covers boilers firing a mixture of fuels, regardless of the fuel combination.  The
fuels include gas, coal, coke, and petroleum. Particulate emissions are generated by firing these
miscellaneous fuels.

REFERENCE:   1
     95

S    90
Q
terf
<    30

     70

z    60
t*A
     SO

     40

     30

     20
                        
                             10
                                                      r  i  i  i  i T
                2345

                PARTICLE DIAMETER,
                                                               10
Particle Size, j*m
1.0*
2.0*
2.5
3.0*
4.0*
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
<. Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
23
40
45
50
58
64
70
79
Minimum
Value


32



49
56
Maximum
Value


70



84
87
Standard
Deviation


17



14
12
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 jun. No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-12
             EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                       Table B.2.2 (com.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Mechanically Generated
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
       Category 3 covers material handling and processing of aggregate and unprocessed ore. This
broad category includes emissions from milling, grinding, crushing, screening, conveying, cooling,
and drying of material. Emissions are generated through either the movement of the material or the
interaction of the material with mechanical devices.
REFERENCES: 1-2,4,7
                       \s>
                       V
                            90 r-
             80 -

             70 -

             60 -
             50 -
             40 -
             30 -

             20 -

             10
                                                        i  T  i  i i
                                         23*5         10
                                         "ARTICLE DIAMETER.  ym
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
4
11
15
18
25
30
34
51
Minimum
Value


3



15
23
Maximum
Value


35



65
81
Standard
Deviation


7



13
14
  Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ^m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                           Appendix B.2
B.2-13

    -------
Category:
Process:
Material:
                                       Table B.2.2 (com.).
Mechanically Generated
Processed Ores and Nonmetallic Minerals
        Category 4 covers material handling and processing of processed ores and minerals.  While
similar to Category 3, processed ores can be expected to have a greater size consistency than
unprocessed ores. Paniculate emissions are a result of agitating the materials by screening or transfer
during size reduction and beneficiation of the materials by grinding ani fine milling and by drying.
REFERENCE:  1
            95

            90


            80
        lorf
        35   70

        2   so

        £   50
        v   4Q

        £   30
        u
        £   20
        W
        »
        -   10
        <

        1    5
        w
             2

             1
            0.5
                              1
                        2345         10
                        PARTICLE DIAMETER.  \n»
Particle Size, /xm
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0*
4.0*
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
6
21
30
36
48
58
62
85
Minimum
Value


1



17
70
Maximum
Value


51



83
93
Standard
Deviation


19



17
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /xm.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-14
                      EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
 Category:
 Process:
 Material:
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Calcining and Other Heat Reaction Processes
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
        Category 5 covers the use of calciners and kilns in processing a variety of aggregates and
unprocessed ores. Emissions are a result of these high temperature operations.

REFERENCES:  1-2,8
                            90

                            SO

                            70

                            60
                            50
                            40

                            30

                            20


                            10

                             5
                                                        I   I  I I  !
                                        2245         10
                                        'ARTICLE DIAMETER,  urn
Particle Size, /*m
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0*
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
6
13
18
21
28
33
37
53
Minimum
Value


3



13
25
Maximum
Value


42



74
84
Standard
Deviation


11



19
19
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /im. No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                          Appendix B.2
B.2-15

    -------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).

Category:      6
Process:        Grain Handling
Material:       Grain

       Category 6 covers various grain handling (versus grain processing) operations. These
processes could include material transfer, ginning and other miscellaneous handling of grain.
Emissions are generated by mechanical agitation of the material.

REFERENCES:  1,5
     30

~    20
v/>
2    10
«r
S     5
V
i     2
5     l

s   °-5
I   °-2
^   0.1
§  0.05
u

   0.01
                                                 T   I  I  I  I  I  I
                 2345
                 PARTICLE DIAMETER.
                                                              10
Particle Size, jun
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
0.07
0.60
1
2
3
5
7
15
Minimum
Value


0



3
6
Maximum
Value


2



12
25
Standard
Deviation


1



3
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0,  and  10.0 ^m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
B.2-16
               EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Grain Processing
Grain
        Category 7 covers grain processing operations such as drying, screening, grinding, and
milling. The paniculate emissions are generated during forced air flow, separation, or size reduction.

REFERENCES:  1-2
                       «-» £
                         **
               80

               70
               60
               50
               40
               30

               20

               10
                                                          i   i  t i  i
                                          2     345
                                          PARTICLE DIAMETER,
                                                  10
Particle Size, /mi
1.0*
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
8
18
23
27
34
40
43
61
Minimum
Value


17



35
56
Maximum
Value


34



48
65
Standard
Deviation


9



7
5
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 /*m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
                          Appendix B.2
B.2-17

    -------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.).

Category:      8
Process:        Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material:       Metals, except Aluminum

       Category 8 covers the melting, smelting, and refining of metals (including glass) other than
aluminum. All primary and secondary production processes for these materials which involve a
physical or chemical change are included in this category.  Materials handling and transfer are not
included.  Particulate emissions are a result of high temperature melting, smelting, and refining.

REFERENCES:  1-2
                       i**    99
                       IS*
                       ~    98
                       o

                       5    95
                       ^
                       VI
                       v    90
                       »—

                       |    80
                       UJ
                       "•    70
                       h*J
                       ^    60

                       i    50
                       I    40
                                       2345         10
                                       PARTICLE DIAMETER, ym
Particle Size, /zm
1.0a
2.0*
2.5
i.tf
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
72
80
82
84
86
88
89
92
Minimum
Value


63



75
80
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


12



9
7
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0
  for the calculated value.
                                                             No statistical parameters are given
B.2-18
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                       Table B.2.2 (cont.)-

Category:      9
Process:       Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling, and Distillation
Material:      All

        Category 9 covers condensation, hydration, absorption, prilling, and distillation of all
materials.  These processes  involve the physical separation or combination of a wide variety of
materials such as sulfuric acid and ammonium nitrate fertilizer.  (Coke ovens are included since they
can be considered a distillation process which separates the volatile matter from coal to produce
coke.)

REFERENCES:  1,3
                        s   "
                        *   98
                        o
                        t*J
                        H   95

                        v   90
                        z
                        £   8°
                        UJ
                        "•   70
                        Urf
                        -   60
                        5   50
                        5   ^o
     345
     tE DIAMETER,
                                                                10
Particle Size, /mi
1.0a
2.0a
2.5
3.0*
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
< Stated Size
(Uncontrolled)
60
74
78
81
85
88
91
94
Minimum
Value


59



61
71
Maximum
Value


99



99
99
Standard
Deviation


17



12
9
a Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and  10.0 p,m.  No statistical parameters are given
  for the calculated value.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-19

    -------
B.2.3  How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Controlled Processes

       To calculate the size distribution and the size-specific emissions for a source with a paniculate
control device, the user first calculates the uncontrolled size-specific emissions.  Next, the fractional
control efficiency for the control device is estimated using Table B.2-3.  The Calculation Sheet
provided (Figure B.2-2) allows the user to record the type of control device and the collection
efficiencies from Table B.2-3, the mass in the size range before and after control, and the cumulative
mass.  The user will note that the uncontrolled size data are expressed in cumulative fraction less than
the stated size.  The control efficiency data apply only  to the size range indicated and  are not
cumulative.  These data do not include results for the greater than 10 /im particle size range.  In
order to account for the total controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 fim in size must be
included.

B.2.4  Example Calculation

       An example calculation of uncontrolled total paniculate emissions,  uncontrolled  size-specific
emissions, and controlled size specific emission is shown in Figure B.2-1.  A blank Calculation Sheet
is provided in Figure B.2-2.
     Table B.2-3. TYPICAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS PARTICULATE
                                    CONTROL DEVICES2
AIRS
Codeb
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
014
015
Type Of Collector
Wet scrubber - hi-efficiency
Wet scrubber - med-efficiency
Wet scrubber - low-efficiency
Gravity collector - hi-efficiency
Gravity collector - med-efficiency
Gravity collector - low-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - hi-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - med-efficiency
Centrifugal collector - low-efficiency
Electrostatic precipitator - hi-efficiency
Electrostatic precipitator - med-efficiency
boilers
other
Electrostatic precipitator - low-efficiency
boilers
other
Mist eliminator - high velocity > 250 FPM
Mist eliminator - low velocity < 250 FPM
Particle Size (/im)
0-2.5
90
25
20
3.6
2.9
1.5
80
50
10
95
50
80
40
70
10
5
2.5-6
95
85
80
5
4
3.2
95
75
35
99
80
90
70
80
75
40
6-10
99
95
90
6
4.8
3.7
95
85
50
99.5
94
97
90
90
90
75
B.2-20
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                                       Table B.2-3 (cont.).
AIRS
Codeb
OJ6
017
018
046
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
061
062
063
064
071
075
076
077
085
086
Type Of Collector
Fabric filter - high temperature
Fabric filter - med temperature
Fabric filter - low temperature
Process change
Liquid filtration system
Packed-gas absorption column
Tray-type gas absorption column
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Process enclosed
Impingement plate scrubber
Dynamic separator (dry)
Dynamic separator (wet)
Mat or panel filter - mist collector
Metal fabric filter screen
Dust suppression by water sprays
Dust suppression by chemical stabilizer or
wetting agents
Gravel bed filter
Annular ring filter
Fluid bed dry scrubber
Single cyclone
Multiple cyclone w/o fly ash reinjection
Multiple cyclone w/fly ash reinjection
Wet cyclonic separator
Water curtain
Particle Size (/on)
0-2.5
99
99
99
NA
50
90
25
20
90
1.5
25
90
50
92
10
40
40
0
80
10
10
80
50
50
10
2.5-6
99.5
99.5
99.5
NA
75
95
85
80
95
3.2
95
95
75
94
15
65
65
5
90
20
35
95
75
75
45
6- 10
99.5
99.5
99.5
NA
85
99
95
90
99
3.7
99
99
85
97
20
90
90
80
97
90
50
95
85
85
90
a Data represent an average of actual efficiencies.  Efficiencies are representative of well designed
  and well operated control equipment.  Site-specific factors (e. g., type of particulate being collected,
  varying pressure drops across scrubbers, maintenance of equipment, etc.) will affect collection
  efficiencies.  Efficiencies shown are intended to provide guidance for estimating control equipment
  performance when source-specific data are not available. NA = not applicable.
b Control codes in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), formerly National Emissions
  Data Systems.
9/90 (Reformatted 1/95)
Appendix B.2
B.2-21

    -------
References For Appendix B.2

 1.     Fine Particle Emission Inventory System, Office Of Research And Development, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1985.

 2.     Confidential test data from various sources, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,  1985.
                                                                                   •
 3.     Final Guideline Document:  Control OfSulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.

 4.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corp., Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-GRN-7, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.

 5.     I. W. Kirk, "Air Quality In Saw And Roller Gin Plants", Transactions Of The ASAE, 20:5,
       1977.

 6.     Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry. Galite Corp., EMB- 80-LWA-6, U. S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982.

 7.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries, Inc.,
       EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
       1975.

 8.     Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, Michigan, EMB-76-IOB-2,
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.

 9.     H. J. Taback, et al., Fine Paniculate Emissions From Stationary Sources In The South Coast
       Air Basin, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, 1979.

 10.    K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions For Use In Preparing Particle  Size-
       Specific Emission Inventories, U. S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3890, PEI Associates, Inc.,
       Golden, CO, 1985.
B.2-22                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 9/90

    -------
                               APPENDIX C.I




           PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK DUST LOADING
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix C.I                            C.l-1

    -------
C.l-2                                 EMISSION FACTORS                   (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                         Appendix C. 1

                       Procedures For Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading
       This appendix presents procedures recommended for the collection of material samples from
paved and unpaved roads and from bulk storage piles. (AP-42, Appendix C.2, "Procedures For
Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples", presents analogous information for the
analysis of the samples.)  These recommended procedures are based on a review of American Society
For Testing And Materials (ASTM) methods, such as C-136 (sieve analysis) and D-2216 (moisture
content). The recommendations follow ASTM standards where practical,  and where not, an effort
has been made to develop procedures consistent with the intent of the pertinent ASTM standards.

       This appendix emphasizes that, before starting any field sampling  program, one must first
define the study area of interest and then determine the number of samples that can be collected and
analyzed within the constraints of time, labor, and money available. For example, the study area
could be defined as an individual industrial plant with  its network of paved/unpaved roadways and
material piles. In that instance, it is advantageous to collect a separate sample for each major dust
source  in the plant.  This level of resolution is useful  in developing cost-effective emission reduction
plans.  On the other hand, if the area of interest is geographically large (say a city or county, with a
network of public roads), collecting at least 1 sample  from each source would be highly impractical.
However, in such an area, it is important  to obtain samples representative of different source types
within  the area.

C.I.I  Samples From Unpaved Roads

Objective -
       The overall objective in an unpaved road sampling program is to inventory the mass of
paniculate matter (PM) emissions from the roads.  This is typically done by:

       1.   Collecting "representative" samples of the loose surface material from the road;
       2.   Analyzing the samples to determine silt fractions; and
       3.   Using the results in the predictive emission factor model given  in AP-42, Section 13.2.2,
            Unpaved Roads,  together with traffic  data (e. g., number of vehicles traveling the road
            each day).

       Before any field sampling program, it is necessary to define the study area of interest and to
determine the number of unpaved road samples that can be collected and analyzed within the
constraints of time, labor, and money available. For example, the study area could be defined as a
very specific  industrial plant having a network of roadways.  Here it is advantageous to  collect a
separate sample for each major unpaved road in the plant.  This level of resolution is useful in
developing cost-effective emission reduction plans  involving dust  suppressants or  traffic rerouting.
On the other hand, the area of interest may be geographically large, and well-defined traffic
information may not be easily obtained. In this case,  resolution of the PM emission inventory to
specific road  segments would  not be feasible, and it would be more important to obtain representative
road-type samples within the area by aggregating several sample increments.

Procedure -
       For a network consisting of many relatively short roads contained in a well-defined study area
(as would be  the case at an industrial plant), it is recommended that one collect a  sample for each
0.8 kilometers (km) (0.5 miles [mi]) length, or portion thereof, for each major road segment.  Here,

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix  C.I                                     C.l-3

    -------
the term "road segment" refers to the length of road between intersections (the nodes of the network)
with other paved or unpaved roads.  Thus, for a major segment 1 km (0.6 mi) long, 2 samples are
recommended.

        For longer roads in study areas that are spatially diverse, it is recommended that one collect a
sample for each  4.8 km (3 mi) length of the road.  Composite a sample from a minimum of
3 incremental samples.  Collect the first sample increment at a random location within the first
0.8 km  (0.5 mi), with additional increments taken from each remaining 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the road,
up to a maximum length of 4.8 km (3 mi). For  a road less than 1.5 mi in length, an acceptable
method  for selecting sites for the increments is based on drawing 3 random numbers (xl, x2, x3)
between zero and the length. Random numbers may be obtained from tabulations in statistical
reference books, or scientific calculators may be used to generate pseudorandom numbers. See
Figure C. 1-1.

        The following steps  describe the collection method for samples (increments).

        1.   Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic and that sampling personnel are
            visible to drivers.  If the road is heavily traveled, use 1 person to "spot" and route traffic
            safely around another person collecting the surface  sample (increment).

        2.   Using string or other suitable markers, mark a 0.3  meters (m) (1 foot [ft]) wide portion
            across the road. (WARNING:  Do  not mark the collection area with a chalk line or in
            any other method likely  to introduce fine material into the sample.)

        3.   With a whisk broom and dustpan, remove the loose surface material from the hard road
            base.  Do not abrade the base during sweeping. Sweeping should be performed  slowly
            so that fine surface material is not injected into the air.  NOTE:  Collect material only
           from the portion of the road over which the wheels  and carriages routinely travel (i. e.,
            not from berms or any "mounds" along the road centerline).

        4.   Periodically deposit the swept material into a clean, labeled container of suitable size,
            such as a metal or plastic 19  liter (L)  (5 gallon [gal]) bucket, having a  scalable
            polyethylene liner.  Increments may be mixed within this  container.

        5.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.l-2).

Sample  Specifications -
        For uncontrolled unpaved road surfaces,  a  gross sample of 5 kilograms  (kg) (10 pounds [lb])
to 23 kg (50  lb)  is desired.  Samples of this size will require splitting to a size amenable for analysis
(see Appendix C.2). For unpaved roads having  been treated with chemical dust suppressants (such as
petroleum resins, asphalt emulsions,  etc.), the above goal may not be practical in well-defined study
areas because a very large area would need to be swept. In general, a minimum of 400 grams (g)
(1 lb) is required for silt and moisture analysis.  Additional increments should be taken from  heavily
controlled unpaved surfaces, until the minimum  sample mass has been achieved.

C.I.2 Samples  From Paved Roads

Objective -
        The overall objective in a paved road sampling program is to inventory the  mass of paniculate
emissions from the roads. This is typically done by:
C.l-4                                EMISSION FACTORS                  (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
 ~J

 u>
 SO
                                                                     Road Length >.1. 5 mi
                                          Road
                                       Intersection
                                                            1 ft.
1 ft.
                                                                      • 0.5 mi-
M
1 ft.
          0.5 mi-
         •0.5 mi	
'O
•o
ft
g.
O
                                          Road
                                       Intersection
Road Length <1 .5 mi
n
I

|

|
I
M MM
1 ft. 1 tt. 1 ft.
                                                   •x,-
                                                              x2-
                                                               x3-
                       Road
                    Intersection

                                                     Figure C.l-l.  Sampling locations for unpaved roads.

    -------
                       SAMPLING DATA FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Date Collected
                             Recorded by
Road Material (e.g., gravel, slag, dirt, etc.):'
Site of Sampling:
METHOD:
   1. Sampling device: whisk broom and dustpan
   2. Sampling depth: loose surface material (do not abrade road base)
   3. Sample container: bucket with scalable liner
   4. Gross sample specifications:
      a. Uncontrolled surfaces -- 5 kg (10 Ib) to 23 kg (50 Ib)
      b. Controlled surfaces -- minimum of 400 g  (1 Ib) is required for analysis

Refer to AP-42 Appendix B.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above:


SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.







Time







Location +







Surf.
Area







Depth







Mass of
Sample







*  Indicate and give details if roads are controlled.
+ Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification. Indicate sampling
   location on map.
                 Figure C.l-2. Example data form for unpaved road samples.
C.l-6
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
        1.   Collecting "representative" samples of the loose surface material from the road;
        2.   Analyzing the sample to determine the silt fraction; and
        3.   Combining the results with traffic data in a predictive emission factor model.

        The remarks above about definition of the study area and the appropriate level of resolution
for sampling unpaved roads are equally applicable to paved roads. Before a field sampling program,
it is necessary first to define the study area of interest and then to determine the number  of paved
road samples that can be collected and  analyzed. For example, in a well-defined study area (e. g., an
industrial plant), it is advantageous to collect a separate sample for each major paved road, because
the resolution  can be useful  in developing cost-effective emission reduction plans.  Similarly, in
geographically large study areas,  it may be more important  to obtain samples representative of road
types within the area by aggregating several sample increments.

        Compared to unpaved road sampling, planning for a paved road sample collection exercise
necessarily involves  greater consideration as to types of equipment to be used.  Specifically,
provisions must be made to accommodate the characteristics of the vacuum cleaner chosen.  For
example, paved road samples are collected by cleaning the surface with a vacuum cleaner with
"tared" (i. e.,  weighed before use) filter bags. Upright "stick broom" vacuums use relatively  small,
lightweight filter bags, while bags for industrial-type vacuums are bulky and heavy.  Because the
mass  collected is usually several times greater than the bag tare weight, uprights are thus well suited
for collecting samples from  lightly loaded road surfaces.  On the other hand, on heavily loaded roads,
the larger industrial-type vacuum bags are easier to use and can be more readily used to aggregate
incremental  samples  from all road surfaces.  These features are discussed further below.

Procedure -
        For a network of many relatively short roads contained in a well-defined study area (as would
be the case at  an industrial plant), it is recommended that one collect a sample for  each 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) length, or portion thereof, for each major  road segment. For a 1 km long (0.6 mi) segment,
then,  2 samples are recommended. As mentioned, the term  "road segment" refers to the length of
road between intersections with other paved or unpaved roads (the nodes of the network).

        For  longer roads in spatially heterogeneous study areas, it is recommended that one collect a
sample for each 4.8  km (3 mi) of sampled road  length. Create a composite sample from a minimum
of 3 incremental samples. Collect the first  increment at a random location within the first 0.8 km
(0.5 mi), with additional increments taken from each remaining 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the road, up to a
maximum length of 4.8 km  (3 mi.) For a road  less than 2.4 km (1.5 mi)  long, an acceptable  method
for selecting sites for the increments is based on drawing 3 random numbers (xl, x2, x3) between
zero and the length (See Figure C.l-3).  Random numbers may be obtained from tabulations in
statistical reference books, or scientific calculators may be used to generate pseudorandom numbers.

        The following steps  describe the collection  method for samples (increments).

        1.   Ensure that the site offers  an unobstructed view of traffic and that sampling  personnel are
            visible to drivers.  If the road is heavily traveled, use 1 crew member to "spot" and
            route  traffic safely around another person collecting the surface sample (increment).

        2.   Using string or other suitable markers, mark the sampling portion across the road.
            (WARNING:  Do not mark the collection area with a chalk line or in any other method
            likely  to introduce fine material into the sample.) The widths may be varied between
            0.3 m (1 ft) for visibly dirty roads  and 3 m (10 ft) for clean roads.  When an industrial-
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.I                                    C.l-7

    -------








E
in
£
"S
c
:':$>!$:-:":$:'>S$:$:


O
CO m
E
in
o
'"t
E
in
CD
„ |
}o
1
"t

E
LO

O
,1
}o
1
"t
X
1
\
O (/)
°C co
                                                            c
                                                            o

                                                         12  o
                                                         (0  to
                                                   E
                                                  in
                                                   CO
                                                   O

                                                  CC
                                                            c
                                                            g

                                                           '
                                                           2.
                                                           "c
                                                               }?
                                                                             CO
                                                                             x
                                                                                          2

                                                                                          "8
                                                                                          c,

                                                                                          O.


                                                                                          co
                                                                                          on
                                                      U
                                                                     t
                                                                      X
C.l-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
            type vacuum is used to sample lightly loaded roads, a width greater than 3 m (10 ft) may
            be necessary to meet sample specifications, unless increments are being combined.

        3.   If large, loose material is present on the surface, it should be  collected with a whisk
            broom and dustpan. NOTE:  Collect material only from the portion of the road over
            which the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i. e., not from berms or any "mounds"
            along the road centerline).  On roads with painted side markings, collect material "from
            white line to white line"  (but avoid centerline mounds). Store the swept material in a
            clean, labeled container of suitable size, such as a metal or plastic 19 L (5 gal) bucket,
            with a scalable polyethylene liner.  Increments for the same sample may be mixed within
            the container.

        4.   Vacuum the collection area using a portable vacuum cleaner fitted with an empty tared
            (preweighed) filter bag.  NOTE:  Collect material only from the portion of the road over
            which the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i. e., not from berms or any "mounds"
            along the road centerline).  On roads with painted side markings, collect material "from
            white line to white line"  (but avoid centerline mounds). The same filter bag may be
            used for different increments for  1 sample.  For heavily loaded roads, more than 1  filter
            bag may be needed for a sample (increment).

        5.   Carefully remove the bag from the vacuum sweeper and check for tears or leaks. If
            necessary, reduce samples (using the procedure in Appendix C.2) from broom sweeping
            to a size amenable to analysis.  Seal broom-swept material in  a clean, labeled plastic jar
            for transport (alternatively, the swept material may be placed  in the vacuum filter bag).
            Fold the unused portion of the  filter bag, wrap a rubber band  around the folded bag, and
            store the bag for transport.

        6.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.I-4).

Sample Specifications -
        When broom swept samples are collected, they should be at least 400 g (1 Ib) for silt  and
moisture analysis. Vacuum swept samples should be at least 200 g (0.5 Ib).   Also, the weight of an
"exposed" filter bag should be at least 3 to 5 times greater than when empty.  Additional  increments
should be taken until these sample mass goals  have been attained.

C.I.3  Samples From Storage Piles

Objective -
        The overall objective of a storage pile sampling and  analysis program is to inventory
paniculate matter emissions from the  storage and handling of materials.  This is done typically by:

        1.   Collecting "representative" samples of the material;
        2.   Analyzing the samples to determine moisture and silt contents; and
        3.   Combining analytical results with material throughput and meteorological information in
            an emission factor model.

        As initial steps in storage pile sampling, it is necessary to  decide (a) what emission
mechanisms -  material load-in to and load-out  from the pile, wind erosion of the piles - are of
interest, and (b) how many samples can be collected  and analyzed, given time and monetary
constraints.  (In general,  annual  average PM emissions from material handling can be expected to be
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix C.I                                    C.l-9

    -------
                        SAMPLING DATA FOR PAVED ROADS
Date Collected
Sampling location4
                             Recorded by

                             No. of Lanes
Surface type (e.g., asphalt, concrete, etc.)

Surface condition (e.g., good, rutted, etc.)
* Use code given on plant or road map for segment identification.  Indication sampling
  location on map.

METHOD:

   1.  Sampling device: portable vacuum cleaner (whisk broom and dustpan if heavy
      loading present)
   2.  Sampling depth: loose surface material (do not sample curb areas or other
      untravelled portions of the road)
   3.  Sample container: tared and numbered vacuum cleaner bags (bucket with scalable
      liner if heavy loading present)
   4.  Gross sample specifications: Vacuum swept samples should be at least 200 g
      (0.5 Ib), with the exposed filter bag weight should be at least 3 to 5 times greater
      than the empty bag tare weight.

Refer to AP-42 Appendix C.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above:


SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.




Vacuum Bag
Tare Wgt
ID (g)








Sampling
Surface
Dimensions
(I x w)




Time




Mass of
Broom-Swept
Sample +




+ Enter "0" if no broom sweeping is performed.
                    Figure C.l-4.  Example data form for paved roads.
C.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
much greater than those from wind erosion.) For an industrial plant, it is recommended that at least
1 sample be collected for each major type of material handled within the facility.

       In a program to characterize load-in emissions, representative samples should be collected
from material recently loaded into the pile.  Similarly,  representative samples for load-out emissions
should be collected from areas that are worked by load-out equipment such as front end loaders or
clamshells.  For most "active" piles (i. e., those with frequent load-in and load-out operations),
1 sample may be considered representative of both loaded-in and loaded-out materials.  Wind erosion
material samples  should be representative of the surfaces exposed to the wind.

       In general, samples should consist of increments taken from all exposed areas of the pile
(i. e., top, middle, and bottom).  If the same material is stored in several piles, it is recommended
that piles with at least 25 percent of the amount  in storage be sampled. For large piles that are
common in industrial settings (e. g., quarries, iron and steel plants), access to some portions may be
impossible for the person collecting the sample.  In that case, increments  should be taken no higher
than it is practical for a person to climb carrying a shovel and a pail.

Procedure -
       The following steps describe the method for collecting samples from storage piles:

        1.   Sketch plan and elevation views of the pile.  Indicate if any portion is not  accessible.
            Use the sketch to plan where the N increments will be taken by dividing the perimeter
            into N-l roughly equivalent segments.

            a.     For  a large pile, collect a minimum of 10 increments, as near to mid-height of the
                  pile as practical.

            b.     For  a small pile, a sample should be a minimum of 6 increments, evenly
                  distributed  among the top, middle, and bottom.

                  "Small"  or "large" piles,  for practical purposes, may be defined as those piles
                  which can or  cannot, respectively, be scaled by a person carrying a shovel and
                  pail.

       2.   Collect material  with a straight-point shovel or a small garden spade, and store the
            increments in a clean,  labeled container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L
            [5"gal] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner. Depending upon the ultimate goals of
            the sampling program, choose 1 of the following procedures:

            a.     To characterize emissions from material handling operations at an active pile, take
                  increments  from the portions of the pile which most recently had material added
                  and removed.  Collect the material with a shovel to a depth of 10 to 15 centimeters
                  (cm) (4 to  6 inches [in]).  Do not deliberately avoid  larger  pieces of aggregate
                 present on the surface.

            b.    To characterize handling emissions from an inactive pile, obtain increments of the
                  core material  from a 1 m (3 ft) depth in the pile.   A sampling tube 2 m (6 ft)
                 long, with a diameter at least  10 times the diameter of the largest particle being
                 sampled, is recommended for these samples.  Note that, for piles containing large
                 particles, the diameter recommendation may be impractical.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.I                                    C.l-11

    -------
            c.    If characterization of wind erosion, rather than material handling is the goal of the
                 sampling program, collect the increments by skimming the surface in an upwards
                 direction. The depth of the sample should be  2.5 cm (1 in), or the diameter of the
                 largest particle, whichever is less.  Do not deliberately avoid collecting larger
                 pieces of aggregate present on the surface.

            In most instances, collection method "a" should be selected.

       3.   Record the required information on the sample collection sheet (Figure C.l-5).  Note the
            space for deviations from the summarized method.

Sample Specifications -
       For any of the procedures, the sample  mass collected should be at least 5 kg (10 Ib).  When
most materials are sampled with procedures 2a or 2b, 10 increments will normally result in a sample
of at least 23 kg (50 Ib). Note that storage pile samples usually  require splitting to a size more
amenable to laboratory analysis.
 C. 1-12                              EMISSION FACTORS                  (Refonnatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                        SAMPLING DATA FOR STORAGE PILES
Date Collected
Recorded by
Type of material sampled	

Sampling location*	

METHOD:

    1.  Sampling device: pointed shovel (hollow sampling tube if inactive pile is to be
       sampled)
    2.  Sampling depth:
       For material handling of active piles: 10-15 cm (4-6 in.)
       For material handling of inactive piles: 1 m (3 ft)
       For wind erosion samples: 2.5 cm (1 in.) or depth of the largest particle (whichever
       is less)
    3.  Sample container: bucket with scalable liner
    4.  Gross sample specifications:
       For material handling of active or inactive piles:  minimum of 6 increments with
       total sample weight of 5 kg (10 Ib) [10 increments totalling  23 kg (50 Ib) are
       recommended]
       For wind erosion samples: minimum of 6 increments with total sample weight of
       5kg(10lb)

Refer to AP-42  Appendix C.1 for more detailed instructions.

Indicate any deviations from the above: 	
SAMPLING DATA COLLECTED:
Sample
No.




Time




Location* of
Sample Collection




Device Used
S/T **




Depth




Mass of
Sample




   Use code given of plant or area map for pile/sample identification.  Indicate each
   sampling location on map.
   Indicate whether shovel or tube.
                     Figure C.l-5.  Example data form for storage piles.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                    Appendix C.I
                C.l-13

    -------

    -------
                               APPENDIX C.2

       PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK DUST
                             LOADING SAMPLES
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                  Appendix C.2                           C.2-1

    -------
C.2-2                                  EMISSION FACTORS                   (Refonnatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
                                         Appendix C.2

             Procedures For Laboratory Analysis Of Surface/Bulk Dust Loading Samples
        This appendix discusses procedures recommended for the analysis of samples collected from
paved and unpaved surfaces and from bulk storage piles.  (AP-42 Appendix C.I, "Procedures For
Sampling Surface/Bulk Dust Loading", presents procedures for the collection of these samples.)
These recommended procedures are based on a review of American Society For Testing And
Materials (ASTM) methods, such as C-136 (sieve analysis) or D-2216 (moisture content).  The
recommendations follow ASTM standards where practical, and where not, an effort has been made to
develop procedures consistent with the intent of the pertinent ASTM standards.

C.2.1  Sample Splitting

Objective -
        The collection procedures presented in Appendix C.I can result in samples that need to be
reduced in size before laboratory analysis. Samples are often unwieldy,  and field splitting is advisable
before transporting the samples.

        The size of the laboratory sample is important.  Too small a sample will not be
representative, and too much sample will be unnecessary as well as unwieldy. Ideally, one would like
to analyze the entire gross sample in batches, but that is not practical.  While all ASTM standards
acknowledge this impracticality, they disagree on the exact optimum size, as indicated by the range of
recommended samples, extending from 0.05 to 27 kilograms (kg) (0.1 to 60 pounds  [lb]).

        Splitting a sample may be necessary before a proper analysis. The principle in sizing  a
laboratory sample for silt analysis is to have sufficient  coarse and fine portions both to be
representative of the material and to allow sufficient mass on each sieve to assure accurate weighing.
A laboratory sample of 400 to 1,600 grams (g) is recommended because of the capacity of normally
available scales (1.6 to 2.6 kg).  A larger sample than  this may produce "screen blinding" for the
20 centimeter (cm) (8 inch [in.]) diameter  screens normally available for silt analysis.  Screen
blinding can also occur with small samples of finer texture.  Finally, the sample mass should be  such
that it can be spread out in a reasonably sized drying pan to a depth of <  2.5 cm (1  in.).

        Two methods are recommended  for sample splitting: riffles, and coning and  quartering.  Both
procedures are described below.

Procedures -
        Figure C.2-1 shows 2 riffles for sample division.  Riffle slot widths should be at least 3  times
the size of the largest aggregate in the material being divided. The following quote from  ASTM
Standard Method D2013-72 describes the use of the riffle.

        Divide the gross sample by using a riffle.  Riffles properly  used will reduce sample variability
but cannot eliminate it.  Riffles are shown in Figure C.2-1.  Pass the material through the riffle from
a feed scoop, feed bucket, or riffle pan having a lip or opening the  full length of the riffle.  When
using any of the above containers to feed the riffle, spread the material evenly in the container, raise
the container,  and hold it with its front edge resting on top of the feed chute, then slowly tilt it so that
the material flows in a uniform stream through the hopper straight down over the center of the riffle
into all the slots, thence into the riffle pans, one-half of the sample  being collected in a pan.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2                                     C.2-3

    -------
                         Feed Chute
                                     SAMPLE DIVIDERS (RIFFLES)
 Rolled
 Edges
                             Riffle Sampler

                                 (b)
    Riffle Bucket and
Separate Feed Chute Stand
         (b)
                              Figure C.2-1.  Sample riffle dividers.
                                    CONING AND QUARTERING
                        Figure C.2-2.  Procedure for coning and quartering.
C.2-4
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                              (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
Under no circumstances shovel the sample into the riffle, or dribble into the riffle from a small-
mouthed container.  Do not allow the material to build up in or above the riffle slots.  If it does not
flow freely through the slots, shake or vibrate the riffle to facilitate even flow.1

        Coning and quartering is a simple procedure useful  with all powdered materials and with
sample sizes ranging from a few grams to several hundred pounds.2 Oversized material, defined as
> 0.6 millimeters (mm) (3/8 in.) in diameter, should be removed before quartering and be weighed
in a "tared" container (one for which its empty weight is known).

        Preferably, perform the coning and quartering operation on a floor covered  with clean 10 mil
plastic. Take care that the material is not contaminated by anything on  the floor or that any portion is
not lost through cracks or holes. Samples likely affected by moisture or drying must be handled
rapidly, preferably in a controlled atmosphere,  and sealed in a container to prevent further changes
during transportation and storage.

        The procedure for  coning and quartering is illustrated in Figure C.2-2. The following
procedure should be used:

        1.   Mix the material and shovel it into a neat cone.

        2.   Flatten the cone by pressing the top without further mixing.

        3.   Divide the flat circular pile into equal quarters by cutting or scraping out 2 diameters at
            right angles.

        4.   Discard 2  opposite quarters.

        5.   Thoroughly mix the 2 remaining quarters, shovel them into a cone, and repeat the
            quartering and discarding procedures until the sample is reduced  to 0.4 to  1.8 kg (1 to
            4 Ib).

C.2.2  Moisture Analysis

        Paved road samples generally are not to be oven dried because vacuum filter bags are used to
collect the samples.  After a sample has been recovered by dissection of the bag, it is combined with
any broom swept material for silt analysis.  All  other sample types are oven dried to determine
moisture content before sieving.

Procedure -
        1.   Heat the oven  to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven temperature.  (See
            Figure C.2-3.)

        2.   Record the make, capacity, and smallest division of the scale.

        3.   Weigh the empty laboratory sample containers which will be placed in the  oven to
            determine  their tare weight. Weigh any lidded  containers with the lids.  Record the tare
            weight(s).   Check zero before each weighing.

        4.   Weigh the laboratory sample(s) in the container(s).  For materials with high moisture
            content, assure that any standing moisture is included  in the laboratory sample container.
            Record the combined weight(s).  Check zero before each weighing.

7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                       Appendix C.2                                    C.2-5

    -------
                                 MOISTURE ANALYSIS

Date:	      By:
Sample No:	     Oven Temperature:
Material:	     Date In:  	Date Out:
                                                 Time In:  	Time Out:
Split Sample Balance:	     Drying Time:  	
   Make	
   Capacity	     Sample Weight (after drying)
   Smallest division	     Pan + Sample:	
                                                 Pan:
Total Sample Weight:	     Dry Sample:	
(Excl. Container)
Number of Splits:	     MOISTURE CONTENT:
                                                 (A) Wet Sample Wt.	
Split Sample Weight (before drying)              (B) Dry Sample Wt.	
Pan + Sample:	     (C) Difference Wt. 	
Pan:	C x 100
Wet Sample:	       A    =  	% Moisture
                       Figure C.2-3. Example moisture analysis form.


       5.   Place sample in oven and dry overnight.  Materials composed of hydrated minerals or
           organic material such as coal and certain soils should be dried for only 1.5 hours.

       6.   Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncovered, being
           careful of the hot container; or (b) place a tight-fitting lid on the container and let it cool
           before weighing.  Record the combined sample and container weight(s).  Check zero
           before weighing.

       7.   Calculate the moisture, as the initial weight of the sample and container, minus the oven-
           dried weight of the sample and container, divided by the initial weight of the sample
           alone. Record the value.

       8.   Calculate the sample weight to be used in the silt analysis, as the oven-dried weight of the
           sample and container, minus the weight of the container. Record the value.

C.2.3  Silt Analysis

Objective -
       Several open dust emission factors have been found to be correlated with the silt content
(< 200 mesh) of the material being disturbed.  The basic procedure for silt content determination is
mechanical, dry sieving. For sources other than paved roads, the same sample which was  oven-dried
to determine moisture content is then mechanically sieved.

       For paved road samples, the broom-swept particles and the vacuum-swept dust are
individually weighed on a beam balance.  The broom-swept particles are weighed in a container, and
the vacuum-swept dust is weighed in the bag of the vacuum, which  was tared before sample


C.2-6                               EMISSION FACTORS                 (Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
collection.  After weighing the sample to calculate total surface dust loading on the traveled lanes,
combine the broom-swept particles and the vacuumed dust. Such a composite sample is usually small
and may not require splitting in preparation for sieving.

Procedure -
        1.  Select the appropriate 20-cm (8-in.) diameter, 5-cm (2-in.) deep sieve sizes.
            Recommended U. S. Standard Series sizes are 3/8 in., No. 4, No. 40, No. 100, No. 140,
            No. 200, and a pan.  Comparable Tyler Series sizes  can also be used.  The No. 20 and
            the No. 200 are mandatory.  The others can be varied if the recommended sieves are not
            available, or if buildup on 1 particulate sieve during  sieving indicates that an intermediate
            sieve should be inserted.

        2.  Obtain a mechanical sieving device, such  as a vibratory  shaker or a  Roto-Tap" without
            the tapping function.

        3.  Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a soft brush.  Any material lodged in the
            sieve openings or adhering to the sides of the sieve should be removed, without handling
            the screen roughly, if possible.

        4.  Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1600 grams [g] or 3.5 Ib) and record make, capacity,
            smallest division, date of last  calibration,  and accuracy.  (See Figure C.2-4.)

        5.  Weigh the sieves and pan to determine tare weights.   Check the zero before every
            weighing. Record the weights.

        6.  After nesting the sieves in decreasing order of size, and  with pan at  the bottom, dump
            dried laboratory sample (preferably immediately after moisture analysis) into the top
            sieve.  The sample should weigh between ~  400 and 1600 g (~ 0.9 and 3.5 Ib).  This
            amount will vary for finely textured materials, and 100 to 300 g may be sufficient when
            90% of the sample passes  a No.  8 (2.36 mm) sieve.  Brush any fine material adhering to
            the sides of the container into the top sieve and cover the top sieve with a special lid
            normally purchased with the pan.

        7.  Place nested sieves into the mechanical sieving device and sieve for  10 minutes (min).
            Remove pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh. Repeat the sieving at 10-min intervals
            until the difference between 2 successive pan sample  weighings (with the pan tare weight
            subtracted) is less than 3.0%.   Do not sieve longer than  40 min.

        8.  Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight.  Check the zero before every
            weighing.

        9.  Collect the laboratory sample.  Place the sample in a separate container if further analysis
            is expected.

        10.  Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh  screen (75 micrometers [/tm]). This
            is the silt content.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2                                    C.2-7

    -------
Date:
   SILT ANALYSIS

  _        By:
Sample No:
Material:
             Sample Weight (after drying)
             Pan + Sample:    	
             Pan:
Make 	
Smallest Division
       SIEVING
             Split Sample Balance:
             Dry Sample:   	
             Capacity:     	
             Final Weight:    	
                                                        Net Weight <200 Mesh
                                                % Silt = Total Net Weight       x 100
Time: Start:
Initial (Tare):
10 min:
20 min:
30 min:
40 min:
Weight (Pan Only)





Screen
3/8 in.
4 mesh
1 0 mesh
20 mesh
40 mesh
1 00 mesh
1 40 mesh
200 mesh
Pan
Tare Weight
(Screen)









Final Weight
(Screen + Sample)









Net Weight (Sample)









%









                          Figure C.2-4. Example silt analysis form.
C.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
(Reformatted 1/95) 7/93

    -------
References For Appendix C.2

1.      "Standard Method Of Preparing Coal Samples For Analysis", Annual Book OfASTM
        Standards, 1977,  D2013-72, American Society For Testing And Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
        1977.

2.      L. Silverman, et al., Panicle Size Analysis In Industrial Hygiene, Academic Press, New
        York,  1971.
7/93 (Reformatted 1/95)                      Appendix C.2      *u.S. G.P.O. :1995-630-341      C.2-9

    -------

    -------
                                      TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                              (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 AP-42 Volume I, Fifth Edition
              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
   Volume I:  Stationary Point And Area Sources
                                                                 5. REPORT DATE
                            January 1995
              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                                 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Emission Factor And Inventory Group, EMAD (MD 14)
  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                                 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                                 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

  EPA Editor: Whitmel M. Joyner
16. ABSTRACT
     This document contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution
  source categories. These emission factors have been compiled from source test data, material balance
  studies, and engineering estimates, and they can be used judiciously in making emission estimations for
  various purposes. When specific source test data are available, such should be preferred over the
  generalized factors presented in this document.

     This Fifth Edition addresses pollutant-generating activity from EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES,
  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES, EVAPORATION LOSS
  SOURCES, PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, ORGANIC CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY, LIQUID STORAGE
  TANKS, INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, WOOD
  PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY, and
  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES.

     Also included are particle size distribution data and procedures for sampling and analyzing
  surface/bulk dust loading.
17.
                                   KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                   DESCRIPTORS
                                                  b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS   C.  COSATI Field/Group
  Emission Factors      Criteria Pollutants
  Emission Estimation   Toxic Pollutants
  Stationary Sources
  Point Sources
  Area Sources
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
    2050
                                                  20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                                                22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

    -------

    -------