United States Office Of Air Quality
Environmental Protection Planning And Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-454/R-00-019jX'
December 2000
Air
& EPA
HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT
-------
EPA454/R-00-019
HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT
This document was prepared by:
Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC
and under contract, by:
rv
M)
N. Midwest Research Institute
'^ Kansas City, MO and Gary, NC
^ i EPA Contract Number 68D-98-027
v>-j
^>- and
i
rt" • Eastern Research Group, Inc.
> ) 1600 Perimeter Park
^ P.O. Box 2010
•^ j Moorisville, NC
^ EPA Contract Number 68-D7-0068
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8'°n 5. Library (PL-12J)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
December 2000
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded by the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contract 68-D-98-027 to Midwest
Research Institute and under contract 68-D-70-068 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. The EPA has made
additions and revisions to the information submitted by the contractors. This final report has been subjected
to the Agency's review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
111
-------
PREFACE
This report was produced by the Source Measurement Technology Group of EPA's Emissions
Measurement Center located in Research Triangle Park, NC. It is one of a series of twelve reports
prepared to document an EPA program to characterize emissions to the air from hot mix asphalt plants.
These twelve reports and their associated EPA document numbers and publication dates are:
Document Title
lot Mix Asphalt Plants
Emission Assessment Report
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Gin Dryer Stack Instrumental Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant A, Gary, North Carolina
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Gin Dryer Stack Manual Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant A, Gary, North Carolina
Volume 1 of 2
Volume 2 of 2
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Gin Dryer Stack Instrumental Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant B, Clayton, North Carolina
riot Mix Asphalt Plants
Gin Dryer Stack Manual Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant B, Clayton, North Carolina
Volume 1 of 2
Volume 2 of 2
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Truck Loading and Silo Filling Instrumental Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Truck Loading and Silo Filling Manual Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California
Volume 1 of 8
Volume 2 of 8
Volume 3 of 8
Volume 4 of 8
Volume 5 of 8
Volume 6 of 8
Volume 7 of 8
Volume 8 of 8
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Technical Systems Audit of Testing at Asphalt Plant C
Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California
EPA Document
Number
EPA454/R-00-019
EPA 454/R-00-020
EPA454/R-00-021a
EPA454/R-00-021b
EPA 454/R-00-022
EPA 454/R-00-023a
EPA 454/R-00-023b
EPA 454/R-00-024
EPA 454/R-00-025a
EPA 454/R-00-025b
EPA 454/R-00-025c
EPA 454/R-00-025d
EPA 454/R-00-025e
EPA 454/R-00-025f
EPA 454/R-00-025g
EPA 454/R-00-025h
EPA 454/R-00-026
Publication Date
December 2000
April 2000
April 2000
April 2000
April 2000
April 2000
April 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
IV
-------
Document Title
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Truck Loading Instrumental Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant D. Barre, Massachusetts
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Truck Loading Manual Methods Testing
Asphalt Plant D, Barre, Massachusetts
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Response to Comments on Testing Program for Asphalt Plants
CandD
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Stakeholders Opinions Report
EPA Document
Number
EPA 454/R-00-027
EPA 454/R-00-028
EPA 454/R-00-029
EPA 454/R-00-030
Publication Date
May 2000
May 2000
May 2000
These documents, including this Emissions Assessment Report document, are available for downloading,
on CD-ROM and in paper.
Downloads can be made from:
http//www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/asphalt.html
Copies of the CD ROM can be requested by mail at:
Emission Measurement Center, MD-19
US Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Paper copies of the reports can be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone orders 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; FAX orders (703) 605-6900
http://www.ntis.gov/products/environment.htm
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals contributed to the development of this report. Ron Myers of the Emission .
Measurement Center's Source Measurement Technology Group (SMTG), Brian Shrager, Scott Klamm,
Richard Marinshaw, and Amy Marshall of Midwest Research Institute (MRJ), are the primary authors of
the report. Bob McConnell of EPA's Region I office, David Mobley, Acting Director of EPA's Emissions
Monitoring and Analysis Division, Bill Lamason, Mike Toney, Gary McAlister, and Candace -Sorrell of
EPA's Emission Measurement Center, Ron Ryan and Dennis Beauregard of EPA's Emission Factor and
Inventory Group, Laura Autry of EPA's Air Quality Trends Analysis Group, participated in the review.
We also acknowledge the contributions of numerous reviewers and advisors from PES, MPJ and EPA.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY 1
1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HMA FACILITIES 1
1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL HMA FACILITIES 2
2. ASSESSMENT OF HOT MIX ASPHALT EMISSIONS 9
2.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION 9
2.1.1 Batch Mix Plants 9
2.1.2 Drum Mix Plants 10
2.1.3 Recycle Processes 10
2.1.4 Emissions and Controls 11
2.2 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.1,
HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 11
2.2.1 Batch Mix and Drum Mix Dryers 12
2.2.2 Hot Oil Heaters 13
2.2.3 Truck Load-Out 13
2.2.4 Silo Filling 14
2.2.5 Asphalt Storage Tanks 14
2.2.6 Yard Emissions 14
2.3 OTHER APPLICABLE AP-42 SECTIONS 15
2.4 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 16
2.5 EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 16
APPENDIX A AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, December 2000
APPENDIX B Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Production,
December 2000 Final Report
APPENDIX C Chapter 3: Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot
Mix Asphalt Plants. Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), July 1996.
LIST OF FIGURES
Number , Page
1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants 4
2. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants 5
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX HMA FACILITY 6
2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX HMA FACILITY 7
3. MATRIX OF EMISSION FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR HMA SOURCES 17
4. LOCATIONS OF SUPPORTING DATA FOR EMISSION FACTORS 18
5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT DRYER,
HOT SCREENS, AND MIXER 19
6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT
OPERATIONS 20
7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT ASPHALT
STORAGE TANK 21
8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX DRYER 22
9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT
OPERATIONS 23
10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT SILO
FILLING OPERATIONS 24
11. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT ASPHALT
STORAGE TANK 25
12. ESTIMATED ANNUAL YARD VOC EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX AND
DRUM MIX HMA PLANTS 26
via
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
Btu British thermal unit
CH^ methane
CO carbon monoxide (as measured by EPA Method 10)
CO2 carbon dioxide (as measured by EPA Method 3)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant (listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments)
HMA hot mix asphalt
NOX nitrogen oxides (as measured by EPA Method 7)
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (a class of HAPs)
PM paniculate matter (as measured by EPA Methods 5 or 17)
PM-10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM-2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement
RTFOT rolling thin film oven test (ASTM Method D2872-88)
SCC source classification code
S02 sulfur dioxide (as measured by EPA Methods 6 or 8)
SOX sulfur oxides
TOC total organic compounds (as measured by EPA Method 25A)
VOC volatile organic compound (refer to 40 CFR 51.100); VOC is TOC plus formaldehyde, less
methane, ethane, acetone, and other chemicals listed as negligibly photochemically reactive.
IX
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents an assessment of emissions from hot mix asphalt (HMA) manufacturing
facilities. Included in the report is a description of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated
with HMA production; the procedures for developing emission factors and emission inventories for the
HMA industry; and estimated annual emissions for typical HMA facilities.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY
Hot mix asphalt is used primarily as paving material and consists of a mixture of aggregate and
liquid asphalt cement, which are heated and mixed in measured quantities. Hot mix asphalt facilities can be
broadly classified as either drum mix plants or batch mix plants, according to the process by which the raw
materials are mixed. In a batch mix plant, the aggregate is dried first, then transferred to a mixer where it
is mixed with the liquid asphalt. In a drum mix plant, a rotary dryer serves to dry the aggregate and mix it
with the liquid asphalt cement. After mixing, the HMA generally is transferred to a storage bin or silo,
where it is stored temporarily. From the silo, the HMA is emptied into haul trucks, which transport the
material to the job site. Figure 1 presents a diagram of a typical batch mix HMA plant; a typical drum mix
HMA plant is depicted in Figure 2.
In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active
asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants, and
1,300 are drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum mix plants is estimated
at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively. Based on these figures, an average batch mix
plant produces approximately 100,000 tons of HMA annually, and an average drum mix plant produces
about 200,000 tons of HMA per year. Natural gas fuel is used to produce 70 to 90 percent of the HMA.
The remainder of the HMA is produced using oil, propane, waste oil, or other fuels.
The primary emission sources associated with HMA production are the dryers, hot bins, and
mixers, which emit paniculate matter (PM) and a variety of gaseous pollutants. Other emission sources
found at HMA plants include storage silos, which temporarily hold the HMA; truck load-out operations, in
which the HMA is loaded into trucks for hauling to the job site; liquid asphalt storage tanks; hot oil
heaters, which are used to heat the asphalt storage tanks; and yard emissions, which consist of fugitive
emissions from the HMA in truck beds. Emissions also result from vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved
roads, aggregate storage and handling operations, and vehicle exhaust.
The PM emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants PM-10 (PM
less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) and PM-2.5, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals, and
HAP organic compounds. The gaseous emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria
pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic
compounds (VOC), as well as volatile HAP organic compounds.
1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HMA FACILITIES
An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the
source. Emission factors for the HMA industry are generally determined in units of pounds of pollutant
emitted per ton of HMA produced. These emission factors typically are used to estimate area-wide
-------
emissions for a large number of facilities and emissions for specific facilities where source-specific
emissions data are not available or where source testing is cost prohibitive.
To develop emission factors for the HMA industry, data from more than 390 emission test reports
and other documents on the industry were compiled and reviewed. Through a careful screening process,
the documents that were determined to be unusable for emission factor development were excluded from
further evaluation. The remaining reports were compiled by plant type, emission source, pollutant, and
emission control. For each emission test, emission factors were calculated by dividing the measured
emission rates by the HMA production rate measured at the time of the emission test. These emission
factors were then grouped by source, pollutant, and control device, and an average emission factor was
calculated for each group.
Emission factors can be used to estimate emissions from one or more HMA facilities by
multiplying the emission factor by the HMA production rate. For example, the emission factor for CO
emissions from a natural gas-fired drum mix dryer is 0.13 pounds per ton (Ib/ton). If the dryer produces
200,000 tons per year (ton/yr), the estimated CO emissions during that period would be: 200,000 ton/yr x
0.13 Ib/ton = 26,000 Ib/yr or 13 tons/yr.
1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL HMA FACILITIES
Annual emissions for a facility can be estimated by summing up the emissions from each emission
source over the course of a year. Annual emissions for a specific source can be estimated by multiplying
' the annual throughput or production rate for that source by its corresponding emission factors. For an
HMA facility, annual emissions can be estimated by multiplying the annual HMA production rate by the
emission factors for each type of source at the facility. Table 1 summarizes annual emissions for a typical
HMA batch mix plant, and Table 2 summarizes annual emissions for a typical drum mix HMA plant. The
estimates presented in these tables account for all of the identified emission sources at each type of facility.
For both batch mix plants (Table 1) and drum mix plants (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from
the dryer/mixer, load-out operations, asphalt storage, yard (fugitive emissions from loaded trucks), diesel
exhaust, paved and unpaved road dust, and aggregate processing (screening, conveyor transfer, and
reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP] crushing). Additionally, for the drum mix plant (Table 2), the estimate
includes emissions from silo filling operations. Estimates are presented for criteria pollutants (pollutants
for which national ambient air quality standards have been developed) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs,
as defined in section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments). Criteria pollutants include PM-10,
VOC, CO, SO2, and NOX. Emissions for three classes of HAPs are presented in Tables 1 and 2:
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic HAPs, and metal HAPs. The emissions were
estimated using the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions:
Dryers are fueled with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil (estimates are presented for both types). It
is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some
HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas.
• Dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters.
• PM emissions from load-out and silo filling are entirely PM-10.
Annual HMA production rate for a typical batch mix plant is 100,000 ton/yr.
Annual HMA production rate for a typical drum mix plant is 200,000 ton/yr.
The typical HMA plant has two 18,000-gallon asphalt storage tanks.
As indicated in Table 1, a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer emits over
74,000 Ib/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits over
-------
56,000 Ib/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 41,000 Ib/yr are CO and approximately
10,700 Ib/yr are PM-10; emissions of other criteria pollutants range from about 500 to about 12,000 Ib/yr.
The same plant would emit about 770 Ib/yr of HAPs. A typical drum mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil-fired
dryer emits about 83,000 Ib/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical drum mix plant using a natural gas-fired
dryer emits around 75,000 Ib/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 28,000 Ib/yr are CO, about
10,000 Ib/yr are VOC, and around 31,000 Ib/yr are PM-10. A typical drum mix plant emits from 1,300 to
2,000 Ib/yr of HAPs, depending on the fuel used in the dryer.
-------
COMBINED EXHAUST FROM HOT ELEVATOR.
SCREENS. BINS, MIXER. AND DRYER
(SCC 3-05-002.45.-46.-47)
HMA
STORAGE
(OPTIONAL)
3CC 3-05-002-13)
ROTARY
DRYER DRYER
BURNER (SCC 3-06-00201. 51.-52. 53)
ASPHALT CEMENT STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
HEATER
(SCC 3-05-002.08, -07. -08, -09)
Emission Points
(0) Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
PRIMARY
COLLECTOR
EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE
u, EXHAUST
IFAN
LOADER
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
\SECONDARY FINES
RETURN LINE
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COUNTER-FLOW
DRUM MIXER
(SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -57,
-58,-60,-61.-63)
CONVEYOR
SCALPING
SCREEN
7
FEEDERS
COLO AGGREGATE BINS
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
ASPHALT CEMENT
STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
HEATER
(SCC 3-05-002O6, -07, -08, 09)
LEGEND
Emission Points
(0) Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX HMA FACILITYa
Pollutant
Criteria air pollutants
Particulate matter less than
10 micrometers (PM-IO)'
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NO,)
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Phenol
Volatile HAPs
Metal HAPs
Total HAPs8
Annual emissions by source, pounds per year
Mobile
sources
(diesel
exhaust)
46
100
700
22
380
0.035
1.9
1.9
Material
handling
and road
dust
7,900
No. 2 fuel oil-
fired dryer,
hot screens,
and mixer1"
2,700
820
40,000
8,800
12,000
11
751
1.4
760
Natural gas-
fired dryer,
hot screens,
and mixer0
2,700
820
40,000
460
2,500
11
751
I 4
760
Load-
out11
52
391
135
2.0
0.40
6.2
8.6
Asphalt
Storage'
32
3
0.12
140
140
Yardf
110
35
1.6
1 6
Total8
(oil-
fired)
10,700
1,500
41,000
8,800
12,400
13
0.40
760
1.4
770
Total6
(gas-
fired)
10,700
1,500
4 1 ,000
480
2,900
13
0.40
760
1 4
770
Based on an annual HMA production rate of 100,000 tons per year.
Between 10 and 30 percent of the HMA is produced using fuel oil.
Between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas.
Loading of HMA into haul trucks.
Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters.
Fugitive emissions from loaded trucks prior to departure to the job site.
Total expressed using two significant figures.
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX HMA FACILITY3
Pollutant
Criteria air pollutants
Particulate matter less than
10 micrometers (PM- 10)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOJ
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Phenol
Volatile HAPs
Metal HAPs
Total HAPs"
Annual emissions by source, pounds per year
Mobile
sources
(diesel
exhaust)
220
190
1,200
26
560
0.13
6.6
6.7
Material
handling
and road
dust
26,000
No. 2
fuel oil-
fired
dryer11
4,600
6,400
26,000
2,200
11,000
176
1,560
19
1,800
Natural
gas-fired
dryer0
4,600
6,400
26,000
680
5,200
37
1,020
16
1,100
Load-
out"
104
782
270
4.0
0.80
12.4
17
Silo
filling5
117
2,440
236
5.8
31 '
37
Asphalt
storage'
64
6
0.12
140
140
Yard8
220
72
3.3
3.3
Total"
(oil-
fired)
31,000
10,000
28,000
2,200
12,000
190
080
1,800
19
2,000
Total'1
(gas-
fired)
31,000
10,000
28,000
710
5,800
50
0.80
1,200
16
1,300
a Based on an annual HMA production rate of 200,000 tons per year.
b Between 10 and 30 percent of the HMA is produced using fuel oil.
'Between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas.
d Loading of HMA into haul trucks
c Filling of temporary storage silo prior to load-out.
' Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters.
8 Fugitive emissions from loaded trucks prior to departure to the job site.
h Total expressed using two significant figures.
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
2. ASSESSMENT OF HOT MIX ASPHALT EMISSIONS
This section presents the results of an assessment of emissions from HMA manufacturing. An
overview of the HMA industry and process operations is provided first (Section 2.1). Section 2.2
summarizes the methodology used to develop emission factors for the HMA industry. Section 2.3 identifies
other sections of AP-42 that apply to HMA plants. An overview of the process for conducting an emission
inventory is presented in Section 2.4, and Section 2.5 presents estimates of annual emissions from typical
HMA facilities.
2.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Hot mix asphalt paving materials are a mixture of well-graded, high-quality aggregate and liquid
asphalt cement, which is heated and mixed in measured quantities. The aggregate often includes RAP.
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 [^m] in
physical diameter) is required for the production of good quality HMA.
Hot mix asphalt plants can be classified by their mixing operation as one of the following:
(1) batch mix plants, (2) continuous mix (mix outside dryer drum) plants, (3) parallel flow drum mix
plants, and (4) counterflow drum mix plants. 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.
In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active
asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants. 1,000 are
parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are counterflow drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production
from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 250 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively.
About 85 percent of new plants being constructed 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. While most HMA plants have the capability to use both fuel oil and natural gas, it is
estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA in the U. S. is produced using natural gas. The
process operations at typical batch mix and drum mix plants are described in the following paragraphs.
2.1.1 Batch Mix Plants2
Processing begins as the aggregate is hauled from onsite 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). As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer, it
drops into a bucket elevator, is transferred to a set of vibrating screens, then separated into as many as four
different grades (sizes), and dropped into "hot" bins according to size. At newer facilities, RAP may be
transferred to a separate heated storage bin. At the same time, 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. To control the aggregate size distribution in the final batch mix, the operator
transfers material from various hot bins (and RAP bins, if used) to a weigh hopper until the desired mix
See Appendix A, Section 11.1.1, and Appendix B, Section 2.1, for more detailed information.
2 See Appendix A, Section 11.1.1.1, and Appendix B, Section 2.2.1, for more detailed information.
-------
and weight are obtained. 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
additional period of time. At older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly to the pug mill from a
storage hopper and combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is 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. Figure 1 depicts a typical batch mix plant.
2.1.2 Drum Mix Plants3
This process is a continuous mixing type process. 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, hi a parallel flow drum mixer, the aggregate is introduced to the
drum at the burner end. As the drum rotates, the aggregate, as well as the combustion products from the
burner, move toward the other end of the drum in parallel. Liquid asphalt cement is introduced in the
mixing zone midway down the drum m a lower temperature zone, along with any RAP and PM from
collectors. In a counterflow drum mixer, 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. After mixing, the
mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and is conveyed to either a surge bin or HMA storage silos.
Figure 2 illustrates a counterflow drum mix plant.
In a parallel flow mixer, 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
PM 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 likely will have organic stack emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol)
that are lower than parallel flow drum mix plants because the liquid asphalt cement, virgin aggregate, and
RAP are mixed in a zone removed from the exhaust gas stream. A counterflow drum mix plant normally
can process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon emissions.
2.1.3 Recycle Processes
Reclaimed asphalt pavement significantly reduces the amount of new aggregate 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 then is heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable), and the
proper amount of new asphalt cement is added to produce HMA that meets the quality requirements of the
customer.
3 See Appendix A, Sections 11.1.1.2 and 11.1.1.3, and Appendix B, Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, for more
detailed information.
4 See Appendix A, Section 11.1.1.4, and Appendix B, Section 2.2.4, for more detailed information.
10
-------
2.1.4 Emissions and Controls
Hot mix asphalt plants have two 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). Dryers are the most significant ducted
sources of emissions from both batch mix and drum mix HMA plants. Emissions from these sources
consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products of combustion (carbon dioxide
[CC^], NOX, and sulfur oxides [SOX]); CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species
(including VOC, methane [CH^j, and HAPs). The CO and organic compound emissions result from
incomplete combustion of the fuel and also are released from the heated asphalt.
At batch mix plants, 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. These emissions are mostly aggregate dust, but they also may contain
gaseous organic compounds, CO, and a fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is
created by the condensation of gas into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the
asphalt cement in the mixer. The amount of organic aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the
temperature of the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the mixer. Organic vapor and its associated
aerosol also are emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load-out, from the bed
of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low
molecular weight organic compounds and the higher weight organic aerosol may contain small amounts of
HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage tanks may include gaseous and aerosol
organic compounds and combustion products from the tank heater.
At most HMA facilities, fabric filters are used to control emissions from dryers. Other controls
used include mechanical collectors and scrubbers. Emissions from aggregate handling and transfer
typically are controlled with fabric filters or scrubbers. Large diameter cyclones and settling chambers also
are used as product recovery devices. The material collected in those devices is recycled back into the
process.
There also are 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.
2.2 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.1, HOT MIX ASPHALT
PLANTS
A detailed description of how the emission factors were developed for the HMA industry is
provided in Section 4 of Appendix B. The following paragraphs summarize the methodology used.
To develop emission factors for the HMA industry, data from about 390 emission test reports and
other documents on the industry were compiled and reviewed (a complete list of these references is
provided following Section 4 of Appendix B). The majority of these reports documented measurements of
emissions from batch plant dryer/mixers and drum plant dryers. Through a careful screening process, 35
of the reports were determined to be unusable for emission factor development and were excluded from
further evaluation. About 350 reports remained and were compiled by plant type, emission source,
pollutant, and emission control. These emission factors were then grouped by source, pollutant, and
5 See Appendix A, Section 11.1.2, and Appendix B, Section 2.3, for more detailed information.
11
-------
control device, and an average emission factor was calculated for each group. Table 3 presents a matrix of
all of the sources and pollutants for which emission factors are presented in AP-42 (Appendix A).
While the paniculate, C02, CO, and TOC emission factors are based on over 100 tests, most of
the remaining criteria pollutant emission factors are based on between 5 and 10 tests. A few HAP emission
factors are based on more than 5 tests, although the majority are based on between 2 and 5 tests.
Information on the supporting data for specific emission factors and the quality rating assigned to the
emission factor is included in the section or table in Appendices A and B as indicated in Table 4. Column
four of Table 4 references the tables in Appendix A that present the emission factors and quality ratings.
Column five of Table 4 references the paragraphs in Appendix B that discuss the basis for the emission
factors developed for all of the sources and pollutants. Column six of Table 4 references the tables in
Appendix B that present the emission factors and the individual data used to develop the emission factors.
Generally, the amount of supporting data is typical of many AP-42 sections. However, the amount of data
supporting the paniculate, CC^, CO, and TOC emission factors is greater than most AP-42 sections. The
following paragraphs summarize the procedures followed to develop the emission factors for HMA
facilities.
2.2.1 Batch Mix and Drum Mix Dryers
The usable data on batch mix and drum mix plant dryer emissions were compiled according to
source type, emission control, and pollutant. Data on fuel types, the percentage of RAP used in the mix,
and the process operating rate (e.g., dryer production rate) also were recorded. The quality of the emission
data was evaluated with respect to the level of documentation in the report, the test methods used, the
number of test runs, and any reported problems with the sampling procedures or the operation of the source
during the test period. On the basis of this evaluation, data ratings of A, B, C, or D were assigned to each
data set. Specific procedures used to evaluate the data are specified in Procedures for Preparing Emission
Factor Documents (EPA-454/R-95-015).
For each emission test, an emission factor also was calculated for each pollutant sampled. These
test-specific emission factors then were grouped according to source type, emission control device,
pollutant, and, in the case of combustion sources, fuel type. At this stage in the process, D-rated data sets
were discarded, provided there were higher quality data available for that particular group (i.e., that
specific combination of source, control, fuel, and pollutant). In addition, where there were data from
multiple tests on the same specific emission source, the test-specific emission factors were averaged to yield
a source-specific emission factor. In subsequent calculations, this source-specific emission factor was
used.
A statistical analysis of the data for batch and drum mix dryers was performed to determine the
effects of RAP content, fuel type, production rate on emissions of several pollutants. The analysis showed
no strong correlation between these parameters and emission factors. Details on the statistical analysis can
be found in Section 4.3 of Appendix B.
To develop emission factors, the mean of the test-specific emission factors was calculated for each
of the emission factor groups discussed above. In some cases, the data for two or more groups were
combined and an overall mean emission factor was calculated. For example, if the data indicated that fuel
type had no apparent effect on emissions of a specific pollutant, fuel type was ignored and all of the data
for that source type and pollutant were combined. The final step in developing emission factors is to assign
a quality rating of A, B, C, D, or E. Quality ratings are a function primarily of the number of data points
12
-------
from which a specific emission factor is calculated. Additional information on the rating system used is
discussed in Section 3 of Appendix B.
2.2.2 Hot Oil Heaters
For hot oil heaters, only a single test report for an oil-fired hot oil heater was available. The report
was reviewed and the emission factors compiled using the procedures described previously. Appendix B,
Section 4.2.4.2, provides a detailed description of how these emission factors were developed. It should be
noted that most hot oil heaters are gas-fired, and the emission factors developed from the available data
would not necessarily be representative of gas-fired heaters.
2.2.3 Truck Load-Out
Truck load-out emissions were developed from two emission tests sponsored by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Appendix B References 355 and 356). In designing, performing
and evaluating these two tests, EPA was involved with a number of groups. The groups included citizens,
State and local health agencies, State and local air pollution control agencies, and industry associations.
These different groups provided input on the selection of facilities for emissions testing, the design of the
test program, reviewed the individual site-specific test plans, observed emissions testing, commented on the
draft test reports and provided suggestions for analysis of the data to develop emission factors. The
procedures used to develop emission factors generally were the same as those described above. However,
additional steps were taken to ensure the quality and consistency of the data and the representativeness and
universality of the emission factors developed from the data. For example, two quality assurance scientists
from Research Triangle Institute were employed to independently audit the test. These additional steps are
summarized below. Detailed explanations of the methodology used are provided in Section 4.4 of
Appendix B.
At one of the facilities the sampling area was enclosed but did not meet EPA requirements for a
total enclosure. Consequently, the capture efficiency was quantitatively estimated and the data were
corrected for capture efficiency.
At one facility, emissions due to diesel truck operation could not be segregated from emissions due
to truck load-out. Therefore, background concentrations also were sampled. To account for background
levels of various pollutants emitted from truck operation, the as-measured background concentrations were
subtracted from the capture efficiency corrected load-out emission concentrations. For the most part,
values were treated as zero if the background concentration exceeded the capture-efficiency-adjusted run
concentration.
Because the asphalt types and temperatures for the two facilities differed, adjustments also were
made to normalize the emission data. To account for differences in the volatility of the liquid asphalts
used, samples of asphalt were collected during the emission tests and analyzed by ASTM Method D 2872-
88, Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test - RTFOT) to
determine the "loss-on-heating" values for the asphalts. Additional loss-on-heating data also were obtained
from several State departments of transportation laboratories in order to determine a common RTFOT
value to use as a default in those situations where no historical information is available. Based upon the
RTFOT data collected and the desire to select a default which encourages the use of site-specific data, a
default of-0.5 percent was selected as a default value for use in the predictive emission factor equations
developed from the data.
13
-------
To account for differences in the load-out temperatures of the two facilities the data were adjusted
using the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which relates vapor pressure and temperature of a substance. This
equation and the asphalt laboratory data provide a mechanism to normalize the emissions to a temperature
of 325°F, which is the maximum midpoint load-out temperature recommended by the Asphalt Pavement
Environmental Council's Best Practices Guide dated March 2000.
Using the adjusted data and the temperature and volatility relationship described above, separate
predictive emission factor equations were developed for emissions of total PM, organic PM, total organic
compounds (TOC), and CO from drum mix and batch mix load-out operations. Additionally, adjusted
data for a variety of HAP's were used to develop ratios of the HAP pollutant to either organic PM or TOC
(speciation profiles). These speciation profiles are applicable to load-out emissions and yard emissions.
2.2.4 Silo Filling
Silo filling emission factors were developed from one of the emission tests described in the previous
paragraphs for load-out emissions (Appendix B Reference 355). These data also were collected and
evaluated with stakeholder involvement. Additionally, the same basic methodology described in the
previous paragraphs for load-out emissions was used to adjust the data on emissions from silo filling
operations. Predictive emission factor equations also were developed for total PM, organic PM, TOC, and
CO. A detailed explanation of the methodology used to develop these equations is provided in
Section 4.4.4 of Appendix B. Speciation profiles for silo filling emissions were also developed using the
methodology described for load-out emissions. The speciation profiles from silo filling are applicable to
asphalt storage tank emissions.
2.2.5 Asphalt Storage Tanks
To estimate emissions from heated organic liquid storage tanks, the methodologies described in
Chapter 7 of AP-42 and the TANKS software are generally used. The emissions from these types of tanks
depend on the contents of the tank, the volume of gas vented, and the operating temperature range of the
liquid in the tank. Emissions during the filling of these tanks (working loss) are governed by the saturation
concentration of the liquid stored in the tank and the volume of gas displaced by the addition of liquid to the
tank. Emissions during other periods (breathing losses) are governed by the saturation concentration of the
liquid stored in the tank and the changes in the volume of the gas caused by temperature variations.
Although vapor pressure information on paving asphalt is not available to allow the use of the TANKS
program without additional information, information was available from the silo filling test report to infer
emissions during the filling of the asphalt storage tank and, by extension, the vapor pressure characteristics
of paving asphalt at the typical operating temperatures. Using these data, input values for Antoine's
equation and liquid and vapor molecular weight were developed for use with the TANKS program to
calculate working and breathing losses for asphalt storage tanks. A detailed explanation of the
methodology used to develop these values is presented in Section 4.4.5 of Appendix B.
2.2.6 Yard Emissions
At one of the EPA-sporisored emission tests described in the previous paragraphs for load-out
emissions (Appendix B Reference 355), data also were collected on fugitive emissions from loaded trucks
as they sat in the yard prior to departure for the job site. As with the other data from this reference, these
data were evaluated with stakeholder involvement. The data obtained were fitted to a power function in
order to develop an equation for these yard emissions as a function of time. A specific emission factor for
cumulative emissions over an 8-minute period (which represents the maximum time represented by the
14
-------
data) was calculated using the power function equation developed from the emission data. A detailed
explanation of the methodology used to develop the equations and the emission factor is provided in Section
4.4.6 of Appendix B.
2.3 OTHER APPLICABLE AP-42 SECTIONS
Emission factors for other generic sources associated with HMA facilities can be found in other
sections of AP-42 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html). As discussed above, methodologies for
estimating emissions from asphalt storage tanks can be found in Chapter 7 of AP-42. Methods for
estimating fugitive dust emissions from vehicular traffic are presented in AP-42 Chapter 13
(Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2). Material handling emissions and storage pile emissions are addressed in AP-
42 Chapter 11 (Section 11.19.2) and Chapter 13 (Section 13.2.4). Emission factors for truck exhaust are
provided in AP-42 Volume II: Mobile Sources (http://www.epa.gov/oms/ap42.htm).
To calculate the material handling and mobile source emission estimates presented in Tables 1 and
2 of this report, suitable emission factors for these material handling and mobile sources were determined.
The following paragraphs describe the basis for the emission factors that were used:
• Receipt of new aggregate - Used equation from AP-42 Section 13.2.4, assuming an average
moisture content of 1.5 percent and an average wind speed of 10 miles per hour (mph). The
resulting PM-10 emission factor is 0.0041 Ib/ton of new aggregate. The resulting PM-2.5
emission factor is 0.0013 Ib/ton of new aggregate.
• Transfer of aggregate from storage to conveyor belt or between conveyor belts - Used
controlled emission factor from AP-42 Section 11.19.2. The PM-10 emission factor is
0.000048 Ib/ton of new aggregate.
• Screening of aggregate - Used controlled emission factor from AP-42 Section 11.19.2. PM-10
emission factor is 0.00084 Ib/ton of new aggregate.
• RAP crushing - Used controlled tertiary crushing emission factor from AP-42 Section 11.19.2.
PM-10 emission factor is 0.00059 Ib/ton of new aggregate.
• Paved road dust emissions - Used paved roads equation from AP-42 Section 13.2.1, assuming
an average vehicle weight of 22 tons and a road silt content of 3 grams per square meter. The
resulting PM-10 emission factor is 0.016 Ib per vehicle mile traveled. The resulting PM-2.5
emission factor is 0.0040 Ib per vehicle mile traveled.
• Unpaved road dust emissions - Used unpaved roads equation from AP-42 Section 13.2.2,
assuming an average vehicle weight of 6 tons, a road silt percentage of 10 percent, a surface
moisture content of 0.7 percent. The resulting PM-10 emission factor is 2.04 Ib per vehicle
mile traveled. The resulting PM-2.5 emission factor is 0.29 Ib per vehicle mile traveled.
• Diesel exhaust emissions - Used heavy duty diesel truck emission factors for idling and for an
average speed of 10 mph with a 250 brake horsepower engine. The diesel engines get 10 miles
per gallon at 10 mph and bum 1 gallon per hour (gal/hr) of fuel at idle. The sulfur content of
diesel fuel is 0.05 percent. At idle, the emissions factors for diesel engines are: VOC -
0.208 grams per minute (g/min) (0.00046 pound per minute [lb/min]), CO - 1.57 g/min
(0.0035 lb/min), NOX - 0.917 g/min (0.0020 Ib/ min), SO2 - 0.157s pounds per gallon of fuel
(Ib/gal) (where s is fuel sulfur content) and PM - 0.043 g/min (0.000095 lb/min). When
traveling at an average speed of 10 mph, the emission factors for diesel engines are: VOC -
3.18 grams per mile (g/mile) (0.0070 pounds per mile [lb/mile]), CO - 18.82 g/mile
(0.041 lb/mile), NOX - 8.50 g/mile (0.019 lb/mile), SO2 - 0.157s Ib/gal fuel (where s is fuel
sulfur content), and PM - 0.1011 grams per brake horsepower hour (0.00022 pounds per
horsepower hour). For organic HAP emissions - Used medium duty diesel truck emission
15
-------
factors from article by Schauer, et. al., in Environmental Science & Technology of May 15,
1999. The volatile HAP emission factors presented were 0.084 grams per kilometer (g/km)
(0.00030 Ib/mile) and 0.0016 g/km (0.0000057 Ib/mile) for PAHs.
The ducted and process fugitive emissions estimates presented in Tables 1, 2, 7, and 11 are based
on the following additional assumptions:
• 84,800 ton/yr of new aggregate for batch mix plant.
• 10,000 ton/yr of recycled pavement for batch plant.
• 1.25 million gallons (5,200 tons) of asphalt for batch plant.
• 150,900 ton/yr of new aggregate for drum mix plant.
• 40,000 ton/yr of recycled pavement for drum mix plant.
• 2.5 million gallons (10,400 tons) of asphalt for drum mix plant.
• Two 18,000-gallon asphalt storage tanks.
• Five open conveyor transfer points for new aggregate.
• Front end loader travel over unpaved roads of 0.25 mile per ton of RAP used.
• Vehicle travel over paved roads of 1.5 miles per 25 tons of HMA produced.
• Vehicle idling time of 128,000 min (an average of 4 trucks in line during the average 8-minute
load-out time) for batch plant.
• Vehicle idling time of 72,000 min (an average of 6 trucks in line during the average 1.5-minute
load-out time) for drum mix plant.
2.4 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
To perform an emission inventory for a typical HMA plant, the first step is to identify the types of
emission sources and to count the total number of each type of source. The next step is to identify the best
emission estimation tools, which include: (1) facility-specific emissions test data; (2) source-specific
emission factors; (3) other types of source-specific data, such as mass balance data; (4) emission factors
for similar sources; (5) emission factors for sources that are believed to be somewhat similar to the source
being considered; and (6) engineering estimates. After selecting appropriate emission estimation tools,
activity factors, such as production rates, should be determined for each source so that emissions can be
estimated for a specified period of time. The emissions over the specified period of time for each source
and pollutant then are summed to complete the emission inventory. Appendix C provides more detailed
information on procedures for performing an emission inventory at an HMA plant.
2.5 EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Tables 1 and 2 present annual estimates of emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs for typical
batch mix and drum mix HMA plants, respectively. The estimates presented in these tables account for the
most significant emission sources at each type of facility. Tables 5 through 12 present more detailed
annual emission estimates for typical batch and drum mix HMA plants. Table 5 summarizes the estimated
emissions from a typical batch mix plant dryer, hot screens, and mixer. Included in the table are estimates
for criteria pollutants as well as specific PAHs, volatile HAPs, and metal HAPs for which emission factors
were developed. Estimated annual criteria pollutant, PAH and volatile HAP emissions from typical batch
mix plant load-out operations and asphalt storage tank are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Tables 8, 9, 10,
and 11 summarize the estimated annual emissions from a typical drum mix plant dryer, load-out
operations, silo filling operations, and asphalt storage tank respectively. These tables includes estimates
for criteria pollutants, PAHs, volatile HAPs, and metal HAPs for which emission factors were developed.
Finally, Table 12 presents estimates of fugitive emissions from loaded trucks (yard emissions) for a typical
16
-------
batch mix and drum mix plant. The emissions estimates presented in Tables 5 through 12 are based on the
emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions:
• Batch mix plant and drum mix plant dryers are fueled with either natural gas or fuel oil. It is
estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some HMA
plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. As shown in Tables 5 and 8, fuel oil-fired
mixers and dryers have higher emissions of SO2, NOi , and some HAPs.
• Batch mix plant dryer, hot screens, and mixer and drum mix plant dryer emissions are
controlled with fabric filters.
PM emissions from load-out and silo filling are entirely PM-10. (However, the organic portion
of these emissions also can be assumed to be PM-2.5. Information is available in AP-42
Appendix B.I, Particle Size Distribution Data and Sized Emission Factors for Selected
Sources, for categorizing the inorganic or filterable PM into PM-10 and PM-2.5 fractions.)
Average asphalt loss on heating is -0.5 percent (asphalt volatility).
• Average HMA load-out temperature is 325°F.
The typical HMA plant has two asphalt storage tanks that are 50 feet long and 8 feet in
diameter. It is estimated that these storage tanks require a total heating capacity of about
200,000 Btu/hr, based on a heat loss of 60 Btu/fir of tank surface area. The asphalt storage
tanks are kept at 325°F continuously for the five months the HMA plant operates. As a result,
720 million Btu are used to maintain the temperature of the asphalt in the storage tank. For a
gas-fired hot oil heater, 720,000 fr of gas is combusted. For an oil-fired hot oil heater,
5,100 gallons of fuel oil are combusted. It should be noted that this fuel usage is about
3 percent of the fuel used in a typical batch mix plant and 1.6 percent of the fuel used in a
typical drum mix plant.
TABLE 3. MATRIX OF EMISSION FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR HMA SOURCES
Plant type
Batch mix
Drum mix
Source
Dryer, hot
screens, and
mixer
Hot oil heaters
Load-out
Yard emissions
Dryer
Hot oil heaters
Load-out
Silo filling
Yard emissions
Criteria pollutants
PM-10,NOX, CO,
so2, voc
PM, CO, VOC,
VOC
PM-10,NOX, CO,
so2, voc
PM, CO, VOC
PM, CO, VOC
VOC
HAPs
24 organic HAPs
9 metal HAPs
22 organic HAPs
41 organic HAPs
19 organic HAPs
58 organic HAPs
1 1 metal HAPs
22 organic HAPs
41 organic HAPs
28 organic HAPs
19 organic HAPs
Other pollutants
co2
4 other organics
3 other metals
3 other organics
co2
1 5 other organics,
6 other metals
3 other organics
3 other organics
17
-------
TABLE 4. LOCATIONS OF SUPPORTING DATA FOR EMISSION FACTORS
Plant
Type
Batch
Mix
Drum
Mix
Batch
or
Drum
Mix
Source
Drver,
hot screens,
mixer
Dryer/mixer
Hot oil
heater
Load-out
Silo filling
Asphalt
storage
Yard
emissions
Pollutant
PM-10
CO
C02
NO..
A.
so2
TOC/VOC/methane
Speciated organics
Trace metals
PM-10
CO
C02
NOX
SO2
TOC/VOC/methane
HC1
Speciated organics
Dioxin/fiirans
Trace metals
Organic pollutants
PM, organic PM,
TOC, CO, speciated
organics
PM, organic PM,
TOC, CO, speciated
organics
Speciated organics
Speciated organics
Appendix A
Table
11.1-1, 11.1-2
11.1-5
11.1-5
11.1-5
11.1-5
11.1-6
11.1-9
11.1-11
11.1-3, 11.1-4
11.1-7
11.1-7
11.1-7
11.1-7
11.1-8
11.1-8
11.1-10
11.1-10
11.1-12
11.1-13
11.1-14
11.1-15
11.1-16
11.1-14
11.1-15
11.1-16
11.1-15
11.1-16
11.1-15
11.1-16
Appendix B Section
4.2.4.3.1-4.2.4.3.6
4.2.4.3.7
4.2.4.3.8
4.2.4.3.9
4.2.4.3.10
424.3.11,4.2.4.3.12
4.2.4.3.12-4.2.4.3.15
4.2.4.3.16
42.4.1.1-4.2.4.1.6
4.2.4.1.7
4.2.4.1.8
4.2.4.1.9
4.2.4.1.10
4.2.4.1.11
4.2.4.1.18
4.2.4.1.12-4.2.4.1.15,
4.2.4.1.19
4.2.4.1.17
4.2.4.1.16
4.2.4.2
4.4.4
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
Appendix B
Table
4-19
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-22
4-21
4-14
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-17
4-17
4-17
4-16
4-18
4-27 to 4-37,
4.43, 4.44
4-38 to 4-44
4-43, 4-44
4.45, 4.46
18
-------
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL
BATCH MIX PLANT DRYER, HOT SCREENS, AND MIXER3
Pollutant
Oil-fired drver
Natural gas-fired dryer
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
S02
NO,
2,700
820
40,000
8,800
12,000
2,700
820
40,000
460
2,500
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indendo( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
3.6
7.1
0.090
0.058
0.021
0.00046
0.000031
0.00094
0.00005
0.0013
0.00038
0.0000095
0.016
0.16
0.00003
0.26
0.0062
11
3.6
7.1
0.090
0.058
0.021
0.00046
0.000031
0.00094
0.00005
0.0013
. 0.00038
0.0000095
0.016
0.16
0.00003
0.26
0.0062
11
Volatile HAPs
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Quinone
Toluene
Xylene
Total Volatile HAPs
32
28
220
74
27
100
270
751
32
28
220
74
27
100
270
751
Metal HAPs
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Total metal HAPs
0.046
0.015
0.061
0.057
0.089
0.69
0.041
0.3
0.049
1.35
0.046
0.015
0.061
0.057
0.089
0.69
0.041
0.3
0.049
1.35
Dryer, hot screens, and mixer controlled by fabric filter producing 100,000 tons of hot
mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent of HMA is produced using natural
gas; most of the remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil.
19
-------
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
BATCH MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT OPERATIONS3
Pollutant Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
52
391
135
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz( a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
0.089
0.0095
0.0239
0.0065
0.0026
0.00075
0.00065
0.00078
0.0027
0.035
0.00013
0.017
0.26
0.00016
0.81
0.43
0.0075
0.28
0.051
2.02
Other semi-volatile HAPs
Phenol
0.40
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Cumene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichlcyoethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
0.22
0.040
0.20
0.054
0.00087
0.062
0.46
1.16
0.37
0.62
0.0075
0.00
0.00
0.030
0.032
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.0054
1.70
0.33
6.18
a Uncontrolled emissions from 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.
20
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
BATCH MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANK3
Pollutant
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
ND
32
3
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(b)fiuoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
0.0027
0.0010
0.00092
0.00051
0.00022
0.00016
0.087
0.025
0.00016
0.12
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Styrene
Toluene
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
0.010
0.0016
0.012
0.0051
0.0012
0.0074
0.012
140
0.032
0.000099
0.000086
0.00
0.0017
0.020
0.061
0.018
140
a Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix
asphalt per year. Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters. All
calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde emissions
are from the oil-fired hot oil heater.
21
-------
TABLE 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR
A TYPICAL DRUM MIX DRYER3
Pollutant
No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer
Natural gas-fired dryer
Emissions. Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
S02
NOX
4,600
6,400
26,000
2,200
11,000
4,600
6,400
26,000
680
5,200
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
34
0.28
4.4
0.62
0.042
0.0020
0.020
0.022
0.0080
0.0082
0.036
0.12
2.2
0.0014
130
0.0018
4.6
0.60
180
15
0.28
1.7
0.044
0.042
0.0020
0.020
0.022
0.0080
0.0082
0.036
0.12
0.76
0.0014
18
. 00018
1.5
0.11
37
Volatile HAPs
Isooctane
Hexane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl chloroform
Toluene
Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
8.0
184
78
48
620
9.6
580
40
1,568
8.0
180
78
48
620
9.6
30
40
1,020
Metal HAPs
Lead
Mercury
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Total metal HAPs
3
0.52
0.036
0.11
0.000
0.082
1.1
1.5
12.6
0.070
19
0.12
0.048
0.036
0.11
0.000
0.082
1.1
1.5
12.6
0.070
16
Dryer controlled by fabric filter producing 200,000
of HMA is produced using natural gas; most of the
tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent
remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil.
22
-------
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
DRUM MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT OPERATIONS3
Pollutant
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
104
780
270
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fiuoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
0.177
0.0191
0.0477
0.013
0.0052
0.0015
0.0013
0.00157
0.0053
0.070
0.00025
0.034
0.53
0.00032
1.62
0.85
0.015
0.55
0.10
4.05
Other semi-volatile HAPs
Phenol 0.80
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Cumene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
0.43
0.080
0.41
0.11
0.0017
0.12
0.91
2.3
0.73
1.25
0.015
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.064
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.011
3.40
0.66
12.35
a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.
23
-------
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
DRUM MIX PLANT SILO FILLING OPERATIONS3
Pollutant
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
120
2,400
240
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
0.24
0.0071
0.066
0.028
0.0048
0.11
0.076
0.51
2.7
0.92
0.015
0.91
0.22
5.8
Other semi-volatile HAPs
Phenol
0.00
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Toluene
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
0.78
0.12
0.95
0.39
0.095
0.56
0.93
17
2.4
0.0076
0.0066
0.13
1.5
4.6
1.4
31
a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.
24
-------
TABLE 11. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
DRUM MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANK3
Pollutant
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
ND
64
6
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
0.0027
0.0010
0.00092
0.00051
0.00022
0.00016
0.087
0.025
0.00016
0.12
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Styrene
Toluene
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile HAPs
0.020
0.0031
0.025
0.010
0.0025
0.015
0.024
140
0.064
0.00020
0.00017
0.00
0.0035
0.040
0.12
0.036
140
1 Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix
asphalt per year. Includes emissions from an oil-fired hot oil heater. All
of the calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde
emissions are from the oil-fired hot oil heater.
25
-------
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED ANNUAL YARD VOC EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL
BATCH MDC AND DRUM MIX HMA PLANTS3
Pollutant
Batch mixb
Drummixc
Emissions, Ib/yr
Criteria Pollutants
PM-10
VOC
CO
PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)
ND
110
36
ND
'ND
220
72
ND
Other semi-volatile HAPs
Phenol
0.00 | 0.00
Volatile HAPs
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Cumene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xvlene
Total volatile HAPs
0.057
0.011
0.054
0.014
0.00023
0.017
0.12
0.31
0.10
0.17
0.0020
0.00
0.0080
0.0085
0.23
0.0014
0.45
0.088
1.6
0.11
0.021
• o.n
0.029
0.0046
0.033
0.24
0.62
0.19
0.33
0.0040
0.00
0.016
0.017
0.46
0.0029
0.90
0.18
3.3
a Fugitive VOC emissions from loaded haul truck for eight minutes after completion of load-out.
Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.
c Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.
26
-------
APPENDIX A
AP-42 Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
11.1.1 General1-3-23'392'394
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of size-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 [//m] 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 dryer 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.
In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active
asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants, 1,000 are
parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are counterflow drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production
from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively.
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. Most plants have the capability to use either gaseous fuels (natural
gas) or fuel oil. However, based upon Department of Energy and limited State inventory information,
between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas as the fuel to dry and heat the
aggregate.
11.1.1.1 Batch Mix Plants -
Figure 11.1-1 shows the batch mix HMA production process. Raw aggregate normally is
stockpiled near the production unit. 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 four different grades (sizes) and is dropped into
individual "hot" bins according to size. At newer facilities, RAP also may be transferred to a separate
heated storage bin. 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. Concurrent with the
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-1
-------
rn
S
HH
C/>
C/3
t-H
O
z
n
H
o
to
C/J
RAP BIN & CONVEYOR
«
SECONDARY FINES
RETURN LlfC
! ELEVATOR ' I ,
g) (SCC 3-054)02-05!) \"f—> '
)
- -,
COMBINED EXHAUST FROM HOT ELEVATOR,
SCREENS. BINS. MIXER, AND DflYER
(SCO 3-05-002-45, -46. -47)
©
EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE
ji EXHAUST
3FAN
LOADER
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
•f SECONDARY COLLECTOR
WEIGH , ,
HOPPER/W1
- "
'--•©
PRIMARY J
COLLECTOR!
1 ^
FINES I .*
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCO 305-002-03)
CONVEYOR \
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-OS002-03)
ROTARY
! DRYER DRYER
± BURNER (SCC 3 06 002-01. 51. 52. 53)
/ COLD AGGREGATE BINS
' (SCC M5 002-04)
FEEDERS
ASPHALT CEMENT STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
HEATER
LEGEND
Emission Points
(D> Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 11.1-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
3
-------
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 additional
period of time. At older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly to the pug mill from storage hoppers
and combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is 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.
11.1.1.2 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 particulate 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, where it is loaded into transport trucks. 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 PM
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 asphalt mixing processes. Because data are not available to
distinguish significant emissions differences between the two process designs, this effect on emissions
cannot be verified.
11.1.1.3 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. However, the available data are insufficient to
discern any differences in emissions that result from differences in the two processes. A counterflow drum
mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon
emissions.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-3
-------
o
LU
O
LU
_J
•s
o
D_
O
I/)
"E
UJ
f !
N^
1
mission
UJ
•D
m
"o
3
Q
o;
^_y
V)
c
o
1
e
UJ
0]
••e
U)
O)
O
o
ol
^ir>
U)
c
o
UJ
'to
.D
c
°
fn)
1)
a.
c
•a
o
c
0
0)
u
o
ca
a.
o.
x:
g
S
s
T3
—
"ca
a.
cS
s
GC
2
•3
o
o
o
o
I)
4>
O
U
Pu
11.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
C
•g
u
c
1)
u
3
O
es
-C
o.
00
03
XI
'E
E
S
•a
o
O
u
E
ni
I
2
a.
OJ
I C
I U
• a
DO
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-5
-------
11.1.1.4 Recycle Processes393 -
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 HMA that meets the required quality specifications.
11.1.2 Emissions And Controls2"3'23
Emissions from HMA plants may be divided into ducted production emissions, pre-production
fugitive dust emissions, and other production-related fugitive emissions. Pre-production fugitive dust
sources associated with HMA plants include 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 ,um to more than 300 /^m in aerodynamic diameter. On average, 5 percent of cold
aggregate feed is less than 74 urn (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 ^m.
Uncontrolled PM emission factors for various types of fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in
Sections 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing", 13.2.1, "Paved Roads", 13.2.2, "Unpaved Roads", 13.2.3,
"Heavy Construction Operations", and 13.2.4, "Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles." Production-
related fugitive emissions and emissions from ducted production operations are discussed below. Emission
points discussed below refer to Figure 11.1-1 for batch mix asphalt plants and to Figures 11.1-2 and 11.1-3
for drum mix plants.
11.1.2.1 Batch Mix Plants -
As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have two 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 one 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 ducted source of emissions of most pollutants from batch mix HMA plants is
the rotary dram dryer. The dryer emissions consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate);
PM; products of combustion (carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrogen oxides [NOX], and sulfur oxides [SOX]);
carbon monoxide (CO); and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including volatile
organic compounds [VOC], methane [CH4], and hazardous air pollutants [HAP]). The CO and organic
compound emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. It is estimated that between 70 and
90 percent of the energy used at HMA plants is from the combustion of natural gas.
Other potential process sources include the hot-side conveying, classifying, and mixing equipment,
which are vented either to 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 air
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 organic compounds and a
fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is created by the condensation of vapor
into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the mixer (pug mill).
11.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
The amount of organic 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 also are emitted directly to
the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load-out, from the bed of the truck itself during transport
to the job site, and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low molecular weight organic compounds and
the higher weight organic aerosol contain small amounts of HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated
asphalt storage tanks include gaseous and aerosol organic compounds and combustion products from the
tank heater.
The choice of applicable emission controls for PM emissions from the dryer and vent line includes
dry mechanical collectors, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have
met with little success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment such as large diameter
cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers. These chambers often are 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 fabric filter
or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control. As with any combustion process, the design,
operation, and maintenance of the burner provides opportunities to minimize emissions of NOX, CO, and
organic compounds.
11.1.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants -
The most significant ducted source of emissions from parallel-flow drum mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^, and HAP). The organic compound and CO emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel
and from heating and mixing of the liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. Although it has been suggested
that the processing of RAP materials at these type plants may increase organic compound emissions
because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during processing, the data supporting this hypothesis
are very weak. Specifically, although the data show a relationship only between RAP content and
condensible organic particulate emissions, 89 percent of the variations in the data were the result of other
unknown process variables.
Once the organic compounds cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a
fine organic 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.
11.1.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants -
The most significant ducted source of emissions from counterfiow drum mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^, and HAP). The CO and organic compound emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion
of the fuel, and can also be released from the heated asphalt. Liquid asphalt cement, aggregate, and
sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in contact with the hot exhaust gas stream. As a result, kiln stack
emissions of organic compounds from counterfiow drum mix plants may be lower than parallel flow drum
mix plants. However, variations in the emissions due to other unknown process variables are more
significant. As a result, the emission factors for parallel flow and counterfiow drum mix plants are the
same.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-7
-------
1 1 . 1 .2.4 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 are fugitive PM and VOC emissions from
transport and handling of the HMA 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 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.
Table 11.1-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and PM-10, condensable PM, and total
PM for batch mix HMA plants. Particle size data for batch mix HMA plants, based on the control
technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-2. Table 11.1-3 presents filterable PM and PM-10, condensable
PM, and total PM emission factors for drum mix HMA plants. Particle size data for drum mix HMA
plants, based on the control technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-4. Tables 11.1-5 and -6 present
emission factors for CO, CC^, NOX, sulfur dioxide (SC^), total organic compounds (TOC), formaldehyde,
CH^ and VOC from batch mix plants. Tables 11.1-7 and -8 present emission factors for CO, CO2, NOX,
SO2, TOC, CH^, VOC, and hydrochloric acid (HC1) from drum mix plants. The emission factors for CO,
NOX, and organic compounds represent normal plant operations without scrutiny of the burner design,
operation, and maintenance. Information provided in Reference 390 indicates that attention to burner
design, periodic evaluation of burner operation, and appropriate maintenance can reduce these emissions.
Table 11.1-9 presents organic pollutant emission factors for batch mix plants. Table 11.1-10 presents
organic pollutant emission factors for drum mix plants. Tables 11.1-11 and -12 present metals emission
factors for batch and drum mix plants, respectively. Table 11.1-13 presents organic pollutant emission
factors for hot (asphalt) oil heaters.
11.1.2.5 Fugitive Emissions from Production Operations -
Emission factors for HMA load-out and silo filling operations can be estimated using the data in
Tables 1 1.1-14, -15, and -16. Table 1 1.1-14 presents predictive emission factor equations for HMA load-
out and silo filling operations. Separate equations are presented for total PM, extractable organic PM (as
measured by EPA Method 315), TOC, and CO. For example, to estimate total PM emissions from drum
mix or batch mix plant load-out operations using an asphalt loss-on-heating of 0.41 percent and
temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made:
EF =0.000181 +
= 0.000181 + 0.00141(-(-0.4n)e«°-0251)(290 + 46°) ' 20'43)
= 0.000181 + 0.00141(0.41)6^ -605)
= 0.000181 +0.00141(0.41)(0.2009)
= 0.000181 +0.000116
= 0.00030 Ib total PM/ton of asphalt loaded
Tables 11.1-15 and -16 present speciation profiles for organic particulate-based and volatile
particulate-based compounds, respectively. The speciation profile shown in Table 11.1-15 can be applied
to the extractable organic PM emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 1 1.1-14 to estimate
emission factors for specific organic PM compounds. The speciation profile presented in Table 11.1-16
can be applied to the TOC emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 1 1.1-14 to estimate
emission factors for specific volatile organic compounds. The derivations of the predictive emission factor
equations and the speciation profiles can be found in Reference 1 .
11.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
For example, to estimate TOC emissions from drum mix plant load-out operations using an asphalt
loss-on-heating of 0.41 percent and temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made:
EF =
= .
= 0.0172(0.41)e(-L605)
= 0.0172(0.41)(0.2009)
= 0.0014 Ib TOC/ton of asphalt loaded
To estimate the benzene emissions from the same operation, use the TOC emission factor calculated above
and apply the benzene fraction for load-out emissions from Table 11.1-16:
EF =0.0014(0.00052)
= 7.3 x 10 Ib benzene/ton of asphalt loaded
Emissions from asphalt storage tanks can be estimated using the procedures described in AP-42
Section 7.1,'Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, and the TANKS software. Site-specific data should be used
for storage tank specifications and operating parameters, such as temperature. If site-specific data for
' Antoine's constants for an average asphalt binder used by the facility are unavailable, the following values
for an average liquid asphalt binder can be used:
A = 75,350.06
B = 9.00346
These values should be inserted into the Antoine's equation in the following form:
-0.05223A
log,0P = + B
where:
P = vapor pressure, mm Hg
T = absolute temperature, Kelvin
The assumed average liquid molecular weight associated with these Antoine's constants is 1,000
atomic mass units and the average vapor molecular weight is 105. Emission factors estimated using these
default values should be assigned a rating of E. Carbon monoxide emissions can be estimated by
multiplying the THC emissions calculated by the TANKS program by 0.097 (the ratio of silo filling CO
emissions to silo filling TOC emissions).
Vapors from the HMA loaded into transport trucks continue following load-out operations. The
TOC emissions for the 8-minute period immediately following load-out (yard emissions) can be estimated
using an emission factor of 0.00055 kg/Mg (0.0011 Ib/ton) of asphalt loaded. This factor is assigned a
rating of E. The derivation of this emission factor is described in Reference 1. Carbon monoxide
emissions can be estimated by multiplying the TOC emissions by 0.32 (the ratio of truck load-out CO
emissions to truck load-out THC emissions).
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-9
-------
ca
oo
H
<
X
a,
oo
O
I
X
U
<
CQ
OS
O
u.
oo
OS
O
U
<
u-
2
O
oo
oo
UJ
CsS
tu
H
UJ
f-
u
X!
CO
^*
0.
"ro
O
^
Q.
CJ
-D
C
CJ
•a
c
o
U
^
o-
S
2
O
oo
to
S
UJ
O
55
—
UJ
a:
O
U
<
u.
oi
O
u
U-
o
p
a:
o
i
S
c.
O
P
&.
a.
O
00
00
§
k^J
I
on
£2
UJ
O
oo
2
UJ
[ISSION
2
UJ
oi
O
U
u.
UL
O
u.
a;
O
u
<
Qi
0
d
UH
a
P
ai
ej
'c
H3
to
6
o
P
a:
ej
5
co
Q
C
0
P
Pi
o
^
a.
P
pi
o_
tn
o
£
a.
a Z
t/~l
^ Q
UJ U
OJ "^
m o
U
(N
o
c
CQ
fN
rr
o
o
[Tl p^ ^
Z. —
O C
o o
o o
^.
o
0
0
UJ ffl <
_, E
0 O
o o
. u z
Q
«~> z
Tf
E
rn
C
O
U
CO
o
0
d
UJ O <
N -
rf> o
f^1
=«. T^
« vo ej
3
«" -5 5
g CN ^
S§ -g I
o"o 1 o
-C m •" c
u"U § 3
bL^ e -5
££ D >
o
d
u
U
U
.C
ca
tu
OO
o
o
— ^
£
E
t:
CJ
0
ej
O
r-
•
3
co
S
O.
CO
o
II
"Z,
•o
o
II
Q
Z
cj
•o
O
U
c
'co
CJ
1C
en
en
CO
u
CJ
w
o
OO
II
O
U
00
a
T3
Ui
D.
O
B
0
-*— »
£
Si
Uj
CO
O
CO
U.
00
B
"a.
E
CO
en
—
CO
.i
3
a-
CJ
Ui
o
t?
CJ
00
B
5.
E
Ul
O
"co
u
CO
.p
o
.22
en
"co
E
T3
O
^
^
O
(N
-a
0
i
a-
UJ
B
CO
00
B
'en
3
TJ
CJ
tj
CJ
O
^
IX
'co
en
^1
<= t
£"-°
•° CO
•>^ en
-— ^ B
n. cj
•— -rs
"5 0
ECJ
'co
ollected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.
CJ
§
CS
C/3
i
IX
Filterable
'erence 23 were used in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factors shown.
os
o
2
'cO
T3
Particle si:
erable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and condensable organic PM.
'•*-
o
E
3
CJ
en
O.
"co
O
filterable PM-10, condensable inorganic PM, and condensable organic PM.
<+-
o
E
3
en
0>
• S3
o
i
O.
~2
"5
IX
tj
CJ
E
CO
CJ
'E
op
en
O
en
0
O
-o
CJ
Q.
"o
'cO
CJ
^E
CO
-o
CJ
H
"cO
o
CJ
T3
CO
'5
CJ
CO
'o
"o
E
CO
CX
S
C.
CO
OO
"sa
Ui
s
co
B
T3
1C
CJ
•5
X
'E
j=
u
'eo
CQ
emissions.
,0
Reference
able for uncontrolled condensable PM, values are assumed to be equal to the controlled value measured.
'cO
CO
z
CO
ts
•U
O
c
Although i
"2
CO
•o
CO
o
o
c
2
•5
CJ
E
o
o
o
o
o
o
cj
00
c
CO
oS
en
cj
'u
e£
E
O
ta
0
CJ
60
CO
Ui
0)
ON
•4
3
Reference
o
£
O
deviation:
ca
-a
c
2
E
fN
0
p
o
eo
-a
CJ
O
rN
c'
o
0
0
o
0
i>
c
CO
aS
en
CJ
'cj
w>
1
2
"a
-a
0
o
00
2
CJ
•4
CJ
CO
Reference
d
o
^
c
o
deviation:
•o
CO
T3
C
CO
00
C
O
(N
O
O
d
c
eo
•5
CJ
d
0
oo
O
c>
o
fN
O
o
o
o
o
E
CO
c/i
O
'5
S
o
sa
ta
-o
0
CO
CJ
OS
•4
3
Reference
o
(N
O
o
d
deviation:
•a
CO
T3
B
CO
00
C
o
o
o
E
CO
•5
0
s-
2
oo
o
o
c
o
0
cj
00
CO
OS
CJ
CJ
oo
1
•2
'cO
•o
'•*-
0
CJ
oo
eo
CJ
C>
i
3
H
Reference
d
o
m
o
d
deviation:
OO
11.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-2. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FOR BATCH MIX DRYERS, HOT SCREENS, AND MIXERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Size, urn
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than or Equal to
Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled'1
ND
0.83
3.5
14
23
Fabric Filter
30e
33e
36e
39f
47e
Emission Factors, Ib/ton
Uncontrolled*1
ND
0.27
1.1
4.5
7.4
Fabric Filter
0.00756
0.0083e
0.00906
0.0098f
0.012e
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of HMA provided. Rounded to two significant figures.
SCC 3-05-002-45, -46, -47. ND = no data available. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by
0.5.
Aerodynamic diameter.
Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
References 23, Table 3-36. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from this
reference in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-1.
References 23, Page J-61. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from this
reference in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-1.
References 23-24. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from these references
in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-1.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-11
-------
re
oo
Z
Cu,
X
S
H
O
X
D
ai
Q
ei
O
u.
00
oi
O
U
<
u-
Z
O
oo
f-
D
y
P
Cti
re
?
a.
15
H
i
J3
C
U
•a
c
o
U
c-
S
2
za:o
c/5 H p
5 < <
o
^
C-
ogg
= < <
in ^ *
C-
z ~-
pi
u
c
CO
CJO
O
^ o£ c-
co H- r
£2 u *~
CJ
5
ca
BO
0
c
^
MHp
|<£
s
a.
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
0.
t/5
[/3
(U
O
e
0.
Q 2 u
1*D Q
z
tN
c
o
Q < <
oo o
(N O
m
o
o
w < <
J< Q.
00 (N
0 0
c o
fN
o
c
w < <
* ^
§o
o
0 0
c
o
o
o
Q ^ U
Q
^ 2
>0
m
o
0
a < <
E
«> 1
O
VO
O
in "
u-i -15
^ 5
C 0
(N „
9 "8 1
O "o O
rA * -C
^ u o a
Q~ D >
o
o
_
a
JO
ca
U-
O
O
O
•c
CJ
C
O
u
O
JO
re
CJ
D.
D.
re
0
c
II
<£
Z
re'
"O
O
II
Z
"O
o
U
c
.0
're
CJ
ft:
en
re
U
CU
CJ
3
O
OO
||
U
U
00
i •
u
3
•a
2
a.
<+.
0
CU
tj
re
Uu
ingers), or equivalent sampling
D.
£
^H
0
2s
J
o
re
jp
-
o
"re
c
^£S
T3
0
JS
CJ
es"
o
-o
o
0
^
<£
c-
w
c
re
oo
c
'en
3
•o
CJ
o
CJ
"o
o
0.
re
C/5
""i CL
O D
^3
•c «
>>s
O. QJ
2"S.S
lc3S
• c
il
60 <"
c u
I-2
" C
C~ O
J'l
> £
5
^•s
"^
o o
*^
•a b
o *-
-Etc
<« w
.
~
• J±i
vo H
12 —"
tU CU
CJ U
C C
2 2
eiieS
CJ tu
etc*
51 Ib/ton. Standard
o
o
d
e
.2
•5
CJ
S
o
^
JO
f^.
fN
O
d
o
•fc-
fN
O
O
d
tu
60
C
re
«
en
CJ
|H
'o
C
rn
£
o
re
13
•o
0
eu
60
S
CJ
>
d ^
£ eu
tN ,ra
O f—
O _„"
•; CJ
S <->
o e
•- cu
•f«fi
-ScS
046 Ib/ton. Standard
o
d
d
re
•5
CJ
2
^
j5
o
d
o
W"l
O
O
o
d
CJ
oo
c
re
Cti
cu
US
'o
-^
"*•
E
0
re
re
-O
<4— i
O
eu
60
ea
cu
>
.
£ ^
cu
VO JO
o =5
o H
d 8
o e
'S eu
•feS
IS
d
o
^U
o
d
_o
*^
re
'>
eu
•u
101b/ton. Standard
o
d
d
re
^
CJ
o
o
"*—
2]
d
o
ON
OO
O
O
O
d
• /-i
*/")
•—
p
S
P3
ra
•o
O
to
s
CJ
^
-t d
i O
CJ *^
^^
H p
8 d
C 0
II
II
CJ T3 0) <*« 60
11.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-4. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION FOR DRUM MIX DRYERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Particle Size, urn
1.0
2.5
10.0
15.0
Cumulative Mass Less Than or Equal to
Stated Size (%)c
Uncontrolled^
ND
5.5
23
27
Fabric Filter
15e
21f
308
35d
Emission Factors, Ib/ton
Uncontrolledd
ND
1.5
6.4
7.6
Fabric Filter
0.002 1 e
0.0029f
0.00428
0.0049d
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of HMA produced. Rounded to two significant figures.
SCC 3-05-002-05, and 3-05-002-55 to -63. ND = no data available. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg
multiply by 0.5.
Aerodynamic diameter.
c Applies only to the mass of filterable PM.
Reference 23, Table 3-35. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from this
reference in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-3.
e References 214, 229. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from these
references in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-3.
References 23, 214, 229. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from these
references in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-3.
8 Reference 23, 25, 229. The emission factors are calculated using the particle size data from these
references in conjunction with the filterable PM emission factor shown in Table 11.1-3. EMISSION
FACTOR RATING: D.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-13
-------
Table 11.1-5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO, CO2, NOX, AND SO2 FROM BATCH MIX
HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer,
hot screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-45)
No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer,
hot screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-46)
Waste oil-fired dryer, hot
screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-47)
Coal-fired dryer, hot
screens, and mixer1
(SCC 3-05-002-98)
CO"
0.40
0.40
0.40
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
NA
CO2C
37"
37d
37d
37d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
NO,
0.025C
0.1 2e
0.1 2s
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
E
NA
S02£
0.0046f
0.088h
0.088h
0.043k
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
E
E
E
E
Emission factor units are Ib per ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no
data available. NA = not applicable. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
References 24, 34, 46-47, 49, 161, 204, 215-217, 282, 370, 378, 381. The CO emission factors
represent normal plant operations without scrutiny of the burner design, operation, and maintenance.
Information is available that indicates that attention to burner design, periodic evaluation of burner
operation, and appropriate maintenance can reduce CO emissions. Data for dryers firing natural gas.
No. 2 fuel oil, and No. 6 fuel oil were combined to develop a single emission factor because the
magnitude of emissions was similar for dryers fired with these fuels.
Emissions of CO2 and SO2 can also be estimated based on fuel usage and the fuel combustion emission
factors (for the appropriate fuel) presented in AP-42 Chapter 1. The CO2 emission factors are an
average of all available data, regardless of the dryer fuel (emissions were similar from dryers firing any
of the various fuels). Based on data for drum mix facilities, 50 percent of the fuel-bound sulfur, up to a
maximum (as SO2) of 0.1 Ib/ton of product, is expected to be retained in the product, with the
remainder emitted as SO2.
Reference 1, Table 4-20. Average of data from 115 facilities. Range: 6.9 to 160 Ib/ton. Median:
32 Ib/ton. Standard deviation: 22 Ib/ton.
References 24, 34, 46-47.
References 46-47.
References 49, 226.
References 49, 226, 228, 38£
Dryer fired with coal and supplemental natural gas or fuel oil.
Reference 126.
11.1-14
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOC, METHANE, AND VOC
FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer,
hot screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-45)
No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer,
hot screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-46)
No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer,
hot screens, and mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-47)
TOCb
0.015e
0.015e
0.043f
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
CH4C
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
D
vocd
0.0082
0.0082
0.036
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
D
E
Emission factor units are Ib per ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no
data available. NA = not applicable. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
TOC equals total hydrocarbons as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A or equivalent
sampling train plus formaldehyde.
References 24, 46-47, 49. Factor includes data from natural gas- and No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers.
Methane measured with an EPA Method 18 or equivalent sampling train.
The VOC emission factors are equal to the TOC factors minus the methane emission factors; differences
in values reported are due to rounding.
References 24, 46-47, 155.
Reference 49.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-15
-------
Os
Table 11.1-7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CO, CO2, NOX, AND SO2 FROM
DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Natural gas-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-55,-56,-57)
No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-58,-59,-60)
Waste oil-fired dryer
(SCC3-05-002-61,-62,-63)
Coal-fired dryer11
(SCC 3-05-002-98)
CO"
0.13
0 13
0.13
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
B
NA
CO2C
33d
33d
33d
33d
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
A
A
A
A
NOX
0026°
0055e
0 OSS1''
ND
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
C
C
NA
SO2C
0 0034f
0.0 IT
0.058J
0.1 9m
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
D
E
B
E
tfl
g
00
in
O
•z
n
H
O
70
GO
Emission factor units are Ib per ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data available. NA = not applicable.
To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
References 25, 44, 48, 50, 149, 154, 197, 214, 229, 254, 339-342, 344, 346, 347, 390. The CO emission factors represent normal plant
operations without scrutiny of the burner design, operation, and maintenance. Information is available that indicates that attention to burner
design, periodic evaluation of burner operation, and appropriate maintenance can reduce CO emissions. Data for dryers firing natural gas,
No. 2 fuel oil, and No. 6 fuel oil were combined to develop a single emission factor because the magnitude of emissions was similar for dryers
fired with these fuels.
Emissions of CCh and SO2 can also be estimated based on fuel usage and the fuel combustion emission factors (for the appropriate fuel)
presented in AP-42 Chapter 1. The COs emission factors are an average of all available data, regardless of the dryer fuel (emissions were
similar from dryers firing any of the various fuels). Fifty percent of the fuel-bound sulfur, up to a maximum (as SO 2) of 0.1 Ib/ton of
product, is expected to be retained in the product, with the remainder emitted at SO 2.
Reference 1, Table 4-15. Average of data from 180 facilities. Range: 2.6 to 96 Ib/ton. Median: 31 Ib/ton. Standard deviation: 13 Ib/ton.
References 44-45, 48, 209, 341, 342.
References 44-45, 48.
References 25, 50, 153, 214, 229, 344, 346, 347, 352-354.
References 50, 119, 255, 340
References 25, 299, 300, 339, 345, 351, 371-377, 379, 380, 386-388.
Dryer fired with coal and supplemental natural gas or fuel oil.
m References 88, 108, 189-190.
-------
Table 11.1-8. EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOC, METHANE, VOC, AND HC1 FROM
DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Natural gas-fired
dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-55,
-56,-57)
No. 2 fuel oil-fired
dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59,-60)
Waste oil-fired dryer
(SCC 3-05-002-61,
-62,-63)
TOCb
0.044f
0.044f
0.044f
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
B
B
E
CH4C
0.012
0.012
0.012
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
C
VOC
d
0.032
0.032
0.032
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
C
C
E
HCle
ND
ND
0.00021
EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING
NA
NA
D
Emission factor units are Ib per ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no
data available. NA = not applicable. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
TOC equals total hydrocarbons as propane as measured with an EPA Method 25A or equivalent
sampling train plus formaldehyde.
References 25, 44-45, 48, 50, 339-340, 355. Factor includes data from natural gas-, No. 2 fuel oil, and
waste oil-fired dryers. Methane measured with an EPA Method 18 or equivalent sampling train.
The VOC emission factors are equal to the TOC factors minus the sum of the methane emission factors
and the emission factors for compounds with negligible photochemical reactivity shown in
Table 11.1-10; differences in values reported are due to rounding.
References 348, 374, 376, 379, 380.
References 25, 44-45, 48, 50, 149, 153-154, 209-212. 214, 241, 242, 339-340, 355.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-17
-------
Table 11.1-9. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
'rocess
Natural gas- or No 2
fuel oil-fired dryer, hot
screens, and mixer with
abnc filter
(SCC 3-05-002-45.-46)
Pollutant
CASRN
Name
Non-PAH Hazardous Air Pollutants'1
75-07-0 '
71-43-2
100-41-4
50-00-0
106-51-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Qumone
Toluene
Xylene
Total non-PAH HAPs
PAH HAPs
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
2-Methylnaphthalenec
Acenaphthene1
Acenaphthylene0
Anthracene'
Benzo( a)anthracene'
Benzo(a)pyrene'
Benzo(b)fluoranthenec
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene'
Benzo(k)fluoranthenec
Chrysene"
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene'
Fluoranthene1
Fluorene1
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrenec
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene'
Pyrene'
Total PAH HAPs
Total HAPs
Non-HAP organic compounds
100-52-7
78-84-2
4170-30-3
66-25-1
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Hexanal
Total non-HAPs
Emission Factor.
Ib/ton
0.00032
0.00028
0.0022
0 00074
0.00027
0.0010
0.0027
0.0075
7.1xlO'5
90xlO-7
5.8x10''
2.1xlO-7
4.6x10'"
3.1x10'°
9.4x10'"
5.0x10-'°
1.3x10-'
3.8x10-"
9.5x10-"
1.6x10-'
i.exio-6
3.0x10-'°
36xlO-s
26x10-'
62xlO-8
0.00011
00076
0.00013
3.0xlO'5
2.9xlO'5
2.4xlO's
0.00019
Emission
Factor
Rating
E
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
Ref. Nos.
24,34
24,34,46, 382
24.46,47,49
24,34,46,47,49,226,382
24
24,34,46.47
24.46,47,49
24,47,49
34,46,226
34,46,226
34,46,226
46,226
226
34,46,226
226
34,226
46,226 '
226
34,46.47,226
34,46,47,226
226
34,46,47,49,226
34,46,47,226
34,46,226
24
24
24
24
11.1-18
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-9 (cont.)
Process
Waste oil-, dram oil-, or
Mi-. A final /lil ftraA
iNO. O lUCl Oil- 1 llcU
dryer, hot screens, and mixer
with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-47)
Pollutant
CASRN
Name
Non-PAH Hazardous Air Pollutants'1
75-07-0
71-43-2
100-41-4
50-00-0
106-51-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Quinone
Toluene
Xylene
Total non-PAH HAPs
PAH HAPs"
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
2-Methylnaphthalenel
Acenaphthene'
Acenaphthylene1'
Anthracene'
Benzo( a)anthracenet
Benzo(a)pyrene'
Benzol b)fluoranthenec
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenec
Benzo(k)fluoranthenec
Chrysene'
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenec
Fluoranthene'
Fluorene"
Indeno( 1 ,2.3-cd)pyrenec
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene'
PyreneL
Total PAH HAPs
Total HAPs
Non-HAP organic compounds
100-52-7
78-84-2
4170-30-3
66-25-1
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Hexanal
Total non-HAPs
Fmi^Qion Faptor
U.1IM JMUIl ravLUl,
Ib/ton
0.00032
0.00028
0.0022
0.00074
0.00027
0.0010
0.0027
0.0075
7.1xlO'5
9.0x10''
5.8x10''
2.1x10-'
4.6x10'*
3.1x10-'°
9 4x10 g
S.OxlO-'0
1.3x10-*
3.8x10-'
9.5x10-"
2.4xlO-5
1.6x10-"
3.0xlO-lu
3.6xlO'5
3 7xlO-5
5.5xlO's
0.00023
0.0077
0.00013
3.0xl05
2.9x1 0's
2.4x10 5
0.00019
Emission
pnctor
Rating
E
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ref. Nos.
24,34
24,34.46. 382
24,46,47.49
24,34.46,47,49,226,
382
24
24,34,46,47
24.46,47,49
24,47,49
34,46,226
34.46,226
34,46.226
46,226
226
34,46,226
226
34,226
46,226
226
49
34.46,47,226
226
34,46.47,49. 226
49
49
24
24
24
24
Emission factor units are Ib/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Factors represent uncontrolled
CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code
kg/Mg, multiply by 0 5
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
f*
Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 CAAA.
emissions, unless noted.
To convert from Ib/ton to
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-19
-------
Table 11.1-10. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Natural gas-fired
dryer with fabric
filter*
(SCC 3-05-002-55,
-56,-57)
Pollutant
CASRN
Name
Non-PAH hazardous air pollutants^
71-43-2
100-41-4
50-00-0
110-54-3
540-84-1
71-55-6
108-88-3
1330-20-7
Benzene'1
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde'
Hexane
Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane)
Methyl chloroform'
Toluene
Xylene
Total non-PAH HAPs
PAH HAPs
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
2-Methylnaphthalenee
Acenaphthene6
Acenaphthylene8
Anthracene15
Benzo(a)anthraceneB
Benzo(a)pyreneE
Benzo(b)fluoranthenet
Benzo(e)pyreneg
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene6
Benzo(k)fluoranthenes
Chryseneg
Fluorantheneg
Fluorene6
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrenee
Naphthaleneg
Peryleneg
Phenanthrene8
Pyrene*
Total PAH HAPs
emission
Factor.
Ib/ton
0.00039
0.00024
0.0031
0.00092
4.0x1 0'5
4.8xlO'5
0.00015
0.00020
0.0051
7.4xlQ-5
1.4x10-"
8.6x10-"
2.2xlO'7
2.1xlO'7
9.8x10-'
l.OxlO-7
l.lxlO'7
4.0x1 0'8
4.1xlO-8
l.SxlO'7
6.1xlO'7
3.8x10-"
7.0xlO'9
9.0xlO'5
8.8x1 0-9
7.6x10-"
5.4xlO'7
0.00019
emission
Factor
Rating
A
D
A
E
E
E
D
D
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
D
E
D
D
Ref. No.
25,44,45,50,341,
342,344-351.373.
376,377.383,384
25,44,45
25,35,44,45,50, 339-
344,347-349,371-
373,384,388
339-340
339-340
35
35,44.45
25,44,45
44,45,48
48
35,45,48
35,48
48
48
35,48
48
48
35,48
35,48
35,45,48
35,45,48,163
48
35,44,45,48,163
48
35,44,45,48,163
45,48
11.1-20
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-10 (cont.)
Process
Natural gas-fired
dryer with fabric
filter"
(SCC 3-05-002-55,
-56.-S7) (cont.)
No. 2 fuel oil-fired
dryer with fabric
filter
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59.-60)
Pollutant
CASRN
Name
Total HAPs
Non-HAP organic compounds
106-97-8
74-85-1
142-82-5
763-29-1
513-35-9
96-14-0
109-67-1
109-66-0
Butane
Ethylene
Heptane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3-Methylpentane
-Pentene
n-Pentane
Total non-HAP organics
Non-PAH HAPsc
71-43-2
100-41-4
50-00-0
110-54-3
540-84-1
71-55-6
108-88-3
1330-20-7
Benzened
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde0
Hexane
Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane)
Methyl chloroform'
Toluene
Xylene
Total non-PAH HAPs
PAH HAPs
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
2-MethylnaphthaleneB
Acenaphthene8
Acenaphthylene6
Anthracene6
Benzo(a)anthracene8
Benzo(a)pyrenee
Benzo(b)fluoranthenes
Benzo(e)pyreneB
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
0.0053
0.00067
0.0070
0.0094
0.0040
0.00058
0.00019
0.0022
0.00021
0.024
0.00039
0.00024
0.0031
0.00092
4.0x1 0'5
4.8x10 5
0.0029
0.00020
0.0078
0.00017
1.4x10^
2.2xl05
3.1x10-"
2.1xlO'7
9.8xlO-9
l.OxlO-7
l.lxlO'7
emission
Factor
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
A
D
A
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ref. No.
339
339-340
339-340
339,340
339,340
339,340
339-340
339-340
25,44,45,50,341,
342.344-351,373,
376,377,383,384
25,44,45
25,35,44,45,50, 339-
344,347-349,371-
373,384,388
339-340
339-340
35
25, 50, 339-340
25,44,45
50
48
50
50,162
48
48
35,48
48
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-21
-------
Table 11.1-10 (cont.)
'rocess
^Jo. 2 fuel oil-fired
ryer with fabric
filter
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59.-60) (cont.)
Fuel oil- or waste
oil-fired dryer with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-58
-59,-60,-61,-62,
-63)
Pollutant
CASRN
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
Name
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenei;
Benzo(k)fluorantheneE
ChryseneB
Fluoranthene"
Fluoreneg
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrenes
Naphthalene15
Perylene6
Phenanthrene45
Pyrene^
Total PAH HAPs
Total HAPs
Non-HAP organic compounds
106-97-8
74-85-1
142-82-5
763-29-1
513-35-9
96-14-0
109-67-1
109-66-0
Butane
Ethylene
Heptane
2-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3-Methylpentane
1 -Pentene
n-Pentane
Total non-HAP organics
Dioxins
1746-01-6
40321-76-4
39227-28-6
57653-85-7
19408-24-3
35822-46-9
2,3,7,8-TCDD8
Total TCDDE
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD8
Total PeCDD8
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD8
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD8
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD8
Total HxCDD6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD6
Total HpCDD6
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
4.0xlO-8
4 IxlO'8
l.SxlO'7
6.1xlO'7
l.lxlO'5
70x10-'
0.00065
8.8x10''
2.3xlO-5
3.0x10"
0.00088
0.0087
0.00067
0.0070
0.0094
0.0040
0.00058
0.00019
0.0022
0.00021
0.024
2.1xlO-'3
9.3xlO-13
3.1xlO-13
2.2x10-"
4.2xlO-13
1.3xlO-12
9.8xlO-13
1.2x10'"
4.8xlO'12
1.9x10-"
mission
Factor
Rating
E
E
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ref. No.
48
35,48
35,48
35,45,48
50,164
48
25,50,162,164
48
• 50,162,164
50
339
339-340
339-340
339,340
339,340
339,340
339-340
339-340
339
339
339
339-340
339
339
339
339-340
339
339-340
11.1-22
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-10 (cont.)
Process
Fuel oil- or waste
oil-fired dryer with
fnhnp filtpr
1 aUl l\f i 111CI
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59,-60,-61,-62,
-63) (cont.)
Fuel oil- or waste
oil-fired dryer
( uncontrolled)
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59,-60,-61,-62,
-63)
Pollutant
CASRN
3268-87-9
Name
Octa CDDE
Total PCDDE
Furans
51207-31-9
39001-02-0
2,3,7,8-TCDFE
Total TCDF£ .
,2,3,7,8-PeCDFE
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF8
Total PeCDFE
,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDFe
,2,3,6,7, 8-HxCDFE
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDFE
l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDFE
Total HxCDFE
1, 2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDFg
l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDFE
Total HpCDF8
Octa CDFE
Total PCDFE
Total PCDD/PCDF8
Hazardous air pollutants"
Dioxins
35822-46-9
3268-87-9
Total HxCDDE
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDDg
Total HpCDD6
Octa CDDE
Total PCDDE
Furans
Total TCDFE
Total PeCDFE
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF8
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF8
Total HxCDFg
Emission
Factor.
Ib/ton
2.5x10-"
7.9x10-"
9.7x10-"
3.7xlO-12
4.3xlO-12
8.4xlO-13
84x10'"
40xlQ-12
1.2xlO-'2
1.9xlO-'2
8.4xlQ-12
1.3x10-"
6.5xlO'12
2.7xlO-'2
l.OxlO'"
4.8xlQ-'2
4.0x10-"
1.2x10-'°
5.4xlO'12
3.4x10-"
7.1x10-"
2.7x10-"
2.8x10-"
3.3x10'"
7.4x10-"
5.4xlO-12
1.6xlQ-12
8.1xlO-!2
Emission
Factor
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ref. No.
339
339-340
339
339-340
339-340
339
339-340
339
339
339
340
339-340
339
339
339-340
339
339-340
339-340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-23
-------
Table 11.1-10 (com.)
'rocess
ruel oil- or waste
oil-fired dryer
(uncontrolled)
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59,-60,-61,-62,
-63) (cont.)
Waste oil-fired dryer
with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-61,
-62,-63)
CASRN
75-07-0
107-02-8
71-43-2
100-41-4
50-00-0
110-54-3
540-84-1
78-93-3
123-38-6
106-51-4
71-55-6
108-88-3
1330-20-7
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
Pollutant
Name
1,2, 3.4,6,7, 8-HpCDF6
Total HpCDF8
Total PCDF8
Total PCDD/PCDF8
Non-PAH HAPsc
Acetaldehyde
Acrolem
Benzened
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde0
Hexane
Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Propionaldehyde
Quinone
Methyl chloroformf
Toluene
Xylene
Total non-PAH HAPs
PAH HAPs
2-Methylnaphthalenee
Acenaphthene8
Acenaphthylene8
Anthracene8
Benzo(a)anthraceneg
Benzo(a)pyreneg
Benzo(b)fluoranthene8
Benzo(e)pyrene8
Benzo(g,h,i)peryleneg
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
1.1x10-"
3.8x10-"
1.5x10-'°
3.0x10-"
0.0013
2.6xlO-5
0.00039
0.00024
0.0031
0.00092
4.0x1 0'5
2.0xlO'5
0.00013
0.00016
4.8xlO-5
0.0029
0.00020
0.0095
0.00017
1.4x10-*
2.2xlO-5
3.1x10-*
2.1xlO-7
9.8x10"
1.0x10-'
1.1x10-'
4.0x1 0'8
emission
Factor
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
D
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ref. No.
340
340
340
340
25
25
25,44,45.50,341.342.
344-351.373,376.
377,383,384
25,44,45
25,35,44,45,50,339-
344,347-349,371-
373,384,388
339-340
539-340
25
25
25
35
25. 50, 339-340
25,44,45
50
48
50
50,162
48
48
35,48
48
48
11.1-24
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-10 (com.)
Process
Waste oil-fired dryer
with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-61,
-62,-63)(cont.)
Pollutant
CASRN
207-08-9
218-01-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
Name
Benzo(k)fluorantheneE
Chrysene8
Fluoranthene8
Fluorenee
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyreneg
Naphthalene6
Perylene13
Phenanthrene^
PyreneE
Total PAH HAPs
Total HAPs
Non-HAP organic compounds
67-64-1
100-52-7
106-97-8
78-84-2
4170-30-3
74-85-1
142-82-5
66-25-1
590-86-3
763-29-1
513-35-9
96-14-0
109-67-1
109-66-0
110-62-3
Acetone1
Benzaldehyde
Butane
Butyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Ethylene
Heptane
Hexanal
Isovaleraldehyde
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3-Methylpentane
1 -Pentene
n-Pentane
Valeraldehyde
Total non-HAP organics
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
4.1xlO'8
l.SxlO'7
6.1xlO'7
1.1x10'-
7.0x10'"
0.00065
8.8xlO'9
2.3x1 0'5
3.0xlO'6
0.00088
0010
0.00083
0.00011
0.00067
0.00016
8.6x1 0'5
0.0070
00094
0.00011
3.2xlO'5
0.0040
0.00058
0.00019
0.0022
0.00021
6.7x1 0'5
0.026
Emission
Factor
Rating
E
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
Ref. No
35,48
35,48
35,45,48
50,164
48
25,50,162,164
48
50,162,164
50
25
25
339
25
25
339, 340
339, 340
25
25
339, 340
339, 340
339, 340
339, 340
339, 340
25
a Emission factor units are 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 m these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-25
-------
Table 11.1-10 (com.)
Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Because of limited data, the
effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined.
c Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
d Based on data from 19 tests. Range: 0.000063 to 0.0012 Ib/ton; median: 0.00030; Standard deviation:
0.00031.
e Based on data from 21 tests. Range: 0.0030 to 0.014 Ib/ton: median: 0.0020; Standard deviation:
0.0036.
f
Compound has negligible photochemical reactivity.
& Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Total PCDD is the
sum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total tetra through octa furans; and
total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF.
11.1-26 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
Table 11.1-11. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Dryer hot screens, and
mixer
(SCC 3-05-002-45,-46,-47)
Pollutant
Arsenic0
Barium
Beryllium0
Cadmium0
Chromium0
Hexavalent chromium0
Copper
Lead0
Manganese0
Mercury0
Nickel0
Selenium0
Zinc
Emission
Factor, Ib/ton
4.6xlO'7
l.SxlO'6
1.5xl(T7
6.1xlO'7
5.7xl(T7
4.8xl(T8
2.8xl(T6
8.9xl(T7
6.9x1 0'6
4.1xl(T7 '
3.0xlO'6
4.9xlO'7
6.8xlO'6
Emission
Factor Rating
D
E
E
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
D
E
D
Reference
Numbers
34, 40, 226
24
34, 226
24, 34, 226
24. 34, 226
34. 226
24. 34, 226
24. 34, 226
24, 34, 226
34. 226
24. 34. 226
34. 226
24. 34, 226
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of HMA produced. Emissions controlled by a fabric filter.
SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.
Natural gas-, propane-. No. 2 fuel oil-, or waste oil-/drain oil-/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer. For waste
oil-/drain oil-/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer, use a lead emission factor of 1.0x10 Ib/ton (References 177
and 321, Emission factor rating: E) in lieu of the emission factor shown.
c Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
selenium are HAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-27
-------
Table 11.1-12. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONS
FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS3
Process
Fuel oil-fired dryer,
uncontrolled
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59.-60)
Natural gas- or
propane-fired dryer,
with fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-55,
-56,-57))
Pollutant
Arsenic6
Barium
Beryllium6
Cadmium6
Chromium6
Cobaltb
Copper
Lead"
Manganese6
Nickel6
Phosphorus6
Selenium6
Thallium
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic6
Barium
Beryllium6
Cadmium6
Chromium6
Cobalt6
Copper
Hexavalent chromium6
Lead6
Manganese6
Mercury6
Nickel6
Phosphorus6
Silver
Selenium6
Thallium
Zinc
Emission
Factor,
Ib/ton
1.3xlO-6
0.00025
0.0
4.2x10-"
2.4x1 0'5
l.SxlO'5
0.00017
0 00054
0.00065
0.0013
00012
2.4x10-"
2.2x1 0'6
0.00018
1.8xlO'7
5.6xlO'7
S.SxlO-6
0.0
4.1xlO'7
5.5x10"*
2.6xlO-8
S.lxlO-6
4.5x1 0-7
6.2xl07
7.7x10-"
2.4x1 0-7
63xlO'5
2.8xlO'5
4.8xlO-7
3.5xlO'7
4.1x10-"
6.1xlO-5
Emission
Factor
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
D
C
E
D
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
C
Reference Numbers
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
339
25, 35, 339-340
25, 339-340
339-340
25,35, 162,301,339-340
25, 162-164,301,339-340
339-340
25, 162-164,339-340
163
35
25, 162-164,339-340
35, 163
25, 163-164,339-340
25, 339-340
25, 339-340
339-340
339-340
25,35, 162-164,339-340
11.1-28
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-12 (cont.)
Process
No. 2 fuel oil-fired
dryer or waste
oil/drain oil/No. 6 fuel
oil-fired dryer, with
fabric filter
(SCC 3-05-002-58,
-59.-60,-61,-62,-63)
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenicb
Barium
Beryllium6
Cadmiumb
Chromiumb
Cobaltb
Copper
Hexavalent chromiumb
Leadb
Manganese11
Mercuryb
Nickel"
Phosphorus11
Silver
Selenium15
Thallium
Zinc
Emission
Factor.
Ib/ton
1.8xlO'7
5.6xl07
S.SxlO'6
0.0
4.1xlO-7
5.5x10-"
2.6x1 0-8
S.lxlO'6
4.5xlO'7
l.SxlO'5
7.7x10-"
2.6x10"
6.3xl05
2.8xlO'5
4.8xlO'7
3.5xlO-7
4.1xlO'"
6.1xlO'5
Emission
Factor
Rating
E
D
E
E
D
C
E
D
E
C
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
C
Reference Numbers
339
25,35.339-340
25, 339-340
339-340
25,35, 162,301,339-340
25, 162-164,301,339-340
339-340
25, 162-164,339-340
163
25, 162, 164, 178-179, 183,301,
315,339-340
25, 162-164,339-340
162, 164,339-340
25, 163-164,339-340
25, 339-340
25, 339-340
339-340
339-340
25,35, 162-164,339-340
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert
from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. Emission factors apply to facilities processing virgin aggregate or
a combination of virgin aggregate and RAP.
Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickelr
and selenium compounds are-HAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Elemental phosphorus also is a listed
HAP, but the phosphorus measured by Method 29 is not elemental phosphorus.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-29
-------
Table 11.1-13. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS FROM HOT MIX ASPHALT HOT OIL HEATERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
3rocess
riot oil heater fired
with No. 2 fuel oil
(SCC 3-05-002-08)
CASRN
50-00-0
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
205-99-2
206-44-0
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
19408-74-3
39227-28-6
35822-46-9
3268-87-9
67562-39-4
39001-02-0
Pollutant
Name
Formaldehyde
Acenaphtheneb
Acenaphthyleneb
Anthraceneb
Benzo(b)fluorantheneb
Fluorantheneb
Fluoreneb
Naphthalene13
Phenanthreneb
Pyreneb
Dioxins
l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDDb
l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDDb
HxCDD"
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDDb
HpCDDb
OCDDb
Total PCDD
Furans
TCDF6
PeCDF"
HxCDFb
HpCDF"
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF6
OCDFb
Total PCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF
Emission factor,
Ib/gal
0.027
5.3xlO'7
2.0xlO-7
l.SxlO-7
l.OxlO'7
4.4xlO-8
3.2xlO-8
1.7xlO'5
4.9x1 0'6
3.2xlO-8
7.6xlO-13
6.9X10'13
6.2xlO-12
1.5x10-"
2.0x10-"
1.6x10-'°
2.0x10-'°
3.3xlO-'2
4.8xlO-13
2.0xlO'12
9.7xlO-'2
3.5xlO-12
1.2x10-"
3.1x10'"
2.3x10-'°
a Reference 35. Emission factor units are Ib/gal of fuel consumed. To convert from Ib/gal to kilograms per
liter (kg/L), multiply by 0.12. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source
Classification Code.
h Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA). Total PCDD is the sum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total
tetra through octa furans; and total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF.
11.1-30
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-14. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS
FOR LOAD-OUT AND SILO FILLING OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Source
Pollutant
Equation
Drum mix or batch mix
plant load-out
(SCC 3-05-002-14)
Total PMb
Organic PMC
TOCd
CO
EF = 0.000181+ 0.00141 (-V)e«a°25')(T + 460)'2a43)
EF = 0.00141(-V)e«00251)(T + 460)-2043)
EF = 0.0172(-V)e((a0251 )(T " 460)' 2a43)
EF=0.00558(-V)e«°-0251«T"460)-20-43)
Silo filling
(SCC 3-05-002-13)
Total PMb
Organic PMC
TOCd
CO
EF = 0.000332 + 0.00105(-V)e«ao251)(T * 460)' 20'43)
EF = O.QO 105(-V)e«°-025 "(T " 460) - 20'43)
EF = 0.0504(-V)e((0-0251 )(T " 460)' 20'43)
EF = 0.00488(-V)e«°-025')(T * 460)' 20'43)
a Emission factor units are Ib/ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert
from Ib/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. EF = emission factor; V = asphalt volatility, as determined by
ASTM Method D2872-88 "Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film
Oven Test - RTFOT)," where a 0.5 percent loss-on-heating is expressed as "-0.5." Regional- or site-
specific data for asphalt volatility should be used, whenever possible; otherwise, a default value of-0.5
should be used for V in these equations. T = HMA mix temperature in °F. Site-specific temperature
data should be used, whenever possible; otherwise a default temperature of 325° F can be used.
Reference 1, Tables 4-27 through 4-31,4-34 through 4-3 6, and 4-3 8 through 4-41.
b Total PM, as measured by EPA Method 315 (EPA Method 5 plus the extractable organic paniculate
from the impingers). Total PM is assumed to be predominantly PM-2.5 since emissions consist of
condensed vapors.
c Extractable organic PM, as measured by EPA Method 315 (methylene chloride extract of EPA
Method 5 particulate plus methylene chloride extract of impinger particulate).
TOC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-31
-------
Table 11.1-15. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD-OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT
STORAGE EMISSIONS-ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
PAH HAPs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo( a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene .
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAH HAPs
Other semi-volatile HAPs
Phenol
CASRNa
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-1207
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
192-97-2
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-57-6
91-20-3
198-55-0
85-01-8
129-00-0
Speciation Profile for Load-
out and Yard Emissions
Compound/Organic PMC
0.26%
0.028%
0.070%
0.019%
0.0076%
0.0022%
0.0019%
0.0023%
0.0078%
0.103%
0.00037%
0.050%
0.77%
0.00047%
2.38%
1.25%
0.022%
0.81%
0.15%
5.93%
1.18%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt
Storage Tank Emissions
Compound/Organic PMC
0.47%
0.014%
0.13%
0.056%
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
0.0095%
0.21%
NDd
0.15%
1.01%
NDd
5.27%
1.82%
0.030%
1.80%
0.44%
11.40%
NDd
a Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number.
Emissions from loaded trucks during the period between load-out and the time the truck departs the plant.
c Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound
by the emission factor for extractable organic particulate (organic PM) as determined from
Table 11.1-14.
ND = Measured data below detection limits.
11.1-32
EMISSION FACTORS
12/00
-------
Table 11.1-16. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD-OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT
STORAGE EMISSIONS-ORGANIC VOLATILE-BASED COMPOUNDS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
vocb
Non-VOC/non-HAPs
Methane
Acetone
Ethylene
Total non-VOC/non-HAPS
Volatile organic HAPS
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Cumene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
Isooctane
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Total volatile organic HAPs
CASRN
74-82-8
67-64-1
74-85-1
71-43-2
74-83-9
78-93-3
75-15-0
75-00-3
74-87-3
92-82-8
100-41-4
50-00-0
100-54-3
540-84-1
75-09-2
596899
100-42-5
127-18-4
100-88-3
71-55-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
1330-20-7
95-47-6
Speciation Profile for
Load-Out and Yard
Emissions
Compound/TOCa
94%b
6.5%
0.046%
0.71%
7.3%
0.052%
0.0096%
0.049%
0.013%
0.00021%
0.015%
0.11%
0.28%
0.088%
0.15%
0.0018%
0.0%d
0.0%d
0.0073%
0.0077%
0.21%
0.0%d
0.0%d
0.0013%
0.41%
0.08%
1.5%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt Storage
Tank Emissions
Compound/TOC (%)a
100%
0.26%
0.055%
1.1%
1.4%
0.032%
0.0049%
0.039%
0.016%
0.0040%
0.023%
NDC
0.038%
0.69%
0.10%
0.00031%
0.00027%
NDC
0.0054%
NDC
0.062%
NDC
NDC
NDC
0.2%
0.057%
1.3%
Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented
by the emission factor for total organic compounds (TOC) as determined from Table
for the compound
11.1-14.
12/00
Mineral Products Industry
11.1-33
-------
Table 11.1-16 (cont.)
The VOC percentages are equal to 100 percent of TOC minus the methane, acetone, methylene chloride,
and 1,1,1 -trichloroethane percentages.
ND = Measured data below detection limits. Additional compounds that were not detected are:
acrylonitnle, allyl chloride, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,1 -dichloroethane,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
1,2-dichloropropane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene, 1,2-epoxybutane, ethyl
acrylate, 2-hexanone, iodomethane, methyl methacrylate, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, vinyl acetate, vinyl bromide, and vinyl chloride
Values presented as 0.0% had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency-corrected
measured concentration.
11.1-34 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 11.1
1. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section 11.1. Hot Mix Asphalt Production,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 2000.
2. Hot Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities, Kathryn O'C. Gunkel, Wildwood Environmental Engineering
Consultants, Inc.
3. 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.
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 ai. "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. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0076,
Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Seattle, WA, November 1971.
8. Guide For Air Pollution Control Of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Information Series 17, National
Asphalt Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.
9. 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.
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 & B,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-35
-------
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-75-1 A,
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 71 st
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, Washington, DC, 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 File
No. 91-ASP-l 1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February
1992.
25. Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #26, New Richmond, Wisconsin,
EMB File No. 91-ASP-10, 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, North Carolina,
RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1989.
28. Stationary Source Sampling Report, S.T. Woolen Company, Drugstore, North Carolina, Entropy
Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1989.
29. Source Sampling Report For Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill, North Carolina,
Environmental Testing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1988.
30. Source 'Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Of Shelby, Inc., Kings Mountain,
North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.
11.1-36 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
31. Emission Test Report, Western Engineering Company, Lincoln, Nebraska, EMB .Report
83-ASP-5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1984.
32. Source Sampling Report For Smith And Sons Paving Company, PineoU, North Carolina,
Environmental Testing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, June 1988.
33. Source Sampling For F'articulate 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, Invindale, 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 Report 84-ASP-8, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1984.
37. Emission Test Report, T. J. Campbell Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, EMB Report
83-ASP-4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1984.
38. Characterization Oflnhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant,
Final Report, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1983.
39. NAP A Stack Emissions Program, Interim Status Report, Prepared by Kathryn O'C. Gunkel For
The National Asphalt Pavement Association, February 1993.
40. Written communication From L. M. Weise, State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
To B. L. Strong, Midwest Research Institute, Cary, 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. Particulate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Biscoe, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 1987.
43. Particulate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Concord, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, June 1989.
44. Air Pollution Source Testing At APAC Of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 7, 1991.
45. Air Pollution Source Testing At Lehman Roberts Company, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 23, 1991.
46. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Selected Air Toxics At Industrial Asphalt,
Wilmington, California, Engineering-Science, Inc., Invindale, CA, August 5, 1992.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-37
-------
47. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Fred Weber, Inc., Maryland Heights, Missouri,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation. Memphis, TN, September 1-4, 1994.
48. Emission Test Report—Determination OfParticulate, Condensible Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide,
Carbon Monoxide, Total Hydrocarbon, And Poly nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emission Rates,
WW Engineering and Science, Grand Rapids, MI, January 1994.
49. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Melbourne, Florida, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 2-4, 1992.
50. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Cross City, Florida, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis. TN, December 7-9, 1992.
51. Results Of The September 30, 1994 Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse
Outlet Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located In Duluth, Minnesota, Pace, Inc.,
Golden Valley, MN, November 15, 1994.
52. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test Performed On A
Asphalt Batch Plant Wet Scrubber System, Tri-City Paving, Inc., Little Falls, Minnesota,
May 11, 1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, June 7, 1993.
53. Results Of The Particulate Emissions Compliance Test On The Baghouse Stack At Thorson, Inc.,
Roseau, Minnesota, Nova Environmental Services, Inc., Chaska, MN, November 16, 1993.
54. Results Of The August 5, 1994 NSPS Particulate And Opacity Test On The Mark Sand & Gravel
No. 8 Portable Asphalt Plant Near Fergus Falls, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
Pines, MN, November 22, 1994.
55. Results Of The September 8, 1993 Particulate And Visual Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Outlet At The Commercial Asphalt Companv Facility Located In Ramsey, Minnesota,
Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1993.
56. Results Of The September 1, 1993 10 Micron Particulate Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Stack At The Commercial Asphalt Redrock Facility Located In Newport, Minnesota,
Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 23, 1993.
57. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
•St. Paul, MN, June 18, 1993.
f
58. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, July 20, 1993.
59. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, July 28, 1993.
11.1-38 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
60 Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MM, September 2, 1993.
61. Results Of The August 3, 1993 State Paniculate Emission Compliance Test Of The Stationary
Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 31,
1993.
62. Results Of The July 7, 1994 Paniculate And Opacity Emission Compliance Testing Of The
Shamrock Enterprises Stationary Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories,
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 5, 1994.
63. Braun Intertec Report Number CMXX-94-0548, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights,
MN, September 1994.
64 Results Of The July 6, 1994 Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The No. 2 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed South OfMankato, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines.
MN, Augusts, 1994.
65. Results Of The August 29, 1994 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse Outlet
Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located In Twig, Minnesota, Pace, Inc.. Golden
Valley, MN, September 21, 1994.
66. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of Emission Compliance Test Performed On A Asphalt Plant
Baghouse System, Northern Asphalt Construction, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 17,
1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, September 16, 1993.
67. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Test Conducted On The
Buffalo Bituminous Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Hanover, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 17, 1993.
68. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
69. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
70. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, W. Hodgman & Sons, Inc., Northrup, Minnesota,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 11, 1993.
71. Results Of The June 17, 1993 NSPS Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The Bemidji
Blacktop Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed North Of Bemidji, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories,
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 28, 1993.
72. Results Of The June 21, 1993 NSPS Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
T. A. Schifsky & Sons Stationary Asphalt Plant Located In North St. Paul, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 22, 1993.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-39
-------
73. Results Of The September 30, 1994 NSPS Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The River
City Portable Asphalt Plant Located In Hugo. Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle
Pines, MN, October 26, 1994.
74. Results Of The Particulate Emissions Testing On The Baghouse Stacks At Marcoux & Warroad,
Minnesota, Nova Environmental Services, Inc., Chaska, MN, September 28, 1993.
75. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By Lakes Area
Asphalt, Inc., Brainerd, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 7, 1994.
76. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By
C. S. McCrossan, Maple Grove, Minnesota. MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 17, 1994.
77. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By Mid-
Minnesota Hot Mix, Inc., Annandale, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul,
MN, June 23, 1994.
78. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By L. C. Kruse &
Sons, Inc., Near Adrian, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
August 26, 1994.
79. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Operated By River Bend
Asphalt Company, Kasota, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
October 21, 1994.
80. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On An Asphalt Plant Scrubber Operated By Elk
River Bituminous, Elk River, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
November 10, 1993.
81. Braun Intertec Report Number CMXX-94-0518, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights,
MN, October 10, 1994.
82. Results Of The September 9, 1993 Particulate And Visual Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Stack At The Ulland Brothers, Inc. Facility Located In Shellrock Township,
Minnesota, Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1993.
83. Results Of The August 24, 1994 NSPS Particulate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
Stationary Asphalt Plant At The Tower Asphalt Lakeland Facility, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, September 22, 1994.
84. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Paving Materials Supply, Baltimore County,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1984.
85. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, North East Hot Mix Company Division Of James
Julian, Inc., Belair, Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN,
May 28, 1987.
11.1 -40 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
86. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corporation, Brooklyn,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 3 and 4, 1989.
87. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Odenton, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1987.
88. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Crofton, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 1986.
89. Stationary Source Samp/ing Report EElRef. No. 5527, C. Nelson Sigmon Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Conover, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27, 1987.
90. Stationary Source Sampling Report EElRef. No. 5474, Adams Construction Company, Batch
Mix Asphalt Plant, Benson, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
Park, NC, April 22, 1987.
91. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Company, Hickory, North Carolina,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 21, 1988.
92. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5569, Cumberland Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Princeton, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 29, 1987.
93. Paniculate Emissions Test, Asphalt Plant, Carl Rose & Sons, May 20, 1992, Elkin, North
Carolina, Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, May 1992.
94. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November 1985.
95. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Mattingly Construction Company, Easton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1984.
96. Stack Test Report No. AM39 82-22, P.O. Day Co., Inc., Boeing MS 400 Asphalt Plant,
Forrestville, Maryland, Division of Air Monitoring, State of Maryland, December 21, 1982.
97. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Reliable Contracting Asphalt Division, Gambrills,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 17, 1984.
98. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 9 and 10, 1986.
99. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., North East, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 1984. •
100. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Asphaltic Aggregate Dryer Stack, Glasgow
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, June 1989.
101. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Cockeysville, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 1984.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-41
-------
102. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Graham, North Carolina, Pace, Inc.,
Charlotte, NC, August 1990.
103. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, A.P.A.C.-North Carolina. Burlington, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 1991.
104. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 6780, Barnhill Contracting Company, Rocky
Mount, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.. Research Triangle Park, NC, June 11,
1990.
105. Compliance Field Test Report For Outerbanks Contracting Asphalt Plant, Plymouth, NC, Radian
Corporation. Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1987.
106. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Paolino Paving And Supply, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 3, 1987.
107. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Basic Construction Company, Newport News,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 1989.
108. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction Company, Crofton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 1986.
109. Stack Test Report No. 84-3, James Julian, Inc., Boeing Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, North East,
Cecil County, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, State of Maryland, May 1984.
110. Stationary Source Sampling Of Paniculate Emissions At Wake Asphalt Plant For Nello L. Teer
Company, Apex Environmental Services, Apex, NC, August 29, 1990.
111. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Barrus Construction Company, Deppe, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 12, 1990.
112. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, Environmental
Testing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1989.
113. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Quality Materials, Edison, New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 27 and 30, 1989.
114. Source Sampling Report For Thompson Contractors, Inc., Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack,
Rutherfardton, North Carolina, Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, April 1990.
115. Paniculate Emission Testing, Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Hendersonville, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, May 10, 1988.
116. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5630, RE A Construction Company, Continuous
Mix Asphalt Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 21, 1987.
117. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Bealeton, Virginia, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 27, 1989.
11.1-42 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
118. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Henry S. Branscome, Inc., Suffolk, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 18, 1989.
119. Source Emissions Survey OfF. R Lewis Construction Co., Inc., Asphalt Concrete Drum-Mix
Plant, Nacogdoches, Texas, METCO, Addison, TX, November 1984.
120. An Investigation Of Emissions At The Erie St. Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, Engineering-Science,
Inc., Fairfax, VA, May 1988.
121. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Blakemore Construction Company, Piney River,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 1989.
122. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, B &S Contracting Company, North Harrisonburg,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 21,1990.
123. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Barb & Shumaker, Inc., Abingdon, Virginia.
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 29, 1987.
124. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. B & S Contracting Company, Stuarts Draft.
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 4, 1990.
125. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 19, 1986.
126. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 9 and 10, 1986.
127. Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Paniculate Emissions At PAPCO Asphalt Plant #5, Apex
Environmental Services, Salisbury, NC, May 9, 1991.
128. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Heidt Construction Company, West Lake,
Louisiana, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, March 24, 1987.
129. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, APAC - Virginia, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 30, 1987.
130. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Corun & Catch, Inc., Aberdeen, Maryland. Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 14, 1988.
131. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Holloway Construction Company, Hancock,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 1984.
132. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Gens tar Stone Products, Cockeysville, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November 1985.
133. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Frederick, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 1987.
134. TACB Testing OfAsphaltic Concrete Plant Stack Emissions, Wood Material Supply, Inc.,
Conroe, Texas, NUS Corporation, Houston, TX, July 1987.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1 -43
-------
135. Source Sampling Report For Thompson-Arthur Paving Company, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, September 1990.
136. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 8116, S. T. Woolen Company, Princeton,
North Carolina, Particulate Emissions And Plume Opacity Testing, Rotary Dryer Stack, Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1, 1990.
137. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Wilmington Materials Company, New Castle,
Delaware, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 1987.
138. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Williams Corporation Of Virginia, Suffolk,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 12, 1989.
139. Particulate Emission Testing On The Scrubber Exhaust, Triangle Paving, Inc., Burlington, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 16, 1990.
140. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, American Asphalt Of Wisconsin, Plant #2, Arnott,
Wisconsin, Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska, WI, May 21, 1991.
141. Report To Appleton Asphalt For Stack Emission Test, Green Bay Asphalt Plant, DePere,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
May 20, 1991.
142. Report To Frank Brothers, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, CMI Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, Milton,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI.
July 29, 1987.
143. Biehl Construction Asphalt Plant Emission Test At Fan Du Lac, WI, Badger Laboratories and
Engineering Company, Inc., Appleton, WI, September 19, 1991.
144. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Baraboo Asphalt Company, Baraboo. Wisconsin,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 9, 1988.
145. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Brown County Highway Department, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 2, 1990.
146. Report To W. J. Kennedy & Son, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, Bituma 300 Plant, Janesville,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
November 13, 1991.
147. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Eau Claire Asphalt, Plant #50, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin, Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska, WI, May 30, 1990.
148. Source Test Report For Popejoy Construction Co., Inc., Ulysses, KS, Scrubber Exhaust Stack,
Recycle Asphalt Plant, Turner Engineering, Inc., Dallas, TX, July 9, 1984.
149. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Flanders, New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November 1988.
11.1 -44 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
150. STA Seal, Inc., Emission Compliance Test Program, Mansfield Township Facility, Air Nova.
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January 1992.
151. Trap Rock Industries, Inc., Emission Compliance Test Program, Pennington Facility, Air Nova,
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January 1992.
152. Technical Report For Stack Emission Compliance Testing On Three Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Owned And Operated By Weldon Asphalt Company, York Services Corporation, Stamford, CT,
September 26, 1991.
153. Report Of Emission Tests, Weldon Asphalt Corporation, Linden, New Jersey, N.J.D.E.P. ID
No. 040015, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Environmental
Quality, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, September 4, 1987.
154. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Weldon Asphalt, linden, New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 25, 1988.
155 Stack Test Report, Hydrocarbon & Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Quality Materials, Inc, Edison,
NJ, Ecodynamics, Inc., Little Silver. NJ, November 20, 1989.
156. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Baghouse Outlet Stack
(Plant 3), Lake Hopatcong, NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan, NJ, January 24, 1992.
157. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Scrubber Outlet Stack
(Plant 4), Lake Hopatcong, NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan, NJ, January 24, 1992.
158. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Burlington Asphalt Corporation, Mount
Holly, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air Quality
Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton, NJ, May 29, 1992.
159. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Brunswick Hot Mix Corporation, South
Brunswick, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air
Quality Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton. NJ, June 8, 1992.
160. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Ringwood, New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1987.
161. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Jackson Asphalt And Concrete Company, Jackson,
New Jersey, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1, 1988.
162. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At Claude C. Wood Company, Clements,
California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA, January 22, 1991.
163. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At Granite Construction Company Asphalt
Concrete Drum-Mix Plant, Sacramento, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA,
January 29, 1991.
164. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At California Commercial Asphalt Corporation,
San Diego, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA, January 29, 1991.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-45
-------
165. Source Emission Evaluation At Ace Paving Company, Inc. Barber Greene Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Stack Methods Testing, AM Test, Preston, WA, July 21, 1993.
166. Source Test Summary Of Emission To Atmosphere At Acme Concrete Co., Inc., Richmond, WA
Washington Department of Ecology, April 7, 1987.
167. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Ajax Materials Corp., Detroit, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 13, 1988.
168. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Ajax Paving Industries Intenter Rd. Romulus, M,
Ramcon Environmental Corp. Memphis, TN, August 10, 1992.
169. Stack Sampling Report For American Asphalt Paving Co., Shavertown, PA, Recon Systems Inc.,
Three Bridges, NJ, October 17, 1983.
170. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Asphalt, Inc. Lakeside, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 12, 1989.
171. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Better Materials Corp., Penns Park, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 31, 1988.
172. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Bi-Co Paving Co., Ragley, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 23, 1987.
173. Air Emissions Source Test Report At Associated Sand And Gravel Co., Inc., Everett, WA, Valid
Results Air Emissions Testing Specialist, Seattle, WA, November 10, 1993.
174. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions B. P. Short & Sons Paving Co., Lawrenceville, VA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 20, 1988.
175. Paniculate Emissions Test Barber Brothers Constr., Houma, LA, State of Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, November 3, 1989.
176. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Paniculate Emissions Barrett Paving materials, Inc.
Lebanon, OH, Hayden Environmental Group, Inc. Dayton, OH, June 7, 1994.
177. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions
From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Incop., Troy, OH, Hayden Environmental Group,
Inc, June 30,1994.
178. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions
From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Fairborne, OH, Hayden Environmental
Group, Inc. Dayton, OH, July 6, 1994.
179. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions
From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Incop., Sidney, OH, Hayden Environmental Group,
Dayton, OH, August 26, 1994.
180. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Bowen Construction Co., Lees Summit, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 24, 1989.
11.1-46 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
181. Report Of Paniculate And Visible Emission Testing At Berks Products Corp. Asphalt Batch
Plant, Ontelauee Township PA, Spoils, Stevens and McCorp, Inc., April 3, 1992.
182. Source Emissions Report For C. 3. Asphalt, Inc. Asphalt Facility Huntington, MO, Airsource
Technologies Lenexa, KS, May 5, 1993.
183. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions Barrett
Paving, Materials, Inc., Sidney, OH, Hayden Environmental group Inc. Dayton, OH,
November 4, 1994.
184. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Paniculate Emission Rates From The Asphalt Plant
Butler Asphalt Fairborn, OH, Hayden Environmental Group Inc. Dayton, OH, August 3, 1994.
185. Report On The results Of Velocity Profile And Paniculate Loading Tests performed At V. R.
Dennis Canyon Rock Co. San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District Dan Diego,
CA, September 17, 1985.
186. Stack Emissions Survey Dolphin construction Co., Calhoun, LA, Western Environmental Services
and Testing , Inc. Beaumont, TX, April 1987.
187. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Curtman Contracting, Inc. Owensville, MO, Ramcon
Memphis, TN, October 16,1989.
188. Paniculate Emission Testing Asphalt Plant Baghouse Springfield Pike Quarry Commercial
Stone, Connellsville, PA, Comprehensive Safety Compliance, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, August 24,
1990.
189. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Company Sugar Creek, MO,
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, April 16, 1991.
190. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Co., Inc. St. Joseph, MO.
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, October 18, 1988.
191. Stack Emissions Survey Chester Brass Construction Co. Asphalt Concrete Drum-Mix Plant
Plattsburg, MO, Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc. Casper, WY, August 24,
1993.
192. Paniculate And Visible Emission Test For Camdenton County Asphalt Production, Asphalt
Drum Mixers, Camdenton, MO, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, July 25,
1990.
193. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Paniculate Matter At Calmat (Industrial Asphalt
Corp.) Pala Indian Reservation, Pala, CA, Engineering Science, Irwindale, CA, February 25,
1990.
194. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Calmat Co., Pala, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 17, 1989.
195. Source Samp/ing For Paniculate Emissions At Wyoming Sand & Stone, Wilkes-Barre, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 14, 1988.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-47
-------
196. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At California Commercial Asphalt
Corp., San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, March 19, 1990.
197. Summary Of Source Test Results At Kaiser Sand & Gravel Pleasanton, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, May 20, 1991.
198. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At F. G. Sullivan Co., Inc. Port Allen, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., October 21, 1992.
199. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At H&B Batch-Mix Baghouse, Fred Weber Inc.
Pevely, MO, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 19, 1993.
200. Source Test Report Paniculate Emissions Faylor Middlecreed, Winfield, PA, Mease Engineering
Assoc. State College, PA, August 1987.
201. Source Test Report Paniculate Emissions Faylor Middle Creek, Winfield. PA, Mease Engineering
Assoc., State College, PA, June 1988.
202. Report Of Paniculate And Visible Emissions Testing HR1, Inc. Testing Performed On Asphalt
Batch Plant Baghouse Exhaust Stack, The General Crushed Stone Co. Lake Ariel, PA, SSM,
August 14-15, 1991.
203. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Paniculate Emissions Glasgow, Inc. Catanach
Facility, Batch Asphalt Plant, Gilbert Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, August 1990.
204. Summary Of Source Test Results At Dumbarton Quarry Assoc., Fremont, CA, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, June 23, 1992.
205. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions F. G. Sullivan Co., Ramcon Environmental Corp.,
Memphis, TN March 6 and 7, 1991.
206. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Cyclean, Inc. Mt. Hope, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 15, 1992.
207. Summary Of Source Test Results At Chevron USA, Inc., Richmond, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, April 24, 1990.
208. Source Test Summary Emissions To Atmosphere At Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, November 23,1983.
209. Compliance Emission Test Coalings Asphalt Plant Baghouse At Charles Oliver & Sons,
Coalinga, CA, ETC Environmental Inc., Ventura, CA, July 13, 1993.
210. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Paniculate, Visible And VOC Emissions AtE.J.
Breneman, Inc. Sinking Spring, PA, Gilbert/ Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, July 1992.
211. Central Valley Asphalt Compliance Stack Test Program At Central Valley Asphalt Division Of
Glenn O. Hawraker, Inc. Pleasant Gap, PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
Monroeville, PA, July 1990.
11.1-48 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
212. Compliance Test Program Scrubber Exhaust Stack At Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. State College,
PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc., Monroeville, PA, August 1991.
213. Compliance Test Rotan' Drier Baghouse At Granite Construction, Goleta. CA, ETC
Environmental, Inc. Ventura, CA, May 8, 1990.
214. Source Testing At Granite Construction, Pitchdco, G4,BWE Associates, Inc., Medford, OR,
June 10, 1991.
215. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co. San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, October 3, 1989.
216. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Jose, CA, October 18, 1990.
217. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA, September 13, 1992.
218. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Great Valley Construction Co., Devault, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, December 18, 1987.
219. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions At Haines & Kibblehouse, Blooming Glen, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1987.
220. Source Sampling Report For Measureent Of Particulate Emissions, Haines And Kibblehouse
Asphalt Batch Plant Chalpont, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, February 10,
1992.
221. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions Handweek Materials, Inc. Hummelstown, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 14, 1988.
222. Particulate Emission Testing Of The Hastings Pavement Asphalt Plant, Leesport, PA, JMCA
Corp., Fort Washington, PA, May 1986.
223. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions L. A. Construction Corp., Bigler, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 29, 1987.
224. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. A. Construction Corp., Port Allegheny, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 13, 1990.
225. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions I. A. Construction Corp. Punxsutawney, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 11, 1990 .
226. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Calmat (Industrial Asphalt),Pala Indian Reserv.,
CA.,Engineering Science, Irwindale, CA, March 18, 1991.
227. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control, Fresno, CA, June 1, 1993.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1 -49
-------
228. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp..Fresno, CA, Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield. CA, May 12, 1992.
229. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield, CA, May 27, 1992.
230. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 24, 1987.
231. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 6, 1989.
232. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, January 24, 1990.
233. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 23, 1991.
234. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 21, 1991.
235. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Windsor Service, Reading, PA, United Energy
Services Corp., Reading, PA, October 21, 1992.
236. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 9, 1990.
237. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, September 17, 1991.
238. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Inland Asphalt Co., Spokane, WA, Spokane County
Air Pollution Control Authority, Spokane, WA, August 15, 1985.
239. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, International Mill Service, Coatesville, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading PA, May 26-27, 1988.
240. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, October 16, 1991.
241. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 25, 1992.
242. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Kluge Brothers, Inc., Moundsville, WV, TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, September 3-4, 1987.
243. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Plain Dealing, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 25, 1987.
244. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 6, 1989.
11.1-50 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
245. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L. J.
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 10, 19
246. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L. J
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8, 199:
247. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lak
Aberdeen, WA, Am Test, Inc., Redmond, WA, M
248. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lak
Preston, WA, June 7-8, 1994.
249. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lak
Seattle, WA, July 18, 1985.
Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon
9.
Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon.
'-side Industries Barber Green Asphalt Plant,
,y25. 1988.
•side Industries, Kent, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
'.side Industries, Lacev, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
250. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Shelton, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston. WA, June 3, 1992.
251. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 23, 1993.
252. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Port Angeles, WA, Am Test,
Inc., Seattle, WA, September 10, 1985.
253. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, July 26, 1993.
254. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lash Paving And Excavating, Inc., Martins Ferry,
OH, Tra-Det, Inc., Wheeling, WV, October 14-15, 1992.
255. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Latrobe Construction Co., Latrobe, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, April 25, 1990.
256. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Leo Journagan Construction Co., Springfield, MO,
Aeromet Engineering Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 20, 1994.
257. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston, LA, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 8, 1986.
258. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston, LA, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 19, 1990.
260. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lindy Paving, Inc., New Castle, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, May 13-14, 1992.
261. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Looker & Associates, Puvallup, WA. Am Test Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 8, 1994.
262. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, M. A. Segale, Inc., Tukwila, WA, Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency, Corvallis, OR, March 13, 1985.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-51
-------
263. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Marsh Asphalt, Inc., Uniontown, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 20-21, 1990.
264. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Marsolino Asphalt, Inc., Carmichaels, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 17, 1988.
265. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Martin Limestone, Inc., Blue Ball, PA, •
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 6, 1989.
266. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Butler, MO, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 9, 1987.
267. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Springfield, MO,
AirSource Technologies, Lenexa, KA, August 5-6, 1991.
268. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Woodworth & Companv, Inc., Tacoma, WA, Am
Test, Inc., Redmond, WA, September 6, 1990.
270. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Buffalo, MO, Aeromet
Engineering, Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 21, 1994.
271. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, October 9, 1987.
272. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, July 17, 1990.
273. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Millcreek Township Asphalt Plant, Erie, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, June 23, 1991.
274. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, N. B. West Contracting Co., Brentwood, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1993.
275. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, New Enterprise Stone And Lime Co., Inc., New
Enterprise, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA, October 19, 1988.
276. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Ohio Valley Paving Corp., Morristown, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August, 18, 1988.
277. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, February, 13, 1978.
278. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 3, 1990.
279. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, August 26, 1992.
280. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, September 5, 1991.
11.1-52 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
281. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Richardson & Bass Construction Co., Columbia,
MO, Aeromet Engineering, Jefferson City, MO, October 12, 1993.
282. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Southern Ohio Asphalt, Spring Valley, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thomville, OH, May 13, 1994.
283. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc., San Rafael, CA, Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, June 1, 1992.
284. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Sharp Excavating And Blacktopping, Shelocta, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA, May 29, 1986.
285. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, July 30, 1991.
286. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, October 20, 1992.
287. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, CA, July 31, 1991.
288. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, October 20, 1992.
289. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 19, 1991.
290. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast-Escondido, Escondido, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 16, 1992.
291. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fairfield, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, November 12, 1990.
292. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fairfield, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, November 6, 1991.
293. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fairfield, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, March 25, 1993.
294. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Stabler Construction Co., Dupont, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8, 1987.
295. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Stoneco, Inc., Maumee, OH, U. S. Environmental
Consulting, Inc., Troy, MI, June 11, 1992.
296. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Lee s Summit, MO, AirSource
Technologies, Lenexa, KA, June 15, 1993.
297. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Syar Industries, Inc., Vallego, CA, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, April 4, 1990.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-53
-------
298. Source Sampling For Particutate Emissions, T. L. James Paving Co., Monroe, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, November 12, 1991.
299. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, T. L. James Paving Co., Opelousa, LA, Department
of Environment Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, April 22, 1989.
300. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville, Ml, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 17, 1987.
301. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Detroit, MJ, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 7, 1988.
302. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville, MI, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 29, 1988.
303. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, T. P. C. Paving And Supply, Delmont, PA,
Comprehensive Safety Compliance, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, May 31, 1990.
304. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Weirton, WV, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 24, 1986.
305. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Washington, PA, Hemeon
Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, July 7, 1987.
306. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Wheeling, WV, Wes't Virginia Air
Pollution Control Commission, Wheeling, WV, April 24, 1986.
307. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, V. R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 16, 1991.
308. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, V. R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 8, 1992.
309. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Morrow, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 20, 1994.
310. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #3, Ross, OH, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 14, 1991.
311. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9, Sharonville, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 19, 1989.
312. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #7 7, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
313. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 27, 1991.
314. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1994.
11.1 -54 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
315. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #20, Camp Dennison,
OH. Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 23-24, 1992.
316. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #18, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 3, 1993.
317. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #17, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
318. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #11, Xema, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 23, 1993.
319. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #6, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1993.
320. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #7, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 14, 1993.
321. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt Corp., Ansonia, OH, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 29, 1992.
322. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt & Manufacturing, Inc.,
Brookville, OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 2, 1991.
323. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, W. C. Hargis & Son, Brazil, In, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 15, 1990.
324. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Herbert R. Imbt. Inc., Bellefonte, PA, Mease
Engineering Associates, State College, PA, July 26-27, 1988.
325. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Blue Top Grading, Colorado Springs, CO, WV Air
Pollution Control Commission, Charleston, WV, May 14-15, 1986.
326. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Hi-Line Asphalt Paving Co.,Inc., Seattle, WA, Am
Test, Seattle, WA, August 9, 1985.
327. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials Inc., Philadelphia, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, July 26-27, 1989.
328. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Plant #15,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 16-17, 1990.
329. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Reading, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 22-23, 1986.
330. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walsh & Kelly, Port Of Indiana, IN, Ramcon
Environmental, Memphis, TN, October 31, 1991.
331. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Watson Asphalt Paving Co.,Inc., Redmond, WA,
Am Test, Redmond, WA, September 21, 1990.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-55
-------
332. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Weidle Sand & Gravel, Germantown, OH, Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc., Mason, OH, May 25, 1994.
333. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Ferry Co., TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, July 1 and 3, 1987.
334, Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Ferry Co., TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, June 15, 1993.
335. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Willard Asphalt Paving Co., Lebanon, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 9-10, 1994.
336. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wine Construction Co., Sewickley, PA, Hemeon
Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, June 30, 1992.
337. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Winford Co., Bossier City, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 1, 1986.
338. Emission Testing, July 9-11, 1996, Job Number 1030, AIRx Testing, Ventura. CA, July 23, 1996.
339. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A,
Clayton, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-00-020, April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer
Stack, Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 1 Of 2, EPA-
454/R-00-021a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual Methods
Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2, EPA-454/R-00-021b,
April 2000.
340. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Cary,
North Carolina, EPA-454/R-OQ-022, April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack,
Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Cary, North Carolina, Volume 1 Of 2, EPA-454/R-
00-023a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual Methods Testing,
Asphalt Plant B, Cary, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2, EPA-454/R-00-023b, April 2000.
341. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 5 Asphalt Plant, Verona, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 24, 1995.
342. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 6 Asphalt Plant, Vienna, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 18, 1995.
^
343. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 7 Asphalt Plant, Franklin, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 21, 1995.
344. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 24 Asphalt Plant, Kiel, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 5, 1995.
345. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 26 Asphalt Plant, Fish Creek, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, May 13, 1997.
11.1-56 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
346. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Asphalt Plant, Freedom, Wl,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI. September 27, 1995.
347. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 52 Asphalt Plant, Rio, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, June 30, 1995.
348. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 59 Asphalt Plant, Wautoma, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 16, 1996.
349. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 63 Asphalt Plant, Larsen, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, August 2, 1996.
350. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 65 Asphalt Plant, Green Bay, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 15, 1997.
351. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 68 Asphalt Plant, Menasha, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI. June 24, 1997.
352. Measurement OfNOx Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen Mills Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading, PA, June 27, 1995.
353. Measurement OfNOx and VOC Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen Mills #2 Asphalt
Plant Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading, PA, November 10,
1995.
354. J. S. Gammie, Compliance Test Report, Hot Mix, Inc./Fuller Sand & Gravel, Inc., Baghouse
Exhaust, Danby, VT, Environmental Risk Limited, Bloomfield, CT, November 1995.
355. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading and Silo Filling, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt
Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-024, May 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck
Loading and Silo Filling, Manual Methods Testing, Volumes 1 to 8, Asphalt Plant C, Los
Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-025a to h, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Technical
Systems Audit For Testing At Asphalt Plant C, Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-
454/R-00-026, May 2000.
356. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barre,
Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-027, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading,
Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barre, Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-028,
May 2000.
357. Written communication from R. Nadkarni to Chief, Emission Factor and Methodologies Section,
USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 7, 1994.
358. Pretest Survey A nd Screening Report Plant C.
359. W. K. Steinmetz and L. P. Cherry, Division Of Air Quality, Toxics Protection Branch, Air
Toxics Analytical Team. Analytical Investigation Of Inman Asphalt Terminal, Salisbury, North
Carolina, Rowan County, Investigation #98015, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, June 8, 1998.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-57
-------
360. J. R. Bowyer, A Study To Determine An Emission Rate Of Benzene From Asphalt Load-out,
A TAST #98026, Final Report (Revised), Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 1998.
361. C. Lutes, R. Thomas, and R. Burnette, Evaluation Of Emissions From Paving Operations, Final
Report, EPA 600/R-94-135, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
August 1994.
362. Asphalt Hot Mix Emission Study, March Report 75-1 (RR-75-1), The Asphalt Institute, College
Park, MD, March 1975.
363. P. Kariher, M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation Of VOC Emissions From Heated Roofing
Asphalt, EPA 600/2-91-061, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 1991
364 Emission Testing, July 9-11, 1996, Job Number 1030, AIRx Testing, Ventura, CA, July 23, 1996.
365. Personal email communication, J. Wood, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Boston, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 15, 1999.
366. Personal email communication, K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation . Hartford,
CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 18, 1999.
367. Personal email communication, K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Hartford,
CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 19, 1999.
368. Personal email communication, W. Medford, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, NC, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 20, 1999.
369. Personal email communication, J. McGraw, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,
MN, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
November 4, 1999.
370. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne AndDolan, Inc., Control 2 Plant, Waukesha, Wl,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, Wl, June 19, 1998.
371. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 4 Plant, Sussex, Wl, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, Wl, October 22, 1997.
372. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 8 Plant, Cedar Lake, Wl, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, Wl, August 14, 1997.
373. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 15 Plant, Saukville, Wl, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, Wl, August 27, 1997.
11.1-58 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
374. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc.. Control 25 Plant, Markesan. WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 7, 1998.
375. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan. Inc., Control 27 Plant. Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 6, 1997.
376. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Plant, Wautoma, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 1, 1999.
377. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 29 Plant, Dousman, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 7, 1997.
378. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 31 Plant, Racine, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 26, 1998.
379. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc.. Control 34 Plant, Environmental Technology and
Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove. WI, July 28 and October 6, 1999.
380. Stack Emission Test, Payne And Dolan, Inc., Control 53 Plant. Newberry, MI. Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation. Elm Grove, WI. September 1-2, 1998.
381. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Horicon, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 27, 1998.
382. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 2, 1999.
383. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 56 Plant, Ripon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation. Elm Grove, WT, September 3, 1997.
384. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 65 Plant, Green Bay, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 24, 1999.
385. Results Of The September 23, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test On The Monarch Paving
No. 10 Asphalt Plant Near Hager City, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MM,
November 11, 1999.
386. Results Of The August II & 28, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Tests On The Mathy/Northwoods
Paving Plant No. 25 Near Superior, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MM,
September 24, 1999.
387. Results Of The July 14, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test On The Mathy/American Asphalt
Plant No. 41 In Hatley, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, August 13, 1999.
388. Results Of The October 7-8 & 12, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test On The Mathy
Construction/Monarch Paving Asphalt Plant No. 46 Near Danbury, Wisconsin, Interpoll
Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, November 29, 1999.
12/00 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-59
-------
3 89. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants: Response to Comments On Testing Program For Asphalt Plants C And
D, EPA-454/R-00-029, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 2000.
390. B. Frank, Asphalt s 10 Year Success Story, Compliance Monitoring Service, Linwood, New
Jersey, March 13, 1997.
391. Memorandum from B. Shrager, MRI, Gary, NC, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Emission Factor Recommendations for the Hot Mix
Asphalt AP-42 Revision. November 15, 2000
392. 7996 U. S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
393. A Study Of The Use Of Recycled Paving Material - Report To Congress, FHWA-RD-93-147,
EPA/600/R-93/095, U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, June 1993.
394. Manufacturing Consumption Of Energy 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), U. S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
11.1 -60 EMISSION FACTORS 12/00
-------
APPENDIX B
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
EPA Contract No. 68-D7-0068
MRI Subcontract No. EFIG-0068/1
EPA Work Assignment No. 4-05
MRI Project No. 110075.2.001
December 2000
-------
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.1
Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions Measurement Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Ron Myers (MD-19)
EPA Contract No. 68D-98-027
MRI Subcontract No. EFIG-0068/1
Work Assignment No. 4-05
MRI Project No. 110075.2.001
December 2000
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Nos. 68-D2-0159 and 68-D98-027 to Midwest Research
Institute and Contract No. 68-D7-0068 to Eastern Research Group. It has been reviewed by the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract
Nos. 68-D2-0159, EPA Work Assignment No. 4-02. and 68-D98-027, EPA Work Assignment 3-02, and
Contract No. 68-D7-0068, EPA Work Assignment 4-05, under MRI subcontract EFIG-0068/1 to Eastern
Research Group. Mr. Ron Myers and Mr. Michael Toney were the EPA work assignment managers.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-5
2.2.1 Batch Mix Plants 2-5
2.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants 2-5
2.2.3 Counter-flow Drum Mix Plants 2-8
2.2.4 Recycle Processes 2-8
2.3 EMISSIONS 2-8
2.3.1 Batch Mix Plants : 2-8
2.3.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants 2-10
2.3.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants 2-11
2.3.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants 2-11
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-11
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 3-1
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING 3-1
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-2
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-3
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.1 REVISION OF SECTION NARRATIVE 4-1
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets 4-1
4.2.2 Review of FIRE and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors 4-92
4.2.3 Review of the AP-42 Background File 4-92
4.2.4 Results of Data Analysis 4-92
4.3 STATISTICAL APPROACH 4-105
4.3.1 Batch-Mix Dryers 4-107
4.3.2 Drum-Mix Dryers 4-111
4.3.3 Applicability of Multiplicative Models 4-113
4.3.4 Filterable PM Distributions 4-113
4.4 EMISSIONS FROM HMA LOAD-OUT AND OTHER SOURCES 4-114
4.4.1 Load-Out Emissions 4-114
4.4.2 Silo Filling Emissions 4-119
4.4.3 Comparison of Load-Out Data for Plants C and D 4-119
4.4.4 Predictive Emission Factor Equations for Load-Out and
Silo Filling Operations 4-120
4.4.5 Storage Tank Emissions 4-123
4.4.6 Emissions Following Load-Out - Yard Emissions 4-126
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
2-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants 2-6
2-2. General process flow diagram for parallel-flow drum mix asphalt plants 2-7
2-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants 2-9
4-1. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-128
4-2. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants 4-129
4-3. Plot of condensable inorganic PM emission factor versus RAP content for batch mix plants . . 4-130
4-4. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-131
4-5. Boxplot of CCK data by fuel type for batch mix plants 4-132
4-6. Plot of CCS emission factor by production rate • 4-133
4-7. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for drum mix plants 4-134
4-8. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-135
4-9. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-136
• 4-10. Plot of VOC emission factor versus production rate for drum mix plants 4-137
4-11. Boxplot of CC>2 data by fuel type for drum mix plants 4-138
4-12. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 1 4-139
4-13. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 2 4-140
4-14. Unmeasured TOC silo storage emissions, Run 3 4-141
4-15. THC silo storage emissions, Run 2 4-142
4-16. Extended period tests (1 min averaging) 4-143
4-17. Cumulative emissions vs. time after load-out 4-144
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
4-1. REFERENCES NOT USED FOR EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT 4-145
4-2. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA - PLANT C ASPHALT ... 4-146
4-3. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA - PLANT D ASPHALT D . 4-146
4-4. SUMMARY OF SUMMA CANNISTER SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359 .... 4-147
4-5. SUMMARY OF PORTABLE GC/MS SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359 4-148
4-6. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER SAMPLE ANALYSES -
REFERENCE 359 4-148
4-7. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 360 4-149
4-8. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 361 4-150
4-9. SUMMARY OF CEMS DATA - REFERENCE 361 4-150
4-10. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED 4-151
4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; DRUM
MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-152
4-12. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; BATCH
MIX FACILITY - DRYERS .' 4-194
4-13. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY-HOT OIL HEATERS 4-216
4-14. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; DRUM MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS .' 4-217
4-15. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE,
NOX, SO2, AND TOC; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-232
4-16. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; DRUM MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-242
4-17. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;
DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-246
4-18. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY - HOT OIL HEATERS 4-257
4-19. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; BATCH MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-258
4-20. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE,
NOX, 03, SO2, AND TOC; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-267
4-21. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; BATCH MIX
FACILITY - DRYERS 4-273
4-22. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS:
BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS 4-275
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Number
4-23. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATA 4-279
4-24. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATA 4-281
4-25. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATA 4-282
4-26. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATA 4-285
4-27. REPORTED PARTICULATE-BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-286
4-28. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-287
4-29. REPORTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS FOR PLANT D 4-289
4-30. BACKGROUND-CORPvECTED PARTICULATE BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT C 4-290
4-31. BACKGROUND CORRECTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT C 4-291
4-32. ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESULTS FROM SELECTED STATES 4-293
4-33. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS ON HEATING DATA 4-293
4-34. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-294
4-35. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-295
4-36. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS -
PLANT D 4-297
4-37. LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS AT -0.5% LOSS ON HEATING AND 325°F 4-297
4-38. REPORTED PARTICULATE BASED SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-298
4-39. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-299
4-40. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-301
4-41. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C 4-302
4-42. PREDICTED AND ADJUSTED LOSS-ON-HEATING VALUES 4-304
4-43. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS 4-305
4-44. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC VOLATILE ORGANIC-BASED
COMPOUNDS 4-306
4-45. SUMMARY OF CURVE-FITTING RESULTS FOR YARD EMISSIONS DATA 4-308
4-46. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR YARD EMISSIONS 4-308
vin
-------
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.1
HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) has been published by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1972. Supplements to AP-42 have been routinely
published to add new emission source categories and to update existing emission factors. AP-42 is
routinely updated by EPA to respond to new emission factor needs of EPA, State, and local air pollution
control programs, and industry.
An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the
source. The uses for the emission factors reported in AP-42 include:
1. Estimates of areawide emissions;
2. Estimates of emissions for a specific facility; and
3. Evaluation of emissions relative to ambient air quality.
The purpose of this report is to provide background information from test reports and other
information to support revisions to AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Production.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to the report.
Section 2 gives a description of the hot mix asphalt (HMA) industry. It includes a characterization of the
industry, an overview of the different process types, a description of emissions, and a description of the
technology used to control emissions resulting from HMA production. Section 3 is a review of emission
data collection and analysis procedures. It describes the literature search, the screening of emission data
reports, and the quality rating system for both emission data and emission factors. Section 4 details
revisions to the existing AP-42 section narrative and pollutant emission factor development. It includes the
review of specific data sets and the results of data analysis. The final AP-42 Section 11.1, Hot Mix
Asphalt Production, is presented separately.
1-1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
1-2
-------
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION136
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of size-graded, high quality aggregate
(which can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]), and liquid asphalt Demerit, 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 [/^m] in physical diameter) is required for the production of good
quality HMA.
Hot mix asphalt paving materials car. be manufactured by: (1) batch mix plants, (2) continuous
mix (mix outside dryer 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 3,600 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 (type 2 above) represent a very small fraction of the plants in use
(!/2 percent or less) and, therefore, are not discussed further nor are any data presented for this type of
plant.
An HMA plant can be constructed as a permanent plant, a skid mounted (easily relocated) plant, or
as a portable plant. All plants can have RAP processing capabilities. Virtually all of the plants
manufactured today have RAP processing capability.
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
The 1996 U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook was consulted to develop an
estimate of the annual production of HMA (1996 had the greatest reported use of bituminous aggregate).
Information useful for estimating HMA production is divided between reports on Crushed Stone and
Construction Sand and Gravel within the yearbook. Within these two categories, the information is further
divided.
The following information is presented in Table 13 in the Crushed Stone section of the 1996 USGS
Minerals Yearbook (the unspecified category includes production reported without a breakdown by end use
and estimates for nonrespondents):
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Bituminous aggregate, coarse 88,900,000 metric tons (Mt) (also called
Megagrams [Mg])
Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate 22,900,000 Mt
Fine aggregate (-3/8 inch):
Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal 25,500,000 Mt
Special:
Asphalt fillers or extenders 1,280,000 Mt
2-1
-------
Unspecified:
Actual 370,000,000 Mt
Estimated 182,000,000 Mt
Total 1,330,000.000 Mt
In addition, Table 20 in the Crushed Stone section of the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook presents a total
of 1,350,000 Mt of recycled asphalt for 1996.
The following information is presented in Table 6 in the Construction Sand and Gravel section of
the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook (the unspecified category includes production reported without a
breakdown by end use and estimates for nonrespondents):
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures 70,800,000 Mt
Unspecified:
Actual 174,000,000 Mt
Estimated 203,000,000 Mt
Total 914,000,000 Mt
In addition. Table 14 in the Construction Sand and Gravel section of the 1996 USGS Minerals Yearbook
presents a total of 3,740,000 Mt of recycled asphalt for 1996.
Both sections in the Minerals Yearbook recommend that the unspecified uses categories be
distributed as the specified uses categories. Adjusting the total crushed stone production of 1,330,000,000
Mt to the ratio of reported total specified use totals for HMA usage verses the total specified uses of
crushed stone yields 236,904,000 Mt (1,330,000,000 x (138,580,000 + 778,000,000). Adjusting the total
sand and gravel production of 914,000,000 Mt to the ratio of reported total specified HMA usage verses
the total specified uses for sand and gravel yields 120,505,000 Mt (914,000,000 x (70,800,000 -
537,000,000). Asphalt is added to this newly quarried aggregate total of 357,409,000 Mt to produce HMA
that is 6 percent asphalt (or 94 percent aggregate) to yield 380,222,000 Mt of HMA. In addition to newly
quarried aggregate, the USGS reported that a total of 5,090,000 Mt of recycled asphalt was used in HMA.
Based on these reported values from USGS, the production of HMA for 1996 is estimated to be
385,312,000 Mt or 424,614,000 tons. However, given the emphasis on recycling in State paving contracts,
a recycled asphalt to new HMA ratio of only 1.3 percent appears very low and is probably significantly
under estimated.
In a 1993 joint Federal Highway Administration and EPA report (A Study of the Use of Recycled
Paving Material - Report to Congress; FWHA-RD-93-147; EPA 600/R-93-095; June 1993), it was
estimated that 73 million metric tons (80.4 million tons) of RAP were recycled annually. This report
documents several methods of reprocessing RAP for reuse as pavement or other materials. However, the
report does not provide estimates of reprocessing by each method. Based on this report, EPA concluded
that the majority of RAP reprocessing is in HMA plants. Assuming all of the RAP is reprocessed in HMA
plants, an early 1990's upper bound estimate of 16.1 percent recycled asphalt produced can be calculated.
Recognizing that this estimate includes reprocessing not in HMA plants, EPA examined an alternative
method of estimating national RAP usage in HMA plants.
At Plants C and D between 80 and 90 percent of the asphalt produced included RAP. When RAP
was used, Plants C and D included 30 percent and 10 percnet RAP in their respective final asphalt mixes
during EPA emission testing. Extrapolating this production information to an annual estimate, Plants C
and D use between 8 and 27 percent RAP with a midpoint of 17.5 percent. While this number is larger
than the FHA derived upper bound estimate of 16.1 percent, it may be more representative of RAP usage
2-2
-------
rates in the late 1990's. Using the midpoint (17.5 percent) of this range yields a revised RAP usage of
80,653,000 Mg (88,905,000 tons). Using the revised RAP usage yields a total estimated HMA production
for 1996 of 469,102,000 Mg or 517,096,000 tons.
Information provided by the HMA industry indicates that HMA is produced by approximately
2,300 batch plants and 1,300 drum-mix plants. Using a national asphalt production estimate of 517
million tons of HMA, an estimate of the national annual production capacity at drum and batch mix plants
was determined as follows:
Based on available production capacity data from emission compliance tests of 98 batch mix plants
and 162 drum-mix plants, the average maximum production rates are:
Batch-214 tons/hr
Drum - 272 tons/hr
Extrapolating these averages to the entire HMA industry yields an estimated, theoretical national
production capacity of 7,409 million tons of HMA if all plants could operate 8760 hours in a year. The
2,300 batch mix plants would produce 4,311.7 million tons and the 1,300 drum mix plants would produce
3,097.5 million tons.
Based upon the above estimates of HMA production and available plant capacity, the estimated
utilization rate of the industry is only about 7 percent (517 million - 7,409 million). This significant under
utilization is caused by limitations on when pavements can be laid, including limitations created by weather
conditions, contract specifications on times of the day when pavement construction can be performed, the
local demands for paving construction and repair, the distance that HMA can be trucked to a paving site,
the desire to be able to meet short term peak production demands, and a variety of other factors. A number
of differences between drum and batch mix asphalt plants suggest the estimated 7 percent utilization ratio
is not likely to be equal distributed among batch mix and drum mix plants. These differences include:
1. production methods,
2. capability to make and store product ahead of the time,
3. ability for loading to occur significantly quicker at facilities with storage silos,
4. the general lack of storage capability at batch mix plants, and
5. the economic desire to shift higher production demands to the higher capacity and more cost
efficient drum mix plants.
All drum mix plants require HMA storage silos to store product ahead of demand. It is estimated
that for a maximum production day, a typical drum mix plant will begin production three hours prior to the
first truck load-out in order to stay ahead of demand. For days with less than maximum production, a
typical drum mix plant will maintain this relative production advantage, although it is not necessary to
begin production three hours ahead of the first truck load-out. Since a typical batch mix plant does not
have storage for a significant amount of aggregate, it cannot produce significantly ahead of demand. For
an eight-hour load-out schedule and equal production capacity, the drum mix plant is able to produce
38 percent more product (11+8 = 1.38) than a batch mix plant. It also is estimated that for about
30 minutes over the eight hour day, a typical batch mix plant will need to stop production because there are
no transport trucks to load. As a result, the batch mix plant is only able to produce about 94 percent of its
hourly target production (7.5 ^ 8 = 0.938). As a result, the eight-hour load-out capability for drum mix
plants is estimated to be 147 percent of the eight-hour production capacity for batch mix plants (1.38 +
0.938 = 1.47). Since the average production capacity of drum mix plants is 27 percent greater than batch
mix plants (272 + 214 = 1.27), the overall eight-hour load-out advantage of the average drum mix plant (as
2-3
-------
compared to the average batch mix plant) would be 187 percent of the eight-hour production capacity (1.47
x 1.27 = 1.87). Using this estimate, if 517 million tons of HMA are produced per year by the 2,300 batch
and 1.300 drum-mix plants then:
517 x 106 = 2,300 x B + 1,300 x D
and
D =1.87xB
where:
B = average production of a batch mix plant (tons/yr)
and
D = average production of a drum-mix plant (tons/yr)
Solving the equations for B:
517 x 106 = 2,300 x B + 1,300 (1.87 x B)
517x 106 = 4,731 xB
B = 109,000 tons/yr
D = 204,000 tons/yr
Using these average production rates, the total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum-mix
plants is estimated at about 251 million tons and 265 million tons, respectively.
The Department of Energy indicates that annual distillate fuel sales to industrial customers in the
United States for 1998 was 2,462,355,000 gallons (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/
data_publications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/current/pdf/tablel.pdf) compared to natural gas sales of
8,686,147,000,000 cubic feet (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/
natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/table_014.pdf). At a typical energy content of 140,000 Btu/gal for
distillate oil and 1,050 btu/ft3 for natural gas, 96.3 percent of the energy used by industries was natural
gas. We expect that many of the factors that promote the preferential use of gas fuels are common within
many industries. Therefore, we expect fuel usage at hot mix asphalt plants to be very similar to other
industrial sources. Some of these factors are fuel cost, delivery system requirements, and equipment
maintenance requirements. The Energy Information Agency reported in the Manufacturing Consumption
of Energy 1994 (Combined Consumption and Fuel Switching) report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
mecs/mecs94/consumption/mecs4a.html) that the national average cost industry paid for 1 million Btu of
energy was S2.15 for natural gas, $4.84 for distillate oil and $4.71 for LPG. This report also separates
these energy costs by four regions of the United States. Of the four regions, the differences in the costs of
the various fuels are smallest in the northeast region. In this region, the average fuel costs were $3.39 for
natural gas, $4.89 for distillate oil and $5.69 for LPG. In addition, the delivery of fuel oil and LPG must
be scheduled and stored near the production unit. The storage tanks and supporting mechanical equipment
require monitoring and maintenance that is not required when the plant is fueled with natural gas. Also,
burners for firing fuel oil require a higher level of maintenance than natural gas burners. Lastly, it is
recognized that the combustion of fuel oil produces more air emissions than natural gas combustion.
Therefore, it is believed that, where it is available, natural gas is and will remain the predominant fuel used
at HMA plants. However, many plants will maintain the capability to use fuel oil as an alternate or
supplementary fuel. A few plants will use only fuel oil due to the unavailability or high local cost of
natural gas. As a spot check of the DOE information on industrial fuel usage, an informal telephone survey
of five States was conducted. The survey confirmed that HMA plants use natural gas when it is available.
2-4
-------
The fuel usage information in the States' emission inventories shows a range of about 50 percent to
99 percent gas usage. However, the fuel usage information reported by industry generally 'was incomplete.
Also, for some States, energy usage per ton of product was over 50 percent higher than emission tests
where fuel usage and production information was available. As a result, it is estimated that between 70 and
90 percent of HMA is produced with gas fuels.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION1-3
2.2.1 Batch Mix Plants
Figure 2-1 shows the batch mix HMA production process. Raw aggregate normally is stockpile d
near the production unit. 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 four different grades (sizes) and dropped into
individual "hot" bins according to size. For newer facilities, reclaimed asphalt pavement also may be
transferred to a separate heated storage bin. 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.
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 pugmill (mixer) and dry-mixed for
6 to 10 seconds. The liquid asphalt then is dropped into the pugmill where it is mixed for an additional
period of time. For older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly from storage hoppers to the pug mill,
where it is combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is less than 60 seconds. Then the
hot mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site.
2.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants
Figure 2-2 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
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 which is electronically linked to the 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 particulate matter from collectors.
The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and conveyed to a surge bin or HMA storage
silos. The exhaust gases also exit the end of the drum and pass on to the collection system.
2-5
-------
COMBINED EXHAUST FROM HOT ELEVATOa
SCREENS. BINS MIXER. AND DRYER
(SCC 3-05-002-45. -48, -47)
EXHAUST TO
ATMOSPHERE
^i EXHAUST
3 FAN
LOADER
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 305OH-03)
CONVEYOR
TRUCK LOAD OUT
(SCC 3-05-002-14)
ROTARY
DRYER DRYER
BURNER (SCC 3-06-002-01. -51. -52 -53)
CONVEYOR
/ COLD AGGREGATE BINS
' (SCC 3-05-002-04)
FEEDERS
ASPHALT CEMENT STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002 12)
LEGEND
Emission Points
(D) Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
-. EXHAUST TO
' ATMOSPHERE
SECONDARY FINES
RETURN LINE
HMA
STORAGE
(SCC 3-05-002-13)
TRUCK
LOAD-OUT
(SCC 3-05-002-14)
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE
AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
PARALLEL-FLOW
DRUM MIXER
(SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -56,
-58, -59, -61, -62)
CONVEYOR
SCALPING
SCREEN
COLD AGGREGATE
BINS
3-05-002-04)
s
<§>
ASPHALT CEMENT HEATER
STORAGE (SCC 3-05-002-08, -07, -08, -09)
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
LEGEND
,+
©
©)
Emission Points
Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-2. General process flow diagram for parallel-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
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, there is a potential for organic
emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) to be greater than in counterflow plants and some batch plants.
However, this increase in emissions is not evident in the data because variations in the emissions due to
other unknown variables are more significant.
2.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
Figure 2-3 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 vanable 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
paniculate 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. However, the available data are insufficient to
discern any differences in emissions that result from differences in the two processes. A counterflow
drum-mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon
emissions.
2.2.4 Recycle Processes
In recent years, the use of RAP has been initiated in the HMA industry. Reclaimed asphalt
pavement significantly reduces the amount of new (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 appropnate 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 HMA that meets the required quality specifications.
2.3 EMISSIONS
Emission points at batch and drum-mix asphalt plants discussed below refer to Figures 2-1, -2, and
-3 respectively.
2.3.1 Batch Mix Plants
As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have two 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 one 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.
2-8
-------
LOADER
(SCC 3-05-002-04)
SECONDARY
COLLECTOR
FINE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COURSE AGGREGATE
STORAGE PILE
(SCC 3-05-002-03)
COUNTER-FLOW CONVEYOR SCALPING / COLD AGGREGATE BINS
HOI IM It11 VCD C/-OCTCIit ' tc-t-f* t ne r\nr\ n*\
DRUM MIXER
(SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -57
-58,-BO,-61,-63)
(SCC 3^)5-002-04)
ASPHALT CEMENT HEATER
STORAGE (SCC 3.05.002-06, -O7, -08, 09)
(SCC 3-05-002-12)
Emission Points
D) Ducted Emissions
Process Fugitive Emissions
Open Dust Emissions
Figure 2-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).
-------
The most significant ducted source of emissions from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary drum
dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate): PM; products
of combustion (carbon dioxide [CCy, nitrogen oxides [NOX], and sulfur oxides [SOX]); carbon monoxide
(CO); and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including volatile organic compounds
[VOC], methane [CH^], and hazardous air pollutants [HAP]). The CO and organic compound emissions
result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. It is estimated that about 95 percent of the energy used at
HMA plants is from the combustion of natural gas.
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 air
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 organic compounds and a
fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is created by the condensation of vapor
into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the mixer (pug mill).
The amount of organic 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 also are emitted directly to
the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load-out, from the bed of the truck itself during transport
to the job site, and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low molecular weight organic compounds and
the higher weight organic aerosol contain small amounts of HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated
asphalt storage tanks may include gaseous and aerosol organic compounds and combustion products from
the tank heater.
There also are 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 /j.m in
aerodynamic diameter. On average, 5 percent of cold aggregate feed is less than 74 /urn (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 /j.m. Uncontrolled PM emission factors for various types of
fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations."
2.3.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants
The most significant ducted source of emissions from parallel-flow drum-mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^, and HAP). The organic compound emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel and from
heating and mixing of the liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. The CO emissions result from incomplete
combustion of the fuel. Although it has been suggested that the processing of RAP materials at these type
plants may increase organic compound emissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during
processing, the data supporting this hypothesis are very weak. Specifically, although the data show a
relationship only between RAP content and condensable organic particulate emissions, 89 percent of the
variations in the data were the result of other unknown process variables.
Once the organic compounds cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a
fine organic 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.
2-10
-------
2.3.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
The most significant ducted source of emissions from counter-flow drum-mix plants is the rotary
drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;
products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC,
CH^j, and HAP). The CO and organic compound emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion
of the fuel. 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 organic
compound emissions from the kiln stack than parallel flow drum mix plants. However, variations in the
emissions due to other unknown process variables are more significant. As a result, the emission factors
for parallel flow and counterflow drum mix plants are the same.
2.3.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants
Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plants from hot screens, elevators and the pugmill
are not present in the drum-mix processes. However, there are fugitive PM and VOC emissions from the
transport and handling of the HMA 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 have surge bins or
storage silos. The open dust sources associated with drum-mix plants are similar to those of batch mix
plants with regard to truck traffic and aggregate material feed and handling operations.
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The choice of applicable emission controls for PM emissions from the dryer and vent line includes
dry mechanical collectors, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have
met with little success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment such as 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 fabric filter
or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control. As with any combustion process, the design,
operation, and maintenance of the burner provides opportunities to minimize emissions of NOX, CO, and
organic compounds.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Asphaltic Concrete Industry Source Category Repor t, J. S. Kinsey, EPA-600/7-86-038, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.
2. Hot Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities, Kathryn O'C. Gunkel, Wildwood Environmental Engineering
Consultants, Inc.
3. 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.
4. 1996 U. S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
5. A Study Of The Use Of Recycled Paving Material - Report To Congress, FHWA-RD-93-147,
EPA/600/R-93/095, U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 1993.
6. Manufacturing Consumption Of Energy 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), U. S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
2-11
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
2-12
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
Data for this investigation were obtained from a number of sources within the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and from outside organizations. The AP-42 background files located in
the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (EFIG) were reviewed for information on the industry, processes,
and emissions. The Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) and VOC/PM Speciation Data Base
Management System (SPECIATE) data bases were searched by SCC for identification of the potential
pollutants emitted and emission factors for those pollutants. A general search of the Air CHIEF CD-ROM
also was conducted to supplement the information from these data bases.
Information on the industry, including number of plants, plant location, and annual production
capacities, was obtained from the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) and other sources. The
Aerometnc Information Retrieval System (AIRS) data base also was searched for data on the number of
plants, plant location, and estimated annual emissions of criteria pollutants. A number of sources of
information were investigated specifically for emission test reports and data. A search of the Test
Method Storage and Retrieval (TSAR) data base was conducted to identify test reports for sources within
the hot mix asphalt industry. However, the test reports located using the TSAR data base were already
obtained for an earlier revision of this document. A search of EPA's Source Test Information Retrieval
System (STIRS) was conducted to identify test reports for the hot mix asphalt industry. Most of the new
data obtained for this revision were located in STIRS. Using information obtained on plant locations,
individual facilities and State and Regional offices were contacted about the availability of test reports.
Publications lists from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Control Technology Center
(CTC) also were searched for reports on emissions from the hot mix asphalt industry. In addition,
representative trade associations, including NAPA, were contacted for assistance in obtaining information
about the industry and emissions.
To screen out unusable test reports, documents, and information from which emission factors could
not be developed, the following general criteria were used:
1. Emission data must be from a primary reference:
a. Source testing must be from a referenced study that does not reiterate information from
previous studies.
b. The document must constitute the original source of test data. For example, a technical paper
was not included if the original study was contained in the previous document. If the exact source of the
data could not be determined, the document was eliminated.
2. The referenced study should contain test results based on more than one test run. If results
from only one run are presented, the emission factors must be down rated.
3. The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing procedures and source operating
conditions (e.g., one-page reports generally were rejected).
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports,
documents, and information according to these criteria.
3-1
-------
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quantity and quality of the information contained in the final set of reference documents were
evaluated. The following data were excluded from consideration.
1. Test senes averages reported in units that cannot be converted to the selected reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (e.g., comparison of the EPA Method 5
front-half with the EPA Method 5 front- and back-half);
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified and described; and
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were measured before or after the
control device.
Data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality rating. The rating system used was that
specified by OAQPS for the preparation of AP-42 sections. The data were rated as follows:
A-Multiple tests performed on the same source using sound methodology and reported in enough
detail for adequate validation. These tests do not necessarily conform to the methodology specified in the
EPA Reference Methods, although these methods were certainly used as a guide for the methodology
actually used.
B-Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for
adequate validation.
C-Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that lacked a significant amount of
background data.
D-Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may provide an
order-of-magmtude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for sound methodology and
adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented in the
report. The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a generally
acceptable methodology. If actual procedures deviated from accepted methods, the deviations are well
documented. When this occurred, an evaluation was made of the extent to which such alternative
procedures could influence the test results.
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data are documented in the report.
Many variations can occur unnoticed and without warning during testing. Such variations can induce wide
deviations in sampling results. .If a large spread between test results cannot be explained by information
contained in the test report, the data are suspect and were given a lower rating.
3-2
-------
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The nomenclature
and equations used were compared to those (if any) specified by the EPA to establish equivalency. The
depth of review of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's confidence in the ability and
conscientiousness of the tester, which in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results and
completeness of other areas of the test report.
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the test data was rated utilizing the
following general criteria:
A-Excellent: Developed primarily from A- and B-rated test data taken from many randomly
chosen facilities in the industry population. The source category is specific enough that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
B-Above average: Developed primarily from A- and B-rated test data from a moderate 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 in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
C-Average: Developed primarily from A-, B-, and 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 in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so that variability within
the source category population may be minimized.
D-Below average: The emission factor was developed primarily from A-, B-, and C-rated test
data from a small number of facilities, and there is 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 category
population. Limitations on the use of the emission factor are noted in the emission factor table.
E-Poor: The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there is 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. Limitations on the use of these factors are
always noted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an extent on the individual
reviewer.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 3
1. Procedures For Preparing Emission Factor Documents, EPA-454/R-95-015. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, May 1997.
3-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
3-4
-------
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT
4.1 REVISION OF SECTION NARRATIVE
The AP-42 section is a revision of a previously developed draft. The section that currently is
published in AP-42 has been updated to include large amounts of additional test data gathered following
publication of the fifth edition of AP-42. Valid data from the old and new references were combined
(where applicable) to develop emission factors for several pollutants, including filterable particulate matter
(PM), condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NO^), metals, total organic compounds (TOC), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), aldehydes, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), and polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (PCDD)
emitted from hot mix asphalt (HMA) production operations. These emission factors represent emissions
from drum-mix and batch-mix dryers fired by natural gas, propane, fuel oil (Nos. 2, 4, 5, or 6), and waste
oil. Additional emission factors were developed for emissions from hot oil heaters. No emission factors for
conventional continuous plants are included in the revised section because these plants represent a
small percentage of the industry (less than one-half of 1 percent).
Another major revision to the section involves the inclusion of emission factors and emission factor
equations for HMA load-out operations. These emission factors and equations were developed using data
from a recent EPA testing program. Their development is described in Section 4.4 of this background
report.
4.2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
More than 300 emission test reports were obtained for use in developing new emission factors for
HMA production. Twenty-seven of these reports, as shown in Table 4-1, were rejected for use in
developing emission factors. All of the references used for developing emission factors are discussed in the
following paragraphs. Brief reviews of the first 23 references also are provided, although many of these
references were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1 Review of Specific Data Sets
4.2.1.1 Reference 1. This document contains a description of conventional HMA production
operations and presents emission data from 45 HMA plants. Average emission factors were developed for
conventional (continuous and batch mix) dryers controlled by spray towers, centrifugal scrubbers, and
fabric filters. In addition, the results of an emission study conducted at five HMA plants are presented.
The five source test reports are located in the background file. During the study, dryer stack emissions
were measured simultaneously with an EPA source sampling train and a Los Angeles source sampling
train. The Los Angeles train measured 37 percent higher PM emissions than the EPA train when emissions
were sampled following fabric filtration and 20 percent lower PM emissions following wet scrubber
systems. Particle size data contained in this document were evaluated in Reference 23 and are not
discussed here.
The data from the industry survey were assigned a C rating because the production rates were
estimated from the plant capacities and the test data sheets for each test were not provided. The data from
three of the five emission tests (EPA sampling train only) conducted as a part of this study were assigned a
C rating because the types of plants were not specified and only two test runs were performed during each
test. The plants were the conventional type, but batch or continuous operations were not specified. The
4-1
-------
data for plant No. 1 were not considered valid because problems with the fabric filter were reported during
testing, and the emissions were considerably higher than emissions from the other plants tested. The data
for plant No. 3 were not considered valid because problems with cyclonic flow were experienced during
testing.
4.2.1.2 Reference 2. This document contains information on process operations and control
systems for the HMA industry. No emission data for use in developing emission factors were presented.
4.2.1.3 Reference 3. This document presents test data from 25 tests conducted at conventional
HMA plants by Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District personnel prior to 1960. Filterable PM
emissions and particle size distribution are included in the data summary. A telephone conversation
documented in Reference 23 of this AP-42 background file indicated that the PM sampling tram was
similar to the EPA Method 5 train, except that the filter was located downstream of the impingers. A
"Micromerograph" was used to determine particle size. The data were gathered more than 30 years ago
and cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the data were not
rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.4 Reference 4. This document contains a description of HMA production operations and
potential control systems. Some emission data are included in the document, but no production rates are
documented. The data presented are the same data presented in Reference 3. Therefore, the data were not
rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.5 Reference 5. This document is an excerpt from the 1973 edition of the Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Data for filterable PM emissions and particle size distribution from two HMA
batching plants are presented, but no indication of the number of test runs performed or the test method
used is provided. In addition, control devices are not specified. However, the magnitude of the emissions
suggests that the emissions were uncontrolled. Filterable PM and size-specific PM emission factors were
developed for batch-mix dryers.
All of the data were assigned a D rating because insufficient detail was provided for validation of
the emission tests.
4.2.1.6 Reference 6. This document presents emission data from 19 emission tests at 10 HMA
batching plants. Data for PM emissions from dryers are presented, but no indication of the number of test
runs performed or the test method used is provided. The data were gathered more than 40 years ago and
cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the data were not rated
and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.7 Reference 7. This document includes a process description for HMA batching plants,
control efficiencies for various control devices, and limited emission data. No indication is given of the
number of test runs performed or the test method used to quantify emissions. The data were gathered more
than 30 years ago and cannot be validated because little detail about the testing is provided. Therefore, the
data were not rated and were not used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.8 Reference 8. This document is not located in the background file.
4.2.1.9 Reference 9. This document is the same as Reference 3, which is described in
Section 4.2.3.3.
4-2
-------
4.2.1.10 Reference 10. This document presents costs and efficiencies for control devices used at
HMA batching plants but does not contain emission data that can be used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.11 Reference 11. This document contains a description of the drum-mix HMA production
process and contains secondary emission data for total PM emissions from drum mixers with various
controls. Several deficiencies are noted in the text, including a lack of detail on the control systems and a
large variation in emission concentrations. In addition, run-by-nm data are not presented. For these
reasons, the data presented were assigned a D rating.
4.2.1.12 Reference 12. This document describes in detail the drum-mix process but does not
contain any emission data that were used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.13 Reference 13. This document describes the drum-mix process and contains limited
emission data. No indication is given of the number of test runs performed or the test method used to
quantify emissions. In addition, uncontrolled PM emission factors calculated from two of the tests differ
by an order of magnitude. The data presented were not rated and were not used for emission factor
development.
4.2.1.14 Reference 14. This document describes the production of HMA and discusses proposed
(1973) new source performance standards (NSPS) for the industry but does not contain any emission data
that were suitable for emission factor development.
4.2.1.15 Reference 15. This document presents the final version of Reference 14. Data from 8 of
the 18 tests were used for emission factor development. Data were not used if (1) no production rates were
documented; (2) only 1 test run was performed; or (3) the data were deemed invalid because of problems
encountered during testing. Data for filterable PM, total PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2
emissions from batch mix plants with various control systems were presented.
The data were assigned a B rating because the document is a secondary reference and does not
contain sufficient detail about the processes and tests. Usually, data from a secondary reference are
assigned a C rating. However, these data were used for the development of an NSPS and were the focus of
scrutiny by the HMA industry, the technical staff developing the regulation, and public interest groups.
Therefore, the data rating was increased by one level. If only two valid test runs were performed, the data
were assigned a C rating. The testing methodologies appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported
during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.16 Reference 16. This document contains secondary emission data from several sources. In
addition, the results of an industrial survey are presented. The survey was conducted in 1975 by Monsanto
Research Corporation. Data for uncontrolled and controlled PM emissions from drum mixers were
documented, but sufficient detail were not included for validation of the data.
4.2.1.17 Reference 17. This document presents the results of two test programs conducted at
HMA plants. Both plants tested were batch mix plants with wet scrubbers controlling dryer emissions.
Some run-by-run data are presented, but the run-by-run emission rates are not included in the document.
The data presented could not be used for emission factor development.
4.2.1.18 Reference 18. This document does not contain data or process information that is
relevant to this section. The revised AP-42 section does not reference this document.
4-3
-------
4.2.1.19 Reference 19. This document does not contain data or process information that is
relevant to this section. The revised AP-42 section does not reference this document.
4.2.1.20 Reference 20. This reference is missing from the background file.
4.2.1.21 Reference 21. This document discusses the application of fabric filters to dryers at HMA
plants. Some emission data also are presented, but they are insufficient for use in developing emission
factors.
4.2.1.22 Reference 22. This document presents the results of VOC emission tests conducted at
five drum-mix HMA plants. Method 25 was used to quantify nonmethane VOC (as carbon) emissions,
which are referred to as total nonmethane organic compounds (TNMOC) in Section 4.2.4 of this report. In
addition. PM emissions were measured (Method 5) at one of the plants. Operating parameters were varied
from run to run, but no change in emissions (attributable to a specific variation) was noticeable.
The data from this document were assigned a D rating. Adequate detail about the processes and
tests was provided, and no problems were reported during testing. However, the data we're downgraded to
D because a positive bias in Method 25 results may occur when the product of the moisture content and
CO2 concentration of the stack gas is greater than 100, which is typical of stack gas from HMA plants
(moisture contents and CO2 concentrations were not provided in the document). Also, complete run-by-run
emission data were not provided, and the actual emission test reports were not available for review.
4.2.1.23 Reference 23. This document presents the background information used for the 1986
revision of AP-42 Section 8.1, Asphaltic Concrete Plants. The main emphasis in the 1986 revision was
size-specific PM, and only primary references that contained particle size data were used for emission
factor development in the report. Data from six references were used to develop size-specific PM emission
factors. Because of a lack of available data, several data sets that would not usually be used for AP-42
emission factor development were used. For this document and the associated AP-42 revision, the suspect
data sets were not used for emission factor development unless no new data were available for similar
source/control combinations.
Four of the six data sets are considered to be of insufficient quality for inclusion in the revised
AP-42 section. Two of the data sets are based on testing using cascade impactors that, based on the dates
of the tests, probably used "button hook" preseparators rather than cyclones. There is potential for
inaccuracies in particle size distribution measured with this type of impactor. Two of the data sets are
based on emission testing conducted before 1970 and are considered to be outdated. The particle size data
for uncontrolled batch-mix dryers from this document were retained in the AP-42 section because no new
data are available for uncontrolled batch-mix dryers. These data are assigned a D rating and are not of the
quality desired for use in AP-42. The two valid data sets are described below (excerpts from Reference 23
are shown in italics). It should be noted that the data from Reference 26 (transcribed below in italics) are
now assigned a C rating because only one test run was performed.
4-4
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
3.4.7 Reference 26 [H.J. Taback, et ai. Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and
Miscellaneous Sources in the South Coast Air Basin. KVB 5806-783. KVB. Inc., Tustin,
CA. February 1979.1
Reference 26 is a study of the fine particle emissions from a variety of sources in the
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles), conducted by a contractor to the California Air
Resources Board (CARS). One test included in this study was of the emissions from an
asphalt batch plant controlled by a cyclone collector followed by a baghouse. Only one
test run was performed during the sampling program with concurrent measurements
made at the inlet and outlet of the baghouse collector.
The size distribution of the paniculate was determined at each sampling location using
either of two sampling trains equipped with a series of three individual cyclones having
nominal cut-points of 10, 3, and 1 fj.mA, respectively. For inlet testing, a standard EPA
Method 5 (Joy) tram was adapted for the program by installing the three cyclones and a
backup filter in the oven section of the impinger box. For testing at the outlet, the
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was used. The data obtained from the
CARB study were entered into the EADS system from which a printout was obtained. A
summary of the data contained in Reference 26 is provided in Table 3-11 with a copy of
the pertinent sections of the draft report included in Appendix F Upon checking with
the contractor it was learned that the test data for run 29S were not changed in the final
report from that included in the draft shown in Appendix F.
TABLE 3-11. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DA TA FOR REFERENCE 26a
Data Ratine: B
Test No.
29S
Sampling
location
Outlet
Percent of particles in stated size rangec
>W/umA 10-3 f^mA 3-1 ^mA <1 ^mA
60 6 4 30
aFrom page 4-165 of Reference 26 (Appendix F).
Location relative to baghouse collector.
cAerodynamic diameter.
From the analysis of Reference 26 it was determined that the particle size measurements
were made during sound methodology, and it does contain adequate information for
validation. The only significant problem found with the data was that the cyclone train
at the inlet to the baghouse became overloaded with material, which could significantly
affect the validity of the test results. This fact was learned from a review of the test
report itself rather than from the EADS printout. For this reason, the data collected at
the inlet of the baghouse were not used in the development of candidate emission factors.
Since only one test run was conducted at the outlet of'the baghouse, a rating ofB was
assigned to the data.
4-5
-------
3.4.8 Reference 27 [T.J. Walker, et ai. Characterization oflnhalable Paniculate Matter
Emissions from a Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158. Technical
Directive 8. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City. MO, February 1983.1
Reference 27 is a report of the tests conducted by MRI, under the IP program, of a
drum-mix asphalt plant controlled bv a baghouse collector. The drum mixer was
equipped to process recycled asphalt paving utilizing a split feed arrangement.
Paniculate matter contained in the exhaust stream was sampled at both the inlet and
outlet of the baghouse with measurements also made of the condensation aerosol which
would theoretically be formed upon release into the atmosphere (condensable organics).
The general sampling protocol used in this study was that developed for the IP
program. At the inlet, the total uncontrolled emissions from the process were
determined from a six-point traverse utilizing EPA Method 5. The particle size
distribution was obtained from samples collected by an Andersen High Capacity Stack
Sampler equipped with a Sierra Instruments 15-f^mA preseparator. Four particle size
tests were conducted at each of the four sampling quadrants for a total of 16 test runs.
At the outlet from the baghouse, the total mass emissions from the plant were determined
utilizing proposed EPA Method 17, with two tests being conducted at each of four
sampling quadrants. The particle size distribution was likewise obtained using an
Andersen mark III cascade impactor and Sierra Instruments 15 /umA preseparator
utilizing an identical test protocol.
Condensable organics testing was also performed during the study utilizing the Dilution
Stack Sampling System (DSSS) developed by Southern Research Institute. This system
extracts a small slipstream of gas from the stack which, after removing particles
>2.5 i^mA in diameter, is mixed in a dilution chamber with cool, dry ambient air. A
standard high-volume air sampler is installed at the discharge end of the chamber which
collects a combination ofthe fine paniculate (<2.5 /urn) extracted from the stack and any
new paniculate matter formed by condensation. The loadings obtained from the DSSS
are then compared to those measured by a second sampling train without the dilution
chamber to determine the amount oj condensable organics formed. Three separate tests
were conducted at the outlet of the baghouse collector during the sampling program.
Table 3-12 through 3-14 provides a summary of the results of this study with a copy of
applicable portions of the document included in Appendix G.
Since the tests in Reference 2 7 were conducted according to the protocol developed for the IP
program and are well documented, a rating of A was assigned to the data.
4-6
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
Table 3-12. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DATA COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET
REFERENCE 27"
Data Rating: A
Test No.
I
3
4
Run No.
(source-r
tin-quad)
l-l-l(B)
1-1-2
1-1-3
1-1-4
1-2-1(0"
1-2-2(8)
1-2-3
1-2-4
1-3-1
1-3-2
1-3-3
1-3-4
1-4-1
1-4-2
1-4-3
1-4-4
IS fjm Cyclone
Mass
(mg)
4,775.2
6.088.7
6,345.5
10,6076
21291
5,881 3
4,157.7
9,0689
5, 718 0
6,1130
3,086.1
10,346 7
2,149.4
3,242.0
7,794.4
9,585.9
£>,„ size
(fjm)
148
15.5
15 1
15 2
145
156
154
15.0
15 7
155
154
152
15.5
15 4
15.4
15.5
Cum %
less than
staled
size
302
25 0
192
176
267
25 7
229
229
22.3
235
33 5
198
35 8
27 S
202
21.4
Stage 1
Mass
(mg)
95 2
1250
685
1795
456
1270
604
4066
364.8
81 0
622
170.5
484
784
893
1785
Dw size
(/jm)
11 4
11 8
11 5
// 6
// 2
// 7
// 7
11.5
11.7
11 7
11 6
11 6
11 7
11 7
116
11.7
Cum %
less than
stated
size
288
23.5
183
162
25 1
24 I
21 7
19.5
174
22.5
32 1
185
344
2600
193
20.0
Stage 2
Mass
(mg)
617.5
5666
3994
7509
221 8
621 1
362 7
767 3
2005
505 7
393 8
8887
301 8
348.8
5506
873 4
D,0 size
fam)
63
6 7
65
65
62
66
66
64
66
66
65
65
661
6.6
6.6
66
Cum %
less than
stated
size
19 7
165
13 3
104
17 5
162
150
12 9
14 7
162
23 6
11 6
25 4
182
13 6
128
Cyclone
Mass
(mg)
1.091 0
1. 143 3
9068
9779
446 3
1,061 0
7460
1,0388
975 1
9975
9374
1.062 2
671 9
6428
8742
7850
Dso size
(fjm)
1 9
1 9
1 9
1 9
1 8
20
1 9
I 9
2.0
20
1 9
1 9
20
1 9
1 9
20
Cum %
less than
stated
size
38
24
I 7
28
2 1
28
1 2
4 1
I 4
3 7
34
34
53
3 9
4 7
6.4
Filter
Mass
(mg)
258.0
1980
1343
3565
608
2226
62 4
481 7
104 1
294 8
1594
4 3 5' 3
177 1
175.2
4566
7773
Dio size
(/.m)
-------
(EXCERPT FROM REFERENCE 23)
Table 3-13. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE TEST DATA COLLECTED AT THE BAGHOUSE INLET
REFERENCE 27"
Data Rating: A
Test
No
1
2
Run No
(source-run
-quad)
O-l-l(B)
0-1-f
0-1-3"
0-1-4
0-2-1
0-2-2
0-23
0-2-4
15-[jm Cyclone
Mass
(tng)
3796
8491
3929
7237
21 93
49 78
61 54
71 68
£>,„ sine
(l^m)
149
14 7.
149
148
15 2
150
146
15 4
Cum %
less than
staled
size
42.1
21 0
260
31 6
56 7
35 7
32 8
370
Slage 0
Mass
(mg)
041
051
000
061
1 60
067
3 52
779
Dw si-e
(/•"<)
147
14 4
146
14 7
149
14 7
143
150
Cum %
less than
slated size
41 5
20 1
260
31 1
53 1
349
289
30 1
Stage 1
Mass
(mg)
I 34
089
063
0 73
I 88
085
1 98
3 38
D,a size
(fjm)
91
90
91
92
93
92
89
94
Cum %
less than
stated size
395
19 7
248
304
498
338
268
272
Stage 2
Mass
(ma}
365
394
1 95
2 36
433
3 36
4 77
5 75
D^size
(/Ml)
62
6 1
6 1
6 2
63
62
60
63
Cum %
less than
stated size
339
160
21 1
28 1
41 2
294
21 6
22 1
Sta^e 3
Mass
K)
845
543
297
000
568
791
704
835
D,a size
(ton)
2 7
26
2 7
2 7
2 7
2 7
26
28
Cum %
less than
stated
size
129
6 8
102
12 7
21 0
33.6
89
90
Stage 5
Mass
(mg)
5 71
4 74
3 26
124
509
663
509
607
D,a size
(tan)
13
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
13
1 3
1 4
Cum %
less than
staled size
42
24
4 1
1 0
11 0
5 /
33
3 7
Stage 6
Mass
(»>g)
207
1 71
1 81
000
260
295
245
2 52
D,a size
(fjn)
080
078
0 79
081
081
080
078
082
Cum %
less than
slated size
1 1
082
064
10
58
13
064
1 4
Slage 7
Mass
(mg)
033
057
021
088
1 54
077
046
091
D,,, size
(/jn)
059
058
058
059
060
0 59
057
061
Cum %
less than
slated size
056
029
024
020
28
026
0 14
063
Filter
Mass
(mg)
037
031
0 13
021
1 40
020
0 13
0 72
£>,„ size
(f,m)
-------
4.2.1.24 Reference 24. The plant tested was a batch mix'facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included controlled measurements of filterable PM,
size-specific PM, trace metals, and PAH emissions and uncontrolled measurements of CO, CC^, SC^,
NOV, aldehydes, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and TOC emissions. All of the tests
A "
were performed at the outlet of the fabric filter on the dryer, but fabric filters provide only incidental, if
any, control of the above pollutants that are labeled as uncontrolled. Several target pollutants were not
detected in any run. Particulate matter and trace metal emissions were sampled using EPA
Method 5/Combined Train SW 846 Test Method 0031. Size-specific PM, condensable inorganic PM, and
condensable organic PM emissions were determined using EPA Methods 201A and 202. However, the
actual cut size for the PM-10 catch was 7.9 micrometers (urn) because the test ports were not large enough
to allow the proper nozzle to be used. Measurements of CO, CO2, SO2, and NOX were taken using
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) following EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, and 7E,
respectively. Sampling for PAHs was performed concurrently with the PM and metals test by
EPA SW 846 Test Method 0010 (Semi-VOST), and aldehyde sampling was done using EPA SW 846
Method 0011. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were determined using EPA
Method 18(13 samples analyzed for each pollutant), and TOC emissions were measured using EPA
Method 25A (CEMS). The Method 25A results were converted to TOC as methane using the measured
emission concentration, the density of methane at standard temperature and pressure (STP), and the
volumetric flow rate for each test run. Three test runs were performed for each pollutant measured, except
for the pollutants measured by CEMS, as well as methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
The results from the CEMS were averaged over the duration of each test run, thus giving one value for
each pollutant from each of three test runs. The second metals run was not included in the development of
emission factors because the back-half sample bottle was broken during shipment. The emission factors
developed from this test report differ from the emission factors presented in the test report because of the
treatment of runs in which the pollutant concentration was found to be below the detection limit. In the test
report, runs of this type were not included in emission averages, whereas the emission factors developed
from the report use one-half of the detection limit as the emissions from a "nondetect" run. Detection limits
were not provided for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. For these pollutants, assumed detection
limits were calculated using 80 percent of the smallest detected amount of each pollutant.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, unless more than one test run did not detect the
targeted pollutant, in which case the data were assigned a B rating. Methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene emission data were assigned a B rating because detection limits were not
provided. Data for PM-10 emissions were assigned a C rating because of the problem with the actual cut
size (see above) as well as the use of an average volumetric flow rate for calculating emission rates
(measured rates were suspect). Data for condensable PM emissions were assigned a B rating because of
the use of an average volumetric flow rate for calculating emission rates (measured rates were suspect).
The acetone data are assigned a D rating because a high field blank indicates possible sample
contamination. Otherwise, the report included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and
no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.25 Reference 25. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a waste oil-fired dryer and
emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included controlled measurements of filterable PM,
condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, PM-10, trace metals, and PAHs from the plant stack
(drum mixer/dryer fabric-filter outlet). Uncontrolled measurements included CO, CO2, NOX, SO2,
aldehydes, methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and TOC emissions from the plant stack. All
of the tests were performed at the outlet of the fabric filter, but fabric filters provide only incidental, if any,
control of the above pollutants that are labeled as uncontrolled. Filterable PM and trace metal emissions
were sampled using EPA Method 5/Combined Train SW 846 Test Method 0031. Size-specific PM and
condensable PM emissions were determined using EPA Methods 201A and 202. Measurements of CO,
4-9
-------
CO2. NOX, SO2, and TOC were taken using a CEMS following EPA Methods 10, 3A, 7E, 6C, and 25A.
respectively. The Method 25A results were converted to TOC as methane using the measured emission
concentration, the density of methane at STP, and the volumetric flow rate for each test run. Sampling for
PAHs was performed concurrently with the PM and metals test using EPA SW 846 Test Method 0010
(Semi-VOST), and aldehyde sampling was done using EPA SW 846 Method 0011. Methane, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were determined using EPA Method 18. Three test runs were
performed for each pollutant measured, except for the pollutants measured by CEMS. The results from the
CEMS were averaged over the duration of each test run, thus giving one value for each pollutant from each
of three test runs. The emission factors developed using the data from this test report differ from the
emission factors presented in the test report because of the treatment of runs in which the pollutant
concentration was found to be below the detection limit. In the test report, runs of this type were included
in emission averages (zero emissions), whereas the emission factors developed from the report use one-half
of the detection limit as the emission from a "nondetect" run. Detection limits were not provided for
ketones, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. For these pollutants, assumed detection
limits were calculated using 80 percent of the smallest detected amount of each pollutant.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, with the following exceptions: methyl ethyl
ketone, methane, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene emission data were rated B because detection
limits were not provided and at least one "nondetect" run was reported for each pollutant. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test
runs.
4.2.1.26 Reference 26. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and CO2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.27 Reference 27. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
CO2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CO2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and CO2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.28 Reference 28. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with emissions controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included three test runs measuring filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM,
and C02 emissions -from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter
controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CO2 emissions. Filterable PM was
sampled using EPA Method 5, condensable inorganic PM was analyzed using the Method 5 back-half
catch, and COT was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it provided only an average production rate, and the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4-10
-------
4.2.1.29 .Reference 29. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM
and CO2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the venturi scrubber outlet. The scrubber
controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC^ emissions. Filterable PM was
sampled using EPA Method 5, and CC>2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it provided only an average production rate and did not specify the pressure drop across the venturi
section of the scrubber. The methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the
valid test runs.
4.2.1,30 Reference 30. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and CC>2
emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls PM
emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CO^ emissions. Filterable PM was sampled using
EPA Method 5. and CC^ was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.31 Reference 31. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 5 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The tests were performed at the inlet and outlet of the fabric
filter and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as TOC in the test report). The
tests were performed during both conventionaland recycle operations. The condensable organic PM tests
were not considered to be valid because problems were encountered during analysis (the back-half catch
adhered to the glassware). During conventional operation, there were two valid test runs at the fabric-filter
inlet (Run 1 was not isokinetic) and three valid runs at the fabric-filter outlet. During recycle operation.
there were three valid test runs at the fabric-filter inlet and two valid runs at the fabric-filter outlet (only
two runs were performed). All of the tests measured emissions from the drum mixer.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the tests that included three valid runs, and a
rating of B was assigned to the test data from the tests that included only two valid runs. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid
test runs.
4.2.1.32 Reference 32. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a scrubber. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and CO2
emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the scrubber outlet. The scrubber controls PM
emissions, but provides only incidental, if any, control of CO2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled
using EPA Method 5, and CC>2 was measured using EPA Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included some detail,
but it did not provide details about the control system, including the pressure drop across the scrubber. The
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.33 Reference 33. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by No. 2 fuel
oil and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and
CO2 emissions from the drum mixer (drying process) at the fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls
PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of CC>2 emissions. Particulate matter was
4-11
-------
sampled using EPA Method 5, and CC^ was measured using EPA Method 3. The test was conducted
while the dryer feed included about 33 percent RAP.
A rating of A was assigned to the test data from the drum mixer. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.34 Reference 34. The plant tested was a batch mix facility with the dryer fired by natural
gas and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring trace metals,
chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr and Cr+"), PAHs, aldehydes, VOCs, CO, and NOX emissions
from the dryer at the fabric-filter outlet. For target pollutants that were not detected in one or two test runs,
emissions from the "nondetect" runs were estimated using one-half of the pollutant detection limit. Several
target pollutants were not detected in any run. Trace metals were measured using draft EPA
Method 200.7, PAHs were tested using EPA Modified Method 5 (MM5 - now known as Semi-VOST),
and CO and NOX were tested using a CEMS. The other pollutants were measured using California Air
Resources Board (CARB) test procedures, which are similar to EPA methods for the pollutants tested.
A rating of B or C was assigned to the data from this test. Data were assigned a C rating if a
pollutant was detected in only one of three test runs, or if only two valid test runs were performed. The
report included some detail, but it provided only an average production rate. The testing methodology
appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.35 Reference 35. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with the dryer fired by propane
and emissions controlled by a fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring trace metals, total
chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr and Cr ), PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene, methyl chloroform,
formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the dryer at the fabric-filter outlet. Also included were
three test runs measuring PAHs, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDFs, PCDFs, HxCDFs, HpCDFs, and
OCDFs), polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (TCDDs, PeCDDs, HxCDDs, HpCDDs, and OCDDs),
benzene, and formaldehyde emissions from the hot oil heater stack. The hot oil heater was fired with No. 2
fuel oil. Trace metals were measured using draft EPA Method 200.7, and PAHs were tested using EPA
MM5 (Semi-VOST). The other pollutants were measured using CARB test procedures, which are similar
to EPA methods for the pollutants tested. For target pollutants that were not detected in one or two test
runs, emissions from the "nondetect" runs were estimated using one-half of the pollutant detection limit.
Several target pollutants were not detected in any run. Radionuclide emissions also were sampled during
this test, but the information provided is insufficient for emission factor development.
A rating of B was assigned to most of the data from this test. A rating of C was assigned if a
pollutant was detected in only one of three test runs. The report included some detail, but it provided only
an average production rate and did not describe the control system. The test methodology appeared to be
sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.36 Reference 36. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber (Ap = 15 to 21 in. H^O). The tests were performed at the
inlet and outlet of the scrubber and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as
TOC or back-half catch in the report). During conventional and recycle operation, three valid test runs
were performed at both the scrubber inlet and outlet. All of the tests measured emissions from the drum
mixer.
All of the test data were assigned an A rating. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4-12
-------
4.2.1.37 Reference 37. The plant tested was a drum-mix facility with a natural gas-fired dryer
and emissions controlled by a venturi scrubber (Ap = 12.5 to 14.5 in. ^O). The tests were performed at
the inlet and outlet of the scrubber and measured filterable PM and condensable organic PM (referred to as
TOC or back-half catch in the report). During conventional and recycle operation, three valid test runs
were performed at both the scrubber inlet and outlet. All of the tests measured emissions from the drum
mixer.
All of the test data were assigned an A rating. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.38 Reference 38. This document is a study of inhalable PM emissions from drum-mix
asphalt plants and includes emission data for uncontrolled and controlled filterable PM and size-specific
PM emissions from a drum mixer. The particle size data were analyzed during the 1986 revision of AP-42
Section 11.1 and are not discussed here. Filterable PM emissions were measured at both the inlet and
outlet of the fabric filter that controls emissions from the drum mixer. The inlet test was conducted using a
modified EPA Method 5 train (only six sampling points) for eight runs, and the outlet test was conducted
using a modified EPA Method 17 train (only four sampling points) for two runs.
The inlet test data were assigned a B rating, and the outlet test data were assigned a C rating. Both
tests were downgraded one letter because of the number of sampling points used, and the outlet test was
downgraded another letter because only two test runs were performed. The report included adequate detail,
and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.39 Reference 39. This document contains summary data from seven emission tests
conducted at both drum-mix and batch mix HMA plants. All of the tests were conducted at the outlets of
fabric filters controlling emissions from the drum mixers/dryers (drum-mix plants) or dryers (batch mix
plants) fired by natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil, or No. 6 fuel oil. Pollutants measured at each plant included
CO, CC>2, SC>2, NOx, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAHs, formaldehyde, and
condensable PM. Carbon monoxide, CO2, SO2, NO^, and TOC emissions were quantified using CEMS
(EPA Methods 10, 3A, 6C, 7E, and 25A, respectively). The Method 25A results were converted to TOC
as methane using the measured emission concentration, the density of methane at STP, and the volumetric
flow rate for each test run. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were measured
using EPA Method 18, PAH emissions were measured using EPA MM5, formaldehyde emissions were
measured using EPA Method 0011 (proposed method at the time of testing), and condensable PM
emissions were measured using EPA Method 202. Condensable PM and PAHs are the only target
pollutants that would be expected to be controlled by the fabric filters.
The original test reports are described in Sections 4.2.1.42 through 4.2.1.48 (References 44
through 50) of this document. The individual reports were reviewed, and the data ratings are presented in
the individual report descriptions.
4.2.1.40 Reference 40. This reference includes summary data from 25 emission tests performed in
Wisconsin. Particulate matter and formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 5 and
NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Both drum-mix and batch mix plants using various control systems
and fuels were tested.
The filterable PM and total PM data were assigned a C rating because only summary test data
were provided. The formaldehyde data were assigned a D rating because the test method suffers from a
number of potential interferences, as documented in a letter from Gary McAlister of EPA's Emission
Measurement Branch (EMB) (attached to Ref. 40).
4-13
-------
4.2.1.41 Reference 41. The plant tested was a batch mix facility with emissions controlled by a
fabric filter. The test included three runs measuring filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the dryer at the
fabric-filter outlet. The fabric filter controls PM emissions but provides only incidental, if any, control of
CO2 emissions. Filterable PM was sampled using EPA Method 5, and CCS was measured using EPA
Method 3.
A rating of B was assigned to the test data from the dryer. The report included some detail, but it
provided only an average production rate and did not specify the fuel used to fire the dryer. The test
methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported in the valid test runs.
4.2.1.42 Reference 44. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane.
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. During each test, three test runs were performed using the EPA reference test methods
discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are assigned a D rating because the
measured concentrations were above the calibration range in two of the three test runs. The ethyl benzene
data are assigned a B rating because the concentration during Run 3 was below an undefined detection
limit. The non-detect test run was not included in the calculated average emission factor for ethyl benzene.
The report included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.43 Reference 45. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
13 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were not detected during any test run, and
anthracene was detected in only one of three test runs. Emissions of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were
estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 0.1 ppm. This detection limit was used
because several recorded benzene measurements (same test method) were below 1 ppm (1 ppm is the
recorded detection limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). Dunng each test, three test runs
were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of
Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are not rated because the measured
concentrations were above the calibration range during all of the test runs. The benzene and pyrene data
are assigned a B rating because the concentration during one run (for each pollutant) was below an
undefined detection limit. The toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the
emissions are estimates. The report included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.44 Reference 46. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene were detected in only one of
three test runs (emission factors were not developed for these three pollutants). During each test, three test
runs were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of
Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, SO2,
4-14
-------
and NOX were used during nine test runs on three different days. The TOC monitor was only used on the
first day of testing (three runs).
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The methane data are assigned a B rating because
the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect test run is not
included in the calculated average emission factor for methane. The report included adequate detail, the
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.45 Reference 47. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, CO-,, SO-,, NO , TOC,
methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions were not detected during any test
run. and acenaphthene was detected in only one of three test runs. Emissions of benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm
(1 ppm is the recorded detection limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). During each test,
three test-runs were performed (except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the
review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for
CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, and TOC were used during nine test runs on three different days. The isokinetics
during Run 3 for condensable PM were not within the specified limits; therefore, this run is not considered
valid.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The filterable and condensable PM data are
assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were performed. The benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report included adequate
detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.46 Reference 48. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow,
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, CO2, SO2, NOX, TOC,
methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and 2-chloronaphthalene emissions
were not detected during any test run, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene was detected in only one of three test runs.
Emissions of methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the
detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm (1 ppm is the recorded detection limit for a similar test
documented in Reference 48). The formaldehyde data are not presented in the report because of problems
encountered during sample analysis. During each test, three test runs were performed (except as noted)
using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this
report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO2, NOX, and TOC were used during six test
runs on five different days. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO and SO2 were used during
five test runs on four different days.
Most of the test data from this report are assigned an A rating. The methane, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-2.1.47 Reference 49. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 6 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO,
CO2. SO2, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde
4-15
-------
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions
were not detected during any test run. Emissions of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were
estimated as one-half of the detection limit, which was estimated as 1 ppm (1 ppm is the recorded detection
limit for a similar test documented in Reference 48). During each test, three test runs were performed
(except as noted) using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39
(Section 4.2.1.39) in this report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, CO-,, SO2, NOX,
and TOC were used during nine test runs conducted on three different days.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The phenanthrene data are assigned a B rating
because the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect test run
is not included in the calculated average emission factor for phenanthrene. In addition, the formaldehyde
data are assigned a B rating because the data range over two orders of magnitude. The benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.48 Reference 50. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
35 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM. condensable PM, CO, CO-,, SO-,, NOV, TOC, methane,
Z* £. A
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, PAH, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. Toluene and xylene emissions were not detected during any test run, benzene and
ethylbenzene emissions were detected in only one of nine test runs, and fluoranthene emissions were
detected in only one of three test runs. During each test, three test runs were performed (except as noted)
• using the EPA reference test methods discussed in the review of Reference 39 (Section 4.2.1.39) in this
report. The continuous emission monitors (CEMS) for CO, CO^, SO^, NOX, TOC, methane, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were used during nine test runs conducted on three different days. The
SO2 results are not presented in the report because the SO2 monitor malfunctioned during testing.
Concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were estimated as one-half of the
detection limit, which was estimated as 80 percent of the lowest (only) recorded ethylbenzene measurement
(0.80 x 0.36 ppm = 0.29 ppm). These concentrations were used to estimate emissions for all of the test
runs except for the single benzene and ethylbenzene runs that had measurable concentrations.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The CO data are not rated because the measured
concentrations were above the calibration range during all of the test runs. The pyrene data are assigned a
B rating because the concentration during one run was below an undefined detection limit. This non-detect
test run is not included in the calculated average emission factor for pyrene. The benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates. The report
included adequate detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.49 Reference 51. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 28 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-16
-------
4.2.1.50 Reference 52. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO? emissions were
measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CCK analysis). Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, but Run 1 was not valid due to process problems. Process rates were
provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 13 in. w.c.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported during the three valid test runs.
4.2.1.51 Reference 53. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired
(Nos. 1. 2, and 3 fuel oil), drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about
31 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COT emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CQ^ analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.52 Reference 54. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 44 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COj analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.53 Reference 55. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 32 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.54 Reference 56. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 30 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 201 A, Method 5 (back-half
analysis), and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). All of the Method 201A test runs were
above 120 percent isokinetics. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were
provided for each test run.
4-17
-------
The test data for PM-10 are assigned a C rating because the Method 201A isokinetic requirements
were not met during any of the test runs. The condensable organic PM and CO^ data are assigned an A
rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.55 Reference 57. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 15 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 58, 59, and 60.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.56 Reference 58. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. However, Run 2 is not considered valid because a sample line connection
opened during the test. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 8.9 in. w.c. during testing. The plant
was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant tested in
References 57, 59, and 60.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology
was sound, but only two valid test runs were conducted.
4.2.1.57 Reference 59. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 9.3 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 57, 58, and 60.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.58 Reference 60. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO? emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venturi scrubber pressure drop averaged 12 in. w.c. during testing.
The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same plant
tested in References 57, 58, and 59.
4-18
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.59 Reference 61. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was processing about 35 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic. PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during
testing. The plant was out of compliance with State regulations for PM emissions. This plant is the same
plant tested in Reference 62.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.60 Reference 62. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was processing about 26 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during
testing. Although filterable PM loadings were relatively high (0.08 grains/dry standard cubic foot
[G/dscfJ), the facility was in compliance because the plant has been operating since 1957 and must meet a
grain loading of 0.4 G/dscf rather than the NSPS maximum grain loading of 0.04 grains/dscf. This plant is
the same plant tested in Reference 61.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.61 Reference 63. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 52 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.62 Reference 64. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 40 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-19
-------
4.2.1.63 Reference 65. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a butane-fired.
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 30 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and €(>) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CO^ analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.64 Reference 66. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
continuous mix dryer controlled by a multiclone and fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for COo analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.65 Reference 67. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The testing was performed to compare emissions
from processing only virgin aggregate to emissions from processing virgin aggregate and RAP. Two test
runs were conducted while processing only virgin aggregate, and three test runs were conducted while
processing about 46 percent RAP. Process rates were provided for each test run. Filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, and CCK emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet during both tests.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). The scrubber pressure drop averaged 10 in. w.c. during testing. The
results showed that filterable PM emissions were about 50 percent less during RAP processing, while
condensable organic PM emissions were about 300 percent greater during RAP processing. As expected,
۩2 emissions were not affected by RAP processing.
The test data for virgin aggregate processing are assigned a B rating because only two test runs
were conducted. The test data for RAP processing are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.66 Reference 68. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 48 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.67 Reference 69. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
4-20
-------
an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venrun scrubber pressure drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.68 Reference 70. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the venruri scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CC^ analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The venruri scrubber pressure drop averaged 12.5 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.69 Reference 71. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.70 Reference 72. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for ۩2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.71 Reference 73. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 31 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and C02 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.72 Reference 74. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryers controlled by fabric filters. The first facility was processing about 18 percent RAP
during testing, and the second facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable
organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlets. These pollutants were
4-21
-------
measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for
CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant at both plants, and process rates were
provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.73 Reference 75. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an
Orsat analyzer for CCK analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. However, the Run 2 filterable PM data are not considered valid because
the Method 5 isokinetic requirements were not met. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 9.3 in. w.c.
during testing.
The filterable PM data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The condensable organic PM and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.74 Reference 76. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by dual wet scrubbers in series. The facility was
processing about 30 percent RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured following the second scrubber. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The total
scrubber pressure drop averaged 3.1 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.75 Reference 77. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 4.0 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.76 Reference 78. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with
an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. This plant is the same plant tested in References 57-60, but the venturi
scrubber that was in place during the earlier tests was replaced with a fabric filter prior to this test.
4-22
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.77 Reference 79. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 26 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.78 Reference 80. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3-(with an
Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but Run I was not
completed due to moisture in the pilot tube lines. Process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop averaged 3.3 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.79 Reference 81. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 50 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COn emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO 2 analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.80 Reference 82. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 42 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis)
and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for C02 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.81 Reference 83. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste oil-fired,
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 15 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3
(with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run.
4-23
-------
was
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.82 Reference 84. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC^ analysis).
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.83 Reference 85. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was not recorded during testing. During testing, the plant had problems with the
automatic damper, so the damper was manually opened. The problems with the damper caused air flow
problems that may have affected emissions.
The test data are assigned a C rating because of the problems with the automatic damper and the
omission of the scrubber pressure drop.
4.2.1.84 Reference 86. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.85 Reference 87. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas and
coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for C02 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop averaged between 20 and 22 in. w.c. during testing.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM,
condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.86 Reference 88. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas and
coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
4-24
-------
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC^ emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis), Method 3 (with a
Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and a modified Method 6 (analysis of Method 5 back-half catch with a
barium perchlorate and thorin titration). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run. However, the Run 3 filter was contaminated, invalidating the
filterable PM data from Run 3. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 16 in. w.c. during testing.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The SC>2 test data are
assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.87 Reference 89. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The amount of RAP processed was not discussed in
the report. Therefore, it is assumed that the facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC^ analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the use of RAP is not addressed in the report and
only an average process rate is provided. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.88 Reference 90. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The amount of RAP processed was not discussed in
the report. Therefore, it is assumed that the facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured' using EPA
Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the use of RAP is not addressed in the report and
only an average process rate is provided. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.89 Reference 91. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.90 Reference 92. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for the test. Run 1 failed to
meet the Method 5 isokinetic requirements, and the Run 1 filterable PM data are not considered valid.
4-25
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided and only
two valid Method 5 runs were conducted. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.91 Reference 93. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and COn emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis). Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The COo test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.92 Reference 94. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.93 Reference 95. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for CO^ analysis). Four test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because an unspecified analyzer (Fyrite or Orsat) was
used. The filterable PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.94 Reference 96. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix dryer
controlled by a venturi scrubber. The fuel used to fire the dryer is not specified, and the use of RAP is not
addressed in the report. Filterable PM, condensable PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
an unspecified method for CC^. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were
provided for each test run. Run 3 failed to meet the Method 5 isokinetic requirements, and the Run 3 data
are not considered valid.
The test data are assigned a D rating because the dryer fuel is not specified, the use of RAP is not
addressed, and the scrubber pressure drop is not included in the report.
4.2.1.95 Reference 97. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
4-26
-------
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.96 Reference 98. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-
(25 percent) and coal- (75 percent) fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not
processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CO2, SO2, and combined sulfur trioxide (SO3) and
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis),
and EPA Method 8 for the determination of S02 and H2SO4 emissions. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The SO2 and H2SO4 data are not
considered valid because high gas stream moisture contents caused a low bias in the SO2 measurements
and a high bias in the H2SO4 measurements.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported except for the biases in the SO2 and H2SO4 data.
4.2.1.97 Reference 99. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and C02 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for C02 analysis). Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber
pressure drop was 13 to 14 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.98 Reference 100. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
(assumed) dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified, and the
facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5
(front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis). In addition, a
Method 5 back-half acetone rinse was performed per Pennsylvania protocol. The data from this acetone
rinse are not used for emission factor development because they are not comparable to condensable PM
data obtained using EPA methodology. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process
rates were provided for each test run. However, Run 3 was cut short due to process shutdown and is not
considered valid.
The test data are assigned a C rating because adequate details about the process are not included in
the report and only two valid test runs were conducted.
4.2.1.99 Reference 101. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable organic PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
4-27
-------
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO-, analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The €62 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.100 Reference 102. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. The filterable PM measurements are not valid because all three test runs failed the Method 5
isokinetic requirements.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are not rated because of the problems discussed above.
4.2.1.101 Reference 103. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 15 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.102 Reference 104. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired.
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.103 Reference 105. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was
provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4-28
-------
4.2.1.104 Reference 106. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC^
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.105 Reference 107. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 26 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and COj emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CO-, analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.106 Reference 108. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil- and
' coal-fired, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC>2, and S(>) emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CCK analysis), and a modified Method 6 (analysis of Method 5 back-half catch with a barium
perchlorate and thorin titration). Two valid test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates
were provided for each test run. During the third test run, the filter was contaminated, invalidating the
filterable PM data from Run 3. An SCK analysis was not conducted for Run 3. The scrubber pressure
drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.107 Reference 109. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5 and Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for CCK analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was not provided in the report.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because the type of analyzer was not specified. The PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported. .
4.2.1.108 Reference 110. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2
4-29
-------
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.109 Reference 111. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CCK test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.110 Reference 112. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COj test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.111 Reference 113. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for €(>>
analysis). Six test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. However, three of the test runs failed post-test leak checks, and the data from these test runs are not
valid.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.112 Reference 114. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4-30
-------
4.2.1.113 Reference 117. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 12 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.114 Reference 118. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.115 Reference 119. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and
unspecified methods for CO2 and SO2 (apparently EPA Method 3 and a modified Method 5 (back-half)
with a barium perchlorate and thorin titration). Three valid test runs were conducted for each pollutant,
and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during
testing. The fuel oil contained 0.35 percent sulfur.
The CC>2 and SC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because adequate detail about the test methods
are not included in the report. The PM data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail
and the test methodology appears to be sound.
4.2.1.116 Reference 121. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for C02
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data"
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.117 Reference 122. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 16 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet using EPA Method 5
(front-half analysis). Three test runs were conducted, and process rates were provided for each test run.
4-31
-------
Two tons per hour of hydrated lime were added to the mix during each test run. This addition did not
appear to affect emissions of the measured pollutants.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.118 Reference 123. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.119 Reference 124. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 22 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for COo analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.120 Reference 125. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and €(>> emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.121 Reference 126. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-
(30 percent) and coal- (70 percent) fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not
processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), Method 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and a modified EPA Method 8 for the determination of SC>2 and SOj
emissions. Insufficient information about the SOj test is provided in the report. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
and SC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4-32
-------
4.2.1.122 Reference 128. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The COT test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.123 Reference 130. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO-, analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. However, only two of the test runs were
completed because of a plant shutdown.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no other problems were reported.
4.2.1.124 Reference 132. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal-
(95 percent) and natural gas- (5 percent) fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility
did not process RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM,
and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.125 Reference 133. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal-
(90 percent) and natural gas- (10 percent) fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. During
Run 1, the facility used only natural gas, but the emissions did not differ significantly from Runs 2 and 3.
The facility did not process RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable
organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. A small leak was detected during the Run 2 post-test leak check, and the gas volume was corrected
per the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.126 Reference 135. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
4-33
-------
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided for the
test. Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.127 Reference 137. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The test included two test runs while
processing virgin aggregate and two runs while processing about 31 percent RAP. Filterable PM and CC>2
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5
(front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. Two additional test runs
(one for virgin aggregate and one for RAP) were planned, but and electrical storm and plant electrical
problems caused the runs to be canceled. The data for virgin aggregate and RAP processing are presented
separately in the summary tables of this background report.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.128 Reference 138. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and COj emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half
analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.129 Reference 139. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a scrubber. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run. The scrubber pressure drop was not documented in the report.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the report did not contain sufficient detail about the
process. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.130 Reference 140. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and ۩2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and an average process rate was provided for
the test.
4-34
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided.
Otherwise, the report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.131 Reference 141. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 29 percent
RAP dunng testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, Method 3 (with an unspecified
analyzer for CCX analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop was not
provided in the report.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because the type of analyzer was not specified. The
formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to accurately quantify
emissions from this type of source. The PM test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.132 Reference 142. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 35 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CC>2 analysis).
Emissions of several metals were quantified by atomic absorption analysis of the Method 5 filter catch.
"Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The
scrubber pressure drop was between 13 and 14 in. w.c. during testing.
The PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported. The metals data are assigned a
D rating because the test method appeared to differ significantly from the EPA Reference method.
4.2.1.133 Reference 143. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CC^, and formaldehyde emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis), Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2 analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each
test run.
The formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to
accurately quantify emissions from this type of source. The PM and CO2 data are assigned an A rating.
The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.134 Reference 144. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, dram-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 38 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and C02 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer
for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for
each test run. However, only tw9 of the test runs were valid because of atypical process operations during
Run 1.
4-35
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were completed. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no other problems were reported.
4.2.1.135 Reference 145. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COj analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure
drop was greater than 15 in. w.c. during testing. The filterable PM emissions from this facility are higher
than most of the other similar facilities tested. .
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.136 Reference 146. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 31 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC>2, and formaldehyde emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer
for CC>2 analysis), and NIOSH Method 3500, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure drop averaged 19 in.
w.c. during testing.
The formaldehyde data are assigned a D rating because of the test method is not believed to
accurately quantify emissions from this type of source. The PM and CCK data are assigned an A rating.
The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound (except as noted), and no problems
were reported.
4.2.1.137 Reference 147. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test
run.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.138 Reference 148. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 5 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing about 50 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and condensable inorganic PM emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front- and back-half analysis).
Three test runs were conducted, and process rates were provided for each test run. The scrubber pressure
drop averaged 17 in. w.c. during testing.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-36
-------
4.2.1.139 Reference 149. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and C02 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 10, New Jersey
Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis).
Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but Run 3 is not considered valid because it failed a
post-test leak check. Process rates were provided for each test run.
The CO^ test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM, CO, and
TOC test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.140 Reference 153. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, NOX, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 7D, New
Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with an Orsat analyzer for CO2
analysis). Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant (five CO2 runs), and process rates were
provided for each test run.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the report lacks sufficient background
documentation. Otherwise, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.141 Reference 154. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis), EPA Method 10, New Jersey
Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis).
Three test runs were conducted for PM and CO2, and one test run was conducted for CO and TOC.
Process rates were provided for each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The CO and TOC
data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was performed. The PM test data are assigned an
A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.142 Reference 155. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Carbon monoxide, TOC (as propane), and C02 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA Method 25A),
and EPA Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer for CO2 analysis). Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because the analyzer was not specified. The CO and
TOC test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.143 Reference 160. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
4-37
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA
Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. Carbon monoxide was
only detected in one of three test runs, and TOC were not detected during any test run. The CO and TOC
data conflict with all of the other data available for similar sources and are not considered valid.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.144 Reference 161. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility did not process RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CO, TOC (as propane), and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, EPA Method 10, New Jersey Method 3 (equivalent to EPA
Method 25A), and EPA Method 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO^ analysis). Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant, and process rates were provided for each test run. The TOC data indicate
that emissions from this source are more than an order of magnitude greater than TOC emissions from
similar sources.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The TOC test data
are assigned a C rating because the magnitude of emissions is not consistent with emissions from similar
sources. The filterable PM and CO test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail,
the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.145 Reference 162. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Multiple metals, lead, chromium (and hexavalent chromium (Cr ), CO2, PAH, benzene, and
formaldehyde emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Method 29 (draft method at the time of the test), CARB Method 12, CARB Method 425, CARB
Method 429, CARB Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer), CARB Method 41OA, and CARB
Method 430, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant (eight CO2 measurements),
and production rates were provided for each test run. The multiple metals test detected mercury, zinc, and
manganese during both runs, and detected cadmium, copper, and lead during one run. Arsenic, beryllium,
nickel, and selenium were not detected. The lead test detected lead during both test runs, and the chromium
test detected chromium (however, Cr+^ was not detected) during both test runs. The PAH test indicated
that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Phenanthrene was also detected by both
test runs, and anthracene was detected during one run. Insufficient information on the benzene and
formaldehyde tests was provided in the report.
Most of the test data are assigned a B rating. Data for compounds that were not detected during
one test run are assigned a C rating, and data for pollutants that were not detected during any test run are
not rated. Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.146 Reference 163. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Multiple metals, chromium (and Cr ), CO2, PAH, and benzene emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 29 (draft method at the time of the
test), CARB Method 425, CARB Method 429, CARB Method 3 (with an unspecified analyzer), and
CARB Method 410A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant (two chromium tests
4-38
-------
and eight CCn measurements), and production rates were provided for each test run. The multiple metals
test detected copper, mercury, nickel, zinc, and manganese during all three runs. Arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, lead, and selenium were not detected during any test run. The chromium test detected chromium
during both test runs and Cr during one test run. Hexavalent chromium emissions were estimated for the
non-detect run as one-half of the detection limit. Hexavalent chromium accounted for about 18 percent of
the total chromium emissions during the two tests. The PAH test indicated that naphthalene was the
pnmary PAH emitted from the source. Fluorene and phenanthrene also were detected by all three test runs,
and pyrene was detected during one run. Insufficient information on the benzene test was provided in the
report.
Most of the test data are assigned an A rating. The chromium data are assigned a B rating because
only two test runs were conducted, and the Cr data are assigned a C rating because one of two runs did
not detect Cr+^. Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.147 Reference 164. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Multiple metals, chromium (and Cr+"), arsenic, C02, PAH, benzene and formaldehyde emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Method 29 (draft method
at the time of the test), CARB Method 425, CARB Method 423, CARB Method 429, CARB Method 3
(with an unspecified analyzer), CARB Method 41OA, and CARB Method 430, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant (nine CC^ measurements), and production rates were provided for
each test run. The multiple metals test detected copper, mercury, nickel, lead, zinc, and manganese during
all three runs. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and selenium were not detected during any test run. The
chromium test detected chromium during all three test runs, but did not detect Cr during any test run.
The arsenic test did not detect arsenic during any test run; this finding agrees with the multiple metals test
results. The PAH test indicated that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Fluorene
and phenanthrene also were detected by all three test runs, and no other PAH were detected. Insufficient
information on the benzene and formaldehyde tests was provided in the report.
The test data are assigned an A.rating. Except as noted, the report contained adequate detail, the
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.148 Reference 165. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3 A, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This facility is
the same facility described in Reference 170. However, during the test described in Reference 170, No. 2
fuel oil was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.149 Reference 166. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CCs emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 17.2 in. w.c. The report stated that the
4-39
-------
demister/particle separator may not have been operating properly. This may have caused collected PM to
become reentrained in the gas stream.
The filterable PM data are assigned a D rating because of the possible problem with the control
system. The CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.150 Reference 167. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
Run 1 of the filterable PM test was not valid because the isokinetic variation was greater than 110 percent.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC^ data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.151 Reference 168. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 27 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Four test runs were conducted, but
the PM data from three of the runs are not valid because the isokinetic variation exceeded the Method 5
requirements. Three of the test runs included CCK measurements.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a C rating because only one valid test run was performed.
The C02 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.152 Reference 170. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This facility
is the same facility described in Reference 165. However, during the test described in Reference 165,
propane was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.153 Reference 171. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. A Method 5 back-half analysis was performed, but
the analysis was not described; therefore, only filterable PM measurements were used. Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail.
the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-40
-------
4.2.1.154 Reference 172. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CO? emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The pressure drop across the venturi scrubber was 15.7 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.155 Reference 173. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Test Run 1
was not valid because the isokinetic variation was less than the required 90 percent.
The test data are assigned a C rating. Run 1 was not valid because a leak was detected during the
post-test leak check. Also, only an average production rate was given. The test methodology was sound
and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.156 Reference 174. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.157 Reference 175. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis), respectively. Two test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The report
includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.158 Reference 176. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 201/202 and 3A,
respectively. Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Run 1 had an isokinetic variation greater
than 110 percent and was replaced with test run 4.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.159 Reference 177. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^ and lead emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
4-41
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3 A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant. The moisture could not accurately be measured during Run 1. The isokinetic variation
was below the required 90 percent during Run 2. During Runs 2 and 3, aggregate was dried, but asphalt
was not produced because production was canceled for the day. Because the plant is a batch mix plant, the
emissions from Run 3 should be representative of typical operations. The scrubber pressure drop is not
provided in the report.
The test data are assigned a C rating because of the problems discussed above.
4.2.1.160 Reference 178. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.161 Reference 179. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and 12, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The moisture content could not be determined on run 2;
therefore, the average of test runs 1 and 3 was used. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was reported as
.21 in. w.c. which was interpreted as 21 in. w.c.. The facility tested is the same facility described in
Reference 183.
The test data are assigned a B rating due to the problem measuring the moisture content in run 2.
The report includes adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.162 Reference 180. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The test report mentioned fabric filter and scrubber
for the control device used. After examining the data sheets, it appears that the control being used is a
fabric filter The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a
Fyrite analyzer for CCK analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.163 Reference 181. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-42
-------
4.2.1.164 Reference 182. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were "onducted for each pollutant.
An average production rate was provided for the test.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was reported. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.165 Reference 183. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a ventui scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 12, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 179.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the venturi scrubber pressure drop was not provided
in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.166 Reference 184. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.167 Reference 186. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.168 Reference 187. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a wet scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the wet scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was greater than 9 in w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.169 Reference 188. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural gas
or No. 2 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble
and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA
approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data
were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-43
-------
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail except for type of fuel
being used, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.170 Reference 189. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal and
natural gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CO^, and SCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO^ analysis) and 8,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The first test run was found to be out of
compliance (for PM).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, no problems were reported, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.171 Reference 190. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil- and coal-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM. CO^, and SO-> emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 8, respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.172 Reference 191. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix
dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report. Filterable
PM and CO^ emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured
using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
venturi scrubber pressure drop was given as 0.11 in w.c.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The test
methodology was sound. A notice of violation was issued for excess particulate emissions.
4.2.1.173 Reference 192. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.174 Reference 193. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CQ>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 A,
respectively. A total of three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-44
-------
4.2.1.175 Reference 195. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.176 Reference 196. This reference documents an emission test conducted on No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. However, the Method 5 sampling train was
modified per San Diego requirements, which specify that the front-half filter be removed from the sampling
train. Therefore, the PM data are not comparable to other available data and are not used for emission
factor development. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided in
the report. The CC^ test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.177 Reference 197. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.178 Reference 198. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 6 percent RAP during
test run #1. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CG>2 analysis), respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in
Reference 205. However, during the test described in Reference 205, No. 4 fuel oil was used to fire the
dryer.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.179 Reference 199. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-45
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.180 Reference 200. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, only the filterable PM data were used
to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the
same facility described in Reference 202.
The test data are assigned a B rating due to minor problems with Test 1. The report includes
adequate detail and the test methodology was sound.
4.2. L181 Reference 201. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and COj emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to .EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, only the filterable PM data were used
to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.182 Reference 202. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 200.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The fuel type was not specified. The test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.183 Reference 203. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-46
-------
4.2.1.184 Reference 204. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CCK and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3A, and 10, respectively. The CO value for Run #2 was a low estimate, but was included in developing
emission factors since it was the highest of the three measurements. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating. The test report was lacking in detail. The test methodology
was sound. Run #2 for CO was a low estimate.
4.2.1.185 Reference 205. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a #4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 14 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for C02 analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 198. However, during the test described in Reference 198, natural gas was used to
fire the dryer.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound.
. and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.186 Reference 206. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The report indicated that the facility was
processing 100 percent RAP during testing, but this information is assumed to be incorrect because
technology is not available to produce HMA using 100 percent RAP. Filterable PM, condensable
inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.187 Reference 209. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow.
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The dryer is equipped with a "low-NOx"
burner. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report. Filterable PM, CO2, CO, NOx, and
hydrocarbons emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using
EPA Methods 201, 3 A, 10, 7e, and 25 A respectively. A back-half PM analysis was performed, but the
method used was not described and the PM was not labeled as condensable inorganic or condensable
organic. Therefore, the condensable PM data are not used for emission factor development. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.188 Reference 210. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, CO2, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
4-47
-------
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. It was noted during sample clean-up that there was a film
of oil in the impinger catch. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.189 Reference 211. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and TOC emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified to incorporate Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources requirements), 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis), and 25A,
respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half paniculate, but the analysis method
does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM
emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. The venturi
scrubber pressure drop is 20.5 in. w.c.. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The TOC data
are provided "as methane" and converted to a propane basis. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 212.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes'adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.190 Reference 212. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 25 percent RAP
for Run 4 only. Filterable PM; CC^, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified to incorporate
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER) requirements), 3 A (with a Fyrite
analyzer for C©2 analysis), and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 21 in w.c.. Four test runs were
conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 211.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The other test data
are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.191 Reference 213. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix (assumed) dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at
the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half
analyses) and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the process type (batch or drum) was not explicitly
stated in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-48
-------
4.2.1.192 Reference 214. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, SC>2, CO, CC>2. NOx, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 6, 10, 3A, 7e, and 25A, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. In addition, a particle size analysis was performed with a cascade
impactor (two test runs). The particle size data are used to calculate PM-2.5 and PM-1 emission factors.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.193 Reference 215. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which according to a phone conversation with
Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5,
3 A, and 10. respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. All three CO measurements
indicated that the CO concentration was above the instrument calibration range. Therefore, CO emissions
are estimated as the upper limit of the calibration range, or 2,000 ppm. The process type was obtained
from Mr. Chuck McClure by telephone. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 216
and 217.
The CO test data are assigned a C rating because the emissions are estimates based on the upper
limit of the calibration range. The other test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not
contain sufficient detail. The test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.194 Reference 216. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CO2, and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which
according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 215 and 217.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not contain sufficient detail. The
test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.195 Reference 217. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, C02 and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15, ST-5, and ST-6, which
according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 10, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 215 and 216.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the test report does not contain sufficient detail. The
test methodology appeared to be sound.
4.2.1.196 Reference 218. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
4-49
-------
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.197 Reference 219. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal and
liquid propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half paniculate, but the analysis
method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM
emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.198 Reference 220. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.199 Reference 221. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.200 Reference 222. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 22 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (PA DER) and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating. The isokinetic factor for two of the three runs exceeded
110 percent. The problem was traced to the delta H gauge which was reading approximately 10 percent
high.
4-50
-------
4.2. 1 .201 Reference 223. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COT emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Weights are recorded for back-half filterable PM,
but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1 .202 Reference 224. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2. 1 .203 Reference 225. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2. 1 .204 Reference 226. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
The test included measurements of trace metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury,
manganese, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc), hexavalent and total chromium, PAH, formaldehyde, benzene,
CC>2, SC>2, ozone (63), and NOX. These pollutants (except for CM were measured using EPA reference
test methods or CARB equivalent methods.
The test data (except for p^) are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound and no problems were reported. The Oi data are assigned a D rating because the
methodology was not described in detail (although the report specified the use of CEM) and EPA has not
validated the use of CEM for measuring O-, .
4.2. 1 .205 Reference 229. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Paniculate matter (particle size analysis), C02 (with a Fyrite analyzer for C02 analysis), CO, and
NOx emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using CARB
Methods 501 and 100. The particle size analysis was performed with a cascade impactor, and the particle
4-51
-------
size data are used to calculate filterable PM, PM-10, PM-2.5, and PM-1 emission factors. Three test runs
were conducted for CO and NOx. Two test runs were conducted for all other pollutants.
The CO and NOx data are rated A. The CO2 data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite gas
analyzer was used. The PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted.
The test methodology was sound, the report contained sufficient detail, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.206 Reference 231. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 237 and 238. The filterable PM
data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until after
the impingers).
The-CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.207 Reference 232. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 233 through 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.208 Reference 233. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3 A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232, 234, and 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.209 Reference 234. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232, 233, and 235. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.210 Reference 235. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
4-52
-------
measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified) and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each
pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 232 through 234. The filterable
PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified method was used (no filter until
after the impingers).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.211 Reference 236. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 10 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and VOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
Thess pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (modified), 3, and 25, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for PM
and COo. Two valid test runs were conducted for VOCs.
Z,
The PM and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The VOC data are assigned a D rating
because a positive bias in Method 25 results may occur when the product of the moisture content and CO2
concentration of the stack gas is greater than 100, which was the case during all of the test runs. Also, only
two of the Method 25 test runs were valid. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound (except as noted), and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.212 Reference 237. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in References 231 and 238. The filterable PM data are not
considered valid because a modified method was used (no filter until after the impingers).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.213 Reference 238. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in References 231 and 237. The filterable PM data are not
considered valid because a modified method was used (no filter until after the impingers).
The C02 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted.
4.2.1.214 Reference 239. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and C02 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but two of the
PM measurements were not valid because two test runs did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic
requirements.
4-53
-------
The PM test data are assigned a C rating because only one valid test run was conducted. The CCh
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
4.2.1.215 Reference 240. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.216 Reference 241. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop is 14 in w.c.. The facility tested is the same facility
described in Reference 242. However, prior to the test described in Reference 242, the venturi scrubber
was replaced with a fabric filter.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.217 Reference 242. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CC^, and TOC (as propane) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3A, and 25A, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
facility tested is the same facility described in Reference 241. However, following the test described in
Reference 241, the venturi scrubber was replaced with a fabric filter.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.218 Reference 243. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO^ analysis) emissions were measured at the
venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 14-15 in w.c..
4-54
-------
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.219 Reference 244. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, continuous-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 A, respectively. Three-test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.220 Reference 245. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and COj emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Four test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
After the second test run, plant personnel found that a bag in the baghouse had slid off the cage, leaving a
hole in the tube sheet through which paniculate was being emitted. Therefore, the PM data from Runs 1
and 2 are not valid. The facility tested is the same facility described in References 246 and 247.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.221 Reference 246, This reference documents an emission test conducted on a.No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 7 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The facility tested is the same facility
described in References 245 and 247, but a different fuel was used during this test.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.222 Reference 247. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The facility tested is the same facility described in References 245 and 246.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology.
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.223 Reference 248. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using.EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-55
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.224 Reference 249. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow.
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CCK emissions
were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front-
and back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating. Only the average process rate is reported. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.225 Reference 250. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.226 Reference 251. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CO^ emissions were
measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The pressure
drop across the venturi scrubber is 20 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.227 Reference 252. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 20 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM. and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
' The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.228 Reference 253. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.229 Reference 254. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow,
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 20 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, CO, and CO2
4-56
-------
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5
(front- and back-half analyses), 10, and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average process rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.230 Reference 255. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and SC^ emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Method 5, 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer), and a modified Method 8
(back-half of the Method 5 train) with a barium perchlorate and thorin titration). The scrubber pressure
drop was 11.2 in. w.c.. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned a B rating because the first test run was outside of the acceptable isokinetic range.
The SO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no other problems were
reported.
4.2.1.231 Reference 256. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
C02 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3A, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.232 Reference 257. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.233 Reference 258. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ 6missions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 14 in. w.c.. The filterable PM data from Run 3 are not
valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic requirements.
The filterable PM test data assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no problems were
reported.
4-57
-------
4.2.1.234 Reference 259. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and C(>) emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO-, analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 10 in. w.c..
The CCK test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.235 Reference 260. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a drum-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CO-) emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved 'methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel type was not specified. The test
methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.236 Reference 261. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses), and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because the report only includes an average production rate.
The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.237 Reference 262. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 11 percent
RAP during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2
emissions were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5
(front- and back-half analyses), and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 20 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.238 Reference 263. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a propane-fired
batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the report.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-58
-------
4.2.1.239 Reference 264. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a cyclone/fabnc filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.240 Reference 265. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a cyclone/fabric filter. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and COj emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.241 Reference 266. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CO? emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 11 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.242 Reference 267. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.243 Reference 268. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions
were measured at the scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses), and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant, but a
process upset invalidated the Run 1 test results. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 21 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted and only an
average process rate was provided in the report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4-59
-------
4.2.1.244 Reference 269. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a counter-flow.
No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report includes adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.245 Reference 270. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but
the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining
condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop emission
factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.246 Reference 271. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
Reference 273 This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel oil-fired, drum-mix
dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing. Filterable PM and
CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA
Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted
for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.247 Reference 274. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-60
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.248 Reference 275. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a #4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
Test run three was completed with a leak rate slightly above the allowable set by the method. The dry gas
volume was corrected according to paragraph 6.5 of Method 5. No other problems were encountered.
The test data are assigned a B rating because of the leak that was detected in Run 3. The report
contained adequate detail, and the test methodology was sound.
4.2.1.249 Reference 276. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only two test runs were conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.250 Reference 277. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
m Reference 276. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.251 Reference 278. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
in References 276 and 277. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.252 Reference 279. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and C02 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
4-61
-------
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test run for the facility documented
in references 276, 277, and 278. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development
because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO^ test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.253 Reference 280. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Two test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only two test runs were conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.254 Reference 281. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CCU emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.255 Reference 282. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, CC^, and CO emissions were measured at the
fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using Methods ST-15 (front- and back-half analyses),
ST-5, and ST-6 which according to a phone conversation with Chuck McClure from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District are equivalent to EPA Methods 5, 3, and 10, respectively. Three test runs
were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.256 Reference 283. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating because only an average production rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.257 Reference 284. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
4-62
-------
The sampling train was modified to use a front- and back-half filter. The back-half filter was placed
between the third and fourth impinger. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.258 Reference 285. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
reference 284. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.259 Reference 286. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data are
not used for emission factor development because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The C02 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.260 Reference 287. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
Reference 286. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
*•
4.2.1.261 Reference 288. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data are
not used for emission factor development because a modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
4-63
-------
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.262 Reference 289. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. The EPA Method 5 sampling train was modified to
exclude the front-end filter and include a back-end filter, per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Method 5 testing guidelines. One test run was conducted as a renewal test for the facility documented in
Reference 288. The filterable PM data are not used for emission factor development because a modified
sampling train was used (no front-half filter).
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. No problems
were reported.
4.2.1.263 Reference 290. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an asphalt
plant with a batch-mix dryer, controlled by a venruri scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at the venruri
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and
3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venruri scrubber pressure drop
was 5 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a C rating because only an average production rate was reported and the
fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.264 Reference 291. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an asphalt
plant with a batch-mix dryer, controlled by a venruri scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and
3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop
was 5 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.265 Reference 292. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a fuel oil-fired,
drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COo emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.266 Reference 293. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
'measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
4-64
-------
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.267 Reference 294. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP
during testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.268 Reference 295. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 30 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.269 Reference 296. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using Method ST-15 and ST-24, respectively. According to Mr. Chuck McClure of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District these methods are equivalent to EPA Methods 5 and 3. Carbon
monoxide emissions also were measured, but the sampling and analysis method is not specified in the
report. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM and CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because the test report did not provide sufficient
detail, and only an average process rate was provided. The CO test data are assigned a D rating because
the test method is not specified in the report. No problems were reported.
4.2.1.270 Reference 297. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test report contained adequate detail and the test
methodology was sound.
4.2.1.271 Reference 298. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-65
-------
4.2.1.272 Reference 299. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 21 percent RAP
during testing. Sulfur dioxide emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet using EPA Method 6.
Three test runs were conducted. A neutralizing agent was used in the drum to reduce SOj emissions.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.273 Reference 300. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, CCK, and SOj emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5,3, and 8, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average production rate was provided in the
report. The test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.274 Reference 301. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4-6 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 24 percent RAP for the
first two runs and zero percent RAP for the third run. Filterable PM, €(>>, HC1, Cd, Cr, and lead
emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using standard EPA
Methods according to the test report, but the methods were not specified by number. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an B rating since the report did not state the exact test methods used.
The test methodology appeared to be sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.275 Reference 302. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, counter-flow, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not
provided in the report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and
insoluble back-half paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contains adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.276 Reference 303. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contains'adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.277 Reference 304. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for insoluble back-half
4-66
-------
paniculate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved methodology for
determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not used to develop
emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The filterable PM data from Run 3
are not considered valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic requirements.
The filterable PM data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were conducted.
The CC>2 data are assigned an A rating. The report contains adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.278 Reference 306. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COn emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. One test run
was conducted for each pollutant. The PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter). The venturi scrubber pressure drop was not given.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 307.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.279 Reference 307. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. Data on RAP processing are not provided in
the report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi
scrubber outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. One test run
was conducted for each pollutant. The PM data are not used for emission factor development because a
modified sampling train was used (no front-half filter). The venturi scrubber pressure drop was not given.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 306.
The CO2 test data are assigned a C rating because only one test run was conducted. The test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.280 Reference 308. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 312. However, during the test described in Reference
312, No. 2 fuel oil was used to fire the dryer.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.281 Reference 309. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CO2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4-67
-------
4.2.1.282 Reference 310. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC>2 analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for filterable PM and CC^, but
only two runs included condensable inorganic PM measurements." This is the same facility documented in
Reference 313.
The COn test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The condensable
inorganic PM data are assigned a B rating because only two runs were conducted. The filterable PM test
data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and
no problems were reported.
4.2.1.283 Reference 311. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.284 Reference 312. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3 (with a Fyrite
analyzer for CC^ analysis), respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. This is the
same facility documented in Reference 308. However, during the test described in Reference 308, natural
gas was used to fire the dryer.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The PM test data
are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.285 Reference 313. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
This is the same facility documented in Reference 310.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.286 Reference 314. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
4-68
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.287 Reference 315. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, CC^, and lead emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis), and 12, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and lead data are assigned a B rating because only two valid runs were
conducted. The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The report
included adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.288 Reference 316. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and COn emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet.
These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3, respectively.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.289 Reference 317. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CO^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for COj analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Two of the three lead runs were non-detect, and emissions for
these runs are estimated as one-half of the detection limit.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during two of the test runs. The filterable PM test
data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and
no problems were reported.
4.2.1.290 Reference 318. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 waste
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5,12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis), respectively. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Lead was not detected during any test run, and emissions are
estimated as one-half of the detection limit
*>
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during any test run. The filterable PM test data are
assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.291 Reference 319. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, lead, and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5, 12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CO2 analysis), respectively. Three
4-69
-------
test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Lead was not detected during any test run, and emissions are
estimated as one-half of the detection limit
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The lead test data
are assigned a C rating because lead was not detected during any test run. The filterable PM test data are
assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported.
4.2.1.292 Reference 320. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an off
specification waste oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing
RAP during testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC^ analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.293 Reference 321. This reference documents an emission test conducted on an off
specification oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP
during testing. Filterable PM, lead, and CCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These
pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5,12, and 3 (with a Fyrite analyzer for CC>2 analysis),
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CC>2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
and lead test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.294 Reference 322. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 4 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA method 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 23 in. w.c..
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.295 Reference 323. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CO2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 (as modified by PADER) and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for
soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to
EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM
data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.296 Reference 324. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
4-70
-------
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 10.7 in. w,c.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.297 Reference 325. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (fuel not specified) controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 10 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC^ emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.298 Reference 326. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
. used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.299 Reference 327. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
propane-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate. but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC>2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.300 Reference 328. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM and CCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Weights are recorded for soluble and insoluble
back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be comparable to EPA approved
methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the condensable PM data were not
used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-71
-------
4.2.1.301 Reference 329. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.302 Reference 330. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing 13 percent RAP during
testing. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, and CC>2 emissions were
measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and
back-half analyses) and 3 A, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a B rating because only an average production rate was reported. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.303 Reference 331. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch-mix
dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided in the
report. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, and CO^ emissions were measured at the fabric-filter
outlet. These pollutants were measured using EPA Methods 5 (front- and back-half analyses) and 3,
respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer was not specified. The
test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.304 Reference 332. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 6.2 in. w.c.. This is the same facility documented in
Reference 333.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology was sound and no problems were
reported.
4.2.1.305 Reference 333. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a natural
gas-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a venturi scrubber. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the venturi scrubber outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA method 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The venturi scrubber pressure drop was 7.15 in. w.c.. This is the same facility documented in
Reference 332.'
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.306 Reference 334. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
4-72
-------
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3 (with a Fynte analyzer for CC^ analysis), respectively. Five test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The CO2 test data are assigned a B rating because a Fyrite analyzer was used. The filterable PM
test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound,
and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.307 Reference 335.' This reference documents an emission test conducted on parallel-flow
drum-mix dryer (unspecified fuel) controlled by a fabric filter. Data on RAP processing are not provided
in the report. Filterable PM and CC>2 emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Method 5, as modified by PADER, and Method 3, respectively. Weights are
recorded for soluble and insoluble back-half particulate, but the analysis method does not appear to be
comparable to EPA approved methodology for determining condensable PM emissions. Therefore, the
condensable PM data were not used to develop emission factors. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The filterable PM and CC>2 test data are assigned a C rating because the fuel used to fire the dryer
was not specified. The test methodology was sound and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.308 Reference 336. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a coal- and
natural gas-fired, batch-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during
testing. Filterable PM and CCK emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants were
measured using EPA Methods 5 and 3, respectively. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM data from Run 2 are not valid because the test did not satisfy the Method 5 isokinetic
requirements.
The filterable PM test data are assigned a B rating because only two valid test runs were
conducted. The CC^ data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.309 Reference 337. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a No. 2 fuel
oil-fired, drum-mix dryer controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was not processing RAP during testing.
Filterable PM, CC^, PAH, and TOC emissions were measured at the fabric-filter outlet. These pollutants
were measured using EPA Methods 5, 3 (with an Orsat analyzer), 23, and 25A, respectively. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant, and production rates were provided for each test run. The PAH
test indicated that naphthalene was the primary PAH emitted from the source. Acenaphthene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene also were detected by all three test runs.
Benzo(a)anthracene was detected during one test run, and no other PAH were detected.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.310 Reference 338. This reference was deleted and the reference number is not used.
4.2.1.311 Reference 339 (Plant A). This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
continuous, counter-flow, double-barrel, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with recycled No. 2 fuel oil.
Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 23 percent
RAP during three of the four test runs (Runs 1 through 3). The fourth test run was conducted while the
facility was processing only virgin aggregate. The test included measurements of filterable particulate
matter (PM), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs or dioxins), polychlorinated dibenzofurans
4-73
-------
(PCDFs or furans), trace metals, speciated organic compounds, total hydrocarbons (called total organic
compounds [TOC] for the remainder of this document), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide
at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
Dioxins and furans were sampled at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA Method 23. The
inlet emission data were not rated and were not used to develop emission factors, as the report identifies the
inlet tests as not valid due to low sample volume of about 11 dry standard cubic feet and a short sample
duration of 20 minutes. The sampling was aborted due to sampling difficulties associated with high PM
grain loadings at the fabric-filter inlet. As a result of the sampling difficulties, only one inlet sample run
was attempted. Although the sample volume was low, 19 out of 25 congeners had reported values.
However, since only one sample run was attempted, the inlet data were not used for emission factor
development since another test had multiple runs with reported values. Three tests with RAP and one
without RAP were performed at the fabric-filter outlet. These data do not indicate any difference in PCDD
or PCDF emissions associated with processing of RAP. Therefore, the data from all four outlet test runs
were combined to develop an average emission factor for each specific PCDD and PCDF compound that
was quantified.
Filterable PM and trace metals emissions were sampled using EPA Method 29. The testing
initially included simultaneous measurements at the inlet and outlet of the fabric filter. However, the grain
loading at the fabric-filter inlet far exceeded the sampling capacity of the sampling trains. As a result,
attempts to measure fabric-filter inlet PM and trace metals emissions were discontinued. The PM and
metals testing that was completed at the fabric-filter inlet is not considered valid. During production with
RAP, beryllium was not detected during any of the sampling runs, cobalt was detected only during the first
run, and silver and thallium were detected during two of the sampling runs. There were two instances
where the target metal was detected, but was present at a concentration less than the concentration detected
in the reagent blank samples. In these two cases (silver during the second run and antimony during the
third run), a value of zero has been reported. Similarly, during production without RAP, antimony, silver,
and selenium were detected at quantities below the concentration in the reagent blanks. For these three
metals, values of zero have been reported. In general, the metals emissions measured during the non-RAP
test run (Run 4) were slightly lower than during Runs 1 through 3. However, the results of the RAP and
non-RAP testing are similar and the data from all four test runs were combined to calculate average
emission factors for each metal. Visible emissions (VE) observations also were conducted using EPA
Method 9, but VE data are not useful for emission factor development.
The following speciated organic compounds were measured using EPA Method 320 (Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy [FTIR]): toluene, hexane, ethylene, methane, formaldehyde,
3-methylpentane, isooctane, butane, 2-methyl-l-pentene, heptane, 1-pentene, and 2-methyl-2-butene.
Carbon monoxide and SC^ also were measured by EPA Method 320. A single FTIR instrument was used
to measure emissions from both the fabric-filter inlet and outlet. During each of four test runs, the
sampling location was moved between the inlet and outlet several times. In addition, during Runs 3 and 4,
the sample was processed in a condenser prior to analysis, in order to detect as many compounds as
possible. After examining the data, it was determined that all of the measurements, regardless of sampling
location or condenser use, should be averaged together to calculate a single emission rate for each test run.
This decision is based on: (1) the expectation that a fabric filter does not provide any control of the
pollutants measured by FTIR and (2) an examination of the data that showed similar emission levels at the
fabric-filter inlet and outlet and regardless of condenser use. One exception to this methodology for
combining the data is that the post-condenser formaldehyde data are not used because of the high solubility
of formaldehyde. Test runs where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned a value of zero.
4-74
-------
Total organic compound emissions were measured at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA
Method 25A. Because fabric filters are not expected to reduce TOC emissions, the fabric-filter inlet and
outlet data were combined to determine average emissions for each test run. The results are presented on
an "as propane" basis.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the data (except for the inlet Method 23 and Method 29
data, which are not rated), unless more than one test run did not detect the targeted pollutant. In such
cases, the data were assigned a B rating. In some cases, the dioxin and furan test run values are estimates;
where more than one test run was an estimated value, these emission data also were assigned a B rating.
Similarly, if the combination of non-detect and estimated runs was two or more, the data were assigned a B
rating. The report included substantial detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems were reported
(except as noted above).
4.2.1.312 Reference 340 (Plant B). This reference documents an emission test conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, drum-mix dryer fired with No. 2 fuel oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a knockout box followed by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 18 percent
RAP during two of the three test runs (Runs 1 and 2). The third test run was conducted while the facility
was processing only virgin aggregate. The test included measurements of filterable PM, dioxins and
furans, speciated organic compounds, CO, SC^, total organic compounds, and trace metals at the
fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
Emissions of PCDDs and PCDFs were sampled at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using
EPA Method 23. The vast majority of congeners were not detected at either location during all three test
runs. Due to the extremely high grain loading at the baghouse inlet location, the Method 23 sampling train
was significantly modified and the Method 29 sampling runs significantly shortened for two test runs.
Even with the Method 23 modifications, the high inlet grain loading made it necessary to change the filters
frequently during the sampling runs. A comparison of the fabric-filter inlet and outlet data showed that the
fabric filter achieved considerable reduction of PCDDs and PCDFs. Because of uncertainties associated
with the modifications to the test method (at the fabric-filter inlet), the large difference in the non-detect
values for two of the three runs and the high detection limits for these two runs; a value of half the
non-detect value from these two fabric-filter inlet test data for PCDDs and PCDFs was averaged with a
measured or estimated maximum value if this value was less than the value measured. At the outlet of the
baghouse, no modifications of the Method 23 sampling train were required. However, of the 25 target
congeners, only total TCDF was quantified during one run and total HxCDD was quantified during another
run. Additionally, for the runs where one congener was quantified, an Estimated Maximum Possible
Concentration (EMPC) value could be assigned to one additional congener for one run and to seven
congeners for the other run. The third run had only one congener with an EMPC value. Although the
majority of the congeners were not detected, the detection limits for all of the congeners were significantly
higher than the measured values at Plant A. Test runs (most of the test runs) where the target pollutant was
not detected were assigned a value of half the detection limit. When this value was lower than a value
reported as measurable, it was included to develop the average emission factor for that congener. The data
do not indicate any difference in dioxin or furan emissions associated with processing of RAP. Therefore,
the data from all three outlet test runs were combined to develop an average emission factor for each
specific PCDD and PCDF compound that was quantified.
Filterable PM and trace metals emissions were sampled using EPA Method 29. Antimony,
beryllium, and mercury were not detected during any of the inlet sample runs. Selenium was detected
during one inlet sample run (Run 3). Arsenic, beryllium, cobalt, mercury, and thallium were not detected in
any of the outlet sample runs. In addition, silver was not detected in the third outlet test run. Test runs
4-75
-------
where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned a value of zero. Visible emissions observations
also were conducted using EPA Method 9, but VE data are not useful for emission factor development.
The following speciated organic compounds were measured using EPA Method 320 (FTTR):
toluene, hexane, ethylene, methane, formaldehyde, 3-methylpentane, isooctane, heptane, 1-pentene,
2-methyl-2-butene, and n-pentene. Carbon monoxide and SOo also were measured by EPA Method 320.
A single FTIR instrument was used to measure emissions from both the fabric-filter inlet and outlet.
During each of the three test runs, the instrument was moved between the inlet and outlet several times.
During portions of all three runs, the sample was processed in a condenser prior to analysis, in order to
detect as many compounds as possible. After examining the data, it was determined that all of the
measurements, regardless of sampling location or condenser use, should be averaged together to calculate a
single emission rate for each test run. This decision is based on: (1) the expectation that a fabric filter does
not provide any control of the pollutants measured by FTIR and (2) an examination of the data that showed
similar emission levels at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet and regardless of condenser use. One exception to
this methodology for combining the data is that the post-condenser formaldehyde data are not used because
of the high solubility of formaldehyde. Test runs where the target pollutant was not detected were assigned
a value of zero.
Total organic compound emissions were measured at the fabric-filter inlet and outlet using EPA
Method 25A. Because fabric filters are not expected to reduce TOC emissions, the fabric-filter inlet and
outlet data were combined to determine average emissions for each test run. The results are presented on
an "as propane" basis.
A rating of A was assigned to most of the test data, unless more than one test run did not detect the
targeted pollutant, in which case the data were assigned a B rating. A rating of B was assigned to most of
the dioxin/furan data, because most of the test runs did not detect the targeted pollutant, or the reported
values are estimates. The report included substantial detail, the methodology was sound, and no problems
were reported (except as documented above).
4.2.1.313 Reference 341. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, benzene, CO, COj, and NOX at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO^ concentrations were measured by
Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were
conducted for each pollutant. The report does not specify the method used to measure benzene, CO, or
NOX emissions.
The PM, formaldehyde, and CO^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and
benzene data were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.314 Reference 342. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, CO, CO2, and NOX at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable
PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO or NOX emissions.
4-76
-------
The PM, formaldehyde, and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO and NOX, data
were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.315 Reference 343. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 23 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, CC^, benzene, chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzene at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO^ concentrations
were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report
does not specify the method used to measure benzene, chlorobenzene, or dichlorobenzene emissions. Three
test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, formaldehyde, and CC^ test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The benzene,
chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzene data were not rated because the test method was not specified in the
report.
4.2.1.316 Reference 344. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, formaldehyde, CO, NOX, CO2> and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by
Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify
the method used to measure CO, NOX, or benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant.
The PM, formaldehyde, and C02 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained
adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and
benzene data were not rated because the test methods were not specified in the report.
4.2.1.317 Reference 345. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 10 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, SO2, CO2, benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions
were measured using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 18
was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in all test runs.
The PM, SO2, CO2, and benzene data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.318 Reference 346. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included
measurements of filterable PM, CO, CO2, NOX, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17, and CO2 concentrations were measured by
4-77
-------
Orsat. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO, NOX, formaldehyde, or benzene
emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM and C02 data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NO , formaldehyde, and benzene data
are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.319 Reference 347. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The mix did not contain RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO, CO2, NOX, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify the method used
to measure CO, NOX, or benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, CO2, and formaldehyde data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate
detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO, NOX, and benzene data
are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.320 Reference 348. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The mix did not contain RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO, C02, NOX, HC1, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; Method 26
was used to measure HC1 emissions; benzene emissions were quantified by Method 18; and Method 0011
was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. The report does not specify the method used to measure CO
or NOX. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The PM, CO2, HC1, benzene, and formaldehyde data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The CO and
NOX data are not rated because the test methods were not specified.
4.2.1.321 Reference 349. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, condensable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM
emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat;
Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions; and benzene emissions were measured by
Method 18. The report indicates that condensable PM emissions were quantified according to Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources procedures, which are comparable to the procedures specified in EPA
Method 202. Three test ruhs were conducted for each pollutant.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.322 Reference 350. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with a combination of drain oil and natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, CO2, SO2, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), benzene,
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions
4-78
-------
were quantified using EPA Method 17; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; SC^ and K^SC^
emissions were measured by Method 6; and benzene, chlorobenzene. dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
emissions were measured by Method 18. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The
concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in
all test runs.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.323 Reference 351. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a parallel-flow,
rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 10 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CC^, SC^, sulfuric acid (P^SC^), benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
tnchlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17;
CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; SC>2 and F^SC^ emissions were measured by Method 6; and
benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions were measured by Method 18.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit in all test runs.
The data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology was
sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.324 Reference 352. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer. Two 1-hour tests were performed. During the first test the mixer was fired with
No. 5 fuel oil, and, during the second test, the mixer was fired with No. 2 fuel oil. The facility was
processing an unspecified amount of RAP during the emission test. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test included measurements of NOX and CC^. Emissions of NOX were
quantified using a continuous emission monitor (CEM) (presumably in accordance with EPA Method 6E),
and COj concentrations also were measured using a CEM.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.325 Reference 353. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer that was fired with No. 5 fuel oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The report does not indicate if the mix included RAP during the emission test. The test
included measurements of NOX, TOC, and CC^. Emissions of NOX were quantified using EPA
Method 7E and TOC was measured by EPA Method 25A; CO2 concentrations also were measured using a
CEM. Three 1-hour runs of continuous sampling were performed.
The NOX and CO2 test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the
test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. A hand-written note in the report states that.
the TOC data are incorrect and that the corrected data were not included. For that reason, the TOC data
were net rated.
4.2.1.326 Reference 354. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
rotary drum-mix dryer that was fired with low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.26 percent. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The report does not indicate if the
mix included RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of filterable PM, NOX, and
CO2- Filterable PM emission were measured by EPA Method 5; emissions of NOX were quantified using
4-79
-------
EPA Method 7E; and CC^ concentrations also were measured by Orsat. Three 1-hour test runs were
performed.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.327 Reference 355. This test program quantified emissions from the HMA load-out
operations, silo exhaust, and drum-mix dryer. A background test also was performed (no asphalt loading)
to provide a measure of the contribution of truck emissions to the measured load-out emissions. The testing
was sponsored by EPA and was a cooperative effort between EPA, a citizen's group, State agencies and
industry. The emissions testing was performed by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and Pacific
Environmental Services (PES) (both under contract to EPA) in July 1998. In addition, an independent
Technical Systems Audit of the procedures used by both contractors was performed by Research Triangle
Institute under contract to EPA. Cooperation between EPA, the citizen's group, and industry continued
through the draft and final reporting processes. A large number of citizen and industry comments on the
MRI and PES draft reports led EPA to prepare a detailed and sometimes non-typical analysis of the
emissions data, which was compiled into the "Response to Comments" document (Reference 389). Due to
the high level of documentation included in the test reports; the adherence to EPA Reference test methods;
the few problems noted in the Technical Systems Audit Report; and the high level of scrutiny that was
included in the development of the test program, implementation of the test, and production of the test
report, the data from this report were assigned an A rating, unless noted.
Asphalt Plant C is a continuous, drum-mix HMA production facility located south of Los Angeles,
California. The plant was built in 1994 and has a rated production capacity of 650 tons per hour (tons/hr)
of hot mix asphalt. Production during the test ranged from 370 tons/hr to 630 tons/hr and averaged
490 tons/hr. For all but one test, the product mix included 30 percent RAP. The average asphalt binder
content of the HMA produced was 5.0 percent. Five 200-ton heated storage silos sit on top of a load-out
tunnel. The storage silos serve as a holding station between production and the loading of the HMA into
transport trucks. A conveyer system carries the fresh asphalt from the secondary chamber of the dryer to
the top of the silos and loads one silo at a time. Unlike most HMA plants, asphalt fumes generated in the
silos during load-in are vented through an exhaust system on top of the silos. Each of the five silos has its
own 10-inch internal diameter (ID) silo exhaust duct that feeds a 12-inch ID common header that carries
the asphalt fumes to the tunnel exhaust system. The silo storage testing was performed from an extension
at the top of Silo 2, which is located upstream of the connection to the common header. The silo exhaust
duct testing was performed only when hot mix asphalt was being loaded into Silo No. 2. Also, unlike most
HMA plants, the area beneath the storage silos is enclosed in a tunnel and ventilated. The load-out tunnel
is approximately 183 feet long by 16 feet high by 16 feet wide. Attached to the ceiling of the load-out
tunnel, and below each of the five silos, is an exhaust plenum that draws air and vapors off the transport
trucks and out of the tunnel during load-out. Each of the five exhaust plenums is identical and shaped like
a tuning fork with holes in the bottom and slots in the inside legs. Air and vapors from the HMA during
load-out are drawn through the holes and slots and into the tunnel exhaust duct by a constant rate induced
draft fan. Only one exhaust plenum is in operation at any one time. The load-out and silo storage
ventilation systems combine into one common duct which passes through a wet electrostatic precipitator
and is exhausted to the atmosphere. Testing for the load-out system was performed at a port located
between Silos 1 and 2, which is upstream of the combined common duct. During normal load-out
operations, 21 to 25 tons of HMA are transferred in 15 to 30 seconds from the silo to the truck. Testing to
characterize emissions from the load-out operations was performed only when HMA was loaded from Silos
2,3,4, or 5.
4-80
-------
Source sampling was performed in the tunnel exhaust duct and silo exhaust duct to determine the
concentrations and mass emission rates of PM, methylene chloride extractable matter (MCEM), and
organic HAPs. Four tests at the TED and three tests at the SED were performed over five consecutive
days beginning on July 24, 1998. EPA Method 315, "Determination of Filterable Paniculate Matter (PM)
and Methylene Chloride Extractable Matter (MCEM) Emissions from Stationary Sources," was used to
quantify PM and MCEM emissions. Three test methods were used to quantify volatile organic HAPs
(VOHAPs). SW-846 Method 0030 in combination with SW-846 Method 8260B (referred to as VOST)
was used to quantify a majority of the targeted compounds. EPA Method 18 was used in a backup
capacity to quantify benzene, cumene, ethylbenzene, hexane, toluene, o-xylene, m-xylene, and p-xylene.
EPA Method 320 (extractive FTIR) was used to quantify higher concentrations of VOHAPs, CO, SO2,
and NO^. To reduce the spectral interferences due to moisture and CO2 and to quantify lower
concentrations of VOHAPs, an additional EPA Method 320 sample was collected for each run using a
sample concentration method. In addition, a third method using a direct interface GC/MS procedure was
used as an on-site screening tool and QC check for selected VOHAPs. SW-846 Method 0010, "Modified
Method 5 Sampling Train (MM5)," was used to collect semivolatile organic HAPs (SVOHAPs) at both
locations. The MM5 samples were extracted following the procedure of SW-846 Method 3542, dated
January 1995. The sample extracts were analyzed two ways: 1) in accordance with the guidelines of
SW-846 Method 8270C by high resolution gas chromatograph/low resolution mass spectrometer
(HCGC/LRMS) for SVOHAPs, and 2) in accordance with the guidelines of CARB Method 429 by high
resolution gas chromatograph/high resolution mass spectrometer (HRGC/HRMS) for PAHs. EPA
Method 25A was used to quantify TOC using a flame ionization detector (FID).
Concurrent with FTIR testing of the load-out emissions discussed above, capture
efficiency testing also was performed. A stable, nonflammable gas (sulfur hexafluoride, or SFg, was used
as the tracer gas. Sample spectra were collected by extractive FTIR, where concentrations were
determined and converted to mass emissions over time. These were compared to the measured tracer gas
emission rate, allowing duct capture efficiency to be calculated.
Measurements also were made to estimate the PM and MCEM deposition on the inside walls of the
TED, the inside walls of the exhaust plenum above Silo No. 2, the inside walls of the SED and on the
ceiling of the load-out tunnel downstream of Silo No. 5.
Asphalt cement samples (i.e., hot liquid asphalt) were collected on July 24, 25, 27, and 28, 1998.
On July 24, 25, and 27, 1998, three sets of samples were taken. Each sample was analyzed twice for
volatile content at 325 °F, once following the procedures of ASTM D 1754 - Effects of Heat and Air on
Asphalt Materials (Thin Film Oven Test), and a second time following the procedures of ASTM D 2872 -
Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test). In addition, the
middle sample from each day was analyzed four more times: 1) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven
temperature of 300°F; 2) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven temperature of 350°F; 3) using ASTM D
2872 with an oven temperature of 300°F; and 4) using ASTM D 2872 with an oven temperature of 350°F.
The results of the standard and additional ASTM D 2872 analyses performed on the asphalt samples
obtained at Plant C are presented in Table 4-2. During the emissions tests, the asphalt mix contained an
average liquid asphalt content of 5.0 percent, with a range of 4.9 to 5.2 percent.
As mentioned above, a total of three test runs were performed on the load-out process. A fourth
test was performed (without asphalt loading) to measure background emissions from the trucks.
Simultaneous with the emissions testing activities, a tracer gas release and capture efficiency measurement
was performed to allow for adjustment of the data based on the capture efficiency.
4-81
-------
Capture efficiency (CE) correction - The Plant C load-out tunnel enclosure did not meet EPA
Method 204 criteria for total enclosures, and thus required capture efficiency testing as part of the test
program. Controlled SFg releases and capture measurements were performed throughout each of the three
test runs. The 90 percent Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) technique was used to determine the capture
efficiency for each run, as described in EMC GD-035 "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency"
dated 1/9/1995 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-035.pdf) and EMC GD-036 "Revised Capture
Efficiency Memorandum" dated 2/7/1995 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-036.pdf). The
measured capture efficiencies were 64 percent, 65 percent, 54 percent and 45 percent, for Runs 1, 2, 3,
and 4, respectively. Raw emissions (concentrations for each analyte) for each test run were then corrected
by dividing the analyte concentration by the capture efficiency. Deposition data for PM also was corrected
for capture efficiency, using a slightly different procedure that is described in greater detail in Section 4.4
below.
4.2.1.328 Reference 356. Plant D is a batch mix facility located in Barre, Massachusetts. The
plants maximum production capacity is 255 tons/hr, but under normal operating conditions, the plant
produces 150 tons/hr of HMA. Approximately 95 percent of the HMA produced during the testing
included'10 percent RAP. The asphalt binder content of the HMA averaged 5.2 percent. This test
program only quantified emissions from the HMA load-out operations. The testing was sponsored by EPA
and was a cooperative effort between EPA, a number of citizen's groups, State agencies and industry. The
emissions testing was performed by MRI and PES (both under contract to EPA) in October 1998. Plant D
testing consisted of measurements of TOC by EPA Method 25 A, PM measurements by EPA Method 315
and an estimate of PM deposition in the ventilation system and within the enclosure. Prior to conducting
the emissions test, a total temporary enclosure was constructed around the load-out station. The enclosure
had entrance and exit doors that were closed during truck loading operations and were manually operated
by MRI to allow trucks to enter and exit the enclosure. The enclosure was designed, constructed, and
operated to satisfy the requirements of a temporary total enclosure as specified in EPA Method 204. It was
noted in the test report that the unpaved floor and approaches to the enclosure were watered periodically to
minimize emissions from truck movement in and around the load-out area. It was also noted in the report
that, for most loading operations, an exhaust system and flexible hosing within the temporary enclosure
captured the exhaust from the diesel engines. Because a few trucks had exhaust systems that also heated
the track bed, the exhaust of these trucks could not be captured. As a result, the majority of the truck
exhaust was not measured as part of the load-out emissions. Measurements were made to estimate MCEM
deposition on the inside walls of the enclosure, and on the inside walls of the exhaust plenum. Due to the
high level of documentation included in the test reports; the adherence to EPA Reference test methods; the
few problems noted; and the high level of scrutiny that was included in the development of the test
program, implementation of the test, and production of the test report, the data from this report were
assigned an A rating, unless noted.
In addition to measuring load-out emissions, eight extended sampling periods were performed
following load-out operations. These extended sampling periods were an attempt to estimate emissions
from loaded trucks sitting in the yard or in transit to a paving site.
Asphalt cement samples (i.e., hot liquid asphalt) were collected on October 5, 6, and 7, 1998.
Each sample was analyzed twice for volatile content at 325°F, once following the procedures of ASTM D
1754 - Effects of Heat and Air on Asphalt Materials (Thin Film Oven Test), and a second time following
the procedures of ASTM D 2872 - Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin
Film Oven Test). In addition, the sample was analyzed four more times: (1) using ASTM D 1754 with an
oven temperature of 300°F, (2) using ASTM D 1754 with an oven temperature of 350°F, (3) using ASTM
D 2872 with an oven temperature of 300°F, and (4) using ASTM D 2872 with an oven temperature of
350°F. The results of the standard and additional analyses performed by ASTM D 2872 on the asphalt
4-82
-------
samples obtained at Plant D are presented in Table 4-3. During the emissions tests, the asphalt mix had an
average liquid asphalt content of 5.2 percent, with a range of 4.5 to 5.7 percent.
4.2.1.329 Reference 357. This reference documents a technique for estimating emissions from hot
mix asphalt load-out operations. Fugitive VOC emissions from hot mix asphalt load-out were estimated
using mass transfer equations for the flow of air past a plate. The document states that the key parameters
that effect emissions are (1) the vapor pressure of the asphalt, (2) the load-out temperature, and (3) the
period of time that the hot mix is sitting uncovered in the truck. The document provides emission factors
for VOC from HMA load-out of 0.885 Ib/ton of product for batch mix plants and 0.380 Ib/ton of product
for drum-mix plants (plants with hot storage silos).
The document (Reference 357) relies on several key assumptions. In particular, the assumed
asphalt vapor pressure of 30 mm Hg is significantly higher than vapor pressures of asphalt (0.2 to 0.8 mm
Hg) presented in Figure 1 of an independent review of this load-out emission estimate provided by
Cambridge Environmental Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (included with Reference 357). Information
developed in Section 4.4.5 of this background report indicates that at a storage temperature of 325 °F the
vapor pressure at the asphalt surface is less than 0.9 mm Hg. At a vapor pressure of 0.9-mm Hg, the
emissions calculated in this document would decrease by 97 percent. Another assumption used in this
document (Reference 357) was the use of the molecular weight of anthracene (C14H10, 178 g/g-mole) as
the molecular weight of the VOC emitted from load-out operations. Data from Reference 355 indicate that
emissions from asphalt operations are dominated by compounds that have infrared spectra similar to
aliphatic hydrocarbons between pentane (MW = 72 g/g-mole) and nonane (MW = 129 g/g-mole). At a
• molecular weight of 129 g/g-mole, the emissions calculated with this document (Reference 357) would
decrease by an additional 28 percent. Information developed in Section 4.4.5 of this background report
indicates that a molecular weight of 105 g/g-mole is required to produce emissions with the TANKS
program that are consistent with emissions derived from Reference 355. At this molecular weight, the
emissions calculated in this document (Reference 357) would decrease by an additional 41 percent.
Adjusting for these two factors (vapor pressure and molecular weight) does result in calculated emissions
that are consistent with load-out emissions measured in Reference 355 and 356. This analysis is presented
later in Section 4.4.1. This document (Reference 357) also relies on a mass transfer equation that relates
emissions to the exposed surface area. The exposed surface area used in the document is the surface area
of the asphalt pile in the truck bed. The actual exposed surface area during load-out operations is
significantly greater than the static surface area used in the document. The document further relies on a
constant rate of emissions from the asphalt. However, differences in emissions due to the variations in
load-out times for the two processes are not supported by the information derived from test data in
References 355 and 356. This information is presented later in Section 4.4.1. As a result, the concerns
raised by the various critiques of the methodology used in the document are affirmed by analysis of the data
in References 355 and 356 (see Section 4.4.1).
The information presented in the document are not rated for use in developing emission factors for
AP-42. This document provides valuable background information and emphasizes the need for emission
testing to quantify fugitive emissions from HMA load-out operations.
4.2.1.330 Reference 358. This document include the results of a pretest survey and screening to
determine the type and relative magnitude emissions from load-out prior to the full-scale load-out emission
test conducted at Plant C and documented in Reference 355. Emissions were sampled using EPA Method 5
and SW846 Method 0030. However, because the purpose of the test was to screen emissions, rather than
to quantify emissions, some shortcuts were taken in the sampling procedures. Most notably, only a single
traverse was performed and no Field blanks were sampled (for the Method 0030 test). The document
presents the results of the test but does not include most of the supporting documentation. Because the test
4-83
-------
was for screening purposes, test methods were simplified, and a subsequent full-scale test was performed
on the same sources (as documented in Reference 355), the results of the test are neither presented in this
report nor are they incorporated in the revised AP-42 section.
4.2.1.331 Reference 359. This document summarizes the results of a study to determine ambient
concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) associated with the filling of
liquid asphalt storage tanks. The data were collected on April 23, 1998 by the North Carolina Division of
Air Quality (NCDAQ) Air Toxics Analytical Support Team (ATAST). Ambient samples were collected at
five locations: an open liquid asphalt railcar hatch, a liquid asphalt storage tank vent during loading, an
upwind site, a downwind site, and an adjacent residential site. Samples were analyzed onsite using an
organic vapor analyzer and a portable gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). In addition,
samples were collected in SUMMA canisters and subsequently analyzed at the DAQ Toxic Protection Lab
using a GC/MS. These samples also were analyzed for compounds other than BTEX. The results of the
sampling is discussed further in the following paragraphs. The report concluded that the concentrations of
benzene, toluene, and xylene measured at the upwind, downwind, and residential sites were typical of urban
air.
The SUMMA cannister samples collected at the railcar hatch and storage tank vent had
concentrations beyond the calibration range of the GC/MS and could not be quantified. Table 4-4 shows
the results of the analysis of the SUMMA cannister samples. For the data that could be quantified.
Toluene and xylenes were detected in the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) range at the upwind,
downwind, and residential sites; benzene was detected at the residential site. The detection limit for the
instrument was 0.02 ppbv. Other compounds detected included acetic acid, methyl ethyl ketone, and
hexane.
The results of the portable GC/MS sample analyses are summarized in Table 4-5. All four BTEX
compounds were detected at the railcar hatch and storage tank vent in the parts per million by volume
(ppmv) range. At the other locations, only ethyl benzene was detected (0.04 ppmv at both locations). The
detection limit for the instrument was 0.02 ppmv.
The results of the organic vapor analyzer sample analyses are summarized in Table 4-6. Organic
vapors (unspeciated) were detected in all locations. Concentrations ranged from 1.2 ppmv to 600 ppmv (at
the railcar hatch).
This document cannot be used to develop emission factors because no data were collected that can
be used to relate the measured concentrations to emission rates. In addition, no activity levels, such as
asphalt tank loading rate, were measured.
4.2.1.332 Reference 360. This reports documents the results of a study to determine emission
rates and emission factors for the load-out of hot mix asphalt into trucks. Samples were collected using
SUMMA canisters at five facilities across North Carolina. The samples were subsequently by NCDAQ by
GC/MS. Data also were collected on ambient and sample temperatures, emission velocities, and
meteorological conditions.
Four of the five plants were drum-mix plants; the other plant was a continuous feed plant. During
sampling the asphalt consisted of 100 percent virgin material (i.e., the mixes did not include RAP) using
type 1-2 asphalt.
The sampling apparatus consisted of a stainless steel funnel and Teflon tubing connected to a
SUMMA canister. A thermal anemometer also was attached to the end of the apparatus near the funnel.
4-84
-------
Samples were collected by placing the funnel end of the apparatus in the bed of the receiving truck. A
one-minute sample was collected as the hot mix asphalt was loaded into the truck. At the same time,
velocity measurements were taken using the anemometer.
Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the analysis. Five samples were collected at each of the five
facilities. For 11 of the 30 samples, the benzene concentrations were below the detection limit of 0.1 ppbv.
For the other samples, the concentrations generally ranged from 0.2 to 6.7 ppbv. Two samples were
determined to be outliers; the concentrations of those samples were 509 and 67 ppbv.
The mean benzene concentration from all samples was reported as 2.47 ppbv and the mean velocity
was reported as 0.51 meters per second (m/sec). (It should be noted that the individual velocity
measurements were not reported in the document.) Assuming this mean velocity is uniform over the entire
truck bed and using an average truck bed area, the average emission rate (which was reported as an
"emission factor" in the document) was determined to be 4.4x 10 grams per second (g/sec).
The data from this study cannot be used to develop emission factors because activity level data
were not reported (i.e., data on asphalt loading rates). In addition, the assumption that velocities are
uniform and constant across the truck bed throughout the loading process is not realistic. Velocities were
measured for 1-minute periods at single points over truck beds that averaged 10.9 square meters. The
velocities should largely be the result of the loaded asphalt displacing the air in the truck bed.
Consequently, it is expected that velocities would vary spatially (depending on the location of the probe
relative to the loading point and bed sides) and temporally (depending on the profile of the loaded asphalt as
the truck is filled) during load-out. In addition, it is unrealistic to assume that emissions are steady-state
during the load-out. For the data to be useable for AP-42, the test would have 10 have been conducted
throughout each load-out.
4.2.1.333 Reference 361. This document presents the results of a laboratory study of emissions
from asphalt pavement. The objective of the study was to characterize emissions from the paving process.
However, the investigators found it impractical to sample while simulating the process of placing and
compacting asphalt, and maintaining the temperature profiles characteristic of real paving operations.
Instead, the study entailed measuring emissions from a static layer of compacted hot mix asphalt
maintained at the highest temperature likely to be encountered in an actual paving operation. Initially,
emissions were sampled from a layer of asphalt that was 3.8 centimeters (cm) (1.5 inches [in.]) thick.
Subsequently, a 1.3 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.) layer was used to ensure a more uniform temperature
distribution throughout the asphalt.
Emissions from two types of hot mix asphalt were sampled. One sample contained no rubber; in
the other sample, 18 percent of the nonaggregate materials consisted of crumb rubber. Both samples
contained approximately 24 percent RAP. The heating vessel measured 2 feet by 2 feet (60 centimeters by
60 centimeters). The emission stream was sampled for 65 semivolatile organics by Method TO-13 using a
PM-10 sampler to collect the samples, which were subsequently analyzed by Method 8270. The
PM-10/semivolatile sampling train was operated for a period of 130 to 165 minutes. For VOCs, the
exhaust stream was sampled by Method 18 (grab samples collected in Tedlar bags) and analyzed by
Method TO-14 for 56 compounds. A separate PM-10 sampler was used to quantify emissions of PM-10
and metals; the catch was analyzed for metals by graphite furnace atomic adsorption (GFAA).
Semiquantitative analysis of samples for hydrogen sulfide was performed using colorimetric Draeger tubes.
In addition, continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) were operated to measure concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), oxygen, sulfur dioxide (802), total
hydrocarbons (TOC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
4-85
-------
Table 4-8 summarizes the results of the tests for VOCs semivolatiles, PM, and metals. Most of the
target compounds were not detected in the samples, and, among those that were detected, most
concentrations were near the detection limit. Altogether, 12 organic compounds were found in
concentrations that were significantly higher than the blank sample concentrations. In addition, emissions
of lead, PM-10, and total PM were quantified. Table 4-9 summarizes the CEMS data. With the exception
of the PAH monitor, the facility blank emission levels measured were comparable to the emission levels
measured during the test. Therefore, the CEMS results are of limited use. In addition, the VOC emission
rates are based on grab samples. The report does not specify when samples were collected. In an actual
paving operation, emissions would be expected to peak when the pavement is placed and decline as the
pavement cooled. Data based on grab samples might be representative if samples were taken over an
extended period of time. On the other hand, the data on semivolatile compound and PM emissions are
likely to be more representative of pavement emissions because they are based on samples collected over
periods of 2 to 2.5 hours.
The semivolatile and PM data may be useful in making gross estimates of emissions from the
laying of asphalt pavement. However, it is questionable how representative the data are. Heating the test
samples to relatively high temperatures for several hours is likely to have biased the emission data;
emissions from actual pavement would be expected to decline from the time it is placed as a result of the
decline of the pavement temperature. Additionally, the emissions of PAH compounds with higher vapor
pressures (e.g., naphthalene) are lower than the PAH compounds with lower vapor pressures. This
contrasts with the data from References 339 and 340, where PAH compounds with higher vapor pressures
had higher emissions. The data should not be used to estimate emissions from paving operations because
the test did not cover the initial period when the asphalt was placed and compacted, and the temperature
was maintained at 325°F for an extended time.
4.2.1.334 Reference 362. This document presents the results of emission tests conducted at two
batch mix plants. The data from these tests were used to prepare Reference 17, described previously in this
section. Uncontrolled emissions were sampled from either the skip hoist or hopper that followed the batch
mixer. In both tests, the skip hoist/hopper were open top vessels and had to be shrouded to minimize wind
effects on emissions. Emissions were sampled for a variety of organic and inorganic pollutants.
Particulate matter emissions were sampled using high volume samplers; the other pollutants were sampled
using evacuated canisters or cylinders. A variety of nonreference methods were used to determine pollutant
concentrations. However, exhaust gas flow rates were not measured. Therefore, the data cannot be used to
develop emission factors.
4.2.1.335 Reference 363. This document presents the results of a laboratory study of emissions
from asphalt roofing. A sample of roofing asphalt was heated in a kettle at various temperatures.
Emissions from the kettle were sampled for speciated VOC using a modified volatile organic sampling train
(VOST) and for speciated semivolatile compounds using XAD-2 and Pallflex filters. The samples were
analyzed by GC/MS. Emissions were quantified for a variety of volatile and semivolatile compounds.
Emission concentration were reported, as well as emission rates in units of milligrams emitted per square
meter of surface area per hour. Emission factors were calculated in units of milligrams emitted per
kilogram of asphalt heated. However, the data represent emissions from roofing asphalt heating and do not
pertain to hot mix asphalt production. Therefore, the data are not presented here.
4.2.1.336 Reference 364. This report documents an emission test conducted at the inlet and outlet
of a "Smog Hog" electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls emissions from HMA truck load-out.
According to industry representatives the facility was typical of the industry relative to mix temperature,
mix constituents, production rate, and other operating parameters. Filterable PM, condensable inorganic
4-86
-------
PM, condensable organic PM, and TOC emissions were measured using CARB Method 5 (front- and
back-half analysis) and EPA Method 25A, respectively.
The capture efficiency of the control system was not measured during the test. However, in an
evaluation of the test report by an EPA contractor, an assessment of the capture efficiency was made. The
assessment was made based upon the available information on the load-out area in this test report. The
assessment indicates that an average face velocity of building air of about 42 feet per minute was estimated
from data in the report. It was recognized that this velocity is outside the recommended range of 50 to
100 feet per minute specified in the Industrial Ventilation Manual. It also was recognized that the
enclosure did not meet all of the criteria for a permanent total enclosure (PTE) specified in the EPA
document, "The Measurement Solution: Using a Temporary Total Enclosure for Capture Efficiency
Testing." Finally, the assessment provided an estimated range of capture efficiency of between 70 and
90 percent. While this capture efficiency assessment could be reevaluated using the measured capture
efficiency and emissions documented in Reference 355, this is unnecessary since this test was not used for
developing the final emission factor.
The emission data are assigned a rating of C because the test was not fully documented and
incomplete process information was provided in the report. However, the data were not used to develop
emission factors for inclusion in AP-42 because: (1) the emissions measured included the combined silo
and load-out emissions; (2) some data on process rates was missing from the report; (3) data on asphalt
characteristics (temperature and volatility) were not included in the report; (4) the capture efficiency of the
enclosure was not measured during the test; and, most importantly, (5) emissions test data for the loadout
process were available from two other tests, including a test at this same facility, that included complete
process information and documentation.
4.2.1.337 References 365 to 369. These documents consist of a series of personal
communications by email regarding Department of Transportation loss-on-heating values for several State
agencies. No emission data were included, but the data were used to develop a default loss-on-heating
value.
4.2.1.338 Reference 370. This-reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and CC>2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CC>2
concentrations were measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.339 Reference 371. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 24 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.46 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC>2, CC>2, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC^ emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-87
-------
4.2.1.340 Reference 372. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous.
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.37 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC>2, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.341 Reference 373. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.63 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC^, benzene, chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions
were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; CC>2
concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify formaldehyde emissions;
and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene
emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, CC^, and formaldehyde test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The SC>2 and
benzene data are rated B because the report did not include complete documentation on those pollutants.
The chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2.1.342 Reference 374. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The report did not specify if the facility was processing RAP during the emission test.
However, the report did include information on fuel usage and fuel sulfur content. The sulfur content of the
fuel was 0.44 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CC>2, and HC1 at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SC>2 emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CC^ concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 26 was
used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.343 Reference 375. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.39 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SO2, ۩2, and formaldehyde at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions were
sampled using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
-------
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.344 Reference 376. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.43 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, SO2, CO2, benzene, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions were sampled using EPA
Method 6; C02 concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 18 was used to measure benzene
emissions; and EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for
each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.345 Reference 377. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.47 percent. The test included measurements of filterable PM, SO2, C02, benzene, chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified
using EPA Method 17; SO2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were
measured by Orsat; and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
rnchlorobenzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, SO2, CO2, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2.1.346 Reference 378. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and CO2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CO2
concentrations were measured by Orsat Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.347 Reference 379. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was processing about IS percent RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.43 percent. The test included measurements of SO2, C02, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet. Sulfur
dioxide emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and
EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4-89
-------
4.2.1.348 Reference 380. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a portable,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with drain oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission test. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.66 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, SC^, CCK, and HC1 at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable
PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; SO^ emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6;
CC>2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 26 was used to quantify HC1 emissions.
Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.349 Reference 381. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements CO and CO2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Carbon monoxide emissions were quantified using EPA Method 10, and CO2
concentrations were measured by Orsat Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.350 Reference 382. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The facility was
processing about 20 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements filterable PM,
C02, benzene, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using
EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat; EPA Method 0011 was used to quantify
formaldehyde emissions; and Method 18 was used to quantify benzene emissions. Three test runs were
conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.351 Reference 383. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a rotary
drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The
facility was processing about 15 percent RAP during the emission test. The test included measurements of
filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene at the
fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations
were measured by Orsat; formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 0011; and Method 18
was used to quantify benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene emissions. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant. The concentrations of chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene were below the detection limit for each run.
The filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported. The
chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene data were not rated.
4.2.1.352 Reference 384. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
counter-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with natural gas. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The facility was processing about 20 to 25 percent RAP during the emission test. The test
included measurements of filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, and benzene at the fabric-filter outlet.
4-90
-------
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA Method 17; CO2 concentrations were measured by
Orsat; formaldehyde emissions were quantified using EPA Method 0011; and Method 18 was used to
quantify benzene emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The filterable PM, CO2, formaldehyde, and benzene test data are assigned an A rating. The report
contained adequate detail, the test methodology was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.353 Reference 385. This reference .documents an emission test conducted on a batch mix
dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a fabric filter. The report did not
specify if the facility was processing RAP during the emission test. However, the report did include
ir formation on fuel usage and fuel sulfur content. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.36 percent. The test
included measurements of filterable, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, SO2, and CO2
at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were measured using EPA Method 5; condensable PM
emissions were quantified by EPA Method 202; S02 emissions were quantified using EPA Method 6C;
and CO2 concentrations were measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.354 Reference 386. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur
content. The facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.50 percent. The initial test included measurements of SO2 and CO2 at the fabric-filter outlet. In the
second test, emissions of filterable PM and C02 were measured. Filterable PM emissions were quantified
using EPA Method 5; SO2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6C; and CO2 concentrations were
measured by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant during each test.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.355 Reference 387. This reference documents two emission tests conducted on a
continuous, parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are
controlled by a fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur
content. The facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was
0.47 percent. One test included measurements of SO2 and CO2 at the fabric-filter outlet. In the other test,
emissions of filterable PM and CO2 were measured. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using EPA
Method 5; SO2 emissions were sampled using EPA Method 6C; and CO2 concentrations were measured
by Orsat. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant during each test.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.1.356 Reference 388. This reference documents an emission test conducted on a continuous,
parallel-flow, rotary drum-mix dryer fired with waste oil. Emissions from the dryer are controlled by a
fabric filter. The test report included information on RAP usage, fuel usage, and fuel sulfur content. The
facility was not processing RAP during the emission tests. The sulfur content of the fuel was 0.36 percent.
The test included measurements of filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM,
S02, C02, and formaldehyde at the fabric-filter outlet. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using
EPA Method 5; condensable PM emissions were quantified using Method 202; SO2 emissions were
4-91
-------
sampled using EPA Method 6C; CO-) concentrations were measured by Orsat; and EPA Method 0011 was
used to quantify formaldehyde emissions. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The test data are assigned an A rating. The report contained adequate detail, the test methodology
was sound, and no problems were reported.
4.2.2 Review of FIRE and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors
Emission factors for hot mix asphalt production appear in both FIRE and SPECIATE. Many of
the factors in FIRE are the factors currently presented in AP-42, but some additional data also are included
in FIRE. Most of the additional data are labeled "confidential," and the references are not available for
review. The other data in FIRE do not appear to be useful for developing emission factors for the revised
AP-42 section. The references for the factors in SPECIATE were not obtained. The validity of the
references could not be checked, so the information was not used in developing emission factors for the
revised AP-42 section.
4.2.3 Review of the AP-42 Background File
The AP-42 section addressing the hot mix asphalt industry was last published in July 1994.
Forty-three references are cited in the existing section, and descriptions of these references are included in
Section
4.2.4 Results of Data Analysis
This section discusses the analysis of the data and describes how the data were combined to
develop average emission factors for HMA production. Target pollutants that were not detected during
any of the tests reviewed are shown in Table 4-10. Test data for drum-mix dryers are presented in
Table 4-11, data for batch-mix dryers are shown in Table 4-12, and data for hot oil heaters are shown in
Table 4-13. Section 4.3 describes the statistical analysis that was conducted for the large data sets. The
analysis presents the rational for aggregating and segregating data for emission factor development for the
large data sets. Section 4.4 presents an analysis of available data for HMA load-out operations.
storage-silo filling, truck emissions, and storage-tank emissions.
The emission factor ratings assigned to each of the candidate emission factors developed for HMA
production are based on the emission data ratings and the number of tests conducted.
4.2.4.1 Drum-Mix Dryers. Emission factors for drum-mix dryers were developed using the data
presented in Table 4-11. The candidate emission factors for drum-mix dryers are shown in Tables 4-14,
4-15, 4-16, and 4-17.
4.2.4.1.1 Filterable PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled filterable PM emissions from
drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from four
A-rated and two B-rated tests. The data range from 1.3 to 37 kg/Mg (2.6 to 73 Ib/ton) and average
14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired
with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 155 tests. The data range
from 0.00044 to 0.071 kg/Mg (0.00089 to 0.14 Ib/ton) and average 0.0067 kg/Mg (0.014 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0087 kg/Mg
(0.017 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0050 kg/Mg (0.010 Ib/ton).
4-92
-------
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from venruri scrubber-controlled drum-mix dryers
(fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 36 tests. The data
range from 0.0018 to 0.049 kg/Mg (0.0036 to 0.097 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.026 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.011 kg/Mg
(0.022 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.010 Ib/ton (0.020 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.2 Size-Specific PM. For uncontrolled drum-mix dryers, no new particle size data are
available. The particle size data from Reference 23 (the background document for the 1986 revision of the
hot mix asphalt AP-42 section) were retained. To determine size specific emission factors, the percentages
of PM-15, PM-10, and PM-2.5 were multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from uncontrolled
drum-mix dryers. The emission factor for PM-15 is 27 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 3.8 kg/Mg
(7.6 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-10 is 23 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 3.2 kg/Mg
(6.4 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-2.5 is 5.5 percent of 14 kg/Mg (28 Ib/ton), or 0.77 kg/Mg
(1.5 Ib/ton). These emission factors are assigned E ratings because the particle size data are based on a
single test.
For PM-15 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used to estimate the PM-15 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-15 is
35 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-15 is 35 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg
(0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0022 kg/Mg (0.0046 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-10 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used in conjunction with data from two additional tests. The average percentage of
PM-10 from the three tests is 30 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for
filterable PM from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-10 is
30 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0019 kg/Mg (0.0039 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a D rating because the particle size data are based on three tests.
For PM-2.5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were used in conjunction with data from two additional tests. The average percentage of
PM-2.5 from the three tests is 21 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for
filterable PM from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-2.5 is
21 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.0013 kg/Mg (0.0027 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a E rating because the particle size data are based on three tests that show a wide range of PM-2.5
percentages.
For PM-1 emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers, data from two tests were used
to estimate the PM-1 percentage of filterable PM. The average percentage of PM-1 from the two tests is
15 percent. This percentage was ^multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-1 is 15 percent of 0.0064 kg/Mg
(0.013 Ib/ton), or 0.00096 kg/Mg (0.0019 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned a E rating because the
particle size data are based on two tests that show a wide range of PM-1 percentages.
4.2.4.1.3 Condensable organic PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled condensable organic PM
emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed
using data from three A-rated tests. The data range from 0.021 to 0.042 kg/Mg (0.041 to 0.083 Ib/ton) and
average 0.029 kg/Mg (0.058 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating.
4-93
-------
An emission factor for fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled condensable organic PM
emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed
using data from 41 tests. The data range from 0.00018 to 0.037 kg/Mg (0.00035 to 0.074 Ib/ton) and
average 0.0059 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this
data set, the standard deviation is 0.0081 kg/Mg (0.016 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0023 kg/Mg
(0.0046 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.4 Condensable inorganic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter- or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable inorganic PM emissions from drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 30 tests. The data range from 0.00059 to
0.014 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.027 Ib/ton) and average 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.0074 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0032 kg/Mg (0.0063 Ib/ton)
and the median is 0.0025 Ib/ton (0.0051 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.5 Total condensable PM. Emission factors for total condensable PM emissions from
fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) were
developed from three A-rated tests. The data range from 0.00048 to 0.010 kg/Mg (0.00096 to
0.019 Ib/ton) and average 0.0041 kg/Mg (0.0082 Ib/ton). This emission factor is not rated because much
larger data sets are available for condensable organic and inorganic PM. Total condensable PM is
calculated as the sum of the condensable organic and inorganic PM emission factors, which is 0.010 kg/Mg
(0.021 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.1.6 Total PM and PM-10. The total PM emission factors shown in the AP-42 table
represent the sum of the filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission
factors. These emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the
summation. The total PM-10 emission factors shown in the AP-42 table represents the sum of the
filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission factors. These
emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the summation.
An emission factor for cyclone- or multiclone-controlled drum-mix dryers was developed using
data from a single test. The emission factor is 0.34 kg/Mg (0.67 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.1.7 Carbon monoxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled CO emissions from drum-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 18 tests. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce CO
emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers,
because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce CO emissions. Data from one additional test were
excluded from the candidate emission factor because the magnitude of emissions from the test are an order
of magnitude higher than the next highest data point and more than two orders of magnitude higher than the
lowest data point. The data range from 0.0055 to 0.30 kg/Mg (0.011 to 0.60 Ib/ton) and average
0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4.2.4.1.8 Carbon dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled C02 emissions from drum-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, butane, coal, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
tests conducted on 180 dryers. The tests were conducted on fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers, but these control devices are not expected to reduce CO? emissions. The data range from 1.3 to
48 kg/Mg (2.6 to 96 Ib/ton) and average 17 kg/Mg (33 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned
an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 6.4 kg/Mg (13 Ib/ton) and the median is 16 kg/Mg
(31 Ib/ton).
4-94
-------
4.2.4.1.9 Nitrogen oxides. An emission factor for uncontrolled NOX emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from five A-rated tests and one B-rated test.
The tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce
NO emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers, because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0075
to 0.025 kg/Mg (0.015 to 0.049 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.026 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled NOX emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from 10 A-rated tests and one B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0085 to 0.055 kg/Mg (0.017 to 0.11 Ib/ton)
and average 0.028 kg/Mg (0.055 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4.2.4.1.10 Sulfur dioxide. Limited data were available for venturi scrubber-controlled drum mix
dryers. Therefore, data for fabric filter and ventun scrubber controlled dryers were combined. Venturi
scrubbers are expected to perform at least as well as fabric filters in controlling SC^ emissions.
An emission factor for controlled SO^ emissions from natural gas- or propane-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from three A-rated tests. The tests were conducted on fabric
filter-controlled dryers. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
dryers. The data range from 0.00062 to 0.0024 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.0048 Ib/ton) and average
0.0017 kg/Mg (0.0034 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for controlled SC>2 emissions from No. 2 fuel oil-fired drum-mix dryers was
developed using data from three A-rated tests and one C-rated test. The tests were conducted on fabric
filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, which showed similar emissions. The data range from
0.00048 to 0.013 kg/Mg (0.00095 to 0.026 Ib/ton) and average 0.0054 kg/Mg (0.011 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating because the limited data range over more than an order of
magnitude.
An emission factor for controlled SO^ emissions from No. 6 fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from 16 A-rated tests and 2 B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers. This factor also can be used to estimate emissions from venturi
scrubber-controlled dryers. The data range from 0.0041 to 0.081 kg/Mg (0.0081 to 0.16 Ib/ton) and
average 0.029 kg/Mg (0.058 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a B rating.
Table 4-15 shows all of the available data for SC>2 emissions from drum mix dryers. Process
characteristics, including fuel type, plant type (counter-flow or parallel-flow), fuel sulfur content, and
amount of RAP used, were also available in the test reports. Reference 391 presents an examination of
these characteristics that was performed to determine their effect on SC>2 emissions. The analysis of the
SC>2 data shows that both fuel type and the air pollution control device had significant effects on SC^
emissions. Table 2 of Reference 391 presents the SC>2 data, and includes the percentage of fuel-bound
sulfur emitted as SC>2 during each emission test (where available) and the potential SC>2 emissions (in
Ib/ton of HMA produced) that was not emitted. The analysis suggests that if a mass balance technique is
used to estimate SC>2 emissions from drum mix dryers, it is appropriate to assume that only a percentage of
the fuel-bound sulfur is emittedas SCU. The data indicate that between 3 percent and 53 percent of fuel
bound sulfur is emitted as SC^, and the SC^ mass balance analysis includes an assumption that all of the
S(>2 emissions emanate from the fuel (and not from the aggregate or asphalt). The data also show a
4-95
-------
maximum reduction (from the potential SO2 emissions) of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) of S(>). The exact
reason that all of the sulfur is not emitted as SC^ is not known, although possible reasons include the use of
limestone, which could react with SC^, as a feed material at some HMA facilities. The following
statement was added to the footnote for SO^: "Fifty percent of the fuel-bound sulfur, up to a maximum (as
802) of 0.1 Ib/ton of product, is expected to be retained in the product, with the remainder emitted as
SC>2." Fifty percent is the highest percentage of fuel-bound sulfur emitted as SC>2 (rounded to the nearest
10 percent) shown by the available data, which average 38 percent sulfur emitted as SC^. The 0.05 kg/Mg
(0.1 Ib/ton) maximum is recommended so that facilities with fuel sulfur loadings higher than those
represented in the available data set will not underestimate SCK emissions.
One additional parameter included in Table 2 of Reference 391 is the plant type (counter-flow or
parallel-flow). Upon inspection, the data show little correlation between plant type and SC>2 emissions.
This analysis is based on the data set for drain oil/waste oil/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers, because the data
sets for the other fuels are too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. The SC>2 emissions from
parallel-flow and counter-flow plants average 0.053 Ib/ton and 0.048 Ib/ton, respectively. The percent of
fuel-bound sulfur emitted as SC>2 from parallel-flow and counter-flow plants averages 41 percent and
30 percent, respectively. Because of the small difference in the average emission factors and percent sulfur
emitted from parallel-flow and counter-flow plants, separate emission factors are not recommended based
on plant type.
An emission factor for controlled SC>2 emissions from coal-fired drum-mix dryers (also using
supplementary gas or oil) was developed using data from three A-rated tests and one B-rated test. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter- and venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, which showed similar
emissions. Data from the No. 6 fuel oil-fired HMA plants indicate a minimum of 50 percent retention of
sulfur (as SCy in the product. However, no data are available to indicate similar retention at higher
concentrations of SC>2 as may occur from coal-fired plants. The data range from 0.0012 to 0.38 kg/Mg
(0.0024 to 0.75 Ib/ton) and average 0.097 kg/Mg (0.19 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned
an E rating because the data range over two orders of magnitude.
The SC>2 data from Reference 350 were not used in the development of emission factors. The
drum mix dryer tested was fired with a combination of drain oil and natural gas. Because of this unusual
combination of fuels and the lack of information on the relative amounts of the two fuels, it was not
possible to include the data in the emission factor calculations for oil-fired or natural gas-fired dryers, and a
separate emission factor for this fuel combination did not appear to be warranted.
4.2.4.1.11 Total organic compounds. An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane)
emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from
twelve A-rated tests, four B-rated tests, and one C-rated test. The data range from 0.0029 to 0.059 kg/Mg
(0.0058 to 0.12 Ib/ton) and average 0.021 kg/Mg (0.041 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned a B rating. Because the test method for TOC (Method 25A) does not measure formaldehyde
emissions, actual TOC emissions can be estimated by adding the formaldehyde emission factor for
drum-mix dryers (0.0013 kg/Mg [0.0025 Ib/ton]) to the candidate TOC factor.
4.2.4.1.12 Methane, benzene, ethvlbenzene. toluene, and xylene. An emission factor for
uncontrolled methane emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers was
developed using data from five A-rated tests, two B-rated tests, and one C-rated test. The data range from
6.8 x 10'5 to 0.019 kg/Mg (0.00014 to 0.038 Ib/ton) and average 0.0058 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating.
4-96
-------
An emission factor for uncontrolled benzene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste
oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from 15 A-rated tests, three B-rated tests, and one
C-rated test. The data range from 3.2 x 10~5 to 0.00060 kg/Mg (6.3 x 10"5 to 0.0012 Ib/ton) and average
0.00020 kg/Mg (0.00039 Ib/ton). The median for the data is 0.00015 kg/Mg (0.00030 Ib/ton), and the
standard deviation is 0.00016 kg/Mg (0.00031 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A
rating. Data from one additional C-rated test (Reference 48) are not used because they are based on
non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to
estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled ethylbenzene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste
oil-fired drum-mix dryers was developed using data from two B-rated tests and one C-ratec' test. The data
range from 2.6 x 10'^ to 0.00019 kg/Mg (5.1 x 10"5 to 0.00038 Ib/ton) and average 0.00012 kg/Mg
(0.00024 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two additional C-rated
tests (References 48 and 50) are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated
emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the
average of the tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from natural gas- or propane-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated, one B-rated, and one C-rated test. The data range from
2.3 x 10'5 to 0.00011 kg/Mg (4.5 x 10'5 to 0.00022 Ib/ton) and average 7.3 x 10'5 kg/Mg
(0.00015 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from one additional C-rated
test (Reference 48) are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions
(one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the
tests that included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired drum-mix
dryers was developed using data from three B-rated tests and one C-rated test. The data range from
0.00015 to 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.00029 to 0.0074 Ib/ton) and average 0.00037 kg/Mg (0.00075 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled xylene emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired
drum-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test.
The data range from 2.6 x 10'5 to 0.00020 kg/Mg (5.1 x 10'5 to 0.00040 Ib/ton) and average
0.00010 kg/Mg (0.00020 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two
additional C-rated tests are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated
emissions (one-half of the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the
average of the tests that included actual measurements.
4.2.4.1.13 Polvnuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Emission factors were developed for several
PAHs, including 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)petylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
chrysene, cumene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene,
perylene, phenanthrene, and pyrene emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers fired by
various fuels. Emission factors from dryers fired by natural gas and propane were combined, and emission
factors for dryers fired by different types of oil were combined. However, if the data indicated that
emissions from waste oil- or No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers were significantly higher than emissions from other
fuel oil, separate factors were presented for these fuels. The emission factors that are based on only one or
two tests are assigned E ratings, and the factors based on three or more tests are assigned D ratings.
Table 4-17 shows the data combination for PAHs and other organic compounds.
4-97
-------
4.2.4.1.14 Formaldehyde. An emission factor for uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions from
drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
19 A-rated tests and 2 B-rated tests. The data range from 0.00015 to 0.0070 kg/Mg (0.00030 to
0.014 Ib/ton) and average 0.0016 kg/Mg (0.0031 Ib/ton). For this data set, the standard deviation is
0.0018 kg/Mg (0.0036 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0010 kg/Mg (0.0020 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned a A rating. Additional data from 16 D-rated tests were not used to develop this candidate
emission factor.
4.2.4.1.15 Aldehydes and ketones. With the exception of formaldehyde, emission factors for all
aldehydes and ketones were developed using data from a single test. Uncontrolled emission factors were
developed for acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, benzaldehyde, butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde,
crotonaldehyde, hexanal. isovaleraldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, propionaldehyde, quinone, and
valeraldehyde emissions from waste oil-fired drum-mix dryers. These emission factors are assigned E
ratings.
4.2.4.1.16 Trace metals. Emission factors were developed for metals emissions from fabric filter-
and venturi scrubber-controlled drum-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil).
The emission factors and data combination are presented in Table 4-16. The data for different fuel types
generally were combined because there were significant overlaps in the range of test-specific emission
factors for different fuels. The two exceptions to this procedure were lead and mercury. For these two
metals, the magnitude of emissions from natural gas-fired dryers were significantly lower than the
emissions from dryers fired with other fuels. No D-rated data were used for emission factor development.
An emission factor rating of E was assigned to data sets with only one or two data points. An emission
factor rating of D generally was assigned to data sets with three or more data points, and an emission factor
rating of C generally was assigned to data sets with seven or more data points. The exception to this
procedure was the factor for silver. Three data sets were available, but the data ranged over two orders of
magnitude. Consequently, this candidate emission factor was assigned a rating of E.
Uncontrolled trace metals emission data also were available from one test on a fabric
filter-controlled drum-mix dryer (Reference 356). The source was tested at the inlet and outlet to the fabric
filter. The following table shows the results and calculated control efficiencies.
Besides the few exceptions described below, these uncontrolled emission factors also were
incorporated into the AP-42 section with a data rating of E.
The Reference 340 test indicated zero antimony emissions at the inlet but 3.5x10" Ib/ton of
antimony at the outlet. Therefore, the uncontrolled antimony data were discarded. The uncontrolled
emission factors for lead, nickel, and selenium from Reference 340 were higher than the candidate emission
factors for controlled emissions of these metals. Therefore, the control efficiencies determined from the
Reference 340 data were applied to the candidate factors for controlled emissions of these metals. These
control efficiencies were 97, 95, and 86 percent for lead, nickel, and selenium, respectively. The Reference
340 test detected no mercury emissions at the inlet or outlet to the control device. Therefore, the
uncontrolled emission factor was discarded. Finally, the Reference 340 data indicated that emissions of
silver increased across the control device. Therefore, the uncontrolled silver data also were discarded.
4-98
-------
FABRIC FILTER CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR METAL EMISSIONS - REFERENCE 356
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium '
Thallium
Zinc
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Fabric filter inlet
0
1.30xl(T6
0.00025
0
4.20x1 0'6
2.40x1 O'5
l.SOxlO'5
0.00017
2.30x10°
0.00065
0
l.SOxlO'5
0.0012
2.70xlO'7
1. 20X10'7
2.20x1 0'6
0.00018
Fabric filter outlet
3.50x10' '
0
5.20x1 0"b
0
3.10x10-*
LlOxlO"6
0
1.00xlO-b
6.10X10'7
8.30xlO-b
0
7.40x1 0"7
1.20X10'5
4.70x10' 7
1.70x10"*
0
3.10xlO"6
Control efficiency, %
a
100.0
97.9
a
99.3
95.4
100.0
99.4
97.3
98.7
a
95.1
99.0
-74.1
85.8
100.0
98.3
a Pollutant not detected at inlet; control efficiency not calculated.
4.2.4.1.17 Dioxins and furans. Emission factors were developed for dioxins and furans using A-
and B-rated data from two tests conducted on fuel oil- and waste-oil fired drum-mix dryers. Many of the
individual compounds were not detected, and a value of zero was included in the average emission factors
for those compounds. These emission factors are assigned E ratings because they are based on only two
tests. Emission factors were developed for the following dioxins and furans:
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (TCDD); 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF);
l,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (PeCDD); 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF);
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; l,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (HxCDD); 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD;
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD; 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF); 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF;
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF; 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF; l,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (HpCDD);
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF); 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF; total octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
(OCDD); total octachlorodibenzoruran (OCDF); total TCDD; total TCDF; total PeCDD; total PeCDF;
total HpCDD; total HpCDF; tota'l HxCDD; total HxCDF; total PCDD; total PCDF; and total
PCDD/PCDF.
4.2.4.1.18 Hydrochloric acid (HC11. An emission factor was developed for HC1 emissions from
five A-rated tests on fabric filter controlled drum mix dryers fired with drain or waste oil. The data range
from 1.9 * 10'5 to 0.00023 kg/Mg (3.8 x 1Q'5 to 0.00045 Ib/ton) and average 0.00010 kg/Mg to
0.00021 Ib/ton. This emission factor is assigned a rating of D. Because fabric filters are not expected to
control HC1 emissions, this emission factor also can be used to estimate emissions from uncontrolled
drum-mix dryers.
4-99
-------
4.2.4.1.19 Other compounds. Emission factors were developed for 1-pentene, 2-methyl-l-pentene,
2-methyl-2-butene, 3-methylpentane, butane, ethylene, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), heptane, hexane, isooctane,
methyl chloroform, and n-pentane emissions from fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. These emission
factors are based on one or two tests conducted on fuel oil- or waste oil-fired dryers. Fabric filters are not
expected to control emissions of these pollutants; therefore, these emission factors can be used to estimate
emissions from scrubber controlled drum-mix dryers as well. All of these emission factors are assigned E
ratings because they are based on only one or two data points. Chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, and
trichlorobenzene emissions were targeted and not detected during tests on three dryers.
4.2.4.2 Hot Oil Heaters. Emission factors for hot oil heaters, which are used to heat asphalt oil,
were developed using the data presented in Table 4-13. The average emission factors for hot oil heaters are
shown in Table 4-18,
Uncontrolled emission factors were developed for PAHs, formaldehyde, and several
polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dibenzo(p)dioxins, including 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD,
total HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, total HpCDD, total OCDD, total TCDF, total PeCDF, total
HxCDF, total HpCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, and total OCDF. All of the emission factors were developed
from single tests and are assigned E ratings.
4.2.4.3 Batch-Mix Dryers. Emission factors for batch-mix dryers were developed using the data
presented in Table 4-12. The average emission factors for drum-mix dryers are shown in Tables 4-19,
4-20, 4-21, and 4-22. All of the emission factors developed for batch mix dryers are assumed to represent
the emissions from batch mix dryers as well as the hot screens and mixer that follow the dryers.
4.2.4.3.1 Filterable PM. An emission factor for uncontrolled filterable PM emissions from
batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from two
D-rated tests. Both tests were conducted on No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryers, but the data are assumed to
represent filterable PM emissions from dryers firing all types of fuels except coal. The data range from 14
to 18 kg/Mg (27 to 37 Ib/ton) and average 16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned an E rating.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired
with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 89 tests. The data range
from 0.0012 to 0.090 kg/Mg (0.0024 to 0.18 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.017 kg/Mg
(0.033 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0060 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). Data from two C-rated tests (References 1
and 40) that were at the top or bottom of the range were excluded from the average because these two
references provided only summary data on the emission tests that were conducted.
An emission factor for filterable PM emissions from venturi or wet scrubber-controlled batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 16 tests. The
data range from 0.014 to 0.20 kg/Mg (0.027 to 0.40 Ib/ton) and average 0.061 kg/Mg (0.12 Ib/ton). This
candidate emission factor is assigned a C rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.053 kg/Mg
(0.11 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.049 Ib/ton (0.098 Ib/ton). The data from Reference 76 were not used
because the control system, which consisted of dual wet scrubbers in series, was unique, and the data did
not fall within the range of the data for the other wet scrubber-controlled batch mix dryers.
4.2.4.3.2 Size-Specific PM. For uncontrolled batch-mix dryers, no new particle size data are
available. The particle size data from Reference 23 (the background document for the 1986 revision of the
hot mix asphalt AP-42 section) were retained, although the data are outdated. To determine size specific
4-100
-------
emission factors, the percentages of PM-15, PM-10, PM-5, and PM-2.5 were multiplied by the emission
factor for filterable PM from uncontrolled batch-mix dryers. The emission factor for PM-15 is 23 percent
of 16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton), or 3.7 kg/Mg (7.4 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-10 is 14 percent of
16 kg/Mg (32 Ib/ton), or 2.2 kg/Mg (4.5 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-5 is 3.5 percent of 16 kg/Mg
(32 Ib/ton), or 0.56 kg/Mg (1.1 Ib/ton). The emission factor for PM-2.5 is 0.83 percent of 16 kg/Mg
(32 Ib/ton), or 0.13 kg/Mg (0.27 Ib/ton). These emission factors are assigned E ratings because the particle
size data are based on D-rated data.
For PM-15 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-15 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-15 is
47 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-15 is 47 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0059 kg/Mg (0.012 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-10 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size .data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used in conjunction with data from Reference 24. The average percentage of PM-10
for the two tests is 39 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM
from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-10 is 39 percent of
0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0049 kg/Mg (0.0098 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating
. because the particle size data are based on only two tests.
For PM-5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-5 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-5 is
36 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-5 is 36 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0045 kg/Mg (0.0090 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-2.5 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-2.5 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-2.5 is
33 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-2.5 is 33 percent of 0.013 kg/Mg
(0.025 Ib/ton), or 0.0041 kg/Mg (0.0083 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
For PM-1 emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers, the particle size data from
Reference 23 were reviewed, and data from one of the tests documented in Reference 23 (Reference 26 of
Reference 23) were used to estimate the PM-1 percentage of filterable PM. The percentage of PM-1 is
30 percent. This percentage was multiplied by the emission factor for filterable PM from fabric
filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. The candidate emission factor for PM-1 is 30 percent of 0.012 kg/Mg
(0.024 Ib/ton), or 0.0038 kg/Mg (0.0075 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating because the
particle size data are based on a single test.
4.2.4.3.3 Condensable-organic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter- or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable organic PM emissions from batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
4-101
-------
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 24 tests. The data range from 5.9 x 10 to
0.0091 kg/Mg (1.2 x 10'5 to 0.018 Ib/ton) and average 0.0021 kg/Mg (0.0041 Ib/ton). This candidate
emission factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.0021 kg/Mg
(0.0042 Ib/ton) and the median is 0.0013 Ib/ton (0.0026 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.4 Condensable inorganic PM. An emission factor for fabric filter- or venturi
scrubber-controlled condensable inorganic PM emissions from batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 35 tests. The data range from 0.00037 to
0.060 kg/Mg (0.00073 to 0.12 Ib/ton) and average 0.0065 kg/Mg (0.013 Ib/ton). This candidate emission
factor is assigned an A rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.012 kg/Mg (0.024 Ib/ton) and
the median is 0.0021 Ib/ton (0.0042 Ib/ton). •
4.2.4.3.5 Total condensable PM. Emission factors for total condensable PM emissions from
fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) were
developed from one A-rated test and one B-rated test. The data range from 0.00036 to 0.0038 kg/Mg
(0.00071 to 0.0076 Ib/ton) and average 0.0021 kg/Mg (0.0042 Ib/ton). This emission factor is not rated
because much larger data sets are available for condensable organic and inorganic PM. Total condensable
PM is calculated as the sum of the condensable organic and inorganic PM emission factors, which is
0.0084 kg/Mg (0.017 Ib/ton). Data from References 46 and 240 for total condensable PM were not used
because those references did not provide data for the organic and inorganic fractions separately.
4.2.4.3.6 Total PM and PM-10. The total PM emission factors shown in the AP-42 table
represent the sum of the filterable PM, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission
factors. These emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the
summation. The total PM-10 emission factors shown in the AP-42 table represents the sum of the
filterable PM-10, condensable organic PM, and condensable inorganic PM emission factors. These
emission factors are rated the same as the lowest rated emission factor used in the summation.
The total PM data from References 15 and 40 were not used because both references provide
summaries of test results and do not provide individual data points for the components that comprise total
PM.
4.2.4.3.7 Carbon monoxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled CO emissions from batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from 12 tests. The
tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce CO
emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers,
because venruri scrubbers are not expected to reduce CO emissions. The data range from 0.017 to
0.65 kg/Mg (0.033 to 1.3 Ib/ton) and average 0.20 kg/Mg (0.40 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is
assigned a C rating. For this data set, the standard deviation is 0.24 kg/Mg (0.48 Ib/ton) and the median is
0.075 kg/Mg (0.15 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.8 Carbon dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled CO2 emissions from batch-mix
dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, butane, coal, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from
115 tests. The tests were conducted on fabric filter- or venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, but these control
devices are not expected to reduce COT emissions. The data range from 3.4 to 78 kg/Mg (6.9 to
160 Ib/ton) and average 18 kg/Mg (37 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an A rating. For
this data set, the standard deviation is 11 kg/Mg (22 Ib/ton) and the median is 16 Ib/ton (32 Ib/ton).
4.2.4.3.9 Nitrogen oxides. An emission factor for uncontrolled NOX emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from three A-rated tests and one B-rated test.
4-102
-------
The tests were conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce
NOY emissions. This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled
A
dryers, because venturi scrubbers are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.0071
to 0.020 kg/Mg (0.014 to 0.039 Ib/ton) and average 0.013 kg/Mg (0.025 Ib/ton). This emission factor is
assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled NCL emissions from fuel oil- or waste oil-fired batch-mix
i A ^^
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test and one B-rated test. The tests were conducted on
fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce NOX emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce NOX emissions. The data range from 0.031 to 0.084 kg/Mg (0.061 to 0.17 Ib/ton)
and average 0.058 kg/Mg (0.12 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.3.10 Sulfur dioxide. An emission factor for uncontrolled SOo emissions from natural gas-
or propane-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from two A-rated tests. The tests were
conducted on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce SOn emissions.
This factor can also be used to estimate emissions from ventun scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi
scrubbers are not expected to reduce SC^ emissions. The data range from 0.0017 to 0.0029 kg/Mg
(0.0034 to 0.0057 Ib/ton) and average 0.0023 kg/Mg (0.0046 Ib/ton). This emission factor is assigned an
E rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled SC>2 emissions from oil-fired batch-mix dryers was developed
using data from A-rated tests on two fuel oil-fired and one waste oil-fired dryers. The tests were conducted
on fabric filter-controlled dryers, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce S02 emissions. This factor
can also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers
are not expected to reduce SC^ emissions. The emission factor is 0.044 kg/Mg (0.088 Ib/ton). This
emission factor is assigned an E rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled SC>2 emissions from coal-fired batch-mix dryers (also using
supplementary propane) was developed using data from a single A-rated test. The test was conducted on a
fabric filter-controlled dryer, but fabric filters are not expected to reduce SC^ emissions. This factor can
also be used to estimate emissions from venturi scrubber-controlled dryers, because venturi scrubbers are
not expected to reduce SC>2 emissions. The emission factor is 0.022 kg/Mg (0.043 Ib/ton). This emission
factor is assigned an E rating.
4.2.4.3.11 Total organic compounds. An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane)
emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix dryers was developed using data from three A-rated
tests and one C-rated test. This factor does not apply to No. 6 fuel oil or waste oil-fired dryers. The data
range from 0.0044 to 0.010 kg/Mg (0.0087 to 0.021 Ib/ton) and average 0.0073 kg/Mg (0.015 Ib/ton).
This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Because the test method for TOC (Method 25A)
does not measure formaldehyde emissions, actual TOC emission can be calculated by adding the
formaldehyde emission factor for batch-mix dryers (0.00031 kg/Mg [0.00062 Ib/ton]) to the candidate
TOC factor.
An emission factor for uncontrolled TOC (as propane) emissions from No. 6 fuel oil-fired
batch-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test. The emission factor is 0.021 kg/Mg
(0.043 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned an E rating. Because the test method for TOC
(Method 25 A) does not measure formaldehyde emissions, actual TOC emissions can be calculated by
adding the formaldehyde emission factor for batch-mix dryers (0.00031 kg/Mg [0.00062 Ib/ton]) to the
candidate TOC factor.
4-103
-------
4.2.4.3.12 Methane, benzene, ethylbenzene. toluene, and xylene. An emission factor for
uncontrolled methane emissions from natural gas-, fuel oil-, or waste oil-fired batch-mix dryers was
developed using data from two A-rated and two B-rated tests. The data range from 0.00058 to
0.0022 kg/Mg (0.0012 to 0.0043 Ib/ton) and average 0.0037 kg/Mg (0.0074 Ib/ton). This candidate
emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled benzene emissions from natural gas-fired batch-mix dryers
was developed using data from two A-rated tests, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test. The data range
from 3.5 x 10'5 to 0.00025 kg/Mg (7.0 x 10'5 to 0.00050 Ib/ton) and average 0.00014 kg/Mg
(0.00028 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from two additional C-rated
tests are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of
the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that
included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled ethylbenzene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired
batch-mix dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and two C-rated tests.
The data range from 0.00035 to 0.0028 kg/Mg (0.00070 to 0.0057 Ib/ton) and average 0.0011 kg/Mg
(0.0022 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
An emission factor for uncontrolled toluene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated, one B-rated, and two C-rated tests. The data range
from 3.7 x 10'5 to 0.00099 kg/Mg (7.3 x 10'5 to 0.0020 Ib/ton) and average 0.00052 kg/Mg
(0.0010 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating. Data from one additional C-rated
test are not used because they are based on non-detect test runs, and the estimated emissions (one-half of
the method detection limit was used to estimate emissions) are greater than the average of the tests that
included actual measurements.
An emission factor for uncontrolled xylene emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired batch-mix
dryers was developed using data from one A-rated test, one B-rated test, and two C-rated test. The data
range from 0.00035 to 0.0035 kg/Mg (0.00070 to 0.0069 Ib/ton) and average 0.0014 kg/Mg
(0.0027 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor is assigned a D rating.
4.2.4.3.13 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Emission factors were developed for several
PAHs, including 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene emissions from fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers fired by various fuels. In general, data
from dryers fired by natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil were combined, and data from dryers fired by No. 6 fuel
oil were presented separately. However, if the data indicated that emissions from No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryers
are similar to emissions from natural gas- or No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryers, all of the data were combined. The
emission factors that are based on only one or two tests are assigned E ratings, and the factors based on
three or more tests are assigned D ratings. Table 4-22 shows the data combination for PAHs and other
organic compounds.
4.2.4.3.14 Formaldehyde. An emission factor for uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions from
batch-mix dryers (fired with natural gas, propane, fuel oil, or waste oil) was developed using data from five
A-rated tests, one B-rated test, and one C-rated test. The data range from 3.8 x 10"5 to 0.0010 kg/Mg
(7.6 x 10"5 to 0.0021 Ib/ton) and average 0.00036 kg/Mg (0.00074 Ib/ton). This candidate emission factor
is assigned a D rating. Additional data from 10 D-rated tests were not used to develop this candidate
emission factor.
4-104
-------
4.2.4.3.15 Aldehydes and ketones. With the exception of formaldehyde (discussed in previous
paragraph) and acetaldehyde (two tests), emission factors for all aldehydes and ketones were developed
using data from a single test. Uncontrolled emission factors were developed for acetaldehyde,
benzaldehyde, butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hexanal, and qumone emissions from
natural gas-fired batch-mix dryers. These emission factors are assigned E ratings. Data for acetone
emissions were not used because of a high field blank.
4.2.4.3.16 Trace metals. Emission factors were developed for metals emissions from fabric filter-
or venturi scrubber-controlled batch-mix dryers (fired with natuial gas, fuel oil, or waste oil). Data for
venturi scrubber-controlled dryers and waste oil-fired dryers were only available to quantify lead emissions.
For the most part, the data did not show any significant differences between fuel types. Therefore, most of
the data were combined regardless of fuel type. However, separate emission factors were developed for
lead emissions from natural gas- or fuel oil-fired dryers and waste oil-fired dryers, because the data indicate
that lead emissions from waste oil-fired dryers are an order of magnitude greater than lead emissions from
natural gas- or fuel oil-fired dryers. All available A-. B-, and C- rated data were combined for the
following metals: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, hexavalent chromium,
manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. The emission factor ratings and data combination are
shown in Table 4-21. The emission factors that are based on three or more tests are assigned D ratings,
and the factors that are based on less than three tests are assigned E ratings.
4.2 A A Conventional: Continuous Mix Facilities. Emission factors were not developed for
continuous mix asphalt plants.
4.3 STATISTICAL APPROACH (NOTE: THE STA TISTICAL ANALYSES DESCRIBED IN THIS
SECTION DO NOT INCLUDE DATA FROM REFERENCES BEYOND REFERENCE NUMBER 338)
In addition to the traditional approach, the hot mix asphalt data also were analyzed by statistical
methods to evaluate the effects of the design and operating parameters for which data were available on
emission factors. Data were analyzed using two general approaches: two-sample t-tests and general linear
model techniques (which encompass analysis of variance and regression models). The t-tests were used to
determine if the mean value for two data sets differed significantly according to a specific categorical
variable. Categorical variables are those that assume discrete (typically nonnumeric) values. For this
study, the categorical variables included emission control device (fabric filter or scrubber), scrubber type
(venturi or unspecified wet scrubber), fuel type (oil or gas), and oil class (waste oil/No. 6 fuel oil or other
types of fuel oil). If the data did not provided statistical evidence that mean emission factors for two
classes differed, the data sets were combined for subsequent analyses. For example, if a t-test did not
indicate that the mean emission factor for CO emissions from oil-fired dryers differed significantly from the
mean emission factor for CO from gas-fired dryers at a statistically significant level, fuel type was ignored,
and the data for both fuels were grouped together for the subsequent analyses of the CO data. There were
two advantages to grouping the data in this manner. First, grouping data simplified the full linear model by
reducing the number of potential .values a categorical variable could assume. Second, by combining two
groups of data, the sample size increased, thereby increasing the power to identify important effects of
different parameters on emissions.
The general methodology for determining the potential effects of the categorical variables was first
to determine the potential effect of fuel type on emissions, then the potential effect of emission control
device on emissions. To eliminate the potential effect of control device while assessing fuel effects, control
device was held constant. That is, the fabric filter data and the scrubber data were grouped separately and
separate t-tests were performed on the fabric filter data and on the scrubber data. In addition, to eliminate
the potential effect of RAP content on emissions, the t-tests were performed only for those data points for
4-105
-------
which the RAP content was less than 0.1 (i.e., less than 10 percent RAP). However, it should be noted that
there were few data points for which RAP was used, but at quantities less than 10 percent.
The general linear model techniques were used to determine the effects of continuous variables on
emissions. Continuous variables are those that take on numerical values; the continuous variables
considered in the analysis of the hot mix asphalt data were the RAP content of the mix (e.g., 0.2 for
20 percent RAP), production rate, and scrubber pressure drop (for the scrubber-controlled filterable PM
data only).
To expedite the process, box plots and scatter diagrams were used to help characterize the emission
factors by providing insight on the distribution and variability of the data. As an example, Figure 4-1
shows a box plot of batch mix, fabric filter-controlled, filterable PM emission factors by fuel type. The
box extends from the 25th to the 75th percentile; this range is known as the interquartile range. The line
across the box represents the median (or 50tn percentile) of the data. The horizontal lines above and below
each box extend to the upper and lower adjacent values. The upper adjacent value is defined as the largest
data point less than or equal to the 75 percentile plus 1.5 times the interquartile range; the lower adjacent
value is defined as the smallest data point greater than or equal to the 251" percentile minus 1.5 times the
interquartile range. Observed points more extreme than the adjacent values are plotted individually. In
addition, the width of the box is proportional to the number of data points in the category.
For each set of analyses, the final linear model was developed through an investigator-driven
elimination process. Based on preliminary descriptive results, such as those described earlier for t-tests,
initial models included all pertinent parameters (i.e., the main effects) that could have an effect on
emissions and the interactions (or cross-products) of those parameters. By interaction is meant the product
of two parameters, such as production rate multiplied by the RAP content in the mix. After the initial
model was fit, the model was reduced hierarchically. First, all interaction terms that were determined to be
nonsignificant were eliminated, and the model was fit again. Then, the nonsignificant main effects were
eliminated from the model, and the model was fit again.
Statistical analyses were performed on the data for the following pollutants: filterable PM,
condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC, CO, CO2, NOX, and SO2- The data on
emissions of other pollutants were inadequate for the analyses to be meaningful.
For the t-tests and the general linear models, a significance level of 0.10 was used for all statistical
decisions; the p-values calculated by the statistical tests were compared to this significance level. That is,
p-values of 0.10 or less indicated a significant effect, and p-values greater than 0.10 indicated no
significant effect on emissions. Although this level provides less Type I error protection than is achieved
by the 0.05 level of significance often used, this value was selected to improve the power of the analyses
(i.e., to reduce the likelihood of a Type II error). A Type II error results when the analysis fails to find that
a factor affects emissions when it actually does. In the context of these analyses, a Type II error would
occur if, for example, the analyses indicated that control device had no effect on emissions, when, in fact,
control device did affect emissions significantly. Type II errors are considered to be at least of equal
importance as Type I errors in developing AP-42 emission factors.
The following sections summarizes the results of the analyses of the batch mix and drum-mix data
by pollutant. The complete results of each t-test performed and each linear model fit to the data on batch
mix and drum-mix emission data are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. As can be seen from
the analyses, the linear models developed from the data generally explained less than half of the variability
in the data. For this reason, an additional analysis of the data was performed to determine if multiplicative
models might be more appropriate than linear models for explaining data variability. The results of this
4-106
-------
analysis is presented in Section 4.3.3. Finally, the filterable PM data were analyzed to determine the type
of statistical distribution that best describes the data. A discussion of this analysis is presented in Section
4.3.4.
4.3.1 Batch-Mix Dryers
The following paragraphs describe the results of the analyses of the batch mix emissions data.
Table 4-23 summarizes the results of the t-tests performed on the batch mix data, and Table 4-24
summarizes the predictive equations developed from the batch mix emissions data. The complete results
the analyses are presented in Appendix A.
4.3.1.1 Filterable PM. The first step in the analyses of the filterable PM data was to use a t-test to
determine if firing batch-mix dryers with waste oil resulted in a significant difference in emissions when
compared to emissions from dryers fired with fuel oil. To eliminate the potential effect of control device,
the data for fabric filter-controlled dryers and scrubber-controlled dryers were analyzed separately. In
addition, to eliminate the potential effect of RAP, only the data for which the RAP content was less than
0.1 were considered. The mean emission factors for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM were 0.021 Ib/ton
for waste oil-fired dryers and 0.028 Ib/ton for dryers fired with other types of fuel oil. The t-test indicated
no significant difference (p = 0.59) in these two emission factors. The analyses of the data on
scrubber-controlled emissions yielded a similar result. The mean emission factor for waste-oil fired dryers
(0.17 Ib/ton) did not differ significantly from the mean factor for nonwaste oil-fired dryers (0.042 Ib/ton),
and the p-value for the t-test was 0.34. (It should be noted that the lack of statistical significance is related
to a lack of statistical power because of small sample sizes - 5 tests total - rather than a lack of meaningful
' technical difference in emissions.) Based on these results, the data for all types of fuel oil, including waste
oil, were combined for the subsequent analyses.
Next, a comparison was made to determine if there was a significant difference in filterable PM
emissions for oil-fired dryers when compared to emissions from gas-fired dryers. Again, the potential
effects of control device and RAP content were eliminated by analyzing the fabric filter data separately
from the scrubber data and by considering only those data points for which the RAP content was less than
0.1. The mean emission factors for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM were 0.025 Ib/ton for oil-fired
dryers and 0.016 Ib/ton for gas-fired dryers. The t-test indicated no significant difference (p = 0.25) in
these mean emission factors. Figure 4-1 presents a boxplot of the fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data
by fuel type for batch mix plants. For scrubber controlled emissions, the mean emission factors were
0.12 Ib/ton for oil-fired dryers and 0.21 Ib/ton for gas-fired dryers. The t-test indicated no significant
difference (p = 0.53). For the subsequent analyses, fuel type was ignored.
The effect of control device was examined next. The t-test indicated that fabric filter-controlled
filterable PM emissions (0.020 Ib/ton) differed significantly (p = 0.078) from scrubber-controlled filterable
PM emissions (0.15 Ib/ton) for RAP content less than 0.1, as would be expected. Figure 4-2 presents a
boxplot of the filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants.
Finally, the scrubber data were analyzed to determine if the mean emission factor for venturi
scrubber-controlled dryers (0.11 Ib/ton) differed significantly from the mean emission factor for dryers
controlled with unspecified wet scrubbers (0.25 Ib/ton). The results indicated no significant difference (p =
0.34), despite the fact that the mean emission factor for venturi scrubber-controlled emissions was less than
half the mean factor for unspecified wet scrubber-controlled emissions. Again, the lack of statistical power
associated with the small data sets is the likely explanation for this result.
4-107
-------
Based on the results of the t-tests described above, separate linear models were fit for the fabric
filter data and the scrubber data. The mean emission factor for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM was
found to be a function of the RAP content (p = 0.0067) and the production rate (p = 0.033). However, the
squared correlation coefficient (R ) value for the model is 0.22, which indicates that the model explains
only a small percentage of the variability in the data. The model can be expressed as follows:
EFpM = 0.043+ 0.14R-0.00012P (4-1)
where:
EFpjy. = emission factor for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
A separate model was fit to predict fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions as a function of
RAP content only (p = 0.0043). This model has a squared correlation coefficient of 0.15 and can be
expressed as:
EFpM = 0.020+ 0.16R (4-2)
where:
EFp^ = emission factor for fabric-filter-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
Neither of the two models for fabric filter-controlled filterable PM emissions (Equations 4-1 and
4-2) explains much of the variability in the data. It should be noted that the large difference in the constant
terms for the two equations (0.043 for Equation 4-1 and 0.020 for Equation 4-2) is that Equation 4-2 is
based on an average production rate for the data; if a production rate of 200 ton/hr is used with Equation
4-1, the two models give comparable results.
Filterable PM emissions from scrubber-controlled batch-mix dryers were found to vary according
to production rate (p = 0.039). The model has an R^ value of 0.48 and is presented as Equation 4-3 below.
EFpM = 0.35 - 0.00094P (4-3)
where:
EFpjyj = emission factor for scrubber-controlled filterable PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
4.3.1.2 Condensable Inorganic PM. The data on emissions of condensable inorganic PM were
analyzed using the same methodology as described above for the filterable PM data analysis. In all cases,
the t-tests indicated no difference in the means of the groups for which comparisons were made. That is,
both fuel type and emission control device were found to have no effect on condensable inorganic PM
emissions.
Two models for estimating condensable inorganic PM emissions were developed from the data. In
the first model, emissions were found to vary according to the cross-product of RAP content and
production rate (p <0.0001). The model has an R^ value of 0.77 and can be expressed as follows:
4-108
-------
EFCIPM = °-0041 + °-00054RP (4-4)
where:
= emission factor for condensable inorganic PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
In the second model, emissions were found to vary according to the RAP content (p = 0.0001).
The model has an R value of 0.61 and can be expressed as follows:
EFCIpM = 0.0050 + 0.079R (4-5)
where:
EPQpjyj = emission factor for condensable inorganic PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
A closer examination of the data indicates that both of the models for condensable inorganic PM
emissions are driven by the three data points for which RAP content was greater than zero; that is, of the
17 data points for condensable inorganic PM emissions, the RAP content was zero for 14 of the data
points. For this reason, these models are not recommended for incorporation into AP-42. The effect of the
nonnegative RAP data points on the mean emission factor is evident from Figure 4-3, which presents a plot
of the condensable inorganic PM data by RAP content for batch mix plants.
4.3.1.3 Condensable Organic PM. The results of the t-tests performed on the condensable organic
PM data were similar to the results of the condensable inorganic PM data analysis; both fuel type and
emission control device were found to have no effect on emissions. Figure 4-4 depicts a boxplot of the
condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants. It should be noted that for most of the
comparisons, the data sets were relatively small.
From an engineering perspective, one would expect emissions from waste-oil fired dryers to be
higher than emissions from nonwaste oil-fired dryers. In fact, the mean emission factor for condensable
organic emissions from waste-oil fired dryers (0.0077 Ib/ton for fabric filter control) was nearly 3 times the
mean emission factor for nonwaste oil-fired dryers (0.0027 Ib/ton). However, because of the small data
sets, the t-test could not be used to substantiate this difference in terms of statistical significance.
Emissions were found to vary according to RAP content (p = 0.011) and the cross-product of RAP
content and production rate (p = 0.030). The model has an R value of 0.35 and can be expressed as
follows:
EFCOPM = °-0044 + °-065R - 0.00018RP (4-6)
4-109
-------
where:
EFpQpj^ = emission factor for condensable organic PM emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
As was the case for condensable inorganic emissions, this model is driven by a few data points; the
RAP content was zero for 5 of the 19 data points upon which the model is based. For this reason. Equation
4-6 also is not recommended for inclusion in AP-42.
4.3.1.4 Volatile Organic Compounds. For VOC emissions, there were a total of 5 data points for
which the RAP content was specified. All of the data were derived from tests on fabric filter-controlled
drum-mix dryers, so an analysis of control device effect was not possible. However, comparison of the
oil-fired dryer data to the gas-fired dried data indicated that fuel type had no significant effect on VOC
emissions. The number of data points were too few to alldw a meaningful linear model analysis.
4.3.1.5 Carbon Monoxide. For CO emissions, there were a total of 10 data points, all resulting
from tests on fabric filter-controlled batch-mix dryers. Although an analysis of control device effect was
not possible, the emission controls used in the hot mix industry are unlikely to have any effect on CO
emissions. The analysis indicated that none of the other parameters (fuel type, RAP content, and
production rate) had a significant effect on CO emissions.
4.3.1.6 Carbon Dioxide. Neither control device nor fuel type were found to impact CO2
emissions significantly. Figure 4-5 presents a boxplot of the CO^ data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
The linear model analysis indicated that CO2 emissions can be estimated as a function of RAP content (p =
0.052), production rate (p = 0.0002), and the RAP content-production rate cross-product (p = 0.043).
However, the squared correlation coefficient (R ) value for the model is 0.23, which indicates that the
model explains only a small percentage of the variability in the data. The model can be expressed as
follows:
EFCO2 = 75- 170R-0.18P + 0.67RP (4-7)
where:
= emission factor for CO emissions in Ib/ton;
R = RAP content; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
A second model developed from the CO2 data indicates CO2 emissions can be estimated as a
function of production rate alone (p = 0.0009). This model has an even smaller R value of 0.12 and can
be expressed as follows:
EFrn7 = 59-0.10P
(4-8)
where:
= emission factor for CO emissions in Ib/ton; and
P = is the production rate in ton/hr.
4-110
-------
Both of the two models developed for CC^ emissions explain little of the variation in the data.
Figure 4-6 presents a plot of the CC>2 data by production rate for batch mix plants.
4.3.1.7 Nitrogen Oxides. The data for NOV emissions from batch-mix dryers were too few to
A
model (six data points total). A comparison of NOX emissions from oil-fired dryers (2 data points with a
mean of 0.12 Ib/ton) and NOX emissions from gas-fired dryers (4 data points with a mean of 0.025 Ib/ton)
indicated no significant difference in mean emission factors, despite the considerable difference in the
mangnitudes of the mean emission factors. Again, the lack of statistical power due to small data sets is the
likely explanation for this outcome.
4.3.1.8 Summary of Recommended Emission Factor Equations. The equations that were
developed for batch mix facilities are not recommended for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section because
of the consistently low correlation coefficients. The large amounts of data that were analyzed did not show
any meaningful relationships between the emission factors and the parameters that were examined. This is
indicative of an industry with large amounts of variability between plants.
4.3.2 Drum-Mix Dryers
The following paragraphs describe the results of the analyses of the drum-mix emissions data.
Table 4-25 summarizes the results of the t-tests performed on the drum-mix data, and Table 4-26
summarizes the predictive equations developed from the drum-mix emissions data. The complete results
the analyses are presented in Appendix B.
4.3.2.1 Filterable PM. The same methodology was used to analyze the drum-mix data as is
described for the batch mix data analysis discussed in Section 4.3.1. However, scrubber pressure drop
data also were available for some of the drum-mix emission tests. The t-tests indicated that only control
device significantly affected filterable PM emissions (p = 0.015); the mean emission factor for fabric
filter-controlled PM determined to be 0.014 Ib/ton, and the mean emission factor for scrubber-controlled
PM was calculated as 0.026 Ib/ton. Figure 4-7 depicts a boxplot of the filterable PM data by control
device, and Figure 4-8 depicts a boxplot of the fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for
drum mix plants.
As indicated in Table 4-25, the mean emission factors for many of the t-test comparisons showed
significant differences, even though the statistical tests indicated otherwise. This type of results are due
mainly to a lack of statistical power associated with small data sets and the large variability in the data.
For example, for scrubber-controlled filterable from waste oil-fired dryers, the mean emission factor was
calculated as 0.047 Ib/ton, and, for scrubber-controlled filterable PM from dryers fired with nonwaste fuel
oil, the mean emission factor was 0.021 Ib/ton. Yet, the statistical test indicated no significant difference (p
= 0.18) in mean emission factors. In addition, comparisons of the means of the various emission factors
classes considered were not always consistent from engineering perspective. For example, for fabric
filter-controlled filterable PM from waste oil-fired dryers, the mean emission factor (0.0095 Ib/ton) was
much smaller in magnitude than the corresponding mean emission factor for dryers fired with nonwaste oils
(0.016 Ib/ton).
The linear model analysis indicated that neither of the continuous variables modeled (RAP content,
production rate) had a significant effect on filterable PM emissions. Furthermore, analysis of the scrubber
data indicated that the effect of scrubber pressure drop on filterable PM emissions also was negligible.
4.3.2.2 Condensable Inorganic PM. The analysis of the data on emissions of condensable
inorganic PM indicated that neither fuel type nor emission control device had significant effect on
4-111
-------
emissions. The linear model analysis indicated that both RAP content and production rate had no
significant effect on condensable inorganic PM emissions.
4.3.2.3 Condensable Organic PM. The results of the t-tests performed on the condensable organic
PM data were similar to the results of the condensable inorganic PM data analysis; both fuel type and
emission control device were found to have no significant effect on emissions. Figure 4-9 presents a
boxplot of the condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants. This result is due largely to
the lack of statistical power associated with the analysis of small data sets; for several of the comparisons,
one of the classes compared had only 2 data points, as indicated in Table 4-25.
Emissions were found to vary according to RAP content (p = 0.047). However, the value of the
squared correlation coefficient (0.11) for the model indicates that the model is of limited use in estimating
emissions. The model can be expressed as follows:
EFCOPM = °-0074 + °-033R ' (4-9)
where:
EFcOPM = emission factor for condensable organic PM emissions in Ib/ton; and
R = RAP content.
This model is consistent with engineering principles in that one would expect the condensable
organic emissions to increase with increasing RAP content. However, the squared correlation coefficient of
0.11 indicates that the model explains very little of the variability in the data.
4.3.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds. The analysis of the VOC emission data indicated no fuel
effect (p = 0.28). However, the data do indicate that control device has a significant effect on emissions
(p = 0.060). For those data points for which the RAP content was less than 0.1, the mean emission factor
for fabric filter-controlled VOC was 0.015 Ib/ton, and the mean emission factor for scrubber-controlled
VOC was 0.058 Ib/ton. This result is not consistent with engineering principles in that, if either of the two
control devices has an effect on VOC emissions, one would expect larger emissions reductions from
scrubber control than from fabric filter control. It should be noted that the data sets compared were very
small; there were 4 data points for fabric filter-controlled VOC emissions and 3 data points for
scrubber-controlled VOC emissions. For these reasons, the revised AP-42 section does not segregate the
drum-mix VOC emission factor by control device.
The scrubber-controlled data were too few to model (3 data points total). For the fabric
filter-controlled VOC data, RAP content was found to have no significant effect on emissions, but the
analysis indicated a marginal effect for production rate (p = 0.092). The model developed has an R value
of 0.28 and can be expressed as follows:
EFVOC = 0.11- 0.00022P (4-10)
where:
= emission factor for fabric filter-controlled VOC emissions in Ib/ton; and
P = production rate in ton/hr.
Figure 4-10 presents a plot of the VOC data by production rate for drum mix plants.
4-112
-------
4.3.2.5 Carbon Monoxide. For CO emissions, there were a total of 11 data points, all of which
were derived from tests on fabric filter-controlled drum-mix dryers. Although an analysis of control device
effect was not possible, the emission controls used in the hot mix industry are unlikely to have any effect on
CO emissions. The analysis indicated that none of the other parameters (fuel type, RAP content, and
production rate) had a significant effect on CO emissions.
4.3.2.6 Carbon Dioxide. The analysis of the C02 emission data generally indicated that none of
the parameters considered had a significant effect on emissions. Figure 4-11 depicts a boxplot of the CO2
data by fuel type for drum mix plants. The one exception to this result pertained to the data for fabric
filter-controlled CO2- For this data set, the mean emission factor for oil-fired dryers (32 Ib/ton) was found
to differ significantly (p = 0.016) from the mean emission factor for gas-fired dryers (25 Ib/ton). However,
because the magnitude of the two emission factors are comparable and the scrubber-controlled data
indicated no such difference by fuel type, the factors for C02 were not segregated by fuel type in the
revised AP-42 section.
4.3.2.7 Nitrogen Oxides. The NOV emission data all were derived from tests on fabric
A
filter-controlled dryers. The analysis indicated that fuel had no significant effect on NO^ emissions. The
data were to few for the linear model analyses to produce meaningful results; there were a total of 5 data
points for which the RAP content was specified.
4.3.2.8 Sulfur Dioxide. The analysis of the S02 emission data indicated that none of the
parameters considered had a significant effect on emissions.
4.3.2.9 Summary of Recommended Emission Factor Equations. The equations that were
developed for drum-mix facilities are not recommended for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section because
of the consistently low correlation coefficients. The large amounts of data that were analyzed did not show
any strong relationships between the emission factors and the parameters that were examined. This is
indicative of an industry with large amounts of variability between plants.
4.3.3 Applicability of Multiplicative Models
In regression terminology, a multiplicative model is one in which errors (or deviations of the
emission factor about the predictive regression line or surface) are multiplicative rather than additive. In
such cases these deviations are expressed as a multiple or percentage of the modeled emission factors rather
that as ± some value. If multiplicative models are appropriate, those models can be fit by log transforming
the emission factor before modeling. One way to determine whether multiplicative models might be
appropriate is to examine the residuals (actual emissions - predicted emissions from the model) as a
function of the predicted emissions for an additive model. Patterns of residuals in which greater variability
is associated with larger predicted emission factors are indicative of a multiplicative model. For the hot
mix asphalt data, residuals did not exhibit strong patterns of increased variability with increasing predicted
values, suggesting no need for further examination of multiplicative models.
4.3.4 Filterable PM Distributions
Exploratory data analysis techniques, including both graphical descriptions via histograms and
formal tests of distributional fit using Kolmogorov type statistics, were used to assess distributional
properties of the filterable PM data for hot mix asphalt plants with separate analyses for batch and
drum-mix facilities. Analyses were conducted on two different variables, the actual emission factors and
the residuals from the emission factor models deemed to provide best fit. Because the normality
requirements for statistical inference in regression models are related to the "error term" in the model, not
4-113
-------
to the observations themselves, these analyses focused on the residuals, which are the best estimates of the
model "errors." Examination of the histograms of the residuals showed the distribution to be relatively
symmetric, with a slight skewness to the right. The Kolmogorov tests showed the data to be nonnormal, a
finding that is likely to be related to the slight skewness and to somewhat greater weight in the tails than is
found in the normal distribution. However, the distribution was quite unimodal, and given the sample sizes
for both types of hot mix plant and the robustness of the regression results to departures from normality
that don't exhibit extreme bimodality, the results appear reasonable.
The distributions of the actual emission factors also were examined, and the factors themselves
generally were lognormally distributed or nearly so. The lognormal distribution is one bounded by zero on
the left and skewed to the right. This finding is not surprising and is not inconsistent with the above
findings in that emissions are a function of RAP content and production rate, both of which appear to be
somewhat skewed to the right.
4.4 EMISSIONS FROM HMA LOAD-OUT AND OTHER SOURCES
This section summarizes the review of emission test reports and other documents that address
emissions from the HMA load-out, batch plant silo filling, truck emissions, and other sources. Two of the
references (References 355 and 356) provided data that were valid for developing emission factors. The
results of the analyses of the Reference 355 and 356 emission data are presented below. All of the
references reviewed are discussed in Section 4.2.1.
The test data from these two tests documented in References 355 and 356 require a number of
adjustments before they can be compared or combined. First, the reported load-out emissions data from
Plant C includes emissions measured during production operations and one test that quantified emissions
due to truck operations without asphalt loading. Second, the "volatility" of the asphalts used at Plant C
and Plant D are different and should be adjusted to some consistent value. Third, the load-out temperatures
for each run at Plant C and Plant D were somewhat different and should be adjusted to some consistent
value. The following sections describe the basis for performing these adjustments to arrive at load-out and
silo filling emissions at a standardized temperature and asphalt volatility. This allows the two load-out
data sets to be compared and, where appropriate, combined.
4.4.1 Load-Out Emissions '
Tables 4-27 and 4-28 summarize the results of the load-out tests at Plants C, and Table 4-29
summarizes the load-out test results for Plant D. The following paragraphs discuss the data and the
corrections made to the data in the process of developing load-out emission factors.
4.4.1.1 Background correction. Emissions data were collected at Plant C during a background
test to estimate emissions from the operation of diesel trucks in the absence of hot mix asphalt loading.
This data allows for the adjustment of the run-by-run load-out data for PM (both MCEM and non-MCEM
fractions), VOHAPs), SVOHAPs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and TOC. Capture
efficiency was measured during the production tests and the background test. Capture efficiency-corrected
emissions data were presented in the test reports and was incorporated in the emission calculations.
A number of methods to adjust for these background concentrations are possible. The most
reliable method to adjust for emissions measured during background operations would be to separately
adjust each run for the measured capture efficiency and then subtract these adjusted background emissions
from the adjusted emissions measured during production operations. This procedure produces negative
values for both the PM and MCEM and many other HAP compounds. This situation is probably due to a
4-114
-------
combination of factors which cannot be accommodated retroactively. An approach that utilizes the capture
efficiency data that were collected, accounts for the emissions from diesel trucks and paved roadways,
minimizes the number of negative emission values, and provides a high bias relative to the most correct
method mentioned above was used to account for background emissions. To accomplish this, the
as-measured background concentration was subtracted from each separate capture efficiency adjusted run.
For the most part, values were treated as zero if the background concentration exceeded the
capture-efficiency-adjusted run concentration. Emissions of particulate presented the one exception. If the
background-adjusted PM is less than the MCEM, the value for the MCEM was used in lieu of the
background-adjusted PM. This background adjustment method resulted in a low estimate for the
background emissions, and, therefore, emission factors for load-out that are conservatively high.
It should also be noted that the full run average TOC emission concentration of 1.2 ppm was not
used for the background adjustment for truck emissions. Instead, the average concentration of 0.83 for the
first half of the background run was used. While the second half of the background run had average
concentrations of 1.6 ppm, the capture efficiency was generally lower. This situation could not be fully
explained and it was agreed to use the lower concentrations for the background adjustment.
Background adjusted emission factors were calculated by subtracting the measured background
concentration from the capture efficiency corrected concentration and then multiplying by the ratio of the
capture efficiency corrected emission factor to the capture efficiency-corrected concentration. An example
calculation using Run 1 MCEM emissions is presented below:
EF
EFcor= [(Cprod)-(Cback)]x-^
where:
EFcor = Background corrected emission factor (Ib/ton).
C_rocj = Capture efficiency corrected production concentration (gr/dscf).
^back = Measured background concentration (gr/dscf).
EF 0(j = Capture efficiency corrected emission factor (Ib/ton).
The following values were obtained from Table 4-27:
C O(j = 1.68x 10 gr/dscf (from MCEM row, second column).
Cback = 3.78x10-4 gr/dscf (from MCEM row, eighth column).
EF d = 3.12x 10 '4 Ib/ton (from MCEM row, third column).
EFcor = ((1.68xlO-3)-(3.78xlO"4))*(3.12xlO'4/ 1.68xlO'3)
= 1.30xlO-3 * 1.86X10'1
= 2.42x10'4
The background-corrected load-out emission factors calculated for Plant C are presented in
Tables 4-30 and 4-31.
4.4.1.2 Adjustment for asphalt volatility. Samples of the asphalt binder used during each test run
were collected. The mass loss-on-heating of these samples were determined according to ASTM Method D
2872-88, Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test - RTFOT).
This test determines the loss-on-heating of an asphalt sample following heating at 325 °F for five hours.
During the test, a small amount of the asphalt is maintained in a rolling vessel which causes a thin film of
the asphalt to be exposed. This test is performed by industry prior to other physical tests that measure the
4-115
-------
suitability of the asphalt as a binder for paving material. As a result of industry and state-quality control
programs, this test is performed on many samples of asphalt throughout the distribution and use cycle of
asphalt binders. It also seems reasonable to expect organic air emissions from asphalt to be directly
proportional to the loss-on-heating measured by this test. However, it should be noted that this relationship
is uncertain but is assumed to be directionally correct since the basic physical processes that the asphalt
binder experiences in the production of HMA and during the rolling thin film test are similar. As a result,
it follows that all emission factors related to the organic content of asphalt binders (includes VOHAPs,
SVOHAPs, PAHs, TOC, and MCEM PM) should be scaled to common RTFOT results for each test run
before comparing emissions or combining emissions to a single result. However, the inorganic PM from
stone dust or unpaved road dust (non-MCEM PM) should not be scaled to RTFOT results, since asphalt
volatility would have no effect on these emissions.
To determine a common RTFOT value to use as a default in those situations where no historical
information is available, a survey of laboratories of a limited number of State departments of transportation
was performed. Information that was requested included .the results of RTFOT tests performed by the
laboratory. Data for calendar year 1999 were obtained from Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina.
Michigan, and Minnesota. Each of the state transportation department laboratory employees who provided
these data said that they analyze asphalts used or projected for use without further blending or
modifications. Information on the rolling thin film tests for Plant C and D and for selected States where
data from 1999 were obtained are presented in Table 4-32. Also included are the number of samples tested
and the standard deviation of the loss-on-heating values.
Based upon the RTFOT data in Table 4-32 and the desire to select a default which encourages the
use of site-specific data, a default of-0.5 percent was used. The adjustment due to asphalt volatility was
performed after correcting for capture efficiency and truck background emissions. Emission factors for
individual test runs were normalized to a 0.5 percent loss-on-heating by multiplying the CE and
background-corrected emission factor by the ratio of asphalt volatility measured during the individual test
runs to 0.5 percent. Data from Plant C and Plant D were adjusted to this default value prior to comparing
the data, determining whether to combine the data into a single factor, and in combining the data. In
addition, in the revised AP-42 section, it is highly recommended that any adjustments for the
loss-on-heating be an appropriate statistical calculation of a representative sampling of asphalts used in the
location in question. Selection of the appropriate statistical calculation should also be based upon the
pollutants and health endpoints being evaluated. The adjustment of the data based upon the maximum
loss-on-heating value allowed by some general specification is not appropriate, nor is the selection of the
maximum loss-on-heating value obtained for any one sample.
4.4.1.3 Adjustment for asphalt temperature. Because asphalt binders are typical of many other
organic substances, temperature can have an effect on the emissions. Supplemental laboratory analyses
were performed on the asphalt binder obtained during both Plant C and D emissions tests. These tests can
be used to estimate the relative significance of this temperature effect. The analyses for loss-on-heating
performed on the asphalts used during the tests included temperatures 25 °F above and below the ASTM
reference temperature of 325 °F. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-33. As indicated
by these tests, the loss-on-heating can change almost by a factor of 2 with these changes in temperature.
A fundamental physical phenomenon described by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation states that
there is a linear relationship between the natural log of the vapor pressure and the inverse of the absolute
temperature (Reference: Experimental Physical Chemistry; F. Daniels, J. W. Williams, P. Bender, R.
Alberty, and C. Cornwell; McGraw-Hill; 1962). Many engineering texts and manuals (Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics; 45th Edition; CRC Press; June 1973) provide Antoine's equation constants
describing this linear relationship for many compounds. Using the data in Table 4-33, the constants
4-116
-------
describing this relationship for the asphalts used during the tests were empirically developed. Using the
actual Plant C and D data, we can relate temperature to the loss-on-heating by using the following two
equations, where t equals temperature (°F):
„,.,..,. T ((t + 460)*0.0231 - 19.28)
California Asphalt: Loss - - evv
,. u A u i» T ((t + 460)*0.0271 -22.93)
Massachusetts Asphalt: Loss = - eu ' '
During stakeholder meetings to discuss the collection and analysis of this data, the industry has
stated that good paving practices dictate that load-out temperatures in excess of 325°F should be avoided.
More specifically, the Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council's published "Best Practices" brochure
(Figure 4-12) published on 4/00 provides guidance for controlling fumes, emissions, and odors from HMA
plants and paving operations. The second side of the brochure (Figure 4-13) includes recommendations for
the range and midpoint temperatures for both the storage of asphalt and the mixing of the HMA product.
These temperatures vary by asphalt binder grade. The numbers in the binder grade are indications of the
project-specific temperature extremes (in degrees centigrade) for which the asphalt mixture is designed. As
such, a PG82-22 grade asphalt is intended for use when average 7-day maximum pavement design
temperature is 82°C (179°F) and the minimum pavement design temperature is 22°C (-8°F). The
midpoint HMA plant mixing temperatures range from 264°F to 315°F. As shown in Figure 4-13, the
highest HMA mixing temperature is associated with a binder used for the most severe temperature
conditions.
In an attempt to maximize the emissions from the silo filling and load-out operations, both facilities
were requested to increase the load-out temperature as much as possible. However, as indicated by the
average temperatures measured during the tests, a consistent temperature was not achieved. The equations
developed from the additional laboratory testing of the asphalt binders used during the emission tests
provide a mechanism to normalize the emissions to the maximum temperature of 325 °F. This can be
accomplished by multiplying the capture efficiency and background corrected emissions by the ratio of the
loss-on-heating at 325°F to the estimated loss-on-heating at the temperature measured during the test run.
Thus, all organic emission factors related to the asphalt binders (includes VOHAPs, SVOHAPs, PAHs,
TOC, and MCEM PM) can be scaled according to these temperature relationships. It should be noted that
this hypothesis has not been validated by emissions testing but provides an adjustment that is directionally
correct. It should also be noted that it is not appropriate to scale the inorganic particulate matter from
stone dust or unpaved road dust (non-MCEM PM) to the asphalt temperature, since asphalt temperature
has no effect on these emissions.
For Plant C load-out data, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility and temperature was
performed after correcting for capture efficiency and truck background emissions. (Note: For Plant C
silo filling data, which is discussed in a following section, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility
and temperature was performed on the measured emissions.) The emission factors for Plant C were
normalized to a loss-on-heating of-0.5 percent and a load-out temperature of 325 °F using Equation 4-11.
For Plant D load-out data, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility and temperature was performed
on the measured emissions as no correction for capture efficiency or truck background emissions was
required. The emission factors for Plant D were normalized to a loss-on-heating of-0.5 percent and a
load-out temperature of 325°F using Equation 4-12.
4-117
-------
Equation 4-11:
_A ^ ,,((0.0231) (325 - 460) - 19.28)
EF = EF (-——) \— : 1
Std Corr y ((0.0231) (T + 460) - 1928)
Equation 4-12:
= EF
V
, ((0.0271) (325 + 460) - 22.93)
-
((0.0271) (T - 460) - 22.93)
where:
Ef.
std
EF
V
T =
Emission factor, Ib/ton. at standard conditions of 0.5 percent loss-on-heating and 325°F.
Emission factor, Ib/ton.
Asphalt volatility, where a 0.5 percent loss-on-heating is expressed as "-0.5."
Determined by ASTM Method D2872-88.
Asphalt temperature,0?.
Tables 4-34 and 4-35 present the temperature and volatility-adjusted emissions data for Plant C
load-out; Table 4-36 presents the temperature and volatility-adjusted emissions data for Plant D load-out.
It should be noted that these emissions do not include the particulate deposition estimates. Speciation
profiles for individual HAP species also are included in the tables for Plant C in addition to the emissions
estimates. Because the HAP species would also be a portion of the PM-based pollutants deposited on the
ventilation system, the speciation profiles will allow for an improved characterization of the total
uncontrolled emissions.
To provide a measure of asphalt fumes condensing on load-out facility surfaces and air handling
ductwork, several deposition plates were placed for collection of particulate matter. Deposition plates were
installed prior to the test program and were removed following the entire test series. The PM collected by
the deposition plates was recovered and analyzed as stated in EPA Method 315 for both MCEM and
non-MCEM components. The PM plate deposition then was scaled by multiplying the sample catch by the
ratio of the facility surface area to the test plate surface area. Further details of the sampling procedures,
calculations, and quantitations are contained in the PES Plant C test report. In general, however, the
deposition plates provided a single PM value for the entire test series, which was converted to an emission
factor by using the load-out tons for all plant operations during that time period.
Because MCEM PM is associated with the organic fraction (i.e. asphalt binder), Method 315 data
from each run (MCEM PM fraction only) were adjusted for asphalt temperature and volatility, as described
previously in this section. Similarly, the MCEM PM fraction for the deposition data was adjusted for
average asphalt temperature and volatility (since run-by-run deposition data were not available). The
capture efficiency-corrected MCEM PM deposition data for Plant C was 8.68 x 10"6 Ib/ton, and the
MCEM deposition data for Plant D was calculated to be 3.58 x 10"^ Ib/ton. By using Equation 4-11, the
volatility and temperature-corrected MCEM deposition estimate for Plant C is 1.93 x. 10 Ib/ton. In like
manner using Equation 4-12, the volatility and temperature-corrected MCEM deposition estimate for Plant
D is 8.77 \ 10" Ib/ton. The final emission factor is the sum of the temperature and volatility adjusted
MCEM PM from both the Method 315 and deposition data. The resulting temperature and volatility
4-118
-------
adjusted MCEM PM emission factor for Plant C is 1.62 x 10~4 Ib/ton and for Plant D is
5.18x 10'4 Ib/ton.
The non-MCEM PM or inorganic PM was determined in a manner similar to MCEM PM
described above, except that the non-MCEM portion of the PM catch was not adjusted for asphalt
temperature or volatility. The reason for this is that the non-MCEM PM represents stone dust in the
emissions or road dust emissions, and these type of PM emissions are not affected by asphalt conditions.
The inorganic PM is calculated by taking the difference between the PM and MCEM emissions for both the
background corrected emissions and the deposition estimate. The inorganic PM deposition for Plant C was
1.25 x 10"4 Ib/ton. For Plant D, the inorganic PM deposition was 3.01 x 10~5 Ib/ton. For Plant C, the
sum of the inorganic PM measured by sampling and deposition is 1.81 x 10 Ib/ton. For Plant D, this
sum is 1.15 x 10"^ Ib/ton. Although most of the diesel truck exhaust was excluded from Plant D's
enclosure and ventilation system, the fugitive dust created by truck movement on the unpaved surfaces
could not be excluded. This may partially explain why the inorganic PM at Plant D is much higher than
from Plant C. Since no background run was performed at Plant D, an adjustment for background dust
emissions due to truck movement can not be made.
After adjusting the load-out emissions for Plant C and D to a common volatility and temperature
reference, the data were compared to determine whether to present separate emission factors for batch and
drum-mix plants or to average the data and present on one emission factor for both types of plants. Table
4-37 presents the PM, MCEM, inorganic PM and TOC data adjusted to a common loss-on-heating value
of-0.5 percent and a common load-out temperature of 325°F.
4.4.2 Silo Filling Emissions
Tables 4-38 and 4-39 summarize the results of the silo filling tests at Plants C. The analysis and
adjustment of the silo filling test data were performed as described in the previous section for the load-out
data. However, since there was no background correction, the adjustment to a consistent asphalt volatility
and temperature was performed on the measured emissions. The adjusted data are presented in
Tables 4-40 and 4-41. For Plant C, the reported deposition for silo filling was 7.1 x 10"5 for PM and
1.12 x 10"6 for MCEM PM. The volatility and temperature adjusted deposition values are 7.26 x 10"5 for
PM and 2.49 x 10'6 for MCEM PM. The resulting temperature and volatility adjusted PM and MCEM
PM emission factors for silo filling are 5.85 x 10 and 2.53 x 10 respectively.
4.4.3 Comparison of Load-Out Data for Plants C and D
The most significant difference in emissions between Plant C and D is the inorganic PM emissions.
The inorganic PM emissions from Plant D are almost ten times the emissions from Plant C. In addition,
the inorganic PM is 1.6 times the MCEM PM compared to Plant C where the inorganic PM is
approximately the same as the MCEM PM for both the silo filling and load-out operations. This large
difference is probably due in part to the added dust emissions from the gravel paving surface. Using the
AP-42 Section 13.2.2 for unpaved roads, an estimate of dust emissions can be made. Information on the
vehicle weight, road silt content, road moisture content and vehicle speed are needed to use the equation
presented in the AP-42 section. Approximately 25 tons of asphalt was loaded into trucks that weighed
about 10 tons for an average weight of about 22 tons. Based upon the default silt content for publicly
accessible gravel roads of 6.4 percent, an assumed moisture content of 15 percent and an average vehicle
speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) the emission factor in pounds per vehicle mile traveled (vmt) can be
calculated.
4-119
-------
(s/12)08(W/3)05
(M/0.2)0'4
where:
k = a constant which is 10 for total paniculate
s = silt content (%)
W = average vehicle weight (tons)
M = average surface moisture (%)
Solving the above equation using the above variables yields an emission factor of 2.91 Ib/vmt.
Since the enclosure was about 150 feet long (0.028 mi) and the average hot mix asphalt loaded was
25 tons, 0.00114 miles were traveled in the enclosure for every ton loaded. Also since the vehicle speed
was less than 5 mph, the AP-42 section recommends an adjustment of 5/15 to estimate emissions from
vehicles traveling at slow speeds. Multiplying the emission factor in Ib/vmt by 0.00114 to convert to Ib/ton
and by 5/15 to accommodate the slow speeds yields an emission factor of 1.11 x 10 Ib/ton. Subtracting
this emission factor from the inorganic PM emissions measured at Plant D yields a background corrected
emission factor of 1.5 x 10" . While this adjustment is speculative, it agrees well with the background
adjusted inorganic paniculate emission factor for Plant C. As a result, the inorganic PM emission factor
for Plant C of 1.81 x 10 Ib/ton will be used for both batch mix plants and drum-mix plants.
The next most significant difference in emissions between Plant C and D is the MCEM PM. The
MCEM PM from Plant D is approximately four times the emissions from Plant C. This difference could
be explained by the longer time required to complete the load-out operations at batch plants compared to
drum-mix plants and other test-specific factors. However, the asphalt dependant mechanism that generates
emissions of MCEM PM and TDC is the same for both pollutants. This volatilization should cause similar
MCEM PM and TOC load-out emissions after adjustments for asphalt volatility and temperature. Both
emissions are the result of vaporization of organic material from the asphalt binder. The more volatile
organic material remains a vapor and is measured by Method 25A and generally is referred to as TOC.
The less volatile organic material condenses into an aerosol and is measured by Method 315 and is referred
to as MCEM PM. When summed, the TOC and MCEM PM emissions from Plant D are only 13 percent
higher than the TOC and MCEM PM emissions from Plant C. Given the variations in the run-by-run data,
the low number of runs, and the uncertainty in adjusting emissions to a consistent temperature and
volatility, the difference is not significant. Therefore, for the purposes of developing emission factors for
load-out operations, both the MCEM PM and TOC data from Plant C and Plant D were averaged and an
equation that represents the averaged data was developed.
4.4.4 Predictive Emission Factor Equations for Load-Out and Silo Filling Operations
The equations used to adjust the Plant C and Plant D emissions data to a common temperature and
volatility condition are specific to the asphalts used during those emissions tests. To arrive at a single
equation that accounts for the physical characteristics of both asphalts requires some additional adjustment
to the RTFOT data. Accounting for differences in the loss-on-heating of the asphalts is straightforward
since it was assumed that emissions are directly related to the loss-on-heating. Accounting for differences
in the temperature of the asphalts is more complicated due to the non-linear relationship between
temperature and loss-on-heating that was used. The temperature relationship can be developed in the same
manner that the plant specific equations relating temperature to loss-on-heating were developed. First, the
predicted loss-on-heating for each asphalt was calculated using the plant-specific equations. Next, the
4-120
-------
predicted values were adjusted to a loss-on-heating at 325 °F of -0.5 percent. Table 4-42 presents the
predicted and the adjusted loss-on-heating values for asphalts from both tests. Next, the adjusted
loss-on-heating values were averaged for each temperature. Then a linear regression of the temperature
(converted to °R by adding 460) and the natural logarithm of the adjusted loss-on-heating (expressed as a
positive number to avert a calculation error) was performed to determine the equation constants. The
results of the linear regression produce the following equation.
Loss -on -heating = e«°-0251(T+460H-20'43>
The loss-on-heating equation developed from the adjusted data from asphalts obtained during
emissions testing at Plant C and D can be used to develop predictive equations for total PM, organic PM
(MCEM PM), TOC and CO. The following sets of equations present the development of the predictive
equations for use in the AP-42 Section.
For total PM from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch mix plants :
v -((00251) (T * 460) - 2043)
Total PM = 1.81 E-04 + 3.40E-04 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 g ((0.0251) (325 * 460) - 20.43)
y -((0.0251) (T + 460) - 2043)
= 1.81 E-04 + 3.40E-04 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.81 E-04 + 1.41E-03 (-V ) e«0025U (T + 460) - 2043)
For organic PM from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch mix plants:
v - ((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20 43)
Organic PM = 3.40 E-04 (— — ) [— - ]
b -0.5 g ((0.0251) (325 * 460) - 20.43)
= 3.40 E-04 (— — ) [
.((0.0251) (T * 460) - 2043)
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.41 E-03 (-V ) e«°-0251) (T + 460> - 20-43)
For TOC from load-out operations from drum-mix or batch plants:
V ,,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
TOC = 4.15 E-03 (— — ) [— - ]
-0.5 g ((0.0251) (325 + 460) - 20.43)
V ,,((0.0251) (T * 460) - 20.43)
= 4.15 E-03 (— — ) [- - ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.72 E-02 (-V ) tf**0-0251'
-------
V -,((0.0251) (T + 460) - 20.43)
= 1.35 E-03 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 5.58 E-03 (-V ) e((00251)(T * 460) "2043>
For total PM from silo filling:
V ,, ((0.0251) (T * 460) - 2043)
Total PM = 3.32 E-04 - 2.53 E-04 (——) [- ]
-0.5 g«0.0251) (325 - 460) - 2043)
y -,((00251) (T * 460) - 20.43)
= 3.32 E-04 + 2.53 E-04 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 3.32 E-04 + 1.05 E-03 (-V ) e«00251) (T * ^ ' 2043)
For organic PM from silo filling:
w .,((0.0251) (T * 460) - 2043)
Organic PM = 2.53 E-04 (——) [— ]
-0.5 g ((00251) (325 * 460) - 2043)
V ,,((0.0251) (T - 460) - 20.43)
= 2.53 E-04 (-—) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 1.05 E-03 (-V ) e((0-0251) - 20-43)
For CO from silo filling:
V ,,((00251) (T * 460) - 20.43)
CO = 1.18 E-03 (——) [— ]
-0.5 g ((0.0251) (325 * 460) - 2043)
w _ ((0.0251) (T * 460) - 20.43)
= 1.18 E-03 (——) [- ]
-0.5 0.4836
= 4.88 E-03 (-V) e«°-0251) (T * 460) -2043)
4-122
-------
Emission factors for individual compounds quantified during emission testing at Plant C should be
presented as a percentage of either the organic PM or the TOC for load-out emissions and for silo filling
emissions. Tables 4-43 and 4-44 present the speciation profiles to be used to estimate emissions of the
PM- based and the volatile organic-based compounds, respectively.
4.4.5 Storage Tank Emissions
Methodologies are available to estimate emissions from heated organic liquid storage tanks (see
Organic Liquid Storage Tanks in Chapter 7 of AP-42 and the TANKS software). The emissions from
these types of tanks depend on the contents of the tank, the volume of gas vented, and the operating
temperature range of the liquid in the tank. Emissions during the filling of these tanks (working loss) are
governed by the saturation concentration of the liquid stored in the tank and the volume of gas displaced by
the addition of liquid to the tank. Emissions during other periods (breathing losses) are governed by the
saturation concentration of the liquid stored in the tank and the changes in the volume of the gas caused by
temperature variations. However, vapor pressure information on paving asphalt is not available to allow
the use of the TANKS program without additional information.
Information is available in the test report for Plant C to infer emissions during the filling of the
asphalt storage tank and, by extension, the vapor pressure characteristics of paving asphalt at the typical
operating temperatures. The derivation is based upon the assumption that emissions from the storage tanks
and the silo vent are saturated and are at the maximum concentration possible for the temperature
maintained. As a result, organic compound emissions (TOC, MCEM, VOHAPS, and SVOHAPS) occur at
the same concentrations as the maximum measured from the silo vent. Knowledge of the mass (volume) of
asphalt transferred into the storage tank can be used to determine the volume of gas and, therefore, mass
emissions from the storage tank during filling operations. With this information, an aliphatic hydrocarbon,
exhibiting equivalent working loss emissions, can be added to the TANKS chemical database. Following
this general procedure, the specific parameters required to estimate the breathing loss emissions can be
determined using the following nine steps.
First, the TOC concentration at saturation in the head space of the asphalt binder storage tanks is
estimated at a specific temperature. This concentration can be estimated from the maximum TOC
concentration measured from the HMA storage silos at Plant C. This concentration is determined as
follows:
Two episodes of "pegged" TOC readings occurred during Run 3 (the emissions being measured
exceeded the maximum concentration of 1,000 ppm that the instrument was capable of measuring). One
was for a 10-min period from 0723 to 0733, and one was a 4-min period from 0841 to 0845. Two other
episodes occurred and lasted 1 min. Using the slope of the lines on either side of the "pegged" readings, an
estimate of the "unmeasured" emission was determined graphically from the Run 3 TOC time plot (Figure
4-14). A maximum concentration of about 1800 ppm is estimated for the 0723 to 0733 time period. This
estimate is considered to be 'an upper-bound estimate for the following reasons:
1. Data from Run 1 and 2 also show fairly steep curves on both sides of a plateau that is below the
1,000 ppm maximum reading of the instrument. Figure 4-15 shows data from Run 2 typical of
both runs. As can be seen, there is a very steep curve that plateaus at about 500 ppm.
Extrapolating this curve shows a peak value near 2,000 ppm, a situation not shown by the actual
data for this run.
2. Despite the steep curves seen in Run 3, several on-scale readings were observed immediately
before and after the "pegged" readings, indicating that the true peak was likely just beyond the
4-123
-------
instrument span of 1,000 ppm. Specifically, these readings were 856 ppm at 0722. 811 ppm at
0734, 994 at 0840. and 982 ppm at 0845.
The average silo emission duct concentration and mass emission rate reported for Run 3 in
Table 3-7 were 590 ppm and 2.3 Ib/hr respectively. Also, as reported for Run 3 in Table 3-5, the
volumetric flow was 574 dscfm. Therefore the measured TOC concentration for Run 3 was
6.678 x 10 ~5 Ib/dscf (2.3 Ib/hr - (574 dscfm x 60 hr/min = 0.00006678 Ib/dscf). The equivalency for a
2,000 ppm concentration was determined by using the ratio of Ib/dscf to ppm measured dunng the complete
Run 3 (2,000 ppm x (6.678 x 10 ~5 ^ 590 ppm) = 2.264 x 10 ~4). Therefore, a TOC concentration of
2,000 ppm is equivalent to 0.000226 lb/ft3.
Second, the volume of vapor displaced from the asphalt binder storage tank by the mass of asphalt
binder used to manufacture a given quantity of HMA is determined. The volume of displaced vapor is
determined as follows:
During the TOC excursion which occurred during Run 3 Between 7:00am and 8:30am on July 2"
Plant C was making HMA that averaged 4.9 percent asphalt binder. At this ratio, 4,900 tons of asphah
binder is used in the production of 100,000 tons of virgin asphalt pavement (100,000 x 0.049 = 4.900) At
a density of 69 lb/ft , the volume of vapor displaced from the storage tank by this 4,900 tons of asphalt
binder is 142,029 cubic feet (ft3) (4,900 x 2,000 - 69 = 142,029).
Third, the mass of organic compounds emitted from the asphalt binder storage tank dunng filling
operations (working loss) per 100,000 tons of HMA is determined. The mass emissions are determined by
multiplying the estimated concentration of organic compounds at saturation by the estimated vapor
displaced from the asphalt binder storage tank during the production of 100,000 tons of HMA. As a result.
the asphalt storage tank emissions during filling would be 32 lb/100,000 tons of asphalt production
(0.000226 lb/ft3 x 142,029 ft3/100,000 tons HMA = 32.15 lb/100,000 tons HMA).
Fourth, the physical properties of the asphalt required for the TANKS program to calculate
working loss emissions are determined. The TANKS program requires the liquid density in Ib'gal. the
liquid molecular weight, and the vapor molecular weight. Converting density from Ib/fr to Ib gal gives
9.22 Ib/gallon (69 lb/ft3 - 7.481 ft3/gal = 9.22). Data presented in the document SHRP Material*;
Reference Library: Asphalt Cements: A Concise Data Compilation (SHRP-A-645; Strategic Highway
Research Program; National Research Council; Washington, DC; May 1993) indicates that the liquid
molecular weight of asphalts from single crude oil sources ranges from 700 to 1300 g/g-mole Therefore a
median liquid molecular weight of 1,000 g/g-mole is a reasonable value for liquid asphalt. Additionally,
information from the FTIR analysis during the testing at Plant C indicated that the vapor spectra were very
similar to aliphatic hydrocarbons between pentane and nonane. Therefore, vapor molecular weights
between 72 g/g-mole and 129 g/g-mole are reasonable.
Fifth, the TANKS program requires information on the dimensions, operating temperature, and
throughput for the storage tank. The recorded temperature for the material being loaded into the HMA
storage silo on July 27, 1998 at 7:36 was 325° F. This temperature was used as the average bulk liquid
temperature and average liquid surface temperature. It was assumed that the temperature of the liquid in
the storage tank varied 5° F above and below the average temperature. The following tank properties and
throughput were used in the TANKS software program:
Tank Length 50 feet Tank Working Volume 18,000 gallons
Tank Diameter 8 feet Net Throughput 1,062.000 gallons
Number of Turnovers 5 9
4-124
-------
Shell Color Gray/Med Shell Condition Good
Avg. Liquid Surface Temperature 325°F Bulk Liquid Temperature 325°F
Min. Liquid Surface Temperature 320°F Max. Liquid Surface Temperature 330°F
Sixth, the TANKS program requires the relationship between temperature and vapor pressure for the
material stored. For materials stored at temperatures greater .than 120° F, TANKS requires the constants
for one of the two forms of Antoine's equations identified in the TANKS documentation. The TANKS
program does not have a compound where the vapor pressure relationship is defined by either Antoine's
equations, the liquid molecular weight is near 1,000 and the vapor molecular weight is between 72 and 129.
Therefore, recent versions of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry
were consulted for Antoine's constants for aliphatic hydrocarbons that are less vc latile than are currently in
the TANKS chemical data base. Neither handbook contained Antoine's constants in either form for
aliphatic hydrocarbons less volatile than eicosane (^20^2). However, the 45th Edition of the Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics (June 1973) included a table titled, "Vapor Pressures, Critical Temperatures and
Critical Pressures of Organic Compounds." This table provided a temperature and vapor pressure
relationship defined by two constants and included aliphatic hydrocarbons up to nonacosane (€2^^)-
The documentation in TANKS calls one form of the equation "Antoine's equation (using °K)" and
provides the following equation defining the relationship between temperature and vapor pressure:
Log P = (-0.05223 A) / T) + B
where:
log (P) = the logarithm (base 10) of the vapor pressure (P)
P = vapor pressure in mm Hg
T = temperature for vapor pressure determination in °K (°C + 273)
The Antoine's constants for heavier aliphatic hydrocarbons were added to the TANKS software program.
Two compounds were added to the chemical data base for each available set of Antoine's constants. A
liquid molecular weight of 1,000 was specified for both compounds. A vapor molecular weight of 72 was
specified for one compound and 129 for the other compound.
Seventh, the TANKS program was run for a variety of the aliphatic hydrocarbons added to the
TANKS chemical database. The aliphatic hydrocarbons which resulted in emissions nearest to 32 Ib/year
were docosane ^22^45) and tricosane (C23H4g). The TANKS program calculates emissions of
36.4 Ib/year for docosane (vapor molecular weight of 85 g/g-mole) and 29.3 Ib/year for tricosane (vapor
molecular weight of 129 g/g-mole).
Eighth, since neither compound resulted in calculated emissions near 32 Ib per year, a revised set
of Antoine's constants was required. The above calculated emissions are approximately equally above and
below the calculated working loss emissions of 32 Ib/year. For the TANKS program to calculate working
loss emissions of 32 Ib/year, Antoine's constants that more closely estimate these emissions were developed
by averaging the docosane and tricosane Antoine's constants. The constants for docosane and tricosane
(using °K) are 70871.7 and 79828.43, for "A" and 8.604918 and 9.402 for "B" (Reference: Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics; 54th Edition; CRC Press; June 1973). The "A" and "B" terms were averaged and
resulted in Antoine's constants (using °K) values of 75350.06 for "A" and 9.00346 for "B." These
Antoine's constants were added to the TANKS chemical database.
Ninth, the TANKS program was run using various vapor molecular weights between 85 and 129
to obtain the vapor molecular weight that resulted in emissions closest to 32 Ib/year. The molecular weight
that resulted in these emissions was 105 g/g-mole. Using the above Antoine's constants and a vapor
4-125
-------
molecular weight of 105 in the TANKS program results in annual working losses of 32.76 Ib'year and
breathing losses of 1.73 Ib/year. Therefore, these values will be presented in AP-42 as estimated Antome's
constants and average liquid and vapor molecular weights for the purposes of calculating emissions from
asphalt storage tanks. Because these constants were derived using technology transfer, the emission tactoi
developed will be rated E.
Asphalt storage tank working and breathing losses of CO can be estimated using the TOC losses
calculated using the TANKS program and the predictive emission factor equations for TOC and CO
emissions from silo filling operations presented in the previous section. The only difference between the
two equations is value of the initial coefficient, which is 0.0504 for TOC and 0.00488 for CO The ratio of
these coefficients (0.00488/0.0504) is 0.097. Therefore, CO emissions from asphalt storage lank working
and breathing losses can be estimated by multiplying the TOC losses by a factor of 0.097
44.6 Emissions Following Load-Out - Yard Emissions
Table 4-4 of the Plant D report presented EPA Method 25 A TOC data from eight extended period
tests in an attempt to determine a static emission rate. The average emission rate at the end of the extended
period tests for all eight tests was 0.19 Ib/hr and for the seven tests that were greater than 4-tnm m duration
was 0.18 Ib/hr of TOC. The average asphalt in the trucks used during this test was 27 tons. For the tests
of greater than 4-min duration the average asphalt in the trucks was 29 tons. These tests were conducted
immediately following the load-out operation. Since the complete capture of load-out emissions relied upon
the capture of emissions that were collected directly from the asphalt and on additional fumes that escaped
immediate capture but were retained in the enclosure some of the emissions measured during these tests
could also be attributed to the load-out operation. Due to the potential for measuring residual emissions in
the enclosure, the data for this test are rated D.
Figure 4-16 shows time plots of the extended period test results. Note that the 3-mm extended
period test data were dropped from consideration since all other test data are from 5 to 7 mm in duration
Additionally, it is apparent that the six data sets demonstrate a consistent downward trend. Several curve
fits in Lotus and Excel were attempted on this data set, but the downward trend of the data presented
problems for these programs.
Successive emission rates for each data set were added to obtain cumulative emissions over time.
Figure 4-17 shows the cumulative emission (total grams) versus time after loading for each of these
sampling periods. For the scale shown, much of the data appear to be nearly linear, although some of the
data and the previously noted tail-off indicate that a nonlinear function may be more valid. Both linear and
nonlinear functions were investigated. Table 4-45 summarizes the best curve fits for the linear and
nonlinear functions. All three of these functions are plotted on Figure 4-17 with the data sets and arc
described in the following paragraphs.
Note that these equations may not hold beyond 5 to 7 min for several reasons. First, no data are
available past eight minutes and,,as with all extrapolations, estimates beyond the available data are highly
speculative. Second, as described in Reference 389, Response 53, emissions are highly dependent on
temperature. The asphalt will cool and the emission rate will be further reduced. It is expected that these
equations will provide emission estimates that are biased higher with increasing time. Because of the
consistent downward trend in the data, we believe that the linear equation is an upper-bound estimate ot
emissions. The power function equation is believed to provide the least biased emissions estimate within
the constraints of the data. However, the linear and power equations can be used to show a range of the
upper-bound estimate of yard emissions. Cumulative emissions were calculated at the 5-, 8-, and
10-minute points and are included in the Table 4-46. These times should be typical of the times that trucks
are in the vicinity of the production and loading operations.
4-126
-------
"R-squared" is a mathematical term used to numerically define how well the curve fits the data.
and a value greater than 0.9 is considered good. Of the three equations presented in Table 4-45, the power
function provides the closest analogy to the appearance of the original measured emission rates and will be
presented in the AP-42 section. Rather than presenting the equation, the emission factor for the 8-minute
time period (0.011 Ib/ton) will be presented in the AP-42 section. Due to the potential problems associated
with properly collecting and analyzing this emission source, the factor is E rated.
Yard emissions of CO can be estimated using the emission factor for TOC emissions from yard
emissions (0.011 Ib/ton) and the predictive emission factor equations for TOC and CO emissions from
load-out presented in the previous section. The difference between the two equations is value of the initial
coefficient, which is 0.0172 for TOC and 0.00558 for CO. The ratio of these coefficients
(0.00558/0.0172) is 0.32. Therefore, yard CO emissions can be estimated using the emission factor of
0.0035 Ib/ton. This emission factor also is assigned a rating of E.
4-127
-------
c
o
mean ei
•2 i
.15 -
O
-H
tn
tn
.1 -
05 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-1. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-128
-------
mean ef
c
o
c_
a
c
O
in
in
.4 -]
.3 -
.2 ~
1 -
u.
0 -
FF VS
Filterable PM Emission Factor by APCD
Figure 4-2. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for batch mix plants.
4-129
-------
.03 -
a
4-1
"•x
_o
U
ra
LL
c
a
-H
m
in
LU
S
Q.
I—I
CJ
02 -
.01 -
0 -
1 3
RAP Content
CIPM Emission Factor vs. RAP Content
Figure 4-3. Plot of condensable inorganic PM emission factor versus RAP content for batch mix piants
4-130
-------
mean ef
o
_i_j
-v
_Q
C
O
-H
U
ra
u.
c
n
-H
Ul
ui
-t-t
E
LJJ
.02 -i
.015
.01 -
.005 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Cond. Qrg. PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-4. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-131
-------
Q
_ui
_d
C-
o
u
ra
mean e1
150 -
100 -
c
a
en
-H
S
LU
50 -
O
CJ
0 -
_
C02 Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-5. Boxplot of CO2 data by fuel type for batch mix plants.
4-132
-------
150 -
c
o
-t-J
r-H
c' ' 100 -
n
4-1
U
u.
c
o
en
•g 50 J
LU
OJ
O
CJ
o -
o
0 0
o
o
o
o
0 °
00 0
O <3> °
0 0
o 0
o o0oon°«cPoP _ o o
0 o 0 o ^ #0 ^tf<^
°°o00 8 o °
0 0
0
o
. 1 — — — 1
0 200
Production Rate
C02 Emission Factor vs Production Rate
400
Figure 4-6. Plot of CO2 emission factor by production rate for batch mix plants.
4-133
-------
mean ef
c
o
c_
n
O
ra
c:
O
m
m
E
LU
.1 -
.05 -
o -
__ —
Filterable PM Emission Factor by APCD
Figure 4-7. Boxplot of filterable PM data by control device for drum mix plants.
4-134
-------
c
o
n
-M
u
tn
en
E
LU
mean ef
.1 -
,05 -
0 -
Oil Gas
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-8. Boxplot of fabric filter-controlled filterable PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants.
4-135
-------
c
o
<_
n
mean ei
.1 -
.05 -
0 -
I I
Oil Sas"
Filterable PM Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-9. Boxplot of condensable organic PM data by fuel type for drum mix plants
4-136
-------
c
o
t_
D
-Ul
O
as
en
1 -
.05 -
0 -
i 1 1
100 200 300
Process Rate
VOC Emission Factor vs. Process Rate
400
Figure 4-10. Plot of VOC emission factor versus production rate for drum mix plants.
4-137
-------
mean ef
[_
O
LJ
it)
c
a
60 -i
60 -
U)
CM
a
CJ
20 -
0 -
Oil Gas
C02 Emission Factor by Fuel
Figure 4-11. Boxplot of CO2 data by fuel type for drum mix plants.
4-138
-------
Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council Best Practices
Controlling Fumes. Emissions and Odors
from HMA Plant and Paving Operations
AT THE PLANT
• Select plant mixing temperature by:
— Contacting your asphalt supplier.
— Using the chart on the back.
• Do not use laboratory mixing tempera-
ture as plant mixing temperature.
• Make sure RAP and aggregates are dry.
• Do not use RAP containing coal tar.
• Do not expose RAP to flame.
• Do not over-heat RAP.
• Look for other sources of fumes
such as:
— Slag aggregate
— Shingles
— Crumb rubber mixtures
— Other products from construction
and demolition waste.
• Read the Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for all materials.
• Regularly calibrate thermocouples
and other sensors.
• Tune up the burner.
• Contact the manufacturer and find
out the limits on CO and 02.
• When the stack is tested, compare
the plant's thermocouple reading to
the tester's thermocouple.
• Gather data on aggregate moisture
content and fuel usage. If fuel usage
goes up for the same or less moisture,
find the reason.
• Have stack gases tested to see if
they are in limits. If not, contact
manufacturer to make adjustments.
• Compare mix temperatures with
plant temperatures. Look for
changes with time.
• Measure and record the pressure
drop in the baghouse. Look for
changes over time.
• Keep a record of fuel usage over
time. Find the reason for any
big changes.
• Keep track of this information and
discuss it with co-workers and the
manufacturer.
• Do not use diesel fuel and kerosene
as release agents.
AT THE PAVING SITE
• Try increasing the mat lift thickness
before calling for a higher plant
temperature.
• Do not use diesel fuel and kerosene
as release agents.
• Maintain engineering controls on
paving equipment.
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
APEC is comprised of the following organizations- National Asphalt Pavement Association, Asphalt Institute, State Asphalt Pavement A« social Ion •
OWWSMm
Reprinted with the permission of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Figure 4-12. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 1.
4-139
-------
Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council Best Practices
^^^^^H Tvoic
l^^^^^^^^g^^^B^ J f«
;al Asphalt Binder Temi
npnotimno ^^^^^^|
[**" ** **• **v ^^^^^^m^^|^_g|^|
Binder Grade
PG 46 -28
PG 46 -34
PG 46 -40
PG 52 -28
PG 52 -34
PG 52 -40
PG 52 -46
PG 58 -22
PG 58 -28
PG 58 -34
PG 64 -22
PG 64 -28
PG 64 -34
PG 67 -22
PG 70 -22
PG 70 -28
PG 76 -22
PG 76 -28
PG 82 -22
HMA Plant Asphalt Tank
Storage Temperature (°F)
Range Midpoint
260 - 290 275
260 - 290 275
260 - 290 275
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
260 - 295 278
280 - 305 292
280 - 305 292
280 - 305 292
285-315 300
285-315 300
285-315 300
295 - 320 308
300-325 312
295 - 320 308
315-330 322
310-325 318
315-335 325
HMA Plant Mixing
Temperature (°F)
Range Midpoint
240 - 295 264
240 - 295 264
240 - 295 264
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
240 - 300 270
260-310 285
260-310 285
260-310 285
265 - 320 292
265 - 320 292
265 - 320 292
275 - 325 300
280 - 330 305
275 - 325 300
285-335 310 I
280 - 330 305
290-340 315
Use mid-point temperature for test strip construction.
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
APEC is comprised ol the following organizations: National Agphalt Pavwiwnt Association. Asphalt Institute, Slat* Asphalt Pamnwnt Association*
Reprinted with the permission of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Figure 4-13. Asphalt Pavement Environmental Council, Best Practices Brochure, Side 2.
4-140
-------
Run 3 -THC Silo Storage
2000
•5T 180°
n 1600
E 1400
g 1200
a 1000
o
c
o
u
O
I
H
800
600
400
200
0
7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00
Time (24-hr clock)
11:00
12:00
Figure 4-14. Unmeasured TOC silo storage emissions, Run 3.
4-141
-------
Run 2 - THC Silo Storage
3000 :-
_ 2500 .
c
ra
o* 2000 -
i_
a
E ;
| 1500 !
j
M !
(S 1000 --
i
o
*" 500 I
0
8:00
' I Extrapolated
/ Area
r\
Measured Emissions
9:00 10:00 11:00
Time (24-hr clock)
12:00
Figure 4-15. THC silo storage emissions, Run 2.
4-142
-------
Extended Period Tes^s (1 min. averaging)
3.5
I 2.5
c
o
'(/J
E
UJ
O
I
1.5
0.5
J L. L
456
Elapsed Time (min)
8
Figure 4-16. Extended period tests (I min averaging).
-------
-------
Table 4-1. REFERENCES NOT USED FOR EMISSION
FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Ref. No.
42
43
115
116
120
127
129
131
134
136
150
151
152
156
157
158
159
169
185
194
207
208
227
228
230
272
305
357-369
Reason for exclusion
Insufficient process description and production data
Insufficient process description and production data
No production data provided
Insufficient process description
Test methods not comparable to EPA reference methods
Insufficient process description
Incomplete report
Problems with test procedure
Insufficient process description
No production data provided
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided; cannot calculate emission rates
Flow rates not provided: cannot calculate emission rates
Insufficient test data provided
Stack conditions caused problems with test
Insufficient test data provided
Insufficient process description
Insufficient test data provided
Not a test report: miscellaneous data reported
Same test as Reference 226
Insufficient process description
Insufficient process description
Insufficient test data provided
Insufficient data to develop load-out emission factors
4-145
-------
Table 4-2. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA -
PLANT C ASPHALT3
Temperature, °F
300
325
350
Date
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
Loss-on-heating, % by RTFOTb
-0.216
-0.200
^0.142
-0.171
-0.369
-0.311
-0.286
-0.292
-0.686
-0.611
-0.498
-0.510
.a Reference 355.
b RTFOT = Rolling thin film oven test, as specified in ASTM D2872-
Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test)."
, "Effects of Heat and Air on a
Table 4-3. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS-ON-HEATING DATA -
PLANT D ASPHALT Da
Temperature, °F
300
325
• 350
Date
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
10/05/98
10/06/98
10/07/98
Loss-on-heating, % by RTFOTh
-0.089
-0.105
-0.109
-0.216
-0.206
-0.218
-0.400
-0.395
-0.380
a Reference 356
b RTFOT = Rolling thin film oven test, as specified in ASTM D2872-88, "Effects of Heat and Air on a
Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test)."
4-146
-------
Table 4-4 SUMMARY OF SUMMA CANNISTER SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
BTEX Compounds
Detected
Could not be quantified3
Could not be quantified3
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xvlenes
Concentration,
ppbv
NA
NA
<0.20
0.37
<0.20
1.57
<0.20
0.30
<0.20
0.76
0.65
1.88
<0.20
0.52
Other Pollutants Detected
Xylenes
-hexane
Xylenes
-Hexane,
Hexane isomers
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
Acetic acid
Methyl ethyl ketone
Beyond calibration range of instrument.
4-147
-------
Table 4-5. SUMMARY OF PORTABLE GC/MS SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
BTEX Compounds Detected
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Concentration, pprm
1.2
2.5
1.9
3.1
2.6
9.1
6.0
12.6
<0.20
<0.20
0.04
<0.20
O.20
O.20
0.04
O.20
<0.20
<0.20 •
0.04
<0.20
Table 4-6. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER
SAMPLE ANALYSES - REFERENCE 359
Sampling location
Railcar hatch
Storage tank vent
Upwind site
Downwind site
Residential site
Concentration, ppmv
600
200 to 500
1.3
1.2
1.2
4-148
-------
Table 4-7. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 360
Sample
RC02
RC03
RC04
RC05
RC06
AC01
AC02
AC03
AC04
AC05
EB02
EB03
EB04
EB05
EB06
SW01
SW02
SW03
SW04
SW05
WY01
WY02
WY03
WY04
WY05
Benzene Concentration, ppbv
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.33
509
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.25
67.3
.515
4.19
0.678
<0.1
0.195
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.734
2.625
6.657
5.005
2.222
1.252
4-149
-------
Table 4-8. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS - REFERENCE 361
Pollutant
Benzene
2-Methyl phenol
Diethyl phthalate
bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Irideno( 1 ,2,3-c.d)pyrene
Lead
PM-10 (organic train)
PM- 10 (metals train)
Total PM (organic train)
Emission Rate, ug/m -min
Asphalt without Rubber
57
7.2
32.7
5.1
0.103
1.648
1.469
0.786
4.42
1.106
0.660
0.141
0.542
26,850
37,710
27,700
Asphalt with Rubber
110
23."
34.37
5.3
0.063
1 178
1.612
0.653
1.957
0.306
0.204
0.06^
1.10
12,710
19,810
12,950
Table 4-9. SUMMARY OF CEMS DATA - REFERENCE 361
Pollutant
CO
co2
NO
TOC
so2
PAH
Emission rate, mg/m -min
Facility blank
171
8,650
32.1
126.3
0.01
7
Asphalt without rubber
144
9,616
5.4
91.1
0.00
61
Asphalt with rubber
201
8.053
17 2
1243
0.52
11
4-150
-------
Table 4-10. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED
Pollutant
Sulfur dioxide3
Antimony
Arsenic3
Beryllium1
Phosphorus"
Selenium2
Thallium
Acenaphthylenea
Acenaphthene3
Anthracene"1
Benzo( a)anthracenea
Benzo(a)pyrenea
B enzo(b)fluoranthene3
Benzo(e)pyrenea
Benzo( g,h,i)perylenea
Benzo(k)fluoranthenea
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chrysenea
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenea
Dibenzofuransa
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Toluene1*
Methane
Lead
HOT OIL HEATERS
Benzo( a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
DRYERS
Ref. No.
24
24,25
24,162-164
24,25,35.162-164
24
24,25,35,162-164
24,25
24
24,47
24,45
24,34,35
24,34,35
24
24
24,34,35
24,34,46
24,48
24,34
24,34,35,46,48
24
24
45,47-50
48
163.318.319
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Pollutant
rluoranthenea
-luorene3
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrenea
Perylene3
Phenanthrenea
Pyrenea
o-Tolualdehyde
Acroleina
2,5-Dimethy'lbenzaldehyde
Isophorone
Isovaleraldehyde3
p-Tolualdehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
Xylene3
Methyl Chloroform3
Hydrogen Sulfide
Chromium1
Hexavalent Chromium3
Copper"
Nickel3
Benzene3
Ethylbenzenea
Cadmium
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
TCDDs (total)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
PeCDDs (total)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
Benzene
Ref. No.
24,50
24
24,34,35.46
24
24
24
24,25
24
24,25
24,25
24
24,25
24,25
34,35,45,47-50
34
34,35
35
35,162,164
35
35,162
35,47-50
45,47-50
163,164
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Pollutant was detected in at least one other test referenced. Table does not include non-detect compounds from
references beyond Reference 338.
4-151
-------
Table 4-11. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; DRUM MIX FACILITY DRYLiRS
Type of control
None
Cyclone or
multiclone
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber •
Fabric filter*
(Plant A)
Fabric filter*
(Plant A)
Fabric filter
(Plant A)
Fabric filter*
(Plant B)
Fabric filter*
(Plant C)
Fabric filter
(Plant D)
None (Plant E)
Venturi scrubber
(Plant E)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric niter11
Fabric filter*1
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas
Propane
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Oto30
ND
ND
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
TNMOC
TNMOC
Filterable PM
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
TNMOC
Filterable PM
Filterable PM- 10
Cond inorganic PM
(,'ond organic PM
TOC as propane
SO,
No
of
test
runs
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
1
3
5
4
5
3
5
6
3
3
3
10
10
Data
rating
D
D
D
D
D
NR
C
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
1 8-3.1 (36-62)
0.25-0.43 (049-085)
0.025-0.045 (0 050-0.090)
0.015-0030(0030-0.060)
0.085-0.12 (0 17-024)
0 11 (022)
0.090-0 13(0.18-025)
0.021-0.055(0.041-0 11)
0.042-0.060(0.083-0 12)
0 13-0.22(0.25-0.44)
0080-0.30(0.16-0.59)
0065-0.095 (0.13-0.19)
0.0048-0.0099 (0.0097-0.020)
0 0()23:0 0030 (0 0046-0.0060)
00097-0018(0019-0036)
0.001 1-0 0023 (0 0022-0 0046)
0037-0060(0073-0 12)
0034-0055 (0068-0 1 1)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
2.5 (4.9)
0 34 (0.67)
0.035 (0.070)
0.023 (0.045)
0.11 (0.21)
0 11 (022)
0.11 (0.21)
0033(0.066)
0.050(0.10)
0.16(033)
0.16(0.31)
0080(0.16)
0.0079(0.016)
0.0026(00052)
0014(0027)
00016(000*2)
0046 (0091)
0049 (0098)
Rcf
No
11
11
11
11
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*1
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter"
. Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
NOX
CO,
CO
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Zinc
Naphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
No.
of
test
runs
10
9
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 025-0.040 (0.050-0 080)
16-23(31-46)
00046-0079(0.0092-0.16)
4.9xl07-l 6x10* (9.7xl07-3. 1x10*)
2.0x1 07-5 5x10" (3 9xl07-9.9xlO*)
1.4x10 '-5 5x10 7 (2. 7x10 '-9.9x10 ')
6 5x 1 0 7-9.5x 1 0* ( 1 .3x 1 0*- 1 .9x 1 0 5)
2.2xlO*-4.8x 10* (4.3x1 0*-9.5xtO*)
2.4x 1 0*-4 1 x 1 0* (4.7x 1 0 *-8. 1x10*)
2. 8x10 "-I Ox 10" (5.6x10*-!. 4x10 5)
2.8x 1 0 7- 1 .3x 1 0 5 (5.6x 1 0 7-2.5x 1 0s)
2.2x10 5,3 7x10 5 (4.4x1 05-7.3xl05)
5. 5x10 7-8.5xl07 (1.1x10*-!. 7x10")
2.0x 1 0 5-3.5x 1 0s (3.9x 1 0 5-6.9x 1 0 5)
0.00018-0.00032 (0 00036-0.00063)
0.00028-0.0013 (0.00055-0.0025)
0.00026-0.00055 (0.00052-0.001 1)
1 .4x 1 0"-3.3x 1 0'! (2.8x 1 0*-6.6x 1 0s)
1.3xlO-s-1.7xlO" (2.5x10 '-3.3x10^)
5.5xl05-l 4x10^(000011-0.00027)
l.lxlO5-! 2X10-4 (2.2x10 5-2.4xlOJ)
0.00030-0.0026 (0.00060-0.005 1 )
2.8xl05-l.lxlO"t(5.5xl05-2.2xlOJl)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
0034(0.068)
19(38)
0.019(0038)
9. 5xl07 (1.9x10")
24xl06(4.8xl06)
3.1xl07(6.2xl07)
60xl06('.2xl05)
3.1xlO*(6.1xlO*)
3 Ox 10* (6.0x10*)
5.5xl06(l 1x10')
7.5x10" (1 5xl05)
2.8xl05(5.5xl05)
7.0x 10 7 (1.4x10*)
2.7xl05(5.3xl05)
0 00024 (0.00047)
000065(0.0013)
0.00042 (0.00083)
1.3xl05(2.6xlOs)
5.5x 10 5 (0.00011)
8.0x10 s (0.00016)
43xlO-5(8.6xlOs)
0.0010(00020)
5. 5x10 s (0.00011)
Ref
No.
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber"
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
None
Fabric filter
None
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 5 fuel 01!
No. 5 fuel oil
No 5 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
Pollutant
Isovaleraldehyde
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Propionaldehyde
Quinone
Valeraldehyde
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filu-rable PM
No
of
test
runs
4
4
4
4
4
19
19
19
19
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)B
2.0xl06-3.0xlOs (4 Ixl0*-6.0xl05)
1.8x1 0 6-2.8x 1 0 5 (3 5x 1 0 6-5.6x 10 5)
2 4xlOs-1.7xlO-1 (4.7x1 Q-'-SJxlO"1)
1. 8x10 5-1.8xlOJ (3.5x10 M.SxIO"1)
1 .3x 1 0'5-7.5xl 0 s (2.6x 1 0s- 1.5x1 0J)
0.00036-0 12(0.00072-0.23)
25x1 0 5-4 1 x 1 0J (4.9x 1 0 5-8. 1 x 1 0 J)
2.4x 10 5-8.9x 10^(4.7x10 '-1.8x10')
l.lxlO-6-!. 2x10 '(2. 1x10^-2.3x10 3)
3.9x 1 0 5- 1.2x1 0 3 (7 9x 1 0 5-2 3x 1 0°)
15-22(30-43)
0.0085-0.017(0.017-0.033)
14-17(27-35)
0.0055-0.013(0011-0.027)
17-18(33-36)
0.0010-0.0035 (0.0020-0.0070)
0.0075-00085(0.015-0017)
14-17(28-33)
00055-0.012(0.011-0023)
96-98(19-20)
0013-0015 (0025-0.029)
20-30(41-60)
0.0035-0 012 (0.0068-0 024)
2.2-3 4 (4 3-6 7)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6xl05(32xI05)
1.0x10 5(2.0xl05)
6.5x10 5 (000013)
8.0x1 0s (0.0001 6)
3.4x-105 (6.7x10 ')
0.012 (0025)
0.00020(0.00041)
0.00037 (0 00075)
0.00019(000038)
8.2xl05(l 6xlOJ)
19(37)
0.014(0.027)
15(30)
0.0085 (0.017)
17(34)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0080(0.016)
16(31)
0.0080(0016)
96(19)
0014(0027)
25 (50)
0.0088(0.018)
27(54)
Ref.
No
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
11
-U
<-n
-------
Table 4-11 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Scrubber"
Scrubber
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fuel fired
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
50
0
0
33
33
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
ND"
NDd
NDd
ND"
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
NDd
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Methyl chloroform
No.
of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 0024-0 0025 (0 0047-0.005 1 )
19(37-39)
0008-0015 (0016-0031)
78-16(16-32)
0.010-0013(0020-0.025)
2 2x 1 0 7-3 8x 1 0 7 (4.4x 1 0 7-7 6x 1 O'7)
3. 7x10 s-7 0x10 » (7.4x10 8-l. 4x10 7)
2.2x10 "-5 5x10 8 (4 4x10 8-l.lxl07)
2.2x 1 0 -'-3 5x 1 0 9 (4.4x 1 0 *-7.0x 1 0 ")
3.2xI07-5.5xl07(6.3xl07-l.lxi06)
5.5xlO^-7.5xJO-6(l. 1x10 5-l. 5x10 s)
6.5x 1 0 7-3.7x 10-6 (1.3x1 0 6-7.4x 1 0^)
3.9x10'- 1.7x10-" (7. 8x10 "-34x10")
7.0x 1 0 '-2.8x 1 0 " ( 1 .4x 1 0 "-5.5x 1 0 8)
2.9xlO'(-4.8xlO-8 (5.7x10 "-9.5x10")
80xlO'lo-35xl08(1.6xl09-7.0xl08)
3.9x10 s-5.5xlO^ (7.8x10 5-l. 1x10')
1. 2x 10 7- 1.4x10' (2.3x1 07-2 7x10 7)
5.0x 1 0 *-2.8x 1 0'7 (9.9x 1 0 8-5.5x 1 0 7)
9.0x 1 0'°-6.0x 1 0 •' ( 1 .8x 1 0 "- 1.2x10 ")
8.0x 1 0 8-7.0x 1 0 7 ( 1 .6x 1 0 7- 1 .4x 1 0 6)
2.5xlO"-4.1xl05(5.lxl06-8.2xlOs)
1 ,4x 1 0'5- 1 .4x 1 Q-4 (2.7x 1 0 5-2.7x 1 O^4)
1 .4x 1 0 5-4 4x 10 5 (2.7x 1 0 5-8.8x 1 0s)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.0025 (0.0049)
19(38)
0012 (0024)
11 (22)
0.012(0023)
2.9xl07(5 7xl07)
5.0x10 "(1. OxIO 7)
3.7xl08(7.3xlO")
2. 7x10 9 (5.4x10")
4.1xl07(8.lxl07)
e.OxlO^-Cl^xlO5)
1. 8x10 6 (3.6x10^)
8.5xlO'(1.7xl08)
1. 5x10 8 (2.9x10 8)
2.8xI08(5.6xl08)
1.4xl08(2.7xl08)
0.00034 (0.00067)
1.3xl07(2.5xl07)
1.3xl07(2.5xl07)
3 7x10 "(7.3x10")
3.lxl07(6.2xl07)
1.6xl05(3.1xl05)
8.5x1 0'5 (0.000 17)
2.4x10 s (4.8x10 5)
Ref
No
31
32
32
33
33
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
-------
Table 4-11 (com.)
Type of control
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Vcntun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
NDd
ND"
NDd
ND"
0
0
ND"
NDd
0
0
ND"
ND"
0
10
15- Run 1,
0-Run 2
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)"
1.9-2.5(3.7-4.9)
0.018-0.022(0035-0.044)
0.040-0.055(0.079-0.11)
0.007-0.010(0.014-0020)
1.4-1.9(2.8-3.9)
0011-0050(0.022-0.10)
090-1.0(1 8-2.0)
0.011-0.10(0.022-020)
0.0081-0.018(0016-0.035)
00084-0.012(0017-0024)
0.0055-0.0073(0.011-0.015)
0.0047-0.016(00094-0032)
14-21 (27-43)
8.1-13(16-25)
0.031-0.034(0061-0.068)
0.007 1 -0.0089 (0.0 14-0.0 1 8)
0.0021-0 0025 (0.0043-0 0049)
0.00075-0.0014(0.0015-00027)
0.00020-0.00024 (0 00040-0 00049)
0015-0016(0030-003?)
0.000! 5-0 00027 (0.00029-0 00054)
0 00055-0 00087 (0 001 1-0 0017)
0 00019-0 00024 (0 00038-0.00048)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
2 2 (4.4)
0.02! (0.041)
0.049 (0.097)
0.0090(0.018)
1.6(3.3)
0.025 (0.050)
0.97(1.9)
0 042 (0.083)
0.012(0025)
0010(0.021)
0.0063(0013)
0010(0.020)
17(34)
10(21)
0.032 (0.064)
0.0077(0015)
0.0023 (0 0046)
0.00098 (0.0020)
000021 (000043)
0016(0032)
000021 (000041)
000067(00013)
0 00022 (0 00043)
Ref
No
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter1'
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Slatural gas
SJatural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
45
45
35
35
25
25
40
40
0
0
52
52
20
20
40
40
0
0
40
40
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
CO
C02
SO2
NO,
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0 0019-0 0030 (0 0037-0 0060)
0.00044-0 00049 (0 00089-0 00098)
0.0062-0.011 (0.012-0.022)
0.0020-0 0050 (0 0039-0.010)
0 00043-0.00045 (000087-0.00091)
0 00054-0 0012 (0.001 1-0 0023)
0 0030-0.0042 (0 0061-0 0084)
0 0025-0 0049 (0.0050-0.0098)
0.0098-0.013(0.020-0025)
0.00031-0.00032 (000062-0.00064)
0.0041-0.0059 (0.0083-0.012)
0 001 1-0 0036 (0.0022-0.0073)
0017-0.032(0.033-0.065)
0.00048-0,00092 (0.00096-0.0018)
0.0015-0.0027 (0 0030-0 0053)
0.0018-0.0020 (0.0036-0.0039)
0.0055-0.0083(0011-0017)
0.00029-0.00037(0.00058-0.00075)
0.0018-0.0037 (0.0037-0 0074)
0.00025-0.00044(0.00050-0.00088)
NA
13(25-26)
0 0014-0.0030 (0.0028-0 0059)
00075 (0015)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0 0024 (0.0048)
0 00047 (0 00094)
00078(0016)
0 0033 (0.0066)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.00089(00018)
0.0035 (0.0071)
0.0035(0.0071)
0.011 (0022)
000032(0.00063)
0 0049 (0.0097)
0.0020 (0 0040)
0.026 (0.053)
0.00063(0.0013).
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0069(0.014)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0 0026 (0 0053)
0.00033 (0 00065)
0.094(0.19)
13(25)
00021 (0.0041)
00075(0.015)
Ref.
No
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
44
44
44
44
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filled
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter''
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
30
30
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Pollutant
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Condensable PM
Filterable PM
Condensable PM
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene'
Ethylbcnzenc'
Xylene'
Naphthalene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
C
f
C
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0029-0055 (0.058-0.11)
0.013-0032(0.025-0063)
0.00053-0.00068 (0.001 1-0.0014)
5. 5x10 5-2. 1x10^(0 0001 1-0.00041)
5.5x10 ^^xlO"1 (0.0001 1-0 00047)
6.5x1 0 5-3. 1 x 1 0J (0.000 1 3-0.00062)
2.5x 1 0 5-2.9x 1 0 5 (4.9x 1 0 5-5.7x 1 0'5)
2.2x1 0'5-2.9x 1 0 5 (4.3x 1 0 5-5.7x 1 0 5)
4 9x 1 0*-5.5x 1 0* (9.7x 1 0*- 1 . 1 x 1 0 5)
0.0039-0.0050 (0.0078-0.010)
0 0038-0.0070 (0.0076-0.014)
0.0017-0 0034 (0.0034-0.0067)
0 0017-0.0034 (0.0034-0.0068)
0 00033-0 00060 (0 00065-0.0012)
16(31-32)
0.00060-000065 (0.0012-0.0013)
0.0085-00099(0017-0020)
0016-0025(0.032-0.050)
0.00082-0.0031 (0.0016-0.0062)
0.00012-0 00028 (0 00024-0 00056)
2.2xlOs-2 3xH)-s(43xl05-46xl()5)
2 5x10 '-2 7x10 ' (4 9x10 '-5 4x10')
2. 5x10 5-2.7xlO-5 (4.9x10 5-5.4xH)-5)
3 2xl05-3 7xH>M63xlO>-74xlO-')
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.040 (0.080)
0.019(0.038)
0.00060(0.0012)
0.00011 (0.00022)
0.00015(0.00029)
0.00020 (0.00040)
2.6xlOs(53xl05)
2.5x10 5(4.9xl05)
5.1x10^(1.0x10')
0.0043 (0 0086)
00051 (0010)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.00048 (0 00096)
16(31)
0.00062(0.0012)
00091 (0018)
0 020 (0.039)
0.0016(0.0032)
0.00020 (0 00040)
2.2xl04(4 5x10')
2. 6x10 5 (5 1x10')
26xl()5(5 MO5)
3 5x10' (7 0x10')
Ref.
No.
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
4S
45
-fk
CO
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
• Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
2-MethylnaphthaIene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
CO
C02
SO,
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane'
Benzene'
Toluene'
Ethylbenzene'
Xylene'
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Cumene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
5.
6
5
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg fib/ton)"
I.5xl05-1.9xl0'(3.0xl05-37xl05)
UxlOs-1.3xI05(2.1xl05-25xl05)
4.4xl06-5.0xlO('(8.8xlO-6-I.Oxl05)
2.9x1 0'6-3. 7x10 6 (5.7x10^-7.4x10^)
2.9x1 0 7-4 Ox 1 0 ' (5 7x 1 0 7-8.0x 1 0 ')
2.7x 1 0 7-4.3x 1 0'7 (5.3x 1 0 7-8.6x 1 0 7)
0 00010-0.0012 (0.00020-0.0023)
0021-0.044(0.043-0088)
13-21 (26-41)
0 00082-0.0047 (0.0017-0.0095)
0.014-0.065(0.027-0 13)
0.00085-0.0070 (0.0017-0.014)
000082-00031 (0.00012-000015)
0 00029-0.00036 (0.00057-0.00072)
0.00034-0 00043 (0 00068-0 00085)
0.00039-0.00049(0.00078-0.00098)
0.00039-0 00049 (0.00078-0.00098)
2.8x10 5-2.9xl05 (5.6x10 5-5.8xlO!)
6.6x1 Os-7. 3x1 Os(1.3xlOJ-1.5xlOJ)
5.5x1 0-'-S.Ox 1 0s ( 1 . 1 x 1 0-5-0.000 1 0)
8.5xl07-1.8xl06(1.7xlO^-3.5xlO^)
5.5xl07-l 8xl06(l.lxlO"-3.6xl06)
8.0x 1 0 7-2.0x 1 0^ ( 1 .6x 1 0 6-4.0x 1 0^)
4.5xlO*-1.0xl05(90xl06-2 IxlO'5)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
1.7xlOs(3.3xl05)
I.lxl05(23xl05)
4.9x10^(9 8x10")
3. 3xl06 (6.6x10^)
36xl07(7.2xl07)
3.5x10 7 (6.9x10 7)
0.00078(0.0016)
0.028 (0.056)
17(34)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.025 (0.049)
0.0037 (0.0073)
6.8x10 5 (0.00014)
0.00033 (0.00066)
0.00039 (0.00078)
0.00045 (0.00090)
0 00045 (0.00090)
28xl05(5.7xl05)
7.1xlOs(1.4xlO"1)
2.1x10 5 (4.3x10 5)
1.3x10" (2 7x10^)
\.\\\0* (2.2x\Q*)
1.2x10^(2.5x10^)
6.9x10 6(1.4x 10s)
Ref.
No
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
-------
Table 4-11 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter*
Fabric niter11
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fiiel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
i5
35
Pollutant
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
lndeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Cond organic PM
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methiinc
Ucn/ene'
Toluene'
Ethvl'ncn/enc'
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
5
9
9
9
9
9
Q
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1. 2x10 7-2.7xlO'7 (2.3x10 7-5. 5x10 7)
2.6x 10 7-8.5x 10 7 (5.2x1 07-l. 7x10 6)
2.9x 1 0 7-5.6x 1 0 7 (5 .8x I 0'7- 1 .2x 1 0*)
2.7x10 "-2.3x10 ' (5 5xl08-4.6xl07)
8.8xl08-2.3xlO-7 (1.8xlO'-5 6xl07)
4.0x10 8-1.2xlO-7 (8. 1x10 8-2.5xlO'7)
1 .4x 1 0'8-4.5x 1 0'8 (2.8x 1 0 8-9.0x 1 0 8)
1 .6x 1 0 8- 1 .2x 1 0 7 (3.2x 1 0 8-2.4x 1 0 7)
1 .7x 1 0 9- 1 . 1 x 1 0 8 (3.4x 1 0 9-2.2x 1 0 8)
4.5x10 lo-9 Ox 10" (9.0x10 lo-l. 8x10 8)
25xlO-'-4.3xlO"(5.0xlO-')-8.6xl09)
8.4x 1 0'9-2.7x 1 0 8 ( 1 8x 1 0 *-5.4x 1 0 8)
0.002 1 -0 0036 (0.004 1-0 007 1 )
0.00045-0.0015 (0.00090-0.0029)
0.00012-0.00050 (0 00024-0.0010)
0.23-0.35 (0.46-0.69)
29-37 (57-73)
00033-0.0085(00066-0017)
0031-0.049(0062-0.098)
0012-0.025(0024-0050)
0.0025-0010(00051-0(120)
9.5x10 '-0 00039 ( 0 000 ! 9-0 00078 )
0 00012-0.00017 (0.00023-0.00034)
0 00014-0 00032 (0 00027-0 000d3l
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
1.8x10-' (3.6x10-')
5.3x10"' (l.lxlO-6)
4.5xl07(9.0xl07)
1.0x10-' (2.1x10-')
1.8x-107(3.6xl07)
7.6x10 -»( 1.5x10'')
2.7xl08(5.4xl08)
5.4xl08(l.lxl07)
4.9x10 -'(9 8x10")
4.4x10 "(8 8x10")
3. 5x1 0" (7.0x10")
2.0xl08(4.0xl08)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0010(00021)
0.00036(0.00071)
0.30(0.60)
32 (65)
0.0054(0.011)
0041 (0081)
0018(0036)
00071 (0014)
0.00015 (OOOIHOI
000015 (000029)
000019 (0 0003 X)
Ref
No.
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
£>.
O
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
28
28
28
31
31
31
44
44
44
32
32
32
30
Pollutant
Xylenec
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO;
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
COj
Filterable PM- 10
No.
of
test
runs
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00013-0.00020 (0.00026-0 00039)
7.2x 1 0 5-8.5x 1 0 5 (0.000 1 4-0.0001 7)
8 3x 1 0 s-8 8x 1 0 5 (0.000 1 7-0.000 1 8)
9.5x 1 0*- 1 4x 1 0 ! (1.9x1 0 5-2 8x 1 0'5)
8 Ox 1 0 "-9 4x 1 0^ ( 1 6x 1 0 s- 1 .9x 1 0 !)
2 6xl05-3 Ox 10s (5 2xlO'-6.0xl05)
1 6xlO"-22xlO^(32xI06-44xlO*)
I.lxl06-1.9xl06(2.1xl0^-3.9vi0^)
0.001 1-0 0017 (0.0022-0.0033)
0 00 1 4-0.00 1 7 (0.0027-0.0034)
0.0083-0.012(0017-0.023)
00015-0.0075(0.0029-0.015)
0.00029-0.00032(0.00058-0.00065)
17-18(35-36)
0.0043-0.0069 (0.0087-0.014)
0021-0021 (0.041-0.043)
18-21 (36-41)
0 0041-0.0067 (0.0082-0.013)
00060-00081 (0.012-0.016)
12-15(24-30)
0.0047-00055(0.0095-0.011)
0 00089-0.0012 (0.0018-0 0024)
16-19(32-37)
0.00094-0 00 1 2 (0 00 1 9-0 0025 )
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.00017(0.00034)
7.6x10 '(0.00015)
8.5x10 5 (000017)
I.lxl05(2.2xl05)
8.5xlO^(1.7xl05)
2.8xl05(5.5xlO-5)
1 8x10^(3.6x10')
1.5x10^(3.0x10")
0.0014(0.0027)
0.0015(00029)
0.010(0.019)
0.0037(0.0073)
0.00031. (0.00061)
18(36)
0.0053 (0011)
0021 (0.042>
19(39)
0.0051 (0.010)
00069(0014)
13(27)
00050(0010)
00010(00020)
18(35)
0.0011 (0.0023)
Ref
No.
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
53
53
53
54
54
54'
55
55
55
56
0\
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Butane
Butane
Butane
Percent
RAP used
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
52
52
52
40
40
40
30
30
W
Pollutant
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
( O,
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
•\
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)"
0.00044-0 00058 (0 00088-0.0012)
13-14(26-27)
0.046-0.051 (0.091-0.10)
0.0043-0.0056 (0.0086-0.01 1)
20-23 (40-47)
0.098-0.11 (0.20-0.22)
0.010-0.013 (0.020-0.026)
43-50(87-100)
0.023-0 027 (0.047-0.054)
0.0028-0.0039 (0 0057-0.0077)
16-18(32-36)
0.021-0.026(0.043-0.051)
0.0076-00092(0.015-0018)
19-24(37-48)
0.0020-0 0025 (0 0039-0.0050)
0.00084-0.0029 (0 0017-0 0057)
00064-0.0076(0.013-0015)
2.9-16(5.7-32)
0.0035-0.0058 (0.0035-0.012)
00039-0015(00078-0031)
16-17 (32-34)
0 0025-0.0032 (0 0050-0 0064)
0 00012-0 00026 (0.00024-0 00052)
20-22 (40-45;
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.00053 (0.0011)
13(26)
0.048 (0.096)
0.0049 (0.0097)
22 (44)
0.10(0.21)
0012(0023)
47 (94)
0.026 (0.052)
0.0035 (0.0070)
17(34)
0.024 (0 048)
0.0084(0.017)
21 (42)
0.0022 (0 0043)
0.0016(00032)
0.0070(0014)
7.5(15)
0 0046 (0 0092)
00093(0019)
16(33)
0 00?_9 (0 0058)
0.00018 (000035)
21 (42)
Ref.
No.
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
60
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
<>5
05
h5
K)
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Mo. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
So. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
46
46
46
48
48
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
31
18
18
18
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
No
of
test
runs
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0011-0014(0021-0.027)
0.012-0.016(0.024-0.032)
30-33 (60-67)
00055-0.0070(0.011-0.014)
0047-0055 (0.093-0 11)
29-30 (57-60)
0 00 1 2-0.00 1 5 (0.0023-0.003 1 )
0018-0024(0036-0.048)
13-15(27-30)
0017-0022(0.034-0.044)
0.00027-0.0036 (0.00054-0.0072)
13-19(27-38)
0 0024-0.0036 (0.0048-0 0072)
0 00 1 1 -0.0020 (0.002 1 -0.0040)
21-24(42-48)
0 0022-0 0028 (0.0044-0 0"56)
0 0043-0 014 (0.0087-0 029)
17-17(33-34)
0 0031-0 0042 (0 0063-0.0084)
0011-0015 (0023-0030)
10-11 (21-22)
0.019-0033 (0038-0.065)
0 0021-0.0043 (0 0042-0.0086)
12-14(25-28)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.012(0.024)
0014(0.028)
32 (63)
00064(0013)
0.052(0 10)
29 (59)
0.0013(00027)
0020(0041)
14(28)
0.020 (0.040)
0.0014(0.0029)
17(34)
0.0030 (0.0059)
0.0017(0.0033)
23 (45)
0.0025 (0 0050)
0.0095(0019)
17(34)
0.0036 (0 0072)
0013(0026)
11 (22)
0026(0052)
0.0032(00063)
13(27)
Ref.
No.
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
70
70
70
71
71
71
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
75
-1^
o\
-------
Table 4-II (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Vcntun scrubbci
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas/ coa!
Natural gas' coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
50
50
50
50
42
42
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1)
0
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
SO
( O,
r iltcrable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
R
A
B
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
0.0027-0.0074 (0.0055-0.015)
0 0012-0.0050 (0.0025-0 010)
20-20(40-41)
0.0047-0.0063 (0.0093-0.013)
0 0025-0 0034 (0.005 1-0.0068)
00062-0.0071 (0.012-0014)
13-15(25-30)
0.0016-0.0019 (0.0032-0.0039)
0.0050-0.0071 (0.0099-0.014)
19-45(37-90)
0.0037-0.0074 (0 0074-0.015)
20-23 (40-46)
0.012-0018(0023-0.036)
0.00074-0.0012 (0.0015-0.0025)
0 00 1 1 -0 00 1 7 (0.002 1 -0 0034)
17-22(34-45)
00053-00072(0.011-0.014)
0 00089-0 0026 (0 0018-0 0052)
0 0023-0 0038 (0 0046-0 0077)
26-29 (52-58)
0013-0014(0026-0029,
0001 1-00014 (0002 1-00028)
IX-20 (16-40)
0 OOIX-0 0024 (0 0037-0 0049)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
00044(0.0088)
0 0029 (0.0059)
20 (40)
0.0057(0011)
0.0031 (0.0062)
0.0065(0013)
14(28)
00018(0.0036)
0.0057(0011)
36(71)
0.0059(0.012)
21 (43)
0.014(0.027)
0.00094(00019)
00013(0.0026)
19(38)
0.0062(0.012)
0.0017(00033)
0 0033 (0 0066)
27(54)
0014(0027)
00012 (Oiii)2})
I'MlXi
0.002! (00042)
Ref
No.
78
78
78
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
84
84
85
85
85
85
87
87
87
87
XX
ss
KX
X')
.&.
ON
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venfuri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuefoil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Pollutant
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM.
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
15-17(30-34)
0.012-0014(0.025-0028)
20-21 (40-42)
0 0026-0 0033 (0.0052-0.0065)
14-14(28-29)
0.0032-0.0044 (0.0065-0.0089)
13-13(26-27)
0.053-0.056(0 11-0 11.)
17-18(34-35)
0.010-0.013(0.021-0.027)
0 0042-0 0073 (0 0084-0.015)
0 0010-0 0029 (0 0021-0 0058)
15-17(30-33)
0.0043-0.0082 (0.0087-0.016)
15-16(30-33)
0.0015-0.0026 (0.0030-0.0053)
9.3-10(19-21)
0.0090-0.011 (0.018-0.022)
23-25(46-51)
0.0076-0.011 (0.015-0.021)
0.0069-0.011 (0.014-0023)
0.0018-0.0022 (0.0036-0.0044)
30-32 (61-65)
0 003 1 -0.0076 (0.006 1 -0.0 1 5)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
16(32)
0013 (0027)
20(41)
0.0030 (0 0060)
14(28)
0.0038 (0.0077)
13(26)
0.054(0.11)
17(35)
0.012(0.024)
00059(0.012)
00021 (0.0043)
16(31)
0.0063(0.013)
15(31)
0.0020 (0.0040)
10(20)
0.0098 (0.020)
24 (48)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0084(0.017)
0.0021 (00041)
31(63)
0.0052(0010)
Ref.
No.
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
94
94
95
95
96
96
99
99
101
101
101
101
103
-b.
t/1
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type- of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi bcrubbcr
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil/coal
Fuel oil/coal
Fuel oil/coal
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
15
ND
ND
0
0
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
SO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cone! inorganic PM
CO,
SO,
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
4 4-4.5 (8 8-9.0)
00049-0013 (0010-0026)
16-20(32-39)
0.0042-0.012 (0.0083-0.025)
15-21 (30-43)
0.00 1 1 -0.0046 (0.0022-0.009 1 )
3.4-6.0(6.7-12)
0 034-0 038 (0.067-0 077)
11-22(21-43)
0.0022-0 0072 (0.0043-0.014)
0.010-0.039(0.020-0078)
11-15(22-29)
00073-00080(0.015-0016)
9.7-18(19-36)
0.0013-0 0033 (0.0025-0 0066)
12-15(25-30)
0.0018-0.0026 (0 0036-0.0053)
5.1-8.1 (10-16)
0 00098-0 0019 (0.0020-0 0037)
87-12(17-24)
0014-0025 (0028-0050)
0.0018-0 0026 (0 0036-0.0052)
18-22(35-43)
0.0023-0 0024 (0 0046-0.0049)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
45(89)
0.0096(0019)
18(36)
0.0083(0017)
- 19(38)
0.0023 (0.0046)
5.1 (10)
0.036 (0.072)
16(32)
0.0047 (0 0094)
0.027 (0.053)
13(25)
00076(0015)
13(26)
0.0020 (0 0040)
14(27)
0.0021 (0.0042)
6.1 (12)
00013 (00026)
10(21)
0018 (0036)
0.0021 (00043)
19(39)
0.0023 (0 0047)
Ref
No.
103
104
104
105
105
107
107
108
108
108
109
109
112
112
114
114
117
117
118
118
119
1 19
!I9
119
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fiiel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Coal/natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
0
16
0
0
22
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO2
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
00055-0.0076(0011-0.015)
14-16(28-33)
0.0056-00078(0011-0.016)
0.0066-00090(0.013-0.018)
12-14(23-28)
0.0013-0.0027 (0.0026-0.0054)
85-9.9(17-20)
0.0022-0 0080 (0.0044-0.016)
0.00087-0.0085 (00017-0.017)
00012-00053(00024-0011)
11-13(21-25)
0.0043-0.0059 (0.0086-0.012)
20-21 (40-42)
0.0014-0 0036 (0.0029-0.0072)
0 0015-0.0024 (0.0030-0.0047)
0 0015-0.0025 (0.0030-0 0049)
16-16(31-31)
0.012-0.018(0.024-0.035)
00056-00097(0011-0.019)
0 0019-0 0034 (0.0038-0.0067)
17-21 (33-42)
0.0040-0.0052 (0 0080-0.010)
00023-0.011 (0.0046-0.021)
0.00010-0 00075 (0 00021-0.0015)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)"
0.0069(0.014)
15(30)
00069(0.014)
0.0078(0016)
13(25)
0.0019(0.0038)
93(19)
00051 (0.010)
0 0034 (0.0068)
0 0032 (0 0064)
11(23)
0.0048 (0.0097)
20/41)
0 0025 (0.0050)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0020 (0.0039)
16(31)
0.014(0029)
00082(0.016)
0.0028 (0.0056)
19(37)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.00042 (0.00083)
Rcf.
No
121
121
122
123
123
124
124
125
125
125
125
128
128
130
130
130
130
132
132
132
132
133
133
133
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Coal/natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
31
31
29
29
29
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
38
38
31
31
31
0
Pollutant
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO2
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Arsenic
Hexavalent chromium
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO
Formaldehyde
Filterjblc PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
D
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
\
A
D
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)8
6.5-10(13-20)
0 0047-0.0060 (0.0094-0.01 2)
11-11 (21-22)
0.015-0.017(0.031-0.034)
7.7-10(15-21)
0.011-0.013(0.021-0.026)
17-19(33-37)
0.00029-0.00034(0.00058-0.00069)
0011-0.013(0.022-0.027)
0 00090-0.0034 (0 0018-0 0068)
0 027-0.032 (0 055-0 063)
23-25 (45-50)
2.2x10 7-4 3xl07 (4.3xl07-8.7xl07)
1.7xlO-6-35xlO'(3.5xlO«-70xlO-6)
5. 7x10 "'-8. 3x10 '(0.0001 1-0.0001 7)
1. 5x10 6-2. 8x10" (3.0x10^-5. 7x10")
6.5x10 -»-l. 3x10 7 (1. 3x10 7-2.6xl07)
2 2xl07-4.3xl07 (4.3xl07-8.7xl07)
00092-0.011 (0.018-0022)
11-13(21-25)
00083-0012 (0.017-0023)
12-13 (25-25)
0 00065-0 00080 (0.0013-0 0018)
00010-0 0030(00020-00059)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
8.5(17)
0.0053(0.011)
11(22)
0.016(0.032)
9.0(18)
0.012(0.024)
18(36)
0.0003 1 (0.00062)
0.012(0.024)
00019(00039)
0.029 (0.058)
24 (48)
3.6xl07(7.2xl07)
2.5x10" (5.1x10")
7.1x10-' (0.00014)
2.0x10^(4.1x10^)
87xl08(l.7xl07)
2.9xl07(5.8xl07)
0010(0.020)
12(23)
0010(0021)
12 (2S)
000079(00016)
00023 (00046)
Ref.
No
133
137
137
137
137
141
141
141
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
144
144
146
146
1-46
147
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
50
50
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
NO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Cadmium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
CO2
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
8
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
17-19(34-38)
0.0046-0.0086 (0.0092-0.017)
0.0081-0.013(0.016-0.026)
0.0031-0.0084(0.0061-0017)
0.069-0.10(0.14-0.21)
0 0018-0 0044 (0.0037-0.0088)
14-17(27-33)
0.048-0055 (0.097-0.11)
057-2 8(1.1-5.6)
0010-0.019(0.020-0.038)
0.0055-00068(0.011-0.014)
0 0020-0 0038 (0.0040-0.0076)
NA
NA
10-18-(21-37)
0.0014-0 0026 (0.0028-0.0051)
29-31 (57-62)
2.4xl07-l Ixl06(47xl07-2.1xl0-*)
1 .2x 1 0 7-3.2x 1 0'7 (2.4x 1 0 7-6.3x 1 0 7)
8.0x10 7-3.2xlO^ (1.6x10^-6 4x10^)
6.0x 1 0 7-7.0x 1 0 6 ( 1 .2x 1 0 '- 1 .4x 1 0s)
2.9x 1 0 5-3.8x 1 0 5 (5.7x 1 0 s-7.6x 1 0 !)
4.6x 1 0"6- 1 .4x 1 0 5 (9 1 x 1 0-*-2. 8x 1 0s)
15-32(30-63)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
18(35)
0.0070(0.014)
0010(0.020)
0.0050(0.010)
0.086(0.17)
0.0029 (0.0058)
15(30)
0.051 (0 10)
1.3(2.6)
0.016(0.032)
0.0062(0012)
0.0031 (0.0063)
0.091 (0.18)
0.012(0.023)
14(28)
0.0021 (00041)
30(59)
6.4x10 '(1.3x10")
2.2xl07(4.4xlO'7)
2.0xl06(40xlO*)
2.6x10^(5.3x10^)
3.3xlOs(6.6xl05)
9.3xlO-"(1.9xl05)
25 (50)
Ref
No.
147
148
148
149
149
149
149
153
153
153
153
154
154
154
154
160
160
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
So. 2 fuel oil
So. 2 fuel oil
So .'. fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Chromium
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Manganese
CO,
Chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
CO;
Chromium
Naphthalene
No.
of
test
runs
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
8
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
\
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1 5xlO*-1.7xl06(3.0xlO*-3.4xIO*)
0.00070-0.0010 (0.0014-0.0020)
3.1x1 0*-8.0x 1 0* (6.1x1 0-6- 1 ,6x 1 0'5)
2 7x 1 0 7-2 3x 1 Q-6 (5.4x 1 0 7-4 5x 1 0*)
1.5xlO*-2.IxlO*(3.0xlO*-4.1xlO*)
1.8x10 '-3.0x10-' (3. 5x10 '-6.0x10-')
2. Ixl0*-7.5xl0* (4.1x10*-!. 5x10 5)
1 .9x 1 0 5-2.2x 1 0 5 (3.8x1 0 5-4.3x 1 0'5)
4.8x10*-! 2x!05(9.5x!0*-2.4xl05)
9.0-18(18-35)
6.5x10 '-3 9xlO*(l 3xlO*-7.7xlO*)
1 2x 1 0 7-3.4x 1 0 7 (2.3x 1 0 7-6.7x 1 0 7)
0.000 1 2-0.000 1 4 (0.00024-0.00028)
1 OxlO*-1.3xlO*(2.0xlO*-2.5xlO*)
1.6xlO*-2.3xlO*(3.1xlO*-45xl06)
UxlO'-S.OxlO* (3.4x10*-! OxlO5)
2.7xlO*-3.1xlO*(5.4xlO('-62xlO*)
6.0x1 0*-0 00022(1 2x!05-0.00044)
1.2x1 0*-3.4xl 0* (2.4x1 0*-6 7x10*)
8 Oxl05-0 00017 (0.00016-0 00033)
3 lx!0*-2.2\! !x!0('-4 3x10')
i >-2l (29-41)
5 5xlO*-!.2\10 '(I Ixl05-2.3xl0s)
4.2x10 '-() 00025 (S 3xl05-0 00050)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6x10^(3.2x10*)
0.00086(0.0017)
5.5xlO"(l.lxl05)
1.3xl06(25xl06)
1.7x10* (3.4x10*)
2.4x1 0'7(4.7xl07)
4.8x10* (9.6x10*)
2.0xlO's (4.0x10')
7.4x10* (1.5x1 0s)
14(28)
2. 3x10* (4 5x10*)
2.3x10 7 (4. 5xl07)
0.00013(000026)
1 Ixl0*(2.2xl06)
1.9x10* (3.8x10*)
3 6xl06(7 1x10*)
2.9x10* (5 7X106)
0.00015(000029)
2.0x10* (4 IxlO*)
000012(000023)
1 5x10 '(3 KIO")
19(37)
80xlO"(l 6xl()5)
000014 (00002S)
Ref.
No.
162
162
162
162
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
164
164
164
164
164
161
164
164
164
4X
O
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
. Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fue.l oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
30
21,30,30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
D
A
B
B
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
C
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)"
75xl07-3.2xlO*(1.5xlO('-6.3xlO-6)
8.0x 1 0'7-2.7x 1 0 6 ( 1 .6x 1 0-"-5 3x 1 0*)
0.23-0.40 (0.46-0.79)
15-16(31-33)
0 0025-0 0056 (0 005 1 -0.0 1 1 )
86-95(17-19)
NA
15-16(30-31)
0.0025-0.0048 (0 0050-0.0097)
13-15(27-30)
0.0072-0011 (0.015-0021)
8.4-12(17-23)
00056-0011 (0011-0.022)
18-21 (36-43)
0.0032-0.0032 (0 0063-0 0065)
15-16(30-31)
00034-00071 (0.0067-0.014)
8.3-12(17-23)
0.0062-0.011 (0012-0.021)
0.00043-0.0025 (0.00087-0 0050)
0-0.0029 (0-0.0057)
22-24 (44-48)
0.00 1 7-0.0020 (0 0034-0.004 1 )
10-11 (21-22)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
20xl06(4.1xl06)
1.7x10-* (3 3x10")
0.30 (0.60)
16(32)
0.0041 (00081)
9.0(18)
00036(0.0073)
15(31)
0.0038 (0.0076)
14(29)
0.0090(0018)
9.4(19)
0.0082(0016)
20 (40)
0.0032 (00063)
15(31)
0.0048 (0.0097)
9.8 (20)
0.0084(0.017)
0.0011 (0.0023)
0.0012(00023)
23 (46)
0.0018(0.0037)
11(22)
Ref
No
164
164
166
166
167
167
168
168
171
171
172
172
174
174
175
175
180
180
173
173
173
173
182
182
-------
Table 4-II (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
CO,
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
SO2
Filterable PM
CO,
SO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
\
A
NR
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.014-0025 (0.028-0.051)
23-24 (45-48)
5.3xl05-5.8xlO-5 (0.0001 1-0.00012)
0.0023-0 0047 (0.0046-0.0093)
17-21 (35-43)
4.2x 1 0 7-7.3x 1 0 7 (8.4x 1 0 7- 1.5x1 0*)
0.0058-0.0075(0.012-0.015)
6.0-9.9(12-20)
4.2x 1 0 5-5.5x 1 0 5 (8.4x1 0 5-0.000 1 1 )
0012-0019(0024-0.039)
21-23(43-46)
0.0025-0.0065 (0 0050-0.013)
5.1-9.5(10-19)
0.0044-00087(0.0088-0017)
13-13(25-26)
0.044-053 (0.089-1.1)
0.0036-0.010(0.0072-0.021)
14-15(29-31)
00058-00067(0012-0013)
0038-0.065(0.076-0.13)
12-19(25-39)
00039-00(174(00077-0015)
21-23 (42-47)
0.0041-00081 (00081-0016)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.019(0.038)
24(47)
5.6x10 5(0.00011)
0.0033 (0.0065)
• 19(39)
6.0xlO'7( 1.2x1 0-6)
0.0066(0.013)
80(16)
4.8x10 5 (9,6x10 5)
0.016(0033)
22 (44)
0.0049 (0.0098)
7.3(15)
0.0065(0013)
13(26)
0.38(075)
00060(0012)
15(30)
00062(0012)
0 048 (0.097)
16(32)
00056(0011)
23 (45)
00064(0013)
Ref
No.
179
179
179
178
178
178
183
183
183
186
186
187
187
189
189
189
190
190
190
191
191
192
192
196
-4
KJ
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
ND
ND
ND
6
6
14
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
10
10
0
0
0
25%
(4th run)
Pollutant
CO,
Filterable PM
CO;
CO
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
NO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
C02
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
CO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
6.4-13(13-26)
0.0032-0.0073 (0 0065-0 015)
11-12(22-24)
0.0017-0.0082 (0.0034-0.016)
0.00 1 6-0.0026 (0.0032-0 0^5 ! )
11-12(22-24)
00063-0.015 (0.013-0.029)
6.7-9.5(13-19)
00014-00021 (0.0028-0.0043)
0.00089-0.0014 (0 0018-0.0029)
9.4-10(19-20)
0.0047-0.0051 (0.0094-0010)
13-13(27-27)
2.5-3.8 (4 9-7.7)
0015-0.017(0.030-0033)
0.015-0.033(0.029-0.066)
00030-00097(0.0061-0.019)
14-16(29-32)
0.056-0.060(0.11-0.12)
0.0020-0.0027 (0.0039-0.0054)
14-16(28-33)
0.036-0.050(0072-0.10)
0.0014-0.0030 (0 0028-0.0060)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
11(21)
0.0056(0011)
12(23)
0.0055(0011)
00021 (0.0041)
11(23)
0.011 (0.023)
83(17)
0.0019(00037)
0.0012(00023)
9.7(19)
0.0049 (0.0098)
13(27)
3 0 (6.0)
0.016(0.032)
0.022 (0.044)
0.0064(0013)
15(30)
0.059(0 12)
0.0022 (0.0045)
15(30)
0.042 (0 083)
0.0022 (0.0045)
Ref.
No
196
197
197
197
198
198
205
205
206
206
206
209
209
209
209
209
210
210
210
211
211
211
212
^
U)
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Ventun scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel cy'l
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 luel oil
Percent
RAP used
25%
(4th run)
25%
(4th run)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
CO,
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
PM-1
PM-2.5
NOX
CO2
CO
TOC
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
PM-10
Filterable PM
PM-25
PM-!
CO
NO,
CO,
No.
of
test
runs
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
12-14(24-27)
0017-0.028(0.034-0055)
0.0098-0.011 (0.020-0022)
0.0029-0.0031 (0.0057-0.0062)
0.0046-0 0050 (0.0091-0 010)
0.024-0.026(0.049-0.051)
14-15(28-30)
0.014-0015(0.027-0030)
0.0070-0.0076 (0.014-0 015)
0.0091-0.014(0.018-0027)
7.7-17(15-33)
0 0019-0.0082 (0 0038-0.016)
7.2-9.3(14-19)
00016-00017(00031-0034)
10-14(20-27)
0 0029-0 0029 (0 0057-0.0058)
0012-0.013(0.023-0025)
0.00054-0 00085 (0.00 1 1 -0 00 1 7)
55x10 5-0 00040 (0 000 1 1 -0 00080)
0020- 0026 (0040-0 051)
0012-0014 (0024-0026)
12-12(24-24)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
13(25)
0.023 (0.046)
0.010(0.021)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.025 (0.050)
14(29)
0014(0028)
00073(0015)
0.012(0024)
11 (22)
0.0047 (0 0095)
8.5(17)
0.0016(00033)
12(24)
0.0029 (0 0058)
0012(0.024)
000069(0.0014)
000023 (000045)
0024 (0047)
0012(002'!)
12 (24}
Ref
No.
212
212
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
218
218
221
221
223
223
229
229
229
229
229
2:9
229
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
(continuous mix)
Fabric filter
(continuous mix)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
6.9
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
20
Pollutant
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.017-0.026(0.035-0.052)
0.018-0.020(0.035-0.039)
16-17(31-34)
0 00070-0.00098 (0.0014-0.0020)
0.013-0.017(0.026-0034)
14-14(27-29)
00054-0.0085(0.011-0.017)
15-20(29-40)
0.0074-0 0093 (0.015-0.019)
11-14(21-28)
0.0076-0.0091 (0015-0018)
15-18(30-35)
00048-0.017(0.0097-0.033)
14-15(27-31)
0.0077-0.0089(0.016-0018)
88-1! (18-21)
0.0042-0.0052 (0 0083-0.010)
0 001 1-0 0033 (0.0021-0 0065)
0.0040-00053 (0.0079-0.01 1)
17-18(35-35)
0.0026-0.0050 (0.0053-0 010)
0.00025-0.00057 (0.00049-0.001 1)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
0.022 (0 044)
0.018(0037)
16(33)
0.00083 (0.0017)
0.015(0.030)
14(28)
00071 (0.014)
18(35)
0.0081 (0016)
12(25)
0.0084(0.017)
16(33)
0.011 (0022)
14(29)
0.0084(0.017)
9 8 (20)
0.0046 (0.0093)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0 0047 (0 0093)
18(35)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.00040(000081)
Rcl
No
241
241
241
242
242
242
243
243
244
244
245
245
246
246
247
247
251
251
251
251
252
252
-------
Table 4-11 (corn.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filler
Fuel fired
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
! 1
11
0
0
Pollutant
Condensable inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
CO
C0;
Filterable PM
SO,
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Condensable organic PM
Condensable inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0 0032-0 0040 (0.0063-0.0080)
1 7-20 (34-39)
00078-0017(0016-0035)
1.7x1 0 5-0.00050 (3.5x1 0 5-0.00 1 0)
00012-00051 (0.0024-0.010)
0081-0.084(0.16-0.17)
15-19(29-37)
0 0017-0 0019 (0.0034-0.0038)
7. 5xl05-0 0012 (0.00015-0.0023)
16-28(33-57)
00011-00012(00022-0.0023)
11-11 (21-22)
0.0067-0.0076 (0 013-0 015)
29-40 (58-80)
0.0078-0.0085 (0.016-0.017)
40-5.0(8.1-9.9)
0.0028-0.0080 (0 0056-0.016)
21-21 (42-42)
0.0061. -0.0074 (00 12-0.0 15)
000X2-0.013(0.016-0.027)
0 00040-0 00084 (0 00080-0 0016)
11-18(29-36)
0 00074-0 0013 (0 0015-0 0025)
15-16(30-32)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
0.0035 (0 0070)
18(36)
0.013(0.025)
0.00021 (0.00042)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.082(0.17)
17(34)
00018(0.0036)
0 00048 (0 00095)
24 (48)
0.0011 (00022)
11 (22)
0.0072(0014)
33 (66)
00081 (0016)
4 5 (9.0)
0.0053 (0011)
21 (42)
0.0068(0.014)
0011 (002?)
000059(0.0(112)
17(33)
000096(00019)
15(31)
Ref.
No
252
252
254
254
254
254
254
255
255
255
257
257
258
258
259
259
260
260
262
262
262
262
269
269
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
• Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
30
30
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO2
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 00030-0 0027 (0.0006 1 -0.0054)
12-13(23-25)
0.014-0018(0.028-0.036)
33-35(66-71)
0.0040-0.0074 (0.0080-0.015)
15-18(31-35)
0.013-0.013(0.027-0027)
23-27 (45-53)
000053-0.00065 (0.001 1-0.0013)
8.8-12(18-23)
0.00087-0.0019 (0.0017-0.0037)
0.0015-0 0046 (0.0030-0 0092)
13-15(26-29)
0 00 1 7-0.0053 (0.0034-0.0 1 1 )
12-15(24-29)
0.001 1-0 0017 (0 0022-0.0034)
11-13(22-26)
0.0032-0 0080 (0.0064-0.016)
10-12(20-23)
0.0053-0.0055(0.011-0011)
9.6-12(19-25)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
00018 (00036)
12(25)
0.015 (0030)
34 (68)
0.0053(0.011)
16(33)
0.013(0.027)
25 (49)
0.00058(0.0012)
9.8(20)
0.0014(0.0027)
0.0028 (0.0056)
14(27)
0.0030 (0.0059)
13(27)
0.0013 (0.0026)
12(23)
0.0062(0.012)
1 1 (22)
0.0054(0.011)
11(22)
Ref
No.
267
267
266
266
273
273
280
280
292
292
292
293
293
294
294
295
295
297
297
298
298
-p.
--J
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
(used
neutralizing
agent to reduce
S02)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No 4 fuel oil
No 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
19
ND
ND
ND
24
24
24
24
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
Pollutant
SO,
Filterable PM
SO,
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
HCI
Cd
Cr
Lead
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO.,
Condensable inorganic PM .
Filteublc PM
CO,
Lead
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
'
2
3
2
Data
rating
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
\
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
0075-0.083(0 15-0.17)
0.0083-0.013 (0017-0027)
0 0038-0.013 (0.0076-0 025)
16-16(32-33)
0.011-0.017(0.021-0.033)
11-12(22-24)
1.3xlOs-0.00023 (2 7xl05-0.00045)
7.4xl08-7.4xl08(l 5xlO'-1.5xl07)
7.4x10 7-7.4xlO'(l 5x10^-1 5x10^)
1 .9x 1 0 "- 1 .9x 1 0^ (3.8x 1 Q*-3.9x 1 0*)
0.0054-0012(0.011-0024)
12-18(24-36)
0.0023-0.0037 (0.0045-0.0074)
13-16(27-33)
0.0015-0.0019 (0.0030-0 0038)
0.0057-0.0080 (0.012-0.016)
16-18(32-37)
0 0029-0 0062 (0 0059-0.012)
0(1055-00067(0011-0013)
!X-19(36-17)
3. 8x10 "-4 .MO '(7 6x10 "-8 4x10")
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton )'
0.081 (0 16)
0010(0021)
0.0077(0.015)
16(32)
0.013(0.026)
12(23)
0.00011 (000022)
7.4x10 8(1.5x 10 7)
7 4xlO'7 (1.5x10*)
1.9xlO-6(3.8xlO-6)
0.0083(0.017)
16(31)
0.0030 (0.0060)
15(29)
0.0018(00035)
0.0069(0.014)
17(34)
00042 (00083)
00061 (0012)
19(37)
4 0x10* (8 0x10*)
Ref.
No
299
300
300
300
301
301
301
301
301
301
303
303
309
309
309
311
311
311
315
115
315
Ji.
00
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
NA
NA
Propane
Propane
Propane
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
10
10
10
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
VOC (TGNMO)
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0.0057-0 0080 (0.012-0.016)
16-18(32-37)
0 0029-0.0062 (0 0059-0.012)
00010-0.0031 (0.0020-0.0063)
39-4.0(7.7-7.9)
0 0034-0 012 (0.0068-0.024)
11-17(22-33)
0 0021-0 0050 (0.0041-0.010)
57-87(12-18)
0 001 1-0 0020 (0.0022-0.0039)
14-.15(29-30)
0.001 1-0.0028 (0.0021-0.0056)
0.00 1 6-0 0026 (0.0033-0 005 1 )
0.0083-0.0090 (0.017-0.018)
11-11 (21-23)
0.0064-0.0070 (0.013-0 014)
8.2-14(16-28)
0.0024-00081 (0.0047-0.016)
14-26(29-51)
0.00058-0.00065 (0 0012-0.0013)
15-17(29-34)
0.0056-0010(0.011-0.020)
18-21 (35-43)
0.026-0038(0.053-0.075)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
00069(0014)
17(34)
0.0041 (00083)
0.0021 (0.0042)
3.9(7.8)
0.0064(0.013)
14(28)
0.0036(00071)
6'8(14)
0.0015(0.0030)
15(29)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0021. (00042)
0.0086(0.017)
11 (22)
0.0066(0.013)
10(21)
0.0051 (0010)
18(37)
0.00061 (0.0012)
16(31)
0.0078(0.016)
19(38)
0 032 (0 064)
Ref
No.
316
316
316
322
322
324
324
329
329
330
330
330
330
332
332
333
333
334
334
335
335
236
236
236
-U
VD
-------
Table 4-11 (com.)
Type of control
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
23"
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23"
23d
23d
23d
23"
23"
23d
23J
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Condensable inorganic PM
Condensable organic PM
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM- 10
PM-2.5
Toluene
Hexane
Ethylene
Methane
SO,
CO
Formaldehyde
3-Methylpentane
Isooctane
Butane
2-Mcthyl- 1 -pcntene
1 leptane
1 -Pcntene
2-Mcthvl-2-butene
No.
of
test
runs
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
" Data
rating
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
\
B
B
R
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.017-0.019(0.035-0.038)
26-26 (52-53)
0 00 1 0-0.0066 (0.002 1 -0.0 1 3)
0.0013-0.0015 (0.0026-0.0030)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0-00059(0-0.012)
0.00018-00017 (0.00037-0.0034)
0.00 1 7-0 0057 (0 0034-0 Oil)
0.0016-0.0079 (0.0033-0 016)
0.019-0.033 (0.039-0.067)
0.056-0.18(0.11-036)
0.00078-0 0043 (0.0016-0 0086)
0-0.00021 (0-000042)
0-6.2E-5 (0-0.000 12)
0-000088 (0-0-0.0018)
0.00015-00055 (000030-001 1)
0-00014(0-00029)
0-000066(0-00013)
0-00012 (0-00023)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.018(0036)
26(52)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0014(0.0028)
27% of filt. PM
23% of fill. PM
5. 5% of filt. PM
35% of fill. PM
32% of filt. PM
11% of filt. PM
0.0015(0.0031)
0.00092 (0.0018)
0 0036 (0.0073)
0.0041 (0.0082)
0027(0.054)
0 10(0.20)
0.0026(00051)
8.2E-5 (0.0001 6)
1 6E-5(3.IE-5)
000033 (00006 T )
00020(00040)
0 00016 (00007?)
000016 (000033)
5 (0001 1)
Ref.
No.
268
268
268
268
23
23
23
23
23
23
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
319
339
139
339
119
oo
O
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
23d
23"
23"
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
Pollutant
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
No.
of
test
runs
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
0.0088-0028(0.018-0057)
0 00067-0 025 (0.00 1 3-0 05 1 )
0-1.6E-08 (0-3.2E-08)
0-1 5E-07 (0-3.0E-07)
5.1E-07-I.2E-05 (1 OE-06-2 5E-05)
0-0 (0-0)
0-7.7E-08(0-1 5E-07)
2.2E-09-3.6E-07 (4 3E-09-7.2E-07)
0-1.0E-07(0-2.0E-07)
6.8E-08-1 OE-06(1.4E-07-2.0E-06)
9.1E-08-4.6E-06(1 8E-07-9.3E-06)
6.0E-07-1.2E-05(1.2E-06-2.3E-05)
7.7E-08-6 6E-07 (1.5E-07-1.3E-06)
1.9E-08-2.1E-07 (3 8E-08-4 3E-07)
3 6E-06-2 2E-05.(7.3E-06-4.5E-05)
0-2 6E-08 (0-5 3E-08)
0-4.0E-07(0-8.1E-07)
0-9 8E-09 (0-2.0E-08)
1.2E-06-7 9E-06 (2.4E-06-1 6E-05)
9.3E-14-1.3E-13(1.9E-13-2.6E-13)
3.7E-13-6.2E-13(7.4E-13-1.2E-12)
1.3E-13-2.2E-13 (2 5E-13-4.3E-13)
5.3E-13-2.5E-12(1 1E-12-5.0E-12)
1.6E-13-3 4E-13 (3.1E-13-6.9E-13)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.018(0036)
0.0073(0.015)
4 2E-09 (8 3E-09)
52E-08(1.0E-07)
3.8E-06 (7.5E-06)
0(0)
4.9E-08 (9.8E-08)
1.0E-07(2.1E-07)
2.6E-08(5.1E-08)
3.7E-07 (7.5E-07)
1.6E-06(3.2E-06)
4.2E-06 (8.4E-06)
2.4E-07 (4.8E-07)
1.1E-07(2.1E-07)'
8.5E-06(1.7E-05)
6.6E-09(I.3E-08)
l.!E-07(2.2E-07)
4.1E-09(8.2E-09)
3.1E-06(6.3E-06)
1.1E-13(2.1E-I3)
4.7E-13(9.3E-13)
I.6E-13(3.1E-13)
1.3E-12(2.6E-12)
2.1E-13(4.2E-13)
Ref.
No
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
.p.
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Fuel fired
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No 2 fuel oil
Recycled No 2 fuel oil
Recycled No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
23"
23d
23d
23"
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23d
23"
23°
23d
IS'
Pollutant
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF
Toluene
No.
of
test
runs
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
4 8E-13-8.6E-13 (9.6E-13-1 7E-12)
1.3E-13-1.2E-12 (2.7E-I3-2 5E-12)
2.5E-12-7 5E-12 (5.0E-I2-1.5E-1 1)
1.2E-I2-3.7E-12(2.5E-13-7.4E-12)
I.2E-12-6.2E-12 (2.5E-12-1.2E-1 1)
4.8E-12-33E-11 (9.5E-12-6.6E-1 1)
1.3E-I1-5.5E-11 (2.6E-11-1.1E-10)
I.8E-I3-8.6E-I3(3.5E-13-1.7E-12)
1.2E-12-1.9E-12(2.5E-I2-3.7E-I2)
8.0E-14-3 7E-13 (1.6E-I3-7.4E-13)
9.3E-14-6.2E-13(1.9E-I3-1.1E-12)
9.3E-14-3.1E-12 (I.9E-13-6 2E-12)
1.2E-12-2.6E-12(2.5E-12-5.2E-12)
3 1E-13-8.6E-13(6.2E-13-1.7E-12)
5.6E-13-1.2E-12(1.3E-12-2.5E-12)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-0 OE+00)
3.4E-12-7.5E-12(69E-12-1 5E-I1)
2.2E-12-4.3E-12 (4.4E-12-8.7E-12)
6.2E-13-2..5E-12 (1.2E-12-5 OE-12)
2 5E-12-4 8E-12 (5 OE-12-9 6E-12)
1.9E-I2-2 7E-12 (3 7E-I2-5.3E-12)
1 OE-ll-1 8E-II (2 1E-II-3 SB-ill
22E-11-6 7E-11 (43E-1I-1 3E-10)
0-0 0088 (0-00! 8)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
65E-13(1.3E-12)
4.9E-13(98E-I3)
5.0E-12(1.0E-11)
2.4E-12(4.8E-12)
3.4E-I2(6.9E-I2)
1.2E-1I (2.5E-11)
2.3E-1I (4.5E-11)
4.6E-13(9.2E-13)
1.5E-I2(3.0E-I2)
2.1E-13(4.2E-13)
4.2E-I3(8.4E-I3)
1.6E-12(3.2E-12)
2.0E-12(4.0E-12)
5.8E-I3(1.2E-12)
9.5E-I3(1.9E-12)
BDL (BDL)
5.7E-12(1 1E-I1)
3.3E-12(6.5E-12)
I.4E-12(2 7E-12)
3 7E-12(74E-12)
24E-12(4 8I-.-I2)
1 5E-I1 (3 OI--I !)
37E-1I (7 MM I)
00037 (00074)
Ref
No.
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
339
139
339
!3l>
340
4^
CO
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter1'
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
' Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fueroil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18'
18'
IV
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18C
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18C
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
Pollutant
Hexane
Ethylene
Methane
S02
CO
Formaldehyde
3-Methylpentane
Isooctane
Heptane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
n-Pentane
TOC as propane
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3-
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0-0 (0-0)
0.0017-00051 (0.0035-0.010)
0.0012-0 0024 (0 0025-0.0047)
0.0089-0.016(0018-0032)
0018-0.070(0.035-0 14)
0-0.0024(0-00049)
0-0 00033 (0-0.00066)
0-7. 2E-05 (0-0 00014).
0.0077-0.0095(0.015-0.019)
0 001 1-0.0033 (0.0023-0 0066)
0-9.2E-05 (0-0.0001 8)
0-000031 (0-0.00062)
0.019-0.040(0.038-0.079)
21-54(41-108)
0-0 (0-0)
5.0E-07-7.6E-07 ( 1 .OE-06- 1 .5E-06)
9.7E-05-1.6E-04 (1 9E-04-3.3E-04)
0-0 (0-0)
1.3E-06-3 OE-06 (2.6E-06-6.1E-06)
1.0E-05-1.4E-05 (2 OE-05-2 9E-05)
6 OE-06-9 5E-06 (1.2E-05-1 9E-05)
8 OE-05-9 2E-05 (000016-000018)
1.IE-05-1 3E-05 (2.2E-05-2.6E-05)
0.00030-0 00037 (0 00060-0 00075)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
0(0)
0 0033 (0.00X6)
00018 (00036)
0.013 (0.026)
0.041 (0.083)
0.0010(0.0021)
0.00011 (0.00022)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
0.0089(0.018)
00021 (00041)
3.1E-05(6.1E-05)
000010(0.00021)
0.026 (0 053)
36(73)
0(0)
6.4E-07(1.3E-06)
1.3E-04(25E-04)
0(0)
2.1E-06(4.2E-06)
1.2E-05(2.4E-05)
7.6E-06(1.5E-05)
8.6E-05 (0.00017)
1.2E-05(23E-05)
0.00033 (0.00065)
Ref
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
-t^
00
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filler
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18'
18'
18=
18'
18'
18e
18'
18'
18' .
18'
18'
18'
18C
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
IK'
18'
18'
I8C
Pollutant
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Sliver
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Filterable PM
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Selenium
Thallium
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A.
B
A
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0-0 (0-0)
6.7E-06-8.9E-06(1.3E-05-1.8E-05)
0.00050-0.00066 (0.0010-0.0013)
8.9E-08-1.8E-07(1.8E-07-3.6E-07)
0-I.2E-07(0-2.5E-07)
2.8E-07-1.8E-06 (5 5E-07-3.7E-06)
7 3E-05-0.0001 1(0.000 15-0 00023)
0.0045-0 0094 (0 0089-0 019)
1.6E-07-2 1E-07(3.1E-07-4.2E-07)
0-0 (0-0)
1.9E-06-3.7E-06 (3 7E-06-7.4E-06)
0-0 (0-0)
1 .OE-08-1 .9E-08 (2. 1 E-08-3 9E-08)
5 OE-07-6.7E-07 (l.OE-06-1 3E-06)
0-0 (0-0)
3.2E-07-8.0E-07 (6.5E-07- 1 .6E-06)
2.4E-07-3.5E-07(4.8E-07-7.0E-07)
2.8E-06-6.2E-06(5.7E-06-1.2E-05)
0-0 (0-0)
2.9E-07-4.3E-07(5.9E-07-8.6E-07)
4.5E-06-7 7E-06 (8 9E-06-1 5F-05)
0-1. 5H 08(0-3 IE-08)
2 1E-D7-2 61--07 (4 2E-07-5.2E-07)
d-O(O-O)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0(0)
7.7E-06(1 5E-05)
0.00060(0.0012)
1.3E-07(2.7E-07)
5.8E-08(1 2E-07)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
9.2E-05 (0.00018)
0.0062(0.012)
1.8E-07(3.5E-07)
0(0)
2.6E-06 (5.2E-06)
0(0)
1 5E-08(3.1E-08)
5.7E-07(I.1E-06)
0(0)
5.0E-07(1.0E-06)
30E-07(6 1E-07)
4.1E-06(8.3E-06)
0(0)
3.7E-07 (7.4E-07)
5 8E-060 2E-05)
84F.-09(| 7E-OS)
2 3E-07 (4 T.-ni)
0(0)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
MO
340
3-40
340
-P*
CO
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 ftiel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18'
18C
18'
18=
18e
18e
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18e
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
Pollutant
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4/7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B .
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1 2E-06-1 8E-06 (2.3E-06-3 6E-06)
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OZ+00)
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-0 OE+00)
2.6E-I3-4.3E-1 1(5.3E-13-8.7E-1 1)
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+00-0 OE+00)
53E-13-1.9E-11 (1.1E-12-3.8E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
7.9E-13-4 3E:1 1 (1.6E-12-8.7E-1 1)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
1 6E-12-1.1E-10(3.2E-12-2.1E-10)
0 OE+OO-O.OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
1.6E-13-5.6E-12 (3.1E-13-1.IE-1 1)
2.6E-13-1 OE-11 (53E-13-2.1E-11)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
1.1E-12-1.8E-11 (2.1E-12-3.5E-11)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-0 OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
2.6E-13-1 OE-11 (5.3E-13-2.1E-11)
2.6E-13-2 OE-1 1 (5.3E-13-4.0E-1 1)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.6E-06(3.1E-06)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
2.1E-11 (4.2E-II)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
7.1E-12(1.4E-11)
BDL (BDL,
1.6E-1I<3.2E-11)
BDL (BDL)
4.4E-11 (8.8E-I1)
BDL (BDL)
2.2E-12(45E-12)
4.1E-12(8.2E-12)
BDL (BDL)
9.4E-12(1.9E-11)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
4.2E-12(84E-12)
7.3E-12(1.5E-11)
BDL (BDL)
Ref
No
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
£i
OO
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
18'
18'
18e
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18e
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
!8C
18r
Pollutant
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8:TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7.8-PeCDF
2,3,4.7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
l,2,"M,7,K-llxCDF
1.2 3.6,7. MixCDH
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)"
0 OE+00-0 OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
5.3E-1.3-1 6E-11 (1.1E-12-3.1E-11)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
2.0E- 1 2-5 4E- 1 1 (4.0E- 1 2- 1 . 1 E- 1 0)
3.6E-12-1 6E-10(7.1E-12-3.2E-10)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
0 OE+OO-O.OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
O.OE+00-O.OE+00(O.OE+00-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-0 OE+00)
0 OE+OO-O.OE+00 (0 OE+OO-O.OE+00)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-0 OE+00)
O.OE+00-2.7E-12(O.OE+00-5.4E-I2)
O.OE+00-1.7E-1 1 (O.OE+00-3.4E-1 1)
O.OE+00-4.6E-1 1 (O.OE+00-9.2E-1 1)
O.OE+00-2.2E-9 (O.OE+00-4.4E-9)
65E-10-23E-9(1.3E-9-45E-9)
O.OE+00-O.OE+OO (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
1.3E-12-2.6E-11 (2.7E-12-5.1E-1I)
O.OF.tOO-0 OE+00 (O.OE + 00-O.OE+OO)
o OE+oo-o.or-.-i-oo (0 OE+OO-O.OE+OO)
1 3E-12-60F-I1 (2.7E-12-1 2E-10)
0 OE+00-2 7t:-12 (0 OE+00-5.4E-I2)
0 ()[•- 00-0 OF • 00 (0 OE+00-0 OF 1 00)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
BDL (BDL)
6.6E-12(1.3E-I1)
BDL (BDL)
2.5E-11 (5.1E-11)
7.0E-11 (1 4E-10)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
27E-12(5.4E-I2)
1 7E-11 (34E-I1)
3.5E-11 (7.1E-1I)
l.4E-9(2.7E-9)
1 4E-9(28E-9)
BDL (BDL)
1.7E-11 (33E-11)
BDL (BDL)
BDL (BDL)
3 7F;-I 1 (7.4P.-I1)
2 7E-I2(S4E-12)
BDL (BDL)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
3-10
~U()
1 10
oo
o\
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
Pollutant
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
CO,
CO
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
CO,
CO
NO,
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Filterable PM
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A '
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0 OE+00-8. 1 E- 1 3 (O.OE+00- 1 .6E- 1 2)
0 OE+OO-O.OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
O.OE+00-4 OE-12 (O.OE+00-8.1E-12)
OOE+00-5 4E-12 (OOE+OO-I 1E-11)
O.OE+00-0 OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
5.5E-12-3 9E-12 (1.1E-1 1-7.8E-1 1)
0 OE+OO-O.OE+00 (O.OE+00-O.OE+OO)
2 2E-1 1-1.2E-10 (4.5E-1 1-2.3E-10)
7.5E-10-2.3E-9) (1.5E-9-4 6E-9)
0.00055-0.00075 (0.001 1-0 uuI5)
0.0018-0.00292 (0.0035-0.0058)
1843-19.97(36.86-39.95)
0.10-0 11 (020-0.22)
0.0080-0.0096(0016-0.019)
0.00020 - 0 00024 (0.00039 -0.00048)
0.0011-0.0013 (0.0022-0.0026)
0.00088-0.0013 (0.0018-0.0026)
15.00-15.64(30.01-31.27)
0.039-0.050(0.077-0.10)
0.010-0014(0.020-0.028)
0 0001 5 - 0 00023 (0 00030 - 0 00046)
BDL
BDL
0 0016-0.0023 (0.0032-0.0046)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
8 1E-13 (1 6E-12)
BDL (BDL)
4 1E-12(8.1E-12)
5 4E-12 (1 1E-1 1)
BDL (BDL)
1.9E-11 (3.8E-11)
BDL (BDL)
7.7E-11 (1.5E-10)
1.5E-9(3.0E-9)
0.00062(0.0012)
0.0024 (0.0047)
19(38)
0.10(0.21)
0.0087(0.017) '
0.00022 (0.00044)
0.0012(0.0023)
0.0011 (0.0021)
15(31)
0.043 (0.086)
0.012(0.023)
0.00018(0.00036)
BDL
BDL
0.0019(0.0038)
Ref.
No.
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
341
341
341
341
341
341
342
342
342
342
342
342
342
342
343
-t*
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric (liter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
CO,
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
C02
CO
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
CO,
S02
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
NO,
Bcn/cne
Filterable PM
CO,
Fnrmaldehyde
CO
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 00020-0 00027 (0.00041-0.00054)
15.92-19.41 (31.85-38.81)
0 0075-0 0098 (0.015-0.0196)
0.00034-0.00054 (0.00067-0.001 1)
2350-24.71 (4699-49.42)
0.027-0.032(0.055 -0.065)
0 0077 - 0.0009 1 (0 0 1 5 - 0.0 1 8)
5.2 E-05 - 7 0 E-05 (0.00010 - 0 00014)
0.0020-0.0032 (0.0041-0.0064)
19.64-20.36(39.28-40.72)
0.032-0 034 (0.064-0 067)
6.3E-05-9.9E-05(1.3E-04-2.0E-04)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0037-0.0040 (0.0074-0 0081)
16.31-16.73 (32.62-33.45)
0.015-0.016(0.029-0.032)
0.0080 .-0.088 (0.016-0018)
3 9 E-05 - 5 0 E-05 (7 8 E-05 - 0 00010)
00056-00078(00! 1-0016)
46 79-49 13 (9} 57-98 25)
0 001 2-0 0014 (0.0024-0 0028)
004S - 0057 (0096 -0.1 It
Average, emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00023 (0.00046)
18(35)
0.0083(0017)
0.00045(000091)
24 (48)
0.029 (0.059)
0.0083 (0017)
6.1 £-05(000012)
0.0027 (0 0053)
20 (40)
0.033 (0.066)
7.6E-05(1 5E-04)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0038 (0.0077)
17(33)
0.015(0030)
00084(0.017)
4 6 E-05 (9. 2 E-05)
00064(0(113)
48(96)
00013 (00026)
o 053 (0 ; 1 1
Ref.
No
343
343
344
344
344
344
344
344
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
346
346
346
346
346
347
vr
347
3-17
oo
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
• Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil •
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil and natural gas
Dram oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Drain oil and natural gas
Dram oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
Pollutant
NO,
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
HO
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Filterable PM
C02
SO2
H2SO4
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Tnchlorobenzene
Filterable PM
CO2
S02
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.049-0.060(0.098-0.12)
0.00012 - 0 00013 (0.00024 - 0.00027)
0 0034-0 0040 (0.0068-0 0080)
14.92-15.95(29,85-31.90)
0.000 1 7-0.00028 (0.00034-0.00057)
0.00027-0.00042(0.00053-0.00083)
0.00028-0 00029 (0.00056-0.00058)
0.00092-0.00 1 1 (0.00 1 8-0.002 1 )
0.00067- 0.00084 (0.0013-0.0017)
0 000012-0.00045 (0.00024-0.00089)
19.81-20.94(39.62-41.88)
0.00014-0.00055 (0.00028-0.001 10)
2.5E-05-3.5E-05 (5 OE-05-7.0E-05)
0.0046-0.0054 (0 009 1 -0 0 1 1 )
13.23-1403 (26.46-28.05)
0 0027-0.0049 (0.0054-0.0097)
0.0001 1-0.00017 (0.00022-0.00035)
0.00051-0.00057 (0.0010-0 Oul 1)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.0099-0.011 (0.020-0.022)
1942-21.59(38.85-43.18)
0.033-0.041 (0.066-0.083)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.057(0.11)
000013 (0.00026)
0.0037 (0 0075)
16(31)
0.00022 (0.00045)
0.00035 (000069)
0.00029 (0.00057)
0.0010(0.0020)
0.00077(0.0015)
0.00030 (0 00059)
20(41)
0.00033 (0.00066)
3.2E-05 (6.3E-05)
0.0050(0.010)
14(27)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.00014(0.00028)
0.00053(0.0011)
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.011 (0021)
21 (41)
0.036(0.073)
Ref
No.
347
347
348
348
348
348
348
349
349
349
349
349
349
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
351
351
351
-p>.
oo
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 and No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 and No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Dram oil
Percent
RAP used
10
10
10
10
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
Pollutant
H,SO4
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
C02
NO,
CO2
NO,
Filterable PM
NO,
CO,
CO
Propane
Methane
TOC
Filterable PM
SO,
Formaldehyde
CO,
Filterable PM
SO,
Formaldehyde
CO.
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
NR
NR
NR
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)1
0.00 1 0-0 0013 (0.0019-0.0025)
0.00010-0 00018 (0.00020-0 00037)
BDL
BDL
BDL
20.89-22.96(41.78-45.91)
0.023-0.045 (0.046-0.090)
1437-15.61 (28.73-31.23)
0.028-0.034 (0.056-0.068)
0.0029-0.0079 (0.0057-0.016)
0031-0044(0.062-0.088)
20-24(41-48)
0.0030-0 012 (0.0060-0.023)
0-000070(0-0.0014)
0.0027-0.0055 (0 0054-0 Oil)
0 0034-0 0040 (0 0067-0 0080)
0 0038 - 0 0063 (0 0076 - 0 013)
0.028-0.031 (0.056-0.063)
0 0046 - 0.0056 (0.0092 -0011)
15-16(30-31)
0.0021 - K 0028 (0 0043 - 0.0056)
0.0037 - 0 0046 (0.0075 - 0.0092)
00046- 00092 (00092 • 0.018)
18 -20(36- 39}
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
0.0011 (0.0023)
000015(0.00029)
BDL
BDL
- BDL
22 (44)
0.034 (0 068)
15(30)
0.031 (0.062)
0.0056(0.011)
0.038 (0.076)
22 (45)
0.0070(0.014)
0.00036(000071)
0.00040 (0 00080)
00037 (0.0073)
0.0050 (0 0099)
0.030(0059)
0.0052(0.010)
15(31)
0.0025 (00050)
0.0040 (0 008 1 i
00071 ((.014)
19(38)
Ref.
No
351
351
351
351
351
352
352
353
353
354
354
354
355
355
355
355
371
371
371
371
37?
<72
372
37?.
.p.
o
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP used
25
25
25
25
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
15
15
Pollutant
Filterable PM
SO2
Benzene
Formaldehyde
CO,
Filterable PM
SO,
HCI
CO,
Filterable PM
SO,
Formaldehyde
CO,
Filterable PM
SO2
HCI
Benzene
CO,
Filterable PM
SO2
Benzene
CO,
SO,
CO2
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 00078 - 0 00094 (0.0016 - 0.0019)
0.027-0.029(0054-0057)
0.0001 1 - 0.00026 (0.00023 - 0.00051)
0 00039 - 0 0014 (0.00078 - 0.0027)
16- 16(32-33)
00084 -0.011 (0017-0.023)
0014-0015(0027-0.030)
0 00012 - 0 00019 (0 00024 - 0.00039)
27-31 (53 -61)
00036-00053 (00072 -0.011)
0.026-0.028(0051 -0.055)
0 00095 - 0 0014 (0.0019 - 0.0029)
19-20(37-40)
0.0050 - 0 0052 (0.010 - 0.010)
0.0069-0.011 (0.014-0.023)
1.1E-05 - 2 7E-05 (2.2E-05 - 5.3E-05)
0.00023 - 0 00032 (0.00045 - 0.00063)
13- 13(25 -27)
0 0063 - 0.0080 (0.013 - 0.016)
0.025 - 0.027 (0.050 - 0 054)
4.4E-05 - 7.3E-05 (8.7E-05 - 0.00015)
21 -22(42-45)
0.022-0.026(0.044-0.051)
21 -21 (42-42)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00087(0.0017)
0.028 (0.056)
0.00019(0.00038)
0.00073(0.0015)
16(32)
0.010(0.021)
0.014(0028)
0.00016(000032)
29 (59)
00046(0.0091)
O026'(0.053)
0.0012(0.0023)
19(38)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0097 (0.019)
2.0E-05 (3.9E-05)
0.00028 (0.00056)
13(26)
0.0072 (0.014)
0.026 (0.053)
6.2E-05 (0.0001 2)
22(43)
0.024 (0.047)
21 (42)
Ref
No
373
373
373
373
373
374
374
374
374
375
375
375
375
376
376
376
376
376
377
377
377
377
379
379
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric lillei
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste 01!
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
15
0
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
23
23
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(l
0
0
Pollutant
HC1
Filterable PM
SO2
HCI
CO2
Filterable PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
CO,
Filterable PM
Benzene
Formaldehyde
CO;
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
S02
CO,
SO,
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorganic PM
No.
of .
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)11
1.0E-5-3.9E-5(2.0E-5-3.8E-5)
0013-0.018(0.025-0.036)
0030-0.036(0.060-0.073)
5.5E-05 - 0.000 1 5 (0.000 1 1 -.0003 1 )
18-20(36-40)
0.001 1 - 0.0012 (0.0022 - 0.0025)
5.4E-05 - 0.0001 14 (0 0001 1 - 0 00028)
0 000 1 4 - 0 000 1 7 (0.00027 - 0 00034)
18- 18(35-37)
0.00055 - 0.00079 (0 001 1 - 0 0016)
0.00013 -0.00015(0.00025 -000030)
0.00060 - 0.00075 (0.00 1 2 - 0.00 1 5)
11 - 12(21 -24)
0.0066-0.0079(0.13-0.16)
0.035 -0037(0.070-0.073)
19-20(38-40)
0.0046 - 0.0048 (0.0092 - 0.0095)
23 - 25 (45 - 49)
0.029-0.031 (0.058 -0.063)
11 23 (44 - 46)
0.022 - 0 026 (0 044 - 0 052)
l<> . 21 (37 -42)
0.0073 -00084 (0015 - 0.017)
00088 - 0014 (0018 - 0027)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
l.9E-5(3.8E-5)
0.015 (0.030)
0.034 (0 068)
8.8E-05 (0.00018)
19(38)
0.0012(00023)
0.00011 (0.00022)
000015(0.00030)
18(36)
0.00068(00014)
000014(0.00027)
0.00066(0.0013)
12(23)
0.071 (0 14)
0.036(0.071)
20 (39)
0 0047 (0.0094)
23 (47)
0.030(0061)
23 (45)
0 024 (0 049)
20(40)
0.0077 (0015)
001 1 (0022)
Ref.
No
379
380
380
380
380
383
383
383
383
384
384
384
384
386
386
386
387
387
387
387
388
388
388
188
*.
tsj
-------
Table 4-11 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Condensable organic PM
C02
Formaldehyde
C02
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
00012-0.0019(00023-00037)
19-21 (38-42)
0.00053 - 0 00064 (0.001 1 - 0.0013)
20-21 (40-43)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
0.0015 (0.0029)
20 (40)
000059(0.0012)
21 (41)
Ref
No
388
388
388
388
ND = no data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable, BDL = below detection limit
"Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced.
bControl device may provide only incidental control.
c Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
d Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
' Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
-------
Table 4-12. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Spray tower1"
Centrifugal scrubber*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter0
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter1
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter'
Fabric filter^
Venturi scrubber11
Venturi scrubber*
Multiple wet scrubbers'
Multiple wet scrubbers'
Multiple wet scrubbersij
Wet cyclonic scrubber1
Wet cyclone1
Wet cyclone'
Wet cyclone8'1
Low-energy scrubber"
Low-energy scrubber"
Low-energy scrubber* "'
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
PM-10
Filterable PM
PM-10
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Total PM
Total PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
CO,
No. of
test runs
ND
ND
ND
2
2
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
ND
ND
ND
0.026-0.029 (0 053-0.058)
0.068-0.074(0.14-0.15)
0.050-0.057(0 10-0 11)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0015-0024(0030-0048)
9.2-10(18-21)
0.025-0.028 (0 049-0.055)
0 0080-0.0086 (0.016-0.017)
0041-0.049(0.081-0.098)
0.0020-0.0070 (0 0040-0 014)
13-14(27-29)
0015-0.026(0.029-0052)
0.027-0.047 (0.056-0 094)
0.00050(00010)
15-16(30-3!)
0052-0064(0 10-0 14)
0 00050-0 00 W (0 Oil 1 0-0 0060)
11 (22)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
032 (065)
0.14(0.28)
0067 (0 13)
0.028 (0055)
0071 (0.14)
0054 (0 11)
18(37)
39(7.8)
14 (27)
2.9(5.9)
0.018(0036)
9.4(19)
0.026 (0.052)
0.0083(0.017)
0.045 (0.089)
0.0045 (0.0090)
14(28)
0020(0.041)
0.035 (0 069)
000050(00010)
15(31)
0061 (0 12)
0.0017 (00031)
11 (22)
Ref
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-------
Table 4-12 (com.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber"
Wet scrubber"
Wet scrubber8-"
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
CO
NO,
C02
TOC as propane
Methane"
Benzene"
Toluene"
Ethyl benzene0
Xylene"
Banum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Filterable PM
PM-10
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
No of
test runs
2
2
2
4
9
12
9
13
13
13
13
13
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
C
C
C
B
A
A
A
B
• B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
0.060-0062(0.12-0.12)
0.0015-0 0040 (0.0030-0.0080)
12-12(24-25)
0.42-0.57(0.85-1 1)
0016-0.027(0032-0.054)
26-33(51-65)
00085-0.014(0.017-0.028)
8.1x1 0 5-0.0 1 0 (0 000 1 9-0.020)
7.5x 1 0^-2.9x 1 04 ( 1 .5x 1 0 '-SJxlO"1)
33x1 0 7-7 Ox 1 0 3 (6.6x 1 0 7- 1 4x 1 0 ')
3.9xlO'-1.9xl02(77xl07-3.8xlO;)
1.4xlO"-4.2xlO:(28xl06-8.4xl02)
6.4x1 07-8.3xl07( 1.3x10 "-1.7x10")
1 .4x 1 0'7-2.4x 1 0 7 (2.8x 1 0 7-4 8x 1 0 7)
1.6xlO-7-7.3xl07(32xl07-1.5xlO*)
9. 6x1 07- 1.0x10 "(1.9x1 0^-2.0x10*)
I.lxl07-9.5xl07 (2.2xl07-l 9x10^)
6.2x1 0^-8.0x1 0*(1.2x)05-l. 6x1 0s)
1 .7x 1 0 7-6.3x 1 0 " (3.3x 1 0 7- 1.3x1 0 5)
2.4x 1 0 "-4.0x 1 0 " (4.7x 1 0^-7.9x 1 0 ")
0.002-0.0035 (0.0039-0.0069)
000081-0.0011 (0.0016-0.0023)
0.0014-0 0034 (0 0028-0.0068)
0.00058-0.00065 (0 0012-0.0013)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)1
0061 (0 12)
0.0030 (0 0060)
12(24)
0.50(1 0)
0.020 (0.039)
28(55)
0.010(0.021)
0.0021 (00042)
9.6x10 5 (000019)
0.00099 (0.0020)
0.0028(00057)
0.0035 (0.0069)
7.3x10 7 (1.5x10")
1.9xl07(3 8xl07)
4.5xlO'7 (8.9x10")
9.9x10 7 (20x10^)
5.3xl07(l IxlO")
7.1xlO^(1.4xl05)
3.2x1 Q-6(6A\\Q(')
3. 2x10" (6.3x10")
0.0026 (0 0053)
00010(0.0020)
0.0021 (00042)
0.00061 (00012)
Rcf
No
15
15
15
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter"
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter11
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Matural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/
Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
Qumone
CO
NO,
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
3enzo(b)fluoranthene
3enzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrcne
Pyrenc
Hen/cne
Toluene
Formaldehyde
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
T
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5.0x 1 0 5-6.5x 1 0 ' (0.000 1 0-0.000 1 3)
0.00025-0.00044 (0.0005 1 -0.00088)
0.0012-0.0053 (0.0024-0.011)
5.0x 1 0 '-7.9x 10 ' (0.000 1 0-0.000 1 6)
2.3x I0'6-2.8x 1 0 5 (4.7x 1 0^-5. 7x 1 0 ')
7.5x 1 0*-2.4\ 1 0 ' ( 1 .5x 1 0 5-4.9x 1 0 ')
0.00091-0.0012 (0.0018-0.0023)
7.5x 1 0^-1 .6x 1 0 ' ( 1 .5x 1 0'5-3.2x 1 O'5)
7.0x 1 0 6-0.00039 ( 1 .4x 1 0 '-0.00078)
0.027-0.075 (0053-0.15)
0.010-0.016(0020-0031)
8. 5xlO-|u-4 4x1 07 (1.7x10 '-8.7x10')
8.5xl010-3.2xl07(1.7xlO'-63xl07)
1.7x10 '-9.5x10 "(3. 3x10 '-1. 9x10')
1.7xlO"-3.0xIO»(3 3xl09-60xl08)
8.5xlO'°-3.4xl08(1.7xl09-6.7xl08)
3 4xlO'-3.4xlO'8 (6.7xlO'9-6 7x10")
8.5xIO")-6.5xl07(1.7xlO''-1.3xlO<')
8.5x 1 0 -'"- 1 6x 1 0 ' ( 1 .7x 1 0 9-3.2x 1 0s)
60xl07-l 6xl06(l 2xl06-3 1x10")
1 7A!0'''-3.^x!')>(3 3xlO'-70xl08)
1 9xlO''-6 0\10 ' (3.7x10 '-0 00012)
2.5\!0>-5.5xl05(50xl()5-000011)
2 5xlOs-5 ^xlO' (5 OxIO '-0.00011)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
5 8x10 '(0.000 12)
0.00032 (0.00064)
0.0032 (0.0064)
6.4x10 '(0.00013)
1.5x10'' (3.0x10')
1.5xlO'(2.9xl05)
0.0010(0.0021)
1.2x10 '(2.4x10')
0.00014(0.00027)
0055(0.11)
0.013(0.026)
2.9x10 7 (5. 7x10 7)
1. 6x10 7 (3.2x10')
4.4x10-' (8. 8xl08)
l.lxlO'' (2 2xl08)
1.2xl08(2.4xl08)
2.2xl08(44xl08)
3.3xl07(6.5xl07)
9.5x10 6( 1. 9x10')
1 Ox IO-6 (20x10-*)
2.4x10* (4. 8x10")
3 5x10 s(7 Ox 10')
3 7x10 5 (7 3x10 s)
3 8x10' (7 6x10')
Ref.
No
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber8
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber8
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
SJarural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
>4o. 2 fuel oil
'Jo. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
•4o. 2 fuel oil
•io. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
>Jo. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Copper
Mercury
Vlanganese
Nickel
-ead
Selenium
Zinc
Total PM
:ormaldehyde
Total PM
•brmaldehyde
Total PM
:ormaldehyde
Filterable PM
;ormaldehyde
Filterable PM
7ormaldehyde
Total PM
No. of
test runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5. 5x10 8-l. 2x10* (1.1x10 7-2 3x10*)
1 6x10 »-4 7x10 7 (3.2x10 "-9.3x10 ')
1.0xl08-1.7xl07(2.0xl08-3.3xl07)
3.5xl07-l 2x 10 6 (7.0x10 J-2. 3x10")
1.2xl07-1.7xl07(2.3xl07-3 3xl07)
4 2xlO-'°-1.4xlO*(8 3xlO'°-2.7xl08)
9.0xl07-5.5xl06(l 8x10*- 1 IxIO5)
1.2xlO*-4.9xlO-7(2 3xlO"-9.7xlO-7)
1. 2x10 6-5 5x1 06 (2.4x1 0^-1. Ix 10 5)
I.5xl07-2.5xl0*(30xl07-50xl0*)
1 2x10 8-3.4xlO 7 (2.3x10 8-6.7xl07)
2.5x10 8-6.5xl 08{5.0xlO-8-1.3xl07)
1 3xlO*-8 Ox 10* (2.6x10*-! 6xl05)
0.20-0.22 (0.40-0.45)
0.0063-0010(0013-0.020)
0.32-0.40 (0.65-0.80)
0.0019-0.0021 (0.0037-0.0043)
0.027-0.032 (0.054-0.064)
0.00050-0.00055 (0.0010-0.0011)
0.0024-0.0030 (0.0047-0.0060)
7.9x10 '-0.0001 1 (0.00016-0.00021)
0.0025-0.0030 (0.0049-0.0061)
0.00076-0.00099 (0 0015-0.0020)
0.036-0.043 (0.073-0.085)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
60xl07(l 2x10")
1.7xlO'(3 3x10')
l.lxlO'7 (2 2x10')
65xlO-'(1.3xl()ft)
1 5x10' (3 OxIO 7)
4.9x10* (9 7x10")
2 7x10-' (5 3x10")
2 3xlO-7(45xl07)
2.9xl06(5.8xl06)
1.0xlO'6(2.0xl06)
I.9xl07(37xl07)
4.6x10 8 (-9.2x10 8)
3.7x10* (7 3x10^)
0.21 j(0.43)
0.0078(0016)
0.37(0.75)
0.0020 (0 0040)
0.029 (0.058)
0.00053(0.0011)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.00010(0.00019)
0.0027 (0 0054)
0.00088(0.0018)
0039(0078)
Ref.
No.
34
3-4
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fahnc filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Datura! gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Total PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Filterable PM
C02
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Bthylbenzene
Xylene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylctic
Accnaphthene
Fluorcnc
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
}
3
3
Data
rating
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
\
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)"
0.00084-00011 (0.0017-0.0021)
0.059-0062 (0.12-0.12)
0.00039-0 00050 (0 00078-0 0010)
0.018-0019(0.036-0.039)
0.0037-0.0049 (0.0073-0 0098)
0.077-0.12(0.15-0.24)
0.0029-0.0049 (0.0058-0 0098)
2.1xl07-1.0xl06(4.1xl07-2.0xlO-<1)
0.0014-0.0015 (0.0027-0 0030)
15-15(30-31)
0012-0.021 (0.023-0.042)
94-11 (19-21)
0.001 1-0.0040 (0.0022-0.0079)
0.0057-0.0083(0.011-0017)
NA
0.00041-0.00075 (0.00081-0.0015)
2.4x 1 0 5-0.00065 (4.8x 1 0 5-0.00 13)
4.8x10 5-0.0022 (9.5x10 5-0 0044)
24xl05-00012 (4.8x10 5-0.0024)
7 2xl05-0.0022 (0 00014-0.0044)
24xlOs-65xl05(4.7xl05-1.3xl04)
6.l\10-'-80xlO"(l 2x!0''-l 6x10'')
H OxiO'-l 5x10 "(1.6x10 "-3.0x10")
1 5xlO"-2.6xlO"(3.1xlO''-52xlO")
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.00097(0.0019)
0.061 (0.12)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.019(0.037)
0.0044 (0.0087)
0.093(0.19)
0.0039 (0 0079)
4.9xl07(9.9xI07)
0.0014(0.0028)
15(31)
0.017(0.033)
10(20)
0.0029 (0.0057)
00071 (0014)
0 0044 (0.0087)
000058(0.0012)
0.00025 (0.00050)
000076(00015)
0 00042 (0.00083)
000079(0.0016)
4.lxl05(8.lxl()5)
70xl(r(l 4\!'i'i
! OxlO"(2 l\10")
l.'JxlO6 (3.8x10")
Ref.
No.
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Vafural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
CO
CO2
SO,
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene"
Toluene"
Ethylbenzene"
Xylene"
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
No of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
c
C
c
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2 Ixl0''-3.7xl06(4.1xl06-75xl06)
2.0x 1 0 '-3 7x 1 0 7 (4 Ox 1 0 '-7 5x 1 0 7)
4.1xl08-70xlOs(8.2xlO«-l.4xlO-7)
3.3xl08-5.0xl0s(6.5xl0s-l.0xl07)
1.1x10"-!. 8x10 "(2. 2x10 '-3.5x10')
2.4x 1 0 9-3.7x 1 O'9 (4.8x1 0''-7.4x 1 0 9)
7.0x1 0'°-l.lxlO'( 1.4x10 '-2.2x1 09)
6 2x 1 0 5-2 5x 1 0"1 (0 000 1 2-0 00049)
0.0014-0 0024 (0 0028-0 0047)
3 6x 1 0 5-0.00085 (7 2x 1 0 s-0 00 1 7)
0.041-0 14(0.082-027)
19-22(39-45)
0.00093-0.0028 (0.0019-0.0056)
00082-0.014(0.016-0028)
0.0055-0016(0011-0.032)
0.0046-0 017 (0-0092-0.033)
0 00023-0 00028 (0 00046-0.00056)
0.00027-0.00033 (0.00054-0 00066)
0.0003 1 -0.00038 (0.00062-0.00076)
0.00031-0 00038 (0.00062-0.00076)
I.lxl05-1.4xl05 (2.2xl05-2 7xlOs)
1. 5x10 s-l. 9x10 s (2.9x10 5-3. 7x10 5)
7.8x10 7-l. 1x10 6( 1.6x10^-2.2x10*)
93xl07-l 2x10 6(1 9xlO('-2.5xl06)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
2.7xlO"(5 5xl06)
2.7x!07(5.3xl07)
5.3xlO»(l.lxlO;)
39xI08(7.8xl08)
1.4xlO'(2.8xlO')
3. 1x10" (6.3x10')
8.8x10 I0 (1.8x10')
0.00017(0.00035)
0.0017(0.0034)
000036(000071)
0095(0 19)
21 (43)
0.0017(00034)
0011 (0.022)
00095 (0.019)
0 0099 (0.02U)
0.00026 (0.00052)
0.00030(0.00061)
0 00035 (0.00070)
0.00035 (0 00070)
1 3xl05(2 5xl05)
1.6xl05(3.3xl05)
8.8xl07(l 8x10")
I.lxl06(2.2xl0")
Rcf
No
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
so
SO
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter8
Fabric filter
Fabric filler
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Pollutant
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
CO
C02
S02
NO,
TOC as propane
Methane
Benzene"
Toluene"
Ethylbenzene0
Xylene"
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Formaldehyde
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond organic PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
2
2
9
9
9
9
9
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
c
C
c
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.6xlO'-3 Ixl07(3.1xl07-6.2xl07)
3.1\lQ-5-7.9\\0>(6.Sx\0-i-\.6\\Q->)
0.0012-0 0026 (0.0023-0.0051)
0.001 1-0.0016 (0.0022-0.0032)
0.0044-0.0046 (0.0088-0.009!)
0.019-0065(0.038-0.13)
25-32 (50-63)
0.10-0 15 (021-0.30)
0.068-0 10(0 14-020)
0.015-0028(0030-0.056)
0 00013-0 0048 (0.00026-0 0096)
0.00055-0 00060 (0.001 1-0 0012)
0 00065-0.00070 (0.0013-0.0014)
0 00075-0.00080 (0.0015-0.0016)
0.00075-0.00080 (0 00 1 5-0.00 1 6)
1.7x1 0 s-2 9x 1 0s (3.4x 1 0 s-5.8x 1 0 5)
2.5x 10 5-3.5xl05 (4.9x10 5-6.9xl05)
1.3x1 0 5-2.4x 1 0 5 (2.6x 1 0 5-4.8x 1 0 5)
5.3x1 0 6-2.4x 1 0s ( 1 . 1 x 1 0 5-4.8x 1 0 5)
7.1xlO"-6.7xl05(1.4xl05-l 3xlOJ)
1.5xlOM.lxlO'(30xlO!-2 IxlO1)
0040-0055 (0079-0 I 1)
0 0049-0.020 (0 0047-0.039)
00070-0012(0014-0024)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
2 Ixl07(4 IxlO7)
6.2xlOs(l.2xl04)
00018(00037)
0.0013 (00027)
0.0045 (0.0090)
0 035 (0 069)
29 (59)
0.12(0.24)
0.084(0.17)
0.021 (0.043)
00022(00043)
000057(0.0011)
000068(0.0014)
0.00078(0.0016)
0.00078(00016)
22xl05(45xlOs)
3.0xl05(6.0xl05)
1.9xl05(3.7xl05)
1.2xl05(2.4xl05)
2.7xl05(5.5xlOs)
000040(000081)
0045 (0089)
0013 (0026)
00091 (0 018)
Ref.
No.
47
47
47
47
47
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
40
49
to
o
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Dual wet scrubbers
Dual wet scrubbers
Dual wet scrubbers
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
26
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
CO;
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
CO,
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
00070-0.025(0.014-0.051)
0.00030-0.00066 (0 00060-0 0013)
0 00096-0 0014 (0 0019-0 0029)
11-13(21-27)
0.14-0.17 (0.29-0.33)
0.0010-0.0027 (0.0021-0.0054)
14-17(29-34)
0040-0.051 (0.080-0.10)
0.0033-0.0061 (0.0066-0012)
15-19(30-38)
0.012-0017(0024-0.033)
0.0021-0 0034 (0.0042-0 0068)
11-12(22-24)
0 0034-0.0034 (0 0068-0.0068)
0 0012-0 0030 (0.0023-0.0059)
15-16(30-31)
0.011-0.013(0.021-0.027)
0.00034-0.0015 (0.00067-0.0030)
11-12(23-23)
0.059-0.10(0.12-0.20)
0.00075-0 00099 (0 0015-0 0020)
16-22(33-43)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)"
0016(0.031)
0.00050(00010)
0.0011 (0.0023)
12(24)
0.15(0.31)
00016(0.0032)
16(31)
0.044 (0 089)
0.0048 (0.0095)
18(35)
0.014(0.028)
0.0026(0.0051)
11 (23)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0 0020 (0 0039)
15(31)
0.012(0.025)
0.00091 (0.0018)
12(23)
0.078(0.16)
0.00090(0.0018)
19(39)
Ref
No
52
52
52
52
61
61
61
62
(61)
62
(61)
62
(61)
69
69
69
72
72
72
76
76
76
77
77
77
NJ
O
-------
Table 4-12 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
So. 6 fuel oil
^o. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
26
26
26
0
0
0
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
~ond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Tond. organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
S02
Sulfunc acid
Filterable I'M
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
D
D
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0028-0.0051 (0.0057-0010)
00012-0.0031 (0.0023-0.0062)
20-20(39-41)
0.14-0.21 (0.29-042)
0.0028-0.0078 (0.0055-0.016)
21-26(42-53)
0 0017-0.0022 (0.0033-0.0044)
0.003 1 -0.0036 (0 006 1 -0 0073 )
18-18(35-36)
0.0025-0011 (0.0050-0.022)
0 0021-0 0034 (0 0042-0.0068)
00026-00069(0.0051-0.014)
18-21 (36-42)
0.0059-0.013 (0.012-0.025)
00067-00087(0013-0.017)
0.0019-0 0020 (0 0037-0.0040)
52-53 (100-110)
0 0035-0.023 (0 0070-0.047)
95-12(19-25)
0.0028-0.048 (0.0056-0.095)
00074-0.018 (0015-0.035)
0014-0015 (0029-0029)
00045-0006(1(0.0091-0 012)
13-15(26-29)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0022 (0.0045)
20 (40)
0.17(0.34)
0.0046(0.0091)
23 (46)
0.0019(00039)
00034(0.0067)
18(36)
0.0059(0012)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0040 (0 008 1 )
19(38)
0.0082(0.016)
00080(0016)
' 0.0019(00039)
53(110)
0016(0032)
11(21)
0.027 (0.053)
0.013(0025)
0015 (0.029)
00053 (001 1)
14(28i
Ref.
No.
79
79
79
80
80
80
83
83
83
86
86
86
86
97
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
100
100
100
o
N)
-------
Table 4-12 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
SO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
CO,
Formaldehyde
No of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
B
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'1
0.043-0058 (0.086-0 12)
45-56(90-110)
00028-00036(00055-0.0071)
15-17(31-33)
0.036-0.048(0072-0097)
8 7-11 (17-22)
00019-00062(00038-0012)
7.7-11 (15-21)
0020-0.025 (0041-0.050)
14-15(28-30)
0015-0.031 (0031-0063)
0.0028-0 0045 (fl 0057-0.0089)
15-17(30-33)
0 0060-0.0087 (0 012-0.017)
31-38(63-76)
0014-0.021 (0028-0.042)
29-30 (57-59)
0.026-0.030(0.051-0.060)
17-22(33-45)
0.00083-0.0016 (0.0017-0.0032)
0.00026-000051 (0.00051-00010)
0.00045-0 00079 (0.00089-0 0016)
18-20(35-39)
0.0014-0.0025 (0.0028-0.0051)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)J
0050(0 10)
45 (91)
0.0033 (00065)
16(32)
0.041 (0082)
10(20)
0 0044 (0.0088)
88(18)
0.023 (0.046)
15(29)
0 022 (0 043)
0 0038 (0.0076)
16(32)
0.0072 (0.014)
34 (69)
0.017(0.034)
29(58)
0028(0057)
19(37)
00012(0.0024)
0.00040 (0.00080)
0.00058 (0.0012)
19(37)
0.0019(0.0038)
Ref
No
106
106
110
110
111
111
113
113
126
126
126
135
135
138
138
139
139
140
140
143
143
143
143
143
-t*
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No.v2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
So. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
So 2 fuel 01!
SJatural gas
Matural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF)
u
I)
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
C02
Filterable PM
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
CO
TOC as propane
C02
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
"ond inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
Cond inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond uioiganic PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
-<
j
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
C
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 15-026(030-052)
0 00068-0.0012 (0.0014-0.0025)
0 00085-0 00 1 8 (0 00 1 7-0 003 7)
19-22(38-43)
0.052-0059(0.10-0.12)
0.0050-0.0054(0.010-0011)
13-15(25-30)
0.026-0.030 (0.053-0.060)
0.15-0.21 (029-0.42)
3.0-52(60-10)
42-49 (84-99)
0.011-0.011 (0.021-0.023)
0.00014-0 00042 (0.00027-0 00084)
0 00049-0.00069 (0.00099-0 0014)
23-26 (47-53)
000072-0.023(0.0014-0.045)
0-0.012(0-0024)
0.019-0.062(0037-0 12)
15-20(29-39)
0.00083-0.0020 (0 0017-0 0039)
0.0003 VO 00091 (0 00066-0 0018)
IO--M) (20-41 i
0.0023-0.004? (0 0046-0 0084)
0 00084-0 0022 (0.0017-0.0044)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.20 (0 40)
000093 (0.0019)
00014(0.0029)
20(41)
0.055 (0.11)
0.0052(0010)
14(28)
0028(0057)
0.19(0.37)
4.0(8.0)
47 (93)
0.011 (0022)
0.00028 (0.00056)
000059 (0.0012)
25 (50)
0014(0027)
0.0040 (0 0080)
0033(0066)
16(32)
0.0014(00027)
000061 (00012)
16(31)
0.0032 (00064)
0.0017 (00034)
Rcf
No
145
145
145
145
155
155
155
161
161
161
161
165
165
165
165
170
170
170
170
181
181
1SI
176
176
N)
O
-------
Table 4-12 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 4 waste oil
No 4 waste oil
No 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel
No. 2 fuel
No.2 fuel
No.2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Dropane
'ropane
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
Reprocessed
oil
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Lead
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
I'ond inorganic PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
No of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
c
C
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
000035-000051 (0.00071-0.0010)
17-19(33-38)
0.011-0017(0021-0.035)
7 1-12(14-25)
1 3xl06-6.0xlOj6(2.7xlO*-1.2xl05)
0.036-0051 (0073-0 10)
26-29(52-58)
0 0025-0.0032 (0 0050-0 0064)
16-18(31-37)
0.00096-0 0019 (0 0019-0 0038)
00027-00065(00053-0013)
6.1-16(12-33)
0.005 1 -0 0079 (0.0 1 0-0.0 1 6)
15-15(29-30)
0053-0057(0 11-0.11)
19-22(38-43)
0 0040-0 0064 (0 008 1 -0 0 1 3 )
18-20(37-40)
0.0027-0.0035 (0.0053-0.0070)
14-18(29-36)
0.0048-0.0060 (0 0096-0.012)
98-10(20-20)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 00042 (0.00084)
18(36)
0014(0027)
10(20)
3. 1x10 6 (6. 2x10 6)
0042(0085)
28(55)
0 0028 (0.0057)
17(34)
00013(00026)
0 0040 (0.0080)
12(24)
0.0070(0.014)
15(30)
0 056 (Oil)
20 (40)
0 0049 (0 0099)
19(38)
0.0032 (0.0064)
16(31)
0.0054(0.011)
10(20)
Ret
No
176
176
177
177
177
184
184
188
188
193
193
193
199
199
200
200
201
201
202
202
203
203
-t*
o
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Vatural gas
Natural gas
Coal/
iquid propane
Coal/
iquid propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
22
"O
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
CO
Filterable PM
Cond. inorganic PM
C02
CO
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable I'M
CO,
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
j
1
}
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 0041-0.0047 (0.0082-0.0093)
18-19(36-38)
051-0.74(1 0-1.5)
0.014-0.021 (0028-0042)
00023-0.0086(0.0046-0.017)
18-23(37-46)
0013-0.016(0.027-0.032)
14-15(28-30)
0.39-0.42 (0.79-0.85)
0.028-0.033(0055-0065)
0.063-0068(0.13-0.14)
20-25(39-51)
0.70-082(1 4-1.7)
0.21-0.23 (041-0.47)
0051-0.057 (1.0E-1-1.1E-1)
15-16(29-31)
0.61-061 (1.2-1 2)
00074-0.0086(0015-0017)
6.1-87(12-17)
00024-00071 (0.0049-0014)
!7-?3 (31-47)
NA
029-5 1 (059-10)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0043 (0 0086)
18(37)
0.65(1 3)
0.016(0033)
0.0061 (0.012)
20(41)
0.015 (0029)
15(29)
0.41 (0.82)
0030(0.061)
0.065(0.13)
22 (44)
0.78(1 6)
0.22 (0.43)
0.053(0.11)
15(30)
0.61 (1.2)
00080(0016)
68(14)
0 0043 (0 0086)
19(39)
0018(0036)
?4(69)
Ref
No
204
204
204
213
213
213
215
215
215
216
216
216
216
217
217
217
217
219
219
220
220
22?.
222
KJ
o
Ov
-------
Table 4-12 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Matural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
'ropane
'ropane
'ropane
*!o. 2 fuel oil
>Jo. 2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
"Jo. 2 fuel oil
•Jo. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
C02
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO2
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
Cond inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
Cond. organic PM
^ond. inorganic PM
CO2
No of
test runs
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
• C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 0038-0 0049 (0 0075-0 0097)
75-79(150-160)
0 0032-0.0045 (0.0065-0.0089)
52-54(100-110)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16-22(33-45)
0 0035-0 0058 (0 0070-0 012)
0.0014-0.0081 (00029-0016)
14-21 (28-43)
0 0032-0.0049 (0 0064-0.0098)
14-18(27-36)
0 00 1 1 -0 00 1 9 (0 0022-0 0038)
0-1 8x10 5 (0-3 5x10 5)
0 0004 1 -0.003 1 (0 00083-0 0062)
19-21 (38-42)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)J
00044(0.0088)
78(160)
0 0039 (0.0079)
53 (110)
13(25)
14(28)
14(28)
16(31)
7.5(15)
12(23)
14(27)
00047(00093)
0.00013 (000027)
0.00036(0.00073)
19(37)
0.0049 (0 0097)
00038 (00076)
17(34)
0.0040 (0.0080)
16(31)
0.0016(00031)
5.9xlO-6( 1.2x10°)
00021 (00042)
20 (40)
Rcf
No.
224
224
225
225
231
232
233
234
235
237
238
239
239
239
239
240
240
240
248
248
249
249
249
249
K)
O
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
"Jo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
^Jo. 2 fuel oil
^o 2 fuel oii
vio. 2 fuel oil
•)
1 .6x 1 0 7-2.0x 1 0 7 (3.2x 1 0 7-3.9x 1 O'7)
3.3xl07-l Oxl()''(65xl07-2 IxlO6)
2.1x1 0 7-3 8x 1 0 7 (4.2x 1 0 7-7.6x 1 O'7)
21x1 0 7-8.8x 1 0 7 (4.2x 1 0 7- 1 .8x 1 O'6)
t.3xlO"6-7.1xlO-* (2.6x1 0^-1 4xl05)
5.9x 1 0 8-l .2x 1 0 7 ( 1 2x 1 0'7-2.3x 1 0 7)
2.9x1 0 8-6.0x 1 0 8 (5 8x 1 0 8- 1 .2x 1 0 7)
1 .7x 1 0 7-4.5x 1 0 7 (3.3x1 0 7-8.9x 1 0'7)
9 Ox 1 0 5-0.000 1 7 (0.000 1 8-0.00033 )
0.028-0039(0.055-0.078)
0.0052-0016(0.010-0031)
4 5x 10 s-0 0001 2 (8 9x 10 s-0 00023)
15- IK (30-37)
2.7x 1 0 "-7(1x10'' (5 4\10*-l 4x 1 0 51
12x10 "-2 Ixl08(64xl0"-4.1xl0s)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0.033 (0.065)
19(38)
0.0014(0.0029)
14(27)
3.3xl08(6.7xl08)
3.8xTO8(7.5xl08)
4.8xl08 (9.7x10 8)
5.6xl07 (1.1x10*)
4.6x 10 7 (9.2x1 07)
1.8xl07(3.6xl07)
5 7xlO-7 (1.2x10")
2.7xl07 (5.4x10 7)
4.4x10 7 (8. 8x10 7)
34xl06(6.8xl06)
95xl08(I.9xl07)
43xl08(86xl08)
2.6xl07(5.2xI07)
0.00012 (0.00024)
0031 (0.061)
0.011 (0.021)
84x10^(000017)
17(33)
54xlO"(l IxlO')
1 0x10" (2 OxIO")
Rcf
No.
250
250
253
253
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
276
^26
226
NJ
O
oo
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
So 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Fluorenc
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Benz(a)Anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Cond organic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
4.7x1 0-'- 1 5x 1 0 8 (9 4x 1 0 '-3 Ox 1 O'8)
4.5x 1 0 a-2.3x 1 0 ' (89x1 (VM 6x 1 0'7)
2 5x10 '-5 5xl07(49xl07-l.lxl06)
5.5xlO"-l.3xl08(l 1x10 »-2. 5x10")
2 7x10"-65xl08(5.3xl08-l 3xl07)
1 8xJ08-42\IO*(3 5xl08-84xlO*)
5 Ox 1 0 I0-8.0x 10'° (9.9x 1 0 '"- 1 .6x 1 0'*)
2 IxlOM 5xlO*(4 lxlO-*-8 9x10')
2.9x10 '"-6 Ox 10 '(5 7xlO-'"-l 2x10")
1 .8x 1 0-'°- 1 Jx 1 0 -' (3 5x 1 0 l()-2.6x 1 0 ")
1. 3x10 I0-l. 8x10 "> (2. 5x10 lu-3. 5x10 10)
2.4x10 I0-2.6x 10'° (4.7x10 I0- 5 2x10 lo)
30xlO-|i-8.0xlO-"(60xlO"-l 6x10 lo)
1 5x10 IO-I 5xlO'°(2.9xlO-")-30xlO-"))
0 0013-0 0019 (0.0027-0 0038)
4.9-5 1 (9.7-10)
0 0034-0.0067 (0 0069-0.014)
0-0.00013 (0-000027)
000066-00018(0.0013-0.0036)
15-16(29-31)
0.0052-0 0069 (0.010-0.014)
13-14(27-28)
0 0036-0 0053 (0.007 1 -0.0 1 1 )
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
1 Ox 10-" (2 1x10-")
1.4xl07(27xl07)
37xl07(73xl07)
8.3xlO"(1.7xl08)
4.4x1 0"(8.7x 10 8)
3 Ox 10* (5.9x10*)
6 1x10 lo( 1.2x10-*)
3.2x10" (6 3x10')
2. 2x10" (4 5x10")
5.6xlO'°(l.lxlOv)
1 6x10 '"(3. IxlO1")
2.5xlO")(50xlO'°)
4.8x10" (9.5x10")
1.5xlO'°(.30xl010)
00017(0.0034)
5.0(10)
0.0050(0010)
5.4x10 '(000011)
0.0012(0.0025)
15(30)
0.0060(0.012)
14(27)
0.0045 (00091)
Rcf
No.
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
256
256
261
261
261
261
263
263
265
K)
O
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Reprocessed
No 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed
No 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
NO
0
0
Pollutant
Back half PM (acetone)
Back half PM (water)
CO,
Filterable PM
Back Hal fPM (acetone)
Back Half PM (solubles)
C02
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
CO;
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
CO,
to.
Filterable PM
(O,
No. of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3-
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
!
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
NR
B
B
A
A
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0 0012-0.0027 (0.0024-0.0054)
0.019-0021 (0.038-0.043)
12-17(25-33)
0.0055-0.0077(0011-0.015)
0.00084-0.0016 (0 0017-0.0032)
4.0x 1 0 5-5.4x 1 0 5 (8. 1 x 1 0's-0.000 1 1 )
8.6-11 (17-22)
0 0024-0 0046 (0.0047-0.0091 )
20-22 (40-45)
0.0020-0.0025 (0.0039-0.0050)
9.6-14(19-27)
0.0079-0.0093 (0.016-0.019)
19-20(37-39)
0.0048-0.0076(00097-0.015)
8.3-9.1 (17-18)
0 0022-0.0023 (0 0044-0 0047)
NA
NA
NA
NA
00045-00054(00089-001 1)
32-33 (63-66)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
00018(0.0035)
0.020 <0.040)
15(30)
0.0068 (0.014)
0.001 1 (0.0022)
4.7x 10 5 (95x10=)
10(20)
0.0035 (0 0070)
21 (42)
0 0023 (0 0046)
12(24)
00086(0.017)
19(38)
00062 (0012)
8.7(17)
00023 (0.0045)
16(32)
0011 (0021)
12(24)
17(34)
00051 (0010)
32 (64)
Ref
No
265
265
265
264
264
264
264
271
271
274
274
275
275
276
276
276
277
277
?7S
279
281
2S1
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Cond inorganic PM
C02
C02
CO2
CO,
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
CO
No. of
tost runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0015-0 0024 (0.0030-0 0048)
00059-0010(0012-0021)
13-15(25-29)
0.11-0.14(0.23-0.28)
0.032-0037(0.065-0.074)
0.022-0.025 (0.043-0 050)
17-17(33-33)
0.021-0023 (0042-0.046)
90-23 (18-45)
000086-0.0021 (0.0017-0.0043)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.047-0058(0094-0.12)
42-58(83-120)
00066-0016(0013-0.032)
0045-0054(0.090-0.11)
29-30 (58-60)
0 0038-0.0069 (0.0076-0.014)
0014-0.016(0.028-0.031)
22-32 (44-63)
038-0.42(0.77-0.84)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
00018 (00037)
00085(0017)
14(27)
0.13(0.25)
0.034 (0.068)
0.023 (0.046)
17(33)
0.022 (0.044)
15(29)
0.0017(00034)
12(24)
10(20)
7.0(14)
8.8(18)
H (22)
0052(0 10)
49 (98)
0010(0.021)
0.049 (0.098)
30 (59)
0.0056(0011)
0.015 (0.029)
26(51)
0.40 (0 80)
Ref
No
281
282
282
282
282
283
283
284
284
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
290
290
291
291
291
296
296
296
K)
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO2
CO,
Filterable PM
C02
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
(0
Lead
No. of
test runs
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)"
0022-0.025(0.044-0051)
16-21 (33-43)
0.0026-0.0033 (0.0052-0.0067)
24-27 (49-53)
NA
NA
NA
NA
00068-0.013 (0014-0.026)
58-96(12-19)
0038-0054(0076-0.1 1)
21-21 (41-42)
0.002 1 -0.0028 (0 004 1 -0.0056)
0.0098-0.012 (0.020-0.024)
6.3-6.8(13-14)
0 0001 1-0.0033 (0 00022-0 0066)
0.0051-0.0092(0.010-0.018)
62-67(12-14)
0.0070-0.017(0.014-0.035)
17-.17(34-34)
0.0015-0.0021 (0.0030-00042)
00039-0 0077 (00078-0 01 5)
1 3- 15 (2ft- V))
i 5\l()7-3 8xlO"(l 5x10 "-7 6x10")
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
0.024 (0 048)
19(37)
0.0030 (0.0060)
25 (50)
41 (82)
0.059(0.12)
57(110)
0 11 (021)
00091 (0018)
82(16)
0046(0091)
21 (42)
0.0024 (0 0049)
0.011 (0.021)
6.6(13)
0.0018(0.0036)
00075 (0015)
6.4(13)
0011 (0.021)
17(34)
0.0018(00036)
00054(001 !)
I»l27)
1 9x10'' (3 7x10")
Rcf
No.
302
302
304
304
306
307
307
307
308
308
310
310
310
312
312
312
313
313
314
314
314
317
317
317
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
'ropane
^ropane
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
10
10
10
10
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
CO;
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Lead
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
CO,
Filterable PM
No of
test runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
• A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)3
0 0019-0.0042 (0.0039-0 0085)
15-16(31-32)
I 7x10 "-1.8x10-" (3. 5x10 "-3. 5x10")
00066-0010(0.013-0020)
16-18(33-35)
1 8xlO"-2.lxlO"(3 6xlO"-4 IxlO6)
0.0043-0 0065 (0 0085-0 013)
18-19(37-37)
00057-0012 (0.011-0024) •
15-17(29-33)
5. IxlO "-8 7x10 "(1. Ox 10 5-l. 7x10 5)
00055-00069(0011-0.014)
23-27 (46-53)
0.011-0017(0023-0034)
8.4-97(17-20)
0.0061-0014(0.012-0.028)
0 00095-0 0012 (0.0019-0 0024)
00068-0012(0014-0025)
19-26(38-52)
0.0010-0.0022 (0.0020-0.0045)
24-3 1 (47-62)
0.0019-0.011 (00038-0022)
13-15(25-30)
0.00078-0.0014 (0.0016-0.0027)
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton )*
0 0028 (0 0055)
16(31)
1.7x10" (3. 5x10")
00080(0.016)
17(34)
1.9x10-* (3.8x10-")
0.0053 (0011)
19(37)
0.0084(0.017)
15(31)
7.0xlO('(l 4xl05)
0.0062(0013)
25(50)
0.014(0028)
9.0(18)
0.0096(0019)
00011 (00021)
00094(0.019)
24 (47)
0.0016(0.0033)
28(55)
0.0064(0.013)
14(28)
0.0012(00023)
Ref
No
318
318
318
319
319
319
320
320
321
321
321
323
323
325
325
325
325
326
326
327
327
328
328
331
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
None
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Coal/ nat gas
Coal/ nat. gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
CO,
Cond. inorganic PM
Filterable PM
CO,
CO,
CO
C02
CO
CO,
CO
Filterable PM
C02
Benzene
Formaldehyde
SO,
CO,
Filterable PM
Condensable inorg PM
Condensable org. PM
Total condensable PM
Filterable PM
CO;
Filterable PM-1 5
Filterable PM-10
No of
test runs
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.3
3
3
ND
ND
Data
rating
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
12-19(24-37)
0.00047-0.00087 (0.00094-0.0017)
0 0026-0 0032 (0.0052-0.0063)
9.9-11 (20-23)
10- 13 (21 -26)
0.011 -0.027(0021 -0.055)
10- 13(33-34)
0.053-0058(0.11 -0 12)
14- 15(28-29)
0044-0.057(0089-0.11)
00041 -0.0051 (0.0083-0010)
15- 16(31 -j31)
0.00016 - 0.00020 (0 00033 - 0 00039)
0 00064 - 0 00080 (0.0013 - 0 0016)
0.0010-00015 (0.0021 -0.0031)
17- 18(33-36)
0067-0.010(0.13-0.21)
0.00064 - 0.0016 (0 0013-0 0033)
0 00024 - 0 00 1 3 (0.00047 - 0 0026)
0.001 1 - 0.0022 (0 0023 - 0.0044)
0 0016-0 0032 (0 0032-0 0065)
d-l-i8 (13-35)
ND
ND
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
15(31)
0.00063(00013)
00029(00057)
II (21)
12(23)
0.0f9(0039)
17(33)
0.056(0 1 1)
15(29)
0.052 (0.10)
0 0045 (0 0090)
16(31)
0.00018(0.00036)
000074(0.0015)
00013 (00027)
17(35)
0.088(0.18)
00011 (0.0021)
0.00068 (00014)
00017(0.0035)
0 0024 (0.0047)
12(24)
23% nf fill PM
14% of fill PM
Ref
No.
331
331
336
336
370
370
378
378
381
381
382
382
382'
382
385
385
385
385
385
385
195
195
1 1
23
-fc.
E
-------
Table 4-12 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM-15
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM-1
No of
test runs
ND
ND
1
1
1
1
1
Data
rating
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
Emission factor range, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/tonp
3 5% of filt PM
0.83% of filt PM
47% of fill PM
40% of filt PM
36% of filt. PM
33% of fill. PM
30% of filt. PM
Ref
No
23
23
23"
23'
23r
23"
23r
ND = No data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced.
Emission factors developed from data collected during a plant survey.
c Plant 2.
d Plant 4.
c Plants.
f Plant O.
8 Control device may provide only incidental control
h Plant U.
1 Plant X.
J Plant AA.
k Plant BB.
1 Plant DD.
m Plant EE.
" Plant FF.
0 Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
p Secondary data from Reference 26 within Reference 23.
-------
Table 4-13. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTION
DRUM MIX FACILITY-HOT OIL HEATERS
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Mo 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
TCDF (total)
PCDF (total)
HxCDF (total)
HpCDF (total)
1, 2,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDF
OCDF
HxCDD (total)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
f
HpCDD (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
Formaldehyde
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
ratine
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
Emission factor range,
kg/1 (ib/gal) fuef
consumed
1 2xlO-6-2.8xlO-<
(1 lxlO-5-2.3xlO-<)
1 7xl08-3.0xlO-*
(1.4xlO-'-2.5xlO-n)
6.2x1 0's-6.7xl0-k
<5.2xlO-7-56xlO'7)
1.6xlO-7-46xlO~
(1 3xlO-6-3 SxlO'6)
48xlO-7-8.2xlO-7
(40xlO-6-68xlO*)
1.7xlO-"-2.9xlO-«
(1 4xl07-24x!(y7)
34xlO-*-6.2xlOy
(2.8xlO-*-52xlO-K)
3.2xlO-"-4.7xlO-u
(2.7xlO-»-3.9xlO-»)
7.2x1 0-*-1.8xlO-8
(60xlO'8-l 5xlO'7)
67xlO-'4-82xlO-13
(5.6xlO-"-68xlO-12)
2.4x1 0-'"-1.2xlO-'3
(20xlO-|3-1.0xlO-12)
1.6xlO-|4-5.8xlO-13
(1.3xlO-l3-48xlO-2)
3.8xlO-|4-2.6xlO-'2
(3.2xlO-|3-22xlO")
94xlO-|4-t.OxlO-12
(76xlO-'3-8.4xlO-12)
1.2xlO-13-3.7xlO-12
(1.0xlO-'2-3 IxlO'")
2.3xlO-|3-1.3xlO-12
(1.9xlO-|2-l.lxlO-")
3 SxlO'14-! 2x10 l3
(3.2xlO-"-l OxlO-12)
3.8xlO-|4-l.lxlO-13
(3.2xlO-|3-9.2xlO'13)
1.7xlO-|3-6.7xlO-12
(1.4xlO-'2-5.6xlO")
1.7xlO-|3-4.6xlO-12
(1.4xlO-|2-3.8xlO-")
1.2xlO-|2-5.3xlO-"
(1.0xlO-"-44xlO-'°)
0.0019-0.0053
(0.016-0.044)
Average emission
factor, kg- 1 < Ib.'gal 1
fuel consumed
2.0x1 0-"il "xlO5)
2.4x 1 0'k ( 2 0\ 1()"'.
6.4x10 "(5.3x10")
2. 8x10" (2 3x10"!
5.9x10 7 (4 9x10°)
2.2x10'' (1 8x!0- '
5.3x10-" (4.4x10 ")
3.8xlO-"(32\10-8)
1.2xlO-8(l OxlO-7)
4.0xlO'nO 3x10 i:)
5.8xlO-|4(4 8xlO'n)
2.4x IQ-'M 2.0.x 10-':)
1.2xlO'2(97xlO':i
4.2x10 i: (? 5x10 i:)
1.4xlO-;- (1 2\10-i;)
7.4xlO'n (6.2x10''-)
9 IxlO'14 (7 6x10'")
8.3xlO-'4(6.9xlO-n)
2.4xlO-12 (2.0x10")
1.8x10 ''(1 5x10-")
1.9x10-" (1 6x10'°)
0.0032(0027)
Rcf
No
35
35
15
35
35
'^ ^
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
3^
35
•;-;
35
35
35
4-216
-------
Table 4-14. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Propane
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Fuel oil
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
11
20
0
0
0
0
ND
0
52
0
0
0
35
0
0
20
50
0
20
10
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
'(lb/ton)a
0.00059(0.0012)
0.00077(0.0015)
0.00094(0.0019)
0.0010(0.0021)
0.0011 (0.0022)
0.0011 (0.0023)
0.0012(00023)
0.0014(0.0027)
0.0016(0.0032)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0018(0.0035)
0.0018 (0.0036)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0019(0.0039)
0.0021 (0.0043)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0031 (0.0062)
0.0034 (0.0068)
0.0035 (0.0070)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0041 (0.0083)
0.0042 (0.0083)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.0037 (0.0074), A
Ref. No.
262
349
85
48
388
173
206
292
63
87
309
330
•142
130
119
254
81
125
252
268
316
311
4^
~-J
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventui i scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fiiel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
ND
Coal/natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Butane
Propane
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Coal/natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
0
0
0
50
30
NDb
0
NDb
30
20
20
0
28
20
0
30
32
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0047 (0 0093)
0.0059(0012)
0.0061 (0.012)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0082 (0.016)
0.0084(0.017)
0.010(0.020)
0.014(0.027)
0.021 (0.041)
0.025 (0.050)
0.042 (0.083)
0.00018(0.00035)
0.00021 (0.00042)
0.00030 (0.00059)
0.00036(0.00071)
0.00031 (0.00061)
0.00040(0.00081)
0.00042 (0.00083)
0.00053(0.0011)
0.0010(00020)
0.0012(0.0023)
0.0013(0.0026)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.029 (0.058), E
0.0059(0.012), A
Ref. No.
251
94
133
28
132
101
148
25
36
37
37
65
254
349
48
51
252
133
56
55
n?
85
-------
Table 4-14 (com.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
10
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
42
50
44
52
0
NDb
40
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3,2,3,3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0014(0.0028)
0.0014(0.0029)
0.0015(0.0029)
0.0016(0.0032)
0.0017(0.0033)
0.0020 (0.0039)
0.0021 (0.0043)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0029 (0.0059)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0032 (0.0063)
0.0033 (0.0066)
0.0057(0.011)
0.0065(0.013)
0.0069 (0.014)
0.0070 (0.014)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.0090(0.018)
00093(0.019)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
268
70
388
25
71
130
94
330
101
251
132
78
125
75
87
82
81
54
63
57-60
36
64
to
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Butane
Coal/natural gas
Coal/ natural gas
Waste oil
Fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
31
0,NDb
11
18
48
31
35
0,46
30
13
35
30
0
0
25
0
0
20
0
23
0
25
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. PM
Cond. PM
Cond. PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3,3
3
3
3
3
3
2,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B,A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0095(0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.011 (0.022)
0.013(0.026)
0.020(0.041)
0.021 (0.042)
0.029 (0.058)
0.037 (0.074)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.00048 (0.00096)
0.010(0.019)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0060(0.012)
0.00044 (0.00089)
0.00058(0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00062 (0.0012)
0.00067(0.0013)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00083(0.0017)
000087(00017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
-
0.0041 (0.0082), NR
0.0067 (0.014), A
Ref. No.
73
37
262
74
68
53
142
67
44
45
50
65
133
190
40
292
335
341
40
384
242
373
to
to
o
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
20
0
15
30
48
0
35
0
0
ND
0
42
40
ND
22
23
0
6
12
ND
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.00098 (0 0020)
0.00096(0.0019)
0.0010(00020)
0.0011 (0.0022)
0.0012(0.0023)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0013 (0.0027)
0.0013(0.0026)
0.0015(0.0029)
0.0015 (0.0030)
0.00 16' (0.0033)
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019 (0.0037)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0019(0.0038)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0021 (0.0042)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
40
269
349
257
383
295
68
118
50
330
223
182
267
82
40
206
124
343
114
198
117
89
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
52
20
0
26
45
50
31
0
25
40
30
0
10
0
13
0
0
10
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.0025 (0.0049)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0025 (0.0050)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0026 (0.0052)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0.0027 (0.0053)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0030 (0.0060)
0.0030 (0 0059)
0.0030 (0.0059)
0.0031 (0.0063)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
160
28
63
342
147
107
40
31
73
130
372
40
25
48
345
293
45
91
309
294
71
154
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
Propane
Waste oil
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
40
0
18
30
28
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
40
0
0
0
0
ND
52
24
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0032 (0.0063)
0.0033 (0.0065)
0.0035(0.0071)
0.0036(0.0071)
0.0036 (0.0072)
0.0036 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0075)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0038 (0.0077)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0.0041 (0.0081)
0.0044 (0.0088)
0.0046(0.0091)
0.0046 (0.0092)
0.0047 (0.0094)
0.0047 (0.0095)
0.0048 (0.0097)
0.0048 (0.0097)
0.0049 (0.0098)
0.0049 (0.0097)
0.0050 (0.0099)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
175
178
40
329
74
168
51
348
252
92
171
167
78
375
64
387
221
180
128
209
40
371
-fx
K)
-------
Table 4-14 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil &
natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
32
0
20
0
0
30
44
0
15
31
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
50
0
10
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0050(0.010)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0050(0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
0.0051 (0.010)
00052(0.010)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0053(0.011)
0.0054(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0056(0.011)
0.0057(0.011)
00059(0012)
0.0061 (0.012)
00062(0.012)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
55
149
350
334
125
44
54
376
103
52
260
273
137
298
192
197
354
81
84
315
297
-P>
K)
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Drain oil
Coal/ natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18
0
10
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
20
23
0
30
0
10
0
35
30
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3 •
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0062(0.012)
0.0063(0.013)
0.0064(0.013)
0.0064(0.013)
0.0065(0.013)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0069(0.014)
0.0072(0.014)
0.0073(0.015)
0.0076(0.015)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0078(0.016)
0.0078(0.016)
0.0078(0.016)
0.0079(0.016)
0.0082(0.016)
0.0083(0.017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
340
95
210
347
189
121
316
122
311
40
377
339
112
40
388
236
123
40
25
174
105
to
K)
-------
Table 4-14 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Propane, natural
gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
ND
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Percent
RAP
used
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
38
ND
ND
6.9
14
0
10
0
ND
0
33
20
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
2,3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B,A
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
A
A
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.0083(0.017)
0.0083(0.017)
0.0084(0.017)
0.0084(0.017)
0.0085(0.017)
0.0088(0.018)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0096(0.019)
0.010(0.021)
0.010(0.020)
0.010(0.021)
0.010(0.021)
0.011 (0.022)
0.011 (0.023)
0.011 (0.022)
0.011 (0.021)
0012(0.024)
0012(0.024)
0.012(0.024)
0.012(0.023)
0.013(0.025)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
303
344
245, 247
173
27
31
101
104
300
144
214
374
246
205
40
351
94
229
218
13
254
.p.
NJ
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
abnc -filter
(Plant A)
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Coal/natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
ND
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Nn O A.^l rtil
o. i tucl oil,
natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
24
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
20
15- Run
I, 0-Run
2
10
ND
0
0
xir-v
rVJL/
0,NDb
NDb
50
0,10
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
F
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
None
None
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
\
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
18
0
0
0
o,
25-run 4
ND
0
0
0
11
50
0
0
0
0
0
46,0
0
0,NDb
f)
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
2
3
2
3
3
3,4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3,3
3
3
3,2
3
3.3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A,B
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
25 (50)
36(73)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0022 (0.0045)
0.0046 (0.0093)
0.0049 (0.0098)
0.0062(0.012)
0.0064(0.013)
0.0068 (0.014)
0.0070(0.014)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.0072(0.014)
0.0076(0.015)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0081 (0.016)
0.0087(0.017)
0.0090(0.018)
0.0092(0.019)
0.0098 (0.020)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
0.013(0.026), A
Ref. No.
31
340
255
96
322
211,212
251
187
87
324
262
148
243
258
332, 333
29
259
67
172
37
W
K)
oo
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Venruri scrubber
\/ nti -i r nil-iKjrr
VCIIlUll iClUDUd
None
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 5 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas/ coal
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil/coal
No. 6 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
Nn ji. i :i
o. i niel oil
ND
Percent
RAP
used
31
35
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
NDb
XTTA
1N1J
30
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
riit-r*i-ii» PM
Filterable PM- 15
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3,2,3,3
3
3
a
4
Data
rating
A
B
A
B
B,A
C
B
A
C
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A,B,A,A
C
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.010(0.021)
0.012(0.024)
0.012(0.024)
0.012(0.024)
0.013(0.026)
0.014(0.027)
0.014(0.027)
0.015 (0.030)
0.016(0.032)
0.018(0.036)
0.018(0.036)
0.020 (0.040)
0.022 (0.044)
0 026 (0.052)
0.027 (0.053)
0.036 (0.072)
0.046 (0.092)
0.048 (0.097)
0.049 (0.097)
0 TO CO TiOl
27% of flit. PM
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
27% of filt. PM,
3.8(7.6), E
Ref. No.
146
142
141
32
179, 183
85
88
266
40
268
119
70
241
75
109
108
57-60
191
36
\^
23
-f..
to
^o
-------
Table 4-14 (com.)
Type of control
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
abnc inter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
yClUliC \n
h- l^.-^
IV-HMH*
PuTTIC
Fuel fired
ND
ND
ND
Waste oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
M n
NIJ
XIT-V
INL>
Percent
RAP
used
30
30
30
30
1/i
JU
ND
30
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
vi n
™ L/
xxjri
1N1J
Pollutant
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM-10
r;it I-^MJ- T*\jf i n
i ntcramc i M"iu
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-10
PM-1
PM-1
PM-2.5
PM-2.5
PM-2.5
T*t+-*l l>\4
OT.T! 1 IVl
T.-.+*! DX4
Ji oral i ivi
No. of
test
runs
4
4
4
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
\yr-v
INL>
>ir»
1N1J
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
23% of filt. PM
5. 5% of fill. PM
35% of fill. PM
0.0026 (0.0052)
32. 5% of filt. PM
n nni 1 ^n nn~*~u
NA f«i* n\jf j-i-it^
O Tilt. 1 M uatJ
0.0029 (0.0058)
24.2% of filt. PM
32% of filt. PM
0.00023 (0.00045)
1.9% of filt. PM
0.0030 (0.0060)
28. 6% of filt. PM
11% of filt. PM
0.00069(0.0014)
5. 8% of filt. PM
0 0049 (0.0097)
46 2% of fill. PM
n IA in f i\
1 C (t <\\
- J <'*•"''
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
23% of filt. PM,
3.2 (6.4), E
5. 5% of filt. PM
0.77(1.5), E
35% of filt. PM,
0.0025 (0.0049), E
30% of filt. PM,
0.0021 (0.0042), D
15% of filt. PM,
0.0011 (0.0021), E
21% of filt. PM,
0.0015 (0.0029), E
Ref. No.
23
23
23
25
£./
229
23
229
214
23
229
214
1 1
1 1
t-J
-------
Table 4-14 (cont.)
Type of control
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fuel fired
NB
NL)
Percent
RAP
used
NB
Mr*
[NU
Pollutant
1 Oltll 1 iVi
1 wttlt i M
No. of
test
runs
NB
Data
rating
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.023(0045)
n riT7 m frm
(.U. ; )
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref. No.
-H-
-1-j-
ND = no data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that arc c
k Report indicated that RAP was processed during testing, but the percentage of RAP was not specified.
:d out are not used for emission factor development.
to
L.J
-------
Table 4-15. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO-,.
METHANE, NOX, SO2, AND TOC; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
r-ii-ii ij fill**
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Dram oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
1 1 UjJallC
Butane
Coal/natural
gas
Coal/natural
gas
Coal/natural
gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Coal/natural
gas
Drain oil
Fuel oil
Fuel oil/coal
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
ND
10
30
ND
0
24
18
20
0
20
0
0
30
23
20
35
NT?
30
0
0
0
24
25
0
25
0
0
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
fc©
C02
CO,
C02
COj
CO2
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO,
No. of
test
runs
3
2
3
3
10
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
4
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
C
C
A
A
C
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)3
0.0055(0.011)
0.0070(0.014)
0.014(0028)
0.015(0.030)
0.019(0.038)
0.024 (0.047)
0.028 (0.056)
0.029 (0.059)
0.041 (0.083)
0.043 (0.086)
0.053(0.11)
0.082(0.17)
0.086 ((U7)
0.091 (0.18)
0.094(0.19)
0.10(0.20)
0.10(0.21)
0.30 (0.60)
3.0 (6.0)
21 (42)
8.5(17)
13(26)
15(30)
15(31)
16(32)
19(37)
19(38)
9.8 (20)
16(32)
Candidate
emission
factor. kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), ratmgj
0.063(0.13). B
17(33), A
Ref No
197
351
214
346
25
229
48
344
340
342
347
254
149
154
44
339
34!
50
209
05
133
189
190
371
373
132
372
292
108
4-232
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
Fuel oil
Fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane,
natural gas
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
31
0
12
0,31
ND
23
0
ND
10
0
10
0
11
20
20
10
0
15
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
30
38
31
Pollutant
CO2
CO,
C0:
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO2
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO2
C02
CO2
CO,
C02
C02
CO2
C02
No. of
test
runs-
3
3
3
2,2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
2
3
Data
rating
A
C
B
B,B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B,A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
. (lb/ton)a
19(39)
19(39)
6.1(12)
10(20)
9.7(19)
12(23)
12(24)
13(27)
13 (27)
13(27)
15(30)
13(27)
17(33)
17(34)
18(36)
19(38)
4.5 (9.0)
4.5(8.9)
5.1 (10)
6.8(14)
8.5(17)
9.0(18)
9.4(19)
9.6(19)
9.8 (20)
10(21)
1 1 (22)
1 1 (22)
1 1 (23)
12(23)
12(23)
12(25)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
Ref. No.
53
119
117
137
206
384
223
209
294
75
210
245,247
262
254
252
236
259
103
107
329
221
167
172
30
180
118
257
332,333
198
295
144
146
4-233
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
(cont. mix
plant)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas/
coal
Satural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas/
coal
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
'ercent
RAP
used
0
ND
30
30
0
0
0
0
27
0
13
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
'ND
0
22
0
33
0
0
Pollutant
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO;
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO2
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO2
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
C02
C02
CO,
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
8
3,4
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
atmg
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)J
12(25)
12(23)
13(26)
13(25)
13(26)
14(28)
14(28)
1 5 (29)
15(31)
15(29)
16(31)
17(34)
18(36)
19(38)
21 (43)
25 (49)
27 (54)
33 (66)
10(20)
16(31)
16(32)
17(34)
21 (42)
1.3(2.6)
7.3(15)
9.3(19)
11(21)
1 1 (22)
1 1 (22)
1 1 (23)
Candidate-
emission
factor, kg Mg
(Ib/ton), rating'
Ref No.
244
197
56
44
92
163
211.212
330
168
309
45
48
51
88
84
280
8"
258
96
335
I9i
28
260
153
!87
124
196
33
218
125
4-234
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventu' i scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
•Jo. 2 fuel oil
•io. 2 fuel oil
-------
Table 4-15 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 and No.
5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
0
23
0
ND
ND
29
15
0
0
20
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
20
ND
0
0
0
0
10
15
20
0
ND
ND
ND
Pollutant
CO,
CO2
CO,
CO,
CO;
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
CO,
CO,
CO2
C02
CO,
CO,
C02
CO2
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
17(35)
17(34)
17(34)
18(35)
18(35)
18(35)
18(36)
18(36)
18(36)
18(37)
19(37)
19(38)
19(38)
19(38)
19(37)
19(38)
19(38)
19(38)
20 (39)
20(41)
20(41)
20 (40)
20 (40)
20 (40)
21(41)
21(41)
21 (42)
22 (43)
22(44)
22 (44)
22 (45)
23 (46)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
Ref No
93
31!
316
343
243
251
104
',41
383
334
26
341
32
375
164
i05
85
380
386
349
90
174
388
388
388
351
379
377
186
352
354
173
4-236
-------
Table 4-15 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel
oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 waste
oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
No, 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel'oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
3ercent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
2",
0
0
0
10
ND
0
35
0
42
0
14
0
0
24
0
0
10
0
35
52
18
44
50
48
40
ND
10
0
Pollutant
CO,
CO,
CO:
CO, .
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
CO2
CO2
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO2
C02
CO2
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO,
No of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
2
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
23 (45)
23 (45)
23 (47)
24 (48)
24 (48)
24 (48)
25 (50)
26(52)
29 (59)
30(59)
32(65)
34 (68)
36(71)
3.9(7.8)
8.3(17)
1 1 (22)
1 1 (22)
12(23)
16(31)
19(39)
19(37)
20(41)
24 (48)
7.5(15)
1 1 (22)
13(27)
14(28)
• 14(28)
16(33)
16(32)
17(33)
17(34)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
Ref. No.
192
387
387
344
99
255
162
268
374
160
50
266
82
322
205
298
297
301
130
178
315
128
142
63
74
54
81
68
64
300
346
70
4-237
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter11
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
•o
31
32
0
10
0
0
0,46
0
0
30
0
0
0
13
18
23
35
30
30
30
20
13
20
ND
0
24
10
ND
ND
Pollutant
CO2
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
CO2
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
No. of
test
runs
11
3
3
3
3
3
3
2,3
3
3
9
3,3
3
2
3
3
4
9
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A,B,
A,A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B.A
B
A
A
B,A
C
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/tony
27(54)
17(34)
18(35)
18(35)
20 (40)
20 (40)
23 (45)
31(61)
31(63)
48 (96)
19(38)
16(32)
6.8xlO'5
(0.00014)
0.00040
(0.00080)
0.0016(0.0032)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0041 (0.0082)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.012(0.025)
0.019(0.038)
0.0075(0.015)
0.0087(0.017)
0.0091 (0.018)
0.012(0.023)
0.016(0.032)
0.025 (0.049)
0.0083 (0.017)
0.0084(0.017)
0.012(0.025)
0.016(0.032)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating3
0.0058(0.012). C
0.013(0.026). D
0.028(0.055), C
Ref No.
57-60
~"3
55
147
345
78
~1
67
101
347
25
179,183
48
355
45
340
339
50
25
44
44
341
45
342
209
48
344
346
229
153
4-238
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 5 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 and No.
5 fuel oil
Low-sulfur
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Dram oil
Natural
gas/coal
Fuel oil/coal
Coal
Coal/natural
gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
IIIL*III »!••«•
iiaiuiai £aa
Drain oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
35
0
0
0
0
0
13
30
0
0
0
35
18
20
25
ND
0
ND
15
0
20
20
23
Pollutant
NO,
NO,
NO,
NOX
NO,
NO,
NO,
S02
SO2
S02
S02
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
so.
SO2
SO2
ZJ\!/»
S02
SO2
S02
SO2
SO2
so.
S02
SO2
SO2
No. of
test
runs'
3
3
10
2
3
9
9
3
2
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
. (lb/ton)a
0.025 (0.050)
0.031 (0.062)
0.034 (0.068)
0.034(0.068)
0.038 (0.076)
0.041 (0.081)
0057(0.11)
0.0012(0.0024)
0.0047 (0.0094)
0.0062(0.012)
0.38 (0.75)
0.00062
(0.0012)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0024 (0.0048)
0.00048
(0.00095)
0.0023 (0.0047)
0.0054(0.011)
0.013(0.026)
0.0040(0.0081)
0.0077(0.015)
0.0097 (0.019)
0.014(0.028)
0.024 (0.047)
0.024 (0.049)
0.026 (0.053)
0.026 (0.053)
0.027 (0.054)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
0.097(0.19), E
0.0017(0.0034),
D
0.0054(0.011), E
0.029 (0.058), B
Ref. No.
214
353
25
352
354
50
347
88
108
190
189
45
44
48
255
119
50
340
350
372
300
376
374
379
388
377
375
339
4-239
-------
Table4-15(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
(used
neutralizing
agent to reduce
SO2)
Fabric filter-
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Mo. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
'ercent
RAP
used
25
24
0
10
0
0
10
30
19
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
23
' 35
0
13
ND
Pollutant
SO2
S02
SO,
SO,
S02
so.
so.
so.
S02
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
3
3
6
2
3
3
1
3
8
9
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
A '
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)J
0.028(0.056)
0.030 (0.059)
0.030(0.061)
0.033 (0.066)
0.034 (0.068)
0.036(0.071)
0036(0.073)
0.049 (0.098)
0.081 (0.16)
0.0029 (0.0058)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0037 (0.0073)
0.0062(0.012)
0.0073(0015)
0.012(0.023)
0.015(0.030)
0.018(0.036)
0.018(0.036)
0.018(0.037)
0.020 (0.039)
0.022 (0.044)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg Mi:
(Ib/ton), rating'1
0.021 (0.041), B
Ref No
373
371
3S7
345
380
386
35!
25
299
149
48
355
153
214
154
242
339
50
241
45
209
4-240
-------
Table 4-15 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
r7-tl-.ru- filt..
i aonc inter
/pi , T~\\
\i lalu U;
V WlllUi I DV*I UUU&l
/r>lra.M* r*\
^r ram i_7
pi; f.l*..
/TM ^ _.A A
^1 lalll !\)
r- i ;_ f.U_.
/m ^ rx\
v riant U;
aiuic riltci
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Propane
Propane
I no pane
aiui ai £a3
Percent
RAP
used
18
Ob
30
30
10
W
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
Pollutant
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
TOCas
propane
vee
/"i->iMr~\r~i\
( 1 INMULJ
i rf~\r~>
V\J\-
fTTLi\ir\r^\
\ T/~\t~>
v^/tc;
/T-KTI ir\C'\
( i nmUL.)
\ 7r~v«^
V \J\^
/TTlMOr^Y
(1 INMUC)
\ rf~\/~>
"\J\^
/TMrl^rtPX
\jf~\f~1
vx/V^
\jr\f~~'
\\J\^,
\jr\f^
V\^J\^,
No. of
test
runs
6
3,4
3
10
3
2
5
5
-r
3
5
2
4
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Nft
B
B
B
B
• Average
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
0.026(0.053)
0.031 (0.062)
0.040 (0.080)
0.046(0.091)
0.059(0.12)
6n~n t n (\f,,\ \
.UJ/ (U.Uu"t)
ef\ii tf\ r\f,f,\
.ujj (u.uuu)
.UUU (U. 1(JJ
61 f (C\ 1 1 "i
ei r, /rt.^"i\
. 1 1 (0.21)
Candidate
emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), ratingj
Ref. No.
340
211,212
44
25
210
2%
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
ND = no data available, NR = not rated
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are
for emission factor development.
b Run 4 of the Reference 212 test included 25 percent RAP.
rossed out are not used
4-241
-------
Table 4-16. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS.
DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Vi»n*t»r*
SClTluulM'
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Y
SO UUULl
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Vcnturi
scniWscr
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Recycled No 2
fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Recycled No 2
fuel oil
Propane
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Natural gas
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No f fu 1 oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
23b
18C
23"
ND
30
18C
30
23"
18C
23"
18C
23"
ND
0
24
O£
30
18C
23"
0
0
0
24
1$
30
Pollutant
Antimony
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
A
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Pft^«»ini«
^aUllllLJHl
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
C
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/fvlg
(lb/ton|a
4.2x10" (8. 3x10'")
1.8x10-' (3 SxlO-1)
5.2xlO-«(1.0xlO-7)
1 3xlO'7 (2.5x10"')
-»
o. /X 1 U "T"4™™r^"W? 7
9.5xlO-7(l 9x10-")
0(0)
2.4x1 0'6 (4.8x10-°)
3.8xlO-6(7.5xlO'")
2.6x10-* (5.2x10-")
0(0)
0(0)
4.9x1 0-»(9.8xlO-8)
1.3x10-' (2.5xlO-7)
6.4x10' (1.3x10-")
7.4x10-" (1.5x10')
~/.vyv\iw ~^~r — liH 1 U 7
3.1xlO-'(6.2xlO-7)
1.5x10-" (3. 1x10-")
1.0x10-' (2. IxlO'7)
2.3x10-* (4. 5x10"°)
1.6x10-* (3. 2x10*)
8.0x1 0-*(1.6xlO-s)
7.4x10'' (1.5x10-*)
^..JAIU "^'S.'t'fllW J
6.0x1 0-*(1.2xlO's)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating"
9.0x10'
(1.8x10^1. E
2.8x10"
(5.6x10-"). D
2.9x10-" (5. 8x10--), D
0(0), E
2.0x10-' (4 1x10'"). D
2.8x10 "(5 5x10*), C
Ref.
No
339
340
339
35
++J
-> s
340
25
339
340
339
340
339
35
162
301
~* s
340
339
163
162
164
301
25
4-242
-------
Table 4-16 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
V»«t»»Mt
* \*I1LUI I
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
V-.M*,.,-,
V t,HLLJI I
scrubber
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabnc filter
Fabnc filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4/6 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
23"
18C
0
0
0
23b
30
18l
0
it
ND
0
0
24
10
0
it
30
0
23b
18C
0
0
0
30
23"
Pollutant
Chromium
Cobalt
Cobalt
Copper .
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Hexavalent
chromium
H ._..,•],.•••
cwowtww
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
LLdu
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
No.
of
test
runs
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
i
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
3,3
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
Data
rating
A
B
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
C
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B,A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor. kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
5. 7xlO-7 (1.1x10-°)
2.6x10" (5. 1x10'")
0(0)
1.7x10-* (3.4x10-")
2.2xlO'7(44xlO-7)
3.6xlO'6 (7.1x10-")
3.7xlO-7(7.5xlO-7)
3. 1x10-" (6. 1x10-*)
5.0xlO'7( 1.0x10-")
2.3xlO'7(45xlO-7)
"* Oir 1 fi** (C- Q" 1 W*\
L. J A 1 \) '\ :T:OJl"tV j
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO-7)
2.0x10-" (4. IxlO-6)
2.6xlO-"(53xlO-")
1.9x10-" (3.8xlO-6)
4.0x10-" (8.0x10-")
6.0x1 0'7( 1.2x40'")
3.0x10-" (6 Ox 10-")
5.2xlO-5 (000010)
1.6x10-* (3. 2x10"*)
3.0xlO'7(6.1xl07)
7.4x10-" (1.5xlO'5)
1.5xlO-5(3.1xlO-5)
9.3x1 0-*(1.9xlO-5)
5.5x10-* (l.lxlO-5)
4.2x10-" (8.4x10-")
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton). rating"
1.3x10-"
(2.6x10-*), E
1.6x10"* (3. 1x10-"), D
2.3xlO-7(4.5xlO-7), E
3.1xlO-7(6.2xlO'7), E
7.4x10'" (l.SxlO'5), C
77x10-"
(1.6xlO-5), D
Ref.
No
340
339
340
163
162
164
339
25
340
163
Ijf
35
164
162
301
315
178
Id?
25
179,
183
339
340
163
164
162
25
339
4-243
-------
Table 4-16 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
v cnturi
so ulfUci
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi
scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
•Jo. 2 fuel oil
'ropane
Natural gas
••Jo. 2 fuel oil
^o. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
"uel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
^o. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Recycled No. 2
fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
ND
0
0
0
23b
18C
0
0
35
30
23"
18e
30
23"
18C
30
23"
18C
23"
18C
23"
18C
ND
0
0
0
23"
Pollutant
/langanese
vlercury
Mercury
Mercury
vlercury
vlercury
vlercury
Nickel
Nickel
Htckci
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Silver
Silver
Silver
Selenium
Selenium
Thallium
Thallium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
Data
rating
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
Average emission
factor. kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
4.1X10'6 (8.3x10-")
3.7x10-" (7.3x10-")
2.4x10'' (4. 7x10 7)
2.0x1 0-" (4.0x10-")
2.9xlO-6 (5 7x10-")
2.4xlO'7(48xlO-7)
0(0)
4.8x10-" (9.6x1 0-")
0.00015 (0.00029)
"* fW 1 A*° I A I >. 1 A*O\
i..WA i v ^ f 1 n, 1 \f "7
7.5x1 0-"(1.5xlO-5)
I.lxl0-7(2.1xl0-7)
3.7xlO'7(7.4xlO-7)
2.8xlO-5(5.5xlO-5)
8.5x1 0'"(l 7xlO'5)
5.8x10-" (1.2xlO-5)
7.0x10 7(1. 4x10*)
6.6x10-" (1 3x10-")
8.4x10'" (1.7x10-")
I.lxl0-7(22xl0-7)
2.3x10 7 (4 7x10 7)
4. 1x10'" (8.2x10'")
0(0)
1.6xlO-!(3.1xlO-5)
2.0x1 0-5(4.0xlO-5)
0.00012(0.00023)
3.3xlO-s(6.6xlO'5)
3. IxlO* (6.3x10-")
Candidate emission
factor, ke Mg
(Ib/ton). rating-
1.2x10' (2 4\10\ E
1 3x10-" (2 6x10'). D
32x10
(6.3x10',, D
1.4xlO'5 (2 8\10;). D
24xlO-7(48xlO'"). E
1 7x10"
(3 5x!0 i L
2.1x10'
(4.1x10°), E
3.1xlO-5(t> IxlO5). C
Re!
No
340
35
163
162
164
339
340
163
164
+42
25
339
340
-»c
339
340
2<;
339
340
33°
340
339
340
35
163
164
162
339
4-244
-------
Table 4-16 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
iMOTVC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
XT
1 1\Jll>-
None
None
None
r(0nc
None
None
Fuel fired
No 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
> 1 - "• ft tM 1 nil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
XT -> f.,_I „.!
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
18C
30
+8r
18C
18C
18'
18C
18C
18l
18C
18C
18C
W
18C
18l
18C
+8r
18C
18C
Pollutant
Zinc
Zinc
A --.
I llH-IIIIUIl V
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead"
Manganese
> * —
I*11>1 LUl V
Nickel"
Phosphorus
Selenium"
tjli VIM
Thallium
Zinc
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
B
A
A
B
• A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Average emission
factor. kg/Mg
( Ib/ton )a
1.6x10-" (3. 1x10*)
2.7xlO-5(5.3xlO-s)
f\ if\\
" \\J)
6 4x10-' (1.3x10-")
0.00013(0.00025
0(0)
2. IxlO'6 (4.2x10-")
1.2xlOM2.4xlO'5)
7.6x1 0'6(1.5xlO-s)
8.6x1 0'5 (0.000 17)
1.2xlO-5(2.3xlO'5)
0.00033 (0.00065)
n /rv\
"T"7
7.7x10* (l.SxlO'5)
0.00060(0.0012)
5.8xlO-"(1.2xlO-7)
1.1x10-" (2. 2x10'")
9.2xlO'5 (0.00018)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating1
6.4x10 7
(1.3x10-"), E
0.00013
(0.00025), E
0(0), E
2.1x10-"
(4.2x10-"), E
I.2xl05
(2.4xlO'5), E
7.6x1 0'b
(1 5xlO-5), E
8.6x1 0'5
(0.00017), E
0.00027
(0.00054), E
0.00033
(0.00065), E
0.00065
(0.0013), E
0.00060
(0.0012), E
1.2x10-"
(2.4x10-*). E
1.1x10'"
(2.2x10-"), E
9.2x1 0'5
(0.00018), E
Ref.
No.
340
25
346
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
346
340
340
340
346
340
340
ND = no data available
"Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are crossed out are not used for
emission factor development.
b Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
c Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
dUncontrolled emission data are inconsistent with controlled emissions data for this pollutant. Therefore, emission
factor is based on the control efficiency measured during Reference 340 test applied to controlled emission factor
for this pollutant.
4-245
-------
Table 4-17. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; DRUM MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of
control
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter*
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
lecycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Dram oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18"
23C
18"
23'
35
13
30
0
23C
18"
0
ND
35
13
0
ND
30
30
30
35
0
0
ND
30
10
Pollutant
-Pentene
1 -Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
3-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
No
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
Data
rating
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor. kg/Mg
(lb/ton)'
0.00017(0.00033)
0.0021 (0.0041)
0.0020 (0.0040)
0.000031 (6.1E-05)
0.00055(0.0011)
8. 5E-05 (0.00017)
1.7E-05(3.3E-05)
2.5E-05 (4.9E-05)
7.0E-05 (0.000 14)
8.0E-05 (0.00016)
0.00011 (0.00022)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
2.9E-07 (5.7E-07)
1 1E-05 (2.2E-05)
1.2E-05(2.3E-05)
1.4E-06(2.7E-06)
5.0E-08(1 OE-07)
0.00065 (0.0013)
0.00042 (0.00083)
1.3E-05(2.6E-05)
1.8E-06O.6E-06)
1.3E-06(2.5E-06)
1.8E-07(3.6E-07)
3.7E-08 (7.3E-08)
5. 5E-05 (0.00011)
4.6E-05 (9.2E-05)
Candidate emission
actor, kg/Mg (Ib, ton).
rating-1
0.0011 (0 00::i, E
0.0020(0.00401. E
0.00029 (0.0005S). E
8.5E-05 (000017). E
3.7E-05(7.4U.-05). D
9.5E-05 (000019) D
6.9E-70 4E-6). E
1.1E-5I22L-5). F
43E-6(86E-6). D
0.00065 (0.0013). E
0.00042(0.00083). E
1.3E-5(2.6E-5), E
1.5E-6(3.1E-06), E
1.1E-07(2.2E-07).E
5.5E-05 (0.000 !!), E
0.00020(000039). A
Ref.
No.
339
340
?39
340
339
50
45
44
48
V,Q
340
48
3-
•s( i
45
48
35
-)<
25
25
50
162
48
35
25
346
4-246
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fuel fired
Dram oil
Drain oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Dram oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Dram oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Dram oil
and natural
gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
and natural
gas
Dram oil
Percent
RAP
used
24
20
20
20
10
15
0
23
10
35
25
13
30
20
20
e
0
20
30
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
ND
23C
30
10
20
10
Pollutant
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
jCnzcnc
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzo( a (anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
(Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butane
Butyraldehyde/
isobutyraldehyde
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
2
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
B
A
A
e
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
B
A
NR
NR
NR
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)1
6.1 £-05(0.000 12)
6.2E-05 (0.000 12)
0.00018(0.00036)
3.2E-05 (6.3E-05)
7.7E-05 (0.000 15)
0.00011 (0.00022)
0.00013(0.00026)
0.0001 4 (fl.00027q)
0.00015(0.00029)
0.00015(0.00030)
000019(0.00038)
0.00020 (0.00040)
0.00021 (0.00041)
0.00022 (0.00044)
0.00028 (0.00056)
000035 (0.00069)
0.00055(0.0011)
0.00060(0.0012)
1.1E-07(2.1E-07)
4.9E-09 (9.8E-09)
7.5E-08(1.5E-07)
2.8E-08 (5.6E-08)
5.5E-08(1.1E-07)
2.0E-08 (4.0E-08)
2.7E-08 (5.4E-08)
1.4E-08(2.7E-08)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0.000080(0.00016)
BDL
BDL
BDL
Candidate emission
factor. kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
1.0E-07(2.1E-07), E
4.9E-09 (9.8E-09), E
5.2E-08(1.0E-07), E
5.4E-08(1.1E-07), E
2.0E-08 (4.0E-08), E
2.0E-08(4.1E-08), E
0.00034 (0.00067), E
8.0E-05 (0.0001 6), E
BDL
Ref.
No.
344
377
342
349
345
383
347
384
351
50
373
45
25
341
376
48
348
350
44
48
48
48
35
48
48
48
35
339
25
345
350
351
4-247
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
fjihnr flit r*
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*1
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Waste oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
N 7 fi 1
mt
Waste oil
M/ltiirnl jini
No 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Waste oil
Propane
Dram oil
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
20
0
ND
30
0
10
20
20
10
13
30
it
30
18"
23C
ND
13
0
35
0
13
0
0
ND
15
23C
0
20
ND
24
0
Pollutant
Chlorobenzene
Chrysene
Chrysene
Crotonaldehyde
Zumene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
T-II---IL
Ethylene
Ethylene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
19
•y
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
NR
A
C
A
A
NR
NR
NR
NR
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg-Mg
(Ib/ton)1
BDL
1.8E-07(3.6E-07)
2.7E-09 (5 4E-09)
4.3E-05 (8.6E-05)
2.2E-05 (4.3E-05)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.6E-05(5.1E-05)
0.00015(0.00029)
O.Wu'rr 'xy.WwWjjo )
0.00019(0.00038)
0.0033 (0 0066)
0.0037 (0.0073)
8.5E-09(1.7E-08)
3.6E-07 (7.2E-07)
5.5E-070 1E-06)
8.5E-06(1.7E-05)
2.1E-06(4.1E-06)
4.9E-06 (9.8E-06)
1.3E-06(2.5E-06)
1.1E-06(2.2E-06)
4.1E-07(8 1E-07)
0.00015 (0.00030)
0.00023 (0.00046)
0.00029 (0.00057)
0.00033 (0.00066)
0.00034 (0.00067)
0.00046(0.00091)
0.00059(0.0012)
Candidate emission
factor, kg'Tvtg (Ib ton),
ratmgj
9.1E-08U 8E-07). E
4.3E-05(8.6E-05). E
2.1E-05(43E-05). E
BDL
000012(0.00024), D
00035(00070). E
3.1E-07(6.1E-07), D
5.3E-06U.IE-05). E
1.9E-06(3.8E-06), D
0.0016(0.0031), A
Ref
No
342
48
35
25
48
345
342
350
351
45
44
25
340
339
35
45
48
50
!64
45
48
163
35
383
343
348
349
35
344
388
4-248
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter15
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter5
Fabric filter6
FrnKiu- filt-i*
T- i- f.U-,*1
r«l-ri i f~»\**»P
Fabnc filter11
Fabric filter6
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Dram oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Dram oil
Drain oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Drain oil
Drain oil
TT f . 1
f" cLSTC Oil
^"Mmmtm n,l
T* a.311, WI 1
- - -> f 1
rnt
TiT _ "} f, I
i mj. 2. luCi
ort
\Vmmt* mul
VT 115 LU Ull
wr*
\ir\
\\T Am — 1
l¥ 45TC Oil
1* T . t
TT tt^lL, UM
11 T -m — 1
V V UJTC> OI I
Tirr __*^ _-[
T T aolv v/1 1
tir i
VV fl3lL \Jli
Dram oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Percent
RAP
used
23
25
13
30
18"
20
20
0
35
20
23C
0
24
25
Af\
A£,
3£
Af\
<"?
-\(\
.1£,
Af\
20
10
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
:ormaidehyde
:ormaldehyde
•ormaldehyde
-ormaldehyde
Formaldehyde
:ormaldehyde
7ormaldehyde
-ormaldehyde
-ormaldehyde
-ormaldehyde
-ormaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
No
of
test
runs
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
i
o.
i
i
^
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)-1
0.00066(0.0013)
0.00073(0.0015)
0.00080(0.0016)
0.0010(0.0020)
0.0011 (0.0021)
0.0011 (0.0021)
00012(00023)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.0014(00027)
0.0024 (0 0047)
0.0026(00051)
0.0043 (0.0086)
0.0052(0.010)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.00014 (0.00028)
0.0012(0.0023)
Candidate emission
actor. kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
0.00065(0.0013), E
Ref.
No
384
373
45
25
340
342
375
347
50
341
339
44
371
372
Aft
40
4fi
141
M
46
40
40
At-\
\A(,
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
350
351
4-249
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter6
Fuel fired
Dram oil
Drain oil
Drain oil
Dram oil
Waste oil
Recycled
No "2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
No 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Propane
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
15
0
0
0
0
23C
18"
30
18d
23C
0
23c
18"
30
ND
30
35
0
0
30
ND
30
0
13
0
18"
0
Pollutant
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Heptane
Heptane
Hexanal
Hexane
Hexane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyren
Isooctane
Isooctane
[sovaleraldehyde
Methyl chloroform
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
n-Pentane
Perylene
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
C
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
1.9E-05(3.8E-05)
2.0E-05 (3.9E-05)
8. 8E-05 (0.00018)
0.00016(0.00032)
0.00022 (0.00045)
0.00036 (0.00072)
0.0090(0.018)
0.000055(0.00011)
0(0)
0.00090(0.0018)
3.5E-09 (7.0E-09)
1.6E-05(3.1E-05)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
1.6E-05(3.2E-05)
2.4E-05 (4.8E-05)
I.OE-05(2.0E-05)
7.5E-05 (0.0001 5)
0.00014(0.00028)
0.00085(0.0017)
0.00024 (0.00047)
6.0E-06(1.2E-05)
2.7E-05 (5.3E-05)
2.9E-05 (5.7E-05)
3.5E-05 (7.0E-05)
0.00013 (0.00026)
0.0001! (0.00021)
4.4E-09 (8.8E-09)
Candidate emission
Factor, kg/Mg (Ib'toni.
ratine'
0.00010(0000211.0
0.0047(00094).!-.
5.5E-05(OOOOI1) F.
0.00046(000092). E
3.5E-09 (7.0E-09). E
2.0E-05(40'E-05),E
1.6E-05(32E-05). E
2.4E-05(48E-05>. T
1 OE-05 (2 OE-05), E
0.00033 (0 00065 1. D
4.5E-05(90E-05), D
0.00011 (0.00021). E
4.4E-09 (8.8E-09). E
R-r
No
379
376
380
374
348
339
340
25
?40
339
48
339
340
25
.:<
25
50
164
162
25
35
44
48
45
163
340
48
4-250
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter1"
r.hri filtri*
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Waste oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
Drain oil
Dram oil
and natural
gas
Drain oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
>T -) C_ -1
ott
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
35
0
0
ND
0
13
30
0
30
35
ND
13
0
30
35
30
23C
18"
13
ND
30
10
20
10
30
13
30
"It
30
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Propionaldehyde
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Quinone
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
I UIULllL
Trichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Valeraldehyde
Xylene
Xylene
^T- -1
/V^ILIIC
Xylene
No
of
test
runs
3
2
-)
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
9
19
4
3
3
3
3
•y
3
3
3
4
3
19
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
B
A
A
' A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
C
B
B
B
C
B
A
NR
NR
NR
A
C
B
L
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)°
2.8E-05 (5.5E-05)
5.5E-06(1.1E-05)
1.7E-06(3.3E-06)
1.8E-06(3.6E-06)
1 9E-06(3.8E-06)
3.3E-06(6.6E-06)
5.0E-06U.OE-05)
7.0E-06(1.4E-05)
6.5E-05 (000013)
1.5E-06(3.0E-06)
1.5E-08(2.9E-08)
3.5E-07 (6.9E-07)
4.5E-07 (9.0E-07)
8.0E-05 (0.000 16)
0.00015 (0.00029)
0.00038 (0.00075)
00016(0.0031)
0.0037 (0.0074)
2.3E-05 (4.5E-05)
8.5E-05 (0.00017)
0.00011 (0.00022)
'.tnn> jT^O.tjUO / B )
BDL
BDL
BDL
3.4E-05 (6.7E-05)
2.6E-05(5.1E-05)
8.0E-05 (0.0001 6)
0.00020 (0.00040)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating'
1.2E-05(2.3E-05), D
3.8E-06 (7.6E-06), D
6.5E-05 (0.0001 3), E
1.5E-06(3.0E-06), E
2.7E-07 (5.4E-07), D
8.0E-05 (0.00016), E
0.0015(0.0029), D
7.3E-05 (0.0001 5), D
BDL
3.4E-05 (6.7E-05), E
0.00010(0.00020), D
Ref.
No
50
162
164
35
163
45
44
48
25
50
35
45
48
25
50
25
339
340
45
35
44
345
350
351
25
45
25
Ml
44
4-251
-------
Table 4-17 (com.)
Type of
control
Fjihri- f,|t-rh
Fabric filled
:abnc filter^
Fill L filMr*
Fabric filter15
r*i-i -i- ftir-i*
Fabnc filter11
Fabric filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter13
Fabnc filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filterb
Fuel fired
natuiai gas
•VT_ O f. r|
i\j. £. luLl
Ott
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
VT -N r i
orf
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
TL T _ -1 fL 1
i\j. 4. IUC1
mt
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
VT _ "^ A 1
1\J. i. lUCl
ott
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
XT _ •"» C.,,-1
ort
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
ett
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
>J "* fi 1
ort
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
VT _ ^ C. _ 1
1 "U, 7P 1 T^t P
.5b-l J ( 1 jb-1-.i. h
.ob-I J ( l.zb-lin
^39
339
339
339
339
340
4-252
-------
Table4-17(cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter5
Tml-i-i nitj-i*
Fabric filter1'
r«l n filin.*'
Fabric filter15
Til r-i r.ltrr*
Fabnc filter11
Fabric filter*
r- L f it Ji
Fabric filter11
r«l-n- fill-l*
Fabric filter11
Fabnc filter*
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter"
Fuel fired
ett
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
•* l_-l
Vvl. VLIL-U
.T- *t H--1
"I/. L 1L1L1
«H
No. 2 fuel
oil
ott
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
wrt
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
ott
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
LJ -\ fm-1
no. t- rue i
ort
Recycled
No 2 fuel
oil
eri
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
)lJrib— J_J**iKl
T^^^^^^nitT
eti
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
W
23C
»c
18d
+8"
23C
+9*
23C
W
23C
W
23C
•W
23C
W
23C
23C
18d
Pollutant
1 23789 HxCDD
1 23789 HxCDF
-n ^ .'-TO iivpr\r
234678 HxCDF
23478 PeCDF
2378 TCDD
T17fl .XTTUT
2378 TCDF
Octa CDD
eettr€BF
Octa CDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDD
No
of
test
runs
*
4
4
3
*
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
%
4
3
4
4
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
Average emission
factor. kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
DDL (DDL)
49E-13 (9.8E-13)
DDL (DDL)
4.2E-I2(8.4E-12)
DDL (DDL)
95E-13(1.9E-12)
DDL (DDL)
4.2E-13(8.4E-13)
DDL (DDL)
1.1E-13(2.1E-13)
DDL (DDL)
4.8E-13(9.7E-13)
DDL (DDL)
1.2E-11 (2.5E-11)
DDL (DDL)
2.4E-12(4.8E-12)
3.4E-12 (6.9E-12)
1.6E-11(3.2E-11)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating3
49E-13(9.8E-13), E
4.2E-12(8.4E-12), E
95E-130.9E-12), E
4.2E-13(8.4E-13), E
1.1E-13(2.1E-13), E
4.8E-13(9.7E-13), E
1.2E-11 (2.5E-11), E
2.4E-12(4.8E-12),E
9.7E-12(1.9E-11),E
Ref.
No.
346
339
339
340
349
339
349
339
349
339
349
339
349
339
349
339
339
340
4-253
-------
Table 4-17 (cont.)
Type of
control
Fabric filter1"
Fabric filter"
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter11
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter6
r-il-n fllt-r*
Fabric filter6
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No 2 fuel
oil
No 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
•yj . f\ f..f\
P»O. 2, III vl
ori
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18"
23C
18"
23C
18d
23C
18d
23C
18"
23C
18d
23C
18"
23C
18"
W
23e
Pollutant
Total HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total HxCDF
Total PCDD
Total PCDD
Total PCDD/PCDF
Total PCDD/PCDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
No.
of
test
runs
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
Data
rating
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)'
3.7E-12(74E-12)
6.6E-12(1.3E-11)
5.0E-12(1.0E-11)
7.1E-12(1.4E-11)
5.7E-12(1.2E-11)
7.3E-12(1.5E-11)
23E-11 (45E-11)
4.4E-11 (8.8E-11)
3.8E-11 (7.5E-11)
6.7E-1H1.3E-10)
1.5E-11 (3.0E-11)
2.3E-11 (4.6E-11)
1 3E-12(2.6E-12)
2.1E-11 (4.2E-11)
1.6E-12(3.2E-12)
6.8E-12(1.4E-11)
DDL (DDL)
4.7E-13(9.3E-13)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (lh ton),
ratingj
5.2E-12U OE-11). E
6.1E-12C1 2E-1U. E
6.5E-12(1.3E-lli E
4 OE-11 ("I 9E-1H, E
6 OE-11 (1 2E-10), E
2.0E-11 (4 OE-11), E
1 1E-11 (2.2E-11I. E
4.2E-12(8.4E-!1), E
4.7E-13(93E-!3). E
Ref
No
339
340
330
340
339
340
"39
340
339
340
?3Q
340
339
340
339
340
346
339
4-254
-------
Table 4-17 (cont)
Type of
control
Fabric filter6
Fabric filter'
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
Recycled
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil-
No 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oi!
No 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
23C
18"
18=
18'
18'
18C
18C
18'
18'
18'
18C
18C
18'
18'
18'
18=
18'
18'
18C
18e
Pollutant
Total TCDF
Total TCDF
2,3,7.8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2.3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7.8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1, 2,3,7, 8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Octa CDD
Total PCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
No
of
test
runs
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Averaf emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
l.5E-12(3.0E-12)
2.2E-12(4.5E-12)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
NDfND)
2.7E-12(5.4E-12)
1.7E-11 (3.4E-11)
3.5E-11 (7.1E-11)
1.4E-9(2.7E-9)
1.4E-9(28E-9)
ND(ND)
1.7E-11 (3.3E-11)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
3.7E-1! (7.4E-11)
2 7E-12(54E-12)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating"
1.9E-12(3.7E-12), E
NDfND)
ND(ND)
NTJ(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
2.7E-12(5.4E-12)
1.7E-11 (3.4E-11)
3.5E-11 (7.1E-11)
1 4E-9(2.7E-9)
1.4E-9(2.8E-9)
ND(ND)
1.7E-11 (3.3E-11)
ND(ND)
ND(ND)
3.7E-11 (7.4E-11)
27E-12 (54E-12)
Ref.
No
339
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
4-255
-------
Table 4-17 (cont)
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
No. 2 fuel
oil
Percent
RAP
used
i8c
18C
18C
18C
18C
18'
18'
18=
18'
18C
Pollutant
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2.3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Octa CDF
Total PCDF
Total PCDD+PCDF
No.
of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)J
ND(ND)
8.1E-13(1.6E-12)
ND(ND)
4 1E-12(8.1E-12)
5.4E-12(1.1E-11)
ND(ND)
1.9E-11 (3.8E-11)
ND(ND)
7.7E-11 (1.5E-10)
1.5E-9(3.0E-9)
Candidate emission
factor, kg Me (Ib ton).
rating'
BDL (BDL)
8.IE-13U.6E-12)
BDL (BDL)
4 1E-12(S 1E-12)
5.4E-12H IE-ID
BDL ( BDL i
1.9E-11 (3.8E-1D
BDL f BDL)
7.7E-11 (1 5E-10)
1.5E-9(30E-9>
Re!
\o
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
3-10
340
340
ND = no data available; NR = not rated; BDL = below detection limit.
'Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are tross&d out are not used for
emission factor development.
bControl device may provide only incidental control.
c Facility processed 23 percent RAP during Runs 1, 2, and 3, and no RAP during Run 4.
d Facility processed 18 percent RAP during Runs 1 and 2 and no RAP during Run 3.
'These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the
detection limit for non-detect runs; the factors based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than the
candidate emission factor based on actual measurements made during other tests.
4-256
-------
Table 4-18. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT
PRODUCTION DRUM MIX FACILITY - HOT OIL HEATERS
Type of
control
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzol b)fluoranthene
TCDF (total)
PCDF (total)
HxCDF (total)
HpCDF (total)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDF
HxCDD (total)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
HpCDD (total)
1,-2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
Formaldehyde
No. of
tests
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Emission
factor
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Average emission factor,
kg/1 (Ib/gal) fuel consumed
2.0x10* (1.7x10")
2.4x1 0-» (2.0xlO'7)
6.4x10-* (5.3xlO'7)
2.8xlO'7 (2.3x10-°)
5.9xlO'7 (4.9x10-°)
2.2x10-* (1.8xl07)
5.3xlO'v (4.4x10'")
3.8x10-' (3.2x10'")
I 2xiO-» ( l.OxlO'7)
4.0x10-" (3.3xlO-12)
5.8xlO-14 (4.8xlO-13)
2.4xlO'n (2.0xlO-12)
1.2xlO-12 (9.7xlO-12)
4.2x10-" (3.5xlO-12)
1.4xlO-12 (1.2x10-")
7.4x10'" (6.2xlO-12)
91x10'" (7.6x10'")
8.3xlO'i4 (6.9x10'")
2.4xlO'12 (2.0x10-")
l.SxlO'12 (1.5x10-")
1.9x10-" (1.6x10-'°)
0.0032 (0.027)
Ref.
No
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
4-257
-------
Table 4-19. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR PM; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet cyclone
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Low-energy scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
NA
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
0
ND
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
(i
ND
Pollutant
Cond inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
No. of
test
runs
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
Data
rating
C
A
C
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)'
0.00036 (0.00073)
0.00040 (0.00080)
0.00050(0.0010)
0.00050(0.0010)
0.00059(0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00063 (0.0013)
0.00093(0.0019)
0.0011 (0.0021)
0.0012(0.0025)
00013(0.0027)
0.0017(00034)
0.0017(0.0033)
00017(0.0034)
0.0018 (0.0037)
0.0018(0.0036)
0.0018(00036)
0.0021 (0.0042)
00021 (00042)
0.0023 (0.0045)
0 0024 (0.0049)
00026(00053)
0 0030 (0 0060)
0 0040 (0 0080)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton),
rating
00065 (0.013), A
'
Ref No.
239
143
15
52
165
181
331
145
385
261
47
176
15
284
281
314
312
24
249
276
310
86
15
1"?
.f.
SJ
oo
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Dual wet scrubbers
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Fuel fired
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel 01!
ND
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
ND
ND
0
0
10
ND
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
30
10
0
0
Pollutant
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. inorganic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
No of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
00053 (0011)
00056(0.011)
0.0061 (0012)
0.0080(0.016)
00083 (0017)
0.0096(0.019)
0010(0021)
0.013 (0.026)
0033(0.066)
0.034 (0.068)
0.059(0 12)
5.9X10-N1 2xl05)
54xlO! (0.00011)
000013(0.00027)
0.00028 (0.00056)
0.00042 (0.00084)
0.00058(0.0012)
0.00061 (0.0012)
0.00068 (0.0014)
0.00090(00018)
0.00091 (0.0018)
0.0011 (0.0021)
0.0011 (0.0023)
0.0014(0.0029)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
00021 (0.0041), A'
Ref No
100
291
213
97
15
325
290
49
170
282
216,217
249
261
239
165
176
143
24
385
77
76
325
52
145
K)
Ui
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabiit filter
Taunt filler
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ki'nric filter
F.ibnc fillet
FahriL Tiller
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
NaturaJ gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
1 i \ji78HC
atural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
NI)
No 2 fuel oil
F'lopanc
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
26
0
35,26
15
0
ND
0
0
30
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
n
ND
!,
0
Pollutant
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond. organic PM
Cond organic PM
V^ Ullu. I 7vr
/~"1 J nfc t
l^ U 1 luT T IVI
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
hitenible PM
hlleiahlc PM
1 iltcrable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
3
2
3
3
a
i
ND
ND
3
3
3
3
3
^
i
\
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
D
D
C
A
A
A
A
B
U
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0019(00039)
0.0020 (0.0039)
0 0022 (0 0045)
0.0026(00051)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0034 (0.0067)
0.0040(0.0081)
0.0040 (0 0080)
0.0045 (0.0090)
00046(0.0091)
00091 (0.018)
ft nftiR ft) wif*\
0 00036 ((HXH)71)
14(27)
18(37)
0.0012(00023)
00012(00024)
0.0013(00026)
0.0014(00029)
0.0014(0.0027)
00014(00028)
0 0016 (0 i)03i )
0 0016 (0 0033)
0 001 /' (00034)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
16(32), E
0013 (0025), A
Ref. No.
97
72
79
69
61,62
83
86
170
47
80
49
24O
46
5
5
331
143
193
253
181
41
'.!'•
1.
-J6
to
O\
O
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
ND
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
No 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/ natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Propane
No, 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
0
0
0
ND
26
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)*
00017(00034)
0.0018(0.0037)
0.0019(00039)
0 0023 (0 0046)
0.0024(00047)
0.0026(0.0053)
0.0026 (0.0053)
0 0027 (0.0054)
00028(0.0055)
0.0028 (0.0057)
0.0029(00057)
0 0030 (0.0060)
0 0032 (0 0064)
0.0032 (0.0064)
0.0033 (00065)
0.0034 (0 0068)
0.0035 (0 0070)
0.0038(00076)
0.0038 (0.0076)
0 0039 (0.0079)
0.0040 (0.0080)
0 0043 (0.0086)
0.0043 (0 0086)
0 0044 (0.0088)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton),
rating
Ref No.
256
47
83
274
195
24
40
40
318
188
336
304
202
176
110
72
271
79
135
225
248
204
220
113
K)
-------
Table4-19(cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Reprocessed No. 4
fuel oil
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Waste oil
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Coal/ liquid
propane
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Percent
RAP
used
0
20
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg ( Ib/ton )a
0.0044 (0.0088)
0.0045 (0 0090)
00045 (0.0091)
0.0047 (0.0093)
0 0049 (0 0097)
0.0050(0010)
0.0051 (0010)
0.0053(0011)
0.0054(0.011)
00054(0.011)
0.0059(0.012)
00060(0.012)
0.0062(0012)
0.0062(0013)
0.0064(0013)
0.0068(0.014)
0.0070(0.014)
00072(0.014)
0.0075(0.015)
0.0080(0.016)
0.0080(0016)
00082(0016)
00084(0017)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No
224
382
265
239
240
261
281
320
317
203
86
263
276
323
328
264
199
138
313
219
319
97
3:i
NJ
ON
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 4 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
ND
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
Natural gas
Coal/propane
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Reprocessed oil
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
10
ND
ND
0
0
ND
10
ND
0
ND
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
ND,0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3 .
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3,3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
B
C
B
A
C
B
C
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
B,A
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0085(0.017)
0.0086(0.017)
0.0091 (0.018)
0.0094(0.019)
0011 (0022)
0011 (0021)
0.011 (0.021)
0.014(0027)
0.014(0.028)
0.015 (0029)
0.015(0029)
0.016(0033)
0.016(0.032)
0.018(0.036)
0.018(0.036)
0.019(0037)
0.022 (0.044)
0.023 (0.046)
0.023 (0 046)
0 024 (0 048)
0.028 (0.055)
0 028 (0.057)
0.028 (0.057)
0.030 (0.060)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No
282
275
308
326
165
312
314
170
325
296
100
213
98
222
15
40
284
126
283
302
1
161
140
200,201
NJ
OS
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
abne inter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet scrubber
Scrubber
Wet cyclonic scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet cyclone
Vcntur smibber
Ventun scnibber
Venturi scrubber
1 ow-energy scrubber
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
arural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
No. 4 waste oil
Propane
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
ND
ND
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP
used
ND
0
0
30
0
0
0
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
Ni)
ND
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Tilt rmMr P\4
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
hltcrable PM
F-iliiranle I'M
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4.
3,3,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
C
B
C
B
C
c
C
B
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.033 (0 065)
0041 (0.082)
0.042 (0 085)
0.045 (0.089)
0.046(0091)
0050(0.10)
0.055(0.11)
eft"? 1 ffi \A\
ft fttn /n i o\
0.087(0.17)
0.088(0 18)
0.014(0027)
0.014(0.028)
0016(0.031)
0.017(0.034)
0020(0041)
0.026(0.052)
0035(0.069)
004 'MO 098)
00*0 '() 10)
0 059 (0 12}
0061 (0 12)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0061 (0 12), C
0 012 (0025), NR
Ref. No
250
111
184
49
310
106
155
_L
444
215-217
385
177
69
52
139
15
15
15
291
:9o
'"~
i s
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
ijjJiajf i\JWt.l
None
None
None
None
None
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas, waste
oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
Percent
RAP
used
0
0
26,35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Fil»jr r»M,- PM
Tilt r»kl,- PM
Filterable PM- 10
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2.5
Filterable PM- 15
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-10
Filterable PM-5
Filterable PM-2.5
No of
test
runs
2
3
3,3
3
3
Kiri
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
3
1
1
1
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0061 (0.12)
0078(0.16)
0 10(020)
0.17(0.34)
0.20(0.40)
n 1.1 (c\ ?M^
n 1? <(\ f\^\
29(59)
3 9(7.8)
23% of fill. PM
14% of fill. PM
3 5% of fill. PM
0.83% of flit. PM
47% of fill. PM
0.0010(0.0020)
37. 7% of fill. PM
40% of fill PM
36% of fill. PM
33% of flit. PM
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
3.5(6.9), NR
23% of filt. PM,.
3.7(74), E
14% of filt. PM,
2.2(4.5), E ,
3 5% of filt. PM,
056(1.1), E
0.83% of filt. PM,
0 13 (0.27), E
47% of filt. PM,
00059(0.012), E
39% of filt. PM,
0 0049 (0.0098), E
36% of filt. PM,
0.0045 (0.0090), E
33% of filt. PM,
00041 (0.0083), E
Rcf No.
15
77
62.61
80
145
4.
j.
5
5
23
23
23
23
23'
24
23C
23l
23C
to
Os
-------
Table 4-19 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
ample wet
scruDDcrs
ultiplc wet
st rubbers
Wet scrubber
Fuel fired
ND
NU
v
If (33 It UII
T» a^n^^un
Percent
RAP
used
0
Pollutant
Filterable PM-1
T <•>*•! nkiC
T-s*»i nw
-T" _ » , i r*t ^
T" -ttl p\ 4
T f.l pl>4
T-**-l Ph.4
T *. i nk,-£
1 Uldl I [VI
No. of
test
runs
1
3.
4
^
^
4
a
Data
rating
C
g
g
Average emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)"
30% of fill PM
0 0045 (0 0090)
004 5 /o-Qgm
n i? in 7i>
0 029 (0 058)
0 21 (0 43)
o mQ in mn\
nnfi (n i •> \
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
30% of filt. PM,
0.0038 (0.0075), E
Ref No.
23C
-1-5
+5
40
40
40
40
40
N> ND = No data available, NR = not rated
o\ "Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that arc crossed out are not used for emission factor development
Emission factors developed from data collected during a plant survey.
'Secondary data from Reference 26 within Reference 23.
-------
Table 4-20. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR CO, CO2, METHANE, NOX, O3, SO2, AND TOC
BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
atone filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
* £>»**•
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Coal/ liquid
propane
Coal/ natural gas
Coal/propane
Coal/propane
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
15
15
0
15
0
ND
ND
0
0
ND
30
0
0
0
0
22
0,10
0
0,0,ND,15
10
0
ND
ND
ND
0
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO,
C02
CO,
,_ co,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO2
CO,
CO2
C02
C02
C02
CO,
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
8
3
3,3,3
4
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
1
1,1,1,1
3
2
1
3
1
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C.B.B
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0017(0.033)
0.019(0.039)
0.052(0 10)
0.055(0.11)
0.056(0.11)
0.095(0.19)
0.13(0.25)
94{WD BAi
0.60(1.2)
0.50(1.0)
0.19(0.37)
065(1.3)
0035(0.069)
6.8(14)
11(21)
11(21)
15(29)
3.4 (6.9)
14(28)
70(14)
13(26)
8.2(16)
8.7(17)
8.8(18)
10(20)
10(20)
10(20)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.20 (0.40), C
18(37), A
Ref No
46
370
381
34
378
47
282
70A
215-217
24
161
204
49
219
336
98
126
222
310,313
287
232-235
308
276
288
203
286
264
£>•
Os
-------
Table 4-20 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Low-energy
scrubber*1
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Dual wet
scrubbers
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet cyclone
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Percent
RAP used
0
0
ND
15
ND
30
0
0
0,ND,ND
ND
ND
15
0
0
20
15
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
35,26
0
15
ND
0
0
Pollutant
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
CO2
CO2
C02
CO,
C02
C02
C02
CO,
CO,
C0:
CO,
ca
C()2
CO,
No. of test
runs
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
1
3
6
3
3
1
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg(lb/ton)a
10(20)
11 (22)
11 (22)
12(23)
12(24)
12(23)
12(24)
12(24)
13(25)
14(27)
14(28)
15(29)
15(31)
15(31)
16(31)
17(33)
17(34)
17(35)
15(29)
16(32)
16(32)
17(33)
17(33).
17(33)
17(34)
18(36)
19(38)
Candidate emission
factor. kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No
46
15
289
370
278
76
285
15
231,237,238
282
328
381
15
72
382
378
215-217
385
284
277
135
61,62
2X'i
J7S
?7"
176
K(«
K)
O\
oo
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venruri scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Multiple wet
scrubbers d
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Venruri scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric Filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural -gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
0
0,ND
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pollutant
C02
CO,
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO,
CO2
C02
CO,
CO,
CO2
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO2
CO,
No of test
runs
3
3
3
8
3
. 3
12
1,1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
C
B
A
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
19(37)
20(41)
20(41)
21 (43)
24 (47)
26(51)
28 (55)
48 (96)
53(110)
78 (160)
5.0(10)
9.0(18)
14(28)
14(28)
15(31)
15(31)
29(58)
30 (59)
49 (98)
12(24)
66(13)
8.8(18)
9.4(19)
10(20)
12 (24)
12 (24)
12(24)
14 (28)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref. No
239
213
145
47
326
296
24
306,307
97
224
256
325
100
15
41
331
139
291
290
193
312
113
15
111
195
52
274
155
4^
Os
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 4 waste oil
No 4 fuel oil
No 4 fuel oil
No 4 fuel oil
No. 4 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
ND
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
Pollutant
CO2
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
CO,
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO,
C02
C02
C02
C02
CO2
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
C
A
A
• A
R
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)J
14(27)
15(30)
16(32)
16(31)
16(32)
16(31)
17(34)
17(33)
17(34)
18(37)
19(38)
19(37)
20 (40)
21(42)
25 (50)
25 (50)
28(55)
32 (64)
34 (69)
45(91)
47(93)
10(20)
14(27)
16(31)
17(34)
19(38)
18(36)
19(37)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
Ref No.
253
261
no
181
170
248
188
226
314
204
250
302
249
271
323
304
184
281
138
106
161
177
317
318
31')
275
X3
140
.{*.
o
-------
Table 4-20 (cont.)
Type of control
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Reprocessed
No. 4 fuel oil
Reprocessed oil
Reprocessed oil
Waste oil
Waste oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
26
0
30
0
ND
0
ND
ND
ND
0
0
0
0
ND,0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
Pollutant
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
CO,
C02
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
CO,
C02
C02
CO,
CO2
C02
C02
C02
Methane
Methane
Methane
Methane'
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
NO,
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3,3
3
3
2
8
8
13
3
8
3
9
8
9
Data
rating
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B,C
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/toii)'
19(39)
19(37)
20 (40)
23 (46)
29(59)
11(23)
14(27)
15(30)
17(34)
19(39)
25 (50)
28(55)
53 (110)
15(30) •
19(38)
18(36)
15(31)
19(37)
0.00058(0.0012)
0.0099 (0.020)
0.0022 (0.0043)
0.0021 (0.0042)
0.0071 (0.014)
0.011 (0022)
0.013(0026)
0.020 (0.039)
0.031 (0.061)
0084(0.17)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
0.0037 (0.0074), D
0013(0.025), D
0.058(0.12), E
Ref. No.
77
143
79
80
49
69
263
199
240
220
165
327
• 225
265
201
200,202
321
320
46
47
49
24
46
47
34
24
226
49
-------
Table 4-20 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
No. 2 fuel oil
Coal/propane
rVi ml Vl-.lT Hi -
Vv\JCII/ pi Updlll'
Natural gas
Natural gas
Waste oil ,
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No 6 fuel oil
Percent
RAP used
0
0
0
0
ND
0
30
0
0
0
0
30
Pollutant
0,
SO,
Cft
SO;
SO,
S02
SO,
SO2
TOC as propane
TOG as propane
TOC as propane
TOC as propane
TOP JIB m^imiii.-
i *_/\^ a& pivpaiii.
TOC as propane
No. of test
runs
8
3
o.
8
3
3
8
9
1
8
9
3
o.
9
Data
rating
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
8.4x10 5(0.0001 7)
0 022 (0.043)
A AT 7 /A A£"U
00017(0.0034)
0.0029 (0.0057)
00013 (0.0027)
0.011 (0021)
0.12(0.24)
0 0044 (0.0087)
0.0095 (0019)
0.010(0.021)
0.0052(0.010)
j f\ / n fv\
0.021 (0.043)
Candidate emission
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton),
rating
8.4x10 5 (00001 7), NR
0.022(0043), E
0 0023 (0 0046), E
0.044 (0.088), E
0.0073 (0015), D
0021 (0.043), E
Ref No.
226
126
47
46
385
226
49
46
47
24
155
49
ND = No data available, NR = not rated
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. Data that are cros
b Plant EE.
c Plant FF.
d Plant AA.
e Plant O.
f Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
tdtnrt are not used for emission factor development.
-------
Table 4-21. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR METALS; BATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Ventun scrubber
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
ND
No 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
N- A fc.-l ~,1
Hn A At^l ml
Waste oil, No. 4
Waste oil
Natural gas
Pollutant
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Copper
Hcxavalent chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lc3o
Lcfln
Lc^d
Lead
Lead
Manganese
No. of test
runs
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
6
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
B
A
C
B
A
B
B
A
C
A
B
B
A
Cb
Cb
c"
C
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
I.7xl07(3.3xl07)
4.9xl07(9.9xl07)
3 3xlO-8(6.7xl08)
7.3xl07 (1.5x10")
I.lxl0'(2.2xl07)
3. 8xlO-8 (7.5x10*)
65xl07(l.3xlO")
1 9x10 '(3 8x10 7)
7.2x10* (1.4x10')
I.5xlO'(3.0xl07)
4.5x10' (8 9xl07)
2.6x10' (5.2x10 7)
9 9x10' (2.0x10*)
2. 7x10* (5 3x10*)
5.6xl07(l 1x10 ")
4 9x10 -'(9.7x10-*)
4. 3x10* (8 6x10")
1.9xl07(3.7xl07)
5.3xl07(l.lxlO")
5 7x10 7( 1.2x10")
•b9rfe*H^*W>
•h^xW-f^-fteW")
1 "TV 1 A"** 1 1 d, i Q"tr\
I 1 \ l\I ' \ 3 JJt"I T? "J
3. 1x10" (6 2x10")
7.0xl06(1.4xl05)
2.9x10 "(5 8x10")
Candidate emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton), rating
2 3x10 7 (4 6x10'), D
7.3xl07(I 5x10*), E
74xl08(1.5xl07), E
30xI07(6.lxl07), D
29xl07(5.7xl07),D
1. 4x10* (2.8x10 "), D
2.4x10 " (4 8x10 '"), E
45xl07(8.9xl07), D
5,lxl06(l Oxl05),E
3.5xl06(69xl06), D
Ref
No
34
-40
226
24
34
226
34
24
226
34
24
226
24
34
226
34
226
34
24
226
3-H?
5+9
3+»
177
321
34
-------
Table 4-21 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
•Jo. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
No. of tes
runs
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
Data
rating
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
C
A
B
B
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)'
7.1xlO-6(1.4xl05)
4 6x10 7 (9 2x10 7)
2.3x10 7 (4 5x10 7)
1.8xl07(3.6xl07)
1.0x10 "(2 OxIO*)
3.2x10" (6.4xI06)
2. 7x10 7 (5 4x10 7)
4.6xl08(9.2xlO»)
4.4x10 7 (8. 8x1 07)
3.2x10" (6.3x10")
3.7x10" (7.3x10")
3 4x10 "(6 8x10")
Candidate emission factor,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton), rating
20xl07(4.1xl07), E
1.5x10 "(3. Ox 10*), D
2.4x10 7(4.9x 10 7),E
3 4xlOj6(6.8xl06), D
Ref.
No
24
226
34
226
34
24
226
34
226
24
34
226
ND = No data available, NR = not rated, NA = not applicable
a Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced. RAP was not processed during any of the tests Data that are crossed out
are not used for emission factor development.
b These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the detection limit for non-detect
runs; the factors based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than factors based on actual measurements made during other tests.
-------
Table 4-22. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;
HATCH MIX FACILITY - DRYERS
Type of control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter0
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter '
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
r.Ki -ir £U»» r
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
atural gas
N— f, £..*\ ^.1
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalcne
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthylene
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Anthracene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzened
Benzened
Benzene
UCTTTCTTC
nrnTj-nn
ULIlitllt
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
No. of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
13
20
3
4.
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
C
D
A
B
A
A
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
5. 8x10 '(000012)
1.6xl05(3.3xl05)
3 0x10" (6.0x10 5)
1.0x10* (2 IxlO")
2.9x)07(5.7xl07)
1.0x10'" (2 IxlO8)
1.6xlO'7(3.2xl07)
7 OxlO'7 (1.4x10*)
1.0xl08(20xl08)
0.00032 (0.00064)
60xl07(1.2xl06)
0.0032 (0.0064)
2.7xlO'7(5 3xl07)
4.4x10 8 (8 8xlO'8)
8.3x10' (1.7x10-*)
6 4x10 '(0.00013)
3. 5x10' (7.0x10')
0.000096(0.00019)
0.00018(000036)
0 00025 (0 00050)
6ftOfK7 ((\ nn 1 1 \
1.4xl09(2.8xl09)
3,2xl09(63xIO'')
1.6x10'" (3 IxlO10)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
36xlO'(7.1xl05), D
45xlO'(90xl07). D
29xl07(5 8xl07), D
000016(0.00032), E
0 0032 (0 0064), NR
I.lxl07(2.1xl<)7), D
6.4x10 '(00001 3), E
0.00014(0.00028). D
2.3x1 09(4.6xlO*),E
1.6x10 '" (3. IxlO1"). E
Rcf. N
24
47
49
46
34
226
34
46
226
24
34
24
46
34
226
24
34
24
382
46
ja
46
226
226
-------
Table 4-22 (cont.)
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter'
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter'
Fabric filter e
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric lilter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filler'
FiH fired
Matural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Pollutant
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butyraldehyde/Isobutyraldehyde
Chrysene
Chrysene
Crotonaldehyde
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene'1
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde-
No, of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
13
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
'.
3
3
3
Data
rating
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.1x10" (2.2xlO"8)
8.8x10 -'"(1.8x10*)
2.2x10-* (4 5x10-')
2. 5x10-'" (5 0x10 I0)
1.2x10'" (2 4x10'')
5.6x10-'° (l.lxlO'9)
1. 5x10 5 (3.0x10 5)
3. 1x10* (6.3x10*)
6.1x10'° (1.2x10*)
1.5xlO-s(2.9xl05)
4.8x10 "(9 5x10")
0.00035 (0.00070)
0.00042 (0.00083)
0.00078(0.0016)
0.0028 (0.0057)
2.1xlO'7(4.1xlO'7)
2 2x)08 (4.4x10")
5.3x10" (l.lxlO-7)
4 4x10* (8.7x10*)
1. 2x10 5 (2.4x10 5)
1.9xl06(3.8xlO')
3 3x10 (6 5x10 )
88x10 (1 8x|0")
! 4x10 ' .,: 7XHV)
0.000 P 1 000035)
000074 (00015)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
4 7x10-' (9.4x10 9), D
2 5xlOll)(5.0xl010), E
6.3x10* (1.3x10*), E
-
1.5xl05(3.0xl05), E
1 9x10* (3 8x10'), E
1.5xl05(2.9xl05), E
4.8x10 '" (9.5x10 '"), E
00011 (00022), D
8.1x10* (1.6x10 7), D
1 2x10 5 (2.4x10 5), E
8 2xl07(1.6xlO<1), D
0 00036 (0 00074), D
Ref. N
34
46
226
226
34
226
24
46
226
24
226
47
46
49
24
47
34
46
226
49
46
34
17
22b
46
382
t-
to
^J
OS
-------
Table 4-22 (cont.)
Type of control
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter'
Fabric filter b-c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter
Wei scrubber
1 abrtc filter
auric tntcr
auric niter
jbrie filter
Fabric filter *
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fuel fired
Natural gas
Natural gas
No 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
PfT7
Nfc*
Nf, n £..i ^i
Mr, "» &«•! *»•!
f* '- *- — rful
<» a5Ct \Jll
11 AMI. \J11
»T a^lt Oil
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
r- m jLM^lwf4f
r MIL n.- iurA-
r-LHi**l<4>-h*?r4f»
Fr i n,.1-1 -hT-rlr
Hexanal
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
No of
test
runs
3
3
3
3
3
i
i
4.
^
i
i
4
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating
A
C
B
A
A
E>
£}
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
0.0010(0.0021)
3 8xlOs(7.6xl05)
000040(000081)
6. 2\105 (0.00012)
000012(0.00024)
ft nfOft f A AA4rn
O 0044 ^O OOR7\
Q OQQ.^^Q 00019)
0 00053 (0 001 1 )
0 0074HO 01 M
A (ui4Ji_f |> (KH-H-V
0 00044 (0 00089)
n nnnflfi-^n nniR^
eOOO47 id ftOl Q^
1.2xl05(2.4xl05)
1.5xlO-|l)(30xl010)
1.3xlO'5(2.5xlOs)
4.lxl05(8.lxl05)
95xlO*(1.9xlOs)
5.4xl06(l.lxl05)
22xlO'5(45xlO-5)
1 Oxl06(2.0xl06)
1.1x10-* (2 2x10-*)
2 7xl06(5.5xlO<>)
3. 7xlO'7 (7. 3x10')
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
1 2xl05(24x!05), E
1 5xl010(30xlO-10), E
1 8xl05(3 6x10 S),E
1 3x10^(2.6x10''), D
Rcf N.
24
34
49
47
226
44)
40
40
40
46
40
-HH
40
40
40
24
226
47
46
34
226
49
34
47
46
226
-J
-J
-------
Table 4-22 (com.)
Type of control
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter b
Fabric filter1
Fabric filter '
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter'
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter c
Fabric filter '
Fabric filter'
Fuel fired
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
vlarural gas
Natural gas
Natural gas
>Jo. 6 fuel oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
Pollutant
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Quinone
Toluene
Toluene
i vjirrcnu
Toluene
Toluened
Xylene
Xylene
Xylene
Xylened
No. of
test
runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
13
3
3
3
13
Data
rating
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
fcr
A
B
C
C
A
B
Average emission factor,
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
1.9x1 0s (3 7xl05)
2.4x10* (4.8x10")
3.9x10* (7. 8xl08)
3.0x10 8 (5.9x10 8)
2.7xl05(55xI05)
0.00014(0.00027)
3.7xl05(73xlOs)
0.00030(0.00061)
Q.OOOOO (0.0014)
0.00076(00015)
0.00099 (0 0020)
0.00035 (0.00070)
0.00078(0.0016)
0.00079(0.0016)
0 0035 (0.0069)
Candidate emission factor, kg/Mg
(Ib/ton), rating
1.9xl05(3 7xl05), E
3.1x10 "(6 2x1 0s), D
2.7xI05(5.5xl05), E
0.00014(000027), E
0.00052(00010), D
0.0014(0.0027), D
Ref. N.
49
34
46
226
49
24
34
47
49
46
24
47
49
46
24
1 Emission factors in kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of hot mix asphalt produced ND = No data available. Data that are crossed out are not used for emission factor
development.
b Feed included 30 percent RAP.
c Control device may provide only incidental control.
d Average emission factor computed using an assumed detection limit.
' These C-rated data are not included in the candidate emission factor because they are based on one-half of the detection limit for non-detect nms, the factors
based on one-half of the detection limit are higher than the candidate emission factor based on actual measurements made during other tests
-------
Table 4-23 SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATAa
Sample No.
Description
FILTERABLE PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, RAP<0.1
VS, RAP<0.1
No. of
obs.
8
3
24
5
46
5
Mean EF
0021
0.17
0025
0.12
0020
0.11
Std. dev.
0.024
0.16
0.029
0.13
0.024
0 16
Sample No. 2
Description
FF, non waste oil-fired,
RAP O 1
VS, non waste oil-fired,
RAP O 1
FF, gas-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAPO.l
WS, RAPO.l
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
16
2
17
2
7
2
0028
0042
0016
0.21
0 15
025
Std. dcv.
0 032
0.015
0016
0.26
0.16
0.13
P-value
0.59
0.34
0.25
053
0.078
0.34
Conclusion
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.l
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for VS and
RAPO.l
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP 0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O 1
Differentiate between control devices
for RAP <0 1
No difference between VS and WS
for RAP O 1
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, RAP<0.1
3
4
13
0.0093
0.0029
00042
0.015
0.0014
0 0037
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired,
RAP O 1
VS, RAPO.l
8
9
3
0012
0.0048
0 0067
0.022
00043
0.0083
0.87
0.42
038
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP O 1
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, RAPO.l
4
7
3
8
00077
0.0055
00040
0.0036
00075
00065
0.0045
0.0033
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, gas-fired,
RAPO.l
VS, RAPO.l
3
8
2
5
0.0027
0.0036
00040
0.0040
0.0046
0.0033
0.0016
0.0033
0.36
0.48
0.99
083
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP O 1
No difference between FF and VS for
RAP O 1
-------
Table 4-23 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std dev.
P-value
Conclusion
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Oil-fired
2
0.026
0.023
Gas-fired
3
0016
00066
049
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired
CARBON MONOXIDE
Oil-fired
4
0.46
0.57
Gas-fired
6
0.45
0.51
097
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
Waste oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP <0.1
FF, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
VS, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, RAP<0.1
10
7
24
4
49
35
35
36
32
39
7 1
3.9
18
12
27
Nonwaste oil-fired,
RAP<0 1
FF, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAP <0 1
FF, gas-fired,
RAP<0.1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAPO.l
18
17
20
2
6
36
37
46
32
32
21
21
37
12
11
086
0.80
022
096
0.57
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for RAP <0. 1
No difference between waste oil-fired
and non waste oil-fired for FF and
RAP<0 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP <0. 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP <0.1
No difference between FF and VS for
RAP <0 1
NITROGEN OXIDES
Oil-fired
2
0 12
0.076
Gas-fired
4
0025
0011
034
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired
NJ
OO
O
'FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scrubber.
-------
Table 4-24. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATA3
Parameters
modeled
Conditions
No. of obs.
Significant effects
(p-value)
R2
Equation
FILTERABLE PM
R, P
R
P
FF
FF
VS
53
54
9
R (0.0067), P
(0.033)
R (0.0043)
P (0.039)
0.22
0.15
0.48
EF = 0.043 +0.14R-
0.000 12P
EF = 0.020 + 0.16R
EF = 0.35 - 0.00094P
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
R*P
R
All data
All data
17
17
R*P(<0.0001)
R (0.0001)
0.77
0.61
EF = 0.0041 +
0.00054RP
EF = 0.0050 +
0.079R
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
R. R*P
All data
19
R (0.011), R*P
(0.030)
0.35
EF = 0.0044 +
0.065R- 0.000 18RP
CARBON DIOXIDE
R, P, R*P
P
All data
All data
62
92
R (0.052), P
(0.0002), R*P
(0.043)
P (0.0009)
0.23
0.12
EF = 75- 170R-
0.18P + 0.67RP
EF = 59-0.10P
a R = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP as a fraction. P = production rate in
ton/hr. EF = emission factor in Ib/ton. FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber, WS = unspecified wet
scrubber.
4-281
-------
Table 4-25. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATA3
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs
FILTERABLE PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP <0. 1
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.I
FF, RAP<0.1
8
4
44
15
66
Mean EF
Std. dev.
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
0.0095
0.047
0.015
0.030
0.014
0.0059
0.030
0.018
0.022
0.016
FF, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, nonwaste oil-fired,
RAPO.I
FF, gas-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, gas-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, RAPO.I
36
11
19
8
26
0.016
0021
0012
0.018
0.026
Std dev
0019
0 14
0.015
0015
0021
P-value
035
0.18
0.57
025
0.015
Conclusion
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for FF and
RAPO.I
No difference between waste oil-fired
and nonwaste oil-fired for VS and
RAPO.I
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF and RAP <0 1
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for VS and RAP <0 1
Differentiate between control devices
for RAP O.I
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, RAP<0.1
4
8
12
0.013
0.0080
0.0081
0.011
0.0052
0.0054
FF, nonwaste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired,
RAP O 1
VS, RAPO.I
8
3
2
00062
0.0055
00038
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP
-------
Table 4-25 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
FF, RAPO.l
No. of
obs.
11
Mean EF
0.0076
Std dev
0014
Sample No. 2
Description
VS, RAP <0 1
No of
obs
5
Mean EF
00099
Std dev.
00070
P-value
0 74
Conclusion
No difference between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP<0.1
6
4
0032
0015
0031
0011
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP<0.1
5
3
0058
0058
0 042
0 022
0.28
0 060
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired
Differentiate between FF and VS for
RAPO.l
CARBON MONOXIDE
Oil-fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
FF, waste oil-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, waste oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, oil-fired,
RAP <0 1
VS, oil-fired,
RAPO.l
FF, oil-fired,
RAP<0.1
FF, gas-fired,
RAP
-------
Table 4-25 (cont.)
Sample No. 1
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dc\
Sample No. 2
Description
No. of
obs.
Mean EF
Std. dcv
P-value
Conclusion
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Waste oil-fired
Waste oil-fired, FF
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAPO.l
3
3
5 v
3
0091
0.091
0.060
0.18
0073
0.073
0068
030
Nonwaste oil-fired
Nonwaste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP<0.1
4
2
3
4
0.0072
0012
0 0034
0.0043
00053
0.0011
00019
0.0036
0.18
0.24
0.21
028
No difference between waste oil-fired
and oil-fired
No difference between waste oil-fired
and oil-fired for FF
No difference between oil-fired and
gas-fired for FF
No difference between FF and VS for
RAP <0 1
a FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet scnibber.
to
oo
-------
Table 4-26. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATA3
Parameters
modeled
Conditions
No. of obs.
Significant effects
(p-value)
R2
Equation
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
R
All data
36
R (0.047)
0 11
EF = 0.0074 + 0.033R
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
P
FF only
11
P (0.092)
0.28
EF = 0 1 1 - 0.00022P
NITROGEN OXIDES
R. P
All data
5
R (0.041), P (0.016)
097
EF = 0.27 - 0.20R - 0.00059P
a R~ = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP as a fraction. P = production rate in
ton/hr. EF = emission factor in Ib/ton. FF = fabric filter. VS = venturi scrubber. WS = unspecified wet
scrubber. •
4-285
-------
Table 4-27. REPORTED PARTICULATE-BASED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
a
Asphalt Loss on
Heating (RTFOT, % by
weight)
Load out Temperature
<°F)
90% Lower Confidence
Limit Capture
Efficiency
Particulateb
PM
MCEM
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
0.64
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
1.92e-03
1.68e-03
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo( b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
#/ton
3.56e-04
3.12e-04
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
065
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
#/ton
1.14e-03
3.50e-04
2.65e-04
8.16e-05
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
0.54
Corrected For CE%
gr/dscf
1.59e-03
5.05e-04
ppbvd
2.51e-01
2.62e-02
8.20e-02
1.39e-02
5.45e-03
1.60e-03
1.37e-03
1.63e-03
6.13e-03
7.90e-02
4.94e-04
5.10e-02
1.09e+00
5.92e-04
2.30e+00
1.27e+00
1.81e-02
l.Ole+00
1.36e-01
#/ton
1.57e-07
1.64e-08
5.95e-08
1.29e-08
5.60e-09
1.64e-09
1.54e-09
1.68e-09
6.30e-09
7.35e-08
5.60e-10
4.20e-08
7.35e-07
7.00e-10
1.33e-06
6.65e-07
1.85e-08
7.35e-07
1.12e-07
ppbvd
3.28e-01
3.87e-02
6.24e-02
1.37e-02
5.21e-03
1.36e-03
1.21e-03
1.40e-03
4.81e-03
8.42e-02
NDC
4.65e-02
5.96e-01
NDC
3.34e+00
1.89e+00
1.12e-02
7.38e-01
1.35e-01
Other SVOHAP
Phenol
NDC
NDC
NDC
NDC
5.70e+00
#/ton
2.05e-04
6.52e-05
Background Run
As
Measured
gr/dscf
7.93e-04
3.78e-04
045
Corrected
For CE%
gr-dscf
1 76e-03
S 40e-04
#/ton
1.24e-07
1.46e-08
2.73e-08
7.70e-09
3.23e-09
8.44e-10
8.19e-10
8.69e-10
2.98e-09
4.72e-08
NDC
2.31e-08
2.43e-07
NDC
1.17e-06
5.96e-07
6.95e-09
3.23e-07
6.70e-08
ppbvd
1.79e-02
2.60e-03
6.19e-03
3.29e-04
3.58e-04
NDC
1.36e-04
NDC
2.58e-04
6.8!c-03
NDC
7.44e-03
4.83e-02
NDC
9.17e-02
NDC
NDC
1.13e-01
1.49e-02
ppbvd
3 97e-02
5.78e-03
1.38e-02
7 32e-04
- 95e-04
NDC
3 02e-04
NDC
5 73e-04
i.51e-02
NDC
1.65e-02
! 07e-0!
NDC
2 04e-0l
NDC
NDC
2.51e-01
3.31e-02
1.32e-06
NDC
NDC
a Reference 355
° Paniculate and MCEM paniculate deposition data presented in the test report are 1
8.68 x 10~4 respectively.
c ND - Measured data below detection limits.
34 x !fT4and
4-286
-------
Table 4-28. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on
Heating (RTFOT, % by
weight)
Load out Temperature
(°F)
90% Lower Confidence
Limit Capture
Efficiency
Run 1 Loading
-0362
321
0.64
Run 2 Loading
-0322
316
• 0.65
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
054
Background Run
0.45
THC
Methane
Acetone (ppb)
CO
Ethvlene
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Bisulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene(M 18)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane (M 1 8)
Isooctane
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
Corrected For CE%
ppm
l.lle+01
5.00e+00
1.28e+01
3.59e+00
1.72e-01
ppb
6.82e+00
NDC
1.83e+00
5.61e+00
4.66e-01
7.70e-02
NDC
3.34e+00
NDC
2.17e+01
2.47e+00
5.02e+01
. NDC
3.19e+00
1.84e+01
NDC
7.23e+00
1.53e-01
NDC
#/ton
1.72e-03
2.81e-04
2.51e-06
3.44e-04
1.72e-05
#/ton
1.80e-06
NDC
5.89e-07
1.37e-06
1.20e-07
1.68e-08
NDC
5.72e-07
NDC
9.03e-06
8.89e-07
1.84e-05
NDC
9.32e-07
5.50e-06
NDC
2.08e-06
4.57e-08
NDC
Corrected For CE%
ppm
1.18e+01
4.77e+00
6.62e+00
1.26e+01
NDC
ppb
4.39e+00
1.06e+01
5.00e-01
5.06e+00
1.57e+00
NDC
NDC
2.04e+00
NDC
1.51e+01
6.79e-01
6.22e+01
NDC
3.48e+00
3.43e+01
3.33e-01
3.34e+00
6.60e-01
4.60e-01
#/ton
2.00e-03
3.08e-04
1 68e-06
1 43e-03
NDC
#/ton
1.50e-06
3.31e-06
2.08e-07
1.60e-06
5.23e-07
NDC
NDC
4.51e-07
NDC
7.29e-06
3.16e-07
2.65e-05
NDC
1.31e-06
1.19e-05
1.67e-07
1 .24e-06
2.55e-07
2.10e-07
Corrected For CE%
ppm
1.43e+01
6.11e+00
2.31e+00
1.24e+01
2.59e-01
ppb
3.33e+00
NDC
3.85e-02
1.68e+00
S.OOe-01
NDC
NDC
1 .06e+00
NDC
NDC
1 .45e+00
2.24e+01
4 44e-02
3.26e+00
NDC
7.69e-02
1.19e+01
5.40e-01
7.17e-01
#/ton
1.70e-03
2.04e-04
3.57e-07
7.41e-04
1.56e-05
#/ton
6.95e-07
NDC
9.76e-09
3.24e-07
1.02e-07
NDC
NDC
1 43e-07
NDC
NDC
4.12e-07
5.83e-06
2.78e-06
7.50e-07
NDC
2.34e-08
2.70e-06
1.27e-07
1.99e-07
As
Measured
ppm
0.83"
3
2.00e+00
3.5
NDC
Corrected
For CE%
ppm
1.84
6.67
4.43e+00
7.78
NDC
ppb
1 07e+00
NDC
9 15e-02
2.67e-01
NDC
NDC
1 .90e-02
3.74e-01
NDC
NDC
1.46e-01
1.55e+01
NDC
3.90e-01
NDC
1 06e-01
1.216+01
7.07e-01
1.45e-01
ppb
2.37e+00
NDC
2.03e-01
5.93e-01
NDC
NDC
4.22e-02
8.31e-01
NDC
NDC
3.24e-01
3.43e+01
NDC
8.67e-01
NDC
2.35e-01
2.68e+01
1.57e+00
3.22e-01
4-287
-------
Table 4-28 (com.)
Tetrac hi oromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene(M 18)
p-Xylene(M 18)
Formaldehyde
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene(M 18)
ppm
394e-01
9.83e+00
2.67e+OJ
NDC
NDC
8.78e-02
1.44e+01
1.09e+01
3.25e+01
NDC
4.46e+00
1.22e+01
#/ton
2.21e-07
3.07e-06
8.52e-06
NDC
NDC
4.09e-08
5.18e-06
4.00e-06
1.19e-05
NDC
1.60e-06
4.47e-06
ppm
3.19e-01
3.60e+00
4.48e+01
NDC
NDC
l.lle-01
3.84e+00
1.04e+01
2.03e+01
" NDC
1.10e+00
8.57e+00
#/ton
231e-07
1 45e-06
1 .66e-05
NDC
NDC
6.67e-08
1.78e-06
4.43e-06
8.64e-06
NDC
5.12e-07
3.65e-06
ppm
2.91e-01
S.OOe+00
2.12e+01
NDC
NDC
1.49e-01
7 08e+00
NDC
NDC
4.44e-02
2.57e+00
NDC
#/ton
1.29e-07
1.23e-06
4 79e-06
NDC
NDC
5.47e-08
2.01e-06
NDC
NDC
2.78e-06
7.28e-07
NDC
ppm
8 65e-02
1.33e~00
1.05e-K)l
3 40e-02
2.87e-03
7 42e-02
4.09e-01
NDC
NDC
NDr
1.74e-01
NDC
ppm
1 92e-01
2.95c-K)0
233e^01
7 55e-02
6.39e-03
1.65<:-01
9.09e-01
ND1
NDC
NDC
3.87e-01
NDC
a Reference 355.
h The value presented is the average reported for the first half of the test period. The average reported for the
second half of the test period was 1.6 ppm with a total run average of 1.2 ppm.
c ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-288
-------
Table 4-29. REPORTED LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS FOR PLANT Da
Asphalt Loss on Heating (RTFOT)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1
10/5/98
-0.204 '
306.7
Run 2
10/6/98
-0.246
325.1
Run 3
10/7/98
-0.261
326.7
Deposition
Paniculate Matter (PM)
MCEM
THC (ppm)
Ib/ton
1.37e-03
2.46e-04
1.53e-03
Ib/ton
1.78e-03
1.50e-04
1.71e-03
Ib/ton
7.27e-04
1.27e-04
1.71e-03
Ib/ton
3.37e-05b
3.58e-06
a Reference 356.
Calculated from data reported in Appendix C and Appendix D of the PES test report.
4-289
-------
Table 4-30. BACKGROUND-CORRECTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (CF)
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
Run 3 Loadino
-0.284
291
Paniculate
PM
MCEM
gr/dscf
1.30e-03
1.30e-03
#/ton
2.41e-04
2.41e-04
gr/dscf
3.44e-04
-2.83e-05
#/ton
S.Ole-05
0.00e+00a
gr/dscf
7.98e-04
1.27e-04
£'ton
! ,03e-04
1.64e-05
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ppbvd
2.33e-01
2.36e-02
7.58e-02
1.36e-02
5.09e-03
1.60e-03
1.23e-03
1.63e-03
5.87e-03
7.22e-02
4.94e-04
4.35e-02
1.04e+00
5.92e-04
2.20e+00
1.27e+00
1. 81e-02
9.00e-01
1.21e-01
#/ton
1.46e-07
1.48e-08
5.50e-08
1.26e-08
5.23e-09
1.64e-09
1.39e-09
1.68e-09
6.03e-09
6.71e-08
5.60e-10
3.58e-08
7.02e-07
7.00e-10
1.28e-06
6.65e-07
1.85e-08
6.53e-07
9.97e-08
ppbvi!
3.10e-0i
3.61e-02
5.62e-02
1.34e-02
4.85e-03
1.36e-03
1.07e-03
1.40e-03
4.55e-03
7.74e-0?.
ND11
3.91e-02
5.48e-01
NDb
3.25e-K)0
1.89e-i-00
1.12e-02
6.25e-01
1.20e-01
s'ton
1.17e-07
1.37e-08
2.46e-08
751e-09
3.01e-09
8.44e-10
727e-10
8.69e-10
2.82e-09
4 34e-08
NDb
I 94e-08
:.2-te-07
NDb
I 13e-06
5.96e-07
6 95e-09
2.74e-07
5.97e-08
Other SVOHAP
Phenol
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
5.70e+00
1.32e-06
a Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture
efficiency-corrected measured concentration.
b ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-290
-------
Table 4-31. BACKGROUND CORRECTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1 Loading
-0.362
321
Run 2 Loading
-0.322
316
Run 3 Loading
-0.284
291
THC
Methane
CO
Acetone (ppb)
Ethylene
ppm
1.03e+01
2.00e+00
9.37e-02
1.08e+01
1.72e-01
#/ton
1.59e-03
1.13e-04
8.97e-06
2.12e-06
1.72e-05
ppm
1.10e+01
1.77e+00
9.12e+00
4.62e+00
NDa
#/ton
1.86e-03
1.14e-04
l-.03e-03
1.17e-06
NDa
ppm
1.34e+01
3.11e+00
8.91e+00
3.10e-01
2.59e-01
#/ton
1.60e-03
1.04e-04
5.32e-04
4.80e-08
1.56e-05
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene(M 18)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Formaldehyde (ppm)
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane(M 18)
Isooctane
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
Tetrachloromethane
ppb
5.75e+00
NDa
1.74e+00
5.34e+00
4.66e-01
7.70e-02
NDa
2.97e-(-00
NDa
2.17e+01
2.33e+00
3.48e+01
NDa
2.80e+00
1.84e+01
NDa
-4.83e+00
-5.54e-01
NDa
3.07e-01
#/ton
1.52e-06
NDa
5.59e-07
1.30e-06
1.20e-07
1.68e-08
NDa
5.08e-07
NDa
9.03e-06
8.37e-07
1.28e-05
NDa
8.19e-07
5.50e-06
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
NDa
1.73e-07
ppb
3.32e+00
1.06e+01
4.08e-01
4.80e+00
1.57e+00
NDa
NDa
1.67e+00
NDa
l.Sle+01
5.33e-01
4.68e+01
NDa
3.09e+00
3.43e+01
2.28e-01
-8.73e+00
-4.62e-02
3.15e-01
2.32e-01
#/ton
1.13e-06
3.31e-06
1.70e-07
1. 51e-06
5.23e-07
NDa
NDa
3.68e-07
NDa
7.29e-06
2.48e-07
1.99e-05
NDa
1.17e-06
1.19e-05
1.14e-07
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
1.44e-07
1.69e-07
ppb
2.27e+00
NDa
-5.29e-02
1.42e+00
5.00e-01
NDa
NDa
6.84e-01
NDa
NDa
1.31e+00
6.92e+00
4.44e-02
2.87e+00
NDa
-2.89e-02
-1.326-01
-1.676-01
5.72e-01
2.056-01
#/ton
4.72e-07
NDa
0.00e+00b
2.73e-07
1.02e-07
NDa
NDa
9.21e-08
NDa
NDa
3.71e-07
1.80e-06
2.78e-06
6.60e-07
NDa
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
0.00e+00b
1.59e-07
9.06e-08
4-291
-------
Table 4-31 (com.)
VOHAPS
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
1,1,1 -Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene(M 18)
p-Xylene(M 18)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 18)
ppb
8.50e+00
1.63e+01
NDa
NDa
1.36e-02
1.40e+01
1.09e+01
3.25e+01
4.28e+00
1.22e+01
#/ton
2.65e-06
5.19e-06
NDa
NDa
6.33e-09
5.03e-06
4.00e-06
1.19e-05
1.54e-06
4.47e-06
ppb
2.27e+00
3.44e+01
NDa
NDa
3.66e-02
3.43e+00
1.04e+01
2.03e+01
9.27e-01
8.57e+00
#/ton
9.17e-07
1.27e-05
NDa
NDa
2.20e-08
1.59e-06
4.43e-06
8.64e-06
4.31e-07
3.65e-06
ppb
3.67e-00
1.07e+01
NDa
NDa
7.49e-02
6.67e-00
NDa
NDa
2.40e^00
NDa
-•ton
9.02e-07
2,42e-()d
NDa
NDa
2.75e-08
1.89e-06
O.00e-M)0b
NDa
6.79e-0"
NDa
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency
corrected measured concentration.
4-292
-------
Table 4-32. ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN RESULTS FROM SELECTED STATES3
State
Massachusetts
Plant D - MA
Connecticut
North Carolina
Michigan
Minnesota
Plant C - CA
Number of
Samples
44
3
29
226
32
438
13
Average loss on heating
(ASTM 02872-88)
(percent mass change)
-0.232
-0.237
-0.355
-0.227
-0.272
-0.440
-0.330
Standard Deviation
0.124
0.030
0.147
0.160
0.173
0.289
0.040
a References 355, 356 and 365 to 369.
Table 4-33. ROLLING FILM THICKNESS LOSS ON HEATING DATAa
Temperature
(cleg F)
Date
Loss on Heating
(% by RTFOT)
California Test Data
300
325
350
07/24/98
07/25/98.
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
07/24/98
07/25/98
07/27/98
07/28/98
-0.216
-0.200
-0.142
-0.171
-0.369
-0.311
-0.286
-0.292
-0.686
-0.611
-0.498
-0.510
Date
Loss on Heating
(% by RTFOT)
Massachusetts Test Data
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
10/05/99
10/06/99
10/07/99
-0.089
-0.105
-0.109
-0.216
-0.206
-0.218
-0.400
-0.395
-0.380
a References 355 and 356.
4-293
-------
Table 4-34. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
90% Lower Confidence Limit
Capture Efficiency
Run 1
• -0.362
321
0.64
Run 2
-0.322
316
0.65
Run 3
-0.284
291
0.54
Average
Speciation
Profik
?articulatea
PM
MCEM
#/ton
3.66e-04
3.66e-04
#/ton
8.01e-05
O.OOe+00
#/ton
1.506-04
6.34e-05
#/ton
1.99e-04
1.43e-04
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthvlene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrvsene
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
#/ton
2.79e-07
2.83e-08
1.05e-07
2.42e-08
l.OOe-08
3.14e-09
2.65e-09
3.21e-09
1.15e-08
1.28e-07
1.07e-09
6.85e-08
1.34e-06
1.34e-09
2.44e-06
1.27e-06
3.54e-08
1.25e-06
1.91e-07
#/ton
4.53e-07
5.28e-08
9.50e-08
2.90e-08
1.16e-08
3.26e-09
2.81e-09
3.36e-09
1.09e-08
1.67e-07
NDb
7.49e-08
8.63e-07
NDb
4.38e-06
2.30e-06
2.68e-08
1.06e-06
2.30e-07
#/ton
3.66e-07
4.05e-08
l.OOe-07
2.66e-08
1.08e-08
3.20e-09
2.73e-09
3.28e-09
1.12e-08
1.48e-07
5.35e-10
7.17e-08
1.10e-06
6.69e-10
3.41e-06
1.79e-06
3.11e-08
1. 15e-06
2.10e-07
PAH 'MCEM
0.26%
0 028%
0.070%,
0.019%
' 0.0076%
0.0022%
0.0019%.
0.0023°, o
0.0078%
0.103%,
0.0003 7'-: o
0.050%
0.77%
0.00047°;.
2.38%
1.25%
0.022%.
0.81%
0 15%
Other SVOHAPs
Phenol
NDb
NDb
5.08e-06
1.69e-06
1.18%
a Adjusted Particulate and MCEM paniculate deposition data presented in the test report are 1 .45 x 10"
and 1.93 x 10 respectively.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-294
-------
Table 4-35. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
90% Lower Confidence Limit
Capture Efficiency
Run 1
-0.362
321
0.64
Run 2 .
-0.322
316
0.65
Run 3
-0.284
291
0.54
Average
Speciation
Profile
THCa
Methane
Acetone
CO
Ethylene
TOCC
#/ton
2.41e-03
1.70e-04
3.21e-06
1.36e-05
2.60e-05
#/ton
3.56e-03
2.18e-04
2.25e-06
1.98e-03
NDb
#/ton
6.20e-03
4.00e-04
1.85e-07
2.05e-03
6.01e-05
#/ton
4.05e-03
2.63e-04
1.88e-06
1.35e-03
2.87e-05
4.06e-03
VOHAP/THC
(%)
6.48%
0.046%
0.71%
VOHAPS
Benzene (M 0030)
Benzene (M 18)
Benzene (Average)
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene (M 0030)
Cumene (M 18)
Cumene (Average)
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Ethylbenzene (M 18)
Ethylbenzene (Average)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
Hexane(M 18)
Hexane (Average)
Isooctane
#/ton
2.3Ie-06
ND
8.47e-07
1.98e-06
1.82e-07
2.55e-08
ND
7.70e-07
ND
1.37e-05
1.27e-06
1.93e-05
ND
1.24e-06
8.33e-06
ND
#/ton
2.17e-06
6.33e-06
3.25e-07
2.89e-06
l.OOe-06
ND
ND
7.04e-07
ND
1.39e-05
4.74e-07
3.81e-05
ND
2.23e-06
2.27e-05
2.17e-07
#/ton
1.82e-06
ND
0.00e+00d
1 .05e-06
3.92e-07
ND
ND
3.56e-07
ND
ND
1.43e-06
6.96e-06
1.07e-05
2.55e-06
ND
O.OOe+00
#/ton
2.10e-06
3.91e-07
1.97e-06
5.25e-07
8.50e-09
6.10e-07
4.60e-06
1.13e-05
3.58e-06
6.17e-06
7.25e-08
0.052%
0.0096%
0.049%
0.013%
0.00021%
0.015%
0.11%
0.28%
0.088%
0.15%
0.0018%
4-295
-------
Table 4-35 (com.)
VOHAPS
Methylene Chloride
MTBE.
Stvrene
TetrachJoromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
Toluene (M 18)
Toluene (Average)
1.1,1 -Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
m-Xylene(M 18)
p-Xylene(M 18)
m-/p-Xylene (Average)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene(M 18)
o-Xylene (Average)
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
ND
2.61e-07
4.02e-06
7.86e-06
ND
ND
9.58e-09
7.63e-06
6.06e-06
1.81e-05
2.33e-06
6.78e-06
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
2.75e-07
3.22e-07
1.75e-06
2.43e-05
ND
ND
4.21e-08
3.05e-06
8.47e-06
1.65e-05
8.23e-07
6.98e-06
#/ton
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
6.13e-07
3.50e-07
3.48e-06
9.35e-06
ND
ND
1.06e-07
7.29e-06
ND
ND
2.62e-06
ND
#/ton
O.OOe+00
0 OOe+00
2.96e-07
3.11e-07
8.46e-06
O.OOe+00
O.OOe+00
5.26e-08
1.66e-05
3.26e-06
0.0%
0.0%
0.0073%
0.0077° r,
0.21%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0013%
0.41%
0.080%
THC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
c TOC equals THC plus formaldehyde.
Values presented as O.OOe+00 had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency
corrected measured concentration.
4-296
-------
Table 4-36. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED LOAD-OUT
EMISSIONS - PLANT D
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT. % by weight)
Load out Temperature (F)
Particulate Matter (PM)
MCEM
THC (ppm)
Run 1
10/5/98
-0.204
306.7
Ib/ton
2.11e-03
9.90e-04
6.16e-03
Run 2
10/6/98
-0.246
325.1
Ib/ton
1.93e-03
3.04e-04
3.47e-03
Run 3
10/7/98
-0.261
326.7
Ib/ton
8.33e-04
2.33e-04
3.13e-03
Average
-0.237
319.5
Ib/ton
1.62e-03
5.09e-04
4.25e-03
Deposition
Ib/ton
3.89e-05a
8.77e-06
a Calculated from data reported in Appendix C and Appendix D of the PES test report.
Table 4-37. LOAD-OUT EMISSIONS AT -0.5% LOSS ON HEATING AND 325 °
Total Particulate
MCEM Particulate
Inorganic Particulate
THC
Plant C Silo filling
Ib/ton
5.85e-04
2.53e-04
3.32e-04
1.22e-02
Plant C Load-out
Ib/ton
3.43e-04
1.62e-04
1.81e-04
4.05e-03
Plant D Load-out
Ib/ton
1.67e-03
5.18e-04
1.15e-03
4.25e-03
a Particulate values represent the sum of the average values from sampling and deposition.
4-297
-------
Table 4-38. REPORTED PARTICULATE BASED SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by Weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Paniculate Matter (PM)a
MCEM3
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indenof 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Run 1
-0.362
321
Ib/ton
5.95e-04
2.06e-04
Run 2
-0.322
316
Ib/ton
4.37e-04
1.60e-04
Ib/ton
4.38e-07
NDb
1.31e-07
3.92e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.48e-07
NDb
1.27e-07
1.38e-06
NDb
6.46e-06
1.84e-06
4.84e-08
2.24e-06
5.30e-07
Run 3
-0.284
291
Ib/ton
1.53e-04
3.51e-05
Ib/ton
2.46e-07
NDb
8.12e-08
3.77e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.41e-07
NDb
9.71e-08
4.93e-07
NDb
2.90e-06
1 .04e-06
NDb
9.28e-07
2.46e-07
Run 4
-0284
291
Ib'ton
4 56e-07
: 71e-08
!.16e-0~
5.30e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
1.85e-08
1.97e-07
NDb
I.23e-07
" S9e-07
NDb
4 19e-06
1.6()e-0o
3.45e-08
1 48e-06
3 58e-07
a Paniculate and MCEM paniculate deposition data presented in the test report are 7.12 x 10° and
1.12 x 10"" Ib/ton respectively.
b ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-298
-------
Table 4-39. REPORTED VOLATILE ORGANIC SILO FILLING EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating (RTFOT, % bv weight)
Load out Temperature (F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
Run 3
-0.284
291
THC
VIethane
CO
Acetone
Ethvlene
Ib/ton
5.3e-03
6.1e-05
5.2e-04
1.41e-06
2.2e-05
Ib/ton
6.4e-03
1.2e-06
1.4e-04
4.98e-06
2.1e-06
Ib/ton
4.2e-03
NDaa
6.4e-04
2.21e-06
9.4e-05
Volatile HAPs
Acrylomtrile
AIM chloride
Benzene (M 0030)
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene(M 18)
DibromochJoromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-DichJoroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
2.53e-06
NE>a
NDa
2.54e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
8.99e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
1.74e-06
NDa
NDa
5.51e-07
NDa
3.40e-06
2.29e-06
NDa
NDa
7.55e-07
NDa
2.80e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
1.15e-06
NDa
NDa
8.96e-08
NDa
2.02e-06
3.94e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
4.18e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
4-299
-------
Table 4-39 (com.)
Volatile HAPs
Ethylbenzene (M 0030)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methvl methacrvlate
Methvlene Chlonde
MTBE
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinvl chloride
m-/p-Xylene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
Ib/ton
3.21e-06
1.3e-04
1.13e-05
NDa
NDa
7.09e-08
NDa
5.01e-09
no data
2.5e-09
NDa
NDa
5.57e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.79e-05
5.21e-06
Ib/ton
9.37e-07
2.9e-05
3.46e-06
NDa
NDa
2.43e-09
NDa
4.85e-08
no data
3.54e-07
NDa
NDa
2.01e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
5.12e-06
1.90e-06
Ib'ton
!.S7e-06
NDd
3 45e-06
NDa
1 NrDa
NDa
NDd
NDa
no data
3.38e-07
NDa
NDa
2.69e-f)6
NDd
NDa
\T)a
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
8.91e-06
2.44e-06
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-300
-------
Table 4-40. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED PARTICULATE BASED
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT. % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
.Run 3
-0.284
291
Run 4
-0.284
291
Average
Speciation
Profile
Particulate Matter (PM)a
MCEM3
Ib/ton
7.01e-04
3.12e-04
Ib/ton
5.83e-04
3.06e-04
Ib/ton
2.53e-04
1.36e-04
Ib/ton
5.12e-04
2.51e-04
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo( a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2 -Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pervlene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
8.37e-07
NDb
2.50e-07
7.49e-08
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
2.83e-07
NDb
2.43e-07
2.64e-06
NDb
1.23e-05
3.52e-06
9.25e-08
4.28e-06
l.Ole-06
Ib/ton
9.50e-07
NDb
3.14e-07
1.46e-07
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
5.44e-07
NDb
3.75e-07
1.90e-06
NDb
1.12e-05
4.02e-06
NDb
3.58e-06
9.50e-07
Ib/ton
1.76e-06
1.05e-07
4.48e-07
2.05e-07
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
7.14e-08
7.61e-07
NDb
4.75e-07
3.05e-06
NDb
1.62e-05
6.18e-06
1.33e-07
5.71e-06
1.38e-06
Ib/ton
1. 18e-06
3.49e-08
3.37e-07
1.42e-07
2.38e-08
5.29e-07
3.64e-07
2.53e-06
1.32e-05
4.57e-06
7.52e-08
4.53e-06
1.12e-06
PAH/MCEM
(%)
0.47%
0.014%
0.13%
0.056%
0.0095%
0.21%
0.15%
1.01%
5.27%
1.82%
0.030%
1.80%
0.44%
a Adjusted Particulate and MCEM particulate deposition data presented in the test report are 7.26 x 10
and 2.49 x 10"^ Ib/ton respectively.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-301
-------
Table 4-41. TEMPERATURE AND VOLATILITY ADJUSTED VOLATILE ORGANIC
SILO EMISSIONS - PLANT C
Asphalt Loss on Heating
(RTFOT, % by weight)
Load out Temperature (°F)
Run 1
-0.362
321
Run 2
-0.322
316
Run 3
-0.284
291
Average
Speciation Profile
THC (ppm)a
Methane
Acetone
CO
Ethvlene
TOCC
Ib/ton
8.03e-03
9.24e-05
2.14e-06
7.88e-04
3.33e-05
Ib/ton
1.22e-02
2.29e-06
9.52e-06
2.68e-04
4.01e-06
Ib/ton
1.62e-02
NDb
8.53e-06
2.47e-03
3.63e-04
Ib/ton
1.22e-02
3.16e-05
6.73e-06
1.18e-03
1.33e-04
1.22e-02
THC (%)
0.26%
0.055%
1.09°n
Volatile HAP
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene (M 0030)
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
CumenefM 18)
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-DichIoroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
3.83e-06
NDa
NDa
3.85e-07
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.36e-06
NDa
NDa
' NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
3.33e-06
NDa
NDa
1.05e-06
NDa
6.50e-06
4.38e-06
NDa
NDa
1.44e-06
NDa
5.35e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
4.44e-06
NDa
NDa
3.46e-07
NDa
7.80e-06
1.52e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.61e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
Ib/ton
3.87e-06
5.95e-07
4.77e-06
1.97e-06
4.81e-07
2.78e-06
VOHAP/THC (%)
0.032%
0.0040%
0 039%
0.0 1 6%
0.0039%
0.023%
4-302
-------
Table 4-41 (com.)
Volatile HAP
trans- 1 .3-Dichlorcpropene
1.2-Epoxybutane
Ethvl acrylate
Ethvlbenzene (M 0030)
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane (M 0030)
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methvl methacrvlate
Methvlene Chloride
MTBE
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene (M 0030)
1,1,1 -Tri chloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinvl bromide
Vinvl chloride
m-/p-Xvlene (M 0030)
o-Xylene (M 0030)
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
4.86e-06
1.97e-04
1.71e-05
NDa
NDa
1.07e-07
NDa
7.59e-09
NDa
3.79e-09
NDa
NDa
8.44e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
2.71e-05
7.89e-06
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
1.79e-06
5.54e-05
6.61e-06
NDa
NDa
4.65e-09
NDa
9.27e-08
NDa
6.77e-07
NDa
NDa
3.84e-06
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
9.79e-06
3.63e-06
Ib/ton
NDa
NDa
NDa
7.22e-06
NDa
1.33e-05
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa '
NDa
NDa
1.31e-06
NDa
NDa
1.04e-05
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
NDa
3.44e-05
9.42e-06
Ib/ton
4.63e-06
8.41e-05
1.24e-05
3.74e-08
3.34e-08
6.62e-07
7.56e-06
2.38e-05
6.98e-06
VOHAP/THC (%)
0.038%
0.69%
0.10%
0.00031%
0.00027%
0.0054%
0.062%
0.19%
0.057%
a THC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
c TOC equals THC plus formaldehyde.
4-303
-------
Table 4-42. PREDICTED AND ADJUSTED LOSS-ON-HEATING VALUES
Temperature
(°F)
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
California Asphalt
Predicted
RTFOT (%)
-0.0893
-0.1002
-0.1125
-0.1262
-0.1417
-0.1590
-0.1785
-0.2004
-0.2249
-0.2524
-0.2833
-0.3180
-0.3570
Adjusted to
-0.5 % RTFOT @ 325 °F
-0.1404
-0.1575
-0.1768
-0.1985
-0.2228
-0.2501
-0.2807
-0.3150
-0.3536
-0.3969
-0.4455
-0.5000
-0.5613
Massachusetts Asphalt
Predicted
RTFOT (%)
-0.0456
-0.0522
-0.0598
-0.0686
-0.0785
-0.0900
-0.1031
-0.1181
-0.1352
-0.1549
-0.1775
-0.2033
-0.2329
Adjusted to
-0.5 % RTFOT (11 325 °F
-0.1122
-0.1285
-0.1472
-0.1686
-0.1931
-0.2212
-0.2535
-0.2903
-0.3326
-0.3810
-0.4365
-0.5000
-0.5728
4-304
-------
Table 4-43. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS
Pollutant
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthvlene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Speciation profile for Load-out
Emissions
PAH/MCEM (%)a
0.26%
0.028%
0.070%
0.019%
0.0076%
0.0022%
0.0019%
0.0023%
0.0078%
0.103%
0.00037%
0.050%
0.77%
0.00047%
2.38%
1.25%
0.022%
0.81%
0.15%
Speciation Profile for Silo Filling
and Asphalt Storage Tank
Emissions
PAH/MCEM (%)
0.47%
0.014%
0.13%
0.056%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.0095%
0.21%
NDb
0.15%
1.01%
NDb
5.27%
1.82%
0.030%
1.80%
0.44%
Other SVOHAPs
Phenol
1.18%
NDb
a Emission Factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound
by the emission factor for Organic Particulate.
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
4-305
-------
Table 4-44. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR ORGANIC VOLATILE
ORGANIC-BASED COMPOUNDS
Pollutant
Methane
Acetone
Ethvlene
VOHAPS
Acrylonitrile
Ally! chloride
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1,3 -Butadiene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Cumene
Dibromochloromethane
1 .2-Dibromoethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ethvlbenzene
Formaldehyde
Speciation Profile for
Load-Out and Yard Emissions.
COMPOUND/TOC (%)a
6.48%
0.046%
0.71%
NDb
NDb
0.052%
NDb
NDb
0.0096%
NDb
0.049%
0.013%
NDb
NDb
0.00021%
NDb
0.015%
0.11%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.28%
0.088%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt Stoiagc
Tank Emissions
COMPOUND/TOC (%)
0.26%
0.055%
1.09%
NDb
NDb
0.032%
NDb
NDb
0.0049%,
NDb
0.039%
0.016%
NDb
NDb
0.0039%
NDb
0.023%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.038%
0.69%
4-306
-------
Table 4-44 (com.)
Pollutant
n-Hexane
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isooctane
Methyl methacrvlate
Methylene Chloride
MTBE
Stvrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
1,1,1 -Tri chloroethane
1 , 1 .2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinvl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
m-/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Speciation Profile for
Load-Out and Yard Emissions.
COMPOUND/TOC (%)a
0.15%
NDb
NDb
0.0018%
NDb
0.0%
0.0% '
0.0073%
NDb
0.0077%
0.21%
0.0%
NDb
0.0%
0.0013%
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.41%
0.080%
Speciation Profile for Silo
Filling and Asphalt Storage
Tank Emissions
COMPOUND/TOC (%)
0.10%
NDb
NDb
0.00031%
NDb
0.00027%
NDb
0.0054%
NDb
NDb
0.062%
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
NDb
0.19%
0.057%
a Emission Factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound
by the emission factor for Total Organic Compounds (THC).
ND - Measured data below detection limits.
c Values presented as 0.0% had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency corrected
measured concentration.
4-307
-------
Table 4-45. SUMMARY OF CURVE-FITTING RESULTS FOR YARD EMISSIONS DATA
Equation (grams)
r-squared
Time = 5 min
Time = 8 min
Time = 10 min
Linear Function
1.75*T + 0.96
0.927
9.7 grams
15.0 grams
18.5 grams
Nonlinear (quadratic)
-0.025*TA2 + 1.96T + 0.64
0.928
9.8 grams
14.7 grams
17.7 grams
Nonlinear (power)
2.45*TA0.855
0.951
9.7 grams
14.5 grams
17.5 grams
Table 4-46. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR YARD EMISSIONS3
Equation (Ib/ton)
Time = 5 min
Time = 8 min
Time = 10 min
Linear Function
Ib/ton
1.33E-04*T+7.30E-05
7.37 E-04
1.14E-03
1.41 E-03
Nonlinear (quadratic)
Ib/ton
-1.90 E-06*TA2+ 1.49 E-04*T + 4.87 E-06
7.45 E-04
1.12 E-03
1.35 E-03
Nonlinear (power)
Ib/ton
1.86E-04*TA0.855
7.37 E-04
1.10 E-03
1.33 E-03
For the average asphalt load of 29 tons.
4 308
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
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, ;0(l):29-33, January 1960.
4 H. E. Friednch, "Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot Mix Asphalt Paving Batch
Plants", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, /9(I2):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.
4-309
-------
15. Background Information For New Source Performance Standards. EPA 450/2-74- 003. L" S
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. NC. February 1974.
16. Z. S. Kahn and T. W. Hughes. Source Assessment: Asphalt Paving Hoi Mix,
EPA-600/2-77-107n, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, December !9T"
17. V. P. Puzinauskas and L. W. Corbett, Report On Emissions From Asphalt Hot A//.VO
RR-75-1 A, 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, fnc , Santa
Monica, CA. 1978.
21. Herman H. Forsten, "Applications of Fabric Filters to Asphalt Plants", Presented at The 71 st
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, Washington, DC, 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 File
No. 91-ASP-l 1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. NC, February
1992.
25. Emission Test Report, Mathy Construction Company Plant #26, New Richmond, H /vcum/«.
EMB File No. 91-ASP-10, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. NT.
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, North Carolina,
RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1989.
28. Stationary Source Sampling Report, S. T. Woolen Company, Drugstore, North Carolina,
Entropy Environmentalists Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1989.
29. Source Sampling Report For Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company, Gold Hill, North Carolina,
Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, October 1988.
30. Source Sampling For_Particulate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Of Shelby, Inc., Kinvs \1n\intnit-.
North Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 198S
4-310
-------
31. Emission Test Report, Western Engineering Company, Lincoln, Nebraska. EMB Report
83-ASP-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September
1984.
32. Source Sampling Report For Smith And Sons Paving Companv, Pineola. North Carolina,
Environmental Testing Inc., Charlotte, NC, June 1988.
33. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Paving Company, Statesville, North
Carolina, RAMCON Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 1988.
34. Report Of AB2588 Air Pollution Source Testing As 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 Report 84-ASP-8, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1984.
37. Emission Test Report, T. J. Campbell Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, EMB Report
83-ASP-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1984.
38. Characterization Of Inhalable Paniculate Matter Emissions From A Drum-Mix Asphalt Plant,
Final Report, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory', U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1983.
39. NAPA Stack Emissions Program, Interim Status Report, Prepared by Kathryn O'C. Gunkel for
the National Asphalt Pavement Association, February 1993.
40. Written communication from L. M. Weise. State of 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. Paniculate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Biscoe, North
Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 1987.
43. Paniculate Emission Testing On The Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Inc., Concord,
North Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, June 1989.
44. Air Pollution Source Testing At APAC Of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 7, 1991.
45. Air Pollution Source Testing At Lehman Roberts Company, Memphis, Tennessee, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 23, 1991.
4-311
-------
46. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Selected Air Toxics At Industrial Asphalt,
Wilmington, California, Engineering-Science, Inc., Irwindale, CA, August 5, 1992.
47. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Fred Weber, Inc., Maryland Heights,
Missouri, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1 -4. 1904
48. Emission Test Report Determination Of Paniculate, Condensable Paniculate, Sulfur-
Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Total Hydrocarbon, And Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Emission Rates, WW Engineering & Science, Grand Rapids, MI, January, 1994
49. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Melbourne, Florida, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 2-4, 1992.
50. Test Report For Air Pollution Source Testing At Macasphalt, Cross City, Florida. Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 7-9, 1992.
51. Results Of The September 30, 1994 F'articulate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse
Outlet Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located in Duluth, Minnesota. Pace. Inc
Golden Valley, MN, November 15, 1994.
52. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test Performed On A
Asphalt Batch Plant Wet Scrubber System, Tri-City Paving, Inc., Little Falls, Minnesota,
May 11, 1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, June 7, 1993.
53. Results Of The Paniculate Emissions Compliance Test On The Baghouse Stack At Thorson.
Inc., Roseau, Minnesota, Nova Environmental Services, Inc., Chaska, MN, November 16, 1993.
54. Results Of The August 5, 1994 NSPS Paniculate And Opacity Test On The Mark Sand &
Gravel No. 8 Portable Asphalt Plant Near Fergus Falls, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories. Inc..
Circle Pines, MN, November 22, 1994.
55. Results Of The September 8, 1993 Paniculate And Visual Emission Compliance Test On Tin
Baghouse Outlet At The Commercial Asphalt Company Facility Located in Ramsc\,
Minnesota, Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1993.
56. Results Of The September 1, 1993 10 Micron Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The
Baghouse Stack At The Commercial Asphalt Redrock Facility Located in Newport. Minnesota.
Pace, Inc., Golden Valley, MN, September 23, 1993.
57. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated by L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services. Inc..
St. Paul, MN, June 18, 1993.
58. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated by L. C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc .
St. Paul, MN, July 20, 1993.
4-312
-------
59. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L.C. Knise & Sons, Inc., Windom, Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc..
St. Paul. MN, July 28, 1993.
60. Results Of A Source Emission Compliance Test On A Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Process Scrubber
Operated By L.C. Kruse & Sons, Inc., Windom, 'Minnesota, MMT Environmental Services, Inc.,
St. Paul, MN, September 2, 1993.
61. Results Of The August 3, 1993 State Paniculate Emission Compliance Test Of The
Stationary Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories. Inc., Circle Pines, MN.
August 31, 1993.
62. Results Of The Julv 7, 1994 Paniculate And Opacity Emission Compliance Testing Of The
Shamrock Enterprises Stationary Asphalt Plant In Oronoco, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories,
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 5, 1994.
63. Braun Intertec Report Number CMXX-94-0548, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights,
MN, September. 1994.
64. Results Of The July 6. 1994 Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The No. 2
Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed South Of Mankato, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, August 5, 1994.
65. Results Of The August 29, 1994 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The Baghouse
Outlet Stack At The Northland Constructors Facility Located In Twig, Minnesota. Pace, Inc..
Golden Valley, MN, September 21, 1994.
66. Air Emission Test Report, Results Of Emission Compliance Test Performed On A Asphalt Plant
Baghouse System, Northern Asphalt Construction, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 17,
1993, Twin City Testing Corporation, St. Paul, MN, September 16, 1993.
67. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Test Conducted On The
Buffalo Bituminous Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Hanover, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines. MN, June 17, 1993.
68. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.. Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
69. Results Of The May 26, 1993 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test On The No. 7 Portable
Asphalt Plant Stationed Near Appleton, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.. Circle Pines,
MN, July 7, 1993.
70. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, W. Hodgman & Sons, Inc., Nonhrup, Minnesota,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 11, 1993.
71. Results Of The June 17, 1993 NSPS Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests On The
Bemidji Blacktop Portable Asphalt Plant Stationed North Of Bemidji, Minnesota, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 28, 1993.
4-313
-------
72. Results Of The June 21, 1993 NSPS Paniculate And Opacity Compliance Tests O>. '//.,
T. A. Schifsky & Sons Stationary Asphalt Plant Located In North St. Paul. Minne\<
-------
85. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, North East Hot Mix Company Division Of James
Julian, Inc., Belair, Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May
28, 1987.
86. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, I. A. Construction Corporation, Brooklyn,
Maryland. Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 3 & 4, 1989.
87. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Odenton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June, 1987.
88. Source Samp/ing For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction, Inc., Crofton, Maryland.
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August, 1986.
89. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5527, C. Nelson Sigmon Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Conover, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 27. 1987.
90. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5474, Adams Construction Company, Batch
Mix Asphalt Plant, Benson. North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle
Park, NC. April 22, 1987.
91. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Asphalt Paving Company, Hickory, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 21, 1988.
92. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref. No. 5569, Cumberland Paving Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Princeton, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 29, 1987.
93. Paniculate Emissions Test, Asphalt Plant, Carl Rose & Sons, May 20, 1992, Elkin, North
Carolina, Pace. Inc., Charlotte, NC, May, 1992.
94. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, November, 1985.
95. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Mattingly Construction Company, Easton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June, 1984.
96. Stack Test Report No. AM39 82-22, P.O. Day Co., Inc., Boeing MS 400 Asphalt Plant,
Forrestville, Maryland, Division of Air Monitoring, State of Maryland, December 21, 1982.
97. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Reliable Contracting Asphalt Division, Gambrills,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 17, 1984.
98. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 9 & 10, 1986.
99. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., North East, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August, 1984.
4-315
-------
100. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report, Asphaltic Aggregate Dryer Stack, Glasgow
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA. June. 1989
101. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Gens tar Stone Products, Cockeysville. Man lanJ.
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July. 1984.
102. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Graham, North Carolina, Pace, Inc..
Charlotte, NC, August, 1990.
103. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, A.P.A.C.-North Carolina, Burlington. Nnnh
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April, 1991.
104. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 6780, Barnhill Contracting Company, Rocky-
Mount, North Carolina, Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park. NC. June 11.
1990.
105. Compliance Field Test Report For Outerbanks Contracting Asphalt Plant, Plymouth, NC,
Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, April, 1987.
106. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Paolino Paving And Supply, Inc., Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, December 3, 1987
107. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Basic Construction Company, Newport News,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July, 1989.
108. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Bituminous Construction Company, Crofton,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May, 1986.
109. Stack Test Report No. 84-3, James Julian, Inc., Boeing Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, North East,
Cecil County, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, State of Maryland, May. 1984,
110. Stationary Source Sampling Of Paniculate Emissions At Wake Asphalt Plant For Nello I Tec/-
Company, Apex Environmental Services, Apex, NC, August 29, 1990.
111. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Barrus Construction Company, Deppe, North
Carolina, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, July 12, 1990.
112. Source Sampling Report For Blythe Industries, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, Environmental
Testing, Inc., Charlotte, NC, October, 1989.
113. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Quality Materials, Edison, New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 27 & 30, 1989.
114. Source Sampling Report For Thompson Contractors, Inc., Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack,
Rutherfordton, North Carolina, Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, April, 1990.
115. Paniculate Emission Testing, Baghouse Exhaust, Blythe Industries, Hendersonville. North
Carolina, Analytical .Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, May 10, 1988.
4-316
-------
116. Stationary Source Sampling Report EEI Ref No 5630, REA Construction Company,
Continuous Mix Asphalt Plant, Raleigh, North Carolina. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, August 21, 1987.
117. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Bealeton, Virginia, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation. Memphis, TN, September 27, 1989.
118. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Henry S. Branscome. Inc., Suffolk, Virginia.
Ramcon Environmental Corporation. Memphis, TN, September 18, 1989.
119. Source Emissions Survey Of F. R. Lewis Construction Co., Inc., Asphalt Concrete Drum-Mix
Plant, Nacogdoches, Texas, METCO, Addison, TX, November, 1984.
120. An Investigation Of Emissions At The Erie St. Drum Mix Asphalt Plant, Engineering-Science,
Inc., Fairfax. VA, May, 1988.
121. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Blakemore Construction Company, Piney River,
Virginia. Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May, 1989.
122. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, B & S Contracting Company, North
Hamsonburg, Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 21,1990.
123. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Barb & Shumaker, Inc., Abingdon, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 29, 1987.
124. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, B & S Contracting Company, Stuarts Draft,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 4, 1990.
125. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Maryland Paving, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, May 19, 1986.
126. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R. F. Kline, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis. TN, September 9 & 10, 1986.
127. Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Paniculate Emissions At PAPCO Asphalt Plant #5,
Apex Environmental Services, Salisbury, NC, May 9, 1991.
128. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Heidt Construction Company, West Lake,
Louisiana, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, March 24, 1987.
129. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, APAC - Virginia, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, April 30, 1987.
130. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Conin & Gdtch, Inc., Aberdeen, Maryland,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 14, 1988.
131. Source Samp/ing For Paniculate Emissions, Holloway Construction Company, Hancock,
Maryland, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October, 1984.
4-317
-------
132. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Cockeysvillc. Man-land,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis. TN, November, 1985.
133. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Genstar Stone Products, Frederick. Man-land.
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis. TN, July, 1987.
134. TACB Testing Of Asphaitic Concrete Plant Stack Emissions. Wood Material Supply, Inc.,
Conroe, Texas, NUS Corporation, Houston, TX, July, 1987.
135. Source Sampling Report For Thompson-Arthur Paving Company, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Pace, Inc., Charlotte, NC, September, 1990.
136. Stationary Source Sampling Report Reference No. 8116, S.T. Woolen Company, Princeton,
North Carolina, Paniculate Emissions And Plume Opacity Testing, Rotary Dryer Stack.
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1, 1990
137. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wilmington Materials Company, New Castle,
Delaware, Ramcon Environmental Corporation. Memphis. TN, May, 1987.
138. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Williams Corporation Of Virginia, Suffolk,
Virginia, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, June 12, 1989.
139. Paniculate Emission Testing On The Scrubber Exhaust, Triangle Paving, Inc.. Burlington,
North Carolina, Analytical Testing Consultants, Inc., Kannapolis, NC, November 16, 1990.
140. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, American Asphalt Of Wisconsin, Plant #2, Arnott.
Wisconsin, Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska, WI, May 21, 1991.
141. Report To Appleton Asphalt For Stack Emission Test, Green Bay Asphalt Plant, DePere.
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove. WI,
May 20, 1991.
142. Report To Frank Brothers, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, CM Drum Mix Asphalt Plant.
Milton, Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove. WI.
July 29, 1987.
143. Biehl Construction Asphalt Plant Emission Test At Fon du Lac, WI, Badger Laboratories &
Engineering Company, Inc., Appleton, WI, September 19, 1991.
144. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Baraboo Asphalt Company, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
Rarrcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, August 9, 1988.
145. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Brown County Highway Department, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, October 2, 1990.
146. Report To W. J. Kennedy & Son, Inc., For Stack Emission Test, Bituma 300 Plant, Janesville,
Wisconsin, Environmental Technology & Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI,
November 13, 1991.
4-318
-------
147. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Eau Claire Asphalt. Plant #50, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin. Mathy Construction Company, Onalaska. WI, May 30, 1990
148. Source Test Report For Popejoy Construction Co., Inc.. Ulysses. KS, Scrubber Exhaust Stack.
Recycle Asphalt Plant, Turner Engineering, Inc., Dallas, TX, July 9, 1984.
149. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Flanders. New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation. Memphis, TN, November, 1988.
150. STA Seal, Inc.. Emission Compliance Test Program. Mansfield Township Facility', Air Nova,
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January, 1992.
151. Trap Rock Industries, Inc., Emission Compliance Test Program. Pennington Facility, Air Nova,
Inc., Pennsauken, NJ, January, 1992.
152. Technical Report For Stack Emission Compliance Testing On Three Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Owned And Operated by Weldon Asphalt Company. York Services Corporation, Stamford, CT,
September 26, 1991.
153. Report Of Emission Tests, Weldon Asphalt Corporation, Linden. New Jersey, N.J.D.E.P. ID
No. 040015, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental
Quality, Bureau of Air Pollution Control. September 4, 1987.
154. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Weldon Asphalt. Linden. New Jersey, Ramcon
Environmental Corporation, Memphis. TN, April 25, 1988.
155. Stack Test Report, Hydrocarbon & Carbon Monoxide Emissions, Quality Materials, Inc.
Edison, NJ, Ecodynamics, Inc., Little Silver, NJ, November 20, 1989.
156. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Baghouse Outlet
Stack (Plant 3), Lake Hopatcong. NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan, NJ. January 24, 1992.
157. Compliance Stack Sampling Report For Tri-County Asphalt Corporation, Scrubber Outlet
Stack (Plant 4), Lake Hopatcong, NJ, Recon Systems, Inc., Raritan. NJ, January 24, 1992.
158. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Burlington Asphalt Corporation, Mount
Holly. New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air Quality
Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton, NJ, May 29, 1992.
159. CO/THC Compliance Stack Emission Test Results, Brunswick Hot Mix Corporation, South
Brunswick, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Air
Quality Regulations Program, Bureau of Technical Services, West Trenton, NJ, June 8, 1992.
160. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Hudson Materials, Inc., Ringwood, New Jersey,
Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September, 1987.
161. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Jackson Asphalt And Concrete Company,
Jackson, New Jersey, Ramcon Environmental Corporation, Memphis, TN, September 1, 1988.
4-319
-------
162. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At Claude C. Wood Compam; Clement*
California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA, January 22, 1991.
163. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At Granite Construction Company Asphalt
Concrete Drum-Mix Plant, Sacramento, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento. CA
January 29, 1991.
164. Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory Test At California Commercial Asphalt
Corporation, San Diego, California, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., Sacramento, CA. January 2^.
1991.
165. Source Emission Evaluation At Ace Paving Company, Inc Barber Greene Asphalt Plum
Baghouse Stack Methods Testing, AM Test, Preston. WA, July 21, 1993.
166. Source Test Summary Of Emission To Atmosphere At Acme Concrete Co., Inc.. Richmond. WA
Washington Department of Ecology, April 7, 1987.
167. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Ajax Materials Corp., Detroit, Ml Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 13, 1988.
168. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Ajax Paving Industries Intenter Rd Romulu\.
MI, Ramcon Environmental Corp. Memphis, TN, August 10, 1992.
169. Stack Sampling Report For American Asphalt Paving Co., Shavertown, PA, Recon Systems Inc..
Three Bridges, NJ, October 17, 1983.
170. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Asphalt, Inc. Lakeside, CA. San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 12, 1989.
171. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Better Materials Corp., Penns Park. PA. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 31, 1988.
172. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Bi-Co Paving Co., Ragley, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 23, 1987.
173. Air Emissions Source Test Report At Associated Sand And Gravel Co., Inc., Everett. WA. Valid
Results Air Emissions Testing Specialist, Seattle, WA, November 10, 1993.
174. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions B. P. Short & Sons Paving Co., Lawrcnccville, ('A.
Ramcon EnvironmentaJ Corp., Memphis, TN, April 20, 1988.
175. Paniculate Emissions Test Barber Brothers Constr., Houma, LA, State of Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, November 3, 1989.
176. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Paniculate Emissions Barrett Paving material.-,
Inc. Lebanon, OH, Hayden Environmental Group, Inc. Dayton, OH, June 7, 1994
4-320
-------
177. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Troy, OH, Hayden Environmental
Group, Inc. June 30,1994.
178. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Fairborne, OH, Hayden
Environmental Group, Inc. Dayton, OH July 6, 1994,
179. Compliance Emissions Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead
Emissions From Asphalt Plant Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Sidney, OH, Hayden
Environmental Group, Dayton, OH, August 26, 1994.
180. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Bowen Construction Co., Lees Summit, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 24, 1989.
181. Report Of Paniculate And Visible Emission Testing At Berks Products Corp. Asphalt Batch
Plant, Ontelauee Township PA, Spotts, Stevens and McCorp, Inc., April 3, 1992.
182. Source Emissions Report For C. B. Asphalt, Inc. Asphalt Facility Huntington. MO, Airsource
Technologies Lenexa. KS, May 5, 1993.
183. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Filterable Paniculate And Lead Emissions Barrett
Paving, Materials, Inc., Sidney, OH, Hayden Environmental group Inc. Dayton, OH, November
4, 1994.
184. Compliance Test Report Determination Of Paniculate Emission Rates From The Asphalt
Plant Butler Asphalt Fairborn, OH, Hayden Environmental Group Inc. Dayton, OH August 3,
1994.
185. Report On The results Of Velocity Profile And Paniculate Loading Tests performed At V. R.
Dennis Canyon Rock Co. San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District Dan Diego,
C A, September 17, 1985.
186. Stack Emissions Survey Dolphin construction Co., Calhoun, LA, Western Environmental
Services and Testing , Inc. Beaumont, TX, April 1987.
187. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Curtman Contracting, Inc. Owensville, MO,
Ramcon Memphis, TN, October 16,1989.
188. Paniculate Emission Testing Asphalt Plant Baghouse Springfield Pike Quarry Commercial
Stone, Connellsville, PA, Comprehensive Safety Compliance. Inc. Pittsburgh, PA, August 24,
1990.
189. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Companv Sugar Creek, MO,
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, April 16, 1991.
190. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions City Wide Asphalt Co., Inc. St. Joseph, MO,
Ramcon, Memphis, TN, October 18, 1988.
4-321
-------
191. Stack Emissions Survey Chester Brass Construction Co. Asphalt Concrete Drum-1/.; Plant
Plattsburg, MO, Western Environmental Services and Testing, Inc. Casper, WY. August 24.
1993.
192. Paniculate And Visible Emission Test For Camdenton County Asphalt Production -\Mihalt
Drum Mixers, Camdenton, MO. Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia. MO. Juh 25,
1990.
193. Report Of Air Pollution Source Testing For Paniculate Matter At Calmat (Industrial Asphalt
Corp.) Pala Indian Reservation, Pala, CA, Engineering Science, Irwindale. CA. February 25.
1990.
194. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At Calmat Co., Pain ('A. San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 17, 1989.
195. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Wyoming Sand & Stone, Wilkes-Bn1! i /'. -
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 14, 1988.
196. Source Test Of Paniculate Emissions To The Atmosphere At California Commercial Asphalt
Corp., San Diego, CA, San Diego Air Pollution Control District. San Diego, CA. March 19.
1990.
197. Summary Of Source Test Results At Kaiser Sand & Gravel Pleasanton, CA, Bav Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, May 20, 1991.
198. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At F. G. Sullivan Co., Inc. Port Allen I A. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., October 21, 1992.
199. Source sampling For Paniculate Emissions At H&B Batch-Mix. Baghouse. Fred \\\>hei 1m
Pevely, MO, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 19, 1993.
200. Source Test Report Paniculate Emissions Faylor Middlecreed, Winjleld, PA, Meast'
Engineering Assoc. State College, PA. August 1987.
201. Source Test Report Paniculate Emissions Faylor Middle Creek, Winjleld, PA. Meuse
Engineering Assoc., State College, PA, June 1988.
202. Report Of Paniculate And Visible Emissions Testing HRI, Inc. Testing Performed On Asphalt
Batch Plant Baghouse Exhaust Stack, The General Crushed Stone Co. Lake Ariel P. I SSM,
August 14-15, 1991.
203. Source sampling Report For Measurement Of Paniculate Emissions Glasgow. Inc. Catanach
Facility, Batch Asphalt Plant, Gilbert Commonwealth, Inc. Reading, PA August, I L>90
204. Summary Of Source Test Results At Dumbarton Quarry Assoc., Fremont, CA. Ba\ Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, June 23, 1992.
205. Source Sampling For.Particulate Emissions F. G. Sullivan Co., Ramcon Environmental Corp .
Memphis, TN March 6 & 7, 1991.
4-322
-------
206. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Cyclean. Inc. Mt. Hope, PA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis. TN, October 15, 1992.
207 Summary* Of Source Test Results At Chevron USA, Inc., Richmond, CA, Bay Area Air Qualm'
Management District, San Francisco. CA, April 24, 1990.
208. Source Test Summary Emissions To Atmosphere At Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, November 23,1983.
209. Compliance Emission Test Coatings Asphalt Plant Baghouse At Charles Oliver & Sons,
Coalinga, CA, BTC Environmental Inc., Ventura, CA, July 13. 1993.
210. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Paniculate, Visible And VOC Emissions At E.
J. Breneman, Inc. Sinking Spring, PA, Gilbert' Commonwealth, Inc. Reading, PA, July 1992.
211. Central Valley Asphalt Compliance Stact Test Program At Central Valley Asphalt Division Of
Glenn O. Hawraker, Inc. Pleasant Gap, PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
Monroeville, PA. July 1990.
212. Compliance Test Program Scrubber Exhaust Stack At Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. State College,
PA, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc., Monroeville, PA, August 1991.
213. Compliance Test Rotary Drier Baghouse At Granite Construction, Goleta, CA, BTC
Environmental. Inc. Ventura. CA, May 8, 1990.
214. Source Testing At Granite Construction, Pitchaco, CA, BWE Associates, Inc. Medford, OR.
June 10, 1991.
215. Summary Of Source Test Results A t Granite Rock Co. San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Francisco, CA October 3, 1989.
216. Summary Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, San Jose, CA, October 18, 1990.
217. Summon' Of Source Test Results At Granite Rock Co., San Jose, CA, Bay Area Air Quality'
Management District, San Francisco, CA September 13,1992.
218. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Great Valley Construction Co., Devault, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, December 18, 1987.
219. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions At Haines & Kibblehouse, Blooming Glen, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1987.
220. Source Sampling Report For Measurement Of Paniculate Emissions, Haines And Kibblehouse
Asphalt Batch Plant Chalpont, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, February 10,
1992.
221. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Handweek Materials, Inc. Hummelstown, PA,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 14, 1988.
4-323
-------
222. Paniculate Emission Testing Of The Hastings Pavement Asphalt Plant, Leesport. PA. JMCA
Corp., Fort Washington, PA, May 1986.
223. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions L. A. Construction Corp , Bigler. PA. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 29, 1987.
224. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L.A. Construction Corp , Port Allegham PA.
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis. TN, September 13, 1990.
225. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions I. A. Construction Corp. Punxsutmvncy PA.
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 11, 1990 .
226. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Calmat (Industrial Asphalt),Pala Indian Rt>sew
CA.,Engineering Science, Irwmdale, CA, March 18, 1991.
227. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA, San Joaquir
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control, Fresno, CA, June 1, 1993.
228. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,Fresno, CA. Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield, CA, May 12, 1992.
229. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp..Fresno, CA, Genesis
Environmental Services Co., Bakersfield, CA, May 27, 1992.
230. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 24, 1987.
231. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego. CA, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 6, 1989.
232. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp. .San Diego, CA. San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, January 24, 1990.
233. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego, CA San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 23, 1991.
234. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp.,San Diego. C-i San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, July 21, 1991.
235. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Windsor Service, Reading, PA, United Fnerg)
Services Corp., Reading, PA, October 21, 1992.
236. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA. San Diego An
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 9, 1990.
237. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, LA. Construction Corp., Vista, CA San Diego An
Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, September 17, 1991.
4-324
-------
238. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Inland Asphalt Co., Spokane, WA, Spokane
County Air Pollution Control Authority, Spokane. WA, August 15, 1985.
239. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, International Mill Service. Coatesville, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth. Inc., Reading PA. May 26-27, 1988.
240. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. James Julian, Inc.,Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, October 16, 1991.
241. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, James Julian, Inc., Perry Township, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 25, 1992.
242. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, King Brothers, Inc., Moundsville, WV, TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV. September 3-4, 1987.
243. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. L'. J. Earnest Co., Plain Dealing, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp.. Memphis. TN, May 25, 1987.
244. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN. April 6. 1989.
245. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 10, 1989.
246. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, L. J. Earnest Co., Shreveport, LA, Ramcon,
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8. 1993.
247. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries Barber Green Asphalt Plant,
Aberdeen, WA, Am Test, Inc., Redmond. WA, May 25, 1988.
248. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Kent, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston. WA. June 7-8, 1994.
249. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Lacey, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Seattle, WA, July 18, 1985.
250. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Shelton, WA. Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, June 3, 1992.
251. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 23, 1993.
252. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Port Angeles, WA, Am Test,
Inc., Seattle, WA, September 10, 1985.
253. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lakeside Industries, Monroe, WA, Am Test, Inc.,
Preston, WA, July 26, 1993.
4-325
-------
254. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Lash Paving And Excavating, Inc., Martin-, Fern:
OH, Tra-Det, Inc., Wheeling. WV. October 14-15, 1992.
255. Source Samp/ing For Particulate Emissions, Latrobe Construction Co., Latrobe. P. f
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, Apnl 25, 1990.
256. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Leo Journagan Construction Co.. Springfield,
MO, Aeromet Engineering Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 20, 1994.
257. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions. Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston, LA.
Ramcon, Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 8, 1986.
258. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lincoln Asphalt Paving, Inc., Ruston. LA,
Ramcon, Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 19, 1990.
260. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Lindy Paving, Inc., New Castle. PA.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, May 13-14, 1992.
261. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Looker & Associates, Puyallup, WA. Am Test Inc.,
Preston, WA, September 8, 1994.
262. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, M.A. Segale, Inc., Tukwila, WA, Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency, Corvallis, OR, March 13, 1985.
263. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Marsh Asphalt, Inc., Uniontown, PA,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 20-21, 1990.
264. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Marsolino Asphalt, Inc., Carmichacls, PA.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, June 17, 1988.
265. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Martin Limestone, Inc., Blue Ball, PA.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Reading, PA, September 6, 1989.
266. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson. Inc., Butler. MO, Ramcon.
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 9, 1987.
267. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Springfield. MO,
AirSource Technologies, Lenexa, KA, August 5-6, 1991.
268. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Woodworth & Company, Inc., Tacoma. WA. Am
Test, Inc., Redmond, WA, September 6, 1990.
270. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Masters And Jackson, Inc., Buffalo. MO, Aeromet
Engineering, Inc., Jefferson City, MO, July 21, 1994.
271. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster. PA
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, October 9, 1987.
4-326
-------
272. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, McMinn s Asphalt Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA,
Gilbert'Commonwealth, Inc.. Pittsburgh, PA, July 17. 1990.
273 Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Millcreek Township Asphalt Plant, Erie, PA.
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, June 23, 1991.
274. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, N.B. West Contracting Co., Brentwood, MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1993.
275. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, New Enterprise Stone And Lime Co., Inc., New
Enterprise, PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA. October 19, 1988.
276. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Ohio Vallev Paving Corp , Mornstown, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August, 18, 1988.
277 Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R E. Hazard Contracting Co.. San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego. CA, February, 13, 1978.
278. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA. San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 3, 1990.
279. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control Distnct, San Diego, CA, August 26, 1992.
280. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, R.E. Hazard Contracting Co., San Diego, CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District. San Diego, CA, September 5, 1991.
281. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Richardson & Bass Construction Co., Columbia,
MO, Aeromet Engineering, Jefferson City, MO, October 12, 1993.
282. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Southern Ohio Asphalt, Spring Valley, OH, The
Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, May 13, 1994.
283. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc., San Rafael, CA,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA.\, June 1, 1992.
284. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Sharp Excavating And Blacktopping, Shelocta,
PA, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Pittsburgh, PA, May 29, 1986.
285. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, July 30, 1991.
286. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, October 20, 1992.
287. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, San Diego
County Air Pollution, CA, July 31, 1991.
4-327
-------
288. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad. CA, San
County Air Pollution. San Diego, CA. October 20. 1992.
289. Source Samp/ing For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA Sun Diego
County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 19, 1991.
290. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, South Coast-Escondido, Escondido. CA, San
Diego County Air Pollution, San Diego, CA, September 16, 1992.
291. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., f'airfield OH.
The Shelly Co., Thomville. OH. November 12, 1990.
292. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co., Fairfield. OH
The Shelly Co., Thornville, OH, November 6, 1991.
293. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, The Southern Ohio Asphalt Co.-, Fairfic, i Oil
The Shelly Co., Thomville, OH, March 25, 1993.
294. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Stabler Construction Co., Duponf. PA. Rarricon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 8, 1987.
295. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Stoneco. Inc.. Maumee, OH, U. S. Environmental
Consulting, Inc., Troy, MI, June 11, 1992.
296. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Superior Asphalt, Lee s Summit. MO. AirSource
Technologies, Lenexa, KA, June 15, 1993.
297. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Syar Industries, Inc., Vallego, CA. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA, April 4, 1990.
298. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, T.L. James Paving Co., Monroe, LA. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis. TN, November 12, 1991.
299. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, T.L. James Paving Co., Opelousa. LA. Department
of Environment Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, April 22, 1989.
300. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville. Ml. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 17, 1987.
301. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Detroit, Ml. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 7, 1988.
302. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Thompson-McCully Co., Belleville. V//, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 29, 1988.
303. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, T. P. C. Paving And Supply, Delmoi::. PA.
Comprehensive Safety Compliance, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, May 31, 1990.
4-328
-------
304. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions. Tri-State Asphalt, Weirton. WV, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN. April 24. 1986.
305. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Washington, PA, Hemeon
Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, July 7, 1987.
306. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Tri-State Asphalt, Wheeling, WV, West Virginia
Air Pollution Control Commission, Wheeling, WV, April 24, 1986.
307. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, V. R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA,
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, December 16, 1991.
308. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, V R. Dennis-Canyon Rock Co., San Diego, CA,
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San Diego, CA, October 8, 1992.
309. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Vallev Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Morrow, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp.,Memphis, TN, September 20, 1994.
310. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp.,Plant #3, Ross, OH, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 14, 1991.
311. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9. Sharonville, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 19, 1989.
312. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #17, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
313. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #5, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 27, 1991.
314. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #9, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 21, 1994.
315. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #20, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September 23-24, 1992.
316. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #18, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 3, 1993.
317. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #1 7, Camp Dennison,
OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 6, 1988.
318. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #11, Xenia, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, September-23, 1993.
319. Source Sampling For Particulate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #6, Dayton, OH,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, May 11, 1993.
4-329
-------
320. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Valley Asphalt Corp., Plant #7, Dayton. OH.
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN. May 14, 1993.
321. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt Corp., Ansonia. OH. Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, October 29, 1992.
322. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walls Bros. Asphalt & Manufacturing, Inc..
Brookville, OH, Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, April 2, 1991.
323. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, W.C. Hargis & Son, Brazil, IN, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, June 15, 1990.
324. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Herbert R. Imbt. Inc., Belief ante, PA, Mease
Engineering Associates, State College, PA, July 26-27, 1988.
325. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Blue Top Grading, Colorado Springy CO WV
Air Pollution Control Commission, Charleston, WV, May 14-15, 1986.
326. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Hi-Line Asphalt Paving Co..Inc., Seattle, \VA. Am
Test, Seattle, WA, August 9, 1985.
327. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials Inc., Philadelphia, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, July 26-27, 1989.
328. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Plant #15, •
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 16-17, 1990.
329. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Highway Materials, Inc., Reading, PA,
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., Reading, PA, October 22-23, 1986.
330. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Walsh & Kelly, Port Of Indiana. IN, Ramcon
Environmental, Memphis, TN, October 31, 1991.
331. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Watson Asphalt Paving Co.,Inc., Redmond, WA,
Am Test, Redmond, WA, September 21, 1990.
332. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Weidle Sand & Gravel, Germantown. OH. Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc., mason, OH, May 25, 1994.
333. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Fern' Co , TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, July 1 & 3, 1987.
334. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wilson Blacktop Co., Martins Ferry Co., TraDet
Laboratories, Inc., Wheeling, WV, June 15, 1993.
335. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Willard Asphalt Paving Co., Lebanon. MO,
Ramcon Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, August 9-10, 1994.
4-330
-------
336. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions, Wine Construction Co., Sewickley, PA, Hemeon
Associates. Inc., Pittsburgh. PA. June 30. 1992.
337. Source Sampling For Paniculate Emissions Winjord Co., Bossier City, LA, Ramcon
Environmental Corp., Memphis, TN, July 1, 1986.
338. REFERENCE NUMBER DELETED-NOT USED.
339. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A,
Clayton, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-00-020, April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer
Stack, Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 1 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-021a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual
Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant A, Clayton, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-021b. April 2000.
340. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack. Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B,
Cary, North Carolina. EPA-454/R-00-022. April 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer
Stack, Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Cary, North Carolina. Volume 1 Of 2,
EPA-454/R-00-023a, April 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Kiln Dryer Stack, Manual
Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant B, Cary, North Carolina, Volume 2 Of 2, EPA-454/R-00-023b,
April 2000.
341. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 5 Asphalt Plant, Verona, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 24, 1995.
342. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 6 Asphalt Plant, Vienna, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 18, 1995.
343. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 7 Asphalt Plant, Franklin, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 21, 1995.
344. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 24 Asphalt Plant, Kiel, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, October 5, 1995.
345. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 26 Asphalt Plant, Fish Creek, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, May 13, 1997.
346. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Asphalt Plant, Freedom, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, September 27, 1995.
347. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 52 Asphalt Plant, Rio, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, June 30, 1995.
348. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 59 Asphalt Plant, Wautoma, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, July 16, 1996.
349. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 63 Asphalt Plant, Larsen, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, WI, August 2, 1996.
4-331
-------
350. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan, Inc., Control 65 Asphalt Plant, Green Ba\ "7
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove. WI. July 15, 199?
351. Stack Emission Test, Payne & Dolan. Inc., Control 68 Asphalt Plant, Menasha. \VI
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corp., Elm Grove, Wl, June 24, 199"
352. Measurement Of NOX Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen Mills Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading, PA, June 27 1995
353. Measurement Of NOxAnd VOC Emissions, General Crushed Stone, Inc., Glen A////•>• ~-)
Asphalt Plant Baghouse Exhaust, Easton, PA, United Energy Services Corp., Reading. PA.
November 10, 1995.
354. J. S. Gammie, Compliance Test Report, Hot Mix, Inc./Fuller Sand & Gravel, Im. . Baghouse
Exhaust, Danby, VT, Environmental Risk Limited. Bloomfield, CT, November 1995.
355. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading And Silo Filling, Instrumental Methods Testing.
Asphalt Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-024, May 2000; Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants. Truck Loading And Silo Filling, Manual Methods Testing, Volumes 1 To S. Asphalt
Plant C, Los Angeles, California, EPA-454/R-00-025a to h, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt
Plants, Technical Systems Audit For Testing At Asphalt Plant C, Asphalt Plant C. Los Angeles.
California, EPA-454/R-00-026, May 2000.
356. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading, Instrumental Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barrc.
Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-027, May 2000; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Truck Loading.
Manual Methods Testing, Asphalt Plant D, Barre, Massachusetts, EPA-454/R-00-028,
May 2000.
357. Written communication from R. Nadkarni to Chief, Emission Factor and Methodologies Section.
USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 7, 1994.
358. Pretest Survey And Screening Report Plant C.
359. W. K. Steinmetz and L. P. Cherry, Division Of Air Quality, Toxics Protection Brand:. Air
Toxics Analytical Team, Analytical Investigation Of Inman Asphalt Terminal, Sahsbitn, North
Carolina, Rowan County, Investigation #98015, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, June 8, 1998.
360. J. R. Bowyer, A Study To Determine An Emission Rate Of Benzene From Asphalt Load-out.
AT AST #98026, Final Report (Revised), Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, 1998.
361. C. Lutes, R. Thomas, and R. Burnette, Evaluation Of Emissions From Paving Operations.
Final Report, EPA 600/R-94-135, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 1994.
362. Asphalt Hot Mix Emission Study, March Report 75-1 (RR-75-1), The Asphalt Institute, College
Park, MD, March 1975.
4-332
-------
363. P. Kariher. M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation Of VOC Emissions From Heated Roofing
Asphalt. EPA 600/2-91-061, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
NC, November 1991
364 Emission Testing. July 9-11, 1996, Job Number 1030, AIRx Testing, Ventura. CA, July 23.
1996.
365. Personal email communication, J. Wood. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Boston, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 15, 1999.
366. Personal email communication. K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation , Hartford.
CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
October 18, 1999.
367. Personal email communication, K. Lane, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Hartford,
' CT, MA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 19, 1999.
368. Personal email communication, W. Medford, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, NC, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
NC, October 20, 1999.
369. Personal email communication, J. McGraw, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,
MN, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
November 4, 1999.
370. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 2 Plant, Waukesha, WI,
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 19, 1998.
371. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 4 Plant, Sussex, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI. October 22, 1997.
372. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 8 Plant, Cedar Lake, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 14, 1997.
373. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 15 Plant, Saukville, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, August 27, 1997.
374. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 25 Plant, Markesan, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 7, 1998.
375. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 27 Plant, Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 6, 1997.
376. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 28 Plant, Wautoma, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, October 1, 1999.
4-333
-------
377. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 29 Plant, Dousman, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation. Elm Grove, WT, August 7, 1997.
378. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 31 Plant, Racnu WI.
Environmental Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 26, 1998
379. Stack Emission Test, Payne and Dolan, Inc., Control 34 Plant, Environmental Technolog} and
Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, July 28 and October 6, 1999.
380. Stack Emission Test, Pavne and Dolan, Inc., Control 53 Plant, Newberry, MI, Environmental
Technology and Engineenng Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 1-2, 1998.
381. Carbon Monoxide Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Honcon. Wl.
Environmental Technology and Engineenng Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, May 27. 1998
382. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 55 Plant, Horicon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 2, 1999'.
383. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 56 Plant, Ripon, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, September 3, 1997.
384. Stack Emission Test, Northeast Asphalt, Inc., Control 65 Plant, Green Bay, WI, Environmental
Technology and Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June 24, 1999.
385. Results of the September 23, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Monarch Paving
No. JO Asphalt Plant Near Hager City, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines. MK
November 11, 1999.
386. Results of the A ugust 11 & 28, 1999 A ir Emission Compliance Tests on the Mathy/North\\ oods
Paving Plant No. 25 Near Superior, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines. MN.
September 24. 1999.
387. Results of the July 14, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the MalhyI American Asphalt
Plant No. 41 in Hatley, Wisconsin, Interpoll Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, August 13. 1999
388. Results of the October 7-8 & 12, 1999 Air Emission Compliance Test on the Malhy
Construction/Monarch Paving Asphalt Plant No. 46 Near Danbury, Wisconsin. Interpoll
Laboratories, Circle Pines, MN, November 29, 1999.
389. Hot Mix Asphalt Plants: Response to Comments on Testing Program for Asphalt Plants C and
D, EPA-454/R-00-029, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 2000.
390. B. Frank, Asphalt s 10- Year Success Story, Compliance Monitoring Service. Linwood. \ev.
Jersey, March 13, 1997.
391. Memorandum from B. Shrager, MRI, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agencv
Emission Factor Recommendations for the Hot Mix Asphalt AP-42 Revision.
November 15,2000.
4-334
-------
392. 1996 U. S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
393. A Study Of The Use Of Recycled Paving Material - Report To Congress, FHWA-RD-93-147,
EPA/600/R-93/095. U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, June 1993.
394. Manufacturing Consumption Of Energy 1994, DOE/EIA-0512(94), U. S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
4-335
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
4-336
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF BATCH MIX DRYER EMISSION DATA
This appendix presents the detailed results of the statistical analyses performed on the
batch mix dryer data. The analyses were performed using STATA Statistical Software,
Release 4.0. The following sections present the actual printouts of the analyses of the data for the
following pollutants: filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC,
CO, CO2, and NOX. The results of t-tests performed on the data are presented first, followed by
the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression models. Tables A-l and A-2
provide descriptions of the variables used in the analyses. Table A-3 summarizes the results of the
t-tests performed on the data, and Table A-4 summarizes the linear models fit to the data.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORICAL VARIABLES USED IN BATCH MIX DATA ANALYSIS
STATA variable
poll
fuel
aped
wastem
Description
Pollutant
\
Fuel category
Air pollution control device
Oil category
STATA
value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Actual name
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic' PM
Filterable PM-10
Condensible PM
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur dioxide (SO:)
Back half
Oil
Gas
Coal/gas
Coal/oil
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber or unspecified wet scrubber
Waste oil or No. 6 oil
Other types of fuel oil
Gas
Coal/gal
Coal/oil
-------
TABLE A-2. DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES USED IN BATCH MIX DATA ANALYSIS''
STATA variable
rapm
ratem
Symbol in text
R
P
Description
Content RAP in mix
Production rate
Units
fraction (e.g., 0.2 for
20% RAP)
ton/hr
Range
Oto *
* to *
aNA = not applicable.
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON BATCH MIX DATA3
No
Sample No. 1
Description
No of
obs
Mean
EF
Std.
dev
Sample No 2
Description
No of
obs
Mean
EF
Std
dev
P value
Conclusion
-ILTERABLE PM
1
•
2
3
4
5
6
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF,RAP<0.1
VS, RAP < 0 1
8
3
24
5
46
5
0021
0 17
0025
0.12
0020
0 11
0024
0 16
0029
0 13
0024
0.16
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
VS, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 I
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0 1
WS, RAP < 0 1
16
2
17
2
7
2
0028
0042
0016
021
0 15
025
0032
0015
0016
0.26
0 16
0.13
059
034
025
053
0078
034
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FFandRAP< 0 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VS and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0 1
Differentiate between
control devices for
RAP < 0 1
No difference between
VS and WS for RAP <
0 1
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
1 KRAP- 0 !
3
4
n
0 0093
00029
n 004:
0015
00014
n 0037
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS. RAP < •') !
8
9
}
0012
0 0048
i) 00ft"1
0022
00043
0 00X1
087
042
0 IX
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for IT and RAP <(> 1
No Jifferentc !>ctucui
1 i'il\:s lor RAP -
(i 1
-------
TABLE A-3 (cont.)
No
Sample No 1
Description
No of
ohs
Mean
KF
Std
dcv
Sample No 2
Description
No of
ohs
Mean
Ef
Std
dev
P-value
Conclusion
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1 -
FF, RAP < 0 I
4
7
3
8
0 0077
00055
00040
00036
00075
00065
00045
00033
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, RAP<0 1
3
8
2
5
00027
00036
00040
00040
0 0046
00033
00016
00033
036
048
099
083
No difference between
waste o '-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
FFand VSforRAP<
0 1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
Oil-fired
2
0026
0023
Gas-fired
3
0016
0 0066
049
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
Oil-fired
4
0.46
057
Gas-fired
6
045
051
097
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
Waste oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, RAP < 0.1
10
7
24
4
49
35
35
36
32
39
7 1
39
18
12
27
Nonwaste oil-fired. RAP <
0 1
FF, nonwaste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas-fired
VS, RAP < O.I
18
17
20
2
6
36
37
46
32
32
21
21
37
12
11
086
080
022
096
057
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for
RAP<0 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for FF
and RAP <• 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VS and RAP ^0 1
No difference between
FFandVSforRAP<
0 1
M1TROGEN OXIDES
1
Oil-fired
2
0.12
0076
Gas-fired
4
0025
0011
034
No difference between
oil-fired and pas-fired
"FF = fabric filter VS = ventun scrubber WS = unspecified wet scrubber
-------
TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO BATCH MIX DATA3
No.
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No ofobs
Significant effects (p-v.iluc)
R;
Equation
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
'5
6
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R'P
R, P
P
ff
FF
FF
VS
VS
VS
53
53
54
8
8
9
P(0077)
R (0 0067), P (0033)
R (0 0043)
P (0 065)
P (0 044)
P (0 039)
022
0 15
048
EF = 0043 + O.I4R-OOOOI2P
F.F = 0020 fO 16R
EF = 0 35 - 0 00094P
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
R, P, R'P
R, R'P
R*P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
All data
All data
All data
17
17
17
17
17
17
R'P (0065)
R'P (0055)
R'P (<0 0001)
R(<00001)
R (00001)
None
077
061
EF = 00041 +000054RP
EF = 0 0050 +• 0 07°R
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
R, P, R'P
R,R*P
R
All data
All data
All data
19
19
19
R (0 029)
R (0011), R'P (0030)
None
035
EF = 0 0044 + 0 065R - 0 00018RP
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
2
R, P, R'P
R, P
All data
All data
6
6
None
None
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
R, P, R'P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
All data
62
62
63
92
R (0.052), P (0 0002), R'P (0.043)
P (0001 3)
None
P (0 0009)
023
0 12
EF = 75- 170R-0 18P + 067RP
EF = 59-0 IOP
'R2 = squared correlation coefficient. R = percentage of RAP P = production rate in ton/hr EF = emission factor in Ib/ton FF = fabric filter, VS = ventun scrubber, WS = unspecified wet scrubber
-------
A.I FILTERABLE PM
A.1.1. Results of t-tests for Filterable PM
Filterable PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l &.wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
1 8 .0208387 .0236497
2 16 .0278167 .0318535
combined | 24 .0254907 .0290386
Ho-, mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0 .55 with 22 d. f.
Pr > tj = 0.5903
Filterable PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable 1 Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
3
2
.1735333
. 0416667
.1553881
. 0146135
combined | 5 .1207867 .1316919
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.14 with 3 d.f.
Pr > t| = 0 .3385
Filterable PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable I Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1 | 24 .0254907 .0290386
2 17 .0163467 .0158199
H
combined | 41 .0216993 .0246125
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.18 with 39 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2461
Filterable PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable I Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1 1
2 1
5
2
.1207867
.2136667
.1316919
.2635151
combined 7 .1473238 .158711
A-7
-------
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.67 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5347
Filterable PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean Std. Dev.
2
46
. 0201284
.1473238
.0236928
.158711
combined
53
.0369278
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -2 .12 with 6.04 d. f .
Pr > |t| = 0.0783
Filterable PM t-test No. 6
Comparison: VS vs. WS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(vw)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.1075867
.2466667
.1637849
.1272792
combined
.1473238
.158711
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.06 with 5 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.3386
A.1.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Filterable PM
Filterable PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll = = l & apcd= = l, cont '
3r.r". r 2 tetr '
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapitf
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.009742958
.001378489
.002223418
. 000074674
.033370564
.043113522
Filterable PM Model No. 2
53 R- squared - 2 2 60
= .026097 Adj R- squared - 0 L^SS
df
3
1
1
1
49
52
MS
.003247653
.001378489
.002223418
. 000074674
.000681032
.000829106
F Prob * F
4.7" 0.0054
2 . c ;; o i f. . ::
3.26 0.0765
0.1: ~ "420
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF
A-8
-------
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l &
Number of
Root MSB
0.2243
apcd==l, conttrapm ratem)
obs = 53 R-squared
: .025863 Adj R-squared = 0.1932
df MS F Prob > F
Command :
Source 1
Model j
Residual I
~*~
Total |
efm
cons
rapm
ratem
Filterable
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
regress
ss
. 009668283
. 033445239
. 043113522
Coef .
. 0434277
. 1444664
- .0001157
PM Model No.
| .009668283 2
1
1
| .005344176 1
| .003212796 1
1
1
| .033445239 50
j .043113522 52
df MS
2 .004834142
50 .000668905
52 .000829106
Std. Err. t
.011537 3.764
.0511103 2.827
.0000528 -2.192
3
.004834142
. 005344176
. 003212796
. 000668905
. 000829106
7.23
7 . 99
4.80
Number of obs
T? ( i c n \
Prob
> F
R-squared
Adj
Root
R-squared
MSE
P>|t| [95% Conf.
0.000
0.007
0.033
. 020255
0418083
0002218
0.0017
0.0067
0.0331
53
7 o 7
= 0.0017
= 0.2243
n T Q T 9
.02586
Interval]
.0666004
.2471246
-9.67e-06
Parameters -. R
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rap if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rap)
Source |
Model |
1
1
rapm |
1
Residual |
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
. 006330472
.006330472
. 036932921
54 R-squared = 0.1463
.02665 Adj R-squared = 0.1299
df
1
1
52
MS
. 006330472
. 006330472
.000710248
F Prob > F
8.91 0 . 0043
8.91 0.0043
Total
Command : regre s s
Source | SS
Model | .006330472
Residual | .036932921
.043263393 53 .00081629
df MS Number of obs =
( 1 , ;> F
52 .000710248 R-squared
Adj R-squared -
0
0
54
0043
1463
A-9
-------
Total |
efm
cons
rapm
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
.043263393 53 .00081629
Coef. Std. Err.
.019932 .0038989 5.
.1559074 .052222 2.
PM Model No. 4
R, P, R*P
VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Number of obs
Root MSB
Source | Partial SS
Model | .105442267
1
rapm .00107529
ratem .086270461
rapm*ratem | .009764322
I
1
Residual .054263592
Total .159705859
PM Model No. 5
R, P
VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .095677945
1
1
rapm | .019436339
ratem .091878173
1
Residual .064027914
Total .159705859
PM Model No. 6
: R, P
: VS
Root MSE
t P>|t| [95% Conf.
112 0.000 .0121083
985 0.004 .0511162
.02665
Interval,
. C277S57
2606986
if poll==l & apcd==2, cont (rapm ratem)
8 R-squared
= .116473 Adj R-squared
df MS F
3 .035147422 2.59
1 .00107529 0.08
1 .086270461 6.36
1 .009764322 0.72
4 .013565898
7 .022815123
& apcd==2, cont (rapm ratem)
8 R-squared
= .113162 Adj R-squared
df MS F
2 .047838972 3.73
1 .019436339 1.52
1 .091878173 7.17
5 .012805583
7 .022815123
C . 6602
C.4054
?rob > F
C . 1901
0.7923
0 . 0652
G 4440
= 0.5991
= 0.4387
Prob > F
0 . 1016
0 .2727
0 0439
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==l & apcd==2 , cont (ratem)
Number of obs = 9 R-squared
Root MSE
Source | Partial SS
= .109735 Adj R-squared
df MS F
= 0.4802
C . 4059
Prob ;> F
Model | .077855628
A-10
6.47
0 0385
-------
ratem j .077855628 1
I
Residual I .084292847 7
Total
. 162148475
. 077855628
. 012041835
.020268559
6.47
0 . 0385
Command: regress
Source |
Model |
Residual j
Total |
efm
cons
ratem
SS
.077855628
. 084292847
. 162148475
Coef .
.3488251
- .0009364
df
MS
1 .077855628
7 .012041835
8 .020268559
Std. Err.
. 088268
.0003683
t P>
Number of obs
F( 1, 7)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R- squared
Root MSE
t | [95% Conf.
3.952 0.006 .1401046
-2.543 0.039 -.0018072
9
647
= 0.0385
= 0.4802
= 0.4059
.10974
Interval]
.5575457
- . 0000656
A. 2 CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
A. 2 .1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Inorganic PM
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. nonwaste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 &. apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
3
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0092873
.0116324
.014965
.0222138
combined
11
.0109928
.019784
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.17 with 9 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8716
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
-9
. 0029067
.0047623
. 0014118
.0042598
combined
13
.0041914
.0036593
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.83 with 11 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.4226
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
A-ll
-------
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
13
3
.0041914
.0068889
.0036593
.0083255
combined
16
. 0046972
. 0045974
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.91 with 14 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.3778
A.2.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Inorqanic PM
Condensable Inorqanic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm raterr'
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm*ratem
Residual
Total
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.000664589
.000022515
1.3316e-06
.000052249
.000167122
.000831711
17
= .003585
df
3
1
1
1
13
16
MS
R-squared = 0.7991
Adj R-squared = 0.7527
. 00022153
.000022515
1 .3316e-06
.000052249
F Prob > F
17.23 0.0001
1.75 0.2085
0.1C 0.7527
4.06 0.0649
.000012856
. 000051982
Condensable Inorqanic PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.000663258
.000023282
.000052937
.000168453
.000831711
Condensable Inorqanic PM Model No. 3
17 R-squared -- 0.7975
= .003469 Adj R-squared -- 0.7685
df MS
2 .000331629
1 .000023282
1 .000052937
14 .000012032
16 .000051982
F Prob > F
27.56 C . 0000
1.93 0.1859
4.40 0 . 0546
Parameters: R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs =
A-12
17
R-squared
0. 7695
-------
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model .000639975
rapm*ratem .000639975
1
Residual | .000191736
Total .000831711
Command: regress
Source | SS df MS
Model |
Residual
Total
ef m
cons
rapm*ratem
Condensable
.000639975 1 .000639975
.000191736 15 .000012782
.000831711 16 .000051982
Coef. Std. Err.
.0040732 .0009152 4.
.0005392 .0000762 7.
Inorqanic PM Model No. 4
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==2,
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source | Partial SS
Condensable
Model j .00061234
1
rapm .000589875
ratem 2.0190e-06
Residual .000219371
Total | .000831711
Inorqanic PM Model No. 5
= .003575 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .000639975 50.07
•1 .000639975 50.07
15 .000012782
16 .000051982
Number of obs
F( 1, 15)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
t P>|t [95% Conf.
451 0.000 .0021225
076 0.000 .0003768
cont (rapm ratem)
17 R-squared
= .003958 Adj R-squared
df MS F
2 .00030617 19.54
1 .000589875 37.65
1 2.0190e-06 0.13
14 .000015669
16 .000051982
Parameters: R
Conditions : None
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==2, cont (rapm)
Number of obs = 18 R- squared
Root MSE = .004764 Adj R-squared
Source | Partial SS df MS F
= 0.7541
Prob > F
0.0000
0. 0000
17
50.07
= 0.0000
= 0.7695
n 7R4 1
= .00358
Interval]
. 0060239
.0007016
= 0.7362
= 0.6986
Prob > F
0. 0001
0. 0000
0 .7250
= 0.6108
= 0.5864
Prob > F
Model | .000569839
I
rapm .000569839
A-13
I .000569839 25.11 0.0001
1 .000569839 25.11 0.0001
-------
Residual
Total
Command: regress
.000363154
. 000932992
16 .000022697
17 .000054882
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
Condensab!
SS
.000569839
. 000363154
.000932992
Coef .
. 0049623
. 0790843
.e Inorqanic
df MS
1 .000569839
16 .000022697
17 .000054882
Std. Err. t P> t
0011764 4 218 0 001
.0157834 5.011 O.OOC
PM Model No. 6
Number of obs -
1 1 , 1 C ' -
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared -
Root MSB
[95% Con£ I:
L 0024684
) .0456251
18
^0 Li
'. . 0001
C . 6 1 0 a
5 8 € 4
. 00476
,,- pv-,-3 -
.,,„,„
112543=,
Parameters: P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==2, cont(ratem)
Number of obs = 28 R-squared --- O.C?2c
Root MSB = .024609 Adj R-squared -= -0.004"
Source |
Model |
|
1
ratem |
1
1
Residual |
Partial SS
. 000529771
. 000529771
. 015745817
df
1
1
26
MS F Prob --
.000529771 0.87 C.35
.000529771 0.87 ,.• 35
. 000605608
Total | .016275588 27 .0006028
A.3 CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
A.3.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. nonwaste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
. 0076742
.0026955
.0074651
.0045652
combined
.0055404
.0064725
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.01 with 5 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3595
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF
A-14
-------
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l, by(fuel)
Variable j Obs Mean Std. Dev.
+
1 | 7 .0055404 .0064725
2 | 8 .0036281 .0033104
combined 15 .0045206 .0049405
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.74 with 13 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.4751
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
.1
'2
3
2
. 0040111
.0040167
. 0045402
. 0015792
combined | 5 .0040133 .0033061
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.00 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.9988
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & rap<0.1, by (aped)
Variable j Obs Mean Std. Dev.
--------- + ---------------------------------
1 | 8 .0035832 .0033453
2 5 .0040133 .0033061
---------- 1 ----------------------------------
combined 13 .0037486 .0031967
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.23 with 11 d.f.
Pr > | t | =0 .8250
A. 3. 2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Organic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 19 R-squared = 0.3462
Root MSE = .005066 Adj R-squared = 0.2155
rapm
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
*ratem
Partial SS
.000203904
.00015002
2 .2642e-07
. 00007677
df
3
1
1
1
MS
.000067968
.00015002
2 .2642e-07
. 00007677
!
2
5
0
2
-•
65
84
01
99
Prol
0
0
0
0
3 > F
0868
0288
9264
1042
A-15
-------
Residual
Total
. 000385014
. 000588919
15 .000025668
18 .000032718
Condensable Organic PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, R*P
Conditions:
Command: anova ef rapm rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source
Model
rapm
rapm*ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.000203678
. 000197032
. 000136207
.000385241
19 R- squared - 0.3459
= .004907 Adj R-squared - 0 2641
df
2
1
1
16
MS
.000101639
. 000197032
. 000136207
. 000024078
F Prob > F
4.23 0 0335
8.13 C.0113
5 . 6 h 0.0302
Command: regress
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
SS
.000203678
.000385241
.000588919
Coef .
_cons .0044246
rapm .0648414
rapm*ratem -.0001841
Condensable Orqanic PM
df
MS
2 .000101839
16 .000024078
18 .000032718
Std. Err
.0013291
. 0226668
. 0000774
Model No.
t P>
Number of obt:
F( 2, 16)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
t| [95% Conf.
3.329 0.004 .001607
2.861 0.011 .0167899
-2.378 0.030 -.0003482
3
19
4.23
= 0.0335
= 0.3459
- 0.2641
.00491
Interval]
. 0072422
. 1128929
- . 00002
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==3, cont(rapm)
Source |
Model |
1
rapm |
1
Residual |
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.000067471
.000067471
.000521448
19 R-squared - 0.1146
= .005538 Adj R-squared = 0.0625
df
1
1
17
MS
. 000067471
.000067471
.000030673
F Prob > F
2.20 0.1563
2.20 0 . 1 5 6 3
Total | .000588919 18 .000032718
A.4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
A-16
-------
A.4.1. Results of t-tests for VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==6, by(fuel)
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
1 | 2 .0264444 .0227846
2 j 3 .0161963 .0065603
combined | 5 .0202956 .0135207
Ho: mean(x) = mea'n(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.79 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.4870
A.5 CARBON MONOXIDE
A.5.1. Results of t-tests for CO
Carbon Monoxide t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==7, by(fuel)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
i _
1 | 4 .4607222 .570815
2 I 6 .4472519 .5098287
combined | 10 .45264 .5030519
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t' = 0 . 04 with 8 d. f .
Pr > t| = 0.9698
A.5.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO
CO Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 6 R-squared = 0.3276
Root MSB = .38664 Adj R-squared = -0.1206
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.21851152
.197991985
.179585504
0.00
.448472101
df
2
1
1
0
3
MS
. 10925576
.197991985
. 179585504
.1494907
F Prob > F
0.73 0.5514
1.32 0.3332
1.20 0.3532
Total .666983621
CO Model No. 2
A-17
-------
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 6
Root MSB = .38664
Source
Partial SS
df
R-squared
Adj R-squared =
MS F
Prob > F
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
.21851152
.197991985
.179585504
.448472101
2
1
1
3
.10925576
.197991985
.179585504
.1494907
0.73 . i-514
1.32 : 3332
1.2C ': 3532
A.6 CARBON DIOXIDE
A. 6 .1. Results of t-tests for CO,
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
10
18
34.76167
36
7.053972
20.66587
combined
28
35.55774
16.90717
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.18 with 26 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.8567
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(waster>
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
7
17
34 .60714
36.68627
3.900663
21.08941
combined
24
36.07986
17.72855
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.26 with 22 d.f.
Pr > Itl = 0.8005
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==l & rap<0.1 & fuel<3, by(fuel
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
A-18
-------
24
20
36 . 07986
46.29075
17.72855
35.69774
combined
44
40.72117
27 . 52529
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.23 with 42 d.f.
Pr > It I =0 .2246
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1 & fuel<3, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
4
2
32.425
31.83333
12.15564
12 .49.222
combined
32 .22778
10.95263
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.06 with 4 d.f.
Pr > It I = 0.9582
Carbon Dioxide t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
49
6
38.64153
32 .22778
26.90336
10.95263
combined
55
37 .94185
25.66221
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.57 with 53 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.5682
A. 6 . 2 . Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO-
CO, Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 62 R-squared = 0.2254
Root MSB = 22.4281 Adj R-squared = 0.1853
Source
rapm*
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
Partial SS
8487
1987.
8214 .
2147.
.3474
12615
30645
50087
df
3
1
1
1
2829
1987.
8214.
2147.
MS
.1158
12615
30645
50087
F
5
3
16
4
62
95
33
27
Prob > F
0
0
0
0
0019
0516
0002
0433
A-19
-------
Residual
29175.0181
58 503.017554
Command :
Source
Model
Residual
Total
ef m
cons
rapm
ratem
rapm*rater
CO, Model
Total | 37662.3655 61 617
regress
SS df MS
8487.3474 3 2829.1158
29175.0181 58 503.017554
37662.3655 61 617.415828
Coef. Std. Err. t P> t
75.05386 9.691284 7.744 O.OC
-165.6651 83.35083 -1.988 0.05
-.1800327 .044551 -4.041 O.OC
n .6709594 .324729 2.066 0.0'
No. 2
415828
Number of ODS, - 62
Prob > F - 0.0019
R-squared - 0.2254
Root MSB -- 21 423
[95% Con * " n r r~* v~va 1
50 55 . 65464 94 . 453C"
52 -332.5099 1.1"9693
30 -.2692112 -.0909542
13 . 020943t ;: J-";E
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==8, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 62 R-squared = 0 163',
Root MSB = 23.0411 Adj R-squared = C.I 401
Source
Partial SS
Prob
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
6339.84653
44.6913941
6067. 06551
31322.519
37662 .3655
2
1
1
59
61
3169.92326
44.6913941
6067. 06551
530 . 890153
617.415828
5.3-
0 .08
11.43
0 OC4
0.772
0 . 001
CO, Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==8, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 63 R-squared = 0.0064
Root MSB = 24.8732 Adj R-squared ---- -C.0098
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
244.812329
244 .812329
37739.3748
37984.1871
df
1
1
61
62
244
244
618
612
MS F Prob - F
812329 0.4C D.^l7
812329 0.40 0 531 '
678275
648179
A-20
-------
CO, Model No. 4
Parameters: P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==8, cont(ratem)
Number of obs
Root MSB
Source | Partial SS
Model
ratem
5045.
5045.
Residual | 38396
Total
13321
13321
.3688
43441 .502
92 R-squared = 0.1161
= 20.6549 Adj R-squared = 0.1063
df MS
1 5045.13321
1 5045.13321
90 426.62632
91 477.379143
F Prob > F
11.83 0.0009
11.83 0.0009
Command: regress
Source |
Model |
Residual j
Total j
efm
cons
ratem
SS
5045. 13321
38396.3688
43441.502
Coef .
58.89581
-.1009955
df MS
1 5045.13321
90 426.62632
91 477.379143
Std. Err. t P>|t|
6.661996 8.841 0.000
.029369 -3.439 0.001
Number of obs
F( 1, 90)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
[95% Conf.
45.66059
-.1593422
92
11 Rl
= 0.0009
= 0.1161
= 0.1063
= 20.655
Interval]
72.13103
- . 0426488
A.7 NITROGEN OXIDES
A.7.1. Results of -t-tests for NO,
Nitrogen Oxides t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==9, by(fuel) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
2
4
.1150444
.0254063
.0761475
.0105156
combined | 6 .0552856
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.66 with 1.02 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3423
A-21
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF DRUM MIX DRYER EMISSION DATA
This appendix presents the detailed results of the statistical analyses performed on the
drum mix dryer data. The analyses were performed using STATA Statistical Software,
Release 4.0. The following sections present the actual printouts of the analyses of the data for the
following pollutants: filterable PM, condensable inorganic PM, condensable organic PM, VOC.
CO, CO2, NOX, SO2- The results of t-tests performed on the data are presented first, followed
by the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression models. Tables B-l and B-2
provide descriptions of the variables used in the analyses. Table B-3 summarizes the results of the
t-tests performed on the data, and Table B-4 summarizes the linear models fit to the data.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORICAL VARIABLES USED
IN DRUM MIX DATA ANALYSIS
STATA
variable
poll
fuel
aped
wastem
Description
Pollutant
Fuel category
Air pollution
control device
Oil category
STATA
value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
Actual name
Filterable PM
Condensible inorganic PM
Condensible organic PM
Filterable PM-10
Condensible organic PM
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon dioxide (COO
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur dioxide (SO.)
Back half
Oil
Gas
Coal/gas
Coal/oil
Fabric filter
Venturi scrubber or unspecified wet scrubber
Waste oil or No. 6 oil
Other types of fuel oil
Gas
Coal/gas
Coal/oil
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES USED IN DRUM
MIX DATA ANALYSIS2
STATA
variable
rapm
ratem
pdm
Symbol in
text
R
P
AP
Description
Percentage of RAP in
mix
Production rate
Scrubber pressure drop
Units
Percent
ton/hr
inches of water
Range
Oto *
*to*
aNA = not applicable.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3. SUMMARY OF T-TESTS PERFORMED ON DRUM MIX DATAa
No
Sample No 1
Description
No of
obs
Mean
1-F
Std
dev
Sample No 2
Description
No ot
obs
Me,i n
FF
Std
dev
P-valuc
Conclusion
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
4
5
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, RAP < 0 1
8
4
44
15
66
00095
0047
0015
0030
0014
00059
0030
0018
0022
0016
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
VS, non waste oil-fired.
RAP<() 1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, RAP < 0 1
36
11
19
8
26
0016
0021
0012
0018
0026
0019
0 14
0015
0015
0021
035
0 18
057
025
0.015
No difference between
waste oil-fircil and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FFandRAP<0 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VSandRAP< 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
forVSandRAP<0 1
Differentiate between
control devices for
RAP < 0 1
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
I
2
3
FF, waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, RAP < 0 1
4
8
12
0013
00080
00081
0011
00052
00054
FF, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS,RAP<0 1
8
3
2
00062
0 0055
00038
00040
00050
0 00066
0 12
049
030
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FF
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
forFFandRAP<0 1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP •
0 1
CO
-------
TABLE B 3 (com.)
No
Sample No 1
Description
No of
obs
Mean
EF
Stil
dev
Sample No 2
Description
No ot
obs
Mean
hF
Std
dcv
P-value
Conclusion
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
4
5
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<01
VS. waste oil-fired
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, RAP < 0 1
12
4
8
2
11
0016
0037
00095
00081
00076
0015
0034
0017
00074
0014
FF, non waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
VS, non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, RAP<0 1
7
2
2
2
5
0 0097
00037
00011
0013
0 0099
0015
00013
0 00056
0010
00070
042
026
051
0.60
074
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
FFandRAP<0 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
nonwaste oil-fired for
VS
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for VSandRAP<0 1
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0 1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
2
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP < 0 1
6
4
0032
0015
0031
0011
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0 1
5
3
0058
0058
0042
0022
028
0060
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
Differentiate between
FF and VS for RAP <
0 1
-------
TABLE B-3 (cont.)
No
Sample No 1
Description
No of
obs
Mean 1 Std
EF 1 dev
Sample No 2
Description
No of
obs
Mean
EF
Std
dev
P-value
Conclusion
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
Oil-fired
6
0 18
022
Gas-fired
5
1 3
2 7
033
No difference between
oil-fired and gas- filed
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
6
FF, waste oil-fired, RAP
<01
VS, waste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < O.I
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
FF, oil-fired, RAP < 0.1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
7
3
43
14
43
17
38
38
32
35
32
25
14
98
97
14
97
9.3
Nonwaste oil-fired, RAP <
0 1
VS, nonwaste oil-fired, RAP
<0 1
FF, gas-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas-fired, RAP >- 0 1
VS, oil-fired, RAP < 0 1
VS, gas- fired, RAP < 0 1
36
11
17
7
14
7
31
34
25
28
35
28
8 3
16
93
18
14
18
021
068
0016
033
034
061
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for 1 F
and RAP <0 1
No difference between
waste oil-fired and non
waste oil-fired for VS
and RAP < 0 1
Differentiate between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF and RAP<0 1
No difference between
oil-fired and gas- fired
for VS and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
FF and VS for oil-fired
and RAP < 0 1
No difference between
FF and VS for
gas-fired and RAP '
0 1
03
-------
TABLE B-3 (com.)
No
Sample No 1
Description
No of
obs
Mean
F.F
Stcl
dev
Sample No 2
Description
No of
obs
Mean
KF
Std
dev
P-value
Conclusion
NITROGEN OXIDES
1
Oil-fired
5
0051
0024
Gas-fired
4
0029
0016
0 15
No difference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
Waste oil-fired
Waste oil-fired, FF
FF, oil-fired
FF, RAP < 0.1
3
. 3
5
3
0091
0091
0060
0 18
0073
0073
0068
030
Non waste oil-fired
Non waste oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS, RAP < 0 1
4
2
3
4
00072
0012
00034
00043
00053
00011
00019
0.0036
0 18
024
021
028
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
oil-fired
No difference between
waste oil-fired and
oil-fired for Fr
No di fference between
oil-fired and gas-fired
for FF
No difference between
FF and VS for RAP <
0 1
FF = fabric filter. VS = venruri scrubber WS = unspecified wet scrubber
-------
TABLE B-4. SUMMARY OF LINEAR MODELS FIT TO DRUM MIX DATA
No
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No of
obs
Significant effects (p-\altie)
R'
Fquation
FILTERABLE PM
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
g
9
10
11
R, P, R*P
R, P
P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P
P
R
AP
AP
AP
FF
FF
FF
FF
VS
vs
VS
vs
vs
VS, oil-fired
VS, gas-fired
108
108
123
108
33
33
36
33
34
20
10
P (00094)
P (0 020)
None
None
P(0053)
None
None
None
None
None
None
CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
1
2
R, P, R*P
R,P
All data
All data
24
24
None
None
CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R,P
R
All data
All data
All data
36
36
36
None
R (0 066)
R(0047)
0 11
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
P
All data
All data
All data
FF only
FF only
FF only
FF only
12
12
12
9
9
9
11
P(0093)
None
None
None
None
None
P(0092)
028
EF = 00074 + 0033R
F.F = 0 1 1 - 0 00022P
CO
CXI
-------
TABLE B-4 (com.)
No
Parameters modeled
Conditions
No of
obs
Significant etTcLls fp-\.thic)
K'
I qu;ition
CARBON MONOXIDE
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
All data
All data
All data
7
7
7
None
None
None
CARBON DIOXIDE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
R, P. R*P
R, P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
R, P, R*P
R, P, R*P
R, P
R
FF, oil-fired
FF, oil-fired
FF, gas-fired
VS. oil-fired
VS, gas-fired
FF
FF
FF
VS
All data
All data
All data
59
59
34
18
9
96
96
96
30
126
126
126
None
None
None
None
None
P(008I)
None
None
None
None
None
None
NITROGEN OXIDES
1
2
R, P, R*P
R,P
All data
All data
5
5
None
R (0 041), P (0016)
097
EF = 0 27 - 0 20R - 0.00059P
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
2
3
R, P, R*P
R,P
R
All data
All data
All data
12
12
12
None
None
None
CO
aR2 = squared correlation coefficient
-------
B.I FILTERABLE PM
B.I.I. Results of t-tests for Filterable PM
Filterable PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAf
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by (waste!:-
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
8
36
.0095296
.0159718
.005893
. 0190173
combined
44
.0148005
.0175027
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.94 with 42 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3524
Filterable PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP ; ", . }
Command:
ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wastern, unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
4
11
.0470803
. 0209458
. 0301435
.0138691
combined
15
.027915
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.67 with 3.47 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1808
Filterable PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel'
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
44
19
. 0148005
.0122165
.0175027
. 0145437
combined
63
. 0140212
.0165922
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.56 with 61 d.f.
Pr > |t| f= 0.5747
Filterable PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel:
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
15
8
.027915
.0177804
.0217993
.014718
combined
23
.0243899
.0198919
B-10
-------
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.17 with 21 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.2537
Filterable PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==l & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
66
26
. 0141773
.0258898
.0163114
. 0210337
combined
92
.0174873
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -2.55 with 37.44 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.0149
E.I.2.. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Filterable PM
Filterable PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 108 R-squared = 0.0805
Root MSE = .013242 Adj R-squared = 0.0540
rapm
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
*ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.001596173
. 000366664
.001228686
. 000278869
.018237081
.019833254
df
3
1
1
1
104
107
MS
.000532058
.000366664
. 001228686
.000278869
. 000175357
. 000185358
F
3
2
7
1
03
09
01
59
Prob > F
0
0
0
0
0325
1512
0094
2101
Filterable PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 108 R-squared = 0.0664
Root MSE = .013279 Adj R-squared = 0.0486
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.001317304
.000113396
. 000989757
. 01851595
df
2
1
1
105
MS
.000658652
.000113396
.000989757
.000176342
I
3
0
5
74
64
61
Pro!
0
0
0
3 > F
0271
4244
0197
B-ll
-------
Total
.019833254
107 .000185358
Filterable PM Model No. 3
Parameters: P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef ratem if poll==l & apcd==l, cont(ratem)
Number of obs = 123 R-squared
Root MSB = .015271 Adj R-squared
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
anova
Source Partial SS df
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
.000109364 1
.000109364 1
.02821888 121
.028328244 122
PM Model No. 4
: R
: FF
anova ef rapm if poll==l & apcd==l
Number of obs =
Root MSB = .
Source Partial SS df
Model
rapm
Residual
.000327547 1
.000327547 1
.019505707 106
Total .019833254 107
PM Model No. 5
: R, P, R*P
: VS
MS F
. 000109364 0.3"
.000109364 0.4"
. 000233214
. 000232199
, cont (rapm)
108 R-squared
013565 Adj R-squared
MS F
.000327547 1.78
.000327547 1.78
. 000184016
. 000185358
efm rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont(rapr,
Number of obs =
Root MSB = .
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Partial SS df
.001723644 3
.000459815 1
.001382238 1
.00066461 1
.00980926 29
Total .011532904 32
B-12
33 R-squared
018392 Adj R-squared
MS F
.000574548 1.7C
.000459815 1.36
.001382238 4.09
.00066461 1.9P
. 00033825
. 000360403
Prcb ,• f
0 4V4f
0 . 494 •
0.0165
= '~i 0 0 7 2
P rot > "
0 . 1 8 5 C
0 . 1 8 5 G
r j. t, 6 '7 ,
- I'. 14 95
-- 0 0615
Prob -» F
o :<9i
~j 2531
., 0525
0 nib
-------
Filterable PM Model No. 6
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova efm rapm ratem if poll==l & apcd==2, cont (rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 33 R- squared
Root MSE = .018685 Adj R-squared
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Partial SS df
.001059035 2
.00042829 1
.000839386 1
.01047387 30
Total .011532904 32
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
PM Model No. 7
: P
: VS
Command: anova efm ratem
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
MS F
.000529517 1.52
.00042829 1.23
.000839386 2.40
. 000349129
. 000360403
= 0.0918
= 0.0313
Prob > F
0.2358
0 .2768
0.1315
if poll==l & apcd==2, cont (ratem)
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.000502926 1
.000502926 1
.016407529 34
Total .016910456 35
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
PM Model No. 8
: R
: VS
anova efm rapm if poll==l & apcd==
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Source Partial SS df
Model .000219649 1
rapm
.000219649 1
Residual .011313255 31
Total .011532904 32
Filterable
PM Model No. 9
36 R-squared
021968 Adj R-squared
MS F
.000502926 1.04
.000502926 1.04
. 000482574
. 000483156
2 , cont (rapm)
33 R-squared
019104 Adj R-squared
MS F
.000219649 0.60
.000219649 0.60
.000364944
.000360403
= 0.0297
= 0.0012
Prob > F
0 .3145
0.3145
= 0.0190
= -0.0126
Prob > F
0.4437
0.4437
Parameters: AP
B-13
-------
-------
-------
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef pd if poll==l, cont(pd)
Source
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
Model .00003307
pdm
Residual
. 00003307
.329597346
Total .329630415
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
34 R-squared
= .101489 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .00003307 0.00
1 .00003307 0.00
32 .010299917
33 .0099888
C . C 0 C 1
-- -0.0311
Profc > F
0 . 9552
0.9552
PM Model No. 10
: AP
: VS, oil-fired
Command: anova ef pd if poll==l & fuel==
Filterable
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
Source
Model
pdm
Residual
Total
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.004115
. 004115
.310259604
.314374604
1, cont (pd)
20 R-squared
= .131288 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .004115 0.24
1 .004115 0.24
18 .017236645
19 .016546032
= 0.0131
= -0.04:"
Prob > F
0 .6310
0 . 6310
PM Model No. 11
: AP
: VS, gas-fired
anova ef pd if poll==l & fuel==2, cont (pd)
Source
Model
pdm
Residual
Total
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
.000335868
.000335868
.001438342
.001774211
10 R-squared
= .013409 Adj R-squared
df MS F
1 .000335868 1.87
1 .000335868 1.87
8 .000179793
9 .000197135
= 0.1893
0 . 0880
Prob > F
0 .2089
0 .2085
B.2 CONDENSABLE INORGANIC PM
B.2.1. Results of t -tests for Condensable Inorqanic PM
Condensable Inorqanic PM
t-test No. 1
Comparison:' Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & wastem<3, by(wastem)
B-14
-------
Variable
1
2
Obs
4
Mean
. 0133583
.0061808
Std. Dev.
.0108492
.004026
combined
12
.0085733
. 0074098
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.72 with 10 d.f.
Pr > ]t| = 0.1169
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0080208
.0055256
.0051853
.0047956
combined
11
.0073403
.0049779
Ho: mean(x) = meanly) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.72 with 9 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.4883
Condensable Inorganic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==2 & rap<0.1, by(apcd)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
2
12
2
. 0080897
.0038
.0054098
.00066
combined
14
.0074769
.0052176
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.08 with 12 d.f.
Pr > j t| = 0 .2998
B.2.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Inorganic PM
Condensable Inorganic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 24 R-squared = 0.0545
Root MSB = .006796 Adj R-squared = -0.0873
Source I Partial SS
rapm*
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
.000053242
3
.69996-
08
.000016803
5
.41936-
07
3
1
1
1
3
5
000017747
.6999e-08
000016803
.41936-07
0
0
0
0
38
00
36
01
0
0
0
0
7655
9777
5532
9148
B-15
-------
Residual .000923787
1 .
Total
. 000977029
20 .000046189
23 .00004248
Condensable Inorganic PM Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: None
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==2, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 24
Root MSE = .006634
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.0000527
.000012591
.000019871
. 000924329
df
2
1
1
21
MS
.00002635
.000012591
.000019871
. 000044016
F
0 . 6C
0 .29
0 .45
Prcb •* F
0.5587
C . 5 9 6 4
5 ' 9 '
Total
. 000977029
B.3 CONDENSABLE ORGANIC PM
B.3.1. Results of t-tests for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Oganic PM t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP •
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & wastem<3 & rap<0.1, by(wast
C' . 1
em'
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0159375
.0030833
.0229889
.0020411
combined
. 0095104
.0165979
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.11 with 6 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.3079
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. oil-fired for VS
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==2 & wastem<3, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
4
2
.0369776
.0036683
.0342788
.0012563
combined
.0258745
.0316418
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.30 with 4 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.2649
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
B-16
-------
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==l & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable I Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1 j 8 .0095104 .0165979
2 I 2 .0011017 .0005633
combined 10 .0078287 .0150624
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.69 with 8 d.f.
Pr > It I = 0.5127
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 4
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & apcd==2 & fuel<3 & rap<0.1, by(fuel)
Variable 1 Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
combined
2
2
4
. 0080552
.0134833
. 0107692
. 0073659
.0100173
. 007833
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.62 with 2 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.5999
Condensable Organic PM t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==3 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable I Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
2
11
5
.007623
.0099421
.0143057
.0070312
combined 16 .0083477 .0122821
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.34 with 14 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.7392
B.3.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for Condensable Organic PM
Condensable Organic PM Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==3, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 36 R-squared = 0.1148
Root MSE = .017659 Adj R-squared = 0.0318
Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
H
Model | .001294064 3 .000431355 1.38 0.2657
I
rapm | .000051198 1 .000051198 0.16 0.6880
B-17
-------
ratem
rapm*ratem
Residual
Total
5.75586-07
9.58726-06
. 009978967
. 011273031
1 5.75586-07 O.OC
1 9.5872e-06 O.r:?
32 .000311843
35 .000322087
C . 966 '.
~ fie: }
Condensable Orqanic PM Model No. 2
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
: R, P
: All data
anova ef rapm ratem if poll==3
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Number of obs
Root MSB
Partial SS
.001284476
. 001092036
. 000031175
. 009988554
Total .011273031
, cont (rapm ratem)
36 R- squared
= .017398 Adj R- squared
df MS F
2 .000642238 2.12
1 .001092036 3.61
1 .000031175 0.10
33 .000302683
35 .000322087
- : 1139
'l Q g o ':
Prcb > F
0.1359
C.06ei
0 7503
Condensable Orqanic PM Model No. 3
Parameters : R
Conditions: All data
Command :
anova ef rapm if poll==3, cont
Number of obs
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Command :
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
regress
SS
Model .001253301
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
. 010019729
.011273031
. 001253301
. 001253301
. 010019729
.011273031
df MS
1 .001253301
34 .000294698
35 .000322087
Coef. Std. Err.
.0073602
.0332451
0040267 1.
0161209 2.
(rapm)
= 36 R-squared
= .017167 Adj R-squaroj
df MS F
1 .001253301 4.2f,
1 .001253301 4.2^
34 .000294698
35 .000322087
Number of obs
P 1 1 "•' 4 ^
r \ ± , .-4
Prob > F
R-squared
Ad^ R-squar6G
Root MSE
t P> t [95% Conf
828 0.076 -.000823
062 0.047 .0004836
j . 1112
C 0850
rroD > F
J C 4 6 5
;• 04 '?.-
36
4 7 ^
i . ^ D
-- 0.0469
0 1112
0 C ^ ^ '^
">! "7 1 7
'.-.tervalj
D155434
J660067
B.4 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
B-18
-------
B.4 1. Results of t-tests for VOC
VOC t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==6 & apcd==l, by(fuel)
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
I | 6 .0323435 .0308277
2 | 5 .0575833 .042113
1
combined 11 .0438162 .0368553
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) ' (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.15 with 9 d.f.
Pr > [t j =0.2802
VOC t-test No. 2
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==6 & rap<0.1, by(aped) unequal
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1-
1 4 .0146583 .0112003
2 | 3 .0575833 .0220331
combined | 7 .0330548
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = -3.09 with 2.78 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0595
B.4.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for VOC
VOC Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==6, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.4296
Root MSE = .031523 Adj R-squared = 0.2157
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.005986614
.00112165
. 003600991
.001666455
.007949832
df
3
1
1
1
8
MS
.001995538
.00112165
.003600991
. 001666455
.000993729
I
2
1
3
1
-<
01
13
62
68
Prot
0
0
0
0
5 > F
1915
3191
0934
2314
VOC Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==6, contfrapm ratem)
B-19
-------
Number of obs = 12 R-squared
Root MSE = .032688 Adj R-squarec
Source
Model
rapm
ratem '
Residual
Total
VOC Model No. 3
Partial SS
.004320159
. 000583964
.001975596
.009616287
.013936446
df
2
1
1
9
11
MS F ProL - -
. 002160079 2 .01 ; . Ih^:-
.000583964 0.55 C 4"78€
.001975596 1.85 0.2070
.001068476
. 00126695
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==6, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared
Root MSE = .034047 Adj R-squared
Source |
Model
rapm |
1
Residual |
Total
VOC Model No. 4
Partial SS
. 002344563
.002344563
.011591883
.013936446
df
1
1
10
11
MS
. 002344563
. 002344563
.001159188
.00126695
F i-'ror :- r
2.02 0.1854
2.02 0 1854
Parameters: R, P, R*p
Conditions: FF only
Command: anova ef rap rate rap*rate if poll==6 & apcd==l, cont(rap rate
Number of obs = 9 R-squared
Root MSE = .034708 Adj R-squared --.
Source j Partial SS
+
Model I .006686548
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
.000956434
.002959925
.001744355
df MS
3 .002228849
1 .000956434
1 .002959925
1 .001744355
0.79
2.46
1.45
Residual
Total
.006023135
.012709683
5 .001204627
8 .00158871
VOC Model No. 5
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF only
Command: anova ef rap rate if poll==6 & apcd==l, cont(rap rate)
B-20
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Number of obs =
Root MSB
Partial SS df
.004942193 2
.001425751 1
.001281254 1
1
Residual .00776749 6
Total j .012709683 8
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
No. 6
: R
FF only
anova ef rap if
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
poll = = 6 & apcd==l,
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.003660939 1
.003660939 1
.009048744 7
Total .012709683 8
VOC Model
Parameters
Conditions
Command :
Command :
Source
"^
Model
Residual
"*
Total
No. 7
: P
: FF only
anova ef rate if poll==6 & apcd==l
Source
Model
ratem
Residual
Total
regress
SS
.00385265
. 009730511
. 013583161
Number of obs =
Root MSE = .
Partial SS df
.00385265 1
.00385265 1
.009730511 9
| .013583161 10
df MS
1 .00385265
9 .001081168
10 .001358316
9 R- squared
.03598 Adj R-squared
MS F
.002471096 1.91
.001425751 1.10
.001281254 0.99
. 001294582
. 00158871
cont (rap)
9 R-squared
035954 Adj R-squared
MS F
.003660939 2.83
.003660939 2.83
.001292678
. 00158871
, cont (rate)
11 R-squared
032881 Adj R-squared
MS F
.00385265 3.56
.00385265 3.56
. 001081168
.001358316
Number of obs
F( 1, 9)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
= 0.3889
= 0.1851
Prob > F
0.2283
0.3344
0.3582
= 0.2880
= 0.1863
Prob > F
0 .1363
0.1363
= 0.2836
= 0.2040
Prob > F
0 .0917
0. 0917
11
3.56
= 0.0917
= 0.2836
= 0.2040
.03288
B-21
-------
efm
_cons
ratem
Coef. Std. Err. t P> t| [95% Ccr.i . "---v
.1147887 .0388825 2.952 0.016 .0268304 ;. '
-.0002217 .0001175 -1.888 0.092 -.0004875
B . 5 CARBON MONOXIDE
B.5.1. Results of t-tests for CO
CO t-test No. 1
Comparison:
Command: tt
Variable
1
2
Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
:est ef if poll==7, by(fuel)
Obs Mean Std. Dev .
6 .1769496 .2156134
5 1.293751 2.657994
combined
11
.6845868
1.785882
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -1.04 with 9 d.f.
Pr >
= 0.3270
B.5.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO
CO Model .No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==7, contfrapm raten
Number of obs = 7
Root MSE = .170309
R-sguared
Adj R-sguared
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.117790389
.025548716
.00423678
.024201153
.087015827
df
3
1
1
1
3
MS
. 039263463
.025548716
. 00423678
. 024201153
. 029005276
F
1.3"
o . 8 •:••
0.1:
0.6''
Total
.204806215
CO Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==7, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 7
Root MSE = .166746
R-sguared
Adj R-sguared
Source I Partial SS
^
Model ! .093589235
df MS
2 .046794618
F
1 . 6P
457C
. 1 854
B-22
-------
rapm | .001347606 1 .001347606 0.05 0.8365
ratem I .050258129 1 .050258129 1.81 0.2500
i
Residual j .11121698 4 .027804245
+
Total | .204806215 6 .034134369
CO Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==7, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 7 R-squared = 0.2116
Root MSE = .179708 Adj R-squared = 0.0539
Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
Model | .043331106 1 .043331106 1.34 0.2990
I
rapm ] .043331106 1 .043331106 1.34 0.2990
I
Residual | .16147511 5 .032295022
Total | .204806215 6 .034134369
B.6 CARBON DIOXIDE
B . 5 .1. Results of t-tests for CO-.
CO, t-test No. 1
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command:
ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & apcd==l & rap<0.1, by(wastem) unequal
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1 | 7 38.27143 14.13274
2 36 30.71505 8.303645
1
combined | 43 31.94516
Ho-, mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.37 with 6.83 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2142
CO, t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & wastem<3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(wastem)
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
1 3 38.3596 9.765434
2 | 11 34.31606 15.69357
1-
combined 14 35.18253 14.39056
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 0.42 with 12 d.f.
B-23
-------
Pr > j t| =0.6837
C0: t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel<3 & apcd==l & rap<0.1, by(fuej
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
1 43 31.94516 9.693272
2 17 25.14552 9.322651
combined | 60 30.01859 10.00016
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 2.47 with 58 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.0163
CO, t-test N
Comparison:
Command: tt
Variable
1
2
combined
o. 4
Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for VS and RAP < 0.1
:est ef if poll==8 & fuel<3 & apcd==2 & rap<0.1, by(fuei
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
14 35.18253 14.39056
7 27.99595 17.8402
21 32.78701 15.56085
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.00 with 19 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3310
CO, t-test No. 5
Comparison: FF vs. VS for oil-fired and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel==l & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1 | 43 31.94516 9.693272
2 I 14 35.18253 14.39056
combined | 57 32.7403 10.97817
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = -0.96 with 55 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.3424
CO, t-test No. 6
Comparison: FF vs. VS for gas-fired and RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==8 & fuel==2 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable I Obs Mean Std. Dev.
1
17 25
7 27
14552
99595
9.322651
17.8402
combined 24 25.97689 12.05154
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
B-24
-------
t = -0.52 with 22 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.6095
B . 6 . 2 . Results of Linear Model Analysis for CO,
CO, Model No. I
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF, oil-fired
Command :
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==l, conttrapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 59 R-squared = 0.0117
Root MSE = 11.6932 Adj R-squared = -0.0422
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* rat em
Residual
Partial SS
89.2079924
5.16801432
55.547418
25.4321656
7520 .18731
df
3
1
1
1
55
MS
29.7359975
5.16801432
55 .547418
25.4321656
136. 730678
I
0
0
0
0
22
04
41
19
Pro):
0
0
0
0
3 > F
8839
8466
5265
6680
58 131.196471
CO, Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: FF, oil-fired
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==l, conttrapm ratem}
Number of obs = 59 R-squared = 0.0084
Root MSE = 11.6079 Adj R-squared = -0.0270
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
63 . 7758269
53.2176024
30.1304219
7545.61948
7609.39531
df
2
1
1
56
58
MS
31.8879134
53 .2176024
30.1304219
134. 743205
131.196471
F Prob > F
0.24 0.7900
0.39 0.5323
0.22 0.6381
CO, Model No. 3
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF, gas-fired
Command:
anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l & fuel==2, conttrapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 34 R-squared = 0.0326
Root MSE = 9.65883 Adj R-squared = -0.0642
Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
1-
Model | 94.2599773 3 31.4199924 0.34 0.7988
B-25
-------
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
8 . 01157907
64 . 3210424
18.429114
2798.79069
Total 2893.05066
CO-, Model No.
Parameters :
Conditions :
Command :
anova ef
ratem)
4
R, P, R*P
1
1
1
30
33
8.01157907 0.09
64.3210424 0.69
18.429114 0.20
93 .2930229
87.6682019
r ^ 7 i i-
. -i 1 1. -
: •: b9~
VS, oil-fired
rapm ratem rapm*ratem if
poll==6
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model 976.662216
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
137.485254
135.879179
257.345768
Residual 2634.61869
Total 3611.2809
CO, Model No.
Parameters :
Conditions :
Command :
anova ef
ratem)
5
R, P, R*P
= 13
df
3
1
1
I
14
17
& apcd= = 2 & fuel==l, cor.;: iraptr
18 R-squared
7181 Adj R- squared
MS F
325 . 554072 1 . 73
137.485254 0.73
135.879179 0.72
257.345768 1.37
188 . 187049
212.428288
= 0.2704
=-- 0.1141
1 rzL s -"
0 , s. (j 6 7
0.4071
0.4098
0 261?
VS, gas -fired
rapm ratem rapm*ratem if
poll==£
Number of obs =
Root MSE
Source Partial SS
Model 317.460772
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
238.744789
282.545822
256.099662
Residual 1625.74337
CO, Model No.
Total
6
1943 .20414
= 18
df
3
1
1
1
5
8
3 & apcd==2 & fuel==2,
9 R-squared
.0319 Adj R-squared
MS F
105.820257 0.33
238.744789 0.73
282.545822 0.87
256.099662 0.79
325.148673
242 . 900517
cont I raprr
= C . ": c j 4
= - 0 . 3 385
Prob .-• ?
0 . 8076
0.4306
0 . 3940
0.4155
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: FF
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==l, cont(rapn
ratem)
B-26
-------
Source |
Model
rapm
ratem 1
rapm*ratem j
I
CO. Model No. 7
Parameters: R,
Conditions: FF
Command : anova
CO, Model No. 8
Parameters : R
Conditions: FF
Command : anova
CO, Model No. 9
i
Residual |
— + -
Total |
P
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
402 . 701995
92. 9675725
374.687384
171 .802039
11092 . 9505
11495 . 6525
ef rapm ratem if poll==8
Source
Model
i
1
rapm j
ratem j
I
i
Residual
Total
ef rapm if
Source j
Model |
i
1
rapm
Residual |
Total |
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
230.899956
74 .8344081
203.854184
11264 .7526
11495.6525
= 10.
df
3
1
1
1
92
95
96 R-squared
9807 Adj R-squared
MS F
134.233998 1.11
92.9675725 0.77
374.687384 3.11
171.802039 1.42
120. 575549
121. 006869
= 0.0350
0 . 0036
Prob > F
0.3479
0.3822
0 . 0813
0.2357
& apcd==l, cont(rapm ratem)
=
= 11
df
2
1
1
93
95
poll==8 & apcd==l,
Number of obs
Root MSE
Partial SS
27. 0457727
27.0457727
11468.6068
11495.6525
=
= 11
df
1
1
94
95
96 R-squared
0057 Adj R-squared
MS F
115.449978 0.95
74.8344081 0.62
203.854184 1.68
121.126372
121.006869
cont (rapm)
96 R-squared
.0457 Adj R-squared
MS F
27.0457727 0.22
27.0457727 0.22
122 .006455
121.006869
= 0.0201
= -0.0010
Prob > F
0 .3893
0.4339
0 .1977
= 0.0024
= -0.0083
Prob > F
0.6389
0.6389
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: VS
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==8 & apcd==2, cont(rapm
ratem)
Number of obs = 30 R-squared = 0.0515
Root MSE = 15.4465 Adj R-squared = -0.0579
B-27
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm*ratem
Partial SS
336.985831
.626097341
53.9158564
14.6330984
F
0 . 4'
Residual | 6203.48776
Total | 6540.47359
C0? Model No. 10
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem
df MS
3 112.32861
1 .626097341
1 53.9158564
1 14.6330984
26 238.595683
29 225.533572
if poll = = 8, cont(rapm rateir
Number of obs =
Root MSB = 12
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
272 .073208
4.55369698
221.601606
36.3960543
18419.5904
18691.6636
Model No. 11
df
3
1
1
1
122
125
126 R-squared - 0.014c
.2874 Adj R-squared --- •• 0.0:9"
MS
90.6910692
4.55369698
221.601606
36.3960543
150. 980249
149. 533309
F riOb '-> -
0 . 6 0 J . 6 1 1 ?
0.03 0.86,14
1.47 .2260
0. 24 <- . 6242
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==8, cont(rapin ratem)
Number of obs = 126
Root MSE = 12.2494
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Source
Partial SS
Model
rapm
ratem
235.677153
104.634483
190.574533
Residual 18455.9864
f '
1
Total I 18691.6636
df MS
2 117.838577
1 104.634483
1 190.574533
123 150.04867
125 149.533309
0 .70
1.27
CO, Model No. 12
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==8, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 126
Root MSE = 12.2628
R-squared
Adj R-squared
B-28
-------
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Partial SS
45 . 1026198
45.1026198
18646 .561
df
1
1
124
45.
45.
150
MS
1026198
1026198
.375492
F Prob > F
0.30 0.5849
0.30 0.5849
Total |
B.7 NITROGEN OXIDES
B.7.1. Results of t-tests for NOV
NOV t-test No. 1
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==9, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean Std. Dev.
.0509889
.0285833
.023875
.0155953
combined
.0410309
.0227081
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.61 with 7 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.1513
B.7.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for NO,
NOV Model No. 1
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==9, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 5 R-squared = 0.9713
Root MSB = .009963 Adj R-squared = 0.8852
Source
rapm*
Model
rapm
ratem
ratem
Residual
Total
Partial SS
.003360569
.00001419
.000108409
5.5843e-07
.00009927
.003459838
df
3
1
1
1
1
4
MS
.00112019
.00001419
.000108409
5 .5843e-07
.00009927
.00086496
F
11
0
1
0
28
14
09
01
Prob > F
0
0
0
0
2146
7699
4860
9523
NOV Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==9, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 5 R-squared = 0.9711
Root MSB = .007065 Adj R-squared = 0.9423
B-29
-------
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual
Partial SS
.00336001
.001146707
.003007868
.000099828
df
2
1
1
2
MS
.001680005
.001146707
. 003007868
.000049914
F
33.66
22 . 97
60.2-
-T71"- > ~f
'. C 2 6 9
- 1 6 I.
Total
.003459838
Command: regress
Source
Model
Residual
Total
efm
cons
rapm
ratem
SS
.00336001
. 000099828
. 003459838
Coef .
.2705603
- .2006977
- .0005937
df
MS
2 .001680005
2 .000049914
4
Std. Err
. 0312612
. 0418724
.0000765
00086496
t P>
Number of obi.
Ft 9 ~ .
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R- squared
Root MSB
t| [95% Conf .
8.655 0.013 .136054
-4.793 0.041 -.3808601
-7.763 0.016 -.0009227
S
•~ 66
0.0289
- 0.9''::
b> -i ^ -
J 0 0 '~
"r.tervai ]
40^ ~66 -.
- 0 2 C b 3 3 3
- . OGC2646
'B.8 SULFUR DIOXIDE
B . 8.1. Results of t-tests for SO,
SO, t-test No. 1
Comparison.: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & wastem<3, by(wastem) unequal
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
. 0914533
.0072046
. 0732035
. 0053212
combined | 7 .0433112
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming unequal variances)
t = 1.99 with 2.02 d.f.
Pr > |t| =0.1839
SO, t-test No. 2
Comparison: Waste oil-fired vs. non waste oil-fired for FF
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & wastem<3 & apcd==l, by(wastem)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
2
.0914533
- .0115833
.0732035
.0011078
combined
.0595053
.067775
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t. = 1.46 with 3 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2395
B-30
-------
SO-, t-test No. 3
Comparison: Oil-fired vs. gas-fired for FF and RAP
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & apcd==l & fuel<3, by(fuel)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0595053
.0033778
.067775
.0019087
combined
.0384575
. 0589042
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.39 with 6 d.f.
Pr > |t| = 0.2143
SO, t-test No. 4
Comparison: FF vs. VS for RAP < 0.1
Command: ttest ef if poll==10 & rap<0.1, by(aped)
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
2
4
. 1832733
. 0042838
.3025781
. 0035945
combined
.0809936
.1991929
Ho: mean(x) = mean(y) (assuming equal variances)
t = 1.22 with- 5 d.f.
Pr > Itl = 0.2753
B.8.2. Results of Linear Model Analysis for SO,
SO. Model No. I
Parameters: R, P, R*P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem rapm*ratem if poll==10, cont(rapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared = 0.0462
Root MSB = .176267 Adj R-squared = -0.3115
Source
Model
rapm
ratem
rapm* rat em
Residual
Partial SS
.01204143
.000443648
. 009606716
.001334126
.248559193
df
3
1
1
1
8
MS
. 00401381
.000443648
.009606716
.001334126
. 031069899
I
0
0
0
0
13
01
31
04
Prol
0
0
0
0
3 > F
9401
9078
5934
8410
Total
.260600624
11 .023690966
SO, Model No. 2
Parameters: R, P
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm ratem if poll==10, contlrapm ratem)
Number of obs = 12
Root MSE = .166631
R-squared =
Adj R-squared =
0. 0411
-0.1720
B-31
-------
Prob >
Model
rapm
ratem
Residual ,
.010707305
.002702477
. 008510952
.249893319
2
1
1
9
.005353652
.002702477
. 008510952
.027765924
0.19
0 . 1C
0.3-
C >~ 2 8 0
"^622
^ ° 3 3
11 .023690966
SO, Model No. 3
Parameters: R
Conditions: All data
Command: anova ef rapm if poll==10, cont(rapm)
Number of obs = 12 R-squared - 0.0084
Root MSE = .16075 Adj R-squarea - -0.09C7
Source
Model
rapm
Residual
Total
Partial SS
. 002196352
.002196352
.258404272
.260600624
df
1
1
10
11
MS
.002196352
. 002196352
.025840427
.023690966
F Pron --- F
0.08 0.7''66
0.08 0.7766
B-32
-------
APPENDIX C
Chapter 3:
Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating
Air Emissions from Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP)
Julv 1996
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
VOLUME II: CHAPTER 3
PREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING AIR
EMISSIONS FROM HOT-MIX
ASPHALT PLANTS
Final Report
July 1996
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Post Office Box 2010
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Prepared for:
Point Sources Committee
Emission Inventory Improvement Program
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document was furnished to the Emission Inventory Improvement Program and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Morrisviile. North
Carolina. This report is intended to be a final document and has been reviewed and approved
for publication. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed represent a consensus of
the members of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program.
Volume II, Chapter 3, Hot-Mix Asphalt/11103 FIN
Eastern Research Group. Inc
Post Office Box 2010
Momsville, North Carolina 27560
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document was prepared by Robert Harrison of Radian International LLC and Theresa
Kemmer Moody of Eastern Research Group, Inc. for the Point Sources Committee of the
Emission Inventory Improvement Program and for Dennis Beauregard of the Emission Factor
and Inventory Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Members of the Point Sources
Committee contributing to the preparation of this document are:
Dennis Beauregard, Co-Chair, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Gill, Co-Chair, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Jim Southerland, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Denise Alston-Guiden, Galsen Corporation
Bob Betterton, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Alice Fredlund, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Karla Smith Hardison, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Gary Helm, Air Quality Management, Inc.
Paul Kim, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Toch Mangat, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Ralph Patterson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EIIP Volume II ill
-------
CHAPTER 3-HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
iv EIIP Volume II
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction 3.1-1
2 General Source Category Description 3.2-1
2.1 Process Description 3.2-1
2.1.1 Batch Mixing Process 3.2-2
2.1.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mixing Process 3.2-2
2.1.3 Counterflow Drum Mixing Process 3.2-3
2.2 Emission Sources 3.2-3
2.2.1 Material Handling (Fugitive Emissions) 3.2-3
2.2.2 Generators 3.2-4
2.2.3 Storage Tanks 3.2-4
2.2.4 Process Emissions 3.2-4
2.3 Process Design and Operating Factors Influencing Emissions 3.2-6
2.4 Control Techniques '. 3.2-8
2.4.1 Process and Process Fugitive Particulate Control
(Including Metals) 3.2-8
2.4.2 Fugitive Particulate Emissions Control 3.2-11
2.4.3 VOC (Including HAP) Control 3.2-11
2.4.4 Sulfur Oxides Control 3.2-12
2.4.5 Nitrogen Oxides Control 3.2-12
3 Overview of Available Methods 3.3-1
3.1 Description of Emission Estimation Methodologies 3.3-1
3.1.1 Stack Sampling 3.3-1
3.1.2 Emission Factors 3.3-2
3.1.3 Fuel Analysis 3.3-2
3.1.4 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) and
Predictive Emission Monitoring (PEM) 3.3-2
3.2 Comparison of Available Emission Estimation Methodologies 3.3-3
3.2.1 Stack Sampling 3.3-3
3.2.2 Emission Factors 3.3-3
3.2.3 Fuel Analysis 3.3-3
3.2.4 CEMS and PEM 3.3-6
EIIP Volume II V
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
4 Preferred Methods for Estimating Emissions 3.4-1
f
4.1 Emission Calculations Using Stack Sampling Data 3.4-1
4.2 Emission Factor Calculations 3.4-5
4.3 Emission Calculations Using Fuel Analysis Data 3.4-6
5 Alternative Methods for Estimating Emissions 3.5-1
5.1 Emission Calculations Using CEMS Data 3.5-1
5.2 Predictive Emission Monitoring 3.5-4
6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 3.6-1
6.1 Considerations for Using Stack Test and CEMS Data 3.6-1
6.2 Considerations for Using Emission Factors 3.6-4
6.3 Data Attribute Rating System (DARS) Scores 3.6-4
7 Data Coding Procedures : 3.7-1
8 References 3.8-1
vi EIIP Volume II
-------
FIGURE AND TABLES
Figure Page
3.6-1 Example Emission Inventory Development Checklist for Asphalt Plants 6-2
Tables Page
3.2-1 Typical Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Emission Control Techniques 3.2-9
3.3-1 Summary of Preferred Emission Estimation
Methods for Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants 3.3-4
3.4-1 List of Variables and Symbols 3.4-2
3.4-2 Test Results - Method 5 3.4-4
3.5-1 Example CEM Output for a Parallel Flow Drum Mixer
Firing Waste Fuel Oil ' 3.5-2
3.5-2 Predictive Emission Monitoring Analysis 3.5-6
3.6-1 DARS Scores: CEMS/PEM Data 3.6-6
)
3.6-2 DARS Scores: Stack Sample Data 3.6-7
3.6-3 DARS Scores: Source-specific Emission Factor 3.6-8
3.6-4 DARS Scores: AP-42 Emission Factor 3.6-9
3.7-1 Source Classification Codes for Asphalt Concrete Production 3.7-3
3.7-2 AIRS Control Device Codes 3.7-4
EIIP Volume II Vll
-------
CHAPTER 3-HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Draft 3/13/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
EIIP Volume II
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
The purposes of the preferred methods guidelines are to describe emission estimation
techniques for stationary point sources in a clear and unambiguous manner and to provide
concise example calculations to aid in the preparation of emission inventories. While
emissions estimates are not provided, this information may be used to select an emission
estimation technique best suited to a particular application. This chapter describes the
procedures and recommends approaches for estimating emissions from hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) plants.
Section 2 of this chapter contains a general description of the HMA plant source category,
common emission sources, and an overview of the available control technologies used at
HMA plants. Section 3 of this chapter provides an overview of available emission
estimation methods.
Section 4 presents the preferred methods for estimating emissions from HMA plants, while
Section 5 presents the alternative emission estimation techniques. It should be noted that the
use of site-specific emission data is preferred over the use of industry-averaged data such as
AP-42 emission factors (EPA, 1995a). Depending upon available resources, site-specific data
may not be cost effective to obtain. However, this site-specific data may be a requirement of
the state implementation plan (SIP) and may preclude the use of other data. Quality
assurance and control procedures are described in Section 6. Coding procedures used for
data input and storage are discussed in Section 7. Some states use their own unique
identification codes, so individual state agencies should be contacted to determine the
appropriate coding scheme to use. References are cited in Section 8. Appendix A provides
an example data collection form to assist in information gathering prior to emissions
calculations.
EI1P Volume II 3.1-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.1-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
GENERAL SOURCE CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
This section provides a brief overview of HMA plants. The reader is referred to the Air
Pollution Engineering Manual (referred to as AP-40) and AP-42, 5th Edition, January 1995,
for a more detailed discussion on these facilities (AWMA, 1992; EPA, 1995a).
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
HMA paving materials are a mixture of well graded, high quality aggregate (which can
include reclaimed or recycled 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 HMA mixture. Aside from the relative
amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used, mix characteristics are determined by the
amount and grade of asphalt cement used. Additionally, the asphalt cement may be blended
with petroleum distillates or emulsifiers to produce "cold mix" asphalt, sometimes referred to
as cutback or emulsified asphalt, respectively (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; TNRCC, 1994).
The process of producing HMA involves drying and heating the aggregate to prepare them
for the asphalt cement coating. In the drying process, the aggregate are dried in a rotating,
slightly inclined, direct-fired drum dryer. The aggregate is introduced into the higher end of
the dryer. The interior of .the dryer is equipped with flights that veil the aggregate through
the hot exhaust as the dryer rotates. After drying, the aggregate is typically heated to
temperatures ranging from 275 to 325°F and then coated with asphalt cement in one of two
ways. In most drum mix plants, the asphalt is introduced directly into the dryer chamber to
coat the aggregate. In batch mix plants, the mixing of aggregate and asphalt takes place in a
separate mixing chamber called a pug mill.
The variations in the HMA manufacturing process are primarily defined by the following
types of plants:
• Batch mix plants;
• Parallel flow drum mix plants; and
• Counterflow drum mix plants.
EIIP Volume II 3.2-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
(Continuous mix plants, which represent a very small fraction of the plants presently
operating, are not discussed here [EPA, 1995a]. The estimation techniques described for the
batch mixing process should be followed when estimating emissions from continuous mix
plant operations.).
2.1.1 BATCH MIXING PROCESS
In the batch mixing process, the aggregate is transported from storage piles and is placed in
the appropriate hoppers of a cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a
conveyor belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired) (Gunkel,
1992; NAPA, 1995).
As hot aggregate leave the dryer, it drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of
vibrating screens, that drop the aggregate 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 for individual components are
obtained. RAP may also be added at this point. 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 mix.
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 wet-mixed
until homogeneous. The hot-mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or dropped directly into a
truck and hauled to a job site.
2.1.2 PARALLEL FLOW DRUM MIXING PROCESS
The parallel flow drum mixing process is a continuous mixing type process that uses
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 aggregate but also to
mix the heated and dried aggregate 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 aggregate, as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end
of the drum in parallel (EPA, 1995). The asphalt cement is introduced into approximately
the lower third of the drum. The aggregate are is coated with asphalt cement as it veils to
the end of the drum. The RAP is introduced at some point along the length of the drum, as
far away from the combustion zone as possible (about the midpoint of the drum), but with
enough drum length remaining to dry and heat the material adequately before it reaches the
coating zone (Gunkel, 1992). The flow of liquid asphalt cement is controlled by a variable
flow pump electronically linked to the aggregate and RAP weigh scales (EPA, 1995a).
2.1.3 COUNTERFLOW DRUM MIXING PROCESS
3.2-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
In the counterflow drum mixing process, the aggregate is proportioned through a cold feed
system prior to introduction to the drying process. As opposed to the parallel flow drum
mixing process though, the aggregate moves opposite to the flow of the exhaust gases. After
drying and heating take place, the aggregate is transferred to a part of the drum that is not
exposed to the exhaust gas and coated with asphalt cement. This process prevents stripping
of the asphalt cement by the hot exhaust gas. If RAP is used, it is usually introduced into
the coating chamber.
2.2 EMISSION SOURCES
Emissions from HMA plants derive from both controlled (i.e., ducted) and uncontrolled
sources. Section 7 lists the source classification codes (SCCs) for these emission points.
2.2.1 MATERIAL HANDLING (FUGITIVE EMISSIONS)
Material handling includes the receipt, movement, and processing of fuel and materials used
at the HMA facility. Fugitive particulate matter (PM) emissions from aggregate storage piles
are typically caused by front-end loader operations that transport the aggregate to the cold
feed unit hoppers. The amount of fugitive PM emissions from aggregate piles will be greater
in strong winds (Gunkel, 1992). Piles of RAP, because RAP is coated with asphalt cement,
are not likely to cause significant fugitive dust problems. Other pre-dryer fugitive emission
sources include the transfer of aggregate from the cold feed unit hoppers to the dryer feed
conveyor and, subsequently, to the dryer entrance. Aggregate moisture content prior to entry
into the dryer is typically 3 percent to 7 percent. This moisture content, along with
aggregate size classification, tend to minimize emissions from these sources, which
contribute little to total facility PM emissions. PM less than or equal to 10 um in diameter
(PM10) emissions from these sources are reported to account for about 19 percent of their
' total PM emissions (NAPA, 1995).
If crushing, breaking, or grinding operations occur at the plant, these may result in fugitive
PM emissions (TNRCC, 1994). Also, fine particulate collected from the baghouses can be a
source of fugitive emissions as the overflow PM is transported by truck (enclosed or tarped)
for on-site disposal. At all HMA plants there may be PM and slight process fugitive volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from the transport and handling of the hot-mix from the
mixer to the storage silo and also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks (EPA,
1994a). Small amounts of VOC emissions can also result from the transfer of liquid and
gaseous fuels, although natural gas is normally transported in a pipeline
(Gunkel, 1992, Wiese, 1995).
EIIP Volume II 3.2-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
2.2.2 GENERATORS
Diesel generators may be used at portable HMA plants to provide electricity. Maximum
electricity generation during process operations is typically less than 300 kilowatts per hour
(kW/hr) with rates of 20-50 kW/hr at other times (Fore, 1995). (Note that 1 kW equals
1.34 horsepower.) Emissions from these generators are likely uncontrolled and are correlated
with fuel usage, as determined by engine size, load factor, and hours of operation. Emissions
primarily include criteria pollutants—particularly NOX and CO (EPA, 1995b).
2.2.3 STORAGE TANKS
Storage tanks are used to store fuel oils, heated liquid asphalts, and asphalt cement at HMA
plants, and may be a source of VOC emissions. Storage tanks at HMA plants are usually
fixed roof (closed or enclosed) due to the smaller size of the tanks, usually less than
30,000 gallons (Fore, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Emissions from fixed-roof tanks (closed or
enclosed) are typically divided into two categories: working losses and breathing losses.
Working losses refer to the combined loss from filling and emptying the tank. Filling losses
occur when the VOC contained in the saturated air are displaced from a fixed-roof vessel
during loading. Emptying losses occur when air drawn into the tank becomes saturated and
expands, exceeding the capacity of the vapor space. .Breathing losses are the expulsion of
vapor from a tank through vapor expansion caused by changes in temperature and pressure.
Because of the small tank sizes and fuel usage, total VOC emissions would typically be less
than 1 ton per year. Emissions from tanks used for No. 5 or 6 oils or for asphalt cement
may be increased when they are heated to control oil viscosity. Emissions from asphalt
cement tanks are particularly low, due to its low vapor pressure.
The TANKS computer program, available from the EPA, is commonly used to quantify
emissions; however, its use should be carefully evaluated since it is a complicated program
with a great number of input parameters. Check with your local or state authority as to
whether TANKS is required for your facility. The use of the TANKS program for
calculating emissions from storage tanks is discussed in Chapter 1 of this volume,
Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emissions Inventory Development.
2.2.4 PROCESS EMISSIONS
The most significant source of emissions from HMA plants is the dryer (EPA, 1995a;
Gunkel, 1992; NAP A, 1995). Dryer burners capacities are usually less than 100 million
British thermal units per hour (100 MMBtu/hr), but may be as large as 200 MMBtu/hr
(NAPA, 1995; Wiese, 1995). Combustion emissions from the dryer include products of
complete combustion and products of incomplete combustion. Products of complete
combustion include carbon dioxide (CO2), water, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and, if sulfur is
present in the fuel, oxides of sulfur (SOX), for example sulfur dioxide (SO2). Products of
3.2-4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
incomplete combustion include carbon monoxide (CO), VOC, including smaller quantities of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (e.g., benzene, toluene, and xylene), and other organic
particulate matter. These incomplete combustion emissions result from improper air and fuel
mixtures (e.g., poor mixing of fuel and air), inadequate fuel air residence time and
temperature, and quenching of the burner flame. Depending on the fuel, small amounts of
ash may also be emitted. In addition to combustion emissions, emissions from a dryer
include water and PM from the aggregate. Non-combustion emissions from rotary drum
dryers may include small amounts of VOC, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
aldehydes, and HAP from the volatile fraction of the asphalt cement and organic residues
that are commonly found in recycled asphalt (i.e., gasoline and engine oils) (EPA, 1995a;
Gunkel, 1992; TNRCC, 1994; EPA, 1991a; NAPA, 1995).
For drum mix processes, the dryer contributes most of the facility's total PM emissions
(NAPA, 1995). At these plants, PM emissions from post-dryer processes are minimal due to
the mixing with asphalt cement.
In batch mix plants, post-dryer PM emission sources include hot aggregate screens, hot bins,
weigh hoppers, and pug mill mixers (NAPA, 1995, TNRCC, 1994). Uncontrolled PM
emissions from these sources will be greater than emissions from pre-dryer sources primarily
due to the lower aggregate moisture content in addition to the greater number of transfer
points (NAPA, 1995). Post-dryer emission-sources at batch plants are usually controlled by
venting to the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or sometimes to a separate
dust collection system. Captured emissions are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also
contain gaseous VOC and a fine aerosol of condensed liquid particles. This liquid aerosol is
created by the condensation of gas into particles during the cooling of organic vapors
volatilized from the asphalt cement and RAP in the pug mill. The aerosol emissions are
primarily dependent upon the temperatures of the materials entering the mixing process.
This problem appears to be more acute when the RAP has not been preheated prior to
entering the pug mill or boot of the hot elevator. This results in a sudden, rapid release of
steam resulting from evaporation of the moisture in the RAP upon mixing it into the
superheated (often above 400°F) aggregate (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Recycled tires, which are sometimes used in the production of asphalt concrete, may be a
source of VOC and PM emissions. When heated, ground up tire pieces (referred to as crumb
rubber) have been shown to emit VOC. These emissions are a function of the quantity of
crumb rubber used in the liquid asphalt and the temperature of the mix (TNRCC, 1994).
If cutback or emulsions are used to make cold mix asphalt concrete, VOC emissions can be
significant. These emissions can occur as stack emissions from mixing of asphalt batches
and as fugitives from handling areas. Emission levels depend on the type and quantity of the
cold mix produced. VOC emissions associated with cutback asphalt production may include
naphtha, kerosene, or diesel vapors.
EIIP Volume II 3.2-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
In some states (e.g., Wisconsin) asphalt drum dryers are used for soil remediation. In this
practice, the contaminated soil may be run through the dryer as an aggregate, cut with virgin
aggregate at ratios ranging from 1:1 to 1:10 (contaminated soil to virgin aggregate)
depending on the clay content of the material. The dried material is coated with asphalt and
"RAP" is produced. The manufactured RAP can then be fed into the hot mix asphalt process
normally, as any RAP would be, and incorporated into the final mix. This practice can result
in HAP emissions, which are a function of the HAP content and quantity of the soil as well
as the dryer temperature and residence time. There is significant control of VOC/HAPs in
the dryer drum. Based on testing performed by the asphalt industry, a control on the average
of 75 percent with numbers ranging from 45 to 98 percent control depending on the plant
type (parallel flow versus counterflow drum designs) have been recorded. (Wiese, 1995).
2.3 PROCESS DESIGN AND OPERATING FACTORS INFLUENCING
EMISSIONS
There are two methods of introducing combustion air to the dryer burners and two types of
combustion chambers, with the combination resulting in four types of burner systems that
can be found at HMA plants. The type of burner system employed has a direct effect on
gaseous combustion emissions, including VOC, HAP, CO, and NOX. The two types of
burners related to the introduction of combustion air include the induced draft burner and the
forced draft burner. Forced draft burners are usually more fuel efficient under proper
operating and maintenance conditions and, consequently, have lower emissions (Gunkel,
1992). The two types of burners related to the use of combustion chambers include those
with refractory-lined combustion chambers and those without combustion chambers. While
most older burners had combustion chambers, today's burners generally do not (Gunkel,
1992).
Incomplete combustion in the dryer burner increases emissions of CO and organics
(e.g., VOC). This may be caused by: (1) improper air and fuel mixtures (e.g., poor mixing
prior to combustion); (2) inadequate residence time (i.e., too short) and temperature (i.e., too
low); and (3) flame quenching. The primary cause of CO and organic emissions in
chamberless burners is quenching of the flame caused by improper flighting. This occurs
when the flame temperature is reduced by contact with cold surfaces or cold material
dropping through the flame (NAPA, 1995). In addition, the moisture content of the
aggregate in the dryer may contribute to the formation of CO and unburned fuel emissions
by reducing the temperature (Gunkel, 1992). A secondary cause of these gaseous pollutants
may be excess air entering the combustion process, particularly in the case of an induced
draft burner. The use of a precombustion chamber to promote better fuel air mixing may
reduce VOC and CO emissions.
3.2-6 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
NOX is primarily formed from nitrogen in the combustion air, thermal NOX, and from
nitrogen in the fuel, fuel NOX. Thermal NOX is negligible below 1300°C and increases with
combustion temperature (Nevers, 1995). Fuel NOX, which is likely lower than thermal NOX
from dryer burners, is formed by conversion of some of the nitrogen in the burner fuel.
While No. 4, 5 and 6 fuel oils may contain significant amounts of nitrogen, No. 1 and 2 oils
and natural gas contain very little (Nevers, 1995).
Dryer burners can be designed to operate on almost any type of fuel; natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), light fuel oils, heavy fuel oils, and waste fuel oils (Gunkel, 1992).
The type of fuel and its sulfur content will affect SOX, VOC, and HAP emissions and, to a
lesser extent, NOX and CO emissions. Sulfur in the burner fuel will convert to SOX during
combustion; burner operation will have little effect on the percent of this conversion
(TNRCC, 1994; EIIP, 1995). VOC emissions from natural gas combustion are less than
emissions from LPG or fuel oil combustion, which are lower than emissions from waste-
blended fuel combustion (TNRCC, 1994). Ash levels and concentrations of most of the trace
elements in waste oils are normally much higher than those in virgin oils, producing higher
emission levels of PM and trace metals. Chlorine in waste oils also typically exceeds the
levels in virgin oils. High levels of halogenated solvents are often found in waste oil as a
result of the additions of contaminant solvents to the waste oils.
When cold mix asphalt cement is heated, organic fumes (i.e., VOC) may be released as
visible emissions if the asphalt is cut with lighter ends or other additives needed for a
specification; however, these emissions are not normally seen when heating asphalt cement,
as the boiling point of asphalt cement is much higher (Patterson, 1995). In drum mix plants,
hydrocarbon (e.g, aldehydes) and PAH emissions may result from the heating and mixing of
liquid asphalt inside the drum as hot exhaust gas hi the drum strips light ends from the
asphalt. The magnitude of these emissions is a function of the process temperatures and
constituents of the asphalt being used. The mixing zone temperature in parallel flow drums
is largely a function of drum length and flighting. The processing of RAP materials,
particularly in parallel flow plants, may also increase VOC emissions, because of an increase
in mixing zone temperature during processing. In counterflow drum mix plants, the liquid
asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in contact with the
hot exhaust gas stream. Consequently, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have lower
VOC emissions than parallel flow drum mix plants. In batch mix plants, the amount of
hydrocarbons (i.e., liquid aerosol) produced depends to a large extent on the temperature of
the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Particulate emissions from parallel flow drum mix plants are reduced because the aggregate
and asphalt cement mix for a longer time. The amount of PM generated within the dryer in
this process is usually lower than that generated within batch dryers, but because the asphalt
is heated to higher temperatures for a longer period of time, organic emissions (gaseous and
liquid aerosol) are typically greater than in conventional batch plants (EPA, 1991a).
2.4 CONTROL TECHNIQUES
EIIP Volume II 3.2-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Control techniques and devices typically used at HMA facilities are described below and
presented in Table 3.2-1. Control efficiency for a specific piece of equipment will vary
depending not only on the type of equipment and quality of the maintenance/repair program
at a particular facility, but also the velocity of the air through the dryer.
2.4.1 PROCESS AND PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE CONTROL (INCLUDING
METALS)
Process and process fugitive particulates at HMA plants are typically controlled using
primary and secondary collection devices. Primary devices typically include cyclone and
settling chambers to remove larger PM. Smaller PM is typically collected by secondary
devices, including fabric filters and venturi scrubbers. PM from the dry control devices is
usually collected and mixed back into the process near the entry point of the asphalt cement
in drum-mix plants. In addition to PM and PM,0 emissions, particulate control also serves to
remove trace metals emitted as particulate. These controls are primarily used to reduce PM
emissions from the dryer; however at batch mix plants, these controls are also used for post-
dryer sources, where fugitive emissions may be scavenged at an efficiency of 98 percent
(NAP A, 1995).
Cyclones
The cyclone (also known as a "mechanical collector") is a particulate control device that uses
gravity, inertia, and impaction to remove particles from a ducted stream. Large diameter
cyclones are often used as primary precleaners to remove the bulk of heavier
particles from the flue gas before it enters a secondary or final collection system. A
secondary collection device, which is more effective at removing particulates than a primary
collector, is used to capture remaining PM from the primary collector effluent.
In batch plants, cyclones are often used to return collected material to the hot elevator and to
combine it with the drier virgin aggregate (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; Khan, 1977: NAPA,
1995.
Multiple cyclones
A multiple cyclone consists of numerous small-diameter cyclones operating in parallel.
Multiple cyclones are less expensive to install and operate than fabric filters, but are not as
effective at removing smaller particulates. They are often used as precleaners to remove the
bulk of heavier particles from the flue gas before it enters the main control device (EPA,
1995a; Gunkel, 1992; Khan, 1977)..
Settling Chambers
3.2-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
TABLE 3.2-1
TYPICAL HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANT EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Emission Source
Process
Fugitive dust
Pollutant
PM and
PMIO
voc
so,
PM and
PM,0
Control Technique
Cyclones
Multiple cyclones
Settling chamber
Baghouse
Venturi scrubber
Dryer and combustion
process modifications
Limestone
Low sulfur fuel
Paving and maintenance
Wetting and crusting agents
Crushed RAP material,
asphalt shingles
Typical Efficiency
(%)
50 - 15**
90C
<50b
99 - 99.97M
90 - 99.5d'e
37 - 86f'g
50b.c
80C
60 - 99g
70" - 80°
70h
* Control efficiency dependent on particle size ratio and size of equipment.
b Source: Patterson, 1995c.
c Source: EIIP, 1995.
d Typical efficiencies at a hot-mix asphalt plant.
c Source: TNRCC, 1995.
f Source: Gunkel, 1992.
B Source: TNRCC, 1994.
h Source: Patterson, 1995a.
EIIP Volume II
3.2-9
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Settling chambers, also referred to as knock-out boxes, are used at HMA plants as primary
dust collection equipment. To capture remaining PM, the primary collector effluent is ducted
to a secondary collection device such as a baghouse, which is more effective at removing
particulates (EPA, 1995a, Khan, 1977).
Baghouses
Baghouses, or fabric filter systems, filter particles through fabric filtering elements (bags).
Particles are caught on the surface of the bags, while the cleaned flue gas passes through.
To minimize pressure drop, the bags must be cleaned periodically as the dust layer builds up.
Fabric filters can achieve the highest particulate collection efficiency of all particulate control
devices. Most HMA plants with baghouses use them for process and process fugitive
emissions control. The captured dust from these devices is usually .returned to the production
process (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Venturi Scrubbers
Venturi scrubbers (sometimes referred to as high energy wet scrubbers) are used to remove
coarse and fine particulate matter. Flue gas passes through a venturi tube while low pressure
water is added at the throat. The turbulence in the venturi promotes intimate contact
between the particles and the water. The wetted particles and droplets are collected in a
cyclone spray separator (sometimes called a cyclonic demister). Venturi scrubbers are often
used in similar applications to baghouses (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
In addition to controlling particulate emissions, the venturi scrubber is likely to remove some
of the process organic emissions from the exhaust gas (Gunkel, 1992). While the high-
pressure venturi scrubber is reliable at controlling PM, it requires considerable attention and
daily maintenance to maintain a high degree of PM removal efficiency (Gunkel, 1992).
2.4.2 FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS CONTROL
Driving Surfaces
Unpaved driving surfaces are commonly maintained by utilizing wet-down techniques using
water, or other agents. In some areas unpaved roadways may alternatively be covered with
crushed recycled material (e.g., tires, asphalt shingles) with equal success. In recent years,
there has been a trend toward paving the driving surfaces to eliminate fugitive particulates.
Facilities with paved surfaces may additionally employ sweeping or vacuuming as
maintenance measures to reduce PM emissions (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; TRNCC, 1994).
Aggregate Stockpiles
3.2-10 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Watering of the stockpiles is not typically used because of the burden it puts on the heating
and drying process (Gunkel, 1992). Occasionally, crusting agents may be applied to
aggregate piles. These crusting agents have served fairly well to mitigate fugitive dust
emissions in these instances (TNRCC, 1994). There are many variables that affect the
fugitive dust emissions from stockpiles including moisture content of the material, amount of
fines (< 200 mesh), and age of pile (i.e., older piles tend to loose their surface fines).
Pre-washed aggregate, from which fines have been removed, may be used for additional PM
control (Patterson, 1995a).
2.4.3 VOC (INCLUDING HAP) CONTROL
VOCs are the total organic compounds emitted by the process minus the methane constituent.
Once the exhaust stream cools after discharge from the process stack, some VOCs 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 (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992). Periodic burner tune-ups may reduce
VOC emissions by about 38 percent (Patterson, 1995a). Burner combustion air can be
optimized to reduce emissions by monitoring the pressure drop across induced draft burners
with a photohelic device tied to an automatic damper that adjusts the exhaust fan
(Patterson, 1995a).
Organic vapors from heated asphalt cement storage tanks can be reduced by condensing the
vapors with air-cooled vent pipes. In some cases, tank emissions may be routed back to
combustion units. Organic emissions from heated asphalt storage tanks may also be
controlled with carbon canisters on the vents or by other measures such as condensing
precipitation or stainless steel shaving condensers (Wiese, 1995). Although not common,
organic emissions from truck-loading of asphaltic concrete can be controlled by venting into
the dryer (EPA, 1995a). This is usually practiced in non-attainment areas.
2.4.4 SULFUR OXIDES CONTROL
Low Sulfur Fuel
This approach to reducing SOX emissions reduces the sulfur fed to the combustor by burning
low sulfur fuels. Fuel blending is the process of mixing higher sulfur content fuels with
lower sulfur fuels (e.g., low sulfur oil). The goal of effective fuel blending is to provide a
fuel supply with reasonably uniform properties that meet the blend specification, typically
including sulfur content, heating value, and moisture content (EIIP, 1995).
Aggregate Adsorption
EIIP Volume II 3.2-11
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Alkaline aggregate (i.e., limestone) may adsorb sulfur compounds from the exhaust gas. In
exhaust streams controlled by baghouses, SOX may be reduced by limestone dust that coats
the baghouse filters (Patterson, 1995). Consequently, limestone aggregate may maximize the
removal of sulfur compounds (Gunkel, 1992). Sulfur compounds from the exhaust gas may
also be adsorbed by a venturi scrubber with recirculated water containing limestone
(Wiese, 1995).
2.4.5 NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL
Low Nitrogen Fuels
Fuels lower in nitrogen content may reduce some NO, emissions (NAPA, 1995). At
temperatures above 1300°C, however, conversion from high-nitrogen fuels to low-nitrogen
fuels may not substantially reduce NOX emissions, as thermal NOX contributions will be more
significant (Nevers, 1995). Consequently, NOX emissions are generally inversely related to
CO emissions (NAPA, 1995).
Staged combustion systems such as low NOX burners that are used to reduce NOX emissions
in other industries, are not typically employed in the HMA industry due to economic and
engineering considerations (NAPA, 1995). Recirculation of the exhaust gas may be
precluded by the relatively high moisture content (e.g., 30 percent) of the gas stream.
Exhaust recirculation in these instances may cause some flame quenching around the edges
and could contribute to higher VOC and CO emissions when sealed burners are not used
(Patterson, 1995a).
3.2-12 EIIP Volume II
-------
OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE METHODS
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES
There are several methodologies available for calculating emissions from HMA plants. The
method used is dependent upon available data, available resources, and the degree of
accuracy required in the estimate. In general, site-specific data is preferred over industry
averaged data such as AP-42 emission factors for more accurate emissions estimates
(EPA, 1995a). (Each state may have a different preference or requirement and so it is
suggested that the reader contact the nearest state or local air pollution agency before
deciding on which emission estimation methodology to use.) This document evaluates
emission estimation methodologies with respect to accuracy and does not mandate any
emission estimation method. For purposes of calculating peak season daily emissions for
State Implementation Plan inventories, refer to the EPA Procedures manual
(EPA, May 1991).
This section discusses the methods available for calculating emissions from HMA plants and
identifies the preferred method of calculation on a pollutant basis. These emission estimation
methodologies are listed in no particular order and the reader should not infer a preference
based on the order they are listed in this section. A discussion of the sampling and
analytical methods available for monitoring each pollutant is provided in Chapter 1,
Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emissions Inventory Development.
Emission estimation techniques for auxiliary processes, such as using EPA's TANKS
program to calculate storage tank emissions, are also discussed in Chapter 1.
3.1.1 STACK SAMPLING
Stack sampling provides a "snapshot" of emissions during the period of the stack test. Stack
tests are typically performed during either representative (i.e., normal) or worst case
conditions, depending upon the requirements of the state. Samples are collected from the
stack using probes inserted through a port in the stack wall, and pollutants are collected in or
on various media and sent to a laboratory for analysis. Pollutant concentrations are obtained
by dividing the amount of pollutant collected during the test by the volume of the sample.
Emission rates are then determined by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the
volumetric stack gas flow rate. Because there are many steps in the stack sampling
procedures where errors can occur, only experienced stack testers should perform such tests.
EIIP Volume II 3.3-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
3.1.2 EMISSION FACTORS
Emission factors are available for many source categories and are based on the results of
source tests performed at an individual plant or at one or more facilities within an industry.
Basically, an emission factor is the pollutant emission rate relative to the level of source
activity. Chapter 1 of this volume of documents contains a detailed discussion of the
reliability, or quality, of available emission factors. EPA-developed emission factors for
criteria and hazardous air pollutants are available in AP-42, the Locating and Estimating
Series of documents, and the Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) System.
3.1.3 FUEL ANALYSIS
Fuel analysis data can sometimes be used to predict emissions by applying mass conservation
laws. For example, if the concentration of a pollutant, or pollutant precursor, in a fuel is
known, emissions of that pollutant can be calculated by assuming that all of the pollutant is
emitted or by adjusting the calculated emissions by the control efficiency. This approach is
appropriate for SO2.
3.1.4 CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM (CEMS) AND PREDICTIVE
EMISSION MONITORING (PEM).
A CEMS provides a continuous record of emissions over time. Various principles are
employed to measure the concentration of pollutants in the gas stream and are usually based
on photometric measurements. Once the pollutant concentration is known, emission rates are
obtained by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the volumetric gas flow rate. Stack
gas flow rate can also be measured by continuous monitoring instruments; but it is more
typically determined using manual methods (e.g., pitot tube traverse). At low pollutant
concentrations, the accuracy of this method may decrease. Instrument drift can be
problematic for CEMS and uncaptured data can create long-term, incomplete data sets.
PEM is based on developing a correlation between pollutant emission rates and process
parameters. A PEM may be considered a specialized usage of an emission factor.
Correlation tests must first be performed to develop this relationship. At a later time
emissions can then be calculated using process parameters to predict emission rates based on
the results of the initial source test.
3.3-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
3.2 COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE EMISSION ESTIMATION
METHODOLOGIES
Table 3.3-1 identifies the preferred and alternative emission estimation approach(s) for
selected pollutants. Table 3.3-1 is ordered according to the accuracy of the emission
estimation approach. The reader and the local air pollution agency must decide which
emission estimation approach is applicable based on costs and air pollution control
requirements in their area. The preferred method chosen should also recognize the time
specificity of the emission estimate and the data quality. The quality of the data will depend
on a variety of factors including the number of data points generated, the representativeness
of those data points, and the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment being used
to record the measurements.
3.2.1 STACK SAMPLING
Without considering cost, stack sampling is the preferred emission estimation methodology
for process NOX, CO, VOC, THC, PM, PMIO, metals and speciated organics. EPA reference
methods and other methods of known quality can be used to obtain accurate estimates of
emissions at a given time for a particular facility.
3.2.2 EMISSION FACTORS
Due to their availability and acceptance in the industry, emission factors are commonly used
to prepare emission inventories. However, the emission estimate obtained from using
emission factors is based upon emissions testing performed at similar facilities and may not
accurately reflect emissions at a single source. Thus, the user should recognize that, in most
cases, emission factors are averages of available industry-wide data with varying degrees of
quality and may not be representative of averages for an individual facility within that
industry. Emission factors are the preferred technique for estimating fugitive dust emissions
for aggregate stockpiles and driving surfaces, as well as process fugitives.
3.2.3 FUEL ANALYSIS
Fuel analysis can be used as an approximation if no emission factors or site specific stack
test data are available. Once the concentration of sulfur in a fuel is known, SO2 emissions
can be calculated based on mass conservation laws, assuming negligible adsorption by
alkaline aggregates.
EIIP Volume II 3.3-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.3-1
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED EMISSION
ESTIMATION METHODS FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Parameter
SO2
NOX
CO
VOC
THCC
PM
PM10
Heavy metals
Preferred Emission Estimation
Approach Ordered by Accuracy*
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM
3. Fuel analysis
4. EPA/state published emission factors'1
I. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors'"
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors'"
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors'"
1. Stack sampling datad
2. EPA/state published emission factors0
1. Stack sampling datad
2. EPA/state published emission factors6
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors"
3.3-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.3-1
(CONTINUED)
Parameter
Speciated organics
Preferred Emission Estimation
Approach Ordered by Accuracy"
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors'"
Preferred emission estimation approaches do not include considerations such as cost. The costs,
benefits, and relative accuracy should be considered prior to method selection. Readers are advised to
check with local air pollution control agency before choosing a preferred emission estimation approach.
Assumes emission factors are not based on site-specific fuel analysis.
THC = total hydrocarbons.
Preferred method for process and process fugitive emissions.
Preferred method for fugitive dust.
EIIP Volume II
3.3-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
3.2.4 OEMS AND PEM
HMA plants would not likely estimate emissions using CEMS and PEM. HMA plants have
conditions unfavorable to generating accurate CEM data including, high vibrations, high
moisture content of the stack gas, and dust. Nightly shutdown of CEMS would also
adversely affect their performance. In some instances, however, CEMS may be used to
estimate emissions of NOX, CO, and THC. This method may be used, for example, when
detailed records of emissions are needed over time. Similarly, stack gas flow rate may be
monitored using a continuous flow rate monitor, including pitot tubes, ultrasonic, and thermal
monitors (Patterson, 1995a).
PEM is a predictive emission estimation methodology whereby emissions are correlated to
process parameters based on an initial series of stack tests at a facility. For example, VOC
emissions may occur from asphalt mixtures produced at various temperatures with different
combustion fuels and varying quantities of asphalt cement, aggregates, RAP, and crumb
rubber. Similarly, sulfur dioxide emissions may be controlled by scrubbers that operate at
variable pressure drops, alkalinity, and recirculation rates. These parameters may be
monitored during the tests and correlated to the pollutant emission rates. Following the
correlation development, parameters would be monitored to periodically predict emission
rates. Periodic stack sampling may be required to verify that the predictive emission
correlations are still accurate; if not, new correlations are developed.
3.3-6 EIIP Volume II
-------
PREFERRED METHODS FOR
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS
Without consideration of cost, the preferred method for estimating emissions of most
pollutants emitted from HMA plants is the use of site-specific recent stack tests. Each state
may have a different preference or requirement and so it is suggested that the reader contact
the nearest state or local air pollution agency before deciding on which emission estimation
methodology to use. This section provides an outline for calculating emissions from HMA
plants based on raw data collected by stack tests.
Table 3.4-1 lists the variables and symbols used in the following discussions.
4.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING STACK SAMPLING DATA
Stack sampling test reports often provide emissions data in terms of Ib/hr or grain/dscf.
Annual emissions may be calculated from these data using Equations 3.4-1 or 3.4-2. Stack
tests performed under a proposed permit condition or a maximum emissions rate are likely to
be higher than the emissions which would result under normal operating conditions. The
emission testing should only be completed after the purpose of the testing is known. For
example, emission testing for particulate emissions may be different than emission testing for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) because the back-half catch portion is not
considered.
This section shows how to calculate emissions in Ib/hr based on stack sampling data.
Calculations involved in determining particulate emissions from Method 5 data are used as
an example. Because continuous PM monitors have not been demonstrated for this industry,
the only available methods for measuring PM emissions are EPA Methods 5 or 17 and EPA
Method 201A for PM10. EPA Method 5 is used for NSPS testing. If condensible PM is
needed in the emissions estimate, the test method selected must be configured accordingly.
EIIP Volume II 3.4-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.4-1
LIST OF VARIABLES AND SYMBOLS
Variable
Concentration
Molecular weight
Molar volume
Flow rate
Flow rate
Emissions
Annual emissions
Filter catch
Fuel use
PM concentration
Metered volume at
standard temperature and
pressure
Moisture
Temperature
Asphalt production
Annual operating hours
Symbol
C
MW
V
Qa
Qd
Ex
Etpy,x
c,
Qr
CPM
Vm,STP
R
T
A
OpHrs
Units
parts per million volume dry
(ppmvd)
Ib/lb-mole
385.5 fWlb-mole @ 68°F and 1 atmosphere
actual cubic feet per minute
(acftn)
dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm)
typically Ib/hr of pollutant x
ton/year of pollutant x
grams (g)
typically, Ib/hr
grain/dscf
dscf
percent
degrees fahrenheit
ton/hr
hr/yr
3.4-2
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
An example summary of a Method 5 test is shown in Table 3.4-2. The table shows the
results of three different sampling runs conducted during one test event. The source
parameters measured as part of a Method 5 run include gas velocity and moisture content,
which are used to determine exhaust gas flow rates in dscfm. The filter weight gain is
determined gravimetrically and divided by the volume of gas sampled (as shown in Equation
3.4-1) to determine the PM concentration in grains per dscf. Note that this example does not
present the condensible PM emissions.
Pollutant concentration is then multiplied by the volumetric flow rate to determine the
emission rate in pounds per hour, as shown in Equation 3.4-2 and Example 3.4-1.
m,STP
15.43
(3-4-1)
where:
CPM = concentration of PM or grain loading (grain/dscf)
Cf = filter catch (g)
VHISTP = metered volume of sample at STP (dscf)
15.43 = 15.43 grains per gram
= C
PM
60/7000
(3.4-2)
where:
60
7000
hourly emissions in Ib/hr of PM
stack gas volumetric flow rate (dscfm)
60 min/hr
7000 grains per pound
EIIP Volume II
3.4-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.4-2
TEST RESULTS - METHOD 5
Parameter
Total sampling time
(minutes)
Moisture collected
(grams)
Filter catch (grams)
Average sampling
rate (dscfm)
Standard metered
volume, (dscf)
Volumetric flow rate
(acftn or dscfm)
Concentration of
particulate
(grains/dscf)
Particulate emission
rate (Ib/hr)
Symbol
min
g
cf
dscfm
Vm,STP
Qa or Qd
CpM
^PM
Run 1
120
395.6
0.0851
0.34
41.83
17,972
0.00204
4.84
Run 2
120
372.6
0.0449
0.34
40.68
17,867
0.00110
2.61
Run 3
120
341.4
0.0625
0.34
40.78
17,914
0.00153
3.63
3.4-4
E1IP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Example 3.4-1
PM emissions calculated using Equations 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 and the stack sampling
data for Run 1 (presented in Table 3.4-2 are shown below).
CPM = C/VmSTP 15.43
(0.085/41.83) * 15.43
= 0.03 grain/dscf
EpM = CPM * Qd * 60/7000
0.03 * 17,972 * (60 min/hr) * (1 lb/7000 grains)
4.84 Ib/hr
The information from some stack tests may be reported in pounds of particulate per pounds
of exhaust gas (wet). Use Equation 3.4-3 to calculate the dry particulate emissions in Ib/hr.
EPM = Q/1000 * 60 * 0.075 (1 - R) * (528/460 + T) (3.4-3)
where:
EPM = hourly emissions in Ib/hr PM
Qa = actual cubic feet of exhaust gas per minute (acfm)
1000 = 1000 Ib exhaust gas per Ib of PM
60 = 60 min/hr
0.075 = 0.075 Ib/ft3
R = moisture percent (%)
528 = 528°F
460 = 460°F
T = stack gas temperature in °F
4.2 EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Emission factors are commonly used to calculate emissions for fugitive dust sources and
when site-specific monitoring data are unavailable. EPA maintains a compilation of emission
factors in AP-42 for criteria pollutants and HAPs (EPA, 1995a). A supplementary source for
toxic air pollutant emission factors is the Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) data
system (EPA, 1994). FIRE also contains emission factors for criteria pollutants.
EIIP Volume II 3.4-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Much work has been done recently on developing emission factors for HAPs and recent
AP-42 revisions have included these factors (EPA, 1995a,b). In addition, many states have
developed their own HAP emission factors for certain source categories and require their use
in any inventories including HAPs. Refer to Chapter 1 of Volume III for a complete
discussion of available information sources for locating, developing, and using emission
factors as an estimation technique.
Emission factors developed from measurements for a specific mixer or dryer may sometimes
be used to estimate emissions at other sites. For example, a company may have several units
of similar model and size; if emissions were measured from one dryer or mixer, an emission
factor could be developed and applied other similar units. It is advisable to have the
emission factor reviewed and approved by state/local agencies or the EPA prior to its use.
The basic equation for using an emission factor to calculate emissions is the following:
Ex = EFx * Activity or Production Rate (3.4-4)
where:
Ex = emissions of pollutant x
EFX = emission factor of pollutant x
Calculations using emission factors are presented in Examples 3.4-2 and 3.4-3.
4.3 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING FUEL ANALYSIS DATA
Fuel analysis can be used to predict SO2 and other emissions based on application of
conservation laws, if fuel rate (Qf) is measured. The presence of certain elements in fuels
may be used to predict their presence in emission streams. This includes elements such as
sulfur which may be converted to other compounds during the combustion process.
3.4.6 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Example 3.4-2
Example 3.4-2 shows how potential hourly VOC combustion emissions may be
calculated for a parallel flow drum mixer using a total organic compound (TOC)
emission factor from AP-42, Table 11.1-8, for an oil-fired dryer. The asphalt plant
is assumed to operate 1,200 hours per year.
EF.
TOC
Maximum asphalt production rate
TOC emissions
0.069 Ib/ton asphalt produced
350 ton/hr
= EFTOC * asphalt production rate
0.069 * 350
24.15 Ib/hr * 1 ton/2000 Ib * 1200 hr/yr
= 14.5 ton/yr
Example 3.4-3
Example 3.4-3 shows how potential hourly xylene emissions may be calculated for
a batch mix HMA plant with a natural gas-fired dryer based on a xylene emission
factor from AP-42, Table 11.1-9. The HMA plant is assumed to operate 1,200
hours per year.
EF.
xylene
Xylene emissions
0.0043 Ib/ton asphalt produced
= EFxylcne * maximum asphalt production rate
(0.0043 Ib/ton) * 350 ton/hr
1.5 Ib/hr * 1 ton/2000 Ib * 1200 hr/yr
0.9 ton/yr
The basic equation used in fuel analysis emission calculations is the following:
Ex = Qf * Pollutant concentration in fuel *
(3.4-4)
EIIP Volume II
3.4-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
where:
E = emissions of pollutant x
Qf = fuel use (Ib/hr)
MWp = Molecular weight of pollutant emitted (Ib/lb-mole)
MWf = Molecular weight of pollutant in fuel (Ib/lb-mole)
For instance, SO2 emissions from oil combustion can be calculated based on the
concentration of sulfur in the oil. This approach assumes complete conversion of sulfur to
SO2. Therefore, for every pound of sulfur (MW = 32 g) burned, two pounds of SO2 (MW
64 g) are emitted. The application of this emission estimation technique is shown in
Example 3.4-4.
Example 3.4-4
This example shows how SO2 emissions can be calculated from oil combustion
based on fuel analysis results and the fuel flow information, if available. The
asphalt plant is assumed to operate 1,200 hours per year.
ES02 may be calculated using Equation 3.4-4.
Assume a given Qf = 5,000 Ib/hr
Given percent weight sulfur (% S) in fuel = 1.17
ESOZ = Qr * pollutant concentration in fuel * (MWp/MWf)
(5,000) * (1.17/100) * (64/32)
117 Ib/hr * ton/2000 Ib * 1,200 hr/yr
70.2 ton/yr
3.4-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS
5.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING CEMS DATA
To monitor SO2, NOX, THC, and CO emissions using a CEMS, a facility uses a pollutant
concentration monitor, which measures concentration in parts per million by volume dry air
(ppmvd). Note that a CEMS would not likely be used to monitor emissions for an extended
period due to the unfavorable conditions at an HMA plant. Flow rates should be measured
using a volumetric flow rate monitor. Flow rates estimated based on heat input using fuel
factors may be inaccurate because these systems typically run with high excess air to remove
the moisture out of the drum (Patterson, 1995). Emission rates (Ib/hr) are then calculated by
multiplying the stack gas concentrations by the stack gas flow rates.
Table 3.5-1 presents example CEMS data output averaged for three periods for a parallel
flow drum mixer. The output includes pollutant concentrations in parts per million dry basis
(ppmvd), diluent (O2 or CO2) concentrations in percent by volume dry basis (%v,d), and
emission rates in pounds per hour (Ib/hr). These data represent a "snapshot" of a drum mixer
operation. While it is possible to determine total emissions of an individual pollutant over a
given time period from these data assuming the CEM operates properly all year long, an
accurate emission estimate can be made by summing the hourly emission estimates if the
CEMS data are representative of typical operating conditions.
Although CEMS can report real-time hourly emissions automatically, it may be necessary to
manually estimate annual emissions from hourly concentration data. This section describes
how to calculate emissions from CEMS concentration data. The selected CEMS data should
be representative of operating conditions. When possible, data collected over longer periods
should be used. It is important to note that prior to using CEMS to estimate emissions, a
protocol should be developed for collecting and averaging the data.
EIIP Volume II 3.5-1
-------
!>j
LAI
TABLE 3.5-1
EXAMPLE CEM OUTPUT AVERAGED FOR A PARALLEL FLOW DRUM MIXER FIRING WASTE FUEL OIL
Period
0830-1039
1355-1606
1236-1503
02
(%V)
10.3
10.1
11.8
Concentration (C)
(ppmvd)
SO2
150.9
144.0
123.0
NO,
142.9
145.7
112.7
CO
42.9
41.8
128.4
THC
554.2
582.9
515.1
Stack
Gas
Flow
Rate
(Q)
(dscfm)
18,061
17,975
18,760
Emission Rate (E)
(Ib/hr)
SO2
27.15
25.78
22.99
NO,
25.71
26.09
21.06
CO
3.38
3.27
10.50
THC
24.93
26.09
24.06
Asphalt
Production
Rate (A)
(ton/hr)
287
290
267
i
to
I
o
1
r-
-H
Source: EPA, 1991b.
rn
f>
5
O)
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
Hourly emissions can be based on concentration measurements as shown in Equation 3.5-1
and Example 3.5-1.
E = (C * MW * Q * 60) (3 5_1}
(V * 106)
where:
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
C = pollutant concentration in ppmvd
MW = molecular weight of the pollutant (Ib/lb-mole)
Q = stack gas volumetric flow rate in dscfm
60 = 60 min/hr
V = volume occupied by one mole of ideal gas at standard
temperature and pressure (385.5 frVlb-mole @ 68°F and 1 atm)
Actual emissions in tons per year can be calculated by multiplying the emission rate in Ib/hr
by the number of actual annual operating hours (OpHrs) as shown in Equation 3.5-2 and
Example 3.5-1.
E,py, = Ex * OpHrs/2000 (3-5-2)
where:
Etpy x = annual emissions in ton/yr of pollutant x
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
OpHrs = annual operating hours in hr/yr
Emissions hi pounds of pollutant per ton of asphalt produced can be calculated by dividing
the emission rate in Ib/hr by the asphalt production hi rate (ton/hr) during the same period
(Equation 3.5-3) as shown below. It should be noted that the emission factor calculated
below assumes that the selected period (i.e., hour) is representative of annual operating
conditions and longer time periods should be used when available. Use of the calculation is
shown in Example 3.5-1.
E = EA (3-5-3)
EIIP Volume II 3.5-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
where:
= emissions of pollutant x (Ib/ton) per ton of asphalt produced
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
A = asphalt production (ton/hr)
Example 3.5-1
This example shows how SO2 emissions can be calculated using Equation 3.5-1
based on the average CEMS data for 8:30-10:39 shown in Table 3.5-1.
ES02 = (C * MW * Q * 60)/(V * 106)
150.9 * 64 * 18,061 * 60/(385.5 * 106)
27.15 Ib/hr
Emissions in ton/yr (based on a 1,200 hr/yr operating schedule) can then be
calculated using Equation 3.5-2; however, based on the above period this estimate
should be calculated from the average CEMS data for year using Equation 3.5-1:
E,py,so2 = ES02 * OpHrs/2,000
27.15 * (1,200/2,000)
16.29 ton/yr
Emissions, in terms of Ib/ton asphalt produced, are calculated using Equation 3.5-3:
ES02/A ' '
9.46 * 10'2 Ib SO2/ton asphalt produced
5.2 PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING
Emissions from the HMA process depend upon several variables, which are discussed in
Section 3 of this chapter. For example, VOC process emissions for a given plant may vary
with several parameters, including: the type of fuel burned; the relative quantities of asphalt
constituents (e.g., RAP, crumb rubber, and emulsifiers); aggregate type and moisture content;
the temperature of the asphalt constituents; the mixing zone temperature; and, fuel
combustion rate. An example emissions monitoring that could be used to develop a PEM
3.5-4 El IP Volume 11
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
protocol would need to account for the variability in these parameters and, consequently, may
require a complex testing algorithm.
To develop this algorithm, correlation testing of the process variables could be conducted
over a range of potential operating conditions using EPA Method 25 or Method 25A to
measure THC emissions and EPA Method 6A or Method 6C to measure SO2 emissions.
Potential testing conditions covering several parameters are shown in Table 3.5-2. Based on
the test data, a mathematical correlation can be developed which predicts emissions using
these parameters. This method may be cost prohibitive for a single source.
EIIP Volume II 3.5-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.5-2
PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING ANALYSIS"
Test Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Temperature of
Asphalt Constituents
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Mixing Zone
Temperature
H
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
Fuel Firing Rate
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
"H =high.
M = medium.
L = low.
B = baseline.
3.5-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL
The consistent use of standardized methods and procedures is essential in the compilation of
reliable emission inventories. QA and QC of an inventory is accomplished through a set of
procedures that ensure the quality and reliability of data collection and analysis. These
procedures include the use of appropriate emission estimation techniques, applicable and
reasonable assumptions, accuracy/logic checks of computer models, checks of calculations,
and data reliability checks. Figure 3.6-1 provides an example checklist that could aid the
inventory preparer at a HMA plant. Volume VI, QA Procedures of this series describes
additional QA/QC methods and tools for performing these procedures.
Volume II, Chapter 1, Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emission Inventory
Development, presents recommended standard procedures to follow that ensure the reported
inventory data are complete and accurate. The QA/QC section of Chapter 1 should be
consulted for current EIIP guidance for QA/QC checks for general procedures, recommended
components of a QA plan, and recommended components for point source inventories. The
QA plan discussion includes recommendations for data collection, analysis, handling, and
reporting. The recommended QC procedures include checks for completeness, consistency,
accuracy, and the use of approved standardized methods for emission calculations, where
applicable. Chapter 1 also describes guidelines to follow in order to ensure the quality and
validity of the data from manual and continuous emission monitoring methodologies used to
estimate emissions.
6.1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING STACK TEST AND CEMS DATA
Data collected via CEMS, PEM, or stack tests must meet quality objectives. Stack test data
must be reviewed to ensure that the test was conducted under normal operating conditions, or
under maximum operating conditions in some states, and that it was generated according to
an acceptable method for each pollutant of interest. Calculation and interpretation of
accuracy for stack testing methods and CEMS are described in detail in Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements Systems: Volume III. Stationary Source Specific
Methods (Interim Edition).
The acceptance criteria, limits, and values for each control parameter associated with manual
sampling methods, such as dry gas meter calibration and leak rates, are summarized within
the tabular format of the QA/QC section of Chapter 1. QC procedures for all instruments
EIIP Volume II 3.6-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
Item
Y/N
Corrective Action
(complete if "N";
describe, sign, and date)
Have the toxic emissions been calculated and
reported using approved stack test methods or using
the emission factors provided from AP-42, FIRE,
and/or NAPA (National Asphalt Pavement
Association)? Have asphalt production rates been
included? Each facility should request from their
state agency guidance on which test methods or
emission factors should be used.
2. Fugitive emissions are required for the inventory,
but will not count towards a Title V determination
unless the facility is NSPS affected. Presently, in
the case of the asphalt plants, only paniculate
emissions for the process as defined in 40 CFR
60.90 are NSPS affected. Have fugitive emissions
been calculated?
3. If emission factors are used to calculate fuel usage
emissions, have fuel usage rates been determined for
the dryer and for the asphalt heater separately? If
the AP-42 dryer emission factors are used, they
already contain emissions from fuel combustion in
the dryer.
4. Again, request guidance from the state regulatory
agency on whether or not to calculate toxic
emissions from fuel usage. Most toxic emission
factors usually are inclusive of the asphalt and the
fuel. Has the state agency been contacted for
guidance?
Have stack parameters been provided for each stack
or vent which emits criteria or toxic pollutants?
This includes the fabric filter or scrubber installed
on the asphalt dryer/mixer, the asphalt cement
heaters, and any storage silos other than asphalt
concrete storage.
FIGURE 3.6-1. EXAMPLE EMISSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
CHECKLIST FOR ASPHALT PLANTS
3.6-2
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Item
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Check with the state regulatory agency to determine
whether emissions should be calculated using AP-42
emission factors:
Dryer/Mix Type:
Rotary Dryer (Batch Mix): Conventional Plant
(3-05-002-01)
Drum (Mix) Dryer: Hot Asphalt Plant (3-05-002-05)
Diesel Generators: Industrial diesel reciprocating
(2-02-001-02)
Asphalt Heaters:
"In Process Fuel Use Factors" (Residual, 3-05-002-07;
Distillate, 3-05-002-08; Natural Gas, 3-05-002-06; LPG,
3-05-002-09).
Have you considered storage piles (3-05-002 -03)(includes
handling of piles) from both Batch and Drum Plants?
If required by the state, has a site diagram been included
with the emission inventory? This should be a detailed
plant drawing showing the location of sources/stacks with
ID numbers for all processes, control equipment, and
exhaust points.
Have examples of all calculations been included?
Have all conversions and units been reviewed and checked
for accuracy?
Y/N
Corrective Action
(complete if "N";
describe, sign,
and date)
FIGURE 3.6-1. (CONTINUED)
EIIP Volume II
3.6-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS 'Final 7/26/96
used to continuously collect emissions data are similar. The primary control check for
precision of the continuous monitors is daily analysis of control standards. The CEMS
acceptance criteria and control limits are listed within the tabular format of the QA/QC
section of Chapter 1.
Quality assurance should be delineated in a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) by the team
conducting the test prior to each specific test. The main objective of any QA/QC effort for
any program is to independently assess and document the precision, accuracy, and adequacy
of emission data generated during sampling and analysis. It is essential that the emissions
measurement program be performed by qualified personnel using proper test equipment.
Also, valid test results require the use of appropriate and properly functioning test equipment
and use of appropriate reference methods.
The QAP should be developed to assure that all testing and analytical data generated are
scientifically valid, defensible, comparable, and of known and acceptable precision and
accuracy. EPA guidance, is available for assistance in preparing any QAP (EPA, October,
1989).
6.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING EMISSION FACTORS
The use of emission factors is straightforward when the relationship between process data
and emissions is direct and relatively uncomplicated. When using emission factors, the user
should be aware of the quality indicator associated with the value. Emission factors
published within EPA documents and electronic tools have a quality rating applied to them.
The lower the quality indicator, the more likely that a given emission factor may not be
representative of the source type. When an emission factor for a specific source or category
may not provide a reasonably adequate emission estimate, it is always better to rely on actual
stack test or CEMS data, where available. The reliability and uncertainty of using emission
factors as an emission estimation technique are discussed in detail in the QA/QC Section of
Chapter 1.
6.3 DATA ATTRIBUTE RATING SYSTEM (DARS) SCORES
One measure of emission inventory data quality is the DARS score. Four examples are
given here to illustrate DARS scoring using the preferred and alternative methods. The
DARS provides a numerical ranking on a scale of 1 to 10 for individual attributes of the
emission factor and the activity data. Each score is based on what is known about the factor
and the activity data, such as the specificity to the source category and the measurement
technique employed. The composite attribute score for the emissions estimate can be viewed
as a statement of the confidence that can be placed in the data. For a complete discussion of
DARS and other rating systems, see the QA Source Document (Volume VI, Chapter 4) and
3.6-4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
the QA/QC Section within Volume II Chapter 1, Introduction to Stationary Point Sources
Emission Inventory Development.
Each of the examples below is hypothetical. A range is given where appropriate to cover
different situations. The scores are assumed to apply to annual emissions from an HMA
plant. Table 3.6-1 gives a set of scores for an estimate based on CEMS/PEM data. A
perfect score of 1.0 is achievable using this method if data quality is very good. Note that
maximum scores of 1.0 are automatic for the source definition and spatial congruity
attributes. Likewise, the temporal congruity attribute receives a 1.0 if data capture is greater
than 90 percent; this assumes that data are sampled adequately throughout the year. The
measurement attribute score of 1.0 assumes that the pollutants of interest were measured
directly. A lower score is given if the emissions are speciated using a profile, or if the
emissions are used as a surrogate for another pollutant. Also, the measurement/method score
can be less than 1.0 if the relative accuracy is poor (e.g., >10 percent), if the data are biased,
or if data capture is closer to 90 percent than to 100 percent.
The use of stack sample data can give DARS scores as high as those for CEMS/PEM data.
However, the sample size is usually too low to be considered completely representative of
the range of possible emissions making a score of 1.0 for measurement/method unlikely. A
typical DARS score for stack sample data is generally closer to the low end of the range
shown in Table 3.6-2.
Two examples are given for emissions calculated using emission factors. For both of these
examples, the activity data is assumed to be measured directly or indirectly. Table 3.6-3
applies to an emission factor developed from CEMS/PEM data from one dryer or mixer and
then applied to a different dryer or mixer of similar design and age. Table 3.6-4 gives an
example for an estimate made with an AP-42 emission factor. The AP-42 factor is a mean
and could overestimate or underestimate emissions for any
single unit in the population. Thus, the confidence that can be placed in emissions estimated
for a specific unit with a general AP-42 factor is lower than emissions based on source-
specific data. This assumes that the source-specific data were developed while the HMA
plant was operating under normal conditions. If it was not operated under normal conditions
then the AP-42 emission factor may be a better characterization of the emissions from the
HMA plant.
The example in Table 3.6-3 shows that emission factors based on high-quality data from a
similar unit will typically give better results than a general factor. The main criterion
affecting the score is how similar the unit used to generate the factor is to the target dryer or
mixer.
If sufficient data are available, the uncertainty in the estimate should be quantified. If
sufficient data are not available, a qualitative analysis of uncertainty is still recommended.
Some methods and examples are described in QA Procedures (Volume VI, Chapter 3).
EIIP Volume II 3.6-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.6-1
DARS SCORES: CEMS/PEM DATA3
Attribute
Measurement/
method
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal
congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor
Score
0.9 - 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.98 - 1.0
Data Score
0.9- 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.98 - 1.0
Composite Scores
Range
0.81 - 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.95 - 1.0 '
Midpoint
0.91
1.0 •
1.0
1.0
0.98
Comment
Lower scores given if
relative accuracy poor
(e-g.
>10 percent) or data
capture closer to
90 percent.
1 Assumes data capture is 90 percent or better, representative of entire year, monitors sensors, and
other equipment is properly maintained.
3.6-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.6-2
DARS SCORES: STACK SAMPLE DATA3
Attribute
Measurement/met
hod
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal
congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor
Score
0.7- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.7- 1.0
0.85 - 1.0
Activity
Data Score
0.7- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.7 - 1.0
0.85 - 1.0
Composite Scores
Range
0.49- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.49- 1.0
0.75 - 1.0
Midpoint
0.745
1.0
1.0
0.745
0.878
Comment
Lower scores given
if emissions vary
temporally and
sample does not
cover range.
1 Assumes use of EPA Reference Method, high quality data.
EIIP Volume II
3.6-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.6-3
DARS SCORES: SOURCE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR3
Attribute
Measurement/method
Source definition
Spatial congruiry
Temporal congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor Score
0.9- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.85 - 0.98
Activity
Data Score
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.78 - 0.95
Composite Scores
Range
0.72 - 1.0
0.4 - 0.81
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.66 - 0.93
Midpoint
0.86
0.61
1.0
0.7
0.79
Comment
Factor score
for this
attribute
depends
entirely on
data quality.
Factor score
lowest if unit
differs much
from original
source of
data.
a Assumes factor developed from PEM or CEMS data from an identical emission unit (same
manufacturer, model).
3.6-8
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.6-4
DARS SCORES: AP-42 EMISSION FACTOR"
Attribute
Measurement/method
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor Score
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.9
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.9
0.55 - 0.85
Activity
Data Score
0.8- 1.0
0.8 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.78 - 0.95
Composite Scores
Range
0.48 - 0.7
0.4 - 0.81
0.6 - 0.8
0.25 - 0.81
0.43 - 0.78
Midpoint
0.59
0.605
0.7
0.53
0.61
Comment
Score depends
on quality and
quantity of
data points
used to
develop
factor.
Emission
factor score
will be low if
variability in
source
population is
high.
Factor score
lower if
geographic
location has
significant
effect on
emissions.
Lower scores
given if
emissions
vary
temporally
and sample
does not cover
range.
a Assumes activity data (e.g., fuel use) or surrogate is measured directly in some manner.
EIIP Volume II
3.6-9
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
The reader should note that the presentation of the DARS scores here is shown as a
hypothetical example, only. Although the highest DARS score results from the use of
CEMS, this estimation technique will not practically be applied or used by the majority of
facilities operating. Due to technical feasibility issues and costs incurred by applying CEMS
to a HMA plant, stack testing or emission factors may provide the best choice when selecting
an appropriate method for estimating emissions (even though stack testing or emission
factors did not receive the highest DARS score). The reader should always contact their
state regulatory agency for approval of selected methodologies or techniques. Also, it should
be noted that this hypothetical application of DARS does not mandate any emission
estimation method, but only offers the reader a means for selecting any one method over
another.
3.6-10 El IP Volume 11
-------
DATA CODING PROCEDURES
This section describes the methods and codes available for characterizing emission sources at
HMA facilities. Consistent categorization and coding will result in greater uniformity among
inventories. The SCCs are the building blocks on which point source emissions data are
structured. Each SCC represents a unique process or function within a source category that
is logically associated with an emission point. Without an appropriate SCC, a process cannot
be accurately identified for retrieval purposes. In addition, the procedures described here
will assist the reader preparing data for input to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS) or a similar database management system. For example, the use of the SCCs
provided in Table 3.7-1 are recommended for describing HMA operations. Refer to the
CHIEF bulletin board for a complete listing of SCCs for HMA plants. While the codes
presented here are currently in use, they may change based on further refinement by the
emission inventory user community. As part of the EIIP, a common emissions data
exchange format is being developed to facilitate data transfer between industry, states, and
EPA. Details on SCCs for specific emission sources are as follows:
• Process Emissions: For asphaltic concrete production processes, be careful to use
only one SCC for each process. Use the codes for either the batch or continuous
process or for the drum mix process, depending on which process is used. The
process-specific codes should be used as often as possible; however, "Entire Unit" and
"General" codes are available. If the "Entire Unit" code is used, do not use the
chemical-specific or process-specific codes as this would double-count emissions. AP-
42 emission factors for dryer emissions include all stack emissions (including products
of combustion from the dryer burner).
• In-Process Fuel: In-process fuel includes SCCs for asphalt cement heaters. These
emissions are separate and apart from dryer emissions.
• Generators: Diesel generators may be used at portable HMA plants to generate
electricity. These emissions are not included in emission factors for process
emissions.
EIIP Volume II 3.7-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
• Storage Tanks: Storage tanks may be used in the asphaltic concrete production
process to store fuel such as oil. Potential emissions from storage tanks will likely be
insignificant. The codes in Table 3.7-1 are recommended to describe fuel storage
emissions.
v
• Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive emissions from asphaltic concrete production result
primarily from the storage and handling of raw materials and finished product. The
miscellaneous codes may be used for fugitive emission sources without a unique
code. Remember to use the comment section to describe the emissions.
Control device codes applicable to asphaltic concrete production are presented in Table 3.7-2.
These should be used to enter the type of applicable emissions control device into the AIRS
Facility Subsystem (AFS). The "099" control code may be used for miscellaneous control
devices that do not have a unique identification code.
If there are significant sources of fugitive emissions within the facility, or sources that have
not been specifically discussed thus far, they should be included in the emissions estimates if
required by the state. Conditions vary from plant to plant, thus, each specific case cannot be
discussed within the context of this document.
3.7-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.7-1
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
PRODUCTION (SIC CODE 2951)
Source Description
Process Description
sec
Units
Process Emissions
Batch or continuous
mix process
Drum mix process
General process
Rotary dryer
Hot elevators, screens, bins, and
mixer
Drum mixer: hot asphalt plants
General process/specify in
comments
In-place recycling - propane
3-05-002-01
3-05-002-02
3-05-002-05
3-05-002-99
3-05-002-15
Tons HMA produced
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons HMA produced
Tons produced
Tons produced
In-Process Fuel
Asphalt heater fuel
use
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Liquid petroleum gas
3-05-002-07
3-05-002-08
3-05-002-06
3-05-002-10
3-05-002-09
1000 gallons burned
1000 gallons burned
Million ft3 burned
1000 gallons burned
1000 gallons burned
Generators
Diesel
Reciprocating
2-02-001-02
Horsepower hours
Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions
Raw material storage piles
Cold aggregate handling
Storage silo
Truck load-out
Miscellaneous fugitive emissions
Haul roads - general
3-05-002-03
3-05-002-04
3-05-002-13
3-05-002-14
3-05-888-01 to 05
3-05-002-90
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons HMA produced
Tons HMA loaded
Vehicle miles
travelled
Tons product
EIIP Volume II
3.7-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.7-2
AIRS CONTROL DEVICE CODES
Control Device
Settling chamber: high-efficiency
Settling chamber: medium-efficiency
Settling chamber: low-efficiency
Single cyclone
Multiple cyclone
Centrifugal collector: high-efficiency
Centrifugal collector: medium-efficiency
Centrifugal collector: low-efficiency
Fabric filter: high temperature
Fabric filter: medium temperature
Fabric filter: low temperature
Wet fan
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Baffle spray tower
Miscellaneous control device
Code
004
005
006
075
076
007
008
009
016
017
018
085
052
053
052
099
Source: EPA, January 1992.
3.7-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
8
REFERENCES
Code of Federal Regulations. July 1, 1987. Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A. Office of the
Federal Register, Washington, DC.
EIIP. March 1995. Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from
Boilers, Review Draft. Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Point Sources Committee.
Prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0160, Work Assignment No. 41.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Report No. SW-846, Third Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
EPA. April 1989. Estimating Air Toxic Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion Sources.
EPA-450/2-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. October 1989. Preparing Perfect Project Plans. EPA-600/9-89/087.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA. September 199 la. Emission Testing for Asphalt Concrete Industry. Site Specific Test
Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan. Mathy Construction Company Plant 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. September 1991 b. Asphalt Emission Test Report. Mathy Construction Company,
LaCrosse, Wisconsin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. May 1991. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EIIP Volume II 3.8-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS ' Final 7/26/96
EPA. January 1992. AIRS User's Guide, VolumeXI: AFSData Dictionary. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. 1994. Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) Data System, Version 4.0. Updated
Annually. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. January 1995a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 11.1, Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. January 1995b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I. Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 3.3-1, Stationary Internal Combustion
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. Januajy 1995c. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I. Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 1.11, Waste Oil Combustion. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Fore, Gary, of National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland.
Telecommunication with Robert Harrison, Radian Corporation. August 18, 1995.
Gunkel, Kathryn O'C. 1992. Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities. Buonicore, Anthony J.,
and Wayne T. Davis, Editors. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, New York.
Khan, Z.S., and T.W. Hughes. November 1977. Source Assessment: Asphalt Hot-Mix.
EPA-600/2-77-107n. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). February 1995. Dealing with Title V
Operating Permits: the Synthetic Minor Alternative. Special Report 175. Lanham,
Maryland.
Nevers, Noel. 1995. Air Pollution Control Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Incorporated.
3.8-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. May 2, 1995a.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation, Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 16, 1995b.
Telecommunication with Robert Harrison, Radian Corporation.
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. October 26, 1995c.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation, Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
Stultz, Steven C., and John B. Kitto, Editors. 1992. Steam, Its Generation and Use. The
Babcock and Wilcox Company.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality. January 1994.
Asphalt Concrete Plants: Emissions Calculations Instructions. Compiled by TNRCC
Mechanical Section Engineers, Austin, Texas.
Wiese, Lynda, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 15, 1995.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation. Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
EIIP Volume II 3.8-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.8-4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM
AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOT-MIX
ASPHALT PLANTS
EIIP Volume II
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This form may be used as a work sheet to aid the plant engineer in collecting the
information necessary to calculate emissions from HMA plants. The information
requested on the form relates to the methods (described in Sections 3 through 5) for
quantifying emissions. This form may also be used by the regulatory agency to assist
in area wide inventory preparation.
2. The completed forms should be maintained in a reference file by the plant engineer
with other supporting documentation.
3. The information requested on these forms is needed to complete emission calculations.
If the information requested does not apply to a particular dryer, mixer, or unit, write
"NA" in the blank.
4. If you want to modify the form to better serve your needs, an electronic copy of the
form may be obtained through the EIIP on the CHIEF bulletin board system (BBS).
5. If hourly or monthly fuel use information is not available, enter the information in
another unit (quarterly or yearly). Be sure to indicate on the form what the unit of
measure is.
6. Use the comments field on the form to record all useful information that will allow
your work to be reviewed and reconstructed.
EIIP Volume II 3.A-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
GENERAL INFORMATION
'acility/Plant Name:
1C Code:
CC:
>CC Description:
.ocation:
County:
City:
State:
'arent Company Address:
Plant Geographical Coordinates (if portable, state so):
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Zone:
UTM Easting:
UTM Northing:
Contact Name:
Title:
Telephone Number:
Source ID Number: AIRS or FID?
Type of Plant (i.e., batch, drum):
Permit Number:
Permitted Hours of Operation (per year):
Actual Hours of Operation (per year):
Hours/Day:
Days/Weeks:
Weeks/Year:
3.A-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
COMBUSTION OPERATIONS
ASPHALT CEMENT HEATERS:
Unit ID No.:
Fuel Type:
Year:
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
FuelC
Comments
Maximum Capacity of Heater(s) (Million Btu/hr):
Note: Complete this form for each type of fuel used and for each unit.
EIIP Volume II
3.A-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
COMBUSTION OPERATIONS
DRYERS:
Unit ID No.:
Fuel Type:
Year:
Composition (% sulfur)
Composition (metals)
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Monthly Fuel Use (units):
January:
February:
March:
April:
May:
June:
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
December:
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
FuelC
Comments
3.A-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
GENERATORS:
Size: Horsepower or kilowatts:
Unit ID:
Fuel Type:
Year:
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
Fuel C Comments
STACK/VENT INFORMATION
Please fill out the following information for each stack/vent. Attach
STACK PARAMETER
Source(s) Vented:
Latitude/Longitude :
UTM Zone:
UTM Easting:
UTM Northing:
Height (feet):
Diameter (feet):
Temperature (°F):
Velocity (FPS):
Flow Rate (ACFM):
Stack/Vent Direction:
(vert./horiz./fugitive)
Stk. Capped (yes/no):
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
VHP
additional sheets as needed.
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
VHP
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
VHP
EIIP Volume II
3.A-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
COMMENTS
Year:
Asphalt Produced (tons):
Maximum Design Capacity of Plants (tons/hr) (This should
be standardized at 5% moisture):
Liquid Asphaltic Cement Used (tons):
Tons of RAP Processed:
Tons of Mineral Filler Used from Silos:
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Please fill out the following information for each control device. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Control Type
Location
Efficiency (%)
How calculated?
EXAMPLE: Fabric Filter
Dryer Exhaust
99
Vendor's specs
3.A-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
rn
I
Note: Please copy blank form and attach additional sheets as needed.
EMISSION ESTIMATION RESULTS
Unit ID No.:
Pollutant
voc
NOX
CO
SO2
PMIO
Total Particulate
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (list
individually)
Emission
Estimation
Method"
Emission
Factor
Throughpu
t
Emission
Factor"
Emissions
Factor
Units
Annual
Emissions
Emission
Units
Comments
a Use the following codes to indicate which emission estimation method is used for each pollutant:
CEMS/PEM = CEM/PEM Emission Factor = EF
Stack Test Data = ST Other (indicate) = O
Fuel Analysis = FA
b Where applicable, enter the emission factor and provide the full citation of the reference or source of information from where the
emission factor came. Include edition, version, table, and page numbers if AP-42 is used.
I
I
00
CO
1
r-
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.A-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
.REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-00-019
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Emission Assessment Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 2000
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ron Myers (EPA)
Bryan Shrager (MRI)
Gary Brooks (ERG)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68D-98-027 (MRI)
68-D7-0068 (ERG)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emission Factors and Inventory Group (EFIG) is
investigating the Hot Mix Asphalt industry to identify and quantify criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) emitted
from kiln stacks, transport truck loading and silo filling. EFIG obtained over 300 emission tests from kiln stacks that
characterize emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants' emissions. EFIG requested that EPA's Emission
Measurement Center (EMC) conduct the required testing of the transport truck and silo filling operations. Under separate
EPA contracts, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and Pacific Environmental Services (PES) performed two emissions tests.
The primary objective of the testing program was to characterize uncontrolled emissions of the criteria pollutants particulate
matter (PM) and total hydrocarbons (THC) and emissions of volatile and semi-volatile organic HAP's including polycyclic
organic matter, phenol, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene, 2-butanone, cumene, formaldehyde, hexane, isooctane and
others. The results of the two test reports and responses to comments on these test reports are covered in separate EPA
reports (EPA 454/R-00-024, EPA 454/R-00-025 (a through h), EPA 454/R-00-026, EPA 454/R-00-027, EPA 454/R-OO-
028 and EPA 454/R-00-029). This document characterizes hot mix asphalt plant operations, summarizes emissions from the
typical batch mix and drum mix plants, presents emission factors specifically developed for hot mix asphalt plants and
presents analyses used to develop the emission factors developed and presents information needed to inventory the emissions
at hot mix asphalt plants.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Hot Mix Asphalt, Particulate Emissions, Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions, Hydrocarbon
Emissions, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Kiln Emissions,
Truck Loading Emissions, Silo Filling Emissions
Air Pollution control
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
596
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document was prepared by Robert Harrison of Radian International LLC and Theresa
Kemmer Moody of Eastern Research Group, Inc. for the Point Sources Committee of the
Emission Inventory Improvement Program and for Dennis Beauregard of the Emission Factor
and Inventory Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Members of the Point Sources
Committee contributing to the preparation of this document are:
Dennis Beauregard, Co-Chair, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Gill, Co-Chair, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Jim Southerland, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Denise Alston-Guiden, Galsen Corporation
Bob Betterton, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Alice Fredlund, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Karla Smith Hardison, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Gary Helm, Air Quality Management, Inc.
Paul Kim, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Toch Mangat, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Ralph Patterson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EIIP Volume II {[{
-------
CHAPTER 3-HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS - Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
E//P Volume II
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction 3.1-1
2 General Source Category Description 3.2-1
2.1 Process Description 3.2-1
2.1.1 Batch Mixing Process 3.2-2
2.1.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mixing Process 3.2-2
2.1.3 Counterflow Drum Mixing Process 3.2-3
2.2 Emission Sources 3.2-3
2.2.1 Material Handling (Fugitive Emissions) 3.2-3
2.2.2 Generators 3.2-4
2.2.3 Storage Tanks 3.2-4
2.2.4 Process Emissions 3.2-4
2.3 Process Design and Operating Factors Influencing Emissions 3.2-6
2.4 Control Techniques ". 3.2-8
2.4.1 Process and Process Fugitive Particulate Control
(Including Metals) 3.2-8
2.4.2 Fugitive Particulate Emissions Control 3.2-11
2.4.3 VOC (Including HAP) Control 3.2-11
2.4.4 Sulfur Oxides Control 3.2-12
2.4.5 Nitrogen Oxides Control 3.2-12
3 Overview of Available Methods 3.3-1
3.1 Description of Emission Estimation Methodologies 3.3-1
3.1.1 Stack Sampling 3.3-1
3.1.2 Emission Factors 3.3-2
3.1.3 Fuel Analysis 3.3-2
3.1.4 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) and
Predictive Emission Monitoring (PEM) 3.3-2
3.2 Comparison of Available Emission Estimation Methodologies 3.3-3
3.2.1 Stack Sampling 3.3-3
3.2.2 Emission Factors 3.3-3
3.2.3 Fuel Analysis 3.3-3
3.2.4 CEMS and PEM 3.3-6
EIIP Volume II V
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
4 Preferred Methods for Estimating Emissions 3.4-1
4.1 Emission Calculations Using Stack Sampling Data 3.4-1
4.2 Emission Factor Calculations 3.4-5
4.3 Emission Calculations Using Fuel Analysis Data 3.4-6
5 Alternative Methods for Estimating Emissions 3.5-1
5.1 Emission Calculations Using CEMS Data 3.5-1
5.2 Predictive Emission Monitoring 3.5-4
6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 3.6-1
6.1 Considerations for Using Stack Test and CEMS Data 3.6-1
6.2 Considerations for Using Emission Factors 3.6-4
6.3 Data Attribute Rating System (DARS) Scores 3.6-4
7 Data Coding Procedures : 3.7-1
8 References 3.8-1
vi BlIP Volume II
-------
FIGURE AND TABLES
Figure Page
3.6-1 Example Emission Inventory Development Checklist for Asphalt Plants 6-2
Tables Page
3.2-1 Typical Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant Emission Control Techniques 3.2-9
3.3-1 Summary of Preferred Emission Estimation
Methods for Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants 3.3-4
3.4-1 List of Variables and Symbols 3.4-2
3.4-2 Test Results - Method 5 3.4-4
3.5-1 Example CEM Output for a Parallel Flow Drum Mixer
Firing Waste Fuel Oil ' 3.5-2
3.5-2 Predictive Emission Monitoring Analysis 3.5-6
3.6-1 DARS Scores: CEMS/PEM Data 3.6-6
3.6-2 DARS Scores: Stack Sample Data 3.6-7
3.6-3 DARS Scores: Source-specific Emission Factor 3.6-8
3.6-4 DARS Scores: AP-42 Emission Factor 3.6-9
3.7-1 Source Classification Codes for Asphalt Concrete Production 3.7-3
3.7-2 AIRS Control Device Codes 3.7-4
EIIP Volume II Vll
-------
CHAPTER 3-HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Draft 3/13/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
EIIP Volume II
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
The purposes of the preferred methods guidelines are to describe emission estimation
techniques for stationary point sources in a clear and unambiguous manner and to provide
concise example calculations to aid in the preparation of emission inventories. While
emissions estimates are not provided, this information may be used to select an emission
estimation technique best suited to a particular application. This chapter describes the
procedures and recommends approaches for estimating emissions from hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) plants.
Section 2 of this chapter contains a general description of the HMA plant source category,
common emission sources, and an overview of the available control technologies used at
HMA plants. Section 3 of this chapter provides an overview of available emission
estimation methods.
Section 4 presents the preferred methods for estimating emissions from HMA plants, while
Section 5 presents the alternative emission estimation techniques. It should be noted that the
use of site-specific emission data is preferred over the use of industry-averaged data such as
AP-42 emission factors (EPA, 1995a). Depending upon available resources, site-specific data
may not be cost effective to obtain. However, this site-specific data may be a requirement of
the state implementation plan (SIP) and may preclude the use of other data. Quality
assurance and control procedures are described in Section 6. Coding procedures used for
data input and storage are discussed in Section 7. Some states use their own unique
identification codes, so individual state agencies should be contacted to determine the
appropriate coding scheme to use. References are cited in Section 8. Appendix A provides
an example data collection form to assist in information gathering prior to emissions
calculations.
EIIP Volume II 3.1-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.1-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
GENERAL SOURCE CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
This section provides a brief overview of HMA plants. The reader is referred to the Air
Pollution Engineering Manual (referred to as AP-40) and AP-42, 5th Edition, January 1995,
for a more detailed discussion on these facilities (AWMA, 1992; EPA, 1995a).
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
HMA paving materials are a mixture of well graded, high quality aggregate (which can
include reclaimed or recycled 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 HMA mixture. Aside from the relative
amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used, mix characteristics are determined by the
amount and grade of asphalt cement used. Additionally, the asphalt cement may be blended
with petroleum distillates or emulsifiers to produce "cold mix" asphalt, sometimes referred to
as cutback or emulsified asphalt, respectively (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; TNRCC, 1994).
The process of producing HMA involves drying and heating the aggregate to prepare them
for the asphalt cement coating. In the drying process, the aggregate are dried in a rotating,
slightly inclined, direct-fired drum dryer. The aggregate is introduced into the higher end of
the dryer. The interior of the dryer is equipped with flights that veil the aggregate through
the hot exhaust as the dryer rotates. After drying, the aggregate is typically heated to
temperatures ranging from 275 to 325°F and then coated with asphalt cement in one of two
ways. In most drum mix plants, the asphalt is introduced directly into the dryer chamber to
coat the aggregate. In batch mix plants, the mixing of aggregate and asphalt takes place in a
separate mixing chamber called a pug mill.
The variations in the HMA manufacturing process are primarily defined by the following
types of plants:
• Batch mix plants;
• Parallel flow drum mix plants; and
• Counterflow drum mix plants.
EIIP Volume II 3.2-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
(Continuous mix plants, which represent a very small fraction of the plants presently
operating, are not discussed here [EPA, 1995a]. The estimation techniques described for the
batch mixing process should be followed when estimating emissions from continuous mix
plant operations.).
2.1.1 BATCH MIXING PROCESS
In the batch mixing process, the aggregate is transported from storage piles and is placed in
the appropriate hoppers of a cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a
conveyor belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired) (Gunkel,
1992; NAPA, 1995).
As hot aggregate leave the dryer, it drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of
vibrating screens, that drop the aggregate 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 for individual components are
obtained. RAP may also be added at this point. 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 mix.
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 wet-mixed
until homogeneous. The hot-mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or dropped directly into a
truck and hauled to a job site.
2.1.2 PARALLEL FLOW DRUM MIXING PROCESS
The parallel flow drum mixing process is a continuous mixing type process that uses
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 aggregate but also to
mix the heated and dried aggregate 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 aggregate, as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end
of the drum in parallel (EPA, 1995). The asphalt cement is introduced into approximately
the lower third of the drum. The aggregate are is coated with asphalt cement as it veils to
the end of the drum. The RAP is introduced at some point along the length of the drum, as
far away from the combustion zone as possible (about the midpoint of the drum), but with
enough drum length remaining to dry and heat the material adequately before it reaches the
coating zone (Gunkel, 1992). The flow of liquid asphalt cement is controlled by a variable
flow pump electronically linked to the aggregate and RAP weigh scales (EPA, 1995a).
2.1.3 COUNTERFLOW DRUM MIXING PROCESS
3.2-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
In the counterfiow drum mixing process, the aggregate is proportioned through a cold feed
system prior to introduction to the drying process. As opposed to the parallel flow drum
mixing process though, the aggregate moves opposite to the flow of the exhaust gases. After
drying and heating take place, the aggregate is transferred to a part of the drum that is not
exposed to the exhaust gas and coated with asphalt cement. This process prevents stripping
of the asphalt cement by the hot exhaust gas. If RAP is used, it is usually introduced into
the coating chamber.
2.2 EMISSION SOURCES
Emissions from HMA plants derive from both controlled (i.e., ducted) and uncontrolled
sources. Section 7 lists the source classification codes (SCCs) for these emission points.
2.2.1 MATERIAL HANDLING (FUGITIVE EMISSIONS)
Material handling includes the receipt, movement, and processing of fuel and materials used
at the HMA facility. Fugitive particulate matter (PM) emissions from aggregate storage piles
are typically caused by front-end loader operations that transport the aggregate to the cold
feed unit hoppers. The amount of fugitive PM emissions from aggregate piles will be greater
in strong winds (Gunkel, 1992). Piles of RAP, because RAP is coated with asphalt cement,
are not likely to cause significant fugitive dust problems. Other pre-dryer fugitive emission
sources include the transfer of aggregate from the cold feed unit hoppers to the dryer feed
conveyor and, subsequently, to the dryer entrance. Aggregate moisture content prior to entry
into the dryer is typically 3 percent to 7 percent. This moisture content, along with
aggregate size classification, tend to minimize emissions from these sources, which
contribute little to total facility PM emissions. PM less than or equal to 10 um in diameter
(PM,0) emissions from these sources are reported to account for about 19 percent of their
' total PM emissions (NAPA, 1995).
If crushing, breaking, or grinding operations occur at the plant, these may result in fugitive
PM emissions (TNRCC, 1994). Also, fine particulate collected from the baghouses can be a
source of fugitive emissions as the overflow PM is transported by truck (enclosed or tarped)
for on-site disposal. At all HMA plants there may be PM and slight process fugitive volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from the transport and handling of the hot-mix from the
mixer to the storage silo and also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks (EPA,
1994a). Small amounts of VOC emissions can also result from the transfer of liquid and
gaseous fuels, although natural gas is normally transported in a pipeline
(Gunkel, 1992, Wiese, 1995).
EIIP Volume II 3.2-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
2.2.2 GENERATORS
Diesel generators may be used at portable HMA plants to provide electricity. Maximum
electricity generation during process operations is typically less than 500 kilowatts per hour
(kW/hr) with rates of 20-50 kW/hr at other times (Fore, 1995). (Note that 1 kW equals
1.34 horsepower.) Emissions from these generators are likely uncontrolled and are correlated
with fuel usage, as determined by engine size, load factor, and hours of operation. Emissions
primarily include criteria pollutants—particularly NOX and CO (EPA, 1995b).
2.2.3 STORAGE TANKS
Storage tanks are used to store fuel oils, heated liquid asphalts, and asphalt cement at HMA
plants, and may be a source of VOC emissions. Storage tanks at HMA plants are usually
fixed roof (closed or enclosed) due to the smaller size of the tanks, usually less than
30,000 gallons (Fore, 1995; Patterson, 1995). Emissions from fixed-roof tanks (closed or
enclosed) are typically divided into two categories: working losses and breathing losses.
Working losses refer to the combined loss from filling and emptying the tank. Filling losses
occur when the VOC contained in the saturated air are displaced from a fixed-roof vessel
during loading. Emptying losses occur when air drawn into the tank becomes saturated and
expands, exceeding the capacity of the vapor space. Breathing losses are the expulsion of
vapor from a tank through vapor expansion caused by changes in temperature and pressure.
Because of the small tank sizes and fuel usage, total VOC emissions would typically be less
than 1 ton per year. Emissions from tanks used for No. 5 or 6 oils or for asphalt cement
may be increased when they are heated to control oil viscosity. Emissions from asphalt
cement tanks are particularly low, due to its low vapor pressure.
The TANKS computer program, available from the EPA, is commonly used to quantify
emissions; however, its use should be carefully evaluated since it is a complicated program
with a great number of input parameters. Check with your local or state authority as to
whether TANKS is required for your facility. The use of the TANKS program for
calculating emissions from storage tanks is discussed in Chapter 1 of this volume,
Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emissions Inventory Development.
2.2.4 PROCESS EMISSIONS
The most significant source of emissions from HMA plants is the dryer (EPA, 1995a;
Gunkel, 1992; NAP A, 1995). Dryer burners capacities are usually less than 100 million
British thermal units per hour (100 MMBtu/hr), but may be as large as 200 MMBtu/hr
(NAPA, 1995; Wiese, 1995). Combustion emissions from the dryer include products of
complete combustion and products of incomplete combustion. Products of complete
combustion include carbon dioxide (CO2), water, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and, if sulfur is
present in the fuel, oxides of sulfur (SOX), for example sulfur dioxide (SO2). Products of
3.2-4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
incomplete combustion include carbon monoxide (CO), VOC, including smaller quantities of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (e.g., benzene, toluene, and xylene), and other organic
particulate matter. These incomplete combustion emissions result from improper air and fuel
mixtures (e.g., poor mixing of fuel and air), inadequate fuel air residence time and
temperature, and quenching of the burner flame. Depending on the fuel, small amounts of
ash may also be emitted. In addition to combustion emissions, emissions from a dryer
include water and PM from the aggregate. Non-combustion emissions from rotary drum
dryers may include small amounts of VOC, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
aldehydes, and HAP from the volatile fraction of the asphalt cement and organic residues
that are commonly found in recycled asphalt (i.e., gasoline and engine oils) (EPA, 1995a;
Gunkel, 1992; TNRCC, 1994; EPA, 1991a; NAPA, 1995).
For drum mix processes, the dryer contributes most of the facility's total PM emissions
(NAPA, 1995). At these plants, PM emissions from post-dryer processes are minimal due to
the mixing with asphalt cement.
In batch mix plants, post-dryer PM emission sources include hot aggregate screens, hot bins,
weigh hoppers, and pug mill mixers (NAPA, 1995, TNRCC, 1994). Uncontrolled PM
emissions from these sources will be greater than emissions from pre-dryer sources primarily
due to the lower aggregate moisture content in addition to the greater number of transfer
points (NAPA, 1995). Post-dryer emission-sources at batch plants are usually controlled by
venting to the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or sometimes to a separate
dust collection system. Captured emissions are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also
contain gaseous VOC and a fine aerosol of condensed liquid particles. This liquid aerosol is
created by the condensation of gas into particles during the cooling of organic vapors
volatilized from the asphalt cement and RAP in the pug mill. The aerosol emissions are
primarily dependent upon the temperatures of the materials entering the mixing process.
This problem appears to be more acute when the RAP has not been preheated prior to
entering the pug mill or boot of the hot elevator. This results in a sudden, rapid release of
steam resulting from evaporation of the moisture in the RAP upon mixing it into the
superheated (often above 400°F) aggregate (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Recycled tires, which are sometimes used in the production of asphalt concrete, may be a
source of VOC and PM emissions. When heated, ground up tire pieces (referred to as crumb
rubber) have been shown to emit VOC. These emissions are a function of the quantity of
crumb rubber used in the liquid asphalt and the temperature of the mix (TNRCC, 1994).
If cutback or emulsions are used to make cold mix asphalt concrete, VOC emissions can be
significant. These emissions can occur as stack emissions from mixing of asphalt batches
and as fugitives from handling areas. Emission levels depend on the type and quantity of the
cold mix produced. VOC emissions associated with cutback asphalt production may include
naphtha, kerosene, or diesel vapors.
EIIP Volume II 32-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
In some states (e.g., Wisconsin) asphalt drum dryers are used for soil remediation. In this
practice, the contaminated soil may be run through the dryer as an aggregate, cut with virgin
aggregate at ratios ranging from 1:1 to 1:10 (contaminated soil to virgin aggregate)
depending on the clay content of the material. The dried material is coated with asphalt and
"RAP" is produced. The manufactured RAP can then be fed into the hot mix asphalt process
normally, as any RAP would be, and incorporated into the final mix. This practice can result
in HAP emissions, which are a function of the HAP content and quantity of the soil as well
as the dryer temperature and residence time. There is significant control of VOC/HAPs in
the dryer drum. Based on testing performed by the asphalt industry, a control on the average
of 75 percent with numbers ranging from 45 to 98 percent control depending on the plant
type (parallel flow versus counterflow drum designs) have been recorded. (Wiese, 1995).
2.3 PROCESS DESIGN AND OPERATING FACTORS INFLUENCING
EMISSIONS
There are two methods of introducing combustion air to the dryer burners and two types of
combustion chambers, with the combination resulting in four types of burner systems that
can be found at HMA plants. The type of burner system employed has a direct effect on
gaseous combustion emissions, including VOC, HAP, CO, and NOX. The two types of
burners related to the introduction of combustion air include the induced draft burner and the
forced draft burner. Forced draft burners are usually more fuel efficient under proper
operating and maintenance conditions and, consequently, have lower emissions (Gunkel,
1992). The two types of burners related to the use of combustion chambers include those
with refractory-lined combustion chambers and those without combustion chambers. While
most older burners had combustion chambers, today's burners generally do not (Gunkel,
1992).
Incomplete combustion in the dryer burner increases emissions of CO and organics
(e.g., VOC). This may be caused by: (1) improper air and fuel mixtures (e.g., poor mixing
prior to combustion); (2) inadequate residence time (i.e., too short) and temperature (i.e., too
low); and (3) flame quenching. The primary cause of CO and organic emissions in
chamberless burners is quenching of the flame caused by improper flighting. This occurs
when the flame temperature is reduced by contact with cold surfaces or cold material
dropping through the flame (NAPA, 1995). In addition, the moisture content of the
aggregate in the dryer may contribute to the formation of CO and unburned fuel emissions
by reducing the temperature (Gunkel,-1992). .A secondary cause of these gaseous pollutants
may be excess air entering the combustion process, particularly in the case of an induced
draft burner. The use of a precombustion chamber to promote better fuel air mixing may
reduce VOC and CO emissions.
3.2-6 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
NOX is primarily formed from nitrogen in the combustion air, thermal NOX, and from
nitrogen in the fuel, fuel NOX. Thermal NOX is negligible below 1300°C and increases with
combustion temperature (Nevers, 1995). Fuel NOX, which is likely lower than thermal NOX
from dryer burners, is formed by conversion of some of the nitrogen in the burner fuel.
While No. 4, 5 and 6 fuel oils may contain significant amounts of nitrogen, No. 1 and 2 oils
and natural gas contain very little (Nevers, 1995).
Dryer burners can be designed to operate on almost any type of fuel; natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), light fuel oils, heavy fuel oils, and waste fuel oils (Gunkel, 1992).
The type of fuel and its sulfur content will affect SOX, VOC, and HAP emissions and, to a
lesser extent, NOX and CO emissions. Sulfur in the burner fuel will convert to SOX during
combustion; burner operation will have little effect on the percent of this conversion
(TNRCC, 1994; EIIP, 1995). VOC emissions from natural gas combustion are less than
emissions from LPG or fuel oil combustion, which are lower than emissions from waste-
blended fuel combustion (TNRCC, 1994). Ash levels and concentrations of most of the trace
elements in waste oils are normally much higher than those in virgin oils, producing higher
emission levels of PM and trace metals. Chlorine in waste oils also typically exceeds the
levels in virgin oils. High levels of halogenated solvents are often found in waste oil as a
result of the additions of contaminant solvents to the waste oils.
When cold mix asphalt cement is heated, organic fumes (i.e., VOC) may be released as
visible emissions if the asphalt is cut with lighter ends or other additives needed for a
specification; however, these emissions are not normally seen when heating asphalt cement,
as the boiling point of asphalt cement is much higher (Patterson, 1995). In drum mix plants,
hydrocarbon (e.g, aldehydes) and PAH emissions may result from the heating and mixing of
liquid asphalt inside the drum as hot exhaust gas in the drum strips light ends from the
asphalt. The magnitude of these emissions is a function of the process temperatures and
constituents of the asphalt being used. The mixing zone temperature in parallel flow drums
is largely a function of drum length and flighting. The processing of RAP materials,
particularly in parallel flow plants, may also increase VOC emissions, because of an increase
in mixing zone temperature during processing. In counterflow drum mix plants, the liquid
asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in contact with the
hot exhaust gas stream. Consequently, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have lower
VOC emissions than parallel flow drum mix plants. In batch mix plants, the amount of
hydrocarbons (i.e., liquid aerosol) produced depends to a large extent on the temperature of
the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Particulate emissions from parallel flow drum mix plants are reduced because the aggregate
and asphalt cement mix for a longer time. The amount of PM generated within the dryer in
this process is usually lower than that generated within batch dryers, but because the asphalt
is heated to higher temperatures for a longer period of time, organic emissions (gaseous and
liquid aerosol) are typically greater than in conventional batch plants (EPA, 199la).
2.4 CONTROL TECHNIQUES
EIIP Volume II 3.2-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Control techniques and devices typically used at HMA facilities are described below and
presented in Table 3.2-1. Control efficiency for a specific piece of equipment will vary
depending not only on the type of equipment and quality of the maintenance/repair program
at a particular facility, but also the velocity of the air through the dryer.
2.4.1 PROCESS AND PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE CONTROL (INCLUDING
METALS)
Process and process fugitive particulates at HMA plants are typically controlled using
primary and secondary collection devices. Primary devices typically include cyclone and
settling chambers to remove larger PM. Smaller PM is typically collected by secondary
devices, including fabric filters and venturi scrubbers. PM from the dry control devices is
usually collected and mixed back into the process near the entry point of the asphalt cement
in drum-mix plants. In addition to PM and PM,0 emissions, paniculate control also serves to
remove trace metals emitted as particulate. These controls are primarily used to reduce PM
emissions from the dryer; however at batch mix plants, these controls are also used for post-
dryer sources, where fugitive emissions may be scavenged at an efficiency of 98 percent
(NAPA, 1995).
Cyclones
The cyclone (also known as a "mechanical collector") is a particulate control device that uses
gravity, inertia, and impaction to remove particles from a ducted stream. Large diameter
cyclones are often used as primary precleaners to remove the bulk of heavier
particles from the flue gas before it enters a secondary or final collection system. A
secondary collection device, which is more effective at removing particulates than a primary
collector, is used to capture remaining PM from the primary collector effluent.
In batch plants, cyclones are often used to return collected material to the hot elevator and to
combine it with the drier virgin aggregate (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; Khan, 1977: NAPA,
1995.
Multiple cyclones
A multiple cyclone consists of numerous small-diameter cyclones, operating in parallel.
Multiple cyclones are less expensive to install and operate than fabric filters, but are not as
effective at removing smaller particulates. They are often used as precleaners to remove the
bulk of heavier particles from the flue gas before it enters the main control device (EPA,
1995a; Gunkel, 1992; Khan, 1977).
Settling Chambers
3.2-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.2-1
TYPICAL HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANT EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Emission Source
Process
Fugitive dust
Pollutant
PM and
PMIO
VOC
SO,
PMand
PM10
Control Technique
Cyclones
Multiple cyclones
Settling chamber
Baghouse
Venturi scrubber
Dryer and combustion
process modifications
Limestone
Low sulfur fuel
Paving and maintenance
Wetting and crusting agents
Crushed RAP material,
asphalt shingles
Typical Efficiency
(%)
50 - 75a-b
90C
<50b
99 - 99.97a'd
90 - 99.5d'e
37 - 86f-B
50b-c
80°
60 - 99B
70" - 80C
70h
' Control efficiency dependent on particle size ratio and size of equipment.
b Source: Patterson, 1995c.
c Source: EIIP, 1995.
d Typical efficiencies at a hot-mix asphalt ]
c Source: TNRCC, 1995.
f Source: Gunkel, 1992.
B Source: TNRCC, 1994.
h Source: Patterson, 1995a.
: plant.
EIIP Volume II
3.2-9
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Settling chambers, also referred to as knock-out boxes, are used at HMA plants as primary
dust collection equipment. To capture remaining PM, the primary collector effluent is ducted
to a secondary collection device such as a baghouse, which is more effective at removing
particulates (EPA, 1995a, Khan, 1977).
Baghouses
Baghouses, or fabric filter systems, filter particles through fabric filtering elements (bags).
Particles are caught on the surface of the bags, while the cleaned flue gas passes through.
To minimize pressure drop, the bags must be cleaned periodically as the dust layer builds up.
Fabric filters can achieve the highest particulate collection efficiency of all particulate control
devices. Most HMA plants with baghouses use them for process and process fugitive
emissions control. The captured dust from these devices is usually returned to the production
process (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
Venturi Scrubbers
Venturi scrubbers (sometimes referred to as high energy wet scrubbers) are used to remove
coarse and fine particulate matter. Flue gas passes through a venturi tube while low pressure
water is added at the throat. The turbulence in the venturi promotes intimate contact
between the particles and the water. The wetted particles and droplets are collected in a
cyclone spray separator (sometimes called a cyclonic demister). Venturi scrubbers are often
used in similar applications to baghouses (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992).
In addition to controlling particulate emissions, the venturi scrubber is likely to remove some
of the process organic emissions from the exhaust gas (Gunkel, 1992). While the high-
pressure venturi scrubber is reliable at controlling PM, it requires considerable attention and
daily maintenance to maintain a high degree of PM removal efficiency (Gunkel, 1992).
2.4.2 FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS CONTROL
Driving Surfaces
Unpaved driving surfaces are commonly maintained by utilizing wet-down techniques using
water, or other agents. In some areas unpaved roadways may alternatively be covered with
crushed recycled material (e.g., tires, asphalt shingles) with equal success. In recent years,
there has been a trend toward paving the driving surfaces to eliminate fugitive particulates.
Facilities with paved surfaces may additionally employ sweeping or vacuuming as
maintenance measures to reduce PM emissions (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992; TRNCC, 1994).
Aggregate Stockpiles
3.2-10 E1IP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Watering of the stockpiles is not typically used because of the burden it puts on the heating
and drying process (Gunkel, 1992). Occasionally, crusting agents may be applied to
aggregate piles. These crusting agents have served fairly well to mitigate fugitive dust
emissions in these instances (TNRCC, 1994). There are many variables that affect the
fugitive dust emissions from stockpiles including moisture content of the material, amount of
fines (< 200 mesh), and age of pile (i.e., older piles tend to loose their surface fines).
Pre-washed aggregate, from which fines have been removed, may be used for additional PM
control (Patterson, 1995a).
2.4.3 VOC (INCLUDING HAP) CONTROL
VOCs are the total organic compounds emitted by the process minus the methane constituent.
Once the exhaust stream cools after discharge from the process stack, some VOCs 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 (EPA, 1995a; Gunkel, 1992). Periodic burner tune-ups may reduce
VOC emissions by about 38 percent (Patterson, 1995a). Burner combustion air can be
optimized to reduce emissions by monitoring the pressure drop across induced draft burners
with a photohelic device tied to an automatic damper that adjusts the exhaust fan
(Patterson, 1995a).
Organic vapors from heated asphalt cement storage tanks can be reduced by condensing the
vapors with air-cooled vent pipes. In some cases, tank emissions may be routed back to
combustion units. Organic emissions from heated asphalt storage tanks may also be
controlled with carbon canisters on the vents or by other measures such as condensing
precipitation or stainless steel shaving condensers (Wiese, 1995). Although not common,
organic emissions from truck-loading of asphaltic concrete can be controlled by venting into
the dryer (EPA, 1995a). This is usually practiced in non-attainment areas.
2.4.4 SULFUR OXIDES CONTROL
Low Sulfur Fuel
This approach to reducing SOX emissions reduces the sulfur fed to the combustor by burning
low sulfur fuels. Fuel blending is the process of mixing higher sulfur content fuels with
lower sulfur fuels (e.g., low sulfur oil). The goal of effective fuel blending is to provide a
fuel supply with reasonably uniform properties that meet the blend specification, typically
including sulfur content, heating value, and moisture content (EIIP, 1995).
Aggregate Adsorption
EIIP Volume II 3.2-11
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Alkaline aggregate (i.e., limestone) may adsorb sulfur compounds from the exhaust gas. In
exhaust streams controlled by baghouses, SO, may be reduced by limestone dust that coats
the baghouse filters (Patterson, 1995). Consequently, limestone aggregate may maximize the
removal of sulfur compounds (Gunkel, 1992). Sulfur compounds from the exhaust gas may
also be adsorbed by a venturi scrubber with recirculated water containing limestone
(Wiese, 1995).
2.4.5 NITROGEN OXIDES CONTROL
Low Nitrogen Fuels
Fuels lower in nitrogen content may reduce some NO% emissions (NAPA, 1995). At
temperatures above 1300°C, however, conversion from high-nitrogen fuels to low-nitrogen
fuels may not substantially reduce NOX emissions, as thermal NO, contributions will be more
significant (Nevers, 1995). Consequently, NOX emissions are generally inversely related to
CO emissions (NAPA, 1995).
Staged combustion systems such as low NO, burners that are used to reduce NOX emissions
in other industries, are not typically employed in the HMA industry due to economic and
engineering considerations (NAPA, 1995). Recirculation of the exhaust gas may be
precluded by the relatively high moisture content (e.g., 30 percent) of the gas stream.
Exhaust recirculation in these instances may cause some flame quenching around the edges
and could contribute to higher VOC and CO emissions when sealed burners are not used
(Patterson, 1995a).
3.2-12 EIIP Volume II
-------
OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE METHODS
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES
There are several methodologies available for calculating emissions from HMA plants. The
method used is dependent upon available data, available resources, and the degree of
accuracy required in the estimate. In general, site-specific data is preferred over industry
averaged data such as AP-42 emission factors for more accurate emissions estimates
(EPA, 1995a). (Each state may have a different preference or requirement and so it is
suggested that the reader contact the nearest state or local air pollution agency before
deciding on which emission estimation methodology to use.) This document evaluates
emission estimation methodologies with respect to accuracy and does not mandate any
emission estimation method. For purposes of calculating peak season daily emissions for
State Implementation Plan inventories, refer to the EPA Procedures manual
(EPA, May 1991).
This section discusses the methods available for calculating emissions from HMA plants and
identifies the preferred method of calculation on a pollutant basis. These emission estimation
methodologies are listed in no particular order and the reader should not infer a preference
based on the order they are listed in this section. A discussion of the sampling and
analytical methods available for monitoring each pollutant is provided in Chapter 1,
Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emissions Inventory Development.
Emission estimation techniques for auxiliary processes, such as using EPA's TANKS
program to calculate storage tank emissions, are also discussed in Chapter 1.
3.1.1 STACK SAMPLING
Stack sampling provides a "snapshot" of emissions during the period of the stack test. Stack
tests are typically performed during either representative (i.e., normal) or worst case
conditions, depending upon the requirements of the state. Samples are collected from the
stack using probes inserted through a port in the stack wall, and pollutants are collected in or
on various media and sent to a laboratory for analysis. Pollutant concentrations are obtained
by dividing the amount of pollutant collected during the test by the volume of the sample.
Emission rates are then determined by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the
volumetric stack gas flow rate. Because there are many steps in the stack sampling
procedures where errors can occur, only experienced stack testers should perform such tests.
E//PVo/ume// 3.3-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
3.1.2 EMISSION FACTORS
Emission factors are available for many source categories and are based on the results of
source tests performed at an individual plant or at one or more facilities within an industry.
Basically, an emission factor is the pollutant emission rate relative to the level of source
activity. Chapter 1 of this volume of documents contains a detailed discussion of the
reliability, or quality, of available emission factors. EPA-developed emission factors for
criteria and hazardous air pollutants are available in AP-42, the Locating and Estimating
Series of documents, and the Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) System.
3.1.3 FUEL ANALYSIS
Fuel analysis data can sometimes be used to predict emissions by applying mass conservation
laws. For example, if the concentration of a pollutant, or pollutant precursor, in a fuel is
known, emissions of that pollutant can be calculated by assuming that all of the pollutant is
emitted or by adjusting the calculated emissions by the control efficiency. This approach is
appropriate for SO2.
3.1.4 CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM (CEMS) AND PREDICTIVE
EMISSION MONITORING (PEM)
A CEMS provides a continuous record of emissions over time. Various principles are
employed to measure the concentration of pollutants in the gas stream and are usually based
on photometric measurements. Once the pollutant concentration is known, emission rates are
obtained by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the volumetric gas flow rate. Stack
gas flow rate can also be measured by continuous monitoring instruments; but it is more
typically determined using manual methods (e.g., pitot tube traverse). At low pollutant
concentrations, the accuracy of .this method may decrease. Instrument drift can be
problematic for CEMS and uncaptured data can create long-term, incomplete data sets.
PEM is based on developing a correlation between pollutant emission rates and process
parameters. A PEM may be considered a specialized usage of an emission factor.
Correlation tests must first be performed to develop this relationship. At a later time
emissions can then be calculated using process parameters to predict emission rates based on
the results of the initial source test.
3.3-2 El IP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
3.2 COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE EMISSION ESTIMATION
METHODOLOGIES
Table 3.3-1 identifies the preferred and alternative emission estimation approach(s) for
selected pollutants. Table 3.3-1 is ordered according to the accuracy of the emission
estimation approach. The reader and the local air pollution agency must decide which
emission estimation approach is applicable based on costs and air pollution control
requirements in their area. The preferred method chosen should also recognize the time
specificity of the emission estimate and the data quality. The quality of the data will depend
on a variety of factors including the number of data points generated, the representativeness
of those data points, and the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment being used
to record the measurements.
3.2.1 STACK SAMPLING
Without considering cost, stack sampling is the preferred emission estimation methodology
for process NOX, CO, VOC, THC, PM, PMIO, metals and speciated organics. EPA reference
methods and other methods of known quality can be used to obtain accurate estimates of
emissions at a given time for a particular facility.
3.2.2 EMISSION FACTORS
Due to their availability and acceptance in the industry, emission factors are commonly used
to prepare emission inventories. However, the emission estimate obtained from using
emission factors is based upon emissions testing performed at similar facilities and may not
accurately reflect emissions at a single source. Thus, the user should recognize that, in most
cases, emission factors are averages of available industry-wide data with varying degrees of
quality and may not be representative of averages for an individual facility within that
industry. Emission factors are the preferred technique for estimating fugitive dust emissions
for aggregate stockpiles and driving surfaces, as well as process fugitives.
3.2.3 FUEL ANALYSIS
Fuel analysis can be used as an approximation if no emission factors or site specific stack
test data are available. Once the concentration of sulfur in a fuel is known, SO2 emissions
can be calculated based on mass conservation laws, assuming negligible adsorption by
alkaline aggregates.
EIIP Volume II 3.3-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.3-1
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED EMISSION
ESTIMATION METHODS FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Parameter
S02
NOX
CO
VOC
THCC
PM
PM,0
Heavy metals
Preferred Emission Estimation
Approach Ordered by Accuracy*
1 . Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM
3. Fuel analysis
4. EPA/state published emission factors'5
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors1"
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors6
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors
1. Stack sampling data
2. CEMS/PEM data
3. EPA/state published emission factors'1
1 . Stack sampling datad
2. EPA/state published emission factors0
1. Stack sampling datad
2. EPA/state published emission factors6
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors'"
3.3-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.3-1
(CONTINUED)
Parameter
Speciated organics
Preferred Emission Estimation
Approach Ordered by Accuracy*
1. Stack sampling data
2. EPA/state published emission factors6
Preferred emission estimation approaches do not include considerations such as cost. The costs,
benefits, and relative accuracy should be considered prior to method selection. Readers are advised to
check with local air pollution control agency before choosing a preferred emission estimation approach.
Assumes emission factors are not based on site-specific fuel analysis.
THC = total hydrocarbons.
Preferred method for process and process fugitive emissions.
Preferred method for fugitive dust.
EIIP Volume II
3.3-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
3.2.4 CEMS AND PEM
HMA plants would not likely estimate emissions using CEMS and PEM. HMA plants have
conditions unfavorable to generating accurate CEM data including, high vibrations, high
moisture content of the stack gas, and dust. Nightly shutdown of CEMS would also
adversely affect their performance. In some instances, however, CEMS may be used to
estimate emissions of NOX, CO, and THC. This method may be used, for example, when
detailed records of emissions are needed over time. Similarly, stack gas flow rate may be
monitored using a continuous flow rate monitor, including pilot tubes, ultrasonic, and thermal
monitors (Patterson, 1995a).
PEM is a predictive emission estimation methodology whereby emissions are correlated to
process parameters based on an initial series of stack tests at a facility. For example, VOC
emissions may occur from asphalt mixtures produced at various temperatures with different
combustion fuels and varying quantities of asphalt cement, aggregates, RAP, and crumb
rubber. Similarly, sulfur dioxide emissions may be controlled by scrubbers that operate at
variable pressure drops, alkalinity, and recirculation rates. These parameters may be
monitored during the tests and correlated to the pollutant emission rates. Following the
correlation development, parameters would be monitored to periodically predict emission
rates. Periodic stack sampling may be required to verify that the predictive emission
correlations are still accurate; if not, new correlations are developed.
3.3-6 EIIP Volume II
-------
PREFERRED METHODS FOR
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS
Without consideration of cost, the preferred method for estimating emissions of most
pollutants emitted from HMA plants is the use of site-specific recent stack tests. Each state
may have a different preference or requirement and so it is suggested that the reader contact
the nearest state or local air pollution agency before deciding on which emission estimation
methodology to use. This section provides an outline for calculating emissions from HMA
plants based on raw data collected by stack tests.
Table 3.4-1 lists the variables and symbols used in the following discussions.
4.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING STACK SAMPLING DATA
Stack sampling test reports often provide emissions data in terms of Ib/hr or grain/dscf.
Annual emissions may be calculated from these data using Equations 3.4-1 or 3.4-2. Stack
tests performed under a proposed permit condition or a maximum emissions rate are likely to
be higher than the emissions which would result under normal operating conditions. The
emission testing should only be completed after the purpose of the testing is known. For
example, emission testing for particulate emissions may be different than emission testing for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) because the back-half catch portion is not
considered.
This section shows how to calculate emissions in Ib/hr based on stack sampling data.
Calculations involved in determining particulate emissions from Method 5 data are used as
an example. Because continuous PM monitors have not been demonstrated for this industry,
the only available methods for measuring PM emissions are EPA Methods 5 or 17 and EPA
Method 201A for PM10. EPA Method 5 is used for NSPS testing. If condensible PM is
needed in the emissions estimate, the test method selected must be configured accordingly.
EIIP Volume II 3.4-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.4-1
LIST OF VARIABLES AND SYMBOLS
Variable
Concentration
Molecular weight
Molar volume
Flow rate
Flow rate
Emissions
Annual emissions
Filter catph
Fuel use
PM concentration
Metered volume at
standard temperature and
pressure
Moisture
Temperature
Asphalt production
Annual operating hours
Symbol
C
MW
V
Qa
Qa
Ex
Etpy,x
c,
Qr
CPM
Vm,STP
R
T
A
OpHrs
Units
parts per million volume dry
(ppmvd)
Ib/lb-mole
385.5 fWlb-mole @ 68°F and 1 atmosphere
actual cubic feet per minute
(acfm)
dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm)
typically Ib/hr of pollutant x
ton/year of pollutant x
grams (g)
typically, Ib/hr
grain/dscf
dscf
percent
degrees fahrenheit
ton/hr
hr/yr
3.4-2
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
An example summary of a Method 5 test is shown in Table 3.4-2. The table shows the
results of three different sampling runs conducted during one test event. The source
parameters measured as part of a Method 5 run include gas velocity and moisture content,
which are used to determine exhaust gas flow rates in dscfm. The filter weight gain is
determined gravimetrically and divided by the volume of gas sampled (as shown in Equation
3.4-1) to determine the PM concentration in grains per dscf. Note that this example does not
present the condensible PM emissions.
Pollutant concentration is then multiplied by the volumetric flow rate to determine the
emission rate in pounds per hour, as shown in Equation 3.4-2 and Example 3.4-1.
CPM = C/VmSTp * 15.43 (3.4-1)
where:
CPM = concentration of PM or grain loading (grain/dscf)
Cf = filter catch (g)
Vm,sTp = metered volume of sample at STP (dscf)
15.43 = 15.43 grains per gram
EPM = CPM * Qd * 60/7000 (3.4-2)
where:
EPM = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of PM
Qd = stack gas volumetric flow rate (dscfm)
60 = 60 min/hr
7000 = 7000 grains per pound
EIIP Volume II 34.3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.4-2
TEST RESULTS - METHOD 5
Parameter
Total sampling time
(minutes)
Moisture collected
(grams)
Filter catch (grams)
Average sampling
rate (dscfm)
Standard metered
volume, (dscf)
Volumetric flow rate
(acfrn or dscfm)
Concentration of
particulate
(grains/dscf)
Particulate emission
rate (Ib/hr)
Symbol
min
g
cf
dscfm
* m,STP
Qa or Qd
CpM
kpM
Run 1
120
395.6
0.0851
0.34
41.83
17,972
0.00204
4.84
Run 2
120
372.6
0.0449
0.34
40.68
17,867
0.00110
2.61
Run 3
120
341.4
0.0625
0.34
40.78
17,914
0.00153
3.63
3.4-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Example 3.4-1
PM emissions calculated using Equations 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 and the stack sampling
data for Run 1 (presented in Table 3.4-2 are shown below).
CPM = C/Vm>STP * 15.43
(0.085/41.83) * 15.43
= 0.03 grain/dscf
EPM = CPM * Qd * 60/7000
0.03 * 17,972 * (60 min/hr) * (1 lb/7000 grains)
4.84 Ib/hr
The information from some stack tests may be reported in pounds of particulate per pounds
of exhaust gas (wet). Use Equation 3.4-3 to calculate the dry particulate emissions in Ib/hr.
EPM = Qa/1000 * 60 * 0.075 (1 - R) * (528/460 + T) (3.4-3)
where:
EPM = hourly emissions in Ib/hr PM
Qa = actual cubic feet of exhaust gas per minute (acfm)
1000 = 1000 Ib exhaust gas per Ib of PM
60 = 60 min/hr
0.075 = 0.075 Ib/ft3
R = moisture percent (%)
528 = 528°F
460 = 460°F
T = stack gas temperature in °F
4.2 EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Emission factors are commonly used to calculate emissions for fugitive dust sources and
when site-specific monitoring data are unavailable. EPA maintains a compilation of emission
factors in AP-42 for criteria pollutants and HAPs (EPA, 1995a). A supplementary source for
toxic air pollutant emission factors is the Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) data
system (EPA, 1994). FIRE also contains emission factors for criteria pollutants.
EIIP Volume II 3.4-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
Much work has been done recently on developing emission factors for HAPs and recent
AP-42 revisions have included these factors (EPA, 1995a,b). In addition, many states have
developed their own HAP emission factors for certain source categories and require their use
in any inventories including HAPs. Refer to Chapter 1 of Volume III for a complete
discussion of available information sources for locating, developing, and using emission
factors as an estimation technique.
Emission factors developed from measurements for a specific mixer or dryer may sometimes
be used to estimate emissions at other sites. For example, a company may have several units
of similar model and size; if emissions were measured from one dryer or mixer, an emission
factor could be developed and applied other similar units. It is advisable to have the
emission factor reviewed and approved by state/local agencies or the EPA prior to its use.
The basic equation for using an emission factor to calculate emissions is the following:
Ex = EFx * Activity or Production Rate (3.4-4)
where:
Ex = emissions of pollutant x
EFX = emission factor of pollutant x
Calculations using emission factors are presented in Examples 3.4-2 and 3.4-3.
4.3 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING FUEL ANALYSIS DATA
Fuel analysis can be used to predict SO2 and other emissions based on application of
conservation laws, if fuel rate (Qf) is measured. The presence of certain elements in fuels
may be used to predict their presence in emission streams. This includes elements such as
sulfur which may be converted to other compounds during the combustion process.
3.4-6 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Example 3.4-2
Example 3.4-2 shows how potential hourly VOC combustion emissions may be
calculated for a parallel flow drum mixer using a total organic compound (TOC)
emission factor from AP-42, Table 11.1-8, for an oil-fired dryer. The asphalt plant
is assumed to operate 1,200 hours per year.
EFTOC
Maximum asphalt production rate
TOC emissions
0.069 Ib/ton asphalt produced
= 350 ton/hr
EFTOC * asphalt production rate
0.069 * 350
24.15 Ib/hr * 1 ton/2000 Ib * 1200 hr/yr
14.5 ton/yr
Example 3.4-3
Example 3.4-3 shows how potential hourly xylene emissions may be calculated for
a batch mix HMA plant with a natural gas-fired dryer based on a xylene emission
factor from AP-42, Table 11.1-9. The HMA plant is assumed to operate 1,200
hours per year.
EF
xylene
Xylene emissions
0.0043 Ib/ton asphalt produced
= EFxykne * maximum asphalt production rate
(0.0043 Ib/ton) * 350 ton/hr
1.5 Ib/hr * 1 ton/2000 Ib * 1200 hr/yr
0.9 ton/yr
The basic equation used in fuel analysis emission calculations is the following:
Ex = Qf * Pollutant concentration in fuel *
MWp
MWf
(3.4-4)
EIIP Volume II
3.4-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
where:
E = emissions of pollutant x
Qf = fuel use (Ib/hr)
MWp = Molecular weight of pollutant emitted (Ib/lb-mole)
MWf = Molecular weight of pollutant in fuel (Ib/lb-mole)
For instance, S02 emissions from oil combustion can be calculated based on the
concentration of sulfur in the oil. This approach assumes complete conversion of sulfur to
SO2. Therefore, for every pound of sulfur (MW = 32 g) burned, two pounds of SO2 (MW
64 g) are emitted. The application of this emission estimation technique is shown in
Example 3.4-4.
Example 3.4-4
This example shows how SO2 emissions can be calculated from oil combustion
based on fuel analysis results and the fuel flow information, if available. The
asphalt plant is assumed to operate 1,200 hours per year.
ES02 may be calculated using Equation 3.4-4.
Assume a given Qf = 5,000 Ib/hr
Given percent weight sulfur (% S) in fuel = 1.17
Eso2 = Qr * pollutant concentration in fuel * (MWp/MWf)
(5,000) * (1.17/100) * (64/32)
117 Ib/hr * ton/2000 Ib * 1,200 hr/yr
70.2 ton/yr
3.4-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR
ESTIMATING EMISSIONS
5.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS USING CEMS DATA
To monitor SO2, NOX, THC, and CO emissions using a CEMS, a facility uses a pollutant
concentration monitor, which measures concentration in parts per million by volume dry air
(ppmvd). Note that a CEMS would not likely be used to monitor emissions for an extended
period due to the unfavorable conditions at an HMA plant. Flow rates should be measured
using a volumetric flow rate monitor. Flow rates estimated based on heat input using fuel
factors may be inaccurate because these systems typically run with high excess air to remove
the moisture out of the drum (Patterson, 1995). Emission rates (Ib/hr) are then calculated by
multiplying the stack gas concentrations by the stack gas flow rates.
Table 3.5-1 presents example CEMS data output averaged for three periods for a parallel
flow drum mixer. The output includes pollutant concentrations in parts per million dry basis
(ppmvd), diluent (O2 or CO2) concentrations in percent by volume dry basis (%v,d), and
emission rates in pounds per hour (Ib/hr). These data represent a "snapshot" of a drum mixer
operation. While it is possible to determine total emissions of an individual pollutant over a
given time period from these data assuming the CEM operates properly all year long, an
accurate emission estimate can be made by summing the hourly emission estimates if the
CEMS data are representative of typical operating conditions.
Although CEMS can report real-time hourly emissions automatically, it may be necessary to
manually estimate annual emissions from hourly concentration data. This section describes
how to calculate emissions from CEMS concentration data. The selected CEMS data should
be representative of operating conditions. When possible, data collected over longer periods
should be used. It is important to note that prior to using CEMS to estimate emissions, a
protocol should be developed for collecting and averaging the data.
EIIP Volume II 3.5-1
-------
TABLE 3.5-1
i
EXAMPLE CEM OUTPUT AVERAGED FOR A PARALLEL FLOW DRUM MIXER FIRING WASTE FUEL OIL
Period
0830-1039
1355-1606
1236-1503
0,
(%V)
10.3
10.1
11.8
Concentration (C)
(ppmvd)
SO,
150.9
144.0
123.0
NO,
142.9
145.7
112.7
CO
42.9
41.8
128.4
THC
554.2
582.9
515.1
Stack
Gas
Flow
Rate
(Q)
(dscfm)
18,061
17,975
18,760
Emission Rate (E)
(Ib/hr)
SO2
27.15
25.78
22.99
NO,
25.71
26.09
21.06
CO
3.38
3.27
10.50
THC
24.93
26.09
24.06
Asphalt
Production
Rate (A)
(ton/hr)
287
290
267
CO
O
I
i—
I
Source: EPA,'1991 b.
CO
Ti
|
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
Hourly emissions can be based on concentration measurements as shown in Equation 3.5-1
and Example 3.5-1.
E = (C * MW * Q * 60) (3 5_1}
(V * 106)
where:
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
C = pollutant concentration in ppmvd
MW = molecular weight of the pollutant (Ib/lb-mole)
Q = stack gas volumetric flow rate in dscfm
60 = 60 min/hr
V = volume occupied by one mole of ideal gas at standard
temperature and pressure (385.5 frVlb-mole @ 68°F and 1 arm)
Actual emissions in tons per year can be calculated by multiplying the emission rate in Ib/hr
by the number of actual annual operating hours (OpHrs) as shown in Equation 3.5-2 and
Example 3.5-1.
E,pyx = Ex * OpHrs/2000 (3-5-2)
where:
Etpy x = annual emissions in ton/yr of pollutant x
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
OpHrs = annual operating hours in hr/yr
Emissions in pounds of pollutant per ton of asphalt produced can be calculated by dividing
the emission rate in Ib/hr by the asphalt production in rate (ton/hr) during the same period
(Equation 3.5-3) as shown below. It should be noted that the emission factor calculated
below assumes that the selected period (i.e., hour) is representative of annual operating
conditions and longer time periods should be used when available. Use of the calculation is
shown in Example 3.5-1.
E = E/A (3-5-3)
EIIP Volume II 3.5-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
where:
Etpy.x - emissions of pollutant x (Ib/ton) per ton of asphalt produced
Ex = hourly emissions in Ib/hr of pollutant x
A = asphalt production (ton/hr)
Example 3.5-1
This example shows how S02 emissions can be calculated using Equation 3.5-1
based on the average CEMS data for 8:30-10:39 shown in Table 3.5-1.
ES02 = (C * MW * Q * 60)/(V * 106)
150.9 * 64 * 18,061 * 60/(385.5 * 106)
27.15 Ib/hr
Emissions in ton/yr (based on a 1,200 hr/yr operating schedule) can then be
calculated using Equation 3.5-2; however, based on the above period this estimate
should be calculated from the average CEMS data for year using Equation 3.5-1:
Ew,so2 = ES02 * OpHrs/2,000
27.15 * (1,200/2,000)
16.29 ton/yr
Emissions, in terms of Ib/ton asphalt produced, are calculated using Equation 3.5-3:
9.46 * 10'2 Ib SCyton asphalt produced
5.2 PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING
Emissions from the HMA process depend upon several variables,'which are discussed in
Section 3 of this chapter. For example, VOC process emissions for a given plant may vary
with several parameters, including: the type of fuel burned; the relative quantities of asphalt
constituents (e.g., RAP, crumb rubber, and emulsifiers); aggregate type and moisture content;
the temperature of the asphalt constituents; the mixing zone temperature; and, fuel
combustion rate. An example emissions monitoring that could be used to develop a PEM
3.5.4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
protocol would need to account for the variability in these parameters and, consequently, may
require a complex testing algorithm.
To develop this algorithm, correlation testing of the process variables could be conducted
over a range of potential operating conditions using EPA Method 25 or Method 25A to
measure THC emissions and EPA Method 6A or Method 6C to measure SO2 emissions.
Potential testing conditions covering several parameters are shown in Table 3.5-2. Based on
the test data, a mathematical correlation can be developed which predicts emissions using
these parameters. This method may be cost prohibitive for a single source.
Ell P Volume 11 3.5-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.5-2
PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING ANALYSIS3
Test Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Temperature of
Asphalt Constituents
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Mixing Zone
Temperature
H
H
H
M
M
M
L
L
L
Fuel Firing Rate
H
M
L
H
M
L
H
M
L
"H =high.
M = medium.
L = low.
B = baseline.
3.5-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL
The consistent use of standardized methods and procedures is essential in the compilation of
reliable emission inventories. QA and QC of an inventory is accomplished through a set of
procedures that ensure the quality and reliability of data collection and analysis. These
procedures include the use of appropriate emission estimation techniques, applicable and
reasonable assumptions, accuracy/logic checks of computer models, checks of calculations,
and data reliability checks. Figure 3.6-1 provides an example checklist that could aid the
inventory preparer at a HMA plant. Volume VI, QA Procedures of this series describes
additional QA/QC methods and tools for performing these procedures.
Volume II, Chapter 1, Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emission Inventory
Development, presents recommended standard procedures to follow that ensure the reported
inventory data are complete and accurate. The QA/QC section of Chapter 1 should be
consulted for current EIIP guidance for QA/QC checks for general procedures, recommended
components of a QA plan, and recommended components for point source inventories. The
QA plan discussion includes recommendations for data collection, analysis, handling, and
reporting. The recommended QC procedures include checks for completeness, consistency,
accuracy, and the use of approved standardized methods for emission calculations, where
applicable. Chapter 1 also describes guidelines to follow in order to ensure the quality and
validity of the data from manual and continuous emission monitoring methodologies used to
estimate emissions.
6.1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING STACK TEST AND CEMS DATA
Data collected via CEMS, PEM, or stack tests must meet quality objectives. Stack test data
must be reviewed to ensure that the test was conducted under normal operating conditions, or
under maximum operating conditions in some states, and that it was generated according to
an acceptable method for each pollutant of interest. Calculation and interpretation of
accuracy for stack testing methods and CEMS are described in detail in Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements Systems: Volume III. Stationary Source Specific
Methods (Interim Edition).
The acceptance criteria, limits, and values for each control parameter associated with manual
sampling methods, such as dry gas meter calibration and leak rates, are summarized within
the tabular format of the QA/QC section of Chapter 1. QC procedures for all instruments
EIIP Volume II 3.6-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
Item
Y/N
'Corrective Action
(complete if "N";
describe, sign, and date)
Have the toxic emissions been calculated and
reported using approved stack test methods or using
the emission factors provided from AP-42, FIRE,
and/or NAPA (National Asphalt Pavement
Association)? Have asphalt production rates been
included? Each facility should ijequest from their
state agency guidance on which Itest methods or
emission factors should be used.
2. Fugitive emissions are required (or the inventory,
but will not count towards a Titljs V determination
unless the facility is NSPS affected. Presently, in
the case of the asphalt plants, onjly paniculate
emissions for the process as defined in 40 CFR
60.90 are NSPS affected. Have fugitive emissions
been calculated?
3. If emission factors are used to calculate fuel usage
emissions, have fuel usage rates peen determined for
the dryer and for the asphalt header separately? If
the AP-42 dryer emission factors! are used, they
already contain emissions from fliel combustion in
the dryer.
Again, request guidance from th^ state regulatory
agency on whether or not to calculate toxic
emissions from fuel usage. Most toxic emission
factors usually are inclusive of the asphalt and the
fuel. Has the state agency been contacted for
guidance?
Have stack parameters been provided for each stack
or vent which emits criteria or toixic pollutants?
This includes the fabric filter or ^crabber installed
on the asphalt dryer/mixer, the asphalt cement
heaters, and any storage silos other than asphalt
concrete storage.
FIGURE 3.6-1. EXAMPLE EMISSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
CHECKLIST FOR ASPHALT PLANTS
3.6-2
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Item
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Check with the state regulatory agency to determine
whether emissions should be calculated using AP-42
emission factors:
Dryer/Mix Type:
Rotary Dryer (Batch Mix): Conventional Plant
(3-05-002-01)
Drum (Mix) Dryer: Hot Asphalt Plant (3-05-002-05)
Diesel Generators: Industrial diesel reciprocating
(2-02-001-02)
Asphalt Heaters:
"In Process Fuel Use Factors" (Residual, 3-05-002-07;
Distillate, 3-05-002-08; Natural Gas, 3-05-002-06; LPG,
3-05-002-09).
Have you considered storage piles (3-05-002-03)(includes
handling of piles) from both Batch and Drum Plants?
If required by the state, has a site diagram been included
with the emission inventory? This should be a detailed
plant drawing showing the location of sources/stacks with
ID numbers for all processes, control equipment, and
exhaust points.
Have examples of all calculations been included?
Have all conversions and units been reviewed and checked
for accuracy?
Y/N
Corrective Action
(complete if "N";
describe, sign,
and date)
FIGURE 3.6-1. (CONTINUED)
EIIP Volume II
3.6-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS Final 7/26/96
used to continuously collect emissions data are similar. The primary control check for
precision of the continuous monitors is daily analysis of control standards. The CEMS
acceptance criteria and control limits are listed within the tabular format of the QA/QC
section of Chapter 1.
Quality assurance should be delineated in a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) by the team
conducting the test prior to each specific test. The main objective of any QA/QC effort for
any program is to independently assess and document the precision, accuracy, and adequacy
of emission data generated during sampling and analysis. It is essential that the emissions
measurement program be performed by qualified personnel using proper test equipment.
Also, valid test results require the use of appropriate and properly functioning test equipment
and use of appropriate reference methods.
The QAP should be developed to assure that all testing and analytical data generated are
scientifically valid, defensible, comparable, and of known and acceptable precision and
accuracy. EPA guidance, is available for assistance in preparing any QAP (EPA, October,
1989).
6.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR USING EMISSION FACTORS
The use of emission factors is straightforward when the relationship between process data
and emissions is direct and relatively uncomplicated. When using emission factors, the user
should be aware of the quality indicator associated with the value. Emission factors
published within EPA documents and electronic tools have a quality rating applied to them.
The lower the quality indicator, the more likely that a given emission factor may not be
representative of the source type. When an emission factor for a specific source or category
may not provide a reasonably adequate emission estimate, it is always better to rely.on.actual
stack test or CEMS data, where available. The reliability and uncertainty of using emission
factors as an emission estimation technique are discussed in detail in the QA/QC Section of
Chapter 1.
6.3 DATA ATTRIBUTE RATING SYSTEM (DARS) SCORES
One measure of emission inventory data quality is the DARS score. Four examples are
given here to illustrate DARS scoring using the preferred and alternative methods. The
DARS provides a numerical ranking on a scale of 1 to 10 for individual attributes of the
emission factor and the activity data. Each score is based on what is known about the factor
and the activity data, such as the specificity to the source category and the measurement
technique employed. The composite attribute score for the emissions estimate can be viewed
as a statement of the confidence that can be placed in the data. For a complete discussion of
DARS and other rating systems, see the QA Source Document (Volume VI, Chapter 4) and
3.6-4 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
the QA/QC Section within Volume II Chapter 1, Introduction to Stationary Point Sources
Emission Inventory Development.
Each of the examples below is hypothetical. A range is given where appropriate to cover
different situations. The scores are assumed to apply to annual emissions from an HMA
plant. Table 3.6-1 gives a set of scores for an estimate based on CEMS/PEM data. A
perfect score of 1.0 is achievable using this method if data quality is very good. Note that
maximum scores of 1.0 are automatic for the source definition and spatial congruity
attributes. Likewise, the temporal congruity attribute receives a 1.0 if data capture is greater
than 90 percent; this assumes that data are sampled adequately throughout the year. The
measurement attribute score of 1.0 assumes that the pollutants of interest were measured
directly. A lower score is given if the emissions are speciated using a profile, or if the
emissions are used as a surrogate for another pollutant. Also, the measurement/method score
can be less than 1.0 if the relative accuracy is poor (e.g., >10 percent), if the data are biased,
or if data capture is closer to 90 percent than to 100 percent.
The use of stack sample data can give DARS scores as high as those for CEMS/PEM data.
However, the sample size is usually too low to be considered completely representative of
the range of possible emissions making a score of 1.0 for measurement/method unlikely. A
typical DARS score for stack sample data is generally closer to the low end of the range
shown in Table 3.6-2.
Two examples are given for emissions calculated using emission factors. For both of these
examples, the activity data is assumed to be measured directly or indirectly. Table 3.6-3
applies to an emission factor developed from CEMS/PEM data from one dryer or mixer and
then applied to a different dryer or mixer of similar design and age. Table 3.6-4 gives an
example for an estimate made with an AP-42 emission factor. The AP-42 factor is a mean
and could overestimate or underestimate emissions for any
single unit in the population. Thus, the confidence that can be placed in emissions estimated
for a specific unit with a general AP-42 factor is lower than emissions based on source-
specific data. This assumes that the source-specific data were developed while the HMA
plant was operating under normal conditions. If it was not operated under normal conditions
then the AP-42 emission factor may be a better characterization of the emissions from the
HMA plant.
The example in Table 3.6-3 shows that emission factors based on high-quality data from a
similar unit will typically give better results than a general factor. The main criterion
affecting the score is how similar the unit used to generate the factor is to the target dryer or
mixer.
If sufficient data are available, the uncertainty in the estimate should be quantified. If
sufficient data are not available, a qualitative analysis of uncertainty is still recommended.
Some methods and examples are described in QA Procedures (Volume VI, Chapter 3).
EIIP Volume II 3.6-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.6-1
DARS SCORES: CEMS/PEM DATA3
Attribute
Measurement/
method
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal
congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor
Score
0.9 - 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.98 - 1.0
Data Score
0.9 - 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.98 - 1.0
Composite Scores
Range
0.81 - 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.95- 1.0
Midpoint
0.91
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.98
Comment
Lower scores given if
relative accuracy poor
(e.g.,
>10 percent) or data
capture closer to
90 percent.
1 Assumes data capture is 90 percent or better, representative of entire year, monitors sensors, and
other equipment is properly maintained.
3.6-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.6-2
DARS SCORES: STACK SAMPLE DATA3
Attribute
Measurement/met
hod
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal
congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor
Score
0.7- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.7 - 1.0
0.85 - 1.0
Activity
Data Score
0.7 - 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.7 - 1.0
0.85 - 1.0
Composite Scores
Range
0.49 - 1.0
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.49- 1.0
0.75 - 1.0
Midpoint
0.745
1.0
1.0
0.745
0.878
Comment
Lower scores given
if emissions vary
temporally and
sample does not
cover range.
* Assumes use of EPA Reference Method, high quality data.
EIIP Volume II
3.6-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.6-3
DARS SCORES: SOURCE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR3
Attribute
Measurement/method
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor Score
0.9- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
1.0- 1.0
0.85 - 0.98
Activity
Data Score
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.78 - 0.95
Composite Scores
Range
0.72 - 1.0
0.4-0.81
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.66 - 0.93
Midpoint
0.86
0.61
1.0
0.7
0.79
Comment
Factor score
for this
attribute
depends
entirely on
data quality.
Factor score
lowest if unit
differs much
from original
source of
data.
" Assumes factor developed from PEM or CEMS data from an identical emission unit (same
manufacturer, model).
3.6-8
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.6-4
DARS SCORES: AP-42 EMISSION FACTOR"
Attribute
Measurement/method
Source definition
Spatial congruity
Temporal congruity
Weighted Score
Emission
Factor Score
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.9
0.6 - 0.8
0.5 - 0.9
0.55 - 0.85
Activity
Data Score
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 0.9
1.0- 1.0
0.5 - 0.9
0.78 - 0.95
Composite Scores
Range
0.48 - 0.7
0.4 - 0.81
0.6 - 0.8
0.25 - 0.81
0.43 - 0.78
Midpoint
0.59
0.605
0.7
0.53
0.61
Comment
Score depends
on quality and
quantity of
data points
used to
develop
factor.
Emission
factor score
will be low if
variability in
source
population is
high.
Factor score
lower if
geographic
location has
significant
effect on
emissions.
Lower scores
given if
emissions
vary
temporally
and sample
does not cover
range.
a Assumes activity data (e.g., fuel use) or surrogate is measured directly in some manner.
EIIP Volume II
3.6-9
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
The reader should note that the presentation of the DARS scores here is shown as a
hypothetical example, only. Although the highest DARS score results from the use of
.CEMS, this estimation technique will not practically be applied or used by the majority of
facilities operating. Due to technical feasibility issues and costs incurred by applying CEMS
to a HMA plant, stack testing or emission factors may provide the best choice when selecting
an appropriate method for estimating emissions (even though stack testing or emission
factors did not receive the highest DARS score). The reader should always contact their
state regulatory agency for approval of selected methodologies or techniques. Also, it should
be noted that this hypothetical application of DARS does not mandate any emission
estimation method, but only offers the reader a means for selecting any one method over
another.
36-10 EIIP Volume II
-------
DATA CODING PROCEDURES
This section describes the methods and codes available for characterizing emission sources at
HMA facilities. Consistent categorization and coding will result in greater uniformity among
inventories. The SCCs are the building blocks on which point source emissions data are
structured. Each SCC represents a unique process or function within a source category that
is logically associated with an emission point. Without an appropriate SCC, a process cannot
be accurately identified for retrieval purposes. In addition, the procedures described here
will assist the reader preparing data for input to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS) or a similar database management system. For example, the use of the SCCs
provided in Table 3.7-1 are recommended for describing HMA operations. Refer to the
CHIEF bulletin board for a complete listing of SCCs for HMA plants. While the codes
presented here are currently in use, they may change based on further refinement by the
emission inventory user community. As part of the EIIP, a common emissions data
exchange format is being developed to facilitate data transfer between industry, states, and
EPA. Details on SCCs for specific emission sources are as follows:
• Process Emissions: For asphaltic concrete production processes, be careful to use
only one SCC for each process. Use the codes for either the batch or continuous
process or for the drum mix process, depending on which process is used. The
process-specific codes should be used as often as possible; however, "Entire Unit" and
"General" codes are available. If the "Entire Unit" code is used, do not use the
chemical-specific or process-specific codes as this would double-count emissions. AP-
42 emission factors for dryer emissions include all stack emissions (including products
of combustion from the dryer burner).
• In-Process Fuel: In-process fuel includes SCCs for asphalt cement heaters. These
emissions are separate and apart from dryer emissions.
• Generators: Diesel generators may be used at portable HMA plants to generate
electricity. These emissions are not included in emission factors for process
emissions.
EIIP Volume II 3.7-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
• Storage Tanks: Storage tanks may be used in the asphaltic concrete production
process to store fuel such as oil. Potential emissions from storage tanks will likely be
insignificant. The codes in Table 3.7-1 are recommended to describe fuel storage
emissions.
• Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive emissions from asphaltic concrete production result
primarily from the storage and handling of raw materials and finished product. The
miscellaneous codes may be used for fugitive emission sources without a unique
code. Remember to use the comment section to describe the emissions.
Control device codes applicable to asphaltic concrete production are presented in Table 3.7-2.
These should be used to enter the type of applicable emissions control device into the AIRS
Facility Subsystem (AFS). The "099" control code may be used for miscellaneous control
devices that do not have a unique identification code.
If there are significant sources of fugitive emissions within the facility, or sources that have
not been specifically discussed thus far, they should be included in the emissions estimates if
required by the state. Conditions vary from plant to plant, thus, each specific case cannot be
discussed within the context of this document.
3.7-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
TABLE 3.7-1
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
PRODUCTION (SIC CODE 2951)
Source Description
Process Description
sec
Units
Process Emissions
Batch or continuous
mix process
Drum mix process
General process
Rotary dryer
Hot elevators, screens, bins, and
mixer
Drum mixer: hot asphalt plants
General process/specify in
comments
In-place recycling - propane
3-05-002-01
3-05-002-02
3-05-002-05
3-05-002-99
3-05-002-15
Tons HMA produced
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons HMA produced
Tons produced
Tons produced
In-Process Fuel
Asphalt heater fuel
use
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Waste oil
Liquid petroleum gas
3-05-002-07
3-05-002-08
3-05-002-06
3-05-002-10
3-05-002-09
1000 gallons burned
1000 gallons burned
Million ft3 burned
1000 gallons burned
1000 gallons burned
Generators
Diesel
Reciprocating
2-02-001-02
Horsepower hours
Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions
Raw material storage piles
Cold aggregate handling
Storage silo
Truck load-out
Miscellaneous fugitive emissions
Haul roads - general
3-05-002-03
3-05-002-04
3-05-002-13
3-05-002-14
3-05-888-01 to 05
3-05-002-90
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons aggregate
processed
Tons HMA produced
Tons HMA loaded
Vehicle miles
travelled
Tons product
EIIP Volume II
3.7-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
TABLE 3.7-2
AIRS CONTROL DEVICE CODES
Control Device
Settling chamber: high-efficiency
Settling chamber: medium-efficiency
Settling chamber: low-efficiency
Single cyclone
Multiple cyclone
Centrifugal collector: high-efficiency
Centrifugal collector: medium-efficiency
Centrifugal collector: low-efficiency
Fabric filter: high temperature
Fabric filter, medium temperature
Fabric filter: low temperature
Wet fan
Spray tower
Venturi scrubber
Baffle spray tower •
Miscellaneous control device
Code
004
005
006
075
076
007
008
009
016
017
018
085
052
053
052
099
Source: EPA, January 1992.
3.7-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
8
REFERENCES
Code of Federal Regulations. July 1, 1987. Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A. Office of the
Federal Register, Washington, DC.
EIIP. March 1995. Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from
Boilers, Review Draft. Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Point Sources Committee.
Prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0160, Work Assignment No. 41.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Report No. SW-846, Third Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
EPA. April 1989. Estimating Air Toxic Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion Sources.
EPA-450/2-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. October 1989. Preparing Perfect Project Plans. EPA-600/9-89/087.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA. September 199 la. Emission Testing for Asphalt Concrete Industry. Site Specific Test
Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan. Mathy Construction Company Plant 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. September 1991 b. Asphalt Emission Test Report. Mathy Construction Company,
LaCrosse, Wisconsin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. May 1991. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EIIP Volume II 3.8-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
EPA. January 1992. AIRS User's Guide, Volume XI: AFS Data Dictionary. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. 1994. Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) Data System, Version 4.0. Updated
Annually. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. January 1995a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 11.1, Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. January 1995b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I. Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 3.3-1, Stationary Internal Combustion
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA. January 1995c. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I. Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. Section 1.11, Waste Oil Combustion. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Fore, Gary, of National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland.
Telecommunication with Robert Harrison, Radian Corporation. August 18, 1995.
Gunkel, Kathryn O'C. 1992. Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixing Facilities. Buonicore, Anthony .J.,
and Wayne T. Davis, Editors. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, New York.
Khan, Z.S., and T.W. Hughes. November 1977. Source Assessment: Asphalt Hot-Mix.
EPA-600/2-77-107n. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). February 1995. Dealing with Title V
Operating Permits: the Synthetic Minor Alternative. Special Report 175. Lanham,
Maryland.
Nevers, Noel. 1995. Air Pollution Control Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Incorporated.
3.8-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. May 2, 1995a.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation, Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 16, 1995b.
Telecommunication with Robert Harrison, Radian Corporation.
Patterson, Ralph, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. October 26, 1995c.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation, Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
Stultz, Steven C., and John B. Kitto, Editors. 1992. Steam, Its Generation and Use. The
Babcock and Wilcox Company.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality. January 1994.
Asphalt Concrete Plants: Emissions Calculations Instructions. Compiled by TNRCC
Mechanical Section Engineers, Austin, Texas.
Wiese, Lynda, of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. June 15, 1995.
Memorandum to Theresa Kemmer Moody, Radian Corporation. Comments on Preferred and
Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Plants.
EIIP Volume II 3.8-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.8-4 EHP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHAL T PLANTS
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM
AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOT-MIX
ASPHALT PLANTS
EIIP Volume II
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96 CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This form may be used as a work sheet to aid the plant engineer in collecting the
information necessary to calculate emissions from HMA plants. The information
requested on the form relates to the methods (described in Sections 3 through 5) for
quantifying emissions. This form may also be used by the regulatory agency to assist
in area wide inventory preparation.
2. The completed forms should be maintained in a reference file by the plant engineer
with other supporting documentation.
3. The information requested on these forms is needed to complete emission calculations.
If the information requested does not apply to a particular dryer, mixer, or unit, write
"NA" in the blank.
4. If you want to modify the form to better serve your needs, an electronic copy of the
form may be obtained through the EIIP on the CHIEF bulletin board system (BBS).
5. If hourly or monthly fuel use information is not available, enter the information in
another unit (quarterly or yearly). Be sure to indicate on the form what the unit of
measure is.
6. Use the comments field on the form to record all useful information that will allow
your work to be reviewed and reconstructed.
EIIP Volume II 3.A-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
GENERAL INFORMATION
'acility/Plant Name:
SIC Code:
SCC:
SCC Description:
^ocation:
County:
City:
State:
'arent Company Address:
3lant Geographical Coordinates (if portable, state so):
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Zone:
UTM Easting:
UTM Northing:
Contact Name:
Title:
Telephone Number:
Source ID Number: AIRS or FID?
Type of Plant (i.e., batch, drum):
Permit Number:
Permitted Hours of Operation (per year):
Actual Hours of Operation (per year):
Hours/Day:
Days/Weeks:
Weeks /Year:
3.A-2 EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
COMBUSTION OPERATIONS
ASPHALT CEMENT HEATERS:
Unit ID No.:
Fuel Type:
Year:
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
FuelC
Comments
Maximum Capacity of Heater(s) (Million Btu/hr):
Note: Complete this form for each type of fuel used and for each unit.
EIIP Volume II
3.A-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
COMBUSTION OPERATIONS
DRYERS:
Unit ID No.:
7uel Type:
Year:
Composition (% sulfur)
Composition (metals)
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Monthly Fuel Use (units):
January:
February:
March:
April:
May:
June:
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
December:
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
FuelC
Comments
3.A-4
EIIP Volume II
-------
Final 7/26/96
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
GENERATORS:
Size: Horsepower or kilowatts:
Unit ID:
Fuel Type:
Year:
Maximum Hourly Fuel Use (units):
Total Annual Fuel Use (units):
Fuel A
FuelB
Fuel C Comments
STACK/VENT INFORMATION
Please fill out the following information for each stack/vent. Attach
STACK PARAMETER
Source(s) Vented:
Latitude/Longitude :
UTM Zone:
UTM Easting:
UTM Northing:
Height (feet):
Diameter (feet):
Temperature (°F):
Velocity (FPS):
Flow Rate (ACFM):
Stack/Vent Direction:
(vert./horiz./fugitive)
Stk. Capped (yes/no):
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
VHP
additional sheets as needed.
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
VHP
STACK ID NUMBER
(circle one)
V H F
EIIP Volume II
3.A-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
Final 7/26/96
EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORM - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
COMMENTS
Year:
Asphalt Produced (tons):
Maximum Design Capacity of Plants (tons/hr) (This should
3e standardized at 5% moisture):
Liquid Asphaltic Cement Used (tons):
Tons of RAP Processed:
Tons of Mineral Filler Used from Silos:
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Please fill out the following information for each control device. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Control Type
Location
Efficiency (%)
How calculated?
EXAMPLE: Fabric Filter
Dryer Exhaust
99
Vendor's specs'
3.A-6
EIIP Volume II
-------
rr
CD
Note: Please copy blank form and attach additional sheets as needed.
EMISSION ESTIMATION RESULTS
Unit ID No.:
in
g'
Pollutant
voc
NOX
CO
SO2
PM10
Total Particulate
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (list
individually)
Emission
Estimation
Method"
Emission
Factor
Throughpu
t
Emission
Factor11
Emissions
Factor
Units
Annual
Emissions
Emission
Units
Comments
CO
I
8
I
1 Use the following codes to indicate which emission estimation method is used for each pollutant:
CEMS/PEM = CEM/PEM Emission Factor = EF
Stack Test Data = ST Other (indicate) = 0
Fuel Analysis = FA
b Where applicable, enter the emission factor and provide the full citation of the reference or source of information from where the
emission factor came. Include edition, version, table, and page numbers if AP-42 is used.
-------
CHAPTER 3 - HOT-MIX ASPHALT PLANTS Final 7/26/96
This page is intentionally left blank.
3.A-8 EIIP Volume II
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-00-019
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Hot Mix Asphalt Plants
Emission Assessment Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 2000
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ron Myers (EPA)
Bryan Shrager (MRI)
Gary Brooks (ERG)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68D-98-027 (MRI)
68-D7-0068 (ERG)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emission Factors and Inventory Group (EFIG) is
investigating the Hot Mix Asphalt industry to identify and quantify criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) emitted
from kiln stacks, transport truck loading and silo filling. EFIG obtained over 300 emission tests from kiln stacks that
characterize emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants' emissions. EFIG requested that EPA's Emission
Measurement Center (EMC) conduct the required testing of the transport truck and silo filling operations. Under separate
EPA contracts, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and Pacific Environmental Services (PES) performed two emissions tests.
The primary objective of the testing program was to characterize uncontrolled emissions of the criteria pollutants particulate
matter (PM) and total hydrocarbons (THC) and emissions of volatile and semi-volatile organic HAP's including polycyclic
organic matter, phenol, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene, 2-butanone, cumene, formaldehyde, hexane, isooctane and
others. The results of the two test reports and responses to comments on these test reports are covered in separate EPA
reports (EPA 454/R-00-024, EPA 454/R-00-025 (a through h), EPA 454/R-00-026, EPA 454/R-00-027, EPA 454/R-OO-
028 and EPA 454/R-00-029). This document characterizes hot mix asphalt plant operations, summarizes emissions from the
typical batch mix and drum mix plants, presents emission factors specifically developed for hot mix asphalt plants and
presents analyses used to develop the emission factors developed and presents information needed to inventory the emissions
at hot mix asphalt plants.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Hot Mix Asphalt, Particulate Emissions, Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions, Hydrocarbon
Emissions, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Kiln Emissions,
Truck Loading Emissions, Silo Filling Emissions
Air Pollution control
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
596
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) '
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
|