United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
EPA-453/R-93-048
December 1993
Air
& EPA
National Emissions Inventory of
Mercury and Mercury Compounds;
Interim Final Report
-------
EPA-453/R-93-048
December 1993
NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY OF MERCURY AND
MERCURY COMPOUNDS: INTERIM FINAL REPORT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
U.S. Environ— ;• < P^tpctran Agency
Region 5, Li:,, , _}2J)
77 West Jacks,;.,; ioi-fprarrf n«. r-.
Chicago, IL ^ R°0r
-------
-------
PREFACE
This report has been developed in support of the Mercury
Study Report to Congress which is required by
section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990
(CAA). The CAA requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to submit a study on mercury emissions which addresses the
rate and mass of mercury emissions, the health and environmental
effects of such emissions, analyzes the technologies that are
available to control such emissions, and determines the cost of
such technologies. The initial part of the EPA's analysis has
been the development of a national mercury emissions inventory,
which is described by this report.
This report is being released as an interim final report in
order to make available for comment the mercury emissions
inventory that the EPA has developed to date. The data contained
in this report are expected to be incorporated into the Mercury
Study Report to Congress, but these data could change prior to
the EPA's submittal of the final report to Congress in November
1994.
The emission factors used in developing the mercury
emissions inventory are consistent with those presented in the
EPA document entitled Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from
Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds (EPA 454/R-93-023,
September 1993.) Some of the nationwide emission estimates may
vary slightly between the two documents because this report used
the most recently-available data, whereas the emission factor
document mentioned above is based on a baseline year of 1990.
The reader should note that the mercury emission estimates
presented in this document for utility boilers represent
uncontrolled emissions and therefore are somewhat higher than
ii
-------
estimates that, have been previously published by other sources.
The reason for presenting uncontrolled (and therefore "worst-
case") estimates is that a separate study on emissions from
utility boilers is required by the CAA under
section 112(n)(1) (A) . The Utility Study Report to Congress will
include results of an emissions testing program that is currently
underway which will provide emissions data that reflect with, more
certainty the amount of mercury emissions control achieved by
various control technologies. The mercury data presented in the
Utility Study will supersede the mercury emissions data for
utility boilers presented in this report.
Comments on this report may be submitted by February 15,
1994 to:
Martha H. Keating
MD-13
US Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION . - 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 APPROACH 1-1
. . 1.3 REFERENCES . : 1-2
SECTION 2.0 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 2-1
2.1 THE NATURE OF MERCURY 2-1
2.2 REFERENCES 2-3
SECTION 3.0 MERCURY EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORY
CHARACTERIZATION 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 NATURAL SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS . 3-5
3.3 AREA SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS ... 3-7
3.3.1 Mobile Sources 3-7
3.3.2 Electric Lamp Breakage 3-10
3.3.3 Paint Use 3-11
3.3.4 General Laboratory Use 3-12
3.3.5 Dental Preparation and Use .... 3-13
3.3.6 Crematories 3-14
3.4 POINT SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS . . . 3-16
3.4.1 Combustion Sources 3-16
- Utility Boilers 3-18
- Commercial/Industrial
Boilers 3-23
- Residential Boilers 3-25
- Municipal Waste Combustors . . . 3-27
- Medical Waste Incinerators . . . 3-30
- Sewage Sludge Incinerators . . . 3-33
- Wood Combustion 3-35
3.4.2 Manufacturing Sources 3-38
- Chlor-alkali Production
(Mercury Cell) 3-38
- Cement Manufacturing 3-46
- Battery Production 3-51
iv
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (continued)
Page
- Electrical Apparatus
Manufacturing 3-56
- Instrument (Thermometers)
Manufacture 3-62
- Primary Mercury Production . . . 3-65
- Secondary Mercury Production . . 3-70
- Mercury Compounds Production . . 3-74
- Carbon Black Production . . . . 3-76
- Byproduct Coke Production . . . 3-80
- Primary Lead Smelting 3-83
- Primary Copper Smelting . . . . 3-87
- Petroleum Refining 3-91
- Lime Manufacturing 3-93
3.4.3 Miscellaneous Sources 3-98
- Geothermal Po,wer Plants . . . . 3-98
- Turf Products 3-101
- Pigments, Oil Shale, Retorting,
Mercury, Catalysts, and
Explosives 3-102
3.5 REFERENCES 3-103
SECTION 4.0 EMISSIONS SUMMARY 4-1
APPENDIX A - INFORMATION ON LOCATIONS OF AND EMISSIONS
FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES A-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1.
Figure ES-2.
Figure ES-3.
Figure ES-4.
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-2.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
four major classes of source types . .
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
area sources
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
combustion point sources
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
manufacturing point sources
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
area sources
Page
ES-5
ES-7
ES-8
ES-9
3-8
Estimated annual mercury emissions from combustion,
manufacturing, and miscellaneous point
sources
Estimated annual mercury emissions . .
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
area sources "...
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
combustion point sources
Estimated annual mercury emissions from
manufacturing point sources
3-17
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
vi
-------
-------
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
ES-1.
2-1.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3 .
3-4.
3-5.
SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF
MERCURY
SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
1991 U.S. CREMATORY LOCATIONS BY STATE . .
1991 U.S. MERCURY-CELL CHLOR-ALKALI
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MERCURY EMISSION RATES FOR CHLOR-ALKALI
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
1992 U.S. MERCURIC OXIDE, ALKALINE MANGANESE,
OR ZINC -CARBON BUTTON CELL BATTERY
MANUFACTURERS
Page
ES-2
2-2
3-2
3-15
3-41
3-45
3-52
TABLE 3-6.
EMISSION SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR AN
INTEGRATED MERCURY BUTTON CELL
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-7.
-8.
-9.
-10.
-11.
-12.
-13.
-14.
-15.
1992 U.S. FLUORESCENT LAMP MANUFACTURERS'
HEADQUARTERS
1991 U.S. BYPRODUCT MERCURY -PRODUCING
GOLD MINES
1989 U.S. MERCURY RECYCLERS
1991 U.S. MERCURY COMPOUND PRODUCERS . . .
1992 U.S. CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
1991 U.S. BYPRODUCT COKE PRODUCERS .....
1990 U.S. PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
AND REFINERIES
MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY
LEAD SMELTING
1992 U.S. DOMESTIC PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
AND REFINERIES . - .
^
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.3
3
••* w
-60
-66
-71
-75
-77
-81
-83
-86
-88
vii
-------
LIST OP TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE 3-16. LEADING 1991 U.S. LIME PRODUCING PLANTS . . 3-99
TABLE 3-17. 1992 U.S. GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS 3-100
TABLE 3-18. MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR GEOTHERMAL
POWER PLANTS 3-100
TABLE 4-1. ESTIMATED MERCURY EMISSION RATES BY
CATEGORY 4-2
viii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
submit a study on mercury emissions to Congress. The Mercury
Study is to evaluate the rate and mass of mercury emissions, to
determine the health and environmental effects of these
emissions, to analyze the technologies that are available to
control these emissions, and to determine the costs of such
technologies. The sources of mercury emissions that must be
addressed include electric utility steam generating units,
municipal waste combustion units, and other emission sources,
including area sources.
This report estimates emissions of mercury from natural,
area, and point sources and provides abbreviated process
descriptions, control technique options, emission factors,.and
activity levels for these sources. Also, if sufficient
information is available, locations by city and State are given
for point sources. The information contained in the report will
be useful in identifying source categories that are major
emitters of mercury, in selecting potential candidates for
mercury emission reductions, and in evaluating possible control
technologies or materials substitution/elimination that could be
used to achieve these reductions. The emissions data presented
here will also serve as input data to EPA'a long-range transport
model which will assess the dispersion of mercury emissions
nationwide.
Sources of mercury emissions in the United States are
ubiquitous. To provide a coherent characterization of these
sources, the source categories of mercury emissions are divided
into three groups as a function of their emission properties:
natural, area, and point sources as outlined in Table ES-1.
Natural sources are nonanthropogenic sources of mercury emissions
unrelated to human activities. Area sources of mercury emissions
are anthropogenic sources that are typically small and numerous
ES-1
-------
TABLE ES-1. SOURCES OP MERCURY EMISSIONS.
Natural
Oceans
Vegetation
Volcanoes
Rocks
Soils*
Wildfires
Anthropogenic
Area
Electric lamp
breakage
Paints use
Laboratory use
Dental
pr eparat i ons
Crematories
Mobile Sources
Agricultural
burning**
Landfills**
Point
Combustion
Utility
boilers
Commercial/
industrial
boilers
Residential
boilers
Municipal
waste
combustion
Medical waste
inc inerat or s
Sewage sludge
inc inerat or s
Hazardous
waste
incinerators**
Wood
combustion
Manufacturing
Chlor-alkali
production
Lime
manufacturing
Primary mercury
production
Mercury
compounds
production
Battery
production
Electrical
apparatus
manufacturing
Carbon black
production
Byproduct coke
production
Primary copper
smelting
Cement
manufacturing
Primary lead
smelting
Miscellaneous
Oil shale
retorting
Mercury
catalysts
Pigment
production
Explosives
manufacturing
Geothermal
power plants
Turf products
* Emissions from soils may also be the result of the re-emission of previously
deposited anthropogenic emissons.
"Potential anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions for which there is
currently no data.
ES-2
-------
and usually cannot be readily located geographically. For the
purpose of this report, mobile sources are included in the area
source section. Point sources are those anthropogenic sources
that are associated with a fixed geographic location. These
point sources are further divided into combustion, manufacturing,
and miscellaneous source categories.
For most source categories, an emission factor-based
approach was used to develop both facility-specific estimates for
modeling purposes and nationwide emission estimates. This
approach requires an emission factor, which is a ratio of the
mass of mercury emitted to a. measure of source activity, and an
estimate of the annual nationwide source activity level.
Examples of measures of source activity include vehicle miles
traveled for mobile sources, total heat input for fossil fuel
combustion, and total raw material used or product generated for
«
industrial processes. Emission factors are generated from
emission test data, from engineering analyses based on mass
balance techniques, or from transfer of information from
comparable emission sources. Emission factors reflect the
•typical control" achieved by the air pollution control measures
applied across the population of sources within a source
category.
The emission factor-based approach does not generate exact
emission estimates. Uncertainties are introduced in the emission
factors, the estimates of control efficiency, and the activity
level measures. Ideally, emission factors are based on a
substantial quantity of data from sources that represent the
source category population. However, for trace pollutants like
mercury, emission factors are frequently based on limited data
that may not have been collected from representative sources.
Also, changes in processes or emission measurement techniques
over time may result in biased emission factors. Emission
control estimates are also generally based on limited data; as
such, these estimates are imprecise and may be biased. Finally,
activity levels used in this study were based on the most recent
ES-3
-------
information that was readily available. However, the sources
used vary in reliability, adding further uncertainty to the
emission estimates.
Mercury is known to be emitted from natural sources (rocJc,
soils, water and biota), but few direct measurements of mercury
flux and speciation from natural sources are available in the
literature. The principal natural sources of mercury emissions
include, in order of probable importance, volatilization in
marine and other aquatic environments, volatilization from
vegetation, degassing of geologic materials, emissions during
volcanic and geothermal activity, and wind-blown dust. Forest
fires, brush fires, and agricultural burning are also known to
emit mercury. The magnitude of these emissions from natural
sources is unknown but is potentially significant. Recent
studies strongly emphasize the importance of the air-water
exchange of mercury as well as biologically-mediated
volatilization in both marine and terrestrial environments.
These sources represent a relatively constant flux to the
atmosphere and may comprise 30 to 50 percent of total natural
emissions. In contrast, volcanic, geo thermal, and burning
biomass activity is widely variable temporally and spatially,
Volcanic eruptions, in particular, can cause massive
perturbations in atmospheric trace metal cycles. Volcanic
activity alone may comprise 40 to 50 percent of total natural
mercury emissions at times. While the data on mercury emissions
from natural sources are limited, the more recent estimates of
global emissions cluster in the 2,000 to 3,000 Mg (2,200 to
3,300 tons) per year range. These levels account for
approximately 40 percent of total global emissions from all
sources.
The principal concern of this study is mercury emissions
from anthropogenic sources. While the emission estimates fox
anthropogenic sources have limitations as described above, they
do provide insight into the relative magnitude of emissions from
different groups of sources. Figure ES-1 shows the distribution
ES-4
-------
CO
0)
ex
3
o
CO
S-l
3
O
s
o
CO
C
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
e
0)
3
O
U
0)
e
3
C
C
-a
cu
iJ
CO
CO
w
I
C/3
3
00
•H
fa
ES-5
-------
of: estimated emissions among the four* major classes of sources of
anthropogenic emissions (area sources, combustion point sources,
manufacturing point sources, and miscellaneous point sources).
Figures ES-2 through ES-4 illustrate the distributions among
individual source categories for the first three of these four
classes; these three classes represent well over 99 percent of
the total anthropogenic emissions.
Of the estimated 309 Mg (341 tons) of mercury emitted
annually into the atmosphere by anthropogenic sources in the
United States, approximately 84 percent is from combustion point
sources, 10 percent is from manufacturing point sources, and.
5 percent is from area sources. Four specific source categories
account for approximately S3 percent of the total anthropogenic
emissions--utility boilers (36 percent), municipal and medical
waste incineration (19 percent each), and commercial/industrial
boilers (9 percent).
All of these sources represent high temperature fossil fuel
or waste combustion processes. For each of these operations, the
mercury is present as a trace contaminant in the fuel or
feedstock. Because of its relatively low boiling point, mercury
is volatilized during high temperature operations and discharged
to the atmosphere with the exhaust gas.
ES-6
-------
(I)
0)
o
o
(0
CO
4)
CJ
t-l
3
O
co
tO
01
s
o
J-l
H-l
o
•H
en
en
•H
e
01
3
O
)-i
01
e
ca
c
c
(3
•B
01
4J
CO
S
CO
w
CN
I
CO
w
01
t-l
3
oo
•H
ES-7
-------
o
4^
(A
•o
o
o
o
2
o
U
3
O
en
o
o.
o
a
o
U
B
o
CO
C
o
T-(
co
GO
•H
a
41
3
U
M
-------
>>
c
o
ju
"3
o
O
c
ra
UJ
w
0)
y
u
3
O
03
c
•H
O
Q.
00
c
O
cfl
3
C
S
O
l-i
en
C
o
•H
U3
03
•H
S
01
3
O
l-l
(U
03
3
C
C
CO
-a
-------
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
submit a study on mercury emissions to Congress. This study is
to evaluate the rate and mass of mercury emissions, to determine
the health and environmental effects of these emissions, to
analyze the technologies that are available to control these
emissions, and to determine the costs of such technologies. The
sources of mercury emissions that must be addressed include
electric utility steam generating units, municipal waste
combustion units, and other emission sources, including area
sources.
This report -estimates emissions of mercury from natural,
area, and point sources and provides abbreviated process
descriptions, control technique options, emission factors, and
activity levels for these sources. Also, if sufficient
information is available, locations by city and State are given
for point sources. The information contained in the report will
be useful in identifying source categories that are major
emitters of mercury, in selecting potential candidates for
mercury emission reductions, and in evaluating possible control
technologies or materials substitution/elimination that could be
used to achieve these reductions.
1.2 APPROACH
The information contained in this report was obtained
primarily from the EPA document Locating and Estimating; Air
Emissions from Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds (L&E
document), which contains the most recent mercury emission
factors available.1 Other sources of information, such as
1-1
-------
recently published reports, journal articles, and information
from trade associations, were also used. Mercury emission rates
presented in this report are estimates only. These mercury
emission estimates were typically calculated as a product of an
emission factor, such as those found in the L&E document, and an
annual estimate of source activity. Both the emission factors
and the source activity level estimates contain inherent
uncertainties. Typically, emission factors are based on a
limited set of test data that have measurement errors and that
may not be representative of the full population of sources being
studied. Activity levels used in this report were compiled over
different time periods and with a variety of survey procedures.
Consequently, they are not exact estimates. To the degxee that
information is available, sources of uncertainty in the emission
estimates will be discussed, at least qualitatively, as the
estimates are discussed throughout the report.
The remainder of this report consists of three sections.
Section 2 presents the physical and chemical properties of
mercury. Section 3 characterizes the mercury emission source
categories for natural, area, and point sources. It describes
the emitting process and presents the basis for the emission
estimates. Finally, Section 4 provides a summary of mercury
emission estimates from natural, area, and point sources.
Appendices A through D contain detailed information on activity
levels, source locations, and emissions for select source
categories.
1.3 REFERENCES
1. IT. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and
Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Mercury and Mercury
Compounds. EPA 454/R-93-023 . IT. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1993.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2.0
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
2.1 THE NATURE OF MERCURY
Mercury, also called quicksilver, is a heavy, silver-white
metal that exists as a liquid at roam, temperature. Its symbol,
Hg, comes from the Latin word, hydrargyrum, meaning liquid
silver. Mercury and its major ore, cinnabar (HgS), have been
known and used for thousands of years. Table 2-1 summarizes
mercury's chemical and physical properties.
At ambient temperatures, mercury is stable and unreactive
with air, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, or oxygen. It
readily combines with halogens and sulfur but is little affected
by hydrochloric acid. It is attacked by concentrated sulfuric
acid. Mercury can be dissolved in either dilute or concentrated
nitric acid, with the formation of mercurous salts if the mercury
is in excess or no heat is applied, or mercuric salts if excess
acid or heat is used. Mercury reacts with hydrogen sulfide in
the air.
Elemental mercury is used primarily in electrical
applications including batteries, electrical lamps, and wiring
and switching devices. Its low electrical resistivity makes it
one of the best electrical conductors among the metals.1
Technically and commercially important mercury compounds include
mercuric oxide, mercuric chloride, mercuric and mercurous
sulfate, mercurous nitrate, and various organic mercury salts.
Metallic mercury can be found in small quantities in some
ore deposits; however, it usually occurs as a sulfide, and
sometimes as a chloride or an oxide, typically in conjunction
with base and precious metals. Although cinnabar is by far the
predominant mercury mineral in ore deposits, other common
mercury-containing minerals include corderoite (Hg3S2C12),
livingstonite (HgSb4S7), montroydite (HgO), terlinguaite
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MERCURY1'2
Property
Value;
^ Hg22*
°C
°C
Crystal system
CAS registry number
Atomic number
Valences
Outer electron configuration
Metallic radius, A
Covalent radius , A
Electrode reduction
potentials, normal, V
Hg2* + 2e »* Hg
Hg22* + 2e ** 2Hg
2Hg2* + 2e
Melting point,
Boiling point,
Latent heat of fusion, J/g
Latent heat of vaporization, J/g
Specific heat, J/g
Solid
-75.6°C
-40°C
-263. 3°C
Liquid
-36.7°C
210°C
Electrical resistivity, 2- cm
20°C
Density, g/cm3
at 20°C
at melting point
at -38.8°C (solid)
at 0°C
Rhanbohedral
7439-97-6
80
1, 2
5da°6S3
1.10 (Hg2*)
1.50 (Hg*)
1.440
0.851
0.7961
0.905
-38.87
356.9
11.80
271.96
1.1335
0.141
0.0231
0.1418
1.1335
95.8 x 10'*
13.546
14.43
14.193
13.595
Thermal conductivity,
w/(cm2«K)
Vapor pressure, 25°C
Solubility in water, 25°C
0.092
2 x 10 mm Hg
0.28
2-2
-------
(Hg2OCl) , calomel (HgCl), and metacinnabar, a black form of
cinnabar.1
Mercury also has a tendency to form alloys or amalgams with
almost all other metals except iron (although at higher
temperatures it will even form alloys with iron) .x Mercury
amalgams with, vanadium, iron, niobium, molybdenum, cesium,
tantalum, and tungsten produce metals having good to excellent
corrosion resistance.1
2.2 REFERENCES
1. Drake, H.J. Mercury. (In) Kirk - O t.hmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology, Volume 15, 3rd ed., M. Grayson, exec.
ed. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John wiley and Sons,
New York. 1981. pp. 143-156.
2. Kleinberg, J., W.J. Argersinger, Jr., and E. Griswold.
Inorganic Chemistry. D.C. Heath and Company, Boston. 1960.
p. 609.
2-3
-------
SECTION 3.0
MERCURY EMISSION SOURCE CATEGORY CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A prerequisite for developing strategies for reducing
mercury concentrations in surface, waters and ambient air is a
comprehensive characterization of the sources of mercury air
emissions. Such a characterization includes identifying
significant mercury emission sources, both anthropogenic and
nonanthropogenic, and estimating the emission potential of those
sources. This section provides the basis for a nationwide
mercury emission characterization. The potentially significant
source categories are identified, and for each source category,
the processes that yield mercury emissions are described, as well
as the mercury emission control measures that are in place. The
procedures used to estimate nationwide mercury emissions from
each category are also described..
Sources of mercury emissions in the United States are
ubiquitous. To provide a coherent characterization of these
sources, the source categories of mercury emissions are divided
into three groups as a function of their emission properties:
natural, area, and point sources as outlined in Table 3-1.
Natural sources are nonanthropogenic sources of mercury emissions
unrelated to human activities. Area sources of mercury emissions
are anthropogenic sources that are typically small and numerous
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
Natural
Oceans
Vegetation
Volcanoes
Rocks
Soils*
Wildfires
Anthropogenic
Area
Electric lamp
breakage
Paints use
Laboratory use
Dental
preparations
Crematories
Mobile sources
Agricultural
burning**
Landfills**
Point
Combustion
Utility
boilers
Commercial/
industrial
boilers
Residential
boilers
Municipal
waste
combustion
Medical waste
incinerators
Sewage sludge
incinerators
Hazardous
waste
incinerators * *
Waste
combustion
Manufacturing
Color-alkali
production
Lima
manufacturing
Primary
mercury
production
Mercury
compounds
production
Battery
production
Electrical
apparatus
manufacturing
Carbon black
production
Byproduct coke
production
Primary copper
smelting
Cement
manufacturing
Primary lead
smelting
Miscellaneous
Oil shale
retorting
Mercury
catalyst]}
Pigment
production
Explosives
manufacturing
Geo thermal
power plaints
Turf products
0
•Emissions from soils may also be the result of the re-emission of previously
deposited anthropogenic emissions.
"Potential anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions for which there ±a
currently no data.
3-2
-------
and usually cannot: be readily located geographically. For the
purpose of this report, mobile sources are included in the area
source section. Point sources are those anthropogenic sources
that are associated with a fixed geographic location. These
point sources are further divided into combustion, manufacturing,
and miscellaneous source categories.
For most source categories, an emission factor-based
approach was used to develop nationwide emission estimates. This
approach requires an emission factor, which is a ratio of the
mass of mercury emitted to a measure of source activity, and an
estimate of the annual nationwide source activity level.
Examples of measures of source activity include vehicle miles
traveled for mobile sources, total heat input for fossil fuel
combustion, and total raw material used or product generated for
industrial processes. Emission factors are generated from
emission test data, engineering analyses based on mass balance
techniques, or transfer of information from comparable emission
sources. Emission factors used to estimate nationwide emissions
reflect the "typical control" achieved by the air pollution
control measures applied across the population of sources within
a specific source category. The emission factors and control
levels used to develop the emission estimates contained in this
report were generally taken from the L&E document-1
The emission factor-based approach does not generate exact
nationwide emission estimates. Uncertainties era introduced in
the emission factors, the estimates of control efficiency, and
3-3
-------
the nationwide activity level measures. Ideally, emission
factors are based on a substantial quantity of data from sovirces
that represent the source category population. However, for
trace pollutants like mercury, emission factors are frequently
based on limited data that may not have been collected from
representative sources. Also, changes in processes or emission
measurement techniques over time may result in biased emission
factors. In particular, analytical methods for detecting mercury
have changed, especially since about 1985. Emission control
estimates are also generally based on limited data; as such these
estimates are imprecise and may be biased. Control efficiencies
based on data collected using older test methods may be biased
because the older test methods tended to collect mercury vapor
inefficiently. In assessing mercury emissions from test reports,
the revision number of the method indicates the level of
precision and accuracy of the method. Currently, EPA Method 301
from 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A can be used to validate the
equivalency of new methods. Finally, activity levels used i:a
this study were based on the most recent information that was
readily available. However, the sources of data used vary i:n
reliability, adding further uncertainty to the emission
estimates.
Generally, quantitative estimates of the uncertainty in the
emission factors, control efficiency estimates, and activity
level measures are not available. However, these uncertainties
3-4
-------
are. discussed qualitatively in the sections below. Potential
biases in the final emission estimates are also discussed.
3.2 NATURAL SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
Mercury Is emitted from natural sources (rock, soils, water
and biota) primarily, as. elemental mercury vapor and to a lesser
degree as particulate and vaporous oxides, sulfides and halides
of mercury. Organomercurie compounds (methylmercury vapors) are
also a significant component of natural emissions (some evidence
of dimethyl-mercury emissions also exists) .2 However, few direct
measurements of mercury flux and speciation from natural sources
are available in the literature. There is general agreement that
the principal natural sources of mercury emissions include, in
order of probable importance, volatilization in marine and other
aquatic environments, volatilization from vegetation, degassing
of geologic materials, particulate matter (PM) and vapor
emissions during volcanic and geothermal activity, wind-blown-
dust, and PM and vapor emissions during forest and brush fires.
Recent studies strongly emphasize the importance of the air-water
exchange of mercury as well as biologically mediated
volatilization in both, marine and terrestrial environments. 2"s
These sources represent a relatively constant flux to the
atmosphere and may comprise 30 to 50 percent of total natural
emissions.5 In contrast, volcanic, geothermal, and burning
biomass activity is widely variable temporally and spatially.
3-5
-------
Volcanic eruptions, in particular, can cause massive
perturbations in atmospheric trace metal cycles. Volcanic
activity alone may comprise 40 to 50 percent of total natural
mercury emissions at times.5
Published estimates of total global emissions of mercury
from natural sources range widely from 100 to 30,000 megagrams
(Mg) (110 to 33,000 tons) per year. However, the more recent
estimates cluster in the 2,000 to 3,000 Mg (2,200 to 3,300 tons)
per year range.3'5 O. Lindgvist, citing work done in 1988,
estimated natural emissions to be 3,000 Mg (3,300 tons) per year
or approximately 40 percent of total global emissions from all
sources.3 The supporting data for individual source categories
are limited for each of these estimates, and it is clear that any
quantitative understanding of natural mercury flux is lacking.
As a result of reemission, current levels of mercury emitted
to the atmosphere by natural processes are elevated relative to
preindustrial levels. More than two thirds of world mercury
production has occurred since 1900, and mercury emissions have
been widely dispersed and recycled. In other words, present day
emissions from natural sources are comprised in part of
yesterday's anthropogenic emissions. It is not possible to
quantify the contribution of re-emitted mercury to the natural
emissions estimates and, therefore, the estimates cited above for
natural processes must be viewed with uncertainty.
3-6
-------
3.3 AREA SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
Area sources of mercury emissions were identified in
Table 3-1. These sources account: for approximately 5 percent of
mercury emissions from anthropogenic sources. Figure 3-1
summarizes the estimated annual quantities of mercury emitted
from area sources.
3.3.1 Mobile Sources
Mobile sources are defined in this study as diesel- and
gasoline-powered, on-road, light-duty vehicles. Of these types,
gasoline-powered vehicles make up the most significant mobile
emission sources. A 1983 study indicated an estimated mercury
emission factor of 1.3 x 10"3 milligram per kilometer (mg/km)
(4.6 x 10~9 pound per mile [Ib/mile] ) traveled for motor
vehicles.s The population of vehicles studied was 81.9 percent
gasoline-powered passenger cars, 2.4 percent gasoline-powered
trucks, and 15.7 percent diesel trucks. However, because this
emission factor is based on a 1977 ambient sampling study, which
predated the use of catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline,
widely mandated State-regulated inspection and maintenance
programs, and diesel-powered vehicle emission control
requirements, the data are of questionable reliability for the
current vehicle population.
3-7
-------
05
01
CJ
Ul
3
O
CO
CO
-------
A 1979 study characterized regulated and unregulated exhaust
emissions from catalyst and non-catalyst equipped light-duty
gasoline-powered automobiles operating under malfunction
conditions.7 An analysis for mercury was included in the study
but no mercury was detected. The analytical minimum detection
limit was not stated.
A more recent 1989 study measured the exhaust emission rates
of selected toxic substances for two late model gasoline-powered
passenger cars.8 The two vehicles were operated over the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), and
the New York City Cycle (NYCC) . Mercury was among the group of
metals analyzed but was not present in detectable quantities.
The analytical minimum detection limits for mercury in the three
test procedures were: FTP 0.025 mg/km (8.9 x 10~8 Ib/mile) HFET
0.019 mg/km (6.7 x 10'8 Ib/mi), and NYCC 0.15 mg/km (53.2 x
10"8 Ib/mi) .9 Because these m-ini™™ detection limits are more
fr>v*Ti ten tunes higher t-han the estimated emission factor
presented in the 1983 study, the emission factor in the 1983
study was used to estimate emissions from mobile sources.
An estimate of mercury emissions from mobile sources was
calculated as a product of the emission factor cited above
(albeit with its inherent limitations) and the total vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) annually in the United States. Data from
the EPA Office of Mobile Sources indicate that the total VMT in
the United States in 1990 was 3,457,500 million kilometers
3-9
-------
(2,147,500 million mi}.10 The re stilt ant calculated nationwide
emission estimate from mobile sources is 4.5 Mg (5.0 tons).
3.3.2 Electric Lamp Breakage
Electric lamps containing mercury include fluorescent,
mercury vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps.
These lamps are used for both indoor and outdoor applications
including lights for high-ceiling rooms, film projection,
photography, dental exams, photochemistry, heat lamps, water
purification, and street lighting. When these electric lamps are
broken during use or disposal, a significant portion of the
mercury contained in them is emitted to the atmosphere. It has
been estimated that 22 percent of the mercury used in indoor
electric lamps and 33 percent of the mercury used in outdoor
lamps is lost to the atmosphere in this manner.1
A total of 29 Mg (32 tons) of mercury were used in electric
lamp production in 1991.s In 1980, it was estimated that
50 percent of the mercury used was for indoor applications and
50 percent was used for outdoor applications.11 An estimate of
total mercury emissions from electric lamp breakage can be made
from these data if it is assumed that there are no losses of
mercury in electric lamp production, that the 1980 ratio of
mercury use in indoor/outdoor lamps holds for 1991, that all
lamps are eventually broken following disposal, and that mercury
loss from breakage occurs in the open air rather t-haTi in a
3-10
-------
municipal waste combustor. As such, of the 29 Mg (32 tons) of
mercury used in total lamp production, annual emissions are
calculated to be 3.2 Mg (3.5 tons) from indoor electric lamps and
4.8 Mg (5.3 tons) from outdoor lamps for a total of 8 Mg
(8.8 tons).
3.3.3 Paint TJae
Four mercury compounds--phenylmercurie acetate,
3- (chloromethoxy) propylmercurie acetate, di (phenylmercury)
dodecenylsuccinate, and phenylmercuric oleate--have been
registered as biocides for interior and exterior paint.u
Mercury compounds are added to paints to preserve the paint in
the can by controlling microbial growth. Prior to 1991, much
larger amounts of mercury were used in paint to preserve the
paint film from mildew after the paint is applied to a surface.
During and after application of paint, these mercury compounds
can be emitted into the atmosphere. As of May 1991, all
registrations for mercury biocides used in paints were
voluntarily canceled by the registrants, thus causing a. drastic
decrease in the use of mercury in paint.13 For example, the
paint industry's demand for mercury in 1989 was 192 Mg (211 tons)
but fell to 6 Mg (7 tons) in 1991."
One source estimates that 66 percent of the mercury used in
paints is emitted into the atmosphere; however, this emission
rate, which was derived using engineering judgement, is based on
3-11
-------
a 1975 study performed when the demand for mercury in paint was
high.15 The age of the data and the method by which the emission
factor was calculated limit the reliability of the factor, making
emission estimates generated from it quite uncertain.
Furthermore, no conclusive information is available regarding the
time frame over which mercury in paint is emitted into the
atmosphere after it is applied to a surface. However, limited
information suggests that emissions could occur for as long as
7 years after initial application, although the distribution of
emissions over this time period is unknown.15
Based on the 1991 demand for mercury and the emission factor
above (66 percent emitted) , mercury emissions from paint use are
estimated to be 4 Mg (4.4 tons). Note that this estimate
presumes that all mercury emissions are generated from paint
application in the year that the paint is produced.
3.3.4 General L^^oratory Use
Mercury is used in laboratories in instruments, as a
reagent, and as a catalyst. In 1991, an estimated 0.4 Mg
(0.4 ton) of mercury were emitted into the atmosphere from
general laboratory use. An emission factor of 40 kg of mercury
emitted for each megagram of mercury used in laboratories was
estimated in a 1973 report.17 Because this emission, factor was
based on engineering judgement and not on actual test data, and
because it is quite dated, the reliability of this emission
3-12
-------
factor is questionable. As with, most industries using mercury,
there was a decline in mercury consumption in general laboratory
use, with consumption dropping from 32 Mg (35 tons) in 1990 to
10 Mg (11 tons) in 1991.16 The annual emission estimate is the
product of this consumption rate and the emission factor noted
above. The limitations of that emission factor make the emission
estimates uncertain.
3.3.5 Dental Preparation and Use
Mercury is also used in the dental industry, primarily in
amalgam fillings for teeth, although it may also be used in other
dental equipment and supplies. In 1991, an estimated 0.5 Mg
(0.6 ton) of mercury was emitted from dental preparation and use.
However, this estimate is understated because it is derived using
an emission factor (2 percent of mercury used is emitted into the
atmosphere) that applies only to emissions of mercury from spills
and scrap during dental preparation and use.11 The total amount
of mercury used in the dental industry is 27 Mg (30 tons) and
includes mercury used in all dental equipment and supplies, not
just the amount used in dental preparation and use.16 Mercury
emissions not accounted for in dental preparation and use are
most likely accounted for in the emission estimates for municipal
waste combustors and crematories.
3-13
-------
3.3.6 Crematories
Volatilization of mercury from the mercury alloys contained.
in amalgam tooth fillings during cremation of human bodies is a
potential source of mercury air emissions. In 1991, there were
400,465 cremations in the slightly more than 1,000 crematories
located throughout the United States.18 Table 3-2 lists the
number of crematories located in each State and presents
estimates of the number of cremations performed in each Stat.e.
No information was available on .the location of individual
crematories.19
No data are available for the average quantity of mercury
emitted for a cremation in the United States. Three estimated
levels have been cited for European countries (Switzerland,
Germany, and the United Kingdom) with an estimated emission rate
of 1 gram of mercury per cremation recommended as a. typical
value.20 However, this emission factor may not be applicable! to
cremations in the United States. There is a substantial
difference in the frequency of cremations in Europe compared to
the United States. Also, dental care programs in the United
States differ markedly from those to Europe. Consequently, the
average number of mercury amalgam fillings per person may differ
considerably. Because the average number of fillings per person
and the average mercury content per filling have a direct impact
on the estimated mercury emissions, this European emission factor
may not provide an accurate estimate of mercury emissions from
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-2. 1991 U.S. CREMATORY LOCATIONS BY STATE19
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Tw
-------
cremations in the United States. Multiplying the European
emission factor of 1 gram of mercury per cremation by the total
number of U.S. cremations in 1991 (400,465) gives a mercury
emission estimate of 0.4 Mg/yr (0.4 tons/yr) .
3.4 POINT SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
A point source is a stationary location or fixed facility
from which pollutants are discharged or emitted. Point sources
of mercury emissions are identified by source type in Table 3-1.
These sources account for approximately 94 percent of mercury
emissions from anthropogenic sources. Figure 3-2 presents t±ie
estimated mercury emissions from combustion, manufacturing, and
miscellaneous point sources. The subsections below discuss the
f
basis of the point source estimates for each source category
within these three groups.
3.4.1 Cr""fr>ustion Sources
Combustion sources include fossil fuel-fired boilers,
medical and municipal, waste incinerators, and wood-fired boilers
and residential heaters. Mercury emissions from these sources
(excluding wood-fired residential heaters) account for an
estimated 259 Mg/yr (285 tons/yr) of the mercury emissions
generated annually in the United States. These types of
combustion units are commonly found throughout the country amd
3-16
-------
CO
CD
CO,
0)
CM
CO
•»
(0
-------
ara not concentrated in any one geographic region. Information
concerning emissions, fossil fuel consumption on a per-State
basis, and locations is presented in Appendix A.
Mercury exists naturally as a trace element din fossil fuels
and can also be found in wastes. It is a highly volatile metal
that vaporizes at the temperatures reached during the combustion
zones of the processes discussed here. Consequently, mercury is
emitted as a trace contaminant in the gas exhaust stream when
fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, or wood) or waste materials
containing mercury are fired.
This section provides background information on each of the
combustion sources and discusses the methodology used to estimate
mercury and mercury compound emissions from (1) utility boilers,
(2) commercial/industrial boilers, (3) residential boilers,
(4) municipal waste combustors (MWC's), (5) medical waste
incinerators (MWI's), (6) sewage sludge incinerators (SSI'S), and
(7) wood combustors. For each of these combustion categories,
processes and control measures currently in place will be
discussed, along with emission estimates and the bases for those
estimates. When a high degree of uncertainty within specific
data is known, it will be noted.
Utility Boilers
Utility boilers, both coal-fired and oil-fired, are large
boilers used by public and private utilities to generate
3-18
-------
electricity. Natural gas also may be used to fire utility
boilers; however, mercury emission estimates were not calculated
for natural gas combustion because reliable information for
calculating an emission factor does not exist.1
The estimated annual mercury emissions presented in this
report from coal- and oil-fired utility boilers represent
uncontrolled- e"H g«" «•>" 1 «*«»•*» 1« - As a result, tha mercury emission
estimates presented here represent "worst-case" estimates. The
reason for presenting uncontrolled estimates is that a separate
study on emissions from utility boilers is required by the Clean
Air Act under Section 112(n)(1)(A). The Utility Study Report to
Congress, which will be completed in November 1995, will include
results of a testing program sponsored by the EPA, the Electric
Power Research Institute, and the 17. S. Department of Energy.
The testing program will provide emissions data which will then
be used to develop emission factors that reflect with more
certainty the amount of mercury emissions control achieved by
various control devices. The mercury emissions data presented in
the Utility Study will therefore supersede the mercury emissions
data for utility boilers presented in this report.
The estimated annual uncontrolled mercury emissions from
coal- and oil-fired utility boilers, 110 Mg/yr (121 tons/yr), are
directly related to the amount of fuel used in the combustion
process. Estimates of coal, natural gas, and oil consumption
from utility boilers were obtained from the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) Domer Statistics data base managed by the Utility
3-19
-------
Data Institute. This data base contains facility-specific
information on fuel consumption.
In 1990, utility boilers consumed fossil fuel at an annual
level of 21 x 10" mega joules (MJ) (20 x 1015 British thermal
units [Btu]) . About 80 percent of this total energy consumption
resulted from coal combustion, 6 percent from oil and petroleum
fuels, and 14 percent from natural, gas consumption.-21- In. terms
of coal usage, the majority of total nationwide coal combustion
(about 84 percent) is in utility boilers. Almost all of th.es coal
burned is bituminous and subbituminous (95 percent for the two)
and lignite (4 percent)." The combustion processes used for
these different coals are comparable. The most common liquid
fuel used by utility boilers is fuel oil derived from crude
petroleum. Fuel oils are classified as either distillate or
residual.
Because there is no evidence to show that mercury emissions
are affected by boiler type, this section presents only a brief
discussion of different boiler types and combustion techniques.
More information on boiler types may be found in the Air
Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-42, Steam: Its Generation and
Use, and the L&E document. X'23~2S
Although several options are available for each component of
a utility operation, the overall process for coal-fired utility
boilers is straightforward. Coal is received at the plant,
typically by rail or barge, unloaded, and transferred to storage
piles or silos. From storage, the coal is subjected to
3-20
-------
mechanical sizing operations and *-.h«»T* charged to the boiler.
Coal-fired boilers are typically suspension-fired pulverized coal
or cyclone systems. The other major process component is the ash
handling system for the bottom ash and the fly ash that is
collected in the air pollution control system.23
Oil-fired utility boilers are even simpler and have less
variation in design than do the coal-fired systems. Oil is
received by barge, rail, truck, or pipeline and transferred to
storage tanks. From there the oil is fired to the boiler system.
The main components of the system are the burner and the furnace.
The primary difference in systems that fire distillate and
residual oils is the presence of an oil preheater in residual
systems.23'25
Although small quantities of mercury may be emitted as
fugitive PM from coal storage and handling, the primary source of
mercury from both coal and combustion in utility boilers is the
combustion stack. Because the combustion zone in boilers
operates at temperatures above 1100°C (2000°F), the mercury in
the coal and oil is vaporized and exhausted as a gas. Some of
the gas may cool and condenae as it passes through the boiler and
the air pollution control system. The specific air pollution
control devices for coal-fired boilers that most likely affect
mercury control are add-on PM and acid gas control devices. The
primary types of control devices used for coal-fired utility
boilers include electrostatic precipitators (ESF's); fabric
filters (baghouses), which are typically used as a component of a
3-21
-------
dry flue gas desulfurization system; and wet scrubbers.25 Oil-
fired utility boilers may use mechanical collectors or ESP'a to
control PM, and some use wet scrubbers to control SO2.25
Mercury emission factors for coal combustion were developed
using mass-balance calculations with, the assumption that all
mercury fired with, the coal is emitted in the stack gas as a,
function of coal type and control status.1 Because tne majority
of coal-fired boilers are pulverized coal furnaces using
bituminous coal with ESP controls, this combination contributes
most of the nationwide emissions from coal-fired utilities."1
Bituminous coal combustion has an estimated uncontrolled emission
factor of 7 kg/1015 J (16 lb/10" Btu) , while the uncontrolled
emission factor for anthracite coal combustion is estimated at
7.6 kg/1015 J (18 lb/10" Btu). The uncontrolled emission factor
for lignite coal combustion is 9 kg/lO^J (21 lb/10" Btu) . In
estimating emissions, it was assumed that all facilities are
controlled with respect to mercury emissions. It is recognized,
therefore, that the aggregate emissions estimates presented .are
conservative.1 Based on these assumptions, the 1990 nationwide
mercury emissions from coal-fired utility boilers are estimated
to be 106 Mg/yr (117 tons/yr).
Mercury emission factors for oil combustion are also based
on mass-balance calculations with, the assumption that all of the
oil's mercury content exits tne boiler or furnace in the exhaust
gas with no substantial removal in air pollution control
systems.1 For distillate oil, the estimated uncontrolled mercury
3-22
-------
emission factor is 2.9 kg/1015 J (6.8 lb/10u Btu) ; the estimated
uncontrolled emission factor for residual oil is 3.0 kg/1015 J
(7.2 lb/10u Btu). Based on these assumptions, 1990 nationwide
mercury emissions from oil-fired utility boilers are estimated to
be 4.0 Mg/yr (4.4 tons/yr).
Commercial/industrial boilers are large boilers found in
businesses and industrial plants throughout the United States.
These boilers may use coal, oil, or natural gas as fuels. As
with utility boilers, mercury vaporizes during combustion and
appears as a trace contaminant in the gas exhaust stream.
Mercury emissions from commercial/industrial boilers,
27.5 Mg/yr (30.3 tons/yr), are directly related to the amount of
fuel used in the combustion process.1 Again, mercury emissions
from natural gas combustion could not be estimated because a
reliable emission factor does not exist.1 These boilers consume
energy at an annual rate of 25 x 10" MJ/yr (23 x 101S Btu) .
About 12 percent of this energy consumption results from coal
combustion, 39 percent from oil and petroleum fuel combustion,
and 48 percent from natural gas combustion.21 Estimates of coal
and oil consumption from these boilers on a per-State basis are
presented in Table A-l, Appendix A.
Because there is no evidence to show that mercury emissions
are affected by boiler type, this section presents only a brief
3-23
-------
discussion of commercial/industrial boiler types and combustion
techniques. More information on boiler types may be found in tne
Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-42, and the L&E
document.1-23'25
As with utility boilers, the configuration of commercial/
industrial boilers can vary, but the overall system is
straightforward. Coal or oil is received and transferred to
storage where it is held until it is transferred to the boiler.
Because this source category encompasses a. wide range of boiler
sizes, tne types of boilers used are more varied Mian those used
in the utility sector. Larger coal-fired industrial boilers: are
suspension-fired systems like those used in the utility sect.or,
while moderate and smaller units are grate-fired systems tha.t
include spreader stokers, overfeed traveling and vibrating grate
stokers, and underfeed stokers. Oil-fired furnaces, which may
use either distillate or residual fuel oil, typically comprise a
burner, a combustion air supply system, and a combustion chamber.
All coal-fired facilities, and some oil-fired facilities, also
have ash handling systems.
Mercury emission factors for coal combustion in
commercial/industrial boilers are the same as those used for
coal-fired utility boilers. An estimated emission factor of
7.0 kg/1015 J (16 lb/10" Btu) was used for bituminous coal
combustion, and 7.6 kg/10" J (18 lb/10" Btu) was used for
anthracite coal combustion. Estimates of mercury emissions on a
per-State basis from coal-fired commercial/industrial boilers are
3-24
-------
provided In Table A-2, Appendix A. These values were determined
by using the referenced emission factors and the coal consumption
estimates for the States presented in Table A-l, Appendix A. In
estimating emissions, it was assumed that mercury emissions from
commercial/industrial boilers were not controlled. However, this
assumption is most likely an over estimation of mercury emissions
as PH and acid gas controls on-these: boilers may reduce, the
mercury emissions. The total estimated annual emissions for
coal-fired boilers are 20.7 Mg/yr (22.8 tons/yr).
Mercury emissions for oil combustion in commercial/
industrial boilers were estimated on a per-State basis using an
emission factor of 2.9 kg/10" J (6.8 lb/10" Btu) for residual
oil and 3.0 kg/1015 J (7.2 lb/10" Btu) for distillate oil and the
oil consumption estimates for States given in Table A-l,
Appendix A. These calculated emission values are presented in
Table A-3, Appendix A. The total estimated annual emissions for
oil-fired commercial/industrial boilers are 5.46 Mg/yr
(6.01 tons/yr).
Residential Boilers
Residential boilers are relatively small boilers used in
homes and apartments. These boilers may use coal, oil, or
natural gas as fuels; however, mercury emissions from natural gas
combustion are negligible. As with the other types of boilers,
mercury emissions vaporize during combustion of the coal- and
3-25
-------
oil-fired residential boilers, and the emissions appear as a
trace contaminant in the exhaust gas.
The estimated annual mercury emissions from residential
boilers, 3.2 Mg/yr (3.5 tons/yr), are related to the amount of
fuel used in the combustion process. Estimates of coal and oil
consumption from these boilers on a per-State basis are presented
in Table A-4, Appendix A. Residential boilers consume enercry at
an annual rate of 6.2 x 10" MJ/yr (5.8 x 10" Btu/yr) . About
1 percent of this energy consumption results from coal
combustion, 22 percent from oil and petroleum fuel combustion,
and 77 percent from natural gas combustion.21
Because there is no evidence to link mercury emissions to
boiler type, this section does not describe residential boiler
types. Information on, boiler types may be found in the Air
Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-42, and the L&E document.1'2''25
Estimated mercury emission factors for coal combustion in
residential boilers are the same as those used for other coal
combustion processes. These calculations include the assumption
that all mercury fired with the coal is emitted as stack gas. An
estimated emission factor of 7.0 kg/10" J (16 lb/10" Btu) was
used for bituminous coal combustion, and 7.6 kg/1015 J
(18 lb/1012 Btu) was used for anthracite coal combustion.
Estimates of mercury emissions on a per-State basis from coal-
fired residential boilers were determined by using these emission
factors and the coal consumption estimates for the States as
presented in Table A-4, Appendix A. These calculated emission
3-26
-------
values are presented in Table A-5, Appendix A. In estimating
emissions, it was assumed that mercury emissions from residential
boilers were not controlled. However, as stated previously, this
assumption may produce an overestimate of mercury emissions as PM
and acid gas controls may reduce mercury emissions. The total
annual estimated emissions for coal-fired residential boilers is
0.47 Mg/yr (0.5 tons/yr). .
The estimated mercury emissions for oil combustion were
estimated by using an emission factor of 2.9 kg/1015 J
(6.8 lb/1013 Btu) for residual oil and 3.0 kg/1015 J
(7.2 lb/10" Btu) for distillate oil and the oil consumption
estimates for the States given in Table A-4, Appendix A. These
•
estimated emissions values are presented in Table A-6,
Appendix A. The total annual estimated emissions for oil-fired
residential boilers is 2.74 Mg/yr (3.0 tons/yr).
Municipal Waste Combustor3 (MWC'a)
Municipal waste combustora are large incineration units,
firing from 36 megagrams per day (Mg/d) (40 tons/d) to more than
230 Mg/d (250 tons/d) of refuse or municipal solid waste (MSW).
Municipal solid waste consists primarily of household garbage and
other nonhazardous commercial, institutional, and industrial
solid wastes. The estimated annual mercury emissions from MWC's
are 57.7 Mg/yr (63.5 tons/yr). These emissions occur when
mercury, which exists in the solid waste, is combusted at high
3-27
-------
temperatures, vaporizes, and then exits through* the combustion
gas exhaust stack.
Over 160 MWC's, with capacities greater f-han 35 Mg/d
(40 tons/d), currently operate in the United States. These MWC's
have a total capacity of about 100,000 Mg/d (110,000 tons/d) of
MSW. A geographic distribution of MWC units and capacities is
presented in Table A-7, Appendix A,26
In addition to these large units, a number of smaller,
specialized facilities in the United States also burn MSW.
However, the total nationwide capacity of those smaller units is
only a small fraction of the total capacity of units with
individual capacities of 36 Mg/d (40 ton/d) and larger.
Within the MWC sector, a number of technologies and controls
are used. Some of these technologies include mass burn
combustors, refuse-derived fuel-fired cambus tors (RDF), and
fluidized-bed combust or s. Mass burn combustors, the predominant
incineration technology, are found in three types: . mass bum
refractory wall (MB/KEF) , mass burn/water-wall (MB/WW) , and mass
burn/rotary waterwall (MB/RC). The two most common types are
MB/REF and MB/WW. Mass burn combustors generally accept refuse
that has undergone a minimal amount of processing (other than
removing oversized items) prior to firing.1
Mercury emissions from these combustors are controlled by
condensing mercury vapors into particle form. The particle-phase
mercury is then removed with a high-efficiency PM control device,
usually an ESP or a fabric filter device. Some of the newer
3-28
-------
MWC's use either (1) a combination of gas-cooling and duct
sorbent injection (DSX) or (2) a spray dryer absorption system
(SDA) upstream of the PM device to cool the inlet gas.27
Emission factors for mercury have been developed from test
data gathered at several MWC's. To calculate the emission
factors, an F-factor (the ratio of the gas volume of the object
being combusted to the heating value of the fuel) was assigned.
The EPA Method 191 is used to determine the F-factor. For MWC's
an F-factor of 0.275 dry standard cubic meters/megajoule
(dscm/MJ) (9,570 dry standard cubic foot per million Btu
[dscf ]/10s Btu] was used.78 For all MWC combust or types, except
RDF combustors, the assumed heating value is 10,500 kJ/kg
(4,500 Btu/lb) of refuse. For RDF combustor units, the processed
refuse has a higher heating value of 12,800 kJ/kg
(5,500 Btu/lb).38 The emission factors for various combinations
of combustors and control devices are presented in Table A-8,
Appendix A. Estimated mercury emissions were determined based on
the tonnage of the waste being combusted (Table A-7, Appendix A.)
and on the emission factors.28'29 Multiplying the process rates by
the uncontrolled emissions and taking into account the different
control efficiencies (all found in Table A-8, Appendix A) gives a
total mercury emission estimate of 57.7 Mg/yr (63'.5 tons/yr) .
3-29
-------
Medical Waste Incinerators (MWT'a)
Medical waste incinerators are small incineration units that
charge from 0.9 Mg/d (1 ton/d) to 55 Mg/d (60 tons/d) of
infectious and noninfectious wastes generated from facilities
involved in medical or veterinary care or research activities.
These facilities include hospitals, clinics, offices of doctors
and dentists, veterinary clinics, nursing homes, medical
laboratories, medical and veterinary schools and research units,
and funeral homes. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(as amended November 1, 1988) defines medical waste as "...any
solid waste which is generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or
immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining
thereto, or in the production or testing of biologicals."30
The estimated annual mercury emissions from MWX's*are
58.8 Mg/yr (64.7 tons/yr) . Mercury emissions occur when mercury,
which exists as a contaminant in the medical waste, is combusted
at high temperatures, vaporizes, and exits the combustion gas
exhaust stack. Known mercury sources in medical waste include
batteries, fluorescent lamps, high-intensity discharge lamps,
thermometers, paper and film coatings, and plastic pigments.
Unpublished estimates by the EPA suggest that about
0.204 x 10* Mg/yr (0.268 x 10s tons/yr) of pathological waste and
1.431 x 10* Mg/yr (1.574 x 10s tons/yr) of general medical waste
are processed annually in the United States.1 Pathological waste
is medical waste material consisting of only human and animal
3-30
-------
anatomical, parts and/or tissue. General medical waste may
consist; of any of the following, in any combination: sharps
(syringes, needles, vials, etc.); fabrics (gauze, bandages,
etc.); plastics (trash bags, IV bags, etc.); paper (disposable
gowns, sheets, etc.); waste chemicals; and pathological waste.
Most MWl's burn general medical waste, which may include a small
percentage ...of pathological waste.
About 5,000 MWI's currently operate throughout the country;
geographic distribution is relatively even (see Table A-9,
Appendix A). Of these 5,000 units, about 3,000 are hospital
incinerators, about 150 are commercial units, and the remaining
units are distributed among veterinary facilities, nursing homes,
laboratories, and other miscellaneous facilities.31
The primary functions of MWI's are to render the waste
biologically innocuous and to reduce the volume and mass of
solids that must be landfilled by combusting the organic material
contained within the waste. Currently, three major MWI types
operate in the United States: continuous-duty, intermittent-
duty, and batch type. All three have two chambers that operate
on a similar principle. Waste is fed to a primary chamber, where
it is heated and volatilized. The volatiles and combustion gases
are then sent to a secondary chamber, where combustion of the
volatiles is completed by adding air and heat. All mercury in
the waste is assumed to be volatilized during the combustion
process and emitted with the combustion stack gases.
3-31
-------
A number of air pollution, control systems are used to
control PM and gas emissions from MWI combustion stacks. Most of
these systems fall into the general classes of either wet or dry
systems. Wet systems typically comprise a wet scrubber, designed
for PM control (venturi scrubber or rotary atomizing scrubber),
in series with a packed-bed scrubber for acid gas removal and a
high-efficiency mist elimination system. Most dry systems use a
fabric filter for PM removal, but ESP's have been used on some of
the larger MWI's. All of these systems have limited success in
controlling mercury emissions. However, recent EPA studies
indicate that sorbent injection/fabric filtration systems cain
achieve improved mercury control by adding activated carbon to
the sorbent material.1
The estimated mercury emission factors for MWI's were
determined' by analyzing test data from several MWI facilities
tested by EPA. The emission estimate was generated by applying
average emission concentrations obtained from these tests to the
national population of incinerators using a model plant-based
approach.33
In a model plant-based approach all facilities that display
certain, characteristics are categorized into groups. Each group
is referred to as a "model plant." An overall emission estimate
is obtained by calculating the emission from each model plant,
multiplying it by each facility within the model plant group, and
summing all the groups together.
3-32
-------
Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI*a)
Sewage sludge incinerators are operated primarily by U.S.
cities »nA towns as a final stage of the municipal sewage
treatment process. Only a small percentage of U.S. cities use
sewage sludge incinerators. The estimated annual mercury
emissions from SSI'a account for 1.65 Mg/yr (1.82 tons/yr)-.
Mercury emissions occur when mercury, which exists in the sewage,
is combusted at high temperatures, vaporizes, and exits through
the gas exhaust stack.
About 210 SSI's currently operate in the United States. An
estimated 1.5 x 10* Mg (1.65 x 10s tons) of sewage sludge on a
dry basis are incinerated annually.33 Table A-10, Appendix A
shows the geographic distribution of sewage sludge incinerators
throughout the country. Most facilities are located in the
Eastern United States, but a substantial number also are located
on the West Coast. New York has the largest number of SSI
facilities with 33, followed by Pennsylvania and Michigan with 21
and 19, respectively.
Within the SSI category, three combustion techniques are
used: multiple-hearth, fluidized-bed, and electric infrared.
Multiple-hearth units predominate; over 80 percent of the
identified SSI's are multiple hearth. About 15 percent of the
SSI's in operation are fluidized bed units, about 3 percent are
electric infrared, and the remainder cofire sewage sludge with
municipal waste.33
3-33
-------
The- sewage sludge incinerator/ process involves two priaiary
steps: dewatering the sludge and incineration. The primary
source of mercury emissions from SSI's is the combustion stack.
Most SSI's are equipped with some type of wet scrubbing system
for PM control. Because wet systems provide gas cooling, as well
as PM removal, these systems can potentially provide some mercury
control.
The recently updated AP-42 for SSI's lists five emission
factors for various types of SSI's and controls: 0.005 g/Mg
(1.0 x 10~5 Ib/ton) for multiple hearth c ambus tors controlled
with a combination of venturi and impingement scrubbers,
0.03 g/Mg (6.0 x 10~5 Ib/ton) for fluidized bed combust or s
controlled with a combination of venturi and impingement
scrubbers, 2.3 g/Mg (4.6 x 10~3 Ib/ton) for multiple hearth
combustors controlled with a, cyclone scrubber, 1.6 g/Mg
(3.2 x 10~3 Ib/ton) for multiple hearth combustors controlled
with a combination of cyclone and venturi scrubbers, and
0.97 g/Mg (1.94 x 10"3 Ib/ton) for multiple hearth combustora
controlled with an impingement scrubber.33 Given that combust or
and control types are not known for all SSI's currently opex-ating
in the United States, average emission factors were calculated:
0.0175 g/Mg (3.5 x 10"s Ib/ton) for SSI's controlled with a
combination of venturi and impingement scrubbers and 1.623 g'/Mg
(3.25 x 10"3 Ib/ton) for SSI's controlled by any other type or
combination of types of scrubbers. Of the SSI's where data is
available, 32.6 percent of SSI's are controlled by a combination
3-34
-------
of venturi and impingement: scrubbers and 67.4 percent are
controlled by some other means. These percentages were assumed
to apply to the total population of SSI's. Multiplying the total
amount of sewage sludge incinerated annually, 1.5 x 10s Mg
(1.65 x 10s tons), by the appropriate percentage and emission
factor gives a mercury emission estimate of 0.009 Hg/yr
(0.01 tons/yr) for SSI's controlled with a combination of venturi
and impingement scrubbers and an estimate of 1.64 Mg/yr
(1.81 tons/yr) for SSI's controlled by some other means.
Therefore, the overall mercury emissions estimate from SSI's is
1.65 Mg/yr (1.82 tons/yr).
Wood Combustion
0
Wood and wood wastes are used as fuel in both the industrial
and residential sectors. In the industrial sector, wood waste is
fired to industrial boilers to provide process heat, while wood
is fired to fireplaces and wood stoves in the residential
sectors. No data are available on the mercury content of wood
and wood wastes. Consequently, this section briefly describes
the three combustion processes (boilers, fireplaces, and wood
stoves) and the control measures used for wood-fired processes
and provides data on emission factors.
Wood waste combustion in boilers is mostly confined to
industries in which wood waste is available as a byproduct.
These boilers, which are typically of spreader stoker or
3-35
-------
suspension-fired design, generate energy and alleviate poss:Lble
solid waste disposal problems. In boilers, wood waste is
normally burned in the form of hogged wood, sawdust, shavings,
chips, sanderdust, or wood trim. Heating values for this waste
range from about 9,300 to 12,000 kJ/kg (4,000 to 5,000 Btu/lb) of
fuel on a wet, as-fired basis. The moisture content is typically
near 50 weight percent but may vary from 5 to 75 weight percent,
depending on the waste type and storage operations. As of 1980,
about 1,600 wood-fired boilers were operating in the United
States, with a total capacity of approximately 30.5 gigawatts
(GW) (1.04 x 1011 Btu/hr) ,34 No specific data on the distribution
of these boilers were identified, but most are likely to be
located in the Southeast, the Pacific Northwest States,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine.1
9
Wood stoves, which are commonly used as space heaters in
residences, are found in three different types: (1) the
conventional wood stove, (2) the noncatalytic wood stove, and
(3) the catalytic wood stove. Fireplaces are used primarily for
aesthetic effects and secondarily as a supplemental heating
source in homes and other dwellings. Wood is most commonly used
as fuel, but coal and densified wood "logs" also may be burned.
All of the systems described above operate at temperatures
that are above the boiling point of mercury. Consequently, any
mercury contained in the fuel will be emitted with the combustion
gases via the' exhaust stack.
3-36
-------
Although, some wood stoves use emission control measures to
reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions, these techniques are not expected to affect mercury
emissions. However, wood waste boilers do use PM control
equipment, which may provide some reduction. The most common
control devices used to reduce PM emissions from wood-fired
boilers are mechanical- collectors, wet scrubbers* ESP'a, and
fabric filters. Only the last three have the potential for
mercury reduction. The most widely used wet scrubbers for wood-
fired boilers are venturi scrubbers, although no data have been
located on the performance of these systems relative to mercury
emissions. No data are available on mercury emission reduction
for fabric filters for wood combustors, but results for other
combustion sources suggest that efficiencies will be low,
probably 50 percent or less.1
The data on mercury emissions from wood combustion are
limited. A recent AP-42 study provided a range and average
typical emission factor for wood waste combustion in boilers
based on the results of seven tests. The average emission factor
of 0.34 x 10'5 kg/Mg (0.67 x 10"5 Ib/ton) of wood burned is
recommended as the best typical emission factor for wood waste
combustion in boilers.35 Dividing the total capacity of
wood-fired boilers, 30.5 GW (1.04 x 1011 Btu/hr), by the average
heating value of wood, 10,600 kJ/kg (4,560 Btu/lb), gives the
total hourly rate, 10,367 Mg/hr (11,404 tons/hr),34 Assuming
that wood-fired boilers operate at capacity at 8,760 hr/yr and
3-37
-------
multiplying by the above emission factor gives a mercury emission
estimate for wood-fired boilers of 0.3 Mg/yr (0.33 tons/yr).
For residential wood combustion, only one emission factor,
1.3 x 10'2 kg/Mg (2.6 x 10~5 Ib/ton), was found, which was based
on a single test burning a single type of wood (pine) at a single
location.36 In 1987, the Department of Energy estimated that
22.5 million households burned approximately 42.6 million cords
of wood.37 However, given that the densities of wood vary
greatly depending on wood type and the wetness of the wood and
that the above emission factor is from a single test, nationwide
emissions of mercury for residential wood combustion were not
estimated.
3.4.2 Manufacturing Sources
Manufacturing sources, including processes that use mercury
directly and those that produce mercury as a byproduct, account
for an estimated 94 Mg/yr (103 tons/yr) of mercury emissions
generated in the United States. These sources are identified in
Table 3-1 and discussed below.
Chlor-alkali Production Using the Mercury Cell Process
Chlor-alkali production using the mercury cell process,
which is the only chlor-alkali process using mercury, accounted
for 17 percent of all U.S. chlorine production in 1988.i The-.
3-38
-------
clilor-alkali industry is currently moving away from mercury cell
production and toward a membrane cell process because it does not
use mercury, is more energy efficient, and produces a higher-
quality product f.han the mercury cell process.3" Estimated
mercury emissions from chlor-alkali production using the mercury
cell process (18 facilities) were approximately 6.6 Mg (7.3 tons)
in 1991.
The mercury-cell chlor-alkali process consists of two
electrochemical cells, the electrolyzer and the decomposer. A
purified solution of saturated sodium or potassium brine flows
from the main brine saturation section, through the inlet end
box, and into the electrolyzer. The brine flows between
stationary activated titanium anodes suspended in the brine from
above and a mercury cathode, which flows concurrently with the
brine over a steel base.39
Chlorine gas is formed at the electrolyzer anode and is
collected for further treatment. The spent brine is recycled
from the electrolyzer to the main brine saturation section
through a dechlorination stage. Sodium is collected at the
electrolyzer cathode, forming an amalgam containing from 0.25 to
0.5 percent sodium. The outlet end box receives the sodium
amalgam from the electrolyzer, keeping it covered with an aqueous
layer to reduce mercury emissions. The outlet end box also
allows removal of thick mercury "butter" that is formed through
the outlet end box into the second cell (the decomposer).39
3-39
-------
The decomposer is a short-circuited electrical cell in an
electrolytic of sodium hydroxide solution. This cell has the
sodium amalgam as the anode and graphite or metal as the cathode.
Water added to the decomposer reacts with, the sodium amalgam to
produce elemental mercury, sodium hydroxide, and hydrogen gas (a
byproduct) . The mercury, stripped of sodium, is recirculatetd to
the cell through the inlet end box. The caustic soda solution
typically leaves the decomposer at a concentration of 50 percent
(by weight) and is filtered and further concentrated by
evaporation. The byproduct hydrogen gas may be vented to the
atmosphere, burned as a fuel, or used as a feed material fox*
other processes.39
Table 3-3 lists U.S. mercury-cell chlor-alkali production
facilities and their capacities. With the downward trend of
chlor-alkali production, there are no plans for construction of
new mercury-cell chlor-alkali facilities.38
The three primary sources of mercury air emissions are the
(1) byproduct hydrogen stream, (2) end box ventilation air, and
(3) cell room ventilation air. The byproduct hydrogen stream
from the decomposer is saturated with mercury vapor and may also
contain fine droplets of liquid mercury. The quantity of mercury
emitted in the end box ventilation air depends on the degree of
mercury saturation and the volumetric flow rate of the air. The
amount of mercury in the cell room ventilation air is variable
and comes from many sources, including end box sampling, removal
of mercury butter from end boxes, maintenance operations, mercury
3-40
-------
TABLE 3-3. 1991 U.S. MERCERY-CELL CHLOR-ALXALI
PRODUCTION FACILITIES40
Facility
Akzo Chemicals, Inc.
Georgia-pacific Corp.,
Ch.ou.cal Division
BF Goodrich, Chemical
Group
TTar.1 -in QrOUp , IQC . , LCP
Chemicals Division
Lin Chem, Inc.
Occidental Petroleum
Corporation ,
Electrochemicals Division
01 in Corporation, Olin
Chemicals
Pioneer Chi or Alkali
Company, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.,
Chemicals Group
Vulcan Materials Company,
Vulcan Chemicals Division
Location
La Moyne, AI>
Bellingham, WA
Calvert City, KT
Reigelwood, NC
Brunswick, -GA.
Moundsville, WV
Orrington, HE
Ashtabula, OH
Deer Park, TZ
Delaware City, DE
Mobile, AL
Muscle Shoals, AL
Augusta, GA
Charleston, TH
St. Gabriel, LA
Lake Charles, LA
New Martinsville, WV
Port Edwards, WI
TOTAL
Capacity,
101 Mg:/yr
70
82
109
48
96
79
76
36
347
126
34
132
102
230
160
1,041
313
65
3,146
Capacity,
103 tons/yr
78
90
120
53
106
87
80
40
383
139
37
146
112
254
176
1,148
345
72
3,466
1991 TRI
emissions,
U>s/yr
840
1,250
980
1,095
1,425
812
890
H/A
1,230
532
H/A
182
1,270
1,423
1,297
H/A
1,085
H/A
14,311
(6,546 kg/yr)
H/A - Hot available in the 1991 Toxic Releas
facilities not reporting mercury emis
emissions.
e Inventory (TRI). It is assumed that
lions in the 1991 TRI produce no mercury
3-41
-------
spills, equipment leaks, cell failure, and other unusual
circumstances.3S
The control techniques that are typically used to reduce the
level of mercury in the hydrogen streams and in the ventilation
stream from the end boxes are (1) gas stream cooling, (2) mist
eliminators, (3) scrubbers, and (4) adsorption on activated
carbon or molecular sieves. Mercury emissions via the cell room
air circulation are not subject to specific emission control
measures. However, concentrations are maintained at acceptable
worker exposure levels through good housekeeping practices and
equipment maintenance procedures.39
Gas stream cooling may be used as the primary mercury
q
8
control technique or as a preliminary removal step to be followed
by a more efficient control device. The hydrogen gas stream from
the decomposer exits at 93° to 127°C (200° to 260°F) and passes
into a primary cooler. In this indirect cooler, a shell-and-tube
heat exchanger with ambient temperature water is used to cool the
gas stream to 32° to 43 °C (90° to 110°F) . A knockout container
following the cooler is used to collect the mercury. If
additional mercury removal is desired, the gas stream may be
passed through a more efficient cooler or another device. Direct
or indirect coolers using chilled water or brine provide for more
efficient mercury removal by decreasing the temperature of the
gas stream to 3° to 13°C (37° to 55°F) . Regardless of the gas
stream treated, the water or brine from direct contact coolers
3-42
-------
requires water treatment: prior to reuse or discharge because of
the dissolved, mercury in the liquid.39
Mist eliminators (most commonly the filter pad type) can be
used to removed mercury droplets, water droplets, or PM from the
cooled gas streams. Particles trapped by the pad are removed by
periodically spraying the pad and collecting and treating the
spray solution.?9 .
Scrubbers are used to absorb the mercury chemically from
both the hydrogen stream and the end box ventilation streams.
The scrubbing solution is either depleted brine from the mercury
cell or a sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution. These solutions
are used in either sieve plate scrubbing towers or packed-bed
scrubbers. Mercury vapor and mist react with the sodium chloride
or hypochlorite scrubbing solution to form water-soluble mercury
complexes. If depleted brine is used, the brine solution is
transferred from the scrubber to the mercury cell, where it is
mixed with, fresh brine, and the mercury is recovered by
electrolysis in the cell.39
Sulfur- and iodine-impregnated carbon adsorption systems are
commonly used to reduce the mercury levels in the hydrogen gas
stream if high removal efficiencies are desired. This method
requires pretreatment of the gas stream by primary or secondary
cooling followed by mist eliminators to remove about 90 percent
of the mercury content of the gas stream. As the gas stream
passes through the carbon adsorber, the mercury -vapor is
initially adsorbed by the carbon and then reacts with the sulfur
3-43
-------
oxr iodine to form the corresponding mercury sulfides or iodides.
Several adsorber beds in series can be used to reduce the mercury
levels to the very low parts per billion (ppb) range.39
The most recent source of mercury emission data is a IS184
EPA report containing test data from 21 chlor-alkali production
facilities.39 The daily mercury emission rates presented in
Table 3-4 were calculated based, on these test data. Emission
control measures used at the facilities ranged from no controls
to a combination of control methods. However, emission factors
were not calculated from these data because the chlorine
production rates cited in the report for each of the facilities
appear to be based on process design capacity values rather j-.tian
actual production levels during the test. Daily production rates
based on capacities are not considered to be a reliable method
for estimating emission factors.
Data are also available from the 1991 Toxics Release
Inventory (TRX) , which provides the mercury emissions reported by
individual companies.41 The 1991 reported mercury emissions were
6.6 Mg (7.3 tons) and included 14 of the IS mercury cell chlor-
alJcali production facilities listed in Table 3-3. Emission
estimates based on these data do have some uncertainty because
the estimates are mostly based on engineering judgment, not on
emission tests, and the companies reporting to TRI are not
audited for accuracy. However, they are deemed to be the best
data available, and were used as the nationwide estimate for
mercury emissions from chlor-alkali production. Those facilities
3-44
-------
m
"CO
H
H
EH
H
J
H
O
£
g.
0
H
£?
Q
O
H
|
a
u
rjj
0
en
jgj
O
H
CO
H
S!
W
>*
j— ^
u
f*
u
s
m
W
J
a
T*
a*^
^^
01
9
U
M
|
a
i
§>
10
§
i^
§,
3
w •
o a
4J
oS
*•"
a
H.H
0 W
•H
t P^
*4
a
H
0
M
i
o
u
0
a
a
0
•H
a
i
PI
p«
o
0
0
rt
va
0
i
in
o
a
m
H
n
rt
•O
H
H
0
M
4J
g
u
I
a
0
•M
4J
A
rl
•H
I
i
1
^1
*
0
O
a
M
- H
«
H
I
0
0
O
**
in
in
H
1
a
o
o
*•*
at
00
H
f
00
a
H
•H
U
M
a
1
ia
i-t
o
m
r*
' in
• o
0
a
in
H
9t
H
41
M
O
1
A
H
A
U
4
M
0
3
H
PI
0
in
a*
in
o
i
H
O
O
in
in
00
^1
9
U
A
a
u
0
H
2
4
^
9
3
n
0
91
in
H
a
at
in
H
H
0
•9
u
a
4
M
0
3
09
in
0
va
PI
00
in
0
3
H
H
4
O
s
•H
a
M
9 M
y o
« A
r-l M
4 A
u a
«0
o "8
33
3-45
-------
not reporting mercury emissions in the 1991 TRX were assumed to
produce no mercury emissions.
Cement Manufacturing
United States cement kiln capacity data for 1990 showed a
total of 212 U.S. cement kilns with a combined total capacity of
73.5 x 10s Mg (81 x 10s tons).1 Of this total, 201 kilns were
active and had a total clinker capacity of 71.8 x 10s Mg
(79.1 x 10* tons) -1 Because the majority (95.7 percent) of i;his
cement was portland cement, portland cement production processes
and emissions will be the focus of this section.1 Total mercury
emissions from the portland cement process are estimated to be
5.9 Mg (6.5 tons) . In 1990, 68 percent of portland cement was
produced by the dry process and 32 percent by the wet process.42
The portland cement manufacturing process can be divided
into four major steps: raw material acquisition and handling,
kiln feed preparation, pyroprocessing, and finished cement
grinding.x
The initial step in the production of portland cement
manufacturing is acquiring raw materials, including calcium,
ores, and minerals. Mercury is expected to be present in the
ores and minerals extracted from the earth. However, no data
pertaining to mercury content in these minerals are available.
3-46
-------
Raw material preparation, the second step in the process,
includes a variety of blending and sizing operations designed to
provide a feed with appropriate chemical and physical properties.
Raw material processing differs somewhat for the wet and dry
processes. At dry process facilities, the moisture content in
the raw material, which can range between 2 and 35 percent, is
reduced to less frhg** 1 percent. Heat for drying is provided by
the exhaust gases from the pyroprocessor. At facilities where
the wet process is used, water is added to the raw material
during the grinding step, thereby producing a pumpable slurry
containing approximately 65 percent solids.
Pyroprocessing (thermal treatment) of the raw material is
carried out in a rotary kiln, which is the heart of the Portland
cement manufacturing process. During pyroprocessing, the raw
material is transformed into clinkers, which are gray, glass-
hard, spherically shaped nodules that range from 0.32 to 5.1 cm
(0.125 to 2.0 in.) in diameter.
The rotary kiln is a long, cylindrical, slightly inclined,
refractory-lined furnace. The raw material mix is introduced in
the kiln at the elevated end, and the combustion fuels are
introduced into the kiln at the lower end, in a countercurrent
manner. The rotary motion of the kiln transports the raw
material from the elevated end to the lower end. Fuel such as
coal or natural gas (or occasionally oil) is used to provide
energy for calcination. Other fuels, such as shredded municipal
garbage, chipped rubber, coke, and waste solvents are also being
3-47
-------
used more.frequently. Mercury is present in coal and oil and may
also be present in appreciable quantities in the waste-derived
fuels mentioned above. Because mercury evaporates at
approximately 350°C (660°F), most of the mercury present in the
raw materials can be expected to be emitted during the
pyroprocessing step. Combustion of fuel during the
pyroprocessing step also, contributes to mercury emissions.
Pyroprocessing can be accomplished by one of four different
processes: wet process, dry process, dry process with a
preheater, and dry process with a preheater/precalciner. These
processes essentially accomplish the same physical and chemical
steps described above. Depending on the prevalence of preheaters
and precalciners at facilities where portland cement is
manufactured by the dry process, these segments of the process
can be the primary sources of mercury emissions. This is because
mercury present in the raw material can evaporate readily during
the preheating and precalcining steps.
The last step in the pyroprocessing is cooling the clinker.
This process step recoups up to 30 percent of the heat input to
the kiln system, locks in desirable product qualities by freezing
mineralogy, and makes it possible to handle the cooled clinker
with conventional conveying equipment. Finally, after the cement
clinker is cooled, a sequence of blending and grinding operations
is carried out to transform the clinker into finished portland
cement.
3-48
-------
The primary sources of mercury emissions from portland
cement manufacturing are expected to be from tiie kiln and
preheating/precalcinlng steps. However, small quantities of
mercury may be emitted as a contaminant in the PM from process
fugitive emission sources. Process fugitive emission sources
include materials handling and transfer, raw milling and drying
operations in dry process facilities, and finish milling
operations. Typically, PM emissions from these process fugitive
sources are captured by a ventilation system comprising one or
more mechanical collectors with a fabric filter in a series.
Because the dust from these units is returned to the process,
they are considered to be process Tin its as well as air pollution
control devices. Because the mercury is in particle form, the
performance of these systems relative to mercury control is
expected to be equivalent to this overall PM performance, but no
data are available on mercury performance of fugitive control
measures.
In the pyroprocessing units, PM emissions are controlled by
fabric filters ESP's, and electrified gravel bed (E6B) filters.
Clinker cooler systems are controlled most frequently with pulse
jet or pulse plenum fabric filters, but reverse air fabric
filters, ESP's, and EGB's are becoming increasingly popular. No
data are available on the performance of these control systems
for mercury emissions. However, because they typically operate
at temperatures of 170°C (325°F) or greater, mercury removal is
expected to be substantially less frha™ overall PM control.
3-49
-------
Particle phase mercury emissions may be generated from all
four- processing steps. Additionally, vapor phase mercury
emissions can be expected from the rotary kiln and
preheater/precalciner. Mercury present in the raw material and
the fuel is likely to be emitted from these high-temperature
processes.
Cement kiln test reports were reviewed for facilities
performing Certification of Compliance (COG) tests required of
all kilns burning waste derived fuel (WDF) . Fifteen of the test
reports contained sufficient process information to allow
calculation of mercury emission factors for the kiln stack. The
results from these 15 kilns showed a range in average emission
factors from 2.23 x 10'3 to 0.49 g/Mg (4.5 x 10'* to
9.7 x 10"* Ib/ton) of clinker. The average emission factor Cor
all 15 facilities was 8.7 x 10'3 g/Mg (1.7 x 10"* Ib/ton) of
clinker. These data are based on all test runs.1
The total production of portland cement in 1990 was
67.5 x 10s Mg (74.5 x 10* tons) (95.7 percent of the total cement
production).1 Of the total production of portland cement,
96 percent was clinker, and the remaining 4 percent was other
ingredients.1 Multiplying the total amount of clinker produced
in 1990 (total production of portland cement multiplied by
96 percent) by the above average emission factor gives an
estimate of 5.9 Mg (6.5 tons) of mercury emissions from portland
cement manufacturing for 1990.
3-50
-------
Battery Production
Prior to the late 1980'a, most primary batteries and some
storage batteries contained mercury in the form of mercuric
oxide (HgO) , zinc amalgam (Zn-Hg) , mercuric chloride (HgCl2) , or
mercurous chloride (Hg2Cl2). However, from 1989 to 1991, the use
of mercury in battery production decreased 69 percent, with
further reductions expected in 1992.1 Because only one type of
battery, mercuric oxide batteries, still used mercury to any
measurable degree as of the end of 1992, it will be the only
battery discussed in this section. In 1991, an estimated 0.08 Mg
(0.09 ton) of mercury was emitted from the production of
batteries. Table 3-5 lists the manufacturers of mercuric oxide,
alkaline manganese, and zinc-carbon batteries and the associated.
emissions reported in the 1990 TRI.41 The data base made no
distinction of the type of battery each facility produces.
Mercuric oxide batteries are small, circular, relatively
flat batteries that are used in transistorized equipment, walkie-
talkie's, hearing aids, electronic watches, and other items
requiring small batteries. The mercuric oxide-zinc cells use
mercuric oxide (mixed with graphite and manganese dioxide) as the
cathode and a zinc amalgam at the anode.
In producing the cathodes, mercuric oxide, manganese
dioxide, and graphite are manually metered through a hopper to
the blending area.39 The resulting mixture is sent to a
processing unit in which it is compacted into tablets by
3-51
-------
TABLE 3-5. 1992 U.S. MERCURIC OXIDE, ALKALINE MANGANESE,
OR ZINC-CARBON BUTTON CELL BATTERY MANUFACTURERS1
Manufacturer
Alexander Manufacturing
Company (AMC , Inc . )
Duracell, USA
Eagle-Picher
Industries , Inc .
Eveready Battery
Company, Inc.
Mutec*
Rayovac Corp .
Production site
Mason City, IA
Cleveland, TN
LaGrange , GA
Lancaster, SC
Lexington, NC
Colorado Springs , CO
Maryville, MO
Red Oak, IA
Fremont , OH
Bennington, VT
Asheboro, NC (2
plants)
Columbus , GA
(Corporate offices)
Madison, WI
Fennimor e , WI
Portage, WI
1990 TRI emissions
kg (lb)41
0 (0)
NR
NR
9 (20)
3 (70)
- NR
14 (30)
NR
NR
1 (2)
2 (5)
NR
0 (0)
5 (10)
NR
*Mutec is a joint venture between Eastman Kodak and Panasonic
NR a Not reported, company did not appear in 1990 TRI.
3-52
-------
"slugging" (compression in a rotary pressing device to a
specified density). These tablets are then granulated into
uniformly sized particles and pallatized in a rotary press. The
pellets are consolidated into small metal cans that have a
diameter of less than 1.3 millimeters (mm) (0.05 in.).43
For the production of the anodes, elemental mercury and zinc
powder are metered from hoppers or holding tanks into an enclosed
blender to produce a zinc amalgam.43 The amalgam is sent to a
processing area, where it is blended and the anode gel formed.
The completed anodes and cathodes are then sent to the cell
manufacturing area. Separators, electrolytes, and other
components are assembled with the anode and cathode to produce
the HgO-Zn cell. Assembly may be automatic or semiautomatic.
The assembled cathode, anode, electrolyte, and cover are sealed
with a crimper. Depending on the design, other components may be
added. Those additional components may include an insulator, an
absorber, and a barrier. An integrated mercuric oxide battery
plant may also produce HgO and recycled mercury onsite.1
During the manufacture of mercuric oxide batteries, mercury
may be emitted from grinding, mixing, sieving, palletizing,
and/or consolidating operations as PM and as vapor emissions.
Baghouses are used to control PM emissions from the
mixing/blending and processing steps in the production of
cathodes. Mercury vapor emissions from the anode processing and
cell manufacturing areas are generally discharged to the
atmosphere uncontrolled. Ventilation air in the assembly room is
3-53
-------
recircnlated through. PM filters. One plant reported an average
of 73 percent mercury vapor removal efficiency in the cell
assembly room when an air handler system, consisting of a PM
prefilter and a charcoal filter, was operated using 75 percent
recirculating air and 25 percent fresh air.43
The only reported emission factor for a mercuric oxide
production facility was for one plant in Wisconsin.44 This
facility used a comb in at ion of a baghouse and charcoal filtesr to
treat the exhaust ventilation air. Annual use of mercury was
36.07 Mg (39.8 tons) and annual emissions were reported as
36.3 kg (80 Ib) of mercury as HgO particles. The mercury
emission factor for battery manufacture based on these data is
1.0 kg/Mg (2.0 Ib/ton) of mercury used. No mercury emissions
were reported for this facility in the 1990 TRI.41
Several factors limit the reliability of this emission
factor. First, the data are over 10 years old, and both
processes and emission controls may have changed in the interim.
Second, no information is presented on the bases of the emission
factor, but the mercury emission quantity is presumed to be an
engineering estimate by the manufacturer because no reference is
made to any emissions testing performed at the facility.
Finally, this factor is based on only one specific site, and that
facility may not represent all mercuric oxide battery
manufacturing facilities.
Emission source data from a study of an integrated mercury
button cell plant are summarized in Table 3-6.39 Major emission
3-54
-------
TABLE 3-6. EMISSION SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR AN INTEGRATED
MERCURY BUTTON CELL MANUFACTURING FACILITY39
Building/source
description*
Emission rate*
g/d
Ib/d
Exit temp. (K) ; control
device
Main plant
Control room
1. Blending, slugging,
compacting,
granulating
2 . Slugging, granulating
3 . Pelleting,
consolidating
4 . Pelleting,
consolidating
4a.
Pelleting,
consolidating
5 . Blending, compacting,
granulating,
pelleting,
consolidating
6.12
1.22
1.63C
42.46
6.53
1.36C
0.0135
0.0027
0.0036C
0.0936
0.0144
0.003*
297; Baghouse
297 ; Baghouse
295; Bagnouse
297; Bagnouse
297; Baghouse
297; Bagnouse
Anode room <
6 . Amalgam, dewatering
6a.
Vacuum dryer
6b.
Blending
7 . Pelleting, zinc
amalgam
1.82C
0.46C
0.91°
4.0SC
0.004C
0.001C
0 . 002C
0.009C
297; Uncontrolled
297 ; Uncontrolled
297; Uncontrolled
295; Bagnouse
Cell assembly area
8. Assembling calls
28.58
0.0630
295; Bagnouse for PM.
Vapor by recirculating air
through pref alters and
charcoal filters
'Source names are those used by facility.
''Emission rates were measured by facility except
Estimated emission rate by facility.
where noted.
3-55
-------
points were the palletizing and, consolidating1 operations (up to
42.46 g/d [0.094 Ib/d]} and cell assembly (28.58 g/d
[0.063 Ib/d]) . Emission controls were not in place for mercury
vapor emissions from the main plant.39 This plant reported total
mercury emissions of 3.2 kg (7 Ib) in the 1990 TRI."
In 1991, 78 Mg (86 tons) of mercury was were in the
production of batteries in the United States.14 Multiplying the
mercury usage by the emission factor developed for the facility
in Wisconsin gives a mercury emission estimate of 0.08 Mg
(0.09 tons) for 1991. However, this estimate is highly uncertain
because of the concerns discussed above about the reliability of
the emission factors.1 Mercury emission to the atmosphere when
batteries are disposed of are accounted for in the emission
estimate for MWC's and MWI's, as discussed in Section 3.4 of this
report.
Mercury is rated as one of the best electrical conductors
among the metals and is used in five areas of electrical
apparatus manufacturing: electric switches, thermal sensing1
elements, tungsten bar sintering, copper foil production, and
fluorescent light production. Overall mercury emissions from
electrical apparatus manufacturing was estimated to be 0.2 Mg
(0.2 ton) in 1991. No information on locations of manufacturers
3-56
-------
of electrical apparatus that specifically contain mercury is
available.
The primary use of elemental mercury in electrical apparatus
manufacturing is in the production of electric switches (electric
wall switches and electric switches for thermostats). Wall
switches consist of mercury, metal electrodes (contacts), and an
insulator in button-shaped metal cans. The wall switches are
manufactured by first assembling a component consisting of a
metal ring, a glass preform, a ceramic center, and a center
contact. This subassembly is then transferred to a rotating
multistation welding machine, located in an isolation room, where
it is filled with approximately 3 g (0.11 ounce) of mercury. The
filled subassembly is placed in the-button-shaped can, evacuated,
and welded shut. The assembled buttons then leave the insolation
room and are cleaned, zinc-plated, and assembled with other
components to form the completed wall switches.43
Thermostat switches are constructed using a short glass tube
with wire contacts sealed in one end of the tube. First, metal
electrodes (contacts) are inserted into small tubes. The tubes
are then heated at one end, constricted, and crimped closed
around the electrodes (sealing the electrodes into the glass
tube), and the apparatus is cleaned. The subassembly is then
transferred to the isolation fill room where mercury is added.
The open end of the mercury-filled tube is then heated,
constricted, and sealed. The filled tubes t"b«*n leave the
3-57
-------
isolation room, and wire leads are attached to the electrode:
contacts, which completes the switch assembly.43
A thermal sensing instrument consists of a temperature-
sensing bulb, a capillary tube, a mercury reservoir, and a
spring-loaded piston. The bulbs are made by cutting metal tubing
to the correct size, welding a plug to one end of the tube, and
attaching a coupling piece to the other end. A capillary is cut
to a specified length and welded to the coupling at the open end
of the bulb. The other end of the capillary is welded to a
•head" that houses the mechanical section of the sensor. The
bulb and capillary assembly are filled with mercury by a
multistation mercury filling machine that is housed in a
ventilated enclosure. After filling, the sensor is transferred
to a final assembly station, where a return spring and plunger
»
are set into a temporary housing on the head of the sensor. In
order to complete the temperature instrument, the sensor is then
attached to a controller and/or indicating device.43
Mercury is also used in tungsten bar sintering. Tungsten is
used as a raw material in manufacturing incandescent lamp
filaments. The manufacturing process starts with tungsten powder-
pressed into long, thin bars of a specified weight. These bars
are presintered and then sintered using a high-amperage
electrical current. During the tungsten bar sintering process,
mercury is used as a continuous electrical contact. The mercury
contact is contained in pools (mercury cups) located inside ttae
sintering unit.
3-58
-------
After the sintering process is completed, the bars are
cooled to ambient temperature to determine tne density of tne
tungsten bar. Metallic mercury is normally used in these
measurements because of its high, specific gravity. In order to
calculate the density of the tungsten bar, the tungsten bars are
dipped into a pool of mercury, and the weight of the displaced
mercury is determined. When the bar is removed from the mercury
pool, the mercury is brushed off into a tray of water that is
placed in front of the pool.43
High-purity copper foil, used as a laminate in printed
circuit boards, is produced by an electrodeposition process using
mercury as the electrical contacts. The initial step in the foil
production process is the dissolution of scrap copper in sulfuric
acid to form copper sulfate. The solution is then fed to the
plating operation, where the copper ions are electrodeposited on
rotating drums as copper metal. During the electrodeposition
process, a current passes between a lead anode and a rotating
drum cathode. As the drum rotates, the copper metal is
electrodeposited on the drum surface in the form of a continuous
thin foil sheet. The rotating drum requires using a rotating
electrical contact between the electrical connection and the drum
surface. Elemental mercury is used as the continuous contact
between the rotating shaft of the drum and the electric
connections. The liquid mercury is contained in a well located
at one end of the rotating drum shaft.43
3-59
-------
In fluorescent lamp production, precut glass tubes are
washed, dried, and coated with a liquid phosphor emulsion that
deposits a film on the inside of the lamp tube. Mount assemblies
are fused to each end of the glass lamp tube, which is then
transferred to an exhaust machine. On the exhaust machine, the
glass tube is exhausted and a small amount (15 to 250 mg
[3.3 x 10"s to 5.5 x 10"4 Ib]) of mercury is added. This mercury
adheres to the emulsion coating on the interior of the tube. The
excess mercury is then removed using a vacuum, after which t.tie
glass tube is filled with inert gas and sealed. After the Lamp-
tubes are sealed, metal bases are attached to the ends and are
cemented in place by heating.
The names and division headquarters of the fluorescent Lamp
manufacturers in the United States in 1992 are shown in
Table 3-7. The Sylvania/GTE facilities are currently being
purchased by Siemans Energy and Automation/OSRAM Corporation.1
TABLE 3-7. 1992 U.S. FLUORESCENT LAMP
MANUFACTURERS' HEADQUARTERS1
Company
Duro-Test Corp.
General Electric
Syl vania / GTE
Philips Lighting Company
Division headquarters
North Bergen, NJ
Cleveland, OH
Danvers , MA
Somerset , NJ
During electric switch manufacture, mercury may be emitted
during welding or filling operations, as a result of spills or
breakage, during product testing, and as a result of product
transfer. Often, emissions can be controlled by using effective
3-60
-------
gaskets and seals to containment of mercury in the process
streams. Also, good work practices such as discarding rejected
and broken switches under water and reducing the temperature in
the fill room can effectively suppress mercury vaporization.
Furthermore, local exhaust ventilation, custom-designed to fit
specific equipment, can reduce mercury vapor and mercury PM.43
During copper foil production, mercury can be emitted from
the drum room and the treatment room of the copper plating
process. Ventilated enclosures, with exhaust gases directed to
mercury vapor filters, can be used to control mercury emissions,
as can reducing the temperature of the mercury wells.43
During fluorescent lamp manufacturing, mercury can be
emitted by mercury purification, transfer,' and parts repair
during mercury handling; by the mercury injection operation; and
from broken lamps, spills, and waste material. Mercury air
levels during lamp production steps are reduced by process
modifications, containment, ventilated enclosures, local exhaust
ventilation, and temperature control.43
No specific information on emission control measures for
thermal sensing elements and tungsten bar sintering was found in
the literature. It is assumed that mercury is emitted during the
filling process for thermal sensing elements and during sintering
and final density measurements for tungsten bar sintering.
While mercury may be emitted from all of the aforementioned
areas of electrical apparatus manufacturing, no specific data for
mercury emissions from these areas were found in the literature,
3-61
-------
and. no emission test data were available to calculate mercury
emissions from each area. However, one 1973 EPA report presents
an emission factor of 4 kg of mercury emitted for each megagram
of mercury used (8 Ib/ton) in overall electrical apparatus
manufacture.17 This emission factor should be used with extreme-
caution, however, as it was based on engineering judgement and
not on actual test data and because production and mercury
control methods have probably changed considerably since 1973.
In 1991, 54 Mg (59 tons) of mercury was used in all
electrical apparatus production (29 Mg [32 tons] for electric
lighting and 25 Mg [27 tons] for wiring devices and switches) .14
Multiplying the emission factor above by the 1991 usage gives a
mercury emission estimate of 0.2 Mg (0.2 ton) for electrical
apparatus manufacture. However, because of the lack of
reliability of the emission factor, a high degree of uncertainty
is associated with this emission estimate.
Instrument (Thermometers) Manufacture
Mercury is used in many medical and industrial instruments
for measurement and control functions. These instruments include
thermometers, pressure-sensing devices, and navigational devices.
In 1991, an estimated 0.6 Mg (0.7 ton) of mercury was emitted
from instrument manufacture; however, this estimate should be
used with caution as discussed below.
3-62
-------
It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss all
instruments that use mercury in some measuring or controlling
function. Although there is potential for mercury emissions from
all instruments containing mercury/ this section will focus only
on the production .of thermometers because they represent the most
significant use and more information is available on thermometer
manufacture than on the manufacture of other instruments.
The production of glass thermometers begins by cutting glass
tubes into required lengths and bore sizes. Next, either a glass
or metal bulb, used to contain the mercury, is attached to the
base of the tube. The tubes axe filled with mercury in an
isolated room.< A typical mercury filling process is conducted
inside a bell jar. Each batch of tubes is set with open ends
down into a pan, and the pan set under the bell jar, which is
lowered and sealed. The tubes are heated to approximately 200°C
(390°F), and a vacuum is drawn inside the bell jar. Mercury is
allowed to flow into the pan from either an enclosed mercury
addition system or a manually filled reservoir. When the vacuum
in the jar is released, the resultant air pressure forces the
mercury into the bulbs and capillaries. After filling, the pan
of tubes is manually removed from the bell jar. Excess mercury
in the bottom of the pan is refiltered and used again in the
process ,43
Excess mercury in the tube stems is forced out the open ends
by heating the bulb ends of the tubes in a hot water or oil bath.
The mercury column is shortened to a specific height by flame-
3-63
-------
heating the open ends (burning-off process). The tubes are cut
to a. finished length just above the mercury column, and the ands
of the tubes are sealed. All of these operations are performed
manually at various work stations. A temperature scale is etched
onto the tube, completing the assembly.43
During the production of thermometers, mercury emissions can
be generated from mercury purification and transfer, the mercury
filling process, the heating-out/burning-off steps, and spills of
mercury, broken thermometers, and other accidents.1 Within the
industry, vapor emissions from mercury purification and transfer
are typically controlled by containment procedures, local exhaust
ventilation, temperature reduction to reduce the vapor pressure,
B
dilution ventilation, or isolation of the operation from other
work areas. The bore sizing step can be modified to reduce the
use of mercury and be performed in an isolated room. Other
measures that may be applied to this step are use of local
exhaust ventilation, dilution ventilation, and temperature
control.1
No specific data for mercury emissions from manufacturing
thermometers or any other instrument containing mercury were
found in the literature. However, one 1973 EPA report presents
an emission factor of 9 kg of mercury emitted for .each megagram
of mercury used (18 Ib/ton) in overall instrument manufacture.17
This emission factor should be used with extreme caution,
however, as it was based on survey responses gathered in the
1960's and not on actual test data. Instrument production and
3-64
-------
the mercury control methods used in instrument production have
probably changed considerably since the time of the surveys.
In 1991, 70 Mg (77 tons) of mercury was used in all
instrument production.17 Multiplying the emission factor above
by the 1991 usage gives a mercury emission, estimate of 0.6 Mg
(0.7 ton) for instrument manufacture. Again, a large degree of
uncertainty is associated with this estimate because of the
concerns about the reliability in the emission factor.
4
Primary Mercury Production
Mercury is currently only produced in the United States as a
byproduct from the mining of gold ores and is no longer produced
from mercury ore. The last U.S. mercury ore mine, the McDermitt
Mine in McDermitt, Nevada, ceased operation in 1990, and all its
equipment has since been dismantled, sold, landfilled, or
scrapped.1
In 1991, eight U.S. gold mines (six in Nevada, one in
California, and one in Utah) produced metallic mercury as a
byproduct. The names and locations of these mines are shown in
Table 3-8. No information was available on the amount of mercury
recovered at each facility, although the Bureau of Mines reported
that 58 Mg (64 tons) of mercury was produced as a byproduct of
gold ore mining in 1991 (51 percent less than in 1990).14 Data
3-65
-------
TABLE 3-8-. 1991 U.S. BYPRODUCT
• GOLD MINES14
MERCURY-PRODUCING
Mine
Getchell
Carl in Mines Complex
Hog Ranch
Jerri tt Canyon
(Enfield Bell)
McLaughlin
Mercur
Paradise Peak
Pinson and Kramer
Hill
County/State
Humboldt, NV
Eureka, NV
Washoe, NV
Elko, NV
Napa , CA
Tooele, UT
Nye, NV
Humboldt, NV
Operator
FMC Gold Co.
Newmont Gold Co.
Western Hog Ranch Co.
Independence Mining'
Co., Inc.
Homestake Mining Co.
Barrick Mercur Gold.
Mines, Inc.
FMC Gold Co.
Pinson Mining Co .
3-66
-------
are insufficient at this time to estimate the quantity of mercury
emissions generated as a byproduct of gold ore mining.
Since the closure of the McDermitt Mine, recovery of mercury
as a byproduct from gold ores is the only remaining ore-based
production process. The incoming gold ore is crushed using a
series of jaw crushers, cone crushers, and ball mills. If the
incoming ore is an oxide-based ore, no pretreatment is required,
and the crushed ore is mixed with water and sent to the
classifier. If the ore is a sulfide-based ore, it must be
pretreated using either a fluid bed or multiple hearth
pretreatment furnace (roaster) to convert metallic sulfides to
metallic oxides. The exhaust gas from either of these units is
sent through wet ESP'a and, if necessary, through carbon
condensers. The exhaust gas then passes through a lime sulfur
dioxide (SO2) scrubber prior to discharging to the atmosphere.
If the treated sulfide ore is high in mercury content, the
primary mercury recovery process occurs from the wet ESP's. If
the concentration is low, no attempt is made to recover the
mercury for sale. The pretreated ore is mixed with water and
sent to the classifier, where the ore is separated (classified)
according to size. Ore pieces too large to continue in the
process are returned to.the crusher operation.1
From the classifier, the slurry passes through a.
concentrator and then to a series of agitators containing the
cyanide leach solution. From the agitators, the slurry is
filtered, the filter cake sent to disposal, and the filtrate
3-67
-------
containing the gold and mercury is transferred to the
electrowinning process. If the carbon-in-pulp (CIP) process is
used, the cyanide pulp in the agitators is treated with activated
carbon to adsorb the gold and mercury. The carbon is filtered
from the agitator tanks and treated with an alkaline cyanide-
alcohol solution to desorb the metals. This liquid is then
transferred to the electrowinning tanks. In the electrowinning
process, the gold and mercury are electrodeposited onto a
stainless steel wool cathode, which is sent to a retort to remove
mercury and other volatile impurities. The stainless steel wool,
containing the gold, is transferred from the retort to a separate
smelting furnace, where the gold is volatilized and recovered as
crude bullion.1
The exhaust gas from the retort, containing mercury, SO.,,
PM, water vapor, and other volatile components, passes through
condenser tubes, where the mercury condenses as a licjuid and is
collected under water in the launders. From the launders, tJ.ie
mercury is purified and sent to storage. After passing through
the condenser tubes, the exhaust gas goes through a venturi and
impinger tower to remove PM and water droplets and then moves
through the SO2 scrubber prior to discharging to the atmosphere.1
Gold ores .in open heaps and dumps can also be treated by
cyanide leaching. In this process, the gold ore is placed on a
leaching pad and sprayed with the cyanide solution. The solution
migrates down through the ore to a collection system on the pad
and then is sent to a pregnant solution pond. From this pond,
3-68
-------
the leachate liquors, containing1 gold and mercury/ are
transferred to the gold recovery area. In this area, the liquor
is filtered and sent to the electrowinning process.x
Potential sources of mercury emissions from gold processing
facilities are at locations where furnaces, retorts, or other
high-temperature sources are used in the process and where the
mercury is removed from the launders. The treated gas discharged
to the atmosphere is also a source of mercury emissions.1
When pretreatment roasting is required, the exhaust gases
from the furnace pass through a cyclone to remove PM and then
move through wet ESP's. to remove arsenic, mercury, and some of
the SO2. If the mercury concentration in the gold ore is high,
e
the ESP's will not remove all of the mercury, and an activated
carbon adsorber bed may be required for additional mercury
removal. The gas passes through a lime scrubber to remove SO2;
if the SO2 concentration is low, a caustic scrubber may be used.
From the scrubber, the gas is discharged through the stack to the
atmosphere. Essentially, the same emission control measures are
used for the exhaust gas from the retort. After the gas passes
through the condenser tubes to remove the mercury, a venturi and
a cyclone are used to remove PM and water droplets. These
controls are followed by the lime scrubber to remove the SO2
prior to discharging to the atmosphere.
No emission data have been published for facilities
producing mercury as a byproduct of gold ore; therefore, no
estimate of mercury emissions from gold ore mining can be made at
3-69
-------
this time. However, the treatment techniques used to recover
mercury after it has been vaporized in a retort or furnace :Ln the
gold ore mining process are similar to those that were used in
primary mercury production from ore. Likewise, the overall
emission sources of mercury are similar for the two processes.
The estimated mercury emissions from mercury ore can therefore be
used as a benchmark for mercury emissions from gold ore.1
No specific data on emission factors from potential sources
of mercury emissions from mercury ore mining have been published
since 1973.x The 1973 report gives a total emission factor of
0.171 kg of mercury emitted for each megagram of mercury ore
mined (0.342 Ib/ton), which was based on stack tests conducted in
the early 1970's.17 However, this emission factor is for mercury
emissions from mercury ore mining only and cannot be used for
mercury emissions from gold ore mining. Therefore, no mercury
emission from gold ore mining were estimated for this report.
Secondary Mercury Production
Secondary mercury production (mercury recycling) involves
processing scrapped mercury-containing products, industrial waste
and scrap, and scrap mercury from government stocks. Secondary
mercury production is estimated to have accounted for
approximately 6.7 Mg (7.4 tons) of mercury emissions in 1991.
Major sources of recycled mercury include dental amalgams and
scrap mercury from instrument and electrical manufacturers (lamps
3-70
-------
and switches), wastes and sludges from research laboratories and
electrolytic refining plants, and mercury batteries.1 Table 3-9
lists the five major companies that were involved in secondary
mercury production in 1989.
TABLE 3-9. 1989 U.S. MERCURY RECYCLERS45
Adrow Chemical Company Wanaque, NJ
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc. He11artown, PA
D. F. Goldsmith - Chemical and Metals.Corp. Evanston, IL
Mercury Refining Company, Inc. ' Latham, NY
Wood Ridge Chemical Company Newark, NJ
Secondary mercury production (recycling) can be accomplished
by one of two general methods: chemical treatment or thermal
treatment.1 The most common method of recycling metallic mercury
is through thermal treatment. Generally, the mercury-containing
scrap is reduced in size and is heated in retorts or furnaces"at
•
about 538°C (1000°F) to vaporize the mercury. The mercury vapors
are condensed by water-cooled condensers and collected under
water.39'43
Vapors from the condenser, which may contain PM, organic
compounds and possibly other volatile materials from the scrap,
are combined with vapors from the mercury collector line. This
combined vapor stream is passed through an aqueous scrubber to
remove PM and acid gases (e.g., hydrogen chloride [HC1], SO2) .
From the aqueous scrubber, the vapor stream passes through a
charcoal filter to remove organic components prior to discharging
into the atmosphere.39
3-71
-------
The collected mercury is further purified by distillation
and then transferred to the filling area. In the filling area,
special filling devices are used to bottle small quantities,
usually 0.464 kg (1 Ib) or 2.3 kg (5 Ib) of distilled mercury.
With these.filling devices, the mercury flows by gravity through
tubing from a holding tank into the flask until the flask
overflows into an overflow bottle. The desired amount of mercury
is dispensed into the shipping bottle by opening a valve at the
bottom of the flask. The shipping bottle is then immediately
capped after the filling and sent to the storage area.43
Chemical treatment can encompass several methods for aqueous
mercury-containing waste streams. To precipitate metallic
mercury, the waste stream can be-treated with sodium borohydride
or the stream can be passed through a zinc-dust bed. Mercuric
sulfide can be precipitated from the waste streams by treatment
with a water-soluble sulfide, such as sodium sulfide.
Ion-exchange systems can be used to recover ionic mercury for
reuse, while mercuric ions can be trapped by treatment with
chemically modified cellulose.46
During secondary mercury production, emissions may
potentially occur from the retort or furnace operations, the
distillation percent, and the discharge to the atmosphere
process.39'43 The major mercury emission sources are the condenser
exhaust and fugitive vapor emissions that occur during unloading
of the retort chamber. Mercury emissions can also occur in the
3-72
-------
filling area when the flask overflows and during the bottling
process.
Information on specific emission control measures is limited
and site-specific. If a scrubber is used, mercury vapor or
droplets in the exhaust gas'may be removed by condensation in the
spray. No information was found for other control measures that
are being used in secondary mercury production processes.
Concentrations in the workroom air due to mercury vapor emissions
from the hot retort may be reduced by the following methods:
containment, local exhaust ventilation, dilution ventilation,
isolation, and/or personal protective equipment. No information
was provided to indicate that these methods are followed by any
type of emission control device.43 Vapor emissions due to
mercury transfer during the distillation or filling stages may be
reduced by containment, ventilation (local exhaust or
ventilation), or temperature control.
Because the secondary mercury production process has not
undergone any recent emission tests, virtually no data are
available for this process. In 1973, emission factors were
estimated to be 20 kg of mercury emitted per megagram of mercury
processed (40 Ib/ton) due to uncontrolled emissions over the
entire process.17 These data are not considered to be reliable
because (1) they are 20 years old, and processes may have changed
substantially since they were generated; and (2) no information
is available on their bases.
3-73
-------
In. 1991, 122 Mg- (134 tons) of mercury were recycled from
industrial scrap and 215 Mg (237 tons) from government stocks in
the United States.14 This total (337 Mg [371 tons]) does not
include in-house mercury reclamation at industrial plants using
mercury. Multiplying the total mercury recycled by the emission
factor gives a mercury emission estimate of 6.7 Mg (7.4 tons) for
1991. Again, this estimate has a high degree of uncertainty
because of the limited reliability of the emission factor.
Mercury Compounds Production
The production of mercury compounds presents a potential
source of mercury emissions into the atmosphere. Common mercury
compounds include mercuric chloride, mercuric oxide, and
pheny liner curie acetate (PMA) . Table 3-10 presents a list of
several producers of inorganic and organic mercury compounds!.
Because numerous mercury compounds are produced in the
United States, it is beyond the scope of this study to present
process descriptions for each one. Process descriptions of the
more common mercury compounds can be found in the mercury L&E
document.1
During the production of mercury compounds, emissions of
mercury vapor and particulate mercury compounds may occur at. the
following sources: reactors, driers, filters, grinders, and
transfer operations. No information was found on specific
emission control devices to remove or treat the mercury
3-74
-------
TABLE 3-10. 1991 U..S. MERCURY COMPOUND PRODUCERS
40
Producer
Atochem North America,
Inc . , Chemical
Specialties Division
Atomergic Chemetals Corp .
Cambrex Corp . , CasChem,
Inc., Subsidiary
(formerly Cosan Cham.
Corp.)
W.A. Cleary Corp.
Deepwater, Inc.
GPS Chemicals , Inc .
Huls America, Inc.
Imsera Group , Inc . ,
Mallinkrodt Inc . ,
Subsidiary, Mallinkrodt
Specialty Cham. Co.,
Morton International,
Inc . , Specialty Chemicals
Group, Advanced
Materials, CVD Inc.
Subsidiary
Polychemical
Laboratories , Inc .
R.S.A Corporation
Troy Chemical Corp.
Location
Tulsa, OK
Farmingdale, NY
Carlstadt, NJ
Somerset, NJ
Carson, CA
Columbus, OH
Elizabeth, NJ
Erie, PA
Woburn, MA
*
Melville, NY
Ardsley, NY
Newark, NJ
1991 TRI
emissions,
kg (lb)41
NR
NR
18 (40)
NR
NR
NR
0 (0)
227 (500)
NR
NR
NR
0 (0)
Compound (s)
HgF2
Thimerosal
(Merthiolate)
Phenylmercuric
acetate (PMA) ,
Phenylmercuric
oleate
Phenylmercuric
acetate (PMA)
HgI2
HgBr2, HgI2,
Hg(NO,)2, HgSO,
Pheny Imer cur i c
acetate (PMA)
HgClj on carbon
support
(catalyst for
vinyl chloride
manufacture )
Highly purified
dimethy Imercury ,
(CH3)2Hg, for '
chemical vapor
deposition (CVD)
of thin films
Thimerosal
(Merthiolate)
Hg ( SCN) 2
Phenylmercuric
acetate (PMA)
NR = Not reported; company did not appear in 1991 TRI.
3-75
-------
emissions/ but tlie. literature did contain, information on methods
designed to reduce the workplace concentrations without
subsequent treatment.43 Typically, these procedures included
some combination of enclosure or containment, process
modifications, exhaust ventilation, dilution ventilation, and
personal protective equipment.43 In some cases, ventilation
systems are reported to be ducted to cyclone dust collectors to
reduce dust emissions, but no information was located on mercury
vapor controls.1 No information was available from the
literature on mercury emissions or emission factors from the
production of mercury compounds; therefore, no mercury emission
estimate could be developed. As shown in Table 3-10, the only
company that reported significant emissions (227 kg [500 Ib]) in
the 1991 TRI was Mallinkrodt, Inc.
Carbon Black Production
The majority of U.S. manufactured carbon black (over
98 percent) is produced using a highly aromatic petrochemical or
carbochemical heavy oil feedstock containing mercury. In 1991,
mercury emissions from carbon black production were estimated to
be 0.23 Mg (0.25 ton). This estimate is expected to be an
overestimate because it is based on production capacity and not
on actual production. Table 3-11 lists the names, locations, and
annual capacities of U.S. producers of carbon black in 1991.
3-76
-------
TABLE 3-11. "1992 U.S. CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION FACILITIES
47
Company
Cabot Corporation
North American
Rubber Black
Division
Chevron Corporation
Chevron Chemical
Company, subsidiary
Olevins and
Derivatives Division
Degussa Corporation
Ebonex Corporation
General Carbon Company
Hoover Color Corporation
J.M. Huber Corporation
Phelps Dodge Corporation
Colombian Chemical
Company, subsidiary
Sir Richardson Carbon &
Gasoline Company
Witco Corporation
Continental Carbon
Company, subsidiary
Location
Franklin,
Louisiana
Pampa, Texas
Villa Platte,
Louisiana
Waverly, West
Virginia
Cedar Bayou,
Texas
Aransas Pass,
Texas
Belpre, Ohio
New Iberia,
Louisiana
Melvindale,
Michigan
Los Angeles,
California
Hiwassee,
Virginia
Baytown, Texas
Borger, Texas
Orange, Texas
El Dorado,
Arkansas
Moundsville, West
Virginia
North Bend,
Louisiana
Ulysses , Kansas
Addi s , Loui A i ana
Big Spring, Texas
Borger, Texas
Phenix City,
Alabama
Ponca City,
Oklahoma
Sunray, Texas
Type of
process*
F
F
P
P
A
P
F
P
C
C
C
P
P and T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
TOTAL
Annual capacity*
101 Mg
141
32
127
82
9
59
64
109
4
0.5
0.5
102
79
61
50
77
109
36
66
52
98
27
114
45
1,546
10J tons
155
35
140
90
10
65
70
120
4
0.5
0.5
112
87.5
67.5
55
85
120
40
72.5
57.5
107
30
125
50
1,700
*A = acetylene decomposition
C m combustion
P a furnace
T = thermal
"Capacities are variable and based on SRI estimates as of January 1, 1992.
3-77
-------
Three primary raw materials used in. the production of carbon
black are preheated feedstock (either the petrochemical oil or
carbochemical oil), which is preheated to a temperature between
150° and 250°C (300° and 480°F), preheated air, and an auxiliary
fuel such as natural gas. A turbulent, high-temperature zone is
created in the reactor by combusting the auxiliary fuel, and the
preheated oil feedstock is introduced in this zone as an atomized
spray. In this zone of the reactor, most of the oxygen is used
to burn the auxiliary fuel, resulting in insufficient oxygen to
combust the oil feedstock. Thus, pyrolysis of the feedstock is
achieved, and carbon black is produced. Most of the mercury
present in the feedstock is emitted in the hot exhaust gas from
the reactor.48'49
The product stream from the reactor is quenched with water,
and any residual heat in the product stream is used to preheat
the oil feedstock and combustion air before the carbon is
recovered in a fabric filter. Carbon recovered in the fabric
filter is in a fluffy form. The fluffy carbon black may be
ground in a grinder, if desired. Depending on the end use,
carbon black may be shipped in fluffy form or in the form of
pellets. Palletizing is done by a wet process in which carbon
black is mixed with water along with a binder and fed into a
pelletizer. The pellets are subsequently dried and bagged prior
to shipping.48'49
High-performance fabric filters are reported to be used to
control PM emissions from main process streams during the
3-78
-------
manufacture of carbon black. The fabric filters can reduce PM
emissions to levels as low as 6 milligrams per normal cubic meter
(mg/Nm3) (0.003 gr/dscf). Mercury emissions from the reactor are
primarily in the vapor phase, and these emissions will proceed
through the main process streams to the fabric filters as a
vapor. If the mercury remains in the vapor phase, the mercury
control efficiency of the fabric filters is expected to be low.
If the product gas stream is cooled to below 170°C (325°F), the
fabric filter may capture a. significant fraction of the condensed
mercury, thus providing a high degree of emission control.48
Mercury, which is present in the oil feedstock, can be
emitted during the pyrolysis step. However, no data are
available on the performance of the fabric filter control systems
for mercury emissions. The only available data are for emissions
from the oil-furnace process. These data show mercury emission
to be 1.5 x 10-4 kg/Mg (3 x 10"4 Ib/ton) from the main process
vent.50 The source of these data could not be obtained in order
to validate of the emission factors. Because the factors are not
verified, they are considered to be of limited reliability.
In 1991, the total capacity for carbon black production was
1.55 x 10s Mg (1.7 x 10s tons).47 Multiplying the total capacity
by the emission factor above gives a mercury emission estimate of
0.23 Mg (0.25 tons). This estimate may be greater than the
actual emissions because it is based on production capacity and
not on actual production. On the other hand, this estimate may
understate the actual mercury emissions because the data are from
3-79
-------
the oil-furnace process only and not the main, process streams.
Therefore, it is difficult to determine if this estimate
overstates or understates the actual mercury emissions.
Byproduct Coke Production
Byproduct coke, also called metallurgical coke, is a primary
feedstock for the integrated iron and steel industry. Because no
information concerning mercury emissions from the production of
byproduct coke could be found in the literature, no nationwide
mercury emission estimates were generated. Table 3-12 conta.ins a
list of U.S. byproduct coke oven facilities in 1991.
Coke is currently produced in two types of coke oven
batteries: the slot oven byproduct battery and the nonrecovery
battery. The slot oven byproduct type is by far the most
commonly used battery; over 99 percent of coke produced in 1990
was produced in this type of battery."'53
The byproduct coke oven battery consists of a series
(ranging from 10 to 100) of narrow ovens, 0.4 to 0.6 m (1.3 to
2 ft) wide, and 12 to 18 m (40 to 60 ft) long. The height cf the
ovens may range between 3 and 6m (10 and 20 ft). Depending on
the dimensions, the production capacity may range between 6.8 and
35 Mg (7.5 and 39 tons) of coke per batch. A heating flue is
located between each oven pair.52'53
Pulverized coal, which is the feedstock, is fed through
ports located on the top of each oven by a car that travels on
3-80
-------
TABLE 3-12. 1991 U.S. BYPRODUCT COKE PRODUCERS
51
Facility
Acme Steel, Chicago, XL
Armco , Inc . , Ashland , KY
Armco, Inc., Middlaton, OH
Bethlehem Steel, Bethlehem, PA
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel,
Lacfcawanna , NY
Bethlehem Steel,
Sparrows Point, MD
Geneva Steel, Or em, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, Pittsburgh, PA
LTV Steel, Chicago, IL
LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH
LTV Steel, Warren, OH
National Steel, •
Granite City, IL
National Steel, Ecorse, MI
USS, Div. of USX Corp.,
Clairton, PA
USS, Div. of USX Corp.,
Gary, IN
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel,
East Steubenville, WV
Total
No. of
batteries
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
6
5
1
2
1
2
1
12
6
4
58
Total No.
of ovens
100
146
203
284
164
152
210
208
130
446
315
60
126
85
90
78
816
422
224
4,259
Total capacity,
Mg/d (ton/d)
1,450 (1,600)
2,450 (2,700)
4,130 (4,540)
3,580 (3,940)
3,980 (4,380)
1,700 (1,8-70)
3,700 (4,070)
2,050 (2,250)
2,550 (2,800)
5,250 (5,780)
4,910 (5,400)
1,450 (1,600)
2,910 (3,200)
1,360 (1,500)
1,380 (1,520)
840 (925)
11,490 (12,640)
6,490 (7,140)
3,450 (3,800)
65,120 (71,660)
3-81
-------
tracks along the top of each battery. The ports are sealed upon
charging, and gaseous fuel is combusted in the flues located
between the ovens to provide the energy for the pyrolysis. The
coking process takes place for between 12 and 20 hours, at t.tie
end of which almost all the volatile matter from the coal is
driven off, thus forming coke. The coke is then unloaded from
the ovens through _vertical doors on each end of the oven into a
rail car, where it is cooled by being sprayed with several
thousand gallons of water. The rail car then unloads the coke in
a separate area, where the coke is allowed to cool further .S2>S3
Mercury is present in coal in appreciable quantities. .
Depending on the type of coal used, the mercury content can be as
high as 8 parts per million by weight (ppmwt-) . Consequently, the
volatile gases that evolve from the coking operation are likely
to contain mercury."•"
Emissions at byproduct coke plants are generated during coal
preparation, oven charging operations, and pursuing operations.
Emissions are also generated from door leaks and from the battery
stack. The battery stack emissions are primarily a result of
leakage from the oven into the flue. Mercury emissions can be
generated in small quantities during coal preparation and
handling as fugitive PM because mercury is present as a trace
contaminant in coal. Mercury also may be volatilized and
released during charging and pushing operations as well as from
the battery stacks and door and topside leaks. Emission levels
are expected to be minimal, but no data are available.
3-82
-------
Primary Lead Smelting
Primary lead smelters recover lead from a sulfide ore, which
contains mercury, and emitted an estimated 8.2 Mg (9 tons) of
mercury into the atmosphere in 1990. Table 3-13 gives the
locations and 1990 production rates of the three primary lead
smelters that are currently operating in the United States.
TABLE 3-13. 1990 U.S. PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES54
Smelter
ASARCO, East Helena, MT
ASARCO, Glover, MO
Doe Run ( formerly St . Joe ) ,
Herculancum, MO
Refinery
ASARCO,
ASARCO,
Doe Run
MO
Omaha, NE
Glover
, Herculancum,
1990 Production,
Mg (tons)
65,800
(72,500)
112,000
(123,200)
231,000
(254,100)
Recovery of lead from the lead ore in primary lead smelters
consists of three main steps: sintering, reduction, and
refining. The sintering machine, which converts lead sulfide in
the ore to lead and lead oxide, is a continuous steel pallet
conveyor belt. Each pallet consists of perforated grates,
beneath which are wind boxes connected to fans to provide a draft
through the moving sinter charge. The sintering reactions on the
grate take place at about 1000°C (1832°F). Because mercury
evaporates at approximately 350°C (660°F), most of the mercury
present in the ore is assumed to be emitted as a vapor in the
sintering machine exhaust gas either as elemental mercury or as
mercuric oxide.53
3-83
-------
Reduction of the sintered lead is carried out in a blast
furnace at a temperature of 1600°C (2920°F). The furnace is
charged with a mixture of sinter (SO to 90 percent of charge),
metallurgical coke (8 to 14 percent of charge), and other
materials, such as limestone, silica, litharge, and unspecified
slag-forming constituents. In the blast furnace, the lead
sulfate and lead oxide in sinter is reduced to lead. The heat
for the reaction is supplied by the combustion of coke.
Impurities are removed from the furnace as slag, which is either
processed at the smelter for its metal content or shipped to
treatment facilities. The impurities include arsenic, antimony,
copper sulfide and other metal sulfides, and silicates. Lead
bullion, which is the primary product, undergoes a preliminary
treatment to remove impurities, such as copper, sulfur, arsenic,
antimony, and nickel, before carrying out further refining. Any
residual mercury left in the ore after sintering will be emitted
during the reduction step.53
The lead bullion is refined in cast iron kettles. Refined
lead, which is 99.99 to 99.999 percent pure is cast into pigs for
shipment.53 Mercury emissions from refining operations are
expected to be negligible.
Primary lead smelters use high-efficiency emission control
systems to reduce the levels of PM and SO2 from the blast furnace
and sintering machines. Centrifugal collectors (cyclones) are
used in conjunction with baghouses or ESP's for PM control.
Control of SO2 emissions is achieved by absorption to form
3-84
-------
sulfuric acid in the sulfuric acid plants, which are commonly
part of lead smelting plants. Because mercury is emitted from
these as a vapor and these PM control systems often operate at
temperatures at which mercury has a significant vapor pressure,
these PM control devices are expected to have little effect on
mercury emissions from the sintering machine and blast furnace.
However, no .data are available on performance of these systems
with respect to mercury emissions.53
Mercury, which may be present in the ore, may be emitted
during the sintering and blast furnace steps and in the dressing
area because these processes take place at high temperatures.
The most recent emission factor data available for mercury
emissions from primary lead smelting are presented in Table 3-
14." These data represent emission factors for a custom smelter
operated by ASARCO in El Paso, Texas; this facility ceased
operating in 1985. No recent mercury emission factors are
available for the three current primary lead smelters. The
custom smelter in El Paso obtained lead ore from several sources
both within and outside the United States. These ores had a
variable mercury content depending upon the source of the ore.
Two of the three current smelters are not custom smelters; they
typically process ore from the vicinity of the smelter. The two
smelters in Missouri use ore only from southeast Missouri; these
ores have a very low mercury content. The ASAHCO-East Helena
plant, although a custom smelter, processes low mercury
concentrates. None of the three primary lead smelters reported
3-85
-------
TABLE 3-14. MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING
Process
Materials Handling:
Ore crushing
Materials Handling:
Sinter charge
mixing
Sintering Machine
leakage
Blast furnace
Slag fuming furnace
Slag pouring
Dross reverberatory
furnace
Emission factor
g/Mg
1.2*
6.5°
0.7"
1.9°
1.7"
"0.45°
0.08°
Ib/ton
0.0024*
0.013°
0.0014
0.0038°
0.0034d
0.0009d
0.00016°
Notes
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Baghousei
sampling data
Baghouse
sampling d.ita
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
sampling data
Source: Reference 55
'Per ton (or Mg) of raw materials.
bPer ton (or Mg) of sinter.
°Per ton (or Mg) of concentrated ore.
dPer ton (or Mg) of lead product. •
3-86
-------
mercury emission data in the 1990 TROT, indicating that emissions
from the sources are estimated to be below the TRI reporting
threshold.
Because the data in Table 3-14 were based on ores with a
variable mercury content and the current sources of lead ore have-
a low mercury content, the emission factors in Table 3-14
probably would lead to an overestimation of current emissions. ,,
The estimated lead ore utilization quantity in 1990 was
3.74 x 10s Mg (4.11 x 10* tons).1 Based on background information
developed for the new source performance standards (NSPS) for
lead smelters, 100 units of ore yields 10 units of ore
concentrate, 9 units of sinter, and 4.5 units of refined lead.56
Multiplying the product yield information in the NSPS by the
appropriate emission factor, as shown in Table 3-14, gives a
total mercury emission estimate of 8.2 Mg (9 tons) for primary
lead smelters in 1990. Because substantial assumptions were used
to convert the emission factors to a lead production basis, this
emission estimate has a high degree of uncertainty.
Primary Copper Smelting
Copper is recovered from a sulfide ore principally by
pyrometallurgical smelting methods. The ore contains significant
quantities of arsenic, cadmium, lead, antimony, and mercury.
Table 3-15 gives the locations and 1992 production capacities of
primary copper smelters currently operating in the United States.
3-87
-------
Data pertaining to mercury contents of the ore are not
available.1
TABLE 3-15
1992 U.S. PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
AND REFINERIES58
Smelter
ASARCO Inc.
Cyprus Miami Mining Co.
MAGMA Copper Co.
Copper Range Co.
Phelps Dodge
Chino Mines Co.
ASARCO Inc.
Kennecott
Location
Hayden, AZ
Globe, AZ
San Manuel, AZ "
White Pine, MI
Hidalgo, NM
Hurley, NM
El Paso, TX
Garfield, UT
1992 Capacity, Mg (tons)
170,000 (187,000)
180,000 (198,000)
290,000(319,000)
60,000 (66,000)
190,000 (209,000)
170,000 (187,000)
104,000(114,400)
210,000 (231,000)
A conventional copper smelting process sequentially involves
roasting ore concentrates to produce calcine, smelting of roasted
or unroasted ore concentrates to produce matte, converting matte
to produce blister copper, and fire refining the blister copper
in an anode furnace. After fire refining, the 99.5 percent pure
copper is cast into "anodes" and sent' to an electrolytic refinery
for further impurity removal.2S
Roasting involves heating a copper concentrate mixed with a
siliceous flux to about 650°C (1200°F) to eliminate 20 to
50 percent of the sulfur impurities.25 Portions of antimony,
arsenic, and lead impurities are driven off, and some iron is
converted to oxide. Because mercury has a boiling point of 350°C
(660°F) it will be volatilized and emitted as a vapor in the
roaster exhaust gas.
3-88
-------
. Smelting produces a copper matte by melting hot calcine from
the roaster, or raw unroasted concentrate, with siliceous flux in
a furnace. The mattes produced by domestic smelters range from
35 to 65 percent copper. Smelting furnace technologies operate
at temperatures well above the boiling point of mercury, with
operating ranges as high as 2500°C (4530°F). Hence, any residual
mercury remaining in the calcine will likely be emitted as an air
pollutant during smelting, and any mercury contained in the raw,
unroasted concentrate will likely emit during this process
step.25
The final step in the production of molten "blister" copper
is converting. Converting eliminates remaining iron and sulfur
impurities, leaving 98.5 to 99.5 percent pure copper. Converting
involves molten matte, siliceous flux, and scrap copper being
charged in a rotating cylindrical shell, where air or oxygen rich
air is blown through the molten matte. Blowing and slag skimming
are repeated until relatively pure Cu2S, called "white metal"
accumulates in the bottom of the converter. A renewed air blast
then oxidizes the copper sulfide to SO2, leaving blister copper.
Blister copper is then removed and transferred to refining
facilities. Further purification may involve fire refining and
electrolytic refining.25
Copper smelters use high efficiency air pollution control
options to control PM and SO2 emissions from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters. Electrostatic pracipitators are the
most common PM control device at copper smelters. Control of S02
3-89
-------
emissions is achieved by absorption to sulfuric acid in the
sulfuric acid plants, which are common to all copper smelters.
Mercury emission data for primary copper smelting facilities
are very limited. One emission test report for the Copper Range
Company located in White. Pine, Michigan, containing metals
analysis results was reviewed during this study.58 This facility
operates a reverberatory furnace with an ESP to control PM. The
exhaust stream from the converter (which is uncontrolled) is
mixed with the exhaust from the ESP outlet and is routed through
the main stack and discharged into the atmosphere. Testing for
metals was performed at a location in the main stack downstream
from the point where the two exhaust streams (from the ESP outlet
and the converter) are combined. Mercury emissions were measured
for three modes of converter.operation: slag-blow, copper-blow,
and converter idle (no blow) cycles. The mercury level during
the converter idle cycle was measured to be the highest,
corresponding to a mercury emission rate of 0.0753 kg/hr
(0.166 Ib/hr). During the slag-flow and copper-flow periods, the
emission rates were 0.0494 kg/hr (0.109 Ib/hr) and 0.0635 kg/hr
(0.140 Ib/hr), respectively. Additionally, the plant capacity
was reported to be approximately 38 Mg/hr (42 tons/hr) of feed,
which consists of mill concentrate, limestone, iron pyrites, and
recycled material. The actual process rate during the test is
not known, so an emission factor cannot be calculated from this
test.
3-90
-------
Because the feed mix varies from facility to facility and
because the Copper Range Company is the only facility in the
United States that operates a reverberatory, the emission data
from the Copper Range Company may not be representative of
industry practice. As a result, a mercury emissions estimate of
0.6 Mg/yr (0.7 tons/yr) from this one facility was calculated
using an emission rate of 0.068 kg/hr (0.15 Ib/hr), and an
operating schedule of 8,760 hr/yr. Nationwide mercury emissions
from this source category as a whole are expected to be higher
than this estimate.
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum refining involves converting crude petroleum oil *
into refined products, including liquified petroleum gas,
gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oils,
lubricating oils, and feedstocks for the petroleum industry.
Mercury is reported to be present in petroleum crude, with its
content ranging from 0.023 to 30 ppmwt.12
As of January 1992, there were 32 oil companies in the
United States with operable atmospheric crude oil distillation
capacities in excess of 100,000 barrels per calendar day. These
oil companies operated refineries at a total of 110 different
locations. In addition, there are 72 companies with distillation
capacities of less than 100,000 barrels per calendar day.59
3-91
-------
The operations at refineries are classified into five
general categories: separation processes, petroleum conversion
processes, petroleum treating processes, feedstock and product
handling, and auxiliary facilities. In the separation process,
crude oil is separated into its constituents (including
paraffinic, naphthionic, and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds) by
either atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, or gas
processing (recovery of light ends). Conversion processes
include cracking, coking, and visbreaking, which breaks larg'e
molecules into smaller molecules; isomerization and reforming
processes to rearrange the structures of molecules; and
polymerization and alkylation to combine small molecules into
larger ones.1
Petroleum treatment processes include hydrodesulfurization,
hydrotreating, chemical sweetening, acid gas removal, and
deasphalting. These treatment methods are used to stabilize and
upgrade petroleum products. Feedstock and product handling
includes storage, blending, loading, and unloading of petroleum
crude and petroleum products. Auxiliary facilities include
boilers, gas turbines, wastewater treatment facilities, hydrogen
plants, cooling towers, and sulfur recovery units.1
Control of VOC emissions from distillation, catalytic
cracking, coking, blowdown system, sweetening, and asphalt
blowing is achieved by flares. In some cases, the VOC-laden gas
stream is also used as fuel in process heaters. Cyclones in
conjunction with ESP's emissions from catalytic cracking.1 These
3-92
-------
control measures are expected to have little effect on mercury
emissions.
The primary source of mercury emissions in petroleum
refining is the separation process, although mercury emissions
can also be expected in the petroleum conversion and petroleum
treating processes.1 A mercury emission factor for the fluid
coking unit in the conversion step was obtained from SPECIATE but
the original references could not be obtained to confirm the
emission data. Therefore, the data from SPECIATE were judged to
be unacceptable for use. Mercury emission data were obtained
from the GARB Air Toxics Emission Inventory Report for selected
processes in petroleum refining using refinery gas as the fuel.
No data could be located for the nationwide volume of refining
gas used for these selected processes. Therefore, no mercury
emissions could be calculated for the petroleum refining
industry.
Lime Manufacturing
Lime is produced in various forms, with the bulk of
production yielding either hydrated lime or quickline. In 1992,
producers sold or used 16.4 x 10* Mg (18 x 10* tons) of lime
produced at 113 plants in 32 States and Puerto Rico. The 1992
production represented a 4 percent increase over 1991 production.
The leading domestic uses for lime include steelmaking, flue gas
3-93
-------
The- leading domestic uses for lime include steelmaking, flue* gas
desulfurization, pulp and paper manufacturing/ water
purification, and soil stabilization.50
Table 3-16 identifies the top 10 lime-producing plants in
the United States/ in order of total output for 1991.sl Lime
production is geographically concentrated as demonstrated by 1989
production data, when 63 percent of the U.S. total was produced
in seven States (in order of decreasing production; Missouri,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, and Illinois).62
Commercial production of the various forms of lime involves
the following basic steps.
1. Quarrying raw limestone (or limestone and dolomite) ;
2. Stone processing or crushing and sizing in preparation
for calculation;
3. Calcining the crushed stone in high temperature kilns
(producing quicklime) ;
4. Hydrating the processed lime (to produce hydrated lime
from quickline); and
*
5. Miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling processes.
Emissions from quarrying or stone extraction are largely
restricted to fugitive dust, as are the emissions from stone;
processing, crushing, and sizing. Mercury emissions are expected
to be negligible from these initial steps in lime production.
Calcining, which uses high temperature kilns to convert:
carbonate to oxide (removing C02) , is the lime production step
from which most mercury emissions are expected. Rotary kilns are
3-94
-------
TABLE 3-16. LEADING 1991 U.S. LIME PRODUCING PLANTS61
Plant
Company
Location
Ste. Genevieve
Maysville Division
Black River Division
Montavello Plant
Woodville Plant
Longview Division
South Chicago Plant
Nelson Plant
Clifton Plant
Annville Plant
Mississippi Lime Company
Dravo Lime Company
Dravo Lime Company
Allied Lime Company
Martin Marietta Magnesia
Dravo Lime Company
Marblehead Lime Company
Chemstar, Inc.
Chemical Lime, Inc.
Wimpey Minerals PA, Inc.
Ste. Genevieve County, MO
Mason County, KY
Pendleton County, KY
Shelby County, AL
Sandusky County, OH
Shelby County, AL
Cook County, IL
Yavapai County, AZ
Bosque County, TX
Lebanon, PA
primarily used in the calcining step in the United States,
•
accounting for 90 percent of domestic lime kilns. Other types of
lime kilns include vertical kilns, rotary hearths, and fluidized
bed kilns. During calcination, kiln temperature may reach as
high as 1820°C (3300°P).x Because mercury has a boiling point of
350°C (660°F), most of the mercury that exists as impurities in
the processed stone will likely emit as an air pollutant during
calcination.
Fuels, including primarily coal, oil, petroleum coke, or
natural gas, are used to provide the energy for calcination.
Petroleum coke is usually used in combination with coal.
Auxiliary fuels may include shredded municipal garbage, chipped
rubber, or waste solvent. Mercury is expected to be present in
the coal, oil, and possibly in appreciable quantities in any
waste-derived fuels. Any mercury emitted from fuel combustion
3-95
-------
wilL occur during the calcination step and will be discharged as
vapor kiln exhausts.
The quicklime that is produced by calcination may then be
hydrated gases. The hydration step may be immediately preceded
by some crushing, pulverizing, and separation of dolomitic
quicklime form high calcium and dolomitic quicklime. The
hydration; the preliminary process steps; and handling, storage,
and transfer are not likely sources for mercury emissions during
lime production.
Air pollution control devices for lime kilns are primarily
used to recover product or control fugitive dust and PM
emissions. Calcination kiln exhaust is typically routed to a
cyclone for product recovery, and then routed through a fabric
filter or ESP's to collect fine particulate emissions. Other
emission controls found at lime kilns include wet scrubbers
(typically venturi scrubbers). How well these various air
pollution control devices perform relative to vapor phase mercury
emissions in lime production is not well documented. The control
efficiencies are expected to be similar to those observed in the
production of portland cement, however, because of the
similarities in the process and control devices.
Representative estimates of mercury emissions from lime
manufacturing are not possible based on the available data from
lime kilns around the country. An ongoing EPA study to updace
AP-42, Section 8.15, on lime manufacturing emission factors :tias
reviewed and summarized test data for lime calcining at
3-96
-------
93 kilns.53 Pollutants identified and noted in a summary of the
test data did not indicate any mercury emissions and gave little
or no indication that emissions tests at lime kilns have sampled
and analyzed for trace metals. However, two very limited
estimation efforts for mercury emissions are offered in the
following discussion: one using 1983 mercury emission test data
from only five Wisconsin lime-plants? and, the- other, from a-draft
report on 1983 mercury emission data from a pulp and paper lime
kiln, which is referenced in SPECIATE.
Emission estimates based on mass balances generated from
information for mercury content in limestone from the five
operating lime kilns in Wisconsin in 1983, revealed mercury
emission estimates of 18 kg/yr (39 Ib'/yr) for all the kilns
combined.44 In 1983, these five lime plants produced -
0.29 x 10s Mg (0.32 x 10s tons) of lime." Assuming uniform
emissions for each ton of production suggests that 5.53 x 10~s kg
(1.22 x 10~4 Ib) of mercury were emitted for each Mg (ton) of
lime produced. These data do not account for any differences in
fuel used to heat the kilns or any differences in raw materials
used. However, natural gas, which is beleived to contain
negligible amounts of mercury, is used to fire 33 percent of the
lime kilns. Therefore, total estimated annual emissions would be
reduced by 33 percent to reflect the lack of mercury emissions
from natural gas.
If the Wisconsin data is extrapolated to the lime production
in the United States in 1992, an annual estimate of mercury
3-97
-------
emissions from lime kilns of 0.91 Mg/yr (1.00 ton/yr). Assuming
that 33 percent of lime kilns use natural gas as their fuel
source and produce no mercury emissions reduces this estimate to
0.61 Mg/yr (0.67 tons/yr). This estimate has a high level of
uncertainty because material composition could vary significantly
across the country/ and the fuel type(s) used in Wisconsin may
not be representative of those used nationally.
3.4.3 Miscellaneous Sources
Miscellaneous sources are sources that are not readily
classified as combustion or manufacturing sources of mercury or
are sources that once emitted mercury but currently do not.
These sources account for an estimated 1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 tons/yr) of
v
mercury emissions generated in the United States and include
geothermal power plants, pigments, oil shale retorting, mercury
catalysts, and explosives.
Geothermal Power Plants
Geothermal power plants are either dry-steam or water-
dominated and emitted an estimated 1.3 Mg (1.4 tons) of mercury
in 1992. For dry-steam plants, steam is pumped from geothermal
reservoirs to turbines at a temperature of about 180°C (360°F)
and a pressure of 7.9 bars absolute.1 For water-dominated
plants, water exists in the producing strata at a temperature of
3-98
-------
approximately 270°C (520°F) and at a pressure slightly higher
than hydrostatic.1 As the water flows towards the surface,
pressure decreases and steam is formed, which is used to operate
the turbines. There are currently 18 geothermal power plants
operating in the United States.55 Table 3-17 lists the names,
locations, and capacities of these facilities.
Mercury can be expected to be present in the steam and water
because it is recovered from beneath the earth's surface.
However, no data on the mercury content of steam or water cycled
through geothermal facilities are available. Likewise, no
information exists on emission control systems for geothermal
power plants.i
Mercury emissions at geothermal power plants are documented
to result from two sources: off-gas ejectors and cooling towers.
Table 3-IS contains the mercury emission factors for these two
sources, which are based on measurements taken in 1977." No
process data are given in the documentation containing the test
results, and the primary draft source of these data could not be
obtained in order to verify the validity of the emission
factors.1 If significant process modifications or changes in
control strategies have been incorporated since 1977, the
emission factors reported in Table 3-18 may no longer be valid.
Multiplying the emission factors in Table 3-18. by the total
capacity shown in Table 3-18 (assuming that geothermal power
plants operate 24 hr/d, 365 d/yr) gives a mercury emission
estimate of 1.3 Mg (1.4 tons) for geothermal power plants in
3-99
-------
TABLE. 3-17. 1992 U.S. GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANTS6
Facility
The Geysers, CA
Salton Sea, CA
Heber, CA
East Mesa, CA
Coso, CA
Casa Diablo, CA
Amedee, CA
Wendel, CA
Dixie Valley, NV
Steamboat Hot Springsr NV
Beowawe Hot Springs, NV
Desert Peak, NV
Wabuska Hot Springs, NV
Soda Lake, NV
Stillwater, NV
Empire and San Emidio, NV
Roosevelt Hot Springs, UT
Cove Fort, UT
Type
Dry-steam
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
. Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Wa ter-dom inated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Water-dominated
Net Capacity (MW)
1,805.7
218.3
47.0
106.0
247.5
34.0
2.0
0.7
57.0
19.3
16.7
9.0
1.7
15.7
12.5
3.2
20.0
12.1
Total 2,628.4
TABLE 3-18.
MERCURY EMISSION FACTORS FOR GEOTHERMAL
POWER PLANTS"
Source
Off-gas ejectors
Cooling tower exhaust
Emission factor range,
g/Mwe/hr
0.00075 - 0.02
0.026 - 0.072
Average emission factor
g/Mwe/hr
0.00725
0.05
Ib/Mwe/hr
0.00002
0.0001
3-100
-------
1992. However, because the emission factors used to generate
this estimate have limited reliability, this emission estimate
has a high degree of uncertainty.
Turf Products
The U.S. EPA's Office of Pesticides Program
-------
Data from an OPP source indicate total chemical production
for products registered as containing mercuric chloride as:"
1988 10,283 kg (22,671 Ib)
1989 9,497 kg (20,937 Ib)
1990 8,189 kg (18,053 Ib)
The document also cites OPP as indicating total chemical
production for products registered as containing mercurous
chloride as:
1988 20,567 kg (45,342 Ib)
1989 18,977 kg (41,873 Ib)
1990 16,377 kg (36,105 Ib)
Combining the two production estimates into "total mercury-
containing products registered with OPP," yields the following:
1988 30,850 kg (68,013 Ib)
1989 28,490 (62,810 Ib)
1990 24,567 (54,158 Ib)
Information is insufficient to estimate mercury emissions to
the atmosphere from turf products application.
Pigments, Oil Shale Retorting, MercuryCatalysts, and Explosives
Pigments, oil shale retorting, mercury catalysts, and
explosives were once sources of mercury emissions but now little
or no longer produce emissions. Domestic production of mercury-
containing pigments ceased in 1988.1S There are currently no oil
shale retorts in the United States.sa It was assumed that very
few facilities still use mercury catalysts because no emissions
of mercury from mercury catalysts were found.1 Commercial
mercury use in explosives ceased to exist prior to 1970.1S
3-102
-------
3.5 REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Locating and
Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Mercury and Mercury
Compounds. EPA/454/R-93-023. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1993.
2. Lindqvist, O., K. Johnson, M. Antrap, A. Anderson,
L. Bringwork, G. Hovsenius, L. Hakanson, A. Iverfoldt,
M. Meil, and B. Timm. Mercury in the Swedish Environment:
Recent Research on Causes, Consequences and Corrective
Methods. Water Air Soil Pollution.. 55(1-2^:30. 199J1.
3. Environmental Health Criteria 1. Mercury. World Health
Organization. Geneva. 1976. p. 19.
4. Klein, D. H. Some Estimates of Natural Levels of Mercury in
the Environment. In Environmental Mercury Contamination,
R. Hartung and B. D. Dinman, eds. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1972. p. 25.
5. Nriagu, J. p. A Global Assessment of Natural Sources of
Atmospheric Trace Metals. Nature. Vol. 338. March 2,
1989. pp. 47-49.
6. Pierson, N. R., and W. W. Brachaczek. Particulate Matter
Associated with Vehicles on the Road. II. Aerosol Science
and Technology. 2:1-40. 1983.
7. Urban, C. M., and R. J. Garbe. Regulated and Unregulated
Exhaust Emissions from Malfunctioning Automobiles.
Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Passenger Car Meeting, Dearborn, Michigan. June 1979.
8. Warner-Selph, M. A., and J. DeVita. Measurements of Toxic
Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline-Powered Light-Duty Vehicles
Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition,
Baltimore, Maryland. September 1989.
9. Telecon. Warner-Selph, M. A., U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, with Lapp, T., Midwest Research Institute.
Analytical detection limits for mercury in the 1989 study.
April 1993.
10. Telecon. Dobie, N., EPA/Office of Mobile Sources, with
Campbell, T., Midwest Research Institute. Highway
Statistics on Total Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United
States in 1990. November 4, 1992.
3-103
-------
11. Perwak, J., et al. (A. D. Little, Inc.). Exposure and Risk
Assessment for Mercury. EPA-440/4-85-011. a. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. August 1980 (Revised
October 1981).
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs. Environmental Fact Sheet-Mercury Biocides in
Paint. July 1990.
13. Agocs, M. M., et al. Mercury Exposure from Interior Later
Paint. The New England Journal of Medicine. October 18,
1990. pp. 1096-1101.
14. Facsimile. Josinski, 8., Bureau of Mines, to Redmond', P.,
Midwest Research Institute. U.S. Industrial Consumption of
Refined Mercury, by Use. December IS, 1992.
15. Van Horn, W. Materials Balance and Technology Assessment of
Mercury and Its Compounds on National and Regional Bases.
EPA 560/3-75/007. (NTIS PB-247 000/3). Office of Toxic
Substances, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C, October 1975. pp. 107-117.
16. U.'S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000.
April 1992.
17. Anderson, D. Emission Factor for Trace Substances.
EPA 450/2-72-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1973.
18. Cremation Association of North America (CANA). Cremation
Statistics from Cremationist Journal. Compiled by CANA.
1992.
19. Vander Most, P. F. J., and C. Veldt. Emission Factors
Manual: Emission Factors for Air Pollutants 1992. Report
Reference No. 92-235. TNO Environmental and Energy
Research, the Netherlands. September 1992.
20. Facsimile. Springer, J., Cremation Association of North
America, to Campbell, T., Midwest Research Institute.
Number of Crematories by State, 1991. February 18, 1993.
21. U. S. Department of Energy. State Energy Data Report:
Consumption Estimates. 1960-1990. Report No. DOE/EIA-0214
(40). U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
May 1992.
3-104
-------
22. Brooks, G. Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From Coal and
Oil Combustion Sources. EPA-450/2-89-001. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
April 1989.
23. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fourth Edition,
Supplement B. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1988.
24. Babcok and Wilcox Company. Steam: Its Generation and Use.
Babcok and Wilcox, New York. 1975.
25. Buonicore, A. J., and W. T. Davis, eds. Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 1992.
26. Memorandum from Fenn, D., and K. Nebel, Radian Corporation,
to Stevenson, W., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 9, 1992.
27. Nebel, K. L. and D. M. White (Radian Corporation). A
Summary of Mercury Emissions and Applicable Control
Technologies for Municipal Waste Combustors. Prepared for ,
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. September 1991.
28. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factor
Documentation for AP-42, Section 2.1, Refuse Combustion.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. September 1992.
29. The 1991 Municipal Waste Combustion Guide. Waste Age.
22(11). November 1991.
30. Midwest Research Institute. Medical Waste Incinerators--
Background Information for Proposed Standards and
Guidelines: Industry Profile Report for New and Existing
Facilities. Draft Report. April 1992.
31. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Medical Waste
Incinerators--Background Paper for New and Existing
Facilities. Draft Report. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1992.
32. Midwest Research Institute. Medical Waste Incinerators--
Background Information for Proposed Standards and
Guidelines: Environmental Impacts Report for New and
Existing Facilities. Draft Report. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
July 1992.
3-105
-------
33. IT. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factor
Documentation for AP-42, Section 2.5, Sewage Sludge
Incineration. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1993.
34. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background
Information for New Source Performance Standards: Nonfossil
Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers. Draft BIS,
Report No. EPA-450/3-82-00.7. .Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1982.
35. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factor
Documentation for AP-42, Section 1.6, Wood Waste Combustion
in Boilers. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 1992.
36. DeAngelis, D. G., D. S. Ruffin, J. A. Peters, and
R. B. Reznik. Source Assessment: Residential Wood
Combustion. EPA-600/2-80-426. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1980.
37. Facsimile. Phillips, B., EPA/OAQPS, to Campbell, T.,
Midwest Research Institute. Residential Wood Consumption.
November 12, 1993.
38. Rauh, F. Alkali and Chlorine Products. Mercury Cell
Process. (In) Kirk-othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Volume 1, 4th ed.; J. I. Kroschivitz, exec, ed.*
John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1991.
39. Review of National Emissions Standards for Mercury. EPA
450/3-84-014. Emissions Standards and Engineering Division,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December 1984.
40. SRI International. 1991 Directory of Chemical Producers:
United States of America. SRI International, Menlo Park,
CA. 1991.
41. 1991 Toxics Release Inventory. Office of Toxic Substances.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
December 1992.
42. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry. Plant
Information Summary, December 31, 1990. Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL. July 1991.
43. Reisdorf, R. P., and D. C. D'Orlando. Survey of Health
Hazards Control Systems for Mercury Use and Processing.
NTIS PB85-107241. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA. February 1984.
3-106
-------
44. Bureau of Air Management. Mercury Emissions to the
Atmosphere in Wisconsin. Publication No. PUBL-AM-014.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
June 1986.
45. Staff, Branch of Nonferrous Metals. Mercury. (In) Minerals
Yearbook—1939, Volume I, Metals and Minerals. Bureau of
Mines. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1991.
46. Cammarota, V. A., Jr. Mercury. (In) Mineral Pacts and
Problems. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 657. U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1975.
47. SRI International. 1992 Directory of Chemical Producers:
United States of America. SRI International, Menlo Park,
CA. 1992.
48. Taylor, B. R. Section 12. Carbon Black. Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Air and Waste Management Association,
Pittsburgh, PA. 1992.
49. Yen, T. F. The Rate of Trace Metals in Petroleum. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI. 1975.
50. Serth, R. W., and T. W. Hughes. Polycyclic Organic Matter
(POM) and Trace Element Contents of Carbon Black Vent Gas.
Environmental Science Technology. 14(3):298-301. 1980.
51. Huskanen, W. p. Adding the Final Touches. 33 Metal
Producing. 29:26-28. May 1991.
52. Easterly, T. w., p. E. Stefan, P. Sharp, and D. P. Kaegi,
Section 15. Metallurgical Coke. Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
PA.
53. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42), Fourth Edition.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
54. Woodbury, W. D. Lead—Annual Report 1990. Bureau of Mines,
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. April 1992.
55. Facsimile from Richardson, J., ASARCO, Inc., Salt Lake City,
Utah, to Midwest Research Insitute. August 24, 1993.
Primary lead smelting process information and mercury
emission factors.
3-107
-------
56. TRC Environmental Corporation. Emission Characterization
Program. Prepared for Copper Range Company/ White Pine,
Michigan. October 15, 1392.
57. Background Information for New Source Performance Standards:
Primary Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters. Volume I: Proposed
Standards. Report No. EPA-450/2-74-002a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,. NC.
October 1974.
58. Facsimile. Jolly, J., Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of
the Interior, to Kalagnanam, R., Midwest Research Institute.
Capacities of U.S. Copper Smelters. January 23, 1993.
59. United States Refining Capacity. National Petroleum
Refiners Association, Washington, D.C. January 1, 1992.
60. Facsimile. Miller, M., U.S. Bureau of Mines, to
Campbell, T., Midwest Research Institute. Lime Commodity
Summary. February 8, 1993.
61. Facsimile. Hammond, J., National Lime Association, to
Eades, R., Midwest Research Institute. Lime plants in the
United States. March 3, 1993.
62.. Staff, Branch of Nonferrous Metals. Lime. (In) Minerals
Yearbook-1989, Volume I, Metals and Minerals. Bureau of
Mines, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991.
63. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 8.15, Lime
Manufacturing--Draft. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1992.
64. Telecon. Miller, M., U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines, with Eades, R., Midwest Research Institute;
Wisconsin lime production 1983. March 4, 1993.
65. Facsimile. Marshal, R., Department of Energy, Geothermal
Division, to Campbell, T., Midwest Research Institute.
Location and.capacity information on U.S. geothermal power
plants. February 19, 1993.
66. Robertson, D. E., E. A. Crecelius, J. S. Fruchter, and
J. D. Ludwick. Mercury Emissions for Geothermal Power
Plants. Science, 196 (4294) .-1094-1097 . 1977.
3-108
-------
67. Facsimile. Moriarity, T., U.S. Office of Pesticides
Program, with Eades, R., Midwest Research Institute.
Mercury contained in turf products. March 3, 1993.
68. Source Category Survey: Oil Shale Industry.
EPA 450/3-81-010. Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research-Triangle Park, NC. August 1981
3-109
-------
-------
SECTION 4.0
EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Mercury emissions in tiie United States fall into two major
categories: natural (or nonanthropogenic) sources and
anthropogenic sources. Anthropogenic sources may be further
categorized as (1) area sources and (2) point sources. Table 4-1
shows estimated mercury emissions with breakdowns for natural,
area, and point sources. Note that for the.natural sources, no
data are available for United States emission levels, and the
estimate represents worldwide emissions.
The annual emission estimates presented in Table 4-1 should
be interpreted cautiously. As described in Section 3, an
emission factor-based approach was used to generate most of the
estimates shown in Table 4-1. With the exception of the emission
factors used for some of the combustion sources, the emission
factors were generated from limited data. Concerns about both
the quality of the data used to generate the estimates and the
potential that the paucity of the data could make them
nonrepresentative, limits the reliability of the emission factors
and the aggregated emission estimates.
While these emission estimates have limitations, they do
provide insight into the relative magnitude of emissions from
different groups of sources. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution
of estimated emissions among the four major classes of sources of
anthropogenic emissions (area sources, combustion point sources,
manufacturing point sources, and miscellaneous point sources).
Figures 4-2 through 4-4 show the distributions among individual
source categories for the first three of these four classes;
these three classes represent well over 99 percent of the total
anthropogenic emissions.
Of the estimated 309 Mg (341 tons) of mercury emitted
annually into the atmosphere by anthropogenic sources,
approximately 84 percent is from combustion point sources,
10 percent is from manufacturing point sources, and 5 percent is
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. ESTIMATED MERCURY EMISSION RATES BY CATEGORY
Source of mercury"
Natural sources (global)0
Area sources
Mobile sources
Lamp breakage
Paint use
General lab use
Dental prep and use
Crematories
Point sources
Combustion sources
Utility boilers
Coal
Oil
Commercial/industrial
Residential
MWC's
MWI's
SSI's
Woodd
Manufacturing sources
Chlor-alkali
Portland cement
Batteries
Electrical apparatus
Instruments
Primary Hg production
Secondary Hg production
Mercury compounds
Carbon black
Byproduct coke
Primary lead*
Primary copper
Refineries
Lime manufacturing
Miscellaneous sources
Geothermal power
Turf products
Pigments, oil, etc.
Mg/yr*
3,000
18
4.5
8.0
4.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
291
259
110 -
(106)
(4)
28
3.2
57.7
58.8
1.7
0.3
32.3
6.6
5.9
0.08
0.2
0.6
Negligible
6.7
Negligible
0.2
Negligible
8.2
0.6
Negligible
0.6
1.3
1.3
Not available
Negligible
tons/yrb
3,300
20
5.0
8.8
4.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
321
285
121
(117)
(4.4)
30
3.5
63.5
64.7
1.8
0.3
35.d
7.3
6.5
0.09
0.2
0.7
Negligible
7.4
Negligible
0.2
Negligible
9.0
0.7
Negligible
0.7
1.4
1.4
Not available
Negligible
aMWC = Municipal waste combustor; MWI = medical waste incinerator; SSI = sewage siudge
incinerator.
"Numbers may not add exactly because of rounding.
"Worldwide emissions, totals unavailable for the United States.
Includes wood boilers only; does not include residential wood combustion (wood stoves).
4-2
-------
4-3
-------
-------
(A
0)
O
**
CO
•o
O
O
Q>
n
2
o
_c
o
c
tn
0)
o
_>»
c
o
o
JQ
•a
o
o
rn
i
2
&
•H
h
4-5
-------
o
V)
«
o
(A
ffl
T3
"o
c
CO
UJ
•H
fti
4-6
-------
front area sources. Further examination shows that four specific
source categories account for approximately 83 percent of the
total anthropogenic emissions--utility boilers (36 percent),
municipal and medical waste incineration (19 percent each), and
commercial/industrial boilers (9 percent).
4-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX A.
INFORMATION ON LOCATIONS OF AND EMISSIONS FROM
COMBUSTION SOURCES
TABLE A-l.
IN
ESTIMATES OF COAL, NATURAL GAS, AND OIL CONSUMPTION
THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTOR PER STATE
(Trillion Btu)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Coal
Bituminous coal
and lignite
144.6
5.1
13.3
5.8
65.1
16.2
0.0
5.8
1.1
30.1
56.5
0.7
9.6
154.5
350.6
56.2
3.8
89
16
6.0
58.1
23
122.2
25.9
6.3
Anthracite
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
*
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
*
0.4
*
0.0
0.0
Total
145
5.1
13.3
5.8
65.1
16.2
0.1
5.8
1.1
30.2
56.5
0.7
9.6
154.6
350.7
56.9
3.8
89.5
16
6.1
58.1
2.7
122.2
25.9
63
Natural gas
185.0
277.2
48.3
153.6
900.6
133.4
56.7
21.4
13.6
133.7
217.2
2.4
32.8
486.5
300.8
135.2
213.8
107.8
1242.4
3.7
8S.2
98.1
468.3
167.0
129.8
Petroleum
Distillate fuel
45.6
16.0
21.1
23.4
138.2
18.1
23
4.5
2.9
39.2
31.1
7.7
17.9
53.4 .
32.7
27.0
24.4
34.2
84.8
13.9
22.3
49.0
29.9
33.0
36.4
-------
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Coal
Bituminous coal
and lignite
34.5
4.7
4.6
3.9
9.5
6.8
1.0
84.0
77.1
87.5
258.0
12,7
1.4
382.3
0.0
57.9
3.9
100.0
61.7
52.7
0.0
121.4
6.1
127.0
47.2
42.9
2824.6
Anthracite
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.3
0.3
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
15.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
*
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
21.8
Total
34.5
4.7
4.6
3.9
0.8
7.1
1
86.1
77.1
87.5
258.3
12.7
1.4
397.4
0.1
58.1
3.9
100.3
61.7
52.7
0.1
121.7
6.1
127.1
47.3
42.9
2842.5
Natural gas
115.1
24.5
61.3
23.2
8.4
211.2
115.0
305.7
121.2
22.3
444.7
350.7
71.0
393.5
8.3
105.1
14.7
158.7
2373.3
77.8 '
3.9
121.1
120.7
84.6
189.4
83.1
11226.0
Petroleum
Distillate fuel
23.6
16.9
25.5
21.0
9.4
57.2
16.4
95.6
28.3
16.0
39.5
21.1
24.4
69.3
5.3.
14.9
13.1
20.7
169.9
10.9
6
31.6
38.2
18.2
31.6
14.5
1668.8
*Number less than 0.05
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. State Energy Data Report. Report No. DOE/EIA-0214(40). May 1992.
A-2
-------
TABLE. A-2. ESTIMATES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BOILERS ON A PER-STATE BASIS FOR 1991
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Coal consumption, trillion Btu
Bituminous coal
and lignite
144.6
5.1
13.3
5.8
65.1
16.2
0.0
5.8
1.1
30.1
56.5
0.7
9.6
154.5
350.6
56.2
3.8
89
16
6.0
58.1
2.3
122.2
25.9
6.3
34.5
4.7
4.6
3.9
0.5
6.8
1.0
84.0
77.1
87.5
258.0
12.7
1.4
382.3
0.0
57.9
3.9
100.0
61.7
52.7
0.0
121.4
6.1
127.0
47.2
42.9
2824.6
Anthracite
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
b
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
b
0.4
b
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
b
b
0.3
0.3
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
15.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
b
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
21.8
Total
145
5.1
13.3
5.8
65.1
16.2
0.1
5.8
1.1
30.2
56.5
0.7
9.6
154.6
350.7
56.9
3.8
89.5
16
6.1
58.1
2.7
122.2
25.9
6.3
34.5
4.7
4.6
3.9
0.8
7.1
1
86.1
77.1
87.5
258.3
12.7-
1.4
397.4
0.1
58.1
3.9
100.3
61.7
52.7
0.1
121.7
6.1
127.1
47.3
42.9
2842.5
Mercury emissions'
Ton/Yrc
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.1
1.2
2.8
0.5
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
2.1
0.1
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.0
:.o
1, 4
0.3
22.8
Mg/Yr
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
1.1
2.6
0.4
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.9
0.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.3
20.7
'Mercury emission factors of 16 Ib Hg/trillion Btu and 18 Ib Hg/trillion Btu were used for bituminous and anthracite coal,
respectively. No control of emissions from commercial/industrial boilers was assumed.
"Number less than 0.05.
c Emissions less than 100 pounds/year for an entire State are reported as zero.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-3. ESTIMATES OP MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM OIL-FIRED
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BOILERS ON A PER-STATE BASIS FOR 1£>91
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Petroleum consumption,
trillion Btu
Distillate fuel
45.6
16.0
21.1
23.4
138.2
18.1
23
4.5
2.9
39.2
31.1
7.7
17.9
53.4
32.7
27.0
24.4
34.2
84.8
13.9
22.3
49.0
29.9
33.0
36.4
23.6
16.9
25.5
21.0
9-4
57.2
16.4
95.6
28.3
16.0
39.5
21.1
24.4
69.3
5.3
14.9
13.1
20.7
169.9
10.9
6
31.6
38.2
18.2
31.6
14.5
1,668.8
Mercury emissions*
Ton/Yr
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.50
0.07
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.11
0.03
0.06
0.19
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.31
0.05
0.08
0.18
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.21
0.06
0.34
0.10
0.06
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.25
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.61
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.14
0.07
0.11
0.05
6.01
Mg/Yr
0.15
O.C*5
O.C'7
O.C'8
0.45
0.0*6
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.17
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.28
0.05
0.07
0.16
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.19
0.05
0.31
0.09
0.05
0.13
0.07
0.08
0.23
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.56
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.10
0.05
5.46
'Mercury emission factor for distillate oil is 7.2 Ib Hg/trillion Btu. Calculation was performed jamming that all pollution control
devices provide no mercury reduction.
"Number less than 0.05.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-4. ESTIMATES OP COAL, NATURAL GAS, AND OIL CONSUMPTION
IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR PER STATE (Trillion Btu)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Tnriiafia
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W«st Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Coal
Bituminous coal and
lignite
0.9
2.7
a
a
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.6
a
0.2
0.0
0.5
2.1
4.3
2.0
a
1.3
0
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.3
1.1
0.0
2.2
0.4
a
a
0.0
0.0
a
1.2
1.4
0.7
5.5
0.0-
a
2.9
0.0
0.1
3
1.8
0.1
2.2
0.0
2.1
0.5
1.6
a
0.9
43.4
Anthracite
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a
a
a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a
0.2
0.2
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
a
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
18.3
Total
0.9
2.7
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0
0.2
0
0.5
2.1
4.3
2
0
1.3
0
0.5
0.5
0'.7
2.3
1.1
0
2.2
0.4
0
a
0.2
0.2
0
3.2
1.4
0.7
5.5
0
0
17.6
0.1
0.1
0
1.9
0.1
2.2
0.1
2.1
0.5
1.6
0
0.9
61.7
Natural gas
46.7
13.4
29.3
39.5
530.8
92.4
38.7
7.4
15.3
14.1
92.7
0.6
8.8
451.9
143.1
71.9
71.3
58.5
55.6
0.7
68.2
110.5
342.2
107.4
25.9
117.2
17.3
40.8
17.7
6.0
176.0
29.7
347.8
36.1
9.5
321.0
66.9
23.9
248.9
18.2
18.9
10.4
48.0
220.8
47.3
2.1
53.6
41.6
34.9
114.7
12.6
4,518.8
Petroleum distillate
fuel
0.1
10.2
0.1
a
1.3
0.2
66.6
5.6
0.9
1.4
1.5
a
3.1
7.0
10.0
4.6
0.1
3.8
0.1
29.3
25.0
100.7
24.3
18.8
a
2.1
1.7
1.0
1.4
19.8
67.0
0.1
154.5
20.7
4.9
23.8
a
10.4
99.1
14.9
5.9
4.7
1.4
a
0.8
11.2
29.8
17.5
3.3
27.0
0.1
837.8
•Number less than 0.05.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. State Energy Data Report. Report No. DOE/EIA-0214(40). May 1992.
A-5
-------
TABLE A-S. ESTIMATES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS PROM
COAL-FIRED RESIDENTIAL BOILERS ON A PER-STATE BASIS FOR 1991
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Ipriiqpa
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Coal consumption, trillion Btu
Bituminous coal and
lignite
0.9
2.7
b
b
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.6
b
0.2
0.0
0.5
2.1
4.3
2.0
b
1.3
0
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.3
1.1
0.0
2.2
0.4
b
b
0.0
0.0
b
1.2
1.4
0.7
5.S
0.0
b
2.9
0.0
0.1
b
1.8
0.1
2.2
0.0
2.1
0.5
1.6
b
0.9
43.4
Anthracite
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
b
b
b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0:0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
b
0.2
0.2
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
b
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
b
0.0
0.0
b
0.0
18.3
Total
0.9
2.7
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0
0.2
0
0.5
2.1
4.3
2
0
1.3
0
O.S
0.5
0.7
2J
1.1
0
2.2
0.4
0
b
0.2
0.2
0
3.2
1.4
0.7
5.5
0
0
17.6
0.1
0.1
0
1.9
0.1
2.2
0.1
2.1
0.5
1.6
0
0.9
61.7
Mercury emissions'
Ton/Yr
0.007
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.004
0.017
0.034
0.016
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.018
0.009
0.000
0.018
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.028
0.011
0.006
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.156
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.015
0.001
0.018
0.001
0.017
0.004
0.013
0.000
0.007
0.512
M£/Yr
(1.007
(1.020
(1.000
(1.000
(1.001
0.003
(1.002
(1.001
(1.004
0.000
(1.001
0.000
0.004
0.015
0.031
0.015
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.017
0.008
0.000
0.016
0.003
0.000
C.OOO
0.002
Oi.002
C.OOO
0.025
Ci.010
0^.005
0.040
C.OOO
0.000
0.141
0.001
C.001
0.000
(K014
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.015
Oi.004
0.012
C.OOO
Oi.007
OL465
'Mercury emission factors of 16 Ib Hg/triUion Btu and 18 Ib Hg/trillion Btu were used for bituminous and anthracite coal,
respectively. No control of emissions from residential boilers was assumed.
"Number less than 0.05.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-6. ESTIMATE OP MERCURY EMISSIONS PROM OIL-FIRED
RESIDENTIAL BOILERS ON A PER-STATE BASIS FOR 1991
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States
Petroleum consumption, trillion
Btu
Distillate fuel
0.1
10.2
0.1
*
1.3
0.2
66.6
5.6
0.9
1.4
1.5
*
3.1
7.0
10.0
4.6
0.1
3.8
0.1
29.3
25.0
100.7
24.3
18.8
*
2.1
1.7
1.0
1.4
19.8
67.0
0.1
154.5
20.7
4.9
23.8
*
10.4
99.1
14.9
5.9
4.7
1.4
*
0.8
11.2
29.8
17.5
3.3
27.0
0.1
837.8
Mercury emissions*
Ton/Yr
0.0004
0.0367
0.0004
0.0000
0.0047
0.0007
0.2398
0.0202
0.0032
0.0050
0.0054
0.0000
0.0112
0.0252
0.0360
0.0166
0.0004
0.0137
0.0004
0.1055
0.0900
0.3625
0.0875
0.0677
0.0000
0.0076
0.0061 ,
0.0036
0.0050
0.0713
0.2412
0.0004
0.5562
0.0745
0.0176
0.0857
0.0000
0.0374
0.3568
0.0536
0.0212
0.0169
0.0050
0.0000
0.0029
0.0403
0.1073
0.0630
0.0119
0.0972
0.0004
Mg/Yr
0.0003
0.0334
0.0003
0.0000
0.0043
0.0007
0.2180
0.0183
0.0029
0.0046
0.0049
0.0000
0.0101
0.0229
0.0327
0.0151
0.0003
0.0124
0.0003
0.0959
0.0818
0.3296
0.0795
0.0615
0.0000
0.0069
0.0056
0.0033
0.0046
0.0648
0.2193
0.0003
0.5056
0.0677
0.0160
0.0779
0.0000
0.0340
0.3243
0.0488
0.0193
0.0154
0.0046
0.0000
0.0026
0.0367
0.0975
0.0573
0.0108
0.0884
0.0003
3.02 J 2.74
•Mercury emission factor for distill.ite oil is 7.2 Ib Hg/trillion Btu.
control devices provide no mercury reduction.
''Number less than 0.05.
Calculations performed under the - sumption that air pollution
A-7
-------
TABLE A-7. EXISTING MWC FACILITIES (As of December, 1991)
Facility
Parsons (SOHIO)
Juneau
Kypanuk (ARCO)
Prudhoe Bay
Shemya (Air Force Base)
Sitka (Sheldon Jackson
College)
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Augusta
Batesville
Blytheville
Kensett
North Little Rock
Osceola
Stuttgart
Los Angeles County
Long Beach (SERRF)
Stanislaus County
Bridgeport
Bristol
MID-Connecticut
New Cannan
Southeastern
Stamford O
Stamford I
Wellingford
Windham
Washington
City
Endicott
Juneau
Kyparuk
Prudhoe Bay
Shemya
Sitka
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Augusta
Batesville
Blytheville
Kensett
North Little Rock
Osceola
Stuttgart
Commerce
Long Beach
Modesto
Bridgeport
Bristol
Hartford
New Cannan
Preston
Stamford
Stamford
Wallingford
Windham
Washington
State
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AL
AL
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
DC
Capacity
tons/yr
4,380
25,550
4,380
36,500
7,300
9,125
251,850
109,500
7,300
36,500
25,550
5,475
36,500
18,250
21,900
138,700
503,700
292,000
821,250
237,250
730,000
45,625
219,000
131,400
54,750
153,300
39,420
365,000
Mg/yr
3,982
23,227
3,982
33,182
6,636
8,295
228,955
99,545
6,636
33,182
23,227
4,977
33,182
16,591
19,909
126,091
457,909
265.455
746.591
215.682
663.636
41.477
199091
119..455
49.773
139,364
35,836
331,818
A-8
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Wilmington (Newcastle)
HUIsborough County
Fort Mead
Broward County (South)
Pasco County
Monroe County
Lakeland
Mayport NAS
Oade County
Miami (Airport)
Lake County
Bay County
Broward County (North)
Pinellas County
McKay Bay
Palm Beach County
Savannah
Honolulu
Honolulu
Ames
Burley (Cassia County)
Chicago NW
Indianapolis
Louisville
Agawan
Fall River
Framinghani
Haverhill
City
Wilmington
Brandon
Fort Meade
Ft. Lauderdale
Hudson
Key West
Lakeland
Mayport
Miami
Miami
Okahumpka
Panama City
Pompano Beach
St. Petersburg
Tampa
West Palm Beach
Savannah
Honolulu
Honolulu
Ames
Burley
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
Agawam
Fall River
Framingham
Haverhill
State
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
HI
m
IA
ID
EL
IN
KY
MA
MA
MA
MA
Capacity
tons/yr
219,000
438,000
9,490
821,250
383,250
54,750
109,500
17,520
1,095,000
21,900
192,720
186,150
821,250
1,095,000
365,000
730,000
182,500
788,400
219,000
Mg/yr
199,091
398,182 ,
8,627
746,591
348,409
49,773
99,545
15,927
995,455
19,909
175,200
169,227
746,591
995,455
331,818
663,636
165,909
716,727
199,091
73,000 l 66,364
18,250
584,000
862,130
365,000
131,400
219,000
182,500
602,250
16,591
530,909
783,755
331,818
119,455
199,091
165,909
547,500
A-9
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Lawrence
Millbury
North Andover
Pittsfield
Rochester (SEMASS)
Saugus
Springfield
Hartford County
Baltimore (Pulaski)
Baltimore (RESCO)
Biddeford
Aroostook County
Harpswell
Penobscot (Orrington)
Portland
Clinton Township
Detroit
Fisher Guide Division
Grand Rapids
Jackson County
SE Oakland County
Alexandria
Duluth
Anoka County (Elk River)
Fergus Falls
Polk County
Mankato
Hennepin County
City
Lawrence
Millbury
North Andover
Pittsfield
Rochester
Saugus
Springfield
Aberdeen
Baltimore
Baltimore
Biddeford
Frenchville
Harpswell
Orrington
Portland
Clinton Township
Detroit
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Jackson
Madison Heights
Alexandria
Duluth
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Fosston
Mankato
Minneapolis
State
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
Capacity
tons/yr
259,150
547,500
547,500
131,400
657,000 -
547,500
131,400
131,400
438,000
821,250
219,000
18,250
5,110
262,800
182,500
219,000
1,204,500
36,500
228,125
73,000
219,000
26,280
146,000
547,500
34,310
29,200
262,800
438,000
Mg/yr
235,591
497,727
497,727
119,455
-597,273
497,727
119,455
119,455
398,182
746,591
199,091
16,591
4,645
238,909
165,909
199,091
1,095,000
33,182
207,386
66,364
199,091
23,891
132,727
497,727
31,191
26,545
238,909
398,182
A-10
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Perfaam
Red Wing
Red Wing
Olmstead County
Savage
Thief River Falls (Hospital)
Thief River Falls (Hospital)
Ft. Leonard Wood
Pascagoula
Livingston (Park County)
Mecklenburg Co.
Cherry Point Marine St.
RTP/NBEHS
New Hanover County
New Hanover County
Wrightsville Beach
Auburn
Candia
Canterbury
Claremont
Concord
Durham
Lincoln
Litchfleld
Nottingham
Pelham
Pittsfield
Plymouth
City
Perham
Red Wing
Red Wing
Rochester
Savage
Thief River Falls
Thief River Falls
Ft. Leonard Wood
Moss Point
Livingston
Charlotte
Cherry Point
RTF
Wilmington
Wilmington
Wrightsville Beach
Auburn
Candia
Canterbury
Claremont
Concord
Durham
Lincoln
Litchfleld
Nottingham
Pelham
Pitts field
Plymouth
State
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
Capacity
tons/yr
41,610
262,800
26,280
73,000
21,900
1,825
36,500
28,470
54,750
26,280
85,775'
365
14,600
73,000
91,250
18,250
1,825
5,475
3,650
73,000
182,500
39,420
8,760
8,030
2,920
8,760
17,520
5,840
Mg/yr
37,827
238,909
23,891
66,364
19,909
1,659
33,182
25,882
49,773
23,891
77,977
332
13,273
66,364
82,955
16,591
1,659
4,977
3,318
66,364
165,909
35,836
7,964
7,300
2,655
7,964
15,927
5,309
A-11
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Wilton
Woifeboro
Atlantic County Jail
Camden County
Fort Dix
Essex County
Warren County
Union County
Gloucester County
Albany
Babylon
SW Brooklyn
Cattaraugus
Ellis Island
Fire Island
Glen Cove
Hempstead
Huntington
Islip
Liberty Island
Long Beach
Betts Ave (NY City)
Niagara Falls-Occidental
Oswego County
Westchester County
Dutchess County
Oneida County
Akron
City
Wilton
Woifeboro
Atlantic County Jail
Camden
Fort Dix
Newark
Oxford Township
Railway
West Deptford
Albany
Babylon
Brooklyn
Cuba
Ellis Island
Fire Island
Glen Cove
Hempstead
Huntington
Islip
Liberty Island
Long Beach
New York
Niagara Falls
Oswego County
Peekskill
Poughkeepsie
Rome
Akron
State
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
Capacity
tons/yr
10,950
5,840
5,110
383,250
29,200
831,105
146,000
525,600
209,875
219,000
273,750
350,400
40,880
4,380
4,380
91,250
846,435
273,750
189,070
4,380
73,000
365,000
730,000
73,000
821,250
146,000
73,000
365,000
Mg/yr
9,955
5,.309
4,545
348,409
26,545
755,550
132,727
477,818
190,795
199,991
248,364
318,545
37, 164
3,982
3,982
82,955
769,486
248,862
171,384
3,982
66,364
331,318
663, 636 '
66,36d
746,591
132,727
66,364
331,818
A-12
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Fadlity
Columbus
South Montgomery County
North Montgomery County
Euclid
Miami
Poteau
Tulsa
Wilburton
Bendon
Marion County
Coos Bay
Courthouse-Coquille
Courthouse-Coquille
Delaware County (Chester)
Lancaster County
Westmoreland County
Harrisburg
York County
Philadelphia EC
Philadelphia NW
Montgomery County
Charleston County
Hampton
Davidson County
Dyersburg
Galletin
Lewisburg
Nashville
City
Columbus
Dayton
Dayton
Euclid
Miami
Poteau
Tulsa
Wilburton
Benton
Brooks
Coos Bay
Coquille
Coquille
Chester
Conoy Township
Greensburg
Harrisburg
Manchester Township
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Plymouth Township
Charleston
Hampton
Davidson County
Dyersburg
Galletin
Lewisburg
Nashville
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Capacity
tons/yr
730,000
328,500
328,500
73,000
38,325
9,125
273,750
6,570
9,490
200,750
36,500
54,750
4,745
981,120
438,000
18,250
262,800
490,560
273,750
273,750
438,000
219,000
87,600
67,525
36,500
73,000
21,900
408,800
Mg/yr
663,636
298,636
298,636
66,364
34,841
8,295
248,864
5,973
8,627
182,500
33,182
49,773
4,314
891,927
398,182
16,591
238,909
445,964
248,864
248,864
398,182
199,091
79,636
61,386
33,182
66,364
19,909
371,636
A-13
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Carthage City
Center
Cleburne
Gatesville (Prison)
Waiker County
Walker County (Prison)
Grimes County
Anderson County
Quitman
Waxahachie
Davis County
Alexandria
Arlington (Pentagon)
Galax
Hampton
Harrisonburg
Fairfax County
Norfolk Navy Yard
Norfolk Naval Station
Salem
Readsborq
Rutland
Stamford
Bellingham
Fort Lewis
Friday Harbor
Skagit County
Spokane
City
Carthage
Center
Cleburne
Gatesville
Huntsviile ;. "~
Huntsville
Navasota
Palestine
Quitman
Waxahachie
Layton
Alexandria
Arlington
Galax
Hampton
Harrisonburg
Lorton
Norfolk
Norfolk
Salem
Readsboro
Rutland
Stamford
Ferndale
Fort Lewis
Friday Harbor
Mt. Vernon
Spokane
State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
VT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Capacity
tons/yr
14,600
14,600
41,610
7,300
9,125
9,125
9,125
9,125
7,300
18,250
146,000
355,875
18,250
20,440
73,000
36,500
1,095,000
730,000
131,400
36,500
4,745
87,600
3,650
36,500
43,800
4,380
64,970
292,000
Mg/yr
13,273
13,273
37,827
6,636
8,295
8,295
8,295
8,295
6,636
16,591
132,727
323,523
16,591
18,582
66,364
33,182
995,455
663,636
119,455
33,182
4,314
79,636
3,318
33,182
39,818
3,982
59,064
265,455
A-14
-------
TABLE A-7. (continued)
Facility
Tacoma
Ban-on Co.
La Crosse County
Madison (Oscar Meyer)
Madison (Power Plant)
Muscoda
St. Croix Co.
Port Washington
Sheboygan
Waukesha
Total
City
Tacoma
Almena
La Crosse
Madison
Madison
Muscoda
New Richmond
Port Washington
Sheboygan
Waukesha
State
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
Capacity
tons/yr
109,500
29,200
146,000
21,900
43,800
43,800
41,975
27,375
78,840
64,240
41,899,810 "
Mg/yr
99,545
26,545
132,727
19,909
39,818
39,818
38,159
24,886
71,673
58,400
38,090,736
Source: Memorandum from Fenn, D., and K. Nebel, Radian Corporation, to Stevenson, W.,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 9, 1992.
A-15
-------
TABLE A-8.
MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM MWC' 3 BY COMBUSTOR TY3?E
FOR 1991
Combustor
type
Mass burn
Mass burn
Mass burn
Mass burn
RDF
Modular
Total
Control
status
U
SD
DSI
ESP
SD
ESP
Process
rate,
10* Mg/yr
0.517
7.190
1.077
13.806
2.809
0.630
Uncontrolle
d emission
factor,
g/Mg
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.77
2.82
Control
efficiency,
%
0
50
50
0
50
0
Annual Emissions
Mg/yr
1.46
10.14
1.52
38.93
3.89
1.78
57.72
Ton/yr
1.60
11.15
1.67
42.83
4.28
1.95
6.3.48
Key:
SD = Spray dryer with either ESP or fabric filter
ESP = Electrostatic precipitator
DSI = Duct sorbent injection with either ESP or fabric filter
U = Uncontrolled
Basis of Input Data '
1. Under the assumption that ESP's provide essentially no control, the facility-average concentrations at
7 percent oxygen for uncontrolled and ESP-controlled mass burn (including modular) and RDF systems
were averaged to obtain the following "typical" concentrations:
«
Mass Burn - 696 pg/dscm
RDF - 561 /ig/dscm
2. The F-factor for municipal waste combustors was assumed to be 0.257 x 10"* dscm/J at 0 percent oxygen
and the heating values were assumed to be 10,500 kJ/kg for MSW and 12,800 kJ/kg for RDF. The F-factor
was converted from 0 percent oxygen to 7 percent oxygen (at which concentrations are based) using; a factor
of 1.5.
3. Based on a meeting with the EPA MWC project team, all modular MWC's are assumed to be controlled
with ESP's.
4. Spray dryer or dry sorbent injection systems combined with fabric filters or ESP's and wet scrubber
systems achieve 50 percent removal. No other control measures achieve appreciable mercury control.
5. The 1990 MWC processing rates are assumed to be equal to those presented in Waste Age. November 1991.
Calculations
Uncontrolled Emission Factors
• Mass burn/modular - 696 ^g/dscm * 0.257 x 10* dscm/J * 10,500 kJ/kg * 1.5 = 2.82 g/Mg
• RDF - 561 jtg/dscm * 0.257 x 10* dscm/J * 12,800 kJ/kg * 1.5 = 2.77 g/Mg
Controlled Emissions
Annual Emissions
— Process rate * emission factor * (100-efficiency)
100
Source: Locating and Estimating air Emissions from Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1993.
A-16
-------
TABLE A-9. MWI POPULATION BY STATE
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Commercial units
No.
2
1
1
1
10
2
1
0
12
1
0
ND
2
4
0
Some
1
1
1
ND
3
1
0
0
2
ND
0
0
1
1
3
2
7
0
15
1
2
8
1
3
0
>1
2
0
0
Capacity range, Ib/hr
Up to 60,000 Ib/wk
ND
ND
ND
ND
225
1,200
NA
300-3,750
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
1,500
1,500
150
ND
350-1,200
720
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND
5,000
75-1,000
1,950
150-3,250
NA
500-1,700
ND
200-1,000
ND
975
6,250
NA
ND
ND
NA
ND
Onsite units
No.
250
10 to 12
97
150
157
46
44
20
273
ND
6 or 7
20-25
permitted
259
91
ND
ND
ND
100-125
22
121
200
160
145
125-175
100
<50
80
17
27
154
31
599
29
50
125
93
31
186
11
70
30
126
ND
20
9
Capacity range,
Ib/hr
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13-1,000
20-1,500
ND
ND
ND
100-1,000
ND
2-1,500
Most <7 tons/d
^.125
ND
ND
< 500 to > 1,000
(most <500)
20-1,000
ND
3-1,875
ND
50-1,250
ND
Most <500
ND
ND
40-360
Most 75-150
20-1,560
25-360
3-3,000
60-2,100
Most <500
25-2,500
ND
25-750
ND
50-1,500
<500 to 1,000
ND
ND
ND
<500
ND
Facilities
included
H,N
H
All
ND
H,N,O
H
All
H,V
H,F,V,A,L,O
H
H
H,F,V,A,L,0
H
H
H
H,N,L
All
All
H,N
H
All
H
ND
H
H
H
All
H,F,V,A,L
All
H,L
H
H,F,V,A,L,O
H,N,L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
A-17
-------
TABLE A-9. (continued)
State
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Commercial units
No.
1 or 2
6
iND
4
0
Capacity range, Ib/hr
ND
1,600-7,500
ND
ND
NA
Onsite units
No.
ND
137
50
ND
30
Capacity range,
Ib/hr
ND
40-825
ND
ND
ND
Facilities
included
All
H
H
KEY:
General
ND — no data
NA = not applicable
Facility types
H = hospital/medical centers
F = funeral homes
V = veterinaries
A = animal shelters
L = laboratories, clinical and research
N = nursing homes
O = other/unidentified facilities
All = all MWI facilities (using current broad working definition)
Source: U.S. EPA. Medical Waste Incinerators—Background Paper for New and Existing Facilities.
Draft Report. June 1992.
A-18
-------
TABLE A-10. U.S. SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Facility
Anchorage
Petersburg
Wrangell
Barstow
Lake Arrowhead
Martinez
Palo Alto
Redwood City
Sacramento
San Mateo
South Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Truckee
Central Contra Costa
Yosemite
Mattabassett
Mattabassett
Hartford WPCF
New Canaan
East Shore WPCF
New London WPCF
Norwalk
Stamford
Waterbury WPCF
West Haven
Willimantic WPCF
Jacksonville
Pensacola WWTP
R.M. Clayton WWTP
Atlanta (Utoy)
Atlanta (Bolton Rd)
Decatur
Location
Anchorage
Petersburg
Wrangell
Barstow
Lake Arrowhead
Martinez
Palo Alto
Redwood City
Sacramento
San Mateo
South Lake Tahoe
, Truckee
Walnut Creek
Yosemite National Park
Cromwell
Cromwell
Hartford
New Canaan
New Haven
New London
Norwalk
Stamford
Waterbury
West Haven
Willimantic
Jacksonville
Pensacola
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Decatur
State
AK
AK
AK
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
Capacity
Ton/yr
401.5
N/A
73
912.5
1,752
N/A
2,190
N/A
2,628
1,788.5
292
N/A
16,060
1,241
4,562.5
N/A
122,640
14,198.5
10,658
18,907
13,140
34,565.5
2,372.5
N/A
N/A
10,366
N/A
N/A
2,956.5
47,304
16,352
Mg/yr
365
N/A
66.4
829.5
1,592.7
N/A
1,990.9
N/A
2,389.1
1,625.9
265.5
N/A
14,600
1,128.2
4,147.7
N/A
111,490.9
12,907.7
9,689.1
17,188.2
11,945.5
31,423.2
2,156.8
N/A
N/A
9,423.6
N/A
N/A
2,687.7
43,003.6
14,865.5
A-19
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Facility
Gainesville
Cofab County
Savannah
San Island WWTF
Honouliuli WWTP
Oabu
Cedar Rapids WPCF
Davenport
Dubuque
DecaturSTP
Indianapolis-Belmont
«
Kansas City
Kaw Point
Mission Township STP
Turkey Creek MSD #1
Cynthiana
Kenton County
New Orleans West
Bank STP
Lake Charles
Lake Charles-Plant B
Lake Charles-Plant C
East Bank STP #2
Natchitoches
East Bank STP #1
Attleboro Advanced
WTF
Chicopee
Chicopee
Fall River
Fitchburg East WWTP
Location
Gainesville
Marietta
Savannah
Honolulu
Honouliuii
Oahu
Cedar Rapids
Davenport
Dubuque
Decatur
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Kansas City
Mission
Shawnee Mission
Cynthiana
Kenton
Algiers
Lake Charles
Lake Charles
Lake Charles
Lake Charles
Natchitoches
New Orleans
Attleboro
Chicopee
Chicopee
Fall River
Fitchburg
State
GA
GA
GA
ffl
HI
ffl
IA
IA
IA
IL
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
Capacity
Ton/yr
2,007.5
7,227
4,380
9,453.5
N/A
N/A
8,869.5
12,994
20,440
N/A
132,458.5
6,570
14,600
N/A
6,497
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,190
N/A
N/A
14,965
N/A
10,950
N/A
2,628
2,628
N/A
14,198.5
Mg/yr
1,825
6,570
3,981.8
8,594.1
N/A
N/A
8,063.2
11,812.7
18,581.8
N/A
120,416.8
5,972.7
13,272.7
N/A
5,906.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,990.9
N/A
N/A
13,604.5
N/A
9,954.5
N/A
2,389.1
2,389.1
N/A
12,907.7
A-20
-------
TABLE A-10,
(continued)
Facility
Lynn
Upper Blackstone
WWTP
New Bedford WWTP
Greater Lawrence SD
WWTP
Annapolis City SIP
Patapsco
Ocean City
Cox Creek WWTP
Ann Arbor
Battle Creek
Bay City STP
Bay County STP
Detroit (1)
Detroit (2)
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Kalamazoo WWTP
Lansing WWTP
Niles WWTP
Owosso WWTP
Pontiac STP
Port Huron
Trenton WWTP
Warren
Wyandotte STP
Ypsilanti Community
WWTP
Duluth
Metropolitan TP
Location
Lynn
Millbury
New Bedford
North Andover
Annapolis
Baltimore
Ocean City
Riviera Beach
Ann Arbor
Battle Creek
Bay City
Bay County
Detroit
Detroit
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Niles
Owosso
Pontiac
Port Huron
Trenton
Warren
Wyandotte
Ypsilanti
Duluth
St. Paul
State
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
Capacity
Ton/yr
N/A
12,811.5
5,913
33,142
N/A
35,916
2,920
N/A
19,710
N/A
1,168
N/A
148,920
245,937
11,826
11,826
17,520
N/A
N/A
N/A
23,652
2,774
N/A
9,453.5
88,768
19,710
12,410
283,824
Mg/yr
N/A
11,646.8
5,375.5
30,129.1
N/A
32,650.9
2,654.5
N/A
17,918.2
N/A
1,061.8
N/A
135,381.8
223,579.1
10,750.9
10,750.9
15,927.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,501.8
2,521.8
N/A
8,594.1
80,698.2
17,918.2
11,281.8
258,021.8
A-21
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Facility
Seneca TP
Independence
Kansas City
Little Blue Valley
St. Louis (Lenay STP)
St. Louis (Bissel Point
STP)
Greensboro
Manchester WWTP
Rocky Mount
Shelby
Lebanon WWTP
Merrimack WWTP
Atlantic City
Gloucester Township
Somerset Raritan Valley
Authority
West Side STP
Two Bridges
Parsippany
Rockaway Valley
Stony Brook RSA STP
#1
Bayshore Regional
Sewer Authority
NW Bergen County
Utilities
Wayne
Mountain View Sewer
Authority
Round Hill
Douglas County SID #1
WWTF
Location
St. Paul
Independence
Kansas City
Little Blue
St. Louis
St. Louis
Greensboro
Manchester
Rocky Mount
Shelby
Lebanon
Merrimack
Atlantic City
Blackwood
Bridgewater
Jersey City
Lincoln Park
Parsippany
Parsippany-Troy Hills
Princeton
Union Beach
Waldwick
Wayne
Wayne Township
Round Hill Village
Zephyr Cove-Round Hill
Village
State
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NC
NC
NC
NC
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NV
NV
Capacity
Ton/yr
7,081
3,540.5
16,571
N/A
53,217
118,260
16,571
N/A
2,737.5
5,913
2,628
N/A
9,453.5
3,504
5,110
5,037
24,090
28,397
N/A
14,417.5
10950
6,570
35,040
N/A
3,285
1,825
Mg/JT
6,437.3
3,218.6
15,064.5
N/A
48,379.1
107,509.1
15,064.5
N/A
2,488.6
5,375.5
2,389.1
N/A
8,594.1
3,185.5
4,645.5
4,579.1
21,900
25,815.5
N/A
13,106.8
9,954.5
5,972.7
31,854.5
N/A
2,986.4
1,659.1
A-22
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Facility
Albany (North)
Albany (South)
Amherst
Arlington
Auburn
Bath
Beacon WPCP
Birds Island STP
Southtowns Advanced
WWTF
Dunkirk STP
Numburg
Glen Cove
Glens Falls
NW Quadrant TP
Little Falls
Mamaroneck
New Rochelle SD STP
Niagra County
Utica
Orangetown DPW
East STP
West STP
Port Chester SDSTP
Port Washington
Gates Chile Ogden STP
Rochester (NW Quad)
Frank E. Van Lare
WWTP
Saratoga
Schenectady STP
Location
Albany
Albany
Amherst
Arlington
Auburn
Bath
Beacon
Buffalo
Buffalo
Dunkirk
Erie County
Glen Cove
Glens Falls
Greece
Little Falls
Mamaroneck
New Rochelle
Niagara County
Oneida County
Orangetown
Oswego
Oswego
Port Chester
Port Washington
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Saratoga
Schenectady
State
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY'
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Capacity
Ton/yr
47,304
33,507
N/A
3,066
14T782.5
N/A
3,540.5
67,014
15,768
N/A
105,120
9,125
N/A
N/A
1,423.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,900
6,132
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13,140
17,520
26,280
N/A
51,100
Mg/yr
43,003.6
30,460.9
N/A
2,787.3
13,438.6
N/A
3,218.6
60,921.8
14,334.5
N/A
95,563.6
8,295.5
N/A
N/A
1,294.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
19,909.1
5,574.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11,945.5
15,927.3
23,890.9
N/A
46,454.5
A-23
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Facility
Disposal District No. 15
Two Mile Creek STP
Watertown
Watertown
Akron WWTP
Canton WWTP
Little Miami WWTP
Cincinnati (Millcreek)
Cleveland (Southerly
WWTP)
Cleveland (Westerly
STP)
Columbus (South)
Columbus (Jackson
Pike WWTP)
Euclid WWTP
Warren County
Lorain
Willoughby-Eastlake
WWTP
Youngstown WWTP
Tigard
Ambridge STP
Kiski Valley WPCA
Bridgeport SIP
Delcora-Chester STP
Hatfield Township STP
Duryea
Erie
Hershey
City of Johnstown
Cumberland City
Location
Southampton
Tonawanda
Watertown
Watertown
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Euclid
Franklin
Lorain
Willoughby
Youngstown
Tigard
Ambridge
Appoilo
Bridgeport
Chester
Colmer
Duryea
Erie
Hershey
Johnstown
Lemoyne
State
NY _,
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Capacity
Ton/yr
N/A
N/A
' N/A
7,665
14,162
18,250
N/A
61,466
94,608
70,956
16,571
14,198.5
7,884
N/A
N/A
7,665
14,782.5
5,475
N/A
49,676.5
N/A
7,081
2,080.5
9,453.5
49,275
14,782.5
2,956.5
N/A
Mg/yr
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,968.2
12,874.5
16,590.9
N/A
55,878.2
86,007.3
64,505.5
15,064.5
12,907.7
7,167.3
N/A
N/A
6,968.2
13,438.6
4,977.3
N/A
45,160.5
N/A
6i;437.3
], 891.4
81,594.1
44,795.5
121,438.6
. 2,687.7
N/A
A-24
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Facility
E. Morristown
Plymouth TP
Upper Gwynedd
Lower Lackawanna
STP
Alcosan WWTP
Tyrone
Trout Run WPCC
Hazeltown
Wyoming Valley
Sanitation Authority
Upper
Moreland-Hatboro TP
York
Cranston
Harrisburg
Providence
Charleston
Columbia
North Charleston
Bristol
Maryville Regional STP
Central WWTP
Newport
Alexandria STP
Arlington COWPCP
Fairfax
Fairfax (Lower Potomac
STP)
Hopewell
Boat Harbor
Lamberta Point WPCF
Location
Norristown
North Wales
Old Forge
Pittsburgh
Tyrone
Upper Merion Township
West Hazeltown
Wilkes-Barre
Willow Grove
York
Cranston
Harrisburg
Providence
Charleston
Columbia
North Charleston
Bristol
Maryville
Nashville
Newport
Alexandria
Arlington
Fairfax
Fairfax
Hopewell
Newport News
Norfolk
State
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
RI
RI
Rl
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Capacity
Ton/yr
N/A
401.5
N/A
N/A
1,861.5
N/A
1,642.5
11,826
N/A
14,162
7,446
49,421
N/A
11,826
2,993
N/A
5,913
4,745
33,580
2,847
N/A
12,702
23,652
33,142
2,956.5
12,300.5
21,133.5
Mg/yr
N/A
365
N/A
N/A
1,692.3
N/A
1,493.2
10,750.9
N/A
12,874.5
6,769.1
44,928.2
N/A
10,750.9
2,720.9
N/A
5,375.5
4,313.6
30,527.3
2,588.2
N/A
11,547.3
21,501.8
30,129.1
2,687.7
11,182.3
19,212.3
A-2 5
-------
TABLE A-10
(continued)
Facility
Army Base WWTP
(Hampton Rds.)
Chesapeake-Elizabeth
WPCF
Williamsburg WPCF
Potomac River STP
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Vancouver
Brookfield STP
Green Bay WWTP
Milwaukee
Clarksburg
Huntington
Total
Location
Norfolk
Virginia Beach
Williamsburg
Wpodbridge- . .. . .
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Vancouver
Brookfield
Green Bay
Milwaukee
Clarksburg
Huntington
State
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
WI
wv
wv
Capacity
Ton/yr
9,307.5
8,322
20,330.5
N/A
584
255.5
12,410
1,423.5
31,937.5
2,591.5
N/A
N/A
3,208,240.5
Mg/JT
8,461.4
7,565.5
18,482.3
N/A
530.9
232.3
11,281.8
1,294.1
29,034.1
2,355.9
N/A
N/A
2,916,582.3
Source: Locating and Estimating Air Toxic Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incinerators. U.S. EPA.
EPA-450/2-90-009. May 1990.
A-26
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 453/R-93-048
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
National Emissions Inventory of Mercury and Mercury
Compounds: Interim Final Report • • -
7. AUTHOR(S)
Thomas F. Campbell
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
- Midwest Research Institute
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
Gary, NC 27513
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December 1993
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0115
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO P6RIQQ COVERED
Interim Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Lead: Martha H. Keating
16. ABSTRACT
Under section 112(n') (1) (B) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA is
to submit a study of mercury emissions to Congress. The mercury study is to evaluate
the rate and mass of mercury emissions, to determine the health and environmental
.effects of these emissions, the technologies that are available to control such
emissions, and' the costs of such technologies. The Mercury Study Report to Congress
will be submitted in November 1994. This document represents the emissions inventory
portion of the Mercury Study Report to Congress, It is being released early, and as
an interim final report to make publicly available EPA's current data on sources of
mercury emissions.. Prior to final publication, as part of the Mercury Report to
Congress, the document will peer-reviewed by experts in the field. The information
contained fn the document may or may not change prior to final publication.
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Mercury
Mercury Compounds
Air Emission Sources
Mercury Study Report to Congress
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS fTlta Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis paifvt
Unclassified
e. COSATl Field/ Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
171
22. PRICE
EPA Pom 2220-1 (R«». 4—77) PREVIOUS EDITION u OBSOLETE
------- |