AP42
iOMPILATION
)F AIR POLLUTANT
MISSION FACTORS
                      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                COMPILATION
                        OF
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION  FACTORS
                      (Revised)
                                      Agency
                                  0^606
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Air Programs
           Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                     February 1972
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50

-------
The AP Series of reports is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report the results of scientific and engineering studies,  and information of general
interest in the field of air pollution.  Information presented in this  series  includes
coverage  of intramural activities involving air pollution research and control
technology and of cooperative programs and studies conducted in conjunction wiih
state  and  local agencies, research institutes,  and industrial organizations.
Copies of AP reports are available free of charge - as supplies  permit - from the
Office of Technical Information and Publications, Office of Air Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Z7711.
                   Office of Air Programs Publication No.  AP-42
2/72                                    ii

-------
                                   PREFACE

     This document reports available atmospheric emission data for "which
sufficient information exists to establish realistic emission factors.  Although
based on Public Health Service Publication 999-AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors,  by R. L. Duprey,  this document has been expanded and revised
considerably and supercedes the previous report.  The scope of the document has
been broadened to reflect expanding knowledge of emissions.

     As data are refined and additional information becomes available,  this docu-
ment will be reissued or revised as necessary to reflect more accurate and  refined
emission factors.   New processes will be included in future supplements.  The
loose-leaf form of this document is designed to facilitate the addition of future
materials.

     Comments and suggestions regarding this document should be directed to  the
attention of  Director,  Applied Technology Division,  SSPCP,  GAP,  EPA, Research
Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711.
2/72                                   iii

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     Because this document is a product of the efforts of many individuals,  it is
impossible to acknowledge each individual who has contributed.  Special recognition
is given, however,  to Mr.  Richard Gerstle and the staff of Resources Research,
Inc. ,  who provided a large part of the efforts that went into this document.  Their
complete effort is documented in their report for contract number CPA-Z2-69 - 1 19.

     Environmental Protection Agency employees  M. J.  McGraw, A.  J.  Hoffman,
J.  H. Southerland, and R.  L. Duprey are also acknowledged for their efforts  in
the  production of this work.
                                       iv                                   2/72

-------
                                CONTENTS


                                                                          Page
LIST OF FIGURES	      x
LIST OF TABLES	     xi
ABSTRACT	     xv
INTRODUCTION   	      1
 1.  STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES	    1-1
     BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION	    1-1
          General Information	    1-1
          Emissions and Controls	    1-1
     ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION	    1-4
          General	    1-4
          Emissions and Controls	    1-4
     FUEL OIL COMBUSTION	    1-4
          General Information	    1-4
          Emissions	    1-6
     NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION	    1-6
          General Information	    1-6
          Emissions and Controls	    1-6
     LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS CONSUMPTION	    1-8
          General Information	    1-8
          Emissions	    1-8
     WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS	    1-8
          General Information	    1-8
          Firing  Practices	    1-8
          Emissions	   1-11
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER  1	   1-12
 2.  SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL	    2-1
     REFUSE INCINERATION	    2-1
          Process Description	    2-1
          Definitions of Incinerator Categories	    2-1
          Emissions and Controls	    2-2
     AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION	    2-3
          Process Description	    2-3
          Emissions and Controls	    2-3
     CONICAL BURNERS	    2-5
          Process Description	    2-5
          Emissions and Controls	    2-5
     OPEN BURNING	    2-5
          General Information	    2-5
          Emissions	    2-6
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2	    2-8
 3.  MOBILE COMBUSTION SOURCES	    3-1
     GASOLINE-POWERED MOTOR VEHICLES	    3-1
          General	    3-1
          Emissions	    3-3
          Exhaust Emissions	    3-5
2/72

-------
                                                                        Page
    DIESEL-POWER ED MOTOR VEHICLES	  3-5
         General	  3-5
         Emissions	  3-6
    AIRCRAFT (sic 45--)	  3-6
         General	  3-6
         Emissions	  3-7
    VESSELS (SIC 44--)	  3-8
         General	  3-8
         Emissions	  3-8
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3	3-12
4.   EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES	  4-1
    DRY CLEANING	  4-1
         General	  4-1
         Emissions and Controls	  4-1
    SURFACE COATING	  4-2
         Process Description	  4-2
         Emissions and Controls	  4-2
    PETROLEUM STORAGE	  4-2
         General	  4-2
         Emissions	  4-3
    GASOLINE MARKETING	  4-3
         General	  4-3
         Emissions and Controls	„	4-4
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4	  4-5
5.   CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY	  5-1
    ADIPIC ACID (SIC 2818)	  5-1
         Process Description	  5-1
         Emissions	  5-1
    AMMONIA (SIC 2819)	  5-2
         Process Description	  5-2
         Emissions and Controls	  5-2
    CARBON BLACK  (SIC 2895)	  5-2
         Channel Black Process	  5-2
         Furnace Process	  5-3
         Thermal Black Process	  5-3
    CHARCOAL (SIC 2861	  5-4
         Process Description	  5-4
         Emissions and Controls	  5-5
    CHLOR-ALKALI (SIC 2812)	  5-5
         Process Description	  5-5
         Emissions and Controls	  5-6
    EXPLOSIVES (SIC 2892)	  5-6
         General	  5-6
         TNT Production	  5-7
         Nitrocellulose	  5-7
         Emissions	  5-7
    HYDROCHLORIC  ACID (SIC 2819)	  5-7
         Process Description	„	  5-8
         Emissions   	  5-8
    HYDROFLUORIC  ACID (SIC 2819)	  5-9
         Process Description	  5-9
         Emissions and Controls	  5-9
                                      vi                                   2/72

-------
                                                                          Page
      NITRIC ACID (SIC 2819)	5-10
          Process Description	5-10
          Emissions	5-10
      PAINT AND VARNISH (SIC 2851)	5-10
          Paint	5-10
          Varnish	5-11
      PHOSPHORIC ACID (SIC  2819)	5-11
          Wet Process	5-12
          Thermal Process	5-12
      PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE  (SIC 2815)	5-13
          Process Description	5-13
          Emissions and Controls	5-13
      PLASTICS (SIC 2821)	5-13
          Process Description	5-13
          Emissions and Controls	5-14
      PRINTING INK (SIC 2893)	5-14
          Process Description  .  „	5-14
          Emissions and Controls	5-15
      SOAP AND DETERGENTS (SIC 2841)	5-16
          Soap	5-16
          Detergents	5-16
      SODIUM CARBONATE (SIC 2812)	5-16
          Process Description	5-16
          Emissions	5-17
      SULFURIC ACID (SIC 2819)  .	5-17
          Process Description	5-17
          Elemental Sulfur-Burning Plants	5-17
          Sulfide Ore and Smelter Gas Plants	5-18
          Spent-Acid and Hydrogen Sulfide Burning Plants	5-18
          Emissions	5-18
      SYNTHETIC FIBERS (SIC 282-)	5-18
          Process Description	  .  5-18
          Emissions and Controls	5-19
      SYNTHETIC RUBBER (SIC 2822)	5-20
          Process Description	5-20
          Emissions and Controls	5-20
      TEREPHTHALIC ACID (SIC 2818)	5-20
          Process Description	.	5-20
          Emissions	5-21
      REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER  5	5-22
 6.    FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY  .	   6-1
      ALFALFA DEHYDRATING (SIC 2042)	   6-1
          General	   6-1
          Emissions and Controls	   6-1
      COFFEE ROASTING  (SIC 2095)	   6-2
          Process Description	   6-2
          Emissions	   6-2
      COTTON GINNING	6-?
          General	   6-j
          Emissions and Controls	   6-3
      FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS (SIC 204-)	   6-3
          General	   6-3
2/72                                   vii

-------
                                                                         Page
         Emissions	   6-4
     FERMENTATION (SIC 208-)	   6-5
         General Process Description	   6-5
         Emissions	   6-5
     FISH PROCESSING (SIC 2042)	   6-6
         Process Description	   6-6
         Emissions and Controls	   6-6
     MEAT SMOKEHOUSES (SIC 2011)	   6-7
         Process Description	   6-7
         Emissions and Controls	   6-7
     NITRATE FERTILIZERS (SIC 2871)	   6-7
         General	   6-7
         Emissions and Controls	   6-8
     PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS (SIC 2871)	   6-8
     NORMAL SUPERPHOSPHATE (SIC 2871)	   6-9
         General	6-9
         Emissions	6-10
     TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATE (SIC 2871)	6-10
         General	6-10
         Emissions	6-11
     AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE (SIC 2871)	6-11
         General	6-11
         Emissions	6-11
     STARCH MANUFACTURING (SIC 2046)	„	6-11
         General Process Description	„	6-11
         Emissions	6-12
     SUGAR CANE PROCESSING (SIC 2061)	6-12
         General	6-12
         Emissions	6-12
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6	6-13
7.    METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY	   7-1
     PRIMARY METALS INDUSTRY	   7-1
         Aluminum Ore Reduction (SIC  3334)	   7-1
         Metallurgical Coke Manufacturing (SIC 3312)	   7-2
         Copper Smelters (SIC 3331)	   7-3
         Ferroalloy Production  (SIC 3313)	   7-3
         Iron and Steel Mills (SIC 3312)	   7-6
         Lead Smelters (SIC 3332)	   7-8
         Zinc  Smelters (SIC 3333)	   7-8
     SECONDARY METALS INDUSTRY	   7-8
         Aluminum Operations (SIC 3341)	   7-8
         Brass and Bronze Ingots (SIC 3341)	7-11
         Gray Iron  Foundry (SIC 3321)	7-12
         Secondary Lead Smelting (SIC  3341)	7-13
         Secondary Magnesium Smelting (SIC 3341)	7-14
         Steel Foundries (SIC 3323)	7-14
         Secondary Zinc Processing (SIC 3341)	7-17
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7	7-18
8.    MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY	   8-1
     ASPHALT BATCHING (SIC  2951)	   8-1
         Process Description	„	   8-1
         Emissions and Controls	   8-1
                                    vHi                                 2/72

-------
                                                                        Page
     ASPHALT ROOFING (SIC 2952)	  8-1
           Process Description	  8-1
           Emissions and Controls	  8-2
     BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS (SIC 325-)	8-3
           Process Description	  8-3
           Emissions and Controls	  8-3
     CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING (SIC 2819)	  8-4
           Process Description	  8-4
           Emissions and Controls	  8-4
     CASTABLE REFRACTORIES (SIC 3297)	  8-5
           Process Description	  8-5
           Emissions and Controls	  8-5
     PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING  (SIC 3241)	  8-5
           Process Description	  8-5
           Emissions and Controls	  8-6
     CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING (SIC 3251)	  8-7
           Process Description	  8-7
           Emissions and Controls	  8-7
     CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING	  8-8
           Process Description	  8-8
           Emissions and Controls	  8-8
     COAL CLEANING	  8-9
           Process Description	  8-9
           Emissions and Controls	8-10
     CONCRETE BATCHING (SIC 3273)	8-10
           Process Description	8-10
           Emissions and Controls	8-10
     FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING (SIC 3229)	8-11
           Process Description	8-11
           Emissions and Controls	8-11
     FRIT MANUFACTURING (SIC  2899)	8-12
           Process Description	8-12
           Emissions and Controls	8-12
     GLASS MANUFACTURING (SIC 3211)	8-13
           Process Description	8-13
           Emissions and Controls	8-13
     GYPSUM MANUFACTURING (SIC 3295)	8-14
           Process Description	8-14
           Emissions   	8-14
     LIME MANUFACTURING (SIC 3274)	8-14
           General	8-14
           Emissions and Controls	8-14
     MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING (SIC  3296)	8-15
           Process Description	8-15
           Emissions and Controls	8-15
     PERLITE MANUFACTURING (SIC 3295)	8-16
           Process Description	8-16
           Emissions and Controls	8-16
     PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING (SIC 3295)	8-17
           Process Description	8-17
           Emissions and Controls	8-17
     STONE  QUARRYING AND PROCESSING (SIC  3295)	8-17
2/72                                   ix

-------
                                                                        Page
           Process Description	8-17
           Emissions	8-18
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8	8-19
 9.   PETROLEUM INDUSTRY	   9-1
     PETROLEUM REFINERY (SIC 2911)	   9-1
           General	   9-1
           Emissions	   9-2
     REFERENCE FOR CHAPTER 9   	   9-2
10.   WOOD PROCESSING	10-1
     WOOD PULPING (SIC 2611)	10-1
           General	10-1
           Process Description	10-1
           Emissions and Controls	10-2
     PULPBOARD (SIC 2611)	10-2
           General	10-2
           Process Description	10-2
           Emissions	10-4
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10	10-4
APPENDIX	A-l
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX	A-8
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                   Page
  3-1    Speed Adjustment Graphs for Carbon Monoxide Emission
          Factors	  3-3
  3-2    Speed Adjustment Graphs for Hydrocarbon Exhaust Emission
          Factors	„	  3-4
                                                                         2/72

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                       Page

 1-1     Range of Collection Efficiencies for Common Types of Equipment
          for Fly-Ash Control  	  1-2

 1-Z     Emission Factors for Bituminous Coal Combustion Without
          Control Equipment	  1-3

 1-3     Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Various  Types of Processes	  1-4

 1-4     Emissions from Anthracite  Coal  Combustion Without Control
          Equipment	  1-5

 1-5     Emission Factors for Fuel Oil Combustion	  1-7

 1-6     Emission Factors for Natural-Gas Combustion	  1-9

 1-7     Emission Factors for LPG Combustion	1-10

 1-8     Emission Factors for Wood and Bark Combustion in Boilers
          with No Reinjection	1-11

 2-1     Collection Efficiencies for Various Types of Municipal
          Incineration Particulate Control Systems	  2-3

 2-2     Emission Factors for Refuse Incinerators Without Controls	  2-4
 2-3     Emission Factors for Auto Body  Incineration  	  2-5

 2-4     Emission Factors for Waste Incineration in  Conical Burners
          Without Controls	  2-6

 2-5     Emission Factors for Open Burning	  2-7

 3-1     Emission Factors for Gasoline-Powered Motor Vehicles	  3-2

 3-2     Emission Factors for Diesel Engines	  3-7

 3-3     Aircratt Classification System	  3-8
 3-4     Emission Factors for Aircraft	  3-9

 3-5     Fuel Consumption Rates for Various Types  of Aircraft During
          Landing and Take-Off Cycle	3-10

 3-6     Fuel Consumption Rates for Steamships and  Motor Ships	3-11

 3-7     Emission Factors for Vessels	3-11

 4-1     Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Dry-Cleaning Operations	  4-2

 4-2     Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for  Surf ace-Coating
          Applications	  4-3

 4-3     Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Evaporation Losses from
          the Storage of Petroleum Products	  4-4

 4-4    Emission Factors for Evaporation Losses from Gasoline
          Marketing	  4-5
2/72

-------
Table                                                                        Page

 5-1     Emission Factors for an Adipic Acid Plant Without Control
          Equipment	   5-1

 5-2     Emission Factors for Ammonia Manufacturing Without Control
          Equipment	   5-3

 5-3     Emission Factors for Carbon Black Manufacturing	   5-4

 5-4     Emission Factors for Charcoal Manufacturing	   5-5

 5-5     Emission Factors for Chlor-Alkali Plants	   5-6

 5-6     Emission Factors for Explosives Manufacturing Without
          Control Equipment	   5-8

 5-7     Emission Factors for Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing	   5-9

 5-8     Emission Factors for Hydrofluroic Acid Manufacturing	   5-9

 5-9     Emission Factors for Nitric Acid Plants Without Control
          Equipment	5-10

 5-10    Emission Factors for Paint and Varnish Manufacturing
          Without Control Equipment	..5-11

 5-11    Emission Factors for Phosphoric Acid Production	5-12

 5-12    Emission Factors for Phthalic Anhydride Plants	5-13

 5-13    Emission Factors for Plastics Manufacturing Without Controls  . .  .  5-14

 5-14    Emission Factors for Printing Ink Manufacturing	5-15

 5-15    Particulate Emission Factors for Spray-Drying Detergents	5-16

 5-16    Emission Factors for Soda-Ash Plants Without Controls	5-17

 5-17    Emission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants	5-19

 5-18    Emission Factors for Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing	5-20

 5-19    Emission Factors for Synthetic Rubber Plants:  Butadiene-
          Acrylonitrile and Butadiene-Styrene	5-21

 5-20    Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors for Terephthalic Acid Plants  . .  .  5-21

 6-1     Particulate Emission Factors for Alfalfa Dehydration	   6-1
 6-2     Emission Factors for Roasting Processes Without Controls	   6-2

 6-3     Emission Factors for Cotton Ginning Operations Without Controls .  .   6-3

 6-4     Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Handling and Processing .  .   6-4

 6-5     Emission Factors for Fermentation Processes .	   6-6

 6-6     Emission Factors for Fish Meal Processing	   6-7

 6-7     Emission Factors for Meat Smoking	   6-8

 6-8     Emission Factors for Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacturing
          Without Controls	   6-9

 6-9     Emission Factors for the Production of Phosphate Fertilizers ....  6-10
                                       XIi                                    2/72

-------
Table                                                                       Page

 6-10    Emission Factors for Starch Manufacturing	   6-12

 6-11    Emission Factors for Sugar Cane Processing	   6-13

 7-1     Emission Factors for Aluminum Ore Reduction Without Controls  .     7-2

 7-2     Emission Factors for Metallurgical Coke Manufacture Without
          Controls	   7-4

 7-3     Emission Factors for Primary Copper Smelters Without Controls .  .   7-5

 7-4     Emission Factors for Ferroalloy Production in Electric Smelting
          Furnaces	   7-6

 7-5     Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Mills Without Controls	   7-9

 7-6     Emission Factors for Primary Lead Smelters	7-10

 7-7     Emission Factors for Primary Zinc Smelting Without Controls  .  .  . 7-10

 7-8     Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Aluminum Operations  . 7-11

 7-9     Particulate Emission Factors for Brass and Bronze Melting
          Furnaces Without Controls	7-12

 7-10    Emission Factors for Gray Iron  Foundries	7-13

 7-11    Emission Factors for Secondary Lead Smelting	7-15

 7-12    Emission Factors for Magnesium Smelting	7-16

 7-13    Emission Factors for Steel Foundries	7-16

 7-14    Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Zinc Smelting	7-17

 8-1     Particulate Emission Factors for Asphalt Batching Plants	   8-2

 8-2     Emission Factors for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Without
          Controls	   8-3

 8-3     Emission Factors for Brick Manufacturing Without Controls	   8-4

 8-4     Emission Factors for Calcium Carbide Plants	   8-5

 8-5     Particulate Emission Factors for Castable Refractories
          Manufacturing	   8-6

 8-6     Particulate Emission Factors for Cement Manufacturing	   8-7

 8-7     Particulate Emission Factors for Ceramic Clay Manufacturing  .  .  .   8-8

 8-8     Particulate Emission Factors for Sintering Operations	   8-9

 8-9     Particulate Emission Factors for Thermal Coal Dryers	8-10

 8-10    Particulate Emission Factors for Concrete Batching	8-11

 8-11    Particulate Emission Factors for Fiber Glass Manufacturing
          Without Controls	8-12

 8-12    Emission Factors for Frit Smelters Without Controls	8-13

 8-13    Emission Factors for Glass Melting	8-13

 8-14    Particulate Emission Factors for Gypsum Processing	8-14
2/72                                  xiii

-------
Table                                                                        Page

 8-15    Particulate Emission Factors for Lime Manufacturing Without
          Controls	   8-15

 8-16    Emission Factors for Mineral Wool Processing Without Controls  .   8-16

 8-17    Particulate Emission Factors for Perlite Expansion Furnaces
          Without Controls	   8-17

 8-18    Partir1-1 ate Emission Factors for Phosphate Rock Processing
          Without Controls	   8-18

 8-19    Particulate Emission Factors for Rock-Handling  Processes ....   8-19

 9-1     Emission Factors for Petroleum Refineries	     9-3

10-1     Emission Factors for Sulfate Pulping   	   10-3

10-2     Particulate Emission Factors for Pulpboard Manufacturing ....   10-4

A-l      Percentage Distribution by Size of Particles from Selected
          Sources  Without Control Equipment	    A-2

A-2      Nationwide Emissions for 1968	    A-4

A-3      Distribution by Particle Size of Average Collection Efficiencies
          for Various Particulate Control Equipment	    A-5

A-4      Thermal Equivalents for Various Fuels	    A-6

A-5      Weights of Selected Substances	    A-6

A-6      General Conversion Factors	    A-7
                                        xiv                                   2/72

-------
                                 ABSTRACT
     Emission data obtained from source tests, material balance studies, engineer-
ing estimates,  etc. , have been compiled for use by individuals and groups respons-
ible for conducting air pollution emission inventories.   Emission factors given in
this document,  the result of the expansion and continuation of earlier work,  cover
most of the common emission  categories: fuel combustion by stationary and
mobile sources; combustion of solid wastes; evaporation of fuels,  solvents,  and
other volatile substances; various industrial processes; and miscellaneous sources.
When no source-test data are available, these factors  can be used to estimate the
quantities of primary pollutants (particulates,  CO,  SC>2, NOx.  and hydrocarbons)
being released from a source or source group.
Keywords:  fuel combustion, stationary sources, mobile sources, industrial
            processes, evaporative losses,  emissions, emission data, emission
            inventories, primary pollutants, emission factors
2/72                                    xv

-------

-------
                           COMPILATION


                                     OF


       AIR  POLLUTANT  EMISSION  FACTORS



                            INTRODUCTION

      In the assessment of community air pollution,  there is a critical need for
 accurate data on the quantity and characteristics of emissions from the numerous
 sources that  contribute to the problem.  The large numbers of these individual
 sources and the diversity of source types make conducting field measurements of
 emissions  on a source-by-source basis  at the point of release impractical.  The
 only feasible method of determining pollutant emissions for a given community is
 to make generalized estimates of typical emissions  from each of the source types.

      The emission factor is a statistical average of the rate at which a pollutant is
 released to the atmosphere as a result of some activity, such as combustion or
 industrial production,  divided  by the level of that activity.  For example, assume
 that in the  production of 260, 000 tons (236, 000 MT#) of ammonia per year,  26, 000
 tons (23, 600  MT) of carbon monoxide is emitted to the atmosphere. The emission
 factor for the production of ammonia would therefore be 200 pounds of CO released
 per ton (100 kilograms per MT)  of ammonia produced.  The emission factor thus
 relates tlie quantity of pollutants emitted to some indicator  such as production
 capacity,  quantity of fuel burned, or vehicle miles traveled by  autos.

      The emission factors presented in this report were estimated by the •whole
 spectrum of techniques available for determining such factors.  These techniques
 include:  detailed source testing that involved many measurements related to a
 variety of process variables, single measurements  not clearly defined as to their
 relationship to process operating conditions, process material balances, and
 engineering appraisals of a given process.

      The limitations and applicability of emission factors must be understood.  To
 give some  idea of the accuracy of the factors presented for  a specific process,
 each process has been ranked  as "A, " "B, " "C, " "D, " or "E. " For a process
 with an "A" ranking, the emission  factor should be considered  excellent, i. e. ,
 based on field measurements of a large  number of sources.  A process ranked "B"
 should be considered above average, i. e. ,  based on a limited number of field
 measurements.  A ranking of "C" is considered average; "D, " below average;  and
     = metric ton.
2/72

-------
"E, " poor.  These rankings are presented below the table titles throughout the
report.

     In general,  the emission factors presented are not precise indicators of
emissions for a single process.   They are more valid •when applied to a large num-
ber of  processes.  With this limitation in mind, emission factors are extremely
useful  when intelligently applied in conducting source inventories as part  of com-
munity or nationwide air pollution studies.

     In addition to the specific tables in each section of this report,  the Appendix
presents general data on particle size distribution from various sources,  nation-
wide emission estimates for 1968, average collection efficiencies for different
types of particulate control equipment, and conversion factors for a number of
different substances.
                                EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
              1.   STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES
      Stationary combustion sources include steam-electric generating plants,
 industrial establishments, commercial and institutional buildings, and domestic
 combustion units.  Coal,  fuel oil, and natural gas are the major fossil fuels used
 by these sources.  Other  fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas,  wood, lignite,
 coke,  refinery gas, blast furnace gas.  and other waste or by-product type fuels
 are  also used,  but the quantities consumed are relatively small.  Coal, oil,  and
 natural gas currently supply about 95 percent of the total heat energy in the United
 States.  In 1968 over  500  million tons (454 million MT) of coal,  580 million barrels
 (92 x 1()9 liters) of residual fuel oil, 590 million barrels (94 x 109 liters)  of dis-
 tillate fuel oil, and 20 trillion cubic feet (566 trillion liters) of natural gas were
 consumed in the United States.

      The burning of these fuels for both space heating and process heating is one
 of the  largest  sources of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions.
 Controls for particulate emissions are presently being used,  but for sulfur oxides
 and  nitrogen oxides control techniques are not being practiced.   The following
 sections present detailed  emission data for the major fossil fuels— coal, fuel oil,
 and  natural gas— as well as for liquefied petroleum gas and wood waste.   Detailed
 information on the size distribution of the  particles emitted from the combustion oi
 each of these fuels is presented in Table A-l of the Appendix.

 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION

 General  Information
      Coal, the most plentiful fuel in the United States,  is burned in a wide variety
 of furnaces to  produce heat and steam.   Coal-fired furnaces range in size from
 small  hand-fired units, with capacities of  10  to 20 pounds (4.5 to 9 kilograms)  of
 coal per hour to large pulverized-coal-fired units,  which burn 300 to 400  tons  (275
 to 360 MT) of coal per hour.

     Although predominantly carbon, coal contains many compounds in varying
 amounts.  The exact nature and quantity of these compounds are determined  by the
 locale  of the mine producing the coal and will usually affect the  final use  of the
 coal.

 Emissions and Controls

 Particulates - Particulates emitted from coal combustion consist primarily of
 carbon,  silica, alumina, and iron oxide in the fly ash.  The quantity of particulate
 emissions is dependent upon the ash content of the coal,  the type  of combustion
unit, and the control equipment used.  Table  1-1 gives the range of collection effi-
 ciencies for common types of fly-ash control equipment.  Particulate emission
 factors presented in Table 1-2  for the various types of furnaces  are based on the
 quantity of coal burned.
2/72                                    1-1

-------
           Table  1-1.  RANGE OF COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR COMMON  TYPES
                        OF EQUIPMENT FOR FLY-ASH CONTROL9
Type of furnace
Cyclone furnace
Pulverized unit
Spreader stoker
Other stokers
Range of collection efficiencies, %
Electrostatic
preci pita tor
65-99^
80-99. 9b
High-
efficiency
cyclone
30-40
65-75
35-90
90-95
Low-
resistance
cyclone
20-30
40-60
70-80
75-35
Settling
chamber expanded
chimney bases
20-30
25-50
 Reference  2.
3High  values attained with high-efficiency cyclones in series  with electrostatic
 precipitators.
Sulfur Oxides - Increased attention has been given to the control of sulfur oxide
emissions from the combustion of coal.  Low-sulfur coal has been recommended
in many areas; where this is not possible,  other methods in which the focus is on
the removal of sulfur oxide emissions from the flue gas before it enters the
atmosphere must be considered.   No flue-gas desulfurization process is  presently
in widespread use,  but several methods are presented in Table 1-3 with the expected
efficiencies obtainable from the various types of control. Uncontrolled emissions
of sulfur  oxides are  shown in Table  1-2 along -with the other gaseous emissions.
Other Gases - Gaseous emissions from, coal combustion include sulfur oxides,
aldehydes,  carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides.   In this section,
attention will be focused on hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.


      The carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon content of the gases emitted  from
bituminous  coal combustion depend mainly on the efficiency of combustion. Success-
ful combustion and a low level of gaseous carbon and organic emissions involve a
high degree of turbulence, high temperatures, and sufficient time for  the combus-
tion reaction to take place.  Thus,  careful control of excess air rates, high com-
bustion temperature,  and  intimate contact of fuel and air will minimize these
emissions.


      Emissions of oxides  of nitrogen result not only from the high-temperature
reaction of  atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the combustion zone, but  also from
partial combustion of the nitrogenous compounds contained in the fuel.  This pol-
lutant is usually emitted at a  greater rate from more efficient combustion sources,
which have  a higher combustion temperature, and greater furnace  release rates.


      Factors for  gaseous emissions are  presented in Table  1-2.  The size range in
Btu (kcal) per hour  for the various categories is only shown as a guide in applying
these factors and  is not meant to clearly  distinguish between furnace applications.
1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72

-------
Q-
(—1
:r>
O
o;
o
o
CO
3
CD
s:
o
> i-
3C re
o






cu
E T3
O -r-
-Q X
S- 0
ro E
CJ O
E



O
S- CO
z> cu
4- -a
1 — *r-
23 x
CO O




o
CO

ro
i —
o

-t-j
s-
ro
Q.
-o
1— r— CU
S ro E
•^. o s-
cn  n
E -O
O r— CU
+-> re E
^ 0 S-
O (_) 2i
-a
l-r- CU
s: ro E
^ 0 S-
Cn o =3
-^ 0


E -a
O r— CU
+-> ro E
\ 0 i.
-Q CJ 2J
r- JD
-a
1— I— CU
s: ro E
-^ o s-
Cn a =3
•^ ^f)


E -a
0 i— CU
4-> ro E
-^. o s-
-a cj 25
i— -Q
-O
1— i— CU
2: re E
-•v. 0 S-
cn o =3
-^ o


E T3
O i— CU
-(-> ro E
\ O S-
_a o rs
-a
s: "ro E
^ 0 S_
cn o 13
-^ 0

E -a
o •— cu
-t-> ro E
-••> o s-
-Q o rs
-o
t— •— 0)
s; ro E
•^ O £-
cn o =3
^ _Q
E -O
O i — CU
•*-> ro E
\ o s-
-a u 3
.— -d


«
cu re
N S- 4->
»i— r~ ^
CO ^ CX
=3 E
OJ 4-> -r-
O CO
re +-1
CCD ro
s_ o a>
25 i — -E
U_





CO CO CO CO
CSJ OJ CM CJ
O O O C )
CD CD CD < .1
• ...
CD CD CD .
CO CO CO CO
CD CD CD CD
CD CD O CD
....
CD CD O CD

CO
cn co cn r^
r— CM





CO CD CO CO
i— ro ,— co



CO CO CO CO
r— • i — t— i— -
....
CD CD CD CD




oo oo oo oo
• • • •
CD CD CD O



CO CO CO CO
....
0000






1 — 1 — 1 — 1 —


co co co co
cn cn cn cn
• — i — i — i —




CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO
oo oo oo oo

 +->
ro ro cu i — -i-> -*-> cu
-E>vi- NreOOE
•4->+->S- T-S-J2-QO
•i— +-> i- CU i —
S-i — CO CUE-t->>>CJ
cu-.-:3 >cucus->,
-t->4->-O i— CD 3 CD. CJ
re ^ E 3
cu-— .r- a.
s-
CD
co
CM
o
o
.
CD
CO
o
o

CD

CO
[ — .






LO
1 —




co
.
o






1 —





1—






OJ


CO
cn
, —




co
CO
oo

c3^
CO
.
CO


4_
c3^
oo
1 —


re
•r- JE
CU S- S-
cn-o 4J a>
S- E CO ^
re ro ^ o

- — i — E CO O
ro •>"• i —
-^* "r— *""^ C
O O t — CO CU E
o s- ro s- -a re
i — cu S- cu ro -E
E CU i — CU 4-*
0 S E -r- S-
+-> o cu o cx co
o cn-a co co
o cu

LO CO
OJ OJ
0 0
O CD
. .
O CD
CO LO
CD CD
0 0

CD O

CO
oo i—






co oo





CO
•
r— CD
r—*





OO CD
OJ




CO LO
^J-





0 0
i — cn

co co
cn cn
, — , —




CO CO
CO CO
oo oo




i- O •!-
i — 13 +-> E
ro 4- co 3
•1 —
o o s- -o
S- -i- CU CU
OJ -t-J -O S-
§(/) fO *r~
CU CU 4-
O E t- I
o o cx -a
• — -t3 CO E
re
31
i-
-E
1 —
ro
o
-^

CM
CO
CM
.
CD

II

S-
-E
— ^
23
•M
CQ

r.—
a
1
o
4->
r— re
ro cx
o
cj cu
^:
CU -l->
+J n
+J
E E
•i- CU
o
JZ S-
CO CU
ro cx
4— CD
O i—
CU CO
ro
E E
cu cu
0 +->
S- E
cu o
a. cj
+-> -E
-E CO
cn ro
cu cu
S -E
+J
cu
-E -O
+-> E
ro
4->
ro co
.E i —
4J
CO
cu '"
ro o
o +->
••- o
•a ro
E 4-
cu
4-> -E
E 4->
cu
.1-
cr ••
cu cu
-a a.
SI
c^
E
ro E
-E CU
>
E •!—
ro cn
4-> CU
S- ^~
cu ro
-E >
•»->
O CU
-E
CO -t->
•r- >s
E -Q

i —
i —
ro

c
o

<£

S-
cu
+J
+j
cu
I—

cu
C"
1—
J3
•a
cu
•i —
i —
cx
»l —
4-J
r—
2J
E

ai
J3

-a
i——
23
O
r~
CO

O
ro
o
o
o
o
s_
cu
cx
cu
+J
ro
CJ
S-
ro
cx
4-
O
CO
-a
E
O
CX
o
co
S-
o
co
CO
cu
CD
1 —
cu
-Q
-a •
o 're
3 0
o
+j
E 4-
CU O
Q.J—
cr S-
cu cu
o.
O CO
s- cu
4-> +->
E ro
O i —
O 25
CJ
CU T-
-E +J
03
cu o.
S-
o
4—
cu
o

CO
E
0

CO
CO
•1 —
F=
QJ

CU

ro
i —
25

4—
O

cn
^

0
CO

S-
o

n
CO

CO
cu
E

-i_)

cu
o
-Q
ro
-Q
CU
-!->
0
4->
O
CU
CU
CO
+J
E
CU
E
O
O

S-
25
4.
^~
25
CO

CU
^:
.i_>

CO
^^
ro
25
cr
cu

CO
o

cu
E
ro
-E
4->
(LI
E

CO
re

-o
cu
CO
CO
cu
s_
Q.
X
LO
-o
-a
E
ro
n
r-*
-E
cn

O
i_
_c~
4J

CM

CO
cu
u
E
CU
Skv
CU

a>
C£.
cu
jection.
E
•r-
CU
S-

t—
CO
ro
i

, —
4-

+J
25
O
_E

., —
"^
4-
i —
T3
E
ro
cn
«i
oo

**
LO

•>
^>

«l
CM

CO
cu
o
E
cu
S-
CU

cu
C£
cn
s, use 5A (2.5A) for particulate emission factor.
n.
S-
cu
^£
o
-IJ
CO

s_
cu
-E
-!->
O

f—
t —
re

t.
o
u_
-E
-E
cn
zs
0
S-
.c
4J

cn

CO
cu
CJ
E
CU
S-
cu

cu
C£
•f—
2/72
Stationary Combustion Sources
1-3

-------
                        Table 1-3.   SULFUR  DIOXIDE REMOVAL
                         FROM VARIOUS TYPES OF  PROCESSES9
Process
Limestone-dolomite
injection, dry process
Limestone-dolomite
injection, wet process
Catalytic oxidation
S02 removal , %
40 to 60
80 to 90
90
                     Reference 12.

ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION

General 13

      Because of its low volatile content and the nonclinking characteristics of its
ash, anthracite  coal is used in medi\am-sized industrial and institutional boilers
with stationary or traveling grates.  Anthracite coal is not used in spreader
stokers because  of its low volatile content and relatively high ignition temperature.
This fuel may be burned in pulverized-coal-fired units, but this practice is limited
to only a few plants in Eastern Pennsylvania because of ignition difficulties.  This
fuel has  also been widely used in hand-fired furnaces.

Emissions and Controls 13
      Particulate  emissions from anthracite coal combustion are greatly affected
by the rate of firing and by the ash content of the fuel.  Smoke emissions from
anthracite  coal are  rarely a problem.   High grate loadings result in excessive
emissions  because of the underfire air  required to burn the fuel.  Large units
equipped with forced-draft fans may also produce high rates of particulate  emis-
sions,  Hand-fired and some small natural-draft units have fewer particulate emis-
sions because underfire air is not usually supplied by mechanical means.

      As is the case with other fuels, sulfur dioxide emissions are directly related
to the  sulfur content of the  coal.  Nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emissions
are similar to those found in bituminous-coal-fired units because excess air rates
and combustion temperatures  are similar.  Because the volatile matter content of
anthracite  is lower  than that of bituminous, hydrocarbon emissions from anthracite
are somewhat lower than those from bituminous coal combustion.

      The uncontrolled emissions from  anthracite coal combustion are presented in
Table  1-4.
FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

General Information
      Fuel oil is one of the major fossil fuels used in this country for power produc-
tion,  industrial process heating, and space heating.   It is classified into two major
types, residual and distillate.  Distillate fuel oil is primarily a domestic fuel, but
it is used in some  commercial and industrial applications where a high-quality oil
1-4                               EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72

-------










t—
LU
s:
ex
±J
o-
LU
	 1
O
ce.
i—
•z.
o
O
h-
>
0
~i~
1—
i — i
3
-^-
O CQ
>— i
| — .
GO
=> CD
E: ^
0 I—
0  rjj

rO n3
O- i —





h-
5^
cn


^
O

^
1
I—
E:

cn
"^


c
0

-•^
-Q


I—
s:

cn
-^
E
O

_d
i —
1—
E;

cn

c
o

!c7
1
1 —
E:

Cn

£-
o

- —
o


1—
E:

CO


£_
o

-^
(— )
( 	






QJ
O
to
E
S-
ZS
4-

4-
O

QJ
O.
I—







cn





CO
1 —


LD

CD





, —




LD

0
.
CD

oo
0
CD

GO
LD
OJ
•
O

GO
LD
O


GO
cn
•~



GO
CO
CO


eC
LD

CO




c^
p^
^_



„
, — ..

O
4-J

O
ja

>>
s-
T3


T3
QJ
N
£_
QJ
>

— j
CL.







































































E
O

-(3
CJ
CD

E

QJ
S-

c~
CO
ro
1
>>
i|

O
E


LD
•

O
CO
^:
LD
, —

o
co
CO

o

,—
,-j
. — .
0
I —

o


CM


r—

CD


OJ
O

GO
CD
OJ

O

GO
CD
O


GO
cn
r~



GO
CO
CO




J.-J-
, —




e^
CM











*
CO
i.
QJ

o
4->
CO

-a
CD
CD
4-
s_
QJ

O







































































E
O

4J
CJ
CD
•r->
E

QJ
S-

_E
CO
ro
l
>>
q_

O




CO
^





co





co
"*




o
cn




CO
CM
*
i —


CO
CM


GO

•
0

GO
CO
CD


GO
CO
1—



GO
CO
CO





CO





o












CO
4->
• r—
C
3

•o
QJ
S-
4—
1
-o
C
rO
3:














































•
-M
0)
o

CD
Q.

+-*

CT)

a>
S

CO
ro

co -a
r— QJ
CO
E CO
cn QJ
n s_
O CL
S- X
-E CD

4-)
^± E
i— QJ
4-)
-a E
C~ Q
ra O

OO -C
CO
CO ra
a>
CJ QJ
E JC
QJ 4->
S-
QJ 1/1
4- T-
QJ
o: ct
(O -Q












































! '
E
QJ
CJ
CD
0

4-3
.E
cn
•1 —
QJ


CO
ro

T3
QJ
CO
CO
QJ
S-
CL
X
CD

40
E
QJ
4-J
E
O
O

i-
^
<4-
i —
~^
CO

QJ
-E
4J

CO
•1 —

GO
O































































O
CM

_E
cn
^3
o

f~
4-J

CO
i —

-o
E
ro

CD
• —

CO
QJ
CJ
E
QJ
S-
QJ
4-
QJ
cc:
-a












































E
O
»P—
4->
CO
3
.Q

O
U

r—
to
Q
O

CO
13
0
E

'i
13
4->
• i —
JD

-o
E
ro

CO

CD
U
E
QJ
&_
CL)
4—
QJ
o;

E
O
-Q
CD
CO
ro
CQ
QJ
QJ
cn
E
ro
S-
l — I
4-> 4-> i 	 1
Q. CL Z3
C E Q.
•r- T- E
rO ra 4->
QJ QJ ro
-E -E CD
-E
1^ i- ^
-E .E S-
\ ^^ -E
ro ro i —
C_> CJ rO
-^ -^ O
LD CO
*d- CD co
i— CD
O r—
1 ^ ^
X
00 CD
	 • LD
OJ
S_ - — OJ
^ S-
3 -E S-
CQ =3 \
CD CQ 4->
CO CQ
i— CO
O CO
0 .— 0
X "~
OJ X
i— CD
i— CD
QJ i—
4-> ro E
-E to
E 4-> JC
C/1
CO CO CO
S_ Q) CO
CD i — CD
\s 1 	 1 i
O 1 — I
4-> U}
CO • 4J CO
CO T- 4->
QJ S- E -r-
4J QJ 3 E
ro -^: rs
S- O "O
cn4_) QJ -o
1 CO N QJ
















•
QJ
E
ro
-E
4-J
QJ
E

CO
ra

"O
QJ
CO
Crt
CD
S-
CL
X
LU


•
E
O
•1 —
4->
CO
3
_a
E
O
CJ

r—
ro
O
O

CO
^3
O
E
*r~
E
3 O
4-J "Z.
•i —
JD. CO
ro
E
o -a
QJ
-0 4-J
QJ 4-J
CO -I—
ro E
CQ LU
cn _c
cn
E S-
•i- QJ
•— -a
QJ ra
> QJ
ra S-
S_ CL
4-> CO

E E
O ••-

4- -0
CD
-O E
CD S-
E 3
•i— -Q
ra

-Q 0
O E

ro CO
4-J -i—
ro
-a CD
4-J
E •!-
o o
ra
-o s-
QJ -E
CO 4-J
ra E
CQ 

N
'i —
CO
1
i-
QJ
i —
^_
ra
E
CO

£_
o
4-

QJ
cn
E
ra
S-

4-
o

CD
-o
•i —
CO

^
o


Q)
CO
ID
^
trol devices used for anthracite are cyclone, 75 to 85 percent, and
percent.
E
O CD
U CO

14- -
O S-
O
CO 4->
CD ro
•r- 4->
u •<-
E Q_
CD -i—
•i- CJ
CJ CD
•r- i.
M- CL
t) 	
CD CJ
•1—
CD 4->
4-> ro
ro l ^
E co
•i- o
X S-
O 4->
S- (J
CL CD
Q-i —

-------
is required.  Fuel oils are classified by grades:  grades No, 1 and No.  2 distillate,
No. 5 and No.  6 residual, and No. 3 and No, 4 blends.  (Grade No. 3 has been
practically discontinued. ) Residual fuel is used in power plants,  commercial
establishments, and industries.   The primary difference between residual oil and
distillate oil is the higher ash and sulfur content  of residual oil and the fact that it
is harder to burn  properly.  Residual fuel oils have a heating value of  approximately
150, 000 Btu/gallon (10, 000 kcal/liter), whereas  for distillate oils the  heating value
is about 140,000 Btu/gallon (9,300 kcal/liter).
Emissions
      Emissions from oil combustion are dependent on type and size of equipment,
method of firing, and maintenance.  Table  1-5 presents  emission factors for fuel oil
combustion.   Note that the industrial and commercial category is split into residual
and distillate  because there  is a significant difference in particulate emissions
from the same equipment depending  on the fuel oil used.  It should also be noted
that power plants emit less particulate matter per quantity of oil consumed,  report-
edly because  of better design and more precise  operation of equipment.

      In general,  large sources produce more nitrogen oxides than small  sources,
primarily because of the higher flame and  boiler temperatures  characteristic of
large sources.  Large  sources,  however,  emit fewer aldehydes than smaller
sources as a result  of more complete combustion and higher flame  temperatures.
It may be expected that small sources would emit relatively larger  amounts of
hydrocarbons  than large sources because  of the small flame volume, the  large
proportion of  relatively cool gases near the furnace •walls,  and frequently improper
operating practices.  These factors  were not reflected in the data,  however.
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION

General Information
      Natural gas  is rapidly becoming  one of the major fuels used throughout the
country.  It is used mainly in power plants,  industrial heating, domestic and  com-
mercial space heating, and  gas turbines.  The primary component  of natural  gas
is methane, but smaller  quantities  of inorganics,  particularly nitrogen and carbon
dioxide, are also  present.   Pennsylvania natural gas has been reported to contain
as much as one-third ethane. 3^  The heating value of natural gas is approximately
1, 050 Btu per standard cubic foot (9, 350 kcal/m3).

Emissions  and  Controls
      Even though natural gas is considered to be a relatively clean fuel,  emissions
sometimes occur  from the combustion reaction. When insufficient air is supplied,
large amounts of  carbon  monoxide and hydrocarbons may be produced.     Emis-
sions of sulfur oxides are dependent on the amount of sulfur in the fuel.   The  sulfur
content of natural gas is  usually low, around 2,000  grains/10  ft3  (4,600 g/10   m ).


      Nitrogen oxide emissions are a function of the temperature in the combustion
chamber  and  the rate of  cooling of the  combustion products.  These values vary
 1-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
          oo
          3
          CO
          o
          o
          O  ec

          —I
          UJ
          —^  C_I3
              ^






          §  g
          LD
           I
           ai

           ro




















4->
•i —
c
3

4-
0
OJ
a.
I—


























































ro
•r—
O
J^.
Ol

g?
o
u

-o
c
03
_
ro
il
4->
tO
3
T3
C
i — i











































O
•r—
10
Ot
£z
o
0


O)
ro
£
10
• r—
O













1^
ro

T3

01
a:









c
ro
a.
s-
at
s
o
a.



















co to
O S-
r- 0)
"••^ 1 *
^^ "H*
CflT-
-*,—
, 	
(O
cn

co
o
co i/i
0 S-
r— Ol
OVr-
-*: i —

^—
rO
CO

CO
o
1 —
-\
_Q
,—



co to
0 S-
i— Ol
ovi-
-^ r—




i»
ro
cn

CO
o
^
JD
CO to
0 S-
"**'«. 4 _%
OVr-
-^ ••"

"io
cn

CO
o
• —
_a




4j
c
— •.
o
OJ CO
oo oo
LO OJ CM O CO O CM
i— «*• 4->
r—
O
*^J-
N 	 '

cn
00 LO ^
LO LO CM LO rr, CM
r^. CM O co u r—
• OO • • • o
CM Cn O O O 40 O
r-~
CO

J.
^^
CD

£^3
OJ CO
OO 00
CO t~- CM O CO O i —
OJ LO 4->
o

OO LO
LO O LO OJ
OJ O OJ UD i—
i— cn o o o oj o
i— r-


^-
o
oo oo
CO !->. OJ O OJ LO i —
LO O

CM
o
U 2
O * *-^" -C
•> JD T3 ' —
.a ai at to o
Ol T3 T3 Ol 1C
-a •!-•!- cu -o o
ro •!- X X w •!- 3:
0) X O 0 C X «-^
4-> 0 -r- C Q 0
ra •>- s- o -a i/)
i— "O 4-> E i- C Ol
3 ra CU -o
o s- s- c o cn >i
•r- 3 3 O O O -C
4-> 4- 4- -Q S- S- O>
S- r- r— S- -O 4J -O
rO 3 3 ro >> -r- i—
a. oo oo c_> ~c rr ec

•
LO
OJ

r~
cn
^3
O
s^
J^
4-*

r—
CM

10
01
U
c
at
s_
a>
4-
Ol
D:
rO J













•
I-—
OJ

ai
o
c
at
s.
cu
4-
Ol
C£.
O
•r-
O
01
.c
4-J
C
S-
4-
to
4-
O
4J

cn

5
S

^J
t~l

4J
C
Ol
u
s_
01
Q.

to
^_
ro
3
cr
0)

00
o
cn
OJ
cn
o
S-
-C
4J

*.o
OJ

T3

ro

n
j—
OJ

to
01
CJ
c
ai
s-
Ol
4-
01
o:
T3
CO
T3
C
rO
C? 01
CO OJ
CO CO
3 CM
1 1
40 ro
CO
OJ

T3
C
ro

A
LO
OJ

n
r—
OJ

(/)
Ol

-a
01
4^
ra

4-J
c
ai
cn

rt>
ao

s-
o
4-

. 	 ^
00

^J-
S 	 rf

0


cu
CO
— >
Cn j
co
T3

ro

r.
O
CO

*
CO


n
w_
CM

CO
01
o
c

t_
cy
4-
0

CI
2/72
Stationary Combustion Sources
                                                                                                1-7

-------
considerably with the type and size of unit.  Emissions of aldehydes are increased
when there is an insufficient amount  of combustion air or incomplete mixing of the
fuel and the combustion air.

      Emission factors for natural-gas combustion are presented in Table 1-6.  Con-
trol equipment has not been utilized to control emissions from natural-gas combus-
tion equipment.


LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS CONSUMPTION

General Information13

      Liquefied petroleum gas,  commonly referred to as LPG, consists mainly of
butane, propane,  or a mixture  of the two, and of trace amounts of propylene and
butylene.   This  gas, obtained from oil or gas wells or as a by-product of gasoline
refining,  is sold as a liquid in metal cylinders under pressure and, therefore, is
often called bottled gas.   LP gases are graded according to maximum vapor pres-
sure, with Grade A being predominantly  butane,  Grade F being predominantly
propane,  and Grades B through E consisting of varying mixtures of butane and
propane.  The heating value of  LPG  ranges  from 97, 400 Btu/gallon (6, 480 kcal/
liter) for  Grade A to 90,500 Btu/gallon (6,030 kcal/liter) for Grade F.  The largest
market for LPG is presently the domestic-commercial heating market, followed by
the chemical industry and internal combustion engines.


Emissions
      LPG is considered a "clean" fuel because it does not produce visible emis-
sions.  Gaseous  pollutants  such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,  and nitrogen
oxides, however, do occur. The most significant factors affecting these emissions
are the burner design, adjustment,  and venting.    Improper design,  blocking,  and
clogging of the flue vent and lack  of combustion air result in improper combustion
that causes the emission of aldehydes, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and other
organics.  Nitrogen oxide emissions are a function of a number of variables includ-
ing temperature,  excess air, and residence time in the combustion zone.   The
amount of SC>2 emitted is directly proportional to the amount of sulfur in the fuel.

      Emission factors for  LPG combustion are presented in Table 1-7.


WOOD WASTE  COMBUSTION IN BOILERS

General Information

      Wood is no longer  a primary source of heat energy; however, in certain
industries such as lumber, furniture,  and plywood,  in which it is a readily avail-
able product, wood is a desirable fuel.  The wood is used in the form of hogged
chips, shavings,  and sawdust.


 Firing Practices
      In general, furnaces designed  for the burning of wood waste are  of three
 types:  (1) pile,  (2) thin-bed, and (3) cyclonic.   These furnaces  are usually water-
 cooled and can be modified to burn supplemental fuel with the wood.
 1-8                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
OO
=>
03
O
o
 O> E
to E •!-
Ol E +->
E O n3
o a o>
Q -E
to
S-
Ol
I — r—

•r- O
i. -Q
CO CO
:3 to
T3 Ol
E O
i— i O

Q.




4J
E
rO
S-
Ol
o
Q.


co
E

IO
CD
i —
*-^
CD
co

'•O
0
1 —
co
E
IO
CD
f—
— ^_
CD
co
**-
IO
CD
i —
ja
i —
CO
E

IO
CD
i —
"•^
CD
co
•4J
4-

IO
0
1
CO
IO
0
,__
"-^
01
^.
CO
^.^
4-

IO
CD
,__
£
CO
E
IO
0


CD
CO
4-
10
CD
i —
-Q



^->
c
n3
4-*
3
i —
r — *
O
CL.



O
4-> CD
CD
CD O
II 1 1 O - 1 1
co r^
#* r-—
OJ r-
O-E
•4-1 CD
II II CD 1 1
CD CO
CD
II 1 1 O 1 1
OJ
«
co



CD
II 1 1 O 1 1
CM



IO O Cn
+-> O
oj cn o co o o 10
O CM CM O IO IO i —
CO CO i — O " i —
00 i—

O CD
UD -|J ,£*.
CnO CDCO O O CD r—
r- CM Ln r- r—
O
IO ^3" -P4—
O
ocn 100 oo co CM
en *5j~ CM c^ ^* r— ~
c\j 10 cn ~ i —
f> C>0
i —


0
IO *d- 4->4-
• • *— ^x
COO OCD OO CO |-^
r— «3- OJ CO
i— OJ
10 ^1-
o en 10 CD o co ^*-
^- ^j" Ln ^j~ 10
oj in CM
t\
IO

10 ^}-
in o o CD o co -3-
i— «d- cn
co

o
^~, cu
CM "O
ro o Pr" "C3
to oo x to
Ol 	 O E d)
-U E O E •!-
rO 4— ja O -& 4— 0) CO 'r-j
r— ~ O i— E Sn O CD Ol * — ^ CO
3 3 rO^^ O'— • T3 CD O
O C04- E O^-coS-OJ>,IC-r-
•<- oil— o oar cu-i->o •£:<-> E
+j-o=3ja s-o-a-r-z: cun; ra
S_ •!- CO S- T3 	 •!— E 	 "O 	 CD
ra X ra >> X i — S-
Q- O c_3 ;c O <: O







•
OJ
OJ

dl
u
O)
s-
d)
4-
d)
D;
ro
co
E
o
0
o
IO
CO
4J
IO
o
to
c
ra
CD
o
o
o
CM
o
CO
ra
CD
ra
E
o
0)
E
o
u
s-
1 —
to
Ol
CD
ra
S-
dl
>
ra
E
0
•o
d)
to
ra
_Q
* — -

IO
oo

dl
u
01
i.
dl
4-
dl
a:
-Q
cn
co
-E
CD
3
o
!_
cn _c
CO +J
-c r^.
Ol CO
^3
0
!L.
_E
4J

f^^
CO

to
Ol
u
c
cu
i.
cu
cu
C£
u

TD
E
ra

ft
co
OJ

CO
0)
t_>
E
OJ
s-
d)
dl
D:
-a
-o
ra
Ln
CO

ft
cn
CM

tl
OJ
OJ

CO
0)
o
01
s-
01
4-
dl
a:
01
smaller industrial boilers <500 boiler horsepower and 230 (3,700) for larger industrial boilers
power .
S-
o
4-

, — ^
O
OJ


t
— ^

CD
OJ


o;
CO
ID
4-
CU
to
1-
o
_cr

S-
Ol
r—
• P_
O

0
0
Ln
^
A

to
rs
ro
o
CO
0
u
o
4-
o
o
IO
*N
o
o
-o
c
ro
to
•r—
13
CD
ra
Ol
-E
o
CO
0)
o
-a

s-
0
4-

, 	 ,
0
CD
OO

CD
Ln

cu
f!

cn .
•o
ro
to
Ol
•f—
S-
O)
O)
s_
o
4-
o"
0
0
i —
1 —
O
0
CO
ro
a_
co
ro
cn
s-
o
it-
CD
O
0
cn
IO
o
o
co
E
O
O
o
s_
Q.
to
ra
CD .
to
T3 Ol
ro •!-
, — "cu
•r- Q.
O -r-
Q-
S-
0
4-

— ^
0
0
co

CM
^_
* — ^

CD
l~^

d!
to

-E
s_
o


. 	 ,
CD
O
o

p^
, —
, 	
• —
o
o
co
r-.

CO
-E
CD
0
-E
CD
ro
CO
CO
tn
CO
r>
cn
CM

n
co
OJ

f\
co
CM

to
cu
o
E
O!
s-
dl
4-
Ol
o;









,^-
«^j-

QJ

E
d)
i-
dl
Ol
o:
•r-)
2/72
Stationary Combustion Sources
                                                                                                  1-9

-------






























o
o
1 —

co
5:
O
CJ
CJ
CJ3
O-
r n
D: z
O 1-1
Li- I—
OO OC
Qr
O D:
1— 0
0 1—
«£ 0
1 1 ^J-

s
CD 2^
•-i 0
OO >— i
oo oo
r— < OO
•S- 1-1
LjJ

•
1 —
1


01
2
to
h-

































00
CU
(J
to
c
~^
q_

^_
IT3
*r—
CJ

CU
g
o
(J
T3
E
ro

^_)
•r-
00
0)
O















CO
CU
O
ro
E
i.

4-
co
CO
CU
(J
o
i.
Q-

"ro

S-
4_3
OO
3
-O
E
i — t




























CU
E
ra
a.
o
i.
CL.
















cu
ra

CO














CU
ra
a.
o
i.
Q_















CU
E
ra
03



















CO
s_
CU
."Jf
i~—

00
CD
i —
~~ 	
en
-^
( 	
ra
en

oo
0
P_
^ 	
o
•—
00
S-
CU
i %

i —

oo
CD

cn
-^
r—
cn

oo
O
, —
^^
-Q
CO
S-
CU

f-^

OO
o

cn

j 	
ro
cn

oo
2
^^
-Q
1 —
00
s-
cu
-t— *
, —

oo
0

^ —
D)
, 	
ra
cn

oo
CD
|

i *
5^
to

^
P—
, 	
O
o_




CM
•
00 '~
LT> r— O CM
CM O OO CO 4-> i — i —
CM O CM O r— CD
• CM •
O CD O O r~- CD O
.
O


-a
0
oo i—
cn
CO O en r-^ o cn i —
. +j
r— O •— O CD CD
CD


CM
•
oo
LO CD O CM
oo o ^t- cn -t-> CM i —
CM O CM O r— CD
. CM
CD CD CD O 1^ O O
0


0
00 i—
cn
cn o o co o o r—
• < • • +j • .
r— O CM O r- CD
CD


01
LO r—
O O CD LO LO •— CO
CM O O ^J- OO i — O
• • • > • • •
CD O CD O r— O O




00
cn i — LO
r-~. o o co CM cn CD
i— CD CD 00 r— CD O
1 —





oo
LO i —
CM CD CD CO LO CM CO
CM CD CD ^h ^f i — CD
• ..•••.
CD O CD CD i— O CD




U~>
cn i—
CO O O CD i — CD t~^
«..••••
i— O O «tf- CM i— O
O *-^
CU CO O
-Q T3 CU 31 00
00 -i— TD C_> U
00 CU X 00 T- 31 -r-
cu -a o c: x - — E
+J -r- C O O ro
to x o -Q co en
•— 0 E S- E CU S-
^ to CU -O O
CJ S_ E O CD >>
•r- 3 O O O -E S-
-{-.> tj 	 (~) J_ C^ (]J QJ
s- •— i. -o -t-> -a -E
ra rs ra >>•!-! — -t->
Q- OO CJ IE ^ et CD
r>
C
O
•r—
-J->
CO
3
t~)
E
O
CJ

f—
• I—
o

1 —
CU
13
4-

T3
E
ra

LO
ra
en

i —
rO
S-
+J
ra
E

TD
ra
c:
o
• r—
4J
CO
^
J3
E
O
CJ

CD
D.
— P


• r-
S-
ro
i —
• r—
E

oo

a>
-C
^_3

4-
O

CO
• 1 —
CO
-^ •
i — CM
ro CM
E
ra a>
CJ
E E
rO CU
£_
E CU
0 4-
CU
"O t-Y"
CU
00 E
ra -r-
-Q
ra
00 4->
S- to
o -a

u -a

Ll_ to
ra
S-
cu
D. 00
E
E O
• i— r—

-t-> Q.
E
CU CM
-t-> O
E OO
O
CJ -0.
r—
S-
^u ^-
4- i—
r— O
33 .
00 O
CU S-
-E 0

CO
4- •—
"~ O
• X
C;
• cn
CU O
<
-0
S-
O CU
CL-Q
to
> ~o
, —
00 =3
ra O •
cn 3 -a
 O S-
4- -(-> =5
CJ -Q
CD ra
O 4- CU
E ro
i- 0 +->
cu -r- rs
O- CO -Q
CO
CO -•— ' — ~
E E 00
•r- CU S-
ra CU
S- CM4->
cno T-
OO r—
E
••- euro
-E CD
TD 4J i—
CU ^
CO « CM
co S- O
CU O CO
s- a.
CX ro Cn
X > -^
CU
•-^00
-t->oo i—
E E CD
CU CD
-(-> O •
E O CD
O i—
CJ ~~^ S-
cn o
S-
Z3 CO CO
4- CO CD
i — OO OO
^ • •
00 CD CD
^ 	
00 X
i — OO
ra +-> LO
3 4- O
CT 0
CU CD
O CD
C/) i — • — -
_a



























































































.
CM
o


CO
to

-^3
CU
00
OO
CU
S-
a_
X
Ll-l
u












































CO
4-J
•r~
E
13

1 —
ro
•1 —
CJ
S-
cu
E
E
o
o
S-
o
4_

, —
Cvl
.
1 —
*. 	 ^

CD
1 —

-a
E
ra

oo
-1-3
• r—
E
33

CJ
• 1—
-f-3
00
CU
E
o
-o

S-
o
4-

. 	 .
CM
1 —
.
CD
*^^

CD

CU
CO
ID
-o
1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72

-------
      In pile burning, the wood is fed through the furnace roof and burned in a cone-
 shaped pile on the grate.   Thin-bed burning is  accomplished on a moving grate
 similar to that  of a spreader  stoker.  In a cyclone furnace,  wood (especially bark)
 is usually burned with coal.


Emissions

      Excessive smoking results from improper grate maintenance of wood-burning
 furnaces,  especially where coal is burned simultaneously with the wood.  Another
 major factor affecting emissions is the  water content of the  wood refuse.  This is
 not only a function of the absorptive property of the wood, but also a  function of the
 process that produces the  waste. Wet bark generally produces more emissions
 than kiln-dried  lumber.  Of minor importance, except as  it  reflects  on the  factor
 noted  above, is the  composition of the material being burned.   For example,  bark
 contains less carbon and nitrogen, but more sulfur than wood.   This  difference
 coupled with a high moisture  content is  thought to account for the more severe dust
 and smoke problems associated with burning bark.  Emission factors for the com-
 bustion of wood and bark in boilers are  shown in Table 1-8.
                  Table 1-8.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR WOOD AND BARK
                   COMBUSTION  IN  BOILERS WITH NO REINJECTIONa'b
                           EMISSION f-ACTOR RATING:  C
Pollutant
Parti culates0
Sulfur oxides (S02)d
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons6
Nitrogen oxides (N02)
Carbonyl sf
Emissions
Ib/ton
25 to 30
0 to 3
2
2
10
0.59
kg/MT
12.5 to 15.0
0.0 to 1.5
1
1
5
0.259
                 References  46 through 49.
                 Approximately 50 percent moisture content.
                 This  number is an atmospheric emission factor with-
                 out fly  ash reinjection.  For boilers with  reinjec-
                 tion,  the particulate loadings reaching the control
                 equipment are 30 to 35 Ib/ton (15 to 17.5 kg/MT)
                 fuel  with 50 percent reinjection and 40 to  45 Ib/ton
                 (20 to 22.5 kg/MT) fuel with 100 percent reinjection.
                 Use 0 for most wood and higher values for bark.
                Expressed as methane.
                 Emitted  as  formaldehyde.
                9Based on trench incinerator emission.
2/72
Stationary Combustion Sources
1-11

-------
REFERENCES FOR  CHAPTER 1
 1.  Nationwide Inventory of Air  Pollutant Emissions, 1968.  U.S.  DHEW, PHS,
     EHS,  National Air  Pollution Control Administration.  Raleigh, N. C.  Publica-
     tion No. AP-73.  August  1970.

 2.  Smith, W.  S.  Atmospheric  Emissions from Coal Combustion.  U.S. DHEW,
     PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  PHS
     Publication No.  999-AP-24.  April 1966.  p. 72.

 3.  Perry, H.  and J. H. Field.  Air  Pollution and the Coal Industry,  Transac-
     tions  of the Society of Mining Engineers.  238:337-345.  December 1967.

 4.  Heller, A.  W. and  D. F.  Walters.  Impact of Changing Patterns of Energy
     Use on Community  Air Quality.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  15:426,
     September  1965.

 5.  Smith, W.  S.  Atmospheric  Emissions from Coal Combustion.  U.S. DHEW,
     PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  PHS
     Publication No.  999-AP-24.  April 1966,  p. 1.

 6.  Cuffe, S. T.  and R. W. Gerstle.   Emissions from Coal-Fired Power  Plants:
     A Comprehensive Summary.  U. S.  DHEW,  PHS,  National Air Pollution  Con-
     trol Administration.  Raleigh, N.  C.   PHS  Publication No.  999-AP-35.   1967.
     p.  15.

 7.  Austin, H.  C.  Atmospheric Pollution Problems of the Public Utility Industry.
     J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.  J_0(4):292-2 94,  August I960.

 8.  Hovey, H.  H. , A.  Risman,  and J. F.  Cunnan.  The Development of Air Con-
     taminant Emission  Tables for Nonprocess Emissions,   J. Air Pollution  Con-
     trol Assoc.  _l_6_:362-366,  July 1966.

 9.  Anderson,  D.  M. ,  J0  Lieben,  and V.  H.  Sussman.  Pure Air for Pennsylvania.
     Pennsylvania Department of Health.  Harrisburg, Pa.   November 1961.   p.
     91-95.

10.  Communication with National Coal Association.  Washington, D.  C.  Septem-
     ber 1969.

11.  Hangebrauck,  R. P. , D.  S.  Von Lehmden,  and J. E,  Meeker.   Emissions of
     Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and Other Pollutants from Heat Generation and
     Incineration Processes.  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.  l_4_:267-278, July
     1964.

12.  Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants.  U.S. DHEW, PHS,  EHS,
     National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Washington, D. C.  Publica-
     tion No. AP-52.  January 1969.  p. xviii  and xxii.

13.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Final Report.  Resources  Research, Incor-
     porated, Reston, Virginia.  Prepared for National Air Pollution  Control
     Administration under contract No. CPA-22-69-119.  April 1970.
1-12                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72

-------
14.  Unpublished  stack test data on emissions from anthracite coal combustion.
     Pennsylvania Air Pollution Commission.  Harrisburg,  Pa.   1969.

15.  Unpublished  stack test data on emissions from anthracite coal combustion.
     New Jersey Air Pollution Control Program.  Trenton,  N.  J.   1969.

16.  Anderson, D. M. ,  J. Lieben, and V.  H. Sussman.  Pure Air for Pennsylvania.
     Pennsylvania Department of Health.  Harrisburg,  Pa.  November 1961.  p.  15.

17.  Blackie, A,  Atmospheric  Pollution from Domestic Appliances.   The Report
     of the Joint Conference of the Institute of Fuel and the National Smoke Abate-
     ment Society.  London.  February 23,  1945.

18.  Smith, W. S. Atmospheric Emissions from Coal  Combustion,  U.S. DHEW,
     PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  PHS
     Publication No.  999-AP-24.  April 1966,,  p.  76.

19.  Crumley, P. H.  and A. W. Fletcher.  The Formation  of Sulphur Trioxide in
     Flue Gases.  J.  Inst. of  Fuel Combustion.  3£:608-612, August 1957.

20.  Chicago Association of Commerce, Committee of Investigation.  Smoke Abate-
     ment and  Electrification  of Railway Terminals in Chicago.  Chicago, Rand
     McNally Co.  1915.  p. 1143.

21.  Smith, W. S. Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel  Oil Combustion:  An Inven-
     tory Guide.  U.  S.  DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.
     Cincinnati,  Ohio.  PHS Publication No. 999-AP-2.  1962.

22.  Weisburd, M. I. and S. S. Griswold (eds. ).  Air Pollution  Control Field
     Operations Manual:  A Guide for Inspection and Enforcement.  U, S.  DHEW,
     PHS, Division of Air Pollution.   Washington, D. C.   PHS Publication No. 937.
     1962.

23.  Magill, P. L. and  R. W.  Benoliel.  Air Pollution in Los Angeles County:
     Contribution of Industrial Products.  Ind.  Eng. Chem.  44:1347-1352, June
     1952.

24.  The  Smog Problem in Los  Angeles County.  Menlo Park, Calif. ,  Stanford
     Research Institute.   Western Oil and Gas Association.   1954.

25.  Taylor, F. R. et al.  Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion.  Final Report.
     Prepared for American Petroleum Institute.  Scott Research Lab.  Perkasie,
     Pa.  March 1963.

26.  Unpublished data from San Francisco  Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
     on emissions from fuel oil combustion.  1968.

27.  Unpublished data from Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District on
     fuel  oil combustion.  April 8,  1969.

28.  Wasser,  J. H. ,  G. B.  Martin, and R.  P.  Hangebrauck. Effects  of Combus-
     tion Gas Residence Time  on Air Pollutant Emissions from Oil-Fired Test
     Furnace.  U.S. DHEW, PHS,  CPEHS,  National Air Pollution Control Admin-
     istration.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.  September 1968.
2/72                          Stationary ComDustion Sources                         1-13

-------
29.  Howekamp,  D. P. and M.  K. Hooper.  Effects of Combustion-Improving
     Devices on Air Pollutant Emissions from Residential Oil-Fired Furnaces.
     U. S. DHEW, PHS,  National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Cincinnati,
     Ohio.  June 1970.

30.  MacChee, R. D. , J.  R.  Taylor,  and R. L.  Chaney.  Some Data on Particu-
     lates from Fuel Oil Burning.  Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control Dis-
     trict.  Presented at APCA Semiannual Technical Conference, San Francisco,
     California.  November 1957.

31.  Chass, R.  L.  and R.  E.  George.  Contaminant Emissions from Combustion
     of Fuels.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc,,   l_0_:34-43,  February I960.

32.  Hangebrauck,  R.  P. , D. S.  Von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.  Emissions of
     Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and Other Pollutants  from Heat Generation and
     Incineration Processes.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  Ij4_:271, July 1964.

33.  Chass, R.  L. , R. G. Lunche, N.  R. Schaffer, and P. S. Tow.  Total Air
     Pollution Emissions in Los Angeles County.  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.
     1^:351-365, October  I960.

34.  Shreve, R. N.  Chemical Process Industries.  3rd  ed.  New York,  McGraw-
     Hill Book Co. , 1967.

35.  Hall, E.  L.  What Is  the Role of the Gas  Industry in Air Pollution?  Proceed-
     ings  of Second National Air Pollution Symposium.  Pasadena, Calif.  1952.
     p.  54-58.

36.  Hovey, H.  H. , A. Risman, and J. F. Cunnan.  The Development of Air Con-
     taminant Emission  Tables  for Nonprocess Emissions.  New York State Depart-
     ment of Health.  Albany, N. Y.  1965.

37.  Private Communication with the American Gas Association Laboratories.
     Cleveland, Ohio.  May 1970.

38.  Wohlers,  H.  C. and G.  B.  Bell.   Literature Review of Metropolitan Air Pol-
     lutant Concentrations: Preparation,  Sampling, and Assay of Synthetic Atmos-
     pheres.  Menlo Park, Calif., Stanford Research Institute.  1956.

39.  Unpublished data  on domestic gas-fired units.  U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
     National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  1970.

40.  Hall, E.  L.  Products of Combustion of Gaseous Fuels.   Proceedings of Second
     National Air Pollution Symposium.  Pasadena, Calif.  1952.  p. 84.

41.  Faith,  W. L.  Combustion and Smog.   Report No. 2.  Southern California Air
     Pollution Foundation.  Los Angeles,  Calif.  September 1954.

42.  Vandaveer,  F. E. and C.  G.  Segeler.  Ind. Eng. Chem.  37_:816-820, 1945.
     See also  correction in Ind.  Eng.  Chem. 44_:1833, 1952.

43.  Emissions in the  Atmosphere from. Petroleum Refineries.  Los Angeles County
     Air Pollution Control District.  Report No. 7.   1958.  p. 23.
1-14                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72

-------
44,  Unpublished data from San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
     on emissions from natural gas combustion.  1968.

45,  Clifford, E. A.  A Practical Guide to Liquefied Petroleum Gas Utilization.
     Moore Pub. Co.,  New York.  1962.

46.  Hough,  G.  W. and L.  J.  Gross.  Air Emission Control in a Modern Pulp and
     Paper Mill.  Amer.  Paper  Industry.  5_1_:36, February 1969.

47.  Fryling, G. R.  (ed.).  Combustion Engineering.  New York.  1967.  p.  27-3.

48.  Private communication on wood combustion with W. G.  Tucker.  Division of
     Process Control Engineering, U.S. DHEW,  PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution
     Control Administration.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   November 19,  1969.

49.  Burckle, J. O. , J. A, Dorsey, and B.  T.  Riley.  The Effects of Operating
     Variables and Refuse  Types  on Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incinera-
     tor.   Proceedings of  the 1968 Incinerator Conference,  ASME,   New  York.
     May 1968.  p. 34-41.
2/72                         Stationary Combustion Sources                         1-15

-------

-------
                      2.  SOLID WASTE  DISPOSAL

     As defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the term "solid waste"
means garbage, refuse, and other discarded solid materials,  including solid-
waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and agricultural opera-
tions,  and from community activities.  It includes both combustibles and noncom-
bustibles.

     An average of 5. 5 pounds (2. 5 kilograms) of refuse and garbage is collected
per capita per day in the United States. *  This  does not include  some  of the uncol-
lected waste such as  industrial -waste, wastes burned in commercial and apartment
house incinerators, and wastes disposed of by backyard burning, which contribute
at least 4. 5 pounds (2 kilograms)  per capita per day.   Together, this  gives a con-
servative per capita generation rate of 10 pounds (4. 5 kilograms) per day.
Approximately 50 percent of all the generated waste in the United States is burned
by a wide variety  of combustion methods including both enclosed and open burning.
Atmospheric emissions, both gaseous and particulate, result from refuse-disposal
operations that utilize combustion to reduce the quantity of refuse.  Emissions
from these combustion processes cover a wide  range because of their dependence
on the refuse burned, the method  of combustion or incineration,  and many other
factors.   Because of the large number of variables involved, it  was impossible in
most cases  to establish usable ranges in emission factors and to delineate those
conditions when the upper or lower limit should be used.  For this reason,  in most
cases, only a single factor  has been presented.


REFUSE INCINERATION

Process Description3-6

      The most common types  of incinerators consist of a refractory-lined chamber
with a grate upon which refuse is  burned.  Combustion products are formed by con-
tact between underfire air and waste on  the grates in the primary chamber.
Additional air (overfire air) is admitted above the burning waste to promote gas-
phase combustion. In the multiple-chamber-type incinerator, gases from the pri-
mary chamber  flow to a small mixing chamber  where more air  is admitted,  then to
a larger,  secondary chamber where more complete oxidation occurs.  As much as
150 percent excess air may be supplied  in order to promote oxidation of combusti-
bles.  Auxiliary burner s are sometimes installed  in the mixing  chamber to increase
the combustion temperature.   Many small-size incinerators are single-chamber
units,  in which gases are vented from the primary combustion chamber directly
into the exhaust stack.

Definitions of Incinerator Categories3

     No exact definitions of incinerator size categories exist, but for this report
the folio-wing general categories and descriptions have been selected:

      1.  Municipal incinerators -  These multiple-chamber units have capacities
         greater than 50 tons (45. 3 MT) per day and  are usually equipped with
 2/72                                    2-1

-------
         automatic charging mechanisms and temperature controls.  Municipal
         incinerators are also usually equipped with some type of particulate con-
         trol device,  such as  a spray chamber.

      2.  Industrial/commercial incinerators - These units cover a wide range,
         generally between 50 and 4, 000 pounds per hour (22, 1 and 1, 800  kilo-
         grams).  Of either single-  or multiple-chamber design,  they are fre-
         quently manually  charged and intermittently  operated.   Better designed
         emission control  systems include  gas-fired afterburners or scrubbing,
         or both.

      3.  Domestic incinerators  -  This category include incinerators marketed for
         residential use.   Fairly simple in design,  they may have single or
         multiple chambers and usually are equipped  with an auxiliary burner to
         aid combustion.

      4.  Flue-fed incinerators - These units, commonly found in large apartment
         houses, are  characterized  by the charging method of dropping refuse
         down the incinerator flue and into  the combustion chamber.   Modified
         flue-fed incinerators utilize afterburners and draft controls to  improve
         combustion efficiency and reduce emissions.

      5.  Pathological incinerators - These are incinerators used to dispose of
         animal remains and other organic material of high moisture content.
         Generally, these  units  are  in a size range of 50 to 100 pounds (22. 7 to
         45. 4 kilograms) per  hour.  They are equipped with combustion controls
         and afterburners  to ensure good combustion and minimum, emissions.

      6.  Controlled air incinerators - These units operate on the controlled com-
         bustion principle  in which a small percentage of the air theoretically
         required to burn the  waste  is supplied to the main chamber.  These units
         are usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms and are  charac-
         terized by the high effluent temperatures reached at the exit of the
         incinerators.

Emissions and Controls3
      Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design
determine  the  composition of the effluent and thus the nature of emissions.  The
manner in  •which air is supplied  to the combustion chamber or chambers has the
greatest effect on the  quantity of particulate emissions.  Air may be  introduced
from beneath the chamber, from the side, or from the top of the combustion
chamber.  As  underfire air is increased, fly-ash emissions increase.  The way
in which refuse is charged also has  an effect on the particulate emissions.
Improper charging disrupts the combustion bed and precipitates release of large
quantities  of particulates.  Emissions of oxides of sulfur are dependent on the sul-
fur content of the refuse.   Nitrogen  oxide emissions depend on the temperature of
the combustion zones, their residence time  in the combustion zone before quench-
ing, and the  excess  air rate.  Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions also
depend on  the quantity of air supplied to the  combustion chamber and the efficiency
of combustion.
2-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
      Table 2-1 lists the relative collection efficiencies of particulate control equip-
ment used for municipal incinerators.  This control equipment has little effect
on gaseous emissions.  Table 2-2 summarizes the uncontrolled emission factors
for the various types of incinerators previously discussed.

               Table  2-1.  COLLECTION  EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES
               OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION  PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS9
Type of system
Settling chamber
Settling chamber and water spray
Wetted baffles
Mechanical collector
Scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
Efficiency, %
0 to 30
30 to 60
60
30 to 80
80 to 95
90 to 96
97 to 99
              References 5, 7 through  13.

AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION

Process Description3
      Auto incinerators consist of a primary combustion chamber in which one or
several partially stripped cars are burned.  (Tires are removed.)  Approximately
30 to 40 minutes is required to burn two bodies simultaneously.    Up to 50  cars
per day can be burned in this batch-type operation,  depending on the capacity of
the incinerator.  Continuous operations in which cars are placed on a conveyor
belt and passed through a tunnel-type incinerator have  capacities of more than 50
cars per 8-hour day.


Emissions and  Controls3

      Both the degree of combustion as  determined by the incinerator design and
the amount of combustible material left on the car  greatly affect emissions.
Temperatures on the order  of 1200° F (650° C) are reached during auto body
incineration. ^2  This relatively low combustion temperature is a result of the
large incinerator volume needed to contain the bodies as compared to the small
quantity of combustible material.  The  use of overfire  air jets in the  primary com-
bustion chamber increases combustion  efficiency by providing air  and increased
turbulence.


      In an attempt to reduce the various air pollutants produced by this burning,
some auto  incinerators are  equipped with emission control devices.  Afterburners
and low-voltage electrostatic precipitators have been used to reduce particulate
emissions; the former also  reduces  some of the gaseous emissions. ^» ^ When
afterburners  are used to control emissions,  the temperature in the secondary com-
bustion chamber should be at least 1500°  F (815° C).  Lower temperatures result
in higher emissions.   Emission factors for auto body incinerators are presented
in Table 2-3.
2/72                             Solid Waste Disposal                             2-3

-------
O
Qi
o
o
c/l
D:
o
a:
o
oo
Q£
O
oo
oo
CM


CXJ


QJ






2
i — i
I—
cc
C£.
l—
U_
O
OO
GO
J — 1






h-
E~o cn
CU 1/1 y
cn cu
S- •-- C
•MX o
•F- 0 -t->
-O
cn
U ^6
to
u c
S- -P
T3 ---.
h-
s:
0) ^v,
•o cn
X
o
E
o
E
c
c o
5 £
s- _a
(T3 r—
CJ
„ 1
S- W ^t,
ZJ CU
H- T3
3 X O
CO O -M
-£)
f—
cn
CU
(0
•i- 0
S- -v.
(Q JD
1
0)
O.
S-
0
fTJ
t-
O)
CJ
c

r-
CM
LO
O
in

LO
r^-
ro
ro
CM
O
4->
0
LO
ro
in
O
LO
•—
LO
C
o
CO
o
ro
e
e chamber,
trolled
rd CL O
Q.-I- o
•r- 4-> E
U ^— ZJ
z:
-
C\J
LO
0


LO
ro
ro
0
-*->
o
LO
ro
un
CD
LO
•—
r^
LO
ro
o
ro
2
>ttl ing chamber
 IB
3
"1
„
-
o"
o
m
O
LTl
CM
O
R
0
LO
r-
LO
CO
CO
o
^
r~-
1 /commercial
e chamber9
tO i —
E
LO
r— LO i—
CM O ro
LO cn LO
. cu
o* o"
LO '^t'
o cn o
LO
O C\J
LO LO
cn
o cu o
CM
o o
+-> cn "-
cu
«3- ^.
o
CM
LO vn LO
r^. r-v CNJ
ooo
LO LO LO
r- i— O
in r^.
r-*. o LO
,— CM O
ro r*--
O O O
^± o r^
in i — o
f— ro
1- t-
O» -r-
^i ns
1 -8
0 ^ ^
OJ O ~O
r— S- CU
cn -M M-
C C 1
CO O Z5
u_
LO
0
LO
CD
CM
O
ro
0
ro
LO
0
CM
0
LO
0
ro
o
0

«,
(modified)1 >m
-o
O)
<4-
U.
LO
0
,-
o
LO

8
0
LO
o
o
ro
LO
CM
0
LO
0
LO

LO
ro

single chamber
, primary burner"
O ZJ
•r- O
-(-» -E
|3
LO
CM ro
cn
CU

oj cn
0)
•z.
cn cn
cu 0*
cn cn
01 CU
^ -zz
vn
CM cn
o -z:
LO cn
CD -zz
LO
ro -cf
O
O
CM
CO
o
J-
o>
c
S-
ZJ
is 2
••- u
Q- cn
o
-C T—
•M O
3 •*-»
0
rtj
CU
CX
*+-
o
CU
•a
to
cn
-C
a) iJ
vi o
• CU
cn i-
c ra
•M VI
ai o
-M
u -o
(TJ C
-M 0
V> O
oo
03 -M
CU ZJ
C -Q
0 0
E U
i-l
O fO
M-
-*->
L/1 C
CU CU
ZJ -M
CU E
u C
CX E
LU -f—
E C
0 O
to S_
(O 0)
-Q CX
O
E
CU E CU
•r- .C rtj
cn S • .E
OJ -M
vi v) O 0)
t. a. to E
o cn
•*-> E V) V)
(IJ S-
4- -0 T3
CU O to V)
OVr- VI VI
(TJ V) CU CU
S- (/> S- S_
> E X X
 0)
fB
^: o
>d as HQ2-
,es 7, and 14 throug
icipal incinerators
ntrols.
es 5,7,16,19, and Z
01 E 3 U E
to CU E O)
0) S- S- fc.
t- Ol -M CU CU
X CU O -M CU
LU o; s: o cc.
O 0> 4- cn .













.E VI
itJ cn i—
4-> ZJ O
-o s- •<->
-E E
J- -MO
0 U
4-> cn
m i— •*•»
S- • M-
cu O -o ns
E CM E 1- O
•i- fO "O CM)
cj -O
EC - -O -O
i— fO IQ tO LO
to i^D «tO "
CX r-~ LO ^ r*«* T3 T3
•r- — (U r- E E
u r-- E us m
>r- . r, J_ .
ELOLOLorjLor-»- -LO
zj ^— -Q r-
E w* t/> S- i/>  •cu cu cu c~ cu cu cu cu
(QO)CUCU*r— CUOfOICU
coDi:a:Q:3ci:Qc:oioe
C .r- T-) ^ r- E E 0 Q.
 2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                     2/72

-------
              Table 2-3.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUTO  BODY  INCINERATION^
                            EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  B
Pollutants
Particulates'3
Carbon monoxide0
Hydrocarbonsc (Cfy)
Nitrogen oxides^ (N02)
Aldehydesd (HCOH)
Organic acids0* (Acetic)
Uncontrolled
Ib/car
2
2.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
kg/car
0.9
1.1
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.14
With afterburner
Ib/car
1.5
Neg
Neg
0.02
0.06
0.4
kg/car
0.68
Neg
Neg
0.01
0.03
0.18
            Based on 250 Ib (112 kg)  of  combustible material  on stripped
            car body.
            bReferences 22 and 24.
            cBased on data for open burning and References 22  and 25.
            Reference 24.

CONICAL BURNERS

Process Description3

      Conical  burners are generally a truncated metal cone with a screened top
vent.  The charge is placed on a raised  grate by either conveyor or bulldozer.
Use of a conveyor results in more efficient burning than  placing the charge by
bulldozer.   No supplemental fuel is used, but combustion air is often supplemented
by underfire air blown into the chamber  below the grate and by  overfire air intro-
duced through peripheral openings in the shell.

Emissions and  Controls
      The quantities and types of pollutants released from conical burners are
dependent on the composition and moisture content of the charged material, con-
trol of combustion air, type of charging  system used, and  the condition in which
the incinerator is maintained.  The most critical of these factors seems  to be the
lack of maintenance on the  incinerators.  It is not uncommon for conical  burners
to have missing doors and numerous holes in the shell—resulting in excessive
combustion air, low temperatures, and  therefore high emission rates.  "

      Particulate control systems  have been  adapted to conical burners with some
success.  These control  systems include water curtains  (wet caps) and "water
scrubbers.  Emission factors for  conical burners are shown in Table 2-4.


OPEN BURNING

General Information3

      Open burning can be done in  open drums  or baskets and in large-scale open
dumps or pits.  Materials commonly disposed of in this manner are municipal
waste, auto body components, landscape refuse, agricultural field  refuse,  wood
refuse, and bulky industrial refuse.
2/72
Solid Waste Disposal
2-5

-------
       Table  2-4.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR WASTE INCINERATION  IN  CONICAL  BURNERS

                                 WITHOUT  CONTROLS3
                            EMISSION  FACTOR  RATING:  B
Type of
waste
Municipal
refuse13
Wood6


Particulates
Ib/ton
20(10 to 60)c>d
if
79
20h
kg/MT
10
0.5
3.5
10
Sulfur
oxides
Ib/ton
2
0.1


kg/MT
1
0.05


Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
60
130


kg/MT
30
65


Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton
20
11


kg/MT
10
5.5


Nitrogen
oxides
Ib/ton
5
1


kg/MT
2.5
0.5


 Moisture content as fired is approximately  50  percent for wood waste.
 Except for participates, factors are based  on  comparison with other waste disposal
 practices.

°Use high side of range for intermittent  operations  charged with a bulldozer.
 Based on Reference 27.

References 28 through 33.
 Satisfactory operation:  properly maintained burner with adjustable underfire air
 supply and adjustable, tangential overfire  air inlets, approximately 500 percent
 excess air and 700° F (370° C) exit gas  temperature.
^Unsatisfactory operation:  properly maintained burner with radial overfire air
 supply near bottom of shell, approximately  1,200  percent excess air and 400° F
 (204° C) exit gas temperature.
L.
 Very unsatisfactory operation:  improperly  maintained burner with radial overfire
 air supply near bottom of shell  and many gaping holes in shell, approximately
 1,500 percent excess air and 400° F (204° C) exit gas temperature.
Emissions

      Ground-level open burning is affected by many variables including wind,
ambient temperature,  composition and moisture content of the  debris burned, size
and shape  of the debris burned, and compactness of the pile.  In general,  the
relatively  low temperatures associated with open burning increase the emissions
of particulates, carbon monoxide,  and hydrocarbons  and suppress the emissions
of nitrogen oxides.  Sulfur oxide emissions are  also a. direct function of the  sulfur
content of  the refuse.  Emission factors  are presented in Table 2-5 for  the  open
burning of three broad categories of waste:  (1)  municipal refuse,  (2) automobile
components,  and  (3) horticultural refuse.
2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72

-------

















CD
•z.
\ — i
f^f
— »
co

z
UJ CO

CD

o: CD
O z
1 1 i — i
1 —
oo =C
CC C£

? Di
y e
^r r^
U- CJ
•z. u.
o
i-. z:
OO CD
oo •— '
i-l OO
2: oo
LU i — i
UJ
Ln
i
CM

O)
3

•





































O) CO
en cu
O ~O
S- •!-
•4-* X
•r— O


C
-£ —
o n:
0 CJ
S— •••—"*
-d
1C

cu
c -o
0 -r-
-Q X
S- O
tO C
o o
E





I/}
cu
|O
X
o
1.
^3
4-
t—~
~*$
00


CO
cu
4_J
to
1 —
CJ
• r—
4->
S-

Q.


1—
cn




c:
o
£
£
"cn
•^

c
o

5
1—
o>
\S



C
0

-^»,
_Q
*~

|_-
^~
^^
cn

c
0

"""•s^
_f7)
^—


|

cn
j^;


C
O


o
P—










QJ
4->
CO
to
S

4-
0

cu
Q.
;>>
1—








oo







CO
Ln
•—




0
00
Ln
CM
«3-






Ln
00




Ln

o



i —






oo





CO


















tO
cu
CO
^3
M-
0)
S-

i —
03
Q-
•i —
CJ
•I—
c
^
s:
CM







^
LT)
1 —




O
ro
LO
CM
CO






LO
CM
i —



CD
CU
z


cn
cu
•z.





o
LT)




O
0










CJ
•1
fl
CO -O
4-) CU
E CO
CO 3
C 4-
O CU
Q. S-
E
O •—
CJ to
s_
CU 3
r— -f->
•1 — 1 —
XI 13
0 0
E T-
0 4->
4J S-
3 O
^C i~"








CM
0
1 —




O
CM
O
en






o
o
i —



cn
cu
^


cn
CU
^~




Ln
CO





r-~








cn
.,_
c
S-
3
J3

-o
,—
CU

l^-_

i —
to
s-
3
4J
t—
=3
O
»l —
S-
cn

r^_
CU
o

*%
>^
S-
O)
4J
CO
,_
o

CL
— i
-Q



















































O


e~
cn
Zf
o
i-
_c
4->
00
ro

•a
c
to

n
CO
oo

«
• Ln
un CM
CM
CO
cu cu
CJ CJ
c c
cu cu
S_ S-
cu cu
4- 4-
cu cu
a: o:
U T3
2/72
Solid Waste Disposal
2-7

-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2

 1.   Black,  Ralph J.,  H. Lanier Hickman,  Jr., Alberi J. Klee, Anton J. Muchick,
     and Richard D. Vaughan.   The National Solid Waste Survey:  An Interim
     Report, Public Health Service,  Environmental Control Administration,
     Rockville, Maryland.  1968.

 2.   Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions,  1968.   U.S. DHEW,  PHS,
     EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Raleigh, North Carolina.
     Publication No. AP-73.  August 1970.

 3.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   Final Report.   Resources  Research Incor -
     porated,  Reston,  Virginia.  Prepared  for National Air Pollution Control
     Administration under contract No. CPA-22-69-119.   April 1970.

 4.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources.
     U.S. DHEW, PHS,  EHS,  National Air  Pollution Control Administration,
     Washington, B.C.   Publication No AP-65.  March 1970.

 5.   Danielson, J.A.  (ed. ). Air Pollution  Engineering Manual.   U.S. DHEW,
     PHS Publication No.  999-AP-40.   National Center for Air  Pollution Control.
     Cincinnati,  Ohio.  1967 p.  413-503.

 6.    De Marco, J. et  al.  Incinerator Guidelines 1969.  U.S.  DHEW,  PHS.
     Cincinnati, Ohio.  SW-13TS.  1969. p.  176.

 7.    Kanter,  C.  V., R. G.  Lunche, and A. P.  Fururich.  Techniques for Testing
      for Air Contaminants from Combustion Sources.  Air Pollution Control
     Assoc.  6(4):191-199.  February 1957.

 8.    Jens. W.  and F.R. Rehm.  Municipal  Incineration and Air Pollution Control.
     1966 National Incinerator  Conference,  ASME.  New York,  May 1966.

 9.   Rehm,  F.R.  Incinerator Testing and  Test Results.   J.  Air  Pollution Con-
     trol Assoc.   6^:199-204.  February 1957.

10.   Sienburg, R. L. et al.  Field Evaluation of Combustion Air Effects on Atmos-
     pheric  Emissions from Municipal Incinerations.   J.  Air  Pollution Control
     Assoc. J_2j83-89.   February 1962.

11.   Smauder. E.E.   Problems of Municipal Incineration.  Presented at First
     Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, West Coast Section, Los Angeles,
     California.  March 1957.

12.   Gerstle,  R.  W.  Unpublished data:  revision of emission factors  based on
     recent stack lests.   U.S.  DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution
     Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  1967.

13.   A Field Study of Performance of  Three Municipal Incinerators.  University
     of California  Berkeley, Technical Bulletin. J>: 41, November 1957.

14,    Feru^ndes  J.  H.  Incinerator  Air Pollution Control.  Proceedings of  1968
     National Incinerator Conference,  ASME.   New York. May 1968.  p. 111.
2-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
15.  Unpublished data on incinerator  testing.   U.S. DREW, PHS,  EHS,  National
    Air Pollution Control Administration.  Durham,  N.C. 1970.

16.  Slear,  J.  L.   Municipal Incineration:  A Review  of Literature.  Environ-
    mei tal Protection Agency,  Office of Air Programs.   OAP Publication No.
    AP 79.    Research Triangle  Park,  N.C.   June  1971.

17.  Kaiser, E.R.  et al.   Modifications  to Reduce Emissions from a Flue-fed
    Incinerator.  New York University.  College of Engineering.  Report No.
    552. Z.   June  1959. p. 40 and  49.

18.  Unpublished data on incinerator  emissions.  U.S. DHEW,  PHS,  Bureau of
    Solid Waste Management.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  1969.

19.  Kaiser, E.R.   Refuse Reduction Processes in Proceedings of Surgeon
    General's Conference on Solid Waste Management.  Public Health Service.
    Washington, D. C.  PHS Report No.  1729.  July  10-20, 1967.

20.  Unpublished source lest data  on  incinerators.  Resources Research, Incor-
    porated.   Reston, Virginia.  1966-1969.

21.  Communication between Resources  Research,  Incorporated,  Reston, Virginia,
    and Maryland State Department  of Health,  Division of Air Quality Control.
    L969.

22.  Kaiser, E.R.  and J.  Tolcias. Smokeless Burning of Automobile Bodies.  J.
    Air Pollution Control Assoc.   l_2_:64-73.  February 1962.

23.  Alpiser,  F. M. Air  Pollution from Disposal of Junked Autos.   Air Engineer-
    ing,  l_0_:18-22.   November 1968.

24.  Private Communication with D.F,  Walters,  U.S. DHEW, PHS,  Division of
    Air Pollution.  Cincinnati,  Ohio. July 19, 1963.

25.  Gerstle,  R. W. and D.A. Kemnitz.  Atmospheric Emissions from Open
    Burning.  J.  Air Pollution Control  Assoc. l_7_:324-327.  May 1967.

26.  Kreichelt,  T.E.  Air Pollution Aspects of Teepee Burners.  U.S. DHEW,  PHS,
    Division of Air Pollution.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  PHS Publication No.  999-
    AP-28.  September 1966.

27.  Magill,  P. L. andR.W. Benoliel.  Air Pollution in Los  Angeles County:
    Contribution of Industrial Products. Ind. Eng. Chem.  44:1347-1352.   June
    1952.

28.  Private Communication with Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste
    Management.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.   October 31, 1969.

29.  Anderson,  D.M.,  J.  Lieben,  and V.H.Sussman.  Pure Air for  Pennsylvania.
    Pennsylvania State Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pa.  November 1961.
    p.  98.
2/72                              Solid Waste Disposal                             2-9

-------
30. Boubel,  R.W. et al.  Wood Waste Disposal and Utilization.  Engineering
    Experiment Station,  Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.  Bulletin
    No.  39,  June 1958. p. 57.

31.  Netzley, A.B. and J.E.  Williamson.   Multiple  Chamber Incinerators for
    Burning Wood Waste.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Damelson, J. A.
    (ed.) U.S. DHEW, PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control,  Cincinnati,
    Ohio.  PHS Publication No.  999-AP-40.   1967.  P.  436-445.

32. Droege, H.  and G. Lee.   The Use of Gas Sampling and Analysis for the
    Evaluation of Teepee Burners, Bureau of Air Sanitation, California Depart-
    ment of Public Health, Presented at the  Seventh Conference  on Methods in Air
    Pollution Studies, Los Angeles,  California.  January 25-Z6,  1965.

33. Boubel.  R.W.  Particulate Emissions  from Sawmill Waste Burners.  Engi-
    neering Experiment  Station, Oregon State University,  Corvallis,  Oregon.
    Bulletin No. 42.  August  1968.  p.  7-8.

34. Burkle,  J.O. , J.  A.  Dorsey,  andB.  T.  RiJL-y.  The Effects of Operating
    Variables  and Refuse Types on Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incin-
    erator.  Proceedings of  the  1968 Incinerator Conference.  ASME.  New York
    May 1968.  p. 34-41.

35. Weisburd,  M.I.  andS.S.  Griswold (eds. ).  Air Pollution Control Field Opera-
    tions Manual:  A Guide for Inspection and Control.  U.S. Government Print-
    ing Office.  Washington, D.C. Publication No 937.  1962.

36. Unpublished data: Estimated major  air  contaminant emissions.   State of
     New York, Department  of Health.  Albany, New York. April 1,  1968.
     Table A-9.

37. Darley, E.F. et al.  Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes to
    Photochemical Air Pollution.  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc. 16:685-690.
    December 1966.

38. Feldstein, M. et al.  The Contribution of ihe Open Burning of Land Clear-
    ing Debris to Air Pollution.  J. Air Pollution Control  Assoc. 13 : 542-545.
    November 1963.

39. Boubel, R.W.,  E.F. Darley,  and E. A.  Schuck.  Emissions from Burning
    Grass Stubble and Straw.  J. Air Pollution  Control Assoc. 19:497-500,
    July 1969.

40. Waste  Problems of Agriculture and Forestry.  Environmental Science and
    Technology, 2_:498.  July 1968.
2-10                              EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72

-------
                3.  MOBILE COMBUSTION  SOURCES

      Transportation in general is a major  source of carbon monoxide,  hydrocar-
bons, and nitrogen oxides.  In 1968 estimated emissions from all transportation
sources in the United States were 64 million tons (58 million MT) of carbon monox-
ide,  17 million tons (15. 4 million MT) of hydrocarbons,  and  8 million tons (7. 25
million MT) of nitrogen oxides. *  The primary mobile source of these emissions
is the gasoline-powered motor vehicle.  Other significant sources include aircraft,
diesel-powered trucks and buses, locomotives, and river vessels.  Emission
factors for these sources are presented in  this section.  The effects of controls
have been shown whenever possible.
GASOLINE-POWERED MOTOR VEHICLES

General
      The gasoline-powered motor vehicle category consists of three major types
of vehicles:  passenger cars, light-duty trucks,  and gasoline -powered heavy-duty
vehicles*,  In order to develop an overall emission factor for all gasoline -powered
vehicles, each of these classes had to be •weighted according to its "relative travel,
allowing for the incorporation of new vehicles and scrappage of older vehicles in
the overall vehicle population, allowing for the deterioration of vehicles with age
and mileage, and allowing for differential travel as a function of vehicle age. "^
In order to take into consideration the control of motor vehicle emissions, the
emission factors are presented on a year-by-year basis and are based on applicable
Federal standards  in effect as of 1971, including those proposed for 1973 and
1975.      It is emphasized that the factors given in Table 3-1 are for the vehicle
population mix for  the calendar year given and not for vehicles of that model year
only.
      These emission factors are presented in Table 3-1 for two types of vehicle
operation conditions.  Urban travel •was assumed to be at an average speed of 25
miles per hour (40 kilometers per hour), beginning from a "cold start, " and all
rural travel was  assumed to be at an average speed of 45 miles per hour (72. 5
kilometers per hour),  beginning from a "hot start. "  Exhaust  emissions of carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons vary considerably with speed.  If  emission factors  are
needed for speeds other than the assumed average speeds for  urban and rural driv-
ing,  Figures 3-1 and 3-2 should be used.  For example, the emission factor for
hydrocarbon exhaust emissions under urban driving conditions in 1975 for a speed
of 10 miles per hour (16 kilometers per hour) would be 1. 79 times  the exhaust
hydrocarbon emissions for that year.
      Because legislation has only been proposed for hydrocarbons,  carbon monox-
ide,  particulates, and nitrogen oxides, it was not necessary to present the  emis-
sions of other pollutants on a year-by-year basis.  For this reason,  emission
factors for sulfur oxides, aldehydes,  and organic acids do not vary by year.
2/72                                   3-1

-------





a
GO
UJ
CD
1 — 1
3:
UJ
o:
o
o
Q
UJ
o;
UJ
o
ex
1
1 — 1 ' — '
_J H;
GO °i
CD o;
CD
o; 1—
0 0
Lu. =£
Lu.
0 0
o <£
o
GO
GO
i — i
UJ
1
CO
CD
ro
h-

un
cn

cn
00
cn
CXI


cn

O
en
un
CO
cn
CD
cn

cn
E
cn
E
cn
E
Cn
E
cn
Cn
E
cn
cn
O1
E
Dl
E
cn
E
cn
E
E
cn
E
cn
E
cn
Emissions
CXI r-
oo cxi
CD un
CO 00
CO CO
co *d-
un o
r-- o
CTi CO
«3- eg
o un
co <*
CO CD
CXI i 	
un oo
un o
co un
o cxi
CO «^l'
un oo
CD un
cn un
CD ro
un ro
un o
cn co
un un
^i- ro
I — •- «^d~
0 0
cxi r^
un un
•=f OO
0 0
cxi r^.
Carbon monoxide^
Urban
Rural
CO r-
CD CD
CXJ
•=3- CXI
r- O
CNI *3-
i — CD
Cxi
CO CXJ
•— CD
CNI
i — CXI
r— CD
CXI
CO OO
r— CD
OO CO
i — CD
un
oo -3-
Cxl CD
OO CO
M- cxi
r— CD
un
OO "3-
CXI CD
r— CO
co un
— CD
i — cn
CXI O
CO CO
C£> CO
1 — 1 —
CXJ CXI
CO •*
co un
I— CXI
CXI ^J-
Hydrocarbonsb
Evaporation
Crankcasec
CXI CO
r^ *d~
00 CXI
CO ^t*
o
un ,—
«=j- {V;
CXI
i^ un
CO CNI
cxi r^
un ro
un
CO CO
CTl O
un *d~
un un
CT> CO
ro un
CO 00
-^
un
t^un
CXI CO
oo
O un
O co
un
CO CD
ro
CD un
un
CO O
4-> E i —
co ro ro
ro s- 13
j= => o:
X
CD
00
CD
cn
un
oo
un
un
un
un
CO
un
un
ro
CO
oo
CO
CXI
CD
S
CXI
^
CO
CO
^
o
CO
^
CO
un
CO
CO -Q
x z:
o
CO
c ro
cn x
0 0
CXJ
CO
CD
CD
CD
cn
CD
ro
o
CD
oo
o
cn
o
00
o
CTI
O
OO
o
en
CD
OO
0
cn
0
oo
O
cn
O
0
CD
CD
4->
ro
o
s-
to
tx


-o
CD
S- E
O CD
4- CO
CD
T3 i-
CO
O CO
Q. •!-
O
-UJ
E CJ
cu ro
CD 4-
CO E
ro o
t 4»
o
CJ CO
CD 13
4- -C
CD
•i- ro
•i- CO
o ro
•r- +->
03 .—
i — i —
•r- 0.
cn
i — CO
CD
O -C


I 	 CNI CO
i — CXJ CD
CD CD O
co co ro
r— ro r-
CD CD 0
o
'cxi CD
o cn u
-. 	 CD ^-^
™O ^-^ fr~
•i- U
x co ro
O CD
-a o
$->>••-
13 -E E
•— -a cn
13 i— S-
GO eC CD
cn
  • c cn C CD -o CD j_ CD 5 O O- 1 CD C '1r~- o CO ro cn 0) cn ro i- a> ro CD -C CD E CO 00 ro „ — , CO ^_ O) +J • 1 — 1 — ro O i — ^ — cn ^s c. 0 ro cn -- — CO E ro s- cn O i * CO s- O -UJ O ro . C4— . . i. C CD O +J 'r— T— CO i — CO \ •<- E CD ro cxi 4-* * s- un CD CD CJ •> c C E CD O O S- O i — CD r— 4_ o ro CD l— cn ce ro -O O) 5 = -UJ CD 1 CO CD u -E CD CXI CO cn i — i cu i. a. c o •^j CD CO (X5 o CD i- ro CO ^_ o o ro 4- CD CO CD -C CD i — JD •r- ( — cn CD E CD i. ro CXI CO cn ' S- CD 4- ro CO CD O c~ CD > S- O CO • d E 0 0 CO -l-> co ro •r— i E ^3 ' 0) CX CO O CD a. CD 00 o: u -a • ^^ CD -UJ •f— i — \^ cn ^ ^j- r^ CD — • E O ^Z to cn -Q ! f^- CO 4_ O ;>, -i-j •i — CO d CD •^j ro -a E ro ^_> c~ CD CJ S- CD Q- ^j- O • CD S- 0 4- -l-> O U ro +J 4- E CD 1 — +J ro E s- o 13 CJ S_ S- n rs 4- S- i— O =3 -l-> CO O ro E 4- 0 E "O ro CD -Q CO s- ro => co CU 4- cn _E cn ^ O S- -E +J |*^ CO CD a c CD i. a> 4- 0) Di cn • 1 — , — - -E cn ;3 O S- -E -(-> cn -a E ro n | — ^ CO CD CJ CD S- CD 4- CD _E » i — ^^ cn t— ^ i — ~^ "~3 c -r— c CD S- S- o CO CD S- 23 T3 CD CJ O s_ O- 4-> CO CD 4_> "O IO CD O >^ CJ 4-) CO CD •a CD CO • 1 — >. CD S- 4_1 O CD i — 4- CD S- o -a cu •UJ to -a O- — i •r- 3-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72

  • -------
            2.5
            2.0
            1.5
         § 1.0
         o
         o
            0.5
                            24
                     SPEED, km/hr
                  32              40
                                 48
                                                                                      56
         a:
         o
                                                                       URBAN TRAVEL
              10
    15
    20             25
       SPEED, mi 'hr
                                                                       30
                                                             35
                                              SPEED, km/hr
                                                  80
                                                  50
                                               SPEED, mi''hr
                    Figure 3-1.  Speed adjustment graphs for carbon monoxide emission factors.
    Emissions
    
          Air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles come from three principal
    sources:  exhaust,  crankcase blow-by, and evaporation from the fuel tank and
    carburetor.  It has been estimated that about 55 percent of the hydrocarbons come
    from the engine exhaust, 25 percent from the blow-by,  and 20 percent from
    2/72
             Mobile Combustion Sources
                                                  3-3
    

    -------
             16
            2.5
            2.0
    
    
         or
         o
         I—
         o
    
         £  1.5
         3  1.0
    
    
         CJ
         31
    
    
    
    
    
            0.5
      24
           SPEED, km/hr
    
        32             40
            48
                                                                        56
                                                                       URBAN TRAVEL
              10
       15
        20             25
            SPEED, mph
                                                                       30
                           35
             56
             35
    64
    40
            SPEED, km/hr
    
                80
    45
    55
                                                                          60
                                     50
    
    
                                  SPEED, mph
    
    
    Figure 3-2. Speed adjustment graphs for hydrocarbon exhaust emission factors.
    evaporation from, the fuel tank and carburetor for an uncontrolled vehicle, where-
    
    as essentially all of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides come from the
    
    engine exhaust.     As a rough approximation, the amount of particulate matter
    
    emitted  in the blow-by is about one-third to one-half the amount emitted in the
    
    exhaust.
    3-4
                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                      2/72
    

    -------
    Evaporative Emissions  - Emissions from the fuel tank result primarily from the
    evaporation of gasoline  in the vehicle tank.   These emissions occur under both
    operating and stationary conditions and are due to the temperature changes in  the
    tank fuel and changes in vapor volume that induce breathing through the tank vent.
    
          Carburetor emissions result under two separate conditions.   Running losses
    occur during vehicle operation as a result of internal carburetor pressures that
    release hydrocarbon vapors through the external  carburetor  vents.  Hot-soak
    losses result from evaporation of the fuel in the carburetor float bowl when the
    vehicle is stationary.
    
    Crankcase Emissions^ _  Gases vented from the engine crankcase  through the
    road draft tube and oil filter tube are, if uncontrolled,  the  second  largest source
    of hydrocarbon emissions.   These emissions consist predominantly of engine
    blow-by gases, with  some crankcase ventilation air and a very limited amount of
    crankcase lubricant fumes.
    
    Exhaust Emissions  '
    
          In contrast to the evaporative and crankcase emissions, which are composed
    predominantly of hydrocarbons, engine exhaust gases additionally  contain carbon
    monoxide, nitrogen oxides,  and other combustion products.
    
          The primary factor influencing the formation of carbon monoxide and hydro-
    carbons is the  air/fuel ratio  supplied to the engine.   The concentrations of these
    pollutants increase as the  air/fuel ratio decreases.   Nitrogen oxide formation  is
    influenced by combustion temperature and the amount of oxygen available for
    reaction with nitrogen.  Another major factor in the rate of release of these pol-
    lutants is vehicle  speed; hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide  emissions decrease
    with an increase  in vehicle speed,  whereas  nitrogen oxides are independent of
    average  vehicle speed.
    
          Particulates, consisting primarily of lead compounds,  carbon particles,  and
    motor oil,  are also emitted from the  engine exhaust.  Because of the complex
    relationships involved, the effects of  engine design and other factors on particulate
    emissions are not well known.  Sulfur oxide emissions  from  engine exhaust are a
    function of the  sulfur content of the gasoline.  Because  of the low average sulfur
    content of gasoline (0. 035 percent), however, this is not normally a major concern.
    DIESEL-POWERED MOTOR VEHICLES
    
    General14' 15
          Diesel engines have been divided into three primary user categorie s—heavy-
    duty trucks, buses, and locomotives.  The operating characteristics  of a diesel
    engine are significantly different from the previously discussed gasoline engine.
    
          In a diesel engine, fuel and air are not mixed before they enter  the cylinder.
    The  air is drawn through an intake valve and then compressed.  The fuel  is then
    injected as  a spray into this high-temperature  air and ignites without the  aid of a
    spark.  Power output of the diesel engines is controlled by the  amount of  fuel
    injected for each cycle.
    2/72                           Mooile Combustion Sources                           3-5
    

    -------
    Emissions
    
         Diesel trucks and buses emit pollutants from the same sources  as gasoline
    systems: blow-by,  evaporation,  and exhaust.  Blow-by is practically eliminated in
    the diesel because  only air is in the cylinder during the compression  stroke.  The
    low volatility of diesel fuel along with the use of closed injection systems essen-
    tially eliminates evaporation losses in diesel systems.
    
         Exhaust emissions from diesel engines have the same general character-
    istics as auto exhausts.   Concentrations of some of the pollutants, however, may
    vary considerably.  Emissions  of sulfur dioxide are a direct function of the fuel
    composition.  Thus, because of  the higher average sulfur content of diesel fuel
    (0.35 percent) as compared to gasoline (0, 035 percent), sulfur dioxide emissions
    from diesel exhausts^"' •*• '  are relatively higher.
    
         Because diesel engines have more complete combustion and use less volatile
    fuels than spark-ignited engines, their  HC and CO emissions  are relatively low.
    Because hydrocarbons in diesel  exhaust are largely just unburned diesel fuel, their
    emissions are related to the volume of  fuel  sprayed into the combustion chamber.
    Recently improved needle valve  injectors reduce the  amount of fuel that  can be
    burned.  These  valves can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by as much as 50 per-
    cent. 1° Both the high temperatures and the large excesses of oxygen involved in
    diesel combustion are conducive to  the  high nitrogen oxide emissions. '
    
         Particulates from  diesel exhaust are in two major forms  - black smoke and
    white smoke.  White smoke is emitted when the fuel droplets  are kept cool in an
    environment abundant in oxygen  (cold starts).  Black smoke,  however, is emitted
    when the fuel droplets are subjected to  high temperatures in an environment lack-
    ing in oxygen (road conditions).  '
    
         Emission factors  for the three classes of diesel engines,  trucks, buses, and
    locomotives, are presented in Table 3-Z.
    
    
    AIRCRAFT
    
    General22
         Aircraft engines are of two major categories: reciprocating,  or piston,
    engines and gas turbine  engines.  There are four basic types  of gas turbine engines
    used for aircraft propulsion: turbofan, turboprop, turbojet, and  turboshaft.  The
    gas turbine  engine  in general consists  of a compressor, a combustion chamber,
    and a turbine.  Air entering the  forward end of the engine is compressed and then
    heated by burning  fuel.   The major portion of the energy in the heated air stream
    is used for aircraft propulsion.  Part of the energy is expended in driving the
    turbine, which,  in  turn, drives the  compressor.
    
          The  basic  element in piston engine aircraft is the combustion  chamber, or
    cylinder,  in which  fuel and air mixtures are burned and from which energy is
    extracted  through a piston and crank mechanism that drives a  propeller.  Nearly
    all aircraft piston engines have two or more cylinders and are  generally classified
    according to their cylinder arrangements -  either  "opposed" or "radial.  "  Opposed
    engines are installed in most light or utility aircraft. Radial engines are used
    mainly in large  transport aircraft.
    3-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
                       Table  3-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DIESEL  ENGINES0
                                 EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  B
    Pollutant
    Participates
    Oxides of sulfur
    (SOX as S02)d
    Carbon monoxide
    Hydrocarbons
    Oxide^ of nitrogen
    (NOX as N02)
    Aldehydes (as HCHO)
    Organic acids
    Heavy-duty truck and bus
    engines'3
    lb/103 gal
    13
    27
    225
    37
    370
    3
    3
    kg/103 liters
    1.56
    3.24
    27.0
    4.44
    44.4
    0.36
    0.36
    Locomotives0
    lb/103 gal
    25
    65
    70
    50
    75
    4
    7
    kg/103 liters
    3
    7.8
    8.4
    6.0
    9.0
    0.48
    0.84
      Data presented in this table are based  on  weighting factors applied to actual
      tests conducted at various load and idle conditions with an average gross
      vehicle  weight of 30 tons (27.2 MT) and fuel consumption of 5.0 mi/gal
      (2.2 km/liter).
     bReference  20.
     cBased on analysis of data from Reference 21.
      Data for trucks and buses based on average sulfur content of 0.20 percent,  and
      for locomotives, on average sulfur content of 0.5 percent.
    
          A representative list of various models of  aircraft by type is shown in
    Table 3-3.  Both turbofan aircraft and piston engine aircraft have been further sub-
    divided into classes depending  on the size of the  aircraft.  Long-range jets
    normally have approximately 18, 000 pounds maximum thrust,  whereas medium-
    range jets have about 14,000 pounds maximum thrust.   For piston engines,  this
    division is more pronounced^   The large transport piston engines are in the
    500  to 3,000 horsepower range,  whereas the smaller piston engines have less than
    500 horsepower.
    
    Emissions
          Emissions from the various types  of aircraft are presented in Table 3-4.
    Emission factors are presented on the basis of pounds (kilograms) per landing-
    take-off (LTO) cycle per engine.  An LTO cycle  includes all normal operational
    modes performed by an aircraft between the time it descends through an altitude
    of 3, 500 feet (1, 100 meters) above the runway on its approach to the time it
    subsequently reaches the 3,500-foot (1100-meter) altitude after take-off.  It should
    be made clear that the term operation used by the FAA to describe either a landing
    or a take-off is not the same as the LTO cycle.  Two operations are involved in
    one LTO  cycle.  The LTO cycle incorporates the ground  operations of idle,  taxi,
    landing run, take-off run and the flight operations of take-off and climb-out to
    3,500 feet (1, 100 meters) and approach  from 3,500 feet  (1, 100 meters) to touch-
    d own,
    
          The  rates of emission of air pollutants by aircraft engines,  as with other
    internal combustion engines, are related to the fuel consumption rate.   The aver-
    age amount  of fuel used for each phase of an LTO cycle is shown in Table 3-5.
    2/72
    Mobile Combustion Sources
    3-7
    

    -------
                        Table  3-3.  AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION  SYSTEM0
         Aircraft  type
        Turbofan
          Jumbo jet
    
          Long range
          Medium  range
        Turbojet
    
        Turboprop
    
        Turboshaft
        Piston
          Transport
          Light
          Examples  of models
    Boeing 747,  Douglas DC-10,
      Lockheed L-1011
    Boeing 707,  Douglas DC-8
    Boeing 727,  Douglas DC-9
    Boeing 707,  720  Douglas DC-8
    Convair 580,  Electra L-188,
      Fairchild Hiller  FH-227
    Sikorsky S-61,  Vertol  107
    Douglas DC-6,  Lockheed L-1049
    Cessna 210,  Piper  32-300
    Engines  most  commonly used
    Pratt & Uhitney  JT-9D
    
    Pratt & Whitney  JT-3D
    Pratt & Whitney  JT-8D
    Pratt & Whitney  JT-3C
    Pratt & Whitney  JT-4A
    General Electric CJ  805-3B
    General Motors-Allison
      501-Dl3
    General Electric CT58
    Pratt & Whitney R-2800
    Continental  10-520-A
        References  22  through 24.
    These data can be used in conjunction with the emission factors presented in
    Table  3-4 to determine an emission factor in pounds per gallon (kilograms per
    liter) per engine.
    
    VESSELS
    
    General ^
          Fuel oil is the primary fuel used in vessels.  It powers steamships, motor
    ships, and gas-turbine-powered ships.  Gas turbines presently are not in wide-
    spread use and  are thus not included in this  section.  However, within the next few
    years they will  become increasingly common. 30>
    
          Steamships are any ships that have  steam turbines driven by an external com-
    bustion engine.   Motor ships, on the other hand,  have internal combustion engines
    operated on the diesel cycle.
    
    Emissions
          The air pollutant emissions resulting from  vessel operations may be divided
    into two groups: emissions that occur as the  ship is underway and emissions that
    occur when the  ship is dockside or in-berth.
    
          Underway emissions may vary considerably for vessels that are maneuvering
    or docking because of the varying fuel consumption.  During such a time a vessel
    is operated under  a wide range of power  demands for a period of 15  minutes to
     1  hour.  The high  demand may be 15 times the low demand; however,  once  the
    vessel has reached and sustained a normal operation speed, the fuel consumed  is
    reasonably constant.  Table 3-6 shows that 29 to 65 gallons of fuel oil is consumed
    per nautical mile  (60 to 133 liters per kilometer) for steamships and 7 to 30 gallons
     of oil, per nautical mile (14 to 62 liters  per kilometer) for motorships.
     3-8
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               2/72
    

    -------
    o:
    o:
    i—i
    cC
    Qi
    O
    oo
    Di
    O
    C/)
    OO
    ro
     O)
         <1)
         o
         o
        o
     CD
     Q)
     cn
    
    -a
     ro
     >
    QJ
    -o
    5
    
    in
    OJ
    X>
    
    X.
    o
    
    
    
    
    
    
    in
    O
    
    ro
    O
    S-
    •^
    >>
    3=
    
    
    
    
    QJ
    
    .,—
    X
    O
    o
    E
    
    
    in
    QJ
    XJ
    •1—
    X
    O
    
    4-
    i —
    OO
    in
    QJ
    
    ro
    
    (J
    S-
    ro
    Q.
    
    01
    
    
    _o
    
    
    en
    
    
    
    
    -0
    
    
    
    
    cn
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    JD
    
    
    
    
    
    cn
    
    
    
    
    o
    ^_
    
    
    
    
    cn
    
    
    
    
    _a
    "~
    
    
    cn
    
    
    
    £
    
    
    -t-J
    4-
    rO
    S_
    O
    
    .,_
    fO
    
    4-
    O
    
    Ql
    O-
    h-
    
    
    CO
    CM
    o
    in
    o
    CM
    r~*
    
    CM
    
    
    
    VD
    
    
    ID
    CO
    
    I—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    
    
    
    f^
    •
    CM
    i —
    
    
    CO
    CM
    
    
    
    
    , —
    Ol
    
    0
    
    
    CM
    
    *3-
    LO
    
    "*
    
    0
    !—
    
    
    U
    *. •
    o
    ^ <
    QJ
    
    C
    ro O
    '+- -Q
    0 E
    -Q =3
    S- <-3
    1—
    
    ro co
    CM CM
    0 0
    ^n in
    O o
    rv. oo
    CM i —
    
    CM CO
    
    
    
    in r-.
    cn
    o
    Ol
    co
    r-.
    . O
    r^. +-"
    i —
    CM
    O
    cn
    , — .
    ID
    CO
    f^ O
    
    IO
    o
    
    CO CO
    • •
    i — r-.
    i —
    
    
    IO IO
    CM r—
    
    
    
    
    i — i —
    Ol 01
    
    0 0
    
    
    CM CM
    
    CO CO
    IO i —
    
    CO CO
    
    co r--
    
    
    QJXT
    »! QJ
    O Ol
    QJ E
    Ol ra
    c: s-
    ro
    S- E
    
    OlT-
    E XJ
    O QJ
    -J 2:
    
    
    in
    
    o
    0
    •-'
    
    CM
    
    CM
    
    
    
    in
    
    
    
    CO
    
    • —
    •
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ID
    CM
    
    
    
    Ol
    
    O
    
    
    
    •a-
    CM
    
    
    
    
    , —
    01
    
    O
    
    
    CM
    
    
    0
    
    ID
    
    , —
    r—
    
    
    
    
    
    t —
    *.
    XJ
    
    QJ
    •i— j
    O
    -Q
    i.
    1—
    
    Ol
    O
    o
    CM
    o
    r>1
    CM
    
    CM
    
    
    
    in
    
    
    10
    co
    
    • —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    
    
    ,_
    01
    •
    o
    
    
    
    CM
    
    
    
    
    
    un
    *j-
    
    iO
    
    
    r-
    
    CM
    r^«
    
    CM
    
    <~O
    
    
    
    
    
    • r— j
    n
    .p—
    O.
    o
    i-
    0-
    o
    <~s
    S-
    1 —
    
    Ol
    o
    o
    CM
    o
    r-.
    CM
    
    o
    
    
    ID
    o
    
    
    CO
    CM
    
    o
    
    
    
    
    
    
    m
    o
    
    
    
    CM
    1^.
    
    CM
    
    
    
    ID
    
    
    
    
    
    LO
    «^-
    
    o
    
    
    r-
    
    ID
    CO
    
    ' —
    
    CO
    
    
    
    
    f—
    *
    \s
    4_>
    4-
    rO
    -C
    in
    O
    
    f-
    h-
    
    01 in
    0 0
    0 0
    CM i —
    0 0
    CO Ol
    •— o
    
    o o
    
    
    *3- CM
    0 0
    
    
    CO
    CM i —
    
    CO 0
    '
    
    
    
    
    
    *=*•
    O C5
    1"
    
    
    
    O IT)
    • •
    r^ ir>
    CO
    1 —
    
    CO CM
    O i—
    CO
    
    LO
    Ol "*
    in o
    0 0
    
    O 0
    CO . —
    , — o
    0 0
    
    r— 01
    CM O
    
    CM O
    CM
    m o
    
    
    
    E
    f\
    •*s
    +J
    s_
    o
    D.C
    in +->
    C C -C
    O rO O)
    4-> t. -r-
    in i— _i
    D.
    LO
    CM
    Q)
    OJ
    )L
    QJ
    4-
    QJ
    40
    ro
    XI
    "o
    C
    o
    ro ID
    -Q CM
    
    00 QJ
    QJ O
    -t-> c
    ro Qi
    E S-
    -.- QJ
    •»-> 4-
    w QJ
    LU C£.
    ro ci
    QJ QJ
    C C
    cn cn
    c c
    QJ QJ
    cn en
    cn co
    i i
    r— h-
    •-3 -T5
    QJ QJ
    C C
    -C CM -C
    3 3
    X)
    =0 c °a
    ro
    +-> 4->
    rO CM rO
    S-
    Q_
    
    a
    o
    
    ~u
    (D
    in
    ro
    CQ
    
    5
    QJ
    O-
    CL
    cr
    QJ
    in
    QJ
    O
    4-
    IO
    CO
    C
    ro
    in
    QJ
    XI
    QJ
    O
    c:
    0
    o
    4-
    
    CM
    CM
    - — -
    
    O
    LO
    
    QJ
    OO
    • — >
    cn .
    00
    QJ
    C
    c
    QJ
    1
    i — .
    QJ
    C
    3
    oB
    rO
    S-
    D_
    C
    ro
    ID
    I
    0
    CO
    1
    I—
    •-3
    QJ
    d
    3
    4->
    ro
    i.
    O_
    CQ
    CO
    1
    LO
    O
    oo
    o
    u
    •r-
    S-
    o
    QJ
    LU
    ro
    QJ
    C
    Q)
    (.3
    
    C
    0
    
    XJ
    QJ
    00
    ro
    CQ
    E
    
    CM
    
    QJ
    U
    C
    Q>
    S-
    QJ
    4-
    QJ
    C£
    •r-
    QJ
    C
    cn
    aj
    CO
    1
    0
    in
    c
    o
    oo
    0
    O
    ro
    i-
    QJ
    C
    O)
    C3
    
    E
    0
    
    XI
    Ql
    in
    ro
    n3
    >~5 .
    CM
    CM
    
    QJ
    
    C
    QJ
    S-
    QJ
    4-
    QJ
    o:
    jn:
    QJ
    E
    cn
    c
    QJ
    CO
    I—
    0
    S-
    QJ
    IjJ
    rO
    S-
    QJ
    E
    QJ
    0
    
    E
    0
    
    X!
    QJ
    00
    ro
    CQ
    i —
    O
    §
    CM
    1
    QJ
    C
    -C
    ro
    Q_
    
    -------
    1
    
    
    
    j
    II cu
    , —
    o
    
    
    
    ;>^
    O
    
    Ijj p
    CD
    >- 1
    c_>
    '
    U—
    1 1
    CD
    |
    UJ |
    "^ '
    f— '
    g
    
    "-
    * "
    cu
    c
    •r-
    01
    c
    cu
    -^_
    , —
    ro
    Oi
    CU
    •r-
    cn
    cu
    ~ ' O ! CL>
    
    Q_
    c.
    **" ' CL
    
    • -P
    o;
    o
    T3
    c
    ro
    	 i
    oo i!
    uj !
    •r-
    1
    
    a>
    c
    en
    cu
    ra
    0.
    t ' 1
    Si I «
    i i .;:
    ^\\ en
    C_J CZ
    JZ! 1
    CL)
    ^- r— (/?
    ^
    -a i s-
    -3 ! -r- (D
    ^?r ' _
    0 C ^
    cj b L
    
    — ' i
    U]
    i\j
    CU
    
    X T-
    2 ' .-a 01
    
    i I cu
    1 -^
    "? ^
    
    
    
    
    O CM
    ro co
    CXJ ^O
    "
    r—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO O
    CM CO
    ro i —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO LO
    CJD ro
    LO -5]-
    
    
    
    
    CD LO
    LO i—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    en ^
    r-^ * —
    ro r—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CD CD
    O ro
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^3- ro
    co n
    CM i —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO LO
    r>- ro
    
    1 rn
    ro
    !
    cu ', ;
    
    -Q '
    rO ! | \
    f"~
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ' .1 M 	
    O ro
    CU O
    i a. s-
    1 — fO
    
    
    
    
    
    JD.
    ra CU
    +J en
    01 E
    C i-
    ra O
    M- -Q en
    0 E c:
    _O Z3 O
    S- 'O _J
    
    h-
    
    
    
    
    •^j-
    <^-
    ^3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    1 —
    , 	
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    ro
    
    
    
    
    LO
    en
    
    
    
    
    
    
    , —
    LO
    i —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ro
    ro
    <—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO
    ro
    
    
    
    -O
    QJ
    en
    
    ra
    i.
    E
    
    -5
    cu
    2:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ro LO
    ro co
    CO CM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CD CD
    cxi r^
    CXI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO LO
    LO en
    
    
    
    
    O LO
    CXI CXJ
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    en «D
    00 LO
    . —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O LO
    LO i—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    en ^j-
    00 r—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0 0
    LO ro
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    _(") r~i
    4-> o
    CU S-
    •i-5 £D.
    0 0
    -Q -Q
    S_ S-
    C3 ^
    i— i—
    
    ro
    VD ro
    
    ^J- O oo
    en r--.
    ! —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    oo
    LO LO CXJ
    CXJ -^t-
    
    
    
    
    
    cn
    r-^
    LO *3- ro
    en ^~
    
    
    
    
    O O r—
    CM ro
    
    
    
    UD
    en r~^
    
    o co o
    i —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CXI
    O LO O
    
    
    
    
    
    en
    en en r~
    co r--. ro
    . — ro
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO O 1—
    1 —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    U +->
    -t-> S-
    M- 0
    03 Q. o
    -d CO 4J
    10 c c jr:
    o o ra en
    -Q 4-> i- -r-
    S- co H- _J
    3 .j—
    1— Cl-
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    lO
    CM
    
    CD
    U
    C
    CU
    s_
    cu
    H-
    cu
    o:
    ra
                                      cu
                                      CJ
    
                                      cu
                                      s_
                                      cu
    
                                      cu
                                     a;
                                                                              a>
                                                                              o
                                                                              iZ
                                                                              cu
                                                                              s_
                                                                              cu
                                                                              M-
                                                                              CU
    3-10
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
             Table 3-6.  FUEL CONSUMPTION RATES FOR  STEAMSHIPS AND MOTOR SHIPS
                                                                            a
    Fuel consumption
    Underway
    Ib/hp-hr
    kg/hp-hr
    gal/naut mi le
    liters/kilometer
    In-berth
    gal /day
    liters/day
    Steamships
    Range
    
    0.51 to 0.65
    0.23 to 0.29
    29 to 65
    59.4 to 133
    
    840 to 3,800
    3,192 to 14,400
    Average
    
    0.57
    0.26
    44
    90
    
    1,900
    7,200
    Motor ships
    Range
    
    0.28 to 0.44
    0.13 to 0.20
    7 to 30
    14 to 62
    
    240 to 1 ,260
    910 to 4,800
    Average
    
    0.34
    0.15
    19
    38.8
    
    660
    2,500
          Reference 29.
    
         Unless a ship goes immediately into drydock or is otherwise out of operation
    after arrival in port,  she  continues her emissions at dockside.  Power must be
    generated for the  ship's light, heat, pumps, refrigeration, ventilation, etc.  A
    few steamships use auxiliary engines to supply power,  but they generally operate
    one or two main boilers under reduced draft and lowered fuel rates, a much less
    efficient process.  Motor  ships generally use diesel-powered generators to furnish
    auxiliary power.
    
         As shown in Table 3-6, fuel oil consumption at dockside  varies  appreciably.
    Based  on the data presented in this table  and the emission factors for residual
    fuel-oil combustion and diesel-oil combustion,  emission factors have been
    determined for vessels and are presented in Table 3-7.
    
    
                           Table 3-7.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  VESSELS
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   D
    Pollutant
    Particulate
    Sulfur dioxide
    Sulfur trioxide
    Carbon monoxide
    Hydrocarbons
    Nitrogen oxides (NO;?)
    Aldehydes (HCHO)
    Steamships3
    Underway
    Ib/mi kg/km
    0.4
    7S
    O.'IS
    0.002
    0.2
    4.6
    0.04
    0.098
    1.71S
    0.02S
    0.0005
    0.05
    1.13
    0.01
    In-berth
    Ib/day
    15
    300S
    4S
    0.08
    9
    200
    2
    kg/day
    6.8
    136S
    1.8S
    0.036
    4.1
    90.7
    0.9
    Motor ships
    Underway
    Ib/mi
    2
    (SOX) 1.5
    
    1 .2
    0.9
    1.4
    0.07
    kg/ km
    0.49
    0.37
    
    0.29
    0.22
    0.34
    0.017
    In-berth
    Ib/day
    16.5
    43
    
    46
    33
    50
    2.6
    kg/day
    7.5
    19.5
    
    20.8
    14.9
    22.7
    1.2
     Based on data in Table 3-6  and  emission factors for fuel  oil.
     3Based on data in Table 3-6  and  emission factors for diesel  fuel.
     ~S = weight percent sulfur in  fuel; assumed to be 0.5 percent for  diesel.
    2/72
    Mobile Combustion Sources
                                                                                   3-11
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR  CHAPTER 3
    
     1.  Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions,  1968.   U.S. DHEW, PHS,
        EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration.   Raleigh;  North Carolina.
        Publication No. AP-73.  August 1970.
    
     2.  Cernansky,  N. P. and K. Goodman.  Estimating Motor Vehicle Emissions on
        a Regional Basis.   Presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Air  Pollution
        Control Association, June 14-18, 1970.
    
     3.  Control of Air Pollution from New Motor  Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
        Engines.  Federal Register Part II.  31(6l):5170-5238,  March 31, 1966.
    
     4.  Control of Air Pollution from New Motor  Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
        Engines.  Federal Register Part II.  13(108) :8303-8324, June 4, 1968.
    
     5.  Control of Air Pollution from New Motor  Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
        Engines.  Federal Register Part II.  15(28): 2791, February 10,  1970.
    
     6.  Private communication with N. P.  Cernansky, U.S.  DHEW,  PHS,  EHS,  Nat-
        ional Air Pollution  Control  Administration.  Durham, N. C.   June 1970.
    
     7.  Magill,  P. L.  and R. W. Benoliel.  Air Pollution in Los  Angeles County: Con-
        tribution of Industrial Products.  Ind. Eng.  Chem. 44_:1347-1352,  June 1952.
    
     8.  MacChee, R.D.,  J. R.  Taylor,  and R.L.  Chaney.  Some Data on Particulates
        from Fuel Oil Burning.  Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District.
        Presented at APCA Semiannual Technical Conference, San Francisco,  Calif-
        ornia.   November 1957.
    
     9.  Second Technical and Administrative Report on  Air Pollution Control in Los
        Angeles County.  Air Pollution  Control District, County of Los Angeles, Cal-
        ifornia.  1950-1951.
    
    10.  Larson,  G. P.  , G. I.  Fischer,  and W. J.  Hamming.  Evaluating Sources of Air
        Pollution.  Ind. Eng. Chem. 45_:1070-1074, May 1953.
    
    11.   Magill, P. L. , F.R.  Holden,  and C. Ackley.  Air Pollution Handbook,   New
         York,  McGraw-Hill, 1956.  p.  1-47.
    
    12.   The Automobile and Air Pollution:  A Program  for Progress, Part II.   U.S.
         Department of Commerce.  Washington,  D. C.  December 1967.
    
    13.   Rose,  A.H. ,  Jr. Summary Report on Vehicular Emissions and Their Control.
         U.S,  DHEW,  PHS.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  October 1965.
    
    14.   The Automobile and  Air Pollution: A Program for  Progress.  Part II.   U.S.
         Department of Commerce.  Washington,  D. C.  December 1967.   p. 34.
    
    15.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides,  and Hydrocarbons
         From  Mobile Sources.  U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Con-
         trol Administration.  Washington,  D. C.  Publication No. AP-66.  March 1970.
         p.  2-9 through 2-11.
    3-12                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    16.   McConnell,  G. and H.E.  Howells.  Diesel Fuel Properties and Exhaust Gas-
         Distant Relations?  Society of Automotive Engineers.  January 1967.
    
    17.   Motor Gasolines, Summer 1969.  Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S.  Department
         of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.  Washington, D. C.  1970.  p. 5.
    
    18.   Merrion, D. F. Diesel and Turbine Driven Vehicles and Air Pollution.  Pre-
         sented at University of Missouri Air Pollution Conference, Columbia, Mis-
         souri.  November 18, 1969.
    
    19.   Hum, R. W.  The Diesel Fuel Involvement in Air Pollution.  Presented at the
         National Fuels and  Lubricants  Meeting, New York,  N. Y.  September 17-18,
         1969.
    
    20.  Young, T. C.  Unpublished emission factor data on diesel engines.  Engine
         Manufacturers Association's (EMA) Emissions  Standards Committee.
         Chicago, 111.   May 18,  1971.
    
    21.   Unpublished test data on locomotive engines.  General Motors Corporation.
         Warren,  Michigan.  July 1970.
    
    22.  Nature and Control of Aircraft  Engine Exhaust Emissions.  Northern Re-
         search and Engineering Corporation.  Prepared for National Air Pollution
         Control Administration under Contract No.  PH22-68-27.  Cambridge, Mass.
         November 1968.
    
    23.  Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers.  U.S.  Depart-
         ment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.  Washington, D. C.
         December 1967.  p. xi.
    
    24.  Private communication on aircraft engine classification with T. Horeff, Fed-
         eral Aviation Administration.   May 13, 1970.
    
    25.  Duprey, R. L.  Compilation  of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N. C.   PHS Publi-
         cation No.  999-AP-42. 1968.   p. 49.
    
    26.  Bristol, C. W.  Unpublished test results  on jet aircraft.  Pratt & Whitney
         Corporation.  Hartford, Connecticut.  1970.
    
    27.  George, R. E. , J. A.  Verssen,  and R.L. Chass.  Jet Aircraft: A Growing
         Pollution Source.   J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  ^^9(11):847-855, November
         1969.
    
    28.  Zegel, W.C.  Unpublished progress report on light piston engine aircraft.
         Scott Research Laboratories.   Plumsteadville,  Pa.  Prepared for National
         Air Pollution Control Administration under Contract No. CPA 22-69-129.
         July 10, 1970.
    
    29.  Pearson, J. R.  Ships As  Sources of Emissions.  Presented at the Annual
         Meeting of the  Pacific Northwest International Section of the Air Pollution
         Control Association.   Portland, Oregon.  November 1969.
    2/72                           Mobile Combustion Sources                          3-13
    

    -------
    30.  Standard Distillate Fuel for Ship Propulsion.  U.S.  Department of the Navy,
         Report of a Committee  to the Secretary of the Navy.  Washington, D. C.  Oct-
         ober 1968.
    
    31.  GTS Admiral William M. Callahan Performance Results.  Diesel and Gas
         Turbine Progress.  3L5(9):78, September  1969.
     3-14                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
                     4.   EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES
    
         Evaporation losses include the  organic solvents emitted from dry-cleaning
    plants  and surface-coating operations as well as the volatile matter in petroleum
    products.  This section presents the  hydrocarbon emissions from these sources,
    including petroleum storage  and gasoline marketing.  Where possible the effect of
    controls to reduce the emissions of organic compounds  has been shown.
    
    
    DRY CLEANING
    
    General1
         Clothing and other textiles may be cleaned by treating them with organic
    solvents.  This treatment process  involves agitating the clothing in a solvent bath,
    rinsJng with clean solvent, and drying with warm air.
    
         There are basically two types of dry-cleaning installations: those using
    petroleum solvents [Stoddard and 140° F (60° C)] and those using chlorinated
    synthetic solvents (perchloroethylene).  The trend in dry-cleaning  operations today
    is toward smaller package operations located in shopping centers and suburban
    business districts that handle approximately 1500 pounds  (675 kg) of clothes per
    week on the average.  These plants almost exclusively use perchloroethylene,
    whereas the older, larger dry-cleaning  plants use petroleum solvents.   It has been
    estimated that  perchloroethylene is used on 50 percent of the weight of  clothes dry-
    cleaned in the United States today and that 70 percent of the dry-cleaning plants use
    perchloroethylene. ^
    
    Emissions  and Controls1
    
         The major source of hydrocarbon  emissions  in dry cleaning is  the tumbler
    through which hot air  is circulated to dry the clothes.  Drying leads  to  vaporiza-
    tion of the solvent and consequent emissions to the  atmosphere, unless control
    equipment is used.  The primary control element in use in synthetic solvent plants
    is a water-cooled condenser that is an integral part of the closed cycle in a. tumbler
    or drying system.  Up to  95 percent  of the  solvent that is evaporated from  the
    clothing  is recovered here.  About half  of the remaining solvent is  then recovered
    in an activated-carbon adsorber, giving an overall  control efficiency of 97  to 98
    percent.  There are no commercially available control  units for solvent recovery
    in petroleum-based plants because it is  not economical  to recover  the vapors.
    Emission factors for dry-cleaning  operations are shown in Table 4-1.
    
         It has been estimated that about 18 pounds  (8. 2 kilograms) per  capita per
    year of clothes are cleaned in moderate climates  and about 25 pounds  (11.3 kilo-
    grams) per capita per year,  in colder areas. **  Based on this information and  the
    facts that 50 percent of all solvents used are petroleum based  and 25 percent of
    the synthetic solvent plants are controlled,^ emission factors can be determined
    on a pounds- (kilograms-) per-capita basis.  Thus  approximately 2 pounds (0. 9
    kilogram) per capita per year are emitted from dry-cleaning plants in moderate
    climates and 2.7 pounds (1.23 kilograms) per  capita per year in colder  areas.
    2/72                                   4-1
    

    -------
               Table 4-1.
    HYDROCARBON  EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY-CLEANING
               OPERATIONS
       EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
    Control
    Uncontrol led3
    Average control
    Good control
    Petroleum
    solvents
    Ib/ton
    305
    kg/MT
    152.5
    Synthetic
    solvents
    Ib/ton
    210
    95
    35
    kg/MT
    105
    47.5
    17.5
                References 2,  4,  6,  and 7.
                Reference 6.
               GReference 8.
    
    SURFACE COATING
    
    Process Description 9, 10
          Surface-coating operations primarily involve the application of paint, varnish,
    lacquer, or paint primer for decorative or protective purposes.  This  is accom-
    plished by brushing,  rolling, spraying, flow coating,  and dipping.  Some of the
    industries  involved in surface-coating operations are automobile assemblies,  air-
    craft companies, container manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, appliance
    manufacturers, job enamelers,  automobile repainters, and plastic products
    manufacturer s,
    
    Emissions and Controls
          Emissions  of hydrocarbons occur in surface-coating operations because of
    the evaporation of the paint vehicles, thinners, and solvents used to  facilitate the
    application of the coatings.  The major factor  affecting these emissions is the
    amount of  volatile matter  contained in the coating.  The volatile portion of most
    common surface coatings  averages approximately 50 percent,  and most, if not all,
    of this is emitted during the application and drying of the  coating.  The compounds
    released include aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons,  alcohols, ketones,  esters,
    alkyl and aryl hydrocarbon solvents,  and mineral spirits.   Table 4-2 presents emis-
    sion factors for surface-coating operations.
    
          Control  of the gaseous emissions can be  accomplished by the use of adsorbers
    (activated  carbon) or afterburners.  The  collection efficiency of activated carbon
    has been reported at 90 percent or greater. Water curtains or filter pads have
    little or no effect on  escaping solvent vapors; they are widely used,  however, to
    stop paint  particulate emissions.
    
    
    PETROLEUM STORAGE
    
    General* 1, 12
          In the storage and handling of crude oil and its products, evaporation losses
    may occur.  These losses may be divided into two categories: breathing loss and
    4-2
               EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
                         Table  4-2.  GASEOUS HYDROCARBON  EMISSION
                        FACTORS FOR SURFACE-COATING APPLICATIONS9
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of coating
    Paint
    Varnish and shellac
    Lacquer
    Enamel
    Primer (zinc chromate)
    Emissions'3
    Ib/ton
    1,120
    1,000
    1,540
    840
    1,320
    kg/MT
    560
    500
    770
    420
    660
                        Reference 9.
                        Reported as undefined  hydrocarbons, usually
                        organic solvents  both  aryl and alkyl.
                        Paints weigh  10 to  15  pounds per gallon
                        (1.2 to 1.9 kilograms  per liter); varnishes
                        weigh about 7 pounds per gallon (0.84 kilo-
                        gram per liter).
    
    working loss.  Breathing losses are associated with the  thermal expansion and con-
    traction of the vapor space resulting from the daily temperature cycle.  Working
    losses are associated with a change in liquid level in the tank (filling or emptying).
    
    Emissions
          There are two major classifications  of tanks used to  store petroleum pro-
    ducts:  fixed-roof tanks and floating-roof tanks.  The evaporation losses from both
    of these types  of tanks depend on a number of factors,  such as type of product
    stored (gasoline  or crude  oil),  vapor pressure of the stored product, average
    temperature of the stored product, tank diameter and construction,  color  of tank
    paint,  and average wind velocity  of the  area.  In order to estimate emissions from
    a given tank,  References 11 and 13 should  be used.  An average factor can be
    obtained, however, by making a few assumptions.   These average factors for both
    breathing losses and working losses for fixed-roof and floating-roof tanks are
    presented in Table 4-3.
    
    GASOLINE MARKETING
    
    General
          In the marketing of gasoline from the original storage and distribution to the
    final use in motor vehicles, there are five major points  of emission:
    
           1.  Breathing and working losses from storage tanks at refineries and bulk
              terminals.
    
          2.  Filling losses from loading-tank conveyances at refineries  and bulk
              terminals (included under working losses from storage tanks).
    
          3.  Filling losses from loading underground  storage tanks at service
       '       stations.
    2/72                           Evaporation Loss Sources                           4-3
    

    -------
              Table 4-3.   HYDROCARBON  EMISSION FACTORS FOR EVAPORATION LOSSES
    
                          FROM THE STORAGE OF PETROLEUM  PRODUCTS
    
                                EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:   C
    Type of tank3
    Fixed roof
    Breathing loss
    Working loss 'c
    
    Floating roof
    Breathing loss
    Working loss
    
    Units
    lb/day-1000 gal
    storage capacity
    kg/day-1000 liters
    storage capacity
    lb/1000 gal
    throughput
    kg/ 1000 liters
    throughput
    1 b/day-tank
    kg/day-tank
    lb/1000 gal
    throughput
    kg/ 1000 liters
    throughput
    Type of material stored
    Gasoline or finished
    petroleum product
    0.4
    0.05
    11
    1.32
    140(40 to 210)e
    63.5
    Neg
    Neg
    Crude oil
    0.3
    0.04
    8
    0.96
    100(30 to 160)f
    45.4
    Neg
    Neg
         For  tanks equipped with vapor-recovery systems,  emissions are negligible.
    
         Reference 11.
        c                                                                14
         An average turnover rate for petroleum storage  is  approximately 6.    Thus,
         the  throughput is equal to 6 times the capacity.
    
         Reference 13.
        e!40  (63.5) based on average conditions and tank  diameter of 100 ft  (30.5 m);
         use  40  (18.1 kg) for smaller tanks, 50 ft (15.3  m)  diameter; use 210 (95
         kg)  for  larger tanks, 150 ft (45.8 m)  diameter.
        fUse  30  (13.6 kg) for smaller tanks, 50 ft (15.3  m)  diameter; use 160 (72.5
         kg)  for  larger tanks, 150 ft (45.8 m)  diameter.
          4.  Spillage and filling losses in filling automobile gas tanks at service
              stations.
    
    
          5.  Evaporative losses from the carburetor and gas tank of motor vehicles.
    
    
          In this section only points 3  and 4 will be discussed.  Points 1  and 2 have been
    covered in the section  on petroleum storage and point 5 is covered under the sec-
    tion on gas oline -powered motor vehicles.
    
    
    Emissions  and Controls
    
          The emissions associated with gasoline marketing are primarily vapors
    expelled from a tank by displacement as  a result of filling.  The vapor  losses are
    4-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    a function of the method of filling the tank (either splash or submerged fill)0
    Splash and submerged fill have been defined as follows: "In splash fill the  gasoline
    enters the top of the fill pipe and then has a free fall to the liquid surface in the
    tank.  The free falling tends to break up the liquid  stream into droplets.  As these
    droplets strike the liquid surface,  they carry entrained air into the liquid,  and a
    'boiling1 action results as this air escapes up through the liquid surface.   The net
    effect of these actions is the creation of additional  vapors in the tank.  In submerged
    filling,  the gasoline  flows to the  bottom of the tank through the fill pipes and enters
    below the surface of the liquid.   This method  of filling creates very little disturb-
    ance  in the liquid bath and,  consequently, less vapor formation than splash
    filling. "I5
    
          Emission factors for gasoline marketing are  shown in Table 4-4. As is shown
    in footnote "b, " if a  vapor-return system in •which  the underground tank vent line is
    left open  is used, losses from filling service  station tanks can be greatly reduced.
    If a displacement type, closed vapor-return system is employed, the losses can be
    almost  completely eliminated.
                    Table 4-4.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR EVAPORATION LOSSES
                                   FROM GASOLINE MARKETING
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Point of emission
    Filling service station tanks9 »k
    Splash fill
    Submerged fill
    50% splash fill and 50% sub-
    merged fill
    Filling automobile tanks0
    Emissions
    lb/103 gal
    
    12
    7
    9
    12
    kg/103 liters
    
    1.44
    0.84
    1.08
    1.44
                 Reference  15.
                 With a  vapor  return, open-system emissions can be reduced  to
                 approximately 0.8 lb/103 gal (0.096 kg/103 liters),  and
                 closed-system emissions are negligible.
                'References  16 and 17.
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER  4
    
    1.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   Final Report.  Resources Research,  Incor-
         porated.  Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration.under
         Contract No. CPA-22-69-119,  April 1970.
    
    2.   Communication with the National  Institute of Dry Cleaning.   1969.
    
    3.   Duprey, R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emis sion Factor s.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National  Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham,  N. C. PHS Publi-
         cation No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 46.
    2/72
    Evaporation Loss Sources
    4-5
    

    -------
     4.   Dry Cleaning Plant Survey.  Michigan Department of Health.  Kent County,
         Michigan.  1965.
    
     5.   Communication on Dry Cleaning Plants with S.  Landon,  Washer Machinery
         Corporation.  June 1968.
    
     6.   Chass,  R. L. ,  C.V. Kanter,  andJ.H. Elliot.  Contribution of Solvents to
         Air Pollution and Methods for Controlling Their Emissions.   J.  Air  Pollu-
         tion Control Assoc.  L3_: 64-72, February 1963.
    
     7.   Bi-State Study  of Air Pollution in the Chicago. Metropolitan Area.  111. Dept.
         of Public Health,  Ind. State Board of Health, and Purdue University.  Chicago,
         Illinois.  1957-59.
    
     8.   Communication on Emissions  from Dry Cleaning Plants  with  A.  Netzley.  Los
         Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. Los  Angeles,  California.
         July 1968.
    
     9.   Weiss,  S. F. Surface Coating  Operations. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
         Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air  Pollution
         Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p. 387-390.
    
    10.   Control Techniques  for Hydrocarbon and  Organic Gases  from Stationary
         Sources.  U.S.  DHEW,  PHS,  EHS,  National Air Pollution Control Administra-
         tion.  Washington, D.C.   Publication No. AP-68.  October 1969. Chapter  7. 6.
    
    11.   Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks.  American Petroleum Institute,
         New York, N.  Y. API Bulletin No.  2518.  June 1962.
    
    12.   Evaporative Loss in the Petroleum Industry: Causes and Control.  American
         Petroleum Institute,  New York, N.Y. API Bulletin No.  2513.   February 1959.
    
    13.   Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof Tanks.  American Petroleum Institute,
         New York, N.  Y. API Bulletin No.  2517.  February 1962.
    
    14.   Tentative Methods of Measuring Evaporation Loss from  Petroleum Tanks and
         Transportation Equipment.  American Petroleum Institute, New York,  N.Y.
         API Bulletin No.  2512.   July 1957.
    
    15.  Chass,  R. L. et al.  Emissions from Underground Gasoline Storage Tanks.
         J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  13:524-530, November 1963.
    
    16.  MacKnighi, R.A. et al. ,  Emissions of Olefins from Evaporation of Gasoline
         and Significant Factors Affecting Production of Low Olefin Gasolines.  Un-
         published report. Los Angeles Air  Pollution Control District.   Los Angeles,
         California.  March 1959.
    
     17.  Clean Air Quarterly.  8»:1,  State of California Department of Health,  Bureau
         of -Air Sanitation..  March 1964.
    4-6                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
                   5.   CHEMICAL  PROCESS INDUSTRY
    
          This section deals with emissions from the manufacture and/or use of chem-
    icals or chemical products.  Potential emissions from many of these processes are
    high, but  because of the nature  of the compounds they are usually recovered as an
    economic necessity.  In other cases,  the manufacturing operation is run as a
    closed system allowing little or no escape to the atmosphere.
    
    
          In general,  the emissions that reach the atmosphere from chemical processes
    are primarily gaseous and are controlled by incineration, adsorption, or absorp-
    tion.  In some cases particulate emissions may also be a problem.  The particu-
    lates emitted  are generally extremely small and require very efficient treatment
    for removal.  Emission data from chemical processes are sparse.  It was there-
    fore necessary frequently to form estimates of emission factors based on material
    balances, yields, or similar processes.
    ADIPIC ACID
    
    Process Description1
         Adipic acid, COOH • (CH2)4 ' COOH,  is a dibasic acid used in the manu-
    facture of synthetic fibers.  The acid is made in a continuous two-step process.
    In the first step, cyclohexane is oxidized by air over a catalyst to a mixture of
    cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone.  In the second step, adipic acid is  made by the
    catalytic oxidation of the cyclohexanol-cyclohexanone mixture using 45 to 55 per-
    cent nitric acid.   The final product  is then purified by crystallization.
    
    
    Emissions
         The only significant emissions from the manufacture of adipic acid are nitro-
    gen oxides.  In oxidizing the cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone,  nitric acid is reduced to
    unrecoverable N2O and potentially recoverable NO and NO2.   This NO  and NO2 can
    be emitted into the atmosphere.  Table 5-1 shows typical emissions of  NO and NO2
    from an adinic acid plant.
                  Table 5-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR AN  ADIPIC ACID PLANT
                                WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    Source
    Oxidation
    of cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone9
    Nitrogen oxides
    (NO, NO?) emissions
    Ib/ton kg/MT
    12 G
               aReference 1.
    2/72                                   5-1
    

    -------
    AMMONIA
    
    Process Description3
    
         The manufacture of ammonia (NH^) is accomplished primarily by the catalytic
    reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen at high temperatures and pressures.  In a typical
    plant a hydrocarbon feed stream (usually natural gas) is  desulfurized, mixed with
    steam, and catalytically reformed to carbon monoxide and hydrogen.  Air is intro-
    duced into the secondary reformer to supply oxygen and provide a nitrogen to hydro-
    gen ratio of 1 to 3. The gases then enter a two-stage  shift converter that allows the
    carbon monoxide to react with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
    The  gas  stream is next scrubbed to yield a gas containing less than  1 percent CC>2.
    A methanator may be used to convert quantities of unreacted CO to inert CH^. before
    the gases, now largely nitrogen and hydrogen in a  ratio of 1 to 3,  are compressed
    and passed to the converter.  Alternatively,  the gases leaving the CC>2  scrubber
    may pass through a CO scrubber and then to the converter.   The  synthesis gases
    finally react  in the converter to form ammonia.
    
    Emissions and Controls3
    
         When a carbon monoxide scrubber is used before sending the gas  to the con-
    verter,  the regenerator  offgases contain significant amounts of carbon monoxide
    (73 percent) and ammonia (4 percent).  This gas may be  scrubbed to recover
    ammonia and then burned to utilize the CO fuel value.
    
         The converted ammonia gases are partially recycled,  and the balance is
    cooled and compressed to liquefy the ammonia.  The  non-condensable portion of
    the gas  stream, consisting  of unreacted nitrogen,  hydrogen,  and  traces of inerts
    such as methane,  carbon monoxide, and argon, is largely recycled to the con-
    verter.   However,  to prevent the accumulation of these inerts, some of the non-
    condensable  gases must be  purged from the system.
    
         The purge or bleed-off gas stream contains  about 15 percent ammonia. ^
    Another  source  of ammonia is the gases from the loading and storage operations.
    These gases  may be scrubbed with water to reduce the atmospheric emissions.
    In addition,  emissions of CO and ammonia can occur  from plants equipped with
    CO-scrubbing systems.  Emission factors are  presented in Table 5-2.
    
    
    CARBON BLACK
    
         Carbon black is produced by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel such as oil
    or gas,  or both, with a limited supply of air at temperatures of 2500° to 3000° F
    (1370° to 1650°C).  Part of the fuel is burned to CO2,  CO, and water, thus
    generating heat for the combustion of fresh feed.   The unburned carbon is col-
    lected as a black fluffy particle.   The three basic processes  for producing this
    compound are the furnace process,  accounting for about 83 percent  of production;
    the older channel process,  which accounts for about 6 percent of production; and
    the thermal process.
    
    Channel  Black Process 3
    
         In the channel black process, natural gas is burned with a limited air supply
    in long,  low  buildings.   The flame from this burning impinges  on long steel channel
    sections that swing continuously over the flame.  Carbon black is deposited on the
    5-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
     Table 5-2.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR AMMONIA MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of source
    Plants with methanator
    Purge gasc
    Storage and loadingc
    Plants with CO absorber and
    regeneration system
    Regenerator exit"
    Purge gasc
    Storage and loading0
    Carbon monoxide
    Ib/ton
    
    Neg
    -
    200
    Neg
    -
    kg/MT
    
    Neg
    -
    100
    Neg
    -
    Hydrocarbons'3
    Ib/ton
    
    90
    -
    
    90
    -
    kg/MT
    
    45
    -
    
    45
    -
    Ammonia
    Ib/ton
    
    3
    200
    7
    3
    200
    r kg/MT
    
    1.5
    100
    3.5
    1.5
    100
     References 4 and  5.
     Expressed as methane.
    cAmmonia emissions can  be reduced by 99 percent  by  passing through three stages  of  a
     packed-tower water scrubber.  Hydrocarbons  are  not reduced.
     A two-stage water scrubber and incineration system can reduce these emissions  to a
     negligible amount.
    
    channels,  is scraped off, and falls  into collecting hoppers.  The  combustion gases
    containing the solid carbon that is not  collected on the channels,  in addition to car-
    bon monoxide and other combustion products, are  then vented directly from the
    building.  Approximately 1 to 1.5 pounds of carbon black is produced from the  32
    pounds  of carbon available  in 1000 cubic feet of natural gas  (16 to 24 kilograms
    carbon  black from the  513 kilograms in  1000 cubic meters).      The balance is
    lost  as  CO,  CO;?,  hydrocarbons,  and participates.
    Furnace Process3
          The furnace process is subdivided into either the gas or oil process depend-
    ing on the primary fuel used to produce the carbon black.  In either case, the fuel-
    gas in the gas process or gas and oil in the oil process —is injected into a reactor
    with a limited supply of combustion air.  The combustion gases containing the hot
    carbon are then rapidly cooled  to a temperature of about 500° F (260° C) by water
    sprays and by radiant cooling.
    
          The largest and most important portion of the furnace process consists of the
    particulate or carbon black  removal equipment. While many combinations of con-
    trol equipment exist, an  electrostatic precipitator,  a. cyclone,  and a fabric filter
    system in series are most commonly used to collect the  carbon black.   Gaseous
    emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are not  controlled in the  United
    States.
    
    Thermal Black  Process3
          In thermal black plants, natural gas is decomposed by heat in the absence of
    air or flame.   In this cyclic operation,  methane is pyrolyzed or decomposed by
    passing it over a heated brick checkerwork at a temperature of about 3000°  F
    (1650° C).   The decomposed gas  is then cooled  and the carbon black removed by a
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-3
    

    -------
    series of cyclones  and fabric filters.  The exit gas,  consisting largely of hydrogen
    (85 percent) ,  methane (5 percent),  and nitrogen,  is then either recycled to the
    process burners or used to generate steam in a boiler.   Because of the recycling
    of the effluent gases,  there are essentially no atmospheric emissions from this
    process, other than from product handling.
    
         Table 5-3  presents the emission factors from the various carbon black pro-
    cesses.  Nitrogen oxide emissions  are not included but are believed to be  low
    because  of the lack  of available oxygen in the reaction.
                Table 5-3.   EMISSION  FACTORS FOR CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURING9
                                  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
    Type of
    process
    Channel
    Thermal
    Furnace
    Gas
    Oil
    Gas or oil
    
    
    Particulate
    Ib/ton
    2,300
    "eg
    
    c
    c
    220e
    60f
    109
    kg/MT
    1 ,150
    Meg
    
    c
    c
    noe
    30f
    53
    Carbon
    monoxide
    Ib/ton
    33,500
    Meg
    
    5,300
    4,500
    
    
    
    kg/MT
    16,750
    Meg
    
    2,650
    2,250
    
    
    
    Hydrogen
    sulfide
    Ib/ton
    -
    Neg
    
    38Sd
    
    
    
    kg/MT
    -
    Neg
    
    19Sd
    
    
    
    Hydrocarbons b
    Ib/ton
    11 ,500
    Neg
    
    1,800
    400
    
    
    
    kg/MT
    5,750
    Neg
    
    900
    200
    
    
    
       Based on data in References 6,  7,  9, and 10.
       As methane.
       Particulate emissions cannot be separated by type of furnace  and are listed for
       either gas or oil furnaces.
       S  is the weight percent sulfur  in  feed.
      eOverall collection efficiency was  90 percent with no collection after cyclone.
       Overall collection efficiency was  97 percent with cyclones followed by scrubber.
      ^Overall collection efficiency was  99.5 percent with fabric filter  system.
     CHARCOAL
    
     Process Descriptions
    
          Charcoal is generally manufactured by means  of pyrolysis,  or destructive
     distillation, of wood waste from members of the  deciduous hardwood species.  In
     this process,  the wood is placed in a retort where it is externally heated for about
     ZO hours at 500° to 700° F (260° to 370° C).  Although the retort  has air intakes at
     the bottom, these are  only used during start-up and thereafter are closed.  The
     entire distillation cycle takes approximately 24 hours,  the last 4  hours being an
     exothermic reaction.  Four units  of hardwood are required to produce one unit of
     charcoal.
     5-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    Emissions  and Controls3
          In the pyrolysis of -wood,  all the gases, tars, oils, acids, and water are
    driven off,  leaving virtually pure carbon.  All of these except the gas, which con-
    tains methane,  carbon monoxide,  carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and aldehydes,
    are useful by-products if recovered.  Unfortunately,  economics has  rendered the
    recovery of the distillate by-products unprofitable, and they are generally per-
    mitted to be discharged to the atmosphere.  If a recovery  plant is utilized, the gas
    is passed through 'water-cooled condensers.  The condensate is then refined "while
    the remaining cool, non-condensable gas is discharged to the  atmosphere.  Gaseous
    emissions can be controlled by means of an afterburner because the  unrecovered
    by-products are combustible.  If the afterburner operates  efficiently,  no organic
    pollutants should escape into the atmosphere.  Emission factors for  the  manufac-
    ture of charcoal are  shown in Table 5-4.
                Table 5-4.   EMISSION  FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING6
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
    Pollutant
    Particulate (tar, oil )
    Carbon monoxide
    Hydrocarbons0
    Crude methanol
    Acetic acid
    Other gases (HCHO, N2, NO)
    Type of operation
    With chemical
    recovery plant
    Ib/ton
    -
    320b
    100b
    -
    -
    60
    kg/MT
    -
    160b
    50b
    -
    -
    30
    Without chemical
    recovery plant
    Ib/ton
    400
    320b
    100b
    152
    232
    60b
    kg/MT
    200
    160b
    50b
    76
    116
    30b
           b
     Calculated values based on data in  Reference 11.
     Emissions are negligible if afterburner  is used.
    "Expressed as methane.
    CHLOR-ALKALI
    
    Process  Description12
          Chlorine and caustic are produced concurrently by the electrolysis of brine
    in either the diaphragm or mercury cell.  In the diaphragm cell,  hydrogen is
    liberated at the cathode and a diaphragm is used to prevent contact of the chlorine
    produced at the anode with either the alkali hydroxide formed or the hydrogen.  In
    the mercury cell, liquid mercury is used as the cathode and forms an amalgam
    with the alkali metal.  The amalgam is removed from the  cell and is allowed to
    react with water in  a separate chamber,  called a denuder,  to form the alkali
    hydroxide  and hydrogen.
    
          Chlorine gas leaving the cells  is saturated with water vapor and then cooled
    to condense some of the water.  The gas is further dried by direct contact with
    strong sulfuric  acid.  The dry chlorine gas is then compressed for in-plant use or
    is cooled further by refrigeration to liquefy the chlorine.
    2/72
                            Chemical Process Industry
    5-5
    

    -------
          Caustic as produced in a diaphragm-cell plants leaves the cell as a dilute
    solution along -with unreacted brine.  The solution is  evaporated to increase the
    concentration to a range of 50 to 73 percent;  evaporation also precipitates most of
    the residual salt,  which is then removed by filtration.  In mercury-cell plants,
    high-purity caustic can be produced in any desired strength and needs no
    concentration.
    
    Emissions and Controls12
          Emissions from diaphragm-  and mercury-cell chlorine plants include
    chlorine gas, carbon dioxide,  carbon monoxide,  and  hydrogen. Gaseous chlorine
    is present  in the blow gas from liquefaction,  from vents in  tank cars  and tank con-
    tainers during loading and unloading, and from storage tanks and  process transfer
    tanks. Other emissions include mercury vapor from mercury cathode  cells and
    chlorine from compressor seals, header seals, and the air blowing of depleted
    brine in mercury-cell plants.
    
          Chlorine emissions from chlor-alkali plants may be controlled by one of three
    general methods:  (1) use  of the gas in other  plant processes, (2) neutralization in
    alkaline scrubbers,  and (3) recovery of chlorine  from effluent gas streams.  The
    effect of specific control practices is shown to some  extent in the table on emission
    factors (Table 5-5).
    
    
                 Table 5-5.  EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR CHLOR-ALKALI  PLANTS9
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of source
    Liquefaction blow gases
    Diaphragm cell - uncontrolled
    Mercury cell^ - uncontrolled
    Water absorber
    Caustic or lime scrubber
    Loading of chlorine
    Tank car vents
    Storage tank vents
    Air-blowing of mercury-cell brine
    Chlorine gas
    lb/100 tons
    
    2,000 to 10,000
    4,000 to 16,000
    25 to 1 ,000
    1
    
    450
    1 ,200
    500
    kg/ 100 MT
    
    1 ,000 to 5,000
    2,000 to 8,000
    12.5 to 500
    0.5
    
    225
    600
    250
          References 12 and 13.
          Mercury cells lose about 1.5  pounds mercury per 100 tons  (0.75 kg/100 MT)
          of chlorine liquefied.
    
    
    EXPLOSIVES
    
    General
          An explosive  is a material that, under the influence of thermal or mechanical
    shock,  decomposes rapidly and spontaneously with the  evolution of large amounts
    of heat and gas.    Explosives fall into two major categories: high explosives and
    5-6
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    low explosives.  Although a multitude of different types of explosives  exists, this
    section will deal only with an example of each major category:  TNT as the high
    explosive and nitrocellulose as the low explosive.
    
    
    TNT Production 15
          TNT is usually prepared by a batch three-stage nitration process using
    toluene, nitric acid,  and sulfuric acid as raw materials.  A combination of nitric
    acid and fuming sulfuric acid (oleum) is  used as the nitrating agent.  Spent acid
    from the nitration vessels is fortified with make-up nitric acid before entering the
    next nitratoro  The spent acid from the primary nitrator  and the fumes from all
    the nitrators are sent to the acid-fume recovery system.   This  system  supplies
    the make-up nitric acid needed in the process.  After nitration, the undesired by-
    products are removed from the TNT  by agitation with a solution of sodium sulfite
    and sodium hydrogen sulfite (Sellite process).   The wash  waste  (commonly called
    red water) from this purification process is either discharged directly into a
    stream or is concentrated to a slurry and incinerated.  The TNT is then solidified,
    granulated, and moved to the packing house for shipment  or storage.
    
    Nitrocellulose15
          Nitrocellulose is  prepared in the United States  by the "mechanical dipper"
    process.  This batch process involves dripping the cellulose into a reactor (niter
    pot)  containing a mixture of concentrated nitric acid  and a dehydrating agent  such
    as sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid,  or magnesium nitrate.   When nitration is  com-
    plete, the reaction mixtures are  centrifuged to remove most of the spent acid.
    The  centrifuged nitrocellulose  is then "drowned" in water and pumped as a water
    slurry to the final purification  area.
    
    Emissions
          Emissions of sulfur oxides  and  nitrogen oxides from processes that produce
    some of the raw materials  for explosives production,  such as nitric acid and sul-
    furic acid, can be considerable.  Because all of the raw materials are not manu-
    factured at the explosives plant,  it is imperative to obtain detailed process informa-
    tion for each plant in order  to estimate emissions.  The emissions from the manu-
    facture of nitric acid and sulfuric acid are not included in this  section as they are
    discussed in other sections  of this  publication.
    
          The major emissions from  the manufacturing of explosives are nitrogen
    oxides.  The nitration reactors for TNT production and the reactor  pots and
    centrifuges for nitrocellulose represent the largest nitrogen  oxide sources.
    Sulfuric acid regenerators  or concentrators,  considered an integral part of the
    process,  are the major sources of sulfur oxide emissions.  Emission factors for
    explosives manufacturing are presented  in Table 5-6.
    
    
    HYDROCHLORIC ACID
    
          Hydrochloric acid is manufactured by a number of different chemical pro-
    cesses.  Approximately 80 percent of the hydrochloric  acid,  however, is produced
    by the by-product hydrogen  chloride process, which  will be the  only  process dis-
    cussed in this  section.   The synthesis process and the Mannheim process are of
    secondary importance.
    2/72                            Chemical Process Industry                           5-7
    

    -------
    Table 5-6.   EMISSION  FACTORS FOR EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of process
    High explosives
    TNT
    Nitration reactors3
    Nitric acid concentrators^
    Sulfuric acid regenerators0
    Red water incinerator0'^
    Nitric acid manufacture
    Low explosives
    Nitrocellulose6
    Reactor pots
    Sulfuric acid concentrators
    Particulate
    Ib/ton
    
    
    -
    0.4
    36
    
    
    
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    
    -
    0.2
    18
    Sul fur
    oxides (S02)
    Ib/ton
    
    
    -
    18
    13
    (See section on
    
    
    -
    -
    
    
    -
    65
    kg/MT
    
    
    -
    9
    6.5
    Nitrogen
    oxides (HO 2)
    Ib/ton
    
    
    160
    1
    6
    kg/MT
    
    
    80
    0.5
    3
    nitric acid)
    
    
    -
    32.5
    
    
    12
    29
    
    
    6
    14.5
     With bubble cap absorption, system is  90  to 95 percent efficient.
     References 16 and  17.
    °Reference 17.
     Not employed in manufacture of TNT for commercial use.
    Reference 19.
    Process Description20
    
         By-product hydrogen chloride is produced when chlorine is added to an organic
    compound such as benzene, toluene,  and vinyl chloride.  Hydrochloric acid is
    produced as a by-product of this reaction.  An  example of a process that generates
    hydrochloric acid as  a by-product is the direct chlorination of benzene.   In this
    process benzene, chlorine, hydrogen, air,  and some trace catalysts are  the raw
    materials that produce  chlorobenzene.   The gases from the reaction of benzene and
    chlorine consist of hydrogen chloride, benzene, chlorobenzenes, and air.  These
    gases are first scrubbed in a  packed tower with a chilled mixture of monochloro-
    benzene and dichlorobenzene to condense and recover any benzene or chlorobenzene.
    The hydrogen chloride is then absorbed  in a falling film absorption plant.
    Emissions
          The recovery of the hydrogen chloride from the chlorination of an organic
    compound is the major source of hydrogen chloride emissions.  The exit gas from
    the absorption or  scrubbing system is the actual source of the hydrogen chloride
    emitted.  Emission factors for hydrochloric acid produced as by-product hydrogen
    chloride are presented in Table 5-7.
    5-8
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
              Table 5-7.  EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR HYDROCHLORIC ACID MANUFACTURINGd
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of process
    By-product hydrogen chloride
    With final scrubber
    Without final scrubber
    Hydrogen chloride emissions
    Ib/ton
    0.2
    3
    kg/MT
    0.1
    1.5
               Reference 20.
    HYDROFLUORIC ACID
    
    Process  Description3
          All hydrofluoric acid in the United States is currently produced by the  reac-
    tion of  acid-grade fluorspar  with sulfuric acid for 30 to 60 minutes in externally
    fired rotary kilns  at a temperature of 400° to 500° F (204° to 260° C). 21~23  The
    resulting gas is then cleaned, cooled, and absorbed in water and weak hydro-
    fluoric  acid to form a strong acid solution.  Anhydrous hydrofluoric acid is formed
    by distilling 80 percent hydrofluoric  acid and  condensing the gaseous HF which is
    driven  off.
    
    Emissions and Controls3
          Air pollutant emissions are minimized by the scrubbing and  absorption
    systems used to purify  and recover the HF.  The initial scrubber  utilizes concen-
    trated sulfuric acid as a scrubbing medium and is designed to remove  dust,  SO;?,
    SO3, sulfuric acid mist, and 'water vapor present in  the gas  stream leaving the
    primary dust  collector.  The  exit gases from the  final absorber contain  small
    amounts of HF, silican tetrafluoride  (SiF4), CO2, and SO2 and  may be scrubbed
    with a caustic  solution to reduce emissions further.  A final water ejector,  some-
    times used to draw the  gases through the absorption system, will  reduce fluoride
    emissions.  Dust emissions  may also result from raw fluorspar grinding and dry-
    ing operations.  Table 5-8 lists the emission  factors for the various operations.
              Table  5-8.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROFLUORIC  ACID MANUFACTURING3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of operation
    Rotary kiln
    Uncontrolled
    Water scrubber
    Grinding and drying
    of fluorspar
    Fluorides
    Ib/ton acid
    
    50
    0.2
    -
    kg/MT acid
    
    25
    0.1
    -
    Particulates
    Ib/ton fluorspar
    
    -
    -
    20b
    kg/MT fluorspar
    
    -
    -
    10b
     References  21  and  24.
    •'Factor given  for well-controlled plant.
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-9
    

    -------
    NITRIC  ACID
    
    Process Description25
    
          The ammonia oxidation process (AOP) is the principal method of producing
    commercial nitric acid.  It involves high-temperature oxidation of ammonia with
    air over a platinum  catalyst to form nitric  oxide.  The nitric oxide air mixture is
    cooled,  and additional air is  added to complete the oxidation to nitrogen dioxide.
    The nitrogen dioxide is absorbed in water to produce an  aqueous solution  of nitric
    acid.  The major portion of this 55 to 65 percent HNC>3 is  consumed  at this strength.
    However,  a fairly substantial amount of this weak acid is concentrated in nitric
    acid until it is 95 to 99 percent HNOs; it is  then used as  the  strong acid.
    
    Emissions25
    
          The main source of atmospheric emissions from the manufacture of nitric
    acid is the tail gas from the absorption tower, which contains unabsorbed nitrogen
    oxides^   These oxides are  largely in the form of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide.
    In addition, trace amounts of nitric acid mist are present  in the gases as they leave
    the absorption system.   Small amounts  of nitrogen dioxide are also lost from the
    acid concentrators and storage tanks.  Table 5-9 summarizes the emission factors
    for nitric acid manufacturing.
    
                    Table 5-9.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITRIC ACID  PLANTS
                                 WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
    Type of process
    Ammonia - oxidation
    Old planta'b
    New plantc'^
    Nitric acid concentrators
    Old plantb
    New plant0
    Nitrogen oxides (N0x)a
    Ib/ton
    
    57
    2 to 7
    
    5
    0.2
    kg/MT
    
    28.5
    1
    
    2.5
    0.1
                      Catalytic combustors can reduce emissions  by  36
                      to  99.8  percent, with 80 percent the average
                      control.  Alkaline scrubbers can reduce emissions
                     .by  90  percent.
                     ^Reference 25.
                     .Reference 26.
                      Reference 65.
    
    PAINT AND VARNISH
    
    Paint3
          The manufacture of paint involves the dispersion of a colored oil or pigment
    in a vehicle,  usually an oil or resin, followed by the addition of an organic solvent
    for viscosity adjustment. Only the physical processes of weighing,  mixing, grind-
    ing, tinting, thinning, and packaging take place; no chemical reactions are involved.
    5-10
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    These processes take place in large mixing tanks at approximately room tempera-
    ture.
    
          The primary factors affecting emissions from paint manufacture are care in
    handling dry pigments, types of solvents used, and mixing  temperature. ^'< ^3
    About 1  r 2 percent of the solvents is lost even  under well-controlled conditions.
    Particulate emissions amount to 0,5 to 1. 0 percent of the pigment handled.
    
    Varnish13
          The manufacture of varnish also involves the mixing and blending of various
    ingredients to produce a wide range of products.   However, in this case chemical
    reactions are initiated by heating.  Varnish is cooked in either open or enclosed
    gas-fired kettles for periods of  4 to 16 hours  at temperatures of 200° to 650" F
    (93° to 340° C).
    
          Varnish cooking emissions, largely in the form  of organic compounds, depend
    on the cooking temperatures and times, the solvent used, the degree of tank enclos-
    ure,  and the type of air pollution controls used.  Emissions from varnish cooking
    range from 1 to 6 percent of the raw material.
    
          To reduce hydrocarbons from the manufacture of paint  and varnish, control
    techniques include condensers and/or adsorbers  on solvent-handling operations,  and
    scrubbers and afterburners on cooking operations.  Emissions factors for paint
    and varnish are shown in Table  5-10.
    
            Table 5-10.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  PAINT AND VARNISH MANUFACTURING
                               WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT3>b
                                 EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  C
    Type of
    product
    Paint
    Varnish
    Bodying oil
    Oleoresinous
    Alkyd
    Acryl ic
    Particulate
    Ib/ton pigment
    2
    
    -
    -
    -
    -
    kg/MT pigment
    1
    
    -
    -
    -
    -
    Hydrocarbons0
    Ib/ton of product
    30
    
    40
    150
    160
    20
    kg/MT pigment
    15
    
    20
    75
    80
    10
    References 27 and 29 through 33.
     Afterburners  can reduce gaseous hydrocarbon  emissions by 99 percent and  particu-
     lates by about 90 percent.  A water spray and oil  filter system can reduce particu-
     lates by about 90 percent.30
    GExpressed as undefined  organic compounds whose composition depends upon the type of
     varnish or paint.
    
    PHOSPHORIC ACID
    
         Phosphoric acid is produced by two principal  methods, the wet process and
    the thermal process. The wet process is usually employed •when the acid is to be
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-11
    

    -------
    used for fertilizer production.  Thermal-process acid is normally of higher purity
    and is used in the manufacture  of high-grade chemical and food products.
    
    Wet Process34, 35
    
          In the wet process, finely ground phosphate rock is fed into a reactor with
    sulfuric acid to form phosphoric acid and gypsum.   There is usually little market
    value for the gypsum produced, and it is handled as waste material in gypsum
    ponds.  The phosphoric  acid is  separated from the gypsum and other  insolubles by
    vacuum filtration.  The  acid is  then normally concentrated to about 50 to 55 per-
    cent P2C>5.  When super-phosphoric  acid is made,  the acid is concentrated to
    between 70  and 85 percent PzO^,.
          Emissions of gaseous fluorides,  consisting mostly of silicon tetrafluoride
    and hydrogen fluoride,  arc the major problems from wet-process  acid.  Table 5-11
    summarizes the emission factors from both wet-process acid and  thermal-process
    acid.
              Table 5-11.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Source
    Wet process (phosphate rock)
    Reactor, uncontrolled
    Gypsum pond
    Condenser, uncontrolled
    Thermal process (phosphorous burned0)
    Packed tower
    Venturi scrubber
    Glass-fiber mist eliminator
    Wire-mesh mist eliminator
    High-pressure-drop mist eliminator
    Electrostatic precipitator
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    4.6
    5.6
    3.0
    2.7
    0.2
    1.8
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    2.3
    2.8
    1.5
    1.35
    0.1
    0.9
    Fluorides
    Ib/ton
    
    18a
    lb
    20a
    
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    kg/riT
    
    ga
    l.lb
    10a
    
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
     References 36 and 37.
    "'Pounds per acre per day (kg  per hectare per day); approximately 0.5
     (0.213 hectare) is required  to produce 1 ton of Pz®5 daily.
    'Reference 38.
                                                                          acre
    Thermal Process 3 4
          In the thermal process, phosphate rock,  siliceous flux, and coke are heated
    in an electric furnace to produce elemental phosphorous.  The  gases containing
    the phosphorous vapors are passed through an electrical precipitator to remove
    entrained dust.  In the "one-step" version of the process, the gases are next
    mixed with air to form P£O5 before passing to a water scrubber  to form phosphoric
    acid.  In the "two-step" version of the process,  the phosphorous  is condensed and
     5-12
                                 EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    pumped to a tower in which it is burned with air,  and the PzO5 formed is hydrated
    by a •water spray in the lower portion of the tower.
    
          The principal emission from thermal-process acid is PzC>5 acid mist from
    the absorber tail gas.  Since all plants  are equipped with some type of acid-mist
    collection system, the emission factors presented in Table 5-11 are based on the
    listed types of control.
    
    
    PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
    
    Process  Description39, 40
          Phthalic anhydride  is produced primarily by oxidizing naphthalene vapors
    with excess air over a catalyst, usually ¥205.  O-xylene can be used instead of
    naphthalene, but it is  not used as much.  Following the oxidation of the naphthalene
    vapors, the gas stream  is cooled to separate the phthalic vapor from the effluent.
    Phthalic anhydride crystallizes directly from this  cooling without going through the
    liquid phase.  The phthalic anhydride is then purified by a  chemical soak in  sulfuric
    acid, caustic,  or  alkali  metal salt, followed by a heat soak.   To produce 1 ton of
    phthalic anhydride,  2,500 pounds of naphthalene and 830,000 standard cubic feet
    (scf)  of air are required  (or 1, 130 kilograms of naphthalene and  23, 500 standard
    cubic meters of air to produce 1 MT of phthalic anhydride).
    
    Emissions  and Controls39
          The excess air from the production of phthalic anhydride contains some uncon-
    densed phthalic anhydride,  maleic anhydride, quinones, and other  organics.   The
    venting of this stream to the  atmosphere is the  major source  of organic emissions.
    These emissions can be controlled with catalytic combustion.  Table 5-12 presents
    emission factor data from phthalic anhydride plants.
    
                Table 5-12.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE  PLANTS^
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
    Overall plant
    Uncontrolled
    Following catalytic combustion
    Organics (as hexane)
    Ib/ton
    32
    11
    kg/MT
    16
    5.5
                 Reference 41.
    
    PLASTICS
    
    Process Description3
          The manufacture of most resins or plastics begins with the polymerization or
    linking of the basic compound (monomer), usually a gas or liquid,  into high molec-
    ular weight non-crystalline solids.  The manufacture of the basic monomer is not
    considered part of the plastics industry and is usually accomplished at a chemical
    or petroleum plant.
    
          The manufacture of most plastics involves an enclosed reaction or polymeri-
    zation step,  a drying  step, and a final treating  and forming step.   These plastics
    2/72                           Chemical Process Industry                          5-13
    

    -------
    are polymerized or otherwise combined in completely enclosed stainless  steel or
    glass-lined vessels.   Treatment of the resin after polymerization, varies  with the
    proposed use.  Resins for moldings are dried and crushed or ground into molding
    powder.  Resins such as the alkyd resins that are to bo used for protective coatings
    are normally transferred to an agitated thinning tank,  where they are thinned with
    some type  of solvent and then stored in large steel tanks equipped with water-
    cooled condensers to prevent loss of solvent to the atmosphere.   Still other resins
    are stored in latex form as  they come from  the kettle.
    
    
    Emissions and Controls3
          The major  sources of  air contamination in plastics manufacturing are the
    emissions  of raw materials  or monomers,  emissions  of solvents or other volatile
    liquids during the reaction,  emissions of sublimed solids such as phthalic anhy-
    dride in  alkyd production, and  emissions of solvents during storage and handling of
    thinned resins.   Emission factors for the manufacture of plastics are shown in
    Table 5-13.
    
                 Table 5-13. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLASTICS MANUFACTURING
                                     WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   E
    
    Type of plastic
    Polyvinyl chloride
    Polypropylene
    General
    Participate
    Ib/ton
    35b
    3
    5 to 10
    kg/MT
    17.5b
    1.5
    2.5 to 5
    Gases
    Ib/ton
    l?c
    o.yd
    
    kg/MT
    8.5^
    0.35d
    
                  References  42 and 43.
                  Usually  controlled with a fabric filter efficiency  of  98
                  to 99  percent.
                 cAs vinyl  chloride.
                  As propylene.
    
          Much of the control equipment used in this industry is a basic part of the
    system and serves to recover a reactant or product.  These  controls include
    floating roof tanks or vapor recovery systems on volatile material, storage units,
    vapor recovery systems (adsorption  or condensers), purge lines that vent to a
    flare system,  and recovery systems on vacuum exhaust lines.
                      3
    PRINTING  INK
    
    Process Description
          There are four major  classes  of printing  ink:  letterpress and lithographic
    inks,  commonly called oil or paste inks; and flexographic and rotogravure inks,
    which are referred to as solvent inks.   These inks vary considerably in physical
    appearance, composition, method of application, and drying mechanism.   Flexo-
    graphic and rotogravure  inks have many elements in common with the paste  inks
    but differ in that they are of very low viscosity, and they almost always dry  by
    evaporation of highly volatile solvents.
    5-14
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
          There are three general processes in the manufacture of printing inks:  (1)
    cooking the vehicle and adding dyes, (2) grinding  of a pigment into the vehicle using
    a roller mill, and (3) replacing water in the wet  pigment pulp by an ink vehicle
    (commonly known as the flushing process).45  The ink "varnish" or vehicle is gen-
    erally cooked in large kettles  at 200° to 600°  F (93°  to 315° C) for an average
    of 8 to 12 hours in much the same way that regular varnish is made.  Mixing of the
    pigment and vehicle is done in dough mixers or in large agitated tanks.  Grinding
    is most often carried out in three-roller or five-roller horizontal  or vertical mills.
    Emissions  and Controls3-4^
          Varnish or vehicle preparation by heating is by far the largest source of ink
    manufacturing emissions.  Cooling the varnish components — resins, drying oils,
    petroleum oils, and solvents — produces odorous  emissions. At about  350° F
    (175° C) the products begin to decompose, resulting in the emission of decomposi-
    tion products from the  cooking vessel.  Emissions continue throughout the cooking
    process with the maximum rate of emissions occuring just after the maximum
    temperature has been reached.  Emissions from  the cooking phase can be reduced
    by more than 90 percent •with the use of scrubbers or condensers followed by after-
    burners. 4"> ^7
    
    
          Compounds emitted from the cooking of oleoresinous varnish (resin plus
    varnish) include water  vapor,  fatty acids, glycerine, acrolein,  phenols,  aldehydes,
    ketones,  terpene oils,  terpenes, and carbon dioxide.  Emissions of thinning sol-
    vents used in flexographic and  rotogravure inks may also occur.
    
    
          The quantity, composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing
    depend upon the cooking temperature and time, the  ingredients,  the method of
    introducing additives,  the degree of stirring, and the extent of air  or inert gas
    blowing.  Particulate emissions resulting from the  addition of pigments to the
    vehicle are affected by the type of pigment and its particle  size. Emission factors
    for the manufacture of printing ink are presented in Table 5-14.
    
    
               Table 5-14.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  PRINTING INK MANUFACTURING^
                                EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  E
    Type of process
    Vehicle cooking
    General
    Oils
    Oleoresinous
    Al kyds
    Pigment mixing
    Gaseous organics*3
    Ib/ton
    of product
    
    120
    40
    150
    160
    -
    kg/MT
    of product
    
    60
    20
    75
    80
    -
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    of pigment
    
    -
    
    -
    2
    kg/MT
    of pigment
    
    -
    -
    -
    1
           Based  on  data from section on paint and  varnish.
          ""Emitted as  gas, but rapidly condense as  the  effluent is cooled.
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-15
    

    -------
    SOAP AND DETERGENTS
    
    Soap3
          The manufacture of soap entails the catalytic hydrolysis  of various fatty acids
    with sodium or potassium hydroxide to form a glycerol-soap mixture.   This mix-
    ture is separated by distillation, then neutralized and blended  to produce soap.
    The main atmospheric pollution problem in the manufacture of soap is odor, and,
    if a spray drier is used,  a particulate emission problem may also occur.  Vent
    lines, vacuum exhausts,  product and raw material storage,  and  waste streams are
    all  potential odor sources.  Control of these odors may be achieved by scrubbing
    all  exhaust  fumes  and,  if necessary, incinerating the remaining  compounds.  Odors
    emanating from the spray drier may be controlled by scrubbing -with an acid
    solution.
    
    
    Detergents3
          The manufacture of detergents generally begins with the  sulfuration by sul-
    fur ic  acid of a fatty alcohol or linear alkylate.   The sulfurated compound is then
    neutralized with caustic solution (NaOH),  and various dyes,  perfumes,  and other
    compounds  are added.  °>4'  The  resulting paste or slurry is then sprayed under
    pressure  into a vertical drying tower where it is dried with  a stream of hot air
    ( 400° to 500° F or 204° to  260° C). The dried  detergent is then cooled and pack-
    aged.  The  main source of particulate emissions is the spray-drying tower.  Odors
    may also be emitted from the spray-drying operation and from storage  and mixing
    tanks, Particulate emissions from spray-drying  operations are shown  inTable 5-15.
    
                Table 5-15.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SPRAY-DRYING
                                        DETERGENTS^
                              EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  B
    Control device
    None
    Cycloneb
    Cyclone followed by:
    Spray chamber
    Packed scrubber
    Venturi scrubber
    Overall
    efficiency, %
    _
    85
    
    92
    95
    97
    Particulate emissions
    Ib/ton of
    product
    90
    14
    
    7
    5
    3
    kg/MT of
    product
    45
    7
    
    3.5
    2.5
    1.5
                 Based on analysis of data  in References 48 through 52.
                 Some type of primary collector, such as a cyclone, is
                 considered an integral  part of the spray-drying  system.
    
    SODIUM CARBONATE (Soda Ash)
    
    Process  Description3
          Soda ash is manufactured by three processes:  (1) the natural or Lake Brine
    process,  (2) the Solvay proces s (ammonia-soda),  and (3) the electrolytic  soda-ash
    5-16
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    process.  Because the Solvay process accounts for over 80 percent of the total
    production of soda ash,  it will be the only one discussed in this section.
    
          In the Solvay process, the basic raw materials are ammonia,  coke,  lime-
    stone (calcium carbonate), and salt  (sodium chloride).  The salt,  usually  in the
    unpurified form of a brine, is first purified in a series of absorbers by precipita-
    tion of the heavy metal ions with ammonia and carbon dioxide.   In this  process
    sodium bicarbonate is formed.  This bicarbonate coke is heated in a rotary kiln,
    and the resultant soda ash is  cooled and conveyed to storage.
    
    
    Emissions
          The major  source of emissions from the manufacture of soda ash is the
    release of ammonia.  Small amounts of ammonia are emitted in the gases vented
    from the brine purification system.   Intermittent losses of ammonia can also  occur
    during the unloading of tank trucks into storage tanks.   The major sources of  dust
    emissions include  rotary dryers, dry solids handling,  and processing of lime.
    Dust emissions of  fine soda ash also occur from conveyor  transfer points and air
    classification systems,  as well  as during tank-car loading and packaging.   Emis-
    sion factors  are summarized in Table 5-16.
    
                        Table 5-16.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR SODA-ASH
                                  PLANTS WITHOUT  CONTROLS
                                 EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  D
    Type of source
    Ammonia recovery3'
    Conveying, transferring,
    loading, etc.c
    Participates
    Ib/ton
    -
    -6
    kg/MT
    -
    3
    Ammonia
    Ib/ton
    7
    -
    kg/MT
    3.5
    -
                 Reference 53.
                 Represents ammonia loss  following the recovery system.
                 °Based on data in References  54 through 56.
    
    SULFURIC ACID
    
    Process Description57
         All sulfuric acid is made by either the chamber or the contact process.
    Because the  contact process accounts for over 90 percent of the total production of
    sulfuric acid in the United States, it 'will be the only process discussed in this
    section.  Contact plants may be classified according to the raw materials used:
    (1) elemental sulfur-burning plants, (2) sulfide ore  and smelter gas plants,  and (3)
    spent-acid and hydrogen sulfide burning plants.  A separate description of each
    type of plant will be given.
    
    Elemental Sulfur—Burning Plants57
         Frasch-process or recovered sulfur from oil  refineries is melted,  settled,
    or filtered to remove ash and  is then fed into  a combustion chamber.  The sulfur
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-17
    

    -------
    is burned in clean air that has been dried by scrubbing with 93 to 99 percent sul-
    fur ic acid.  The gases from the  combustion chamber are cooled and then enter the
    solid catalyst (vanadium pentoxide) converter.  Usually,  95 to 98 percent of the
    sulfur  dioxide from the combustion chamber is converted to sulfur  trioxide, with
    an accompanying large evolution of heat.  The converter exit gas, after being
    cooled, enters an absorption tower where the sulfur trioxide is absorbed with  98 to
    99 percent sulfuric acid.   The sulfur trioxide combines with the water in the acid
    and forms more sulfuric  acid.
    
    Sulfide Ore and Smelter Gas Plants57
    
         Sulfur dioxide gas from smelters  is emitted from such equipment as copper
    converters, reverberatory furnaces,  roasters, and flash smelters.  The sulfur
    dioxide is contaminated with dust, acid mist, and gaseous impurities.  To  remove
    the impurities the gases must be cooled to essentially  atmospheric temperature
    and passed through purification  equipment consisting of cyclone dust collectors,
    electrostatic dust and mist precipitators, and scrubbing  and gas-cooling towers.
    After the gases are cleaned and  the excess water vapor removed, they are  scrub-
    bed with 66°  Be acid in a drying tower.  The  remainder of  the process is essentially
    the same as that in the elemental sulfur plants.
    
    
    Spent—Acid and Hydrogen Sulfide Burning  Plants57
          Two methods are used in the processing of this type of sulfuric acid.   In one
    the sulfur dioxide and other products  from the combustion  of spent acid and/or
    hydrogen sulfide with undried atmospheric air are passed through gas-cooling and
    mist-removal equipment.  The air stream next passes through a drying tower.  A
    blower draws the gas from the drying tower and finally discharges the sulfur dioxide
    gas to the sulfur trioxide converter.
    
         In a "wet-gas plant, " the wet gases  from the combustion chamber  are charged
    directly to the converter  with no intermediate treatment.   The gas  from the con-
    verter then flows to the absorber, through which 60° to 66° Be sulfuric acid is
    circulating.
    
    
    Emissions57
          The major source of  emissions  from contact sulfuric acid plants is waste gas
    from the  absorber exit stack. The gas discharged to the atmosphere  contains pre-
    dominantly nitrogen and oxygen, but unreacted sulfur dioxide,  unabsorbed  sulfur
    trioxide,  and  sulfuric acid mist and spray are also present.   When the waste gas
    reaches  the atmosphere,  sulfur  trioxide is  converted to acid mist.  Minor  quanti-
    ties of sulfur  dioxide  and sulfur  trioxide may come from storage-tank vents, from
    tank-truck and tank-car vents during  loading operations, from sulfuric acid con-
    centrators, and from leaks in process equipment. Emission  factors for contact
    plants are summarized in Table 5-17.
    
    
    SYNTHETIC FIBERS
    
    Process Description3
          Synthetic fibers are classified into two major categories, semi-synthetic and
    "true" synthetic.  Semi-synthetics, such as viscose  rayon and acetate fibers,
    5-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
                   Table 5-17.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR SULFURIC ACID PLANTS6
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  B
    
    Conversion of S02
    to SOs, %
    93
    94
    95
    96
    97
    98
    99
    99.5
    S02 emissions
    Ib/ton of 100%
    H2S04b
    97
    84
    70
    55
    40C
    26
    15
    7
    kg/MT of 100%
    H2S04b
    48.5
    42
    35
    27.5
    20C
    13
    7.5
    3.5
                     Acid-mist emissions  range from 0.3 to 7.5 pounds per
                     ton (0.15 to  3.75  kilograms per metric ton)  of acid
                     produced for  plants  without acid mist eliminators, to
                     0.02 to 0.2 pound  per ton (0.01 to 0.1 kilogram per
                     metric ton) of acid  produced for plants with acid-
                     mist eliminators.
                     Reference 57.
                    GUse 40 (20) as an  average factor if percent  conversion
                     of SOp to SO,  is not known.
    
    result when natural polymeric materials such as cellulose are brought  into a dis-
    solved or dispersed state and then spun into fine filaments.  True synthetic poly-
    mers, such as Nylon, * Orion,  and Dacron,  result from addition and other poly-
    merization reactions that form long  chain molecules.
    
          True  synthetic fibers begin with the preparation of extremely long,  chainlike
    molecules.  The polymer is spun in  one of four ways:^8  (i) rnelt spinning, in which
    molten polymer is pumped through spinneret jets, the polymer solidifying as it
    strikes the cool air; (2) dry spinning, in which the polymer is  dissolved in a suit-
    able organic solvent, and the resulting solution is forced through spinnerets;
    (3) wet spinning,  in which the  solution is coagulated in a chemical as it emerges
    from the  spinneret; and (4) core spinning, the newest method,  in which a  continu-
    ous filament yarn together with short-length "hard" fibers is introduced onto a
    spinning frame in such a way as to form a composite yarn.
    
    
    Emissions  and Controls3
    
          In the manufacture of viscose Rayon,  carbon disulfide  and hydrogen sulfide
    are the major gaseous emissions.  Air pollution controls are  not normally used to
    reduce these emissions, but adsorption in activated carbon at  an efficiency of 80
    to 95 percent, with subsequent recovery of the CS2, can be accomplished. 59  Emis-
    sions of gaseous hydrocarbons may also occur from the drying of the finished
    *Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement by the
     Environmental Protection Agency.
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-19
    

    -------
    fiber.  Table 5-18 presents emission factors for semi-synthetic and true synthetic
    fibers.
    
             Table 5-18.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR SYNTHETIC  FIBERS MANUFACTURING
                                EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:   E
    Type of fiber
    Semi -synthetic
    Viscose rayon3'
    True synthetic0
    Nylon
    Dacron
    L Carbon
    Jisulfide
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    
    7
    -
    kg/MT Tib/ton
    
    -
    
    3.5
    -
    
    55
    
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    27.5
    
    -
    -
    Hydrogen
    sul fide
    Ib/ton
    
    6
    
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    3
    
    -
    -
    Oil vapor
    or mist
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    
    15
    7
    kg/MT
    
    -
    
    7.5
    3.5
        Reference 60.
       b                                                                  59
        Flay  be  reduced by 80 to 95 percent absorption  in  activated charcoal.
        Reference 61.
    
    SYNTHETIC RUBBER
    
    Process  Description3
          Copolymers of butadiene and styrene,  commonly known as SBR account for
    more than 70 percent of all synthetic rubber produced in the United States.  In a
    typical  SBR manufacturing process,  the monomers of butadiene and styrene are
    mixed with additives such as soaps and mercaptans.   The mixture is polymerized
    to a conversion point of approximately 60 percent.   After being mixed with various
    ingredients such as oil and carbon black, the latex product is coagulated and pre-
    cipitated from the  latex emulsion.  The rubber particles are then dried and baled.
    
    
    Emissions and Controls3
          Emissions from the synthetic rubber manufacturing process  consist  of
    organic compounds (largely the monomers used)  emitted from the  reactor and
    blow-down tanks, and particulate matter and odors from the drying operations.
    
          Drying operations are frequently controlled with fabric filter  systems to
    recover any particulate emissions,  which represent a product loss.  Potential
    gaseous emissions are largely controlled by recycling the gas stream back to the
    process.   Emis sion factor s from synthetic rubber plants are summarized in
    Table 5-19.
    
    
    TEREPHTHALIC ACID
    
    Process  Description 1 > ^4
          The  main use of terephthalic acid is to produce dimethylterephthalate which
    is used for polyester fibers (like  Dacron) and  films.  Terephthalic  acid can be
    produced in various ways, one of which is the oxidation of paraxylene by nitric
     5-20
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
                             Table 5-19.  EMISSION FACTORS him
                            SYNTHETIC RUBBER PLANTS:   BUTADIENE-
                             ACRYLONITRILE AND BUTADIENE-STYRENE
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
    Compound
    Al kenes
    Butadiene
    Methyl propene
    Butyne
    Pentadiene
    Al kanes
    Dimethyl heptane
    Pentane
    Ethanenitrile
    Carbonyl s
    Acrylonitrile
    Acrolein
    Emissions '
    Ib/ton
    
    40
    15
    3
    1
    
    1
    2
    1
    
    17
    3
    kg/MT
    
    20
    7.5
    1.5
    0.5
    
    0.5
    1
    0.5
    
    8.5
    1.5
                            The butadiene emission is  not continuous
                            and is greatest right after a batch of
                            partially polymerized latex enters  the
                            blow-down tank.
                            References 62 and 63.
    
    acid.  In this process an oxygen-containing gas (usually air), paraxylene, and
    HNO3  are  all passed into a reactor where oxidation by the nitric acid takes place
    in two steps.  The first  step yields primarily N2O, while the second step yields
    mostly NO in the offgas.   The terephthalic acid precipitated from  the reactor
    effluent is recovered by conventional crystallization, separation,  and drying
    operations.
    
    Emissions
          The  NO in the offgas from the  reactor  is the major air  contaminant from the
    manufacture of terephthalic acid.  The amount of nitrogen oxides emitted is roughly
    estimated  in Table  5-20.
    
                          Table 5-20.  NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSION
                           FACTORS  FOR TEREPHTHALIC ACID PLANTS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
    Type of operation
    Reactor
    Emissions (NO)
    Ib/ton
    13
    kg/MT
    6.5
                           Reference 64.
    2/72
    Chemical Process Industry
    5-21
    

    -------
    R1-F1 RENCRS FOR CHAPTER 5
    
     1.  Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources.  U.S. DHEV
         PHS,  EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Washington,  D, C.
         Publication No.  AP-67.  March 1970.  p.  7-12 through 7-13
    
     2.  Goldbeck, M. ,  Jr.  and F. C.  Johnson.  Process  for Separating Adipic Acid
         Precursors.  E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.   U.S. Patent No.  2,703,331
         Official Gazette  U.S. Patent Office.  692(1) March 1,  1955.
    
     3.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Final Report.  Resources Research, In-
         corporated.   Reston, Virginia.  Prepared for National Air Pollution Control
         Administration under contract no. CPA-22-69-119.  April 1970.
    
     4.  Burns, W.E. and R.R. McMullan.  No Noxious Ammonia Odor Here.  Oil
         and Gas Journal,  p.  129-131, February 25, 1967.
    
     5.  Axelrod, L. C.  and T.E.  O'Hare.  Production of Synthetic Ammonia.  New
         York, M. W. Kellogg Company, 1964.
    
     6.  Drogin, I. Carbon Black.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  18:216-228,
         April 1968.
    
     7.  Cox,  J. T.  High Quality, High Yield Carbon Black.   Chem. Eng.   57:116-117,
         June 1950.
    
     8.  Shreve, R. N.  Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.  New York, McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1967.  p.  124-130.
    
     9.  Reinke, R.A.  and T. A.  Ruble.  Oil Black. Ind.  Eng.  Chem.   44:685-694,
         April 1952.
    
    10.   Allan, D. L.  The Prevention of Atmospheric Pollution in the Carbon Black
         Industry.  Chem. Ind.  p.  1320-1324,  October 15, 1955.
    
    11.   Shreve, R.N.  Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.  New York, McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1967.  p.  619.
    
    12.   Atmospheric Emissions from  Chlor-Alkali Manufacture.  U.S. EPA, Air
         Pollution Control Office.   Research Triangle Park,  N. C.  Publication No.
         AP-80.  January 1971.
    
    13,   Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation  of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air  Pollution Control.  Durham, N. C.   PHS Pub-
         lication No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p.  49.
    
    
    14.   Shrevc-, R. N.   Chemical Process Industries.   3rd Ed. New York,  McCr,-\v-
         Hill Book Company, 1967.  p.  383-395.
    
    
    15.  Larson,  T.  and D. Sanchez.   Unpublished report on nitrogen  oxide emissions
         and controls from explosives manufacturing.  National Air  Pollution Control
         Administration, Office of Criteria and Standards.  Durham, N. C.   1969.
    5-22                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
    16.   Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing.  National Air
         Pollution Control Administration, Federal Facilities Section.  Washington,
         D. C.
    
    17.   Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing.  National Air
         Pollution Control Administration, Office of Criteria and Standards. Durham,
         N. C.   June 1970.
    
    18.   Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  EHS,  National Air Pollution Control Administration.  Washington,  D. C.
         Publication No. AP-67.  March 1970.  p.  7-23.
    
    19.   Unpublished stack  test data from an explosives manufacturing plant.   Army
         Environmental Hygiene Agency.  Baltimore, Maryland.  December 1967.
    
    ZO.  Atmospheric Emissions from Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing  Processes.
         U.S. DHEW,  PHS, CPEHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration.
         Durham,  N. C.  Publication No. AP-54.  September 1969.
    
    21.   Rogers, W. E. and K.  Muller.  Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture.  Chem. Eng.
         Progr.   5_9_:85-88,  May 1963.
    
    2Z.  Heller, A. N. , S. T.  Cuffe,  and D.R.  Goodwin.  Inorganic Chemical Industry.
         In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  Danielson,  J. A. (ed.). U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publi-
         cation  No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p.  197-198.
    
    23.  Hydrofluoric Acid.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
         9:610-624, 1964.
    
    24.  Private Communication between Resources Research,  Incorporated, and E.I.
         DuPont de Nemours and Company.  Wilmington,  Delaware.   January 13,  1970.
    
    25o  Atmospheric Emissions from Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes.   U.S.
         DHEW, PHS, Division of Air  Pollution.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No.
         999-AP-27.   1966.
    
    26.  Unpublished emission data from a nitric acid plant.   U.S. DHEW,  PHS, EHS,
         National Air Pollution  Control Administration, Office of Criteria and  Stan-
         dards.  Durham, North Carolina.  June 1970.
    
    27,,  Stcnburg, R.L.  Atmospheric Emissions from Paint and Varnish Operations.
         Paint Yarn.  Prod.   p.  61-65 and 111-114.  September 1959.
    
    28o  Private Communication between Resources Research,  Incorporated,  and
         National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association.  September 1969.
    
    29.  Unpublished engineering estimates based on plant visits in Washington, D.  C.
         Resources Research,  Incorporated.  Reston,  Va.  October  1969.
    
    30.  Chatfield,  H.E.  Varnish Cookers.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
         Danielson,  J. A. (ed.).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Center for Air Pollution
         Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p. 688-695.
    2/72                            Chemical Process Industry                          5-23
    

    -------
    31.   Lunche,  E. G. et al.  Distribution Survey of Products Emitting Organic
         Vapors in Los Angeles County.  Chem. Eng. Progr.  53.  August 1957.
    
    3Z.  Communication on emissions from paint and varnish operations with G.
         Sallee, Midwest Research Institute.  December 17,  1969.
    
    33.  Communication with Roger Higgins,  Benjamin Moore Paint Company  (June
         25,  1968); As reported in draft report of Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon
         Air Pollutants.
    
    34.  Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.   PHS Pub-
         lication No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 16.
    
    35.  Atmospheric Emissions trom Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture.
         U.S. DHEW, PHS,  EHS, National Air  Pollution Control Administration.
         Raleigh,  N.  C.  Publication No. AP-57.  April 1970.
    
    36.  Atmospheric Emissions from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture. U.S.
         DHEW,  PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration,  Raleigh,
         N. C.  Publication No. AP-57.  April  1970.  p. 14.
    
    37.  Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions. Internal document.  U.S. EPA,
         Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park,  N. C.  1970.
    
    38.  Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Pnosptioric Acid Manufactur-
         ing.  Cooperative Study Project:  Manufacturing Chemists'  Association,  In-
         corporated,  and Public Health Service.  U.S.  DHEW, PHS,  National Air
         Pollution Control Administration.  Durham, N. C.  Publication No. AP-48.
         October 1968.
    
    39.  Duprey,  R. A-,,  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.  PHS Pub-
         lication No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 17.
    
    40.  Phthalic  Anhydride.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
         2nd ed. ,  New York, John Wiley and Sons,  Inc. , L5_:444-485,  1968.
    
    41.  bolauc, M. J. et al.  Systematic Source Test Procedure for the Evaluation
         of Industrial Fume Converters.  Presented at 58th Annual Meeting of the
         Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto,  Canada.  June 1965.
    
    42.  Unpublished data from industrial questionnaire.  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National
         Air Pollution Control Administration,  Division of Air Quality and Emissions
         Data.  1969.
    
    43.  Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and
         Maryland State Department of Health.   November 1969.
    
    44.  Shreve,  R.  N.   Chemical Process Industries.  3rd  ed. , New York, McGraw
         Hill Book Co. , 1967.  p. 454-455.
    
    45.  Larsen, L. M.  Industrial Printing Inks.  New York, Reinhold Publishing
         Company.  1962.
     5-24                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
    46.  Chatfield, H.E.   Varnish Cookers.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
         Danielson,  J.A.  (ed. ).  U.S. DREW, PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution
         Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publication No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p.  688-695.
    
    47.  Private Communication with Interchemical Corporation, Ink Division.  Cin-
         cinnati, Ohio.  November 10, 1969.
    
    48.  Phelps, A.H. Air Pollution Aspects of Soap and Detergent Manufacture.
         J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.  17(8)-.505-507,  August  1967.
    
    49.  Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.  New York, McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1967.  p. 544-563.
    
    50.  Larsen,  G. P. ,  G. I.  Fischer, and W. J.  Hamming. Evaluating Sources of
         Air Pollution. Ind. Eng.  Chem.  45_: 1070-1074, May 1953.
    
    51.  McCormick,  P. Y. , R.L. Lucas,  andD.R. Wells.  Gas-Solid Systems.  In:
         Chemical Engineer's Handbook.  Perry, J.H.  (ed. ).  New York, McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1963.  p. 59.
    
    52.  Private Communication with Maryland State Department of Health.  November
         1969.
    
    53.  Shreve, R.N, Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.  New York, McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1967.  p. 225-230.
    
    54.  Facts and Figures for the Chemical Process Industries.  Chem.  Eng. News.
         43.:51-118, September 6, 1965.
    
    55.  Faith,  W. L. , D.  B. Keyes, and R. L. Clark.  Industrial Chemicals.  3rd
         ed. , New York,  John Wiley and Sons,  Inc.   1965.
    
    56.  Kaylor, F. B. Air Pollution Abatement Program of a Chemical Processing
         Industry.  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.  13:65-67,  February 1965.
    
    57.  Atmospheric  Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes.  Co-
         operative Study Project: Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Incorporated,
         and Public Health Service.  U.S.  DHEW, PHS,  Division of Air Pollution.
         Washington,  D. C. Publication No.  999-AP-13.  1965.
    
    58.  Fibers, Man-Made.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
         1965.
    
    59.  Fluidized Recovery System Nabs Carbon Disulfide. Chem. Eng. 7_0.(8):92-94,
         April 15, 1963.
    
    60.  Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  and
         Rayon Manufacturing Plant.  December 1969.
    
    
    61.  Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  and E.I.
         DuPont de Nemours and Company.  January 13,  1970.
    2/72                           Chemical Process Industry                          5-25
    

    -------
    62.  The Louisville Air Pollution Study.  U.S.  DHEW,  PHS,  Division of Air Pol-
         lution.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.   1961 p.  26-27 and 124.
    
    63.  Unpublished data from synthetic rubber plant.  U. S0 DHEW, PHS, EHS,
         National Air  Pollution Control Administration,  Division of Air Quality and
         Emissions Data.  1969.
    
    64.  Terephthalic Acid.  Kirk-Othmer  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  1964.
    
    
    65.  Control of Air Pollution from  Nitric Acid  Plants.  Internal document.   U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency. Durham, N. C.  1971.
     5-26                              EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
                6.  FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
    
          Before food and agricultural products are used by the consumer they under-
    go a number of processing steps, such as refining, preservation,  and product
    improvement, as well as storage and handling, packaging, and shipping.  This
    section deals with the  processing of  food and agricultural products and  the inter-
    mediate steps that present an air pollution problem.  Emission factors  are pre-
    sented for industries where data were available.  The primary pollutant emitted
    from these processes is participate matter.
    
    
    ALFALFA DEHYDRATING
    
    General '
          An alfalfa  dehydrating plant produces an animal feed from alfalfa.  The
    dehydration and grinding of alfalfa that produces alfalfa meal is a dusty operation
    most commonly carried out in rural  areas.
    
          Wet, chopped alfalfa is fed into a direct-fired rotary drier.  The dried
    alfalfa particles are conveyed to a primary cyclone and sometimes a secondary
    cyclone in series to settle out the product from air flow and products of combus-
    tion.  The settled material is discharged to the grinding equipment,  which is
    usually a hammer mill.   The ground material is collected in an air-meal separator
    and is either conveyed directly to bagging or  storage, or blended with other
    ingredients.
    
    Emissions and Controls
    
          Sources of dust emissions are the primary cyclone,  the grinders, and the
    air-meal separator.  Overall dust losses have been reported as high as 7 percent,
    but average  losses are around 3 percent by weight  of the meal produced. ^ The
    use of a baghouse as a secondary collection system can greatly reduce emissions.
    Emission factors for alfalfa dehydration are presented in  Table 6-1.
                        Table 6-1.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                                 FOR ALFALFA DEHYDRATION9
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
    Type of operation
    Uncontrol led
    Baghouse collector
    Participate emissions
    Ib/ton of
    meal produced
    60
    3
    kg/MT of
    meal produced
    30
    1.5
    a
    2/72                                   6-1
    

    -------
    COFFEE ROASTING
    
    Process Description4' 5
    
          Coffee,  which is imported in the form of green beans, must be cleaned,
    blended,  roasted, and packaged before being  sold,  In a typical coffee roasting
    operation,  the green coffee beans are freed of dust and chaff by dropping tin-
    beans into  a current of air.   The cleaned beans are then sent to a batch or
    continuous roaster.  During the roasting, moisture is driven off,  the beans swell,
    and chemical  changes take place that give the roasted beans their typical color
    and aroma.  When the beans  have reached a certain color, they are quenched,
    cooled,  and stoned.
    
    
    Emissions4' 5
          Dust, chaff, coffee bean oils (as mists), smoke, and odors are the principal
    air contaminants emitted from coffee processing.   The major  source of particu-
    late emissions and practically  the only source of aldehydes, nitrogen oxides, and
    organic acids is  the roasting process.  In a direct-fired roaster,  gases are  vented
    without recirculation through the flame.  In the indirect-fired  roaster, however, a
    portion of  the roaster gases  are recirculated and particulate emissions are
    reduced.   Emissions of both smoke  and odors from the roasters can be almost
    completely removed by a properly designed afterburner.  ' ~
          Particulate emissions also occur from the stoner and cooler.  In the stoner,
    contaminating materials heavier than the roasted beans are separated from the
    beans by an air stream.  In the cooler,  quenching the hot roasted beans with water
    causes  emissions of large  quantities of  steam and some particulate matter. "
    Table 6-2  summarizes emissions from  the various operations involved in coffee
    proces sing.
             Table  6-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROASTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
    
    
    Type of process
    Roaster
    Direct-fired
    Indirect- fired
    Stoner and cooler0
    Instant coffee spray dryer
    Pollutant
    Particul atesa
    Ib/ton
    
    7.6
    4.2
    1.4
    1.4d
    kg/MT
    
    3.8
    2.1
    0.7
    0.7d
    N0xb
    Ib/ton
    
    0.1
    0.1
    
    -
    kg/MT
    
    0.05
    0.05
    _
    -
    Aldehydes
    Ib/ton
    
    0.2
    0.2
    _
    
    kg/MT
    
    0.1
    0.1
    -
    -
    Organic acidsb
    Ib/ton
    
    0.9
    0.9
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    0.45
    0.45
    -
    -
     Reference 6.
    bReference 4.
    "If cyclone is used,  emissions can be reduced by 70 percent.
     Cyclone plus wet scrubber always used, representing a controlled factor.
    6-2
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    COTTON GINNING
    
    General7
    
          The primary function of a cotton gin is to take raw seed cotton and separate
    the seed and the  lint.  A large amount of trash is found in the seed cotton,  and it
    must also be removed.   The  problem of collecting and disposing of  gin trash falls
    into two main areas.  The first consists of collecting the coarse, heavier trash
    such as burs, sticks,  stems,  leaves,  sand, and dirt.  The  second problem is
    collecting the finer dust, small leaf particles,  and fly lint that are discharged
    from the lint after the fibers are removed from the seed.   From 1  ton (0. 907 MT)
    of seed cotton, approximately one 500-pound (226 -kilogram) bale of cotton can be
    made.
    
    Emissions and Controls
    
          The major  sources of particulates from  cotton ginning include the unloading
    fan, the cleaner,  and  the stick and bur machine.  From the cleaner and stick and
    bur machine, a large  percentage of the particles  settle out  in the plant, and an
    attempt has been made in Table  6-3 to present emission factors  that take this into
    consideration.  Where cyclone collectors  are  used, emissions have been reported
    to be about  90 percent less.
    
                    Table 6-3.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR COTTON GINNING
                              OPERATIONS WITHOUT CONTROLS9
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Process
    Unloading fan
    Cleaner
    Stick and bur
    machine
    Miscellaneous
    Total
    Estimated total
    particulates
    Ib/bale
    5
    1
    3
    3
    12
    kg/bale
    2.27
    0.45
    1.36
    1 .36
    5.44
    n
    Particles >100 y
    settled out, %
    0
    70
    95
    50
    Estimated
    emission factor
    (released to
    atmosphere)
    Ib/bale
    5.0
    0.30
    0.20
    1 .5
    1 7'°
    kq/bale
    2.27
    0.14
    0.09
    0.68
    3.2
           References 7 and 8.
           One bale weighs 500 pounds  (226  kilograms).
    
    
    FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS
    
    General"
          Grain elevators are primarily transfer and storage units and are classified
    as either the  smaller, more numerous country elevators or the larger terminal
    elevators.  At grain elevator locations the following operations can occur:
    2/72
    Food and Agriculture Industry
    6-3
    

    -------
    receiving, transfer and storage, cleaning, drying, and milling or grinding.  Many
    of the large terminal elevators  also process grain at the same location.  The grain
    processing may include wet and dry milling (cereals), flour milling, oil-seed
    crushing,  and distilling.  Feed manufacturing involves the receiving,  conditioning
    (drying,  sizing,  cleaning), blending, and pelleting of the grains,  and their subse-
    quent bagging or bulk loading.
    Emissions
             9
         Emissions from feed and grain operations may be separated into those
    occurring at elevators and those occurring at grain processing operations or
    feed manufacturing operations.   Emission factors for these operations are pre-
    sented in Table 6-4.  Because dust collection systems are generally applied  to
    
               Table 6-4.  PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAIN HANDLING
                                       AND PROCESSING
                                  EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of source
    Terminal elevators3
    Shipping or receiving
    Transferring, conveying, etc.
    Screening and cleaning
    Drying
    Country elevators'3
    Shipping or receiving
    Transferring, conveying, etc.
    Screening and cleaning
    Drying
    Grain processing
    Corn mealc
    Soybean processing'3
    Barley or wheat cleaner1^
    Milo cleanerf
    Barley flour milling0
    Feed manufacturing
    Barleyf
    Emissions
    Ib/ton
    
    1
    2
    5
    6
    
    5
    3
    8
    7
    
    5
    7
    0.26
    0.4e
    36
    
    3e
    kg/MT
    
    0.5
    1
    2.5
    3
    
    2.5
    1.5
    4
    3.5
    
    2.5
    3.5
    0.16
    0.26
    1.56
    
    1.56
                 References  10 and  11.
                 Reference 11.
                /•>
                 References  11  and  12.
                 References  13 and  14.
                eAt cyclone  exit  (only  non-ether-soluble particulates).
                 Reference 14.
     6-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    most phases of these operations to reduce product and component losses,  the
    selection of the final emission factor should take into  consideration the overall
    efficiency of these control systems.
    
          Emissions from grain elevator operations are dependent on the type of grain,
    the moisture content of the grain (usually 10 to 30 percent), the amount of foreign
    material  in the grain (usually 5 percent or less), the degree of enclosure at load-
    ing and unloading areas, the type of cleaning and conveying, and the amount and
    type of control used.
    
          Factors affecting emissions from grain processing operations  include the
    type of processing (wet or dry), the amount of grain processed, the  amount of
    cleaning,  the degree of drying or heating, the amount of grinding, the temperature
    of the process, and the degree of control applied to the particulates  generated.
    
          Factors affecting emissions from feed manufacturing operations include the
    type and amount of grain handled, the degree of drying, the amount of liquid
    blended into the  feed, the type of handling (conveyor or pneumatic),  and the degree
    of control.
    FERMENTATION
                              9
    General Process  Description
    
          For the purpose of this report only the fermentation industries  associated
    with food will be considered.  This includes the production of beer, whiskey, and
    wine.
    
          The manufacturing process for each of these  is similar.  The four main
    brewing production stages and their respective sub-stages are:  (1) brewhouse
    operations, which include  (a)  malting of the barley, (b) addition of adjuncts (corn,
    grits,  and rice) to barley mash,  (c) conversion of starch in barley and adjuncts
    to maltose sugar  by enzymatic processes,  (d) separation of wort from grain by
    straining,  and (e) hopping  and boiling of the wort; (2) fermentation, which includes
    (a) cooling of the  wort,  (b) additional yeast cultures, (c) fermentation for  7 to 10
    days,  (d) removal of settled yeast, and (e) filtaation and carbonation;  (e)  aging,
    which  lasts from  1 to 2.  months under refrigeration; and (4) packaging, which
    includes (a) bottling-pasteurization,  and  (In) racking draft  beer.
    
          The major differences between beer production and whiskey production are
    the purification and distillation necessary to obtain  distilled liquors and the  longer
    period of aging.   The primary difference between wine making  and beer making
    is that grapes are used  as the initial raw material in wine rather than grains.
    
    Emissions ^
         Emissions from fermentation processes are nearly all  gases  and primarily
    consist of carbon  dioxide,  hydrogen, oxygen,  and water vapor, none  of which
    present  an air pollution problem.  However, emissions of particulates can occur
    in the handling of  the grain for the manufacture of beer and whiskey.   Gaseous
    hydrocarbons are also emitted from  the drying of spent grains  and  yeast  in beer
    and from the whiskey-aging warehouses.  No significant emissions have been
    reported for the production of wine.  Emission factors for the various operations
     issociated with beer, wine, and whiskey production are shown  in Table 6-5.
    2/72                         Food and Agriculture Industry                           6-5
    

    -------
                  Table 6-5.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR FERMENTATION PROCESSES
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  E
    Type of product
    Beer
    Grain handling3
    Drying spent grains, etc.a
    Whiskey
    Grain handling3
    Drying spent grains, etc.a
    Aging
    Wine
    Participates
    Ib/ton
    
    3
    5
    
    3
    5
    -
    Nege
    kg/MT
    
    1.5
    2.5
    
    1.5
    2.5
    -
    Neg
    Hydrocarbons
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    NAb
    
    -
    NA
    10C
    Nege
    kg/MT
    
    _
    NA
    
    -
    NA
    0.024d
    Neg
               Based on section on grain  processing.
               NA:  no emission factor available, but emissions do occur.
              c                                           15
               Pounds per year per barrel  of  whiskey stored.
               Kilograms per year per liter of whiskey stored.
              eNo  significant emissions.
    FISH PROCESSING
    
    Process  Description1^
         The canning,  dehydration,  and smoking of fish, and the manufacture of fish
    meal and fish oil are the important segments of fish processing.  There are two
    types of fish canning  operations:  the "-wet-fish" method,  in which the trimmed
    fish are cooked directly in the can, and the "pre-cooked" process,  in which the
    whole fish is cooked and then hand-sorted before canning.
    
         A  large fraction of the fish received in a. cannery is processed into by-pro-
    ducts,  the most important of which is fish  meal.  In the manufacture of fish meal,
    fish scrap from the canning  lines is charged to continuous live-steam cookers.
    After the material  leaves the cooker, it is pressed to remove oil and water.  The
    pressed cake is then  broken up,  usually in a hammer mill, and dried in a direct-
    fired rotary drier or in a steam-tube rotary drier.
    
    
    Emissions and Controls
         The biggest problem from fish processing is odorous emissions.  The prin-
    cipal odorous gases generated during the cooking  portion of fish-meal manufactur-
    ing are  hydrogen sulfide and trimethylamine.  Some of the methods used to control
    odors include activated-carbon adsorbers, scrubbing with some  oxidizing solution,
    and incineration.  The only  significant sources of dust emissions in fish processing
    are the  driers  and  grinders  used to handle dried fish meal.  Emission factors for
    fish meal manufacturing are shown in Table 6-6.
    6-6
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
                  Table 6-6.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR FISH MEAL PROCESSING
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Emission source
    Cookers,9 Ib/ton
    (kg/MT) of fish meal
    produced
    Fresh fish
    Stale fish
    Driers,'3 Ib/ton
    (kg/MT) of fish scrap
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    0.1
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    0.05
    Trimethylamine
    (CH3)3N
    Ib/ton
    
    0.3
    3.5
    -
    kg/MT
    
    0.15
    1.75
    -
    Hvdrogen
    sulfide (H2S)
    Ib/ton
    
    0.01
    0.2
    -
    kg/MT
    
    0.005
    0.10
    -
         Reference 17.
         Reference 16.
    
    MEAT SMOKEHOUSES
    
    Process Description
         Smoking is a.  diffusion process in which food products are exposed to an
    atmosphere of hardwood smoke, causing various organic compounds to be absorbed
    by the  food.  Smoke is produced commercially in the United States by three major
    methods: (1)  by burning dampened sawdust (ZO to 40 percent moisture),  (2) by
    burning dry sawdust (5 to 9 percent moisture) continuously,  and (3) by friction.
    Burning dampened  sawdust and kiln-dried sawdust are the most widely used
    methods. Most large, modern, production meat smokehouses are the recircula-
    ting type, in which smoke  is circulated  at reasonably high temperatures throughout
    the smokehouse.
    
    Emissions and Controls9
    
         Emissions from  smokehouses are generated from the burning hardwood rather
    than from the cocked product itself.  Based on approximately 110 pounds of meat
    smoked per pound of wood burned (110 kilograms of meat per kilogram of wood
    burned), emission  factors have been derived for meat smoking  and  are presented
    in Table 6-7.
    
         Emissions froin  meat smoking are Dependent on several factors, including
    the type  of wood, the type  of smoke generator, the moisture content of the wood,
    the air supply, and the amount  of smoke recirculated.  Both low-voltage  electro-
    static precipitators and direct-fired afterburners may be used to reduce  particulate
    and organic emissions.  These controlled emission factors have also  been shown in
    Table  6-7.
    
    NITRATE FERTILIZERS
    
    General9. 20
    
         For this report nitrate fertilizers  are defined as the product resulting from
    the reaction of nitric acid and  ammonia to form ammonium nitrate solutions  or
    2/72
    Food and Agriculture Industry
    6-7
    

    -------
                     Table 6-7.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR MEAT SMOKING
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
                                                                 a,b
    Pollutant
    Participates
    Carbon monoxide
    Hydrocarbons (Cfy)
    Aldehydes (HCHO)
    Organic acids (acetic)
    Uncontrol led
    Ib/ton of meat
    0.3
    0.6
    0.07
    0.08
    0.2
    kg/MT of meat
    0.15
    0.3
    0.035
    0.04
    0.10
    Controlled0
    Ib/ton of meat
    0.1
    Negd
    Neg
    0.05
    0.1
    kg/MT of meat
    0.05
    Neg
    Neg
    0.025
    0.05
     Based on  110 pounds of meat smoked  per  pound of wood burned (110 kg  meat/kg wood
     burned).
     References 18, 19, and section on charcoal production.
     Controls  consist of either a wet collector and low-voltage precipitator  in series
     or  a direct-fired afterburner.
     With afterburner.
    
    granules.  Essentially three steps are involved in producing ammonium nitrate:
    neutralization, evaporation of the neutralized solution, and control of the particle
    size and characteristics of the dry product.
    
         Anhydrous ammonia and nitric acid (57 to 65 percent HNO3)  '   are brought
    together in the neutralizer to produce ammonium nitrate.  An evaporator or con-
    centrator is then used to increase the ammonium nitrate concentration.   The result-
    ing  solutions may be formed into granules by the use  of prilling towers or by
    ordinary granulators.  Limestone may  be added  in either process in order to pro-
    duce calcium ammonium nitrate.   ' ^
    
    
    Emissions  and  Controls
         The main emissions from the  manufacture  of nitrate fertilizers  occur in the
    neutralization and drying operations.  By keeping the  neutralization process on the
    acidic side, losses of ammonia and nitric oxides are  kept at a minimum.  Nitrate
    dust or  particulate matter  is produced in the granulation or prilling operation.
    Particulate matter is also  produced in the drying,  cooling,  coating, and material
    handling operations.   Additional dust may escape from the bagging and shipping
    facilities.
    
         Typical operations do not use  collection devices on the prilling tower.  Wet
    or dry cyclones, however, are used for various  granulating, drying,  or cooling
    operations in order to recover valuable products.  Table 6-8 presents emission
    factors  for the manufacture of nitrate fertilizers.
    
    
    PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
         Nearly all phosphatic fertilizers  are made  from naturally occurring phospho-
    rous-containing minerals  such as phosphate  rock.   The phosphorous content of
    these minerals is not in a form that is readily available  to growing plants,  so the
    minerals  must be treated  to convert the phosphorous  to a plant-available form.
    6-8
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
            Table 6-8.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITRATE  FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING
                                    WITHOUT CONTROLS
                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of process
    With prill ing tower'3
    Neutral izer0'
    Prilling tower
    Dryers and coolers6
    With granulated
    Neutral izerc'
    Granulator6
    e f
    Dryers and coolers '
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    0.9
    12
    
    -
    0.4
    7
    kg/MT
    
    -
    0.45
    6
    
    -
    0.2
    3.5
    Nitrogen
    oxides (N03)
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    -
    0.9
    3
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    -
    0.45
    1.5
    Ammonia
    Ib/ton
    
    2
    -
    -
    
    2
    0.5
    1.3
    kg/MT
    
    1
    -
    -
    
    1
    0.25
    0.65
            Plants will use either a prilling tower or a granulator but riot
            both.
            Reference  25.
            Reference  26.
            Controlled factor based on 95 percent  recovery in recycle scrubber.
            Use  of wet cyclones can reduce emissions by 70 percent.
            Use  of wet-screen scrubber following cyclone can reduce emissions
            by 95 to 97 percent.
    This conversion can be done either by the process of acidulation or by a thermal
    process.  The intermediate steps of the mining of phosphate rock and the manu-
    facture of phosphoric acid are not included in this section as they are discussed in
    other sections of this publication; it should be kept in mind, however, that  large
    integrated plants may have all of these operations taking place at one location.
    
         In this section phosphate fertilizers have been  divided into  three categories:
    (1) normal superphosphate,  (2) triple superphosphate, and (3) ammonium phosphate.
    Emission factors for the various processes involved are shown in Table 6-9.
    
    NORMAL SUPERPHOSPHATE
    
    General27- 28
    
         Normal superphosphate (also called single or ordinary superphosphate) is the
    product resulting from the  acidulation of phosphate rock with sulphuric  acid.
    Normal superphosphate contains from 16 to 22 percent phosphoric anhydride (PzOs),
    The physical steps involved in making superphosphate are:  (1) mixing rock and
    acid,  (2)  allowing the mix to assume a solid form  (denning),  and  (3) storing (curing)
    the material to allow the acidulation reaction to be completed. After the curing
    period, the  product can be  ground and bagged for sale, the cured superphosphate
    can be sold  directly as run of pile product, or the material can be granulated  for
    sale  as granulated  superphosphate.
    2/72
    Food and Agriculture Industry
    6-9
    

    -------
                    Table 6-9.   EMISSION  FACTORS FOR THE PRODUCTION
                                 OF PHOSPHATE  FERTILIZERS
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of product
    Normal superphosphatec
    Grinding, drying
    Main stack
    Triple superphosphate0
    Run-of-pile (ROP)
    Granular
    Di ammonium phosphate
    Dryer, cooler
    Ammoniator-granulator
    Particulates3
    Ib/ton
    
    9
    -
    
    -
    _
    
    80
    2
    kg/MT
    
    4.5
    -
    
    -
    _
    
    40
    1
    Fluorides
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    0.15
    
    0.03
    0.10
    
    e
    0.04
    kg/MT
    
    -
    0.075
    
    0.015
    0.05
    
    e
    0.02
                 Control efficiencies of 99  percent can be obtained with
                 fabric filters.
                 Total fluorides, including  particulate fluorides.
                 Factors all represent outlet  emissions following control
                 devices, and should be used as  typical only in the
                 absence of specific plant information.
                 cReferences 30 through 32.
                 dReferences 28, 30, and 33 through 36.
                 Included in ammoniator-granulator total.
    Emissions
          The gases released from the acidulation of phosphate rock contain silicon
    tetrafluoride, carbon dioxide,  steam,  particulates, and  sulfur oxides.  The sulfur
    oxide emissions arise from the reaction of phosphate rock and sulfuric acid. 29
    
          If a granulated superphosphate is produced, the vent gases from the granula-
    tor-ammoniator may contain particulates,  ammonia,  silicon tetrafluoride, hydro-
    fluoric acid, ammonium chloride, and fertilizer dust. Emissions from the final
    drying of the granulated product will include gaseous  and particulate fluorides,
    ammonia,  and fertilizer dust.
    
    
    TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATE
    
    General27-28
          Triple superphosphate (also called double or concentrated superphosphate) is
    the product resulting from the reaction between phosphate rock and phosphoric
    acid.  The product generally contains  44 to 52 percent P2C>5, which is about three
    times the PZ^^ usually found  in normal superphosphates.
          Presently, there are three principal methods of manufacturing triple super-
    phosphate.  One of these uses a cone mixer to produce  a pulverized product that is
    6-10
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    particularly suited to the manufacture of ammoniated fertilizers.  This product can
    be sold as run of pile (ROP), or it can be granulated.  The second method produces
    in 3. multi-step process  a granulated product that is well suited for direct applica-
    tion as a phosphate fertilizer.  The third method combines the features of quick
    drying and granulation in a single step.
    
    Emissions
    
          Most triple superphosphate is the nongranular type.   The exit gases from a
    plant  producing the nongranular product will contain considerable quantities of
    silicon tetrafluoride, some hydrogen fluoride,  and a small amount of particulates.
    Plants of  this type also emit fluorides from the curing buildings.
    
          In the cases where ROP triple  superphosphate is granulated, one of the  great-
    est problems  is the emission of dust and fumes from the dryer and cooler.  Emis-
    sions from ROP granulation plants include silicon tetrafluoride, hydrogen fluoride,
    ammonia, particulate matter, and ammonium chloride.
    
          In direct granulation plants, wet scrubbers are usually used to  remove  the
    silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride generated from the initial contact
    between the phosphoric  acid and the  dried rock.  Screening stations and  bagging
    stations are a source of fertilizer dust emissions in this type of process.
    
    AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
    
    General
    
          The two general classes of ammonium phosphates  are monoammonium pho-
    sphate and diammonium phosphate.  The production of these types of phosphate
    fertilizers is starting to displace the production of other phosphate fertilizers
    because the ammonium phosphates have a higher plant food content and a lower
    shipping cost per unit weight of P2O5.
    
          There are various processes and process variations  in use for  manufacturing
    ammonium phosphates.  In general,  phosphoric acid,  sulphuric acid, and anhydrous
    ammonia  are allowed to react to produce the desired grade of ammonium phosphate.
    Potash salts are added,  if desired, and the product is granulated, dried, cooled,
    screened, and stored.
    
    Emissions
    
          The major pollutants from ammonium phosphate production are fluoride,
    particulates,  and ammonia.   The largest sources of particulate emissions are the
    cage  mills, where oversized products from the screens are ground before being
    recycled  to the  ammoniator.  Vent gases from the ammoniator tanks are the  major
    source of ammonia.  This gas is usually scrubbed with  acid, however,  to recover
    the residual ammonia.
    
    STARCH  MANUFACTURING
    
    General Process  Description37
          The basic raw material in the manufacture of starch  is dent corn,  which con-
    tains  starch.  The starch in the corn is separated from  the other components by
    "wet  milling. "
    2/72                         Food and Agriculture Industry                          6-11
    

    -------
          The shelled grain is prepared for milling in cleaners that remove both the
    light chaff and any heavier foreign material.  The cleaned corn is then softened by
    soaking (steeping) it in warm water acidified with sulfur dioxide.  The softened
    corn goes through attrition mills  that tear the kernels apart, freeing the germ  and
    loosening the  hull.   The remaining mixture of starch, gluten,  and hulls is finely
    ground, and the coarser fiber particles are removed by screening.  The mixture
    of starch  and  gluten is then separated by centrifuges,  after which the starch is
    filtered and washed.  At this  point it is dried and packaged for market.
    
    
    Emissions
    
          The manufacture of starch from corn can result in significant dust emissions.
    The various cleaning, grinding,  and screening operations are the major sources  of
    dust emissions.  Table 6-10 presents emission factors for starch manufacturing.
    
    
                               Table  6-10.  EMISSION FACTORS
                                 FOR  STARCH MANUFACTURING3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
    
    Type of operation
    Uncontrolled
    Control! edb
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    8
    0.02
    kg/MT
    4
    0.01
                          Reference 38.
                           Based on centrifugal  gas  scrubber.
    
    SUGAR  CANE PROCESSING
    
    General
          The processing of sugar cane starts -with the harvesting of the crops, either
    by hand  or by mechanical means.  If mechanical harvesting is used,  much of the
    unwanted foliage is left,  and it thus is standard practice to burn the cane before
    mechanical harvesting to remove the greater part of the foliage.
          After being harvested,  the cane goes through a series of processes to be
    converted to the final sugar product.   It is washed to remove  larger  amounts of
    dirt and trash,  then crushed and shredded to reduce the size of the stalks. The
    juice is  next extracted by one of two methods, milling  or diffusion.   In milling the
    cane is pressed between heavy rollers to press out the  juice,  and in  diffusion the
    sugar is leached out by water and thin juices.  The raw sugar then goes through a
    series of operations including clarification,  evaporation, and crystallization in
    order to produce the final product.
    
          Most mills operate without supplemental fuel because  of the sufficient bagasse
    (the fibrous residue of the extracted cane) that can be burned  as fuel.
    
    Emissions
          The largest  sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the open-
    field burning in the harvesting  of the crop and the burning of bagasse as fuel.  In
     6-12                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    the various processes  of crushing, evaporation,  and crystallization, some par-
    ticulates are emitted but in relatively small quantities.  Emission factors for
    sugar cane processing are shown in Table  6-11.
    
                  Table 6-11.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SUGAR CANE PROCESSING
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    Type of process
    Field burning, a>t>
    Ib/acre burned
    kg/hectare burned
    Bagasse burning,0
    Ib/ton bagasse
    kg/MT bagasse
    Particulate
    
    225
    250
    
    22
    11
    Carbon
    monoxide
    
    1,500
    1 ,680
    
    -
    -
    Hydrocarbons
    
    300
    335
    
    -
    -
    Nitrogen
    oxides
    
    30
    33.5
    
    -
    -
           Based on emission factors for open burning of agricultural  waste.
           There are approximately 4 tons/acre (9,000 kg/hectare)  of  unwanted
           foliage on the cane and 11 tons/acre (25,000 kg/hectare) of grass and
           weed, all of which are combustible.40
          cReference 40.
    
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
    
    1.   Duprey, R.  L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DREW,
        PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.  PHS Publi-
        cation No.  999-AP-42.  1968. p. 19.
    
    2.  Stern, A.  (ed.).  Air  Pollution, Volume III, Sources of Air  Pollution and Their
        Control, 2nd.  ed. ,  New York,  Academic Press, 1968.
    
    3.  Process Flow Sheets and Air Pollution Controls.  American Conference of
        Governmental Industrial  Hygienists.   Committee on Air Pollution. Cincinnati,
        Ohio. 1961.
    
    4.  Polglase,  W.L.,  H. F. Dey,  and R. T. Walsh.  Coffee Processing.  In:  Air
        Pollution Engineering Manual.  Damelson, J.A. (ed.). U.S.  DREW,  PHS,
        National Center for  Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication
        No.  999-AP-40.   1967. p.  746-749.
    
    5.  Duprey, R.L.   Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emis sion Fac tor s . U.S. DREW,
        PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N.C. PHS Publi-
        cation No. 999-AP-42.   1968. p. 19-20.
    
    6.  Partee, F.  Air Pollution in the Coffee  Roasting Industry.  Revised ed.  U.S.
        DHEW, PHS,  Division of Air Pollution.  Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication No.
        999-AP-9.  1966.
    
    7.  Air-Borne Particulate Emissions from Cotton Ginning Operations.  U.S.
        DHEW,  PHS,  Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  I960.
    2/72
    Food and Agriculture Industry
    6-13
    

    -------
     8.  Control and Disposal of Cotton Ginning Wastes.  A Symposium Sponsored
         by National Center for Air Pollution Control and Agricultural Research
         Service, Dallas, Texas.  May 1966.
    
     9.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Final Report.  Resources Research, Incor-
         porated.   Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration under
         Contract No. CPA-2Z-69-H9, April 1970.  Reston, Virginia.
    
    10.  Thimsen,  D.J. andP.W. Aften.  A Proposed  Design for Grain Elevator Dust
         Collector.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc., J_8_(l l):738-742, November 1968.
    
    11.  Private communication between H. L.  Kiser,  Grain and Feed Dealers  National
        Association, and Resources Research, Inc. ,  Washington, D. C. September
         1969.
    
    12.  Contribution of Power  Plants and Other Sources to Suspended Particulate and
        Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations in Metropolis, Illinois.  U.SDHEW, PHS,
        National Air Pollution  Control Administration.  1966.
    
    13.  Larson,  G. P. ,  G.I.  Fischer, andW.J. Hamming.  Evaluating Sources of Air
        Pollution.  Ind. Eng. Chem.  45:1070-1074.  May 1953.
    
    14.  Donnelly,  W.H.  Feed and Grain Mills. In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
        Danielson, J. A. (ed.).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Center for Air Pollution
        Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   Publication No. 999-AP-40.  1967. p.  359.
    
    15.  Shreve,  R.N.  Chemical Process  Industries.   3rd. Ed.  New York, McGraw-
        Hill Book Company,  1967. p. 591-608.
    
    16.  Walsh, R.T.,  K.D.  Luedtke,  andL.K. Smith.  Fish Canneries and Fish
        Reduction Plants.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering  Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed).
        U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Center  for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,
        Ohio.  Publication No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p.  760-770.
    
    17.  Summer, W.   Methods of Air Deodorization.   New York,  Elsvier Publishing
        Company,  p.  284-286.
    
    18.  Carter,  E.  Private  communication between Maryland State Department of
        Health and Resources Research, Incorporated. November 21, 1969-
    
    19.  Polglase,  W.L., H. F.  Dey, andR.T. Walsh.  Smokehouses.  In:  Air Pollu-
        tion Engineering Manual.  Danielson,  J. A. (ed).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National
        Center for Air  Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publication No.  999-AP-
        40,  1967. p.  750-755.
    
    20.  Stern, A. (ed. ). Air Pollution, Volume III, Sources of Air  Pollution and
         Their Control,  2nd ed. , New York, Academic Press, 1968.  p.  231-234.
    
    21.  Sauchelli, V.   Chemistry and Technology  of Fertilizers.  New York,  Reinhold
         Publishing Company,  I960.
    
    22.  Falck-Muus, R. New Process Solves Nitrate Corrosion.  Chem.  Eng.
         74(14): 108, July 3,  1967.
    6-14                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    23.  Ellwood, P.  Nitrogen Fertilizer Plant Integrates Dutch and American Know-
         How.  Chem. Eng.  May 11, 1964, p.  136-138.
    
    24.  Chemico,  Ammonium Nitrate Process Information Sheets.
    
    25.  Unpublished Source Sampling Data.  Resources Research, Incorporated.
         Reston, Virginia.
    
    26.  Private Communication with personnel from Gulf Design Corporation.
         Lakeland, Florida.
    
    27.  Bixby, D. W.   Phosphatic  Fertilizer's Properties and Processes.  The
         Sulphur Institute.  Washington, D.  C.   October 1966.
    
    28.  Stearn,  A. (ed. ).  Air Pollution, Volume III, Sources of Air Pollution and
         Their Control,  2nd ed., New York,  Academic Press,  1968.  p.  231-234.
    
    29.  Sherwin, K. A. Transcript of Institute of Chemical Engineers,  London.
         32_:172,  1954.
    
    30.  Unpublished Data on Phosphate  Fertilizer Plants.  U.S.  DREW, PHS,
         National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division of Abatement,  Engi-
         neering Branch. July 1970.
    
    31.   Jacob, K.O., H. L. Marshall, D.S.  Reynolds, andT.H. Tremearne.   Com-
         position and Properties of Superphosphate.   Ind.  Eng.  Chem. 34(6):722-728.
         June 1942.
    
    32.  Slack, A.  V. Phosphoric Acid.  Volume 1, Part  II.  New York, Marcel Dekker,
         Incorporated.   1968.  p.  732.
    
    33.  Teller,  A. J. Control of Gaseous Fluoride Emissions.  Chem.  Eng.  Progr.
         63_(3):75-79, March 1967.
    
    34.  Slack, A.  V. Phosphoric Acid.  Volume 1, Part  II.  New York, Marcel Dekker,
         Incorporated.   1968.  p.  722.                        ,
    
    35.  Slack, A.  V. Phosphoric Acid.  Volume 1, Part  II.  New York, Marcel Dekker,
         Incorporated.   1968.  p.  760-762.
    
    36.  Salee, G.  Unpublished data from industrial source.   Midwest Research
         Institute.  June  1970.
    
    37.  Starch Manufacturing.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
         1964.
    
    38.  Storch,  H. L.  Product Losses Cut with a Centrifugal Gas Scrubber.  Chem.
         Eng.  Progr. 62_:51-54.  April 1966.
    
    39.  Sugar  Cane.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  1964.
    
    40.  Cooper, J.  Unpublished data on emissions from  the sugar cane industry.
         Air Pollution Control Agency, Palm Beach County,  Florida.  July 1969.
    2/72                         Food and Agriculture Industry                          6-15
    

    -------
    

    -------
                         7.  METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
    
          The metallurgical industries can be broadly divided into primary and second-
    ary metal production, operations.   The term primary rnetals refers to production
    of the metal from ore.   The secondary metals industry includes the recovery of
    metal from scrap and salvage and the production of alloys from ingot.
    
          The primary metals industries discussed in this section include the non-
    ferrous operations of aluminum ore reduction, copper smelters,  lead smelters,
    and zinc smelters.  These industries are characterized by the large quantities of
    sulfur oxides and particulates emitted.  The primary metals industry also includes
    iron and steel mills, ferroalloy production, and metallurgical coke manufacture.
    
          The secondary metallurgical industries discussed  in this  section are alumi-
    num operations,  brass and bronze ingots, gray iron foundries,  lead smelting,
    magnesium smelting,  steel foundries,  and zinc processing.  The major air con-
    taminants from these operations are particulates in the  forms of metallic fumes,
    smoke, and dust.
    
    PRIMARY METALS  INDUSTRY
    
    Aluminum Ore  Reduction
    
                        i ^
    Process Description    - Bauxite, a hydrated oxide of aluminum associated with
    silicon, titanium, and iron,  is  the base ore for aluminum  production. Most bauxite
    ore is purified by the Bayer process in •which  the ore is dried,  ground in ball mills,
    and mixed with sodium hydroxide. Iron oxide, silica, and other impurities are
    removed by settling, dilution, and filtration.   Aluminum hydroxide  is precipitated
    from the diluted,  cooled  solution  and calcined to produce pure alumina, Al^O^.
    
          The recovery of the aluminum from the purified oxide is accomplished by an
    electrolytic process, called the Hall-Herout process,  in 'which alumina is dis-
    solved in a fused mixture of fluoride salts and then reduced to metallic aluminum
    and oxygen.  This takes place in an electrolytic cell commonly  known as a pot.
    Three  types of cells are  in common use:  the Prebake, the Horizontal Stud Soder-
    berg, and the Vertical Stud Soderberg.  In the Prebake, the carbon anodes are
    baked before mounting in the cells.  In the Soderberg cells, the carbon post is
    added continuously and baked by the heat of the bath.   The  position of the metal
    studs,  with respect  to the anode,  can either be horizontal  or vertical.  Four unit
    weights of bauxite are required to make 2 unit weights of alumina, which yields
    1 unit weight of metallic aluminum.  To produce 1 ton of aluminum,  16, 000 kW-hr
    of electricity is required (18, 000  kW-hr is required to produce  1 MT. )
    
    Emissions -  During the pot reduction process, the effluent released contains some
    fluoride particulates and some gaseous hydrogen fluoride.   Particulate matter such
    as alumina and carbon from the anodes are also emitted.  The calcining of alumi-
    num hydroxide for the production  of alumina generates vast amounts of dust.
    Because of the value of this  dust,  however, extensive  controls are employed that
    2/72                                   7-1
    

    -------
    reduce these emissions to an insignificant amount. Table 7-1 summarizes emission
    factors for aluminum production.
    
                      Table 7-1.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR ALUMINUM ORE
                                REDUCTION WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
    Type of operation
    Electrolytic cells
    Prebake
    Horizontal stud
    soderberg
    Vertical stud
    soderberg
    Calcining aluminum
    hydroxided.e
    Particulatesb
    Ib/ton
    
    55
    140
    80
    20
    kg/MT
    
    27.5
    70
    40
    10
    Fluorides0
    Ib/ton
    
    80
    80
    80
    -
    kg/MT
    
    40
    40
    40
    -
                    Emission factors expressed as  units per unit weight
                    of  aluminum produced.
                    References 4 and 5.
                   cReference 6.
                    Reference 1.
                   Represents controlled factor since all calcining
                    units  are controlled to remove the valuable dust.
    
    Metallurgical Coke Manufacturing
    
    Process Description  - Coking is  the process of heating  coal in an atmosphere of
    low oxygen content, i.e. ,  destructive  distillation.  During this process  organic
    compounds in the coal break down to yield gases and a residue of relatively non-
    volatile nature.  Two  processes are used for the manufacture of metallurgical
    coke, the beehive process and the by-product process; the by-procuct process
    accounts for more  than 98 percent of the coke produced.
    
          Beehive oven:   The beehive is a refractory-lined enclosure with a dome-
    shaped roof.  The  coal charge is deposited onto the floor of the beehive  and leveled
    to give a uniform depth of material. Openings to the beehive oven are then
    restricted to control the amount of air reaching the coal.  The carbonization pro-
    cess  begins in the  coal at the top of  the pile and works down through it.   The
    volatile matter being  distilled escapes to the  atmosphere through  a hole in the
    roof. At the completion of the coking  time,  the coke is "watered  out" or quenched.
    
          By-product process:     The by-product process is oriented toward the
    recovery of the gases produced during the coking cycle.   The rectangular coking
    ovens are  grouped together in a series alternately interspersed with heating  flues
    called a coke battery.  Coal is charged to the  ovens through ports  in the top,
    which are  then sealed. Heat is supplied to  the ovens by burning some of  the coke gas
    produced.  Coking is  largely accomplished at temperatures of 2000° to  2100° F
    (1100° to 1150° C) for a period of about 16 to 20 hours.   At the  end of the coking
    period, the coke is pushed from the oven by a ram and quenched with water.
     7-2
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  2/72
    

    -------
    Emissions  - Visible smoke,  hydrocarbons,  carbon in on oxide, and other emissions
    originate from the following by-product coking operations:  (1) charging of the coal
    into the incandescent ovens,  (2) oven leakage during the coking period, (3) pushing
    the coke out of the ovens, and (4)  quenching the hot coke.  Virtually no attempts
    have been made to prevent gaseous emissions from beehive  ovens. Gaseous
    emissions from the by-product ovens are drawn off to a collection main and are
    subjected to various operations for separating  ammonia, coke-oven gas,  tar,
    phenol, light oil (benzene,  toluene, xylene), and pyridine.  These  unit operations
    are potential sources of hydrocarbon emissions.
    
          Oven-charging operations and leakage around poorly sealed  coke-oven doors
    and lids are major  sources of gaseous  emissions from by-product ovens.  Sulfur
    is present in the coke-oven gas in the form of hydrogen sulfide and carbon disul-
    fide.   If the gas is not de sulfurized, the combustion process will emit sulfur
    dioxide.
    
          Associated with both coking  processes are the material-handling operations
    of unloading coal,  storing coal,  grinding and sizing of coal,  screening and crush-
    ing coke, and storing and loading  coke.   All of these  operations are potential par-
    ticulate emission sources.  In addition,  the operations of oven charging,  coke
    pushing, and quenching produce particulate emissions.  The emission factors for
    coking operations are summarized in Table 7-2.
    
    
    Copper Smelters
    Process Description  '    - Copper is  produced primarily from low-grade sulfide
    ores,  which are concentrated by gravity and flotation methods.  Copper is
    recovered from the concentrate by four steps:  roasting, smelting, converting,
    and refining.   Copper sulfide concentrates are normally roasted in either multiple-
    hearth or fluidized bed roasters to remove the sulfur and  then calcined in prepara-
    tion for smelting in a reverberatory furnace.   For about half the  smelters the
    roasting step is  eliminated.  Smelting removes other impurities as a slag with the
    aid of fluxes.  The matter that results from smelting is blown with air to remove
    the sulfur as sulfur dioxide, and the end product is a crude metallic  copper. A
    refining process further purifies  the metal by  insertion of green logs or natural
    gas.   This  is often followed by electrolytic refining.
    
    Emissions  and Controls    - The high temperatures  attained in roasting,  smelting,
    and converting cause volatilization of a number of the trace elements present in
    copper ores and  concentrates.  The raw waste  gases from these processes contain
    not only these fumes but also dust and  sulfur oxide.   Carbon monoxide and nitrogen
    oxides may also be emitted, but no quantitative data have been reported in the
    literature.
    
          The value of the volatilized  elements dictates efficient collection of fumes and
    dusts.  A combination of cyclones and electrostatic precipitators  seems to be most
    often used. Table 7-3 summarizes the uncontrolled emissions of  particulates and
    sulfur oxides from copper smelters.
    Ferroalloy Production
    Process De script ion
    iron and one or more other metals.  Ferroalloys are used in steel production as
    Process Description '    - Ferroalloy is the generic term for alloys consisting of
     2/72                             Metallurgical Industry                              7-3
    

    -------
                  ro
                   OO
                   o;
    
                   z
                   o
                   O
                   O
                   eC
                   U-
                   o
                   C_)  C-D
                   
    J3
    i —
    1—
    cn
    .^
    c
    5
    XI
    1—
    en
    -^
    c
    o
    -(->
    JD
    1—
    s
    en
    _^:
    c
    0
    +->
    .a
    1—
    en
    .v
    c
    o
    4->
    -Q
    Type of operation
    O
    1
    O
    CM
    1 O
    O
    en
    i—
    1 O
    o
    ro
    1 O
    o
    un
    CM
    Ln
    i
    CM
    i ro
    o
    
    C\J >~
    C3 C3
    *3- IT)
    O i—
    -o
    en
    c
    _^
    o
    u
    en
    -i-> c en
    o -r- c
    =3-0-1-
    T3 ro Cn
    O O S-
    S_ •— rD
    o. sr ^:
    1 ZD (_)
    >>
    CQ
    ro
    CD
    CD
    10
    o
    o
    ID
    0
    0
    O
    O
    O
    un
    l~^
    0
    LT>
    CO
    C3
    vo
    o
    1
    1
    LD
    C3
    0
    O
    Ol
    U
    >,
    o
    en
    c
    _v
    o
    r_j
    LT>
    O
    O
    C3
    1
    t
    O
    CM
    O
    LO
    00
    0
    o
    r~-
    o
    o
    '
    '
    oo
    o
    Id
    o
    Discharging
    i i
    ' '
    i i
    i i
    i i
    i i
    i i
    i i
    LO
    1
    0
    Ln
    «i-
    0
    en
    i
    o
    Quenching
    Underfiringf
    ! 	
    00
    '
    1
    «*
    00
    un
    o
    
    i
    i
    o
    0
    o
    o
    CXI
    Beehive ovens6
    ! 	
    00
    '
    1
    «*
    00
    un
    o
    
    i
    i
    C3
    0
    O
    O
    CXI
    Beehive ovens6
    aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal charged.
    Expressed as methane.
    CNO?.
    j t-
    References 8 and 9.
    References 7 and 10.
    Reference 11. Use a factor of 4 Ib/ton (2 kg/MT) of coal for underfiring when coke-oven gas is desulfurized
    before use in other areas of the process.
    7-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
                  Table  7-3.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
                                    WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of operation
    Roasting
    Smelting (reverberatory
    furnace)
    Converting
    Ref i ning
    Total uncontrolled
    Particu1atesb'c
    Ib/ton
    45
    20
    60
    10
    135
    kg/MT
    22.5
    10
    30
    5
    67.5
    Sulfur
    oxides^
    Ib/ton
    60
    320
    870
    -
    1 ,250
    kg/MT
    30
    160
    435
    -
    625
                  Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required
                  to  produce  1 unit weight of copper metal.   Emission
                  factors  expressed as units per unit weight of concen-
                  trated ore  produced.
                 References  10,  13,  and  14.
                 """Electrostatic  precipitators have been reported to reduce
                  emissions by 99.7  percent.
                  Sulfur oxides  can  be  reduced by about 90 percent by using
                  a combination  of  sulfuric  acid plants and lime slurry
                  scrubbing.
    
    alloying elements and deoxidants.  There are three basic types of ferroalloys:
    (1)  silicon-based alloys,  including ferrosilicon and calciumsilicon; (2) manganese-
    based alloys, including ferromanganese and silicomanganese; and (3) chromium-
    based alloys, including ferrochromium and ferrosilicochromc.
    
    
          The four major methods used to produce ferroalloy and high-purity metallic
    additives for steelmaking are:  (1) blast furnace, (2)  electrolytic  deposition,  (3)
    alumina silico-thermic process, and (4) electric smelting furnace.  Because over
    75 percent of the ferroalloys are produced in electric smelting furnaces, this
    section deals only with that  type  of furnace.
    
    
          The oldest,  simplest,  and most widely used electric furnaces are the sub-
    merged-arc  open type, although  semi-covered  furnaces are also used.  The alloys
    are made in  the electric  furnaces by reduction  of suitable oxides. For example,
    in making ferr ochromium the charge may consist of chrome ore, limestone,
    quartz (silica), coal,  and wood chips, along with scrap iron.
    
    
    Emissions   - The  production of ferroalloys  has many dust- or fume-producing
    steps.  The dust resulting from raw material handling, mix delivery,  and crushing
    and sizing of the solidified product can be handled by conventional techniques and
    is ordinarily not a pollution problem.  By far the major pollution problem arises
    from the ferroalloy furnaces themselves.  The conventional submerged-arc
    furnace utilizes carbon reduction of metallic  oxides and continuously produces
    large quantities of carbon monoxide.  This escaping gas carries  large quantities
    of particulates of submicron size, making control difficult.
    2/72
    Metallurgical Industry
    7-5
    

    -------
         In an open furnace essentially all  of the carbon monoxide burns with induced
    air at the top of the charge,  and CO emissions are small.  Particulate emissions
    from the open furnace, however, can be quite large.  In the semi-closed furnace,
    most or  all of the CO  is withdrawn from the  furnace  and burns with dilution air
    introduced into the system.  The unburned CO goes through particulate control
    devices and can be used as boiler fuel or can be flared directly.  Particulate
    emission factors for electric smelting furnaces are presented in Table 7-4.   No
    carbon monoxide emission data have been reported in the literature.
                        Table 7-4.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR FERROALLOY
                          PRODUCTION  IN ELECTRIC SMELTING FURNACES9
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of furnace and
    product
    Open furnace
    50% FeSib
    75% FeSic
    90% FeSib
    Sil icon metal
    Silicomanganese6
    Semi -covered furnace
    Ferromanganese6
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    200
    315
    565
    625
    195
    
    45
    kg/MT
    100
    157.5
    282.5
    312.5
    97.5
    
    22.5
                          Emission factors  expressed as units per unit
                         .weight of specified  product produced.
                          Reference 17.
                         ^References 18  and 19.
                         pReferences 17  and 20.
                          Reference 19.
    Iron and Steel Mills
    General - To make  steel, iron ore is redxiced to pig iron, and some of its impuri-
    ties are removed in a blast furnace.  The pig iron is further purified in open
    hearths,  basic oxygen furnaces,  or electric furnaces.   Other operations,  including
    the production of by-product  coke and sintering, are not discussed in much detail
    in this  section as they are  covered in other sections of this publication.
    
    
    Blast Furnace - The blast  furnace  is a large refractory-lined chamber into which
    iron ore, coke,  and limestone  are  charged and allowed to react with large amounts
    of hot air to produce molten iron.  Slag and blast-furnace gases are by-products
    from this reaction.   To produce 1 unit weight of pig iron requires, on the  average,
    1. 5 unit weights  of iron-bearing charge; 0. 6 unit weight of coke; 0. 2 unit •weight of
    limestone; 0. 2 unit weight  of cinder,  scale, and scrap; and 2. 5 unit weights of air.
    Most of the coke used in the blast furnaces is produced by "by-product" coke ovens.
    Sintering plants  are used to convert iron ore fines and blast-furnace flue dust into
    products  more suitable  for charging to the blast furnace.
     7-6
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
         As blast-furnace gas leaves the top of the furnace,  it contains large amounts
    of particulate matter.  This dust contains about 30 percent iron,  15 percent carbon,
    10 percent silicon dioxide,  and small amounts  of aluminum oxide, manganese
    oxide,  calcium oxide, and other materials.  Blast-furnace gas-cleaning systems,
    composed of settling chambers, low-efficiency wet scrubbers,  and high-efficiency
    wet scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators connected in series, are used to
    reduce particulate  emissions.  All of the carbon monoxide generated in the blast
    furnace is normally used for fuel. However, abnormal conditions such as "slips"
    can cause instantaneous emissions of carbon monoxide.  The improvements in
    techniques for handling blast furnace burden have made slips occur infrequently.
    
    Open-Hearth Furnace  '    - In the open-hearth process  for making steel, a mix-
    ture of scrap iron, steel,  and pig iron is melted in a shallow rectangular basin,
    or "hearth, " in which various liquid or gaseous fuels provide the heat.  Impurities
    are removed in a slag.  Oxygen injection (lancing) into the furnace speeds the
    refining process, saves fuel,  and increases  steel production.
    
         The fumes  from open-hearth furnaces  consist predominantly of iron oxides.
    Oxygen lancing increases the amount of fume and dust produced.  Control of iron
    oxide requires high-efficiency collection equipment such  as venturi scrubbers  and
    electrostatic precipitators.
    
    Basic Oxygen Furnaces21'    - The basic oxygen process, called the Linz-Donawitz
    or LD process,  is employed to produce  steel from hot blast-furnace metal and
    some added scrap  metal by use of a stream  of commercially pure oxygen to  oxidize
    the impurities,  principally  carbon and silicon.
    
          The reaction that converts the crude molten iron into steel generates a con-
    siderable amount of particulate matter,  largely in the  form of  oxide.  Carbon
    monoxide is also generated  in this process but is emitted only  in small amounts
    after ignition of  the gases above the  furnace.  Electrostatic precipitators, high-
    energy venturi scrubbers,  and baghouse systems have been used to control dust
    emissions.
    
    Electric Arc  Furnaces       - Electric furnaces are used primarily to produce
    special alloy steels or to melt large amounts of scrap  for reuse.  Heat is furnished
    by direct-arc-type electrodes extending through the roof of the furnace.  In recent
    years,  oxygen has been used to increase the rate of uniformity of scrap melt-down
    and to decrease  power consumption.
    
          The dust that occurs when steel is being processed in an  electric furnace
    results from the exposure of molten steel to extremely high temperatures.   The
    excess  carbon added to stir and purge the metal when oxidized creates a  source  of
    carbon monoxide emissions.  For electric furnaces, venturi scrubbers and electro-
    static precipitators are the  most widely used control devices.
    
    Scarfing  '   -  Scarfing is  a method of  surface preparation of semi-finished steel.
    A scarfing machine removes surface defects from the  steel billets and slabs before
    they are shaped  or rolled by applying jets of oxygen to the surface of the  steel,
    which is at orange heat,  thus removing a thin  upper layer of the  metal by rapid
    oxidation.
     2/72                             Metallurgical Industry                            7-7
    

    -------
          The scarfing process generates an iron oxide fume.  The rate of emissions
    is affected by the steel analysis and amount of metal removal required.
    
          Table 7-5 summarizes emission factors  for the production of iron ore and
    steel and the associated operations.
    
    
    Lead Smelters
    
                        27 28
    Process Description  '   - The ore from which primary lead is produced contains
    both lead and  zinc.  Thus, both lead and zinc concentrates  are made by concen-
    tration and flotation from the ore.  The lead concentrate is usually roasted in
    traveling-grate sintering machines, thereby removing sulfur and forming lead
    oxide.  The lead oxide,  sinter, coke, and flux (usually limestone) are fed to the
    blast furnace,  in which oxide is reduced to metallic lead.  The lead may  be further
    refined by a variety of other processes, usually including a brass reverberatory
    furnace.
    
    
    Emissions and Controls - Effluent gases from the roasting, sintering, and  smelting
    operations contain considerable particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.  Dust and
    fumes are recovered from the gas stream by settling in large flues and by precip-
    itation in Cottrell treaters or filtration in large baghouses.   The emission factors
    •.or lead  smelting are  summarized in Table 7-6.  The effect of controls has been
    shown in the footnotes of this table.
    
    
    Zinc  Smelters
    
    Process Description  '>   - As stated previously, most domestic zinc comes from
    zinc and lead  ores. Another important source of raw material for zinc metal has
    been  zinc oxide from fuming furnaces.  For  efficient recovery of zinc,  sulfur must
    be removed from concentrates  to a level of less  than 2 percent.   This is  done by
    JPuidized beds  or multiple-hearth roasting occasionally followed by sintering.
    Metallic zinc  can be produced from the roasted ore by the horizontal or vertical
    retort process or by the electrolytic process if a high-purity zinc is needed.
    
    Emissions and Controls   '   - Dust, fumes, and sulfur  dioxide are emitted from
    zinc concentrate roasting  or sintering operations.  Particulates maybe removed
    by electrostatic precipitators or baghouses.   Sulfur dioxide may be converted
    directly into sulfuric acid or vented.  Emission factors for zinc smelting are pre-
    sented in Table 7-7.
    
    
    SECONDARY METALS INDUSTRY
    
    Aluminum Operations
    
    Process Description  >   - Secondary aluminum operations  involve making light-
    weight metal alloys for industrial castings and ingots.  Copper,  magnesium,  and
    silicon are the most common alloying constituents.   Aluminum alloys for castings
    are melted in small crucible furnaces charged by hand with pigs and foundry
    returns.  Larger melting operations use open-hearth reverberatory furnaces
    charged with the same type of materials but  by mechanical means. Small operators
    sometimes use sweating furnaces to treat dirty scrap in  preparation for  smelting.
    7-8                              EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
            Table 7-5.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR  IRON  AND STEEL MILLS WITHOUT CONTROLS
    
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   A
    Iron production
    Blast furnaceb.c
    
    
    i
    Ore charge 1 10
    Agglomerates charge
    Coke ovens
    Sintering^
    Windboxf>9
    Discharge1"1
    Steel production
    Open-hearth furnace0 >J
    Oxygen lance
    40
    
    
    
    55
    20
    
    
    
    1,400 to 2,100d
    -
    
    
    
    700 to l,05Qd
    -
    (see section on Metallurgical Coke)
    
    20
    22
    
    
    10
    11
    
    
    22
    No oxygen lance 12
    Basic oxygen furnaceC>k 46
    n
    6
    23
    Electric-arc furnacec,m
    Oxygen lance 11 5.5
    No oxygen lance 7
    Scarfing6 20
    3.5
    10
    i
    i
    -
    441 , 221'
    
    
    -
    -
    120 to 1501 60 to 751
    
    13 : 9
    18
    -
    9
    -
      Reference 23.Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal produced.
    
       Preliminary cleaner (settling chamber or dry cyclone) collection efficiency =
       60 percent.  Primary cleaner (wet scrubber in series with preliminary cleaner)
       collection efficiency = 90 percent.   Secondary cleaner (electrostatic precipita-
       tor or venturi scrubber in series with primary cleaner) collection efficiency =
       90 percent.
    
      GReference 25.
    
       Represents the amount of CO generated; normally all  of the CO generated is used
       for fuel.  Abnormal conditions may cause the enission of CO.
      References 24  and 26.
       Dry-cyclone collection efficiency =  90 percent.   Electrostatic precipitator (in
       series with dry-cyclone) collection  efficiency = 95  percent.
    
      9About 3 pounds SOg per ton (1.5 kg/MT) of sinter is  produced  at windbox.
       Dry-cyclone collection efficiency =  93 percent.
      founds per ton (kg per MT) of finished sinter.
    
      JElectrostatic  precipitator collection efficiency = 98 percent.  Venturi scrubber
       collection efficiency = 85 to 98 percent.   Baghouse  collection efficiency =
       99 percent.
      i/
       Venturi scrubber collection efficiency = 99 percent.  Electrostatic precipitator
       collection efficiency = 99 percent.
       Represents generated CO.  After ignition of the gas  above the furnace,  the CO
       amounts to 0 to 3 Ib/ton (0 to 1.5 kg/MT)  of steel produced.
    
       High-efficiency scrubber collection  efficiency = up  to 98 percent.   Electrostatic
       precipitator collection efficiency = 92 to 97 percent.   Baghouse collection
       efficiency = 93 to 99 percent.
    2/72
    Metallurgical Industry
    7-9
    

    -------
                  Table 7-6.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERSd
    
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   B
    Type of operation
    Sintering and sintering
    crushing0
    Blast furnace6
    Reverberatory furnace6
    Particulates13
    Ib/ton
    50d
    75
    12
    kg/MT
    25d
    37.5
    6
    Sulfur oxides
    Ib/ton
    660
    f
    f
    kg/MT
    330
    f
    f
                  Approximately 2 unit weights  of  concentrated ore are
                  required to produce  1  unit weight  of  lead metal.
                  Emission factors expressed as units per  unit weight
                 .of concentrated ore  produced.
                  Electrostatic precipitator collection efficiency =
                  96 percent.  Baghouse collection efficiency =  99.5
                  percent.
                 dReferences 14 and 28.
                  Pounds per ton (kg/MT)  of sinter.
                 ^Reference 10.
                  Overall  plant emissions are about  660 pounds of sulfur
                  oxide per ton (330 kg/MT) of  concentrated ore.
                  Table 7-7.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ZINC SMELTING
    
                                     WITHOUT  CONTROLS3
    
                                EMISSION  FACTOR  RATING:   B
    Type of operation
    Roasting (multiple-hearth)'3
    Sintering0
    Horizontal retorts6
    Vertical retorts6
    Electrolytic process
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    120
    90
    8
    100
    3
    kg/MT
    60
    45
    4
    50
    1.5
    Sulfur oxides
    Ib/ton
    1100
    d
    -
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    550
    d
    -
    -
    -
                Approximately 2 unit weights of concentrated ore  are  required
                to produce 1  unit weight of zinc metal.   Emission factors
                expressed as  units per unit weight of concentrated ore
               .produced.
                References 1C and 14.
               ^References 10 and 30.
                Included in S0? losses from roasting.
                Reference 10.
          To produce  a high-quality aluminum product,  fluxing is practiced to some
    extent in all secondary aluminum melting.  Aluminum fluxes  are  expected to
    remove dissolved gases  and oxide particles from the molten bath.  Sodium arm
    various mixtures of potassium or sodium chloride with cryolite and chlorides of
    aluminum zinc are used  as  fluxes.  Chlorine gas  is usually lanced into the molten
    7-10
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    bath to reduce the magnesium content by reacting to form magnesium and alum-
    inum chlorides.   > ->4
    
    
    Emissions-^  - Emissions from  secondary aluminum operations include fine partic-
    ulate matter and gaseous chlorine.  A large part of the material charged to a
    reverberatory furnace is low-grade scrap and chips.   Paint,  dirt, oil,  grease,
    and other contaminants from this  scrap cause large quantities of  smoke and fumes
    to be discharged.  Even if the scrap is clean,  large surface-to-volume  ratios
    require the use of more fluxes,  which can cause serious air pollution problems.
    Table 7-8 presents particulate emission factors for secondary aluminum operations.
    
    
          Table 7-8.  PARTICULATE  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR SECONDARY  ALUMINUM OPERATIONS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR  FATING:  B
    Type of operation
    Sweating furnace
    Smelting
    Crucible furnace
    Reverberatory furnace
    Chlorination station
    Uncontrolled
    Ib/ton
    14.5
    
    1.9
    4.3
    1000
    kg/MT
    7.25
    
    0.95
    2.15
    500
    Baghouse
    lb/ ton
    3.3
    
    --
    1.3
    50
    kg/MT
    1.65
    
    --
    0.65
    25
    Electrostatic
    precipitator
    Ib/ton
    --
    
    —
    1.3
    kg/MT
    --
    
    --
    0.65
          Reference 35.  Emission factors expressed  as units per unit weight of metal
          processed.
          Pounds per ton (kg/MT) of chlorine  used.
    
    Brass and Bronze Ingots  (Copper Alloys)
    
    Process Description   - Obsolete domestic  and industrial copper-bearing scrap is
    the basic raw material of the brass  and  bronze ingot industry.  The scrap fre-
    quently contains any number of metallic and non-metallic impurities,  which can be
    removed by such methods as hand sorting, magnetizing, heat methods such as
    sweating or burning, and gravity separation in a water medium.
    
          Brass and bronze ingots are produced  from a number of different furnaces
    through a combination of melting,  smelting,  refining, and alloying of  the processed
    scrap material.  Reverberatory, rotary, and crucible furnaces are the ones most
    •widely used, and the choice depends on the size of the melt and the alloy desired.
    Both  the reverberatory and  the rotary furnaces are normally heated by direct
    firing, in which the flame and gases come into  direct contact with the  melt.  Pro-
    cessing is essentially the  same in any furnace except for  the differences in the
    types of alloy being handled.  Crucible furnaces are usually much smaller and are
    used principally for special-purpose alloys.
    
    
    Emissions and Controls-'" - The principal source of emissions in the  brass and
    bronze ingot industry is the refining fiarnace.  The exit gas from the furnace may
    contain the normal combustion products  such as fly ash,  soot,  and smoke. Appre-
    ciable amounts of zinc oxide are also present in this exit  gas.  Other  sources of
    2/72
    Metallurgical industry
    7-11
    

    -------
    particulate emissions include the preparation of raw materials and the pouring of
    ingots.
    
          The only air pollution control equipment that is generally accepted in the
    brass and bronze ingot industry is the baghouse filter,  -which can reduce emissions
    by as much as 99. 9 percent.  Table 7-9 summarizes uncontrolled emissions from
    various brass and bronze melting furnaces.
    
                          Table 7-9.   PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS
                           FOR BRASS AMD BRONZE MELTING  FURNACES
                                    WITHOUT  CONTROLS9
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A
    Type of furnace
    Blast0
    Crucible
    Cupola
    Electric induction
    Reverberatory
    Rotary
    Uncontrolled
    emissions^
    Ib/ton
    18
    16
    73
    2
    70
    60
    kg/MT
    9
    8
    36.5
    1
    35
    30
                          Reference 37.   Emission factors
                          expressed as units  per unit weight of
                         .metal charged.
                          The use of a baghouse can reduce
                          emissions by 95 to  99.6 percent.
                          Represents emissions following pre-
                          cleaner
    Gray  Iron Foundry
                       ,38
    Process Description00 - Three types of furnaces are used to produce gray iron
    castings: cupolas, reverberatory furnaces,  and electric induction furnace s.  The
    cupola is the major source of molten iron for the production of castings.  In opera-
    tion,  a bed of coke is placed over the sand bottom in the cupola.  After the bed of
    coke has begun to burn properly, alternate layers of coke, flux, and metal are
    charged  into the cupola.  Combustion air is forced into the cupola, causing the
    coke to burn and melt the iron.  The molten  iron flows out through a taphole.
    
          Electric furnaces are commonly used where special alloys are to be made.
    Pig iron and scrap iron are charged to the furnace and melted, and alloying
    elements and fluxes are added at specific intervals.  Induction furnaces are  used
    where high-quality, clean metal is available  for charging.
    
    Emissions^" - Emissions from cupola furnaces include gases, dust,  fumes, and
    smoke and oil vapors,,  Dust arises from dirt on the metal charge and from fines
    in the coke and limestone charge.  Smoke and oil vapor arise  primarily from the
    partial combustion and distillation of oil from greasy  scrap charged to the furnace.
    Also, the effluent from the cupola furnace  has a high carbon monoxide content that
    7-12
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    can bo controlled by an afterburner.  Emissions from reverberatory and electric
    Induction furnaces  consist primarily of metallurgical fumes and are relatively low,
    Table 7-10 presents emission factors for the manufacture of iron  castings.
                 Table 7-10.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  GRAY  IRON FOUNDRIES
                                EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  U
                                                                    a,b,c
    Type of furnace
    Cupola
    Unconlrol ied
    ;..!et cap
    Impingement scrubber
    High-energy scrubber
    Electrostatic pr'ecipitator
    Baghouse
    Reverbe^atory
    Electric induction
    Par ticu late;..
    Ib/'tori
    
    17
    8
    5
    n o
    1 J . O
    0.6
    0.2
    7
    1.5
    kg/MT
    
    8.5
    4
    2.5
    0.4
    0.3
    0.1
    1
    0.7-5
    Carbon monoxide
    Ib/tjr
    
    !45C'(!
    
    
    
    
    
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    72.5C'd
    
    
    
    
    
    -
    -
              References  35, and 39 through 41.   Emission  factors expressed as
               units per unit weight of metal charged.
               Approximately 3b percent of the total  charge  is metal.  For
               every unit  weight of coke in the charge,  7 unit weights of gray
               iron are  produced.
              "ilefes'ence 42.
              A
               A wel1-designed afterburner can reduce emissions  to 9 pounds per
               ton (4.5  kg/MT) of metal charged.35
    
     Secondary  Lead Smelting
    
     General Description7 - Three types of furnaces are used to produce the  common
     types of lead: the pot furnace, the reverberatory furnace,  and the blast furnace or
     cupola.  The pot furnaces are used for the production of the purest lead  products.
     and they operate under closely controlled temperature  conditions.  Reverberatory
     furnaces are used for the production of semi-soft lead from lead  scrap,  oxides,
     arid drosses.  The third common type of furnace, the blast furnace,  is used to
     produce hard lead (typically averaging 8 percent antimony and up to  2 percent
     add itional metallic  impurity).    The  charge to  these furnaces consists of rer>,, ,
     slag, and  reverberatory slags.
    
     Emissions and Controls   - The primary emissions from lead smelting are partic-
     ipates consisting of lead,  lead oxides,  and contaminants in the lead charged.
     Carbon monoxide is released by the reduction of lead oxide by carbon in the cupola.
     Nitrogen oxides are formed by the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen,  caused by the
     high temperatures associated with the  smelting.
    
          Factors affecting emissions from the pot furnace include the composition of
     the  charge,  the temperature of the pot, and  the  degree of control (usually hooding
     followed by a baghouse).  Emissions from the reverberatory furnace are affected
     2/72
    Metallurgical Industry
                                                                                  7-13
    

    -------
    by the sulfur content in the charge, the temperature in the furnace, and the amount
    of air pulled across the furnace.  Lead blast-furnace emissions are dependent on
    the amount of air passed through the charge, the temperature of the furnace,  and
    the amount of sulfur and other impurities in the charge.  In addition,  blast furnaces
    emit significant quantities of carbon monoxide  and hydrocarbons that must be con-
    trolled by incineration.  Table 7-11  summarizes the emission factors from lead
    smelting.
    
    
    Secondary Magnesium Smelting
    
    Process Description  - Magnesium, smelting is carried out in crucible or pot-type
    furnaces that are charged  with magnesium scrap and fired by gas, oil, or electric
    heating.  A  flux is used to cover the surface  of the molten metal because magne-
    sium will burn in air at the pouring temperature (approximately 1500° F or 815° C).
    The molten  magnesium, usually cast by pouring into molds,  is annealed in ovens
    utilizing an  atmosphere devoid of oxygen.
    
    
    Emissions  - Emissions from magnesium smelting include particulate magnesium
    (MgO) from the melting, oxides  of nitrogen from the fixation  of atmospheric nitro-
    gen by the furnace temperatures, sulfur dioxide losses from  annealing oven
    atmospheres.  Factors affecting emissions include the capacity of the furnace; the
    type of flux  used on the molten material; the  amount of lancing used; the amount of
    contamination of the scrap,  including oil and other hydrocarbons; and the type and
    extent of control equipment used on the process.  The emission factors for  a pot
    furnace are shown in Table 7-12.
    
    
    Steel Foundries
    
    Process Description'  - Steel foundries produce steel castings by melting steel
    metal and pouring it into molds.  The melting  of steel for castings is accomplished
    in one of five types of furnaces:  direct electric-arc, electric induction, open-
    hearth, crucible, and pneumatic converter.  The crucible and pneumatic converter
    are not in widespread use, so this section deals only with the remaining three
    types of furnaces.  Raw materials supplied to  the various melting furnaces  include
    steel  scrap  of all types, pig iron,  ferroalloys, and limestone.  The basic melting
    process operations are furnace charging, melting, tapping the furnace into a ladle,
    and pouring the steel into molds.  An integral  part of the steel foundry operation
    is the preparation of casting molds,  and the  shakeout and cleaning of these castings.
    Some common materials used in molds and cores for hollow  casting include  sand,
    oil, clay, and resin.  Shakeout is the operation by which the  cool casting is sepa-
    rated from the mold.  The castings are commonly cleaned by shot-blasting,  and
    surface defects such as fins are removed by burning and grinding.
    
    Emissions   - Particulate  emissions from steel foundry operations include iron
    oxide fumes, sand  fines,  graphite, and metal dust.   Gaseous emissions from
    foundry operations include oxides  of nitrogen,  oxides of sulfur,  and hydrocarbons.
    Factors affecting emissions from the melting process  include the quality and
    cleanliness  of the scrap and the amount of oxygen lancing.  The concentrations of
    oxides of nitrogen are dependent upon  operating conditions in the melting unit,
    such as temperature and the rate of cooling of the exhaust gases.  The concentra-
    tion of carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases is dependent on the  amount of draft
    7-14                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
                         UJ
    
    
                         oo
                         Q
    
                         <
                         o:
                         •a:
                         Q
                         o
                         =C
                         o
                         Ol
                         _Q
                         ra
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    C_3
    , .
    O
    ^
    H- 1
    1—
    <
    o;
    
    C£.
    O
    1 —
    o
    
    c
    o
    CJ
    
    
    
    
    -o
    OJ
    
    , —
    o
    S-
    4->
    c
    o
    o
    c
    3
    -o
    QJ
    
    o
    S-
    4->
    C
    o
    o
    
    
    
    T3
    QJ
    
    r— -
    Q
    S-
    4->
    C
    O
    o
    c.
    13
    
    h-
    s:
    
    CD
    -^
    
    
    £^
    O
    i^
    JO
    
    
    h-
    SI
    
    CD
    ^Z
    
    
    C
    O
    -l->
    JD
    1— ;
    •«s^^
    CD
    _^!
    
    c
    o
    4->
    
    ja
    1
    i
    r^
    I^_
    ^
    CD
    Jji
    
    
    C
    o
    +J
    
    J2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    QJ
    U
    ra
    c
    s-
    zs
    4-
    
    4-
    o
    
    QJ
    O.
    >>
    (--
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ol
    ro
    CSl
    i i i
    -o
    ^1-
    C3
    QJ
    \.O
    «d-
    1 I -0 1
    
    CO
    o
    LO
    1 • t
    C\l LO
    •* «*
    
    
    
    
    
    1 Lf) O 1
    00 Ol
    LO
    D1 CO i—
    QJ • . 1
    2; o i —
    
    
    
    cr UD ro
    O) . • I
    2; t— OvJ
    
    ^J"
    
    O LO LO LO
    ID cr> ro
    
    
    
    CO
    
    O C3 O O
    OO CT> 1 —
    ^-^ r_—
    
    4-
    QJ
    O
    C
    s_
    <_> ^
    J3 QJ 4-
    QJ (J
    <_> ro >>
    ra c s-
    C !- O
    S- 3 +->
    3 4- ra
    4- S-
    	 	 QJ
    >i ra ja
    ra s- i— s-
    QJ O O QJ
    (J -P Q. >
    ra ra ^ QJ
    E S- O t-
    s_ o> • —
    3 JQ >>
    4- S- 4-> S-
    QJ oo ra
    -u > ra 4->
    O OJ •— O
    o_ D; 03 a:
    JZ
    CD
    QJ
    +->
    •i—
    C
    13
    S-
    QJ
    O-
    00
    4->
    C
    3
    00
    ra
    -o
    OJ
    00
    00
    OJ
    S-
    O_
    X
    QJ
    OO
    S_
    O
    1 t
    <_J
    ra
    4-
    C
    0
    00
    oo
    's.
    LU
    ir>
    •=1-
    JZ
    CD
    ^
    O
    S- l£> f-
    -C "3- ^t
    •4->
    -o ~a
    •=*• c c
    «t ra ra
    •o « s^
    c ro UD QJ
    ra • «d- «* J3
    •O J3
    - O) «. "3
    >* oo ^t- ro s.
    co oo ro ^j- o
    O) 00
    00 (J 00 00
    QJ O QJ QJ 1C
    O S- O O O
    c o. c c ra
    QJ QJ QJ Z
    !~ r- <^. i.
    OJ ro QJ OJ JZ
    4- -(-> 4_ 4- +J
    QJ dJ QJ QJ •r-
    c£. E o: pi 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    .
    1_
    QJ
    JD
    E
    ra
    _£Z
    ^
    ra
    s-
    o.
    '.n
    
    s-
    O)
    +J
    ra
    S
    
    JZ
    4->
    'r-
    3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ,
    l-O
    «*
    
    QJ
    U
    C
    OJ
    s_
    QJ
    4-
    QJ
    Qi
    2/72
    Metallurgical  Industry
    7-15
    

    -------
                              Table 7-12.  EMISSION FACTORS
    
                                  FOR MAGNESIUM SMELTING
    
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
    
    Type of furnace
    Pot furnace
    Uncontrolled
    Control led
    Particulates3
    Ib/ton
    
    4
    0.4
    kg/MT
    
    2
    0.2
                            References 34 and 46.   Emission
                            factors expressed as units  per unit
                            weight of metal processed.
    
    on the melting furnace.  Emissions from the shakeout and cleaning operations,
    mostly particulate matter,  vary according to type  and efficiency of dust collection.
    Gaseous emissions from the mold and baking operations are dependent upon the
    fuel used by the  ovens and the  temperature  reached in these  ovens. Table 7-13 sum-
    marizes the emission factors for steel foundries.
                     Table  7-13.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR STEEL FOUNDRIES
    
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   A
    
    
    Type of process
    Melting
    Electric arc 'c
    Open-hearthd'e
    Open-hearth oxygen lanced '^
    Electric induction
    Participates3
    Ib/ton
    
    13
    11
    10
    0
    
    (4 to 40)
    (2 to 20)
    (8 to 11)
    .1
    kg/MT
    
    6.5 (2 to
    5.5 (1 to
    5 (4 to 5
    0.05
    
    20)
    10)
    .5)
    
    Nitrogen
    oxides
    Ib/ton
    
    0.2
    0.01
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    
    0.1
    0.005
    -
    -
         aEmission  factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal  processed.
          If  the  scrap metal  is very dirty or oily, or if increased oxygen lancing
          is  employed, the emission factor should be chosen from the high side  of
          the factor  range.
         ^Electrostatic  precipitator, 92 to 98 percent control efficiency; baghouse
          (fabric filter), 98 to 99 percent control efficiency; venturi  scrubber,
          94  to  98  percent control efficiency.
    
         °References  24  and 48 through 56.
          Electrostatic  precipitator, 95 to 98.5 percent control efficiency;  bag-
          house,  99.9 percent control efficiency; venturi scrubber, 96  to 99  per-
          cent control efficiency.
    
         References  24, and  57 through 59.
         fElectrostatic  precipitator, 95 to 98 percent control efficiency; bag-
          house,  99 percent control efficiency; venturi scrubber, 95 to 98 percent
          control efficiency.
    
         ^References  52  and 60.
    
          Usually not controlled.
     7-16
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    Secondary Zinc Processing
    
    Process Description  - Zinc processing includes zinc reclaiming, zinc oxide
    manufacturing, and zinc galvanizing.  Zinc is separated from scrap containing
    lead, copper,  aluminum,  and iron by careful control of temperature in the furnace,
    allowing each metal to be removed at its melting range.   The furnaces typically
    employed are the pot, muffle,  reverberatory, or electric  induction.  Further
    refining of the zinc can be done in retort distilling or vaporization furnaces where
    the vaporized zinc is condensed to the pure metallic form.  Zinc oxide is produced
    by distilling metallic zinc into a dry air stream and capturing the subsequently
    formed oxide in a baghouse.   Zinc galvanizing is carried out  in a vat or in bath-
    type dip tanks  utilizing  a flux cover.  Iron and steel pieces to be coated are
    cleaned and dipped into the vat through the covering flux.
    Emissions   - A potential for particulate emissions, mainly zinc oxide, occurs  if
    the temperature  of the furnace exceeds 1100° F (595° C).   Zinc oxide (ZnO)  may
    escape from condensers or distilling furnaces,  and because of its extremely small
    particle size (0. 03 to 0. 5 micron),  it may pass  through even  the most efficient
    collection systems.  Some loss of zinc oxides occurs during the galvanizing  pro-
    cesses,  but  these losses are small because  of the flux cover  on the bath and the
    relatively low  temperature maintained in the bath.   Some emissions of particulate
    ammonium chloride occur when galvanized parts are dusted after coating to  im-
    prove  tlieir finish.  Another potential source of  emissions of  particulates and
    gaseous zinc is the tapping of zinc-vaporizing muffle furnaces to remove  accumu-
    lated slag residue.  Emissions of carbon monoxide occur when zinc  oxide is
    reduced by carbon.  Nitrogen oxide emissions are also possible because of the
    high temperature associated with  the smelting and the resulting fixation of atmos-
    pheric nitrogen.  Table 7-14 summarizes the  emission factors from zinc processing.
    
          Table 7-14.   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR  SECONDARY  ZINC SMELTING3
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
    Type of furnace
    Retort reduction
    Horizontal muffle
    Pot furnace
    Kettle sweat furnace processing15
    Clean metallic scrap
    General metallic scrap
    Residual scrap
    Reverberatory sweat furnace processing
    Clean metallic scrap
    General metallic scrap
    Residual scrap
    Galvanizing kettles
    Calcining kiln
    Emissions
    Ib/ton
    47
    45
    0.1
    
    Neg
    11
    25
    Neg
    13
    32
    5
    89
    kg/MT
    23.5
    22.5
    0.05
    
    Neg
    5.5 '
    12.5
    Neg
    6.5
    16
    2.5
    44.5
           References  34,  45, and 46.  Emission factors expressed  as units
           unit weight of  metal produced.
          "'Reference  61.
                                        per
    2/72
    Metallurgical Industry
    7-17
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
    
     1.  Stern, A. (ed.).  Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control.  2nd Ed.  Air
         Pollution III.  New York,  Academic Press,  1968.  p. 186-188.
    
     2.  Hendricks, R. V. ,  Jr.  Unpublished report on the primary aluminum industry.
         National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division of Process Control
         Engineering.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  1969.
    
     3.  Duprey,  R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emis sion Factor s.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N. C.  PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p.  23-24.
    
     4.  Air Pollution from the Primary Aluminum Industry.  A Report to Washington
         Air Pollution Control Board,  Office of Air Quality Control, Washington State
         Department of Health.  Seattle, Washington.   October 1969.
    
     5.  Ott, R.R.  Control of Fluoride Emissions at Harvey  Aluminum, Inc.:
         Soderberg Process Aluminum Reduction Mill.  J. Air Pollution Control
         Assoc.   l_3_(9);437-443.  September 1963.
    
     6.  Kenline, P. A.  Unpublished report.  Control of Air Pollutants  from the
         Chemical Process Industries.  Robert A.  Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.
         Cincinnati, Ohio.  May 1959.
    
     7.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  Final Report.   Resources Research,  Incor
         porated.  Reston,  Virginia.   Prepared for National Air  Pollution Control
         Administration under contract No. CPA-22-69-119.  April 1970.
    
     8.  Air Pollution by Coking Plants.  United Nations Report:  Economic Commis-
         sion for Europe, ST/ECE/Coal/26.  1968. p.  3-27.
    
     9.  Fullerton, R.W.  Impingement Baffles to  Reduce Emissions from Coke
         Quenching.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc .  j/7: 807-809.  December 1967.
    
     10.  Sallee,  G. Private Communication on Particulate Pollutant Study,  Midwest
         Research Institute, National Air  Pollution Control  Administration Contract
         No 22-69-104.  June 1970.
    
    
    11.  Herring, W.   Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition
         Study (Part I),  Office  of Air Programs, EPA, APTD-0706.  May  1971.
    
     12.  Duprey,  R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW
         PHS,  National Center for Air  Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.   PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p.  24.
    
     13.  Stern, A. (ed.).  Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control.  2nd Ed.  Air
         Pollution III.  New York, Academic Press,  1968.  p. 173-179.
     14.  Systems Siudy for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting
         Industry. 3 Volumes.  San Francisco,  California, Arthur G. McKee and
         Company, June  1969.
     7-18                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    15.   Ferroalloys:  Sieel's All-purpose Additives.  The Magazine of Metais Produc-
         cing.  February 1967.
    
    16.   Person, R. A.  Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace Processing.
         Niagara Falls,  New York.   1969.
    
    17.   Unpublished stack test results.  Resources Research,  Incorporated.   Reston,
         Virginia.
    
    18.   Ferrari, R.  Experiences  in Developing an Effective Pollution Control System
         for a Submerged-Arc Ferroalloy Furnace Operation.  J. Metals; April 1968.
         p.  95-104.
    
    19.   Fredriksen and Nestaas.  Pollution Problems by Electric Furnace  Ferroalloy
         Production.   United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.  September
         1968.
    
    20.  Gerstle, R.W. and J. L. McGinmty.  Plant Visit Memorandum.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS.  June 1967.
    
    21.   Duprey, R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.  PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.  1968. p. 24-25.
    
    22.  Stern,  A.  (ed. ).  Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control.  2nd Ed.  Air
         Pollution III.   New York,  Academic Press,  1968.   p.  146-163.
    
    23.  Control Techniques for Carbon  Monoxide Emissions from Stationary  Sources.
         U.S. DHEW,  PHS, EHS, National  Air  Pollution Control Administration.
         Washington, D.  C.  Publication No. AP-65.  March 1970.
    
    24.  Schueneman, J. J.  et al.  Air Pollution Aspects of the  Iron and Steel Industry.
         National Center  for Air Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  June 1963.
    
    25.  Unpublished data on iron and steel mills updated to 1968 practices.  Based on
         data from National Air  Pollution Control Administration under Contract PH-
         2Z-68-65. 1969.
    
    26.  Iron and Steel Making Process  Flow Sheets and Air Pollutant Controls.
         American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists.
    
    27.  Duprey,  R.L.  Compilation of  Air Pollutant Emission  Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N.C.  PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 26.
    
    TO   Stern,  A. (ed. ).   Sources  of Air Pollution and Their Control.  2nd Ed.  Air
         Pollution  III.  New York, Academic Press, 1968.   p.  179-182.
    
    29.  Duprey.  R.  L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission Factor s.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N.C.  PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.  1968. p. 26-28.
    
    30.  Stern,  A.  (ed. ).   Sources  of Air Pollution and Their Control.  2nd Ed.  Air
         Pollution III.   New York, Academic Press, 1968.  p.  182-186.
    2/72                             Metallurgical Industry                            7-19
    

    -------
     31.  Duprey,  R.  L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N. C.   PHS Publi-
         cation No.  999-AP-42.  1968. p. 29.
    
    32.  Hammond,  W.F. and H. Simon.  Secondary Aluminum-Melting Processes.
         In:  Air  Pollution Engineering Manual.  Danielson, J. A.  (ed. ).  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publica-
         tion No.  999-AP-40.   1967.  p. 284-290.
    
    33.  Technical Progress Report:  Control of Stationary Sources.  Los Angeles
         County Air Pollution  Control District, 1_,  April I960.
    
    34.  Allen, G.L. et al.  Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in
         Los Angeles County.   Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C.  Information
         Circular No.  7627.  April 1952.
    
    35.  Hammond,  W.F. and S.M.  Weiss.   Unpublished report, on air contaminant
         emissions from metallurgical operations  in Los Angeles County.  Los Angeles
         County Air Pollution  Control District.  Presented at Air Pollution Control
         Institute.  July 1964.
    
    36.  Air Pollution  Aspects of Brass  and Bronze Smelting  and Refining Industry.
         U.S. DHEW,  PHS,  EHS,  National Air Pollution Control Administration.
         Raleigh,  N. C.  Publication No. AP-58.  November 1969.
    
    37.  Air Pollution  Aspects of Brass  and Bronze Smelting  and Refining Industry.
         U.S. DHEW,  PHS,  EHS,  National Air Pollution Control Administration.
         Raleigh,  N. C.  Publication No. AP-58.  November  1969.
    
    38.  Hammond,  W.F. and J. T. Nance.  Iron Castings.  In:  Air Pollution  Engineer -
         ing Manual.  Danielson, J. A. (ed.).   U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center  for
         Air Pollution  Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   Publication No.  999-AP-40.  1967.
         p.  258-268.
    
    39.  Crabaugh,  H.  C. et al.  Dust and Fumes from Gray Iron Foundries:  How  They
         Are Controlled in Los Angeles  County.  Air Repair.  4(3), November  1954.
    
    
    40.  Hammond,  W. F. ,  and J.  T.  Nance.  Iron Castings. In;   Air Pollution
         Engineering Manual.   Danielson,  J.  A. (ed.).   U.S.  DHEW, PHS, National
         Center for  Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publication No.  999-
         AP-40.   1967.  p.  260.
    
    41.  Kane, J.M.  Equipment for Cupola Control.  American Foundryman's Society
         Transactions.  £>4_: 525-53 1.  1956.
    
    42.  A. T.Kearney and  Company,  Inc. , Air Pollution  Aspects  of the Iron Foundry
         Industry.  Contract No.  CPA 22-69-106,  February  1971.
    
    43.  Nance, J.T.  and K. O.  Luedtke.  Lead R efining.  In: Air  Pollution Engineering
         Manual.  Danielson,  J.A.  (ed.).  U.S.  DHEW,  PHS, National Center  for  Air
         Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publication No.  999-AP-40.  19.67.
         p.  300-304.
    7-20                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    44.  Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  and
         Maryland State Department of Health.   November 1969.
    
    45.  Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (trans-
         lated from German).  Kommission Reinhaltung  der  Luft.  Reproduced by U.S.
         DHEW, PHS.  Washington, D. C.  VDI No. 2285.  September  1961.
    
    46.  Hammond, W.F0  Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations.   Los
         Angeles County Air  Pollution Control District.  November 1966.
    
    47.  Unpublished stack test data.  Pennsylvania State Department of Health.
         Hamsburg, Pa.   1969.
    
    48.  Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual.   2nd.  ed.  Des Plaines, Illinois,
         Foundry Air Pollution Control Committee.  1967.  p. 8.
    
    49.  Coulter, R.S.,  Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, Personal Com-
         munication (April 24, 1956) as cited in  Air Pollution Aspects  of the Iron and
         Steel Industry.
    
    50.  Coulter, R.S.  Smoke, Dust,  Fumes Closely Controlled in Electric Furnaces.
         Iron Age.  173:107-110.  January 14, 1954.
    
    51.  Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District,  Unpublished data as cited
         in Air  Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry,  Reference 254, p. 109.
    
    52.  Kane,  J.M. and  R,V, Sloan.  Fume-Control  Electric Melting Furnaces.
         American Foundryman.   18:33-35, November 1950.
    
    53.  Pier,  H. M. and  H. S. Baumgardner.  Research-Cottrell, Inc., Personal
         Communication as cited in Air Pollution Aspects  of the  Iron and Steel Industry.
         Reference 254, p. 109.
    
    
    54.  Faist,  C.A.  Remarks-Electric Furnace Steel.  Proceedings  of the American
         Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.  11:160-161,   1953.
    
    55.  Faist,  C.A,  Burnside Steel Foundry Company, Personal Communication as
         cited in Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and  Steel Industry.  Reference 254,
         p.  109.
    
    56.  Douglas, I. H.   Direct Fume Extraction and Collection Applied to a Fifteen-
         Ton Arc Furnace.  Special Report on Fume Arrestment.  Iron and Steel
         Institute.   1964.  p.   144, 149.
    
    57.  Inventory of Air Contaminant Emissions. New  York State Air Pollution
         Control Board.  Table XI, p.  14-19.
    
    58.  Elliot,  A.C. and A.  J. Freniere.  Metallurgical Dust Collection in Open-
         Hearth and Sinter Plant.  Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin.
         55(606):724-732,  October 1962.
    2/72                             Metallurgical Industry                            7-21
    

    -------
    59.  Hemeon, C. L.  Air  Pollution Problems of the Steel Industry,  Air Pollution
         Control Assoc. _ljD(3):208-2 18, March I960.
    
    60.  Coy, D. W,  Unpublished data.  Resources Research, Incorporated.  Reston,
         Virginia.
    
    61.  Herring, W.  Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition
         Study (Part I), Office of Air Programs,  EPA.  APT D-0706.  May 1971.
    7-22                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/
    

    -------
                    8.   MINERAL  PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
    
          This section involves the processing and production of various minerals.
    Mineral processing is characterized by particulate emissions in the form of dust.
    Frequently,  as in the case  of crushing and screening, this dust is identical to the
    material being handled.  Emissions also occur through handling and storage of the
    finished product because this material is often dry and fine.  Particulate emis-
    sions from some of the processes  such as quarrying, yard storage, and road dust
    are difficult to control.  Most of the emissions from the  manufacturing processes
    discussed in this section,  however, can be reduced by conventional particulate
    control equipment such as cyclones, scrubbers, and fabric filters.  Because  of
    the wide variety in processing equipment and final product, emissions cover a
    wide range; however, average emission factors have been presented for general
    use.
    
    ASPHALT BATCHING
    
    Process Description1-2
          Hot-mix asphalt paving consists of a combination of aggregates uniformly
    mixed and coated with asphalt cement.  The coarse aggregates usually consist
    of crushed stone, crushed slag,  crushed gravel, or  combinations of these
    materials. The fine aggregates  usually consist of natural sand and may contain
    added  materials such as crushed stone, slag,  or gravel.
    
          An asphalt batch plant involves the use of a rotary dryer, screening and
    classifying equipment,  an aggregate weighing system,  a  mixer,  storage bins,  and
    conveying equipment.  Sand and  aggregate are charged from bins into a rotary
    dryer.  The dried aggregate is conveyed to the screening equipment, where it is
    classified and dumped into storage bins. Asphalt and weighed quantities of sized
    aggregates are then dropped into the mixer, where the batch is mixed and  then
    dumped into trucks for  transportation to the paving site.
    
    Emissions  and  Controls1-2
    
          The largest source of dust  emissions is the rotary  dryer.  Combustion gases
    and fine dust from the rotary dryer are exhausted through a precleaner, which
    usually consists of a single cyclone, although twin or multiple cyclones are also
    used.   The exit gas  stream of the precleaner usually passes through air pollution
    control equipment.    Other sources of dust emissions include the hot aggregate
    bucket elevator, vibrating screens, hot aggregate bins, aggregate weigh hopper,
    and the mixer.  Emission factors for asphalt batching plants are  presented in
    Table  8-1.
    
    ASPHALT ROOFING
    
    Process Description3
          The manufacture of asphalt roofing felts and shingles involves  saturating
    fiber media with asphalt by means  of dipping and/or  spraying.  Although it is not
    2/72                                   8-1
    

    -------
                    Table  8-1.  PARTICIPATE  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT
                                      BATCHING  PLANTS3
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  B
                     Source and type of control
                  Rotary dryerb
                    Uncontrolled0>d
                    Precleaner
                    High-efficiency cyclone
                    Multiple centrifugal  scrubber
                    Baffle spray tower
                    Orifice-type scrubber
                    Baghouse
                  Other sources, uncontrolled
                    (vibrating screens,  hot
                    aggregate bins, aggregate
                    weigh  hopper, and mixer)0
                                                          Emissions
                    Ib/ton
     kg/MT
                    35
                     5
                     0.8
                     0.2
                     0.2
                     0.08
                     0.005
                    10
    17.5
     2.5
     0.4
     0.1
     0.1
     0.04
     0.0025
     5
                  Emission factors expressed as  units Der unit weight
                   of asphalt produced.
                I  "References 2 through  5.
                  References 2, 6, and  7.
                   Almost all plants have at least  a  precleaner following
                   the rotary dryer.
    always done at the same site, preparation of the  asphalt saturant is an integral
    part of the operation.  This preparation,  called "blowing, " consists of oxidizing
    the asphalt by bubbling air through the liquid asphalt for 8 to 16 hours.  The
    saturant is then transported to the saturation tank or spray area.  The saturation
    of the  felts is accomplished by dipping, high-pressure sprays,  or both.  The final
    felts are made in various weights:  15,  30, and 55 pounds per 100 square feet
    (0. 72,  1. 5, and 2. 7 kg/m2).  Regardless of the weight of the final product,  the
    imakeup is approximately 40 percent dry felt and 60  percent asphalt saturant.
    
    Emissions and Controls^
          The major sources of particulate emissions from asphalt roofing plants are
    the asphalt blowing operations and the  felt saturation.  Another minor source of
    particulates is the covering of the roofing material with roofing granules.   Gaseous
    emissions from the saturation process have  not been measured but are thought to
    be slight because of the initial driving off of  contaminants during the blowing
    process.
    
          A common method of control at asphalt saturating plants is the complete
    enclosure of the spray area and saturator with good ventilation through one or
    more  collection devices,  which include combinations of wet scrubbers and two-
    stage  low-voltage electrical precipitators, or cyclones and fabric filters.
    Emission factors for  asphalt  roofing are presented  in Table 3-2.
     8-2
    EMISSION FACTORS
                      2/72
    

    -------
               Table  8-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT  ROOFING MANUFACTURING
                                    WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    Operation
    Asphalt blowing0
    Felt saturation
    Dipping only
    Spraying only
    Dipping and spraying
    Particulatesb
    Ib/ton
    2.5
    1
    3
    2
    kg/MT
    1.25
    0.5
    1.5
    1
    Carbon
    monoxide
    Ib/ton
    0.9
    -
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    0.45
    -
    -
    -
    Hydrocarbons
    (CH4)
    Ib/ton
    1.5
    -
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    0.75
    -
    -
    -
             Approximately  0.65 unit of asphalt input  is  required to produce
             1  unit  of  saturated felt.   Emission  factors  expressed as units
             per unit weight of saturated felt produced.
    
             Low-voltage  precipitators can reduce emissions by about 60 percent;
             when they  are  used in combination with  a  scrubber, overall effi-
             ciency  is  about 85 percent.
            °Reference  9.
            References 10  and 11.
    
    BRICKS  AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS
    
    Process Description8'12~14
    
          The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe,  pottery,
    and some types of  refractory brick involves the grinding, screening, and blending
    of the raw materials and the  forming, drying or curing,  firing, and cutting or
    shaping  of the final product.
    
          The drying and firing of pressed bricks, both common and refractory, are
    accomplished in many  types of ovens, the most popular being the  long tunnel
    oven.  Common brick or building brick is prepared by molding  a wet mix of ZO to
    25 percent water and 75 to 80 percent clay,  then baking it in chamber kilns.
    Common brick is also prepared by extrusion of a stiff mix (10 to  12 percent water),
    followed by the  pressing and  baking of sections  cut from the  extrusion.
    
    Emissions and Controls ^
         Particulate emissions similar to those obtained in clay processing are
    emitted from the materials handling process in refractory and brick manufactur-
    ing.  Combustion products are  emitted from the fuel consumed  in the curing,
    drying, and firing  portion of  this process, and fluorides,  largely  in a gaseous
    form,  are  emitted  from brick manufacturing operations.  Sulfur dioxide may also
    be emitted from the bricks when firing temperatures are 2500°  F (1370° C) or
    more,  or when  the fuel contains sulfur.
    
         A variety  of control  systems may be used to reduce both particulate and
    gaseous  emissions.  Almost  any type of particulate control  system will reduce
    emissions  from the materials handling process.  Fluoride emissions can be
    2/72
    Mineral Products Industry
    8-3
    

    -------
    reduced to very low levels by using a water scrubber.  Emission factors for
    brick manufacturing are presented in Table 8-3.
    
           Table  8-3.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR BRICK MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    Type of process
    Raw material handling0
    Drying
    Grinding
    Storage
    Curing and firing^
    Gas-fired
    Oil-fired
    Coal -fired
    Participate
    Ib/ton
    
    70
    76
    34
    
    Neg
    Neg
    5A to 10Ae
    kg/MT
    
    35
    38
    17
    
    Neg
    Neg
    2.5A to 5Ae
    Nitrogen
    oxides (NOg)
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    0.6
    1.3
    1.5
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    0.3
    0.65
    0.75
    Fluorides
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    0.8
    0.8
    0.8
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    -
    
    0.4
    0.4
    0.4
        aOne brick weighs about 6.5 pounds  (2.95 kg).  Emission  factors expressed
         as  units per unit weight of bricks produced.
         Expressed as HF and based on a  raw material content of  0.05 percent by
         weight fluoride.
        cBased on data from section on ceramic clays.
         References 13, and 15 through 17.
        eA is the percentage of ash in the coal, and emissions are given on the
         basis of pounds per ton (kg/MT) of fuel used.  This is  an estimate based
         on  coal-fired furnaces.
    
    CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING
    
    Process  Description18' *9
          Calcium carbide is manufactured by heating a mixture of quicklime  (CaO)
    and carbon in an electric-arc furnace, where the lime  is reduced by the coke to
    calcium carbide and carbon monoxide.  Metallurgical coke, petroleum coke,  or
    anthracite coal is used as the source of carbon.  About 1, 900 pounds (860 kg) of
    lime and 1, 300 pounds (600 kg) of coke yield 1 ton (1  MT) of calcium carbide.
    There are two basic types  of carbide furnaces:  (1) the open furnace,  in which the
    carbon monoxide burns to carbon dioxide when it comes in  contact with air above
    the charge;  and  (2) the closed furnace, in which the gas is collected from the
    furnace.  The molten calcium carbide  from the furnace is poured into chill cars or
    bucket conveyors and allowed to solidify.  The finished calcium carbide is dumped
    into a jaw crusher and then into a cone crusher to form a product of the desired
    size.
    
    Emissions and Controls
          Particulates,  acetylene,  sulfur compounds, and some carbon monoxide are
    emitted from calcium carbide plants.  Table 8-4 contains emission factors based on
    one plant in which  some particulate matter escapes from the hoods over each
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
                 Table 8-4.  EMISSION FACTORS  FOR CALCIUM CARBIDE PLANTSa
                               EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  C
    Type of source
    Electric furnace
    Hoods
    Main stack
    Coke dryer
    Furnace room vents
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    
    18
    20
    2
    26
    kg/MT
    
    9
    10
    1
    13
    Sulfur oxides
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    3
    3
    -
    kg/MT
    
    -
    1.5
    1.5
    -
    Acetylene
    Ib/ton
    
    -
    -
    -
    18
    kg/MT
    
    -
    -
    -
    9
              ^Reference  20.  Emission factors  expressed as units per unit
               weight  of  calcium carbide produced.
    
    furnace and the remainder passes through wet-impingement-type scrubbers before
    being vented to the atmosphere through a. stack.  The  coke dryers and the furnace -
    room vents are also  sources of emissions.
    CASTABLE  REFRACTORIES
    Process Description^.
                           22
          Castable or fused-cast refractories are manufactured by carefully blending
    such components as alumina,  zirconia, silica, chrome, and magnesia* melting
    the mixture in an electric-arc furnace at temperatures of 3200° to 4500° F (1760°
    to 2430° C);pouring it into molds;  and slowly cooling it to the  solid state.  Fused
    refractories are less  porous  and more dense than kiln-fired refractories.
    
    Emissions and  Controls8
          Particulate emissions occur during the drying, crushing, handling, and
    blending phases of  this process, during the actual melting process,  and in the
    molding phase.  Fluorides, largely in the gaseous form, may also be emitted
    during the  melting  operations.
    
          The general types of particulate  controls may be used on the materials
    handling aspects of refractory manufacturing.  Emissions from the electric-arc
    furnace, however,  are largely condensed fumes  and consist of very fine particles.
    Fluoride emissions can be  effectively  controlled with  a scrubber.   Emission
    factors for castable refractories manufacturing are presented  in Table 8-5.
    
    PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description2 ^
    
          The raw materials required to make cement may be divided  into the following
    components:  lime  (calcareous), silica (siliceous),  alumina (argillaceous),  and
    iron (ferriferous).   The four  major steps in the production of portland cement are:
    (1)  quarrying  and crushing, (2) grinding and blending,  (3) clinker production,  and
    (4)  finish grinding and packaging.
    2/72
                                   Mineral Products Industry
    3-5
    

    -------
                  Table 8-5.  PARTICIPATE  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR CASTABLE
                              REFRACTORIES  MANUFACTURING3
                              EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  C
    Type of process
    Raw material dryer*3
    Raw material crushing
    and processing0
    Electric-arc melting"
    Curing oven6
    Molding and shakeoutb
    
    Type of control
    Baghouse
    Scrubber
    Cyclone
    Baghouse
    Scrubber
    -
    Baghouse
    Uncontrolled
    Ib/ton
    30
    120
    50
    0.2
    25
    kg/MT
    15
    60
    25
    0.1
    12.5
    Controlled
    Ib/ton
    0.3
    7
    45
    0.8
    10
    -
    0.3
    kg/MT
    0.15
    3.5
    22.5
    0.4
    5
    -
    0.15
           aFluoride emissions from the melt average about 1.3 oounds of HF per
            ton  of melt (0.65 kg HF/MT melt).   Emission factors expressed as
            units per unit weight of feed  material.
           bReference 23.
           References 23 through 24.
            References 23 through 25.
           Reference 24.
         In the first step the cement rock limestone, clay, and shale are worked in
    open quarries.  The  rock from the quarries is sent through a primary and a
    secondary crusher.  The various crushed raw materials are properly mixed and
    are then sent through the grinding operations.  After the raw materials are
    crushed and ground,  they are introduced  into a rotary  kiln that is fired with
    pulverized coal,  oil,  or gas.  In the kiln  the materials are dried, decarbonated,
    and calcined to produce a cement clinker.  The clinker is cooled, mixed,  ground
    with gypsum, and bagged for shipment as cement.
    
    Emissions  and Controls26-27
         Particulate matter is the  primary emission in the manufacture of portland
    cement,  and it is emitted from crushing operations, storage silos,  rotary dryers,
    and rotary kilns.  Dust production in the  crusher area depends on the type and
    moisture  content of the raw material and on the  characteristics and type of
    crusher.  In the process of conveying the crushed material to storage silos, sheds,
    or open piles, dust is generated at various conveyor transfer points.  A hood is
    normally placed  over each  of these points to control particulate emissions.
    
         Another major  source of particulate matter is the rotary dryer.  Hot gases
    passing through the rotary  dryer will entrain dust from the limestone, shale,  or
    other materials being dried. Control systems in common use include multi-
    cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and fabric filters.
    
         The largest source of emissions within cement plants is the kiln operation,
    \vhich has three units:  the  feed system, a fuel-firing system, and a clinker-
    cooling and -handling system.  The complications of kiln burning and the large
    8-6
                                     EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    vuiumcjs of materials handled have led to many  control systems for dust collection.
    Because of the diversity of these control systems, they will not be discussed in
    this publication.   Table 8-6 summarizes particulate  emissions from cement manu-
    iacturmg.   The effect of control devices on emissions is shown in  Footnote b.
    
    
                         Table 8-6.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                                FOR CEMENT MANUFACTURING9
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
    Type of process
    Dry process
    Kilnsc
    Dryers, grinder, etc.d
    Wet process
    Kilnsc
    Dryers, grinders, etc.^
    Uncontrolled emissions^
    Ib/bbl
    
    46 (35 to 75)
    18 (10 to 30)
    
    38 (15 to 55)
    6 ( 2 to 10)
    kg/MT
    
    123
    48
    
    100
    16
                    One barrel of cement weighs 376 pounds (171  kg).
                    Typical collection efficiencies are:   mul ticyclones,
                    80 percent; old electrostatic precipitators, 90 per-
                    cent; mul ticyclones plus old electrostatic precipita
                    tors, 95 percent; multicyclones plus  new electro-
                    static precipitators, 99 percent; and fabric filter
                    units, 99.5 percent.
                    p
                    Reference 26.
                    Reference 6.
    CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description8
          The manufacture of ceramic clay involves the conditioning of the basic ores
    by several methods.  These include the separation and concentration  of the
    minerals by screening, floating,  wet  and dry grinding, and blending of the desired
    ore varieties.  The basic raw materials in ceramic clay manufacture are kaolinite
    (A12O3 •  2SiC>2 •  2HzO)  and montmorillonite  [(Mg, Ca) O- A12 03- 5SiO2' nH2<3]
    clays.  These clays are  refined by separation and bleaching, blended, kiln-dried,
    and formed into such items as whiteware,  heavy clay products (brick, e'tc. ),
    various stoneware, and other products such as diatomaceous earth used  as a
    filter aid.
    
    Emissions  and ControlsS
    
          Emissions consist  primarily of  particulates,  but some fluorides and  acid
    gases  are also emitted in the drying process.  The high temperatures of the firing
    kilns are  also conducive to the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and the subsequent
    release of NO, but no published information has been found for gaseous emissions.
    Particulates are also emitted from the grinding process and from storage  of the
    ground product.
    2/72
    Mineral Products Industry
    3-7
    

    -------
          Factors affecting emissions include the amount of material processed, the
    type of grinding (wet or dry),  the temperature of the drying kilns,  the gas veloci-
    ties and flow direction in the kilns, and the amount of fluorine in the ores.
    
          Common control techniques include settling chambers, cyclones, wet
    scrubbers,  electrostatic precipitators, and bag  filters.  The  most effective con-
    trol is provided by cyclones for the coarser material, followed by wet scrubbers,
    bag filters,  or electrostatic precipitators for dry dust.  Emission factors for
    ceramic clay manufacturing are presented in Table 8-7.
    
          Table 8-7.   PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC  CLAY MANUFACTURING3
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A
    Type of
    process
    Drying^
    Grinding6
    Storage1^
    Uncontrolled
    Ib/ton
    70
    76
    34
    kg/MT
    35
    38
    17
    Cyclone'3
    Ib/ton
    18
    19
    8
    kg/MT
    9
    9.5
    4
    Multiple-unit
    cyclone and scrubber0
    Ib/ton
    7
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    3.5
    -
    -
       Emission factors expressed  as units per unit weight of input  to  process.
       bAonroximate collection  efficiency:  75 percent.
       cApnroximate collection  efficiency:  90 oercent.
        References 28 through 31.
       eReference 28.
    CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING
    
    Process Description8
    
         Although the processes for sintering fly ash and clay are similar, there are
    some distinctions that justify a separate discussion of each process.  Fly-ash
    sintering plants are generally located near the  source,  with the fly ash delivered
    to a storage  silo at the plant. The dry fly ash is moistened with a water solution
    of lignin and agglomerated into pellets or balls. This material goes to a travel-
    ing-grate sintering machine where direct contact with hot combustion gases
    sinters the individual particles of the  pellet and completely burns off the residual
    carbon in the fly ash.  The product is then  crushed,  screened,  graded, and stored
    in yard piles.
    
         Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter.  It is
    desirable that the clay contain a  sufficient amount of volatile matter so that the
    resultant aggregate will not be too heavy.   It is thus sometimes necessary to  mix
    the clay with finely pulverized coke  (up to 10 percent coke by weight).   '    In the
    sintering process the clay is first mixed with pulverized  coke,  if necessary,  and
    pelletized.  The clay is next sintered  in a rotating kiln or on a traveling grate.
    The sintered pellets are  then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure
    similar to that for fly-ash pellets.
    
    Emissions and Controls ^
         In fly-ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem.
    Adequate design features, including fly-ash wetting systems and particulate
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
    collection systems on all transfer points and on crushing and screening operations,
    would greatly reduce emissions.  Normally,  fabric filters are used to control
    emissions from the storage silo, and emissions are low.  The absence of this
    dust collection system, however,  would create a major  emission problem.
    Moisture is added at the point of discharge from the silo to the agglomerator,  and
    very few emissions occur there.  Normally,  there are few emissions from the
    sintering machine, but if the grate is not properly maintained,  a dust problem is
    created.  The consequent crushing, screening,  handling, and storage of the
    sintered product also create dust problems.
    
          In clay sintering,  the addition of pulverized  coke presents  an emission prob-
    lem because the  sintering of coke-impregnated dry pellets produces more
    particulate emissions than the  sintering of natural clay.   The crushing,  screening,
    handling, and storage of the  sintered  clay pellets  creates dust problems similar
    to those encountered in fly-ash  sintering.   Emission factors for both clay and
    fly-ash sintering  are shown in  Table 8-8.
    
             Table  8-8.   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SINTERING OPERATIONS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of
    material
    Fly ashd
    Clay mixed with
    cokef >9
    Natural clay'1'1'
    Sintering operation^
    Ib/ton
    110
    40
    12
    kg/MT
    55
    20
    6
    Crushing, screening,
    and yard storageb,c
    Ib/ton
    e
    15
    12
    kg/MT
    e
    7.5
    6
              aEmission factors exoressed as units  per  unit weight of finished
               product.
              ^Cyclones would reduce this emission  by about 80 oercent.
               Scrubbers would reduce this emission by  about 90 percent.
              cBased on data in section on stone quarrying and processing.
              ^Reference 8.
              elncluded in sintering losses.
               90  percent clay, 10 percent pulverized coke; traveling-grate,
               single-pass, up-draft sintering machine.
              References 30, 31 , and 33.
              nRotary dryer sinterer.
              Reference 32.
    
    COAL CLEANING
    
    Process Descriptions
          Coal cleaning is the process by which undesirable materials are removed
    from bituminous and anthracite coal and lignite.  The coal is screened,  classified,
    washed, and dried at coal preparation plants.   The major sources of air pollution
    from these plants are the thermal dryers,,  Seven  types of thermal dryers  are
    presently used: rotary,  screen, cascade,  continuous carrier,  flash or suspension,
    multilouver,  and fluidized bed.  The three major types,  however, are the  flash,
    multilouver,  and fluidized bed.
    2/72
    Mineral Products Industry
                                                                                   8-9
    

    -------
          In the flash dryer,  coal is fed into a stream of hot gases where instantaneous
    drying occurs.   The dried coal and wet gases are drawn up a drying column and
    into the cyclone  for separation.   In the multilouver  dryer, hot gases  are passed
    through falling curtains of coal.  The coal is raised by flights of a specially
    designed conveyor.  In the fluidized bed the coal is  suspended and dried above a
    perforated plate  by rising hot gases.
    
    Emissions and Controls8
    
          Particulates  in the form of coal dust constitute the major air pollution
    problem from coal cleaning plants.  The crushing,  screening, or sizing of coal
    are minor sources of dust emissions;  the major sources are the thermal dryers.
    The range of concentration,  quantity,  and particle size  of emissions  depends upon
    the type  of collection equipment used to reduce particulate emissions from the
    dryer stack.  Emission factors  for coal-cleaning plants are shown in Table 8-9.
    Footnote b of the table lists  various types of control equipment and their possible
    efficiencies.
    
                         Table 8-9.  PARTICULATE  EMISSION  FACTORS
                                FOR THERMAL COAL DRYERSa
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
    
    Type of dryer
    Fluidized bedc
    Flashc
    Multi louvered^
    Uncontrolled emissions'3
    Ib/ton
    20
    16
    25
    kg/MT
    10
    8
    12.5
                       Emission factors expressed  as  units per unit
                       weight of coal dried.
                       Typical collection efficiencies  are:  cyclone
                       collectors (product recovery)  -  70 percent;
                       multiple cyclones (product  recovery) - 85
                       percent; water sprays  following  cyclones -
                       95  percent; and wet scrubber  following
                       cyclones - 99 to 99.9  percent.
                      References 34 and 35.
                       Reference 36.
    CONCRETE BATCHING
    
    Process Description^* 37, 38
          Concrete batching involves the proportioning of sand,  gravel, and cement
    by means of weight hoppers and conveyors into a mixing receiver such as a transit
    mix truck.   The required amount of water is  also  discharged into the receiver
    along with the dry materials.   In some cases, the concrete is prepared for on-site
    building construction  work or for the manufacture of concrete products  such as
    pipes and pre-fabricated construction parts.
    Emissions and Controls8
          Particulate  emissions consist primarily of cement dust, but  some sand and
    aggregate gravel  dust emissions do occur during batching operations.  There is
    8-10                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
    also a potential for dust emissions during the unloading and conveying of concrete
    and aggregates at these plants and during the loading of dry-batched concrete mix.
    Another source of dust emissions is the traffic of heavy equipment over unpaved or
    dnpty surfaces in and  around the concrete batching plant.
    
          Control techniques include the  enclosure of dumping and loading areas,  the
    enclosure of conveyors and elevators, filters on storage bin vents, and  the use of
    water  sprays.  Table  8-10 presents  emission factors for concrete batch plants.
    
                          Table 8-10.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                                  FOR CONCRETE  BATCHING3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Concrete
    batching^ d
    Uncontrolled
    Good control
    Emissions
    lb/yd3 of
    concrete
    0.2
    0.02
    kg/m^ of
    concrete
    0.12
    0.012
                          aOne cubic yard of concrete  weighs 4,000
                           pounds (1 m3 = 2,400 kg).   The cement
                           content varies with the type  of concrete
                           mixed, but 735 pounds of cement per yard
                           (436 kg/m3) may be used as  a  typical
                           value.
                          Reference 28.
    
    FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description8
    
          Fiber glass is manufactured by melting various raw materials to form glass,
    drawing the molten glass into fibers, and coating  the fibers with an organic
    material.  The glass-forming reaction takes place at 2800° F (1540°  C) in a large,
    rectangular, gas- or oil-fired reverberatory furnace.  These melting furnaces
    are equipped with either regenerative or recuperative heat-recovery systems.
    After being refined, the molten glass passes to a  forehearth where the glass is
    either formed into marbles for subsequent remelting or passed  directly through
    orifices to form  a filament.   The continuous filaments are treated with organic
    binder material, wound,  spooled,  and sent to a high-humidity curing area where
    the binder sets.  The  product is then cooled by blowing air over it.
    
    Emissions  and Controls^
    
          The major  emissions from fiber glass manufacturing processes  are particu-
    lates from the glass-melting furnace, the forming line,  the curing  oven,  and the
    product cooling  line.   In addition,  gaseous organic emissions  occur from the form-
    ing line and curing oven.   Particulate emissions from the glass-melting furnace
    are affected by basic furnace design, type of fuel  (oil or gas), raw  material size
    and composition,  and  type and volume of the furnace heat-recovery system.  '
    Regenerative heat-recovery systems generally allow more particulate matter to
    escape than do recuperative systems.  Control systems are not  generally used  on
    the glass-melting furnace.   Organic and particulate emissions from the forming
    2/72                           Mineral Products Industry                           8-11
    

    -------
    line are most affected by the composition and quantity of the binder and by the
    spraying techniques used to coat the fibers; very fine spray and volatile binders
    increase emissions.  Emissions from the curing oven are  affected by the oven
    temperature and binder composition, but direct-fired afterburners with heat ex-
    changers may be used to control these emissions.   Particulate emission factors
    for fiber glass manufacturing are  summarized in Table 8-11.
    
                Table 8-11.  PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FIBER GLASS
                             MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS'*
                               EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of process
    Glass furnacec,d
    Reverberatory
    With regenerative heat exchanger
    With recuperative heat exchanger
    Electric induction
    Forming 1 inee
    Curing ovenf
    Emissions^
    Ib/ton
    
    
    3
    1
    Meg
    50
    7
    kg/MT
    
    
    1.5
    0.5
    Neg
    25
    3.5
              aEmission factors expressed  as  units per unit of weight of
               material processed
              ^Overall emissions may  be reduced  by approximately 50 percent by
               using:  (1) an afterburner on the curing oven, (2) a filtration
               system  on the product cooling, and (3) process modifications
               for  the forming line.
              cOnly one type is usually used  at any one  plant.
              dReferences 40 and 41.
              References 40 and 42.
              fReferences 42 and 43.
    
    FRIT MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description44'45
    
          Frit is used in enameling  iron and steel and in glazing porcelain and pottery.
    In a typical plant,  the raw materials consist  of a combination of materials such as
    borax,  feldspar, sodium fluoride  or fluorspar, soda ash, zinc oxide, litharge,
    silica,  boric acid, and zircon.  Frit is prepared by fusing these various minerals
    in a smelter, and the  molten material is then quenched with air  or water.  This
    quenching operation causes the  melt to solidify rapidly and  shatter into numerous
    small glass particles,  called frit.  After a drying process,  the frit is finely
    ground in a ball mill where other  materials are  added.
    
    Emissions and Controls45
          Significant dust and fume emissions are created  by the frit-smelting opera-
    tion.  These emissions consist primarily of condensed metallic  oxide fumes that
    have volatilized from the molten charge.  They also contain mineral  dust carry-
    over and sometimes hydrogen fluoride.   Emissions  can be reduced by not  rotating
    8-12
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                   2/72
    

    -------
    the smelter too rapidly (to prevent excessive dust carry-over) and by not heating
    the batch too rapidly or too long (to prevent volatilizing the more fusible elements).
    
          The two most feasible control devices for frit smelters are  baghouses and
    venturi water  scrubbers.   Emission factors for frit smelters  are shown in
    Table 8-12.  Collection efficiencies obtainable for venturi  scrubbers are also
    shown in the table.
    
                      Table 8-12.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT  SMELTERS
                                      WITHOUT CONTROLS9
                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   C
    Type of
    furnace
    Rotary
    Pa rticu lates'3
    Ib/ton
    16
    kg/KT
    8
    Fl uorides"
    Ib/ton
    5
    kg/MT
    2.5
               Reference 45.  Emission factors  expressed  as units per unit
                weight of charge.
               ^A venturi scrubber with a 21-inch  (535-mm) water-gauge pres-
                sure drop can reduce particulate emissions by 67 percent and
                fluorides by 94 percent.
    
    GLASS MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description37' 4^>
    
          Nearly all glass produced commercially is one of five basic types:  soda-
    lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, and  96 percent silica.  Of these, the mod-
    ern soda-lime glass constitutes 90 percent  of the total glass produced and will
    thus be the only type discussed in this section.  Soda-lime  glass is produced on a
    massive scale in large,  direct-fired, continuous-melting furnaces in which the
    blended raw materials are melted  at 2700°  F  (1480° C) to form glass.
    
    Emissions  and  Controls^, 47
    
          Emissions from the glass-melting operation consist primarily of particu-
    late s and  fluorides,  if fluoride-containing fluxes are used in the process.   Because
    the dust emissions contain particles that are only a few microns in diameter,
    cyclones and centrifugal scrubbers are not  as effective as  baghouses or filters
    in collecting particulate matter.   Table 8-13 summarizes the  emission factors for
    glass melting.
                       Table 8-13.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR GLASS  MELTING
                                  EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  D
    Type of
    glass
    Soda-1 ime
    Particulates3
    Ib/ton
    2
    kg/MT
    1
    Fluorides'3
    Ib/ton
    4Fc
    kg/MT
    2FC
                aReference 48.  Emission factors  expressed  as  units  per unit
                 weight of glass produced.
                "Reference 17.
                CF equals weight percent of fluoride in  input  to  furnace;
                 e.g., if fluoride content is 5 percent,  the emission factor
                 would be 4F or 20 (2F or 10).
    2/72
    Mineral Products Industry
    8-13
    

    -------
    GYPSUM MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description8
    
          Gypsum, or hydrated calcium sulfate,  is a naturally occurring mineral that
    is an important building material.  When heated gypsum loses its water of hydra-
    tion,  it becomes plaster of paris, or  when blended with fillers it serves as wall
    plaster.  In both cases the material hardens as water reacts with it to form the
    solid crystalline hydrate.   '>
          The usual method of calcination of gypsum consists of grinding the mineral
    and placing it in large, externally heated calciners.  Complete calcination of 1
    ton (0. 907 MT)  of plaster  takes about 3 hours and requires about 1. 0 million Btu
    (0. 25 million kcal). 51> 52
    
    Emissions 8
          The process  of calcining gypsum appears to be devoid of any air pollutants
    because it involves simply the relatively low-temperature removal of the  water
    of hydration.  However, the gases created by the release of the water of crystal-
    lization carry gypsum rock dust and partially calcined gypsum dust  into the  atmos-
    phere.    In addition, dust emissions occur from, the grinding of the gypsum, be-
    fore  calcining and from the mixing of the calcined gypsum with filler. Table 8-14
    presents emission factors for gypsum processing.
    
             Table 8-14.   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  GYPSUM PROCESSING3
                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of process
    Raw-material dryer
    (if used)
    Primary grinder
    Calciner
    Conveying
    Uncontrolled
    emissions
    Ib/ton
    40
    1
    90
    0.7
    kg/MT
    20
    0.5
    45
    0.35
    With
    fabric filter
    Ib/ton
    0.2
    0.001
    0.1
    0.001
    kg/MT
    0.1
    0.0005
    0.05
    0.0005
    With cyclone and
    electrostatic
    precipitator
    Ib/ton
    0.4
    -
    -
    -
    kg/MT
    0.2
    -
    -
    -
     Reference 54.  Emission   factors expressed as units  per  unit weight of process
       throughput.
    
    LIME MANUFACTURING
    
    General 8
          Lime (CaO) is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone
    (CaCO ).  Lime is manufactured in vertical or rotary kilns fired by coal, oil,  or
    natural gas.
    
    Emissions and Controls 8
          Atmospheric emissions in the lime manufacturing industry include particu-
    late emissions from the mining,  handling,  crushing,  screening,  and calcining  of
    the limestone and combustion products from the kilns.  The vertical kilns, be-
    cause of a larger size of charge material,  lower air velocities,  and less agitation,
    8-14
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  2/72
    

    -------
    nave considerably fewer particuldte emissions.   Control of emissions from these
    vertical kilns is accomplished by sealing the exit of the  kiln and exhausting the
    gases through control equipment.
          Particulate emission problems are much greater on the rotary kilns because
    of the smaller size of the charge material, the higher rate of fuel consumption,
    and the greater air velocities through the  rotary chamber. Methods of control
    on rotary-kiln plants include simple and multiple cyclones, wet scrubbers, bag-
    houses,  and electrostatic precipitators. -*-> Emission factors for lime manufactur-
    ing are summarized in Table  8-15.
    
                         Table 8-15.   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
    
                          FOR LIME  MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
    
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
    Operation
    Crushing0
    Primary
    Secondary
    Calcining"
    Vertical kiln
    Rotary kiln
    Emissions^
    Ib/ton
    31
    2
    8
    200
    kg/MT
    15.5
    1
    4
    100
                       Emission  factors expressed as units per unit
                       weight  of lime processed.
                       Cyclones  could reduce these factors by about
                       70  percent.  Venturi scrubbers could reduce
                       these factors by about 95 to 99 percent.
                       Fabric  filters could reduce these factors  by
                       about 99  percent.
                       Reference 56
                       References 55, 57, and 58.
    
    MINERAL WOOL  MANUFACTURING
    
    Process  Description59- 6°
          The product mineral wool used to be divided into three categories:  slag
    wool, rock "wool,  and glass  wool.   Today, however, straight slag wool and rock
    wool as such are no longer  manufactured.  A combination of slag and rock con-
    stitutes the charge material that now yields a product classified as a mineral
    wool, used mainly for thermal and acoustical insulation.
          Mineral wool is made  primarily in cupola  furnaces charged with blast-
    furnace slag, silica rock, and  coke.   The charge is heated to  a molten state at
    about 3000°  F (1650° C) and then fed to a blow chamber, where steam atomizes
    the molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails  as they are drawn to
    the other end of the chamber.  The wool blanket formed is next conveyed to an
    oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler.
    
    Emissions and Controls
          The major source of emissions is the cupola or furnace  stack.  Its discharge
    consists primarily of condensed fumes that have volatilized from the molten
    2/72                            Mineral Products Industry                          8-15
    

    -------
    charge and gases such as sulfur oxides and fluorides.  Minor sources of particu-
    late emissions include the blowchamber,  curing oven,  and cooler.   Emission
    factors for various stages of mineral wool processing  are shown in Table 8-16.
    The effect of control devices on emissions is shown in footnotes to the table.
               Table 8-16.  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
                                   WITHOUT CONTROLS^
                               EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of process
    Cupola
    Reverberatory furnace
    Blow chamber'3
    Curing ovenc
    Cooler
    Particulates
    Ib/ton
    22
    5
    17
    4
    2
    kg/MT
    11
    2.5
    8.5
    2
    1
    Sulfur oxides
    Ib/ton
    0.02
    Neg
    Neg
    Neg
    Neg
    kg/MT
    0.01
    Neg
    Neg
    Neg
    Neg
               Reference 60.  Emission factors  expressed as units per unit
               weight of charge.
               A centrifugal water scrubber  can reduce particulate emissions
               by 60 percent.
              CA direct-flame afterburner  can reduce particulate emissions by
               50 percent.
    PERLITE MANUFACTURING
    
    Process Description^!. 62
    
          Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock consisting of oxides of silicon and alumi-
    num combined as a natural glass by water of hydration.  By a process called ex-
    foliation,  the material  is rapidly heated to release water of hydration and thus  to
    expand the spherules into  low-density particles used primarily as aggregate in
    plaster and concrete.  A plant for the expansion of perlite consists of ore unload-
    ing and storage facilities,  a furnace -let-ding device,  an expanding furnace, pro-
    visions for gas and product cooling,  and product-classifying and product-collect-
    ing equipment.   Vertical furnaces, horizontal stationary furnaces, and horizontal
    rotary furnaces are used  for the exfoliation of perlite,  although the vertical types
    are the most numerous.   Cyclone separators are used to collect the  product.
    Emissions and Controls ^2
          A fine  dust is emitted from the outlet of the last product collector in a per-
    lite  expansion plant.  The fineness of the dust varies from one plant to another,
    depending upon the desired product.  In order to achieve complete control of these
    particulate emissions, a baghouse is needed.  Simple cyclones and small multiple
    cyclones are not adequate for collecting the fine dust from perlite furnaces.  Table
    8-17 summarizes  the emissions from perlite manufacturing.
     8-16
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  2/72
    

    -------
                        Table 8-17.   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
                              FOR PERLITE  EXPANSION FURNACES
                                    WITHOUT CONTROLS3
                                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of
    furnace
    Vertical
    Emissions'3
    Ib/ton
    21
    kg/MT
    10.5
                      a
                       Reference 63.   Emission factors exoressed  as
                       units per unit weight of charge.
                       Primary cyclones will collect 80  percent of
                       the particulates above 20 microns,  and  bag-
                       houses will  collect 96 percent of the par-
                       ticles above 20 microns.62
    PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
    
    Process Description 64
    
          Phosphate rock preparation involves beneficiation to remove impurities,
    drying to remove moisture, and grinding to improve reactivity.  Usually, direct-
    fired rotary kilns are used to dry phosphate rock.   These dryers burn natural
    gas or fuel oil and are fired counter-currently.  The material from the dryers
    may be ground before storage in large storage silos.  Air-swept ball mills are
    preferred for grinding phosphate rock.
    
    Emissions and  Controls 6 4
    
          Although there are no significant emissions from phosphate rock benefici-
    ation plants, emissions in the form of fine rock dust may be expected from drying
    and grinding operations.   Phosphate rock dryers are usually equipped with dry
    cyclones  followed by wet scrubbers.  Particulate emissions are usually higher
    when drying pebble  rock than when drying  concentrate because of the small adher-
    ent particles of clay and slime on the rock.  Phosphate rock grinders can be a
    considerable source of particulates.  Because of the extremely fine  particle size,
    baghouse collectors are normally used to reduce emissions.  Emission factors
    for phosphate r ock pr oce ssing are presented in Table 8-18.
    
    STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
    
    Process Description8
    
          Rock and gravel products are loosened by drilling and blasting them from
    their deposit beds,  and they are removed with the use of heavy earth-moving
    equipment.  This mining of rock is done primarily in open pits.  The use of
    pneumatic drilling and cutting,  as well as  blasting  and transferring, causes con-
    siderable dust formation.  Further processing includes  crushing,  regrinding,  and
    removal of fines. °9  Dust emissions can occur from all of these operations, as
    well as from quarrying, transferring, loading,  and storage  operations.  Drying
    operations, when used, can also be a source of dust emissions.
    2/72                            Mineral Products Industry                           8-17
    

    -------
                Table 8-18.  PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK
                               PROCESSING WITHOUT  CONTROLS3
                               EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:  C
    
    Type of source
    Dryingb,c
    Grindingb.d
    Transfer and storage0*'6
    Open storage piles^
    Emissions
    Ib/ton kg/MT
    15
    20
    2
    40
    7.5
    10
    1
    20
                  Emission factors expressed as  units  per unit weight of
                  phosphate rock.
                  References 65 through 67.
                 cDry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers can reduce emis-
                  sions by 95 to 99 percent.
                  Dry cyclones followed by fabric filters can reduce
                  emissions by 99.5 to 99.9 percent.
                 Reference 66.
                  Reference 68.
    Emissions 8
    
          As enumerated above, dust emissions occur from many operations in stone
    quarrying and processing.  Although a big  portion of these emissions is heavy
    particles that  settle out within the plant,  an attempt has been made to estimate the
    suspended particulates.   These emission factors are shown  in Table 8-^19.  Factors
    affecting  emissions include the amount of rock processed; the method of transfer
    of the rock;  the moisture content of the raw material; the degree of enclosure of
    the transferring, processing,  and storage  areas; and the degree to which control
    equipment is used on the  processes.
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
           Table  8-19.
                   PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROCK-HANDLING PROCESSES
                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
    Type of process
    Crushing operations^*0
    Primary crushing
    Secondary crushing
    and screening
    Tertiary crushing
    and screening (if used)
    Recrushing and screening
    Fines mill
    Miscellaneous operations1^
    Screening, conveying,
    and handling6
    Storage pile losses^
    Uncontrol
    totaia
    Ib/ton
    
    0.5
    1.5
    6
    5
    6
    
    2
    10
    led
    kg/MT
    
    0.25
    0.75
    3
    2.5
    3
    
    1
    5
    Settled out
    in plant,
    %
    
    80
    60
    40
    50
    25
    
    
    
    Suspended
    emission
    Ib/ton
    
    0.1
    0.6
    3.6
    2.5
    4.5
    
    
    
    kg/MT
    
    0.05
    0.3
    1.8
    1.25
    2.25
    
    
    
       Typical collection efficiencies:  cyclone, 70 to 85 percent;  fabric  filter,
       99 percent.
       All values are based on raw material  entering primary crusher,  except  those
       for recrushing and screening, which are based on throughput for that operation.
      GReference 70.
       Based on units of stored product.
      Reference 71 .
       The significance of storage pile losses is mentioned  in  Reference  72.  The
       factor assigned here is the author's  estimate for uncontrolled  total emissions.
       Use of this factor should be tempered with knowledge  about the  size  of materials
       stored, the local meteorological factors,  the frequency  with  which the piles
       are disturbed, etc.
    
    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
      1.  Duprey, R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham,  N. C.  PHS
         Publication No.  999-AP-42.   1968.  p.  34-35.
    
      2.  Danielson,  J.A. andR.S.  Brown, Jr.  Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants.
         In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  Danielson,  J.A. (ed. ).  U0S0 DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.   Publica-
         tion No. 999-AP-40.  1967.  p. 325-333.
    
      3.  Danielson,  J.A.  Control of Asphaltic Concrete  Batching Plants  in Los
         Angeles County.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  10:29-33,  February I960.
     4.
    Kenline, P0A.  Control of air pollutants from the chemical process industries.
    Unpublished report.   Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.  Cincinnati,
    Ohio.  May 1959.
    2/72
                               Mineral Products Industry
    8-19
    

    -------
     5.  Daniclson,  J.A.  Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants of the
        Los Angeles County Air  Pollution Control District.  Presented at Air  Pollu-
        tion Control Institute,  University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
        California.   November 1966.
    
     6.  Sallee, G.  Private communication on particulate pollutant study, Midwest
        Research Institute, National Air Pollution Control Administration Contract
        No.  22-69-104.  June 1970.
    
     7.  Fogel,  M,E0 et al.  Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Control
        Costs for Selected Industries and Selected Regions.  Research  Triangle
        Institute.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.  Final Report No, R-OU-455.
        February 1970.
    
     8.  Air  Pollutant Emission Factors.  Final report.  Resources Research,
        Incorporated.   Reston,  Virginia.   Prepared for National Air Pollution
        Control Administration under contract No.  CPA-22-69-119.  April 1970.
    
     9.  Von Lehmden,  D. J. ,  R. P.  Hangebrauck, and J.E.  Meeker.  Polynuclear
        Hydrocarbon Emissions  from Selected Industrial Processes,   Air Pollution
        Control Assoc.  1_5:306-312, July 1965.
    
    10.  Weiss, S. M.  Asphalt R oof ing  Felt-Saturator s.  In: Air Pollution Engineering
        Manual.  Danielson, J.A,,  (ed.).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Center  for Air
        Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publication No.  999-AP-40.   1967.
        p. 378-383.
    
    11.  Goldfield, J. and R.G.  McAnlis.   Low-Voltage Electrostatic Precipitators to
        Collect Oil Mists from Roofing-Felt Asphalt Saturators and Stills. J. Industrial
        Hygiene Assoc.  July-August 1963.
    
    12.  Shreve, R.N.   Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.   New York.  McGraw-
        Hill Book Company, 1967.  p.  151-158.
    
    13.  Havighorst, C.R.  and S. L. Swift.  The Manufacturing  of Basic Refractories.
        Chem. Eng. 72^:98-100,  August 16, 1965.
    
    14.  Norton, F.H.   Refractories. 3rd Ed.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book Com-
        pany, 1949. p. 252.
    
    15.  Marks,  L.S. (ed. ). Mechanical Engineer' s Handbook.  5th Ed. New  York,
        McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1951.  p.  523,  535.
    
    16.  Duprey, R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
        PHS,  National  Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N.C. PHS
        Publication No. 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 6-7.
    
    17.  Semrau,  K. T.  Emissions  of Fluorides from Industrial Processes:  A Review.
        J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc. _7_(2): 92-108,  August 1957.
    
    18.  Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
        PHS,  National  Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N.C. PHS
        Publication No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p.  34-35.
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
    19.  Carbide.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  1964.
    
    20.  The Louisville Air Pollution Study.  U.S. DHEW, PHS, Robert A.  Taft
         Sanitary Engineering Center.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   1961.
    
    21.  Brown,  R0W0 and K. H.  Sandmeyer.  Applications of Fused-Cast Refractories.
         Chem. Eng.  76_:106-114,  June 16,  1969.
    
    22.  Shreve,  R.N.  Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed.  New York,  McGraw-
         Hill Book  Company, 1967.  p.  158.
    
    23.  Unpublished data provided by a Corhart Refractory.  Kentucky Department of
         Health,  Air Pollution Control Commission.   Frankfort, Kentucky.  September
         1969.
    
    24.  Unpublished stack test data on refractories.  Resources Research,
         Incorporated .  Reston,  Virginia.   1969.
    
    25.  Unpublished stack test data on refractories.  Resources Research,
         Incorporated.  Reston,  Virginia.   1967.
    
    26.  Kreichelt,  T.E.,  D.A. Kemnitz, and S. T.  Cuffe.  Atmospheric Emissions
         from the Manufacture of Portland Cement.  U.S.  DHEW,  PHS, Bureau of
         Disease Prevention and Environmental Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  Publica-
         tion No. 999-AP-17.  1967.
    
    27.  Duprey, R.L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National  Center for Air Pollution Control.   Durham, N. C.   PHS
         Publication No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 35.
    
    28.  Allen, Gc L.  et al.   Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in
         Los Angeles  County. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C0 Information
         Circular No. 7627.  April 1952.
    
    29.  Private  Communication between Resources  Research,  Incorporated, Reston,
         Virginia,  and the State  of New Jersey Air Pollution Control Program,
         Trenton, New Jersey.  July 20, 1969.
    
    30.  Henn, J. J. et al.   Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay:  An Evaluation
         of  Two Lirne Sinter Processes. Bureau of Mines.  Washington, D.C.  Report^
         of  Investigations  No. 7299.  September 1969.
    
    31.  Peters,  F0A0 et  al.  Methods  for Producing Alumina from Clay:   An
         Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter Process.  Bureau of Mines.   Washington,
         D.C.  Report of Investigation No.  6927.   1967.
    
    32.  Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  Reston, Virginia,
         and a  clay  sintering firm.   October 2,  1969.
    
    33.  Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  Reston, Virginia,
         and an anonymous Air Pollution Control Agency.  October 16, 1969.
    2/72                            Mineral Products Industry                           8-21
    

    -------
    34.  Unpublished stack test results on thermal coal dryers.  Pennsylvania
         Department of Health, Bureau of Air Pollution Control.  Harrisburg,  Pa.
    
    35.  Amherst's Answer to Air Pollution Laws.  Coal  Mining and Processing.
         p.  26-29.  February 1970.
    
    36.  Jones, D.W.  Dust Collection at Moss.  No. 3.  Mining Congress Journal.
         55_(7):53-56, July  1969.
    
    37.  Vincent,  E. J. and J. L.  McGinnity.  Concrete Batching Plants.  In: Air
         Pollution Engineering Manual.  Danielson, J.A.  (ed. ).  'U.S.  DREW,  PHS,
         National  Center for Air  Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.   PHS Publica-
         tion No.  999-AP-40.   1967.   p.  334-335.
    
    38.  Communication  between Re sources Research,  Incorporated, Reston,  Virginia,
         and the National Ready-Mix Concrete Association.  September 1969,
    
    39.  Netzley,  A0 B.  and J.L. McGinnity.  Chemical Processing Equipment.  In:
         Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  Danielson, J. A0 (ed. ).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS,
         National  Center for Air  Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.   PHS Publica-
         tion No.  999-AP-40.   1967.   p.  724-7330
    
    40.  Communication between Resources Research,  Incorporated, Reston,  Virginia,
         and a fiber glass company.   October 1969.
    
    41.  Kansas City Air Pollution Abatement Activity.  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National
         Center for Air  Pollution Control.  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  January  1967. p. 53.
    
    42.  Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated,  Reston, Virginia,
         and New  Jersey State Department  of Health,  Trenton, N. J. July 1969 =
    
    43.  Spinks,  J. L.  Mechanical Equipment.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering  Manual.
         Danielson, J.A.  (ed. ).  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Center for Air Pollution
         Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.   PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40.   1967.  p. 342.
    
    44.  Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Durham,  N. C.  PHS
         Publication No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 37-38.
    
    45.  Spinks,  J.L.  Frit Smelters.  In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
         Danielson, J.A.  (ed. ).  U. S. DHEW, PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution
         Control.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.   PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40.   1967.  p. 738-
         744.
    
    46.  Duprey,  R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Durham,  N. C.  PHS
         Publication No.  999-AP-42.  1968.  p. 38.
    
    47.  Netzley,  A. B.  and J.L. McGinnity.  Glass Manufacture.   In:  Air Pollution
         Engineering Manual.  Danielson, J.A. (ed.).  U.S.  DHEW, PITS, National
         Center for Air Pollution Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.  PHS Publication No.
         999-AP-40.  1967. p. 720-730.
                                     EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    48.  Technical Progress Report:  Control of Stationary Sources.  Los Angeles
         County Air Pollution Control District, 1, April I960.
    
    49.  Shreve, R. N.  Chemical Process Industries.  3rd Ed. New York,  McGraw-
         Hill Book Company,  1967.  p. 180-132.
    
    50.  Havinghorst, R. A Quick Look at Gypsurn Manufacture.  Chem. Eng.
         72_:52-54, January 4, 1965.
    
    51.  Work,  L0 T.  and A,L0 Stern.  Size  Reduction and Size Enlargement.  In:
         Chemical Engineers Handbook.   4th Ed.  New York,  McGraw-Hill Book
         Company.  1963.   p. 51.
    
    52.  Private communication on emissions from gypsum plants between M.M.
         Hambuik and the National Gypsum Association, Chicago, Illinois.  January
         1970.
    
    53.  Culhane, F0R. Chem.  Eng.  Progr.  ^4:72,  January 1, 1963.
    
    54.  Communication between Resources  Research,  Incorporated,  Reston,  Virginia,
         and the Maryland  State  Department of Health,  Baltimore,  Maryland.
         November  1969.
    
    55.  Lewis, C.  and B.  Crocker.   The Lime Industry's  Problem of Airborne Dust.
         Air Pollution Control Assoc.  l_9:31-39,  January 1969.
    
    56.  State of Maryland Emission Inventory Data.  Maryland State  Department of
         Health,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  1969.
    
    57.  A Study of  the Lime Industry in the  State of Missouri for the  Air Conservation
         Commission of the State  of Missouri.  Reston, Virginia, Resources Research,
         Incorporated.  December 1967.  p.   54.
    
    58.  Communication between Midwest Research Institute  and a control device
         manufacturer.  1968.
    
    59.  Duprey,  R0 L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution Control.   Durham, N. C.  PHS
         Publication No. 999-AP-42.  1968.  p.  39-40.
    
    60.  Spinks,  J. L.  Mineral Wool Furnaces.   In:  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
         Danielson, J.A. (ed. ).   U.S. DHEW, PHS,  National Center for Air Pollution
         Control.   Cincinnati, Ohio.   PHS Publication No.  999-AP-40.   1967.
         p.  343-347.
    
    61.  Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Factor s.  U.S. DHEW,
         PHS,  National  Center for Air Pollution Control.   Durham, N. C.  PHS
         Publication No. 999-AP-42.  1968.   p.  39.
    
    62.  Vincent,  E. J.  Perlite-Expanding Furnaces.  In:   Air Pollution Engineering
         Manual.  Danielson,  J.A. (ed. ).  U.S.  DHEW, PHS, National  Center for
    2/72                            Mineral Products Industry
    

    -------
        Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40.
         1967.  p. 350-352.
    
    63. Sableski, J. J.  Unpublished data on perlite expansion furnace.  National
        Center for Air Pollution Control.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   July 1967.
    
    64.  Stern,  A.  (ed.).  Air Pollution,  Volume III,  Sources of Air Pollution and
         Their Control, Znd Ed. , New York,  Academic Press,  1968.   p. 221-222.
    
    65. Unpublished data from phosphate rock preparation plants in Florida.   Mid-
        west Research Institute.  June 1970.
    
    66.  Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions.   Internal document,  U.S. Environ-
        mental Protection Agency,  Office of Air Programs, Durham,  N. C.  p. 4-46.
    
    67.  Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions.   Internal document.  U. S. Environ-
         mental Protection Agency,  Office of Air Programs, Durham,  N. C.  p.  4-36.
    
    68.  Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions.   Internal document.  U. S. Environ-
         mental Protection Agency,  Office of Air Programs, Durham,  N. C.  p. 4-34.
    
    69.  Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia,
         and the National Crushed Stone Association.   September 1969.
    
    70.  Culver, P.  Memorandum to files.   U.S. DHEW, PHS,  National Air Pollution
         Control Administration, Division of Abatement.   January 6,  1968.
    
    71.  Sableski,  J. J. Unpublished data on storage  and handling of rock products.
         U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration,  Division of
         Abatement.  May 1967.
    
    72.  Stern A. (ed.). Air  Pollution, Volume III,  Sources of Air Pollution and Their
         Control.  2nd Ed. , New York, Academic Press,  1968.  p.  123-127.
    8-24                             EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------
                           9.   PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
    
    PETROLEUM REFINERY
    
    General1
          Although a modern refinery is a complex system of many processes, the
    entire operation can be  divided into four major steps: separating, converting,
    treating,  and blending.  The crude  oil is first separated into selected fractions
    (e.g., gasoline, kerosene,  fuel oil, etc.).  Because the relative volumes of each
    fraction produced by merely separating the crude may not conform to the relative
    demand for each fraction, some of  the less valuable products,  such  as heavy
    naphtha, are  converted  to products with a greater sale value,  such as gasoline.
    This  is done by splitting,  uniting,  or rearranging the original molecules.  The
    final  step is the blending of  the refined  base stocks  with each other and with
    various additives  to meet final product  specifications.  The  various  unit operations
    involved at petroleum refineries will be briefly discussed in the following sections.
    
    
    Crude Oil Distillation  - Because crude oil is composed of hydrocarbons of differ-
    ent physical properties,  it can be separated by physical means into its various
    constituents.   The primary  separation is usually accomplished by distillation.
    The fractions from the distillation  include  refinery  gas, gasoline, kerosene,  light
    fuel oil, diesel oils,  gas oil, lube distillate, and heavy bottoms.   These  "straight-
    run products" are treated to remove impurities and used as  base stocks  or feed-
    stock for  other refinery units,  or sold as finished products.
    
    
    Catalytic  Cracking  -  To obtain the desired product distribution and  quality,  heavy
    hydrocarbon molecules  are  cracked or  split to form low-boiling hydrocarbons in
    the gasoline range. Catalytic cracking units are classified according to the method
    used  for catalyst  transfer.  The two most widely used methods are the moving-bed,
    typified by the Thermofor catalytic cracking units (TCC),  and the fluidized bed,
    system of fluid catalytic cracking units (FCC).
    
          In a typical  "cat" cracker, the catalyst in the  form of a fine powder for an
    FCC  unit and beads or pellets for a TCC unit, passes through the reactor, then
    through a regeneration zone where  coke deposited on the catalyst is  burned off in
    a continuous process.
    
    
    Catalytic  Reforming  - Unlike catalytic cracking,  catalytic reforming does not
    increase the gasoline  yield from a barrel of crude  oil.  Reforming uses  gasoline
    as a feedstock and by molecular rearrangement,  "which usually includes  hydrogen
    removal,  produces a gasoline of higher quality and  octane number.  Coke deposi-
    tion is not severe in reforming operations,  and thus catalyst regeneration is not
    always used.   If this is the case, the catalyst is physically removed  and  replaced
    periodically.   Some of the fixed-bed catalytic reforming processes that require
    catalyst regeneration  include Fixed-Bed Hydroforming,  Ultraforming, and Power-
    forming.  Some of the fixed-bed processes  in which the catalyst is infrequently
    2/72                                   9-1
    

    -------
    regenerated  include Platforming, Rexforming, and Catforming.
    
    Polymerization,  Alkylation, Isomerization-^  - Polymerization and alkylation are
    processes used to produce  gasoline from the gaseous hydrocarbons formed during
    cracking operations.  Polymerization joins two or more olefins,  and alkylation
    unites an olefirt and an isoparaffin.   In the  process of isomerization,  the arrange-
    ment of the atoms in a molecule is altered, usually to form branched-chain hydro-
    carbons.
    
    
    Treating,  Blending  - The products from both the separation  and  the conversion
    steps are treated, usually for the removal of sulfur compounds and gum-forming
    materials.  As a final  step, the refined base stocks are blended v/ith each  other
    and with various  additives to meet product specifications.
    
    
    Emissions 1
          Emissions from refineries vary greatly in both quantity and type.  The most
    important  factors affecting refinery  emissions are crude oil capacity, air  pollution
    control equipment used, general level  of maintenance,  and processing scheme
    used.  The major pollutants emitted are sulfur oxides,  nitrogen oxides,  hydro-
    carbons,  carbon monoxide,  and malodorous materials.  Other emissions of lesser
    importance include particulates,  aldehydes,  ammonia,  and organic acids.   Boilers,
    process heaters, and catalytic cracking unit regenerators are major sources of
    sulfur oxides,  nitrogen oxides, and particulates.  The catalytic cracking unit
    regenerators are also  large sources of carbon monoxide,  aldehydes, and ammonia.
    The many  hydrocarbon sources include waste-water separators,  blow-down
    systems, catalyst regenerators,  pumps, valves, cooling towers,  vacuum jets,
    compressor  engines, process heaters,  and boilers.  Emission factors for the
    various refinery operations are summarized in Table 9-1.
    
    
    REFERENCE FOR CHAPTER 9
    
    1.  Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries; A Guide  for Measurement
        and Control.  U.S. DHEW, PHS.  Publication No.  763.  I960.
    9-2                              EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    ra
     CO
     UJ
     O
     o;
     o
     CO
     ce
     o
     o
     CO
    
     CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CQ
    
    05
    •r—
    C
    O
    E
    **
    CO
    Ol
    ~o
    -^
    -C
    OJ
    ~o
    r—
     X
    •r- O
    z.
    i
    1 —
    CO
    c
    0
    ro
    o
    o
    S-
    -a
    >}
    ^c
    
    O)
    C T3
    CD |l O •<-
    Z.
    i — i
    H-
    <£
    o:
    f-r*
    O
    1—
    C 	 }
    ei
    U-
    
    z.
    0
    1— 1
    co
    CO
    1 — 1
    «5^
    ^*
    LU
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -Q X
    S- O
    ro C
    o o
    E
    
    S- CO
    :3 d)
    4-- TD
    r— •!—
    =s x
    CO O
    
    
    00
    CD
    4—*
    03
    ! 	
    3
    CJ
    
    -t-J
    S-
    ro
    (X
    
    
    
    
    
    co
    00
    CU
    CJ
    o
    t_
    Q.
    4-
    O
    O)
    QL
    "~
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    S-
    OJ
    ro
    cu
    
    00
    CO
    CJ
    o
    o
    s_
    o.
    -a
    c
    ro
    CO
    s_
    cu
    o
    CQ
    
    
    
    1 1
    
    
    
    i~_
    r- —
    CD
    *
    LO CD
    CM
    
    
    
    CO
    •
    CD CO
    0
    CTi
    "
    CM
    
    
    
    
    
    ^t-
    
    CD O
    <^-
    1 —
    
    
    
    
    cn cn
    cu cu
    z. z.
    
    
    
    
    {~}
     CO
    4- E
    co co
    0 0
    J3 cn
    i — -V
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CJ
    CJ
    u_
    CO
    +3
    •1 —
    §
    cn
    •i —
    CJ
    ro
    s_
    CJ
    
    CJ
    ro
    ro
    CJ
    -a
    r—
    U_
    
    LO
    ID
    i —
    •* CD
    LO
    
    «^J-
    LO
    O
    *
    cn o
    ,—
    
    O
    00
    
    •
    CO O
    CD
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    CO
    CO
    
    O O
    CM
    CM
    
    
    
    CD
    CD CM
    r--
    » cn
    co co
    
    
    
    LO
    
    LO i —
    CM
    LO
    
    
    
    
    LO
    f^
    i —
    
    <— O
    UD
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    TD
    CU
    CU
    -0 4-
    a>
    CU -C
    4- CO
    CU
    -C 5-
    00 4-
    CU
    S- CO
    4- S-
    S -r-
    JD r—
    CO CO
    0 O
    -•X ">s
    -Q cn
    i — -V
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    cn
    c
    •r-
    O
    ro
    s-
    o
    o
    •r-
    i —
    ro
    4J
    ro - — -
    CJ CJ
    CJ
    T3 I—
    J3
    1 00
    cn-t->
    C T-
    •r- C
    > ZJ
    o
    
    
    f — ,
    , 	
    o
    CD CD
    
    
    ^4-
    ro
    O
    .
    CM O
    f—
    
    ^.
    ,_
    O
    ,
    LO CD
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CD
    LO
    CM
    
    1 — s CD
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    CD" co
    
    CO °
    
    co
    ! 	
    r~
    
    .
    o o
    CD
    
    
    
    
    
    cn
    
    o
    
    I — . O
    r—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -a
    cu
    cu
    -§ "-
    CU J=
    4- co
    QJ
    -C S_
    00 4-
    0)
    S- CO
    CU
    S ^
    ro co
    0 0
    JD cn
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    c
    o
    • I—
    4->
    CO
    -Q
    CJ
    
    ro
    c
    S-
    cu
    !Z
    S-
    o
    00
    00
    cu
    s-
    CL
    o
    CJ
    
    
    
    CNJ CM
    O CO
    
    
    
    } 	
    r— CD
    
    0 ^
    
    
    
    
    C71 «=J-
    
    O «^
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CM CO
    
    ^- Q^
    r—.
    
    
    
    
    
    cn cn
    cu cu
    z. -z.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -a
    cu -a
    c cu
    S- c
    3 S-
    -Q
    00
    ro oo
    cn ro
    cn
    co
    +-> co
    4- E
    CO
    CU CO CO
    coo
    cn -^ ^
    c ja en
    CU r— ^
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *d- CD
    r— CO
    O CO
    
    LO O O O
    o
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II II
    
    
    
    
    
    >,
    >•> 'o
    +-> ro
    •i- a.
    o ro
    ro cj
    a.
    ro >>
    CJ S-
    cu
    >^ c
    
     O CU -*-* O
    00 i — C +J C
    >> -Q O 4-> -I- O +J
    oo _a o n i — cj ^
    o o
    C CO -C -C CO -C -C
    S O 4-> +> O 4J +J
    -a \ 5 3 ^ S S
    3 -Q en
    O r— ^
    ^_
    CQ
    -Q
     ra
    2/72
    Petroleum Industry
    9-3
    

    -------
    ta
    co
    UJ
    UJ
    cc
    UJ
    g
    Ul
    a.
    a;
    o
    o:
    o
    -o
     a>
     3
     C
     o
     o
     I
    
    
     0)
    I—
    
     ro
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ca
    
    CD
    h— 1
    | —
    
    f-yf
    0
    ^-£
    u_
    
    ^.
    o
    t— »
    CO
    OO
    s:
    LiJ
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ro
    O
    I
    CO
    o>
    -o
    o>
    -a
    c
    O> co
    cn o>
    o -o
    S- T-
    +•> X
    •p- O
    2:
    to
    C
    o
    o
    i.
    ra
    u
    o
    s-
    -a
    >>
    3:
    Ol
    c -o
    -Sx
    S- 0
    ro C
    0 O
    S- to
    3 ai
    tp- -a
    r— 'P~
    3 X
    to o
    
    to
    0)
    rt>
    "3
    o
    4->
    ra
    a.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    oo
    
    CD
    O
    O
    
    a.
    
    CT-
    o
    
    cu
    a.
    
    i—
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ii ii ii ii ii ii
    
    
    ii ii ii ii ii ii
    
    
    ii ii ii ii ii i j
    
    
    
    
    -*~^ *-~~
    O i —
    CO CO
    0 0
    CO O O • •
    CM O r^. CM O O
    O vo cn cn ro r*^ — • > — ^
    • 01 O> • •
    coo oo 2:0 2:0 voo oo p—
    r— CO CM I—
    CM p-
    
    
    
    
    II II II II II II
    
    
    
    II II II II 1 II
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II II II II II t 1
    
    
    
    c
    o
    ^ '^J ( 	
    0 ra J3
    •4-* i — i- to
    ra -r- O> CO QJ
    S_ r— -p-> -M O Cn
    OV < — to S- ro • — C
    -M -p- .r- O) 3 ^ ro
    S- ro -r-> -O +J J3 r—
    OJ 3 to ro Cn i — 4_
    •!-> T- E 3 c oo
    ro O> XI 3 -p-'-ofl)
    3 +J 3 cn p— too c >
    r— i/l i— E i — o p— CoOJ^rOp—
    Ol Oro O 3 Ora O -i— ocO4-> ro
    +J S-3 S- 3 S-> S- p-(JOO-r-tO>
    tOi — 4-> i — 4J Oi — -+-> i — 4-> O OOO>
    rooctooc raoctooc o oo p—  t_
    003S-OS-S-O >S-OS-t-O <_)!- CL r— Ol
    C 4->OO>-t->O +JOO>-r->OS- OloOrora-p-
    •p-r— C -I->C P— C +JC Oil — +J3O>i—
    rajao-rJ-p-O4->tOJ3O4->T-O-l->3ra'p-O Ol
    S-JDO3r— O3+J-QO3P— O3OCnp— OI>,OIS-
    -a o 001 o 04-> cs-c
    CO -C -C CO ^; _E -P-J CO-d-drO-C^: VOVO rOOU'i— i —
    UlO-rJ-UO+J-U O-r->+JO+->+J OlOOp— Cr— QJ
    00 p— -p- -p- p— -r- -1- £ p— -p- .p- i— -p- -p- E p— P— r— T- Ol 00
    0)-~->32^»32 3^^33^^33-p-~^^(Ut- Q-co
    o ^ cn 3 .£2 cn i — J3 cn o O) *p- 01
    Oi — -^ Oi — -^ Oi — _^toS-Q_>'
    i- ra O -r-
    a. > 02:
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    
    ^-^ ^^ *~— •*
    CJi ^- CTt
    ^3- i— CM
    0 0 O
    
    o o o
    
    
    r^- to o
    r— _
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 ) 1
    
    
    o
    
    Ol
    „
    Cn
    -r_
    ^
    Q.
    E
    ro
    CO
    
    
    cn
    c
    
    to 3
    p— O
    ra p—
    Ol -Q
    to
    s-
    to S- -p-
    • — O ro
    ro to 	
    0) to
    to Oi to
    S- J-
    a. a. 01
    E E -c
    3 O -p-»
    a. (_> o
    
    
                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                  O)
                                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                                  a>
                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                  0>
                                                                                                                  s_
                                                                                                                  ro
                                                                                                                  a.
                                                                                                           Ol
                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                           c
                                                                                                           01
                                                                                                           s_
                                                                                                           Ol
                                                                                                          >+-
                                                                                                           01
                                                                                                          a;
                                                                                                         ra  .
    .a
    ro
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                              C
                                                                                                             4->   to
                                                                                                             ra   S-
                                                                                                             E   O>
                                                                                                             I-  <->
                                                                                                             O  -i-
                                                                                                             >*-  r—
                                                                                                             C
                                                                                                             -p- CO
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                             H   r—
    
                                                                                                             «a;  cn
     9-4
                                                  EMISSION FACTORS
     2/72
    

    -------
                            10.   WOOD  PROCESSING
    
          Wood processing involves the conversion of raw wood to either pulp or pulp-
    board.  This section presents emission data both for wood pulping operations and
    for the manufacture of two types of pulpboard: papcrboard and fiber board.  The
    burning of wood waste in boilers and conical burners is not included as it is
    discussed in other sections of this publication.
    
    
    WOOD PULPING
    
    General1
          Wood pulping involves the production of cellulose from wood by dissolving
    the lignin that binds the cellulose fiber together.  The three major chemical
    processes for pulp production are  the kraft or sulfate process, the sulfite process,
    and the neutral sulfite semichemical process.  The choice of pulping process is
    determined by the product being made,  by the type of wood species available, and
    by economic considerations.   There is a lack of  valid emission data for the sulfite
    and neutral sulfite semichemical processes; therefore,  only the kraft process will
    be discussed in this section.
    
    Process Description (Kraft Process)1'2
    
          The kraft process involves the cooking of wood chips under pressure in the
    presence  of a cooking liquor in either a batch or continuous digester.   The cooking
    liquor,  an aqueous solution of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide, dissolves the
    lignin that binds the cellulose  fibers tobether.
    
          When cooking is completed, the bottom of the digester is suddenly opened,
    and its contents are forced into the blow tank.  Here the major portion of the
    spent cooking liquor, which contains the dissolved lignin,  is drained, and the pulp
    enters the initial stage of -washing.  From the blow tank the pulp passes through
    the knotter, where unreacted chunks of wood are removed.  The pulp is then pro-
    cessed through intermittent stages  of washing and bleaching,  after which it is
    pressed and dried into the finished  product.
    
          Most of the chemicals from the  spent cooking liquor are recovered for re-
    use in subsequent cooks.  These spent chemicals and organics,  called  "black
    liquor, " are concentrated in multiple-effect  evaporators and/or direct-contact
    evaporators.
    
          The concentrated black  liquor is then sprayed into the recovery furnace,
    •where the organic content supports combustion.  The inorganic compounds fall
    to the bottom of the furnace and are withdrawn as a molten smelt, which is
    dissolved to form a solution called  "green liquor. "  The green liquor is then
    pumped from the smelt-dissolving tank,  treated  with slaked lime, and  clarified.
    The resulting liquor,  referred to as "white liquor, " is the cooking liquor used in
    the digesters.
    2/72                                   10-1
    

    -------
    Emissions and Controls3
    
          Particulate emissions from the kraft process occur primarily from the
    recovery furnace, the lime kiln,  and the smelt-dissolving tank.   They are caused
    mainly by the carryover of solids plus the  sublimation and condensation of
    inorganic  chemicals.
    
          The  characteristic kraft-mill odor is caused principally by the presence of a
    variable mixture of  hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.  Hydrogen sulfide is
    emitted from the breakdown of the weak base,  sodium sulfide, which is character-
    istic of kraft cooking liquor.  It may also be  generated by improper operation of a
    recovery furnace.  Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions
    with the wood component lignin.   Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation
    of mercaptan groups derived from the lignins.
    
          Sulfur dioxide  emissions in the kraft  process result from the oxidation of
    reduced sulfur compounds.  A potential source of sulfur dioxide  is the recovery
    boilers, where reduced  sulfur gases present can be oxidized  in the furnace
    atmosphere.
    
          Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process
    include the recovery furnace and lime kilns.   The major  cause of carbon monoxide
    emissions is furnace operation well above  rated capacity, making it impossible to
    maintain oxidizing conditions.
    
          Rather than presenting a lengthy discussion on the control  techniques pre-
    sently available for  each phase of the kraft process,  the most widely used controls
    are shown,  where applicable,  in the table for emis sion factors.  Table  10-1 presents
    these emission factors for both controlled  and  uncontrolled sources.
    
    PULPBOARD
    
    General4
          Pulpboard manufacturing includes the manufacture of fibrous boards from a
    pulp slurry.  This includes two distinct types of product, paperboard and fiber-
    board.  Paperboard is a general term that describes a sheet 0. 012 inch (0. 30 mm)
    or more in thickness made of fibrous material on a paper machine.    Fiberboard,
    also referred to  as particle  board,  is much thicker than paperboard and is made
    somewhat differently.
    
          There are two distinct phases in the  conversion of wood to pulpboard:  (1)  the
    manufacture of pulp from the raw wood, and (2) the manufacture of pulpboard from
    the pulp.  This section deals only with the  latter as the first  is  covered under the
    section on wood pulping  industry.
    
    Process Description4
          In the manufacture of paperboard,  the stock is  sent through screens into the
    head box, from which it flows  onto a moving screen.  Approximately  15 percent
    of the water is removed by suction boxes located under the screen.   Another 50 to
    60 percent of the moisture content is removed in the drying section.  The dried
    board then enters the calendar stack, which  imparts the final surface  to the
    product.
    10-2                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
    (C
     CD
    t:  ~°
      -a   o;
    <    i
    U-   4-
         T3
          O)
     OO
     OO
      I
         4-
          O
             O
    
             CJ
          a> oo
         •r-  00
          O)  i—i
     OJ  =5
    
    
     ro
    
    
    «\
    rr"
    OOT3
    rv r>*
    00
    "00
    in o:
    
    D:
    
    
    
    
    £Z Q
    OJ OJ
    O "i — '
    i- 4-
    -O i—
    >> =3
    in co
    
    
    
    CJ
    d)
    c -a
    O 't~~
    -Q X
    1- 0
    to E
    cj> o
    £
    
    _Q
    CM
    O
    00
    4- — *
    =3
    M — co
    i— O)
    
    OO T-
    X
    o
    
    -5
    
    
    o
    CO
    CD
    
    to
    
    3
    O
    •r-
    4-
    rO
    a.
    
    H-
    s:
    
    CD
    
    
    
    C
    O
    
    -^^
    ^
    1—
    
    ~~^
    CD
    
    =
    O
    4->
    ~^^
    -Q
    I—
    CD
    ^
    
    
    C
    o
    
    ~\
    -Q
    h;
    ^^
    cn
    v
    
    
    c
    o
    
    ^^
    _r~l
    i —
    
    I—
    S
    
    cn
    
    
    
    
    c
    o
    ^
    -Q
    t —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4- •—
    0 0
    
    CU -M
    O- C
    >> 0
    1— 0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    a>
    o
    4-
    3
    0
    00
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LO
    .
    i —
    
    
    
    
    O
    .
    oo
    
    LO
    O
    (
    o
    
    
    , —
    •
    o
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -a
    0)
    -fj
    fO
    0)
    
    4->
    c
    ^^
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4-
    o
    4->
    to
    
    E "3
    to E
    4-> 3
    (_)
    3 0
    
    I—
    03
    
    , —
    .
    O
    
    
    
    
    CM
    
    O
    
    , —
    O
    m
    O
    
    CNJ
    O
    •
    o
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -a
    0)
    4_>
    ra
    CU
    4-
    4->
    C"
    • — ^
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    E
    O>
    OJ
    s-
    CJ
    I/)
    
    -a
    E
    fO
    
    CO
    4-
    O)
    .E
    t/i
    fO
    3
    
    CM
    .
    CD
    
    
    
    
    «^J-
    
    O
    
    LO
    CM
    
    0
    
    
    LO
    
    O
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    •a
    0)
    4-3
    to
    O)
    S-
    4->
    C
    — fr
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4->
    O
    O) CO
    4- S-
    4- 0
    CU 4->
    t tT3
    0) 4-
    r— O
    o. a.
    T- to
    4-> >
    •— 0)
    3
    s
    LO LO
    ^d~ ^"
    
    0 0
    
    
    
    
    en en
    , .
    o a
    
    
    
    
    CO CO
    
    
    
    
    CM CM
    0 0
    ro ro
    
    
    
    
    
    o o
    CO CO
    
    LO LO
    . •
    CM C\J
    
    
    
    
    
    o o
    . .
    LO LO
    
    
    
    LO LO
    * .
    LO r^-
    p^.
    
    
    
    
    
    i— LO
    LO i —
    r—
    
    
    
    U CO
    •i— S-
    ~U -t-3 O
    a> ro 4->
    4J 4-> to
    tO CO 4->
    OJ O  4-> 'i —
    C CJ O
    =D O) OJ
    r- S_
    LU O-
    
    
    +J
    o
    (O
    4J
    CO C
    S- O
    0) CJ
    I — 1 C/)
    •t- 4-> 4-
    o u o
    -Q O) 4->
    S- 113
    >,-r- S-
    s- -a o
    o) a.
    > TD to
    0 C >
    CJ IO O)
    0)
    o:
    LO
    ^j-
    
    o
    
    
    
    
    en
    ,
    o
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    
    
    
    CM
    0
    ro
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    CO
    
    LO
    .
    00
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    .
    LO
    
    
    
    LO
    .
    00
    CSJ
    
    
    
    
    
    |V^
    ^3-
    
    
    
    S-
    0)
    -Q
    f-\
    ^3
    S-
    o
    
    
    'r—
    S-
    
    4->
    C
    0)
    ^
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CXI
    o
    
    o
    
    
    
    ^t~
    o
    .
    o
    LO
    , — .
    CD
    .
    O
    
    oo
    o
    
    o
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    OJ
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -£j
    0)
    4-J
    to
    O)
    £_
    4->
    E
    ^ — t
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    cn
    c
    •i—
    >
    r_
    0
    (/>
    t/>
    •1—
    "O
    _^
    -4J C
    i — ($
    a> +j
    P^
    oo
    
    oo oo
    . .
    0 0
    
    
    
    
    CO CO
    
    C3 CZ)
    
    
    LO LO
    . ,
    0 0
    
    
    0 0
    . .
    """ •""
    LO LO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O O
    
    
    
    1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1
    
    
    
    
    LO
    .
    OJ OJ
    CM
    
    
    
    
    
    LO «d-
    r3-
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -a
    
    4_> a)
    to -Q
    0) -Q
    
    4J ^_
    E O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    E
    i —
    • i—
    •^
    
    CU
    £
    >r—
    — 1
    LO
    OJ
    1 1
    0
    
    
    
    
    LO
    1 1
    o
    LO
    o
    O 1 1
    ,
    o
    
    , —
    0
    1 1
    0
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    LO
    oo
    1
    CO O
    oo
    
    
    
    
    r^
    1 OJ O
    r —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    "O "O
    0) CU 4-
    4J 4-> O)
    to to -Q
    oj o) .a
    
    4J 4-> S_
    E E CJ
    
    
    
    
    
    s_
    0)
    CO
    c
    Q)
    -a
    E
    o -a
    O O)
    -Q O)
    CU 1 4-
    E -a cu
    •r- Q) E
    4-> M -i-
    C -F- 0
    
    Q. -r- to
    4- 13 O
    3 i~~
    1— LL.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    OJ
    U
    E
    OJ
    S-
    QJ
    4-
    
                                                                                                              OO   -r-
                                                                                                                   4-
                                                                                                                   O)
                                                                                                               4-   CO
                                                                                                               i—   0)
    
                                                                                                               OO
                                                                                                                    O)
                                                                                                                I   -E
                                                                                                               OO   E
                                                                                                               Of.  T-
    
                                                                                                                «   CO
                                                                                                               00  4->
    
                                                                                                               to   to
    
                                                                                                               Q.   Cu
    
                                                                                                               3   3
                                                                                                               4-   CU
                                                                                                               flj  4-
                                                                                                               rn
                                                                                                               oo
                                                                                                                    E
                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                  a>
    2/72
                                                        Wood  Processing
          10-3
    

    -------
         In the manufacture of fiberboard,  the slurry that remains after pulping is
    washed and sent to the stock chests where sizing is  added.   The refined fiber from
    the stock chests is fed to the head box of the board machine.  The stock is next
    fed onto the forming screens and sent to dryers, after which the dry product is
    finally cut  and fabricated.
    
    Emissions 4
                                                                             7-9
         Emissions from the paperboard machine consist only of water vapor,     and
    little or no particulate matter  is emitted from the dryers.  Particulates are
    emitted, however, from the drying operation of fiberboard.  Additional particulate
    emissions  occur from the cutting and sending operations, but no data •were avail-
    able to estimate these emissions.  Emission factors for pulpboard manufacturing
    are shown  in Table 10-2.
                             Table  10-2.  PARTICULATE EMISSION
                            rACTORS  FOR PULPBOARD MANUFACTURING
                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
    Type of product
    Paperboard
    Fiberboardb
    Emissions
    Ib/ton
    Neg
    0.6
    kg/MT
    Neg
    0.3
                            aEmission factors expressed as units
                             per unit weight of  finished oroduct.
                            Reference 10.
    
     REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10
    
      1.  Hendrickson, E. R.  et al.   Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood
         Pulping Industry.  Vol.  I.  U.S. DHEW,  PHS, National Air Pollution Control
         Administration.  Final report under contract No. CPA 22-69-18.  March  15,
         1970.
    
      2.  Duprey,  R. L.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  DHEW,
         PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.  Durham, N.  C.  PHS Publi-
         cation No. 999-AP-42.   1968.  p.  43.
    
      3,  Hendrickson, E. R.  et al.   Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood
         Pulping Industry.  Vol.  III. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
         Administration.  Final report under contract No, CPA-22-69-18.  March 15,
         1970.
      4.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Final Report.  Resources Research, Incor-
         porated,  Reston, Virginia.  Prepared for National Air Pollution Control
         Administration under contract No.  CPA-22-69 - 1 1 9.   April 1970.
      5.   The Dictionary of Paper.  New York,  American Paper and Pulp Association,
          1940.
     10-4                             EMISSION FACTORS                            2/72
    

    -------
     6.  Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources.
        U.S.  DREW,  PHS,  EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration.
        Washington, D. C.  Publication No. AP-65.  March 1970.  p. 4-24  ihrough
        4-25.
    
     7.  Hough, G.  W. and L.  J. Gross.  Air Emission Control in a  Modern Pulp and
        Paper Mill.  Amer.  Paper Industry.   5_1_:36, February 1969.
    
     8.  Pollution Control Progress.   J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  17:410, June
        1967.                                                         ~~
    
     9.  Private communication between I.  Gellman and the National  Council of the
        Paper Industry for  Clean Air and Stream Improvement.   New York.  October
        28,  1969.
    
    10.  Communication between Resources Research, Inc. , Reston,  Virginia, and
        New Jersey State Department of Health,  Trenton,  New Jersey.  July  1969.
     2/72                               Wood Processing                              10-5
    

    -------
    

    -------
                           APPENDIX
    2/72                         A-l
    

    -------
          Table A-l.   PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY SIZE OF PARTICLES FROM SELECTED
                           SOURCES WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
    Tynp of source
    Stationary combustion
    Bituminous coal
    Pulverized
    Cyclone
    Stoker
    Anthracite coal
    Fuel oil
    Natural gas
    Solid waste disposal
    Refuse incineration
    Mobile combustion
    Gasoline-powered motor vehicles
    Diesel -powered motor vehicles
    Aircraft
    Chemical process
    Phosphoric acid
    Soap and Detergents
    Sulfuric acid
    Food and agriculature
    Alfalfa dehydrating
    
    Cotton ginning
    Feed and grain
    Fish meal
    Phosphate fertilizer
    Metallurgical
    Primary aluminum
    Primary zinc
    Iron and steel
    Sintering
    Blast furnace
    Open hearth
    Basic oxygen
    Bessemer converter
    Secondary aluminum
    Brass and bronze
    Gray iron foundry
    Secondary lead
    Secondary steel
    Secondary zinc
    Mineral products
    Asphalt batching
    Asphalt roofing
    Ceramic clay
    Castable refractories
    Cement
    Concrete
    Frit
    Glass
    Gypsum
    Particles by size range, %
    <5 y
    
    
    15
    65
    4
    35
    50
    100
    
    12
    
    100
    63
    100
    
    100
    5
    100
    
    5 tO 10 y
    
    
    17
    10
    6
    5
    NAa
    -
    
    10
    
    -
    NA
    -
    
    -
    15
    -
    
    Average size
    2 to 10 y
    NA
    5
    1
    6
    
    13
    14
    
    0
    NA
    46
    99.5
    -
    34
    100
    18
    95
    60
    100
    
    35
    100
    36
    100
    22
    13
    45
    26
    NA
    15
    1
    6
    
    12
    17
    
    0
    NA
    22
    0.5
    -
    30
    -
    8
    3
    14
    -
    
    25
    -
    NA
    -
    25
    21
    15
    NA
    95% <10 y
    10 to 20 y
    
    
    20
    8
    11
    8
    NA
    -
    
    15
    
    -
    NA
    -
    
    -
    40
    -
    
    -
    
    NA
    20
    3
    10
    
    12
    40
    
    0
    NA
    17
    0
    -
    23
    -
    12
    2
    n
    -
    
    17
    -
    NA
    -
    25
    27
    15
    NA
    NA
    20 to 44 y
    
    
    23
    7
    18
    7
    NA
    -
    
    18
    
    -
    0
    -
    
    -
    30
    -
    
    -
    
    NA
    45
    8
    8
    
    13
    NA
    
    15
    NA
    10
    0
    100
    10
    -
    14
    0
    9
    
    
    20
    -
    40
    -
    20
    25
    15
    NA
    NA
    >44 y
    
    
    25
    10
    61
    45
    0
    -
    
    45
    
    -
    0
    -
    
    -
    10
    -
    
    -
    
    40
    15
    87
    70
    
    50
    NA
    
    85
    70
    5
    0
    -
    3
    -
    48
    0
    6
    -
    
    3
    -
    6
    -
    8
    14
    10
    0
    NA
    A-2
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
            Table A-l  (continued).  PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY SIZE OF FAIT; 1C!.
                        FROM SELECTED SOURCES WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
    Type of source
    Mineral products (continued)
    Lime
    Mineral wool
    Perlite
    Phosphate rock
    Stone quarrying and processing
    Crushina
    Conveying and screening
    Petroleum refinery
    Catalyst regenerator
    Wood processing
    Fiberboard
    Particles by size range, /„
    <5 p
    
    2
    0.5
    32
    80
    
    5
    30
    
    50
    
    NA
    5 to 10 p 10 to 20 p ! 20 to 44 v
    ......
    8
    2.5
    10
    15
    
    5
    
    
    24 38
    1 0 ?7
    10
    ! o
    5 0
    
    
    5 10
    20 20
    
    15
    
    NA
    1 Q
    W
    
    NA
    
    NA
    NA
    
    NA
    -•44 p
    .._ .-
    28
    60
    35
    0
    
    75
    12
    
    NA
    
    25
      NA =  no further breakdown of particle distribution available.
    2/72
    Appendix
    A-3
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ro
    CO
    CD
    cr>
    O
    LU-
    
    GO
    ?"
    CD
    i — i
    GO
    GO
    1 — 1
    LLJ
    
    LU
    Q
    ~^
    
    O
    I—
    ^
    
    
    CVJ
    1
    ,
    .1
    
    
    
    
    
    OJ
    TP
    *i —
    X
    O
    E
    c:
    o
    -Q
    <^_
    ro
    C_J>
    
    
    
    
    CO
    CU
    TD
    X
    o
    
    33
    
    , —
    ZJ
    (_/•)
    
    
    
    CO
    OJ
    -I—3
    r^
    U
    rB
    Q-
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    s-
    i^
    ^r
    
    ^O
    i —
    i-
    >,
    - —
    CO
    CI
    o
    4-*
    
    O
    S-
    s:
    
    CO
    o
    >
    CO
    c:
    O
    
    CO
    o
    1 —
    ^
    p
    s:
    
    CO
    o
    S-
    co
    c
    o
    +J
    
    0
    
    i-
    ^r
    ^"
    
    CO
    o
    s-
    ^
    CO
    c:
    o
    +J
    
    o
    t_
    1—
    s:
    
    ^O
    C3
    S-
    co
    £=
    O
    
    
    O
    
    CD
    O
    i-
    =3
    O
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    i — un ro cvj en
    .....
    cr> CD r-~ o i —
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O CO r— CVJ r--.
    .....
    O O CO O r—
    I —
    
    co en i — cvj r--.
    o i — un >s- r^
    i —
    
    
    
    
    
    r-^ CD co co LO
    Oi — CO -^- CO
    , —
    
    
    
    r^- i — cri co c^
    
    r— r^- r\ co un
    CO I 	
    
    
    
    CTI co co r^ en
    .....
    i — r^ ro en co
    CO i —
    
    
    
    i — i — r^ co LO
    . . . « .
    CV- CD O CD O
    CVJ
    
    
    
    
    •3- i — co co co
    .....
    ^1- O CD 1^. O
    CVJ
    
    r— o i— co r~^
    
    CO i — i — CO OO
    
    
    
    en i — cvj en co
    ....
    co i — i — r^ en
    
    
    CO
    o 01 o o
    ^>^ »r— -t— > i 	 'i — r— • CU
    S-4~>coro 4->n3coC
    iT3 c/) ro CO CO *i — CO (T3
    CI33O J3i-d>>—
    O r"^ f~> fJJ o 4— J (_) r—
    •r-S"OcOi — E coo OJ
    •!-> O -i- -r- T- O Z! S- 0
    rOO i — T3 -QU "OCX CO
    +J O O C •.—
    co GO 2: i— i s:
    
    CO
    
    CO
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    .
    o
    CVJ
    
    ^
    01
    CVJ
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    CVJ
    ro
    
    
    
    CO
    •
    o
    CTl
    
    
    
    1 —
    
    o
    0
    '
    
    
    o
    •
    o
    CO
    
    
    
    
    CVJ
    
    CO
    ro
    
    
    *
    en
    CVJ
    
    
    ro
    .
    oo
    CVJ
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    , —
    (O
    4-}
    O
    
                                                                O)
                                                                o
                                                                c
                                                                O)
    
                                                                0>
                                                                <+-
                                                                O)
                                                                o:
    A-4
    EMISSION FACTORS
    2/72
    

    -------
       Table A-3.  DISTRIBUTION BY  PARTICLE  SIZE OF AVERAGE COLLECTION  EFFICIENCIES
    
                        FOR VARIOUS  PARTICULATE  CONTROL  EQUIPMENT9'b
    fype of collector
    Baffled settling chamber
    Simple cyclone
    Long-cone cyclone
    Multiple cyclone
    (12-in. diameter)
    Multiple cyclone
    (6-i n. diameter)
    Irrigated long-cone
    cyclone
    Electrostatic
    precipi tator
    Irrigated electrostatic
    precipi tator
    Spray tower
    Self -induced spray
    scrubber
    Disintegrator scrubber
    Venturi scrubber
    Wet-impingement scrubber
    Baghouse
    Efficiency, %
    Overall
    58.6
    65.3
    84.2
    74.2
    93.8
    91.0
    97.0
    99.0
    94.5
    93.6
    98.5
    99.5
    97.9
    99.7
    Particle size range, y
    0 to 5
    7.5
    12
    40
    25
    63
    63
    72
    97
    90
    85
    93
    99
    96
    99.5
    5 to 10
    22
    33
    79
    54
    95
    93
    94.5
    99
    96
    96
    98
    99.5
    98.5
    100
    10 to 20
    43
    57
    92
    74
    98
    96
    97
    99.5
    98
    98
    99
    100
    99
    100
    20 to 44
    80
    82
    95
    95
    99.5
    98.5
    99.5
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    >44
    90
    91
    97
    98
    TOO
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
    100
        ar
         References  2  and  3.
    
        3Data  based  on  standard  silica  dust with  the  following  particle  size  and
         weight  distribution:
                                Particle  size
                                  range,  p
            Percent
           by weight
                                   0  to   5
                                   5  to  10
                                  10  to  20
                                  20  to  44
                                     >44
              20
              10
              15
              20
              35
    2/72
    Appendix
    A-5
    

    -------
                    Table A-4.  THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
    Type of fuel
    Sol id fuels
    Bituminous coal
    Btu (gross)
    
    (21.0 to 28.0) x
    106/ton
    Anthracite coal 25.3 x 106/ton
    Lignite
    1,'ood
    Liquid fuels
    Residual fuel oil
    Distillate fuel oil
    Gaseous fuels
    Natural gas
    Liquefied petroleum gas
    Butane
    Propane
    16.0 x 106/ton
    21 .0 x 106/cord
    6.3 x 106/bbl
    5.9 x 106/bbl
    
    I,050/ft3
    
    97,400/gal
    90,500/gal
    kcal
    
    (5.8 to 7.8) x
    1 06/MT
    7.03 x 106/!1T
    4.45 x 106/MT
    1.47 x I06/m3
    10 x 103/liter
    9.35 x 103/liter
    
    9,350/m3
    
    6,480/ liter
    6 ,0307 liter
                              Table  A-5.   WEIGHTS OF SELECTED
                                        SUBSTANCES
    Type of substance
    Asphalt
    Butane, liquid at 60° F
    Crude oil
    Distillate oil
    Gasol ine
    Propane, liquid at 60° F
    Residual oil
    Water
    Ib/gal
    8.57
    4.84
    7.08
    7.05
    6.17
    4.24
    7.88
    8.4
    g/liter
    1,030
    579
    850
    845
    739
    507
    944
    1,000
    A-6
    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                   2/72
    

    -------
                            Table A-6.  GENERAL CONVERSION  FACTORS
                    Type  of  substance
                Conversion factors
             Fuel
               Oil
               Natural  gas
    
             Agricultural  products
               Corn
               Milo
               Oats
               Barley
               Wheat
               Cotton
             Mineral products
               Brick
               Cement
               Cement
               Concrete
             Mobile sources
               Gasoline-powered  motor  vehicle
               Diesel-powered  motor  vehicle
               Steamship
               Motorship
             Other substances
               Paint
    
               Varnish
               Whiskey
               Water
             Miscellaneous  factors
    
             Metric system
         1  bbl  = 42 gal  = 159 liters
         1  therm = 100,000 Btu = 95 ft3
         1  therm = 25,000 kcal = 2.7 rn3
    
         1  bu = 56 Ib =  25.4 kg
         1  bu = 56 Ib =  25.4 kg
         1  bu = 32 Ib =  14.5 kg
         1  bu = 48 Ib =  21.8 kg
         1  bu = 60 Ib =  27.2 kg
         1  bale = 500 Ib = 226 kg
    
         1  brick = 6.5 Ib = 2.95 kg
         1  bbl  = 375 Ib  = 170 kg
         1  yd3 = 2500 Ib = 1130 kg
         1  yd3 = 4000 Ib = 1820 kg
    
         12.5 mi/gal =5.32 km/liter
         5.1  mi/gal =2.16 km/liter
         44 gal/naut mi  = 90 liters/km
         14 gal/naut mi  = 28.6 liters/km
         1 gal  = 10 to 15 Ib = 4.5 to
           6.82 kg '
         1 gal  = 7 Ib = 3.18 kg
         1 bbl  = 50 gal = 188 liters
         1 gal  = 8.4 Ib = 3.81 kg
         1 Ib = 7000 grains = 453.6 grams
         1 ft3  = 7.48 gal = 28.32 liters
         1 ft = 0.3048 m
         1 mi = 1609 m
         1 Ib = 453.6 g
         1 ton  (short) = 907.2 kg
         1 ton  (short) = 0.9072 MT
           (metric ton)
    2/72
    Appendix
    A-7
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX
    
    1.   Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions,  1968.  U.S.  DREW,  PHS,
        EHS,  National Air  Pollution Control Administration.  Raleigh,  N.C.
        Publication  No.  AP-73.  August  1970.
    
    2.   Stairmand,  C.  J.   The Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equip-
        ment.  J. Inst. Fuel.   ^9:58-80.   1956.
    
    3.   Siairmand,  C.  J.   Removal of Grit, Dust,  and Fume from Exhaust Gases from
        Chemical Engineering  Processes.   London. Chem.  Eng. December 1965.
        p.  310-326.
     •'US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1972 484/433 1-3
    A-8                               EMISSION FACTORS                             2/72
    

    -------