Compilation Of
Air Pollutant
Emission Factors
Second Edition
-------
-------
COMPILATION
OF
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
(Second Edition)
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
April 1973
-------
The AP series of reports is published by the Technical Publications Branch of the Information Services Division of
the Office of Administration for the Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to
report the results of scientific and engineering studies, and information of general interest in the field of air
pollution. Information reported in this series includes coverage of intramural activities and of cooperative studies
conducted in conjunction with state and local agencies, research institutes, and industrial organizations. Copies of
AP reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit
organizations — as supplies permit — from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or from the Superintendent of Documents.
Publication No. AP-42
11
-------
PREFACE
This document reports data available on those atmospheric emissions for which sufficient information exists to
establish realistic emission factors. The information contained herein is based on Public Health Service
Publication 999-AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, by R. L. Duprey, and on a revised and
expanded version of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors that was published by the Environmental
Protection Agency in February 1972. The scope of this second edition has been broadened to reflect expanding
knowledge of emissions.
Chapters and sections of this document have been arranged in a format that permits easy and convenient
replacement of material as information reflecting more accurate and refined emission factors is published and
distributed. To speed dissemination of emission information, chapters or sections that contain new data will be
issued - separate from the parent report - whenever they are revised.
To facilitate the addition of future materials, the punched, loose-leaf format was selected. This approach
permits the document to be placed in a three-ring binder or to be secured by rings, rivets, or other fasteners;
future supplements or revisions can then be easily inserted. The lower left- or right-hand corner of each page of
the document bears a notation that indicates the date the information was issued.
Future supplements or revisions will be distributed in the same manner as this parent document. If your copy
was obtained by purchase or through special order, you may obtain the updated chapters or sections as they are
issued by completing and mailing the form below.
Comments and suggestions regarding this document should be directed to the attention of Director,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
Mailing Address
Air Pollution Technical Information Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
I would like to receive future supplements or revisions to AP-42 as they are issued. I do not receive EPA
documents through the regular mailing lists.
Name
Address
Ill
-------
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-22-69-119.
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. Bylines identify the contributions
of individual authors who revised specific sections and chapters.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF TABLES xiv
ABSTRACT xvii
INTRODUCTION 1
1. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES 1.1-1
1.1 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION 1.1-1
1.1.1 General 1.1-1
1.1.2 Emissions and Controls 1.1-1
1.1.2.1 Particulates 1.1-1
1.1.2.2 Sulfur Oxides 1.1-2
1.1.2.3 Nitrogen Oxides 1.1-2
1.1.2.4 Other Gases 1.1-2
References for Section 1.1 1.1-4
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION 1.2-1
1.2.1 General 1.2-1
1.2.2 Emissions and Controls 1.2-1
References for Section 1.2 1.2-3
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION 1.3-1
1.3.1 Generall 1.3-1
1.3.2 Emissions 1.3-1
References for Section 1.3 1.3-3
1.4 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION 1.4-1
1.4.1 General 1.4-1
1.4.2 Emissions and Controls 1.4-1
References for Section 1.4 1.4-3
1.5 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS CONSUMPTION 1.5-1
1.5.1 General 1.5-1
1.5.2 Emissions 1.5-1
References for Section 1.5 1.5-1
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS 1.6-1
1.6.1 General 1.6-1
1.6.2 Firing Practices 1.6-1
1.6.3 Emissions 1.6-1
References for Section 1.6 1.6-2
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 2.1-1
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION 2.1-2
2.1.1 Process Description 2.1-2
2.1.2 Definitions of Incinerator Categories 2.1-2
2.1.3 Emissions and Controls 2.1-5
References for Section 2.1 2.1-6
2.2 AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION 2.2-1
2.2.1 Process Description 2.2-1
2.2.2 Emissions and Controls 2.2-1
References for Section 2.2 2.2-2
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
2.3 CONICAL BURNERS 2.3-1
2.3.1 Process Description 2.3-1
2.3.2 Emissions and Controls 2.3-1
References for Section 2.3 2.3-3
2.4 OPEN BURNING 2.4-1
2.4.1 General 2.4-1
2.4.2 Emissions 2.4-1
References for Section 2.4 2.4-2
3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES 3.1.1-1
DEFINITIONS USED IN CHAPTER 3 3.1.1-1
3.1 HIGHWAY VEHICLES 3.1.1-3
3.1.1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles 3.1.1-5
^/ 3.1.2 -Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles 3.1.2-1
V 3.1.3 Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.3-1
v/3.1.4 Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles 3.1.4-1
v/3.1.5 Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.5-1
3.1.6 Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles 3.1.6-1
/ 3.1.7 Motorcycles 3.1.7-1
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY, MOBILE SOURCES 3.2.1-1
3.2.1 Aircraft 3.2.1-1
3.2.2 Locomotives 3.2.2-1
3.2.3 Inboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.3-1
3.2.4 Outboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.4-1
3.2.5 Small, General Utility Engines 3.2.5-1
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY, STATIONARY SOURCES 3.3.1-1
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines 3.3.1-1
3.3.2 Heavy-Duty, General Utility, Gaseous Fueled Engines 3.3.2-1
4. EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES 4.1-1
4.1 DRY CLEANING 4.1-1
4.1.1 General 4.1-1
4.1.2 Emissions and Controls 4.1-1
References for Section 4.1 4.1-2
4.2 SURFACE COATING 4.2-1
4.2.1 Process Description 4.2-1
4.2.2 Emissions and Controls 4.2-1
References for Section 4.2 4.2-2
4.3 PETROLEUM STORAGE 4.3-1
4.3.1 General 4.3-1
4.3.2 Emissions 4.3-1
References for Section 4.3 4.3-1
4.4 GASOLINE MARKETING 4.4-1
4.4.1 General 4.4-1
4.4.2 Emissions and Controls 4.4-1
References for Section 4.4 4.4-2
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY 5.1-1
5.1 ADIPIC ACID 5.1-1
5.1.1 Process Description 5.1-1
5.1.2 Emissions 5.1-1
References for Section 5.1 5.1-2
VI
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
5.2 AMMONIA 5.2-1
5.2.1 Process Description 5.2-1
5.2.2 Emissions and Controls 52-1
References for Section 5.2 5.2-2
5.3 CARBON BLACK > 5.3-1
5.3.1 Channel Black Process 5 34
5.3.2 Furnace Process 5.3.!
5.3.3 Thermal Black Process 5.34
References for Section 5.3 5 3_2
5.4 CHARCOAL 544
5.4.1 Process Description 5.4-1
5.4.2 Emissions and Controls 5.4-1
References for Section 5.4 5 44
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI 5^54
5.5.1 Process Description 5.5-1
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls 5.5-1
References for Section 5.5 5.54
5.6 EXPLOSIVES 5.6-1
5.6.1 General 5.6-1
5.6.2 TNT Production 5.6-1
5.6.3 Nitrocellulose Production 5.6-1
5.6.4 Emissions 5.6-1
References for Section 5.6 5.6-2
5.7 HYDROCHLORIC ACID 5.7-1
5.7.1 Process Description 5.7-1
5.7.2 Emissions 5.7-1
References for Section 5.7 5.7-1
5.8 HYDROFLUORIC ACID 5.8-1
5.8.1 Process Description 5.8-1
5.8.2 Emissions and Controls 5.8-1
References for Section 5.8 5.8-2
5.9 NITRIC ACID 5^94
5.9.1 Process Description 5.94
5.9.1.1 Weak Acid Production 594
5.9.1.2 High-Strength Acid Production 594
5.9.2 Emissions and Controls 5.9-3
References for Section 5.9 5 9.4
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH 540-1
5.10.1 Paint Manufacturing 5.10-1
5.10.2 Varnish Manufacturing 5.10-1
References for Section 5.10 5 jQ-2
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID 5JO-2
5.11.1 Wet Process 5.11-1
5.11.2 Thermal Process 5.11-1
References for Section 5.11 5.11-2
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE 542-1
5.12.1 Process Description 5.12-1
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls 5.12-1
References for Section 5.12 5.12-1
5.13 PLASTICS 543-1
5.13.1 Process Description 5.13-1
5.13.2 Emissions and Controls 5.13-1
References for Section 5.13 5.13-2
vii
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
5.14 PRINTING INK 5.14_1
5.14.1 Process Description 5.14-1
5.14.2 Emissions and Controls 5.14-2
References for Section 5.14 5.14-2
5.15 SOAP AND DETERGENTS '. . 5.15.1
5.15.1 Soap Manufacture 5.15-1
5.15.2 Detergent Manufacture 5.15-1
References for Section 5.15 5 15-2
5.16 SODIUM CARBONATE .' . 5^6-!
5.16.1 Process Description 5.16-1
5.16.2 Emissions 5.16-1
References for Section 5.16 5.16-2
5.17 SULFURICACID 5.17-1
5.17.1 Process Description 5.17-1
5.17.1.1 Elemental Sulfur-Burning Plants 5.17-1
5.17.1.2 Spent-Acid and Hydrogen Sulfide Burning Plants 5.174
5.17.1.3 Sulfide Ores and Smelter Gas Plants 5.174
5.17.2 Emissions and Controls 5.174
5.17.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide 5.174
5.17.2.2 Acid Mist 5.17-5
References for Section 5.17 5.17-8
5.18 SULFUR 5.18-1
5.18.1 Process Description 5.18-1
5.18.2 Emissions and Controls 5.18-1
References for Section 5.18 5.18-2
5.19 SYNTHETIC FIBERS 5.19-1
5.19.1 Process Description 5.19-1
5.19.2 Emissions and Controls 5.19-1
References for Section 5.19 5.19-2
5.20 SYNTHETIC RUBBER 5.20-1
5.20.1 Process Description 5.20-1
5.20.2 Emissions and Controls 5.20-1
References for Section 5.20 5.20-2
5.21 TEREPHTHALIC ACID 5.21-1
5.21.1 Process Description 5.21-1
5.21.2 Emissions 5.21-1
References for Sections 5.21 5.21-1
6. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 6.1-1
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING 6.1-1
6.1.1 General 6.1-1
6.1.2 Emissions and Controls 6.1-1
References for Section 6.1 6.1-2
6.2 COFFEE ROASTING 6.2-1
6.2.1 Process Description 6.2-1
6.2.2 Emissions 6.2-1
References for Section 6.2 6.2-2
6.3 COTTON GINNING 6.3-1
6.3.1 General 6.3-1
6.3.2 Emissions and Controls 6.3-1
References for Section 6.3 6.3-1
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS 6,4-1
6.4.1 General 6.4-1
6.4.2 Emissions 6.4-1
References for Section 6.4 6.4-1
viii
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
6.5 FERMENTATION 6.5-1
6.5.1 Process Description 6.5-1
6.5.2 Emissions 6.5-1
References for Section 6.5 6.5-2
6.6 FISH PROCESSING 6.6-1
6.6.1 Process Description 6.6-1
6.6.2 Emissions and Controls 6.6-1
References for Section 6.6 6.6-2
6.7 MEAT SMOKEHOUSES 6.7-1
6.7.1 Process Description 6.7-1
6.7.2 Emissions and Controls 6.7-1
References for Section 6.7 6.7-2
6.8 NITRATE FERTILIZERS 6.8-1
6.8.1 General 6.8-1
6.8.2 Emissions and Controls 6.8-1
References for Section 6.8 6.8-2
6.9 ORCHARD HEATERS 6.9-1
6.9.1 General 6.9-1
6.9.2 Emissions 6.9-1
References for Section 6.9 6.9-4
6.10 PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS 6.10-1
6.10.1 Normal Superphosphate 6.10-1
6.10.1.1 General 6.10-1
6.10.1.2 Emissions 6.10-2
6.10.2 Triple Superphosphate 6.10-2
6.10.2.1 General 6.10-2
6.10.2.2 Emissions 6.10-2
6.10.3 Ammonium Phosphate 6.10-2
6.10.3.1 General 6.10-2
6.10.3.2 Emissions 6.10-3
References for Section 6.10 6.10-3
6.11 STARCH MANUFACTURING 6.11-1
6.11.1 Process Description 6.11-1
6.11.2 Emissions 6.11-1
References for Section 6.11 6.11-1
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING 6.12-1
6.12.1 General 6.12-1
6.12.2 Emissions 6.12-1
References for Section 6.12 6.12-2
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 7.1-1
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION 7.1-1
7.1.1 Process Description 7.1-1
7.1.2 Emissions and Controls 7.1-2
References for Section 7.1 7.1-8
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURING 7.2-1
7.2.1 Process Description 7.2-1
7.2.2 Emissions 7.2-1
References for Section 7.2 7.2-3
7.3 COPPER SMELTERS 7.3-1
7.3.1 Process Description 7.3-1
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls 7.3-1
References for Section 7.3 7.3-2
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION 7.4-1
7.4.1 Process Description 7.4-1
ix
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
7.4.2 Emissions 7.4-1
References for Section 7.4 7.4-2
7.5 IRON AND STEEL MILLS 7.5-1
7.5.1 General 7.5-1
7.5.1.1 Pig Iron Manufacture 7.5-1
7.5.1.2 Steel-Making Processes 7.5-1
7.5.1.3 Scarfing 7.5-1
References for Section 7.5 7.5-6
7.6 LEAD SMELTING 7.6-1
7.6.1 Process Description 7.6-1
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls 7.6-1
References for Section 7.6 76-2
7.7 ZINC SMELTING 7.7-1
7.7.1 Process Description 7.7-1
7.7.2 Emissions and Controls 7.7-1
References for Section 7.7 7.7-2
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS 7.8-1
7.8.1 Process Description 7.8-1
7.8.2 Emissions 7.8-1
References for Section 7.8 7.8-2
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS 7.9-1
7.9.1 Process Description 7.9-1
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls 7.9-1
References for Section 7.9 7.9-2
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY 7.10-1
7.10.1 Process Description 7.10-1
7.10.2 Emissions 7.10-1
References for Section 7.10 7.10-2
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING 7.11-1
7.11.1 General 7.11-1
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls 7.11-1
References for Section 7.11 7.11-1
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING 7.12-1
7.12.1 Process Description 7.12-1
7.12.2 Emissions 7.12-1
References for Section 7.12 7.12-2
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES 7.13-1
7.13.1 Process Description 7.13-1
7.13.2 Emissions 7.13-1
References for Section 7.13 7.13-3
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING 7.14-1
7.14.1 Process Description 7.14-1
7.14.2 Emissions 7.14-1
References for Section 7.14 7.14-2
MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 8.1-1
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS 8.1-1
8.1.1 Process Description 8.1-1
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls 8.1-4
References for Section 8.1 8.1-5
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING 8.2-1
8.2.1 Process Description 8.2-1
8.2.2 Emissions and Controls 8.2-1
References for Section 8.2 8.2-2
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS 8.3-1
8.3.1 Process Description 8.3-1
8.3.2 Emissions and Controls 8.3-1
References for Section 8.3 8.3-4
8.4 CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING 8.4-1
8.4.1 Process Description 8.4-1
8.4.2 Emissions and Controls 8.4-1
References for Section 8.4 8.4-2
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES 8.5-1
8.5.1 Process Description 8.5-1
8.5.2 Emissions and Controls 8.5-1
References for Section 8.5 8.5-2
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING 8.6-1
8.6.1 Process Description 8.6-1
8.6.2 Emissions and Controls 8.6-1
References for Section 8.6 8.6-2
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING 8.7-1
8.7.1 Process Description 8.7-1
8.7.2 Emissions and Controls 8.7-1
References for Section 8.7 8.7-2
8.8 CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING 8.8-1
8.8.1 Process Description 8.8-1
8.8.2 Emissions and Controls 8.8-1
References for Section 8.8 8.8-2
8.9 COAL CLEANING 8.9-1
8.9.1 Process Description 8.9-1
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls 8.9-1
References for Section 8.9 8.9-2
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING 8.10-1
8.10.1 Process Description 8.10-1
8.10.2 Emissions and Controls 8.10-1
References for Section 8.10 8.10-2
8.11 FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING 8.11-1
8.11.1 Process Description 8.11-1
8.11.1.1 Textile Products 8.11-1
8.11.1.2 Wool Products 8.11-1
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls 8.11-1
References for Section 8.11 8.11-4
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING 8.12-1
8.12.1 Process Description 8.12-1
8.12.2 Emissions and Controls 8.12-1
References for Section 8.12 8.12-2
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING 8.13-1
8.13.1 Process Description 8.13-1
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls 8.13-1
References for Section 8.13 8.13-2
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING 8.14-1
8.14.1 Process Description 8.14-1
8.14.2 Emissions 8.14-1
References for Section 8.14 8.14-2
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING 8.15-1
8.15.1 General 8.15-1
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls 8.15-1
References for Section 8.15 8.15-2
xi
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING 8.16-1
8.16.1 Process Description 8.16-1
8.16.2 Emissions and Controls 8.16-1
References for Section 8.16 8.16-2
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING 8.17-1
8.17.1 Process Description 8.17-1
8.17.2 Emissions and Controls 8.17-1
References for Section 8.17 8.17-2
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING 8.18-1
8.18.1 Process Description 8.18-1
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls 8.18-1
References for Section 8.18 8.18-2
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING 8.19-1
8.19.1 Process Description 8.19-1
8.19.2 Emissions 8.19-1
References for Section 8.19 8.19-1
STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING 8.20-1
8.20.1 Process Description 8.20-1
8.20.2 Emissions 8.20-1
References for Section 8.20 8.20-2
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 91-1
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING 9.1-1
9.1.1 General 9.1-1
9.1.2 Crude Oil Distillation 9.M
9.1.2.1 Emissions 9.1-1
9.1.3 Converting 9.1-6
9.1.3.1 Catalytic Cracking 9.1-6
9.1.3.2 Hydrocracking 9.1-6
9.1.3.3 Catalytic Reforming 9.1-6
9.1.3.4 Polymerization, Alkylation, and Isomerization 9.1-6
9.1.3.5 Emissions 9.1-7
9.1.4 Treating 9.1-7
9.1.4.1 Hydrogen Treating 9.1-7
9.1.4.2 Chemical Treating 9.1-7
9.1.4.3 Physical Treating 9.1-8
9.1.4.4 Emissions 9.1-8
9.1.5 Blending 9.1-8
9.1.5.1 Emissions 9.1-8
9.1.6 Miscellaneous Operations 9.1-8
References for Chapter 9 9.1-8
10. WOOD PROCESSING 10.1-1
10.1 WOOD PULPING 10.1-1
10.1.1 General 10.1-1
10.1.2 Process Description 10.1-1
10.1.3 Emissions and Controls 10.1-2
References for Section 10.1 10.1-2
10.2 PULPBOARD 10.2-1
10.2.1 General 10.2-1
10.2.2 Process Description 10.2-1
10.2.3 Emissions 10.2-1
References for Section 10.2 10.2-2
APPENDIX A-l
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A-6
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1.1-1 Average Speed Correction Factors for All Model Years 3.1.1-7
3.3.2-1 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 3.3.2-2
5.9-1 Flow Diagram of Typical Nitric Acid Plant Using Pressure Process 5.9-2
5.17-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Contact-Process Sulfuric Acid Plant Burning Elemental Sulfur 5.17-2
5.17-2 Basic Flow Diagram of Contact-Process Sulfuric Acid Plant Burning Spent Acid 5.17-3
5.17-3 Sulfuric Acid Plant Feedstock Sulfur Conversion Versus Volumetric and Mass SC>2 Emissions at
Various Inlet S02 Concentrations by Volume 5.17-6
5.18-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Modified Claus Process with Two Converter Stages Used in Manufacturing
Sulfur 5.18-2
6.9-1 Types of Orchard Heaters 6.9-2
6.9-2 Particulate Emissions from Orchard Heaters 6.9-3
7.1-1 Schematic Diagram of Primary Aluminum Production Process 7.1-3
7.5-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Iron and Steel Processes 7.5-2
8.1-1 Batch Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant 8.1-2
8.1-2 Continuous Hot-Mix Asphalt Plant 8.1-3
8.3-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Brick Manufacturing Process 8.3-2
8.6-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Portland Cement Manufacturing Process 8.6-4
8.11-1 Typical Flow Diagram of Textile-Type Glass Fiber Production Process 8.11-2
8.11-2 Typical Flow Diagram of Wool-Type Glass Fiber Production Process 8.11-2
9.1-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Petroleum Refinery 9.1-2
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1-1 Range of Collection Efficiencies for Common Types of Fly-Ash Control Equipment 1.1-2
1.1-2 Emission Factors for Bituminous Coal Combustion without Control Equipment 1.1-3
1.2-1 Emissions from Anthracite Coal Combustion without Control Equipment 1.2-2
1.3-1 Emission Factors for Fuel Oil Combustion 1.3-2
1.4-1 Emission Factors for Natural-Gas Combustion 1.4-2
1.5-1 Emission Factors for LPG Combustion 1.5-2
1.6-1 Emission Factors for Wood and Bark Combustion in Boilers with No Reinjection 1.6-2
2.1-1 Emission Factors for Refuse Incinerators without Controls 2.1-4
2.1-2 Collection Efficiencies for Various Types of Municipal Incineration Particulate Control Systems . 2.1-5
2.2-1 Emission Factors for Auto Body Incineration 2.2-1
2.3-1 Emission Factors for Waste Incineration in Conical Burners without Controls 2.3-2
2.4-1 Emission Factors for Open Burning 2.4-1
3.1.1-1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles Based on Nationwide Statistics 3.1.1-6
3.1.2-1 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles at
Low and High Altitude 3.1.2-2
3.1.2-2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles,
State of California only 3.1.2-3
3.1.2-3 Light-Duty Vehicle Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emissions by Model Year for all
Areas Except California 3.1.2-4
3.1.2-4 Light-Duty Vehicle Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emissions by Model Year for Cali-
fornia 3.1.24
3.1.2-5 Carbon Monoxide, Exhaust Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Deterioration Factors for Light-
Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles in All Areas Except California 3.1.2-6
3.1.2-6 Carbon Monoxide, Exhaust Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Deterioration Factors for Light-
Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles in California 3.1.2-7
3.1.2-7 Sample Calculation of Weighted Light-Duty Vehicle Annual Travel 3.1.2-8
3.1.2-8 Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles '3.1.2-8
3.1.3-1 Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.3-2
3.1.4-1 Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors for Carbon Monoxide, Hydro-
carbons, and Nitrogen Oxides 3.1.4-3
3.1.4-2 Exhaust Emission Deterioration Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles
(California only), 1975 and Later Models 31 4.4
3.1.4-3 Sample Calculation of Weigh ted Heavy-Duty Vehicle Annual Travel 31 4.5
3.1.4-4 Sulfur Oxide and Particulate Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles .... 314.5
3.1.5-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 31 5.2
3.1.6-1 Emission Factors by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles Using LPG, LPG/Dual Fuel, or CNG/
Dual Fuel 31 5.2
3.1.6-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using LPG or CNG/Dual Fuel 3.1.6-2
3.1.7-1 Emission Factors for Motorcycles 31 7.2
3.2.1-1 Aircraft Classification 32 1-2
3.2.1-2 Typical Time in Mode for Landing-Takeoff Cycle 3.2.1-3
3.2.1-3 Emission Factors per Aircraft Landing-Takeoff Cycle 3.2.1-4
3.2.1-4Modal Emission Factors 3.2.1-6
3.2.2-1 Average Locomotive Emission Factors Based on Nationwide Statistics 3.2.2-1
3.2.2-2 Emission Factors by Locomotive Engine Category 3.2.2-2
3.2.3-1 Fuel Consumption Rates for Steamships and Motor Ships 3.2.3-1
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES-(Continued)
Table Page
3.2.3-2 Emission Factors for Inboard Vessels 3.2.3-2
3.2.4-1 Average Emission Factors for Outboard Motors 3.2.4-1
3.2.5-1 Emission Factors for Small, General-Utility Engines 3.2.5-1
3.3.1-1 Emission Factors for Gas Turbines Using Distillate Fuel Oil 3.3.1-1
3.3.1-2 Emission Factors for Gas Turbines UsingNatural Gas 3.3.1-2
3.3.2-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, General-Utility, Stationary Engines Using Gaseous Fuels .... 3.3.2-1
4.1-1 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Dry-Cleaning Operations 4.1-2
4.2-1 Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Surface-Coating Applications 4.2-1
4.3-1 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Evaporation Losses from the Storage of Petroleum Products . 4.3-2
4.4-1 Emission Factors for Evaporation Losses from Gasoline Marketing 4.4-2
5.1-1 Emission Factors for an Adipic Acid Plant without Control Equipment 5.1-1
5.2-1 Emission Factors for Ammonia Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.2-2
5.3-1 Emission Factors for Carbon Black Manufacturing 5.3-2
5.4-1 Emission Factors for Charcoal Manufacturing 5.4-1
5.5-1 Emission Factors for Chlor-Alkali Plants 5.5-2
5.6-1 Emission Factors for Explosives Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.6-2
5.7-1 Emission Factors for Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing 5.7-1
5.8-1 Emission Factors for Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacturing 5.8-1
5.9-1 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Nitric Acid Plants 5.9-3
5.10-1 Emission Factors for Paint and Varnish Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.10-2
5.11-1 Emission Factors for Phosphoric Acid Production 5.11-2
5.12-1 Emission Factors for Phthalic Anhydride Plants 5.12-1
5.13-1 Emission Factors for Plastics Manufacturing without Controls 5.13-1
5.14-1 Emission Factors for Printing Ink Manufacturing 5.14-2
5.15-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Spray-Drying Detergents 5.15-1
5.16-1 Emission Factors for Soda-Ash Plants without Control 5.16-1
5.17-1 Emission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants 5.17-5
5.17-2 Acid Mist Emission Factors for Sulfuric Acid Plants without Controls 5.17-7
5.17-3 Collection Efficiency and Emissions Comparison of Typical Electrostatic Precipitator and Fiber
Mist Eliminator 5.17-8
5.18-1 Emission Factors for Modified Claus Sulfur Plants 5.18-2
5.19-1 Emission Factors for Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing 5.19-1
5.20-1 Emission Factors for Synthetic Rubber Plants: Butadiene-Acrylonitrile and Butadiene-Styrene . . 5.20-1
5.21-1 Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors for Terephthalic Acid Plants 5.21-1
6.1-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Alfalfa Dehydration g i.j
6.2-1 Emission Factors for Coffee Roasting Processes without Controls 52-1
6.3-1 Emission Factors for Cotton Ginning Operations without Controls 53.]
6.4-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Handling and Processing 6.4-2
6.5-1 Emission Factors for Fermentation Processes 5 5.2
6.6-1 Emission Factors for Fish Meal Processing 66-1
6.7-1 Emission Factors for Meat Smoking 6.7-1
6.8-1 Emission Factors for Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacturing without Controls 68-2
6.9-1 Emission Factors for Orchard Heaters 5 9.4
6.10-1 Emission Factors for Production of Phosphate Fertilizers 6 10-1
6.11-1 Emission Factors for Starch Manufacturing 5 j|.j
6.12-1 Emission Factors for Sugar Cane Processing g 12-1
7.1-1 Raw Material and Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production 71-2
7.1-2 Representative Particle Size Distributions of Uncontrolled Effluents from Prebake and Horizontal-
Stud Soderberg Cells 71-4
7.1-3 Emission Factors for Primary Aluminum Production Processes 71-5
7.2-1 Emission Factors for Metallurgical Coke Manufacture without Controls 72-2
7.3-1 Emission Factors for Primary Copper Smelters without Controls 7.3-2
7.4-1 Emission Factors for Ferroalloy Production in Electric Smelting Furnaces 7 4.2
7.5-1 Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Mills 7.5-4
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES-(Continued)
Table Page
7.6-1 Emission Factors for Primary Lead Smelters 7.6-1
7.7-1 Emission Factors for Primary Zinc Smelting without Controls 7.7-1
7.8-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Aluminum Operations 7.8-1
7.9-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Brass and Bronze Melting Furnaces without Controls 7.9-2
7.10-1 Emission Factors for Gray Iron Foundries 7.10-1
7.11-1 Emission Factors for Secondary Lead Smelters 7.11-2
7.12-1 Emission Factors for Magnesium Smelting 7.12-1
7.13-1 Emission Factors for Steel Foundries 7.13-2
7.14-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Secondary Zinc Smelting 7.14-2
8.1-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Asphaltic Concrete Plants 8.1-4
8.2-1 Emission Factors for Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing without Controls g.2-1
8.3-1 Emission Factors for Brick Manufacturing without Controls 8.3-3
8.4-1 Emission Factors for Calcium Carbide Plants 8.4-1
8.5-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Castable Refractories Manufacturing 8.5-1
8.6-1 Emission Factors for Cement Manufacturing without Controls 8.6-3
8.6-2 Size Distribution of Dust Emitted from Kiln Operations without Controls 8.6-3
8.7-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Ceramic Clay Manufacturing 8.7-1
8.8-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Sintering Operations 8.8-2
8.9-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Thermal Coal Dryers 8.9-1
8.10-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Concrete Batching 8.10-1
8.11-1 Emission Factors for Fiber Glass Manufacturing without Controls 8.11-3
8.12-1 Emission Factors for Frit Smelters without Controls 8.12-2
8.13-1 Emission Factors for Glass Melting 8.13-1
8.14-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Gypsum Processing 8.14-1
8.15-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Lime Manufacturing without Controls 8.15-1
8.16-1 Emission Factors for Mineral Wool Processing without Controls 8.16-2
8.17-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Perlite Expansion Furnaces without Controls 8.17-1
8.18-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Phosphate Rock Processing without Controls 8.18-1
8.20-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Rock-Handling Processes 8.20-1
9.1-1 Emission Factors for Petroleum Refineries 9.1-3
10.1-1 Emission Factors for Sulfate Pulping 10.1-3
10.2-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Pulpboard Manufacturing 10.2-2
A-l Nationwide Emissions for 1970 A-2
A-2 Distribution by Particle Size of Average Collection Efficiencies for Various Particulate Control
Equipment A-3
A-3 Thermal Equivalents for Various Fuels A-4
A4 Weights of Selected Substances A-4
A-5 General Conversion Factors A-5
XVI
-------
ABSTRACT
Emission data obtained from source tests, material balance studies, engineering estimates, etc., have been
compiled for use by individuals and groups responsible 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.
Key words: fuel combustion, stationary sources, mobile sources, industrial processes, evaporative losses,
emissions, emission data, emission inventories, primary pollutants, emission factors.
XVll
-------
-------
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 an average estimate 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 the 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 using the entire 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
"E," poor. These rankings are presented below the table titles throughout the report.
*MT = metric ton.
4/73
-------
In general, the emission factors presented are not precise indicators of emissions for a single source. They are
more valid when applied to a large number of processes. With this limitation in mind, emission factors are
extremely useful when intelligently applied in conducting source inventories as part of community or nationwide
air pollution studies.
In addition to the specific tables in each section of this report, the Appendix presents nationwide emission
estimates for 1970, average collection efficiencies for different types of particulate control equipment, and
conversion factors for a number of different substances.
EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
1. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
External combustion sources include steam-electric generating plants, industrial boilers, commercial and
institutional boilers, and commercial and domestic combustion units. Coal, fuel oil, and natural gas are the major
fossil fuels used by these sources. Other fuels used in relatively small quantities are liquefied petroleum gas, wood,
coke, refinery gas, blast furnace gas, and other waste- or by-product fuels. Coal, oil, and natural gas currently
supply about 95 percent of the total thermal energy consumed in the United States. In 1970 over 500 million
tons (454 x 106 MT) of coal, 623 million barrels (99 x 109 liters) of distillate fuel oil, 715 million barrels (114 x
109 liters) of residual fuel oil, and 22 trillion cubic feet (623 x 1012 liters) of natural gas were consumed in the
United States.1
Power generation, process heating, and space heating are some of the largest fuel-combustion sources of sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions. The following sections present emission factor data for the
major fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil, and natural gas — as well as for liquefied petroleum gas and wood waste
combustion in boilers.
REFERENCE
1. Ackerson, D.H. Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions. Unpublished report. Office of Air and Water
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971.
1.1 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION
1.1.1 General
Revised by Robert Rosensteel
and Thomas Lahre
Coal, the most abundant fossil 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 handfired units with capacities of 10 to 20 pounds
(4.5 to 9 kilograms) of coal per hour to large pulverized-coal-fired units, which may 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 location of the mine producing the coal and will usually
affect the final use of the coal.
1.1.2 Emissions and Controls
1.1.2.1 Particulates1 - Particulates emitted from coal combustion consist primarily of carbon, silica, alumina, and
iron oxide in the fly-ash. The quantity of atmospheric particulate emissions is dependent upon the type of
combustion unit in which the coal is burned, the ash content of the coal, and the type of control equipment used.
4/73
1.1-1
-------
Table 1.1-1 gives the range of collection efficiencies for common types of fly-ash control equipment. Participate
emission factors expressed as pounds of particulate per ton of coal burned are presented in Table 1.1-2.
1.1.2.2 Sulfur Oxides11 - Factors for uncontrolled sulfur oxides emission are shown in Table 1-2 along with
factors for other gases emitted. The emission factor for sulfur oxides indicates a conversion of 95 percent of the
available sulfur to sulfur oxide. The balance of the sulfur is emitted in the fly-ash or combines with the slag or ash
in the furnace and is removed with them.1 Increased attention has been given to the control of sulfur oxide
emissions from the combustion of coal. The use of low-sulfur coal has been recommended in many areas; where
low-sulfur coal is not available, other methods in which the focus is on the removal of sulfur oxide from the flue
gas before it enters the atmosphere must be given consideration.
A number of flue-gas desulfurization processes have been evaluated; effective methods are undergoing full-scale
operation. Processes included in this category are: limestone-dolomite injection, limestone wet scrubbing,
catalytic oxidation, magnesium oxide scrubbing, and the Wellman-Lord process. Detailed discussion of various
flue-gas desulfurization processes may be found in the literature.12>13
1.1.2.3. Nitrogen Oxides1'5 - 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 the partial combustion of nitrogenous
compounds contained in the fuel. The important factors that affect NOX production are: flame and furnace
temperature, residence time of combustion gases at the flame temperature, rate of cooling of the gases, and
amount of excess air present in the flame. Discussions of the mechanisms involved are contained in the indicated
references.
1.1.2.4 Other Gases - The efficiency of combustion primarily determines the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
content of the gases emitted from bituminous coal combustion. Successful combustion that results in a low level
of carbon monoxide and organic emissions requires a high degree of turbulence, a high temperature, and
sufficient time for the combustion reaction to take place. Thus, careful control of excess air rates, the use of high
combustion temperature, and provision for intimate fuel-air contact will minimize these emissions.
Factors for these gaseous emissions are also presented in Table 1.1-2. The size range in Btu per hour for the
various types of furnaces as shown in Table 1.1-2 is only provided as a guide in selecting the proper factor and is
not meant to distinguish clearly between furnace applications.
TABLE 1.1-1. RANGE OF COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR COMMON TYPES
OF FLY-ASH CONTROL EQUIPMENT3
Type of
furnace
Cyclone furnace
Pulverized unit
Spreader stoker
Other stokers
Range of collection efficiencies, %
Electrostatic
precipitator
65 to 99.5b
80 to 99.5b
99.5b
99.5b
High-
efficiency
cyclone
30 to 40
65 to 75
85 to 90
90 to 95
Low-
resistance
cyclone
20 to 30
40 to 60
70 to 80
75 to 85
Settling
chamber ex-
panded chimney
bases
10b
20b
20 to 30
25 to 50
References 1 and 2.
^~he maximum efficiency to be expected for this collection device applied to this type source.
1.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
O-
O
O
tr
H
O
O
1-
O
X
*r
D <
QQ ..
S O
O Z
2 z
D O
t 55
m v>
oc S
O LLI
li.
to
OC
e
CO
CO
CM
c
CU
D)
+3
Z
S
•^3
C
O
.a
CD
CJ
£
"5
CO
CU
•o
CU
2
TJ
X
o
"c
Q
_Q
8
CU
'x
o
c
o
E
o
0)
X
o
^
03
"5
CJ
CO
a.
1>
-*
c
o
4-t
—
\-
O)
•^
c
o
~^
—
h-
Ol
C
o
•fj
n
r-
2
^
c
2
—
H
O)
c
o
ft
~"
I-
2
5"
c
o
4— •
^_
CO
o
o
CO
o
CJ
"CD
O
u
"co
o
CJ
"CD
8
"CD
O
o
"co
o
0
"co
O
o
"CD
O
o
CO
8
"co
8
Furnace size,
106 Btu/hr
-Q
G)
c
3
-g
CU
C
^
•°
1
u.
D
•°
"8
c
t
3
.a
•g
c
D
TJ
CU
c
v_
13
•°
^
C
J3
1
D
.Q
^
C
.a
TJ
CU
c
3
.a
1
|
•a
TJ
a;
c
-Q
CO
D
a.
c
CO
CU
sz
LO
CM
O
O
d
LO
O
o
d
CT>
00
LO
d
CO
d
LO
d
co
CO
00
CO
00
<[
CD
eater than 100e
(Utility and large
industrial boilers)
Pulverized
General
O
LO
CM
O
O
d
LO
o
o
d
LO
o
CO
1
LO
d
CO
d
LO
d
CO
en
i~*
co
CO
LO
CD
^
<(
CO
Wet bottom
LO
CM
8
d
10
o
o
d
en
00
T—
LO
d
CO
d
LO
d
2
CO
CO
CO
LO
06
&
CO
o
o
CM
en
'c
3
H^-
co
I
lo
Ol tD
-
go
_
tl
V O
•° §
Tl ^
11
ro 5
O CJ
U CD
If
u 0)
f!
C -O —
8 S S
0) O O
Q. 'Co M—
t, .2 O
•S, E r-
o ^ a
'~ L. 01
^ a) *
§ aO
9 o oo
rc~ >
CU JfJ O
i ,|_j tt) A
III
i £ o 2
; S= 9
Q.
'
S
01
S
c £ o
CD *^ O
"- 3
Is
II
03 C
0) 'oJ
5 -5
y CD
'£ >
ro s-
§5 |
o —
+-J 4-»
,_ C
ra c " S
CN <»
in c
CN o
°> 5
3 O
o '^
oj JE o>
C *J —'
IS I
E CD •«
'5 S
2 £ en
. V) V)
^ * C "D § » £
M 03 CO 3 CT Q. k+- '
ffl jl ij rf Qj X 03 '
<- I- ID aco LJ oc ;
ro -Q O "D Q) *
-
> «
"
4/73
External Combustion Sources
1.1-3
-------
References for Section 1.1
1. Smith, W. S. Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combustion. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-24. April 1966.
V 2. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Washington, B.C. Publication Number AP-51. January 1969.
3. Perry, H. and J. H. Field. Air Pollution and the Coal Industry. Transactions of the Society of Mining
Engineers. 255:337-345, December 1967.
V 4. Heller, A. W. and D. F. Walters. Impact of Changing Patterns of Energy Use on Community Air Quality. J.
Air Pol. Control Assoc. 25:426, September 1965.
5. Cuffe, S. T. and R. W. Gerstle. Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Comprehensive Summary. U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N. C. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-35. 1967. p. 15.
v 6. Austin, H. C. Atmospheric Pollution Problems of the Public Utility Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
10(4):292-294, August 1960.
^ 7. 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 Pol. Control Assoc.114:267-218,
July 1964.
v 8. Hovey, H. H., A. Risman, and J. F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables for
Nonprocess Emissions. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 16:362-366, July 1966.
9. Anderson, D. M., J. 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. September 1969.
11. Private communication with R.D. Stern, Control Systems Division, Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. June 21, 1972.
V 12. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-52. January 1969. p. xviii and xxii.
v 13. Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources: Electric Power Production. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-96. May 1971.
1.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION Revised by Robert Rosensteel
1.2.1 General1
Because of its low volatile content and the nonclinkering characteristics of its ash, anthracite coal is used in
medium-sized industrial and institutional boilers with stationary or traveling grates. Although it is not used in
spreader stokers because of its low volatile content and relatively high ignition temperature, anthracite coal 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. Anthracite coal has also been widely used in hand-fired furnaces.
1.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 combustion 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 emissions. Hand-fired furnaces and some small
natural-draft units have fewer particulate emissions because underfire air is not usually supplied by mechanical
means.
The quantity of sulfur dioxide emissions from coal combustion, as from other fuels, is directly related to the
sulfur content of the coal. Nitrogen oxide 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 combustion of
anthracite are somewhat lower than those from bituminous coal combustion.
The factors for uncontrolled emissions from anthracite coal combustion are presented in Table 1.2-1.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.2-1
-------
H
LJJ
5
0
HI
O
oc
H
U
1—
D
O
Z
z co
o ..
H U
to Z
,L COMBU
FOR RATI
0 ^
ii
<8
I «E
H™ ^
^
O
CC
U-
g
1
UJ
CM
0)
"o
CO
H
!>£
O 0)
^ X
^- o
0)
c "°
o 'x
•e °
cS o
i CD"
O f.
1_ C
•D 0
> S2
"T" Jr
U
Sulfur
:rioxidec'd
u
i_ CD
to .2
T3
3-°
O
fe §
D_
|_
S
O>
C
o
""^
.Q
1-
C3)
"^
C
o
^J
~
t-
^>
D)
C
o
4-1
X!
r-
2
Dl
C
O
-
r-
5
O)
c
0
•I—I
.Q
1-
S
~O)
-^
c
o
s
S
CO
c
3
O
Q.
O5
00
<^
d
in
r~
o
d
CO
0
d
to
CM
d
to
in
d
to
o
to
CO
CO
in
CO
^
C^
"E .1
°4
. —
>* 2f
TJ ^:
~ CD
N —
CD O
_> C
O.
in
tv!
g
CO
LO
*™
o
•M
CO
in
2
~
.
S
o
CM
d
CM
d
co
CM
d
yj
LO
d
2
to
00
CO
Jf
,—
^
CM
O
'*-•
O
££_
*- 'm
0) ^
"o ^
4-1 V)
in cp
"O >•
CD r^
CD *~
^t o
CD ^
o
in
«-
CO
in
o
O5
in
CM
in
CM'
to
d
to
00
d
to
00
to
CO
PO
in
o
en
.ti
d
3
I
M—
•6
c
CO
n:
r-.'
o
CN
1
cu
DC
as weight percent.
-o
'A is the ash content expressei
3d as weight percent.
V)
•S is the sulfur content expres
References 5, 7, and 8 .
minous coal combustion.
j
'Based on Reference 2 and bit
Expressed as methane.
ibustion.
E
'Based on bituminous coal coi
CN
O
tn
CO
TD
'Emitted as NO, but calculate
raveling-grate stokers in the 12 to 180 Btu/hr (3 to 45 kcal/hr) heat input range. Anthracite is not burned in spreader stokei
ller-sized units [less than 10 x 106 Btu/hr (2.5 x 106 kcal/hr) heat input] .
er-sized units [less than 10 x 106 Btu/hr (2.5 x 106 kcal/hr) heat input] .
•M
Based on data obtained from
CO
1
CO
0
CD
;g
i
D
'Use low side of range for sma
c
CD
03
Q.
in
00
o
CO
'5.
'o
CD
Q.
O
CO
tt
O
t!
0)
QJ
T)
C
03
•M"
C
8
CD
a
in
CO
o
in
CD"
c
O
u
cu
CO
cu
'o
1
C
CO
l/>
8
1
"5
c
8
"o
.2
r j
MOTE: Approximate efficieni
1.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 1.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Hovey, H.H., A. Risman, and J.F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables for
Nonprocess Emissions. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 16:362-366, July 1966.
3. Unpublished stack test data on emissions from athracite coal combustion. Pennsylvania Air Pollution
Commission. Harrisburg, Pa. 1969.
4. Unpublished stack test data on emissions from anthracite coal combustion. New Jersey Air Pollution Control
Program. Trenton, N.J. 1969.
5. Anderson, D.M., J. Lieben, and V.H. Sussman. Pure Air for Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of
Health. Harrisburg, Pa. November 1961. p. 15.
6. Blackie, A. Atmospheric Pollution from Domestic Appliances. The Report of the Joint Conference of the
Institute of Fuel and the National Smoke Abatement Society. London. February 23, 1945.
7. Smith, W.S. Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combustion. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-24. April 1966. p.76.
8. Crumley, P.H. and A.W. Fletcher. The Formation of Sulphur Trioxide in Flue Gases. J. Inst. of Fuel
Combustion. 30:608-612, August 1957.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.2-3
-------
-------
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION Revised by Thomas Lahre
1.3.1 General1
Fuel oil 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 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.) The primary differences between residual oil and distillate oil are
the higher ash and sulfur content of residual oil and the fact that it is much more viscous and therefore harder to
burn properly. Residual fuel oils have a heating value of approximately 1.50,000 Btu/gallon (10,000 kcal/liter);
the heating value for distillate oils is about 140,000 Btu/gallon (9,300 kcal/liter).
1.3.2 Emissions
Emissions from oil combustion are dependent on type and size of equipment, method of firing, and
maintenance. Table 1.3-1 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, reportedly because of better design and more precise
operation of equipment.
In general, large sources produce more nitrogen oxides than small sources,1 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. Hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions can be kept minimal if proper operating practices are employed; however, as the data
suggest, this control is more often accomplished in larger equipment.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.3-1
-------
z
o
CO
D
GO
I
5-*
o
_i (jj
III B^
D|
II P"
r: <
CC rr
s«
«p
0«
£ <
o"-
< z
u. O
Z co
O M
n
u
CO
V
CO
cc
'u
i_
0)
DC
+-«
C
JS
i.
(U
g
CL.
P5
0 £
i— aj
en •_=
^
"<5
en
°
^
^ e
^ s
en ~
-x
"J5
O)
CO
O
£
% e
T- oj
^ ^
CO ^_
-^
"co
en
CO
O
£
•fe e
«— QJ
"3>-^
^
"co
O)
0
(_J
IB
Pollutant
CO
LO LO LO
CM w CM (D CO LO CM
«- r» O O O T- o
*~
CO CO
O CM CM LO CO CM CM
T— ^ T—
LO LO O) LO
00 w CM LO CO 0 CM
r-^ 1^ O O O ^ O
T- 00
2.
^
o
CO CO 00
LO CM CM ^- CO 0 CM
«— *r *i
T~ O
2.
^
co ®
LO LO LO en CM
^. CO ^ «. ^ 0 ".
CM O> O O O *-• O
«- oq-
^t
r*
0
CO f5 CN •* CO 0 *-
CM LO <-•
«- o
^«
CO
LO LO 0) CM
w CM •* CM CO .-
«- O) O O O CM O
CO CO o>
00 r* CM CO CM LO T-
LO 0
C<4
0 -
« H ^ SO
i^'i^ls
V§ 8 I ! § "£
ra ~ 'C E £ c -g
1^ r § g a f
5 5 5 -§ -5 e •§
£ 3 3 So > •* 2
O- CO CO O I Z <
CO
r*
D)
3
8
.c
>|
• CD' i 2 o of
. . *- u *• 0>
1 CM CN O £5 CN
l
1.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 1.3
1. Unpublished stack test data on emissions from coal-fired boilers. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va.
Prepared for the Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
under Contract Number 70-81. 1971.
2. Smith, W.S. Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion: An Inventory Guide. U.S. DHEW, PHS,
National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-2. 1962.
3. 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
Number 937. 1962.
4. McGill, P.L. and R.W. Benoliel. Air Pollution in Los Angeles County: Contribution of Industrial Products.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 44:1347-1352, June 1952.
5. The Smog Problem in Los Angeles County. Menlo Park, Calif., Stanford Research Institute. Western Oil and
Gas Assoc. 1954.
6. Taylor, F.R. et al. Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion. Final Report. Prepared for American Petroleum
Institute. Scott Research Laboratory. Parkasie, Pa. March 1963.
7. Unpublished data from San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District on emissions from fuel oil
combustion. 1968.
8. Unpublished data from Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District on fuel oil combustion. April 8,
1969.
9. Wasser, J.H., G. B. Martin, and R.P. Hangebrauck. Effects of Combustion Gas Residence Time on Air
Pollutant Emissions from Oil-Fired Test Furnace. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1968.
10. 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.
11. MacPhee, 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. November 1957.)
12. Levy, A. et al. A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion for Space Heating. API
Publication 4099. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio. November 1971.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.3-3
-------
13. Barrett, R.E., S.E. Miller, and D.W. Locklin. Investigation of the Effect of Combustion Parameters on
Emissions from Residential and Commercial Heating Equipment, 5th Monthly Report. Battelle Columbus
Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
under Contract Number 68-02-0251. April 27, 1972.
14. Chass, R.L. and R.E. George. Contaminant Emissions from Combustion of Fuels. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
70:34-43, February 1960.
15. Bartok, W. et al. Systematic Field Study of NOX Emission Control Methods for Utility Boilers. ESSO
Research and Engineering Co. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
under Contract Number CPA-70-90. December 31, 1971.
16. Blakeslee, C.E. and H.E. Burbach. Controlling NOX Emissions from Steam Generators. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. 25:37-42, January 1973.
1.3-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
1.4 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION Revised by Thomas Lahre
1.4.1 General
Natural gas has become one of the major fuels used throughout the country. It is used mainly in power plants,
in industrial heating, and in domestic and commercial space heating. 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.1 The heating value of natural
gas is approximately 1050 Btu/std. ft.3 (9350kcal/Nm3).
1.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Even though natural gas is considered to be a relatively clean fuel, some emissions do occur from the
combustion reaction. When insufficient air is supplied, large amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons may
be produced.2 Emissions of sulfur oxides are dependent upon the amount of sulfur in the fuel. The sulfur content
of natural gas is usually low, around 2000 grains/106 ft3 (4600 g/106 m3).
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 considerably with the type and size of unit. Emissions of
aldehydes are increased when there is an insufficient amount of combustion air or an incomplete mixing of the
fuel and the combustion air.
Emission factors for natural gas combustion are presented in Table 1.4-1. Flue gas cleaning equipment has
not been used to control emissions from natural gas combustion equipment.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.4-1
-------
1!
! |
o
£
o
CO
g
8
CO
^
C3
Jl °°
5 fi
QC W
D S
l__ ^^
£ H
s **
2 OC
S a
£2
"• r—
CO O
CC <
O "-
lw — -
11
LL CO
ff.
zi
O a
;* w
J?
2
LLI
*^
«»
r™
0>
2
(D
^
'E
D
'o
O)
Q
>
r-
-a _
C CD
"'GO
•a o3 .E
tt E S
c E S
E o -c
D 8
W
_OJ
CC ••"*
•I 5
5 8)
"i 8
— o
a
c
CD
Q.
^
0
Q-
m
E
0
O
0
^~
en
^
r>
-t-»
4—
o
O
n
Pollutant
CO 0 x:
CN CD O OOri FT
0 CN o 00° §
O5 ^ *^"O5 1^
CM CM ~ R
CO 0 a>
oo o r-» coo Q
*~ "~ CM 00
«- CM
'
CO
o aj o co^o
•* r- r- o
CM CN CD
(35
CD
uo o r~- t- o
T- «- 0
CO
Particulates3
Sulfur-oxides (S02)b
Carbon monoxide0
Hydrocarbonsd (CH4)
Nitrogen oxides (NO2)e
ij
cu
if
s-
c
o
-C
£
o
XI
o
o
ir>
i^
^
'o
XI
!s
(/}
"t 1
-0 a,
O 0)
^ 03
0) —
0 0
CO . .
— o
J± I
4— CO
\O "™" wi
o o .r
,- CO C
•^. CM 3
& *
.E 'O ro
CO C '7T
1_ CD JJ
Q) ^ SJ
8 Ip
o o E
CN D. O
H- 8! °
O Jr ^
<" 2 £
a^ ^
u. S
— n> S
CO ^= CM
= s 2
*- -O I,
8 §R
!
a= o S ^ c
13 t: H- w V
Sd-'« >••§ s
O) «- CD — C -C
5 £ •= T3 •" T 0
aReferences 3 and 4.
bReference 5 (based on ave
References 4 and 6 throug
dReferences 4 and 6 throug
References 2 through 4 am
f Use 300 (4800) for tangem
9Use 120 (1920) for smaller
hUse80 (1280) for domesti
1.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 1.4
1. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
2. Hall, E.L. What Is the Role of the Gas Industry in Air Pollution? Proceedings of 2nd National Air Pollution
Symposium. Pasadena, Calif. 1952. p. 54-58.
3. Weisburd, M.T. 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, B.C. PHS Publication
Number 937. 1962.
4. Hangebrauck, P.P., D.S. VonLehmden, and J.E. Meeker. Emissions of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and Other
Pollutants from Heat Generation and Incineration Processes. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 14:267-268, July
1964.
5. Hovey, H.H., A. Risman, and J.F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables for
Nonprocess Emissions. New York State Department of Health, Albany. 1965.
6. Private communication with the American Gas Association Laboratories. Cleveland, Ohio. May 1970.
7. Wohlers, H.C. and G.B. Bell. Literature Review of Metropolitan Air Pollutant Concentrations: Preparation,
Sampling, and Assay of Synthetic Atmospheres. Menlo Park, Calif., Stanford Research Institute. 1956.
8. Unpublished data on domestic gas-fired units. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1970.
9. Bartok, W. et al. Systematic Study of NOX Emission Control Methods for Utility Boilers. ESSO Research and
Engineering Co. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-70-90, December 31, 1971.
10. Dietzmann, H.E. A Study of Power Plant Boiler Emissions. Southwest Research Inst. San Antonio, Texas.
August 1972.
11. Levy, A. et al. A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion for Space Heating. Battelle
Columbus Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio. API Publication 4099. November 1971.
12. Blakeslee, C.E. and H.E. Barbach. Controlling NOX Emissions from Steam Generators. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. 25:37-42, January 1973.
13. Magill, P.L. and R.W. Benoliel. Air Pollution in Los Angeles County: Contribution of Industrial Products.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 44:1341-1352, June 1952.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.4-3
-------
-------
1.5 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS CONSUMPTION Revised by Thomas Lahre
1.5.1 General1
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 as a by-product
of gasoline refining, is sold as a liquid in metal cylinders under pressure and, therefore, is often called bottled gas.
LPG is graded according to maximum vapor pressure 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 Real/liter) for Grade A to 90,500 Btu/gallon (6,030
kcal/liter) for Grade F. The largest market for LPG is the domestic-commercial market, followed by the chemical
industry and the internal combustion engine.
1.5.2 Emissions1
LPG is considered a "clean" fuel because it does not produce visible emissions. Gaseous pollutants such as
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides do occur, however. The most significant factors affecting
these emissions are the burner design, adjustment, and venting.2 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
including temperature, excess air, and residence time in the combustion zone. The amount of sulfur dioxide
emitted is directly proportional to the amount of sulfur in the fuel. Emission factors for LPG combustion are
presented in Table 1.5-1.
References for Section 1.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Clifford, E.A. A Practical Guide to Liquified Petroleum Gas Utilization. New York, Moore Publishing Co.
1962.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.5-1
-------
CO
z
^
OMBUS"
0 0
2 CD
a. ^
-I Z
CC H
0 <
U. er
^^ U~
go:
|P
i— u
O rf
rf **
2 "-
._ 2
ii
t/5 c>)
V) —
p
LU
r-^
in
f—
a>
A
CO
h™
C/l
0
U
CD
C
i_
D
"•^
.~2
(j
i—
<1>
E
E
o
u
T3
C
CO
o
tt
CD
£
Q
Q
t/3
OJ
O
CO
c
^
D
C/l
«
8
r\
2
D
!s
cyi
3
•a
c
Qj
C
CO
Q.
O
i_
a.
CD
c
CO
•t-*
3
CO
CD
C
CO
a.
o
Q.
CD
c
CO
•(->
^
m
!2
CD
-w
co
O
^~
O)
_*
"co
C3)
CO
O
-~~.
^
in
CD
~
CO
0
01
^
"co
O)
CO
o
JI}
in
Q)
—
CO
0
OT
^
CO
O)
co
o
£
in
CD
—
CO
o
^~
O)
j«;
"co
01
co
O
.Q
4-t
C
CO
D
"o
a.
T!
CO
to ^r «-'
CM «- CO CO n
CM CD CM O 2
O O O CJ 00
d
^-^
to <-
C7) »-
oo o 01 r-. n
«-' 6 «-' ci 2
r^
•D
in
to co <-
n t- *t 05 ...
CM O CM O 2
d d d d o
* —
•a
C5 ^
O5 O O 00 "T
r-' O CM O °
00
in co
O *"• CO CO LO
CM O «- o n
d d d d ^--
to
l~- O LO CO CM
r- 0 <- 0 <-
to co
CM CD O1 CO m
CM O <- O 'd-
0 O O 0 <-
8?
oo o to oo ,-
>- d *- d CM
CD
^ °«
^, g s-s
" •§ n ° '><
2 ? i -9 °
tS g E ro C
— O c o CD
S i- (5 o cn
.= 3 ;i >- o
t ^ -£ "° £
fe "5 fe > -t:
Q. to O I Z
(N
O
CO
.Q
E
a 2
S",
Is
.- .r c
~ £ 3
g ™ -Q
£ CO CD
co «-; i=
C o 2
O m 3
. - _Q
C CU I.'
eg ^ CD
iX C ^
0) O —
£ "n
s | I
CD -j (M
•» w o
CD (U CO
IS £ o,
X
o -
". °o
D
D
O)
C
1
O
x
q>
CD
^
o
a
>
CO
O)
8
ci
0
CO
CO
co
ci
V) '"*~ t— CD
§ 8 9 =
87-
— CO
I °
* s
en CD
O c
| 8
§ I
H 3
'c J2
• 3
<0 D"
a =
o- I
oo £
5 §
•* -o
Q M°
O O a,
~ z D
0 in 15
CO CO >
5il
v K >
x CD ^
2 Q. CD
P X "
O m 3
o TJ
1.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS
1.6.1 General
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 available product, wood is a desirable fuel. The wood is used in the form of
bark, hogged chips, shavings, and sawdust.
1.6.2 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 bum supplemental fuel with the wood.
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.
1.6.3 Emissions1
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 combustion of wood and bark in boilers are shown in Table 1.6-1.
4/73 External Combustion Sources 1.6-1
-------
Table 1.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR WOOD
AND BARK COMBUSTION
IN BOILERS WITH NO
REINJECTIONa-b
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulatesc
Sulfur oxides (S02)d
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons6
Nitrogen oxides (N02)
Emissions
Ib/ton
25 to 30
Oto3
2
2
10
kg/MT
12.5 to 15.0
0.0 to 1.5
1
1
5
References 1 through 4.
Approximately 50 percent moisture content.
cThis number is the atmospheric emission factor without fly-ash
remjection. For boilers with reinjection, the paniculate load-
ings reaching the control equipment are 30 to 35 Ib/ton (15 to
1 7.5 kg/MT) fuel with 50 percent reinjection and 40 to 45
Ib/ton (20 to 22.5 kg/MT) fuel with 100 percent reinjection.
dUse 0 for most wood and higher values for bark.
eExpressed as methane.
References for Section 1.6
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Hough, G.W. and L.J. Gross. Air Emission Control in a Modern Pulp and Paper Mill. Amer. Paper Industry.
57:36, February 1969.
3. Fryling, G.R. (ed.). Combustion Engineering. New York. 1967. p. 27-3.
4. Private communication on wood combustion with W.G. Tucker, Division of Process Control Engineering,
U.S. DREW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. Cincinnati, Ohio. November 19, 1968.
1.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Revised by Robert Rosensteel
As defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the term "solid waste" means garbage, refuse, and other
discarded solid materials, including solid-waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities. It includes both combustibles and noncombustibles.
Solid wastes may be classified into four general categories: urban, industrial, mineral, and agricultural.
Although urban wastes represent only a relatively small part of the total solid wastes produced, this category has
a large potential for air pollution since in heavily populated areas solid waste is often burned to reduce the bulk
of material requiring final disposal.1 The following discussion-will be limited to the urban and industrial waste
categories.
An average of 5.5 pounds (2.5 kilograms) of urban refuse and garbage is collected per capita per day in the
United States.2 This figure does not include uncollected urban and industrial wastes that are disposed of by other
means. Together, uncollected urban and industrial wastes contribute at least 4.5 pounds (2.0 kilograms) per
capita per day. The total gives a conservative per capita generation rate of 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) per day of
urban and industrial wastes. Approximately 50 percent of all the urban and industrial waste generated in the
United States is burned, using a wide variety of combustion methods with both enclosed and open
burning3. Atmospheric emissions, both gaseous and particulate, result from refuse disposal operations that use
combustion to reduce the quantity of refuse. Emissions from these combustion processes cover a wide range
because of their dependence upon the refuse burned, the method of combustion or incineration, and other
factors. Because of the large number of variables involved, it is not possible, in general, to delineate when a higher
or lower emission factor, or an intermediate value should be used. For this reason, an average emission factor has
been presented.
References
1. Solid Waste - It Will Not Go Away. League of Women Voters of the United States. Publication Number 675.
April 1971.
2. Black, R.J., H.L. Hickman, Jr., A.J. Klee, A.J. Muchick, and R.D. Vaughan. The National Solid Waste
Survey: An Interim Report. Public Health Service, Environmental Control Administration. Rockville, Md.
1968.
3. Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions, 1968. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution
Control Administration. Raleigh, N.C. Publication Number AP-73. August 1970.
4/73 2.1-1
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION Revised by R obert R osensteel
2.1.1 Process Description1 "4
The most common types of incinerators consist of a refractory-lined chamber with a grate upon which refuse
is burned. In some newer incinerators water-walled furnaces are used. Combustion products are formed by
heating and burning of refuse on the grate. In most cases, since insufficient underfire (unde grate) air is provided
to enable complete combustion, additional over-fire air is admitted above the burning waste to promote complete
gas-phase combustion. In multiple-chamber incinerators, gases from the primary chamber flow to a small
secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted, and more complete oxidation occurs. As much as 300
percent excess air may be supplied in order to promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners 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. Single-chamber incinerators of this type do not meet modern air pollution codes.
2.1.2 Definitions of Incinerator Categories1
No exact definitions of incinerator size categories exist, but for this report the following general categories and
descriptions have been selected:
1. Municipal incinerators — Multiple-chamber units often have capacities greater than 50 tons (45.3 MT)
per day and are usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems. Municipal incinerators are also usually equipped with some type of particulate
control device, such as a spray chamber or electrostatic precipitator.
2. Industrial/commercial incinerators — The capacities of these units cover a wide range, generally between
50 and 4,000 pounds (22.7 and 1,800 kilograms) per hour. Of either single- or multiple-chamber design,
these units are often manually charged and intermittently operated. Some industrial incinerators are
similar to municipal incinerators in size and design. Better designed emission control systems include
gas-fired afterburners or scrubbing, or both.
3. Trench Incinerators — A trench incinerator is designed for the combustion of wastes having relatively high
heat content and low ash content. The design of the unit is simple: a U-shaped combustion chamber is
formed by the sides and bottom of the pit and air is supplied from nozzles along the top of the pit. The
nozzles are directed at an angle below the horizontal to provide a curtain of air across the top of the pit
and to provide air for combustion in the pit. The trench incinerator is not as efficient for burning wastes
as the municipal multiple-chamber unit, except where careful precautions are taken to use it for disposal
of low-ash, high-heat-content refuse, and where special attention is paid to proper operation. Low
construction and operating costs have resulted in the use of this incinerator to dispose of materials other
than those for which it was originally designed. Emission factors for trench incinerators used to burn
three such materials7 are included in Table 2.1-1.
4. Domestic incinerators — This category includes 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.
2.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
00
O
CC
o
o
H
o
I
CO
CC
LU CC
oo o
D h-
u. o
LU <
CC U.
cc z
o o
"• w
GO CO
CC 5
u
z
o
CM
"° fe
cu $
!2 o>
x •*
o
c
cu
0) c
£ 0
p +-•
Z 5
O ^1
5^
CJ
0
ts
^ '
cu 1-
• — ^
0 jj?
0
E
II
°-
1-
•^ ^>
cfl ^
!2 -^
'x
^ c
-= o
J >l_ t
-
1-
V) \
jo •*
'E c
co ir
Q. 2
^^ H— '
—
cu
a
>
u.
n
Incinerati
LO LO
r-° ,-J
CO CO
LO LO
o o
LO LO
t— T—
LO LO
f-v! r^-
t— 1—
LO LO
CO CO
LO LO
CN CN
^ «-'
LO LO
CN CN
LO f»
o •*
CO «-
•D
"o
£ 73
O CD
C CU
3 J3-_
fe' If
1 •§ I
1 f >
0 ^ £
Its?
O. •t-' JZ CU
-.y = .t: S
§2 gg
2
LO
,— ,—
CO CN
LO LO
«- ' l~~.
CO LO
LO O
*~
O O
«- CN
LO LO
CN CN
*-' --'
^ ^
LO LO
CN CN
LO LO
CO t--.'
r~ LO
]ro ro^
'o cu
strial/commer
ultiple chamb
ngle chamber'
^Sco
.£
ir> LO LO
CN LO ^
z z z z z
<(00 00)0)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , Q cu cu
Lfl LO LO LO LO LO LO
O CN r--; CN CN CN CN
C i < ^ CD O C) O'O 0)
-T? CU
•^ z
^
•- LO LO LO LO LO LO
C3-
^t
cooor^'-'oco inr^oo
«- CO CO CO CO
E
cu'n"S"5iO CQ.P2-
T3 J2 •- — C C -5; <-, .= CD
Illlllfllli
£ CjiiESg-C
^ 3 O ^
LL LL Q Q.
0)
CJ
c
cu
cu
cu
CC
—
combustion in conical bui
•o
o
o
o
CO
CO
•D
C
o
CO
CO
•*
CO
'co
>
o
Z
—
8
c
cu
CD
CC
E
CD
C
CO
in"
co"
-"
o"
CO
0]
o
c
CU
cu
CU
CC
c
o
*J
c
8
CO
T3
T)
C
CD
V)
CU
C
.0
CD
*"*
^
0
IT)
-o
C
CO
^-"
CO
s
c
CD
ni
cu
CC
a
O
•a
c
CO
in
CD
CJ
c
CD
CU
CU
CC
CT
in
CD
u
c
CD
CU
CU
X
^
•o
CD
CO
0)
O
C
cu
m
cu
CC
Ul
c
'v,
cu
u
CO
o
CO
cu
c
'o
^c
i
0
a.
a.
LU
:iven based on
erage factors i
>
<(
CO
fur dioxide.
pressed as sul:
x
01
.a
CD
c
CO
£
pressed as me
x
LU
O
rogen dioxide.
pressed as niti
x
LU
T3
D)
3
0
00
ferences 5 anc
cu
CC
cu <
iquipped with at least this much control: see TabI
UJ
ncinerators are
ist municipal i
o
^
4-
for other controls.
riate efficiencie
Q.
0
a
a
CO
o
CN
CN
LO
•o
c
CO
co"
o"
ferences 3, 5,
CD
CC
CD
CO
pal incinerator
'o
'£
3
c
0
•g
CO
en
LO
c
CD
o"
ferences 3, 5,
CD
CC
4/73
Solid Waste Disposal
2.1-3
-------
5. 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.
6. 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. Wastes are burned on a hearth in the combustion chamber. The units are
equipped with combustion controls and afterburners to ensure good combustion and minimal emissions.
7. Controlled air incinerators - These units operate on a controlled combustion principle in which the
waste is burned in the absence of sufficient oxygen for complete combustion in the main chamber. This
process generates a highly combustible gas mixture that is then burned with excess air in a secondary
chamber, resulting in efficient combustion. These units are usually equipped with automatic charging
mechanisms and are characterized by the high effluent temperatures reached at the exit of the
incinerators.
2.1.3 Emissions and Controls1
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have a pronounced effect on
emissions. The manner in which air is supplied to the combustion chamber or chambers has, among all the
parameters, 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 area. As underfire air is increased, an increase in
fly-ash emissions occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the combustion bed and a subsequent
release of large quantities of particulates. Large quantities of uncombusted particulate matter and carbon
monoxide are also emitted for an extended period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in
the combustion process. In continuously fed units, furnace particulate emissions are strongly dependent upon
grate type. The use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates results in higher particulate emissions than the use of
rocking or traveling grates.14 Emissions of oxides of sulfur are dependent on the sulfur content of the refuse.
Carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon emissions may be significant and are caused by poor combustion
resulting from improper incinerator design or operating conditions. Nitrogen oxide emissions increase with an
increase in the temperature of the combustion zone, an increase in the residence time in the combustion zone
before quenching, and an increase in the excess air rates to the point where dilution cooling overcomes the effect
of increased oxygen concentration.14
Table 2.1-2 lists the relative collection efficiencies of particulate control equipment used for municipal
incinerators. This control equipment has little effect on gaseous emissions. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the
uncontrolled emission factors for the various types of incinerators previously discussed.
Table 2.1-2. COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS3
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 3, 5, 6, and 17 through 21.
2.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
References for Section 2.1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Incorporated, Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-65. March 1970.
3. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. U.S. DHEW, PHS National Center for Air Pollution
Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 413-503.
4. De Marco, J. et al. Incinerator Guidelines 1969. U.S. DHEW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio.
SW-13TS. 1969. p. 176.
5. Kanter, C. V., R. G. Lunche, and A.P. Fururich. Techniques for Testing for Air Contaminants from
Combustion Sources. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6(4): 191-199. February 1957.
6. Jens. W. and F.R. Rehm. Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control. 1966 National Incinerator
Conference, American Society of Mechnical Engineers. New York, May 1966.
7. Burkle, J.O., J. A. Dorsey, and B. T. Riley. The Effects of Operating Variables and Refuse Types on
Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator. Proceedings of the 1968 Incinerator Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 34-41.
8. Fernandes, J. H. Incinerator Air Pollution Control. Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 111.
9. Unpublished data on incinerator testing. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration. Durham, N.C. 1970.
10. Stear, J. L. Municipal Incineration: A Review of Literature. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. OAP Publication Number AP-79. June 1971.
11. Kaiser, E.R. et al. Modifications to Reduce Emissions from a Flue-fed Incinerator. New York University.
College of Engineering. Report Number 552.2. June 1959. p. 40 and 49.
12. Unpublished data on incinerator emissions. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1969.
13. 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 Number 1729. July 10-20, 1967.
14. Nissen, Walter R. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract
Number CPA-22-69-23. March 1970.
4/73 Solid Waste Disposal 2.1-5
-------
15. Unpublished source test data on incinerators. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
1966-1969.
16. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and Maryland State
Department of Health, Division of Air Quality Control, Baltimore, Md. 1969.
17. Rehm, F.R. Incinerator Testing and Test Results. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 6:199-204. February 1957.
18. Stenburg, R.L. et al. Field Evaluation of Combustion Air Effects on Atmospheric Emissions from Municipal
Incinerations. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 72:83-89. February 1962.
19. Smauder, E.E. Problems of Municipal Incineration. (Presented at First Meeting of Air Pollution Control
Association, West Coast Section, Los Angeles, California. March 1957.)
20. Gerstle, R. W. Unpublished data: revision of emission factors based on recent stack tests. U.S. DHEW, PHS,
National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967.
21. A Field Study of Performance of Three Municipal Incinerators. University of California, Berkeley, Technical
Bulletin. 6:41, November 1957.
2.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
2.2 AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION
Revised by Robert Rosensteel
2.2.1 Process Description
Auto incinerators consist of a single primary combustion chamber in which one or several partially stripped
cars are burned. (Tires are removed.) Approximately 30 to 40 minutes is required to burn two bodies
simultaneously.2 As many as 50 cars per day can be burned in this batch-type operation, depending on the
capacity of the incinerator. Continuous operations in which cars are placed on a conveyor belt and passed
through a tunnel-type incinerator have capacities of more than 50 cars per 8-hour day.
2.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
Both the degree of combustion as determined by the incinerator design and the amount of combustible
material left on the car greatly affect emissions. Temperatures on the order of 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 with the small quantity of combustible material. The use of overfire air
jets in the primary combustion chamber increases combustion efficiency by providing air and increased
turbulence.
In an attempt to reduce the various air pollutants produced by this method of burning, some auto incinerators
are equipped with emission control devices. Afterburners and low-voltage electrostatic precipitators have been
used to reduce particulate emissions; the former also reduces some of the gaseous emissions.3>4 When
afterburners are used to control emissions, the temperature in the secondary combustion chamber should be at
least 1500°F (815°C). Lower temperatures result in higher emissions. Emission factors for auto body incinerators
are presented in Table 2.2-1.
Table 2.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUTO BODY INCINERATION3
FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutants
Participates13
Carbon monoxide0
Hydrocarbons (CH4)C
Nitrogen oxides (N02)d
Aldehydes (HCOH)d
Organic acids (acetic)d
Uncontrolled
Ib/car
2
2.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.21
kg/car
0.9
1.1
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.10
With afterburner
Ib/car
1.5
Neg
Meg
0.02
0.06
0.07
kg/car
0.68
Neg
Neg
0.01
0.03
0.03
aBased on 250 Ib (113 kg) of combustible material on stripped car body.
References 2 and 4.
cBased on data for open burning and References 2 and 5.
dReference 3.
4/73
Solid Waste Disposal
2.2-1
-------
References for Section 2.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Kaiser, E.R. and J. Tolcias. Smokeless Burning of Automobile Bodies. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 72:64-73,
February 1962.
3. Alpiser, P.M. Air Pollution from Disposal of Junked Autos. Air Engineering. 10:18-22, November 1968.
4. Private communication with D.F. Walters, U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. July
19, 1963.
5. Gerstle, R.W. and D.A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
77:324-327. May 1967.
2.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
2.3 CONICAL BURNERS
2.3.1 Process Description1
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; however, the use of a conveyor results in more efficient burning. No
supplemental fuel is used, but combustion air is often supplemented by underfire air blown into the chamber
below the grate and by overfire air introduced through peripheral openings in the shell.
2.3.2 Emissions and Controls
The quantities and types of pollutants released from conical burners are dependent on the composition and
moisture content of the charged material, control of combustion air, type of charging system used, and the
condition in which the incinerator is maintained. The most critical of these factors seems to be the level of
maintenance on the incinerators. It is not uncommon for conical burners to have missing doors and numerous
holes in the shell, resulting in excessive combustion air, low temperatures, and, therefore, high emission rates of
combustible pollutants.2
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
2.3-1.
4/73 Solid Waste Disposal 2.3-1
-------
C/}
cc
LU
z
cc
D
OQ
_l
^f
/j
0
z
1 .
** d
UJ f/S Z
^L *•* |BB
0 CC <
•Z\-K-
*00
C/3 ^
^ ^ ^
2±1
6/5 S/3
0 I
\— " I
o
LL
•£.
g
v5
LU
r-^
CO
CN
_2
(0
1-
V
-c
'x
o
c
03
O)
8
•M
^
VI
c
o
^:
to
o
0
•a
>*
I
a>
x
o
c
o
E
c
to
O
i/i
o>
;g
x
o
^
M-
D
CO
w
0)
4-1
_to
D
o
V-»
k_
to
a.
1-
\
^
c
o
1-
^^
O)
c
o
ii
.Q
1—
O)
c
o
^
K^
O)
c
0
s
1-
^
O)
c
2
—
"o
?i "
t- g
LO
CN
LO
O
LO «-
0
r—
O
CN
O
CO
O
CO
CN
O
'
•q
o"
O
CO
O
O
o
CN
.|1?
.y D
| £
IT)
LO
r_
«—
LO
CO
o
CO
LO
o
ci
r-
o
LO LO
CD CO O
»"
>4- ra £
«- P^ O
CN
cu
§
H—
Q
k.
•§
0
V)
O
CD
a
"co
1
•a ._•
m QJ
+= N
CO °
03 > ^
•M -> —
w i_ 3
™ QJ ^
"^ CD
0 | *
5 '| s
O c ^
**• o P
t; .S2 to
^- JC
0 Q. "
fe E c
o ° '^
in c 2
"aj "O Q
E ^ ^
x CD S
a S E
| 1 |
.£ j» ^
'ui S ra
™ 5 to
I t o
I -1
| ^ "§>
,5 LU D
, s
C CM
°s
a.
a.
=0 P
'a
a.
§
o
>*j5
x
^*
a.
2.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 2.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Kreichelt, T.E. Air Pollution Aspects of Teepee Burners. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution.
Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-28. September 1966.
3. 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.
4. Private communication with Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Cincinnati, Ohio.
October 31, 1969.
5. Anderson, D.M., J. Lieben, and V.H. Sussman. Pure Air for Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State Department of
Health, Harrisburg. November 1961. p.98.
6. Boubel, R.W. et al. Wood Waste Disposal and Utilization. Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, Corvallis. Bulletin Number 39. June 1958. p.57.
7. Netzley, A.B. and J.E. Williamson. Multiple Chamber Incinerators for Burning Wood Waste. In: Air Pollution
Engineering Manual, Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.
Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p.436-445.
8. Droege, H. and G. Lee. The Use of Gas Sampling and Analysis for the Evaluation of Teepee Burners. Bureau
of Air Sanitation, California Department of Public Health. (Presented at the 7th Conference on Methods in
Air Pollution Studies, Los Angeles. January 1965.)
9. Boubel R.W. Particulate Emissions from Sawmill Waste Burners. Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon
State University, Corvallis. Bulletin Number 42. August 1968. p.7,8.
4/73 Solid Waste Disposal 2.3-3
-------
-------
2.4 OPEN BURNING
2.4.1 General1
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.
2.4.2 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 emission of particulates, carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbons and suppress the emission of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur oxide emissions are a direct
function of the sulfur content of the refuse. Emission factors are presented in Table 2.4-1 for the open burning of
three broad categories of waste: municipal refuse, automobile components, and horticultural refuse.
Table 2.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulates
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Hydrocarbons (CH4)
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Municipal
refuse3
16
8
1
0.5
85
42.5
30
15
6
3
Automobile
components'3 -c
100
50
Neg
Neg
125
62.5
30
15
4
2
Agricultural
field burningd
17
8.5
Neg
Neg
100
50
20
10
2
1
Landscape
refuse
and pruningd
17
8.5
Neg
Neg
60
30
20
10
2
1
Woodd
refuse
17
8.5
Neg
Neg
50
25
4
2
2
1
aReferences 2 through 6.
"Upholstery , belts, hoses, and tires burned in common.
cReference 2.
dReferences 2, 5, and 7 through 9.
4/73
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-1
-------
References for Section 2.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Gerstle, R.W. and D.A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
72:324-327. May 1967.
3. Burkle, J.O., J.A. Dorsey, and B.T. Riley. The Effects of Operating Variables and Refuse Types on Emissions
from a Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator. Proceedings of 1968 Incinerator Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p.34-41.
4. Weisburd, M.I. and S.S. Griswold (eds.). Air Pollution Control Field Operations Guide: A Guide for
Inspection and Control. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution. Washington, D.C. PHS Publication
Number 937. 1962.
5. Unpublished data on estimated major air contaminant emissions. State of New York Department of Health.
Albany. April 1, 1968.
6. Darley, E.F. et al. Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes to Photochemical Air Pollution. J. Air Pol.
Control Assoc. 76:685-690, December 1966.
7. Feldstein, M. et al. The Contribution of the Open Burning of Land Clearing Debris to Air Pollution. J. Air
Pol. Control Assoc. 75:542-545, November 1963.
8. Boubel, R.W., E.F. Darley, and E.A. Schuck. Emissions from Burning Grass Stubble and Straw. J. Air Pol.
Control Assoc. 79:497-500, July 1969.
9. Waste Problems of Agriculture and Forestry. Environ. Sci. and Tech. 2:498, July 1968.
2.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES
The internal combustion engine in both mobile and stationary applications is a major source of air pollutant
emissions. Internal combustion engines were responsible for approximately 73 percent of the carbon monoxide,
56 percent of the hydrocarbons, and 50 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NOX as NC^) emitted during 1970 in
the United States.1 These sources, however, are relatively minor contributors of total particulate and sulfur
oxides emissions. In 1970, nationwide, internal combustion sources accounted for only about 2.5 percent of the
total particulate and 3.4 percent of the sulfur oxides.1
The three major uses for internal combustion engines are: to propel highway vehicles, to propel off-highway
vehicles, and to provide power from a stationary position. Associated with each of these uses are engine duty
cycles that have a profound effect on the resulting air pollutant emissions from the engine. The following sections
describe the many applications of internal combustion engines, the engine duty cycles, and the resulting
emissions.
DEFINITIONS USED IN CHAPTER 3
Calendar year — a cycle in the Gregorian calendar of 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with
January and ending with December.
Catalytic device - a piece of emission control equipment that is anticipated to be the major component used in
post 1974 light-duty vehicles to meet the Federal emission standards.
Crankcase emissions - airborne substance emitted to the atmosphere from any portion of the crankcase
ventilation or lubrication systems of a motor vehicle engine.
Deterioration factor — the ratio of the pollutant (p) exhaust emission rate at "x" miles to the pollutant (p)
exhaust emission rate at 4000 miles.
Emission factor (highway vehicle) — the emissions of a vehicle (in grams/mile) that result from the product of the
low mileage emission rate, the deterioration factor, and the speed adjustment factor.
Emission rate (highway vehicle) — the results (in grams/mile) of an emissions test on the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure.
7975 Federal Test Procedure — the Federal motor vehicle emission test as described in the Federal Register, Vol.
36, Number 128, July 2, 1971.
Fuel evaporative emissions — vaporized fuel emitted into the atmosphere from the fuel system of a motor vehicle.
Heavy-duty vehicle — a motor vehicle either designated primarily for transportation of property and rated at
more than 6000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) or designed primarily for transportation of persons and
having a capacity of more than 12 persons.
High-altitude emission rates — substantial changes in emission rates from gasoline-powered vehicles occur as
altitude increases. These changes are caused by fuel metering enrichment because of decreasing density. No
relationship between mass emissions and altitude has been developed. Tests have been conducted at near sea
level and at approximately 5000 feet above sea level, however. Because most major U.S. urban areas at high
altitude are close to 5000 feet, an arbitrary value of 3500 and above is used to define high-altitude cities.
Horsepower-hours - a unit of work.
Light-duty vehicle — any motor vehicle either designated primarily for transportation of property and rated at
6000 GVW or less or designated primarily for transportation of persons and having a capacity of 12 persons or
less.
4/73 3.1.1-1
-------
Model year — a motor vehicle manufacturer's annual production period. If a manufacturer has no annual
production period, the term "model year" means a calendar year.
Model year mix — the distribution of vehicles registered by model year expresses as a fraction of the total vehicle
population.
Nitrogen oxides - the sum of the nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide contaminants in a gas sample expressed as if
the nitric oxide were in the form of nitrogen dioxide. All nitrogen oxides values in this chapter are corrected
for relative humidity.
Speed adjustment factor - the ratio of the pollutant (p) exhaust emission factor at speed "x" to the pollutant (p)
exhaust emission factor as determined by the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (19.6 miles per hour).
Reference
1. Cavender, J., D.S. Kircher, and J.R. Hammerle. Nationwide Air Pollutant Trends (1940-1970). U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication
Number AP-115. April 1973.
3.1.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.1 HIGHWAY VEHICLES by David S. Kircher
Passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles comprise the three main categories of
highway vehicles. Within each of these categories, powerplant and fuel variations result in significantly different
emission characteristics. For example, passenger cars may be powered by gasoline or diesel fuel or operate on a
gaseous fuel such as compressed natural gas (CNG). Similarly, a motorcycle may have either a four-stroke or a
two-stroke engine.
Highway vehicle emission factors are presented in two forms in this chapter. Section 3.1.1 contains average
emission factors based on statistical information for all major types of highway vehicles combined (i.e. light- and
heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles and heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles). These values are presented in
grams of pollutant per mile traveled (and in grams of pollutant per kilometer). The emission factors given in
sections 3.1.2 through 3.1.7 are for individual classes of highway vehicles and their application may require the
acquisition of statistical data specific to the area for which emission factors are desired. These additional data
may include vehicle registrations by model year and annual vehicle travel in miles or kilometers by vehicle class
(e.g. heavy-duty diesels, two-stroke motorcycles, light-duty CNG-powered vehicles, etc.)
It is important to note that highway vehicle emission factors change with time and, therefore, must be
calculated for a specific time period, normally 1 calendar year. The major reason for this time dependence is the
gradual replacement of vehicles without emission control equipment by vehicles with control equipment.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.1-3
-------
-------
3.1.1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.1.1 General — Emission factors in this section update emission factors for gasoline-powered motor vehicles
presented in the February 1972 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.' These new factors are based on
nationwide statistical data for light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles; heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles; and
heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles. Average emission factors are intended to assist those individuals
interested in compiling approximate emission estimates for large areas, such as an individual state or the nation.
The emission factor calculation techniques presented in sections 3.1.2 through 3.1.7 of this chapter are strongly
recommended for the formulation of localized emission estimates required for air quality modeling or for the
evaluation of air pollutant control strategies.
3.1.1.2 Emissions — Average emission factors by calendar year based on statistical data for the United States are
presented in Table 3.1.1-1. These factors were calculated using the techniques described in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.4,
and 3.1.5 of this chapter. Because the majority of highway vehicle emissions are produced (on a nationwide basis)
by gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, these are the only
vehicles considered in Table 3.1.1-1. The emission contribution from diesel-powered, light-duty vehicles, from
gaseous-fuel-powered vehicles, and from motorcycles is assumed to be insignificant for the purpose of developing
these approximate factors.
The exhaust emission values presented in Table 3.1.1-l,for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen
oxides are for an average speed of approximately 19.6 mi/hr (31.5 km/hr). These values can be modified to make
them representative of the area for which emission estimates are being prepared, by using the average speed
adjustment factors contained in Figure 3.1.1-1. For example, if carbon monoxide emissions in 1970 are to be
estimated for a state where the average speed is 35 mi/hr, the appropriate emission factor would be 0.6 times 78
or 47 grams per mile. This value would then be multiplied by the total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to arrive at a
carbon monoxide emission estimate.
Crankcase and evaporative hydrocarbons, particulate, and sulfur oxide emission factors are average values that
can be considered independent of speed. Emission estimates for these pollutants are calculated by simply multi-
plying the VMT by the emission factor.
Note: The emission factor data presented for highway vehicles in this chapter are based on a generalized test
cycle that involves operation typical of every-day driving patterns. Because this driving cycle is intended to
represent typical driving, it cannot apply in specific instances, i.e. to a particular segment of a particular roadway
at a particular time. In order to estimate vehicular emissions under a specific set of conditions, "modal" emission
factor data are required. Driving modes include: idle, constant speed, acceleration, and deceleration. Because all
driving patterns can be divided into one of these four modes, emissions can be determined by summing the modal
emissions for a particular driving pattern.
The Environmental Protection Agency is currently evaluating the use of modal emission data. Emission data
for idle, various constant speeds, and various initial and final speeds (accelerations and decelerations) are being
collected and analyzed. It is anticipated that these data will be published in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 in subse-
quent revisions of this publication. Modal data for light-duty vehicles (Section 3.1.2) will be published during
1973, and data for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles will be published at a later date.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.1-5
-------
IB
00
u
00
£
00
LU
I
o
h-
<
z
z
o
Q
111
00
<
CO
111
_l
o
I
LU
>
>-
1
u
x
cc
o
GO
Q£
o
(1
<
u.
o
00
00
5
LU
u
o
<
rr
LU
>
<
^
T"
CO
0)
a
m
D
M-
w
CO
CD
4-J
_co
3
o
tE
CO
ll
|l
-o
OJ
V)
S
!/> ^
c c
O ro
-80
CO
O
"U
c
F
i_
n
c
(M
8
t/>
P
•(-<
w
D
J=
X
LU
*CN
U
Z
(U
tt
3
nj
j:
X
LU
O>
•D
'p
I
E
"•-^
01
£
en
£
^^
D)
E
o:
E
^
D5
E
D)
E
O)
'c_
D)
E
^
en
'i
en
E
^
en
'§
en
E
JK:
en
1
0)
i_
CO
O)
S-
CMCNCNrMCMCNCNCNCMCNCNCvlCNJ
ooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooo
CNCMCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCMCNCNI
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
CNCNICNCNCNCNCNCN^i-
rorororonoococMCNCNCMT-.-
OOf0^t^f^l-CNO5r^CNr--^-'-CN
^t in in in in' LO •* «f •*' PO" ro oo oi
M r- CN CM CN n •<*
(O^-cNOOLncNcsoocDin^ncN
rocN(N«-t-'-ooooooo
n rv n oo
oocnirjcn'i-OLOroooocDLnco
mcorocNCNCN«-*-*-oooo
O)
r~oom«-oofOcDCMcnr--if)O5
tD^-^c^rnnoocNCMT-r-^o
O10OCNCD»— mOJCNCD'— l^^tCD
OJr-r^cQcoirj^f^j-rooocNCN*-
LOOOCOCNCna3«-COCMO>CO^l-'^
tn^f^-tnoococNCN»-<-'-oo
CJOOTfOOCNCDOtMCOT-CDCM^J-
OOP-r^CDr«.r~»p~r^r»r~r>-r~-i^-r»-ooo>
O)O)O)O)O^O)O)O)O^O)O^O^O5
f
o
c
o
•o
c
•a
CD
CM"
o
c
o
T3
CD
vt
CO
m
CO
_0
-o
O
en
E *•
3.1.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
20
AVERAGE ROUTE SPEED, km/hr
40 60 80
100
120
1.5
oc
o
o
o
LU
a:
oc.
o
o
o
LU
LU
D-
1.0
0.5
T
I
- NOTE: CURVES DEVELOPED FROM TESTS OF PRE 1968 (UNCONTROLLED) VEHICLES. RECENT -
TESTS INDICATE THEIR APPROXIMATE APPLICABILITY TO CONTROLLED VEHICLES INCLUDING
THOSE EQUIPPED WITH CATALYTIC DEVICES. UPDATED CURVES ARE PLANNED IN FUTURE
- ADDITIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT.
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
15
60
30 45
AVERAGE ROUTE SPEED, mi^r
Figure 3.1.1-1. Average speed correction factors for all model years.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.1-7
-------
References for Section 3.1,1
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Pro-
grams. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-42. February 1972.
2. Highway Statistics 1970. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Washington,
D.C. 1971.
3. Census of Transportation — Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Washington, D.C. July 1970.
4. Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association. Washington, D.C. July 1970.
5. McMichael, W.F. and A.H. Rose, Jr. A Comparison of Emissions from Automobiles in Cities at Two Different
Altitudes. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. July
1965.
6. Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles in Six Cities. Automotive Environmental Systems Inc. San
Bernadino, Calif. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number 68-04-0042. June 1972.
7. Walsh, M.P., Unpublished data on emissions from a catalyst-equipped light duty vehicle. The City of New
York Department of Air Resources, Bureau of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control. New York, N.Y. November
1972.
3.1.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.1.2 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.2.1 General — Because of their widespread use, light-duty, gasoline-powered highway vehicles are responsible
for a large percentage of the total emissions from highway vehicles on a nationwide as well as on a regionwide
basis. The information contained in this section permits the calculation of emission factors for this class of
highway vehicles operated in a specific geographic area under study. Section 3.1.1 provided generalized emission
factors for all highway vehicles combined; this section provides the information necessary to calculate emission
factors for one class of vehicles by using the technique outlined below.
3.1.2.2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions — The calculation of light-duty vehicle
exhaust emission factors for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides can be expressed
mathematically as:
n+ 1
enp = H CidinijSi (1)
i = n-12
where: e = Emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for calendar year (n), and pollutant (p)
q = The 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for pollutant (p) in g/mi for the i^1 model year
at low mileage 1 -2
dj =The controlled vehicle pollutant (p) emission deterioration factor for the i"1 model year
at calendar year (n)
nij =The weighted annual travel of the i"1 model year during calendar year (n). The determination
of this variable involves the use of the vehicle model year distribution
Sj = The weighted speed adjustment factor for the im model year vehicles
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline motor vehicles
involves evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rates. Evaporation and crankcase emissions can be
determined using:
n+ 1
fn= £ hi mi (2)
i = n-12
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hj = The combined evaporative and crankcase emission rate for the i"1 model year
mj = The weighted annual travel of the itn model year during calendar year (n)
A brief discussion of each of the variables presented in the above equations is necessary to help clarify their
formulation and use. These discussions amplify the definitions at the beginning of the chapter.
Test cycle emission rates (c and h). A recent study of light-duty vehicle exhaust emission rates in six cities
resulted in the data for 1971 and earlier model years that are presented in Tables 3.1.2-1 and 3.1.2-2.3 Err;ssion
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.2-1
-------
UJ
Q
D
LU J;
§1
ii
Q <
O %
CO <
CC (/)
< UJ
O -I
o o
I
LU
Q
I- ^
CC
O
cc co
< cc
O O
r-: o
CO
"co CO
^
ti
2
h-
cc
cc
o
o
^
LL
2
O
GO
5
LU
J2
*_
CD
CD
"CD
0
£
a
CD
TO
CO
21
E
g
_o
CO
t_
(J
CD
C
O
in
'E
CD
•f-i
CD
-C
X
LU
73
in
r-
en
H
o
a.
•^
fS.^
^
CO •§>«,.
^ ^ en
< — P-
CN
r^
^
T—
r-
en
o
en
CD
en
CO
CO
en
CO
CO
en
cu
CU
.1 s
+-" <-•
CD D
^t CM
^f CN
co in
rv rr co in
co in
~ c
15 o
cb f-\ cu ^
"O T3 !=
3 f c x ^ 8
O ? O X
_1 £. UJ
t— C35 CO »*
CO «- CO «- CN ^
d d ^ ^ do
CO Tf
CO ^- CO t- CN r-
CN r^ ^ r^ OO
co ^t en o
CN r^ CM CO «* CO
•* CM
co o en o
if CO CM CO ^ CO
«t CM
00 O CO CO
^r co in r-. in co
T- CM r-; CO
in co CM LO co co
in ^* ^t ^j*
in co co o LO co
it CO
co i~» o Is*
^r CM •* co co co
r^ •*
CO CM CM
CO CN O t- O CO
CO CO <-
a> ^ !£
CU 1^ c
^ O ^ -^
0 3 p •§ ^ 8
£ p +3 •- c S p-32 c
i . t^ ^D m y CD c oi c^ x .^ en o>
2 ^ •»-»•
»- CD
CO r-
d d
^
•^- CO
«-: d
t 0°
^-' d
«— en
CO «-'
«- C33
CO ^
co r^.
CM' t-'
CD CD
CM i-'
CM »d-
CN ^
en CM
CO
T3
X
O
c
&.- E
2 £ J
4-« ^5- **^.
•— O1 Qj
o c
8.2
» t;
2
0 O
a % s
•Do™
C CU ,-
'
o o o
« c **~
I sf
to ^ CO
SC ffi "
Si o
C 3 i=
*- m .«
I
-2 E
'§ «.9-
C Q) ^ I
5 ra w
O "~ o
• s^l
co ? E o rr
01 £ i " .E
3 m O) ^ CO
o ., ra o cu
CO
O CO •
c is
ff en
£ S
cc o-
3.1.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
o
LLJ 9
II
§
7<
OC CO
< m
8 J
o y
OC I
Q ID
> «
U)
V)
9^
is
o
CO
.0
to
0}
"Hi
o
E
cu
0)
to
E
g
o
••->
CD
to
i_
O
C
CO
H-
c
o
'•&
E
(D
tt
CD
f—
x
LLJ
"Si
to r^
O CT>
Q. T—
LO
p>
•-
JZ
CO O) «*
C5 O O5
U
CN
o^
<-
^_
O}
r—
o
§
§
o>
r—
00
c?
«—
CD
O)
'
CO
05
T—
8
* —
0>
ct
CO
-t-<
'o
Q.
CO rf
00 i- CM <-
^ ^ 00
co •*
00 r- CN *-
r-^- ^ O O
^ |^
O5 CN CN r^
^- »—
l-s |^
O) CN CN >-'
O> 00
^r «- CN T-'
CO CN
CO CN
CO CN CO CN
CO CN
0) ^r 5 c^
CO CN
LO 00
CO O) •*' CN
^ CN
CO O>
o «- "a- CM
LO CO
O r-
«- CN CO CO
IT) CO
00 LO
r^- ^ oci ur>
00 LO
c.
o> -O
c 1 •= E | | •= E
0 g^^ =^^^
L ^ CT) O) -C >- CJ) CJ)
CD t X f~
O LLJ
t- O)
CO «-
d d
CO ^j-
CM <-:
CO *fr
CM r-^
LO CN
CO CN
LO CN
CO CN
«- CN
IT) CO
LO CO
co r^
•tf CN
't «—
CO CM
^- 1-
co CM'
CD CN
CO CM
ut
•8
X
o
1- E
o-i4
i; D) D)
•z.
(D
JC.
O)
D
o
^
CN
CO
_OJ
E
_o
CO
^
O
C
O)
CO
V)
3
(/)
£
8
CO
c
0
(/)
V)
'E
0)
CO
O)
$
E
'o
D.
!c
(A
C
o
ro
o>
o
£
c
0
•D
9i
m
01
j;
f-
iri
8
C
OJ
0>
•s
cc
^
V)
OJ
.1
5-5
5
gs
CC EX
CD .Q
£ « to
Q.LU CO
O "D
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.2-3
-------
Table 3.1.2-3. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE
CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR FOR
ALL AREAS EXCEPT CALIFORNIA3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Model
year
Pre-1963
1963 through 1967
1968 through 1970
1971
1972
Post-1972
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
7.1
3.8
3.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
g/km
4.4
2.4
1.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
a Reference 7.
Table 3.1.2-4. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE
CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR FOR
CALIFORNIA3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Model
year
Pre-1961
1961 through 1963
1964 through 1967
1968 through 1969
1970 through 1971
1972
Post- 1972
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
7.1
3.8
3.0
3.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
g/km
4.4
2.4
1.9
1.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
a Reference 7.
3.1.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
rates for 1972 and later vehicles in these tables are based primarily on the applicable California and Federal
emission standards. These standards were modified to reflect low-mileage emission rates using information
provided in the references.4'5 Reference 4 also provided the information necessary to modify the 1971 and
earlier test results to low-mileage emission rates. Evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission values are
shown in Tables 3.1.2-3 and 3.1.2-4. Test cycle emission rates are presented for both low and high altitudes
(exhaust emissions) and for California and all areas except California (exhaust, evaporative, and crankcase
emissions). High-altitude areas are considered separately because of the significant impact altitude has on carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide exhaust emissions. California is considered separately because
emission control standards were implemented there on a different and somewhat more accelerated schedule than
were the Federal emission standards.
Deterioration factors (d). Exhaust deterioration factors for emission controlled vehicles by model year and
pollutant are presented in Tables 3.1.2-5 and 3.1.2-6. Deterioration factors enable the modification of low
mileage emission rates to account for the ageing or deterioration of exhaust emission control devices. The
deterioration rates presented were derived primarily from testing done by the California Air Resources Board.4
Weighted annual mileage (m). The determination of the weighted annual mileage is best illustrated by the
example in Table 3.1.2-7. In this example, the model year distribution as of July 1 (in this case nationwide) is
combined with nationwide annual travel by model year, unless localized annual mileages by model year are
available. In the calculation of city-specific emission factors, the model year distribution for the area under
consideration should be obtained from registration statistics and combined with the annual mileages as in Table
3.1.2-7.
Weighted speed adjustment /actor (sj. The weighted speed adjustment factor enables the calculation of a region-
wide emission factor that takes into account variation in average route speed. This variable is calculated using:
Sj= L, fjVj (3)
J=l
where: Sj = The weighted speed adjustment factor for the i"1 model year
f. = The fraction of total annual vehicle miles traveled at speed (j)
v; = The vehicular average speed correction factor for average speed (j)
The values for the vehicular speed adjustment factor (v) are contained in Figure 3.1.1-1.
3.1.2.3 Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Emissions - Light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles emit relatively small
quantities of paniculate and sulfur oxides in comparison with the three pollutants discussed above. For this
reason, average rather than calculated emission factors should be sufficiently accurate for approximating.
participate and sulfur oxide emissions from light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles. Average emission factors for
these pollutants are presented in Table 3.1.2-8. No Federal standards for these two pollutants are presently in
effect, although many areas do have opacity (antismoke) regulations applicable to motor vehicles.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.2-5
-------
Q <
<^0
O I h-
oa ft
rr _ UJ
Q -I O
LJ v/
DC
I O
UJ
x o H
LII i- r:
- o <
J" < z
Q LL —
V ^ f
003
o11^
i < I
S cc oi
2 O >
™ 01 UJ
g I- EC
< UJ 111
O Q g
iri *" O
"? UJ Q.
CN Q
JD
CD
CD
CD"
CD
CD
O
.C
Pollutant
O)
CO
CO
in
CO
CN
o
CD
-o
0
"O cu
C 0>
CD >•
O
o
*~~
o
o
* —
o
o
'
o
o
*~
o
o
'
o
0
*~~
0
*~
o
o
o
o
8
Carbon
monoxide
Pre-1968b
CN CN
r-- co
*~ *~
I-. O3
CD P~-
1 '
co in
co r»
* *
CO <-
in P-
*-" T
CO 00
in CD
r— *—
[^ CO
*"" ^~
<- O3
^ in
T *"-
in ro
ro in
*fr CN
CN ^f
°§
CO O3
CD CD
O3 O3
CD
in
r—
,-
*""
o
in
t—
^
- P~
o i^ in ^
p^ 03 r** to
O3 «- O3 O
^- T— Q_
§
r~
o
o
*~
o
o
^""
o
o
T"-
o
o
*~
o
o
"
o
o
*
o
q
o
q
o
q
.a
CO
C 03
03 m *~
S1! £
CO
CN
r
in
CN
'
CN
4
CO
CN
"
CN
CN
*
CN
"
O
CN
r~
oo
-
0
q
CJ)
o
-C CD
•^ in
CO 1^
r- o
03 r-
[^
CO
00
ro
CD
CN
CO
O3
O3
CN
CO
r--
CN
CN
CN
2
CN
r-
CO
8
-o
in
(/)
o
a.
8 §
a .E
O cu
w c
•& &
.2 c
o o
i: o
c Q.
o i-
o o
en
CD
3 3
•c o
CD .D
•B 8
i.y
•o-g
^1
.&g
&2
a> <
+-- *
§5
CD O
s g
ii s
CD F —
3 I
CD a
jjl^
l!
£ *
aj cu
> £
S.£
en c
T o
cu -r:
I
CO
r^
m
in
i^
en
I
o
o
a „;
*_ CO
O "o
IS -c
*- cu
IS
O) d
in £ o
1^1
ro .t; o
t* c ^
3 OJ
c ro
«l>
Q. o 9! -g
nil
u> > in t
E Is 8"i
fl*I
ro QJ C t
nil
° o o ^
T3 r-- C r>
a) o-) g on
CO T~ OJ *~
.P Q o
in
a>
CO (A
^ "
CO
0) 4-
y D
•g ^ « D
= w C uj
j- a; Q3 0)
5 ^ fe "
V)
CD
O
^°3
g S§
£>l
(D _Q
> 10 *t; w
CO QJ ^ Q>
8c= =
g O o "
™-a-a -D
c S « 8
O CD g CO
i/» CQ Q3 CO
o T3 co
3.1.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
o
o
LU
^3= tt
co — 2
-
LLJ >• LU
XH Q
20 "i
2 O Q.
*
jUJ
C
CO
c
CD;
•M
D
0
O.
O
CO
r^
CO
in
•^
CM
0
to
CD
"5
I?
e
o ^t co CM CN co r>. r-.
,- t- r- «- T- »- COCO
CO C^ CO r*""" O} ^~ CO CO
O *- CD CO in O CDCD
«-»-«- T- r- T- COCO
o o o co «— Is* en as
o CNJ ^" in ["•*• ^- en en
<-«-,-*-<-*- CNCN
o CN co in CD >* r-« r~
OCNCN«d-CD^f •* ^
§^~ co «•" 03 co ^ ^*
CN CM ^
Q "co 2 ^ "o °
-°co ^o o) r~£o)
mCj) •^^r-a^-c en 10
cj ^~* CD Is* co cn ** r*"» in * 05 "* ^~ ^*~ r^
o n) co CD co co p** 05 r^ in d ^ _'. r^* en
^~ i_ en en en 01 en T— cn o o ]5 >_ o ^~
l"0-1"^^^ '-Q-.i±gQ-^
£
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
03
03
CM
CO
CM
CM
CN
*
CM
r~
CO
o
q
•a
in
r~-
•t-j
c/>
» vehicles were not equipped with exhaust control devices and.
.c
%
D
(/>
CO
CD
>
"CD
?
E
3!
CD
-C
•M
O
c
0)
cn
_0>
U
£
0)
>
%
CD
jr
•!-•
*o
QJ
CJ
C
CO
§
o
0)
Q.
C
g
'«
V)
'E
CD
CD
Jz
+-•
.£
c
O
CO
t_
0
tD
CD
Q
c
g
CO
k_
g
OJ
CD
"0
CD
O
1
-D
"o
4-f
C
8
U
0}
-C
X
0
t)
> 0)
6) '£
£ 2
iri
•o
c
CD
c
D
M-
o
Q3
_3
CO
^
0
c
CD
O
'm
k.
.C
•t-1
by therr emission factors, which are based on a random sample of
<_i
C
D
O
o
o
CO
•t-J
c
c
(D
.*
CO
J
CD
8
C
CO
c
CD
E
0
o
a
t
CD
C/)
CO
CD
X3
CD -Q
vehicles.
CO
CD
>
"CD
|
O
r-
a>
o
»+-
tst
i
I
. c
— - -Q
— w
co to
> CQ
CJ
rototype 1975-1976 model year vehicles.
Q
0
in
t>
0>
c
o
rs based i
o
CJ
j5
c
o
CD
O
kl
0)
o
Q
in
CD
0
C
0)
k_
£
QJ
CC
C
o
TJ
I
CD
CQ
T3
• cn
CD
U
£
CD
>
CD
CD
>
-a
o
E
1§
'c
o
"CD
O
r-^
O)
£
v>
3
C/l
0)
V,
09
C
o
TJ
8
CO
CQ
CD
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.2-7
-------
Table 3.1.2-7. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE
ANNUAL TRAVEL3
Age,
years
Oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)b
0.000
0.078
0.116
0.110
0.098
0.106
0.106
0.088
0.078
0.063
0.041
0.035
0.021
0.060
Average annual
miles driven (b)c
1 5,900
15,900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
6,700
a x b
0
1,240
1,740
1,540
1,284
1,293
1,198
906
733
536
312
235
141
402
Annual
travel (m)c'
0.000
0.107
0.151
0.133
0.111
0.112
0.104
0.078
0.063
0.046
0.027
0.020
0.012
0.036
aReferences 8 and 9.
bThese data are for July 1, 1970, from Reference 8 and represent the U.S. population of light-
duty vehicles by model year.
cMileage values are the results of at least squares analysis of data in Reference 9.
Xab
eRefers to "next" year's models introduced in the fall.
Table 3.1.2-8. PARTICULATE AND SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emissions
Pollutant
Paniculate3
Exhaust
Tire wear
Sulfur oxidesb
(SOxasS02)
g/mi
0.34
0.20
0.13
g/km
0.21
0.12
0.08
References 10, 11, and 12.
bBased on an average fuel consumption of 13.6 mi/gal
(5.8 km/liter) from Reference 8 and on the use of a
fuel with a 0032 percent sulfur content from Refer-
ences 13 through 15, and a density of 6.1 Ib/gal
(0.73 kg/liter) from References 13 and 14.
3.1.2-*
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 3.1.2
1. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
J5(219): 17288-17313, November 10, 1970.
2. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures. Federal Register. Part II. 56(128): 12652-12664. July 2,
1971.
3. Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles in Six Cities. Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. San
Bernadino, Calif. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number 68-04-0042. June 1971.
4. Hocker, A.J. Exhaust Emissions from Privately Owned 1966-70 California Automobiles - A Statistical
Evaluation of Surveillance Data. California Air Resources Laboratory. Los Angeles, Calif. July 1971.
5. Semiannual Report by the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions of the National Academy of Sciences to
the Environmental Protection Agency. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. January 1972.
6. McMichael, W.F. and A.H. Rose, Jr. A Comparison of Emissions from Automobiles in Cities at Two Different
Altitudes. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. July
1965.
7. Sigworth, H.W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Internal document Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971.
8. Automobile Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association. Washington, D.C. 1971.
9. Strate, H.E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report Num-
ber 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. April 1972.
10. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-51, January 1969.
11. Ter Haar, G.L., D.L. Lenare, J.N. Hu, and M. Brandt. Composition, Size and Control of Automotive Exhaust
Particulates. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 22:39-46, January 1972.
12. Subramani, J.P. Particulate Air Pollution from Automobile Tire Tread Wear. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1971.
13. Shelton, E.M. and C.M. McKinney. Motor Gasolines, Winter 1970-1971. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Bartlesville, Okla. June 1971.
14. Shelton, E.M. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1971. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Bartles-
ville, Okla. January 1972.
15. Automotive Fuels and Air Pollution. U.S. Department of Commerce Report of the Panel on Automotive
Fuels and Air Pollution. Washington, D.C. March 1971.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.2-9
-------
-------
3.1.3 Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.3.1 General — In comparison with the conventional, "uncontrolled," gasoline-powered, spark-ignited,
automotive engine, the uncontrolled diesel automotive engine is a low pollution powerplant. In its uncontrolled
form, the diesel engine emits (in grams per mile) considerably less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and
somewhat less nitrogen oxides than a comparable uncontrolled gasoline engine. A relatively small number of
light-duty diesels are in use in the United States.
3.1.3.2 Emissions — Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides emission factors for the light-duty,
diesel-powered vehicle are shown in Table 3.1.3-1. These factors are based on tests of several Mercedes 220D
automobiles using a slightly modified version of the Federal light-duty vehicle test procedure.1 '2 Available
automotive diesel test data are limited to these results. No data are available on emissions versus average speed nor
are data available for deterioration of 1976 and later controlled diesels. Emissions from light-duty diesel vehicles
during a calendar year (n) and for a pollutant (p) can be approximately calculated using:
enp= £ Cjfi (1)
i=n-12
where: enp = Emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for calendar year (n) and pollutant (p)
Cj=The 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for pollutant (p) in grams/mile for the i
model year at calendar year (n) (Table 3.1.3-1)
fj = The fraction of total light-duty diesel vehicle miles driven by the ith model year diesel light-
duty vehicles
Details of this calculation technique are discussed in section 3.1.2.
The emission factors in Table 3.1.3-1 for particulates and sulfur oxides were developed using an average
sulfur content fuel in the case of sulfur oxides and the Dow Measuring Procedure on the 1975 Federal test cycle
for particulate.1'6
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.3-1
-------
Table 3.1.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY,
DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide3
Exhaust hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides3-'3
(NOX as N02)
Participate0
Sulfur oxides"
Model years
<1975
g/mi
1.7
0.45
1.6
0.73
0.63
g/km
1.1
0.28
0.99
0.45
0.39
5*1976
g/mi
1.7
0.45
0.40
0.73
0.63
g/km
1.1
0.28
0.25
0.45
0.39
a Estimates are arithmetic mean of tests of vehicles, References 3 through 5.
Nitrogen oxides estimate for 1976 based on emission standard, Reference 2.
c Reference 4.
Calculated using the fuel consumption rate reported in Reference 6 and assuming the
use of a diesel fuel containing 0.20 percent sulfur.
References for Section 3.1.3
1. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures. Federal Register. Part II. 36(128): 12652-12664, July 2,
1971.
2. Control of Air Pollution from Light Duty Diesel Motor Vehicles. Federal Register. Part 11.37(193):
20914-20923, October 4, 1972.
3. Springer, K.J. Emissions from a Gasoline - and Diesel-Powered Mercedes 220 Passenger Car. Southwest
Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA 70-44. June 1971.
4. Ashby, H.A. Final Report: Exhaust Emissions from a Mercedes-Benz Diesel Sedan. Environmental Protection
Agency. Ann Arbor, Mich. July 1972.
5. Test Results from the Last 9 Months - MB220D. Mercedes-Benz of North America. Fort Lee, New Jersey.
Report El 0472. March 1972.
6. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Evaluation of the Federal Clean Car Incentive Program Vehicle Test Plan.
Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Weiner Associates, Incorporated., Cockeys-
ville, Md. October 1971.
3.1.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.1.4 Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.4.1 General — Heavy-duty, gasoline-powered highway vehicles, are, because of their lesser numbers, not as
great an air pollutant source as light-duty gasoline-powered highway vehicles. Heavy-duty vehicles are driven on
the same roadways as light-duty vehicles; therefore, their emission characteristics are somewhat similar. The
information provided in this section allows the separate calculation of an emission factor for this weight class of
highway vehicles. The quantities presented in section 3.1.1 are for all major highway vehicles based on nationwide
statistics including this category.
3.1.4.2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions — The calculation of heavy-duty,
gasoline-powered exhaust emission factors can be accomplished using:
n + 1
enp= 1C CjdimjSj (1)
i = n-12
where: enp = Emission factor in grams per vehicle mile (g/km) for calendar year (n) and pollutant (p)
Cj =The test procedure emission rate (Table 3.1.4-1) for pollutant (p) in g/mi for the itri model
year, at low mileage
dj=The controlled vehicle pollutant (p) emission deterioration factor for the rn model year at
calendar year (n)
nij =The weighted annual travel of the i"1 model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The deter-
mination of this variable involves the use of the vehicle year distribution
Sj = The weighted speed adjustment factors for the itn model year vehicles
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
are determined using:
n+ 1
fn= £ himi (2)
i = n-12
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hj = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the itn model year.
Emission factors for this source are: pre 1968, 8.2 g/mi (5.1 g/km); and 1968 and later vehicles,
3.0 g/mi (1.9 g/km). In California: 1964-1972, 3.0 g/mi (1.9 g/km); post-1972, 0.2 g/mi
(0.1 g/km).
mj = The weighted annual travel of the i"1 model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
A brief discussion of the variables presented in the above equations is necessary to help clarify their formula-
tion and use. The following paragraphs further describe the variables Cj, dj, mj, Sj, and hj, as they apply to
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.4-1
-------
Test procedure emission rate (c). The emission rates listed in Table 3.1.4-1 for all areas except high altitude and
California are based on dynamometer test results, on-the-road emission sampling, and emission standards.1 Mass I
emission results based on a dynamometer test cycle that simulates on-the-road operation were used to obtain the
emission rates for pre 1970 vehicles. Vehicles covered by the 1970 emission standards for heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles8 were tested using both an on-the-road and a dynamometer test procedure. The results of these tests
were combined to give the emission rates reported for 1970 through 1973 heavy-duty vehicles. Mass emission
rates for 1974 and later heavy-duty vehicles are based on the applicable Federal emission standards.5 High
altitude emission rates (Table 3.1.4-1) were calculated from the values for all areas except high altitude listed in
Table 3.1.4-1 using the relationship between high- and low-altitude light-duty vehicle emission rates.9 California
emission rates also shown in Table 3.1.4-1 were calculated from California State emission standards.
Deterioration factors (d). Because of the lack of actual heavy-duty deterioration information, light-duty deterio-
ration data must be used for controlled heavy-duty vehicles. Actual mass emission reductions on vehicles meeting
the 1970 emission standards have generally proven to be very small. For this reason deterioration factors on these
vehicles seem unnecessary. It is anticipated that this will also be the case for 1974 and later non-California
vehicles. The emission reduction on 1975 and later, heavy-duty vehicles in California is more substantial;
therefore, the heavy-duty vehicle emission deterioration factors (Table 3.1.4-2) should be used.
Weighted annual mileage (m). The determination of this variable is illustrated in Table 3.1.4-3. For purposes of
this illustration, nationwide statistics have been used. Localized data should be substituted when calculating the
variable (m) for a specific area under study.
Weighted speed adjustment factor (s). Again, as with deterioration information, data based on tests of
heavy-duty emissions versus average speed are unavailable. The variable (s) is calculated using:
sj
= E fjVj (3)
where: s; = The weighted speed adjustment factor for the itn model year from Figure 3.1.1-1
f : = The fraction of the total annual vehicle miles traveled at speed (j)
V; = The vehicular average speed correction factor for average speed (j)
3.1.4.3 Sulfur Oxide and Particulate Emissions - Sulfur oxide and particulate emission factors for all model year
heavy-duty vehicles are presented in Table 3.1.4-4. Sulfur oxides factors are based on fuel sulfur content and fuel
consumption. Tire-wear particulate factors are based on automobile test results, a premise necessary because of
the lack of data. Truck tire wear is likely to result in greater particulate emission than automobiles because of
larger tires, heavier loads on tires, and more tires per vehicle.
3.1.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
Table 3.1.4-1. HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBONS, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas except
high altitude
and California
High altitude
onlyd
California
only
Model
year
Pre-1970a
1970 through 1973b
Post- 1973°
Pre-1970a
1970 through 1973b
Post-1 973C
Pre-1970a
1970 through 1971b
1972e
1973 through 1974C
1975e
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
140
130
130
210
190
190
140
130
130
130
81
g/km
87
81
81
130
120
120
87
81
81
81
50
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
g/mi
17
16
13
19
18
15
17
16
13
13
4.1
g/km
11
9.9
8.1
12
11
9.3
11
9.9
8.1
8.1
2.5
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
9.4
9.2
9.2
5.0
4.9
4.9
9.4
9.2
9.2
9.2
2.8
g/km
5.8
5.7
5.7
3.1
3.0
3.0
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
1.7
aData from References 1 through 3.
bData from References 1 through 7.
°References 5 and 7.
dBased on light-duty emissions at high altitude compared with light-duty emissions at low altitude.
eBased on applicable emission standards and Reference 7. These are low mileage emission rates.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.4-3
-------
Table 3.1.4-2. EXHAUST EMISSION DETERIORATION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-
DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES (CALIFORNIA ONLY), 1975 AND LATER MODELS3
Pollutant
Carbon
monoxide
Hydrocarbon
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOxasN02)
Vehicle age, years
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1
1.24
1.12
1.11
2
1.35
1.18
1.18
3
1.43
1.22
1.20
4
1.50
1.25
1.22
5
1.57
1.28
1.23
6
1.63
1.30
1.24
7
1.69
1.33
1.25
8
1.73
1.36
1.27
>9
1.77
1.38
1.28
Reference 10. The deterioration factor for all non-California and pre-1975 California heavy-duty vehicles is 1.00
regardless of age. These values apply to all 1975 and later California heavy-duty vehicles.
3.1.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Table 3.1.4-3. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE ANNUAL TRAVEL
Age,
years
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.000
0.071
0.106
0.087
0.081
0.084
0.076
0.065
0.055
0.047
0.035
0.037
0.033
0.223
Average annual
miles driven (b)"
17,200
17,200
17,200
1 5,800
1 5,800
1 3,000
13,000
11,000
11,000
9,000
9,000
5,500
5,500
5,500
a x b
0
1,221
1,823
1,375
1,280
1,090
988
715
605
423
315
204
182
1,226
Annual
travel (m)c
0.000
0.107
0.159
0.120
0.112
0.095
0.086
0.062
0.052
0.037
0.028
0.018
0.016
0.108
Vehicles in use by model year as of July 1, 1970 (Reference 11).
' Reference 12.
ab
Sab
Table 3.1.4-4. SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust3
Tire wear"3
Sulfur oxides0
(SOX as S02)
Emissions
g/mi
0.65
0.20
0.26
g/km
0.40
0.12
0.16
aCalculated from the Reference 13 value of 12
lb/103 gal (1.46 g/liter) gasoline. An 8.4 mi/gal
(3.6 km/liter) value from Reference 11 was used
to convert to a per mile emission factor.
bReference 14. The data from this reference are
for passenger cars. In the absence of specific data
for heavy-duty vehicles, they are assumed to be
representative of truck-tire-wear paniculate.
0 Based on an average fuel consumption of 8.4 mi/
gal (3.6 km/liter) from Reference 11 on a 0.04
percent sulfur content from References 15 and
16, and on a density of 6.1 Ib/gal (0.73 kg/liter)
from References 15 and 16.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.1.4-5
-------
References for Section 3.1.4
1. Exhaust Emission Analysis and Mode Cycle Development for Gasoline-Powered Trucks. Ethyl Corporation.
Ferndale, Mich. Prepared for the U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., under Contract Number PH
86-66-150. September 1967.
2. Springer, K.J. An Investigation of Emissions from Trucks above 6,000 Ib GVW Powered by Spark-Ignited
Engines. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the U.S. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C., under Contract Number PH 86-67-72. March 1969.
3. In-House Surveillance Program of Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles between 6,000-lb GVW and 10,000-lb GVW.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, Mich. November 1972.
4. Ingalls, M.N. and K.J. Springer. Monthly Progress Report Number 28-Surveillance Study of Control
Equipped Heavy-Duty Gasoline-Powered Vehicles. Southwestern Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas.
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
EHA 70-113. November 1972.
5. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and Engines. Heavy Duty Engines. Federal Register. Part
II. 57(175): 18262-18270, September, 8, 1972.
6. Springer, K.J. and M.N. Ingalls. Mass Emissions from Trucks above 6,000-lb GVW-Gasoline Fueled. South-
west Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHS 70-113. August 1972.
7. Sigworth, H.W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Internal document U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971.
8. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
5^(108):8304-8324,June4, 1968.
9. Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles in Six Cities. Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. San
Bernadino, Calif. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number 68-04-0042. June 1972.
10. Hocker, A.J. Exhaust Emission from Privately Owned 1966-1970 California Automobiles — A Statistical
Evaluation of Surveillance Data. California Air Resources Laboratory. Los Angeles, Calif. July 1971.
11. 1971 Motor Truck Facts. Automobile Manufacturers Association. Washington, D.C. 1972.
12. 1967 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. Washington, D.C. July 1970.
13. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-51. January 1969.
14. Subramani, J.P. Particulate Air Pollution form Automobile Tire Tread Wear. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati. Ohio. May 1971.
15. Shelton, E.M. and C.M. McKinney. Motor Gasolines, Winter 1970-1971. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Bartlesville, Okla. June 1971.
16. Shelton, E.M. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1971. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Bartles-
ville, Okla. January 1972.
3.1.4-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.1.5 Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles Revised by MichaelJ. McGraw
and David S. Kircher
3.1.5.1 General1'2 - On the highway, heavy-duty diesel engines are primarily used in trucks and buses. Diesel
engines in any application demonstrate operating principles that are significantly different from those of the
gasoline engine.
3.1.5.2 Emissions — Diesel trucks and buses emit pollutants from the same sources as gasoline-powered vehicles:
exhaust, crankcase blow-by, and fuel evaporation. 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 essentially eliminates evaporation losses in diesel systems.
Exhaust emissions from diesel engines have the same general characteristics of 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 (0.20 percent S) as
compared with gasoline (0.035 percent S), sulfur dioxide emissions are relatively higher from diesel exhausts.-*'4
Because diesel engines allow more complete combustion and use less volatile fuels than spark-ignited engines,
their hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are relatively low. Because hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust are
largely unburned diesel fuel, their emissions are related to the volume of fuel sprayed into the combustion
chamber. New, improved needle valve injectors that reduce the amount of fuel that can be burned can reduce
hydrocarbon emissions by as much as 50 percent.5 Both the high temperatures and the large excesses of oxygen
involved in diesel combustion are conducive to high nitrogen oxide emission, however.6
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 is
emitted when the fuel droplets are subjected to high temperatures in an environment lacking in oxygen (road
conditions). A hot diesel engine properly adjusted and operated under design loads should emit no visible
"smoke."
Emission factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles are shown in Table 3.1.5-1.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.5-1
-------
Table 3.1.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-
POWERED VEHICLES3'15
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Participate
Sulfur oxides0
(SOxasS02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Aldehydes
(asHCHO)
Organic acids
Emissions
lb/103gal
13
27
225
37
370
3
3
kg/103 liter
1.6
3.2
27.0
4.4
44.0
0.4
0.4
g/mi
1.2
2.4
20.4
3.4
34
0.3
0.3
g/km
0.75
1.5
12.7
2.1
21
0.2
0.2
a Data 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).
b Reference 7.
c Data based on fuel with average sulfur content of 0.2 percent.
References for Section 3.1.5
1. The Automobile and Air Pollution: A Program for Progress. Part II. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washing-
ton, D.C. December 1967. p. 34.
2. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Hydrocarbons from Mobile Sources. U.S.
DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number
AP-66. March 1970. p. 2-9 through 2-11.
3. McConnel, G. and H.E. Howels. Diesel Fuel Properties and Exhaust Gas-Distant Relations? Society of
Automotive Engineers. New York, N.Y. Publication Number 670091. January 1967.
4. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1969. Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C. Petroleum Products Survey Number 63. 1970. p. 5.
5. Merrion, D.F. Diesel and Turbine Driven Vehicles and Air Pollution. (Presented at University of Missouri Air
Pollution Conference, Columbia, Mo. November 18, 1969.)
6. 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.)
7. Young T.C. Unpublished emission factor data on diesel engines. Engine Manufacturers Association Emission
Standards Committee. Chicago, El. May 18, 1971.
3.1.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.1.6 Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles by David S. Kircher
3.1.6.1 General — Conversion of vehicles to gaseous fuels has been practiced for many years. In the past the
principal motivation for the conversion has been the economic advantage of gaseous fuels over gasoline rather
than lower air pollutant emission levels that result from their use. Recently, however, conversions have been made
for air pollution control as well as for lower operating cost. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG), the most common
form of gaseous fuel for vehicles, is currently used to power approximately 300,000 vehicles in the United States.
Natural gas, in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquified natural gas (LNG), is being used nationally
to power about 4,000 vehicles.1 Of the two natural gas fuels, CNG is the most common. Natural gas conversions
are usually dual fuel systems that permit operation on either gaseous fuel (CNG or LNG) or gasoline.
3.1.6.2 Emissions - Tables 3.1.6-1 and 3.1.6-2 contain emission factors for light- and heavy-duty vehicles
converted for either gaseous fuel or dual fuel operation. The test data used to determine the average light duty
emission factors were based on both the 1972 Federal test procedure and the earlier seven-mode method.^>^
These test data were converted to the current Federal test procedure" using conversion factors determined
empirically.10'11 This conversion was necessary to make the emission factors for these vehicles consistent with
emission factors reported in previous sections of this chapter.
Heavy-duty vehicle emission factors (Table 3.1.6-2) are based on tests of vehicles on an experimental
dynamometer test cycle*' and on the Federal test procedure. Emissions data for heavy-duty vehicles are limited to
tests of only a few vehicles. For this reason the factors listed in table 3.1.6-2 are only approximate indicators of
emissions from these vehicles.
Emission data on gaseous-powered vehicles are limited to dynamometer test results. Deterioration factors and
speed correction factors are not available. The data contained in the tables, therefore, are emission factors for
in-use vehicles at various mileages rather than emission rates (as defined in section 3.1.2).
Emission factors for a particular population of gaseous-fueled vehicles can be determined using the relation-
ship:
enpwc
n+ 1
i = n- 12
where: enpwc = Emission factor is grams per mile (or g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), vehicle weight
(w) (light- or heavy-duty), and conversion fuel system (c) (e.g. LPG)
Cj = The test cycle emission factor (Tables 3.1.6-1 and 3.1.6-2) for pollutant (p) for the itn model
year vehicles
fj = The fraction of total miles driven by a population of gaseous-fueled vehicles that are driven by
the i4" model year vehicles
Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxides emission factors are listed in the tables. Particulates and
sulfur oxides are not listed because of the lack of test data. Because stationary external combustion of gaseous
fuel results in extremely low particulate and sulfur oxides, it is reasonable to assume that the emissions of these
pollutants from gaseous-fueled vehicles are negligible.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.6-1
-------
Table 3.1.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS BY MODEL YEAR FOR LIGHT-DUTY
VEHICLES USING LPG, LPG/DUAL FUEL, OR CNG/DUAL FUEL3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Fuel and
model year
LPG
Pre-1970b
1 970 through
1972C
LPG/Dual fueld
Pre-1973
CNG/Dual fuel6
Pre-1973
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
11
3.4
7.8
9.2
g/km
6.8
2.1
4.8
5.7
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
g/mi
1.8
0.67
2.4
1.5
g/km
1.1
0.42
1.5
0.93
Nitrogen
oxides (NOX asNO2)
g/mi
3.2
2.8
3.4
2.8
g/km
2.0
1.7
2.1
1.7
a References 1 through 5.
b Emission factors are based on tests of 1968 and 1969 model year vehicles. Sufficient data for earlier models are not
available.
c Based on tests of 1970 model year vehicles. No attempt was made to predict the emissions resulting from the
conversion of post 1974 model year vehicles to gaseous fuels. It is likely that 1973 and 1974 model year vehicles
converted to gaseous fuels will emit pollutant quantities similar to those emitted by 1972 vehicles with the
possible exception of nitrogen oxides.
The dual fuel system represents certain compromises in emission performance to allow the flexibility of operation
on gaseous or liquid (gasoline) fuels. For this reason their emission factors are listed separately from vehicles using
LPG only.
e Based on tests of 1968 and 1969 model year vehicles. It is likely that 1973 and 1974 model year vehicles will emit
similar pollutant quantities to those listed with the possible exception of nitrogen oxides. No attempt was made to
estimate 1975 and later model year gaseous-fueled-vehicle emissions.
Table 3.1.6-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
VEHICLES USING LPG OR CNG/DUAL FUEL
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Exhaust
hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX as N02)
Emissions (all model years)3
LPGb'c
g/mi
4.2
2.4
2.8
g/km
2.6
1.5
1.7
CNG/dual fueld
g/mi
7.5
2.2
5.8
g/km
4.6
1.4
3.6
a Test results are for 1959 through 1970 model years. These results
are assumed to apply to all future heavy-duty vehicles based on
present and future emission standards.
D References 2 and 4.
c LPG values for heavy-duty vehicles are based on a limited number
of tests of vehicles tuned for low emissions. Vehicles converted to
LPG solely for economic reasons gave much higher emission values.
For example, eleven vehicles (1950 through 1963) tested in Refer-
ence 6 demonstrated average emissions of 160 g/mi (99 g/km) of
carbon monoxide, 8.5 g/mi (5.3 g/km) of hydrocarbons, and 4.2
g/mil (2.6 g/km) of nitrogen oxides.
^ Reference 5.
3.1.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 3.1.6
1. Conversion of Motor Vehicles to Gaseous Fuel to Reduce Air Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Programs. Washington, B.C. April 1972.
2. Fleming, R.D. et al. Propane as an Engine Fuel for Clean Air Requirements. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
22:451-45 8. June 1972.
3. Genslak, S.L. Evaluation of Gaseous Fuels for Automobiles. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. New
York.N.Y. Publication Number 720125. January T972.
4. Eshelman, R.H. If Gas Conversion. Automotive Industries. Reprinted by Century LP-Gas Carburetion,
Marvel—Schebler. Decatur, III.
5. Pollution Reduction with Cost Savings. General Services Administration. Washington, D.C. 1971.
6. Springer, K.J. An Investigation of Emissions from Trucks above, 6,000-lb GVW Powered by Spark-Ignited
Engines. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the U.S. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C., under Contract Number PH 86-67-72. March 1969.
7. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
33(219): 17288-17313, November 10, 1970.
8. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines. Federal Register. Part II.
33(219): 17288-17313, November 10,1970.
9. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures. Federal Register. Part II. 56(128): 12652-12663, July 2,
1971.
10. Sigworth, H.W., Jr. Unpublished estimates of motor vehicle emission rates. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971.
11. Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles in Six Cities. Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. San
Bernadino, Calif. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number 68-04-0042. June 1972.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.6-3
-------
-------
3.1.7 Motorcycles by David S. Kircher
3.1.7.1 General — Motorcycles, which are not, generally, considered an important source of air pollution, have
become more popular and their numbers have been steadily increasing in the last few years. Sales grew at an
annual rate of 20 percent from 1965 to 1971 -1 The majority of motorcycles are powered by either 2- or 4-stroke,
air-cooled engines; however, water-cooled motorcycles and Wankel-powered motorcycles have recently been
introduced. Until recently the predominant use of 4-stroke motorcycles was on-highway and the 2-stroke variety
was off-highway. This difference in roles was primarily a reflection of significant weight and power variations
between available 2- and 4-stroke vehicles. As light-weight 4-strokes and more powerful 2-strokes become
available the relative number of motorcycles in each engine category may change. Currently the nationwide
population of motorcycles is approximately 38 percent 2-stroke and 62 percent 4-stroke. Individual motorcycles
travel, on the average, approximately 4000 miles per year.1 These figures, along with registration statistics, enable
the rough estimation of motorcycle miles by engine category and the computation of resulting emissions.
3.1.7.2 Emissions - The quantity of motorcycle emission data is rather limited in comparison with the data
available on other highway vehicles. For instance, data on motorcycle average speed versus emission levels are not
available. Average emission factors for motorcycles used on highways are reported in Table 3.1.7-1. These data,
from several test vehicles, are based on the Federal light-duty vehicle test procedure.2 The table illustrates
differences in 2-stroke and 4-stroke engine emission rates. On a per mile basis, 2-stroke engines emit nearly five
times more hydrocarbons than 4-stroke engines. Both engine categories emit somewhat similar quantities of
carbon monoxide and both produce low levels of nitrogen oxides.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.1.7-1
-------
Table 3.1.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust
Crankcase^
Evaporative0
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasNO2)
Particulates
Sulfur oxides"
(S02)
Aldehydes
(RCHOasHCHO)
Emissions
2-stroke engine
g/mi
27
16
_
0.36
0.12
0.33
0.038
0.11
g/km
17
9.9
_
0.22
0.075
0.21
0.024
0.068
4-stroke engine
g/mi
33
2.9
0.60
0.36
0.24
0.046
0.022
0.047
g/km
20
1.8
0.37
0.22
0.15
0.029
0.014
0.029
a Reference 1.
13 Most 2-stroke engines use crankcase induction and produce no crankcase losses.
c Evaporative emissions were calculated assuming that carburetor losses were negligible. Diurnal
breathing of the fuel tank ( a function of fuel vapor pressure, vapor space in the tank, and
diurnal temperature variation) was assumed to account for all the evaporative losses associated
with motorcycles. The value presented is based on average vapor pressure, vapor space, and
temperature variation.
'•'Calculated using a 0.043 percent sulfur content (by weight) for regular fuel used in 2-stroke
engines and 0.022 percent sulfur content (by weight) for premium fuel used in 4-stroke engines.
References for Section 3.1.7
1. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part III, Motorcycles. Final Report. Southwest Research Institute. San
Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number EHS 70-108. March 1973.
2. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures. Federal Register. 56(128): 12652-12663, July 2, 1971.
3.1.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY, MOBILE SOURCES
The off-highway category of internal combustion engines embraces a wide range of mobile and semimobile
sources. Emission data are reported in this section on the following sources: aircraft; locomotives; vessels (inboard
and outboard); and small general utility engines, such as those used in lawnmowers and minibikes. Other sources
that fall into this category, but for which emission data are not currently available, include: snowmobiles,
all-terrain vehicles, and farm and construction equipment. Data on these sources will be added to this chapter in
future revisions.
3.2.1 Aircraft by Charles C. Master
3.2.1.1 General — Aircraft engines are of two major categories; reciprocating (piston) and gas turbine.
The basic element in the aircraft piston engine is the combustion chamber, or cylinder, in which mixtures of
fuel and air are burned and from which energy is extracted through a piston and crank mechanism that drives a
propeller. Th; majority of aircraft piston engines have two or more cylinders and are generally classified
according to their cylinder arrangement — either "opposed" or radial." Opposed engines are installed in most
light or utility aircraft; radial engines are used mainly in large transport aircraft.
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 in the combustion chamber. 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. Turbofan and turboshaft engines use energy from the
turbine for propulsion; turbojet engines use only the expanding exhaust stream for propulsion.
The aircraft classification system used is listed in Table 3.2.1-1. Both turbine aircraft and piston engine
aircraft have been further divided into sub-classes depending on the size of the aircraft and the most commonly
used engine for that class. Jumbo jets normally have approximately 40,000 pounds maximum thrust per engine,
and medium-range jets have about 14,000 pounds maximum thrust per engine. For piston engines, this division is
more pronounced. The large transport piston engines are in the 500 to 3,000 horsepower range, whereas the small
piston engines develop less than 500 horsepower.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-1
-------
Table 3.2.1-1. AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION
Aircraft class
Jumbo jet
Long-range jet
Medium-range jet
Air carrier
turboprop
Business jet
General aviation
turboprop
General aviation
piston
Piston transport
Helicopter
Military transport
Military jet
Military piston
Representative aircraft
Boeing 747
Lockheed L-1011
McDonald Douglas DC-10
Boeing 707
McDonald Douglas DC-8
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
McDonald Douglas DC-9
Convair 580
Electra L-188
Fairchild Miller FH-227
Gates Learjet
Lockheed Jetstar
-
Cessna 210
Piper 32-300
Douglas DC-6
Sikorsky S-61
Vertol 107
Engines
per
aircraft
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
-
1
1
4
2
2
Engine
commonly used
Pratt & Whitney
JT-9D
Pratt & Whitney
JT-3D
Pratt & Whitney
JT-8D
Allison 501-D13
General Electric
CJ610
Pratt & Whitney
JT-12A
Pratt & Whitney
PT-6A
Teledyne-Continen-
tal 0-200
Lycoming 0-320
Pratt & Whitney
R-2800
General Electric
CT-58
Allison T56A7
General Electric
J-79
Continental J-69
Curtiss-Wright
R-1820
3.2.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.2.1.2 Landing and Takeoff Cycle — A landing-takeoff (LTD) cycle includes all normal operation modes
performed by an aircraft between the time it descends through an altitude of 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) on its
approach and the time it subsequently reaches the 3,500 foot (1,100 meters) altitude after take. It should be
made clear that the term "operation" used by the Federal Aviation Administration to describe either a landing or
a takeoff 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, and takeoff run and the flight operations of takeoff
and climbout to 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) and approach from 3,500 feet (1,100 meters) to touchdown
Each class of aircraft has its own typical LTO cycle. In order to determine emissions, the LTO cycle is
separated into five distinct modes: (1) taxi-idle, (2) takeoff,-(3) climbout, (4) approach and landing, and (5)
taxi-idle. Each of these modes has its share of time in the LTO cycle. Table 3.2.1-2 shows typical operating time
in each mode for the various types of aircraft classes during periods of heavy activity at a large metropolitan
airport. Emissions factors for the complete LTO cycle presented in Table 3.2.1-3 were determined using the
typical times shown in Table 3.2.1-2.
Table 3.2.1-2. TYPICAL TIME IN MODE FOR LANDING TAKEOFF CYCLE
AT A METROPOLITAN AIRPORT3
Aircraft
Jumbo jet
Long range
jet
Medium range
jet
Air carrier
turboprop
Business jet
General avia-
tion turboprop
General aviation
piston
Piston transport
Helicopter
Military transport
Military jet
Military piston
Time in mode, minutes
Taxi-idle
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
6.50
19.00
12.00
6.50
3.50
19.00
6.50
6.50
Takeoff
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.30
0.60
0
0.50
0.40
0.60
Climbout
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.50
0.50
2.50
4.98
5.00
6.50
2.50
0.50
5.00
Approach
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.50
1.60
4.50
6.00
4.60
6.50
4.50
1.60
4.60
Taxi-idle
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.50
7.00
4.00
6.50
3.50
7.00
6.50
6.50
References 1 and 2.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-3
-------
CO
HI
O
O
LL
LL
O
LU
h-
6
2
Q CO
< O
-1 u Z
"• I"*
o o
T- CO
t- d
Military transport
Military jet
en
0
o
CM
o
CO
O)
o'
CM
O
oi
CO
0
CM
cS
O
"S-
0
CO
o
oo
CM
o
4—
c
CN
CM'
CO
H
c
c
§
o
x:
a;
S -5
-------
3.2.1.3 Modal Emission Factors — In Table 3.2.1-4 a set of modal emission factors by engine type are given for
carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and solid particulates along with the fuel flow rate per
engine for each LTO mode. With this data and knowledge of the time-in-mode, it is possible to construct any
LTO cycle or mode and calculate a more accurate estimate of emissions for the situation that exists at a specific
airport. This capability is especially important for estimating emissions during the taxi-idle mode when large
amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are emitted. At smaller commercial airports the taxi-idle time
will be less than at the larger, more congested airports.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-5
-------
oc
O
o
<
u.
ft
§ cc
LU O
co
cu
to
QJ
TO -5
— 13
0 <->
CO '•£
v_
Ct3
8.
. — .
o1
^
C ,-n
CD <°
a> x
o o
ZL v* '
CD
T:
o
c
o
.a
CO
0
^r
ir"
I
CD
C "0
0 x
_Q (~\
^_ ^
03 C
u g
£
CD
CD
U-
-C
cn
^
f-
"^
~
.c
"oi
_^
.c
£!
s
1— •
^
.Q
j=
en
JE
is
,.
^
!_
J
0)
O
E
T3
C
CO
CD
C
c
LU
o r--_ cq p
<— ' <— ' I—' «— '
in
CM r^ o co
CM co' "t' CM
in
r~- o o in
CM' r-.' od ^r
CM O CM
CO CM
CD
O 0 O «-
CO O CD -ST
CM in in
^ ^
<* O CO
-' CM
o --co
00 CO O CO
r^ r^ ^j- co^
r^ co" CM
oo CM r-. >d-
co in «— o
r» o_ co CM
^-" i~-" «a-" in"
CD
4-1 ^ _j- 6
x: "^T CD M -s o Jr
^> CD -^ L^_ Q CO LLI
^* /""\ '^ • — O o O
s^l'ciii Hi
ro"3 Dl— H O"! g
ol ^ O
CM •* •* O
O CM CM CM
o d ci d
S*d" ^" ^"
in in 'a-
dodo
CO
CO O O LD
<— ' iri ^ od
*xf in r*«
CM >-
CO 0 O O
co" o' co co'
mco ^
O5 O5 CO
o in in cq
r-.' d d d
^f~ co co en
iri t-' ^ <-'
r~l
SO) *3"
en ^f
co co CM' od
CM
r^ r^ co CD
r^ CO CO 00
in «-
^ 2 ^ M
co" m" CM"
o en o ^r
R 5 •*. °i
«-" co" <-" co"
t— r—
>-
£
CD •M ^ H- !3 "^ -^
U _Qj.j ^^ 4— o J^ ^^
f 3 m~ O _Q O C
.a | S II & * H
•fj -j 1— 1— O
^ CD -— O O O ^_
1 cn'x-S E o.<=3c
- "^i^^^st
i ^__
d. ct
00
^- en oq in
O CM CM «-'
o o in in
'S- in CM CM
O CD CD CO
CO
<- o •* m
»-' <^ od d
en
c\i cri ^ co
«- 00 CM
co in
oo o in
«-' d d co'
in co
in ro CD
CM 00 00 CM
CM o' d cri
0)
O CO
O t- CM CM
CM •* rx CM
f CM
CO O O O
CM ci co en
m i- ^r
f «- CD CD
m co_ oo oo
<•" co" i-"
co co 01 in
^- »- ID ^
r-" o" co" sr"
^r CD
CD C
'oT +-1 ^ ~
cn ^ 4- ^ u >
CZ "O **~ O JP ^>
T ro •— O _Q Cj <
o ^,'x^ E Q.03"1
; g^^g^^-
1 ^
_ Q.
^.
in in r- r-~.
d oS cri CM
CM O O O
^-' ^ d co
CM CM
CM O CO CO
,_: ^' d co
O r*> t —
« —
P- O O O)
CM co in in
co m co
CD CO
^- co in r*
cri d d T-'
CM
^>
r^ r^ co
00 CD CM CO
«s-' d «-' co
CO
CO O
in in co en
CO CO 00 r-'
CM r-
00 00 CO CO
CM' od od CD
CO T- <- CM
o co r~ en
CO CO CM «-
CD o en i^
r--." m" CM"
Ol t~~ CO ^J1
CO <^ CO C^
CO LO CD O^
^ LO" co" LO"
cu
'Q? ** -C
rn ^ t^ ^ O
-. c ^i *^~ o S
L co '~ O f*^ ;•*
1 g1 '§ II a
1
— ^
3.2.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
cc
o
o
CD
V)
cu
•^ ~7Z
o 3
CD
D.
(S
o
2
c JS
ro x
2. O
•— 2_
2 w
0)
-g
x
o
C/l
C
0
0
•0
>
X
CO
o 1
m C
CJ °
E
OJ
CD
1
LL
^
O1
w
;C
J2
i_
^
cn
^
_Q
f-
CJ>
J_
^
—
J_
-^
_x
£1
j5
O)
•*
-•^
-Q
0)
o
£
c
CO
CD
C
CT1
Q
LU
05
LO 00
d co
co o
«-' LO'
CM
f^ ro
d d
LO
i^
LO O
"~ m
CM
LO
•3" CM
CM' d
^mm
8
ro LO
r-' d
CM
ro CM
co' co
CM <-
CO »-
co ro
CO CM
^ CO
LT) «-
**• LO
•^
r- CD
8%
r- CT>"
. ,
O
6 in £?
— oo £ — H-
3 m "^ ""n
2 o o -x 3
c '+= i I— H
5
oq ro
CD CM
O 0
in LO'
CD O
CO 00
ro
O 00
s'£
CD O
CM <-
d ^
CO
CO CO
d CM
co ro
*~ "—
ro co
od CM
CM ^f
o ro
CD «-
ro <-
o r~~
ro r>
rM r~
co" ro"
>.
CD
*-i
D 0 g
X O ?"
£ cL °3 o
O < *^ -
£
CO
r- r^
d ^
CO
co r->
d co
CM
ro co
T— ' ro
00
^_
ro o
CM CO
ro
CO
PN CO
ro d
mco
ro r^
co d
o
iri co
*~
•* ?
co' r-.'
ro
LO »—
co r~-
t ro
ro"
ro LO
LO LO
co"
•4-J
.Si
0> Si H-
^ ra -^ ^O
3 ". 'x 3.
^ ~v £?. £?.
i.
CO
CM CO
^ d
CD LO
CM i-'
<* 0
ro >*"
o ro
«-' d
CO CO
£o3
^t* Is—
d d
r-
ro ^
d r-'
CO CD
rf CO
CO CM
CO CO
CO CO
CM ^J"
CO LO
co" <-"
r» ro
CO 0
r-" co"
£ <»
^ ° >
_O O O
E g.^
o < =
§L
^
O CO
d r~.'
«— o
d CD
LO
CO
d ro
CD
?
CO O
d co'
LO
O)
O ~Z.
d
ro
S1
r- Z
CD'
CD
CO?
r-' co
CM
CM CM
d ^r
CD •-
O OT
O LO
co ^r
ro"
CM LO
CO CM
CD CD_
r--"
-~-
LO .0^
g 0) — 4-
C "D Q
£ ". x |
(^""S H H
^
00
LO CD
<*' d
O LO
d ^
CM CO
csi ro
LO <-
q •*
LO d
<- ro
o
»- ro
d ^-'
^CM
CM CM
O •*'
ro
CD r-.'
*~
CO T-
LO ro
•- ro
ro ^r
00 CO
oo ro
CM" >-"
LO CM
LO LO
co_ o
CD" ro"
^—
<
13 ^ LO CU
^5 o )~ '^-
E a c 3
O < •- "-
5<
CO
r^ r^
d <-'
cq r-
«— CO
o
CO
d CM'
T~
CO
CM ro
T- r-'
CM
O
LO O
CO CM
co d
o
co ^r
r-.' d
CD >-
CO «-'
^
r-- r>
CO CO
CM CO
CM CD
*~
CO CO
?c^
CM"
a- *
° ro — *•
Q. i- |^ ^Q
^ : t^ 'x ^
3 E RH H
^ ^r
0 0
CO CO
CM
T— CO
d co
*~
CM
CM CO
CM r>'
CM
•r- CO
CO 'tf
* — T —
d d
ro to
ro CM
CO CO
d d
*t 00
^— * —
o ro
t t
CO CO
CMO
ro CM
ro LO
00 CO
CO «*
T— t
CM" r-"
r-~
< -
3 y S aj E c
H O h~ ^- Q. ^_
E d c co ^3 _.
o < J .;= 3 E
<<
CO
1^; P*;
d T-'
co r^
«-' CO
o
oo
ro **
d d
*~
CO
i- ro
CM' CM
CM
LO
co ro
ro T —
CM O
^0
^j* ^~
co' d
LO
f r>-
ro ro
co d
LO
CO «-
LO CM
r»
ro co
CM ro
oo ro
LO O
CM"
— H-
•^ O
^E'x ^
S. H i—
^t ^.
o o
CO CO
CM CO
CO LO
ro co
oo
CM t-.
«—' r-.'
CM
CD LO
-- CO
CM CM
d d
CD r^
<^~ LT)
d d
CO CO
T— 1~*
,- r--
O CO
CO CO
LO 00
CO t
CO CO
S8
"" *~
~ £
3 ro
S o
E a
0 <
J2
= 55
8s
— 01
CO
O)
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.1-7
-------
QC
O
O
<
u.
LU
•a -?
0) £
§2
~ W
o S
o 2
— UJ
^r
CN
CO
tn
QJ
•H"
pg -S
O~~" o
^
to '£
CO
a
CM
O
Z
c «J
QJ
0) X
2 0
.t^ z
2 "3^
cu
X
o
CO
o
co
0
o
•a
I
aj
d "O
O 'x
•S o
CJ O
u e
CD
CO
"a5
H3
LL.
k.
.C
~s
_c
^o
i
^
i.
^
—
v-
g>
.c
v.
^^
C"
^vf
.C
5
,_
^
v,
jC.
-
•o
o
TO
CO
0)
c
'I1
LLJ
J
d
CO
d
§
d
in
in
C3
d
O5
o^
CO
d
CJ)
00
d
o
CD
,_!
CO
in
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
•o ,° "a
T— *j O a>
x: ro co i- =:
y co > §• .?
S iji ro -9 x
co CL £ ^ co
«>
Q. "O C
< | ~
H
Z
QJ
Z*
0
d
O
8
d
o>
o
d
CM
d
^~
^j-
co'
CN
^
CO
CO
CO
CD
[>^
1 «
CO ~ TD
ro ° '"
t-- « ro
cB "Q.H
£
z z
z
cf
z
CD
8
d
CO
o
d
CO
«—
d
in
LO
CO
d
CO
o
in
^
^"
8
in
o
CO
o
.5 — 5
d! s
S Q-K
S
Z
^
2
O)
O
d
^j.
CM
d
CO
CD
d
O)
"~
CM
CM
CO
OJ
d
00
o>
CN
r^
in
CO
Takeoff
Z Z
CM
«- o
d d
m «-
r^ in
CO O
d d
•a- in
O) CM
LO CN
d d
CD
t- O)
CO «3-
•^ d
00 O
O) ^
CN i-
cq co
in >*
CO CM
oo in
od d
CM «-
in «-
CO CO
CO CM
Climbout
Approach
c
O)
c
o>
Q
co
ra : <
0 S«? »>
CO ^D .
o a> TJ *:
» S Q £ <
CC LU : in Z
co .Q cj ~O 01
3.2.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 3.2.1
1. Nature and Control of Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions. Northern Research and Engineering Corporation,
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham. N.C., under Contract
Number PH22-68-27. November 1968.
•
, 2. The Potential Impact of Aircraft Emissions upon Air Quality. Northern Research and Engineering
Corporation, Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0085. December 1971.
•" f
£ 3. Assessment of Aircraft Emission Control Technology. Northern Research and Engineering Corporation,
Cambridge, Mass. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number 68-04-0011. September 1971.
4. Analysis of Aircraft Exhaust Emission Measurements. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Inc. Buffalo, N.Y.
^ Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
9 68-04-0040. October 1971.
5. Private communication with Dr. E. Karl Bastress. IKOR Incorporated. Burlington, Mass. November 1972.
4/73 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 3.2.1-9
-------
-------
3.2.2 Locomotives
by David S. Kirchcr
3.2.2.1 General - Railroad locomotives gene rally follow one of two use patterns: railyard switching or road-haul
service. Locomotives can be classified on the basis of engine configuration and use pattern into five categories:
2-stroke switch locomotive (supercharged), 4-stroke switch locomotive, 2-stroke road service locomotive
(supercharged), 2-stroke road service locomotive (turbocharged), and 4-stroke road service locomotive.
The engine duty cycle of locomotives is much simpler than many other applications involving diesel internal
combustion engines because locomotives usually have only eight throttle positions in addition to idle and
dynamic brake. Emission testing is made easier and the results are probably quite accurate because of the
simplicity of the locomotive duty cycle.
3.2.2.2 Emissions — Emissions from railroad locomotives are presented two ways in this section. Table 3.2.2-1
contains average factors based on the nationwide locomotive population breakdown by category. Table 3.2.2-2
gives emission factors by locomotive category on the basis of fuel consumption and on the basis of work output
(horsepower hour).
The calculation of emissions using fuel-based emission factors is straightforward. Emissions are simply the
product of the fuel usage and the emission factor. In order to apply the work output emission factor, however, an
Table3.2.2-1. AVERAGE LOCOMOTIVE
EMISSION FACTORS BASED
ON NATIONWIDE STATISTICS3
Pollutant
Particulatesc
Sulfur oxides^
-------
Table 3.2.2-2. EMISSION FACTORS BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE
CATEGORY3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
lb/103gal
kg/103 liter
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Hydrocarbon
Ib/I03gal
I b/1 (filter
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Ib/I03gal
kg/103 liter
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
Engine category
2-Stroke
supercharged
switch
84
10
3.9
3.9
190
23
8.9
8.9
250
30
11
11
4-Stroke
switch
380
46
13
13
146
17
5.0
5.0
490
59
17
17
2-Stroke
supercharged
road
66
7.9
1.8
1.8
148
18
4.0
4.0
350
42
9.4
9.4
2-Stroke
turbocharged
road
160
19
4.0
4.0
28
3.4
0.70
0.70
330
40
8.2
8.2
4-Stroke
road
180
22
4.1
4.1
99
12
2.2
2.2
470
56
10
10
Use average factors (Table 3.2.2-1) for pollutants not listed in this table.
additional calculation is necessary. Horsepower hours can be obtained using the following equation:
w=lph
where: w = Work output (horsepower hour)
1 = Load factor (average power produced during operation divided by available power)
p = Available horsepower
h = Hours of usage at load factor (1)
After the work output has been detenrnned, emissions are simply the product of the work output and the
emission factor. An approximate load factor for a line-haul locomotive (road service) is 0.4; a typical switch
engine load factor is approximately 0.06.1
References for Section 3.2.2
1. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part 1. Locomotive Diesel Engines and Marine Counterparts. Final Report.
Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHA 70-108. October 1972.
2. Young, T.C. Unpublished Data from the Engine Manufacturers Association. Chicago, 111. May 1970.
3. Hanley, G.P. Exhaust Emission Information on Electro-Motive Railroad Locomotives and Diesel Engines.
General Motors Corp. Warren, Mich. October 1971.
3.2.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.2.3 Inboard-Powered Vessels
3.2.3.1 General1 — Fuel oil, the primary fuel used in vessels powered by inboard engines, 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. Within the next few years, however, their use may become increasingly common.2-3
Steamships are any ships that have steam turbines driven by an external combustion engine. Motor ships, on
the other hand, have internal combustion engines operated on the diesel cycle.
3.2.3.2 Emissions - The air pollutant emissions resulting from vessel operations may be divided into two
categories: 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 3.2.3-1. 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.
Table 3.2.3-1. FUEL CONSUMPTION RATES FOR STEAMSHIPS AND MOTOR SHIPS3
Fuel consumption
Underway
Ib/hphr
kg/hphr
gal/naut. mi
liters/km
In-berth
gal /day
liters/day
Steamships
Range
0.51 to 0.65
0.23 to 0.29
29 to 65
59. 4 to 133.0
840 to 3,800
3,1 92 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
a Reference 1.
Unless a ship receives auxiliary steam provided by the port, goes immediately into drydock, or is 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 3.2.3-1, 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 3.2.3-2.
2/72
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.3-1
-------
Table 3.2.3-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR INBOARD VESSELS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Participate
Sulfur dioxide0
Sulfur tnoxidec
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides (N02)
Aldehydes (HCHO)
Steamships3
Underway
Ib/mi
0.4
75
0.1S
0.002
0.2
4.6
0.04
kg/km
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'3
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
a Based on data in Table 3.2.3-1 and emission factors for fuel oil.
bBased on data in Table 3.2.3-1 and emission factors for diesel fuel.
CS = weight percent sulfur in fuel, assumed to be 0.5 percent for diesel.
References for Section 3.2.3
1. 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. Standard Distillate Fuel for Ship Propulsion. Report of a Committee to the Secretary of the Navy. U.S.
Department of the Navy. Washington, D.C. October 1968.
3. GTS Admiral William M. Callahan Performance Results. Diesel and Gas Turbine Progress. 35 (9):78, Sep-
tember 1969.
3.2.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
3.2.4 Outboard-Powered Vessels
by David S. Kircher
3.2.4.1 General — Most of the approximately 7 million outboard motors in use in the United States are 2-stroke
engines with an average available horsepower of about 25. Because of the predominately leisure-time use of
outboard motors, emissions related to their operation occur primarily during nonworking hours, in rural areas,
and during the three summer months. Nearly 40 percent of the outboards are operated in the states of New York,
Texas, Florida, Michigan, California, and Minnesota. This distribution results in the concentration of a large
portion of total nationwide outboard emissions in these states.1
3.2.4.2 Emissions — Because the vast majority of outboards have underwater exhaust, emission measurement is
very difficult. The values presented in Table 3.2.4-1 are the approximate atmospheric emissions from outboards.
These data are based on tests of four outboard motors ranging from 4 to 65 horsepower.1 The emission results
from these motors are a composite based on the nationwide breakdown of outboards by horsepower. Emission
factors are presented two ways in this section: in terms of fuel use and in terms of work output (horsepower
hour). The selection of the factor used depends on the source inventory data available. Work output factors are
used when the number of outboards in use is available. Fuel-specific emission factors are used when fuel
consumption data are obtainable.
Table 3.2.4-1. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR OUTBOARD MOTORS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant6
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOxasS02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons6
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasNO2)
Based on fuel consumption
lb/103gal
6.4
3300
1100
6.6
kg/103 liter
0.77
400
130
0.79
Based on work output0
g/hphr
0.49
250
85
0.50
g/metric hphr
0.49
250
85
0.50
a Reference 1. Data in this table are emissions to the atmosphere. A portion of the exhaust remains behind in
the water.
Paniculate emission factors are not available because of the problems involved with measurement from an
underwater exhaust system but are considered negligible.
c Horsepower hours are calculated by multiplying the average power produced during the hours of usage by
the population of outboards in a given area. In the absence of data specific to a given geographic area, the
hphr value can be estimated using average nationwide values from Reference 1. Reference 1 reports the
average power produced (not the available power) as 9.1 hp and the average annual usage per engine as 50
hours. Thus, hphr = (number of outboards) (9.1 hp) (50 hours/outboard-year). Metric hphr = 0.9863 hphr.
"Based on fuel sulfur content of 0.043 percent from Reference 2 and on a density of 6.17 Ib/gal.
e Includes exhaust hydrocarbons only. No crankcase emissions occur because the majority of outboards are
2-stroke engines that use crankcase induction. Evaporative emissions are limited by the widespread use of
unvented tanks.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.4-1
-------
References for sections 3.2.4
1. Hai£, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part II, Outboard Motors. Final Report. Southwest Research Institute. San
Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number EHS 70-108. January 1973.
2. Hare. C.T. and K.J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment
Using Internal Combustion Engines. Emission Factors and Impact Estimates for Light-Duty Air-Cooled Utility
Engines and Motorcycles. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio. Texas. Prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHS 70-108. January 1972.
3.2.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.2.5 Small, General Utility Engines
by David S. Kircher
3.2.5.1 Genera] — This category of engines comprises small 2-stroke and 4-stroke, air-cooled, gasoline-powered
motors. Examples of the uses of these engines are: lawnmowers, small electric generators, compressors, pumps,
minibikes, snowthrowers, and garden tractors. This category does not include motorcycles, outboard motors,
chain saws, and snowmobiles, which are either included in other parts of this chapter or are not included because
of the lack of emission data.
Approximately 89 percent of the more than 44 million engines of this category in service in the United States
are used in lawn and garden applications.1
3.2.5.2 Emissions — Emissions from these engines are reported in Table 3.2.5-1. For the purpose of emission
estimation, engines in this category have been divided into lawn and garden (2-stroke), lawn and garden (4-stroke)
and miscellaneous (4-stroke). Emission factors are presented in terms of horsepowei hour and in terms of annual
usage.
Table 3.2.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SMALL, GENERAL-UTILITY ENGINES3-13
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Engine
2-Stroke,
lawn and garden
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
g/unit-year
4-Stroke,
lawn and garden
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
g/unit-year
4-Stroke
miscellaneous
g/hphr
g/metric hphr
g/unit-year
Sulfur
oxides0
(SOX asSO2)
-
-
49
-
-
26
-
-
29
Particulate
25
25
1,700
2.5
2.5
170
2.5
2.5
190
Carbon
monoxide
480
480
33,000
290
290
20,000
230
230
1 8,000
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust
190
190
13,000
21
21
1,500
14
14
1,100
Evaporative d
-
-
90
-
-
90
-
-
230
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOX asN02)
1.4
1.4
96
3.9
3.9
270
5.1
5.1
390
Alde-
hydes
(HCHO)
1.8
1.8
120
0.44
0.44
30
0.40
0.40
27
a Reference 2.
Values for g/unit-year were calculated assuming an annual usage of 50 hours and a 40 percent load factor. Factors for g/hphr
can be used in instances where annual usages, load factors, and rated horsepower are known. Horsepower hours are the product
of the usage in hours, the load factor, and the rated horsepower.
c Values calculated, not measured, based on the use of 0.043 percent sulfur content fuel.
Values calculated from annual fuel consumption. Evaporative losses from storage and filling operations are not included (see
Chapter 4).
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.2.5-1
-------
References for Section 3.2.5
1. Donohue, J.A., G.C. Hardwick, H.K. Newhall, K.S. Sanvordenker, and N.C. Woelffer. Small Engine Exhaust
Emissions and Air Quality in the United States. (Presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress, Society
of Automotive Engineers. Detroit. January 1972.)
2. Hare, C.T. and K.J. Springer. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment
Using Internal Combustion Engines. Emission Factors and Impact Estimates for Light-Duty Air-Cooled Utility
Engines and Motorcycles. Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHS 70-108. January 1972.
3.2.5-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY, STATIONARY SOURCES
By David S. Kircher
In general, engines included in this category are internal combustion engines used in applications similar to
those associated with external combustion sources (see Chapter 1). The major engines within this category are gas
turbines and large, heavy-duty, general utility reciprocating engines. Emission data currently available for these
engines are limited to gas turbines and natural-gas-fired, heavy-duty, general utility engines. Most stationary,
off-highway internal combustion engines are used to generate electric power, to pump gas or other fluids, and to
compress air for pneumatic machinery.
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines
3.3.1.1 General — Stationary gas turbines find application in electric power generators, in gas pipeline pump and
compressor drives, and in various process industries. A recent survey revealed that the majority of these engines
are used in electrical generation for continuous, peaking, or standby power.1 The survey also indicated that the
primary fuels used are natural gas and No. 2 (distillate) fuel oil, although residual oil is used in a few instances.
Stationary gas turbines are adaptations of aircraft turbines that use a power turbine to convert jet thrust into
rotational power. Although turbine duty cycles vary with the engine application, many are run continuously at
base load, which is customarily about 80 percent of maximum capability/
3.3.1.2 Emissions — Tables 3.3.1-1 and 3.3.1-2 contain emission factors for gas turbines burning distillate fuel oil
and natural gas, respectively. The emission values reported are for base load (except for sulfur oxides, which are
dependent on fuel consumption and sulfur content). Test data reveal little difference between base load emission
levels and peak load emissions levels. For this reason the values listed in the tables can be used to estimate peak
load emissions as well as base load emissions. The tabulated values do not apply to emissions at low power
settings. Most gas turbine applications, however, do not involve the frequent use of low power so that base load
factors apply in the majority of cases.
Table 3.3.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS TURBINES
USING DISTILLATE FUEL OIL
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant3
Particulatec
Sulfur oxidesd
(SOX asSO2)
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)c
Emissions (base load)
lb/103galb
8.4
142S
120
kg/103 literb
1.0
17S
14
lb/106 Btu
0.06
1.0S
0.84
kg/106 kcal
0.11
1.8S
1.5
a No data are available for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon mass emissions. These pollutants exist in
significant quantities only at lower power settings (Reference 1). Because normal operation of stationary gas
turbines is at base load, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions can be considered negligible.
Paniculate and nitrogen oxides emissions were reported as lb/10" Btu and have been converted to lb/10
gal (kg/103 liter) assuming 140,500 Btu/gal.
c References 3 and 4.
dThis factor was calculated assuming that all surfur in the fuel is oxidized to SO2. The SO2 emission factor is
calculated using the weight percent sulfur in fuel.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.1-1
-------
Table 3.3.1-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS TURBINES USING NATURAL GAS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant0
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Sulfur ox ides d
Emissions (base load)a'b
lb/106ft3
600
0.6
kg/106m3
9,600
9.6
lb/106 Btu
0.57
0.0006
kg/106 kcal
1.0
0.001
a Reference 3.
k Natural gas heat content of 1050 Btu/ft3 (9350 kcal/m3) was assumed.
c Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions can be considered negligible. Emission factors for paniculate
are not available but are assumed to be negligible.
d Reference 5. Values based on an average natural gas sulfur content of 2000 gr/106 ft3 (4600 g /106 m3).
References for Section 3.3.1
1. O'Keefe, W. and R.G. Schwieger. Prime Movers. Power. 115(11):522-531. November 1971.
2. McGaw, W.L., Jr. Operating Considerations Affecting the Performance of Gas Turbine Systems. Tappi.
54(6):950-954. New York, N.Y. June 1971.
3. Unpublished emission data for gas turbines. Turbo Power and Marine Systems, Subsidiary of United Aircraft
Corporation. Farmington, Conn. September 1971.
4. Johnson, R.H. and M.B. Hilt. Environmental Performance of Gas Turbines. General Electric Company, Gas
Turbine Department, Schenectady, N.Y. Technical Information Series. Number 71-GTD-10. March 1971.
5. Hovey, H.H., A. Risman, and J.F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables for
Nonprocess Emissions. New York State Department of Health. Albany, N.Y. 1965.
3.3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
3.3.2 Heavy-Duty, General Utility, Gaseous-Fueled Engines
3.3.2.1 General — Engines in this category are used in the oil and gas industry for driving compressors in pipeline
pressure boosting systems, in gas distribution systems, and in vapor recovery systems (at petroleum refineries).
The engines burn either natural gas or refinery gas.
3.3.2.2 Emissions - Emissions from heavy-duty, gaseous-fueled internal combustion engines are reported in
Table 3.3.2-1. Test data were available for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons only; sulfur oxides are calculated
from fuel sulfur content. Nitrogen oxides have been found to be extremely dependent on an engine's work
output;hence, Figure 3.3.2-1 presents the relationship between nitrogen oxide emissions and horsepower.
Table 3.3.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GENERAL-UTILITY,
STATIONARY ENGINES USING GASEOUS FUELS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Sulfur oxidesb
Nitrogen oxides0
Hydrocarbons01
Emissions3
lb/106ft3
0.6
-
1.2
kg/106 m3
9.6
-
19
Ib/hr
—
-
4.2
kg/hr
—
-
1.9
a Reference 1. Values for lb/106 ft3 (kg/106 m3) based on 3.37 106 ft3/hr heat input.
b Based on an average natural gas sulfur content of 2000gr/106 ft3 (4600 g/106m3).
cSee Figure 3.3.2-1.
^Values in Reference 1 were given as tons/day. I n converting to Ib/hr, 24-hour operation was assumed.
4/73
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
3.3.2-1
-------
100
10
0.1
0.01
45.4
4.54
0.454
0.0454
0.00454
10
100 1,000
LOAD ON ENGINE, horsepower
10,000
Figure 3.3.2-1. Nitrogen oxides emissions from stationary
internal combustion engines.2,3
References for Section 3.3.2
1. Emissions to the Atmosphere from Eight Miscellaneous Sources in Petroleum Refineries. Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, Calif., Report Number VIII. June 1958.
2. Bartok, W., A.R. Crawford, A.R. Cunningham, H.J. Hall, E.H. Manny, and A. Skopp. Systems Study of
Nitrogen Oxide Control Methods for Stationary Sources. Final Report-Volume II. Esso Research and Engi-
neering Company. Newark, N.J. Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham,
N.C., under Contract Number PH-22-68-55. November 1969.
3. Mills, J.A., K.D. Leudtke, P.F. Woolrich, and S.B. Perry. Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Stationary
Sources in Los Angeles County. Report Number 3. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Los
Angeles, Calif. April 1961.
3.3.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
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 chapter 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.
4.1 DRY CLEANING
4.1.1 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, rinsing 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.2
4.1.2 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 vaporization 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 4.1-1.
It has been estimated that about 18 pounds (8.2 kilograms) per capita per year of clothes are cleaned in
moderate climates3 and about 25 pounds (11.3 kilograms) per capita per year in colder areas.4 Based on this
information and the facts that 50 percent of all solvents used are petroleum-based2 and 25 percent of the
synthetic solvent plants are controlled,5 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 4.1-1
-------
Table 4.1-1. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR
DRY-CLEANING OPERATIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Control
Uncontrolled3
Average control*3
Good control0
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.
cReference 8.
References for Section 4.1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication with the National Institute of Dry Cleaning. 1969.
3. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 46.
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, and J.H. Elliot. Contribution of Solvents to Air Pollution and Methods for
Controlling Their Emissions. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 13:64-72, 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.
4.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
4.2 SURFACE COATING
4.2.1 Process Description1 '2
Surface-coating operations primarily involve the application of paint, varnish, lacquer, or paint primer for
decorative or protective purposes. This is accomplished by brushing, rolling, spraying, flow coating, and dipping.
Some of the industries involved in surface-coating operations are automobile assemblies, aircraft companies,
container manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, appliance manufacturers, job enamelers, automobile re-
painters, and plastic products manufacturers.
4.2.2 Emissions and Controls3
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 4.2-1 presents emission factors for
surf ace-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 filler pads have little or no effect on escaping solvent vapors; they are widely used, however, to stop
paint particulate emissions.
Table 4.2-1. GASEOUS HYDROCARBON EMISSION
FACTORS FOR SURFACE-COATING APPLICATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of coating
Paint
Varnish and shellac
Lacquer
Enamel
Primer (zinc chromate)
Emissions'3
Ib/ton
1120
1000
1540
840
1320
kg/MT
560
500
770
420
660
a Reference 1.
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 kilogram per liter).
2/72 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.2-1
-------
References for Section 4.2
1. 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 Number 999-AP-40.
p.387-390.
2. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Gases From Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-68. October 1969.
Chapter 7.6.
3. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
4.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
4.3 PETROLEUM STORAGE
4.3.1 General1'2
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 working loss. Breathing losses are associated with the thermal
expansion and contraction 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).
4.3.2 Emissions
There are two major classifications of tanks used to store petroleum products: 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 1 and 3 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 4.3-1.
References for Section 4.3
1. Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks. American Petroleum Institute. New York, N.Y. API Bulletin
Number 2518. June 1962.
2. Evaporative Loss in the Petroleum Industry: Causes and Control. American Petroleum Institute. New York,
N.Y. API Bulletin Number 2513. February 1959.
3. Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof Tanks. American Petroleum Institute. New York, N.Y. API Bulletin
Number 2517. February 1962.
4. Tentative Methods of Measuring Evaporation Loss from Petroleum Tanks and Transportation Equipment.
American Petroleum Institute. New York, N.Y. API Bulletin Number 2512. July 1957.
2/72 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-1
-------
Table 4.3-1. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR EVAPORATION LOSSES
FROM THE STORAGE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of tank3
Fixed roof
Breathing lossb
Working lossb-c
Floating roof
Breathing loss01
Working lossd
Units
lb/day-1000gal
storage capacity
kg/day- 1000 liters
storage capacity
lb/1000gal
throughput
kg/1000 liters
throughput
I b/d ay-tank
kg/day-tank
lb/1000gal
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
aFor tanks equipped with vapor-recovery systems, emissions are negligible.
bReference1.
cAn average turnover rate for petroleum storage is approximately 6. Thus, the throughput is equal to 6 times
the capacity.
dReference 3.
e140 (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, 150ft (45.8 m) diameter.
f Use 30 (13.6 kg) for smaller tanks, 50 ft (15.3 m) diameter; use 160 (72.5 kg) for larger tanks, 150ft (45.8m)
diameter.
4.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
4.4 GASOLINE MARKETING
•
4.4.1 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:
0 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.
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 section on gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
4.4.2 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 a function of the method of filling the tank (either splash or submerged
fill). 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 'boiling'
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 disturbance in the liquid
bath and, consequently, less vapor formation than splash filling."1
Emission factors for gasoline marketing are shown in Table 4.4-1. 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.
2/72 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.4-1
-------
Table 4.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR EVAPORATION LOSSES
FROM GASOLINE MARKETING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Point of emission
Filling service station tanks3-13
Splash fill
Submerged fill
50% splash fill and 50% submerged fill
Filling automobile tanks0
Emissions
lb/103 gal
12
7
9
12
kg/103 liters
1.44
0.84
1.08
1.44
a Reference 1.
b\A/ith a vapor return, open-system emissions can be reduced to approximately 0.8 lb/10 gal (0.096
kg/103 liters), and closed-system emissions are negligible.
References 2 and 3.
References for Section 4.4
1. Chass, R. L. et al. Emissions from Underground Gasoline Storage Tanks. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
75:524-530, November 1963.
2. MacKnight, R. A. et al. Emission of Olefins from Evaporation of Gasoline and Significant Factors Affecting
Production of Low Olefin Gasolines. Unpublished report. Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District. Los
Angeles, California. March 1959.
3. Bureau of Air Sanitation, State of California Department of Health. Clean Air Quarterly. 8:1. March 1964.
4.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
This section deals with emissions from the manufacture and use of chemicals 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 absorption. In some cases, particulate emissions may also be a problem.
The particulates emitted are generally extremely small and require very efficient treatment for removal. Emission
data from chemical processes are sparse. It was therefore frequently necessary to make estimates of emission
factors on the basis of material balances, yields, or similar processes.
5.1 ADIPICACID
5.1.1 Process Descriptionl
Adipic acid, COOH-(CH2)4«COOH, is a dibasic acid used in the manufacture 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 percent nitric acid. The final product is then purified by
crystallization.2
5.1.2 Emissions
The only significant emissions from the manufacture of adipic acid are nitrogen oxides. In oxidizing the
cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone, nitric acid is reduced to unrecoverable N2O and potentially recoverable NO and
N02- This NO andNO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere. Table 5.1-1 shows typical emissions of NO and NO2
from an adipic acid plant.
Table 5.1-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR AN ADIPIC ACID PLANT
WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Source
Oxidation of cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone3
Nitrogen oxides (IMO,N02)
Ib/ton
12
kg/MT
6
a Reference 1.
2/72 5.1-1
-------
References for Section 5.1
1. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air
Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-67. March 1970. p. 7-12, 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.
5.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.2 AMMONIA
5.2.1 Process Description1
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 introduced
into the secondary reformer to supply oxygen and provide a nitrogen to hydrogen 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^- A
methanator may be used to convert quantities of unreacted CO to inert CH4 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.
5.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
When a carbon monoxide scrubber is used before sending the gas to the converter, 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.2
The converted ammonia gases are partially recycled, and the balance is cooled and compressed to liquefy the
ammonia. The noncondensable 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 converter. To prevent the
accumulation of these inerts, however, some of the noncondensable gases must be purged from the system.
The purge or bleed-off gas stream contains about 15 percent ammonia.2 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 5.2-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.2-1
-------
Table 5.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR AMMONIA MANUFACTURING WITHOUT
CONTROL EQUIPMENT3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Plants with methanator
Purge gasc
Storage and loading0
Plants with CO absorber and
regeneration system
Regenerator exitd
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
kg/MT
1.5
100
3.5
1.5
100
References 2 and 3.
Expressed as methane.
cAmmonia emissions can be reduced by 99 percent by passing through three stages of a packed-tower water scrubber. Hydro-
carbons are not reduced.
A two-stage water scrubber and incineration system can reduce these emissions to a negligible amount.
References for Section 5.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Burns, W.E. and R.R. McMullan. No Noxious Ammonia Odor Here. Oil and Gas Journal, p. 129-131,
February 25, 1967.
3. Axelrod, L.C. and T.E. O'Hare. Production of Synthetic Ammonia. New York, M. W. Kellogg Company.
1964.
5.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK
Carbon black is produced by the reaction of 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 collected 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.
5.3.1 Channel Black Process1
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 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 carbon 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).2"4 The balance is lost as CO, C02, hydrocarbons, and particulates.
5.3.2 Furnace Process1
The furnace process is subdivided into either the gas or oil process depending 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 control 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.
5.3.3 Thermal Black Process1
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 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 5.3-1 presents the emission factors from the various carbon black processes. Nitrogen oxide emissions
are not included but are believed to be low because of the lack of available oxygen in the reaction.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-1
-------
Table 5.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of
process
Channel
Thermal
Furnace
Gas
Oil
Gas or oil
Particulate
Ib/ton
2,300
Neg
c
c
220e
60f
109
kg/MT
1,150
Neg
c
c
110e
30f
59
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
33,500
Neg
5,300
4,500
kg/MT
16,750
Neg
2,650
2,250
Hydrogen
sulfide
Ib/ton
Neg
_
38Sd
kg/MT
Neg
_
19Sd
Hydrocarbons^
Ib/ton
11,500
Neg
1,800
400
kg/MT
5,750
Neg
900
200
aBased on data in References 2, 3, 5, and 6.
As methane.
cParticulate 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.
9Overall collection efficiency was 99.5 percent with fabric filter system.
References for Section 5.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Drogin, I. Carbon Black. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 75:216-228, April 1968.
3. Cox, J.T. High Quality, High Yield Carbon Black. Chem. Eng. 57:116-117, June 1950.
4. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
124-130.
5. Reinke, R.A. and T.A. Ruble. Oil Black. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44:685-694, April 1952.
6. Allan, D. L. The Prevention of Atmospheric Pollution in the Carbon Black Industry. Chem. Ind. p.
1320-1324, October 15, 1955
5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.4 CHARCOAL
5.4.1 Process Description1
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 20 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.
5.4.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 contains 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 permitted 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, noncondensable 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 manufacture of
charcoal are shown in Table 5.4-1.
Table 5.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING3
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
50»
76
116
3
-------
-------
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI
5.5.1 Process Description1
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.
Caustic as produced in a diaphragm-cell plant 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.
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 containers 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
5.5-1).
References for Section 5.5
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Manufacture. U.S. EPA, Air Pollution Control Office. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-80. January 1971.
2. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 49.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.5-1
-------
Table 5.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS3
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/100MT
1,000 to 5,000
2,000 to 8,000
12. 5 to 500
0.5
225
600
250
References 1 and 2.
'-'Mercury cells lose about 1.5 pounds mercury per 100 tons (0 75 kg/100 MT) of chlorine liquefied.
5.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.6 EXPLOSIVES
5.6.1 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 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.
5.6.2 TNT Production2
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 nitrator. 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.
5.6.3 Nitrocellulose Production2
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 complete, 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.
5.6.4 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 sulfuric acid, can be considerable. Because all of the raw materials
are not manufactured at the explosives plant, it is imperative to obtain detailed process information for each
plant in order to estimate emissions. The emissions from the manufacture 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 5.6-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.6-1
-------
Table 5.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING WITHOUT
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
High explosives
TNT
Nitration reactors3
Nitric acid concentrators'3
Sulfuric acid regenerators0
Red water incineratorc'd
Nitric acid manufacture
Low explosives
Nitrocellulose6
Reactor pots
Sulfuric acid concentrators
Particulate
Ib/ton
—
_
0.4
36
-
—
kg/MT
_
—
0.2
18
(See
-
—
Sulfur
oxides (SO2)
Ib/ton
_
—
18
13
section (
-
65
Ikg/MT
_
_
9
6.5
3n nitric i
-
32.5
Nitrogen
oxides (NO2)
Ib/ton
160
1
—
6
acid)
12
29
kg/MT
80
0.5
—
3
6
14.5
aWith bubble cap absorption, system is 90 to 95 percent efficient.
References 3 and 4.
"•Reference 4.
dNot employed in manufacture of TNT for commercial use.5
eReference 6.
References for Section 5.6
1. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
383-395.
2. 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.
3. Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing. National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Federal Facilities Section. Washington, D.C.
4. Unpublished data on emissions from explosives manufacturing. National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Office of Criteria and Standards. Durham, N. C. June 1970.
5. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air
Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-67. March 1970. p. 7-23.
6. Unpublished stack test data from an explosives manufacturing plant. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency.
Baltimore, Maryland. December 1967.
5.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.7 HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Hydrochloric acid is manufactured by a number of different chemical processes. Approximately 80 percent of
the hydrochloric acid, however, is produced by the by-product hydrogen chloride process, which will be the only
process discussed in this section. The synthesis process and the Mannheim process are of secondary importance.
5.7.1 Process Description1
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 monochlorobenzene and
dichlorobenzene to condense and recover any benzene or chlorobenzene. The hydrogen chloride is then absorbed
in a falling film absorption plant.
5.7.2 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 5.7-1.
Table 5.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HYDROCHLORIC
ACID MANUFACTURING3
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
aReference
Reference for Section 5.7
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, CPEHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C. Publication Number AP-54. September 1969.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.7-1
-------
-------
5.8 HYDROFLUORIC ACID
5.8.1 Process Description1
All hydrofluoric acid in the United States is currently produced by the reaction 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).2>-5'4 The resulting gas is then cleaned, cooled, and absorbed in water and weak hydrofluoric 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.
5.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
Air pollutant emissions are minimized by the scrubbing and absorption systems used to purify and recover the
HF. The initial scrubber utilizes concentrated sulfuric acid as a scrubbing medium and is designed to remove dust,
S02, 803, 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, silicon tetrafluoride (SiF^, CC>2, and SC>2 and
may be scrubbed with a caustic solution to reduce emissions further. A final water ejector, sometimes used to
draw the gases through the absorption system, will reduce fluoride emissions. Dust emissions may also result from
raw fluorspar grinding and drying operations. Table 5.8-1 lists the emission factors for the various operations.
Table 5.8-1. 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
aReferences 2 and 5.
bFactor given for well-controlled plant.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.8-1
-------
References for Section 5.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report: Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Rogers, W.E. and K. Muller. Hydrofluoric Acid Manufacture. Chem. Eng. Progr. 59:85-88, May 1963.
3. 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.
Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 197-198.
4. Hydrofluoric Acid. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 9. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 1964. p. 444-485.
5. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company. Wilmington, Delaware. January 13, 1970.
5.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.9 NITRIC ACID Revised by William Vatavuk
5.9.1 Process Description
5.9.1.1 Weak Acid Production1 - Nearly all the nitric acid produced in the United States is manufactured by the
high-pressure catalytic oxidation of ammonia (Figure 5.9-1). Typically, this process consists of three steps, each
of which corresponds to a distinct chemical reaction. First, a 1:9 ammonia-air mixture is oxidized at high
temperature and pressure (6.4 to 9.2 atmospheres), as it passes through a platinum-rhodium catalyst, according to
the reaction:
4NH3 + 502 —*~ 4NO + 6H20 (1)
Ammonia Oxygen Nitric Water
oxide
After the process stream is cooled to 100°F (38°C) or less by passage through a cooler-condenser, the nitric oxide
reacts with residual oxygen:
2NO + 02 -*- 2NO2 ^- N204
Nitrogen Nitrogen (2)
dioxide tetroxide
Finally, the gases are introduced into a bubble-cap plate absorption column where they are contacted with a
countercurrent stream of water. The exothermic reaction that occurs is:
3N02 + H20 -*- 2HN03 + NO
Nitric acid (3)
50 to 70% aqueous
The production of nitric oxide in reaction (3) necessitates the introducUon of a secondary air stream into the
column to effect its oxidation to nitrogen dioxide, thereby perpetuating the absorption operation.
The spent gas flows from the top of the absorption tower to an entrainment separator for acid mist removal,
through the ammonia oxidation unit for energy absorption from the ammonia stream, through an expander for
energy recovery, and finally to the stack. In most plants the stack gas is treated before release to the atmosphere
by passage through either a catalytic combustor or, less frequently, an alkaline scrubber.
5.9.1.2 High-Strength Acid Production1 - To meet requirements for high strength acid, the 50 to 70 percent acid
produced by the pressure process is concentrated to 95 to 99 percent at approximately atmospheric pressure. The
concentration process consists of feeding strong sulfuric acid and 60 percent nitric acid to the top of a packed
column where it is contacted by an ascending stream of weak acid vapor, resulting in the dehydration of the
latter. The concentrated acid vapor that leaves the column passes to a bleacher and countercurrent condenser
system to effect condensation of the vapors and separation of the small amounts of nitric oxides and oxygen that
form as dehydration by-products. These by-products then flow to an absorption column where the nitric oxide
mixes with auxiliary air to form nitrogen dioxide, which is, in turn, recovered as weak nitric acid. Finally,
unreacted gases are vented to the atmosphere from the top of the column.
4/73 Chemical Process Industry 5.9-1
-------
IEFFLUENT
STACK
COMPRESSOR
EXPANDER
CATALYTIC REDUCTION
UNITS
PRODUCT
(50 TO 70%
HN03)
Figure 5.9-1. Flow diagram of typical nitric acid plant using pressure process.
5.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
5.9.2 Emissions and Controls1"3
The emissions derived from nitric acid manufacture consist primarily of nitric oxide, which accounts for
visible emissions; nitrogen dioxide; and trace amounts of nitric acid mist. By far, the major source of nitrogen
oxides is the tail gas from the acid absorption tower (Table 5.9-1). In general, the quantity of NOX emissions is
directly related to the kinetics of the nitric acid formation reaction.
The specific operating variables that increase tail gas NOX emissions are: (1) insufficient air supply, which
results in incomplete oxidation of NO; (2) low pressure in the absorber; (3) high temperature in the
cooler-condenser and absorber; (4) production of an excessively high-strength acid; and (5) operation at high
throughput rates, which results in decreased residence time in the absorber.
Aside from the adjustment of these variables, the most commonly used means for controlling emissions is the
catalytic combustor. In this device, tail gases are heated to ignition temperature, mixed with fuel (natural gas,
hydrogen, or a mixture of both), and passed over a catalyst. The reactions that occur result in the successive
reduction of N(>2 to NO and, then. NO to N^. The extent of reduction of N02 to N2 in the combustor is, in
turn, a function of plant design, type of fuel used, combustion temperature and pressure, space velocity through
the combustor, type and amount of catalyst used, and reactant concentrations (Table 5.9-1).
Comparatively small amounts of nitrogen oxides are also lost from acid concentrating plants. These losses
(mostly NO2) occur from the condenser system, but the emissions are small enough to be easily controlled by the
installation of inexpensive absorbers.
Table 5.9-1. NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM NITRIC ACID PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of control
Weak acid
Uncontrolled
Catalytic combustor
(natural gas fired)
Catalytic combustor
(hydrogen fired)
Catalytic combustor
(75% hydrogen, 25%
natural gas fired)
High-strength acid
Control
efficiency, %
0
78 to 97
97 to 99.8
98 to 98.5
—
Emissions (NO2)b
Ib/ton acid
50 to 55C
2to7d
0.0 to 1.5
0.8 to 1.1
0.2 to 5.0
kg/MT acid
25.0 to 27.5
1 .0 to 3.5
0.0 to 0.75
0.4 to 0.55
0.1 to 2.5
References 1 and 2.
"Based on 100 percent acid production.
cRange of values taken from four plants measured at following process conditions:
production rate, 120 tons (109 MT) per day (100 percent rated capacity); absorber exit
temperature, 90° F (32° C); absorber exit pressure, 7.8 atmospheres;acid strength, 57
percent. Under different conditions, values can vary from 43 to 57 Ib/ton (21.5 to 28.5
kg/MT).
To present a more realistic picture, ranges of values were used instead of averages.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.9-3
-------
Acid mist emissions do not occur from a properly operated plant. The small amounts that may be present in
the absorber exit gas stream are removed by a separator or collector prior to entering the catalytic combustor or
expander.
Finally, small amounts of nitrogen dioxide are lost during the filling of storage tanks and tank cars.
Nitrogen oxide emissions (expressed as NC>2) are presented for weak nitric acid plants in table 5.9-1. The
emission factors vary considerably with the type of control employed, as well as with process conditions. For
comparison purposes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for both new and modified plants is
3.0 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced (1.5 kilograms per metric ton), maximum 2-hour average,
expressed as NC>2-4 Unless specifically indicated as 100 percent acid, production rates are generally given in terms
of the total weight of product (water and acid). For example, a plant producing 500 tons (454 MT) per day of 55
weight percent nitric acid is really producing only 275 tons (250 MT) per day of 100 percent acid.
References for Section 5.9
1. Control of Air Pollution from Nitric Acid Plants. Unpublished Report. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air
Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-27. 1966.
3. Unpublished emission data from a nitric acid plant. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Office of Criteria and Standards. Durham, N.C. June 1970.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register. 36(247): December 23, 1971.
5.9-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH
5.10.1 Paint Manufacturing1
The manufacture of paint involves the dispersion of a colored oil or pigment in a vehicle, usually an oil or
resin, followed by the addition of an organic solvent for viscosity adjustment. Only the physical processes of
weighing, mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning, and packaging take place; no chemical reactions are involved.
These processes take place in large mixing tanks at approximately room temperature.
The primary factors affecting emissions from paint manufacture are care in handling dry pigments, types of
solvents used, and mixing temperature.2'3 About 1 or 2 percent of the solvents is lost even under well-con trolled
conditions. Particulate emissions amount to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the pigment handled.4
5.10.2 Varnish Manufacturing1 ~3
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 or organic compounds, depend on the cooking temperatures
and times, the solvent used, the degree of tank enclosure, and the type of air pollution controls used. Emissions
from varnish cooking range from 1 to 6 percent of the raw material.
To reduce 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.
Emission factors for paint and varnish are shown in Table 5.10-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.10-1
-------
Table 5.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAINT AND VARNISH MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT3-6
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of
product
Paint
Varnish
Bodying oil
Oleoresinous
Alkyd
Acrylic
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 2 and 4 through 8.
Afterburners can reduce gaseous hydrocarbon emissions by 99 percent and particulates by about 90
percent. A water spray and oil filter system can reduce particulates by about 90 percent.
cExpressed as undefined organic compounds whose composition depends upon the type of varnish or
paint.
References for Section 5.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Stenburg, R.L. Atmospheric Emissions from Paint and Varnish Operations. Paint Varn. Prod. p. 61-65 and
111-114, September 1959.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer
Association. September 1969.
4. Unpublished engineering estimates based on plant visits in Washington, D.C. Resources Research,
Incorporated. Reston, Va. October 1969.
5. 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 Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p.
688-695.
6. Lunche, E.G. et al. Distribution Survey of Products Emitting Organic Vapors in Los Angeles County. Chem.
Eng. Progr. 53. August 1957.
7. Communication on emissions from paint and varnish operations with G. Sallee. Midwest Research Institute.
December 17, 1969.
8. Communication with Roger Higgins, Benjamin Moore Paint Company. June 25, 1968 .
5.10-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.11 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 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.
5.11.1 Wet Process1-2
In the wet process, finely ground phosphate rock is fed into a reactor with sulfunc acid to form phosphoric
acid and gypsum. There is usually little market 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 percent P~>O5. When superphosphoric acid is made, the acid
is concentrated to between 70 and 85 percent P2
Emissions of gaseous fluorides, consisting mostly of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride, are the major
problems from wet-process acid. Table 5.11-1 summarizes the emission factors from both wet-process acid and
thermal-process acid.
5.11.2 Thermal Process1
In the thermal process, phosphate rock, siliceous flux, and coke are heated in an electric furnace to produce
elemental phosphorus. The gases containing the phosphorus 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">05
before passing to a water scrubber to form phosphoric acid. In the "two-step" version of the process, the
phosphorus is condensed and pumped to a tower in which it is burned with air, and the P->C>5 formed is hydrated
by a water spray in the lower portion of the tower.
The principal emission from thermal-process acid is ^2^5 ac'd m'st from tne absorber tail gas. Since all plants
are equipped with some type of acid-mist collection system, the emission factors presented in Table 5.11-1 are
based on the listed types of control.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.11-1
-------
Table 5.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Wet process (phosphate rock)
Reactor, uncontrolled
Gypsum pond
Condenser, uncontrolled
Thermal process (phosphorus burnedc)
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
1b
20a
_
—
—
—
-
—
kg/MT
9a
1.1^
10a
—
—
—
—
-
—
References 2 and 3.
Pounds per acre per day (kg/hectare-day); approximately 05 acre (0.213 hectare) is
required to produce 1 ton of ^2^5 daily.
cReference 4.
References for Section 5.11
1. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 16.
2. Atmospheric Emissions from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N.C. Publication Number AP-57. April 1970.
3. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions. Internal document. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Programs. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 1970.
4. Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing. Cooperative Study Project:
Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Incorporated, and Public Health Service. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C. Publication Number AP-48. October 1968.
5.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
5.12.1 Process Description1 '2
Phthalic anhydride is produced primarily by oxidizing naphthalene vapors with excess air over a catalyst,
usually V2C>5. 0-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).
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls1
The excess air from the production of phthalic anhydride contains some uncondensed 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 5.12-1 presents emission
factor data from phthalic anhydride plants.
Table 5.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHTHALIC
ANHYDRIDE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Overall plant
Uncontrolled
Following catalytic combustion
Organics (ashexane)
Ib/ton
32
11
kg/MT
16
5.5
8Reference 3.
References for Section 5.12
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 17.
2. Phthalic Anhydride. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 15, 2nd Ed. New York, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 444-485. 1968.
3. Bolduc, 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).
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.12-1
-------
-------
5.13 PLASTICS
5.13.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of most resins or plastics begins with the polymerization or linking of the basic compound
(monomer), usually a gas or liquid, into high molecular weight noncrystalline solids. The manufacture of the
basic monomer is not considered part of the plastics industry and is usually accomplished at a chemical or
petroleum plant.
The manufacture of most plastics involves an enclosed reaction or polymerization step, a drying step, and a
final treating and forming step. These plastics are polymerized or otherwise combined in completely enclosed
stainless steel or glass-lined vessels. Treatment of the resin after polmerization 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 be 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.
5.13.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major sources of air contamination in plastics manufacturing are the emissions of raw mateiials or
monomers, emissions of solvents or other volatile liquids during the reaction, emissions of sublimed solids such as
phthalic anhydride 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 5.13-1.
Table 5.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLASTICS
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of plastic
Polyvinyl chloride
Polypropylene
General
Part icu late
Ib/ton
35b
3
5 to 10
kg/MT
17.5b
1.5
2.5 to 5
Gases
Ib/ton
17C
0.7d
—
kg/MT
8.5C
0.35d
—
References 2 and 3.
bUsually 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.
2/72
Che'mical Process Industry
5.13-1
-------
References for Section 5.13
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Unpublished data from industrial questionnaire. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Air Quality and Emissions Data. Durham, N.C. 1969.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and Maryland State Department of
Health, Baltimore, Md. November 1969.
5.13-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.14 PRINTING INK
5.14.1 Process Description1
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. Flexographic and rotogravure
inks have many elements in common with the paste inks but differ in that they are of very low viscosity, and they
almost always dry by evaporation of highly volatile solvents.2
There are 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).3 The ink "varnish" or vehicle is generally cooked in
large kettles at 200° to 600°F (93° to 315°C) for an average of 8 to 12 hours in much the same way that regular
varnish is made. Mixing of the pigment and vehicle is done in dough mixers or in large agitated tanks. Grinding is
most often carried out in three-roller or five-roller horizontal or vertical mills.
5.14.2 Emissions and Controls'-4
Varnish or vehicle preparation by heating is by far the largest source of ink manufacturing emissions. Cooling
the varnish components — resins, drying oils, petroleum oils, and solvents — produces odorous emissions. At
about 350°F (175°C) the products begin to decompose, resulting in the emission of decomposition products
from the cooking vessel. Emissions continue throughout the cooking process with the maximum rate of emissions
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 afterburners.4'5
Compounds emitted from the cooking of oleoresinous varnish (resin plus varnish) include water vapor, fatty
acids, glycerine, acrolein, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, terpene oils, terpenes, and carbon dioxide. Emissions of
thinning solvents used in flexographic and rotogravure inks may also occur.
The quantity, composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing depend upon the cooking
temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent
of air or inert gas blowing. Particulate emissions resulting from the addition of pigments to the vehicle are
affected by the type of pigment and its particle size. Emission factors for the manufacture of printing ink are
presented in Table 5.14-1.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.14-1
-------
Table 5.14-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRINTING INK
MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of process
Vehicle cooking
General
Oils
Oleoresinous
Alkyds
Pigment mixing
Gaseous organic13
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
aBased on data from section on paint and varnish
Emitted as gas, but rapidly condense as the effluent is cooled.
References for Section 5.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R. N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co. 1967. p. 454-455.
3. Larsen, L.M. Industrial Printing Inks. New York, Reinhold Publishing Company. 1962.
4. 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 Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p.
688-695.
5. Private communication with Interchemical Corporation, Ink Division. Cincinnati, Ohio. November 10, 1969.
5.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
5.15 SOAP AND DETERGENTS
5.15.1 Soap Manufacturel
The manufacture of soap entails the catalytic hydrolysis of various fatty acids with sodium or potassium
hydroxide to form a glycerol-soap mixture. This mixture 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 participate 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.
5.15.2 Detergent Manufacture1
The manufacture of detergents generally begins with the sulfuration by sulfuric 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.2-3 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 packaged. 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 in Table 5.15-1.
Table 5.15-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SPRAY-DRYING DETERGENTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Control device
Uncontrolled
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
3Based on analysis of data in References 2 through 6.
bSome type of primary collector, such as a cyclone, is considered an
integral part of the spray-drying system.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.15-1
-------
References for Section 5.15
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Phelps, A.H. Air Pollution Aspects of Soap and Detergent Manufacture. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
1 7(8):505-507, August 1967.
3. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries. 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
544-563.
4. Larsen, G.P., G.I. Fischer, and W.J. Hamming. Evaluating Sources of Air Pollution. Ind. Eng. Chem.
45:1070-1074, May 1953.
5. McCormick, P.Y., R.L. Lucas, and D.R. Wells. Gas-Solid Systems. In: Chemical Engineer's Handbook. Perry,
J.H. (ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1963. p. 59.
6. Private communication with Maryland State Department of Health, Baltimore, Md. November 1969.
5.15-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.16 SODIUM CARBONATE (Soda Ash)
5.16.1 Process Description1
Soda ash is manufactured by three processes: (1) the natural or Lake Brine process, (2) the Solvay process
(ammonia-soda), and (3) the electrolytic soda-ash 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, limestone (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
precipitation 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.
5.16.2 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. Emission
factors are summarized in Table 5.16-1.
Table 5.16-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SODA-ASH
PLANTS WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of source
Ammonia recoverya-b
Conveying, transferring.
loading, etc.c
Particulates
Ib/ton
6
kg/MT
3
Ammonia
Ib/ton
7
-
kg/MT
3.5
-
aReference 2.
Represents ammonia loss following the recovery system.
cBased on data in References 3 through 5.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.16-1
-------
References for Section 5.16
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C.,under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
225-230.
3. Facts and Figures for the Chemical Process Industries. Chem. Eng. News. 43:5\-\ 18, September 6, 1965.
4. Faith, W.L., D.B. Keyes, and R.L. Clark. Industrial Chemicals, 3rd Ed. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1965.
5. Kaylor, F.B. Air Pollution Abatement Program of a Chemical Processing Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
75:65-67, February 1965.
5.16-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.17 SULFURICACID Revised by William Vatavuk
and Donald Carey
5.17.1 Process Description
All sulfuric acid is made by either the lead chamber or the contact process. Because the contact process
accounts for more than 97 percent of the total sulfuric acid production in the United States, it is the only process
discussed in this section. Contact plants are generally classified according to the raw materials charged to them:
(1) elemental sulfur burning, (2) spent acid and hydrogen sulfide burning, and (3) sulfide ores and smelter gas
burning plants. The relative contributions from each type of plant to the total acid production are 68, 18.5, and
13.5 percent, respectively.
All contact processes incorporate three basic operations, each of which corresponds to a distinct chemical
reaction. First, the sulfur in the feedstock is burned to sulfur dioxide:
S + O2 —>- SO2.
Sulfur Oxygen Sulfur (1)
dioxide
Then, the sulfur dioxide is catalytically oxidized to sulfur trioxide:
2SO2 + O2 —*~ 2S03.
Sulfur Oxygen Sulfur (2)
dioxide trioxide
Finally, the sulfur trioxide is absorbed in a strong, aqueous solution of sulfuric acid:
SO3 + H2O —*- HoS04.
Sulfur Water SuTfuric
trioxide acid
5.17.1.1 Elemental Sulfur-Burning Plants1'2 - Elemental sulfur, such as Frasch-process sulfur from oil refineries,
is melted, settled, or filtered to remove ash and is fed into a combustion chamber. The sulfur is burned in clean
air that has been dried by scrubbing with 93 to 99 percent sulfuric acid. The gases from the combustion chamber
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. After being cooled, the converter exit gas 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.
If oleum, a solution of uncombined S03 in H2SO4, is produced, S03 from the converter is first passed to an
oleum tower that is fed with 98 percent acid from the absorption system. The gases from the oleum tower are
then pumped to the absorption column where the residual sulfur trioxide is removed.
A schematic diagram of a contact process sulfuric acid plant that burns elemental sulfur is shown in Figure
5.17-1.
4/73 Chemical Process Industry 5.17-1
-------
/
\
=
;
|
o
\
o
\
•~~~.
<, 4
\
o
\
k
§
/
/
/
/
/
/
.. 1
_
ce
°
3
a:
a
o
CO
re
c
_CD
CD
cn
c
c
_CO
CL
TJ
"o
CO
a)
CD
O
O
o
CO
-*^
o
o
E
CO
I
-a
5
to
ca
OQ
m
CD
3
O)
5.17-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
•AIR
PENT ACID
SULFUR
FUEL OIL
>H
i WATER
STEAM
FURNACE
DUST
COLLECTOR
WATER
A
\\\\\>
GAS
COOLEF
\\\\\\
A
-------
5.17.1.2 Spent Acid and Hydrogen Sulfide Burning Plants1'2 - Two types of plants are used to process this type
of sulfuric acid. In one the sulfur dioxide and other combustion products from the combustion of spent acid
and/or hydrogen sulfide with undried atmospheric air are passed through gas-cleaning and mist-removal
equipment. The gas stream next passes through a drying tower. A blower draws the gas from the drying tower and
discharges the sulfur dioxide gas to the sulfur trioxide converter. A schematic diagram of a contact-process
sulfuric acid plant that burns spent acid is shown in Figure 5.17-2.
In a "wet-gas plant," the wet gases from the combustion chamber are charged directly to the converter with no
intermediate treatment. The gas from the converter flows to the absorber, through which 93 to 98 percent
sulfuric acid is circulating.
5.17.1.3 Sulfide Ores and Smelter Gas Plants - The configuration of this type of plant is essentially the same as
that of a spent-acid plant (Figure 5.17-2) with the primary exception that a roaster is used in place of the
combustion furnace.
The feed used in these plants is smelter gas, available from such equipment as copper converters, reverberatory
furnaces, roasters, and flash smelters. The sulfur dioxide in the gas is contaminated with dust, acid mist, and
gaseous impurities. To remove the impurities the gases must be cooled 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 is
removed, they are scrubbed with 98 percent acid in a drying tower. Beginning with the drying tower stage, these
plants are nearly identical to the elemental sulfur plants shown in Figure 5.17-1.
5.17.2 Emissions and Controls
5.17.2.1 Sulfur Dioxide1"3 - Nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions from sulfuric acid plants are found in the exit
gases. Extensive testing has shown that the mass of these SC>2 emissions is an inverse function of the sulfur
conversion efficiency (SC>2 oxidized to 803). This conversion is, in turn, affected by the number of stages in the
catalytic converter, the amount of catalyst used, the temperature and pressure, and the concentrations of the
reactants, sulfur dioxide and oxygen. For example, if the inlet SC>2 concentration to the converter were 8 percent
by volume (a representative value), and the conversion temperature were 473°C, the conversion efficiency would
be 96 percent. At this conversion, the uncontrolled emission factor for SC>2 would be 55 pounds per ton (27.5
kg/MT) of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced, as shown in Table 5.17-1. For purposes of comparison, note that
the Environmental Protection Agency performance standard3 for new and modified plants is 4 pounds per ton
(2kg / MT) of 100 percent acid produced, maximum 2-hour average. As Table 5.17-1 and Figure 5.17-3 indicate,
achieving this standard requires a conversion efficiency of 99.7 percent in an uncontrolled plant or the equivalent
SC>2 collection mechanism in a controlled facility. Most single absorption plants have SO2conversion efficiencies
ranging from 95 to 98 percent.
In addition to exit gases, small quantities of sulfur oxides are emitted from storage tank vents and tank car and
tank truck vents during loading operations; from sulfuric acid concentrators; and through leaks in process
equipment. Few data are available on emissions from these sources.
Of the many chemical and physical means for removing SO2 from gas streams, only the dual absorption and
the sodium sulfite-bisulfite scrubbing processes have been found to increase acid production without yielding
unwanted by-products.
5.17-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
Table 5.17-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFURIC
ACID PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Conversion of SO2
to S03, %
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
99.5
99.7
100
S02 emissions
Ib/ton of 1 00 %
H2S04
96
82
70
55
40
27
14
7
4
0
kg/MTof 100%
H2S04
48.0
41.0
35.0
27.5
20.5
13.0
7.0
3.5
2.0
0.0
aReference 1.
bThe following linear interpolation formula can be used for
calculating emission factors for conversion efficiencies between 93
and 100 percent: emission factor (Ib/ton acid) =-13.65 (percent
conversion efficiency) + 1365.
In the dual absorption process, the 863 gas formed in the primary converter stages is sent to a primary
absorption tower where t^SC^ is formed. The remaining unconverted sulfur dioxide is forwarded to the final
stages in the converter, from whence it is sent to the secondary absorber for final sulfur trioxide removal. The
result is the conversion of a much higher fraction of SC>2 to 803 (a conversion of 99.7 percent or higher, on the
average, which meets the performance standard). Furthermore, dual absorption permits higher converter inlet
sulfur dioxide concentrations than are used in single absorption plants because the secondary conversion stages
effectively remove any residual sulfur dioxide from the primary absorber.
Where dual absorption reduces sulfur dioxide emissions by increasing the overall conversion efficiency, the
sodium sulfite-bisulfite scrubbing process removes sulfur dioxide directly from the absorber exit gases. In one
version of this process, the sulfur dioxide in the waste gas is absorbed in a sodium sulfite solution, separated, and
recycled to the plant. Test results from a 750 ton (680 MT) per day plant equipped with a sulfite scrubbing
system indicated an average emission factor of 2.7 pounds per ton (1.35 kg/MT).
15.17.2.2 Acid Mist1"-5 - Nearly all the acid mist emitted from sulfuric acid manufacturing can be traced to the
absorber exit gases. Acid mist is created when sulfur trioxide combines with water vapor at a temperature below
the dew point of sulfur trioxide. Once formed within the process system, this mist is so stable that only a small
quantity can be removed in the absorber.
In general, the quantity and particle size distribution of acid mist are dependent on the type of sulfur
feedstock used, the strength of acid produced, and the conditions in the absorber. Because it contains virtually no
water vapor, bright elemental sulfur produces little acid mist when burned; however, the hydrocarbon impurities
in other feedstocks — dark sulfur, spent acid, and hydrogen sulfide — oxidize to water vapor during combustion.
The water vapor, in turn, combines with sulfur trioxide as the gas cools in the system.
4/73
Chemical Process Industry
5.17-5
-------
99.92
10,000
SULFUR CONVERSION, % feedstock sulfur
99.7 99.0
97.0 96.0 95.0 92.9
2 2.5 3
40 50 60 70 80 90100
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30
S02EMISSIONS, Ib/ton of 100% H2S04 produced
Figure 5.17-3- Sulfuric acid plant feedstock sulfur conversion versus volumetric and
mass SC>2 emissions at various inlet SC>2 concentrations by volume.
5.17-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
The strength of acid produced-whether oleum or 99 percent sulfuric acid-also affects mist emissions. Oleum
plants produce greater quantities of finer, more stable mist. For example, uncontrolled mist emissions from
oleum plants burning spent acid range from 0.1 to 10.0 pounds per ton (0.05 to 5.0 kg/MT), while those from 98
percent acid plants burning elemental sulfur range from 0.4 to 4.0 pounds per ton (0.2 to 2.0 kg/MT).
Furthermore, 85 to 95 weight percent of the mist particles from oleum plants are less than 2 microns in diam-
eter, compared with only 30 weight percent that are less than 2 microns in diameter from 98 percent acid plants.
The operating temperature of the absorption column directly affects sulfur trioxide absorption and,
accordingly, the quality of acid mist formed after exit gases leave the stack. The optimum absorber operating
temperature is dependent on the strength of the acid produced, throughput rates, inlet sulfur trioxide
concentrations, and other variables peculiar to each individual plant. Finally, it should be emphasized that the
percentage conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide has no direct effect on ^zid mist emissions. In Table
5.17-2 uncontrolled acid mist emissions are presented for various sulfuric acid plants.
Two basic types of devices, electrostatic precipitators and fiber mist eliminators, effectively reduce the acid
mist concentration from contact plants to less than the EPA new-source performance standard, which is 0.15
pound per ton (0.075 kg/MT) of acid. Precipitators, if properly maintained, are effective in collecting the mist
particles at efficiencies up to 99 percent (see Table 5.17-3).
The three most commonly used fiber mist eliminators are the vertical tube, vertical panel, and horizontal
dual-pad types. They differ from one another in the arrangement of the fiber elements, which are composed of
either chemically resistant glass or fluorocarbon, and in the means employed to collect the trapped liquid. The
operating characteristics of these three types are compared with electrostatic precipitators in Table 5.17-3.
Table 5.17-2. ACID MIST EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFURIC
ACID PLANTS WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Raw material
Recovered sulfur
Bright virgin sulfur
Dark virgin sulfur
Sulf ide ores
Spent acid
Oleum produced,
% total output
Oto43
0
33 to 100
Oto25
Oto77
Emissions'3
Ib/ton acid
0.35 to 0.8
1.7
0.32 to 6.3
1 .2 to 7.4
2.2 to 2.7
kg/MT acid
0. 1 75 to 0.4
0.85
0.16 to 3.15
0.6 to 3.7
1.1 to 1.35
aReference 1.
"Emissions are proportional to the percentage of oleum in the total product. Use
the low end of ranges for low oleum percentage and high end of ranges for high
oleum percentage.
4/73
Chemical Process Industr,
5.17-7
-------
Table 5.17-3. EMISSION COMPARISON AND COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF TYPICAL
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR AND FIBER MIST ELIMINATORS8
Control device
Electrostatic
precipitator
Fiber mist eliminator
Tubular
Panel
Dual pad
Particle size
collection efficiency, %
>3 jum
99
100
100
100
<3Aim
100
95 to 99
90 to 98
93 to 99
Acid mist emissions
98% acid plants5
Ib/ton
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.11
kg/MT
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.055
oleum plants
Ib/ton
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.11
kg/MT
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.055
Reference 2.
Based on manufacturers' generally expected results, calculated for 8 percent sulfur dioxide
concentration in gas converter.
References for Section 5.17
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air
Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number 999-AP-13. 1966.
2. Unpublished report on control of air pollution from sulfuric acid plants. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. August 1971.
3. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Federal Register. 56(247): December 23, 1971.
5.17-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
5.18 SULFUR By William Vatavuk
5.18.1 Process Description
Nearly all of the elemental sulfur produced from hydrogen sulfide is made by the modified Claus process.
The process (Figure 5.18-1) consists of the multi-stage oxidation of hydrogen sulfide according to the following
reaction:
2H2S + 02 >- 2S + 2H2O
Hydrogen Oxygen Sulfur Water
sulfide
In the first step, approximately one-third of the hydrogen sulfide is reacted with air in a pressurized boiler (1.0
to 1.5 atmosphere) where most of the heat of reaction and some of the sulfur are removed. After removal of the
water vapor and sulfur, the cooled gases are heated to between 400 and 500°F, and passed over a "Claus" catalyst
bed composed of bauxite or ajiimina, where the reaction is completed. The degree of reaction conpletion is a
function of the number of catalytic stages employed. Two stages can recover 92 to 95 percent of the potential
sulfur; three stages, 95 to 96 percent; and four stages, 96 to 97 percent. The conversion to sulfur is ultimately
limited by the reverse reaction in which water vapor recombines with sulfur to form gaseous hydrogen sulfide and
sulfur dioxide. Additional amounts of sulfur are lost as vapor, entrained mist, or droplets and as carbonyl sulfide
and carbon disulfide (0.25 to 2.5 percent of the sulfur fed). The latter two compounds are formed in the
pressurized boiler at high temperature (1500 to 2500°F) in the presence of carbon compounds.
The plant tail gas, containing the above impurities in volume quantities of 1 to 3 percent, usually passes to an
incinerator, where all of the sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide at temperatures ranging from 1000 to 1200°F.
The tail gas containing the sulfur dioxide then passes to the atmosphere via a stack.
5.18.2 Emissions and Controls1'2
Virtually all of the emissions from sulfur plants consist of sulfur dioxide, the main incineration product. The
quantity of sulfur dioxide emitted is, in turn, a function of the number of conversion stages employed, the
process temperature and pressure, and the amounts of carbon compounds present in the pressurized boiler.
The most commonly used control method involves two main steps — conversion of sulfur dioxide to hydrogen
sulfide followed by the conversion of hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. Conversion of sulfur dioxide to
hydrogen sulfide occurs via catalytic hydrogenation or hydrolysis at temperatures from 600 to 700°F. The
products are cooled to remove the water vapor and then reacted with a sodium carbonate solution to yield
sodium hydrosulfide. The hydrosulfide is oxidized to sulfur in solution by sodium vanadate. Finely divided sulfur
appears as a froth that is skimmed off, washed, dried by centrifugation, and added to the plant product. Overall
recovery of sulfur approaches 100 percent if this process is employed. Table 5.18-1 lists emissions from
controlled and uncontrolled sulfur plants.
4/73 Chemical Process Industry 5.18-1
-------
CLEAN GAS
•^—
SOUR
GAS
COOLER
COOLER
REACTIVATOR
HEAT
EXCHANGER
GAS PURIFICATION-
H2S, S02, C02, N£, H20
J
AIR
J
BOILER
STACK
CONVERTER CONVERTER
SCRUBBER SCRUBBER
SULFUR CONVERSION
(CLAUS SECTION)
Figure 5.18-1. Basic flow diagram of modified Claus process with two converter stages
used in manufacturing sulfur.
Table 5.18-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODIFIED-CLAUS
SULFUR PLANTS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Number of
catalytic stages
Two, uncontrolled
Three, uncontrolled
Four, uncontrolled
Sulfur removal process
Recovery of
of sulfur, %
92 to 95
95 to 96
96 to 97
99.9
S02 emissions3
Ib/ton
100% sulfur
21 1 to 348
167 to 211
124 to 167
4.0
kg/MT
100% sulfur
106 to 162
84 to 1 06
62 to 84
2.0
aThe range in emission factors corresponds to the range in the percentage recovery of
sulfur.
References for Section 5.18
1. Beavon, David K. Abating Sulfur Plant Tail Gases. Pollution Engineering. 4(l):34-35, January 1972.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 19. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1969.
5.18-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
5.19 SYNTHETIC FIBERS
5.19.1 Process Description1
Synthetic fibers are classified into two major categories, semi-synthetic and "true" synthetic. Semi-synthetics,
such as viscose rayon and acetate fibers, result when natural polymeric materials such as cellulose are brought into
a dissolved or dispersed state and then spun into fine filaments. True synthetic polymers, such as Nylon, * Orion,
and Dacron, result from addition and other polymerization reactions that form long chain molecules.
True synthetic fibers begin with the preparation of extremely long, chain-like molecules. The polymer is spun
in one of four ways:2 (1) melt 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 suitable 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
continuous filament yarn together with short-length "hard" fibers is introduced onto a spinning frame in such a
way as to form a composite yarn.
5.19.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 €82 can be accomplished.3 Emissions of gaseous
hydrocarbons may also occur from the drying of the finished fiber. Table 5.19-1 presents emission factors for
semi-synthetic and true synthetic fibers.
Table 5.19-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SYNTHETIC FIBERS MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of fiber
Semi -synthetic
Viscose rayona'b
True synthetic0
Nylon
Dacron
Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton
-
7
—
kg/MT
-
3.5
—
Carbon
disulfide
Ib/ton
55
-
—
kg/MT
27.5
-
—
Hydrogen
sulfide
Ib/ton
6
-
—
kg/MT
3
-
—
Oil vapor
or mist
Ib/ton
-
15
7
kg/MT
-
7.5
3.5
aReference 4.
May be reduced by 80 to 95 percent adsorption in activated charcoal.
cReference 5.
*Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.19-1
-------
References for Section 5.19
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Fibers, Man-Made. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. 1969.
3. Fluidized Recovery System Nabs Carbon Disulfide. Chem. Eng. 70(8):92-94, April 15, 1963.
4. Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and Rayon Manufacturing Plant.
December 1969.
5. Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and E.I. Dupont de Nemours and
Company. January 13, 1970.
5.19-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.20 SYNTHETIC RUBBER
5.20.1 Process Description1
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 precipitated from the latex emulsion. The rubber particles are then
dried and baled.
5.20.2 Emissions and Controls1
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. Emission factors from synthetic rubber plants are summarized in Table 5.20-1.
Table 5.20-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SYNTHETIC RUBBER PLANTS: BUTADIENE-
ACRYLONITRILE AND BUTADIENE-STYRENE
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Compound
Alkenes
Butadiene
Methyl propene
Butyne
Pentadiene
Alkanes
Dimethylheptane
Pentane
Ethanenitrile
Carbonyls
Acrylonitrile
Acrolein
Emissions3-13
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
aThe butadiene emission is not continuous and is
greatest right after a batch of partially polymerized
latex enters the blow-down tank.
DReferences 2 and 3.
2/72
Chemical Process Industry
5.20-1
-------
References for Section 5.20
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration. Durham. N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. The Louisville Air Pollution Study. U.S. DREW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1961. p.
26-27 and 124.
3. Unpublished data from synthetic rubber plant. U.S. DHEW, PHS. EHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Air Quality and Emissions Data. Durham, N.C. 1969.
5.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
5.21 TEREPHTHALIC ACID
5.21.1 Process Description1'2
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 p-xylene
by nitric acid. In this process an oxygen-containing gas (usually air), p-xylene, and HNC>3 are all passed into a
reactor where oxidation by the nitric acid takes place in two steps. The first step yields primarily ^O; 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.
5.21.2 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 5.21-1.
Table 5.21-1. NITROGEN OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR
TEREPHTHALIC ACID PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of operation
Reactor
Nitrogen oxides
(NO)
Ib/ton
13
kg/MT
6.5
aReference 2.
References for Section 5.21
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Terephthalic Acid. In. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 9. New York, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. 1964.
2/72 Chemical Process Industry 5.21-1
-------
-------
6. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Before food and agricultural products are used by the consumer they undergo a number of processing steps,
such as refinement, 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 intermediate steps that
present air pollution problems. Emission factors are presented for industries where data were available. The
primary pollutant emitted from these processes is particulate matter.
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING
6.1.1 General1'2
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
combustion. 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.
6.1.2 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 6.1-1.
Table 6.1-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR ALFALFA DEHYDRATION3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of operation
Uncontrolled
Baghouse collector
Particulate emissions
Ib/ton of
meal produced
60
3
kg/MT of
meal produced
30
1.5
aReference 3.
2/72
6.1-1
-------
References for Section 6.1
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 Number 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.
6.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.2 COFFEE ROASTING
6.2.1 Process Description1'2
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
the 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.
6.2.2 Emissions1'2
Dust, chaff, coffee bean oils (as mists), smoke, and odors are the principal air contaminants emitted from
coffee processing. The major source of particulate 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.1 '2
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.3 Table 6.2-1
summarizes emissions from the various operations involved in coffee processing.
Table 6.2-1. 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
Participates3
Ib/ton
7.6
4.2
1.4
1.4d
kg/MT
3.8
2.1
0.7
0.7d
NOxb
Ib/ton
0.1
0.1
—
-
kg/MT
0.05
0.05
_
-
Aldehydes6
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 3.
Reference 1.
clf cyclone is used, emissions can be reduced by 70 percent.
Cyclone plus wet scrubber always used, representing a controlled factor.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.2-1
-------
References for Section 6.2
1. Polglase, W.L., H.F. Dey, and R.T. Walsh. Coffee Processing. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 746-749.
2. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 19-20.
3. Partee, F. Air Pollution in the Coffee Roasting Industry. Revised Ed. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Division of Air
Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-9. 1966.
6.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING
6.3.1 General1
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 is two-fold. The first problem consists of collecting the coarse, heavier trash such as burrs,
sticks, stems, leaves, sand, and dirt. The second problem consists of 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.
6.3.2 Emissions and Controls
The major sources of particulates from cotton ginning include the unloading fan, the cleaner, and the stick and
burr machine. From the cleaner and stick and burr machine, a large percentage of the particles settle out in the
plant, and an attempt has been made in Table 6.3-1 to present emission factors that take this into consideration.
Where cyclone collectors are used, emissions have been reported to be about 90 percent less.1
Table 6.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COTTON GINNING OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS3-15
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Process
Unloading fan
Cleaner
Stick and burr
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
Particles > 100/im
settled out, %
0
70
95
50
-
Estimated
emission factor
(released to
atmosphere)
Ib/bale
5.0
0.30
0.20
1.5
7.0
kg/bale
2.27
0.14
0.09
0.68
3.2
References 1 and 2.
bOne bale weighs 500 pounds (226 kilograms).
References for Section 6.3
1. Air-Borne Particulate Emissions from Cotton Ginning Operations. U.S. DHEW, PHS, Tail Sanitary
Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1960.
2. 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.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.3-1
-------
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS
6.4.1 General1
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:
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 subsequent bagging or bulk loading.
6.4.2 Emissions1
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 presented in Table 6.4-1. Because dust collection systems are generally applied to 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 loading 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 participates 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.
References for Section 6.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119, April 1970.
Reston, Virginia.
2. Thimsen, D.J. and P.W. Aften. A Proposed Design for Grain Elevator Dust Collector. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. M(ll):738-742, November 1968.
3. Private communication between H. L. Riser, Grain and Feed Dealers National Association, and Resources
Research, Inc., Washington, D.C. September 1969.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.4-1
-------
Table 6.4-1. 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 elevatorsb
Shipping or receiving
Transferring, conveying, etc.
Screening and cleaning
Drying
Grain processing
Corn mealc
Soybean processingb
Barley or wheat cleanerd
Milo cleanerf
Barley flour milling0
Feed manufacturing
Barleyf
Emissions
Ib/ton
1
2
5
6
5
3
8
7
5
7
0.2e
0.4e
3e
3e
kg/MT
0.5
1
2.5
3
2.5
1.5
4
3.5
2.5
3.5
0.1e
0.2e
1.5e
1.5e
References 2 and 3.
bReference 3.
cReferences3 and 4.
dReferences 5 and 6.
eAt cyclone exit (only non-ether-soluble particulates).
fReference 6.
4. Contribution of Power Plants and Other Sources to Suspended Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations
in Metropolis, Illinois. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration. 1966.
5. Larson, G.P., G.I. Fischer, and WJ. Hamming. Evaluating Sources of Air Pollution. Ind. Eng. Chem.
45:1070-1074. May 1953.
6. 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 Number 999-AP-40.
1967. p. 359.
6.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
6.5 FERMENTATION
6.5.1 Process Description1
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) filtration and carbonation; (3) aging, which lasts from 1 to 2 months
under refrigeration; and (4) packaging, which includes (a) bottling-pasteurization, and (b) 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.
6.5.2 Emissions1
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. Emissions of particulates, however, 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 associated
with beer, wine, and whiskey production are shown in Table 6.5-1.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.5-1
-------
Table 6.5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FERMENTATION PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of product
Beer
Grain handling3
Drying spent grains, etc.3
Whiskey
Grain handling3
Drying spent grains, etc.3
Aging
Wine
Particulates
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
3Based on section on gram processing.
No emission factor available, but emissions do occur.
°Pounds per year per barrel of whiskey stored.
"Kilograms per year per liter of whiskey stored.
eNo significant emissions.
References for Section 6.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shieve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
591-608.
6.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
6.6 FISH PROCESSING
6.6.1 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 offish-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-products, 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.
6.6.2 Emissions and Controls1
The biggest problem from fish processing is odorous emissions. The principal odorous gases generated during
the cooking portion of fish-meal manufacturing are hydrogen sulfide and trimethylamine. Some of the methods
used to control odors include adsorption by activated carbon, scrubbing with 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 6.6-1.
Table 6.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FISH MEAL PROCESSING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Emission source
Cookers, Ib/ton (kg/MT)
of fish meal produced3
Fresh fish
Stale fish
Driers, Ib/ton (kg/MT)
of fish scrapb
Particulates
Ib/ton
_
—
0.1
kg/MT
—
—
0.05
Trimethylamine
(CH,)3N
Ib/ton
0.3
3.5
—
kg/MT
0.15
1.75
_
Hydrogen
sulfide (H2S)
Ib/ton
0.01
0.2
_
kg/MT
0.005
0.10
—
Reference 2.
bReference 1.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.6-1
-------
References for Section 6.6
1. Walsh, R.T., K.D. Luedtke, and L.K. Smith. Fish Canneries and Fisli Reduction Plants. In: Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 760-770.
2. Summer, W. Methods of Air Deodorization. New York, Elsevier Publishing Company, p. 284-286.
6.6-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.7 MEAT SMOKEHOUSES
6.7.1 Process Description1
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 commerically in the United
States by three major methods: (1) by burning dampened sawdust (20 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
recirculating type, in which smoke is circulated at reasonably high temperatures throughout the smokehouse.
6.7.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from smokehouses are generated from the burning hardwood rather than from the cooked 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
6.7-1.
Emissions from 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 electrostatic precipitators and direct-fired afterburners may be used to reduce particulate and organic
emissions. These controlled emission factors have also been shown in Table 6.7-1.
Table 6.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MEAT SMOKING8-11
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Pollutant
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons (CH4)
Aldehydes (HCHO)
Organic acids (acetic)
Uncontrolled
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
aBased on 110 pounds of meat smoked per pound of wood burned (110 kg meat/kg wood burned).
^References 2, 3, and section on charcoal production.
cControls consist of either a wet collector and low-voltage precipitator in series or a direct-fired afterburner.
dWith afterburner.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.7-1
-------
References for Section 6.7
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Carter, E. Private communication between Maryland State Department of Health and Resources Research,
Incorporated. November 21, 1969.
3. Polglase, W.L., H.F. Dey, and R.T. Walsh. Smokehouses. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.
A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 750-755.
6.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.8 NITRATE FERTILIZERS
6.8.1 General1-2
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 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 HNC^)3'4 are brought together in the neutralizer to
produce ammonium nitrate. An evaporator or concentrator is then used to increase the ammonium nitrate
concentration. The resulting 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 produce calcium ammonium nitrate.5'6
6.8.2 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 6.8-1 presents
emission factors for the manufacture of nitrate fertilizers.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.8-1
-------
Table 6.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR NITRATE FERTILIZER
MANUFACTURING WITHOUT CONTROLS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of process3
With prilling towerb
Neutralizerc-d
Prilling tower
Dryers and coolers6
With granulatorb
Neutralizerc'd
Granulator6
Dryers and coolers6-*
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
aPlants will use either a prilling tower or a granulator but not both.
bReference 7.
cReference 8.
dControlled factor based on 95 percent recovery in recycle scrubber.
6Use of wet cyclones can reduce emissions by 70 percent.
Use of wet-screen scrubber following cyclone can reduce emissions by 95 to 97 percent.
References for Section 6.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 231-234.
3. Sauchelli, V. Chemistry and Technology of Fertilizers. New York, Reinhold Publishing Company. 1960.
4. Falck-Muus, R. New Process Solves Nitrate Corrosion. Chem. Eng. 74(14): 108, July 3, 1967.
5. Ellwood, P. Nitrogen Fertilizer Plant Integrates Dutch and American Know-How. Chem. Eng. p. 136-138,
May 11, 1964.
6. Chemico, Ammonium Nitrate Process Information Sheets.
7. Unpublished source sampling data. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
8. Private communication with personnel from Gulf Design Corporation. Lakeland, Florida.
6.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
6.9 ORCHARD HEATERS by Dennis H. Ackerson
6.9.1 GeneralJ-6
Orchard heaters are commonly used in various areas of the United States to prevent frost damage to fruit and
fruit trees. The five common types of orchard heaters—pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, cone, and solid fuel—are
shown in Figure 6.9-1. The pipeline heater system is operated from a central control and fuel is distributed by a
piping system from a centrally located tank. Lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters contain integral fuel
reservoirs, but can be converted to a pipeline system. Solid fuel heaters usually consist only of solid briquettes,
which are placed on the ground and ignited.
The ambient temperature at which orchard heaters are required is determined primarily by the type of fruit
and stage of maturity, by the daytime temperatures, and by the moisture content of the soil and air.
During a heavy thermal inversion, both convective and radiant heating methods are useful in preventing frost
damage; there is little difference in the effectiveness of the various heaters. The temperature response for a given
fuel rate is about the same for each type of heater as long as the heater is clean and does not leak. When there is
little or no thermal inversion, radiant heat provided by pipeline, return stack, or cone heaters is the most effective
method for preventing damage.
Proper location of the heaters is essential to the uniformity of the radiant heat distributed among the trees.
Heaters are usually located in the center space between four trees and are staggered from one row to the next.
Extra heaters are used on the borders of the orchard.
6.9.2 Emissions1-6
Emissions from orchard heaters are dependent on the fuel usage rate and the type of heater. Pipeline heaters
have the lowest particulate emission rates of all orchard heaters. Hydrocarbon emissions are negligible in the
pipeline heaters and in lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters that have been converted to a pipeline system.
Nearly all of the hydrocarbon losses are evaporative losses from fuel contained in the heater reservoir. Because of
the low burning temperatures used, nitrogen oxide emissions are negligible.
Emission factors for the different types of orchard heaters are presented in Table 6.9-1 and Figure 6.9-2.
4/73 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.9-1
-------
PIPELINE HEATER
LAZY FLAP/IE
CONE STACK
RETURN STACK
SOLID FUEL
Figure 6.9-1. Types of orchard heaters.
6.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
CD
CO
U)
L_
CO
OB
CD
CO
.G
o
i_
o
E
o
to
c
o
CO
to
E
0
0)
jo
^
o
ca
CL
CN
CD
CD
3
O)
L
'SNOISSI1N3
4/73
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.9-3
-------
Table 6.9-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORCHARD HEATERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Part icu late
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Sulfur oxides0
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Carbon monoxide
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Hydrocarbons'
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Nitrogen oxidesh
Ib/htr-hr
kg/htr-hr
Type of heater
Pipeline
b
b
0.1 3Sd
0.06S
6.2
2.8
Neg9
Neg
Neg
Neg
Lazy
flame
b
b
0.11S
0.05S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Return
stack
b
b
0.1 4S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Neg
Cone
b
b
0.1 4S
0.06S
NA
NA
16.0
7.3
Neg
Meg
Solid
fuel
0.05
0.023
NAe
NA
NA
NA
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
References 1, 3, 4,and 6.
"Paniculate emissions for pipeline, lazy flame, return stack, and cone heaters are
shown in Figure 6.9-2.
QBased on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3.
dS=sulfur content.
eIMot available.
1Based on emission factors for fuel oil combustion in Section 1.3. Evaporative
losses only. Hydrocarbon emissions from combustion are considered negligible.
Evaporative hydrocarbon losses for units that are part of a pipeline system are
negligible.
9Negligible.
Little nitrogen oxide is formed because of the relatively low combustion
temperatures.
References for Section 6.9
1. Air Pollution in Ventura County. County of Ventura Health Department, Santa Paula, Calif. June 1966.
2. Frost Protection in Citrus. Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Ventura. November
1967.
3. Personal communication with Mr. Wesley Snowden. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting Engineers,
Seattle, Washington. May 1971.
4. Communication with the Smith Energy Company, Los Angeles, Calif. January 1968.
5. Communication with Agricultural Extension Service. University of California, Ventura, Calif. October 1969.
6 Personal communication with Mr. Ted Wakai. Air Pollution Control District, County of Ventura, Ojai, Calif.
May 1972.
6.9-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
6.10 PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
Nearly all phosphatic fertilizers are made from naturally occurring, phosphorus-containing minerals such as
phosphate rock. Because the phosphorus content of these minerals is not in a form that is readily available to
growing plants, the minerals must be treated to convert the phosphorus to a plant-available form. This conversion
can be done either by the process of acidulation or by a thermal process. The intermediate steps of the mining ot
phosphate rock and the manufacture 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 6.10-1.
Table 6.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of product
Normal superphosphate0
Grinding, drying
Main stack
Triple superphosphate0
Run-of-pile (ROP)
Granular
Diammonium phosphated
Dryer, cooler
Ammoniator-granulator
Particulates8
Ib/ton
9
—
-
_
80
2
kg/MT
4.5
—
-
—
40
1
Fluoridesb
Ib/ton
-
0.15
0.03
0.10
e
0.04
kg/MT
-
0.075
0.015
0.05
e
0.02
aControl efficiencies of 99 percent can be obtained with fabric filters.
bTotal fluorides, including paniculate fluorides. Factors all represent
outlet emissions following control devices, and should be used as typical
only in the absence of specific plant information.
cReferences 1 through 3.
^References 1, 4, and 5 through 8.
Included in ammoniator-granulator total.
6.10.1 Normal Superphosphate
6.10.1.1 General4'9— Normal superphosphate (also called single or ordinary superphosphate) is the product
resulting from the acidulation of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. Normal superphosphate contains from 16 to
22 percent phosphoric anhydride (P2C>5). 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 Agricultural Industry
6.10-1
-------
6.10.1.2 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.1 °
If a granulated superphosphate is produced, the vent gases from the granulator-ammoniator may contain
particulates, ammonia, silicon tetrafluoride, hydrofluoric 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.
6.10.2 Triple Superphosphate
6.10.2.1 General4'9— 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 P205, which is about three times the ?205 usually found in normal superphosphates.
Presently, there are three principal methods of manufacturing triple superphosphate. One of these uses a cone
mixer to produce a pulverized product that is particularly suited to the manufacture of ammoniated fertilisers.
This product can be sold as run-of-pile (ROP), or it can be granulated. The second method produces in a
multi-step process a granulated product that is well suited for direct application as a phosphate fertilizer. The
third method combines the features of quick drying and granulation in a single step.
6.10.2.2 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 greatest problems is the emission of
dust and fumes from the dryer and cooler. Emissions 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.
6.10.3 AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
6.10.3.1 General- The two general classes of ammonium phosphates are monammonium phosphate 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
There are various processes and process variations in use for manufacturing ammonium phosphates. In general,
phosphoric acid, sulfuric 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.
6.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
6.10.3.2 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.
References for Section 6.10
1. Unpublished data on phosphate fertilizer plants. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Abatement. Durham, N.C. July 1970.
2. Jacob, K. O., H. L. Marshall, D. S. Reynolds, and T. H. Tremearne. Composition and Properties of
Superphosphate. Ind. Eng. Chem. 34(6):722-728. June 1942.
3. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Vol. 1, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 732.
4. Steam, A. (ed.). Air Pollution, Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 231-234.
5. Teller, A. J. Control of Gaseous Fluoride Emissions. Chem. Eng. Progr. 65(3): 75-79, March 1967.
6. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Vol. I, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 722.
7. Slack, A. V. Phosphoric Acid, Vol. 1, Part II. New York, Marcel Dekker, Incorporated. 1968. p. 760-762.
8. Salee, G. Unpublished data from industrial source. Midwest Research Institute. June 1970.
9. Bixby, D. W. Phosphatic Fertilizer's Properties and Processes. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D.C.
October 1966.
10. Sherwin, K. A. Transcript of Institute of Chemical Engineers, London. 32:172, 1954.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.10-3
-------
-------
6.11 STARCH MANUFACTURING
6.11.1 Process Description1
. . The basic raw material in the manufacture of starch is dent corn, which contains starch. The starch in the
A corn is separated from the other components by "wet milling."
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.
6.11.2 Emissions
The manufacture of starch from corn can result in significant dust emissions. The various cleaning, grinding.
A and screening operations are the major sources of dust emissions. Table 6.11-1 presents emission factors for starch
•manufacturing.
Table 6.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS
FOR STARCH MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of operation
Uncontrolled
Controlled13
Particulates
Ib/ton
8
0.02
kg/MT
4
0.01
Reference 2.
Based on centrifugal gas scrubber.
References for Section 6.11
1. Starch Manufacturing. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. IX. New York, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964.
2. Storch, H. L. Product Losses Cut with a Centrifugal Gas Scrubber. Chem. Eng. Progr. 62:51-54. April 1966.
2/72 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.11-1
-------
-------
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING
6.12.1 General1
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.
6.12.2 Emissions
The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the openfield burning in the harvesting of the
crop and the burning of bagasse as fuel. In the various processes of crushing, evaporation, and crystallization,
some particulates are emitted but in relatively small quantities. Emission factors for sugar cane processing are
shown in Table 6.12-1.
Table 6.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SUGAR CANE PROCESSING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of process
Field burning3'1-5
Ib/acre burned
kg/hectare burned
Bagasse burning0
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
-
—
aBased 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 combustible2
cReference 2.
2/72
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.12-1
-------
References for Section 6.12
1. Sugar Cane. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. IX. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 1964.
2. Cooper, J. Unpublished data on emissions from the sugar cane industry. Air Pollution Control Agency, Palm
Beach County, Florida. July 1969.
6.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
The metallurgical industries can be broadly divided into primary and secondary metal production operations.
The term primary metals 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 Sections 7.1 through 7.7 include the nonferrous operations of
primary aluminum production, 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 Sections 7.8 through 7.14 are aluminum operations, brass
and bronze ingots, gray iron foundries, lead smelting, magnesium smelting, steel foundries, and zinc processing.
The major air contaminants from these operations are particulates in the forms of metallic fumes, smoke, and
dust.
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
7.1.1 Process Description1 Revised by William M. Vatavuk
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. The aluminum hydroxide is precipitated from this diluted, cooled solution and calcined to produce
pure alumina, according to the reaction:
2A1(OH)3 •- 3H2O + A12O3 /^
Aluminium hydroxide Water Alumina
Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroult process, which involves the electrolytic reduction of
alumina dissolved in a molten salt bath of cryolite (a complex of NaF-AlF3) and various salt additives:
Electrolysis
2A1203 *- 4A1 + 302
Alumina Aluminum Oxygen ^ '
The electrolysis is performed in a carbon crucible housed in a steel shell, known as a "pot." The electrolysis
employs the carbon crucible as the cathode (negative pole) and a carbon mass as the anode (positive pole). The
type of anode configuration used distinguishes the three types of pots: prebaked (PB), horizontal-stud Soderberg
(HSS), and vertical-stud Soderberg (VSS).
The major portion of aluminum produced in the United States (61.9 percent of 1970 production) is processed
in prebaked cells. In this type of pot, the anode consists of blocks that are formed from a carbon paste and baked
4/73
7.1-1
-------
in an oven prior to their use in the cell. These blocks—typically 14 to 24 per cell—are attached to metal rods and
serve as replaceable anodes. As the reduction proceeds, the carbon in these blocks is gradually consumed (at a rate
of about 1 inch per day) by reaction with the oxygen by-product (see Table 7.1-1).
Table 7.1-1. RAW MATERIAL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Parameter
Representative value
Cell operating temperature
Current through pot line
Voltage drop per cell
Current efficiency
Energy required
Weight alumina consumed
Weight electrolyte fluoride consumed
Weight carbon electrode consumed
-1740 F (~950°C)
60,000 to 125,000 amp
4.3 to 5.2
85 to 90%
6.0 to 8.5 kwh/lb aluminum
(13.2 to 18.7 kwh/kg aluminum)
1.89 to 1.92 Ib AL2O3/lb aluminum
(1.89 to 1.92 kg AL2O3/kg aluminum)
0.03 to 0.10 Ib fluoride/lb aluminum
(0.03 to 0.10 kg fluoride/kg aluminum)
0.45 to 0.55 Ib electrode/lb aluminum
(0.45 to 0.55 kg electrode/kg aluminum)
The second most commonly used furnace (25.5 percent of 1970 production) is the horizontal-stud Soderberg.
This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon anode; that is, a mixture of pitch and carbon aggregate called
"paste" is added at the top of the superstructure periodically, and the entire anode assembly is moved
downward as the carbon burns away. The cell anode is contained by aluminum sheeting and perforated steel
channels, through which electrode connections, called studs, are inserted into the anode paste. As the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed, and the flexible electrical
connectors are moved to a higher row. One disadvantage of baking the paste in place is that heavy organic
materials (tars) are added to the cell effluent stream. The heavy tars often cause plugging of the ducts, fans, and
control equipment, an effect that seriously limits the choice of air cleaning equipment.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the horizontal-stud furnace, with the exception that the studs are
mounted vertically in the cell. The studs must be raised and replaced periodically, but that is a relatively simple
process. Representative raw material and energy requirements for aluminum reduction cells are presented in Table
7.1-1. A schematic representation of the reduction process is shown in Figure 7.1-1.
7.1.2 Emissions and Controls1 -2 '3
Emissions from aluminum reduction processes consist primarily of gaseous hydrogen fluoride and particulate
fluorides, alumina, hydrocarbons or organics, sulfur dioxide from the reduction cells and the anode baking
furnaces. Large amounts of particulates are also generated during the calcining of aluminum hydroxide, but the
economic value of this dust is such that extensive controls have been employed to reduce emissions to relatively
small quantities. Finally, small amounts of particulates are emitted from the bauxite grinding and materials
handling processes.
The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride electrolyte, which contains cryolite,
aluminum fluoride (A1F3), and fluorspar (CaF^. For normal operation, the weight or "bath" ratio of sodium
fluoride (NaF) to A1F3 is maintained between 1.36 and 1.43 by the addition of Na2CO3, NaF, and A1F3-
Experience has shown that increasing this ratio has the effect of decreasing total fluoride effluents. Cell fluoride
emissions are also decreased by lowering the operating temperature and increasing the alumina content in the
bath. Specifically, the ratio of gaseous (mainly hydrogen fluoride) to particulate fluorides varies from 1.2 to 1.7
withPB and HSS cells, but attains a value of approximately 3.0 with VSS cells.
7.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
BAUXITE
SETTLING
CHAMBER
DILUTION
WATER
RED MUD
(IMPURITIES)
\
DILUTE
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
CRYSTALLIZER
AQUEOUS SODIUM
ALUMINATE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
I
BAKING
FURNACE
BAKED
ANODES
TO CONTROL DEVICE
PREBAKE
REDUCTION
CELL
TO CONTROL DEVICE
ANODE PASTE
HORIZONTAL
OR VERTICAL
SODERBERG
REDUCTION CELL
MOLTEN
ALUMINUM
Figure 7.1-1. Schematic diagram of primary aluminum production process.
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-3
-------
Table 7.1-2. REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
OF UNCONTROLLED EFFLUENTS FROM PREBAKED AND
HORIZONTAL-STUD SODERBERG CELLS1
Size range,;um
<1
1 to 5
5 to 10
1 0 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Particles within size range, wt%
Prebaked
35
25
8
5
5
22
Horizontal-stud Soderberg
44
26
8
6
4
12
Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon from anode dusting, cryolite,
aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite (Na5Al3Fj4), and ferric oxide. Representative size distributions for
PB and HSS particulate effluents are presented in Table 7.1-2. Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter
represent the largest percentage (35 to 44 percent by weight) of uncontrolled effluents.
Moderate amounts of hydrocarbons derived from the anode paste are emitted from horizontal- and
vertical-Soderberg pots. In vertical cells these compounds are removed by combustion via integral gas burners
before the off-gases are released.
Because many different kinds of gases and particulates are emitted from reduction cells, many kinds of control
devices have been employed. To abate both gaseous and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrubbers
— spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds, Venturis, and self-induced sprays — are
used on all three cells and on anode baking furnaces. In addition, particulate control methods, such as
electrostatic precipitators (wet and dry), multiple cyclones, and dry scrubbers (fluid-bed and coated-filter types),
are employed with baking furnaces on PB and VSS cells. Dry alumina adsorption has been used at several PB and
VSS installations in foreign countries. In this technique, both gaseous and particulate fluorides are controlled by
passing the pot off-gases through the entering alumina feed, on which the fluorides are absorbed; the technique
has an overall control efficiency of 98 percent.
In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite grinding, and materials handling operations, various dry dust
collection devices—such as centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators—and wet
scrubbers or both may be used. Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for fluorides and total particulates
are presented in Table 7.1.-3.
7.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
CO
LJJ
o
o
oc
Q.
z
g
i-
Q
o
DC
o.
I <
la
> cc
oc o
CD CD
•z. ~z.
Ol Ol
CD CD
•z. z
o
o co
in o
d d
CN
O «-
«-' d
Quench tower and
spray screen
Electrostatic pre-
-
*
•z.
O)
CD
01
CD
•z.
O
d
o
*~
o
8
CN
E
cipitator
alcining of aluminu
hydroxide3-0
Uncontrolled
O
**f *-f
Z "Z
z z
Ol Ol
CD CD
Z Z
Ol Ol
CD CD
Z Z
o o
d od
CO CN
o o
d co
CD LO
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
*-f* ^
Z Z
z z
O) O)
CD 0
Z Z
Ol Ol
CD 0
Z Z
0 0
P>-' CN
O O
t *
Quench tower and
spray screen
Electrostatic pre-
cipitator
01
CD
O)
CD
£
d
CO
03
d
in
cvi
LO rt
LO
d
-~~-
01
o
°- 0
CO 2
Zl
node baking furnac
Uncontrolled
<
Ol Ol
CD CD
•z. -z.
01 01
cy CD
•z. ^.
«- r-
o -3-
d d
CM
CO CO
O O)
d d
i*»
< in
•z. d
CO
< ^
•z. -
Spray tower
Dry electrostatic
precipitator
Ol
CD
Ol
CD
•z.
CD
CO
O
C3
CN
r--
co
o
d
CO
o
d
CO
o
d
Self-induced spray
-ebaked reduction
cellh
Q.
CO
r-' co
«- in in
CN o CN CN
d ~ csi d
*~ °>
2.
in
LO 1^
CO O3 O
•*r o *t in
d ~ •* d
CN CO
o>
*
LO *~ LO CN
CO 2 CO t-
CN (-y. CN O
*~ s "~
CO
s £
|^ 2 Is* CN
•^•' oo ^ d
CN (vj CN
LO CO LO r-
CO o O3 O
d " 06 ^
Td- in
o>
LO'
"^^"
o
pv.'
r» CN
O •r- <3) O
^-' o r^ cvi
o> *~
Uncontrolled
Multiple cyclone
Fluid-bed dry
scrubber system
to
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-5
-------
a
CO
LU
LU
O
o
oc
D-
2
g
o
o
QC
0.
z
z
% <
f't*l
'RIMARY AL
TOR RATINC
"- o
cc. <
0 "•
It „-
U* "2
co o
°8
O f
<£ LU
LU
Z
g
GO
V)
LU
~-l
TJ
o>
^
•—
c
o
«—
PS'
07
1
1
1
—
• — •
tsi
OJ
O
4—
a;
•M
_co
3
^
'^
CO
^
. .
£
^~"
Q)
•O
O
O
(3
en
QJ
CO
3
O
CO
a.
"CD
r~°
r-
^
Dl
•*
C
O
4-1
""Q
—
h—
^
2
o
I-
5
*CT)
^
c
4->
C
o
•H*
CO
i.
O
'o
a>
O.
H
CM
t—
0 ""
CM *J
O ^f
o
CN
d
CN
§CM
_ 0
~ -M
d co
o
d
P^
O3
CM'
o LO
" CO
OJ CM
O) *
O
CO
O)
LO
Sis.
O) CN
r—
P.
^ «*'
co o
d ~
^—
00
o"
*"T
S00'
r— • ^
CM
CO
^~
L.
5
"§
U.
_ «
scrubber system
Coated filter dry :
Dry electrostatic
f ^t
0 0
CN CM
CO CO
q q
^f ^~
CO
•
*~ p^
° CN
5" °
CN
d
CN
p~
CM ^.
0 OJ
'— «—
od co
CN CN
CO CO
^- T—
precipitator
Spray tower
Floating-bed
CO CO O
LO LO CM
«-' «-' d
CO
CO CO O
co co' d
PS,
co ^r
't CM CM
^ ^ d
CO O)
CN CO O
^_
<- t- CO
co co d
CM
CN CM CO
CN CN ^
r— r—
i_
scrubber
Chamber scrubbe
Vertical flow
packed bed
Dry alumina ad-
LO
' — • co
^ CO LO
00 CN p7
CO O f, t—
. -t-J u
P-.' LO
«-
CN P~
CO O O CO
LQ d
«— 2 ,_
«- CO
^ LO
^t <—
^ — ' co
CO 2 O CM
co co jv, d
"~ CM O5
C d
^co
CO •
CN CN CM
co 2 2S
CO CN CO O
CM ^,-CO
CN <-
— •
P CM
a?
^ 2 o °°-
O) <-> O
^f CO *v\ *~
(O •
^r
o ^.
S co
^2co^
co' o 2 ^--
en jo CN
CO 2
O)
' — '
"53
c « o3 ^ % •&
f|ll fi?
|o|| ||
0 => CO LL
I
CO
CO
LO
d
CO
t_'
CO
cri
*
CO
CO
CN
LO
LO
CO
0
ps!
scrubber
Wet electrostatic
i^
CN
CO o
LO ^
CO
CN
n
LO
CO o
o *^
T- CO
LO'
LC5
i>;
f—
CN 2
LO O
"~ d
0
LO
00
^r 2
d o
00 d
(N
CN
OJ
CO
^.
co'
precipitator
ertical-stud
Soderberg ce\\>
Uncontrolled
>
CO
LO
LO CM O
CM rf «- o
CO ^* CM i-t
t-' ^ d co
S
d
q
LO <£ ^2
CN Z O CO
o
d
CN CM CN
LO LO LO
T- t- T- CN
do d LO
'
•* ^J- ^~
o o o
co co co ^r
do do
CO
CN
OJ
P- "'
CO < LO 0
05 2. ^ ^
CO
d
^>
CO
O) ^ CO ^^
CO
****
o
Spray tower
Self-induced
spray
Venturi scrubber
Wet electrostatic
CO
"' S
o ^
LO °
CO
CN
%
cd 51
2 ^
Q
CO
LO
^.
O
CN CO
LO O
1
CO
o
•* CD
d d
CO
LO
CM CO
o Is-
~ 0
CO
OJ
*~
0 LO
+-• ,
CN
OJ
co'
precipitator
Multiple cyclones
Dry alumina ad-
$ $
*^- ^~
—^ —^
^. ^
CD O!
-z_ z
O) Dl
03 Q>
Z Z
O LO
LO «-'
P P
d co
sorption
later ials handling0
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
^
7.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
ra
co
UJ
UJ
o
0
CC
Q.
z
o
Q
O
cc
a.
3
I <
"T ^
«J
!«
2 s
s?
°- o
cc <
O "-
U. z
co o
n^
°i
0 2
< UJ
U.
O
CO
UJ
01
c
'•p
c
o
^
O)
s
re
t S
1/7 O7
tn
O
D
0 c
ss
a £[
i—
Is I1
^— ' ~^
to
"5
o
to
a.
To
o §
1 — +J
0
•^;
to
cu
a
0
M—
O
a
H-
1
< <
Z Z
Z Z
O) O1
a> cu
Z Z
O) O)
Q) 0)
Z Z
uo
*J oo
—' CD
cq r--
c
to
loating-bed
scrubber
uench tower
u- 0
1
^
Z
z
O)
0)
Z
O)
tD
O
CD
O
CM
CD
spray screen
lectrostatic
precipitator
LLJ
g/MT) of bauxite processed. Factors for calcining of aluminum hydroxide expi
j^
c
o
*"1
OJ
a
VJ
T3
C
O
D.
CO
-Q
CO
QJ
a
X
QJ
O>
£
C
Dl
CD
X
CO
.0
aEmission factors for
TIS of tons (MT) of molten aluminum produced.
i-
c
«
0
U
CO
J_
CD
O
<|
TJ
QJ
CJ
D
O
D.
CO
E
3
~co
"o
i
cn
c
o
CD
Q.
•o
5
o
a
QJ
•g
0
_5
blncludes particulate f
GJ
m
cReferences 1 and 3.
d|\lo information avaih
and on average observed collection efficiencies.
tf>
0
U
45
1
0
£
c
0
o
c
QJ
i_
CD
C
O
-Q
QJ
QJ
CO
w
O
o
CO
Controlled emission f
,c
O)
o
.c
^
f References 1,2, and 4
T3
(!)
QJ
0
QJ
~&
~a
— .
o
c
0
U
c
^^
o
c/)
QJ
Dl
C
CO
QJ
to
(/)
^
^Numbers in parenthe:
•
f
0
^
h References 2 and 4 U
'Reference 1.
'References 2 and 6.
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-7
-------
References for Section 7.1
1. Engineering and Cost Effectiveness Study of Fluoride Emissions Control, Vol. I. TRW Systems and
Resources Research Corp., Reston, Va. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHSD-71-14, January 1972.
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Vol. I. Singmaster and Breyer, New York, N.Y.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-70-21. March 1972.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971.
4. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-E.
5. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant. York Research Corp., Stamford,
Conn. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Report Number Y-7730-B. June 1972.
6. Source Testing Report: Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-F. June 1972.
7.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURING
7.2.1 Process Description1
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
nonvolatile nature. Two processes are used for the manufacture of metallurgical coke, the beehive process and the
by-product process; the by-product process accounts for more than 98 percent of the coke produced.
Beehive oven:1 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 process 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:1 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.
7.2.2 Emissions1
Visible smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, 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 collecting 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 disulfide. If the gas is not desulfurized, 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 crushing coke, and storing and loading coke. All of these operations are
potential particulate 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 7.2-1.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-1
-------
CO
C/5
o
DC
f-
o
O
1-
D
O
I
LU
b
^
LL
•J
1"
,^ »
LU 9
° s
*^ «
< CC
o o
rr §
_J
_J 2
< o
i- 53
LU in
CC LU
o
LL
CO
CC
o
u.
o
CO
CO
1 1 1
CM
fl^
a:
2
to
CD
'c
o
E
CM
c 0
cu 2
O) _
o M
c
0
-g
CD
o
>
I
cu
C. "O
O 'x
-Q n
<5 c
00
5. -1
^~~ X
D 0
"D
w
53
J5
•t-1
CD
a_
1-
—
C3)
C
e
^
I
^/
c
s
—
g
01
,
c
0
^
H
^
a>
c
o
-
!_
^
^
D)
C
0
—
H
a)
c
o
—
f-
o
'*J
2
CD
D.
0
"o
h-
«- co in
O O O |
d d d
CM CD
O O «- |
d d o"
in in
o o 1
d d
CO «-
1 9 °. 1 1
o o
in in
| CM |-~ r-
«-' d d
in in CM
1 CN «-' 0 '
CO
1 CO CO O 1
1 ... 1
o o o
r-
| CD CD O |
d d d
, —
] O 1 1 I
1 .111
o c
CM
9 1
O <
in in LO
CN r-~ o co f
o o o o o
'S- in i— CD a>
o «- o o o
o
en
—
•o £ i
CJ M CT ._
4^0) > .C =P
c; c en o en •-
-i "~* ^— t_ r~
^ ^3 »— ni ^"
II II 11
^ D 6 o b o
00
1
1
CM
1
^J.
00
1 in
1
O
1 ^_
1
N
1
*
1 0
O
1 °
1 o
CM
3 "t,
^ S
a3 cu
t3 .>
c j:
D S
CO
^
CD
O)
CO
-C
^
o
'o
x:
O)
s
*^
c
1
'E
CO
-a
CD
ors express
o
CO
M-
g
1
methane.
V)
CO
•o
1
OJ
CU
Q.
X
LU
J3
CO
-a
c
CO
CM
CU
g
cRefere
00
d
«
c
CD
Q
O
CD
ra
CO
f
0
u
o
J_,
c
OJ
c
o
o
^_
3
1
^
in
O
.ti
C
O
CJ
CD
CO
C
d)
tf)
QJ
Q-
£
f
_2
"o
i*—
(/>
s
o
0
TD
CD
E1
CO
x:
o
8
O
CD
x:
c
^
i
CO
o
0
O)
§
^
_C
c
£
a
O>
-C
0
c
-D
(fl
£
1
C
CO
CD
CD
x:
"D
C
CO
c
o
CO
CD
a
o
O)
c
cu
-a
c
D
CD
x:
£
^
-a
CD
c
D
V)
e-oven gas
J£
o
o
"o
percent
CD
N
3
CD
T3
C
CD
QJ
^
O
C
CO
x:
O)
c
*£
•8
3
C
-o
cu
D
CO
01
c
<0
-o
s,
u
ro
O
^
o
P
"Bi
CO
c
o
~^
CD
±J
O
CO
1
Tl
-------
References for Section 7.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
1970.
2. Air Pollution by Coking Plants. United Nations Report: Economic Commission for Europe, ST/ECE/
Coal/26. 1968. p. 3-27.
3. Fullerton, R.W. Impingement Baffles to Reduce Emissions from Coke Quenching. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
77:807-809. December 1967.
4. Sallee, G. Private Communication on Particulate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
5. Varga, J. and H.W. Lownie, Jr. Final Technological Report on: A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. DHEW, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number PH 22-68-65. May 1969.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-3
-------
-------
7.3 COPPER SMELTERS
7.3.1 Process Description1 '2
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 preparation 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.
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls2
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 7.3-1 summarizes the uncontrolled
emissions of particulates and sulfur oxides from copper smelters.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.3-1
-------
Table 7.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER
SMELTERS WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of operation
Roasting
Smelting (reverberatory
furnace)
Converting
Refining
Total uncontrolled
Particulatesb-c
Ib/ton
45
20
60
10
135
kg/MT
22.5
10
30
5
67.5
Sulfur
oxidesd
Ib/ton
60
320
870
-
1250
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 concentrated ore produced.
bReferences 2 through 4.
cElectrostatic 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 sulfunc acid plants and lime slurry scrubbing.
References for Section 7.3
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-AP42. 1968. p. 24.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 173-179.
3. Sallee, G. Private communication on Paniculate Pollutant Study, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration under Contract Number 22-69-104. June
1970.
4. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry. 3 Volumes. San
Francisco, California, Arthur G. McKee and Company. June 1969.
7.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
7.4.1 Process Description1-2
Ferroalloy is the generic term for alloys consisting of iron and one or more other metals. Ferroalloys are used
in steel production as alloying elements and deoxidants. There are three basic types of ferroalloys: (1)
silicon-based alloys, including ferrosilicon and calciumsilicon; (2) manganese-based alloys, including fer-
romanganese and silicomanganese; and (3) chromium-based alloys, including ferrochromium and ferrosilico-
chrome.
The four major procedures 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 submerged-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 ferrochromium the charge may consist of chrome ore, limestone, quartz (silica), coal and
wood chips, along with scrap iron.
7.4.2 Emissions3
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.
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 7.4-1. No
carbon monoxide emission data have been reported in the literature.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.4-1
-------
Table 7.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION IN
ELECTRIC SMELTING FURNACES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furance and
product
Open furnace
50% FeSib
75% FeSic
90% FeSib
Silicon metald
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
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit
weight of specified product produced.
bReference 4.
cReferences 5 and 6.
dReferences 4 and 7.
eReference 6.
References for Section 7.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Ferroalloys: Steel's All-purpose Additives. The Magazine of Metals Producing. February 1967.
3. Person, R. A. Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace Processing. Niagara Falls, New York. 1969.
4. Unpublished stack test results. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
5. Ferrari, R. Experiences in Developing an Effective Pollution Control System for a Submerged-Arc Ferroalloy
Furnace Operation. J. Metals, p. 95-104, April 1968.
6. Fredriksen and Nestaas. Pollution Problems by Electric Furnace Ferroalloy Production. United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe. September 1968.
7. Gerstle, R. W. and J. L. McGinnity. Plant Visit Memorandum. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1967.
7.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.5 IRON AND STEEL MILLS Revised by William M. Vatavuk
and L. K. Felleisen
7.5.1 General1
Iron and steel manufacturing processes may be grouped into five distinct sequential operations: (1) coke
production; (2) pig iron manufacture in blast furnaces; (3) steel-making processes using basic oxygen, electric arc,
and open hearth furnaces; (4) rolling mill operations; and (5) finishing operations (see Figure 7.5-1). The first
three of these operations encompass nearly all of the air pollution sources. Coke production is discussed in detail
elsewhere in this publication.
7.5.1.1 Pig Iron Manufacture2'-5— Pig iron is produced in blast furnaces, which are large refractory-lined chambers
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 of this operation. The production of 1 unit
weight of pig iron requires an average charge of 1.55 unit weights of iron-bearing charge, 0.55 unit weight of
coke, 0.20 unit weight of limestone, and 2.3 unit weight of air. Blast furnace by-products consist of 0.2 unit
weight of slag, 0.02 unit weight of flue dust, and 2.5 unit weights of gas per unit of pig iron produced. Most of
the coke used in the process is produced in by-product coke ovens. The flue dust and other iron ore fines from
the process are converted into useful blast furnace charge via sintering operations.
Blast furnace combustion gas and the gases that escape from bleeder openings constitute the major sources of
particulate emissions. The dust in the gas consists of 35 to 50 percent iron, 4 to 14 percent carbon, 8 to 13
percent silicon dioxide, and small amounts of aluminum oxide, manganese oxide, calcium oxide, and other
materials. Because of its high carbon monoxide content, this gas has a low heating value (about 100 Btu/ft) and is
utilized as a fuel within the steel plant. Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however, the gas must be cleaned of
particulates. Initially, the gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone, where about 60 percent of the
dust is removed. Next, the gases undergo a one- or two-stage cleaning operation. The primary cleaner is normally
a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulates. The secondary cleaner is a
high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator, either of which can remove up to 90
percent of the particulates that have passed through the primary cleaner. Taken together, these control devices
provide an overall dust removal efficiency of approximately 96 percent.
All of the carbon monoxide generated in the gas is normally used for fuel. Conditions such as "slips," however,
can cause instantaneous emissions of carbon monoxide. Improvements in techniques for handling blast furnace
burden have greatly reduced the occurrence of slips. In Table 7.5-1 particulate and carbon monoxide emission
factors are presented for blast furnaces.
7.5.1.2 Steel-Making Processes -
7.5.1.2.1 Open Hearth Furnaces^'^~\n the open hearth process, a mixture of scrap iron, steel, and pig iron is
melted in a shallow rectangular basin, or "hearth," for which various liquid gaseous fuels provide the heat.
Impurities are removed in a slag.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-1
-------
*-FLUE GAS
(SINTER _
OPERATION)
DUST, FINES,
AND COAL
SINTER
OPERATION
(P)
IRON ORE
DUST
COAL
LIMESTONE
FINISHING
OPERATIONS
GAS
PURIFICATION
SCARFING
MACHINE
COKE
OPERATION
(P)
Figure 7.5-1. Basic flow diagram of iron and steel processes.
"P" denotes a major source of particulate emissions.
7.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Emissions from open hearths consist of particulates and small amounts of fluorides when fluoride-bearing ore,
fluorspar, is used in the charge. The particulates are composed primarily of iron oxides, with a large portion (45
to 50 percent) in the 0 to 5 micrometer size range. The quantity of dust in the off-gas increases considerably
when oxygen lancing is used (see Table 7.5-1).
The devices most commonly used to control the iron oxide and fluoride particulates are electrostatic
precipitators and high-energy venturi scrubbers, both of which effectively remove about 98 percent of the
particulates. The scrubbers also remove nearly 99 percent of the gaseous fluorides and 95 percent of the
particulate fluorides.
7.5.1.2.2 Basic Oxygen Furnaces2'3—The basic oxygen process, also called the Linz-Donawitz (LD) process, is
employed to produce steel from a furnace charge composed of approximately 70 percent molten blast-furnace
metal and 30 percent scrap metal by use of a stream of commercially pure oxygen to oxidize the impurities,
principally carbon and silicon.
The reaction that converts the molten iron into steel generates a considerable amount of particulate matter,
largely in the form of iron oxide, although small amounts of fluorides may be present. Probably as the result of
the tremendous agitation of the molten bath by the oxygen lancing, the dust loadings vary from 5 to 8 grains per
standard cubic foot (11 to 18 grams/standard cubic meter) and high percentages of the particles are in the 0 to 5
micrometer size range.
In addition, tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide (140 Ib/ton of steel and more) are generated by the
reaction. Combustion in the hood, direct flaring, or some other means of ignition is used in the stack to reduce
the actual carbon monoxide emissions to less than 3 Ib/ton (1.5 kg/MT).
The particulate control devices used are venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, both of which have
overall efficiencies of 99 percent. Furthermore, the scrubbers are 99 percent efficient in removing gaseous
fluorides (see Table 7.5-1).
7.5.1.2.3 Electric Arc Furnaces2*! — 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 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 particulates, primarily oxides of iron, manganese, aluminum, and silicon, that evolve when steel is being
processed in an electric furnace result from the exposure of molten steel to extremely high temperatures. The
quantity of these emissions is a function of the cleanliness and composition of the scrap metal charge, the refining
procedure used (with or without oxygen lancing), and the refining time. As with open hearths, many of the
particulates (40 to 75 percent) are in the 0 to 5 micrometer range. Additionally, moderate amounts of carbon
monoxide (15 to 20 Ib/ton) are emitted.
Particulate control devices most widely used with electric furnaces are venturi scrubbers, which have a
collection efficiency of approximately 98 percent, and bag filters, which have collection efficiencies of 99 percent
or higher.
7.5.1.3 Scarfing3—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.
Emissions from scarfing operations consist of iron oxide fumes. The rate at which particulates are emitted is
dependent on the condition of the billets or slabs and the amount of metal removal required (Table 7.5-1).
Emission control techniques for the removal of fine particles vary among steel producers, but one of the most
commonly used devices is the electrostatic precipitator, which is approximately 94 percent efficient.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-3
-------
Q
x
O
ii
O H- _
DC < CO
— _| uj
CC D O
Ll-
CO
V)
aj
jridesc'd
Particulat
LL —
U.
I
in
O
lonoxide
t
ra
O
ticulates
03
Q.
O
H
1
c
Ol
C
o
(-
o
"o.
_*:
c
o
•t-1
operation
M—
O
OJ
Q.
H-
m So m
iii 5 88 5
d d d d
in CD
i i i i ii 111 i iii §888
o do o
in o
80 m
000°
d do
iiii i iiiiii ° 5 °- °-
d do' d
o o
in in
Sf 1 £ o 1 SSS illl
oo •!= co *=
8 8
8 |
O CN o CN t T *f
£ S 1 £ 2 1 II III | •* <* •* | || i
— o "• o
o o
o^
o o ,_•
o in CD m m ,_
*~ in CN in in oo co
0 mr~- o in o >-q *~. 2 °. °. • °
in o 10*^0 r-d o «-' d o' t-r-'d •*' m d d °°LO
in CN r-gco - g cp
0 00
S -3- ••- CN r^ r^ CN
IN If) OOO CN>— CO T~ «— "~_ ^| M
o o o°o in '- ocNt-' d CNCN'O odoo'd ^2
.- TJ W 0 CO r- CN CN ^ -^
T— in cji
•o
- O ^oO^j"D6^-> ^ 2
— ^- ^ lrcd+~'ajaJa)'^ O ^-*
2 « ^ ^o^-S.t^S^-S.^ ^ g
-t-* Cn~O o Oj"cn^ C/JQ.W i_ wd 3 i- Q
c 8 -c-o^ " -QQ°- 5 "5. g> "5. o "5-2 S -0 "~ 3
o c °^+; "c 2'c° una>Q.-;c .oorao-Qnroura'*J'Ec — ino.nj
T3 CD f^r^ ^J^flJfliCJ ^x ^C ^, i • ^, O ^J ^_ ^^ ,V .j ^ Qj ^ o • — ~-
O CT CO C O 3 ^ o ^ ^ ^^ "^^D OOo!£o3t-CJCj553n3 ?* "Q ^ 4—1 ^j C
C^QJ 0^34., ^u'oTol C^.EQQ o ^QQ o.1-.-)^ *
,°_raO CC
uj
-------
J3 UJ
jl
-J O
i z
_, o
QJ ^
IJJ ^?
UJ £•
H O
co S
Q CC
Z <
^ O
2 Q
21
— c/j
QC UJ
£ < 35
{/} ^ UJ
o y E
H h- o
O CC 3
« Ij
LL O._ u_
2 rf 77
o < o
28
g 2
LLJ p
— " ^
"S ^
2°=
•flp
l§
^1
S 2
s 2
V GO
S £2
to g
c>
LL
CO
O
S3
•M
CO
•°. o
f ^_
•5. s.
o
LL [L7
i
i/>
o
%
CU
CJ
o>
T3
g
C
O
E
c
^.
c3
,/,
tu
J5
o
+-*
a.
15
o
1-
S
c
0
£
h-
s
c
o
1
t-
O)
c
o
^-'
i
t-
"*
C
o
•jt
—
c
o
ro
i_
O
*^r
o
a
>
h-
OOOO lOLOlOCN IT3LOCSI
OO O i- r- O CDIOLOLO «- OLOLO «-
§O O OO 00 <-OOO 0 «-OO Olll
o «- oo o *-ooo o ^oo o111
oo o oo o oooo o ooo o
LO CO ^" ^"
«-O O CNCN O 00'-'-'- CN 00«-«- CN
§O O OO CO CO «- «- «- O CO «- «- Olll
O CN OO O CNOOO O CMOO O111
oo o oo o oooo o ooo o
LO O) O1 O5 CD
LOO 0) cnOOCDCDCpOOtQ
OLO 0) | I OOOO O OOO O|||
OO "Z. OOOO O OO0' O
o'd ddddddd d
00 00 00
«-O 01 CN'-T-CNCNOM'-CNCN
O-- Z OOOO O OOO O
do dddo'ddddd
—
LO
CO
^ *~ O5O5O5C35 OJ ej)O5O3 O5
1 | Q) Q 1 1 I III
0
CN
LO
00
cn^ oooococo oo cooooo oo
^
o
^
m ?J oo ^
LOLO i+LOLO in'o'LO Om
00r~- LOLO LO OJ ^f *~ O L0 00»—
O»— LOOCNCN CO CDOOO O LO «— & OLOOO
o' o' LO ro d o' r->-' ^ £ d ^. d 10' o' LO o' d d d
^ ^ n ^-. £ \/\V\V\
"""" S o
— ^ — .
^ (& !^ 99
»^UO COT~'~ OcOoffl CNor~5SCNI
r-oo wmin co CN «- *- o CN «- Ro
o o ^— 2 o o in o>oo2 o ^— o 2 CD «— o o
10 S " q S " S ViV|vi
^. d d
"2 o
— o i_
2 § 2
c ^ " fe cu "O .ti
mdD QJ^ .Q ^ o
5 i_^ -9 i_oj c "§.y° -""S"§.y° "2S1-
^- 'w ^« r~" *•• "^ tli P r~ wli3*"^CDC^&5 IS "^ QJ ^~ ^- r^
t^tSSS !cc5^Q-01 -Q'^
mQ)Q.CJ S^Q-V~'^O*~'^LLI DOx^LU 03^ ^-^
>uj'iliioju2: O ™^c
DO m t Lu >
CO
(5J
sulfur dioxide per ton (1 .5 kg/MT) of si
^Approximately 3 pounds o
^
u
TJ
O
Q.
—
u
E
•S
CU
g
«J
£
3
1
+2
'E
D
CO
"O
(fl
S
a
x
QJ
V)
O
O
CD
ission f
E
UJ
CD
produced at windbox.
?
O
c
0
o
(/)
O)
CD
CD
CD
Vi
CU
3
"CD
"S
"o
c
o
o
c
D
CD
CD
VI
CD
C
CD
CD
a
c
M
CD
_Q
I
h References, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
B
S
*
_
CO
(A
o
u
CO
-D
CU
0
C
0
u
D
CD
C?
CU
CD
01
C
'55
3
T!
CD
D
CJ
CD
U
CD
CD
t/t
O
1
'References 2 through 10.
CO
_CD
'o
C
CD
U
i£
CD
C
CD
a
t
^3
cu
D.
cJ
T5
o
U-
0}
c
a;
CD
y
1
G>
QJ
a
c
o
CD
0
o
CD
CD
CD
"CD
«.
:erence
CD
CC
o
d
00
CN
^
3
CO
c
g
&
>
D.
CD
01
CD
CD
3
CJ
*^
CO
CL
"S
o
H
c
"O
•o
"5
c
CU
"CD
•D
kReferences 2 through 5.
in
c
CD
CO
CM'
in
ference
cu
cr
CU
'References 3 and 4.
."
erences
QJ
f
ing experience and engineering judgmen
m Factors are based on opera
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-5
-------
References for Section 7.5
1. Bramer, Henry C. Pollution Control in the Steel Industry. Environmental Science and Technology, p.
1004-1008, October 1971.
2. Celenza. C.J. Air Pollution Problems Faced by the Iron and Steel Industry. Plant Engineering, p. 60-63, April
30, 1970.
3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-42. 1972.
4. Personal communication between Ernest Kirkendall, American Iron and Steel Institute, and John McGinnity,
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, N.C. September 1970.
5. Particulate Pollutant Systems Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C/, under Contract
Number CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
6. Walker, A.B. and R.F. Brown. Statistics on Utilization, Performance, and Economics of Electrostatic
Precipitation for Control of Particulate Air Pollution. (Presented at 2nd International Clean Air Congress,
International Union of Air Pollution Prevention Association, Washington, D.C. December 1970.)
7. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0228. February 1972.
8. Source Testing Report - EPA Test 71-MM-24. Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, D.C. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract
Number 68-02-0225. March 1972.
9. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Rust Engineering Co., Birmingham, Ala. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA
70-132. April 1972.
10. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 4. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pa. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0231.
7.5-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
7.6 LEAD SMELTING
7.6.1 Process Description] >2
The ore from which primary lead is produced contains both lead and zinc. Thus, both lead and zinc
concentrates are made by concentration 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.
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls
Effluent gases from the roasting, sintering, and smelting operations contain considerable paniculate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Dust and fumes are recovered from the gas stream by settling in large flues and by precipitation in
Cottrell treaters or filtration in large baghouses. The emission factors for lead smelting are summarized in Table
7.6-1. The effect of controls is shown in the footnotes of this table.
Table 7.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD
SMELTERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Sintering and sinter
crushing0
Blast furnace6
Reverberatory furnace6
Particulatesb
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.
cReferences 2 and 3.
Pounds per ton (kg/MT) of sinter.
eReference 4.
Overall plant emissions are about 660 pounds of sulfur oxide per ton
(330 kg/MT) of concentrated ore.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.6-1
-------
References for Section 7.6
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 26.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press, 1968. p. 179-182.
3. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry, Volumes I, II, and III.
San Francisco, Arthur G. McKee and Company. June 1969.
4. Sallee, G. Private communications on Particulate Pollutant Study, Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number 22-69-104. June
1970.
7.6-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.7 ZINC SMELTING
7.7.1 Process Descriptionl >2
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 fluidized 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.
7.7.2 Emissions and Controls1 >2
Dust, fumes, and sulfur dioxide are emitted from zinc concentrate roasting or sintering operations. Particulates
may be removed by electrostatic precipitators or baghouses. Sulfur dioxide may be converted directly into
sulfuric acid or vented. Emission factors for zinc smelting are presented in Table 7.7-1.
Table 7.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ZINC
SMELTING WITHOUT CONTROLS8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Roasting (multiple-hearth)b
Sintering0
Horizontal retorts6
Vertical retorts8
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.
bReferences3 and 4.
References 2 and 3.
"Included in SO2 losses from roasting.
eReference 3.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.7-1
-------
References for Section 7.7
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 26-28.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In' Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 182-186.
3. Sallee, G. Private communication on Paniculate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
4. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry. 3 Volumes, San
Francisco, Arthur G. McKee and Company, June 1969.
7.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
7.8.1 Process DescriptionJ >2
Secondary aluminum operations involve making lightweight 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
operations sometimes use sweating furnaces to treat dirty scrap in preparation for smelting.
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 and 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 bath to reduce the magnesium content by reacting
to form magnesium and aluminum chlorides.^'4
7.8.2 Emissions2
Emissions from secondary aluminum operations include fine particulate 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 7.8-1 presents particulate emission factors for secondary aluminum operations.
Table 7.8-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY
ALUMINUM OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Chlorination stationb
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
14.5
1.9
4.3
1000
kg/MT
7.25
0.95
2.15
500
Baghouse
Ib/ton
3.3
—
1.3
50
kg/MT
1.65
—
0.65
25
Electrostatic
precipitator
Ib/ton
—
1.3
-
kg/MT
—
0.65
-
aReference 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal processed.
"Pounds per ton (kg/MT) of chlorine used.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.8-1
-------
References for Section 7.8
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 29.
2. 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. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 284-290.
3. Technical Progress Report: Control of Stationary Sources. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. 7: April 1960.
4. 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 Number 7627. April 1952.
5. 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.)
7.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS (COPPER ALLOYS)
7.9.1 Process Descriptionl
Obsolete domestic and industrial copper-bearing scrap is the basic raw material of the brass and bronze ingot
industry. The scrap frequently contains any number of metallic and nonmetallic 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. Processing 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.
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
The principal source of emissions in the brass and bronze ingot industry is the refining furnace. The exit gas
from the furnace may contain the normal combustion products such as fly ash, soot, and smoke. Appreciable
amounts of zinc oxide are also present in this exit gas. Other sources of 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 7.9-1 summarizes uncontrolled
emissions from various brass and bronze melting furnaces.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.9-1
-------
Table 7.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR BRASS AND
BRONZE MELTING FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of furnace
Blast0
Crucible
Cupola
Electric induction
Reverberatory
Rotary
Uncontrolled
emissions'3
Ib/ton
18
12
73
2
70
60
kg/MT
9
6
36.5
1
35
30
aReference 1. Emission factors expressed as
units per unit weight of metal charged.
^"he use of a baghouse can reduce emissions by
95 to 99.6 percent.
cRepresents emissions following precleaner.
Reference for Section 7.9
1. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry. U. S. DREW, PHS, EHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N. C. Publication Number AP-58. November 1969.
7.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
7.10.1 Process Description1
Three types of furnaces are used to produce gray iron castings: cupolas, reverberatory furnaces, and electric
induction furnaces. The cupola is the major source of molten iron for the production of castings. In operation, 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.
7.10.2 Emissions1
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 can be controlled by an afterburner. Emissions from
reverberatory and electric induction furnaces consist primarily of metallurgical fumes and are relatively low.
Table 7.10-1 presents emission factors for the manufacture of iron castings.
Table 7.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON
FOUNDRIES3-11-0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of furnace
Cupola
Uncontrolled
Wet cap
Impingement scrubber
High-energy scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Baghouse
Reverberatory
Electric induction
Particulates
Ib/ton
17
8
5
0.8
0.6
0.2
2
1.5
kg/MT
8.5
4
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
1
0.75
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
145c-d
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
kg/MT
72.5c-d
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
aReferences 2 through 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight
of metal charged.
Approximately 85 percent of the total charge is metal. For every unit weight
of coke in the charge, 7 unit weights of gray iron are produced.
cReference 6.
A well-designed afterburner can reduce emissions to 9 pounds per ton (4.5
kg/MT) of metal charged.2
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.10-1
-------
References for Section 7.10
1. Hammond, W. F. and J. T. Nance. Iron Castings. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.).
U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 258-268.
2. Hammond, W. F. and S. M. Weiss. Unpublished report on air contaminant from emissions metallurgical
operations in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at Air
Pollution Control Institute, July 1964).
3. 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.
4. 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 Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 260.
5. Kane, J. M. Equipment for Cupola Control. American Foundryman's Society Transactions. 64:525-531.
1956.
6. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry. A. T. Kearney and Company. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA 22-69-106.
February 1971.
7.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
7.11.1 General1
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, and 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 additional
metallic impurity).2 The charge to these furnaces consists of rerun, slag, and reverberatory slags.
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls1
The primary emissions from lead smelting are particulates 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 tempratures 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 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 controlled by
incineration. Table 7.11-1 summarizes the emission factors from lead smelting.
References for Section 7.11
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Nance, J. T. and K. O. Luedtke. Lead Refining. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.).
U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 300-304.
3. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
4. Private communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, and Maryland State Department of
Health, Baltimore, Md. November 1969.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.11-1
-------
Table 7.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulates
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Controlled
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Sulfur oxides
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Controlled
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Type of furnace
Pot3
0.8
0.4
Nege
Neg
—
-
_
—
Reverberatoryb
130
65
1.6
0.8
85.0
42.5
—
-
Blast
(cupola)0
190
95
2.3
1.15
90
45
0.8f,469
0.4f,239
Rotary
reverberatoryd
70
35
-
-
—
-
_
-
aReferences 3 through 6. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of rnetal
processed.
bReferences 2, 3, and 6.
cP°ferences 2, 6, and 7.
"Reference 5
Negligible.
fWith NaOH scrubber.
9With water spray chamber.
5. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommission
Reinhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DHEW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
1961.
6. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
7. Unpublished stack test data. Pennsylvania State Department of Health. Harrisburg, Pa. 1969.
7.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
7.12.1 Process Description1
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
magnesium 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.
7.12.2 Emissions1
Emissions from magnesium smelting include particulate magnesium (MgO) from the melting, nitrogen oxides
from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the furnace temperatures, and 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 7.12-1.
Table 7.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MAGNESIUM SMELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Pot furnace
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Particulates3
Ib/ton
4
0.4
kg/MT
2
0.2
aReferences 2 and 3. Emission factors
expressed as units per unit weight of
metal processed.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.12-1
-------
References for Section 7.12
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
7.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES
7.13.1 Process Description1
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 separated from the mold. The castings are commonly
cleaned by shot-blasting, and surface defects such as fins are removed by burning and grinding.
7.13.2 Emissions1
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 concentration of carbon
monoxide in the exhaust gases is dependent on the amount of draft 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 7.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for steel
foundries.
References for Section 7.13
I. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Schueneman, J. J. et al. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963.
3. Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, 2nd Ed. Des Plaines, Illinois, Foundry Air Pollution Control
Committee. 1967. p. 8.
4. Coulter, R. S. Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, Personal communication (April 24, 1956). Cited in
Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control.
5. Coulter, R. S. Smoke, Dust, Fumes Closely Controlled in Electric Furnaces. Iron Age. 77?:107-110. January
14, 1954.
6. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Unpublished data as cited in Air Pollution Aspects of the
Iron and Steel Industry, p. 109.
7. Kane, J. M. and R. V. Sloan. Fume-Control Electric Melting Furnaces. American Foundryman. 75:33-35,
November 1950.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.13-1
-------
Table 7.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR STEEL FOUNDRIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Melting
Electric arcb-c
Open-hearthd'e
Open-hearth oxygen lancedf<9
Electric induction*1
Participates3
Ib/ton
13 (4 to 40)
11 (2 to 20}
10(8to 11)
0.1
kg/MT
6.5 (2 to 20)
5.5(1 to 10)
5 (4 to 5.5)
0.05
Nitrogen
oxides
Ib/ton
0.2
0.01
-
—
kg/MT
0.1
0.005
-
-
a£mission 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.
cReferences 2 through 11.
^Electrostatic precipitator, 95 to 98.5 percent control efficiency; baghouse, 99.9 percent control
efficiency; venturi scrubber, 96 to 99 percent control efficiency.
References 2 and 12 through 14.
^Electrostatic precipitator, 95 to 98 percent control efficiency; baghouse, 99 percent control
efficiency; venturi scrubber, 95 to 98 percent control efficiency.
^References 7 and 15.
"Usually not controlled.
8. Pier, H. M. and H. S. Baumgardner. Research-Cottrell, Inc., Personal Communication. Cited in: Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June
1963. p. 109.
9. Faist, C. A. Remarks-Electric Furnace Steel. Proceedings of the American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers. 77:160-161, 1953.
10. Faist, C. A. Burnside Steel Foundry Company, Personal communication. Cited in: Air Pollution Aspects of
the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963. p. 109.
11. 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.
12. Inventory of Air Contaminant Emissions. New York State Air Pollution Control Board. Table XI, p. 14-19.
13. 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.
14. Hemeon, C. L. Air Pollution Problems of the Steel Industry. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 70(3):208-218, March
1960.
15. Coy, D. W. Unpublished data. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
7.13-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING
7.14.1 Process Description1
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.
7.14.2 Emissions1
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 processes, 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 improve their finish. Another
potential source of emissions of particulates and gaseous zinc is the tapping of zinc-vaporizing muffle furnaces to
remove accumulated 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 atmospheric nitrogen. Table 7.14-1 summarizes the emission factors from zinc processing.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.14-1
-------
Table 7.14-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Retort reduction
Horizontal muffle
Pot furnace
Kettle sweat furnace processing13
Clean metallic scrap
General metallic scrap
Residual scrap
Reverberatory sweat furnace processing13
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 2 through 4. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of
metal produced.
''Reference 5.
References for Section 7.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control'Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April
1952.
3. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommission
Reinhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DHEW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
1961.
4. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
5. Herring, W. Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition Study (Part I). Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number APTD-0706.
May 1971.
7.14-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
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 storing the finished product because
this material is often dry and fine. Particulate emissions from some of the processes such as quarrying, yard
storage, and dust from transport 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.
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
and James H. Southerland
8.1.1 Process Description
Selecting and handling the raw material is the first step in the production of asphaltic concrete, a paving
substance composed of a combination of aggregates uniformly mixed and coated with asphalt cement. Different
applications of asphaltic concrete require different aggregate size distributions, so that the raw aggregates are
crushed and screened at the quarries. The coarse aggregate usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste
materials, such as slag from steel mills or crushed glass, can be used as raw material.
Plants produce finished asphaltic concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2)
aggregate mixing operations. The raw aggregate is normally stock-piled near the plant at a location where the
moisture content will stabilize between 3 and 5 percent by weight.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and placed in
the appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt and
is transported into a gas- or oil-fired rotary dryer. Because a substantial portion of the heat is transferred by
radiation, dryers are equipped with flights that are designed to tumble the aggregate and promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating
screens where it is classified by size into as many as four different grades. At this point it enters the mixing
operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into one of four large bins. The operator controls the aggregate
size distribution by opening individual bins and allowing the classified aggregate to drop into a weigh hopper until
the desired weight is obtained. After all the material is weighed out, the sized aggregates are dropped into a mixer
and mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt, which is a solid at ambient temperatures, is pumped from
heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected into the mixer. The hot, mixed batch is then dropped into a
truck and hauled to the job site.
4/73 8.1-1
-------
8.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
o
a.
en
—
£
CD
CD
o
CO
Q.
O
c
0)
-
c
ro
ro
.c
Q.
tt>
CO
o
.c
O
c
o
O
00
CD
E?
u.
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-3
-------
In a continuous plant, the classified aggregate drops into a set of small bins, which collect and meter the
classified aggregate to the mixer. From the hot bins, the aggregate is metered through a set of feeder conveyors to
another bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt is metered into the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time
is controlled by an adjustable dam at the end of the mixer. The mix flows out of the mixer into a hopper from
which the trucks are loaded.
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls3'4
Dust sources are the rotary dryer; the hot aggregate elevators; the vibrating screens; and the hot-aggregate
storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer points. The largest dust emission source is the rotary dryer. In
some plants, the dust from the dryer is handled separately from emissions from the other sources. More
commonly, however, the dryer, its vent lines, and other fugitive sources are treated in combination by a single
collector and fan system.
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry, mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric
collectors; attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use
primary dust collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclone, skimmer, or settling chambers. These
chambers are often used as classifiers with the collected materials being returned to the hot aggregate elevator to
combine with the dryer aggregate load. The air discharge from the primary collector is seldom vented to the
atmosphere because high emission levels would result. The primary collector effluent is therefore ducted to a
secondary or even to a tertiary collection device.
Emission factors for asphaltic concrete plants are presented in Table 8.1-1. Particle size information has not
been included because the particle size distribution varies with the aggregate being used, the mix being made, and
the type of plant operation.
Table 8.1-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of control
Uncontrolled13
Precleaner
High-efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber
Baffle spray tower
Orifice-type scrubber
Baghouse0
Emissions
Ib/ton
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.04
0.1
kg/MT
22.5
7.b
0.85
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.05
References 1,2, and 5 through 10.
^Almost all plants have at least a precleaner following the rotary
dryer.
cEmissions from a properly designed, installed, operated, and main-
tained collector can be as low as 0.005 to 0.020 Ib/ton (0.0025 to
0.010 kg/MT).
8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0076. November 1971.
2. Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Riverdale, Md. Information Series 17.
3. Danielson, J. A. Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in Los Angeles County. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. 70(2):29-33. 1960.
4. Friedrich, H. E. Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants.
American Precision Industries, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y. (Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association.) APCA Paper Number 69-160.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles. U.S. DHEW, Public
Health Service. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967.
6. Allen, G. L., F. H. Vicks, and L. C. McCabe. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes in Los
Angeles County, California. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington. Information Circular
7627. April 1952.
7. Kenline, P. A. Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process industries. Robert A.
Taft Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1959.
8. Sallee, G. Private communication on particulate pollutant study between Midwest Research Institute and
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. Prepared under Contract Number 22-69-104.
June 1970.
9. Danielson, J. A. Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District. (Presented at Air Pollution Control Institute, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, November 1966.)
10. Fogel, M. E. et al. Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Control Costs for Selected Industries and
Selected Regions. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Final Report Number R-OU-455. February 1970.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.1-5
-------
-------
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING
8.2.1 Process Description1
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 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/rn^). Regardless of the
weight of the final product, the makeup is approximately 40 percent dry felt and 60 percent asphalt saturant.
8.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 8.2-1.
Table 8.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Asphalt blowing0
Felt saturation01
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 efficiency is about 85 percent.
cReference 2.
"References 3 and 4.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-1
-------
References for Section 8.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Von Lehmden, D. J., R. P. Hangebrauck, and J. E. Meeker. Polynuclear Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Selected Industrial Processes. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 75:306-312, July 1965.
3. Weiss, S. M. Asphalt Roofing Felt-Saturators. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.
S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40.
1967. p. 378-383.
4. 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.
8.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.3.1 Process Description
The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe, pottery, and some types of refractory brick
involves the mining, grinding, screening, and blending of the raw materials, and the forming, cutting or shaping,
drying or curing, and firing of the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits; most fine clays are found underground. After mining, the
material is crushed to remove stones and stirred before it passes onto screens that are used to segregate the
particles by size.
At the start of the forming process, clay is mixed with water, usually in a pug mill. The three principal
processes for forming brick are: stiff-mud, soft-mud, and dry-process. In the stiff-mud process, sufficient water is
added to give the clay plasticity; bricks are then formed by forcing the clay through a die and using cutter wire to
separate the bricks. All structural tile and most brick are formed by this process. The soft-mud process is usually
used when the clay contains too much water for the stiff-mud process. The clay is mixed with water until the
moisture content reaches 20 to 30 percent, and the bricks are formed in molds. In the dry-press process, clay is
mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying a pressure of 500 to 1500 psi. The
brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 8.3-1.
Before firing, the wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried in driers that are usually
heated by waste heat from the kilns. Many types of kilns are used for firing brick; however, the most common are
the tunnel kiln and the periodic kiln. The downdraft periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure that has a
number of fireholes where fuel is fired into the furnace. The hot gases from the fuel are drawn up over the bricks,
down through them by underground flues, and out of the oven to the chimney. Although fuel efficiency is not as
high as that of a tunnel kiln because of lower heat recovery, the uniform temperature distribution through the
kiln leads to a good quality product. In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying about 1200 bricks each travel on rails
through the kiln at the rate of one 6-foot car per hour. The fire zone is located near the middle of the kiln and
remains stationary.
In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps: evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation, vitrification,
flashing, and cooling. Normally, gas or residual oil is used for heating, but coal may be used. Total heating time
varies with the type of product; for example, 9-inch refractory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of firing.
Maximum temperatures of about 2000°F (1090°C) are used in firing common brick.
8.3.2 Emissions and Controls1 >3
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of bricks. The main source of dust is the
materials handling procedure, which includes drying, grinding, screening, and storing the raw material.
Combustion products are emitted from the fuel consumed in the curing, drying, and firing portion of the process.
Fluorides, largely in gaseous form, are also emitted from brick manufacturing operations. Sulfur dioxide may be
emitted from the bricks when temperatures reach 2500°F (1370°C) or greater; however, no data on such
emissions are available.4
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.3-1
-------
(P)
PULVERIZING
(P)
SCREENING
t
)
GLAZING
—
(P)
DRYING
HOT
GASES
«
FUEL
•-
\
(P)
KILN
(P)
STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
Figure 8.3-1. Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing process.
source of particutete emissions.
'P" denotes a major
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce both particulate and gaseous emissions. Almost any type
of particulate control system will reduce emissions from the material handling process, but good plant design and
hooding are also required to keep emissions to a minimum.
The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the kiln at temperatures below 2000°F (1090°C) and
by choosing clays with low fluoride content. Satisfactory control can be achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with
water; wet cyclonic scrubbers are available that can remove fluorides with an efficiency of 95 percent, or higher.
Emission factors for brick manufacturing are presented in Table 8.3-1. Insufficient data are available to present
particle size information.
8.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
co
O
tr
i-
o
u
H
D
O
X
a
z
< z
§1
LL (/)
O ui
U
<
LL
CO
CO
CO
(/)
tu
'S li-
fe £
13
LL
I/)
0>
12
X
0 -~~x
c o
QJ _^
2~~
• —
Z
in
c
O
.Q
2-
•a
I
0)
JO
X
o
is
t o
c '
o
-2
CD
0
in
cu
X —
o x
D tO
—
CO
OJ
_co
D
O
'•£
CO
a.
2
"5)
c
£
^
^
S
~CT>
^
C
s^-
~~*
_
^
5
C
o
•fj
—
^
^
c
o
^>
•^
r—
2
O)
c
2
i-
5
jj>
c
o
5
en
0
g
Q.
"o
OJ
a.
H"
II LO LO LO
odd
II o o o
00 LO LO
|| O if) f
0 O O
LO
II *-. ~. <»
0^0
«- LO
|| O O CO
odd
CM
ii q ". »
ooo
CM LO
| | ° 0)05.
0^0
^-
i i q a.03.
O ^ * —
2_
^5 C/3
1 1 rr^ C^ ^O
' 4> CM CO
"co to
II "en ° ^
03 <•' r~-'
CM <
O CO LO
oo r- odd
•o- <
O CO 0
CD ^r o o <-
0> CO
.E «
H f S -o -o "8
"J5 'C ~ ~ ^ cu .b
i— ^^ ~^ '^ "•"• '
xT "03 ^J — . i H— "~
£ i" en c a> <" — q
0) CM CO
to to
D) °) O
" LO' csi
LO LO <
o ^- oo
odd
»-
-------
References for Section 8.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Prepared for
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
1970.
2. Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction. Structural Clay Products Institute. Washington, D.C.
Pamphlet Number 9. September 1961.
3. Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
4. Allen, M. H. Report on Air Pollution, Air Quality Act of 1967 and Methods of Controlling the Emission of
Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants. Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington, D. C. September
1969.
5. Norton, F. H. Refractories, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1949.
6. Semran, K. T. Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
7(2):92-l08. August 1957.
7. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. V, 2nd Ed. New York, Interscience (John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.), 1964. p. 561-567.
8. Wentzel, K. F. Fluoride Emissions in the Vicinity of Brickworks. Staub. 25(3):45-50. March 1965.
9. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
10. Private communication between Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. and the State of New Jersey Air
Pollution Control Program, Trenton. July 20, 1969.
8.3-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.4 CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING
8.4.1 Process Description! >2
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 1900 pounds (860 kg) of lime and 1300
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
8.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Particulates, acetylene, sulfur compounds, and some carbon monoxide are emitted from the calcium carbide
plants. Table 8.4-1 contains emission factors based on one plant in which some particulate matter escapes from
the hoods over each 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.
Table 8.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CALCIUM CARBIDE PLANTS3
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
aReference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of calcium carbide produced.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.4-1
-------
References for Section 8.4
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 34-35.
2. Carbide. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1964.
3. The Louisville Air Pollution Study. U. S. DHEW, PHS, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1961.
8.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES
8.5.1 Process Description
1 -3
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 2480° 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.
8.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulate emissions occur during the drying, crushing, handling, and blending of the components; 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 8.5-1.
Table 8.5-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CASTABLE
REFRACTORIES MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw material dryerb
Raw material crushing
and processing0
Electric-arc meltingd
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
aFluonde emissions from the melt average about 1.3 pounds of HF per ton of melt (0.65 kg
HF/MT melt). Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of feed material.
Reference 4.
cReferences 4 and 5.
dReferences 4 through 6.
eReference 5.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.5-1
-------
References for Section 8.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Brown, R. W. and K. H. Sandmeyer. Applications of Fused-Cast Refractories. Chem. Eng. 76:106-114, June
16, 1969.
3. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p. 158.
4. Unpublished data provided by a Corhart Refractory. Kentucky Department of Health, Air Pollution Control
Commission. Frankfort, Kentucky. September 1969.
5. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1969.
6. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1967.
8.5-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.6.1 Process Description !"3
Portland cement manufacture accounts for about 98 percent of the cement production in the United States.
The more than 30 raw materials used to make cement may be divided into four basic components: lime
(calcareous), silica (siliceous), alumina (argillaceous), and iron (ferriferous). Approximately 3200 pounds of dry
raw materials are required to produce 1 ton of cement. Approximately 35 percent of the raw material weight is
removed as carbon dioxide and water vapor. As shown in Figure 8.6-1, the raw materials undergo separate
crushing after the quarrying operation, and, when needed for processing, are proportioned, ground, and blended
using either the wet or dry process.
In the dry process, the moisture content of the raw material is reduced to less than 1 percent either before or
during the grinding operation. The dried materials are then pulverized into a powder and fed directly into a rotary
kiln. Usually, the kiln is a long, horizontal, steel cylinder with a refractory brick lining. The kilns are slightly
inclined and rotate about the longitudinal axis. The pulverized raw materials are fed into the upper end and travel
slowly to the lower end. The kilns are fired from the lower end so that the hot gases pass upward and through the
raw material. Drying, decarbonating, and calcining are accomplished as the material travels through the heated
kiln, finally burning to incipient fusion and forming the clinker. The clinker is cooled, mixed with about 5
percent gypsum by weight, and ground to the final product fineness. The cement is then stored for later
packaging and shipment.
With the wet process, a slurry is made by adding water to the initial grinding operation. Proportioning may
take place before or after the grinding step. After the materials are mixed, the excess water is removed and final
adjustments are made to obtain a desired composition. This final homogeneous mixture is fed to the kilns as a
slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisture or as a wet filtrate of about 20 percent moisture. The burning, cooling,
addition of gypsum, and storage are carried out as in the dry process.
8.6.2 Emissions and Controls1'2'4
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of portland cement. Emissions also include the
normal combustion products of the fuel used to supply heat for the kiln and drying operations, including oxides
of nitrogen and small amounts of oxides of sulfur.
Sources of dust at cement plants include: (1) quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage, (3) grinding and
blending (dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and (6) packaging. The largest source of
emissions within cement plants is the kiln operation, which may be considered to have three units: the feed
system, the fuel-firing system, and the clinker-cooling and handling system. The most desirable method of
disposing of the collected dust is injection into the burning zone of the kiln and production of clinkers from the
dust. If the alkali content of the raw materials is too high, however, some of the dust is discarded or leached
before returning to the kiln. In many instances, the maximum allowable alkali content of 0.6 percent (calculated
as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can be recycled. Additional sources of dust emissions are raw
material storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, and loading/unloading facilities.
The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of materials handled have led to the adoption of
many control systems for dust collection. Depending upon the emission, the temperature of the effluents in the
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.6-1
-------
cc
o
o
o
E
=3
bO
Q.
>-
C3
•a:
o:
<£
££]
-------
plant in question, and the participate emission standards in the community, the cement industry generally uses
mechanical collectors, electrical precipitators, fabric filter (baghouse) collectors, or combinations of these devices
to control emissions.
Table 8.6-1 summarizes emission factors for cement manufacturing and also includes typical control
efficiencies of particulate emissions. Table 8.6-2 indicates the particle size distribution for particulate emissions
from kilns and cement plants before control systems are applied.
Table 8.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CEMENT MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3-6'0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulated
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Sulfur dioxide6
Mineral source*
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Gas combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Oil combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Coal combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Dry Process
Kilns
245.0
122.0
10.2
5.1
Neg9
Neg
4.2Sh
2.1S
6.8S
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
96.0
48.0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
Wet process
Kilns
228.0
114.0
10.2
5.1
Neg
Neg
4.2S
2.1S
6.8S
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
32.0
16.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
aOne barrel of cement weighs 376 pounds (171 kg).
"These emission factors include emissions from fuel combustion, which should not be calculated
separately.
c References 1 and 2.
Typical collection efficiencies for kilns, dryers, grinders, etc., are: multicyclones, 80 percent;
electrostatic precipitators, 95 percent; electrostatic precipitators with multicyclones, 97.5
percent; and fabric filter units, 99.8 percent.
eThe sulfur dioxide factors presented take into account the reactions with the alkaline dusts
when no baghouses are used. With baghouses, approximately 50 percent more S02 is removed
because of reactions with the alkaline particulate filter cake. Also note that the total SO2 from
the kiln is determined by summing emission contributions from the mineral source and the
appropriate fuel.
These emissions are the result of sulfur being present in the raw materials and are thus depend-
ent upon source of the raw materials used. The 10.2 Ib/ton (5.1 kg/MT) factors account for
part of the available sulfur remaining behind in the product because of its alkaline nature and
affinity for SO2.
9|Megligible.
"S is the percent sulfur in fuel.
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.6-3
-------
Table 8.6-2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DUST EMITTED
FROM KILN OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS1 -5
T
Particle size, yum
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
Kiln dust finer than corresponding
particle size, %
93
90
84
74
58
38
23
3
Sulfur dioxide may be generated from the sulfur compounds in the ores as well as from combusion of fuel.
The sulfur content of both ores and fuels will vary from plant to plant and with geographic location. The alkaline
nature of the cement, however, provides for direct absorption of SO^ into the product. The overall control
inherent in the process is approximately 75 percent or greater of the available sulfur in ore and fuel if a baghouse
that allows the SC>2 to come in contact with the cement dust is used. Control, of course, will vary according to
the alkali and sulfur content of the raw materials and fuel.6
References for Section 8.6
1. Kreichelt, T. E., D. A. Kemnitz, and S. T. Cuffe. Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacture of Portland
Cement. U. S. DREW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-l 7, 1967.
2. Unpublished standards of performance for new and substantially modified portland cement plants.
Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Stationary Source Pollution Control, Research Triangle Park,
N.C.August 1971.
3. A Study of the Cement Industry in the State of Missouri. Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for
the Air Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. December 1967.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register.
56(247, Pt II): December 23, 1971.
5. Particulate Pollutant System Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-22-69-104. May 1971.
6. Restriction of Emissions from Portland Cement Works. VDI Richtlinien. Dusseldorf, Germany. February
1967.
8.6-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING
8.7.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of ceramic clay involves the conditioning of the basic ores by several methods. These include
the separation and concentration of the minerals by screening, floating, wet and dry grinding, and blending of the
desired ore varieties. The basic raw materials in ceramic clay manufacture are kaolmite (A^C^- 2SiC>2 -IF^O)
and montmorillonite [(Mg, Ca) OA^C^-SSiC^'nF^O] clays. These clays are refined by separation and
bleaching, blended, kiln-dried, and formed into such items as whiteware, heavy clay products (brick, etc.),
various stoneware, and other products such as diatomaceous earth, which is used as a filter aid.
8.7.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions consist primarily of particulates, but some fluorides and acid gases are also emitted in the drying
process. The high temperatures of the firing kilns are also conducive to the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and
the subsequent release of NO, but no published information has been found for gaseous emissions. Particulates
are also emitted from the grinding process and from storage of the ground product.
Factors affecting emissions include the amount of material processed, the type of grinding (wet or dry), the
temperature of the drying kilns, the gas velocities and flow direction in the kilns, and the amount of fluorine in
the ores.
Common control techniques include settling chambers, cyclones, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and
bag filters. The most effective control is provided by cyclones for the coarser material, followed by wet scrubbers,
bag filters, or electrostatic precipitators for dry dust. Emission factors for ceramic clay manufacturing are
presented in Table 8.7-1.
Table 8.7-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Dryingd
Grinding6
Storage01
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
70
76
34
kg/MT
35
38
17
Cycloneb
Ib/ton
18
19
8
kg/MT
9
9.5
4
Multiple-unit
cyclone and scrubber0
Ib/ton
7
-
-
kg/MT
3.5
-
-
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of input to process.
bApproximate collection efficiency: 75 percent.
cApproximate collection efficiency: 90 percent.
References 2 through 5.
eReference 2.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.7-1
-------
References for Section 8.7-1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the State of New
Jersey Air Pollution Control Program, Trenton, New Jersey. July 20, 1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigations Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F. A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 6927.
1967.
8.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.8 CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING
8.8.1 Process Description1
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 traveling-grate sintering machine where direct contact
with hot combustion gases sinters the individual particles of the pellet and completely burns off the residual
carbon in the fly ash. The product is then crushed, screened, graded, and stored in yard piles.
Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter. It is desirable that the clay contain a
sufficient amount of volatile matter so that the resultant aggregate will not be too heavy. It is thus sometimes
necessary to mix the clay with finely pulverized coke (up to 10 percent coke by weight).2-3 In the sintering
process the clay is first mixed with pulverized coke, if necessary, and then pelletized. The clay is next sintered in
a rotating kiln or on a traveling grate. The sintered pellets are then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure
similar to that for fly ash pellets.
8.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
In fly-ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem. Adequate design features,
including fly-ash wetting systems and participate 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 problem 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 8.8-1.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.8-1
-------
Table 8.8-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SINTERING OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of material
Fly ashd
Clay mixed with cokef -9
Natural clay"-1
Sintering operation13
Ib/ton
110
40
12
kg/MT
55
20
6
Crushing, screening,
and yard storage13 -c
Ib/ton
e
15
12
kg/MT
e
7.5
6
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of finished product.
Cyclones would reduce this emission by about 80 percent.
Scrubbers would reduce this emission by about 90 percent.
cBased on data in section on stone quarrying and processing.
Reference 1.
elncluded in sintering losses.
90 percent clay, 10 percent pulverized coke; traveling-grate, single-pass, up-draft sintering
machine.
^References 3 through 5.
Rotary dryer sinterer.
' Reference 2.
References for Section 8.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and a clay sintering firm.
October 2, 1969.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and an anonymous Air
Pollution Control Agency. October 16, 1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F. A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number
6927.1967.
8.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING
8.9.1 Process Description1
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.
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.
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
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 8.9-1. Footnote b of the table lists various types of control equipment and their possible
efficiencies.
Table 8.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR THERMAL COAL DRYERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of dryer
Fluidized bedc
Flash0
Multilouveredd
Uncontrolled emissions'3
Ib/ton
20
16
25
kg/MT
10
8
12.5
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal dried.
t)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.
cReferences 2 and 3.
Reference 4.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.9-1
-------
References for Section 8.9
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Unpublished stack test results on thermal coal dryers. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control. Harrisburg, Pa.
3. Amherst's Answer to Air Pollution Laws. Coal Mining and Processing, p. 26-29, February 1970.
4. Jones, D. W. Dust Collection at Moss. No. 3. Mining Congress Journal. 55(7):53-56, July 1969.
8.9-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
8.10.1 Process Description 1 - 3
Concrete batching involves the proportioning of sand, gravel, and cement by means of weigh 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 prefabricated construction parts.
8.10.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulate emissions consist primarily of cement dust, but some sand and aggregate gravel dust emissions do
occur during batching operations. There is 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 dusty 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 8.10-1 presents emission factors for
concrete batch plants.
Table 8.10-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CONCRETE BATCHING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Concrete
batching13
Uncontrolled
Good control
Emission
Ib/yd3 of
concrete
0.2
0.02
kg/m3 of
concrete
0.12
0.012
aOne cubic yard of concrete weighs 4000 pounds (1 m3 = 2400 kg).
The cement content varies with the type of concrete mixed, but
735 pounds of cement per yard (436 kg/m
cal value.
bReference 4.
may be used as a typi-
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.10-1
-------
References for Section 8.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Vincent, E. J. and J. L. McGinnity. Concrete Batching Plants. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS
Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 334-335.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Ready-Mix
Concrete Association. September 1969.
4. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
8.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.11 FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING Revised by James H. Southerland
8.11.1 Process Description
Glass fiber products are manufactured by melting various raw materials to form glass (predominantly
borosilicate), drawing the molten glass into fibers, and coating the fibers with an organic material. The two basic
types of fiber glass products, textile and wool, are manufactured by different processes. Typical flow diagrams are
shown in Figures 8.11-1 and 8.11-2.
8.11.1.1 Textile Products—In the manufacture of textiles, the glass is normally produced in the form of marbles
after refining at about 2800°F (1540°C) in a regenerative, recuperative, or electric furnace. The marble-forming
stage can be omitted with the molten glass passing directly to orifices to be formed or drawn into fiber filaments.
The fiber filaments are collected on spools as continuous fibers and staple yarns, or in the form of a fiber glass
mat on a flat, moving surface. An integral part of the textile process is treatment with organic binder materials
followed by a curing step.
8.11.1.2 Wool Products-In the manufacture of wool products, which are generally used in the construction
industry as insulation, ceiling panels, etc., the molten glass is most frequently fed directly into the forming line
without going through a marble stage. Fiber formation is accomplished by air blowing, steam blowing, flame
blowing, or centrifuge forming. The organic binder is sprayed onto the hot fibers as they fall from the forming
device. The fibers are collected on a moving, flat surface and transported through a curing oven at a temperature
of 400° to 600°F (200° to 315°C) where the binder sets. Depending upon the product, the wool may also be
compressed as a part of this operation.
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major emissions from the fiber glass manufacturing processes are particulates from the glass-melting
furnace, the forming line, the curing oven, and the product cooling line. In addition, gaseous organic emissions
occur from the forming line and curing oven. Particulate emissions from the glass-melting furnace are affected by
basic furnace design, type of fuel (oil, gas, or electricity), raw material size and composition, and type and volume
of the furnace heat-recovery system. Organic and particulate emissions from the forming line are most affected by
the composition and quality 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 ovens are affected by oven temperature and
binder composition, but direct-fired afterburners with heat exchangers may be used to control these emissions.
Emission factors for fiber glass manufacturing are summarized in Table 8.11-1.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.11-1
-------
RAW MATERIALS
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
BATCHING
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
BINDER
ADDITION
FORMING BY
DRAWING,
STEAM JETS,
OR AIR JETS
MARBLE
REMELT
FURNACE
I
MARBLE
FORMING
DRYING OR
CURING
COLLECT AND WIND
OR
CUT AND FABRICATE
PRODUCTS:
CONTINUOUS TEXTILES,
STAPLE TEXTILES,
MAT PRODUCTS, ETC.
Figure 8.11-1. Typical flow diagram of textile-type glass fiber production process.
RAW MATERIALS
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
BATCHING
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
I
COMPRESSION
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
ADDITION OF
BINDERS, LUBRICANTS
AND/OR ADHESIVES
FORMING BY AIR
BLOWING, STEAM
BLOWING, AND
CENTRIFUGE
1
CURING
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
COOL
PACK OR
FABRICATE
PRODUCTS: LOOSE WOOL
INSULATION, BONDED
WOOL INSULATION, WALL
AND CEILING PANELS,
INSULATION BOARD, ETC.
Figure 8.11-2. Typical flow diagram of wool-type glass fiber production process.
8.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
o
cc
i-
o
o
I-
o
I
< I-
oo cc
<0
C3 o
CC<
UJ LL,
CD Z
il o
gs
U- S
CO W
CC
o
o
00
oo
UJ
00
.Q
is
h~
-1
_ii oj
.12 -*
o
.2 c
u- 2
^5
CN
O
z \-
~~~~ ^^
^ 5
sl
>^
o
c c
£2
o ^
•*— '
z
co H
•o §
x "Si
o^
o
E
c
o c
•s °
c3^
£^
°2 ^
" ' O>
t/i _^
OJ
T3
X
O
Is
J?£
1-
^^
CO 1
t; o>
J2 v
-I
o
+1 C
™ 2
Q_ ^~,
^a
CO
to
h-
O5 OO
^ CD ' ' '
CO ID
CO' CN ' ' '
CD CO 00
*
o u «-• t; c
T TO to [0 5
? IS a^ g.5
£ ^ «— _ CO r—
CN d d 'do
o r^
o rv CN T- CN
in ^ d ' i-' d
00 00 00
«- <- O 0) <-
odd 'do
LD m in
CN CN O f^ CN
odd ' ^ d
CN
o co o
ID' •* d ' ' '
•. oo <-
CN CN in
" S >
0) ""s •- -5
in ° ^ IS C
J2 ro ro 5° co
5 J5 CC CC LU ^ ^ g
0 C3 LL O O
o
g
O
a.
en .55
Q.
X
01
«J CO
in
q
o
£ en
•D q
> c
ro o
ro t!
E o> c O
UJ DC O Z
co -Q u "O
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.11-3
-------
References for Section 8.11
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. X. 2nd Ed. New York, Interscience (John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.). 1966. p. 564-566.
3. Private correspondence from S. H. Thomas, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Toledo, Ohio including
intra-company correspondence from R. J. Powels. Subject: Air Pollutant Emission Factors. April 26, 1972.
8.11-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING
8.12.1 Process Description1 >2
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.
8.12.2 Emissions and Controls2
Significant dust and fume emissions are created by the frit-smelting operation. These emissions consist
primarily of condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge. They also contain
mineral dust carryover and sometimes hydrogen fluoride. Emissions can be reduced by not rotating 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 8.12-1. Collection efficiencies obtainable for venturi scrubbers are also
shown in the table.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.12-1
-------
Table 8.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT SMELTERS
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Rotary
Participates15
Ib/ton
16
kg/MT
8
Fluorides'3
Ib/ton
5
kg/MT
2.5
aReference 2. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge.
A ventun scrubber with a 21-inch (535-mm) water-gauge pressure drop can reduce par-
ticulate emissions by 67 percent and fluorides by 94 percent.
References for Section 8.12
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 37-38.
2. 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 Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p.
738-744.
8.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING
8.13.1 Process Description1'2
Nearly all glass produced commercially is one of five basic types: soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, and
96 percent silica. Of these, the modern 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.
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls1-2
Emissions from the glass-melting operation consist primarily of particulates 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 8.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for glass melting.
Table 8.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GLASS MELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of
glass
Soda-lime
Particulates3
Ib/ton
2
kg/MT
1
Fluorides'3
Ib/ton
4Fc
kg/MT
2pc
3 Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of glass produced.
bReference 4.
CF equals weight percent of fluoride in input to furnace; e.g., if fluoride content is 5 per-
cent, the emission factor would be 4F or 20 (2F or 10).
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-1
-------
References for Section 8.13
1. Netzley, A. B. and J. L. McGinn!ty. Glass Manufacture. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A.
(ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication
Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 720-730.
2. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 38.
3. Technical Progress Report: Control of Stationary Sources. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. 1: April 1960.
4. Semrau, K. T. Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
7(2):92-lQ8, August 1957.
8.13-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING
8.14.1 Process Description'
Gypsum, or hydrated calcium sulfate, is a naturally occurring mineral that is an important building material.
When heated gypsum loses its water of hydration, 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.2-3
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).4-5
8.14.2 Emissions1
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 crystalization carry gypsum rock dust and partially calcined gypsum dust into the atmosphere.^ In
addition, dust emissions occur from the grinding of the gypsum before calcining and from the mixing of the
calcined gypsum with filler. Table 8.14-1 presents emission factors for gypsum processing.
Table 8.14-1. 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
-
-
-
aReference 7. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of process throughput.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.14-1
-------
References for Section 8.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R. N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
180-182.
3. Havinghorst, R. A Quick Look at Gypsum Manufacture. Chem. Eng. 72:52-54, January 4, 1965.
4. Work, L. T. and A. L. Stern. Size Reduction and Size Enlargement. In: Chemical Engineers Handbook, 4th
Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1963. p. 51.
5. Private communication on emissions from gypsum plants between M. M. Hambuik and the National Gypsum
Association, Chicago, Illinois. January 1970.
6. Culhane, F. R. Chem. Eng. Progr. 64:12, January 1, 1968.
7. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the Maryland State
Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. November 1969.
8.14-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING
8.15.1 General1
Lime (CaO) is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone (CaCC^). Lime is manufactured in
vertical or rotary kilns fired by coal, oil, or natural gas.
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls1
Atmospheric emissions in the lime manufacturing industry include particulate emissions from the mining,
handling, crushing, screening, and calcining of the limestone and combustion products from the kilns. The vertical
kilns, because of a larger size of charge material, lower air velocities, and less agitation, have considerably fewer
particulate 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, baghouses, and electrostatic
precipitators.2 Emission factors for lime manufacturing are summarized in Table 8.15-1.
Table 8.15-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIME
MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Operation
Crushing0
Primary
Secondary
Calcining01
Vertical kiln
Rotary kiln
Emissions'3
Ib/ton
31
2
8
200
kg/MT
15.5
1
4
100
aEmission 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.
cReference 3.
dReferences 2, 4, and 5.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.15-1
-------
References for Section 8.15
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Lewis, C. and B. Crocker. The Lime Industry's Problem of Airborne Dust. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
79:31-39, January 1969.
3. State of Maryland Emission Inventory Data. Maryland State Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
1969.
4. 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.
5. Communication between Midwest Research Institute and a control device manufacturer. 1968.
8.15-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING
8.16.1 Process Descriptionl >2
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 constitutes 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.
8.16.2 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 charge and gases such as sulfur oxides and fluorides. Minor sources of
particulate emissions include the blowchamber, curing oven, and cooler. Emission factors for various stages of
mineral wool processing are shown in Table 8.16-1. The effect of control devices on emissions is shown in
footnotes to the table.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.16-1
-------
Table 8.16-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Cupola
Reverberatory furnace
Blow chamber0
Curing ovend
Cooler
Particulates
Ib/ton
22
5
17
4
2
kg/MT
11
2.5
8.5
2
1
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
0.02
Negb
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
0.01
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
aReference 2. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge.
bNegligible.
CA centrifugal water scrubber can reduce paniculate emissions by 60 percent.
A direct-flame afterburner can reduce particulate emissions by 50 percent.
References for Section 8.16
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 Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39-40.
2. 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 Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 343-347.
8.16-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING
8.17.1 Process Description1 '2
Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock consisting of oxides of silicon and aluminum combined as a natural glass by
water of hydration. By a process called exfoliation, the material is rapidly heated to release water ofhydration
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 unloading and storage facilities, a furnace-feeding device, an
expanding furnace, provisions for gas and product cooling, and product-classifying and product-collecting
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.
8.17.2 Emissions and Controls2
A fine dust is emitted from the outlet of the last product collector in a perlite 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 8.17-1 summarizes the emissions from perlite
manufacturing.
Table 8.17-1. 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
aReference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of
charge.
bPnmary cyclones will collect 80 percent of the particulates above
20 micrometers, and baghouses will collect 96 percent of the particles
above 20 micrometers.2
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.17-1
-------
References for Section 8.17
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39.
2. Vincent, E. J. Perlite-Expanding Furnaces. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 350-352.
3. Unpublished data on perlite expansion furnace. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.
July 1967.
8.17-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
8.18.1 Process Description1
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.
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls1
Although there are no significant emissions from phosphate rock beneficiation 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 adherent 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 rock processing are presented in
Table 8.18-1.
Table 8.18-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of source
Dryingb'c
Grindingb'd
Transfer and storaged-e
Open storage piles6
Emissions
Ib/ton
15
20
2
40
kg/MT
7.5
10
1
20
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of phosphate
rock.
References 2 and 3.
cDry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers can reduce emissions by
95 to 99 percent.
dDry cyclones followed by fabric filters can reduce emissions by
99.5 to 99.9 percent.
eReference 3.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.18-1
-------
References for Section 8.18
1. Stern, A. (ed.)- In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 221-222.
2. Unpublished data from phosphate rock preparation plants in Florida. Midwest Research Institute. June 1970.
3. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions. Internal document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs, Durham, N.C. p. 446,4-36, and 4-34.
8.18-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING By James H. Southerland
8.19.1 Process Descrip tion *
Deposits of sand and gravel, the consolidated granular materials resulting from the natural disintegration of
rock or stone, are found in banks and pits and in subterranean and subaqueous beds.
Depending upon the location of the deposit, the materials are excavated using power shovels, draglines,
cableways, suction dredge pumps, or other apparatus; light-charge blasting may be necessary to loosen the
deposit. The materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, earth mover, barge, truck, or
other means. The processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combinations of
washers; screens and classifiers, which segregate particle sizes; crushers, which reduce oversize material; and
storage and loading facilities.
8.19.2 Emissions2'3
Dust emissions occur during conveying, screening, crushing, and storing operations. Because these materials are
generally moist when handled, emissions are much lower than in a similar crushed stone operation. Sizeable
emissions may also occur as vehicles travel over unpaved roads and paved roads covered by dirt. Although little
actual source testing has been done, an estimate has been made for particulate emissions from a plant using
crushers:
Particulate emissions: 0.1 Ib/ton (0.05 kg/MT) of product.3
References for Section 8.19
1. Walker, Stanton. Production of Sand and Gravel. National Sand and Gravel Association. Washington, D.C.
Circular Number 57. 1954.
2. Schreibeis, William J. and H. H. Schrenk. Evaluation of Dust and Noise Conditions at Typical Sand and
Gravel Plants. Study conducted under the auspices of the Committee on Public Relations, National Sand and
Gravel Association, by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. 1958.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I, Mass Emissions. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.19-1
-------
-------
8.20 STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
8.20.1 Process Description1
Rock and crushed stone products are loosened by drilling and blasting them from their deposit beds and 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 considerable dust formation.
Further processing includes crushing, regrinding, and removal of fines.2 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.
8.20.2 Emissions1
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 8.20-1. 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.
Table 8.20-1. PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROCK-HANDLING PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Dry crushing operationsb>c
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing and screening
Tertiary crushing and
screening (if used)
Recrushing and screening
Fines mill
Miscellaneous operations'^
Screening, conveying,
and handling6
Storage pile lossesf
Uncontrolled
total3
Ib/ton
0.5
1.5
6
5
6
2
10
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
aTypical collection efficiencies: cyclone, 70 to 85 percent; fabric filter, 99 percent.
All values are based on raw material entering primary crusher, except those for recrushmg and screening, which are based on
throughput for that operation.
cReference 3.
Based on units of stored product.
eReference 4.
The significance of storage pile losses is mentioned in Reference 5. The factor assigned here is the author's estimate for uncon-
trolled total emissions. Use of this factor should be tempered with knowledge about the size of materials stored, the local mete-
orological factors, the frequency with which the piles are disturbed, etc.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.20-1
-------
References for Section 8.20
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Crushed
Stone Association. September 1969.
3. Culver, P. Memorandum to files. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division
of Abatement, Durham, N.C. January 6, 1968.
4. Unpublished data on storage and handling or rock products. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Division of Abatement, Durham, N.C. May 1967.
5. Stern, A. (ed.) In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 123-127.
8.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
9.1.1 General
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 market demands for each fraction, some of the less valuable
products, such as heavy naptha, are converted to products with a greater sale value, such as gasoline. This
conversion is accomplished by splitting (cracking), uniting (polymerization), or rearranging (reforming) 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. A generalized petroleum refinery flow sheet is shown in Figure 9.1-1.
9.1.2 Crude Oil Distillation1-6
Crude oil is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons, some of them combined with small amounts of
impurities. Crude oils vary considerably in composition and physical properties, but primarily consist of three
families of hydrocarbons: paraffins, saturated hydrocarbons having the empirical formula CnH2n+2'> napthenes,
ring-structure saturated hydrocarbons with the formula CnH2n; and aromatics, characterized by a benzene ring,
CgHg, in the molecular structure. In addition to carbon and hydrogen, significant amounts of sulfur, oxygen, and
nitrogen can be present in crude petroleum.
Separation of these hydrocarbon constituents into their respective fractions is performed by simple distillation
in crude topping or skimming units. Crude oil is heated in pipe stills and passed to fractionating towers or
columns for vaporization and preparation. Heavy fractions of the crude oil, which do not vaporize in the topping
operation, are separated by steam or vacuum distillation. The heavy residuum products are reduced to coke and
more valuable volatile products via destructive distillation and coking. Depending on the boiling range of the stock
and its stability with respect to heat and product specifications, solvent extraction and/or absorption techniques
can also be used. The distillation fractions - "straight run products" - usually include refinery gas, gasoline,
kerosene, light fuel oil, diesel oils, gas oil, lube distillate, and heavy bottoms, the amount of each being
determined by the type and composition of the crude oil. Some of these products are treated to remove
impurities and used as base stocks or sold as finished products; the remainder are used as feedstock for other
refinery units.
9.1.2.1 Emissions—The main source of emissions from crude oil preparation processes is the barometric condenser
on the vacuum distillation column. This condenser, while maintaining a vacuum on the tower, often allows
noncondensable light hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide to pass through to the atmosphere. The quantity of
these emissions is a function of the unit size, type of feedstock, and the cooling water temperature. Vapor
recovery systems reduce these emissions to negligible amounts (see Table 9.1-1).
4/73 9.1-1
-------
0>
_CD
o
E
5
O)
CO
o
o
CO
m
O)
CD
9.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
00
Ul
111
cc
O
cc
I-
u. cc
w O
o "•
< Z
u. o
Z CO
O to
co 5
CO m
V
3
a
.2
'E
o
E
4V)
CD
2 ~°
C
CD vo — .
°> CD CM
E !5 O
^y O — -
, V)
2 o
?-e
Ins
0
co
C "O
o '^
-Q o
" i
3- 4S *CM
S: 12 O
D X CO
CO 0 —
if)
CO
o
t
1
2
Q.
"o
CD
a
H
Ol
CD
in
CM
o
8
CM
O
2
Hj)
CD
Z
XI
o
fv
CO"
o
00
L?
CD
4-1
ro TJ
CD co
.c c
18 3
CD .Q
O
u
•o -^
i_ .~
CD -^
O —
CO
Ol Ol Ol
CD - CO
SCM
CO
CM d d
IT: "So,
E gj c .E
.Q )5 3 ~0
— i O co
0 „ Sg U
w ra (J, 0
k_ Ol • —
a m *;
• — t-' p -S"
.* £ _ii ^
LL
in
cn
*~
O
^-'
^
o
CM
CM
O
o
f^\
CO
s
CM
CM
iitse
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
D
in
in
d
in
o
d
0 <°
ID" g ^
^_ c\ O
o d 2
*-' ^
*~. 0
- d
o
CO
CO
d
CM
O)
CO
in
in t— »—
o ^ o
CO ^ 00
<~ en
CO 00
d
CO
**~ p.^
O 0)
o «? 2
CO °' ^
21 CM
d
•s
E
H-
c/l
cu
in
en
*
o
i— '
^
o
CM
CM
Ol
CU
"Z.
CO
CD
if
^
^
O
tn
Electrostatic precipit;
and CO boiler
lb/103 bbl fresh
in
in
d
in
o
d
o <°
in ^f 'd'
^ CM o
o d 2
*-• ~
'r~. o
r^ T—
- o
o
CO
CD
d
CD
2
in
ScoS
in ,- t-
2 * 2
CO "~ 00
t- 0)
CO 00
d
. — iB"
O f^
T —
CD °° d
2 -. 2
in ° co
CM g
— d
feed
kg/103 liters fresh
fresh feed
CO
CM
"
in
00
o
o
cc^
CO
s
£:
•- s^
CD ~ —
o c .a
-o ^ -Q
0) O) m
J2 C 0
01 '£ ^ H
o b
s
r~-
0
d
o
d
Tt
o
d
o
in
CM
d
00
d
r^
^~
d
CD
s
d
•5
CD
1
0^7
B^j
ai 01
QJ CD
01 cn
CD Q)
Z Z
01 01
a> QJ
•^ "^
^u. ^~
cn ai
CU 0)
Z Z
Dl D)
o> a?
"Z. ^.
ji
^ ^
Z Z
o
m
CO »-'
CM
in
id coking units9
ncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
2 ^>
LL
Ol
CD
Z
01
CD
Ol
Ol
CD
Z
0)
CD
Z
^
Z
in
00
CD
o
lectrostatic precipitati
lb/103 bbl fresh
LU
Ol
CD
01
CU
Ol
CD
Ol
CD
01
Z
<^
z
CD
cn
o
d
feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
4/73
Petroleum Industry
9.1-3
-------
co
UJ
E
LU
Z
u_
LJJ
DC
LU ^
o ..
DC U
|_ 2
LU —
^
gcc
O cc
i- o
< o
u. <
11
z "•
o z
55 0
5255
2 23
LU g
__. LU
CD
3
C
C
O
O
^
oi
3
(0
1-
co
"c
O
e
CD CD
i >
< -C
c
CD « —^
cn . -Q
X co
o
CD
c ^
O X
O O
1— r-
ro 0
o e
3 CD *"^j
i 1 °
CO
CD
*-»
o
°"
CD
U
O
b.
4—
O
CD
Q.
1-
CN CN
O CO
«- CO
d «-'
o> ^r
d ^
CN C^
^-' OJ
T—
| §>
CN CN
CO
O) Ol
CJ CD
z z
Compressor internal com
bustion engines3
lb/103 ft3 gas burned
kg/103 m3 gas burned
Slowdown systems3
I I
cn oi
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD 0)
Z Z
O
CO
CO
o d
o
CO
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn co
CD CD
Z Z
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl refinery
capacity
kg/103 liters refinery
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
cn
CD
Z
in
cn
CD
cn
CD
CO
CD
z
capacity
Vapor recovery system
or flaring
lb/103 bbl refinery
c? S1
z z
co cn
CD CD
CO CO
CD CD
z z
t—
o
d o
r—
CN
cn cn
CD JU
CO 0)
CD CD
co cn
CD CD
z z
-o
CD
capacity
kg/103 liters refinery
capacity
Process drains, Uncontroll
lb/103 bbl waste
CO
CD
Z
CO
CD
CO
CD
Z
O
o
CO
d
cn
0)
Z
cn
cu
Z
OI
CD
2
CD
CO
to
1—
i- CO
£ °
? O
S1
z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
03
cn
CD
Z
CO
CD
cn
CD
Z
water
Vapor recovery or
separator covers
lb/103 bbl waste
CO
CD
Z
cn
CD
cn
CD
Z
CO
CN
0
d
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
CD
I
0)
•M
1
C/)
0) CO
.ti £
— .CD.
I ^> i
s^ o
>
cn
CD
cn
CD
Z
CO
CD
Z
O
CO
cn
CD
Z
CO
CD
Z
CO
CD
Z
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl vacuum
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
cn
CD
Z
0
CO
d
cn
CD
Z
CO
CD
CO
CD
Z
distillate
kg/103 liters vacuum
distillate
Fume burner or waste-
en
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
heat boiler
lb/103 bbl vacuum
distillate
9.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
oo
LLJ
CC
LU
Z
ul
LU
CC
O
CC
LU <
Q-
CC
O I
"• K
co <
£*
O rr
oo
oo s
— oo
2> 00
111
1
c
CD
-a
<
c
CD oo
cn cu
0 T3
.t: 'x
^y O
0
"D
i
c
l_
CO
O
l_ VI
~5 x
in o
CO
'c
o
E
E
00
CD
TJ
.C
^^
CN
0
z
oo
C
o
.D
CO
o
cu
T!
X
O
o
fvj
O
OT
C/J
cu
CO
w
o
'•p
CO
CL
OO
CD
CJ
O
Q.
"o
1
H
cn
Z
cn
cu
a>
S
cn
CD
z
cn
cu
Z
O)
CD
cn
CD
P
kg/103 liters vacuui
distillate
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
cn
CD
Z
CD
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
0)
CD
Z
Cool ing towers3
lb/106 gal cooling
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
CN
O
cn
CD
Z
cn
o>
cn
CD
Z
cn
c
"5
0
u
cu
si'o B
CO *""" CD
> 130 ?
cn cn
cu cu
cn cn
cu cu
Z Z
cn cn
CD CU
Z Z
O
co
o
cn o
CN
cn cn
CD CU
Z Z
cn cn
CU CD
Z Z
cn cn
CU CD
Z Z
cn
cn c
i 1 =
» £ *£
oo cu "-
•1 2 >S
> ra -a .t; —
S ^^ ra'b
.E cn O Q_ ^
|li s>
capacity
Vessel relief valves3
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
< —
cn
cu
Z
01
CD
cn
CD
Z
cn
C
'c
4—
£
3
.a
ro
O
cn
cu
Z
O)
cu
Z
cn
cu
Z
CO
o
d
cn
a'
Z
cn
CD
cn
cu
Z
cn
c
c
cu
CD
+-* —
O CO
co o
a. ,-
CO -~-
o cn
S1
z
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
[^
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
O)
Z
cn
c
'E
cu
>°L> 3
.t; 15 -o
1 ""^
cn
cu
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
Z
0)
o
C5
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
c
c
CD
CU
'5 CO
CO O
a «-
CO ~~.
o cn
capacity
Compressor seals3
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
LO
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
cn
cu
Z
cn
C
'c
M—
cu
S
'o
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
Z
o>
CU
Z
^
O
C)
Ol
CD
Z
cn
cu
cn cn
Z Z
cn
c
c
CD
'5m
co O
Q. T-
CD """^
CJ Ol
^ ^
S1
z
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
Z
O
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
cn
cu
Z
cn
c
g
capacity
Miscellaneous (air bio
sampling, etc.}3
lb/103 bbl refining
S1
z
O!
CU
Z
cn
cu
O3
CN
O
O
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
cn
cu
Z
capacity
kg/103 liter refining
capacity
bbI (0.96 kg/I
y of 336
d d
o SC>2
o SC^-
4/73
Petroleum Industry
9.1-5
-------
9.1.3 Converting
To meet quantity demands for certain types of petroleum products, it is often necessary to chemically convert
the molecular structures of certain hydrocarbons via "cracking" and "reforming" to produce compounds of
different structures.
9.1.3.1 Catalytic Cracking1—In the cracking operation, large molecules are decomposed by heat, pressure, and
catalysis into smaller, lower-boiling molecules. Simultaneously, some of the molecules combine (polymerize) to
form larger molecules. Products of cracking are gaseous hydrocarbons, gasoline, gas oil, fuel oil, and coke.
Most catalytic cracking operations in the U.S. today are performed by using four main methods: (1) fixed-bed,
a batch operation; (2) moving-bed, typified by thermofor catalytic cracking (TCC) and Houdriflow units; (3)
fluidized-bed (FCC); and (4) "once-through" units. The two most widely used units are the moving- and
fluidized-bed types, with the latter most predominant.
In a moving-bed cracker, the charge (gas oil) is heated to 900°F under pressure and passed to the reactor where
it passes cross-flow to a descending stream of molecular sieve-type catalyst in the form of beads or pellets. The
cracked products then pass to a fractionating tower where the various compounds are tapped off. Meanwhile, the
spent catalyst flows through a regeneration zone where coke deposits are burned off in a continuous process. The
regenerated catalyst is then conveyed to storage bins atop the reactor vessel for reuse.
In fluidized systems, finely powdered catalyst is lifted into the reactor by the incoming heated oil charge,
which vaporizes upon contact with the hot catalyst. Spent catalyst settles out in the reactor, is drawn off at a
controlled rate, purged with steam, and lifted by an air stream into the regenerator where the deposited coke is
burned off.
Emissions—Emissions from cracking unit regenerators consist of particulates (coke and catalyst fines),
hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, ammonia, and nitrogen oxides in the combusion gases.
In addition, catalyst fines may be discharged by vents on the catalyst handling systems on both TCC and FCC
units. Control measures commonly used on regenerators consist of cyclones and electrostatic precipitators to
remove particulates and energy-recovery cornbustors to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. The latter recovers
the heat of combustion of the CO to produce refinery process steam.
9.1.3.2 Hydrocracking2— The hydrocracker uses a fixed-bed catalytic reactor, wherein cracking occurs in the
presence of hydrogen under substantial pressure. The principal functions of the hydrogen are to suppress the
formation of heavy residual material and to increase the yield of gasoline by reacting with the cracked products.
High-molecular-weight, sulfur-bearing hydrocarbons are also cracked, and the sulfur combines with the hydrogen
to form hydrogen sulfide (H~>S). Therefore, waste gas from the hydrocracker contains large amounts of r^S,
which can be processed for removal of sulfur.
9.1.3.3 Catalytic Reforming'-In reforming processes, a feedstock of gasoline undergoes molecular rearrange-
ment via catalysis (usually including hydrogen removal) to produce a gasoline of higher quality and octane
number. In various fixed-bed and fluidized-bed processes, the catalyst is regenerated continously, in a manner
similar to that used with cracking units.
There are essentially no emissions from reforming operations.
9.1.3.4 Polymerization, Alkylation, and Isomerization1— Polymerization and alkylation are processes used to
produce gasoline from the gaseous hydrocarbons formed during cracking operations. Polymerization joins two or
9.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
more olefins (noncyclic unsaturated hydrocarbons with C=C double bonds), and alkylation unites an olefin and
an iso-paraffin (noncyclic branched-chain hydrocarbon saturated with hydrogen). Isomerization is the process for
altering the arrangement of atoms in a molecule without adding or removing anything from the original material,
and is usually used in the oil industry to form branched-chain hydrocarbons. A number of catalysts such as
phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, platinum, aluminum chloride, and hydrofluoric acid are used to promote the
combination or rearrangement of these light hydrocarbons.
9.1.3.5 Emissions-These three processes, including regeneration of any necessary catalysts, form essentially
closed systems and have no unique, major source of atmospheric emissions. However, the highly volatile
hydrocarbons handled, coupled with the high process pressures required, make valve stems and pump shafts
difficult to seal, and a greater emission rate from these sources can generally be expected in these process areas
than would be the average throughout the refinery. The best method for controlling these emissions is the
effective maintenance, repair, and replacement of pump seals, valve caulking, and pipe-joint sealer.
9.1.4 Treating
"Hydrogen," "chemical," and "physical" treating are used in the refinery process to remove undesirable
impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen to improve product quality.
9.1.4.1 Hydrogen Treating1—In this procedure hydrogen is reacted with impurities in compounds to produce
removable hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and water. In addition, the process converts diolefins (gum-forming
hydrocarbons with the empirical formula R=C=R) into stable compounds while minimizing saturation of
desirable aromatics.
Hydrogenation units are nearly all the fixed-bed type with catalyst replacement or regeneration (by
combustion) done intermittently, the frequency of which is dependent upon operating conditions and the
product being treated. The hydrogen sulfide produced is removed from the hydrogen stream via extraction and
converted to elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid or, when present in small quantities, burned to SC>2 in a flare or
boiler firebox.
9.1.4.2 Chemical Treating1—Chemical treating is generally classified into four groups: (1) acid treatment, (2)
sweetening, (3) solvent extraction, and (4) additives. Acid treatment involves contacting hydrocarbons with
sulfuric acid to partially remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds, to precipitate asphaltic or gum-like materials,
and to improve color and odor. Spent acid sludges that result are usually converted to ammonium sulfate or
sulfuric acid.
Sweetening processes oxidize mercaptans (formula: R-S-H) to disulfide (formula: R-S-S-^) without actual
sulfur removal. In some processes, air and steam are used for agitation in mixing tanks and to reactivate chemical
solutions.
Solvent extraction utilizes solvents that have affinities for the undesirable compounds and that can easily be
removed from the product stream. Specifically, mercaptan compounds are usually extracted using a strong caustic
solution; hydrogen sulfide is removed by a number of commercial processes.
Finally, additives or inhibitors are primarily materials added in small amounts to oxidize mercaptans to
disulfide and to retard gum formation.
4/73 Petroleum Industry 9.1-7
-------
9.1.4.3 Physical Treating1—Some of the many physical methods used to remove impurities include electrical
coalescence, filtration, absorption, and air blowing. Specific applications of physical methods are desalting crude
oil, removing wax, decolorizing lube oils, and brightening diesel oil.
9.1.4.4 Emissions — Emissions from treating operations consist of SC>2, hydrocarbons, and visible plumes.
Emission levels depend on the methods used in handling spent acid and acid sludges, as well as the means
employed for recovery or disposal of hydrogen sulfide. Other potential sources of these emissions in treating
include catalyst regeneration, air agitation in mixing tanks, and other air blowing operations. Trace amounts of
malodorous substances may escape from numerous sources including settling tank vents, purge tanks, waste
treatment units, waste-water drains, valves, and pump seals.
Control methods used include: covers for waste water separators; vapor recovery systems for settling and surge
tanks; improved maintenance for pumps, valves, etc; and sulfur recovery plants.
9.1.5 Blending1
The final major operation in petroleum refining consists of blending the products in various proportions to
meet certain specifications, such as vapor pressure, specific gravity, sulfur content, viscosity, octane number,
initial boiling point, and pour point.
9.1.5.1 Emissions — Emissions associated with this operation are hydrocarbons that leak from storage vessels,
valves, and pumps. Vapor recovery systems and specially built tanks minimize storage emissions; good
housekeeping precludes pump and valve leakage.
9.1.6 Miscellaneous Operations1
In addition to the four refinery operations described above, there are many process operations connected with
all four. These involve the use of cooling towers, blow-down systems, process heaters and boilers, compressors,
and process drains. The emissions and controls associated with these operations are listed in Table 9.1-1.
References for Chapter 9
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries: A Guide for Measurement and Control. U.S. DHEW,
Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS Publication Number 763. 1960.
2. Impurities in Petroleum. In: Petreco Manual. Long Beach, Petrolite Corp. 1958. p.l.
3. Jones, Ben G. Refinery Improves Particulate Control. The Oil and Gas Journal. 69(26):60-62. June 28, 1971.
4. Private communications with personnel in the Emission Testing Branch, Applied Technology Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., regarding source testing at a petroleum
refinery preparatory to setting new source standards. June-August 1972.
5. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide in Air Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-52. January 1969.
6. Olson, H.N. and K.E. Hutchinson. How Feasible are Giant, One-Train Refineries? The Oil and Gas Journal.
70(l):39-43. January 3, 1972.
9.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
10. WOOD PROCESSING
Wood processing involves the conversion of raw wood to either pulp or pulpboard. This section presents
emission data both for wood pulping operations and for the manufacture of two types of pulpboard: paperboard
and fiber board. The burning of wood waste in boilers and conical burners is not included as it is discussed in
other sections for this publication.
10.1 WOOD PULPING
10.1.1 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.
10.1.2 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 together.
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 processed 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 reuse 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 10.1-1
-------
10.1.3 Emissions and Controls3
Participate 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 characteristic 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 presently available for each phase of the
kraft process, the most widely used controls are shown, where applicable, in the table for emission factors. Table
10.1-1 presents these emission factors for both controlled and uncontrolled sources.
References for Section 10.1
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 Number 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 Publication Number 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 Number
CPA-22-69-18. March 15, 1970.
4. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. U.S. DHEW, PHS, EHS,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Washington, D.C. Publication Number AP-65. March 1970. p.
4-24, 4-25.
10.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
a.
«» SE
CC ^» |_
^| cc
U. >t- ""
ll -
co '3J ^
o
_Q)
CO
or"
co~°
w =
nr
c
OJ .Q
O) cu
O "D
•D 2Z
I S
u
C ""
o •—
-° o
^ O
CO C
O 0
_ CD
13 —
l*"" QJ
D -D
W|
CD
S
T
d
CO
Q.
1
r-
I-
5
O)
c
O
^
1-
_*
c
0
•H*
1-
^_
O)
o
5
H
cn
•*
O
^
h-
^
01
c
o
~^-
~
o
c
8
o)p cq cq in | |
CO O O O O O O O OO
,_ in in
in <- S «- ° i i
o o . o in in o 1 i
o o° coco coo oo'o
-. SS 8 000 , ,
O Q CMCM CMO T-T-O
i || oo Oi ininiii
1 ' ' CO CO CO ' III
1 || OO Oi OOiii
1 II CD(O CD1 T— ^- 1 1 1
, ,,».»£, ,|,,|
' ' ' SS S ' ' ' ' '
in in in in ^
1 11 in r-.' CO P>i fM ' rn c-i
r~ CM ^ CM "^ ro
r-^
] II in S t t I r^ o
1—
O)
O v> -Q
•D "P"D -a'+-»o-Q"O -av_"OT3v_
CD uJQJ OCO^DQJ QtUOJ030
CQ (Q CO CD t/1 4_i O TO CD « (O CD ^
CD OQJ CD O •— W QJ CDAJQJQJ"1J
c cc coa^c cucco
Z) IDID ^ — ^-c^ O^OID
a»
(/)•*-• VI
c ° c
CD S Q>
£ " c o> -a
& 8 1 2 4 ? !2 1 8^
illlllll 1 i ill
>3^'B"S"O"D§" — "COJ Q.1^ —
m§^cc c/D-JJ—u-
tu
o
c
OJ
cu
Q)
QC
*!*
D
C
O
o
(/>"
<«->
J
"o
§
o
-------
10.2 PULPBOARD
10.2.1 General1
Pulpboard manufacturing includes the manufacture of .fibrous boards from a pulp slurry. This includes two
distinct types of product, paperboard and fiberboard. 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.2 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.
10.2.2 Process Description1
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.
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.
10.2.3 Emissions1
Emissions from the paperboard machine consist only of water vapor,3"5 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 sanding operations, but no data are available by which to
estimate these emissions. Emission factors for pulpboard manufacturing are shown in Table 10.2-1.
2/72 Wood Processing 10.2-1
-------
Table 10.2-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR PULPBOARD
MANUFACTURING3
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 product.
bReference 6.
References for Section 10.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. The Dictionary of Paper. New York, American Paper and Pulp Association. 1940.
3. Hough, G. W. and L. J. Gross. Air Emission Control in a Modern Pulp and Paper Mill. Amer. Paper Industry.
57:36, February 1969.
4. Pollution Control Progress. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 77:410, June 1967.
5. Private communication between I. Gellman and the National Council of the Paper Industry for Clean Air and
Stream Improvement, New York. October 28, 1969.
6. Communication between Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia, and New Jersey State Department of
Health, Trenton, New Jersey. July 1969.
10.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
APPENDIX
Note: Previous editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors presented a table entitled Percentage
Distribution by Size of Particles from Selected Sources without Control Equipment. Many of the data have
become obsolete with the development of new information. As soon as the new information is sufficiently
refined, a new table, complete with references, will be published for addition to this document.
4/73
-------
oooooco-3-tocNOOOcc^ro
Boooor-mcocoLninuicNinr^
o o o o CN n o 01 co oj *r cx> •-
°, °, °.
CN •— O
r^COCNTTOOOr^
Lnor^.tDOOOLO
^li — *"~ "— d r^ CT) CO
—
00000--
OOOC'O
o «— CN r-- n
CM 01 r-r
OCOnC) tD CM O
OCQO1N ^T CD
O C O tM tN
o c o p> S1 S1 S1 81
I
O
CC
o
u.
CO
Z
g
CO
CO
LU
Q
or^-mco LO<-
SOOOO
O O O O
- —
0000101001000011"^^
OOOCOtO O^r^r^i— OCN
CNinOlT) "—
en" CD <— ' LTI"
OOOO
go o o
o o o
o o o o
§000
mLDco
ID" oi"
S1 S" S1
^22
g
I-
<
z
o o o o
O O Q O
OOOO
OOO~O Oi
ipi
^
Z
0)
3
gOOQ
ooo
O
LD
goooo
oooot
q_ o o o^ o^ C
ooooo
OOOOO
*t *- (N O '*
«— r-. CN"
8OOOO—
ooooco
OOOOQCO
1 in «- *- no"
o" o o"
OOO
r-- -53- co C
co CD"
*- IT) (N O CN CN «—
S1 o" (N CN CD" o"
s
>
E
c S
cr w
A-2
Appendix
4/73
-------
Table A-2. DISTRIBUTION BY PARTICLE SIZE OF AVERAGE COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR VARIOUS PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT8-13
Type of collector
Baffled settling chamber
Simple cyclone
Long-cone cyclone
Multiple cyclone
(12-in. diameter)
Multiple cyclone
(6-in. diameter)
Irrigated long-cone
cyclone
Electrostatic
precipitator
Irrigated electrostatic
precipitator
Spray tower
Self-induced spray
scrubber
Disintegrator scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet-impingement scrubber
Baghouse
Efficiency, %
Particle size range, jum
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
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
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
References 2 and 3.
"Data based on standard silica dust with the following particle size and weight distribution
Particle size
range, /;m
0 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Percent
by weight
20
10
15
20
35
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-3
-------
Table A-3. THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Type of fuel
Btu (gross)
kcal
Solid fuels
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Lignite
Wood
Liquid fuels
Residual fuel oil
Distillate fuel oil
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas
Liquefied petroleum gas
Butane
Propane
(21.0 to 28.0) x
106/ton
25.3 x 106/ton
16.0x 106/ton
21.Ox 106/cord
6.3x 106/bbl
5.9 x 106/bbl
1,050/ft3
97,400/gal
90,500/gal
(5.8 to 7.8) x
106/MT
7.03 x 106/MT
4.45 x 106/MT
1.47x 106/m3
10 x 103/liter
9.35 x 103/liter
9,350/m3
6,480/liter
6,030/liter
Table A-4. WEIGHTS OF SELECTED
SUBSTANCES
Type of substance
Asphalt
Butane, liquid at 60° F
Crude oil
Distillate oil
Gasoline
Propane, liquid at 60° F
Residual oil
Water
Ib/gal
8.57
4.84
7.08
7.05
6.17
4.24
7.88
8.4
g/liter
1030
579
850
845
739
507
944
1000
A-4
Appendix
2/72
-------
Table A-5. 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 = 42gal = 159 liters
1 therm = 100,000 Btu = 95 ft3
1 therm = 25,000 kcat = 2.7 m3
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 32 lb= 14.5kg
1 bu = 48lb = 21.8kg
1 bu = 60lb = 27.2 kg
1 bale = 500 Ib = 226 kg
1 brick = 6.5 Ib = 2.95 kg
1 bbl = 375lb= 170kg
1 yd3 = 2500lb = 1130kg
1 yd3 = 4000lb= 1820kg
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1 gal = 10 to 15 Ib = 4.5 to 6.82 kg
1 gal = 7 lb = 3.18kg
1 bbl = 50gal = 188 liters
1 gal = 8.3 lb = 3.81 kg
1 Ib = 7000 grains = 453.6 grams
1 ft3 = 7.48 gal = 28.32 liters
ft = 0.3048 m
mi = 1609 m
Ib = 453.6 g
ton (short) = 907.2 kg
ton (short) = 0.9072 MT
(metric ton)
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-5
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX
1. Unpublished data file of nationwide emissions for 1970. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. ^ '
2. Stairmand, C.J. The Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equipment. J. Inst. Fuel. 29:58-80.
1956. *
3. Stairmand, C.J. Removal of Grit, Dust, and Fume from Exhaust Gases from Chemical Engineering Processes.
London. Chem. Eng. p. 310-326, December 1965.
V U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1973 746772/4191
A-6 Appendix 2/72
------- |