AP4227
SUPPLEMENT NO. 7
FOR
COMPILATION
OF AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS
SECOND EDITION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1977
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
FOR INSERTING SUPPLEMENT NO. 7
INTO
COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
Replace pages ii through xxi with new pages ii through xxiii.
Replace pages 1.2-1 through 1.2-3 dated 4/73 with new pages 1.2-1 through 1.2-4 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 1.3-1 through 1.3-2 dated 4/76 with new pages 1.3-1 through 1.3-2 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 1.5-1 through 1.5-2 dated 4/73 with new pages 1.5-1 through 1.5-2 dated 4/77.
Insert new pages 1.8-1 through 1.8-2 dated 4/77 after page 1.7-3.
Insert new pages 1.9-1 through 1.9-2 dated 4/77 after page 1.8-2.
Replace pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-4 dated 4/76 with new pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-5 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-4 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-10 dated 7/73 with new pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-17 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-8 dated 7/73 with new pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-12 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-4 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 5.3-1 through 5.3-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 5.3-1 through 5.3-5 dated 4/77.
Replace page 5.4-1 dated 2/72 with new page 5.4-1 dated 4/77.
Replace page 5.12-1 dated 2/72 with new pages 5.12-1 through 5.12-5 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 6.4-1 through 6.4-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 6.4-1 through 6.4-7 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 6.6-1 through 6.6-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 6.6-1 through 6.6-3 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 8.6-3 through 8.6-4 dated 4/73 with new pages 8.6-3 through 8.6-4 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 8.15-1 through 8.15-2 dated 2/72 with new pages 8.15-1 through 8.15-5 dated 4/77.
Replace pages 10.1-3 through 10.1-7 dated 5/74 with new pages 10.1-3 through 10.1-10 dated 4/77.
Replace pages B-l through B-4 dated 1/75 with new pages B-l through B-5 dated 4/77.
11
-------
PREFACE
This document reports data available on thooc atmospheric emissions for which sufficient informa-
tion exists to establish realistic emission factors. The information contained herein is based on Public
Health Service Publication 999-AP-42, Compilation of A ir Pollutant Emission Factors, by R.L. Duprey,
and on three revised and expanded editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors that
were published by the Environmental Protection Agency in February 1972, April 1973, and February
1976. This document is a reprint of the second edition and includes the supplements issued in July
1973, September 1973, July 1974, January 1975, December 1975, April 1976, and April 1977 (see page
iv). It contains no new information not already presented in the previous issuances.
Chapters and sections of this document have been arranged in a format that permits easy and con-
venient 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.
Information on the availability of future supplements to Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors can be obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency, Library Services, MD-35,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 (Telephone: 919-549-8411 ext. 2777 ).
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.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Because this document is a product of the efforts of many individuals, it is impossible to acknow-
ledge each person who has contributed. Special recognition is given to Environmental Protection
Agency employees in the Requests and Information Section, National Air Data Branch, Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division, for their efforts in the production of this work. Bylines identify the
contributions of individual authors who revised specific sections and chapters.
IV
-------
PUBLICATIONS IN SERIES
Issuance
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (second edition)
Supplement No. 1
Section 4.3 Storage of Petroleum Products
Section 4.4 Marketing and Transportation of Petroleum Products
Supplement No. 2
Introduction
Section 3.1.1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles
Section 3.1.2 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles
Supplement No.
Introduction
Section 1.4
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section 10.1
Section 10.2
Section 10.3
Release Date
4/73
7/73
9/73
7/74
1.5
1.6
2.5
7.6
7.11
Natural Gas Combustion
Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion
Wood/Bark Waste Combustion in Boilers
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Lead Smelting
Secondary Lead Smelting
Chemical Wood Pulping
Pulpboard
Plywood Veneer and Layout Operations
Supplement No. 4
1/75
Section 3.2.3
Section 3.2.5
Section 3.2.6
Section 3.2.7
Section 3.2.8
Section 3.3.1
Section 3.3.3
Chapter 11
Appendix B
Appendix C
Supplement No.
Section 1.7
Section 3.1.1
Section 3.
Section 3.
Section 3.
Section 3.
Section 5.6
Section 11.2
Appendix C
Appendix D
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Inboard-Powered Vessels
Small, General Utility Engines
Agricultural Equipment
Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment
Snowmobiles
Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants
Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines
Miscellaneous Sources
Emission Factors and New Source Performance Standards
NEDS Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing
Lignite Combustion
Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles
Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles (Automobiles)
Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles
Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks and Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles
Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles
Explosives
Fugitive Dust Sources
NEDS Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing
Projected Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles
12/75
-------
Supplement No. 6
Section 1.3
Section 2.4
Section 3.3-2
Section 6.1
Section 6.12
Section 9.2
Section 10.4
Supplement to No.
Section 1.2
Section 1.3
Section 1.5
Section 1.8
Section 1.9
Section 2.4
Section 4.1
Section 4.3
Section 4.4
Section 5.1
Section 5.3
Section 5.4
Section 5.12
Section 6.4
Section 6.6
Section 8.6
Section 8.15
Section 10.1.3
Appendix B
Issuance
Fuel Oil Combustion
Open Burning
Heavy-Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines
Alfalfa Dehydrating
Sugar Cane Processing
Natural Gas Processing
Woodworking Operations
Anthracite Coal Combustion
Fuel Oil Combustion
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion
Bagasse Combustion in Sugar Mills
Residential Fireplaces
Open Burning
Dry Cleaning
Storage of Petroleum Liquids
Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids
Adipic Acid
Carbon Black
Charcoal
Phthalic Anhydride
Feed and Grain Mills and Elevators
Fish Processing
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Lime Manufacturing
Acid Sulfite Pulping
Emission Factors and New Source Performance Standards
Release Date
4/76
4/77
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES xvii
LIST OF FIGURES xxi
ABSTRACT xxiii
INTRODUCTION 1
1. EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES
.1-1
.1-1
.1-1
.1-1
.1-4
.2-1
.2-1
.2-1
References for Section 1.2 1.2-4
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION 1.3-1
1.3.1 General 1.3-1
1.1 BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION
1.1.1 General
1.1.2 Emissions and Controls
References for Section 1.1 . . .
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION
1.2.1 General
1.2.2 Emissions and Controls
1.3.2 Emissions
1.3.3 Controls
References for Section 1.3
1.4 N ATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
1.4.1 General
1.4.2 Emissions and Controls
References for Section 1.4
1.5 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS COMBUSTION
1.5.1 General
1.5.2 Emissions
References for Section 1.5
1.6 WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS
1.6.1 General . . .
. .6.2 Firing Practices
.3-1
.3-3
.3-4
.4-1
.4-1
.4-1
.4-3
.5-1
.5-1
.5-1
.5-1
.6-1
.6-1
.6-1
1.6.3 Emissions 1.6-1
References for Section 1.6 1.6-2
1.7 LIGNITE COMBUSTION 1.7-1
1.7.1 General 1.7-1
1.7.2 Emissions and Controls 1.7-1
References for Section 1.7 1.7-2
1.8 BAGASSE COMBUSTION IN SUGAR MILLS 1.8-1
1.8.1 General 1.8-1
1.8.2 Emissions and Controls 1.8-1
Reference for Section 1.8 1.8-2
1.9 RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES 1.9-1
1.9.1 General 1.9-1
1.9.2 Emissions 1.9-1
References for Section 1.9 1.9-2
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 2.1-4
Refeiences for Section 2.1 2.1-5
vii
-------
CONTENTS - (Continued)
Page
2.2 AUTOMOBILE BODY INCINERATION 2.2-
2.2.1 Process Description 2.2-
2.2.2 Emissions and Controls 2.2-
Reterences for Section 2.2 2.2-2
2.3 CONICAL BURNERS 2.3-
2.3.1 Process Description 2.3-
2.3.2 Emissions and Controls 2.3-
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 2.4-4
2.5 SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION 2.5-1
2.5.1 Process Description 2.5-1
2.5.2 Emissions and Controls ' . . 2.5-1
References for Section 2.5 2.5-2
3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SOURCES _. . . 3.1.1-1
DEFINITIONS USED IN CHAPTER 3 • . . 3.1.1-1
3.1 HIGHWAY VEHICLES 3.1.1-2
3. .1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles 3.1.1-3
3. .2 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles (Automobiles) 3.1.2-1
3. .3 Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.3-1
3. .4 Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks and Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles .... 3.1.4-1
3. .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-
3.2 OFF-HIGHWAY, MOBILE SOURCES 3.2.1-
3.2.1 Aircraft 3.2.1-
3.2.2 Locomotives 3.2.2-
3.2.3 Inboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.3-
3.2.4 Outboard-Powered Vessels 3.2.4-
3.2.5 Small, General Utility Engines '. 3.2.5-1
3.2.6 Agricultural Equipment 3.2.6-1
3.2.7 Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment 3.2.7-1
3.2.8 Snowmobiles 3.2.8-1
3.3 OFF-HIGHWAY STATIONARY SOURCES 3.3.1-1
3.3.1 Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants 3.3.1-1
3.3.2 Heavy-Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines 3.3.2-1
3.3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines 3.3.3-1
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 4.1-3
References for Section 4.1 4.1-4
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 STORAGE OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS 4.3-1
4.3.1 Process Description 4.3-1
4.3.1.1 Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-1
4.3.1.2 Floating Roof Tanks 4.3-1
4.3.1.3 Variable Vapor Space Tanks 4.3-4
4.3.1.4 Pressure Tanks 4.3-5
VI11
-------
CONTENTS - (Continued)
Page
4.3.2 Emissions and Controls 4.3-5
4.3.2.1 Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-6
4.3.2.2 Floating Roof Tanks 4.3-12
4.3.2.3 Variable Vapor Space Systems 4.3-13
4.3.2.4 Pressure Tanks 4.3-14
4.3.3 Emission Factors 4.3-14
4.3.3.1 Sample Calculation 4.3-16
References for Section 4.3 ' 4.3-17
4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS 4.4-1
4.4.1 Process Description 4.4-1
4.4.2 Emissions and Controls 4.4-1
4.4.2.1 Large Storage Tanks 4.4-1
4.4.2.2 Marine Vessels, Tank Cars, and Tanktrucks 4.4-1
4.4.2.3 Sample Calculation 4.4-8
4.4.2.4 Service Stations 4.4-10
4.4.2.5 Motor Vehicle Refueling 4.4-11
References for Section 4.4 4.4-12
5. CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY , 5.1-1
5.1 ADIPICACID 5.1-1
5.1.1 General 5.1-1
5.1.2 Emissions and Controls 5.1-2
References for Section 5.1 5.1-4
5.2 AMMONIA 5.2-1.
5.2.1 Process Description 5.2-1
5.2.2 Emissions and Controls 5.2-1
References for Section 5.2 5.2-2
5.3 CARBON BLACK 5.3-1
5.3.1 Process Descnption . . . .... 5.3-1
5.3.1.1 Furnace Process 5.3-1
5.3.1.2 Thermal Process 5.3-1
5.3.1.3 Channel Process 5.3-3
5.3.2 Emissions and Controls 5.3-3
References for Section 5.3 5.3-5
j.4 CHARCOAL 5.4-1
5,4.1 Process Description 5.4-1
5.4.2 Emissions and Controls 5.4-1
References for Section 5.4 5.4-
5.5 CHLOR-ALKALI 5.5-
5.5.1 Process Description 5.5-
5.5.2 Emissions and Controls i 5.5-
References for Section 5.5 5.5-
5.6 EXPLOSIVES 5.6-
5.6.1 General 5.6-i
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
ix
-------
CONTENTS - (Continued)
Page
5.8.2 Emissions and Controls 5.8-1
References for Section 5.8 5.8-2
5.9 NITRIC ACID 5.9-1
5.9.1 Process Description 5.9-1
5.9.1.1 Weak Acid Production 5.9-1
5.9.1.2 High-Strength Acid Production 5.9-1
5.9.2 Emissions and Controls 5.9.3
References for Section 5.9 5.9-4
5.10 PAINT AND VARNISH 5.10-1
5.10.1 Paint Manufacturing 5.10-1
5.10.2 Varnish Manufacturing 5.10-1
References for Section 5.10 5.10-2
5.11 PHOSPHORIC ACID 5.10-2
5.11.1 Wet Process 5.11-1
5.11.2 Thermal Process 5.11-1
References foi Section 5.11 5.11-2
5.12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE 5.12-1
5.12.1 General 5.12-1
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls 5.12-2
Reference for Section 5.12 5.12-5
5.13 PLASTICS 5.13-1
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
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 5.16-1
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
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
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 5.2\-\
References for Section 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-J-4
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 and Controls 6.4-1
6.4.2.1 Grain Elevators 6.4-1
6.4.2.2 Grain Processing Operations 6.4-3
References for Section 6.4 . 6.4-6
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 6.6-3
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
m 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
xi
-------
CONTENTS - (Continued)
Page
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 6.12-1
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
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 7.6-3
References for Section 7.6 7.6-5
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-
7.8.2 Emissions 7.8-
References for Section 7.8 7.8-2
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS 7.9-
7.9.1 Process Description 7.9-
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls 7.9-
References for Section 7.9 7.9-2
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY 7.10-
7.10.1 Process Description -. 7.10-
7.10.2 Emissions 7.10-
References for Section 7.10 7.10-2
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING 7.11-
7.11.1 Process Description 7.11.
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls 7.11-
References for Section 7.11 7.11-
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING 7.12-
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
8. 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
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
xiii
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
Page
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 8.15-3
References for Section 8.15 8 15-5
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
8.20 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 9.1-1
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING 9.1-1
9.1.1 General 9.1-1
xiv
-------
CONTENTS-(Continued)
9.1.2 Crude Oil Distillation 9.1-1
9.1.2.1 Emissions 9.1-1
9.1.3 Converting 9.1-6
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
.3.1 Catalytic Cracking 9.1-6
.3.2 Hydrocracking 9.1-6
.3.3 Catalytic Reforming 9.1-6
.3.4 Polymerization, Alkylation, and Isomerization 9.1-6
.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
9.2 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING 9.2-1
9.2.1 General 9.2-1
9.2-2 Process Description 9.2-1
9.2-3 Emissions 9.2-1
References for Section 9.2 9.2-5
10. WOOD PROCESSING 10.1-1
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING 10.1-1
10.1.1 General 10.1-1
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping 10.1-1
10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping 10.1-4
10.1.3.1 Process Description 10.1-4
10.1.3.2 Emissions and Controls 10.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping 10.
10.1.4.1 Process Description 10.
10.1.4.2 Emissions and Controls 10.
-7
.?
-7
-9
-9
References for Section 10.1 10.
10.2 PULPBOARD 10.2-1
10.2.1 General 10.2-1
10.2.2 PTOCJSS Description 10.2-1
10.2.3 Emissions 10.2-1
References for Section 10.2 10.2-1
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS 10.3-1
10.3.1 Process Descriptions 10.3-1
10.3.2 Emissions 10.3-2
References for Section 10.3 10.3-2
10.4 WOODWORKING OPERATIONS .- 10.4-1
10.4.1 General 10.4-1
10.4.2 Emissions 10.4-1
References for Section 10.4 10.4-2
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES i 1.1-1
11.1 FOREST WILDFIRES 11.1-1
11.1.1 General 11.1-1
11.1.2 Emissions and Controls 11.1-2
xv
-------
CONTENTS - (Continued)
Page
11.2 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 11.2-1
11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel) -. . . . 11.2-1
11.2.2 Agricultural Tilling 11.2.2-1
11.2.3 Aggregate Storage Piles 11.2.3-1
11.2.4 Heavy Construction Operations 11.2.4-1
APPENDIX A. MISCELLANEOUS DATA A-l
APPENDIX B. EMISSION FACTORS AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES B-l
APPENDIX C. NEDS SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES AND EMISSION FACTOR LISTING C-l
APPENDIX D. PROJECTED EMISSION FACTORS FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES D-l
XVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
.1-1 Range of Collection Efficiencies for Common Types of Fly-Ash Control Equipment 1-1-2
.1-2 Emission Factors for Bituminous Coal Combustion without Control Equipment 1.1-3
.2-1 Emission Factors for Anthracite Combustion, Before Controls 1-2-3
.3-1 Emission Factors for Fuel Oil Combustion 1.3-2
.4-1 Emission Factors for Natural-Gas Combustion 1-4-2
.5-1 Emission Factors for LPG Combustion 1-5-2
.6-1 Emission Factors for Wood and Bark Combustion in Boilers with No Reinjection 1-6-2
* .7-1 Emissions from Lignite Combustion without Control Equipment 1.7-2
1.8-1 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Bagasse Boilers 1.8-2
1.9-1 Emission Factors for Residential Fireplaces 1.9-2
•^ 2.1-1 Emission Factors for Refuse Incinerators without Controls 2.1-3
2.1-2 Collection Efficiencies for Various Types of Municipal Incineration Particulate Control Systems . . 2.1-4
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 of Nonagricultural Material 2.4-1
2.4-2 Emission Factors and Fuel Loading Factors for Open Burning of Agricultural Materials 2.4-2
2.4-3 Emission Factors for Leaf Burning 2.4-4
2.5-1 Emission Factors for Sewage Sludge Incinerators 2.5-2
3.1.1-1 Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles, Calendar Year 1972 3.1.1-4
3.1.2-1 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty
Vehicles-Excluding California-for Calendar Year 1971 3.1.2-2
3.1.2-2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty
Vehicles-State of California Only-for Calendar Year 1971 3.1.2-3
3.1.2-3 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty
Vehicles-Excluding California-for Calendar Year 1972 3.1.2-3
3.1.24 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty
Vehicles-State of California Only-for Calendar Year 1972 3.1.24
3.1.2-5 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Light-Duty Vehicle Annual Travel by Model Year 3.1.24
3.1.2-6 Coefficients for Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-5
3.1.2-7 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-6
3.1.2-8 Light-Duty Vehicle Temperature Correction Factors and Hot/Cold Vehicle Operation Correction
Factors for FTP Emission Factors 3.1.2-6
3.1.2-9 Light-Duty Vehicle Modal Emission Model Correction Factors for Temperature and Cold/Hot
Start Weighting 3.1.2-10
3.1.2-10 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles
in Warmed-up Idle Mode 3.1.2-11
3.1.2-11 Crankcase Hydrocarbon Emissions by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-12
3.1.2-12 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-13
3.1.2-13 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicles 3.1.2-14
* 3.1.3-1 Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles 3.1.3-1
3.1.4-1 Exhaust Emission Factors for Light -Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks for Calendar Year 1972 .... 3.1.4-2
3.1.4-2 Coefficients for Speed Adjustment Curves for Light-Duty Trucks 3.1.4-2
** 3.1.4-3 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Light-Duty Trucks 3J.4-3
3.1.44 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Annual Light-Duty Truck Travel by Model Year 3.1.4-3
3.1.4-5 Light-Duty Truck Temperature Correction Factors and Hot/Cold Vehicle Operation Correction
Factors for FTP Emission Factors 3.1.44
3.1.4-6 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered
Trucks 3.1.4-6
XVll
-------
LIST OF TABLES-(Continued)
Table Page
3.1.4-7 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emission Factors Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks 3.1.4-6
3.1.4-8 Exhaust Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Trucks for Calendar Year 1972 ... 3.1.4-7
3.1.4-9 Sample Calculation of Fraction of Gasoline-Powered, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Annual Travel by Model
Year 3.1.4-8
3.1.4-10 Speed Correction Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles 3.1.4-9
3.1.4-11 Low Average Speed Correction Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles 3.1.4-10
3.1.4-12 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered
Vehicles _.__„ 3.1.4-10
3.1.4-13 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Gasoline-Powered Vehicles 3.1.4-11
3.1.5-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles (All Pre-1973 Model Years) for
Calendar Year 1972 3.1.5-2
3.1.5-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles under Different Operating Conditions . 3.1.5-3
3.1.6-1 Emission Factors by Model Year for Light-Duty Vehicles Using LPG, LPG/Dual Fuel, or
CNG/Dual Fuel -. . . 3.1.6-2
3.1.6-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Using LPG or CNG/Duel Fuel 3.1.6-2
3.1.7-1 Emission Factors for Motorcycles 3.1.7-2
3.2.1-1 Aircraft Classification 3.2.1-2
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
3.2.1-4 Modal 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 Average Emission Factors for Commercial Motorships by Waterway Classification 3.2.3-2
3.2.3-2 Emission Factors for Commercial Steamships—All Geographic Areas 3.2.3-3
3.2.3-3 Diesel Vessel Emission Factors by Operating Mode 3.2.3-4
3.2.34 Average Emission Factors for Diesel-Powered Electrical Generators in Vessels 3.2.3-5
3.2.3-5 Average Emission Factors for Inboard Pleasure Craft 3.2.3-6
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 3.2.5-2
3.2.6-1 Service Characteristics of Farm Equipment (Other than Tractors) 3.2.6-1
3.2.6-2 Emission Factors for Wheeled Farm Tractors and Non-Tractor Agricultural Equipment 3.2.6-2
3.2.7-1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment 3.2.7-2
3.2.7-2 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Construction Equipment 3.2.74
3.2.8-1 Emission Factors for Snowmobiles 3.2.8-2
3.3.1-1 Typical Operating Cycle for Electric Utility Turbines 3.3.1-2
3.3.1-2 Composite Emission Factors for 1971 Population of Electric Utility Turbines 3.3.1-2
3.3.2-1 Emission Factors for Heavy -Duty, Natural-Gas-Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines 3.3.2-2
3.3.3-1 Emission Factors for Gasoline-and Diesel-Powered Industrial Equipment 3.3.3-1
4.1-1 Solvent Loss Emission Factors for Dry Cleaning Operations 4.1-4
4.2-1 Gaseous Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Surface-Coating Applications 4.2-1
4.3-1 Physical Properties of Hydrocarbons 4.3-7
4.3-2 Paint Factors for Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-10
4.3-3 Tank, Type, Seal, and Paint Factors for Floating Roof Tanks 4.3-13 »
4.3-4 Evaporative Emission Factors for Storage Tanks 4,3-15
4.4-1 S Factors for Calculating Petroleum Loading Losses 4,4-6
4.4-2 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Gasoline Loading Operations 4.4-7
4.4-3 Hydrocarbon Emission Factors for Petroleum Liquid Transportation and Marketing Sources .... 4.4-8
4.4-4 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Service Station Operations 4.4-11
5.1-1 Emission Factors for Adipic Acid Manufacture 5.1-4
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES-(Continued)
Table Page
5.2- Emission Factors for Ammonia Manufacturing without Control Equipment 5.2-2
5.3- Emission Factors for Carbon Black Manufacturing 5.3-4
5.4- Emission Factors for Charcoal Manufacturing 5.4-1
5.5- Emission Factors for Chlor-Alkali Plants 5.5-2
5.6- Emission Factors for Explosives Manufacturing '. 5.64
5.7- 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 5.12-5
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 Sulfunc 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 S.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 Dehydrating Plants 6.1-2
6.2-1 Emission Factors for Coffee Roasting Processes without Controls 6.2-1
6.3-1 Emission Factors for Cotton Ginning Operations without Controls 6.3-1
6.4-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Grain Elevators 6.4-2
6.4-2 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Elevators Based on Amount of Grain Received
or Shipped 6.4-3
6.4-3 Particulate Emission Factors for Grain Processing Operations 6.4-4
6.5-1 Emission Factors for Fermentation Processes 6.5-2
6.6-1 Emission Factors for Fish Processing Plants 6.6-3
6.7-1 Emission Factors for Meat Smoking 6.7-1
6.8-1 Emission Factors for Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacturing without Controls 6.8-2
6.9-1 Emission Factors for Orchard Heaters 6.9-4
6.10-1 Emission Factors for Production of Phosphate Fertilizers 6.10-1
6.11-1 Emission Factors for Starch Manufacturing 6.11-1
7.1-1 Raw Material and Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production 7.1-2
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 7.1-5
7.2-1 Emission Factors for Metallurgical Coke Manufacture without Controls 7.2-2
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
7.6-1 Emission Factors for Primary Lead Smelting Processes without Controls 7.64
7.6-2 Efficiencies of Representative Control Devices Used with Primary Lead Smelting Operations . . 7.6-5
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-]
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 Smelting Furnaces without Controls 7.11-2
XIX
-------
LIST OF TABLES-(Continued)
Table Page
7.11-2 Efficiencies of Particulate Control Equipment Associated with Secondary Lead Smelting
Furnaces 7.11 -3
7.11-3 Representative Particle Size Distribution from Combined Blast and Reverberatory Furnace Gas
Stream 7.11-3
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 8.2-1
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 8.6-4
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-
8.11-
8.12-
8.13-
8.14-
8.15-
8.16-
8.17-
8.18-
Particulate Emission Factors for Concrete Batching 8.10-1
Emission Factors for Fiber Glass Manufacturing without Controls 8.11-3
Emission Factors for Frit Smelters without Controls 8.12-2
Emission Factors for Glass Melting 8.13-1
Particulate Emission Factors for Gypsum Processing 8.14-i
Emission Factors for Lime Manufacturing 8.15-4
Emission Factors for Mineral Wool Processing without Controls 8.16-2
Particulate Emission Factors for Perlite Expansion Furnaces without Controls 8.17-1
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
9.2-1 Emission Factors for Gas Sweetening Plants 9.2-3
9.2-2 Average Hydrogen Sulfide Concentrations in Natural Gas by Air Quality Control Region 9.2-4
10.1.2-1 Emission Factors for Sulfate Pulping 10.1-5
10.1.3-1 Emission Factors for Sulfite Pulping 10.1-8
10.2-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Pulpboard Manufacturing 10.2-1
10.3-1 Emission Factors for Plywood Manufacturing 10.3-1
10.4-1 Particulate Emission Factors for Large Diameter Cyclones in Woodworking Industry 10.4-2
11.1-1 Summary of Estimated Fuel Consumed by Forest Fires 11.1-2
11.1-2 Summary of Emissions and Emission Factors for Forest Wildfires 11.1-4
11.2.1-1 Control Methods for Unpaved Roads 11.2-4
11.2.3-1 Aggregate Storage Emissions 11.2.3-1
A-l Nationwide Emissions for 1971 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
A-4 Weights of Selected Substances A-4
A-5 General Conversion Factors A-5
B-l Promulgated New Source Performance Standards B-2
B-2 Promulgated New Source Performance Standards B-4
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.4-1 Lead Reduction Coefficient as Function of Boiler Load 1.4-2
3.3.2-1 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 3.3.2-2
4.1-1 Percloroethylene Dry Cleaning Plant Flow Diagram 4.1-2
4.3-1 Flowsheet of Petroleum Production, Refining, and Distribution Systems 4.3-2
4.3-2 Fixed Roof Storage Tank „ 4.3-3
4.3-3 Pan Type Floating Roof Storage Tank 4.3-3
4.3-4 Double Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank 4.3-3
4.3-5 Covered Floating Roof Storage Tank 4.3-4
4.3-6 Lifter Roof Storage Tank 4.3-4
4.3-7 Flexible Diaphragm Tank 4.3-5
4.3-8 Vapor Pressures of Gasolines and Finished Petroleum Products 4.3-8
4.3-9 Vapor Pressures of Crude Oil 4.3-9
4.3-10 Adjustment Factor (C) for Small Diameter Tanks 4.3-10
4.3-11 Turnover Factor (KN) for Fixed Roof Tanks 4.3-11
4.4-1 Flowsheet of Petroleum Production, Refining, and Distribution Systems 4.4-2
4.4-2 Splash Loading Method 4.4-3
4.4-3 Submerged Fill Pipe 4.4-3
4.4-4 Bottom Loading , 4.4-4
4.4-5 Tanktruck Unloading Into an Underground Service Station Storage Tank 4.4-5
4.4-6 Tanktruck Loading with Vapor Recovery 4.4-9
4.4-7 Automobile Refueling Vapor Recovery System 4.4-12
5.1-1 General Flow Diagram of Adipic Acid Manufacturing Process 5.1-3
5.3-1 Simplified Flow Diagram of Carbon Black Production by the Oil-Fired Furnace Process 5.3-2
5.6-1 Flow Diagram of Typical Batch Process TNT Plant 5.6-2
5.9-1 Flow Diagram of Typical Nitric Acid Plant Using Pressure Process 5.9-2
5.12-1 Flow Diagram for Phthalic Anhydride using O-Xylene as Basic Feedstock 5.12-3
5.J2-2 Flow Diagram for PJithalic Anhydride using Naphthalene as Basic Feedstock 5.12-4
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 SO2 Emissions at
Various Inlet SO2 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
6.1-1 Generalized Flow Diagram for Alfalfa Dehydration Plant 6.1-3
6.6-1 A Generalized Fish Processing Flow Diagram 6.6-2
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
7.6-1 Typical Flowsheet of Pyrometallurgical Lead Smelting 7.6-2
7.11-1 Secondary Lead Smelter Processes 7.11-2
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 8.6-2
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
8.15-1 Generalized Lime Manufacturing Plant 8.15-2
9.1-1 Basic Flow Diagram of Petroleum Refinery 9.1-2
9.2-1 Generalized Flow Diagram of the Natural Gas Industry 9.2-2
xx i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES-(Continued)
Figure Page
9.2-2 Flow Diagram of the Amine Process Gas Sweetening 9.2-3
10.1.2-1 Typical Kraft Sulfate Pulping and Recovery Process 10.1-2
10.1.3-1 Simplified Process Flow Diagram of Magnesium-Base Process Employing Chemical and Heat
Recovery • 10.1-6
11.1-1 Forest Areas and U.S. Forest Service Regions 11.1-3
11.2-1 Mean Number of Days with 0.01 inch or more of Annual Precipitation in United States 11.2-3
11.2-2 Map of Thornthwaites Precipitation-Evaporation Index Values for State Climatic Divisions 11.2.2-3
B-2 Promulgated New Source Performance Standards B-l
XXII
-------
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, S02, 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.
xxm
-------
-------
1.2 ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION revised by Tom Lahre
1.2.1 General1^2
Anthracite is a high-rank coal having a high fixed-carbon content and low volatile-matter content
relative to bituminous coal and lignite. It is also characterized by higher ignition and ash fusion tem-
peratures. Because of its low volatile-matter content and non-clinkering characteristics, anthracite is
most commonly fired in medium-sized traveling-grate stokers and small hand-fired units. Some an-
thracite (occasionally along with petroleum coke) is fired in pulverized-coal-fired boilers. None is fired
in spreader stokers. Because of its low sulfur content (typically less than 0.8 percent, by weight) and
minimal smoking tendencies, anthracite is considered a desirable fuel where readily available.
In the United States, all anthracite is mined in Northeastern Pennsylvania and consumed primarily
in Pennsylvania and several surrounding states. The largest use of anthracite is for space heating;" lesser
amounts are employed for steam-electric production, coke manufacturing, sintering and pelletizing,
and other industrial uses. Anthracite combustion currently represents only a small fraction of the to-
tal quantity of coal combusted in the United States.
1.2.2 Emissions and Controls2 9
Particulate emissions from anthracite combustion are a function of furnace-firing configuration,
firing practices (boiler load, quantity and location of underfire air, sootblowing, flyash reinjection,
etc.), as well as of the ash content of the coal, Pulverized-coal-fired boilers emit the highest quantity of
paniculate per unit of fuel because they fire the anthracite in suspension, which results in a high per-
centage of ash carryover into the exhaust gases. Traveling-grate stokers and hand-fired units, on the
other hand, produce much less particulate per unit of fuel fired. This is because combustion takes
place in a quiescent fuel bed and does not result in significant ash carryover into the exhaust gases. In
general, particulate emissions from traveling-grate stokers will increase during sootblowing, fly-
ash reinjection, and with higher underfeed air rates through the fuel bed. Higher underfeed air rates,
in turn, result from highe/ grate loadings and the use of forced-draft fans rather than natural draft to
supply combustion air. Smoking is rarely a problem because of anthracite's low volatile-matter
content.
Limited data are available on the emission of gaseous pollutants from anthracite combustion. It is
assumed, based on data derived from bituminous coal combustion, that a large fraction of the fuel sul-
fur is emitted as sulfur oxides. Moreover, because combustion equipment, excess air rates, combustion
temperatures, etc., are similar between anthracite and bituminous coal combustion, nitrogen oxide
and carbon monoxide emissions are assumed to be similar, as well. On the other hand, hydrocarbon
emissions are expected to be considerably lower because the volatile-matter content of anthracite is
significantly less than that of bituminous coal.
Air pollution control of emissions from anthracite combustion has mainly been limited to particu-
late matter. The most efficient particulate controls-fabric filters, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipi-
tators-have been installed on large pulverized-anthracite-fired boilers. Fabric filters and venturi
scrubbers can effect collection efficiencies exceeding 99 percent. Electrostatic precipitators, on the
other hand, are typically only 90 to 97 percent efficient due to the characteristic high resistivity of the
low-sulfur anthracite flyash. Higher efficiencies can reportedly be achieved using larger precipitators
and flue gas conditioning. Mechanical collectors are frequently employed upstream from these devices
for large-particle removal.
Traveling-grate stokers are often uncontrolled. Indeed, particulate control has often been con-
sidered unnecessary because of anthracite's low smoking tendencies and due to the fact that a signifi-
cant fraction of the large-sized flyash from stokers is readily collected in flyash hoppers as well as in the
breeching and base of the stack. Cyclone collectors have been employed on traveling-grate stokers;
4/77 External Combustion Sources 1.2-1
-------
limited information suggests these devices may be up to 75 percent efficient on paniculate. Flyash rein-
jection, frequently employed in traveling-grate stokers to enhance fuel-use efficiency, tends to in-
crease particulate emissions per unit of fuel combusted.
Emission factors for anthracite combustion are presented in Table 1.2-1.
1.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
oo
O
cc
H
o
u
lit
UJ
cc
o
LL
UJ
CO
z
JOMBUSTIC
MG: B
^ ^
UJ H
l-<
ott
< cc
ceo
T H
HO
z<
<"-
CC2
o2
U-oo
._ £A
C/J «
CC2
O uJ
1-
O
<
u.
2
0
CO
00
2
UJ
CsJ
T—
0)
^
^
CD
C
O
't/>
™
E
UJ
Si,
o> cu
O -o
•^ 'x
-y O
^ w
•D
r~ Q)
0-8
-Q 'x
» i
" §
E
:arbonsc
v^
o
T3
>
I
J2
t/i
£1
^-
2
0)
_*:
c
o
J^
J3
r-
5
O)
.^
0
!!Q
S
03
X_
^
"o
&
>.
05 ^ m
*~
CO O CO
uo in in
d d "*
<- «- o
(-ys
UJ
o> o) in
0) <1J csj
^. •?. ;j
o> 01 in
OJ Cl) •
-7 ~7 CN
.z z
CO 00 00
en en CD
CO 00 CO
00 00 00
CO CO 00
*<- Ol
< < -C
in in in
CO O
>*- D)
< < -C
r-- <- o
S "
8 2
T3 " "D
CD 0) «
N C .±
1 1 1
Q. H X
~$
All emission factors are per unit of anthracite fii
(ides. Limited data in
wever, approximately
0°
:ed as sulfur
ur dioxide;
•F =
E •»
03 Qi
«/> Js
._ (D
w «
£§
3 '!>
•5 E
3 03
^~ O)
03 v>
£ £
:ombustion, most of 1
Generally most of tl
u
•5 "
S.2
0 0
3.0
O "O
.5 £
E (0
JD w
2£
"8-
E co
is
CO •*-•
03 0)
CD -Q
§ =
•Ss
cHydrocarbon emissions from anthracite combus
volatile-matter content. No emissions data are a
similarity between
:e 10. The factor
ers of magnitude if
2 E"P
•£ 01 «
+-i 2. O
0^2
!?!
CO — "
.Q co >
£ co1-0
SB' S
•015 g
c c c
CO O 0
CN ~ .E
• "O co
"- co c
.£ > „
.0.0 £
i™ T3 O
>- cu •;;
E a- 2
n = E
and-fired units are fn
ilers factor is substan
Carbon monoxide ei
•c o •
•o -o00
CT> R
£ c
£~ CO
2 — 01
OS'S
.0 orr
"D TJ c
5 co •-
~~ C
i ».°
"-5 S
S^E-d
i_ ^ i- 01
^ CO O c
The carbon monoxide factors for pulverized-ant
anthracite and bituminous coal combustion. Th
for traveling-grate stokers is based on limited inf
a boiler is not properly operated or well maintai
nous coal combus-
1
3
S
o
%
o
.C
o
^_
CO
I
«
CO
n
o
T!
CO
l-fired units are assurr
on Reference 8.
" -o
m »
5 3
-D-0
C U
ro co
-£ a
Is
•D ""
CO CO
^ CO
i 91
.t: 01
0 C
^he nitrogen oxide factors for pulverized-anthrai
tion given in Table 1.1-2. The factors for travelil
Mote that all pulverize)
e. The letter A on uni
3
Reference 5
on tempera!
/alue given.
.E 3 »
co-v-E
2 _r
co-S >
•D CO J3
"a «c "D
CO Ol CO
|tl
c S 2
o.S E
-Q w 01
C'C J3
us coal combustion a
anthracite's characte
sh in the coal should
O O co
C ~M-
'c co O
E 3 a,
= •0 01
•S » 3
•° "D ^
-o|§
™Eg
01 E a
*- o „
u s£
2 o 01
£ ^3 'cu
^^5
••05
These factors are based on the similarity betweer
anthracite-fired boilers operate in the dry tap or
other than hand-fired equipment indicates that t
stack breeching.
/ton (2.5A kg/MT)
?5
chambers a
; high as 5 A
3 ro
0 -D
=^ C
CO CO
•:p
3$
u ra
0-*
>-^-
rain
E£
Dr limited fallout thai
kg/MT) to 3A Ib/ton
•4- j.
-.'S
§8
82
CO C
12 °
°^
O ~~
CO ^
*" in
Sd
s°
jE|
9Based on information in References 2,4,8, and 9
Emission factors for individual boilers may vary
during soot blowing.
Based on limited information in Reference 2.
4/77
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3
-------
References for Section 1.2
1. Coal—Pennsylvania Anthracite in 1974. Mineral Industry Surveys. U.S. Department of the In-
terior. Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C.
2. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Resources Research, Inc., TRW Systems Group. Reston, Virginia.
Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. CPA 22-69-119. April 1970. p. 2-2
through 2-19.
3. Steam—Its Generation and Use. 37th Edition. The Babcock & Wilcox Company. New York, N.Y.
1963. p. 16-1 through .6-10.
4. Information Supplied By J.K. Hambright. Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control. Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Resources. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. July 9, 1976.
5. Cass, R.W. and R.M. Broadway. Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler Baghouse: Sunbury
Steam-Electric Station—GCA Corporation. Bedford, Massachusetts. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-1438. Publication No.
EPA-600/2-76-077a. March 1976.
6. Janaso, Richard P. Baghouse Dust Collectors On A Low Sulfur Coal Fired Utility Boiler. Present-
ed at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. Denver, Colorado. June
9-13, 1974.
7. Wagner, N.H. and D.C. Housenick. Sunbury Steam Electric Station-Unit Numbers 1 & 2 - Design
and Operation of a Baghouse Dust Collector For a Pulverized Coal Fired Utility Boiler. Presented
at the Pennsylvania Electric Association, Engineering Section, Power Generation Committee,
Spring Meeting. May 17-18, 1973.
8. Source Test Data on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate Stokers. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1975.
9. Source and Emissions Information on Anthracite Fired Boilers. Supplied by Douglas Lesher.
Bureau of Air Quality Noise Control, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. September 27, 1974.
10. Bartok, William et al. Systematic Field Study of NOX Emission Control Methods For Utility
Boilers. ESSO Research and Engineering Company, Linden, N.J. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. CPA-70-90. Publication No.
APTD-1163. December 31, 1971.
1.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
1.3 FUEL OIL COMBUSTION by Tom Lahre
1.3.1 General1'2
Fuel oils are broadly classified into two major types: distillate and residual. Distillate oils (fuel oil grades 1 and
1) are used mainly in domestic and small commercial applications in which easy fuel burning is required.
Distillates are more volatile and less viscous than residual oils as well as cleaner, having negligible ash and nitrogen
contents and usually containing less than 0.3 percent sulfur (by weight). Residual oils (fuel oil grades 4, 5, and 6),
on the other hand, are used mainly in utility, industrial, and large commercial applications in which sophisticated
combustion equipment can be utilized. (Grade 4 oil is sometimes classified as a distillate; grade 6 is sometimes
referred to as Bunker C.) Being more viscous and less volatile than distillate oils, the heavier residual oils (grades 5
and 6) must be heated for ease of handling and to facilitate proper atomization. Because residual oils are
produced from the residue left over after the lighter fractions (gasoline, kerosene, and distillate oils) have been
removed from the crude oil, they contain significant quantities of ash, nitrogen, and sulfur. Properties of typical
fuel oils are given in Appendix A.
1.3.2 Emissions
Emissions from fuel oil combustion are dependent on the grade and composition of the fuel, the type and size
of the boiler, the firing and loading practices used, and the level of equipment maintenance. Table 1.3-1 presents
emission factors for fuel oil combustion in units without control equipment. Note that the emission factors for
industrial and commercial boilers are divided into distillate and residual oil categories because the combustion of
each produces significantly different emissions of particulates, SOX, and NOX. The reader is urged to consult the
references cited for a detailed discussion of all of the parameters that affect emissions from oil combustion.
1.3.2.1 Particulates ' ' - Particulate emissions are most dependent on the grade of fuel fired. The lighter
distillate oils result in significantly lower particulate formation than do the heavier residual oils. Among residual
oils, grades 4 and 5 usually result in less particulate than does the heavier grade 6.
In boilers firing grade 6, particulate emissions can be described, on the average, as a function of the sulfur
content of the oil. As shown in Table 1.3-1 (footnote c), particulate emissions can be reduced considerably when
low-sulfur grade 6 oil is fired. This is because low-sulfur grade 6, whether refined from naturally occurring
low-sulfur crude oil or desulfurized by one of several processes currently in practice, exhibits substantially lower
viscosity and reduced asphaltene, ash, and sulfur content - all of which result in better atomization and cleaner
combustion.
Boiler load can also affect particulate emissions in units filing grade 6 oil. At low load conditions, particulate
emissions may be lowered by 30 to 40 percent from utility boilers and by as much as 60 percent from small
industrial and commercial units. No significant particulate reductions have been noted at low loads from boilers
firing any of the lighter grades, however. At too low a load condition, proper combustion conditions cannot be
maintained and particulate emissions may increase drastically. It should be noted, in this regard, that any
condition that prevents proper boiler operation can result in excessive particulate formation.
1.3.2.2 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) " - Total sulfur oxide emissions are almost entirely dependent on the sulfur
content of the fuel and are not affected by boiler size, burner design, or grade of fuel being fired. On the average,
more than 95 percent of the fuel sulfur is converted to S02, with about 1 to 3 percent further oxidized to SO^.
Sulfur trioxide readily reacts with water vapor (both in the air and in the flue gases) to form a sulfuric acid mist.
4/77 External Combustion Sources 1.3-1
-------
z
o
1-
co
CO
5
O
u
_i
0
-" <
114 ^
Is
DC —
o I'-
LL <
to*
9E «
PP
i
^^
<
o 'o
'*-* CD
(/> Zi
0) CO
E =
o +-•
0 <5
"co
'o
01
E
o
CJ
•a
CO
"co
4_l
(/»
•3
v
c
»
O
CD
4-J
CO
—
ts
a
'o
"co
3
^
t/i
CU
DC
4-J
C ™
_2 o
Q. ~ZZ
"• CD
1 s
>
O cu
Q. DC
cp
i^
^0
O
o>
^
CO
01
TJ
O
]5
a>
4->
CO
o
en
.*
"co
C3)
CO
o
£}
1
CO
o
O)
Jl
"co
O)
CO
o
^
cu
4^
CO
o
01
J^
"co
en
CO
o
- —
.Q
•*-*
c
CO
4-*
D
"o
a.
CO CO
«— r^ in co CM
CO <— CM CO «- CO
CJ CD CD CO CM
lf. CO CO
^ PM CM in «- oo
CM "3- «-
CO CO
in i^- in co CM
CM <- CM CO T- OQ
o o o ci c\i
CO CO
CNJ CM CM vn T- CM
^vt ^M
CO CO
en in co ^ ,
o «— CM co *~; in
o ci o i<
co co — .
r- CM m «— o
o in co
*~~
JZ
CO CO S
co m co CM •
U T- CM CO r-
__ ~n -— -— • (/> "^,
^ rti V ^ OJ CN
•§ -§ § s x "1 o
*« S g o 2 ° g ^
4-i O C "^
co~'Ctracacco
— -a *- c o _- cu _-
oi:iio22n1IS
•£^^-S-oo2S
co3-5,co>-;^^
a. co co O I Z
cu
c
Q) C
Ol ~
S -o
» c
C TO
2 c ai
III
a> = c
(U ^
c S co
0 S c
J3 *- c
*— o *»~
S c o
° S 2
-S ° ">
>"§-
i 2 o
CO —
6 fc 2
T- Q. CD
•o o S
C >* co
ro r >
m" S.-0
*%%
01 ir CO
= Q. CD
0 t 0
5 " ~
" * %
-'§ E
0) w C
U CD O
§ 1 i
3? Q) E
= 15
c ~ m
O 01 o
^"t
£ > F
CD — -t
^CQ IE 5
QJ
CO
3
a
c
x
a>
i
O)
!c
S
0
en
| |
o a
i 1
1 5
ro. /
>
£
i1
2 r
j
"i '
i? '•
CO
o g-
a> o
cl-
3_
c
M s
*- o
fl«
QQ co
to
'
ra
S ° *- 5 c
||S|f ||.
i- ro "* x c P
oc
oo
D "
JD O) »
E^ c
8 « Is
_ •£ 01
o S >•
£lSif^rg0-E8§§S;« gfEp
ai« _ ^ ra ™ *: oxO^-izc^ X'O^
c^zro c _oi-r:C uaj^co-niJcn ccun
^i1^ I S'S.iB i^lsggl |ss-
21
|| Ills? Ill
i!
S ?i
1 U
Mi
o £
C CD
_A i Q;
a
• 1
5 _
? a
r*
_
-
OJ-D
-rjCo>ra
J|||,
4/77
External Combustion Sources
1.3-2
-------
1.5 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS COMBUSTION 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 propvlene 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 kcal/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.
4/77 External Combustion Sources 1.5-1
-------
0
H
CO
CO
io
a / •
CL w
-I Z
cc P
0 <
u. a;
55 oc
S o
2 ^"*
(j ji
LL ""
CO a
II
111
r-
in
r-'
_a>
CD
1-
cu
CO
c
^
H-
!s
CD
E
E
o
o
-a
c
CO
0
tt
CD
E
Q
w
n
:urnac(
c
a
o
c
Q
7
+
•£
c
CD
C
CO
a.
o
Q-
a>
c.
CO
en
CD
C
CO
Q.
O
a.
CD
C
a
a.
(fl
0)
4-1
co
O
J^
0)
"co
O)
0
J
(/)
CD
CO
O
O)
•*
ca
01
CO
O
i
g
CO
o
3^
O)
CO
O)
O
5
w
CD
:=
CO
O
^
O)
sx
"co
O)
CO
o
£
c
CO
4-*
"5
O-
•o
CO
C/5 •* *-'
CN i- CO 00 n
CN O CN O °
O C) CD O CO
O
-n
to «-
ro i-
co o ro r>> Q
*-' CD ^ 0 ~
• — •
^-^
in
to to «-'
CO ^— "'J' C3^ (-1
CN O CN O ii
O C3 O C) O
^^_
-Q
tO CN
C33 O O CO "7
^-' C) CN O <-•
00
to to
o «— oo co in
CN O <- O CO
O O O O T-
V)
[^ O l^ CO CN
^ O T- 0 T-
C/5 CO
CN •— co Ln
CN o <- o rr
oo o o T-
yO
00 O CO CO ^
r- O «— O CN
CD
"D u
-° '% " 1
« O c .=
trt -Q Q O >
qj ._. . _Q o
CO — - ^ TO C
— O c 0 (u
O ^" O ^ ^"
'^3 ^f ^ -^ £
CM
O
C/3
CD
C ^
O
Q.
E
So
IS
J3 '-
-C CD co
C O
O 10
CD -^ —.
CO O —
« ^"o
CO ^ »—
ca "5 CM
-K » O
CD CO C/5
!2 -£ ro
o ^ on
rf L.- O
i1 R o
=5 §g
C'O
u
CD
a>
o
u; i*j -j
CD ro
PI
E | c
CD O
5> c =
3
3
2
ca
o
g
2
o
>£
c
o
3
E
CO
O
Q.
C
-n
s
wl
2
a
x
m CU
en 2
s °
1 s
co o ai
1.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
1.8 BAGASSE COMBUSTION IN SUGAR MILLS by Tom Lahre
1.8.1 General1
Bagasse is the fibrous residue from sugar cane that has been processed in a sugar mill. (See Section
6.12 for a brief general description of sugar cane processing.) It is fired in boilers to eliminate a large
solid waste disposal problem and to produce steam and electricity to meet the mill's power require-
ments. Bagasse represents about 30 percent of the weight of the raw sugar cane. Because of the high
moisture content (usually at least 50 percent, by weight) a typical heating value of wet bagasse will
range from 3000 to 4000 Btu/lb (1660 to 2220 kcal/kg). Fuel oil may be fired with bagasse when the
mill's power requirements cannot be met by burning only bagasse or when bagasse is too wet to support
combustion.
The United States sugar industry is located in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, Texas, and Puerto Rico.
Except in Hawaii, where raw sugar production takes place year round, sugar mills operate seasonally,
from 2 to 5 months per year.
Bagasse is commonly fired in boilers employing either a solid hearth or traveling grate. In the for-
mer, bagasse is gravity fed through chutes and forms a pile of burning fibers. The burning occurs on
the surface of the pile with combustion air supplied through primary and secondary ports located in
the furnace walls. This kind of boiler is common in older mills in the sugar cane industry. Newer boil-
ers, on the other hand, may employ traveling-grate stokers. Underfire air is used to suspend the ba-
gasse, and overfired air is supplied to complete combustion. This kind of boiler requires bagasse with a
higher percentage of fines, a moisture content not over 50 percent, and more experienced operating
personnel.
1.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
s
Particulate is the major pollutant of concern from bagasse boilers. Unless an auxiliary fuel is fired,
few sulfur oxides will be emitted because of the low sulfur content (<0.1 percent, by weight) of ba-
gasse. Some nitrogen oxides are emitted, although the quantities appear to be somewhat lower (on an
equivalent heat input basis) than are emitted from conventional fossil fuel boilers.
Particulate emissions are reduced by the use of multi-cyclones and wet scrubbers. Multi-cyclones
are reportedly 20 to 60 percent efficient on particulate from bagasse boilers, whereas scrubbers (either
venturi or the spray impingement type) are usually 90 percent or more efficient. Other types of con-
trol equipment have been investigated but have not been found to be practical.
Emission factors for bagasse fired boilers are shown in Table 1.8-1.
4/77 External Combustion Sources 1.8-1
-------
Table 1.8-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED BAGASSE BOILERS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Participate0
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides6
Emission factors
lb/103lb steam3
4
d
0.3
g/kg steam3
4
d
0.3
Ib/ton bagasse""1
16
d
1.2
kg/MT bagasse*3
8
d
0.6
Emission factors are expressed in terms of the amount of steam produced, as most mills do not monitor the
amount of bagasse fired. These factors should be applied only to that fraction of steam resulting from bagasse
combustion. If a significant amount (>25% of total Btu input) of fuel oil is fired with the bagasse, the appropriate
emission factors from Table 1.3-1 should be used to estimate the emission contributions from the fuel oil.
^Emissions are expressed in terms of wet bagasse, containing approximately 50 percent moisture, by weight.
As a rule of thumb, about 2 pounds (2 kg) of steam are produced from 1 pound (1kg) of wet bagasse.
cMulti-cyclones are reportedly 20 to 60 percent efficient on particulate from bagasse boilers. Wet scrubbers
are capable of effecting 90 or more percent particulate control. Based on Reference 1.
^Sulfur oxide emissions from the firing of bagasse alone would be expected to be negligible as bagasse typically
contains less than 0.1 percent sulfur, by weight. If fuel oil is fired with bagasse, the appropriate factors from
Table 1.3-1 should be used to estimate sulfur oxide emissions.
e Based on Reference 1.
Reference for Section 1.8
1. Background Document: Bagasse Combustion in Sugar Mills. Prepared by Environmental Science
and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, Fla., for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. 68-02-1402, Task Order No. 13. Document No. EPA-450/3-77-007. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
October 1976.
1.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
1.9 RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES by Tom Lahre
1.9.1 General1.2
Fireplaces are utilized mainly in homes, lodges, etc., for supplemental heating and for their aesthet-
ic effect. Wood is most commonly burned in fireplaces; however, coal, compacted wood waste "logs,"
paper, and rubbish may all be burned at times. Fuel is generally added to the fire by hand on an inter-
mittent basis.
Combustion generally takes place on a raised grate or on the floor of the fireplace. Combustion air
is supplied by natural draft, and may be controlled, to some extent, by a damper located in the chim-
ney directly above the firebox. It is common practice for dampers to be left completely open during
the fire, affording little control of the amount of air drawn up the chimney.
Most fireplaces heat a room by radiation, with a significant fraction of the heat released during com-
bustion (estimated at greater than 70 percent) lost in the exhaust gases or through the fireplace walls.
In addition, as with any fuel-burning, space-heating device, some of the resulting heat energy must go
toward warming the air that infiltrates into the residence to make up for the air drawn up the chimney.
The net effect is that fireplaces are extremely inefficient heating devices. Indeed, in cases where com-
bustion is poor, where the outside air is cold, or where the fire is allowed to smolder (thus drawing air
into a residence without producing apreciable radiant heat energy) a net heat loss may occur in a resi-
dence due to the use of a fireplace. Fireplace efficiency may be improved by a number of devices that
either reduce the excess air rate or transfer some of the heat back into the residence that is normally
lost in the exhaust gases or through the fireplace walls.
1.9.2 Emissions ij2
The major pollutants of concern from fireplaces are unburnt combustibles-carbon monoxide and
smoke. Significant quantities of these pollutants are produced because fireplaces are grossly ineffi-
cient combustion devices due to high, uncontrolled excess air rates, low combustion temperatures, and
the absence of any sort of secondary combustion. The last of these is especially important when burn-
ing wood because of its typically high (80 percent, on a dry weight basis)3 volatile matter content.
Because most wood contains negligible sulfur, very few sulfur oxides are emitted. Sulfur oxides will
be produced, of course, when coal or other sulfur-bearing fuels are burned. Nitrogen oxide emissions
from fireplaces are expected to be negligible because of the low combustion temperatures involved.
Emission factors for wood and coal combustion in residential fireplaces are given in Table 1.9-1.
4/77 External Combustion Sources 1.9-1
-------
Table 1.9-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR RESIDENTIAL FIREPLACES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Pollutant
Particulate
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Wood
Ib/ton
20b
Od
If
59
120h
kg/MT
10b
Od
0.5*
2.59
60h
Coala
Ib/ton
30C
36Se
3
20
90
kg/MT
r 15C
36Se
1.5
10
45
aAII coal emission factors, except paniculate, are based on data in Table 1.1-2
of Section 1.1 for hand-fired units.
This includes condensable paniculate. Only about 30 percent of this is filter-
able particulate as determined by EPA Method 5 (front-half catch). Based
on limited data from Reference 1.
°This includes condensable particulate. About 50 percent of this is filterable
particulate as determined by EPA Method 5 (front-half catch).^ Based on
limited data from Reference 1.
Based on negligible sulfur content in most wood.-*
eS is the sulfur content, on a weight percent basis, of the coal.
f jBased on data in Table 2.3-1 in Section 2.3 for wood waste combustion in
(conical burners.
9 Nonmethane volatile hydrocarbons. Based on limited data from Reference 1.
n Based on limited data from Reference 1.
References for Section 1.9
1. Snowden, W.D., et al. Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces for Emission Factor Development.
Valentine, Fisher and Tomlinson. Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract 68-02-1992. Publication No. EPA-450/3-
76-010. November 1975.
2. Snowden, W.D., and I.J. Primlani. Atmospheric Emissions From Residential Space Heating. Pre-
sented at the Pacific Northwest International Section of the Air Pollution Control Association
Annual Meeting. Boise, Idaho. November 1974.
3. Kreisinger, Henry. Combustion of Wood-Waste Fuels. Mechanical Engineering. £1:115, February
1939.
4. Title 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60: Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources. Method 5 - Detemination of Emission from Stationary Sources. Federal Register. 36
(247): 24888-24890, December 23, 1971.
1.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
2.4 OPEN BURNING
2.4.1 General1
revised by Tom Lahre
and Pam Canova
Open burning can be done in open drums or baskets, in fields and yards, and in large open dumps
or pits. Materials commonly disposed of in this manner are municipal waste, auto body components,
landscape refuse, agricultural field refuse, wood refuse, bulky industrial refuse, and leaves.
2.4.2 Emissions1-19
, Ground-level open burning is affected by many variables including wind, ambient temperature,
composition and moisture content of the debris burned, and compactness of the pile. In general, the
relatively low temperatures associated with open burning increase the emission of particulates, car-
bon 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 municipal refuse and automobile components.
Table 2.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF NONAGRICULTURAL MATERIAL
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Municipal refuse3
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Automobile
components 'c
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Particulates
16
8
100
50
Sulfur
oxides
1
0.5
Neg.
Neg.
Carbon
monoxide
85
42
125
62
Hydrocarbons
(CH4)
30
15
30
15
Nitrogen oxides
6
3
4
2
References 2 through 6.
Upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires burned m common.
cReference 2.
Emissions from agricultural refuse burning are dependent mainly on the moisture content of the
refuse and, in the case of the field crops, on whether the refuse is burned in a headfire or a backfire.
(Headf ires are started at the upwind side of a field and allowed to progress in the direction of the wind,
whereas backfires are started at the downwind edge and forced to progress in a direction opposing the
wind.) Other variables such as fuel loading (how much refuse material is burned per unit of land area)
and how the refuse is arranged (that is, in piles, rows, or spread out) are also important in certain
instances. Emission factors for open agricultural burning are presented in Table 2.4-2 as a function of
refuse type and also, in certin instances, as a function of burning techniques and/or moisture content
when these variables are known to significantly affect emissions. Table 2.4-2 also presents typical fuel
loading values associated with each type of refuse. These values can be used, along with the correspond-
ing emission factors, to estimate emissions from certain categories of agricultural burning when the
specific fuel loadings for a given area are not known.
Emissions from leaf burning are dependent upon the moisture content, density, and ignition loca-
tion of the leaf piles. Increasing the moisture content of the leaves generally increases the amount of
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and particulate emissions. Increasing the density of the piles in-
creases the amount of hydrocarbon and particulate emissions, but has a variable effect on carbon
4/77
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-1
-------
Table 2.4-2. EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Refuse category
Field crops0
Unspecified
Burning technique
not significant"
Asparagus6
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Grasses
Pineapple^
Rice9
Safflower
Sorghum
Sugar canen
Headfire burning1
Alfalfa
Bean (red)
Hay (wild)
Oats
Pea
Wheat
Backfire burning)
Alfalfa
Bean (red), pea
Hay (wild)
Oats
Wheat
Vine crops
Weeds
Unspecified
Russian thistle
(tumbleweed)
Tules (wild reeds)
Orchard crops0-*'
Unspecified
Almond
Apple
Apricot
Avocado
Cherry
Citrus (orange,
lemon)
Date palm
Fig
Emission factors
Particulateb
Ib/ton
21
40
22
14
8
16
8
9
18
18
7
45
43
32
44
31
22
29
14
17
21
13
5
15
22
5
6
6
4
6
21
8
6
10
7
kg/MT
11
20
11
7
4
8
4
4
9
9
4
23
22
16
22
16
11
14
7
8
11
6
3
N 8
11
3
3
3
2
3
10
4
3
5
4
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
117
150
157
108
176
101
112
83
144
77
71
106
186
139
137
147
128
119
148
150
136
108
51
. 85
309
34
52
46
42
49
116
44
81
56
57
kg/MT
58
75
78
54
88
50
56
41
72
38
35
53
93
70
68
74
64
60
72
75
68
54
26
42
154
17
26
23
21
24
58
22
40
28
28
Hydrocarbons
(asC6H14)
Ib/ton
23
85
19
16
6
19
8
10
26
9
10
36
46
22
33
38
17
37
25
17
18
11
7
12
2
27
10
8
4
8
32
10
12
7
10
kg/MT
12
42
10
8
3
10
4
5
13
4
5
18
23
11
16
19
9
18
12
8
9
6
4
6
1
14
5
4
2
4
16
5
6
4
5
Fuel loading factors
(wasle production)
ton/acre
2.0
1.5
1.7
4.2
1.7
3.0
1.3
2.9
11.0
0.8
2.5
1.0
1.6
2.5
1.9
0.8
2.5
1.0
1.6
1.9
2.5
3.2
0.1
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.2
MT/hectare
4.5
3.4
3.8
9.4
3.8
6.7
2.9
6.5
24.0
1.8
5.6
2.2
3.6
5.6
4.3
1.8
5.6
2.2
3.6
4.3
5.6
7.2
0.2
3.6
3.6
5.2
4.0
3.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.9
2.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 2.4-2 (continued). EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS3
EMISSIOIM'FACTOR RATING: B
Refuse category
Orchard cropsc'k''
(continued)
Nectarine
Olive
Peach
Pear
Prune
Walnut
Forest residues
Unspecified171
Hemlock, Douglas
fir, cedarn
Ponderosa pme°
Emission factors
Paniculate*3
Ib/ton
4
12
6
9
3
6
17
4
12
kg/MT
2
6
3
4
2
3
8
2
6
Carbon
monoxide
Ib/ton
33
114
42
57
42
47
140
90
195
kg/MT
16
57
21
28
21
24
70
45
98
Hydrocarbons
(asC6H14)
Ib/ton
4
18
5
9
3
8
24
5
14
kg/MT
2
9
2
4
2
4
12
2
7
Fuel loading factors
(waste production)
ton/acre
2.0
1.2
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.2
70
MT/hectare
4.5
2.7
5.6
5.8
2.7
2.7
15?
aFactors expressed as weight of pollutant emitted per weight of refuse material burned.
"Particulate matter from most agricultural refuse burning has been found to be in the submicrometer size ranged 2
cRef erences 1 2 and 13 for emission factors; Reference 1 4 for fuel loading factors.
"For these refuse materials, no significant difference exists between emissions resulting from headfiring or backfiring.
^hese factors represent emissions under typical high moisture conditions. If ferns are dried to less than 15 percent
moisture, participate emissions will be reduced by 30 percent, CO emission by 23 percent, and HC by 74 percent.
'When pineapple is allowed to dry to less than 20 percent moisture, as it usually is, the firing technique is not important.
When headfired above 20 percent moisture, particulate emission will increase to 23 Ib/ton (11.5 kg/MT) and HC will
increase to 1 2 I b/ton (6 kg/MT) . See Reference 1 1 .
Sjhis factor is for dry (<15 percent moisture) rice straw. If rice straw is burned at higher moisture levels, particulate
emission will increase to 29 Ib/ton (14.5 kg/MT), CO emission to 161 Ib/ton (80.5 kg/MT), and HC emission to 21
Ib/ton (10.5 kg/MT).
See Section 6.12 for discussion of sugar cane burning.
'See accompanying text for definition of headfiring.
'See accompanying text for definition of backfiring. This category, for emission estimation purposes, includes another
technique used occasionally for limiting emissions, called into-the-wind striplighting, which involves lighting fields in
strips into the wind at 1 00-200 m (300-600 ft) intervals.
Orchard prumngs are usually burned in piles. No significant difference in emission results from burning a "cold pile"
as opposed to using a roll-on technique, where prumngs are bulldozed onto a bed of embers from a preceding fire.
If orchard removal is the purpose of a burn, 30 ton/acre (66 MT/hectare) of waste will be produced.
mReference 10 Nitrogen oxide emissions estimated at 4 Ib/ton (2 kg/MT).
"Reference 15
°Reference 16
monoxide emissions. Arranging the leaves in conical piles and igniting around the periphery of the bot-
tom proves to be the least desirable method of burning. Igniting a single spot on the top of the pile
decreases the hydrocarbon and particulate emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions with top ignition
decrease if moisture content is high but increase if moisture content is low. Particulate, hydrocarbon,
and carbon monoxide emissions from windrow ignition (piling the leaves into a long row and igniting
one end, allowing it to burn toward the other end) are intermediate between top and bottom ignition.
Emission factors for leaf burning are presented in Table 2.4-3.
For more detailed information on this subject, the reader should consult the references cited at the
end of this section.
4/77
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-'.
-------
Table 2.4-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAF BURNING18-19
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Leaf species
Black Ash
Modesto Ash
White Ash
Catalpa
Horse Chestnut
Cottonwood
American Elm
Eucalyptus
Sweet Gum
Black Locust
Magnolia
Silver Maple
American Sycamore
California Sycamore
Tulip
Red Oak
Sugar Maple
Unspecified
Particulatea'b
Ib/ton
36
32
43
17
54
38
26
36
33
70
13
66
15
10
20
92
53
38
kg/MT
18
16
21.5
8.5
27
19
13
18
16.5
35
6.5
33
7.5
5
10
46
26.5
19
Carbon monoxide3
Ib/ton
127
163
113
89
147
90
119
90
140
130
55
102
115
104
77
137
108
112
kg/MT
63.5
81.5
57
44.5
73.5
45
59.5
45
70
65
27.5
51
57.5
52
38.5
68.5
54
56
Hydrocarbons3'0
Ib/ton
41
25
21
15
39
32
29
26
27
62
10
25
8
5
16
34
27
26
kg/MT
20.5
12.5
10.5
7.5
19.5
16
14.5
13
13.5
31
5
12.5
4
2.5
8
.17
13.5
13
aThese factors are an arithmetic average of the results obtained by burning high- and low-moisture content conical piles ignited
either at the top or around the periphery of the bottom. The windrow arrangement was only tested on Modesto Ash, Catalpa,
American Elm, Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, and Tulip, and the results are included in the averages for these species.
"The majority of particulates are submicron in size.
cTests indicate hydrocarbons consist, on the average, of 42% olefins, 32% methane, 8% acetylene, and 13% other saturates.
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. 12:324-327. 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. In: Proceedings of 1968 Incinerator Confer-
ence, 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. DREW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution, Washington, D.C. PHS
Publication No. 937. 1962.
2.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
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 Pollu-
tion. 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 Pollu-
tion. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 73:542-545, 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.
10. Yamate, G. et al. An Inventory of Emissions from Forest Wildfires, Forest Managed Burns, and
Agricultural Burns and Development of Emission Factors for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions
from Forest Fires. (Presented at 68th Annual Meeting Air Pollution Control Association. Boston.
June 1975.)
11. Darley, E.F. Air Pollution Emissions from Burning Sugar Cane and Pineapple from Hawaii.
University of California, Riverside, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. as amendment to Research Grant No. R800711. August 1974.
12. Darley, E.F. et al. Air Pollution from Forest and Agricultural Burning. California Air Resources
Board Project 2-017-1, University of California. Davis, Calif. California Air Resources Board
Project No. 2-017-1. April 1974.
13. Darley, E.F. Progress Report on Emissions from Agricultural Burning. California Air Resources
Board Project 4-011. University of California, Riverside, Calif. Private communication with per-
mission of Air Resources Board, June 1975.
14. Private communication on estimated waste production from agricultural burning activities. Cal-
ifornia Air Resources Board, Sacramento, Calif. September 1975.
15. Fritschen, L. et al. Flash Fire Atmospheric Pollution. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washing-
ton, D.C. Service Research Paper PNW-97. 1970.
16. Sandberg, D.V., S.G. Pickford, and E.F. Darley. Emissions from Slash Burning and the Influence
of Flame Retardant Chemicals. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 25:278, 1975.
17. Wayne, L.G. and M.L. McQueary. Calculation of Emission Factors for Agricultural Burning
Activities. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Santa Monica, Calif. Prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-1004, Task
Order No. 4. Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-087. November 1975.
18. Darley, E.F. Emission Factor Development for Leaf Burning. University of California, Riverside,
Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Pur-
chase Order No. 5-02-6876-1. September 1976.
19. Darley, E.F. Evaluation of the Impact of Leaf Burning - Phase I: Emission Factors for Illinois
Leaves. University of California, Riverside, Calif. Prepared for State of Illinois, Institute for En-
vironmental Quality. August 1975.
4/77 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-5
-------
-------
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 liquid petroleum storage and marketing. Where
possible, the effect of controls to reduce the emissions of organic compounds has been shown.
4.1 DRY CLEANING by Susan Sercer
4.1.1 General1^2
Dry cleaning involves the cleaning of fabrics with non-aqueous organic solvents. The dry cleaning
process requires three steps: (1) washing the fabric in solvent, (2) spinning to extract excess solvent, and
(3) drying by tumbling in a hot airstream.
Two general types of cleaning fluids are used in the industry: petroleum solvents and synthetic sol-
vents. Petroleum solvents, such as Stoddard or 140-F, are inexpensive, combustible hydrocarbon
mixtures similar to kerosene. Operations using petroleum solvents are known as petroleum plants.
Synthetic solvents are nonflammable but more expensive halogenated hydrocarbons. Perchloro-
ethylene and trichlorotrifluoroethane are the two synthetic dry cleaning solvents presently in
use. Operations using these synthetic solvents are called "perc" plants and fluorocarbon plants,
respectively.
There are two basic types of dry cleaning machines: transfer and dry-to-dry. Transfer machines ac-
complish washing and drying in separate machines. Usually the washer extracts excess solvent from the
clothes before they are transferred to the dryer, however, some older petroleum plants have separate
extractors for this purpose. Dry-to-dry machines are single units that perform all of the washing,
extraction, and drying operations. All petroleum solvent machines are the transfer type, but synthetic
solvent plants can be either type.
The dry cleaning industry can be divided into three sectors: coin-operated facilities, commercial
operations, and industrial cleaners. Coin-operated facilities are usually part of a laundry and supply
"self-service" type dry cleaning for consumers. Only synthetic solvents are used in coin-operated dry
cleaning machines. Such machines are small, with a capacity of 8 to 25 Ib (3.6 to 11.5 kg) of clothing.
Commercial operations, such as small neighborhood or franchise dry cleaning shops, clean soiled
apparel for the consumer. Generally, perchloroethylene and petroleum solvents are used in commer-
cial operations. A typical "perc" plant operates a 30 to 60 Ib (14 to 27 kg) capacity washer/extractor and
an equivalent size reclaiming dryer.
Industrial cleaners are larger dry cleaning plants which supply rental service of uniforms, mats,
mops, etc., to businesses or industries. Although petroleum solvents are used extensively, perchloro-
ethylene is used by approximately 50% of the industrial dry cleaning establishments. A typical large in-
dustrial cleaner has a 500 Ib (230 kg) capacity washer/extractor and three to six 100 Ib (38 kg) capacity
dryers.
A typical perc plant is shown in Figure 4.1-1. Although one solvent tank may be used, the typical
perc plant uses two tanks for washing. One tank contains pure solvent; the other tank contains
"charged" solvent—used solvent to which small amounts of detergent have been added to aid in clean-
ing. Generally, clothes are cleaned in charged solvent and rinsed in pure solvent. A water bath may also
be used.
4/77 Evaporative Loss Sources 4.1-1
-------
co:
CO I
a
LU
h-
<
LLJ
Z
—
Q
U
C
c
1
-1
3
3
'
C
J
C
3
C
J
j
L
C
T
J
I
<
U
C
c
0
>
!
LU 9
DC QJ
— O
LU CO
1-
z
LU
_l
O
CO
_£.
V.
f
V.
1
cc
LU
i ,
I si
< S;
°- f?
n i o
CO
1 1
i
— -S X /
cc a
S ^
6 »
2 g
< 2
LU a
™ cj
T
1
^ H
si ^ 2 ^
CO
fc a i-
CD LU 5
<*<
J. O "~ 41
5
ii
CO LU
r uj eo
aa Q
r eo **•
JJ LU
m a
3
f)
3
et
I "z
\ E
< ^
UJ CC
i
^ ^
^
\-
LU
CD
LU
LU
a
cc
LU
CO
z
UJ
a
•s.
o
u
=i|2 X ,
l~ uj O
CC CO
tc
c
L ' «
~ z "" £
0 '
&s
3° -J
^° z
503 S
a >
i
o
CO
h
•
* Ml -
" co :
i < «
S C3 C
1
1
1
1
! i ,
i \
c
3
X
C
*
LI
O
- z
» 0
J —
0 LU
C*
cc
LU
_
O5
c
CD
cn
_C
'c
(C
_Q)
O
•a
CD
c
_Q)
>
a>
O
—' O
CD
Q-
3
cn
4.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
After the clothes have been washed, the used solvent is filtered, and part of the filtered solvent is re-
turned to the charged solvent tank for washing the next load. The remaining solvent is then distilled to
remove oils, fats, greases, etc., and returned to the pure solvent tank. The resulting distillation'bot-
toms are typically stored" on the premises until disposed of. The filter cake and collected solids (muck)
are usually removed from the filter once a day. Before disposal, the muck may be "cooked" to recover
additional solvent. Still and muck cooker vapors are vented to a condenser and separator where more
solvent is reclaimed. In many perc plants, the condenser off-gases are vented to a carbon adsorption
unit for additional solvent recovery.
After washing, the clothes are transferred to the dryer where they are tumbled in a heated air-
stream. Exhaust gases from the dryer, along with a small amount of exhaust gases from the washer/ex-
tractor, are vented to a water-cooled condenser and water separator. Recovered solvent is returned to
the pure solvent storage tank. In 30-50 percent of the perc plants, the condenser off-gases are vented to
a carbon adsorption unit for additional solvent recovery. To reclaim this solvent, the unit must be
periodically desorbed with steam—typically at the end of each day. Desorbed solvent and water are
condensed and separated; recovered solvent is returned to the pure solvent tank.
A petroleum plant would differ from Figure 4.1-1 chiefly in that there would be no recovery of sol-
vent from the washer and dryer and no muck cooker. A fluorocarbon plant would differ in that a non-
vented refrigeration system would be used in place of a carbon adsorption unit. Another difference
would be that a typical fluorocarbon plant would use a cartridge filter which is drained and disposed
of after several hundred cycles.
Emissions and Controls1!2'3
The solvent material itself is the primary emission of concern from dry cleaning operations. Sol-
vent is given off by the washer, dryer, solvent still, muck cooker, still residue and filter muck storage
areas, as well as leaky pipes, flanges, and pumps.
Petroleum plants have generally not employed solvent recovery because of the low cost of petro-
leum solvents and the fire hazards associated with collecting vapors. Some emission control, however,
can be obtained by maintaining all equipment in good condition (e.g., preventing lint accumulation,
preventing solvent leakage, etc.) and by using good operating practices (e.g., not overloading machin-
ery). Both carbon adsorption and incineration appear to be technically feasible controls for petroleum
plants, but costs are high.
Solvent recovery is necessary in perc plants due to the higher cost of perchloroethylene. As shown in
Figure 4.1-1, recovery is effected on the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker through the use of con-
densers, water/solvent separators, and carbon adsorption units. Periodically (typically once a day), sol-
vent collected in the carbon adsorption unit is desorbed with steam, condensed, separated from the
condensed water, and returned to the pure solvent storage tank. Residual solvent emitted from treat-
ed distillation bottoms and muck is not recovered. As in petroleum plants, good emission control can
be obtained by good housekeeping practices (maintaining all equipment in good condition and using
good operating practices).
All fluorocarbon machines are of the dry-to-dry variety to conserve solvent vapor, and all are closed
systems with built-in solvent recovery. High emissions can occur, however, as a result of poor mainte-
nance and operation of equipment. Refrigeration systems are installed on newer machines to recover
solvent from the washer/dryer exhaust gases.
Emission factors for dry cleaning operations are presented in Table 4.1-1.
4/77 Evaporative Loss Sources 4.1-3
-------
Table 4.1-1. SOLVENT LOSS EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Solvent type
(Process used)
Petroleum
(transfer process)
Perchloroethylene
(transfer process)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(dry-to-dry process)
Source
washer/dryer^
filter disposal
uncooked (drained)
centrifuged
still residue disposal
miscellaneous0
washer/dryer/still/muck cooker
filter disposal
uncooked muck
cooked muck
cartridge filter
still residue disposal
miscellaneousc
washer /dryer/still6
cartridge filter disposal
still residue disposal
miscellaneous0
Emission rate3
Typical systems
lb/100lb (kg/1 00 kg)
18
5
2
3
8d
14
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.5
0
1
0.5
1 -3
Well-controlled system
Ib/IOOIb (kg/100 kg)
2b
0.5 - 1
0.5-1
1
0.3b
0.5- 1.3
0.5- 1.1
0.5-1.6
1
0
1
0.5
1 -3
aUnits are in terms of weight of solvent per weight of clothes cleaned (capacity x loads). Emissions may be estimated on an alternative
basis by determining the amount of solvent consumed. Assuming that all solvent input to dry cleaning operations is eventually
evaporated to the atmosphere, an emission factor of 2000 Ib/ton of solvent consumed can be applied. All emission factors are based
on References 1, 2 and 3.
^Emissions from the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker are collectively passed through a carbon adsorber.
cMiscellaneous sources include fugitive emissions from flanges, pumps, pipes, storage tanks, fixed losses (for example, opening and
closing the dryer), etc.
dUncontrolled emissions from the washer, dryer, still, and muck cooker average about 8 lb/100 Ib (8 kg/100 kg). Roughly 15% of
the solvent emitted comes from the washer, 75% from the dryer, and 5% from both the still and the muck cooker.
eEmission factors are based on the typical refrigeration system installed in fluorocarbon plants.
Different materials in the wash retain varying amounts of solvent (synthetic: 10 kg/100 kg, cotton 20 kg/100 kg, leather: 40 kg/
100kg).
References for Section 4.1
1. Study to Support New Source Performance Standards for the Dry Cleaning Industry, EPA Con-
tract 68-02-1412, Task Order No. 4, prepared by TRW Inc., Vienna, Virginia, May 7, 1976.
Kleeberg, Charles, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
2. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement for the Dry Cleaning Industry. Dur-
ham, North Carolina. June 28, 1976.
3. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Dry Cleaning Operations (Draft Document), Dur-
ham, North Carolina. April 15, 1977.
4.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
4.3 STORAGE OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS1 by Charles C. Master
Fundamentally, the petroleum industry consists of three operations: (1) petroleum production and
transportation, (2) petroleum refining, and (3) transportation and marketing of finished petroleum
products. All three operations require some type of storage for petroleum liquids. Storage tanks for
both crude and finished products can be sources of evaporative emissions. Figure 4.3-1 presents a
schematic of the petroleum industry and its points of emissions from storage operations.
4.3.1 Process Description
Four basic tank designs are used for petroleum storage vessels: fixed roof, floating roof (open type
and covered type), variable vapor space, and pressure (low and high).
4.3.1.1 Fixed Roof Tanks2 - The minimum accepted standard for storage of volatile liquids is the
fixed roof tank (Figure 4.3-2). It is usually the least expensive tank design to construct. Fixed roof tanks
basically consist of a cylindrical steel shell topped by a coned roof having a minimum slope of 3/4
inch in 12 inches. Fixed roof tanks are generally equipped with a pressure/vacuum vent designed to
contain minor vapor volume changes. For large fixed roof tanks, the recommended maximum operat-
ing pressure/vacuum is +0.03 psig/-0.03 psig (+2.1 g/cm2/-2.1 g/cm2).
4.3.1.2 Floating Roof Tanks3 - Floating roof tanks reduce evaporative storage losses by minimizing va-
por spaces. The tank consists of a welded or riveted cylindrical steel wall, equipped with a deck or roof
which is free to float on the surface of the stored liquid. The roof then rises and falls according to the
depth of stored liquid. To ensure that the liquid surface is completely covered, the roof is equipped
with a sliding seal which fits against the tank wall. Sliding seals are also provided at support columns
and at all other points where tank appurtenances pass through the floating roof.
Until recent years, the most commonly used floating roof tank was the conventional open-type
tank. The open-type floating roof tank exposes the roof deck to the weather; provisions must be made
for rain water drainage, snow removal, and sliding seal dirt protection. Floating roof decks are of three
general types: pan, pontoon, and double deck. The pan-type roof consists of a flat metal plate with a
vertical rim and sufficient stiffening braces to maintain rigidity (Figure 4.3-3). The single metal plate
roof in contact with the liquid readily conducts solar heat, resulting in higher vaporization losses than
other floating roof decks. The roof is equipped with automatic vents for pressure and vacuum release.
The pontoon roof is a pan-type floating roof with pontoon sections added to the top of the deck around
the rim. The pontoons are arranged to provide floating stability under heavy loads of water and snow.
Evaporation losses due to solar heating are about the same as for pan-type roofs. Pressure/vacuum
vents are required on pontoon roof tanks. The double deck roof is similar to a pan-type floating roof,
but consists of a hollow double deck covering the entire surface of the roof (Figure 4.3-4). The double
deck adds rigidity, and the dead air space between the upper and lower deck provides significant insu-
lation from solar heating. Pressure/vacuum vents are also required.
The covered-type floating roof tank is essentially a fixed-roof tank with a floating roof deck inside
the tank (Figure 4.3-5). The American Petroleum Institute has designated the term "covered floating"
roof to describe a fixed roof tank with an internal steel pan-type floating roof. The term "internal float-
ing cover" has been chosen by the API to describe internal covers constructed of materials other than
steel. Floating roofs and covers can be installed inside existing fixed roof tanks. The fixed roof protects
the floating roof from the weather, and no provision is necessary for rain or snow removal, or for seal
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-1
-------
o
a.
CO
£
c
CD
O)
tn
a>
o
o
to
CD
c
o
C
CD
cn
2 «
Q. S
E 2
Q. CD
4- >
o >
^ -Q
> o
LL c
• CB
T 1—
ob ro
1 . ">
*f ^
«.2
LL cB
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
-PRESSURE-VACUUM
VENT
GAUGE HATCH,
MANHOLE
Figure 4.3-2. Fixed roof storage tank.
ROOF SEAL (METALLIC SHOE)
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-3. Pan-type floating roof storage tank (metallic seals).
NOZZLE
\
ROOF SEAL
. (NONKMETALUC)
WEATHER SHieLD-
Figure 4.3-4. Double deck floating roof storage tank (non-metallic seals).
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-3
-------
AIR SCOOPS -
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-5. Covered floating roof storage tank.
protection. Antirotational guides must be provided to maintain roof alignment, and the space be-
tween the fixed and floating roofs must be vented to prevent the possible formation of,a flammable
mixture.
4.3.1.3 Variable Vapor Space Tanks4 - Variable vapor space tanks are equipped with expandable
vapor reservoirs to accommodate vapor volume fluctuations attributable to temperature and baro-
metric pressure changes. Although variable vapor space tanks are sometimes used independently, they
are normally connected to the vapor spaces of one or more fixed roof tanks. The two most common
types of variable vapor space tanks are lifter roof tanks and flexible diaphragm tanks.
Lifter roof tanks have a telescoping roof that fits loosely around the outside of the main tank wall.
The space between the roof and the wall is closed by either a wet seal, which consists of a trough filled
with liquid, or a dry seal, which employs a flexible coated fabric in place of the trough (Figure 4.3-6).
-PRESSURE-VACUUM
VENT
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-6. Lifter roof storage tank (wet seal).
Flexible diaphragm tanks utilize flexible membranes to provide the expandable volume. They may
be separate gasholder type units, or integral units mounted atop fixed roof tanks (Figure 4.3-7)..
4.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
PRESSURE
VACUUM VENTS
NOZZLE
Figure 4.3-7. Flexible diaphragm tank (integral unit).
4.3.1.4 Pressure Tanks5 - Pressure tanks are designed to withstand relatively large pressure variations
without incurring a loss. They are generally used for storage of high volatility stocks, and they are
constructed in many sizes and shapes, depending on the operating range. The noded spheroid and
noded hemispheroid shapes are generally used as low-pressure tanks (17 to 30 psia or 12 to 21 mg/m2),
while the horizontal cylinder and spheroid shapes are generally used as high-pressure tanks (up to 265
psia or 186 mg/m2).
4.3.2 Emissions and Controls
There are six sources of emissions from petroleum liquids in storage: fixed roof breathing losses,
fixed roof working losses, floating roof standing storage losses, floating roof withdrawal losses, vari-
able vapor space filling losses, and pressure tank losses.6
Fixed roof breathing losses consist of vapor expelled from a tank because of the thermal expansion
of existing vapors, vapor expansion caused by barometric pressure changes, and/or an increase in the
amount of vapor due to added vaporization in the absence of a liquid-level change.
Fixed roof working losses consist of vapor expelled from a tank as a result of filling and emptying
operations. Filling loss is the result of vapor displacement by the input of liquid. Emptying loss is the
expulsion of vapors subsequent to product withdrawal, and is attributable to vapor growth as the new-
ly inhaled air is saturated with hydrocarbons.
Floating roof standing storage losses result from causes other than breathing or changes in liquid
level. The largest potential source of this loss is attributable to an improper fit of the seal and shoe to
the shell, which exposes some liquid surface to the atmosphere. A small amount of vapor may escape
between the flexible membrane seal and the roof.
Floating roof withdrawal losses result from evaporation of stock which wets the tank wall as the
roof descends during emptying operations. This loss is small in comparison to other types of losses.
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-5
-------
Variable vapor space filling losses result when vapor is displaced by the liquid input during filling
operations. Since the variable vapor space tank has an expandable vapor storage capacity, this loss is
not as large as the filling loss associated with fixed roof tanks. Loss of vapor occurs only when the vapor
storage capacity of the tank is exceeded.
Pressure tank losses occur when the pressure inside the tank exceeds the design pressure of the
tank, which results in relief vent opening. This happens only when the tank is filled improperly, or
when abnormal vapor expansion occurs. These are not regularly occurring events, and pressure tanks
are not a significant source of loss under normal operating conditions.
The total amount of evaporation loss from storage tanks depends upon the rate of loss and the per-
iod of time involved. Factors affecting the rate of loss include:
1. True vapor pressure of the liquid stored.
2. Temperature changes in the tank.
3. Height of the vapor space (tank outage).
4. Tank diameter.
5. Schedule of tank filling and emptying.
6. Mechanical condition of tank and seals.
7. Type of tank and type of paint applied to outer surface.
The American Petroleum Institute has developed empirical formulae, based on field testing, that cor-
relate evaporative losses with the above factors and other specific storage factors.
4.3.2.1 Fixed Roof Tanks2*7 - Fixed roof breathing losses can be estimated from:
LB = 2.21 x 1C'4 M j * 1 ' D1-73 H°-51 AT0-50 FD C Kc (1)
P
k. j
where: LJJ = Fixed roof breathing loss (Ib/day).
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole), (see Table 4.3-1).
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
D = Tank diameter (ft).
H = Average vapor space height, including roof volume correction (ft); see note (1).
AT = Average ambient temperature change from day to night (°F).
Fp = Paint factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-2.
C = Adjustment factor for small diameter tanks (dimensionless); see Figure 4.3-10.
K = Crude oil factor (dimensionless); see note (2).
Note: (1) The vapor space in a cone roof is equivalent in volume to a cylinder which has the
same base diameter as the cone and is one-third the height of the cone.
(2) Kc = (0.65) for crude oil, Kc = (1.0) for gasoline and all other liquids.
API reports that calculated breathing loss from Equation (1) may deviate in the order of ± 10 percent
from actual breathing loss.
4.3-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
r-.
oo
O
OQ
DC
<
O
O
OC
a
TO
TO
^C
Condensed
LL
O
8
LL
O
g
0
o
CD
LL
O
0
rv
LL
O
co
LL
0
o
LT>
LL
O
o
^-
_LL
?o
,_ -S-CO
Q. >~@
TO — —
> ;£ co
CD -^
-0 -Q
_LL
^ >,
Q.
CO
molecular
weight
<5>60°F
C
O
J2
TO
CJ
O
•a
>
n:
co ir> "sf
co o r~
r^ co CN
<— CO CO
O5 <3- CN
05 r~ LD
CO CN CO
CD CD M-
CN LD
CO LO CO
1^ CN O5
LD >a- CN
i-- -a- co
rf CO CN
CJ) •— CN
^- LO LD
CD CO CD
LD LD LD
CN CD CD
CD CO CD
CO O
CL Q. O-
DC IT DC
CD CL) CD
C C C
"o "o "o
"55 O C3 CJ
LL
LT)
00
^"
o
CO
CD
CN
CO
CN
CO
<-
LD
r —
O
LD
LO
O.
OC
0
1
CJ
CN
CN
O)
CD
CO
O
*~
00
o
ID
CD
O
oo
d.
TO
^
a
TO
C
CD
O)
CN
O
O
CN
0
o
LD
O
CD
q
o
LD
CO
o
o
CD
o
CD
o
o
o
o
o
o
CD
o
o
CO
Jet kerosene
CN
CN
o
0
CD
0
o
CN
o
CD
o
en
0
o
d
o
o
CD
LD
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CD
r-.
o
CO
CN
6
z
CD
CD
*->
TO
D
a>
o
o
O nOCOCNCOCOCNCOCNCOCOlDCOrOM-CNCDOO
O r^-^-CO^— COCDCOCNCOCNr— ^COCOr-^J-CNT— 'd'
CO
o
O G5<— CDCNOCNCOCNILDr^COLDCOr^'— COOCO*—
O LDCOCNO5COLDCNCNCN*— <— COOCN*— COCNOCO
05
0
O
O
r~> r^ ^ c~~i ^r co » — *~~ r^- 05 CN 05 CD r^ *— oo CD LD co co
O ^-CNCNr^CN-oocoo-— oooooocooooooo
T CDOOM-CO^-LDlDLncOCOCOCD'-r^aJCNCOCOCO
CD CDCDI^OCOCNCOOI^CDCDCDI~CDI^»— CNr^l —
C-~- owoajcor6^> -£-^o^(ljajajT~c"o-
CC. £
OJ
Q_
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-7
-------
0.20
— 0.30
— 0.40
120 —
UJ
V«"
0
01
to
z
o
z
UJ
~
D
3
K
UJ
Q.
O
i
0.
z
— *
UJ
1
2
*>
UJ
0.
c
o
OL
UJ
i
1-
— 0.30 -
S 1 10-3
— 0.60 | o ;
— 0.70 4..
— 0.80 11
— 0.90 llL
— i.oo "TiT
Z il
I
- I
— i.so -r
:
: 1
— 2.00
—
^
— 2.30
1 -
100-=
1 ' ^
1 90-5
1 -
L 2 -
•rn . .
r « 3
= 80-i
\Jr 3 * -
[M w ~
U- * ' E
rTl 70-5
ills
1 > ;t
M 6 § -3
I \V\. * 3
— 3.00 ]
—
E- 3.30
— 4.00
n
—
w
— s.oo
M 8 9 1
rirS « ^ -
H
u
I
Z
UJ
a
<
"*•
t/»
UJ
UJ
IT
UJ
O
Z
'-
E'° i i
W> l2 50~3
M/V K =
/ j]Xi 16 -
WM '» 4o-E
— tfWfl 20 -
— 6.00 W ~.
- w =
- •T 3O —
— 7.00 :
™ -
r- *-00 :
f-
<
UJ
a.
jp
u
t-
E 20 -|
— 9.00 3
5 * SLOPE OF THE ASTM DISTILLATION CURVE AT 3
— 10.0 10 PER CENT EVAPORATED » ^
— 11.0 OEG F AT 13 PER CENT MINUS OEG F AT 3 PER CENT 10 —
~ in —
— 12.0 I0 ^
— 1 3 0 ~
_ IN THE ABSENCE OF DISTILLATION DATA THE FOLLOW- o -
— 14.0 ING AVERAGE VALUE OF S MAY BE USED :
I" I5'° MOTOR GASOLINE 3
— 16.0 AVIATION GASOLINE 2
— 17.0 LIGHT NAPHTHA C9-I4LS RVP) 3.3
1_ 18.0 NAPHTHA (2-8 LB RVP) 2.3
— 1 9.0
— 20.0
— 21.0
— 22.0
— 23.0
=- 24.0
4.3-8
Figure 4.3-8. Vapor pressures of gasolines and finished petroleum products.
EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
140
130 -=
D
_l
O
in
to
X
o
z
§
IT
01
0.
tn
O
o
CL
CT
D
ft
-------
Table 4.3-2. PAINT FACTORS FOR FIXED ROOF TANKS2
Tank color
Roof
White
Aluminum (specular)
White
Aluminum (specular)
White
Aluminum (diffuse)
White
Light gray
Medium gray
Shell
White
White
Aluminum (specular)
Aluminum (specular)
Aluminum (diffuse)
Aluminum (diffuse)
Gray
Light gray
Medium gray
Paint factors (Fp)
Paint condition
Good
1.00
1.04
1.16
1.20
1.30
1.39
1.30
1.33
1.40
Poor
1.15
1.18
1.24
1.29
1.38
1.46
1.38
1.44a
1.58a
aEstimated from the ratios of the seven preceding paint factors.
o
o
1.00
.80
.60
.40
5
O .20
10 20
TANK DIAMETER IN FEET
Figure 4.3-10. Adjustment factor (C) for
small diameter tanks.
30
Fixed roof working losses can be estimated from:
Lw = 2.40xlO-2MPKNKc
(2)
4.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
where: L^
V
M
P
K
N
= Fixed roof working loss (lb/103 gal throughput).
= Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole), see Table 4.3-1.
= True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
= Turnover factor (dimensionless); see Figure 4.3-11.
= Crude oil factor (dimensionless); see note.
Note: Kc = (0.84) for crude oil, K = (1.0) for gasoline and all other liquids.
O
z
cc
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
NOTE: FOR 38 TURNOVERS PER
YEAR OR LESS. KN -1.0
100
200
300
400
TURNOVERS PER YEAR
ANNUAL THROUGHPUT
TANK CAPACITY
Figure 4.3-11. Turnover factor (K[\|) for fixed roof tanks.
The fixed roof working loss (L^)is the sum of the loading and unloading loss. API reports that special
tank operating conditions may result in actual losses which are significantly greater or lower than the
estimates provided by Equation (2).
The API recommends the use of these storage loss equations only for cases in which the stored petro-
leum liquids exhibit vapor pressures in the same range as gasolines. However, in the absence of any cor-
relation developed specifically for naphthas, kerosenes, and fuel oils, it is recommended that these
storage loss equations also be used for the storage of these heavier fuels.
The method most commonly used to control emissions from fixed roof tanks is a vapor recovery sys-
tem that collects emissions from the storage vessels and converts them to liquid product. To recover va-
por, one or a combination of four methods may be used: vapor/liquid absorption, vapor compression,
vapor cooling, and vapor/solid adsorption. Overall control efficiencies of vapor recovery systems vary
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-11
-------
from 90 to 95 percent, depending on the method used, the design of the unit, the composition of vapors
recovered, and tlie mechanical condition of the system.
Emissions from fixed roof tanks can also be controlled by the addition of an internal floating cover
or covered floating roof to the existing fixed roof tank. API reports that this can result in an average
loss reduction of 90 percent of the total evaporation loss sustained from a fixed roof tank.8
Evaporative emissions can be minimized by reducing tank heat input with water sprays, mechani-
cal cooling, underground storage, tank insulation, and optimum scheduling of tank turnovers.
4.3.2.2 Floating Roof Tanks3'7 - Floating roof standing storage losses can be estimated from:
LS = 9.21 x 10-3 Mr__P_l°-7 D1.5 Vw0.7 KtKsKpKc (3)
where: LC = Floating roof standing storage loss (Ib/day).
M = Molecular weight of vapor in storage tank (Ib/lb mole); see Table 4.3-1.
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9,
or Table 4.3-1.
D = Tank diameter (ft); see note (1).
Vw = Average wind velocity (mi/hr); see note (2).
Kt = Tank type factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
Ks = Seal factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
K = Paint factor (dimensionless); see Table 4.3-3.
KC = Crude oil factor (dimensionless); see note (3).
Note: (1) For D > 150, use D/150 instead of D.1-5
(2) API correlation was derived for minimum wind velocity of 4 mph. If Vw
<. 4 mph, use Vw = 4mph.
(3) Kc = (0.84) for crude oil, Kc = (1.0) for all other liquids.
API reports that standing storage losses from gasoline and crude oil storage calculated from Equa-
tion (3) will not deviate from the actual losses by more than ±25 percent for tanks in good condition un-
der normal operation. However, losses may exceed the calculated amount if the seals are in poor condi-
tion. Although the API recommends the use of these correlations only for petroleum liquids exhibit-
ing vapor pressures in the range of gasoline and crude oils, in the absence of better correlations, these
correlations are also recommended with caution for use with heavier naphthas, kerosenes, and fuel
oils.
4.3-12 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
Table 4.3-3. TANK, TYPE, SEAL, AND PAINT FACTORS
FOR FLOATING ROOF TANKS2
Tank type
Welded tank with pan or pontoon
roof, single or double seal
Riveted tank with pontoon roof,
double seal
Riveted tank with pontoon roof,
single seal
Riveted tank with pan roof,
double seal
Riveted tank with pan roof,
single seal
Kt
0.045
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.14
Seal type
Tight fitting (typical of modern
metallic and non-metallic seals)
Loose fitting (typical of seals
built prior to 1942)
Paint color of shell and roof
Light gray or aluminum
White
Ks
1.00
1.33
Kp
1.0
0.9
API has developed a correlation based on laboratory data for calculating floating roof withdrawal
loss for gasoline storage.5 Floating roof withdrawal loss for gasoline can be estimated from:
T 22.4 d CF
LWD = —-*
(4)
where:
D
= Floating roof gasoline withdrawal loss (lb/103 gal throughput).
= Density of stored liquid at bulk liquid conditions (Ib/gal); see Table 4.3-1.
= Tank construction factor (dimensionless); see note.
= Tank diameter (ft).
Note: Cp = (0.02) for steel tanks, Cp = (1.0) for gunite-lined tanks.
Because Equation (4) was derived from gasoline data, its applicability to other stored liquids is uncer-
tain. No estimate of accuracy of Equation (4) has been given.
API has not presented any correlations that specifically pertain to internal floating covers or cov-
ered floating roofs. Currently, API recommends the use of Equations (3) and (4) with a wind speed of 4
mph for calculating the losses from internal floating covers and covered floating roofs.
Evaporative emissions from floating roof tanks can be minimized by reducing tank heat input.
4.3.2.3 Variable Vapor Space Systems 4>7- Variable vapor space system filling losses can be estiirated
from:
Lv = (2.40 x 10'2) ^p- [(Vj) - (0.25 V2 N)]
1
(5)
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-13
-------
where: Ly = Variable vapor space filling loss (lb/103 gal throughput).
M = Molecular weight of vapo.r in storage tank (Ib/lb mole); see Table 4.3-1.
P = True vapor pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia); see Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9, or Table
4.3-1.
Vj = Volume of liquid pumped into system: throughput (bbl).
V2 = Volume expansion capacity of system (bbl); see note (1).
N = Number of transfers into system (dimensionless); see note (2).
Note: (1) V is the volume expansion capacity of the variable vapor space achieved by roof-
lifting or diaphragm-flexing.
(2) N is the number of transfers into the system during the time period that corre-
sponds to a throughput of Vr
The accuracy of Equation (5) is not documented; however, API reports that special tank operating
conditions may result in actual losses which are significantly different from the estimates provided by
Equation (5). It should also be noted that, although not developed for use with heavier petroleum
liquids such as kerosenes and fuel oils, Equation (5) is recommended for use with heavier petroleum
liquids in the absence of better data.
Evaporative emissions from variable vapor space tanks are negligible and can be minimized by opti-
mum scheduling of tank turnovers and by reducing tank heat input. Vapor recovery systems can be
used with variable vapor space systems to collect and recover filling losses.
Vapor recovery systems capture hydrocarbon vapors displaced during filling operations and re-
cover the hydrocarbon vapors by the use of refrigeration, absorption, adsorption, and/or compres-
sion. Control efficiencies range from 90 to 98 percent, depending on the nature of the vapors and the
recovery equipment used.
4.3.2.4 Pressure Tanks - Pressure tanks incur vapor losses when excessive internal pressures result in
relief valve venting. In some pressure tanks vapor venting is a design characteristic, and the vented
vapors must be routed to a vapor recovery system. However, for most pressure tanks vapor venting is
not a normal occurrence, and the tanks can be considered closed systems. Fugitive losses are also as-
sociated with pressure tanks and their equipment, but with proper system maintenance they are in-
significant. Correlations do not exist for estimating vapor losses from pressure tanks.
4.3.3 Emission Factors
Equations (1) through (5) can be used to estimate evaporative losses, provided the respective para-
meters are known. For those cases where such parameters are unknown, Table 4.3-4 provides emission
factors for the typical systems and conditions. It should be emphasized that these emission factors are
rough estimates at best for storage of liquids other than gasoline and crude oil, and for storage con-
ditions other than the ones they are based upon. In areas where storage sources contribute a substan-
tial portion of the total evaporative emissions or where they are major factors affecting the air quality,
it is advisable to obtain the necessary parameters and to calculate emission estimates using Equations
(1) through (5).
4.3-14 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
^
CO
CN
CO
u
CC
l-
z
o
u
1-
o
I
l-
g
CO
1-
LU
C3
CC
O
CO
CC
o
LL
CO
CC
O
o
LL
MSSIOIM
.>
LU
LU
K
CC
UJ
n
o
.Q
apor space
ks
riable v
tan
>
c
Floating r
c
TO
"o
o
•D
X
LJ_
-g
o"
O
O
Standing s
o
0>
_c
(S
u.
ro
_c o
"c 0
O §
^ VI
C £
|1
; °
ra
c
0 J
^; c
c o
TO ^
2 "c
p g
-* C
C 0
s?
z S
•^ Q.
ff
a a
0 ?
^ o
kg/1C)3|iters
throughput
lb/103 gal
throughput
> oj
"D —
»s
>•!,
T: —
||
If
CD Q.
^ O
-1
Tl —
||
>|
-Q
TO CT
S O
Product Stored
D CO CM O 3313^^:3313 *T CN CM *$•
ro u^ ,_, co o o o ^^.^^^.^^^ LnouDcocoor^i^cDr^-cocN co co co .— r-. o
•—OOOOOOO 2ZS2!2^Z2^2 OOOOOOOOOOOO-— OOOOOO
!^ i^CNO ^^^^?^^^^
^OJCNO -ijjjjjj-> rsico co CM
co co co LO in in
CN CN CN ^- *— t—
o o o o o o
O O O O 0 0
O O O O Q O
n n co n co en
CN CN CN i— i~ -—
O O O O O 0
O O O 0 O O
CN CD
lT> n c, o c^i
CN r-
SCO CN CN CO t-
LOO CNLTlTrCOO CN COCOOCDCN CO
TtmCNO'— OOO COCNi— OOOOO •— O'-COCNCNi— «— i— OOO'TOOCN'— O>—
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oo -3-
Ol ^T r- LO CN «—
coco^f^rO CN i— co co o coo to LDCNIQCN coco o
COCNi-OOOOO CN'-^OOOOO T-OOCNCNCNO'-OOOOCOOO'-^O'-:
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CD «r
CN r-. i*- r-* ^ r-
COCN'-O'— OOCP CNCN«— OOOOO •— OOCNCNCNr-'— .— OOOCOOOCNt— O"—
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
tO CN
•^•(D^-no CDCNCOCNO oo) in r^ co co •— to coco LOCN
COCNi— OOOOO CM*— i— OOOOO *— OOCNi— CNOOOOOOCOOO*— "— OO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
c
-a nj
« -2 °-o dj^^ro
ro^Sr-^ol °^°- ^"Sr-^i °° °" " — 1 J "^ § "^ ^ S
J, OOOu-%-^QQi J, CJOOO-^-2)QQC g <
"to "S h
LL ^OJCO^TLOtDr^CD LL OO"— CNCO^TLOCD O_ r-cOCRO'— CNrO^-mcDr-COCDOf-CNco^Ln
•— i— .— ,-!— T- r- t-v-i— CNCNCNCNCNCNOJCNfNCNflCOrOCOCOCr)
a1
2 %
_ £«>
E ~
^ Eg?
Img S
--in *
S~° i
o ^ Q
^ f^ Ln
lull
QIOH >
! s
! s '
t ? -
a " oa=^s
§ S §E°*5
£ E o g »29
"J S | = c ll
I I i|isi
1 I lllis
O £ — " — ™ ^"
| g |fsi2_
1 ^ 2^ 51 S
n fi s t
ci ™ °™ ^ -
> o — c — "^
III-" ^
^, LJJ I-
c
So; * t:
- —
0 (D 0
w o in n
! »|= *•
v c ~o 2 ~
_c 2 ^ *~ •-
- ^ s "•
^j CO J3 ^
-^ JD T ,_ o ^r
1 ll,l 1*
£ ^ 5 5 LO i
s s s
a
.c
s
S G
•u « o^
™ » CO
je to safety and health regulations, toxici
ission factors based on the following para
bient conditions
Storage temperature 60°F (156°C)
Daily ambient temperature change 1 5°
Wind velocity 10 mi/hr (4 5 m/sec )
pical fixed roof tanks
9 Z < f
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.3-15
-------
4.3.3.1 Sample Calculation - Breathing losses from a fixed roof storage tank would be calculated as
follows, using Equation (1).
Design basis:
Tank capacity - 100,000 bbl.
Tank diameter - 125 ft.
Tank height - 46 ft.
Average diurnal temperature change - 15° F.
Gasoline RVP - 9 psia.
Gasoline temperature - 70° F.
Specular aluminum painted tank.
Roof slope is 0.1 ft/ft.
Fixed roof tank breathing loss equation:
'
LB = 2.21 x ICHM f P p1 ' D1-73 H°-51 AT0-50 Fp C K
where: M = Molecular weight of gasoline vapors (see Table 4. 3-1)= 66.
P = True vapor of gasoline (see Figure 4.3-8) = 5.6 psia.
D = Tank diameter = 125 ft.
AT = average diurnal temperature change = 15° F.
F = paint factor (see Table 4.3-2) = 1.20.
C = tank diameter adjustment factor (see Figure 4.3-10) = 1.0.
KC = crude oil factor (see note for equation (1)) = 1.0.
H = average vapor space height. For a tank which is filled completely and emptied, the
average liquid level is 1/2 the tank rim height, or 23 ft. The effective cone height is 1/3
of the cone height. The roof slope is 0.1 ft/ft and the tank radius is 62.5 ft. Effective
cone height = (62.5 ft) (0.1 ft/ft) (1/3) = 2.08 ft.
H = average vapor space height = 23 ft + 2 ft = 25 ft.
Therefore:
LB = 2.21 x ID'4 (66) 4 75 6' (125)1-73 (25)0-51 (15)0.50 (L2) (i.Q) (1.0)
LB = 10681b/day
4.3-16 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
References for Section 4.3
1. Burklin, C.E. and R.L. Honerkamp. Revision of Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Report No.
EPA-450/3-76-039. August 15, 1976.
2. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Fixed-Roof
Tanks. Bull. 2518. Washington, D.C. 1962.
3. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Floating-Roof
Tanks. Bull. 2517. Washington, D.C. 1962.
4. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Use of Variable Vapor-Space Systems
To Reduce Evaporation Loss. Bull. 2520. N.Y., N.Y. 1964
5. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Low-Pressure
Tanks. Bull. 2516. Washington, D.C. 1962.
6. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss In The Petroleum
Industry. Causes and Control. API Bull. 2513. Washington, D.C. 1959.
7. American Petroleum Inst., Div. of Refining, Petrochemical Evaporation Loss From Storage
Tanks. API Bull. 2523. New York. 1969
8. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Use of Internal Floating Covers For
Fixed-Roof Tanks To Reduce Evaporation Loss. Bull. 2519. Washington, D.C. 1962.
9. Barnett, Henry C. et al. Properties Of Aircraft Fuels. Lewis Flight Propulsion Lab., Cleveland,
Ohio. NACA-TN 3276. August 1956.
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.3-17
-------
-------
4.4 TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING , _. . _ ,.
OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS1 ^ Charles C. Master
4.4.1 Process Description
As Figure 4.4-1 indicates, the transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids involves many
distinct operations, each of which represents a potential source of hydrocarbon evaporation loss.
Crude oil is transported from production operations to the refinery via tankers, barges, tank cars, tank
trucks, and pipelines. In the same manner, refined petroleum products are conveyed to fuel market-
ing terminals and petrochemical industries by tankers, barges, tank cars, tank trucks, and pipelines.
From the fuel marketing terminals, the fuels are delivered via tank trucks to service stations, commer-
cial accounts, and local bulk storage plants. The final destination for gasoline is usually a motor vehicle
gasoline tank. A similar distribution path may also be developed for fuel oils and other petroleum
products.
4.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from the transportation and marketing of petroleum liquids
may be separated into four categories, depending on the storage equipment and mode of transporta-
tion used:
1. Large storage tanks: Breathing, working, and standing storage losses,
2. Marine vessels, tank cars, and tank trucks: Loading, transit, and ballasting losses.
3. Service stations: Bulk fuel drop losses and underground tank breathing losses.
4. Motor vehicle tanks: Refueling losses.
(In addition, evaporative and exhaust emissions are also associated with motor vehicle operation.
These topics are discussed in Chapter 3.)
4.4.2.1 Large Storage Tanks - Losses from storage tanks are thoroughly discussed in Section 4.3.
4.4.2.2 Marine Vessels, Tank Cars, and Tank Trucks - Losses from marine vessels, tank cars, and tank
trucks can be categorized into loading losses, transit losses, and ballasting losses.
Loading losses are the primary source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from marine vessel,
tank car, and tank truck operations. Loading losses occur as hydrocarbon vapors residing in empty
cargo tanks are displaced to the atmosphere by the liquid being loaded into the cargo tanks. The
hydrocarbon vapors displaced from the cargo tanks are a composite of (1) hydrocarbon vapors formed
in the empty tank by evaporation of residual product from previous hauls and (2) hydrocarbon vapors
generated in the tank as the new product is being loaded. The quantity of hydrocarbon losses from
loading operations is, therefore, a function of the following parameters:
• Physical and chemical characteristics of the previous cargo.
• Method of unloading the previous cargo.
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources 4.4-1
-------
CD
•(-<
in
(/>
C
o-
II
11
.
-2? E
O CD
+3
b c
H S,
i_
- O
^ *•*—
4 o
^ S
o y
C3J O
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
• Operations during the transport of the empty carrier to the loading terminal.
• Method of loading the new cargo.
• Physical and chemical characteristics of the new cargo.
The principal methods of loading cargo carriers are presented in Figures 4.4-2,4.4-3, and 4.4-4. In
the splash loading method, the fill pipe dispensing the cargo is only partially lowered into the cargo
tank. Significant turbulence and vapor-liquid contacting occurs during the splash loading operation,
resulting in high levels of vapor generation and loss. If the turbulence is high enough, liquid droplets
will be entrained in the vented vapors.
FILL PIPE
VAPOR EMISSIONS
-HATCH COVER
CARGO TANK
Figure 4.4-2. Splash loading method.
VAPOR EMISSIONS
FILL PIPE
HATCH COVER
CARGO TANK
Figure 4.4-3. Submerged fill pipe.
A second method of loading is submerged loading. The two types of submerged loading are the
submerged fill pipe method and the bottom loading method. In the submerged fill pipe method, the
fill pipe descends almost to the bottom of the cargo tank. In the bottom loading method, the fill pipe
enters the cargo tank from the bottom. During the major portion of both forms of submerged loading
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-3
-------
VAPOR VENT
TO RECOVERY
OR ATMOSPHERE
HATCH CLOSED
CARGO TANK
FILL PIPE
Figure 4.4-4. Bottom loading.
methods, the fill pipe opening is positioned below the liquid level. The submerged loading method
significantly reduces liquid turbulence and vapor-liquid contacting, thereby resulting in much lower
hydrocarbon losses than encountered during splash loading methods.
The history of a cargo carrier is just as important a factor in loading losses as the method of loading.
Hydrocarbon emissions are generally lowest from a clean cargo carrier whose cargo tanks are free from
vapors prior to loading. Clean cargo tanks normally result from either carrying a non-volatile liquid
such as heavy fuel oils in the previous haul, or from cleaning or venting the empty cargo tank prior to
loading operations. An additional practice, specific to marine vessels, that has significant impact on
loading losses is ballasting. After unloading a cargo, empty tankers normally fill several cargo tanks
with water to improve the tanker's stability on the return voyage. Upon arrival in port, this'ballast
water is pumped from the cargo tanks before loading the new cargo. The ballasting of cargo tanks
reduces the quantity of vapor returning in the empty tanker, thereby reducing the quantity of vapors
emitted during subsequent tanker loading operations.
In normal dedicated service, a cargo carrier is dedicated to the transport of only one product and
does not clean or vent its tank between trips. An empty cargo tank in normal dedicated service will
retain a low but significant concentration of vapors which were generated by evaporation of residual
product on the tank surfaces. These residual vapors are expelled along with newly generated vapors
during the subsequent loading operation.
Another type of cargo carrier is one in "dedicated balance service." Cargo carriers in dedicated
balance service pick up vapors displaced during unloading operations and transport these vapors in
the empty cargo tanks back to the loading terminal. Figure 4.4-5 shows a tank truck in dedicated vapor
balance service unloading gasoline to an underground service station tank and filling up with dis-
placed gasoline vapors to be returned to the truck loading terminal. The vapors in an empty cargo
carrier in dedicated balance service are normally saturated with hydrocarbons.
4.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
VAPOR VENT LINE
TRUCK STORAGES I
COMPARTMENTS
/MI t\U i t n 11
I v umu
V\M 1111111tV"1
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK
Figure 4.4-5. Tanktruck unloading into an underground service station storage tank.
Tanktruck is practicing "vapor balance" form of vapor control.
Emissions from loading hydrocarbon liquid can be estimated (within 30 percent) using the follow-
ing expression:
LL = 12.46
(i)
where: L^ = Loading loss, lb/103 gal of liquid loaded.
M = Molecular weight of vapors, Ib/lb-mole (see Table 4.3-1).
P = True vapor pressure of liquid loading, psia (see Figures 4.3-8 and
4.3-9, and Table 4.3-1).
T = Bulk temperature of liquid loaded, °R.
S = A saturation factor (see Table 4.4-1).
4/77 Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-5
-------
The saturation factor (S) represents the expelled vapor's fractional approach to saturation and
accounts for the variations observed in emission rates from the different unloading and loading
methods. Table 4.4-1 lists suggested saturation factors (S).
Table 4.4-1. S FACTORS FOR CALCULATING PETROLEUM
LOADING LOSSES
Cargo carrier
Tank trucks and tank cars
Marine vessels3
Mode of operation
Submerged loading of a clean
cargo tank
Splash loading of a clean
cargo tank
Submerged loading: normal
dedicated service
Splash loading: normal
dedicated service
Submerged loading: dedicated,
vapor balance service
Splash loading: dedicated,
vapor balance service
Submerged loading: ships
Submerged loading: barges
S factor
0.50
1.45
0.60
1.45
1.00
1.00
0.2
0.5
aTo be used for products other than gasoline; use factors from Table 4.4-2
for marine loading of gasoline.
Recent studies on gasoline loading losses from ships and barges have led to the development of
more accurate emission factors for these specific loading operations. These factors are presented in
Table 4.4-2 and should be used instead of Equation (1) for gasoline loading operations at marine
terminals.2
Ballasting operations are a major source of hydrocarbon emissions associated with unloading
petroleum liquids at marine terminals. It is common practice for large tankers to fill several cargo
tanks with water after unloading their cargo. This water, termed ballast, improves the stability of the
empty tanker on rough seas during the subsequent return voyage. Ballasting emissions occur as hydro-
carbon-laden air in the empty cargo tank is displaced to the atmosphere by ballast water being pumped
into the empty cargo tank. Although ballasting practices vary quite a bit, individual cargo tanks are
ballasted about 80 percent, and the total vessel is ballasted approximately 40 percent of capacity.
Ballasting emissions from gasoline and crude oil tankers are approximately 0.8 and 0.6 lb/103 gal,
respectively, based on total tanker capacity. These estimates are for motor gasolines and medium
volatility crudes (RVParS psia).2
An additional emission source associated with marine vessel, tank car, and tank truck operations is
transit losses. During the transportation of petroleum liquids, small quantities of hydrocarbon vapors
are expelled from cargo tanks due to temperature and barometric pressure changes. The most signifi-
cant transit loss is from tanker and barge operations and can be calculated using Equation (2).3
4.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 4.4-2. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE LOADING OPERATIONS
Vessel tank condition
Cleaned and vapor free
Ib/'l03 gal transferred
kg/1 0,3 hter transferred
Ballasted
lb/10,3 gal transferred
kg/10/3 liter transferred
Uncleaned - dedicated service
lb/10.3 gal transferred
kg/10,3 liter transferred
Average cargo tank condition
lb/10.3 gal transferred
kg/103 liter transferred
Hydrocarbon emission factors
Ships
Range
0 to 2.3
0 to 0 28
0.4 to 3
0 05 to 0.36
0.4 to 4
0.05 to 0.48
a
Average
1.0
0.12
1.6
0.19
2.4
0 29
1.4
0.17
Ocean barges
Range
0 to 3
0 to 0.36
0.5 to 3
0.06 to 0.36
0.5 to 5
0.06 to 0.60
a
Average
1.3
0.16
2.1
0.25
3.3
0.40
a
Barges
Range
a
b
1.4 to 9
0.17 to 1.08
a
Average
1.2
0.14
b
4.0
0.48
4.0
0.48
aThese values are not available
Barges are not normally ballasted
LT = o.i PW
(2)
where: L™ = Transit loss, lb/week-103 gal transported.
P = True vapor pressure of the transported liquid, psia
(see Figures 4.3-8 and 4.3-9, and Table 4.3-1).
W = Density of the condensed vapors, Jb/gal (see Table 4.3-1).
In the absence of specific inputs for Equations (1) and (2), typical evaporative hydrocarbon emis-
sions from loading operations are presented in Table 4.4-3. It should be noted that, although the crude
oil used to calculate the emission values presented in Table 4.4-3 has an RVP of 5, the RVP of crude oils
can range over two orders of magnitude. In areas where loading and transportation sources are major
factors affecting the air quality it is advisable to obtain the necessary parameters and to calculate
emission estimates from Equations (1) and (2).
Control measures for reducing loading emissions include the application of alternate loading
methods producing lower emissions and the application of vapor recovery equipment. Vapor recovery
equipment captures hydrocarbon Vapors displaced during loading and ballasting operations and re-
covers the hydrocarbon vapors by the use of refrigeration, absorption, adsorption, and/or compres-
sion. Figure 4.4-6 demonstrates the recovery of gasoline vapors from tank trucks during loading oper-
ation at bulk terminals. Control efficiencies range from 90 to 98 percent depending on the nature of
the vapors and the type of recovery equipment employed.4
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-7
-------
Table 4.4-3. HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUID
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING SOURCES
Emission source
Tank cars/trucks
Submerged loading-normal service
lb/10-3 gal transferred
kg/10.3 liters transferred
Splash loading-normal service
lb/1Q3 gal transferred
kg/10.3 liters transferred
Submerged loading-balance service
lb/10.3 gal transferred
kg/10.3 liters transferred
Splash loading-balance service
lb/1Q3 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Marine vessels
Loading tankers
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/103 liters transferred
Loading barges
lb/103 gal transferred
kg/10.3 liters transferred
Tanker ballasting
lb/1 03 gal cargo capacity
kg/10.3 liters cargo capacity
Transit
lb/week-1Q3 gal trEnsported
kg/week-1Q3 liters transported
Product emission factors
Gasoline
5
0.6
12
1.4
8
1.0
8
1.0
b
b
0.8
0.10
3
0.4
Crude
oil
3
0.4
7
0.8
5
0.6
5
0.6
0.7
0.08
1.7
0.20
0.6
0.07
1
0.1
Jet
naphtha
(JP-4)
1.5
0.18
4
0.5
2.5
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.5
0.06
1.2
0.14
c
0.7
0.08
Jet
kerosene
0.02
0.002
0.04
0.005
a
a
0.005
0.0006
0.013
0.0016
c
0.02
0.002
Distillate
oil
No. 2
0.01
0.001
0.03
0.004
a
a
0.005
0.0006
0.012
0.0014
c
0.005
0.0006
Residual
oil
No. 6
0.0001
0.00001
0.0003
0.00004
a
a
0.00004
5x10-6
0.00009
1.1x10-5
c
3x10-5
4x10-6
1. Emission factors are calculated for dispensed fuel temperature of 60°F.
2. The example gasoline has an RVP of 10 psia.
3. The example crude oil has an RVP of 5 psia.
a. Not normally used.
b. See Table 4.4-2 for these emission factors.
c. Not Available.
Emissions from controlled loading operations can be calculated by multiplying the uncontrolled
emission rate calculated in Equations (1) and (2) by the control efficiency term:
1 -
efficiency
100J
4.4.2.3 Sample Calculation - Loading losses from a gasoline tank truck in dedicated balance service
and practicing vapor recovery would be calculated as follows using Equation (1).
4.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
CD
O
O
OJ
O
Q.
(D
en
c
o
C
ro
CD
3
O)
o z
DC uJ ^
"- H H
I— t3 LU
QC O
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-9
-------
Design basis:
Tank truck volume is 8000 gallons
Gasoline RVP is 9 psia
Dispensing temperature is 80° F
Vapor recovery efficiency is 95%
Loading loss equation:
LL . ,,M 5PM , .
where: S = Saturation factor (see Table 4.4-1) = 1.0
P = True vapor pressure of gasoline (see Figure 4.3-8) = 6.6 psia
M = Molecular weight of gasoline vapors (see Table 4.3-1) ~t>6
T = Temperature of gasoline = 540° R
eff = The control efficiency = 95%
= (1.0) (6.6) (66) / _95\
LL 12-46 540 I1 ' loo)
V
= 0.50 lb/103 gal
Total loading losses are
(0.50 lb/103 gal) (8.0 x 103 gal) = 4.0 Ib of hydrocarbon
4.4.2.4 Service Stations - Another major source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions is the filling
of underground gasoline storage tanks at service stations. Normally, gasoline is delivered to service
stations in large (8000 gallon) tank trucks. Emissions are generated when hydrocarbon vapors in the
underground storage tank are displaced to the atmosphere by the gasoline being loaded into the tank.
As with other loading losses, the quantity of the service station tank loading loss depends on several
variables including the size and length of the fill pipe, the method of filling, the tank configuration,
and the gasoline temperature, vapor pressure, and composition. An average hydrocarbon emission
rate for submerged filling is 7.3 lb/103 gallons of transferred gasoline, and the rate for splash filling
is 11.5 lb/103 gallons of transferred gasoline (Table 4.4-4).4
Emissions from underground tank filling operations at service stations can be reduced by the use of
the vapor balance system (Figure 4.4-5). The vapor balance system employs a vapor return hose which
returns gasoline vapors displaced from the underground tank to the tank truck storage compartments
being emptied. The control efficiency of the balance system ranges from 93 to 100 percent. Hydrocar-
bon emissions from underground tank filling operations at a service station employing the vapor
balance system and submerged filling are not expected to exceed 0.3 lb/103 gallons of transferred
gasoline.
4.4-10 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
Table 4.4-4. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE
SERVICE STATION OPERATIONS
Emission source
Filling underground tank
Submerged filling
Splash filling
Balanced submerged filling
Underground tank breathing
Vehicle refueling operations
Displacement losses
(uncontrolled)
Displacement losses
(controlled)
Spillage
Emission rate
lb/1C)3 gal throughput
7.3
11.5
0.3
1
9
0.9
0.7
kg/10^ liters throughput
0.88
1.38
0.04
0.12
1.08
0.11
0.084
A second source of hydrocarbon emissions from service stations is underground tank breathing.
Breathing losses occur daily and are attributed to temperature changes, barometric pressure changes,
and gasoline evaporation. The type of service station operation also has a large impact on breathing
losses. An average breathing emission rate is 1 lb/103 gallons throughput.5
4.4.2.5 Motor Vehicle Refueling - An additional source of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions at
service stations is vehicle refueling operations. Vehicle refueling emissions are attributable to vapors
displaced from the automobile tank by dispensed gasoline and to spillage. The quantity of displaced
vapors is dependent on gasoline temperature, auto tank temperature, gasoline RVP, and dispensing
rates. Although several correlations have been developed to estimate losses due to displaced vapors,
significant controversy exists concerning these correlations. It is estimated that the hydrocarbon
emissions due to vapors displaced during vehicle refueling average 9 lb/103 gallons of dispensed
gasoline.4*5
The quantity of spillage loss is a function of the type of service station, vehicle tank configuration,
operator technique, and operation discomfort indices. An overall average spillage loss is 0.7 lb/103
gallons of dispensed gasoline.6
Control methods for vehicle refueling emissions are based on conveying the vapors displaced from
the vehicle fuel tank to the underground storage tank vapor space through the use of a special hose and
nozzle (Figure 4.4-7). In the "balance" vapor control system, the vapors are conveyed by natural pres-
sure differentials established during refueling. In "vacuum assist" vapor control systems, the convey-
ance of vapors from the auto fuel tank to the underground fuel tank is assisted by a vacuum pump. The
overall control efficiency of vapor control systems for vehicle refueling emissions is estimated to be 88
to 92 percent.4
4/77
Evaporation Loss Sources
4.4-11
-------
SERVICE
STATION
PUMP
Figure 4.4-7. Automobile refueling vapor-recovery system.
References for Section 4.4
1. Burklin, C.E. and R.L. Honerkamp. Revision of Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA Report No. 450/3-76-039. August 15, 1976.
2. Burklin, Clinton E. et al. Background Information on Hydrocarbon Emissions From Marine
Terminal Operations, 2 Vols., EPA Report No. 450/3-76-038a and b. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
November 1976.
3. American Petroleum Inst., Evaporation Loss Committee. Evaporation Loss From Tank Cars,
Tank Trucks, and Marine Vessels. Washington, D.C. Bull. 2514. 1959.
4. Burklin, Clinton E. et al. Study of Vapor Control Methods For Gasoline Marketing Operations,
2 Vols. Radian Corporation. Austin, Texas. May 1975.
5. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. Investigation Of Passenger Car Refueling Losses, Final Report,
2nd year program. EPA Report No. APTD-1453. Research Triangle Park, N.C. September 1972.
6. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. Mathematical Expressions Relating Evaporative Emissions
From Motor Vehicles To Gasoline Volatility, summary report. Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania.
API Publication 4077. March 1971.
4.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
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, paniculate 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 ADIPIC ACID by Pqm Canova
5.1.1 General1'2
Adipic acid, HOOC(CH2)4COOH, is a white crystalline solid used in the manufacture of synthetic
fibers, coatings, plastics, urethane foams, elastomers, and synthetic lubricants. Ninety percent of all
adipic acid produced in the United States is used in manufacturing Nylon 6,6. Cyclohexane is generally
the basic raw material used to produce adipic acid; however, one plant uses cyclohexanone, which is a
by-product of another process. Phenol has also been utilized, but has proved to be more expensive and
less readily available than cyclohexane.
During adipic acid production, the raw material, cyclohexane or cyclohexanone, is transferred to a
reactor, where it is oxidized at 260 to 330°F (130 to 170°C) to form a cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone
mixture. The mixture is then transferred to a second reactor and oxidized with nitric acid and a cata-
lyst (usually a mixture of cupric nitrate and ammonium vanadate) at 160 to 220° F (70 to 100°C) to
form adipic acid. The chemistry of these reactions is shown below.
H2CCH2 H2C CHo-COOH
I) + (a)HN03 •* | + (b)NOx+(c)H20
H2CCH2 H2C CH2 COOH
C
H2
Cyclohexanone + Nitric acid >• Adipic acid + Nitrogen oxides + Water
HOH
H2 H2C-CH2-COOH
+ (x) HN03 •• | + (y) NOX + (z) H20
H2 H2C-CH2-COOH
H2
Cyclohexanol + Nitric acid •• Adipic acid + Nitrogen oxides + Water
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.1-1
-------
Dissolved NOX gas plus any light hydrocarbon by-products are stripped from the adipic acid/nitric
acid solution with air and steam. Various organic acid by-products, namely acetic acid, glutaric acid,
and succinic acid, are also formed and may be recovered and sold by some plants.
The adipic acid/nitric acid solution is then chilled, and sent to a crystallizer where adipic acid
crystals are formed. The solution is centrif uged to separate the crystals. The remaining solution is sent
to another crystallizer, where any residual adipic acid is crystallized and centrifugally separated. The
crystals from the two centrifuges are combined, dried, and stored. The remaining solution is distilled
to recover nitric acid, which is routed back to the second reactor for re-use. Figure 5.1-1 presents a
general schematic of the adipic acid manufacturing process.
5.1.2 Emissions and Controls
Nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide are the major pollutants produced in adipic
acid production. The cyclohexane reactor is the largest source of CO and HC, and the nitric acid reactor
is the predominant source of NOX. Particulate emissions are low because baghouses are generally
employed for maximum product recovery and air pollution control. Figure 5.1-1 shows the points of
emission of these pollutants.
The most significant emissions of HC and CO come from the cyclohexane oxidation unit, which is
equipped with high- and low-pressure scrubbers. Scrubbers have a 90 percent collection efficiency of
HC and are used for economic reasons to recover expensive hydrocarbons as well as for pollution
control. Thermal incinerators, flaring, and carbon absorbers can all be used to limit HC emissions
from the cyclohexane oxidation unit with greater than 90 percent efficiency. CO boilers control CO
emissions with 99.99 percent efficiency and HC emissions with practically 100 percent efficiency. The
combined use of a CO boiler and a pressure scrubber results in essentially complete HC and CO con-
trol.
Three methods are presently used to control emissions from the NOX absorber: water scrubbing,
thermal reduction, and flaring or combustion in a powerhouse boiler. Water scrubbers have a low
collection efficiency of approximately 70 percent because of the extended length of time needed to
remove insoluble NO in the absorber offgas stream. Thermal reduction, in which offgases containing
NOX are heated to high temperatures and reacted with excess fuel in a reducing atmosphere, operates
at up to 97.5 percent efficiency and is believed to be the most effective system of control. Burning off-
gas in a powerhouse or flaring has an estimated efficiency of 70 percent.
Emission factors for adipic acid manufacture are listed in Table 5.1-1.
5.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
cc
o
II
> o
DC -I
a
5<
tS
LU
Sz
X O
z cc
o«t __
11
iS
CC *"
< *
u
oc
si
u
Ul
cc
oc
o
cc
oc
<
tfi
03
o
o
L_
Q.
05
C
o
CO
4—
C
CO
£
o
(O
,0
'a.
4—
O
E
CD
O)
CO
CD
CD
d
in
o>
1_
3
o
oc
a
CC UJ
u a
5 o
4/77
Chemical Process Industry
5.1-3
-------
Table 5.1-T. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ADIPIC ACID MANUFACTURED
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Raw material storage
Uncontrolled
Cyclohexane oxidation
Uncontrolled0
W/boiler
W/thermal incinerator"
W/flarmge
W/carbon absorber'
W/scrubber plus boiler
Nitric acid reaction
UncontrolledS
W/water scrubber"
W/thermal reduction'
W/flarmg or combustion"
Adipic acid tefmingl
Uncontrolled^
Adipic acid drying, loading,
and storage
Uncontrolled^
Particulate
Ib/ton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0 1
08
kg/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0 1
04
Nitrogen
oxides^
Ib/ton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
16
1
16
06
0
kg/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
8
0 5
8
03
0
Hydrocarbon
Ib/ton
2 2
40
Negl
Neg
4
2
Neg
0
0
0
0
0 5
0
kg/MT
1 1
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
0
20
Neg
Neg
2
1
Neg
115
1
Neg
12
115
Neg
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
kg/MT
0
58
0 5
Neg
6
58
Neg
0
0
0
0
03 0 0
0
0
0
aEmission factors are in units of pounds of pollutant per ton and kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of adipic acid produced.
DNOX is in the form of NO and NC>2. Although large quantities of N20 are also produced, I\l20 is not considered a criteria
pollutant and is not, therefore, included in these factors.
•-Uncontrolled emission factors are after scrubber processing since hydrocarbon recovery using scrubbers is an integral part of
adipic acid manufacturing.
°A thermal incinerator is assumed to reduce HC and CO emissions by approximately 99.99%.
eA flaring system is assumed to reduce HC and CO emissions by 90%.
^A carbon absorber is assumed to reduce HC emissions by 94% and to be ineffective in reducing CO emissions.
9Uncontrolled emission factors are after NOX absorber since nitric acid recovery is an integral part of adipic acid manufacturing.
"Based on estimated 70% control.
'Based on estimated 97.5% control.
JRefining includes chilling, crystallization, centrifuging, and purification.
^Particulate emission factors are after baghouse control device.
Negligible.
References for Section 5,1
1. Screening Study to Determine Need for Standards of Performance for New Adipic Acid Plants.
GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Mass. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1316. July 1976.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Adipic Acid. Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. New York,
Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc. 1967. pp. 405-420.
5.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK by Charles Mann
5.3.1 Process Description
Carbon black is produced by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel, such as oil or gas, with a limited
supply of combustion air at temperatures of 2500 to 3000° F( 1370 to 1650° C). The unburned carbon is
collected as an extremely fine (10- to 400-nm diameter), black, fluffy particle. The three processes for
producing carbon black are the furnace process, thermal process, and channel process. In 1973 the
furnace process accounted for over 90 percent of production; the thermal process, 9 percent; and the
channel process, less than 1 percent. The primary use for carbon black is for strengthening rubber
products (mainly rubber tires); it is also used in printing inks, surface coatings, and plastics.
5.3.1.1 Furnace Process - Furnace black is produced by combustion of hydrocarbon feed in a refrac-
tory-lined furnace. Oil-fired furnaces now predominate. In this process (Figure 5.3-1) a heavy, aromatic
oil feed is preheated and fed into the furnace with about half of the air required for complete com-
bustion and a controlled amount of natural gas. The flue gases, which contain entrained carbon parti-
cles, are cooled to about 450° F (235° C) by passage through heat exchangers and water sprays. The
carbon black is then separated from the gas stream, usually by a fabric filter. A cyclone for primary
collection and particle agglomeration may precede the filter. A single collection system often serves a
number of furnaces that are manifolded together.
The recovered carbon black is finished to a marketable product by pulverizing and wet pelletizing
to increase bulk density. Water from the wet pelletizer is driven off in an indirect-fired rotary dryer.
The dried pellets are then conveyed to bulk storage. Process yields range from 35 to 65 percent, de-
pending on the particle size of the carbon black produced and the efficiency of the process. Furnace
designs and operating characteristics influence the particle size of the oil black. Generally, yields are
highest for large particle blacks and lowest for small particle sizes.
The older gas-furnace process is basically the same as the oil-furnace process except that a light
hydrocarbon gas is the primary feedstock and furnace designs are different. Some oil may also be
added to enrich the gas feed. Yields range from 10 to 30 percent, which is much less than in the oil
process, and comparatively coarser particles (40- to 80-nm diameter compared to 20- to 50-nm diameter
for oil-furnace blacks) are produced. Because of the scarcity of natural gas and the comparatively low
efficiency of the gas process, carbon black production by this method has been declining.
5.3.1.2 Thermal Process - The thermal process is a cyclic operation in which natural gas is thermally
decomposed to carbon particles, hydrogen, methane, and a mixture of other hydrocarbons. To start
the cycle, natural gas is burned to heat a brick checkerwork in the process furnace to about 3000° F
(1650° C). After this temperature is reached, the air supply is cut off, the furnace stack is closed, and
natural gas is introduced into the furnace. The natural gas is decomposed by the heat from the hot
bricks. When the bricks become cool, the natural gas flow is shut off. The effluent gases, containing
the thermal black particles, are flushed out of the furnace and cooled by water sprays to about 250° F
(125°C) before passing through cyclonic collectors and fabric filters, which recover the thermal black.
The effluent gases, consisting of about 90 percent hydrogen, 6 percent methane, and a mixture of
other hydrocarbons, are cooled, compressed, and used as a fuel to reheat the furnaces. Normally, more
than enough hydrogen is produced to make the thermal-black process self-sustaining, and the surplus
hydrogen is used to fire boilers that supply process steam and electric power.
The collected thermal black is pulverized and pelletized to a final product in much the same man-
ner as furnace black. Thermal-process yields are generally high (35 to 60 percent), but the relatively
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-1
-------
CD
O
O
Q.
01
"S
O
CD
C
O
-o
O
c
O
03
O
CO
l_
O5
CO
T3
O
—
M—
"o.
E
CO
00
iri
5.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
coarse particles produced (180- to 470-nm diameter) do not have the strong reinforcing properties re-
quired for rubber products.
5.3.1.3 Channel Process - 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 deposited on the channels is scraped off into collecting
hoppers. The combustion gases, containing uncollected solid carbon, carbon monoxide, and other
combustion products, are then vented directly from the building. Yields from the channel-black
process are only 5 percent or less, but very fine particles are produced (10- to 30-nm diameter). Chan-
nel-black production has been declining steadily from its peak in the 1940's. Since 1974 no production
of channel black has been reported.
5.3.2 Emissions and Controls
Emissions from carbon black manufacture include particulates, sulfur compounds, carbon monox-
ide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Trace amounts of polynuclear organic matter (POM) are also
likely to be emitted. Emissions vary considerably from one process to another. Typical emission fac-
tors are given in Table 5.3-1.
The principal source of emissions in the furnace process is the main process vent. The vent stream
consists of the reactor effluent plus quench water vapor vented from the carbon-black recovery system.
Gaseous emissions vary considerably according to the grade of carbon black being produced. Hydro-
carbon and CO emissions tend to be higher for small-particle black production. Sulfur compound
emissions are a function of the feed sulfur content. Table 5.3-1 shows the normal emission ranges to be
expected from these variations in addition to typical average values. Some particulate emissions may
also occur from product transport, drier vents, the bagging and storage area, and spilled and leaked
materials. Such emissions are generally negligible, however, because of the high efficiency of collec-
tion devices and sealed conveying systems used to prevent product loss.
Particulate emissions from the furnace-black process are controlled by fabric filters that recover
the product from process and dryer vents. Particulate emissions control is therefore proportional to
the efficiency of the product recovery system. Some producers may use water scrubbers on the dryer
vent system.
Gaseous emissions from the furnace process may be controlled by CO boilers, incinerators, or
flares. The pellet dryer combustion furnace, which is in essence a thermal incinerator, may also be
employed in a control system. CO boilers, thermal incinerators, or combinations of these devices can
achieve essentially complete oxidation of CO, hydrocarbons, and reduced sulfur compounds in the
process flue gas. Particulate emissions may also be reduced by combustion of some of the carbon black
particles; however, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are increased by these combustion
devices.
Generally, emissions from the thermal process are negligible. Small amounts of nitrogen oxides
and particulates may be emitted during the heating part of the process cycle when furnace stacks are
open. Entrainment of carbon particles adhering to the checker brick may occur. Nitrogen oxides may
be formed since high temperatures are reached in the furnaces. During the decomposition portion of
the production cycle, the process is a closed system and no emissions would occur except through leaks.
Considerable emissions result from the channel process because of low efficiency of the process and
the venting of the exhaust gas directly to the atmosphere. Most of the carbon input to the process is lost
as CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, and particulate.
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-3
-------
CD
UJ
CC
|-
O
LL
UH
z
^
^~
\x
u
_l
03
O
00
CC
U
CC
o
u.
00
FACTOF
1
co
CO
i
UJ
m
f"
CO
1
(C
co
LU
ISSHOO!
EL.
Q.
^
2
CC
UJ
X
1—
— m
to 2
UJ Z
81
ecu
Q.
URNACE 1
:URNACE,
u. "•
OC£
00 U
C3
Z
h-
cc
cc
o
1-
o
IISSION FA
UJ
w. ^
-H T3
en o
EU
?•§
-o ^
; 3
= "2
^ °
n
|
0
O
I
C T!
2 ><
-2 o
£
(5
y
CL
-
~CT>
-^
C
o
]Q
~
,_
^
^)
C
o
_Q
i
0)
c
o
^
—
r-
3
c
o
t-
01
c
0
H
o>
c
o
Process
o.gg 01 o, m
ZCNCN -z_ 2 z
_
01 <^ ^ 01 01 Ol
Z ^ ^ Z Z Z
CO
[/) ^ ^3 ro CR Cn
111 o o Z Z Z
in
o
8
^ CN CN g1 g1 g1
-00 Z Z Z
en
o
CN
CN 01
O CO CO -^
^ 01
0 CD CO *J
*•
S~
in
. «- m o o
co g S S1
o in "^
o
o
CN
m n o o o
«- o o
8 2 2 s*
o "~ ^ 2
o
CN
5 §
m CN
i? in in " o
CD o un
8 ° ^ £P
°- N tO Z
§0 "~
m
CO CD
•— CN
§ §
S^o, S
§' o o 0 o
*- CO Q O m
^r *~ CN ^ ^
•- ^J co Z
0 0 M
SO
CO
oj m
in LO
~ •— <- m o
cp in 01
CO "~
0)
S CO CO O O
T " S S1
S CM' Z
to
^
^ 1;° £ S- i o
i i8^ s - ^
C ?, ^. ^ £ "S «)
D C|| ^ C E
O OOf—
k product.
u
CD
3
c
o
8
"o
c
0
.a
S
E
03
a
(/>
E
CD
01
o
c
CD
O
&
"8
c
D
O
a
V—
O
£
0)
c
i
-
QJ
CO
ur>
r*-
6
emissions is 5
:omposition of
CD
D
'•'As methane.
c
1_
D
"5
^
o
c
0
CO
00
>
c
0
u
^
g
CU
D)
CD
CD
C
CD
•o
C
CD
CJ
3
15
Q.
-X
03
JD
C
0
.Q
CD
U
o
T)
QJ
0)
CD
f*
C
C
o
-2
CD
CJ
'o
2
eu
>
^
O
LO
CD
C
O
•g
(/)
5
o
o
CD
r~
eed. Emissioi
**-
CU
c
D
1
c
0)
u
&w
~ CN
•g.1
'5 o
CD nj
•E .£
(A 0)
co •£
u
(d
T3
C
CO
dReferences 5
s?
O)
§5
o
in
O)
0)
'o
CD
collection effic
^
r
CJ
^3
CD
C
0
•g
V)
CD
CD
CU
(O
CU
o
c
CU
CU
CU
cc
d
o
'o
c
o
CO
TD
'x
o
achieve 99°/i
0
expected
CU
.Q
O
CO
-D
13
CJ
£2
o
ra
hermal incinei
I-
d
o
H-
O
"o
•H1
C
o
CJ
1
o
c
o
•D
CO
CD
2
U
o
o
o
•M
•D
S
tt)
1
CU
CD
C
O
_S
CD
C
CD
O
3 ^
CU d
CJ M
03 O
5 S
CD 3
rr J3
8 2
U CO
O 'CD
§ B
'^ o
1 " ON =
X T3 T, £
° g 1 s
S 8 - -S
c § S g
° | S .2
CD ,£ CD "
"0 ® 'S E
m cc oc uj
O) -C — — .
5.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
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. 18:216-228, April 1968.
3. Cox, J.T. High Quality, High Yield Carbon Black. Chem. Eng. 57:116-117, June 1950.
4. Reinke, R.A. and T.A. Ruble. Oil Black. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44:685-694, April 1952.
5. Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry, Volume 1:
Carbon Black Manufacture by the Furnace Process. Houdry Division, Air Products and Chem-
icals, Incorporated. Publication Number EPA-450/3-73-006a. June 1974.
6. Hustvedt, Kent C., Leslie B. Evans, and William M. Vatavuk. Standards Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement, An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for
Furnace Process Carbon Black Plants in the Carbon Black Industry. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. April 1976.
7. .Carbon Black (Oil Black). Continental Carbon Company. Hydrocarbon Processing,, 52:111.
November 1973. ~~
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.3-5
-------
-------
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
lOO6
152
232
60b
kg/MT
200
160b
BO5
76
116
30*
Calculated values based on data in Reference 2.
bEmissions are negligible if afterburner is used.
cExpressed as methane.
"^Emission factors expressed in units of tons of charcoal produced.
References for Section 5.4
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. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p. 619..
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.4-1
-------
-------
5 12 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
5.12.1 General1
by Pam Canova
Phthalic anhydride (PAN) production in the United States in 1972 was 0.9 billion pounds per year;
this total is estimated to increase to 2.2 billion pounds per year by 1985. Of the current production, 50
percent is used for plasticizers, 25 percent for alkyd resins, 20 percent for unsaturated polyester resins,
and 5 percent for miscellaneous and exports. PAN is produced by catalytic oxidation of either ortho-
xylene or naphthalene. Since naphthalene is a higher priced feedstock and has a lower feed utilization
(about 1.0 Ib PAN/lb o-xylene versus 0.97 Ib PAN/lb naphthalene), future production growth is pre-
dicted to utilize o-xylene. Because emission factors are intended for future as well as present applica-
tion, this report will focus mainly on PAN production utilizing o-xylene as the main feedstock.
The processes for producing PAN by o-xylene or naphthalene are the same except for reactors,
catalyst handling, and recovery facilities required for fluid bed reactors.
In PAN production using o-xylene as the basic feedstock, filtered air is preheated, compressed, and
mixed with vaporized o-xylene and fed into the fixed-bed tubular reactors. The reactors contain the
catalyst, vanadium pentoxide, and are operated at 650 to 725°F (340 to 385°C). Small amounts of
sulfur dioxide are added to the reactor feed to maintain catalyst activity. Exothermic heat is removed
by a molten salt bath circulated around the reactor tubes and transferred to a steam generation system.
Naphthalene-based feedstock is made up of vaporized naphthalene and compressed air. It is
transferred to the fluidized bed reactor and oxidized in the presence of a catalyst, vanadium pent-
oxide, at 650 to 725° F (340 to 385° C). Cooling tubes located in the catalyst bed remove the«xothermic
heat which is used to produce high-pressure steam. The reactor effluent consists of PAN vapors, en-
trained catalyst, and various by-products and non-reactant gas. The catalyst is removed by filtering and
returned to the reactor.
The chemical reactions for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene are as follows.
302
3H20
o-xylene + oxygen
phthalic , water
anhydride
naphthalene +
4/77
anhydride
Chemical Process Industry
2H20 + 2C02
0
phthalic , water , carbon
anhydride dioxide
5.12,1
-------
The reactor effluent containing crude PAN plus products from side reactions and excess oxygen passes
to a series of switch condensers where the crude PAN cools and crystallizes. The condensers are alter-
nately cooled and then heated, allowing PAN crystals to form and then melt from the condenser tube
fins.
The crude liquid is transferred to a pretreatment section in which phthalic acid is dehydrated to
anhydride. Water, maleic anhydride, and benzoic acid are partially evaporated. The liquid then goes
to a vacuum distillation section where pure PAN (99.8 wt. percent pure) is recovered. The product can
be stored and shipped either as a liquid or a solid (in which case it is dried, flaked, and packaged in
multi-wall paper bags). Tanks for holding liquid PAN are kept at 300°F (150°C) and blanketed with
dry nitrogen to prevent the entry of oxygen (fire) or water vapor (hydrolysis to phthalic acid).
Maleic anhydride is currently the only by-product being recovered.
Figures 1 and 2 show the process flow for air oxidation of o-xylene and naphthalene, respectively.
5.12.2 Emissions and Controls1
Emissions from o-xylene and naphthalene storage are small and presently are not controlled.
The major contributor of emissions is the reactor and condenser effluent which is vented from the
condenser unit. Paniculate, sulfur oxides (for o-xylene-based production), and carbon monoxide
make up the emissions, with carbon monoxide comprising over half the total. The most efficient (96
percent) system of control is the combined usage of a water scrubber and thermal incinerator. A
thermal incinerator alone is approximately 95 percent efficient in combustion of pollutants for o-
xylene-based production, and 80 percent efficient for naphthalene-based production. Thermal incin-
erators with steam generation show the same efficiencies as thermal incinerators alone. Scrubbers
have a 99 percent efficiency in collecting particulates, but are practically ineffective in reducing car-
bon monoxide emissions. In naphthalene-based production, cyclones can be used to control catalyst
dust emissions with 90 to 98 percent efficiency.
Pretreatment and distillation emissions—particulates and hydrocarbons—are normally processed
through the water scrubber and/or incinerator used for the main process stream (reactor and con-
denser) or scrubbers alone, with the same efficiency percentages applying.
Product storage in the liquid phase results in small amounts of gaseous emissions. These gas
streams can either be sent to the main process vent gas control devices or first processed through
sublimation boxes or devices used to recover escaped PAN. Flaking and bagging emissions are negli-
gible, but can be sent to a cyclone for recovery of PAN dust. Exhaust from the cyclone presents no
problem.
Table 5.12-1 gives emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled emissions from the production
of PAN.
5.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
II
DC *•*
A
|i
fe «
UJ
cc
tn
T3
0)
g>
ii.
4/77
Chemical Process Industry
5.12-3
-------
ock
eed
CD
_Q
in
CD
01
03
.C
a.
CO
c
en
T3
.C
C
CD
-C
a.
E
CD
l-
01
CD
T!
CM
LO
Ol
u_
5.12-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 5.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE1-3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Oxidation of o-xylene"
Main process stream0
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
W/mcmerator with
steam generator
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/scrubber and thermal
incinerator
W/thermal incinerator
Oxidation of naphthalene0
Mam process stream0
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Pretreatment
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Distillation
Uncontrolled
W/thermal incinerator
W/scrubber
Paniculate
Ib/ton
138d
6
7
7
13*
0.5
0.7
89d
4
4
569-1
11
0.6
5"
1
<0.1
389
8
0.4
kg/MT
69d
3
4
4
6.4*
0.3
0.4
45d
2
2
289. i
6
03
2.5h
0.5
<0.1
199
4
0.2
SOX
Ib/ton
9.4e
9.4
9.4
9.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
kg/MT
4.?e
4.7
4.7
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HC
Ib/ton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
<0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
0.1
kg/MT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
<0.1
CO
Ib/ton
301
12
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
20
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
kg/MT
151
6
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
10
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
aEmission factors are in units of pounds of pollutant per ton (kilogram of pollutant per metric ton) of phthalic anhydride
produced.
Control devices listed are those currently being used by phthalic anhydride plants.
cMam process stream includes the reactor and multiple switch condensers as vented through the condenser unit.
Particulate consists of phthalic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and benzoic acid.
eEmissions change with catalyst age. Value shown corresponds to relatively fresh catalyst. Can be 19 to 25 Ib/ton (9.5 to 13
kg/MT) for aged catalyst.
Particulate consists of phthalic anhydride and maleic anhydride.
^Particulate consists of phthalic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and naphthaquinone.
Particulate is phthalic anhydride.
'Particulate does not include catalyst dust which is controlled by cyclones with an efficiency of 90 to 98 percent.
Reference for Section 5.12
1. Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry. Vol 7:
Phthalic Anhydride Manufacture from Ortho-Xylene. Houdry Division, Air Products and Chemi-
cals, Inc., Marcus Hook, Pa. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/3-73-006-g. July 1975.
4/77 Chemical Process Industry 5.12-5
Chemical Process Industry
-------
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS
6.4.1 General1'3
Grain elevators are buildings in which grains are gathered, stored, and discharged for use, further
processing, or shipping. They are classified as "country/'"terminal," and "export" elevators, according
to their purpose and location. At country elevators, grains are unloaded, weighed, and placed in
storage as they are received from farmers residing within about a 20-mile radius of the elevator. In
addition, country elevators sometimes dry or clean grain before it is shipped to terminal elevators or
processors.
Terminal elevators receive most of their grain from country elevators and ship to processors, other
terminals, and exporters. The primary functions of terminal elevators are to store large quantities of
grain without deterioration and to dry, clean, sort, and blend different grades of grain to meet buyer
specifications.
Export elevators are similar to terminal elevators except that they mainly load grain on ships for
export.
Processing of grain in mills and feed plants ranges from very simple mixing steps to complex
industrial processes. Included are such diverse processes as: (1) simple mixing operations in feed mills,
(2) grain milling in flour mills, (3) solvent extracting in soybean processing plants, and (4) a complex
series of processing steps in a corn wet-milling plant.
6.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Grain handling, milling, and processing include a variety of operations from the initial receipt of
the grain at either a country or terminal elevator to the delivery of a finished product. Flour, livestock
feed, soybean oil, and corn syrup are among the products produced from plants in the grain and feed
industry. Emissions from the feed and grain industry can be separated into two general areas, those
occurring at grain elevators and those occurring at grain processing operations.
6.4.2.1 Grain Elevators - Grain elevator emissions can occur from many different operations in the
elevator including unloading (receiving), loading (shipping), drying, cleaning, headhouse (legs),
tunnel belt, gallery belt, and belt trippers. Emission factors for these operations at terminal, country,
and export elevators are presented in Table 6.4-1. All of these emission factors are approximate average
values intended to reflect a variety of grain types. Actual emission factors for a specific source may be
considerably different, depending on the type of grain, i.e., corn, soybeans, wheat, and other factors
such as grain quality.
The emission factors shown in Table 6.4-1 represent the amount of dust generated per ton of grain
processed through each of the designated operations (i.e., uncontrolled emission factors). Amounts of
grain processed through each of these operations in a given elevator are dependent on such factors as
the amount of grain turned (interbin transfer), amount dryed, and amount cleaned, etc. Because the
amount of grain passing through each operation is often difficult to determine, it may be more useful
to express the emission factors in terms of the amount of grain shipped or received, assuming these
amounts are about the same over the long term. Emission factors from Table 6.4-1 have been modified
accordingly and are shown in Table 6.4-2 along with the appropriate multiplier that was used as repre-
sentative of typical ratios of throughput at each operation to the amount of grain shipped or received.
This ratio is an approximate value based on average values for turning, cleaning, and drying in each
4/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.4-1
-------
type of elevator. However, because operating practices in individual elevators are different, these
ratios, like the basic emission factors themselves, are more valid when applied to a group of elevators
rather than individual elevators.
Table 6.4-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR UNCONTROLLED GRAIN ELEVATORS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of source
Terminal elevators
Unloaded (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying'3
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Drying'3
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drying'3
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belts)
Emission factor3
Ib/ton
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
kg/MT
0.5
0.2
1.7
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.5
0.8
0.5
aEmission factors are in terms of pounds of dust emitted per ton of
grain processed by each operation. Most of the factors for terminal
and export elevators are based on Reference 1. Emission factors
for drying are based on References 2 and 3. The emission factors
for country elevators are based on Reference 1 and specific country
elevator test data in References 4 through 9.
Emission factors for drying are based on 1.8 Ib/ton for rack dryers
and 0.3 Ib/ton for column dryers prorated on the basis of distribu-
tion of these two types of dryers in each elevator category, as
discussed in Reference 3.
cEmission factor of 3.0 for cleaning is an average value which may
range fiom <0.5 for wheat up to 6.0 for corn.
The factors in Tables 6.4-1 or 6.4-2 should not be added together in an attempt to obtain a single
emission factor value for grain elevators because in most elevators some of the operations are
equipped with control devices and some are not. Therefore, any estimation of emissions must be
directed to each operation and its associated control device, rather than the elevator as a whole, unless
the purpose was to estimate total potential (i.e., uncontrolled) emissions. An example of the use of
emission factors in making an emission inventory is contained in Reference 3.
6.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 6.4-2. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS BASED ON
AMOUNT OF GRAIN RECEIVED OR SHIPPED3
Type of source
Terminal elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drymgb
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Country elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins
Drymgb
Cleaning0
Headhouse (legs)
Export elevators
Unloading (receiving)
Loading (shipping)
Removal from bins (tunnel belt)
Drymgb
Cleanmgc
Headhouse (legs)
Tripper (gallery belt)
Emission factor,
Ib/ton processed
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.3
1 0
0.7
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.1
3.0
1.5
1.0
X
Typical ratio of tons processed
to tons received or shipped"
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.1
0.2
30
1 7
1.0
1 0
2.1
0.3
0 1
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.01
0.2
2.2
1.1
=
Emission factor,
Ib/ton received or shipped
1.0
0.3
28
0.1
06
4 5
1 7
0.6
03
2.1
0 2
0.3
4.7
1.0
1.0
1 7
001
06
3.3
1.1
aAssume that over the long term the amount received is approximately equal to amount shipped.
bSee Noteb in Table 6.4-1.
°See Notec in Table 6.4-1. i
Ratios shown are average values taken from a survey of many elevators across the U.S.^ These ratios can be considerably different
for any individual elevator or group of elevators in the same locale.
Some of the operations listed in the table, such as the tunnel belt and belt tripper, are internal or
in-house dust sources which, if uncontrolled, might show lower than expected atmospheric emissions
because of internal settling of dust. The reduction in emissions via internal settling is not known,
although it is possible that all of this dust is eventually emitted to the atmosphere due to subsequent
external operations, internal ventilation, or other means.
Many elevators utilize control devices on at least some operations. In the past, cyclones have com-
monly been applied to legs in the headhouse and tunnel belt hooding systems. More recently, fabric
filters have been utilized at many elevators on almost all types of operations. Unfortunately, some
sources in grain elevators present control problems. Control of loadout operations is difficult because
of the problem of containment of the emissions. Probably the most difficult operation to control,
because of the large flow rate and high moisture content of the exhaust gases, is the dryers. Screen-
houses or continuously vacuumed screen systems are available for reducing dryer emissions and have
been applied at several facilities. Detailed descriptions of dust control systems for grain elevator oper-
ations are contained in Reference 2.
6.4.2.2 Grain Processing Operations - Grain processing operations include many of the operations
performed in a grain elevator in addition to milling and processing of the grain. Emission factors for
different grain milling and processing operations are presented in Table 6.4-3. Brief discussions of
these different operations and the methods used for arriving at the emission factor values shown in
Table 6.4-3 are presented below.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.4-3
-------
Table 6.4-3. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR GRAIN PROCESSING OPERATIONSl-2,3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of source
Feed mills
Receiving
Shipping
Handling
Grinding
Pellet coolers
Wheat mills
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Durum mills
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Rye milling
Receiving
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Millhouse
Dry corn milling
Receiving
Drying
Precleaning and handling
Cleaning house
Degerming and milling
Oat milling
Total
Rice milling
Receiving
Handling and precleaning
Drying
Cleaning and millhouse
Soybean mills
Receiving
Handling
Cleaning
Drying
Cracking and dehulling
Hull grinding
Emission factora-b
(uncontrolled except where indicated)
Ib/ton
1.30
0.50
3.00
0.1 Oc
0.1 Oc
1.00
5.00
-
70.00
1.00
5.00
-
-
1.00
5.00
-
70.00
1.00
0.50
5.00
6.00
2.50d
0.64
5.00
1.60
5.00
-
7.20
3.30
2.00
kg/MT
0.65
0.25
1.50
0.05C
0.05C
0.50
2.50
-
35.00
0.50
2.50
-
-
0.50
2.50
-
35.00
0.50
0.25
2.50
3.00
-
1.25d
0.32
2.50
-
-
0.80
2.50
-
3.60
1.65
1.00
6.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 6.4-3 (continued). PA'RTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR GRAIN PROCESSING OPERATIONSl.2,3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of source
Bean conditioning
Flaking
Meal dryer
Meal cooler
Bulk loading
Corn wet milling
Receiving
Handling
Cleaning
Dryers
Bulk loading
Emission factor3.0
(uncontrolled except where indicated)
Ib/ton
0.10
0.57
1.50
1.80
0.27
1.00
5.00
6.00
-
-
kg/MT
0.05
0.29
0.75
0.90
0.14
0.50
2.50
3.00
-
-
aEmission factors are expressed in terms of pounds of dust emitted per ton of grain
entering the plant (i.e., received), which is not necessarily the same as the amount
of material processed by each operation.
Blanks indicate insufficient information.
GControlled emission factor (controlled with cyclones).
Controlled emission factorjThis represents several sources in one plant; some
controlled with cyclones and others controlled with fabric filters.)
Emission factor data for feed mill operations are sparse. This is partly due to the fact that many
ingredients, whole grain and other dusty materials (bran, dehydrated alfalfa, etc.), are received by
both truck and rail and several unloading methods are employed. However, because some feed mill
operations (handling, shipping, and receiving) are similar to operations in a grain elevator, an emis-
sion factor for each of these different operations was estimated on that basis. The remaining
operations are based on information in Reference 2.
Three emission areas for wheat mill processing operations are grain receiving and handling, clean-
ing house, and milling operations. Data from Reference 1 are used to estimate emissions factors for
grain receiving and handling. Data for the cleaning house are insufficient to estimate an emission
factor, and information contained in Reference 2 is used to estimate the emission factor for milling
operations. The large emission factor for the milling operation is somewhat misleading because almost
all of the sources involved are equipped with control devices to prevent product losses; fabric filters
are widely used for this purpose.
Operations for durum mills and rye milling are similar to those of wheat milling. Therefore, most
of these emission factors are assumed equal to those for wheat mill operations.
The grain unloading, handling, and cleaning operations for dry corn milling are similar to those in
other grain mills, but the subsequent operations are somewhat different. Also, some drying of corn
received at the mill may be necessary prior to storage. An estimate of the emission factor for drying is
obtained from Reference 2. Insufficient information is available to estimate emission factors for
degerming and milling.
Information necessary to estimate emissions from oat milling is unavailable, and no emission
factor for another grain is considered applicable because oats are reported to be dustier than many,
other grains. The only emission factor data available are for controlled emissions.2 An overall con-
trolled emission factor of 2.5 Ib/ton is calculated from these data.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.4-5
-------
Emission factors for rice milling are based on those for similar operations in other grain handling
facilities. Insufficient information is available to estimate emission factors for drying, cleaning, and
mill house operations.
Information contained in Reference 2 is used to estimate emission factors for soybean mills.
Emissions information on corn wet-milling is unavailable in most cases due to the wide variety of
products and the diversity of operations. Receiving, handling, and cleaning operations emission
factors are assumed to be similar to those for dry corn milling.
Many of the operations performed in grain milling and processing plants are the same as those in
grain elevators, so the control methods are similar. As in the case of grain elevators, these plants often
use cyclones or fabric filters to control emissions from the grain handling operations (e.g.", unloading,
legs, cleaners, etc.). These same devices are also often used to control emissions from other processing
operations; a good example of this is the extensive use of fabric filters in flour mills. However, there are
also certain operations within some milling operations that are not amenable to use of these devices.
Therefore, wet scrubbers have found some application, particularly where the effluent gas stream has
a high moisture content. Certain other operations have been found to be especially difficult to control,
such as rotary dryers in wet corn mills. Descriptions of the emission control systems that have been
applied to operations within the grain milling and processing industries are contained in Reference 2.
This section was prepared for EPA by Midwest Research Institute.10
References for Section 6.4
1. Gorman, P.G. Potential Dust Emission from a Grain Elevator in Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared
by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0228, Task Order No. 24. May 1974.
2. Shannon, L. J. et al. Emission Control in the Grain and Feed Industry , Volume I •• Engineering
and Cost Study. Final Report. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency by Midwest
Research Institute. Document No. EPA-450/3-73-003a. Research Triangle Park, IN.C. December
1973.
3. Shannon, L.J. et al. Emission Control in the Grain and Feed Industry, Volume II - Emission
Inventory. Final Report. Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. EPA-450/3-73-003b. September 1974
4. Maxwell, W.H. Stationary Source Testing of a Country Grain Elevator at Overbrook, Kansas.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1403. Research Triangle Park, N.C. February 1976.
5. Maxwell, W.H. Stationary Source Testing of a Country Grain Elevator at Great Bend, Kansas.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
Contract No. 68-02-1403. Research Triangle Park, N.C. April 1976.
6. Belgea, F.J. Cyclone Emissions and Efficiency Evaluation. Report submitted to North Dakota
State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Edenburg, North Dakota, by Pollution
Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. March 10, 1972.
7. Trowbridge, A.L. Particulate Emission Testing - ERG Report No. 4-7683. Report submitted to
North Dakota State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Egeland, North Dakota, by
Environmental Research Corporation. St. Paul, Minnesota. January 16, 1976.
6.4-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
8. Belgea, F. J. Grain Handling Dust Collection Systems Evaluation for Farmers Elevator Company,
Minot, North Dakota. Report submitted to North Dakota State Department of Health, by
Pollution Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. August 28, 1972.
9. Belgea, F.J. Cyclone Emission and Efficiency Evaluation. Report submitted to North Dakota
State Department of Health on tests at an elevator in Thompson, North Dakota, by Pollution
Curbs, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota. March 10, 1972.
10. Schrag, M.P. et al. Source Test Evaluation for Feed and Grain Industry. Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo., for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-1403, Task Order No. 28. December 1976. Publication No.
EPA-450/3-76-043.
4/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.4-7
-------
-------
6.6 FISH PROCESSING revised by Susan Sercer
6.6.1 Process Description
Fish processing includes the canning of fish and the manufacturing of by-products such as fish'oil
and fish meal. The manufacturing of fish oil and fish meal are known as reduction processes. A general-
ized fish processing operation is presented in Figure 6.6-1 .
Two types of canning operations are used. One is the "wet fish" method in which trimmed and
eviscerated fish are cooked directly in open cans. The other operation is the "pre-cooked" process in
which eviscerated fish are cooked whole and portions are hand selected and packed into cans. The pre-
cooked process is used primarily for larger fish such as tuna.
By-product manufacture of rejected whole fish and scrap requires several steps. First, the fish scrap
mixture from the canning line is charged to a live steam cooker. After the material leaves the cooker,
it is pressed to remove water and oil. The resulting press cake is broken up and dried in a rotary drier.
Two types of driers are used to dry the press cake: direct-fired and steam-tube driers. Direct-fired
driers contain a stationary firebox ahead of the rotating section. The hot products of combustion from
the firebox are mixed with air and wet meal inside the rotating section of the drier. Exhaust gases are
generally vented to a cyclone separator to recover much of the entrained fish meal product. Steam-
tube driers contain a cylindrical bank of rotating tubes through which hot, pressurized steam is
passed. Heat is indirectly transferred to the meal and the air from the hot tubes. As with direct-fired
driers, the exhaust gases are vented to a cyclone for product recovery.
6.6.2 Emissions and Controls
Although smoke and dust can be a problem, odors are the most objectionable emissions from fish
processing plants. By-product manufacture results in more of these odorous contaminants than
cannery operations because of the greater state of decomposition of the materials processed. In gener-
al, highly decayed feedstocks produce greater concentrations of odors than do fresh feedstocks.
The largest odor sources are the fish meal driers. Usually, direct-fired driers emit more odors than
steam-tube driers. Direct-fired driers will also emit smoke, particularly if the driers are operated
under high temperature conditions. Cyclones are frequently employed on drier exhaust gases for
product recovery and particulate emission control.
Odorous gases from reduction cookers consist primarily of hydrogen sulfide [H2S] and trimethyl-
amine [(CH3),NJ. Odors from reduction cookers are emitted in volumes appreciably less than from fish
meal driers. There are virtually no particulate emissions from reduction cookers.
Some odors are also produced by the canning processes. Generally, the pre-cooked process emits
less odorous gases than the wet-fish process. This is because in the pre-cooked process, the odorous
exhaust gases are trapped in the cookers, whereas in the wet-fish process, the steam and odorous
offgases are commonly vented directly to the atmosphere.
Fish cannery and fish reduction odors can be controlled with afterburners, chlorinator-scrubbers,
and condensers. Afterburners are most effective, providing virtually 100 percent odor control; how-
ever they are costly from a fuel-use standpoint. Chl'orinator-scrubbers have been found to be 95 to 99
percent effective in controlling odors from cookers and driers. Condensers are the least effective
control device. Generally, centrifugal collectors are satisfactory for controlling excessive dust emis-
sions from driers.
Emission factors for fish processing are presented in Table 6.6-1.
4/77 Food and Agricultural Industry 6.6-1
-------
<= oo
2
O)
2
T3
g
O
O)
c
O
e
Q.
.C
_
4-
"D
0)
0)
OJ
CO
CO
d)
k_
en
6.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table 6.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FISH PROCESSING PLANTS
EMISSIQJM FACTOR RATING: C
Emission source
Cookers, canning
Cookers, fish scrap
Fresh fish
Stale fish
Dryers '
Particulates
Ib/ton
Neg.a
Neg.a
Neg.a
0.1d
kg/MT
Neg.a
Neg.a
Neg.a
0.05d
Trimethylamine
(CH3)3N
Ib/ton
NAb
0.3C
3.5C
NAd
kg/MT
NAb
0.1 5C
1.75C
NAd
Hydrogen sulfide
(H2S)
Ib/ton
NAb
0.01C
0.2°
NAd
kg/MT
NAb
0.005C
0.1 Oc
NAd
aReference 1.
"Although it is known that odors are emitted from canning cookers, quantitative estimates are not available.
cReference 2.
Limited data suggest that there is not much difference in particulate emissions between steam tube and direct-fired
dryers. Based on reference 1.
References for Section 6.6
1. Walsh, R.T., K.D. Luedtke, and L.K. Smith. Fish Canneries and Fish Reduction Plants. In: Air
Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 760-770.
2. Summer, W. Methods of Air Deodorization. New York, Elsevier Publishing Company. 1963. p.
284-286.
4/77
Food and Agricultural Industry
6.6-3
-------
-------
plant in question, and the particulate 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 CONTROLSa,b,c,i
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.
cReferences 1 and 2.
dTypical 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.
°The sulfur dioxide factors presented take into account the reactions with the alkaline dusts
when no baghouses are used. With baghouses, approximately 50 percent more SOo is removed
because of reactions with the alkaline particulate filter cake. Also note that the total SO? 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 SC>2.
SNegligible.
"S is the percent sulfur in fuel.
'Emission factors expressed in units of tons of cement produced.
4/77
Mineral Products Industry
8.6-3
-------
Table 8.6-2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DUST EMITTED
FROM KILN OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS1 -5
Particle size, /urn
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 SOp 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 SOo 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. DHEW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-17, 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.
36(247, Pi II): December 23, 1971.
5. Participate Pollutant System Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Ajr 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 VD1 Richtlmien. Dusseldorf, Germany. February
1967.
8.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING by Tom Lahre
8.15.1 General1'4
Lime is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone. There are two kinds of lime:
high-calcium lime (CaO) and dolomitic lime (CaO • MgO). Lime is manufactured in various kinds of
kilns by one of the following reactions:
+ heat — » CO2 + CaO (high calcium lime)
CaCCh . MgCO3 + heat -» CCh + CaO . MgO (dolomitic lime)
In some lime plants, the resulting lime is reacted (slaked) with water to form hydrated lime.
The basic processes in the production of lime are (1) quarrying the raw limestone, (2) preparing the
limestone for the kilns by crushing and sizing, (3) calcining the limestone, (4) processing the quicklime
further by hydrating, and (5) miscellaneous transfer, storage, and handling operations. A generalized
material flow diagram for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Figure 8.15-1. Note that some of the
operations shown may not be performed in all plants.
The heart of a lime plant is the kiln. The most prevalent type of kiln is the rotary kiln, accounting
for about 90 percent of all lime production in the United States. This kiln is a long, cylindrical, slightly
inclined, refractory-lined furnace through which the limestone and hot combustion gases pass count-
ercurrently. Coal, oil, and natural gas may all be fired in rotary kilns. Product coolers and kiln-feed
preheaters of various types are commonly employed to recover heat from the hot lime product and
and hot exhaust gases, respectively.
The next most prevalent type of kiln in the United States is the vertical, or shaft, kiln. This kiln can
be described as an upright heavy steel cylinder lined with refractory material. The limestone is
charged at the top and calcined as it descends slowly to the bottom of the kiln where it is discharged. A
primary advantage of vertical kilns over rotary kilns is the higher average fuel efficiency. The primary
disadvantages of vertical kilns are their relatively low production rates and the fact that coal cannot
be used without degrading the quality of the lime produced. Although still prevalent in Europe, there
have been few recent vertical kiln installations in the United States because of the high production
requirements of domestic manufacturers.
Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized-bed kilns. The rotary
hearth kiln, or "calcimatic" kiln, is a circular-shaped kiln with a slowly revolving donut-shaped hearth.
In fluidized-bed kilns, finely divided limestone is brought into direct contact with hot combustion
air in a turbulent zone, usually above a perforated grate. Dust collection equipment must be installed
on fluidized-bed kilns for process economics because of the high lime carryover into the exhaust gases.
Both kiln types can achieve high production rates, but neither can operate with coal.
About 10 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked) lime. There are two kinds
of hydrators: atmospheric and pressure. Atmospheric hydrators, the most prevalent kind, are used to
produce high calcium and normal dolomitic hydrates. Pressure hydrators, on the other hand, are only
employed when a completely hydrated dolomitic lime is needed. Atmospheric hydrators operate
continuously, whereas pressure hydrators operate in a batch mode. Generally, water sprays or wet
scrubbers are employed as an integral part of the hydrating process to prevent product losses. Follow-
ing hydration, the resulting product may be milled and conveyed to air separators for further drying
and for removal of the coarse fractions.
4/77 Mineral Products Industry J.I 5-1
-------
LIMESTONE
QUARRY/MINE
CONTROL
DEVICE
FUEL-
CONTROL
DEVICE
WATER'
HYDRATOR
HYDRATED
LIME
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
SCREENS AND
CLASSIFIERS
STONE
PREHEATER
LIMESTONE
KILN
LIME
PRODUCT
COOLER
LIME
n
KIL
EXHA
KILN
EXHAUST
•AIR
WATER SPRAY/
WET SCRUBBER
WATER/DUST SLURRY
STORAGE/
SHIPMENT
MILL/AIR
SEPARATOR
STORAGE/
SHIPMENT
STONE
POTENTIAL
EMITTING POINTS
AIR/EXHAUST
Figure 8.15-1. Generalized lime manufacturing plant.
8.15-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
In the United States, the major use of lime is in chemical and metallurgical applications. Two of the
largest uses in these areas are as steel flux and in alkali production. Other lesser uses include con-
struction, refractory, and agricultural applications.
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls3-5
Potential air pollutant emitting points in lime manufacturing plants are shown in Figure 8.15-1.
Particulate is the only pollutant of concern from most of the operations; however, gaseous pollutants
are also emitted from kilns.
The largest source or particulate is the kiln. Of the various kiln types in use, fluidized-bed kilns
have the highest uncontrolled particulate emissions. This is due primarily to the very small feed size
combined with the high air flow through these kilns. Fluidized-bed kilns are well controlled for
maximum product recovery. The rotary kiln is second to the fluidized-bed kiln in uncontrolled
particulate emissions. This is attributed to the small feed size and relatively high air velocities and
dust entrainment caused by the rotating chamber. The rotary hearth, or "calcimatic" kiln ranks third
in dust production, primarily because of the larger feed size combined with the fact that the limestone
remains in a stationary position relative to the hearth during calcination. The vertical kiln has the
lowest uncontrolled dust emissions due to the large lump-size feed and the relatively slow air velocities
and slow movement of material through the kiln.
Some sort of particulate control is generally employed on most kilns. Rudimentary fallout chamb-
ers and cyclone separators are commonly used for control of the larger particles; fabric and gravel bed
filters, wet (commonly venturi) scubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are employed for secondary
control. Table 8.15-1 yields approximate efficiencies of each type of control on the various types of
kilns.
Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides are all produced in kilns, although the latter
are the only gaseous pollutant emitted in significant quantities. Not all of the sulfur in the kiln fuel is
emitted as sulfur oxides because some fraction reacts with the materials in the kiln. Some sulfur oxide
reduction is also effected by the various equipment used for secondary particulate control. Estimates
of the quantities of sulfur oxides emitted from kilns, both before and after controls, are presented in
'fable 8.15-1.
Hydrator emissions are low because water sprays or wet scrubbers are usually installed for econom-
ic reasons to prevent product loss in the exhaust gases. Emissions from pressure hydrators may be
higher than from the more common atmospheric hydrators because the exhaust gases are released
intermittently over short time intervals, making control more difficult.
Product coolers are emission sources only when some of their exhaust gases are not recycled
through the kiln for use as combustion air. The trend is away from the venting of product cooler ex-
haust, however, to maximize fuel use efficiencies. Cyclones, baghouses, and wet scrubbers have been
employed on coolers for particulate control.
Other particulate sources in lime plants include primary and secondary crushers, mills, screens,
mechanical and pneumatic transfer operations, storage piles, and unpaved roads. If quarrying is a part
of the lime plant operation, particulate may also result from drilling and blasting. Emission factors
for some of these operations are presented in Sections 8.20 and 11.2.
Emission factors for lime manufacturing are presented in Table 8.15-1.
4/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.15-3
-------
Table 8.15-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIME MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Crushers, screens,
conveyors, storage
piles, unpaved roads
Rotary kilns
Uncontrolled0
After settling chamber
or large diameter
cyclone
After multiple cyclones
After secondary dust
collection^
Vertical kilns
Uncontrolled
Calcimatic kilns'
Uncontrolled
After multiple cyclones
After secondary dust
collection!
Fluidized-bed kilns
Product coolers
Uncontrolled
Hydrators
Emissions3
Paniculate
Ib/ton
b
340
200
85e
1
8
50
6
NA
NAk
401
0.1m
kg/MT
b
170
100
43e
0.5
4
25
3
NA
NAk
201
0.05m
Sulfur dioxide
Ib/ton
Meg.
d
d
d
g
NAn
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
kg/MT
Neg.
d
d
d
9
NAh
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/f
Neg.
3
3
3
3
NA
0.2
0.2
0.2
NA
Neg.
Neg.
kg/MT
Neg.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
NA
Neg.
Neg.
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
Neg.
2
2
2
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
kg/MT
Neg.
1
•
1
1
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Neg.
Neg.
aAII emission factors for kilns and coolers are per unit of lime produced. Divide by two to obtain factors per unit of limestone feed to the kiln.
Factors for hydrators are per unit of hydrated lime produced. Multiply by 1.25 to obtain factors per unit of lime feed to the hydrator. All
emissions data are based on References 4 through 6.
^Emission factors for these operations are presented in Sections 8.20 and 11.2.
°No paniculate control except for settling that may occur in the stack breeching and chimney base.
dWhen low-sulfur (less than 1 percent, by weight) fuels are used, only about 10 percent of the fuel sulfur is emitted as SO2- When high-
sulfur fuels are used, approximately 50 percent of the fuel sulfur is emitted as SC>2.
eThis factor should be used when coal is fired in the kiln Limited data suggest that when only natural gas or oil is fired, paniculate
emissions after multiple cyclones may be as low as 20 to 30 Ib/ton 110 to 15 kg/MT).
'Fabric or gravel bed filters, electrostatic precipitators, or wet (most commonly venturi) scrubbers. Paniculate concentrations as low as
0.2 Ib/ton (0.1 kg/MT) have been achieved using these devices
SWhen scrubbers are used, less than 5 percent of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as SC>2, even with high-sulfur coal. When other secondary
collection devices are used, about 20 percent of the fuel sulfur will be emitted as SO2 with high-sulfur fuels and less than 10 percent
with low-sulfur fuels
"Not available
'Calcimatic kilns generally employ stone preheaters. All factors represent emissions after the kiln exhaust passes through a preheater.
'Fabric filters and venturi scrubbers have been employed on calcimatic kilns. No data are available on paniculate emissions after
secondary control.
^Fluidized-bed kilns must employ sophisticated dust collection equipment for process economics; hence, paniculate emission'; will
depend on the efficiency of the control equipment installed.
'Some or all of the cooler exhaust is typically used in the kiln as combustion air. Emissions will result only from that fraction that
is not recycled to the kiln.
mThis is a typical paniculate loading for atmospheric hydrators following water sprays or wet scrubbers. Limited data suggest
paniculate emissions from pressure hydrators may be approximately 2 Ib/ton (1 kg/MT) of hydrate produced, after wet collectors.
8.15-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
References for Section 8.15
1. Lewis, C.J. and B.B. Crocker. The Lime Industry's Problem of Airborne Dust. J. Air Pol. Control
Asso. Vol. 19, No. 1. January 1969.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 2nd Ed. Vol 12. New York, John Wiley and
Sons. 1967. p. 414-459.
3. Screening Study for Emissions Characterization From Lime Manufacture. Vulcan-Cincinnati.
Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Under Contract No. 68-02-0299. August 1974.
4. Evans, L.B. et al. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction For Rotary Kilns
and Lime Hydrators in the Lime Industry. Standards Support and Environmental Impact
Statement. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. February 1976.
5. Source Test Data on Lime Plants from Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1976.
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. TRW Systems Group. Reston, Virginia. Prepared for the
National Air Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Washington, D.C. under Contract No. CPA 22-69-119. April 1970. P. 2-2 through 2-19.
4/77 Mineral Products Industry 8.15-5
-------
-------
10.1.2.2. Emission and Controlsl-6-Particulate emissions from the kraft process occur primarily from the re-
covery furnace, the lime kiln, and the smelt dissolving tank. These emissions consist mainly of sodium salts but
include some calcium salts from the lime kiln. They are caused primarily by the carryover of solids plus the sub-
limation and condensation of the inorganic chemicals.
Paniculate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways. In mills where either a cyclonic
scrubber or cascade evaporator serves as the direct contact evaporator, further control is necessary as these devices
are generally only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these cases, an electrostatic precipitator
is employed after the direct contact evaporator to provide an overall particulate control efficiency of 85 to > 99
percent. In a few mills, however, a venturi scrubber is utilized as the direct contact evaporator and simultaneously
provides 80 to 90 percent particulate control. In either case auxiliary scrubbers may be included after the
precipitator or the venturi scrubber to provide additional control of particulates.
Particulate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers. Smelt dissolving tanks are commonly
controlled by mesh pads but employ scrubbers when further control is needed.
The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused in large part by the emission of hydrogen sulfide. The major
source is the direct contact evaporator in which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
dioxide in the furnace exhaust. The lime kiln can also be a potential source as a similar reaction occurs involving
residual sodium sulfide in the lime mud. Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with the noncondensible
off-gasses from the digesters and multiple-effect evaporators.
The kraft-process odor also results from an assortment of organic sulfur compounds, all of which have extremely
low odor thresholds. Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the wood component
lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation of mercaptan groups derived from the lignin. These
compounds are emitted from many points within a mill; however, the main sources are the digester/blow tank
systems and the direct contact evaporator.
Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally employed in kraft mills, control of reduced sulfur
compounds can be accomplished by process modifications and by optimizing operating conditions. For example,
black liquor oxidation systems, which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can considerably reduce
odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent gases from such systems become
minor odor sources themselves. Noncondensible odorous gases vented from the digester/blow tank system and
multiple-effect evaporators can be destroyed by thermal oxidation, usually by passing them through the lime
kiln. Optimum operation of the recovery furnace, by avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen
residual and turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from this source. In addi-
tion, the use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates in the scrubbers and pulp washers further reduces
odorous emissions. The effect of any of these modifications on a given mill's emissions will vary considerably.
Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the conventional direct contact evaporators.
In one system, preheated combustion air rather than flue gas provides direct contact evaporation. In the other,
the multiple-effect evaporator system is extended to replace the direct contact evaporator altogether. In both of
these systems, reduced sulfur emissions from the recovery furnace/direct contact evaporator reportedly can be
reduced by more than 95 percent from conventional uncontrolled systems.
Sulfur dioxide emissions result mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds in the recovery furnace.
It is reported that the direct contact evaporator absorbs 50 to 80 percent of these emissions; further scrubbing, if
employed, can reduce them another 10 to 20 percent.
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.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-3
-------
Some nitrogen oxides are also emitted from the recovery furnace and lime kilns although the
amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen oxides emissions from each of these sources
are on the order of 1 pound per air-dried ton (0.5 kg/air-dried MT) of pulp produced.5 6
A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is the boiler for generating auxiliary steam and power.
The fuels used are coal, oil, natural gas, or bark/wood waste. Emission factors for boilers are presented
in Chapter 1.
Table 10.1.2-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill. The most widely used
particulate controls devices are shown along with the odor reductions resulting from black liquor
oxidation and incineration of noncondensible off-gases.
10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping by Tom Lahre
10.1.3.1 Process Description14 - The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to kraft pulp-
ing except that different chemicals are used in the cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used
to dissolve the lignin in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a bisul-
fite of sodium, magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used. A simplified flow diagram of a magnesium-
base process is shown in Figure 10.1.3-1.
Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature in either batch-mode or con-
tinuous digesters in the presence of a sulfurous acid-bisulfite cooking liquor. When cooking is corn-
leted, the digester is either discharged at high pressure into a blow pit or its contents are pumped out
at a lower pressure into a dump tank. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red liquor) then drains
through the bottom of the tank and is either treated and disposed, incinerated, or sent to a plant for
recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp is then washed and processed through screens and centri-
fuges for removal of knots, bundles of fibers, and other materials. It subsequently may be bleached,
pressed, and dried in paper-making operations.
Because of the variety of bases employed in the cooking liquor, numerous schemes for heat and/or
chemical recovery have evolved. In calcium-base systems, which are used mostly in older mills, chemi-
cal recovery is not practical, and the spent liquor is usually discarded or incinerated. In ammonium-
base operations, heat can be recovered from the spent liquor through combustion, but the ammonium
base is consumed in the process. In sodium- or magnesium-base operations heat, sulfur, and base
recovery are all feasible.
If recovery is practiced, the spent weak red liquor (which contains more than half of the raw
materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in a multiple-effect evaporator and direct contact
evaporator to 55 to 60 percent solids. Strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and burned, producing
steam, for the digesters, evaporators, etc., and to meet the mills power requirements.
When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which magnesium oxide is
recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white powder. The magnesium oxide is then water-slaked and
used as circulating liquor in a series of venturi scrubbers which are designed to absorb sulfur dioxide
from the flue gas and form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When sodium-base liquor is
burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten smelt containing sodium sulfide and
sodium carbonate. This smelt may be processed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide from the
flue gas and sulfur burner. In some sodium-base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a nearby kraft
mill as raw material for producing green liquor.
10.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
z
a.
UJ
u- s 2
c/» = G
Z
O
. co
H- CO
Sj ^
< i. 2
"- 're co
CO
CO
JQ
CO
9? 1-
o:£I
C/D ^^ O
cc. <
^2
c: to <.
n**
"5 — c
i « o
l-
co ^
CO C c
O 0 o
E^
^CN^
i_ ° ?>
"*" ~v
w5 c
03 X 0
g ^
& *z
i/i ^
2-S,
CD ^
£ c
C o
CO **
°- xa
m "5
£§
U
01
o
o
C/3
in
r^ <— o
o o c
in CN *;
<— O C
LD t— L£
o p c
O O C
CN
t- O IT
o o c
1 1
1 I
in u
i 0 C
1 o c
0 C
1 oc
o c
1 1
I 1
Untreated 9
Untreated
Digester relief and
blow tank
Brown stock washers
M.,l + ;nln nffa^t
in in
_ — ._ ._ CN CN in in
j inm in in CN CN i— <— CM CN
S OO O O OOOOO O
in in
i- -a- •=»• CN CN in in
i --^-'~,_ "^- "i- ooooo o
? CN CN in in o ,
? ._ ._ P P ^ ^ P 1
i "cb CD co CD ooooo
o o in in o
i CN CM "CN "CM d d d o d '
o o f5 2
ro co <"> °° .
1 | in in 1 1
o o o o
CO CD <" CO
11 ' ' 1 1 p ,_ 1 '
CN CM CN CN
•)
3 in in LO . .
3 min in in oo^r-l 1
3 CMCN CM >- dddd
3 <- i- CO CN 1 1
3 inm m co dddd
- m ^- LO in in LO
inco "3- LO cMdcN'-1 '
[^ CM . CM
g 5 °° - m^inco ! (
CO
•Ss
3 -o '~22>-'-"a-n'a -a '13
D CD 9Jco.->-0CDmCD!rCD CD
S tS'ig 2-9---S to o-S^ 15 t5
) CD^D'^O~"5CD_cCD^CD CD
: c£^^?^_30ccDc^c c
3 Z> > LU "•< <° Z) S DC/D D D
c
!. g
^e*3. I ^
52-8§2 ° en CD«S_
ca>.oco i/> c c•
x: ~ o
:- g t
I 2 .i!
| ii
Q) 4-1 CD
i 5 !i
i i n
S | '€ .?
ra *2 k. —
T3 O Jtf >•
S | S Jl
» O (A •" .5
X O 3 C <^
! £ U*
. _- i, 3 -a
= = S *S
co ^ co § 2
^ § « I l|l
0 0) S - > °- CA
g co S • « g"
2. 3 J- (DO)
(D (0 (/) *•* ^ >. u
I <« 1 ' 2 S £S
" S |l^ § 1 =
§ E 1 » i s i£
§ ^".i* °£>
U _^."OCB $>.O
• | ? s J 1 i I
! li! SS*
o >o-So .S "o
§ -g - 8 § £ s
4) fe o~»
- » s - 5 i? g »
.a =SiT- cob&
r 5fE^§ j-(«|
g * . e 1 ^-g°
a *"^-3x
•aooen .""•&« "a^o
5 pC r; ? v- w i . & 3 g
S r-' ^ W r-' E g-g 2 "g|
^IAIAWW-8>-2y*
CD ffl<»a)>-cPo5c
0>OUUUf;O^COu9>
tCCCCmCIA^So
i££££E4.5»a.o5
^*««»i.5^w»a
o
$ co a
= IA *
"| -
I £ *
1 I 8
IA ^> IA
1 O t
3 "> o
S 2- »
> co i
«J E O
i 3 i
1: «
* ^ s
> t- O
IA
co x: eo
M 3 C
S in c
a ^ in
•+• in a>
0) «- T3
W 4) 2
» « .
4/77
Wood Processing
10.1-5
-------
10.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
If recovery is not practiced, an acid plant of sufficient capacity to fulfill the mill's total sulfite
requirement is necessary. Normally, sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner. The gas produced is
then cooled by heat exchangers plus a water spray and then absorbed in a variety of different scrubbers
containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical. Where recovery is practiced, fortifica-
tion is accomplished similarly, although a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide must be produced
to make up for that lost in the process.
10.1.3.2 Emissions and Controls14 - Sulfur dioxide is ^generally considered the major pollutant of
concern from sulfite pulp mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor is not emitted because volatile re-
duced sulfur compounds are not products of the lignin-bisulfite reaction.
One of the major S(>2 sources is the digester and blow pit or dump tank system. Sulfur dioxide is
present in the intermittent digester relief gases as well as in the gases given off at the end of the cook
when the digester contents are discharged into the blow pit or dump tank. The quantity of sulfur oxide
evolved and emitted to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH of the cooking liquor,
the pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effectiveness of the absorption
systems employed for SOa recovery. Scrubbers can be installed that reduce SO2 from this source by as
much as 99 percent.
Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system. Since magnesium-, sodium-, and
ammonium-base recovery systems all utilize absorption systems to recover SO2 generated in the re-
covery furnace, acid fortification towers, multiple-effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SCh
emissions depends on the desired efficiency of these systems. Generally, such absorption systems
provide better than 95 percent sulfur recovery to minimize sulfur makeup needs.
The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also potential sources of SO?.
These operations are numerous and may account for a significant fraction of a mill's SO2 emissions if
not controlled.
The only significant particulate source in the pulping and recovery process is the absorption system
handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Less particulate is generated in ammonium-base systems than
magnesium- or sodium-base systems as the combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water vapor,
and sulfur dioxide.
Other major sources of emissions in a sulfite pulp mill include the auxiliary power boilers. Emis-
sion factors for these boilers are presented in Chapter 1.
Emission factors for the various sulfite pulping operations are shown in Table 10.1.3-1.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
10.1.4.1 Process Description1^15'16 - In thisprocess, the wood chips are cooked in a neutral solution of
sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate. The sulfite ion reacts with the lignin in the wood, and the
sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to maintain a neutral solution. The major difference between this
process (as well as all semichemical techniques) and the kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a
portion of the lignin is removed during the cook, after which the pulp is further reduced by mechani-
cal disintegration. Because of this, yields as high as 60 to 80 percent can be achieved as opposed to 50 to
55 percent for other chemical processes.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-7
-------
Table 10.1.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPING3
Source
Digestei/blow pit 01
dump tankc
Recovery system
Acid plant?
Other sources'
Base
All
MgO
MgO
MgO
MgO
NH3
NH3
Na
Ca
MgO
NH3
Na
NH3
Na
Ca
All
Conti ol
None
Piocess change6
Sciubbei
Pi ocess change
and scrubbei
All exhaust
vented through
recovery system
Process change
Piocess change
and scrubber
Process change
and scrubber
Unknown
Multiclone and
venturi
sciubbers
Ammonia
absorption and
mist eliminator
Sodium carbonate
scrubbei
Scrubber
Unknown0
Jenssen
scrubber
None
Emission factor0
Part culate
Ib/ADUT
Negd
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
2
0 7
4
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/ADUMT
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
1
035
2
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Sulfur Dioxide
Ib/ADUT
10-70
2-6
1
02
0
kg/ADUMT
5-35
1-3
Emission
factor
rating
C
C
0.5 B
0.1 B
0 A
25
04
125
02
2
67
9
7
2
03
0.2
8
12
1
33 5
4.5
35
1
02
0.1
4
6
D
B
C
C
A
B
C
C
D
C
D
3 All emission factors represent long-term average emissions.
'•'Factors expressed in terms of Ib (kg) of pollutant per air dried unbleached ton (MT) of pulp. All factors are based on data
in Reference 14.
°These factors represent emissions that occur after the cook is completed and when the digester contents are discharged in-
to the blow pit or dump tank. Some relief gases are vented from the digester during the cook cycle, but these are usually
transferred to pressure accumulators, and the SO2 therein is reabsorbed for use in the cooking liquor. These factors repre-
sent long-term average emissions; in some mills, the actual emissions will be intermittent and for short time periods.
^Negligible emissions.
eProcess changes may include such measures as raising the pH of the cooking liquor, thereby lowering the free SC>2, reliev-
ing the pressure in the digester before the contents are discharged, and pumping out the digester contents instead of blow-
ing them out.
* The recovery system at most mills is a closed system that includes the recovery furnace, direct contact evaporator, multi-
ple-effect evaporator, acid fortification tower, and SO2 absorption scrubbers. Generally, there will only be one emission
point for the entire recovery system. These factors are long-term averages and include the high SC>2 emissions during the
periodic purging of the recovery system.
9 Acid plants are necessary in mills that have no or insufficient recovery systems.
"Control is practiced, but type of control is unknown.
' Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc.
10.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
I lie NSSC pioiess vanes lioni null ID null. Sonic mills dispose ol their spent liquor, some mills recover the
looking ilic-iimals, .mil some, which ;ne operated in conjunction with kralt nulls, mix Iheir spent liquor with the
ki.ill h(|iioi as .1 souicc- ol ni.ikc-up cheiinc.ils When recovery is practiced, the steps involved parallel those of the
sullile piocess.
10.1.4.2 Emissions and Condols1'7'15,"1 Participate emissions are a potential problem only when recovery
systems aie employed. Mills thai do practice recovery, hut are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations
often ntih/e Ilindi/ed bed leaclois to bum their spent liquor. Because the Hue gas contains sodium sulfate and
sodium carbonate dust, efficient participate collection may be included to facilitate chemical recovery.
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. The absorbing towers, digester/blow tank system, and recovery
fin mice aie the main sources of this pollutant with the amounts emitted dependent upon the capability of the
scrubbing devices installed for control and recovery.
Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills using kraft-type recovery furnaces. The main potential
souice is the absorbing tower where a significant quantity of hydrogen sulfide is liberated as the cooking liquor is
made. Other possible sources include the recovery furnace, depending on the operating conditions maintained, as
well as the digester/blow tank system in mills where some green liquor is used in the cooking process. Where green
liquor is used, it is also possible that significant quantities of mercaptans will be produced. Hydrogen sulfide
emissions can be eliminated if burned to sulfur dioxide prior to entering the absorbing systems.
Because the NSSC process differs greatly from mill to mill, and because of the scarcity of adequate data, no
emission factors are presented.
References for Section 10.1
1. Hendrickson, E. R. et al. Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry. Vol. I. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C. Final report under Contract No. CPA 22-69-18. March 15, 1970.
2. Britt, K. W. Handbook of Pulp and Paper Technology. New York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1964.
p. 166-200.
3. Hendrickson, E. R. et al. Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood Pulping Industry. Vol. III. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C. Final report under Contract No. CPA 22-69-18. March 15, 1970.
4. Walther, J. E. and H. R. Amberg. Odor Control in the Kraft Pulp Industry. Chem. Eng. Progress. 66:73-
80, March 1970.
5. Galeano, S. F. and K. M. Leopold. A Survey of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides in the Pulp Mill. TAPPI.
5<5(3):74-76, March 1973.
6. Source test data from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1972.
7. Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/1-73-002. September 1973.
4/77 Wood Processing 10.1-9
-------
H. Blosser, R. O. and II. B. Cooper. Particulate Matter Reduction Trends in the Kraft Industry. NCASI paper,
Corvallis, Oregon. '
9 Padfield, D. H. Control of Odor from Recovery Units by Direct-Contact Evaporative Scrubbers with
Oxidi/ed Black-Liquor. TAPPI. 56:83-86, January 1973.
10. Walthcr, J. E. and H. R. Amberg. Emission Control at the Kraft Recovery Furnaces. TAPPI. 55(3): 1185-
1188, August 1972.
1 1. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources. U.S. Department of Health
Education and Welfare, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C. Publication
No. AP-65. March 1970. p. 4-24 and 4-25.
12. Blosser, R. O. et al. An Inventory of Miscellaneous Sources of Reduced Sulfur Emissions from the Kraft
Pulping Process. (Presented at the 63rd APCA Meeting. St. Louis. June 14-18, 1970.)
13. Factors Affecting Emission of Odorous Reduced Sulfur Compounds from Miscellaneous Kraft Process
Sources. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 60. March 1972.
14. Background Document: Acid Sulfite Pulping. Prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Gainesville, Fla., for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1402, Task Order No. 14.
Document No. EPA-450/3-77-005. Research Triangle Park, N.C. January 1977.
15. Benjamin, M. et al. A General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping and Bleaching Processes. J. Air
Pollution Control Assoc. 79(3):155-161, March 1969.
16. Galeano, S. F. and B. M. Dillard. Process Modifications for Air Pollution Control in Neutral Sulfite Semi-
Chemical Mills. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 22(3): 195-199, March 1972.
10.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 4/77
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION FACTORS
AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency for various industrial categories and the page reference in this publication where uncontrolled
emission factors for those sources are discussed are presented in Tables B-l and B-2. Note that, in the
case of steam-electric power plants, the NSPS encompass much broader source categories than the'
corresponding emission factors. In several instances, the NSPS were formulated on different bases
than the emission factors (for example, grains per standard cubic foot versus pounds per ton). Non-
criteria pollutant standards have not been included in Table B-2. Finally, note that NSPS relating to
opacity have been omitted because they cannot (at this time) be directly correlated with emission
factors.
B-l
-------
Table B-1. PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators
with >63x 106 kcal/hr (250 x 106 Btu/
hr) of heat input
Coal-burning plants (excluding lignite)
Pulverized wet bottom
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Pulverized dry bottom
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Pulverized cyclone
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Spreader stoker
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Residual-oil-burning plants
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NO2>
Natural-gas-burning plants
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Municipal incinerators
Particulates
Portland cement plants
Kiln— dry process
Particulates
New Source
Performance Standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
0.18 g/106 cat heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/106 calheat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2. 2 g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/106 calheat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.1 8 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2 g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26 g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.1 8 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
1.4 g/106 cal heat
input (0.80 lb/106 Btu)
0.54 g/106 cal heat
input (0.30 lb/106 Btu)
0.1 8 g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
0.36 g/1 06 cal heat
input (0.20 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/Nm3 (0.08 gr/scf)
corrected to 12% C02
0.15 kg/MT (0.30 Ib/ton)
of feed to kiln'
AP-42
page
reference
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.1-3
1.3-2
1.3-2
1.3-2
1.4-2
1.4-2
2.1-1
8.6-3
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table B-1. (continued). PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
New Source
Performance Standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
AP-42
page
reference
Kiln—wet process
Particulates
Clinker cooler
Particulates
Nitric acid plants
Nitrogen oxides (as
Sulfuric acid plants
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid mist
(as H2 S04)
0.15kg/MT (0.30 Ib/ton)
of feed to kiln
0.050 kg/MT (0.10 Ib/
ton) of feed to kiln
1.5 kg/MT (3.0 Ib/ton)
of 100% acid produced
2.0 kg/MT (4.0 Ib/ton)
of 100% acid produced
0.075 kg/MT (0.15 Ib/
ton) of 100% acid produced
8.6-3
8.6-4
5.9-3
5.17-5
5.17-7
Title 40 — Protection of Environment. Part 60—Standards of Performance Tor New Stationary Sources. Federal Register.
36 (2471:24876. December 23, 1971
4/77
Appendix B
B-3
-------
Table B-2. PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
New source
performance standard
AP-42
page
reference
Asphalt concrete plants3
Particulates
Petroleum refineries
Fluid catalytic cracking units3
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Fuel gas combustion
S02
Storage vessels for petroleum
liquids3
"Floating roof" storage tanks
Hydrocarbons
Secondary lead smelters3
Blast (cupola) furnaces
Particulates
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants3
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Iron and steel plants3.f
Basic oxygen process furnaces
Particulates
Electric arc furnaces
Particulates
Sewage treatment plants3
Sewage sludge incinerators
Particulates
Primary copper smeltersc
Dryer
Particulates
Roaster
Sulfur dioxide
Smelting Furnace*
Sulfur dioxide
Copper converter
Sulfur dioxide
'Reverberatory furnaces that
process high-irnpurity feed
materials are exempt from
sulfur dioxide standard
Primary lead smelters0
Blast furnace
Particulates
Reverberatory furnace
Particulates
Sintering machine
discharge end
Particulates
90 mg/Nm3 (0.040 gr/dscf)
60 mg/Nm3 (0.026 gr/dscf)b
0.050% by volume
230mgH2S/Nm3
(0.10 gr H2S/Nm3
For vapor pressure 78-570
mm Hg, equip with floating roof,
vapor recovery system, or
equivalent; for vapor pressure
> 570 mm Hg, equip with vapor
recovery system or equivalent.
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
12 mg/Nm3 (0.0052 gr/dscf)
0.65 g/kg (1.30lb/ton)
of dry sludge input
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
0.065%
0.065%
0.065%
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
8.1-4
9.1-3
9.1-3
4.3-8
7.11-2
7.11-2
7.9-2
7.5-5
7.5-5
2.5-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.3-2
7.6-4
7.6-4
7.6-4
B-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/77
-------
Table B-2 (continued). PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Source category and pollutant
New source
performance standard
AP-42
page
reference
Electric smelting furnace
Sulfur dioxide
Converter
Sulfur dioxide
Sintering machine
Sulfur dioxide
Primary zinc smelters0
Sintering machine
Particulates
Roaster
Sulfur dioxide
Coal preparation plants*1
Thermal dryer
Particulates
Pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment
Particulates
Ferroalloy production facilities*
Electric submerged arc
furnaces
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
0.065%
0.065%
0.065%
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
0.065%
70 mg/Nm3 (0.031 gr/dscf)
40mg/Nm3 (0.018 gr/dscf)
0.45 kg/Mw-hr (0.99 Ib/Mw-hr)
("high silicon alloys")
0.23 kg/Mw-hr (0.51 Ib/Mw-hr)
(chrome and manganese alloys)
No visible emissions may escape
furnace capture system.
No visible emissions may escape
tapping system for > 40% of each
tapping period.
20% volume basis
7.6-4
7.6-4
7.6-4
7.7-1
7.7-1
8.9-1
8.9-1
7.4-2
7.4-1
aTitle 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources Additions and Miscellaneous Amendments. Federal Register.
39 (47). March 8, 1974.
bThe actual NSPS reads "1.0 kg/1000 kg (1 .0 lb/1000 Ib) of coke burn-off in the catalyst
regenerator " which is approximately equivalent to an exhaust gas concentration of
60 mg/Nm3 (0.026 gr/dscf).
cTitle 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources. Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters. Federal Register. 41.
January 15, 1976.
"Title 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources1 Coal Preparation Plants. Federal Register. 41. January 15, 1976.
40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Ferroalloy Production Facilities. Federal Register. 41. May 4, 1976.
ATitle 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60 - Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry. Federal Register. 40.
September 23, 1975.
4/77
Appendix B
B-5
-------
Environ-*. ••••:-:* tr-.-n:
------- |