AP422B
COMPILATION
OF AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS
SECOND EDITION
(Third Printing with Supplements 1-5)
Part
B
U.I Environmental Protection Agency
Heghm 5. Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flow
OtteafO.ll 60604-3590
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
-------
7. METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
The metallurgical industries can be broadly divided into primary and secondary metal production operations.
The term primary metals refers to production of the metal from ore. The secondary metals industry includes the
recovery of metal from scrap and salvage and the production of alloys from ingot.
The primary metals industries discussed in Sections 7.1 through 7.7 include the nonferrous operations of
primary aluminum production, copper smelters, lead smelters, and zinc smelters. These industries are
characterized by the large quantities of sulfur oxides and particulates emitted. The primary metals industry also
includes iron and steel mills, ferroalloy production, and metallurgical coke manufactuie.
The secondary metallurgical industries discussed in Sections 7.8 through 7.14 are aluminum operations, brass
and bronze ingots, gray iron foundries, lead smelting, magnesium smelting, steel foundries, and zinc processing.
The major air contaminants from these operations are particulates in the forms of metallic fumes, smoke, and
dust.
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
7.1.1 Process Description1 Revised by William M. Vatavuk
Bauxite, a hydrated oxide of aluminum associated with silicon, titanium, and iron, is the base ore for aluminum
production. Most bauxite ore is purified by the Bayer process in which the ore is dried, ground in ball mills, and
mixed with sodium hydroxide. Iron oxide, silica, and other impurities are removed by settling, dilution, and
filtration. The aluminum hydroxide is precipitated from this diluted, cooled solution and calcined to produce
pure alumina, according to the reaction:
2A1(OH)3 - 3H20 + A1203 (1)
Aluminium hydroxide Water Alumina
Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroult process, which involves the electrolytic reduction of
alumina dissolved in a molten salt bath of cryolite (a complex of NaF'AlF^) and various salt additives:
Electrolysis
2A12O3 +- 4A1 + 3O2
Alumina Aluminum Oxygen '^'
The electrolysis is performed in a carbon crucible housed in a steel shell, known as a "pot." The electrolysis
employs the carbon crucible as the cathode (negative pole) and a carbon mass as the anode (positive pole). The
type of anode configuration used distinguishes the three types of pots: prebaked (PB), horizontal-stud Soderberg
(HSS), and vertical-stud Soderberg (VSS).
The major portion of aluminum produced in the United States (61.9 percent of 1970 production) is processed
in prebaked cells. In this type of pot, the anode consists of blocks that are formed from a carbon paste and baked
4/73
7.1-1
-------
in an oven prior to their use in the cell. These blocks—typically 14 to 24 per cell—are attached to metal rods and
serve as replaceable anodes. As the reduction proceeds, the carbon in these blocks is gradually consumed (at a rate
of about 1 inch per day) by reaction with the oxygen by-product (see Table 7.1-1).
Table 7.1-1. RAW MATERIAL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Parameter
Representative value
Cell operating temperature
Current through pot line
Voltage drop per cell
Current efficiency
Energy required
Weight alumina consumed
Weight electrolyte fluoride consumed
Weight carbon electrode consumed
-1740 F (-950 C)
60,000 to 125,000 amp
4.3 to 5.2
85 to 90%
6.0 to 8.5 kwh/lb aluminum
(13.2 to 18.7 kwh/kg aluminum)
1.89 to 1.92 Ib AL2O3/lb aluminum
(1.89 to 1.92 kg AL2O3/kg aluminum)
0.03 to 0.10 Ib fluoride/lb aluminum
(0.03 to 0.10 kg fluoride/kg aluminum)
0.45 to 0.55 Ib electrode/lb aluminum
(0.45 to 0.55 kg electrode/kg aluminum)
The second most commonly used furnace (25.5 percent of 1970 production) is the horizontal-stud Soderberg.
Thus type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon anode: that is, a mixtuie of pitch and carbon aggregate called
"paste" is added at the top of the superstructure periodically, and the entire anode assembly is moved
downward as the carbon burns away. The cell anode is contained by aluminum sheeting and perforated steel
channels, through which electrode connections, called studs, are inserted into the anode paste. As the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed, and the flexible electrical
connectors are moved to a higher row. One disadvantage of baking the paste in place is that heavy organic
materials (tars) are added to the cell effluent stream. The heavy tars often cause plugging of the ducts, fans, and
control equipment, an effect that seriously limits the choice of air cleaning equipment.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the horizontal-stud furnace, with the exception that the studs are
mounted vertically in the cell. The studs must be raised and replaced periodically, but that is a relatively simple
process. Representative raw material and energy requirements for aluminum reduction cells are presented in Table
7.1-1. A schematic representation of the reduction process is shown in Figure 7.1-1.
7.1.2 Emissions and Controls1 12>3
Emissions Trom aluminum reduction processes consist primarily of gaseous hydrogen fluoride and participate
fluorides, alumina, hydrocarbons or organics, sulfur dioxide from the reduction cells and the anode baking
furnaces. Large amounts of particulates are also generated during the calcining of aluminum hydroxide, but the
economic value of this dust is such that extensive controls have been employed to reduce emissions to relatively
small quantities. Finally, small amounts of particulates are emitted from the bauxite grinding and materials
handling processes.
The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells is the fluoride electrolyte, which contains cryolite,
aluminum fluoride (A1F3), and fluorspar (CaF^. For normal operation, the weight or "bath" ratio of sodium
fluoride (NaF) to A1F3 is maintained between 1.36 and 1.43 by the addition of Na-iCO^, NaF, and AlF^.
Experience has shown that increasing this ratio has the effect of decreasing total fluoride effluents. Cell fluoride
emissions are also decreased by lowering the operating temperature and increasing the alumina content in the
bath. Specifically, the ratio of gaseous (mainly hydrogen fluoride) to particulate fluorides varies from 1 .2 to 1 .7
with PB and HSS cells, but attains a value of approximately 3.0 with VSS cells.
7.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
BAUXITE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
I
SETTLING
CHAMBER
DILUTION
WATER
RED MUD
(IMPURITIES)
I
DILUTE
SODIUM
HYDROXIDE
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
CRYSTALLIZER
AQUEOUS SODIUM
ALUMINATE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
BAKING
FURNACE
BAKED
ANODES
TO CONTROL DEVICE
I
PREBAKE
REDUCTION
CELL
ANODE PASTE
TO CONTROL DEVICE
HORIZONTAL
OR VERTICAL
SODERBERG
REDUCTION CELL
MOLTEN
ALUMINUM
Figure 7.1-1. Schematic diagram of primary aluminum production process.
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-3
-------
Table 7.1-2. REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
OF UNCONTROLLED EFFLUENTS FROM PREBAKED AND
HORIZONTAL-STUD SODERBERG CELLS1
Size range,/um
<1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Particles within size range, wt%
Prebaked
35
25
8
5
5
22
Horizontal-stud Soderberg
44
26
8
6
4
12
Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon from anode dusting, cryolite,
aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite (Na5Al3Fj4), and ferric oxide. Representative size distributions for
PB and HSS particulate effluents are presented in Table 7.1-2. Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter
represent the largest percentage (35 to 44 percent by weight) of uncontrolled effluents.
Moderate amounts of hydrocarbons derived from the anode paste are emitted from horizontal- and
vertical-Soderberg pots. In vertical cells these compounds are removed by combustion via integral gas burners
before the off-gases are released.
Because many different kinds of gases and particulates are emitted from reduction cells, many kinds of control
devices have been employed. To abate both gaseous and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrubbers
— spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds, Venturis, and self-induced sprays — are
used on all three cells and on anode baking furnaces. In addition, particulate control methods, such as
electrostatic precipitators (wet and dry), multiple cyclones, and dry scrubbers (fluid-bed and coated-filter types),
are employed with baking furnaces on PB and VSS cells. Dry alumina adsorption has been used at several PB and
VSS installations in foreign countries. In this technique, both gaseous and particulate fluorides are controlled by
passing the pot off-gases through the entering alumina feed, on which the fluorides are absorbed; the technique
has an overall control efficiency of 98 percent.
In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite grinding, and materials handling operations, various dry dust
collection devices— such as centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators— and wet
scrubbers or both may be used. Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for fluorides and total particulates
are presented in Table 7.1. -3.
7.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
773
-------
CO
LU
LU
O
O
cc
OL
o
Q
O
EC
Q.
2 <
lo
S z
35
< 2
< P
Oil
EC
O
1-
CJ
—
LL
T3
o
D
4—
CD
D
O
co
°-
—
I
""""
0)
o
M—
in
13
O
%
fU
o
-^
CD
CO
^
O
CO
Q
"co
+-*
1-
5
•*
0
-g
—
H
5
^/
O
4-1
1-
O)
§
—
c
g
CO
CD
Q.
0
H—
O
CD
a
1-
z z z
T3
Z Z Z
CD O! O)
CD CD CD
CD CD O)
CD CD CD
Z Z Z
O LO
0 CD 00
co' d d
o oo r~-
co '-' ^
u
auxite grinding3-
Uncontrolled
Spray tower
Floating-bed
scrubber
CO
z
^
z
O)
CD
Z
0)
CD
Z
O
d
o
-D
d
Quench tower ai
z
<
z
01
CD
z
O)
CD
Z
O
CO
o
d
CM
d
,
spray screen
Electrostatic pre
z
O
CN «-' ^ Z d d d ^ oo «-'
LO ^ LO
d P
— LO
C3i O
o r-.'
in CO CO l*» CM
O O ^j-t— O COt— O^O
0 °° C35 *~
CD
§ » c §
1 tl sl^tl ^ 1 2r^
col-.£o g2™g"g = S'"0^
< ot
LU
CO
CD
s
(0
4/73
Metallurgical Industry
7.1-5
-------
a
CO
LU
CO
to
LU
O
o
cc
Q.
Z
g
o
Q
O
CC
a.
Z
2
I <
i r H
— J w
< z
£i
<*
2 oc
£°
°- 0
CC <
OLL
*^
"• Z
£ 0
JT
O 55
t— —
o 5
^ LU
LL
Z
o
CO
CO
§
LU
.— ;
"O
o>
^
•^
c
o
.2
to
^_^ i
— 5
i/i ro
QJ y*
0
^+-
O!
U
ro c
L_ +-*
^ —
_ h-
I 5
— _5"
CD
O
J5
1 §
as +^
0 £
1—
^
(/) ~nS
CD ^
CO
3
.y
CO
Q.
"CD
o ?r
i— 2
—
o
'•£
8.
o
"4—
O
CD
D.
CM
§ - ^ ^.
CN ° O 0
d rr CM CM
o
CN
d
CM
§CN
_. go 00
^" -M O O
d oo CU ^ 5 -°
£• £ •§ o > s
o y o o i? 5
8|W5 do!
— CO „
r~ LD °°
CO 1^ LD CN O „; CO
CD ^er *~ o o
CD ^^COCO CO^T -!3-CD 22
CD o'odd do do
CN CO Q CO CO
CM
a K
CO • *
LD p~ CM 00
LD CM CO < LO O Q^ P1^
CO CD CD Z »— _. ^ d ID"—
CO S tD
« °>.
d •"
t
ro^%l^
r**
^3 ^f f^ ^f" (^
*~ *3" *&
CO
0
Jl^l! ii lilflsili
jaor;*^-"1- OD OntutOJZ,_o
JDO).9-«fe^ *=-D>-CS.S--5_3'^.EE3»8~«S-»o>
o^i_oO(j jo^or-.Mi_±: -i. o i- o !5
jftcuD-'ptOc Q_-jwcua>Q.3£r«5 SO taDtO
7.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
/ ffi
' 73
/ ">
/
/
/
So
III
LU
8
UJ
o
O
cc
Q.
z
g
i_
o
D
0
o
cc
Q.
2
D
i<
D ,'n
i CD
<2
\\
^ s
s?
Q- o
CC <
O "-
"- Z
CTORS
MISSIO
< UJ
LL
— f
O
CO
CO
I
LU
TO
0>
3
C
4-<
C
0
u
°?
*—
Is*
03
J2
re
1-
ii
__
LL
VI
CU
13
O
D
H—
O>
CO
^
o
4-*
<5
Q.
\L
I
«
o>
-D
0
33
I/I
rj
0
S
ctj
O
1-
5
en
.*
O
jQ
i-
"cn
_^£
c
0
j5
1
13
ul
CD
CD
3
O
Vj
03
Q.
"ro!
0
1-
CT>
-X
C.
O
I&
C
o
+-*
ro
CD
D.
O
H-
o
ii
>
t-
< < <
z z z
< < <
z z z
en en en
CJ CD CD
Z Z Z
en en en
0) CD CD
Z Z Z
in o
^r co >-
*-' c> o
o
CX3 r- CN
CN ^-' CZ>
T3
C
CO
"- C !_
-a « cu o o
QJ 3 OJ •- *-;
-Q o5 2 g ro *2
?s^ >s &
« b S 1 C S
o bj 5 & CD a
U- O LU
tn
V)
^
E
D
C
E
D
CD
"o
Ol
c .
c •§
5 o
5l
O Q.
* E
2 i
s §
UL 3
^ c
s ^
§ 1
i: c
Q. ^-
co °
1^
ra _
•Q »
0 §
I— M-
i °
^ to
^> E
^ E
Q)
I E
S o
Q. ^
W5 U
73 J5
5 S
a £
« °
CD —
-D <
Q3
S -o
QJ GJ
a S
X ~O
QJ O
g1 a
-5 -
c --
c E
°1 3 .
OJ ro £
So?
3 J- o .2
fO L_- -i Q
O ' 7S
-" ^ — TO
•&2S!*!
S c 3 c c
S 0 S ™ -
CD i_ CD T! 2
*• aj a S E
O ^ co c: o
s?^ e 1
Illll
ro -Q u "D
«'
03
Cj
C
QJ
U
OJ
c
Cj
tu
0
•Q
OJ
^
CD
V)
*
a;
CT
to
a>
>
ta
c
o
-a
c
to
tfl
S -D
u %
45 £
73 3>
cu ^
! s
C 3
0 "ro
§ 1
CO ^
S1 o
§ c
CD 0
" u
§ i
1 °
"i S
-° cri 01
a, t° c .
<5 -g, 2 to
w 3 a; ^
^r o i- D)
O i; co 3
y .C W O
- ^ S £
XI QJ 4--
2^1?
w to ir w
M ™ £ C
c CM CD ^
g ^ a
-------
References for Section 7.1
1. Engineering and Cost Effectiveness Study of Fluoride Emissions Contiol, Vol. 1. TRW Systems and
Resources Research Corp., Reston, Va. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number EHSD-71-14, January 1972.
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Vol. I. Singmaster and Breyer, New York, N.Y.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-70-21. March 1972.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971,
4. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-E.
5. Source Testing Report: Emissions from Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant. York Research Corp., Stamford,
Conn. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Aii Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Report Number Y-7730-B. June 1972.
6. Source Testing Report: Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System. York Research Corp., Stamford, Conn.
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report
Number Y-7730-F. June 1972.
7.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
7.2 METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURING
7.2.1 Process Description'
Coking is the process of heating ccal in an atmosphere of low oxygen content, i.e., destructive distillation.
During this process, organic compounds in the coal break down to yield gases and a residue of relatively
nonvolatile nature. Two processes are used for the manufacture of metallurgical coke, the beehive process and the
by-product process; the by-product process accounts for more than 98 percent of the coke produced.
Beehive oven:1 The beehive is a refractory-lined enclosure with a dome-shaped roof. The coal charge is
deposited onto the floor of the beehive and leveled to give a uniform depth of material. Openings to the beehive
oven are then restricted to control the amount of air reaching the coal. The carbonization process begins in the
coal at the top of the pile and works down through it. The volatile matter being distilled escapes to the
atmosphere through a hole in the roof. At the completion of the coking time, the coke is "watered out" or
quenched.
By-product process:' The by-product process is oriented toward the recovery of the gases produced during the
coking cycle. The rectangular coking ovens are grouped together in a series, alternately interspersed with heating
flues, called a coke battery. Coal is charged to the ovens through ports in the top, which are then sealed. Heat is
supplied to the ovens by burning some of the coke gas produced. Coking is largely accomplished at temperatures
of 2000° to 2100° F(1100° to 1150° C) for a period of about 16 to 20 hours. At the end of the coking period,
the coke is pushed from the oven by a ram and quenched with water.
7.2.2 Emissions'
Visible smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other emissions originate from the following by-product
coking operations: (1) charging of the coal into the incandescent ovens, (2) oven leakage during the coking
period, (3) pushing the coke out of the ovens, and (4) quenching the hot coke. Virtually no attempts have been
made to prevent gaseous emissions from beehive ovens. Gaseous emissions from the by-product ovens are drawn
off to a collecting main and are subjected to various operations for separating ammonia, coke-oven gas, tar,
phenol, light oil (benzene, toluene, xylene), and pyridine. These unit operations are potential sources of
hydrocarbon emissions.
Oven-charging operations and leakage around poorly sealed coke-oven doors and lids are major sources of
gaseous emissions from by-product ovens. Sulfur is present in the coke-oven gas in the form of hydrogen sulfide
and carbon disulfide. If the gas is not desulfurized, the combustion process will emit sulfur dioxide.
Associated with both coking processes are the material-handling operations of unloading coal, storing coal,
grinding and sizing of coal, screening and crushing coke, and storing and loading coke. All of these operations are
potential particulate emission sources. In addition, the operations of oven charging, coke pushing and quenching
produce particulate emissions. The emission factors for coking operations are summarized in Table 7.2-1.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-1
-------
CO
CO
_l
O
CC
1—
o
0
1-
3
O
X
H
5
LU
ty
^L
D
h
CJ
<
LL
"Z. ,.
< °
2d
S 2
^ —
O t;
o <
"«:
< oc
Or\
VJ
S t-
^<
1*
CNJ
T^
QJ
3
re
CD
c
o
E
<
__^
CN
c 0
mi ~y>
§,<=.
O
I t/J
1*
s
o
12
c/l
C
O
-E
CT3
^j
o
w '
T3
^
i
cu
c T3
o 'x
-° O
™ 1
o o
ClJ
"*" X
3 O
c/\ •—
1/3 -a
(/>
2
_ro
3
_o
cu
Ci_
H
2
01
^
c
o
^J
s
OJ
^
c
o
tr-1
]Q
2
O)
'c
o
ID
1
^
OJ
^
c
o
+J
io
1-
s
O^
^:
c
O
_i^
_Q
5
O)
_^
c
o
4-»
i
^
o
'•p
ca
CP
a
0
"o
&
>-
r- CO IT)
| O O O | |
o o' ci
CN CD
1 9 °. "-. 1 1
000
ui in
1 0 0 1 I I
o ci
CO «—
| O O | | |
o" ci
in ID
i CN r^ T— i i
1 . . .1 1
«- O O
in m CN ,
...
1 CN «- 0 ' '
LO
CO
| CO CO O | |
o o" ci
r^
| CD CD O | ]
odd
1 9 1 1 i
O CN
CN
1 °. 1 1 !
0 •*
in m un
CN r-- o co **
d d d d d 1
•* Lf) r— CD O5
d <-' d d o" |
o
O)
.c
"P - a. "°oi
^o, §.£=>.£
CJ c CT O Ol — fc-
3 TD .E cn |o -g H-
11 II III
i. D CJ 0 Q O 3
CO
,_
CN
1
1
^~
co
m
d
«-
1
1
o
o
o
o
CN
QJ
(/)
c
V
>
0
cu
,>
_c
OJ
a;
QQ
T3
QJ
e>
CO
.E
cj
8
CJ
"o
.C
Dl
Q)
C
D
cu
a
en
'c
D
CD
T5
QJ
QJ
Q.
X
0)
y>
0
o
CO
H-
aEmission
O)
c
CO
jr
^-"
QJ
in
re
73
1
Q)
Q.
X
LJLJ
jD
CO
"D
C
CO
CM
QJ
cReferenc
CO
ci
c
CD
>
O
o
-o
QJ
E?
CO
JZ
o
ro
O
CJ
0
C
CD
C
o
u
L.
D
3
^
1 — '
i/i
g
-D
c
o
(J
QJ
.s
CO
C
S
01
Q.
QJ
E
O
"o
QJ
_C
c
o
~o
CD
1
en
0
CJ
(O
1
X
o
T3
D
D
00
CD
-C
uri
QJ
dReferenc
o
^f
3
o
.Q
CO
CO
t/r
CO
en
c
QJ
>
O
QJ
J*
0
O
OJ
£
V
O
•a
OJ
QJ
C
CO
*-*
(/>
C;
CD
>
0
o
73
S1
CD
.C
CJ
8
CJ
QJ
_C
C
L.
"5
w
"co
2
"o
^
r~
O)
5
C
CD
percent b
*o
trt
QJ
QJ
_C
QJ
QJ
.C
C
g
CO
QJ
a
o
CD
Q)
s
CU
.c
^_
0
in
CD
a
ai
JZ
o
c
TD
QJ
b)
3
OJ
T3
C
CD
OJ
QJ
j:
-o
c
CD
C
g
CD
(n
Q.
0
OJ
c
^
QJ
•o
c
3
QJ
_c
Dl
C
D
-o
"S
c
D
n
in
C
QJ
9
CD
_¥
O
CJ
percent of
T3
N
3
D
to
CD
T3
C
QJ
%
o
c
CO
^
O)
c
inT
QJ
-o
c
D
C
73
QJ
3
(0
a>
. .
^
73
C
CO
•a
Q)
?
^
O
"co
o
^
o
p
2
~0>
^
CO
c
o
.a
to
^D
CO
1
73
QJ
cn
CO
.c
«
73
w
CD
73
X
O
73
D
"5
in
QJ
.C
^
73
C
CO
cn
Q)
O
C
QJ
CD
QJ
CC
CD
7.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
References for Section 7.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Final Report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
1970.
2. Air Pollution by Coking Plants. United Nations Report: Economic Commission for Europe, ST/ECE/
Coal/26. 1968. p. 3-27.
3. Fullerton, R.W. Impingement Baffles to Reduce Emissions from Coke Quenching. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
77:807-809. December 1967.
4. Sallee, G. Private Communication on Particulate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
5. Varga, J. and H.W. Lownie, Jr. Final Technological Report on: A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. DHEW, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number PH 22-68-65. May 1969.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.2-3
-------
-------
7.3 COPPER SMELTERS
7.3.1 Process Description1'2
Copper is produced primarily from low-grade sulfide ores, which are concentrated by gravity and dotation
methods. Copper is recovered from the concentrate by four steps: roasting, smelting, converting, and refining.
Copper sulfide concentrates are normally roasted in either multiple-hearth or fluidized-bed roasters to remove the
sulfur and then calcined in preparation for smelting in a reverberatory furnace. For about half the smelters the
roasting step is eliminated. Smelting removes other impurities as a slag with the aid of fluxes. The matter that
results from smelting is blown with air to remove the sulfur as sulfur dioxide, and the end product is a crude
metallic copper. A refining process further purifies the metal by insertion of green logs or natural gas. This is
often followed by electrolytic refining.
7.3.2 Emissions and Controls2
The high temperatures attained in roasting, smelting, and converting cause volatilization of a number of the
trace elements present in copper ores and concentrates. The raw waste gases from these processes contain not
only these fumes but also dust and sulfur oxide. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides may also be emitted, but
no quantitative data have been reported in the literature.
The value of the volatilized elements dictates efficient collection of fumes and dusts. A combination of
cyclones and electrostatic precipitators seems to be most often used. Table 7.3-1 summarizes the uncontrolled
emissions of particulates and sulfur oxides from copper smelters.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.3-1
-------
Table 7.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER
SMELTERS WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of operation
Roasting
Smelting (reverberatory
furnace)
Converting
Refining
Total uncontrolled
Particulatesb'c
Ib/ton
45
20
60
10
135
kg/MT
22.5
10
30
5
67.5
Sulfur
oxidesd
Ib/ton
60
320
870
-
1250
kg/MT
30
160
435
-
625
Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce
1 unit weight of copper metal. Emission factors expressed as units per
unit weight of concentrated ore produced.
"References 2 through 4.
°Electrostatic precipitators have been reported to reduce emissions by
99.7 percent
"Sulfur oxides can be reduced by about 90 percent by using a
combination of sulfunc acid plants and lime slurry scrubbing.
References for Section 7.3
1. Duprey, R.L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N. C. PHS Publication No. 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 24.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 173-179.
3. Sallee, G. Private communication on Particulate Pollutant Study, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration under Contract Number 22-69-104. June
1970.
4. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry. 3 Volumes. San
Francisco, California, Arthur G. McKee and Company. June 1969.
7.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.4 FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
7.4.1 Process Description1 •-
Ferroalloy is the generic term for alloys consisting of iron and one or more other metals. Ferroalloys are used
in steel production as alloying elements and deoxidants. There are three basic types of ferroalloys: (1)
silicon-based alloys, including ferrosilicon and caldumsilicon; (2) manganese-based alloys, including fer-
romanganese and silicomanganese; and (3) chromium-based alloys, including ferrochromium and ferrosilico-
chrome.
The four major procedures used to produce ferroalloy and high-purity metallic additives for steelmakmg are:
(1) blast furnace, (2) electrolytic deposition, (3) alumina silico-thermic process, and (4) electric smelting furnace.
Because over 75 percent of the ferroalloys are produced in electric smelting furnaces, this section deals only with
that type of furnace.
The oldest, simplest, and most widely used electric furnaces are the submerged-arc open type, although
semi-covered furnaces are also used. The alloys are made in the electric furnaces by reduction of suitable oxides.
For example, in making ferrochromium the charge may consist of chrome ore. limestone, quartz (silica), coal and
wood chips, along with scrap iron.
7.4.2 Emissions3
The production of ferroalloys has many dust- or fume-producing steps. The dust resulting from raw material
handling, mix delivery, and crushing and sizing of the solidified product can be handled by conventional
techniques and is ordinarily not a pollution problem. By far the major pollution problem arises from the
ferroalloy furnaces themselves. The conventional submerged-arc furnace utilizes carbon reduction of metallic
oxides and continuously produces large quantities of carbon monoxide. This escaping gas carries large quantities
of particulates of submicron size, making control difficult.
In an open furnace, essentially all of the carbon monoxide burns with induced air at the top of the charge, and
CO emissions are small. Particulate emissions from the open furnace, however, can be quite large. In the
semi-closed furnace, most or all of the CO is withdrawn from the furnace and burns with dilution air introduced
into the system. The unburned CO goes through particulate control devices and can be used as boiler fuel or can
be flared directly. Particulate emission factors for electric smelting furnaces are presented in Table 7.4-1. No
carbon monoxide emission data have been reported in the literature.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.4-1
-------
Table 7.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION IN
ELECTRIC SMELTING FURNACES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furance and
product
Open furnace
50% FeSib
75% FeSic
90% FeSib
Silicon metald
Silicomanganese6
Semi-covered furnace
Ferro manganese6
Particulates
Ib/ton
200
315
565
625
195
45
kg/MT
100
157.5
282.5
312.5
97.5
22.5
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit
weight of specified product produced.
bReference 4.
cReferences 5 and 6.
"^References 4 and 7.
eReference 6.
References for Section 7.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-1 19. April 1970.
2. Ferroalloys: Steel's All-purpose Additives. The Maga/ine of Metals Producing. February 1967.
3. Person, R. A. Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace Processing. Niagara Falls, New York. 1969.
4. Unpublished stack test results. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia.
5. Ferrari, R. Experiences in Developing an Effective Pollution Control System for a Submerged-Arc Ferroalloy
Furnace Operation. J. Metals, p. 95-104, April 1968.
6. Fredriksen and Nestaas. Pollution Problems by Electric Furnace Ferroalloy Production. United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe. September 1968.
7. Gerstle, R. W. and J. L. McGmnity. Plant Visit Memorandum. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1967.
7.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.5 IRON AND STEEL MILLS Revised by William M. Vatavuk
and L. K. Felleisen
7.5.1 General1
Iron and steel manufacturing processes may be grouped into five distinct sequential operations: (1) coke
production; (2) pig iron manufacture in blast furnaces; (3) steel-making processes using basic oxygen, electric arc,
and open hearth furnaces; (4) rolling mill operations; and (5) finishing operations (see Figure 7.5-1). The first
three of these operations encompass nearly all of the air pollution sources. Coke production is discussed in detail
elsewhere in this publication.
7.5.1.1 Pig Iron Manufacture2'3-Pig iron is produced in blast furnaces, which are large refractory-lined chambers
into which iron ore, coke, and limestone are charged and allowed to react with large amounts of hot air to
produce molten iron. Slag and blast furnace gases are by-products of this operation. The production of 1 unit
weight of pig iron requires an average charge of 1.55 unit weights of iron-bearing charge, 0.55 unit weight of
coke, 0.20 unit weight of limestone, and 2.3 unit weight of air. Blast furnace by-products consist of 0.2 unit
weight of slag, 0.02 unit weight of flue dust, and 2.5 unit weights of gas per unit of pig iron produced. Most of
the coke used in the process is produced in by-product coke ovens. The flue dust and other iron ore fines from
the process are converted into useful blast furnace charge via sintering operations.
Blast furnace combustion gas and the gases that escape from bleeder openings constitute the major sources of
particulate emissions. The dust in the gas consists of 35 to 50 percent iron, 4 to 14 percent carbon, 8 to 13
percent silicon dioxide, and small amounts of aluminum oxide, manganese oxide, calcium oxide, and other
materials. Because of its high carbon monoxide content, this gas has a low heating value (about 100 Btu/ft) and is
utilized as a fuel within the steel plant. Before it can be efficiently oxidized, however, the gas must be cleaned of
particulates. Initially, the gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone, where about 60 percent of the
dust is removed. Next, the gases undergo a one- or two-stage cleaning operation. The primary cleaner is normally
a wet scrubber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulates. The secondary cleaner is a
high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator, either of which can remove up to 90
percent of the particulates that have passed through the primary cleaner. Taken together, these control devices
provide an overall dust removal efficiency of approximately 96 percent.
All of the carbon monoxide generated in the gas is normally used for fuel. Conditions such as "slips," however,
can cause instantaneous emissions of carbon monoxide. Improvements in techniques for handling blast furnace
burden have greatly reduced the occurrence of slips. In Table 7.5-1 particulate and carbon monoxide emission
factors are presented for blast furnaces.
7.5.1.2 Steel-Making Processes-
7.5.1.2.1 Open Hearth Furnaces^^—\n the open hearth process, a mixture of scrap iron, steel, and pig iron is
melted in a shallow rectangular basin, or "hearth," for which various liquid gaseous fuels provide the heat.
Impurities are removed in a slag.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-1
-------
*-FLUE GAS
(SINTER
OPERATION)
DUST, FINES,
AND COAL
SINTER
OPERATION
(P)
IRON ORE
COAL
LIMESTONE
-< A/ CYCLONE
FINISHING
OPERATIONS
GAS
PURIFICATION
SCARFING
MACHINE
COKE
OPERATION
(P)
Figure 7.5-1. Basic flow diagram of iron and steel processes.
"P" denotes a major source of particulate emissions.
7.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
Emissions from open hearths consist of participates and small amounts of fluorides when fluoride-bearing ore,
fluorspar, is used in the charge. The particulates are composed primarily of iron oxides, with a large portion (45
to 50 percent) in the 0 to 5 micrometer size range. The quantity of dust in the off-gas increases considerably
when oxygen lancing is used (see Table 7.5-1).
The devices most commonly used to control the iron oxide and fluoride particulates are electrostatic
precipitators and high-energy venturi scrubbers, both of which effectively remove about 98 percent of the
particulates. The scrubbers also remove nearly 99 percent of the gaseous fluorides and 95 percent of the
particulate fluorides.
7.5.1.2.2 Basic Oxygen Furnaces2>3-The basic oxygen process, also called the Linz-Donawitz (LD) process, is
employed to produce steel from a furnace charge composed of approximately 70 percent molten blast-furnace
metal and 30 percent scrap metal by use of a stream of commercially pure oxygen to oxidize the impurities,
principally carbon and silicon.
The reaction that converts the molten iron into steel generates a considerable amount of particulate matter,
largely in the form of iron oxide, although small amounts of fluorides may be present. Probably as the result of
the tremendous agitation of the molten bath by the oxygen lancing, the dust loadings vary from 5 to 8 grains per
standard cubic foot (11 to 18 grams/standard cubic meter) and high percentages of the particles are in the 0 to 5
micrometer size range.
In addition, tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide (140 Ib/ton of steel and more) are generated by the
reaction. Combustion in the hood, direct flaring, or some other means of ignition is used in the stack to reduce
the actual carbon monoxide emissions to less than 3 Ib/ton (1.5 kg/MT).
The particulate control devices used are venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, both of which have
overall efficiencies of 99 percent. Furthermore, the scrubbers are 99 percent efficient in removing gaseous
fluorides (see Table 7.5-1).
7.5.1.2.3 Electric Arc Furnaces^'^-Electric furnaces are used primarily to produce special alloy steels or to melt
large amounts of scrap for reuse. Heat is furnished by direct-arc electrodes extending through the roof of the
furnace. In recent years, oxygen has been used to increase the rate of uniformity of scrap-melt-down and to
decrease power consumption.
The particulates, primarily oxides of iron, manganese, aluminum, and silicon, that evolve when steel is being
processed in an electric furnace result from the exposure of molten steel to extremely high temperatures. The
quantity of these emissions is a function of the cleanliness and composition of the scrap metal charge, the refining
procedure used (with or without oxygen lancing), and the refining time. As with open hearths, many of the
particulates (40 to 75 percent) are in the 0 to 5 micrometer range. Additionally, moderate amounts of carbon
monoxide (15 to 20 Ib/ton) are emitted.
Particulate control devices most widely used with electric furnaces are venturi scrubbers, which have a
collection efficiency of approximately 98 percent, and bag filters, which have collection efficiencies of 99 percent
or higher.
7.5.1.3 Scarfing-*— Scarfing is a method of surface preparation of semi-finished steel. A scarfing machine removes
surface defects from the steel billets and slabs, before they are shaped or rolled, by applying jets of oxygen to the
surface of the steel, which is at orange heat, thus removing a thin upper layer of the metal by rapid oxidation.
Emissions from scarfing operations consist of iron oxide fumes. The rate at which particulates are emitted is
dependent on the condition of the billets or slabs and the amount of metal removal required (Table 7.5-1).
Emission control techniques for the removal of fine particles vary among steel producers, but one of the most
commonly used devices is the electrostatic precipitator, which is approximately 94 percent efficient.
4/73 Metallurgical Industry 7.5-3
-------
X
O
Z
O
zffi
O t- „
tr < to
o
O Q. U.
u < o
<
"• oo
z a
o z
uj cc
• O
T t-
LfJ O
3 Z
H 2
C/5
00
UJ
T3
T3
o
_2
LL
CN
io-
ta
O
m
O.
o
"o
0)
a
>
1-
oo n
ir) o o in
1 1 1 1 1 1 t- O O i-
1 ' 1 1 1 1 0 0 O O
o o o ci
IT5 CD
O «- O 0
i i i i i i i i i 8 88 S
C5 C) C3 CD
in o
80 tf>
000°
d do
§«- o o
.-o"0.?
d do d
o o
ir> m
0 0
in ^~ LO *~~ , CN CN CN
t^ 0 1 ^ 0 1 II 1 ICNCNCN | II 1
00 +•• 00 ^
8 8
r~ r-~
8 |
o CN o ^ t rf t
ino|f5o| || || i^^-^r | || |
*- o "~ o
O 0
t •*
o~
o o ,_:
O LO CD ^5 ^ »—
»- in CM in in oo oo ^ _
0 inr-- omo <-o «- o o o ^ o
in o m^o r^d o^-'d o' ^-^d -s'dd co
incNr^inn -- >- ^ ^
- — - — TJ-
o op
O ^- T- CN r^ |-^ CN
^ in ooci CNJV- ro^^-^-^-CN
o o o°o LO »—' OCN>— ' d CNCNO ociodd ^2
,- * in « i
-a
CD
- &" 2 T)^2^;"g^2 § §
^ E1 "g o fe-^raS % 2- ™ § ^9- i S §
§ § !*! | l°l 1 „?!? § .11 f |.ys-
e'fej sl§ 1 »al. iiSslsMlsS^ a|3g
III |I1 IlII^g^iHf^f^lhiHf
a^^ |g - J^ s S£.E€ ^^g 2r«| ^>t^^ |^ S^ a|;
g«2i SDf S^^^ Sjaa Q |oa a £ ° S > ^ |
.;= « O < |- w C5 Q ^az^ O
01 CQ en 2 °
ol co
7.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
a uj
&s
— i X
-J O
§ z
o
UJ ^
LU 2
I- O
CO S
Q CC
z <
2 9
0 |
~ CO
CC UJ
o b —
U. < CO
{/j — 1 U-1
0 0 -
O — DC
1- 1- o
233
U. Q. U.
Z ^r ~
o
CD
O
CD
Q.
"ro
0
r-
3?
c
o
i->
5
1-
§
^
c
O
-^
—
r-
"01
c
o
^
I-
^^
^g1
c
o
o
C
o
CO
Q
Q
h^
O
r-
§co in in CN in in CN
o o t— r- o 03 LOLO »~ oimm *—
§o o oo ro «- oo o --oo O|||
o «- oo o >- oo o --co o ' ' '
oo o oo o o oo o ooo o
§^" ^J"
O CNCN O CO T- ^- CN 00<-*- CN
§O OO CD 00 *- *— O CO «— »— Olll
O CN OO O CN OO O CNOO O1'
do d .do o' d do d odd d
in 05 03 co
inOO) CDOCOCOCDOOcD
om
oor-> inin in a ^t >~o m oo<-
o ^ — in o CN CN co co o o o o in * — & o in o o
do iri.^dd r-' ^' in o -* °' irio'in dddd
^ - oo - jo VIVIVI
- o d
(Q ^ ®®
r-m oo*"*" OCOHO) oio'~SSCNI
T— CO LOID CO CN*"*— O CM «— OO
oo *— 2 o o iri a>oo2 o r-o2 o r-o*o
^CN - 0 s - oo VIVIVI
"^ C^ d d
— jL
Q) O
— o ^_
o ^ o
£ >- *- -r^ S
t. gj QJ ^ p£;
•8 ^^ -8 ,. fe % D.yo E-"g|uo 1 -5 t
"§cjOD "5QO-Q — o^ca ^"00'*"*^ ^*~^
^ "^ tri C* *~ '^J "m £ C ^ •"— CD C ^ Jo (^ ,*i QJ C ^ —
&? S .— ^ &? +S .^ ^ "^o ° "^ 'C o -^" ^ "^ c '^ o -^ 3 8 •— 3
•— *" D. 5, .— tnp*~^gP^(lJ^3^_CJO^-Q^3^_OQC-*^Q
|| IS I | 1 | '= S 1 || 1 1 || I 1 a fj*. ||
>u3a| >u3ac^|i ^ ^CD U m?i|
m w LS^>
essed as units per unit weight of metal produced. Reference 3.
:ses after uncontrolled values are ranges. Controlled "Approximately 0.3 pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton (0.15 kg/MT) of
k.
a
X
actors
aEmission f
1
03
!
c
bNumbers
X
o
•o
c
i
a
1
0
Q.
1
a
*
CD
8
U
CD
-o
JU
C
O
u
1
03
O5
V)
T3
CD
CJ
«
O
CD
03
|
CO
•o
g
ID
CM"
0?
CJ
c
0)
k.
OJ
1
(/>
CD
'i
OJ
CD
equipmen!
'References 2 through 10.
cReference
_£
cu
a
>
>.
_o
"to
0
LL
(/>
CD
8
C
.2
K
m
.0
+J
CJ
CO
CD
1
C
o
CO
CJ
i
V)
0}
"ca
QJ
.5?
CD
Q_
"CD
c
•o
CD
3
•u
S
CN
(rt
"CD
c
§
01
>-
a
D
•D
C
(D
n"
CN
U)
e Reference
be used to estimate particulate and carbon monoxide ' References 2 through 5.
ntire blast furnace operation. The total particulate mReferences 3 and 4.
ng and agglomerates charging apply only to those " Factors are based on operating experience and engineering judgment
•o
1
•5
I
O
•S
&
o
0)
1
1
emissions
1
r ore c
factors fo:
operation
12/75
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-5
-------
References for Section 7.5
1. Bramer, Henry C. Pollution Control in the Steel Industry. Environmental Science and Technology, p.
1004-1008, October 1971.
2. Celenza. C.J. Air Pollution Problems Faced by the Iron and Steel Industry. Plant Engineering, p. 60-63, April
30, 1970.
3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-42. 1972.
4. Personal communication between Ernest Kirkendall, American Iron and Steel Institute, and John McGinnity,
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, N.C. September 1970.
5. Particulate Pollutant Systems Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract
Number CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
6. Walker, A.B. and R.F. Brown. Statistics on Utilization, Performance, and Economics of Electrostatic
Precipitation for Control of Particulate Air Pollution. (Presented at 2nd International Clean Air Congress,
International Union of Air Pollution Prevention Association, Washington, B.C. December 1970.)
7. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0228. February 1972.
8. Source Testing Report - EPA Test 71-MM-24. Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, D.C. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract
Number 68-02-0225. March 1972.
9. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 2. Rust Engineering Co., Birmingham, Ala. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Program, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA
70-132. April 1972.
10. Source Testing Report - EPA Task 4. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pa. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
68-02-0231.
7.5-6 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
7.6 LEAD SMELTING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
7,6.1 Process Description 1-3
Lead is usually found in nature as a sulfide ore containing small amounts of copper, iron, zinc, and other trace
elements. It is normally concentrated at the mine from an ore of 3 to 8 percent lead to an ore concentrate of 55
to 70 percent lead, containing from 13 to 19 percent free and uncombined sulfur by weight.
Normal practice for the production of lead metal from this concentrate involves the following operations
(see Figure 7.6-1):
1. Sintering, in which the concentrate lead and sulfur are oxidized to produce lead oxide and sulfur dioxide.
(Simultaneously, the charge material, comprised of concentrates, recycle sinter, sand, and other inert materials,
is agglomerated to form a dense, permeable material called sinter.)
2. Reducing the lead oxide contained in the sinter to produce molten lead bullion.
3. Refining the lead bullion to eliminate any impurities.
Sinter is produced by means of a sinter machine, a continuous steel-pallet conveyor belt moved by gears and
sprockets. Each pallet consists of perforated or slotted grates, beneath which are situated windboxes connected
to fans that provide a draft on the moving sinter charge. Depending on the direction of this draft, the sinter ma-
chine is either of the updraft or downdraft type. Except for the draft direction, however, all machines are simi-
lar in design, construction, and operation.
The sintering reaction is autogenous and occurs at a temperature of approximately 1000°C:
2 PbS + 3 02 -»• 2 PbO + 2 S02 (!)
Operating experience has shown that system operation and product quality are optimum when the sulfur content
of the sinter charge is between 5 and 7 percent by weight. To maintain this desired sulfur content, sulfide-free
fluxes such as silica and limestone, plus large amounts of recycled sinter and smelter residues are added to the
mix. The quality of the product sinter is usually determined by its hardness (Ritter Index), which is inversely
proportional to the sulfur content. Hard quality sinter (low sulfur content) is preferred because it resists crushing
during discharge from the sinter machine. Conversely, undersized sinter will usually result from insufficient de-
sulfurization and is recycled for further processing.
Of the two kinds of sintering machines used, the updraft design is superior for many reasons. First, the sinter
bed height is more permeable (and, hence, can be greater) with an updraft machine, thereby permitting a higher
production rate than that of a downdraft machine of similar dimensions. Secondly, the small amounts of ele-
mental lead that form during sintering will solidify at their point of formation with updraft machines; whereas, in
downdraft operation, the metal tends to flow downward and collect on the grates or at the bottom of the sinter
charge, thus causing increased pressure drop and attendant reduced blower capacity. In addition, the updraft
system exhibits the capability of producing sinter of higher lead content and requires less maintenance than the
downdraft machine. Finally, and most important from an air pollution control standpoint, updraft sintering
can produce a single strong SO2 effluent stream from the operation, by use of weak gas recirculation. This, in
turn, permits the more efficient and economical use of such control methods as sulfuric acid recovery plants.
Lead reduction is carried out in a blast furnace, basically a water-jacketed shaft furnace supported by a re-
fractory base. Tuyeres, through which combustion air is admitted under pressure, are located near the bottom
and are evenly spaced on either side of the furnace.
The furnace is charged with a mixture of sinter (80 to 90 percent of charge), metallurgical coke (8 to 14 per-
cent of the charge), and other materials, such as limestone, silica, litharge, slag-forming constituents, and various
recycled and clean-up materials. In the furnace the sinter is reduced to lead bullion; most of the impurities are
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-1
-------
LEAD
CONCENTRATE
SILICEOUS
ORE*
PRESSURE LEACHING
I CRUDE I
\ ORE' |
ZINC PLANT
RESIDUE
LIMEROCK1
CuS04, ZnSOij SOLUTION I
TO ZINC PLANT OR SOLVENT
EXTRACTION AND ELECTRO- I
LYTIC COPPER RECOVERY |
[PbSJty RESIDUE
| SLAG' j
BY-PRODUCTS-
'THESE PRODUCTS ARE ALL CRUSHED AND
GROUND IN A ROD MILL TO 1 8 in SIZE
CHARGE PREPARATION
RETURN
SINTER
»
FUME
CONCENTRATION FOR CADMIUM-
BULLION EXTRACTION ELECTRIC FURNACE"
COPPER DROSS
•FUME
LEADED
ZINC OXIDE
TO MARKET
DELEADEDZINC
OXIDE TO MARKET
DEZINCED GRANULATED^
SLAG TO STORAGE
' r
SLAG TO MATTE SPEISS I
BLAST FURNACE 1 *
BAGHOUSE
BULLION
SLAG TO BLAST FURNACE
PARKES GOLD CRUST-*
PARKES SILVER CRUST-
» i r~
. DESILVERIZING
GOLD KETTLE
1
>_ DESILVERIZING
^ SILVER KETTLE
1
VACUUM DEZINCING
KETTLE
ZINC
ZINC
GRANULATION
MATTE AND SPEISS
TO MARKET
STOCK
ANTIMONY SKIM COKE
ELECTRIC FURNACE U.-FUME—'
i r
SLAG TO Dm i inw
BLAST FURNACE BULUUN
STORAGE
REFINING KETTLE
SLAG TO
BLAST FURNACE
-NaOH
NaN03
PbO
J_
LEACH TANK
REFINING KETTLE
FINE SILVER
TO MARKET
GOLD DORE
TO MARKET
CASTING
REFINED LEAD
TO MARKET
J
CASTING
I
HARD LEAD
TO MARKET
FILTER
CADMIUM SPONGE TO -
ELECTROLYTIC REFINING
H2S04
T
RESIDUE
TO BLAST
FURNACE
ZnSOi
TO MARKET
Figure 7.6-1. Typical flowsheet of pyrometallurgical lead smelting.
7.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
eliminated in the slag. Solid products from the blast furnace generally separate into four layers: speiss (basic-
ally arsenic and antimony, the lightest material); matte (composed of copper sulfide and other metal sulfides):
slag (primarily silicates); and lead bullion. The first three layers are combined as slag, which is continually
collected from the furnace and either processed at the smelter for its metal content or shipped to treatment
facilities.
A certain amount of SC>2 is also generated in blast furnaces due to the presence of small quantities of residual
lead sulfide and lead sulfates in the sinter feed. The quantity of these emissions is a function of not only the re-
sidual sulfur content in the sinter, but of the amount of sulfur that is captured by copper and other impurities in
the slag.
Rough lead bullion from the blast furnace usually requires preliminary treatment (dressing) in steel cast-iron
kettles before undergoing refining operations. First, the bullion is cooled to 700 to 800°F; copper and small
amounts of sulfur, arsenic, antimony, and nickel are removed from solution and collect on the surface as a dross.
This dross, in turn, is treated in a reverberatory-type furnace where the copper and other metal impurities are
further concentrated before being routed to copper smelters for their eventual recovery. Drossed lead bullion is
further treated for copper removal by the addition of sulfur-bearing material and zinc and/or aluminum to lower
the copper content to approximately 0.01 percent.
The final phase of smelting, the refining of the bullion is cast-iron kettles, occurs in five steps:
1. Removal of antimony, tin, and arsenic;
2. Removal of precious metals via the Parke's Process, in which zinc metal combines with gold and silver to
form an insoluble intermetallic at operating temperatures;
3. Vacuum removal of zinc;
4. Bismuth removal using the Betterson Process, which involves the addition of calcium and magnesium,
which in turn, form an insoluble compound with the bismuth that is skimmed from the kettle; and
5. Removal of remaining traces of metal impurities by addition of NaOH and NaNC>3.
The final refined lead, commonly of 99.99 to 99.999 percent purity, is then cast into 100-pound pigs before
shipment.
7.6.2 Emissions and Controls 1.2
Each of the three major lead smelting operations generates substantial quantities of particulates and/or sulfur
dioxide.
Nearly 85 percent of the sulfur present in the lead ore concentrate is eliminated in the sintering operation.
In handling these process offgases, either a single weak stream is taken from the machine hood at less than 2 per-
cent SC>2 or two streams are taken—one weak stream (<0.5 percent SC^) from the discharge end of the machine
and one strong stream (5 to 7 percent 862) taken from the feed end. Single stream operation is generally used
when there is little or no market for the recovered sulfur, so that the uncontrolled weak SC>2 stream is emitted
to the atmosphere. Where there is a potential sulfur market, however, the strong stream is sent to a sulfuric acid
plant, and the weak stream is vented after particulate removal.
When dual gas stream operation is used with updraft sinter machines, the weak gas stream can be recirculated
through the bed to mix with the strong gas stream, resulting in a single stream with an SC>2 concentration of
about 6 percent. This technique has the overall effect of decreasing machine production capacity, but does per-
mit a more convenient and economical recovery of the SC>2 via sulfuric acid plants and other control methods.
Without weak gas re circulation, the latter portion of the sinter machine acts as a cooling zone for the sinter
and consequently assists in the reduction of dust formation during product discharge and screening. However,
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.6-3
-------
when recirculation is used, the sinter is usually discharged in a relatively hot state (400 to 500°C), with an attend-
ant increase in particulate formation. Methods for reducing these dust quantities include recirculation of off-
gases through the sinter bed, relying upon the filtering effect of the latter, or ducting the gases from the dis-
charge through a particulate collection device directly to the atmosphere. Because reaction activity has ceased
in the discharge area in these cases, these latter gases contain little SO2-
The particulate emissions from sinter machines consist of from 5 to 20 percent of the concentrated ore feed.
When expressed in terms of product weight, these emissions are an estimated 106.5 kg/MT (213 Ib/ton) of lead pro-
duced. This value, along with other particulate and SC>2 factors, appears in Table 7.6-1.
Table 7.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD
SMELTING PROCESSES WITHOUT CONTROLS"
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Process
Ore crushing!3
Sintering (updraft)c
Blast furnace*3
Dross reverberatory furnaceb
Materials handling13
Particulates
kg/MT
1.0
106.5
180.5
10.0
2.5
Ib/ton
2.0
213.0
361.0
20.0
5.0
Sulfur dioxide
kg/MT
-
275.0
22.5
Neg
—
Ib/ton
-
550.0
45.0
Neg
—
3Ore crushing emission factors expressed as kg/MT (Ib/ton) of crushed ore; all other emission factors expressed as kg/MT (Ib/ton)
of lead product.
bReference 2.
cReferences 1, 4, 5, and 6.
dReferences 1, 2, and 7.
Typical material balances from domestic lead smelters indicate that about 10 to 20 percent of the sulfur in the
ore concentrate fed to the sinter machine is eliminated in the blast furnace. However, only half of this amount
(about 7 percent of the total) is emitted as 862; the remainder is captured by the slag. The concentration of this
SC>2 stream can vary from 500 to 2500 ppm by volume, depending on the amount of dilution air injected to ox-
idize the carbon monoxide and cool the stream before baghouse treatment for particulate removal.
Particulate emissions from blast furnaces contain many different kinds of material, including a range of lead
oxides, quartz, limestone, iron pyrites, iron-lime-silicate slag, arsenic, and other metals-containing compounds
associated with lead ores. These particles readily agglomerate, are primarily submicron in size, difficult to wet,
cohesive, and will bridge and arch in hoppers. On the average, this dust loading is quite substantial (see Table
7.6-1).
Virtually no sulfur dioxide emissions are associated with the various refining operations. However, a small
amount of particulates is generated by the dross reverberatory furnace (10 kg/MT of lead).
Finally, minor quantities of particulates are generated by ore crushing and materials handling operations.
These emission factors are also presented in Table 7.6-1.
Methods used to control emission from lead smelter operations fall into two broad categories-particulate
and sulfur dioxide control techniques. The most commonly employed high-efficiency particulate control devices
are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, which, in turn, often follow centrifugal collectors and tubular
coolers (pseudogravity collectors). Three of the six lead smelters presently operating in the United States use
single absorption sulfuric acid plants for control of sulfur dioxide emissions from sinter machines and, occasion-
ally, blast furnaces. Other technically feasible SO2 control methods are elemental sulfur recovery plants and
7.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
dimethylaniline (DMA) and ammonia absorption processes.
efficiencies are listed in Table 7.6-2.
These methods and their representative control
Table 7.6-2. EFFICIENCIES OF REPRESENTATIVE CONTROL DEVICES
USED WITH PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING OPERATIONS
Control devfce or method
Centrifugal collector (e.g., cyclone)3
Electrostatic precipitator3
Fabric filter3
Tubular cooler (associated with waste heat boiler)8
Sulfuric acid plant (single contact)13'0
Elemental sulfur recovery plantb'd
Dimethylaniline (DMA) absorption processb.e
Ammonia absorption processb2 efficiencies based on inlet
and outlet concentrations of 5 to 7 percent and 2000 ppm, respectively.
•^Collection efficiency fora two-stage, uncontrolled Claus-type plant. Refer to Section 5.18 for more information.
eRange of SO2 efficiencies based on inlet and outlet concentrations of 4 to 6 percent and 500 to 3000 ppm, respectively.
'Range of SO2 efficiencies based on inlet and outlet concentrations of 1.5 to 2.5 percent and 1200 ppm, respectively.
References for Section 7.6
1. Darvin, Charles and Frederick Porter. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters. (Draft). Emission Standards and Engineering Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1973.
2. Handbook of Emissions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary Particulate Pollution Sources. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract Number CPA 22-69-104. November 1970.
3. Worchester, A. and D. H. Beilstein. Lead—Progress and Prognosis: The State of the Art: Lead Recovery.
(Presented at 10th Annual Meeting of Metallurgical Society of AIME. New York. Paper No. A71-87. March
1971.)
4. Trip report memorandum. T. J. Jacobs to Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Subject: Plant
visit to St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead Smelter at Herculaneum, Missouri. October 21, 1971.
5. Trip report memorandum. T. J. Jacobs to Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Subject: Plant
visit to Amax Lead Company of Missouri Lead Smelter at Boss, Missouri. October 28, 1971.
6. Personal communication from R. B. Paul, Plant Manager, American Smelting and Refining Company Lead
Smelter at Glover, Missouri, to Regional Administrator, EPA Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri. April 3, 1973.
7. Source Testing Report: Emissions from a Primary Lead Smelter Blast Furnace. Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri. Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. 72-MM-14. May 1972.
5/74
Metallurgical Industry
7.6-5
-------
-------
7.7 ZINC SMELTING
7.7.1 Process Description' >2
As stated previously, most domestic zinc comes from zinc and lead ores. Another important source of raw
material for zinc metal has been zinc oxide from fuming furnaces. For efficient recovery of zinc, sulfur must be
removed from concentrates to a level of less than 2 percent. This is done by fluidized beds or multiple-hearth
roasting occasionally followed by sintering. Metallic zinc can be produced from the roasted ore by the horizontal
or vertical retort process or by the electrolytic process if a high-purity zinc is needed.
7.7.2 Emissions and Controls1 >2
Dust, fumes, and sulfur dioxide are emitted from zinc concentrate roasting or sintering operations. Particulates
may be removed by electrostatic precipitators or baghouses. Sulfur dioxide may be converted directly into
sulfuric acid or vented. Emission factors for zinc smelting are presented in Table 7.7-1.
Table 7.7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY ZINC
SMELTING WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Roasting (multiple-hearth)b
Sintering0
Horizontal retorts6
Vertical retorts6
Electrolytic process
Particulates
Ib/ton
120
90
8
100
3
kg/MT
60
45
4
50
1.5
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
1100
d
—
—
-
kg/MT
550
d
-
-
-
Approximately 2 unit weights of concentrated ore are required to
produce 1 unit weight of zinc metal Emission factors expressed as units
per unit weight of concentrated ore produced.
References 3 and A.
cReferences2 and 3.
Included in S02 losses from roasting.
6Reference 3.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.7-1
-------
References for Section 7.7
1. Dupiey. R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEVV, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 26-28.
2. Stern, A. (ed.). Sources of Arr Pollution and Their Control. In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 182-186.
3. Sallee, G. Private communication on Particulate Pollutant Study. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City,
Mo. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number
22-69-104. June 1970.
4. Systems Study for Control of Emissions in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting Industry. 3 Volumes, San
Francisco, Arthur G. McKee and Company, June 1969.
7.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.8 SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
7.8.1 Process Description1 <2
Secondary aluminum operations involve making lightweight metal alloys for industrial castings and ingots.
Copper, magnesium, and silicon are the most common alloying constituents. Aluminum alloys for castings are
melted in small crucible furnaces charged by hand with pigs and foundry returns. Larger melting operations use
open-hearth reverberatory furnaces charged with the same type of materials but by mechanical means. Small
operations sometimes use sweating furnaces to treat dirty scrap in preparation for smelting.
To produce a high-quality aluminum product, fluxing is practiced to some extent in all secondary aluminum
melting. Aluminum fluxes are expected to remove dissolved gases and oxide particles from the molten bath.
Sodium and various mixtures of potassium or sodium chloride with cryolite and chlorides of aluminum zinc are
used as fluxes. Chlorine gas is usually lanced into the molten bath to reduce the magnesium content by reacting
to form magnesium and aluminum chlorides.3>4
7.8.2 Emissions2
Emissions from secondary aluminum operations include fine particulate matter and gaseous chlorine. A large
part of the material charged to a reverberatory furnace is low-grade scrap and chips. Paint, dirt, oil, grease, and
other contaminants from this scrap cause large quantities of smoke and fumes to be discharged. Even if the scrap
is clean, large surface-to-volume ratios require the use of more fluxes, which can cause serious air pollution
problems. Table 7.8-1 presents particulate emission factors for secondary aluminum operations.
Table 7.8-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY
ALUMINUM OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of operation
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Chlorination station13
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
14.5
1.9
4.3
1000
kg/MT
7.25
0.95
2.15
500
Baghouse
Ib/ton
3.3
—
1.3
50
kg/MT
1.65
—
0.65
25
Electrostatic
precipitator
Ib/ton
—
—
1.3
-
kg/MT
—
—
0.65
-
aReference 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of metal processed.
''Pounds per ton (kg/MT) of chlorine used.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.8-1
-------
References for Section 7.8
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 29.
2. Hammond, W.F. and H. Simon. Secondary Aluminum-Melting Processes. In: Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 284-290.
3. Technical Progress Report: Control of Stationary Sources. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. 1: April 1960.
4. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D. C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
5. Hammond, W. F. and S. M. Weiss. Unpublished report on air contaminant emissions from metallurgical
operations in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at Air
Pollution Control Institute, July 1964.)
7.8-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.9 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS (COPPER ALLOYS)
7.9.1 Process Description *
Obsolete domestic and industrial copper-bearing scrap is the basic raw material of the brass and bronze ingot
industry. The scrap frequently contains any number of metallic and nonmetallic impurities, which can be
removed by such methods as hand sorting, magnetizing, heat methods such as sweating or burning, and gravity
separation in a water medium.
Brass and bronze ingots are produced from a number of different furnaces through a combination of melting,
smelting, refining, and alloying of the processed scrap material. Reverberatory, rotary, and crucible furnaces are
the ones most widely used, and the choice depends on the size of the melt and the alloy desired. Both the
reverberatory and the rotary furnaces are normally heated by direct firing, in which the flame and gases come
into direct contact with the melt. Processing is essentially the same in any furnace except for the differences in
the types of alloy being handled. Crucible furnaces are usually much smaller and are used principally for
special-purpose alloys.
7.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
The principal source of emissions in the brass and bronze ingot industry is the refining furnace. The exit gas
from the furnace may contain the normal combustion products such as fly ash, soot, and smoke. Appreciable
amounts of zinc oxide are also present in this exit gas. Other sources of particulate emissions include the
preparation of raw materials and the pouring of ingots.
The only air pollution control equipment that is generally accepted in the brass and bronze ingot industry is
the baghouse filter, which can reduce emissions by as much as 99.9 percent. Table 7.9-1 summarizes uncontrolled
emissions from various brass and bronze melting furnaces.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.9-1
-------
Table 7.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR BRASS AND
BRONZE MELTING FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of furnace
Blast0
Crucible
Cupola
Electric induction
Reverberatnrv
Rotary
Uncontrolled
emissions*3
Ib/ton
18
12
73
2
70
60
I kg/MT
9
6
36.5
1
35
30
aReference 1. Emission factors expressed as
units per unit weight of metal charged.
^~he use of a baghouse can reduce emissions by
95 to 99.6 percent.
cRepresents emissions following precleaner.
Reference for Section 7.9
1. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry. U. S. DHEW, PHS, EHS, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleigh, N. C. Publication Number AP-58. November 1969.
7.9-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
7.10 GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
7.10.1 Process Description1
Three types of furnaces are used to produce gray iron castings: cupolas, reverberatory furnaces, and electric
induction furnaces. The cupola is the major source of molten iron for the production of castings. In operation, a
bed of coke is placed over the sand bottom in the cupola. After the bed of coke has begun to burn properly,
alternate layers of coke, flux, and metal are charged into the cupola. Combustion air is forced into the cupola,
causing the coke to burn and melt the iron. The molten iron flows out through a taphole.
Electric furnaces are commonly used where special alloys are to be made. Pig iron and scrap iron are charged
to the furnace and melted, and alloying elements and fluxes are added at specific intervals. Induction furnaces are
used where high-quality, clean metal is available for charging.
7.10.2 Emissions1
Emissions from cupola furnaces include gases, dust, fumes, and smoke and oil vapors. Dust arises from dirt on
the metal charge and from fines in the coke and limestone charge. Smoke and oil vapor arise primarily from the
partial combustion and distillation of oil from greasy scrap charged to the furnace. Also, the effluent from the
cupola furnace has a high carbon monoxide content that can be controlled by an afterburner. Emissions from
reverberatory and electric induction furnaces consist primarily of metallurgical fumes and are relatively low.
Table 7.10-1 presents emission factors for the manufacture of iron castings.
Table 7.10-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GRAY IRON
FOUNDRIES3-15-0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of furnace
Cupola
Uncontrolled
Wet cap
Impingement scrubber
High-energy scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Baghouse
Reverberatory
Electric induction
Particulates
Ib/ton
17
8
5
0.8
0.6
0.2
2
1.5
kg/MT
8.5
4
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
1
0.75
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
145c-d
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
kg/MT
72.5c-d
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
"References 2 through 5. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight
of metal charged.
Approximately 85 percent of the total charge is metal. For every unit weight
of coke in the charge, 7 unit weights of gray iron are produced.
cReference 6.
A well-designed afterburner can reduce emissions to 9 pounds per ton (4.5
kg/MT) of metal charged.2
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.10-1
-------
References for Section 7.10
1. Hammond, W. F. and J. T. Nance. Iron Castings. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.).
U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 258-268.
2. Hammond, W. F. and S. M. Weiss. Unpublished report on air contaminant from emissions metallurgical
operations in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at Air
Pollution Control Institute, July 1964).
3. Crabaugh, H. C. et al. Dust and Fumes from Gray Iron Foundries: How They Are Controlled in Los Angeles
County. Air Repair. 4(3): November 1954.
4. Hammond, W. F., and J. T. Nance. Iron Castings. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A.
(ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 260.
5. Kane, J. M. Equipment for Cupola Control. American Foundryman's Society Transactions. 64:525-531.
1956.
6. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry. A. T. Kearney and Company. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number CPA 22-69-106.
February 1971.
7.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.11 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
7.11.1 Process Description 1-3
In the secondary smelting, refining, and alloying of lead, the three types of furnace most commonly used are
reverberatory, blast or cupola, and pot. The grade of metal to be produced-soft, semisoft, or hard-dictates
the type of funace to be used.
Used for the production of semisoft lead, the reverberatory furnace reclaims this metal from a charge of lead
scrap, battery plates, oxides, drosses, and lead residues. The furnace consists of an outer shell built in the shape
of a rectangular box lined with refractory brick. To provide heat for melting, the charge gas or oil-fired burners
are usually placed at one end of the furnace, and the material to be melted is charged through an opening in the
shell.
The charge is placed in the furnace in such a manner as to keep a small mound of unmelted material on top
of the bath. Continuously, as this mound becomes molten at the operating temperature (approximately 1250°C),
more material is charged. Semisoft lead is tapped off periodically as the level of the metal rises in the furnace.
The amount of metal recovered is about 50 to 60 kilograms per square meter of hearth area per hour.
A similar kind of furnace—the revolving (rotary) reverberatory—is used at several European installations for
the recovery of lead from battery scrap and lead sulfate sludge. Its charge makeup and operating characteristics
are identical to the reverberatoriesused in the United States, except that the furnace slowly revolves as the charge
is heated.
The blast (cupola) furnace, used to produce "hard" lead, is normally charged with the following: rerun slag
from previous runs (4.5 percent); cast-iron scrap (4.5 percent); limestone (3 percent); coke (5.5 percent); and
drosses from pot furnace refining, oxides, and reverberatory slag (82.5 percent). Similar to an iron cupola, the
furnace consists of a steel sheet lined with refractory material. Air, under high pressure, is introduced at the
bottom through tuyeres to permit combustion of the coke, which provides the heat and a reducing atmosphere.
As the charge material melts, limestone and iron form an oxidation-retardant flux that floats to the top, and
the molten lead flows from the furnace into a holding pot at a nearly continuous rate. The rest (30 percent) of
the tapped molten material is slag, 5 percent of which is retained for later rerun. From the holding pot, the lead
is usually cast into large ingots called "buttons" or "sows."
Pot-type furnaces are used for remelting, alloying, and refining processes. These furnaces are usually gas fired
and range in size from 1 to 45 metric tons capacity. Their operation consists simply of charging ingots of lead or
alloy material and firing the charge until the desired product quality is obtained.
Refining processes most commonly employed are those for the removal of copper and antimony to produce
soft lead, and those for the removal of arsenic, copper, and nickel to produce hard lead.
Figure 7.11-1 illustrates these three secondary lead smelting processes.
7.11.2 Emissions and Controls 1,2
The emissions and controls from secondary lead smelting processes may be conveniently considered according
to the type of furnace employed.
With the reverberatory furnaces, the temperature maintained is high enough to oxidize the sulfides present in
the charge to sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, which, in turn, are emitted in the exit gas. Also emitted are such
particulates (at concentrations of 16 to 50 grams per cubic meter) as oxides, sulfides, and sulfates of lead, tin,
5/74 Metallurgical Industry 7.11-1
-------
TO BLAST FURNACE
CONTROL SYSTEM
LEAD HOLDING,
MELTING,
AND REFINING POTS
SLAG
LEAD
BLAST FURNACE
TO VENTILATION
CONTROL SYSTEM
CHARG
GAS OR
FUEL OIL
J
^
*?4 J
^ ^
K
'
(
)
t
V«w i
TO REVERBERATOR
FURNACE
CONTROL SYSTEM
SLAG
LEAD
REVERBERATORY FURNACE
Figure 7.11-1. Secondary lead smelter processes.4
arsenic, copper, and antimony. The particles are nearly spherical and tend to agglomerate. Emission factors for
reverberatory furnaces are presented in Table 7.11-1.
The most practical control system for a reverberatory furnace consists of a gas settling/cooling chamber and a
fabric filter. This system effects a particulate removal of well in excess of 99 percent. Because of the potential
presence of sparks and flammable material, a great deal of care is taken to control the temperature of the gas
stream. In turn, the type of filter cloth selected depends upon stream temperature and such parameters as gas
Table 7.11-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Furnace type
Reverberatory0
Blast (cupola)d
Pote
Rotary
reverberatoryf
Particulates
kg/MT
73.5 (28.0 to 156.5)c
96.5 (10.5 to 190.5)
0.4
35.0
Ib/ ton
147 (56 to 31 3)
193 (21.0 to 381.0)
0.8
70.0
Sulfur dioxide
kg/MT
40.0 (35.5 to 44.0)
26.5 (9.0 to 55.0)
Neg
NA9
Ib/ton
80(71 to 88)
53.0 (18 to 110)
Neg
NA9
aAII emission factors expressed in terms of kg/MT and Ib/ton of metal charged to furnace.
^References 2, 5 through 7.
cNumbers in parentheses represent ranges of values obtained.
^References 2, 7 through 9.
eReference 7.
fReference 3.
9NA—no data available to make estimates.
7.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
stream corrosivity and the permeability and abrasion (or stress)-resisting characteristics of the cloth. In any case,
the filtering velocity seldom exceeds 0.6 m/min. Table 7.11-2 offers a listing of control devices and their
efficiencies.
Table 7.11-2. EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
Control device
Fabric filter3
Dry cyclone plus fabric filter3
Wet cyclone plus fabric filter^
Settling chamber plus dry cyclone plus fabric filter0
Venturi scrubber plus demisterd
Furnace type
Blast
Reverberatory
Blast
Reverberatory
Reverberatory
Blast
Particulate control
efficiency
98.4
99.2
99.0
99.7
99.8
99.3
aReference 2.
''Reference 5.
cReference 6.
dReference 8.
Combustion air from the tuyeres passing through the blast furnace charge conveys metal oxides, bits of coke,
and other particulates present in the charge. The particulate is roughly 7 percent by weight of the total charge
(up to 44 g/m3). In addition to particulates, the stack gases also contain carbon monoxide. However, the carbon
monoxide and any volatile hydrocarbons present are oxidized to carbon dioxide and water in the upper portion
of the furnace, which effectively acts as an afterburner.
Fabric filters, preceded by radiant cooling columns, evaporative water coolers, or air dilution jets, are also used
to control blast furnace particulates. Overall efficiencies exceeding 95 percent are common (see Table 7.11-2).
Representative size distributions of particles in blast and reverberatory furnace streams are presented in Table
7.11-3.
Compared with the other furnace types, pot furnace emissions are low (see Table 7.11-1). However, to main-
tain a hygienic working environment, pot furnace off gases, usually along with emission streams from other
furnaces, are directed to fabric filter systems.
Table 7.11-3. REPRESENTATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FROM A COMBINED BLAST AND REVERBERATORY
FURNACE GAS STREAM*)
Size range, nm
Oto 1
1 to 2
2 to 3
3 to 4
4 to 16
Fabric filter catch, wt %
13.3
45.2
19.1
14.0
8.4
aReference 1.
''These particles are distributed log-normally, according to the following frequency distribution:
f(D) = 1.56exp
-(log D-0.262)2|
0.131
5/74
Metallurgical Industry
7.11-3
-------
References for Section 7.11
1. Nance, J. T. and K. 0. Luedtke. Lead Refining. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 2nd Ed. Danielson,
J. A. (ed.). Office of Air and Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Publication No. AP-42. May 1973. p. 299-304.
2. Williamson, John E., Joel F. Nenzell, and Wayne E. Zwiacher. A Study of Five Source Tests on Emissions from
Secondary Lead Smelters. County of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District. Environmental Protection
Agency Order No. 2PO-68-02-3326. February 11, 1972.
3. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommission
Reinhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DREW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
1961.
4. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries. Volume I, Main Text. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. June 1973.
5. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Batelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 72-CI-8. July 1972.
6. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 72-CI-7. August 1972.
7. ParticulatePollutant Systems Study, Vol. I. Midwest Research Institute,Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1971.
8. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 71-CI-33. August 1972.
9. Source Testing Report: Secondary Lead Plant Stack Emission Sampling. Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Report Number 71-CI-34. July 1972.
7.11-4 EMISSION FACTORS 5/74
-------
7.12 SECONDARY MAGNESIUM SMELTING
7.12.1 Process Description1
Magnesium smelting is carried out in crucible or pot-type furnaces that are charged with magnesium scrap
and fired by gas, oil, or electric heating. A flux is used to cover the surface of the molten metal because
magnesium will burn in air at the pouring temperature (approximately 1500°F or 815°C). The molten
magnesium, usually cast by pouring into molds, is annealed in ovens utilizing an atmosphere devoid of oxygen.
7.12.2 Emissions1
Emissions from magnesium smelting include particulate magnesium (MgO) from the melting, nitrogen oxides
from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by the furnace temperatures, and sulfur dioxide losses from annealing
oven atmospheres. Factors affecting emissions include the capacity of the furnace; the type of flux used on the
molten material; the amount of lancing used; the amount of contamination of the scrap, including oil and other
hydrocarbons; and the type and extent of control equipment used on the process. The emission factors for a pot
furnace are shown in Table 7.12-1.
Table 7.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS
FOR MAGNESIUM SMELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Pot furnace
Uncontrolled
Controlled
P articulates3
Ib/ton
4
0.4
kg/MT
2
0.2
References 2 and 3. Emission factors
expressed as units per unit weight of
metal processed.
2/72
Metallurgical Industry
7.12-1
-------
References for Section 7.12
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
7.12-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES
7.13.1 Process Description1
Steel foundries produce steel castings by melting steel metal and pouring it into molds. The melting of steel for
castings is accomplished in one of five types of furnaces: direct electric-arc, electric induction, open-hearth,
crucible, and pneumatic converter. The crucible and pneumatic converter are not in widespread use, so this
section deals only with the remaining three types of furnaces. Raw materials supplied to the various melting
furnaces include steel scrap of all types, pig iron, ferroalloys, and limestone. The basic melting process operations
are furnace charging, melting, tapping the furnace into a ladle, and pouring the steel into molds. An integral part
of the steel foundry operation is the preparation of casting molds, and the shakeout and cleaning of these
castings. Some common materials used in molds and cores for hollow casting include sand, oil, clay, and resin.
Shakeout is the operation by which the cool casting is separated from the mold. The castings are commonly
cleaned by shot-blasting, and surface defects such as fins are removed by burning and grinding.
7.13.2 Emissions1
Particulate emissions from steel foundry operations include iron oxide fumes, sand fines, graphite, and metal
dust. Gaseous emissions from foundry operations include oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and hydrocarbons.
Factors affecting emissions from the melting process include the quality and cleanliness of the scrap and the
amount of oxygen lancing. The concentrations of oxides of nitrogen are dependent upon operating conditions in
the melting unit, such as temperature and the rate of cooling of the exhaust gases. The concentration of carbon
monoxide in the exhaust gases is dependent on the amount of draft on the melting furnace. Emissions from the
shakeout and cleaning operations, mostly particulate matter, vary according to type and efficiency of dust
collection. Gaseous emissions from the mold and baking operations are dependent upon the fuel used by the
ovens and the temperature reached in these ovens. Table 7.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for steel
foundries.
References for Section 7.13
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. Schueneman, J. J. et al. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963.
3. Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, 2nd Ed. Des Plaines, Illinois, Foundry Air Pollution Control
Committee. 1967. p. 8.
4. Coulter, R. S. Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, Personal communication (April 24, 1956). Cited in
Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1963. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. National Center for Air
Pollution Control.
5. Coulter, R. S. Smoke, Dust, Fumes Closely Controlled in Electric Furnaces. Iron Age. 173:107-110. January
14, 1954.
6. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Unpublished data as cited in Air Pollution Aspects of the
Iron and Steel Industry, p. 109.
7. Kane, J. M. and R. V. Sloan. Fume-Control Electric Melting Furnaces. American Foundryman. 75:33-35,
November 1950.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.13-1
-------
Table 7.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR STEEL FOUNDRIES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Melting
Electric arcb-c
Open-hearthd-e
Open-hearth oxygen lancedf
-------
7.14 SECONDARY ZINC PROCESSING
7.14.1 Process Description1
Zinc processing includes zinc reclaiming, zinc oxide manufacturing, and zinc galvanizing. Zinc is separated
from scrap containing lead, copper, aluminum, and iron by careful control of temperature in the furnace,
allowing each metal to be removed at its melting range. The furnaces typically employed are the pot, muffle,
reverberatory, or electric induction. Further refining of the zinc can be done in retort distilling or vaporization
furnaces where the vaporized zinc is condensed to the pure metallic form. Zinc oxide is produced by distilling
metallic zinc into a dry air stream and capturing the subsequently formed oxide in a baghouse. Zinc galvanizing is
carried out in a vat or in bath-type dip tanks utilizing a flux cover. Iron and steel pieces to be coated are cleaned
and dipped into the vat through the covering flux.
7.14.2 Emissions1
A potential for particulate emissions, mainly zinc oxide, occurs if the temperature of the furnace exceeds
1100°F (595 C). Zinc oxide (ZnO) may escape from condensers or distilling furnaces, and because of its
extremely small particle size (0.03 to 0.5 micron), it may pass through even the most efficient collection systems.
Some loss of zinc oxides occurs during the galvanizing processes, but these losses are small because of the flux
cover on the bath and the relatively low temperature maintained in the bath. Some emissions of particulate
ammonium chloride occur when galvanized parts are dusted after coating to improve their finish. Another
potential source of emissions of particulates and gaseous zinc is the tapping of zinc-vaporizing muffle furnaces to
remove accumulated slag residue. Emissions of carbon monoxide occur when zinc oxide is reduced by carbon.
Nitrogen oxide emissions are also possible because of the high temperature associated with the smelting and the
resulting fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. Table 7.14-1 summarizes the emission factors from zinc processing.
2/72 Metallurgical Industry 7.14-1
-------
Table 7.14-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SECONDARY ZINC SMELTING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Retort reduction
Horizontal muffle
Pot furnace
Kettle sweat furnace processing13
Clean metallic scrap
General metallic scrap
Residual scrap
Reverberatory sweat furnace processing13
Clean metallic scrap
General metallic scrap
Residual scrap
Galvanizing kettles
Calcining kiln
Emissions
Ib/ton
47
45
0.1
Neg
11
25
Neg
13
32
5
89
kg/MT
23.5
22.5
0.05
Neg
5.5
12.5
Neg
6.5
16
2.5
44.5
References 2 through 4. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of
metal produced.
b Reference 5.
References for Section 7.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control'Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April
1952.
3. Restricting Dust and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Lead Smelters (translated from German). Kommission
Reinhaltung der Luft. Reproduced by U.S. DHEW, PHS. Washington, D.C. VDI Number 2285. September
1961.
4. Hammond, W. F. Data on Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Operations. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. November 1966.
5. Herring, W. Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control Problem Definition Study (Part I). Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number APTD-0706.
May 1971.
7.14-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8. MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
This section involves the processing and production of various minerals. Mineral processing is characterized by
particulate emissions in the form of dust. Frequently, as in the case of crushing and screening, this dust is identical
to the material being handled. Emissions also occur through handling and storing the finished product because
this material is often dry and fine. Particulate emissions from some of the processes such as quarrying, yard
storage, and dust from transport are difficult to control. Most of the emissions from the manufacturing processes
discussed in this section, however, can be reduced by conventional particulate control equipment such as
cyclones, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Because of the wide variety in processing equipment and final product,
emissions cover a wide range; however, average emission factors have been presented for general use.
8.1 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
and James H. Southerland
8.1.1 Process Description
Selecting and handling the raw material is the first step in the production of asphaltic concrete, a paving
substance composed of a combination of aggregates uniformly mixed and coated with asphalt cement. Different
applications of asphaltic concrete require different aggregate size distributions, so that the raw aggregates are
crushed and screened at the quarries. The coarse aggregate usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste
materials, such as slag from steel mills or crushed glass, can be used as raw material.
Plants produce finished asphaltic concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure 8.1-2)
aggregate mixing operations. The raw aggregate is normally stock-piled near the plant at a location where the
moisture content will stabilize between 3 and 5 percent by weight.
As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and placed in
the appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt and
is transported into a gas- or oil-fired rotary dryer. Because a substantial portion of the heat is transferred by
radiation, dryers are equipped with flights that are designed to tumble the aggregate and promote drying.
As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating
screens where it is classified by size into as many as four different grades. At this point it enters the mixing
operation.
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into one of four large bins. The operator controls the aggregate
size distribution by opening individual bins and allowing the classified aggregate to drop into a weigh hopper until
the desired weight is obtained. After all the material is weighed out, the sized aggregates are dropped into a mixer
and mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt, which is a solid at ambient temperatures, is pumped from
heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected into the mixer. The hot, mixed batch is then dropped into a
truck and hauled to the job site.
4/73 8.1-1
-------
o
Q.
c
o
E
Q)
Z!
O
TO
Q.
o
c
Q)
C
TO
d.
CO
TO
X
£
TO
CO
oo
cu
•3
D)
LU
8.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
o
Q.
in
—
E
o>
CO
Q.
U)
Q)
CD
TJ
C
CO
Q.
CO
X
'E
in
ID
O
O
o
C\J
1—
CO
CD
i_
;3
0>
L
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-3
-------
In a continuous plant, the classified aggregate drops into a set of small bins, which collect and meter the
classified aggregate to the mixer. From the hot bins, the aggregate is metered through a set of feeder conveyors to
another bucket elevator and into the mixer. Asphalt is metered into the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time
is controlled by an adjustable dam at the end of the mixer. The mix flows out of the mixer into a hopper from
which the trucks are loaded.
8.1.2 Emissions and Controls3'4
Dust sources are the rotary dryer; the hot aggregate elevators; the vibrating screens; and the hot-aggregate
storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer points. The largest dust emission source is the rotary dryer. In
some plants, the dust from the dryer is handled separately from emissions from the other sources. More
commonly, however, the dryer, its vent lines, and other fugitive sources are treated in combination by a single
collector and fan system.
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry, mechanical collectors to scrubbers and fabric
collectors; attempts to apply electrostatic precipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use
primary dust collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclone, skimmer, or settling chambers. These
chambers are often used as classifiers with the collected materials being returned to the hot aggregate elevator to
combine with the dryer aggregate load. The air discharge from the primary collector is seldom vented to the
atmosphere because high emission levels would result. The primary collector effluent is therefore ducted to a
secondary or even to a tertiary collection device.
Emission factors for asphaltic concrete plants are presented in Table 8.1-1. Particle size information has not
been included because the particle size distribution varies with the aggregate being used, the mix being made, and
the type of plant operation.
Table 8.1-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of control
Uncontrolled13
Precleaner
High-efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber
Baffle spray tower
Orifice-type scrubber
Baghousec
Emissions
Ib/ton
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.04
0.1
kg/MT
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.05
References 1,2, and 5 through 10.
'•'Almost all plants have at least a precleaner following the rotary
dryer.
cEmissionsfrom a properly designed, installed, operated, and main-
tained collector can be as low as 0.005 to 0.020 Ib/ton (0.0025 to
0.010 kg/MT).
8.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
References for Section 8.1
1. Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study. Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson, Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., under Contract Number 68-02-0076. November 1971.
2. Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Riverdale, Md. Information Series 17.
3. Danielson, J. A. Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in Los Angeles County. J. Air Pol. Control
Assoc. 10(2):29-33. 1960.
4. Friedrich, H. E. Air Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants.
American Precision Industries, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y. (Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association.) APCA Paper Number 69-160.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles. U.S. DHEW, Public
Health Service. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967.
6. Allen, G. L., F. H. Vicks, and L. C. McCabe. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes in Los
Angeles County, California. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington. Information Circular
7627. April 1952.
7. Kenline, P. A. Unpublished report on control of air pollutants from chemical process industries. Robert A.
Taft Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1959.
8. Sallee, G. Private communication on particulate pollutant study between Midwest Research Institute and
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C. Prepared under Contract Number 22-69-104.
June 1970.
9. Danielson, J. A. Unpublished test data from asphalt batching plants, Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District. (Presented at Air Pollution Control Institute, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, November 1966.)
10. Fogel, M. E. et al. Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Control Costs for Selected Industries and
Selected Regions. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Final Report Number R-OU-455. February 1970.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.1-5
-------
-------
8.2 ASPHALT ROOFING
8.2.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of asphalt roofing felts and shingles involves saturating fiber media with asphalt by means of
dipping and/or spraying. Although it is not always done at the same site, preparation of the asphalt saturant is an
integral part of the operation. This preparation, called "blowing," consists of oxidizing the asphalt by bubbling
air through the liquid asphalt for 8 to 16 hours. The saturant is then transported to the saturation tank or spray
area. The saturation of the felts is accomplished by dipping, high-pressure sprays, or both. The final felts are made
in various weights: 15, 30, and 55 pounds per 100 square feet (0.72, 1.5, and 2.7 kg/m2). Regardless of the
weight of the final product, the makeup is approximately 40 percent dry felt and 60 percent asphalt saturant.
8.2.2 Emissions and Controls1
The major sources of particulate emissions from asphalt roofing plants are the asphalt blowing operations and
the felt saturation. Another minor source of particulates is the covering of the roofing material with roofing
granules. Gaseous emissions from the saturation process have not been measured but are thought to be slight
because of the initial driving off of contaminants during the blowing process.
A common method of control at asphalt saturating plants is the complete enclosure of the spray area and
saturator with good ventilation through one or more collection devices, which include combinations of wet
scrubbers and two-stage low-voltage electrical precipitators, or cyclones and fabric filters. Emission factors for
asphalt roofing are presented in Table 8.2-1.
Table 8.2-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Operation
Asphalt blowing0
Felt saturation0*
Dipping only
Spraying only
Dipping and spraying
Particulatesb
Ib/ton
2.5
1
3
2
kg/MT
1.25
0.5
1.5
1
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
0.9
—
—
—
kg/MT
0.45
-
-
—
Hydrocarbons (CH4)
Ib/ton
1.5
-
-
—
kg/MT
0.75
-
-
—
Approximately 0.65 unit of asphalt input is required to produce 1 unit of saturated felt. Emission factors expressed as
units per unit weight of saturated felt produced.
Low-voltage precipitators can reduce emissions by about 60 percent; when they are used in combination with a scrubber,
overall efficiency is about 85 percent.
cReference 2.
dReferences 3 and 4.
"2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.2-1
-------
References for Section 8.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final report. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119.
April 1970.
2. Von Lehmden, D. J., R. P. Hangebrauck, and J. E. Meeker. Polynuclear Hydrocarbon Emissions from
Selected Industrial Processes. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 75:306-312, July 1965.
3. Weiss, S. M. Asphalt Roofing Felt-Saturators. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.
S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number 999-AP-40.
1967. p. 378-383.
4. Goldfield, J. and R. G. McAnlis. Low-Voltage Electrostatic Precipitators to Collect Oil Mists from
Roofing-Felt Asphalt Saturators and Stills. J. Industrial Hygiene Assoc. July-August 1963.
8.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.3 BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.3.1 Process Description
The manufacture of brick and related products such as clay pipe, pottery, and some types of refractory brick
involves the mining, grinding, screening, and blending of the raw materials, and the forming, cutting or shaping,
drying or curing, and firing of the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits; most fine clays are found underground. After mining, the
material is crushed to remove stones and stirred before it passes onto screens that are used to segregate the
particles by size.
At the start of the forming process, clay is mixed with water, usually in a pug mill. The three principal
processes for forming brick are: stiff-mud, soft-mud, and dry-process. In the stiff-mud process, sufficient water is
added to give the clay plasticity; bricks are then formed by forcing the clay through a die and using cutter wire to
separate the bricks. All structural tile and most brick are formed by this process. The soft-mud process is usually
used when the clay contains too much water for the stiff-mud process. The clay is mixed with water until the
moisture content reaches 20 to 30 percent, and the bricks are formed in molds. In the dry-press process, clay is
mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying a pressure of 500 to 1500 psi. The
brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 8.3-1.
Before firing, the wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried in driers that are usually
heated by waste heat from the kilns. Many types of kilns are used for firing brick; however, the most common are
the tunnel kiln and the periodic kiln. The downdraft periodic kiln is a permanent brick structure that has a
number of fireholes where fuel is fired into the furnace. The hot gases from the fuel are drawn up over the bricks,
down through them by underground flues, and out of the oven to the chimney. Although fuel efficiency is not as
high as that of a tunnel kiln because of lower heat recovery, the uniform temperature distribution through the
kiln leads to a good quality product. In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying about 1200 bricks each travel on rails
through the kiln at the rate of one 6-foot car per hour. The fire zone is located near the middle of the kiln and
remains stationary.
In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps: evaporation of free water, dehydration, oxidation, vitrification,
flashing, and cooling. Normally, gas or residual oil is used for heating, but coal may be used. Total heating time
varies with the type of product; for example, 9-inch refractory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of firing.
Maximum temperatures of about 2000°F (1090°C) are used in firing common brick.
8.3.2 Emissions and Controls1'3
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of bricks. The main source of dust is the
materials handling procedure, which includes drying, grinding, screening, and storing the raw material.
Combustion products are emitted from the fuel consumed in the curing, drying, and firing portion of the process.
Fluorides, largely in gaseous form, are also emitted from brick manufacturing operations. Sulfur dioxide may be
emitted from the bricks when temperatures reach 2500°F (1370°C) or greater; however, no data on such
emissions are available.4
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.3-1
-------
(P)
PULVERIZING
(P)
SCREENING
1
>
GLAZING
(P)
DRYING
HOT
GASES
«
FUEL
«-
\
(P)
KILN
(P)
STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
Figure 8.3-1. Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing process.
source of particulate emissions.
'P" denotes a major
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce both particulate and gaseous emissions. Almost any type
of particulate control system will reduce emissions from the material handling process, but good plant design and
hooding are also required to keep emissions to a minimum.
The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the kiln at temperatures below 2000°F (1090°C) and
by choosing clays with low fluoride content. Satisfactory control can be achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with
water; wet cyclonic scrubbers are available that can remove fluorides with an efficiency of 95 percent, or higher.
Emission factors for brick manufacturing are presented in Table 8.3-1. Insufficient data are available to present
particle size information.
8.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
CO
O
cc
O
o
O
X
1-
to
< ?
^ I-
i <
i tt
I*
s o
* K
o o
S
LL CO
O
U
<
U-
co
CO
UJ
co
CO
0)
.Q
CO
-a
£~
S u_
oE
_g
u_
tn
cu
^
X
0 ~x
c O
a; 15
01 Z
O "~-^
2
z
t/i
c
Q
JD
S °
0 ^
1_
•D
>•
i
CD
^
X
o
^
pR
c O
c
0
XI
CD
o
VI
0)
^o
x -~
°0
^°
ii ' "
^
CO
ul
+-^
CD
D
O
CD
a.
1-
2
Ol
-ii
c
O
H-"
x7
—
S
01
^
c
o
!Q
r-
5
a>
c
o
+-I
£
r-
2
Ol
_^
c
2
.Q
S
01
^
c
o
4-<
i7
h-
2
^)
^
c
o
—
JD
(/I
(rt
1-
II in in in in in in
odd odd
II q q q q q o
co in LO i- in o
II o in "* CM co r-
odd odd
in CN
II «— «— 02 f r~ 'J
d «-' d d ^ «-'
v- m CN in in
|| O O CO O O <3"
odd odd
CN "3"
II q «- CD o «-; ro
odd odd
CM in m
|| ° 01 &> ° 01 'D
d "> o d <" «-
z z
'd- <-
II 9 01 P T 0. ™.
0 n> ^- 0 ^ CO
^_ ^_
CO
co co in co
| | O.P «? 0)<» P
^ CN CO * CN CD
Z Z
M-
c/1 c/i m f/i
I, % 0 CN _ 05 0
|| Dl . v . Ol '-'•'.
« t r-~ ^ in cxi
O!
CN < in in <
q co in o •cr co
cor~- odd odd
•* < - <
q co q T- & co
CD'S- do-- dd^
C31 CO
°01^
E 0
^ vi"
? Ss '»
2 T3 C v. TJ C • T!
•^ .E •cc-g-aa)--aT3Q)
.2 fe - 5 ." £ £ ^ £ £ £
^- fll T3 i^ ' UH-^ '
g^lglss^S^S^S
ISLgSicZOOCJ.erjocS
>- £ C ^ CD
g Q CO 'C 1— 0-
CO u
DC O
ro'
O
t/3
I
O
-o
CD
O
3
1
a
_^
CJ
&
*o
.£
0)
CD
C.
13
CD
a
c
D
CO
1
£
a
X
c
in
O
o
CD
C
O
8
E
LU
"ra
_*
in
O)
oi
•a
c
3
O
a
s about 6.5
.c
S>
CD
g
Jui
CJ
.£
0)
C
O
d
.c
O)
§
.c
CO
•D
C
CD
CO
CD
U
om Referen
S
CD
"0
C
O
1
CO
CO
cement manufacturing in this publication. Because of process variation,
-o
lays an
CJ
u
E
CD
CD
O
C
o
om sections
CD
CO
T3
C
0
•D
Si
CO
CO
1
o
4-1
"ra
CD
CO
o
at quantity
_c
o
+-I
>
c
o
>
a
D.
CD
ion factors for fuel combustion.
wl
E
CD
-a
^
CO
in
-o
C
ro
<-
CD
CJ
om Referen
CD
CO
T3
C
0
•D
£
(O
CO
CD
D
QJ
_C
C
D
U
VI
c
CD
O
ni ^
-S a
-9 CD
cn .n
"rf -2
2 CO
CO
o
CJ
QJ
.c
c
_c
M
CO
c
CD
O
£
D.
CD
_C
c/3
<
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.3-3
-------
References for Section 8.3
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Prepared for
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April
1970.
2. Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction. Structural Clay Products Institute. Washington, D.C.
Pamphlet Number 9. September 1961.
3. Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
4. Allen, M. H. Report on Air Pollution, Air Quality Act of 1967 and Methods of Controlling the Emission of
Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants. Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington, D. C. September
1969.
5. Norton, F. H. Refractories, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1949.
6. Semran, K. T. Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
7(2):92-108. August 1957.
7. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. V, 2nd Ed. New York, Interscience (John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.), 1964. p. 561-567.
8. Wentzel, K. F. Fluoride Emissions in the Vicinity of Brickworks. Staub. 25(3):45-50. March 1965.
9. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. U. S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
10. Private communication between Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. and the State of New Jersey Air
Pollution Control Program, Trenton. July 20, 1969.
8.3-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.4 CALCIUM CARBIDE MANUFACTURING
8.4.1 Process Description1 >2
Calcium carbide is manufactured by heating a mixture of quicklime (CaO) and carbon in an electric-arc
furnace, where the lime is reduced by the coke to calcium carbide and carbon monoxide. Metallurgical coke,
petroleum coke, or anthracite coal is used as the source of carbon. About 1900 pounds (860 kg) of lime and 1300
pounds (600 kg) of coke yield 1 ton (1 MT) of calcium carbide. There are two basic types of carbide
furnaces: (1) the open furnace, in which the carbon monoxide burns to carbon dioxide when it comes in contact
with air above the charge; and (2) the closed furnace, in which the gas is collected from the furnace. The molten
calcium carbide from the furnace is poured into chill cars or bucket conveyors and allowed to solidify. The
finished calcium carbide is dumped into a jaw crusher and then into a cone crusher to form a product of the
desired siVe
8.4.2 Emissions and Controls
Particulates, acetylene, sulfur compounds, and some carbon monoxide are emitted from the calcium carbide
plants. Table 8.4-1 contains emission factors based on one plant in which some particulate matter escapes from
the hoods over each furnace and the remainder passes through wet-impingement-type scrubbers before being
vented to the atmosphere through a stack. The coke dryers and the furnace-room vents are also sources of
emissions.
Table 8.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CALCIUM CARBIDE PLANTS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of source
Electric furnace
Hoods
Main stack
Coke dryer
Furnace room vents
Particulates
Ib/ton
18
20
2
26
kg/MT
9
10
1
13
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
—
3
3
—
kg/MT
—
1.5
1.5
—
Acetylene
Ib/ton
—
-
-
18
kg/MT
—
—
—
9
a Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of calcium carbide produced.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.4-1
-------
References for Section 8.4
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U. S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 34-35.
2. Carbide. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1964.
3. The Louisville Air Pollution Study. U. S. DHEW, PHS, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1961.
8.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.5 CASTABLE REFRACTORIES
8.5.1 Process Descriptionl -3
Castable or fused-cast refractories are manufactured by carefully blending such components as alumina,
zirconia, silica, chrome, and magnesia; melting the mixture in an electric-arc furnace at temperatures of 3200 to
4500°F (1760 to 2480°C); pouring it into molds; and slowly cooling it to the solid state. Fused refractories are
less porous and more dense than kiln-fired refractories.
8.5.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulate emissions occur during the drying, crushing, handling, and blending of the components; during the
actual melting process; and in the molding phase. Fluorides, largely in the gaseous form, may also be emitted
during the melting operations.
The general types of particulate controls may be used on the materials handling aspects of refractory
manufacturing. Emissions from the electric-arc furnace, however, are largely condensed fumes and consist of very
fine particles. Fluoride emissions can be effectively controlled with a scrubber. Emission factors for castable
refractories manufacturing are presented in Table 8.5-1.
Table 8.5-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CASTABLE
REFRACTORIES MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw material dryerb
Raw material crushing
and processing0
Electric-arc meltingd
Curing oven6
Molding and shakeoutb
Type of control
Baghouse
Scrubber
Cyclone
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
30
120
50
0.2
25
kg/MT
15
60
25
0.1
12.5
Controlled
Ib/ton
0.3
7
45
0.8
10
0.3
kg/MT
0.15
3.5
22.5
0.4
5
0.15
aFluonde emissions from the melt average about 1.3 pounds of HF per ton of melt (0.65 kg
HF/MT melt). Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of feed material.
Reference 4.
cReferences 4 and 5.
References 4 through 6.
eReference 5.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.5-1
-------
References for Section 8.5
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Brown, R. W. and K. H. Sandmeyer. Applications of Fused-Cast Refractories. Chem. Eng. 76:106-114, June
16, 1969.
3. Shreve, R.N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p. 158.
4. Unpublished data provided by a Corhart Refractory. Kentucky Department of Health, Air Pollution Control
Commission. Frankfort, Kentucky. September 1969.
5. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1969,
6. Unpublished stack test data on refractories. Resources Research, Incorporated. Reston, Virginia. 1967.
8.5-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.6 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING Revised by Dennis H. Ackerson
8.6.1 Process Description ! '3
Portland cement manufacture accounts for about 98 percent of the cement production in the United States.
The more than 30 raw materials used to make cement may be divided into four basic components: lime
(calcareous), silica (siliceous), alumina (argillaceous), and iron (ferriferous). Approximately 3200 pounds of dry
raw materials are required to produce 1 ton of cement. Approximately 35 percent of the raw material weight is
removed as carbon dioxide and water vapor. As shown in Figure 8.6-1, the raw materials undergo separate
crushing after the quarrying operation, and, when needed for processing, are proportioned, ground, and blended
using either the wet or dry process.
In the dry process, the moisture content of the raw material is. reduced to less than 1 percent either before or
during the grinding operation. The dried materials are then pulverized into a powder and fed directly into a rotary
kiln. Usually, the kiln is a long, horizontal, steel cylinder with a refractory brick lining. The kilns are slightly
inclined and rotate about the longitudinal axis. The pulverized raw materials are fed into the upper end and travel
slowly to the lower end. The kilns are fired from the lower end so that the hot gases pass upward and through the
raw material. Drying, decarbonating, and calcining are accomplished as the material travels through the heated
kiln, finally burning to incipient fusion and forming the clinker. The clinker is cooled, mixed with about 5
percent gypsum by weight, and ground to the final product fineness. The cement is then stored for later
packaging and shipment.
With the wet process, a slurry is made by adding water to the initial grinding operation. Proportioning may
take place before or after the grinding step. After the materials are mixed, the excess water is removed and final
adjustments are made to obtain a desired composition. This final homogeneous mixture is fed to the kilns as a
slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisture or as a wet filtrate of about 20 percent moisture. The burning, cooling,
addition of gypsum, and storage are carried out as in the dry process.
8.6.2 Emissions and Controls1'2-4
Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of portland cement. Emissions also include the
normal combustion products of the fuel used to supply heat for the kiln and drying operations, including oxides
of nitrogen and small amounts of oxides of sulfur.
Sources of dust at cement plants include: (1) quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage, (3) grinding and
blending (dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and (6) packaging. The largest source of
emissions within cement plants is the kiln operation, which may be considered to have three units: the feed
system, the fuel-firing system, and the clinker-cooling and handling system. The most desirable method of
disposing of the collected dust is injection into the burning zone of the kiln and production of clinkers from the
dust. If the alkali content of the raw materials is too high, however, some of the dust is discarded or leached
before returning to the kiln. In many instances, the maximum allowable alkali content of 0.6 percent (calculated
as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can be recycled. Additional sources of dust emissions are raw
material storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, and loading/unloading facilities.
The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of materials handled have led to the adoption of
many control systems for dust collection. Depending upon the emission, the temperature of the effluents in the
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.6-1
-------
in
to
a>
c_>
p
5.
O)
o
ro
CO
CD
E
CD
O
-o
c
CO
o
Q.
"o
E
TO
•_
O)
CC
o
CO
m
CD
CO
cu
3
CD
8.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/73
-------
plant in question, and the paniculate emission standards in the community, the cement industry generally uses
mechanical collectors, electrical precipitators, fabric filter (baghouse) collectors, or combinations of these devices
to control emissions.
Table 8.6-1 summarizes emission factors for cement manufacturing and also includes typical control
efficiencies of particulate emissions. Table 8.6-2 indicates the particle size distribution for particulate emissions
from kilns and cement plants before control systems are applied.
Table 8.6-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR CEMENT MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3-*5-0
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulated
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Sulfur dioxide6
Mineral sourcef
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Gas combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Oil combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Coal combustion
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Dry Process
Kilns
245.0
122.0
10.2
5.1
Neg9
Neg
4.2Sh
2.1S
6.8S
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
96.0
48.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wet process
Kilns
228.0
114.0
10.2
5.1
Neg
Neg
4.2S
2.1S
6.8S
3.4S
2.6
1.3
Dryers,
grinders, etc.
32.0
16.0
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
aOne barrel of cement weighs 376 pounds (171 kg).
"These emission factors include emissions from fuel combustion, which should not be calculated
separately.
c References 1 and 2.
Typical collection efficiencies for kilns, dryers, grinders, etc., are: multicyclones, 80 percent;
electrostatic precipitators, 95 percent; electrostatic precipitators with multicyclones, 97.5
percent; and fabric filter units, 99 8 percent.
6The sulfur dioxide factors presented take into account the reactions with the alkaline dusts
when no baghouses are used. With baghouses, approximately 50 percent more SC>2 is removed
because of reactions with the alkaline particulate filter cake. Also note that the total SC>2 from
the kiln is determined by summing emission contributions from the mineral source and the
appropriate fuel.
These emissions are the result of sulfur being present in the raw materials and are thus depend-
ent upon source of the raw materials used. The 10.2 Ib/ton (5.1 kg/MT) factors account for
part of the available sulfur remaining behind in the product because of its alkaline nature and
affinity for SO2-
9Negligible.
nS is the percent sulfur in fuel.
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.6-3
-------
Table 8.6-2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DUST EMITTED
FROM KILN OPERATIONS
WITHOUT CONTROLS1 -5
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 SC>2 into the product. The overall control
inherent in the process is approximately 75 percent or greater of the available sulfur in ore and fuel if a baghouse
that allows the SC>2 to come in contact with the cement dust is used. Control, of course, will vary according to
the alkali and sulfur content of the raw materials and fuel.6
References for Section 8.6
1. Kreichelt, T. E., D. A. Kemnitz, and S. T. Cuffe. Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacture of Portland
Cement. U. S. DHEW, Public Health Service. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-l 7, 1967.
2. Unpublished standards of performance for new and substantially modified portland cement plants.
Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Stationary Source Pollution Control, Research Triangle Park,
N.C.August 1971.
3. A Study of the Cement Industry in the State of Missouri. Resources Research Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for
the Air Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. December 1967.
4. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register.
J6(247, Pt II): December 23, 1971.
5. Particulate Pollutant System Study. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under
Contract Number CPA-22-69-104. May 1971.
6. Restriction of Emissions from Portland Cement Works. VDI Richtlinien. Dusseldorf, Germany. February
1967.
8.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
8.7 CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING
8.7.1 Process Description1
The manufacture of ceramic clay involves the conditioning of the basic ores by several methods. These include
the separation and concentration of the minerals by screening, floating, wet and dry grinding, and blending of the
desired ore varieties. The basic raw materials in ceramic clay manufacture are kaolmite (A^C^- 2Si02*2H20)
and montmorillonite [(Mg, Ca) OA^C^'SSiC^'nlr^O] clays. These clays are refined by separation and
bleaching, blended, kiln-dried, and formed into such items as whiteware, heavy clay products (brick, etc.),
various stoneware, and other products such as diatomaceous earth, which is used as a filter aid.
8.7.2 Emissions and Controls'
Emissions consist primarily of particulates, but some fluorides and acid gases are also emitted in the drying
process. The high temperatures of the firing kilns are also conducive to the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and
the subsequent release of NO, but no published information has been found for gaseous emissions. Particulates
are also emitted from the grinding process and from storage of the ground product.
Factors affecting emissions include the amount of material processed, the type of grinding (wet or dry), the
temperature of the drying kilns, the gas velocities and flow direction in the kilns, and the amount of fluorine in
the ores.
Common control techniques include settling chambers, cyclones, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and
bag filters. The most effective control is provided by cyclones for the coarser material, followed by wet scrubbers,
bag filters, or electrostatic precipitators for dry dust. Emission factors for ceramic clay manufacturing are
presented in Table 8.7-1.
Table 8.7-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR CERAMIC CLAY MANUFACTURING8
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Type of process
Dryingd
Grinding6
Storaged
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
70
76
34
kg/MT
35
38
17
Cycloneb
Ib/ton
18
19
8
kg/MT
9
9.5
4
Multiple-unit
cyclone and scrubber0
Ib/ton
7
-
kg/MT
3.5
-
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of input to process.
Approximate collection efficiency. 75 percent.
""Approximate collection efficiency: 90 percent.
References 2 through 5.
eReference 2.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.7-1
-------
References for Section 8.7-1
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
3. Private Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the State of New
Jersey Air Pollution Control Program, Trenton, New Jersey. July 20, 1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigations Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F. A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 6927.
1967.
EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.8 CLAY AND FLY-ASH SINTERING
8.8.1 Process Description1
Although the processes for sintering fly ash and clay are similar, there are some distinctions that justify a
separate discussion of each process. Fly-ash sintering plants are generally located near the source, with the fly ash
delivered to a storage silo at the plant. The dry fly ash is moistened with a water solution of lignin and
agglomerated into pellets or balls. This material goes to a traveling-grate sintering machine where direct contact
with hot combustion gases sinters the individual particles of the pellet and completely burns off the residual
carbon in the fly ash. The product is then crushed, screened, graded, and stored in yard piles.
Clay sintering involves the driving off of entrained volatile matter. It is desirable that the clay contain a
sufficient amount of volatile matter so that the resultant aggregate will not be too heavy. It is thus sometimes
necessary to mix the clay with finely pulverized coke (up to 10 percent coke by weight).2'3 In the sintering
process the clay is first mixed with pulverized coke, if necessary, and then pelletized. The clay is next sintered in
a rotating kiln or on a traveling grate. The sintered pellets are then crushed, screened, and stored, in a procedure
similar to that for fly ash pellets.
8.8.2 Emissions and Controls1
In fly-ash sintering, improper handling of the fly ash creates a dust problem. Adequate design features,
including fly-ash wetting systems and particulate collection systems on all transfer points and on crushing and
screening operations, would greatly reduce emissions. Normally, fabric filters are used to control emissions from
the storage silo, and emissions are low. The absence of this dust collection system, however, would create a major
emission problem. Moisture is added at the point of discharge from the silo to the agglomerator, and very few
emissions occur there. Normally, there are few emissions from the sintering machine, but if the grate is not
properly maintained, a dust problem is created. The consequent crushing, screening, handling, and storage of the
sintered product also create dust problems.
In clay sintering, the addition of pulverized coke presents an emission problem because the sintering of
coke-impregnated dry pellets produces more particulate emissions than the sintering of natural clay. The crushing,
screening, handling, and storage of the sintered clay pellets creates dust problems similar to those encountered in
fly-ash sintering. Emission factors for both clay and fly-ash sintering are shown in Table 8.8-1.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.8-1
-------
Table 8.8-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
SINTERING OPERATIONS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of material
Fly ashd
Clay mixed with cokef -9
Natural clayh-'
Sintering operation13
Ib/ton
110
40
12
kg/MT
55
20
6
Crushing, screening,
and yard storage13 -c
Ib/ton
e
15
12
kg/MT
e
7.5
6
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of finished product.
Cyclones would redu"° fhis emission by about 80 percent.
Scrubbers would reduce this emission by about 90 percent.
cBased on data in section on stone quarrying and processing.
"^Reference 1.
elncluded in sintering losses.
90 percent clay, 10 percent pulverized coke; traveling-grate, single-pass, up-draft sintering
machine.
^References 3 through 5.
Rotary dryer smterer.
' Reference 2.
References for Section 8.8
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and a clay sintering firm.
October 2, 1969.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and an anonymous Air
Pollution Control Agency. October 16, 1969.
4. Henn, J. J. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of Two Lime Sinter Processes.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number 7299.
September 1969.
5. Peters, F. A. et al. Methods for Producing Alumina from Clay: An Evaluation of the Lime-Soda Sinter
Process. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Report of Investigation Number
6927.1967.
8.8-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING
8.9.1 Process Description1
Coal cleaning is the process by which undesirable materials are removed from bituminous and anthracite coal
and lignite. The coal is screened, classified, washed, and dried at coal preparation plants. The major sources of air
pollution from these plants are the thermal dryers. Seven types of thermal dryers are presently used: rotary,
screen, cascade, continuous carrier, flash or suspension, multilouver, and fluidized bed. The three major types,
however, are the flash, multilouver, and fluidized bed.
In the flash dryer, coal is fed into a stream of hot gases where instantaneous drying occurs. The dried coal and
wet gases are drawn up a drying column and into the cyclone for separation. In the multilouver dryer, hot gases
are passed through falling curtains of coal. The coal is raised by flights of a specially designed conveyor. In the
fluidized bed the coal is suspended and dried above a perforated plate by rising hot gases.
8.9.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulates in the form of coal dust constitute the major air pollution problem from coal cleaning plants. The
crushing, screening, or sizing of coal are minor sources of dust emissions; the major sources are the thermal
dryers. The range of concentration, quantity, and particle size of emissions depends upon the type of collection
equipment used to reduce particulate emissions from the dryer stack. Emission factors for coal-cleaning plants are
shown in Table 8.9-1. Footnote b of the table lists various types of control equipment and their possible
efficiencies.
Table 8.9-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR THERMAL COAL DRYERS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Type of dryer
Fluidized bedc
Flashc
Multilouveredd
Uncontrolled emissions'3
Ib/ton
20
16
25
kg/MT
10
8
12.5
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal dried.
bTypical collection efficiencies are: cyclone collectors (product recovery),
70 percent; multiple cyclones (product recovery), 85 percent; water
sprays following cyclones, 95 percent; and wet scrubber following
cyclones, 99 to 99.9 percent.
GReferences 2 and 3.
Reference 4.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.9-1
-------
References for Section 8.9
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Unpublished stack test results on thermal coal dryers. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control. Harrisburg, Pa.
3. Amherst's Answer to Air Pollution Laws. Coal Mining and Processing, p. 26-29, February 1970.
4. Jones, D. W. Dust Collection at Moss. No. 3. Mining Congress Journal. 55(7):53-56, July 1969.
8.9-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
8.10.1 Process Descriptioni-3
Concrete batching involves the proportioning of sand, gravel, and cement by means of weigh hoppers and
conveyors into a mixing receiver such as a transit mix truck. The required amount of water is also discharged into
the receiver along with the dry materials. In some cases, the concrete is prepared for on-site building construction
work or for the manufacture of concrete products such as pipes and prefabricated construction parts.
8.10.2 Emissions and Controls1
Particulate emissions consist primarily of cement dust, but some sand and aggregate gravel dust emissions do
occur during batching operations. There is also a potential for dust emissions during the unloading and conveying
of concrete and aggregates at these plants and during the loading of dry-batched concrete mix. Another source of
dust emissions is the traffic of heavy equipment over unpaved or dusty surfaces in and around the concrete
batching plant.
Control techniques include the enclosure of dumping and loading areas, the enclosure of conveyors and
elevators, filters on storage bin vents, and the use of water sprays. Table 8.10-1 presents emission factors for
concrete batch plants.
Table 8.10-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CONCRETE BATCHING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Concrete
batching13
Uncontrolled
Good control
Emission
Ib/yd3 of
concrete
0.2
0.02
kg/m3 of
concrete
0.12
0.012
aOne cubic yard of concrete weighs 4000 pounds (1 m3 = 2400 kg).
The cement content varies with the type of concrete mixed, but
735 pounds of cement per yard (436 kg/m3) may be used as a typi-
cal value.
Reference 4.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.10-1
-------
References for Section 8.10
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Vincent, E. J. and J. L. McGinnity. Concrete Batching Plants. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS
Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 334-335.
3. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Ready-Mix
Concrete Association. September 1969.
4. Allen, G. L. et al. Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and Fumes in Los Angeles County. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C. Information Circular Number 7627. April 1952.
8.10-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.11 FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURING Revised by James H. Southerland
8.11.1 Process Description
Glass fiber products are manufactured by melting various raw materials to form glass (predominantly
borosilicate), drawing the molten glass into fibers, and coating the fibers with an organic material. The two basic
types of fiber glass products, textile and wool, are manufactured by different processes. Typical flow diagrams are
shown in Figures 8.11-1 and 8.11-2.
8.11.1.1 Textile Products-In the manufacture of textiles, the glass is normally produced in the form of marbles
after refining at about 2800°F (1540°C) in a regenerative, recuperative, or electric furnace. The marble-forming
stage can be omitted with the molten glass passing directly to orifices to be formed or drawn into fiber filaments.
The fiber filaments are collected on spools as continuous fibers and staple yarns, or in the form of a fiber glass
mat on a flat, moving surface. An integral part of the textile process is treatment with organic binder materials
followed by a curing step.
8.11.1.2 Wool Products—In the manufacture of wool products, which are generally used in the construction
industry as insulation, ceiling panels, etc., the molten glass is most frequently fed directly into the forming line
without going through a marble stage. Fiber formation is accomplished by air blowing, steam blowing, flame
blowing, or centrifuge forming. The organic binder is sprayed onto the hot fibers as they fall from the forming
device. The fibers are collected on a moving, flat surface and transported through a curing oven at a temperature
of 400° to 600°F (200° to 315°C) where the binder sets. Depending upon the product, the wool may also be
compressed as a part of this operation.
8.11.2 Emissions and Controls'
The major emissions from the fiber glass manufacturing processes are particulates from the glass-melting
furnace, the forming line, the curing oven, and the product cooling line. In addition, gaseous organic emissions
occur from the forming line and curing oven. Particulate emissions from the glass-melting furnace are affected by
basic furnace design, type of fuel (oil, gas, or electricity), raw material size and composition, and type and volume
of the furnace heat-recovery system. Organic and particulate emissions from the forming line are most affected by
the composition and quality of the binder and by the spraying techniques used to coat the fibers; very fine spray
and volatile binders increase emissions. Emissions from the curing ovens are affected by oven temperature and
binder composition, but direct-fired afterburners with heat exchangers may be used to control these emissions.
Emission factors for fiber glass manufacturing are summarized in Table 8.11-1.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.11-1
-------
RAW MATERIALS
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
RATPHINfi
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
BINDER
ADDITION
I
FORMING BY
DRAWING,
STEAM JETS,
OR AIR JETS
MARBLE
REMELT
FURNACE
I
MARBLE
FORMING
DRYING OR
CURING
COLLECT AND WIND
OR
CUT AND FABRICATE
PRODUCTS:
CONTINUOUS TEXTILES,
STAPLE TEXTILES,
MAT PRODUCTS, ETC.
Figure 8.11-1. Typical flow diagram of textile-type glass fiber production process.
RAW MATERIALS
RAW MATERIAL
STORAGE
BATCHING
GLASS MELTING
AND
REFINING
(FURNACE)
COMPRESSION
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
ADDITION OF
BINDERS, LUBRICANTS
AND/OR ADHESIVES
FORMING BY AIR
BLOWING, STEAM
BLOWING, AND
CENTRIFUGE
CURING
(OPTIONAL DEPENDING
UPON PRODUCT)
COOL
PACK OR
FABRICATE
PRODUCTS: LOOSE WOOL
INSULATION, BONDED
WOOL INSULATION, WALL
AND CEILING PANELS,
INSULATION BOARD, ETC.
Figure 8.11-2. Typical flow diagram of wool-type glass fiber production process.
8.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
CO
O
CC.
H
Z
O
o
I-
o
I
E
11
< H
OO [X
<0
U O
u. O
§1
n- S
oo w
OC
O
O
<
LL
Z
o
09
00
J2
CO
r-
li
o
2 c
( i C~l
<
CM
O
z 1-
CD ^~-
**•
O
c £
0) O
Si j;
0 .Q
+->
z
QJ ^
^
n ^
C •*
O
E
c
o ^
•£ +-*
C^S
1* ra
o -^
•a
X
0
= 0
— +-*
"-
1-
0) ^
TO CT
~
O
t! c
ro 2
Q- -t.
.Q
(/»
cu
O
O
a
'o
CD
Q.
H
O3 C^
^ cb ' ' '
00 Lf>
CO CM ' ' '
CD CD CO
•*' 2: ' ' ^
CM CN CD
d) CTJ ' ' CN
CM
CD Ul 00
66' ' CD
«- O5 IT)
r 0 ' ' -
00 ^
^t *— ' ' '
*—
CD r^
03 CM ' ' '
CN
CM O) CO CD
CO C<0 ' CD CD
«—
tt CO "a CO CM
« si i - -'
Q OJ ^
75 o *-• ti c
^ CD ro ™ 5
~o *~ c Q- '£ CT O
J a S1 § 1 1 f
— ro DC QC LLJ Q ^
^ C3 LL CJ
CD
CO CD i-
q p o
CD CD CD
CN t- CM
»- <- o
O CD O
LT5 O5 «—
CN d d
f™i F^-s,
p r-. CM
LO ^ O
CO CO CO
«- «- 0
000
LO LO LO
CN CN O
o o o
CM
o co q
LO •*' d
O LO O
d oi d
00 CN CO
o >* o
m CO CD
t- 00 O
CN CN
" S S
+2 co CD ro
.2 *" c Q- C
Igfll
"5 (5
i
1 1 1
1 1 1
CD *-;
1 d d
«- CM
1 -' d
03 <-
1 d d
r- CN
1 «-' d
1 1 1
1 LJ 1
oo co r-^
CO «- O
CM
CD LO CO
r^ CO «-
LO
0)
Ol O
|||
LL CJ O
o
a
c
J5
'5.
•a
8
^
a
o
S «
CD
z u
E «
LU CC
T3
>
£
O
5
n
t, Si o>
O) ^2 O
g ^5 ci
CD
C CO
0 £
^> -a
c o
O Z
T3
u
4/73
Mineral Products Industry
8.11-3
-------
References for Section 8.11
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. X. 2nd Ed. New York, Interscience (John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.). 1966. p. 564-566.
3. Private correspondence from S. H. Thomas, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Toledo, Ohio including
intra-company correspondence from R. J. Powels. Subject: Air Pollutant Emission Factors. April 26, 1972.
8.11-4 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
8.12 FRIT MANUFACTURING
8.12.1 Process Description1 >2
Frit is used in enameling iron and steel and in glazing porcelain and pottery. In a typical plant, the raw
materials consist of a combination of materials such as borax, feldspar, sodium fluoride or fluorspar, soda ash,
zinc oxide, litharge, silica, boric acid, and zircon. Frit is prepared by fusing these various minerals in a smelter,
and the molten material is then quenched with air or water. This quenching operation causes the melt to solidify
rapidly and shatter into numerous small glass particles, called frit. After a drying process, the frit is finely ground
in a ball mill where other materials are added.
8.12.2 Emissions and Controls2
Significant dust and fume emissions are created by the frit-smelting operation. These emissions consist
primarily of condensed metallic oxide fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge. They also contain
mineral dust carryover and sometimes hydrogen fluoride. Emissions can be reduced by not rotating the smelter
too rapidly (to prevent excessive dust carry-over) and by not heating the batch too rapidly or too long (to prevent
volatilizing the more fusible elements).
The two most feasible control devices for frit smelters are baghouses and venturi water scrubbers. Emission
factors for frit smelters are shown in Table 8.12-1. Collection efficiencies obtainable for venturi scrubbers are also
shown in the table.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.12-1
-------
Table 8.12-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FRIT SMELTERS
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Rotary
Particulatesb
Ib/ton
16
kg/MT
8
Fluorides6
Ib/ton
5
kg/MT
2.5
aReference 2 Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge.
A ventun scrubber with a 21-inch (535-mm) water-gauge pressure drop can reduce par-
ticulate emissions by 67 percent and fluorides by 94 percent.
References for Section 8.12
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 37-38.
2. Spinks, J. L. Frit Smelters. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.), U.S. DHEW, PHS,
National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p.
738-744.
8.12-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.13 GLASS MANUFACTURING
8.13.1 Process Description1 >2
Nearly all glass produced commercially is one of five basic types: soda-lime, lead, fused silica, borosilicate, and
96 percent silica. Of these, the modern soda-lime glass constitutes 90 percent of the total glass produced and will
thus be the only type discussed in this section. Soda-lime glass is produced on a massive scale in large, direct-fired,
continuous-melting furnaces in which the blended raw materials are melted at 2700°F (1480°C) to form glass.
8.13.2 Emissions and Controls1'2
Emissions from the glass-melting operation consist primarily of particulates and fluorides, if
fluoride-containing fluxes are used in the process. Because the dust emissions contain particles that are only a few
microns in diameter, cyclones and centrifugal scrubbers are not as effective as baghouses or filters in collecting
particulate matter. Table 8.13-1 summarizes the emission factors for glass melting.
Table 8.13-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GLASS MELTING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Type of
glass
Soda-lime
Particulates3
Ib/ton
2
kg/MT
1
Fluorides6
Ib/ton
4FC
kg/MT
2FC
a Reference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of glass produced.
bReference 4.
CF equals weight percent of fluoride in input to furnace, e.g., if fluoride content is 5 per-
cent, the emission factor would be 4F or 20 (2F or 10).
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-1
-------
References for Section 8.13
1. Netzley, A. B. and J. L. McGinnity. Glass Manufacture. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J.A.
(ed.). U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication
Number 999-AP-40. 1967. p. 720-730.
2. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DREW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 38.
3. Technical Progress Report: Control of Stationary Sources. Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. 1: April 1960.
4. Semrau, K. T. Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
7(2):92-l08, August 1957.
8.13-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING
8.14.1 Process Description'
Gypsum, or hydrated calcium sulfate, is a naturally occurring mineral that is an important building material.
When heated gypsum loses its water of hydration, it becomes plaster of pans, or when blended with fillers it
serves as wall plaster. In both cases the material hardens as water reacts with it to form the solid crystalline
hydrate.2'3
The usual method of calcination of gypsum consists of grinding the mineral and placing it in large, externally
heated calciners. Complete calcination of 1 ton (0.907 MT) of plaster takes about 3 hours and requires about 1.0
million Btu (0.25 million kcal).4-5
8.14.2 Emissions1
The process of calcining gypsum appears to be devoid of any air pollutants because it involves simply the
relatively low-temperature removal of the water of hydration. However, the gases created by the release of the
water of crystalization carry gypsum rock dust and partially calcined gypsum dust into the atmosphere.6 In
addition, dust emissions occur from the grinding of the gypsum before calcining and from the mixing of the
calcined gypsum with filler. Table 8.14-1 presents emission factors for gypsum processing.
Table 8.14-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Raw-material dryer (if used)
Primary grinder
Calciner
Conveying
Uncontrolled
emissions
Ib/ton
40
1
90
0.7
kg/MT
20
0.5
45
0.35
With
fabric filter
Ib/ton
0.2
0.001
0.1
0.001
kg/MT
0.1
0.0005
0.05
0.0005
With cyclone and
electrostatic
precipitator
Ib/ton
0.4
-
-
-
kg/MT
0.2
-
-
-
aReference 7. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of process throughput.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.14-1
-------
References for Section 8.14
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Shreve, R. N. Chemical Process Industries, 3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967. p.
180-182.
3. Havinghorst, R. A Quick Look at Gypsum Manufacture. Chem. Eng. 72:52-54, January 4. 1965.
4. Work, L. T. and A. L. Stern. Size Reduction and Size Enlargement. In: Chemical Engineers Handbook, 4th
Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1963. p. 51.
5. Private communication on emissions from gypsum plants between M. M. Hambuik and the National Gypsum
Association, Chicago, Illinois. January 1970.
6. Culhane, F. R. Chem. Eng. Progr. 64:72, January 1, 1968.
7. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the Maryland State
Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. November 1969.
8.14-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.15 LIME MANUFACTURING
8.15.1 General1
Lime (CaO) is the high-temperature product of the calcination of limestone (CaCC^). Lime is manufactured in
vertical or rotary kilns fired by coal, oil, or natural gas.
8.15.2 Emissions and Controls1
Atmospheric emissions in the lime manufacturing industry include particulate emissions from the mining,
handling, crushing, screening, and calcining of the limestone and combustion products from the kilns. The vertical
kilns, because of a larger size of charge material, lower air velocities, and less agitation, have considerably fewer
particulate emissions. Control of emissions from these vertical kilns is accomplished by sealing the exit of the kiln
and exhausting the gases through control equipment.
Particulate emission problems are much greater on the rotary kilns because of the smaller size of the charge
material, the higher rate of fuel consumption, and the greater air velocities through the rotary chamber. Methods
of control on rotary-kiln plants include simple and multiple cyclones, wet scrubbers, baghouses, and electrostatic
precipitators.2 Emission factors for lime manufacturing are summarized in Table 8.15-1.
Table 8.15-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIME
MANUFACTURING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Operation
Crushing0
Primary
Secondary
Calciningd
Vertical kiln
Rotary kiln
Emissions'3
Ib/ton
31
2
8
200
kg/MT
15.5
1
4
100
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of lime
processed.
"Cyclones could reduce these factors by about 70 percent.
Ventun scrubbers could reduce these factors by about 95 to
99 percent Fabric filters could reduce these factors by about
99 percent.
cReference 3.
dReferences 2, 4, and 5.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.15-1
-------
References for Section 8.15
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Lewis, C. and B. Crocker. The Lime Industry's Problem of Airborne Dust. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
79:31-39, January 1969.
3. State of Maryland Emission Inventory Data. Maryland State Department of Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
1969.
4. A Study of the Lime Industi^ in the State of Missouri for the Air Conservation Commission of the State of
Missouri. Reston, Virginia, Resources Research, Incorporated. December 1967. p. 54.
5. Communication between Midwest Research Institute and a control device manufacturer. 1968.
8.15-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.16 MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING
8.16.1 Process Description! >2
The product mineral wool used to be divided into three categories: slag wool, rock wool, and glass wool.
Today, however, straight slag wool and rock wool as such are no longer manufactured. A combination of slag and
rock constitutes the charge material that now yields a product classified as a mineral wool, used mainly for
thermal and acoustical insulation.
Mineral wool is made primarily in cupola furnaces charged with blast-furnace slag, silica rock, and coke. The
charge is heated to a molten state at about 3000°F (1650°C) and then fed to a blow chamber, where steam
atomizes the molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails as they are drawn to the other end of the
chamber. The wool blanket formed is next conveyed to an oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler.
8.16.2 Emissions and Controls
The major source of emissions is the cupola or furnace stack. Its discharge consists primarily of condensed
fumes that have volatilized from the molten charge and gases such as sulfur oxides and fluorides. Minor sources of
particulate emissions include the blowchamber, curing oven, and cooler. Emission factors for various stages of
mineral wool processing are shown in Table 8.16-1. The effect of control devices on emissions is shown in
footnotes to the table.
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.16-1
-------
Table 8.16-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Cupola
Reverberatory furnace
Blow chamber0
Curing ovend
Cooler
Particulates
Ib/ton
22
5
17
4
2
kg/MT
11
2.5
8.5
2
1
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
0.02
Negb
Neg
Neg
Neg
kg/MT
0.01
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
""Reference 2. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of charge
bNegligible.
CA centrifugal water scrubber can reduce paniculate emissions by 60 percent.
dA direct-flame afterburner can reduce particulate emissions by 50 percent.
References for Section 8.16
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N. C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39-40.
2. Spinks, J. L. Mineral Wool Furnaces. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 343-347.
8.16-2
EMISSION FACTORS
2/72
-------
8.17 PERLITE MANUFACTURING
8.17.1 Process Description1 >2
Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock consisting of oxides of silicon and aluminum combined as a natural glass by
water of hydration. By a process called exfoliation, the material is rapidly heated to release water ofhydration
and thus to expand the spherules into low-density particles used primarily as aggregate in plaster and concrete. A
plant for the expansion of perlite consists of ore unloading and storage facilities, a furnace-feeding device, an
expanding furnace, provisions for gas and product cooling, and product-classifying and product-collecting
equipment. Vertical furnaces, horizontal stationary furnaces, and horizontal rotary furnaces are used for the
exfoliation of perlite, although the vertical types are the most numerous. Cyclone separators are used to collect
the product.
8.17.2 Emissions and Controls2
A fine dust is emitted from the outlet of the last product collector in a perlite expansion plant. The fineness of
the dust varies from one plant to another, depending upon the desired product. In order to achieve complete
control of these particulate emissions, a baghouse is needed. Simple cyclones and small multiple cyclones are not
adequate for collecting the fine dust from perlite furnaces. Table 8.17-1 summarizes the emissions from perlite
manufacturing.
Table 8.17-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PERLITE EXPANSION FURNACES
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of furnace
Vertical
Emissions'5
Ib/ton
21
kg/MT
10.5
aReference 3. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of
charge.
Primary cyclones will collect 80 percent of the particulates above
20 micrometers, and baghouses will collect 96 percent of the particles
above 20 micrometers.2
2/72 Mineral Products Industry 8.17-1
-------
References for Section 8.1 7
1. Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air
Pollution Control. Durham, N.C. PHS Publication Number 999-AP-42. 1968. p. 39.
2. Vincent, E. J. Perlite-Expanding Furnaces. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Danielson, J. A. (ed.). U.S.
DHEW, PHS, National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. PHS Publication Number
999-AP-40. 1967. p. 350-352.
3. Unpublished data on perlite expansion furnace. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio.
July 1967.
8.17-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
8.18.1 Process Description1
Phosphate rock preparation involves beneficiation to remove impurities, drying to remove moisture, and
grinding to improve reactivity. Usually, direct-fired rotary kilns are used to dry phosphate rock. These dryers
burn natural gas or fuel oil and are fired counter-currently. The material from the dryers may be ground before
storage in large storage silos. Air-swept ball mills are preferred for grinding phosphate rock.
8.18.2 Emissions and Controls1
Although there are no significant emissions from phosphate rock beneficiation plants, emissions in the form of
fine rock dust may be expected from drying and grinding operations. Phosphate rock dryers are usually equipped
with dry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers. Particulate emissions are usually higher when drying pebble rock
than when drying concentrate because of the small adherent particles of clay and slime on the rock. Phosphate
rock grinders can be a considerable source of particulates. Because of the extremely fine particle size, baghouse
collectors are normally used to reduce emissions. Emission factors for phosphate rock processing are presented in
Table 8.18-1.
Table 8.18-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
WITHOUT CONTROLS3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of source
Dryingb-c
Grindingb'd
Transfer and storaged-e
Open storage piles6
Emissions
Ib/ton
15
20
2
40
kg/MT
7.5
10
1
20
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of phosphate
rock.
References 2 and 3.
cDry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers can reduce emissions by
95 to 99 percent.
Dry cyclones followed by fabric filters can reduce emissions by
99.5 to 99.9 percent.
eReference 3.
2/72
Mineral Products Industry
8.18-1
-------
References for Section 8.18
1. Stern, A. (ed.). In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 221-222.
2. Unpublished data from phosphate rock preparation plants in Florida. Midwest Research Institute. June 1970.
3. Control Techniques for Fluoride Emissions. Internal document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs, Durham, N.C. p. 446, 4-36, and 4-34.
8.18-2 EMISSION FACTORS 2/72
-------
8.19 SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING By James H. Southerland
8.19.1 Process Descrip tionl
Deposits of sand and gravel, the consolidated granular materials resulting from the natural disintegration of
rock or stone, are found in banks and pits and in subterranean and subaqueous beds.
Depending upon the location of the deposit, the materials are excavated using power shovels, draglines,
cableways, suction dredge pumps, or other apparatus; light-charge blasting may be necessary to loosen the
deposit. The materials are transported to the processing plant by suction pump, earth mover, barge, truck, or
other means. The processing of sand and gravel for a specific market involves the use of different combinations of
washers; screens and classifiers, which segregate particle sizes; crushers, which reduce oversize material; and
storage and loading facilities.
8.19.2 Emissions2-3
Dust emissions occur during conveying, screening, crushing, and storing operations. Because these materials are
generally moist when handled, emissions are much lower than in a similar crushed stone operation. Sizeable
emissions may also occur as vehicles travel over unpaved roads and paved roads covered by dirt. Although little
actual source testing has been done, an estimate has been made for particulate emissions from a plant using
crushers:
Particulate emissions: 0.1 Ib/ton (0.05 kg/MT) of product.3
References for Section 8.19
1. Walker, Stanton. Production of Sand and Gravel. National Sand and Gravel Association. Washington, D.C.
Circular Number 57. 1954.
2. Schreibeis, William J. and H. H. Schrenk. Evaluation of Dust and Noise Conditions at Typical Sand and
Gravel Plants. Study conducted under the auspices of the Committee on Public Relations, National Sand and
Gravel Association, by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc. 1958.
3. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. I, Mass Emissions. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract Number
CPA 22-69-104. May 1971.
4/73 Mineral Products Industry 8.19-1
-------
-------
8.20 STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
8.20.1 Process Description1
Rock and crushed stone products are loosened by drilling and blasting them from their deposit beds and are
removed with the use of heavy earth-moving equipment. This mining of rock is done primarily in open pits. The
use of pneumatic drilling and cutting, as well as blasting and transferring, causes considerable dust formation.
Further processing includes crushing, regrinding, and removal of fines.2 Dust emissions can occur from all of
these operations, as well as from quarrying, transferring, loading, and storage operations. Drying operations, when
used, can also be a source of dust emissions.
8.20.2 Emissions1
As enumerated above, dust emissions occur from many operations in stone quarrying and processing. Although
a big portion of these emissions is heavy particles that settle out within the plant, an attempt has been made to
estimate the suspended particulates. These emission factors are shown in Table 8.20-1. Factors affecting emissions
include the amount of rock processed; the method of transfer of the rock; the moisture content of the raw
material; the degree of enclosure of the transferring, processing, and storage areas; and the degree to which
control equipment is used on the processes.
Table 8.20-1. PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROCK-HANDLING PROCESSES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Type of process
Dry crushing operations'3 -c
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing and screening
Tertiary crushing and
screening (if used)
Recrushing and screening
Fines mill
Miscellaneous operations'^
Screening, conveying.
and handling6
Storage pile losses*
Uncontrolled
total3
Ib/ton
0.5
1.5
6
5
6
2
kg/MT
0.25
0.75
3
2.5
3
1
Settled out
in plant,
%
80
60
40
50
25
Suspended
emission
Ib/ton
0.1
0.6
3.6
2.5
4.5
kg/MT
0.05
0.3
1.8
1.25
2.25
aTypical collection efficiencies' cyclone, 70 to 85 percent, fabric filter, 99 percent
All values are based on raw material entering primary crusher, except those for recrushing and screening, which are based on
throughput for that operation.
cReference 3.
Based on units of stored product.
eReference 4.
f See section 11.2.3.
12/75
Mineral Products Industry
8.20-1
-------
References for Section 8.20
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Communication between Resources Research, Incorporated, Reston, Virginia, and the National Crushed
Stone Association. September 1969.
3. Culver, P. Memorandum to files. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Division
of Abatement, Durham, N.C.January 6, 1968.
4. Unpublished data on storage and handling of rock products. U.S. DHEW, PHS, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Division of Abatement, Durham, N.C. May 1967.
5. Stern, A. (ed.) In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, 2nd Ed. Sources of Air Pollution and Their Control. New York,
Academic Press. 1968. p. 123-127.
8.20-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
9. PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
9.1 PETROLEUM REFINING Revised by William M. Vatavuk
9.1.1 General
Although a modern refinery is a complex system of many processes, the entire operation can be divided into
four major steps: separating, converting, treating, and blending. The crude oil is first separated into selected
fractions (e.g. gasoline, kerosene, fuel, oil, etc.). Because the relative volumes of each fraction produced by
merely separating the crude may not conform to the market demands for each fraction, some of the less valuable
products, such as heavy naptha, are converted to products with a greater sale value, such as gasoline. This
conversion is accomplished by splitting (cracking), uniting (polymerization), or rearranging (reforming) the
original molecules. The final step is the blending of the refined base stocks with each other and with various
additives to meet final product specifications. The various unit operations involved at petroleum refineries will be
briefly discussed in the following sections. A generalized petroleum refinery flow sheet is shown in Figure 9.1-1.
9.1.2 Crude Oil Distillation1'6
Crude oil is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons, some of them combined with small amounts of
impurities. Crude oils vary considerably in composition and physical properties, but primarily consist of three
families of hydrocarbons: paraffins, saturated hydrocarbons having the empirical formula CnH2n+2; napthenes,
ring-structure saturated hydrocarbons with the formula CnH2n; and aromatics, characterized by a benzene ring,
CgHg, in the molecular structure. In addition to carbon and hydrogen, significant amounts of sulfur, oxygen, and
nitrogen can be present in crude petroleum.
Separation of these hydrocarbon constituents into their respective fractions is performed by simple distillation
in crude topping or skimming units. Crude oil is heated in pipe stills and passed to fractionating towers or
columns for vaporization and preparation. Heavy fractions of the crude oil, which do not vaporize in the topping
operation, are separated by steam or vacuum distillation. The heavy residuum products are reduced to coke and
more valuable volatile products via destructive distillation and coking. Depending on the boiling range of the stock
and its stability with respect to heat and product specifications, solvent extraction and/or absorption techniques
can also be used. The distillation fractions - "straight run products" - usually include refinery gas, gasoline,
kerosene, light fuel oil, diesel oils, gas oil, lube distillate, and heavy bottoms, the amount of each being
determined by the type and composition of the crude oil. Some of these products are treated to remove
impurities and used as base stocks or sold as finished products; the remainder are used as feedstock for other
refinery units.
9.1.2.1 Emissions-The main source of emissions from crude oil preparation processes is the barometric condenser
on the vacuum distillation column. This condenser, while maintaining a vacuum on the tower, often allows
noncondensable light hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulfide to pass through to the atmosphere. The quantity of
these emissions is a function of the unit size, type of feedstock, and the cooling water temperature. Vapor
recovery systems reduce these emissions to negligible amounts (see Table 9.1-1).
4/73 9.1-1
-------
>,
1^
Q)
C
£
E
E
to
03
CO
OD
CO
m
CD
CD
L_
13
O)
9.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/73
-------
CO
LU
UJ ^f
-I <
o ..
c a
i- z
UJ —
LL QC
<0 O
00
° <
O "-
< Z
O
co
(T3
£
0
E
CD CU
"O ~O
rf ^
c
01 S "CN
2 "? o
™ X ~£
•^ o —
«
6 c
i— o
>- "^
ICO
(J
CD
C "C
O '5
-9 o
fe c
oo
i» tn
3. 0) CM
2= ^ O
D X c/3
CO O —
(yi
cu
CO
• —
CO
Q.
O)
o
o
Q.
"o
1-
cu
in
CM
o
0
*
CM
o
*-
°co
CU
z
.D
c3
CM
r~-
co~
o
rf
00
1_
cu "O
CD 33
_C C
CD _Q
O
2 o
Q. _
CO (*)
4-J rt
"o m
^: S
H
00
o
d
^
co'
CO
d
en
cu
P*
(/i
CM
CO
CN
OO
d
"O en
S.E
*- J^
3 O
_Q ca
t/) o
So
m ^
Et
oK
^S-E
-^ ^ ^
LL
in
a>
'
0
r-'
r^-.
0
CM
CM
0
O
' '„
CO
CO
05
CM
CM
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
in
in
d
in
o
d
q §
LD" *3" ^
jSd
o o' 2
"~. o
r-- «—
" 2
0
00
CD
d
CM
a>
CO
in
Lo g
CM CO •
LO r- *-
O ^ O
4-J ^-J
00 00
<- O)
00 00
d
CO
t^. r~-
O O)
0 » 0
•^ o i
S 'O
S CM
d
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
o
CO
Electrostatic precipit
and CO boiler
in
in
t d
in
s
o
O5 O
*
O
m 1-
t o
o ,- CN
^-' o d
r-- <-•
1
t--.'
CO
o
CO
CD
o d
CM
CN
en en
CU Q)
"Z. "Z.
LoT
CM CO
LO ,-
oo *•* <-'
0) CO
oo
q
5 »
r--. o <—
^- o
CM
~
cu
.0 —
fl /2~
O 0
S
I — .
O
d
00
0
o'
^j-
o
d
o
in
CN
o'
oo
d
<—
^
d
05
S
d
1
1
-S
en en
cu cu
en en
^-
en en
cu cu
Z-^
^
en en
cu cu
•z. z
en en
cu cu
Z "Z.
"< <
Z Z
o
in
CO T-'
CM
in
feed
id coking units9
ncontrolled
lb/103 bbl fresh feed
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
_2 ^
u_
en
cu
Z
en
cu
en
cu
Z
en
cu
Z
CO
cu
Z
<
Z
LO
00
CD
O
lectrostatic precipitat
lb/103 bbl fresh
feed
LU
en
cu
Z
en
cu
en
cu
Z
CO
cu
Z
CO
cu
Z
<
Z
CD
O5
O
d
kg/103 liters fresh
feed
4/73
Petroleum Industry
9.1-3
-------
LU
OC
Z
II
LU
cc
D
O ..
oc u
1- Z
m —
o. h-
oc
0 nc
0 °
< 0
2 U-
0 Z
w 0
52 05
i2>
LU *>
. LU
^
CD
3
C
C
o
o
^
T^
o>
c?
cn
cu
cn
cu
O
O
cn
CD
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
^
capacity
kg/103 liters refinery
cn cn
CD CU
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD 0)
Z Z
O
o
CD
O O
CM
cn cn
ID CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
«^ ^
-o
_CD
r\
capacity
rocess drains, Uncontrc
lb/103 bbl waste
water
kg/103 liters waste
Q.
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
Z
CO
cn
CD
Z
0)
CU
Z
cn
CD
^~
water
Vapor recovery or
separator covers
lb/103 bbl waste
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
cn
CD
Z
co
CM
0
ci
cn
CU
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
•^
CD
CO
CD
+-t
1
to
CU
I
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
O
CO
*
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
'acuum jets3
Uncontrolled
lb/103 bbl vacuum
^
z
cn
CD
cn
CD
O
CO
CD
O)
CD
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
,
distillate
kg/103 liters vacuum
distillate
Fume burner or waste
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
cu
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
E
3
O
CO
CD 5 CD
•£,_
-------
CO
'c
0
E
£
i *"
Q) QJ
2 "5.
< JG
V)
cc
01
Zc
CD oo —
cn CD CN
ui 250
cc -~~ X iz
^
^
01
o
H i! 2 §
UJ < "D J2
Q. T: a- io
cc a ^ u
0 ? CD
LL (_ TJ
<*> < 0 X
cc cc -o o
O cc ,3 °
(3 O E
|| ||^
§ -| co o !£
~s
1
13
c
o
u „,
— CD
p^ TO
• -3
^ <->
yy •*-*
CD CD
5 o-
CO
c/)
c/)
CD
CJ
O
Q.
'o
CU
a.
H
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn
CD CD
Z
Ol Ol
CD CD
Z Z
O) Ol
CD CD
Z Z
01 cn
CD CD
Z Z
£
D
3 ?
CO c
« 1? 8
£ CD 1 "
r! 2 §•
2 K g'tj »
^"° 15 d 1
* P
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
z
CN
ci
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
c
"5
0
o
in
CD
*0 jij
r~ CD
rr> 3
CD
CD
Z
cn
0!
Z
cn
CD
CXI
CN
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
01
CD
Z
01
-a c
C 'c
CD s_
CD -^
> CO -°
£ S"o
II i
cn
CD
Z
01
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
O
00
o
o
g1
z
Ol
CD
Z
Ol
CD
Z
Ol
c
c
CD
CD
>• ^
'5 n
CD O
a. T—
O3 ^^
O Ol
cn
CD
Z
01
CD
Z
cn
0)
^ —
*—
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
CD ^
S 'i
"B "S
> i_
M—
>. 0) ^
^ — _Q
CtS V/5 ~^^_
> ~
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
,_
00
o
o
cn
Z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
CD
01
c
'c
4—
CD
CD
> ^
'u cn
c_> cn
j»:
cn
CD
Z
Ol
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
p^
*—
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
CD
Z
Ol
c
'£
CU
>5; 3
CO *^ ^
Q- ~~
cn
o
0
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
c
c
CD
CD
>- ™
•M —
O m
CD O
D. ;—
CD ^
o cn
^£
S1 S1
z z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn
CD CD
Z Z
^
* —
0
LO O
01 cn
CD CD
Z Z
01 cn
CD CD
Z Z
cn cn cn
CD CD CD
Z Z Z
cn
cn c
„ .E c
_w C Lp
CO t^ Q)
CD Qj »-
cn i_ i_.
i_ — O)
> o -a > .t:
•M ^ ^i 4_r —
'U 03 ^ "o %.
1 °-° s°
" o ^ S ^
0 ~
Ol
CD
z
01
CD
Z
01
CD
Z
0
*~
S1
z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
CD
Z
oi
c
i
o
25 g1
l=rl
« i3 E
0 " ~
.eg ™5
0 CO •- m
1^ p2
sl 1^
cn
CD
Z
CO
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
a>
CN
o
o
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
cn
CD
Z
Ol
c
'c
i^
CD
CD
> t; >
+_j 4-J
U m O
co O "J
a r- a.
CD *^ 03
O Dl O
^
ID
°?
CD
3
!S
•o
T>
CD
1
CN
O
00
o
,3
3
cn
"5
C
o
Q.
O
o
o
T3
CM
O
CO
O
a
o
o
1 s
CD >
-° cB
2 ^
o
o
T)
c
• -Z m .
o 3 o
3 .2 S *: s
*"" "^ QJ
CD O „
O _
i ,_ Q.
5 i c
DC CO
CC
S *>
E ^
i«
4/73
Petroleum Industry
9.1-5
-------
9.1.3 Converting
To meet quantity demands for certain types of petroleum products, it is often necessary to chemically convert
the molecular structures of certain hydrocarbons via "cracking" and "reforming" to produce compounds of
different structures.
9.1.3.1 Catalytic Cracking1—In the cracking operation, large molecules are decomposed by heat, pressure, and
catalysis into smaller, lower-boiling molecules. Simultaneously, some of the molecules combine (polymerize) to
form larger molecules. Products of cracking are gaseous hydrocarbons, gasoline, gas oil, fuel oil, and coke.
Most catalytic cracking operations in the U.S. today are performed by using four main methods: (1) fixed-bed,
a batch operation; (2) moving-bed, typified by thermofor catalytic cracking (TCC) and Houdriflow units; (3)
fluidized-bed (FCC); and (4) "once-through" units. The two most widely used units are the moving- and
fluidized-bed types, with the latter most predominant.
In a moving-bed cracker, the charge (gas oil) is heated to 900°F under pressure and passed to the reactor where
it passes cross-flow to a descending stream of molecular sieve-type catalyst in the form of beads or pellets. The
cracked products then pass to a fractionating tower where the various compounds are tapped off. Meanwhile, the
spent catalyst flows through a regeneration zone where coke deposits are burned off in a continuous process. The
regenerated catalyst is then conveyed to storage bins atop the reactor vessel for reuse.
In fluidized systems, finely powdered catalyst is lifted into the reactor by the incoming heated oil charge,
which vaporizes upon contact with the hot catalyst. Spent catalyst settles out in the reactor, is drawn off at a
controlled rate, purged with steam, and lifted by an air stream into the regenerator where the deposited coke is
burned off.
Emissions—Emissions from cracking unit regenerators consist of particulates (coke and catalyst fines),
hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, ammonia, and nitrogen oxides in the combusion gases.
In addition, catalyst fines may be discharged by vents on the catalyst handling systems on both TCC and FCC
units. Control measures commonly used on regenerators consist of cyclones and electrostatic precipitators to
remove particulates and energy-recovery combustors to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. The latter recovers
the heat of combustion of the CO to produce refinery process steam.
9.1.3.2 Hydrocracking-- The hydrocracker uses a fixed-bed catalytic reactor, wherein cracking occurs in the
presence of hydrogen under substantial pressure. The principal functions of the hydrogen are to suppress the
formation of heavy residual material and to increase the yield of gasoline by reacting with the cracked products.
High-molecular-weight, sulfur-bearing hydrocarbons are also cracked, and the sulfur combines with the hydrogen
to form hydrogen sulfide (H^S). Therefore, waste gas from the hydrocracker contains large amounts of F^S,
which can be processed for removal of sulfur.
9.1.3.3 Catalytic Reforming1-In reforming piocesses, a feedstock of gasoline undergoes molecular rearrange-
ment via catalysis (usually including hydrogen removal) to produce a gasoline of higher quality and octane
number. In various fixed-bed and fluidized-bed processes, the catalyst is regenerated continously, in a manner
similar to that used with cracking units.
There are essentially no emissions from reforming operations.
9.1.3.4 Polymerization. Alkylation, and Isomenzation1-Polymerization and alkylation are processes used to
produce gasoline from the gaseous hydrocarbons formed during cracking operations. Polymerization joins two or
9.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
more olefms (noncychc unsaturated hydrocarbons with C=C double bonds), and alkylation unites an olefin and
an iso-paraffm (noncyclic branched-chain hydrocarbon saturated with hydrogen). Isomerization is the process for
altering the arrangement of atoms in a molecule without adding or removing anything from the original material,
and is usually used in the oil industry to form branched-chain hydrocarbons. A number of catalysts such as
phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, platinum, aluminum chloride, and hydrofluoric acid are used to promote the
combination or rearrangement of these light hydrocarbons.
9.1.3.5 Emissions-These three processes, including regeneration of any necessary catalysts, form essentially
closed systems and have no unique, major source of atmospheric emissions. However, the highly volatile
hydrocarbons handled, coupled with the high process pressures required, make valve stems and pump shafts
difficult to seal, and a greater emission rate from these sources can generally be expected in these process areas
than would be the average throughout the refinery. The best method for controlling these emissions is the
effective maintenance, repair, and replacement of pump seals, valve caulking, and pipe-joint sealer.
9.1.4 Treating
"Hydrogen," "chemical," and "physical" treating are used in the refinery process to remove undesirable
impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen to improve product quality.
9.1.4.1 Hydrogen Treating1—In this procedure hydrogen is reacted with impurities in compounds to produce
removable hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and water. In addition, the process converts diolefins (gum-forming
hydrocarbons with the empirical formula R=C=R) into stable compounds while minimizing saturation of
desirable aromatics.
Hydrogenation units are nearly all the fixed-bed type with catalyst replacement or regeneration (by
combustion) done intermittently, the frequency of which is dependent upon operating conditions and the
product being treated. The hydrogen sulfide produced is removed from the hydrogen stream via extraction and
converted to elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid or, when present in small quantities, burned to S02 in a flare or
boiler firebox.
9.1.4.2 Chemical Treating1-Chemical treating is generally classified into four groups: (1) acid treatment, (2)
sweetening, (3) solvent extraction, and (4) additives. Acid treatment involves contacting hydrocarbons with
sulfuric acid to partially remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds, to precipitate asphaltic or gum-like materials,
and to improve color and odor. Spent acid sludges that result are usually converted to ammonium sulfate or
sulfuric acid.
Sweetening processes oxidize mercaptans (formula: R-S-H) to disulfide (formula: R-S-S-R) without actual
sulfur removal. In some processes, air and steam are used for agitation in mixing tanks and to reactivate chemical
solutions.
Solvent extraction utilizes solvents that have affinities for the undesirable compounds and that can easily be
removed from the product stream. Specifically, mercaptan compounds are usually extracted using a strong caustic
solution; hydrogen sulfide is removed by a number of commercial processes.
Finally, additives or inhibitors are primarily materials added in small amounts to oxidize mercaptans to
disulfide and to retard gum formation.
4/73 Petroleum Industry 9.1-7
-------
9.1.4.3 Physical Treating^Some of the many physical methods used to remove impurities include electrical
coalescence, filtration, absorption, and air blowing. Specific applications of physical methods are desalting crude
oil, removing wax, decolorizing lube oils, and brightening diesel oil.
9.1.4.4 Emissions - Emissions from treating operations consist of SC>2, hydrocarbons, and visible plumes.
Emission levels depend on the methods used in handling spent acid and acid sludges, as well as the means
employed for recovery or disposal of hydrogen sulfide. Other potential sources of these emissions in treating
include catalyst regeneration, air agitation in mixing tanks, and other air blowing operations. Trace amounts of
malodorous substances may escape from numerous sources including settling tank vents, purge tanks, waste
treatment units, waste-water drains, valves, and pump seals.
Control methods used include: covers for waste water separators; vapor recovery systems for settling and surge
tanks; improved maintenance for pumps, valves, etc; and sulfur recovery plants.
9.1.5 Blending1
The final major operation in petroleum refining consists of blending the products in various proportions to
meet certain specifications, such as vapor pressure, specific gravity, sulfur content, viscosity, octane number,
initial boiling point, and pour point.
9.1.5.1 Emissions — Emissions associated with this operation are hydrocarbons that leak from storage vessels,
valves, and pumps. Vapor recovery systems and specially built tanks minimize storage emissions; good
housekeeping precludes pump and valve leakage.
9.1.6 Miscellaneous Operations1
In addition to the four refinery operations described above, there are many process operations connected with
all four. These involve the use of cooling towers, blow-down systems, process heaters and boilers, compressors,
and process drains. The emissions and controls associated with these operations are listed in Table 9.1-1.
References for Chapter 9
1. Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries: A Guide for Measurement and Control. U.S. DHEW,
Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. PHS Publication Number 763. 1960.
2. Impurities in Petroleum. In: Petreco Manual. Long Beach, Petrolite Corp. 1958. p.l.
3. Jones, Ben G. Refinery Improves Particulate Control. The Oil and Gas Journal. 69(26):60-62. June 28, 1971.
4. Private communications with personnel in the Emission Testing Branch, Applied Technology Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., regarding source testing at a petroleum
refinery preparatory to setting new source standards. June-August 1972.
5. Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide in Air Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication Number AP-52. January 1969.
6. Olson, H.N. and K.E. Hutchinson. How Feasible are Giant, One-Train Refineries? The Oil and Gas Journal.
70(l):39-43. January 3, 1972.
9.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 4/73
-------
10. WOOD PROCESSING
Wood processing involves the conversion of raw wood to either pulp, pulpboard, or one of several types of
wallboard including plywood, particleboard, or hardboard. This section presents emissions data for chemical
wood pulping as well as for pulpboard and plywood manufacturing. The burning of wood waste in boilers and
conical burners is not included as it is discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this publication.
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING Revised by Thomas Lahre
10.1.1 General*
Chemical wood pulping involves the extraction of cellulose from wood by dissolving the lignin that binds the
cellulose fibers together. The principal processes used in chemical pulping are the kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite
semichemical (NSSC), dissolving, and soda; the first three of these display the greatest potential for causing air
pollution. The kraft process accounts for about 65 percent of all pulp produced in the United States; the sulfite
and NSSC processes, together, account for less than 20 percent of the total. The choice of pulping process is de-
termined by the product being made, by the type of wood species available, and by economic considerations.
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping
10.1.2.1 Process Description1'2—The kraft process (see Figure 10.1.2-1) involves the cooking of wood chips
under pressure in the presence of a cooking liquor in either a batch or a continuous digester. The cooking liquor,
or "white liquor," consisting of an aqueous solution of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide, dissolves the lignin
that binds the cellulose fibers together.
When cooking is completed, the contents of the digester are forced into the blow tank. Here the major portion
of the spent cooking liquor, which contains the dissolved lignin, is drained, and the pulp enters the initial stage of
washing. From the blow tank the pulp passes through the knotter where unreacted chunks of wood are removed.
The pulp is then washed and, in some mills, bleached before being pressed and dried into the finished product.
It is economically necessary to recover both the inorganic cooking chemicals and the heat content of the spent
"black liquor," which is separated from the cooked pulp. Recovery is accomplished by first concentrating the
liquor to a level that will support combustion and then feeding it to a furnace where burning and chemical recovery
take place.
Initial concentration of the weak black liquor, which contains about 15 percent solids, occurs in the multiple-
effect evaporator. Here process steam is passed countercurrent to the liquor in a series of evaporator tubes that
increase the solids content to 40 to 55 percent. Further concentration is then effected in the direct contact
evaporator. This is generally a scrubbing device (a cyclonic or venturi scrubber or a cascade evaporator) in which
hot combustion gases from the recovery furnace mix with the incoming black liquor to raise its solids content to
55 to 70 percent.
The black liquor concentrate is then sprayed into the recovery furnace where the organic content supports
combustion. The inorganic compounds fall to the bottom of the furnace and are discharged to the smelt dissolving
tank to form a solution called "green liquor." The green liquor is then conveyed to a causticizer where slaked
lime (calcium hydroxide) is added to convert the solution back to white liquor, which can be reused in subsequent
cooks. Residual lime sludge from the causticizer can be recycled after being dewatered and calcined in the hot
lime kiln.
Many mills need more steam for process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power, etc., than
can be provided by the recovery furnace alone. Thus, conventional industrial boilers that burn coal, oil, natural
gas, and in some cases, bark and wood waste are commonly employed.
5/74 Wood Processing 10.1-1
-------
o
o
_
Q.
CD
>
o
o
Q)
C
CO
=J
Q.
Q)
CO
=:
CO
CO
cO
o
°H
o
O)
u.
o
10.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/74
-------
10.1.2.2. Emission and Controlsl-6 — Participate 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.
Particulate 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.
5/74 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 con-
trols 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
10.1.3.1 Process Descriptionl>7,l4-16__The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds similarly to kraft pulping
except that different chemicals are used in the cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve
the lignin in the wood, a sulfurous-acid base is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a bisulfite of sodium,
magnesium, calcium, or ammonium is used.
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, chemical recovery is not
practical, and the spent liquor is usually discarded. 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 (the latter being utilized most frequently in newer sulfite mills) heat, sulfur, and base
recovery are all feasible.
When recovery is practiced, the spent liquor proceeds through a multiple-effect evaporator and recovery furnace
arrangement similar to that found in the kraft process. The combustion gases from the furnace pass through
absorbing (sulfiting) towers where sulfur dioxide is recovered (as bisulfite) for use in subsequent cooks. In
magnesium- or sodium-base operations, moreover, the base can also be recovered by feeding the inorganic residue
from the furnace (either as smelt or collected ash) into the absorbing tower to react with the sulfur dioxide.
10.1.3.2 Emission and Controlsl'3»7.14-16_Significant quantities of particulate emissions will be generated
only if sodium-, magnesium-, or calcium-base liquors are burned. When ammonium-base liquor is burned, few
particulates will result because the combustion products are mostly nitrogen, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide.
In magnesium-base recovery systems, high particulate control is necessary because most of the base is swept out
of the furnace in the form of magnesium oxide fumes. No particulate emissions will result from these systems,
of course, when the spent liquor is not combusted.
The major gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Major potential sources, in probable order of importance, in-
clude the digester/blow tank system, absorbing towers, and multiple-effect evaporators. Because the vented gases
from these systems are either scrubbed or fed into the absorbing tower to minimize sulfur losses, actual emissions
to the atmosphere will depend on the degree of efficiencies desired.
The characteristic "kraft" odor is not emitted from acid sulfite mills because volatile reduced sulfur compounds
are not products of the lignin-bisulfite reaction.
No factors for sulfite pulping are presented because of the variety of pulping schemes employed and lack of
adequate emissions data.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
10.1.4.1 Process DescriptionU,14,17_in this process, 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
10.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 5/74
-------
_o
(D
0*
cS,
OC ^
CO
l|
CO
cc
01
IT
C CO
01 —
O) 01
•oE
i **
"toi
o —
-O X
i- O
CO C
O 0
£
o
^_ o
•2 ~~
t-n ~°
1/3 X
g
"O
•"ii
01
S
B
t
«j
Q.
1
^
L_
^>
-^
C
o
5
r-
•*
C
o
£
t-
^
O)
c
o
4-<
—
1
I —
01
-*
c
o
5
1—
5"
c
o
4-1
o
o
o
01
o
o
if)
LO LO
LO — — — — CMCMLOLO
r» T- CM LOLO LO LO CM CM <- *- CM CM
o do do o d ddddo d
LO LO
LO CM ^J ^ "^ CM CV LO LO
,— ' do 'T-~"i— "*— '~*— o o o o o o
LO
LO <— LO CM CM LO LO O
OOO OOCMCMO
O OO CO CO CD CD OOOOO
CM •* >3- r-
*- O r- OOLOLOO,
d o' d CM CM "CM CM d d d o' d
f • \ (—* C* CO
n ^ co co
| II i , ' ' 1 1 LO LO 1
O O ° O
CO CO .i_-c!-n-a ~o -o
dl OCL) CD CUI(/).t_i-CUCP^CP>-CD dl
CD CD CD CD t o £ — — o CD Q- CD _Q CD CD
CD CD CD CD iL 31 •"-' O|~ 3 -c-)'D' <" = cw)ctn
iog-B" §"§«§• - •§ lu §^"§0 =
Qcfl^oc collies
^:
01
0
c
01
CD
H-
01
CC
3
in
c
8
in
1
'o
in
01
a.
o
'o
01
a.
in
c
o
CO
s
13
13
01
CO
ff-
In, recovery furnace, or equivalent, the reduced sulfur compounds
_5
01
01
.c
0
13
HI
>
01
CO
in
01
o
§
01
1/1
01
o
(n
ncondensible gase:
i
01
j:
dT
T3
01
>
0
in
0)
T3
01
k_
CO
in
"5
c
o
u
oi
s:
3
**-
O
C
i
c
o
ra
o
a
CO
01
o
to
u
o
CD
T3
O
H-
•a
01
in
3
in
fe
CO
S
Q.
CO
01
scrubber or cascad
u
'c
o
0
o
CO
OJ
j:
.t^
01
c
01
J2
"a.
a.
CO
in
o
o
CO
01
in
01
.c
I—
^
o
o
cn
>-
^2
4-1
3
O
01
J3
C
CO
O
*B
J3
13
01
>•
O
a
01
in
c
o
CD
T3
X
O
0
1
^
0
CO
_a
c
01
i
*rf
c
0
0
aj
a
0
in
ted optimally.
CO
oi
a
o
in
01
'pically reduced by
the recovery furnac
^~
01
CO
cc
in
-a
3
luced sulfur compo
CD
01
in
01
j:
^_
13
c
CO
£
01
1
0
o
cn
nt when oxidation i
0)
u
01
a
cn
cn
aporation with no further controls.
m
contact i
1
•c
o
T3
01
cn
3
0)
3
«
enturi
>
CO
c
01
"i
"5.
Q.
CO
in
v.
O
CO
01
in
J
._ ,
(1.5) when employed after an electrostatic precipitator.
m
13
C
CO
oi
J3
ows a venturi scru
o
oi
_Q
J2
3
U
in
>-
CO
'x
cc
c
SL
LO'
u?
0)
If!
D
TD
01
in
3
S
-a
3
O
in
d
(0
d
'o
o
0
CO
CO
*'
13
_3
U
C
in
c
o
to
13
X
0
6
3
D"
U
3
C
01
i
o
4-1
01
in
c
CO
"co
01
in
o
o
to
i
knotter vents, brov
nsludes
_ _
5/74
Wood Processing
10.1-5
-------
acts as a buffer to maintain a neutral solution. The major difference between this process (as well as all semi-
chemical 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 mechanical 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.
The NSSC process varies from mill to mill. Some mills dispose of their spent liquor, some mills recover the
cooking chemicals, and some, which are operated in conjunction with kraft mills, mix their spent liquor with the
kraft liquor as a source of makeup chemicals. When recovery is practiced, the steps involved parallel those of the
sulfite process.
10.1.4.2 Emissions and Controlsl>7>14,17—Particulate emissions are a potential problem only when recovery
systems are employed. Mills that do practice recovery, but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations
often utilize fluidized bed reactors to burn their spent liquor. Because the flue gas contains sodium sulfate and
sodium carbonate dust, efficient particulate collection may be included to facilitate chemical recovery.
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. The absorbing towers, digester/blow tank system, and recovery
furnace are 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
source 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, B.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. 66:13-
80, March 1970.
5. Galeano, S. F. and K. M. Leopold. A Survey of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides in the Pulp Mill. TAPPI.
56(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.
10.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 5/74
-------
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.
8. Blosser, R. O. and H. 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
Oxidized Black-Liquor. TAPPI. 56:83-86, January 1973.
10. Walther, J. E. and H. R. Amberg. Emission Control at the Kraft Recovery Furnaces. TAPPI. 55(3): 1185-
1188, August 1972.
11. 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. 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.
15. Whittle, D. J. Sulfite and Bisulfite Pulp Mill Recovery Systems. TAPPI. 54(7): 1074-1088, July 1971.
16. Clement, J. L. and W. L. Sage. Ammonia-Base Liquor Burning and Sulfur Dioxide Recovery. TAPPI. 52
(8):1449-1455, August 1969.
17. 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.
5/74 Wood Processing 10.1-7
-------
-------
10.2 PULPBOARD
10.2.1 Generali
Pulpboard manufacturing involves the fabrication of fibrous boards from a pulp slurry. This includes two dis-
tinct types of product, paperboard and fiberboard. Paperboard is a general term that describes a sheet 0.012 inch
(0.30 mm) or more in thickness made of fibrous material on a paper-forming machine.2 Fiberboard, also referred
to as particle board, is thicker than paperboard and is made somewhat differently.
There are two distinct phases in the conversion of wood to pulpboard: (1) the manufacture of pulp from raw
wood and (2) the manufacture of pulpboard from the pulp. This section deals only with the latter as the former
is covered under the section on the wood pulping industry.
10.2.2 Process Description1
In the manufacture of paperboard, the stock is sent through screens into the head box, from which it flows
onto a moving screen. Approximately 15 percent of the water is removed by suction boxes located under the
screen. Another 50 to 60 percent of the moisture content is removed in the drying section. The dried board
then enters the calendar stack, which imparts the final surface to the product.
In the manufacture of fiberboard, the slurry that remains after pulping is washed and sent to the stock chests
where sizing is added. The refined fiber from the stock chests is fed to the head box of the board machine. The
stock is next fed onto the forming screens and sent to dryers, after which the dry product is finally cut and
fabricated.
10.2.3 Emissionsi
Emissions from the paperboard machine consist mainly of water vapor; little or no particulate matter is emit-
ted from the dryers.3-5 Particulates are emitted, however, from the fiberboard drying operation. Additional
particulate emissions occur from the cutting and sanding operations, but no data are available to estimate these
emissions. Emission factors for pulpboard manufacturing are shown in Table 10.2-1.
Table 10.2-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
PULPBOARD MANUFACTURING3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
Type of product
Paperboard
Fiberboardb
Emissions
Ib/ton
Neg
0.6
kg/MT
Neg
0.3
aEmission factors expressed as units per unit weight of finished product.
bReference 1.
References for Section 10.2
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Resources Research, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, B.C. under Contract No. CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. The Dictionary of Paper. New York, American Paper and Pulp Association, 1940.
5/74 EMISSION FACTORS 10.2-1
-------
3. Hough, G. W. and L. J. Gross. Air Emission Control in a Modern Pulp and Paper Mill. Amer. Paper Industry.
51:36, February 1969.
4. Pollution Control Progress. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 77:410, June 1967.
5. Private communication between I. Gellman and the National Council of the Paper Industry for Clean Air
and Stream Improvement. New York, October 28,1969.
10.2-2 Wood Processing 5/74
-------
10.3 PLYWOOD VENEER AND LAYOUT OPERATIONS
By Thomas Lahre
10.3.1 Process Descriptioni
Plywood is a material made of several thin wood veneers bonded together with an adhesive. Its uses are many
and include wall sidings, sheathing, roof-decking, concrete-formboards, floors, and containers.
During the manufacture of plywood, incoming logs are sawed to desired length, debarked, and then peeled
into thin, continuous veneers of uniform thickness. (Veneer thicknesses of 1/45 to 1/5 inch are common.)
These veneers are then transported to special dryers where they are subjected to high temperatures until dried to
a desired moisture content. After drying, the veneers are sorted, patched, and assembled in layers with some
type of thermosetting resin used as the adhesive. The veneer assembly is then transferred to a hot press where,
under presssure and steam heat, the plywood product is formed. Subsequently, all that remains is trimming,
sanding, and possibly some sort of finishing treatment to enhance the usefullness of the plywood.
10.3.2 Emissions2,3
The main sources of emissions from plywood manufacturing are the veneer drying and sanding operations.
A third source is the pressing operation although these emissions are considered minor.
The major pollutants emitted from veneer dryers are organics. These consist of two discernable fractions:
(1) condensibles, consisting of wood resins, resin acids, and wood sugars, which form a blue haze upon cooling
in the atmosphere, and (2) volatiles, which are comprised of terpines and unburned methane-the latter occurring
when gas-fired dryers are employed. The amounts of these compounds produced depends on the wood species
dried, the drying time, and the nature and operation of the dryer itself. In addition, negligible amounts of fine
wood fibers are also emitted during the drying process.
Sanding operations are a potential source of particulate emissions. It is estimated that about 1,000 pounds
of sanderdust may result for every 10,000 square feet of plywood produced. Hence, even if only a fraction of
this is discharged to the atmosphere, an air pollution problem may exist. Few data exist to determine the actual
magnitude of these emissions although efficient cyclonic collectors reportedly remove large portions of this dust.
Emission factors for plywood veneer dryers without controls are given in Table 10.3-1.
Table 10.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Source
Veneer dryers
Organic compounda-b
Condensible
Ib/104ft2
3.6
kg/103 m2
1.9
Volatile
lb/1 04 ft2
2.1
kg/103 m2
1.1
aEmission factors expressed in pounds of pollutant per 10,000 square feet of 3/8-in. plywood produced (kilograms per 1,000
square meters on a 1-cm basis).
bReferences 2 and 3.
5/74
EMISSION FACTORS
10.3-1
-------
References for Section 10.3
1. Hemming, C. B. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 2nd Ed. Vol. 15. New York, John Wiley and Sons,
1968. p.896-907.
2. Monroe, F. L. et al. Investigation of Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers. Final Report. Washington
State University, Pullman, Washington. Prepared for the Plywood Research Foundation and the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. APTD-1144. February 1972.
3. Mick, Allen and Dean McCargar. Air Pollution Problems in Plywood, Particleboard, and Hardboard Mills in
the Mid-Willamette Valley. Mid-Willamette Valley Air Pollution Authority, Salem Oregon. March 24, 1969.
10.3-2 Wood Processing 5/74
-------
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
This chapter contains emission factor information on those source categories that differ substantially from-and
hence cannot be grouped with-the other "stationary" sources discussed in this publication. These "miscellaneous"
emitters (both natural and man-made) are almost exclusively "area sources", that is, their pollutant generating
process(es) are dispersed over large land areas (for example, hundreds of acres, as in the case of forest wildfires), as
opposed to sources emitting from one or more stacks with a total emitting area of only several square feet. Another
characteristic these sources have in common is the nonapplicability, in most cases, of conventional control
methods, such as wet/dry equipment, fuel switching, process changes, etc. Instead, control of these emissions,
where possible at all, may include such techniques as modification of agricultural burning practices, paving with
asphalt or concrete, or stabilization of dirt roads. Finally, miscellaneous sources generally emit pollutants
intermittently, when compared with most stationary point sources. For example, a forest fire may emit large
quantities of particulates and carbon monoxide for several hours or even days, but when measured against the
emissions of a continuous emitter (such as a sulfuric acid plant) over a long period of time (1 year, for example), its
emissions may seem relatively minor. Effects on air quality may also be of relatively short-term duration.
11.1 FOREST WILDFIRES
11.1.1 General1
by William M. Vatavuk, EPA
and George Yamate, JIT (Consultant)
A forest "wildfire" is a large-scale natural combustion process that consumes various ages, sizes, and types of
botanical specimens growing outdoors in a defined geographical area. Consequently, wildfires are potential sources
of large amounts of air pollutants that should be considered when trying to relate emissions to air quality.
The size and intensity (or even the occurrence) of a wildfire is directly dependent on such variables as the local
meteorological conditions, the species of trees and their moisture content, and the weight of consumable fuel per
acre (fuel loading). Once a fire begins, the dry combustible material (usually small undergrowth and forest floor
litter) is consumed first, and if the energy release is large and of sufficient duration, the drying of green, live
material occurs with subsequent burning of this material as well as the larger dry material. Under proper
environmental and fuel conditions, this process may initiate a chain reaction that results in a widespread
conflagration.
The complete combustion of a forest fuel will require a heat flux (temperature gradient), an adequate oxygen
supply, and sufficient burning time. The size and quantity of forest fuels, the meteorological conditions, and the
topographic features interact to modify and change the burning behavior as the fire spreads; thus, the wildfire will
attain different degrees of combustion during its lifetime.
The importance of both fuel type and fuel loading on the fire process cannot be overemphasized. To meet the
pressing need for this kind of information, the U.S. Forest Service is developing a country-wide fuel identification
system (model) that will provide estimates of fuel loading by tree-size class, in tons per acre. Further, the
environmental parameters of wind, slope, and expected moisture changes have been superimposed on this fuel
model and incorporated into a National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDR). This system considers five classes of
fuel (three dead and two living), the components of which are selected on the basis of combustibility, response to
moisture (for the dead fuels), and whether the living fuels are herbaceous (plants) or ligneous (trees).
Most fuel loading figures are based on values for "available fuel" (combustible material that will be consumed in
a wildfire under specific weather conditions). Available fuel values must not be confused with corresponding values
for either "total fuel" (all the combustible material that would burn under the most severe weather and burning
11.1-1
-------
conditions) or "potential fuel" (the larger woody material that remains even after an extremely high intensity
wildfire). It must be emphasized, however, that the various methods of fuel identification are of value only when
they are related to the existing fuel quantity, the quantity consumed by the fire, and the geographic area and
conditions under which the fire occurs.
For the sake of conformity (and convenience), estimated fuel loadings were obtained for the vegetation in the
National Forest Regions and the wildlife areas established by the U.S. Forest Service, and are presented in Table
11.1-1. Figure 11.1-1 illustrates these areas and regions.
Table 11.1-1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUEL
CONSUMED BY FOREST FIRES3
Area and
Region'3
Rocky Mountain group
Region 1:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Northern
Rocky Mountain
Southwestern
Intermountain
Pacific group
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 10:
California
Pacific Northwest
Alaska
Coastal
Interior
Southern group
Region 8:
Southern
Eastern group
North Central group
Region 9:
Conifers
Hardwoods
Estimated average fuel loading
MT/hectare
83
135
67
22
40
43
40
135
36
135
25
20
20
25
25
22
27
ton/acre
37
60
30
10
8
19
18
60
16
60
11
9
9
11
11
10
12
a.
Reference 1.
See Figure 11.1-1 for regional boundaries.
11.1.2 Emissions and Controls1
It has been hypothesized (but not proven) that the nature and amounts of air pollutant emissions are directly
related to the intensity and direction (relative to the wind) of the wildfire, and indirectly related to the rate at
which the fire spreads. The factors that affect the rate of spread are (1) weather (wind velocity, ambient
temperature, and relative humidity), (2) fuels (fuel type, fuel bed array, moisture content, and fuel size), and (3)
topography (slope and profile). However, logistical problems (such as size of the burning area) and difficulties in
safely situating personnel and equipment close to the fire have prevented the collection of any reliable
experimental emission data on actual wildfires, so that it is presently impossible to verify or disprove the
above-stated hypothesis. Therefore, until such measurements are made, the only available information is that
11.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
JUNEAU
• HEADQUARTERS
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
Figure 11.1-1. Forest areas and U.S. Forest Service Regions.
obtained from burning experiments in the laboratory. These data, in the forms of both emissions and emission
factors, are contained in Table 11.1-2. It must be emphasized that the factors presented here are adequate for
laboratory-scale emissions estimates, but that substantial errors may result if they are used to calculate actual
wildfire emissions.
The emissions and emission factors displayed in Table 11.1-2 are calculated using the following formulas:
F; = PjL
EJ = FjA = PjLA
where: Fj = Emission factor (mass of pollutant/unit area of forest consumed)
Pj = Yield for pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant/unit mass of forest fuel consumed)
= 8.5 kg/MT (17 Ib/ton) for total particulate
= 70 kg/MT (140 Ib/ton) for carbon monoxide
= 12 kg/MT (24 Ib/ton) for total hydrocarbon (as CH4)
(1)
(2)
1/75
Internal Combustion Engine Sources
11.1-3
-------
(Q
CO
u.
Q
CO
111
CC
O
u.
DC
O
u.
co
DC
o
<
oo cc
I O
LU H
Q^
^l
O co
81
S m
LU
CO
CM
_Q)
CO
1—
^
2
U)
C
O
'in
(/>
'c
^
LU
2!
CO
o
;^
cn
•*_
O
o
CO
c
o
wl
E
LLl
c
Cn v
i= x
1°
0 C
>- ~£
T CO
-^ O
0>
C T3
O '3
-S o
co C
0 0
E
6 cu
'-P —
CO "^
Q.
c
as
o 2
£ x
i vi
o c
"O _Q
ICO
0
CO
c TO
Q " V
-Q o
ra c
0 o
6 cu
't n>
CO -j
ex.
§ S
0> '<3 CO
IllS
r^i *+— ^3 c~
5 c H
o S
o "^
0) CO" CU
CO CZ .^ i-
0 5 -C
o
.Q.
CO
CO
CO
o
'.n
Q.
CO
cn
O
cu
<3
CO LO O LO O
r- CD co co r~-
CD CN co r*^ Is-
* — oo oo oo
LO CO
o> CN r^ co o
co cn in co CM
00; LO_ r- LO CC_
•-* cn" co" CM" '3-'
«— CM LO CM
00 CM
Is- oo co Is- oo
co co co «- in
cn cn o «— co
«- CO <- CO CM
CO CO 00 «-
«— 1 —
Is- co *3- Is- co
O CM LO LO Is-
CD CD CD CD CN
o" CM" Is-* LO" oo"
CN CD 00 «-
CN r-
CO CD LO LO CO
CO CD CO •* 00
t- CM «-
co o oo cn in
CD CM O CD t-
cn co_ co CM CM
>—
o o o o o
i- CN r- 1^ CD
oo ^ r-~ LO CN
LO" CD" •*" «— ' *- "
CO ^ CN «- CO
O rr r^ CD in
i^ »-_ in <- «-
"
oo in p~ CM o
CO 00 CD CM t
T—
r» co CM in in
CD l-~ 00 CD Is-
oo" CM" LO" co" t-"
T- ^ CO 00 CN
CO T-
c"
CO » f^
c c E 'S
'co '•"DcuCO*^^"
§ E .2 ^ .2 i .2 o .2
5" o.^ ° o £
"5 D ^ CC CO —
0 0
CC cn
«- 00 CO CO
CN oo r^ co
O^ LO_ OO CO^
o" •— " o" r--"
t 00
CD CD LO 00
CN CD LO 00
o" CD" CM" •3-"
T 00 >*
CM «-
oo in "3- co
00 "3- LO CO
o" oo" co" Is-*
o in co in
^ O CM
t- r-"
o ^r oo co
CD «— CD CD
o_ in o CN
o" CD" cn" <-"
Is- CM CO
^" '
in «— CM cn
CO CO 1s- CO
CN
CM in T- o
«- 00 CO CM
in ^c ^ CD
*~
O O O 0
00 00 <- CN
CD^ ^ in ^r
CN" CM" CM" cn"
CM co in 'a-
CD •* O M-
OO CO CO •-
r—
CO O CD LO
t "* CO 00
T""
CD Is- O O
O CD CO 00
cn CD_ in co_
CD" -co" oo" r-*
CO i- CM CN
o
LO «- ^ CO
Q. co" C C . C
3 C .2 .°^ 0
O *- O* CO Ol O *-"
i_ O OJ _v -
•* •*
^3" **J"
Sj CM
co" oo"
r> co
*~ *~
o o
CN CM
«3" ^~
CM CN
0 0
*3" *d"
^-" ^J"
CM CN
r*»«. r*s
o o
CM CM
CD CD
CO CO
CN CN
CD" CD"
o o
00 00
Q. OO
2 E §
01 S '5i
c -C 3 "-
^C O
-00
o
CO
^r «t
t CO
CD cn
*t" CD"
Is- in
CD CO
oq r--
^" ^^r
N <•
in co
LO ^
U1 ^
CN" co"
CD «t
<- CN
CD 00
ro CD
^- LO
CD CD
«- CM
CD CD
CO CD
CD CD
CN CN
O O
CO CO
T— " f— "
0 O
CM CM
in LO
CM CN
r- oo
cn co
v- CN_
CD 5
a
O- CD
t: " cu
cn c i-
— .2 ca
t a? g-O5
S O c
0 c o> .9
|||I
-Z. LU — .£
o
CM
CO
CN"
CO
t —
cn
oo"
^^
r—
cn
r—
CO
CD
LO
CO
CD"
O)
CO
CD
CN
O
CO
P-.
,_"
o
CM
LO
CM
CO
S
s
CD"
3.1
|- 0)
O) QJ
c fy
QJ f
LU S
LO
CD
^J*
co
CD
CO
00^
T—
CD
^
CO
co"
co_
^"
CN
LO
in
o"
CO
in
CD
Is-
00
in
*3"
O
r— .
CO
CM"
CM
CO
CO
CO
0
CO
o"
CO
(/I
CD
CO
+-"
CO
-a
"c.
~m
O
1-
•a
0)
c
•o
aj
O
-i5
I
11.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
= 2 kg/MT (4 Ib/ton) for nitrogen oxides (NOX)
= Negligible for sulfur oxides (SOX)
L = Fuel loading consumed (mass of forest fuel/unit land area burned)
A = Land area burned
EJ = Total emissions of pollutant "i" (mass of pollutant)
For example, suppose that it is necessary to estimate the total particulate emissions from a 10,000 hectare
wildfire in the Southern area (Region 8). From Table 11.1-1 it is seen that the average fuel loading is 20
MT/hectare (9 ton/acre). Further, the pollutant yield for particulates is 8.5 kg/MT (17 Ib/ton). Therefore, the
emissions are:
E = (8.5 kg/MT of fuel) (20 MT of fuel/hectare) (10,000 hectares)
E = 1,700,000 kg = 1,700 MT
The most effective method for controlling wildfire emissions is, of course, to prevent the occurrence of forest
fires using various means at the forester's disposal. A frequently used technique for reducing wildfire occurrence is
"prescribed" or "hazard reduction" burning. This type of managed burn involves combustion of litter and
underbrush in order to prevent fuel buildup on the forest floor and thus reduce the danger of a wildfire. Although
some air pollution is generated by this preventative burning, the net amount is believed to be a relatively smaller
quantity than that produced under a wildfire situation.
Reference for Section 11.1
1. Development of Emission Factors for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from Forest Fires. Final Report. IIT
Research Institute, Chicago, 111. Prepared foi Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-0641, October 1973. (Publication
No. EPA-450/3-73-009).
1/75 Internal Combustion Engine Sources 11.1-5
-------
-------
11.2 FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES by Charles O. Mann, EPA,
and Chat ten C. Cowherd, Jr.,
Midwest Research Institute
Significant sources of atmospheric dust arise from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to
the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not discharged to the
atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of fugitive dust include: (1) unpaved roads, (2)
agricultural tilling operations, (3) aggregate storage piles, and (4) heavy construction operations.
For the above categories of fugitive dust sources, the dust generation process is caused by two basic physical
phenomena:
1. Pulverization and abrasion of surface materials by application of mechanical force through implements
(wheels, blades, etc.).
2. Entrainment of dust particles by the action of turbulent air currents. Airborne dust may also be generated
independently by wind erosion of an exposed surface if the wind speed exceeds about 12 mi/hr (19 km/hr).
The air pollution impact of a fugitive dust source depends on the quantity and drift potential of the dust
particles injected into the atmosphere. In addition to large dust particles that settle out near the source (often
creating a localized nuisance problem), considerable amounts of fine particles are also emitted and dispersed over
much greater distances from the source.
Control techniques for fugitive dust sources generally involve watering, chemical stabilization, or reduction of
surface wind speed using windbreaks or source enclosures. Watering, the most common and generally least
expensive method, provides only temporary dust control. The use of chemicals to treat exposed surfaces provides
longer term dust suppression but may be costly, have adverse impacts on plant and animal life, or contaminate
the treated material. Windbreaks and source enclosures are often impractical because of the size of fugitive dust
sources. At present, too few data are available to permit estimation of the control efficiencies of these methods.
11.2.1 Unpaved Roads (Dirt and Gravel)
11.2.1.1 General—Dust plumes trailing behind vehicles traveling on unpaved roads are a familiar sight in rural
areas of the United States. When a vehicle travels over an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road
surface cause pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the
road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the
vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.
11.2.1.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of
unpaved road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. In addition, emissions depend on correction parameters
(average vehicle speed, vehicle mix, surface texture, and surface moisture) that characterize the condition of a
particular road and the associated vehicular traffic.
In the typical speed range on unpaved roads, that is, 30-50 mi/hr (48-80 km/hr), the results of field
measurements indicate that emissions are directly proportional to vehicle speed.1"3 Limited field measurements
further indicate that vehicles produce dust from an unpaved road in proportion to the number of wheels.1 For
roads with a significant volume of vehicles with six or more wheels, the traffic volume should be adjusted to the
equivalent volume of four-wheeled vehicles.
Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary in direct proportion to the fraction of silt (that is,
particles smaller than 75 y.m in diameter—as defined by American Association of State Highway Officials) in the
road surface material.1 The silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of loose, dry, surface dust
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2-1
-------
that passes a 200-mesh screen. The silt content of gravel roads averages about 12 percent, and the silt content of a
dirt road may be approximated by the silt content of the parent soil in the area.1
Unpaved roads have a hard, nonporous surface that dries quickly after a rainfall. The temporary reduction in
emissions because of rainfall may be accounted for by neglecting emissions on "wet" days, that is, days with
more than 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) of rainfall.
11.2.1.3 Corrected Emission Factor — The quantity of fugitive dust emissions from an unpaved road, per
vehicle-mile of travel, may be estimated (within ± 20 percent) using the following empirical expression1:
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per vehicle-mile
s = Silt content of road surface material, percent
S = Average vehicle speed, miles per hour
w = Mean annual number of days with 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) or more of rainfall (see Figure 11.2-1)
The equation is valid for vehicle speeds in the range of 30-50 mi/hr (48-80 km/hr).
On the average, dust emissions from unpaved roads, as given by equation 1, have the following particle size
characteristics:1
Particle size Weight percent
< 30 jum 60
> 30 Mm 40
The 30 jum value was determined1 to be the effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for the capture of road dust by
a standard high-volume filtration sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3 . On this basis, road dust
emissions of particles larger than 30-40 /irn in diameter are not likely to be captured by high-volume samplers
remote from unpaved roads. Furthermore, the potential drift distance of particles is governed by the initial
injection height of the particle, the particle's terminal settling velocity, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence.
Theoretical drift distances, as a function of particle diameter and mean wind speed, have been computed for
unpaved road emissions.1 These results indicate that, for a typical mean wind speed of 10 mi/hr (16 km/hr),
particles larger than about 100 /urn are likely to settle out within 20-30 feet (6-9 m) from the edge of the road.
Dust that settles within this distance is not included in equation 1. Particles that are 30-100 ^m in diameter are
likely to undergo impeded settling. These particles, depending upon the extent of atmospheric turbulence, are
likely to settle within a few hundred feet from the road. Smaller particles, particularly those less than 10-15 jum
in diameter, have much slower gravitational settling velocities and are much more likely to have their settling rate
retarded by atmospheric turbulence. Thus, based on the presently available data, it appears appropriate to report
only those particles smaller than 30 /urn (60 percent of the emissions predicted by Equation 1) as emissions that
may remain indefinitely suspended.
11.2.1.4 Control Methods - Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treating with
penetration chemicals, working of soil stabilization chemicals into the roadbed, watering, and traffic control
regulations. Paving as a control technique is often not practical because of its high cost. Surface chemical
treatments and watering can be accomplished with moderate to low costs, but frequent retreatments are required
for such techniques to be effective. Traffic controls, such as speed limits and traffic volume restrictions, provide
moderate emission reductions, but such regulations may be difficult to enforce. Table 11.2.1-1 shows
11.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
-------
approximate control efficiencies achievable for each method. Watering, because of the frequency of treatments
required, is generally not feasible for public roads and is effectively used only where watering equipment is
readily available and roads are confined to a single site, such as a construction location.
Table 11.2.1-1 CONTROL METHODS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Control method
Approximate control efficiency, %
Paving
Treating surface with penetrating chemicals
Working soil stabilizing chemicals into roadbed
Speed control3
30 mi/hr
20 mi/hr
15 mi/hr
85
50
50
25
65
80
aBased on the assumption that "uncontrolled" speed is typically 40 mi/hr. Between 30-50 mi/hr emissions are linearly
proportional to vehicle speed Below 30 mi/hr, however, emissions appear to be proportional to the square of the vehicle speed.1
References for Section 11.2.1
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. AxeteU, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. 450/3-74-037. June
1974.
2. Roberts, J. W., A. T. Rossano, P. T. Bosserman, G. C. Hofer, and H. A. Walters. The Measurement, Cost and
Control of Traffic Dust and Gravel Roads in Seattle's Duwamish Valley. (Presented at Annual Meeting of
Pacific Northwest International Section of Air Pollution Control Association. Eugene. November 1972. Paper
No.AP-72-5.)
3. Sehmel, G. A. Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck Traffic. Atmos. Environ.
7: 291-309, July 1973.
4. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Sciences Services
Administration, Environmental Data Service, Washington, D. C. June 1968.
5. Jutze, G. A., K. Axe tell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.. Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Task No. 4. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-
036a. June 1974.
11.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
11.2.2 Agricultural Tilling
11.2.2.1 General — The two universal objectives of agricultural tilling are the creation of the desired soil
structure to be used as the crop seedbed and the eradication of weeds. Plowing, the most common method of
tillage, consists of some form of cutting loose, granulating, and inverting the soil and turning under the organic
litter. Implements that loosen the soil and cut off the weeds but leave the surface trash in place, have recently
become more popular for tilling in dryland farming areas.
During a tilling operation, dust particles from the loosening and pulverization of the soil are injected into the
atmosphere as the soil is dropped to the surface. Dust emissions are greatest when the soil is dry and during final
seedbed preparation.
11.2.2.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from agricultural tilling is
proportional to the area of land tilled. In addition, emissions depend on the following correction parameters,
which characterize the condition of a particular field being tilled: (1) surface soil texture, and (2) surface soil
moisture content.
Dust emissions from agricultural tilling have been found to vary in direct proportion to the silt content (that
is, particles between 2 jum and 50 jum in diameter—as defined by U.S. Department of Agriculture) of the surface
soil (0-10 cm depth).1 The soil silt content is commonly determined by the Buoyocous hydrometer method.2
Field measurements indicate that dust emissions from agricultural tilling are inversely proportional to the
square of the surface soil moisture (0-10 cm depth).1 Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation (PE) index3 is a
useful approximate measure of average surface soil moisture. The PE index is determined from total annual
rainfall and mean annual temperature; rainfall amounts must be corrected for irrigation.
Available test data indicate no substantial dependence of emissions on the type of tillage implement when
operating at a typical speed (for example, 8-10 km/hr).1
11.2.2.3 Corrected Emission Factor — The quantity of dust emissions from agricultural tilling, per acre of land
tilled, may be estimated (within ± 20 percent) using the following empirical expression1 :
1.4s (2)
E ='
/PE\2
V50/
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per acre
s = Silt content of surface soil, percent
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index (Figure 11.2-2)
Equation 2, which was derived from field measurements, excludes dust that settles out within 20-30 ft (6-9 m) of
the tillage path.
On the average, the dust emissions from agricultural tilling, as given by Equation 2, have the following particle
size characteristics1:
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.2-1
-------
Particle size Weight percent
< 30jum 80
> 30/mi 20
The 30 yum value was determined1 to be the effective aerodynamic cutoff diameter for capture of tillage dust by a
standard high-volume filtration sampler, based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3. As discussed in section
11.2.1.3, only particles smaller than about 30 /um have the potential for long range transport. Thus, for
agricultural tilling about 80 percent of the emissions predicted by Equation 2 are likely to remain suspended
indefinitely.
11.2.2.4 Control Methods4 - In general, control methods are not applied to reduce emissions from agricultural
tilling. Irrigation of fields prior to plowing will reduce emissions, but in many cases this practice would make the
soil unworkable and adversely affect the plowed soil's characteristics. Control methods for agricultural activities
are aimed primarily at reduction of emissions from wind erosion through such practices as continuous cropping,
stubble mulching, strip cropping, applying limited irrigation to fallow fields, building windbreaks, and using
chemical stabilizers. No data are available to indicate the effects of these or other control methods on agricultural
tilling, but as a practical matter it may be assumed that emission reductions are not significant.
References for Section 11.2.2.
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-037.
June 1974.
2. Buoyocous, G. J. Recalibration of the Hydrometer Method for Making Mechanical Analyses of Soils. Agron. J.
4?: 434-438, 1951.
3. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21:
633-655, 1931.
4. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
11.2.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
c
o
O
V->
CD
J
~o
OJ
•!->
cc
CO
O)
CO
n
x
0)
O
o
Q.
3
LU
C
O
o
+^
'CD
4-«
C
o
a
ca
CN
CN
O)
12/75
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.2-3
-------
-------
11.2.3 Aggregate Storage Piles
11.2.3.1 General - An inherent part of the operation of plants that utilize minerals in aggregate form is the
maintenance of outdoor storage piles. Storage piles are usually left uncovered, partially because of the necessity
for frequent transfer of material into or out of storage.
Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle—during loading of material onto the pile, during
disturbances by strong wind currents, and during loadout of material from the pile. The movement of trucks and
loading equipment in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of dust emissions.
11.2.3.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage
operations varies linearly with the volume of aggregate passing through the storage cycle. In addition, emissions
depend on the following correction parameters that characterize the condition of a particular storage pile: (1) age
of the pile, (2) moisture content, and (3) proportion of aggregate fines.
When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto a storage pile, its potential for dust emissions is at a
maximum. Fines are easily disaggregated and released to the atmosphere upon exposure to air currents resulting
from aggregate transfer or high winds. As the aggregate weathers, however, the potential for dust emissions is
greatly reduced. Moisture causes aggregation and cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles. Any
significant rainfall soaks the interior of the pile, and the drying process is very slow.
11.2.3.3 Corrected Emission Factor - Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles can be divided into the
contributions of several distinct source activities that occur within the storage cycle:
1. Loading of aggregate onto storage piles.
2. Equipment traffic in storage area.
3. Wind erosion.
4. Loadout of aggregate for shipment.
Table 11.2.3-1 shows the emissions contribution of each source activity, based on field tests of suspended dust
emissions from crushed stone and sand and gravel storage piles.1 A 3-month storage cycle was assumed in the
calculations.
Table 11.2.3-1 AGGREGATE STORAGE EMISSIONS
Source activity
Loading onto piles
Vehicular traffic
Wind erosion
Loadout from piles
Correction
parameter
PE index3
Rainfall frequency
Climatic factor
PE index3
Approximate
percentage of total
12
40
33
15
Total
100
Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index.
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.3-1
-------
Also shown in Table 11.2.3-1 are the climatic correction parameters that differentiate the emissions potential
of one aggregate storage area from another. Overall, Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index2 best
characterizes the variability of total emissions from aggregate storage piles.
The quantity of suspended dust emissions from aggregate storage piles, per ton of aggregate placed in storage,
may be estimated using the following empirical expression1:
E = 0-33
/PE \2 (3)
(m)
where: E = Emission factor, pounds per ton placed in storage
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index (see Figure 11.2-2)
Equation 3 describes the emissions of particles less than 30 /j.m in diameter. This particle size was determined1 to
be the effective cutoff diameter for the capture of aggregate dust by a standard high-volume filtration sampler,
based on a particle density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3 . Because only particles smaller than 30 jitm are included, equation 3
expresses the total emissions likely to remain indefinitely suspended. (See section 11.2.1.3).
11.2.3.4 Control Methods — Watering and use of chemical wetting agents are the principal means for control of
aggregate storage pile emissions. Enclosure or covering of inactive piles to reduce wind erosion can also reduce
emissions. Watering is useful mainly to reduce emissions from vehicular traffic in the storage pile area. Frequent
watering can, based on the breakdowns shown in Table 11.2-3, reduce total emission by about 40 percent.
Watering of the storage piles themselves typically has only a very temporary, minimal effect on total emissions. A
much more effective technique is to apply chemical wetting agents to provide better wetting of fines and longer
retention of the moisture film. Continuous chemical treatment of material loaded onto piles, coupled with
watering or treatment of roadways, can reduce total particulate emissions from aggregate storage operations by
up to 90 percent.3
References for Section 11.2.3
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-037.
June 1974.
2. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21:
633-655,1931.
3. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control.
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
11.2.3-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
11.2.4 Heavy Construction Operations
11.2.4.1 General — Heavy construction is a source of dust emissions that may have substantial temporary impact
on local air quality. Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest
emissions potential. Emissions during the construction of a building or road are associated with land clearing,
blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and the construction of the particular facility itself. Dust
emissions vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the
prevailing weather. A large portion of the emissions result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the
construction site.
11.2.4.2 Emissions and Correction Parameters — The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations
are proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. Also, by analogy to the
parameter dependence observed for other similar fugitive dust sources,1 it is probable that emissions from heavy
construction operations are directly proportional to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75
jum in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture, as represented by Thornthwaite's
precipitation-evaporation (PE) index.2
11.2.4.3 Emission Factor - Based on field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and
shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is:
1.2 tons per acre of construction per month of activity
This value applies to construction operations with: (1) medium activity level, (2) moderate silt content ('vSO
percent), and (3) semiarid climate (PE V>0; see Figure 11.2-2). Test data are not sufficient to derive the specific
dependence of dust emissions on correction parameters.
The above emission factor applies to particles less than about 30 /mi in diameter, which is the effective cut-off
size for the capture of construction dust by a standard high-volume filtration sampler1, based on a particle
density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm3.
11.2.4.4 Control Methods - Watering is most often selected as a control method because water and necessary
equipment are usually available at construction sites. The effectiveness of watering for control depends greatly on
the frequency of application. An effective watering program (that is, twice daily watering with complete
coverage) is estimated to reduce dust emissions by up to 50 percent.3 Chemical stabilization is not effective in
reducing the large portion of construction emissions caused by equipment traffic or active excavation and cut and
fill operations. Chemical stabilizers are useful primarily for application on completed cuts and fills at the
construction site. Wind erosion emissions from inactive portions of the construction site can be reduced by about
80 percent in this manner, but this represents a fairly minor reduction in total emissions compared with emissions
occurring during a period of high activity.
References for Section 11.2.4
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. A. Jutze. Development of Emissions Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0619. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-037.
June 1974.
2. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to a New Classification. Geograph. Rev. 21'
633-655, 1931.
3. Jutze, G. A., K. Axetell, Jr., and W. Parker. Investigation of Fugitive Dust-Sources Emissions and Control,
PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-0044. Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
12/75 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.4-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MISCELLANEOUS DATA
Note: Previous editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors presented a table entitled Percentage
Distribution by Size of Particles from Selected Sources without Control Equipment. Many of the data have
become obsolete with the development of new information. As soon as the new information is sufficiently
refined, a new table, complete with references, will be published for addition to this document.
9/73 A-l
-------
§
UL
00
t/J
l/>
i
-Q_!
3\
2l
i
i
i
aneous
^
(/)
3S
IS
C
O
CU •*••
r- *J
•r- »/]
O -Q
z: E
o
z
t/1 < —
na m
X */>
0
T3 Q
•i- VI
(/)
>> C
Co
IT) ••-
C +J
-.- ^
+-> Xl
13 £
•»-> O
i_
>>
en
s:
|
0
i_
>>
01
s:
L.
c:
O
4->
l_
>»
O*
z:
s_
c
o
-*-)
I
i
j <-
'c
|!
k
i*
> w
ii
-»-»
i
iuv
>v
en
s:
w
c
o
•4-J
c:
"TJ
4->
Z>
O
-X
r^
5
5-
cr
•\j
o
cT
o
3^
<£>
^J
O
O
o
o
o
CO
^r
o
o
o
o
o
CM
tr>
O
o
o
I
CM
O
O
0
o
o
m
ro
§
1
|
o
o
g"
V0
O
r~-
O
O
g
LO
0
o
o
0
o
.J~!
•X)
Partlculates
o
o
o
p^.
en
CM
0
CD
o
8*
US
CM
CO
O
O
0
CD
O
0
O
O
O
o
§
o
o
o
V£>
*3-
O
O
0
O
O
LO
O
s
i
o
o
8
O
O
1
I
o
§
o
o
en
ro
CM
§
o
8
fo
*o
CM
Sulfur oxides
o
o
o
c
CD
r*.
o"
cn
O
o
O
§"
CM
8
g
O
O
o
cn
m
o
o
o
8
ir>
UD
O
8
g"
ro
o
8
O
0
o
^J-
8
CD
8'
CM
0
r-w
O
O
O
8
in
r —
o
0
o
o
§
ro
8
O
CD
S
ro
S
O
o
o
cn
§
0
o
o
o
Carbon monoxide
C
o
o
o
0
*&
CM
O
o
o
o
o
l£>
<£>
CM
§
O
o
m
-------
Table A-2. DISTRIBUTION BY PARTICLE SIZE OF AVERAGE COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES
FOR VARIOUS PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT3-13
Type of collector
Baffled settling chamber
Simple cyclone
Long-cone cyclone
Multiple cyclone
(12-in. diameter)
Multiple cyclone
(6-in. diameter)
Irrigated long-cone
cyclone
Electrostatic
precipitator
Irrigated electrostatic
precipitator
Spray tower
Self-induced spray
scrubber
Disintegrator scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet-impingement scrubber
Baghouse
Efficiency, %
Particle size range, /jm
Overall
58.6
65.3
84.2
74.2
93.8
91.0
97.0
99.0
94.5
93.6
98.5
99.5
97.9
99.7
0 to 5
7.5
12
40
25
63
63
72
97
90
85
93
99
96
99.5
5 to 10
22
33
79
54
95
93
94.5
99
96
96
98
99.5
98.5
100
10 to 20
43
57
92
74
98
96
97
99.5
98
98
99
100
99
100
20 to 44
80
82
95
95
99.5
98.5
99.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
>44
90
91
97
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
References 2 and 3.
Data based on standard silica dust with the following particle size and weight distribution
Particle size
range, /im
Oto 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
>44
Percent
by weight
20
10
15
20
35
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-3
-------
Table A-3. THERMAL EQUIVALENTS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Type of fuel
Btu (gross)
kcal
Solid fuels
Bituminous coal
Anthracite coal
Lignite
Wood
Liquid fuels
Residual fuel oil
Distillate fuel oil
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas
Liquefied petroleum gas
Butane
Propane
(21.0 to 28.0) x
106/ton
25.3 x 106/ton
16.0x 106/ton
21.Ox 106/cord
6.3 x 106/bbl
5.9 x 106/bbl
1,050/ft3
97,400/gal
90,500/gal
(5.8 to 7.8) x
106/MT
7.03 x 106/MT
4.45 x 106/MT
1.47 x 106/m3
10 x 103/liter
9.35x 103/liter
9,350/m3
6,480/liter
6,030/liter
Table A-4. WEIGHTS OF SELECTED
SUBSTANCES
Type of substance
Asphalt
Butane, liquid at 60° F
Crude oil
Distillate oil
Gasoline
Propane, liquid at 60° F
Residual oil
Water
Ib/gal
8.57
4.84
7.08
7.05
6.17
4.24
7.88
8.4
g/liter
1030
579
850
845
739
507
944
1000
A-4
Appendix
2/72
-------
Table A-5. GENERAL CONVERSION FACTORS
Type of substance
Conversion factors
Fuel
Oil
Natural gas
Agricultural products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Mobile sources
Gasoline-powered motor vehicle
Diesel-powered motor vehicle
Steamship
Motorship
Other substances
Paint
Varnish
Whiskey
Water
Miscellaneous factors
Metric system
1 bbl = 42gal= 159 liters
1 therm = 100,000 Btu = 95 ft3
1 therm = 25,000 kcal = 2.7 m3
1 bu = 56 lb = 25.4kg
1 bu = 56 Ib = 25.4 kg
1 bu = 32 lb= 14.5kg
1 bu = 48 lb = 21.8kg
1 bu = 60 lb = 27.2kg
1 bale = 500 Ib = 226 kg
1 brick = 6.5 Ib = 2.95 kg
1 bbl = 375lb= 170kg
1 yd3 = 2500lb= 1130kg
1 yd3 = 4000 lb= 1820kg
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 mi/gal = 0.426 km/liter
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1.0 gal/naut mi = 2.05 liters/km
1 gal = 10 to 15 Ib = 4.5 to 6.82 kg
1 gal = 7 lb = 3.18kg
1 bbl = 50gal= 188 liters
1 gal = 8.3lb= 3.81 kg
1 Ib = 7000 grains = 453.6 grams
1 ft3 = 7.48 gal = 28.32 liters
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 mi = 1609 m
1 Ib = 453.6 g
1 ton (short) = 907.2 kg
1 ton (short) = 0.9072 MT
(metric ton)
2/72
EMISSION FACTORS
A-5
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX
1. Unpublished data file of nationwide emissions for 1970. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
"rograms, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
2. Stairmand, C.J. The Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equipment. J. Inst. Fuel. 29:58-80.
1956.
3. Stairmand, C.J. Removal of Grit, Dust, and Fume from Exhaust Gases from Chemical Engineering Processes.
London. Chem. Eng. p. 310-326, December 1965.
A-6 Appendix 2/72
-------
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). 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
-GROUP I SOURCESa
Source category and pollutant
Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators
with >63 x 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 NO2>
Pulverized cyclone
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Spreader stoker
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NO2>
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)
0.18g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18g/106 cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)
2.2g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)
1.26g/106 cal heat
input (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18g/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)
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/106 cal heat
input (0.20 lb/106 Btu)
0.18g/Nm3 (0.08 gr/scf)
corrected to 12%C02
0.15kg/MT(0.30lb/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
B-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
Table B-1. (continued). PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
-GROUP 1 SOURCES3
Source category and pollutant
Kiln— wet process
Particulates
Clinker cooler
Particulates
Nitric acid plants
JMitrogen oxides (as N02)
Sulfuric acid plants
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid mist
(as H2 S04)
New Source
Performance Standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
0.15kg/MT(0.30lb/ton)
of feed to kiln
0.050 kg/MT(0. 10 Ib/
ton) of feed to kiln
1.5kg/MT (3.0lb/ton)
of 100% acid produced
2.0 kg/MT (4.0 Ib/ton)
of 100% acid produced
0.075 kg/MT (0.1 5 Ib/
ton) of 100% acid produced
AP-42
page
reference
8.6-3
8.6-4
5.9-3
5.17-5
5.17-7
aTitle 40 - Protection of Environment. Part 60—Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Federal Register.
36 (247):24876. December 23, 1971
1/75
Appendix B
B-3
-------
Table B-2. PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
-GROUP II SOURCES3
Source category and pollutant
New Source
Performance Standard
AP-42
page
reference
Asphalt concrete plants
Particulates
Petroleum refineries: Fluid catalytic
cracking units
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Storage vessels for petroleum liquids
"Floating roof" storage tanks
Hydrocarbons
Secondary lead smelters
Blast (cupola) furnaces
Particulates
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Secondary brass and bronze ingot
production plants
Reverberatory furnaces
Particulates
Electric induction furnaces
Particulates
Blast furnaces
Particulates
Iron and steel plants
Basic oxygen process furnaces
Particulates
Sewage treatment plants
Sewage sludge incinerators
Particulates
90 mg/Nm3 (0.040 gr/dscf)
60 mg/Nm3 (0.026 gr/dscf)b
0.050% by volume
If true vapor pressure
under storage conditions
exceeds 78 mm (1.52 psia)
mercury but is no greater
than 570 mm (11.1 psia)
mercury, the vessel must
be equipped with a floating
roof or its 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)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
50 mg/Nm3 (0.022 gr/dscf)
0.65 g/kg (1.30lb/ton)
of dry sludge input
8.1-4
9.1-3
9.1-3
4.3-8
7.11-2
7.11-2
7.9-2
7.9-2
7.9-2
7.5-5
2.5-2
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/Nm (0.026 gr/dscf).
B-4
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75
-------
APPENDIX C
NEDS SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
AND
EMISSION FACTOR LISTING
The Source Classification Codes (SCC's) presented herein comprise the basic "building blocks" upon which the
National Emissions Data System (NEDS) is structured. Each SCC represents a process or function within a source
category logically associated with a point of air pollution emissions. In NEDS, any operation that causes air
pollution can be represented by one or more of these SCC's.
Also presented herein are emission factors for the five NEDS pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) that correspond to each SCC. These factors are utilized in NEDS to
automatically compute estimates of air pollutant emissions associated with a process when a more accurate
estimate is not supplied to the system. These factors are, for the most part, taken directly from AP-42. In certain
cases, however, they may be derived from better information not yet incorporated into AP-42 or be based merely
on the similarity of one process to another for which emissions information does exist.
Because these emission factors are merely single representative values taken, in many cases, from a broad range
of possible values and because they do not reflect all of the variables affecting emissions that are described in detail
in this document, the user is cautioned not to use the factors listed in Appendix C out of context to estimate the
emissions from any given source. Instead, if emission factors must be used to estimate emissions, the appropriate
section of this document should be consulted to obtain the most applicable factor for the source in question. The
factors presented in Appendix C are reliable only when applied to numerous sources as they are in NEDS.
NOTE: The Source Classification Code and emission factor listing presented in Appendix C was created on Octo-
ber 21, 1975, to replace the listing dated June 20,1974. The listing has been updated to include several new
Source Classification Codes as well as several new or revised emission factors that are considered necessary for the
improvement of NEDS. The listing will be updated periodically as better source and emission factor information
becomes available. Any comments regarding this listing, especially those pertaining to the need for additional
SCC's, should be directed to:
Chief, Emission Factor Section (MD-14)
National Air Data Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
C-l
-------
CREATED ON 10/21/75
NATIONAL F M ! S S I 0 N DATA S Y S T F *
SOURCE CL»S5IFIC»TION C 0 0 F 5
CXTCOMPi BOILER
ANTHRACITE COAL
l-Ol-OOI-OI
1-01-001-07
1-01-001-03
1-01-001-01
1-01-001-05
1 -0 1 -00 1 -04
1-01-001-99
BITUMINOUS COAL
1-01-002-01
1 -0 1 -002-02
1-01-002-03
1-01-002-01
1-01-002-05
1-01-002-04
1-01-002-07
1-01-002-09
1-01-002-10
1-01-002-11
1-01-002-12
1-01-002-99
LIGNITE
l-OI-003-OI
1-01-003-02
1-01-003-03
1-01-003-01
1 -01-003-05
l-Ol-003-Ok
1-01-W03-07
1-01-003-08
1-01-003-09
1-01-003-10
1-01-003-1 1
1-01-003-1 2
1-01-001-13
1-01-003-11
1-OI-OOJ-lS
RESIDUAL OIL
1-01-001-01
1 -0 1 -OOM-02
i .0 1 -001-03
OISTILL«TE OIL
1-01-005-01
1 -01 -005-02
1-01-005-03
NATURAL GAS
1 -0 1 -004-0 1
1-01-006-02
1-01-004-03
PROCESS C,AS
1-01-007-01
1-01-007-02
1-01-007-03
COKE
i-oi-ooe-oi
•ELECTRIC 6FNF.RATN
MOOXWBTU PULVI7.D
MOOHMBTU STOKERS
10-lnOHMRTu PULVO
10-lOOMMBTu STOKR
100MMRTU PULVWF.T
>100wHRT>' PULVDRY
>IOOMWBTII CYCLONE
10-IOOM*RTU PULWT
]0-lnOMMflTU PULOY
IO-IOOMMBTU ur$TK
IOOM*BTU PULVWET
>100MMBTU PULVORY
MOOMMBTU CYCLONE
MOOMMBTU UF STKR
>IOOH*BTU SPDSTKR
1 0- I OOMMRTU DYPUL
10-IOOMMBTU WTPUL
IO-100MMRTU OFSTK
10-lOOM^BTU UF5TK
ID^IOOMMRTUSPPSTK
<10MM8TU PULV DRY
< 1 0 H M B T u OF STOKR
<10MMBTO UF STOKR
<10»»BT)J SPnsTOKR
MOOMMBTII/HR GENL
10- 1 OOMMBTU/HflGNL
<1QMMBTU/H» G^NL
>IOO*MBTU/HB GENL
> 1 OOMMPTU/HR
10-IOOWMBTU/HR
< I OMMfl Tu /Hfi
>IOO«MBTU/HO
1 0- l OOMMflTU'HR
<10 MHBIU/HR
> l OOMMBTU/HR
PART
17.0
7, 00
17.0
2.00
17.0
2.00
17.0
1 3.0
17.0
2.00
11.0
17,0
5,00
7.00
17,0
16.0
4.50
6.50
4.50
6.50
6.50
6.50
4.50
4.50
4 ,50
4,50
4.50
6.50
(,.50
4.50
4.50
A. 00
8.00
1.00
9.00
A, 00
10,0
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
17,0
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
so*
3R.O
3B.O
38.0
SB .0
38.0
3B.O
38.0
34.0
.1A.O
3A.O
3».0
3«,0
3K.O
3A.O
3fl,0
39.0
30,0
30,0
10,0
10,0
30,0
30,0
30,0
30.0
30.0
30,0
30,0
30,0
30,0
30,0
157,
157.
157.
111.
!ii!
0.60
0.60
O.*0
950.
950.
950.
38.0
s
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
s
S
NOX
19.0
10. S
18.0
10.5
18.0
(,.00
1 9.0
30,0
1 8,0
55,0
1S.O
15,0
30,0
ie.o
15*0
1S.O
6,00
6,00
19,0
19,0
13.0
13.0
1 7.0
13.0
1 3.0
1 3.0
1 3.0
1 3.0
1 3.0
1 3.0
13,0
13.0
13.0
1 3.0
13.0
105.
105.
105.
105.
1 0 5 »
105.
600.
230.
120.
600,
230.
120.
18*0
i UNIT
"C
0.03
0.20
0.01
0.20
0.01
o. 2r
0.03
0. 30
0.30
0.30
1 .00
l .or
0.3o
0. 3n
1.00
1 ,00
3,00
3,00
0.30
0.30
0,30
0.30
0.30
0,30
0,30
0,30
0.30
0,30
1 ,00
1,00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3,00
3,00
2,00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
I. 00
1 .on
I .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
0.03
UOon/BASK WASTE
1-01-009-01
l-ni-ooo-02
1-01-009-03
BAGASSE
|. 0|-01 1-01
1-01-01 1-02
1-01-011-03
BARK B01LEP
WOOO/BARK BOILER
WOOD BOILER
>1 OOMMBTU/HR
10-100MMRTU/HR
100 HMnTU/HR
1-01-017-02 10-100 -KRTII/
1-01-012-03
-------
NATIONAL E»t5SION D«TA 5 Y 5 T E H
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
BOILER
-ELECTRIC GEN5RATN
POUNDS
PART
ITTED PEP UNI
UNITS
Ll<3 WASTE-SPECIFY
I-01~013-01 >100 MMBTU/HR
1-01-013-02 10-100 «MBTU/HR
].-PI-n|3-n3 <10 MMBTU/HR
OTH'R/NOT CLASIFO
1-01-999-97 SPECIFY IN REMARK
I-OI-999-9B SPECIFY 1N REMARK
EKTCOM8 PnfLE*
ANTHRACITE COAL
1-02-001-01
1-02-001-02
1-02-001-03
1-02-00 1 -01
1-02-001-05
1-02-001-06
1-02-001-07
1-02-001-99
BITUMINOUS COAL
1-02-002-01
1-02-002-02
1 -02-002-03
1-02-002-01
1 -0* -nO 2-05
1-02-002-06
1-02-002-07
1 -02-002-Oft
1-02-002-09
1-02-002-10
I-C-2-C07-I 1
1-02-002-12
1 -02-002- 1 3
1-02-302-11
1-02-002-99
LIGNITE
1-02-003-01
1-02-003-02
1-02-003-03
1-02-003-01
1-02-003-05
1 -02-003-06
1-02-001-07
1-02-003-08
1-02-003-"'
1-02-003-10
1-02-003-1 1
1-02-003-12
1-02-003-13
1-02-003-11
t-P2-ft03- 15
1-02-003-16
RESIDUAL OIL
1-02-001-01
1 -02-001-02
1 -02-001-03
DISTILLATE OIL
I-02-D05-OI
1-02-005-02
1-02-005-03
NATURAL G*S
l-02-POt-OI
1-02-006-02
1-02-006-03
PROCESS r,A5
1-02-OH7-OI
1-02-007-02
1-02-007-03
1-02-007-01
1 -02-OH7-05
1-02-007-06
•INDUSTRIAL
>100MM8TU/HR PULV
MOOMM9TU/HR STKR
10-IOOMMBTU PULVD
10-lODMMBTu STKR
<10M-BTU/HR PULVO
100MMBTU PULVORY
>100MH8TU CYCLONE
>100«MBTU SPD5TKR
10-IOOMMBTU OFSTK
10-lOOMHBTu UFSTK
IO-IPOMMPTU PULWT
10-IOOMMBTU PULDY
10-100M-BTUSPDSTK
100MHBTU PULVWET
>100MMBTU PULVDRY
>1POMMBTU CYCLONE
>ino««flru OFSTKR
MOCMMBTU UFSTKR
>IOOMMPTU 5PDSTKR
IO-IOOMM3TU DTPUL
10-100MHBTU WTPUL
10-IOOMMBTU OFSTK
10-IOOMMBTU UFSTK
10-IOOMMBTUSPDSTK
<10MMBTu PULV DRY
<10MMBTU OFSTOKR
<10MMBTU UFSTOKR
<10*M9Tu HANOFIRE
C10MMBTU SP05TKR
>100MHBTU/HR
10- 1 OOMMBTU/HR
< 1 QMMBTU/HR
>I OOMMBTU/HR
10- 1 DOMMBTU/HR
IOOHMBTU/HR
10-100M-BTU/HR
< 1 QMMBTU/HR
REF 1 NEP Y > 1 00
REFINERY 10-100
REF I NERY < 1 0
BLAST FNC >IOO
BLAST FNC 10-100
BLAST FNC <10
17.0 A
2.00 A
17.0 A
2.00 A
17.0 A
2.00 A
10. 0
17.0 A
13.0 A
17.0 A
2.00 A
13. C A
5.00 A
5.00 A
13.0 A
17.0 A
13.0 A
2.00 A
2.00 A
17.0 A
2.00 A
20.0
13.0 A
6.50 A
6.50 A
6.50 A
*.5D A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 A
.50 t
6.50 A
6.50 A
4.50 A
6.50 A
23.0
23.0
23.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10. 0
10. 0
'A' INDICATES THE ASH CONTENT, 'S' INDICATES THE
38,0
38,0
38. 0
38,0
38.0
3».fl
36.0
38. n
3»,n
38,0
38.0
36.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
3B.n
38.0
3B.O
3f .0
38.0
38.0
38."
38.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30,0
30,0
30,0
30,0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30. n
30.0
30. 0
30,0
30.0
157.
157.
157.
117.
112.
117.
n • 6 n
0 . 60
0.60
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
5
S
^
5
5
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
5
S
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
5
S
SULFUR CONTENT
18.0
10.5
18.0
in. 5
18.0
A«00
3.00
ia.o
30.0
16.0
5S.O
15.0
15.0
15.0
30.0
18.0
15.0
6.00
6.00
18.0
6.00
3.00
15.0
13.0
13.0
17. D
13.0
13,0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13,0
60 .0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60. n
600.
230.
120.
OF THE
0.03
0.20
0.03
0.2D
0.03
o.2n
2.50
0.03
0.30
0.30
0.30
1 .00
1 .00
1 .OP
0.31
0.30
1 .00
3.nD
3.CO
0.30
3.OP
20.0
0.30
0.3T
0.30
0.30
i .on
1.00
1 .00
0.30
0.3o
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
3.00
3.00
3 .00
20.0
3.0"
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.On
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
ICDO GALLONS RURNED
1000 GALLONS BURNED
1000 GALLONS BURNED
MILLION CUBIC FEET PUR"ED
1000 GALLON (LIQUID) BURNpD
TONS BURNED (SOLID'
I .no
6. no
loo
600
loo
JO.O
90.0
2. 00
loo
1 . no
loo
2 . of1
200
2. 00
1 00
1 . 00
2.00
lO, n
10,0
200
1 0 . p
90,0
2. no
1 , on
100
1 00
2 OO
2OO
Z.nO
loo
1,00
2,00
2.00
2 • on
|0,n
|0,n
100
90.0
lO.p
IOP
1.00
1OO
1.00
1.00
1.00
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TOWS
TCNS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TCNS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
1000
loon
loon
Ipoo
looo
loon
BURNED
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNEO
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNEO
BU°NEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
PUNNED
BURNED
BURNED
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
,URNED
3 ij p N r 0
BURNTD
WURNEO
ftURNFD
BURNfD
I'.CI "tLLION CU3IC FEET ruR'lfO
I'.O MILLION CUBIC FEET PI|R».'ED
I7o MILLION CUBIC FFET puRNro
MILLION CUBIC FEET PURNEO
MILLION CUBIC FEET PuRNro
MILLION CUBIC FFET BURNED
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURNED
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURNED
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURVFO
12/75
Appendix C
C-3
-------
ElTCOMR BOILE*
- I NDUSTR1 AL
*TIONflL E H I 5 5 | p s DATA S Y 5 T E *
SOURCE CL'SSlFICflTlON e 0 0 E S
POUNDS
PART
I T T F p PER
NIK
N 1 T
w C
UNITS
PROCESS G«S
CONTINUED
1-02-007-07 COKE OVEN >ioo
1-02-107-nfl COKE OVEN 10-100
t-02-o07-a9 COKE OVEN »BTU/HR
1-02-010-03 ClOMMBTu/HR
1.75
1.75
64.5 S
84.5 5
\\.
11.
0.30
0.30
V.55
1.55
iOOOGALLONS BljRNED
IOOOGALLONS BURNED
l-n2-0ll-0! >100 NHSTU/HR
1-02-011-02 1D-100KMBTU/H"
1-02-011-03 <|0"M8T,J/HB
SLD WASTE-SPECIFY
l-0?-nl?-OI >100 MlaTU/MR
1-02-012-02 100-100 "HBTu/HR
1-02-012-03 <10 •'HBTU/HO
LIO WASTE-SPECIFY
1-02-P13-01 >100 MMgTU/HR
1-02-OI3-C2 10-100 KH8TU/HR
1-02-013-03 sTOK»
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
I 0- 100M»EiTU pUtWT
IQ-lOOM^fcTU PULDf
t 0- t nOMMRTU OFSTK
1 0-1PC*"BTU UFSTr
1 0- 1 OONMRTUSPD5TK
io-innn*-RTu MflsFc
stro
10-100M"BTU PULWT
1 0- | OOMwpTU PULd^
1 0- lOOMwRTu O^STK
1 0- innn-STu uFST*
IQ-inO»"-iRTuSPDSTK
< ! Q H M B T U PULV-nfT
< 1 nUMftTu OF5TOKFO
< lOr-HRTu UF^TOKf *
*!PH"STU H"IDM*F
IS
17
M
17
2
7
n
13
17
S
«;
13
2n
?
?
2
20
li
A
&
6
A
A
&
6
fv
6
A
*o
• 0
*o
.0
.00
.00
.0
.0
,n
.00
.00
.0
.0
.00
.00
,00
.0
.0
,*n
,50
.so
,»iO
.so
*sn
.sn
.so
.SO
.50
&
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
k
A
A
A
ft
i
A
ft
A
A
A
A
A
(L
A
A
A
A
3R
3R
31
3P
31
3«
3ft
3P
3S
3R
3fl
3fl
3^
3ft
3P
3R
38
3ft
30
30
3D
30
30
in
3H
•»n
3H
30
»O
»o
• o
.n
* n
. o
.0
.0
,n
, 0
* n
.0
.0
.0
* n
.n
* n
.0
,P
,n
,n
,0
» n
.0
,n
* 0
.0
.n
s
S
?
S
S
5
S
<;
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
«;
S
*;
^
<;
S
5
0
ft
5
8
&
e;
a
30
IP
15
IS
IS
3
4
6
6
3
15
t 3
13
1 3
t 3
1 1
1 3
1 3
13
1 3
1 3
.0
, T
.0
. 0
.00
,n
. 0
.0
.n
• 0
.0
.0
.10
.on
.30
.30
.no
,-D
. 0
. 0
* i
.n
,0
. n
* 0
.0
. n
.1
0.03
0.13
1 .00
0,13
P.20
1 .On
0,03
0,03
0,03
I .11
1.11
1.00
20.1
3.Co
3.PP
3.01
2P.O
0.3o
.CO
.00.
.01
.OP
.00
3.P1
3,01
3,Po
20.1
1,00
2,00
|0,i
10,",
1,00
1.00
1 ,00
2.TO
2.00
2.00
90 , n
ir.T
IC.o
10 ,0
90. o
2.on
2.10
2."0
2.on
2,"0
2,00
10."
|0.o
10,n
10,0
90,0
"ILLION CUiilC FEET BUR"EO
1000 GALLON BuRNEP ItllUln
TONS BURNEO (SOLI01
TONS HU»NEO
TONS BURIED
TONS PUNNED
TONS BU'NEO
TONS 0UVEO
TONS PuSNEO
TONS PUNNED
TONS BURNED
TOSS BURNED
TONS BURSEO
TONS BURNED
TONS BUBNFO
TCN 1U9NEO
TON
TON
TON
TON
BURNED
BURNED
B U R *J E 0
TONS BURNED
TOSS BURNED
TOSS PURSED
TONS BURSED
TPNS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BURST!}
TpKS BURNED
TONS BU9SFD
TONS BURNER
T«f ASH CONTENT,
TWF SULFUR CONTENT OF T*F FUFL o» A
(BY WCIGMT |
C4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
EXTCOMB BOILER
RESIDUAL OIL
1-03-001-Dl MOOMMBTU/HR
I-03-OOH-02 10-IOOMMflTU/HR
I. 03-001-03 IIOMMB.TU/HR
OIST|LL«TE
1-03-005-01 MQOMMBTU/HR
1-03-005-02 10-IOOKMBTU/HR
1-03-005-03 <10MMBTU/MR
NATURAL GAS
l-03-00t-01
l-03-00t-02
1-03-004-03
PROCESS 5*S
>IOOMMBTU/HR
10- 1 OOMM8TU/HR
OOMMBTU/HR
A T I 0 H >
PART
23.0
21,0
23.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
SOX
IS7, S 40
157. S 60
157, S to
112. S 60
112. S 60
n?. s to
0.60 230
0.60 120
0*60 80
NOX
.0
,0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,
,0
T I 0 N CODE
HC
3, on
3. CO
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
a .no
ft. 00
B.OO
s
<*
1
4
^
1
1
20
jn
20
U » 1 T S
1,nP loOO GAtLOtJS
H.nO lOOO GALLONS
t.OO 1000 GALLONS
0 1000 GALLONS BORNEO
O 1000 GALLONS BURNEf
**.00 1000 GALLOWS BURNED
MILLION CUBIC FEET RURMEO
MILLION CUBIC rrtr BUSSED
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURNED
1-03-007-01 SEWAGC> 1 00MMBTUHR
1-03-007-02 SEWAGE 10-100
1-03-007-03 SEWAGE<|0*MBTU/HR
l-oj-007-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
WOOD/BARK WASTE
1-03-009-0) BARK BOJLER
1-03-009-02 WOOD/BARK BOILER
I-OJ-009-OJ WOOD BORES
LIQ PETROLEUM
1-03-010-02
1-0^-010-03
10-IOOKMBTU/HR
<10MMBTU/HR
SLO HASTE-SPECIFY
1.03-OU-OI >IOO HHBTU/HR
1-03-012-02 10-100 MKBTU/HR
I-OJ-OI2-OJ ioo MMBTU/HR
1-03-013-02 10-100 MMBTU/HR
1-03-013-03
-------
1 NTERNLCOMBUST I ON
DISTILLATE OIL
2-01-001-01
2-01-001-02
NATURAL 6 4 S
7-01-007-02
DIESEL
7-OI-P03-3I
2-01-C03-02
RESIDU1L OIL
2-01-oni-ol
JET FUEL
2-01-005-01
CRUDE OIL
?-ot-cms-o!
PROCESS GAS
2-01-007-01
POUNDS EMITTED PER UNIT
PART SOX NOX HC
-ELECTRIC GENERATN
TURBINE 5.00 IHO. S 47. B 5,57
RECIPROCATING 110. S
TURBINE 11.0 910. 5 H3. 12,0
RECIPROCATING 910. S
RECIPROCATING 13.0 110. 5 370. 37,0
TURBINE 5.00 110. 5 67.8 5.57
TUP9INF 159, S
TURMNE 6.?0
TURBINE 116. 5
TURBINE 9"in. S
0 E S
CO UNITS
15,1 ICOO GALLONS BURNED
IOPP GALLONS BURNED
115. MILLION CUBIC FEET
MILLION custc FEET
225. THOUSANDS or GALLONS
15.4 IOPO GALLONS PUNNED
tODD GALLONS BURNED
1000 GALLON? BURNED
loon OALLONS ?U»NED
MILLION CUBIC FEET
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
2.01-999-97
INTERNLCOMHUSTION
DISTILLATE OIL
2-02-001-01
NATURAL GAS
2-02-002-01
2-07-002-02
GASOLINE
2-02-003-01
DIESEL FUEL
2-02-001-H1
2-02-OOH-12
RESIDUAL OIL
7.02-005-OI
JET FUEL
2-07-004-01
c«ur>E OIL
2-02-007-01
PROCESS GA5
SPECIFY IN REMARK
-INDUSTRIAL
TURBINE 5.00 110. S 47,9 5,57
RECIPROCATING 33.5 |11. S 149, 37,5
TURBINE 11.0 910. S 113, 12, n
RECIPROCATING 910, 5
RECIPROCATING 6,50 5,30 102. 161.
RECIPROCATING 33.5 [11, S 149. 37,5
TURBINE b,"0 110. 5 67. » 5.57
TURBINE 159. 5
TURBINE 6,20
TURBINE 116, S
MILLION CUBIC FFET BURNED
1000 6ALUON5 BURNED
15,1 1000 GALLONS BURNED
102. 1000 GALLONS PURNED
us. MILLION cumc FEET
MILLION CUBIC FEET
3,'lO. 1000 GALLOMS pUPNEC
102. 1000 SALLOWS 9URNEO
|5.« 1000 GALLONS BURNED
1000 GALLOMS 9URNED
1001 GALLONS BURNED
IOOD GALLONS OIIPNED
2-n?-00»-r! 1 TURBINE
?-n?-DOB-02 RECIPROCATING
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
7-02-'?'-«7 SPECIFY |N REMARK
?.07-19'>-'>8 SPECIFY IN REMARK
950. 5
950. S
MILLION CUBIC FEET
MILLION CUBIC FEET
MILLION CUBIC FEET BURNED
1000 GALLONS BUPNEO
•t- INDICATES T«t ASH CONTENT, •$• INDICATES THE SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL ON A PFRCENT BASIS tBT WEIGHT)
C-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
ATI
SOU
RCE CLA
1 5 S I n
SSIFI
N DATA SYS
CATION COD
PER UNIT
2-03-001-01 REC1PROCATING
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
?_03-999-97 SPECIFY IN REMARK
?.03-999-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
INTERNLCOB8U5TION -ENGINE TESTING
AIRCRAFT
2-OH-001-OI TURBOJET
ROCKET MOTO"
?-nn-no?-ii SOLID PROPELL'NT
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
7-01-999-97 SPECIFY IN REMARK
2.04-999-98 SPECIFY IN RFMARK
?.04-999-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
INDUSTRIAL PKOCES -CHEMICAL HFG
13.0
37,5 mz. THOUSANDS OF GHLOM
MILLION CUBIC FEET
inoo GALLONS pu»Ntr>
32.7 THOUSANDS OF GALLON/FUEL
TONS or FUFL
MILLION CUBIC FTET B
looo GALLONS BU»NEO
TONS BURNED
ADIPIC ACID PROO
3-01-001-01
3-01-001 -99
3-01-003-01
3-01-003-02
3-01-003-03
3-0 1-003-99
AMHONIU" NITRATE
3-Ol-OOH-Ol
3-0|-001-99
3-oi-oos-ru
3-01-005-03
3-0 1-005-01
3-01-005-05
3-01-005-99
CHARCOAL HFG
3-01-004-01
3-01-OOS-99
3-01-007-99
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
PURGE G A S 0,
ST QR A GE / LO AD I N G 0.
REGENERATOR EXIT 0.
PURGE GAS 0.
STORAGE/LOADING 0.
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
GENERAL
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
CHANNEL PROCESS 2.300.
THERMAL PROCESS 0.
FURNACE PROC GAS
FURNACE P"OC OIL
FURNACE W/GAS/OIL 220.
OTHER/NOT CLASFO
PYROL/DISTIL/GENL 100.
OTHER/NOT CLASFO
OTHFR/NDT CLASIFD
n. 12.0 0. n. TONS
TONS
o. o. 9o.o ci. TONS
o. o. o, n, TONS
o. o. o. 200. TONS
0. 0. 90.0 0. TONS
o. o. o, o« TONS
TONS
0. TONS
TONS
0. 0. 11,500. 33.500. TONS
o. o. o. o. TONS
1,1100. 5,300. TONS
100. 1,500. TONS
TONS
TONS
100. 320. TONS
TONS
0. TONS
TONS
PROOUCFD
PRODUCED
PROOUCFD
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
^ZCED-
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCT
PRODUCED
PRODUCT
PRODUCED
CHLOR-iLKAL1
3-01-008-02 LIOUIFTN-HFRC CEL
3-OJ-On«-03 LOADING TNKCARVNT
3-01-noB-ni LOADING STGTNXvNT
3-01-008-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
CLEANING CHEMICLS
3-01-009-fl SOAP/DET 5PRYORYR
3-01-009-10 SPECIALTY CLrA«i>5
3-OJ-H09-99 OTHERS/NOT CL'SFD
o.
0,
0,
100 TONS CHLORINE LI3UFFIFO
100 TONS CHLORINE LlQUtFIrD
100 TONS CHLORINE LIOU'FIED
100 TONS CHLORINE LMUFFlED
100 TONS CHLORINE LIOU'FlFD
IOP TONS CHLORINE IIOUFFIED
TONS PB10UCFO
TO"S PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCF&
•*• INDICATES TUF ASH CONTrNT, -S- ISOICATE5 T«F SUUFUO CONTFNT OF THE FUEL ON A PERCENT P»SI5 lt»Y WEIGHT)
12/75
Appendix C
C-7
-------
SOURCE
P 0 U tj p
PART
CLASSJFJCAT
S EM1TTFQ p E !
SOU H0x
10'. COO
i 1) 'I ! T
"C
t S
CJPLCS1 vES-T'.T
3-CM-"!"-?! NITRATION REACTRS
3-0 1 -0 1 r .02 NNQ5 CONCTRTRS
3-o\-~l^-13 H2S01 REGfNFRATR
3-OI-M?--;« RED WATER 1NCIN
3-D 1 -D 1 "-05 0PFN WASTE RURN
3-01-010-99 OTHE^/NiT CLASIfO
-YD=OCMLOPIC ACIO
3-ri-OM-ol BYPRODUCT W/05CRUR
3-0 1 -0 I 1 -"2 BYPRODUCT W/SCRUR
3-OI-3M-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
-TSROFLLORIC ACID
3-TI-312-3I R3TR YK ILNW/SCRUSR
1-01-012-02 P3TRYK ILN W/OSCRUB
3-01-012-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-01-013-01 AMMON 1 AOX I DATNOLO
3-01-013-03 NITACD CONCTR OLD
3-? I -0 1 3-OH NITACD CONCTR NEW
3-OI-013-"S UNCONTROLLED
3-01-013-07 UNCONTROLLED
3-01-013-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
P A I N T M F 5
3-01-011-01 GENFRAL
3-^i-nm,n2 PIGMENT KILN
3-01-OM-99 CTHFR/NOT CLASFO
3-01-OIS-01 BODYING OIL GENL
3-01-015-02 OLECPESINDUS GENL
3-oi-ois-o3 ALKYD GENERAL
3-P|-ri5-05 ACRYLIC GENERAL
3-01-DIS-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
"HOS-AC10 kETPROC
3-oi-ou-oi REACTOR. UNCONTLD
3-01-014-07 GYPSUM POND
3-01-01S-03 CONOENSR-UNCONTLO
3-DI-OI6-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
"MOS-ACIO THERMAL
3-01-017-01 GENERAL
3-01-017-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
PLASTICS
3-01-Olf-Ol PVC-GENER'L
3-01-01(1-02 POLTPROO-GENERAL
3-OJ-018-05 R AKEL1 Tr-GENERAL
3-Di-oip-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIO
3-01-019-03 UNCONTROLLEO-GENL
PRINTI'G !f.<
J-Ot-020-11 COOXIMG-GENERAi.
3-01-02C-02 COOKING-OILS
3-01-020-03 COOK ING-OLEORES | N
3-01-020-01 COOK ING-ALKYQS
3-01-020-OS P|G"ENT flXlNGGEN
J-H1-020-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
SODIUM CARBONATE
3-01-0?]-ol SOLVAT-NH3 RECVRV
3-01-021-12 SOLVAY-HANOLING
3-01-021-10 TRON A-C ALC 1 N I NG
3-01-021-11 TRONA-DRYER
3-01-021-20 RRINF FyAP-GENERL
3-01-021-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
0.
0.
0.
32.0
0,
0,
200.
2.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
35.0
3.00
0,
0.
0.
0.
2.00
0.
4.00
2.no
0.70
160.
1.00
2.no
38.0
n.
D.
C.
0.
0 .
B2.S
t.50
5.no
0.20
10.C
ISO.
140.
20.0
120.
13.0
ISO.
un.
TONS PRODUCED
TPNS PRTDuCrO
TONS PPODUCFO
TONS PRODUCED
TCNS BU'NEO
TONS PRn^ucFO
TONS PRHOUCEH
TONS EU'AL AC!0
TONS FINJL ACIO
TONS FI>i«L «C1C
TONS ACID
TONS ACID
TONS FLUORSPAR
TONS ACID
TONS PURE *CIO PRpDljcE*
TONS PUPf ACIO PRODUCE"
Tons pu°e ncio
TONS PURE ACID
TONS PU*E 4C10
TONS PU^E *rin
TONS PURt Af tO
TONS PU»t ACID
R05UCE-)
RODUCFI
RoDucm
"oourrn
RODuCF^
TONS PURE ACID PRODUCE*
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TOMS PPOOUCEO
TONS PRODUCrD
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PHOSPHATE "OCX
TONS PRPOUCEO
TONS PHOSPHOROUS
TONS PRODUCFD
TONS P
TONS PRODUCFD
TONS PRAOuCT
TONS PRooucro
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PIGMENT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
•A- I'tllCAYES THE ASH CONTENT, '5' INMcATES THr SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL Of, A orRCENT RASI5 (BY WEIGHT)
C-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION DATA SYSTEM
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION COOES
INDUSTRIAL PROCCS -C"E«IC»L "FS
H2S01 -CHAK8ER
3-OI-02J-01
H2S01-CONTACT
1-01-023-01
3-01-023-01
3-01-023-04
3-01-023-08
3-01-023-10
3-01-023-12
3-01-023-M
3.01-023-1*
3-01-023-18
3-01-023-'*
SYNTHETIC FIBERS
3-OI-02«-OI
3-0 | -021-02
3-01-024-03
3-01-021-01
3-0 1 -024-05
3-01-021-0*
3-01 -021-08
3-01-021-10
3-01-021-12
3-01-021-11
3-01-021-'?
CENTRAL
'.7 CONVERSION
' . 5 CONVERSION
'.0 CONVERSION
S.O CONVERSION
7,0 CONVERSION
4.0 CONVERSION
'S.O CONVERSION
»1.0 CONVERSION
'3.0 CONVERSION
OTHER/NOT CLASFD
NYLON GENERAL
OACRON GENERAL
ORLON
ELASTIC
TEFLO"
POLYESTER
NOBEX
ACRTLIC
TVVEX
OLEF|NS
OTHERS/NOT CLASFO
SEMISYNTHTICFIBR
3-OI-025-r)I RATON GENERAL
3-01-125-os ACETATE
3-"l-025-IO VISCOSE
3-01-025-'9 OTHERS/NOT CLASFD
'SYNTHETIC RUBBER
TEREPTMALIC ACIO
J-OI-03I-OI
3-OI-03I-"
HN03*PARAXTLENGfN
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
SULFURIELEBENTAL I
1-0|-0)2-OI "OD-CLAUS 2STAGC
3-01-037-07 NOD-CLAUS 35TAGf
3-01-032-03 MOD-CLAUS HSTAGE
3-fI|-037-'» (JTHER/'NOT CLASIFO
POUNDS C»ITTCO PE
PART SOX NOX
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
7.50
2.50
2.50
3-01-024-01
3-01-024-02
3-01-024-03
3-OJ-024-01
3-01-024-05
3-0 1 -024-06
3-01-024-07
3-01-024-OH
3-01-024-0'
3-01-024-20
3-OI-024-'*
3-01-027-01
3-01-027-02
3-01-027-03
3-0| -027-01
3-01-027-05
3-01-027-04
BUTADIENE-GENERAL
METHYLPROPENf-gNL
BUTTNE GENERAL
PENTADIENE-SENRL
OlMETHMEPTNE GENL
PENTANE-GENERAi,
FTHANEN I TR I LE-GEN
ACRYLON1THILE-GEN
ACROLEIN-GENERAL
AUTO TIRES GENERL
OTHER/NOT CLA5FO
PRILTKR-NEUTRLIZR
PRILLING TOWER
PRILTWR-DRYCOOLRS
GRANUL AT-NEUTL I 7R
GRANUL ATOR
GRANULAT-ORYCOOLR
0.
O.'O
12.0
0.
0.10
7.00
FERTJL 1Z-NSUPPHOS
3-OI-02B-OI
3-0 1 -028-02
GRIND-DRY
MAJN STACK
'.00
0.
FERTILI7.-TRP5PHOS
3-0 1 -02'-0 1
3-0 1 -02'-02
RUN OF PILE
GRANULAR
0.
0.
FERT1LIZ-D1 AMPHOS
3-01-030-01
3-01-030-02
DRYER-COOLERS
A"ON1 AT. GRANULATE
60,0
J.oo
UNIT
«C
0.
i.no
7.no
IH.0
27.0
10.0
55.0
'0.0
82.1
7 .On
0.
0.
n.
0.
n.
0.15
3.00
TONS PURE ACID PRODUCED
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
PURE ACIO
<"U»E ACTD
PURE ACID
PU»E ACID
PURE ACIO
PU'E ACIO
PURE ACIP
PURE ACID
PU»E ACIO
PROOuCFD
FIBER
FIBER
RODUCT
RODUCT
ROOUCT
HODUCT
"OOUCT
ROOUCT
ROOUCT
RODUCT
KODUCED
FICER
PROOUCFD
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRAOUCFO
PRODUCFO
PRODUCFD
PROOUCFD
PRODUCFO
PRODUCFO
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PflnouCFD
PRODUCED
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PROOlKEO
PROOUCE1
PRODUCED
PRCOUCEO
PRODUCED
PROOuCEl
PRODUCED
PKODJCEO
P«OOUCE£>
'A- INDICATES THE ASM CONTENT, '5' INDICATES THF SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUFL ON A PFRCENT OASIS |8T «CtG«TI
12/75
Appendix C
C-9
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -CHEMICAL MFC,
3-01- n 33-01 HALATH10M
3-01-033-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
AMINrS/AMlpES
3-OI-03H-OJ GENERAL/OTHER
P IGMENT-INORGAN
3-01-035-01 CALCINATION
3-01-035-99 OTHER/NOT CLA51FO
SODIUM SULFATE
3-01-034-01 GENERAL/OTHER
3-01-034-02 KILNS
SODIUM SULFITE
3-01-037-nl GENERAL/OTHER
3-01-037-02 KILNS
SODIUM BICARB
3-P|-p36-f)| GENERAL
L I TH IUM HYOROX | DF
3-01-039-01 GENERAL
FERTILIZER URFA
3-OI-O^O-D! GENERAL
NITROCELLULOSE
3-01-Otl-Ol REACTOR POTS
3-01-0'*l-P2 H2S01 CONCENTRTR5
3-01-011-03 BOILING TUBS
3-OI-0"'l-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
ADHF.51VES
3-01-050-01 GENL/COHPNO UNKWN
ACETATE FLAKE
l-oj-n90-99 OTMER/WOT CLASFD
ACETONE
3-OI-O'l-ri OTHER/NOT CLASFD
MALE1C ANHYDRIDE
3-Pl-lOP-Ol GENERAL/OTHER
POLVINL PYRILIOON
3-01-101-01 GENERAL/OTHER
SULFONIC ACIO/ATS
3-01-110-01 GENERAL/OTHFR
ASBESTOS CHEMCAL
3-OI-lM-OI CAULKING
3-01-111-02 SEALANTS
3-01-111-03 fiRAKF LINE/GRINO
3-01-111-01 FIRE PROOF MfG
3-01-111-99 OTHERS/MOT CLASFO
FORMALDEHYDE
3-01-120-01 SILVER CATALYST
3-01-l?0-02 MIXED OXIDE CHST
ETHYLCnE DICHLRDF
3-01-121-01 OX YCHLOR I NAT | ON
3-01-125-H2 DIRECT CHLRNATION
AMMONIUM 5ULFATF
1-01-130-01 NM3-H2SO'< PROCES
3-01-130-02 COKE OVEN BY-PROD
3-OI-)3n-m CAPROLCTM BY-PROO
SOURCE CL'SSIFICATION CODES
P*^T SOX NOX HC CO UNITS
GALLONS OF PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCFD
TONS
TOMS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
o. i.3o 21. n o. p. TONS
0. 45.0 29.0 P. n. TONS
0. 0, 2.00 P. 0. TONS
0. 0. TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
o, o. o. o. TONS
o. p. o. n. TONS
0. 0, 0. n. TONS
0. 0. 0. n. TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
PRODUCT
OF PRODUCT
OF PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCT
PPPOUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
•A' INDICATES T'lf ASH CONTF'IT, -S' INDICATES T«F SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL ON » PFRCFNT 1ASIS (BY WEIGHT)
C-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
NATIONAL F M I S S I 0 N DATA SYSTEM
5 0 U R C F CLASSIFICATION C 0 0 £ 5
PROCE5 -CHF.MJCAL MFC
POUNDS
EMITTED PER
SOX i|0X
WASTE 6*5 FLARES
1-01-900-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
3-01-999-99 SPECIFY U' REMARK
INDUSTRIAL PRCCES -FOOD/AGfilCULTUHAL
MILL10N CUBIC FFET
TOWS PRODUCT
ALFALFA DEHYORATN
3-02-001-01 GENERAL 60.0
3-02-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
COFFEE ROASTING
3-02-002-01 DIRECTFIRE RoASTR 7.60
3-02-002-OZ INDIRCTFIREROASTR 1.20
3-02-002-03 STONER/cOOLER 1.10
j-02-002-9* OTHER/NOT CLASFO
COFFEr-INSTANT
3-02-003-01 SPRAY DRIER 1.10
COTTON GINNING
3-02-001-01 UNLOADING FAN
3-07-C01-02 CLEANER
3-02-001-03 STICK/BURR MACHNE
3-r?-ooi-99 OTHEV/HOT CLASFD
FEED/GRAIN TERMEL
3-02-005-01 SNIPING/RECEIVING
3-02-005-03 SCPEFN1NG/CLEANNG
3-02-005-01 DRYING
FEED/GRAIN CNTRYF
3-OJ-006-OI SHIPNG/RECFIVNG
3-02-OOA-nT. TRANSFEP/COMVfTNG
3-02-004-03 SCREFNING/CLEANNS
3-P2-POA-"1* D9YING
3-02-004 -it OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
GRAIN PROCESSING
3-02-007-01 CORN MEAL
3-0?-007-n2 SOY BEAN
3-02-007-03 BARLFY/WHEATCLEAN
3-02-007-01 MILO CLEANER
3-02-007-05 BARLEYFLOUR WILL
3-02-007-0* WET CORM MILLING
3-02-007-30 WHEAT FLOUR MlLL
3-02-007-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
FEED MANUFACTIIRF
3-02-OOR-ol BARLEY FEED-GENL 3.00
3-C2-OOP-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
FERMENTATN-BEER
3-D?-009-ol GRAIN HANDLING 3.00
3-02-009-Q? DRYING SPNT GRAIN 5.00
3-02-009-03 BREWING
3-02-009-98 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
3-02-009-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
0.10
0.10
0.
TONS MEAL PRODUCED
TONS
TONS GREEN BEAMS
TONS GRF.F.N BEANS
TONS GREEN 1EANS
TONS PRODUCT
TONS GREEN BEANS
5.00
I. 00
3.00
I .00
2.00
5.00
A, 00
5.00
3.00
B.OO
7,00
5.00
7.00
O. 20
0.10
3.00
0. 0. 0. 0. BALES
o. o. o. o. BALES
0. 0. 0. 0. BALES
BALES
0, 0. 0. 0, TONS
0 . o. o. o . TONS
o. o. o, n. TONS
TONS
0, 0. 0. 0. TONS
0. 0. 0, O.TONS
o. o. o. o. TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TO"S
TONS
0. TONS
0, TONS
TONS
COTTON
COTTON
COTTON
COTTON
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PPOCES5FD
GRAIN PROCESSrO
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GOJIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PROCESSED
GRAIN PRCCF5SEO
GRAIN PROCESSED
OF PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PROCESSED
TONS GRAIN PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS GRAI», PROCESSES
TONS GRAIN PROCESSFr
THOUSANDS OF GflLLDNs
GALLONS PRODUCT
TONS GRAIN PROCESSED
3-02-010-01 GRAIN HANDLING
3-02-010-02 DRYING SPHT GRAIN
1-02-010-03 AGING
3-02-010-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
FERMENTATN-WINE
3-02-OIl-nl GENERAL
MS* MC»L
3-07-012-01 COOKERS-FRESHF1SH
3-07-012-12 COOKERS-STALEF1SH
3-07-OI2-9J DRIERS
3-07-017-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3.00 0. TONS GRAIN PROCFSSEc
5.00 TONS GRAIN PROCESSED
0. 10.0 BARRFLI50 GALI
GALLONS PRODUCT
GALLONS PRODUCT
0. TONS FISH MEAL PPOOUCEP
0. TONS FISH HFAL P
0. I 0 TONS FISH SCRAP
TONS PROCESSED
Tf; THf SULFU9 CONTFVT OF THE FUEL o»j « P,.BCF1VT RAS[S f 11 WEIGHT)
12/75
Appendix C
C-ll
-------
INDUST°IAL PRQCES -FOOD/A
A T t 0 N a L F M I 5 S I 0 N DATA SYSTE
SOUUCt CLASSIFICATION COPES
POUNDS £ M
PART 50,
T T F 0 PER UNIT
"EAT SMOKING
3-02-013-01 GENERAL
STARCH MFG
1-02-nU-OI GENERAL
SUGAR CANE PROCES
3-02-015-^1 GENERAL
3-02-015-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
SUGAR BEET PROCES
3-02-OU-n| DRYER ONLY
3-02-ai<,-" OTHER/NOT CLASIFB
PEANUT PROCESSING
3-12-017-20 OIL/NOT CLASFD
3-02-017-59 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
CANDY/CONFECTNRY
3-OZ-018-99 OTHER/MOT CUSFD
DAIRY PRODUCTS
3-07-030-M wlLK SPRAY-DRYER
3-02-030-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFO
OTHER/NOT CLA5IFD
3-02-999-98 SPECIFY IN REMARK
3-C2-999-99 SPECIFY [N RE«AR<
INDUSTRIAL PRCCES -PRIMARY METALS
0.60 TONS MEAT S-.OKEP
TONS STARCM PRODUCE?
TONS SUGAR PRODUCED
TONS RAW BFCT5
TONS RAW BEFTS
TONS PRODUCT
TOSS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PROOUCT
TONS PROCESSED IINP
TONS PRODUCED IFINI
ALUMINUM ORE-RAUX
3-03-000-01 CRUSHING/HANDLING
AL ORE-ELECROREON
3-03-001-01 PREBAKE CELLS
3-03-001-02 HORI7STD SOOER6RG
3-03-001-03 VERTSTD SOOERBPRG
3-03-nOJ-OH MATERIALS HAnDLNG
3-03-001-05 ANOOE RAKE FuRNCE
3-03-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
AL ORE-CALC ALHYD
3-03-002-01 GENERAL
COKE MET 6YPROOUC
• 1.3
9S.1
7S.1
10.0
3.00
MET-BEEMIVE
J-01-OOM-OI GENERAL
COPPER 5PELTFR
j-03-OOS-nl TOTAL/GENERAL
3-03-005-0? ROASTING
3-03-005-03 SMELTINr,
3-03-005-01 CONVERTING
3-03-005-T5 REFINING
3-03-005-nf. ORE PRYFP
3-03-005-00 FINISH OPER-GENL
J.03-005-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
FERALLOY OPEN
FESI
1-P,l-00*-r||
3-03-006-0? 75* FESI
3-03-006-03 90« FESI
3-03-OOfe-nM SILICON METAL
3-03-006-05 S1L1COMBHGANESE
INOICATFS THF ASH CONTENT, -S-
135.
15.0
20.0
40.0
10.0
200.
315.
S65.
1 ,25".
320,
P70,
TONS OF o»r
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
TONS ALUMINUM PROOUCCO
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
TONS ALUMINUM PRODUCED
3-03-003-11
3-03-003-02
3-03-003-H3
3-03-003-01
3-03-003-05
3.03-003-06
3-03-003-07
3-03-003-99
GENERAL
OVEN CHARGING
OVEN PUSHING
QUENCHING
UNLOAD! NG
UNDERFIPING
COAL CRuSH/HANDL
OTHER/NTT CLASFO
3.
1 .
0.
0.
0.
50
50
to
90
ID
1.00
0.02
1.00
O.OH 1 . 2o
0*03 2. Bo
0.20
1 .
0.
0.
27
60
07
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
COAL
COAL.
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
CHARGED
I.no TONS COAL CHARGED
TONS CONCENTRATED ORE
TONS CONCENTRATFD ORE
TONS CONCENTRATED ORE
TONS CONCENTRATED OPE
TONS CONCENTRATED ORE
TONS OF ORE
TONS PRODUCED
TONS CONCENTRATED Of>F
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
T"F SULFUR COMTFNT Or THE FUEL On A prRCF'.T HASIS (BY WEIGHT)
C-12
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
I.',DVST*,AL PROCES -PRI**^ METALS
FERROALLOY CONTINUED
3-03-00*-! 1 ORE PRYER
3-0.1-00&-99 OTHER/N-iT CLASFP
FFRHOY 5EMCOVFNC
3-P3-007-T1 FEROHANG'NESE 15.0
3-03-007-0,2 GENERAL
IRON PRODUCTION
3-n^.ooc-oi BLAST FNC-OPECHG 121.
J-fJ-OOa-l? BLAST FWC-AGLCHG 11.0
3-03-000-03 SINTfRI'jG GENERAL 12.0
3-03-09P-01 ORE-CRuSM^Hrt N0LE
3-03-008-05 SCARFING 1.00
3-03-000-04 SAND HANDLING OPN
3-03-noe-n7 MOLD OVENS
3-03-000-18 SLAG CRuSH/HANOL
3-03-005-9? OTHER/NOT CLA5FD
STEEL PRODUCTION
3-03-009-1) OPNHEARrH OXL^NCE 17.1
3-03-009-02 OPNHEARTH NOxLNCE «,30
3-C3-009-n3 BOF-GENFR«L 51.0
3-03-00.9-C1 ELECT ARC H/L*NCE 11.0
3-03-009-05 ELECT APC NOLANCE 9.20
3-03-009-ln F I Nl SH/P ICKL I NG
3-03-009-11 FINISH/SOAK PITS
3-03-009-20 FINISH/OTHER
LEAD SMELTERS
3-03-OlP-Ol SINTERING I « 1 .
3-03-010-02 BLAST FURNACE 278,
3-03-01C-03 REVERB FURNACE 15,1
3-03-Oln-D1 ORE CRUSHING 2.00
3-03-010-05 MATERIALS HANDLNG 5.00
3-03-010-99 OTHES/NOT CLASFO
3-ns-oH-oi MINING. GENERAL
3-03-011-02 MILLING-GEflFBAL
3-03-OM-99 PROCESS. OTHER
TITANIUM PROCF55
3-03-012-01 CHLORINATION STAT
3-03-012-99 OTHER/NOT CLA51FD
GOLD
3-03-013-01 MINING/PROCESSING
BARIUM
3-03-011-01 ORE 6'IND
3-03-OH-02 REDUCTN KlLN
3-03-011-03 OR IERS/C AUC INERS
3-03-011-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
BERYLLIUM 0»F
3-03-015-nl STORAGE
3-03-015-02 CRUSHING
3-03-015-13 MELTING
3-03-015-05 GRINDING
3-P3-01S-0* SULFA^T JON/D! SSOL V
3-TJ3-015-07 SINTERING
3-03-015-08 VENTILATION
3-03-015-09 LEACH/FILTEP
3-03-015-99 OTHES/NOT CLASFO
MERCURY MINING
3-03-025-01 SURFACE BLASTING
3-03-025-02 SURFACE DRILLING
3-03-025-03 SURFACE HANDLING
3-03-025-.T" NATURAL VAPOR 0,
3-03-025-OS STRIPPING
3-03-025-1* LOADING
3-03-025-07 CONVFT/HAUL 1 NG
3-03-025-Ofl UNLOADING
0.
0.
0.
0,
123.
31. 9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 *
0.
p.
n.
n ,
0.
o.
n.
0.
n .
n.
0 I. A L ""MISSION DATA
R f F CL«SSIF|CAT!Of.
POUNDS F M T T T F 0 PER UNIT
50* NO* NC
'I1 INDICATES THE ASH CONTrNT, •$•
0. ", p.
0. P. 0,
INDICATES THF SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL O'l 1 P.RrFNT OASIS
p.
0.
p.
0 .
D.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
D.
0,
0.
0.
1.750.
18.n
1S.O
0.
0.
n.
n.
p.
UNITS
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSEn
TONS PROCESSED
TONS P
TpNS PRODUCED
TONS PP
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TENS OF ORE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS HANDLED
TONS SAND BAKED
TONS HANDLED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TOWS P"OOUCFD
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TOMS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS CO^'CFNTRa TfD 09f
TONS CONCENTRATED ORf
TONS CONCENTRATED OSF
TONS OF ORE CRUSHED
TCNS OF LEAD PRODUCT
TONS CONCENTRATED pRf
HUNDREDS or TONS
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRPCESSEO
TONS PRODUCT
TONS PROCESSED
TONS O'C
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TOMS
OF ORE
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
PROCESSED
TONS OF ORE
TONS OF OPE
TONS OF ORE
TONS OF ORE
TONS REMOVED
TONS OF CUE
TONS OF ORE
TONS OF Oaf
|6T HEICHTi
12/75
Appendix C
C-13
-------
NATIONAL F M I S 5 I 0 •< PAT* S y S T F *
SOURCE Ct^SSIFlCATlOU C 0 D F 5
INDUSTRIAL P°OCES -PRIMARY METALS
1 T T F 0 PER UNIT
X N9X HC
« E R C U R * " I N I S G CONTINUED
3-03-025-09 CONV/HAUL W A S T E
3-01-025-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
"ERCuRY "IRE PRQCS
3-r»3-n2*-ni CRUSHING
3-D3-Q2fc-OM CALCINE
3-P3-024-05 BURNT ORE BIN
3-03-02A-06 HOEING PROCF.SS
3-03-026-99 OTHER/NOT CLASFD
ZINC SMELTING
1-03-030-01 GENERAL
3-03-030-02 BOASTNG/HULT-HftTH
3-03-030-03 SlNTFfflNG
3-03-030-ot woffi7 RETORTS
3-03-030-05 VERT RETORTS
3-03-030-OA ELECTROLYTIC PRQC
3-03-030-"'9 OTHER/NOT CLASrD
OTHER/NOT ClfiSFr-
3-Q3- 999-97 SPECIFY \H REMARK
INDUSTRIAL PROCE5 -SECOND it»Y MFHL5
AtU^INtj^ OPE'fATN
3»OS-^ni-nj 5WEATINGFURNACE
3*04-00 I -fZ SMELT-CouCl^LE
3-DH-001-OH CHtORlNAT" STAjvi
3-o**-ooi-io TOIL ROLL'NG
3-Dt-DOl-II FOIL COKVERTiNG
3-0^-301-20 CAN MANUFACTU^F
3-OH-DOI-50 ROLL-DRAW-EXTRUOE
3-0*4-00 1-9? OTHE»/NOT CLA^FO
3.04-n02-0t BLAST f *'C
3-0^-002-02 CRUCIBLE FNC
3-OS-002-H3 CUPOLA FNC
3-OM- 002-0* ELECT INDUCTION
3-0«-OH?-99 OTHER/NOT CLASJFD
CRAY iRO'i
3-OH-003-0 1 CUPOLA
3.0^-^03-02 OEvCOH fNC
3-C"4-003-03 ELECT IMIUCTIQM
3-D4-103-05 ANNEALING 0»ERATN
3-D<4-CD3-<40 GRlNOlNG-CLFANjNG
3-0<<-on3-SO SAND HANDL-GFNL
3-0<4-003-99 OTHER/NOT CLASjFO
LF*D SMELT SEC
J-HM-OO't-Ol POT FURNACE
3-0«-OOt-03 PL AST/CUPOLA F"NC
3-DM-OOS-nt* ROTARY REVFRp FNC
3-0"-riO'*-08 LEAD OXIDE wrc
a.O^-OOH-?^ OTHER/NOT CLAS[FO
LEAD BATTERY
j.H'f-nO^-C'l TOTAL-GENERAL
3-0«-Q05-n2 CASTING FURNACE
3. 04-005-03 PA^TF MIXER
3-Qu-'lO*'-C!H THREE PROCE1! OPFp
J-O^-OOB-?"* OTHER/ MnT CLASIFD
«AG»'E51U« SEC
3»n*4-on^-oi POT rup-.'ACE
3-nM-'!OA-99 OTHFR/NQT CLASIFH
120.
90,0
8.00
too.
3.00
11.5
l.^O
H 30
12.5
IB.O
17.0
73.0
2.00
70.0
60.0
17.0
?.0n
1.50
0.80
193.
70.0
0.90
0.04
0.21
0.44
4 .Of
0.
o f
p.
0,
0.
0. 2
I , 101
0.
BO.O
53.0
TONS OF ORE
TONS OF ORE
TOMS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSEO
TONS PROCESSED
TOMS PROCESSED
TONS pRncES^EO
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRHCESSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS METAL PRODUCED
TONS METAL PRODUCCO
p. TONS METAL PRODUCED
0% TONS PRODUCT
0. TONS PRODUCED
n. TONS PRfOUCFD
0. TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGF
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGF
TONS PRODUCED
TONS HETAL CHA"GE
TONS METAL CHARGE
TONS METAL CHANGE
TONS METAL CHARGE
TOMS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS HfcNDlFn
TONS METAL CHARGE
TONS "ETAL CHARGED
TONS HETAL CHARGED
TONS METAL CHARGED
TONS METAL CHARGED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS OF BATTERIES PRODI'CFI
TONS OF BATTERIES PRODUCED
TONS OF BATTERIES PRODUCES
TONS OF BATTERIES PRODUCED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
•A- INDICATES T-t ASH CONTENT, 'S' INDICATES THp ^MLFUR COHTFNT OF THE FUEL 0;, A P,"CE>1T BAS15 |1Y VE1G"T|
C-14
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
INDUSTRIAL P'OCES -SECONDARY METALS
STEEL FOUNDRY
3-01-007-11
3-01-007-oz
3-01-007-01
3-01-007-05
3-01-007-0*
3-01-007-ID
3.01-007-15
3.01-007-99
ZINC SEC
3-01-008-01
3-01-OOB-02
3-01-008-03
3-01-008-01
3-01-008-05
3-01-008-06
3-01-008-07
3-01-008-08
3-01-00»-»»
ELECTRIC ARC FNC
OPEN HEARTH FNC
HEAT-TREAT FNC
INDUCTION FURNACE
SANO GRIND/HANOL
FINISH/SOAK PITS
FINISH/NOT CLA5FO
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
RETORT FNC
HORIZ MUFFLE FNC
POT FURNACE
KETTLE. swE AT FNC
GALVANIZING KETTL
CALCINING KILN
CONCENTRATE DRYER
REVERB. SHCAT FNC
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
13.0
II. 0
10.0
0. 10
17.0
15.0
0.10
1 1 .0
5.00
89.0
13.0
NATIONAL EMISSION DATA S Y S T C «
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
POUNDS EMITTED PER U N | T
PART SOX NOX HC
0.20
0.
0.
MALLEABLE [ROW
3-01-009-01 ANNEALING OPE'ATW
3-01.009-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
NICKEL
3-01-oio-oj FLUX FURNACE
.1-01-010-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
ZIRCONIUM
i-01-tii i-oi OXIOE KILN
3.01-011-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
FURNACE ELECTRODE
J-Ol-OZn-01 CALCINATION
3-01-020-02 NIXING
3-01-020-03 PITCH TREATING
3-01-OZO-01 BAKE FURNACES
3-01-020-99 OTHER/NOT CLAS1FO
"ISC CASTtFABRCTN
1-01-050-01 SPECIFY IN REHAB*
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-0«-»99-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
INDUSTRIAL P'OCCS -MINERAL PRODUCTS
o.
P.
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS HANDLED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS METAL CHARGE
TONS METAL CHARGE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCED
TONS PROCESSED
ASPHALT ROOFING
3-01-001-01
3-05-00 1 -02
3-05-001-03
).05-OOI-B1
3.05-001-99
BLOWING OPERATION
DIPPING ONLY
SPRAYING ONLY
OIPPINS/sPRAYING
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
2
1
3
2
.50
.00
.00
.00
1.5p 0.9P TONS
0, n. TONS
P. n. TONS
0 . n . TONS
TONS
SATUR TED FELT
SATUR TED FELT
SATUR TED FELT
SATUR TED FELT
SATUR TED FELT
pRObUCEO
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
ASPHALTIC CONCRfT
3-05-OOZ-OI
3. 05-007-02
3-05-002-99
ROTARY DRYER
OTHER SOURCES
OTHER/NOT CLA5IFO
35
1 0
.0
.0 n. o.
TONS
0, n. TONS
TONS
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
BRICK MANUFACTU'E
3-05-003-01
3-05-OOJ-P2
3.05-003-03
3.05-003-01
1.05-003-05
3-05-003-06
3-05-001-99
DRYING-RAW MIL
GRINOING-"AW MTL
STO"*G£-RAH MTL
CURING GAS F|RED
CURING OIL FtRfO
CURING COAL FIRFO
OTHER/NOT CLA5IFO
70
76
31
0
0
1
.0 0.
.0 0.
.0 0.
.07 0.02 0.29
.07 5. 00 S 1.10
.30 A 9.60 5 1.10
TONS
TONS
TONS
0.03 O.r7 TONS
P. 1 0 n . TOWS
o.7n 2 . ^o TONS
TONS
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
PRODUCED
CALCIUM CARBIDE
3.05-0011-01
3-HS-001-02
3-05-001-03
3-05-00*1.99
ELECTRIC 'NC
COKF DRyE»
FNC ROOM VENTS
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3P ,0
7.00
26.0
.1.00
1.00
0.
TQW5 PRODUCED
TONS PRODUCPO
TONS PROOUCFO
TONS PROCESSED
•A' INDICATES THE ASM CONTfNT, '5' INDICATES THF SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUFL ON A pfRCENT KASI5 |BY WftGHTl
12/75
Appendix C
C-15
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCE5 -
3-05-005-PI
3-05-005-02
3-05-005-03
3-35-005-01
3-05-005-05
3-05-005-99
CEMENT MFG DRY
3-PS-006-01
3-05-006-OZ
3.05-006-03
3-05-006-01'
3-05-006-05
3-05-006-99
CEMENT MFG WET
3-05-007-P!
3-05-007-02
3-05-007-03
l-OS-007-0"
3-05-007-OS
CERAMIC/CLAY MFC
3-05-008-01
3-05-008-02
3-05-OOP-03
MINERAL PRODUCTS
RAWMATL DRYER
ELECTRIC ARC MELT
CURING OVEN
MOLD/5HA KEOUT
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
KILNS
K ILNS-0 I L FIRED
KILNS-GAS FIRED
KILNS-COAL FIDED
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
KILNS
ORYERS/G^INOEBETC
KILNS-OIL FIRED
KILNS GAS FIRED
K1LNS-C03L FIHEO
DRYING
GR INO1NG
STORAGE
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
SOURCE
f 0 U N "
PART
30.0
120.
50.0
0.20
25.0
16.0
la.o
Z15.
21S,
215,
13,0
6,00
228.
228.
228.
70.0
76.0
31.0
C L « S
S E M t
six
3.00
11.1
10.2
23.8
3.00
11,1
10,2
23. P
CLAY/FLY ASMS INTER
3-05-009-01
3-05-009-02
3-05-009-P3
3-05-009-9?
COAL CLEANING
S-OS-nlO-OI
3-05-01 D-02
3-05-010-03
3-05-010-99
FLYASH
CLAY/COKE
NATURAL CLAY
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
THERM/FLUID BED
THERM/MULT I LOUvpD
OTHER/NOT CLAStrO
1 10.
55.0
21.0
20.0
16.0
25.0
Ctf'iCRETE BATCHING
3-05-01 l-nl
3-05-01 -20
3-05-01 1-21
3-05-nl 1-99
FIBERGLASS MFG
3-C5-OI2-02
3-05-012-03
3-05-012-01
3-05-OI2-OS
3-0-5-012-99
FRIT MFG
3-05-013-99
GLASS MFG
3-05-nl -CM
3-os-ol -10
3-05-01 -II
3-05-11 -12
3-05-01 -99
GYPSUH HFC
1-05-015-01
3-05-015-02
3-05-015-05
3-0^-015-01
3-05-0 14-99
LIME HFG
3-OS-O 1 6-0?
3-05-016-03
GENERAL
•SBEST/cEHNT PDT5
ROAD SURFACE
OTHER/NOT CLASFD
REVER0FNC-REGENEX
ELECTRIC IND FMC
FORMING LINE
CURING rVEN
OTHER/upT CLASIFD
OTHER/MIT CLASIFD
SOOALIME GENL FNC
RAW MAT REC/STORG
BATCHINC, /MIXING
MOLTEN HOLD TANKS
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
RW MTL DRYER
PRIMARY GRINDER
CALC1IIEP
CONVEYING
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
PRIMARY CRUSHING
SECNDRY CRUSHING
CALCINNj.VERTKILN
0.20
n. 20
3 .00
1 .00
0.
50.0
7.00
16.0
2.00
10.0
1 .00
90.0
0.70
31.0
2.00
8.00
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
I S S I 0 *J DATA SYSTEM
UNIT
MC
2.60
2.60
2.60
0.50
2.40
2.60
2.40
0 •
P.
UNITS
TO"''; FEED MATERIAL
TONS FEFO MATERIAL
TOW5 FEFD *ATEa1AL
TOMS FEED MATERIAL
IONS FEED MATERIAL
TONS FEFO MATERIAL
BARRELS CEMENT PRODUCE-
BARRELS CEHFNT PRrOlCED
TONS CEMEHT PRHOUCEp
TONS CEMENT PRODUCED
TONS CEMENT PRODUCED
TONS CEMENT PRODUCED
BARBELS CEMENT PRODUCE"
BARRELS CEMENT PRODUCE."
TONS CE»ENT PRODUCED
TONS CEMENT PRODUCED
TONS CF-ENT PRODUCED
TONS CE"ENT PRODUCED
TO"S INPUT TO PROCESS
TONS IN'UT TO "OCESS
TONS INPUT TO PROCESS
TONS PRODUCED
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCED
TONS COAL DRIED
TONS COAL OR1E"
TONS COAL DRIED
TOMS COAL CLEANED
CUBIC YABD5 CONCRETE
0. TONS PRODUCT
p. TONS PRODUCT
TONS PRODUCT
TONS MATERIAL -ROCE5SE?
TONS MATERIAL PROCESSED
TONS MATERIAL PROCESSED
TONS MATERIAL PROCESSED
TONS MATERIAL PROCESSED
TONS PROCE.SSET
TONS
TONS
TONS GLASS
TONS PROCESSED
-I. TONS PROCESSES
TONS PROCESSED
TONS P
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
TONS THROUGHPUT
1. TONS PROCESSED
0. TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
'A' INDICATES THE ASH CONTENT, 'S' 1MMCOTFS THf SULFUR CONTENT Or THE FUEL Of; A PERCENT RASIS ( PY WEIG4TJ
C-16
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
POUNDS fMjTTFD PER UNIT
PART 50* NO* WC
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -MINERAL PRODUCTS
LIME MFC CONT I NUEO
3-05-014-11 CALCINNG-ROTyKlLN 201.
3-05-014-15 CALCIMAT1C KILN
3-05-014-04 FLUIOI7.P BED KILN
3-05-014-09 HYDRATOR
3-05-014-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFB
MINERAL WOOL
3-05-017-01 CUPOLA 22.0 0.02
3-05-017-12 REVERB FNC 5.00
3-05-017-03 BLOW CHAMBER 17.0
3-05-017-01 CURING OVEN 1,00
3-05-017-15 COOLER 2.00
3-05-017-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
PERLITE MFC
3-n*-nl/>-3] VERTICAL FNC GEN 21.0
3-05-01"-9? OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
PHOSPHATE ROCK
3-05-019-01 DRYING 15,0
3-05-019-02 GRINDING 20.0
3-05-019-33 TRANSFER/STORAGE 2.00
3-05-019-01 OPEN STORAGE 11,0
3-05-019-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-05-020-01 PSIHJRr CRUSHING 0.50 0. 0. 0.
3-05-020-02 SEC CRUSH/SCREEN 1.50 0. o. 0.
3-05-020-03 TERT CRUSH/SCREEN 4.00 0, 0. 0.
3-05-020-31 RECRUSH/SCREENINS 5.00 n, o. D.
3-05-020-15 FINES MILL 4.00 1. 0. 0.
3-05-020-04 SCREFN/CONVY/HNDL 2.00 0. 0. 0,
3-05-02^-07 OPEN SToR'GE 10.0 0, 0. 0,
3-C5-02C-18 CUT STOVE -GENERAL ". 0. 0.
3-05-020-09 BLASTING-GENERAL 0. 0. 0.
3-05-020-99 OTHER/NOT CUSIFD
S>'_T MINING
3-05-021-11 GENERAL 1,
POTASH PRODUCTION
3-05-022-0! Ml NE-GR IND/DRY 0.
3-Of-"2?-99 OTHER/WOT CLASIFO
CALCIUM BOBJTE
3-05-023-11 MINING/PROCESSING 0.
3-05-023-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
MG CAtpONATE
3-CK-021-OI MINE/PROCESS P.
SANI/GR'VEl.
3-05-025-01 CRUSHING/SCREEN 1.10 0. 0. 0.
n I ATO"ACOUSERTH
3-05-024-11 HANDLING 0. Q. 0,
3-05-024-99 OTHER/NOT CLASJFr>
CERSHIC ELFCT PTS
3-05-030-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
ASBFSTOS MINING
3-05-031-11 SURFACE BLASTING 0. 0. 0.
3-05-031-P2 SURFACE DRILLING 0. 0. 0.
3-05-03I-P3 C039ING 0, 0. 0,
3-05-H3I-01 LOADING 0, 0. 0.
3-05-03I-C5 CONVFY/HAUL AS9E5 0. 0. 0.
3-05-011-16 CONVFY/HAUL wAgTf 0, 0. f1.
3-05-031-17 UNLOADING 0. 0. 0.
3-05-031-OK STRIPPING 0. 0. 0.
3-15-131-Q9 VENTILATION 0. 0. 0.
3-05-031-10 STOCKPILING 0. 0. P.
3-OS-Hl-ll TAILINGS 0. 0. 0.
3-05-031-99 1THF.R/N1T CLlSFD
'A* T'.MCaTFS T^F SSH CONTENT, «S- IsntfATES THE SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL ON A PERCFNT
12/75 Appendix C
Cf 1' N I T 5
TONS PROCESSED
TONS P't>CCS5EO
TONS PROCESSED
TONS HYDRATED LI*E '
TONS PROCESSED
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS CHARGE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS CHARGE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCr
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PHOSPHATE ROCK
TONS PROCESSED
0. TONJ RAW MATERIAL
0. TONS RAW MATERIAL
0. TONS RAW MATERIAL
0. TONS RAW MATERIAL
0. TONS RAW MATERIAL
0. TONS PRODUCT
0. TONS PRODUCT STORED
0. TONS PROCESSED
0. TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS MINED
TONS ORE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS Pffooucr
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PRODUCT
0. TONS PRODUCT
TONS PROCESSED
0. TONS PRODUCT
TONS PROCESSED
TOWS PROCESSED
n. TONS OF ORE
0. TONS OF ORE
0. TONS OF ORE
0. TONS OF ORE
0. TONS OF ORE
ri, TONS OF ORE
0. TONS OF ORE
0. TONS REMOVED
1. TONS OF ORE
0, TONS OF ORE
rj. TINS OF MATERIAL
TONS PROCESSED
•>ASIS |BY WEIGHT)
1
C-17
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -MINERAL PRODUCTS
5 o f R c E; c t_ a s 5 i F
POUrj^S E M I T T F
P*RT SOX
C a T i o 'i
UNITS
3-C5-C17-06
CRUSHING
0»Y ING
PrCR'JSHING
SCREENING
F I B E R I 2 I N G
BAGGING
MINING-SPEC 1ATL
3-P5-nip-ii OPEN PIT-BLASTING
3-P5-01P-03
3-05-010-10
3-P5-01P-20
3-05-010-21
3-OS-O 0-22
3-05-310-21
3-05-01C— 25
3-05-010-30
3-05-010-31
3-05-010-32
3-05-010-33
3*05-010-11
3-05-010-36
3-05-010-99
OPEN PIT-DRILLING
OPEN P I T-COBB I NG
LOADING
CONVEY/HAUL MATL
"TRAPPING
STOCKPILE
PRIMARY CRUSHER
SECONDARY CRUSHER
ORE CONCENTRATOR
ORE ORYER
SCREENING
TAILING PILES
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
0, p.
P. P.
n. o.
0, 0.
0. 0.
n. n.
P. 0.
c . 9.
0. 0.
P. 0,
P. 0.
o. a.
0 » 0 ,
0, p.
0. 0,
0. P.
0. 0,
0. 0.
P. 0.
0. 0.
0. P.
r t
c.
p,
0.
0.
0.
c.
c;
0.
n.
p.
0 ,
0,
0 ,
p.
o.
0.
0*
0,
p .
0.
0,
0,
n ,
n *
n .
n .
P ,
0.
0.
p.
oi
p.
0.
0.
0.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
R1CESSFD
ROCESSEO
OF MATFRIAL.
OF MATFRIAL
OF H
OF M
M
or M
OF K
or M
OF M
OF M
or M
OF H
or <•
OF H
TERI AL
TERI AL
TERI AL
TER! AL
TFRI AL
TERI AL
TERI AL
TERI AL
TFRI AL
TERI AL
TERI AL
TFR! AL
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-05-999-91 SPECIFY lw R£Mfts
1NOJ5TRIAL PROCES -PETROLEUM INDRY
TONS PRODUCT
PROCESS HEATER
3-0»-OflI-nl OIL
3-06-001-02 G»5
3-0(,-00\-n3 OIv.
3-06-001-31 GAS
FLUID CRACKERS
3-0*-002-n| GENERAL IFCCI
"OV-BfO C»T-CR»CK
3-06-003-01 GENERAL ITCCI
BLOW-DOWN SYSTM
S-Oi-OO'*-'!! H/CONTROLS
3-06-001-02 H/0 CONTROLS
PROCESS ORAI'lS
3-0*-005-OI GEN U/CONTROL
3-06-005-02 GEH W/0 CONTROL
VACUUM JETS
3-06-006-01 w/eONTRQt,
3-0(,-004-02 W/0 CONTROL
COOLING TOWERS
3-06-007-"!
»ISCELL«NEOUS
3-06-oas-ol PIPE/V»LVE-FLANGE
3-06-OOS-02 VESL BEL'EF VALUE
3-06-OOB-03 PUMP SElLS
>-06-008-01 COHPRESH SEALS
S-Ofc-OOS-05 OTHER-GENL
BIO. 6,770, S 2,900, iHO.
0.02 0.«3 5 0.23 0.03
20.0 160. 5 69.0 3.3s
20.0 »3P. 5 230, 30.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
5
300
8
210
130
.00
•
.OP
•
0,
.
0,
0.
p,
0,
p.
2fi,0
||, p
17. n
5.00
JO.O
0. ICOO BAPREL5 OIL PU^NE^
0. 1000 CUBIC FEET GAS BU»NEr>
0- 1000 GALLONS OIL PLIPSEO
o. MILLION ru^tc FEET BUPNto
13,700. 1000 BARRELS FRESH FEED
3,800. 1000 BARRELS FPES» FEEO
0. lOPO BARRELS CF.FINERT ClPiCITT
P. 1000 PARRELS RFFlNEPY CAPACITY
0. 1000 PARRELS V.ASTFwATfp
0. 1000 BARRELS WASTE V.ATFR
0, 1000 BARRELS VACUUM DISTILLATION
0. 1000 BARRELS VACUUM DISTILLATION
T. MILLION GALLONS COOLING HATER
0. lOPP BARRELS PF_FtNERY CAPACITY
0. ICOO BARRELS REFINERY CAPACITY
0, 1000 BARRELS RFFlNtRY CAPACITY
0. IOPO BSRSELS RErlWfRT CAPACITY
0. 1000 BARRELS REFINERY CAPACITY
3-06-009-01 NATURAL G«S
3-H6-^"9-99 OTHER/Nf>T CLft^lFO
UBGE CONVERTER
3-06-01"--!! GENERAL
IMOICATFS
ASH CO'tTfNT, '5' INDICATES
MILLIONS OF cuiic FEET
MILLIONS OF CURIC FF^T
TONS PROCESSED
SULFUR CONTENT Or THE FUEL ON A PERCENT f»AS|5 (BY HEIGHT)
C-18
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
A T I 0 N A L E
SOURCE CL
ISSION
SSIFIC
p J T A S Y S T E «
ATION COOES
fHf
SOX
D PE
NOX
3-36--I1-"!
3-Oi-CM-99
, ! D C C * I *< G
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
3-36--I2-DI GENE"AL
J-C4--I2-02 COOLIES OPER
3-C6-712-C3 TRANSPORTATION
J-0«-rI2-""* STORAGE
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
Icon BARRELS F»ESH ref"
1000 BARRELS FRESH FrF*
Inoo e«»RELS FRESH FEEO
lOP" BARRELS FRESH FEE"
3-06-n]3-0| G
.FP/NCT C L A 5 1 F P
i.-o*.-999-9a
3-36-999-99
SPECIFY IN REMARK
SPECIFY IN REMARK
1000 BARRELS FRESH
TONS PROCESSED
BARRELS-PROCESSED
3-07-?3l-Dl BLQWTNtc ACCUMULTR 0.
3-07-^^1-0,3 "ULT-ErrECT EVAP 0.
3-07-roi-o1* RECV Y RDLR/ICEVAP IBI.
3-57-?^j-os s ^ n. T oissotv INK 2.00
3»07-T?l-!?7 TURPfWTlNf CQNDSP 0.
?-07-?01-?P rLUICSEO C4LCINER 72,0
3-07-?0!-C"' L I'S U 0 R OXIO''3 TOWR
3-07-;Cl-^» OTHER/NOT CLAS1FO
0.
0.
n.
5.00
0.
P.
T. *IR-DffT TONS UN9LEACHFD pj,LP
o. AIR-DRY TO^IS U^PLEACHEO PULP
n. *IR-Offr TO^S UNPLF4CHE"" f*ULp
*o,n AIR-DRY TONS UNBLEACHED PUUP
0. AIR-DRY TONS uN8Lr*CME^ PULP
iCf.n AIR-DRY TONS UNPLCACHED PULP
0. AjR-rRY TONS UNBLEAOEH pt,LP
n, AIR-ORY TONS UNPLCACHEO PULP
AIR-DRY TONS uNSLEicwEr* PULP
AIR-DRY TONS UHBLEACH?^ PULP
T.i;2-ri LIQUOR 1ECOVERT
7--?2-C2 SULFJTE THwEn
3-C7-C32-C5
0.
n,
o.
r.
OTHFR/NDT CLASIFD
MR-PRY TONS UNSLEACUE9 PULP
AIR-ORY TONS UNSLEACHEO PULP
AIR-DRY TONS UNBLEACME") PULP
AIR.DRY TONS UNBLEACHED PULP
AIR-DRY TONS UNBLEACHED PULP
TONS AIR DRY PULP
TONS AIR ORY PULP
j.C7-r1»-T? FIBERBOARO-GEN
3.07-??*i-97 OTMER/'vaT Ct-AS/FO
o.
1.60
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
TONS FINISHED PRODUCT
j.c-»-:os-si CREOSOTE
3-07-:D5-°9 OTHER/NOT CLA5IFP
TONS OF WOOD TREATED
TONS OF WOOD TREATFD
3-C7-DD6-DJ GENERAL
TONS OF PRODUCT
3-07-~07-QI* ITHFR/HOT CLASJFO
.-ILL tPFRAT.,5
3-07-"?»-»* OTHFO/NOT CLASIFO
CrLS:^:> »FG
3-^7--T9-9« OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
1.20
0.
n. TONS PROCESSED
0. TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
i-o-»--in-?9 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
° '• I T L 3 E ^ F G
3-T7--20-»» OTHFO/NOT CLASIFD
-^P/^ ^• f L 'S ! Ff
3-^7-997-97 SPECIFY IN PEMARt;
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
!'. ~1C»TFS TMF ASH CONTEST,
INDICATES THE SULFUR CONTENT or TNI FUEL ON « PERCENT BASIS IBY WEIGHT)
12/75
Appendix C
C-19
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCES -METAL FABRICATION
', I T t 0 N A L EMISSION DATA S Y "1 T E >•
S 0 U R C f CL«5SIF|C'T!ON COOES
POUNHS EM|TTFn PER UNIT
PART 50X NOX HC
IRON/STEEL
3-09-COl-OI MISC HARDWARE
3-09-001*02 FARM MACHINERY
3-09-001-99 OTHER/NOT CLA5IFO
PLATING OPERATORS
3-09-nln-99 OTHER/NOT CLAS1FD
CAN MAKING OPRNS
3-09-020-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
MACHINING OPFR
3-p9-o3n-ni PRILL'NG-SP MATL
3-09-030-02 MILLING-SP MATL
3-09-030-03 REAMlNfi-SP WATL
3-09-030-01 GRINOING-5P MATL
1-09-030-05 SAHlNG-SP MATU
3-09-030-04 HONING-SP MATU
3-09-030-99 OTHER-SP MATL
OTHFB/NOT CLASiri)
J.09-999-99 SPECIFY I" REMARK
INOUSTRIAL PROCES -LEATHER PRODUCTS
0.
a.
a.
o,
o.
o.
TONS OF PRODUCT
TONS OF PROTUCT
TONS PROCES«EO
TONS PLATED
TONS PRODUCT
TONS P"fCESSE3
TONS PROCESSEO
TONS PROCESSES
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
TONS PROCESSED
OTHFR/NOT CLASlFO
3-20-999-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
INDUSTRIAL PROCE5 -TEXTILE MFC
GENERAL FABRICS
J-30-001-01
3-30-001-02
3*30-001 -99
RU8"
-------
CLASSIFICATION COOES
INDUSTRIAL pieces -INPROCESS FUEL
RESIDUAL OIL
3-90-00 -31
3-90-00 -32
3-90-OP -50
3-90-00 -51
3-90-90 -52
3-90-00 -9?
PISTILLATE OIL
3-90-005-01
3-9P-005-02
3-90-005-03
3.9p-005-Pt
3-90-005-05
3-90-005-P4
3-90-005-07
3-90-005-08
3-90-005-C-9
3-90-005-in
3-90-005-1 1
3-90-005-30
3-91-005-31
3-90-005-33
3-90-005-50
3-90-005-S1
3-90-005-52
3-90-005-99
NATURAL GAS
3-90-004-0 1
3-90-004-02
3-90-004-03
3-90-004-01*
3-90-004-05
3-90-004-0*
3-90-004-0'
3-90-006-08
3-90-004-09
3-90-006-10
3-90-004-1 1
3-90-004-30
3-90-004-31
3-9n-006-3?
3-90-004-50
3-90-006-51
3-90-C04-5J
^ 3-70-004-99
PROCESS GAS
1-90-007-01
3-90-007-02
3-90-007-99
COKE
3-90-OOft-O 1
3-90-OOS-99
CONT jNUf fl
FOOD-DRY/COOK/ETC
FERTILIZE" DRYING
PULPBOARD-DRYEBS
PLYWOOD-DRYERS
PULP-RECOV B0ILER
OTHFR/NOT CLASIFD
ASPHALT D"YEff
CEMENT KILN/DRYER
LIME K I LN
HOLI" KILN
HETAL HELTING
*»RlCr XlLN/DflT
GYPSUH IflLN/ETC
GL*5S FuPN*C£
ROCK/GRAVEL DRYER
FRIT SHELTER
PERL1TE FURNACE
FEEO/GR^IN ORYINS
FOOO-OHY/COOK/ETC
FEPTILIjE" DBYIM5
PULPHOARO-DRYER5
PLYWOOD-DRYERS
PUL'-»ECOV PotLER
OTHFR/NOT CLlSIFD
ASPHALT DRYER
CEMENT KlLN/ORYFR
LIMF KHN
KAOLIN KILN
METAL MFLTINO
BRICK K1LN/ORY5
SYPSl'H KILN FTC
GLAS5 FURNACE
ROCK/GRAVEL DRYER
FRIT SHELTER
PERLITE fUPNjCE
FEFO/GRAIN ORYING
FOOD-DRY/CO"K/ETC
FERTILIZER ORY I NG
PULPflOARp-DRYERS
PLYWOOD. D"YERS
PULP-RECOV ROHER
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
CO/aLAST FURNACE
COKE OVFN G&S
OTHER/NOT CLA5IF1
MINERAL WOOL FURN
OTHER/NOT CLA5IFD
0 U
PAST
E M I T T E D PER UNIT
50x f.0» «C
UNITS
0.
0 *
0.
0.
n .
0.
0.
1.
0.
n.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
n.
0.
n*
0.
0.
c.
0.
o ,
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n •
o •
o •
0*
n.
0.
lODn GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLON-!
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
lOOn GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
MILLION cusic
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION cuaic
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION cusuc
MILLION CUBIC
MILLION CUBIC
B U P N F D
3URNE3
BURNED
BURNF?
f*rRN*:D
PURN-D
BURNED
BURNfD
BURKES
BURNED
TURNED
BURNED
RURNED
BURNE3
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
9UXNED
3URNED
BURNEO
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
BURNED
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FFET
FEET
FEET
FFET
FEFT
FFET
FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET
BEET
FEET
tiWFD
BUR^'EO
BURNED
5UR-1E.D
PURNFO
PURNED
BURNED
B J P N r D
p tj R >' P D
o 'j B '* F 0
BURNED
5 0 R *i f D
BURIED
B'JRNFD
P 'J R '1 1 0
BURNf 0
P ' 1 R N r D
PUBNfO
o. MILLION CUBIC FEET BURNEO
o. MILLION CUBIC FEET TURNED
o. MILLION CUBIC FEET »U»NFO
TONS BURNEO
TONS
•»-90-n09-99 OTHFR/NOT CL.A51FO
L1Q prt G*S 1LPG)
3-9P-01H-9? OTHEP/NOT CUA5TFO
1000 GALLONS BURNE
i|.9n-999-97 SPfCITY IN REMARK
3w9D-999-9R SPECIFY IN REMARK
3.9P-999-97 SPECIFY ?N REMARK
INDUSTRIAL pRocrs -OTHER/NO~T CLASIFO
MILLION cuiic FEET
lOCl GALLONS 9'JRfcfP
TONS BURNEO
TONS
TWF ASH CO'UrNT,
CD'lTFNT OF THE FUEL
* PFRCfNT BASIS (RY WE I G
12/75
Appendix C
C-21
-------
POINT sc EVAP
>. A T | 0 N « L E " I S S I 0 -I DATA 5 V 5 T E 1
s o ii » c r CLASSIFICATION COOES
-CLEANING SOLVENT
POUNDS
PAST
E M I T T F 0 PER UNIT
SOX NOX "C
PRYCLEANtHG
1-01-001-01 PERCHLORETHYLENE
1-01-001-02 STOOOARO
1-01-001-99 SPECIFY SOLVENT
PEGREASlNS
1-CM-002-CM
1-CI-002-02
l-Ot-002-03
1-01-002-01
1-01-002-05
1-0 I-002-0*
1-31-002-99
STOOOARO
TR1CHLOSOETHANE
PEBCHLOPOETHYt-ENE
METHYLENE CHLOROE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
i.01-999-99 SPECIFY IN REHARK
POINT 5C EVAP -SURFACE COATING
2|0.
305.
0. TONS CLOTMF5 CLEANED
0. TONS CLOTHES CLEANED
TONS CLOTHES CLEANED
TONS SOLVENT USED
TON? SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT usro
TONS SOLVENT USED
TONS SOLVENT USED
TONS SOLVENT USED
TONS SOLVENT USEO
TONS SOLVENT USFD
1-02-001-01 GENERAL
«t-Q2-001-n2 ACETONE
1-02-001-03 ETHYL ACETATE
1-02-001-01 MEK
1-02-001-05 TOLUENE
1-02-001-99 SOLVENT GENERAL
VARNISH/SHEULAC
1-02-003-01
1-02-00.1-02
1-02-003-T3
1 - P 2 - 0 0 3 - n 1
1-02-003-05
1-02-003-99
GENERAL
ACETONE
ETHYL ACETATE
TOLUENE
XYLENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
1.120.
2.000.
2,000.
2.000.
2,000.
2,000.
1,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN CO'TING
TON5 SOLVENT IN CO'TJNS
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COSTING
TONS COATING
TON5 SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
N COATING
N COATING
H-02-001-01
H-02-001-02
1-02-001-03
1-02-001-01
1-02-001-05
4-02-C01-06
1-02-001-07
"*.n2-DOl-99
GENERAL
ACETONE
ETHYL ACETATE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
HEX
TOLUENE
XYLENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
1,510.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TOMS SOLVENT
N COATING
N COATING
N COATING
N COAT IN/",
N COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATINf,
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
H-C2-OOS-OI
t-02-005-02
1-02-005-03
4-02-005-01
1-07-005-05
1-02-005-99
GENERAL
CELLOSOlVf »CFTA
KEX
TOLUENE
XYLENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
010.
2,000r
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
TONS SOLVENT
N COATINS
N COATINC-
N COATING
N COATING
N COATING
1-02-ODi-O 1
1-02-006-02
1-P2-004-03
1-02-006-01
1-02-QQ6-OS
1-0?-ODt-99
ADHFSt V
1-02-007-01
1-02-007-02
1-02-007-03
1.02-007-01
1-C2-007-05
1-P2-007-99
GENERAL
NAPHTHA
XYLENE
MINERAL SPIRITS
TOLUENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
MEK
TOLUENF
BENZENE
NAPHTHA
SOLVENT GENERA^
1,320.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT I'l COAT
TONS SOLVENT IN COAT
TONS SOLVENT IN COAT
TONS SOLVENT IN COAT
TONS SOLVENT IN COAT
TONS COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
TONS SOLVENT IN COATING
COATING flVFh
i-02-nop-n2
1 -o?-nns-o3
GENERAL
DRIED < |75F
BAKED > [75F
OTHER/SPECIfY
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
TONS COATING
•A- INDICATES THE ASH CONTENT, -s- INDICATES T"f SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUFL ON « P.'OCEUT OASIS (BY
C-22
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
POINT sc FVAP
•SURFACE COAT]NG
NATIONAL F « I S S 1 0 -I OATA S^STE"
5 0 II » C F CLASSIFifiyjON COOES
POUNDS
PART
E » I
SOX
-07-009-01
•07-009-02
-02-009-03
-02-009-01
-02-009-05
-02-009-0*
-02-009-07
-02-009-0*
.02-009-0*
-02-009-10
-P2-009-1 |
-02-009-12
-02-009-1 3
-02-009-1 •»
-02-009-15
-02-009-1*
-02-009.17
-02-009- I fl
-02-009-19
-02-009-20
-02-009.21
-02-009-22
-02-009-23
-02-009-2'
GENERAL
ACETONE
BUTYL ACETATE
BUTYL ALCOHOL
C AR8 1 TOL
CELLOSOLVE
CELL050LVE ACETAT
D I H E T H y i r o a M A N j p E
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL ALCOHOL
GASOLINE
ISOPSOPYL ALCOHOL
I50PROPYL ACETATE
KEROSENE
LACTOL SPI1IT5
HETHYL ACETATE
HETHYL ALCOHOL
HEK
"IB*
NINERAL SPIRITS
NAPHTHA
TOLUENE
VARSOL
XYLENE
OTHfR/NOT CLASJFD
1-02-999-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
POINT SC EVAP -PETROL PROD STG
2,000.
2,000*
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
7,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TOMS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TnNS
TONS
TONS
TONS
SOLVENT
SOLVEN'
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOL VENT
SOLVENT
50LVENT
SOLVENT
TONS COATING
1-03*00 1 -0
1-CT3-OOI-0
1-03-001-0
1-03-001-0
1-03-001-0
1-03-OOI-f!
1-03-001-0
1-03-001-0
1-03-001-0
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-1
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-5
1-03-001-4
1-03-001-6
1-03-001-7
1-03-00 1 -9
BREATH-GASOLINE
! REATH-CPUDE"
0 R K J N G - GASOLINE
1 ORK ING-C&UDE
5 REATH-jET ruEL
REATH-rfRoSCNf
r REATH-oIST FUEL
} RE ATH-BEN7ENC
> BREATH-CYCLOHEx
1 BRE ATH-C YCLOPENT
BREATH-HEPTANE
! BREATH-HEX ANE
> BREATH-J500CTANE
( BREATH.150PENTANE
5 B»EA TH-pf NTANf
4 BREATH-TOLUENE
3 WORKING-JET FUEL
WORK 1 NG-KEROSENE
r WORKING-OIST FUEL
3 WORKING. BEN7ENE
< WORK1NG-CYCLOHEX
5 WORK 1 NG-CYCLOPENT
i WOP-K ING-HFPTiNE
WORK 1 NO-HE )( ANE
WORK ING- I SOOCT ANE
WORK ING- 1 SOPENT
WORK ING-PENT ANE
WORK f NG. TOLUENE
BREATHE-SPECIFY
WORKING-SPECIFY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fLO*TINC «OOF
i-03-00?-n ]
1-H3-002-02
1-03-007-03
H. 03-002-01
1-03-002-05
1-03-002-0*
1-03-002-07
1-03-002-0. «
1-03-002-09
1-03-007-10
1-03-002-1 1
1-03-002-12
1-03-002-13
1-03-P02- 1 1
1-03-002-15
1-03-002- I*
1-03-002-9*
STAND STG-GASOLN
WORK 1 NG-PROOUCT
STAND STG-CRUDE
WORK | NG-CRUOE
STAND STG-JETFUEL
STAND S^G-KEROSNE
STAND STG-01ST FL
STAND STG-8ENZENE
STAND STG-CYCLHEX
STAND STG-CYCLPEN
STAND 5TG-HFPTANE
STAND STG-HEXANE
STAND STG-ISOOCTN
STAND STG-ISOPENT
STAND STG-PFNTANE
STAND STG-TOLUENf
STAND STG-SPECIFY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
80
51
9
7
25
13
13
16
20
58
1 1
32
13
112
9«
5
2
1
1
2
2
6
1
3
1
15
10
0
.3
. 8
.00
.30
.2
. 1
. 1
.3
.8
. H
.3
. 1
.9
.
, 9
.HM
.10
.00
.00
.on
.30
.10
.2n
,6n
.50
.7
,k
.4-.
0. 1000
n . looo
0. 1000
0. 1000
0 . 1000
n, looo
0. 1000
n. lono
0. 1000
0. 1 000
0* 1000
0 , 1000
o. looo
0. 1000
n, inon
0. 1000
n, innn
o, loon
0. 1 000
0, loon
n . 1 coo
0 . 1000
0 , I 000
0 , 1000
0 . 1 OnO
n. looo
n. looo
o. Inon
1 000
1 000
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLON;
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
STO'AGE CA
STORAGF CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGE CA
STORA5E CA
STORAGE CA
STORAGF CA
STORAGE CA
ACITY
AC'TY
AC 1 T Y
ACITY
AClTY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
THROUGHPUT
THROUSHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUSHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
THffupUT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
10.
1,
1.
1 .
I,
3.
B.
1 .
14 ,
2,
20.
13.
0.
1
o.
6
0.
3»
9n
90
70
03
7(,
f><4
75
01
A
9
88
n. loon
looo
0. 1000
loco
n . looo
n, looo
o . looo
n. looo
n. lono
0 . 1 0 0 0
n . 1 ooo
n . 1 DOO
o. looo
o. loon
n , 1 ooo
0 . 1 onfl
1 0"DO
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGHPUT
STORAGE CAPACITY
THROUGH
STORAGE
STORAGF
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGr
STORAGE
STORAGr
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
•UT
CA
CA
C A
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ACITY
ACITY
ACITY
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION DATA SVSTt*
SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES
POINT 5C EVAP
-PETROL PROD STG
VAR.VAPOR SPACE
1-01-001-02
1-05-003-03
L03.003.ni
1-03-003-05
1-03-003-0*
1-03-003-07
1. 03-003-08
1-03-003-09
1-03-003-10
1-03-003-1 1
1-03-003-12
1-03-OOS-l 3
1-03-003-11
1-03-003-99
WOR ING-GASOLINE
WOR ING-JET FUEL
WOR ING. KEROSENE
WOR 1NG-DIST FUEL
WOfl ING-KEN7.ENE
WOR | NG-C YCLOHEX
WOR ING-CYCLOPENT
WOR ING-HEPTANE
WOR
WOR
WOR
WOR
WOR
WOR
NG-HEX ANE
NG-ISOOCTANE
NG-ISOPENT
NG-PENT AN-.
NG-TOLUENE
NG-SPECIFY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
1-03-999-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
POINT sc rvAR -MISC ORGANIC STOR
OTHER/NOT CLAS1FD
1-01-001-99 SPECIFY IN REMARK
POINT sc EVAP -PRINTING PRTSS
P 0 U N 0
PART
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
n .
0.
0.
0.
0.
S EMIT'
so»
0.
0.
0.
0 i
0 .
0.
0 .
0.
0.
n .
0.
n.
0.
r F o PER
N0»
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10.2
2.30
1 .00
I .00
2.30
2.60
7.20
I .10
1.00
1.70
17.8
12.0
0.73
1000
loon
1 000
looo
1000
1000
1000
1000
loon
1000
loon
loon
loon
looo
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
GALLONS
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
BOUGHPUT
ROUGMPUT
ROUGHPUT
ROUGHPUT
ROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
THROUGHPUT
1000 SAC STORED
DRYERS
t-ns-OOl-01 GENERAL
LETTERPRESS
t-05-002-01 GENERAL
1-05-002-02 KEROSENE
t.05-007-03 MINERAL SP I * I TS
H-OS-OOZ-" SOLVENT GENERAL
700.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
TONS SOLVENT
TONS INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
1-05-003-0 1
1-05-003-02
1-05-003-03
1-05-003-01
1-05-003-05
1-05-003-0*
1-05-003.07
1-05-003-99
L 1 THOGRAPH I C
i-05-nOH-o i
1-05.001-02
1.05-001-03
1-05-001-99
GRAVURE
1-05-005-01
1-05-005-02
1-05-005-03
1-05-005-01
1-05-005-05
1-05-005-0*
1-05-005-0
1-05-005-0
1-05-005-0
1-05-005" 1
1.05-005-9
GENERAL
CARBITOL
CELLOSOLVt
ETHYL ALCOHOL
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
N-PROPYC ALCOHOL
NAPHTHA
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
HINEOAL SPIRITS
1SQPROPYL ALCOHOL
SOLVENT GENERAL
GENERAL
D 1 METHYLFORMAM | OE
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL ALCOHOL
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
MEK
MIRK
MINERAL SPIRITS
N-PROPYL ALCOHOL
TOLUENE
SOLVENT GENERAL
I,300.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
700.
2,000,
2,oon,
2,000.
1, 3on.
2,0on,
2,000.
2,000,
2,000.
2 ,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000.
2,000,
2,000.
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS
TONS INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN
TONS SOLVENT IN
TONS SOLVENT IN
TONS SOLVENT IN
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN IWK
TONS INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
TONS SOLVENT IN INK
INK
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT
SOLVENT IN
SOLVENT IN
SOLVENT IN
SOLVENT IN
SOLVENT IN
'A' INDICATES THf ASH CONTfNT, »S' INDICATES TMr SULFUR CONTENT OF THE FUFL ON A p^RCFNT RASIS [BY WEIGHT)
C-24
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
NATIONAL F M I 5 S t o N DATA S r S T e "
SOURCE CL'SSIFIC^TION r 0 1 E S
POUNDS F M 1 T T F
PART sny
POINT sc EVAP
TAN* CARS/TRUCKS
1.04.
1-04-
1-H4 •
1-14-
1.04*
1-04-
1-04-
1-04-
1-04-
1*04-
1-04-
1-04"
1-04-
1-04-
1-04-
1.04-
1-04'
1-04-
• no t -o i
OP I-02
•ooi-oj
•001 -11
•001-15
•00|-2t
•001-27
•001-28
OOI-2»
•00 t -30
001-51
001-53
OOI-5J
001-51
001-55
001-97
•001-98
00 I-99
LOAn i SPLASH -G Asa
LOAOtSP
LOAD ISP
LOAD(SP
LOAOf S*»
LOAD{SU
LOAD(SU
M t -GASOLN
MI-CRUOE
LOADI SUPMI-JET FL
LOADISU<*M>-*EROS*J
LOAD ( 5U«M ) -D 1 5T
UNLOAO-G'SOLINE
UNLOAD-CRUDE OIL
UNLOAO-JET FUEL
UNLOAD-
TRANSFERRED
T1? 4 NjFf. Pff^n
''RANSFF'?1?^^
T R * ^ 5 F C R P f 0
T » A N S F E R R T f>
TRANSFE^P^D
PUMPfO
PU>*PF n
PUMPER
TONS PROCESSED
MUNICIPAL INCIN
5-01-001-ni MULTIPLE CHAMBER 30.0
5-OI-nO|-02 SINGLE C»An»E» 15.0
PPEN BURNING PU^*P
5-01-002-nl GENERAL I«.0
5-OI-002-D2 LANDSCAPE/PRUNING 17.0
5-01-002-03 JET FUEL
INCINERATOR
5-01-005-05 PATHOLOSICAL ».0p
5-01-005-04 5LUOGE |00.
5-PI-105-07 CONICAL 20.0
5-01-005-99 OTHER/NOT CLASJFO
AUX.FUEL/NO EMSNS
2.50
?.50
0.
1.00
2.00
.00
.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
I.So
15.T
37.0
20.0
0.
I .00
20.1
TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
65.^ TCN5 fU"J\ED
60.1 TONS BURNED
HUN'ORFOS OF GALLONS
0. TONS BURNED
0. TONS DRY SLUDGE
40.n TONS BURNED
TONS BURNED
5-0 I -900-ni
5-01-91(1-05
5-OI-90-J-T4
5-n 1-900- i n
5-OJ-900-97
RESIDUAL OIL
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
L?G
OTHER/ MOT CLASIFD
OTMFR/NnT Ct AS Iff!
OTHER/ NOT CLASIFD
5-p t-9P1-99
INDICATES THE ASH CONTFNT,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
P.
a.
p,
p.
o.
0.
n.
P,
0.
1001 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FFET
lonn GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FEET
1001 GALLONS
TONS
INDICATES
SULFUR CONTENT Or THE FUFL
"FRCfNT BASIS |BY WEIG"T1
12/75
Appendix C
C-25
-------
SOLID WASTE -COMM-INST
SOURCE C L '
PART SO
INCl'ERATO" SEN
5.07-011-11 MULTIPLE CHAMBER 7.00
5-02-011-12 SINGLE CHAMBER 15.0
5-02-001-03 CONTROLLED AIR 1.10
5-02-001-01 CONICAL-REFUSE 20,0
5-02-001-05 CON ICAL-i»010 7,00
OPEN BURNING
5-12-002-11 WOOD 17.0
5-02-002-07 REFUSE
APARTMENT INCIN
5-02-003-01 FLUEFEO 30.
5-02-013-02 FLUE FEO-«00|FICD 6.
INC f '.ERA TOP
5-02-005-15 PATHOLOGICAL 8.00
5-02-005-06 SLUDGE 100.
5-02-00?-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
AUX.FUEL/NO GMSNS
5-02-90P-ni RESIDUAL OIL 0.
5-12-900-15 DISTILLATE OIL 0,
5-02-900-06 NATURAL G'S 0.
5-02-900-10 LPG 0.
s-02-900-97 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO o.
5-02-900-9B OTHER/NOT CLASIFD 0.
5-02-900-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO 0.
1.50
2,00
0 . I 0
0 .50
0.50
n ,
l.no
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p.
3.00
2.00
10.0
5 .00
1 .00
3.no
10.0
3.00
5.00
3. Or lO.i TONS BURNED
15.T ?P.-i TONS BORNEO
0, 0. TONS BUSNED
20.0 SO." TONS BURNED
U.O 130. TON? BURNED
TONS BURNED
TONS BU»NED
15.n 70.0 TONS BURNED
3.00 10.0 TONS BURNED
0. C. TONS BURNED
1.00 n, TONS DRY SLUDGE
TONS BURNF.D
0,
0.
0.
p ',
r.
0.
0,
n, 1000, GALLONS
0. 1000 GALLONS
D. HHLIIN CUBIC FEET
n. looo GALLONS
o. MILLION CUBIC FEET
0. 1000 GALLONS
c. TON;
SOLID W»STE
- I NOU5TR1ft
INC I N F S A T 0 R
5-03-001-01
5-03-001-02
5-03-001-01
5-03-001-01
5-03-001-05
5-03-001-06
MULTIPLE CHAMBER
51SGLE CHAMBER
CONTROLLED AJR
CONlC»L REFUSE
CONICAL W00n
OPEN PIT
7
15
1
20
7
13
.00
.0
.10
.0
.on
.0
2
2
1
2
0
0
.50
.50
.50
.00
.10
. 10
3
2
10
5
1
S
.00
.10
.0
.00
.00
.00
3. on
15.0
0.
20,0
1 1.0
0.
to .0
20.0
0.
«o, n
130.
o.
TONS
TO*-'S
TONS
TONS
TOMS
TONS
BURNED
BU"'IEO
BURNED
BUONEO
BURNED
0*- WASTE
OPEN BURNING
5-13-002-01 WOOD
5-03-002-12 REFUSE
5-OJ-002-31 AUTO BOPf CP-PTS
5.03-002-01 COAL REFUSE PILES
AUTO PODT INClNAT
5-73-003-02 W/ AFTERBURNER
RAIL CAR BURNING
5-03-001-11 OPEN
INCINERATOR
5-03-005-06 SLU5GE
5-03-005-99 OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
AUX.FUEL/NO EMSNS
5-03-901-01 RESttlUiL OIL
17.0
16.0
100.
0.90
2.00
1.50
5-03-900-05
e,,r3-9nn-n6
5-03-900-07
5-03-900-10
5-03-900-97
5-03-900-96
5.-0 A-90H-99
DISTILLATE OIL
NATURAL GAS
PROCESS GAS
LPG
OTHER/NOT CLASIFO
OTHTR/NOT CLASIFO
OTHER/NOT CLASIFD
0.
0
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0.
1 .00
0.
1.10
2.00
6.00
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.02
1.00 50,0 TONS BU7NED
30.0 B5.0 TotlS BURNED
3n.n 125. TONS BURNED
0.50 ?.50 CUBIC YARDS OF PlLF
0.50 2,50 AUTOS BURNED
0. 0. AuTPS BURNED
CARS BURNEO
TONS DRY SLUDGE"
TONS BURNED
n.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
D.
0.
0
0.
0
0
0
0
o
n
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
p..
c.
0.
0.
0 .
n.
0 .
0,
p.
0.
1000 GALLONS
1000 GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FEET
MILLION CUBIC FEET
1000 GALLONS
MILLION CUBIC FEET
1DDO GALLONS
TONS
OTHFR/nOT CLSSI TO
A-11-999-91 SPECIFY IN REMARK
6-11-999-99 SPECIFY 1M REMARIC
•5* INDICATES T"F SULFUR CONTENT OF TH£ run n»j t
tnv WEIGHTI
C-26
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
APPENDIX D
PROJECTED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES
prepared by
David S. Kircher,
Marcia E. Williams,
INTRODUCTION and Charles C. Masser
In earlier editions of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), projected emission factors for
highway vehicles were integrated with actual, measured emission factors. Measured emission factors are mean
values arrived at through a testing program that involves a random statistical sample of in-use vehicles. Projected
emission factors, on the other hand, are a conglomeration of measurements of emissions from prototype vehicles,
best estimates based on applicable Federal standards, and, in some cases, outright educated guesses. In an attempt
to make the user more aware of these differences, projected emission factors are separated from the main body of
emission factors and presented as an appendix in this supplement to the report.
Measured emission estimates are updated annually at the conclusion of EPA's annual surveillance program.
Projected emission factors, however, are updated when new data become available and not necessarily on a
regular schedule. For several reasons, revisions to projected emission factors are likely to be necessary more
frequently than on an annual basis. First, current legislation allows for limited time extensions for achieving the
statutory motor vehicle emission standards. Second, Congressional action that would change the timetable for
achieving these standards, the standards themselves, or both is likely in the future. Third, new data on
catalyst-equipped (1975) automobiles are becoming available daily. As a result, the user of these data is
encouraged to keep abreast of happenings likely to affect the data presented herein. Every attempt will be made
to revise these data in a timely fashion when revisions become necessary.
This appendix contains mostly tables of data. Emission factor calculations are only briefly described because
the more detailed discussion in Chapter 3 applies in nearly all cases. Any exceptions to this are noted. The reader
is frequently referred to the text of Chapter 3; thus, it is recommended that a copy be close at hand.
Six vehicle categories encompassing all registered motor vehicles in use and projected to be in use on U.S.
highways are dealt with in this appendix. The categories in order of presentation are:
1. Light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles
2. Light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks
3. Light-duty, diesel-powered vehicles
4. Heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles
5. Heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles
6. Motorcycles
7. All highway vehicles
D-l
-------
-------
D.I LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
D.I.I General
This vehicle category represents passenger cars, a major source of ambient levels of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides in many areas of the United States. The reader is encouraged to become
familiar with section 3.1 .2, which discusses light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles in greater detail, before using the
data presented here.
D.I. 2 CO, HC, NOX Exhaust Emissions
The calculation of projected composite emission factors is limited in this presentation to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) methodology (see section 3.1.2). The modal technique is not, generally, amenable to absolute
emission projections. A user who wants to quantify the projected emissions over a specific driving sequence can
apply the modal technique to the 1972 calendar as discussed in section 3.1 .2. A ratio of the 1972 calendar year
modal emissions to the 1972 calendar year FTP emissions can be obtained, and this ratio can be applied to a
projected FTP value to adjust for the specific driving cycle of interest.
The calculation of composite emission factors for light-duty vehicles using the FTP procedure is given by:
enpstwx = /_, cjpn mjn v;ps Zjp
i=n-12 (Dl-1)
where: enpStwx = Composite emission factor in grams per mile (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p),
average speed (s), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and
percentage hot start operation (x)
cipn = The FTP mean emission factor for the itn model year light-duty vehicles during calendar
year (n) and for pollutant (p)
mm = The fraction of annual travel by the im model year light-duty vehicles during calendar
year (n)
VjpS = The speed correction factor for the jth model year light-duty vehicles for pollutant (p),
and average speed (s). This variable applies only to CO, HC, and NOX.
Zjpt = The temperature correction for the ith model year light-duty vehicles for pollutant (p)
iind ambient temperature (t)
riptwx = The hot/cold vehicle operation correction factor for the im model year light-duty
vehicles for pollutant (p), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and
percentage hot start operation (x).
The variable Cjpn is summarized in Tables D.l-1 through D.l-21, segregated by location (California,
non-California, high altitude). The input mm is described by example in Table D.l-22. The speed correction
factors are presented in Tables D.l-23 and D.l-24.
The temperature correction and hot/cold vehicle operation correci'on factors, given in Table D.I -25, are
separated into non-catalyst and catalyst correction factors. Catalys, ct rection factors should be applied for
model years 1975-1977. For non-catalyst vehicles, the factors are the same as those presented in section 3.1.2.
12/75 Appendix D D.l-1
-------
For catalyst vehicles, emissions during the hot start phase of operation (vehicle start-up after a short—less than 1
hour—engine-off period) are greater than vehicle emissions during the hot stabilized phase. Therefore, the
correction factor is a function of the percentage of cold operation, the percentage of hot start operation, and the
ambient temperature(t).
riptw
riptwx =
w + (100-w)f(t)
20 + 80 f(t)
w + xf(t) + (100-w-x)g(t)
20 + 27 f(t) + 53 g(t)
Pre-1975
model years
Post-1974
model years
(Dl-2)
(Dl-3)
Table D.1-1. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
High altitude
Pre-1968
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
94.0
67.6 ;
65.4
56.0
53.5
39.0
37.0
143
1968 106
1969 | 101
1970 91.0
1971 84.0
1972 ! 84.0
1973 80.0
g/km
58.4
42.0
40.6
34.8
33.2
24.2
23.0
88.8
65.8
62.7
56.5
52.2
52.2
49.7
Hydrocarbons j
g/mi
8.8
6.8
5.3
5.3
4.3
3.5
3.2
12.0
7.6
6.6
6.0
5.7
5.2
4.7
g/km j g/mi
5.5
4.2
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.2
2.0
7.5
4.7
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.1
2.0
2.86
4.1 2.93
3.7 3.32
3.5 2.74
3.2 3.08
2.9 3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
1 9/km
i 2.07
! 2.68
' 3.15
i 2.70
2.67
2.83
1.9
1.2
1.77
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
1.93
Table D.1-2. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
94.0
81.0
81.0
1968
1969
67.6
65.4
1970 56.0
1971 53.5
1972
1973
49.0
37.0
| g/km
58.4
50.3
50.3
42.0
40.6
! 34.8
33.2
30.4
23.0
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.8
6.5
6.5
6.8
5.3
5.3
4.3
3.9
3.2
1 g/km
g/mi
i
5.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
3.3
3.3
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
2.7 ! 3.83
2.4 3.81
2.0 3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
! g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
1.9
D.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-3. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON. AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 1974 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
High altitude
Pre-1968
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
95.0
70.6
68.4
58.5
56.0
41.0
39.0
37.0
145
1968 111
1969 106
1970
95.0
1971 88.0
1972 I 88.0
1973 ' 84.0
1974 i 80.0
i
g/km
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
59.0 8.9
43.8 7.4
42.5 5.8
36.3 5.8
34.8 4.7
25.5 3.8
24.2 3.5
23.0 3.2
.
90.0
68.9
65.8
59.0
54.6
12.1
8.3
7.2
6.6
6.2
54.6 5.7
52.2 j 5.2
49.7 j 4.7
1 g/km
i
1 5.5
4.6
3.6
3.6
2.9
2.4
2.2
2.0
7.5
5.2
; 4.5
1 4.1
3.9
3.5
3.2
2.9
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi j
j
3.34 |
4.32
5.08
4.35
430
4.55
3.3 !
3.1
i
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
3.3
3.1
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.05
1.9
Table D.1-4. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION
FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974 (BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
95.0
82.0
82.0
70.6
68.4
58.5
56.0
51.0
39.0
37.0
g/km
'
59.0
50.9
50.9
43.8
42.5
36.3
34.8
31.7
24.2
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.9
7.1
7.1
7.4
5.8
5.8
4.7
4.2
3.5
23.0 3.2
j g/km
5.5
4.4
4.4
4.6
3.6
3.6
2.9
2.6
2.2
2.0
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.3
2.0
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.05
1.2
12/75
Appendix D
D.1-3
-------
Table D.1-5. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
!
Carbon
Location and j monoxide
model year j g/mi
Low altitude
Pre-1968 96.0
1968 ! 73.6
1969 71.4
1970 j 61.0
1971 I 58.5
1972 43.0
1973 41.0
1974 39.0
1975 9.0
High altitude
Pre-1968 147
1968 116
1969 111
1970 99.0
1971 92.0
1972 92.0
1973 88.0
1974 84.0
1975 19.5
g/km
59.6
45.7
44.3
37.9
36.3
26.7
25.5
24.2
5.6
91.3
72.0
Hydrocarbons
g/mi "j g/km
9.0
8.0
6.3
6.3
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.5
1.0
12.2
9.0
68.9 7.8
61.5 j 7.2
57.1 6.7
57.1
54.6
52.2
12.1
6.2
5.7
5.6
5.0
3.9
3.9
3.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
0.6
7.6
5.6
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.5
5.2 3.2
1.46 i 0.91
', Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
3.5
3.3
3.1
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.17
2.05
1.9
Table D.1-6. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
,
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
r
i
I
i
i
| g/mi
'
96.0
83.0
83.0
73.6
71.4
61.0
' 58.5
53.0
41.0
39.0
5.4
i
Carbon
monoxide
j g/km
i
- T"
i
1 59.6
i 51.5
> 51.5
| 45.7
; 44.3
; 37.9
36.3
32.9
: 25.5
i 24.2
3.4
?
"T ~
T
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.0
7.7
7.7
8.0
6.3
6.3
5.1
4.5
3.8
3.5
0.6
F
g/km
5.6
4.8
4.8
5.0
3.9
3.9
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.2
0.4
L f
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
3.5
2.06
2.0
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.17
1.28
1.2
D.l-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-7. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
1
i Carbon
Location and I monoxide
model year g/mi g/km
Low altitude
Pre-1968 97.0 60.2
1968 76.6 47.6
1969 74.4 i 46.2
1970 63.5 ' 39.4
1971 61.0 j 37.9
1972 45.0 27.9
1973 43.0 26.7
1974 41.0 25.5
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.1
8.6
6.8
6.8
5.5
4.4
4.1
3.8
1975 9.9 6.1 ! 1.20
1976 9.0 5.6
High altitude i
1.0
g/km
5.7
5.3
4.2
4.2
3.4
2.7
2.5
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
3.7
2.4 | 3.5
0.75
0.6
Pre-1968 149 92.5 i 12.3 7.6
1968 121 , 75.1
3.2
3.1
2.0
9.7 6.0 2.86
1969 116 I 72.0 8.4 5.2
1970 103 64.0 7.8 4.8
1971 96.0 59.6 7.2 4.5
1972 96.0 59.6 i 6.7 4.2
1973 92.0 57.1 : 6.2 3.9
1974 88.0 54.6 5.7 3.5
1975 21.5 13.4 >' 1.76 1.09
1976 I 19.5 12.1 1.46 0.91
> i
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
g/km
2.07
2.86
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
Table D.1-8. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FO3 LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
g/km
|
97.0
84.0
84.0
76.6
74.4
63.5
61.0
55.0
43.0
41.0
5.9
60.2
52.2
52.2
47.6
46.2
39.4
37.9
34.2
26.7
25.5
3.7
5.4 3.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi 1 g/km
9.1
8.3
8.3
8.6
6.8
6.8
5.5
4.8
4.1
3.8
0.7
5.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
5.2 3.61
5.2 j 3.61
5.3
4.2
4.32
5.08
4.2 4.35
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.4
0.4
3.83
3.81
3.7
2.12
2.06
0.6 0.4 2.0
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.37
2.37
2.30
1.32
1.28
1.24
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-5
-------
Table D.1-9. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Ca rbon
Location and monoxide
model year ; g/mi j g/km
Low altitude
Pre-1968 98.0
1968 79.6
1969 77.4
1970 66.0
1971 63.5
1972 47.0
1973 45.0
Hydroc
g/mi
60.9 I 9.2
49.4 9.2
48.1 7.3
41.0 ; 7.3
39.4 ; 5.9
29.2 4.7
27.9 ' 4.4
1974 43.0 i 26.7 4.1
1975 10.8 6.7 1.4
1976 9.9
1977 9.0
6.1 1.2
5.6 1.0
High altitude
Pre-1968 151 93.8
1968 126 78.2
1969 121
1970 107
1971 100
1972 100
1973 96.0
1974 92.0
1975 23.5
1976 21.5
1977 9.0
75.1
66.4
62.1
62.1
59.6
57.1
14.6
13.4
5.6
12.4
10.4
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.2
2.06
1.76
1.0
-------- f -
arbons
g/km ' g/mi
5.7
3.34
5.7 4.32
4.5 5.08
4.5 4.35
3.7 4.30
2.9 4.55
2.7 3.9
2.5 3.7
0.9 3.3
0.7 3.2
0.6 2.0
7.7 2.0
6.5
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
1.28
1.09
0.6
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.0
Nitrogen
oxides
1 g/km"
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.2
Table D.1-10. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
98.0
85.0
85.0
79.6
77.4
66.0
63.5
57.0
45.0
43.0
6.5
5.9
5.4
g/km
60.9
52.8
52.8
49.4
48.1
41.0
39.4
35.4
27.9
26.7
4.0
3.7
3.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.2
9.0
9.0
9.2
7.3
7.3
5.9
5.1
4.4
4.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
g/km
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.7
4.5
4.5
3.7
3.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
2.7 ] 3.9
2.5
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.4
2.18 1.35
0.5
0.4
0.4
2.12
2.06
1.5
1.32
1.28
0.93
D.I-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-11. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82,6
80.4
68.5
66.0
49.0
47.0
45.0
11.7
10.8
9.9
2.8
153
131
126
111
104
104
100
96.0
25.5
23.5
9.9
2.8
g/km
61.5
51.3
49.9
42.5
41.0
30.4
29.2
27.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
1.7
95
81.4
78.2
68.9
64.6
64.6
62.1
59.6
15.8
14.6
6.1
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.3
7.8
7.8
6.3
5.0
4.7
4.4
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.27
12.5
11.1
9.6
9.0
8.2
7.7
7.2
6.7
2.36
2.06
1.2
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
4.8
4.8
3.9
3.1
2.9
2.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.17
7.8
6.9
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
1.47
1.28
0.6
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.3
2.06
0.24
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.1
3.9
3.4
3.3
2.06
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.3
0.15
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.3
0.15
Table D.1-12. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
Pre-1966
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
85.0
85.0
82.6
80.4
68.5
66.0
59.0
47.0
45.0
7.0
6.5
5.9
2.8
g/km
61.5
52.8
52.8
51.3
49.9
42.5
41.0
36.6
29.2
27.9
4.3
4.0
3.7
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.3
7.8
7.8
6.3
5.4
4.7
4.4
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.8
4.8
4.8
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
4.1
2.24
2.18
2.12
1.56
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.55
1.39
1.35
1.32
0.97
0.15
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-7
-------
Table D.1-13. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82.6
83.4
71.0
68.5
51.0
49.0
47.0
126
11.7
10.8
3.1
2.8
153
131
131
115
108
108
104
100
275
25.5
10.8
3.1
28
g/km
61.5
51.3
51.8
44.1
42.5
31.7
30.4
29.2
7.8
7.3
6.7
1.9
1.7
95.0
81.4
81.4
71.4
67.1
67.1
64.6
62.1
17.1
15.8
6.7
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.3
8.3
8.3
6.7
5.3
5.0
4.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.32
0.27
12.5
11.1
10.2
9.6
8.7
8.2
7.7
7.2
2.66
2.36
1.4
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
5.2
5.2
4.2
3.3
3.1
29
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.20
0.17
7.3
6.9
6.3
6.0
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.5
1.65
1.47
0.9
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.4
2.12
0.29
0.24
2.00
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.4
2.12
0.29
0.24
g/km
207
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.32
0.18
0.15
1.20
1.78
1.82
2.06
1 70
1.91
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.32
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-14. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
85.0
85.0
82.6
83.4
71.0
68.5
61.0
49.0
47.0
7.6
7.0
6.5
3.1
2.8
g/km
52.8
52.8
51.3
51.8
44.1
42.5
37.9
30.4
29.2
4.7
4.3
4.0
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/rm
9.0
9.0
9.3
8.3
8.3
6.7
5.7
5.0
4.7
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.2
5.2
4.2
3.5
3.1
2.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.61
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
4.30
2.30
2.24
2.18
1.62
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.24
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.70
1.43
1.39
1.35
1.01
0.18
0.15
D.l-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-15. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
High altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
99.0
82.6
83.4
73.5
71.0
53.0
51.0
49.0
13.5
12.6
11.7
3.4
3.1
2.8
153
131
131
119
112
112
108
104
29.5
27.5
11 7
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
61.5
51.3
51.8
45.6
44.1
32.9
31.7
30.4
8.4
7.8
7.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
95.0
81.4
81.4
73.9
69.6
69.6
67.1
64.6
18.3
17.1
7.3
2.1
1.9
1 7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.3
9.3
8.3
8.8
7.1
5.6
5.3
5.0
2.0
1.8
1.6
0.38
0.32
0.27
12.5
11.1
10.2
10.2
9.2
8.7
8.2
7.7
2.96
2.66
1.6
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.8
5.8
5.2
5.5
4.4
3.5
3.3
3.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.24
0.20
0.17
7.8
6.9
6.3
6.3
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.8
1.84
1.65
1.0
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.34
4.32
5.08
4.35
4.30
4.55
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.5
2.18
0.34
0.29
0.24
2.0
2.86
2.93
3.32
2.74
3.08
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.5
2.18
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.07
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.67
2.83
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.2
1.35
0.21
0.18
0.15
1.2
1.78
1.82
2.06
1.70
1.91
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.2
1.35
0.21
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-16. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
85.0
82.6
83.4
73.5
71 0
63.0
51.0
49.0
8.1
7.6
7.0
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
52.8
51.3
51.8
45.6
44.1
39.1
31.7
30.4
5.0
4.7
4.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
9.0
9.3
8.3
8.8
7.1
6.0
5.3
5.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
5.6
5.8
5.2
5.5
4.4
3.7
3.3
3.1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.61
4.32
5.08
4.35
3.83
3.81
4.50
2.36
2.30
2.24
1.68
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.24
2.68
3.15
2.70
2.38
2.37
2.79
1.47
1.43
1.39
1.04
0.21
0.18
0.15
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-9
-------
Table D.1-17. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
High altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
57.0
57.0
57.0
18.0
17.1
16.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
120
120
120
39.5
37.5
16.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
35.4
35.4
35.4
11.2
10.6
10.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
74.5
74.5
74.5
24.5
23.3
10.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
6.2
6.2
6.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
038
0.32
0.27
9.7
9.7
9.7
3.46
3.16
2.60
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
6.0
6.0
6.0
2.15
1.96
1.60
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.55
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
2.48
1.1
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
3.08
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
2.48
1.00
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.83
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.5
1.54
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
1.91
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.5
1.54
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
Table D.1-18. CARBON MONOXIDE. HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
67.0
57.0
57.0
10.8
10.3
9.7
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
41.6
35.4
35.4
6.7
6.4
6.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
6.6
6.2
6.2
1.8
1.7
1.6
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.27
g/km
4.1
3.9
3.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
3.81
5.0
2.60
2.60
2.54
1.98
1.1
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.24
g/km
2.37
3.1
1.61
1.61
1.58
1.23
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
D.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.1-19. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TESTPROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
Low and high
altitude
1977 18.0
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
1990 I 2.8
g/km
Hydrocarbons
g/mi g/km
i
11.2 3.0
3.6 ! 0.81
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
0.81
0.81
0.76
0.70
0.65
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.43
0.38
1 .9 0.32
1.7 I 0.27
1.9
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
2.6
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.50
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.73
0.56
0.40 i
0.34
i 0.29
j 0.24 '
g/km
1.6
1.06
1.06
1.06
0.93
0.81
0.68
0.56
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.15
Table D.l-20. CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ONLY-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
California
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
10.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.1
2.8
g/km
"
Hydrocarbons
g/mi 1 g/km
f
6.7 1.8
3.5 0.81
3.5 0.81
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1 Q
i .
-------
Table D.1-21. PARTICULATE, SULFURIC ACID, AND TOTAL SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust3
g/mi
g/km
Tire wear
g/mi
g/km
Sulfuricacid
g/mi
g/km
Total sulfur oxides
g/mi
g/km
Emission factors
Non-catalyst
(Leaded fuel)
0.34
0.21
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.13
0.08
Non-catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.13
0.08
Catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.02-0.06b
0.01-0.04
0.13
0.08
a Excluding participate sulfate or sulf uric acid aerosol
"Sulfuric acid emission varies markedly with driving mode and fuel sulfur levels.
Table D.1-22. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR3
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)b
0.081
0.110
0.107
0.106
0.102
0.096
0.088
0.077
0.064
0.049
0.033
0.023
0.064
Average annual
miles driven (b)c
15,900
1 5,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
6,700
a x b
1,288
1,650
1,498
1,389
1,244
1,085
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)d
0.112
0.143
0.130
0.121
0.108
0.094
906 j 0.079
724
544
0.063
0.047
372 0.032
221 ; 0.019
154 j 0.013
429 0.039
aReferences 1 through 6.
''These data are for July 1. Data from References 2-6 were averaged to produce a value for m that is better suited for projections.
cMileage values are the results of at least squares analysis of data in Reference 1.
dm = ab/Sab.
D.l-12
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
&
o
E
LU
>-
3
Q
h-
X
QC
O
LU
CO
CC
o
o
o
LU
CC
cc
o
o
Q
LU
LU
CC
0
LL
z
LU
LU
LU
O
O
CO
CM
.Q
CO
03
O
X
O
00
03
d
00
o
00
o
X
00
m
co
i
CO
O5
I
o
X
oo
CD i_
"D cu
o ¥
o
o
CD
C
g
4-1
CO
u
O
JO
Lf)
05
OOOOOOOOOO
XXXXXXXXXX
OOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooo
XXXXXXXXXX
CMCMCMCMNCMCMCMCNCM
i i i i i i I ; i i
oooooooooo
XXXXXXXXXX
OO'fCOCD^C^CDCMCOO)
OJOCNCNCMr-vCDCOOOOO
~ ro 0
O -J
8
~8
CM
r-
o
E
in
.50
3 ti
-
°
~ E
= CM
II
0 E
w C
E o
l_ *-
S -a
H?
11
(D U
o
-
l&s
*" "> 01
2 £ -0
C O V
a £ »
* fj* "C .!2 O
XT- C «_, W
nj • (D — CD
gj;
: >2 "
LU c t » ™
0) .. -D ? £
8^ 8 I »
to r- a ^ «»
5 E o S2
S 2 H -2 I
CD JD
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-13
-------
Table D.1-24. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR LiGHT-DUTY VEHICLES3
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
' Carbon monoxide Hydrocarbons
Model j 5 mi/hr
year (8 km/hr)
1957-1967 2.72
1966-1967 1.79
Low altitude 1968 3.06
1969 3.57
1970 3.60
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.57
1.00
1.75
1.86
1.88
Post-1970 4.15 2.23
High altitude 1957-1967 2.29
1968 2.43
1969 2.47
1970 2.84
Post-1970 3.00
1.48
1.54
1.61
1.72
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
1.87
2.96
2.95
2.51
2.75
2.34
2.10
2.04
2.35
I
1.83
2.17
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.12
1.66
1.65
1.51
1.63
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.36
1.35
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.16
1.04
1.08
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.09
1.00
1.05
1.13 1.05
1.15 1.03
1 .33 1 .20
1.22
1.22
1.18
1.08
1.19 1.11
1 .06 1 .02
aDriving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 8) were input to the modal emission analysis
model (see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr; 8 and 16 km/hr) were divided
bv FTP emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data are approximate and represent the best
currently available information.
Table D.1-25. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS
AND HOT/COLD VEHICLE OPERATION CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR FTP EMISSION FACTORS3
Pollutant
and controls
Carbon monoxide
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Nitrogen oxides
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Temperature cor-
rection factor (Zjpt)'3
-0.0127t+1.95
-0.0743t + 6.58
-0.01 13t+ 1.81
-0.0304t + 3.25
-0.0046t + 1 .36
-0.0060t + 1 .52
Hot/cold vehicle operation
correction factors
g(t)
e0.035t - 5.24
0.001 8t + 0.0095
-0.001 Ot-i- 0.858
f(t)
0.0045t + 0.02
e0.036t -4.14
0.0079t + 0.03
0.0050t - 0.0409
-0.0068t + 1 .64
0.0010t + 0.835
aReference 9. Temperature (t) is expressed in F. In order to apply the above equations, C must first be converted to F (F-9/5C
+32). Similarly °Kelvin (K) must be converted to °F (F= 9/5(K-273.16)+32).
''The formulae for Zj_» enable the correction of FTP emission factors for ambient temperature. The formulae for fit) are used in
conjunction with Equation D1-2 to calculate r|Otw If the variable t^ tvv is used in Equation D1-1, z(pt must be used also.
D.l-14
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
where: f(t) and g(t) are given in Table D.l-25, w is the percentage of cold operation, and x is the percentage
of hot start operation. For pre-1975 model year vehicles, non-catalyst factors should be used. For
1975-1977, catalyst factors should be used.
The use of catalysts after 1978 is uncertain at present. For model years 1979 and beyond, the use of those
correction factors that produce the highest emission estimates is suggested in order that emissions are not
underestimated. The extent of use of catalysts in 1977 and 1978 will depend on the impact of the 1979 sulfuric
acid emission standard, which cannot now be predicted.
D. 1.3 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emission Factors
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline motor vehicles
involves evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factors. Composite crankcase emissions can be
determined using:
fn
i=n-12
where: fn = The composite crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hj = The crankcase emission factor for the i*h model year
nijn = The weighted annual travel of the itn model year during calendar year (n)
Crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor by model year are summarized in Table D.l-26.
(DM)
Table D. 1-26. CRANKCASE HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Model
year
California only
Pre-1961
1961 through 1963
1964 through 1967
Post-1967
All areas except
California
Pre-1963
1963 through 1967
Post-1967
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
4.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.8
0.0
g/km
2.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.5
0.0
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-15
-------
There are two sources of evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from light-duty vehicles: the fuel tank and the
carburetor system. Diurnal changes in ambient temperature result in expansion of the air-fuel mixture in a
partially filled fuel tank. As a result, gasoline vapor is expelled to the atmosphere. Running losses from the fuel
tank occur as the fuel is heated by the road surface during driving, and hot soak losses from the carburetor system
occur after engine shutdown at the end of a trip. Carburetor system losses occur from such locations as the
carburetor vents, the float bowl, and the gaps around the throttle and choke shafts. Because evaporative emissions
are a function of the diurnal variation in ambient temperature and the number of trips per day, emissions are best
calculated in terms of evaporative emissions per day per vehicle. Emissions per day can be converted to emissions
per mile (if necessary) by dividing the emissions per day be an average daily miles per vehicle value. This value is
likely to vary from location to location, however. The composite evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor is
given by:
en = E (gi + M) (mm) (Dl-5)
i=n-12
where: en = The composite evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n) in Ibs/day (g/day)
gi = The diurnal evaporative hydrocarbon emission factor for model year (i) in Ibs/day (g/day)
kj = The hot soak evaporative emission factor in Ibs/trip (g/trip) for the ith model year
d = The number of daily trips per vehicle (3.3 trips/vehicle-day is the nationwide average)
mm = The weighted annual travel of the i model year during calendar year (n)
The variables gj and kj are presented in Table D.I-27 by model year.
Table D.1-27. EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: A
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970 (Calif.)
1970 (non-Calif.)
1971
1972-1979
Post-1 979d
High altitude6
Pre-1971
1971-1979
Post-19796
By source*5
Diurnal, g/day
26.0
16.3
26.0
16.3
12.1
37.4
17.4
-
Hot soak, g/trip
14.7
10.9
14.7
10.9
12.0
17.4
14.2
-
g/dayc
74.5
52.3
74.5
52.3
51.7
94.8
64.3
-
Composite
g/mi
2.53
1.78
2.53
1.78
1.76
0.5
3.22
2.19
0.5
g/km
1.57
1.11
1.57
1.11
1.09
0.31
2.00
1.36
0.31
References 10 and 11.
"See text for explanation.
cGram per day values are diurnal emissions plus hot soak emissions multiplied by the average number of trips per day. Nationwide
data from References 1 and 2 indicate that the average vehicle is used for 3.3 trips per day. Gram/mile values were determined by
dividing average g/day by the average nationwide travel per vehicle (29.4 mi/day) from Reference 2.
dPost-1979 evaporative emission factors are based on the assumption that existing technology can result in further control of evapo-
rative hydrocarbons. A breakdown of post-1979 emissions by source (that is, diurnal and hot soak) is not available.
6Vehicles without evaporative control were not tested at high altitude. Values presented here are the product of the ratio of pre-
1971 (low altitude) evaporative emissions to 1972 evaporative emissions and 1971-1972 high altitude emissions.
D.l-16
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D. 1.4 Participate and Sulfur Oxide Emissions
Light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles emit relatively small quantities of particulate and sulfur oxides in
comparison with emission levels of the three pollutants discussed above. For this reason, average rather than
composite emission factors should be sufficiently accurate for approximating particulate and sulfur oxide
emissions from light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles. Average emission factors for these pollutants are presented
in Table D.l-21. No Federal standards for these two pollutants are presently in effect, although many areas do
have opacity (antismoke) regulations applicable to motor vehicles.
Sulfuric acid emission from catalysts is presently receiving considerable attention. An emission standard for
that pollutant is anticipated beginning in model year 1979.
D.I.5 Basic Assumptions
Light-duty vehicle emission standards. A critical assumption necessary in the calculation of projected composite
emission rates is the timetable for implementation of future emission standards for light- duty vehicles. The
timetable used for light-duty vehicles in this appendix is that which reflects current legislation and administrative
actions as of April 1, 1975. This schedule is:
• For hydrocarbons — 1.5 g/mi (0.93 g/km) for 1975 through 1977 model years; 0.41 g/mi (0.25 g/kmj for
1978 and later model years.
• For carbon monoxide — 15 g/mi (9.3 g/km) for 1975 through 1977 model years; 3.4 g/mi (2.1 g/km) for
1978 and later model years.
• For nitrogen oxides - 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km) for 1975 and 1976 model years; 2.0 g/mi (1.24 g/km) for the
1977 model year; 0.4 g/mi (0.25 g/km) for 1978 and later model years.
Although the statutory standards of 0.41 g/mi for HC, 3.4 g/mi for CO, and 0.4 g/mi for N0% are legally
scheduled for implementation in 1978, consideration of increased sulfuric acid emission from catalysts, fuel
economy problems and control technology availability, and reevaluation of the level o^" NOX control needed to
achieve the NC>2 air quality standard led the EPA Administrator to recommend to Congress that the light-duty
vehicle emission control schedule be revised. The tabulated values in this appendix do not, however, reflect these
recent recommendations, tf Congress accepts the proposed revisions, the appropriate tables will be revised.
Deterioration and emission factors. Although deterioration factors are no longer presented by themselves in this
publication, they are, nontheless, used implicitly to calculate calendar year emission factors for motor vehicles.
Based on an analysis of surveillance data,10'11 approximate linear deterioration rates for pre-1968 model years
were established as follows: carbon monoxide - 1 percent per calendar year, hydrocarbons—1 percent per
calendar year, and nitrogen oxides—0 percent per calendar year. For 1968-1974 model years, deterioration was
assumed to be 5 percent per calendar year for CO, 10 percent per calendar year for HC, and 7 percent per
calendar year for NOX . For all pre-1975 model years, linear deterioration was applied to the surveillance test
results to determine tabulated values.' ' Vehicles of model year 1975 and later are assun .J to have a
deterioration rate of 10 percent per calendar year for CO and 20 percent per calendar year for HC. For NO , see
the following section on credit for inspection/maintenance systems. These deterioration rates are applied t<> new
vehicle emission factors for prototype cars.
D.I .6 Credit for Inspection/Maintenance Systems
If an Air Quality Control Region has an inspection/maintenance (1/IVO program, the following credits can be
applied to light-duty vehicles:
1. A 10 percent reduction in CO and HC can be applied to all model year vehicles starting the year I/M is
introduced.
2. Deterioration following the initial 10 percent is assumed to follow the schedules below:
12/75 Appendix D D.I-17
-------
HC
CO
Pre-1975 vehicles
1975 and later vehicles
2 percent per year
12 percent per year
2 percent per year
7 percent per year
3. This deterioration rate continues until a vehicle is 10 years old and remains stable thereafter. No catalyst
replacement is assumed.
4. The NOX emission deterioration and response to I/M is highly conjectural; the estimates below are based on
the assumption of engine-out emission of 1.2 g/mi at low mileage, deterioration of engine-out emission at 4
percent per year, NOX catalyst efficiency deterioration from 80 percent to 70 percent in the first 3 years,
and a linear deterioration in average catalyst efficiency from 70 percent to zero over the next 7 years
because of catalyst failures. The response to I/M without catalyst replacement is a reduction in the
engine-out deterioration from 4 to 2 percent per year. One catalyst replacement is assumed for the catalyst
replacement scenario. Note: There is no emission reduction due to I/M for pre-1978 vehicles.
NOX EMISSION DETERIORATION
No I/M
Year
g/mi
(Standard is 0.4 g/mi, 0.25 g/km)
I/M, no catalyst
£epjacernent
g/km g/mi g/km
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>10
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.40
0.56
0.73
0.90
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.56
0.68
0.81
0.93
1.1
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.52
0.66
0.81
0.96
1.12
1.3
1.5
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.24
0.32
0.41
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.81
0.93
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.47
0.55
0.63
0.71
0.80
I/M, one catalyst
replacement
g/mi g/km
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.44
0.50
aTable does not apply to pre-1978 vehicles.
D.I.7 Adjusting Emission Factor Tables for Changes in Future Light-Duty Vehicle Emission
Standards
Because it is likely that Congressional action will alter the existing light-duty emission standard schedule, a
methodology is presented here to enable modification of the emission factor tables (Tables D.l-1 through
D.l-20). The emission factor tables presented in this appendix, as stated previously, reflect statutory carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxides exhaust emission standards. If changes in the magnitude of the
standards and/or the implementation dates occur, appropriate adjustments can be accomplished using Table
D.l-28. This table contains emission factors by vehicle age for a number of likely future emission standards.
In order to illustrate the proper use of Table 1-28, the following hypothetical example is given. Emission
standards applicable up to and including the 1977 model year are set by law, but changes in the schedule after
1977 (beginning with 1978 models) may occur. For purposes of this example, assume that the Congress changes
the existing law such that 1978-1979 model year vehicles are subject to a carbon monoxide emission standard of
9.0 g/mi, a hydrocarbon emission standard of 0.9 g/mi, and a nitrogen oxides emission standard of 2.0 g/mi.
Assume also that this scenario has no effect on 1980 and later models, which remain at present statutory levels.
D.l-18
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
CO
HI CO
> z
>- O
00 M
00
II
_« ••
^j CC
CO
e g
^L 73
El
CO (/5
O) t/3
01 '
O
II
oooooooooo—
•* O) •» O CD CO O -
CN og co ^ ifi t^ 03 *— co m r**
odooo'o'o«-*-«-«-
ooooooooooo
^•COCNCOO^OOCNtOO
tO
co
o>enppp«-»-'-CNpg
o'civ-'x-' — — ^^^^J
OtOCMCOtOCDCNOOtO
OCD
oqoq
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
00000000"--- —
CMCMCMtNCNCO
O
i~-
o
o
a
E
12/75
Appendix D
D.l-19
-------
This change in the standard schedule affects the tabulated values for the 1978 and 19/9 model years presented"in
Tables D.l-11 through D.l-20. In other words, every number in every column in these tables headed with "1978
or 1979" model year must be completely changed. The appropriate replacement values are summarized in Table
D.l-28. The age of the vehicle refers to a year in a vehicle's life. For example, the 1978 model year vehicles are
assumed to be age one in calendar year 1978, age two in calendar year 1979 and so on.
To change the 1978 model year column in Table D.l-11 to reflect our hypothetical Congressional action, the
appropriate values are extracted from the first raw (age one) of Table D.l-28. For a 9.0 g/mi CO standard, the age
one emission factor for both low and high altitude locations is 5.4 g/mi (3.4 g/km). This value is used to replace
the existing value [2.8 g/mi (1.7 g/km)] in the 1978 column of Table D.l-11. A similar procedure is used for
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
To illustrate a slightly more complicated situation, consider the revision of Table D.l-16 to reflect our
hypothetical situation. All the values in the 1978 and 1979 columns must be changed. In 1980, the 1978 model
year vehicles are age three, thus from Table D.l-28 the appropriate carbon monoxide emission factor is 6.5 g/mi
(4.0 g/km). This value replaces the existing value of 3.4 g/mi (2.1 g/km). The 1979 model year carbon monoxide
emission factor is 5.9 g/mi (3.7 g/km), replacing the existing Table D.l-16 value of 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km). This
procedure is followed, using Table D.l-28, for all three pollutants. The procedure is similar for other standard
schedules and other calendar year tables.
The above methodology was designed to enable the user of this document to quickly revise the tables. Any
Congressional action will result in revision of the appropriate tables by EPA. Publication of these revised tables
takes time, however, and although every effort is made by EPA to make these changes quickly, the required lead
time is such that certain users may want to perform the modifications to the tables in advance. The standards
covered in Table D.l-28 represent the most likely values Congress will adopt, but by no means represent all
possible standards.
References for Section D.I
1. Strate, H. E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study — Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report
Number 2. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. April
1972.
2. 1973/74 Automobile Facts and Figures. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1974.
3. 1972 Automobile Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1973.
4. 1971 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1972.
5. 1970 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1971.
6. 1969 Automotive Facts and Figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Mich. 1970.
7. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds. Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N. C. February 1974. (Unpublished report.)
8. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Operation Data. CAPE-21. Collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S. C.,
under contract to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. January 1975. (Unpublished.)
9. Ashby, H. A., R. C. Stahman, B. H. Eccleston, and R. W. Hum. Vehicle Emissions - Summer to Winter.
(Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers meeting. Warrendale, Pa. October 1974. Paper No. 741053.)
10. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspen Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544. March
1973.
11. Williams, M. E., J. T. White, L. A. Platte, and C. J. Domke. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
Analysis of the FY 72 Program. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Publication No.
EPA-460/2-74-001. February 1974.
D.l-20 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
D.2 LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
D.2.1 General
This class of vehicles includes all trucks with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 8500 Ib (3856 kg) or less. It is
comprised of vehicles that formerly were included in the light-duty truck (6000 Ib; 2722 kg GVW and under)
and the heavy-duty vehicle (6001 Ib; 2722 kg GVW and over) classes. Generally, these trucks are used for
personal transportation as opposed to commercial use.
D.2.2 FTP Exhaust Emissions
Projected emission factors for light trucks are summarized in Tables D.2-1 through D.2-12, (For information
on projected emission factors for vehicles operated in California and at high altitude, see sections D.2.5 and
D.2.6). The basic methodology used for projecting light-duty vehicle emission factors (section D.I of this
appendix) also applies to this class. As in section D.I, the composite emission factor for light-duty trucks is given
by:
n
enpstwx = 2-i cipn min v'ps zipt rirtwx (D2-1)
i=n-12
where: enps^wx = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), average
speed (s), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and percentage hot
start operation (x)
cipn = The 1975 Federal Test Procedure mean emission factor for the i"1 model year light-duty
trucks during calendar year (n) and for pollutant (p)
mjn = The fraction of annual travel by the i^1 model year light-duty trucks during calendar year
(n)
Vjps = The speed correction factor for the i1'1 model year light-duty trucks for pollutant (p) and
average speed (s)
Zjpt = The temperature correction for the i"1 model year light-duty trucks for pollutant (p) and
ambient temperature (t)
riptwx = The hot/cold vehicle operation correction factor for the itn model year light-duty trucks
for pollutant (p), ambient temperature (t), percentage cold operation (w), and percentage
hot start operation (x)
Values for irijn are given in Table D.2-11. Unless other data are available, VjpS (Tables D.2-12 and D.2-13), Zjp{,
and rjptwx (Table D.2-14) are the same for this class as for light-duty vehicles.
12/75 Appendix D D.2-1
-------
Table D.2-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Carbon
Location and monoxide
model year g/mi
Low altitude
Pre-1968 125.0
1968 70.0
1969 67.8
1970 56.0
1971 56.0
1972 45.0
1973 42.8
g/km
77.6
43.5
42.1
34.8
34.8
27.9
26.6
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
;
17.0
7.9
; 5.9
I 5.4
4.7
3.8
3.6
g/km
10.6
4.9
3.7
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.2
! Nitrogen
: oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
4.4
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.7
Table D.2-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
Carbon
monoxide
model year \ g/mi
Low altitude
Pre-1968
125.0
1968 73.5
1969 ! 71.3
1970 ; 58.5
1971
1972
1973
58.5
47.2
45.0
1974 42.8
\
Hydrocarbons
g/km
77.6
45.6
44.3
36.3
36.3
29.3
27.9
26.6
i 9/mi
17.0
8.7
6.5
6.0
5.2
4.2
4.0
3.6
g/km
g/mi
10.6 4.2
5.4 ' 4.9
4.0
5.3
3.7 5.2
3.2 5.2
2.6 5.3
2.5 4.6
2.2 4.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.9
2.7
D.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Car
mon
g/mi
125
77.0
74.8
61.0
61.0
49.4
47.2
45.0
27.0
Don
axide
g/km
77.6
47.8
46.5
37.9
37.9
30.7
29.3
27.9
16.8
Hydroc
g/mi
17.0
9.5
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.6
4.4
4.0
2.7
'. Nitrogen
arbons oxides
g/km g/mi ' g/km
10.6 4.2 2.6
5.9 4.9 , 3.0
4.4 5.3
4.1 5.2
3.5 5.2
2.9 5.3
2.7 ' 4.8
2.5 i 4.6
1.7 i 4.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
Table D.2-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
80.5
78.3
63.5
63.5
51.6
49.4
47.2
28.5
27.0
g/km
77.6
50.0
48.6
39.4
39.4
32.0
30.7
29.3
17.7
16.8
1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
10.3
7.7
7.2
6.2
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.0
2.7
g/km
10.6
6.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
4.8 5.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
4.5 ! 5.2 3.2
3.9 5.2
3.1 • 5.3
3.0 ' 5.0
2.7 4.8
1.9 4.6
1.7 ' 4.4
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-3
-------
Table D.2-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Carbon
monoxide
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
g/km
g/mi
g/km
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
g/km
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
125
84.0
81.8
66.0
66.0
53.8
51.6
49.4
30.0
28.5
27.0
77.5
17.0
52.2 11.1
50.8 8.3
41.0
7.8
41.0 6.7
33.4 5.4
32.0
30.7
18.6
17.7
5.2
4.8
3.3
3.0
10.6
6.9
5.2
4.8
4.2
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.0
1.9
16.8 ! 2.7 1.7
i
4.2 ]
4.9 j
5.3 !
5.2 ;
5-2 !
5.3 j
5.2 |
5,0 I
4.8 j
4.6 i
4.4 i
I
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
Table D.2-6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
87.5
85.3
68.5
68.5
56.0
53.8
51.6
31.5
30.0
28.5
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
53.0
42.5
42.5
34.8
33.4
32.0
19.6
18.6
17.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
11.9
8.9
8.4
7.2
5.8
5.6
5.2
3.6
3.3
3.0
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
3.6
3.5
3.2
2.2
2.0
1.9
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
5.2 \ 3.2
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
2.3
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
1-'*
D.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-7. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
125
87.5
88.8
71.0
71.0
58.2
56.0
53.8
33.0
31.5
30.0
10.8
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
55.1
44.1
44.1
36.1
34.8
33.4
20.5
19.6
18.6
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
11.9
9.5
9.0
7.7
6.2
6.0
5.6
3.9
3.6
3.3
1.2
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5.9
5.6
4.8
3.9
3.7
3.5
2.4
2.2
1.4
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
2.35
2.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
1.46
1.4
Table D.2-8. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
monoxide
9/mi
125
87.5
88.8
73.5
73.5
60.4
58.2
56.0
34.5
33.0
31.5
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
77.6
54.3
55.1
45.6
45.6
37.5
36.1
34.8
21.4
20.5
19.6
7.3
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
17.0
11.9
9.5
9.6
8.2
6.6
6.4
6.0
4.2
3.9
3.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
g/km
10.6
7.4
5.9
6.0
5.1
4.1
4.0
3.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
1.5
1.46
1.4
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-5
-------
Table D.2-9. PROJECTED CARBON MONODIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
64.8
64.8
64.8
42.0
40.5
39.0
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
40.2
40.2
40.2
26.1
25.1
24.2
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.7
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
7.4
7.6
7.6
5.7
5.4
5.1
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
6.1 | 1.0
g/km
4.6
4.7
4.7
3.5
3.4
3.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
5.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.0
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
3.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.7
1.65
1.6
1.58
1.6
1.52
1.5
1.46
1.4
D.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-10. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
(BASED ON 1975 FEDERAL TESTPROCEDURE)
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
42.0
19.8
19.8
19.8
18.8
17.8
16.8
15.8
14.8
13.8
12.8
11.8
10.8
9.8
g/km
26.1
12.3
12.3
12.3
11.7
11.1
10.4
9.8
9.2
8.7
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.1
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
5.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
g/km
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.4
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
2.35
2.3
g/km
4.0
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.71
1.68
1.65
1.61
1.58
1.55
1.52
1.49
1.46
1.43
Table D.2-11. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCK TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.061
0.097
0.097
0.097
0.083
0.076
0.076
0.063
0.054
0.043
0.036
0.024
0.185
Average annual
miles driven (b)'3
15,900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,700
4,500
a x b
970
1,455
1,358
1,270
1,013
859
783
592
459
327
241
161
832
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.094
0.141
0.132
0.123
0.098
0.083
0.076
0.057
0.044
0.032
0.023
0.016
0.081
aVehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 1 and 2).
^Reference 2.
°m = ab/2ab.
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-7
-------
n
H
ej
I]
cc
o
LL
00
rr
e
*
u.
0
O
LU
nr
oc
O
o
o
UJ
a.
CO
OC
O
u.
Z
UJ
O
iZ
u.
UJ
O
O
r>i
r-
fsj
D
a>
2
£
to
CD
+
<£
II
Q.
>
IN
CO
O
+
c«
m
+
(U
II
C/)
Q.
>
-g
X
o
c
0)
ff
1—
•*->
2
^
V
mono
0
_Q
CD
Wl
^
O
JD
k_
CO
O
•a
"55
•o
o
"=:
00
<
o
CD
<
O
CD
<
CD
(D
>
Location
CM CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCMO1
O OOOOOOOOOO
X XXXXXXXXXX
o coOTCNoo^-r-^Lnnoon
oo rotocoojoojnor^Ln
ro r-~un<*r-ooooa'S'O>in
O OOOOOOJ'-'-'-'—
CX3 •^-ooincncoc-jCNCD-srr^
O <-concNcDor~-
LO uor--oocoo)oO>2ooa50°'
T Tcocoi~-.'7^cDCDr-~.rT
r» CDO3G)O5+jr^a5O5O5-«
05 o> ,£ en ,£
CD
CD
O5
4—
•sfg « ^
3 -§ " .2 3 3
i± 0 CD E ^ -
CD x cn o ro "
s LLI "~ *• > j:
o ~ » o -21
_J O -l I
o
if)
£ Z
£ 3
£C -D
D.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.2-13. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS3
Location
Low altitude
(Excluding 1966-
1967 Calif.)
California
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
1957-1967
1966-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
Post-1970
Carbon monoxide
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
1.79
3.06
3.57
3.60
4.15
2.29
2.43
2.47
2.84
3.00
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.57
1.00
1.75
1.86
1.88
2.23
1.48
1.54
1.61
1.72
1.83
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
1.87
2.96
2.95
2.51
2.75
2.34
2.10
2.04
2.35
2.17
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.12
1.66
1.65
1.51
1.63
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.36
1.35
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.16
1.04
1.08
1.13
1.15
1.33
1.22
1.22
1.19
1.06
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.09
1.00
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.20
1.18
1.08
1.11
1.02
aDriving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 4) were input to the modal emission analysis model
(see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 5 and 10 mi/hr (8 and 16 km/hr) were divided by FTP
emission factors for operation to obtain the above results. The above data are approximate and represent the best currently
available information.
Table D.2-14. LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS
AND HOT/COLD VEHICLE OPERATION CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR FTP EMISSION FACTORS3
Pollutant
and controls
Carbon monoxide
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Hydrocarbons
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Nitrogen oxides
Non-catalyst
Catalyst
Temperature cor-
rection factor (Zjpt)b
-0.01 27t+ 1.95
-0.0743t + 6.58
-0.01 13t+ 1.81
-0.0304t + 3.25
-0.0046t + 1 .36
-0.0060t + 1 .52
Hot/cold vehicle operation
correction factors
9(t)
—
e0.035t -5.24
—
0.0018t + 0.0095
—
-0.0010t + 0.858
f(t)
0.0045t + 0.02
e0.036t -4.14
0.0079t + 0.03
0.0050t - 0.0409
-0.0068t + 1 .64
0.00 10t + 0.835
aReference 5. Temperature (t) is expressed in F. In order to apply the above equations, C must first be converted to F (F=9/'5C
+ 32). Similarly °Kelvin (K) must be converted to °F (F= 9/5IK - 273.16) + 32).
"The formulae for Zjpt enable the correction of FTP emission factors for ambient temperature. The formulae for f (t) are used in
conjunction with equation D.1-2 to calculate rjpwx. If the variable rjptwx is used in equation D.1-1, z|pt must be used also. See
section D1 for appropriate formulae for calculating r- ^
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-9
-------
For pre-1975 model year vehicles, noncatalyst temperature correction factors should be used. For 1975-1977
model year vehicles, temperature-dependent correction factors should be calculated for the catalyst and
noncatalyst class, and the results weighted into an overall factor that is two-thirds catalyst, one-third noncatalyst.
For 1978 and later model year vehicles, noncatalyst temperature correction factors should be applied.
D.2.3 Evaporative and Crankcase Emissions
In addition to exhaust emission factors, evaporative crankcase hydrocarbon emissions are determined using:
n
f
himin
(D2-2)
i=n-12
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hj = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the ith model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table D.2-15. The crankcase and evaporative
emissions reported in the table are added together to arrive at this variable.
= The weighted annual travel of the itn model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
Table D.2-15. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBONS
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED TRUCKS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas
except high
altitude and
California0
High
altitude
Model
years
Pre-1963
1963-1967
1968-1970
1971
1972-1979
Post-1 979d
Pre-1963
1963-1967
1968-1970
1971-1979
Post-1979d
Crankcase emissions3
g/km
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
g/mi
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Evaporative emissions'3
g/km
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.9
0.3
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.4
0.3
g/mi
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.1
0.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.9
0.5
aReference 6. Tabulated values were determined by assuming that two-thirds of the light-duty trucks are 6000 Ibs GVW (2700 kg)
and under, and that one-third are 6001-8500 Ibs GVW (2700-3860 kg).
^Light-duty vehicle evaporative data (section 3.1.2) and heavy-duty vehicle evaporative data (section 3.1.4) were used to estimate
the listed values.
cFor California: Evaporative emissions for the 1970 model year are 1.9 g/km (3.1 g/mi) all other model years are the same as those
reported as "All area except high altitude and California". Crankcase emissions for the pre-1961 California light-duty trucks are
4.6 g/mi (2.9 g/km), 1961-1963 model years are 2.4 (g/nm (1.5 g/km), all post-1963 model year vehicles are 0.0 g/mi (0.0 g/km).
dPost-1979 evaporative emission factors are based on the assumption that existing technology, when applied to the entire light
truck class, can result in further control of evaporative hydrocarbons.
D.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.2.4 Particulate and Sulfur Oxides Emissions
Particulate and sulfur oxides emission factors are presented in Table D 2-1 6.
Table D.2-16. PARTICULATE, SULFURIC ACID, AND TOTAL SULFUR OXIDES
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust9
g/mi
g/km
Tire wear
g/mi
g/km
Sulfuric acid
g/mi
g/km
Total sulfur oxides
g/mi
g/km
Emission factors
Non-catalyst
(Leaded fuel)
0.34
0.21
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.18
0.11
Non-catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.001
0.001
0.18
0.11
Catalyst
(Unleaded fuel)
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.02-0.06b
0.01-0.04
0.18
0.11
3Excluding paniculate sulfate or sulfuric acid aerosol.
Sulfuric acid emission varies markedly with driving mode and fuel sulfur levels.
D.2.5 Basic Assumptions
Composition of class. For emission estimation purposes, this class is composed of trucks having a GVW of 8500
Ib (3856 kg) or less. Thus, this class includes the group of trucks previously defined in AP-42 as light-duty
vehicles (LDV) plus a group of vehicles previously defined as heavy-duty vehicles (HDV). On the basis of numbers
of vehicles nationwide, the split is two-thirds LDVs, one-third HDVs.
Standards. The pollutant standards assumed for this category are weighted averages of the standards applicable to
the various vehicle classes that were combined to create the light-duty truck class. Until 1975, those light-duty
trucks that weighed 6000 Ib (2722 kg) and under were required to meet light-duty vehicle emission standards.
Beginning in 1975, in accordance with a court order, a separate light truck class was created. This class, which
comprises two-thirds of the light-duty truck class (as defined here), is required to meet standards of 20 g/mi (12.4
g/km) of carbon monoxide, 2 g/mi (1.2 g/km) of hydrocarbons, and 3.1 g/mi (1.9 g/km) of nitrogen oxides from
1975 through 1977. The remaining one-third of the light-duty trucks are currently subject to heavy-duty vehicle
standards. Data presented in section D.2 are based on the assumption that, beginning in 1978, the light-duty
truck class of 0-8500 Ib (3856 kg) GVW will be subject to the following standards: carbon monoxide-17.9 g/mi
(11.1 g/km), hydrocarbon-1.65 g/mi (1.0 g/km), and nitrogen oxides-2.3 g/mi (1.4 g/km).
Deterioration. The same deterioration assumptions discussed in section D.I for light-duty vehicles apply except
that 1975-1977 model year vehicles weighing between 6000 and 8500 Ib (2722-3856 kg) are assumed not to be
equipped with catalytic converters. Therefore, the deterioration factors for light-duty trucks are weighted values
composed of 6000-lb (2722 kg) GVW truck deterioration values and 6001 to 8500-lb (2722-3856 kg) GVW truck
deterioration values. The weighting factors are two-thirds and one-third, respectively.
Actual emission values. For 1972 and earlier model year vehicles, emission values are those measured in the EPA
Emission Surveillance Program7'8 and the baseline study of 6,000- to 10,000-lb (2,722-4,536 kg) trucks.9'10
12/75
Appendix D
D.2-11
-------
The tabulated values are weighted two-thirds for 0-6000-lb (0-2722 kg) trucks and one-third for 6000- to 8500-Ib
(2722-3856 kg) trucks. For 1973-1974 model year emission values, this same weighting factor is applied to
projected 1973-1974 light-duty vehicle emissions and 1972 model year 6,000- to 10,000-lb (2,722-4,536 kg)
emission values. 1975-1977 model year emission values for 0- to 6000-lb (0 to 2722 kg) GVW trucks are based on
unpublished certification test data along with estimates of prototype-to-production differences. Post-1977 model
year emission values are based on previous relationships of low mileage in-use emission values to the standards.
California values. Projected emission factors for vehicles operated in California were not computed because of a
lack of information. The Pre-1975 California light-duty vehicle ratios can be applied to the light-duty trucks as a
best estimate (see section D.I). For 1975 and later, no difference is expected except in the value for nitrogen
oxides in 1975-1976; the California standards can be weighted two-thirds, and the truck baseline value of 7.1
g/mi (4.4 gm/km) one-third to get an estimated value for nitrogen oxides in 1975-1976.
D.2.6 High Altitude and Inspection/Maintenance Corrections
To correct for high altitude for all pollutants for light-duty trucks, the light-duty vehicle ratio of high altitude
to low altitude emission factors for the model year vehicle is applied to the calendar year in question (see section
D.I). Credit for inspection/maintenance for light-duty trucks is the same as that given for autos in section D.I. of
this appendix.
References for Section D.2
1. Strate, H. E. Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile Travel. Report
Number 2. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C. April
1972.
2. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D. C. 1974.
3. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds. Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, N. C. February 1974. (Unpublished report).
4. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Operation Data. CAPE-21. Collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S. C.,
under contract to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. January 1975. (Unpublished.)
5. Ashby, H. A., R. C. Stahman, B. H. Eccleston, and R. W. Hum. Vehicle Emissions - Summer to Winter.
(Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. meeting. Warrendale, Pa. October 1974. Paper no.
741053.)
6. Sigworth, H. W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N. C. March 1971. (Unpublished report.)
7. Automobiles Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544.
March 1973.
8. Williams, M. E., J. T. White, L. A. Platte, and C. J. Domke. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
Analysis of the FY 72 Program. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor Mich. Publication No.
EPA-460/2-74-00 I.February 1974.
9. A Study of Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Automotive
Environmental Systems, Inc., Westminster, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor,
Mich, under Contract No. 68-01-0468. Publication No. APTE-1572. June 1973.
10. Ingalls, M. H. Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-01-0467. June 1973.
D.2-12 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
D.3 LIGHT-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
D.3.1 General
Although light-duty diesels represent only a small fraction of automobiles in use, their numbers can be
expected to increase in the future. Currently, only two manufacturers produce diesel-powered automobiles for
sale in the United States, but this may change as the demand for low polluting, economical engines grows.
D.3.2 Emissions
Because of the limited data base for these vehicles, no attempt has been made to predict deterioration factors.
The composite emission factor calculation procedure involves only the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) emission
factor and the fraction of travel by model year (see main text, section 3.1.3). The values presented in Table
3.1.3-1 apply to all model years and pollutants.
D.3.3 Basic Assumptions
Standards. See section D.I, Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Vehicles.
Deterioration. Because of the lack of data, no deterioration factors are assumed. Diesels are expected to continue
to emit carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons at their present rates but to meet future NOX standards exactly.
12/75 Appendix D D.3-1
-------
-------
D.4 HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
D.4.1 General
This class includes vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more than 8500 Ib (3856 kg). Most of the vehicles
are trucks; however, buses and special purpose vehicles such as motor homes are also included. As in other
sections of this appendix the reader is encouraged to refer to the main text (see section 3.1.4) for a much more
detailed presentation. The discussion presented here is brief, consisting primarily of data summaries.
D.4.2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emissions
The composite exhaust emission factor is calculated using:
n
x—«
6n
"nps
i=n-12
cipn min vips
(D.4-1)
where: enDS = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n) pollutant (p), and average speed
c
ipn
ni
jn
vips
The test procedure emission factor for pollutant (p) in g/mi (g/km) for the itn model year in
calendar year (n)
The weighted annual travel of the i"1 model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The
determination of this variable involves the use of the vehicle year distribution.
The speed correction factor for the im model year vehicles for pollutant (p) and average speed
(s)
The projected test procedure emission factors (qpn) are summarized in Tables D.4-1 through D.4-10. These
projected factors are based on the San Antonio Road Route test (see section 3.1.4) and assume 100 percent
warmed-up vehicle operation at an average speed of approximately 18 mi/hr(29 km/hr). Table D.4-11 contains a
sample calculation of the variable mjn, using nationwide statistics. Speed correction factor data are contained in
Table D.4-12 and Table D.4-13.
Table D.4-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON. AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1973
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
Pre-1970 | 238
1970
1971
1972
1973
188
188
188
188
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.6
g/km
22.0
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.4
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.7
12.6
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.8
12.6 I 7.8
12.5 j 7.8
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-1
-------
Table D.4-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1974
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
168
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.1
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.2
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
S/km
4.2
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1976
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Carbon
monoxide
^ g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
169
168
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
105
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.2
14.1
14.0
13.9
13.3
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.3
8.2
8.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
g/km
4.2
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
D.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.4-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNiA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1977
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
170
169
168
167
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
106
105
104
104
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
14.0
13.4
13.3
13.2
13.1
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
8.1 5 12.5
g/km
4.2
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Table D.4-6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide | Hydrocarbons
g/mi
g/km
238 I 148
188
188
188
188
171
170
169
168
117
117
117
117
117
106
106
105
104
73
g/mi
35.4
14.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
13.5
13.4
13.3
13.2
6.0
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.4
8.3
80
.O
8.2
3.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
-
6.8
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
g/km
4.2
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
12.7 j 7.9
12.6
12.6
11.4
7.8
7.8
7.1
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-3
-------
Table D.4-7. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE. HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
238
188
188
188
188
172
1975 ; 171
1976 . 170
1977 169
1978 ; 118
1979 117
g/km
148
117
117
117
117
107
106
106
105
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
35.4
14.4
14.4
14.3
14.2
13.6
13.5
13.4
13.3
6.0
6.0
g/km
22.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8,4
8.4
8.3
8.3
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
6.8
13.0
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.6
3.7 11.6
3.7 11.4
g/km
4.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.2
7.1
Table D.4-8. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Carbon
i monoxide
! g/mi
i
i
1 238
! 188
188
' 188
i 188
g/km
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
j
148
g/km
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
!
|
35.4 22.0
117 14.4 | 8.9
117
117
14.4
14.4
117 I 14.3
; 173 107 13.7
; 172
: 171
8.9
8.9
6.8
13.0
13.0
12.9
8.9 12.9
8.5
12.8
107 I 13.6 8.4 12.8
106
170 106
13.5
13.4
119 74 i 6.1
118
117
73
g/km
4.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.4 , 12.7 i 7.9
8.3 12.7 7.9
3.8 11.8 7.3
6.0 3.7 11.6 , 7.2
73 6.0 3.7 11.4 j 7.1
D.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.4-9. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
188
188
176
176
175
174
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
g/km
117
117
109
109
109
108
77
76
76
75
75
74
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
14.4
14.4
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.9
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
g/km
8.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.9
8.6 ! 12.9
3.9 12,8
3.9
12.6
3.9 : 12.4
3.9
12.2
3.8 ! 12.0
3.8
3.8
11.8
11.6
3.7 11.4
g/km
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.1
Table D.4-10. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES-
EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA-FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
176
126
126
126
126
125
124
123
122
121
g/km
109
78
78
78
78
78
77
76
76
75
120 | 75
119
118
117
74
73
73
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
14.0
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.2
g/km
8.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
6.2 ! 3.9
6.2 j 3.9
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.8
12.6
12.4
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.6
11.4
g/km
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-5
-------
Table D.4-11. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.037
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.068
0.059
0.053
0.044
0.032
0.247
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
a x b
703
1,404
1,326
1,248
1,050
900
750
646
531
451
352
240
1,729
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.062
0.124
0.117
0.110
0.093
0.080
0.066
0.057
0.047
0.040
0.031
0.021
0.153
aVehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 1).
bReference 1.
cm = ab/Sab.
D.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
£>
i
U
C
X
UJ
>
Q
LU
CC
1
<
t
I
c
.
M
9
>
>
<
u
cc
0
u.
CO
DC
O
U
<
UL
0
^^
&
LU
cc
CC
0
o
Q
LU
UJ
Q.
CO
CC
o
u.
CO
K
Z
UJ
o
HL
LL
UJ
8
cvi
t—
*l
Q
01
3
Hi
^ 1
(
0
a
w 3
CO >
) , c
! < |
> II C
a £
> 2
~
trt
0
f
^
CO
O
1 =
X
<
"53 i_
T3 rc
0 a
^ >
e^
C
O
•*-•
CO
u
3
1 JCN CM CN CN
31 1 0 0 0 0
CJ03 1 X X XX
M I o en r^ in
1 1 oo CD CM ro
I 1 01 in o oc
"[ j d d c\i <-'
1 1 "~~~
I 00 00 CM CM
L.. 1 o co o «r
p< 1 CO CO CD CD
do do
,
I
10
"8
1
~j ro
2
1 ^
=
-
1 (ii
1 -S
II'*'* •* t
(III II
loo o o
P X X XX
00 «- CD CO
r-. q in co
| in co Tf -^
1
-
1 ^
7
1 4_i
1
t
1 s
1 a
ICN (M CM CN
III II
loo o o
1 r~ r— r-_ ^—
CO I X X X X
| r~ CN rv co
I o in in cv
1 CO CD rf ^t
ii i i
t
§
S
CD
3
«
1
1 i °>
\ r*- r~* >- CN
^ \ CD *t CM CD
< I q rv CD
I d •-' do
|<* <* •* "*
lii ii
loo o o
1 ' — * — * — ' —
-J 1 X X XX
I <- 00 CN O
I oo en m oo
I m m to ^3"
5
1 !§
£
in
^
n
°
in
(D
ro
ICN CN CN CN
III |l
| o o o o
Q 1 X X XX
1 O CO CO CO
j q cq in cq
1 CD CD uri >^
III II
1 ' 1 1 '
I CO O CO CN
r 1 in i^ oo CN
^ 1 C3^ o co r^-
I d <-' d d
o
aj
O)
c
£
a>
^
*j
?
0 ^
0) ^
^3 €
-a E
QJ _^
"D ^
S CO
1 5 <~
I — ° n
0 g 0 S
l&Z v>2
£ S E o
I o_ a. Q. CL
^ ^
1 E
2 C
0 •»' 3
-C J! C5
"» O £
? £ >-
5 § 8
j
1
1
1
la? QJ
I -
I ._ 1+J
1 g ro -c -5
1 0 .2>
1 "* 3:
§ t -2
ff-9 E
^.E
™ § »
S *~
C 0-2
•n
fe u 5
1^. -. Q.
a) -g S
DC 8 w
OJ ^
12/75
Appendix D
D.4-7
-------
Table D.4-13. LOW AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES3
Location
Low altitude
High altitude
Model
year
Pre-1970
Post- 1969
Pre-1970
Post- 1969
Carbon monoxide
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.72
3.06
2.29
2.43
10 mi/hr
(16km/hr)
1.57
1.75
1.48
1.54
Hydrocarbons
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
2.50
2.96
2.34
2.10
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.45
1.66
1.37
1.27
Nitrogen oxides
5 mi/hr
(8 km/hr)
1.08
1.04
1.33
1.22
10 mi/hr
(16 km/hr)
1.03
1.00
1.20
1.18
a Driving patterns developed from CAPE-21 vehicle operation data (Reference 3) were input to the moda! emission analysis model
(see section 3.1.2.3). The results predicted by the model (emissions at 8 and 16 km/hr; 5 and 10 mi/hr) were divided by FTP
emission factors for hot operation to obtain the above results. The above data represent the best currently available information
for light -duty vehicles. These data are assumed applicable to heavy-duty vehicles given the lack of better information.
D.4.3 Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbons
In addition to exhaust emission factors, the calculation of evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emissions
are determined using:
fn =
hi min
(D.4-2)
i=n-12
where: fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n)
hj = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission rate for the im model year.
Emission factors for this source are reported in Table D.4-14. Crankcase and evaporative
emissions must be combined before applying equation D.4-2.
in = The weighted annual travel of the Jth model year vehicle during calendar year (n)
m;
Table D.4-14. CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION
FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Location
All areas
except h igh
altitude and
California
California only
High altitude
Model
years
Pre-1968
Post-1 967C
Pre-1964
Post- 1963°
Pre-1968
Post-1 967C
Crankcase emissions0
g/mi
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
g/km
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
Evaporative emissions3
9/mi
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
7.4
7.4
g/km
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.6
4.6
aReferences 4 through 6 were used to estimate evaporative emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV). The formula from
section 3.1.2.5 was used to calculate g/mi (g/km) values, (evaporative emission factor = g + kd). The HDV diurnal evaporative
emissions (g) were assumed to be three times the LDV value to account for the larger size fuel tanks used on HDV. Nine trips
per day (d = number of trips per day) from Reference 3 were used in conjunction with the LDV hot soak emissions (t) to yield
a total evaporative emission rate in grams per day. This value was divided by 36.2 miles per day (58.3 km/day) from Reference
1 to obtain the per mile (per kilometer) rate.
Crankcase factors are from Reference 7.
CHDV evaporative emissions are expected to be controlled in 1978. Assume 50 percent reduction over the above post-1967 values
(post-1963 California).
D.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.4.4 Sulfur Oxide and Particulate Emissions
Projected sulfur oxide and particulate emission factors for all model year heavy-duty, gasoline-powered
vehicles are presented in Table D.4-15. Sulfur oxides factors are based on fuel sulfur content and fuel
consumption. (Sulfuric acid emissions are between 1 and 3 percent of sulfur oxides emissions.) Tire-wear
particulate factors are based on automobile test results, a premise necessary because of the lack of data for
heavy-duty vehicles. Truck tire wear is likely to result in greater particulate emission than that for automobiles
because of larger tires, heavier loads on tires, and more tires per vehicle. Although the factors presented in Table
D.4-15 can be adjusted for the number of tires per vehicle, adjustments cannot be made to account for the other
differences.
Table D.4-15. SULFUR OXIDES AND PARTICULATE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Exhaust3
Tire wear"
Sulfur oxides0
(SOxasSO2)
Emissions
g/mi
0.91
0.20T
0.36
g/km
0.56
0.1 2T
0.22
Calculated from the Reference 8 value of 12 lb/103gal (1.46 g/liter)
gasoline. A 6.0 mi/gal (2.6 km/liter) value from Reference 9 was used
to convert to a per kilometer (per mile) emission factor.
^Reference 10. The data from this reference are for passenger cars. In
the absence of specific data for heavy-duty vehicles, they are assumed
to be representative of truck-tire-wear particulate. An adjustment is
made for trucks with more than four tires. T equals the number of tires
divided by four.
°Based on an average fuel consumption of 6.0 mi/gal (2.6 km/liter) from
Reference 9, on a 0.04 percent sulfur content from References 11 and
12, and on a density of 6.1 Ib/gal (0.73 kg/liter) from References 11
and 12.
0.4.5 Basic Assumptions
Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) are based on San Antonio Road Route data for controlled
(1970-1973 model years) trucks' 3 and for uncontrolled (pre-1970 model years) trucks.14 Unpublished data on
1974 trucks and technical judgment were used to estimate emission factors for post-1973 HDV. In doing so, it
was assumed that diesel trucks will take over most of the "heavy" HDV market (trucks weighing more than
13,000 kg) and that the average weight of a gasoline-powered HDV will be approximately 26,000 Ibs (11,790 kg).
It is expected that interim standards for HDV, which will result in significant HC reduction, will be implemented
in 1978.
Projected emission factors at high altitude and for the State of California are not reported in these tables;
however, they can be derived using the following methodologies. Although all pre-1975 model year HDV
emission factors for California vehicles are the same as those reported in these tables, the hydrocarbon and
nitrogen oxides values for 1975-1977 model years in California can be assumed equal to the national (tabulated)
values for the 1978 model year. Carbon monoxide levels for 1975-1977 HDV in California can be assumed to be
9 percent lower than the 1975-1977 national levels. To convert the national HDV levels for high altitude for all
pollutants in a given calendar year, the light-duty vehicle (LDV) ratio of high altitude to low altitude emission
factors (by pollutant) can be used. For pre-1970 model year trucks, the pre-1968 model year LDV ratio can be
applied. For 1970-1973 model year trucks, the 1968 model year LDV ratio can be applied. For 1974-1977
trucks, the 1970 LDV ratio can be applied. For post-1977 trucks, the 1975 model year LDV ratio can be applied.
See section D.I of this appendix to obtain the data necessary to calculate these ratios.
12/75 Appendix D D.4-9
-------
References for Section D.4
1. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1974.
2. Smith, M. Development of Representative Driving Patterns at Various Average Route Speeds. Scott Research
Laboratories, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. February 1974. (Unpublished report.)
3. Heavy duty vehicle operation data collected by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, S.C., under contract
to Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich, December 1974.
4. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance. Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, N.Y. Prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. Under Contract No. 68-01-0435. Publication No. APTD-1544. March
1973.
5. Liljedahl, D. R. A Study of Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles in Denver, Houston, and Chicago. Fiscal Year
1972. Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc., Aurora, Colo. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Arm Arbor, Mich. Publication No. APTD-1S04. July 1973.
6. A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles in Los Angeles and St. Louis. Automotive
Environmental Systems,Inc.,Westminister, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor,
Mich. Under Contract No. 68-01-0455. Publication No. APTD-1505. August 1973.
7. Sigworth, H. W., Jr. Estimates of Motor Vehicle Emission Rates. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. March 1971. (Unpublished report.)
8. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. U.S. DHEW, National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C. Publication No. AP-51. January 1969.
9. 1973 Motor Truck Facts. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. 1973.
10. Subramani, J. P. Particulate Air Pollution from Automobile Tire Tread Wear. Ph. D. Dissertation. University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1971.
11. Shelton, E. M. and C. M. McKinney. Motor Gasolines, Winter 1970-1971. U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Bartlesville, Okla. June 1971.
12.. Shelton, E. M. Motor Gasolines, Summer 1971. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Bartlesville, Okla. January 1972.
13. Ingalls, M. N and K. J. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions. Part 1. Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Under Contract No. EHS 70-113. Publication No. EPA-460/3-002-a. February 1973.
14. Ingalls, M.N. and KJ. Springer. In-Use Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck Emissions. Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich., December 1974.
(Unpublished report.)
D.4-10 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
D.5 HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
D.5.1 General
This class of vehicles includes all diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of more than 6000 Ib
(2772 kg). On the highway, heavy-duty diesel engines are primarily used in trucks and buses. Diesel engines in any
application demonstrate operating principles that are significantly different from those of the gasoline engine.
D.5.2 Emissions of Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions from heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles during a calendar year (n) and for a pollutant (p) can be
approximately calculated using:
enps = cipnminvips (D.5-1)
i=n-12
where: enpS = Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), and average
speed (s)
Cjpn = The emission rate in g/mi (g/km) for the i"1 model year vehicles in calendar year (n) over a
transient urban driving schedule with average speed of approximately 18 mi/hr
min = The fraction of total heavy-duty diesel miles (km) driven by the itn model year vehicles during
calendar year (n)
vips = The speed correction factor for the itn model year heavy-duty diesel vehicles for pollutant (p)
and average speed (s)
Values for qpn are given in Table D.5-1; values for mjn are in Table D.5-2. The speed correction factor (vjps) can
be computed using data in Table D.5-3. Table D.5-3 gives heavy-duty diesel HC, CO, and NOX emission factors in
grams per minute for idle operation, for an urban route with average speed of 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), and for
operation at an over-the-road speed of 60 mi/hr (97 km/hr).
12/75 Appendix D D.5-1
-------
60
cc
&
<
UL
0
w
2ca
uj
O w.
So
1- I
1>
iS
^ ^
< DC
2"§
§&
o
oc «V
< -1
o£S
§5
££
•»R
s?
* >
g 5
z 3
i1
2 cc
zo
O u.
DO
CC
3
t—
in
Q
o>
•8
TO
0)
>
ro
?
(U
8
>
actors b
c
o
'3
e
UJ
O)
00
01
o
ro
en
O)
r^
o>
CO
p^
0)
t^
r^
(O
i^
o>
in
t-.
O)
^t
i^
O)
CO
r^
o
"oi
•o
O
«;
E
^
O)
E
^
O)
^
~0)
J
D)
^
O>
_§
O)
£
^
o>
1
01
E
-¥
D)
_|
~u>
^
O)
I
O)
E
^
^i
1
^>
^
o>
1
"S
_^
^i
|
O)
CO
CD
>
Pollutant
oo en ooooooooopra^cqM
r^ oi ciMcocv)cicococ«Jco'v>CNCN<-^
h- co cncnojocnoioicncnoioDOO'-
00 ^ OOOC)OOOOOOOCJ)CJ)00
CM CMCSCMCNCNlCNtMCMCNCSCN'-'-'-
oo o) oooooo^rcocN
1^ CM COCOCOCOOOCNCM'-'-
r^ co o)O>o)cj>o>oocj)Ot—
c6 ^- ddddcidciaico
CM CMCNCNCNCNCNr-i-^
oo en p 1; oo CN
(~ CN CO CN "^ fi
f~ CO O) 01 O >-
co ^f d cri oi co
CM CM «- «- T-
00 O> O 00 CM
r~^ CM CO T^ -^
r- co en o «-
oo O. CM
r- CM (•>»-'
r-; cp en «-;
oo * d co
CM CM 1-
oq o> o
r- cs rri
r» cp o>
06 ^ d
CM CM
00 O) O
r^ CM co
r-. ip en
06 1- d
CM CM
co en p
1-^ CM CO
p~ co o>
oo * d
CM CM
oq o? q
r-^ CM CO
1^ CO OJ
06 ^ d
CM CM
oo en o
r-' CM co
i^ co o>
06 ^ d
CM CM
= = OOOOCDO'-CMCO^'mCOr^OOCnO
ff tf .{.r^^r^OOOQOOGOOOOOOOOOQOCOG}
^- ^- )1O>O)0)O>O)O>O)O>O)O)O)O>O>O>
U)
1 1
j! I II
Jl 11?
ff-
D.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.5-2. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>13
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.077
0.135
0.134
0.131
0.099
0.090
0.082
0.062
0.045
0.033
0.025
0.015
0.064
Average annual
miles driven (bfi
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
62,000
50,000
46,000
43,000
42,000
30,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
a x b
5,390
9,450
9,380
9,170
6,138
4,500
3,772
2,666
1,890
990
625
375
1,600
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.096
0.169
0.168
0.164
0.110
0.080
0.067
0.048
0.034
0.018
0.011
0.007
0.029
a
Vehicles in use by model year as of 1972 (Reference 2).
°Reference 2.
cm = ab/Sab.
Table D.5-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY, DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
UNDER DIFFERENT OPERATING CONDITIONS3
(g/min)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
(NOxasN02)
Operating mode
Idle
0.64
0.32
1.03
Urban
(18mi/hr;29km/hr)
8.61
1.38
6.27
Over-the-road
(60mi/hr;97km/hr)
5.40
2.25
28.3
aData are obtained by analysis of results in Reference 1.
For average speeds less than 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is:
Urban + (^- -1) Idle
vips ~
Urban
(D.5-2)
Where: s is the average speed of interest (in mi/hr), and the urban and idle values (in g/min) are obtained from
Table D.5-3. For average speeds above 18 mi/hr (29 km/hr), the correction factor is.
18
42S [(60-S) Urban + (S-18) Over the Road]
vips
Urban
(D.5-3)
Where: S is the average speed (in mi/hr) of interest. Urban and over-the-road values (in g/min) are obtained from
Table D.5-3. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel vehicles assume all operation to be under warmed-up vehicle
conditions. Temperature correction factors, therefore, are not included because ambient temperature has minimal
effects on warmed-up operation.
12/75
Appendix D
D.5-3
-------
D.5.3 Emissions of Other Pollutants
Emissions of sulfur oxides, sulfuric acid, particulate, aldehydes, and organic acids are summarized in Table
D.5-4.
Table D.5-4. SULFUR OXIDES, PARTICULATE,
ALDEHYDES, AND ORGANIC ACIDS
EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY,
DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Pollutant
Particulate
Sulfur oxides'3
(SOxasS02)
Aldehydes
(asHCHO)
Organic acids
Emissions3
g/mi
1.3
2.8
0.3
0.3
g/km
0.81
1.7
0.2
0.2
aReference 3. Particulate does not include tire wear; see heavy-duty
gasoline vehicle section for tire wear emission factors.
'•'Data based on assumed fuel sulfur content of 0.20 percent. A fuel
economy of 4.6 mi/gal (2.0 km/liter) was used from Reference 4.
Sulfuric acid emissions range from 0.5 - 3.0 percent of the sulfur
oxides emissions, with the best estimate being 1 percent. These esti-
mates are based on engineering judgment rather than measurement
data.
D.5.4 Basic Assumptions
Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels for heavy-duty diesel vehicles until model year 1978 are given by
Reference 1. An interim standard for diesel HDV that will restrict nitrogen oxides levels, but not hydrocarbon or
carbon monoxide levels, is expected to be implemented in 1978. For purposes of the projections, the nitrogen
oxides standard was assumed to be 9 grams per brake horsepower per hour. Nitrogen oxide emission standards in
California for 1975-1977 model year HDV are assumed to be equivalent to the national levels in 1978;
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels in California will be the same as national levels. A separate table is not
given for California, but emissions are the same at those reported in Table D.5-1, with the exception of the
1975-1977 model years. It is assumed that the effect of altitude on diesel emissions is minimal and can be
considered negligible.3
References for Section D.5
1. Ingalls, M. N. and K. J. Springer. Mass Emissions from Diesel Trucks Operated Over a Road Course. Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Under Contract No. 68-01-2113. Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-017. August 1974.
2. Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D. C. 1974.
3. Young T. C. Unpublished emission factor data on diesel engines. Engine Manufacturers Association Emission
Standards Committee, Chicago, 111. October 16, 1974.
4. Truck and Bus Fuel Economy. U. S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass, and Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Mich. November 1974.
D.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.6 MOTORCYCLES
D.6.1 General
Motorcycles are becoming an increasingly popular mode of transportation as reflected by steady increases in
sales over the past few years. A detailed discussion of motorcycles may be found in section 3.1.7.
D.6.2 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Exhaust Emissions
The composite exhaust emission factor is calculated using:
enps ~ ^ cipn min vips
i=n-12
(D.6-1)
where: e,
nps
Vi
ips
Composite emission factor in g/mi (g/km) for calendar year (n), pollutant (p), and average
speed (s)
The test procedure emission factor for pollutant (p) in g/mi (g/km) for the itn model year in
calendar year (n)
The weighted annual travel of the i*h model year vehicles during calendar year (n). The
determination of this variable involves the use of the vehicle year distribution.
The speed correction factor for the im model year vehicles for pollutant (p) and average speed
(s)
The emission factor results of the Federal Test Procedure (cjpn) as modified for motorcycles are summarized in
Tables D.6-1 through D.6-6. Table D.6-1 contains a sample calculation of the variable nijn using nationwide
statistics.2 Because there are no speed correction factor data for motorcycles, the variable Vj«s will be assumed to
equal one. The emission factor for particulate, sulfur oxide, and aldehyde and for crankcase and evaporative
hydrocarbons are presented in Table D.6-8.
Table D.6-1. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON AND NITROGEN
OXIDES EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR PRE-1977
AND 1977 CALENDAR YEARS
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977a-b
!977b
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
28.0
g/km
19.0
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
5.0
g/km
5.0
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
aFactors for pre-1977 calendar years.
Factors for calendar year 1 977.
12/75
Appendix D
D.6-1
-------
Table D.6-2. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1978
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
29.4
28.0
g/km
19.0
18.3
17.4
, Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
3.4
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi I g/km
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.1
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-3. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
1979
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
29.4
28.0
g/km
19.0
19.0
18.3
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
6.0
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
3.7
3.4
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi | g/km
I
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-4. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1980
Carbon
Location and I monoxide
model year g/mi I g/km
!
Low altitude i
Pre-1977 30.6
1977 30.6
1978 30.6
1979 ' 29.4
1980 28.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
18.3
17.4
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
g/km
5.0
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.1
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Table D.6-5. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1985
Location and
model year
Low altitude
Pre-1977
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
29.4
2.1
g/km
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
18.3
1.3
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
0.41
g/km
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.4
0.25
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.2
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.4
g/km
0.1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.2
D.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
Table D.6-6. PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE, HYDROCARBON, AND NITROGEN OXIDES
EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
Location and
model year
Low altitude
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
3.1
g/km
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
1.9
2.9 j 1.8
2.7 : 1.7
2.5
2.3
1.6
1.4
2.1 - 1.3
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
0.81
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.49
0.41
g/km
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
g/km
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Table D.6-7. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FRACTION OF ANNUAL
MOTORCYCLE TRAVEL BY MODEL YEAR
Age,
years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>12
Fraction of total
vehicles in use
nationwide (a)a
0.04
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.0005
0.085
Average annual
miles driven (b)b
2,500
2,100
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,100
1,000
950
900
850
800
a x b
100
420
342
256
140
108
55
30
29
18
4
68
Fraction
of annual
travel (m)c
0.064
0.268
0.218
0.163
0.089
0.069
0.035
0.019
0.019
0.011
0.003
0.043
aVehicles in use by model year as of 1974 (Reference 2).
bReference 2.
cm = ab/Sab.
2/75
Appendix D
D.6-3
-------
Table D.6-8. SULFUR OXIDE, ALDEHYDE, AND CRANKCASE AND
EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSION FACTORS FOR MOTORCYCLES3
Pollutant
Hydrocarbons
Crankcaseb
Evaporative0
Particulates
Sulfur oxides'^
(SOxasS02)
Aldehydes
(RCHO as HCHO)
Emissions
2-stroke engine
g/mi
_
0.36
0.33
0.038
0.11
g/km
_
0.22
0.21
0.024
0.068
4-stroke engine
g/mi
0.60
0.36
0.046
0.022
0.047
g/km
0.37
0.22
0.029
0.014
0.029
a Reference 1.
Most 2-stroke engines use crankcase induction and produce no crankcase losses.
cEvaporative emissions were calculated assuming that carburetor losses were negligible. Diurnal breathing of the fuel tank (a func-
tion of fuel vapor pressure, vapor space in the tank, and diurnal temperature variation) was assumed to account for all the evapora
live losses associated with motorcycles. The value presented is based on average vapor pressure, vapor space, and temperature
variation.
^Calculated using a 0.043 percent sulfur content (by weight) for regular fuel used in 2-stroke engines and 0.022 percent sulfur con-
tent (by weight) for premium fuel used in 4-stroke engines
D.6.3 Basic Assumptions
Baseline emission data are from Reference 1. The motorcycle population was assumed to be 60 percent
4-stroke and 40 percent 2-stroke.
For the interim standards, deterioration factors for 1977 through 1984 were assumed to be: 10 percent per
calendar year for hydrocarbons, 5 percent per calendar year for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent per calendar
year for nitrogen oxides. For 1985 and beyond, deterioration factors are: 20 percent per calendar year for
hydrocarbon, 10 percent per calendar year for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent per calendar year for nitrogen
oxides. Motorcycles are assumed to deteriorate until they reach uncontrolled emission values. The deterioration
rate is a fixed percentage of base year emissions.
References for Section D.6
1. Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines. Part III, Motorcycles. Final Report. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio,
Texas. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C. under Contract No. EHS
70-108. Publication No. APTD-1492. March 1973.
2. Motorcycle Usage and Owner Profile Study. Hendrix, Tucker and Walder, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif. March
1974.
D.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
12/75
-------
D.7 ALL HIGHWAY VEHICLES
D.7.1 General
Emission factors for 1972 for all major classes of highway vehicle are summarized in section 3.1.1. A number
of scenarios that embody a range of local conditions, such as different ambient temperatures and average route
speeds, are considered. Although similar data for calendar years 1973 through 1990 are presented here, only one
scenario is presented. This single scenario is presented because it is general in nature and, therefore, most
appropriate for a range of applications. The authors, however, believe that projections of any significance should
be based on the data and methodologies presented in sections D.I through D.6 of this appendix. The data
presented in this section are, clearly, only approximations and are useful only for rough estimates.
The scenario considers the four major highway vehicle classes: light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles (LDV);
light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks (LDT); heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles (HDV); and heavy-duty,
diesel-powered vehicles (HDD). An average route speed of approximately 19.6 mi/hr (31.6 km/hr) is assumed.
The ambient temperature is assumed to be 24°C (75°F). Twenty percent of LDV and LDT operation is
considered to be in a cold operation; all HDV and HDG operation is taken to be in warmed-up condition. The
percentage of total vehicular travel by each of the vehicle classes is based on nationwide data.1 '2 The percentage
of travel by class is assumed to be 80.4 percent by LDV, 11.8 percent by LDT, 4.6 by HDV, and 3.2 perce.it by
HDD.
D.7.2 Emissions
Emissions for the five pollutants for all highway vehicles are presented in Table D.7-1. The results are only an
approximate indication of how future emission-controlled vehicles will influence the overall emissions from the
fleet of vehicles on the road. These values do not apply to high altitude areas, nor do they apply to vehicles in the
State of California.
Table D.7-1. AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES
FOR SELECTED CALENDAR YEARS
Calendar
year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1985
1990
Carbon
monoxide
g/mi
71.5
67.5
61.1
54.6
48.3
42.7
36.8
31.0
15.7
11.3
g/km
44.4
41.9
37.9
33.9
30.0
26.5
22.9
19.3
9.8
7.0
Hydrocarbons
g/mi
10.1
9.4
8.8
8.0
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.4
2.7
1.9
g/km
6.3
5.8
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.4
1.7
1.2
Nitrogen
oxides
g/mi
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.6
2.4
2.0
g/km
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.2
1.5
1.2
Sulfur
oxides3
g/mi
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
g/km
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
Particulate
g/mi
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.57
0.54
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.41
0.40
g/km
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.25
0.25
Fuel sulfur levels may be reduced in the future. If so, sulfur oxides emissions will be reduced proportionately
12/75
Appendix D
D.7-1
-------
References for Section D.7.
1. Highway Statistics 1971. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
B.C. 1972. p. 81
2. 1972 Census of Transportation. Truck Inventory and Use Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1974.
D.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 12/75
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
AP-42
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
Second Edition
5. REPORT DATE
February 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Q. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13, TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. 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 sub-
stances; various industrial processes; and miscellaneous sources. When no specific
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 AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Fuel combustion
Emissions
Emission factors
Mobile sources
Stationary sources
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
462
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
F-l
------- |