-------
     Emissions from anode bake ovens include the products of fuel
combustion; high boiling organics from the cracking, distillation and oxid-
ation of paste binder pitch; sulfur dioxide from the carbon paste; fluorides
from recycled anode butts; and other particulate matter.  The concentrations
of uncontrolled SC>2 emissions from anode baking furnaces range from 5 to 47
ppm (based on 3 percent sulfur in coke.)^

     Casting emissions are mainly fumes of aluminum chloride, which may
hydrolyze to HC1 and
     A variety of control devices has been used to abate emissions from
reduction cells and anode baking furnaces.  To control gaseous and partic-
ulate fluorides and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrub-
bers (spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds,
Venturis, and self induced sprays) have been applied to all three types of
reduction cells and to anode baking furnaces.  Also, particulate control
methods such as electrostatic precipitators (wet and dry) , multiple
cyclones and dry alumina scrubbers (fluid bed, injected, and coated filter
types) have been employed with baking furnaces and on all three cell types.
Also, the alumina adsorption systems are being used on all three cell types
to control both gaseous and particulate fluorides by passing the pot off-
gases through the entering alumina feed, on which the fluorides are absored.
This technique has an overall control efficiency of 98 to 99 percent.  Bag-
houses are then used to collect residual fluorides entrained in the alumina
and to recycle them to the reduction cells.  Wet electrostatic precipitators
approach adsorption in particulate removal efficiency but must be coupled to
a wet scrubber or coated baghouse to catch hydrogen fluoride.

     Scrubber systems also remove a portion of the SC-2 emissions.  These
emissions could be reduced by wet scrubbing or by reducing the quantity of
sulfur in the anode coke and pitch, i. e., calcinating the coke.

     In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite grinding and materials
handling operations, various dry dust collection devices (centrifugal
collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic precipitators and/or wet
scrubbers) have been used.

     Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in the primary
aluminum industry are bauxite grinding, materials handling, anode baking and
three types of reduction cells (see Table 7.1-2).  These fugitives probably
have particle size distributions similar to those presented in Table 7.1-3.

References for Section 7.1

1 .   Engineering and Cost Effectiveness Study of Fluoride Emissions Control,
     Volume I, APTD-0945, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, January 1972.

2.   Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I,
     EPA-450/3-73-004a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, July 1973.


4/81                     Metallurgical Industry                          7.1-7

-------
3.   Particulate Pollutant System Study,  Volume  I,  APTD-0743,  U.  S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1971.

4.   Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System, Report Number  Y-7730-E, York
     Research Corp., Stamford,  CT, May 1972.

5.   Emissions from Primary Aluminum Smelting Plant,  Report Number Y-7730-B,
     York Research Corp., Stamford, CT, June  1972.

6.   Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System,  Report Number  Y-7730-F, York
     Research Corp., Stamford,  CT, June 1972.

7.   T. R. Hanna and M. J. Pilat, "Size Distribution  of  Particulates Emitted
     from a Horizontal Spike Soderberg Aluminum  Reduction Cell", Journal of
     the Air Pollution Control  Association, 22j 533-536,  July  1972.

8.   Background Information for Standards of  Performance;   Primary Aluminum
     Industry, Volume 1;  Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-020a,  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park,  NC, October
     1974.

9.   Primary Aluminum:  Guidelines for Control of Fluoride  Emissions from
     Existing Primary Aluminum Plants, EPA-450/2-78-049b, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, December  1979.

10.  Written communication from T. F. Albee,  Reynolds Aluminum, Richmond, VA,
     to A. A. MacQueen, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, October 20, 1982.
7.1-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                        4/81

-------
7.5  IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION

                                        1-2
7.5.1  Process Description and Emissions

     Iron and steel manufacturing may be grouped into eight generic process
operations:  1) coke production, 2) sinter production, 3) iron production,
4) steel production, 5) semifinished product preparation, 6) finished prod-
uct preparation, 7) heat and electricity supply and 8) handling and trans-
port of  raw,  intermediate  and waste materials.  Figure  7.5-1,  a  general
flow diagram of the iron and steel industry, interrelates these categories.
Coke production is  discussed in detail  in Section 7.2 of this publication,
and more information on the handling and transport of materials is found in
Chapter 11.

Sinter Production - The sintering process converts fine  raw materials like
fine iron ore, coke breeze, fluxstone,  mill scale and flue dust into an ag-
glomerated product of suitable size for charging into a blast furnace.  The
materials are mixed with water to provide cohesion in a mixing mill and are
placed on  a  continuous  moving grate called the  sinter  strand.   A burner
hood above the  front  third of the  sinter  strand  ignites the coke in the
mixture.  Once  ignited, combustion  is  self supporting and provides suffi-
cient heat,  1300 to 1480°C (2400 to 2700°F),  to cause surface melting and
agglomeration of the mix.   On the underside of the sinter machine lie wind-
boxes that draw the combusted air through  the material bed into  a common
duct to  a  particulate  control device.   The fused sinter is discharged  at
the end  of  the  sinter machine, where it is crushed and  screened, and any
undersize portion  is recycled  to the mixing mill.  The remaining  sinter is
cooled in open air by water spray or by mechanical fan to draw off the heat
from the sinter.   The  cooled sinter is screened  a  final time, with  the
fines being  recycled and the  rest being sent  to  charge the blast  furnaces.

     Emissions occur at several points in the sintering process.  Points of
particulate generation  are the windbox, the discharge (sinter crusher and
hot screen), the cooler and the cold screen.  In addition, inplant transfer
stations generate  emissions  which  can be controlled by  local enclosures.
All the  above  sources  except the cooler normally are vented to one or two
control systems.

Iron Production -  Iron  is  produced in blast furnaces, which are large re-
fractory lined  chambers into which  iron (as natural ore  or  as agglomerated
products such as pellets or  sinter, coke and  limestone)  is  charged and  al-
lowed to react  with large  amounts of hot air  to produce  molten  iron.  Slag
and blast  furnace gases are byproducts of this operation.  The  average
charge to produce one unit weight of iron requires 1.7 unit weights of iron
bearing  charge, 0.55 unit  weights  of coke, 0.2 unit weights of limestone,
and 1.9  unit  weights  of air.  Average blast furnace byproducts consist  of
0.3 unit weights  of slag, 0.05 unit weights  of flue dust, and 3.0  unit
weights of gas per unit of iron produced.  The flue dust and other iron  ore
fines from  the  process  are converted into  useful blast  furnace charge  by
the sintering operation.
 5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-1

-------
                                                                           CO
                                                                           3
                                                                           13
                                                                           0)
                                                                           0)
                                                                           T3
                                                                           G
                                                                           a

                                                                           C
                                                                           o
                                                                           t-l
                                                                           cu
                                                                           &
                                                                           4J
                                                                           O
                                                                           14-1
                                                                           60
                                                                           rt
                                                                           o
                                                                           iH
                                                                           M-i
                                                                           0)
                                                                           c
                                                                           cu
                                                                           o
                                                                           60
7.5-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
5/83

-------
     Because of  its  high carbon monoxide content,  this blast  furnace  gas
has a  low heating value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per cubic liter (75 to
90 BTU/ft3) and is used as a fuel within the steel plant.   Before it can be
efficiently  oxidized,  however, the  gas  must be cleaned of particulate.
Initially, the gases pass through  a  settling chamber or dry cyclone to  re-
move about 60 percent of the particulate.  Next, the gases undergo a one or
two stage cleaning operation.  The primary cleaner is normally a wet scrub-
ber, which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulate.  The sec-
ondary 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 particulate  that  eludes  the primary cleaner.   Together these  control
devices provide a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams per cubic meter (0.02
gr/ft3) for use in the steel plant.
                    •
     Emissions occur during  the production of  iron when there is  a blast
furnace "slip" and during hot  metal  transfer operations in the cast house.
All gas generated in  the blast furnace  is  normally cleaned  and used for
fuel.  Conditions  such as "slips", however,  can cause  instant  emissions of
carbon monoxide  and particulates.  Slips occur  when a  stratum  of the mate-
rial charged to a blast furnace does not settle with the material below it,
thus leaving a gas  filled space between the two portions  of the charge.
When this unsettled stratum of charge  collapses,  the  displaced gas may
cause the top gas pressure to increase above the safety limit,  thus opening
a counter weighted bleeder valve to the atmosphere.

Steel Production  (Basic  Oxygen Furnace)  - The basic oxygen process is  used
to produce steel  from  a  furnace charge  typically  composed of  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.   Most of the basic oxygen furnaces  (BOF) in the United States have
oxygen blown  through a  lance  in  the top of  the furnace.  However,  the
Quelle Basic Oxygen Process  (QBOP),  which is growing  in  use,  has oxygen
blown through tuyeres  in the bottom of  the  furnace.   Cycle times  for  the
basic oxygen process range from 25 to 45 minutes.

     The large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the reactions
in the BOF can be combusted  at the mouth of  the furnace and then vented to
gas cleaning devices,  as with open hoods,  or  the  combustion can be sup-
pressed at the furnace mouth, as with closed hoods.  The term "closed hood"
is actually  a misnomer,  since the opening  at  the  furnace  mouth is large
enough to allow  approximately  10 percent of  theoretical air to enter.   Al-
though most  furnaces  installed before 1975  are  of  the open  hood design,
nearly all the QBOPs  in the United States  have closed hoods,  and  most  of
the new top blown furnaces are being designed with closed hoods.

     There are several  sources of emissions  in  the basic  oxygen furnace
steel making process,  1)  the furnace mouth during refining - with collec-
tion by local full  (open)  or suppressed (closed) combustion hoods, 2) hot
metal transfer to charging ladle, 3) charging scrap and hot metal, 4) dump-
ing slag and 5)  tapping steel.

Steel Production  (Electric Arc Furnaces) -  Electric arc furnaces (EAF)  are
used to produce  carbon  and  alloy  steels.   The  charge  to an EAF  is nearly

5/83                 .    Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-3

-------
always 100 percent scrap.  Direct  arc  electrodes through the roof of the
furnace melt the  scrap.   An  oxygen lance may or may not be used to speed
the melting and  refining  process.   Cycles range from 1-1/2 to 5 hours for
carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours for alloy steel.

     Sources of  emissions in the electric arc furnace steel making process
are 1) emissions  from melting and  refining, often vented through a hole in
the furnace roof, 2) charging scrap, 3) dumping slag and 4) tapping steel.
In interpreting  and  using  emission factors  for EAFs, it  is  important to
know what configuration one is dealing with.  For example, if an EAF has a
building evacuation  system, the  emission  factor before  the control device
would represent all melting,  refining,  charging, tapping and slagging emis-
sions which ascend to  the building roof.   Reference  2 has more details  on
various configurations used to control  electric arc furnaces.

Steel Production (Open Hearth Furnaces) -  In the open hearth furnace (OHF),
a mixture of iron and steel scrap  and hot metal  (molten iron) is melted in
a shallow rectangular basin  or  "hearth".   Burners producing a flame above
the charge provide the  heat  necessary for melting.  The mixture of scrap
and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal,  but a half and half
mixture is a  reasonable  industry average.  The process may or may not be
oxygen lanced, with process cycle times approximately 8 hours and 10 hours,
respectively.

     Sources of  emissions  in  the open hearth furnace steel making process
are 1) transferring  hot metal, 2)  melting and refining the heat, 3) charg-
ing of scrap and/or hot metal, 4) dumping slag and 5) tapping steel.

Semifinished Product Preparation - After  the steel has been  tapped,  the
molten metal is  teemed  into  ingots which are later heated to form blooms,
billets or slabs.  (In a continuous casting operation, the molten metal  may
bypass this entire process.)   The product next goes through a process of
surface preparation  of  semifinished steel (scarfing).  A scarfing machine
removes surface  defects before  shaping or rolling of the  steel billets,
blooms and  slabs by  applying jets  of  oxygen to  the  surface of the steel,
which  is  at  orange  heat,  thus removing a thin layer of the metal by rapid
oxidation.  Scarfing can be performed by machine on hot semifinished  steel
or by  hand  on  cold or  slightly heated  semifinished steel.  Emissions  occur
during teeming  as the molten metal is poured,  and when the semifinished
steel  products  are manually  or machine scarfed to remove surface defects.

Miscellaneous  Combustion  Sources - Iron and steel plants  require  energy
(heat  or electricity) for every plant operation.  Some energy operations on
plant  property  that  produce  emissions  are boilers,  soaking pits and  slab
furnaces which  burn  coal,  No.  2 fuel oil, natural gas,  coke oven gas or
blast  furnace  gas.   In soaking pits, ingots are heated until the tempera-
ture  distribution over  the cross  section of the ingots is acceptable and
the surface  temperature  is uniform for further  rolling into  semifinished
products  (blooms,  billets  and slabs).   In slab furnaces,  a slab is heated
before being rolled  into finished products (plates, sheets or strips).  The
emissions from  the combustion of natural  gas,  fuel oil or  coal  for boilers
 7.5-4                        EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
can be found in Chapter 1 of this document.   Estimated emissions from these
same fuels used  in  soaking pits or slab furnaces can be the same as those
for boilers, but  since it is estimation, the  factor  rating drops to D.

     Emission factor data  for  blast furnace gas and coke oven gas are not
available and must be  estimated.  There are three facts available for mak-
ing the  estimation.   First, the gas exiting  the  blast furnace passes
through primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned to less than 0.05
grams per cubic meter  (0.02  gr/ft3).  Second, nearly one third of the coke
oven gas is  methane.   Third, there are no blast furnace gas constituents
that generate  particulate when  burned.   The  combustible constituent of
blast furnace gas is CO, which burns  clean.  Based on facts one and three,
the emission factor  for combustion of blast furnace  gas  is equal to the
particulate loading of  that  fuel,  0.05 grams  per cubic meter (2.9 lb/106
ft3).

     Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas can be estimated in the same
fashion.   Assume  that  cleaned  coke oven  gas has  as  much particulate as
cleaned blast furnace  gas.   Since  one third of the coke oven gas is meth-
ane, the main  component of natural gas, it is assumed that the combustion
of this methane in coke oven gas generates 0.06 grams per cubic meter (3.3
lb/106 ft3)  of particulate.  Thus,  the emission factor for the combustion
of coke oven  gas  is  the sum of the particulate loading and that generated
by the methane combustion,  or  0.1  grams per cubic meter (6.2 lb/106 ft3).

Open Dust Sources -  Like process emission sources,  open dust sources con-
tribute to the atmospheric  particulate burden.  Open dust sources include
1) vehicle traffic on  paved and unpaved  roads,  2)  raw material handling
outside of buildings and 3)  wind erosion from  storage  piles and exposed
terrain.   Vehicle traffic consists  of plant personnel and visitor vehicles;
plant service vehicles;  and  trucks handling raw materials, plant deliver-
ables, steel products  and waste materials.   Raw materials  are handled by
clamshell buckets, bucket/ladder conveyors,  rotary railroad dumps,  bottom
railroad dumps,  front  end  loaders,  truck  dumps,  and conveyor transfer sta-
tions, all of which disturb  the  raw material and expose fines to  the wind.
Even fine materials  resting  on flat areas or in storage piles are exposed
and are subject to wind erosion.  It is not unusual to have several million
tons of raw  materials  stored at a  plant and to have in the range of 10 to
100 acres of exposed area there.

     Open dust source  emission factors for iron and  steel  production are
presented in  Table 7.5-1.  These factors were  determined  through source
testing at various integrated iron and steel plants.

     As an  alternative to the  single valued  open dust emission  factors
given  in  Table 7.5-1,  empirically  derived  emission  factor equations are
presented in Chapter 11 of this  document.   Each equation was developed for
a source operation defined on  the basis of  a  single dust generating mecha-
nism which  crosses industry lines, such as vehicle  traffic on unpaved
roads.  The  predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in
measured emission factors by relating emissions to parameters which charac-
terize source conditions.  These parameters may be grouped into three cate-
gories:  1) measures of source activity or energy expended  (e.g., the speed

5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-5

-------
        TABLE 7.5-1.   UNCONTROLLED  PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR
                        OPEN DUST SOURCES  AT  IRON  AND  STEEL  MILLS3

Operation

Continuous drop
Conveyor transfer station
Sinter

Pile formation -
stacker
Pellet ore

Lump ore
ri
Coal"

Batch drop
Front end loader/truck0
High silt slag

Low silt slag

Vehicle travel on
unpaved roads ,
Light duty vehicle
j
Median duty vehicle
u
Heavy duty vehicle

Vehicle travel on
paved roads
Light/heavy vehicle mixc

Predictive emission factor
, sented in Chapter 11.


Emissions by
< 30 |jm


13
0.026


1.2
0.0024
0.15
0.00030
0.055
0.00011


13
0.026
4.4
0.0088


0.51
1.8
2.1
7.3
3.9
14


0.22
0.78
equations

c Units/unit of material transferred.
, Reference 3. Interpolation to other
Reference 4. Interpolation to other
<


9-
0.


0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


8.
0.
2.
0.


0.
1.
1.
5.
2.
9.



particle
15 \m


0
018


75
0015
095
00019
034
000069


5
017
9
0058


37
3
5
2
7
7


0.16
0.56


size range


(aerodynamic
< 10 \m


6
0


0
0
0
0
0
0


6
0
2
0


0
1
1
4
2
7


0
0
, which generally


Units/unit of
particle sizes
particle sizes



.5
.013


.55
.0011
.075
.00015
.026
.000052


.5
.013
.2
.0043


.28
.0
.2
.1
.1
.6


.12
.44
provide



4
0


0
0
0
0
0
0


4
0
1
0


0
0
0
2
1
4


0
.0
more

< 5 Mm


.2
.0084


.32
,00064
.040
.000081
.014
.000029


,0
.0080
.4
.0028


.18
.64
.70
.5
.4
.8


.079
.28
accurate



diameter)
< 2


2.
0.


0.
.5 M»


3
0046


17
0.00034
0.
0.
0.
0.


2.
0.
0.
0.


0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
2.


0.
0.
022
000043
0075
000015


3
0046
80
0016


10
37
42
5
76
7


042
15
estimates of



Unitsb



g/Mg
Ib/T


8/Mg
Ib/T
g/Mg
Ib/T
g/Mg
Ib/T


g/Mg
Ib/T
g/Mg
Ib/T


kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
kg/VKT
Ib/VMT


kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
emissions.

Emission
Factor
Rating


D
D


B
B
C
C
E
E


C
C
C
C


C
C
C
C
B
B


C
C
are pre-

distance traveled.
will be approximate.
will be approxinate.
and weight of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved road),  2) properties of the
material being disturbed  (e.g.,  the content of suspendible  fines  in the
surface material on an unpaved road) and 3) climatic parameters (e.g., num-
ber of precipitation free days per year, when emissions tend to a maximum).

     Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment
to specific source conditions, the equations should be  used in place of the
factors in Table  7.5-1,  if emission estimates for  sources  in a specific
iron and  steel facility are needed.  However,  the generally  higher  quality
ratings assigned to the equations are applicable only if 1) reliable values
of correction parameters  have been determined for the  specific sources of
interest  and  2)  the  correction  parameter values lie  within the ranges
tested in developing  the  equations.  Chapter 11 lists  measured properties
of aggregate process  materials  and road surface materials in the iron and
steel industry, which can be  used to estimate correction parameter values
for the predictive  emission  factor equations, in the event that site spe-
cific values are  not  available.   Use of mean  correction parameter  values
from Chapter 11 reduces the quality ratings of the emission factor equation
by one level.
7.5-6
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
      Particulate  emission factors  for iron and steel plant processes are  in
Table 7.5-2.   These  emission factors are  a  result  of an extensive investi-
gation by EPA and the  American  Iron and Steel Institute.2   Carbon monoxide
emission factors  are in Table 7.5-3.5

   TABLE 7.5-2.   PARTICULATE  EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS3
Source
Blast furnaces
Slips
Uncontrolled cast house emissions
Monitor
Tap hole and trough (not runners)
Sintering
Windbox emissions
Uncontrolled
Leaving grate
After coarse particulate removal
Controlled by dry ESP
Controlled by wet ESP
Controlled by scrubber
Controlled by cyclone
Sinter discharge (breaker and hot
screens)
Uncontrolled
Controlled by baghouse
Controlled by orifice scrubber
Windbox and discharge
Controlled by bagbouse
Basic oxygen furnaces
Top blown furnace melting and refining
Uncontrolled
Controlled by open hood vented to:
ESP
Scrubber
Controlled by closed hood vented to:
Scrubber
QBOP melting and refining
Controlled by scrubber
Charging
At source
At building monitor
Tapping
At source
At building monitor
Hot metal transfer
At source
At building monitor
EOF monitor (all sources)
Electric arc furnaces
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled
Carbon steel
Charging, tapping and slagging
Uncontrolled emissions escaping
monitor
Melting, refining, charging, tapping
and slagging
Uncontrolled
Alloy steel
Carbon steel
Units

kg (lb)/slip
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal



kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter






kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter



kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel






kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal


kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel


kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal


kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel


kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel


kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel




Emissions Emission Factor
Rating

39.5

0.3
0.15



5.56
A. 35
0.8
0.085
0.235
0.5


3.4
0.05
0.295

0.15


14.25

0.065
0.045

0.0034

0.028

0.3
0.071

0.46
0.145

0.095
0.028
0.25



19

0.7




5.65
25

(87)

(0.6)
(0.3)



(11.1)
(8.7)
(1.6)
(0.17)
(0.47)
(1)


(6.8)
(0.1)
(0.59)

(0.3)


(28.5)

(0.13)
(0.09)

(0.0068)

(0.056)

(0.6)
(0.142)

(0.92)
(0.29)

(0.19)
(0.056)
(0.5)



(38)

(1.4)




(11-3)
(50)

D

B
B



B
A
B
B
B
B


B
B
A

A


B

A
B

A

A

A
B

A
B

A
B
B



C

C




A
C
      Controlled by:
        Configuration 1
         (building evacuation to bagbouse
           for alloy steel)
        Configuration 2
         (DSE plus charging hood vented
           to common baghouse for carbon
           steel)
                          0.15   (0.3)


                          0.0215  (O.OA3)
                                     (continued)
 5/83
Metallurgical  Industry
7.5-7

-------
           TABLE  7.5-2.
PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR  IRON AND
       STEEL MILLS3 (continued)
Source Units
Open hearth furnaces
Melting and refining kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
Uncontrolled
Controlled by ESP
Teeming
Leaded steel kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
Uncontrolled (as measured at the
source)
Controlled by side draft hood vented
to baghouse
Unleaded steel
Uncontrolled (as measured at the
source)
Controlled by side draft hood vented
to baghouse
Machine scarfing
Uncontrolled kg/Mg (Ib/ton) metal
through scarfer
Controlled by ESP
Miscellaneous combustion sources
Boilers, soaking pits and slab reheat kg/109 J (lb/106 BTU)
furnaces
Blast furnace gas
Coke oven gas
Emissions Emission Factor
Rating


10.55
0.14
Onoj.
. UOH

0.405

0.0019


0.035

0.0008


0.05

0.0115



0.015
0.0052


(21.1)
(0.28)
fn l£Ol
V U > 1 DO )

(0.81)

(0.0038)


(0.07)

(0.0016)


(0.1)

(0.023)



(0.035)
(0.012)


A
A


A

A


A

A


B

A



D
D
   ,  Reference 2.  ESP = electrostatic precipitator.  DSE = direct shell evacuation.
     For fuels such as coal, fuel oil and natural gas, use the emission factors presented in Chapter 1. of
     this document.  The factor rating for these fuels in boilers is A, and in soaking pits and slab re-
     heat furnaces is D.
                  TABLE  7.5-3.   UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE
                                     EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  IRON
                                          AND STEEL MILLS3
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
                 Source
                      kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Sintering windbox
Basic oxygen furnace
Electric arc furnace
22
69
9
44
138
18

, Reference 5.
                     of finished sinter.
7.5-8
                                  EMISSION FACTORS
                                                      5/83

-------
References for Section 7.5

1.   H. E. McGannon, ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, U. S.
     Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA,  1971.

2.   T. A.  Cuscino,  Jr., Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to the
     Iron and Steel Industry, EPA-450/4-79-029,  U.  S.  Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  September 1979.

3.   R. Bonn,  et al. ,  Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  March 1978.

4.   C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  et al. , Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive
     Emission Evaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1979.

5.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions  from Stationary
     Sources, AP-65, U.  S.  Department of Health, Education and  Welfare,
     Washington, DC, March 1970.
 5/83                      Metallurgical Industry                      7.5-9

-------
8.14 GYPSUM MANUFACTURING

                           1-2
8.14.1  Process Description

     Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO • 2H 0) , a white or gray
naturally occurring mineral.  Raw gypsum ore is processed into a variety of
products such as a Portland cement additive, soil conditioner, industrial
and building plasters, and gypsum wallboard.  To produce plasters or
wallboard, gypsum must first be partially dehydrated or calcined to produce
calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CaSO, • %H 0) , commonly called stucco.

     A flow diagram for a typical gypsum process producing both crude and
finished gypsum products is shown in Figure 8.14-1.  In this process, gypsum
is crushed, dried, ground and calcined.  Some of the operations shown in
Figure 8.14-1 are not performed at all gypsum plants.  Some plants produce
only wallboard, and many plants do not produce soil conditioner.

     Gypsum ore, from quarries and/or underground mines, is crushed and
stockpiled near a plant.  As needed, the stockpiled ore is further crushed
and screened to about 50 millimeters (2 inches) in diameter.  If the
moisture content of the mined ore is greater than about 0.5 weight percent,
the ore must be dried in a rotary dryer or a heated roller mill.  Ore dried
in a rotary dryer is conveyed to a roller mill where it is ground to
90 percent less 149 micrometers (100 mesh).  The ground gypsum exits the
mill in a gas stream and is collected in a product cyclone.  Ore is
sometimes dried in the roller mill by heating the gas stream, so that drying
and grinding are accomplished simultaneously and no rotary dryer is needed.
The finely ground gypsum ore is known as landplaster, which may be used as
soil conditioner.

     In most plants, landplaster is fed to kettle calciners or flash
calciners, where it is heated to remove three quarters of the chemically
bound water to form stucco.  Calcination occurs at approximately 120 to
150°C (250 to 300°F), and 0.908 megagrams (Mg) (one ton) of gypsum calcines
to  about 0.77 Mg (0.85 ton) of stucco.

     In kettle calciners, the gypsum is indirectly heated by hot combustion
gas passed through flues in the kettle, and the stucco product is discharged
into a "hot pit" located below the kettle.  Kettle calciners may be operated
in either batch or continuous modes.  In flash calciners, the gypsum is
directly contacted with hot gases, and the stucco product is collected at
the bottom of the calciner.  A major gypsum manufacturer holds a patent on
the design of the flash calciner.

     At some gypsum plants, drying, grinding and calcining are performed in
heated impact mills.  In these mills, hot gas contacts gypsum as it is
ground.  The gas dries and calcines the ore and then conveys the stucco to a
product cyclone for collection.  The use of heated impact mills eliminates
the need for rotary dryers, calciners and roller mills.
 5/83
                         Mineral Products  Industry                     8.14-1

-------
                                                                                               60
                                                                                               cO
                                                                                               •H
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               r-l
                                                                                               4-1

                                                                                               en
                                                                                               en
                                                                                               cu
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               J-l
                                                                                               Cu

                                                                                               60
                                                                                               c
                                                                                               •H
                                                                                               M
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               4-1
                                                                                               CJ
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               4-1

                                                                                               fi
                                                                                               CO




                                                                                               CD
                                                                                               p.
                                                                                               >,
                                                                                               60
                                                                                                CO
                                                                                                M
                                                                                                0)

                                                                                               O
                                                                                               00

                                                                                                (1)
                                                                                                t-l
                                                                                                3
                                                                                                60
                                                                                               •H
8.14-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                            5/83

-------
     Gypsum and stucco usually are transferred from one process to another
in screw conveyors or bucket elevators.   Storage bins or silos are normally
located downstream of roller mills and calciners but may also be used
elsewhere.

     In the manufacture of plasters, stucco is ground further in a tube or
ball mill and then batch mixed with retarders and stabilizers to produce
plasters with specific setting rates.   The thoroughly mixed plaster is fed
continuously from intermediate storage bins to a bagging operation.

     In the manufacture of wallboard,  stucco from storage is first mixed
with dry additives such as perlite, starch, fiberglass or vermiculite.  This
dry mix is combined with water, soap foam, accelerators and shredded paper
or pulpwood in a pin mixer at the head of a board forming line.  The slurry
is then spread between two paper sheets that serve as a mold.  The edges of
the paper are scored, and sometimes chamfered, to allow precise folding of
the paper to form the edges of the board.  As the wet board travels the
length of a conveying line, the calcium sulfate hemihydrate combines with
the water in the slurry to form solid calcium sulfate dihydrate or gypsum,
resulting in rigid board.  The board is rough cut to length, and it enters a
multideck kiln dryer where it is dried by direct contact with hot combustion
gases or by indirect steam heating.  The dried board is conveyed to the
board end sawing area and is trimmed and bundled for shipment.

                              2
8.14.2  Emissions and Controls

     Potential emission sources in gypsum manufacturing plants are shown in
Figure 8.14-1.  Although several sources may emit gaseous pollutants,
particulate emissions are of greatest concern.  The major sources of
particulate emissions include rotary ore dryers, grinding mills, calciners
and board end sawing operations.  Particulate emission factors for these
operations are shown in Table 8.14-1.   All these factors are based on output
production rates.  Particle size data for ore dryers, calciners and board
end sawing operations are shown in Tables 8.14-2 and 8.14-3.

     The uncontrolled emission factors presented in Table 8.14-1 represent
the process dust entering the emission control device.  It is important to
note that emission control devices are frequently needed to collect the
product from some gypsum processes and, thus, are commonly thought of by the
industry as process equipment and not added control devices.

     Emissions sources in gypsum plants are most often controlled with
fabric filters.  These sources include:

       -  rotary ore dryers             - board end sawing
       -  roller mills                  - scoring and chamfering
       -  impact mills                  - plaster mixing and bagging
       -  kettle calciners              - conveying systems
       -  flash calciners               - storage bins

Uncontrolled emissions from scoring and chamfering, plaster mixing and
bagging, conveying systems, and storage bins are not well quantified.
5/83                      Mineral Products  Industry                    8.14-3

-------
      TABLE 8.14-1.    PARTICULATE EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR  GYPSUM PROCESSING3
                                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:    B
Process Uncontrolled
kg/Mg Ib/ton
With
fabric
filter0
kg/Mg Ib/ton
With
electrostatic
precipitator
kg/Mg Ib/ton
 Crushers, screens,
   stockpiles, roads
 Rotary ore dryers
 Roller mills1
,Impact mills6*
 Flash calcinerse>m
 Continuous kettle
   calciners
                 e.f.g
0.0042(FFF)
                                    1.77
1.3
   j
50
19
  .g.j
0.16(FFF)
                                                       1.77
                    2.6
                     37
   ^
0.02"
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.04"
0.12
0.02
0.04
                                      0.003P     0.006P
      NA
0.05k      0.09k
                                               NA
                                               NA
                        0.05J
                                                     0.09J
Board end sawing*'
2.4 m (8 ft) boards
3.7 m (12 ft) boards
kg/m2
0.04
0.03
lb/100 ft2
0.8
0.5
kg/106 m2
36
36
lb/106 ft2
7.5
7.5
  nased on process output production  rate.  Rating applies to all factors  except where otherwise noted.
  Dash - not applicable.  NA - not  available.
  Factors represent any dust entering the emission control device.
 References 3-6, 8-11.  Factors for  sources controlled with fabric 'filters are based on pulse jet fabric
  filters with actual air/cloth ratios ranging from 2.3:1 - 7.0:1,  mechanical  shaker fabric filters with
  ratios  from 1.5:1 - 4.6:1, and a  reverse  flow,fabric filter with a ratio of  2.3:1.
  Factors for these operations are  in Sections 8.19 and 11.2.
 elncludes particulate matter from  fuel combustion.
  References 3-4, 8, 11-12.  Equation is for emission rate upstream of any process cyclones and is
  applicable only to concurrent rotary ore  dryers with flowrates of 7.5 m /s  (16,000 acfm) or less.
  FFF in the uncontrolled emission  factor equation is "flow feed factor", the  ratio of gas mass
  rate per unit dryer cross sectional area  to the dry mass feed rate, in the following units:
              2                           2
     kg/hr - m  of gas flow     Ib/hr - ft  of gas flow
        Mg/hr dry feedton/hr  dry feed
  Measured uncontrolled emission factors for 4.2 and 5.7 m /s (9000 and 12,000 acfm) range from 5 -
  60 kg/Mg (10 - 120 Ib/ton).
 gEMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C.
  Applicable to rotary dryers with  and without process cyclones upstream of the fabric filter.
  References 11-14.  Factors apply  to both  heated and unheated roller mills.
 ^Factors represent emissions downstream of the product cyclone.
  Factor  is for combined emissions  from roller mills and kettle calciners, based on the sum of the roller
  mill and kettle calciner output production rates.
  References 9,15.  As used here, an  impact mill is a process unit with process cyclones and is
  used to dry, grind and calcine gypsum simultaneously.
  References 3, 6, 10.  A flash calciner is a process unit used to calcine gypsum through direct contact
  with hot gas.  No grinding is performed in this unit.
 "References 4-5, 11, 13-14.
  Based on emissions from both the  kettle and the hot pit.  Not applicable to  batch kettle calciners.
 References 4-5, 16.  Based on 13  mm (>s in.) board thickness and 1.2 m (4 ft)
  board width.  For other board thicknesses, multiply the appropriate emission factor by 0.079 times
  board thickness in millimeters, or  by 2 times board thickness in inches.
8.14-4
             EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                   5/83

-------
               TABLE  8.14-2.  UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE DATA
                               FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING
   Process                                         Weight Percent
                                                10 ym          2 ym


   Rotary ore dryer                                ,               ,
      .  '    n  J a                              . cb            . Ob
     with cyclones                               45             12

     without cyclones                             8              1
                              d                    e              e
   Continuous kettle calciners                   63             17

   Flash calcinersf                              38b            10b
3.
.Reference 4.
 Aerodynamic diameter, Andersen analysis.
 .Reference 3.
 References 4-5.
^Equivalent diameter, Bahco and Sedigraph analyses,
 References3, 6.
         TABLE 8.14-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR GYPSUM PROCESSING
                        OPERATIONS CONTROLLED WITH FABRIC FILTERS3

Process

Rotary ore dryer.
with cyclones ,
without cyclones
g
Flash calciners
Board end sawing
Weight Percent
10 ym 2 ym

c 9
26 9
84 52
76 49
O
.Aerodynamic diameters, Andersen analysis.
 Reference 4.
c
.Not available
 Reference 3.
^References 3, 6.
 References 4-5.


5/83                     Mineral Products  Industry                     8.14-5

-------
     Emissions from some gypsum sources are also controlled with
electrostatic precipitators (ESP).  These sources include rotary ore dryers,
roller mills, kettle calciners and conveying systems.  Although rotary ore
dryers may be controlled separately, emissions from roller mills and
conveying systems are usually controlled jointly with kettle calciner
emissions.  Moisture in the kettle calciner exit gas?improves the ESP
performance by lowering the resistivity of the dust.

     Other sources of particulate emissions in gypsum plants are primary and
secondary crushers, screens, stockpiles and roads.  If quarrying is part of
the mining operation, particulate emissions may also result from drilling
and blasting.  Emission factors for some of these sources are presented in
Sections 8.19 and 11.2.

     Gaseous emissions from gypsum processes result from fuel combustion and
may include nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.  Processes
using fuel include rotary ore dryers, heated roller mills, impact mills,
calciners and board drying kilns.  Although some plants use residual fuel
oil, the majority of1the industry uses clean fuels such as natural gas or
distillate fuel oil.    Emissions from fuel combustion may be estimated
using emission factors presented in Sections 1.3 and 1.4.

References for Section 8.14

1.   Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 4, John Wiley &
     Sons, Inc., New York, 1978.

2.   Gypsum Industry - Background Information for Proposed Standards
     (Draft), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, April 1981.

3.   Source Emissions Test Report, Gold Bond Building Products, EMB-80-
     GYP-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, November 1980.

4.   Source Emissions Test Report, United States Gypsum Company, EMB-80-
     GYP-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, November 1980.

5.   Source Emission Tests, United States Gypsum Company Wallboard Plant,
     EMB-80-GYP-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, January 1981.

6.   Source Emission Tests, Gold Bond Building Products, EMB-80-GYP-5, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     December 1980.

7.   S. Oglesby and G. B. Nichols, A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitation
     Technology, Part II; Application Areas, APTD-0611, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August 25, 1970.

8.   Official Air Pollution Emission Tests Conducted on the Rock Pryer
     £ind #3 Calcidyne Unit, Gold Bond Building Products, Report No. 5767,
     Rosnagel and Associates, Medford, NJ, August 3, 1979.


8.14-6                         EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
9.   Particulate Analysis of Calcinator Exhaust  at  Western Gypsum Company,
     Kramer, Callahan and Associates,  Rosario, NM,  April  1979.   Unpublished.

10.  Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted on the  #1  Calcidyner Baghouse
     Exhaust at the National Gypsum Company, Report No. 2966, Rossnagel  and
     Associates, Atlanta, GA, April 10, 1978.

11.  Report to United States Gypsum Company on Particulate Emission
     Compliance Testing,  Environmental Instrument Systems,  Inc.,  South
     Bend, IN, November 1975.  Unpublished.

12.  Particulate Emission Sampling and Analysis, United States  Gypsum
     Company, Environmental Instrument Systems,  Inc.,  South Bend,  IN,
     July 1973.  Unpublished.

13.  Written communication from Wyoming Air Quality Division, Cheyenne,  WY,
     to Michael Palazzolo, Radian Corporation, Durham, NC,  1980.

14.  Written communication from V. J.  Tretter, Georgia-Pacific  Corporation,
     Atlanta, GA, to M. E. Kelly, Radian Corporation,  Durham, NC,
     November 14, 1979.

15.  Telephone communication between Michael Palazzolo, Radian  Corporation,
     Durham, NC, and D. Louis, C. E. Raymond Company,  Chicago,  IL, April 23,
     1981.

16.  Written communication from Michael Palazzolo,  Radian Corporation,
     Durham, NC, to B. L. Jackson, Weston Consultants, West Chester, PA,
     June 19,
     1980.

17.  Telephone communication between P. J. Murin, Radian  Corporation,
     Durham, NC, and J. W. Pressler, U. S. Department  of  the Interior,
     Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC,  November 6,  1979.
 5/83                    Mineral Products Industry                    8.14-7

-------
  8.19  CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE PROCESSING

  General*

       The processing of construction aggregate (crushed stone, sand and gravel,
  etc.) usually involves a series of distinct yet interdependent operations.
  These include quarrying or mining operations (drilling, blasting, loading and
  hauling) and plant process operations (crushing, grinding, conveying and other
  material handling and transfer operations).  Many kinds of construction aggre-
  gate require additional processing (washing, drying, etc.) depending on rock
  type and consumer requirements.  Some of the individual operations take place
  with high moisture, such as wet crushing and grinding, washing, screening
  and dredging.  These wet processes do not generate appreciable particulate
  emissions.  Although such operations may be a severe nuisance problem, with
  local violations of ambient particulate standards, their generally large
  particles can usually be controlled quite readily and satisfactorily to
  prevent such problems.

       The construction aggregate industry can be broken into various categories,
  depending on source, mineral type or form, physical characteristics, wet versus
  dry, washed or unwashed, and end uses, to name but a few.  The industry is
  categorized here into Section 8.19.1, Sand and Gravel Processing, and Section
  8.19.2, Crushed Stone Processing.  Sand and gravel generally are mined wet and
  consist of discrete particles or stones, while crushed stone normally origin-
  ates from solid strata which are broken by blasting and which will require
  substantial crushing to be a useful consumer product.  Further Sections will be
  published when data on other processes become available.

  Reference for Section 8.19

  1.   Mr Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry,
       EPA-450/3-82-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
       Park, NC, August 1982.
           Notice:  Work is being done on emission factors for 8.19.2,
                    Crushed Stone Processing, and these factors will
                    be presented in a future Supplement to AP-42.

                    This new work will replace the present 8.20, Stone
                    Quarrying and Processing.
5/83                      Mineral Products Industry                        8.19-1

-------
8.19.1  SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
                             1-2
8.19.1.1  Process Description

     Deposits of sand  and  gravel,  the consolidated granular materials re-
sulting from the natural  disintegration of rock or  stone,  are  generally
found in banks  and pits and in  subterranean and subaqueous beds.  Sand and
gravel  are  products  of the  weathering of rocks and are  mostly silica.
Often, varied amounts of iron oxides, mica, feldspar and other minerals are
present.  Deposits are common throughout the country.

     Depending upon  the location of the deposit, the materials are exca-
vated with  power  shovels,  draglines, cableways, suction  dredge pumps or
other apparatus.   Lightcharge blasting may occasionally  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 com-
binations of washers,  screens and classifiers to segregate particle sizes;
crushers to  reduce oversize  material; and storage and loading facilities.

8.19.1.2  Emissions and Controls

     Dust emissions occur during conveying, screening,  crushing and storing
operations.   Generally, these materials are wet or moist  when handled, and
process emissions are  often  negligible.   (If processing  is dry, expected
emissions could be  similar  to  those  shown  in Section 8.19.2, Crushed
Stone.)  Considerable  emissions may occur from vehicles hauling materials
to and  from a  site.   Open dust source  emission factors  for such sand and
gravel processing operations have been determined through source testing at
various sand and  gravel  plants  and, in some instances, through additional
extrapolations, and are presented in Table 8.19.1-1.

     As an alternative to the single valued emission factors given in Table
8.19.1-1, empirically  derived emission factor equations  are presented in
Chapter 11  of  this document.   Each equation  was  developed for a single
source  operation or dust generating mechanism which crosses industry lines,
such  as vehicular  traffic  on unpaved roads.  The predictive equation ex-
plains much of the observed variance in measured emission factors by relat-
ing  emissions  to different  source  parameters.   These  parameters may  be
grouped as  1)  measures of source activity or  expended energy  (e.g., the
speed and weight of  a  vehicle traveling on an unpaved  road); 2) properties
of the  material being  disturbed (e.g.,  the content  of  suspendable fines  in
the  surface  material on an unpaved road); and 3) climate (e.g., number of
precipitation free days per year, when emissions tend to a maximum).

     Because predictive equations  allow for emission factor adjustment to
specific conditions,  they  should be used  instead of the factors given in
Table 8.19.1-1 whenever emission estimates are needed for sources in a spe-
cific sand  and  gravel processing facility.  However, the generally higher
quality ratings  assigned  to  the equations are applicable only  if 1)  reli-
able  values  of  correction  parameters have been  determined for  the specific

5/83                    Mineral Products  Industry                 8.19.1-1

-------

















w
o
04
s
0
CO





a
Z
u

O

04
g



05
g
y
f"4



^D
M
CO
CO
M
W

^J
P
CJ
H

*rf*
04
Q
W
,J

o

H
2
6








r-H

i™H
*
cn
•"J
00

W
>J


H









































td
CO
H


_J
04


25
l-l
co
CO
u
CJ
o
5



u

1
a


a
*g^
CO

•^
^








































c
C
»••
II
B
•r
fc















J3
^^
hi

*>
U
E
CO
•0
u
•H
6
i

•o
o
w
OJ
CO



61
on
a
CO

14
•H
a)

V
r-4
U
•H
4J
CO
a
ja
09
d
o

B
CO
•H
d











































:
> w oo
4 O C
9 4J —I
0 U 4J
•1 CO CO
i In 05














n
£|
e
















0
T-«
V







i
CO 0
H co
V







s
CO
l-l rH
CO 9
4-1 U
O ft
r- 4J
14
co
Cu






















&
•o

*^
01 B
r4 O
r-4 -H
O 4J
14 CO
4-1 l-l
B 01
o a.
U O
e



W E*3


















His?
0 0


«o .0


oo oo
00 00




•c

o

o
g
cn
o

o




^•H
C3
i

d


»
CM
0
C3
•J-
••4
O

o
















M
01

CO
M

a i
o
U -H C
O.4J O
O CO -H
U 4J 4-1
•O cn cs


9 41 O
O VI 144
9 «
e c cj
•i4 a 1-4

C! tn Cu
o
CJ


w


















'B
0


JO


60
S
60



01
CN
O
O

O
CM
O
O

o



OJ
*— *
\0
0
o
CO
CM
O

o


^

CM
O

i-l
^x s~\ S~\

CO CO CO
•o -o -o

01 01 OJ
W 14 14
o o o
CO CO CO

«— 1 r4 *-4

>> >. IX
CO CO CO
•o -o -o

OJ OJ 01
CO CO eo
4J 4-1 4-1
u u u
OJ 01 01
JB JS JB
00 00 00
J« JK JJd



•e -o -o

cn r— o

vo »H in

r- 00
• • •
I*** r*4 in





CM in •*
cn cn o

-9 en ***
r-4 r-4





< 4 <
z z z










CO
t)

OJ


-4 4J
O CO
a
j= 'ma
O CO
60 14
V 01


rH -H U
•rt * CO
d* •_-*
CJ l>v O
60 CO
eo >,t> X
b eo -H
o -a ai E

W OJ -H r-4
01 -H u E

•H U C O
4J < I-I Z
u
<


CJ


















•p
jgj


ja


fc
60




OJ



en

i»-
oo

o




OJ
s
cn
cn
cn

c^




0
CN
in

^















CJ
CO
°
•o
CO
Pi
e
9 OJ
1-4
B LJ
O -rt
uf
•H >

VI ^%
CO 4J

4J -O
OJ >>
rH >
U CO
•H 0)
J= SB
01




01

•«4 14
4J OJ
U r-l
•H D,
•0 E
OJ eo
b to



. 3
•C f-4
01 O
r-4 >
OJ
CO *— i 00
U r-4 -H
4J J=
Ul
CO OJ -O
01 4-1 U
<-4 a. co
B 21
e J3 c
CJ CO
OJ 4J
rH B U
O -rt
•f4 CO
J3 *v
OJ 01 X

II 01 TJ
CO 01
t4 OJ U
g 14 9
CO


•O CO
OJ a
01 •)
> E 4-1
co O CO
4J 10 »
a
10 -*4 CO
U B 14
01 CLJ
4J CL,
I'se
o
1-4 09
•H 01 •
til
-4 -H rH
u 4J a,
•H CA
j-j oj OJ
01 O
> OJ V4
4J 9
II eo 0
U CO
f" s
S U **•
cd 4J

• OJ B
OJ Ul -H
31.
30J N
•Q -H
•H *H «
4-1 >
IJ O -4
CO fc4 rH
O. Q. «
•O ,>» VI
01 rH O
•O 1-4
B co n
OJ 14 01
Ct, 01 rH
§a u
0) -H
CO 004-1

rH J3 CO
CO U O,
4J i4
»•§ §
4J 3 a
II - 0
n 43
ft< d u
CO O -H
H *i4 CO
CO to
• S -H •
OJ O1 /— .
rH 0> OJ CM

CO X4 CO rH
rH O rH I-H
•H 4J 9
CO U U B •
> eo -H o cn
eo Vi 4-1 'H
14 4-1 CJ
4J B CO u U
O O B, OJ B
c -H cn oj
W rH IJ
II m co 01 oj
•H 4-1 OI Vt
< E o n oj
55 01 tn^Ce;


co J3 U T












































tH
tM
14
OJ
4J
O,
S
CJ
1

(Jj
0
^_t
CO
01

o
s
cd
•ft
&
u
o.
s

tJ
o •
«44 14
01
0) 4J
U 01
O E
4J CO
CJ -H
CO -O
VI

M u
60 B
•rt C
9 -0
O
CO H
4J OJ
CO CO
•0
4-1
VI O
0 B

d -
O rH •
•H CO *Cf
4-> U
eo -H cj
rH CO (J
o >. e
O.J3 OJ
CO Bi k
4-1 b V
X O 01
W fc< OS


3 OJ VI


9
0 4J
3 3
E O
•|4 "O
4-1 CO
E O
O r-l
fj


o
•o
J= C
U CO
4-1
eo *
J2 CO
*«• ^OJ
(0 *H
rH
•H 00
a, B
o
01 E
60 A
eo
b (A
O CO
4-1 OJ
CO 14
eo
o
4J -a •
§ §1?
O E
OJ w 0
4J 0«-H
eo 4J
60-0 CO
01 d u
u a oi
60 a.
00 B O
eo OJ
u B,
vi a o
O V, l-l
60 9
cam
•H 9
•0 01 0
CO 1-4 9
rS 'H S
4J
/— <"44 B
•H O O
••Ob
01 -r4 O
1-4 CO
U O JB
>. W O
O 01 4J
CO
OJ 13 JO
CM O ^
eo -H
0 * eo
4J^N OJ
co en ui
4J
OJ -CD
JS to
4J CO M
OJ to
B H OJ
•H CO (J
O
CA OJ h
C 60 B,
0 CO
•H h OJ
4-1 O JB
eo 4J 4J
h «
01 O
a, c 4J
O -H
B •
oj u i-i a
O -*4 9 M
U VI 4-1 3
9 VI OJ o
O CO h JS
CO 14

4-1 O CN
U 4-1 VI
C C 14

•rt -rl 4J >
•0 3 B 4J
a- m -H
oo oi E >
•H r* 5''H
"* tM JS U
O to eo
rH «
rH /-s 14 VI
o to o o

O a
01 -H 01 14

4J CO CO O
14 00 J=
01 01 01

•o o oo*-<
9 60
f-4 O« CO O
00 4J

rH -o o eo


60 JS •























































>.
CO
•o
to
OJ
•H
ex

60
§
E
CO
to
CO
OJ
r-l
CO

to
CU
•o
9

•5 "S
01
oj y
60
14 14
0 0
4-1 ?
to

VI CO
0 -0

14
U CO
CO

tfi 01
11
3 U

i2 -S


-1 "-1
8.19.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
sources of  interest  and  2)  the correction parameter values lie within the
ranges tested in developing the equations.  Chapter 11 lists measured prop-
erties of aggregate  materials  used in industries relating to the sand and
gravel industry, which can be used to approximate correction parameter val-
ues for the  predictive  emission factor equations, in the event that site
specific values ane not available.  Use of mean correction parameter values
from Chapter 11 reduces  the  quality ratings of the emission factor equa-
tions by at least one level.

     Since emissions  from  sand and gravel operations are  usually  in the
form of  fugitive  dust,  control techniques applicable  to  fugitive dust
sources are  appropriate.   Control techniques  most successfully used1 for
haul roads  are  application  of  dust suppressants, paving, route modifica-
tions,  soil  stabilization, etc.;  for conveyors, covering and wet dust sup-
pression;  for storage piles, wet dust suppression, windbreaks, enclosure
and soil stabilizers; and for  conveyor and batch transfer points (loading,
unloading,  etc.), wet suppression and  various methods  to reduce freefall
distances  (e.g., telescopic  chutes,  stone ladders and hinged boom stacker
conveyors).

     Wet suppression  techniques  include application of  water,  chemicals or
foam, usually at conveyor feed  and discharge points.   Such spray systems at
transfer points and on material handling operations are estimated to reduce
emissions  70 to 95 percent.5   Spray systems can also  reduce  loading and
wind erosion emissions  from  storage piles of various materials 80 to 90
percent.6    Control  efficiencies  depend upon  local climatic conditions,
source properties and duration of control effectiveness.  Table 11.2.1-2
contains estimates of control  efficiency  for various emission suppressant
methods for haul roads.

References  for Section 8.19.1

1.   Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry,
     U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     August 1982.

2.   S. Walker, "Production  of Sand and Gravel", Circular Number  57, Na-
     tional Sand and Gravel Association, Washington,  DC, 1954.

3.   Fugitive Dust Assessment at Rock and Sand Facilities in the South
     Coast Air Basin, Southern California Rock  Products  Association and
     Southern California Ready Mix  Concrete Association, Santa Monica,  CA,
     November 1979.

4.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive
     Dust Sources,  EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, June 1974.

5.   R. Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive  Emissions  from Integrated  Iron and Steel
     Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050, U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Washington, DC,  March 1978.
5/03                     Mineral Products Industry                 8.19.1-3

-------
6.    G.  A. Jutze,  and K.  Axetell,  Investigation of Fugitive Dust,  Volume  I:
     Sources, Emissions and Control,  EPA-450/3-74-036a,  U.  S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.
 8.19.1-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83

-------
8.22  TACONITE ORE PROCESSING

8.22.1  General1"2

     More than two thirds of the iron ore produced in the United States for
making iron consists  of  taconite concentrate pellets.  Taconite is a  low
grade iron ore,  largely  from deposits in Minnesota and Michigan,  but from
other areas  as well.  Processing  of taconite consists  of  crushing and
grinding the  ore  to  liberate ironbearing particles, concentrating the ore
by separating the particles from the waste material (gangue), and  pelletiz-
ing the  iron  ore  concentrate.  A simplified  flow diagram of  these process-
ing steps is shown in Figure 8.22-1.

Liberation - The  first step in processing crude taconite ore is crushing
and grinding.   The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close
to the grain size of the ironbearing mineral, to allow for a high  degree of
mineral  liberation.   Most  of the taconite used today  requires  very fine
grinding.  The grinding  is normally performed in  three or four stages  of
dry crushing,  followed by  wet grinding in rod mills and ball mills.   Gy-
ratory crushers  are  generally  used  for primary crushing, and cone crushers
are used for  secondary and tertiary fine  crushing.  Intermediate vibrating
screens remove undersize material from the feed to the next crusher and al-
low for  closed circuit  operation of the  fine crushers.  The rod and ball
mills are also in closed circuit with classification  systems such  as  cy-
clones.   An alternative  is to  feed  some coarse ores directly to wet or  dry
semiautogenous or  autogenous  grinding mills, then  to pebble  or ball mills.
Ideally, the  liberated particles of iron  minerals  and  barren gangue should
be removed from  the  grinding circuits as  soon  as  they are  formed, with
larger particles returned  for further grinding.

Concentration -  As  the  iron ore minerals are  liberated by  the crushing
steps, the ironbearing particles must be  concentrated.  Since only about 33
percent  of the crude  taconite  becomes a shippable  product for iron  making,
a large  amount of gangue is generated.   Magnetic separation and flotation
are most commonly used for concentration of the taconite ore.

     Crude ores  in which most  of the recoverable iron  is magnetite  (or, in
rare cases, maghemite) are normally concentrated by magnetic separation.
The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total iron by assay, but theo-
retically only about  75  percent  of  this is recoverable magnetite.   The  re-
maining iron becomes part of the gangue.

     Nonmagnetic  taconite  ores are  concentrated by froth flotation  or  by  a
combination of selective flocculation and flotation.   The method is deter-
mined by the  differences in surface activity between  the iron  and  gangue
particles.   Sharp separation is often difficult.

     Various  combinations  of magnetic separation and  flotation  may  be  used
to concentrate ores  containing various iron minerals  (magnetite and hema-
tite, or maghemite)  or  wide ranges  of mineral  grain  sizes.  Flotation is
also often used  as a final polishing operation on magnetic  concentrates.

 5/83                    Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-1

-------
                                                                                            n)
                                                                                            o
                                                                                           •H
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            C
                                                                                            O
                                                                                           •H
                                                                                            W
                                                                                            M
                                                                                           •H

                                                                                            §

                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            0)
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            n
                                                                                           CM
                                                                                            c
                                                                                            to
                                                                                            60
                                                                                            (2
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            cu
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            1-1
                                                                                            cu
                                                                                            ^
                                                                                            o

                                                                                            
                                                                                            4-J
                                                                                            •H
                                                                                            c
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            tfl
                                                                                            H
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            CM
                                                                                            CM

                                                                                            00

                                                                                            01
                                                                                            n
                                                                                            3
                                                                                            00
8.22-2
                                     EMISSION  FACTORS
5/83

-------
Pelletization - Iron  ore  concentrates must be coarser than  about No.  10
mesh to be acceptable as blast furnace feed without further treatment.   The
finer concentrates are  agglomerated  into small "green" pellets.  This is
normally accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum
or balling disc.  A  binder additive, usually powdered bentonite,  may  be
added to  the concentrate  to improve  ball formation and the physical quali-
ties of the  "green"  balls.  The bentonite is lightly mixed with the care-
fully moistened feed  at 4.5 to 9 kilograms per megagram (10 to 20 Ib/ton).

     The pellets are  hardened by a procedure called induration, the drying
and heating of the green  balls in an oxidizing atmosphere at incipient fu-
sion temperature [1290 to 1400°C (2350 to 2550°F), depending on the compo-
sition of the  balls]  for  several minutes and then cooling.  Four general
types of  indurating  apparatus  are  currently used.  These  are the vertical
shaft furnace,  the  straight grate,  the circular grate and  grate/kiln.   Most
of the large plants and new plants  use the grate/kiln.  Natural gas is most
commonly used  for pellet  induration  now, but probably not in the future.
Heavy oil is being  used at a few plants,  and  coal may be used at future
plants.

     In the vertical  shaft furnace,  the wet green balls  are distributed
evenly over the top  of the slowly descending bed of pellets.   A rising
stream of gas  of  controlled temperature and composition  flows counter to
the descending bed  of pellets.   Auxiliary fuel combustion chambers supply
hot gases  midway  between the  top and  bottom  of the  furnace.   In the
straight grate apparatus,  a continuous bed of agglomerated green pellets is
carried through various up and down  flows of gases at different tempera-
tures.  The grate/kiln  apparatus  consists  of a continuous traveling grate
followed by a rotary kiln.  Pellets indurated by the straight grate appara-
tus are cooled  on  an extension of the grate or in a separate cooler.   The
grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler, usually an  annular
cooler with countercurrent airflow.

                              1-3
8.22.2  Emissions and Controls

     Emission sources in  taconite  ore processing plants  are indicated in
Figure 8.22-1.   Particulate  emissions also arise from  ore  mining opera-
tions.  Uncontrolled  emission factors for the major processing sources are
presented in Table 8.22-1, and control efficiencies in Table 8.22-2.

     The  taconite  ore is  handled dry through  the crushing stages.  All
crushers,  size  classification screens and conveyor transfer points  are ma-
jor points of particulate emissions.   Crushed ore is normally ground in wet
rod and ball mills.   A few plants,  however, use  dry autogenous or semi-
autogenous grinding  and have higher  emissions than do  conventional  plants.
The ore remains wet  through the  rest of  the beneficiation process,  so par-
ticulate emissions after  crushing are generally insignificant.

     The first source of  emissions in the pelletizing process is the trans-
fer and blending of bentonite.  There are no other significant emissions in
the balling  section,  since the  iron  ore  concentrate  is normally too wet  to
cause appreciable dusting.  Additional  emission points in the pelletizing
process include  the main waste  gas  stream from the  indurating  furnace,

5/83                      Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-3

-------
             TABLE  8.22-1.   UNCONTROLLED  PARTICULATE  EMISSION
                                FACTORS FOR TACONITE  ORE
                                      PROCESSING3

                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
             Source                            Emissions
                                         kg/Mg          Ib/ton
Fine crushing
Waste gas
Pellet handling
Grate discharge
Grate feed
Bentonite blending
Coarse crushing
Ore transfer
Bentonite transfer
39.9
14.6
1.7
0.66
0.32
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.02
79.8
29.2
3.4
1.32
0.64
0.22
0.20
0.10
0.04

Q
, Reference 1 . Median
values .
£ 	 I 1 _ 4_ _
                Expressed as units per unit weight of pellets
                produced.

pellet handling, furnace  transfer points  (grate feed and discharge), and
for plants  using  the grate/kiln furnace,  annular  coolers.   In addition,
tailings basins and  unpaved  roadways  can be sources of fugitive emissions.

     Fuel used  to fire the indurating  furnace generates low  levels of sul-
fur dioxide emissions.   For  a natural gas fired furnace, these emissions
are about 0.03  kilograms  of  S02 per megagram of pellets produced  (0.06 lb/
ton).   Higher S02 emissions  (about 0.6 to 0.7 kg/Mg, or 0.12  to  0.14 lb/
ton) would result from an oil or coal fired furnace.

     Particulate emissions  from taconite  ore processing plants  are  con-
trolled  by  a  variety of  devices,  including cyclones,  multiclones,  roto-
clones, scrubbers, baghouses and electrostatic precipitators.  Water sprays
are also used to suppress dusting.  Annular coolers are generally left un-
controlled, because  their mass  loadings of particulates are small, typi-
cally less than 0.11 grams per cubic meter (0.05 g/scf).

     The largest source  of  particulate emissions in taconite ore mines is
traffic  on  unpaved haul  roads.3   Table  8.22-3 presents size  specific emis-
sion factors for this source determined through source testing at one taco-
nite mine.   Other significant  particulate  emission sources at taconite
mines are wind erosion and blasting.3

     As  an  alternative to the single  valued emission  factors for  open dust
sources  given  in Tables  8.22-1 and 8.22-3, empirically  derived emission

8.22-4                   Mineral Products  Industry                     5/83

-------






















_

o

CO

o
1 — 1
H

M
pq
S
o
o
04
0


CO
u

u
13
w
M
CJ
M
fa

u
l 	 3
o
fyt
H
2
O

ViX




CM
1
CN
CN)
QO

[V]
hJ
CQ

H












































CO
u
o
PH
J=>
O
CO
Q
5

CO
W
O

f>
§

. ^
§
H
§
CJ




































oo
4J e
0) -H
t-n -a
v c
a, n






u
4J U
to ra
n oo






01
00
01 ki
4J n
n J3
kl U
O tfl
-H

0)
4J "O
n u

£ 00

C -H
o -o
*•> es
C 01
U i-H
ea J3
01

i-l 01
C XI
C 10
4J e
e n


00
c
S3
•H in
Sn 3

U




^
QJ
QJ 4H
U W
O C
n


co
QJ C
U *H
n w
O 3

U







4— H
o

e
o

4H 4-i tU

(M f-l U-1 ,-M
rn r-. CM in







QJ



in «-«

CO O\
ON OO





f^N
eg QJ QJ
rn in •-'

ON ON 00

Z.
CM E 11
^ss
00 OO ON
W-l 4-1

>— i ^-<
r*. co
CO ON
ON ON



^
X^ '
00
ON

1*4 «M
/"~ s ^^ £ Q^
m vo /^ /— N
N-"— ' O ON
• NMO S_>

ON ON ON Os




^^^
CO

in m "*3" ^
ON ON o\ ON


tw
UH /•">•
-^v— / CM r-4
00 CO N^S_^
ON ON OS 00
t I • •
m tn oo co






^^
1*4 rH
Q^

oo a\
00 OV

ti
X-t OJ t^
S3-*
OO CO ON
CO OS ON
W-t

4-1 T-H
s^
o> ^
en o\



01
00

0>
OS

tM MH
^^ ^"V
P--  -<
»n oo tn
O> Os oo


>M E OJ

iMK-im-a- ECMOICS u-i


QOOSOOON OsONOSON OO


Ul ^H
b u o n
O -H *J U
4J 4-> TO 'H Ul ^-( U
c aj OJ 4j, 3 O CS r-. U, OJ
O S OS CQ W C3 U



^
o
W
iw aj
0) -H

"g B 0 0
3 o) e
e -i-i >>
U 4J U
o; *H trj c
£ *w £ OJ
4J U-l 4J -1-1
01 U
OJ OJ 1H
i-l *D JJ U-l
(Q OJ Q IM
jj u aj
(O (0 -*^
OJ 4J T3 0)
to to e jz
OJ -ri 4J
j: oj
4J £ B B
e .u .* o
oj e
b ti co n
B OJ -H 4J
CU.E CO a
C OJ
•M £ • O
» /-. c
CO OJ

0) 4J n
.a o w js
E B C *<
a oj o
4J O
v i
C »-H 4J
O U-l 4-> «
'H CO ^
4J - OJ X
U E OJ
3 Ul
OJ U *J
4J ^. e
4J 4-) M 9
C OJ ^ O
OJ ^H £
U 00 J<
l-i OJ B
to (o
to OJ
>< 00
•o u -o o
V B -H — <
10 QJ OJ O
M -H 'H C
OJ U 1*4 .C
U -H O
CM M*4 " OJ
OJ 01 E

01 T) O
b 01 00 U

« -i-i e
CO 4-1 4J O
OJ to n u
•(H (4
u oj •n
c X K c •
oj *J - n 01
•H Ul *— 1
o f OJ si ja
M-l 4-1 i- U «

UH S *J 3 *rt
01 U O Q
rH C x-l «
O O 3 t-l
U -i-l C O OJ
4J 4J fO I-l
B n E » a
OB B
(J -rt E O B
-Q O •« O
• O 3 W 4J
— o EB
•0 -rt B
OJ "O OJ £ '•*
u 01 to E ^
B 4J n o E
CJ (Q ^ U O
hi U U
OJ -H OJ -C

OJ 6 01 3 £
05 -ft S M 4J


CB
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
8.22-5

-------
       TABLE 8.22-3.   UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                       HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT
                                    TACONITE MINES3

Surface
material
Crushed rock
and gla-
cial till
Crushed
taconite
and waste
Emission factor

< 30 jam
3.1
11.0

2.6
9.3


< 15 urn
2.2
7.9

1.9
6.6

by aerodynamic diameter

< 10 |jm
1.7
6.2

1.5
5.2


< 5 pm
1.1
3.9

0.90
3.2


< 2.5 |Jm
0.62
2.2

0.54
1.9

Units

kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

Emission
Factor
Rating
C
C

D
D

   Reference 3.   Predictive emission factor equations, which generally pro-
   vide more accurate estimates of emissions, are presented in Chapter 11.
   VKT = Vehicle kilometers traveled.   VMT = Vehicle miles traveled.

factor equations are presented in Chapter  11 of this document.  Each equa-
tion was developed for a source operation  defined on the basis of a single
dust generating  mechanism  which  crosses industry lines,  such  as  vehicle
traffic on unpaved roads.   The predictive equation explains much of the ob-
served variance  in measured  emission  factors by relating emissions to pa-
rameters which  characterize  source conditions.  These parameters  may be
grouped into three categories:   1)  measures of source activity or energy
expended (e.g.,  the  speed  and weight  of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved
road), 2) properties of the material being disturbed  (e.g., the content of
suspendable fines in the surface material  on an unpaved road), 3) climatic
parameters  (e.g., number of  precipitation free days per year, when emis-
sions tend to a maximum).

     Because the predictive equations allow  for emission factor adjustment
to specific source conditions, the  equations should be used  in place of
the  single  valued factors for open dust  sources,  in Tables  8.22-1  and
8.22-3, if  emission  estimates for sources in a specific taconite ore mine
or processing facility are needed.   However, the generally higher quality
ratings assigned to the equations are  applicable only if 1) reliable values
of correction parameters have been determined for the specific sources of
interest and  2) the  correction  parameter values lie  within  the  ranges
tested in developing  the  equations.   Chapter 11 lists measured properties
of aggregate process  materials and road surface materials found in taconite
mining and  processing facilities, which  can be used to estimate correction
parameter values for the predictive emission factor equations,  in the event
that site specific values are not available.  Use of mean correction param-
eter values from Chapter  11  reduces the quality ratings  of the emission
factor equations by one level.
8.22-6
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
References for Section 8.22

1.   J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore Mining, Ben-
     ficiation and Pelletization, Volume 1, EPA  Contract No. 68-02-2113,
     Midwest Research Institute, Minnetonka, MN, June 1978.

2.   A. K.  Reed,  Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement for
     the Iron Ore Beneficiation Industry (Draft), EPA Contract  No.  68-02-
     1323, Battelle  Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH,  December  1976.

3.   T.  A.   Cuscino,  et al. ,  Taconite Mining Fugitive  Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville,  MN,  June 1979.
5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.22-7

-------
8.24   WESTERN  SURFACE  COAL MINING

8.24.1  General1

      There  are  12 major  coal fields in  the  western  states  (excluding the
Pacific Coast  and Alaskan fields),  as  shown in Figure 8.24-1.   Together,
they  account  for more than  64 percent  of the surface minable  coal reserves
           COAL TYPE
           LIGNITE
           SUBBITUMINOUSCD
           BITUMINOUS
                    9
                   10
                   11
                   12
                Coal field

            Fort Union
            Powder River
            North Central
            Bighorn Basin
            Wind River
            Hams Fork.
            Uinta
            Southwestern Utah
            San Juan River
            Raton Mesa
            Denver
            Green River
Strippable reserves
    (106  tons)

     23,529
     56,727
  All underground
  All underground
         3
      1,000
        308
        224
      2,318
  All underground
  All underground
      2,120
5/83
Figure 8.24-1.   Coal  fields of the western U.S.3

            Mineral Products Industry
                                                                             8.24-1

-------
in  the  United States.2  The 12 coal  fields  have  varying characteristics
which may  influence  fugitive  dust emission  rates from mining operations,
including overburden and coal seam thicknesses and structure, mining equip-
ment, operating procedures, terrain,  vegetation, precipitation and  surface
moisture, wind speeds  and  temperatures.  The operations  at a typical west-
ern  surface mine  are shown in Figure 8.24-2.  All operations that involve
movement of soil,  coal,  or equipment, or  exposure  of  erodible  surfaces,
generate some amount of fugitive dust.

     The initial  operation is  removal of  topsoil and  subsoil with large
scrapers.  The topsoil  is  carried by the  scrapers  to  cover  a  previously
mined and  regraded area as part of the reclamation process or is placed  in
temporary  stockpiles.  The exposed  overburden,  the earth which is between
the  topsoil and  the  coal   seam, is leveled, drilled and blasted.   Then the
overburden material is removed down to the coal seam, usually by a dragline
or  a  shovel  and  truck operation.   It is placed in the adjacent mined cut,
forming  a  spoils  pile.   The  uncovered  coal seam is  then  drilled and
blasted.   A shovel or front end  loader  loads the  broken coal into haul
trucks,  and it is taken out of  the pit along graded  haul roads to  the  tip-
ple,  or  truck dump.   Raw  coal sometimes may be  dumped  onto a temporary
storage pile and  later rehandled by a front  end loader or bulldozer.

     At the tipple, the coal is dumped into  a hopper that feeds the primary
crusher, then is  conveyed  through additional coal  preparation equipment
such  as  secondary crushers and screens  to the storage area.  If the mine
has  open storage piles, the crushed coal passes through  a coal stacker onto
the  pile.  The piles, usually worked by bulldozers,  are subject to wind
erosion.   From the storage area,  the coal is conveyed to a  train  loading
facility and  is  put into  rail cars.   At a captive mine,  coal will go from
the  storage pile  to the power plant.

     During mine  reclamation,  which  proceeds continuously throughout  the
life  of  the  mine, overburden spoils  piles are  smoothed  and  contoured by
bulldozers.   Topsoil  is  placed on the graded spoils, and the land is pre-
pared  for  revegetation by furrowing,  mulching, etc.  From the time  an  area
is  disturbed until the new vegetation emerges, all disturbed areas are sub-
ject  to wind erosion.

8.24.2  Emissions

      Predictive  emission  factor equations  for open  dust  sources  at  western
surface  coal  mines are presented in Tables  8.24-1 and 8.24-2.   Each equa-
tion is  for  a single  dust generating activity, such as  vehicle traffic  on
unpaved  roads.  The predictive equation explains much of the observed vari-
ance  in  emission factors  by relating emissions to  three  sets of  source pa-
rameters:  1)  measures of  source activity or energy expended (e.g., speed
and weight of a vehicle traveling on  an unpaved road); 2) properties of  the
material being disturbed   (e.g., suspendable  fines in the surface material
of  an unpaved road);  and 3) climate  (in  this case, mean  wind speed).

      The equations may be used to estimate particulate emissions  generated
per unit of source extent  (e.g.,  vehicle distance traveled or mass of mate-
rial transferred).

8.24-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
                                                                                       en
                                                                                       CU
                                                                                       n)
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       a

                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       a
                                                                                       a)
                                                                                       14-1
                                                                                       }-i

                                                                                       CD

                                                                                       a
                                                                                       t-i
                                                                                       CU
                                                                                       4-1
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       tfl
                                                                                       u
                                                                                       to
                                                                                       C
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                       cu
                                                                                       ex
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       CN
                                                                                       I
                                                                                       CN


                                                                                       00
                                                                                       01
                                                                                       S-i
5/83
Mineral  Products Industry
8.24-3

-------




H
CO
s
an
3
O
CO

&H fl)
CO x-x
3 CO
Q H

Z Z
U 3
OH
O O
1— 1


W H
t ] jvj
t~j S
o ^
(*J
H CO
z w
0 Z
O HH
z S

as <
o o
En U

CO [z]
Z U
O S ^5 *S *J
X. S: X! X! E > > > > U
0000 00 00 OOOCOOOOOOXi







O CTv CM in (•-. \c *-" O r--
en— CM o — ' t-g m -* i-«
oo o *-• o o o o o
oo o o ooooosc





in
•
/-^
2,

.
^•N
NO |m r-» w o in
o  U t-i
o t; 33
ft) XI X)
i-( > ^H F-* ki U *-«
eg o re re 4) ft> CD
50 o > > o
CJ o O O u
^
3 1-1 c

/—. u e d ^>
4) -ri 3 Ot O O)
00 -O (*-* -i-l 00 -'H(Q
(0 U --I OC C04Jt3-Hi— (i-(-H3E
B) 3 ~H W li s— • CO M **-* 3 4J s-'
i— i t-i 3 i*uk-ioireo
CQH> OQ Cl W O > X <



II
1
4J
3
•M
^j
n

•o
41
1
3

CO 4)
4J OO
0 C
w 2
H
4)
% H
(-* M
. 3_

ft) "^
U (N
4) V
41 QJ

K ' f*
4) • d
§»S « ^s-*
Xl i-« CM
u. re E M •
WM .-H d -^ d ^-^
•HO OO O \D
B (Q -H '«— ' *H I
O > 4J GO x3-
-H « U OO CQ CM
S4J « oox: -H e oo
o i: o, t3 41
ft) 4) 'XM' ^ O ft) d
u H 4-> v F-* e co
at ^— * js *o at '^
•-* < oo 41 xi 4-» e m
•H BE tj -H at 1 1— i i- i
"— t s > w "*-* w 4J rg
ft) • ft, ^— ' o 4) •
oo -o e 4i 41 ai 13 ao

*- — 1 W ^ U U 41 « O W
O4) OO *H --4 Ji *M 4-» 4)
CQ n E a>4)4)39dX)
i- 3 xi>>diAOre
re o d, d e c T3 4J
4» X! -O E E E *J ^ M
M 4-1 OO •*•» ^— '
O ft) -H II II II II II
w E x: « >
O T3 ^ W * »J -i-l l-H
4J 1-1 -e x:
ft, -i-l M 4J -O
4) jd us e
u -o >» re
X ^4j C ^x X»

41 *o 2 -^ d S
- -H (0 O
•-* X! 4-» *-* ••-» -
4t a c »< 4J M
ft) > 4i "^ re
U X 4J 3 tt
e n x> c 4-1 a* ftt
ft) o d ft> a,
H HI 'W U 4) K
ft) afi Ol 4-* *" *• ft> E-*

ftt 3 W I-l O 41 -H ft)
B; CQ E3 UU4JC
•fl) ^ 4J y—x -^ U -H
U^H C 41 O *i-l 4* O
> .H -H CO 4-1 4) O,
4) CO 4^ re i-H On— < 4) 4)

re
dQJ 4l4J|-l4-*d4l-. re"
3 4J d V) I-H
efr-i 4)<--< *H
-^ ^ a- 6 — i -u
•-H 41 W >» 3 CO
< > H w s a:

CO X> Cv "O 41
8.24-4
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------




H


en
W

3
O
en
(0
H ~
en en
D H
Q M
z S

p i 5C
O en
h"(
Q i-3
W C5
.J Z
J W
o ^
as
H en
Z W
O 123
0 M

5


So
o

en w
2 O
8 g
fH flc*

i— I
U
•H
U
(0
a


Xi

B
O
•H
H
M
I









i
1

•4
J
0
•4
U
?

4)
pa co cc CQ CQ < co co < u

b
4J X!
(fl *—*
^ . 1* h *"^ 3? IE 1? e? * ^
X> H X! X) bs ? E" 5* £» n
Xi ja x> ,e xj xi Xi Xi X) n







ff) f+ CM O *^ CM fl *rf v*
OO O •-! O O O O O
do d d ddooda:





m
CM
^

-*
t-H
'"J
^/ o
o CM u-j o •  *

>»
3 I-H B
t3 -H (8
O.
<— * U B B /-s
V -H 3 4) O 41
OC *tf *4-l »H 00 *H U
B O I*H *O nj u B

fl) B i-^ 4-1 ">*. U *J H14> *J 3 W *J
B *H N C 1-. > 00 4) J= U -DC
*J J< t? rH & M •« U -H > -M «
CO U 1—4 00 Cfl4J*O-HF-Hr-l-H>6
ff 9 •— ' SS<



II
_

44
JH
3
•H
S.

*s
•e
B
41
a
to
u
*B 4)
4-1 60
0 B
4-> n
II
OH N
W •-!
H W
w t
in
O  • B
o x> S «^ *H
t-i cc En*
**-4 1-1 B *^ e -— .
•HO 00 O vO
B n *H "—'•HI
•H (0 U U 00 10 CM
*•> 4> e -— * B -^* •
9 O *J &, *t3 ft)
O^Bft) ^—-BBOfB t3
ft) 4) N-SfH O 4) B
II n 4J ft) »-H E «8
D •— ' JS -O 0) *rt
r-4< 004)^«JEm
gt, 0) 4J 4) O- -H 4*  (0 MH CO 4J CM
DOT3 i* S""eJ4iC4J'DOO
« 4) « 4J ^ -H iw U
h>^u x9U(J4»nou>
O 4* 00 >H *H f *H 4J 4)
4J >• 4) -H Xi X! E t-i rH
W « E ft) ft) 4) 3 3 B X)
 o « « «o « u at
u ij *-i 4) ftf av o «! 4?
K 4J OO <«-• ^^
O 4J *H II II II II II
'"o"0 -c^wswa^S
4J (— 1 *C X!
&jie « **1!
O *C ON A)
X 4> B -^ X)
4> i-f n »* »-i
o 4J N-" a M
" «^» CO O

4) fl) B »* 4J (-1
u > ft) •— ' n
U >. 4-> 3 BO
B M x> e •*-» cr 4i
4) O e 4) O,
*-" H "O U 4) Ps
4) 3 4JM O 4) 1-1 4)
Ctf (A *4H3'-vUi-l V^ 1-4 v— ' "O
«^w M 13 8 ja^-c S S
> «H *H to 4J 4) Q«
4) a 4J « i— ( O*i— ( 4/ 4V
W ** <0 3 X> *H *S H S* W X>
»BJB?«>S«jS'cf"5
e«5 "Sii4(^ieai"<
O^H(nhM«ao n™tA^<

4J E  M O<
n 0 II II II II II X «
9 4J C W r-l
CT-J n -^ < i: Q n a aw
ai u -a o -H d
•F^ ^ *> -H
>-" J5 O. p -< •"
sssl- 55

(0 X) U *O 41
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
                                                                     8.24-5

-------
The equations were developed through field sampling various western surface
mine types and are thus applicable to any of the surface coal mines located
in the western United States.

     In Tables 8.24-1 and 8.24-2, the assigned quality ratings apply within
the ranges of  source conditions that were  tested  in developing the equa-
tions, given in Table  8.24-3.   However,  the equations are  derated  one  let-
ter value (e.g., A to B) if applied to eastern surface coal mines.
  TABLE 8.24-3.
TYPICAL VALUES FOR CORRECTION FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE
        PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS3

Source
Blasting




Coal loading
Bulldozers
Coal

Overburden

Dragline


Scraper


Grader

Light/medium
duty vehicles
Haul truck


Correction Number
factor of test
samples
Moisture
Depth

Area

Moisture

Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance

Moisture
Silt
Weight

Speed


Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading

5
18

18

7

3
3
8
8
19

7
10
15

7


7
29
26

Range
7.2
6
20
90
1,000
6.6

4.0
6.0
2.2
3.8
1.5
5
0.2
7.2
33
36
8.0
5.0

0.9
6.1
3.8
34
- 38
- 41
- 135
- 9,000
- 100,000
- 38

- 22.0
- 11.3
-16.8
-15.1
- 30
- 100
- 16.3
-25.2
- 64
- 70
-19.0
- 11.8

- 1.7
- 10.0
- 254
- 2,270
Geometric
mean Units
17.2
7.9
25.9
1,800
19,000
17.8

10.4
8.6
7.9
6.9
8.6
28.1
3.2
16.4
48.8
53.8
11.4
7.1

1.2
8.1
40.8
364
%
m
ft
m2
ft2
%

%
%
%
%
m
ft
%
%
Mg
tons
kph
mph

%
number
g/m2
Ib/acre

   Reference  1.

      In  using the equations to estimate  emissions  from sources in a spe-
 cific western surface coal mine,  it  is necessary that  reliable values  for
 correction  parameters be determined  for  the specific sources of interest,
 if  the assigned quality ratings of the equations are to apply.  For exam-
 ple,  actual  silt  content  of coal or overburden  measured  at a facility
 8.24-6
            EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------
should be used  instead  of estimated values.  In the event that site spe-
cific values  for  correction parameters cannot be obtained, the appropriate
geometric mean values from Table 8.24-3 may be used, but the assigned qual-
ity rating  of each emission factor equation is reduced by one level  (e.g.,
A to B).

     Emission factors for open dust sources not covered in Table 8.24-3 are
in Table 8.24-4.  These factors were determined through source testing at
various western coal mines.

     The factors in Table 8.24-4 for mine locations I through V were devel-
oped  for  specific geographical areas.  Tables 8.24-5  and  8.24-6  present
characteristics of each of these mines (areas).   A "mine specific" emission
factor should be  used only if  the characteristics  of the mine for which  an
emissions estimate is needed  are very similar to  those  of the mine for
which the emission factor was  developed.  The other  (nonspecific) emission
factors were  developed  at a  variety of mine types and thus are applicable
to any western surface coal mine.

     As an alternative to the single valued emission factors given in Table
8.24-4 for  train  or  truck loading and for truck or scraper unloading,  two
empirically derived  emission factor equations are  presented  in Section
11.2.3 of this  document.   Each equation was developed for a source opera-
tion  (i.e., batch drop  and continuous drop,  respectively),  comprising a
single dust generating mechanism which crosses industry lines.

     Because  the  predictive  equations  allow emission factor adjustment to
specific source conditions,  the equations should be used  in place of  the
factors in Table 8.24-4 for the sources identified above, if emission esti-
mates for a specific western surface coal mine are needed.  However,  the
generally higher  quality  ratings  assigned to the equations are applicable
only if 1)  reliable  values of correction parameters have been determined
for the specific sources of interest and 2) the correction parameter values
lie within  the  ranges tested in developing the  equations.   Table 8.24-3
lists measured properties of  aggregate materials which can be used to esti-
mate correction parameter values  for the predictive emission factor equa-
tions in Chapter  11,  in the event that site specific values are not  avail-
able.  Use  of mean  correction parameter values from Table 8.24-3 reduces
the quality ratings  of  the emission factor equations in Chapter 11 by one
level.
5/S3                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.24-7

-------
        TABLE  8.24-4.    UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE  EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR
                           OPEN DUST  SOURCES  AT  WESTERN  SURFACE  COAL MINES
Source
Drilling



Topsoil removal by
scraper


Overburden
replacement
Truck loading by
power shovel
(batch drop)
Train loading (batch
or continuous drop)


Bottom dump truck
unloading
(batch drop)










End dump truck
unloading
(batch drop)c
Scraper unloading
(batch drop)
Wind erosion of
exposed areas

Material Mine
location
Overburden Any

Coal V

Topsoil Any

IV

Overburden Any

Overburden V


Coal Any

III

Overburden V


Coal IV

III

II

I

Any

Coal V


Topsoil IV
Seeded land , Any
stripped over-
burden, graded
overburden
TSP
emission
factor
1.3
0.59
0.22
0.10
0.058
0.029
0.44
0.22
0.012
0.0060
0.037
0.018

0.028
0.014
0.0002
0.0001
0.002
0.001

0.027
0.014
0.005
0.002
0.020
0.010
0.014
0.0070
0.066
0.033
0.007
0.004

0.04
0.02
0.38
0.85
Emission
Units Factor
Rating
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/hole
kg/hole
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg

Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/T

Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg
Ib/T
kg/Mg

Ib/T
kg/Mg
T
(acreKyr)
Mcr
HK
(hectare) (yr)
B
B
E
E
E
E
D
D
C
C
C
C

D
D
D
D
£
E

E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
E

C
C
C
C
                Roman numerals I  through V refer to specific mine locations  for which the
                corresponding emission factors were developed (Reference 4).  Tables 8.24-4
                and 8.24-5 present characteristics of each of these mines.   See text for
                correct use of these "mine specific" emission factors.  The  other factors
                (from Reference 5 except for overburden drilling from Reference 1) can be
                applied to any western surface coal mine.
                Total suspended particulate (TSF) denotes what is measured by a standard high
                volume sampler (see Section 11.2).
                Predictive emission factor equations, which generally provide more accurate
                estimates of emissions, are presented in Chapter 11.
8.24-8
EMISSION FACTORS
5/83

-------














0
1
s^f
CN
«
00

W
-J
£Q
^T
fr-
IZ.
1—1
O
6-1
(—3
W
OS
OS
pi]
rtt
£x3
as

en
r-1
2










































£ i

*— *
<3^
o
CJ

w

«3^
g
en

1*1
o

en
u

£-H
S2
2C
JJ
U




















d
r* O
co -ri
3 *J
d CO
d 4J
CO -H
a
d -H
CO U
CJ 01
S Vj





•o
d
—I T3
3 OJ
OJ
d c.
eg en
JU




•H >>
O TJ -1
M d -H
tO r-l
0) -H
u OJ ,n
« a -H

U 4-> O
3 i-
en oi



01
*>
•—i
4-1
(O
4J
01
00
0)
>




c
•H
CO

^
OJ
c 	
fr^
i

^ i
H
fj

w
^
as
w
a

in
i

CM















00

S
3
^
9—

•4-4
o
^
OJ CO
a. o
>> 0





(2
Q
• rl
— 1
CO
U
O

1



OJ
.5
i S
I 1"H
d
•rl








E
u



n
a
£




IA
•x^.
£






X
01
-a
d
•r-l








^4
OJ
>
p


















TJ
OJ
d
ID ^ 1 r* -tf
^•H f— H i-H »-H
r-4
f— 1



1—4
•*^

oo vD i cn ^o
en en -^ cn
oo
CM

*•* -^ r*1- CM -*^
• • * • *
LO cn o r— t cn
r— 1 i—^ T— t T— 1



cn o oo o o
. • . . .
CM \Q > d co
••^r^d (Or- 1 U-Oi-i OT3 01 - O
•rl CO "H d 3 "D rH d W ^\ 1— 1
§3 ^ 0) co 0) *"*^
^— N o £ -Q •*""* ^ W /^^« ^ ^ ^» CN
0) CO CO ~4 S^ U xO r-i CO r*- ^> rH ^ CO CO O
>>O T3r— Ir— ICOUOO r-IOd^ SOr— £r— IrMt— 1
OJ — ( -rl U CO O CO V^> CO r— 1 O ^^ CO 4U >— ' 10 O O > — '
rH Wl J3 O O
cj < en r-3 rJ


.C J2 13 -D JS
w w OJ d d w
-3 3 4->OJCO«0)co 3
OJS-I V-i CO -H i— I OJ -rl r-l U
4*> ^- *• ^ ««i—l4W 4->l4C/3 •* f^
rooJ'OJOJ OJOJ-HW co*riu3 0)0)
ijoo woo tn'Ocon s-icoco tnoo
OJco i-ico i-iO^4i-i 0)^i-i i-*CO
•aw ajw toSciiOO'aa.oo COM
o a, a, o a,
S en en S en

1 -O 1
r— 1 0) r^
>, -O r-l 00 r^
r-l OJ O 00 O 00
OJ 00 i-i O 3 ^4 ^> d
4_> O , QQ 4-) J^ Q r— { .p^
S30J3 >» -n >» 4->4-lrH
!-lOJ^I r— 1 OC £ r-l OC C r— 1
OJ-P-rl 4->dO) ->d 4JOJO
^0) OJ OJ r-l


E E S £
33 3 OJ 3
4-) 4-1 4J 4J 4J
•n -H -i-l •« -rl
•n ; .a j ^j d ja
£









^ ^5 ^2 00 £
33 3 -rl 3
cn en en rJ en

o
^
O co
•C 00 co r-l Q 00
co c d co d
!-l -n CO Ul .C •!-!
. 0 • £ • 4J 4-1 4J • £
lir-so wd d «-i wo







• 0 • >. -0 OJ 0 • >%
acjencs ens uz zcz




S >
— i-l (-I i— I >







































































































































































•
^rf

OJ
u
d
OJ
OJ
M-i
OJ
OS

CO
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
8.24-9

-------










M


I-H
s
J
^3 _*

Cj *"*T
u i
W CN1
H 00
0 3
&o <3
0 H
l-l
H 25
GO M
§8
H
U Q

fa
•H
3
cr
CU
ec







fa
ti
4-1

e

fa
CO
04
.£>
0

CM



eo

m

in

&



o

m

PO
f-t
•-4


fa
H
CO
O
r*

















•a
tl
B
1-1
E

i-H
CD
O
u

ti

CD
fa

B
O
-H
4J
U
9
•O
0
fa
a,




CN



^
*



P>1




^
*

<
z

^
n
•o
fa
CU
a







5*
B
tl
S
O1
tl
fa
a
•H
CD
fa

•H
B
3


eo


4J

0
o.
CO
B
Z



fS
o
u



in o < o
cr> i r- Z i i-i
oo vo


in «CM o o
VO 1 CM m CM 00
0
o >»
O o r*. < in i-
o> fo tM Z CN 1-1


in o\
o - o
o r^ in in *y o


o in
« es -o CM CM
tM «» ov in CN in


CO
4J JZ JJ 4J 4J










CO fa
10 tl O
B 10 CO JJ
tl ^» to ti u
j2 1H B CO e CD 02 a.
fa fa ti eo
3 3 « C W tl


tl CU CO fa O 4J
> > o « CM ti
O O (-> Cu CO <




•H
ja
P<
CD
eo
•H CO
4J 4-1
CD CD

4J


00 O
^r CM
0 • 0
IT) VD O 00

in o
SO o
oo • in
fi r^ o oo
m oo
r-. CM

CN 00 O 00


Ox CM
in PO
00 O • VO
I— 1 »-H O OX

O
VO O
0 *S
rH 00 O -I


's'
- - 4J















a
B
CU
u a
fa O
3 fa U
4J a
CO **H 4J
•H JB f-4 CD
O M 3 tl
Z < CO 3=




•H
CO

1
CD CD
4J

CD -C
O
CJ


r-- o
-I 1-4 O
CM r^ ri

in

Ox
" ' '
CM


CM 00 rH


O
PO CM VO
O O CM
— CM m

00
vo ^* r^-
i" PO in


tl ti ti
CD eg ID











•c
B
CD
f— 1
U
•g
3
tO -H
•H B.
•c
CU to
I— 1 > I-H
ID 1-t -H
4J 4J O
0 0 O.
H < W



B
0
•H
4J
•H
CO
tl O
 •
tl 0 -0
tl
k » 4J
>< >, to
>> tl U CD
*J B B i-<
•H CU CU JO
U 33
CD c* cr B
o, cu a, ti
Rj fa fa fa
CJ f&4 (K4 <







eo
tl B
ec 'H
•D 4J
fa U
O «
4-1 i-H
M PO




1



<
2



i





I

O
§
O
CM


«N
4J







C
tl
•o
fa
3
fa
S!
o

•o

CO
CO
r-<


CD
01
fa
<








































ti
1-4
ID
•H
CD
CD
4J
0
B
II
_£,
to
CD
Q


tl
CO
u
•H
i-H
O.
a,
CD

4J
O
B
II
SB
.
*j

cu •
U tl
O 4-1
£.1
tl -H

CU CO
04 W


fl) ^
8.24-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       5/83

-------
References for Section 8.24

1.   K. Axetell and C. Cowherd, Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
     from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract No.
     68-03-2924, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH,
     July 1981.

2.   Reserve Base of U. S. Coals by Sulfur Content:  Part 2, The Western
     States, IC8693,  Bureau  of Mines,  U. S.  Department  of  the  Interior,
     Washington, DC,  1975.

3.   Bituminous Coal and Lignite Production and Mine Operations  - 1978,
     DOE/EIA-0118(78), U.  S. Department of Energy,  Washington,  DC,  June
     1980.

4.   K. Axetell, Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines, EPA-908/1-78-003,
     U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Denver, CO, February 1978.

5.   J.  L.  Shearer,  et al.,  Coal  Mining Emission  Factor Development and
     Modeling Study,  Amax Coal Company,  Carter Mining  Company,  Sunoco
     Energy  Development   Company,  Mobil Oil  Corporation,  and Atlantic
     Richfield Company, Denver, CO, July 1981.
5/83                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.24-11

-------
11.2  FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES

     Significant atmospheric dust arises 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 unpaved
roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and 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 cur-
rents, such  as  wind  erosion of an exposed surface by wind speeds over 19
kilometers per hour (12 miles/hr).

     The air pollution impact of a fugitive  dust  source depends on the
quantity and  drift potential of the dust particles  injected into the atmo-
sphere.  In  addition to  large dust particles that settle  out  near the
source (often  creating  a  local nuisance problem),  considerable amounts of
fine particles  are  also emitted and dispersed over much greater distances
from the source.

     The potential drift  distance  of particles is governed by the initial
injection height  of  the particle,  the particle's terminal settling veloc-
ity,  and  the degree of atmospheric turbulence.   Theoretical drift dis-
tances, as a function  of particle diameter and mean wind speed, have been
computed for fugitive  dust  emissions.1  These results  indicate  that,  for  a
typical mean wind  speed of  16  kilometers per  hour  (10  miles/hr), particles
larger than  about  100  micrometers  are likely to settle out within 6 to 9
meters (20 to 30 ft)  from the edge of the road.   Particles that are 30 to
100 micrometers  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, par-
ticularly those less than  10  to  15 micrometers 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 par-
ticles smaller  than  30 micrometers.   Future updates to  this  document are
expected to  define appropriate factors for other particle sizes.

     Several  of the emission  factors presented  in this Section are  ex-
pressed in terms of total suspended particulate  (TSP).  TSP  denotes  what
is measured  by a standard high volume  sampler.   Recent wind tunnel studies
have  shown that the  particle mass  capture  efficiency  curve for the high
volume sampler  is  very broad,  extending  from  100 percent capture of parti-
cles  smaller than 10 micrometers  to a few percent  capture of particles as
large as  100 micrometers.   Also,  the capture efficiency curve varies with

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                     11.2-1

-------
wind speed and wind  direction,  relative to roof ridge orientation.   Thus,
high volume samplers  do  not provide definitive particle size information
for emission  factors.  However, an effective  cutpoint  of  30 micrometers
aerodynamic diameter  is  frequently assigned to the  standard  high volume
sampler.

     Control techniques  for  fugitive dust  sources generally involve water-
ing, chemical stabilization, or reduction  of surface wind speed with wind-
breaks or source enclosures.  Watering, the most common and generally least
expensive method, provides  only temporary  dust  control.  The use  of chemi-
cals to  treat exposed surfaces provides longer  dust  suppression but may  be
costly,  have adverse  effects 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.
 11.2-2                       EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
11.2.1  UNPAVED ROADS

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
an unpaved  road,  the force  of the wheels on  the road surface causes pul-
verization  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.  Also,  field investigations
have shown  that emissions depend on  correction  parameters (average vehicle
speed,  average vehicle  weight,  average number of wheels per vehicle, road
surface texture and  road surface moisture) that characterize the condition
of a particular road and the associated vehicle traffic.1"4

     Dust emissions  from unpaved  roads have been  found  to vary in direct
proportion  to  the  fraction  of silt  (particles smaller than 75 micrometers
in diameter) in the  road  surface material.1  The  silt fraction is deter-
mined by measuring the  proportion  of loose dry surface dust that passes a
200 mesh screen,  using  the  ASTM-C-136 method.  Table 11.2.1-1  summarizes
measured silt values  for industrial and rural unpaved roads.
 TABLE 11.2.1-1.
TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIALS ON
       INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADS3

Industry
Road use or
surface material
No. of test
samples
Silt (%)
Range Mean
Iron and steel
  production
Taconite mining and
     Plant road
   References 1-9

 5/83
13
         Miscellaneous Sources
4.3 - 13
7.3
processing

Western surface coal
mining




Rural roads

Haul road
Service road

Access road
Haul road
Scraper road
Haul road
(freshly graded)
Gravel
Dirt
12
8

2
21
10
5

2
1
3.7
2.4

4.9
2.8
7.2
18

12

- 9.7
- 7.1

- 5.3
- 18
- 25
- 29

- 13

5.8
4.3

5.1
8.4
17
24

12
68

                   11.2.1-1

-------
     The silt  content of a  rural  dirt  road will vary with  location,  and  it
should be measured.  As  a  conservative approximation,  the silt content of
the parent  soil  in the  area can  be  used.   However, tests show that road
silt content  is  normally lower than the surrounding parent  soil, because
the fines are  continually removed by the vehicle  traffic,  leaving a  higher
percentage of coarse particles.

     Unpaved roads have a hard nonporous surface that usually dries quickly
after a rainfall.  The temporary  reduction in emissions because of precipi-
tation may  be  accounted  for by neglecting emissions on  "wet" days [more
than 0.254 mm (0.01 in.)  of precipitation].

11.2.1.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

     The following  empirical  expression may be used to estimate the quan-
tity of size  specific  particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per ve-
hicle unit of travel, with a rating of A:

                    / c\   / Q\  / w  \      /w\     /^fi^-rA
        E = k(1.7)  (jf   (•£)  yU      (|\     (^f-)  (kg/VKT)     (1)
                    \1//   \HO/  \2..l!      \i*I     \ Job /    °
                    (ll) (
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
             s = silt content of road surface material (%)
             S = mean vehicle speed, km/hr (mph)
             W = mean vehicle weight, Mg (tons)
             w = mean number of wheels
             p = number of days with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in.) of pre-
                 cipitation per year

The particle size multiplier (k) in Equation 1 varies with aerodynamic par
ticle size range as follows:

                     Aerodynamic Particle Size Multipler
                               for Equation 1
< 30 (Jm
0.80
< 15 pm
0.57
< 10 (Jm
0.45
< 5 (Jm
0.28
< 2.5 |Jm
0.16
     The  number  of wet days per year (p) for the geographical area of in-
terest  should be  determined  from local climatic data.   Figure  11.2.1-1
gives the geographical distribution of the mean annual number of wet days
per year  in the United States.

     Equation  1  retains  the assigned quality rating if applied within the
ranges of source conditions that were tested in developing the equation, as
follows :

11.2.1-2                     EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
                                                                                    cd
                                                                                    .u
                                                                                    to


                                                                                    -d
                                                                                    0)
s

g
w
8.
«

I
1
i

c
o
•H
4J
tfl
M U
J ^
= ^
Z -H
CJ
S-i
p,
U_l
s
             »   9   m
             "   *   M
                 *~   5
                                                                                    O

                                                                                    (1)
                                                                                    M

                                                                                    i
                                                                                    u
                                                                                    o
                                                                                     •
                                                                                    o
                                                                                     CO
                                                                                     >.
                                                                                     cfl
                                                                                     n
                                                                                     0)
                                                                                     n
                                                                                     to
                                                                                     OJ
                                                                                    (N
                                                      (U
                                                      S-l


                                                      Ml
                                                     •H
 5/83
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.1-3

-------
                 Range of Source Conditions  for Equation 1

Road
surface
silt Mean vehicle
content weight
(%) Mg tons
4.3 - 20 2.7 - 142 3 - 157

Mean vehicle Mean
speed No. of
km/hr mph wheels
21-64 13-40 4 - 13

Also, to retain the quality rating of Equation 1 applied to a specific un-
paved road, it  is  necessary that reliable correction parameter values for
the specific road in question be determined.   The field and laboratory pro-
cedures for determining road surface silt content are given in Reference 4.
In the event that  site specific values for correction parameters cannot be
obtained, the appropriate mean values from Table 11.2.1-1 may be used, but
the quality rating of the equation is reduced to  B.

     Equation 1 was developed for calculation of annual average emissions,
and thus, is to  be multiplied by annual source extent in vehicle distance
traveled (VDT).  Annual  average  values  for each of  the correction param-
eters are to be  substituted into the equation.  Worst case emissions,  cor-
responding to  dry  road conditions,  may be calculated by setting p =  0 in
Equation 1 (which  is  equivalent  to  dropping the last term from the equa-
tion) .  A separate set of nonclimatic correction  parameters and a higher
than normal VDT  value may also be justified for the worst case averaging
period (usually  24 hours).  Similarly, to calculate  emissions for a 91 day
season of the  year using Equation 1, replace the term  (365-p)/365 with the
term (91-p)/91, and set p equal to the number of wet days in the 91 day pe-
riod.  Also, use appropriate seasonal values for the nonclimatic correction
parameters and for VDT.

11.2.1.4  Control Methods

     Common control techniques for unpaved roads are paving, surface treat-
ing with penetration  chemicals,  working soil stabilization chemicals into
the  roadbed, watering, and  traffic  control regulations.  Paving, as a con-
trol  technique,  is often not economically practical.  Surface  chemical
treatment and  watering can  be accomplished with moderate to  low  costs, but
frequent retreatments  are required.  Traffic controls  such as  speed limits
and  traffic volume restrictions  provide moderate  emission reductions but
may be difficult to enforce.  Table  11.2.1-3 shows approximate control ef-
ficiencies 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 water and watering equipment are  available and
where roads are confined  to a single site, such as a construction location.
 11.2.1-4                     EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
            TABLE 11.2.1-3.   CONTROL METHODS FOR UNPAVED ROADS11
                                                      Approximate
                                                        control
          Control method                              efficiency
          Paving                                          85
          Treating surface with penetrating
            chemicals                                     50
          Working soil stabilizing chemicals
            into roadbed                                  50
          Speed control
            48 kph (30 mph)                               25
            32 kph (20 mph)                               50
            24 kph (15 mph)                               63
             Based on the assumption that "uncontrolled" speed is
             typically 64 kph (40 mph).   Between 21 and 64 kph
             (13 and 40 mph), emissions  are linearly proportional
             to vehicle speed (see Equation 1).

References for Section 11.2.1

 1.  C.  Cowherd, et a1.,  Development of  Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
     Sources,  EPA-450/3-74-037,  U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC,  June 1974.

 2.  R.  J. Dyck  and  J.  J.  Stukel, "Fugitive Dust Emissions from Trucks on
     Unpaved  Roads",  Environmental Science and Technology,  10(10):1046-
     1048, October 1976.

 3.  R.  0. McCaldin  and  K.  J.  Heidel, "Particulate Emissions from Vehicle
     Travel over Unpaved Roads",  Presented  at the 71st Annual Meeting of
     the Air Pollution Control  Association,  Houston,  TX, June 1978.

 4.  C.  Cowherd,  Jr.,  et al.,  Iron and  Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U.  S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,  May 1979.

 5.  R.  Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants,  EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC,  March 1978.

 6.  R.  Bohn, Evaluation of Open Dust Sources in the Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York, U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, New York,  NY,  March
     1979.
 5/83                      Miscellaneous Sources                   11.2.1-5

-------
 7.   C.  Cowherd, Jr., and T.  Cuscino,  Jr.,  Fugitive  Emissions  Evaluation,
     Equitable Environmental  Health,  Inc.,  Elmhurst, IL, February  1977.

 8.   T.   Cuscino,   et al. ,   Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,  Roseville, MN,  June  1979.

 9.   K.  Axetell and C. Cowherd,  Jr.,  Improved Emission Factors  for Fugitive
     Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes,  EPA Contract
     No^   68-03-2924,   PEDCo  Environmental",   Inc. ,  Kansas City,  MO,
     July 1981.

10.   Climatic Atlas of the United States, U.  S.  Department of  Commerce,
     Washington, DC,  June 1968.

11.   G.  A.  Jutze,  et al., Investigation of Fugitive Dust Sources Emissions
     and Control,  EPA-450/3-74-036a,  U.  S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.
11.2.1-6                     EMISSION FACTORS                           5/83

-------
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 eradi-
cation 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 popu-
lar for tilling in dryland farming areas.

     During a tilling operation, dust particles from the loosening and pul-
verization of  the  soil  are  injected into the  atmosphere  as  the soil is
dropped to the surface.  Dust  emissions  are greatest during periods of dry
soil and during final seedbed preparation.

11.2.2.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity  of dust from agricultural tilling is proportional to the
area of land  tilled.   Also, emissions depend  on surface soil texture and
surface soil  moisture  content,  conditions  of a particular  field being
tilled.

     Dust emissions from  agricultural  tilling have been found to vary di-
rectly with the silt content  (defined as particles < 75 micrometers in di-
ameter) of the surface soil depth (0 to  10 cm  [0 to 4 in.]).   The soil silt
content is determined by measuring the proportion of dry soil that passes a
200 mesh screen,  using  ASTM-C-136 method.  Note that  this  definition of
silt differs from  that  customarily used by soil scientists, for whom silt
is particles from 2 to 50 micrometers in diameter.

     Field measurements2  indicate that  dust  emissions  from agricultural
tilling are not  significantly related to surface soil moisture,  although
limited earlier data had  suggested such  a dependence.1   This  is now be-
lieved to reflect  the  fact  that most tilling  is performed under  dry soil
conditions,  as were the majority of the  field tests.1"2

     Available test data indicate no substantial dependence of emissions on
the type of  tillage  implement, if operating at a typical speed (for exam-
ple, 8 to 10 km/hr [5 to 6 mph]).1"2

11.2.2.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation

     The quantity  of dust emissions  from agricultural  tilling, per acre  of
land tilled, may be estimated with a rating of A or B (see below) using the
following empirical expression2:

                        E = k(604)(s)°-6   (kg/hectare)               (1)

                        E = k(538)(s)°-6   (Ib/acre)

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                   11.2.2-1

-------
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multipler (dimensionless)
             s = silt content of surface soil (%)

The particle  size  multiplier  (k)  in the equation varies with aerodynamic
particle size range as follows:

             Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier for Equation 1
Total
particulate
1.0
< 30 |Jm
0.33
< 15 Mm
0.25
< 10 (Jm
0.21
< 5 (Jm
0.15
< 2.5 |Jm
0.10
     Equation 1 is rated A if used to estimate total particulate emissions,
and B if used for a specific particle size range.  The equation retains its
assigned quality  rating  if applied within the range  of surface soil  silt
content  (1.7  to  88 percent)  that was tested  in  developing  the equation.
Also, to retain  the quality  rating of Equation 1 applied to a  specific ag-
ricultural field,  it  is  necessary to obtain  a reliable silt value(s)  for
that field.   The  sampling  and analysis procedures  for determining  agricul-
tural silt content are given in Reference 2.   In the event that a site spe-
cific value  for  silt  content cannot be obtained, the  mean value of  18 per-
cent may be  used,  but the  quality rating  of the  equation is reduced by one
level.

11.2.2.4  Control Methods3

     In  general,  control methods are not applied to  reduce emissions from
agricultural  tilling.  Irrigation of  fields  before plowing will  reduce
emissions, but  in many cases, this practice would  make the  soil unworkable
and  would  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.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  et al., Development of  Emission Factors  for Fugitive
     Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.

2.   T.  A.  Cuscino,  Jr.,  et al. , The Role of Agricultural Practices in
     Fugitive Dust Emissions, California  Air  Resources  Board, Sacramento,
     CA, June 1981.

3.   G. A Jutze, et al., Investigation of Fugitive  Dust - Sources Emissions
     And Control,  EPA-450/3-74-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1974.

11.2.2-2                      EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83

-------
11.2.3  AGGREGATE HANDLING AND STORAGE PILES

11.2.3.1  General

     Inherent  in  operations that use minerals  in aggregate form is the
maintenance of outdoor  storage  piles.   Storage piles are usually left un-
covered, partially because  of the need  for  frequent material transfer  into
or out of storage.

     Dust emissions  occur  at several points in the storage cycle, during
material loading  onto  the  pile,  during disturbances by  strong  wind  cur-
rents, and  during loadout  from the pile.  The movement of trucks and load-
ing equipment  in  the storage pile area is  also  a substantial source  of
dust.

11.2.3.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust  emissions  from aggregate storage operations  var-
ies with the volume  of  aggregate passing through  the storage cycle.  Also,
emissions depend  on  three  correction parameters that characterize the  con-
dition of a particular storage pile:   age of the pile,  moisture content and
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 disaggre-
gated and released to the atmosphere upon exposure to air currents from ag-
gregate transfer  itself  or high winds.   As  the aggregate  weathers,  how-
ever,  potential for dust emissions is greatly reduced.   Moisture causes ag-
gregation 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.

     Field  investigations  have shown that emissions from aggregate storage
operations  vary in direct  proportion to the percentage of silt (particles
< 75 |Jm in diameter)  in the aggregate material.1 3  The silt content is de-
termined by measuring the  proportion of dry aggregate material  that passes
through a 200  mesh screen,  using ASTM-C-136 method.  Table  11.2.3-1 summa-
rizes measured silt and moisture values for industrial aggregate materials.

11.2.3.3  Predictive  Emission Factor Equations

     Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles are contributions of
several distinct source activities within the storage cycle:
     1.   Loading of  aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop
          operations).
     2.   Equipment traffic in storage area.
     3.   Wind erosion  of   pile surfaces and ground areas around piles.
     4.   Loadout of aggregate  for  shipment or for return  to the process
          stream  (batch or  continuous drop operations).
5/33                       Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.3-1

-------












CO
w
i-3 CO
<; w
^^ h i
erf
H H
Z co
W i""^
H Q
Z Z
O M
O
CO
W £3
Od O
^3 H
H Crf
co <3
r— i £>
o
S H
Q
Z CO
""3* t— 3
«^
H M
,-J erf
M U
CO H
^j
f-jj IS
o fa
M O
PU
H


.
, 	 f

1


CN
•
,H

W
PP
H
















c
ro
r


3-e
^ op

CU eo
u as
3
jj
w
•H
E
w
Cv to
4J CU
of
• CO
o
5£



E
^




CU
i 00
»< re
N— ' CC
4-1
.H
to

w
CJ CO
i *" £
IM O.
c e
• u
1 O
Iz





1— 1
R:
•tH


CO















lu

tfl
a

c

CN
CM m "3" C \D VD O
m i-t CM ^i

ro oo —• — '
i i i i < < < r
Z Z Z
sj ^ oo in en
o • « eM
- -. CM - C
0 0





oovovceno-^oo  * • en •
r-i « r- r~ CN «
(till i
— CM —






O O1^ ^ fl CM ""4 ^" ^^ f* CM
"



CU
E
0
VI
(U
tu cu E
CU N 1* *H
U 4J CU O CU — <

U 3 K T) O -O
4_>O T?^]Cut-i^* CU
QJ "^ ^J OJ f"
i—4 Q^l— 4 00 CU CU E 4-J QJ H
cSjc3wfetS2cn2 5



jj
00
00 E

cure *H to
CU E >, K
*J O h cu
10 -H U4 0
4J re o
•o o s i<
E 3 cr u
eo T3
O cu *w
E 1-4 BE
o a. o eo
U 4J
I-H C/3
o> en ON  en
en -a-
o
CM CM \C
1 1 <= 1

in oo oo
o
CM O
O





,-Oen





-» o CM m o
en ~* \o r^ in


>j-
• NO in ^H
m 1-4 t-H CM
i Z III
CM -9 00 i-<
CM cn en in






o\ CM in m cn






E
3
O
C "-
 X
0-4 H O O W



U
00
eo B cu
B -H U -O
•H CO CO 00
e co <*• E
••-I CU H -H
EO SB
O tO -H

jj a E

C T3 CU n
O E 4-> O
U CO CO U
CC CU
H 3



1
I






































cu
—
n
u
•H
,—4

a.

o
E
II
<
z
m
i
CM • • •

W
OJ QJ QJ OJ
U U O U
e B e e
OJ OJ 
-------
     Adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually in-
volves dropping the  material  onto a receiving  surface.  Truck dumping on
the pile or  loading  out from the pile to  a truck with a front end loader
are examples of batch drop operations.   Adding material to the pile by a
conveyor stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.

     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by a batch drop opera-
tion,  per ton  of  material transferred,  may be estimated, with a rating of
C, using the following empirical expression2:
                   E = k(0.00090)
                   E = k(0.0018)
                                              0.33
                                   (5)  (2.2) (l.s)
                                    /M\2 MM
                                    V27  U.6/

                                  (I) (g) (I)

                                  (if  (I)
     (kg/Mg)
(1)
                                          0.33
(Ib/ton)
     where:
             E = emission factor
             k = particle size multipler (dimensionless)
             s = material silt content (%)
             U = mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
             H = drop height, m (ft)
             M = material moisture content (%)
             Y = dumping device capacity, m3 (yd3)

The particle size multipler (k) for Equation 1 varies with aerodynamic par-
ticle size, shown in Table 11.2.3-2.
                TABLE 11.2.3-2.
                                 AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE
                                     MULTIPLIER (k) FOR
                                     EQUATIONS 1 AND 2
            Equation      < 30    < 15    < 10    < 5    < 2.5
                           |jm      (Jm      |jm      (Jm      (Jm


            Batch drop    0.73    0.48    0.36    0.23   0.13

            Continuous
              drop        0.77    0.49    0.37    0.21   0.11
     The quantity  of particulate emissions generated by a continuous drop
operation, per ton of material transferred, may be estimated, with a rating
of C, using the following empirical expression3:
5/83
                           Miscellaneous Sources
                                                                    11.2.3-3
-------
              E = k(0.00090)
              E = k(0.0018)
    2.2
                                        (JL\
                                        \3.0/
                                    (I)
                  (kg/Mg)
(2)
              (Ib/ton)
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
             s = material silt content (%)
             U = mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
             H = drop height, ra (ft)
             M = material moisture content (%)

The particle  size  multiplier (k) for Equation 2  varies  with aerodynamic
particle size, as shown in Table 11.2.3-2.

     Equations 1 and 2 retain the assigned quality rating if applied within
the ranges  of  source conditions that were tested in developing the equa-
tions, as  given  in Table  11.2.3-3.  Also, to  retain the  quality ratings  of
Equations 1 or 2 applied to a specific facility,  it is necessary that reli-
able correction parameters be determined for the specific sources of inter-
est.  The  field  and  laboratory  procedures for aggregate  sampling are given
in Reference 3.  In  the  event that  site  specific  values  for  correction pa-
rameters  cannot  be  obtained,  the appropriate mean  values  from Table
11.2.3-1 may be  used,  but in that  case,  the  quality ratings of the equa-
tions are reduced by one level.
               TABLE 11.2.3-3.
  RANGES OF SOURCE CONDITIONS FOR
        EQUATIONS 1 AND 2a

Silt Moisture
Equation content content
(%) (%)

Dumping capacity
ma yda

Drop height
m ft
Batch drop     1.3-7.3  0.25-0.70  2.10-7.6  2.75-10
                                  NA
    NA
Continuous
drop 1.4-19 0.64-4.8 NA
NA 1.5-12 4.8-39

   NA = not applicable.

     For  emissions  from equipment traffic (trucks,  front end loaders,  doz-
 ers, etc.)  traveling between or on piles, it is recommended that the equa-
 tions for vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be used  (see  Section 11.2.1).
 For  vehicle  travel  between storage piles, the  silt value(s) for the areas
 11.2.3-4
EMISSION FACTORS
   5/83
-------
among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for the stored mate-
rials) should be used.

     For emissions from wind erosion of active storage piles,  the following
total suspended particulate  (TSP) emission factor equation is recommended:
                   E = 1.9                 •     (kg/day/hectare)      (3)


                   E = l'7  fe)  (H?)  (if)  (^/day/acre)

     where:  E = total suspended particulate emission factor
             s = silt content of aggregate (%)
             p = number of days with ^ 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation
                 per year
             f = percentage of time that the unobstructed wind speed ex-
                 ceeds 5.4 m/s (12 mph) at the mean pile height

     The coefficient in Equation 3 is taken from Reference 1, based on sam-
pling of emissions  from  a  sand and gravel  storage pile area  during periods
when transfer and maintenance equipment was not operating.  The factor from
Test Report 1,  expressed in  mass  per unit area per day,  is  more reliable
than the factor expressed in mass per unit mass of material placed in stor-
age, for reasons stated in that report.  Note that the coefficient has been
halved to  adjust for the estimate taat  the wind speed through the emission
layer at the  test site was one half  of  the value measured above the top  of
the piles.   The  other  terms  in this equation  were  added to correct  for
silt, precipitation and  frequency  of high winds, as  discussed  in  Refer-
ence 2.   Equation 3 is rated  C  for  application in the sand and gravel in-
dustry and  D for other industries.

     Worst  case emissions  from  storage pile areas occur  under  dry windy
conditions.  Worst  case  emissions  from materials handling (batch and con-
tinuous  drop)  operations  may be calculated by substituting into Equations 1
and 2 appropriate values for aggregate material moisture content and for
anticipated wind speeds  during the worst  case  averaging period,  usually
24 hours.  The  treatment of  dry conditions for vehicle  traffic  (Section
11.2.1)  and for  wind  erosion (Equation 3), centering around parameter p,
follows  the methodology  described in Section  11.2.1.  Also,  a separate set
of nonclimatic correction parameters and source extent values corresponding
to higher  than  normal storage pile activity may be justified for the  worst
case averaging period.

11.2.3.4  Control Methods

     Watering and chemical wetting agents  are  the principal  means for con-
trol of  aggregate storage  pile emissions.  Enclosure or  covering  of in-
active piles to reduce wind erosion can also reduce emissions.   Watering is
useful mainly to reduce  emissions from  vehicle  traffic in the storage pile
area.  Watering  of  the  storage piles themselves typically has only a very
temporary  slight effect  on total emissions.  A much more effective tech-
nique is to apply  chemical wetting agents for better wetting of fines and

5/83                       Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.3-5
-------
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.8

References for Section 11.2.3

1.   C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive
     Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-74-037,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, June 1974.

2.   R.  Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive  Emissions  from Integrated Iron and Steel
     Plants, EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1978.

3.   C.  Cowherd,  Jr.,  et al. ,  Iron and Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U.  S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

4.   R.  Bohn,  Evaluation of Open Dust Sources in the  Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency, New York,  NY, March
     1979.

5.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  and T.  Cuscino, Jr., Fugitive Emissions Evaluation,
     Equitable  Environmental  Health, Inc., Elmhurst,  IL,  February 1977.

6.   T.   Cuscino,   et al. ,  Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study,
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

7.   K. Axetell and C. Cowherd, Jr.,  Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive
     Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, 2 Volumes, EPA Contract
     No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,  Kansas City, MO,  July 1981.

8.   G. A. Jutze, et al.,  Investigation of Fugitive Dust Sources  Emissions
     and Control, EPA-450/3-74-036a, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.
 11.2.3-6                      EMISSION FACTORS                          5/83
-------
11.2.6  INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS

11.2.6.1  General

     Various field studies  have  indicated that dust emissions from indus-
trial paved  roads  are  a major component of atmospheric particulate matter
in the vicinity of industrial operations.  Industrial traffic dust has been
found to consist  primarily  of mineral matter, mostly tracked or deposited
onto the roadway by vehicle traffic itself when vehicles enter from an un-
paved area  or travel on the  shoulder of the road, or when  material  is
spilled onto the paved surface from haul truck traffic.

11.2.6.2  Emissions and Correction Parameters

     The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of paved road var-
ies linearly with the volume of traffic.  In addition, field investigations
have shown  that  emissions  depend on  correction parameters  (road surface
silt content,  surface  dust  loading and average vehicle weight)  of a par-
ticular road and associated vehicle traffic.1"2

     Dust emissions from industrial paved roads have  been found  to vary  in
direct proportion  to  the  fraction of silt (particles < 75 Hm in diameter)
in the  road  surface  material.1"2  The silt fraction is determined by mea-
suring the proportion  of  loose dry surface dust  that passes a 200 mesh
screen, using  the  ASTM-C-136  method.   In addition, it has also been found
that emissions vary  in direct proportion to  the  surface dust  loading.1"2
The road surface dust loading is that loose material which can be collected
by vacuuming and  broom sweeping the  traveled portion of  the paved road.
Table 11.2.6-1 summarizes measured  silt and loading values for industrial
paved roads.

       TABLE 11.2.6-1.  TYPICAL SILT  CONTENT AND LOADING VALUES FOR
                          PAVED ROADS AT IRON AND STEEL PLANTS3
                         Silt (%)       	Loading	
              Travel                    	Range	         Mean
Industry       lanes   Range    Mean    kg/km        Ib/mi     kg/km  Ib/mi
Iron and
  steel
  production     2    1.1-13   5.9  18 - 4,800  65 - 17,000   760   2,700


   References 1-3.  Based on nine test samples.
5/33                       Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.6-1
-------
11.2.6.3  Predictive Emission Factor Equation

     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by vehicle  traffic  on
dry industrial paved roads,  per vehicle mile traveled, may be estimated,
with a  rating of B  or D  (see below), using the following empirical expres-
sion:


           E = k(0.025)1  (£) (^) (^) (A) '     (kg/VKT)          (1)
           E = k(0.090)1                            (Ib/VMT)
     where:  E = emission factor
             k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless) (see below)
             I = industrial augmentation factor (dimensionless) (see below)
             n = number of traffic lanes
             s = surface material silt content (%)
             L = surface dust loading, kg/km (Ib/mile) (see below)
             W = average vehicle weight, Mg (tons)

The particle size multipler (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as
follows:

                  Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier (k)
                                for Equation 1
             < 30 pm    < 15 |jm    < 10 |jm    < 5 pm    < 2.5 Mm


               0.86       0.64       0.51      0.32       0.17

To  determine particulate  emissions  for a  specific particle  size range,  use
the appropriate value of k shown above.

     The industrial road augmentation  factor  (I)  in the equation takes  into
account higher  emissions  from industrial  roads  than from  urban  roads.   I =
7.0 for an industrial roadway which traffic enters from unpaved areas.   I  =
3.5 for an industrial roadway with unpaved shoulders.  I =  1.0  for cases  in
which  traffic  does  not  travel unpaved  areas.  A value of  I  between 1.0  and
7.0 should  be  used in  the equation  which best  represents  conditions for
paved  roads at a certain industrial facility.

     The equation  retains  the quality  rating of  B  if applied to vehicles
traveling entirely  on paved surfaces  (I =  1.0)  and if applied  within the
range  of  source  conditions that were  tested  in developing  the  equation as
follows:
 11.2.6-2                      EMISSION FACTORS                         5/83
-------
    Silt
  content           Surface loading          No. of       Vehicle weight
    (%)          kg/km          Ib/mile      lanes        Mg        tons


  5.1 - 92    42.0 - 2,000    149 - 7,100    2-4     2.7-12    3-13

If I > 1.0, the rating of the equation drops to D because of the arbitrari-
ness in the guidelines for estimating I.

     Also, to  retain  the  quality ratings of Equation 1 applied to a spe-
cific industrial paved  road,  it is necessary that reliable correction pa-
rameter values  for  the  specific  road  in question be determined.  The field
and laboratory procedures for determining surface material silt content and
surface dust loading are given in Reference 2.   In the event that site spe-
cific values for correction parameters  cannot be obtained, the appropriate
mean values from Table 11.2.6-1 may be used, but the quality ratings  of the
equation are reduced by one level.

References for Section 11.2.6

1.   R.  Bohn,  et al. , Fugitive Emissions from  Integrated  Iron and Steel
     Plants,  EPA-600/2-78-050,  U.  S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, March 1978.

2.   C.  Cowherd, Jr.,  et al. ,  Iron and Steel Plant Open Dust Source  Fugi-
     tive Emission Evaluation,  EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S.  Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1979.

3.   R.  Bohn,  Evaluation of Open Dust Sources  in the  Vicinity of Buffalo,
     New York,  U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  New York,  NY,  March
     1979~.
 5/83                      Miscellaneous Sources                    11.2.6-3
-------
                         SOME  USEFUL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
grain
gram
ounce
kilogram
pound
0.002
0.04
28.35
2.21
0.45
ounces
ounces
grams
pounds
kilograms
                                       pound (troy)
                                       ton (short)
                                       ton (long)
                                       ton (metric)
                                       ton (shipping)
                                             12 ounces
                                           2000 pounds
                                           2240 pounds
                                           2200 pounds
                                             40 feet3
                 centimeter
                 inch
                 foot
                 meter
                 yard
                 mile
                      0.39 inches
                      2.54 centimeters
                     30.48 centimeters
                      1.09 yards
                      0.91 meters
                      1.61 kilometers
   centimeter2  0.16 inches2
   inch2
   foot2^
   meter2
   yard2
   mile2
6.45  centimeters2
0.09  meters2
1.2   yards2
0.84  meters2
2.59  kilometers2
centimeter^
inch3
foot3
foot3
meter3
yard3
 0.061  inches3
16.39   centimeters3
        centimeters3
        inches3
        yards3
283.17
  1728
  1.31
  0.77
       meters
   cord
   cord
   peck
   bushel (dry)
128  feet3
  4  meters;
  8  quarts
  4  pecks
   bushel    2150.4 inches3
gallon (U.S.)
barrel
hogshead
township
hectare
    231 inches3
   31.5 gallons
       2 barrels
      36 miles2
    2.5 acres
                                   MISCELLANEOUS DATA


            One cubic foot of anthracite coal weighs about 53 pounds.

            One cubic foot of bituminous coal weighs from 47 to 50 pounds.

            One ton of coal is equivalent to two cords of wood for steam purposes.
            A gallon of water (U.S.  Standard) weighs 8.33 Ibs. and contains 231
             cubic inches.

            There are 9 square feet  of heating surface to each square  foot of grate
             surface.

            A cubic foot of water contains 7.5 gallons and 1728 cubic  inches, and
             weighs 62.5 Ibs.

            Each nominal horsepower  of a boiler requires 30 to 35 Ibs. of water per
             hour.

            A horsepower is equivalent to raising 33,000 pounds one foot per minute,
             or 550 pounds one foot per second.

            To find the pressure in  pounds per square inch of column of water,
             multiply the height of the column in feet by 0.434.
2/80
                   Appendix
                                        A-9
-------


















CO
^J
w
O

CO
r^
o
3
1
§
CO
od
w
H
w

s
<3
(X

( T
0
Qj
?H
H























J^j
3





^4
3
I4H
rH
3
CO





4-1
oo
•rt
Q)
*
^
,0
x—/
&*
*J
00
•rt
J
r^ C^
CO CO
i— 1 i-H




CO CO
-5-5

VO vO
O O

X X

CNI ^j
rH VO
OVOO












01
d
iH -rt
01 rH
» o
01 TO
•rt Cd
a o

m -*
CO Ov
r-4




CO CO
s a

vO vo
o o

X X

CO CM
00 VO






TO
cd
O
g
0)
rH
O
4-1
01
01 PH
d
CU T3
TO -H
2 g-
OJ -rt
^ hJ





Z








z












C_>
CO
o
m
o
,_,"





CO

2
~^
rH
(O
1
0v













a «

§ °
fa rH
(0
CO |H
3 3
O *-"
01 R
TO 22
tii




Z Z





o
•
CM
1 Z
m
•
o









0 0
CO CO
0 0
CJv O
m I-H






CO CO

S P
^^^ ^^
0V C^
~* OV
C*J OO
M
m












CO
CO CU
nj cj
O nj
pj
01 3
o fc
4J
0) CO
O rH
U 00


















4J
d
0)
TO
01
a

f
^i
Ol
00
s
XI
01
•o
•rt
TO
d
o
o

.2
S I
XI
•rt 4J
oo d
•rt Ol
00 d
oi o
d a
1=1

A-10
Appendix
5/83
-------
                                  DENSITIES OF SELECTED SUBSTANCES
Substance
Fuels
Crude Oil
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas
Butane
Propane
Wood (Air dried)
Elm
Fir, Douglas
Fir, Balsam
Hemlock
Hickory
Maple , Sugar
Maple, White
Oak, Red
Oak, White
Pine, Southern
Agricultural Products
Corn
Milo
Oats
Barley
Wheat
Cotton
Mineral Products
Brick
Cement
Cement
Concrete
Glass , Common
Gravel , Dry Packed
Gravel, Wet
Gypsum, Calcined
Lime, Pebble
Sand, Gravel (Dry, loose)
Density

874 kg/m3
944 kg/m3
845 kg/m3
739 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
579 kg/m3
507 kg/m3

561 kg/m3
513 kg/m3
400 kg/m3
465 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
689 kg/m3
529 kg/m3
673 kg/m3
769 kg/m3
641 kg/m3

25.4 kg/bu
25.4 kg/bu
14.5 kg/bu
21.8 kg/bu
27.2 kg/bu
226 kg/ bale

2.95 kg/brick
170 kg/bbl
1483 kg/m3
2373 kg/m3
2595 kg/m3
1600-1920 kg/m3
2020 kg/m3
880-960 kg/m3
850-1025 kg/m3
1440-1680 kg/m3

7.3 Ib/gal
7.88 Ib/gal
7.05 Ib/gal
6.17 Ib/gal
1 lb/23.8
4.84 Ib/gal
4.24 Ib/gal

35 lb/ft3
32 lb/ft3
25 lb/ft3
29 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
43 lb/ft3
33 lb/ft3
42 lb/ft3
48 lb/ft3
40 lb/ft3

56 Ib/bu
56 Ib/bu
32 Ib/bu
48 Ib/bu
60 Ib/bu
500 Ib/bale






ft3
(liquid)
(liquid)



















6.5 Ib/brick
375 Ib/bbl
2500 lb/yd3
4000 lb/yd3
162 lb/ft3
100-120 lb/ft3
126 lb/ft3
55-60 lb/ft3
53-64 lb/ft3
90-105 lb/ft3









5/83
Appendix
A-ll
-------
                    CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS

                                  AIRBORNE PARTICIPATE MATTER
To convert from
Mllllgrams/cu m




Grams/cu ft




Grams/ cu m




Mlcrograms/cu m




Mlcrograms/cu ft




Pounds/1000 cu ft




To
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milllgrams/cu m
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Pounds/1000 cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Grams/cu ft
Micrograms/cu tn
Grams/cu m
Micrograms/cu ft
Multiply by
283.2 x ID"6
0.001
1000.0
28.32
62.43 x 10-6
35.3145 x 103
35.314
35.314 x 106
1.0 x 106
2.2046
1000.0
0.02832
1.0 x 106
28.317 x 103
0.06243
0.001
28.317 x 10-9
1.0 x 10-6
0.02832
62.43 x 10-9
35.314 x 10-3
1.0 x 10-6
35.314 x 10-6
35.314
2.2046 x 10-6
16.018 x 103
0.35314
16.018 x 106
16.018
353.14 x 103
                                        SAMPLING PRESSURE
                To convert from
          To
Multiply by
            Millimeters of mercury
              (0°C)

            Inches of mercury
              (0°C)

            Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)
Inches of water (60°F)

Millimeters of mercury
  (0°C)
Inches of mercury (0°C)
  0.5358
 13.609
                                                                       1.8663
                                                                      73.48 x  10-3
A-12
       Appendix
                      5/83
-------
                   CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS

                                      ATMOSPHERIC GASES
              To convert from
        To
 Multiply by
           Milligrams/cu m
           Micrograms/cu m
           Micrograms/liter
           Ppm by volume (20°C)
           Ppm by weight
           Pounds/cu ft
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/li ter
Ppm by volume (20°C)

Ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft

Milllgrams/cu m
Micrograms/liter
Ppm by volume (20°C)

Ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft

Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Ppm by volume (20°C)

Ppm by weight
Pounds/cu ft

Milligrams/cu m
                                      Micrograms/cu m


                                      Micrograms/li ter


                                      Ppm by weight


                                      Pounds/cu ft
Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
Ppm by volume (20°C)

Pounds/cu ft

Milligrams/cu m
Micrograms/cu m
Micrograms/liter
Ppm by volume (20°C)

Ppm by weight
1000.0
   1.0
  24.04
    M
   0.8347
  62.43 x 10~9

   0.001
   0.001
   0.02404
      M
 834.7 x 10-6
  62.43 x 10~12

   1.0
1000.0
  24 .04
    M
   0.8347
  62.43 x 10~9

    M
                              24.04

                                  M
                               0.02404

                                M
                              24.04

                                M
                              28.8

                                  M
 385.1 x 10b

   1.198
   1.198 x 10-3
   1.198
  28.8
    M
   7.48 x 10-6

  16.018 x 106
  16.018 x 109
  16.018 x 106
 385.1 x 1Q6
      M
 133.7 x 103
         M = Molecular weight of gas.
5/83
    Appendix
                    A-13
-------
                 CONVERSION FACTORS FOR COMMON AIR POLLUTION MEASUREMENTS




                                         VELOCITY
To convert from
Meters/sec


Kiloraeters/hr


Feet/ sec


Miles/hr


To
Kiloraeters/hr
Feet/ sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Feet/sec
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Miles/hr
Meters/sec
Kilometers/hr
Feet/sec
Multiply by
3.6
3.281
2.237
0.2778
0.9113
0.6214
0.3048
1.09728
0.6818
0.4470
1.6093
1.4667
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
To convert from
Atmospheres


Millimeters of mercury


Inches of mercury


Millibars


To
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Inches of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Millibars
Atmospheres
Millimeters of mercury
Inches of mercury
Multiply by
760.0
29.92
1013.2
1.316 x ID"3
39.37 x 10~3
1.333
0.03333
25.4005
33.35
0.00987
0.75
0.30
VOLUME EMISSIONS
To convert from
Cubic m/min
Cubic ft/min
To
Cubic ft/min
Cubic m/min
Multiply by
35.314
0.0283
A-14
Appendix
5/83
-------
                  BOILER CONVERSION FACTORS
           1 Megawatt = 10.5 x 106 BTU/hr
                       (8 to 14 x 106 BTU/hr)

           1 Megawatt -  8 x 103 Ib steara/hr
                       (6 to 11 x 103 Ib steam/hr)
          1 BHP
                       34.5 Ib steam/hr
          1 BHP      = 45 x 103 BTU/hr
                       (40 to 50 x 103 BTU/hr)

       1  Ib steam/hr - 1.4 x 103 BTU/hr
                       (1.2 to 1.7 x 103 BTU/hr)
      NOTES:   In the  relationships,

            Megawatt  Is  the  net electric power production of a steam
            electric  power plant.

            BHP is boiler horsepower.

            Lb steam/hr  is the steam  production rate of the boiler.

            BTU/hr is the heat Input  rate  to the boiler (based on the
            gross or  high heating value of  the fuel burned).

For less efficient (generally older and/or  smaller) boiler operations,
use the higher values expressed.  For more  efficient operations
(generally newer and/or  larger), use  the lower vlaues.
VOLUME
Cubic Inches 	
Mllllliters 	
Liters 	
Ounces (U. S. fl.)
Gallons (U. S.)*..
Barrels (U. S.)...
Cubic feet 	
cu. in.

0.061024
61.024
1 .80469
231
7276.5
1728
ml.
16.3868

1000
29.5729
3785.3
1.1924x105
2.8316x10*
liters
.0163868
0.001

0.029573
3.7853
119.2369
28.316
ounces
(U. S. fl.)
0.5541
0.03381
33.8147

128
4032.0
957.568
gallons
(U. S.)
4.3290xlO~3
2.6418x10-*
0.26418
7. 8125xlO-3

31.5
7.481
barrels
(U. S.)
1.37429x10-*
8.387xlO-6
8. 387xlO-3
2 .48x10-*
0.031746

0.23743
cu. ft.
5.78704x10-*
3.5316x10-5
0.035316
1.0443xlO"3
0.13368
4.2109

             S. gallon of water at 16.7°C (62°F) weighs 3.780 kg. or 8.337 pounds (avoir.)
MASS
Grams 	
Kilograms 	
Ounces (avoir.)...
Pounds (avoir.)*..
Grains 	
Tons (U. S.) 	
Milligrams 	
grams

1000
28.350
453.59
0.06480
9.072xl05
0.001
kilograms
0.001

0.028350
0.45359
6.480x10-5
907.19
lxlO~6
ounces
( a vo 1 r . )
3.527x10-2
35.274

16.0
2.286X10'3
3 .200x10*
3.527x10-5
pounds
(avoir.)
2.205xlQ-3
2.2046
0.0625

1.429x10-*
2000
2.205x10-6
grains
15.432
15432
437.5
7000

1.4xl07
0.015432
tons
(U. S.)
1.102x10-6
1. 102xlO-3
3.125x10-5
5.0x10-*
7.142xlO-8

1.102x10-9
milligrams
1000
IxlO6
2.8350x10*
4.5359xl05
64.799
9.0718xl08

         *Mass of 27.692 cubic  inches  water  weighed  In air at 4.0°C, 760 mm mercury pressure.
5/83
   Appendix
A-15
-------
s

s
01
a
•%
$
&
i*
to
O
X
ft.

g
-1
a
8
a

"
z
6
Joules
CO
01


«
£»
n
u
CC
r
oti
w
2;
[i
c
a
1.1628x10-3
0
CO
CM

CO
CO
0>
t
o
X
CO
IA
lA
-
_
i
0

00
SO
0

w

3.9680x10-3
2
o

^
S
O


Gram Calories
CO
<£>
1
O
CO
CM

CO
CO
ON

CO
1
O
X
m
m
-*
^
i

CO
•a-

r^
O
CO
o
I
CO
£
O
O


CO
CO
o
ON
0
CO
o
v£>
"!
j
O
•

•
o
CO
00
2.3889xlO'8

0
o
X
CO
CM
1
0
X
CO
CM

£
CM
O
X
CM
CA
t
O
K
CO
CO
ON

ON
f-H
O

£
o
9.4805xlO~4

o


o
X
00
CO
CM
CC
CO
CM
O


O
CM
O
Y
X
o
CM
o
X
o


r-
CO
0
X
lA
o
*
CO
o
o

CM
CO
o



CO
1
o
*s
•»
in
CO
CM
CO
o
X
s
CO
	 ,-r
f
O
X
s
CM
CO
CC
CO
CN
O

Foot Pounds . .
2.7241x10-3
o
X
CM
CM

CN
CM
O
X
£
CO
CO
o
o




CO
CO
-'
9 .2967xlO"3
i
o
"x

ON
CO
o
CM
CO
CM
r-»
CN
(^
CM

Kilogram meter
2.8164x10-2
o
2.8164x1

s
CM
O
X
f*.
CO



CO
CO
o

CO
;•
o
o
CO
CM
fO
o
ON
O
X
CO
o
_
r-i
O
3
O
-a-
CM
O
CN
CM
QJ •
Liter Atmosphe
(normal) ...
3
.
O
O
IA
o
*



•

SO
CM
m
0
2
CM
vO
O
g
ON
O
S
CM
2.6845xl06
CO
o
m
vO
CM
o
CO

| 6.4130xl05
CO
D
0
33
V*
g.
01
Ll
o
X
1.17055xlO-5
CO
o
iA
m
O
i
;
*
CO
o
X
fc
^
o
IA
T
O
CM
CN

O
a
o
3.9952xlO-5
CM
S
O
IA
O
*x
s
-a-
CM
^
f
O
'x
8
o
0.010067
;
a
i
1
1
8
o


o
o
CO
*a-
CO

5
^

sD
O
•s
CM
«A
m
CO
>n
§
CO
vO
O
CM
m
vO
CM
O
CO
3 .eoooxio6
CO
O
X
vO
CO
CD
O
CO
8.6001xl05
:
Kilowatt Hours

S
o
'o
o
CO
CO
CO
o
X
o
CO
^
CO
o
r-i
K
CM
»n
CO
ON
o
vO

CO
lA
lA
(M
O
CO
CO
§
vD
CO
O
,-t
o
o
2
CO
O
o
o
o
Q
CC

to
C
a
i
A-16
Appendix
5/83
-------

i
U
V
in
CO
3
O
Lumens
•
C
!a
•H
n)
u
00
u
8
u
00

BTU/min
u
(0
M)
t*
IV
u
V
CO
XI
l-l
-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            ff 'least' read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.

  AP-42, Supplement  14	
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
  Supplement 14 for  Compilation of Air Pollutant
  Emission Factors,  AP-42
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
; REPORT DATE
      1983
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Monitoring and  Data  Analysis Division
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Office of Air, Noise  and Radiation
  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
  Research Triangle,  North Carolina  27711
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CON'lrtACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  EPA Editor:  Whitmel  M.  Joyner
16. ABSTRACT
  In this Supplement  for AP-42,  new or revised emissions data are presented  for
  Anthracite Coal  Combustion;  Wood Waste Combustion  In  Boilers; Residential  Fireplaces;
  Wood Stoves; Open Burning;  Large Appliance Surface Coating; Metal Furniture  Surface
  Coating; Adipic  Acid;  Synthetic Ammonia; Carbon  Black; Charcoal; Explosives; Paint
  and Varnish; Phthalic  Anhydride; Printing Ink; Soap and Detergents; Terephthalic
  Acid; Maleic Anhydride;  Primary Aluminum Production;  Iron and Steel Production;
  Gypsum Manufacturing;  Construction Aggregate Processing;  Sand and Gravel Processing;
  Taconite Ore Processing;  Western Surface Coal Mining;  Fugitive Dust Sources; Unpaved
  Roads; Agricultural Tilling; Aggregate Handling  and Storage Piles; and Industrial
  Paved Roads.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
  Fuel Combustion
  Emissions
  Emission Factors
  Stationary Sources
                                              b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
18 DISTRIBUTION. STATEMENT
             c.  COSATI Held/Group
                                                                         21  MO OF PAGES

                                                                        i  __    _ 190
                                                                        !22. PRICE
                               -„ T • C N iS OBSOUETL
-------