-------
10.Oc:
TJ
0)
I 1 I I
1. Limestone Loading - Open Trucks
2. Limestone Loading - Enclosed Trucks
3. Lime Loading - Enclosed Trucks
1.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter
100.0
1(10)3
Figure 8.15-3. Size specific emission factors for product loading.
8.15-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
References for Section 8.15
1. C. J. Lewis and B. B. Crocker, "The Lime Industry's Problem Of Airborne
Dust", Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, 19(1):31-39,
January 1969.
2. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, 2d Edition, John Wiley
And Sons, New York, 1967.
3. Screening Study For Emissions Characterization From Lime Manufacture,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0299, Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
August 1974.
4. Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I; Proposed
Standards Of Performance For Lime Manufacturing Plants, EPA-450/2-77-
007a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, April 1977.
5. Source test data on lime plants, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, 1976.
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.
7. J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry - Source Category Report, Volume
I: Lime Industry, EPA-600/7-86-031, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1986.
10/86 Mineral Products Industry 8.15-11
-------
CO
w
o
oa
B
CO
H
CO
S
04
O
CO
oi
o
H
CO J
CO OH
O
W H
H CO
r4 Q
M CO
CM
Q
W
O
CJ
z
CM
I
CN
OO
w
CJ
(2
O M M
•HOC
CO 4-1 iH
CO O 4J
•H Cfl CO
S fc PS"
W
n
0)
=°
cd
J-l
ft*
vy
CU x-v
N M
•H 01
CO 4J
CU
oi e
rH CO
O -H
•H T3
4-1
M 0
CO -H
ex a
>, C
^
CO O
(2 M
O CU
•H tfl
CO ^^
CO
•H
g
W
43
CO
4-1
•H
C
Pi
0
D 3
H
33 co
OH -H
V|
S
PH 3
CO
H 0
ro
\y/ 1
rH
tfl
•H
M
CU
4-1
CO
S
C
o
•H
4-1
Cfl
M
cu
8-
W
^~^
(2
0
4-1
^.^
,n
•— i
x^
&o
5
bO
/•"N
<— !
O
o
o
•
o
V_X
•s^"
0
•
o
S-*t
OO
o
0
o
•
0
*
j>^ bO
M C?
M -H
tfl rH
3 rH
cr -in
M
4-1 -a
cu
3
Q
^•-^
C
O
4-1
~^
43
rH
bO
,S
bO
s^.
CN
O
O
O
o
o
s^x
00
o
0
•
o
,— ^
ro
o
o
o
o
r^.
i-H
•
o
CJ
01
c
0
4-1
Cfl
•8
M
3
4-1
CJ
Cfl
M
P^
c°
•H
tfl
o
rH
CX C
O 3
M
*d .^
CJ
42 3
CJ M
4J H
cfl
PQ
W
^.-^
C
O
4-1
— ^
43
rH
S^X
&?
S
bO
^-X
•-H
0
O
o
•
C5
^»-
m
o
.
o
/-^
ro
o
O
O
0
f^x.
I-H
•
0
•%
C°
•H
1
O
rH
CJ
S
M
H
C
o
4-1
CO
•d
cu
42
CO
M
CJ
M
O
>>
01
g
0
o
W
^•^
C
o
4-1
-^
43
rH
\^
bp
S
&0
^ri
J5
,^^
^D
O
•
O
o
•
o^
fXj
01
01
C
o
4-1
CO
T3
01
43
CO
M
rj
M
01
"Q
CO
O
i— 1
^
C
0)
4-1
C
0
M
fT,
W
_
^^
C
o
4-1
-^^
43
rH
bo
•^
bO
^^
CN
O
O
O
O <+•!
\-x
. — ,
rH
•
o
x-"x
^
fO
o
o
O <*•!
S-X
r^.
•
• — 1
0
01
(2
0
4-1
CO
•o
01
42
CO
5
CJ
CO
-a
cfl
o
M
4-1
rH rH
CU 3
43 Cfl
bO 42
•HOI -a
>% (2 CU
0) C >
> b co
c H a
0 C
CJ 3
.
/-N
CN
• CO
— I M
— i O
4J
(2 CJ
O tO
4-J
CJ
0) •
CO CU
rH
CU 43
0) Cfl
CO H
s_x
tfl
rJ -H
01 42
rH 4J
cx
to C
co
CO
01 M
e o
3 4-1
•H O
o to
^ M-I
42 CU
bO 3
•H rH
42 cfl
>
T3
tj OI
tO rH
T-i sn
U OJJ
CO -H
4-1 CO
CO
O
tO 4-1
r*"* T3
43 O)
M
TJ H
01 01
i-i 4-(
3 CU
CO M
cfl Pu
cu
Srn
UJ
•H
4-1
CO -H
4-J
CO CU
•H 4-1
cx
,-v tfl
PH 42
CO CJ
H
^ C
•H
01
4-J CO
Cfl C
rH 0
3 -H
Ull
W
•H Cfl
4J 3
M cr
tfl 01
ex
rH
T3 cfl
01 O
13 iH
C M
CU -H
a, a
co e
3 0)
CO
M-l
rH O
CO
4J 01
o w
H S
tfl
C
0
•H
4-1
CO
3
rr1
u
cu
C
OI
42
CO
C
o
•H
CO
Cfl
O
o
M
0
14-,
M
O
~-^
T3
a
cfl
CO
£3
O
•H >
4-1 0)
& 43
•H cfl
X rH
O -H
M cfl
CX >
CX CO
tfl
4J
K/ Q
a c
•H
3 II
cr
<
(2 Z
•H
CU .
CJ 13
C CU
01 4-1
•H tfl
a B
0) -H
> 4-1
C Cfl
O OI
o
>,
O 43
4-1 tfl
C
0) CO
T3 CO
•H 01
O
M 0)
CX43
01 4-1
M O
CO C
01 C
rH Cfl
43 O
CO
H co
cu
CO rH
•H 43
42 Cfl
4-1 -H
(2 CO
•H >
CO
•H
42
CJ
•H
r4,
bp
c
•H
Tj
Cfl
O
rH
T3
C
0)
4-1
O
M
IM
M
O
<4-l
4-1
CX
01
CJ
X
cu
M
M
CU
42
CO
3
}_(
0
r**j
J-J
cfl
e
•H
a
42
42
4-1
rH •
to -a
•H 0)
M M
OI M
4-1 OI
tfl <4H
S CO
(2
14-1 CO
O M
4-1
"f? rH
O tfl
4-1 -H
43 0)
rH 4-1
x^ CO
e
1?
^ o
bO
CO C •
(0 O CN)
4-1
13 ^ CU
01 43 CJ
Cfl rH (2
M v-^ 0)
0> M
M bO 0)
O- IS >w
x -^ cu
W bO Oil
43 O
.
cu
CJ
0)
M
CU
M-l
0)
*a
CO
o
tfl
3
cr
01
to
o
M
•H
a
M
o
vO C
O
CU -H
O 4-1
(2 CJ
01 CU
M CO
CU
14H 01
01 CU
erf co
CU *4H
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.19.2-5
-------
specific source conditions, these equations should be used instead of those in
Table 8.19.2-2, whenever emission estimates applicable to specific stone quarry-
ing and processing facility sources are needed. Chapter 11.2 provides measured
properties of crushed limestone, as required for use in the predictive emission
factor equations.
References for Section 8.19.2
1. Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry,
EPA-450/3-82-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, August 1982.
2. P. K. Chalekode, et al., Emissions from the Crushed Granite Industry;
State of the Art, EPA-600/2-78-021, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, February 1978.
3. T. R. Blackwood, et al., Source Assessment; Crushed Stone, EPA-600/2-78-
004L, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1978.
4. F. Record and W. T. Harnett, Particulate Emission Factors for the
Construction Aggregate Industry, Draft Report, GCA-TR-CH-83-02, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3510, GCA Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC, February 1983.
5. Review Emission Data Base and Develop Emission Factors for the Con-
struction Aggregate Industry, Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, CA,
September 1984.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8.19.2-6 EMISSION FACTORS 9/85
-------
8.22 TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
8.22.1 General l~2
More than two thirds of the iron ore produced in the United States con-
sists of taconite, 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, concen-
trating the ore by separating the particles from the waste material (gangue),
and pelletizing the iron ore concentrate. A simplified flow diagram of these
processing 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. Gyratory
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 allow for
closed circuit operation of the fine crushers. The rod and ball mills are
also in closed circuit with classification systems such as cyclones. An
alternative is to feed some coarse ores directly to wet or dry semiautogenous
or autogenous (using larger pieces of the ore to grind/mill the smaller pieces)
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 theoretically
only about 75 percent of this is recoverable magnetite. The remaining iron
is discarded with the gangue.
Nonmagnetic taconite ores are concentrated by froth flotation or by a
combination of selective flocculation and flotation. The method is determined
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 hematite, or
maghemite) and wide ranges of mineral grain sizes. Flotation is also often
used as a final polishing operation on magnetic concentrates.
10/86 Mineral Products Industry 8.22-1
-------
*^
UJ
0
UJ
N
UJ
0
4 — <•
Z
Q S
z 2
°£g
o u S
< |_ LU
*- LU UJ
co z m
n 2 5
E|
Q **
Z
LU
LU
CC
U
co
> cc
CC — LU
< Ul x
CC LL 3
m — CC
K CJ
J
._
Z
UJ
UJ
cc
o
>-
< — LU
Q UJ X
Z Z CO
O C =
(j — OC
LU O
'
PRIMARY
(COARSE)
CRUSHER
p
UJ
O
n
LU
Z
UJ
LU
CC
CJ
co
Q
Z
^
Q
I
co
cc
o
o
K
LJJ
0
0
cc
u
X
c
u
LJ
c
o ~
O Q
(1 -
LU
CO
y
LU
z
o
L
U
U
<
c"
'
>
CC ;
I
cc -
0.
cc
0
0.
LU
CC
O
K
0.
LU
CO
t
LJ
.
0
t
J
J _J
-1 -J
1 5
O
Q.
UJ
J
5
C
)
Is
UJ
o
LU
N
CO
OC
LU
O
l [ i
CC
UJ
rsi
OVERS
o
z
5
t-
*"
o
—
CO
O
2
jf
1—
CC
S'
o
u
c
o z
J
c
CO L
, Z L
< =
(•
,
UJ
h- „
2 i^
UJ *
o y
Z I
O l-
CJ
1. 1-
CO CC
CJ CC uj 1-
Q -1 ° O
z ~~ u
O —
' Jl m
1 _j
00
111 1 '
*~ LU
< LU K "J
Z £ •» O [E
^ cc a. o-
m Q uj uj
PM M
CO M
cc oc
« i i
2 z J "
C/5 UJ
2 (_J
m c/i
> ' " '"
O uj
3 -j
. — uj Q.
Ou -*> ~~
2 U
< z
m 0
h-
CC| | ^-J _,
f. _ 1 -1 H "•
u ^ — . "J <
7 1 > CC
u i < 0
J j •-
E ' 1
DC a
|_ UJ _
m U. -I
_l CO Q
oc x
08
' b
0 g.
— LU
g ^ 0
t
cc -.
< 15
cc
1
c
JO
a.
O)
c
'w
(/)
0)
o
o
o
u
ro
CM
f\l
00
0)
L.
3
O)
UJ
K
g Z
< O
cc o
8.22-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
Pallatization - 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, usually powdered bentonite, may be added to the
concentrate to improve ball formation and the physical qualities of the
"green" balls. The bentonite is lightly mixed with the carefully moistened
feed at 5 to 10 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 of 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 hot 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 temperatures. The
grate/kiln apparatus consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by
a rotary kiln. Pellets indurated by the straight grate apparatus 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 counter-
current airflow.
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 operations.
Emission factors for the major processing sources without controls are pre-
sented in Table 8.22-1, and control efficiencies in Table 8.22-2. Table
8.22-3 presents data on particle size distributions and corresponding size-
specific emission factors for the controlled main waste gas stream from
taconite ore pelletizing operations.
The taconite ore is handled dry through the crushing stages. All
crushers, size classification screens and conveyor transfer points are major
points of particulate emissions. Crushed ore is normally wet ground in 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 (through concentrate
storage, Figure 8.22-1) so particulate 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
10/86 Mineral Products Industry 8.22-3
-------
TABLE 8.22-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
TACONITE ORE PROCESSING, WITHOUT CONTROLSa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Emissions*'
Source kg/Mg Ib/ton
Ore transfer
Coarse crushing and screening
Fine crushing
Bentonite transfer
Bentonite blending
Grate feed
Indurating furnace waste gas
Grate discharge
Pellet handling
0.05
0.10
39.9
0.02
0.11
0.32
14.6
0.66
1.7
0.10
0.20
79.8
0.04
0.22
0.64
29.2
1.32
3.4
aReference 1. Median values.
^Expressed as units per unit weight of pellets produced.
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, 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 sulfur
dioxide emissions. For a natural gas fired furnace, these emissions are about
0.03 kilograms of S02 per megagram of pellets produced (0.06 Ib/ton). High-
er S02 emissions (about 0.06 to 0.07 kg/Mg, or 0.12 to 0.14 Ib/ton) would
result from an oil or coal fired furnace.
Particulate emissions from taconite ore processing plants are controlled
by a variety of devices, including cyclones, multiclones, rotoclones, scrub-
bers, baghouses and electrostatic precipitators. Water sprays are also used
to suppress dusting. Annular coolers are generally left uncontrolled because
their mass loadings of particulates are small, typically less than 0.11 grams
per normal cubic meter (0.05 gr/scf).
The largest source of particulate emissions in taconite ore mines is
traffic on unpaved haul roads.4 Table 8.22-4 presents size specific emission
factors for this source determined through source testing at one taconite
mine. Other significant particulate emission sources at taconite mines are
wind erosion and blasting.^
As an alternative to the single valued emission factors for open dust
sources given in Tables 8.22-1 and 8.22-4, empirically derived emission
8-22-4 EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
fa
o
2
O
M ffl
H C/5
• C
t, -*4
*•< ^
II B
oZ n
.c
ii
4j n
U 10
IB M
W
u I"
•M 10
n -C
lM U
.0.)
^
-J T
£ S
4J OC
•X E
B —
O "O
•1
B «C
•J .
— 0
o"S
U G
B •
t> b
B -"
OC
B
C nfi
*••* n
"• Z
u
b
tl
O e
«j
b
OC
u e
10 11
b J=
OJ K
o s
0
b
*J
G
O
U
Ml*. V
(N «• W —
fi f- CM in
ON ON ON ON
— II
in «-
00 C*
1*.
(S ll If
f> in —
ON ON 00
ON ON ON
U*
(M E II
r-» ^ m
00° 00 ON
X?s
*•• «••
r. m
OO ON
C
oo
IM IM
^N^N I IV
^^ ^^ O 0^
ojox^X
oo
SXAA
in m « "i
ON OX ON ON
IM
^-» •
O—"^
m -• ON
3
to
U
^
00
ON
^^ M
W W CM -•
00 00 ^^~
oK c^ ON oo
ii •
m m oo oc
ON O> O\ ON
u
1*4 «~
C^
00 ON
00 ON
tl
IM |i «•«
00 00 ON
00 ON ON
IM
IM *•
N f-
ON ON
0\ ON
II
00
I
IM IM
r^ ^
^* ^
ON 00
ON ON
tl IM iw
N *•*• ~*
If) €0 ID
•« If
IM IM b* ^ • |N II fsj ^4
M*rMrN\O fMO^^O> m
in IN oe •- ON o> ON o m
•c ON oe ON »eNo>e< oo
b u o n
Ii U »«JGOnO
c Ii cj *>**4iewoo4j
o B — oiajsusu
ll-l O — C •« W OJ >M Jj
-. *j o ub'ouo
u •* u oe iiaxucu
>* a 0 te i— b u
o s PC OG w a u
IM
O
6J .S
tc o "o
II C
U *J U
b ••< IB B
t) C>
b ^? 4^ U4
IQ tl IB 1*4
*J U tl
n w — <
l> *J T U
K 10 C £
II -I *J
4.1 J3 » E
£ ** "E °
b b IB IB
n ii ^i 4J
O.J: oa a
•5|^g
M tl
U 4J n
fo in js
E E 4J
II 0
X T> •« b
4p* O
. " 1 .
e -•« 4j
O >M 4J •
4J - tl K
U E II
9 b
•S "1 0 0
V b 4J
b II •
*> i ^ S
E II N-' O
tl *M C
b II E°
II JE n II
Ur- M b
in ti
• x*1 S3
•o u ^ o
II E -1 i
B) II II O
• ••••ME
tl U IM JS
b -H u
a,*- - ti
K *M *-*v *1
HUE
41-0 0
b 1; to b
IB *J E 4J
IB -M G
« 4J *J O
ii a
•*4 4J b U (B
IM *M a b «x
IM t *J 9 —
II l^ O IB
10 It K >
— e w.
4J 4J IB b
?• M M M) «
E IB II BO IB
O E C
U n E O B
js o •" o
f a. *•> —
• e a * w
— u e IB
II *C U J3 -M
C i IB § "f
b « j: u o
II -H II JS
IM -C b U II
II E II 3 X
oc - S » **
I IB
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.22-5
-------
s „
CJ 5
£
it
5 & • 8 9 10 20
Particle dlaaeter, ua
JO 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 8.22-3. Particle size distributions and size specific emission
factors for indurating furnace waste gas stream from
taconite ore pelletizing.
TABLE 8.22-3.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
FOR CONTROLLED INDURATING FURNACE WASTE GAS STREAM FROM
TACONITE ORE PELLETIZING3
SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle size distribution*5
Size specific emission
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cyclone
controlled
17.4
25.6
35.2
Cyclone/ESP
controlled
48.0
71.0
81.5
factor,
Cyclone
controlled
0.16
0.23
0.31
kg/MgC
Cyclone/ESP
controlled
0.012
0.018
0.021
^Reference 3. ESP = electrostatic precipitator. After cyclone control,
mass emission factor is 0.89 kg/Mg, and after cyclone/ESP control, 0.025
kg/Mg. Mass and size specific emission factors are calculated from data
in Reference 3, and are expressed as kg particulate/Mg of pellets produced.
^Cumulative weight % < particle diameter.
cSize specific emission factor = mass emission factor x particle size
distribution, %/100.
8.22-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE 8.22-4. UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT TACONITE MINES3
Surface Emission factor by aerodynamic diameter Emission
material (urn) Units Factor
<30 £15 <10 <5 <2.5 Rating
Crushed rock
and glacial
till 3.1
11.0
Crushed taconite
and waste 2.6
9.3
2.2 1.7 1.1 0.62 kg/VKT
7.9 6.2 3.9 2.2 Ib/VMT
1.9 1.5 0.9 0.54 kg/VKT
6.6 5.2 3.2 1.9 Ib/VMT
C
C
D
D
aReference 4. Predictive emission factor equations, which provide
generally more accurate estimates, are in Chapter 11. VKT = vehicle
kilometers travelled. VMT = vehicle miles travelled.
factor equations are presented in Chapter 11 of this document. Each equation
has been developed for a source operation defined by a single dust generating
mechanism, common to many industries, such as vehicle activity on unpaved
roads. The predictive equation explains much of the observed variance in mea-
sured emission factors by relating emissions to parameters which characterize
source conditions. These parameters may be grouped into three categories,
1) measures of source activity or energy expended, i. e., the speed and weight
of a vehicle on an unpaved road; 2) properties of the material being disturbed,
i. e. , the content of suspendable fines in the surface material of an unpaved
road; and 3) climatic parameters, such as the number 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, such equations should be used in place of the
single valued factors for open dust sources in Tables 8.22-1 and 8.22-4, when-
ever emission estimates are needed for sources in a specific taconite ore mine
or processing facility. One should remember that the generally higher quality
ratings assigned to these equations apply only if 1) reliable values of correc-
tion 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. In the event that site specific values are not available,
Chapter 11 lists measured properties of road surface and aggregate process
materials found in taconite mining and processing facilities, and these can be
used to estimate correction parameter values for the predictive emission factor
equations. The use of mean correction parameter values from Chapter 11 reduces
the quality ratings of the factor equations by one level.
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.22-7
-------
References for Section 8.22
1. J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore Mining,
Beneficiation and Pelletization, Volume 1, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113,
Midwest Research Institute, Minnetonka, MN, June 1983.
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. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB-
76-IOB-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, November 1975.
4. T. A. Cuscino, et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
i
I
8.22-8 EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
CO
0)
c
O
O
(1)
O
rt
MH
l-i
CD
C
S-J
0)
CO
§
cfl
V4
0)
a
o
eg
-3-
CN
oo
a»
)-l
&0
•H
5/83
Mineral Products Industry
8.24-3
-------
CO
cj
on
a
o
o>
H
co
a
,_p.
a
OH Cti
0 X-S
CO
Q H
rJ S
•J »
O
Pd CJ
H i— i
0 H
O W
55 S
O ^-/
ad en
O M
&tj &*5
co S
Z
0 d
M -<
H 0
< CJ
3
cx w
U CJ
<
O ad
H 3
0 co
fc. Z
a!
Z M
O H
(— ( CO
CO H
co 3
a H
W
M
01
4-1
•H
•o
U
•H
e
X
|
(V
CO
y
«
V
N
•H
ta
0)
rH
U
•H
AJ
(Q
0.
£
CO
c
o
-rl
CO
CO
iH
a
S
1,
£1
6
in
•
CN
g
m
V
|
o
0-
U3
H
rH
CO
14
01
4-1
CO
S
c
o
•rf
4J
CO
01
*
CO CO CO CO < CO CO < 01
"£
H H H H '3'
bO rl IH ft S4 S4 *6 $4 OC rl
S j= .e B >>>> J^ co
be 00 M BO 00 00 00 &p CJ
JjJJ^JjJJJ^ ^^J^t^b 41
— '
rH CN O -H CN PI 'd1 rH
OO— iO OOOO
OOOO OOOO Z
m
•
/^
:*
•a
""*
co o m
in m • CN co
• • o *Q ^^ ^"^
-H rH ^ 1 W »
/-s /-\ T3 O *^^ •— ^
mo -H rH o o x"^ o
• S-»S-a-SOS CNO -So
^00^0^'.'*' CNO "^^0 Z
o
*a
CNJ
* CN
O
• -?
w in -^
e^J • CN n"l
-H • ^x 1 c/3 9
CN 00 C^ ^^ <*1 ^.^ CO r_^ ^
O • ^^ • 00 • • -^ • (^
OO rH >—t *^s *— 1 *C O X f^ C*^ «a rH 3
• S-S^oSos' >co 'S^o oo
pn CN • ^ o o r~^
o
c c
01 01
12 T2
3 3
-0 £
CO CO OJ 01 CO
o o > > o
OOOO O
,-^
4J CU T3
3 rH C
•O -H CO
D.
0) -H 3 0) O 0)
W) TJ *4 ^H 00 tH CJ
C O "4H -rj CO CO C
•rl B 1 CD b O CO
•000 rlB-*OrlC
CO C rH 4H ^^ CJ 4J 0) 01
O*H O) 0) 4J3C04J
rH N C IJ>D001.C U T)C
O 1H OICOCrHbO 4-IOIC-H
J^ T? rH OklH>rlCJiH >-r1CO
U rH 00 ffl 4J TD -H -H rH-H»B
3 -H CO H^CO.C^ 34J^
t-13 ^iCJrlOl COCJ
Hco Dcnci> s<
•g
•g
CU
a
CO
3
CO
rH
CO •
u oi
O M
4-1 e
n t-i
a. oi
12 £
CO
• fl
* o
oi m
C CN
01 V
oi aj
<4H • J2
0) x~\ 4^
B! CN
O rH B
U ~~- CO •
UH c so e ^-s
o ^ o •«
C -rl -rl |
O 4J 00 1C -»
•H O s-* s~* C Cfl CN
U OJ bO i *H *H •
co • t/3 To. -a e co
3 01 ^^ ^ CO CO CU
C7* rH 01 v^ rH O "O
OI.COI 4-1 OlrHtlB
am jc -o eo e co
rH ^H ^^ -r? OJ * rH *P in
•H CO IH 01 Cb -H W |
CO rH O 4J CN
01 O. 01 01 01 01 •
004JB rHrHUlCJ-QOO
CO O CO O U 01 CO
tnCcO -rl-HjOi4HOCe
o sz *: e >H 4J oi
4J n oj CUOI33 -H
™<§ > "o'co
rHZrH CCCT3-HH
CO O CO CO CO CO 4-1
O > OIOIOIOUOI
T3 J! -i CO
K 01 BO II II II II V, ^x
0 rH -H
> -rl rH
4-J S) *Q »H
d Ul U 4J T3
0) 4J ffl C
CJ -O X CO
x co e r~. xi
01 U CO fr* rH
oi 4-1 -^ CM
» 4J CO O
-H 01 4J ^-, -1 -
B CO CM *J rH
CU O OI ^s CO
CJ rH >, 4J 3 CO
C -H J3 C 4J 0-01
01 J^ O C 01 O.
Ul -o CJ 01 >-,
01 01 01 4J ^«. 01 H
<4H rH Ul 01 C CJ >
01CJ3 UlOOl -HO)
A CO 4-1 --^ S O -H
§UCU--C04Je^'-HS
> g CO -H -H ^- -O
IH C O -H 4J 0> O
TH -H 01 00 Q.
0>H 4-lrHrHO)-H 01
j; tr lj LI f-i ct)
CO SOICUOIT3O. CJ
C . 4-I4HCOOI-H
OOlCOlHCOCO-rHUlJIrH
4-1 CO 4-1 MH CX
CO -H O II II II II >^ CO
3 3 C CO rH
crcjoirHScos-oaoo
CU TH -rj o -i C
4-1 £t 4J -rl
rH rl CL^ B t-H 4J
r-j CO U5 f, 3 CO
< a H w S a:
CO XI CJ T3 01
i
I
8.24-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
CO
W
U
06
^
CO
s
Q
"Z
W
S ^
t/1
Q H
W M
. •) i — i
O
erf PC
25 y-H
O >J
y Is-?
SO M
..
Crf
O CO
fa gd
CO H-l
c^ t__J
<1 O
jo cj
O1
W W
CJ
O tXj
§— ( f*y^
C 5 t~~i
•< CO
z
.3 Crf
O W
M H
co co
co w
M S
W H
<^
CM
I
t^J
QO
fin
.J
CO
H
G
O
•H
CO
0)
•H
1
U
TV
11
i
CO
-o
U
a
^
c
x
o
M
(U
'^S
a
if
D
CO
01
rH
o
•H
4J
Ll
W
a
x
.a
CO
c
o
*H
CO
09
•H
»H
•0
.jj
i
e
0
T-t
U
(0
U
1
M bp
JJ i-t
U U
(0 CO
EX M
tft
4J
•H
C
^
1
H
1
U-i
•
CM
I
•H
V
1
s
V
CL,
^
CD
caaaaaea < an co •< o
IH
e o H H H H •^
0 u u TJ XX X X JO^
4JJSJS X >>>>rHOJ
^Slfl^lo SSrtr? «
s^x
ONCMinf^ xOr-.Oi^
--« CM O — « CMf^-tf-H
oo-^o oooo
oooo oooo S
in
CM
^•s^
»
"tf"
•
^•N.
r*- N--' O •
l/^ * • f"O
--^ -H tj O cn ^-'
— o -HS^^^O «-• CM -* tn
• S'Sozaa: CMO • x o
O •*"-* 00 N««^ * '"--*' O N--1 • • fO s-x • <|
—«--*• wD O O K
o
^vm. — m O'-' o-^^
• X.Xr-,7:oX O .So •£>
O > O
U O O O O
^^
X
U 01 TJ
3 rH C
73 -H CO
f-\ D.
rH OS C ^v
aj -H 3 oi o 01
M TJ "4H -H bO -H O
C O >4H 73 rcj co c
•H a co cu LI o co
73ag t- e -^ o >-, c
Cfl C rH 4-1 ' , O U 01 Ot
O-H 01 OI U3C04J
rH M C LI>bOOIX IH 73C
O TH OlcgtTrHbO UlVC-H
CJ rH 00 nJW73-HrH rH--
Li3 Li O >-i 01 co cj
H oa a en cj > -n <:
73
01
c
01
0.
3
CO
rH
ct) •
4J OI
° 2
CO
n LI
(X 0)
H .S
CO
0) •
tj CM
c
1*1
41 0)
U-J • -C
CM -N --s
• ONI c
S - S -H
o — ^
U bO W •
^-J C s— • C --N
O *^N O *-O
C TH CO CJO ^ 1
O U fi r-v C « -*
•H U O JT1 -H CO rM
3 C
ys tiQ D _c *j c ^o
> C as _<
« u e c ja
O3 CCCT3Ocq
cO O 3J i i O •w
O Tj 01
< J3 U 11 II It -J «
U 2. X) ^w *'-''
O -H 3 W 3 -J
* -1-41—4
*J ^ T3 .£
a. C — v .0
tU CO 03 5^ i-t
- u a. O
X CQ C 5^5 4-1 M
, W 3-0
c -H .n c u cr D
a) a o c at ex
i-» 13 o a* >,
0) D OJ U r-s 0) H
>4-t ^H U| 0) C U >
o>O3 J-i o SCD'H'-(^--' T3
l-i C O -H 4J 0) O
IH H to oaw"O-fiSrj4J
•H -H 1) bO G-
1) H JJ I— * r-H CJ T^ D
HS*J CO tO(0 O-OJCL-rH
£ O* --1 l-< H (0
GQ SDWcy-oa. o
O 0)0. U i flj
3 3 C 01 rH
OJ ^H Tj O -H C
4J j3 AJ ---
,— I rW fc 0 r-< 4-»
rH !0 CG >^ 3 cO
-------
The equations were developed through field sampling of 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 equations,
given in Table 8.24-3. However, the equations are derated one letter 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
Number
Source Correction of test
factor samples
Coal loading
Bulldozers
Coal
Overburden
Dragline
Scraper
Grader
Light/medium
duty vehicle
Haul truck
Moisture
Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance
M II
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Speed
Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading
7
3
3
8
8
19
7
10
15
7
7
29
26
Range Geometric
mean
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
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
2270
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
Units
%
%
%
%
7
/a
m
ft
%
%
Mg
ton
kph
mph
7
^
number
g/m2
Ib/ac
aReference
In using the equations to estimate emissions from sources found in a
specific western surface mine, it is necessary that reliable values for
correction parameters be determined for the specific sources of interest,
if the assigned quality ranges of the equations are to be applicable.
For example, actual silt content of coal or overburden measured at a facility
I
8.24-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
10.0 WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
Wood processing involves the conversion of raw wood to pulp, pulpboard or
types of wallboard such as plywood, particle board or hardboard. This chapter
presents emissions data on chemical wood pulping, on pulpboard and plywood manu-
facturing, and on woodworking operations. The burning of wood waste in boilers
and conical burners is discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this publication.
10/86 Wood Products Industry 10-1
-------
10.1 CHEMICAL WOOD PULPING
10.1.1 General
Chemical wood pulping involves
dissolving the lignin that binds the
cesses principally used in chemical
semichemical (NSSC), and soda. The
for causing air pollution. The kraft
cent of the chemical pulp produced in
process is determined by the desired
and by economic considerations.
10.1.2 Kraft Pulping
the extraction of cellulose from wood by
cellulose fibers together. The four pro-
pulping are kraft, sulfite, neutral sulfite
ffirst three display the greatest potential
process alone accounts for over 80 per-
the United States. The choice of pulping
product, by the wood species available,
Process Description-'- - The kraft
involves the digesting of wood chips
"white liquor", which is a water solu
The white liquor chemically dissolves
together.
There are two types of digester
pulping is done in batch digesters,
of continuous digesters. In a batch
contents of the digester are transfer
to as a blow tank. The entire conten
washers, where the spent cooking liqu
then proceeds through various stages
which it is pressed and dried into th
digester does not apply to continuous
The balance of the kraft process
pulping process (See Figure 10.1-1)
•at elevated temperature and pressure in
ion of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide.
the lignin that binds the cellulose fibers
systems, batch and continuous. Most kraft
although the more recent installations are
digester, when cooking is complete, the
ed to an atmospheric tank usually referred
:s of the blow tank are sent to pulp
>r is separated from the pulp. The pulp
f washing, and possibly bleaching, after
finished product. The "blow" of the
digester systems.
is designed to recover the cooking
chemicals and heat. Spent cooking liquor and the pulp wash water are combined
to form a weak black liquor which is concentrated in a multiple effect evaporator
system to about 55 percent solids. The black liquor is then further concentrated
to 65 percent solids in a direct contact evaporator, by bringing the liquor
into contact with the flue gases from the recovery furnace, or in an indirect
contact concentrator. The strong black liquor is then fired in a recovery
furnace. Combustion of the organics dissolved in the black liquor provides
heat for generating process steam and for converting sodium sulfate to sodium
sulfide. Inorganic chemicals present in the black liquor collect as a molten
smelt at the bottom of the furnace.
The smelt is dissolved in water to form green liquor, which is transferred
to a causticizing tank where quicklime (calcium oxide) is added to convert the
solution back to white liquor for return to the digester system. A lime mud
precipitates from the causticizing tank, after which it is calcined in a lime
kiln to regenerate quicklime.
10/86
Wood Products Industry
10.1-1
-------
CO
CO
cu
o
o
o
o
cu
"O
ffl
3
a
CO
tfl
o
•H
I
l-l
•
o
i—4
01
00
•H
10.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
For process heating, for driving equipment, for providing electric power,
etc., many mills need more steam than can be provided by the recovery furnace
alone. Thus, conventional industrial boilers that burn coal, oil, natural gas,
or bark and wood are commonly used.
Emissions And Controls^"? - Particulate emissions from the kraft pro-
cess occur largely from the recovery furnace, the lime kiln and the smelt dis-
solving tank. These emissions are mainly sodium salts, with some calcium salts
from the lime kiln. They are caused mostly by carryover of solids and sublima-
tion and condensation of the inorganic chemicals.
Particulate control is provided on recovery furnaces in a variety of ways.
In mills with either a cyclonic scrubber or cascade evaporator as the direct
contact evaporator, further control is necessary, as these devices are generally
only 20 to 50 percent efficient for particulates. Most often in these cases,
an electrostatic precipitator is employed after the direct contact evaporator,
for an overall particulate control efficiency of from 85 to more than 99 percent,
Auxiliary scrubbers may be added at existing mills after a precipitator or a
venturi scrubber to supplement older and less efficient primary particulate
control devices.
Particulate control on lime kilns is generally accomplished by scrubbers.
Electrostatic precipitators have been used in a few mills. Smelt dissolving
tanks usually are controlled by mesh pads, but scrubbers can provide further
control.
The characteristic odor of the kraft mill is caused by the emission of
reduced sulfur compounds, the most common of which are hydrogen sulfide, methyl
mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, all with extremely low odor
thresholds. The major source of hydrogen sulfide is the direct contact evapo-
rator, in which the sodium sulfide in the black liquor reacts with the carbon
dioxide in the furnace exhaust. Indirect contact evaporators can significantly
reduce the emission of hydrogen sulfide. The lime kiln can also be a potential
source of odor, as a similar reaction occurs with residual sodium sulfide in
the lime mud. Lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide are emitted with the noncon-
densible offgasses from the digesters and multiple effect evaporators.
Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with the
wood component, lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is formed through the oxidation of
mercaptan groups derived from the lignin. These compounds are emitted from
many points within a mill, but the main sources are the digester/blow tank
systems and the direct contact evaporator.
Although odor control devices, per se, are not generally found in kraft
mills, emitted sulfur compounds can be reduced by process modifications and
improved operating conditions. For example, black liquor oxidation systems,
which oxidize sulfides into less reactive thiosulfates, can considerably reduce
odorous sulfur emissions from the direct contact evaporator, although the vent
gases from such systems become minor odor sources themselves. Also, noncon-
densible odorous gases vented from the digester/blow tank system and multiple
effect evaporators can be destroyed by thermal oxidation, usually by passing
them through the lime kiln. Efficient operation of the recovery furnace, by
avoiding overloading and by maintaining sufficient oxygen, residence time and
turbulence, significantly reduces emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from
10/86 Wood Products Industry 10.1-3
-------
this source as well. The use of fresh water instead of contaminated condensates
in the scrubbers and pulp washers further reduces odorous emissions.
Several new mills have incorporated recovery systems that eliminate the
conventional direct contact evaporators. In one system, heated combustion air,
rather than fuel gas, provides direct contact evaporation. In another, the
multiple effect evaporator system is extended to replace the direct contact
evaporator altogether. In both systems, sulfur emissions from the recovery
furnace/direct contact evaporator can be reduced by more than 99 percent.
Sulfur dioxide is emitted mainly from oxidation of reduced sulfur compounds
in the recovery furnace. It is reported that the direct contact evaporator
absorbs about 75 percent of these emissions, and further scrubbing can provide
additional control.
Potential sources of carbon monoxide emissions from the kraft process
include the recovery furnace and lime kilns. The major cause of carbon monoxide
emissions is furnace operation well above rated capacity, making it impossible
to maintain oxidizing conditions.
Some nitrogen oxides also are emitted from the recovery furnace and lime
kilns, although amounts are relatively small. Indications are that nitrogen
oxide emissions are on the order of 0.5 and 1.0 kilograms per air dried mega-
grams (1 and 2 Ib/air dried ton) of pulp produced from the lime kiln and
recovery furnace, respectively.^~6
A major source of emissions in a kraft mill is the boiler for generating
auxiliary steam and power. The fuels used are coal, oil, natural gas or bark/
wood waste. See Chapter 1 for emission factors for boilers.
Table 10.1-1 presents emission factors for a conventional kraft mill.
The most widely used particulate control devices are shown, along with the odor
reductions through black liquor oxidation and incineration of noncondensible
offgases. Tables 10.1-2 through 10.1-7 present cumulative size distribution
data and size specific emission factors for particulate emissions from sources
within a conventional kraft mill. Uncontrolled and controlled size specific
emission factors^ are presented in Figures 10.1-2 through 10.1-7. The particle
sizes presented are expressed in terms of the aerodynamic diameter.
10.1.3 Acid Sulfite Pulping
Process Description - The production of acid sulfite pulp proceeds
similarly to kraft pulping, except that different chemicals are used in the
cooking liquor. In place of the caustic solution used to dissolve the lignin
in the wood, sulfurous acid is employed. To buffer the cooking solution, a
bisulfite of sodium, magnesium, calcium or ammonium is used. A diagram of a
typical magnesium base process is shown in Figure 10.1-8.
Digestion is carried out under high pressure and high temperature, in
either batch mode or continuous digesters, and in the presence of a sulfurous
acid/bisulfite cooking liquid. When cooking is completed, either the digester
is discharged at high pressure into a blow pit, or its contents are pumped into
a dump tank at a lower pressure. The spent sulfite liquor (also called red
liquor) then drains through the bottom of the tank and is treated and discarded,
10.1-4
EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
S3
OH
«
H
H
ta
o
H
§
M
C/3
I
^-t
•
o
<
0
H
^H
£
g
H
z
O
M
C/3
t-l
S
B
O
a! II .0
X W>
06 & DO
J
c
^ o
c/> •*•*
d ^ xi
bp 01
b -H
-O IH Of
S"3 5
CO BO
,-x C
0 0
O *J
c xi
O 01 .H
xi -o
CO X
CJ O Op
o -*.
B jp
CM O
3^ ^H
*4-i CD
"1 1
B
O
4J
0) ^
u -0
« -1
"s
B ,
(0 y
eu -—
i— t
0
M
4-1
C
o
o
U-J
QJ
^
Source
u
CM -* — <
cj in oi oi 01 4)
\c CM o m in in m
O O O — ' — t — * -H
f> CM
o o —
O O -"• CM CM CM (SJ
CM -j in
O O m
000 « >0 •*> v£>
III _^
m *n in
lit • • •
in in in
i i i
r- r- c~
in ^n *n
4) X 0)
0) 0) 0> 0* X) b J2
0>0>0> OJ 3 b i>Hb
4J4J4J 4J C <0 CU X 00
C d C C 01 CO 3
P ED E3 O > W •<
Digester relief and blow tank
Brown stock, washer
Multiple effect evaporator
Recovery boiler and direct
evaporator
i i
*,*,
0 0
£ £
in in
O O
o o
--
m
CM rg CM
O O O
^•33
o o o
1 1 1
1 1 1
CM CM
O O
• • 1
0 0
r-. — o
m m — <
moo
« a. £>
01 f>
4J CO l-i
E 01 U
3 Z tn
Smelt dissolving tank
Rl*
O O
G S
O O
e e
in in
0 0
S 6
in tn
CM CM
o o
o o
in m
o o
o o
CO 1
O
• 1
o
m
in
CM
00 O
CM
Cu
cn
o
« xs
01 x>
C cj
c
V
e
•H
m m
O 0
m m
CM CM
o o
o
m
8
o
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0) Ot
o> o>
c c
Turpentine condenser
Miscellaneous11
CO rH CO i-t ^ •
b Oi 3
• -o 4J > co o>
(D 0) M ^ T) O b
b • x: d CO CO
B^Q4->0) ^^"3"
4-1 *34) bj)CCJO
X * ^^ 01 -H -^ CO
x: -u OrH •>doi«
£4JtH * £ O • d CO 4J CO S
03 (0 O4-)CJ CL, 3 tfl tfl 73
flT3> -H .UiO-H bC *•
•H 01 S CO CO W CX T3 O 3 -Q
3203 IH^^H B 0.0 0)
C/32cT tfl* OCOO4-I OO. "fl
od oi dd b^cj^H e 3
M woo 4-*o oi do I-H
• x:o o 4J j-t o --( en co ^H c
•••N co T-injco u O od jii en *H
< CO 1-1 O, X CU 4J B) ^H
N^ C B«O x:-Hbi3 S*
•b 41 > 4-1 3O> -HrH d
^ O M-i - 0) 30><-i3 O. b ^-i
34-1 b .u .d u-< x: 3 o 4J 4J
a, to x 4i o ^ 5 co co d to
4JUI4-ICO O S d O', ro 41 CO C X
Xl-HO Ocy* X!^-'CJCU -HCO O
CO 4) D CO | •Hin b
^ CL. bum -^U^H 5O 3
CUd b d"T)rHCO T3Q.-H
3-H<— 1 bO>H4-l O d «J 3 ^_(
4->^H d-^3 ^«4Jd S<-l
•^*0j^ -H CJ 4-1 O*H CO Jtf
OI4J COb (Q*4J 4J B CJ
^-t CD 41 3OO> bb S C -H 0}
•^b-H d Q. X) O i— 1 i-fO. X>
bcj^ XJOicfl >34-ib ^° c
-H Hi o 3: co O 0>bdO> ^ ^ V
*H T3 * M C O S
OH 41 6"'"'^ COiHO -d bO
4J 5 4Jb4-ld 4Jd •
*J PM C -r-( b d d 3 0) TH-H Cj
bO W > 4) 4-1 -H CjdrH& CO 01
1-1 Q(04J 41 rH OiCfl
41 0> b CO 4J > ffl PM Q S *
3»b bOO"O O BQ <: CO
OJdJ CT O- -H 4> CO -H <3 T3 ^
i-J-O -HCOX M^4J x-v3 d
THiHco x:>o -HO &.x-s c B «
d »4-t o> wot -o f-» o d o 4J
3 r-t U CO b l-( O 4-14-1
3b S4IO bO-O4J -^ C t-(
•H-HO CfitOCT U-i *JXl ^H-H OI
•^co S CU^CDCM O**-< ^
CO X CO 4-iCJ^ CO X) CX O *<4H CJ
coXO) (0 O 33O» OO1 O
a-B QJ x» X-H to -H bo^n c
4*OO COJXrHbXO)^ *^.O O
b -O 3J-HX1-HC in*-i
O Oi CO 41 bp b 4-1 3 f-H b ^-* ^>>H *
(COicOblo u-i »3 O • o C
[b b04->3cj "O
W ^HXOl^H bO4»Ob.>
• 01i-H*OOIO n)34*> x> 4JDb
_, .^ .H COUOICUd^CJOIbOJ^ 4J
34ICO T3 in TS^TJ^Od
co co TO xidcucnC—
-------
TABLE 10.1-2. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITH A DIRECT
CONTACT EVAPORATOR AND AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
95.0
93.5
92.2
83.5
56.5
45.3
26.5
100
Controlled
-
68.2
53.8
40.5
34.2
22.2
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
86
84
83
75
51
41
24
90
Controlled
—
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
aReference 7. Dash = no data
100
90 -
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1
Uncontrolled
Controlled
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
8-=
1.0 10
Particle diameter (pm)
100
Figure 10.1-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and
specific emission factors for recovery boiler
with direct contact evaporator and ESP.
size
10.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE 10.1-3. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A RECOVERY BOILER WITHOUT A DIRECT
CONTACT EVAPORATOR BUT WITH AN ESPa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontroll ed
_
-
-
78.0
40.0
30.0
17.0
100
Controlled
78.8
74.8
71.9
67.3
51.3
42.4
29.6
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
_
-
-
90
46
35
20
115
Controlled
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
aReference 7. Dash = no data.
150
J-q 100
i.!:
50
0.1
Controlled
Uncontrolled
I I I 1 I I 111
I I 1 I I I I 11
I I 1 I I I 1 I
1.0 10
Particle diameter (\un)
100
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
is
Figure 10.1-3. Cumulative particle size distribution and
specific emission factors for recovery boiler without direct
evaporator but with ESP.
size
contact
10/86
Wood Products Industry
10.1-7
-------
TABLE 10.1-4. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH A VENTURI SCRUBBER3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
98.9
98.3
98.2
96.0
85.0
78.9
54.3
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.14
0.25
aReference 7.
30
I!
20
Controlled
Uncontrolled
0.1
1.0 10
Particle diameter
0.3
i i i i m11 1—i i i 11111. 1—i i i 11'''°
0.2
Figure 10.1-4. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for lime kiln with venturi scrubber.
10.1-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE 10.1-5. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A LIME KILN WITH AN ESP3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
27.7
16.8
13.4
10.5
8.2
7.1
3.9
100
Controlled
91.2
88.5
86.5
83.0
70.2
62.9
46.9
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
7.8
4.7
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
28.0
Controlled
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.25
aRef erence 7 .
30
20
-* 10
0.1
Controlled
Uncontrolled
1.0 10
Particle diameter (urn)
0.3
I
i l i i il il 0
100
Figure 10.1-5. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for lime kiln with ESP.
10/86
Wood Products Industry
10.1-9
-------
TABLE 10.1-6. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
PACKED TOWERa
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
40.0
25.5
100
Controlled
95.3
95.3
94.3
85.2
63.8
54.2
34.2
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.43
0.32
0.27
0.17
0.50
aReference 7.
ii 3
is;
0.6
0.1
Controlled
Uncontrolled
0.5
0.4
0.3 =£
0.1
1.0 10
Particle diameter (vm)
100
Figure 10.1-6. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for smelt dissolving tank with
packed tower.
10.1-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE 10.1-7. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR A SMELT DISSOLVING TANK WITH A
VENTURI SCRUBBER3
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Particle size
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass % <
stated size
Uncontrolled
90.0
88.5
87.0
73.0
47.5
54.0
25.5
100
Controlled
89.9
89.5
88.4
81.3
63.5
54.7
38.7
100
Cumulative emission factor
(kg/Mg of air dried pulp)
Uncontrolled
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
0.9
3.5
Controlled
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
aReference 7.
0.1
Controlled
Uncontrolled
1.0 10
Particle diameter (vim)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 £„
S^
ZE.
0.6 ^-o
-IS
"S-<-
0.4 2 °
s€
c^
0.3 oi.
t_>
0.2
0.1
0
100
Figure 10.1-7. Cumulative particle size distribution and size
specific emission factors for smelt dissolving tank with
venturi scrubber.
10/86
Wood Products Industry
10.1-11
-------
CO
CO
(U
o
o
0)
CO
cfl
•H
CO
o
B o
cfl a)
CO JJ
•H 0)
T) dJ
O ""O
•H C
4-1 Cfl
CO rH
CO Cfl
QJ O
O -H
O g
h CD
O
01 00
•H >,
rH O
D..H
S ^
•3 s
CO O)
00
I
00
•H
Pn
10.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
incinerated, or sent to a plant for recovery of heat and chemicals. The pulp
is then washed and processed through screens and centrifuges to remove knots,
bundles of fibers and other material. It subsequently may be bleached, pressed
and dried in papermaking operations.
Because of the variety of cooking liquor bases used, numerous schemes have
evolved for heat and/or chemical recovery. In calcium base systems, found most-
ly in older mills, chemical recovery is not practical, and the spent liquor is
usually discharged or incinerated. In ammonium base operations, heat can be
recovered by combusting the spent liquor, but the ammonium base is thereby con-
sumed. In sodium or magnesium base operations, the heat, sulfur and base all
may be feasibly recovered.
If recovery is practiced, the spent (weak) red liquor (which contains more
than half of the raw materials as dissolved organic solids) is concentrated in
a multiple effect evaporator and a direct contact evaporator to 55 to 60 per-
cent solids. This strong liquor is sprayed into a furnace and burned, pro-
ducing steam to operate the digesters, evaporators, etc. and to meet other
power requirements.
When magnesium base liquor is burned, a flue gas is produced from which
magnesium oxide is recovered in a multiple cyclone as fine white power. The
magnesium oxide is then water slaked and is used as circulating liquor in a
series of venturi scrubbers, which are designed to absorb sulfur dioxide from
the flue gas and to form a bisulfite solution for use in the cook cycle. When
sodium base liquor is burned, the inorganic compounds are recovered as a molten
smelt containing sodium sulfide and sodium carbonate. This smelt may be pro-
cessed further and used to absorb sulfur dioxide from the flue gas and sulfur
burner. In some sodium base mills, however, the smelt may be sold to a nearby
kraft mill as raw material for producing green liquor.
If liquor recovery is not practiced, an acid plant is necessary of suf-
ficient capacity to fulfill the mill's total sulfite requirement. Normally,
sulfur is burned in a rotary or spray burner. The gas produced is then cooled
by heat exhangers and a water spray and is then absorbed in a variety of dif-
ferent scrubbers containing either limestone or a solution of the base chemical.
Where recovery is practiced, fortification is accomplished similarly, although
a much smaller amount of sulfur dioxide must be produced to make up for that
lost in the process.
Emissions And Controls^- - Sulfur dioxide is generally considered the major
pollutant of concern from sulfite pulp mills. The characteristic "kraft" odor
is not emitted because volatile reduced sulfur compounds are not products of
the lignin/bisulfite reaction.
A major S02 source is the digester and blow pit (dump tank) system. Sul-
fur dioxide is present in the intermittent digester relief gases, as well as in
the gases given off at the end of the cook when the digester contents are dis-
charged into the blow pit. The quantity of sulfur dioxide evolved and emitted
to the atmosphere in these gas streams depends on the pH of the cooking liquor,
the pressure at which the digester contents are discharged, and the effective-
ness of the absorption systems employed for SC>2 recovery. Scrubbers can be
installed that reduce S02 from this source by as much as 99 percent.
10/86 Wood Products Industry 10.1-13
-------
Another source of sulfur dioxide emissions is the recovery system. Since
magnesium, sodium, and ammonium base recovery systems all use absorption systems
to recover SC>2 generated in recovery furnaces, acid fortification towers, mul-
tiple effect evaporators, etc., the magnitude of SC>2 emissions depends on the
desired efficiency of these systems. Generally, such absorption systems recover
better than 95 percent of the sulfur so it can be reused.
The various pulp washing, screening, and cleaning operations are also
potential sources of SC>2• These operations are numerous and may account for a
significant fraction of a mill's SC>2 emissions if not controlled.
The only significant particulate source in the pulping and recovery pro-
cess is the absorption system handling the recovery furnace exhaust. Ammonium
base systems generate less particulate than do magnesium or sodium base systems.
The combustion productions are mostly nitrogen, water vapor and sulfur dioxide.
Auxiliary power boilers also produce emissions in the sulfite pulp mill,
and emission factors for these boilers are presented in Chapter 1.
Table 10.1-8 contains emission factors for the various sulfite pulping
operations.
10.1.4 Neutral Sulfite Semichemical (NSSC) Pulping
Process Description"' 12-14 _ jn this method, wood chips are cooked in a
neutral solution of sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate. Sulfite ions react
with the lignin in wood, and the sodium bicarbonate acts as a buffer to maintain
a neutral solution. The major difference between all semichemical techniques
and those of kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only a portion of the
lignin is removed during the cook, after which the pulp is further reduced by
mechanical disintegration. This method achieves yields as high as 60 to 80
percent, as opposed to 50 to 55 percent for other chemical processes.
The NSSC process varies from mill to mill. Some mills dispose of their
spent liquor, some mills recover the cooking chemicals, and some, when operated
in conjunction with kraft mills, mix their spent liquor with the kraft liquor
as a source of makeup chemcials. When recovery is practiced, the involved
steps parallel those of the sulfite process.
Emissions And Controls^,12-14 _ Particulate emissions are a potential prob-
lem only when recovery systems are involved. Mills that do practice recovery
but are not operated in conjunction with kraft operations often utilize fluid-
ized bed reactors to burn their spent liquor. Because the flue gas contains
sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate dust, efficient particulate collection may
be included for chemical recovery.
A potential gaseous pollutant is sulfur dioxide. Absorbing towers, diges-
ter/blower tank system, and recovery furnace are the main sources of S02, with
amounts emitted dependent upon the capability of the scrubbing devices installed
for control and recovery.
Hydrogen sulfide can also be emitted from NSSC mills which use kraft type
recovery furnaces. The main potential source is the absorbing tower, where a
10.1-14 EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
TABLE 10.1-8. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFITE PULPING3
Source
Digester/blow pit or
dump tankc
Recovery system6
Acid plantf
Otherh
Base
All
MgO
MgO
MgO
MgO
NH3
NHj
Na
Ca
MgO
NH3
Na
NH3
Na
Ca
All
Control
None
Process change1*
Scrubber
Process change and
scrubber
All exhaust vented through
recovery system
Process change
Process change and
scrubber
Process change and
scrubber
Unknown
Multlcyclone and venturl
scrubbers
Ammonia absorption and
mist eliminator
Sodium carbonate scrubber
Scrubber
UnknownS
Jenssen scrubber
None
Emission factorb
Partlculate
kg/ADUMg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
1
0.35
2
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Ib/ADUT
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
2
0.7
4
Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg
Sulfur dioxide
kg/ADUMg
5 to 35
1 to 3
0.5
0.1
0
12.5
0.2
1
33.5
4.5
3.5
1
0.2
0.1
4
6
Ib/ADUT
10 to 70
2 to 6
1
0.2
0
25
0.4
2
67
9
7
2
0.3
0.2
8
12
Emission
Factor
Rating
C
C
B
B
A
D
B
C
C
A
B
C
C
D
C
D
aReference 11. All factors represent long term average emissions. ADUMg " Air dried unbleached megagram.
ADUT » Air dried unbleached ton. Neg » negligible.
''Expressed as kg (Ib) of pollutant/air dried unbleached ton (mg) of pulp.
cFactors represent emissions after cook is completed and when digester contents are discharged into blow pit or
dump tank. Some relief gases are vented from digester during cook cycle, but these are usually transferred to
pressure accumulators and S02 therein reabsorbed for use in cooking liquor. In some mills, actual emissions
will be intermittent and for short periods.
May include such measures as raising cooking liquor pH (thereby lowering free 802), relieving digester
pressure before contents discharge, and pumping out digester contents instead of blowing out.
eRecovery system at most mills is closed and includes recovery furnace, direct contact evaporator, multiple
effect evaporator, acid fortification tower, and S02 absorption scrubbers. Generally only one emission point
for entire system. Factors include high S02 emissions during periodic purging of recovery systems.
^Necessary in mills with insufficient or nonexistent recovery systems.
SControl is practiced, but -type of system is unknown.
^Includes miscellaneous pulping operations such as knotters, washers, screens, etc.
10/86
Wood Products Industry
10.1-15
-------
significant quantity of hydrogen sulfite is liberated as the cooking liquor is
made. Other possible sources, depending on the operating conditions, include
the recovery furnace, and in mills where some green liquor is used in the cook-
ing process, the digester/blow tank system. Where green liquor is used, it
is also possible that significant quantities of mercaptans will be produced.
Hydrogen sulfide emissions can be eliminated if burned to sulfur dioxide before
the absorbing system.
Because the NSSC process differs greatly from mill to mill, and because
of the scarcity of adequate data, no emission factors are presented for this
process.
References for Section 10.1
1 . Review of New Source Performance Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/
3-83-017, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1983.
2 . Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Proposed
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2-76-014a, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September
1976.
3. Kraft Pulping - Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills, EPA-450/78-
003b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 1979.
4 . Environmental Pollution Control, Pulp and Paper Industry, Part I: Air,
EPA-625/7-76-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
October 1976.
5. A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Lime Kilns, Technical Bulletin
Number 107, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, New York, NY, April 1980.
6. A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Large Kraft Recovery Furnaces,
Technical Bulletin Number 111, National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY, January 1981.
7. Source Category Report for the Kraft Pulp Industry, EPA Contract Number
68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, January 1983.
8. Source test data, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.
9. Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry,
EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, September 1973.
10. Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Selected Combustion Sources Based on Short-
Term Monitoring Records, Technical Bulleting Number 416, National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, NY,
January 1984.
10.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
11. Backgound Document; Acid Sulfite Pulping, EPA-450/3-77-005, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1977.
12. E. R. Hendrickson, et al., Control of Atmospheric Emissions in the Wood
Pulping Industry, Volume I, HEW Contract Number CPA-22-69-18, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 15, 1970.
13. M. Benjamin, et al., "A General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping and
Bleaching Processes", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, ^9_
(3):155-161, March 1969.
14. S. F. Galeano and B. M. Dillard, "Process Modifications for Air Pollution
Control in Neutral Sulfite Semi-chemical Mills", Journal of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Association. 22(3):195-199, March 1972.
10/86 Wood Products Industry 10.1-17
-------
11.2.6 INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS
11.2.6.1 General
Various field studies have indicated that dust emissions from industrial
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 unpaved 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 varies
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 particular 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 microns in diameter) in
the road surface material.^"^ xhe silt fraction is determined by measuring 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 -jhe road surface dust loading
is that loose material which can be collected by broom sweeping and vacuuming of
the traveled portion of the paved road. Table 11.2.6-1 summarizes measured silt
and loading values for industrial paved roads.
11.2.6.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equations
The quantity of total suspended particulate emissions generated by vehicle
traffic on dry industrial paved roads, per vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) or
vehicle mile traveled (VMT) may be estimated, with a rating of B or D (see
below), using the following empirical expression^:
E ' °-022 ' °'' (kg/VKT) ("
°'7
where: E = emission factor
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 (ton)
9/85 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.6-1
-------
TABLE 11.2.6-1. TYPICAL SILT CONTENT AND LOADING VALUES FOR PAVED ROADS
AT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES3
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel
production
No. of
No. of No. of Silt (Zi w/w) Travel Total loading x 10~3
Sites Samples Range Mean lanes Range
1 3 [15.4-21.7] [19.0] 2 [12.9-19.5]
[45.8-69.2]
6 20 1.1-35.7 12.5 2 0.006-4.77
Mean
[15.9]
[55.4]
0.495
Units6
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Silt loading
Range Mean
[188-400] [292]
0.09-79 12
Iron and steel
production 6
Asphalt batching 1
Concrete batching 1
Sand and gravel
processing 1
20
3
3
3
1
[2
[5
[6
.1-35.7
.6-4.6]
.2-6.0]
.4-7.9]
12
[3
[5
[7
.5
.3]
.5)
•U
2 0.006-4.77
0.020-16.9
1 [12.1-18.0]
[43.0-64.0]
2 [1.4-1.8]
[5.0-6.4]
1 [2.8-5.5]
[9.9-19.4]
0.495
1.75
[14.
[52.
[1.
(5.
[3.
[13.
9]
8]
7]
9]
8]
3]
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/ml
kg/km
Ib/mi
0.09-79
[76-193]
[11-12]
[53-95]
12
[120]
[12]
[70]
"References 1-5. Brackets indicate values based on only one plant test.
bMultlply entries by 1,000 to obtain stated units.
The industrial road augmentation factor (I) in the Equation 1 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 where 20 percent of the vehicles
are forced to travel temporarily with one set of wheels on the shoulder. I =
1.0 for cases in which traffic does not travel on unpaved areas. A value
between 1.0 and 7.0 which best represents conditions for paved roads at a
certain industrial facility should be used for I in the equation.
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:
Silt
content
(%)
5.1 - 92
Surface loading
kg /km
42.0 - 2000
Ib/mile
149 - 7100
No. of
lanes
2-4
Vehicle weight
Mg tons
2.7 - 12 3-13
If I is >1.0, the rating of the equation drops to D because of the subjectivity
in the guidelines for estimating I.
The quantity of fine particle emissions generated by traffic consisting
predominately of medium and heavy duty vehicles on dry industrial paved roads,
per vehicle unit of travel, may be estimated, with a rating of A, using the
I
11.2.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
9/85
-------
APPENDIX B
(Reserved for future use.)
Appendix B B-l
-------
APPENDIX C.I
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND SIZED EMISSION FACTORS
FOR
SELECTED SOURCES
C.l-1
-------
C.l-2 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
CONTENTS
AP-42
Section Page
Introduction C. 1-5
1.8 Bagasse Boiler C.l-6
2.1 Refuse Incineration
Municipal Waste Mass Burn Incinerator C.l-8
Municipal Waste Modular Incinerator C.l-10
4.2 Automobile Spray Booth C.l-12
5.3 Carbon Black: Off Gas Boiler C.l-14
5.15 Detergent Spray Dryer TBA
5.17 Sulfuric Acid
Absorber C.l-18
Absorber, 20% Oleum C.l-20
Absorber, 32% Oleum C.l-22
Absorber, Secondary C.l-24
5.xx Boric Acid Dryer C.l-26
5.xx Potash Dryer
Potassium Chloride C.l-28
Potassium Sulfate C.l-30
6.1 Alfalfa Dehydrating - Primary Cyclone C.l-32
6.3 Cotton Ginning
Battery Condenser C.l-34
Lint Cleaner Air Exhaust C.l-36
Roller Gin Gin Stand TBA
Saw Gin Gin Stand TBA
Roller Gin Bale Press TBA
Saw Gin Bal e Press TBA
6.4 Feed And Grain Mills And Elevators
Carob Kibble Roaster C.l-44
Cereal Dryer C.l-46
Grain Unloading In Country Elevators C.l-48
Grain Conveying C.l-50
Rice Dryer C.l-52
6.18 Ammonium Sulfate Fertilizer Dryer C.l-54
7.1 Primary Aluminum Production
Bauxite Processing - Fine Ore Storage C.l-56
Bauxite Processing - Unloading From Ore Ship C.l-58
7.13 Steel Foundries
Castings Shakeout C.l-60
Open Hearth Exhaust C.l-62
7.15 Storage Battery Production
Grid Casting C.l-64
Grid Casting And Paste Mixing C.l-66
Lead Oxide Mill C.l-68
Paste Mixing; Lead Oxide Charging C.l-70
Three Process Operation C.1-72
7.xx Batch Tinner •. C.l-74
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-3
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
AP-42
Section Page
8.9 Coal Cleaning
Dry Process C.l-76
Thermal Dryer C. 1-78
Thermal Incinerator C.l-80
8.18 Phosphate Rock Processing
Calciner C.1-82
Dryer - Oil Fired Rotary And Fluidized Bed C.l-84
Dryer - Oil Fired Rotary C.l-86
Ball Mill C.l-88
Grinder - Roller And Bowl Mill C.l-90
8.xx Feldspar Ball Mill C.l-92
8.xx Fluorspar Ore Rotary Drum Dryer C.l-94
8.xx Lightweight Aggregate
Clay - Coal Fired Rotary Kiln C.l-96
Clay - Dryer C.l-98
Clay - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.1-100
Shale - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.1-102
Slate - Coal Fired Rotary Kiln C. 1-104
Slate - Reciprocating Grate Clinker Cooler C.1-106
8.xx Nonmetallic Minerals - Talc Pebble Mill C.1-108
10.4 Woodworking Waste Collection Operations
Belt Sander Hood Exhaust C.1-110
C.l-4 EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
APPENDIX C.I
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
AND
SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES
Introduction
This Appendix presents particle size distributions and emission factors
for miscellaneous sources or processes for which documented emission data were
available. Generally, the sources of data used to develop particle size
distributions and emission factors for this Appendix were:
1) Source test reports in the files of the Emission Measurement Branch
(EMB) of EPA's Emission Standards And Engineering Division, Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards.
2) Source test reports in the Fine Particle Emission Information System
(FPEIS), a computerized data base maintained by EPA's Air And Energy Engineer-
ing Research Laboratory, Office Of Research And Development.
3) A series of source tests titled Fine Particle Emissions From Station-
ary And Miscellaneous Sources In The South Coast Air Basin, by H. J. Taback.^
4) Particle size distribution data reported in the literature by various
individuals and companies.
Particle size data from FPEIS were mathematically normalized into more
uniform and consistent data. Where EMB tests and Taback report data were
filed in FPEIS, the normalized data were used in developing this Appendix.
Information on each source category in Appendix C.I is presented in a two
page format. For a source category, a graph provided on the first page presents
a particle size distribution expressed as the cumulative weight percent of
particles less than a specified aerodynamic diameter (cut point), in micro-
meters. A sized emission factor can be derived from the mathematical product
of a mass emission factor and the cumulative weight percent of particles smaller
than a specific cut point in the graph. At the bottom of the page is a table
of numerical values for particle size distributions and sized emission factors,
in micrometers, at selected values of aerodynamic particle diameter. The
second page gives some information on the data used to derive the particle size
distributions.
Portions of the Appendix denoted TEA in the table of contents refer to
information which will be added at a later date.
Appendix C.I C.l-5
-------
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION -
1.8 BAGASSE FIRED BOILER
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
"
90
0)
4-1
flj 80
03
V
bfl
70
60
50
40
30
20
,3 10
i
a <
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
1.5
M
9
H-
05
cn
H.
o
3
i.o to
o
rr
O
0.5
0.0
3 4 5 4 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Wet scrubber controlled
46.3
70.5
97.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Wet scrubber controlled
0.37
0.56
0.78
C.l-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION - 1.8 BAGASSE FIRED BOILER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 46.3 70.5 97.1
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 0.9 0.9 1.9
Min (Cum. %): 45.4 69.6 95.2
Max (Cum. %): 47.2 71.4 99.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Approximately 0.8 kg particulate/Mg bagasse
charged to boiler. This factor is derived from AP-42, Section 1.8, 4/77, which
states that the particulate emission factor from an uncontrolled bagasse fired
boiler is 8 kg/Mg and that wet scrubbers typically provide 90% particulate
control.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a Riley Stoker Corp. vibrating grate spreader
stoker boiler rated at 120,000 Ib/hr but operated during this testing at 121%
of rating. Average steam temperature and pressure were 579°F and 199 psig
respectively. Bagasse feed rate could not be measured, but was estimated to be
about 41 (wet) tons/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Anderson Cascade impactor.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, U. S. Sugar Company, Bryant, Fl, EMB-80-WFB-6,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
May 1980.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-7
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
»•« 50
•U 40
f.
y 30
CO
V
0)
a
o
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
— Weight percent
• — Emission factor
lllil
• » 2.0
10.0
M
,.o B.
CO
n
o
3
»
O
4.0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, um
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
26.0
30.6
38.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
3.9
4.6
5.7
C.l-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MASS BURN INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS: 7, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (urn):
Mean (Cum. %):
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
2.5
6.0
10.0
26.0 30.6 38.0
9.5 13.0 14.0
18 22 24
40 49 54
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged,
Emission factor from AP-42 Section 2.1.
SOURCE OPERATION: Municipal incinerators reflected in the data base include
various mass burning facilities of typical design and operation.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Unknown.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Determination Of Uncontrolled Emissions, Product 2B, Montgomery County,
Maryland, Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, August 1984.
10/86
Appendix C.I
C.l-9
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
99.9
99
98
ZO
cd
rH
3
2
I
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
-•— Weight percent
Emission factor
10.0
w
B
H-
8.0 GO
cn
o
3
Hi
0)
O
rr
O
i-l
0?
4.0
2.0
4S67S910 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
40 SO 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
54.0
60.1
67.1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
8.1
9.0
10.1
C.l-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
2.1 REFUSE INCINERATION: MUNICIPAL WASTE MODULAR INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 54.0 60.1 67.1
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 19.0 20.8 23.2
Min (Cum. %): 34.5 35.9 37.5
Max (Cum. %): 79.9 86.6 94.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 15 kg of particulate/Mg of refuse charged.
Emission factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Modular incinerator (2 chambered) operation was at 75.9% of
the design process rate (10,000 Ib/hr) and 101.2% of normal steam production
rate. Natural gas is required to start the incinerator each week. Average
waste charge tate was 1.983T/hr. Net heating value of garbage 4200-4800 BTU/lb
garbage charged.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, City of Salem, Salem, Va, EMB-80-WFB-1, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1980.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-11
-------
4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE & LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER BASE ENAMEL)
0)
N
09
•o
0)
4J
CO
JJ
w
V
&•"?
*
•H
§
(U
>
•H
4J
(0
iH
a
5
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
-
-
_
m
/
/
'
/ -
x/ ^^
B^**^ /
/
X
/
M*
«•
••
CONTROLLED
-*- Weight percent
Emission factor
• • i ,,.,,, , , ,,,,,,
3.0
M
^.
CO
0)
s-
3
2-° «.
ractor,
TO
~^.
TO
1.0
0.0
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Water curtain controlled
28.6
38.2
46.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Water curtain controlled
1.39
1.85
2.26
C.l-12
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
4.2.2.8 AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS:
AUTOMOBILE SPRAY BOOTHS (WATER BASE ENAMEL)
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after water curtain control.
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 28.6 38.2 46.7
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 14.0 16.8 20.6
Min (Cum. %): 15.0 21.4 26.1
Max (Cum. %): 42.2 54.9 67.2
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 4.84 kg particulate/Mg of water base
enamel sprayed. From References a and b.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a water base enamel spray booth in an automotive
assembly plant. Enamel spray rate is 568 Ibs/hour, but spray gun type is not
identified. The spray booth exhaust rate is 95,000 scfm. Water flow rate to
the water curtain control device is 7181 gal/min. Source is operating at 84%
of design rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: SASS and Joy trains with cyclones.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 234, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-13
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFF GAS BOILER
99.9
99
98
N "
•H
CO
•o90
(U
4J
« 80
V
70
60
50
§30
£20
10
g
U
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
X
X
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
1.75
1.50
w
B
H-
CO
01
o
3
a>
o
rt
o
•i
7?
OQ
I
1.25
* 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
I i i I I 1.00
40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.3
95.0
97.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
1.40
1.52
1.55
C.l-14
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.3 CARBON BLACK: OIL FURNACE PROCESS OFF GAS BOILER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted at off gas boiler outlet
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 87.3 95.0 97.0
Standard Deviation (Cum. %): 2.3 3.7 8.0
Min (Cum. %): 76.0 90.0 94.5
Max (Cum. %): 94.0 99 100
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.6 kg particulate/Mg carbon black produced,
from reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Process operation: "normal" (production rate = 1900 kg/hr).
Product is collected in fabric filter, but the off gas boiler outlet is
uncontrolled.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Phillips Petroleum Company, Toledo, OH, EMB-
73-CBK-l, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, September 1974.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-15
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
0)
N
•a
cu
4J
CO
4-1
CO
V
4-1
A
99.99
99.9
99
98
90
80
70
60
50
01 30
s
10
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
>- Weight percent
.. Emission factor (0.2)
— Emission factor (2.0)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
H
CO
CO
o
0
B>
n
rf
o
€
OQ
5 6 7 8 9 10
20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
51.2
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
(0.2) (2.0)
0.10
0.20
0.20
1.0
2.0
2.0
C.l-18
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER (ACID ONLY)
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 51.2 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.2 to 2.0 kg acid mist/Mg sulfur charged,
for uncontrolled 98% acid plants burning elemental sulfur. Emission factors
are from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-19
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
N
•H 90
CO
a)
jj
CO
v
.C
bO
CO
3
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
97.5
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 5.17-2
C.l-20
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 20% OLEUM
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn)*: 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mean (Cum. %): 26 50 73
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid
plants are a function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product.
See AP-42 Section 5.17, Table 5.17-2.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document; Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
'100% of the particulate is less than 2.5 urn in diameter.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-21
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
0)
N
"«> 90
0)
4J
CO
u
(0
V
•u
bo
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
100
100
100
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
See Table 5.17-2
C.l-22
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: ABSORBER, 32% OLEUM
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn)*: 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mean (Cum. %): 41 63 84
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid
plants are a function of type of feed as well as oleum content of product. See
AP-42 Section 5.17, Table 5.17-2.
SOURCE OPERATION: Not available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brink Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. Final Guideline Document; Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1977.
b. R. W. Kurek, Special Report On EPA Guidelines For State Emission Stand-
ards For Sulfuric Acid Plant Mist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington, DE, June 1974.
c. J. A. Brink, Jr., "Cascade Impactor For Adiabatic Measurements", Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry, 50:647, April 1958.
100% of the particulate is less than 2.5 urn in diameter.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-23
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
99.99
99.9
99
98
V
N 95
•H
00
TJ 9°
V
u
2 8°
00
v 70
»< 60
50
40
Ml
T-l
a
3 30
0)
> 20
i 10
i
> 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
Weight percent
i
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter , um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. 7, <. stated size
Uncontrolled
48
78
87
Emission factor , kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
C.l-24
EMISSION FACTORS-
10/86
-------
5.17 SULFURIC ACID: SECONDARY ABSORBER
NUMBER OF TESTS: Not available
STATISTICS: Particle Size (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 48 78 87
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Acid mist emission factors vary widely
according to type of sulfur feedstock. See AP-42 Section 5.17 for guidance.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is the second absorbing tower in a double absorption
sulfuric acid plant. Acid mist loading is 175 - 350 mg/m^.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack, "Particulate Emissions from Non-fired
Sources in Petroleum Refineries: A Review of Existing Data", Publica-
tion No. 4363, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, December
1982.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-25
-------
5.xx CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY: BORIC ACID DRYER
99. »9
99.9
99
98
d) QS
N 95
•H
co
90
4J
«C 80
4->
CO
70
V
SsS 60
4J 50
j:
W> 40
*^
0)
!* 30
SJ 20
•H
l |
(0
H 10
3
a
3 .
u 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0 01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
— •- Weight percent
-
^
^
*
~ —
;
'
/
"
/
1
' —
_
" / -sS^"^
^f^1^^
^-~^ff ^^
m^^^^^ J^^
/T
/ /
~ x^ / —
/ /
* /
^ '
1 1 Illllll 1 1 Illlll
0.5
0.4
W
1 ',
f— •
0)
CO
H-
O
3
HI
0.3 *
rt
O
i-t
"
7?
0?
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
0.3
3.3
6.9
Fabric filter
3.3
6.7
10.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.01
0.14
0.29
Fabric filter
controlled
0.004
0.007
0.011
C.l-26
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.xx BORIC ACID DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before controls
b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: (a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 0.3 3.3 6.9
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
(b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 3.3 6.7 10.6
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Before control, 4.15 kg particulate/Mg
boric acid dried. After fabric filter control, 0.11 kg particulate/Mg boric
acid dried. Emission factors from Reference a.
SOURCE OPERATION: 100% of design process rate.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with cyclones
b) SASS train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 236, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-27
-------
5.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
•O
0) 80
V
bO
•H
—Weight percent
— Emission factor
CONTROLLED
k- Wt. % high pressure
5.0
4.0
3.0
I
09
CO
H-
O
3
O
i-l
0?
2.0
56789 10
20
0.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
0.95
2.46
4.07
High pressure
drop venturi
scrubber
5.0
7.5
9.0
Emission factor
(kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
0.31
0.81
1.34
C.l-28
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
5.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM CHLORIDE) DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 7, before control
b) 1, after cyclone and high pressure drop venturi scrubber
control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 0.95 2.46 4.07
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 0.68 2.37 4.34
Min (Cum. %): 0.22 0.65 1.20
Max (Cum. %): 2.20 7.50 13.50
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 5.0 7.5 9.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: Uncontrolled emissions of 33 kg particu-
late/Mg of potassium chloride product from dryer, from AP-42 Section 5.16. It
is assumed that particulate emissions from rotary gas fired dryers for potassium
chloride are similar to particulate emissions from rotary steam tube dryers for
sodium carbonate.
SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium chloride is dried in a rotary gas fired dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Andersen Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a) Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-4, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
b) Emission Test Report, Kerr-Magee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-5, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC April 1979.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-29
-------
5.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER
99.9
99
98
95
OU
N
•H 90
co
0) 80
TO
•U 70
CO
v 60
8s? 30
j- *0
•H* 30
»>
9 20
-------
5.xx POTASH (POTASSIUM SULFATE) DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after fabric filter
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 18.0 32.0 43.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 7.5 11.5 14.0
Min (Cum. %): 10.5 21.0 29.0
Max (Cum. %): 24.5 44.0 14.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: After fabric filter control, 0.033 kg
of particulate per Mg of potassium sulfate product from the dryer. Calculated
from an uncontrolled emission factor of 33 kg/Mg and control efficiency of
99.9 %. From Reference a and AP-42 Section 5.16. It is assumed that
particulate emissions from rotary gas fired dryers are similar to those from
rotary steam tube dryers.
SOURCE OPERATION: Potassium sulfate is dried in a rotary gas fired dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a) Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-4, Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
b) Emission Test Report, Kerr-McGee, Trona, CA, EMB-79-POT-5, Office Of Air
Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-31
-------
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
99.9
99
98
0) 95
N
90
80
4J
CO
60
ij 50
J=
e
o
UNCONTROLLED
—•- Weight percent
Emission factor
0.3
cn
en
01
o
o
1-1
7?
V)
-0 ;0
"0 30
0.0
.DC
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cum. wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
70.6
82.7
90.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
3.5
4.1
4.5
C.l-32
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.1 ALFALFA DEHYDRATING: DRUM DRYER PRIMARY CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 70.6 82.7 90.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %)
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.0 kg particulate/Mg alfalfa pellets
before control. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: During this test, source dried 10 tons of alfalfa/hour in a
direct fired rotary dryer.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 152, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-33
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER
0)
N
•H
0)
•o
O
0.050 o
P-)
<•
_
TO
-•v.
o*
95
(D
f
0.006
0.003
0
100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (urn)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
With
cyclone
8
33
62
With cyclone &
wet scrubber
11
26
52
Emission factor (kg/bale)
With
cyclone
0.007
0.028
0.053
With cyclone
& wet scrubber
0.001
0.003
0.006
C.l-34
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING: BATTERY CONDENSER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 2, after cyclone
b) 3, after wet scrubber
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
a) Mean (Cum. %): 8 33 62
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Mean (Cum. %): 11 26 52
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: Particulate emission factor for battery
condensers with typical controls is 0.09 kg (0.19 lb)/bale of cotton. From
AP-42. Factor with wet scrubber after cyclone is 0.012 kg (0.026 lb)/bale.
Scrubber efficiency is 86%. From Reference b.
SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, source was operating at 100% of design capa-
city. No other information on source is available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: UW Mark 3 Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a) Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No. 27, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
b) Robert E. Lee, Jr., et al., "Concentration And Size Of Trace Metal Emis-
sions From A Power Plant, A Steel Plant, And A Cotton Gin", Environmental
Science And Technology, 9(7):643-7, July 1975.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-35
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST
01
N
CO
01
09
V
01
01
(0
rH
3
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
5 6 7 8 9 10
CYCLONE
• Weight percent
Emission factor
CYCLONE AND WET SCRUBBER
—•—Weight percent
0.3
0.2
I
CO
CO
H-
o
3
o
rt
O
0"
PJ
0.1
20
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After
cyclone
1
20
54
After cyclone
& wet scrubber
11
74
92
Emission factor
(kg /bale)
After cyclone
0.004
0.07
0.20
C.l-36
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.3 COTTON GINNING: LINT CLEANER AIR EXHAUST
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 4, after cyclone
b) 4, after cyclone and wet scrubber
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 1 20 54
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (um): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 11 74 92
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.37 kg particulate/bale of cotton
processed, with typical controls. Factor is from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted while processing both machine picked
and ground harvested upland cotton, at a production rate of about 6.8
bales/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Coulter counter.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
S. E. Hughs, et al., "Collecting Particles From Gin Lint Cleaner Air
Exhausts", presented at the 1981 Winter Meeting of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL, December 1981.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-37
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
'99.9
99
98
N
.j_f
w 90
•o
0)
J-" 80
U
w 70
^ 60
6-S
4J 5°
"§> 40
^_f
S 3°
0) 20
<0 10
3
U
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
-
"™
-
.
•
.
.
7
/
//-*
^xy
/
/
"""" UNCONTROLLED
— •— Weight percent
Emission factor
A 1 Illlill 1 A Illlll
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.0
M
s
H-
01
01
M.
O
3
O
rt
O
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
3.0
3.2
9.6
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.11
0.12
0.36
I
C.l-44
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CAROB KIBBLE ROASTER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 3.0 3.2 9.6
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.8 kg/Mg carob kibble roasted. Factor
from Reference a, pg. 4-175.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source roasts 300 kg carob pods per hour, 100% of the design
rate. Roaster heat input is 795 kj/hr of natural gas.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Joy train with 3 cyclones.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 923/AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System Series, Report No. 229, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-45
-------
99.99
99.9
99
98
S 95
•H
CO
-0
90
4-1
O
rr
O
n
0.25
0.0
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
27
37
44
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.20
0.28
0.33
C.l-46
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CEREAL DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 6, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 27 37 44
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 17 18 20
Min (Cum. %): 13 20 22
Max (Cum. %): 47 56 58
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.75 kg particulate/Mg cereal dried.
Factor taken from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Confidential.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data from a major grain processor, PEI Associates,
Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-47
-------
99.99
99.9
99
98
01 9!
N
•O
01
V
90
80
70
60
50
30
rH 10
6
5 5
2
1
0.5
0.01
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
y
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
1.5
i.o
$
H-
CO
CO
H-
O
3
CO
O
It
O
0.5
0.0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wgt. %
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS:
GRAIN UNLOADING IN COUNTRY ELEVATORS
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 13.8 30.5 49.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 3.3 2.5
Min (Cum. %): 10.5 28.0 49.0
Max (Cum. %): 17.0 33.0 49.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.3 kg particulate/Mg of grain unloaded,
without control. Emission factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: During testing, the facility was continuously receiving
wheat of low dockage. The elevator is equipped with a dust collection system
which serves the dump pit boot and leg.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Nelson Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCES:
a. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No. 154, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
b. Emission Test Report, Uniontown Co-op, Elevator No. 2, Uniontown, WA,
Report No. 75-34, Washington State Department Of Ecology, Olympia, WA,
October 1975.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-49
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
0)
CO
CO
V
81
CJ
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
£ 10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
>— Weight percent
-— Emission factor
0.3
rt
CO
CO
H-
O
o
i-h
CO
n
rt
o
H
0.1
o
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
16.8
41.3
69.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.08
0.21
0.35
C.l-50
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: CONVEYING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 16.8 41.3 69.4
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 6.9 16.3 27.3
Min (Cum. %): 9.9 25.0 42.1
Max (Cum. %): 23.7 57.7 96.6
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.5 kg particulate/Mg of grain processed,
without control. Emission factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Grain is unloaded from barges by "marine leg" buckets lifting
the grain from the barges and discharging it onto an enclosed belt conveyer,
which transfers the grain to the elevator. These tests measured the combined
emissions from the "marine leg" bucket unloader and the conveyer transfer
points. Emission rates averaged 1956 Ibs particulate/hour (0.67 kg/Mg grain
unloaded). Grains are corn and soy beans.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Model B Cascade Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corporation, Destrehan, LA, EMB-74-
GRN-7, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, January 1974.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-51
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: RICE DRYER
99.9
99
98
0) „.
N 95
,.,-J
fn
09
01
4J
« 80
u
CO
v 70
8^ 60
Jd 5°
W)
•H 40
> 30
> 20
•H
CO
•-j 10
3
2
CJ 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
/
1
1
1
t
" 1
1 ^
/'
/
t
1
1
- f
/
t
/ "**
/
t
1
9
1
1 -
1 /
t /
1 /
1 /
1 ^^
1 ^^^ ^
^^f
t
1
t
J
UNCONTROLLED
-•— Weight percent
Emission factor
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.015
W
H»
0)
CO
l_l.
o
l-tl
0.010 pi
n
rt
O
"•
?T
TO
"^
TO
0.005
0.00
100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
Particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < Stated Size
Uncontrolled
2.0
8.0
19.5
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
0.003
0.01
0.029
C.l-52
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
6.4 FEED AND GRAIN MILLS AND ELEVATORS: RICE DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted on uncontrolled source.
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic Particle Diameter' (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 2.0 8.0 19.5
Standard Deviation (Cum. %): - 3.3 9.4
Min (Cum. %): 2.0 3.1 10.1
Max (Cum. %): 2.0 9.7 28.9
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.15 kg particulate/Mg of rice dried.
Factor from AP-42, Table 6.4-1, footnote b for column dryer.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operated at 100% of rated capacity, drying 90.8 Mg
rice/hr. The dryer is heated by four 9.5 kg/hr burners.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Sass train with cyclones.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCES:
a. H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, PB 293 9237AS, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 228, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-53
-------
6.18 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
99.99
99.9
99
98
-------
6.18 AMMONIUM SULFATE FERTILIZER: ROTARY DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control.
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn) 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 10.8 49.1 98.6
Standard Deviation (Cum. %): 5.1 21.5 1.8
Min (Cum. %): 4.5 20.3 96.0
Max (Cum. %): 17.0 72.0 100.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 23 kg particulate/Mg of ammonium sulfate
produced. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Testing was conducted at three ammonium sulfate plants
operating rotary dryers within the following production parameters:
Plant A C D
% of design process rate 100.6 40.1 100
production rate, Mg/hr 16.4 6.09 8.4
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Cascade Impactors
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture - Background Information For Proposed
Emission Standards, EPA-450/3-79-034a> U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1979.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-55
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
FINE ORE STORAGE
99.99
99.9
99
98
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
FINE ORE STORAGE
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 50.0 62.0 68.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 15.0 19.0 20.0
Min (Cum. %): 35.0 43.0 48.0
Max (Cum. %): 65.0 81.0 88.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0005 kg particulate/Mg of ore filled,
with fabric filter control. Factor calculated from emission and process data
in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina. Bauxite ore,
unloaded from ships, is conveyed to storage bins from which it is fed to the
alumina refining process. These tests measured the emissions from the bauxite
ore storage bin filling operation (the ore drop from the conveyer into the bin),
after fabric filter control. Normal bin filling rate is between 425 and 475
tons per hour.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-
80-MET-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, May 1980.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-57
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
99.99
99.9
99
98
01
N 95
•H
CO
-O 9°
0
•H
60
50
30
01
> 20
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
0.0075
H-
CO
CO
H-
O
3
0.0050 »
£
0.0025
0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC.
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Wet
scrubber controlled
60.5
67.0
70.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Wet scrubber
controlled
0.0024
0.0027
0.0028
C.l-58
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.1 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION: BAUXITE PROCESSING
UNLOADING ORE FROM SHIP
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, after venturi scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 60.5 67.0 70.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.004 kg particulate/Mg bauxite ore unloaded
after scrubber control. Factor calculated from emission and process data
contained in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: The facility purifies bauxite to alumina. Ship unloading
facility normally operates at 1500-1700 tons/hr, using a self contained
extendable boom conveyor that interfaces with a dockside conveyor belt through
an accordion chute. The emissions originate at the point of transfer of the
bauxite ore from the ship's boom conveyer as the ore drops through the the
chute onto the dockside conveyer. Emissions are ducted to a dry cyclone and
then to a Venturi scrubber. Design pressure drop across scrubber is 15 inches,
and efficiency during test was 98.4 percent.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Reynolds Metals Company, Corpus Christi, TX, EMB-
80-MET-9, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, May 1980.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-59
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
^9.99
99.9
99
98
g
90
T)
V
4_l
to 8°
JJ
CO
V
§
70
60
50
30
20
10
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
15
M
S
H-
CD
CO
H-
O
10
O
rr
O
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontroll ed
72.2
76.3
82.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontroll ed
11.6
12.2
13.1
C.l-60
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: CASTINGS SHAKEOUT
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted at castings shakeout exhaust hood before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 72.2 76.3 82.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 5.4 6.9 4.3
Min (Cum. %): 66.7 69.5 77.7
Max (Cum. %): 77.6 83.1 86.3
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 16 kg particulate/Mg metal melted, without
controls. Although no nonfurnace emission factors are available for steel
foundries, emissions are presumed to be similar to those in iron foundries.
Nonfurnace emission factors for iron foundries are presented in AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a steel foundry casting steel pipe. Pipe molds
are broken up at the castings shakeout operation. No additional information is
available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Model BMS-11 Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 117, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-61
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST
0)
N
0>
JJ
cd
4J
CO
V
99. S
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
M 30
20
01
g
(0
§
u
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight Percent
• Emission factor
- 8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
g
i-h
O
4.0 rt
O
0X3
3.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
79.6
82.8
85.4
ESP
49.3
58.6
66.8
Emission Factor (kg/Mg)
Uncontrolled
4.4
4.5
4.7
ESP
0.14
0.16
0.18
C.l-62
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.13 STEEL FOUNDRIES: OPEN HEARTH EXHAUST
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before control
b) 1, conducted after ESP control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 79.6 82.8 85.4
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 49.3 58.6 66.8
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 5.5 kg particulate/Mg metal processed,
before control. Emission factor from AP-42. AP-42 gives an ESP control
efficiency of 95 to 98.5%. At 95% efficiency, factor after ESP control is
0.275 kg particulate/Mg metal processed.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces steel castings by melting, alloying, and
casting pig iron and steel scrap. During these tests, source was operating at
100% of rated capacity of 8260 kg metal scrap feed/hour, fuel oil fired, and 8
hour heats.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
b) Sass train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 233, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-63
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING
11. It
99.9
99
98
95
0)
N
•* 90
00
"S 8°
JJ
(0
£J 70
CO
60
V
M 50
•£ 40
•H1 30
0)
3 20
0)
IJ 10
Q)
2 5
O
2
1
0.5
0.1
0. 01
/
/
/
/
/
/
» /
^
_
^ .^» <^B .^ —
^ ^
^s
_^x
- S
'
.
-
.
_
-
-
UNCONTROLLED
— •— Weight percent
Emission factor
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
100
01
CO
H)
Pi
It
O
cr
0>
09
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
87.8
100
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
1.25
1.42
1.42
C.l-64
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 87.8 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 10.3
Min (Cum. %): 75.4 100 100
Max (Cum. %): 100 100 100
Impactor cut points were so small that most data points had to be
extrapolated.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.42 kg particulate/103 batteries
produced, without controls. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, plant was operated at 39% of design process
rate. Six of nine of the grid casting machines were operating during the test,
Typically, 26,500 to 30,000 pounds of lead per 24 hour day are charged to the
grid casting operation.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-65
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING
99.99
N
•H
00
•O
4J
03
V
.C
W)
•H
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: GRID CASTING AND PASTE MIXING
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 65.1 90.4 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 24.8 7.4
Min (Cum. %): 44.1 81.9 100
Max (Cum. %): 100 100 100
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.38 kg particulate/103 batteries,
without controls. Factor is from AP-42, and is the sum of the individual
factors for grid casting and paste mixing.
SOURCE OPERATION: During tests, plant was operated at 39% of the design
process rate. Grid casting operation consists of 4 machines. Each 2,000 Ib/hr
paste mixer is controlled for product recovery by a separate low energy impinge-
ment type wet collector designed for an 8 - 10 inch w. g. pressure drop at
2,000 acfm.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EKB-76-BAT-4,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-67
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: LEAD OXIDE MILL
99.9
99
98
95
OJ
N
•H 90
CO
V 80
(0
W 70
CO
V 60
^ 50
4j 40
M
•H 30
* 20
>
•H
J-) 10
M
B 5
g
O
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
1
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (ui
2.5
6.0
10.0
-
f
1
^ i
/
1
i P
I /
/ /
//
^*
" S*
;/ 1
/s .
,/ /
/
f
/
/
/
/
• i i i i i i i i
2 3 4 56789 10
Particle diamet«
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
n) After fabric filter
32.8
64.7
83.8
-
-
—
—
—
CONTROLLED
-•— Weight percent
— Emission factor
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
>r, urn
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
After fabric filtei
0.016
0.032
0.042
0.05
9
0.0* »
H*
o
o
f-tl
0>
rt
O
1
0.03 "
;«r
«
o
Co
cr
o>
rf
0.02 n
i*
n>
CO
0.01
o
100
C.l-68
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: LEAD OXIDE MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted after fabric filter
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 32.8 64.7 83.8
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 14.1 29.8 19.5
Min (Cum. %): 17.8 38.2 61.6
Max (Cum. %): 45.9 97.0 100
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.05 kg particulate/103 batteries, after
typical fabric filter control (oil to cloth ratio of 4:1). Emissions from a
well controlled facility (fabric filters with an average air to cloth ratio of
3:1) were 0.025 kg/103 batteries (Table 7.15-1 of AP-42).
SOURCE OPERATION: Plant receives metallic lead and manufactures lead oxide by
the ball mill process. There are 2 lead oxide production lines, each with a
typical feed rate of 15 one hundred pound lead pigs per hour. Product is
collected with a cyclone and baghouses with 4:1 air to cloth ratios.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario,
EMB-76-BAT-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-69
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING & LEAD OXIDE CHARGING
99.99
99.9
N
i-l
00
73
0)
V
JJ
bC
•H
SI
§1
JJ 10
UNCONTROLLED
• • Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
—•—Weight percent
0.01
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
80
100
100
Fabric filter
47
87
99
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
1.58
1.96
1.96
C.l-70
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: PASTE MIXING & LEAD OXIDE CHARGING
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before control
b) 4, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 80 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 47 87 99
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 33.4 14.5 0.9
Min (Cum. %): 36 65 98
Max (Cum. %): 100 100 100
Impactor cut points were so small that many data points had to be extra-
polated. Reliability of particle size distributions based on a single test
is questionable.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.96 kg particulate/103 batteries,
without controls. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: During test, plant was operated at 39% of the design
process rate. Plant has normal production rate of 2,400 batteries per day and
maximum capacity of 4,000 batteries per day. Typical amount of lead oxide
charged to the mixer is 29,850 lb/8 hour shift. Plant produces wet batteries,
except formation is carried out at another plant.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Brinks Impactor
b) Andersen
EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Globe Union, Inc., Canby, OR, EMB-76-BAT-4,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-71
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE PROCESS OPERATION
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
01
N
T)
01 80
•M 70
\y 60
X 50
£ 40
bO
•H 30
* 20
ifl
3
10
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•—Weight percent
Emission factor
lkl
AS
40
35
w
w
CO
H-
O
9
l-h
Pi
O
ft
O
f(
Jf
CT-
0)
ft
(T
(D
(D
CO
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
93.4
100
100
Emission factor
(kg/103 batteries)
Uncontrolled
39.3
42
42
C.l-72
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
7.15 STORAGE BATTERY PRODUCTION: THREE PROCESS OPERATION
NUMBER OF TESTS: 3, conducted before control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 93.4 100 100
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 6.43
Min (Cum. %): 84.7
Max (Cum. %): 100
Impactor cut points were so small that data points had to be
extrapolated.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 42 kg particulate/103 batteries, before
controls. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Plant representative stated that the plant usually operated
at 35% of design capacity. Typical production rate is 3,500 batteries per day
(dry and wet), but up to 4,500 batteries per day can be produced. This is
equivalent to normal and maximum daily element production of 21,000 and 27,000
battery elements, respectively.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, ESB Canada Limited, Mississouga, Ontario,
EMB-76-BAT-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, August 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-73
-------
7.xx BATCH TINNER
99.99
99.9
99
98
0>
N
•H
CO
•o
CD
90
CD 80
j_i
70
50
CU
I* 30
gl 20
•H
U
CO
.H 10
j.
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
2.0
w
a
H.
CO
CO
H-
o
o
H>
V
o
rr
O
TO
1.0
0.0
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Uncontrolled
37.2
45.9
55.9
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.93
1.15
1.40
C.l-74
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
I
-------
7.xx BATCH TINNER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 37.2 45.9 55.9
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 2.5 kg particulate/Mg tin consumed, without
controls. Factor from AP-42, Section 7.14.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a batch operation applying a lead/tin coating to
tubing. No further source operating information is available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-75
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
99.99
99.9
99
98
N 95
•H
CO
•a 90
0)
CO 80
CO
V
t>0
•H
01
i
70
60
50
30
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
0.004
0.003
w
GO
CO
O
3
H)
O
O
i-l
0.002
TO
0.001
0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After fabric filter control
16
26
31
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After fabric filter control
0.002
0.0025
0.003
C.l-76
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.9 COAL CLEANING: DRY PROCESS
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 16 26 31
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.01 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed.
Emission factor is calculated from data in AP-42, assuming 99% particulate
control by fabric filter.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source cleans coal with the dry (air table) process.
Average coal feed rate during testing was 70 tons/hr/table.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Coulter counter
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
R. W. Kling, Emissions from the Florence Mining Company Coal Process-
ing Plant at Seward, PA, Report No. 72-CI-4, York Research Corporation,
Stamford, CT, February 1972.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-77
-------
SECTION 8.9 COAL CLEANING: THERMAL DRYER
N
CO
T3
01
cd
u
W
V
J3
0)
§
u
99.9
99
98
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
- Weight percent
- Emission factor
CONTROLLED
- Weight percent
5.0
w
3
H-
CO
CO
o
3
Hi
3.0 0)
o
£
1.0
0.0
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
42
86
96
After
wet scrubber
53
85
91
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
1.47
3.01
3.36
After
wet scrubber
0.016
0.026
0.027
C.l-78
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
SECTION 8.9 COAL CLEANING: 'THERMAL DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted before control
b) 1, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 42 86 96
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 53 85 91
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 3.5 kg particulate/Mg of coal processed,
(after cyclone) before wet scrubber control. After wet scrubber control, 0.03
kg/Mg. These are site specific emission factors and are calculated from process
data measured during source testing.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates a thermal dryer to dry coal cleaned by wet
cleaning process. Combustion zone in the thermal dryer is about 1000°F, and
the air temperature at the dryer exit is about 125°F. Coal processing rate is
about 450 tons per hour. Product is collected in cyclones.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Coulter counter
b) Each sample was dispersed with aerosol OT, and further
dispersed using an ultrasonic bath. Isoton was the
electrolyte used.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
R. W. Kling, Emission Test Report, Island Creek Coal Company Coal Pro-
cessing Plant, Vansant, Virgina, Report No. Y-7730-H, York Research
Corporation, Stamford, CT, February 1972.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-79
-------
8.9 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
rt.99
99.9
99
98
N 95
•H
CO
^ 90
0)
4J
5 80
CO
V
70
60
bC
40
•* 30
SI 20
•H 10
0 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
• Weight percent
0.4
CO
CO
H-
O
CJ
l-h
CB
O
rt
O
H
0
0.2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
o.o
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
9.6
17.5
26.5
Cyclone
controlled
21.3
31.8
43.7
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
0.07
0.12
0.19
C.l-80
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.9 COAL PROCESSING: THERMAL INCINERATOR
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 2, conducted before controls
b) 2, conducted after multicyclone control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 9.6 17.5 26.5
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. % ):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 26.4 35.8 46.6
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.7 kg particulate/Mg coal dried, before
multiclone control. Factor from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a thermal incinerator controlling gaseous emissions
from a rotary kiln drying coal. No additional operating data are available.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data from a major coal processor, PEI Associates, Inc.,
Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-81
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: CALCINER
cu
N
•O
0.050 0>
O
ft
O
n
ff
0.025
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
94.0
97.0
98.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After cyclone3 and
wet scrubber
0.064
0.066
0.067
3Cyclones are typically used in phosphate rock processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in the air exhausted from such cyclones.
C.l-82
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: CALCINER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 6, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 94.0 97.0 98.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 2.5 1.6 1.5
Min (Cum. %): 89.0 95.0 96.0
Max (Cum. %): 98.0 99.2 99.7
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0685 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate
rock calcined, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone, and wet
scrubber controls. Factor from reference cited below.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source is a phosphate rock calciner fired with #2 oil,
with a rated capacity of 70 tons/hour. Feed to the calciner Is beneficiated
rock.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE: Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID,
EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 1975.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-83
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL FIRED ROTARY AND
FLUIDIZED BED TANDEM DRYERS
99.9
99
98
95
<0
N
i-t 90
00
01 80
JJ
CD
i-> 70
CO
v 6°
*« 50
4J 40
bC
•H 30
•H
JJ 10
(0
3 ,
B 5
O
2
I
0.5
0.1
0. 01
1
-
-
"
^^^*
^^^"^
m m^^
^S^
^^^^^ ^ '
^^^^^ s
W*^ s
^
^
^ -*
""^ —m
-
WET SCRUBBER AND ESP
— •— Weight percent
Emission factor
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.015
M
0
H*
co
CO
o
0
l-t(
0.010 0)
O
o
,r
^
0?
.005
o
100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
78.0
88.8
93.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After wet scrubber and
ESP control
0.010
0.011
0.012
I
C.l-84
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING:
OIL FIRED ROTARY AND FLUIDIZED BED TANDEM DRYERS
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted after wet scrubber and electrostatic pre-
clpitator control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 78.0 88.8 93.8
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 22.6 9.6 2.5
Min (Cum. %): 62 82 92
Max (Cum. %): 94 95 95
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.0125 kg particulate/Mg phosphate rock
processed, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone and wet scrubber/
ESP controls. Factor from reference cited below.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates a rotary and a fluidized bed dryer to dry
various types of phosphate rock. Both dryers are fired with No. 5 fuel oilv
and exhaust into a common duct. The rated capacity of the rotary dryer is
300 tons/hr, and that of the fluidized bed dryer is 150-200 tons/hr. During
testing, source was operating at 67.7% of rated capacity.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE: Air Pollution Emission Test, W. R. Grace Chemical Company, Bartow,
FL, EMB-75-PRP-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-85
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL FIRED ROTARY DRYER
N
•H
CO
T3
0)
u
n)
4J
CO
V
be
•H
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: OIL FIRED ROTARY DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 3, conducted after cyclone
b) 2, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 15.7 41.3 58.3
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 5.5 9.6 13.9
Min (Cum. %): 12 30 43
Max (Cum. %): 22 48 70
b) Aerodynamic particle diametet (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 89.0 92.3 96.6
Standard Deviation (Cum. %): 7.1 6.0 3.7
Min (Cum. %): 84 88 94
Max (Cum. %): 94 96 99
Impactor cut points for the tests conducted before control are small, and
many of the data points are extrapolated. These particle size distributions
are related to specific equipment and source operation, and are most appli-
cable to particulate emissions from similar sources operating similar equip-
ment. Table 8.18-2, Section 8.18, AP-42 presents particle size distributions
for generic phosphate rock dryers.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS: After cyclone, 2.419 kg particulate/Mg
rock processed. After wet scrubber control, 0.019 kg/Mg. Factors from
reference cited below.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source dries phosphate rock in #6 oil fired rotary dryer.
During these tests, source operated at 69% of rated dryer capacity of 350 ton/
day, and processed coarse pebble rock.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Brinks Cascade Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE: Air Pollution Emission Test, Mobil Chemical, Nichols, FL, EMB-75-
PRP-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
January 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-87
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: BALL MILL
CU
N
•H
CO
CO
CO
V
fr*
§
CU
CU
•H
J_l
CO
3
99.9
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0.1
0.01
CYCLONE
• • Weight percent
Emission factor
0.4
w
co
CO
l-h
P)
O
ft
O
i-l
ff
0.2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, um
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After cyclone3
6.5
19.0
30.8
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After cyclone3
0.05
0.14
0.22
3Cyclones are typically used in phosphate rock processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in the air exhausted from such cyclones.
i — £
• -L C
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: BALL MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 4, conducted after cyclone
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 6.5 19.0 30.8
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 3.5 0.9 2.6
Min (Cum. %): 3 18 28
Max (Cum. %): 11 20 33
Impactor outpoints were small, and most data points were extrapolated.
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.73 kg particulate/Mg of phosphate rock
milled, after collection of airborne product in cyclone. Factor from
reference cited below.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source mills western phosphate rock. During testing^
source was operating at 101% of rated capacity, producing 80 tons/hour.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE: Air Pollution Emission Test, Beker Industries, Inc., Conda, ID,
EMB-75-PRP-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, November 1975.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-89
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING
99.99
V
N
•H
«0
CO
V
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
$ 30
V
01
•H
4J
«t
— I
I
o
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CYCLONE
>— Weight percent
--Emission factor
CYCLONE AND FABRIC FILTER
I—Weight percent
1.5
1.0
I
CD
01
H-
o
o
n
rt
o
0.5
3 * 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, um
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After
cyclone3
21
45
62
After fabric filter
25
70
90
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After
cyclone3
0.27
0.58
0.79
After fabric filter
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
a Cyclones are typically used in phosphate rock processing as product collectors.
Uncontrolled emissions are emissions in the air exhausted from such cyclones.
C.l-90
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.18 PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING: ROLLER MILL AND BOWL MILL GRINDING
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 2, conducted after cyclone
b) 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 21.0 45.0 62.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 1.0 1.0 0
Min (Cum. %): 20.0 44.0 62.0
Max (Cum. %): 22.0 46.0 62.0
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 25 70 90
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.73 kg particulate/Mg of rock pro-
cessed, after collection of airborne product in a cyclone. After fabric
filter control, 0.001 kg particulate/Mg rock processed. Factors calculated
from data in reference cited below. AP-42 (2/80) specifies a range of
emissions from phosphate rock grinders (uncontrolled). See Table 8.18-1
for guidance.
SOURCE OPERATION: During testing, source was operating at 100% of design
process rate. Source operates 1 roller mill with a rated capacity of 25
tons/hr of feed, and 1 bowl mill with a rated capacity of 50 tons/hr of
feed. After product has been collected in cyclones, emissions from each
mill are vented to a common baghouse. Source operates 6 days/week, and
processes Florida rock.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Brinks Cascade Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE: Air Pollution Emission Test, The Royster Company, Mulberry,
FL, EMB-75-PRP-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, January 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-91
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
99.99
99.9
99
98
0) 95
N
•H
•O
0)
4-1
n>
4-1
CO
V
90
80
70
60
jj 50
fi
00 40
•H
•J 30
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FELDSPAR BALL MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 11.5 22.8 32.3
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 6.4 7.4 6.7
Min (Cum. %): 7.0 17.5 27.5
Max (Cum. %): 16.0 28.0 37.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 12.9 kg particulate/Mg feldspar produced.
Calculated from data in reference and related documents.
SOURCE OPERATION: After crushing and grinding of feldspar ore, source produces
feldspar powder in a ball mill.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Alundum thimble followed by 12 inch section of stainless
steel probe followed by 47 mm type SGA filter contained in a stainless steel
Gelman filter holder. Laboratory analysis methods: microsieve and electronic
particle counter.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, International Minerals and Chemical Company,
Spruce Pine, NC, EMB-76-NMM-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1976.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-93
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
99.99
99.9
99
98
OJ 95
N
00
-O
40
•J 30
5> 20
cd
o
10
i
0.5
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
Weight percent
Emission factor
0.4
w
B
H-
cn
09
M.
O
B
l-h
to
r>
rt
O
"I
0.2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30
Particle diameter, um
0.0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
After fabric filter control
10
30
48
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After fabric filter control
0.04
0.11
0.18
C.l-94
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: FLUORSPAR ORE ROTARY DRUM DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 1, conducted after fabric filter control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 10 30 48
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.375 kg particulate/Mg ore dried, after
fabric filter control. Factors from reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source dries fluorspar ore in a rotary drum dryer at a feed
rate of 2 tons/hour.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Mark III Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Confidential test data from a major fluorspar ore processor, PEI
Associates, Inc., Golden, CO, January 1985.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-95
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
99.99
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
B^S 6°
jj 50
H1? 40
•rH
U 30
y 20
CO
T3
01
JJ
(fl
XJ
CO
V
cfl
1.0
I '
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
WET SCRUBBER and
SETTLING CHAMBER
•— Weight percent
Emission factor
WET SCRUBBER
•— Weight percent
2.0
m
en
m
Mi
0>
r>
ff
1.0
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30
0.0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter (um)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Wet scrubber
and settling chamber
55
65
81
Wet
scrubber
55
75
84
Emission factor (kg/Mg)
Wet scrubber
and settling chamber
0.97
1.15
1.43
C.l-96
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 4, conducted after wet scrubber control
b) 8, conducted after settling chamber and wet scrubber
control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 55 75 84
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter, (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 55 65 81
Standard Deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 1.77 kg particulate/Mg of clay processed,
after control by settling chamber and wet scrubber. Calculated from data in
Reference c.
SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in pulverized
coal fired rotary kilns. Kiln capacity for Source b is 750 tons/day, and
operation is continuous.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries,
Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
b. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 341, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
c. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Light-
weight Aggregate Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.l-97
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
99.f
99.9
99
98
0) 95
N
•H
w 90
80
70
V
60
AJ 5°
"S) *0
•H
S 30
0) 20
i-t
4J
CO 10
CJ
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
40
w
0
CO
CO
H-
O
s
i-h
09
O
O
i-i
OQ
20
3 4 56789 10 20 30
Particle diameter, urn
AO 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Uncontrolled
37.2
74.8
89.5
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Uncontrolled
13.0
26.2
31.3
C.l-98
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): DRYER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 37.2 74.8 89.5
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 3.4 5.6 3.6
Min (Cum. %): 32.3 68.9 85.5
Max (Cum. %): 41.0 80.8 92.7
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 35 kg/Mg clay feed to dryer. From
AP-42, Section 8.7.
SOURCE OPERATION: No information on source operation is available
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Brinks impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
ticle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 88, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C-l C.l-99
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99.9
99
98
N 95
CO
0)
j_i
(0 80
4J
05
V
70
g^ 60
•U 50
S *0
0)
IS 30
y 20
m
10
a
U 5
7
1
0.5
0. 1
0.01
MULTICLONE CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
—•— Weight percent
0.15
a
CO
en
O
3
l-h
0.10 (U
rr
O
i-l
(JQ
0.05
0.0
3 4 56789 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Multi clone
19.3
38.1
56.7
Fabric filter
39
48
54
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Multi clone
0.03
0.06
0.09
C.1-100
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (CLAY): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 12, conducted after Multiclone control
b) 4, conducted after Multiclone and fabric filter control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 19.3 38.1 56.7
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 7.9 14.9 17.9
Min (Cum. %): 9.3 18.6 29.2
Max (Cum. %): 34.6 61.4 76.6
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 39 48 54
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %) :
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.157 kg particulate/Mg clay processed,
after multiclone control. Factor calculated from data in Reference b. After
fabric filter control, particulate emissions are negligible.
SOURCE OPERATION: Sources produce lightweight clay aggregate in a coal fired
rotary kiln and reciprocating grate clinker cooler.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Andersen Impactor
b) Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCES:
a. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas Industries,
Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
b. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Arkansas Light-
weight Aggregate Corporation, EMB-80-LWA-2, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1981.
c. Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 342, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.1-101
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99.99
99.9
99
98
CU
N
0)
4J
CO 80
4J
CO
70
V
4-1 JO
§40
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SHALE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 4, conducted after settling chamber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 8.2 17.6 25.6
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 4.3 2.8 1.7
Min (Cum. %): 4.0 15.0 24.0
Max (Cum. %): 14.0 21.0 28.0
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.08 kg particulate/Mg of aggregate
produced. Factor calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source operates two kilns to produce lightweight shale
aggregate, which is cooled and classified on a reciprocating grate clinker
cooler. Normal production rate of the tested kiln is 23 tons/hr, about 66% of
rated capacity. Kiln rotates at 2.8 rpm. Feed end temperature is 1100°F.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Vulcan Materials
Company, EMB-80-LWA-4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, March 1982.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.1-103
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
99.99
99.9
99
98
0) a.
N "
•H
CO
T3 *°
0)
JJ
CO 80
4J
CO
70
V
6O
*"*
W 50
.c:
bO
•rj ^0
OJ
» 30
S| 20
•H
a_i
CO
iH 10
«3 5
2
1
0.5
0. 1
0.01
-
-
^
,
™
•
—
"
— ^-^
* T'''^
.x^^ /
^^ /
^^ /
^^ / «
/
/
/
/
/
/
' UNCONTROLLED
— •— Weight percent
Emission factor
CONTROLLED
— •— Weight percent
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
40
M
B
0)
CO
p.
o
3
i-h
Cu
n
r^
O
CK)
J
20
0
IOC
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Without
controls
13
29
42
After wet
scrubber control
33
36
39
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Without
controls
7.3
16.2
23.5
After wet
scrubber control
0.59
0.65
0.70
C.1-104
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): COAL FIRED ROTARY KILN
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 3, conducted before control
b) 5, conducted after wet scrubber control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 13.0 29.0 42.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 33.0 36.0 39.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: For uncontrolled source, 56.0 kg parti-
culate/Mg of feed. After wet scrubber control, 1.8 kg particulate/Mg of feed.
Factors are calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces light weight aggregate from slate in coal
fired rotary kiln and reciprocating grate clinker cooler. During testing
source was operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr., 83% rated capacity. Firing
zone temperatures are about 2125°F and kiln rotates at 3.25 RPM.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a. Bacho
b. Andersen Impactor
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 1982.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.1-105
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
99.99
99.9
99
98
N *5
•H
CO
•O »
0)
AJ
« 80
4-1
CO
v
70
*-> 50
y 40
30
20
«
10
s
o 5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
CONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
I I « I In n
0.2
w
en
CO
H-
o
o
01
O
1-1
7?
0.1
\ 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
After settling chamber control
9.8
23.6
41.0
Emission factor, kg/Mg
After
settling chamber control
0.02
0.05
0.09
C.1-106
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE (SLATE): RECIPROCATING GRATE CLINKER COOLER
NUMBER OF TESTS: 5, conducted after settling chamber control
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 9.8 23.6 41.0
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 0.22 kg particulate/Mg of raw material
feed. Factor calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source produces lightweight slate aggregate in a cool fired
kiln and a reciprocating grate clinker cooler. During testing, source was
operating at a feed rate of 33 tons/hr, 83% of rated capacity. Firing zone
temperatures are about 2125°F, and kiln rotates at 3.25 rpm.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Andersen Impactors
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
REFERENCE:
Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corporation,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 1982.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.1-107
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL
99.99
99.9
99
98
»95
•H
CO
0)
CO 30
4J
CO
v
"§>
70
60
50
40
30
£20
(8
iH 10
Is
0.1
0.01
UNCONTROLLED
—•— Weight percent
Emission factor
25
20
15
rt
3
H-
0)
CO
H-
O
0
O
i-l
ciT
10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Particle diameter, urn
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt. % < stated size
Before controls
30.1
42.4
56.4
Emission factor, kg/Mg
Before controls
5.9
8.3
11.1
C.1-108
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
8.xx NONMETALLIC MINERALS: TALC PEBBLE MILL
NUMBER OF TESTS: 2, conducted before controls
STATISTICS: Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 30.1 42.4 56.4
Standard deviation (Cum. %): 0.8 0.2 0.4
Min (Cum. %): 29.5 42.2 56.1
Max (Cum. %): 30.6 42.5 56.6
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 19.6 kg particulate/Mg ore processed.
Calculated from data in reference.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source crushes talc ore then grinds crushed ore in a pebble
mill. During testing, source operation was normal, according to the operators.
An addendum to reference indicates throughput varied between 2.8 and 4.4
tons/hour during these tests.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: Sample was collected in an alundum thimble and analyzed
with a Spectrex Prototron Particle Counter Model ILI 1000.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Air Pollution Emission Test, Pfizer, Inc., Victorville, CA, EMB-77-NMM-5,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July
1977.
10/86 Appendix C.I C.1-109
-------
99.99
99.9
99
98
CO
N 95
-0 90
oi
4->
* 80
CO
v 70
6~S 60
£ 50
be
•H 40
01
•* 30
CU
> 20
O
10
5
2
I
0.5
0.1
0.01
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
CYCLONE CONTROLLED
-•- Weight percent
Emission factor
FABRIC FILTER
—•- Weight percent
3.0
2.0
CD
CO
H-
O
0
Hi
0>
n
(T
o
7?
TO
i.o
n
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle diameter, urn
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative wt . % < stated size
Cyclone
29.5
42.7
52.9
After cyclone
and fabric filter
14.3
17.3
32.1
Emission factor, kg/hour
of cyclone operation
After
cyclone collector
0.68
0.98
1.22
C.1-110
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
10.4 WOODWORKING WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS:
BELT SANDER HOOD EXHAUST CYCLONE
NUMBER OF TESTS: a) 1, conducted after cyclone control
b) 1, after cyclone and fabric filter control
STATISTICS: a) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 29.5 42.7 52.9
Standard deviation (Cum. %):
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
b) Aerodynamic particle diameter (urn): 2.5 6.0 10.0
Mean (Cum. %): 14.3 17.3 32.1
Standard deviation (Cum. %) :
Min (Cum. %):
Max (Cum. %):
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR: 2.3 kg particulate/hr of cyclone operation.
For cyclone controlled source, this emission factor applies to typical large
diameter cyclones into which wood waste is fed directly, not to cyclones that
handle waste previously collected in cyclones. If baghouses are used for waste
collection, particulate emissions will be negligible. Accordingly, no emission
factor is provided for the fabric filter controlled source. Factors from AP-42.
SOURCE OPERATION: Source was sanding 2 ply panels of mahogany veneer, at 100%
of design process rate of 1110 m^/hr.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE: a) Joy train with 3 cyclones
b) Sass train with cyclones
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E
REFERENCE:
Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine
Particle Emission Information System, Series Report No. 238, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1983.
10/86 Appendix C.I C. 1-111
-------
APPENDIX C.2
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
10/86 Appendix C.2 C.2-1
-------
CONTENTS
Page
C.2.1 Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle
Distributions C.2-3
C.2.2 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions
For Uncontrolled Processes C.2-3
C.2.3 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions
For Controlled Processes C.2-17
C.2.4 Example Calculation C.2-17
Tables
C.2-1 Particle Size Cateogry By AP-42 Section C.2-5
C.2-2 Description of Particle Size Categories C.2-8
C.2-3 Typical Collection Efficiencies of Various Particulate
Control Devices (percent) C.2-17
Figures
C.2-1 Example Calculation for Determining Uncontrolled and
Controlled Particle Size Specific Emissions C.2-4
C.2-2 Calculation Sheet C.2-7
References C.2-18
C.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
APPENDIX C.2
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
C.2.1 Rationale For Developing Generalized Particle Size Distributions
The preparation of size specific particulate emission inventories
requires size distribution information for each process. Particle size
distributions for many processes are contained in appropriate industry
sections of this document. Because particle size information for many
processes of local impact and concern are unavailable, this Appendix provides
"generic" particle size distributions applicable to these processes. The
concept of the "generic particle size distribution is based on categorizing
measured particle size data from similar processes generating emissions from
similar materials. These generic distributions have been developed from
sampled size distributions from about 200 sources.
Generic particle size distributions are approximations. They should be
used only in the absence of source-specific particle size distributions for
areawide emission inventories.
C.2.2 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For
Uncontrolled Processes
Figure C.2-1 provides an example calculation to assist the analyst in
preparing particle size specific emission estimates using generic size
distributions.
The following instructions for the calculation apply to each particulate
emission source for which a particle size distribution is desired and for
which no source specific particle size information is given elsewhere in this
document:
1. Identify and review the AP-42 Section dealing with that process.
2. Obtain the uncontrolled particulate emission factor for the process
from the main text of AP-42, and calculate uncontrolled total
particulate emissions.
3. Obtain the category number of the appropriate generic particle size
distribution from Table C.2-1.
4. Obtain the particle size distribution for the appropriate category
from Table C.2-2. Apply the particle size distribution to the
uncontrolled particulate emissions.
Instructions for calculating the controlled size specific emissions are
given in C.2.3 and illustrated in Figure C.2-1.
10/86 Appendix C.2 C.2-3
-------
Figure C.2-1. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR DETERMINING UNCONTROLLED
AND CONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address: ABC Brick Manufacturing _____
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
24 Dusty Way
Anywhere, USA
Dryers/Grinders
8.3, Bricks And Related Clay Products
96 Ibs/ton
63,700 tons/year
3057.6 tons/year
(units)
(units)
(units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name: Mechanically Generated/Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category number: 3
Particle size (ym)
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent equal to or less than the size:
Cumulative mass
(tons/year) :
particle size emissions
< 2.5
15
458.6
< 6
34
1039.(
< 10
51
1559.4
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device: Fabric Filter
Collection efficiency (Table C.2-3):
Mass in size range** before control
(tons/year):
Mass in size range after control
(tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):
Particle size (urn)
0-2.5 2.5-6 6 - 10
99.0
458.6
4.59
4.59
99.5
581.0
2.91
7.50
99.5
519.8
2.60
10.10
* These data do not include results for the greater than 10 ym particle size range.
** Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.
Control efficiency data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
C.2-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE C.2-1. PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORY BY AP-42 SECTION
AP-42
Section
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
2.1
2.3
3.2
5.4
5.8
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.16
5.17
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Source Category
External combustion
Bituminous coal combustion
Anthracite coal combustion
Fuel oil combustion
Utility, residual oil
Industrial , residual oil
Utility, distillate oil
Commercial, residual oil
Commerci al, distill ate
Residential, distillate
Natural gas combustion
Liquefied pettoleum gas
Mood waste combustion in
boilers
Lignite, combustion
Bagasse Combustion
Residential fireplaces
Wood stoves
Waste oil combustion
Solid waste disposal
Refuse Incinerators
Conical burners (wood waste)
Internal combustion engine
Highway vehicles
Off highway
Chemical process
Charcoal production
Hydrofluoric acid
Spar drying
Spar handling
Transfer
Paint
Phosphoric acid (thermal
process)
Phthalic anhydride
Sodium carbonate
Sulfuric acid
Food and agricultural
Alfalfa dehydrating
Primary cyclone
Meal collector cyclone
Pellet cooler cyclone
Pellet regrind cyclone
Coffee roasting
Cotton ginning
Feed and grain mills and
elevators
Unloading
Category
Number
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
2
b
2
a
1
9
3
3
3
4
a
9
a
b
b
7
7
7
6
b
b
AP-42
Section
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.10
6.10.3
6.11
6.14
6.16
6.17
6.18
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
Category
Source Category Number
Food and agricultural (cont.)
Grain elevators
Grain processing
Fermentation
Meat smokehouses
Ammonium nitrate fertilizers
Phosphate fertilizers
Ammonium phosphates
Reactor/aitmoniator-
granulator
Dryer/cooler
Starch manufacturing
Urea manufacturing
Defoliation and harvesting
of cotton
Trailer loading
Transport
Harvesting of grain
Harvesting machine
Truck loading
Field transport
Ammonium sulfate manufacturing
Rotary dryer
Fluidized-bed dryer
Heta11ur9ica1 industry
Primary aluminum production
Bauxite grinding
Aluminum hydroxide calcining
Anode baking furnace
Prebake cell
Vertical Soderberg
Horizontal Soderberg
Coke manufacturing
Primary copper smelting
Ferroalloy production
Iron and steel production
Blast furnace
Slips
Cast house
Sintering
Windbox
Sinter discharge
Basic oxygen furnace
Electee arc furnace
Primary lead smelting
Zinc smelting
Secondary aluminum
Sweating furnace
Smelting
Crucible furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Secondary copper smelting
and alloying
Gray iron foundries
6
7
6&7
9
a
3
4
4
7
3
6
6
6
6
6
b
b
4
5
9
a
8
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
8
8
8
a
8
a
a. Categories with particle size data specific to process included in the main body of the text.
b. Categories with particle size data specific to process included in Appendix C.I.
c. Data for each numbered category are shown in Table C.2-2.
d. Highway vehicles data are reported in AP-42 Volume II: Mobile Sources.
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-5
-------
TABLE C. 2-1 (continued).
AP-42
Section
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.18
Source Category
Metallurgical industry (cont.)
Secondary lead processing
Secondary magnesium smelting
Steel foundaries
melting
Secondary zinc smelting
Storage battery production
Leadbearing ore crushing and
grinding
Mineral products
Category
Number
a
8
b
8
b
4
AP-42
Section Source Category
Mineral products (cont.)
Impact mill
Flash calciner
Continuous kettle calciner
8.15 Lime manufacturing
8.16 Mineral wool manufacturing
Cupola
Reverberatory furnace
Blow chamber
Curing oven
Cooler
Category
Number
4
a
a
a
8
8
8
9
9
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.13
8.14
Asphaltic concrete plants
Process a
Bricks and related clay
products
Raw materials handling
Dryers, grinders, etc. b
Tunnel/periodic kilns
Gas fired a
Oil fired a
Coal fired a
Castable refractories
Raw material dryer 3
Raw material crushing and
screening 3
Electric arc melting 8
Curing oven 3
Portland cement manufacturing
Dry process
Kilns a
Dryers, grinders, etc. 4
Wet process
Kilns a
Dryers, grinders, etc. 4
Ceramic clay manufacturing
Drying 3
Grinding 4
Storage 3
Clay and fly ash sintering
Fly ash sintering, crushing,
screening and yard storage 5
Clay mixed with coke
Crushing, screening, and
yard storage 3
Coal cleaning 3
Concrete batching 3
Glass fiber manufacturing
Unloading and conveying 3
Storage bins 3
Mixing and weighing 3
Class furnace - wool a
Glass furnace - textile a
Glass manufacturing a
Gypsum manufacturing
Rotary ore dryer a
Roller mill 4
8.18 Phosphate rock processing
Drying a
Calcining a
Grinding b
Transfer and storage 3
8.19.1 Sand and gravel processing
Continuous drop
Transfer station a
Pile formation - stacker a
Batch drop a
Active storage piles a
Vehicle traffic unpaved road a
8.19.2 Crushed stone processing
Dry crushing
Primary crushing a
Secondary crushing
and screening a
Tertiary crushing
and screening 3
Recrushing and screening 4
Fines mill 4
Screening, conveying,
and handling a
8.22 Taconite ore processing
Fine crushing 4
Waste gas a
Pellet handling 4
Grate discharge 5
Grate feed 4
Bentonite blending 4
Coarse crushing 3
Ore transfer 3
Bentonite transfer 4
Unpaved roads a
8.23 Metallic minerals processing a
8.24 Western surface coal mining a
Wood processing
10.1 Chemical wood pulping a
Miscellaneous sources
11.2
Fugitive dust
a.
b.
Categories with particle size data specific to process included in the main body of the text.
Categories with particle size data specific to process Included in Appendix C.I.
Data for each numbered category are shown in Table C.2-2.
C.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
Figure C.2-2. CALCULATION SHEET.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Source name and address:
Process description:
AP-42 Section:
Uncontrolled AP-42
emission factor:
Activity parameter:
Uncontrolled emissions:
_(units)
_(units)
(units)
UNCONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS
Category name:
Category number:
Particle size (vim)
< 2.5 < 6
Generic distribution, Cumulative
percent equal to or less than the size:
Cumulative mass j< particle size emissions
(tons/year):
< 10
CONTROLLED SIZE EMISSIONS*
Type of control device:
Particle size (um)
0-2.5 2.5-6 6 - 10
Collection efficiency (Table C.2-3):
Mass in size range** before control
(tons/year):
Mass in size range after control:
(tons/year):
Cumulative mass (tons/year):
* These data do not include results for the greater than 10 vim particle size range.
** Uncontrolled size data are cumulative percent equal to or less than the size.
Control efficiency data apply only to size range and are not cumulative.
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-7
-------
TABLE C.2-2. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE CATEGORIES
Category: 1
Process: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Material: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Category 1 covers size specific emissions from stationary internal
combustion engines. The particulate emissions are generated from fuel
combustion.
REFERENCE: 1, 9
1/1
o
W!
V
Of
UJ
o.
yj
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
dn
i
-
-
-
-
i i i
—
- -^
i i i " "
-
^^---"
-
.
-
-
-
i iii
i i i i
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
size, um
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size
(uncontrolled)
Minimum Maximum Standard
Value Value Deviation
1.0e
2.0*
2.5
3.0£
4.0
5.0£
6.0
10.0
a
82
88
90
90
92
93
93
96
78
86
92
99
99
99
11
7
4
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 2
Process: Combustion
Material: Mixed Fuels
Category 2 covers boilers firing a mixture of fuels, regardless of the
fuel combination. The fuels include gas, coal, coke, and petroleum.
Particulate emissions are generated by firing these miscellaneous fuels.
REFERENCE: 1
o
UJ
t—
«t
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
size, ym
1.0
2.0£
2.5
4.0
5.0C
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
(uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
23
40
45 32 70 17
50
58
64
70 49 84 14
79 56 87 12
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-9
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 3
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 3 covers material handling and processing of aggregate and
unprocessed ore. This broad category includes emissions from milling,
grinding, crushing, screening, conveying, cooling, and drying of material.
Emissions are generated through either the movement of the material or the
interaction of the material with mechanical devices.
REFERENCE: 1-2, 4, 7
•t.
H-
l/l
a.
UJ
I
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
I 1 I l II1TT
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, ^m
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size
size, ym (uncontrolled)
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Standard
Deviation
1.0C
2.0£
2.5
3.0
4.0£
5.0*
6.0
10.0
a
4
11
15
18
25
30
34
51
15
23
35
65
81
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
13
14
No
C.2-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 4
Process: Mechanically Generated
Material: Processed Ores and Non-metallic Minerals
Category 4 covers material handling and processing of processed ores and
minerals. While similar to Category 3, processed ores can be expected to have
a greater size consistency than unprocessed ores. Particulate emissions are
a result of agitating the materials by screening or transfer, during size
reduction and beneficiation of the materials by grinding and fine milling, and
by drying.
REFERENCE: 1
Particle
size, vim
i.oa
2.0a
2.5
3.0?
4.0
5.0£
6.0
10.0
a
I/O
o
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
t i i i i
2345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum
(uncontrolled) Value
6
21
30 1
36
48
58
62 17
85 70
10
Maximum
Value
51
83
93
Standard
Deviation
19
17
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-11
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Calcining and Other Heat Reaction Processes
Aggregate, Unprocessed Ores
Category 5 covers the use of calciners and kilns in processing a variety
of aggregates and unprocessed ores. Emissions are a result of these high
temperature operations.
REFERENCE: 1-2, 8
90
W 80
c/>
a 70
UJ
5 60
" 50
V
g 40
LU
a 30
UJ
*• 20
UJ
>
S 10
I 5
2
IIIIFT
1
J_
J_
I
I I I I
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
size, ym
1.0'
2.0
2.5
3.0'
4.0
5.0£
6.0
10.0
a
a
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
(uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
6
13
18 3 42 11
21
28
33
37 13 74 19
53 25 84 19
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 vim.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
C.2-12
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Grain Handling
Grain
Category 6 covers various grain handling (versus grain processing)
operations. These processes could include material transfer, ginning and
other miscellaneous handling of grain. Emissions are generated by mechanical
agitation of the material.
REFERENCE: 1, 5
*f
_j
ZD
IE
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.01
I I i I I
2345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Particle
size, ym
i.oa
2.0a
2.5
3.0a
4.0a
5.0a
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum Maximum
(uncontrolled) Value Value
.07
.60
1 0 2
2
3
5
7 3 12
15 6 25
Standard
Deviation
3
7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 urn.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-13
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category:
Process:
Material:
7
Grain Processing
Grain
Category 7 covers grain processing operations such as drying, screening,
grinding and milling. The particulate emissions are generated during
forced air flow, separation or size reduction.
REFERENCE: 1-2
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
T III IT
I 1 l I
2345 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, \m
Particle
size, urn
i.oa
2.0a
2.5
3-°
4.0
5.0
6.0
10.0
Cumulative %
less than or equal
to stated size Minimum Maximum
(uncontrolled) Value Value
8
18
23 17 34
27
34
40
43 35 48
61 56 65
Standard
Deviation
7
5
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 ym. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
C.2-14
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category: 8
Process: Melting, Smelting, Refining
Material: Metals, except Aluminum
Category 8 covers the melting, smelting, and refining of metals (in-
cluding glass) other than aluminum. All primary and secondary production
processes for these materials which involve a physical or chemical change are
included in this category. Materials handling and transfer are not included.
Particulate emissions are a result of high temperature melting, smelting, and
refining.
REFERENCE: 1-2
l/l
o
on
UJ
O-
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, um (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
1.0a 72
2.0a 80
2.5 82 63 99 12
3.0a 84
4.0a 86
5.0a 88
6.0 89 75 99 9
10.0 92 80 99 7
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 um. No
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
10/86 Appendix C.2
C.2-15
-------
TABLE C.2-2 (continued).
Category:
Process:
Material:
Condensation, Hydration, Absorption, Prilling and Distillation
All
Category 9 covers condensation, hydration, absorption, prilling, and
distillation of all materials. These processes involve the physical separa-
tion or combination of a wide variety of materials such as sulfuric acid and
ammonium nitrate fertilizer. (Coke ovens are included since they can be con-
sidered a distillation process which separates the volatile matter from coal
to produce coke.)
REFERENCE: 1, 3
«t
I
s:
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
I
I
I i l i i i
2 345
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10
Cumulative %
less than or equal
Particle to stated size Minimum Maximum Standard
size, urn (uncontrolled) Value Value Deviation
1.0a 60
2.0a 74
2.5 78 59 99 17
3.0a 81
4.0a 85
5.0E 88
6.0 91 61 99 12
10.0 94 71 99 9
Value calculated from data reported at 2.5, 6.0, and 10.0 \im.
statistical parameters are given for the calculated value.
No
C.2-16
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
-------
C.2.3 How To Use The Generalized Particle Size Distributions For
Controlled Processes
To calculate the size distribution and the size specific emissions for a
source with a particulate control device, the user first calculates the
uncontrolled size specific emissions. Next, the fractional control efficiency
for the control device is estimated, using Table C.2-3. The Calculation Sheet
provided (Figure C.2-2) allows the user to record the type of control device
and the collection efficiencies from Table C.2-3, the mass in the size range
before and after control, and the cumulative mass. The user will note that
the uncontrolled size data are expressed in cumulative fraction less than the
stated size. The control efficiency data apply only to the size range
indicated and are not cumulative. These data do not include results for the
greater than 10 ym particle size range. In order to account for the total
controlled emissions, particles greater than 10 um in size must be included.
C.2.4 Example Calculation
An example calculation of uncontrolled total particulate emissions,
uncontrolled size specific emissions, and controlled size specific emission is
shown on Figure C.2-1. A blank Calculation Sheet is provided in Figure C.2-2.
TABLE C.2-3
TYPICAL COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF VARIOUS
PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES.3'
(percent)
Type of collector
Baffled settling chamber
Simple (high-throughput) cyclone
High-efficiency and multiple cyclones
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
Packed-bed scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Wet-impingement scrubber
Fabric filter
Particle size, ym
0 - 2.5
NR
50
80
95
90
90
25
99
2.5 - 6
5
75
95
99
95
95
85
99.5
6-10
15
85
95
99.5
99
99
95
99.5
The data shown represent an average of actual efficiencies. The efficien-
cies are representative of well designed and well operated control equipment.
Site specific factors (e.g., type of particulate being collected, varying
pressure drops across scrubbers, maintenance of equipment, etc.) will affect
the collection efficiencies. The efficiencies shown are intended to provide
guidance for estimating control equipment performance when source-specific
data are not available.
Reference: 10
NR = Not reported.
10/86
Appendix C.2
C.2-17
-------
References for Appendix C.2
1. Fine Particle Emission Inventory System, Office of Research and
Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1985.
2. Confidential test data from various sources, PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, 1985.
3. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Production Units,
EPA-450/2-77-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1977.
4. Air Pollution Emission Test, Bunge Corp., Destrehan, LA., EMB-74-GRN-7,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.
5. I. W. Kirk, "Air Quality in Saw and Roller Gin Plants", Transactions of
the ASAE, 20:5, 1977.
6. Emission Test Report, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Galite Corp.,
EMB-80-LWA-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1982.
7. Air Pollution Emission Test, Lightweight Aggregate Industry, Texas
Industries, Inc., EMB-80-LWA-3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
8. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, Michigan,
EMB-76-IOB-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1975.
9. H. Taback , et al., Fine Particulate Emission from Stationary Sources in
the South Coast Air Basin, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA 1979.
10. K. Rosbury, Generalized Particle Size Distributions for Use in Preparing
Particle Size Specific Emission Inventories, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-3890, PEI Associates, Inc., Golden,
CO, 1985.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1986-726-611
C.2-18 EMISSION FACTORS 10/86
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reiersi before completing)
1
4.
7
9.
12
15
REPORT NO. |2
AP-42, Supplement A j
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Supplement A to Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, AP-42, Fourth Edition
AUTHOR(S)
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office Of Air And Radiation
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle, KG 27711
. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
October 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Editor: Whitmel M. Joyner
16. ABSTRACT
In this Supplement to the Fourth Edition of AP-42, new or revised emissions
data are presented for Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion; Anthracite Coal
Combustion; Fuel Oil Combustion; Natural Gas Combustion; Wood Waste Combustion In
Boilers; Lignite Combustion; Sodium Carbonate; Primary Aluminum Production; Coke
Production; Primary Copper Smelting; Ferroalloy Production; Iron And Steel Production
Primary Lead Smelting; Zinc Smelting; Secondary Aluminum Operations; Gray Iron
Foundries; Secondary Lead Smelting; Asphaltic Concrete Plants; Bricks And Related
Clay Products; Portland Cement Manufacturing; Concrete Batching; Glass Manufacturing;
Lime Manufacturing; Construction Aggregate Processing; Taconite Ore Processing;
Western Surface Coal Mining; Chemical Wood Pulping; Appendix C.I, 'Particle Size
Distribution Data And Sized Emission Factors For Selected Sources"; and Appendix C.2,
"Generalized Particle Size Distributions".
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Stationary Sources
Point Sources
Area Sources
Emission Factors
Emissions
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report]
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c. COSATI Held/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
460
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. Illinois 60604
-------