AP4241
                        Supplement A
                        October 1986
  SUPPLEMENT A
           TO

   COMPILATION
          OF
  AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS

      Volume I:
   Stationary Point
  And Area Sources
                              Protectlon
                     0 South Dearborn Street
                     '«          faet
                                      ••: .M
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      Office Of Air And Radiation
 Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
This report has been reviewed by The Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                          AP-42
                                         Volume I
                                       Supplement A

-------
                     INSTRUCTIONS  FOR INSERTING  SUPPLEMENT A

                                    INTO AP-42
Pp. ill and iv (blank)  replace same.   New  Publications  In  Series.
Pp. v through viii (blank)  replace same.   New Contents.
Pp. 1 and 2 replace same.   New Introduction.
Pp. 1.1-1 through 1.1-18 (blank)  replace  1.1-1 through  1.1-12.  Major Revision.
Pp. 1.2-1 through 1.2-8 (blank)  replace 1.2-1 through 1.2-4.  Major Revision.
Pp. 1.3-1 through 1.3-12 (blank)  replace  1.3-1 through  1.3-8.  Major Revision.
Pp. 1.4-1 through 1.4-6 replace same.   Major  Revision.
Pp. 1.6-1 through 1.6-10 replace 1.6-1 through 1.6-6.   Major Revision.
Pp. 1.7-1 through 1.7-8 (blank)  replace 1.7-1 through 1.7-6.  Major Revision.
Pp. 3.0-1 and -2 (blank),
    3.1-1 through 3.1-4 (blank),
    3.2-1 and -2,
    3.3-1 and -2 and
    3.4-1 and -2 replace same.  Editorial  Change.
Pp. 4.8-3 and -4 replace same.  Editorial  Change.
Pp. 5.16-1 through 5.16-8  replace 5.16-1  through 5.16-6.   Major Revision.
Pp. 7.1-1 through 7.1-10 replace 7.1-1 through 7.1-8.   Major Revision.
Pp. 7.2-1 through 7.2-22 replace 7.2-1 through 7.2-4.   Major Revision.
Pp. 7.3-1 through 7.3-18 replace 7.3-1 through 7.3-12.  Major Revision.
Pp. 7.4-1 through 7.4-24 replace 7.4-1 through 7.4-4.   Major Revision.
Pp. 7.5-1 through 7.5-22 (blank)  replace  7.5-1 through  7.5-10.  Major Revision.
Pp. 7.6-1 through 7.6-16 (blank)  replace  7.6-1 through  7.6-10.  Major Revision.
Pp. 7.7-1 through 7.7-8 replace 7.7-1  and  -2.  Major Revision.
Pp. 7.8-1 through 7.8-8 replace same.   Major  Revision.
Pp. 7.10-1 through 7.10-22  (blank) replace 7.10-1  through  7.10-10.  Major Revision.
Pp. 7.11-1 through 7.11-10  replace same.   Major Revision.
Pp. 8.1-1 through 8.1-18 replace 8.1-1 through 8.1-14.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.3-1 through 8.3-8 replace 8.3-1  through 8.3-4. Major Revision.
Pp. 8.6-1 through 8.6-10 replace 8.6-1 through 8.6-4.   Major Revision.
Pp. 8.10-1 through 8.10-4  replace 8.10-1  and  -2.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.13-1 through 8.13-8  (blank) replace 8.13-1 through 8.13-6.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.15-1 through 8.15-12  (blank) replace 8.15-1  through  8.15-6.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.19.2-5 and -6 replace same.  Minor  Revision.
Pp. 8.22-1 through 8.22-8  replace same.  Major Revision.
Pp. 8.24-3 through 8.24-6  replace same.  Minor Revision.
Pp. 10-1 and -2 (blank) and
    10.1-1 through 10.1-18  (blank) replace 10.1-1  through  10.1-10.  Major Revision.
Pp. 11.2.6-1 and -2 replace same.  Minor  Revision.
Add pp. B-l and -2 (blank).  Reserved  for future use.
Add Appendix C.I.  New Information.
Add Appendix C.2.  New Information.

-------
                 COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS

                                   VOLUME I:
                       STATIONARY POINT AND AREA SOURCES

                                  Introduction

What is an emission factor?

     An emission factor is an average value which relates the quantity of  a
pollutant released to the atmosphere with the activity associated with the
release of that pollutant.  It is usually expressed as the weight of pollutant
divided by a unit weight, volume, distance or duration of the activity that
emits the pollutant (e. g., kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram  of
coal combusted).  Using such factors permits the estimation of emissions from
various sources of air pollution.  In most cases, these factors are simply
averages of all available data of acceptable quality, generally without consid-
eration for the influence of various process parameters such as temperature,
reactant concentrations, etc.  For a few cases, however, such as in the estima-
tion of volatile organic emissions from petroleum storage tanks, this document
contains empirical formulae which can relate emissions to such variables as
tank diameter, liquid temperature and wind velocity.  Emission factors corre-
lated with such variables tend to yield more precise estimates than would
factors derived from broader statistical averages.

Recommended uses of emission factors

     Emission factors are very useful tools for estimating emissions of air pol-
lutants.  However, because such factors are averages obtained from data of wide
range and varying degrees of accuracy, emissions calculated this way for a given
facility are likely to differ from that facility's actual emissions.  Because
they are averages, factors will indicate higher emission estimates than are ac-
tual for some sources, and lower for others.   Only specific source measurement
can determine the actual pollutant contribution from a source, under conditions
existing at the time of the test.  For the most accurate emissions estimate,  it
is recommended that source specific data be obtained whenever possible. Emis-
sion factors are more appropriately used to estimate the collective emissions
of a number of sources, such as is done in emissions inventory efforts for a
particular geographic area.

     If factors are used to predict emissions from new or proposed sources, users
should review the latest literature and technology to determine if such sources
would likely exhibit emissions characteristics different from those of typical
existing sources.

     In a few AP-42 Sections, emission factors are presented for facilities
having air pollution control equipment in place.  These factors are not intend-
ed to be used as regulatory standards.  They do not represent best available
control technology (BACT), such as may be reflected in New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), or reasonably available control technology (RACT) for exist-
ing sources .  Rather, they relate to the average level of controls found  on
existing facilities for which data are available.  The usefulness of this
information should be considered carefully, in light of changes in air pollution
control technology.  In using this information with respect to any specific

                                       1                                  10/86

-------
source, the user should consider the age,  level of  maintenance and other aspects
which may influence equipment efficacy.

Examples of various factor applications

     Calculating carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from distillate oil combustion
serves as an example of the simplest use of emission factors.   Consider  an
industrial boiler which burns 90,000 liters of distillate oil  per day.   In
Section 1.3 of AP-42, the CO emission factor for industrial  boilers burning
distillate oil is 0.6 kg CO per 103 liters of oil burned.
          Then CO emissions
                    = CO emission factor x distillate oil burned/day
                    = 0.6 x 90
                    = 54 kg/day

     In a somewhat more complex case, suppose a sulfuric acid  (I^SO^) plant
produces 200 Mg of 100% ^SO^ per day by converting sulfur dioxide (802)  into
sulfur trioxide (803) at 97.5% efficiency.  In Section 5.17, the S02 emission
factors are listed according to S02 to SOg conversion efficiencies, in whole
numbers.  The reader is directed to Footnote b, an  interpolation formula which
may be used to obtain the emission factor for 97.5% S02 to SO^ conversion.
          Emission factor for kg S02/Mg  100% H2S04
                      682 - [(6.82)(% S02  to S03 conversion)]
                            [(6.82)(97.5)J
                            665
For production of 200 Mg of 100% t^SO^ per day,  S02  emissions  are  calculated  as
          S02 emissions
                    = 17 kg S02 emissions/Mg 100% H2S04  x 200  Mg 100%  H2S04/day
                    = 3400 kg/day

Emission Factor Ratings

     To help users understand the reliability and accuracy of  AP-42  emission
factors, each Table (and sometimes individual factors  within a Table)  is given
a rating (A through E, with A being the best) which  reflects the quality and
the amount of data on which the factors are based.   In general, factors based
on many observations or on more widely accepted  test procedures are  assigned
higher rankings.  For instance, an emission factor based on ten or more source
tests on different plants would likely get an A  rating,  if all tests were
conducted using a single valid reference measurement method or equivalent
techniques.  Conversely, a factor based on a single  observation of questionable
quality, or one extrapolated from another factor for a similar process, would
probably be labeled D or E.  Several subjective  schemes  have been  used in  the
past to assign these ratings, depending upon data availability, source charac-
teristics, etc.  Because these ratings are subjective  and take no  account  of
the inherent scatter among the data used to calculate  factors, they  should be
used only as approximations, to infer error bounds or  confidence intervals
about each emission factor.  At most, a rating should  be considered  an indi-
cator of the accuracy and precision of a given factor  used to  estimate emis-
sions from a large number of sources.  This indicator  will largely reflect the
professional judgment of the authors and reviewers of  AP-42 Sections concerning
the reliability of any estimates derived with these  factors.

10/86                                  2

-------
                            PUBLICATIONS IN  SERIES
       Issue

COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS (Fourth Edition)
                                                         9/85
SUPPLEMENT A
  Introduction
  Section 1.1
          1.2
          1.3
          1.4
          1.6
          1.7
          5.16
          7.1
          7.2
          7.3
          7.4
          7.5
          7.6
          7.7
          7.8
          7.10
          7.11
          8.1
          8.3
          8.6
          8.10
          8.13
          8.15
          8.19.2
          8.22
          8.24
          10.1
          11.2.6
  Appendix C.I

  Appendix C.2
                                                         10/86
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
Crushed Stone Processing
Taconite Ore Processing
Western Surface Coal Mining
Chemical Wood Pulping
Industrial Paved Roads
Particle Size Distribution Data And Sized Emission Factors
  For Selected Sources
Generalized Particle Size Distributions
                                      iii

-------
                                    CONTENTS
                                                                        Page

INTRODUCTION 	      1

1.    EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES 	'.	  1.1-1
     1.1    Bituminous Coal Combustion	  1.1-1
     1.2    Anthracite Coal Combustion	  1.2-1
     1.3    Fuel Oil Combustion 	  1.3-1
     1.4    Natural Gas Combustion	  1.4-1
     1.5    Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion	  1.5-1
     1.6    Wood Waste Combustion In Boilers 	  1.6-1
     1.7    Lignite Combustion 	  1.7-1
     1.8    Bagasse Combustion In Sugar Mills 	  1.8-1
     1.9    Residential Fireplaces 	  1.9-1
     1.10   Wood Stoves 	 1.10-1
     1.11   Waste Oil Disposal 	 1.11-1

2.    SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 	  2.0-1
     2.1    Refuse Incineration 	  2.1-1
     2.2    Automobile Body Incineration 	  2.2-1
     2.3    Conical Burners 	  2.3-1
     2.4    Open Burning 	  2.4-1
     2.5    Sewage Sludge Incineration	  2.5-1

3.    STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES 	  3.0-1
     Glossary Of Terms 	 Vol. II
     3.1    Highway Vehicles 	Vol. II
     3.2    Off Highway Mobile Sources 	Vol. II
     3.3    Off Highway Stationary Sources 	  3.3-1

4.    EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES 	  4.1-1
     4.1    Dry Cleaning 	  4.1-1
     4.2    Surface Coating 	  4.2-1
     4.3    Storage Of Organic Liquids 	  4.3-1
     4.4    Transportation And Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids 	  4.4-1
     4.5    Cutback Asphalt, Emulsified Asphalt And Asphalt Cement ..  4.5-1
     4.6    Solvent Degreasing 	  4.6-1
     4.7    Waste Solvent Reclamation	,	  4.7-1
     4.8    Tank And Drum Cleaning 	  4.8-1
     4.9    Graphic Arts 	  4.9-1
     4.10   Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use	 4.10-1
     4.11   Textile Fabric Printing 	 4.11-1

5.    CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY 	  5.1-1
     5.1    Adipic Acid 	  5.1-1
     5.2    Synthetic Ammonia 	  5.2-1
     5.3    Carbon Black 	  5.3-1
     5.4    Charcoal 	  5.4-1
     5.5    Chlor-Alkali 	  5.5-1
     5.6    Explosives	  5.6-1
     5.7    Hydrochloric Acid 	  5.7-1
     5.8    Hydrofluoric Acid 	  5.8-1
     5.9    Nitric Acid 	  5.9-1

-------
                                                                 Page
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
6. FOOD
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18















AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 	
Alfalfa Dehydrating 	












Urea 	
Beef Cattle Feedlots 	



7 . METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY 	
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14






Zinc Smelting 	 	 	 	 	







	 5.10-1
	 5.11-1
	 5.12-1
	 5.13-1
	 5.14-1
	 5.15-1
	 5.16-1
	 5.17-1
	 5.18-1
	 5.19-1
	 5.20-1
	 5.21-1
	 5.22-1
	 5.23-1
	 5.24-1
	 6.1-1
	 6.1-1
	 6.2-1
	 6.3-1
	 6.4-1
	 6.5-1
	 6.6-1
	 6.7-1
	 6.8-1
	 6.9-1
	 6.10-1
	 6.11-1
	 6.12-1
	 6.13-1
	 6.14-1
	 6.15-1
	 6.16-1
	 6.17-1
	 6.18-1
	 7.1-1
	 7.1-1
	 7.2-1
	 7.3-1
	 7.4-1
	 7.5-1
	 7.6-1
	 7.7-1
	 7.8-1
	 7.9-1
	 7.10-1
	 7.11-1
	 7.12-1
	 7.13-1
	 7.14-1
7.15   Storage Battery  Production	7.15-1
                                  vi

-------
                                                                       Page

     7.16   Lead Oxide And Pigment Production 	  7.16-1
     7.17   Miscellaneous Lead Products 	  7.17-1
     7.18   Leadbearing Ore Crushing And Grinding 	  7.18-1

8.   MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	   8.1-1
     8.1    Asphaltic Concrete Plants 	   8.1-1
     8.2    Asphalt Roofing 	   8.2-1
     8.3    Bricks And Related Clay Products  	   8.3-1
     8.4    Calcium Carbide Manufacturing 	   8.4-1
     8.5    Castable Refractories 	   8.5-1
     8.6    Portland Cement Manufacturing	   8.6-1
     8.7    Ceramic Clay Manufacturing	   8.7-1
     8.8    Clay And Fly Ash Sintering 	   8.8-1
     8.9    Coal Cleaning 	   8.9-1
     8.10   Concrete Batching 	  8.10-1
     8.11   Glass Fiber Manufacturing 	  8.11-1
     8.12   Frit Manufacturing 	  8.12-1
     8.13   Glass Manufacturing 	  8.13-1
     8.14   Gypsum Manufacturing 	  8.14-1
     8.15   Lime Manufacturing 	  8.15-1
     8.16   Mineral Wool Manufacturing 	  8.16-1
     8.17   Perlite Manufacturing 	  8.17-1
     8.18   Phosphate Rock Processing 	  8.18-1
     8.19   Construction Aggregate Processing 	  8.19-1
     8.20   [Reserved] 	  8.20-1
     8.21   Coal Conversion 	  8.21-1
     8.22   Taconite Ore Processing 	  8.22-1
     8.23   Metallic Minerals Processing	8.23-1
     8.24   Western Surface Coal Mining 	  8.24-1

9.   PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 	   9.1-1
     9.1    Petroleum Refining 	   9.1-1
     9.2    Natural Gas Processing 	   9.2-1

10.  WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 	  10.1-1
     10.1   Chemical Wood Pulping 	  10.1-1
     10.2   Pulpboard 	  10.2-1
     10.3   Plywood Veneer And Layout Operations	  10.3-1
     10.4   Woodworking Waste Collection Operations 	  10.4-1

11.  MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES 	  11.1-1
     11.1   Forest Wildfires 	  11.1-1
     11.2   Fugitive Dust Sources 	  11.2-1
     11.3   Explosives Detonation	  11.3-1

APPENDIX A  Miscellaneous Data And Conversion Factors	     A-l

APPENDIX B  (Reserved For Future Use)

APPENDIX C.I   Particle Size Distribution Data And Sized Emission
                 Factors For Selected Sources 	   C.l-1

APPENDIX C.2   Generalized Particle Size Distributions 	   C.2-1
                                      vii

-------
1.1  BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION

1.1.1  General1

     Coal is a complex combination of organic matter and inorganic ash formed
over eons from successive layers of fallen vegetation.  Coal types are broadly
classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous or lignite, and classifica-
tion is made by heating values and amounts of fixed carbon, volatile matter,
ash, sulfur and moisture.  Formulas for differentiating coals based on these
properties are given in Reference 1.  See Sections 1.2 and 1.7 for discussions
of anthracite and lignite, respectively.

     There are two major coal combustion techniques, suspension firing and
grate firing.  Suspension firing is the primary combustion mechanism in pulver-
ized coal and cyclone systems.  Grate firing is the primary mechanism in under-
feed and overfeed stokers.  Both mechanisms are employed in spreader stokers.

     Pulverized coal furnaces are used primarily in utility and large industrial
boilers.  In these systems, the coal Is pulverized in a mill to the consistency
of talcum powder (i. e., at least 70 percent of the particles will pass through
a 200 mesh sieve).  The pulverized coal is generally entrained in primary air
before being fed through the burners to the combustion chamber, where it is
fired in suspension.  Pulverized coal furnaces are classified as either dry or
wet bottom, depending on the ash removal technique.  Dry bottom furnaces fire
coals with high ash fusion temperatures, and dry ash removal techniques are
used.  In wet bottom (slag tap) furnaces, coals with low ash fusion tempera-
tures are used, and molten ash is drained from the bottom of the furnace.
Pulverized coal furnaces are further classified by the firing position of the
burners, 1. e., single (front or rear) wall, horizontally opposed, vertical,
tangential (corner fired), turbo or arch fired.

     Cyclone furnaces burn low ash fusion temperature coal crushed to a 4 mesh
size.  The coal is fed tangentially, with primary air, to a horizontal cylin-
drical combustion chamber.  In this chamber, small coal particles are burned
in suspension, while the larger particles are forced against the outer wall.
Because of the high temperatures developed in the relatively small furnace
volume, and because of the low fusion temperature of the coal ash, much of the
ash forms a liquid slag which is drained from the bottom of the furnace through
a slag tap opening.  Cyclone furnaces are used mostly in utility and large
industrial applications.

     In spreader stokers, a flipping mechanism throws the coal into the furnace
and onto a moving fuel bed.  Combustion occurs partly in suspension and partly
on the grate.  Because of significant carbon in the particulate, flyash rein-
jection from mechanical collectors is commonly employed to improve boiler
efficiency.  Ash residue in the fuel bed is deposited in a receiving pit at the
end of the grate.
10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                     1.1-1

-------
H
CO
I
CO

i
OQ

BO
CO

o
z
g
2
2
g

?


I
A
g
5
s
5

9
3


o
2

s
3
a
0
1
5
e
o
9
e
(S
L.
b.
OOO O O O OO 05 OJ
odd d o d dd o o »
OOO O O O OO <•» •*
OOO O O O OO O O •»
OOO O O O OO **? ""I
odd o o d oo -i ^ o

S-* •* •» •» -v •# •* in tn
oo o o o oo so vo


odd >A «n in «se ^ £ g
OOO N M N « « m in m
M
i * * s 3 s - - 2 ; «
-
^ -: « £ ^ £ i
-• ~* -1
^^^ ~ « ^ ^ *
IS $ X in $ S S S
(A   »> In £i *n
S * „ 5, S 5,
C
V 4)
O O O
t) ^-1 -J —I V v
e u u u e c
O !K U X O O
7.-i u » u r^ rf
0—1 (J y
i 5* J5 -S J5 S1 x
M Alb JU H ^ u ^ % ** * «
0 3-5*h"*i*i'*ti~'^*'-*j
•O*JiJ3«O3«XB«03 03
41 W u w- L. | Q^Q LI « 73 f B -O

2° * & l= s |= a |= 5 |


T3 «
* s
: = ,
;?>
O V ^
Q. e *
s:
s :
J
«»'•
::^
4J -* f
•H • •.
ir
*r
&
2 .
8 « .
^£
? . '
•a •
>*- e j
•* V
$.£»
•s .
- ° -
!?
Us
0 L, »
« » ^
to u c
C CD p-
3 «
|| j
• « t
i " !
T
^ C '
O 0
e •_-
c
3 T3
sl
M £
«»
« o
O 13
£2
« J3





• 0 * 3
W ««^£ -~ 0
U«k4 •J}9>M«CB O -H i. 1
O^O 9<«*^ * • D U-.
W«>M 6v 3>, • « u o -a
U > V<^'*HB-H-H C *H U C
3 • • M • O O ^tg oil O U «
•1 1*4 Ul *B VMOtUV •
|U^-*Sl4JM4JLlO B3
C C f- « *l t> <-> • « xi
.•sH J£°1l£ £S " £ B 3
Iflil SJSitJjo "a » • S'S »
"«S S •&"• ^2 S S2S 5
I 4J W U O IS X « • 3 ^ • «l ^ -O «
A^lH-U MB &• -HO 3 U «
J tl «l « <4-l » ^H U -J tlLit, U
*H£bi « *5 u • v ij « • e but* wi
K *j y D. 3»au5e • <*- ^ « «>> >
1 U *J » • • ^ U -H 3 U « <4M O 01
&* 41 » -H -< • -H N I «J « -O
UW jfi ^ - » ^ * ,2-HW Mu
) 5 -i S j= o • v • u u ^ 3 £ n
^u L, w u V 9 4 ttj O T) b»
si2~ s s "^ g .•!- s : ° i^s •?
- xS g IS v. °S SSS1" .S S'SS S-
^ O o *4 •d » V 2 ** bH B u •
; • u fc M3ooiai-K3«> u O
9 u • «Liv4 a & ^ • ^ sec -
*j "e o^ £ "» * 41 « " v *j t > ^^
• -OW»-*U--?3-HCrjW-S^ 0*,e C
1 41 * «4.u->^w43-H^3>H u 3 O
L. i -I -fc I • « 0 A K • 0 . -i U V L<«B.C
M C >*)«*) O LifV OO * 41 *( t, •
Oflta.«-3U« kj « «TJ-J M 's'-H^
t C * O J 3B£M'uCU VXO-O-H
« PI b ^nvHudwwaM-oai ^-- 3 o "o o
^ «M •••0334IWD. U &*- » =
j=*-- C3>*. .26.HL.OO OC U
>,«'^uec --I 3 O 41 * > X «! •u>biM(ki4)
0 1= « 3 « J= • £ tlMfl «7 f
u o T)*Jo-H«**»
e^ s_- i. « en 5 i- 3^« - •-< c » u js ? & »
B «£ c u -^ rr »"-•>, '3»4 ^^C>H
SMw op-H>e u • -< ai - a. u .H • a a
£^kuiM 3k.4i- k. U
I- Ji 3-~*OOl«M4i*<>-'« MMO.OW
""^o^UcS .^g^SlS^«SS"3
•u--0 O *^UH« •-- " j= • -H I W -H
: o *- = - u -H -o m ^H « • «O-H-H£-OOJU
< — i«(NIO*J4l-^3|HrJ(N(ti« u 3 U
: '« O *- « *J EBWOOV (3 * C O -" «
OO^'-M <-«Ci.
* (i (B3^^-HO 0«—O >
inO^ •*«« V \*« C VG«2V«u-»4~4
M h.o-a^ic-o>4j-i
Cwuuvn —i C « -H 4J -H •• — I 41 O
•H^) « « -H 41 DL.»«4JO*— (CjS^jijjSI-
4i-oo4>wigc vuucc
W -H 4>Li fllHU-i > U jQ^CivH-MVO
4J3M-CQ.K--I4)KCQ. • •4IE0_IL,U
L- O ^ " « O X 3o^O OKO4JOj=0-"O«C
Q.*^ Otaltn « » — ^ O U Z (BZ>Z~i U&.O






^
c
s
. >
Jt
• «
• V
s?
V i-H
s *
o -o
O A
u •
°»
\ii
bi D
w ^ S.
a • a,
?sf
sfi
s- s j
-S3*
2 a »
o
*J 4) 41 "
« i «
r -i S »
M ^ t. C
-- > 41 -1
• 4J «
fcTZn 5 °
N U Ll C
• °» *
OX. 41
O L, (0
U u 4) Li
« 41 .M «
sIS ?
sf ss.
35-5
SiS»:
*J 4J -H 41
V « o *J
•5-22 -'
* U M
41 TJ e
>, t. 41 -H
. u- -O U « «
2 . . Ji. >
f*ctor of t»
^Accounts foi
(Particulate
ash is rein.
^Includes tra






f%
i •
;
5
41
^
LI
g
5
S
•z
&
L.
•
41
|
•H •
41 -H
W
*J L,
§JS
.s
O >u
^ o
08
w £
- |
S'
^
u
>^ 4>
«-> LI
C ^
4)
S k4 C
? &?
J O U
> C 41
•>H
Z » £
• » B
• b S "
J^ri
H «-0^
i o o
-g •*- fc
a >n u a
C 4) 41 C
si:?
«=n




                                                                                       i
aiavi
1.1-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                             10/86

-------
z
0
h"^
H
CO



O
U
.J

O
o

CO

o
z
hH
j£

H
M

pa

CO
O
5
CO

o
z
hH



H
M
pa


o

CO
o
z
w
w
&
2
Q


*^
*
CO
O
z
H- 1
H

S
P5
O
H
O
S

Z
O
M
CO
W
KH
W



1

-J
H





c

.c
<3>
X



O

0)
.C
ft>
S
i



V
t)
X
o
c
s
c
o
-a
3






^












1




1



^
C
1-4



<*4

S
o(
5

£




H



c
"






»w




e
q
3.


***




e
s



>**
06



M
C
ffl
OS




5
H
J
B

3
)0
•H
tt
3
-«
L<



ao oo
r* ; o
co s; - i- S - •* »n
m



< •<< < << -<<< t *
r-4^H^»-4^HO* i-t i-4 OX O
P-t(N^F^r-t<*l ^4-* i-4 m


< u« •< < •< <n ^o in ff» i ti
r4*^ n <*>m»n F-» **P^
*» i •i*-*-*'*
*A ^ cy> ff* O ?«**HO arv« • o
>
•H u a 4i u

(J 41 V C V 4t H
^ 1)U ki C -H fl M <-t4) OB
4 y « "O aiovo 41 fl & jri fl u
0 4^(« ^jc^M^ ^41 -H04I -•
us Be o<-4 a. w u u o<~* *j u -t a
4)4J UIM U .-H -4 « M • fl hi fl
NO O M *J 3 ^ • X • fl U 4IW 4)
-* ja j34t we flo-io ua M « c u
M eflo .chtMU 410 «*4 1*4 14-10 w ki u u
^Q S 73 1-5 "3 ^ 4*3 *3fl3 O 4
a, o trt < o 3 as




"*•!
O 41
4) u
JS 41 4
U • kl •
a 3 "
os u aj X
C 41 4 O
4 <-* 4) b
4) -H a a.
• o a.
A 4 4
ao
5SSS
U -H C 4J

ki 4) 41
O U A
= W 4
< -H
= p « -H
S 60 -H
S *"* c *
u "^ u
040

fl U
01 4 41 4
00 U OS >4-t
4 4 4>
H 4>
caw >
4J • 00
M U 41
0 y 4
u e e
U O 4> **
4 U 4
M- DO 4> i
fl -4- 44
§T* 4)
4J kl 4f
M M X fl
9) _ ki 4)
"a u fl 3
41 = C **-<
o d
JI 4 U 0
U 01 U
4 fl a
« i . 8
X «
5.- 58
.C W ki (J
> 4 *« 0
fl 
5*3?
^ C 4J ^4
9 °-33
a ?.-
4* -^ -H M
J3 U 00 «
w 4 C J3
O M -H •
-1. .*&
s= >," a
u- 4 <-• - 41
0) c h- w
M - O « 4
aa > o
* k< c «
C v o > h
*J 0 4> -H
0 £ 
41 0 = «4
O 44 O
£^ IM ^ *4 44
*

10/86
External Combustion Sources
1.1-3

-------
     In overfeed stokers, coal is fed onto a traveling or vibrating grate,  and
it burns on the fuel bed as it progresses through the furnace.   Ash particles
fall into an ash pit at the rear of the stoker.   The terra "overfeed" applies
because the coal is fed onto the moving grate under an adjustable gate.   Con-
versely, in "underfeed" stokers, coal is fed into the firing  zone from under-
neath by mechanical rams or screw conveyers.  The coal moves  in a channel,
known as a retort, from which it is forced upward,  spilling over the top of
each side to form and to feed the fuel bed.   Combustion is completed by the
time the bed reaches the side dump grates from which the ash  is discharged  to
shallow pits.  Underfeed stokers include single  retort units  and multiple
retort units, the latter having several retorts  side by side.

1.1.2  Emissions And Controls

     The major pollutants of concern from external  coal combustion are partic-
ulate, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides.  Some  unburnt combustibles, including
numerous organic compounds and carbon monoxide,  are generally emitted even
under proper boiler operating conditions.
                    - Particulate composition and emission levels  are a complex
function of firing configuration, boiler operation and  coal  properties.  In
pulverized coal systems, combustion is almost complete,  and  thus particulate
largely comprises inorganic ash residue.  In wet bottom pulverized coal units
and cyclones, the quantity of ash leaving the boiler is less than  in dry bottom
units, since some of the ash liquifies, collects on the furnace walls,  and
drains from the furnace bottom as molten slag.   To increase  the fraction of ash
drawn off as wet slag, and thus to reduce the flyash disposal  problem,  flyash
may be reinjected from collection equipment into slag tap systems.  Dry bottom
unit ash may also be reinjected into wet bottom boilers for  the same purpose.

     Because a mixture of fine and coarse coal  particles is  fired  in spreader
stokers, significant unburnt carbon can be present in the particulate.   To
improve boiler efficiency, flyash from collection devices (typically multiple
cyclones) is sometimes reinjected into spreader stoker  furnaces.   This  prac-
tice can dramatically increase the particulate loading  at the  boiler outlet
and, to a lesser extent, at the mechanical collector outlet.  Flyash can also
be reinjected from the boiler, air heater and economizer dust  hoppers.   Flyash
reinjection from these hoppers does not increase particulate loadings nearly so
much as from multiple cyclones.-'

     Uncontrolled overfeed and underfeed stokers emit considerably less particu-
late than do pulverized coal units and spreader stokers, since combustion takes
place in a relatively quiescent fuel bed.  Flyash reinjection  is not practiced
in these kinds of stokers.

     Other variables than firing configuration and flyash reinjection can
affect emissions from stokers.  Particulate loadings will often increase as
load increases (especially as full load is approached)  and with sudden  load
changes.  Similarly, particulate can increase as the ash and fines contents
Increase.  ("Fines", in this context, are coal  particles smaller than about 1.6
millimeters, or one sixteenth inch, in diameter.)   Conversely, particulate  can
be reduced significantly when overftre air pressures are increased.-^
1.1-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
     The primary kinds of particulate control devices used for coal combustion
include multiple cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters (bag-
houses) and scrubbers.  Some measure of control will even result from ash
settling in boiler/air heater/economizer dust hoppers, large breeches and chim-
ney bases.  To the extent possible from the existing data base, the effects of
such settling are reflected in the emission factors in Table 1.1-1.

     Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) are the most common high efficiency
control device used on pulverized coal and cyclone units, and they are being
used increasingly on stokers.  Generally, ESP collection efficiencies are a
function of collection plate area per volumetric flow rate of flue gas through
the device.  Particulate control efficiencies of 99.9 weight percent are
obtainable with ESPs.  Fabric filters have recently seen increased use in both
utility and industrial applications, generally effecting about 99.8 percent
efficiency.  An advantage of fabric filters is that they are unaffected by high
flyash resistivities associated with low sulfur coals.  ESPs located after air
preheaters (i. e., cold side precipitators) may operate at significantly reduced
efficiencies when low sulfur coal is fired.  Scrubbers are also used to control
particulate, although their primary use is to control sulfur oxides.  One draw-
back of scrubbers is the high energy requirement to achieve control efficiencies
comparable to those of ESPs and baghouses.2

     Mechanical collectors, generally multiple cyclones, are the primary means
of control on many stokers and are sometimes installed upsteam of high effi-
ciency control devices in order to reduce the ash collection burden.  Depending
on application and design, multiple cyclone efficiencies can vary tremendously.
Where cyclone design flow rates are not attained (which is common with under-
feed and overfeed stokers), these devices may be only marginally effective and
may prove little better in reducing particulate than large breeching.  Con-
versely, well designed multiple cyclones, operating at the required flow rates,
can achieve collection efficiencies on spreader stokers and overfeed stokers
of 90 to 95 percent.  Even higher collection efficiencies are obtainable on
spreader stokers with reinjected flyash, because of the larger particle sizes
and increased particulate loading reaching the controls.^~6

     Sulfur Oxides?"^ _ Gaseous sulfur oxides from external coal combustion
are largely sulfur dioxide (802) and much less quantity of sulfur trioxide
(863) and gaseous sulfates.  These compounds form as the organic and pyritic
sulfur in the coal is oxidized during the combustion process.  On average, 98
percent of the sulfur present in bituminous coal will be emitted as gaseous
sulfur oxides, whereas somewhat less will be emitted when subbituminous coal
is fired.  The more alkaline nature of the ash in some subbituminous coal
causes some of the sulfur to react to form various sulfate salts that are
retained in the boiler or in the flyash.  Generally, boiler size, firing con-
figuration and boiler operations have little effect on the percent conversion
of fuel sulfur to sulfur oxides.

     Several techniques are used to reduce sulfur oxides from coal combustion.
One way is to switch to lower sulfur coals, since sulfur oxide emissions are
proportional to the sulfur content of the coal.  This alternative may not be
possible where lower sulfur coal is not readily available or where a different
grade of coal can not be satisfactorily fired.  In some cases,  various cleaning
processes may be employed to reduce the fuel sulfur content.   Physical coal
cleaning removes mineral sulfur such as pyrite but is not effective in removing

10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                     1.1-5

-------
organic sulfur.  Chemical cleaning and solvent refining processes are being
developed to remove organic sulfur.

     Many flue gas desulfurization techniques can remove sulfur oxides formed
during combustion.  Flue gases can be treated through wet,  semidry or dry
desulfurization processes of either the throwaway type, in which all waste
streams are discarded, or the recovery ( regenerable)  type,  in which the SOX
absorbent is regenerated and reused.  To date, wet systems  are the most com-
monly applied.  Wet systems generally use alkali slurries as the SOx absorbent
medium and can be designed to remove well in excess of 90 percent of the in-
coming SOjj.  Particulate reduction of up to 99 percent is also possible with
wet scrubbers, but flyash is often collected by upsteam ESPs or baghouses, to
avoid erosion of the desulfurization equipment and possible interference with
the process reactions. ^  Also, the volume of scrubber sludge is reduced with
separate flyash removal, and contamination of the reagents  and byproducts is
prevented.  References 7 and 8 give more details on scrubbing and other SOX
removal techniques.

     Nitrogen Oxides 1U~1J- - Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from coal
combustion are primarily nitrogen oxide (NO).  Only a few volume percent are
nitrogen dioxide (N02).  NO results from thermal fixation of atmospheric nitro-
gen in the combustion flame and from oxidation of nitrogen bound in the coal.
Typically, only 20 to 60 percent of the fuel nitrogen is converted to nitrogen
oxides.  Bituminous and subbituminous coals usually contain from 0.5 to 2
weight percent nitrogen, present mainly in aromatic ring structures.  Fuel
nitrogen can account for up to 80 percent of total NOx from coal combustion.
     A number of combustion modifications can be made to reduce NOX emissions
from boilers.  Low excess air (LEA) firing is the most widespread control
modification, because it can be practiced in both old and new units and in all
sizes of boilers.  LEA firing is easy to implement and has the added advantage
of increasing fuel use efficiency.  LEA firing is generally effective only
above 20 percent excess air for pulverized coal units and above 30 percent
excess air for stokers.  Below these levels, the NOx reduction from decreased 02
availability is offset by increased NOX because of increased flame temperature.
Another NOX reduction technique is simply to switch to a coal having a lower
nitrogen content, although many boilers may not properly fire coals of different
properties.

     Of f-stoichiometric (staged) combustion is also an effective means of
controlling NOX from coal fired equipment.  This can be achieved by using
overfire air or low NOjj burners designed to stage combustion in the flame zone.
Other NOx reduction techniques include flue gas recirculation, load reduction,
and steam or water injection.  However, these techniques are not very effective
for use on coal fired equipment because of the fuel nitrogen effect.  Ammonia
Injection is another technique which can be used, but it is costly.  The net
reduction of NOX from any of these techniques or combinations thereof varies
considerably with boiler type, coal properties and existing operating practices.
Typical reductions will range from 10 to 60 percent.  References 10 and 60
should be consulted for a detailed discussion of each of these NOy. reduction
techniques.  To date, flue gas treatment is not used to reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions because of its higher cost.
                               EMISSION FACTORS                           10/86

-------
     Volatile Organic Compounds And Carbon Monoxide - Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO) are unburnt gaseous combustibles which generally
are emitted in quite small amounts.  However, during startups, temporary upsets
or other conditions preventing complete combustion, unburnt combustible emis-
sions may increase dramatically.  VOC and CO emissions per unit of fuel fired
are normally lower from pulverized coal or cyclone furnaces than from smaller
stokers and handfired units where operating conditions are not so well con-
trolled.  Measures used for NOX control can increase CO emissions, so to reduce
the risk of explosion, such measures are applied only to the point at which CO
in the flue gas reaches a maximum of about 200 parts per million.  Other than
maintaining proper combustion conditions, control measures are not applied to
control VOC and CO.

     Emission Factors And References - Emission factors for several  pollutants
are presented in Table 1.1-1, and factor ratings and references are presented
in Table 1.1-2.  The factors for uncontrolled underfeed stokers and hand fired
units also may be applied to hot air furnaces.  Tables 1.1-3 through 1.1-8
present cumulative size distribution data and size specific emission factors
for particulate emissions from the combustion sources discussed above.  Uncon-
trolled and controlled size specific emission factors are presented in Figures
1.1-1 through 1.1-6.
10/86                     External  Combustion  Sources                      1.1-7

-------
TABLE 1.1-3.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION

       FACTORS FOR DRY BOTTOM BOILERS  BURNING PULVERIZED  BITUMINOUS COAL3
                     EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
                            C (uncontrolled)

                            D (scrubber and ESP controlled

                            E (multiple cyclone and  baghouse)
Particle »lzeb
(•»)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cunulatlve Bass Z < stated size
Uncontrolled
32
23
17
6
2
2
1
100
Controlled
Multiple
cyclone
54
29
14
3
1
1
1
100
Scrubber
81
71
62
51
35
31
20
100
ESP
79
67
50
29
17
14
12
100
Baghouse
97
92
77
53
31
25
14
100

Uncontrolled
1.6A
(3.2A)
1.15A
(2.3A)
0.85A
(1.7A)
0.30A
(0.6A)
0.10A
(0.2A)
0.10A
(0.2A)
0.05A
CO. 10)
5A
C10A)
Controlled'1
Multiple
cyclone
0.54A
(1.08A)
0.29A
(0.58A)
0.1 4A
(0.28A)
0.03A
(0.06A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
0.01A
(0.02A)
1A
(2A)
Scrubber
0.24A
(0.48A)
0.21A
(0.42A)
0.19A
(0.38A)
0.15A
(0.3A)
0.11A
(0.22A)
0.09A
(0.18A)
0.06A
(0.12A)
0.3A
(0.6A)
ESP
0.032A
(0.06A)
0.027A
(0.05A)
0.020A
(0.04A)
0.012A
(0.02A)
0.007A
(0.01A)
0.006A
(0.01A)
0.005A
(0.01A)
0.04A
(0.08A)
Baghouse
0.010A
(0.02A)
0.009A
(0.02A)
0.008A
(0.02A)
0.005A
(O.OIA)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.003A
(0.006A)
0.001A
(0.002A)
O.OIA
(0.02A)
 •Reference 61.ESP - electrostatic precipltator.

 ^Expressed as serodynanlc equivalent diameter.
 CA - coal ash weight Z, as fired.
 ''Estimated control efficiency for nultlple cyclone, 80S; scrubber, 941

  ESP, 99.21; baghouse, 99.81.
                                                                73 l.OA     —1
    
                                                                                    **-
                                                                                    c
                                                                              0.002A •?
                                                                                    M
                                                                                    EJ

                                                                              0.001A ^
    Figure  1.1-1,
1.1-8
Cumulative  size specific  emission factors for dry  bottom

boilers burning pulverized bituminous  coal.


               EMISSION FACTORS                                 10/86

-------
TABLE 1.1-4.
CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS FOR WET  BOTTOM  BOILERS  BURNING PULVERIZED BITUMINOUS  COALa

              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle slzeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < state
Uncontrolled
40
37
33
21
6
4
2
100


Controlled
Multiple
cyclone
99
93
84
61
31
19
e
100
ESP
83
75
63
40
17
8
e
100


Uncontrolled
1.4A (2.8A)
1.30A (2.6A)
1.16A (2.32A)
0.74A (1.48A)
0.21A (0.42A)
0.14A (0.28A)
0.07A (0.14A)
3.5A (7.0A)
(Ib/ton) coal, as fired)
Controlled11
Multiple cyclone
0.69A (1.38A)
0.65A (1.3A)
0.59A (1.18A)
0.43A (0.86A)
0.22A (0.44A)
0.13A (0.26A)
e
0.7A (1.4A)
ESP
0.023A (0.046A)
0.021A (0.042A)
0.018A (0.036A)
0.011A (0.022A)
0.005A (0.01A)
0.002A (0.004A)
e
0.028A (0.056A)
   Reference 61.  ESP - electrostatic preclpltator.
   ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   CA • coal ash weight £, as fired.
   dEotlaated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80%; ESP, 99.2%,
   elnsufficlent data.
    fO QJ
    V- S-

    C^
    0) n3
      O
    T3 O
         3.bA
         2.8A -
         2.1A -
         1.4A -
         0.7QA -
                       .4  .6   1
                                   24   6     10

                                 Particle diameter (urn)
                                                    20   40  60 100
                                                              1A



                                                              06A
                                                                  i-
                                                                  o

                                                              04A  S^
                                                                   TD
                                                              02A  § "
                                                                             0.01A
                                                                 i — O
                                                              .006Ap u
                                                                 *- 01
                                                                 •w E

                                                              . 004A o 21
                                                                             0.002A
                                                                             0.001A
    Figure  1.1-2.   Cumulative  size  specific emission factors  for wet  bottom
                     boilers burning  pulverized bituminous coal
10/86
            External  Combustion  Sources
                                                                                     1.1-9

-------
TABLE 1.1-5.
CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
 FACTORS  FOR CYCLONE FURNACES BURNING BITUMINOUS  COAL3

               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle slze^
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
33
13
8
0
0
0
0
100
Controlled
Scrubber
95
94
93
92
85
82
d
100
ESP
90
68
56
36
22
17
d
100
Cumulative emission factorc [kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired)
Uncontrolled
0.33A (0.66A)
0.1 3A (0.26A)
0.08A (0.16A)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1A (2A)
Controlled6
Scrubber
0.057A (0.114A)
0.056A (0.112A)
0.056A (0.112A)
0.055A (0.11A)
0.051A (0.10A)
0.049A (0.10A)
d
0.06A (0.12A)
ESP
0.0064A (0.013A)
0.0054A (0.011A)
0.0045A (0.009A)
0.0029A (0.006A)
0.0018A (0.004A)
0.0014A (0.003A)
d
0.008A (0.016A)
     aReference 61.  ESP " electrostatic preclpltator.
     ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
     CA - coal ash weight %,  as fired.
     dlnsufflclent data.
     ^Estimated control efficiency for scrubber, 94%; ESP, 99.2%.
                                                                                                     i
            3
            O
            •d *—.
            »*- T3
             
-------
TABLE 1.1-6.
  CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
  FACTORS FOR SPREADER STOKERS  BURNING BITUMINOUS COALa
                EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
                               C  (uncontrolled  and controlled for
                                   multiple cyclone without  flyash
                                   reinjection,  and with baghouse)
                               E  (multiple cyclone controlled with
                                   flyash  reinjection,  and ESP
                                   controlled)

Fartlcle •!»«*
(,.)


15

10

6

2.5

1.25

1.00

0.625

TOTAL



Uncontrolled


28

20

14

7

5

5

4

100

Controlled
Multiple
cyclonec
86

73

51

a

2

2

1

100

Multiple
cyclone*1
74

65

52

27

16

14

9

100


ESP
97

90

82

61

46

41

e

100


Baghouae
72

60

46

26

18

15

7

100



Uncontrolled


8.4
(16.8)
6.0
(12.0)
4.2
(8.4)
2.1
(4.2)
1.5
(3.0)
1.5
(3.0)
1.2
(2.4)
30.0
(60.0)
Controlled
Multiple
cyclonec
7.3
(14.6)
6.2
(12.4)
4.3
(8.6)
0.7
(1.4)
0.2
(0.4)
0.2
(0.4)
0.1
(0.2)
8.5
(17.0)
Multiple
cyclone*1
4.4
(8.8)
3.9
(7.8)
3.1
(6.2)
1.6
(3.2)
1.0
(2.0)
0.8
(1.6)
0.5
(1.0)
6.0
(12.0)

ESP
0.23
(0.46)
0.22
(0.44)
0.20
(0.40)
0.15
(0.30)
0.11
(0.22)
0.10
(0.20)
e

0.24
(0.48)

Baghouse
0.043
(0.086)
0.036
(0.072)
0.028
(0.056)
0.016
(0.032)
0.011
(0.022)
0.009
(0.018)
0.004
(0.008)
0.06
(0.12)
   •Reference 61. ESP • electrostatic preclpltator.
   bExpreesed •• aerodynamic equivalent dlaneter.
   cvith flya.h reinjection.
   dVlthout flyaah relnjectton.
   •Insufficient data.
   fEstiMted control efficiency for ESP. 99.21; baghouse, 99.8Z.
2s
zs
£^
o *
o
c
^
           10

            9
.1
                     Multiple cyclone with
                     flyash reinjection
                   Multiple cyclone without
                   flyash reinjection
                                                    Baghouse
                                                   Uncontrolled
                                                      ESP
                   .2
                         .4  .6  1
                                                      20
                                                           40  60 100
10.0

 6.C   —
    •g»
 4.0 =i
    ^ «-
    s«
    c "=
    <-i
 2.0
                                                     1.0

                                                     0.6

                                                     0.4


                                                     0.2


                                                     0.1
                                                                0.10

                                                                 0.06

                                                                 0.04


                                                                 0.02


                                                                 0.01
                                                                               0.006  "g §
                                                                                    c f
                                                                               0.004  8^,
                                                                               0.002
                                                                               0.001
                                    2     4   6   10
                                 Particle diameter (ym)
      Figure  1.1-4.   Cumulative size specific  emission factors for spreader
                        stokers burning bituminous coal
10/86
               External  Combustion Sources
                                                                                1.1-11

-------
 TABLE  1.1-7.   CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
                 FACTORS  FOR OVERFEED STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL3

                 EMISSION FACTOR  RATING:   C  (uncontrolled)
                                             E  (multiple cyclone controlled)
Particle slzeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
49
37
24
14
13
12
c
100
Multiple cyclone
controlled
60
55
49
43
39
39
16
100
Cumulative emission factor
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired]
Uncontrolled
3.9 (7.8)
3.0 (6.0)
1.9 (3.8)
1.1 (2.2)
1.0 (2.0)
1.0 (2.0)
c
8.0 (16.0)
Multiple cyclone
controlled''
2.7 (5.4)
2.5 (5.0)
2.2 (4.4)
1.9 (3.8)
1.8 (3.6)
1.8 (3.6)
0.7 (1.4)
4.5 (9.0)
        aReference 61.
        ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
        ^Insufficient data.
        ^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80%.
            •a
            Ol
7.2

6.4

5.6

4.8

4.0

3.2

2.4

1.6

0.8

  0
                                          Multiple
                                          cyclone
                           i  i  i i i i 11
10

6.0

4.0


2.0


1.0

0.6
                                                                      0.1
                   .1    .2    .4  .6   1     246   10
                                    Particle diameter (urn)
                                        20
                                                              40  60  100
                                                                          O O)
                                                                          u£
                                                                     0.2   £0
     Figure 1.1-5.   Cumulative size specific emission factors  for
                      stokers burning bituminous coal
                                                         overfeed
1.1-12
                   EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                10/86

-------
 TABLE 1.1-8.
CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
FACTORS  FOR UNDERFEED  STOKERS BURNING BITUMINOUS COAL3

             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
Particle slzeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
50
41
32
25
22
21
18
100
Uncontrolled cumulative
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal
3.8 (7.6)
3.1 (6.2)
2.4 (4.8)
1.9 (3.8)
1.7 (3.4)
1.6 (3.2)
1.4 (2.7)
7.5 (15.0)
emission factor0
, as fired]








   aReference 61.
   ''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   cMay also be used for uncontrolled hand fired units.
                   .1
                                                   Uncontrolled
                                           I  I I i i i i I
                                                           I  I I I I I I
                            .4  .6
                                                  10
                                                       20
                                                            40  60  100
                                    Particle diameter
     Figure 1.1-6,
     Cumulative size specific emission  factors for  underfeed
     stokers burning bituminous coal.
10/86
           External Combustion Sources
1.1-13

-------
References for Section 1.1

1.   Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox,  New York,  1975.

2.   Control Techniques for Partlculate Emissions from Stationary Sources,
     Volume I, EPA-450/3-81-005a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1981.

3.   ibidem, Volume II, EPA-450/3-81-0005b.

4.   Electric Utility Steam Generating Units;   Background Information for
     Proposed Partlculate Matter Emission Standard, EPA-450/2-78-006a, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, July 1978.

5.   W. Axtman and M. A. Eleniewski, "Field  Test Results of Eighteen Industrial
     Coal Stoker Fired Boilers for Emission  Control and Improved Efficiency",
     Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of  the Air Pollution Control Asso-
     ciation, Philadelphia, PA, June 1981.

6.   Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal Fired Boilers for Emission Control
     and Efficiency Improvement - Sites Ll-17, EPA-600/7-81-020a, U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.

7.   Control Techniques for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
     2nd Edition, EPA-450/3-81-004, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1981.

8.   Electric Utility Steam Generating Units;   Background Information for
     Proposed SO? Emission Standards, EPA-450/2-78-007a, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1978.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 1981.

9.   Carlo Castaldini and Meredith Angwin, Boiler Design and Operating Vari-
     ables Affecting Uncontrolled Sulfur Emissions from Pulverized Coal Fired
     Steam Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

10.  Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides  Emissions from Stationary Sources,
     2nd Edition, EPA-450/1-78-001, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.

11.  Review of NOy Emission Factors for Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion
     Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

12.  Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 36 FR 24876, December
     23, 1971.

13.  L. Scinto, Primary Sulfate Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion, EPA
     Contract Number 68-02-3138, TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA,  February 1980.

14.  S. T. Cuffe and R. W. Gerstele, Emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants;
     A Comprehensive Summary, 999-AP-35, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, 1967.

1.1-14                          EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
15.  Field Testing:   Application of Combustion Modifications To Control NCy
     Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1974.

16.  Control of Utility Boiler and Gas Turbine Pollutant Emissions by Combus-
     tion Modification - Phase I, EPA-600/7-78-036a,  U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.

17.  Low-sulfur Western Coal Use in Existing Small and Intermediate Size
     Boilers, EPA-600/7-78-153a, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, July 1978.

18.  Hazardous Emission Characterization of Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-75-066,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1975.

19.  Application of Combustion Modifications To Control Pollutant Emissions
     from Industrial Boilers - Phase I, EPA-650/2-74-078a,  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 1974.

20.  Field Study To Obtain Trace Element Mass Balances at  a Coal Fired  Utility
     Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-171, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
     ton, DC, October 1980.

21.  Environmental Assessment of Coal and Oil Firing  in a  Controlled Industrial
     Boiler, Volume II, EPA-600/7-78-164b,  U. S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, August 1978.

22.  Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study,  U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Denver, CO, September 1975.

23.  Source Testing of Duke Power Company,  Plezer, SC, EMB-71-CI-01, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1971.

24.  J. W. Kaakinen, et al., "Trace Element Behavior  in Coal-fired Power Plants",
     Environmental Science and Technology,  9^(9): 862-869, September 1975.

25.  Five Field Performance Tests on Koppers Company  Precipitators, Docket No.
     OAQPS-78-1, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  February-March 1974.

26.  H. M. Rayne and L. P. Copian, Slag Tap Boiler Performance Associated with
     Power Plant Flyash Disposal, Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works,
     Chicago, IL, undated.

27.  A. B. Walker, "Emission Characteristics for Industrial Boilers", Air
     Engineering, _9(8):17-19, August 1967.

28.  Environmental Assessment of Coal-fired Controlled Utility Boiler,  EPA-600/
     7-80-086, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
     1980.

29.  Steam, 37th Edition,  Babcock and Wilcox, New York, 1963.
10/86                     External Combustion Sources                      1.1-15

-------
30.  Industrial Boiler;   Emission Test Report,  Formica Corporation, Cincinnati,
     Ohio, EMB-80-IBR-7,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park, NC, October 1980.

31.  Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-fired Boilers for Emissions Control
     and Efficiency Improvement - Site A,  EPA-600/7-78-135a, U.  S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,  July 1978.

32.  ibldem-Site C, EPA-600/7-79-130a, May 1979.

33.  ibidem-Site E, EPA-600/7-80-064a, March 1980.

34.  ibidem-Site F, EPA-600/7-80-065a, March 1980.

35.  ibldem-Slte G, EPA-600/7-80-082a, April 1980.

36.  ibidem-Site B, EPA-600/7-79-041a, February 1979.

37.  Industrial Boilers:   Emission Test Report, General Motors Corporation,
     Parma, Ohio, Volume  I, EMB-80-IBR-4,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

38.  A Field Test Using  Coal;   dRDF Blends in Spreader Stoker-fired Boilers,
     EPA-600/2-80-095, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
     August 1980.

39.  Industrial Boilers;   Emission Test Report, Rickenbacker Air Force Base,
     Columbus, Ohio, EMB-80-IBR-6, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

40.  Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial  Boilers;   Site 1,  EPA-600/7-80-085a,
     U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, DC,  April 1980.

41.  Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-fired Boilers for Emissions Control
     and Efficiency Improvement - Site D,  EPA-600/7-79-237a, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC, November 1979.

42.  ibldem-Site H, EPA-600/7-80-112a, May 1980.

43.  ibidem-Site I, EPA-600/7-80-136a, May 1980.

44.  ibldem-Site J, EPA-600/7-80-137a, May 1980.

45.  ibidem-Site K, EPA-600/7-80-138a, May 1980.

46.  Regional Air Pollution Study;  Point  Source Emission Inventory, EPA-600/4-
     77-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     March 1977.

47.  R. P. Hangebrauck,  et al., "Emissions of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons and
     Other Pollutants from Heat Generation and  Incineration Process", Journal
     of the Air Pollution Control Association,  14(7):267-278, July
1.1-16                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
48.  Source Assessment:   Coal-fired Industrial Combustion Equipment Field Test,
     EPA-600/2-78-004o,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  DC,
     June 1978.

49.  Source Sampling Residential Fireplaces for Emission Factor Development,
     EPA-450/3-76-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park, NC, November 1975.

50.  Atmospheric Emissions from Coal Combustion:   An Inventory Guide,  999-AP-24,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,  April 1966.

51.  Application of Combustion Modification To Control Pollutant Emissions  from
     Industrial Boilers - Phase II, EPA-600/2-76-086a, U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Washington, DC, April 1976.

52.  Continuous Emission Monitoring for Industrial Boiler, General Motors Cor-
     poration, St. Louis, Missouri, Volume I, EPA Contract Number 68-02-2687,
     GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, June 1980.

53.  Survey of Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems:   Cholla Station, Arizona
     Public Service Company, EPA-600/7-78-048a, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, March 1978.

54.  ibidem:  La Cygne Station, Kansas City Power and Light,  EPA-600/7-78-048d,
     March 1978.

55.  Source Assessment;   Dry Bottom Utility Boilers  Firing Pulverized  Bituminous
     Coal, EPA-600/2-79-019, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
     DC, August 1980.

56.  Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers:  Site 3 -  Pulverized  - Coal
     Fired Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-085c,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, April 1980.

57.  Systematic Field Study of Nitrogen Oxide Emission Control  Methods for
     Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC,  December 1971.

58.  Emissions of Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds from Utility Boilers,
     EPA-600/7-80-111, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC,
     May 1980.

59.  Industrial Boilers;  Emission Test Report, DuPont Corporation, Parkers-
     burg, West Virginia, EMB-80-IBR-12, U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1982.

60.  Technology Assessment Report for  Industrial  Boiler Applications;  NOX
     Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f,  U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, December  1979.

61.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External  Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation,  Mountain  View,
     CA, January 1985.


10/86                     External Combustion Sources                     1.1-17

-------
1.2  ANTHRACITE COAL COMBUSTION

1.2.1  General 1-2

     Anthracite coal is a high rank coal with more fixed carbon and less  vola-
tile matter than either bituminous coal or lignite,  and it has  higher ignition
and ash fusion temperatures.  Because of its low volatile matter content  and
slight clinkering, anthracite is most commonly fired in medium  sized traveling
grate stokers and small hand fired units.  Some anthracite (occasionally  with
petroleum coke) is used in pulverized coal fired boilers.  It is also blended
with bituminous coal.  None is fired in spreader stokers.  For  its  low sulfur
content (typically less than 0.8 weight percent) and minimal  smoking tendencies,
anthracite is considered a desirable fuel where readily available.

     In the United States, all anthracite is mined in northeastern  Pennsylvania
and is consumed mostly in Pennsylvania and several surrounding  states. The
largest use of anthracite is for space heating.  Lesser amounts are employed
for steam/electric production; coke manufacturing, sintering  and pelletizing;
and other industrial uses.  Anthracite currently is  only a small fraction of
the total quantity of coal combusted in the United States.

1.2.2  Emissions And Controls2-!^

     Particulate emissions from anthracite combustion are a function of furnace
firing configuration, firing practices (boiler load, quantity and location of
underfire air, sootblowing, flyash reinjection, etc.),  and the  ash  content of
the coal.  Pulverized coal fired boilers emit the highest quantity  of partic-
ulate per unit of fuel because they fire the anthracite in suspension, which
results in a high percentage of ash carryover into exhaust gases.  Pulverized
anthracite fired boilers operate in the dry tap or dry bottom mode, because of
anthracite's characteristically high ash fusion temperature.  Traveling grate
stokers and hand fired units produce much less particulate per  unit of fuel
fired, because combustion takes place in a quiescent fuel bed without signifi-
cant ash carryover into the exhaust gases.  In general, particulate emissions
from traveling grate stokers will increase during sootblowing and flyash  rein-
jection and with higher fuel bed underfeed air from  forced draft fans. Smoking
is rarely a problem, because of anthracite's low volatile matter content.

     Limited data are available on the emission of gaseous pollutants from
anthracite combustion.  It is assumed from bituminous coal combustion data that
a large fraction of the fuel sulfur is emitted as sulfur oxides. Also, because
combustion equipment, excess air rates, combustion temperatures, etc., are
similar between anthracite and bituminous coal combustion, nitrogen oxide and
carbon monoxide emissions are assumed to be similar, too.  Volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, however, are expected to be considerably  lower,
since the volatile matter content of anthracite is significantly less than that
of bituminous coal.
10./86                     External  Combustion Sources                      1.2-1

-------
     o
     t— I
     H
     CO
     H
     M
     U
     ad
     H
     z
     ai
     O
     o
     H
     O
     CO
     CO
     I-l

     w
     H
     Z
     O
     U
     z
      I
     CN
     W



CO
O
•H
C







CO
bo

O

U
1— 1
4-1
CO
rH
O
>























































































01
11
T3
^
0
C
o

c
0
Xi

CO
0

13
CO
01
•o
•H
X
0

01
bO
o
}-l
4J
T-l
z


o
CO

-a
•H
X
0
!_,
3
4-1
i-l
3
CO


XI
01
4-)
CO
1— 1
3
•H
4J
M
CO
PH








U
CL
^
4-1

U
1— 1
1-1
o
CD



01
c
CO
X! 4-1 4-1 4-1
4-1
U
2£



U
c
CO
x:
U
c
2
o
z


























































e
o
-^
Xl



bO
*£
^ 	
M




C
O
4-1
*-^
X3
i— |


bO
j£
•^^
bo




C
0
4J
XI
^_^


1

bO



c
o
4J
^^^
XI
f— 1


bo

—
bo























4-1 • 4-1
o




m
4-1 • 4-1
o






GO O CO






10
•
C^ IO — *





00 CO 00
Cy^ ^ ^,
m f°) m



co to co
• • •
CT> C^ C?N
~H ^H —H


60

4-i • x;
c^ O
«H


60
^D
4-1 • X!
-» 10

13
U
M
T-f
4-1

r-r QJ
CO 4J CD
O CO 4-1
ej l-i T-I
bo C
•O 3
D bp
N C l-i 13
•H i-l 01 0)
I-l i—l^ 4-1
U HO
> > 4-1 ^
i— 1 co cn C
3l-i co
Cu H X























13
U
^4
T-l

CO
CO

C
O
•H
4J
e
3
CO
c
o
CJ

1— 1
CO
CJ

o
^J

13
01
•H
0.
a
CO

cu

13
3
O
x:
CO

•o
e

£
O
•H
CO
CO
•H
01

13
Ol
^
O
4J
c
0
CJ
c
3

l-i
O
4-1

01
^
CO
CO

O
CJ
CO
U.







































lO
1)
U
B
U
01
4-1
U
01

C
•H
CO
CO
T3
13
11
4J
•H
•H
jj


•



4-1
CO
x:


u

CO
CJ
1-1
1
•H

CO

k
f
o
CO

B~?

I

-H
x:
1 1
•H
3
































M
O
tt


•
c
o
4-1
CO
3
Xl
E
O
o

rH
CO
o
CJ
CO
0
c
•H
3
4-1
T-l
Xl
o
4J

p
10
^X __• ^-1






























•
x:
o
4-1
CO
CJ

4-<
i— 1
x:

4J
C
o
I-l
4-1
10

13
O
Xi
4-1
U


^
CL|
U
o

"O
01
CO
03
CO XI
tM/
c/>
03
CO

•o
Ol
4-1
4-1
T-l
§

CO
•H

l-i
3
4-1
i— 1
— j
CO

i— 1
Ol
3
4-1

4-1
O
E
•K
e
o
yj
CO
3
XI


CJ

•-I
o
CJ

CO
3
O
C
1
4J
T-l
Xl

X
4-1
•H
JJ

CO
CO
CO
D
g
3
OJ
^3
CJ
*.^J
0
C/5

x
i— i
4-J
CO
O
E

1)
CO

CO
c
o
•H
CO
CO
B
w


•
CO
b
01
•H
0
X)

13

*•>
4-1
11
4J
•H
CJ
CO
b
"u
C
CO

"S
N
11
^
rH
3
a

^
o
U-l

CO
-H

>^
*W
•H
U
>


















*
c
a»

•H
60

01
f-H
CO
>•

11
f!
*J
X
XI
T3
u
•H
i— 1
Q.
^
i— i
3
gjj
01
X!
H
P
O
4=
CD

V-f
3
M-(
^H
3
CO

4J
j-;
&0
Q)
Jj
•n
E
01

01
XI

o
4-1

13
£
3
CD
01
CO

*
CO
^
c
3

"8
U-l

"c
CO
x:

T)
c
CO
CD
01
!«|
T-l
0
XI

13
u
^-1
4-1
U
4-1
CO
t-l
^
4-t
C
to

T3
CU
N
i-l
p
CU
iH
3
Cu
^
Q
[b
•a

1— i
cd
c
,
•-* Xl
01
5» T3
CO 1>
I-l 4J
4-1 CO
tH 4J
o c
Ct, CO
4-J
cn
41 co
CJ
•H •«
CB 03
4-1 I-l
c o>
•H rH
Ct) i-l
E O
XI

O 13
01
T3 M
01 TH
4-1 4-1
to
" f\
01 CO
o. o
O 0
XT3
r~l U
1- N
01 -H
a i-i
O 1)
>* >
a f-i
3
4-1 O.
o
C l-i
o
to u,
OJ
•H •
•H OO
O
Xl 01
CJ
x: c
4J U
• -H I-l
~H IS U
— H 4-1
U 01
4-1 C
CO -H T-l
11 C
cj bo c
01 H -H
I-l 4J
D 4-1 CO
4-1 O E
01 w
Ptf 03 O
o) oj 'q
01 I-l
o -a
i)
en i— i 4J
OJ 2 "0 .
"o > 3 2
4J U
01 co c 01
0 CJ
01 X C
CO U iJ
CO XI 01
bp u od
C l-i •»
CO
M
o
4J
o
CO
fc
•
i?
•H
X!
CJ
U
U
I-l
XI

o
CO
4-t
CO

•g
to
• •
•H 01 bO
CO l-i C
O U i-l
ej xi »
e o
to to 1-1
3 X! XI
O CJ
C 4J
•H ±J O
S 3 O
3 O co
4-1 1— 1
•H i-H bO
XI to C
4-1 iH
13 >->
e c 3
CO -H 13
U M 4-1
4J 3 en
•H CJ 01
o cj x:
CO O bO
l-i i-l
f! XX-
4J CO
e E •
CO ^*.
4-t C
4-J CO O
o x: 4.)
4-1 -^
X XI
4-1 4J rH
1-1 3
l-i O o
CO -H in
rH i— 1
•H CO |
E 4-1
iH in
CD *U ^rf'
01
C 4-1 bO
° "s ^
4) r-1 Jrf
CO
CO IH in
XI O CN)
1
•O C13
01 4J m
co c •
3 3 csl
O
CD CJ U
X X
to co
B • E
00
7 7 i-i
• -H 1— 1

« O
D f) XI
1— 1 — H
CO CN CO
C co i-l
•H CU > 41
O i-l O
                                                               J«!cfl4J01
                                                                     bo
1.2-2
                                    EMISSION  FACTORS
10/86

-------
     Controls on anthracite emissions mainly have been applied  to  particulate
matter.  The most efficient particulate controls, fabric filters,  scrubbers  and
electrostatic precipitators,  have been installed  on large pulverized  anthracite
fired boilers.  Fabric filters and venturi  scrubbers can effect collection
efficiencies exceeding 99 percent.  Electrostatic precipitators typically are
only 90 to 97 percent efficient,  because of the characteristic  high resistivity
of low sulfur anthracite fly ash.  It is reported that higher efficiencies can
be achieved using larger precipitators and  flue gas conditioning.  Mechanical
collectors are frequently employed upstream from  these devices  for large part-
icle removal.

     Traveling grate stokers are  often uncontrolled.  Indeed, particulate
control has often been considered unnecessary,  because of anthracite's  low smok-
ing tendencies and of the fact that a significant fraction of large size flyash
from stokers is readily collected in flyash hoppers as well  as  in  the breeching
and base of the stack.  Cyclone collectors  have been employed on traveling
grate stokers, and limited information suggests these devices may  be  up to 75
percent efficient on particulate.  Flyash reinjection, frequently  used  in
traveling grate stokers to enhance fuel use efficiency, tends to increase
particulate emissions per unit of fuel combusted.

     Emission factors for pollutants from anthracite coal combustion  are given
in Table 1.2-1, and factor ratings in Table 1.2-2.   Cumulative  size distribution
data and size specific emission factors and ratings for particulate emissions
are in Tables 1.2-3 and 1.2-4.  Uncontrolled and  controlled  size specific emis-
sion factors are presented in Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2.  Size distribution data
for bituminous coal combustion may be used  for  uncontrolled  emissions from
pulverized anthracite fired furnaces, and data  for anthracite fired traveling
grate stokers may be used for hand fired units.
             TABLE 1.2-2.  ANTHRACITE COAL EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS
Furnace type
Pulverized coal
Traveling grate
stoker
Hand fired units
Particulate
B
B
B
Sulfur
oxides
B
B
B
Nitrogen
oxides
B
B
B
Carbon
monoxide
B
B
B
Volatile organics
Nonmethane
C
C
D
Methane
C
C
D
10/86
External Combustion Sources
1.2-3

-------
      TABLE  1.2-3.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION  AND SIZE SPECIFIC
             EMISSION  FACTORS FOR  DRY  BOTTOM BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED
                                      ANTHRACITE COALa

                                EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   D
                                                                                             i
Particle site11
(u«)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cuaulatlve mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
32
23
17
6
2
2
1
100
Controlled
Multiple cyclone
63
55
46
24
13
10
7
100
Baghouse
79
67
51
32
21
18

100
Ikg/Mg (Ib/ton) bark, as fired]
Uncontrolled
1.6* (3.2A)
1.2A (2.3A)
0.9A (1.7A)
0.3A (0.6A)
0.1A (0.2A)
0.1A (0.2A)
0.05A (0.1A)
5A (10A)
Controlled1*
Multiple cyclone
0.63A (1.26A)
0.55A (1.10A)
0.46A (0.92A)
0.24A (0.48A)
0.13A (0.26A)
0.10A (0.20A)
0.07A (0.14A)
1A (2A)
Baghouse
0.0079A (0.016A)
0.0067A (0.013A)
0.0051A (0.010A)
0.0032A (0.006A)
0.0021A (0.004A)
0.0018A (0.004A)
e
0.01A (0.02A)
    bExpreaaed a* aerodynanlc equivalent diameter.
    CA - coal aih weight, a* fired.
    dE«tl«ated control efficiency for nultlple cyclone, 801; baghouse, 99.8*.
    «In«uffictent data.
    2.0A

    1.8A


fe   1-6A
-*->

£ "g 1. 4A


l! L2A
U) fO

§ r-" 1 . OA
  TO
•o o

= £ 0.8A
    0.4A

    0.2A

      0
                                    Baghouse
                         .4  .6
                                                     Multiple
                                                     cyclone
                                               Uncontrolled
                            i  i i i
                                1     2     4  6  10
                                   Particle diameter (pm)
                                                20
                                                                  i i
.OA

 9A

 8A


 7A

 6A

 5A

 4A "
   OJ
   c:
   o -
 3A -3J
   U
 2A i,
   cx
 1A 2
                                                                    0
                                                     40  60  100
0.010A

0.009A
      i_
      O
0.008A o
      <4-

0.007A |^S

0.006A 'i""
      0> 1/1

0.005A 2_"
      .— ft}
0.004A S °

      §€
0.003A ^

0.002A I
      en
0.001A "°

0
     Figure 1.2-1,
                Cumulative size  specific  emission factors  for dry bottom
                boilers burning  pulverized  anthracite coal.
1.2.-4
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                   10/86

-------
   TABLE 1.2-4.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC
   EMISSION FACTORS FOR  TRAVELING GRATE STOKERS BURNING ANTHRACITE COAL3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Particle size**
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
Uncont rol Ledc
64
52
42
27
24
23
d
100
Cumulative emission
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal,
factor
as fired]
Controlled
2.9 (5.8)
2.4 (4.8)
1.9 (3.8)
1.2 (2.4)
1.1 (2.2)
1.1 (2.2)
d
4.6 (9.2)








     aReference 19.
     ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
     cMay also be used  for uncontrolled hand fired units,
     Insufficient data.
                  . 1   .2    4 .6   1    2     4  6   10   20   40  60  100
                                   Particle diameter (pm)
   Figure 1.2-2.
Cumulative size  specific emission factors for traveling
grate stokers burning  anthracite coal.
10/86
      External  Combustion Sources
1.2-5

-------
References for Section 1.2
1.   Minerals Yearbook, 1978-79, Bureau of Mines,  U.  S. Department of the
     Interior, Washington, DC, 1981.

2.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  APTD-0923,  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, April  1970.

3.   Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox,  New York, NY, 1975.

4.   Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial Boilers - Background Information for Proposed
     Standards, Draft, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1980.

5.   R. W. Cass and R. W. Bradway, Fractional  Efficiency of a Utility Boiler
     Baghouse;  Sunbury Steam Electric Station,  EPA-600/2-76-077a, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  DC, March 1976.

6.   R. P. Janaso, "Baghouse Dust Collectors on a Low Sulfur Coal Fired Utility
     Boiler", Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, Denver, CO, June 1974.

7.   J. H. Phelan, et al., Design and Operation Experience with Baghouse Dust
     Collectors for Pulverized Coal Fired Utility Boilers - Sunbury Station,
     Holtwood Station, Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Denver,
     CO, 1976.

8.   Source Test Data on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate Stokers, Office Of
     Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.

9.   Source and Emissions information! on Anthracite Fired Traveling Grate
     Stokers, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1975.

10.  R. J. Milligan, et al., Review of NOy Emission Factors for Stationary
     Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources,  EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, September 1979.

11.  N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Systems, Volume IV;  Commercial/Institutional Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October
     1980.

12.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired  Boilers, RCA-Electronlc Com-
     ponents, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Final Report,  Scott Environmental
     Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, April 1975.

13.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired  Boilers, Shippensburg State
     College, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, Final  Report, Scott Environmental
     Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, PA, May 1975.
1.2-6              '             EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
14.  W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NOy Emission Control Methods
     for Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.

15.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Ashland State General
     Hospital, Ashland, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Pennsylvania Department of
     Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, March 16, 1977.

16.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Norristown State Hospi-
     tal, Norrlstown, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Pennsylvania Department of
     Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, January 19, 1980.

17.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, Pennhurst Center, Spring
     City, Pennsylvania, Final Report, TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
     Wethersfield, CT, January 23, 1980.

18.  Source Sampling of Anthracite Coal Fired Boilers, West Chester State, West
     Chester, Pennsylvania, Final Report, Roy Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA,
     April 4, 1977.

19.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
     CA, January 1985.
10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                      1.2-7

-------
 1.3  FUEL OIL COMBUSTION

 1.3.1  General1-2*22

     Fuel oils are broadly classified into two major types. rliaH] }»*_? and
jresidual .  Distillate oils (fuel oil grade Nos. 1 and 2) are used mainly in
 domestic and small commercial applications in which easy fuel burning is
 required.  Distillates are more volatile and less viscous that residual oils,
 having negligible ash and nitrogen contents and usually containing less than
 0.3 weight percent sulfur.  Residual oils (grade Nos. 4, 5 and 6), on the other
 hand, are used mainly in utility, industrial and large commercial applications
 with sophisticated combustion equipment.  No. 4 oil is sometimes classified as
 a distillate, and No. 6 is sometimes referred to as Bunker C.  Being more vis-
 cous and less volatile than distillate oils, the heavier residual oils (Nos. 5
 and 6) must be heated to facilitate handling and proper atomization.  Because
 residual oils are produced from the residue after lighter fractions (gasoline,
 kerosene and distillate oils) have been removed from the crude oil, they contain
 significant quantities of ash, nitrogen and sulfur.  Properties of typical fuel
 oils can be found in Appendix A.

 1.3.2  Emissions

     Emissions from fuel oil combustion depend on the grade and composition of
 the fuel, the type and size of the boiler, the firing and loading practices
 used, and the level of equipment maintenance.  Table 1.3-1 presents emission
 factors for fuel oil combustion pollutants, and Tables 1.3-2 through 1.3-5 pre-
 sent cumulative size distribution data and size specific emission factors for
 particulate emissions from fuel oil combustion.  Uncontrolled and controlled
 size specific emission factors are presented in Figures 1.3-1 through 1.3-4.
 Distillate and residual oil categories are given separately, because their
 combustion produces significantly different particulate, S02 and NO^ emissions.
     Particulate Matter^-?. 12-13, 24, 26-27 _ particulate emissions depend most on
the grade of fuel fired.  The lighter distillate oils result in particulate
formation significantly lower than with heavier residual oils.  Among residual
oils, Nos. 4 and 5 usually produce less particulate than does the heavier No. 6.

     In boilers firing No. 6, particulate emissions can be described, on the
average, as a function of the sulfur content of the oil.  As shown in Table
1.3-1), particulate emissions can be reduced considerably when low
sulfur No. 6 oil is fired.  This is because low sulfur No. 6, either refined
from naturally low sulfur crude oil or desulfurized by one of several current
processes, exhibits substantially lower viscosity and reduced asphaltene, ash
and sulfur, which results in better atomization and cleaner combustion.

     Boiler load can also affect particulate emissions in units firing No. 6
oil.  At low load conditions, particulate emissions may be lowered 30 to 40
percent from utility boilers and by as much as 60 percent from small industrial
and commercial units.  No significant particulate reductions have been noted at

10/86                     External Combustion Sources                     1.3-1

-------






z
o
H
co
P
§
°
M
O
Ed
a
I «

S u
0 Z
H H
O H
< •<
fn «
§ 8
M H
CO U
co «»J
M Pn
§ Z
O
§ K
J CO
1 i
jj;
0
y
^
*
i— i
w
hJ
i
F
Methane
u
•H
i
si
j» |
f J





«
V
S
i
2
x
K
ti Q
J
5


5
K
O
h U
S


u
4)
M
e
Q
LI
£
"3
V
4 M
•3S
£
a
r>*

O


rt
en
O

J
a
n
o


.A

o
J^
»

^
r,5
O
•H
A
O
.M

1-4
*


0
ja



"o
§
"l
en
o
JO




O
«0

*5
00
o


l-l
O

S.
00
o

.O

fT*
o

j<



V
s
.4
M
U
rH
O
a
oo InCS
CM O O •* tN
d -* d do



en (NO »n CN
0 ~ 0 00
d do do

<£ 00 en ^
rv  tn tn in in




»0 * sO <£ vO
d do do


• V) tn tn en
(N CN CN (N CN


jC
to m « M en
**> CN IN (N CN
d do do



en to tn en M



tn tn en CA in



00 OOfN 00 *H
L, — -H -. C -H — C
4> -r4 O -H 0 -H
— O 00 O 41 OQO4>
11 lls 11=
-H w ncnta ««>«)
^HK -D tS Q BaCO
W C O
3 t-t CJ
OO
r*.
J



^
CN
d

2
h*

O

tn
§
d




00
*!






m




sC
O


V)



tn
(N
d



en
(N


in


m

(N




•
O
00
4>
g

30
U.
41
C -*
4) *-»
•0 (D
B a
^























..
1

4>


c
JS




hi JS "•*-
s I1
r *
^ "o -«
kl -*
•l^-o
•H Li O •*
JC JC O
•^ -^ -- o


s"**"!
ooo o
^
V


O A >-

^H — cy-
T3 -^O O
u O —
y o
y — x x
it
X 
^. S S. 3 a -o"£^,^oS
j= 41 x c -H e'c'ccce
U S « ^t JC D X ^H O O ^H
«•< 01 (0 6 -^ O -H
« w L, 1 c -3t to w o
0 0 OJ 0 B -H U C
C-M-4 f-i kiLtC34)<->
»*H ^H^I w 41 O O "O 00 •
"«ox» ^ ^'"luu
^•C^W £ J'S'ww^'S
C " ™* i w ^"^ «> O C 41
OK) C -H 4) — I *-- ** (X^
W 4)0 0 «^ f - S"-C 3 -5 3 0
*-' e.**- c «*- 5 c «*- «- u.
0-90 «] ~
m O 4t U « I-N 41 LI tg c
£36 « ^^- S^MlSc** ^
O ki« U 3 O -HCO 4t*Q^
jB 4) -H 4)«M «-* « >n -D I W O
- a. a - 41 v- o i * 5 *
« 0x0 3JB 4» O X 0 « 4)
2 = S.i » •" " iN5i1 £
SI5 c -HIM
41 4> 41 X -< -H O -*. J=J=jD O J3 C » J= -^ >- C
r^WW Li M 1-1 O O « « ** 0

jD-HOv ^ 3 £ OttOOOvS MB
• •oo** Ji **" C25^8-JS «•
^4)5«  « 0 3 U b Q 00
41 — ' * M Cl- w^.
j= *- <0 — 3 O4IO4)«V **
*>t?Ojc jo >M(n -* in ^» B I • eo
Z - -H -^ 1 OJ B 1 — 00
SCO OfiCCtt* OOOJSVO n
•^ LI 41 -H bin ^ . CN w 3 U ZO
^-» O p 41 "^.
o y y « oo > o • « o o c c i- «
-« J= « -^ C (0 O
w««Mt? W^^IM -- B *j B y js z
U C X 4> i-t O B B C 4) -- >


o a;  LIO> oo cu jo "*- JD in 41 e •« e O
i- e c y L, w — w -4QOOV-H -» LI
JS -^t -^ C 0) a V -C A « O L. 4)
a-QLiggtCCU L. 08 X *4 -^

*4— 6 C 4) 4J ^-» O B CN -H O m
C >4-( 3 Q-OBVl-^ XL.^'CLi-H 1 O

-, T3 C>C « *-• JD O « — C • E JS CO <-«'^s
u-iooi to — B — -* .-^ to M 1 «J 3 cgn
XBO-- -- C O ^- 41 -H X-K •^-•OOBJOJO OCO
•i-i tfl -c EMU L>rg^4 MCCN f mz
u^ w «j c fig LiLiooa] e « i »*- -o o o
.L. -r-tcg • — 41 o oo 4) >nocu — oo
0 01 ^ B -o^wym QO-Q cq ^xjtf
w W J= 4) r- C -4- O -^ Off C CO « 00 r-t n
'i'WOO — 30 ^-« — O «OCC4)-J O«^
f-Hfly Q M -^.^- M^-toOBO'-Z'^
«-g. D. CB (5 m B JD -- w ^ 4) a.
^oi « — o at -a — j= -H'O— Kw^fcj:— B
"^(OJrcao k. x oo-o — — •*- B E M- TS 2

»- o ^ «n c -• ao LI LT (QtoxcjCOi^zC
-< tO<~'4l
X^JZO-'OOOUJO >WWM . Z CO ^( — . Q w
L.<->j3 zuiiiu-iOcB*4-^ m n utefvmc
u-ita i- to O> 41 ^- ^ 3 L, 4( L, K O t- O
.O.COC04IB OJB-f*^ -N 41 U y 3 L! + O



• • CM -^ O 01 r- « (OinT30000 CNt~i g O^CNO
4)-a-Ci4i4-'O« •> •*• CB (t B a. I «J
ucN-^aootf3>«8C-* *4fcn» y*->Litoa •*-
tg 0 4)O -OCNQO ecu 3o-Hw«C
CT9V)^) -O ^4*4 C** LJ O U J3 »*4 B L!
we e • * • u w -H — O a, tw -^ vwai^-s
3 *4
**- > O 41 CN -H -4 -^ -H^^ O(Naw>H
— III 41 30 X 5 — — » -H • (t) tj) 1 ty -fl X JC
•^ fa's EUOOOOCNO y -j- c x o-^t
*occc(fla*co34*v;4taicj« — -o o >*« w *-< O *n
ajua'i.k'CDUiwu. LiLitu "a* bSooA
jay-UOl^OC JC-^t —1
                                                                           i
1.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
low loads from boilers firing any of the lighter grades, however.  At too low a
load condition, proper combustion conditions cannot be maintained, and partic-
ulate emissions may Increase drastically.  It should be noted, in this regard,
that any condition that prevents proper boiler operation can result in excessive
particulate formation.

     Sulfur Oxides 1~5,25,27 _ Total SOX emissions are almost entirely dependent
on the sulfur content of the fuel and are not affected by boiler size, burner
design, or grade of fuel being fired.  On the average, more than 95 percent of
the fuel sulfur is emitted as S02, about 1 to 5 percent as 803 and about 1 to 3
percent as sulfate particulate.  803 readily reacts with water vapor (in both
air and flue gases) to form a sulfuric acid mist.

     Nitrogen Oxides 1-"1 1 >4, 17 ,23,27 _ ^Q mechanisms form NO , oxidation of
fuelbound nitrogen and thermal fixation of the nitrogen in combustion air.
Fuel NOjj is primarily a function of the nitrogen content of the fuel and the
available oxygen.  On average, about 45 percent of the fuel nitrogen is con-
verted to NOX, but this may vary from 20 to 70 percent.  Thermal NOX, rather,
is largely a function of peak flame temperature and available oxygen, factors
which depend on boiler size, firing configuration and operating practices.

     Fuel nitrogen conversion Is the more important NOX forming mechanism In
residual oil boilers.  Except in certain large units having unusually high peak
flame temperatures, or in units firing a low nitrogen residual oil, fuel NOx
will generally account for over 50 percent of the total NOX generated.  Thermal
fixation, on the other hand, is the dominant NOX forming mechanism in units
firing distillate oils, primarily because of the negligible nitrogen content in
these lighter oils.  Because distillate oil fired boilers usually have low heat
release rates, however, the quantity of thermal NOX formed in them is less than
that of larger units.
     A number of variables influence how much NOjj is formed by these two
mechanisms.  One important variable is firing configuration.  Nitrogen oxide
emissions from tangentially (corner) fired boilers are, on the average, less
than those of horizontally opposed units.  Also important are the firing prac-
tices employed during boiler operation.  Limited excess air firing,  flue gas
recirculation, staged combustion, or some combination thereof may result in NOX
reductions of 5 to 60 percent.  See Section 1.4 for a discussion of  these
techniques.  Load reduction can likewise decrease NC^ production.  Nitrogen
oxide emissions may be reduced from 0.5 to 1 percent for each percentage
reduction in load from full load operation.  It should be noted that most of
these variables, with the exception of excess air, infuence the NOX  emissions
only of large oil fired boilers.  Limited excess air firing is possible in many
small boilers, but the resulting NO^. reductions are not nearly so significant.

     Other Pollutantsl8-21 - As a rule, only minor amounts of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and carbon monoxide will be emitted from the combustion of fuel
oil.  The rate at which VOCs are emitted depends on combustion efficiency.
Emissions of trace elements from oil fired boilers are relative to the trace
element concentrations of the oil.
10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                     1.3-3

-------
TABLE  1.3-2.
CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION
  FACTORS FOR UTILITY BOILERS  FIRING  RESIDUAL  OILa
                       EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
                                     C  (uncontrolled)
                                     E  (ESP  controlled)
                                     D  (scrubber  controlled)
Particle slzeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
80
71
58
52
43
39
20
100
Controlled
ESP
75
63
52
41
31
28
10
100
Scrubber
100
100
100
97
91
84
64
100
Cumulative emission factor0 [kg/103 1 (lb/103 gal)]
Uncontrolled
0.80A (6.7A)
0.71A (5.9A)
0.58A (4.8A)
0.52A (4.3A)
0.43A (3.6A)
0.39A (3.3A)
0.20A (1.7A)
1A (8.3A)
Controlled^1
ESP
0.0060A (0.05A)
0.0050A (0.042A)
0.0042A (0.035A)
0.0033A (0.028A)
0.0025A (0.021A)
0.0022A (0.018A)
0.0008A (0.007 A)
0.008A (0.067 A)
Scrubber
0.06A (0.50A)
0.06A (0.50A)
0.06A (0.50A)
0.058A (0.48A)
0.055A (0.46A)
0.050A (0.42A)
0.038A (0.32A)
0.06A (0.50A)
   •Reference 29.ESP - electrostatic preclpltator.
   ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
   cP«rticulate emission factors for residual oil combustion without
    of fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
     Grade 6 Oil:  A - 1.25(S) + 0.38
                 Where S Is the weight X of sulfur In the oil
     Grade 5 Oil:  A - 1.25
     Grade 4 Oil:  A - 0.88
   dEstimated control efficiency for scrubber, 94X; ESP, 99.21.
                                        mission controls are, on average, a function
           l.OA

           0.9A

           0.8A

           0.7A

           0.6A

           0.5A

           0.4A

           0.3A

           0.2A

           0.1A

           0
Figure  1.3-1.
1.3-4
  Uncontrol led


Scrubber
                      I
                         I   i  i i i i I
0.10A

0.09A 3
     W
0.08A t
     o

0.07A X
     I
0.06A -g"

0.05A "o^

0.04A g"
     i-
0.03A |
     3

0.02A %

0.01A

0
                                                                  0.01A

                                                                  0.006A

                                                                  0.004A


                                                                  0.002A


                                                                  0.001A
 .,-
   Eo
   C
 •o °>
 t> *•
                .1    .2    .4  .6   1     2     46   10
                                    Particle diameter (\m)
                                                         20
                                                               40  60  100
                                                                  0.0006A -
                                                                         •*->
                                                                  0.0004A §

                                                                  O.OOOZA 5j
                                                                  0.0001A
 Cumulative  size specific emission factors for utility
 boilers firing  residual  oil.

                      EMISSION FACTORS
          i
10/86

-------
 TABLE 1.3-3.   CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
                FACTORS FOR  INDUSTRIAL BOILERS FIRING RESIDUAL OIL3

                      EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D  (uncontrolled)
                                                  E  (multiple cyclone controlled)
Particle sizeb
(urn)

15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass 7. < stated size

Uncontrolled
91
86
77
56
39
36
30
100

Multiple cyclone
controlled
100
95
72
22
21
21
d
100
Cumulative emission factorc
kg/103 1 (lb/103 gal)

Uncontrolled
0.91A (7.59A)
0.86A (7.17A)
0.77A (6.42A)
0.56A (4.67A)
0.39A (3.25A)
0.36A (3.00A)
0.30A (2.50A)
1A (8.34A)

Multiple cyclone
controlled6
0.20A (1.67A)
0.19A (1.58A)
0.14A (1.17A)
0.04A (0.33A)
0.04A (0.33A)
0.04A (0.33A)
d
0.2A (1.67A)
    "Reference 29.
    "Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
    cPartlculate emission factors for residual oil  combustion without  emission controls are, on
     average, a function of fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
        Grade 6 Oil:  A - 1.25(S) + 0.38
                    Where S is the weight I of sulfur in the oil
        Grade 5 Oil:  A - 1.25
        Grade 4 Oil:  A - 0.88
   dlnsufficient data.
   eEstimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80Z.
                l.OA
           S
           4-»
           c
           o
 .4  .6  1    2    4  6   10
         Particle diameter (pm)
                                                           20
                                                                40  60  100
Figure 1.3-2.   Cumulative  size specific  emission  factors  for industrial
                 boilers firing residual oil.
 10/86
External Combustion Sources
1.3-5

-------
 TABLE 1.3-4.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
       FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL  BOILERS FIRING DISTILLATE OIL3
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
Particle size*5
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
Uncontrolled
68
50
30
12
9
8
2
100
Cumulative emission factor
kg/103 1 (lb/103 gal)
Uncontrolled
0.16 (1.33)
0.12 (1.00)
0.07 (0.58)
0.03 (0.25)
0.02 (0.17)
0.02 (0.17)
0.005 (0.04)
0.24 (2.00)
             aReference 29.
             ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
                   0.25
                   0.20
                   0.15
                   0.05
                       .1
                            i   i i  i r i I i I
                                              i  i  i i i i I I
                           .2
                                .4  .6
                                       1    2    4  6   10
                                        Particle diameter (\aa)
                                           20
                                               40 60   100
Figure 1.3-3.
Cumulative  size specific emission  factors for uncontrolled
industrial  boilers firing distillate oil.
1.3-6
                  EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
 TABLE 1.3-5.  CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION
            FACTORS  FOR UNCONTROLLED  COMMERCIAL BOILERS  BURNING  RESIDUAL
                                   AND DISTILLATE OIL3
                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle slzeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled with
residual oil
78
62
44
23
16
14
13
100
Uncontrolled with
distillate ollc
60
55
49
42
38
37
35
100
Cumulative emission factor
kg/103 1 (lb/103 gal)
Uncontrolled with
residual oil
0.78A (6.50A)
0.62A (5.17A)
0.44A (3.67A)
0.23A (1.92A)
0.16A (1.33A)
0.14A (1.17A)
0.13A (1.08A)
1A (8.34A)
Uncontrolled with
distillate oil
0.14 (1.17)
0.13 (1.08)
0.12 (1.00)
0.10 (0.83)
0.09 (0.75)
0.09 (0.75)
0.08 (0.67)
0.24 (2.00)
    "Reference 29.
    ''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
    cPartlculate emission factors for residual oil combustion without emission controls are, on average,
     a function of  fuel oil grade and sulfur content:
        Grade 6 Oil:  A - 1.25  (S) + 0.38
                    Where S Is the weight % of sulfur in the oil
        Grade 5 Oil:  A - 1.25
        Grade 4 Oil:  A = 0.88
Figure 1.3-4.
 10/86
                  l.OOA

                  0.90A

                  0.80A

                  0.70A

                  0.60A

                  0.50A

                  0.40A

                  0.30A

                  0.20A

                  0.10A
                  0
                      .1
            Distillate oil
                                   Residua] oil
                                               -J—I—I I I I 1 i
                                                                       i  i i
                                                         0.25
                                                         0.15
                                                         0.10
                                                         0.05
                                                                           0
                                 .4  .6   1     2     4   6    10
                                         Particle diameter  (pm)
                                             20
                                                  40  60  100
Cumulative  size  specific emission factors  for uncontrolled
commercial  boilers  burning residual  and distillate oil.

             External Combustion Sources
1.3-7

-------
     Organic compounds present in the flue gas streams of boilers include
aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, ethers, alcohols,  carbonyls,
carboxylic acids and polycylic organic matter.  The last includes all organic
matter having two or more benzene rings.

     Trace elements are also emitted from the combustion of fuel oil.  The
quantity of trace elements emitted depends on combustion temperature, fuel
feed mechanism and the composition of the fuel.  The temperature determines the
degree of volatilization of specific compounds contained in the fuel.  The fuel
feed mechanism affects the separation of emissions into bottom  ash and fly ash.

     If a boiler unit is operated improperly or is poorly maintained, the
concentrations of carbon monoxide and VOCs may increase by several orders of
magnitude.

1.3.3  Controls

     The various control devices and/or techniques employed on  oil fired
boilers depend on the type of boiler and the pollutant being controlled.  All
such controls may be classified into three categories, boiler modification,
fuel substitution and flue gas cleaning.

     Boiler Modification 1-4,8-9,13-14,23_ Boiler modification  includes any
physical change in the boiler apparatus itself or in its operation.  Maintenance
of the burner system, for example, is important to assure proper atomization
and subsequent minimization of any unburned combustibles.  Periodic tuning is
important in small units for maximum operating efficiency and emission control,
particularly of smoke and CO.  Combustion modifications, such as limited excess
air firing, flue gas recirculation, staged combustion and reduced load opera-
tion, result in lowered NC^ emissions in large facilities.  See Table 1.3-1 for
specific reductions possible through these combustion modifications.

     Fuel Substitution3,5,12,28_ pue} substitution, the firing  of "cleaner" fuel
oils, can substantially reduce emissions of a number of pollutants.  Lower
sulfur oils, for instance, will reduce SOX emissions in all boilers, regardless
of size or type of unit or grade of oil fired.  Particulates generally will be
reduced when a lighter grade of oil is fired.  Nitrogen oxide emissions will be
reduced by switching to either a distillate oil or a residual oil with less
nitrogen.  The practice of fuel substitution, however, may be limited by the
ability of a given operation to fire a better grade of oil and  by the cost and
availability thereof.

     Flue Gas Cleaning 15-16,28 _ j?lue gas cleaning equipment generally is
employed only on large oil fired boilers.  Mechanical collectors, a prevalent
type of control device, are primarily useful in controlling particulates gen-
erated during soot blowing, during upset conditions, or when a  very dirty heavy
oil is fired.  During these situations, high efficiency cyclonic collectors can
effect up to 85 percent control of particulate.  Under normal firing conditions,
or when a clean oil is combusted, cyclonic collectors will not  be nearly so
effective because of the high percentage of small particles (less than 3 micro-
meters diameter) emitted.
1.3-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
     Electrostatic precipitators are commonly used in oil fired power plants.
Older precipitators, usually small, remove generally 40 to 60 percent of the
particulate matter.  Because of the low ash content of the oil, greater
collection efficiency may not be required.  Today, new or rebuilt electrostatic
precipitators have collection efficiencies of up to 90 percent.

     Scrubbing systems have been installed on oil fired boilers, especially of
late, to control both sulfur oxides and particulate.  These systems can achieve
S02 removal efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent and particulate control
efficiencies of 50 to 60 percent.


References for Section 1.3

1.   W. S. Smith, Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion;  An Inventory
     Guide, 999-AP-2, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
     November 1962.

2.   J. A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
     AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     1973.  Out of Print.

3.   A. Levy, et al., A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel Oil Combus-
     tion for Space Heating, API Bulletin 4099, Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
     Columbia, OH, November 1971.

4.   R. E. Barrett, et al., Field Investigation of Emissions from Combustion
     Equipment for Space Heating, EPA-R2-73-084a, U. S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.

5.   G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing;  Application of Combustion Modifications
     To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers - Phase I, EPA-650/
     2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October
     1974.

6.   G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing;  Application of Combustion Modifications
     To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers - Phase II, EPA-600/
     2-76-086a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
     1976.

7.   Particulate Emission Control Systems for Oil Fired Boilers, EPA-450/3-74-
     063, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     December 1974.

8.   W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NCy Emission Control Methods
     for Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.

9.   A. R. Crawford, et al., Field Testing;   Application of Combustion Modi-
     fications To Control NOY Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC, June 1974.
10/86                     External Combustion Sources                     1.3-9

-------
10.  J. F. Deffner,  et al.,  Evaluation of Gulf Eeonojet Equipment with Respect
     to Air Conservation,  Report No.  731RC044, Gulf Research and Development
     Company, Pittsburgh,  PA,  December 18,  1972.

11.  C. E. Blakeslee and H.  E.  Burbach,  "Controlling NOX Emissions from Steam
     Generators",  Journal  of the Air  Pollution Control  Association,  23:37-42,
     January 1973.

12.  C. W. Siegmund, "Will  Desulfurized  Fuel Oils Help?", American Society of
     Heating, Refrigerating  and Air Conditioning  Engineers Journal,  11:29-33,
     April 1969.

13.  F. A. Govan,  et al.,  "Relationships of Particulate Emissions Versus
     Partial to Full Load  Operations  for Utility-sized  Boilers", Proceedings
     of Third Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference, Knoxville,
     TN, March 29-30, 1973.

14.  R. E. Hall,  et  al., A Study of Air  Pollutant Emissions from Residential
     Heating Systems, EPA-650/2-74-003,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington,  DC, January 1974.

15.  Flue Gas Desulfurization;   Installations and Operations,  PB 257721,
     National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,  September 1974.

16.  Proceedings:   Flue Gas  Desulfurization Symposium - 1973,  EPA-650/2-73-038,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1973.

17.  R. J. Milligan, et al., Review of NOy  Emission Factors for Stationary
     Fossil Fuel  Combustion Sources,  EPA-450/4-79-021,  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, September 1979.

18.  N. F. Suprenant, et al.,  Emissions  Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Systems, Volume I;  Gas  and Oil  Fired Residential Heating
     Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington,  DC, May 1979.

19.  C. C. Shih,  et  al., Emissions  Assessment of  Conventional  Stationary Com-
     bustion Systems, Volume III;  External Combustion  Sources for Electricity
     Generation,   EPA Contract No.  68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA,
     November 1980.

20.  N. F. Suprenant, et al.,  Emissions  Assessement of  Conventional  Stationary
     Combustion System, Volume IV:  Commercial Institutional Combustion Sources,
     EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

21.  N. F. Suprenant, et al.,  Emissions  Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Systems, Volume V;  Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

22.  Fossil Fuel  Fired Industrial Boilers - Background  Information for Proposed
     Standards (Draft EIS),  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, June 1980.
1.3-10                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
23.  K. J. Lira, et al.,  Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler
     Applications;  NOy  Combustion Modification, EPA-600/7-79-178f, U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1979.

24.  Emission Test Reports, Docket No. OAQPS-78-1, Category II-I-257 through
     265, Office Of Air  Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1972 through 1974.

25.  Primary Sulfate Emissions from Coal and Oil Combustion, EPA Contract No.
     68-02-3138, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA, February 1980.

26.  C. Leavitt, et al., Environmental Assessment of an Oil Fired Controlled
     Utility Boiler, EPA-600/7-80-087, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, April 1980.

27.  W. A. Carter and R. J. Tidona, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial
     Boilers;  Site 2 -  Residual-oil-fired Boiler. EPA-600/7-80-085b, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 1980.

28.  G. R. Offen, et al., Control of Particulate Matter from Oil Burners and
     Boilers, EPA-450/3-76-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC,  April 1976.

29.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156a,  Acurex Corporation,  Mountain View,
     CA, January 1985.
10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                    1.3-11

-------
 1.4  NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION

 1.4.1  General1-2

     Natural gas is one of the major fuels used throughout the country.  It Is
 used mainly for power generation, for industrial process steam and heat produc-
 tion, and for domestic and commercial space heating.  The primary component of
 natural gas is methane, although varying amounts of ethane and smaller amounts
 of nitrogen, helium and carbon dioxide are also present.  Gas processing plants
 are required for recovery of liquefiable constitutents and removal of hydrogen
 sulfide (H2S) before the gas is used (see Natural Gas Processing, Section 9.2).
 The average gross heating value of natural gas is approximately 9350 kilo-
 calories per standard cubic meter (1050 British thermal units/standard cubic
 foot), usually varying from 8900 to 9800 kcal/scm (1000 to 1100 Btu/scf).

 1.4.2  Emission And Controls3"26

     Even though natural gas is considered to be a relatively clean fuel, some
 emissions can occur from the combustion reaction.  For example, improper oper-
 ating conditions, including poor mixing, insufficient air, etc., may cause
 large amounts of smoke, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.  Moreover, because a
 sulfur containing mercaptan is added to natural gas to permit detection, small
 amounts of sulfur oxides will also be produced in the combustion process.

     Nitrogen oxides are the major pollutants of concern when burning natural
 gas.  Nitrogen oxide emissions are functions of combustion chamber temperature
 and combustion product cooling rate.  Emission levels vary considerably with
 the type and size of unit and with operating conditions,
     In some large boilers, several operating modifications may be used for
control.  Staged combustion, for example, including of f-stoichiometric firing
and/or two stage combustion, can reduce emissions by 5 to 50 percent.26 In off-
stoichiometric firing, also called "biased firing", some burners are operated
fuel rich, some fuel lean, and others may supply air only.  In two stage combus-
tion, the burners are operated fuel rich (by introducing only 70 to 90 percent
stoichiometric air), with combustion being completed by air injected above the
flame zone through second stage "NO ports".  In staged combustion, NOX emissions
are reduced because the bulk of combustion occurs under fuel rich conditions.
     Other NOx reducing modifications include low excess air firing and flue
gas recirculation.  In low excess air firing, excess air levels are kept as
low as possible without producing unacceptable levels of unburned combustibles
(carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and smoke) and/or other operating
problems.  This technique can reduce NOX emissions 5 to 35 percent, primarily
because of lack of oxygen during combustion.  Flue gas recirculation into the
primary combustion zone, because the flue gas is relatively cool and oxygen
deficient, can also lower NOX emissions 4 to 85 percent, depending on the
amount of gas recirculated.  Flue gas recirculation is best suited for new
boilers.  Retrofit application would require extensive burner modifications.

10/86                      External Combustion Sources                     1.4-1

-------
                z
                o
                o
                _1
                H
                O
                H
                U
                cn
                M
                a
                Q
                W
                pi!
                H
                w
                fj
                a

s
4>
V
z
•
u

E
•J
ff
O
«
*>
5 B
0 «
> £
w
•1
E

«
•I
•o
g
£
Carbon i
•o
j
T3
K
O
V
£
U
5


u
ft)
dloxld
M
3
3
W







•"i
M
«
3
U

«
D.




M
&
s C

i 4->
«
0
^;


4->
BO
2
*•'

*n
u



.C
1*1
i
*
«
*j
 o< cr«





«n in m

1 i 1



O O O
00 00 «0
1 1 >
SO * NC

^^
I
1
§"* 0 "•
— -H
— t ^_^ (J
k4
c i
K 0 S
IH U —
U

u s
S !J
3 M 0


















X
• a
t! rt -H
. I 3
-?> s .i-*
M C CD 0
^ S^ S i
M 00-
Q *J t)
I S Si
f-* y -o **-
•a b ^
n it <5
i "d"
u Z V
*0 "-S
C .55
bo *-* w
&<-! B •
g* 4J «J 8
(N IM W kl
SO O O 1M
* Z O.S a e
. o 2 b §
•H h ^ o *H
O.A Dh u
o" J!"1 S
Z tn • v
X r^ -H J
M j-i eg I t-
•H s^ •>«
*J » • K
X r> -H O
to « B Z
•* V V
SBsO »- *->
•« 0 3 V
w — i M JE
: o> o M fe
O J* V
. 4J — CM
• — P O ^ O •
•D CM O 1 O Z »
01 A < w B
»- * » O •* C O
*4 » — ** • >H
I U lA t> « Cl K -H
0> — O | « tw w 6
3 ^ fij tl .«*- 0

V — '•^••C^CIW'W
• 00 -H B " J
3 - B — 9 E . 3
-H — -U >« 0 E *H
O — * - « -p -H O
> 41 ^o r * « -H T»
-^ . H — •- U w »
w 00 •* 3 • U
£ 1 • • IM * O g
BO* t^ • 00 00 V«H'B
^100 N | M K h Ih $
V*H *Orx *H « i m z * -H TJ ta
in i • sO * * O *J
» — .^*^-— -^oan
•} *a~ 4 *v »H
S» « m B C kd
4l|»T)«IV«XO9
feU UUWUUMJOv4U
Kt>fe«M««O«O
-------
 Studies  indicate that  low NOx  burners  (20  to  50 percent  reduction) and ammonia
 injection (40 to 70  percent  reduction)  also offer  NOx  emission  reductions.
      Combinations  of  the above  combustion modifications may also be  employed to
 reduce NC^ emissions  further.   In  some  boilers,  for  instance,  NOx  reductions
 as high as 70  to 90 percent  have been produced by  employing several  of  these
 techiques  simultaneously.  In general,  however,  because the net effect  of any
 of these combinations varies greatly, it is  difficult  to predict what the
 reductions will  be in individual applications.

      Although  not  measured,  all particulate  has  been estimated to  be less
 than 1 micrometer  in  size. 27 Emission  factors for natural gas combustion are
 presented  in Table 1.4-1,  and factor ratings in  Table  1.4-2.
             TABLE  1.4-2.   FACTOR  RATINGS FOR  NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
Furnace
type
Utility
boiler
Industrial
boiler
Commercial
boiler
Residential
furnace
Particulate
B
B
B
B
Sulfur
oxides
A
A
A
A
Nitrogen
oxides
A
A
A
A
Carbon
monoxide
A
A
A
A
Volatile organ! cs
Nonmethane
C
C
D
D
Methane
C
C
D
D
10/86
External Combustion Sources
                                                                          1.4-3

-------
                  u

                  u
               C  OJ
               8
                  OjS
               i
               Si  0.4
                    40
             80
     LOAD, percent
100     110
     Figure 1.4-1.  Load reduction coefficient as function of boiler load.
     (Used to determine NOx reductions at reduced loads in large boilers.)
References for Section 1.4
1.   D. M. Hugh, et al., Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes,
     EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-36, Engineering Science, Inc., Washington, DC,
     October 2, 1971.

2.   J. H. Perry (ed.), Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill,
     New York, NY, 1963.

3.   H. H. Hovey, et al., The Development of Air Contaminant Emission Tables
     for Non-process Emissions, New York State Department of Health, Albany,
     NY, 1965.

4.   W. Bartok, et al., Systematic Field Study of NOy Emission Control Methods
     for Utility Boilers, APTD-1163, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1971.
1.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                          10/86

-------
5.   F. A. Bagwell, et al . ,  "Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Reduction Program for
     Oil and Gas Fired Utility Boilers", Proceedings of the American Power Con-
     ference, J_4: 683-693, April 1970.

6.   R. L. Chass and R. E. George, "Contaminant Emissions from the Combustion
     of Fuels", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 10; 34-43,
     February 1980.

7.   H. E. Dietzmann, A Study of Power Plant Boiler Emissions, Final Report No.
     AR-837, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, August 1972.

8.   R. E. Barrett, et al . ,  Field Investigation of Emissions from Combustion
     Equipment for Space Heating, EPA-R2-73-084, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1973.

9.   Confidential information, American Gas Association Laboratories, Cleveland,
     OH, May 1970.

10.  Unpublished data on domestic gas fired units, U. S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1970.
11.  C. E. Blakeslee and H. E. Burbock, "Controlling NOx Emissions from Steam
     Generators", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23;37-42,
     January 1979.

12.  L. K. Jain, et al . , "State of the Art" for Controlling NOy Emissions:
     Part 1, Utility Boilers, EPA-Contract No. 68-02-0241, Catalytic, Inc.,
     Charlotte, NC, September 1972.

13.  J. W. Bradstreet and R. J. Fortman, "Status of Control Techniques for
     Achieving Compliance with Air Pollution Regulations by the Electric
     Utility Industry", Presented at the 3rd Annual Industrial Air Pollution
     Control Conference, Knoxville, TN, March 1973.
14.  Study of Emissions of NCy from Natural Gas Fired Steam Electric Power
     Plants in Texas, Phase II, Volume II, Radian Corporation, Austin, TX,
     May 8, 1972.

15.  N. F. Suprenant, et al . , Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Systems, Volume I;  Gas and Oil Fired Residential Heating
     Sources, EPA-600/7-79-029b , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, May 1979.

16.  C. C. Shih, et al . , Emissions Assessment of Conventional  Stationary Com-
     bustion Systems, Volume III;  External Combustion Sources for Electricity
     Generation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, CA,
     November 1980.

17.  N. F. Suprenant, et al . , Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Sources, Volume IV:  Commercial Institutional  Combustion
     Sources , EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford,  MA,
     October 1980.
10/86                     External  Combustion Sources                      1.4-5

-------
18.  N. F. Suprenant, et al., Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
     Combustion Systems, Volume V;  Industrial Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-2197, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, October 1980.

19.  R. J. Mllllgan, et al., Review of NO^ Emission Factors for Stationary
     Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources, EPA-450/4-79-021, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

20.  W. H. Thrasher and D. W. Dewerth, Evaluation of the Pollutant Emissions
     from Gas Fired Water Heaters, Research Report No. 1507, American Gas
     Association, Cleveland, OH, April 1977.

21.  W. H. Thrasher and D. W. Dewerth, Evaluation of the Pollutant Emissions
     from Gas Fired Forced Air Furnaces, Research Report No. 1503, American
     Gas Association, Cleveland, OH, May 1975.

22.  G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing;  Application of Combustion Modification
     To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers, Phase I, EPA-650/
     2-74-078a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October
     1974.

23.  G. A. Cato, et al., Field Testing:  Application of Combustion Modification
     To Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers, Phase II, EPA-600/
     2-76-086a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April
     1976.

24.  W. A. Carter and H. J. Buening, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial
     Boilers - Site 5, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2645, KVB Engineering, Inc.,
     Irvine, CA, May 1981.

25.  W. A. Carter and H. J. Buening, Thirty-day Field Tests of Industrial
     Boilers - Site 6, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2645, KVB Engineering, Inc.,
     Irvine, CA, May 1981.

26.  K. J. Lira, et al., Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler
     Applications;  NOy Combustion Modification, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3101,
     Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA, December 1979.

27.  H. J. Taback, et al., Fine Particle Emissions From Stationary and Miscel-
     laneous Sources in the South Coast Air Basin, California Air Resources
     Board Contract No. A6-191-30, KVB, Inc., Tustin, CA, February 1979.
1.4-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
1.6  WOOD WASTE COMBUSTION IN BOILERS

1.6.1  General1"3

     The burning of wood waste in boilers is mostly confined to those industries
where it is available as a byproduct.  It is burned both to obtain heat  energy
and to alleviate possible solid waste disposal problems.  Wood waste may include
large pieces like slabs, logs and bark strips, as well as cuttings, shavings,
pellets and sawdust, and heating values for this waste range from about  4,400
to 5,000 kilocalories per kilogram of fuel dry weight (7,940 to 9,131 Btu/lb).
However, because of typical moisture contents of 40 to 75 percent, the heating
values for many wood waste materials as actually fired are as low as 2,200  to
3,300 kilocalories per kilogram of fuel.  Generally, bark is the major type of
waste burned in pulp mills, and either a varying mixture of wood and bark waste
or wood waste alone are most frequently burned in the lumber, furniture  and
plywood industries.

1.6.2  Firing Practices1"3

     Varied boiler firing configurations are used in burning wood waste. One
common type in smaller operations is the dutch oven, or extension type of
furnace with a flat grate.  This unit is widely used because it can burn fuels
with very high moisture.  Fuel is fed into the oven through apertures atop  a
firebox and is fired in a cone shaped pile on a flat grate.  The burning is
done in two stages, drying and gasification, and combustion of gaseous products.
The first stage takes place in a cell separated from the boiler section  by  a
bridge wall.  The combustion stage takes place in the main boiler section.   The
dutch oven is not responsive to changes in steam load, and it provides poor
combustion control.

     In another type, the fuel cell oven, fuel is dropped onto suspended fixed
grates and is fired in a pile.  Unlike the dutch oven, the fuel cell also uses
combustion air preheating and repositioning of the secondary and tertiary air
injection ports to improve boiler efficiency.

     In many large operations, more conventional boilers have been modified
to burn wood waste.  These units may include spreader stokers with traveling
grates, vibrating grate stokers, etc., as well as tangentially fired or  cyclone
fired boilers.  The most widely used of these configurations is the spreader
stoker.  Fuel is dropped in front of an air jet which casts the fuel out over
a moving grate, spreading it in an even thin blanket.  The burning is done  in
three stages in a single chamber, (1) drying, (2) distillation and burning  of
volatile matter and (3) burning of carbon.  This type of operation has a fast
response to load changes, has improved combustion control and can be operated
with multiple fuels.  Natural gas or oil are often fired in spreader stoker
boilers as auxiliary fuel.  This is done to maintain constant steam when the
wood waste supply fluctuates and/or to provide more steam than is possible
from the waste supply alone.


10/86                     External Combustion Sources                    1.6-1

-------
      TABLE 1.6-1.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR WOOD AND  BARK  COMBUSTION  IN BOILERS
Pollutant/Fuel type
Particulate8
Barkb
Multiclone, with flyash reinjection0
Multiclone, without flyash
reinjection0
Uncontrolled
Wood/bark mixtured
Multiclone, with flyash
reinjectionc>e
Multiclone, without flyash
reinjectionc>e
Uncontrolled^
Woodg
Uncontrolled
Sulfur dioxide"
Nitrogen oxides (as NO^)^
50,000 - 400,000 Ib steam/hr
<50,000 Ib steam/hr
Carbon monoxide^
VOC
Nonmethane"1
Methane"
kg/Mg


7
4.5
24

3
2.7
3.6

4.4
0.075
(0.01 - 0.2)
1.4
0.34
2-24

0.7
0.15
Ib/ton


14
9
47

6
5.3
7.2

8.8
0.15
(0.02 - 0.4)
2.8
0.68
4-47

1.4
0.3
Emission Factor
Rating


B
B
B

C
C
C

C
B
B
B
C

D
E
         References 2, 4,  9,  17-18, 20.  With gas or oil  as  auxiliary fuel, all particulate assumed
          to result from only  wood waste fuel.  May include condensible hydrocarbons of pitches  and
          tars, mostly from back  half catch of EPA Method  5.   Tests indicate condensible hydrocarbons
          about 4% of total particulate weight.
         ''Based on fuel moisture  content about 50%.
         cReferences 4,7-8. After control equipment, assuming an average collection efficiency  of
          80%.  Data indicate  that 50% flyash reinjection  increases dust load at cyclone inlet  1.2  to
          1.5 times, and 100%  flyash reinjection increases the load 1.5 to 2 times.
         dfiased on fuel moisture  content of 33%.
         eBased on large dutch ovens and spreader stokers  (avg.  23,430 kg steam/hr) with steam
          pressures 20 - 75 kps (140 - 530 psi).
         ^Based on small dutch ovens and spreader stokers  (usually ^9075 kg steam/hr),  with steam
          pressures 5-30  kpa (35 - 230 psi).  Careful air adjustments and improved fuel separation and
          firing sometimes  used,  but effects can not be isolated.
         gReferences 12-13, 19,  27.  Wood waste includes cuttings, shavings, sawdust and chips,  but
          not bark.  Moisture  content ranges 3-50 weight %.   Based on small units (<3000 kg steam/hr).
         "Reference 23.  Based on dry weight of fuel.  From tests of fuel sulfur content and S02
          emissions at 4 mills burning bark.  Lower limit  of  range (in parentheses) should be used  for
          wood, and higher  values for bark.  Heating value of  5000 kcal/kg (9000 Btu/lb) is assumed.
         JReferences 7, 24-26.  Several factors can Influence  emission rates, including combustion
          zone, temperature, excess air, boiler operating  conditions, fuel moisture and fuel
          nitrogen content.
         ^Reference 30.
         ""References 20, 30.   Nonmethane VOC reportedly consists of compounds with high vapor
          pressure, such as alpha pinene.
         "Reference 30.  Based on approximation of methane/nonmethane ratio, quite variable.
          Methane, expressed as % total VOC, varied 0-74 weight %.
                                                                     i
1.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                        10/86

-------
     Sander dust is often burned in various  boiler types  at plywood, particle
board and furniture plants.  Sander dust contains  fine wood particles with low
moisture content (less than 20 weight  percent).   It is fired  in a  flaming
horizontal torch, usually with natural gas  as  an ignition aid or supplementary
fuel.

1.6.3  Emissions And Controls^~28

     The major emission of concern from wood boilers is particulate matter,
although other pollutants, particularly carbon monoxide,  may  be emitted in
significant amounts under poor operating conditions.  These emissions depend
on a number of variables, including (1) the  composition of the waste fuel
burned, (2) the degree of flyash reinjection employed and (3) furnace design
and operating conditions.

     The composition of wood waste depends  largely on the industry whence it
originates.  Pulping operations, for example,  produce great quantities of bark
that may contain more than 70 weight percent moisture and sand and other non-
combustibles.  Because of this, bark boilers in  pulp mills may emit considerable
amounts of particulate matter to the atmosphere  unless they are well controlled.
On the other hand, some operations, such as  furniture manufacturing, produce a
clean dry wood waste, 5 to 50 weight percent moisture, with relatively little
particulate emission when properly burned.   Still  other operations, such
as sawmills, burn a varying mixture of bark  and  wood waste that results in
particulate emissions somewhere between these  two extremes.

     Furnace design and operating conditions are particularly important when
firing wood waste.  For example, because of  the  high moisture content that can
be present in this waste, a larger than usual  area of refractory surface is
often necessary to dry the fuel before combustion.  In addition, sufficient
secondary air must be supplied over the fuel bed to burn  the  volatiles that
account for most of the combustible material in  the waste.  When proper drying
conditions do not exist, or when secondary  combustion is  incomplete, the
combustion temperature is lowered, and increased particulate, carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon emissions may result.   Lowering  of combustion temperature
generally means decreased nitrogen oxide emissions.  Also, short term emissions
can fluctuate with significant variations in fuel  moisture content.

     Flyash reinjection, which is common to  many larger boilers to improve
fuel efficiency, has a considerable effect  on  particulate emissions.  Because
a fraction of the collected flyash is  reinjected into the boiler,  the dust
loading from the furnace, and consequently  from  the collection device, increases
significantly per unit of wood waste burned.  It is reported  that  full reinjec-
tion can cause a tenfold increase in the dust  loadings of some systems, although
increase of 1.2 to 2 times are more typical  for  boilers using 50 to 100 percent
reinjection.  A major factor affecting this  dust loading  increase  is the extent
to which the sand and other noncombustibles  can  be separated  from  the flyash
before reinjection to the furnace.

     Although reinjection increases boiler  efficiency from 1  to 4  percent and
reduces emissions of uncombusted carbon, it  increases boiler  maintenance
requirements, decreases average flyash particle  size and  makes collection more
difficult.  Properly designed reinjection systems  should  separate  sand and char


10/86                     External Combustion  Sources                    1.6-3

-------
       TABLE 1.6-2.   CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
                         EMISSION  FACTORS FOR BARK FIRED BOILERS3


                                 EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    Reference 31.  All spreader stoker boilers.
    ''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
    cwith flyash reinjection.
    •'Without flyash reinjection.
    'Estimated control efficiency for scrubber, 94Z
Eattlc-le sizeb
(pm)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass 7. £ stated size
Uncontrolled
42
35
28
21
15
13
9
100
Controlled
Multiple
cyclone0
90
79
64
40
26
21
15
100
Multiple
cyclone1*
40
36
30
19
14
11
8
100
Scrubber6
92
87
78
56
29
23
14
100
Cumulative eMlislon factor
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) bark, as fired]
Uncontrolled
10.1
(20.2)
8.4
(16.8)
6.7
(13.4)
5.0
(10.0)
3.6
(7.2)
3.1
(6.2)
2.2
(4.4)
24
(48)
Controlled
Multiple
cyclonec
6.3
(12.6)
5.5
(11.0)
4.5
(9.0)
2.8
(5.6)
1.8
(3.6)
1.5
(3.0)
1.1
(2.2)
7
(14)
Multiple
cyclone^
1.8
(3.6)
1.62
(3.24)
1.35
(2.7)
0.86
(1.72)
0.63
(1.26)
0.5
(1.0)
0.36
(0.72)
4.5
(9.0)
Scrubber6
1.32
(2.64)
1.25
(2.50)
1.12
(2.24)
0.81
(1.62)
0.42
(0.84)
0.33
(0.66)
0.20
(0.40)
1.44
(2.88)
               25
               15
               10
              Multiple cyclone
              with flyash reinjection

                          Scrubber •

                    Uncontrolled.
                          i  i  i i  i 11
                                                          Multiple cyclone
                                                          without flyash -
                                                          reinjaction
                 .1    .2   .4  .6  1    2     46   10

                                     Particle diameter (pm)
                                            20
                                                 40  60  100
                                                              £ J
                                                              •*-> i-
                                                              § 2
                                                              (J
                                                                            o> •
                                                                            §
1.6-4
Figure  1.6-1.   Cumulative size specific emission factors
                  for  bark  fired boilers.

                        EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
from the exhaust gases,  to reinject the larger carbon particles  to  the furnace
and to divert the fine sand particles  to the ash disposal  system.

     Several factors can influence emissions,  such as boiler  size and type,
design features, age, load factors, wood species and  operating procedures.  In
addition, wood is often cofired with other fuels.   The effect of these factors
on emissions is difficult to quantify.   It is  best to refer to the  references
for further information.

     The use of multitube cyclone mechanical collectors provides particulate
control for many hogged  boilers.  Usually, two multicyclones  are used in series,
allowing the first collector to remove the bulk of the dust and  the second to
remove smaller particles.  The efficiency of this  arrangement is from 65 to 95
percent.  Low pressure drop scrubbers  and fabric filters have been  used
extensively for many years, and pulse  jets have been  used  in  the western U. S.

     Emission factors and emission factor ratings  for wood waste boilers are
presented in Table 1.6-1, except for cumulative size  distribution data, size
specific emission factors for particulate, and emission factor ratings for the
cumulative particle size distribution,  all presented  in Tables 1.6-2 through
1.6-3.  Uncontrolled and controlled size specific  emission factors  are in
Figures 1.6-1 and 1.6-2.
 10/86                    External  Combustion  Sources                     1.6-5

-------




/••N
CJ O
M W
|_J .
U
W M
CO 4J
rH
W -H
M <4-l
CO to M
CO tO
§BJ r-l
W 3
M to
z o n
O ffl bO
M
H Q 0
3 W -H
M Dd 4-1
MM «
Pi fa 4-1
ICLE SIZE DIS1
FOR WOOD/ BARK
r dry electros
H 0
32 ^
PH O  < W
(-( (JE<
t-l
< z ..
rJ O CJ
P M Z
S CO M
CD co H
0 M  at
CM -HCM —.CM "HCM O™^ O—* O1"* ^^PO
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
^-H vCCM NOCM ^DPM *-HCM ON 00 ^>,
-npn -npn f—tf^ «P^PO -HPM O"^ cM-41
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
* * * ^ * * -.M
ONON COP- rv^r •*•  CM-* -£>
aor*- -tfoo OO -* i^« cor^- -HCM s^
m*D (-1 ;C -^.0  U
CO CO)
(0 -H -^
V 0
T3 t* -H
0) U-i
3 CO 01
• (0
01.0 X O
01 O IM *J
• 6 to C
CO (3 rH 4J O
S3 " §"
T3 X • .C T3
w a co 4J o>
•U C Z •"* tH -H 4J
C 01 4» » 3 (0
U > CO O • * 4->
•H -H t-l ,£) ffl CO (O
IM 3 4) 1^ ^ bj
IM D* -^ ^ H 
C 0) O Ol 01 O
J2 X >*-* O "O "O
CO "O M 3 » CO £
co o o> a> at u
aReference 31. I
''Expressed as ae
cFrom data on um
distribution fo
•'From data on sp
eFrom data on sp
Frow data on du
1.6-6
                                EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
                 CM

                 CD
                              (pa-nj.  SB  'DtJBq/pooM
                              JO^DBJ. UOISSLUB
                                jij. SB  '^eq/poow 6w/6>0
                                UOLSSIUI3
s
CM
CD
CO
i— I
CM
O
IO
r- 1
CM
O
«*
i— 1
CM
O
CM
r— 1
CM
O
O
.—1
CM
O
CO
O
CM
O
10
O
CM
O
s
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
0
O
CM
O
                                     SB  '
                             uoissma
                                                                              0)
                                                                              rH
                                                                              •H
                                                                              o
                                                                              T)
                                                                              
                                                                       

•H co CM CM (P3JJ4 SB ')(JEq/pOOM 6w/6)j) uoissma 10/86 External Combustion Sources 1.6-7


-------
References for Section 1.6
1.   Steam, 38th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox,  New York,  NY,  1972.

2.   Atomspheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry,
     EPA-450/1-73-002, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park, NC, September 1973.

3.   C-E Bark Burning Boilers,  C-E Industrial  Boiler Operations, Combustion
     Engineering, Inc., Windsor, CT, 1973.

4.   A. Barren, Jr., "Studies on the Collection of Bark  Char throughout the
     Industry", Journal of the Technical Association of  the  Pulp and Paper
     Industry, 53.C8): 1441-1448, August 1970.

5.   H. Kreisinger, "Combustion of Wood Waste  Fuels", Mechanical Engineering,
     61:115-120, February 1939.

6.   P. L. Magill (ed.), Air Pollution Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
     York, NY, 1956.

7.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

8.   J. F. Mullen, A Method for Determining Combustible  Loss,  Dust Emissions,
     and Recirculated Refuse for a Solid Fuel  Burning System,  Combustion
     Engineering, Inc., Windsor, CT, 1966.

9.   Source test data, Alan Lindsey, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Atlanta, GA, May 1973.

10.  H. K. Effenberger, et al., "Control of Hogged Fuel  Boiler Emissions:   A
     Case History", Journal of the Technical Association of  the Pulp and Paper
     Industry, 56/2):111-115, February 1973.

11.  Source test data, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland,
     OR, May 1973.

12.  Source test data, Illinois Environmental  Protection Agency, Springfield,
     IL, June 1973.

13.  J. A. Danielson (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  Second Edition,
     AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park,  NC,
     1973.  Out of Print.

14.  H. Droege and G. Lee, "The Use of Gas  Sampling and  Analysis for the
     Evaluation of Teepee Burners", presented  at the Seventh Conference on the
     Methods In Air Pollution Studies, Los  Angeles, CA,  January 1967.

15.  D. C. Junge and K. Kwan, "An Investigation of the Chemically Reactive
     Constituents of Atmospheric Emissions  from Hog-fuel Boilers in Oregon",
     Northwest International Section of the Air Pollution Control  Association,
     November 1973.

1.6-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
16.  S. F. Galeano and K. M. Leopold, "A Survey of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
     in the Pulp Mill", Journal of the Technical Association of the Pulp and
     Paper Industry, 56(3):74-76, March 1973.

17.  P. B. Bosserman, "Wood Waste Boiler Emissions in Oregon State", presented
     at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International Section of
     the Air Pollution Control Association, September 1976.

18.  Source test data, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland,
     OR, September 1975.

19.  Source test data, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
     Albany, NY, May 1974.

20.  P. B. Bosserman, "Hydrocarbon Emissions from Wood Fired Boilers", pre-
     sented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International
     Section of the Air Pollution Control Association, November 1977.

21.  Control of Partlculate Emissions from Wood Fired Boilers, EPA-340/1-77-
     026, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     1978.

22.  Wood Residue Fired Steam Generator Partlculate Matter Control Technology
     Assessment, EPA-450/2-78-044, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1978.

23.  H. S. Cglesby and R. 0. Blosser, "Information on the Sulfur Content of
     Bark and Its Contribution to S02 Emissions When Burned as a Fuel", Journal
     of the Air Pollution Control Association, 3£(7):769-772, July 1980.

24.  A Study of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Wood Residue Boilers, Technical
     Bulletin No. 102, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Steam
     Improvement, New York,  NY, November 1979.

25.  R. A. Kester, Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from a Pilot Plant Spreader Stoker
     Bark Fired Boiler, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
     Washington, Seattle, WA, December 1979.

26.  A. Nunn, NOy Emission Factors for Wood Fired Boilers, EPA-600/7-79-219,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1979.

27.  C. R. Sanborn,  Evaluation of Wood Fired Boilers and Wide Bodied Cyclones
     in the State of Vermont, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston,
     MA, March 1979.

28.  Source test data, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
     Community Development,  Raleigh, NC, June 1981.

29.  Nonfossll Fueled Boilers - Emission Test Report:  Weyerhaeuser Company,
     Longview, Washington, EPA-80-WFB-10, Office Of Air Quality Planning And
     Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, March 1981.
10/86                     External Combustion Sources                     1.6-9

-------
30.  A Study of Wood Residue Fired Power Boiler Total  Gaseous Nonmethane Organic
     Emissions In the Pacific Northwest, Technical  Bulletin No.  109,  National
     Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Steam Improvement,  New York, NY,
     September 1980.

31.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report  for  External Combustion
     Sources, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3156, Acurex  Corporation, Mountain View,
     CA, January 1985.
                                                                                    i
1.6-10                          EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------
                        AP-42
                   Supplement A
                   October 1986
  SUPPLEMENT A
         TO

   COMPILATION
        OF
 AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS

     Volume I:
   Stationary Point
  And Area Sources

-------
1.7  LIGNITE COMBUSTION

1.7.1  General1-4

     Lignite Is a relatively young coal with properties Intermediate to those
of bituminous coal and peat.  It has a high moisture content (35 to 40 weight
percent) and a low wet basis heating value (1500 to 1900 kilocalories) and
generally is burned only near where it is mined, in some midwestern states  and
Texas.  Although a small amount is used in industrial and domestic situations,
lignite is used mainly for steam/electric production in power plants.   In the
past, lignite has been burned mainly in small stokers, but today the trend  is
toward use in much larger pulverized coal fired or cyclone fired boilers.

     The major advantages of firing lignite are that, in certain geographical
areas, it is plentiful, relatively low in cost and low in sulfur content (0.4
to 1 wet basis weight percent).  Disadvantages are that more fuel and  larger
facilities are necessary to generate a unit of power than is the case  with
bituminous coal.  The several reasons for this are (1) the higher moisture
content means that more energy is lost in the gaseous products of combustion,
which reduces boiler efficiency;  (2) more energy is required to grind lignite
to combustion specified size, especially in pulverized coal fired units;   (3)
greater tube spacing and additional soot blowing are required because  of the
higher ash fouling tendencies; and (4) because of its lower heating value,  more
fuel must be handled to produce a given amount of power, since lignite usually
is not cleaned or dried before combustion (except for some drying In the crusher
or pulverizer and during transfer to the burner).  No major problems exist  with
the handling or combustion of lignite when its unique characteristics  are taken
into account.

1.7.2  Emissions And Controls2"11

     The major pollutants from firing lignite, as with any coal, are particulate,
sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides.  Volatile organic compounds (VOC)  and carbon
monoxide emissions are quite low under normal operating conditions.

     Particulate emission levels appear most dependent on the firing configu-
ration in the boiler.  Pulverized coal fired units and spreader stokers,  which
fire much or all of the lignite In suspension, emit the greatest quantity of
flyash per unit of fuel burned.  Cyclone furnaces, which collect much  of  the
ash as molten slag in the furnace Itself, and stokers (other than spreader),
which retain a large fraction of the ash In the fuel bed,  both emit less  par-
ticulate matter.  In general, the relatively high sodium content of lignite
lowers particulate emissions by causing more of the resulting flyash to
deposit on the boiler tubes.  This Is especially so in pulverized coal fired
units wherein a high fraction of the ash is suspended in the combustion gases
and can readily come into contact with the boiler surfaces.

     Nitrogen oxide emissions are mainly a function of the boiler firing
configuration and excess air.  Stokers produce the lowest  NOX levels,  mainly

10/86                     External Combustion Sources                    1.7-1

-------
  C8


  I
  CJ

  w
  H
  I-H
  2
  O
  H
  CO
  &
  PQ
  a!
  w
  H
  X
  oo
  g
  H
 fa

 Z
 o
 h-l
 oo
 CO
 w
 w


co
CJ
•H
C
CO
hfl
C
o
CU
rH
iH
4-1
CO
rH
O
^»


CU
c
CO
42
4-1
CU
S


CU
c
CO
42
4-t
CU
g
S
0
z


i>
C -0
O iH
43 X
I-l O
CO C
CJ 0
e


T3

CU
•o
•H
x
o
c
CU
C?
I-l
4J
•H
Z


o
CO
CU
•o
•H
X
o
I-l
3
14-1
rH
3
C/3



43
CU
4J
CO
rH
3

•H
4-1
M
CO
P-




c
o
4-1
^^
43
i— |


1

so
.id



c
o
4-1
^^
r*
rH


bO
32
^^
bO



B
O
4-1

43
i— 1


M
jg
^^
00




C
O
•H
4J
CO
M
3
bO
•H
14-1
C
O
o

so
c
1-1

.^
fT,



W> bO bO bO









bQ to bO SO










bO bO bO bO






4H
M
OJ
CN p*"-. \^ so
^H i-H



""J. in
cu .
sO OO CO CO






CO CO OO OO
o o o o
CO CO CO CO




CO CO C/3 tf>
lO U"t LO U"1
i-H -H *-H — I




•^1 -<3 <3 ^3
CO 1 — . 00 O^
• • • •
vD vO *-O CM



•« < < <
r— I CO >3" LO
• • • •
CO CO CO rH



-a
cu
^i
i-i
14-1

rH CU rJ
to u cu
O a) ^!
cj E C O M
O I-l 4J CU
•O 4-> 3 co J^
CU 4-1 14-1 O
NO I-l 4-1
•H 43 CU CU CO
l-i C -0
CU >, O CO !•<
> IJ rH CU CU
1-1 T3 U rJ 42
3 X Q. 4J
di cj oo O









cu
42 M 43
co m
co « O

& •— i
3 C
•H CU 3
T3 CO O
0 3 42
to co
42 /-N CO
sos^e -H
iH CM
42 V g
M O 00
O CM
b CO 14-1
Z 0
» C
cu cu o
4-1 4J -H
iH iH CO
C C I-i
bO bO CU
•H iH >
rH rH C
O
U-l 42 U
O CO
CO CU
4-i ^ 42
« e E H
CU CU 3
4J 4-1 .H
•H C -O •
C O O r*.
bO O co C
. 1 Q
rH >-l 3 4J
30^.
U-l U-l i-H .O
O rH rH
3 I-i
4-1 CO O CO
C 14-1 O
CU Jxj CO
C 4-1 ^
O 42 C SO
0 SO O S
iH 4-1 ^~
42 CU — SO
CO 3 43 ^
CO rH
S-S -i-l C/} u"> C-
co r- — i • O
CO CO -H CO Z
•H 43 ^^ CU 4-1
CO CO C CO
CO 4-1 SO 3 CU CO
• 43 CU S 3
*^3 3 ^**- ** 4-i ^3
CU 4-1 SO B •!-! CU
•H 3 O CD CO
UH CO C^ C C CU
II m ^ o i^
CO • B CJ CX
CO < • 00 3 X
—i 42 W
O • 1 CO rH CO
•H c-J o 3 •
4-1 ~^ r-4 •!-( OO
O, . . rH 1
0 * * t-^, /^\ co r^-
3 C^ ^O S^? C y
CO | 00 O rH •
B * IA /^ 4-1 CO m
O vD -^
O 1 - O 43 u-l •>
UO CN CM rH O CN
CU CO
4-) 'ft CO Z C/j C CO
•H CU CU >»«^ i/^ O CU
C O CJ CO iH O
lifi B C CU ^^* 4-* C
1-1 CU CU 4J CJ 01
1-1 cu cu "G s 3 cu
|4 14-1 U-4 ^Q ^^ U-l U-l
o cu cu -^ so cu
•J- Dd Dd i— 1 ^ii CO pi
CO 43 CJ T3
O CU

-^. IH
43 U-i
i— 1
rH
00 rH
*^ co
^ ^ ^

DO CO CO
^ 0 0
a o
1 rH
i— I TJ iH
rH CU 6
CO SO -H
4-1 CO CO
B 4J
O CO E
N O
•H U 'H
rJ 0 4J
O — ^ CO
42 -a 3
E 43
"Tl rrt ff
TJ \u C
C 0
CO SO cj
E
13 -iH 6
CU I-i O
r-l -H
•H U-l T3
1 1 ^ ^J
J CO 01
rH CO CO
i-l CU 43
CO CJ
3 X -
CU -O
4-1 CU
B 3 co
O O 3
1-1 rH
UH • 3J
CO 42 43
M 4J 4J
o in in >-.
u-t B 3 co
3 6
*«™"V rXP
/"s tr<
B T3 O -H
O  — co cu cj n
IH O X BH
bO 4-i 3 CJ
S B "^ G
-^ CU CU T3 "H
SO SO ^ B
-ii C CO CO
CO CU b
i-l 4-1
CU -J >> -H O
cn o ca B co
S U-i 3^ 3 CD
CU u-i bo
                                                                                          I
1.7-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
 because most  existing units  are  relatively small and have lower peak flame
 temperatures.   In most boilers,  regardless of firing configuration, lower
 excess combustion air means  lower NO^  emissions.

      Sulfur oxide emissions  are  a function of the alkali (especially sodium)
 content of the  lignite ash.  Unlike most fossil fuel combustion, in which over
 90  percent of the fuel sulfur  is emitted as SC>2, a significant fraction of the
 sulfur in lignite reacts with  the ash  components during combustion and is
 retained in the boiler ash deposits and fly ash.  Tests have shown that less
 than 50 percent of  the available sulfur may be emitted as S02 when a high
 sodium lignite  is burned, whereas more than 90 percent may be emitted from low
 sodium lignite. As a rough  average, about 75 percent of the fuel sulfur will
 be  emitted as S02,  the remainder being converted to various sulfate salts.

      Newer lignite  fired utility boilers are equipped with large electrostatic
 precipitators with  as high as  99.5 percent particulate control.  Older and
 smaller electrostatic precipitators operate at about 95 percent efficiency.
 Older industrial and commercial units  use cyclone collectors that normally
 achieve 60 to 80 percent collection efficiency on lignite flyash.  Flue gas
 desulfurization systems identical to those on bituminous coal fired boilers
 are in current  operation on  several lignite fired utility boilers.  (See
 Section 1.1).

      Nitrogen oxide reductions of up to 40 percent can be achieved by changing
 the burner geometry, controlling excess air and making other changes in operat-
 ing procedures. The techniques  for bituminous and lignite coal are identical.
           TABLE  1.7-2.  EMISSION FACTOR RATINGS FOR LIGNITE COMBUSTION
Firing configuration
Pulverized coal
fired dry bottom
Cyclone furnace
Spreader stoker
Other stokers
Particulate
A
C
B
B
Sulfur dioxide
A
A
B
C
Nitrogen oxides
A
A
C
D
10/86
External Combustion Sources
1.7-3

-------
      TABLE 1.7-3.   CUMULATIVE PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE SPECIFIC
          EMISSION FACTORS  FOR BOILERS BURNING PULVERIZED LIGNITE COAL3

                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
       Reference 13.
       ''Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
       CA - coal ash weight % content, as fired.
       "^Estimated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80%.
Particle slzeb
0»m)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
51
35
26
10
7
6
3
100
Multiple cyclone
controlled
77
67
57
27
16
14
8
100
Cumulative emission factorc
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired]
Uncontrolled
1.58A (3.16A)
1.09A (2.18A)
0.81A (1.62A)
0.31A (0.62A)
0.22A (0.44A)
0.19A (0.38A)
0.09A (0.18A)
3.1A (6.2A)
Multiple cyclone
controlled^
0.477A (0.954A)
0.415A (0.830A)
0.353A (0.706A)
0.167A (0.334A)
0.099A (0.198A)
0.087A (0.174A)
0.050A (0.100A)
0.62A (1.24A)
1.7-4
                                                                           fl
                                .4 .6
1     2   4    6    10
  Particle diameter (urn)
                                                           20
                                                                40  60
Figure  1.7-1.  Cumulative size  specific  emission factors
                for  boilers burning pulverized lignite coal.

                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                         10/86

-------
       TABLE 1.7-4  CUMULATIVE  PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
               EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR LIGNITE  FUELED  SPREADER STOKERS3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Particle sizeb
Gym)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size
Uncontrolled
28
20
14
7
5
5
4
100
Multiple cyclone
controlled
55
41
31
26
23
22
e
100
Cumulative emission factor0
[kg/Mg (Ib/ton) coal, as fired]
Uncontrolled
0.95A (1.9A)
0.68A (1.36A)
0.48A (0.96A)
0.24A (0.48A)
0.17A (0.34A)
0.17A (0.34A)
0.14A (0.28A)
3.4A (6.8A )
Multiple cyclone
control ledd
0.374A (0.748A)
0.279A (0.558A)
0.211A (0.422A)
0.177A (0.354A)
0.156A (0.312A)
0.150A (0.300A)
e
0.68A (1.36A)
        aReference 13.
        ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
        cCoal ash weight Z content, as  fired.
        dE>tinated control efficiency for multiple cyclone, 80X.
        'Insufficient data.
       l.OA

       0.9A

 •££   0.8A

 *£!  0.7A

 ~.lt  0.6A
 'a */i 
-------
     Emission factors for particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are
presented in Table 1.7-1, and emission factor ratings in Table 1.7-2.   Specific
emission factors for particulate emissions,  and emission factor ratings for the
cumulative particle size distributions, are  given in Tables 1.7-3 and  11.7-4.
Uncontrolled and controlled size specific emission factors are presented in
Figures 1.7-1 and 1.7-2.  Based on the similarity of lignite combustion and
bituminous coal combustion, emission factors for carbon monoxide and volatile
organic compounds (Table 1.1-1), and cumulative particle size distributions
for cyclone furnaces, uncontrolled spreader  stokers and other stokers  (Tables
1.1-5 through 1.1-8) may be used.
References for Section 1.7
1.   Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical  Technology,  Second Edition,  Volume
     12, John Wiley and Sons, New York,  NY,  1967.

2.   G. H. Gronhovd, et al.,  "Some Studies on Stack Emissions from Lignite
     Fired Powerplants", Presented at the  1973 Lignite Symposium,  Grand Forks,
     NB, May 1973.

3.   Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement;   Promulgated
     Standards of Performance for Lignite  Fired Steam  Generators;   Volumes I
     and II, EPA-450/2-76-030a and 030b, U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, December  1976.

4.   1965 Keystone Coal Buyers Manual, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,  New York, NY, 1965.

5.   Source test data on lignite fired power plants, North Dakota  State Depart-
     ment of Health, Bismarck, ND, December 1973.

6.   G. H. Gronhovd, et al.,  "Comparison of  Ash Fouling Tendencies of  High and
     Low Sodium Lignite from a North Dakota Mine",  Proceedings of  the  American
     Power Conference, Volume XXVIII, 1966.

7.   A. R. Crawford, et al.,  Field Testing;   Application of Combustion Modi-
     fication To Control NCy Emissions from Utility Boilers, EPA-650/2-74-066,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, DC, June 1974.

8.   "Nitrogen Oxides Emission Measurements  for Lignite Fired Power Plant",
     Source Test No. 75-LSG-33, Office Of  Air Quality  Planning And Standards,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.

9.   Coal Fired Power Plant  Trace Element  Study, A  Three Station Comparison,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Denver, CO, September  1975.

10.  C. Castaldini and M. Angwin, Boiler Design and Operating Variables
     Affecting Uncontrolled  Sulfur Emissions from Pulverized Coal  Fired Steam
     Generators, EPA-450/3-77-047, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC, December  1977.
1.7-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
 11.  C. C. Shih, et al.,  Emissions Assessment of Conventional  Stationary
      Combustion Systems,  Volume III:   External Combustion Sources  for
      Electricity Generation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2197, TRW  Inc.,  Redondo
      Beach, CA, November 1980.

 12.  Source test data on lignite fired cyclone boilers,  North  Dakota State
      Department of Health, Bismarck,  ND,  March 1982.

 13.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report for External Combustion
      Sources,  EPA Contract No.  68-02-3156, Acurex Corporation, Mountain View,
      CA, January 1985.
1°/86                     External Combustion Sources                     1.7-7

-------
                  3.0  Stationary Internal Combustion Sources


     Internal combustion engines included in this source category generally are
used in applications similar to those associated with external combustion
sources.  The major items within this category are gas turbines and large heavy
duty general utility reciprocating engines.  Most stationary internal combustion
engines are used to generate electric power, to pump gas or other fluids, or to
compress air for pneumatic machinery.
9/85                 Stationary Internal  Combustion Sources                3.0-1

-------
  3.1  Stationary Gas Turbines for Electric Utility Power Plants

3.1.1  General - Stationary gas turbines find application in electric power generators, in gas pipeline pump and
 compressor drives, and in various process industries. The majority of these engines are used in electrical generation
 for continuous, peaking, or standby power.1  The primary fuels used are natural gas and No. 2 (distillate) fuel oil,
 although residual oil is used in a few applications.

 3.1.2 Emissions - Data on gas turbines were gathered and summarized under an EPA contract.2 The contractor
 found that several investigators had reported data on emissions from gas turbines used in electrical generation but
 that little agreement existed among the investigators regarding the terms in which the emissions were expressed.
 The efforts represented  by this section include acquisition  of the  data and their conversion to uniform terms.
 Because many  sets of measurements reported  by the contractor were not complete, this conversion often involved
 assumptions on engine  air flow or fuel flow  rates (based on manufacturers' data). Another shortcoming of the
 available information was that relatively few data were obtained at loads below maximum rated (or base) load.

   Available  data on the population and usage of gas turbines in electric utility  power plants are fairly extensive,
 and information from the  various sources appears to be in substantial agreement. The source providing the most
 complete information is the Federal Power Commission, which requires major  utilities (electric revenues of $1
 million or more) to  submit operating and financial data on an annual basis. Sawyer and Farmer3 employed these
 data to develop statistics on the use of gas turbines for electric generation in 1971.  Although their report involved
 only the major, publicly owned utilities (not the private or investor-owned  companies), the statistics do  appear to
 include about 87 percent of the gas turbine power used for electric generation in 1971.

   Of the 253 generating stations listed by  Sawyer and Farmer, 137 have more than one turbine-generator unit.
 From  the available data, it is not possible to  know how many hours each  turbine  was operated during 1971 for
 these multiple-turbrne plants. The remaining 116 (single-turbine) units, however,  were operated an average of 1196
 hours  during 1971  (or  13.7 percent  of the time), and their average  load  factor (percent  of rated load) during
 operation was  86.8  percent. This information alone is not  adequate for determining a representative  operating
 pattern for electric utility turbines, but it should help prevent serious errors.

   Using 1196  hours of operation per year and 250 starts per year as normal, the resulting average operating day is
 about 4.8 hours long. One hour of no-load time per day  would represent about 21 percent of operating time, which
 is considered somewhat excessive. For economy considerations, turbines are not run at off-design conditions any
 longer than  necessary,  so  time spent at  intermediate  power points  is probably minimal. The bulk of turbine
 operation must be at base or peak load to achieve the high load factor already mentioned.

   If it is assumed that time spent at off-design conditions includes 15 percent  at zero load and 2 percent each at
 25 percent, 50 percent,  and 75 percent load,  then the percentages of operating time at rated load  (100 percent)
 and peak load (assumed to be  125 percent of rated)  can be calculated to produce an 86.8 percent load factor.
 These percentages turn out to be  19  percent at peak load and 60 percent at rated load; the postulated cycle based
 on this line of reasoning is summarized in Table  3.1-1.

  12/77                Stationary  Internal Combustion Sources                       3.1-1

-------
                     Table 3.1-1. TYPICAL OPERATING CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC
                                       UTILITY TURBINES

Condition,
% of rated
power
0
25
50
75
100 (base)
125 (peak)

Percent operating
time spent
at condition
15
2
2
2
60
19

Time at condition
based on 4.8-hr day

hours
0.72
0.10
0.10
0.10
2.88
0.91
4.81

minutes
43
6
6
6
173
55
289


Contribution to load
factor at condition
0.00x0.15 = 0.0
0.25 x 0.02 = 0.005
0.50x0.02 = 0.010
0.75x0.02 = 0.015
1.0 x 0.60 = 0.60
1.25x0.19 = 0.238
Load factor = 0.868
  The operating cycle in Table 3.1-1 is used to compute emission factors, although it is only an estimate of actual
operating patterns.
                       Table 3.1-2. COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS FOR 1971
                           POPULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY TURBINES
                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
Time basis
Entire population
Ib/hr rated loada
kg/hr rated load
Gas-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Oil-fired only
Ib/hr rated load
kg/hr rated load
Fuel basis
Gas-fired only
Ib/I06ft3gas
kg/106m3 gas
Oil-fired only
lb/1Q3gal oil
kg/103 liter oil
Nitrogen
oxides
8.84
4.01
7.81
3.54
9.60
4.35

413.
6615.
67.8
8.13
Hydro-
carbons
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36
0.79
0.36

42.
673.
5.57
0.668
Carbon
Monoxide
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99
2.18
0.99

115.
1842.
15.4
1.85
Partic-
ulate
0.52
0.24
0.27
0.12
0.71
0.32

14.
224.
5.0
0.60
Sulfur
oxides
0.33
0.15
0.098
0.044
0.50
0.23

940Sb
15,0005
140S
16.8S
  Rated load expressed in megawatts.
  bS is the percentage sulfur. Example: If the factor is 9«0 and the sulfur content is 0.01 percent, the sulfur oxides emitted would
   be 940 times O.01, or 9.4 lb/106 ft3 gas.

    Table 3.1-2 is the resultant composite emission factors based on the operating cycle of Table 3.1-1 and the
 1971 population of electric utility turbines.
 3.1-2
EMISSION FACTORS
12/77

-------
   Different  values for time at base  and peak loads are obtained  by  changing the total time at  lower loads (0
through 75 percent) or by changing the  distribution of time spent at lowei loads. The cycle given in Table 3.3-1
seems reasonable, however, considering the fixed load factor and the economies of turbine operation. Note that the
cycle  determines t>nly the importance of each load condition in computing composite emission factors for each
type of turbine, not overall operating hours.                  «

   The top portion of Table 3.1-2 gives separate factors foi gas-fired and oil-fired units, and the bottom portion
gives  fuel-based factors that can be used  to  estimate  emission rates when overall fuel consumption data arc
available. Fuel-based emission factors on a mode basis would also be useful but present fuel consumption data are
not adequate for this purpose.


 References  for Section  3.1


I.   O'Keefe, W. and R. G. Schwieger. Piime  Movers. Power. 77.5(11): 522-531. November 1971.

2.   Hare. C. T. and K. J. Springer. F.xhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
    Internal  Combustion Engines. Final  Report. Part 6: Gas Turbine  Electric Utility  Power Plants. Southwest
    Research Institute, San Antonio. Tex. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
    N.C.. under Contract No. EHS 70-108. February 1974.

3.   Sawyer,  V. W. and R. C. Farmer. Gas Turbines in U.S. Electric Utilities. Gas Turbine International. January -
    April 1973.
12/77                  Stationary  Internal Combustion  Sources                    3.1-3

-------
 3.2  Heavy Duty Natural Gas Fired Pipeline Compressor Engines
3.2.1  General1 — Engines in the natural gas industry are used primarily to power compressors used for pipeline
 transportation,  field  gathering  (collecting gas from wells), underground storage,  and gas processing plant
 applications. Pipeline engines are concentrated in the major gas producing states (such as those along the Gulf
 Coast) and along the  major gas pipelines. Both reciprocating engines and gas turbines are utilized, but the trend
 has been toward use of large gas turbines. Gas turbines emit considerably fewer pollutants than do reciprocating
 engines; however, reciprocating engines are generally more efficient in their use of fuel.


3.2.2  Emissions and Controls1'2 - The primary pollutant of concern is NOX, which readily forms in the high
 temperature, pressure, and excess air environment found in natural gas fired compressor engines. Lesser amounts
 of carbon monoxide  and hydrocarbons are emitted,  although for each unit of natural gas burned, compressor
 engines (particularly  reciprocating  engines) emit  significantly more  of  these pollutants  than do  external
 combustion boilers. Sulfur oxides emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel and will usually be
 quite low because of the negligible sulfur content of most pipeline gas.

   The  major variables affecting NOX emissions from compressor engines include the air fuel ratio, engine load
 (defined as the  ratio of the operating horsepower divided  by the rated horsepower), intake (manifold) air
 temperature, and absolute  humidity.  In general, NOX emissions  increase  with  increasing load and intake air
 temperature and decrease with increasing absolute humidity and air fuel ratio. (The latter already being, in most
 compressor  engines, on  the "lean" side of  that air fuel  ratio at which  maximum  NOX formation occurs.)
 Quantitative estimates of the effects of these variables are presented in Reference 2.

   Because NOX is the  primary pollutant of significance emitted from pipeline compressor engines, control
 measures to  date have been directed  mainly at limiting NOX emissions. For gas turbines, the most  effective
 method of controlling NOX emissions is the injection of water into the combustion chamber. Nitrogen  oxides
 reductions as high as 80 percent can be achieved by this method. Moreover, water injection results in only
 nominal reductions in overall turbine efficiency.  Steam injection can also be employed, but the resulting NOX
 reductions may  not be as great as with water injection,  and it has the added disadvantage that a supply of steam
 must be readily  available. Exhaust gas recirculation, wherein a portion of the  exhaust gases is recirculated back
 into the intake manifold, may result in NOX reductions of up to 50 percent. This technique, however, may  not be
 practical in many cases because the recirculated gases must be cooled to prevent  engine malfunction. Other
 combustion modifications, designed to reduce the temperature and/or  residence  time of the combustion gases,
 can also be effective in reducing NOX emissions by  10 to 40 percent in specific gas turbine units.

   For reciprocating gas-fired engines, the most effective NOX control measures are those that change the air-fuel
 ratio. Thus, changes in engine torque, speed,  intake air temperature, etc., that in turn increase the air-fuel ratio,
 may all result in lower NOX emissions. Exhaust gas recirculation may also be effective in lowering NOX emissions
 although, as with turbines, there are practical limits because of the large quantities of exhaust gas that must be
 cooled. Available data suggest that other NOX control measures, including water  and steam injection, have only
 limited application to  reciprocating gas fired engines.

   Emission factors for natural gas fired pipeline compressor engines are presented in Table 3.2-1.
 4/76                  Stationary Internal Combustion Sources                       3.2-1

-------
         Table  3.2-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY DUTY  NATURAL
                      GAS FIRED PIPELINE COMPRESSOR ENGINES3

                               EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  A

Reciprocating engines
lb/103hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/kW-hr
lb/106scff
kg/106Nm3f
Gas turbines
lb/103hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/kW-hr
Ib/106scf9
kg/106 Nm39
Nitrogen oxides
(as N02)b

24
11
15
3,400
55,400

2.9
1.3
1.7
300
4,700
Carbon
monoxide

3.1
1.4
1.9
430
7,020

1.1
0.5
0.7
120
1,940
Hydrocarbons
(as C)c

9.7
4.4
5.9
1.400
21,800

0.2
0.1
0.1
23
280
Sulfur
dioxide1*

0.004
0.002
0.003
0.6
9.2

0.004
0.002
0.003
0.6
9.2
Particulate6

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
aAII factors based on References 2 and 3.
''These factors are for compressor engines operated at rated load. In general, IMOX emissions will increase with increasing
 load and intake (manifold) air temperature and decrease with increasing air-fuel ratios (excess air rates) and absolute
 humidity. Quantitative estimates of the effects of these variables are presented in Reference 2.
cThese factors represent total hydrocarbons. Nonmethane hydrocarbons are estimated to make up to 5 to 10 percent of
 these totals, on the average.
'•'Based on an assumed sulfur content of pipeline gas of 2000 gr/10° scf (4600 g/Nm^). if pipeline quality natural gas is
 not fired, a material balance should be performed to determine SC>2 emissions based on the actual sulfur content.
eNot available from existing data.
CThese factors are calculated from the above factors for reciprocating engines assuming a heating value of 1050 Btu/scf
 (9350 kcal/Nm3) for natural gas and an average fuel consumption of 7500 Btu/hp-hr (2530 kcal/kW-hr).
CThese factors are calculated from the above factors for gas turbines assuming a heating value of 1,050 Btu/scf (9,350 kcal/
 Nm3) of natural gas and an average fuel consumption of 10,000 Btu/hp-hr (3,380 kcal/kW-hr).
References  for Section 3.2

1.  Standard Support  Document  and  Environmental  Impact Statement  -  Stationary Reciprocating Internal
    Combustion Engines. Aerotherm/Acurex Corp., Mountain View, Calif. Prepared for Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1318, Task Order No. 7, November 1974.

2.  Urban, C.M. and K.J. Springer. Study  of Exhaust Emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Compressor Engines.
    Southwest Research  Institute,  San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for American Gas Association, Arlington, Va.
    February 1975.

3.  Dietzmann, H.E. and K.J. Springer.  Exhaust Emissions from Piston and Gas Turbine Engines Used in Natural
    Gas Transmission. Southwest Research  Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for American Gas Association,
    Arlington, Va. January 1974.
 3.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
4/76

-------
 3.3   Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines
3.3.1  General - This engine category covers a wide variety of industrial applications of both gasoline and diesel
internal combustion  power plants, such as  fork lift  trucks, mobile refrigeration units, generators, pumps, and
portable well-drilling  equipment. The rated power of these engines covers a rather substantial range- from less than
15 kW to  186 kW (20 to 250 hp) for gasoline engines and from 34 kW to 447 kW (45 to 600 hp) for diesel engines.
Understandably, substantial differences in both annual usage (hours per year) and engine duty cycles also exist. It
was  necessary,  therefore,  to  make  reasonable  assumptions concerning  usage in  order  to  formulate emission
factors.1

3.3.2  Emissions -  Once reasonable usage  and duty cycles for this category were ascertained, emission values
from each of the test engines '  were aggregated (on the basis of nationwide engine population statistics) to arrive at
the factors presented in Table 3. 3-1. Because of their aggregate nature, data contained in this table  must be
applied  to a population of industrial engines rather than to an individual power plant.

   The  best method  for calculating emissions is  on  the basis of "brake specific" emission factors (g/kWh  or
Ib/hphr). Emissions are  calculated by taking  the product of the brake specific emission factor, the usage in hours
(that is, hours per year  or hours per day),  the power available  (rated power), and the load factor (the power
actually used divided by the power available).
                       Table  3.3-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE
                           AND DIESEL POWERED INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
                                    EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Pollutant3
Carbon monoxide
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Exhaust hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Evaporative hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
Crankcase hydrocarbons
g/hr
Ib/hr
Engine category'3
Gasoline

5700.
12.6
267.
199.
472.
3940.

191.
0.421
8.95
6.68
15.8
132.

62.0
0.137

38.3
0.084
Diesel

197.
0.434
4.06
3.03
12.2
102.

72.8
0.160
1.50
1.12
4.49
37.5

-
-

-
—
 1/75
Stationary Internal  Combustion Sources
3.3-1

-------
                    Table 3. 3-1  (continued). EMISSION FACTORS FOR GASOLINE
                          AND DIESEL POWERED INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
                                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C

Pollutant3
Nitrogen oxides
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Aldehydes
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Sulfur oxides
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
•g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Particulate
g/hr
Ib/hr
g/kWh
g/hphr
kg/103 liter
lb/103 gal
Engine category"
Gasoline

148.
0.326
6.92
5.16
12.2
102.

6.33
0.014
0.30
0.22
0.522
4.36

7.67
0.017
0.359
0.268
0.636
5.31

9.33
0.021
0.439
0.327
0.775
6.47
Diesel

910.
2.01
18.8
14.0
56.2
469.

13.7
0.030
0.28
0.21
0.84
7.04

60.5
0.133
1.25
0.931
3.74
31.2

65.0
0.143
1.34
1.00
4.01
33.5
                    a
                    References 1 and 2.
                    As discussed in the text, the engines used to determine the results in this
                    table cover a wide range of uses and power. The listed values do not,
                    however, necessarily apply to some very large stationary diesel engines.
References  for  Section 3.3
1.   Hare, C. T. and K. J. Springer. Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
    Internal Combustion Engines. Final Report. Part 5: Heavy-Duty  Farm, Construction, and Industrial Engines.
    Southwest Research Institute. San Antonio, Texas. Prepared for  Environmental Protection Agency, Research
    Triangle Park, N.C., under Contract No. EHS 70-108. October 1973. 105 p.

2.   Hare, C. T. Letter to C. C. Masser of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning fuel-based emission
    rates for farm, construction, and industrial engines. San Antonio, Tex. January 14, 1974.
 3.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
1/75

-------
  3.A  STATIONARY LARGE BORE DIESEL AND DUAL FUEL ENGINES

  3.4.1  General

     The primary domestic use of large bore diesel engines, i.e., those
greater than 560 cubic inch displacement per cylinder (CID/CYL), is in oil
and gas exploration and production.  These engines, in groups of three to
five, supply mechanical power to operate drilling (rotary table), mud pump-
ing and hoisting equipment, and may also operate pumps or auxiliary power
generators.  Another frequent application of large bore diesels is elec-
tricity generation for both base and standby service.  Smaller uses include
irrigation, hoisting and nuclear power plant emergency cooling water pump
operation.

     Dual fuel engines were developed to obtain compression ignition
performance and the economy of natural gas, using a minimum of 5 to 6 percent
diesel fuel to ignite the natural gas.  Dual fuel large bore engines (greater
than 560 CID/CYL) have been used almost exclusively for prime electric power
generation.

  3.4.2  Emissions and Controls

     The primary pollutant of concern from large bore diesel and dual fuel
engines is NOx, which readily forms in the high temperature, pressure and
excess air environment found in these engines.  Lesser amounts of carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons are also emitted.  Sulfur dioxide emissions will
usually be quite low because of the negligible sulfur content of diesel
fuels and natural gas.

     The major variables affecting NOX emissions from diesel engines are
injection timing, manifold air temperature, engine speed, engine load and
ambient humidity.  In general, NOX emissions decrease with increasing
humidity.

     Because NOx is the primary pollutant from diesel and dual fuel engines,
control measures to date have been directed mainly at limiting NOx emis-
sions.  The most effective NOX control technique for diesel engines is fuel
injection retard, achieving reductions (at eight degrees of retard) of up to
40 percent.  Additional NOx reductions are possible with combined retard and
air/fuel ratio change.  Both retarded fuel injection (8°) and air/fuel ratio
change of five percent are also effective in reducing NOx emissions from
dual fuel engines, achieving nominal NOx reductions of about 40 percent and
maximum NOx reductions of up to 70 percent.

     Other NOX control techniques exist but are not considered feasible
because of excessive fuel penalties, capital cost, or maintenance or opera-
tional problems.  These techniques include exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
combustion chamber modification, water injection and catalytic reduction.
8/82              Stationary  Internal  Combustion  Sources            3.4-1

-------
      TABLE   3.4-1.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR STATIONARY LARGE BORE DIESEL
                                AND DUAL FUEL  ENGINES3

                             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
Engine type
Diesel
lb/103 hph
g/hph
g/kWh
lb/103 galf
g/1
Dual fuel
lb/103 hph
g/hph
g/kWh
Particulateb

2.4
1.1
1.5
50
6

NA
NA
MA
Nitrogen
oxides0

24
11
15
500
60

18
8
11
Carbon
monoxide

6.4
2.9
3.9
130
16

5.9
2.7
3.6
VOCd
Methane

0.07
0.03
0.04
1
0.2

4.7
2.1
2.9
Nonnethane

0.63
0.29
0.4
13
1.6

1.5
0.7
0.9
Sulfur
dioxide6

2.8
1.3
1.7
60
7.2

0.70
0.32
0.43
        Representative uncontrolled levels for each fuel,  determined by weighting data from
         several manufacturers.  Weighting based on Z of total horsepower sold by each manu-
         facturer during a  five year period.  NA • not available.
        ^Emission Factor Rating:  E.  Approximation based on test of a medium bore diesel.
         Emissions are minimum expected for engine operating at 50 - 100Z full rated load.
         At OZ load, emissions would Increase to 30 g/1.  Reference 2.
        GMeasured as N02-  Factors are for engines operated at rated load and speed.
        dNonmethane VOC is  90Z of total VOC from diesel engines but only 25Z of total VOC
         emissions from dual fuel engines. Individual chemical species within the non-
         methane fraction are not identified.  Molecular weight of nonmethane gas stream is
         assumed to be that of methane.
        eBased on assumed sulfur content of 0.4 weight X for diesel fuel and 0.46 g/scm
         (0.20 gr/scf) for  pipeline quality natural gas.  Dual fuel S02 emission* based on
         5Z oil/951 gas mix.  Emissions should be adjusted for other fuel ratios.
        fThe86 factors calculated from the above factors, assuming heating values of 40
         MJ/1 (145,000 Btu/gal) for oil and 41 MJ/scm (1100 Btu/scf) for natural gas, and
         an average fuel consumption of 9.9 MJ/kWh (7000 Btu/hph).
References  for Section    3.4

1.    Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement,  Volume I;
      ITtationary  Internal Combustion Engines,  EPA-450/2-78-125a,  U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, July  1979.

2.    Telephone communication between William  H. Lamason,  Office  Of Air
      Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, NC, and John H.  Wasser, Office Of Research And
      Development,  U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
      Park,  NC, July 15,  1983.
    3.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                    8/84

-------
not more than 540°C (1000°F) to prevent warping of the drum.   Emissions are
vented to an afterburner or secondary combustion chamber,  where the gases are
raised to at least 760°C (1400°F) for a minimum of 0.5 seconds.  The average
amount of material removed from each drum is 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds).


            TABLE 4.8-2.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TANK TRUCK CLEANING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D


                                 Chemical class                 Total
  Compound                 Vapor                              emissions
                          pressure        Viscosity       g/truck   Ib/truck
Acetone
Perchloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
Phenol
Propylene glycol
high
high
medium
low
low
low
low
medium
low
high
311
215
32.4
5.5
1.07
0.686
0.474
0.071
0.012
0.002
aReference 1.  One hour test duration.

4.8.2  Emissions And Controls

4.8.2.1  Rail Tank Cars And Tank Trucks - Atmospheric emissions from tank car
and truck cleaning are predominantly volatile organic chemical  vapors.   To
achieve a practical but representative picture of these emissions,  the organic
chemicals hauled by the carriers must be known by classes of  high,  medium and
low viscosities and of high, medium and low vapor pressures.   High  viscosity
materials do not drain readily, affecting the quantity of material  remaining
in the tank, and high vapor pressure materials volatilize more readily during
cleaning and tend to lead to greater emissions.

     Practical and economically feasible controls of atmospheric emissions from
tank car and truck cleaning do not exist, except for containers transporting
commodities that produce combustible gases and water soluble  vapors (such as
ammonia and chlorine).  Gases displaced as tanks are filled are sent to a flare
and burned.  Water soluble vapors are absorbed in water and are sent to the
wastewater system.  Any other emissions are vented to the atmosphere.

     Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 give emission factors for representative organic
chemicals hauled by tank cars and trucks.

4.8.2.2  Drums - There is no control for emissions from steaming of drums.
Solution or caustic washing yields negligible air emissions,  because the drum
is closed during the wash cycle.  Atmospheric emissions from  steaming  or wash-
ing drums are predominantly organic chemical vapors.

     Air emissions from drum burning furnaces are controlled  by proper opera-
tion of the afterburner or secondary combustion chamber,  where gases are
raised to at least 760°C (1400°F) for a minimum of 0.5 seconds.  This  normally
ensures complete combustion of organic materials and prevents the formation,

2/80                        Evaporative Loss Sources                      4.8-3

-------
and subsequent release, of large quantities of NOjj,  CO and particulate.   In
open burning, however,  there is no feasible way of controlling  the release of
incomplete combustion products to the atmosphere.  The conversion of  open
cleaning operations to  closed cycle cleaning and the elimination of open air
drum burning seem to be the only control  alternatives immediately available.

     Table 4.8-3 gives  emission factors  for representative criteria pollutants
emitted from drum burning and cleaning.
                TABLE 4.8-3.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRUM BURNING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
      Pollutant
                                               Total  emissions
                                        Controlled
                                    g/drum    Ib/drum
                              Uncontrolled
                            g/drum    Ib/drum
     Particulate
     voc
    12b       0.02646

     0.018    0.00004

       negligible
16        0.035

 0.89     0.002

   negligible
aReference 1.Factors are for weight of pollutant released/drum burned,
 except for VOC, which are per drum washed.
^Reference 1, Table 17 and Appendix A.
Reference for Section 4.8

1.  T. R. Blackwood, et al.,  Source Assessment:   Rail  Tank Car,  Tank Truck,
    and Drum Cleaning, State  of the Art,  EPA-600/2-78-004g,  U.  S.  Environ-
    mental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH,  April  1978.
4.8-4
EMISSION FACTORS
               2/80

-------
5.16  SODIUM CARBONATE

5.16.1  General1*2

     Processes to produce sodium carbonate  (Na2C03), or  soda ash, are  classi-
fied as either natural or synthetic.  Natural processes  recover  sodium carbon-
ate from natural deposits of trona ore  (primarily sodium sesquicarbonate,
Na2COo* NaHCO-" 21^0), or from brine that contains sodium sesquicarbonate  and
sodium carbonate.  The synthetic (Solvay) process produces  sodium carbonate  by
reacting ammoniated sodium chloride with carbon dioxide.  For about a  century,
almost all sodium carbonate production  was  by the Solvay process.  However,
since the mid-1960s,  Solvay process production has declined substantially,
having been replaced  by natural production.  Only one plant in the U.  S. now
uses the Solvay process.  Available data on emissions from  the Solvay  process
are also presented, but because the natural processes are more prevalent in
this country, this Section addresses emissions from these processes.

     Three different  natural processes  are  currently in  use, sesquicarbonate,
monohydrate, and direct carbonation.  The sesquicarbonate process, the  first
of the natural processes, is used at only one plant and  is not expected to
be the process at future plants.  Since data on uncontrolled emissions  from
the sesquicarbonate process are not available, it is not discussed here.
Monohydrate and direct carbonation processes and emissions are described here.
These processes differ only in raw materials processing.

     In the monohydrate process, sodium carbonate is produced from trona ore,
which consists of 86  to 95 percent sodium sesquicarbonate, 5 to  12 percent
gangues (clays and other insoluble impurities) and water.  The mined trona ore
is crushed, screened  and calcined to drive  off carbon dioxide and water, form-
ing crude sodium carbonate.  Most calciners are rotary gas fired, but  the
newest plants use coal fired calciners.  Future plants are also  likely  to have
coal fired calciners  for economic reasons.

     The crude sodium carbonate is dissolved and separated from  the insoluble
impurities.  Sodium carbonate monohydrate (Na2C02 * H^O) is crystallized from
the purified liquid by means of multiple effect evaporators, then dried to
remove the free and bound water, producing  the final product.  Rotary  steam
tube, fluid bed steam tube, and rotary gas  fired dryers  are used, with  steam
tube dryers most likely in future plants.

     In the direct carbonation process, sodium carbonate is produced from
brine containing sodium sesquicarbonate, sodium carbonate, and other salts.
The brine is prepared by pumping a dilute aqueous liquor into salt deposits,
where the salts are dissolved in the liquor.  The recovered brine is carbon-
ated by contact with carbon dioxide which converts all of the sodium carbonate
present into sodium bicarbonate.  The sodium bicarbonate is then recovered
from the brine by crystallization in vacuum crystallizers.  The  crystal slurry
is filtered, and the  crystals transferred to steam heated predryers to  evapo-
rate some of the moisture.  The partially dried sodium bicarbonate goes to a
steam heated calciner to drive off carbon dioxide and the remaining water,
forming impure sodium carbonate.  The carbon dioxide is  recycled to the brine
carbonators.  The sodium carbonate is treated with sodium nitrate in a  gas

10/86                     Chemical Process  Industry                     5.16-1

-------
fired rotary bleacher to remove discoloring impurities, then is dissolved and
recrystallized.  The resulting crystals of sodium carbonate monohydrate are
dried as in the monohydrate process.

     In the Solvay process, sodium chloride brine, ammonia, calcium carbonate
(limestone), and coke are the raw materials.  The sodium chloride brine is
purified in a series of reactors and clarifiers by precipitating magnesium
and calcium ions with soda ash and sodium hydroxide.  Sodium bicarbonate
(NaHC03) is formed by carbonating a solution of ammonia in the purified, satu-
rated brine.
Reaction:

                   NaCl + H20 + NH3 + C02	*• NaHC03 + NfyCL
                  brine                       sodium
                                            bicarbonate

The sodium bicarbonate is virtually insoluble in the resulting solution, crys-
tallizes and is separated from the solution liquor by filtration.  The crys-
tals are fed to either steam or gas heated rotary dryers where the bicarbonate
is converted (by calcining) to sodium carbonate.

5.16.2  Emissions and Controls

     The principal emission points in the monohydrate and direct carbonation
processes are shown in Figures 5.16-1 and 5.16-2.  The major emission sources
in the monohydrate process are calciners and dryers, and the major sources in
the direct carbonation process are bleachers, dryers and predryers.  Emission
factors for these sources are presented in Table 5.16-1, and emission factors
for the Solvay process are presented in Table 5.16-2.

     In addition to the major emission points,  emissions may also arise from
crushing and dissolving operations, elevators,  conveyor transfer points, pro-
duct loading and storage piles.  Emissions from these sources have not been
quantified.

     Particulate matter is the only pollutant of concern from sodium carbonate
plants.  Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SC^) arise from calciners fired with
coal, but reaction of the evolved S(>2 with the sodium carbonate in the calcin-
er keeps SC>2 emissions low.  Small amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
may also be emitted from calciners, possibly from oil shale associated with
the trona ore, but these emissions have not been quantified.

     Particulate matter emission rates from calciners, dryers, predryers and
bleachers are affected by the gas velocity through the unit and by the par-
ticle size distribution of the feed material.  The latter affects the emission
rate because small particles are more easily entrained in a moving stream of
gas than are large particles. Particle size distributions and emission factors
for predryers, calciners, bleachers, and dryers in natural process sodium
carbonate plants are presented in Table 5.16-3.  Gas velocity through the
unit affects the degree of turbulence and agitation.  As the gas velocity
increases, so does the rate of increase in total particulate matter emissions.
Thus, coal fired calciners may have higher particulate emission factors than
gas fired calciners because of higher gas flow rates.  The additional parti-
culate from coal fly ash represents less than one percent of total particulate

5.16-2                         EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
                                       CO
                                       CO
                                       
-------
     TABLE 5.16-1.
PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL
   PROCESS SODIUM CARBONATE PLANTS3

      Emission Factor Rating:  B
Source
Rotary steam heated predryer^
Gas fired calciner0
Coal fired calciner0
Rotary gas fired bleacher^
Rotary steam tube dryere
Fluid bed steam tube dryer6
Particulate
kg/Mg
1.55
184.0
195.0
155.0
33.0
73.0
Ib/ton
3.1
368.0
390.0
311.0
67.0
146.0
References 3-5.  Values are averages of 2 - 3 test runs.
bFactors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of dry NaHC03 feed.
cFactors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of ore fed to calciner and includes particulate
 emissions from coal fly ash « 1% of total).  S02 from coal is roughly 0.007
 kg/Mg (0.014 Ib/ton) of ore feed.
^Factors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of dry feed to bleacher.
eFactors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of dry product from dryer.
     TABLE 5.16-2.
EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED SYNTHETIC SODA ASH
           (SOLVAY) PLANTS

      Emission Factor Rating:  D
Pollutant
Ammonia losses^
Particulate0
kg/Mg
2
25
Ib/ton
4
50
aReference 6.  Factors are kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of product.
^Calculated by subtracting measured ammonia effluent discharged from ammonia
 purchased.
cMaximum uncontrolled emissions, from New York State process certificates to
 operate.  Does not include emissions from fugitive or external combustion
 sources.
5.16-4
           EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
emissions, and the emission factor for coal fired calciners is about 6 percent
higher than that for gas fired calciners.  Fluid bed steam tube dryers have
higher gas flow rates and particulate emission factors than do rotary steam
tube dryers.  No data are available on uncontrolled particulate emissions
from gas fired dryers, but these dryers also have higher gas flow rates than
do rotary steam tube dryers and would probably have higher particulate emis-
sions.

     The particulate emission factors presented in Table 5.16-1 represent
emissions measured at the inlet to the control devices.  Even in the absence
of air pollution regulations, these emissions usually are controlled to some
degree to prevent excessive loss of product.  Particulate emissions from cal-
ciners and bleachers are most commonly controlled by cyclones in series with
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).  Venturi scrubbers are also used, but
with less efficiency.  Cyclone/ESP combinations have achieved removal effi-
ciencies from 99.5 to 99.96 percent for new coal fired calciners, and 99.99
percent for bleachers.  Comparable efficiencies should be possible for new
gas fired calciners.  Emissions from dryers and predryers are most commonly
controlled with venturi scrubbers because of the high moisture content of the
exit gas.  Cyclones are used in series with the scrubbers for predryers and
fluid bed steam tube dryers.  Removal efficiencies averaging 99.88 percent
have been achieved for venturi scrubbers on rotary steam tube dryers, at a
pressure drop of 6.2 kilopascals (kPa) (25 inches water).  Acceptable collec-
tion efficiencies may be achieved with lower pressure drops.  Efficiencies of
99.9 percent have been achieved for a cyclone/venturi scrubber on a fluid bed
steam tube dryer, at a pressure drop of 9.5 kPa (38 inches water).  Effici-
encies over 98 percent have been achieved for a cyclone/ venturi scrubber on
a predryer.

     There are significant fugitive emissions from limestone handling and
processing operations, product drying operations, and dry solids handling
(conveyance and bulk loading) in the manufacture of soda ash by the Solvay
process, but these fugitive emissions have not been quantified.  Ammonia
losses also occur because of leaks at pipe fittings and pump seals, dis-
charges of absorber exhaust, and exposed bicarbonate cake on filter wheels
and on feed floor prior to calcining.
 10/86                    Chemical Process Industry                    5.16-5

-------
           PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTIONS AND SIZE SPECIFIC  EMISSION FACTORS
                                             FOR
                    NATURAL PROCESS  SODIUM CARBONATE  MANUFACTURING
                             UNCONTSOLLED
                           -•- Weight percent
                           	 Enlillon factor
                             CONTXOLLED
                           -•- Weight parcmt
                 J * T • f 10     10

                Particle diameter, urn
                               J» MMMNMM1M
     Figure 5.16-3.   Predryer.
I,
                            UNCONTROLLED
                          -*- Weight percent
                          — Emission factor
                            CONTROLLED
                          -•- Weight percent
            1  *  1 * 7 I * 10    10

                Particle diameter, urn
     Figure 5.16-5.   Bleacher.
^«ojr™>uJU)
COtfTKOLLID
-*-Ml|hc I, cyelo
-*— uilihc I, cytlo

it*/icrut>b«r.
•/ESP, |«*

f Ir»d
                                                                   5 * ? I » 10
                                                                              10   JO *0 SO M '0 M 40 IOC
                           Particle diameter, urn

                   Figure 5.16-4.   Calciner,
            i
                                                                   J »  ' 1 1 10
                                                                              10  30  iO M M ?0 N M IK
                            Particle diaoeeer, UB

                    Figure  5.16-6.   Dryer.
5.16-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------












as1
o
rH
CO
ftf
0
H
f5 10
O CO
M EH
co 12;
CO <
ae
u
Q EH
55 "*S



CO m
J23 C-d
O *^
_I p"^I
g*

M M
£§
CO CO


Q CO
CO
w u
isi o
M O
CO Bd

U

cj 2
M M
Is
r»H rZ



f^
|
rS
u-i

S
1





1 C
•H O
K 01 TH
4J N CO
a TH a
•3 80
•O «l 4J
TH S CO.
O 0 U Tl
bO B UH rt
a o TH o
TH TH O 4J
4J 4J 01 0
o ? a. co
06 -43 a TH


V
« u
iH B *
8 SI 2
rH TH a O ^
a 4J a 4J BO
4J U -rl U Ji
fiilj!

ST.

C "fl * O
O B O •
•H Q * 0
OB O. 4) -H
co a tip
•HUB
B I-. 0)
0) rl r.
o
U O 4) O
-H N •
U-l n ^H \O
•H O Q

V 41
O. W rH
00 rl CJ
o -H in
at u AJ •
N O M CM
•H at 0
co -H a,


o

o

N C
•H 0
00 s rl
2(r| O CJ 4J
W B
U o M H O
CO O 41 4) CJ
ri 4) e tw iw 3
4) -0 C 300
r* V O *

t) rH U T) *3 T) tl
a) o >. v a) ai ri
rlrlU bOtHrlrlTH
Ol U rl TH TH TH TH
xofi g**1"^^
V4O4J TH«a««
0B«H U0a0O
O 0
at o







u Q









R '



°^ 1


rn
• 1
CM




0T,
O


in o

CM m
en
m o
-H CM
CM



O 00







4)
U
0

»
0 rl CJ
txi u

rH O 4J
0 B « \o
-* -o


0 0


—< CM
in m
CM O
— « CM



m o
CM
0)
rH
rH *O
0 11

B O
O rl
O AJ
i §
u
I8.

S 3
bo 4-1 8

-?^ a
X
U TH 0
•3,3 S
o h as
rl
Bi













4J
O C
O 3
^. a
M.s.
So 0
rl 4J
•H a 0
4J Tl
3 O
J3 W 11
TH rH
rl Tl *
U 01 0
a 01 rH
•H MH TH
•0 0
TH >
01 0 0
N
•H » O
B a? c
o> oi a
rH 4J rH
000
•H iH 3
u s tr
tH U 0)
0 -H
O. 4J J=
ri a
K 0 0
a Q
o bo
0 a) o
UH IH 3
0 •«
B 0
O CO rl
• TH b CX
0) a o
N a u TH
. TH TH U O
a to s  4-1 rH 0)
rH a 0 f 00
TH V O 0
4J 4J 01 0)
rl B rH rl
£O> 1 f 0
rH
u u TI a
U TH O B rl
•H U U 0 O
B 1-4 U 4J
000 « CJ
p Ci. UH a 0
£, rl TH
Tl TH B 01
O O O B -
IH TH TH a
W »* B CJ rl
0 a rH V •
4J -H 0 X-H
* 8 0 n 1
bo 4) *o so
TH • rH
01 o a 4J •
i 5 TH ri u in
TH 01 3
01 TH X Tl «l
> CJ 14 O rH
TH  O tj 01
























































• 1
m fn
01 01
0 U
B B
01 «
rl i4
01 01
MH TH
££
*J »
10/86
Chemical Process Industry
5.16-7

-------
References for Section 5.16

1.  Sodium Carbonate Industry - Background Information for Proposed Stand-
    ards , EPA-450/3-80-029a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
    search Triangle Park, NC, August 1980.

2.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, Final Report, HEW Contract
    Number CPA-22-69-119, Resources Research, Inc., Reston, VA, April 1970.

3.  Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing Plant, EMB-79-SOD-1, U. S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1979.

4.  Source Test Of A Sodium Carbonate Manufacturing Plant, EMB-79-SOD-2,
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
    1980.

5.  Source Test Of Particulate Emissions From The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corpora-
    tion Sodium Carbonate Plant, EMB-79-SOD-3, U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1980.

6.  Written communication from W. S. Turetsky, Allied Chemical Company,
    Morristown, NJ, to Frank M. Noonan, U. S. Environmental Protecton Agency,
    Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1982.
5.16-8                         EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
7.1    PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION

7.1.1  Process Descriptionl~2

      The base ore for primary aluminum production is bauxite, a hydrated oxide
of aluminum consisting of 30 to 70 percent alumina (A1203) and lesser amounts
of iron, silicon and titanium.  Bauxite ore is purified to alumina by the Bayer
process and then is reduced to elemental aluminum.  The production of alumina
and the reduction of alumina to aluminum are seldom accomplished at the same
facility.  A schematic diagram of the primary production of aluminum is shown
at Figure 7.1-1.

      In the Bayer process, the ore is dried, ground in ball mills and mixed
with a leaching solution of sodium hydroxide at an elevated temperature and
pressure, producing a sodium aluminate solution which is separated from the
bauxite impurities and cooled.  As the solution cools, hydrated aluminum oxide
(Al~0o * 3H?0) precipitates.  After separation and washing to remove sodium hy-
droxide and other impurities, the hydrated aluminum oxide is dried and is cal-
cined to produce a crystalline form of alumina, advantageous for electrolysis.

      To produce aluminum metal, the crystalline Al2C>3 is put through the Hall-
Heroult process, an electrolytic reduction of alumina dissolved in a molten salt
bath of cryolite (Na-jAlF^) and various salt additives:
                                Electrolysis     4A1   +   302

                   (Alumina)   (Reduction)    (Aluminum)  (Oxygen)


The electrolytic reduction occurs in shallow rectangular cells,  or  "pots",  which
which are steel shells lined with carbon.  Carbon electrodes extending into the
pot serve as the anodes and the carbon lining the steel shell is the cathode.
Molten cryolite functions as both the electrolyte and the solvent for the
alumina.  Electrical resistance to the current passing between the  electrodes
generates heat that maintains cell operating temperatures between 950° and
1000°C (1730° and 1830°F).  Aluminum is deposited at the cathode, where it
remains as molten metal below the surface of the cryolite bath.   The carbon
anodes are continuously depleted by the reaction of oxygen (formed  during the
reaction) and anode carbon, producing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
Carbon consumption and other raw material and energy requirements for aluminum
production are summarized in Table 7.1-1.  The aluminum product  is  periodically
tapped beneath the cryolite cover and fluxed to remove trace impurities.

       Three types of aluminum reduction cells are now in use, distinguished by
anode type and pot configuration: prebaked (PB), horizontal stud Soderberg
(HSS), and vertical stud Soderberg (VSS).

      Most of the aluminum produced in the U. S. is processed in PB cells.
Anodes are produced as an ancillary operation at a reduction plant.  In a paste
preparation plant, petroleum coke is mixed with a pitch binder to form a  paste
which is used both for Soderberg cell anodes and for green anodes used in

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.1-1

-------
                                                                                        •
                                           SODIUM
                                          HYDROXIDE
BAUXITE
           DRYING
            OVEN
                         TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                   I
                                                       SETTLING
                                                       CHAMBER
                            DILUTION
                             WATER
                                   (RED MUD
                                  (IMPURITIES)
                                              DILUTE
                                              SODIUM
                                             HYDROXIDE
TO CONTROL
  DEVICE
                     ALUMINUM
                     HYDROXIDE
             CALCINER
                                      SPENT
                                   ELECTRODES
                  ALINHNA
                           ANODE
                           PASTE
I
                    ELECTROLYTE
                                ANODE PASTE
                                                    CRYSTALL1ZER
                                                                   AQUEOUS SODIUM
                                                                    ALUMINATE
                                                       TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                                     BAKING
                                                    FURNACE
                                                  BAKED
                                                 ANODES
                                                         TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                                            I
                                                  PREBAKE
                                                  REDUCTION
                                                    CELL
                                                 TO CONTROL DEVICE
                                                 HORIZONTAL
                                                OR VERTICAL
                                                 SODERBERG
                                               REDUCTION CELL
                                                                        MOLTEN
                                                                     ALUMINUM
          Figure  7.1-1.   Schematic diagram of  aluminum production  process
7-l-2
                                    EMISSION FACTORS

-------
prebake cells.  Paste preparation includes crushing, grinding and screening of
coke and cleaned spent anodes (butts), and blending with a pitch binder in a
steam jacketed mixer.  For Soderberg anodes, the thick paste mixture is trans-
ferred directly to the pot room and added to the anode casings.   In prebake
anode preparation, the paste mixture is molded to form self supporting green
anode blocks.  These blocks are baked in a direct fired ring furnace or an
indirect fired tunnel kiln.  Baked anodes are then transferred to the rodding
room for attachment of electrical connections.  Volatile organic vapors from
the pitch paste are emitted during anode baking, most of which are destroyed in
the baking furnace.  The baked anodes, typically 14 to 24 per cell, are attached
to metal rods and are expended as they are used.

      In the electrolytic reduction of alumina, the carbon anodes are lowered
into the cell and are consumed at a rate of about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per
day.  PB cells are preferred over Soderberg cells for their lower power require-
ments, reduced generation of volatile pitch vapors from the carbon anodes, and
provision for better cell hooding to capture emissions.

      The next most common reduction cell is the horizontal stud Soderberg.
This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon anode.  Green anode paste is
periodically added at the top of the anode casing of the pot and is baked by
the heat of the cell into a solid carbon mass, as the material moves down the
casing.  The cell casing is of aluminum or steel sheeting, permanent steel skirt
and perforated steel channels, through which electrode connections (studs) are
inserted horizontally into the anode paste.  During reduction, as the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed, and
the flexible electrical connectors are moved to a higher row of studs.
             TABLE 7.1-1.
RAW MATERIAL AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR
   ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
               Parameter
                  Typical value
         Cell operating temperature
         Current through pot line
         Voltage drop per cell
         Current efficiency
         Energy required

         Weight alumina consumed

         Weight electrolyte
           fluoride consumed
         Weight carbon electrode
           consumed
              950°C (1740°F)
              60,000 to 280,000 amperes
              4.0 to 5.2
              85 to 95 %
              13.2 to 18.7 kwh/kg
                (6.0 to 8.5 kwh/lb)  aluminum
              1.89 to 1.92 kg (Ib) A1203/
                kg (Ib) aluminum

              0.03 to 0.10 kg (Ib) fluoride/

              0.45 to 0.55 kg (Ib) electrode/
                kg (Ib) aluminum
10/86
  Metallurgical Industry
7.1-3

-------
High molecular weight organics from the anode paste are released,  along with
other emissions.  The heavy tars can cause plugging of  exhaust  ducts,  fans  and
emission control equipment.

      The vertical stud Soderberg cell is similar to the HSS cell,  except that
the studs are mounted vertically in the anode paste. Gases  from the VSS cells
can be ducted to gas burners, and the tars and oils combusted.   VSS cell con-
struction prevents the installation of an integral gas  collection device, and
hooding is restricted to a canopy or skirt at the base  of the cell  where the
hot anode enters the cell bath.

      Casting involves pouring molten aluminum into molds and cooling  it with
water.  At some plants before casting, the molten aluminum may  be batch treated
in furnaces to remove oxide, gaseous impurities and active metals  such as
sodium and magnesium.  One process consists of adding a flux of chloride and
fluoride salts and then bubbling chlorine gas, usually  mixed with an inert  gas,
through the molten mixture.  Chlorine reacts with the impurities to form HC1,
Al2C>3 and metal chloride emissions.  A dross forms to float  on  the molten
aluminum and is removed before casting.12


7.1.2  Emissions And Controlsl-8,11

      Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for  total particulate matter,
fluoride and sulfur oxides are in Table 7.1-2.  Fugitive particulate and
fluoride emission factors for reduction cells are also  presented in this Table.
Tables 7.1-3 through 7.1-5 and Figures 7.1-2 through 7.1-4 give size specific
particulate matter emissions for primary aluminum industry processes for which
this information is available.

      Large amounts of particulate are generated during the  calcining  of hy-
drated aluminum oxide, but the economic value of this dust is such that exten-
sive controls are used to reduce emissions to relatively small  quantities.
Small amounts of particulate are emitted from the bauxite grinding  and materials
handling processes.

      Emissions from aluminum reduction processes are primarily gaseous hydrogen
fluoride and particulate fluorides, alumina, carbon monoxide, volatile organics,
and sulfur dioxide from the reduction cells; and fluorides,  vaporized  organics
and sulfur dioxide from the anode baking furnaces.

      The source of fluoride emissions from reduction cells  is  the fluoride
electrolyte, which contains cryolite, aluminum fluoride (AlF^)  and fluorspar
(CaF2>.  For normal operation, the weight, or "bath", ratio  of  sodium  fluoride
(NaF) to A1F3 is kept between 1.36 and 1.43 by the addition  of  A1F3.  This  in-
creases the cell current efficiency and lowers the bath melting point  permitting
lower operating temperatures in the cell.  All fluoride emissions are  also
decreased by lowering the operating temperature.  The ratio  of  gaseous (mainly
hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride) to particulate  fluorides  varies
from 1.2 to 1.7 with PB and HSS cells, but attains a value of approximately 3.0
with VSS cells.

      Particulate emissions from reduction cells are alumina and carbon from
anode dusting, cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite

7.1-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
   TABLE  7.1-2.    EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR  PRIMARY ALUMINUM  PRODUCTION  PROCESSES3'15

                                        EMISSION FACTOR RATING:    A
Operation
Total
partlculatec
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Gaseous
fluoride
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Fartlculate
fluoride
kg/Mg Ib/ton
Reference

 Bauxite grinding
  Uncontrolled                        3.0      6.0         Neg                 NA
  Spray tower                         0.9      1.8         Neg                 NA
  Floating bed scrubber                0.85     1.7         Neg                 NA
  Quench tower and  spray screen        0.5      1.0         Neg                 NA

 Aluminum hydroxide  calcining
  Uncontrolledd                     100.0    200.0         Neg                 NA
  Spray tower                        30.0     60.0         Neg                 NA
  Floating bed scrubber               28.0     56.0         Neg                 NA
  Quench tower                       17.0     34.0         Neg                 NA
  ESP                                 2.0      4.0         Neg                 NA

 Anode baking furnace
  Uncontrolled                        1.5      3.0      0.45    0.9      0.05    0.1
  Fugitive                             NA       NA       NA     NA       NA      NA
  Spray tower                         0.375    0.75     0.02    0.04     0.015   0.03
  ESP                                 0.375    0.75     0.02    0.04     0.015   0.03
  Dry alumina scrubber                 0.03     0.06     0.0045  0.009    0.001   0.002

 Prebake cell
  Uncontrolled                       47.0     94.0     12.0   24.0
  Fugitive                            2.5      5.0      0.6    1.2
  Emissions to collector              44.5     89.0     11.4   22.8
  Multiple cyclones                   9.8     19.6     11.4   22.8
  Dry alumina scrubber                 0.9      1.8      0.1    0.2
  Dry ESP plus spray  tower             2.25     4.5      0.7    1.4
  Spray tower                         8.9     17.8      0.7    1.4
  Floating bed scrubber                8.9     17.8      0.25    0.5
  Coated bag filter dry scrubber       0.9      1.8      1.7    3.4
  Cross flow packed bed               13.15    26.3      3.25    6.7
  Dry plus secondary  scrubber          0.35     0.7      0.2    0.4

Vertical Soderberg  stud cell
  Uncontrolled                       39.0     78.0     16.5   33.0
  Fugitive                            6.0     12.0      2.45    4.9
  Emissions to collector              33.0     66.0     14.05   28.1
  Spray tower                         8.25    16.5      0.15    0.3
  Venturl  scrubber                     1.3      2.6      0.15    0.3
  Multiple cyclones                   16.5     33.0      14.05  28.1      2.
  Dry alumina scrubber                 0.65     1.3      0.15    0.3      0.
  Scrubber plus  ESP plus spray
    screen and scrubber                3.85     7.7      0.75    1.5      0.65
                                                                            10.0
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            9.5
                                                                            2.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            1.7
                                                                            1.9
                                                                            1.9
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            2.8
                                                                            0.15
                                                                            5.5
                                                                            0.85
                                                                            4.65
                                                                            1.15
                                                                            0.2
                                                                              35
                                                                              1
20.0
 1.0
19.0
 4.2
 0.4
 3.4
 3.8
 3.8
 0.4
 5.6
 0.3


11.0
 1.7
 9.3
 2.3
 0.4
 4.7
 0.2

 1.3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 1,3
                                                                                                 2,10-11

                                                                                                 10
                                                                                                 2
                                                                                                 2,10
1-2,10-11
2,10
2
2
2,10
2,10
2
2
2
10
10


2,10
10
10
2
2
2
2
Horizontal Soderberg stud cell
Uncontrolled
Fugitive
Emissions to collector
Spray tower
Floating bed scrubber
Scrubber plus wet ESP
Wet ESP
Dry alumina scrubber

49.0
5.0
44.0
11.0
9.7
0.9
0.9
0.9

98.0
10.0
88.0
22.0
19.4
1.8
1.8
1.8

11.0
1.1
9.9
3.75
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2

22.0
2.2
19.8
7.5
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.4

6.0
0.6
5.4
1.35
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

12.0
1.2
10.8
2.7
2.4
0.2
0.2
0.2

2,10
2,10
2,10
2,10
2
2,10
10
10
     aFor bauxite grinding,  expressed as kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of bauxite processed.For aluminum hydroxide calcining,
      expressed as kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of alumina produced.  All other factors  are/Mg (ton) of molten aluminum product.
      ESP- electrostatic precipitator.  NA - not available.  Neg - negligible.
     "Sulfur oxides may be estimated, with an Emission Factor Rating of  C,  by the following calculations.
        Anode baking furnace, uncontrolled S02 emissions (excluding furnace fuel combustion emissions):
                          20(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) kg/Mg  [40(C)(S)(1-0.01 K) Ib/ton]

        Prebake (reduction)  cell, uncontrolled S02  emissions:
                          0.2(C)(S)(K) kg/Mg [0.4(C)(S)(K) Ib/ton]

        Where:  C •• Anode consumption* during electrolysis, Ib anode consumed/lb Al produced
                S • Z sulfur in anode before baking
                K - I of total SC>2 enitted by prebake (reduction) cells.

        •Anode consumption weight is weight of anode paste (coke + pitch)  before baking.
     clncludes particulate fluorides.
     dAfter multicyclone.
10/86
                                     Metallurgical  Industry
            7.1-5

-------
   TABLE 7.1-3.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

                FOR ROOF MONITOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM PREBAKE

                                ALUMINUM CELLS3
                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
Particle
size**
(urn)

15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
Cumulative
mass %

              s- o
              o i-
              u c
              03 O
              1/1
              CO
                   1.5
                   1.0
                   0.5
                               I
      I
I
                      0.625  1.25   2.50      6.0  10.0 15.0

                               Particle size  (ym)

         Figure 7.1-2.  Emission factors less than stated particle size

                        for fugitive emissions from prebake aluminum cells.
7.1-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                           10/86

-------
   TABLE 7.1-4.
UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
     FOR ROOF MONITOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
           FROM HSS ALUMINUM CELLS3

          EMISSION FACTOR RATING: D
Particle
sizeb
(urn)

15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
Cumulative
mass %
   1.5
                   1.0
               s- o
               o v-
               o c.
               fO O
               c: 13
               o
                   0.5
                                I
                     J_
I
             1.25   2.5      6.0 10.0 15.0
              Particle size
                     0.625
         Figure 7.1-3.  Emission factors less than stated particle size
                        for fugitive emissions from HSS aluminum cells.
10/86
            Metallurgical Industry
                           7.1-7

-------
   TABLE 7.1-5.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION
                FOR PRIMARY EMISSIONS FROM HSS REDUCTION CELLSa


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle
sizeb
(urn)

15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
Cumulative
mass %
 -!->
              O C
              n3 O

              **" -
              C 3
              O

              I/)
              1/1
                     50
                     40
                     30
20
                     10
                      0
      Figure 7.1-4.
  0.625  1.25      2.50      6.0  10.0 15.0

            Particle  size  (vim)

Cumulative  emission  factors  less  than stated particle
size for primary  emissions from HSS  reduction cells.
7.1-8
           EMISSION  FACTORS
10/86

-------
            and ferric oxide.  Representative size distributions for fugitive
emissions from PB and HSS plants and for particulate emissions from HSS cells
are presented in Tables 7.1-3 through 7.1-5.

      Emissions from reduction cells also include hydrocarbons or organics,
carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.  Small amounts of hydrocarbons are released
by PB pots, and larger amounts are emitted from HSS and VSS pots.  In vertical
cells, these organics are incinerated in integral gas burners.  Sulfur oxides
originate from sulfur in the anode coke and pitch, and concentrations of sulfur
oxides in VSS cell emissions range from 200 to 300 parts per million.  Emissions
from PB plants usually have SC>2 concentrations ranging from 20 to 30 parts per
million.

      Emissions from anode bake ovens include the products of fuel combustion;
high boiling organics from the cracking, distillation, and oxidation of paste
binder pitch; sulfur dioxide from the sulfur in carbon paste, primarily from the
petroleum coke; fluorides from recycled anode butts; and other particulate mat-
ter.  Concentrations of uncontrolled S02 emissions from anode baking furnaces
range from 5 to 47 parts per million (based on 3 percent sulfur in coke).9

      A variety of control devices has been used to abate emissions from reduc-
tion cells and anode baking furnaces.  To control gaseous and particulate
fluorides and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrubbers (spray
tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds, Venturis) have
been applied to all three types of reduction cells and to anode baking furnaces.
Also, particulate control methods such as wet and dry electrostatic precipi-
tators, multiple cyclones and dry alumina scrubbers (fluid bed, injected, and
coated filter types) are used with baking furnaces and on all three cell types.
Also, the alumina adsorption systems are being used on all three cell types  to
control both gaseous and particulate fluorides by passing the pot offgases
through the entering alumina feed, which adsorbs the fluorides.  This technique
has an overall control efficiency of 98 to 99 percent.  Baghouses are then used
to collect residual fluorides entrained in the alumina and recycle them to the
reduction cells.  Wet ESPs approach adsorption in particulate removal efficien-
cy, but they must be coupled to a wet scrubber or coated baghouse to catch
hydrogen fluoride.

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

      In hydrated aluminum oxide calcining, bauxite grinding, and materials
handling operations, various dry dust collection devices (centrifugal collec-
tors, multiple cyclones, or ESPs and/or wet scrubbers) have been used.

      Potential sources of fugitive particulate emissions in the primary
aluminum industry are bauxite grinding, materials handling, anode baking, and
three types of reduction cells (see Table 7.1-2).  These fugitives probably
have particulate size distributions similar to those presented in Table 7.1-3.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.1-9

-------
 References for Section 7.1

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

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

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

 4.   Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report For  The  Nonferrous  Industry,
     Contract No. 68-02-3159,  Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, CA,  October 1985.

 5.   Emissions from Wet Scrubbing System,  Y-7730-E, York Research  Corporation,
     Stamford,  CT, May 1972.

 6.   Emissions From Primary Aluminum Smelting  Plant, Y-7730-B, York  Research
     Corporation, Stamford, CT,  June 1972.

 7.   Emissions from the Wet Scrubber System, Y-7730-F,  York Research  Corporation,
     Stamford,  CT, June 1972.

 8.   T.  R.  Hanna and M. J. Pilat, "Size  Distribution of Particulates  Emitted
     from a Horizontal Spike  Soderberg Aluminum Reduction  Cell", Journal of the
     Air Pollution Control Association,  2!_2:533-536, July 1972.

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

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

11.   Written communication from  T. F. Albee, Reynolds  Aluminum, Richmond, VA,
     to  A.  A. McQueen, U. S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research  Triangle
     Park,  NC,  October 20, 1982.

12.   Environmental Assessment;   Primary  Aluminum, Interim  Report,  U.  S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1978.
 7.1-10                          EMISSION FACTORS                           10/86

-------
7.2  COKE MANUFACTURING

7.2.1  Process Description

     Metallurgical coke is manufactured by destructive distillation of  coal  in
a byproduct coke oven battery.  The distillation,  termed "coking",  is accom-
plished in a series of ovens in the absence of oxygen.  Volatile compounds  are
driven from the coal, collected from each oven,  and processed  in an adjacent
plant for recovery of combustible gases and other  coal byproducts.   Virtually
all metallurgical coke is produced by this process, termed the "byproduct"
method.  Metallurgical coke is used in blast furnaces for production of iron.

     Coke is produced in narrow, slot type ovens constructed of silica  brick.
A coke oven battery may have a series of 10 to 100 individual  ovens, with a
heating flue between each oven pair.  Ovens are charged with pulverized coal,
through ports in the oven top, by a larry car traveling on tracks along the top
of each battery.  After charging, the ports are sealed, and the coking  process
begins.  Combustion of gases in burners in the flues between the ovens  provides
heat for the process.  Coke oven gas from the byproduct recovery plant  is the
common fuel for underfiring the ovens at most plants, but blast furnace gas
and, infrequently, natural gas may also be used.

     After a coking time typically between 12 and  20 hours, almost all  volatile
matter is driven from the coal mass, and the coke  is formed.  Maximum temper-
ature at the center of the coke mass is usually 1100 to 1150°C (2000 to 2100°F).

     After coking, machinery located on tracks on  each side of the battery
removes the vertical door on each end of an oven,  and a long ram pushes the
coke from the oven into a rail quench car, whence  it goes to a quench tower,
where several thousand gallons of water are sprayed onto the coke mass  to cool
it.  The car then discharges the coke onto a wharf along the battery for fur-
ther cooling and drainage of water.  From here,  coke is screened and sent to
the blast furnace or to storage in outdoor piles.

     After the coke is pushed from an oven, the doors are cleaned and reposi-
tioned, and the oven is then ready to receive another charge of coal.   Figure
7.2-1 is a diagram of a typical byproduct coke process.

     During the coking cycle, volatile matter driven from the  coal mass is
collected by offtakes located at one or both ends  of the oven.  A common col-
lector main transports the gases from each oven to the byproduct recovery plant.
Here, coke oven gas is separated, cleaned and returned to heat the ovens.  Only
40 percent of recovered coke oven gas is required  for underfiring,  and  the
remainder is used throughout the steel plant.  Other coal byproducts also are
recovered in the byproduct plant for reuse, sale or disposal.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.2-1

-------
          Figure 7.2-1.   The major steps  in  the  carbonization of coal
                         with the byproduct  process.
7.2-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
7.2.2  Emissions And Controls

     Particulate, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and other
emissions originate from several byproduct coking operations:  (1) coal pre-
paration, (2) coal preheating (if used), (3) charging coal into ovens incan-
descent with heat, (4) oven leakage during the coking period, (5) pushing the
coke out of the ovens, (6) quenching the hot coke and (7) underfire combustion
stacks.  Gaseous emissions collected from the ovens during the coking process
in the byproduct plant are subjected to various operations for separating
ammonia, coke oven gas, tar, phenol, light oil (benzene, toluene, xylene) and
pyridine.  These unit operations are potential sources of volatile organic
compound emissions.

     Coal preparation consists of pulverizing, screening, blending of several
coal types, and adding oil or water for bulk density control.  Particulate
emissions are sometimes controlled by evacuated or unevacuated enclosures.
A few domestic plants heat coal to about 260°C (500°F) before charging, using a
flash drying column heated by combustion of coke oven or natural gas.  The air
steam that conveys the coal through the drying column usually is passed through
conventional wet scrubbers for particulate removal before discharge to the
atmosphere.

     Oven charging can produce emissions of particulate matter and volatile
organic compounds from coal decomposition.  The stage, or sequential, charging
techniques used on virtually all batteries draw most charging emissions into
the battery collector main and on to the byproduct plant.  During the coking
cycle, volatile organic emissions from the thermal distillation process occa-
sionally leak to the atmosphere through poorly sealed doors,  charge lids and
offtake caps, and through cracks which may develop in oven brickwork, the
offtakes and collector mains.  Door leaks are controlled by diligent door
cleaning and maintenance, rebuilding of doors, and in some plants, by manual
application of lute (seal) material.  Charge lid and offtake leaks are con-
trolled by an effective patching and luting program.

     Pushing coke into the quench car is another major source of particulate
emissions, and if the coke mass is not fully coked,  also of volatile organic
compounds and combustion products.  Most batteries use pushing emission con-
trols such as hooded, mobile scrubber cars; shed enclosures evacuated to a gas
cleaning device; or traveling hoods with a fixed duct leading to a stationary
gas cleaner.  The quench tower activity emits particulate from the coke mass,
and dissolved solids from the quench water may become entrained in the steam
plume rising from the tower.  Trace organic compounds also may be present.

     The gas combustion in the battery flues produces emissions through the
underfire or combustion stack.  If coke oven gas is  not desulfurized, sulfur
oxide emissions accompany the particulate and combustion emissions.   If oven
wall brickwork is damaged, coal fines and coking decomposition products from a
recently charged oven may leak into the waste combustion gases.   Figure 7.2-2
portrays major air pollution sources from a typical  coke oven battery.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.2-3

-------
                                                                             i
                                                                            43
                                                                             CO
                                                                            4-1
                                                                            c
                                                                            •H
                                                                            o
                                                                            a*

                                                                            c
                                                                            o
                                                                            •H
                                                                            CO
                                                                            ID
                                                                            •H

                                                                            §

                                                                            M
                                                                            O
                                                                            s
                                                                            f,
                                                                            d
                                                                            01
                                                                            01
                                                                            JrS
                                                                            O
                                                                            o

                                                                            4J
                                                                            O
                                                                            3
                                                                            PQ
                                                                           CN
                                                                            I
                                                                           r^

                                                                            01
                                                                            \-i
                                                                            3
                                                                            W>
7.2-4
                                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                        10/86

-------
      Associated with the  byproduct coke production are open source fugitive dust
operations from material  handling.  These operations  consist of unloading,  stor-
ing  grinding and sizing of  coal;  and screening,  crushing,  storing and  loading of
coke.   Fugitive emissions may  also result from vehicles traveling on paved  and
unpaved surfaces.  The emission factors available  for coking operations  for
total  particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides and ammonia are given in Table 7.2-1.   Table 7.2-2 gives  avail-
able size specific emission factors.  Figures 7.2-3 through 7.2-13 present
emission factor data by particle size.  Extensive  information on the data used
to develop the particulate  emission factors can  be found in Reference  1.
    TYPES OF AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS
    FROM COKE OVEN BATTERIES
       (T) Pushing emissions
       (2) Charging emissions
       (3) Door emissions
       (4) Topside emissions
       (§) Battery underfire emissions

                                                               (Courtesv of the Western
                                                               Pennsylvania Air Pollution
                                                               Control Association)
10/86
Metallurgical  Industry
7.2-5

-------






















o
z;
i- I

3 **
H ^
° rH
*** 3
•O ^T
§ M
W ^
ft^I ^
^D
° s*

_/ cJ
o ^

N"-*1'
CO _
O
H
O **
•
o -a
M *H
•U X
1-1 O
z



T3

0) O
•H O
4-1 -H
r-l CO
O M

o

O
QJ
B -O
O -H
XI X
M O
CO C
O O
e





o

3 TJ
rH X
3 O
cn -H
•a


^
Q)
jj
rrj
rH
3
O
•H
4-1
M
£


0)
CO O
rH -H
3 0)
O CO
•H f-l
4J B
M Cx3
OH



O

01
a.

H





































































O
4-1
O
CO



B
O
-H
4-1
CO
01
a
0


B
O

••^_
f>


bO
S

^
B
O
4->
•^^_
XI
t— (


1

s?

C
o

~--
,_,

sf
•^^
^
B
O

*>^
x:
•H


S1
--*.


C
o
4-1
-s 	
XI
i-H

M
!S
-^
3*

C
o

-^.^
_0
•H

bO
yf
^



XI
B=
•H
4J
CO














1 III





1 III




1 III





1 III





1 III



1 III



1 III





1 III





1 III





1 III


CM
-H o in -H
-H m CM o
• • • •
O <""> O O

m m \c
in in CM o
0 t-- -H 0
O -i O O





a ooo





bfi 0) M
1) C -O O> OH
bO B -H 0* XI C/3
e O 4J rH XI W
•H rH CO rH 3
XI O 01 O M 4J
CD >> x; M o 01
3O 01 4J CO S
M MB
ox: D. o x: x:
4J O 4J 4-1
rH -H rH C T-t -H
co S co 3 3 3
o o
0 0

CM
0
• 1 1
0


_H
o
• 1 1
o

f>
o
• 1 1
o


in
— H
0
• 1 1
o



in
CM ' '


in
CM
• 1 1


vO
• 1 1
0



CO
• 1 1
o


CM
O
• 1 1
o


r-H
O
1 1
O

*c , O 4J O 4J
0 M C -H -H
0 M 3 3 3
CO

0)
3

\rj
0
•
0


to
o
•
o

-H
o
•
o


in
0
o
•
o



m
•


m
r-
•
O

^D
•
o



CO
•
o




1





1



>^
m
•
o


r^
CM
O





O





"8
rH
O
CO 4J
0) C

0
M B

g


r— 1
•
O


m
o
•
o



i





l




CM
•


^
•
0

0

0


m
o
•
o




1





1



m
*— i
•
— i


CO
m
0





CO





•s
SP »H
•H O
X! M
CO 4-1
3 B
a o
o
01 C

0
o



i i i





i i i




i i i





i i i





i i i



i i i



i i i





i i i





i i i





i i i



m oo o>

• • •
0 00

in m

CM O O
o o o





O O a




x:
01
•H W
MX: 3
OH C X> M
c/i 0) Xi CO
w > gx.
x: x: o x:
4-1 4-1 CO 4-1
•H -H iH





1





1




1





1





1



1



1





1





1





1


CM
p^.
O
•
O

>43
CO
O
O





U




"2
CO
o
01
XI X)
o x>
e =
x: o
U CD
•H


7.2-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         10/86

-------
















<0
O
z
I— (
Oi
3
H
r ^
^

fa

§
^
5^
~*

u
x!
o
u
-^
g
fa
C/3
fy*
0
H
CJ
<<
fa

Z
O
l-l
CO
CO

1— i
s



x™\
•
4-)
c
o
o
\~S
i-H
1
OJ
•
r*^
W
3
«3
H









o
0)

c

o
B
*



c o
oj a
bO OJ
0 T3
4J X
•H O
J5




T3
0) O
	 . pp
•H O

CO C
rH (0
O hfl
> Er
0



y
OJ
C *Q
0 -H
_O M
^J "
M O
cti C
O 0
g





y
M OJ
3 "O
MH *H
rH X
S O
C/3 iH
XJ



«
Q)
^J
id
rH
o
•H
JJ
b
id
Pi


2 B
-, B Id >> B
B 4J 4J Id XI 4J 0)
IH B r4 OI r4  u
B C ^
O> CS 3
Cf



1 1 1 1 1 1





1 1 1 1 1 1



1 1 1 1 1 1



1 1 1 1 1 1





1 1 1 1 1 1






1 1 1 1 1 1





1 1 1 1 1 1



1 1 1 1 1 1




B
O
• 1 1 I | |
-3. '



B
O
• 1 1 1 1 1
IN


-H >£>
r^ r*i CTN -H o
-^ "H O rH O
• • • • • 1
o o o o o
"* in \o in m
f") QO -3" in o
CN O O O O
• • • • • i
0 O 0 0 0




< < Q a a a
^•x
/-v ^ C3 cr
88 S S
O CO ^- O
J^ ^ v-x ^ IH
u u oi a. 4J
id •« *p c5 co oi M
4J o) ai u 3 boC M
M r-H i-H x_- O CO OI
rH rH X! -H rH O.
C O O DM OO rHO O
O b tH CO Id t> >»
IH 4J 4-1 W X> CO T3
4-1 c c td oi
m o o x; x: x: x: B
3 O U 4-1 4J 4-1 -H
X> C C -rt -rH 0) iH XI
r333 r s



•
to
id
bO

c
0)
§
0)
44
O
o

II
8
o

M
o
4J
id
4-1
.p4
a
•*H
,
u

>,
kl
id
•s
o
u
OI
to

•§
td
x
r?
id
B
•H
b
a
MH
O
CO
01
•H •
b -a
oi ai
CO >rH
b
B T3
o
b B
m fl)
01
•0 XI
. OI
0) OO 4-1
B ff 0
id id B
x; x:
4J CJ CO
• oi to id
<*> S -H Xi
I -a
INI to rH
at to td
co id o
01 T3 60 0
0 01
e » 4-1 -o
01 tO (0 01
b 01 3 60
0> b 5 i-T
MH ax: id
c* [S t5 o
o -e ai MH
























































•
01
b
3
CO
0
• • rH
•§•§ B
Xi 0 01
"* b
OI 60 *
•o tf o
*H >H
CO rH X!
OI U
OI > B
.arf at u
rt Lj "H
O M 3
u 4-1 a*
X X >-.
XI XI XI
01 01 «
b b b
333
4J 4-1 4J
a a a
id id id
o o o
CO CO CO
B B B
000
•H -H iH
to to co
CO CO 10
•H iH -H
WWW
60X; -r-i





















































• •
to to
•O T3
•H tH
rH rH
0 0
co co
•81!
> >
rH rH
0 0
to to
to to
•H IH
TJ T3

rH rH
id id
4J 4O
O O
1-H r-(
'i5^
o o
So
m
m -H
A,|V
b b
OI 01
4J 4-1
id id
9 3
X B
4J td
b oi
•H rH
O U
*! B

B
ai
§

0
4-1

13
01
ff
id
x;
u
rH
Id
O
CJ
VH
O
4J
B
01
4J
C
O
u
b
3
MH
rH
3
CO

X-N
t-H

•H
u
id
4J
B
01
CO
OI
b
a.
01
b
OI
CO
OI
f.
4-1

B
o
•o
OI
CO
id
XI
to
•H

CN
o
C/5
b
o
MH
b
0
4J
u
^
b
•
^3-
OI
o
OI
b
01
MH
«
04
OI
b
OI
i

10 S
.. c a>
CO 0 W
id -H xi
60 4-1
id 4->
B b O
01 01 B
> a
O O CO
a)
0) b X!
X oi
o x: op
O 4J B
0 -H
0 b
4-1 B IH
•H MH
T3 b
01 "O 0)
b 0) -O
b to B
01 3 3
"-1 _
CO CO C
B -H -H
id
b K -t)
4-1 o 4>
V0 10
to 3
•H 4-1
3 to
B O id
01 XI 60
> id
O /-N
T3 -»
0 B ^
4-1 id
• M
•a - TJ
oi e oi
00 0 00
b -H b
a) 4J id
X id xi
U b U
oi to
rH CX. -H
Id O T3
0
O 60 tO
B -H
•H b r-,
•H -a
b MH 0)
3 b 60
MH 01 b
rH T3 
•H •
X! 0
to es
3 1
b c*
0 -H
to co
id a)
o
•o e
oi a>
B b
•H 41
MH MH
01 41
O 0-
o, tr
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.2-7

-------
     TABLE 7.2-2.  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR COKE MANUFACTURING
Particulate
emission Particle
factor size
Process rating (urn)
Coal preheating D
Uncontrolled






Controlled D
with venturi
scrubber





Coal charging E
Sequential
or stage





Coke pushing D
Uncontrolled






Controlled D
with Venturi
scrubber





0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
Cumulative mass emission
mass % factors
< stated 	
size kg/Mg Ib/ton
44
48.5
55
59.5
79.5
97.5
99.9
100
78
80
83
84
88
94
96.5
100
13.5
25.2
33.6
39.1
45.8
48.9
49.0
100
3.1
7.7
14.8
16.7
26.6
43.3
50.0
100
24
47
66.5
73.5
75
87
92
100
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.29
0.58
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.8
3.4
3.5
3.5
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.016
0.04
0.09
0.17
0.19
0.30
0.50
0.58
1.15
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.18
Reference
source
number
6







6







7







8-13







8,10







7.2-8
  (continued)
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
                           TABLE 7.2-2 (continued)
Particulate
emission
factor
Process rating
Mobile D
scrubber car





Quenching D
Uncontrolled
(dirty water)



Uncontrolled B
(clean water)




With baffles D
(dirty water)




With baffles D
(clean water)




Combustion stack D
Uncontrolled





Particle
size
(urn)
1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

1.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0

Cumulative
mass %
< stated
size
28.0
29.5
30.0
30.0
32.0
35.0
100
13.8
19.3
21.4
22.8
26.4
100
4.0
11.1
19.1
30.1
37.4
100
8.5
20.4
24.8
32.3
49.8
100
1.2
6.0
7.0
9.8
15.1
100
77.4
85.7
93.5
95.8
95.9
96
100
Cumulative
: mass emission
factors
kg/Mg
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.036
0.36
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.69
2.62
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.57
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.65
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.27
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
Ib/ton
0.020
0.021
0.022
0.022
0.024
0.023
0.072
0.72
1.01
1.12
1.19
1.38
5.24
0.05
0.13
0.22
0.34
0.42
1.13
0.11
0.27
0.32
0.42
0.65
1.30
0.006
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.54
0.36
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.47
Reference
source
number
14






15





15





15





15





16-18






10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.2-9

-------
          TOTAL  PARTICIPATE -3 5Q    '*«  PARTICIPATE
            EMISSION  RATE    ~ '    ton  COAL  CHARGED
99.950
99.90
99.60
99.50
99
98


95
UJ
£ 90

_
UJ 80
£ 70
to
v 60

^ 50
y 40
(T
UJ 30
0.
uj 20
fl
| ,0
* 5
o
2

1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
1C

;
/
I
4
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
7
>r
jjj
m*^*""^
v
••


—
-

T

—
-
-
-
-
Ill Illllll 1 1 Illllll 1 1 ' ' ' ' f '

3.50


3.43


3.32
3.15


2.80
2.45
2.10

1.75
1.40


















UJ
N
MM
V)
a
UJ
\-
<

V)
V
UJ
_j
^l
o
p
a:
a
*
UJ

>-
_i
=
^
o







a
UJ
o
oc

-------
         TOTAL  PARTICULATE _02g    '*>«  PARTICIPATE
           EMISSION  RATE    ~ '    ton  COAL  CHARGED
99.950







UJ
fsj
CO
o
STATE
v
t;
^L|
^LJ
0.
UJ
p
<
i
o







99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98

95


90

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

10
5
2

1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n







"~ X ml
if
^T
./
^~^*
— ;


-
-

—
-
—

—
-
-
-
-
iii iiiiiii i i IIIIIM i i i 1 1 1 ^ i





UJ
N
0.24 ^
o
UJ
0.23 K
t-
0.20 v
0.18 H
_i
o
1
|
UJ

5
2
D
O







a
UJ
2
<
o
0
o
c
o











10
                        10              10 '

                PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
10'
   Note:  Extrapolated to the 15 ym size,  using engineering estimates


         Figure  7.2-4.   Coal preheating (controlled with scrubber).
10/86
                 Metallurgical Industry
      7.2-11

-------
                                       Its  PARTICULATE
g
EMISSION RATE ' ton COAL CHARGED
99.950







UJ

v>
o
»-
h-
to
V
H
z
UJ
o
UJ
a
UJ
p
<
_i
2
o








99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98

95


90

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

10
5

Z

1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n















	 —
^^* *""*
.X*
./
{
— «
-

-

"•
-
-
-
-
Ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illllll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1





UJ
N
to
a
UJ
H
h-
V
UJ
\~
_J
0.008 if
0.006 «
0.0050-
0.003 1
UJ
0.002 >
»
r—
^
^
O







a
UJ
<
X
o
_l
<
o
o
c
o
<*.












         10"'              10°              10'               io2
                  PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
   Note:   Extrapolated to  the 15 ym size, using engineering estimates,

       Figure 7.2-5.   Coal charging (sequential)  average of 2 tests.
7.2-12
                               EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
         TOTAL PARTICIPATE _, |g     Ibs  PARTICIPATE
           EMISSION RATE     ~     ton COAL  CHARGED
  99.950
   99.90
   99.80
   99.50
      99
      98
      95
 UJ
 UJ
 $
 CO
 V
 (T
 UJ
 a.
 <
70
60
50
40
30
20

 10
  2
  I
 0.5
 0.2
0.15
 O.I

 0.0
  10
         -I
                                      I
                                                            UJ
                                                            N
                                                            <0
                                                            O
                                                            UJ
                                                            V
                                                            UJ
0.58  !£
0.46  «
0.35  °-
0.23  f5
     UJ
0.12  >
0.06  3
     D
0.02  1
     o
                                                                0
                                                                UJ
                                                                     X
                                                                     u
                                                                o
                                                                u
                                                                o
                         IOW              10'               I0fc
                PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
   Note:   Extrapolated to the 15  pm size, using engineering estimates.

          Figure 7.2-6.  Pushing (uncontrolled) average of 6  sites.
10/86
                     Metallurgical Industry
                                                                   7.2-13

-------
          TOTAL  PARTICULATE .Q |8     Ibs  PARTICULATE

             EMISSION RATE    " '    ton COAL  CHARGED
    99.950

     99.90

     99.80


     99.50

       99

       98


       95
  UJ
UJ

£

to

V
  (£
  UJ
  0.


  UJ
   s

   o
80

70

60

50

40

30


20



 10


 5


 Z

 I
                        .6°
                                                                 UJ
                                                                 N
0.17


0.16



0.14


0.13


0.11

0.09

0.07

0.05


0.04
                                                                   a
                                                                   UJ
                                                                   -
                                                                 UJ


                                                                 H





                                                                 o
a
UJ

a:
<
x
o
                                                                    <
                                                                    o
                                                                    o
         io                1                 .o                10

                  PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers


  Note:   Extrapolated to the 15 pm size,  using engineering estimates.



    Figure 7.2-7.  Pushing (controlled with scrubber) average of  2 sites.
7.2-14
                               EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                  10/86

-------
          TOTAL PARTICIPATE .. Q Q72
             EMISSION  RATE    "  '
                             Ibs  PARTICIPATE
                           ton  COAL  CHARGED
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
Ul
a
w 80
£ 70
v 60
£ 50
£ 30
a
u 20
§ ,0
2 5
o
2
J
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n o









"* M
«•

^
-
-
-
	 , 	 ,





UJ
N
(O
a
UJ
»~
H
V
UJ
o
0.029 oc
0.022 a-
0.014 £
UJ
0.007 >
0.0045
a
o.ooi 1
0.001 °


a
UJ
OL
<
X
o
_l
<
o
c
0
•*-






10"'              10°             10 '
         PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                           10'
10/86
                  Figure 7.2-8.  Mobile scrubber cars.
                 Metallurgical  Industry
7.2-15

-------
         TOTAL PARTICIPATE

           EMISSION  RATE
            s5.24
  Ibs  PART ICUL ATE

ton  COAL  CHARGED
»y.»»u
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98

95
UJ
* 90

K
< 10
_J
3
2 5
D
O
2

1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n


•»
















^
^ 	 -^— ^^
•<
- w

-


~

^
-
-
-
-
iii i i i i i 1 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i if





UJ
N
V)
a
UJ
<
t-
V
Ul
i
<
-1
3
O
H
aa
1.57 °-
1.05 £
UJ
0.52 >
H
<
|
-J
•^
-J
2

o






        10
         -I
        IOU              10'


PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                                  a
                                                                  UJ
                                                                  e>
                                                                  a:
                                                                   u
                                                                   o

                                                                   c
                                                                   o
                       10*
    Figure 7.2-9.   Quenching (uncontrolled)  dirty water >5,000 mg/L TDS.
7.2-16
                             EMISSION FACTORS
                                                  10/86

-------
                                        Ibs PARTICIPATE
0
IQ aor> .
99.950





UJ
o
H
V
^
PERCEI
>
5
2
o




99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n
EMISSION RATE ' ton COAL CHARGED









: s :
./
>/
s
^
-
-
-
iii iiiiiii i i IIIIIM i i iiiin





UJ
N
(O
a
UJ
i-
V
UJ
_)
o
0.45 (K
0.34 °-
0.23 |
UJ
0.11 >
0.06 5
0.02 1
a


a
UJ
a:
<
X
o
_1
<
o
0
c
o
-»-







10"'              10°              10 '
         PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                            10'
   Figure 7.2-10.  Quenching (uncontrolled)  clean water <1,500 mg/L IDS.
10/86
                 Metallurgical Industry
7.2-17

-------
            TOTAL  PARTICIPATE _.
                                         Ibs PARTICULATE
99.990
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
UJ
N
0) 9°
Q
£ 80
»- 70
C/)
v 60
^ 50
S 40

H
< 10
Z3
S 5
3
o
2
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n
EMISSION RATE ll*'w ton COAL CHARGED








: ;/ :
>^*^
qf «
™" m


-
-
-
iii iiiiiil i i iiiiiil i i iiiiii





UJ
N
(O
a
u
<
»-

V
Ul
<
_l
0.65 |
0.52 t
0.39 o-
0.26 |
UJ
0.13 >
b
0.07 ^
o
2
3
o


CHARGED
_i
<
O
O
c
o
*-








I0
            "'
                            10               10
                   PARTICLE   DIAMETER,  micrometers
Figure  7.2-11.  Quenching (controlled with baffles) dirty water >5,000 mg/L IDS.
  7.2-18
                     EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                      10/86

-------
TOTAL PARTICIPATE ,
   EMISSION  RATE    "
                                      ">s  PARTICIPATE
                                    ton  COAL  CHARGED
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
Ul
N
V) '^
0
u 80
»- 70
to
v 60
£ 50
S 40
a
UJ 30
a.
u 20
< 10
:D
5 5
a
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
10

•»








„
; .^ ;
: / :
-
-
-
-
iii iiiiiii i i iiiiiii i i iiiiii





UJ
N
0
UJ
\-
i-
V)
V
Ul
_l
o
a.
0.108 £J
UJ
0.054 >
h-
0.027 ^
0.011 i
0.005°



CHARGED
_i
<
O
O
o
<-







-' ,0° 10 ' io2
                PARTICLE   DIAMETER,  micrometers
Figure  7.2-12.  Quenching (controlled with baffles)  clean water <1,500 mg/L IDS,
10/86
                 Metallurgical  Industry
                                                                7.2-19

-------
         TOTAL PARTICIPATE _0 4?    Ibs  PARTICIPATE

            EMISSION  RATE    "  '    ton  COAL  CHARGED
 Ul
 N
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
90

i 80
70
60
; so
I 40
J 30
j 20
»
I I0
3
6 5
3
J
t
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n





_ 	 •- 	 •
^^. * ^^
/ 9
'-

-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
111 iiiiiil l i iiiiiil l i iiiif





0.46 UJ
N
0.45 w
a
UJ
OAZ H
»-
0.38 v
0.33 £
o
a:
|
UJ
0-
1

-------
References for Section 7.2

1.   John Fitzgerald, et al.,  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report For
     The Metallurgical Coke Industry. TR-83-97-G, Contract No.  68-02-3157, GCA
     Corporation, Bedford, MA, July 1986.

2.   Air Pollution By Coking  Plants, United Nations Report:   Economic Commis-
     sion for Europe, ST/ECE/Coal/26, 1968.

3.   R. W. Fullerton, "Impingement Baffles To Reduce Emissions  from Coke
     Quenching", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,  17;807-809,
     December 1967.

4.   J. Varga and H. W. Lownie, Jr., Final Technological Report On  A Systems
     Analysis Study Of The Integrated Iron And Steel Industry,  Contract No.
     PH-22-68-65, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, May 1969.

5.   Particulate Emissions Factors Applicable To The Iron And Steel Industry,
     EPA-450/4-79-028, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, September 1979.

6.   Stack Test Report for J  & L Steel, Aliquippa Works, Betz Environmental
     Engineers, Plymouth Meeting, PA, April 1977.

7.   R. W. Bee, et al., Coke  Oven Charging Emission Control  Test Program,
     Volume I, EPA-650/2-74-062-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, July 1974.

8.   Emission Testing And Evaluation Of Ford/Koppers Coke Pushing Control
     System, EPA-600/2-77-187b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, September 1977.

9.   Stack Test Report, Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN, Bethlehem Steel,
     Bethlehem, PA, September 1974.

10.  Stack Test Report for Inland Steel Corporation, East Chicago,  IN Works,
     Betz Environmental Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA, June 1976.

11.  Stack Test Report for Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, St.  Louis, MO,
     Clayton Environmental Services, Southfield, MO, April 1975.

12.  Source Testing Of A Stationary Coke Side Enclosure, Bethlehem  Steel,
     Burns Harbor Plant, EPA-340/1-76-012, U. S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC,  May 1977.

13.  Stack Test Report for Allied Chemical Corporation, Ashland, KY,  York
     Research Corporation, Stamford, CT, April 1979.

14.  Stack Test Report, Republic Steel Company, Cleveland, OH,  Republic Steel,
     Cleveland, OH, November  1979.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.2-21

-------
15.  J. Jeffrey,  Wet Coke Quench Tower Emission Factor Development,  Dofasco,
     Ltd.,  EPA-600/X-85-34CI,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park,  NC,  August  1982.

16.  Stack Test Report for Shenango Steel,  Inc.,  Neville  Island, PA,  Betz
     Environmental Engineers, Plymouth Meeting,  PA,  July  1976.

17.  Stack Test Report for J  &  L Steel Corporation,  Pittsburgh, PA,  Mostardi-
     Platt  Associates, Bensenville,  IL, June 1980.

18.  Stack Test Report for J  &  L Steel Corporation,  Pittsburgh, PA,  Wheelabrator
     Frye,  Inc.,  Pittsburgh,  PA, April 1980.

19.  R. B.  Jacko, et al., By-product  Coke Oven Pushing Operation;  Total And
     Trace Metal  Particulate  Emissions, Purdue University,  West Lafayette,  IN,
     June 27, 1976.

20.  Control Techniques  For Lead Air  Emissions,  EPA-450/2-77-012,  U.  S. Envi-
     ronmental protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, December  1977.
7.2-22                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
7.3  PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING

7.3.1  Process Description^^

     In the United States, copper is produced from sulfide ore concentrates,
principally by pyrometallurgical smelting methods.  Because the ores usually
contain less than 1 percent copper, they must be concentrated before transport
to smelters.  Concentrations of 15 to 35 percent copper are accomplished at the
mine site by crushing, grinding and flotation.  Sulfur content of the concen-
trate ranges from 25 to 35, percent and most of the remainder is iron (25
percent) and water (10 percent).  Some concentrates also contain significant
quantities of arsenic, cadmium, lead, antimony, and other heavy metals.

      A conventional pyrometallurgical copper smelting process is illustrated
in Figure 7.3-1.  The process includes roasting of ore concentrates to produce
calcine, smelting of roasted (calcine feed) or unroasted (green feed) ore
concentrates to produce matte, and converting of the matte to yield blister
copper product (about 99 percent pure).  Typically, the blister copper is fire
refined in an anode furnace, cast into "anodes" and sent to an electrolytic
refinery for further impurity elimination.

     In roasting, charge material of copper concentrate mixed with a siliceous
flux (often a low grade ore) is heated in air to about 650°C (1200°F), eliminat-
ing 20 to 50 percent of the sulfur as sulfur dioxide (862).  Portions of such
impurities as antimony, arsenic and lead are driven off, and some iron is con-
verted to oxide. The roasted product, calcine, serves as a dried and heated
charge for the smelting furnace.  Either multiple hearth or fluidized bed roast-
ers are used for roasting copper concentrate.  Multiple hearth roasters  accept
moist concentrate, whereas fluid bed roasters are fed finely ground material
(60 percent minus 200 mesh).  With both of these types, the roasting is  autog-
enous.  Because there is less air dilution, higher S02 concentrations are
present in fluidized bed roaster gases than in multiple hearth roaster gases.

     In the smelting process, either hot calcines from the roaster or raw
unroasted concentrate is melted with siliceous flux in a smelting furnace to
produce copper matte, a molten mixture of cuprous sulfide (Cu2S), ferrous
sulfide (FeS) and some heavy metals.  The required heat comes from partial
oxidation of the sulfide charge and from burning external fuel.  Most of the
iron and some of the impurities in the charge oxidize with the fluxes to form
atop the molten bath a slag, which is periodically removed and discarded.
Copper matte remains in the furnace until tapped.  Mattes produced by the
domestic industry range from 35 to 65 percent copper, with 45 percent the most
common.  The copper content percentage is referred to as the matte grade.
Currently, five smelting furnace technologies are used in the U. S., reverber-
atory, electric, Noranda, Outokumpu (flash), and Inco (flash).

     Reverberatory furnace operation is a continuous process, with frequent
charging of input materials and periodic tapping of matte and skimming of slag.


10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.3-1

-------
                             ORE CONCENTRATES WITH SILICA FLUXES
                     FUEL.

                      AIR.
      ROASTING
                   CONVERTER SLAG (2% Cu)
                     FUEL-

                      AIR-
-*-OFFGAS
                                             CALCINE
      SMELTING
                            SLAG TO DUMP
                              (0.5% Cu)
                      AIR-
    OFFGAS
           MATTE (~40%Cu)
    CONVERTING
                GREEN POLES OR GAS-
                     FUEL"

                      AIR.
-^-OFFGAS
                                             BLISTER COPPER
                                               W.5+% Cu)
    FIRE REFINING
-^•OFFGAS
                SLAG TO CONVERTER
                                            T
                                   ANODE COPPER (99.5% Cu)
                                 TO ELECTROLYTIC REFINERY

              Figure 7.3-1.   Typical primary copper smelter  process,
7.3-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                   10/86

-------
1300 tons) of charge per day.  Heat is supplied by combustion of oil,  gas or
pulverized coal, and furnace temperature may exceed 1500°C (2730°F).

     For smelting in electric arc furnaces, heat is generated by the  flow of an
electric current in carbon electrodes lowered through the furnace roof and
submerged in the slag layer of the molten bath. The feed generally consists of
dried concentrates or calcines, and charging wet concentrates is avoided.  The
chemical and physical changes occurring in the molten bath are similar to those
occurring in the molten bath of a reverberatory furnace. Also, the matte and
slag tapping practices are similar at both furnaces.  Electric furnaces do not
produce fuel combustion gases, so flow rates are lower and S02 concentrations
higher in the effluent gas than in that of reverberatory furnaces.

     Flash furnace smelting combines the operations of roasting and smelting to
produce a high grade copper matte from concentrates and flux.  In flash smelt-
ing, dried ore concentrates and finely ground fluxes are injected, together with
oxygen, preheated air, or a mixture of both, into a furnace of special design,
where temperature is maintained at approximately 1000° C (1830°F).  Flash fur-
naces, in contrast to reverberatory and electric furnaces, use the heat gener-
ated from partial oxidation of their sulfide charge to provide much or all of
the energy (heat) required for smelting.  They also produce off gas streams
containing high concentrations of
     Slag produced by flash furnace operations contains significantly higher
amounts of copper than does that from reverberatory or electric furnace opera-
tions.  As a result, the flash furnace and converter slags are treated in a
slag cleaning furnace to recover the copper.  Slag cleaning furnaces usually
are small electric furnaces.  The flash furnace and converter slags are charged
to a slag cleaning furnace and are allowed to settle under reducing conditions,
with the addition of coke or iron sulfide.  The copper, which is in oxide form
in the slag, is converted to copper sulfide, is subsequently removed from the
furnace and is charged to a converter with regular matte.   If the slag's copper
content is low, the slag is discarded.

     The Noranda process, as originally designed,  allowed  the continuous produc-
tion of blister copper in a single vessel by effectively combining roasting,
smelting and converting into one operation.  Metallurgical problems, however,
led to the operation of these reactors for the production  of copper matte.   As
in flash smelting, the Noranda process takes advantage of  the heat energy
available from the copper ore.  The remaining thermal energy required is sup-
plied by oil burners, or by coal mixed with the ore concentrates.

     The final step in the production of blister copper is converting, with the
purposes of eliminating the remaining iron and sulfur present in the matte  and
leaving molten "blister" copper.  All but one U. S. smelter uses Fierce-Smith
converters, which are refractory lined cylindrical steel shells mounted on
trunnions at either end, and rotated about the major axis  for charging and
pouring.  An opening in the center of the converter functions as a mouth through
which molten matte, siliceous flux, and scrap copper are charged and gaseous
products are vented.  Air or oxygen rich air is blown through the molten matte.
Iron sulfide (FeS) is oxidized to iron oxide (FeO) and S02> and the FeO blowing
and slag skimming are repeated until an adequate amount of relatively pure  C^S,
called "white metal", accumulates in the bottom of the converter. A renewed air
blast oxidizes the copper sulfide sulfur to SOo, leaving blister copper in  the

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.3-3

-------
converter.  The blister copper is subsequently removed and transferred to
refining facilities.  This segment of converter operation is  termed the finish
blow.  The S02 produced throughout the operation is vented to pollution control
devices.

     One domestic smelter uses Hoboken converters,  the primary advantage of
which lies in emission control.  The Hoboken converter is essentially like a
conventional Fierce-Smith converter, except that this vessel  is fitted with a
side flue at one end shaped as an inverted U.   This flue arrangement permits
siphoning of gases from the interior of the converter directly to the offgas
collection system, leaving the converter mouth under a slight vacuum.

     Blister copper usually contains from 98.5 to 99.5 percent pure copper.
Impurities may include gold, silver, antimony, arsenic,  bismuth,  iron, lead,
nickel, selenium, sulfur, tellurium, and zinc. To purify blister copper further,
fire refining and electrolytic refining are used.  In fire refining, blister
copper is placed in a fire refining furnace, a flux is usually added,  and air
is blown through the molten mixture to oxidize remaining impurities, which are
removed as a slag.  The remaining metal bath is subjected to  a reducing atmos-
phere to reconvert cuprous oxide to copper.  Temperature in the furnace is
around 1100°C (2010°F).  The fire refined copper is cast into anodes,  after
which, further electrolytic refining separates copper from impurities by elec-
trolysis in a solution containing copper sulfate and sulfuric acid.  Metallic
impurities precipitate from the solution and form a sludge that is removed and
treated to recover precious metals.  Copper is dissolved from the anode and
deposited at the cathode.  Cathode copper is remelted and made into bars,
ingots or slabs for marketing purpose.  The copper produced is 99.95 to 99.97
percent pure.

7.3.2  Emissions And Controls

     Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are the principal  air contaminants
emitted by primary copper smelters.  These emissions are generated directly
from the processes involved, as in the liberation of S(>2 from copper concentrate
during roasting, or in the volatilization of trace elements as oxide fumes.
Fugitive emissions are generated by leaks from major equipment during material
handling operations.

     Roasters, smelting furnaces and converters are sources of both particulate
matter acid sulfur oxides.  Copper and iron oxides are the primary constituents
of the particulate matter, but other oxides, such as arsenic, antimony, cadmium,
lead, mercury and zinc, may also be present, with metallic sulfates and sulfuric
acid mist.  Fuel combustion products also contribute to the particulate emis-
sions from multiple hearth roasters and reverberatory furnaces.

     Single stage electrostatic precipitators (ESP) are widely used in the
primary copper industry to control particulate emissions from roasters, smelting
furnaces and converters.  Many of the existing ESPs are operated at elevated
temperatures, usually from 200° to 340°C (400° to 650°F) and  are termed "hot
ESPs".  If properly designed and operated, these ESPs remove  99 percent or more
of the condensed particulate matter present in gaseous effluents.  However,  at
these elevated temperatures, a significant amount of volatile emissions such as
arsenic trioxide (As2C>3) and sulfuric acid mist is present as vapor in the
gaseous effluent and thus can not be collected by the particulate control

7.3-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
device at elevated temperatures.  At these temperatures, the arsenic trioxide
in the vapor state will pass through an ESP.  Therefore, the gas stream to be
treated must be cooled sufficiently to assure that most of the arsenic present
is condensed before entering the control device for collection.   At some smelt-
ers, the gas effluents are cooled to about 120°C (250°F) temperature before
entering a particulate control system, usually an ordinary ("cold") ESP.  Spray
chambers or air infiltration are used for gas cooling.  Fabric filters can also
be used for particulate matter collection.

     Gas effluents from roasters usually are sent to an ESP or spray chamber/ESP
system or are combined with smelter furnace gas effluents before particulate
collection.  Overall, the hot ESPs remove only 20 to 80 percent  of the total
particulate (condensed and vapor) present in the gas.  Cold ESPs may remove
more than 95 percent of the total particulate present in the gas.  Particulate
collection systems for smelting furnaces are similar to those for roasters.
Reverberatory furnace offgases are usually routed through waste heat boilers
and low velocity balloon flues to recover large particles and heat, then are
routed through an ESP or spray chamber/ESP system.

     In the standard Fierce-Smith converter, flue gases are captured during the
blowing phase by the primary hood over the converter mouth.  To  prevent the
hood's binding to the converter with splashing molten metal, there is a gap
between the hood and the vessel.  During charging and pouring operations,
significant fugitives may be emitted when the hood is removed to allow crane
access.  Converter offgases are treated in ESPs to remove particulate matter
and in sulfuric acid plants to remove S02-

     Remaining smelter processes handle material that contains very little
sulfur, hence S02 emissions from these processes are relatively  insignificant.
Particulate emissions from fire refining operations, however, may be of concern.
Electrolytic refining does not produce emissions unless the associated sulfuric
acid tanks are open to the atmosphere.  Crushing and grinding systems used in
ore, flux and slag processing also contribute to fugitive dust problems.

     Control of S02 emissions from smelter sources is most commonly performed
in a single or double contact sulfuric acid plant.  Use of a sulfuric acid
plant to treat copper smelter effluent gas streams requires that gas be free
from particulate matter and that a certain minimum SC>2 concentration be main-
tained.  Practical limitations have usually restricted sulfuric  acid plant
application to gas streams that contain at least 3 percent SC^.   Table 7.3-1
shows typical average SC>2 concentrations for the various smelter unit offgases.
Currently, converter gas effluents at most smelters are treated  for SC>2 control
in sulfuric acid plants.  Gas effluents of some multiple hearth  roaster opera-
tions and of all fluid bed roaster operations also are treated in sulfuric acid
plants.  The weak SC>2 content gas effluents from reverberatory furnace opera-
tions are usually released to the atmosphere with no reduction of S02«   The gas
effluents from the other types of smelter furnaces, because of their higher
contents of S02, are treated in sulfuric acid plants before being vented.
Typically, single contact acid plants achieve 92.5 to 98 percent conversion of
SC>2 to acid, with approximately 2000 parts per million S02 remaining in the acid
plant effluent gas.  Double contact acid plants collect from 98  to more than 99
percent of the SC>2 and emit about 500 parts per million S02»  Absorption of the
S02 in dimethylaniline (DMA) solution has also been used in U. S. smelters to
produce liquid S02-

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.3-5

-------
              TABLE 7.3-1.   TYPICAL SULFUR DIOXIDE  CONCENTRATIONS
                        IN  OFFGASES FROM PRIMARY  COPPER
                                SMELTING SOURCES
                   Unit
            Multiple hearth roaster
            Fluidized bed roaster
            Reverberatory furnace
            Electric arc furnace
            Flash smelting furnace
            Continuous smelting furnace
            Pierce-Smith converter
            Hoboken converter
            Single contact H2S04 plant
            Double contact ^504 plant
            S02 concentration
              (volume %)
1.5 to 3
 10 to 12
0.5 to 1.5
  4 to 8
 10 to 70
  5 to 15
  4 to 7
    8
  2 to 0.26
    0.05
              0
     Emissions from hydrometallurgical  smelting  plants  generally  are  small  in
quantity and are easily controlled.   In the Arbiter process,  ammonia  gas  escapes
from the leach reactors,  mixer/settlers,  thickeners and tanks.  For control,
all of these units are covered and  are  vented  to a packed  tower scrubber  to
recover and recycle the ammonia.

     Actual emissions from a particular smelter  unit depend upon  the  configura-
tion of equipment in that smelting  plant  and its operating parameters.  Table
7.3-2 gives the emission factors  for various smelter configurations,  and  Tables
7.3-3 through 7.3-5 and Figures 7.3-2 through 7.3-4 give size specific  emission
factors for those copper production processes, where information  is available.

7.3.3  Fugitive Emissions

       The process sources of particulate matter and S02 emission are also  the
potential fugitive sources of these emissions:  roasting, smelting, converting,
fire refining and slag cleaning.   Table 7.3-6  presents  the potential  fugitive
emission factors for these sources,  while Tables 7.3-7  through 7.3-9  and  Figures
7.3-5 through 7.3-7 present cumulative  size specific particulate  emission
factors for fugitive emissions from reverberatory furnace  matte,  slag tapping,
converter slag, and copper blow operations.  The actual quantities of emissions
from these sources depend on the type and condition of  the equipment  and  on the
smelter operating techniques.  Although emissions from  many of these  sources  are
released inside a building, ultimately  they are  discharged to the atmosphere.
                                                    i
7.3-6
EMISSION FACTORS
                            10/86

-------
           TABLE 7.3-2.   EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERSa>b

                                 EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   B
                                                 Particulate
                                                                  Sulfur dioxided
         Configuration0
                                                 References

Reverberatory furnace (RF)
followed by converters (C)
Multiple hearth roaster (MHR)
followed by reverberatory
furnace (RF) and converters (C)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by reverberatory furnace (RF)
and converters (C)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converters (C)
Fluid bed roaster (FBR) followed
by electric furnace (EF) and
converters (C)
Concentrate dryer (DC) followed
by flash furnace (FF),
cleaning furnace (SS) and
converters (C)
Concentrate dryer (CD) followed
by Noranda reactors (NR) and
converters (C)
By
unit
RF
C
MHR
RF
C
FBR
RF
C
CD
EF
C
FBR
EF
C
CD
FF
ssf
Ce
CD
NR
C
kg/Mg
25
18
22
25
18
NA
25
18
5
50
18
NA
50
18
5
70
5
NAS
5
NA
NA
Ib/ton
50
36
45
50
36
NA
50
36
10
100
36
NA
100
36
10
140
10
MAS
10
NA
NA
kg/Mg
160
370
140
90
300
180
90
270
0.5
120
410
180
45
300
0.5
410
0.5
120
0.5
NA
NA
Ib/ton
320
740
280
180
600
360
160
540
1
240
820
360
90
600
1
820
1
240
1
NA
NA

4-10,
9,11-15
4-5,16-17
4-9,18-19
8,11-13
20
e
e
21-22
15
8,11-13,15
20
15,23
e
21-22
24
22
22
21-22


  aExpressed  as units/unit weight of concentrated ore processed by the smelter.  Approximately 4
   unit  weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of blister copper.  NA - not
   available.
  ^For particulate matter removal, gaseous effluents  from roasters, smelting furnaces and
   converters  usually are treated in hot ESPs at 200  to 340°C (400 to 650°F) or In cold ESPs with
   gases cooled to about 120°C (250°F) before ESP.  Particulate emissions from copper smelters
   contain volatile metallic oxides which remain in vapor form at higher temperatures (120°C or
   250°F).  Therefore, overall particulate removal  in hot ESPs may range 20 to 80% and in cold ESPs
   may be 99%.  Converter gas effluents and,  at some  smelters, roaster gas effluents are treated in
   single contact acid plants (SCAP) or double contact acid plants (DCAP) for S02 removal.  Typical
   SCAPs are  about 96% efficient, and DCAPs are up  to 99.8% efficient in S02 removal.  They also
   remove over 99% of particulate matter.  Noranda  and flash furnace offgases are also processed
   through acid plants and are subject to the same  collection efficiencies as cited for
   converters  and some roasters.
  cln addition to sources indicated, each smelter configuration contains fire refining anode
   furnaces after the converters.  Anode furnaces emit negligible SOj.  No particulate emission
   data  are available for anode furnaces.
  ^Factors for all configurations except reverberatory furnace followed by converters have been
   developed  by normalizing test data for several smelters to represent 30% sulfur content In
   concentrated ore.
  eBased on the test data for the configuration multiple hearth roaster followed by reverberatory
   furnace and converters.
  fused  to recover copper from furnace slag and converter slag.
  gSince converters at flash furnace and Noranda furnace smelters treat high copper content matte,
   converter  particulate emissions fron flash furnace smelters are expected to be lower
   than  those from conventional smelters with multiple hearth roasters, reverberatory furnace and
   converters.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.3-7

-------
  TABLE 7.3-3.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC  EMISSION FACTORS
       FOR MULTIPLE HEARTH ROASTER AND REVERBERATORY SMELTER  OPERATIONS3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D


Particle
size** (urn)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
aReference 25
Cumulative mass %
< stated size Cumulative emission
Uncontrolled ESP Uncontrolled ESP

factors
controlled0
controlled Kg/Mg Ib/ton Kg/Mg Ib/ton
100 100 47 95 0.
100 99 47 94 0.
100 98 47 93 0.
97 84 46 80 0.
66 76 31 72 0.
25 62 12 59 0.
100 100 47 95 0.
. Expressed as units/unit weight of concentrated ore
47 0.95
47 0.94
46 0.93
40 0.80
36 0.72
29 0.59
47 0.95
processed
by the smelter.
^Expressed as
aerodynamic equivalent diameter.

cNominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.























50
•J \J
a>
i —
o
o
o
c
3
f 30
Ol
_^
" —
S-
0
S 20
f&
it-
CD
•1 —

-------
  TABLE 7.3-4.
 PARTICLE  SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE  SPECIFIC  EMISSION FACTORS
      FOR  REVERBERATORY SMELTER OPERATIONSA


             EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
                   Cumulative mass %
                     <  stated size
                                  Cumulative  emission factors
Particle Uncontrolled ESP
sizeb (um)
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625

NR
27
23
21
16
9
controlled
83
78
69
56
40
32
Uncontrolled
Kg/Mg
NR
6.8
5.8
5.3
4.0
2.3
Ib/ton
NR
13.6
11.6
10.6
8.0
4.6
ESP controlled0
Kg/Mg
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.08
Ib/ton
0.42
0.40
0.36
0.28
0.20
0.16
  Total
    100
100
25
50
0.25
0.50
aReference 25.   Expressed as units/unit weight of  concentrated ore processed
 by the smelter.   NR =  not reported because of excessive extrapolation.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
°Nominal particulate removal efficiency is 99%.
          •-o 4
            1_
               J_
                          _L
                                    _L
                                              _L
                                                        _L
                                                                   0.24
                                                                   0.20
                                                                   0.16
                                                                   0.12
                                                                   0.08
                                                                   0.04
                                                         m tn
                                                         u~> ->•
                                                         -o o
                                                          3
                                                         £->
                                                         o -n
                                                         Z3 Qi
                                                         r+ n
                                                         T n-
                                                         o o
                                                         —i -5

                                                         ID ""~-
               0.625
                         1.25
                                                        10
                                                              15
                     2.5        5

                  Particle Size (pm)

Figure 7.3-3.   Size  specific emission factors for

                reverberatory smelting.
10/86
              Metallurgical Industry
                                           7.3-9

-------
  TABLE 7.3-5.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
                        FOR COPPER CONVERTER OPERATIONS3


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
                  Cumulative mass %
                    < stated size
                Cumulative emission factors
Particle Uncontrolled ESP
size"3 (urn) controlled
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
NR
59
32
12
3
1
100
100
99
72
56
42
30
100
Uncontrolled
Kg/Mg
NR
10.6
5.8
2.2
0.5
0.2
18
Ib/ton
NR
21.2
11.5
4.3
1.1
0.4
36
ESP controlled0
Kg/Mg
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.18
Ib/ton
0.36
0.36
0.26
0.20
0.15
0.11
0.36
aReference 25.  Expressed as units/unit weight  of  concentrated ore processed
 by the smelter.  NR = not reported because  of  excessive extrapolation.
^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
cNominal particulate removal efficiency is 99 %.
                 12.0 _
                 9.0
             Ol


             Dl
               «  6.0
             O •—
             +J O
             O S-
               O
               (J
                  3.0
                  0.0
                                                       I
                                                          0.20
                          0-15
                                                               O
                                                               o
                                                                 O
                                                                 3
                                                               3?
                                                               rD
                                                               o.
                                                          0.10
                                                          0.05
                                                                40

                                                                 3
                                                                tQ
                     0.625    1.25   2.50      6.0  10.0  15.0

                               Particle Size (ym)

      Figure 7.3-4.  Size specific emission factors  for copper converting.
7.3-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
       Fugitive emissions are generated during the discharge and transfer of
hot calcine from multiple hearth roasters, with negligible amounts possible
from the charging of these roasters.  Fluid bed roasting, a closed loop opera-
tion, has negligible fugitive emissions.

       Matte tapping and slag skimming operations are sources of fugitive
emissions from smelting furnaces.  Fugitive emissions can also result from
charging of a smelting furnace or from leaks, depending upon the furnace type
and condition.  A typical single matte tapping operation lasts from 5 to 10
minutes and a single slag skimming operation lasts from 10 to 20 minutes.
Tapping frequencies vary with furnace capacity and type.  In an 8 hour shift,
matte is tapped 5 to 20 times, and slag is skimmed 10 to 25 times.

       Each of the various stages of converter operation - the charging, blow-
ing, slag skimming, blister pouring, and holding - is a potential source of
fugitive emissions.  During blowing, the converter mouth is in stack (i. e., a
close fitting primary hood is over the mouth to capture offgases).  Fugitive
emissions escape from the hoods.  During charging, skimming and pouring opera-
tions, the converter mouth is out of stack (i. e., the converter mouth is
rolled out of its vertical position, and the primary hood is isolated).
Fugitive emissions are discharged during rollout.
      TABLE 7.3-6.  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
                                   Particulate                S02
     Source of emission
                                  kg/Mg   Ib/ton         kg/Mg   Ib/ton
Roaster calcine discharge
Smelting furnace^
Converter
Converter slag return
Anode furnace
Slag cleaning furnace0
1
0
2
NA
0
4
.3
.2
.2

.25

2.
0.
4.
NA
0.
8
6
4
4

5

0
2
65
0
0
3
.5


.05
.05

1
4
130
0
0
6



.1
.1

  References 16,22,25-32.  Expressed as mass units/unit weight of
   concentrated ore processed by the smelter.  Approximately 4 unit weights of
   concentrate are required to produce 1 unit weight of copper metal.   Factors
   for flash furnace smelters and Noranda furnace smelters may be lower than
   reported values.  NA = not available.
  "Includes fugitive emissions from matte tapping and slag skimming operations,
   About 50% of fugitive particulate emissions and about 90% of total  S02 emis-
   sions are from matte tapping operations, with remainder from slag skimming.
  cUsed to treat slags from smelting furnaces and converters at the flash
   furnace smelter.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.3-11

-------
  TABLE 7.3-7.  UNCONTROLLED PARTICLE SIZE AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
  FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle size^
(urn)

15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
Cumulative mass %
< stated size

76
74
72
69
67
65
100
Cumulative emission factors


kg/Mg
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.069
0.067
0.065
0.100


Ib/ton
0.152
0.148
0.144
0.138
0.134
0.130
0.200
  aReference 25.  Expressed as units/unit weight of concentrated ore
   processed by the smelter.
  ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
               T3
               QJ
               O
               O
               LO
               l/l
                  0.080
                  0.075
                  0.070
                  0.065
                          I
 I
I
I
                       0.625    1.25   2.50      6.0   10.0  15.0

                                   Particle  size  (pm)

           Figure 7.3-5.   Size specific fugitive emission factors for
                          reverberatory furnace matte tapping operations.
7.3-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                                  10/86

-------
  TABLE 7.3-8.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
   FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACE SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
    Particle size^
        (urn)
Cumulative mass %
  < stated size
Cumulative emission factors

     kg/Mg      Ib/ton
15
10
5
2.5
1.25
0.625
Total
33
28
25
22
20
17
100
0.033
0.028
0.025
0.022
0.020
0.017
0.100
0.066
0.056
0.050
0.044
0.040
0.034
0.200
  aReference 25.  Expressed as units/unit weight of concentrated ore
   processed by the smelter.
  "Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
                ^   0.035
                O)

                o

                §   0.030
                 l/l
                 l/l
                    0.025
                    0.020
                     0.015
                                                  _L
                               J	L
         1.25   2.50     6.0  10.0 15.0
            Particle size
           Figure 7.3-6
                         0.625
   Size  specific  fugitive  emission factors for
   reverberatory  furnace slag tapping operations.
10/86
     Metallurgical  Industry
                        7.3-13

-------
  TABLE 7.3-9.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
     FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM CONVERTER SLAG AND COPPER BLOW OPERATIONS21

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
    Particle size^
  Cumulative mass
       Cumulative emission factors
^ U.U1 J \ 0 l_ d U CU O J. £, C
15 98
10 96
5 87
2.5 60
1.25 47
0.625 38
Total 100
kg/Mg
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
2.2
Ib/ton
4.3
4.2
3.8
2.6
2.1
1.7
4.4
  aReference 25.  Expressed as units/unit weight of concentrated ore
   processed by the smelter.
  ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
                     2.5
                     2.0
                 cr>

                 en
                 S- O)
                3^  1.5
                 0 O
                 03 i-
                 c: o
                 o o
                 1/1
                 C/l
1.0
                     0.5
           Figure 7.3-7,
                           I
             I
I
I
I
    0.625   1.25  2.50     6.0 10.0 15.0

             Particle size (/jm)

     Size specific fugitive  emission factors  for
     converter  slag  and copper blow operations.
7.3-14
           EMISSION FACTORS
                                  10/86

-------
     At times during normal smelting operations, slag or blister copper can not
be transferred immediately from or to the converters.  This condition,  holding
stage, may occur for several reasons, including insufficient matte in the
smelting furnace, the unavailability of a crane, and others.  Under these
conditions, the converter is rolled out of its vertical position and remains in
a holding position and fugitive emissions may result.

7.3.4  Lead Emissions

    At primary copper smelters, both process emissions and fugitive particulate
from various pieces of equipment contain oxides of many inorganic elements,
including lead.  The lead content of particulate emissions depends upon both
the lead content of the smelter feed and the process offgas temperature.  Lead
emissions are effectively removed in particulate control systems operating at
low temperatures, about 120°C (250°F).

     Table 7.3-10 presents process and fugitive lead emission factors for
various operations of primary copper smelters.


       TABLE 7.3-10.  LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Operation

Roasting
Smelting
Converting
Refining
Emission
kg/Mg
0.075
0.036
0.13
NA
factorb
Ib/ton
0.15
0.072
0.27
NA
     aReference 33.  Expressed as units/unit weight of concentrated ore
      processed by smelter.  Approximately four unit weights of concentrate
      are required to produce one unit weight of copper metal.   Based on
      test data for several smelters with 0.1 to 0.4 % lead in feed
      throughput.  NA = not available.
     "For process and fugitive emissions totals.
     cBased on test data on multihearth roasters.  Includes total of
      process emissions and calcine transfer fugutive emissions.  The
      latter are about 10% of total process and fugitive emissions.
     ^Based on test data on reverberatory furnaces.  Includes total
      process emissions and fugitive emissions from matte tapping and
      slag skimming operations.  Fugitive emissions from matte tapping
      and slag skimming operations amount to about 35% and 2%,  respectively.
     elncludes total of process and fugitive emissions.  Fugitives
      constitute about 50% of total.

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.3-15

-------
     Fugitive emissions from primary copper smelters are captured  by  applying
either local ventilation or general  ventilation techniques.   Once  captured,
emissions may be vented directly to  a collection device or be combined with
process offgases before collection.   Close fitting  exhaust hood  capture systems
are used for multiple hearth roasters and hood ventilation systems for smelt
matte tapping and slag skimming operations.  For converters,  secondary hood
systems or building evacuation systems are used.


References for Section 7.3

 1.  Background Information for New  Source Performance Standards;   Primary
     Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters, Volume I, Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-
     74-002a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, October 1974.

 2.  Arsenic Emissions from Primary  Copper Smelters - Background Information
     for Proposed Standards, Preliminary Draft, EPA Contract  No. 68-02-3060,
     Pacific Environmental Services, Durham, NC, February 1981.

 3.  Background Information Document for Revision of New Source  Performance
     Standards for Primary Copper Smelters, EPA Contract No.  68-02-3056,
     Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 31, 1982.

 4.  Air Pollution Emission Test; Asarco Copper Smelter, El Paso,  TX,
     EMB-77-CUS-6, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June  1977.

 5.  Written communications from W.  F. Cummins, Inc., El Paso, TX, to A.  E.
     Vervaert, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, June 1977.

 6.  AP-42 Background Files, Office  Of Air Quality  Planning And  Standards,
     U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March
     1978.

 7.  Source Emissions Survey of Kennecott Copper Corporation, Copper  Smelter
     Converter Stack Inlet and Outlet and Reverberatory Electrostatic Precipi-
     tator Inlet and Outlet, Hurley, NM, EA-735-09, Ecology Audits, Inc.,
     Dallas, TX, April 1973.

 8.  Trace Element Study at a Primary Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-78-065a and
     065b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     March 1978.

 9.  Systems Study for Control of Emissions, Primary Nonferrous  Smelting
     Industry, Volume II;  Appendices A and B, PB 184885, National Technical
     Information Service, Springfield, VA, June 1969.

10.  Design and Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies: White Pine
     Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, February 1976.
7.3-16                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
11.  R. M. Statnick, Measurements of Sulfur Dioxide,  Partlculate and Trace
     Elements in Copper Smelter Converter and Roaster/Reverberatory Gas Streams,
     PB 238095, National Technical Information Service,  Springfield,VA, October
     1974.

12.  AP-42 Background Files, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC.

13.  Design and Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies,  Kennecott-
     McGill Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036c, U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, February 1976.

14.  Emission Test Report (Acid Plant) of Phelps Dodge Copper  Smelter,  Ajo, AZ,
     EMB-78-CUS-11, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, March 1979.

15.  S. Dayton, "Inspiration's Design for Clean Air", Engineering and Mining
     Journal, 175:6, June 1974.

16.  Emission Testing of Asarco Copper Smelter, Tacoma,  WA, EMB-78-CUS-12,
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1979.

17.  Written communication from A. L. Labbe, Asarco,  Inc.,  Tacoma,  WA,  to S. T.
     Cuffe, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     November 20, 1978.

18.  Design and Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies:  Asarco-Hayden
     Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036j, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Washington, DC, February 1976.

19.  Design and Operating Parameters for Emission Control Studies;  Kennecott,
     Hayden Copper Smelter, EPA-600/2-76-036b, U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, February 1976.

20.  R. Larkin, Arsenic Emissions at Kennecott Copper Corporation,  Hayden, AZ,
     EPA-76-NFS-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
     Park, NC, May 1977.

21.  Emission Compliance Status, Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company,
     Inspiration, AZ, U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency, San Francisco,  CA,
     1980.

22.  Written communication from M. P. Scanlon, Phelps Dodge Corporation,
     Hidalgo, AZ, to D. R. Goodwin, U. S. Environmenal Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, October 18, 1978.

23.  Written communication from G. M. McArthur, The Anaconda Company, to  D.  R.
     Goodwin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,
     NC, June 2, 1977.

24.  Telephone communication from V. Katari, Pacific  Environmental  Services,
     Durham, NC, to R. Winslow, Hidalgo Smelter,  Phelps  Dodge  Corporation,
     Hidalgo, AZ, April 1, 1982.

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.3-17

-------
25.  Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report  for  the  Nonferrous  Industry,
     Contract 68-02-3159,  Acurex Corp.,  Mountain View,  CA, August  1986.

26.  Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge  Copper  Smelter,  Douglas, AZ,  EMB-78-
     CUS-8, Office Of Air  Quality Planning And  Standards,  U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  February  1979.

27.  Emission Testing of Kennecott Copper Smelter, Magna,  UT, EMB-78-CUS-13,
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards, U.  S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, April  1979.

28.  Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge  Copper  Smelter,  Ajo,  AZ, EMB-78-CUS-9,
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards, U.  S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, February 1979.

29.  Written communication from R. D.  Putnam, Asarco,  Inc., to M.  0.  Varner,
     Asarco, Inc., Salt  Lake City, UT, May 12,  1980.

30.  Emission Test Report, Phelps Dodge  Copper  Smelter,  Playas, NM, EMB-78-
     CUS-10, Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  March  1979.

31.  Asarco Copper Smelter, El  Paso, TX, EMB-78-CUS-7', Office Of Air  Quality
     Planning And  Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC,  April 25, 1978.

32.  A. D. Church, et al., "Measurement  of Fugitive  Particulate and Sulfur
     Dioxide Emissions at  Inco's Copper  Cliff Smelter",  Paper A-79-51, The
     Metallurgical Society, American Institute  of  Mining,  Metallurgical  and
     Petroleum Engineers (AIME), New York, NY.

33.  Copper Smelters, Emission Test Report - Lead  Emissions,  EMB-79-CUS-14,
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards, U.  S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, September 1979.
7.3-18                         EMISSION FACTORS                           10/86

-------
7.4  FERROALLY PRODUCTION

7.4.1  General

     A ferroalloy is an alloy of iron and one or more other elements,  such as
silicon, manganese or chromium.  Ferroalloys are used as additives to  impart
unique properties to steel and cast iron.  The iron and steel  industry consumes
approximately 95 percent of the ferroalloy produced in the United States.   The
remaining 5 percent is used in the production of nonferrous alloys,  including
cast aluminum, nickel/cobalt base alloys, titanium alloys, and in making other
ferroalloys.

     Three major groups, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, and ferrochrome,  con-
stitute approximately 85 percent of domestic production.  Subgroups  of these
alloys include siliconmanganese, sil'i^on metal and ferrochromium.  The variety
of grades manufactured is distinguished primarily by carbon,  silicon or aluminum
content.  The remaining 15 percent >of ferroalloy production is specialty alloys,
typically produced in small amounts and containing elements such as  vanadium,
columbium, molybdenum, nickel, boron, aluminum and tungsten.

     Ferroalloy facilities in the United States vary greatly  in size.   Many
facilities have only one furnace and require less than 25 megawatts.  Others
consist of 16 furnaces, produce six different types of ferroalloys,  and require
over 75 megawatts of electricity.

     A typical ferroalloy plant is illustrated in Figure 7.4-1.  A variety of
furnace types produces ferroalloys, including submerged electric arc furnaces,
induction furnaces, vacuum furnaces, exothermic reaction furnaces and  elec-
trolytic cells.  Furnace descriptions and their ferroalloy products  are given
in Table 7.4-1.  Ninety-five percent of all ferroalloys, including all bulk
ferroalloys, are produced in submerged electric arc furnaces,  and it is  the
furnace type principally discussed here.

     The basic design of submerged electric arc furnaces is generally  the same
throughout the ferroalloy industry in the United States.  The submerged elec-
tric arc furnace comprises a cylindrical steel shell with a flat bottom or
hearth.  The interior of the shell is lined with two or more  layers  of carbon
blocks.  Raw materials are charged through feed chutes from above the  furnace.
The molten metal and slag are removed through one or more tapholes extending
through the furnace shell at the hearth level.  Three carbon  electrodes,
arranged in a delta formation, extend downward through the charge material  to
a depth of 3 to 5 feet to melt the charge.

     Submerged electric arc furnaces are of two basic types,  open and  covered.
About 80 percent of submerged electric arc furnaces in the United States are  of
the open type.  Open furnaces have a fume collection hood at  least one meter
above the top of the furnace.  Moveable panels or screens sometimes  are  used  to
reduce the open area between the furnace and hood to improve  emissions capture


10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.4-1

-------
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      ex

                                                                                      d
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      03
                                                                                     •H
                                                                                      s
                                                                                      o
                                                                                     J3
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                      cu
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      l-l
                                                                                      a.

                                                                                      c
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      3
                                                                                     -o
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      (-1
                                                                                      ex
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      Jj
                                                                                      (0
                                                                                      y
                                                                                      ex
                                                                                      >%
                                                                                     H
                                                                                     I—


                                                                                     CU
                                                                                     bO
                                                                                     •H
7.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
30.  J. M. Kane, "Equipment For Cupola Control", American Foundryman's Society
     Transactions, £4:525-531, 1956.

31.  Control Techniques For Lead Air Emissions, 2 Volumes, EPA-450/2-77-012,  U.
     S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, December
     1977.

32.  W. E. Davis, Emissions Study Of Industrial Sources Of Lead Air Pollutants,
     1970, APTD-1543, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park, NC, April 1973.

33.  Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-27, Office Of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
     dards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     February 1972.

34.  Emission Test No. EMB-71-CI-30, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Stan-
     dards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,
     March 1972.

35.  John Zoller, et al., Assessment Of Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors
     For Industrial Processes, EPA-450/3-78-107, U.  S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1978.

36.  J. Jeffery, et al., Inhalable Particulate Source Category Report For The
     Gray Iron Foundry Industry, TR-83-15-G,  EPA Contract No. 68-02-3157, GCA
     Corporation, Bedford, MA, July 1986.
10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                      7.10-21

-------
        TABLE  7.4-1.  FERROALLOY PROCESSES AND RESPECTIVE PRODUCT GROUPS
               Process
  Submerged  arc  furnace3
 Exothermic^1
    Silicon  reduction
   Aluminum  reduction


   Mixed aluminothermal/
     silicothermal

 Electrolyticc

 Vacuum furnace^

 Induction furnace6
                         Product
          Silvery  iron  (15 -  22% Si)
          Ferrosilicon  (50% Si)
          Ferrosilicon  (65 -  75% Si)
          Silicon  metal
          Silicon/manganese/zirconium  (SMZ)
          High  carbon (HC) ferromanganese
          Si1i conmanganes e
          HC ferrochrome
          Ferrochrome/silicon
          FeSi  (90% Si)
         Low  carbon  (LC) ferrochrome, LC
            ferromanganese, Medium carbon (MC)
            ferromanganese
         Chromium metal, FerrotItanium,
            Ferrocolumbium, Ferrovanadium
         Ferromolybdenum, Ferrotungsten

         Chromium metal, Manganese metal

         LC ferrochrome

         Ferrotitanium
aProcess by which metal is smelted in a refractory lined cup shaped steel
 shell by three submerged graphite electrodes.
"Process by which molten charge material is reduced, in exthermic reaction,
 by addition of silicon, aluminum or combination of the two.
cProcess by which simple ions of a metal, usually chromium or manganese
 in an electrolyte, are plated on cathodes by direct low voltage current.
^Process by which carbon is removed from so!4d state high carbon
 ferrochrome within vacuum furnaces maintained at temperature near melting
 point of alloy.
eProcess which converts electrical energy without electrodes into heat,
 without electrodes, to melt metal charge in a cup or drum shaped vessel.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                                                                         7.4-3

-------
efficiency.  Covered furnaces have a water cooled steel  cover to seal  the top,
with holes through it for the electrodes.   The degree of emission containment
provided by the covers is quite variable.   Air infiltration sometimes  is reduced
by placing charge material around the electrode holes.  This type is called a
mix seal or semienclosed furnace.  Another type is a sealed or totally closed
furnace having mechanical seals around the electrodes and a sealing compound
packed around the cover edges.

     The submerged arc process is a reduction smelting operation.  The reactants
consist of metallic ores and quartz (ferrous oxides, silicon oxides, manganese
oxides, chrome oxides, etc.).  Carbon, usually as coke,  low volatility coal or
wood chips, is charged to the furnace as a reducing agent.  Limestone  also may
be added as a flux material.  After crushing, sizing, and in some cases, dry-
ing, the raw materials are conveyed to a mix house for weighing and blending,
thence by conveyors, buckets, skip hoists, or cars to hoppers above the furnace.
The mix is then fed by gravity through a feed chute either continuously or
intermittently, as needed.  At high temperatures in the reaction zone  the car-
bon sources react chemically with oxygen in the metal oxides to form carbon mon-
oxide and to reduce the ores to base metal.  A typical reaction, illustrating 50
percent ferrosilicon production, is:

                       Fe2C>3 + 2 Si02 + 7C -»• 2 FeSi + 7CO.

     Smelting in an electric arc furnace is accomplished by conversion of
electrical energy to heat.  An alternating current applied to the electrodes
causes a current flow through the charge between the electrode tips.  This
provides a reaction zone of temperatures up to 2000°C (3632°F).  The tip of
each electrode changes polarity continuously as the alternating current flows
between the tips.  To maintain a uniform electric load,  electrode depth is con-
tinuously varied automatically by mechanical or hydraulic means, as required.
Furnace power requirements vary from 7 megawatts to over 50 megawatts, depending
upon the furnace size and the product being made.  The average is 17.2 mega-
watts^".  Electrical requirements for the most common ferroalloys are given in
Table 7.4-2.
       TABLE 7.4-2.  FURNACE POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT FERROALLOYS


Product

50% FeSi
Silicon metal
High carbon FeMn
High carbon FeCr
SiMn
Furnace load
(kw-hr/lb alloy produced)
Range

2.4 - 2.5
6.0 - 8.0
1.0 - 1.2
2.0 - 2.2
2.0 - 2.3
Approximate
average
2.5
7.0
1.2
2.1
2.2
                                                                                  i
7.4-4
EMISSION FACTORS
                                         10/86

-------
     The molten alloy and slag that accumulate on the furnce hearth are removed
at 1 to 5 hour intervals through the taphole.  Tapping typically lasts 10 to 15
minutes.  Tapholes are opened with a pellet shot from a gun, by drilling or by
oxygen lancing.  The molten metal and slag flow from the taphole into a carbon
lined trough, then into a carbon lined runner which directs the metal and slag
into a reaction ladle, ingot molds, or chills.  Chills are low flat iron or
steel pans that provide rapid cooling of the molten metal.  Tapping is termin-
ated and the furnace resealed by inserting a carbon paste plug into the taphole.

     When chemistry adjustments after furnace smelting are necessary to produce
a specified product, a reaction ladle is used.  Ladle treatment reactions are
batch processes and may include chlorination, oxidation, gas mixing, and slag-
metal reactions.

     During tapping, and/or in the reaction ladle, slag is skimmed from the
surface of the molten metal.  It can be disposed of in landfills, sold as road
ballast, or used as a raw material in a furnace or reaction ladle to produce a
chemically related ferroalloy product.

     After cooling and solidifying, the large ferroalloy castings are broken
with drop weights or hammers.  The broken ferroalloy pieces are then crushed,
screened (sized) and stored in bins until shipment.

7.4.2  Emissions And Controls

     Particulate is generated from several activities at a ferroalloy facility,
including raw material handling, smelting and product handling.  The furnaces
are the largest potential sources of particulate emissions.  The emission fac-
tors in Tables 7.4-3 and 7.4-4 and the particle size information in Figures
7.4-2 through 7.4-11 reflect controlled and uncontrolled emissions from ferro-
alloy smelting furnaces.  Emission factors for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide
and organic emissions are presented in Table 7.4-5.

     Electric arc furnaces emit particulate in the form of fume, accounting for
an estimated 94 percent of the particulate emissions in the ferroalloy industry.
Large amounts of carbon monoxide and organic materials also are emitted by sub-
merged electric arc furnaces.  Carbon monoxide is formed as a byproduct of the
chemical reaction between oxygen in the metal oxides of the charge and carbon
contained in the reducing agent (coke, coal, etc.).  Reduction gases containing
organic compounds and carbon monoxide continuously rise from the high temper-
ature reaction zone, entraining fine particles and fume precursors.  The mass
weight of carbon monoxide produced sometimes exceeds that of the metallic
product (see Table 7.4-5).  The chemical constituents of the heat induced fume
consist of oxides of the products being produced, carbon from the reducing
agent, and enrichment by SiC^, CaO and MgO, if present in the charge. "

     In an open electric arc furnace, all carbon monoxide burns with induced
air at the furnace top.  The remaining fume, captured by hooding about 1 meter
above the furnace, is directed to a gas cleaning device.  Baghouses are used to
control emissions from 85 percent of the open furnaces in the United States.
 10/86                       Metallurgical  Industry                       7.4-5

-------
       cfl
       W3
       W
       s
       w
       fc
       u
       n
       w
       01
       w
       I
       o
       M
       H
       O-i
       O
       H
       O
       M
       crt
       CO
       I
       PQ
c
0 hi M
^ 0 ff
09 U w
OS
V

01 «
N U
tO -O
_£
L
•5
2
C
u tv
*
o
C 0
0 u
U --.
5 o1
5 jf
u
1
o
I
c
0 b go
•H O C
* U 4J
3"
w
u
18
41 IB


M -0
2 i
0 ^
5
4) M
£
c *-,
o c
u o
C 4-1
a ^*^
£ 0
J?
a*
u «
C X
1- 4J
3
Cb
U
3

IM
a.




•9 U U (H
• * T "7


01
-
"^ "7 *"• "t
0 0 — —

CM O »•*• If*
o o o o

<*"* 00 *~* I"—.
00 •» O O
— O * 00

ffv OI tA O
o o •* ^

BO >* X
Stf 2?
C 41 41
CD 4> 41 41 0>
3 .0 J ^
JiJ? •§ I
U I. X J b J
(0 O U
oe M tn



OB W W U U

M
**" *7
"•= •*•= «

eo a
0> 4)

sB O en evi *A
sf  PJ
M O O O
ao
r*% -ff o
r«j O e^> -*
— o o o

S 5 * -
v_ o — 0

CM ao CM

ff »
0) 41
e c
4) 4* t- 01 01
89 V) V
y 3 j: -J= x
o o .e bo bo
^ £ 3 -H ^
bo M p x x
a) < u
03 SC V5



as eo w w


D. ki 4- >
C v £3

OS U)
0> 41
S" >*
r^ — tn en
w •*
^ "* ^ ^


esi oo  j ^^

— M ^

00 « I
•s
c c .-*
« 01 a



JS O
^~*' *£
5 8 1

bi en
7.4-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
W
H
O
£5
4-1
C
o
CJ


ro
1



^

td
W
O
H































efore and after control device. Where other emissions
separately, such is noted. Particulate sources not
; and product crushing, screening, handling, packaging
ct.
ed or collected. Where tapping emissions are
otal emissions could not be determined. Fugitive
e and collection system design and operating practices
high energy, with A P >20 in. HjO.
stimated near 100%).
JD E 3 IH 4-> CJ 01
t) O T3 3 CO ••
fCUinOenOEOx
4-iUntocXCU 3SB
CO TH IH E E UH CU
X 4J CO E O « TH
CCECX1H4JTHJ2ECJ
10 CU O 4J 4-1 TH TH
B3fH4-lB3*fH UH
otrexE ,oso»4H
TH 0) CO TH CM 01
4_i|H - E E IH « V ^
cj o oi cu o 4J en
CU bOrHTHECUPHT)
rHTJCOCUeOOCJ O
rncuiH encjlH4JB CX
T3 CT f-H TH O 4) d.
OITHC04-I >ECOCO
CUtHrH THECOO4J
o to T3 B bo 5i jr
tO E*fH34-IX4h!X
E .CdCOUHCOrH &
>H bp JC E X 4J 0)
3 cf • en to IH TS
UHVHrHOIbO OICOOI
ex to j= e x IH H
E CXTH4-lTHfHbOCO 3
TH CO IH 4J to IH 4J
C04JOIUHCOEXCUCX
E 4-lOOlTHlHJ3CO
IH CO 4J IH tO JO CJ
IH o e cu ex > 3
O IH CU IH CO
UHcn^cooxxoeu
^ S3 IH j2 cfl co E
0) « IH 10 3 E 3
f-i eu o) o T3 x UH
tOrH.. bocooicnbo
COinCU4H4JrHOCUCU
HcO*rjBcoOTHE *O
O 30IOIHCOCU3
4Jj^rHCJE4JCO f-H
UUCJrl EfH^O
(K 0! TH Cu I-H U S_]rH
CO ^ y ^5 flJ v

t included. Fugitive emissions at one source
hr.
o S
E SE
CO bO
E j*
O
TH r-^
cn «
eo CM
TH
§H
o

CU -
TH O
4-1 rH
•H rH
bO to
3
UH bO
jg
eo bo
CU j»!
u
IH in
3 •
0 O
CO -H
CO rH
. CO
rH UH E
CM O O
TH
» CU 4-1
O bO TH
rH « T3
(H -0
« 01 CO

CO E
eo CO
01 CO
CJ TH TJ
B 5
QJ .U M
i-" o o
 CU CU
U 4-1 U CJ
E O E E
0) E 0) 0)
IH IH IH
01 CO CU CU
UH O> UH UH
cu o cu cu
a: o cxi o<
E i-,Ji E

1 system (escaped fugitive emissions not
o
4J
O
u

X
r*

•O
CU
IH
3
CX
CO
CJ

CO
o
TH
en
TH

oi

cP
TH
ex
a •
CO s~\
4J rl
O
n , ^t
O 0
CO
^ UH
O

TH

4J OJ
CO T3
E 3
TH t-H
4J U
CD C
W TH
B

1 system (escaped fugitive emissions not
o
IH
4J
O
CJ

X
JD

frj
CU
H
3
4J
a
to
o

CD
E
O
TH
CO
en
TH



E°
TH
a
a .
CO s~\
. 4J H
cn o
^H UH 4-1
0 0
CO
O *« UH
rH O
in E
CO TH
01 T3
CJ 0) T3
B 4-1 0)
0) to •«
IH E 3
CU TH rH
UH 4-1 CJ
CU CO B
« W TH
a cr

ssions. Fugitive emissions measured at 33% of total
TH
1
01
>
. TH
§4-1
TH
4-i bo
co 3
XUH
eo

rH CO
O 0)
IH rH
4-1
E rH
O CO
CJ CU
CO
IH K
CO -in
E E
TH
H -O
CX B
CO
§.
CO CO
. H 01 B
CM UH E O
f-H 3 TH
XUH en
• f-H CO
0 B bC-H
-HOBS
TH CU
• cu ex
-» B CXT3
3 CO CU
CO UH 4-1 rH
CU i-H
O CO CO O
E CU 01 IH
01 T3 T3 4J
H 3 3 6
CU rH rH O
UH O CJ CJ
CU E C E
ex; M M 3
H CO 4-1


(-1
O
4-1
U
efl
UH

B
O
TH
CO
CO
TH
£3
0)
c
TH

1

3
rH •
O to
E 4J
TH CO

4J
E !S

en II
CU

3 en

*»Q
j-f
n .
cx-»
CX-H
CO
4-1 CU
CJ
CO C
cu cu
E IH
3 01
CD UH
CO 01
3 >

o test series performed on the same furnace 7
36% less than in former.
JJ
4-1 O>
IH
§ 3
IH
• UH 4-1
en co
E T3 01
O 01 4J
TH O.
CO O rl
CO i-H CU
•H 01 4-1
§> 4-1
01 CO
T3 f^
01
> H B
TH O TH
4J 4-1
TH CJ CO
00 CO E
UH TH
CO
lH.cn
O T3 TH
0) E
bp T3 CU
TH rH T3
CX CJ 01
CX B IH
CO TH 3
4H CO
CD CO
0) E CU
'O O f
S TH
rH CO
O CD •
E TH 4-1
TH E I-1
53 to
4-1 CX
O bo CO
E e
TH CO
cn a IH
cu ex co
o to cu
D H X
5 X





























•
f^.
i-H
1
2

«
CN

CO
01
CJ
01
IH
cu
UH
OI
DC


ource included fugitive emissions (3.4% of total
determine if fugitive emissions were included
CD O
CU
0 B
cu
4J TH
CO U
TH
cn UH
4-1 UH
cn 3
CU CD
H B
TH
• 4-1
CD CO
0)  T3
CO 01
rH
CO I-H •
TH O rH
IH CO
H 4H 4J
O E O
4J O 4-1
CJ CJ
WEE
S3

4-1
CO
H
CU
J=
4J
O
cu
o"
CM
SB
m
1
II 0
CLi fH
CO
< I?
4-1 bO
CO ^
0) .
4-1 CN
CO
IH 01
QJ H
cx rt
O
CO
CU 6
E O
O TH
CO
• co
eo TH
01 E
cj S
IH
3 co
0 6
0) O
TH
•a 4-1
01 to
. ^._|
i-H 01
o cx
IH O
4J
§ SP
CJ TH
CX
IH CX
CU 0)
JO 4J
JQ
U CU
O rH
CD f-H
O
O IH
!$ 4J
4j rj
Cj
E cj
O B
. IH S

i-H
1 t) •
oc cu a,
-H CX
o
-rH <
CM CU

CO CU CU
0) -0 TH
O UH
E CO TH
0) IH CJ
IH O CU
OJ | ' fv
UH cj in
cu co E
Oi fc 3
m ja
tO JS
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                                                                          7.4-7

-------
cw
w
O
§
1-4
g
Q
w
o
04
W
CO

g
CO
a;
O
H
C/3
M


W


O
cw

u

M
05


 •


 I

 •
r--




CQ












CO M
CO O
Cfl 4-1

rt( I. .

n C
4-1 O
CO H
r*H CO
3 CO
B i-i
3 §



































t-i
o
4-J
0
CO
* g,
C T-l
O 4J
•H CO
co 04
CO
n
s
w
^
c
o
4J
^^*
r-l O
^X f— 1
I— (
bp ea
35
5
CO  Q)
•iH 4—1
4-1 CO
rt CO
6 vl
3
CO
01
N
CO

rH B
u a
•H ^^^
1 1
CO
n OJ
o o
(-1 -r-

C 0)
O 13
U



4-1
O
3
•a
o

PH







PQ PO PQ






^^^



v-' v--

oo in co CT* ^* in CN r*"- o
(Nco-*>a-invoi^r^
vootNincooo voccNinoooo >*
O-H— icsvoomo O'-H— icM'jsomo o
-H ~H CVI ^-1 —1 CM

01
O CO MH
.3
,fi 0 01
01 42 Ol
C Qfl C
O CO O
m
 ai
o o o o*
m oo














co LO r*1** ^^ ""^ ViO r**^ oo
i— H i-H r-H CN CN CN CN CN




f"^ C30 0s* CO CN C^ -^ *>3"
,_( i-H *— I i-H r-H




vOCNCNCN^vOt^O
*v^ to ViD r**« oo CJN cyv ^^





O iA O O O O O
o CN m o o o o
^H i— I cvl \D O m O
i— I — < CM




















                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                -a
                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 o
      7.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                          10/86

-------
c
o
o
r^

ta











CO &-)
CO O
CO 4-1
E: cj
CO
>
•H C
4-> O
tO -H
rH CO
3 cfl
•J £
O CU







































o
4-J
o
CO
C -H
O 4->
•H tfl
CO Pd
CO
•H
e
w

'c1
0
±J
rH O

rH
Iftfl
~w
^

CO OJ
CO N
Cfl -rt
e »
CU T3
> CU
•rH 4-J
4-1 CO
CO 4-1
rH CO
3
U
CO
01
CO
QJ ^^
rH E

CO
P-i

rH QJ
0 0
M *H
4-* £>
C CU
0 T3
O



4-1
CJ
3
•a
o

P-I





pq pa pa







CD -? r^ 5 c-g S ^? r^" oo ^ s~* s^ ^ s-^ s-^ ^ s^ s~* r^ S m ro S S r-^ O

o o o o> c> co c^ o o ^ u"! ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ oo oo ""H i— < eg CN] oj co ro PO


oo o m o C' o o m o
co co co ""^ rH c^j c^ c^ CM o*\ CN] iy*i r^«« o^ 10 r^^ *^f ^o oc in c^j CNI cy^ ^^ oo co
co co co co co co co co co c*^ CNI c*o co co co co *sf *sj i"^ oo co ^^ fo m m ^o
i—\ i— 1 i-H »— 1 i — I •—)





oomosr^-rocNir^o r>« r^ o iri o vo •— imo ty\co-*voi-^vocy>o
eNcocovtvooocr.ONo m^or^r^ooootTNOO -^mvci^coc^t^o







co o m co co co co o c*o co m co o o o o co ^n co o co o co
vCOCNluiOOOG vOOCNu-iOOOO OCNUIOOOO
O rH i—( CNJ VO CO m O CO *— 4 i-H CN] **0 O IO O rH i-H CN VD O ^ CO
rHi — ICN] »— ( i-H CN] »-J
C 3 rH 3
S "4H tfl 14H
0) 4-J
PH C 01 C
0) £ O>
S*5 &* p«
0 O -HO
00 C/5
                                                                                     g
                                                                                     c
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     o
     10/86
                                  Metallurgical  Industry
                                                                                7.4-9

-------
o
o
 I

 •

r^

CO M



•H n
4-1 o
*0 «H
i-l CO
11







Emission Factor
Rating
/-N
O
.^
r^° IX-
i-l O
g-3
Sf
Cumulative mass%
< stated size
CU
VH
10


CJ 3,
4-1
1-4
(0
PL,
Control
device
Product
CJ CJ CJ
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
p*** ^D 10 oo ON ^D co ^"x ^*"N I/N, I/N, vo co f**» CNJ


o *«o o ^ fn oo
^ uO 00 ON O O C*J
I™H c^ "^" *^f 10 ^o t^ r^» CD 
-------

























/~s
•
4J
C
o
u
s^x

^d"
1

•
r^.

u
PQ
^3
£—i
































0
o
CO
fe
C
O
•H
CO
CO
"e
w
CO >-l
CO O
CO 4-1
6 co
>
•rt C
4-1 O
CO -H
iH CO
3 co
U cu


CO
CO
CO
e

0)
>
iH
4-1
CO
I— 1
3

3
O


(0
CU
N
•H
CO
cu
i— i
CJ
•H
4-1
±4
CO
p-t


1— 1
o
4-1
C
o
CO




4-1
o
3
•o
o
}_t
PX,







c?
•H
4-1
CO
od



^
c
0
•il
f«Q ^*\
rH O

i~1

jy
"^
.SP


cu
N
•H


•O
cu
4J
cfl
4-1
CO

v|










'g'
3
^





CU
O
>
cu
"V




















u






^ ^ ^ ^ ^-^
vD »tf PO \O 00 O X"N
co  O
^H VO O O O ^H rH
.—I -—t CM CN CN «N CN




^
i/^ O^
• •
vf^ ^^ ^D (y\ o^ ^^ ^^
t^ 00 ^^ C^ ^^ C^ C^














iO O LO O O O
O *^ CN u"i \O O
rH






«v
it
3 CU
O
C/5

CU
CJ
<0
C ^^
M •
3 4-1
UH C
O
C U
c cu ^
32 o^
•H O^
cn


















•
c
0
•H
4J
•H
C
•H
Mi
CU
T3
CO
O
•H

cfl
C
0

bO
£
3
^_D

g
**^
o.
3
O

C5

CO

H
C
O





















































fll «ys
w "1
co e
CO
^
^
0)
4J
CU
E

T3

CJ
•rt

CO
C

*o
o

CU
^J
cfl
O
bO
f-H
II

!>•>

co
C
cu
T3

CU
i— t
CJ
•T-l
4-1
t-l
CO
Pi





















































*
CO
c
0
•H
CO
CO •
•H i— I
g^1
P
8*2
w **^
a •
Ou vt
«
4-1 CO
(U
CO CJ
CU C
-o cu

i5 CU
O <4H
e cu
M Od
fl O




















•
CO
1
•*
r--
cu
1-1
^
CO
H

cu
cu
CO
^^

J=
CJ
4-1
CO
CJ
1— I
cfl
4-1
o
4->

m
T3
o
4-1
cu
y



"8
CO
CO
Jp
^
CD
4-t

3
o
•H
4-1
^4
cfl
Cu

I—I
cfl
4J
o
H
T3



































•
^*s
&*s
o
in
^
CJ
c
cu
•H
o
y_l
M-J
cu
cu
M
3
4->
CO
CJ
cu
s
3
14-1

c¥

ex
a

4-1

co
cu
13

i— t
U
c
M
CU i























































•
CN
"•*
M
O
«*
>*

CO
CU
o
C
cu
)*l
QJ
MM
cu

4-J


























•
/-v
gs^
o
^0
^
CJ
c
cu
•H
O
•H
14-1
MH
CU

cu
^4
3
4-1
a
crt
w
CJ

18
4-1
CO
e
•H
^J
CO
cu
x^'
cu
S • •
3 P-. ON
U_| • ^H . -H
CO 1 cfl |
bp I-H m 4-1 oo
a o •
O. r-l <—t T3 CN
to cu
4-1 CO CO 4-1 CO
CU CU (0 CU
CO O CJ rH O
CU C C O C
T3 CU CU CX CU
g M (-( M l-i
r-l CU CU CU CU
O '-1- 1 M^ ^J n i
c cu cu c cu

box: M-).* E





















•
CO
o
•fH
CO
CO
•H
ff
cu

cf
•H
cx
a
cfl
4-1

4-1
3

4_)
•H
5

*,
>s
rH
o
_
w
4-1
CO
Ss
W
!— (
0
4-J
C
o
u

c
•I-l
CO
CO
n



^
fa
CO
€
•rt

p i
C
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.4-11

-------
   UJ
   N
   UJ
   O
   QL
   UJ
   Q.
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
i 30
j 20
»
C 10
>
: 5
)
>
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
10
TOTAL PARTICIPATE ^s Kg PARTICIPATE
- EMISSION RATE Mg ALLQY
mm
mm


M*


••
W
mf
tmi
mm
-
-
-
-
-
~
	 ,,,,1 	 ,,,! , ,,,,,,,







24
20
16










"' 10° 10 ' I02
                                                                    UJ

                                                                    N

                                                                    CO
                                      O
                                      UJ
                                      t-
                                      <
                                      \-
                                      to

                                      V
                                      UJ
                                      h-

                                      _J

                                      o

                                      h-
                                      oc.

                                      Q.
                                                                    UJ
                                                                    >
                                                                    o
                                                                        o
                                                                        _J
                  PARTICLE   DIAMETER, micrometers
    Figure 7.4-2.  Uncontrolled, 50% FeSi producing, open furnace particle

                   size distribution.
7.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
  ui
99.990

99.950
 99.90
 99.80
 99.50
    99
    98

    95

    90
  o
  UJ
  CO
  2
  UJ
  o
  oc
  Ul
  a.
  uj
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

 10
      I
    0.5
    0.2
   0.15
    O.I

    0.0
     10
     TOTAL  PARTICIPATE
     EM.SS.ON  RATE
                                         kg  PARTICIPATE
                                               ALLQY
                          .0°              .o1
                 PARTICLE   DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                           0.77
                                                           0.72
                                                           0.65
                                                           0.57
                                                           0.49
                                                           0.40
                                                           0.35
                                                           0.28
                                                      10*
                                                                     u
                                                                     N
                                                                     if)
                                                              O
                                                              UJ
                                                              I-
cn
V
UJ
"3
O
                                                                  <
                                                                  (X
                                                                      en
                                                                     UJ
>-
o
                                                                      Z)
                                                                      o
     Figure 7.4-3  Controlled (baghouse), 50% FeSi,  open  furnace particle
                  size distribution
10/86
                  Metallurgical  Industry
                                                                 7.4-13

-------
    99.990

    99.930
     99.90
     99.80
     99.50
        99
        98
   ui
   N
   V)
   O
   UJ
   in
   v
   »-
   z
   UI
   O
   o:
   ui
   a
   UJ
 95
 90

 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20

  10
  5

  2
  I
 0.5
 0.2
0.15
 O.I

 0.0
  10
TOTAL  PARTICIPATE        kg  PARTICIPATE
EMISSION  RATE
                               Mg  ALLOY
           -•              10°             .o1
                   PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                                14
                                                                3
                                                  12

                                                   0
                                                  9
                                                  8
                                                  7
                                                 IOC
                                                         ui
                                                         M
                                                         CO
                                                         a
                                                         ui
en
                                                                       UJ
                                                          a:
   O
   _l
   _)
                                                                       UJ
                                                                       u
    Figure 7.4-4.   Uncontrolled, 80% FeMn producing,  open furnace particle
                   size distribution
7.4-14
                EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                      10/86

-------
w
N
  99.990


  99.950

   99.90

   99.80

   99.50

      99

      98


      95


      90
 a
 UJ
 Z
 UJ
 o
 a:
 UJ
 a.

 UJ
     80


     70

     60

     50

     40

     30


     20



      10
        Z

        I

      0.5

      0.2

     0.15

      O.I


      0.0

        10
TOTAL  PARTICIPATE

EM.SSION   RATE
"°
                                       Kg  PARTlCULATE

                                         MQ  ALLOY -
                               .  .   . .  ....I
                           0.235



                           0.220


                           0.200



                           0.160
                        10°              10 '               I0!

                PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                                   UJ
                                                                   N
                                                                   O
                                                                   UJ
                                                        in

                                                        V

                                                        UJ
                                                        h-
                                                        <
                            0.120  ID
                                   o
                            0.085  p

                            0.070  CK

                            0.048  Q.
                                                                    o>
                                                                    Ui
    Figure 7.4-5.   Controlled (baghouse), 80% FeMn producing,  open furnace

                  size distribution
10/86
                        Metallurgical Industry
                                                                   7.4-15

-------
   UJ
   N
   O
33.33U
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
i
i 90
i
\ 80
- 70
60
: 50
i 40
j 30
L
j 20
>
* 10
3
E 5
3
J
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
1C
TOTAL PARTICULATE kg PARTICULATE
- EMISSION RATE Mg ALLQY
»



0
(J
QX
^^>
^^^ \



-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
iii iiiiiij I i iiiiiil i i i i i i jj





414
397
375
349
327
305
292
249












)"' 10° 10 ' I02
                                         UJ
                                         N

                                         in

                                         a
                                         u
                                         K-
                                         <

                                         Cfl


                                         V

                                         UJ
                                                                      O

                                                                      H
                                                                      o:
                                                                      <
                                                                      a.


                                                                      o>


                                                                      UJ
                   PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
        Figure  7.4-6.  Uncontrolled, Si metal producing,  open furnace

                      particle  size distribution
7.4-16
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                     10/86

-------
99.99O
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
j
• 90
{ 80
- 70
T
i 60
; so
5 40
J 30
u 20
>
i 10
D
5 5
•3
j
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
l(
TOTAL PARTICULATE |R n kg PARTICULATE
- EMISSION RATE Mg A|_LOY

y-

-
-
:
, :
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
**
111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L. 1 1 1 1 1


5.8

5.4
3.9
12.2
10.2
8.5
7.8










)"' 10° 10 ' I02
                 PARTICLE   DIAMETER,  micrometers
       Figure 7.4-7.   Controlled (baghouse),  Si metal producing, open
                      furnace particle size  distribution
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     N
                                                                     en
                                                                     o
                                                                     UI
                                                                     H-
                                                                     cn
                                                                     V
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     O
                                                                     H
                                                                     cc
                                                                     <
                                                                     Q.

                                                                     on

                                                                     UI

                                                                     P
    >-
    O
    _J
                                                                      u
10/86
                         Metallurgical Industry
7.4-17

-------
    99.990



    99.950

     99.90

     99.80


     99.50

        99

        98
   Id
   N
   o
   UJ
   z
   UJ
   o
   a:
   ui
   Q.

   UJ
   >
   o
 95


 90



 80


 70

 60

 50

 40

 30


 20



  10


  5



  2

  I

 0.5


 0.2

0.15

 O.I



 0.0

  10
EMISSION  RATE
= 78    Kg PARTICULATE

         MQALLOY
                                  I	L	U_l._ll_l_ll_
                                                   71



                                                   59



                                                   V


                                                   28



                                                   15
                           .0°              ,0'


                   PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                  10'
                                                          UJ
                                                          N

                                                          in


                                                          o
                                                          UJ
                                    co

                                    V

                                    UJ
                                    a:
                                      13
                                       o»
                                                           ui
                                                           >

                                                           h-
                                                           <
                                                           _j
                                                           z>
                                                           5
                                                           z>
                                                           0
      Figure 7.4-8.  Uncontrolled, FeCr producing,  open  furnace particle

                     size distribution
7.4-18
                EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
  UJ
  N
99.950
 99.90
 99.80
 99.50
    99
    98

    95
    90
    70
    60
    50
    40
    30
    20
  o
  (C
  u
  P
        10
  2
  I
 0.5
 0.2
0.15
 O.I

 0.0
  10
            TOTAL  PARTICIPATE . ,  on kg PARTICIPATE
            P lullQC; ir\M  tSATf      ~ 1 • ZU 	
            EMISSION  RATE
                                           Mg  ALLOY
          '1               10°              .O1
                 PARTICLE   DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                         1.08
                                                         0-96
                                                         0-80

                                                         0-56
                                                         0-40
                                                          10*
                                                                     ui
                                                                     M
O
UI
I-
<
tn
V
   >
   O
   _l
   _l
                                                                   a.
                                                                   o>

                                                                   u
                                                                   H
                                                                      O>
      Figure 7.4-9.  Controlled (ESP), FeCr (HC) producing, open furnace
                    particle  size distribution
10/86
                       Metallurgical Industry
                                                                    7.4-19

-------
  ui
  N
  O
  UJ
  in

  v

  >-
  z
  UJ
  o
  QL.
  UJ
  a

  ui
•yy.yw
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
i 30
i 20
»
i I0
i
• 5
j
)
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
0.0
1C
TOTAL PARTICULATE kg PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE Mg ALLQY




/-
_
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
"





92
73
58
42
27








»"' 10° 10 ' I02
                 PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                                      UJ
                                                                      M
                                                                      a
                                                                      UJ
                                         co

                                         V

                                         LJ
                                            >-
                                            o
                                                                      a>
                                                                      UJ
                                                                      >

                                                                      »-
                                                                      <
          Figure 7.4-10.  Uncontrolled,  SiMn producing,  open furnace

                         particle size  distribution
7.4-20
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
99.990


99.950

 99.90

 99.80

 99.50

    99

    98


    95


    90
  N

  CO

  o
  UJ
CO

v


2
UJ
O
ct
Ul
a.

ui


P

_i
:D
       80

       70

       60

       50

       40

       30


       20


       10


        5


        2

        I

      0.5

      O.2

      0.15
      O.I


      0.0

        10
           TOTAL PARTICIPATE      Kg  PARTICIPATE

           EMISSION  RATE       = ^     Mg  ALLOY
               i  i i  i 11 11     i  i  i i  11111
                                                            2.10
                                                                 ui
                                                            2.08 £
                                                            2-02S
                                                          1.68
                                                         1.18
                                                              V
                                                              ui
                                                              o

                                                              h-
                                                              QC
                                                               O»
                                                              Ul
                                                              >
                                                                <
                                                                _i
                                                                r>


                                                                o
O
_J
_J
<


o>
       "'              10°              10'               IOJ

              PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
     Figure 7.4-11,  Controlled (scrubber),  SiMn producing, open furnace

                   particle size distribution
10/86
                         Metallurgical Industry
                                                                7.4-21

-------
  W

  rJ
  W CO
  Q W
  M CJ

  gg
  Z a!
  O S
  S fa
  o b
  M rJ
  CJ O

     ^
   - pi
  W W
  O fa
  r-1


  S Pi
  M <3
  Q
     Q
  Pi W
  S O
  fj, p^


  r^§
  Pi CO
  o

  feg
  CO Pi
  Pi fa
  O
  H CO
  CJ CJ

  fa Z

  Z O
  O pi
  M O
  CO
  CO W

  *S f^
  W H
   . O
  LO >
  W
  rJ
g
H
CJ
Z
O
M
CO
CO











































u

Q
ri
rJ
























































0>
rH CJ
0 IH
£ Si
c -a
0

CO

1
15

O bo 0
W ^o .u
0) ^
O rH XI
•H r- rH
CO IH

t -™ JE
O o ^
o» u j?
rH



f-T
o
>  O
CN4-t
O —
C/3 XI
rH





01
CJ
CO 0)
c a
3 u






o
3
T3
Q
^
Ou





>^
bO >^
L-i (JO
CD r»l
C 0)
a; j-/ a; c t-i tb
co cu  cy co
S .C .C J5 3
O X3 WJ > .0 O
XT 3 -r-T 0 3 J=

to o o CQ
PD CO W CQ



s-\
X"N \,O rr*"N /""^ '"""'•
•^ lO i/1^ OC ^

-31 O •— ' -* -^
v-" s^ s-- x^ ^A
00 u^
CM CM P-* -* 0s

CM o O CM m
CM







x-s /-N y-N ^^
u-i r^ 10 oc
• • • »

c oi q oi c
01 > 01 > 01
ft. O Gi O &-
O CJ -
CO -n u
CO 3: en




«rv y~v .^-*
r^ -a oc

rn -.  W
0. O 01
o cj en






o
oo

I

1

«
|§
2
y
W
^
ff

* O rH
jc r^ CN
-a O O
. 1 . .
m o o






•8
e c c r-
01 0> Ol CO
££3-3






,—x
CJ
3= IH

1
U fci C
to Cx en














CO
c
o
IH •
»-, CO CO
4J CO C
•rl -r( O

CO) CO
CO CO
3O -r(
CJ E
• V
0) rH
• CJ Ol be
S 3 0) C

rn 01 CO a
IH O.
01 LJ CO
P rH O 4-1
53 rH
•rl C 0)
• co U o E
rH 0) I-J O
CO CJ ^ IH CO
IH CO IH
IH C CO O. 0)
0) IH CO M
4J 3 TJ ^ 3
• CO UH 0) O J-»
CO E W X CX
4J C CO CO
CO -O 01 0) >, O
•c 0) a. i- 4-j
01 O CJ lj X
O UH C -H CO
Z E rH -rj E
H -n t CO CO
UH • IH *rj
x: IH ^1 o
CO 3 CO 01 -O O
CO UH C > 01 f
O rH O O 0)
3 IH CJ UH 0)
CO CO CJ
• CO O 0) CO
x-v UH «rt 4-* CJ C
^ O E C « h
O 5 TH C 3
rH 4J tJ UH
rH C O C 3
CO 3 CJ S UH C
\«^ O CO 01
E IH UH Q,
CJ 01
3 C IH t< Q)
t3 O CO -r« CO •
O rH (0 CO CO •
IH -O UH Ol C £
CX C UH tj O 0>
01 •>, O CJ IH 4J
*rj CX ^ C U CO
0> 01 0) -n CO >•>
•H -O rH E IH CO
«H CO IH rH CO S rH
cj c *j o s; o
oi o e > bo n
exiH o c w
CO CO CJ X! • -H C
CO 4J rH CL O
UH IH 01 -H CV1 O. CJ
O E ^ * "
W O >• u 0>
4J UH X O- X
£ OJ IH rH IH W
bo • x>  " C
0) m *rj r^ co IH
$ 01 -H — >
« IH rH CO 01

C 0! -H CN rH
3 « 01 CO 1 rH | UH
-^ r- s 0) CN ra r-~
*J rH CJ -H 0) CN1 >1
x: co co c
•Jjn-aEcT^o™
31 UH 3 P

cBrj-aTS-a ejcviuJTj
n oi e oj o>

t3 OJ 0! 0) 0) CD rH
01CJCJ>CJ4->CJ'CO

C001CDCJCDCCDIH4J
0) ij fcj LJ t^ 3 C
CXUHUH OUH 01UH CO CJ
HfO^-VU^SJ?















































































•
CO
c
o
to
CO
i
c*,:
IH 0)
CL rH
a. u
CO 3


CO t-
^ CU
*O jD
3 »O
"cj IH
Zx
                                                                                                 t
7.4-22
                            EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
Scrubbers are used on 13 percent of the furnaces,  and electrostatic precipita-
tors on 2 percent.  Control efficiences for well  designed and  operated  control
systems [i. e., baghouses with air to cloth ratios of 1:1 to 2:1  ft^/ft2,  and
and scrubbers with a pressure drop from 14 to 24  kilopascals (kPa)  (55  to  96
inches H20)], have been reported to be in excess  of 99 percent.   Air to cloth
ratio is the ratio of the volumetric air flow through the filter  media  to  the
media area.

     Two emission capture systems, not usually connected to the same gas clean-
ing device, are necessary for covered furnaces.   A primary capture  system  with-
draws gases from beneath the furnace cover.  A secondary system captures fume
released around the electrode seals and during tapping.   Scrubbers  are  used
almost exclusively to control exhaust gases from  sealed furnaces.  The  gas from
sealed and mix sealed furnaces is usually flared  at the exhaust  of  the  scrub-
ber.  The carbon monoxide rich gas has an estimated heating value of 300 Btu
per cubic foot and is sometimes used as a fuel in kilns  and sintering machines.
The efficiency of flares for the control of carbon monoxide and  the reduction
of organic emission has been estimated to be greater than 98 percent for steam
assisted flares with a velocity of less than 60 feet per second  and a gas  heat-
ing value of 300 Btu per standard cubic foot2^.   For unassisted  flares, the
reduction of organic and carbon monoxide emissions is 98 percent  efficient with
a velocity of less than 60 feet per second and a  gas heating value  greater than
200 Btu per standard cubic foot.2^

     Tapping operations also generate fumes.  Tapping is intermittent and  is
usually conducted during 10 to 20 percent of the  furnace operating  time.   Some
fumes originate from the carbon lip liner, but most are a result  of induced
heat transfer from the molten metal or slag as it  contacts the runners, ladles,
casting beds and ambient air.  Some plants capture these emissions  to varying
degrees with a main canopy hood.  Other plants employ separate tapping  hoods
ducted to either the furnace emission control device or a separate  control
device.  Emission factors for tapping emissions are unavailable because of a
lack of data.

     A reaction ladle may be involved to adjust the metallurgy after furance
tapping by chlorination, oxidation, gas mixing and slag  metal  reactions.   Ladle
reactions are an intermittent process, and emissions have not  been  quantified.
Reaction ladle emissions often are captured by the tapping emissions control
system.

     Available data are insufficient to provide emission factors  for raw
material handling, pretreatment and product handling.  Dust particulate is
emitted from raw material handling, storage and preparation activities  (see
Figure 7.4-1), from such specific activities as unloading of raw  materials from
delivery vehicles (ship, railcar or truck), storage of raw materials in piles,
loading of raw materials from storage piles into  trucks  or gondola  cars and
crushing and screening of raw materials.  Raw materials  may be dried before
charging in rotary or other type dryers, and these dryers can  generate  signif-
icant particulate emissions.  Dust may also be generated by heavy vehicles used
for loading, unloading and transferring material.   Crushing, screening  and
storage of the ferroalloy product emit particulate in the form of dust.  The
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.4-23

-------
properties of particulate emitted as dust are similar to the natural properties
of the ores or alloys from which they originated,  ranging in size from 3 to 100
micrometers.

     Approximately half of ferroalloy facilities have some type of control for
dust emissions.  Dust generated from raw material  storage may be controlled
in several ways, including sheltering storage piles from the wind with block
walls, snow fences or plastic covers.  Occasionally,  piles are sprayed with
water to prevent airborne dust.  Emissions generated  by heavy vehicle traffic
may be reduced by using a wetting agent or paving  the plant yard.3  Moisture
in the raw materials, which may be as high as 20 percent, helps to limit dust
emissions from raw material unloading and loading.  Dust generated by crushing,
sizing, drying or other pretreatment activities is sometimes controlled by dust
collection equipment such as scrubbers, cyclones or baghouses.  Ferroalloy pro-
duct crushing and sizing usually require a baghouse.   The raw material emission
collection equipment may be connected to the furnace emission control system.
For fugitive emissions from open sources, see Section 11.2 of this document.
References for Section 7.4

1.   F. J. Schottman, "Ferroalloys", 1980 Mineral Facts and Problems, Bureau Of
     Mines, U. S. Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC, 1980.

2.   J. 0. Dealy, and A. M. Killin, Engineering and Cost Study of the Ferroalloy
     Industry, EPA-450/2-74-008, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, May 1974.

3.   Backgound Information on Standards of Performance;  Electric Submerged Arc
     Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys, Volume I:   Proposed Standards,
     EPA-450/2-74-018a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, October 1974.

4.   C. W. Westbrook, and D. P. Dougherty, Level I Environmental Assessment of
     Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-81-038,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1981.

5.   F. J. Schottman, "Ferroalloys", Minerals Yearbook, Volume I:  Metals and
     Minerals, Bureau Of Mines, Department Of The Interior, Washington, DC,
     T980T

6.   S. Beaton and H. Klemm, Inhalable Particulate Field Sampling Program for
     the Ferroalloy Industry, TR-80-115-G, GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA,
     November 1980.

7.   G. W. Westbrook and D. P. Dougherty, Environmental1 Impact of Ferroalloy
     Production Interim Report:  Assessment of Current Data, Research Triangle
     Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1978.

8.   K. Wark and C. F. Warner, Air Pollution;  Its Origin and Control, Harper
     and Row Publisher, New York, 1981.
7.4-24                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
9.   M. Szabo and R. Gerstle, Operations and Maintenance of Particulate Control
     Devices on Selected Steel~and Ferroalloy Processes, EPA-600/2-78-037,  U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  DC,  March 1978.

10.  C. W. Westbrook, Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Electric Submerged
     Arc Furnaces Producing Ferroalloys, EPA-600/2-83-092, U.  S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington,  DC,  September  1983.

11.  S. Gronberg, et al.,  Ferroalloy Industry Particulate Emissions:  Source
     Category Report, EPA-600/7-86-039,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati, OH, November 1986.

12.  T. Epstein, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development,  Roane
     Limited, Rockwood, Tennessee, EPA-600/X-85-325, U.  S. Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency, Washington, DC, June 1981.

13.  S. Beaton, et al., Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development, Inter-
     lake Inc., Alabama Metallurgical  Corp., Selma, Alabama, EPA-600/X-85-324,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  DC, May 1981.

14.  J. L. Rudolph, jit al., Ferroalloy Process Emissions Measurement,  EPA-600/
     2-79-045, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  DC,  February
     1979.

15.  Written communication from Joseph F. Eyrich,  Macalloy Corporation, Charles-
     ton, SC to GCA Corporation, Bedford, MA, February 10, 1982,  citing Airco
     Alloys and Carbide test R-07-7774-000-1, Gilbert  Commonwealth,  Reading,
     PA, 1978.

16.  Source test, Airco Alloys and Carbide, Charleston,  SC, EMB-71-PC-16(FEA),
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1971.

17.  Telephone communication between Joseph F. Eyrich, Macalloy Corporation,
     Charleston, SC and Evelyn J. Limberakis, GCA  Corporation,  Bedford, MA,
     February 23, 1982.

18.  Source test, Chromium Mining and  Smelting Corporation, Memphis,  TN,  EMB-
     72-PC-05 (FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, June 1972.

19.  Source test, Union Carbide Corporation, Ferroalloys Division, Marietta,
     Ohio, EMB-71-PC-12(FEA), U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, 1971.

20.  R. A. Person, "Control of Emissions from Ferroalloy Furnace  Processing",
     Journal Of Metals, ^3(4):17-29, April  1971.

21.  S. Gronberg, Ferroalloy Furnace Emission Factor Development  Foote Minerals,
     Graham, W. Virginia,  EPA-600/X-85-327, U. S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, DC, July 1981.

22.  R. W. Gerstle, et al., Review of  Standards of Performance for New Station-
     ary Air Sources - Ferroalloy Production Facility, EPA-450/3-80-041,  U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  December  1980.

10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                      7.4-25

-------
23.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  Final  Report,  APTD-0923,  U.  S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  April  1970.

24.  Telephone communication between  Leslie B.  Evans,  Office Of Air  Quality
     Planning And Standards, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, and Richard Vacherot,  GCA Corporation, Bedford,  MA,
     October 18, 1984.

25.  R. Ferrari, Experiences in Developing  an  Effective Pollution Control
     System for a Submerged Arc Ferroalloy  Furnace  Operation,  J.  Metals,
     p. 95-104, April  1968.

26.  Fredriksen and Nestaas, Pollution Problems by  Electric Furnace  Ferroalloy
     Production, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, September  1968.

27.  A. E. Vandergrift, et al., Farticulate Pollutant  System Study - Mass  Emis-
     sions, PB-203-128, PB-203-522  and P-203-521, National  Technical Information
     Service, Springfield, VA,  May  1971.

28.  Control Techniques for Lead Air  Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  December  1977.

29.  W. E. Davis, Emissions Study of  Industrial Sources of  Lead Air  Pollutants,
     1970, EPA-APTD-1543,  W. E. Davis and Associates,  Leawood, KS, April 1973.

30.  Source test, Foote Mineral Company, Vancoram Operations,  Steubenville, OH,
     EMB-71-PC-08(FEA), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle
     Park, NC, August  1971.
7.4-26                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

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

7.5.1  Process Descriptionl-3

     The production of steel at an integrated iron and steel plant is
accomplished using several interrelated processes.  The major operations are:
(1) coke production, (2) sinter production,  (3)  iron production,  (4)  iron
preparation, (5) steel production, (6) semifinished product preparation, (7)
finished product preparation, (8) heat and electricity supply,  and (9)  handling
and transport of raw, intermediate and waste materials.  The interrelation of
these operations is depicted in a general flow diagram of the iron and  steel
industry in Figure 7.5-1.  Coke production is discussed in detail in Section
7.2 of this publication, and more information on the handling and transport of
materials is found in Chapter 11.

7.5.1.1  Sinter Production - The sintering process converts fine  sized  raw
materials, including iron ore, coke breeze,  limestone, mill scale, and  flue
dust, into an agglomerated product, sinter,  of suitable size for  charging into
the blast furnace.  The raw materials are sometimes mixed with water to provide
a cohesive matrix, and then placed on a continuous, travelling grate called the
sinter strand.  A burner hood, at the beginning  of the sinter strand ignites
the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self supporting  and it
provides sufficient heat, 1300 to 1480°C (2400 to 2700°F), to cause surface
melting and agglomeration of the mix.  On the underside of the sinter strand
is a series of windboxes that draw combusted air down through the material
bed into a common duct leading to a gas cleaning device.  The fused sinter is
discharged at the end of the sinter strand,  where it is crushed and screened.
Undersize sinter is recycled to the mixing mill  and back to the strand.  The
remaining sinter product is cooled in open air or in a circular cooler  with
water sprays or mechanical fans.  The cooled sinter is crushed and screened for
a final time, then the fines are recycled, and the product is sent to be charged
to the blast furnaces.  Generally, 2.5 tons  of raw materials, including water
and fuel, are required to produce one ton of product sinter.

7.5.1.2  Iron Production - Iron is produced  in blast funaces by the reduction
of iron bearing materials with a hot gas.  The large, refractory  lined  furnace
is charged through its top with iron as ore, pellets, and/or sinter;  flux as
limestone, dolomite and sinter; and coke for fuel.  Iron oxides,  coke and fluxes
react with the blast air to form molten reduced  iron, carbon monoxide and slag.
The molten iron and slag collect in the hearth at the base of the furnace. The
byproduct gas is collected through offtakes  located at the top of the furnace
and is recovered for use as fuel.

     The production of one ton of iron requires  1.4 tons of ore or other iron
bearing material; 0.5 to 0.65 tons of coke;  0.25 tons of limestone or dolomite;
and 1.8 to 2 tons of air.  Byproducts consist of 0.2 to 0.4 tons  of slag, and
2.5 to 3.5 tons of blast furnace gas containing  up to 100 Ibs of  dust.

     The molten iron and slag are removed, or cast, from the furnace perio-
dically.  The casting process begins with drilling a hole, called the taphole,
into the clay filled iron notch at the base  of the hearth.  During casting,
molten iron flows into runners that lead to  transport ladles.  Slag also flows
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.5-1

-------
                                                                        03
                                                                        T3


                                                                        cd



                                                                        o
                                                                        VJ
                                                                        0)


                                                                        OJ
                                                                        I
                                                                        u
                                                                        60
                                                                        tO
                                                                        *
                                                                        O
                                                                        d
                                                                        0)
                                                                        o
                                                                        r^

                                                                        0)



                                                                        00
7.5-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                10/86

-------
into the clay filled iron notch at the base of the hearth.   During  casting,
molten iron flows into runners that lead to transport  ladles.   Slag  also  flows
from the furnace, and is directed through separate runners  to  a slag pit
adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag pots for transport  to  a remote slag
pit.  At the conclusion of the cast, the taphole is replugged  with  clay.   The
area around the base of the furnace, including all iron and slag runners,  is
enclosed by a casthouse.  The blast furnace byproduct  gas,  which is  collected
from the furnace top, contains carbon monoxide and particulate.   Because  of
its high carbon monoxide content, this blast furnace gas has a low  heating
value, about 2790 to 3350 joules per liter (75 to 90 BTU/ft3)  and is used as  a
fuel within the steel plant.  Before it can be efficiently  oxidized, however,
the gas must be cleaned of particulate.  Initially, the gases  pass  through a
settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60 percent  of  the particulate.
Next, the gases undergo a one or two stage cleaning operation.   The primary
cleaner is normally a wet scrubber, which removes about 90  percent  of the
remaining particulate.  The secondary cleaner is a high energy wet  scrubber
(usually a venturi) or an electrostatic precipitator,  either of which can
remove up to 90 percent of the particulate that eludes the  primary  cleaner.
Together these control devices provide a clean fuel of less than 0.05 grams
per cubic meter (0.02 gr/ft3).  A portion of this gas  is fired in the blast
furnace stoves to preheat the blast air, and the rest  is used  in other plant
operations.

7.5.1.3  Iron Preparation Hot Metal Desulfurization -  Sulfur in the molten
iron is sometimes reduced before charging into the steelmaking furnace by
adding reagents.  The reaction forms a floating slag which  can be skimmed off.
Desulfurization may be performed in the hot metal transfer  (torpedo) car  at a
location between the blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace (BOF),  or it  may
be done in the hot metal transfer (torpedo) ladle at a station inside the BOF
shop.

     The most common reagents are powdered calcium carbide  (CaC2) and calcium
carbonate (CaC03) or salt coated magnesium granules.  Powdered reagents are
injected into the metal through a lance with high pressure  nitrogen.  The pro-
cess duration varies with the injection rate, hot metal chemistry,  and desired
final sulfur content, and is in the range of 5 to 30 minutes.

7.5.1.4  Steelmaking Process - Basic Oxygen Furnaces -  In  the basic oxygen
process (BOP), molten iron from a blast furance and iron scrap are  refined in
a furnace by lancing (or injecting) high purity oxygen.  The input material is
typically 70 percent molten metal and 30 percent scrap metal.   The  oxygen reacts
with carbon and other impurities to remove them from the metal.   The reactions
are exothermic, i. e., no external heat source is necessary to melt  the scrap
and to raise the temperature of the metal to the desired range for  tapping.
The large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) produced  by the reactions in the
BOF can be controlled by combustion at the mouth of the furnace and  then  vented
to gas cleaning devices, as with open hoods, or combustion  can be suppressed  at
the furnace mouth, as  with closed hoods.  BOP steelmaking  is  conducted in large
(up to 400 ton capacity) refractory lined pear shaped  furnaces.   There are two
major variations of the process.  Conventional BOFs have oxygen blown into the
top of the furnace through a water cooled lance.  In the newer,  Quelle Basic
Oxygen process (Q-BOP), oxygen is injected through tuyeres  located  in the bot-
tom of the furnace.  A typical BOF cycle consists of the scrap charge,  hot
metal charge, oxygen blow (refining) period, testing for temperature and

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry
                                                                          7.5-3

-------
chemical composition of the steel,  alloy additions and reblows (if necessary),
tapping, and slagging.  The full furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45
minutes.

7.5.1.5  Steelmaking Process - Electric Arc Furnace - Electric arc furnaces
(EAF) are used to produce carbon and alloy steels.  The input material  to an
EAF is typically 100 percent scrap.  Cylindrical,  refractory lined EAFs are
equipped with carbon electrodes to  be raised or lowered through the furnace
roof.  With electrodes retracted,  the furnace roof can be rotated aside to
permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane.  Alloying agents and flux-
ing materials usually are added through the doors  on the side of the furnace.
Electric current of the opposite polarity electrodes generates heat between the
electrodes and through the scrap.   After melting and refining periods,  the slag
and steel are poured from the furnace by tilting.

     The production of steel in an  EAF is a batch  process.   Cycles, or  "heats",
range from about 1 1/2 to 5 hours  to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 10
hours or more to produce alloy steel.  Scrap steel is charged to begin  a cycle,
and alloying agents and slag materials are added for refining.  Stages  of each
cycle normally are charging and melting operations, refining (which usually
includes oxygen blowing), and tapping.

7.5.1.6  Steelmaking Process-Open Hearth Furnaces  - The open hearth furnace
(OHF) is a shallow, refractory-lined basin in which scrap and molten iron are
melted and refined into steel.  Scrap is charged to the furnace through doors
in the furnace front.  Hot metal from the blast furnace is  added by pouring
from a ladle through a trough positioned in the door.  The  mixture of scrap
and hot metal can vary from all scrap to all hot metal, but a half and  half
mixture is most common.  Melting heat is provided  by gas burners above  and at
the side of the furnace.  Refining  is accomplished by the oxidation of  carbon
in the metal and the formation of  a limestone slag to remove impurities.  Most
furnaces are equipped with oxygen lances to speed  up melting and refining.
The steel product is tapped by opening a hole in the base of the furnace with
an explosive charge.  The open hearth Steelmaking  process with oxygen lancing
normally requires from 4 to 10 hours for each heat.

7.5.1.7  Semifinished Product Preparation - After  the steel has been tapped,
the molten metal is teemed (poured) into ingots which are later heated  and
formed into other shapes, such as  blooms, billets, or slabs.  The molten steel
may bypass this entire process and  go directly to  a continuous casting  opera-
tion.  Whatever the production technique, the blooms, billets, or slabs undergo
a surface preparation step, scarfing, which removes surface defects before
shaping or rolling.  Scarfing can be performed by  a machine applying jets of
oxygen to the surface of hot semifinished steel, or by hand (with torches) on
cold or slightly heated semifinished steel.

7.5.2  Emissions And Controls

7.5.2.1  Sinter - Emissions from sinter plants are generated from raw material
handling, windbox exhaust, discharge end (associated sinter crushers and hot
screens), cooler and  cold screen.   The windbox exhaust is  the primary  source
of particulate emissions, mainly iron oxides, sulfur oxides, carbonaceous com-
7.5-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
pounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and chlorides.  At the discharge end,  emissions
are mainly iron and calcium oxides.  Sinter strand windbox emissions commonly
are controlled by cyclone cleaners followed by a dry or wet ESP, high pressure
drop wet scrubber, or baghouse.  Crusher and hot screen emissions,  usually con-
trolled by hooding and a baghouse or scrubber, are the next largest emissions
source.  Emissions are also generated from other material handling  operations.
At some sinter plants, these emissions are captured and vented to a baghouse.

7.5.2.2  Blast Furnace - The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the
casting operation.  Particulate emissions are generated when the molten iron
and slag contact air above their surface.  Casting emissions also are generated
by drilling and plugging the taphole.  The occasional use of an oxygen lance
to open a clogged taphole can cause heavy emissions.  During the casting opera-
tion, iron oxides, magnesium oxide and carbonaceous compounds are generated as
particulate.  Casting emissions at existing blast furnaces are controlled by
evacuation through retrofitted capture hoods to a gas cleaner, or by suppres-
sion techniques.  Emissions controlled by hoods and an evacuation system are
usually vented to a baghouse.  The basic concept of suppression techniques is
to prevent the formation of pollutants by excluding ambient air contact with
the molten surfaces.  New furnaces have been constructed with evacuated runner
cover systems and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.

     Another potential source of emissions is the blast furnace top.  Minor
emissions may occur during charging from imperfect bell seals in the double
bell system.  Occasionally, a cavity may form in the blast fuernace charge,
causing a collapse of part of the burden (charge) above it.  The resulting
pressure surge in the furnace opens a relief valve to the atmosphere to pre-
vent damage to the furnace by the high pressure created and is referred to as
a "slip".

7.5.2.3  Hot Metal Desulfurization - Emissions during the hot metal desulfur-
ization process are created by both the reaction of the reagents injected into
the metal and the turbulence during injection.  The pollutants emitted are
mostly iron oxides, calcium oxides and oxides of the compound injected.  The
sulfur reacts with the reagents and is skimmed off as slag.  The emissions
generated from desulfurization may be collected by a hood positioned over the
ladle and vented to a baghouse.

7.5.2.4  Steelmaking - The most significant emissions from the EOF  process
occur during the oxygen blow period.  The predominant compounds emitted are
iron oxides, although heavy metals and fluorides are usually present.   Charging
emissions will vary with the quality and quantity of scrap metal charged to the
furnace and with the pour rate.  Tapping emissions include iron oxides, sulfur
oxides, and other metallic oxides, depending on the grade of scrap  used.  Hot
metal transfer emissions are mostly iron oxides.

     BOFs are equipped with a primary hood capture system located directly
over the open mouth of the furnaces to control emissions during oxygen blow
periods.  Two types of capture systems are used to collect exhaust  gas as it
leaves the furnace mouth:  closed hood (also known as an off gas, or 0. G.,
system) or open, combustion type hood.  A closed hood fits snugly against the
furnace mouth, ducting all particulate and carbon monoxide to a wet scrubber
 10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.5-5

-------
gas cleaner.  Carbon monoxide is flared at  the scrubber outlet  stack.   The open
hood design allows dilution air to be drawn into the hood,  thus combusting the
carbon monoxide in the hood system.   Charging and tapping  emissions  are con-
trolled by a variety of evacuation systems  and operating practices.  Charging
hoods, tapside enclosures, and full  furnace enclosures  are used in the  industry
to capture these emissions and send  them to either the  primary  hood  gas cleaner
or a second gas cleaner.

7.5.2.5  Steelmaking - Electric Arc  Furnace - The operations  which generate
emissions during the electric arc furnace Steelmaking process are  melting  and
refining, charging scrap, tapping steel, and dumping slag.   Iron oxide  is  the
predominant constituent of the particulate  emitted during  melting.   During
refining, the primary particulate compound  emitted is calcium oxide  from the
slag.  Emissions from charging scrap are difficult to quantify, because they
depend on the grade of scrap utilized.  Scrap emissions usually contain iron
and other metallic oxides from alloys in the scrap metal.   Iron oxides  and
oxides from the fluxes are the primary constituents of  the slag emissions.
During tapping, iron oxide is the major particulate compound  emitted.

     Emission control techniques involve an emission capture  system  and a  gas
cleaning system.  Five emission capture systems used in the industry are
fourth hold (direct shell) evacuation, side draft hood, combination  hood,  can-
opy hood, and furnace enclosures.  Direct shell evacuation consists  of  ductwork
attached to a separate or fourth hole in the furnace roof  which draws emissions
to a gas cleaner.  The fourth hole system works only when  the furnace is up-
right with the roof in place.  Side draft hoods collect furnace off  gases  from
around the electrode holes and the work doors after the gases leave  the furnace.
The combination hood incorporates elements  from the side draft  and fourth  hole
ventilation systems.  Emissions are  collected both from the fourth hole and
around the electrodes.  An air gap in the ducting introduces  secondary  air for
combustion of CO in the exhaust gas.  The combination hood requires  careful
regulation of furnace interval pressure. The canopy hood  is  the least  effi-
cient of the four ventilation systems, but  it does capture emissions during
charging and tapping.  Many new electric arc furnaces incorporate  the canopy
hood with one of the other three systems.  The full furnace enclosure com-
pletely surrounds the furnace and evacuates furnace emissions through hooding
in the top of the enclosure.

7.5.2.6  Steelmaking - Open Hearth Furnace  - Particulate emissions from an open
hearth furnace vary considerably during the process. The  use of oxygen lancing
increases emissions of dust and fume.  During the melting  and refining  cycle,
exhaust gas drawn from the furnace passes through a slag pocket and  a regener-
ative checker chamber, where some of the particulate settles  out.   The  emissions,
mostly iron oxides, are then ducted  to either an ESP or a  wet scrubber. Other
furnace related process operations which produce fugitive  emissions  inside the
shop include transfer and charging of hot metal, charging  of  scrap,  tapping
steel and slag dumping.  These emissions are usually uncontrolled.

7.5.2.7  Semifinished Product Preparation - During this activity,  emissions are
produced when molten steel is poured (teemed) into ingot molds, and  when semi-
finished steel is machine or manually scarfed to remove surface defects.
Pollutants emitted are iron and other oxides (FeO, Fe203,  Si02, CaO, MgO).
7.5-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
Teeming emissions are rarely controlled.   Machine scarfing  operations  generally
use as ESP or water spray chamber for control.   Most  hand scarfing  operations
are uncontrolled.

7.5.2.8  Miscellaneous Combustion - Every iron and steel plant  operation
requires energy in the form of heat or electricity.   Combustion sources  that
produce emissions on plant property are blast furnace stoves, boilers, soaking
pits, and reheat furnaces.  These facilities burn combinations  of coal,  No.  2
fuel oil, natural gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas.  In blast furnace
stoves, clean gas from the blast furnace is burned to heat  the  refractory
checker work, and in turn, to heat the blast air.  In soaking pits,  ingots  are
heated until the temperature distribution over the cross section of  the  ingots
is acceptable and the surface temperature is uniform  for further rolling into
semifinished products (blooms, billets and slabs). In slab furnaces,  a  slab is
heated before being rolled into finished products (plates,  sheets or strips).
Emissions from the combustion of natural  gas, fuel oil or coal  in the  soaking
pits or slab furnaces are estimated to be the same as those for boilers. (See
Chapter 1 of this document.)  Emission factor data for blast furnace gas and
coke oven gas are not available and must be estimatexW There are three  facts
available for making the estimation.  First, the gas  exiting the blast furnace
passes through primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned to  less than
0.05 grams per cubic meter (0.02 gr/ft^).  Second, nearly one third  of the
coke oven gas is methane.  Third, there are no blast  furnace gas constituents
that generate particulate when burned.  The combustible constituent  of blast
furnace gas is CO, which burns clean.  Based on facts one and three, the emis-
sion factor for combustion of blast furnace gas is equal to the particulate
loading of that fuel, 0.05 grams per cubic meter (2.9 lb/10^ ft^) having an
average heat value of 83 BTU/ft^.

     Emissions for combustion of coke oven gas can be estimated in  the same
fashion.  Assume that cleaned coke oven gas has as much particulate  as cleaned
blast furnace gas.  Since one third of the coke oven  gas is methane, the main
component of natural gas, it is assumed that the combustion of  this  methane in
coke oven gas generates 0.06 grams per cubic meter (3.3 lb/10^  ft^)  of partic-
ulate.  Thus, the emission factor for the combustion  of coke oven gas  is the
sum of the particulate loading and that generated by  the methane combustion, or
0.1 grams per cubic meter (6.2 lb/10^ ft^) having an  average heat value  of 516
BTU/ft3.

     The particulate emission factors  for procfes'ses la Table 7.5-1  are the
result of an extensive investigation by EPA and the American Iron and  Steel
Institute.3  Particle size distributions for controlled and uncontrolled emis-
sions from specific iron and steel' industry processes have  been calculated  and
summarized from the best available data.l  Size distributions have  been  used
with particulate emission factors to calculate size specific factors for the
sources listed in Table 7.5-1 for which data are available. Table  7.5-2
presents these size specific particulate emission factors.   Particle size dis-
tributions are presented in Figures 7.5-2 to 7.5-4.   Carbon monoxide emission
factors are in Table 7.5-3.6
 10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.5-7

-------
      TABLE 7.5-1.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS3
Source
Sintering
Windbox

Uncontrolled
Leaving grate
After coarse partic-
ulate removal
Controlled by dry ESP
Controlled by wet ESP
Controlled by venturi
scrubber
Controlled by cyclone
Sinter discharge (breaker
and hot screens)

Uncontrolled
Controlled by baghouse
Controlled by venturi
scrubber
Windbox and discharge

Controlled by baghouse
Blast furnace
Slip
Uncontrolled casthouse
Roof Monitor'5
Furnace with local
evacuation0
Taphole and trough only
(not runners)
Hot metal desulf urlzation
Uncontrolled"1
Controlled by baghouse
Basic oxygen furnace (EOF)
Top blown furnace melting
and refining
Uncontrolled
Controlled by open hood
vented to:
ESP
Scrubber
Controlled by closed hood
vented to:
Scrubber
Units

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter










kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter




kg/Mg (Ib/ton) finished
sinter


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






kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal



kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel








Emission Factor




5.56 (11.1)

4.35 (8.7)
0.8 (1.6)
0.085 (0.17)

0.235 (0.47)
0.5 (1.0)



3.4 (6.8)
0.05 (0.1)

0.295 (0.59)


0.15 (0.3)

39.5 (87.0)

0.3 (0.6)

0.65 (1.3)

0.15 (0.3)

0.55 (1.09)
0.0045 (0.009)



14.25 (28.5)


0.065 (0.13)
0.045 (0.09)


0.0034 (0.0068)
Emission
Factor
Rating




B

A
B
B

B
B



B
B

A


A

D

B

B

B

D
D



B


A
B


A
Particle
Size
Data




Yes



Yes

Yes
Yes




Yes








Yes

Yes



Yes
Yes










Yes
7.5-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         10/86

-------
  TABLE 7.5-1 (cont.).  PARTICULATE.EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLS3
Source
BOF Charging
At source
At building monitor
Controlled by baghouse
BOF Tapping
At source
At building monitor
Controlled by baghouse
Hot metal transfer
At source
At building monitor
BOF monitor (all sources)
Q-BOP melting and refining
Controlled by scrubber
Electric arc furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled carbon
steel
Charging, tapping and
slagging
Uncontrolled emissions
escaping monitor
Melting, refining,
charging, tapping
and slagging
Uncontrolled
Alloy steel
Carbon steel
Controlled by: e
Building evacuation
to baghouse for
alloy steel
Direct shell
evacuation (plus
charging hood)
vented to common
baghouse for
carbon steel
Units
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) hot metal
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel



Emission Factor
0.3 (0.6)
0.071 (0.142)
0.0003 (0.0006)
0.46 (0.92)
0.145 (0.29)
0.0013 (0.0026)
0.095 (0.19)
0.028 (0.056)
0.25 (0.5)
0.028 (0.056)

19.0 (38.0)

0.7 (1.4)

5.65 (11.3)
25.0 (50.0)
0.15 (0.3)

0.0215 (0.043)
Emission
Factor
Rating
D
B
B
D
B
B
A
B
B
B

C

C

A
C
A

E
Particle
Size
Data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes


Yes

Yes





Yes
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                                                                          7.5-9

-------
     TABLE 7.5-1  (Cont.)-   PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR IRON AND STEEL  MILLS
Source
Open hearth furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled
Controlled by ESP
Roof monitor
Teeming
Leaded steel
Uncontrolled (measured
at source)
Controlled by side draft hood
vented to baghouse
Unleaded steel
Uncontrolled (measured
at source)
Controlled by side draft hood
vented to baghouse
Machine scarfing
Uncontrolled
Controlled by ESP
Miscellaneous combustion sources^
Boiler, soaking pit and slab
reheat
Blast furnace gas8
Coke oven gasS
Units
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) steel

kg/Mg (Ib/ton) metal
through scarfer
kg/109 J (lb/106 Btu)
Emission Factor
10.55 (21.1)
0.14 (0.28)
0.084 (0.168)
0.405 (0.81)
0.0019 (0.0038)
0.035 (0.07)
0.0008 (0.0016)
0.05 (0.1)
0.0115 (0.023)
f f
0.015 (0.035)
0.0052 (0.012)
Emission
Factor
Rating
D
D
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
D
D
Particle
Size
Data
Yes
Yes




aReference 3, except as noted.
''Typical  of older furnaces with no controls, or  for  canopy hoods or total casthouse evacuation.
cTypical  of large, new furnaces with local hoods and  covered evaucated runners.  Emissions are
 higher than without capture  systems because they are not diluted by outside  environment.
Emission factor of 0.55 kg/Mg (1.09 Ib/ton) represents one torpedo car;  1.26 kg/Mg (2.53 Ib/ton) for
 two torpedo cars, and 1.37 kg/Mg (2.74 Ib/ton) for three torpedo cars.
eBulldlng evacuation collects all process emissions,  and direct shell evacuation collects only
 aelting  and refining emissions.
fpor various fuels, use the emission factors in Chapter 1 of this document.   The emission factor
 rating,  for these fuels in boilers is A, and in soaking pits and slab reheat furnaces is D.
8Based on methane content and cleaned particulate loading.
     7.5-10
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                             10/86

-------
                  TABLE 7.5-2.   SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Sintering
Windbox
Uncontrolled
Leaving grate






Controlled by wet
ESP






Controlled by
venturi scrubber






Controlled by
cyclone6






Controlled by
baghouse






Emission
Factor
Rating



D







C







C







C







C






Particle
Size yma



0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1,0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated size



4b
4
5
9
15
20C
100

18b
25
33
48
59b
69
100

55
75
89
93
96
98
100

25C
37b
52
64
74
80
100

3.0
9.0
27.0
47.0
69.0
79.0
100.0
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)



0.22 (0.44)
0.22 (0.44)
0.28 (0.56)
0.50 (1.00)
0.83 (1.67)
1.11 (2.22)
5.56 (11.1)

0.015 (0.03)
0.021 (0.04)
0.028 (0.06)
0.041 (0.08)
0.050 (0.10)
0.059 (0.12)
0.085 (0.17)

0.129 (0.26)
0.176 (0.35)
0.209 (0.42)
0.219 (0.44)
0.226 (0.45)
0.230 (0.46)
0.235 (0.47)

0.13 (0.25)
0.19 (0.37)
0.26 (0.52)
0.32 (0.64)
0.37 (0.74)
0.40 (0.80)
0.5 (1.0)

0.005 (0.009)
0.014 (0.027)
0.041 (0.081)
0.071 (0.141)
0.104 (0.207)
0.119 (0.237)
0.15 (0.3)
10/86
                            Metallurgical Industry
7.5-11

-------
              TABLE 7.5.2 (cont.) SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Sinter discharge
(breaker and hot
screens) controlled
by baghouse





Blast furnace
Uncontrolled cast-
house emissions
Roof monitor^






Furnace with local
evacuation^






Hot metal
desulfurizationn
Uncontrolled





Hot metal
desulfurizationn
Controlled baghouse






Emission
Factor
Rating


C









C







C







E








D






Particle
Size yma


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d



0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated size


2b
4
11
20
32b
42b
100



4
15
23
35
51
61
100

7C
9
15
20
24
26
100

j
2c
11
19
19
21
100


8
18
42
62
74
78
100
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)


0.001 (0.002)
0.002 (0.004)
0.006 (0.011)
0.010 (0.020)
0.016 (0.032)
0.021 (0.042)
0.05 (0.1)



0.01 (0.02)
0.05 (0.09)
0.07 (0.14)
0.11 (0.21)
0.15 (0.31)
0.18 (0.37)
0.3 (0.6)

0.04 (0.09)
0.06 (0.12)
0.10 (0.20)
0.13 (0.26)
0.16 (0.31)
0.17 (0.34)
0.65 (1.3)


0.01 (0.02)
0.06 (0.12)
0.10 (0.22)
0.10 (0.22)
0.12 (0.23)
0.55 (1.09)


0.0004 (0.0007)
0.0009 (0.0016)
0.0019 (0.0038)
0.0028 (0.0056)
0.0033 (0.0067)
0.0035 (0.0070)
0.0045 (0.009)
7.5-12
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
              TABLE 7.5-2 (cont.)  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Basic oxygen furnace
Top blown furnace
melting and refining
controlled by closed
hood and vented to
scrubber






EOF Charging
At source^






Controlled by
baghouse






BOF Tapping
At source^






Emission
Factor
Rating





C







E







D







E






Particle
Size yma





0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated size





34
55
65
66
67
72c
100

8C
12
22
35
46
56
100

3
10
22
31
45
60
100

j
11
37
43
45
50
100
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)





0.0012 (0.0023)
0.0019 (0.0037)
0.0022 (0.0044)
0.0022 (0.0045)
0.0023 (0.0046)
0.0024 (0.0049)
0.0034 (0.0068)

0.02 (0.05)
0.04 (0.07)
0.07 (0.13)
0.10 (0.21)
0.14 (0.28)
0.17 (0.34)
0.3 (0.6)

9.0xlO-6 1.8xlO-5
3.0x10-5 6.0x10-5
6.6x10-5 (0.0001)
9.3x10-5 (0.0002)
0.0001 (0.0003)
0.0002 (0.0004)
0.0003 (0.0006)

J j
0.05 (0.10)
0.17 (0.34)
0.20 (0.40)
0.21 (0.41)
0.23 (0.46)
0.46 (0.92)
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.5-13

-------
               TABLE  7.5-2  (cont.)   SIZE  SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
BOF Tapping
Controlled by
baghouse






Q-BOP melting and
refining controlled
by scrubber



Emission
Factor
Rating


D








D






Electric arc furnace
melting and refin-
ing carbon steel
uncontrol ledm






Electric arc furnace
Melting, refining,
charging, tapping,
si agging
Controlled by
direct shell
evacuation (plus
charging hood)
vented to common
baghouse for
carbon steel0










D















E






Particle
Size ma


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d



0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d









0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d
Cumulative
Mass % <
Stated size


4
7
16
22
30
40
100


45
52
56
58
68
85C
100



8
23
43
53
58
61
100









74b
74
74
74
76
80
100
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)


5.2xlO-5 (0.0001)
0.0001 (0.0002)
0.0002 (0.0004)
0.0003 (0.0006)
0.0004 (0.0008)
0.0005 (0.0010)
0.0013 (0.0026)


0.013 (0.025)
0.015 (0.029)
0.016 (0.031)
0.016 (0.032)
0.019 (0.038)
0.024 (0.048)
0.028 (0.056)



1.52 (3.04)
4.37 (8.74)
8.17 (16.34)
10.07 (20.14)
11.02 (22.04)
11.59 (23.18)
19.0 (38.0)









0.0159 (0.0318)
0.0159 (0.0318)
0.0159 (0.0318)
0.0159 (0.0318)
0.0163 (0.0327)
0.0172 (0.0344)
0.0215 (0.043)
7.5-14
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                         10/86

-------
              TABLE 7.5-2  (cont.)  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Open hearth furnace
Melting and refining
Uncontrolled






Open Hearth Furnaces
Controlled by
ESPP





Emission
Factor
Rating


E







E






Particle
Size yma


0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d

0.5
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
15
d
Cumulative
Mass, % <
Stated size


lb
21
60
79
83
85C
100

10b
21
39
47
53b
56b
100
Cumulative mass
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)


0.11 (0.21)
2.22 (4.43)
6.33 (12.66)
8.33 (16.67)
8.76 (17.51)
8.97 (17.94)
10.55 (21.1)

0.01 (0.02)
0.03 (0.06)
0.05 (0.10)
0.07 (0.13)
0.07 (0.15)
0.08 (0.16)
0.14 (0.28)
aParticle aerodynamic diameter micrometers (ym) as defined by Task Group on Lung
 Dynamics.  (Particle density = 1 gr/cm^).
^Interpolated data used to develop size distribution.
cExtrapolated, using engineering estimates.
dTotal particulate based on Method 5 total catch.  See Table 7.5-1.
eAverage of various cyclone efficiencies.
^Total casthouse evacuation control system.
SEvacuation runner covers and local hood over taphole, typical of new state of
 the art blast furnace technology.
nTorpedo ladle desulfurization with CaC£ and CaCOo.
JUnable to extrapolate because of insufficient data and/or curve exceeding limits,
"^-Doghouse type furnace enclosure using front and back sliding doors, totally
 enclosing the furnace, with emissions vented to hoods.
mFull cycle emissions captured by canopy and side draft hoods.
nlnformation on control system not available.
PMay not be representative.  Test outlet size distribution was larger than inlet
 and may indicate reentrainment problem.
10/86
                            Metallurgical Industry
7.5-15

-------
    o
    o
            3ZIS 031715 NVH1  SS31 % SSVW
            O
            eo
o
(0
            o
                                 o
                                 (M
                \
                   \
                                                                             E
                                                                             o
                                                                          o-g

                                                                          •JJ c
                                                                      »  2
                                                                      ~  «
                                                                      *~  <
                                                                          e  c
                                                                          •
                                                             .
                                                                      u  o
V)
_J
o
tr
a;
o
(9
UJ

          •
          5 o.  5
          5 ««  <
          In w  »
Soooo
   Sm  m OD  CD
   0  O O  O
z  z  z z  z
o

ta
<
BD
•N.
or
    »*»**£
    5  I
    «;  s:
                      — z
                      o a.
                      z <
                      >• h-
                          a o
                          UJ
                      O 0£
                      D. =>
                      < (->
                      ac
                      H- UJ
                      X X
                                                                                          CO


                                                                                          o
                                                                                         •H
                                                                                          05
                                                                                          CO
                                                                                         NH


                                                                                          01
                                                                                         c
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                             c
                                                                                             •H
                                                                                             en
                                                                                             C
                                                                                             o
                                                                 •U
                                                                 CO
                                                                 •H
                                                                 -a

                                                                 0)

                                                                 N
                                                                 •rt
                                                                 CD


                                                                 CU
                                                                 i—I
                                                                 U
                                                                                             a.
                                                                 01
                                                                 s-.
                                                                 3
                                                                 60
                                                                 •i-t
                                                                 Ph
    Ul
       z  z z  z
                   z
                   in
 7.5-16
                                    EMISSION FACTORS
                                                               10/86

-------
           3ZlS Q31V1S N7H1 SS31 % SS7W
    o
    o
       o
       eo
                       O
                       (0
                                   o
                           o
                           - i-
                      CD
z  o
o  i
O  O
r  S
3  a>
z  o
      K  m

      *  i

   »  §  s
   o  w  "^
UJ

>

DC
3
o


UJ
   4  <  a. a.
   r  i  < «
   u  o  »- i-
   O  O  O O

   B  o  0) CO
               ±   "•
               u.   Ill
         a

         §
         a
                                                                                           03



                                                                                           O

                                                                                          •rt

                                                                                           05

                                                                                           03
                                                                                           0)

                                                                                           O

                                                                                           CB
                                                                                           C



                                                                                           60




                                                                                           O


                                                                                           O

                                                                                          •H

                                                                                           03
                                                                                          M-l

                                                                                          O
                                                                                          C
                                                                                          o
                                                                                 03

                                                                                 •H

                                                                                 •a


                                                                                 a>

                                                                                 N

                                                                                 •H

                                                                                 03



                                                                                 01

                                                                                 ^H

                                                                                 O

                                                                                 •H

                                                                                 4-1

                                                                                 tj

                                                                                 to

                                                                                 (X
 I
u-i
 •

f^


01


3

M
•H
10/86
                          Metallurgical Industry
                                                                                    7.5-17

-------
                 3ZIS 031715 N7H1 SS3"I % SSVW  3All7TnwnD
           o
           o
O
10
          O
O
(M
                                                    \
                                                                2 a:
               u.    a 5
               UJ    O
               »-    >- "
                                                                        e  e
                                                                       '.I  o
               v — _ •
               <5 si
               >i -°
               §1 -._
               (To 5 .r
               ui-z 8 c
               < £ y —
                — o •>
               UJ     "O
            2  d   ls
                                                                  ct
                                                                  <
                                                                  a
                                        o .*

                                        I!
                                        a  ».
                                        u O
                 i   i
a
UJ
_j
j
o
YTROLS
0
U

E CATEGORY/
u
cc
3
O
tf>
UNCONTR
^1
3 ».
URNACE CASTHO
UILOING EVACUA
u. a
^ _J
S?
i?
s~>
dS
/•^ M
22
/UNCONTF
UATION S'
w2
5$
^ UI
URNACE CASTHC
IOOO B> RUNNER
U, i
^ J
end
<
UI
o
^
J
$
H
o
z
o
z
^
0
z
UJ
t—
X
LU
>-
CQ

KTRAPOLATEO
UJ
i

z
a.
<
a£
o
LU
^—
K
-r
HE CURVES 01
»—

                                                                                     en
                                                                                     C
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     •H
                                                                                     en
                                                                                     en
                                                    (U a)
                                                    ,c

                                                    C O
                                                    (U -H
                                                    a. 4.)
                                                    O «
                                                      N
                                                     " -H
                                                    0) IJ
                                                    U 3
                                                    TO y-i
                                                    C ^H
                                                    U 3
                                                    3 03
                                                    M-l (U
                                                      •a
                                                                                     OJ
                                                                                     e
                                                                                   c
                                                                                   o
                               3 «
                               .0
                               •H 0)
                               n o
                               4-> CO
                               en c
                               •H t-l
                               T3 3
                                 <4-t
                               01
                               N O
                               •H )->
                               en co

                               01 CJ
                               t—( -t-H
                               O >-i
                               •H 4-1
                                 O
                                                                                   t-t

                                                                                   CO
                                                                                     0)
                                                                                   r~-

                                                                                   
-------
          TABLE 7.5-3.  UNCONTROLLED CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS
                           FOR IRON AND STEEL MILLSa

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   C
Source
Sintering windbox^
Basic oxygen furnacec
Electric arc furnacec
kg/Mg
22
69
9
Ib/ton
44
138
18
             aReference 6.
             bkg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished sinter.
             Ckg/Mg (Ib/ton) of finished steel.
7.5.2.9  Open Dust Sources - Like process emission sources, open dust sources
contribute to the atmospheric particulate burden.   Open dust sources  include
vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads, raw material handling outside of
buildings and wind erosion from storage piles and  exposed terrain.  Vehicle
traffic consists of plant personnel and visitor vehicles, plant service
vehicles, and trucks handling raw materials, plant deliverables, steel pro-
ducts and waste materials.  Raw materials are handled by clamshell  buckets,
bucket/ladder conveyors, rotary railroad dumps, bottom railroad dumps, front
end loaders, truck dumps, and conveyor transfer stations, all of which disturb
the raw material and expose fines to the wind.  Even fine materials resting on
flat areas or in storage piles are exposed and are subject to wind  erosion.  It
is not unusual to have several million tons of raw materials stored at a plant
and to have in the range of 10 to 100 acres of exposed area there.

          Open dust source emission factors for iron and steel production are
presented in Table 7.5-4.  These factors were determined through source testing
at various integrated iron and steel plants.

          As an alternative to the single valued open dust emission factors
given in Table 7.5-4, empirically derived emission factor equations are pre-
sented in Section 11.2 of this document.  Each equation was developed for a
source operation defined on the basis of a single  dust generating mechanism
which crosses industry lines, such as vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.   The
predictive equation explains much of the observed  variance in measured 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 (e. g., the speed and  weight of a vehicle traveling
on an unpaved road), (2) properties of the material being disturbed (e.  g., the
content of suspendible fines in the surface material on an unpaved  road)  and
(3) climatic parameters (e. g., number of precipitation free days per year,  when
emissions tend to a maximum).^
7.5-19
Metallurgical Industry
10/86

-------
             TABLE 7.5-4.   UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE  EMISSION  FACTORS FOR
                         OPEN DUST SOURCES AT IRON  AND  STEEL  MILLS3
Operation
Continuous drop
Conveyor transfer station
sinterc

Pile formation stacker pellet orec

Lunp orec

Coald

Batch drop
Front end loader/truck0
High silt slag

Low silt slag

Vehicle travel on unpaved roads
Light duty vehicle3

Medium duty vehicled

Heavy duty vehicle"1

Vehicle travel on paved roads
Light/heavy vehicle mixc

Emissions by particle size range
(aerodynamic diameter)
£ 30 um


13
0.026
1.2
0.0024
0.15
0.00030
0.055
0.00011


13
0.026
4.4
0.0088

0.51
1.8
2.1
7.3
3.9
14

0.22
0.78
£ 15 um


9.0
0.018
0.75
0.0015
0.095
0.00019
0.034
0.000068


8.5
0.017
2.9
0.0058

0.37
1.3
1.5
5.2
2.7
9.7

0.16
0.58
£ 10 um


6.5
0.013
0.55
0.0011
0.075
0.00015
0.026
0.000052


6.5
0.013
2.2
0.0043

0.28
1.0
1.2
4.1
2.1
7.6

0.12
0.44
£ 5 um


4.2
0.0084
0.32
0.00064
0.040
0.000081
0.014
0.000028


4.0
0.0080
1.4
0.0028

0.18
0.64
0.70
2.5
1.4
4.8

0.079
,0.28
< 2.5 um


2.3
0.0046
0.17
0.00034
0.022
0.000043
0.0075
0.000015


2.3
0.0046
0.80
0.0016

0.10
0.36
0.42
1.5
0.76
2.7

0.042
0.15
Unitsb


g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton


8/Mg
Ib/ton
g/Mg
Ib/ton

Kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
Kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
Kg/VKT
Ib/VMT

Kg/VKT
Ib/VMT
Emission
Factor
Rating


D
D
B
B
C
c
E
E


C
C
C
C

C
C
G
C
B
B

C
C
     aPredictive emission factor equations are generally preferred over these single values emission factors.
      Predictive emission factors estimates are presented in Chapter 11, Section 11.2.  VKT • Vehicle kilometer
      traveled.  VMT - Vehicle mile traveled.
     bUnlts/unlt of material transferred or units/unit of distance traveled.
     cReference 4.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
     ^Reference 5.  Interpolation to other particle sizes will be approximate.
7.5-20
                                         EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
     Because the predictive equations allow for emission factor adjustment  to
specific source conditions, the equations should be used in place of  the fac-
tors in Table 7.5-4, if emission estimates for sources in a specific  iron and
steel facility are needed.  However,  the generally higher quality ratings
assigned to the equations are applicable only if (1)  reliable values  of  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.  Section 11.2 lists measured properties of aggregate process
materials and road surface materials  in the iron and steel industry,  which  can
be used to estimate correction parameter values for the predictive emission
factor equations, in the event that site specific values are not available.

     Use of mean correction parameter values from Section 11.2 reduces  the
quality ratings of the emission factor equation by one level.

References for Section 7.5

1.   J. Jeffery and J. Vay, Source Category Report for the Iron and Steel
     Industry, EPA-600/7-86-036, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1986.

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

3.   T. A. Cuscino, Jr., Particulate  Emission Factors Applicable to the  Iron and
     Steel Industry, EPA-450/4-79-028, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1979.

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

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

6.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
     AP-65, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington,  DC,
     March 1970.
10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                      7.5-21

-------
7.6   PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING

7.6.1  Process Description

      Lead is usually found naturally as a sulfide ore containing small  amounts
of copper, iron, zinc and other trace elements.   It is usually concentrated  at
the mine from an ore of 3 to 8 percent lead to a concentrate of 55 to 70 percent
lead, containing from 13 to 19 weight percent free and uncombined sulfur.
Processing involves three major steps, sintering,  reduction and refining.

     A typical diagram of the production of lead metal from ore concentrate,
with particle and gaseous emission sources indicated,  is shown in Figure 7.6-1.

     Sintering - Sinter is produced by a sinter  machine, a continuous steel
pallet conveyor belt moved by gears and sprockets.  Each pallet consists of
perforated or slotted grates, beneath which are  wind boxes connected  to  fans  to
provide a draft, either up or down, through the  moving sinter charge. Except
for draft direction, all machines are similar in design, construction and
operation.

     The primary reactions occurring during the  sintering process
are autogenous, occurring at approximately 1000°C (1800°F):


                            2PbS + 302   > 2PbO  + 2S02                      (1)


                             PbS + 202   > PbS04                            (2)


     Operating experience has shown that system  operation and product quality
are optimum when the sulfur content of the sinter charge is from 5 to 7  weight
percent.  To maintain this desired sulfur content, sulfide free fluxes such  as
silica and limestone, plus large amounts of recycled sinter and smelter  resi-
dues, are added to the mix.  The quality of the  product sinter is usually
determined by its Ritter Index hardness, which is inversely proportional to  the
sulfur content.  Hard quality sinter (low sulfur content) is preferred,  because
it resists crushing during discharge from the sinter machine.  Undersize sinter,
usually from insufficient desulfurization, is recycled for further processing.

     Of the two kinds of sintering machines,  the updraft design is superior  for
many reasons.  First, the sinter bed is more permeable (and hence can be larg-
er), thereby permitting a higher production rate than with a downdraft machine
of similar dimensions.  Secondly, the small amounts of elemental lead that form
during sintering will solidify at their point of formation in updraft machines,
but, in downdraft operation, the metal flows down and collects on the grates  or
at the bottom of the sinter charge, thus causing increased pressure drop and
attendant reduced blower capacity.  The updraft  system also can produce  sinter
10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                       7.6-1

-------
                                                                                       
                                                                                      0
                                                                                      O
                                                                                      M
                                                                                      a,
                                                                                      n)
                                                                                      e
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      Ul
                                                                                      a.
                                                         i
                                                                                      0)
                                                                                      i-J
                                                                                      3
                                                                                      M
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      fa
7.6-2
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
of higher lead content, and it requires less maintenance than the downdraft
machine.  Finally, and most important from an air pollution control standpoint,
updraft sintering can produce a single strong sulfur dioxide (802) effluent
stream from the operation, by the use of weak gas recirculation.  This permits
more efficient and economical use of control methods such as sulfuric acid
recovery devices.

     Reduction - Lead reduction is carried out in a blast furnace, which basic-
ally is a water jacketed shaft furnac.e supported by a refractory base.  Tuyeres,
through which combustion air is admitted under pressure, are located near the
bottom and are evenly spaced on either side of the furnace.

     The furnace is charged with a mixture of sinter (80 to 90 percent of
charge), metallurgical coke (8 to 14 percent of charge), and other materials
such as limestone, silica, litharge, slag forming constituents, and various
recycled and cleanup materials.  In the furnace, the sinter is reduced to lead
bullion by Reactions 3 through 7.
                                  C + 02 — » C02                             (3)

                                 C + C02— > 2CO                             (4)

                                PbO + CO— » Pb + C02                        (5)

                              2PbO + PbS— » 3Pb + S02                       (6)

                             PbS04 + PbS — » 2Pb + 2S02                      (7)


      Carbon monoxide and heat required for reduction are supplied by the
combustion of coke.  Most of the impurities are eliminated in the slag.   Solid
products from the blast furnace generally separate into four layers,  speiss
(the lightest material, basically arsenic and antimony), matte (copper sulfide
and other metal sulfides), slag (primarily silicates), and lead bullion.   The
first three layers are called slag, which is continually collected from the
furnace and is either processed at the smelter for its metal content  or shipped
to treatment facilities.

      Sulfur oxides are also generated in blast furnaces from small quantities
of residual lead sulfide and lead sulfates in the sinter feed.  The quantity of
these emissions is a function not only of the sinter's residual sulfur content,
but also of the sulfur captured by copper and other impurities in the slag.

     Rough lead bullion from the blast furnace usually requires preliminary
treatment (dressing) in kettles before undergoing refining operations.  First,
the bullion is cooled to 370° to 430°C (700 to 800°F).  Copper and small  amounts
of sulfur, arsenic, antimony and nickel collect on the surface as a dross and
are removed from the solution.  This dross, in turn, is treated in a  reverber-
atory furnace to concentrate the copper and other metal impurities before being
routed to copper smelters for their eventual recovery.  To enhance copper re-
moval, drossed lead bullion is treated by adding sulfur bearing material, zinc,
and/or aluminum, lowering the copper content to approximately 0.01 percent.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.6-3

-------
     Refining - The third and final phase in smelting,  the refining  of  the
bullion in cast iron kettles, occurs in five steps:

     - Removal of antimony, tin and arsenic

     - Removal of precious metals by Parke's Process,  in which  zinc  combines
       with gold and silver to form an insoluble intermetallic  at  operating
       temperatures

     - Vacuum removal of zinc

     - Removal of bismuth by the Betterson Process,  which is  the addition of
       calcium and magnesium to form an insoluble compound with the  bismuth
       that is skimmed from the kettle

     - Removal of remaining traces of metal impurities  by addition of  NaOH and
       NaN03

     The final refined lead, commonly from 99.990 to 99.999 percent  pure,  is
then cast into 45 kilogram (100 pound) pigs for shipment.

7.6.2  Emissions And Controlsl~2

     Each of the three major lead smelting process steps generates substantial
quantities of 862 and/or particulate.

     Nearly 85 percent of the sulfur present in the lead ore  concentrate is
eliminated in the sintering operation.  In handling  process offgases,  either  a
single weak stream is taken from the machine hood at less than  2 percent SC>2,
or two streams are taken, a strong stream (5 to 7 percent 862)  from  the feed  end
of the machine and a weak stream (less than 0.5 percent 802)  from  the  discharge
end.  Single stream operation has been used if there is little  or  no market for
recovered sulfur, so that the uncontrolled, weak SC>2 stream is  emitted  to the
atmosphere.  When sulfur removal is required, however,  dual stream operation  is
preferred.  The strong stream is sent to a sulfuric acid plant, and  the weak
stream is vented to the atmosphere after removal of  particulate.

      When dual gas stream operation is used with updraft sinter machines, the
weak gas stream can be recirculated through the bed  to  mix with the  strong gas
stream, resulting in a single stream with an 802 concentration  of  about 6
percent.  This technique decreases machine production capacity, but  it  does
permit a more convenient and economical recovery of  the 802 by  sulfuric acid
plants and other control methods.

      Without weak gas recirculation, the end portion of the  sinter  machine
acts as a cooling zone for the sinter and, consequently, assists in  the reduc-
tion of dust formation during product discharge and  screening.   However, when
recirculation is used, sinter is usually discharged  at  400° to  500°C (745° to
950°F), with an attendant increase in particulate.  Methods to  reduce  these
dust quantities include recirculatng offgases through the sinter bed (to use
the bed as a filter) or ducting gases from the sinter machine discharge through
a particulate collection device and then to the atmosphere.  Because reaction
activity has ceased in the discharge area, these gases  contain  little  802.


7.6-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
      Particulate emissions from sinter machines range from 5  to  20  percent  of
the concentrated ore feed.  In terms of product weight,  a typical  emission is
estimated to be 106.5 kilograms per megagram (213 pounds per ton)  of lead
produced.  This value, and other particulate and SC>2 factors,  appears in Table
7.6-1.

      Typical material balances from domestic lead smelters indicate that about
15 percent of the sulfur in the ore concentrate fed to the sinter  machine is
eliminated in the blast furnace.  However,  only half of  this amount, about 7
percent of the total sulfur in the ore, is  emitted as
      The remainder is captured by the slag.   The concentration of  this  S02
stream can vary from 1.4 to 7.2 grams per cubic meter (500  to  2500  parts per
million) by volume , depending on the amount  of dilution air injected  to oxidize
the carbon monoxide and to cool the stream before baghouse  particulate removal.

      Particulate emissions from blast furnaces contain many different kinds  of
material, including a range of lead oxides, quartz,  limestone,  iron pyrites,
iron-lime-silicate slag, arsenic, and other metallic compounds  associated with
lead ores.  These particles readily agglomerate and  are primarily submicron in
size, difficult to wet, and cohesive.  They will bridge and arch in hoppers.
On average, this dust loading is quite substantial,  as is shown in  Table 7.6-1.

      Minor quantities of particulates are generated by ore crushing and mater-
ials handling operations, and these emission  factors are also  presented  in
Table 7.6-1.
     TABLE 7.6-1.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   B
                                      Particulate
      Process
                                   kg/Mg
                 Ib/ton
                             Sulfur dioxide
kg/Mg   Ib/ton
Ore crushing^
Sintering (updraft)c
Blast furnace*!
Dross reverberatory furnace6
Materials handling^
1.0
106.5
180.5
10.0
2.5
2.0
213.0
361.0
20.0
5.0
1_
275.0
22.5
Neg
~
_
550.0
45.0
Neg
—
aBased on quantity of lead produced.  Dash = no data.   Neg  = negligible.
bReference 2.  Based on quantity of ore crushed.  Estimated from similar
 nonferrous metals processing.
cReferences 1, 5-7.
dReferences 1-2, 8.
eReference 2.
^Reference 2.  Based on quantity of materials handled.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                7.6-5

-------
      Table 7.6-2 and Figure 7.6-2 present size specific emission factors  for
the controlled emissions from a primary lead blast furnace.   No other size
distribution data can be located for point sources within a  primary  lead pro-
cessing plant.  Lacking definitive data,  size distributions  for uncontrolled
assuming that the uncontrolled size distributions  for the sinter machine and
blast furnace are the same as for fugitive emissions  from these sources.

      Tables 7.6-3 through 7.6-7 and Figures 7.6-3 through 7.6-7 present size
specific emission factors for the fugitive emissions  generated  at a  primary lead
processing plant.  The size distribution of fugitive  emissions  at a  primary lead
processing plant is fairly uniform, with approximately 79 percent of  these
emissions at less than 2.5 micrometers.  Fugitive  emissions  less than 0.625
micrometers in size make up approximately half of  all fugitive  emissions,  except
from the sinter machine, where they constitute about  73 percent.

      Emission factors for total fugitive particulate from primary lead smelting
processes are presented in Table 7.6-8.  The factors  are based  on a  combination
of engineering estimates, test data from plants currently operating,  and test
data from plants no longer operating.  The values  should be  used with caution,
because of the reported difficulty in accurately measuring the  source emission
rates.

      Emission controls on lead smelter operations are for particulate and
sulfur dioxide.  The most commonly employed high efficiency  particulate control
devices are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP), which often
follow centrifugal collectors and tubular coolers  (pseudogravity collectors).

     Three of the six lead smelters presently operating in the  United States  use
single absorption sulfuric acid plants to control  SC>2 emissions from  sinter
machines and, occasionally, from blast furnaces.  Single stage  plants can
attain sulfur oxide levels of 5.7 grams per cubic  meter (2000 parts  per mill-
ion), and dual stage plants can attain levels of 1.6  grams per  cubic  meter (550
parts per million).  Typical efficiencies of dual  stage sulfuric acid plants  in
removing sulfur oxides can exceed 99 percent.  Other  technically feasible  S02
control methods are elemental sulfur recovery plants  and dimethylaniline (DMA)
and ammonia absorption processes.  These methods and  their representative
control efficiencies are given in Table 7.6-9.
7.6-6                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
     TABLE 7.6-2.  LEAD EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
                 BAGHOUSE CONTROLLED BLAST FURNACE FLUE GASESa

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  C
Particle
u
size"
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total

_, , . 0,
uumu.Lat iv e mass /o
< stated size
98
86.3
71.8
56.7
54.1
53.6
52.9
100.0
Cumulative em


kg/Mg
1.17
1.03
0.86
0.68
0.65
0.64
0.63
1.20
ission factors


Ib/ton
2.34
2.06
1.72
1.36
1.29
1.28
1.27
2.39
       aReference 9.
       "Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
                      _L
 I  I
I
                                                           1.20  "S
                                                           1.00
                                                          0.!
                  0.625  1.0 1.25  2.5     6.0  10.0  15.0

                               Particle size (pm)
                                                                o
                                                                o
                                                                s_
                                                                o
                                                          0.60  °
                                                                U~l
                                                                c/1
           Figure 7.6-2.
Size specific emission factors for baghouse
controlled blast furnace.
10/86
   Metallurgical Industry
                                      7.6-7

-------
        TABLE 7.6-3  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE

                    SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR LEAD ORE STORAGE3


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D
Particle
a-i ~ Ob
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total

< stated size
91
86
80.5
69.0
61.0
59.0
54.5
100.0
Cumulative
kg/Mg
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.012
emission factors
Ib/ton
0.023
0.021
0.020
0.017
0.015
0.015
0.013
0.025
       aReference 10.
       ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
               T3
               OJ
               O
               <_1
               c
               o
               rC
               c
               O
                  0.011  -
                  0.010
                  0.009
                  0.008
               L5  0.007
                          I
                      0.625 1.0 1.25  2.5      6.0   10.0  15.0

                                Particle size  (vim)

      Figure 7.6-3.  Size specific uncontrolled fugitive emission factors
                     for lead ore storage.
7.6-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
         TABLE 7.6-4.  UNCONTROLLED LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND

                 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR SINTER MACHINE3



                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle
sizeb
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative emission factors
Cumulative mass %
< stated size
99
98
94.1
87.3
81.1
78.4
73.2
100.0


kg/Mg
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.10


Ib/ton
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.19
       aReference 10.

       "Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter,
10/86
                -a
                OJ
                c
                o
                u
                 o
                 4->

                 O
                 l/l

                 1/1
0.10
                    0.09
                    0.08
                    0.07
                          _L
                        0.625  1.0  1.25   2.5       6.0  10.0  15.0


                                  Particle  size  (ym)
           Figure 7.6-4.
      Size specific fugitive emission factors for

      uncontrolled sinter machine.



         Metallurgical Industry
7.6-9

-------
    TABLE  7.6-5.  UNCONTROLLED LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE

                      SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR BLAST FURNACE8


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle
a-i ~ ob
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative emission factors
^ -IA.J m»no 9f
< stated size
94
89
83.5
73.8
65.0
61.8
54.4
100.0

kg/Mg
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.12

Ib/ton
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.24
    aReference 10.

    ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
    0.11



o   0.10
              T3
               QJ
               O
               u
                   0.09
                   0.08
               o   0.07
                   0.06
               l/l
               1/1
                   0.05

                                                _L
                                       I
_L
                        0.625 1.0 1.5  2.5     6.0  10.0 15.0

                                Particle size (ym)

          Figure 7.6-5.  Size specific lead fugitive emission factors
                         for uncontrolled blast furnace.
7.6-10
                 EMISSION FACTORS
                10/86

-------
     TABLE 7.6-6.
           UNCONTROLLED LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE
              SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR DROSS KETTLEa


                   EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle
size"
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total

Cumulative mass %
< stated size
99
98
92.5
83.3
71.3
66.0
51.0
100.0
Cumulative
kg/Mg
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.18
emission factors
Ib/ton
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.30
0.26
0.24
0.18
0.36
    aReference 10.
    ^Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
             T3
              OJ
              O
              O
              c
              3
      en

      en
              O
              rtJ
              c
              O
                    0.18
                    0.15
                    0.12
                   0.09
                   0.06
                               j	l
Figure 7.6-6
                        0.625 1.0 1.25 2.5       6.0  10.0  15.0

                                  Particle size  (vim)

                       Size specific lead fugitive emission factors for
                       uncontrolled  dross kettle.
10/86
                     Metallurgical Industry
7.6-11

-------
     TABLE 7.6-7.  UNCONTROLLED LEAD FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE

                  SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR REVERBERATING FURNACE3


                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
    aReference 10.
    "Expressed as aerodynamic equivalent diameter.
Particle
Q 1 <7 0b
(urn)
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total

< stated size
99
98
92.3
80.8
67.5
61.8
49.3
100.0
Cumulative
kg/Mg
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.24
emission factors
Ib/ton
0.49
0.48
0.45
0.39
0.33
0.30
0.24
0.49
                    0.25
                    0.20
                    0.15
                en
                SC

                CD
                 u
                 T,
                M-
                 5   0.10
                          I
        I  I
I
I
                       0.625 1.0 1.25  2.5     6.0  10.0 15.0

                                 Particle size
        Figure 7.6-7,
Size specific lead fugitive emission factors for
uncontrolled reverberating furnace.
7.6-12
         EMISSION FACTORS
                         10/86

-------
            TABLE 7.6-8.  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS  FOR
                      PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING PROCESSESSa»b

Emission
points
Ore storage^
Ore mixing and
pelletizing (crushing)
Car charging (conveyor loading,
transfer) of sinter
Sinter machine
Machine leakage0
Sinter return handling
Machine discharge,
sinter crushing, screening0
Sinter transfer to dump area
Sinter product dump area
Total buildingb
Blast furnace
Lead pouring to ladle, transferring
slag pouring0
Slag coolingd
Zinc fuming furnace vents
Dross kettleb
Reverberatory furnace leakage^
Silver retort building
Lead casting
Parti
kg/Mg
0.012

1.13

0.25

0.34
4.50

0.75
0.10
0.005
0.10


0.47
0.24
2.30
0.24
1.50
0.90
0.44
culate
Ib/ton
0.025

2.26

0.50

0.68
9.00

1.50
0.20
0.01
0.19


0.93
0.47
4.60
0.48
3.00
1.80
0.87
Emission
17 r\ n f- rt •*•
r etc L u L
Rating
D

E

E

E
E

E
E
E
D


D
E
E
D
D
E
E
    aExpressed in units/end product  lead  produced,  except  sinter  operations,
     which are units/sinter handled,  transferred,  charged.
    ^Reference 10.
    °References 12-13.   Engineering  judgment,  using steel  sinter  machine
     leakage emission factor.
    ^Reference 2.  Engineering  judgment,  estimated  to  be half  the magnitude
     of lead pouring  and ladling  operations.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.6-13

-------
              TABLE 7.6-9.   TYPICAL CONTROL  DEVICE  EFFICIENCIES  IN
                        PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING  OPERATIONS
                                                  Efficiency  range  (%)

         method                              Particulate      Sulfur dioxide
Centrifugal collector3
Electrostatic precipitator3
Fabric filter3
Tubular cooler (associated with waste
heat boiler)3
Sulfuric acid plant (single contact)"'0
Sulfuric acid plant (dual contact)b>d
Elemental sulfur recovery plantb»e
Dimethylaniline (DMA) absorption process^'
Ammonia absorption processD>f
80 - 90
95 - 99
95 - 99

70 - 80
99.5 - 99.9
99.5 - 99.9
NA
c NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
96 - 97
96 - 99.9
90
95 - 99
92 - 95
   3Reference 2.   NA = not  available.
   ^Reference 1.
   GHigh particulate control  efficiency  from action  of  acid  plant
    gas cleaning  systems.   With S02  inlet  concentrations  5-7%,  typical
    outlet emission levels  are 5.7 g/m3  (2000 ppm) for  single  contact,
    1.4 g/m3 (500 ppm) for  dual contact.
   ^Collection efficiency for a two  stage  uncontrolled  Glaus type plant.
    See Section 5.18, Sulfur  Recovery.
         S02 inlet concentrations 4-6  %,  typical  outlet  emission levels
    are from 1.4-8.6 g/m3 (500-3000  ppm).
         S02 inlet concentrations  of  1.5-2.5  %,  typical  outlet  emission
    level is 3.4 g/m3 (1200 ppm).
References for Section 7.6

 1.  C. Darvin and F.  Porter,  Background  Information  for  New  Source  Performance
     Standards;   Primary Copper,  Zinc  and Lead  Smelters,  Volume  I, EPA-450/2-
     74-002a,  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,
     NC, October 1974.

 2.  A. E. Vandergrift, et al.,  Particulate Pollutant System  Study,  Volume  I;
     Mass Emissions, APTD-0743,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.


 3.  A. Worcester and  D. H. Beilstein, "The State of  the  Art:  Lead  Recovery",
     presented at the  10th Annual Meeting of the  Metallurgical Society, AIME,
     New York, NY, March 1971.


7.6-14                          EMISSION  FACTORS                          10/86

-------
 4.  Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper,  Lead  and  Zinc
     Industries (Prepublication),  EPA Contract No. 68-03-2537,  Pedco Environ-
     mental, Cincinnati, OH, October 1978.

 5.  T. J. Jacobs, Visit to St. Joe Minerals Corporation Lead  Smelter,
     Herculaneum, MO, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  October  21,
     1971.

 6.  T. J. Jacobs, Visit to Amax Lead Company, Boss, MO, Office Of  Air  Quality
     Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, October 28, 1971.

 7.  Written communication from R. B. Paul, American Smelting  and  Refining Co.,
     Glover, MO, to Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Kansas City, MO, April 3, 1973.

 8.  Emission Test No. 72-MM-14, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC,  May
     1972.

 9.  Source Sampling Report;  Emissions from Lead Smelter at American Smelting
     and Refining Company, Glover, MO, July 1973 to July 23, 1973,  EMB-73-
     PLD-1, Office Of Air Quality  Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1974.

10.  Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions From Two Primary Lead Smelters, EPA-450/3-
     77-031, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
     October 1977.

11.  Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation  (Interim
     Report), Contract No. 68-02-1343, Pedco Environmental,  Durham, NC,
     February 1975.

12.  R. E. Iversen, Meeting with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  and AISI
     on Steel Facility Emission Factors, Office Of Air Quality  Planning  And
     Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, June 1976.

13.  G. E. Spreight, "Best Practicable Means in the Iron and Steel  Industry",
     The Chemical Engineer, London, England, ZH: 132-139, March 1973.

14.  Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U.  S.  Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1978.
10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                       7.6-15

-------
7.7    PRIMARY ZINC SMELTING

7.7.1  Process Descriptionl-2

     Zinc is found primarily as the sulfide ore sphalerite (ZnS).   Its  common
coproduct ores are lead and copper.  Metal impurities commonly associated  with
ZnS are cadmium (up to 2 percent) and minor quantities of germanium,  gallium,
indium and thalium.  Zinc ores typically contain from 3 to 11  percent zinc.
Some ores containing as little as 2 percent are recovered.  Concentration  at
the mine brings this to 49 to 54 percent zinc,  with approximately  31  percent
free and uncorabined sulfur.

     Zinc ores are processed into metallic slab zinc by two basic  processes.
Four of the five domestic U. S. zinc smelting facilities use the electrolytic
process, and one plant uses a pyrometallurgical smelting process typical of  the
primary nonferrous smelting industry.  A general diagram of the industry is
presented in Figure 7.7-1.

     Electrolytic processing involves four major steps, roasting,  leaching,
purification and electrolysis, details of which follow.

     Pyrometallurigical processing involves three major steps, roasting (as
above), sintering and retorting.

     Roasting is a process common to both electrolytic and pyrometallurgical
processing.  Calcine is produced by the roasting reactions in any  one of three
different types of roasters, multiple hearth, suspension, or fluidized  bed.
Multiple hearth roasters are the oldest type used in the United States, while
fluidized bed roasters are the most modern.  The primary zinc roasting  reaction
occurs between 640° and 1000°C (1300° and 1800°F), depending on the type of
roaster used, and is as follows:

                         2ZnS + 302 	>  2ZnO + 2SO2                       (1)

     In a multiple hearth roaster, the concentrate is blown through a series  of
nine or more hearths stacked inside a brick lined cylindrical  column.  As  the
feed concentrate drops through the furnace, it  is first dried by the hot gases
passing through the hearths and then oxidized to produce calcine.   The  reactions
are slow and can only be sustained by the addition of fuel.

     In a suspension roaster, the feed is blown into a combustion  chamber  very
similar to that of a pulverized coal furnace.  Additional grinding, beyond that
required for a multiple hearth furnace, is normally required to assure  that
heat transfer to the material is sufficiently rapid for the desulfurization  and
oxidation reactions to occur in the furnace chamber.  Hearths  at the  bottom of
the roaster capture the larger particles, which require additional time within
the furnace to complete the desulfurization reaction.
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.7-1

-------
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 M
                                                                                 O.
                                                                                 
-------
     In a fluidized bed roaster, finely ground sulfide concentrates are suspend-
ed and oxidized within a pneumatically supported feedstock bed.   This achieves
the lowest sulfur content calcine of the three roaster designs.

     Suspension and fluidized bed roasters are superior to the multiple hearth
for several reasons.  Although they emit more uncontrolled particulate, their
reaction rates are much faster, allowing greater process rates.   Also,  the
sulfur dioxide (802) content of the effluent streams of these two types of
roasters is significantly higher, thus permitting more efficient and economical
use of acid plants to control S02 emissions.

     Leaching is the first step of electrolytic reduction, in which the zinc
oxide reacts to form aqueous zinc sulfate in an electrolyte solution containing
sulfuric acid.
                ZnO  +  H9SO, ->  Zn+2(aq)  +  SO,  2(aq)   +  H90            (2)
     Single and double leach methods can be used,  although the former exhibits
excessive sulfuric acid losses and poor zinc recovery.  In double leaching,  the
calcine is first leached in a neutral or slightly  alkaline solution.   The
readily soluble sulfates from the calcine dissolve,  but only a portion of the
zinc oxide enters the solution.   The calcine is then leached in the acidic
electrolysis recycle electrolyte.  The zinc oxide  is dissolved through Reaction
2, as are many of the impurities, especially iron.  The electrolyte is neutral-
ized by this process, and it serves as the leach solution for the first stage
of the calcine leaching.  This recycling also serves as the first stage of
refining, since much of the dissolved iron precipitates out of the solution.
Variations on this basic procedure include the use of progressively stronger
and hotter acid baths to bring as much of the zinc as possible into solution.

     Purification is a process in which a variety  of reagents are added to the
zinc laden electrolyte to force impurities to precipitate.  The solid precipi-
tates are separated from the solution by filtration.  The techniques  used are
among the most advanced industrial applications of inorganic solution chemistry.
Processes vary from smelter to smelter, and the details are proprietary and
often patented.  Metallic impurities, such as arsenic, antimony,  cobalt,  german-
ium, nickel and thallium, interfere severely with  the electrolyte deposition of
zinc, and their final concentrations are limited to  less than 0.05 milligrams
per liter (4 x 10"? pounds per gallon).

     Electrolysis takes place in tanks, or cells,  containing a number of  closely
spaced rectangular metal plates  acting as anodes (made of lead with 0.75  to  1.0
percent silver) and as cathodes  (made of aluminum).   A series of  three major
reactions occurs within the electrolysis cells:
10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                       7.7-3

-------
                           H2S04
                   2H20	»  4H+(aq)   +  4e~   +  02                 (3)
                           anode
                                         cathode
                        2Zn+2  +  4e-           •»   2Zn                     (4)
                  4H+(aq)   +  2S0~2(aq)   	•>•   2HS0                (5)
     Oxygen gas is released at the anode,  metallic zinc  is  deposited  at  the
cathode, and sulfuric acid is regenerated  within the electrolyte.

     Electrolytic zinc smelters contain a  large number of cells,  often several
hundred.  A portion of the electrical  energy released in these cells  dissipates
as heat.  The electrolyte is continuously  circulated through cooling  towers,
both to lower its temperature and to concentrate the electrolyte  through the
evaporation of water.  Periodically, each  cell  is shut down and the zinc is
removed from the plates.

     The final stage of electrolytic zinc  smelting is the melting  and casting
of the cathode zinc into small slabs,  27 kilograms (60 pounds), or large slabs,
640 to 1100 kilograms (1400 to 2400 pounds).

     Sintering is the first stage of the pyrometallurgical  reduction  of  zinc
oxide to slab zinc.  Sintering removes lead and cadmium  impurities by volatil-
ization and produces an agglomerated permeable  mass suitable for  feed to re-
torting furnaces.  Downdraft sintering machines of the Dwight-Lloyd type are
used in the industry.  Grate pallets are joined to form  a continuous  conveyor
system.  Combustion air is drawn down through the grate  pallets and is exhausted
to a particulate control system.  The feed is a mixture  of  calcine, recycled
sinter and coke or coal fuel.  The low boiling  point oxides of lead and  cadmium
are volatilized from the sinter bed and are recovered in the particulate control
system.

     In retorting, because of the low boiling point of metallic zinc, 906°C
(1663°F), reduction and purification of zinc bearing minerals can be  accom-
plished to a greater extent than with most minerals.  The sintered zinc  oxide
feed is brought into high temperature reducing  atmosphere of 900°  to  1499°C
(1650° to 2600°F).  Under these conditions, the zinc oxide  is simultaneously
reduced and volatilized to gaseous zinc:
                           ZnO + CO-» Zn(vapor)  + C02                        (6)

Carbon monoxide regeneration also occurs:

                                 C02 + C-> 2CO                              (7)



7.7-4                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
     The zinc vapor and carbon monoxide produced pass from the main furnace to a
condenser, for zinc recovery by bubbling through a molten zinc bath.

     Retorting furnaces can be heated either externally by combustion flames or
internally by electric resistance heating.  The latter approach,  electrothermic
reduction, is the only method currently practiced in the United States,  and it
has greater thermal efficiency than-do external heating methods.   In a retort
furnace, preheated coke and sinter, silica and miscellaneous zinc bearing
materials are fed continuously into the top of the furnace.  Feed coke serves
as the principle electrical conductor, producing heat, and it also provides the
carbon monoxide required for zinc oxide reduction.  Further purification steps
can be performed on the molten metal  collected in the condenser.   The molten
zinc finally is cast into small slabs 27 kilograms (60 pounds), or the large
slabs, 640 to 1000 kilograms (1400 to 2400 pounds).

     Each of the two zinc smelting processes generates emissions  along the
various process steps.  Although the  electrolytic reduction process emits less
particulate than does pyrometallurgical reduction, significant quantities of
acid mists are generated by electrolytic production steps.  No data are current-
ly available to quantify the significance of these emissions.

     Nearly 90 percent of the potential S02 emissions from zinc ores is released
in roasters.  Concentrations of S02 in the exhaust gases vary with the roaster
type, but they are sufficiently high  to allow recovery in an acid plant.
Typical S(>2 concentrations for multiple hearth, suspension, and fluidized bed
roasters are 4.5 to 6.5 percent, 10 to 13 percent, and 7 to 12 percent,  respe-
ctively.  Additional S02 is emitted from the sinter plant, the quantity depend-
ing on the sulfur content of the calcine feedstock.  The S02 concentration of
sinter plant exhaust gases ranges from 0.1 to 2.4 percent.  No sulfur controls
are used on this exhaust stream.  Extensive desulfurization before electro-
thermic retorting results in practically no S02 emissions from these devices.

     The majority of particulate emissions in the primary zinc smelting industry
is generated in the ore concentrate roasters.  Depending on the type of roaster
used, emissions range from 3.6 to 70  percent of the concentrate feed.  When
expressed in terms of zinc production, emissions are estimated to be 133 kilo-
grams per megagram (266 pounds per ton) for a multiple hearth roaster, 1000
kilograms per megagram (2000 pounds per ton) for a fluidized bed  roaster,
expressed in terms of zinc production.  Particulate emission controls are
generally required for the economical operation of a roaster, with cyclones and
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) the primary methods used.  No data are avail-
able for controlled particulate emissions from a roasting plant.

     Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for point sources within a
zinc smelting plant appear in Table 7.7-1.  Sinter plant emission factors
should be applied carefully, because  the data source is different from the only
plant currently in operation in the United States, although the technology is
identical.  Additional data have been obtained for a vertical retort, although
no examples of this type of plant are operating in the United States.  Particu-
late factors also have been developed for uncontrolled emissions  from an elec-
tric retort and the electrolytic process.
10/86                     Metallurgical Industry                          7.7-5

-------
     Fugitive emission factors have been estimated for the zinc smelting indus-
try and are presented in Table 7.7-2.  These emission factors are based on
similar operations in the steel, lead and copper industries.
                 TABLE 7.7-1.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                         PRIMARY SLAB ZINC PROCESSING3

Process
Roasting
Multiple hearthb
Suspension0
Fluidized bedd
Sinter plant
Uncontrolled6
With cyclone^
With cyclone
and ESPf

Emission
Uncontrolled Factor
kg/Mg
113
1000
1083
62.5
NA
NA
IXCIl.-l.llg
Ib/ton
227 E
2000 E
2167 E
125 E
NA
NA
Emission
Controlled Factor
— — — — Kating
kg/Mg Ib/ton
4 8 E
24.1 48.2 D
8.25 16.5 D
Vertical retortS

Electric retort*1

Electrolytic
  processJ
 7.15

10.0


 3.3
14.3

20.0


 6.6
D

E


E
aBased on quantity of slab zinc produced.  NA = not applicable.  Dash = no
 data.
^References 3-5.  Averaged from an estimated 10% of feed released as
particulate emissions, zinc production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate,
 and other estimates.
cReferences 3-5.  Based on an average 60% of feed released as particulate
 emission and a zinc production rate at 60% of roaster feed rate.  Controlled
 emissions based on 20% drop out in waste heat boiler and 99.5% drop out in
 cyclone and ESP.
^References 3,6.  Based on an average 65% of feed released as particulate
 emissions and a zinc production rate of 60% of roaster feed rate.
eReference 3.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
fReference 7.  Data not necessarily compatible with uncontrolled emissions.
SReference 7.
"Reference 2.  Based on unspecified industrial source data.
^Reference 13.
7.7-*
        EMISSION FACTORS
                                        10/86

-------
      TABLE 7.7-2.  UNCONTROLLED FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS  FOR
                         PRIMARY SLAB ZINC PROCESSING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
             Process
                  Emission factor^

              (kg/Mg)        (Ib/ton)
         Roasting

         Sinter plantc
           Wind box.
           Discharge and screens

         Retort buildingd

         Casting6
             Negligible


             0.12 - 0.55
             0.28 - 1.22

             1.0  -  2.0

                 1.26
Negligible


0.24 - 1.10
0.56 - 2.44

2.0  - 4.0

    2.52
      aBased on quantity of slab zinc produced,  except as noted.
      bReference 8.
      cFrom steel industry operations for which there are emission
       factors.  Based on quantity of sinter produced.
      ^From lead industry operations.
      eFrom copper industry operations.
References for Section 7.7

 1.  V. Anthony Cammerota, Jr., "Mineral Facts and Problems:   1980",  Zinc,
     Bureau Of Mines, U. S. Department Of Interior, Washington,  DC,  1980.

 2.  Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper,  Lead and  Zinc
     Industries, EPA-600/2-82-066, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati, OH, October 1978.

 3.  Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I;  Mass Emissions,  APTD-0743,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC,  May
     1971.

 4.  G. Sallee, personal communication anent Reference 3, Midwest Research
     Institute, Kansas City, MO, June 1970.

 5.  Systems Study for Control of Emissions  in the Primary Nonferrous Smelting
     Industry, Volume I, APTD-1280, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1969.

 6.  Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley and Sons,  Inc.,  New York,
     NY, 1967.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                 7.7-7

-------
 7.  Robert B. Jacko and David W.  Nevendorf,  "Trace Metal  Emission Test  Results
     from a Number of Industrial  and Municipal  Point Sources",  Journal of  the
     Air Pollution Control Association,  2J_(10):989-994,  October 1977.

 8.  Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial  Process  Fugitive Particulate
     Emissions, EPA-450/3-77-010,  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC,  March 1977.

 9.  Linda J. Duncan and Edwin L.  Keitz,  "Hazardous Particulate Pollution  from
     Typical Operations in the Primary Non-ferrous Smelting  Industry", presented
     at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
     Denver, CO, June 9-13, 1974.

10.  Environmental Assessment Data Systems, FPEIS  Test Series No.  3,  U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle Park, NC.

11.  Environmental Assessment Data Systems, FPEIS  Test Series No.  44, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle Park, NC.

12.  R. E. Lund, et al., "Josephtown Electrothermic Zinc Smelter of St.  Joe
     Minerals Corporation", AIME  Symposium on Lead and Zinc, Volume II,  1970.

13.  Background Information For New Source Performance Standards;  Primary
     Copper, Lead and Zinc Smelters, EPA-450/2-74-002a,  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park,  NC  October  1974.
7.7-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
7.8  SECONDARY ALUMINUM OPERATIONS

7.8.1  General

     Secondary aluminum operations involve the cleaning, melting, refining,
alloying and pouring of aluminum recovered from scrap, foundry returns and
dross.  The processes used to convert scrap aluminum to secondary aluminum
products such as lightweight metal alloys for industrial castings and ingots
are presented in Figure 7.8-1.  Production involves two general classes of
operations, scrap treatment and smelting/refining.

     Scrap treatment involves receiving, sorting and processing scrap to
remove contaminants and to prepare the material for smelting.  Processes
based on mechanical, pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical techniques are
used, and those employed are selected to suit the type of scrap processed.

     The smelting/refining operation generally involves the following steps:

              o  charging                o  mixing
              o  melting                 o  demagging
              o  fluxing                 o  degassing
              o  alloying                o  skimming
                                         o  pouring

All of these steps may be involved at each facility, with process distinctions
being in the furnace type used and in emission characteristics.  However, as
with scrap treatment, not all of these steps are necessarily incorporated
into the operations at a particular plant.  Some steps may be combined or
reordered, depending on furnace design, scrap quality, process inputs and
product specifications.

Scrap treatment - Purchased aluminum scrap undergoes inspection upon delivery.
Clean scrap requiring no treatment is transported to storage or is charged
directly into the smelting furnace.  The bulk of the scrap, however, must be
manually sorted as it passes along a steel belt conveyor.  Free iron, stainless
steel, zinc, brass and oversized materials are removed.  The sorted scrap
then goes to appropriate scrap treating processes or is charged directly to
the smelting furnace.

     Sorted scrap is conveyed to a ring crusher or hammer mill, where the
material is shredded and crushed, with the iron torn away from the aluminum.
The crushed material is passed over vibrating screens to remove dirt and
fines, and tramp iron is removed by magnetic drums and/or belt separators.
Baling equipment compacts bulky aluminum scrap into 1x2 meter (3x6 foot)
bales.

     Pure aluminum cable with steel reinforcement or insulation is cut by
alligator type shears and granulated or further reduced in hammer mills, to
separate the iron core and the plastic coating from the aluminum.  Magnetic
processing accomplishes iron removal, and air classification separates the
insulation.

10/86                       Metallurgical Industry                     7.8-1

-------
         !•<
                        <

                       T
z
z
          ••<
cc  '•
? = !
< *!
oc a: i
£ o;
                                     U
                                                      x
u
                      3 CJ
                      a e
                                                                                         3
OJ
_c
'in
£


§
Q.

E
3
C

E
_3
(D
                                                                                        C
                                                                                        o

                                                                                        g
                                                                                        
-------
     Borings and turnings, in most cases, are treated to remove cutting oils,
greases, moisture and free iron.  The processing steps involved are (a)
crushing in hammer mills or ring crushers, (b) volatilizing the moisture and
organics in a gas or oil fired rotary dryer, (c) screening the dried chips to
remove aluminum fines, (d) removing iron magnetically and (e) storing the
clean dried borings in tote boxes.

     Aluminum can be recovered from the hot dross discharged from a refining
furnace by batch fluxing with a salt/cryolite mixture in a mechanically ro-
tated, refractory lined barrel furnace.  The metal is tapped periodically
through a hole in its base.  Secondary aluminum recovery from cold dross and
other residues from primary aluminum plants is carried out by means of this
batch fluxing in a rotary furnace.  In the dry milling process, cold aluminum
laden dross and other residues are processed by milling, screening and con-
centrating to obtain a product containing at least 60-70 percent aluminum.
Ball, rod or hammer mills can be used to reduce oxides and nonmetallics to
fine powders.  Separation of dirt and other unrecoverables from the metal is
achieved by screening, air classification and/or magnetic separation.

     Leaching involves (a) wet milling, (b) screening, (c) drying and (d)
magnetic separation to remove fluxing salts and other non-recoverables from
drosses, skimmings and slags.  First, the raw material is fed into a long
rotating drum or an attrition or ball mill where soluble contaminants are
leached.  The washed material is then screened to remove fines and dissolved
salts and is dried and passed through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous
materials.  The nonmagnetics then are stored or charged directly to the
smelting furnace.

     In the roasting process, carbonaceous materials associated with aluminum
foil are charred and then separated from the metal product.

     Sweating is a pyrometallurgical process used to recover aluminum from
high iron content scrap.  Open flame reverberatory furnaces may be used.
Separation is accomplished as aluminum and other low melting constituents
melt and trickle down the hearth, through a grate and into air cooled molds
or collecting pots.  This product is termed "sweated pig".  The higher melting
materials, including iron, brass and oxidation products formed during the
sweating process, are periodically removed from the furnace.

Smelting/refining - In reverberatory (chlorine) operations, reverberatory
furnaces are commonly used to convert clean sorted scrap, sweated pigs or
some untreated scrap to specification ingots, shot or hot metal.  The scrap
is first charged to the furnace by some mechancial means, often through
charging wells designed to permit introduction of chips and light scrap below
the surface of a previously melted charge ("heel").  Batch processing is
generally practiced for alloy ingot production, and continuous feeding and
pouring are generally used for products having less strict specifications.

     Cover fluxes are used to prevent air contact with and consequent oxidation
of the melt.  Solvent fluxes react with nonmetallics such as burned coating
residues and dirt to form insolubles which float to the surface as part of
the slag.
10/86                       Metallurgical Industry                     7.8-3

-------
     Alloying agents are charged through the forewell in amounts determined
by product specifications.  Injection of nitrogen or other inert gases into
the molten metal can be used to aid in raising dissolved gases (typically
hydrogen) and intermixed solids to the surface.

     Demagging reduces the magnesium content of the molten charge from
approximately 0.3 to 0.5 percent (typical scrap value) to about 0.1 percent
(typical product line alloy specification).  When demagging with chlorine
gas, chlorine is injected under pressure through carbon lances to react with
magnesium and aluminum as it bubbles to the surface.  Other chlorinating
agents, or fluxes, are sometimes used such as anhydrous aluminum chloride or
chlorinated organics.

     In the skimming step, contaminated semisolid fluxes (dross, slag or
skimmings) are ladled from the surface of the melt and removed through the
forewell.  The melt is then cooled before pouring.

     The reverberatory (fluorine) process is similar to the reverberatory
(chlorine) smelting/refining process, except that aluminum fluoride (Al?3)
is employed in the demagging step instead of chlorine.  The AlF^ reacts with
magnesium to produce molten metallic aluminum and solid magnesium fluoride
salt which floats to the surface of the molten aluminum and is skimmed off.

     The crucible smelting/refining process is used to melt small batches of
aluminum scrap, generally limited to 500 kg (1000 Ib) or less.  The metal
treating process steps are essentially the same as those of reverberatory
furnaces.

     The induction smelting/refining process is designed to produce hardeners
by blending pure aluminum and hardening agents in an electric induction
furnace.  The process steps include charging scrap to the furnace, melting,
adding and blending the hardening agent, skimming, pouring and casting into
notched bars.

7.8.2  Emissions and Controls1

     Table 7.8-1 presents emission factors for the principal emission sources
in secondary aluminum operations.  Although each step in scrap treatment and
smelting/refining is a potential source of emissions, emissions from most of
the scrap treatment operations are either not characterized here or represent
small amounts of pollutants.  Table 7.8-2 presents particle size distributions
and corresponding emission factors for uncontrolled chlorine demagging and
metal refining in secondary aluminum reverberatory furnaces.

     Crushing/screening and shredding/classifying produce small amounts of
metallic and nonmetallic particulate.  Baling operations produce particulate
emissions, primarily dirt and alumina dust resulting from aluminum oxidation.
These processing steps are normally uncontrolled.

     Burning/drying operations emit a wide range of pollutants, particulate
matter as well as VOCs.  Afterburners are used generally to convert unburned
VOCs to C02 and 1^0.  Other gases potentially present, depending on the compo-
sition of the organic contaminants, include chlorides, fluorides and sulfur
oxides.  Oxidized aluminum fines blown out of the dryer by the combustion

7.8-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
          TABLE 7.8-1.   PARTICULATE  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY
                             ALUMINUM OPERATIONS3



Uncontrolled Baghouse
Operation
Sweating furnace''
Smelting
Crucible furnace''
Reverberatory furnace0
Chlorine demagging
kg/Mg
7.25

0.95
2.15
500
Ib/ton kg/Mg Ib/ton
14.5 1.65 3.3

1.9
4.3 0.65e 1.3e
1000 25 50
Electrostatic Emission
precipltator factor
kg/Mg Ib/ton rating
- - C

C
0.65 1.3 B
- B
     aReference 2. Emission factors for sweating and smelting furnaces expressed as units per unit
      weight of metal processed.  For chlorine demagging, emission factor 1s kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of
      chlorine used.
     "Based on averages of two source tests.
     ^Uncontrolled, based on averages of ten source  tests. Standard deviation of uncontrolled
      emission factor Is 1.75 kg/Mg (3.5 Ib/ton), that of controlled factor is 0.15 kg/Mg (0.3 Ib/ton).
     ''Based on average of ten source tests.  Standard deviation of uncontrolled emission factor is
      215 kg/Mg (430 Ib/ton); of controlled factor,  18 kg/Mg (36 Ib/ton).
     eThis factor may be lower if a coated baghouse  is used.
gases comprise particulate  emissions.  Wet  scrubbers are sometimes used in
place of  afterburners.

     Mechanically generated dust from the rotating barrel dross furnace
constitutes  the main air  emission of hot dross  processing.   Some fumes are
produced  from the fluxing reactions.  Fugitive  emissions are controlled by
enclosing the barrel in a hood system and by  ducting the stream to a bag-
house.  Furnace offgas emissions, mainly fluxing salt fume,  are controlled
by a venturi scrubber.

     In dry  milling, large  amounts of dust  are  generated from the crushing,
milling,  screening, air classification and  materials transfer steps.  Leach-
ing operations may produce  particulate emissions during drying.  Emissions
from roasting are particulates from the charring of carbonaceous materials.

     Emissions from sweating furnaces vary  with the feed scrap composition.
Smoke may result from incomplete combustion of  organic contaminants (e.g.,
rubber, oil  and grease, plastics, paint, cardboard, paper) which may be
present.   Fumes can result  from oxidation of  magnesium and zinc contaminants
and from  fluxes in recovered drosses and skims.

     Atmospheric emissions  from reverberatory (chlorine) smelting/refining
represent a  significant fraction of the total particulate and gaseous eff-
luents generated in the secondary aluminum  industry.  Typical furnace eff-
luent gases  contain combustion products, chlorine, hydrogen  chloride and
metal chlorides of zinc,  magnesium and aluminum, aluminum oxide and various
metals and metal compounds, depending on the  quality of scrap charged.

     Emissions from reverberatory (fluorine)  smelting/refining are similar
to those  from reverberatory (chlorine) smelting/refining.  The use of A1F3

10/86                         Metallurgical Industry                      7.8-5

-------
            Particle  Size Distributions and  Size Specific Emission
               Factors  for Uncontrolled Reverberatory Furnaces
                       UNCONTROLLED
                       Weight percent
                       Emission factor
             parcicle diameter,
                                    UNCONTROLLED
                                  —•- Weight percent
                                  	 Emission factor
                                                          Pare!cle diameter , urn
  Figure 7.8-2.  Chlorine  demagging.
                  Figure 7.8-3.  Refining.
 TABLE 7.8-2.  PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS  AND  SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS
               FOR  UNCONTROLLED REVERBERATORY FURNACES IN SECONDARY  ALUMINUM
                                      OPERATIONS3

                    SIZE-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  D



Particle size distribution13
Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, urn
2.5
6.0
10.0

Chlorine
demagging
19.8
36.9
53.2

Refining

50.0
53.4
60.0
Size specific emission
factor0,

Chlorine
demagging
99.5
184.5
266.0
kg/Mg

Refining

1.08
1.15
1.30
  aReferences 4-5.
  "Cumulative weight  %  < aerodynamic particle  diameter, um.
  GSize specific  emission factor = total particulate emission factor x
   particle size  distribution, %/100.  From  Table 7.8-1, total particulate
   emission factor  for  chlorine demagging  is 500 kg/Mg chlorine  used, and
   for refining,  2.15 kg/Mg aluminum processed.
7.8-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
 rather than chlorine in the demagging step reduces demagging emissions.
 Fluorides are emitted as gaseous fluorides (hydrogen fluoride,  aluminum and
 magnesium fluoride vapors,  and silicon tetrafluoride) or as dusts.   Venturi
 scrubbers are usually used  for fluoride emission control.
 References for Section 7.8

 1.  W.  M.  Coltharp,  et al.,  Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the
     Secondary Nonferrous Metal Industry,  Draft Final Report,  2 vols.,
     EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319,  Radian Corporation, Austin,  TX, June  1976.

 2.  W.  F.  Hammond and S. M.  Weiss,  Unpublished report on air  contaminant
     emissions from metallurgical  operations in Los  Angeles County, Los
     Angeles County Air Pollution  Control  District,  July 1964.

 3.  R.  A.  Baker, et  al.,  Evaluation of a Coated Baghouse at  a Secondary
     Aluminum Smelter, EPA Contract  No. 68-02-1402,  Environmental Science
     and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL, October 1976.

 4.  Emission test data from  Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
     ticle  Emission Information System (FPEIS),  Series Report  No. 231,  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, June  1983.

 5.  Environmental Assessment Data Systems,  op.  cit., Series Report No. 331.

 6.  J.  A.  Danielson, (ed.),  Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  2nd Ed., AP-40,
     U.  S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle  Park, NC, May
     1973.   Out of Print.

 7.  E.  J.  Petkus, Precoated  Baghouse Control for Secondary Aluminum Smelting,
     presented at the 71st Annual  Meeting  of the Air Pollution  Control  Associ-
     ation, Houston,  TX, June 1978.
10/86                       Metallurgical  Industry                    7.8-7

-------
7.10  GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES

7.10.1  General 1-5
                              I*
     Gray iron foundries produce gray iron castings from scrap iron,  pig iron
and foundry returns by melting,  alloying and molding.   The production of gray
iron castings involves a number of integrated steps, which are outlined in
Figures 7.10-1 and 7.10-2.  The four major production steps are raw materials
handling and preparation, metal  melting, mold and core production,  and casting
and finishing.

     Raw Materials Handling And Preparation - Handling operations include re-
ceiving, unloading, storing and conveying of all raw materials for  both furnace
charging and mold and core preparation.   The major groups of raw materials re-
quired for furnace charging are metallics, fluxes and fuels.  Metallic raw
materials include pig iron, iron and steel scrap, foundry returns and metal
turnings.  Fluxes include carbonates (limestone, dolomite), fluoride (fluor-
spar), and carbide compounds (calcium carbide).^  Fuels include coal, oil,
natural gas and coke.  Coal, oil and natural gas are used to fire reverberatory
furnaces.  Coke, a derivative of coal, is used as a fuel in cupola  furnaces.
Carbon electrodes are required for electric arc furnaces.

     As shown in Figures 7.10-1  and 7.10-2, the raw materials, metallics and
fluxes are added to the melting  furnaces directly.  For electric induction
furnaces, however, the scrap metal added to the furnace charge must first be
pretreated to remove any grease and/or oil, which can cause explosions.  Scrap
metals may be degreased with solvents, by centrifugation, or by preheating to
combust the organics.

     In addition to the raw materials used to produce the molten metal, a
variety of materials is needed to prepare the sand cores and molds  that form
the iron castings.  Virgin sand, recycled sand and chemical additives are
combined in a sand handling system typically comprising receiving areas, con-
veyors, storage silos and bins,  mixers (sand mullers), core and mold making
machines, shakeout grates, sand  cleaners, and sand screening.

     Raw materials are received  in ships, railroad cars, trucks and containers,
then transferred by truck, loaders and conveyors to both open piles and enclosed
storage areas.  When needed, the raw materials are transferred from storage to
process areas by similar means.

     Metal Melting - The furnace charge includes metallics, fluxes  and fuels.
The composition of the charge depends upon the specific metal characteristics
required.  Table 7.10-1 lists the different chemical compositions of typical
irons produced.  The three most  common furnaces used in the gray iron foundry
industry are cupolas, electric arc, and electric induction furnaces.

     The cupola, which is the major type of furnace used in industry today,  is
typically a vertical cylindrical steel shell with either a refractory lined or
water cooled inner wall.  Refractory linings usually consist of silica brick,
or dolomite or magnesium brick.   Water cooled linings, which involve circulating

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.10-1

-------










1












1


1
1


























1


























™*^fc
































t
\







<
e
i

i

Purchased


















S
!







t









)
>



u










S
i

l >
f,
o


li
e
0



i





























•
•8L









H
|U
\ \












\

U














1
8
j
.







L<
a













1



















|




j


§
'I









































>.
5
g
«
>
J!
i







S
1





^



























1



P
=
»


r1
1



„
*
j















































8- a
Jli


*











p
—
0
5

5





1

o
a
5
6.
V
°»
8.
3
u
81
2
J








"S
a
o



*
























?
t/1
1








T?
0
J
p'
s
U



J
\j







1
V
0























1
g
S
1



i
»












*~























__
6
• ~u
f ^
-2 E
* ^




•5
J

u
0

u
1
•^ o
II
j
s^
c _
.* c
J1
< u
1
f

p
e

u










p I a ?
•r „. » -= •. •- —
2 ^ -S ^^^ °- 5 .S
.2 c ™ 3 5
•o £ ^ <-> £
1
t I
IJ
is
o> 2
g> ? 5
_ •- _. -5 -r, S-
^ 2 I J o£

._ 	 	 	 j r i E
i ^
° -o ' M
* — SPI°W $5-' ^
lu^ | ^
"-T 	 ' | 13
__i 	 , ' 1 3
1 °
1 ' 14-1
§ 5 i C
4, "° O
S3 I ^
U S | -H
1 "•J""' 1 H
E i ,1 	 	 1 - ">
« ' ' 5 'H
^ ' "i -I ' 1 >;
j ui^ r^
1 1 0


S _ r^
x ~ 
-------
                                                                              m
                                                                               I
                                                                              CM
                                                                                O
                                                                               U-4


                                                                                C
                                                                                O
                                                                                cfl
                                                                                O
                                                                                •H
                                                                                a
                                                                                •H
                                                                                O
                                                                                CX

                                                                                c
                                                                                O
                                                                                •H
                                                                                tn
                                                                                tn
                                                                                •H
                                                                                e
                                                                                pa
                                                                                CN
                                                                                I
                                                                                O
                                                                                60
                                                                                •H
10/86
Metallurgical  Industry
7.10-3

-------
            TABLE 7.10-1.
           CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF  FERROUS  CASTINGS
                 BY PERCENTAGE
   Element
Gray iron
Malleable iron
(as white iron)
Ductile irona
Steel
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Sulfur
Phosphorus
2.5 -
1.0 -
0.40 -
0.05 -
0.05 -
4
3
1
0
1
.0
.0
.0
.25
.0
1.8 -
0.5 -
0.25 -
0.06 -
0.06 -
3
1
0
0
0
.6
.9
.80
.20
.18
3.0 - 4.0
1.4 - 2.0
0.5 - 0.8
<0.12
<0.15
<2.0b
0.2 - 0
0.5 - 1
<0.06
<0.05

.8
.0


aNecessary chemistry also includes 0.01  - 1.0%  Mg.
^Steels are further classified by carbon content:   low  carbon, <0.20%;
 medium carbon, 0.20 - 0.50%;  high carbon,  >0.50%.

water around the outer steel  shell,  are  used  to protect  the  furnace wall from
interior temperatures.  The cupola is  charged at the top with alternate layers
of coke, metallics and fluxes.2  The cupola is  the  only  furnace  type  to use
coke as a fuel; combustion air used to burn the coke is  introduced through
tuyeres located at the base of the cupola.2  Cupolas use either  cold  blast air,
air introduced at ambient temperature, or hot blast air  with a regenerative
system which utilizes heat from the cupola exhaust  gases to  preheat the com-
bustion air.^  Iron is melted  by the burning  coke and flows  down the  cupola.
As the melt proceeds, new charges are  added at  the  top.   The flux removes non-
metallic impurities in the iron to form  slag.  Both the  molten iron and the slag
are removed through tap holes  at the bottom of  the  cupola.   Periodically, the
heat period is completed, and  the bottom of the cupola is opened to remove the
remaining unburned material.   Cupola capacities range from 1.0 to 27  megagrams
per hour (1 to 30 tons per hour), with a few  larger units approach-1'ng 90 mega-
grams per hour (100 tons per hour).  Larger furnaces operate continuously and
are inspected and cleaned at  the end of  each  week or melting cycle.

     Electric arc furnaces (EAF) are large, welded  steel cylindrical  vessels
equipped with a removable roof through which  three  retractable carbon electrodes
are inserted.  The electrodes  are lowered through the roof of the furnace and
are energized by three phase alternating current, creating arcs  that  melt the
metallic charge with their heat.  Additional  heat is produced by the  resistance
of the metal between the arc paths.  The most common method  of charging an
electric arc furnace is by removing the  roof  and introducing the raw  materials
directly.  Alternative methods include introducing  the  charge through a chute
cut in the roof or through a side charging door in  the  furnace shell  .  Once
the melting cycle is complete, the carbon electrodes are raised, and  the roof
is removed.  The vessel is tilted, and the molten iron  is poured into a ladle.
Electric arc furnace capacities range  from 0.23 to  59 megagrams  (0.25 to 65
tons).  Nine to 11 pounds of  electrode are consumed per  ton  of metal  melted.
7.10-4
                EMISSION FACTORS
                                             10/86

-------
     Electric induction furnaces are either cylindrical  or cup shaped refractory
lined vessels that are surrounded by electrical  coils which,  when energized with
high frequency alternating current, produce a fluctuating electromagnetic field
to heat the metal charge.  For safety reasons,  the scrap metal added  to  the
furnace charge is cleaned and heated before being introduced  into the furnace.
Any oil or moisture on the scrap could cause an explosion in  the furnace.
Induction furnaces are kept closed except when charging, skimming and tapping.
The molten metal is tapped by tilting and pouring through a hole in the  side  of
the vessel.  Induction furnaces also may be used for metal refining in conjunc-
tion with melting in other furnaces and for holding and  superheating  the molten
metal before pouring (casting).

     The basic melting process operations are 1) furnace charging,  in which
metal, scrap, alloys, carbon, and flux are added to the  furnace;  2) melting,
during which the furnace remains closed; 3) backcharging, which involves the
addition of more metal and alloys, as needed;  4) refining and treating,  during
which the chemical composition is adjusted to meet product specifications; 5)
slag removing;  and 6) tapping molten metal into  a ladle  or directly into molds.

     Mold And Core Production - Molds are forms  used to  shape the exterior of
castings.  Cores are molded sand shapes used to  make the internal voids  in cast-
ings.  Cores are made by mixing sand with organic binders, molding  the sand into
a core, and baking the core in an oven.  Molds  are prepared of a mixture of wet
sand, clay and organic additives to make the mold shapes, which are usually
dried with hot air.  Cold setting binders are being used more frequently in both
core and mold production.  The green sand mold,  the most common type,  uses
moist sand mixed with 4 to 6 percent clay (bentonite) for bonding.  The  mixture
is 4 to 5 percent water content.  Added to the mixture,  to prevent  casting
defects from sand expansion when the hot metal is poured, is  about  5  percent
organic material, such as sea coal (a pulverized high volatility bituminous
coal), wood flour, oat hulls, pitch or similar  organic matter.

     Common types of gray iron cores are:

     - Oil core, with typical sand binder percents of 1.0 core oil, 1.0  cereal,
       and 0 to 1 pitch or resin.  Cured by oven baking  at 205 to 315°C  (400  to
       600°F), for 1 to 2 hours.

     - Shell core, with sand binder typically 3  to 5 percent  phenolic and/or
       urea formaldehyde, with hexamine activator.  Cured as  a thin layer on  a
       heated metal pattern at 205 to 315°C (400 to 600°F), for 1 to  3 minutes.

     - Hot box core, with sand binder typically  3 to 5 percent furan  resin, with
       phosphoric acid activator.  Cured as a solid core in a heated  metal pat-
       tern at 205 to 315°C (400 to 600°F), for  0.5 to 1.5 minutes.

     - Cold set core, with typical sand binder  percents  of 3  to 5 furan  resin,
       with phosphoric acid activator;  or 1 to  2 core oil, with phosphoric acid
       activator.  Hardens in the core box.  Cured for 0.5 to 3 hours.

     - Cold box core, with sand binder typically 1 to 3  percent of  each  of two
       resins,  activated by a nitrogen diluted gas.  Hardens  when the green core
       is gassed in the box with polyisocyanate  in air.   Cured for  10  to 30
       seconds.

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.10-5

-------
     Used sand from castings shakeout is recycled to the sand  preparation area
and cleaned to remove any clay or carbonaceous  buildup.   The sand  is  then
screened and reused to make new molds.  Because of process  losses  and discard
of a certain amount of sand because of contamination,  makeup sand  is  added.

     Casting And Finishing - After the melting  process,  molten metal  is  tapped
from the furnace.  Molten iron produced in cupolas is  tapped from  the bottom of
the furnace into a trough, thence into a ladle.   Iron produced in  electric arc
and induction furnaces is poured directly into  a ladle by tilting  the furnace.
At this point, the molten iron may be treated with magnesium to  produce  ductile
iron.  The magnesium reacts with the molten iron to nodularize the carbon in
the molten metal, giving the iron less brittleness.  At  times, the molten metal
may be inoculated with graphite to adjust carbon content.   The treated molten
iron is then ladled into molds and transported  to a cooling area,  where  it
solidifies in the mold and is allowed to cool further  before separation  (shake-
out) from the mold and core sand.   In larger, more mechanized  foundries,  the
molds are conveyed automatically through a cooling tunnel.  In simpler found-
ries, molds are placed on an open floor space,  and the molten  iron is poured
into the molds and allowed to cool partially.   Then the  molds  are  placed  on a
vibrating grid to shake the mold and core sand  loose from the  casting.  In the
simpler foundries, molds, core sand and castings are separated manually,  and
the sand from the mold and core is then returned to the  sand handling area.

     When castings have cooled, any unwanted appendages,  such  as spurs,  gates,
and risers, are removed.  These appendages are  removed with oxygen torch,
abrasive band saw, or friction cutting tools.   Hand hammers may  be used,  in
less mechanized foundries, to knock the appendages off.   After this,  the cast-
ings are subjected to abrasive blast cleaning and/or tumbling  to remove  any
remaining mold sand or scale.

     Another step in the metal melting process  involves  removing the  slag in the
furnace through a tapping hole or door.  Since  the slag  is  lighter than  molten
iron, it remains atop the molten iron and can be raked or poured out  of  cupola
furnaces through the slag hole located above the level of the  molten  iron.
Electric arc and induction furnaces are tilted  backwards, and  their slag is
removed through a slag door.

7.10.2  Emissions And Controls

     Emissions from the raw materials handling  operations are  fugitive particu-
late generated from the receiving, unloading, storage and conveying of raw mate-
rials.  These emissions are controlled by enclosing the  major  emission points
(e. g., conveyor belt transfer points) and routing air from the  enclosures
through fabric filters or wet collectors.  Figure 7.10-2 shows emission  points
and types of emissions from a typical foundry.

     Scrap preparation with heat will emit smoke, organic compounds and  carbon
monoxide, and scrap preparation with solvent degreasers  will emit  organics.
Catalytic incinerators and afterburners can control about 95 percent  of  organic
and carbon monoxide emissions.  (See Section 4.6, Solvent Degreasing.)

     Emissions released from the melting furnaces include particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and  small
quantities of chloride and fluoride compounds.   The particulates,  chlorides and

7.10-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
fluorides are generated from incomplete combustion of coke, carbon additives,
flux additions, and dirt and scale on the scrap charge.  Organic material on
the scrap, the consumption of coke in the furnace, and the furnace temperature
all affect the amount of carbon monoxide generated.  Sulfur dioxide emissions,
characteristic of cupola furnaces, are attributable to sulfur in the coke.
Fine particulate fumes emitted from the melting furnaces come from the
condensation of volatilized metal and metal oxides.

     During melting in an electric arc furnace, particulate emissions are gen-
erated by the vaporization of iron and the transformation of mineral additives.
These emissions occur as metallic and mineral oxides.  Carbon monoxide emissions
come from the combustion of the graphite lost from the electrodes and the carbon
added to the charge.  Hydrocarbons may come from vaporization and partial
combustion of any oil remaining on the scrap iron added to the furnace charge.

     The highest concentrations of furnace emissions occur during charging,
backcharging, alloying, slag removal, and tapping operations, because furnace
lids and doors are opened.  Generally, these emissions escape into the furnace
building or are collected and vented through roof openings.  Emission controls
for melting and refining operations usually involve venting the furnace gases
and fumes directly to a control device.  Controls for fugitive furnace
emissions include canopy hoods or special hoods near the furnace doors and
tapping hoods to capture emissions and route them to emission control systems.

     High energy scrubbers and baghouses (fabric filters) are used to control
particulate emissions from cupolas and electric arc furnaces in this country.
When properly designed and maintained, these control devices can achieve respec-
tive efficiencies of 95 and 98 percent.  A cupola with such controls typically
has an afterburner with up to 95 percent efficiency, located in the furnace
stack, to oxidize carbon monoxide and to burn organic fumes, tars and oils.
Reducing these contaminants protects the particulate control device from poss-
ible plugging and explosion.  Because induction furnaces emit negligible amounts
of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions, and relatively little particulate,
they are usually uncontrolled.2

     The major pollutant emitted in mold and core production operations is par-
ticulate from sand reclaiming, sand preparation, sand mixing with binders and
additives, and mold and core forming.  Organics, carbon monoxide and particulate
are emitted from core baking, and organic emissions from mold drying.  Baghouses
and high energy scrubbers generally are used to control particulate from mold
and core production.  Afterburners and catalytic incinerators can be used to
control organics and carbon monoxide emissions.

     Particulate emissions are generated during the treatment and inoculation
of molten iron before pouring.  For example, during the addition of magnesium
to molten metal to produce ductile iron,  the reaction between the magnesium and
molten iron is very violent, accompanied by emissions of magnesium oxides and
metallic fumes.  Emissions from pouring consist of hot metal fumes,  and carbon
monoxide, organic compounds and particulate evolved from the mold and core
materials contacting the molten iron.  Emissions from pouring normally are
captured by a collection system and vented, either controlled or uncontrolled,
to the atmosphere.  Emissions continue as the molds cool.  A significant quan-
tity of particulate is also generated during the casting shakeout operation.
These fugitive emissions must be captured,  and they usually are controlled  by

10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                      7.10-7

-------
either high energy scrubbers or bag filters.

     Finishing operations emit large,  coarse  particles  during  the  removal  of
burrs, risers and gates, and during shot blast  cleaning.   These emissions  are
easily controlled by cyclones and  baghouses.

     Emission factors for total particulate from gray  iron furnaces  are pre-
sented in Table 7.10-2,  and emission factors  for gaseous  and lead  pollutants
are given in Table 7.10-3.  Tables 7.10-4 and 7.10-5,  respectively,  give factors
for ancillary process operations and fugitive sources  and for  specific  particle
sizes.  Particle size factors and  distributions are presented  also in Figures
7.10-3 through 7.10-8.
           TABLE  7.10-2.    EMISSION FACTORS  FOR GRAY  IRON FURNACES3
Process
Cupola








Electric arc furnace

Electric induction
furnace

Reverberatory

Control
device
Uncontrolled^3
Scrubber0
Venturi scrubber"
Electrostatic
precipitator6
Baghouse*
Single wet cap§
Impingement scrubber^
High energy scrubber^
Uncontrolled'1
BaghouseJ

Uncontrolled^
Baghouse111
Uncontrolled11
Baghousem
Total Emission
particulate Factor
Rating
kg/Mg Ib/ton
6.9
1.6
1.5

0.7
0.3
4.0
2.5
0.4
6.3
0.2

0.5
0.1
1.1
0.1
13.8
3.1
3.0

1.4
0.7
8.0
5.0
0.8
12.7
0.4

0.9
0.2
2.1
0.2
C
C
C

E
C
B
B
B
C
C

D
E
D
E
aExpressed as weight of pollutant/weight of gray iron produced.
bReferences 1,7,9-10.
cReferences 12,15.  Includes averages for wet cap and other scrubber types not
 already listed.
dReferences 12,17,19.
eReferences 8,11.
^References 12-14.
gReferences 8,11,29-30.
^References 1,6,23.
JReferences 6,23-24.
^References 1,12.  For metal melting only.
raReference 4.
"Reference 1.
7.10-8
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
          ro
           I
          O
          r^

          W
              O
              O
              H
              U
              in
              in






















o
•a
to
00
l-l
o

0)
»— <

4.1
id
,-t
o










































































n
T3
flj
01
,j












CO
•a
e
3
o
a.
Q
o
u








CO
CU
•o
•H
^
o

c
01
00
0
M
4J
•H
Z



01
•o
•H
X
O
•H
•o

hi
3
M-l
i— 1
3
CO




01

•H
X
8
c
o
e

c
o
XI

0








CU
o a
03 C
c s
l-l 4.
fc


c
o
4J
^^
f>
iH






00
TP
"» —
.gp





c
o
*n^_
JO






bO
jrf
^x^
60
J2r





c
o
4-1
"-^.
JD





s?
"»^
.5P



c
0
4J
^.
.Q
»— 1



bO
*gp^
•^

Jft





c
o
*J
««^
JO
1— (



GO
j£j
^-*.
.2?








j
X
•%
J


-*
r-H
1 1 1

•
O




*o
•
o
1 1 1
m
0
0



CO
*
o
1 1 1

o

o


in

,
O
1 1 1
CO
0
0



vD

0
1 1 1
-3-
O
*
o


CO
O
1 1 1
CM
0

o


•O T3
to en
CM vD 00
. . CU
-H 0 S5



T3 t3
en en

^ .01
o o 25






O r^
in co
-
CO | |
r**- i/"i
»
o


T3
0) >^ Q)
•-I 00 l-l °
rH hi 01 >-l
O 01 XI *
4J 0) 3 O
e h -H
ca o x: o w
*-H O 00 CO 4-)
o e ^ o
& » 3 o)
3 -H
O W
p-H
O

CT\
0
o

0


m
o

o
l
m
o
o

o




i










i









i








i







00
cu
as





bO
01








00
01
Z






M
O>
Z






M-l
C
o
•H
U 4-J
•H U
fci 3
0 "S
0) -rH
iH
W
-3-
O
1
CM
^^
O
*
O


f*^.
o

o
1
\o
o
0

0




1










1









1








1








1







1









1








1





^
U
o
4-1
18
Xi
01
Ol
oi


















.
01
XI
•H
00
•H
f— i
00
01
c

II

bO
01
Z


•
CO
CO
TJ

o
e

n

x:
co
cd
Q


•
"8
o
3
•o
O
U
a.
e
0
(-1
•H

>\
(ti
^1
M

••M
O

•U
Jj
00
•H
01
3

j_>
C
10
4J
3
»— 1
t— (
O
a,

M-i
o
4J st
X- CO
00 •
01 CO
-^
CO — .
CO
CO
•O 01
01 U
CO C
CO 01
01 1*
M 01
O.MH
X 01
W B*

































r
0
en

o

•o
CU
4J
1.4
cu
>
c
0
o

CO
•*-(

hi
3
M-l
f— 1
3
CO

M-l
O
»-?
O
CO

CO
CU
e
3
CO
CO
^


•
01
^
o
U

01
j:
4J

C
•H

hi
3
M-l
f-H
3
CO
*•!

n
en

• •
CM -3-

01 01
U U
c e
01 01
hi hi
01 01
M-l M-l
01 01
U -0
































•J





























































vC

^

01
o
e
01
hi
01
M-l
01
ot
01
























































































•
CO
1

CM
-T
^
CO

CO
01
01
hi
0)
M-l
0)
4-1
7.10-9
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
    I

   O
   w
   rJ


   S3
   H
B M po
COS
•H 4J iH
CO CJ 4->
CO (0 CO
•H tn OS
C
O rH
4J CO
O OJ -- 4J
4J V-4 ^ ftl
01 rH E
21
4J O

S 4J 3?T CO
W CO 	 . 4-1
BO 4)
^ E



4-1 C
B O rH
0) 4J CO
o e ^ 4J
4J E 43 OJ
o •-! e
73 M
4J -rt

4-> fl
•H 01
g bO rH
W *^ JET CO
IH ^~. 4-1
o tp o*
5 -* E



IH B
O O rH.
4J 4J CO
O — - 4J
CO 45 01
—1 UH rH E
CO
4-* fi
O O
H -H
CO GO rH
•H ' — 4J
e BO 01
OJ ^ E





o>
rH O
O -H
tj >
4-> 41
B 73
O













CO
CO
OJ
CJ
o
IH
0*


Q id Q


CM -a-
• • i
0 0





-H CM
• • 1
O O





in oo
• • 1
O -H








in
CM C^
• • I
o o




in
\C CO
• • 1
O -H
ro



m

CM
m a\
• • i
• • i
O O
in
•
rH



•O T3 T>
0) OJ 4J
000
B B B
O O O
CJ 0 O
B B E
£J p") J— 1



J= 0
E? B
•H 01
0) 4-1 g
bo 03 4J
U 01 CO
CO 4= OJ
42 »J T3
CJ - 4J B
BO O
•O C S iH
B iH 3 4-1
CO rH -H CO
•O CO rH
a B oi 3
co CO B cj
IH £ BO O
CJ CO E
cn £ M


a a o w o a o



^ i i i «
O -H




in
CO V4O
1 1 1
0 0





n __,
III'
o —








m
rH t£>
1 1 1
O O




-3- 0
CM CM vO O CM rH
• • • • • •
-3" fl 1 — C*") O O *-H
rH




ro
CM O
rH so in oo o ""H *o
CM rH OO rH O O O





CJ CJ
•O T3 T3 T3 T3
OJ OJ OJ OJ 0)
O O O O r4 Ol O
E B B B 43 O B
O O O O 3 4= O
CJ 0 O CJ K 00 O
B B B E CJ CO B
3 3 3 » W « 3



43 43
BO bO
4) -H -H
BO 4- ^
B CO CO
•H -H bO 43
rH B IbO
O -H B »
O >4-< -H bO
U i-l C
- 4J BO B r^
bO 3 C- CO CO
e o -H j= e
•H 01 B
IH ^ CO 73 OJ
3 CO OJ B M
O 4= rH CO O
-H cn o en o












.
CO
4J
CO
73

o
B
H
CO
O


•
73
OJ
4-1
O
E

CO
CO

4_l
o.
OI
o
01
i
o
3
73
O
IH
a.

E
o
r4

>^
CO
U
BO
UH
O
^
bo
•H
01
4J
B
CO
4J
3
rH
rH
O
a.
MH
O

4-1
45
BO
•H
01
3

CO •
CO -3-
73 0)
01 o
CO B
co OJ
41 IH
t-l 41
O.MH
X 4J
cd ai
CO 43




























































.
73
OJ
rH
•y
B
«
73
E
CO
• CO

CM I4H I--
• • O CM

* • " bO CM •
rH in ^H • ^ rH CM
f^l rH ^^ rH
CO CO 73 CO
OJ OJ 41 41 B 41 CU
U CJ CJ CJ CO CJ CJ
B B B E CD B B
OJ OJ 0) QJ OJ 4)
p IH IH r4 HH IH M
Oj OJ OJ OJ O 0) OJ
01 U OJ CD bfi 01 CU
CJ 73 OJ <4H bO 4= i-l
7.10-10
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------









r2
O
H
U
<
b
Z
O
CO
rH
<
H cO
< CO
Q W
M
Z a!
0 Q
HH Z
H 3
§ £
M
ttJ Z
H 0
CO »!
rH M
a
>1
W 
•H
4-1
a

**
CO
CO
cO
s

o>
>
4J
cO
rH
3
g
5


I)
rH
O 0)
•H N
(H CO
CO
On
C ^J
0 0
•H 4-)
CO O
co cO
•H pt(
g
W














O)
O
M
3
0
CO
rH
CO
01
a
c
4J
_o
rH






»~H
cO
4-1
0)
bO
&o


£1
OI
N

CO

/ti
w
4J
CO
4J
CO

v|




^^
e
^3


$
•H
4-1
cfl
Oi
























oo
rHU-lO^D^t^LPlOO LT|
oo>-H-H^lcNcNro 0











-HOOmoOCNCN^^ S
m-*u-iinv£>vX5vO-£) 0








fO »"H *-Q ^^ ^^ ^H ^.^ ^^ - Q\ ««^ ^^ C^ C*^ ^^ CO
*^ *«iO r*^- oo o^ o^ o^ ^^ co
_^








Lnoomooo in
Or-icNicsmOLn o
i—4 ^-t



u w





01
CO
3
O
50
cO
0) T3
CJ 01 >,
CO rH Xl
C rH
MO -0
3 >H D
b 4-J rH
C rH
cO O O
rH O M
O C 4J
a izi c
3 0
cj cj


 o o
__l ^J. ^ ^.J. ^J. ^ o
O^ CT* O^ c^ CT» CT* O
rH








O O LTI O O O
_i rsj rsi LO o m
. — 1 r-H










^.f
M
3
C
OI
**
*w
o

TJ
0)
rH
rH
O
t-l
4J
(3
O
U



r^ —H ro c^ ro f*O co o
— I tN CNCNCMCSICNm












°








OCN -*r^p~.r~.r^.O
OO r~r~r~-f-Nf~O
i/^ ^.^ p^ ^^ ^ p^, [^^ ^^
^H








LTI O O ""> O O O
O -H CN CNI IT! O U"|
r- H i — I



o














o

OI
X

J^
0
CO


10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.10-11

-------





































•
^
4-1
C
o
o


in
1
o
^
r^

W

pQ
^3
H






































a u
0 0
•H 4J
CO O
CO Cfl
•H fa

W


^
O
4-1
O
cfl
'"W
c
o
•tH
CO
CO
•H



CO
Cfl
cfl
0

CU
^
•iH
4-1
r-l
3
6
3
O



6-S

CO
CO
cfl
a

cu
>
•rH
4-1
cO
r- <
3

3
u


Q)
r— 1
o cu
•H N
4-1 lH
l-l CO
CO
PL<


















CO
CO
CU
o
o
M






bO
C
4-)
CO
Qi




f—l
cfl
4-1
cu
0
d
o
4-1
xi
r- (








r-i
cfl
4-1
CU
0
3P

1 — „,
JP





n
0)
N
•H
CO

H
w
4-1
CO
4-1
CO

v|





X-s
e
^


































W Q











I-H r*-« O ^ i"~| CM
1— 1 r— 4 1— "t I-H















CO P^. CM CO O ^
o c*o in in ^o vo














o in o o Ln o
ro r^ CN o f*} o
>— i in oo 
•H d bO d
i-i o do
4-1 y -H y
yd M d
CU o 33
r-l O
W CM














o
00
o















o

0














0
<^
(—1










o
!— 1


































w









^J- , 	 ( ^f (^ ^
-H n m 
O O O O ' — ' ' — ' ' — '














O O O O O  .
CO
CO l-l
CO O
a y
cfl
U-i
co d
4J 0
Cfl -H
•T3 CO
CO
O -H
C 0
01
II
y
XI -H
CO 4-1
Cfl l-l
n y
cu
• CO
^-N
13 CU
0) N
U -H
3 co
T)
o cu
l-l 4-1
CLi Cfl
~~S 1— 1
3
•o y
0) r-l
4-1 Cfl
rH U
0)
0 0
r-l
cO ~^
4-1 1
CU 0
0 -H
•
M-l I--
0
4,"S
x; co
M
•rl CN
Ol 1
& 0
4-1 *
d r-
cfl
4J CO
3 CU
I—I 1— 1
r-l X>
0 cfl
Cu H

VM d
O -H

4-1 CU
X* i — 1
bO Xi
*r-4 CO
1) rH
f T-l
CO
CO >
cO cO

T3 Cfl
CU 4-1
CO Cfl
CO -O
0)
1-1 cu
a, 4-1
X cO
w ^
cfl




































•
00
0

•
r^.

x:
bO
3
O
M
4-1

m
1
0
, — i
•
r-.
CO
0)
M
3
M
•H
fa
01
a)
CO


•
vO
CN
I

CN
^
CN
CN
1

CN
*s
PI
t— 1

CO
cu
y
d
cu
IH
cu
'4-4
01
p^
Xi







































•
M
01
4-1
CO
£j

14H
0
CO
0)
f-f
y
d
•H

CN
O
r- 1
•
^
O
a.
a.
CO

..
•H
M
3
4-1
d
0)
>

CO
CO
0
l-l
U
CO

a.
o
^4
T3

CU
(-1
3
CO
CO
01
t-l
P-4
U




T3
rH
3
O
y
co
4-1
CO


•1— )
CD
CU
4-1
rH
CO
d
•H
M
•H

0

01
CO
3
cfl
y
CU
PQ


•
CO
01
•H
l-l
"H
3
0


O
jj
•U

d
°
cfl
4-1
cfl
•o

0
0
M-J
T3
CU
WJ
cfl
CU
>
<3


•
in
i — i
I
M
>

4J
•H
Xl
tH

cO
Od
r-l
O
4-1
U
cfl


d
0
•H
CO
CO
•H
0
W

#\
•a
cu
d
•H
cfl
4-J
x>
o

01
f^

4-1
0
d

7.10-12
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
   z
   UJ
   o
   o:
   UJ
   a.

   UJ
   13
   2
   o
   o
99.990


99.950
 99.90
 99.80

 99.50

   99.

   98.


   95.

   90.


   80.

   70.

   60.

   50.

   40.

   30.

   20.


   10.

     5.


     2.

     I.

   0.5

   0.2
  0.15
   O.I
        0.0
              TOTAL  PARTI CULATE
                EMISSION  RATE
_  69   kg PARTICULATE
          10
            -I
                                           Mg  METAL

                                       MELTED  (PRODUCED)
                                         I II ll
                                                       i  i
                              6.2

                              5.9
                              5.5


                              4.8
                                                              3.1
                                                                    ui
                                                                    M

                                                                    to

                                                                    o
                                                                    UJ
UI
                                   or

                                   a.

                                   oi
                                   Jf.

                                   Ul
                                                                    •2.
                                                                    3
                                                                    O
                                      UI
           10
                     PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
                                                        10'
    Figure  7.10-3.  Particle size distribution for uncontrolled  cupola.21-22
10/86
                       Metallurgical Industry
                                     7.10-13

-------
yy. yw
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99.
98.

95.

90.
t
r~
2
uj 80.
0
?• 70.
UJ
°- 60.
uj 50,
- 40.
»-
< 30
_i
| 20.
Z3
0 10.
5.
2.
1.
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n
TOTAL PARTICULATE n A kg PARTICULATE
EMISSION RATE "°'4 Mg METAL
MELTED (PRODUCED)






~s^
^
G




m
-
_

^

-

-
-
.
*
-
-
-
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | f 1 1 1 1 1 1 i LI



UJ
N
(O
0.38 o
Ul
0.36 <
M
0.32 w
T
Ul
•"
-j
3
O
pi
K
<
O.
o»
JC
UJ
H
2
U








1
<
H
UJ
9
2














           10
             -I
              10
                      PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
7.10-14
                Figure 7.10-4.  Particle size distribution for
                               baghouse controlled cupola.13
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86
                                                                                i

-------
'
99.950
99.90
99.80

99.50
99.

98.


95.

90.
i—
2
u 80.
u
£ 70-
a 60.
iu 50.
- 40.
i-
3 30.
| 20.
o
0 10.

5.

2.
,
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
On
TOTAL PARTI CUL ATE . _ kg PARTICULATE
— ] ^ •
- EMISSION RATE ' L5 Mq META(_
MELTED (PRODUCED)












rv/v— — "® 	 ®~n
,JS)r*s~ ^J
&^
<3
m ^

-
-

.

-

-
-
-
-
-
i iiiiiiil i iiiiiiil i iiiiiit




M
5»
o
UI
l-
<
1-
co
V
UI
^
1.2 <
•^
3
I.I u
0.9 ^
0.8 £
o>
jc
UI
^_
<
3
^
U












j
<
UI

o>
2















10"' 10° 10 ' I02
                      PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
        Figure 7.10-5.  Particle size distribution for venturi  scrubber
                       controlled  cupola.21-22
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
                                          7.10-15

-------
  99.990


  99.950

   99.90

   99.80

   99.50

      99

      98


      95


      90
 z
 UJ
 o
 o:
 u
 a.

 UJ
 U
 80

 70

 60

 50

 40

 30


 20


  10


  5


  2

  I

 0.5

 0.2

0.15
 O.I


 0.0
   TOTAL PARTICULATE= 6.4
     EMISSION RATE
10"
 kg  PART1CULATE

   Mg METAL

MELTED (PRODUCED)
                                                     5.9

                                                     5. 7

                                                     5.2
                                                     3.6
                                                            0,8
                        10°              10'                ioj

                PARTICLE  DIAMETER, micrometers
                             UJ
                             N

                             V)

                             a
                             ui
                             t-
                             <

                             CO
                             v
                             UJ
                                                          u
                                                          P
                                                          oc
                                                          <
                                                          a.
                                                                 UJ
                                                                    H
                                                                    UJ
                                                                    2
         Figure 7.10-6.
                  Particle size distribution for uncontrolled

                  electric arc furnace.3
7.10-16
                        EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
99.9911
99.950
99.90
99.80
99.50
99
98
95
90
; so
> 70
J 60
50
i 40
• 30
j
> 20
> 10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.15
O.I
n n
TOTAL PARTICULATE = 2.1 kg PARTICULATE
- EMISSION RATE Mg M£TAL
MELTED (PRODUCED)
-
-
-
_
_
; / ;
• ~/^
A-^^ '.
-
-
w
>
-
-
-
	 , 	 ,




Ul
N
(O
a
UJ
t-
w
V
1.51 u
<
1.03 o
0.71 *
0.50
0.45 o>
0.40^
Ul
P
2
o




10"'              10°              10 '

         PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
                                                                     UJ
                                                            10'
         Figure 7.10-7.
               Particle size distribution for uncontrolled
               pouring and cooling.25
10/86
                 Metallurgical  Industry
                                                          7.10-17

-------
99.990

99.950
 99.90 -
 99.80
 99.50
    99
    98
    95
    90
   z
   LJ
   U
   
                                                                      2
                                                                      UJ
                           .0°             10'
                  PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  micrometers
    Figure  7.10-8.  Particle size distribution for uncontrolled shakeout.26
7.10-18
                      EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.10

1.   Summary of Factors Affecting Compliance by Ferrous Foundries,  Volume I:
     Text, EPA-340/1-80-020, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, January 1981.

2.   Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry,  APTD-0806,  U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  February 1971.

3.   Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron Foundry
     Industry, Volume II; Exhibits, APTD-0645, U. S.   Environmental Protection
     Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, February 1971.

4.   J. A. Davis, et al., Screening Study on Cupolas  and Electric Furnaces  in
     Gray Iron Foundries, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0611, Battelle Laboratories,
     Columbus, OH, August 1975.

5.   R. W. Hein, et al., Principles of Metal Casting,  McGraw-Hill, New  York,
     1967.

6.   P. Fennelly and P. Spawn, Air Pollution Control  Techniques for Electric  Arc
     Furnaces in the Iron and Steel Foundry Industry,  EPA-450/2-78-024, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  June  1978.

7.   R. D. Chmielewski and S. Calvert, Flux Force/Condensation Scrubbing for
     Collecting Fine Particulate from Iron Melting  Cupola,  EPA-600/7-81-148,
     U. S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
     September 1981.

8.   W. F. Hammond and S. M. Weiss, "Air Contaminant  Emissions From Metallurgi-
     cal Operations In Los Angeles County", Presented at the Air Pollution Con-
     trol Institute, Los Angeles, CA, July 1964.

9.   Particulate Emission Test Report On A Gray Iron  Cupola at Cherryville
     Foundry Works, Cherryville, NC, Department Of  Natural And Economic  Re-
     sources, Raleigh, NC, December 18, 1975.

10.  J. N. Davis, "A Statistical Analysis of the Operating Parameters Which
     Affect Air Pollution Emissions From Cupolas",  November 1977.   Further
     information unavailable.

11.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,  U.  S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of
     Print.

12.  Written communication from Dean Packard, Department Of Natural Resources,
     Madison, WI, to Douglas Seeley, Alliance Technology,  Bedford,  MA, April
     15, 1982.

13.  Particulate Emissions Testing At Opelika Foundry, Birmingham,  AL, Air
     Pollution Control Commission, Montgomery, AL,  November 1977 -  January  1978.

14.  Written communication from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St.  Paul,
     MN, to Mike Jasinski, Alliance Technology,  Bedford, MA, July  12, 1982.

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                     7.10-19

-------
15.  Stack Test Report, Dunkirk Radiator Corporation Cupola Scrubber,  State
     Department Of Environmental Conservation,  Region IX,  Albany,  NY,  November
     1975.

16.  Particulate Emission Test Report  For A Scrubber Stack For  A Gray  Iron
     Cupola At Dewey Brothers, Goldsboro,NC,  Department  Of Natural  Resources,
     Raleigh, NC, April 7, 1978.

17.  Stack Test Report, Worthington Corp. Cupola,  State Department Of  Environ-
     mental Conservation, Region IX, Albany,  NY,  November 4-5,  1976.

18.  Stack Test Report, Dresser Clark  Cupola Wet  Scrubber, Orlean, NY,  State
     Department Of Environmental Conservation,  Albany,  NY, July 14 & 18,  1977.

19.  Stack Test Report, Chevrolet Tonawanda Metal  Casting, Plant Cupola #3 And
     Cupola #4, Tonawanda, NY, State Department Of Environmental Conservation,
     Albany, NY, August 1977.

20.  Stack Analysis For Particulate Emission,  Atlantic  States Cast Iron Foun-
     dry/Scrubber, State Department Of Environmental Protection, Trenton,  NJ,
     September 1980.

21.  S. Calvert, et al.,  Fine Particle Scrubber  Performance, EPA-650/2-74-093,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH, October  1974.

22.  S. Calvert, et al., National Dust Collector  Model  850 Variable  Rod Module
     Venturi Scrubber Evaluation, EPA-600/2-76-282,  U.  S.  Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency, Cincinnati,  OH, December 1976.

23.  Source Test, Electric Arc Furnace At Paxton-Mitchell  Foundry, Omaha,  NB,
     Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,  MO,  October 1974.

24.  Source Test, John Deere Tractor Works,  East  Moline,  IL, Gray  Iron Electric
     Arc Furnace, Walden Research, Wilmington,  MA, July 1974

25.  S. Gronberg,  Characterization Of Inhalable  Particulate Matter  Emissions
     From An Iron Foundry,  Lynchburg  Foundry,  Archer Creek Plant, EPA-600/X-
     85-328, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH,  August 1984.

26.  Particulate Emissions Measurements From The  Rotoclone And  General  Casting
     Shakeout Operations Of United States Pipe &  Foundry,  Inc,  Anniston,  AL,
     State Air Pollution Control Commission,  Montgomery,  AL. Further  informa-
     tion unavailable.

27.  Report Of Source Emissions Testing At Newbury Manufacturing,  Talladega, AL,
     State Air Pollution Control Commission,  Montgomery,  AL, May 15-16, 1979.

28.  Particulate Emission Test Report  For A Gray  Iron Cupola At Hardy  And New-
     son, La Grange, NC, State Department Of Natural Resources  And Community
     Development, Raleigh, NC, August  2-3, 1977.

29.  H. R. Crabaugh, et al., "Dust And Fumes From Gray  Iron Cupolas:   How Are
     They Controlled In Los Angeles County",  Air  Repair,  ji(3): 125-130,  November
     1954.

7.10-20                         EMISSION FACTORS                           10/86

-------
7.11   SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING

7.11.1  Process Descriptionl-7

     The secondary lead industry processes a variety of lead bearing scrap and
residue to produce lead and lead alloy ingots, battery lead oxide,  and lead
pigments (Pb304 and PbO).  Processing may involve scrap pretreatment, smelting,
and refining/casting.  Processes typically used in each operation are shown in
Figure 7.11-1.

     Scrap pretreatment is the partial removal of metal and nonmetal contamin-
ants from leadbearing scrap and residue.  Processes used for scrap  pretreatment
include battery breaking, crushing and sweating.  Battery breaking  is the
draining and crushing of batteries, followed by manual separation of the lead
from nonmetallic materials.  Oversize pieces of scrap and residues  are usually
put through jaw crushers.  This separated lead scrap is then mixed  with other
scraps and is smelted in reverberatory or blast furnaces to separate lead from
metals with higher melting points.  Rotary gas or oil furnaces usually are used
to process low lead content scrap and residue, while reverberatory  furnaces are
used to process high lead content scrap.  The partially purified lead is peri-
odically tapped from these furnaces for further processing in smelting furnaces
or pot furnaces.

     Smelting is the production of purified lead by melting and separating lead
from metal and nonmetallic contaminants and by reducing oxides to elemental
lead.  Reverberatory smelting furnaces are used to produce a semisoft lead
product that contains typically 3 to 4 percent antimony.  Blast furnaces produce
hard or antimonial lead containing about 10 percent antimony.

     A reverberatory furnace,to produce semisoft lead, is charged with lead
scrap, metallic battery parts, oxides, drosses, and other residues.  The rever-
beratory furnace is a rectangular shell lined with refractory brick, and it is
fired directly with oil or gas to a temperature of 1260°C (2300°F).  The mater-
ial to be melted is heated by direct contact with combustion gases.  The average
furnace can process about 45 megagraras per day (50 tons per day).  About 47
percent of the charge is recovered as lead product and is periodically tapped
into molds or holding pots.  Forty-six percent of the charge is removed as slag
and later processed in blast furnaces.  The remaining 7 percent of  the furnace
charge escapes as dust or fume.

     Blast furnaces produce hard lead from charges containing siliceous slag
from previous runs (about 4.5 percent of the charge), scrap iron (about 4.5
percent), limestone (about 3 percent), and coke (about 5.5 percent).  The re-
qaining 82.5 percent of the charge is comprised of oxides, pot furnace refining
drosses, and reverberatory slag.  The proportions of rerun slags, limestone,
and coke, respectively vary to as high as 8 percent, 10 percent, and 8 percent
of the charge.  Processing capacity of the blast furnace ranges from 18 to 73
megagrams per day (20 to 80 tons per day).  Similar to iron cupolas, the blast
furnace is a vertical steel cylinder lined with refractory brick.  Combustion

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.11-1

-------
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    CO
                                                                                    -O
                                                                                    OJ
                                                                                    6
                                                                                    CO

                                                                                    •a
                                                                                    fl
                                                                                    OJ
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    cC
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    •H
                                                                                    a
                                                                                   r-^

                                                                                    0)
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    bO
                                                                                             i
7.11-2
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                                  10/86

-------
air at 3.4 to 5.2 kilopascals (0.5 to 0.75 pounds per square inch)  is introduced
through tuyeres at the bottom of the furnace.  Some of the coke combusts  to melt
the charge, while the remainder reduces lead oxides to elemental lead.  The
furnace exhaust is from 650° to 730°C (1200° to 1350°F).

     As the lead charge melts, limestone and iron float to the top  of the mol-
te molten bath and form a flux that retards oxidation of  the product  lead.  The
molten lead flows from the furnace into a holding pot at  a nearly continuous
rate.  The product lead constitutes roughly 70 percent of the charge.  From the
holding pot, the lead is usually cast into large ingots,  called pigs, or  sows.

     About 18 percent of the charge is recovered as slag, with about  60 percent
of this being a sulfurous slag called matte.  Roughly 5 percent of  the charge
is retained for reuse, and the remaining 7 percent of the charge escapes  as
dust or fume.

     Refining/casting is the use of kettle type furnaces  for remelting, alloy-
ing, refining, and oxidizing processes.  Materials charged for remelting  are
usually lead alloy ingots that require no further processing before casting.
The furnaces used for alloying, refining and oxidizing are usually  gas fired,
and operating temperatures range from 370° to 480°C (700° to 900°F).   Alloying
furnaces simply melt and mix ingots of lead and alloy materials. Antimony,
tin, arsenic, copper, and nickel are the most common alloying materials.

     Refining furnaces are used either to remove copper and antimony  for  soft
lead production, or to remove arsenic, copper and nickel  for hard lead
production.  Sulfur may be added to the molten lead bath  to remove  copper.
Copper sulfide skimmed off as dross may subsequently be processed in  a blast
furnace to recover residual lead.  Aluminum chloride flux may be used to
remove copper, antimony and nickel.  The antimony content can be reduced  to
about 0.02 percent by bubbling air through the molten lead.  Residual
antimony can be removed by adding sodium nitrate and sodium hydroxide to  the
bath and skimming off the resulting dross.  Dry dressing  consists of  adding
sawdust to the agitated mass of molten metal.  The sawdust supplies carbon to
help separate globules of lead suspended in the dross and to reduce some  of
the lead oxide to elemental lead.

     Oxidizing furnaces, either kettle or reverberatory units, are  used to
oxidize lead and to entrain the product lead oxides in the combustion air
stream, with subsequent recovery in high efficiency baghouses,

7.11.2  Emissions And Controls1 >^-5

     Emission factors for controlled and uncontrolled processes and fugitive
particulate are given in Tables 7.11-1 and 7.11-2.  Particulate emissions from
most processes are based on accumulated test data, whereas fugitive particulate
emission factors are based on the assumption that 5 percent of uncontrolled
stack emissions is released as fugitive emissions.

     Reverberatory and blast furnaces account for the vast majority of the
total lead emissions from the secondary lead industry.  The relative  quantities
emitted from these two smelting processes can not be specified, because of a
lack of complete information.  Most of the remaining processes are  small  emis-
sion sources with undefined emission characteristics.

10/86                        Metallurgical Industry                      7.11-3

-------
               TABLE  7.11-1.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR  SECONDARY  LEAD  PROCESSING3
      Pollutant
Sweating1"    Leachlngc
                                                   Reverberatory
               Smelting

                     Blast (cupola)d
                                                Kettle     Kettle
                                                  refining   oxidation
                                                                                                               Casting
Participate6

  Uncontrolled  (kg/Mg)
               (lb/ton)

  Controlled   (kg/Mg)
               (lb/ton)

Lead6

  Uncontrolled  (kg/Mg)
               (lb/ton)

  Controlled   (kg/Mg)
               (lb/ton)

Sulfur dioxide8

  Uncontrolled  (kg/Mg)
               (lb/ton)

Emission Factor Rating
 16-35
 32-70
  4-8P
  7-16P
Neg*
Negf

Neg
Neg
Neg
Neg

Neg
Neg
               Neg
               Neg
162  (87-242)8
323  (173-483)».8

0.50 (0.26-0.77)"
1.01 (0.53-1.55)"
  32 (17-48)99%.
8References 8-11.
"References 8,11-12.
JReference 13.  Lead content of kettle refining emissions is 40*
 and of casting emissions is 36%.
^References 1-2.  Essentially all product lead oxide is entrained in an air stream and subsequently
 recovered by baghouse with average collection efficiency >99I.  Factor represents emissions of
 lead oxide that escape a. baghouse used to collect the lead oxide product.  Based on the amount  of lead
 produced and represents  approximate upper limit for emissions.
•References 6,8-11.
"Inferences 6,8,11-12,14-15.
Preferences 3,5.  Based on assumption that uncontrolled reverberatory furnace flua missions are 23Z lead.
iRcference 13.  Uncontrolled reverberatory furnace flue emissions assumed to be 23% lead.  Blast furnace
 emissions have lead content of 34%, based on single uncontrolled plant test.
rReference 13.  Blast  furnace emissions have lead content of 26%, based on single controlled plant test.
8Based on quantity of  material charged to furnaces.
   7.11-4
                      EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                   10/86

-------
    TABLE 7.11-2.  FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY LEAD PROCESSING3

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
Operation
Sweating
Smelting
Kettle refining
Casting
Particulate
kg/Mg
0.8 - 1.8
4.3 - 12.1
0.001
0.001
Ib/ton
1.6 - 3.5b
8.7 - 24.2
0.002
0.002
Lead
kg/Mg
0.2 - 0.9
0.88 - 3.5d
0.0003d
0.0004d
Ib/ton
0.4 - 1.8°
1.75 - 7.0d
0.0006d
0.0007d
 aReference  16.  Based on amount of lead product, except for sweating, which
  is based on quantity of material charged to furnace.  Fugitive emissions
  estimated  to be 5% of uncontrolled stack emissions.
 ^Reference  1.  Sweating furnace emissions estimated from nonlead secondary
  nonferrous processing industries.
 °References 3,5.  Assumes 23% lead content of uncontrolled blast furnace
  flue emissions.
 dReference  13.

     Emissions from battery breaking are mainly of sulfuric acid mist and dusts
containing dirt, battery case material and lead compounds.  Emissions from
crushing are also mainly dusts.
     Emissions from sweating operations are fume, dust, soot particles and
combustion products, including sulfur dioxide (802).  The S02 emissions come
from combustion of sulfur compounds in the scrap and fuel.  Dusts range in
particle size from 5 to 20 micrometers, and unagglomerated lead fumes range
from 0.07 to 0.4 micrometers, with an average diameter of 0.3.  Particulate
loadings in the stack gas from reverberatory sweating range from 3.2 to 10.3
grams per cubic meter (1.4 to 4.5 grains per cubic foot).  Baghouses are usually
used to control sweating emissions, with removal efficiencies exceeding 99
percent.  The emission factors for lead sweating in Table 7.11-1 are based on
measurements at similar sweating furnaces in other secondary metal processing
industries, not on measurements at lead sweating furnaces.

     Reverberatory smelting furnaces emit particulate and oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen.  Particulate consists of oxides, sulfides and sulfates of lead,  anti-
mony, arsenic, copper and tin, as well as unagglomerated lead fume.  Particulate
loadings range from to 16 to 50 grams per cubic meter (7 to 22 grains per  cubic
foot.  Emissions are generally controlled with settling and cooling chambers,
followed by a baghouse.  Control efficiencies generally exceed 99 percent.  Wet
scrubbers are sometimes used to reduce S02 emissions.  However,  because of the
small particles emitted from reverberatory furnaces, baghouses are more often
used than scrubbers for particulate control.

     Two chemical analyses by electron spectroscopy have shown the particulate
to consist of 38 to 42 percent lead, 20 to 30 percent tin, and about 1 percent
zinc.l^  Particulate emissions from reverberatory smelting furnaces are esti-
mated to contain 20 percent lead.
10/86
Metallurgical Industry
7.11-5

-------
       TABLE 7.11-3.   EMISSION FACTORS  AND PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION FOR

                 BAGHOUSE CONTROLLED BLAST FURNACE FLUE GASES3



                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle
size*5
(urn)

15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Cumulative Cumulative emission factors
mass %

-------
TABLE 7.11-4.
EMISSION  FACTORS AND  PARTICLE SIZE  DISTRIBUTION FOR UNCONTROLLED

AND BAGHOUSE  CONTROLLED  BLAST FURNACE VENTILATION3


            EMISSION  FACTOR RATING:   D
Particle
sizeb
(urn)

15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Total
Cumulative
< stated
mass %
size
Uncontrolled Controlled

40.5
39.5
39.0
35.0
23.5
16.5
4.5
100.0

88.5
83.5
78.0
65.0
43.5
32.5
13.0
100.0
Cumulative emission factors
Uncontrolled

kg/Mg
25.7
25.1
24.8
22.2
14.9
10.5
2.9
63.5

Ib/ton
51.4
50.2
49.5
44.5
29.8
21.0
5.7
127.0
Controlled

kg /Kg
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.06
0.47

Ib/ton
0.83
0.78
0.73
0.61
0.41
0.30
0.12
0.94
aBased on lead, as produced.  Includes  emissions  from  charging,

 metal and slag tapping.

cExpressed as equivalent aerodynamic particle diameter.
               -o
               OJ
               o
               s_
               -I-"
               o
               o
                  25
                  20
               en
               s:
               ^  15
               t-
               o
                  10
o

00
                                                            0.4
                                                            0.3
                                             o.;
                                                            0.1
                                                  
                                                                 O
                                                                 -l->
                                                                 O
o

00
                    0.625 1.0 1.25  2.5      6.0  10.0 15.0
                             Particle size (urn)

Figure 7.11-3.  Emission factors less than stated particle size for uncontrolled
                and baghouse controlled blast furnace ventilation.
10/86
              Metallurgical  Industry
         7.11-7

-------
          TABLE 7.11-5.  EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES
     Control                             Furnace        Control  efficiency
       equipment                           type                 (%)
     Fabric filter3                      Blast                  98.4
                                         Reverberatory          99.2

     Dry cyclone plus fabric filter3     Blast                  99.0

     Wet cyclone plus fabric filter*5     Reverberatory          99.7

     Settling chamber plus dry
       cyclone plus fabric filter0       Reverberatory          99.8

     Venturi scrubber plus demister^     Blast                  99.3
    3Reference 8.
    ^Reference 9.
    cReference 10.
    ^Reference 14.
     Particle size distributions and size specific emission factors  for blast
furnace flue gases and for charging and tapping operations,  respectively,  are
presented in Tables 7.11-3 and 7.11-4,  and Figures 7.11-2  and  7.11-3.

     Emissions from blast furnaces occur at charging  doors,  the slag tap,  the
lead well, and the furnace stack.  The  emissions are  combustion gases  (including
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen)  and  partic-
ulate.  Emissions from the charging doors and the slag tap are hooded  and  rout-
ed to the devices treating the furnace  stack emissions. Blast furnace partic-
ulate is smaller than that emitted from reverberatory furnaces and is  suitable
for control by scrubbers or fabric filters downstream of coolers.  Efficiencies
for various control devices are shown in Table 7.11-5.  In one application,
fabric filters alone captured over 99 percent of the  blast furnace particulate
emissions.

     Particulate recovered from the uncontrolled flue emissions at six blast
furnaces had an average lead content of 23 percent.3»5  Particulate  recovered
from the uncontrolled charging and tapping hoods at one blast  furnace  had  an
average lead content of 61 percent.13  Based on relative emission  rates, lead
is 34 percent of uncontrolled blast furnace emissions.  Controlled emissions
from the same blast furnace had lead content of 26 percent,  with 33  percent
from flues, and 22 percent from charging and tapping  operations.13  Particulate
recovered from another blast furnace contained 80 to  85 percent lead sulfate and
lead chloride, 4 percent tin, 1 percent cadmium, 1 percent zinc, 0.5 percent
antimony, 0.5 percent arsenic, and less than 1 percent organic matter.18

     Kettle furnaces for melting, refining and alloying are relatively minor
emission sources.  The kettles are hooded, with fumes and  dusts typically

7.11-8                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86
i

-------
vented to baghouses and recovered at efficiencies exceeding 99 percent.   Twenty
measurements of the uncontrolled particulates from kettle furnaces  showed a
mass median aerodynamic particle diameter of 18.9 micrometers, with particle
size ranging from 0.05 to 150 micrometers.   Three chemical analyses by electron
spectroscopy showed the composition of particulate to vary from 12  to 17  percent
lead, 5 to 17 percent tin, and 0.9 to 5.7 percent zinc.16

     Emissions from oxidizing furnaces are economically  recovered with bag-
houses.  The particulates are mostly lead oxide, but they also contain amounts
of lead and other metals.  The oxides range in size from 0.2 to 0.5 micrometers.
Controlled emissions have been estimated to be 0.1 kilograms per megagram (0.2
pounds per ton) of lead product, based on a 99 percent efficient baghouse.

References for Section 7.11

 1.  William M. Coltharp, et al., Multimedia Environmental Assessment of  the
     Secondary Nonferrous Metal Industry (Draft),  Contract No. 68-02-1319,
     Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, June 1976.

 2.  H. Nack, et al., Development of an Approach to Identification  of Emerging
     Technology and Demonstration Opportunities, EPA-650/2-74-048,  U. S.  Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1974.

 3.  J. M. Zoller, et al., A Method of Characterization  and Quantification of
     Fugitive Lead Emissions from Secondary Lead Smelters, Ferroalloy Plants
     and Gray Iron Foundries (Revised). EPA-450/3-78-003 (Revised), U. S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  August 1978.

 4.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,  U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1973.  Out of
     Print.

 5.  Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012, U. S. Envi-
     ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  January 1978.

 6.  Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards, Vol-
     umes I and II:  Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries, APTD-1352a and b,
     U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June
     1973.

 7.  J. W. Watson and K. J. Brooks, A Review of Standards of Performance  for New
     Stationary Sources - Secondary Lead Smelters, Contract No. 68-02-2526,
     Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA, January 1979.

 8.  John E. Williamson, et al., A Study of Five Source  Tests  on Emissions from
     Secondary Lead Smelters, County of Los Angeles Air  Pollution Control
     District, Los Angeles, CA, February 1972.

 9.  Emission Test No, 72-CI-8, Office Of Air Quality Planning And  Standards,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle  Park, NC, July
     1972.
10/86                        Metallurgical  Industry                      7.11-9

-------
10.  Emission Test No.  72-CI-7,  Office Of  Air Quality  Planning And  Standards,
     U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, August
     1972.
11.  A.  E.  Vandergrift, et al.,  Particulate  Pollutant  Systems Study, Volume  I:
     Mass Emissions,  APTD-0743,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
     Triangle Park, NC, May 1971.

12.  Emission Test No.  71-CI-34,  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
     U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, July
     1972.

13.  Emissions and Emission Controls at a  Secondary Lead  Smelter  (Draft),
     Contract No.  68-03-2807,  Radian Corporation,  Durham,  NC, January  1981.

14.  Emission Test No.  71-CI-33,  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards,
     U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC, August
     1972.

15.  Secondary Lead Plant Stack  Emission Sampling  At General Battery Corpora-
     tion,  Reading, Pennsylvania,  Contract No. 68-02-0230,  Battelle Institute,
     Columbus, OH, July 1972.

16.  Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial  Process Fugitive  Particulate
     Emissions, EPA-450/3-77-010,  U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park,  NC,  March 1977.

17.  E.  I.  Hartt,  An Evaluation  of Continuous Particulate Monitors  at  A Secon-
     dary Lead Smelter, M. S.  Report No. 0.  R.-16, Environment Canada,  Ottawa,
     Canada.  Date unknown.

18.  J.  E.  Howes,  et al., Evaluation of Stationary Source Particulate  Measure-
     ment Methods, Volume V;  Secondary Lead  Smelters,  Contract No.  68-02-0609,
     Battelle Laboratories, Columbus,  OH,  January  1979.

19.  Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investigation  (Interim
     Report), Contract No. 68-02-1343, Pedco, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,  February
     1975.
7.11-10                         EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
8.1  ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS

8.1.1  General 1-2

     Asphaltic concrete paving is a mixture of well graded,  high quality ag-
gregate and liquid asphaltic cement which is heated and mixed in measured quan-
tities to produce bituminous pavement material.  Aggregate constitutes over
92 weight percent of the total mixture.  Aside from the amount and  grade
of asphalt used, mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts
and types of aggregate used.  A certain percentage of fine aggregate (% less
than  74 micrometers in physical diameter) is required for the production of
good quality asphaltic concrete.

     Hot mix asphalt paving can be manufactured by batch mix, continuous mix
or drum mix process.  Of these various processes, batch mix plants  are cur-
rently predominant.  However, most new installations or replacements to ex-
isting equipment are of the drum mix type.  In 1980, 78 percent of  the total
plants were of the conventional batch type, with 7 percent being continuous
mix facilities and 15 percent drum mix plants.  Any of these plants can be
either permanent installations or portable.

     Conventional Plants - Conventional plants produce finished asphaltic
concrete through either batch (Figure 8.1-1) or continuous (Figure  8.1-2)
mixing operations.  Raw aggregate normally is stockpiled near the plant at a
location where the bulk moisture content will stabilize to between  3 and
5 weight percent.

     As processing for either type of operation begins, the aggregate is
hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate hoppers of the
cold feed unit.  The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor belt
and is transported into a gas or oil fired rotary dryer.  Because a substantial
portion of the heat is transferred by radiation, dryers are equipped with
flights designed to tumble the aggregate to promote drying.

     As it leaves the dryer, the hot material drops into a bucket elevator
and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens and classified into as many
as four different grades (sizes).  The classified material then enters the
mixing operation.

     In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into four large bins
according to size.  The operator controls the aggregate size distribution by
opening various bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and  weight are
obtained.  This material is dropped into a pug mill (mixer)  and is  mixed dry
for about 15 seconds.  The asphalt, a solid at ambient temperature, is pumped
from a heated storage tank, weighed and injected into the mixer. Then the
hot mix is dropped into a truck and is hauled to the job site.

     In a continuous plant, the dried and classified aggregate drops into a
set of small bins which collects the aggregate and meters it through a set of
feeder conveyors to another bucket elevator and into the mixer.   Asphalt
is metered through the inlet end of the mixer, and retention time is

l°/86                      Mineral  Products Industry                      8.1-1

-------
                                                                         a
                                                                         4J
                                                                         co
                                                                         l-l
                                                                         O
                                                                         cfl
                                                                         M
                                                                         SO
                                                                         cfl
                                                                         •H
                                                                         -a
                                     CO
                                     CO
                                     cu
                                     o
                                     o

                                     a,
                                                                            >
                                                                            CO
                                                                            a.
                                                                         iH  cfl
                                                                         CO  ,C
                                                                         V-i  D.
                                                                         01  CO
                                                                         C  CO
                                                                         0)
                                                                         o
                                                                         OO

                                                                         CD
                                                                         D
                                                                         oo
,1-2
EMISSION  FACTORS
10/86

-------
                                      <|  
                                                                       a ta
                                                                       o ex
                                                                      rH CO
                                                                       to x:
                                                                       M CU
                                                                       0) CD
                                                                       C cO
                                                                       0)
                                                                      O
                                                                      CN
                                                                       I
                                         OO

                                          0)
                                          V-i

                                          00
10/86
Mineral Products  Industry
8.1-3

-------
controlled by an  adjustable  dam at the opposite end.  The hot mix flows out
of the mixer into a surge hopper, from which trucks are loaded.

     Drum Mix Plants - The drum mix process simplifies the conventional pro-
cess by using proportioning  feed controls in place of hot aggregate storage
bins, vibrating  screens  and the mixer.   Aggregate is introduced near the
burner end of the revolving  drum mixer,  and the asphalt  is injected midway
along the drum.   A variable flow asphalt pump is linked electronically to the
aggregate belt scales  to  control mix specifications.  The hot mix is dis-
charged from the revolving drum mixer into surge bins or storage silos.  Fig-
ure 8.1-3 is a diagram of the drum mix process.

     Drum mix plants generally use parallel flow design for hot burner gases
and aggregate flow.  Parallel flow has the advantage  of giving the mixture a
longer time  to coat and to collect dust in the mix,  thereby reducing partic-
ulate emissions.  The  amount of particulate generated within  the  dryer in
this process is  usually lower than that generated within conventional dryers,
but because asphalt is heated to high temperatures for a long period of time,
organic emissions (gaseous and  liquid aerosol)  are  greater than in conven-
tional plants.

     Recycle Processes - In recent years,  recycling of old asphalt paving has
been initiated in the  asphaltic concrete industry.  Recycling significantly
reduces the amount of new (virgin) rock and asphaltic cement needed to repave
an existing road.  The various recycling techniques include both cold and hot
methods, with the hot processing conducted at a  central plant.

     In recycling, old asphalt pavement is broken up at a job site and is re-
moved from the  road  base.   This material is then  transported  to the plant,
crushed and  screened  to  the  appropriate  size for  further processing.   The
paving material  is then heated and mixed  with new  aggregate (if applicable),
to which  the proper  amount of new asphaltic  cement is added  to produce a
grade of hot asphalt paving suitable for  laying.

     There are three methods which can be used  to  heat recycled asphalt pav-
ing before the  addition  of the asphaltic cement:  direct flame heating, in-
direct flame heating, and superheated aggregate.

     Direct  flame heating  is typically performed with a drum mixer, wherein
all materials are simultaneously mixed  in the revolving drum.  The  first ex-
perimental attempts at recycling used a standard drum mix plant and introduced
the  recycled paving  and  virgin aggregate concurrently at the  burner  end of
the drum.  Continuing  problems  with excessive blue  smoke emissions led to
several process  modifications,  such  as the addition of heat shields and the
use of split feeds.

     One  method  of  recycling involves a  drum mixer with  a heat dispersion
shield.  The heat shield is installed around the burner, and additional cool-
ing  air  is  provided to reduce the hot  gases  to a temperature below 430 to
650°C  (800  to 1200°F), thus decreasing the amount of blue smoke.   Although
now considered obsolete, a drum within a  drum design has also been successfully
8.1-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
                                                       x©©®
                                                                    CO
                                                                    .C
                                                                    O,
                                                                    CO
                                                                    cfl
                                                                    6
                                                                    I
                                                                    M
                                                                    00
                                                                    CO
                                                                    •H  •
                                                                    T3 CO
                                                                    M-I a.

                                                                    en oo
                                                                    ca c
                                                                    
                                                                    o n)
                                                                    )-4 O.
                                                                    p.
                                                                    CO
                                                                    1-1
                                                                    CU
                                                                    c
                                                                    0)
                                                                    a
                                                                    oo


                                                                    CU
                                                                    00
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-5

-------
used for  recycling.  Reclaimed  material is introduced into  the  outer drum
through a separate  charging  chute  while virgin material is  introduced into
the inner drum.

     Split feed drum mixers were first used for recycling in 1976 and are now
the most  popular  design.   At about the midpoint of  the  drum, the recycled
bituminous material is  introduced  by a split feed  arrangement and is heated
by both the hot gases and heat transfer from the superheated virgin aggregate.
Another type of direct flame method involves the use of a slinger conveyor to
throw recycled material into  the center of  the drum mixer from the discharge
end.  In  this  process,  the recycled material enters the drum along  an arc,
landing approximately at the asphalt injection point.

     Indirect  flame  heating has been performed with  special  drum mixers
equipped  with  heat exchanger tubes.   These tubes  prevent  the mixture  of
virgin aggregate and recycled paving from coming into direct contact with the
flame and the  associated  high temperatures.  Superheated aggregate can also
be used to heat recycled bituminous material.

     In conventional plants,  recycled paving can be introduced  either into
the pug mill or  at the discharge end of the dryer, after which the tempera-
ture of the material is raised by heat from the virgin aggregate.  The proper
amount of new  asphaltic cement  is  then  added to the virgin aggregate/recycle
paving mixture to produce high grade asphaltic concrete.

     Tandem drum  mixers  can  also be used to heat the recycle material.   The
first drum or  aggregate dryer is used to superheat the virgin aggregate,  and
a second drum or dryer either heats recycled paving only or mixes and heats a
combination of virgin and  recycled material.  Sufficient heat remains in  the
exhaust gas from the first dryer to heat the second unit also.

8.1.2  Emissions and Controls

     Emission points at  batch,  continuous  and drum mix asphalt  plants dis-
cussed below refer to Figures 8.1-1, 8.1-2 and 8.1-3,  respectively.

     Conventional Plants - As with most facilities in the mineral products
industry, conventional asphaltic concrete plants have two major categories of
emissions, those  which  are vented to the  atmosphere  through some type of
stack, vent or pipe (ducted sources), and  those which are not confined to
ducts and vents  but are emitted directly from the  source to the  ambient air
(fugitive sources).  Ducted  emissions are  usually collected and  transported
by  an industrial  ventilation system with one or more  fans or air movers,
eventually to  be emitted  to the  atmosphere  through  some type  of stack.
Fugitive  emissions  result  from  process sources, which consist of a combina-
tion  of  gaseous  pollutants and  particulate matter,  or open dust  sources.

     The  most  significant  source of ducted emissions  from  conventional as-
phaltic concrete  plants  is the  rotary  dryer.  The amount  of aggregate dust
carried out of the dryer by  the moving gas stream depends  upon  a  number  of
factors,  including the gas velocity in the drum, the particle size distribution
8.1-6                          EMISSION FACTORS                         ]0/86

-------
of the aggregate, and the specific gravity and aerodynamic characteristics of
the particles.   Dryer emissions also contain the fuel combustion products of
the burner.

     There may also be  some ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage
tanks.  These may consist of combustion products from the tank heater.

     The major source of process  fugitives in  asphalt plants is enclosures
over  the  hot side  conveying,  classifying and  mixing equipment  which  are
vented into the primary dust collector along with the dryer gas.   These vents
and enclosures are  commonly  called a "fugitive air" or  "scavenger" system.
The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air mover device,
depending on the particular facility.  The emissions captured and transported
by the  scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain
gaseous volatile organic compounds  (VOC)  and  a fine aerosol of condensed
liquid particles.  This liquid aerosol  is  created by the  condensation  of  gas
into particles during cooling of  organic vapors volatilized from the asphal-
tic cement in the pug mill.  The amount of liquid aerosol produced depends to
a  large  extent  on  the  temperature of the asphaltic cement  and  aggregate
entering the pug mill.   Organic  vapor and its  associated aerosol  are  also
emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives  during truck loadout,
from  the bed  of  the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from
the asphalt  storage tank,  which also may contain small amounts of  polycyclic
compounds.

     The choice  of  applicable  control equipment for the  drier  exhaust and
vent  line  ranges from dry  mechanical  collectors to  scrubbers and fabric col-
lectors.  Attempts to apply electrostatic  precipitators  have met with  little
success.  Practically all  plants  use primary dust collection equipment like
large diameter cyclones,  skimmers or settling  chambers.   These chambers are
often used  as  classifiers  to  return collected  material  to the hot elevator
and to combine it with  the drier aggregate.  Because of high pollutant levels,
the primary  collector effluent  is ducted  to a  secondary  collection device.
Table 8.1-1 presents  total particulate  emission  factors for conventional
asphaltic  concrete  plants, with the factors based  on  the type of control
technology employed.  Size specific emission factors for conventional asphalt
plants, also based on the control of technology used, are shown in Table 8.1-2
and Figure 8.1-4.  Interpolations of size data  other than those shown in Fig-
ure 8.1-4 can be made from the curves provided.

     There are also  a  number  of  open dust sources  associated  with conven-
tional  asphalt  plants.   These include  vehicle  traffic  generating  fugitive
dust  on paved  and unpaved roads, handling aggregate material,  and similar
operations.  The number and type of fugitive emission sources associated with
a  particular plant depend  on whether  the equipment  is portable or  stationary
and whether  it is located  adjacent to a gravel  pit  or quarry.  Fugitive dust
may range  from 0.1 micrometers to more  than  300 micrometers in diameter.  On
the average, 5 percent  of  cold aggregate  feed  is  less  than 74 micrometers
(minus  200  mesh).   Dust that  may escape collection  before  primary control
generally  consists of particulate having 50 to 70 percent of the total mass
being less  than  74  micrometers.   Uncontrolled particulate emission factors
for various  types of fugitive  sources  in conventional asphaltic  concrete
plants can be found in  Section 11.2.3 of this document.

 10/86                   Mineral Products Industry                   8.1-7

-------
         TABLE 8.1-1.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TOTAL PARTICULATE
             FROM CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3
               Type of control                Emission factor
                                             kg/Mg      Ib/ton
Uncontrolled '
Precleaner
High efficiency cyclone
Spray tower
Baffle spray tower
Multiple centrifugal scrubber
Orifice scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Baghouse
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.15
0.035
0.02
0.02
0.01
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02

         o
         References  1-2, 5-10,  14-16.  Expressed  in  terms of
         emissions per  unit weight  of  asphaltic concrete pro-
         duced.   Includes both  batch mix and  continuous mix
         .processes.
         Almost  all  plants have at  least a precleaner  follow-
         ing  the rotary drier.
         Reference 16.   These factors  differ  from those given
         in Table 8.1-6 because they are for  uncontrolled
         .emissions and  are from an  earlier survey.
         Reference 15.   Range of values = 0.004 - 0.0690 kg/Mg.
         Average from a properly designed, installed,  operated
         and  maintained scrubber, based on a  study to  develop
         New  Source  Performance Standards.
         References  14-15.  Range of values = 0.013  -  0.0690
         fkg/Mg.
         References  14-15.  Emissions  from a  properly  de-
         signed, installed, operated and maintained  bag-
         house,  based on a study to develop New Source Per-
         formance Standards.  Range of values = 0.008  - 0.018
         kg/Mg.
,1-8                        EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------





(8
CO

^



o,

H

33
P-i
co
^




S5
O

H

N

O
o

BS
o
Pn
Q
CO

O
H O
U 3
< M
Pw H

2 S3
O
HH p^
CO O
CO H
M CJ
W PZ-I
o z
M O
Pm H-4
M CO
u co
W M

CO W



N
1— 1
co
Pn
O



oi



S
00



CVJ

1
rH

oo


hJ



H










I







u


u

u
«
w
V*
b
o
u
a


e
o
w
H
i

V
4J
*3
•H

S

>
*a

3
(j

















































































«
C
'^
2
3C




























>-^
9s*


N
U

(U

m
CO

vn

01
e
V

2
as

3
1



















CU U
CO O
3 *J
Q U
£ V
I?
U





to
u
» 3
4J O
•H ^
W eg
O U
a






4 EO
00 U
3 V
W ^
i- 3
tel U
C >J

u


CO
b
e 4j
o u
u •-•
5"o
u

•o
u

o
w
c
o
u
e
=1



3
O
"oo
n
O3



*J >*
•M -0

1- CO


n
4) 00


2 "u

3 C

U


V
c
o
u

u
















•-» -a
U 41
•^ N
u w
CD
Bu
I


!-•

00
00



c
o

p-4

«
"S



c
d

5


00

00

o

£


00
z:

"oo
c:
o

|2

00
s
00

u
o
u
41
^j
O
u



10
u

o



CO
u
a

3

U



U
O
u
41


O
'J



"S


0

c
o
c





1

vc ao ao O O
O O O — ' —  d —


i/*1 <•! CO i/l O trt
0 — -. CM m 00
o' a o o o d
S

° "" *° — 2 5

o> eo
^* r^ ** c^ 09
M



en \o O r*. •**







•- f. r^ a\ «







r* x* o n <•
O r* « so ob







o

•^  C
e 2
(Q O
U ^
-H «


C



o
*
O i

•o
41 4)
•o u
C 3
3 00
O -H

^ e

c*l O U
i O •»*
b - H-t
It 41 i « U
41 O II C
41 41 00 O
OS < CO C OS
(0 U3 U -0
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
                                                                       1.1-9

-------
                 10.0
                  1.0
              I/I
              T3
              VI
              o
              o
              o
              _o
              3
              3
              u
                 0.01
                0.001
                    0.1
                          1 . doghouses
                          2. Centrifugal Scrubbers
                          3. Spray Towers
                          4. Cyclones
                          5. Uncontrolled
                                                  10.0
                                                  1.0
                                                  0.1
                                                  0.01
         1.0                 10.0
     Aerodynamic Particle Diameter (/imA)
   0.001
100.0
             Figure 8.1-4.
Size  specific emission factors  for conventional
      asphalt plants.
8.1-10
                                      EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                     10/86

-------
     Drum Mix  Plants  -  As with the other  two  asphaltic  concrete  production
processes, the most significant ducted source of particulate emissions is the
drum mixer itself.  Emissions from the drum mixer consist of a gas stream with
a  substantial  amount  of particulate matter and lesser  amounts  of  gaseous VOC
of various  species.   The solid  particulate generally consists  of  fine  aggre-
gate particles entrained  in the flowing gas stream during the drying process.
The organic  compounds,  on the other hand, result from heating and mixing of
asphalt  cement  inside the drum, which volatilizes certain components of the
asphalt.  Once  the  VOC have sufficiently  cooled,  some condense to  form the
fine liquid  aerosol  (particulate)  or "blue smoke" plume typical of drum mix
asphalt plants.

     A number of process modifications have been introduced in the newer plants
to reduce or eliminate  the blue smoke problem, including installation of flame
shields,  rearrangement  of the flights inside  the  drum,  adjustments in the
asphalt injection point,  and other design  changes.  Such modifications result
in significant improvements in the elimination of blue smoke.

     Emissions from the drum mix recycle process are similar to emissions from
regular drum mix plants,  except that there are more volatile organics because
of the  direct  flame volatilization of petroleum derivatives  contained  in the
old asphalt  paving.   Control  of liquid  organic emissions  in  the drum mix re-
cycle process is through  some type of process modification, as described above.

     Table 8.1-3 provides total particulate emission factors for ducted emis-
sions in drum mix asphaltic concrete plants, with available size specific emis-
sion factors shown in Table 8.1-4 and Figure 8.1-5.

            TABLE 8.1-3.  TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                     DRUM MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS3

                         EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  B
                     Type of control         Emission factor
                                             kg/Mg    Ib/ton
Uncontrolled
Cyclone or multiclone ,
Low energy wet scrubber
Venturi scrubber
2.45
0.34
0.04
0.02
4.9
0.67
0.07
0.04

             Reference 11.  Expressed in terms of emissions per
             unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced.  These
             factors differ from those for conventional asphaltic
             concrete plants because the aggregate contacts and
             is coated with asphalt early in the drum mix pro-
            , cess.
             Either stack sprays, with water droplets injected
             into the exit stack, or a dynamic scrubber with a
             wet  fan.


10/86                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.1-11

-------
    TABLE 8.1-4.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR
              DRUM MIX ASPHALT PLANTS CONTROLLED BY A BAGHOUSE COLLECTOR3
                              EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   D
                 Cumulative mass S stated
         Cumulative particulate emission factors
                     ^ stated size
S 1.Z6
((JmA) Uncontrolled
2.5 5.5
10.0 23
15.0 27
Total mass
emxssion
factor
Condensable
e
organics
{/oj 	 TT _f -i -I _j°- Pnnf t-nl 1 oH6

Controlledf kg/Mg Ib/ton 10"3 kg/Mg 10"3 Ib/ton
11 0.14 0.27 0.53 1.1
32 0.57 1.1 1.6 3.2
35 0.65 1.3 1.7 3.5


2.5 4.9 4.9 9.8
3.9 7.7

.Reference 23, Table 3-35.   Rounded to two significant figures.
 Aerodynamic diameter.
 Expressed in terms of emissions per unit weight of asphaltic concrete produced.   Not
 .generally applicable to recycle processes.
 Based on an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg (see Table 8.1-3).
Reference 23.  Calculated using an overall collection efficiency of 99.8% for a
fbaghouse applied to an uncontrolled emission factor of 2.45 kg/Mg.
 Includes data from two out of eight tests where ~ 30% recycled asphalt paving was
 processed using a split feed process.
^Determined at outlet of a baghouse collector while plant was operating with ~ 30%
 recycled asphalt paving.  Factors are applicable only to a direct flame heating
 process with a split feed.
    8.1-12
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                           10/86

-------
          100.0
        -O
        a
        o

        VI
           10.0
            1.0
            0.1
             0.1
                   U = Uncontrolled
                   C = Baghouse
                                       U  /
                       i   i i  i i i
                                • I
                                                        !    1  t  1 1 1 I 1
   0.1   -S
                                                                           N
                                                                           t/1
        VI

    .01  2
        o
        a
                                                                           LU
    1.0               10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter
100.0
   K0001
                Figure 8.1-5.   Particle size  distribution and size
                     specific  emission factors  for drum mix
                             asphaltic  concrete  plants.
10/86
                             Mineral Products Industry
           8.1-13

-------
Interpolations of the data shown in Figure 8.1-5 to particle sizes other than
those indicated can be made from the curves provided.

     Process fugitive emissions normally associated with batch and continuous
plants from the  hot  side screens,  bins, elevators  and  pug mill have been
eliminated in the drum mix process.  There may be, however, a certain amount
of fugitive VOC  and  liquid aerosol produced from transport and handling of
hot mix from the drum mixer to the  storage silo, if an open conveyor is  used,
and also from the beds of trucks.   The open dust sources associated with drum
mix plants are similar to those of  batch or continuous plants, with regard to
truck traffic and aggregate handling operations.

8.1.3  Representative Facility

     Factors  for  various materials  emitted  from the  stack of a typical
asphaltic concrete plant are given  in Table 8.1-5,  and the characteristics of
such a plant  are  shown in Table 8.1-6.  With the exception of aldehydes, the
materials listed  in  Table 8.1-6 are  also emitted from the mixer, but in con-
centrations 5 to  100 fold smaller  than stack  gas  concentrations,  and they
last only during the discharge of the mixer.

     Reference 16 reports mixer emissions of SO , NO , and VOC as "less  than"
values, so  it is possible they may  not be present at all.   Particulates,
carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and hydrogen sulfide were observed
at concentrations that were  small  relative to  stack amounts.  Emissions from
the mixer are thus best treated as  fugitive.

     All emission factors  for  the  typical  facility  are  for controlled opera-
tion and  are  based either on average industry  practice  shown  by survey or on
results of actual testing in a selected typical plant.

     An industrial survey16  showed that over 66 percent  of operating hot mix
asphalt plants  use fuel  oil  for combustion.  Possible sulfur  oxide  emissions
from the  stack  were  calculated,  assuming that all sulfur in the fuel oil is
oxidized  to  SO  .   The amount of sulfur oxides actually released through the
stack may be  attenuated  by water scrubbers, or even by  the aggregate itself,
if limestone  is being dried.  Number 2 fuel oil has an average sulfur content
of 0.22 weight percent.

     Emission factors for nitrogen oxides, nonmethane volatile organics, car-
bon monoxide, polycyclic organic material, and aldehydes were determined by
sampling stack gas at the representative asphalt hot mix plant.
8.1-14                          EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                        10/6

-------
       TABLE 8.1-5.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED GASEOUS POLLUTANTS
             FROM A CONVENTIONAL ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANT STACK3

Material emitted
Sulfur oxides (as S02)d'e
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Volatile organic compounds
Carbon monoxide
Polycyclic organic material
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde
2-Methylpropanal
(isobutyraldehyde)
1-Butanal
(n-butyraldehyde)
3-Methylbutanal
(isovaleraldehyde)
Emission
Factor
Rating
C
D
D
D
D
D
D

D

D

D
Emission
g/Mg
146S
18
14
19
0.013
10
0.075

0.65

1.2

8.0
factor
Ib/ton
0.292S
0.036
0.028
0.038
0.000026
0.02
0.00015

0.0013

0.0024

0.016

      .Reference 16.
       Particulates, carbon monoxide, polycyclics, trace metals and
       hydrogen sulfide were observed in the mixer emissions at con-
       centrations that were small relative to stack concentrations.
       .Expressed as g/Mg and Ib/ton of asphaltic concrete produced.
       Mean source test results of a 400 plant survey.
       Reference 21.  S = % sulfur in fuel.  S02 may be attenuated
       ,.50% by adsorption on alkaline aggregate.
       Based on limited test data from the single asphaltic concrete
       plant described in Table 8.1-6.
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.1-15

-------
              TABLE 8.1-6.   CHARACTERISTICS  OF A  REPRESENTATIVE
               ASPHALTIC  CONCRETE  PLANT SELECTED  FOR SAMPLING3
               Parameter
               Plant  sampled
          Plant type

          Production rate,
            Mg/hr (tons/hr)
          Mixer capacity,
            Mg (tons)
          Primary collector
          Secondary collector
          Fuel
          Release agent
          Stack height, m (ft)
          Conventional,  permanent,
            batch plant

          160.3  ± 16% (177 ±  16%)

            3.6  (4.0)
          Cyclone
          Wet  scrubber  (venturi)
          Oil
          Fuel oil
           15.85  (52)
           Reference 16,  Table 16.
References for Section 8.1

 1.  Asphaltic Concrete Plants Atmospheric Emissions Study,  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-0076, Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson,  Seattle,  WA,  November 1971.

 2.  Guide for Air Pollution Control of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants,   Information
     Series 17, National  Asphalt  Pavement Association, Riverdale, MD, 1965.

 3.  R. M. Ingels, et  al. , "Control of Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plants in
     Los Angeles  County", Journal of the Air Pollution Control  Association,
          : 29-33,  January 1960.
 4.  H. E. Friedrich,  "Air  Pollution Control Practices and Criteria for Hot
     Mix Asphalt Paving Batch Plants", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, 19^(12) : 924-928 ,  December 1969.

 5.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  1973.  Out of Print.

 6.  G. L. Allen, et al. ,  "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dust and Fumes
     in Los Angeles County,  California",  Information Circular 7627 ,  U. S. De-
     partment of Interior, Washington, DC, April 1952.
8.1-16
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
 7.   P.  A.  Kenline,  Unpublished report on control of air pollutants  from chem-
     ical process industries,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,
     OH, May 1959.

 8.   Private communication on particulate pollutant study between G. Sallee,
     Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City,  MO, and U.  S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC,  June 1970.

 9.   J.  A.  Danielson, Unpublished test data from  asphalt batching plants, Los
     Angeles County  Air Pollution Control District,  Presented at  Air Pollution
     Control Institute, University  of  Southern California,  Los Angeles,  CA,
     November 1966.

10.   M.  E.  Fogel, et al., Comprehensive Economic Study of Air Pollution Con-
     trol Costs for  Selected Industries and Selected Regions,  R-OU-455,  U.  S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC, February
     1970.

11.   Preliminary Evaluation of Air Pollution Aspects of the  Drum  Mix Process,
     EPA-340/1-77-004,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park,  NC,  March 1976.

12.   R.  W.  Beaty and B. M.  Bunnell,  "The Manufacture of Asphalt Concrete Mix-
     tures  in the Dryer Drum", Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
     Technical  Asphalt Association,  Quebec City,  Quebec,  November 19-21,  1973.

13.   J.  S.  Kinsey,  "An Evaluation of Control Systems and Mass Emission Rates
     from Dryer Drum Hot Asphalt Plants", Journal of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, 26(12):1163-1165,  December 1976.

14.   Background Information for Proposed New Source  Performance Standards,
     APTD-1352A and  B,  U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
     Park,  NC,  June  1973.

15.   Background Information for New Source Performance Standards,  EPA 450/2-74-
     003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC,
     February 1974.

16.   Z.  S.  Kahn and  T.  W.  Hughes, Source Assessment:  Asphalt Paving Hot Mix,
     EPA-600/2-77-107n, U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH,
     December 1977.

17.   V.  P.  Puzinauskas and L.  W.  Corbett, Report  on  Emissions from Asphalt Hot
     Mixes,  RR-75-1A,  The  Asphalt  Institute,  College  Park,  MD,  May 1975.

18.   Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining,  EPA Contract  No.  68-02-1321,
     PEDCo  Environmental,  Inc.,  Cincinnati, OH, June 1976.

19.   J.  A.  Peters and P. K.  Chalekode,  "Assessment of Open Sources",  Presented
     at  the Third National Conference  on Energy  and the Environment, College
     Corner, OH, October 1,  1975.
 10/86                     Mineral Products Industry                   8.1-17

-------
20.  Illustration of Dryer Drum Hot  Mix Asphalt  Plant,  Pacific Environmental
     Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA,  1978.

21.  Herman H. Forsten,  "Applications  of Fabric  Filters to Asphalt  Plants",
     Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of  the Air Pollution Control Asso-
     ciation, Houston, TX, June 1978.

22.  Emission Of Volatile Organic Compounds From Drum Mix Asphalt Plants,  EPA-
     600/2-81-026, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
     February 1981.

23.  J. S. Kinsey, Asphaltic Concrete  Industry - Source Category Report, EPA-
     600/7-86-038, U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
     October 1986.
8.1-18                           EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
8.3  BRICKS AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTS

8.3.1  Process Description

     The manufacture of brick and related products such as  clay pipe,  pottery
and some types of refractory brick involves the mining, grinding,  screening  and
blending of the raw materials, and the forming, cutting or  shaping,  drying  or
curing, and firing of the final product.

     Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits.   Most fine clays are
found underground.  After mining, the material  is crushed to remove  stones  and
is stirred before it passes onto screens for segregation by particle size.

     To start the forming process, clay is mixed with  water,  usually in a pug
mill.  The three principal processes for forming brick are  stiff mud,  soft  mud
and dry press.  In the stiff mud process, sufficient water  is added  to give the
clay plasticity, and bricks are formed by forcing the  clay  through a die.   Wire
is used in separating bricks.  All structural tile and most brick are formed by
this process.  The soft mud process is usually  used with clay too wet for the
stiff mud process.  The clay is mixed with water to a  moisture content of 20 to
30 percent, and the bricks are formed in molds.  In the dry press process,  clay
is mixed with a small amount of water and formed in steel molds by applying
pressure of 3.43 to 10.28 megapascals (500 to 1500 pounds per square inch).  A
typical brick manufacturing process is shown in Figure 8.3-1.

     Wet clay units that have been formed are almost completely dried before
firing, usually with waste heat from kilns.  Many types of  kilns are used for
firing brick, but the most common are the downdraft periodic kiln and the
tunnel kiln.  The periodic kiln is a permanent  brick structure with  a number
of fireholes where fuel enters the furnace.  Hot gases from the fuel are drawn
up over the bricks, down through them by underground flues, and out  of the  oven
to the chimney.  Although lower heat recovery makes this type less efficient
than the tunnel kiln, the uniform temperature distribution  leads to  a good
quality product.  In most tunnel kilns, cars carrying  about 1200 bricks travel
on rails through the kiln at the rate of one 1.83 meter (6  foot) car per hour.
The fire zone is located near the middle of the kiln and is stationary.

     In all kilns, firing takes place in six steps:  evaporation of  free water,
dehydration, oxidation, vitrification, flashing, and cooling.  Normally, gas or
residual oil is used for heating, but coal may  be used. Total heating time
varies with the type of product, for example, 22.9 centimeter (9 inch) refrac-
tory bricks usually require 50 to 100 hours of  firing.  Maximum temperatures of
about 1090°C (2000°F) are used in firing common brick.
 10/86                     Mineral  Products Industry                       8.3-1

-------
8.3.2  Emissions And Controlsl>3

     Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture  of bricks.
The main source of dust is the materials  handling  procedure, which  includes
drying, grinding, screening and storing the raw material.   Combustion products
are emitted from the fuel  consumed  in the dryer and  the kiln.  Fluorides,
largely in gaseous form,  are also emitted from brick manufacturing  operations.
Sulfur dioxide may be emitted from  the bricks  when temperatures  reach or  exceed
1370°C (2500°F), but no data on such emissions are available.4
CRUSHING
AND
STORAGE
(P)


PULVERIZING
(P)

CPRFFNTNG
(P)


FORMING
AND
CUTTING
                                         FUEL
GLAZING



DRYING
(P)


HOT
GASES




T
KILN
(P)



STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
(P)
       Figure 8.3-1.
Basic flow diagram of brick manufacturing  process.
(P = a major source of particulate emissions)
     A variety of control  systems  may  be used  to  reduce  both  particulate  and
gaseous emissions.  Almost any type of particulate control  system will  reduce
emissions from the material handling process,  but good plant  design and hooding
are also required to keep  emissions to an acceptable  level.

     The emissions of fluorides can be reduced by operating the  kiln at tem-
peratures below 1090°C (2000°F) and by choosing clays with  low fluoride con-
tent.  Satisfactory control can be achieved by scrubbing kiln gases with  water,
since wet cyclonic scrubbers can remove fluorides with an efficiency of 95
percent or higher.

    Table 8.3-1 presents emission factors for  brick manufacturing without
controls.  Table 8.3-2 presents data on particle  size distribution  and  emission
factors for uncontrolled sawdust fired brick kilns.  Table  8.3-3 presents data
on particle size distribution and  emission factors for uncontrolled coal  fired
tunnel brick kilns.
                                                             i
8.3-2
          EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                          10/86

-------













CB
CO

0
06
H
Z
0
u

H
CD
O
H

SB

O
Z
1— 1
eS u

H
u
< e>
fa Z

a H

5C DM



CJ O
1— 1 EH
a! U
pA ,^H

eel
O Z
fa O
CO CO
aS co
0 M
H S
c_> w



Z
o
»H
co
CO

*"~*
X




.
1



oo
W

PQ

H







to
*o
M
o
3
CM
01
TJ

X
0
B
00
o

._(
z



V
•o o>
c c
3 09
O £•
a 4-»
5*

u

B
V

s s
o> x
*-t iJ
• ^ ai
s 1
^H O
o z



V


^
o
c


B
0
.0
o
00

•a
X
0
u

4-1
3
CO


CO
a;

2*
3
U
".U

a)
cu














B
O
4J
,fi



^
Ofl
c
o
•W

•O



sc
54
Jtt


B
O
4J

r-l

01
5

•*
B
0
4J

r-l
00


00


c
o

^J
"~t


00
X
5
c
o
JJ
•-t


bO
X
oc
Jx!
c
0
4J
**-.
^



00
X
"•**
0(










OS
u
cu

III 1 °, °. °. ' ' °. °. ^
•-I -« — — • ^ "•



III i mmmtf mtnin
OOO OOO
vo oomm-^ orMm

III . .... ...
o O^^-H o-«eM


m

ill m omr-ooi WOO^H
o oooo OO^H



O (M O M ** <— *
000 OOO
III 1 •••II ...
OOO OOO


ro  "*•» -^ -o -O 4)
<-^ tjUj iw i— 1 4) 01 V4 (0 ^ 41 4) l-i
••-i oo 41 «o -o Ji -«-i *H M-I oo « y ---I .r-4 y-i
«bj>-HOO &M «r-< ^^^7^ '•3'"'*'^
B'X.^O Jrf* c e o b u u co u o o u
> d u en •" o UH cu
4 W 3
Of M U












•
(0
•o
B
O O
Z •<-!

1 (0
X l-l
co 05
o
a
to
. ft)
'-*> O
to O
•o i-
C O.
3
O «-i
P. 0
m 4> -D
*o a t-i
v— - a) o
U *J
00 Ol CO

m  U O
O «-t 3 AJ
00 ^-*
•H U X
. ^ tO ^H
tJ 00 U-i C
0" 41 3 O
U B B
3 S X
•a H X •-!
0 (X
M oo x a.
a 4i « CB
z <-<
.* U »
U 0)
•H • O tO
X 01 SO
3 cd ^
LM M-t h
O 4) 4)
4J -S ° qf
A B Wi
00 H O 0
41 **-< r^. co
> ^1
3 00
u a .
• H E "O
B M O 01
3 **4 4J
R 4-1 *J •

4) CO 01 B -H
a en o I
• CN
09 • O 8 4) -H
U ^4 -. 5 A
-^ eg I u
B o vo <+* x »n
3 U 4
- aj S • -
CO C CO *-• CM ^H
CO -H q| » -<
•O X 0) 0) 0) 4)
CO C8 C O OB C C
0) M V* -fl 4} M U
w »£ * <£ *
X 41 eg • « tu
W < Qtf CQ D* «

-------
       TABLE 8.3-2.  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION FACTORS  FOR
                    UNCONTROLLED  SAWDUST FIRED BRICK KILNS8

                           EMISSION FACTOR RATING:  E
     Aerodynamic particle
        diameter (ym)
 Cumulative weight %
    <  stated size
Emission factor^
    (kg/Mg)
             2.5
             6.0
            10.0
        36.5
        63.0
        82.5
      0.044
      0.076
      0.099
                              Total  particulate emission factor    0.12C
    aReference 13.
    ^Expressed as cumulative weight  of  particulate <^ corresponding  particle
     size/unit weight of brick  produced.
    cTotal mass emission factor from Table 8.3-1.
                   01
                   N
                   T3
                   CV
                   jj K>
                   co
                  V
                  JC
                  60
                  •r-l
                  01
                  3

                  CV
                  3
                  E
                                               UNCONTROLLED
                                             -•- Weight percent
                                             	 Emission factor
                              co
                              CA
                              H-
                              O
                              3

                            o 10 i-h
                              Cu
                              O
                              rr
                              O
                              i-t
                                                             0.05 (J
-------
     TABLE 8.3-3.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                 UNCONTROLLED COAL FIRED TUNNEL BRICK  KILNS3

                          EMISSION FACTOR RATING:   E
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (pm)
2.5
6.0
10.0
1
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
24.7
50.4
71.0
Cotal particulate emission
Emission factor*5
(kg/Mg)
0.08A
0.17A
0.24A
factor 0.34AC
  aReferences  12,  17.
  "Expressed as  cumulative weight of particulate <^  corresponding  particle
   size/unit weight  of  brick produced.  A = % ash in  coal.   (Use  10% if
   ash content is  not known).
  cTotal mass  emission  factor from Table 8.3-1.
                °
                3
                6
                                            UNCONTROLLED
                                         —•- Weight percent
                                         	 Emission factor
                                                            r
o
D
to
o
rr
O
                                                           j?
                                           10  X  40 M M TD 10 90 100
                           Particle diameter,
                Figure 8.3-3.  Cumulative weight  percent  of
                particles less than stated  particle  diameters
                for uncontrolled coal fired tunnel brick  kilns
10/86
                         Mineral  Products Industry
               8.3-5

-------
       TABLE 8.3-4.  PARTICLE  SIZE  DISTRIBUTION AND EMISSION  FACTORS FOR
              UNCONTROLLED  SCREENING AND GRINDING OF RAW MATERIALS
                     FOR  BRICKS  AND RELATED CLAY PRODUCTSA
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
Aerodynamic particle
diameter (ym)
2.5
6.0
10.0
Tc
Cumulative weight %
< stated size
0.2
0.4
7.0
Emission factor*5
(kg/Mg)
0.08
0.15
2.66
)tal particulate emission factor 38C
1
    References 11,  18.
    ^Expressed as cumulative  weight  of particulate <^ corresponding
     particle size/unit weight  of  raw material processed.
    cTotal mass emission  factor from Table 8.3-1.
                  N
                  01 n

                  -O "
                  
-------
References for Section 8.3
1.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors, APTD-0923, U. S. Environmental  Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1970.

2.  "Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction", Pamphlet  No.  9,  Structural
    Clay Products Institute, Washington, DC, September 1961.

3.  Unpublished control techniques for fluoride emissions,  U.  S.  Department  Of
    Health And Welfare, Washington, DC, May 1970.

4.  M. H. Allen, "Report on Air Pollution, Air Quality Act  of  1967  and Methods
    of Controlling the Emission of Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants",
    Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington,  DC, September 1969.

5.  F. H. Norton,  Refractories, 3rd Ed, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.

6.  K. T. Semrau, "Emissions of Fluorides from Industrial Processes: A Review",
    Journal Of The Air Pollution Control Association, ^(2):92-108,  August  1957.

7.  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol  5,  2nd Edition, John
    Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.

8.  K. F. Wentzel, "Fluoride Emissions in the Vicinity of Brickworks", Staub,
    _25_(3): 45-50, March 1965.

9.  "Control of Metallurgical and Mineral Dusts and  Fumes in Los  Angeles
    County", Information Circular No. 7627, Bureau Of Mines, U. S.  Department
    Of Interior, Washington, DC, April 1952.

10.  Notes on oral communication between Resources Research, Inc.,  Reston, VA
     and New Jersey Air Pollution Control Agency, Trenton,  NJ,  July 20,  1969.

11.  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.

12.  Building Brick and Structural Clay Industry - Lee Brick and  Tile  Co.,
     Sanford, NC, EMB 80-BRK-l, U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.

13.  Building Brick and Structural Clay Wood Fired Brick  Kiln - Emission Test
     Report - Chatham Brick and Tile Company, Gulf,  North Carolina,  EMB-80-
     BRK-5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research  Triangle Park, NC,
     October 1980.

14.  R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report:  Lee  Brick
     and Tile Co., Sanford, NC, Compliance Testing,  Entropy  Environmentalists,
     Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1978.

15.  R. N. Doster and D. J. Grove, Stationary Source Sampling Report:  Lee  Brick
     and Tile Co., Sanford, NC, Compliance Testing,  Entropy  Environmentalists,
     Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1978.

10/86                      Mineral Products Industry                      8.3-7

-------
16.   F.  J.  Phoenix and  D.  J.  Grove,  Stationary  Source  Sampling Report - Chatham
     Brick  and Tile Co.,  Sanford,  NC,  Partlculate Emissions Compliance Testing,
     Entropy Environmentalists,  Inc.,  Research  Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.

17.   Fine Particle Emissions  Information System, Series Report No. 354, Office
     Of  Air Quality Planning  And Standards, U.  S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  June 1983.
 .3-8                           EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
8.6  PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING

8.6.1  Process Descriptionl~3

     Portland cement manufacture accounts for about 95 percent of  the cement
production in the United States. The more than 30 raw materials used  to  make
cement may be divided into four basic components:   line (calcareous), silica
(siliceous), alumina (argillaceous), and iron (ferriferous).   Approximately
1575 kilograms (3500 pounds) of dry raw materials are required to  produce 1
metric ton (2200 pounds of cement).  Between 45 and 65 percent of  raw material
weight is removed as carbon dioxide and water vapor.  As shown in  Figure 8.6-1,
the raw materials undergo separate crushing after the quarrying operation, and,
when needed for processing, are proportioned, ground and blended by either a
dry or wet process.  One barrel of cement weighs 171 kilograms (376 pounds).

     In the dry process, moisture content of the raw material  is reduced to less
than 1 percent, either before or during grinding.   The dried materials are then
pulverized and fed directly into a rotary kiln.  The kiln is  a long steel cylin-
der with a refractory brick lining.  It is slightly inclined,  rotating about
the longitudinal axis.  The pulverized raw materials are fed  into  the upper end,
traveling slowly to the lower end.  Kilns are fired from the lower end,  so that
the rising hot gases pass through the raw material.  Drying, decarbonating and
calcining are accomplished as the material travels through the heated kiln and
finally burns to incipient fusion and forms the clinker.  The  clinker is cooled,
mixed with about 5 weight percent gypsum and ground to the desired fineness.
The product, cement, is then stored for later packaging and shipment.

     With the wet process, a slurry is made by adding water to the initial
grinding operation.  Proportioning may take place before or after  the grinding
step.  After the materials are mixed, excess water is removed  and  final  adjust-
ments are made to obtain a desired composition.  This final homogeneous  mixture
is fed to the kilns as a slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisture or as a  wet fil-
trate of about 20 percent moisture.  The burning,  cooling, addition of gypsum,
and storage are then carried out, as in the dry process.

     The trend in the Portland cement industry is toward the use of the  dry
process of clinker production.  Eighty percent of  the kilns built  since  1971
use the dry process, compared to 46 percent of earlier kilns.   Dry process kilns
that have become subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) since 1979
commonly are either preheater or preheater/precalciner systems. Both systems
allow the sensible heat in kiln exhast gases to heat, and partially to calcine,
the raw feed before it enters the kiln.

     Addition of a preheater to a dry process kiln permits use of  a kiln one
half to two thirds shorter than those without a preheater, because heat  transfer
to the dry feed is more efficient in a preheater than in the preheating  zone of
the kiln.^  Also, because of the increased heat transfer efficiency,  a preheater
kiln system requires less energy than either a wet kiln or a dry kiln without a
preheater to achieve the same amount of calcination.  Wet raw  feed (of 20 to 40
percent moisture) requires a longer residence time for preheating,  which is
best provided in the kiln itself.  Therefore, wet  process plants do not  use

10/86                      Mineral Products Industry                     8.6-1

-------
                                                                           a>
                                                                           O)
                                                                           c
                                                                           o
                                                                           (0
                                                                           a>
                                                                           a>
                                                                           o
                                                                           •a
                                                                           to
                                                                           o
                                                                           a.
                                                                           'o
                                                                           E
                                                                           03
                                                                           O>
                                                                           
-------
preheater systems.  A dry process kiln with a preheater system can use 50
percent less fuel than a wet process kiln.

8.6.2  Emissions And Controls*"*^,5

     Particulate matter is the primary emission in the manufacture of Portland
cement.  Emissions also include the normal combustion products of the fuel  used
for heat in the kiln and in drying operations, including oxides of nitrogen and
small amounts of oxides of sulfur.

     Sources of dust at cement plants are 1) quarrying and crushing,  2)  raw
material storage, 3) grinding and blending (dry process only), 4) clinker pro-
duction and cooling, 5) finish grinding, and 6) packaging.  The largest  single
point of emissions is the kiln, which may be considered to have three units,
the feed system, the fuel firing system, and the clinker cooling and  handling
system.  The most desirable method of disposing of the dust collected by an
emissions control system is injection into the kiln burning zone for  inclusion
in the clinker.  If the alkali content of the raw materials is too high, how-
ever, some of the dust is discarded or treated before its return to the  kiln.
The maximum alkali content of dust that can be recycled is 0.6 percent (calcu-
lated as sodium oxide).  Additional sources of dust emissions are quarrying,
raw material and clinker storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, loading/
unloading facilities, and paved/unpaved roads.

     The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of material handled
have led to the use of many control systems for dust collection.  The cement
industry generally uses mechanical collectors, electric precipitators, fabric
filter (baghouse) collectors, or combinations of these to control emissions.

     To avoid excessive alkali and sulfur buildup in the raw feed, some  systems
have an alkali bypass exhaust gas system added between the kiln and the  preheat-
er.  Some of the kiln exhaust gases are ducted to the alkali bypass before  the
preheater, thus reducing the alkali fraction passing through the feed.  Particu-
late emissions from the bypass are collected by a separate control device.

     Tables 8.6-1 through 8.6-4 give emission factors for cement manufacturing,
including factors based on particle size.  Size distributions for particulate
emissions from controlled and uncontrolled kilns and clinker coolers  are also
shown in Figures 8.6-2 and 8.6-3.

     Sulfur dioxide (SC^) may come from sulfur compounds in the ores  and in the
fuel combusted.  The sulfur content of both will vary from plant to plant and
from region to region.  Information on the efficacy of particulate control
devices on S02 emissions from cement kilns is inconclusive.  This is  because  of
variability of factors such as feed sulfur content, temperature, moisture,  and
feed chemical composition.  Control extent will vary, of course, according  to
the alkali and sulfur content of the raw materials and fuel."

     Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are also formed during fuel combustion in  rotary
cement kilns.  The NOx emissions result from the oxidation of nitrogen in the
fuel (fuel NOx) as W£H as in incoming combustion air (thermal NOx).   The quan-
tity of NOx formed depends on the type of fuel, its nitrogen content, combustion
temperature, etc.  Like S02, a certain portion of the NC^ reacts with the alka-
line cement and thus is removed from the gas stream.

10/86                      Mineral Products Industry                      8.6-3

-------















cfl
O
H
P
U
PH
^—)
P^
^
s

H
^5

H W

U

P3 O
O r5
PM H
H
CO *
W H
P H

^n
(—1

O

PH
C"Hl
*y^
o
0
P


•
rH
1
vO
oo

w
I-J

^
H

















































































































•O
0>
kj







C
01 CO
M 01
p T3
kl TH
U X
•H O
Z
















CJ
01
TH
g
•H
T3
IH
3

rH
3
w



















,_4
CO
5








r— (
s





CO
a
0







rH
CO
ki
C
•H
s





.a
a>
4-1
(0
I—)
3
O
•H
4-1
t-l
(0
BJ








CO
n
01
u
0

CM





B
O
4J
JD

60
2!
"•••••.
SP
^c
C
O
4J

.0
rH

|?
"ff



C
o
TH
4J
CO
3
'B
O
u

C
0

^
iH

M
s

be
Jc



c
o
•H
4J
CO
3
e
O
U
C
O
4->
XI
rH
J?



c
o
•H
4J
CO
combu

e
o

XI
rH
*







•o
01
u
kl
3
o
CO


c
o
4J
^^_
^
^H

f

\s


c
0
4J
rH



1

bO
•*




















CM O CN -3-
"^ ~* O O
1 . .
00 O 0

^o in —. CM
o o o o
• • 1 • •
00 00



OO 00
. 1 < <
CM CM Z Z


-3- -3
-H _: ' I ^


cn en
CSJ CM
I < <
r^ r- Z Z



en en

1 < <
n n Z z



en en
-3- -3-
• • 1 < <
-3 -3 Z Z
en en
CM CM
1 < <
CM CM Z Z



bO bO
cu eu I -tf ^
be bo
eu cu 1 < <
Z Z Z Z





00 00
. . 1 < <
o o z z




CNI CM



s^> O O
00 O -3" vC 00
csj IN -H -s
C CU 01 ki
X JJ -H X» Q
kl 01 -H kl
O 3 CJ Q




















J
C
01
E rH
a» -H eo
CJ O C
. O rH
•o eu -o •* to
CU rH C 4J 3
£ J2 CO CJ TJ
CO ^H CO TH
•H bo co cu u
C TH CO 1H CU
TH rH bO kl
14H bO >>
CU kl J3 CU
c c o E
TH UH T3 O
II CU CO
§co >
bo cu o ki
co eu TH E o
CL z ki cu iw
X CO ki
bo co *j
7 ' 0) C
iTl rH W O
cu tu c o
bO *J 4J (0 cj
C n3 O (0
•H U 0)
§to c cs x
a. o o u
x o) cn o
XX 4->
10 • 4-1 O
T3 X O «0
• 0> rH b-
0) to (-1 i/i
33 C | a
T3 U . O ~* 0)
O —i 0> cj fvj y
UJ tO rH (-1
a 0 ^3 0 4J 3

M oi u 4= a •
0) £> -H £ 4J CN
^ fH -U • l-( O

-H O CL. ^ 4-1 0) 0)
r— 1 C tO X X f l*t
CJ •> 4J 3 4-» O
*0 'S C 33°Ji5x T3
o -a x eo -H *J 0)
tfl X H 5 -H O
4J X 01 * CO C 3
-H < CtOCDX-H -O
C.£Z -H 4J CO CU M-^ • O
•H CO "^ O rH tO CU
<4H x: • ^ j= «
O3W i-H-ObO>X)'»4J
4-J (0 0) cO C bO C
sx-^ .HTH o "T™'M

OJOO *H-HTH£4JCOO
•UTHC S -— i 3 -H a!
X C! MH
CX it XXOt *THl-iO
i—t *H C 4J ,M X <-H O
S 'J- O*HtO<-H(04JX
0) CO 4-t TH rH tO ^i4(ObC
xO -•tooooicu 3
X 3 0) 4J r-4 ^ 1^^ Q3
U3X>3tOO 3 UH CO CO
5u~4CdM~l X 01(0 O iH B
O w c t-i B M
• u c --1 j-1 u TH cytdoi
CN -H O C O r-l C CO 4J
| i-H 4J 3 O tO -H 3
— ^ QJ )-t O O M ^i (0 • C
3 3tO CJ O.rHl-1 CJOO-H
CO 4-1 4-t Ctt O C0301

u co 3 C cu at •— i o 4J

OJTJ^-Ht-i 4-iXMCUX

§LM Q) ^
^H UH O,
SrHcowcSiUu! atStS
(0 Xl CJ *O 01 *4H
8.6-4
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
           TABLE 8.6-2.  CONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                             CEMENT MANUFACTURING3
Type
of
source
Wet process kiln
Dry process kiln

Clinker cooler



Control
technology
Baghouse
ESP
Multiclone
Multicyclone
+ ESP
Baghouse
Gravel bed
filter
ESP
Baghouse
Particulate
kg/Mg
clinker
0.57
0.39
130b
0.34
0.16

0.16
0.048
0.010
Ib/ton
clinker
1.1
0.78
260b
0.68
0.32

0.32
0.096
0.020
Emission
Factor
Rating
C
C
D
C
B

C
D
C
 Primary limestone
   crusher0                 Baghouse

 Primary limestone
   screen0                  Baghouse

 Secondary limestone
   screen and crusher0      Baghouse

 Conveyor transfer0         Baghouse

 Raw mill system0^         Baghouse

 Finish mill system6        Baghouse
                   0.00051


                   0.00011


                   0.00016

                   0.000020

                   0.034

                   0.017
0.0010


0.00022


0.00032

0.000040

0.068

0.034
D

D

D

C
aReference 8.  Expressed as kg particulate/Mg (Ib particulate/ton)  of clinker
 produced, except as noted.  ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
bfiased on a single test of a dry process kiln fired with a combination of
 coke and natural gas.  Not generally applicable to a broad cross section
 of the cement industry.
°Expressed as mass of pollutant/mass of raw material processed.
"Includes mill, air separator and weigh feeder.
elncludes mill, air separator(s) and one or more material transfer operations.
 Expressed in terms of units of cement produced.
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
                 8.6-5

-------










[
W
^
£-*
1-1


W

H
S3
W
»S
U
Pi
o
PM
CO
g
H
U
fe O

53
0
H O
w 55
CO M
M H


H p^

W Pi
H 0
< H
i-3 o
P 
u
<0

3


CJ





















X)
Q)
N
CO
"8
4J
CO
4J
CO
V
l*(

DO
QC
«
g

V
>
•H
u
«
t-H
3

rj










W
,-H
U
TH
4J
M
((
£





01
CO
3
O
bo
(0
03










CO
(ft
o
0
L,
D.
4J
0>
IX

CO
CO
0)
o
s
D.
X
u
Q








T3
Ot
^
0
Li
C
o
u
c
3










4)
CO
~J
o
ty
3
(C





U
01
A








a





1
r-

*c
'•
c
c
u
B
3



0)
N "•
•1



to
X 41
Li U
a o
a






03
CO
4J 01
a> u
2 0
Ll
a.






x
4J CM
•H «
ft Ed



Ti
o
£ — <
4J U
*> W
"3
s






CO
09
0)
x o
Li O
Q M
a,





to
CO
4-1 0)
01 U
3 2
0-





co
a
x *
Li U
0 2
a

ICO
to
i_» 0)
0) U
a o
* i-
a.

XI
CO ^
CO -H
01 ft
o
o c
Ll ^H
as



x;
M 4-1
CO -H
V ft
u
o c
Ll i-H
as

CO
a
>. u
L? 0
o o
Ll
o

to
a
4J a>
0) U
s o
S
o



c
o
Xi

1
1


c
o
4J
Xi



bfi
at
*^.
bO
&


C
O
4-1
X
3P
ae
00
Ji
c
Q
4J
X-

t
60
ft


C
0

Xi


1
y
jt

C
O

X)

1
QC
J?





C
-in!


C


^



&-
W
U



'*
c
o
-H
u

4-1
1



c
rH
^



c
1-t
•H
ji





U-l
fl -* OO O *M (N
— • (N CM r> f^i m
o o o o o o

rx en -^ in *t> *
o o o o o o





s $ t s i 3



y-i
f«s.
S S S 3 S ^
o


l*-l
O -3- *£> (*J 00 CO
tn •& •<& r~*. r~* r*
o o o o o o
14-1

vO 1 CO •* 1 >O
 1 -» r» 1 OO
(M m m PVJ



0>
r^. GO co ^o \D o
-H -g- m oo m -»
-H CM


-*
. oi
00 ** CT« <^ 00 O
CN ps| >T ^D tN
"^




in r^ -^ cTi O
-* r*» oo oo o



<;<<<<;
S z 2 z z





•^ ft in "^ oo
* oo oo 





00

fO -fl- -* — 00
-H rJ 
01 U
* V 3
Ol Li -fl
^H 3 0
Ji 60 h
et) ^H a. *
•H U 01
CQ 4J QJ M
> C jt 3
(0 CD C M
O -H -H
o *w y •
C -H 4J C
C "4-1 C 0
11 00 O «0 -H
•H 0 4J
< CO 4J ^t 3
2 x; 14-. to
O M -rt CJ
ft i-t C
. 4J 0) SO X
Ll ft -H 4J
O O » iH
4J 4-1 4J ft
(8 -HO
4J -a c ft T3
•H « 3 4J OJ
Q.-O -^^ CO
•H c ey o 3
O 3 4J 4J
41 o Ct) 0)
a, M *3 "« ^
co o -o -o
y 0) -H 0 ,_,
•H DO*-» 3 3
4J (8 Li O O
4 4J « Od JS
4J e a. co
CO HI
O CJ *4-t « -V
Li H 0 4J C
4J 01 C «
U P- 4J 01
D x; e «
-H bO V 4-»
41 * -H O 00
Ll 01 0>
I OJ ft -0 w
4-1 01
Oi 41 *-• x: at * •
W 1 C -H *tX) V 1
•H 3 C C sO \O
•a -H TH . •
• « M-i CO 00 OO
CO CJ CO
.rl C to 0) 0)
at s *a -H ^-i 1-1
u a at c xi X)
c c co B o co tc
at x co 3 H H
M -c v a  tt L< M
Ot < & «0 Pu (E,
« Xi o -o a» •*-.
                                                                                 i
8.6-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
           1000.0
      s
      J
      s
      o
o

LU

      UJ
      £ -o
      = I
        °
         §
      3

      3
      u
            100.0
             10.0
              1.0
              0.
                             i  i  i  irr
                                 T
                              O Uncontrolled Wet Process Kiln

                             *2) Uncontrolled Dry Process Kiln
                             *§) Dry Process Kiln with Multiclone
                                 Wet Process Kiln with ESP
                                 Dry Process Kiln with Baghouse
                              i i i il
                                              i   iii
                                                           100.0
                                                           10.0  jj
                                                           0.1
                                                           0.01
                                                                       o t-
                                                                       3 «
                                                                       LU C
                                                                 o o>
                                                           i.o   8~
                                                                J? -o
                                                                If
                                                                 C 
-------
     1

10.Or:
                                                            100
      .s

       o
       o
       3
       cr
      LU
      _o



      '§
s  i.o
       o 
-------
                 TABLE 8.6-4.
    SIZE  SPECIFIC  EMISSION FACTORS FOR
      CLINKER COOLERS3
                            EMISSION FACTOR RATING:
Particle
sizeb
(urn)

2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Total mass
Cumulative mass %
< stated
sizec
Uncontrolled Gravel bed filter

0.54
1.5
8.6
21
34
emission factor

40
64
76
84
89

Cumulative emission factor
< stated sized
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
0.025
0.067
0.40
0.99
1.6
4.6e
Ib/ton
0.050
0.13
0.80
2.0
3.2
9.2e
Gravel bed filter
kg/Mg
0.064
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.16f
Ib/ton
0.13
0.20
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.32f
aReference 8.
bAerodynamic diameter
cRounded to two significant figures.
dUnit weight of pollutant/unit  weight of clinker
 produced. Rounded to two significant figures.
eFrom Table 8.6-1.
fFrom Table 8.6-2.
 References  for  Section 8.6

 1.   T.  E. Kreichelt,  et al. ,  Atmospheric  Emissions  from the Manufacture of
     Portland  Cement,  999-AP-17,  U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Cincinnati,  OH,  1967.

 2.   Background  Information  For Proposed New Source  Performance Standards:
     Portland  Cement  Plants, APTD-0711, U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Research  Triangle Park, NC,  August 1971.

 3.   A Study of  the Cement Industry  in  the State  of  Missouri,  Resources  Research,
     Inc., Reston, VA,  December 1967.

 4.   Portland  Cement  Plants  -  Background Information for Proposed  Revisions
     to  Standards, EPA-450/3-85-003a, U. S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.
     Research  Triangle Park, NC,  May 1985.

 5.   Standards of Performance  for New Stationary  Sources,  36 FR 28476,
     December  23, 1971.

 6-   Particulate Pollutant System Study, EPA Contract  No.  CPA-22-69-104,  Midwest
     Research  Institute, Kansas City, MO, May  1971.
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.6-9

-------
7.  Restriction of Emissions from Portland  Cement  Works,  VDI  Richtlinien,
    Duesseldorf, West Germany,  February 1967.

8.  J. S. Kinsey, Lime and Cement Industry  - Source Category  Report, Vol.  II,
    EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891,  Midwest Research  Institute,  Kansas City,  MO,
    August 14, 1986.
8.6-10                          EMISSION FACTORS                          10/86

-------
8.10  CONCRETE BATCHING

8.10.1  Process Description^"^

     Concrete is composed essentially of water,  cement,  sand  (fine aggregate)
and coarse aggregate.  Coarse aggregate may consist of gravel,  crushed  stone
or iron blast furnace slag.  Some specialty aggregate products  could  be either
heavyweight aggregate (of barite, magnetite,  limonite, ilmenite,  iron or steel)
or lightweight aggregate (with sintered clay,  shale,  slate, diatomaceous shale,
perlite, vermiculite, slag, pumice,  cinders,  or  sintered fly  ash).  Concrete
batching plants store, convey, measure and discharge these constituents into
trucks for transport to a job site.   In some cases, concrete  is prepared at a
building construction site or for the manufacture of concrete products  such as
pipes and prefabricated construction parts.  Figure 8.10-1 is a generalized
process diagram for concrete batching.

     The raw materials can be delivered to a plant by rail, truck or  barge.
The cement is transferred to elevated storage silos pneumatically or  by bucket
elevator.  The sand and coarse aggregate are transferred to elevated  bins by
front end loader, clam shell crane,  belt conveyor, or bucket  elevator.   From
these elevated bins, the constituents are fed by gravity or screw conveyor to
weigh hoppers, which combine the proper amounts  of each  material.

     Truck mixed (transit mixed) concrete involves approximately  75 percent of
U. S. concrete batching plants.  At  these plants, sand,  aggregate,  cement and
water are all gravity fed from the weigh hopper  into the mixer  trucks.   The
concrete is mixed on the way to the  site where the concrete is  to be  poured.
Central mix facilities (including shrink mixed)  constitute the  other  one fourth
of the industry.  With these, concrete is mixed  and then transferred  to either
an open bed dump truck or an agitator truck for  transport to  the  job  site.
Shrink mixed concrete is concrete that is partially mixed at  the  central  mix
plant and then completely mixed in a truck mixer on the  way to  the job  site.
Dry batching, with concrete is mixed and hauled  to the construction site in dry
form, is seldom, if ever, used.

8.10-2  Emissions and Controls^"?

     Emission factors for concrete batching are  given in Table  8.10-1,  with
potential air pollutant emission points shown.  Particulate matter, consisting
primarily of cement dust but including some aggregate and sand  dust emissions,
is the only pollutant of concern. All but one of the emission  points are
fugitive in nature.  The only point  source is  the transfer of cement  to the
silo, and this is usually vented to  a fabric filter or "sock".  Fugitive sources
include the transfer of sand and aggregate, truck loading, mixer  loading,
vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand and  aggregate storage piles.  The
amount of fugitive emissions generated during  the transfer of sand  and  aggregate
depends primarily on the surface moisture content of  these materials.   The
extent of fugitive emission control  varies widely from plant  to plant.


10/86                      Mineral Products Industry                     8.10-1

-------
                                                                                    en
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    
-------
                  TABLE  8.10-1.
UNCONTROLLED  PARTICIPATE  EMISSION  FACTORS
   FOR CONCRETE BATCHING
Source
Sand and aggregate transfer
to elevated blnb
Cement unloading to elevated
storage silo
Pneuraat icc
Bucket elevator''
Weigh hopper loading6
Truck loading (truck mix)6
Mixer loading (central mlx)e
Vehicle traffic (unpaved road)^
Wind erosion from sand
and aggregate storage piles'1
Total process emissions
(truck mix)3

kg/Mg
of
material
0.014
0.13
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.02
4.5 kg/VKT
3.9 kg/
hectare/day
0.05

Ib/ton
of
material
0.029
0.27
0.24
0.02
0.02
0.04
16 Ib/VMT
3.5 lb/
acre/day
0.10

lb/yd3
of
concrete3
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.28
O.I1
0.20

Emission
Factor
Rating
E
D
E
E
E
E
C
D
E

aBased on  a typical yd3 weighing 1.818 kg (4,000 lb) and containing 227 kg
 (500 lb)  cement, 564 kg (1,240 lb) sand, 864  kg (1,900 lb)  coarse aggregate
 and 164 kg (360 lb) water.
bReference 6.
cFor uncontrolled emissions measured before  filter.  Based on  two tests on
 pneumatic conveying controlled by a fabric  filter.
^Reference 7.  From test of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent
 transport of cement by enclosed bucket elevator to elevated bins with
 fabric socks over bin vent.
6Reference 5.  Engineering judgement, based  on observations  and emission
 tests of  similar controlled sources.
fFrom Section 11.2.1, with k - 0.8, s » 12,  S  - 20, W - 20,  w  = 14, and p -
 100.  VKT = vehicle kilometers traveled. VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
gBased on  facility producing 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr), with average truck
 load of 6.2m3 (8 yd3) and plant road length of 161 meters (1/10 mile).
hprom Section 8.19.1, for emissions <30 um for Inactive storage piles.
iAssumes 1,011 ra2 (1/4 acre) of sand and aggregate storage at  plant with
 production of 23,100 m3/yr (30,000 yd3/yr).
JBased on  pneumatic conveying of cement at a truck mix facility.  Does not
 include vehicle traffic or wind erosion from  storage piles.
 10/86
Mineral  Products  Industry
8.10-3

-------
     Types of controls used may include water sprays,  enclosures,  hoods,  cur-
tains, shrouds, movable and telescoping chutes,  and  the  like.  A major  source
of potential emissions, the movement  of heavy trucks over  unpaved  or  dusty
surfaces in and around the plant,  can be controlled  by good maintenance and
wetting of the road surface.

     Predictive equations which allow for emission factor  adjustment  based on
plant specific conditions are given in Chapter 11.   Whenever plant specific
data are available, they should be used in lieu  of the fugitive emission  factors
presented in Table 8.10-1.
References for Section 8.10

1.   Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  APTD-0923,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC,  April  1970.

2.   Air Pollution Engineering Manual,  2nd Edition, AP-40, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, 1974.  Out  of Print.

3.   Telephone and written communication  between Edwin A. Pfetzing,  Pedco
     Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,  OH,  and Richard  Morris and Richard
     Meininger, National Ready Mix Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD, May
     1984.

4.   Development Document for Effluent  Limitations  Guidelines  and Standards of
     Performance, The Concrete Products Industries, Draft, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington,  DC, August  1975.

5.   Technical Guidance for Control  of  Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
     Emissions, EPA-450/3-77-010, U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, March  1977.

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

7.   Telephone communication between T. R. Blackwood,  Monsanto Research Corp.,
     Dayton, OH, and John Zoller, Pedco Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,
     October 18, 1976.
8.10-4                          EMISSION FACTORS                         10/86

-------
8.13  GLASS MANUFACTURING

8.13.1  General1"5

     Commercially produced glass  can  be  classified  as  soda-lime,  lead,  fused
silica, borosilicate, or 96 percent silica.   Soda-lime glass,  since it  con-
stitutes 77 percent of total glass production,  is discussed  here.   Soda-lime
glass consists of sand, limestone, soda  ash,  and cullet (broken glass).   The
manufacture of such glass is in four  phases:  (1) preparation of raw material,
(2) melting in a furnace, (3) forming and  (4) finishing.   Figure  8.13-1  is a
diagram for typical glass manufacturing.

     The products of this industry are flat glass,  container glass, and  press-
ed and blown glass.  The procedures for  manufacturing  glass  are the same for
all products except forming and finishing.  Container  glass  and pressed  and
blown glass, 51 and 25 percent respectively of  total soda-lime glass pro-
duction, use pressing, blowing or pressing and  blowing to  form the desired
product.  Flat glass, which is the remainder, is formed by float,  drawing or
rolling processes.

     As the sand, limestone and soda  ash raw materials are received, they are
crushed and stored in separate elevated  bins.   These materials are then  trans-
ferred through a gravity feed system  to  a weigher and  mixer,  where the mate-
rial is mixed with cullet to ensure homogeneous melting.   The  mixture is con-
veyed to a batch storage bin where it  is held until dropped  into  the feeder
to the melting furnace.  All equipment used in  handling and  preparing the raw
material is housed separately from the furnace  and  is  usually  referred to as
the batch plant.  Figure 8.13-2 is a  flow diagram of a typical batch plant.
                                          FINISHING
                                             FINISHING
       RAW
     MATERIAL
                   MELTING
                   FURNACE
                      GLASS
                     FORMING
ANNEALING
INSPECTION
  AND
 TESTING
                                  CULLET '
                                 CRUSHING
                                                RECYCLE UNDESIRABLE
                                        GLASS
                                  PACKING
                                     STORAGE
                                       OR
                                     SHIPPING
10/86
Figure 8.13-1.  Typical glass manufacturing process.

             Mineral Products Industry
                      8.13-1

-------
           CULLET
     RAD MATERIALS
     RECEIVING
     HOPPER
         V
            SCREV
            CONVEYOR
                                           FILTER
                                           VENTS
STORAGE BINS
MAJOR RAD MATERIALS
                BELT CONVEYOR
BATCH
STORAGE
BIN
                                                             FURNACE
                                                             FEEDER
                                                                       GLASS
                                                                       MELTING
                                                                       FURNACE
                                                                                     i
              Figure  8.13-2.   General diagram of a batch  plant.

     The furnace most commonly used is a continuous regenerative  furnace
capable of producing  between  45 and 272 Mg (50 and 300 tons)  of glass per
day.  A furnace may have  either side or end ports that connect brick checkers
to the inside of the  melter.   The purpose of brick checkers  (Figures 8.13-3
and 4) is to conserve fuel  by collecting furnace exhaust  gas  heat which, when
the air flow is reversed,  is  used to preheat the furnace  combustion air.  As
material enters the melting furnace through the feeder, it floats on the top
of the molten glass already in the furnace.  As it melts, it  passes to the
front of the melter and eventually flows through a throat leading to the
refiner.  In the refiner,  the molten glass is heat conditioned for delivery
to the forming process.   Figures 8.13-3 and 8.13-4 show side  port and end
port regenerative  furnaces.

     After refining,  the  molten glass leaves the furnace  through  forehearths
(except in the float  process, with molten glass moving directly to the tin
bath) and goes to  be  shaped by pressing, blowing, pressing and blowing,  draw-
ing, rolling, or floating to  produce the desired product.  Pressing and blow-
ing are performed  mechanically, using blank molds and glass  cut into sections
(gobs) by a set of shears.  In the drawing process, molten glass  is drawn up-
ward in a sheet through rollers, with thickness of the sheet  determined by the
speed of the draw  and the configuration of the draw bar.  The rolling process
is similar to the  drawing process except that the glass is drawn  horizontally
8.13-2
      EMISSION FACTORS
         10/86

-------
         Figure 8.13-3.  Side  port  continuous regenerative  furnace,
                                                   REFINER SIDE tlU
           INDUCED DRIFT F*N
         Figure 8.13-4.  End  port continuous regenerative furnace.




10/86                    Mineral Products Industry                      8.13-3

-------
on plain or patterned rollers and, for plate glass, requires grinding and
polishing.  The float process is different, having a molten tin bath over
which the glass is drawn and formed into a finely finished surface requiring
no grinding or polishing.  The end product undergoes finishing (decorating or
coating) and annealing (removing unwanted stress areas in the glass) as re-
quired, and is then inspected and prepared for shipment to market.  Any
damaged or undesirable glass is transferred back to the batch plant to be
used as cullet.

8.13.2  Emissions and Controls!"^

     The main pollutant emitted by the batch plant is particulates in the form
of dust.  This can be controlled with 99 to 100 percent efficiency by enclos-
ing all possible dust sources and using baghouses or cloth filters.  Another
way to control dust emissions, also with an efficiency approaching 100 percent,
is to treat the batch to reduce the amount of fine particles present, by pre-
sintering, briquetting, pelletizing, or liquid alkali treatment.

     The melting furnace contributes over 99 percent of the total emissions
from a glass plant, both particulates and gaseous pollutants.  Particulates
result from volatilization of materials in the melt that combine with gases
and form condensates.  These either are collected in the checker work and gas
passages or are emitted to the atmosphere.  Serious problems arise when the
checkers are not properly cleaned, in that slag can form, clog the passages
and eventually deteriorate the condition and efficiency of the furnace.
Nitrogen oxides form when nitrogen and oxygen react in the high temperatures
of the furnace.  Sulfur oxides result from the decomposition of the sulfates
in the batch and sulfur in the fuel.  Proper maintenance and firing of the
furnace can control emissions and also add to the efficiency of the furnace
and reduce operational costs.  Low pressure wet centrifugal scrubbers have
been used to control particulate and sulfur oxides, but their inefficiency
(approximately 50 percent) indicates their inability to collect particulates
of submicron size.  High energy venturi scrubbers are approximately 95 percent
effective in reducing particulate and sulfur oxide emissions.  Their effect on
nitrogen oxide emissions is unknown.  Baghouses, with up to 99 percent parti-
culate collection efficiency, have been used on small regenerative furnaces,
but fabric corrosion requires careful temperature control.  Electrostatic pre-
cipitators have an efficiency of up to 99 percent in the collection of par-
ticulates.  Table 8.13-1 lists controlled and uncontrolled emission factors
for glass manufacturing.  Table 8.13-2 presents particle size distributions
and corresponding emission factors for uncontrolled and controlled glass
melting furnaces.

     Emissions from the forming and finishing phase depend upon the type of
glass being manufactured.  For container, press, and blow machines, the ma-
jority of emissions results from the gob coming into contact with the machine
lubricant.  Emissions, in the form of a dense white cloud which can exceed 40
percent opacity, are generated by flash vaporization of hydrocarbon greases
and oils.  Grease and oil lubricants are being replaced by silicone emulsions
and water soluble oils, which may virtually eliminate this smoke.  For flat
glass, the only contributor to air pollutant emissions is gas combustion in
the annealing lehr (oven), which is totally enclosed except for product entry
and exit openings.  Since emissions are small and operational procedures are
efficient, no controls are used on flat glass processes.

  8.13-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                      10/86

-------


cd
g
H
Cd
H
O
<
£
*
co pq
CO
3 ..
o o
2
us in
§ •*
<2
CO
gd «
O O
u G
< <
f"H Pt|
0 0
M M
•
i— j
1
i-H
•
oo
H






-o
CD
3
0)
-a
x
0
c
o
s
c
o
.a
M
CD
U

O
O
>

CO
01
X
o
CD
bo
Q
L(
s:
w
Sulfur oxid
ulate
)M
CD
a,






c
0
^.
JD
1
00
Jrf
c
0
4-1
^
»
5
c
o
-v,
£l
bo
c
0
,£>
QC
s;
M
j«:
c
0
u
--.
bC
£
~^
j^
C
O
X)
OC
3S
j?





Process
'
O
o

o
o

o

o
o
0
00
01
z
bo
01
•z.


_o
g"£
*-f (0
•O i-t
G bO
CO
.C "+4
O
0)
CD O*
iH Q.
^ X
O) 4J
J-»
(0 — '
E -i
CD
(0
OS
1
u-i
fN O
0 0
o o
CN O
00
CN
~H O
0 O
-
\O CH
f

CO
• 1
O-i 0
-H O
• 1
r- o
• 1
0 -*
0




o -a
cu o>
u -^
CO rM
Melting furn
Container
Uncontrc
i i i
i i i i
CN CN Ol OJ
OOOO
OOOO
CM CN CN CN
OOOO
OOOO
CN1 CSI CN CN
\£> \C iC *£>


-H O en m
O 0 — —
. . o> 41
0 O Z Z
~3- -^ be be
. . D CD
O O Z Z
V
bC

i-i T-
5 0)

U «Q
QC COU-i 4.
l-i 01
Ol tt 10
W/low er
W/ventui
W/baghoii
W/electr
! 1 1 1 1 ! Ill | | i in
1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 III
CN
O OOOO O — OOOO 2: Z Z
0
O OOOO O — OOOO ZZZ
\/ V N/ V V •
o
_ _H^_H^ ^J^^^^ r^aco
o oooo o — < o o o o ODZO\
o
o oooo O-HOOOO -JZ,O iH r-i
•— 1 4( -H 00 O tJ i— ( 41 -H CC U-(» T3 (0
I- 4I3OWCDI-1 5J3O "Oi-i ro CO
4j JJ-IJTU u AJ-C CO) CflOl
lead glasses. No data
ontrolled by incineration
vn.
hydrated tin chloride
c c _
B CO
•O • at
O CO
co co a
c 41 o u to
•H CO M C 0)
*J CD Q, 01 cO
g 1 c1 ^ M
C CJ 3
**-( » CO
fcj w O O "C
1-1 CO CO
I-t 03 C "O
bO O B O C
"*•! -H C
O T-l fl 0
—* fl bO to l-i
U  >i ->~i
P O
• 01 o td
we t<
I T3 CO
aRef erences <
parentheses
^Not separate
for all typ«
utilize somt
CO
iw
(4
CO
CO
CO
41
o
M
0.
U
C
i
4-1
CO
4J
41
CJ
M-4
3
1
3
•o
S
O U
CO
S 0
•O •-(
o •
r-l O
U

V
flj o
be
t4
>
O
r- 1
O
41
CU
a
CO
3
O
«
w
0

Lcienciei
tor.
cControl eff
emission fa

•a
4)
CN
bO
•H
C
U
u

i

0)
o:
^
c
o
CD
E
01
o
CO
c
01
CO
3
U
a.
bo
c
3 g
cu O
>, CO
01 CO
U TJ
•4-. X
41
e
X *J
^Approximate
Effect on n









CO
c
CO
41
O
ate and sulfu
ate emissions
n reducing particu
in known .
n reducing particu
X « X
4t 00 4>
CJ -S U
, *J X
Approximate
Effect on n
f Approximate
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.13-5

-------
                                              UNCONTROLLED
                                            —•— Weight percent
                                            	 Emission factor
                                              CONTROLLED
                                            —•— Weight percent
                                  5 * 7  S 9 10     20   )0  40 SO 60 •'0 30 90 ,.00

                                 Particle diameter, um
     Figure 8.13-5.   Particle size distributions  and  emission factors for
                         glass melting furnace exhaust.
       TABLE 8.13-2.   PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS
               FOR UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED MELTING FURNACES
                            IN GLASS MANUFACTURING3

                           Emission Factor Rating:   E


Aerodynamic
particle
diameter, um
2.5
6.0
10

Particle size


Uncontrolled
91
93
95

distributionb

ESP
Controlledd
53
66
75
Size specific emission
factor, kg/Mgc


Uncontrolled
0.64
0.65
0.66
References 8-11.
^Cumulative weight  %  of  particles < corresponding  particle size.
cBased on mass  particulate emission factor of 0.7  kg/Mg glass produced,  from
 Table 8.13-1.   Size  specific emission factor =  mass particulate emission
 factor x particle  size  distribution, %/100.  After ESP control, size  specific
 emission factors are negligible.
"^Reference 8-9.  Based on a single test.
8.13-6
EMISSION FACTORS
10/86

-------
 References for Section 8.13

 1.  J. A. Danielson, (ed.), Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd Ed.,
     AP-40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     NC, May 1973.  Out of Print.

 2.  Richard B. Reznik, Source Assessment;  Flat Glass Manufacturing Plants,
     EPA-600/20-76-032b, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, March 1976.

 3.  J. R. Schoor, et al., Source Assessment:  Glass Container Manufacturing
     Plants, EPA-600/2-76-269, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, October 1976.

 4.  A. B. Tripler, Jr. and G. R. Smithson, Jr., A Review of Air Pollution
     Problems and Control in the Ceramic Industries, Battelle Memorial Insti-
     tute, Columbus, OH, presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the American
     Ceramic Society, May 1970.

 5.  J. R. Schorr, et al., Source Assessment;  Pressed and Blown Glass Manu-
     facturing Plants, EPA-600/77-005, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC, January 1977.

 6.  Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, EPA-450/2-77-012,  U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.

 7.  Confidential test data, Pedco-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
     OH.

 8.  H. J. Taback, Fine Particle Emissions from Stationary and Miscellaneous
     Sources in the South Coast Air  Basin, PB-293-923, National Technical
     Information Service, Springfield, VA, February 1979.

 9.  Emission test data from Environmental Assessment Data Systems, Fine Par-
     ticle Emission Information System (FPEIS), Series Report No.  219, U.  S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,  June 1983.

10.  Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op. cit., Series No. 223.

11.  Environmental Assessment Data Systems, op. cit. , Series No. 225.
10/86                            Mineral Products Industry             8.13-7

-------
8.15  LIME MANUFACTURING

8.15.1  General1'4

     Lime is the  high  temperature product of the calcination of limestone.
There are two kinds, high calcium lime (CaO) and dolomitic lime (CaO • MgO).
Lime  is  manufactured in various  kinds  of kilns by  one  of the following
reactions:

         CaC03 + heat  -*   C02 + CaO (high calcium lime)
         CaC03 • MgC03 + heat  •*   C02 + CaO • MgO (dolomitic lime)

In some  lime  plants,  the resulting lime  is  reacted  (slaked) with  water  to
form hydrated lime.

     The basic  processes in the  production  of  lime are  1) quarrying  raw
limestone;  2) preparing  limestone for the  kilns  by crushing and  sizing;
3) calcining  limestone;  4)  processing the lime further  by hydrating;  and
5) miscellaneous  transfer,  storage and  handling  operations.  A general-
ized  material flow diagram  for a lime manufacturing plant is given in Fig-
ure 8.15-1.  Note  that  some operations  shown may not  be performed in all
plants.

     The heart  of a lime plant is the kiln.  The prevalent type of kiln is
the rotary  kiln,  accounting for about 90 percent of all lime production in
the United States.  This kiln is a long,  cylindrical, slightly inclined, re-
fractory lined furnace, through which the limestone and hot combustion gases
pass  countercurrently.  Coal, oil and natural gas may all be fired in rotary
kilns.   Product  coolers  and kiln feed preheaters of various types are com-
monly used  to recover heat  from  the hot  lime product and hot exhaust gases,
respectively.

     The next most common type of kiln in the United States is the vertical,
or shaft, kiln.   This kiln can be described  as an upright heavy steel cylin-
der lined with refractory material.  The limestone is charged at the top and
is calcined as it descends slowly to discharge at the bottom of the kiln.  A
primary  advantage of vertical kilns over rotary kilns is higher average fuel
efficiency.   The  primary disadvantages  of vertical  kilns  are  their rela-
tively low  production  rates and the fact that  coal  cannot be used without
degrading  the quality of the lime produced. There have been few recent
vertical kiln installations  in the United States because  of high product
quality  requirements.

     Other, much less common, kiln types include rotary hearth and fluidized
bed kilns.   Both  kiln types can achieve high production rates, and neither
can operate  with  coal.   The "calcimatic" kiln,  or rotary hearth kiln, is a
circular shaped kiln with a slowly revolving donut shaped hearth.  In fluid-
ized  bed kilns,  finely divided limestone is brought into  contact  with hot
combustion  air  in a turbulent zone,  usually above a perforated grate.  Be-
cause of the  amount of lime carryover into  the exhaust gases,  dust collec-
tion  equipment must be installed on fluidized bed kilns for process economy.

10/86                     Mineral Products Industry                  8.15-1

-------
                                    Hign Caicium and Doioniitic Lmetrone I
                                     Quorry and Mine Operation*
                                     (Drilling, Blasting, and Conveying
                                     of Broken Limestone)
                         ;.        >   ...
                                                                          (OD)  - Go»n Cuft Sourc<

                                                                               - ProcMj Fugitive Sourc*

                                                                                     4 Sourc*
                                                  ©-
            (ODH
            ^—'
            Max Siz> 0.64- 1.3 cm
 Hian Calcium           I          Ooiomitic
.and Oolomitlc         •• I          Quickl
 Ouiciclim*             Lvy>.^Jon\ 3nlr
                                     Ground ond Pu(v«nz«d
                                     Quickltm*
                   Hyarator
                -I Stoaratar
            Hign Calcium and Daiomitie   * "^["nri^
            Normal hvorof«d Umt      ;      \	/
  Figure  8.15-1.    Simplified  flow  diagram for  lime  and  limestone products.
8.15-2
                                           EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                                                     10/86

-------
     About 10 percent of all lime produced is converted to hydrated (slaked)
lime.  There are  two  kinds of hydrators, atmospheric  and pressure.  Atmo-
spheric hydrators, the  more prevalent type, are used in continuous mode to
produce high calcium and normal dolomitic hydrates.  Pressure hydrators, on
the  other hand, produce only a completely hydrated dolomitic lime  and  oper-
ate  only  in  batch mode.  Generally, water  sprays or wet scrubbers perform
the  hydrating process,  to  prevent product  loss.  Following hydration,  the
product may be milled and then conveyed to air separators for further drying
and  removal of coarse fractions.

     In the  United States,  lime  plays a major  role in  chemical and metal-
lurgical  operations.   Two   of the  largest  uses  are as  steel flux  and  in
alkali production.  Lesser  uses  include  construction,  refractory and agri-
cultural applications.

8.15.2  Emissions And Controls3"5

     Potential air pollutant  emission points in lime manufacturing plants
are  shown in Figure 8.15-1.  Except  for gaseous pollutants emitted from
kilns, particulate is  the  only pollutant of concern from most of the opera-
tions .

     The  largest  ducted source  of particulate is the kiln.   Of the various
kiln types, fluidized beds  have the most uncontrolled particulate emissions,
because of the very  small   feed size  combined with  high air flow  through
these kilns.  Fluidized bed kilns are well  controlled  for maximum product
recovery.   The rotary kiln  is second worst in uncontrolled particulate  emis-
sions, also  because  of the small feed size and relatively high air veloci-
ties and  dust  entrainment  caused by the rotating chamber.  The calcimatic
(rotary hearth) kiln  ranks third in dust production, primarily because of
the  larger feed  size  and the fact  that, during  calcination, the limestone
remains stationary relative to the hearth.   The vertical kiln has the lowest
uncontrolled dust emissions,  due  to the large lump feed and the relatively
low  air velocities and slow movement of material through the kiln.

     Some sort of particulate  control is generally applied to most kilns.
Rudimentary  fallout chambers  and  cyclone separators are commonly  used  for
control of the  larger  particles.   Fabric and gravel bed filters,  wet (com-
monly venturi) scrubbers,  and electrostatic precipitators are used for  sec-
ondary control.

     Nitrogen oxides,  carbon monoxide  and sulfur oxides are all produced in
kilns, although the last are the  only  gaseous pollutant emitted in signifi-
cant quantities.  Not  all  of the  sulfur  in  the  kiln fuel is emitted as  sul-
fur  oxides, since some fraction reacts with the materials in the kiln.   Some
sulfur oxide  reduction is  also  effected by  the  various equipment  used  for
secondary particulate control.

     Product coolers are emission sources  only when some of their exhaust
gases are  not  recycled through the kiln for use as  combustion air.   The
10/86                     Mineral Products Industry                  8.15-3

-------
trend is away from the venting of product cooler exhaust, however, to maxi-
mize fuel use efficiencies.   Cyclones,  baghouses and wet scrubbers have been
employed on coolers for particulate control.

     Hydrator emissions are  low,  because  water sprays or wet scrubbers are
usually installed to prevent product  loss in the exhaust gases.   Emissions
from pressure hydrators may  be higher than from the more common atmospheric
hydrators,  because  the exhaust gases are released  intermittently,  making
control more difficult.

     Other particulate sources in lime plants include primary and secondary
crushers, mills,  screens,  mechanical and  pneumatic transfer operations,
storage piles, and  roads.   If quarrying is  a part of the lime plant opera-
tion, particulate  may  also  result  from drilling  and blasting.  Emission
factors for some of these operations are presented in Sections 8.20 and 11.2
of this document.

     Controlled and uncontrolled emission  factors and particle size data for
lime manufacturing are  given in Tables  8.15-1 through 8.15-3.  The size dis-
tributions of particulate emissions from controlled and uncontrolled rotary
kilns and  uncontrolled product  loading  operations are  shown  in  Figures
8.15-2 and 8.15-3.
  .15-4                         EMISSION FACTORS                        10/86

-------



U
c
o
••* "^.



00
xijs : i w. >~ i—
1 0 — i Z

•S
3


1





9
a
z
as
3
U
s
£)
>«*
C


00
3i
C/5 00
IJC


U
•o
•2
0
e

e
o
.a
rc
g
o

^>
M


00

00




00
^ VM <«- >*•



00
4) SM f>4 IN




00
z


z
< , ui e
_ : HI o

CsJ CQ
2
™
X
Q
-J 00 03 00 00
J3 Z (N CM  O
C-> H
< CJ
2
Z
O Z
f-» O
CO r-l
CO CO
S ^ i
W^pp

9
U _OC
Z) 00




A
e
U -*J -^ >^
t, . . .




•*! u o O  «
°° i 2


_j


^* '
C.^





















1 1 W


CO
U U
c —
>< V
11 1)
> - s


(J
hi
3
O








CM O
0-5 —
OQ (J
O X
. u u a;
U S
C "3 U C

i) > -3 " <.
U «J "O U U >

M c e — 15


Ui " Jit <*J Q
U U) C 4) -^
i J: ~ u" 2 C —




U 0
U Q£



jj





.c




cs











00
!M



^r



oe
^







^









afi
U
O
^

«4

Q.
U

U
d.

^

w

w

O

*J
U







J^ ^ £





£ — —




(N «M (N











00 00 00
(N fj rM




nj ^j
ja — -o
.a — c
3 •— U
u

to u C


W f~> U
3 D -^
C fl —






^
JS ^ Z




«,.
J= — Z



^
M f>l Z




<






00 OO <
CN CN Z



** s



•n
o> ^*
00 —
o o oo





-1 UI
un un
O O -T
















U9
3
o
.c
00
n
JS
M ^
•D C U
S — _
a ••* ~
U Ji O
« U I*
3 C ™* ^
o o n e
« ^ o o
00 U ••* CJ
(7 X *^ C

u



<<<< 00 00 00 00
zzzz v «/ o s.
z z z z



<<<< 00 00 00 00
zzzz u u u a



< < < < 00 00 00 00
ZZZZ _« _»j ^ ^




<<<< 00 00 00 00
z z z z ii D cu u
zzzz





<»4CNCM< 00 00 00 OO
. . . z 4J It O li
a o o z z z z



— .-—.< 00 00 00 00
o o o z z z z

00
— • o
a o
— o o
Ov0t.A O'^^'^ u li
UOUU OO 3 U3U lilt
•" h M 0 T3 UU ML. M un
*J W O.'Q U -u UU »3 U3
™ C — ' S N -< = OU UO UIC
— U-"CJ TJ 3U m -, i'ofl — "ob
ucsu -p> •?£ ^0) wtc nn
— ^ i: w 3 o= "o 3 3aa = =

O [^ CL 5S U Ejh


00
1'
z



00




00
a/
z




00
li
z





00
z



00
u
z


in
«






in
o












00

.^

3


CJ
3

^ J£

•^ 3

— C w
— * o
o — =



00
a.
z



00




00





00
u
z





00
z



00
z


r-»
0






00
c





















u
3

•J


(U
tfl
c
e s o u
0 —
i -1

3






00
u
z
1


oo !
i



00
u
z




00 '
& 1
Z 1
1




OC :
£J
z



OC
z


"o
o





•*
1/1
«'
















* 1
3
IM


«q

Ul
o



1

a
~ \



10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.15-5

-------
                         £.»
                            o
                                         X
                                         01
                           C--
                           O  J

                           He
                           b
                           01 V
                          f
                          -J "3
                           O  S
                                                  e  3
                                                  u »•
                                                  3  M
                                                  n •-
                                                                           01
                                                                           M
                                                                           II
                                   *    i
                4-1
                e
                o
                u
               oo

               a
               CO
a  u —    u
    to    o
   — >   ^
— "* "
 i -S -   -2
 u  u o   £
 sue   u

 O  b II    X.
 b -o       e
                                         IS   18"
U  3       «j
u  u    ,,,.2
*l  •-!   O «J
¥  =   w -
                 Jt -H    m
                 00)

                 •  3    -O ,
                 « *«    01
                                        JC

                                        01
                                        .c
                                              u
                                              •*•
                                              *i
                                              b
                                              •
                                              a


                                              §

                                              01
                                                                     •z

                                                                     o
                                                                                      b  e
                                                                                      u  e
                                                                                     .c  ^
 o  s ••»
    3 OC
 *J    ••*
 ~*  b >M
 C
 3
 C  01
    a
 01
 e.
    b II
                                   o
                 i?«
                                            Q
                    •H    •  >

                     •    •>„
                       8   =
                       u
                       O    U


                       s   I

                            u
                       to   **
                       b    «
                       o    u
                      w
                       u    e
                      i    o
                                                                           s     I
                                                                           s.   -
                                                         3
                                                   to    a
                                                   u    01
                                                   •«*    b


                                                   I   =
                                                   O   —
                                                   u    s
                                                   «     e
                                                   •     o
                                                   u    -«
                                                   u     to
                                                   O      B
                                                              X
                                                              o  x
                                                              b -*
                                                              a. v
 01 01 01    «<
 b b Z    L>
 no      u
   -      M
 u a  •
 b b b    e
 0> TS O    •<•
— X -J
   §js o    -a
      b    01
 U b -9    — C  >— Q  O C

« —  V  II — —
b M  i     a j<
e    •"  •* b
*< 01  "  B  01 X
o jt    -M  a b
                          w w    •  b
                             — b  0)
                       r- -e e o *•*
                        I  01 3 «l M  (I
                       •* 01    U     b
                                   =  !^i2S  .
                 U  u *0 V 01
                 M  «  01    u
                 K  I  b   . 3
                      •«• •«
                •J  4; •• 01 01
                 O  J3    • b

                i     • 3 •
                1i  x 9. ..  .
                                                         li  U  X   •-.

                                                         II  II —

                                                         • Mb
                 u  E-  <• o •>
                    Mi  «|    •« PM

                 S32g||
                        •    01 ta.  O «M
                        01 01 O.   IM
                        us    s    —
                        e o a o  •  •
                        01 U b —  b  O
                        b a o M  o  u
                        01 V •« U W
                       »• I b —  U  b
                        01 — « •  II  O
                       B — i— (2 b. It,
                      n      J3 u  T9 <
                 g  °  53 B  b
                 "±—303
                 •"  ' w b « w
                 W  .   • u - —
                 u  "anus
                 ^  3 •••    U  (0
                 a.  ^i e -
                 _  "  I «- •-  a
                 O  3  0 J O  O
                                  b  b e 01
                                  o  o - J
                                  M u •» 01  b
                                  U  U J< b  «l
                                  •  •    O.-J
                                 U. Ix U   —
                                       f4 m ••*
                                  e  e —   >—

                                 521*

                                       t i
                           OJ  •  JB  U i-t    u  •
                           ja —  a. e  «    «o
                           ^ O  O  01  U       b
                           3 b  • -, .-    b W
                           b w     u  B.  •  O
                           uec—  >c^-«
                           • o  > >« « M     e  •
                              on*.    —  oo o  «
                                 £  01 *J 4tf  S -^  b
                           b X       M    -m  m  O
                           3bwB3O-U«J
                           W««Q«W«1-«U
                           c -o  5    ^    o  •  *
                           OJCl-OK-O-"-
                           > O     B  01 01       M
                              U  •  41   r*  U  U  O
                           •OOICO.bU-1^10
                           ea->vvx««
                           •    •M'QMtJMMU
                              b  j<     e 01  3  a  01
                              01    —  O b  u  U
                                   •«* Cf    »H •«*
                              .J TS •— O   — •«<
                              »*•  0> ••*    w *J *J b
                              • J3S-V3>*>t- tot)
                           «    •     c    a
8.15-6
                                EMISSION  FACTORS
                                                                                                            10/86

-------


















(0

2:
KJ

S



Jf*^
h-t

HH

05

*r^

OS

OS
£

00
o

o a
."Sc
>. o n

n -c
-J .J -O
o •- c
as 3 a







c
•" O.
4V W
U
b* JS


0 *






c ts
-4 (J
•« c
Jt O
Jj-Su

O 3
a E



M

"™* '"4
O
b >,
4-1 b
E n
0 *J
u o




u

c c
-* O
-K U
>> u
b
n j;
o ••«
OS »


b c j:t


£*'*

t


x ••<
b 2
m
w e
0 —
as —


"S c
O Jri
b
C b
O a

e o
3 b



.2

•44 O>
—I N
b >r*

N <; ^ o; 3



CS
in o (N o o
«— -^ •— u-i
— cr

>C eg
CM tn •— >c O
CN in oo






t** < m  sO fO
•- CM
bo
l*
O
u
n
c
— CM CM •— O
to
tfi
.04
s

ta
09
i

in o o o — <
IB
CM in o in -J
— —. o



Oi


a

• 44
n

a


o
c

II

^
z


b
O
a

•44
a

'o
01
b
a.
u

n

ta
0

u
u
U 01
§
a< 7i
<" :».
w 51
*
" s1

M «

£
c -S
10 'p
•rl ^
14H U
•n 01
c
00  •
3 01 CO
O TJ 01 „ c
4J O 3 01 rH
" O CO -H
"c | . 5 * **
~ -n n ^ ^ Jj
O rN C >i ^ _j
b •-» J3
1*4 >44 b >>.
« o .»: -c Q [7


1 !§ 2r -H 8
z 'oj e "o •£ M
* iH O
4J -o b rj "-1
oi — D o 5 _
e e b .u > Tj

•P4 **^ 1*4 OI *°
^ b >-< ** S
01 01 — O
X 4J « O C U
b *J 00 (J 0)
an » TH
4>> • — i 01 — M
o • n e o
b Ot U k4 O « rH
4V 3 -- *J O
73 n u «J u to c
OI -4 • >>T3 f
b 3 00 B U U
•H . U B •*. u 11

o B (J.05 U JS 2
u n b c e 2
•i w o o •« c c
•0 O 4J -M •« § §
t«:a4jS«J'-HO
••4 J h, c X 2 b
OI S 00 •« b m j

Sxs-SI'o « *
b -C M U b O
OJ O 4J QQ O
1*4 b -.4 -1 b b "HTj
OJOJEBOO'*^^

«C U3 U *O OI "*4 bO
10/86
Mineral Products Industry
8.15-7

-------



Q
O
5
§
o
-4

H
CJ
a
0
OS
eu

OS
o
Cj^

00
OS

•"*:
CJ

[•T)

2
O

00
oo
r:
Cd

s
^J

t-3
CJ
h~H
H
OS

a.
Cd
>
f~~*
H-l
; — i


Q
Cd
I-J
— i
O
OS
H
p

v— *




t
on
i
LO
oo

td
i-9
CO
^^
^**






E
o
w
i
u





u
•^
01 — <
S 3
•» U
u, •-
*J
S
c.


i

I
i



QJ
0; *^
S -2
>



1

00
,^
™
u
u
o

-

E
O
~-
— <




00

oo
JL



^
O

5






00
QO




B
0

-




00
2:
00
JC
































Q Q U





>o » —
CM O O
O O O



o
C"> 00
p^i *y o
- 0 0
SCO




ao (N
O u"} •"•
— o o


1




o
1 «•>
! 13
OJ
"H
3
o
w
u
•§
3E


•5
"^

o
^
CJ
1

a.
0
vs
i en
=
; -
« •
"r ^
i — t!
"S 4J
— S
nj
o -u

03 U
V) -^
•9 S


U >s
! O ™
1 ^*- O
>-
1- CQ

CO <
u e
O 2.
Lt O
n o
t4« ^


r*. v
CJ W

« ^—
u o

IJ -J
CU co
C£ ^

















































. ^s
U U
OJ 4-J
*J JJ
i i
(T) •-
•5 ^
U ••-
— £
= i

c _>.

o 2
u u
CU (0
^^ ,
ii

-• (N

V V
« U3
U 3J
i—* •— *


_. -•
"3 ft
&. C-
8.15-8
EMISSION FACTORS
                                                                       10/86

-------
\{ lUJ-'
1

^
V
K U10)4
•o
^
/^
/
/
&*~'
^-/

_ 1. Rotary Kiln- Uncontrolled
2. Rotary Kiln- w/Multiclone
3. Rotary Kiln-w/ESP
Z 4. Rotary Kiln- w/Cyclone &
~ Baghouse
•"
_

^™

„


I
—
_
! 1 ! I ! 1 1 1





IAI-— v
^


-/
0.
1 1 1 1 ! 1 1!
1 1 I 1 1 1 K;



,
/
/w —
MM
> ^M
...
.«!«






X

—
«_•
—
—
—


^ ,


—
r
/ ~
>*T* ~
7
/
J
9


*""
—
_
1 1 1 1 1 111
IUU.U
^
s
^
•^
10.0 j5
Co
-o
(U
2
co
c
o
f*


ul
1.0 ^
0
o

"o
cr
LU

tj
o
* C
*w»
1
LU
—
0)

~o
w
"c
0.01 u

-------
      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

-------